Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272711 (7)CCUES ** Inclinometer Data CITY OF RENTON 3555 NE 2ND ST RENTON, WA 98055 (425) 430-7400 Project Name Site ID City Street Inspection Date E 5319E 36 F- RENTON S.RentonVill 1-405 1 10/23/2006-� Operator From Manhole To Manhole Pipe Size(in) Type of Pipe Surface Condition Focky F-5319045 F— 5319035 12F—Concrete Paved Asphalt I Cam CL w 0.0 -3.0 -6.0 Pipe Depth vs Pipe Distance C 6V 5f ST00A^ Sj 'L'3 0 ION 5.5 5.4 -9.0 0+Z01PlP1pzzj zCpQ00 zQ' j cQzCz10 ZQqQZz0 ,0 �9le* NO,N4* Nl,�Np,e, e,e, 4'P"e,�P'P"4Distance (feet) Actual Ideal — ------- - ------- - ---------- I ------ - ..A CUES ' Site Data CITY OF RENTON 3555 NE 2ND ST RENTON, WA 98055 (425) 430-7400 Project Name Site ID City Street Starting Dist. 5319E 36 RENTON S.RentonVillI-405 0.0 Date Time M.H. Start M.H. Stop M.H. Depth Pipe Size(in) 10/23/2006 12:27:01 PM 5319045 5319035 9.0 12 Type of Pipe Direction Surface Condition Final Dist(ft) Concrete Away-D Paved Asphalt +350.4 I kL ance Alpha Coded defects Pict 1 Pict 2 Video Comments INSPECTION BEGIN UPSTREAM 4A tv backwards g' N puling back includes graph gresa belly start CAMERA SUBMERGED belly ends INSPECTION END DOWNSTREAM 2-24' pipes 2-6" pipes & 1-12" pipein mF V 1E] CUES ' Site Data for Project: 5319E CITY OF RENTON 3555 NE 2ND ST RENTON, WA 98055 (425) 430-7400 Site ID City Street Date Time 36 RENTON S.RentonVill 1-405 10/23/2006 12:27:01 PM M.H. Start M.H. Stop M.H. Depth Starting Dist Final Dist 5319045 r 5319035 9.0 +350.4 Type of Pipe Pipe Size(in) Sec. Igth Direction Surface Condition Operator Concrete JE 12 ©1 Away-D Paved Asphalt Rock Comment Observation Data Obs ID Dist LD Code / Defect ClockPos Sevr Lv Phl ID Ph2 ID VcIipID VidID TapeCnt Comment 2 0 1 8.0 INSPECTION BEGIN UPSTREAM 11.02 8 12.8 tv backwards 1006.80 tv puling back includes graph 3 135.9 gresae 205.19 4 151.9 belly start 240.34 5 179.4 CAMERA SUBMERGED 289.45 6 237.9 belly ends 400.08 7 350.4 INSPECTION END DOWNSTREAM 546.78 -24' pipes 2.6" pipes & 1-12" pipein rnh#35 Page 1 of 1 a CITY OF RENTON 3555 NE 2ND ST CRENTON, WA 98055 C U E Ei(425) 430-7400 Site Data Project Name Site ID City Street Starting Dist. 5319E 36 RENTON S.RentonVillI40.5 0.0 Date Time M.H. Start M.H. Stop M.H. Depth Pipe Size(in) 10/23/2006 12:27:01 PM 5319045 5319035 9.0 12 Type of Pipe Direction Surface Condition Final Dist(ft) Concrete Away-D Pared Asphalt +350.4 Distance Alpha Coded defects INSPECTION BEGIN UPSTREAM tv backwards Pict 1 Pict 2 Video Comments rt 10 tv puling back includes graph 135.9 gresae 151.9 belly start 179.4 CAMERA SUBMERGED - 7 �-237.9 t f 5319035 - 350.4 belly ends INSPECTION END DOWNSTREAM VS f 2-24' pipes 2-6" pipes & 1-12" pipein mt s . CUES Inclinometer Data CITY OF RENTON 3555 NE 2ND ST RENTON, WA 98055 (425) 430-7400 Project Name Site ID City Street Inspection Date 5319E 36 1 RENTON S.RentonVill 1-405 Lj 1 10/23/2006 Operator From Manhole To Manhole Pipe Size(in) Type of Pipe Surface Condition ock 5319045 5319035 12F Concrete F Paved Asphalt Pipe Depth vs Pipe Distance 0.0 -3.0 -6.0 -9.0 po po 00 00 00 o po po po o po 00 0o po po o po po po po 0 00o po po o po po po Distance (feet) Actual Ideal 41' 4poo�po��po1011 o1po • MEMORANDUM TO: City of Renton FROM: Stacey Clear, P.E. DATE: November 27, 2006 SUBJECT: Renton Village Modeling Input Files The following input files were used for the "gauged inflow" parameter in the hydraulic mode for the Renton Village XP-SWMM models: For the existing models: Renton Village Existing 2.xp — Nol_12.csv, No2_12.csv, No3_12.csv, No4_12.csv, No5_12.csv (where "NoX" represents the node number, "the _1" represents the use of 1 hour time intervals, and the "2" represents the 2-year storm) Renton Village Existing l0.xp — Nol_110.csv, No2_110.csv, No3_110.csv, No4_110.csv, No5_110.csv (where "NoX" represents the node number, "the _1" represents the use of 1 hour time intervals, and the "10" represents the 10-year storm) Renton Village Existing 25.xp — Nol_125.csv, No2_125.csv, No3_125.csv, No4_l25.csv, No5_125.csv (where "NoX" represents the node number, "the _1" represents the use of 1 hour time intervals, and the "25" represents the 25-year storm) Renton Village Existing 100.xp — Nol 100.csv, No2100.csv, No3100.csv, No4100.csv, No5100.csv (where "NoX" represents the node number and the "100" represents the 100-year storm) For the future models (with the existing pipe system): RV fit 2.xp — FNo1 12.csv, FNo2_12.csv, FNo3_12.csv, FNo4_12.csv, FNo5_12.csv (where "FNoX" represents the node number in the future model, "the _1" represents the use of 1 hour time intervals, and the "2" represents the 2-year storm) RV fut 10.xp — FNoI_110.csv, FNo2_110.csv, FNo3_110.csv, FNo4_110.csv, FNo5_110.csv (where "FNoX" represents the node number in the future model, "the _1" represents the use of 1 hour time intervals, and the "10" represents the 10-year storm) RV fat 25.xp — FNo1 125.csv, FNo2_125.csv, FNo3_125.csv, FNo4_l25.csv, FNo5_125.csv (where "FNoX" represents the node number in the future model, "the _1" represents the use of 1 hour time intervals, and the "25" represents the 25-year storm) RV fut 100.xp — FNo1100.csv, FNo2100.csv, FNo3100.csv, FNo4100.csv, FNo5100.csv (where "FNoX" represents the node number in the future model and the "100" represents the 100-year storm) For the Designed Alternatives Models (with a future pipe system): Alt 1_25.xp — No1100.csv, No2100.csv, No3100.csv, No4100.csv, No5100.csv (where "NoX" represents the node number and the "100" represents the 100-year storm under existing land use which we used for the future 25-year storm event) Alt 1_100.xp — FNo1100.csv, FNo2100.csv, FNo3100.csv, FNo4100.csv, FNo5100.csv (where "FNoX" represents the node number in the future model and the "100" represents the 100-year storm) Alt 2-25.xp — Nol 100.csv, No2100.csv, No3100.csv, No4100.csv, No5100.csv (where "NoX" represents the node number and the "100" represents the 100-year storm under existing land use which we used for the future 25-year storm event) Alt 2_100.xp — FNoI 100.csv, FNo2100.csv, FNo3100.csv, FNo4100.csv, FNo5100.csv (where "FNoX" represents the node number in the future model and the "100" represents the 100-year storm) Alt 2s3_25.xp — No1100.csv, No2100.csv, No3100.csv, No4100.csv, No5100.csv (where "NoX" represents the node number and the "100" represents the 100-year storm under existing land use which we used for the future 25-year storm event) CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE WASHINGTON RENTON VILLAGE HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS b= \ Nj L —VnkNll"� CO( G&O #05731 JANUARY 2007 Gray � Osborne, Tr�.c. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 701 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH SUITE 200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 •(206) 284-0860 CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY RENTON AHEAD OF THE CURVE WASHINGTON RENTON VILLAGE HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS G&O #05731 JANUARY 2007 ".. - -3- 0 ray 8z Osborrne, Lrm- CONSULTING ENGINEERS 701 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH SUITE 200 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109 • (206) 284-0860 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................1 HYDROLOGICMODELING ...................................................................................................1 Hydrologic Modeling Components.........................................................................1 BasinDelineation........................................................................................1 Hydrologic Modeling Assumptions.............................................................2 Hydrologic Modeling Results..................................................................................5 HYDRAULICMODELING.....................................................................................................8 Hydraulic Modeling Components........................................................................... 8 Hydraulic Modeling Scenarios................................................................................ 9 Hydraulic Modeling Results.................................................................................... 9 ExistingDrainage System...........................................................................9 Alternative Storm System Designs............................................................13 Alternative Storm System Modeling Results............................................14 COSTESTIMATES...............................................................................................................17 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................18 LIST OF TABLES No. Table page 1 Basin Land Use Coverages......................................................................................3 2 Model Area Inputs Based Upon Land Use Coverage..............................................4 3 Backwater Elevations in Branch 42.........................................................................5 4 Peak Flows for the 2- through 100-Year Storms ..................................................... 6 5 Model Flow Comparisons.......................................................................................7 6 Recommended Flows..............................................................................................8 7 Modeling Results for Existing Pipes Under Existing Land Use Conditions ......... 11 8 Modeling Results for Existing Pipes Under Future Land Use Conditions ............ 12 9 Flooded Volumes in the Existing System..............................................................13 10 Modeling Results for Future Pipes Under Future Land Use Conditions Alternative 1 - 4' x 6' Box Culvert ...................................................................15 11 Modeling Results for Future Pipes Under Future Land Use conditions Alternative 2 — Parallel 48- and 54-Inch Pipes................................................16 12 Flooded Volumes for Alternatives 1 and 2............................................................17 LIST OF FIGURES No. Figure Follows Page 1 Vicinity Map............................................................................................................2 2 Basin Map................................................................................................................2 3 Model Input Map..................................................................................................... 4 4 XP-SWMM Model Schematic................................................................................. 8 5 25-Year Current Land Use Model Results for the Existing System......................10 6 100-Year Current Land Use Model Results for the Existing System....................10 7 Proposed Stormwater Conveyance Alternatives...................................................10 8 XP-SWMM Model Schematic for Alternative 1.......................................I...........10 9 XP-SWMM Model Schematic for Alternative 2...................................................10 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A — Excerpts from the East Side Green River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis Appendix B — Excerpts from the Hydraulic Analysis of Springbrook Creek FEMA Remapping Study Appendix C — Backwater Elevations Set from "Channel 42" Appendix D — XP-SWMM Modeling Output for the Recommended Alternative 1 Appendix E — Digital XP-SWMM Modeling Files Appendix F — Cost Estimates 0 0-- 5 W G`adygW ay 4 Mir ►-405 f- 'Channel 42' T cc �i I o-- s Scale: 1" = 150 M CITY OF RENTON FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP c�- y & Deb., Ina CONSULTING ENGINEERS CITY OF RENTON FIGURE 2 BASIN MAP dray � �aborrto, Iuc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Scale 1" = 400 m INTRODUCTION The project is located is in the Renton Village Shopping center, between South Grady Way and I-405 (see Figure 1). The major storm drainage system in the Renton Village area consists of a 42-inch pipe and a 72-inch pipe that carry runoff from the east through the site. The two pipes meet at a junction where the 72-inch pipe ends, and the 42-inch pipe continues to the southwest to a catch basin in the parking lot, and transitions to a 48-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP). No flow control structures are present within the system. The 48-inch CMP discharges to an open channel section of Rolling Hills Creek, located along the south side of the shopping center, north of I-405, and east of SR 167. The open channel travels to the west where it discharges to a 48-inch culvert and a 132-inch culvert, which carry the flow south under I-405 and discharge to a channel designated as "Channel 42" on the east side of SR 167 (See Figure 1). Flooding in the Renton Village area, and the collapse of the existing 48-inch CMP pipe where it discharges to the open channel, has resulted in the need to upgrade the existing 42-inch/48-inch storm drain pipe system in the area. In May 2005, the 48-inch CMP collapsed at the outlet to the open channel. The City of Renton made emergency repairs to remove the collapsed section of pipe and install a new temporary outfall. In November 2005, the City executed a contract with Gray & Osborne to analyze and design a new storm system to replace approximately 530 lineal feet of the 42-inch/48-inch storm drain pipe in the Renton Village parking lot. This analysis of the Renton Village drainage system includes the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the existing and future land use scenarios and preliminary design of the optimum pipe alignment. HYDROLOGIC MODELING HYDROLOGIC MODELING COMPONENTS Basin Delineation The first step in hydrologic modeling involves delineation of the drainage basins for the project area. The Renton Village area was previously delineated in the March 1996 NHC report titled "East Side Green River Watershed Hydraulic Analysis" (see Appendix A). In that report, the Renton Village Area was noted as "Rolling Hills (sub -basin P5)" in Table 10 and the figure for the HSPF model. The City requested this drainage basin be used as the basis for the Renton Village modeling. Land use for the basin area was obtained from Table 3 and Appendix C of the November 2004 R.W. Beck Draft Report entitled "Hydraulic Analysis of Springbrook Creek FEMA Re -Mapping Study" (See Appendix B). The Rolling Hills drainage basin encompasses approximately 925 acres and is located mostly to the south of Renton Village and Interstate 405 (Figure 2). The basin boundary City of Renton ] Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis January 2007 Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers was verified with topographical information provided by the City. Only minor changes were made to a few of the subbasins due to the existence of certain topographical lines and existing drainage structures shown on a 2001 aerial photograph provided by the City, and the survey conducted by Gray & Osborne. The subbasins were relabeled as Rolling Hills 1, 2, and 3 (RH 1, RH2, RH3) and commercial subbasins (C1-05). Figure 2 depicts the location of these subbasins. Hydrologic Modeling Assumptions The King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS) model was used to determine peak flows in the basin for existing and future land use conditions. The input parameters used in the KCRTS model include soil information, a rainfall scale factor based upon project location, and the amount of pervious and impervious area located within the basin. The KCRTS software program then takes these parameters and combines them with over 40 years of rainfall data to produce hydrographs displaying flow rates represented for a number of storm events ranging from the 6-month storm to the 100-year storm event for each particular basin. The input parameters used in the KCRTS modeling analysis are as follows: Soils Till, Outwash, Wetlands (from previous HSPF model) Rainfall Sea-Tac Region with scale factor = 1.0 (King County Manual) Pervious/Impervious Areas The pervious and impervious areas for subbasins RH1, RH2, and RH3 were derived from Table 3 of the November 2004 R.W. Beck Draft Report (Appendix B). Since the land uses seemed equally similar in each subbasin, impervious areas for each of the subbasins were determined by taking the whole Rolling Hills Basin in the 2004 Report and proportioning the individual land uses to each of the smaller subbasin sizes (i.e., 19 percent of the residential portion of the Rolling Hills Basin is impervious area so 19 percent of the RH1 subbasin was calculated to be impervious.) The commercial subbasins (C 1 to C5) were taken to be 95 percent impervious with an estimated 5 percent pervious coverage for both the current and future conditions. Table 1 presents the land use coverage used for each basin. 2 City of Renton January 2007 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis N2 N1 N3 N4 N5 I \ A = Node Input CITY OF RENTON FIGURE 3 MODEL INPUT MAP Scale: 1" = 100 m cw. .yI> CONSULTING ENGINEERS Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 1 Basin Land Use Coverages tc: '��Effechve 3 "Imperuious �a: rF atJ ryF �GrassWetland x.. k�Basin., ka. IW 3f'� #� ' L "fl .,? `^�rvu ac z 3 53° x Till #i �^Y ac k : Trll; jOutwash� �'�vR%RW3 ac .S 4 �M" "'„ri" >'X' 'ac� y N� lac O� E`.ti, Alluvial Forest:' ac� }Alluvral Grass act : Basin Total ac,+ '} CAurrent Land �LTse � , .> � � 41 ;} � -"i"}�'Y�" {. it rt`ibr „ . "Mc `" ` ' m RH 1 12 7 40 1 2 62 RH2 48 30 162 3 1 8 252 RH3 86 53 292 5 1 1 14 452 C1 48 3 51 C2 24 1 25 C3 45 2 47 C4 23 1 24 C5 6 1 7 Land Use Total: 292 90 502 9u 2 24 920 S13 RR 1 25 3 32 1 0 0 1 62 RH2 103 10 131 2 0 0 6 252 RH3 184 19 234 4 1 0 10 452 C1 48 3 51 C2 24 1 25 C3 45 2 47 C4 23 1 24 C5 6 1 7 Land Use Total: 458 32 405 7 1 0 17 920 The nodes selected for hydrologic and hydraulic modeling are shown in Figure 3. Table 2 shows the drainage basins flowing to each node, and summarizes the land use and areas for each node. Node 1 consists of Subbasins C1, R112, and RH3. Node 2 contains Subbasin C2, Node 3 contains C3 and RH1, Node 4 consists of Subbasin C4 and Node 5 consists of Subbasin C5. City of Renton 3 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis January 2007 Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 2 Model Area Inputs Based Upon Land Use Coverage far .. A_R?.d",ar. 5 "ys .h Kl ^"� M : e t a ,t . r YAK �r "5 �1 �st.Y '> z} Effechve� a l' vt 'iTRs i. sc# e r b"s'� '� �... ��` � � d2Y �'s�f. �al'.f N -� u x s- ..fYfi'' CT �4 4 'iTys -M'i X� , '` > iRyy.4 y G i,sF# "`, k yam, `Impervious 3 ,y "P dt �"�ii. k� 'FTlll �33r,` 7,,.: J' tY' i ForestGasGrass Till 4 N�14"€3' i~ �.t` Yt d J OutWash--�H� ,.�YL �..S �s.. Kz� 's1 n ^ .".�ivX,. ,D :se. -A "' r+` qy, ` 3 't �. Wetland Rom; �y R '(. Tzy'i Total �� I wAr�ea �} ,Node-_ _€,+ac' .`_ kC��,���, urrentLand�ITse Node 1 (C1, RH2, RH3) 182.5 83.9 479.8 7.5 0.9 754.6 Node 2 (C2) 24.4 1.3 25.7 Node 3 (C3, RH1) 57.2 7.4 44.6 0.6 0.1 109.9 Node 4 (C4) 22.7 1.2 23.9 Node 5 (C5) 6.0 0.3 6.3 Total: 292.8 91.3 527.2 8.1 1.0 920..4 Node 1 (C1, RH2, RH3) 334.6 29.2 383.5 6.4 0.9 754.6 Node 2 (C2) 24.4 1.3 25.7 Node 3 (C3, RH1) 70.6 2.6 36.0 0.6 0.1 109.9 Node 4 (C4) 22.7 1.2 23.9 Node 5 (C5) 6.0 0.3 1 6.3 Total: 458.3 31.8 422.3 1 7.1 1.0 920.4 Downstream Backwater Condition All hydraulic scenarios were modeled using the backwater conditions in an open channel south of I-405. This channel collects runoff from the Renton Village drainage system and the Rolling Hills Creek area. Backwater elevations for the hydraulic modeling were obtained from the November 2004 R.W. Beck Draft Report entitled "Hydraulic Analysis of Springbrook Creek FEMA Re -Mapping Study." The backwater location selected was the FEQ Model Channel Branch 42 (see Figure 1), located at the south end of the 132-inch and 42-inch culverts that cross under I-405. The backwater elevations were obtained from data for modeled "Branch 42" from the storm output files entitled "404C_x.out" where x denotes the storm event modeled (see Appendix Q. Elevations noted in the output files are in NGVD29. These elevations were converted to the NAVD88 datum and are listed in Table 3. Citv of Renton January 2007 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 3 Backwater Elevations in Branch 42 �hWff Storm E,venyt KNAVD,88Elevation�{3 " _ � _ ft �.NE ? 2-Year 19.19 10-Year 19.69 25-Year 20.16 100-Year 20.98 HYDROLOGIC MODELING RESULTS The KCRTS model was run with 1-hour time steps for each of the five input nodes under both existing and future land use conditions based on input parameters stated earlier. From these modeling runs, hydrographs were extracted for a 24-hour time period surrounding the peak flow for each basin corresponding to the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year and 100-year storm events. Table 4 shows the peak flows for each of these storm events under both the existing and future land use conditions. The data from these hydrographs were inserted as "gauged inflow" tables within designated nodes in the XP-SWMM hydraulic modeling program. As noted earlier, for modeling purposes, a number of basins were combined and inserted into one node (i.e., manhole). City of Renton 5 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis January 2007 Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 4 KCRTS Model Results Peak Flows for the 2- through 100-Year Storms `� �XM "2� Y�.�.s`e" ar-�t„ at��i0 `yaarc 25'. Y-ar ' � 16 00 r{amYea�r" .w;r2 ! �X.�Flow � Flow Current I.andUse� �NSA- M1 N1 (C1, RH2, R143) 68 95 ill 194 N2 (C2) 6 7 9 12 N3 (C3, RH1) 18 21 22 37 N4 (C4) 6 7 8 11 N5 (C5) 1 1 2 3 Total: 99 131 152 257 PI -, a'__... �. ._}�it>.a ..�..�a�+3��+�.,r,. 3,�... .., a�.7a. `ab ,,9�„_'y•. _I rF..i, �i��s _... �.�a` N1 (Cl, RH2, RH3) 110 131 141 241 N2 (C2) 6 7 9 12 N3 (C3, RH1) 21 25 27 41 N4 (C4) 6 7 8 11 N5 (C5) 2 2 2 3 Total: 145 172 187 308 The flows shown in Table 4 are higher than the HSPF derived flows in the March 1996 NHC report (Appendix A) for the same drainage basin and land use (Rolling Hills subbasin P5). Due to this discrepancy, the KCRTS derived flows were compared to extracted flows from the November 2004 R.W. Beck report (Hydraulic Analysis of Springbrook Creek FEMA Re -Mapping Study, Appendix B). A comparison of the three models is shown in Table 5. 6 City of Renton January 2007 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 5 Model Flow Comparisons i ItN* y`sr" '�(CurrentConditions LLB ;tFutureCondrtions CLx;,'xC.�J P ,'.gtb`3Tddr .�-'�R-� ^Ny��r{�` '. �e''��e -{o�r4A i k E- �i c��•�g-sn39' r+4 �rd.�➢�e=i�1�lA.'.' '1. �.''ew-�,.n:`t%}� i4� �pdwh$„-iN20''lf3fiiPh � ` p�5i�o 4° tiSp ���M i�.n. (�" �r�sM�T7:^�y.o- g2 fy0a,,4rS March 1996 East Side Green HSPF 107 117 130 140 163 198 River (NHC) November 2004 Extraction from Hydraulic Analysis of 199 261 HSPF 148 197 330 Springbrook Creek FEMA Re -mapping Stud (NHC) October 2006 Renton Village Hydrologic and KCRTS 133 152 172 187 308 Hydraulic Analysis (Gray & Osborne) Table 5 shows that the 2006 KCRTS model flows are more comparable with the flows in the 2004 FEMA Study than the March 1996 flows. The 2006 Gray & Osborne KCRTS modeled 100-year current flow (257 cfs) is approximately equal to the 25-year future flow in the 2004 FEMA Study (261 cfs). We chose to use the 2006 Gray & Osborne KCRTS model hydrograph for the 100-year current land use scenario as the hydrograph for the future 25-year event flow. Likewise, the 2006 KCRTS 25-year future flows (187 cfs) is approximately equal to the 2004 FEMA flow under the 25-year current condition (199 cfs) and therefore, was chosen to represent the current 25-year storm event. The reason for using these selected hydrographs is that the XP_SWMM hydraulic model requires a complete hydrograph for the unsteady flow. The 2006 Gray & Osborne KCRTS hydrologic modeling generated complete hydrographs for use in the XP-SWMM Model. Table 6 summarizes the hydrologic flows selected for use in the hydraulic model. City of Renton Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis January 2007 Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 6 Selected Flows for the XP-SWMM Model i e t �dssSiZP ���� � � � . ?��• $'?.=i wL _ 2J .'"' z J 1Vl�oileingReporrtt ,=y Model i.ir 1Rx,i r�T e ..4` 1�0�`�YearS � x, 4.,, x, :cfs !`�...5—''7..-.+i Current 25 Year t t�Y ,'M=v e acfs .�1�OO�Year 4 T.e tEY✓:nf�---@'{''{'' r> cfs °�10 Years "r'v'3'P Y +cfs� v.� Fqutures i i ��25°-Year�' 10ry�0'�I'ear�' =tl.f tkkh x,•"3,3 { iir ii is Gv �, ,cfsc' ccfs, November 2004 Extraction from Hydraulic Analysis of Springbrook Creek HSPF 148 199 261 197 261 330 FEMA Re -mapping Stud (NHC) October 2006 Renton Village Hydrologic and KCRTS 133 152 257 172 187 308 Hydraulic Analysis (Gray & Osborne) Selected Flows: KCRTS 133 187 257 172 257 308 HYDRAULIC MODELING HYDRAULIC MODELING COMPONENTS Once the hydrologic flows were determined with the KCRTS model, the flows were routed through a hydraulic model. The hydraulic model provides flow and water elevation at representative nodes, and is used to determine when the storm flows are contained in the pipe system, and when and where any overflow occurs. Gray & Osborne surveyed the existing storm system in the Renton Village area to obtain accurate elevation and location information to use in the hydraulic model. The surveyed information includes pipe lengths, pipe diameter, rim elevations and invert elevations and is shown in Tables 7 and 8. The survey information was then input into the XP-SWMM hydraulic routing software program. With pipe information placed into the modeling program, XP-SWMM was then used to route the current and future storm flows obtained from the KCRTS model shown in Table 6. Figure 4 depicts a schematic of the hydraulic model for the existing system. Each "node" represents a manhole or open channel junction. Only five of the manholes were chosen as "input nodes." These nodes are depicted in Figure 4 as "N1" through "N5." Hydrographs were extracted from the KCRTS program, converted to a recognizable file format, and were then attached to each input node in XP-SWMM. 8 City of Renton January 2007 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis ,-N2 A N2-D (42') A -NI (60') D C-D (72'> c NI-C (72') Ni B-NI (36') D-E 42' E B E-N3 (48') N4 H-1 (ch) G-H (ch) 6 ch) N3-F ch) ------------------- o ---------- H G F N3 yam_ 2 N5 CITY OF RENTON FIGURE 4 XP-SWMM MODEL SCHEMATIC 4ftp cx,.y & ob..."., Inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers HYDRAULIC MODELING SCENARIOS The XP-SWMM program was run to route the flows from the hydrographs through the surveyed storm system to determine where pipes surcharge under various storm events. The model was run for existing and future conditions as described below. 1. The existing pipe system was modeled using existing land use conditions in Renton Village and the Rolling Hills Basin. This scenario was modeled with the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year storm events using flows generated in KCRTS. 2. The existing pipe system was modeled using future land use conditions. This run was done for the 2-year, 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year storm events using flows generated in KCRTS. Based on results of the future land use, alternative designs for a new storm system from the junction of the existing 42- and 72-inch pipes (Node "D" in Figure 4) to the outfall at the open channel (Node "N3") were analyzed. The alternative designs consist of new pipes and/or a box culvert of various sizes. These designs are discussed in greater detail later in this Report. The 25-year storm event was modeled for the future land use scenario to ensure that the proposed storm system would not surcharge and cause flooding on the surface. The 100-year storm event was modeled to determine if sufficient capacity exists in the nearby parking lot to contain any surface flooding that occurs under this event because portions of the project area are within the FEMA 100-year flood plain (parking lot adjacent to Rolling Hills Creek). Flooding in these areas is due to the elevation of the ground and is independent of the size of the conveyance system installed. HYDRAULIC MODELING RESULTS Existing Drainage System Modeling results for Scenarios 1 and 2 (the existing pipe system with existing and future land use) can be found in the summaries provided in Tables 7 and 8. Peak modeled flows for the existing land use condition 100-year storm varied between 18 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the downstream 48-inch pipe (Nodes N4 to N5) to 183 cfs at the upstream 72-inch pipe (Node N 1). Likewise, peak flows for future conditions varied between 19 cfs in the downstream 48-inch pipe (Nodes N4 to N5) to 214 cfs in the upstream 72-inch pipe. City of Renton 9 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis January 2007 Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers Negative flows for some pipes are shown in the results displayed in Tables 7 and 8. In the XP-SWMM output for the Existing Conditions 25-year storm (Renton Village Existing 25.out) there is the following Warning after Table E1 Conduit Data: Warning H The upstream and downstream junctions for the following conduits have been reversed to correspond to the positive flow and decreasing slope convention. A negative flow in the output thus means the flow was from your original upstream junction to your original downstream junction. Any initial flow has been multiplied by -1. 1. Conduit # .. N3-F has been changed. 2. Conduit # .. E-N3 has been changed. 3. Conduit # .. N2-1) has been changed. 4. Conduit 4.. F-G has been changed. For the Conduits noted it appears that the negative sign indicates the flow is opposite the reversed elevations, so the flow in that pipe or channel is actually in the downstream direction, as would be expected. A negative slope may also indicate that water has backed up in the pipe at some point in the model due to backwater conditions. 10 City of Renton January 2007 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Flooded Volume for Current Land Use (cf) Nods. = Flooded Volume for Future Land Use (cf) Scale: 1" = 100 m CITY OF RENTON FIGURE 5 25- YEAR CURRENT LAND USE MODEL RESULTS FOR THE EXISTING SYSTEM �nsy � Oeborr><o, Imo. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ED= Flooded Volume for Current Land Use (cf) El= Flooded Volume for Future Land Use (cf) Scale: 1" = 100 m CITY OF RENTON FIGURE 6 100- YEAR CURRENT LAND USE MODEL RESULTS GY,sy & Oebo--- a, I. CONSULTING ENGINEERS E&W IE=16.45 18 E&W IE=16.89 GAS METER r �d 12" S IE=16.95 8' NE IE-17.44 PATH BOLLAR .-- _ e ., .• : •,,i", 6' NE IE=17.75 x" N IE= N - 6' NW IE=17.75 - N $7.41 a / d N IE=25,51 4-PVC E IE=24.0'. 8" S IE=23.41„� — C-GREASE '! �1 AP RIMS \ j �_ ♦ W / n , ver 4 ■ 6' Box Culvert \ CATCH \ BASIN mL EL=27.t9 21.94 -E RI ` \ �6\ N n / '� / i \ - \ CATCH BASIN 8" S IE=21.44 T 8" N IE=- N M�EL=24.95 \ 12"CC�W IE=23,15 \ `� 22.2E 22.23 W- EL=2 6 30-- _ wo NW IE= 76 \ . SE IE=22.§6\ ry L EL=25.51 _ OF WATER=22.06 -17,64 01/ V I Tr ft 6n CB �2 \ ♦ _ a 4012 \ - \ �p� � \ \ —� ..-...... ♦ \ \„ .. � CMP A {{ \ \ \ STORM GRAIN OUTLET\ \ 2' CMP \ 48-CMP S IE-19 11WOW \ a ST J - AIN T �a ♦ \ �/ STO DBAN OUTLET "CMP SE E I=2 \ \ ♦ 1 MP S Ai=25 24 \ U 0 \ \ \ I \ \ \ OUtfel\l "om j C 211N i \ \ (Nods N3) "Q��i f 3 All ' = a ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 1: WEST 4' • 6' 13OX CULVERT ALTERNATIVE 2: EAST 4' 6' BOX CULVERT PAVEMENT CRACKS (MAY INDICATE POOR SUBSURFACE SOILS) NO. I REVISION t•�� --- ,----------------------------------- RIM EL=29.6 41 I I ` As Noted - - -' M CITY OF = RENTON ..�'�' DATUM Planning/Building/Public Works Dept. / ts" SSMR, 40' 20' 0 40' BO' RIM EL=31,62 ll E !'1 = 9.57 _ \ SCALE: V — 40' i 4k FIGURE 7 - PROPOSED STORMWATER CONVEYANCE ALTERNATIVES RENTON VILLAGE STORM SYSTEM PROJECT Culvert) Gvgy 8z 08b.,1 . CONSULTING ENGINEERS A (V2 A Z /N1 (60') BoN1-C (72') E. Box cb A B-N1 (36') Box 2 B Box cb B Box 3 N4 H-1 (ch) G-H <ch) '-G (ch) N3-F (ch) 2 I -N4< 48') H G F `I N3 D 'GS � r � fly - I 1 -N5 CITY OF RENTON FIGURE 9 XP—SWMM MODEL SCHEMATIC FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 (East Culvert) Cray 8z Osborne, Inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 7 Modeling Results for Existing Pipes Under Existing Land Use Conditions '4%.. t.,,.. ���zcs��' .. � .�, .. � r�U streams`, �Noder.. ,. ...,,.. stream,....,. _ .. p, ,, " R�mElev - ft -f ,,,, ,,. � ,� .. � 3 <, Downstream Node .... Do wnstream . ,.> _.. -: '��Rtm .,., 'r Elevation ft =,, � , ,�, , ", ��:Condu�t'K. -, : ,N 2 . o.... n .Pie . .,,,. .- w;D�ameter .: _ 3, 3}„1{y�+,,fB, ,3,� ,. < ,. p ..Pie e. Len th . _>. _ � � , . � ,, , . , .,.; :. ,� w U stream � ,,... . ✓. Wiz, .; N ? ..' „!,, . �IE'��� . , . 3 , , ..,. � ,� � , �. Downstream "n i a � 9 i .. i's. ;�„(x' pr:z : �, , _.. .�. r..�>�IE ": , ..,'::. _. .., ,» ,., . ,.. .�•�,•» , a�, ' Y4. ,. :: .'^' Slo ems, Pr p ,,. , �-,,, Desfi n.., •r ,... - ,.,Ca aci ?i. ��._�3,. c ,- ':'; •? 0104 ,, �.Existtn d „r, .. u.�„ ...... .3Y.., � �_�: � ���� . ,.,:.,Flow» �,,� s+ � �r_.^_-� . .,a .�:� cfs �:.�A z" ttii 10 Yea �- � ., Existin ,,. .+.:, ...... �..,, Flow �n ¢,7 x O. ;.3:�33 5 Year ,!b ..f"_u�,•. 5 u „ ,,Existin �f:',: ', xc:. � ,sFlow .: .'.�)}�' A , =100-Year ,. �>=€ ✓iw?4 T';. Ex�stm T., b...I.., A 35 NI 32.66 A-N1 60 74 24.46 23.30 1.57% 7.0 -1 1 3 B 33.35 N1 32.66 B-NI 36 90 23.39 23.30 0.10% 99 0 2 -3 N1 32.66 C 35.22 NI-C 72 395 22.30 21.66 0.16% 158 65 1 95 141 C 35.22 D 28.67 C-D 72 336 21.57 20.92 0.19% 173 64 95 141 183 N2 30.3 D 28.67 N2-D 42 306 18.90 20.92 0.66% 76 -6 -7 D 28.67 E 25.51 D-E 42 357 20.84 17.64 0.90% 88 68 E 25.51 N3 28 E-N3 48 159 17.64 1 19.39 1.10% 89 -68 N3 28 F 28.51 N3-F Channel 171 19.39 20.13 0.43% 931 -85 -118 -131 -155 F 28.51 G 30.01 F-G Channel 162 18.91 19.27 0.22% 725 -85 -118 -131 -155 G 30.01 H 30.01 G-H Channel 167 19.27 18.86 0.25% 2197 85 118 131 155 H 30.01 I 30 H-I Channel 70 19.27 16.38 4.13% 3573 85 118 131 1 155 I 30 N4 25 I-N4 48 375 17.94 16.00 0.52% 96 27 23 -14 -19 N4 25 NS outfall 28 N4-N5 48 100 15.56 15.00 0.56% 100 30 30 -11 -18 I 30 NS outfall 28 I-N5 132 500 17.94 15.00 0.59% 1 1518 58 95 135 173 (I) Flows exceeding pipe design capacity represent surcharged conditions. "Flooded manhole" conditions represent water flooding out of the manhole and into the parking lot. (2) Negative flows indicate the flow is opposite the reversed elevations, so the flow in that pipe or channel is actually in the downstream direction. It may also indicate flow in a negative direction occurring at some time during the model due to backwater conditions. (3) Source: Tables E1, E9, E10, and E16 of XP-SWMM output files ("Renton Village Existing 2.out," "Renton Village Existing 10.out," etc.) located in digital files in Appendix E. - = Flooded Manhole Upstream 11 City of Renton January 2007 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 8 Modeling Results for Existing Pipes Under Future Land Use Conditions A 35 N1 32.66 A-N1 60 74 24.46 23.30 1.57% 99 3 5 4 B 33.35 N1 32.66 B-N1 36 90 23.39 23.30 0.10% 70 -15 -9 6 Nl 32.66 C 35.22 NI-C 72 395 22.30 21.66 0.16% 158 112 131 C 1 35.22 D 28.67 C-D 72 336 21.57 20.92 0.19% 173 1 131 137 141 214 N2 30.3 D 28.67 N2-D 42 306 18.90 20.92 -0.66% 76 D 28.67 E 25.51 D-E 42 357 20.84 17.64 0.90% 88 E 25.51 N3 28 E-N3 48 159 17.64 19.39 -1.10% 89 N3 28 F 28.51 N3-F Channel 171 19.39 20.13 -0.43% 931 -124 -131 436 -161 F 28.51 G 30.01 F-G Channel 162 18.91 19.27 -0.22% 725 -124 -131 436 -161 G 30.01 H 30.01 G-H Channel 167 19.27 18.86 0.25% 2197 124 131 136 161 H 30.01 I 30 H-I Channel 70 19.27 16.38 4.13% 3573 124 131 136 161 I 30 N4 25 I-N4 48 375 17.94 16.00 0.52% 96 39 29 -16 -20 N4 25 NS outfall 28 N4-N5 48 100 15.56 15.00 0.56% 100 1 43 35 -12 -19 I 30 NS outfall 28 I-N5 132 500 17.94 15.00 0.59% 1 1518 1 86 102 136 179 (1) Flows exceeding pipe design capacity represent surcharged conditions. "Flooded manhole" conditions represent water flooding out of the manhole and into the parking lot. (2) Negative flows indicate the flow is opposite the reversed elevations, so the flow in that pipe or channel is actually in the downstream direction. It may also indicate flow in a negative direction occurring at some time during the model due to backwater conditions. (3) Source: Tables El, E9, E10, E16 of XP-SWMM output files ("RV fut 2.out," "RV fut 10.out," etc.) located in digital files in Appendix E. - = Flooded Manhole Upstream 12 City of Renton January 2007 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers The increase in peak flow between the existing and future land use scenarios is due to the increase in effective impervious area from 32 percent (292 ac/920 ac) under current conditions to 50 percent (458 ac/920 ac) under future conditions. As depicted in Tables 7 and 8 and in Figure 5, under the existing conditions 25-year storm event, the model showed flooding at three nodes (D, E, and N2). Under the future land use flooding was seen in the upstream Node N1 (on the 72-inch pipe) in addition to the three nodes that were flooded under the existing conditions (D, E, and N2). Table 9 lists the volumes of water resulting at each flooded node under both the existing and future conditions. Under the 100-year storm event, the model showed that all nodes upstream of Node E flooded for both the current and future land use scenarios with the exception of Node C (See Figure 6). Node E is located in the Renton Village parking lot and is a critical point within the model as it is low in grade and cannot handle the surcharge seen in the other pipes. Node E is approximately 2 to 2.5 feet lower than the rims located upstream and downstream. It should also be noted that flooding is highly correlated to the backwater condition set downstream by Channel Branch 42. Under a free outfall condition with no backwater to contend with, a reduction in flooding is seen throughout the system. TABLE 9 Flooded Volumes in the Existing System � aCur�rent( I ^�,�4 d;-' �r �i''. h � Futures - A ° 2'SYeara� qR. 100Y�ear d ��25 Year akc 100 Year r�3 aka t ry. �a arm. J ? 1 _ A -- 18,569 -- 55,266 B -- 1 -- 5,522 N1 -- 50,470 2 106,548 N2 143 143,233 20,234 255,303 D 26,645 735,658 117,489 1,309,900 E 7,805 28,731 10,228 36,558 Alternative Storm System Designs The design criteria for the new storm system in Renton Village included having sufficient capacity to convey the future condition 25-year storm event without flooding, and conveying the future condition 100-year storm event with any flooding confined to the parking lot area. Using these two criteria, two alternative designs were modeled. For each design, a positive slope was modeled between pipe sections to eliminate the negative pipe slopes that are currently in place today. The design alternatives are as follows. City of Renton 13 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis January 2007 Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers Alternative 1- West Box Culvert: Install approximately 605 lineal feet of 4' x 6' concrete box culvert from the 72-inch pipe (Node D) to the outfall (Node N3). The preliminary alignment consists of placing the box culvert in the roadway and then diverting it south through the parking lot (see Figure 7). Figure 8 presents a schematic of the model for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 — East Box Culvert: This alternative entails the installation of 495 lineal feet of 4' x 6' box culvert between the same nodes as Alternative 1 (Node D to Node N3). The alignment of this alternative is located towards the eastern end of the parking lot (see Figure 7). Under both alternatives, catch basins would need to be installed in the parking lot to collect local drainage. To simplify the modeling, these catch basins were not modeled. However, the runoff from this area was input into the appropriate upstream node and was accounted for in the model. Early in the design process an alternative incorporating the existing 42-inch pipe and installing a parallel 54-inch pipe was reviewed. This alternative had the highest uncertainty because the condition of the existing 42-inch pipe is unknown. In addition, bedding of pipe over the known poor soils is difficult using traditional construction methods. To prevent point loading, the pipe would essentially need to be bedded/encased in concrete. For these two reasons the alternative of parallel pipes was not pursued. Alternative Storm System Modeling Results The model results for both Alternative 1 (west box culvert) and Alternative 2 (east box culvert) may be found in Tables 10 and 11. The complete XP-SWMM output for Alternative 1 is located in Appendix D. To clarify the data within this output, Table E9 of the XP-SWMM output displays hydraulic grade line elevations within each node ("Maximum Junction Elevation") along with flooded volume ("Maximum Junction Area"), Table E10 displays flow rates ("Maximum Computed Flow") and pipe capacities ("Design Flow"), and Table E16 of the XP-SWMM output presents the elevation of the hydraulic grade line within the pipes ("WS Up," "WS Dn"). As seen in Table 10, the west box culvert (Alternative 1) shows no flooding during the future 25-year storm event, and some flooding at the upstream end of the box culvert (Node D) during a 100-year storm event. The model shows that Node D experiences 8,701 cubic feet of flooding during the 100-year storm event (Table E9, Appendix D). Likewise, the east box culvert scenario (Alternative 2), shows no flooding during the future 25-year storm event, and some flooding during the 100-year storm at the downstream end of the 72-inch pipe (Node D). The modeling results reveal that 5,922 cubic feet of flooded volume is produced at Node D. Flow rates in each of the pipes for Alternative 2 may be found in Table 11 and total flooded volumes are presented in Table 12. 14 City of Renton January 2007 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 10 Modeling Results for Future Pipes Under Future Land Use Conditions Alternative 1 - West 4' x 6' Box Culvert .." Y :-.;- �.#-: E u streams •.':', , .,: ��,xr,;Node "Q ct rr;r;• � r. .,fir. .:. ..,a= i}`i-• },y">;i"",�..Ld',:. U stream, _ ; ...,�� y hR�m Elev 7 .»w +, .:, , t ��� <s7 ft „ :. .r:.•,-,r c:: - a y? ..,+ S.. xJ. ; : ... , , � =: :<. � h..•J, w ,7rr .:, Downstream ':tx;Node ;'•:��r : :n:,:: s R.. e� ,,,F s. .....:. •� y i"•Y �. Downstream . b i 7iF r s^.n-:f ;Rim .: , ^:7Elevationh ,�, ft ,,.. h 2' ..,tt r. ., Ll`,7, w �,: � � C _ a ... i., ;.Conduit w Name�� .� . :v: i .,, ..a,� .., �, ;.a:.. s-�a`: ,'3'✓z z.' Pi e .,`ei'.". ,�.,: r 'D�ameter . m • •��, `:z. c r; -• ..'•t`� - a �. '"P� .ems �:F. ;;Len th „ i � ft ,� -1 , ..._ -rt � . . A ._, ,- wy •_. <� ,,•. �- aR�= ,y...,.a,.+ , "U stream fi k IE ;,tt $ .ug. '7+-.'f:z _. .,s ,i` ,.� �..,, t . _ .,E1: .,.a�" 5.}..xrxi ',-.` i� Downstreamv ;� W�, IE„;.;;�;•'�.�,�� - '"� m ' �� -�" {r ,. 4±•. >7-s e , ,r #��d �Slo e'�* ..`p�.<:e. pA, u. � Desk n .T g., -xa.,.lri:.. Ca aci qy, z .i cfs �^ ;�`"n r 25-Yearc$:.100=fear 's' 1 Future, r 1 2 s'�x cfs tM,,,�; ;l�"Cr •^ti: Future "• cfs ° A 35 N1 32.66 A-N1 60 74 24.46 23.3 1.29% 70 0 0 B 33.35 N1 32.66 B-N1 36 90 23.39 23.3 0.12% 99 0 -1 N1 32.66 C 35.22 NI-C 72 395 22.3 21.66 0.16% 158 194 242 C 35.22 D 28.67 C-D 72 336 21.57 20.92 0.19% 173 194 242 N2 30.3 D 28.67 N2-D 42 306 20.92 20.84 0.66% 76 -12 -12 D 28.67 Box cb A 30.25 Box 1 4' x 6' 70 20.84 20.68 0.22% 135 208 Box cb A 30.25 Box cb B 28.5 Box 2 4' x 6' 162 20.68 20.33 0.22% 135 207 251 Box cb B 28.5 Box cb C 26.6 Box 3 4' x 6' 114 20.33 20.08 0.22% 135 207 251 Box cb C 26.6 N3 28 Box 4 4' x 6' 257 20.08 19.4 0.27% 149 206 234 N3 28 F 28.51 N3-F Channel 171 19.39 18.94 0.26% 728 242 274 F 28.51 G 30.01 F-G Channel 162 18.94 18.53 0.25% 769 242 274 G 30.01 H 30.01 G-H Channel 167 18.53 18.12 0.25% 2217 242 274 H 30.01 I 30 H-I Channel 1 70 1 18.12 17.94 0.25% 879 242 274 I 30 N4 25 I-N4 48 375 17.94 16 0.59% 96 43 1 50 N4 25 N5 (outfall) 28 N4-N5 48 100 15.56 15 0.56% 100 54 61 I 30 NS outfall 28 I-N5 132 500 17.94 15 0.52% 1518 199 224 (1) Flows exceeding pipe design capacity represent surcharged conditions. "Flooded manhole" conditions represent water flooding out of the manhole and into the parking lot. (2) Negative flows indicate the flow is opposite the reversed elevations, so the flow in that pipe or channel is actually in the downstream direction. It may also indicate flow in a negative direction occurring at some time during the model due to backwater conditions. (3) Source: Tables El, E9, E10, E16 ofXP-SWMM output files (Altl_25 dec 06.out and Altl_100 dec 06.out) located in digital files in Appendix E. - = Flooded Manhole Upstream City of Renton 15 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis January 2007 Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 11 Modeling Results for Future Pipes Under Future Land Use conditions Alternative 2 -East 4' x 6' Box Culvert ,.,. . � . ,,, .. vkx'el U stream •Node!Elevat�onl ::.r .�., .. G� .,.,'k•. U stre m t... �..x„ ::. ,'£f! Rim;=Elev ; :.:�> r.: ^- e w ,r i t r= r , l:,d, e: ;ire#x., r }„ � ,` Downstream ", • ftA �' .,' ".ygrw+ ...� s�..�., � Downstream . , 4 t •rd use: .5"" . ... :P ,+,: �Rtm�>�.: ,.�... d :sbi . ft 3.,a,,., :." y.b ,..��"--a'.r, %, .r., :; Y •.,�� °'K,,. .. # :. k,",. . ..:.. 1ui .... zr:Condwt- ,,:..,.:yam' } Name y„ ... �" r s t : 'k •,• . ,.. ftr✓' .:t,ry 4 v .. ,: m.... -r DiameterLen .Y�.,;. •,;. .,.ix ,:..._..� r "'3' P :". _.N• L. ,.SL 11e ,y .__, .,.r. th . g...� - : n .^'; v- apse �� L!7".M1: ,I.,..... s7 yp :�,.�.• m. 1s'�^fl3-' t=1 = r:.�' m„ .,s ,�� , ." �:1.. "riS4t-. d.,,.:,. x_ ' ..: f ��;�.� vh - -. ""�T, :, s':_ N' :. ��ra� ;e': n: '- . r i� „D,es� n "ux .wc7°:5.. :s+i P.:,�- y=�'t:� -; „ €? .�%. x : 5 - &IFRI -Ye ..;�25 ar ,�.V' .,Future .art+. ".•i1i { � .:,. '*tr! ''", +T: 100 Year, ; � ` tFuture b Fow,F . k,• : - A 35 N1 32.66 A-N1 60 74 24.46 23.3 1.29% 70 0 0 B 33.35 N1 32.66 B-N1 36 90 23.39 23.3 0.12% 99 0 -1 NI 32.66 C 35.22 NI-C 72 395 22.3 21.66 0.16% 158 194 242 C 35.22 D 28.67 C-D 72 336 21.57 20.92 0.19% 173 194 242 N2 30.3 D 28.67 N2-D 42 306 20.92 20.84 0.66% 76 -12 -12 D 28.67 Box cb A 29 Box 1 4' x 6' 210 20.84 20.27 0.27% 149 206 Box cb A 29 Box cb B 27.4 Box 2 4' x 6' 110 20.27 19.98 0.27% 149 207 251 Box cb B 27.4 N3 28 Box 3 Tx 6' 175 19.98 19.39 0.33% 166 207 251 N3 28 F 28.51 N3-F Channel 171 19.39 18.94 0.26% 728 242 1 274 F 28.51 G 30.01 F-G Channel 162 18.94 18.53 0.25% 769 242 274 G 30.01 H 30.01 G-H Channel 167 18.53 18.12 0.25% 2217 242 274 H 30.01 I 30 H-I Channel 70 18.12 17.94 0.25% 879 242 274 1 30 N4 25 I-N4 1 48 375 17.94 16 0.59% 96 43 50 N4 25 NS outfall 28 N4-N5 48 100 15.56 15 0.56% 100 54 61 I 30 NS outfall 28 I-N5 132 500 17.94 15 0.52% 1518 199 224 (1) Flows exceeding pipe design capacity represent surcharged conditions. "Flooded manhole" conditions represent water flooding out of the manhole and into the parking lot. (2) Negative flows indicate the flow is opposite the reversed elevations, so the flow in that pipe or channel is actually in the downstream direction. It may also indicate flow in a negative direction occurring at some time during the model due to backwater conditions. (3) Source: Tables El, E9, E10, E16 of XP-SWMM output files (Altl_25 dec 06.out and Altl_100 dec 06.out) located in digital files in Appendix E. - = Flooded Manhole Upstream 16 January 2007 City of Renton Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 12 Flooded Volumes for Alternatives 1 and 2 c4S+S. i,r k-u it i' :"gY k� t�; � ��� 'i'7�- 65' ,+z � ���25 Year � Y{ t5t 1" or Ezr �,.,��100 I'ea 3 jw r - D -- 8,701 44 {Alternati��e;2�',� D -- 5,922 54-inch Node -- Surface From these two models, it is apparent that a box culvert meets the City's criteria of preventing flooding during the future conditions 25-year storm event. The future conditions 100-year event results in limited flooding for both alternatives, however, with a total of 8,701 cubic feet flooded with the west box culvert alternative and 5,922 cubic feet flooded with the east box culvert alternative, it is apparent that the Thriftway parking lot can handle this excess stormwater during a 100-year storm event. This analysis assumes an available storage area surrounding "Node D" with a depth of 6 inches throughout the parking lot located east of Thriftway. At a 6-inch depth (i.e., curb height), 17,360 square feet of parking area would be necessary for storing the flooded volume under Alternative 1 and 12,690 square feet would be necessary under Alternative 2. The parking lot provides approximately 27,800 square feet just to the east of Thriftway. Flooded water would also drain towards the northern parking lot in front of Thriftway where additional storage would be provided as well. COST ESTIMATES Cost estimates were prepared for the two alternatives described earlier. Both cost estimates include the installation of a 4' x 6' box culvert, shoring, excavation of unsuitable material, backfill material as recommended by the geotechnical engineer, and related work such as traffic control, bypass pumping, erosion control, and landscaping. The estimates also include a $10,000 force account for unforeseen issues that may arise during construction. In addition to the force account, a 10 percent contingency has been added as well. A higher cost estimate was calculated for Alternative 1 due to the anticipation of greater. depths of peat and due to its longer alignment. Alternative 1 is estimated to cost $1,287,000 whereas Alternative 2 has an estimated construction cost of $1,160,000. Both construction cost estimates include sales tax and can be viewed in greater detail in Appendix F. City of Renton 17 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis January 2007 Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers RECOMMENDATIONS From a hydraulic perspective, both Alternative 1 (4' x 6' west box culvert) and Alternative 2 (4' x 6' east box culvert) would meet the City's criteria of preventing flooding during a 25-year storm event under future land use conditions while containing flooding during a future conditions 100-year storm event. However, it is recommended that the City select Alternative 1 for reasons that are not associated with hydraulics. Installation of the box culvert with the proposed alignment located in the western portion of the parking lot allows for less parking disturbance during construction and is the chosen alignment for the property owner. Alternative 1 is anticipated to have a shorter crossing of the poor soils and will be able to cross over the existing 12-inch sanitary sewer line but has a greater over all length of culvert. The box culvert will be placed in an area where geotechnical investigations show a layer of peat to an approximate depth of 25 feet. The alignment of Alternative 2 show shallower depth of peat at the boring locations but has a longer traverse over the poor soil. Alternative 2 will also require the existing sanitary sewer to be encased and cross through the box culvert since the invert of the sanitary sewer is higher than the invert of the storm drain at this point. The extent and difficulty of the sewer crossing will not be known until the excavation occurs and therefore presents a higher level of uncertainty than Alternative 1. This installation will require additional width of the box culvert to provide adequate hydraulic capacity. Although these issues are not strictly hydraulically related, it is recommended that a 4' x 6' box culvert be installed in the location shown for Alternative 1 for the reasons listed. 18 City of Renton January 2007 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis APPENDIX A EXCERPTS FROM THE EAST SIDE GREEN RIVER WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS NORTHWEST HYDRAULICS CONSULTANTS, INC. MARCH 1996 East Side Green River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis Report prepared. for: R.W. Beck and City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. 16300 Christensen Road Suite 350 Tukwila, WA 98188-3418 206-241-6000 March 1996 Table 10 Flood (cfs) and Storage (ac-ft) Quant,7es Current Conditions 6/ Return Period (yrs) Flood Quantiile (cfs) Stream/Sub-Basin Site 2 10 25 100 From ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis: Panther Creek (SIB Pl P3) Flow upstream SR 167 80 119 139 170 Rolling IFills (Sub -basin P5) Flow upstream SR 167 83 - :107 . 117 130 Sub -basins PI -PS Total Bow upstream SR 167 146 .224.... 270 347 Rolling Mls/PCW SR-167 North crossing 39 69 ' 84 106 Panther Creek SR 167 South crossing 25 .;27 . 28 28 Sub -basin S=6 At Outfall 58 ,64 65 .66 Springbrook Creek U/S Oakesdale Avenue 332 : 522 632 8.14 Springbrook Creels U/S P-9 channel 449 687 824 40'49 Springbrook Creek BRPS Maw. 492 743 884 1111 Required storage at BRPS (ac-8) 45 .53 _ 70 140 Water Surface Elevation U/S of Grady Way Box 5.6 6.4 6.8 7.3 From City of Kent Modeling: Garrison, Creek - SR-167 crossing 104 155 179 213 Upper Springbrook Creels U/S of Springbrook Creek 39 43 43 44 Upper Springbr000k Creek Overflows to SB S-6 6 20 28 43 Springbrook Creek _ U/S junction NO Creek 157 255 307 387 Mill Creek .:U/S of Springbrook Creek 176 274 336 442 'or Alternative Current Conditions Scenario: Mill Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 275 435 526 673 Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow 552 832 989 1243 Notes: (1) Flood quantiles are Log Pearson III (2) Storage quantiles follow an empirical fit (3) PCW = Panther Creek Wetland (4) U/S = Upstream (5) BRPS = Black River Pump Station (6) Alternative Current Conditions Scenario for Mill Creek without lagoons project (see Report Section 3.4.1) Table 11 Flood (cfs) and-Storage-(ac:ft) Quantiles Future Conditions Return Period (yrs) Flood Quantile (cfs) or % Chanze From Current Conditions Stream., . Site f 2 1 10 .... 1 25.-:,:_•. .,. : 100 From ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis: Panther Creeds (SB P1 P3) Flow upstream SR 167 90 13% 131 10% 150 8% 179 5% Rolling Bills (Sub -basin PS) Flow upstream SR 167 95 14% 140 31 % 163 39% 199 52% Sub -basins P P5 Total now upstream SR 167 165 13% 253 13% 307 14% 399 15% RollingHills/PCW SR-I67Northcxossing 4�2 8•/ ?3 6% 88 5% _],11 5% Panther Creels SR-167 South crossing (61 4% 28 4% 28 00/a 4% Sub -basin S-6 At Outfall 62 70/a 65 2% 66 2% 67 2% Springbrook.Creek U/S Oakesdale Avenue 539 62% 767 47% 975 39% 1030 27% Springbrook Creels U/S P-9 channel 653 45% 911 33% 1043 27%0. 1243 18% Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow 723 47% 998 341/10 1133 281% 1332 Mo Required storage at BRPS (ac-f1) 49 9018 59 11% 92 31% 221 580/9 Water surface Elevation, UIS of Grady way Box 62 11% 72 13% 7.9 15% 8.7 19% From City of Bent Modeling: Garrison Creek -SR 167 crossing 127 22% 173 12% 191 7% 215 1% Upper Springbrook Creek U/S of Springbrook Creeds 66 6901* 88 105% 101 135% 122 177% Upper Springbrook Creeds Overlloaes to SB S-6 0 n a. 0 n.a. 0 na 0 n.& Springbrook Creek U/S jum#ion Mill. Creek 236 50010 355 390/e 420 37% 321 35% Mill Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek ! 311 77% r 446 63% ( 510 52% I - 600 36% Notes: (1) Flood quantiles are Log -Pearson III (2) Storage quantiles follow an empirical fit (3) PCW = Panther Creeds Wedand (4) U/S = Upstream (5) BRPS = Black River Pomp Station a t- Black River Pump Station Y 1 v not -included in the-HSPF- model was subsequently found to drain to sub —basin S7a. LEGEND HSPF sub —basin boundary S6 Sub —basin number 0 River reach number scAa.E Miles 1 1/2 0 northwest hydraulic consultants Panther Lake i-igure APPENDIX B EXCERPTS FROM THE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK FEMA RE -MAPPING STUDY R.W. BECK NOVEMBER 2004 FITrAq ��►• N Hydraulic Analysis of Springbrook Creek fEMA Re -Mapping Study City of Renton 0 November2O 4 s =WT Hug ss —J, tZ— CENTEPI i MRIS AV S ' r} i7— f 3 ct j z t 4 Hilt .�. CREEK 1. SHA iRUC/ =1 l FIAT LG r 54• v i( �- �' AWE Si . S�� 2 �• Wila 1b 36. X �—�, E I E; tT t ti ! LIND A' 5 S V• f� `� t t t .ijE i S12 Iwo TPWA.S AV S SCALE 1'=1000' U7 % Ll i + S14 : 37 14 I I '� 13 tVE yja .S (16 ...�i i W12 tea: 10OLD Wa ,rL FAR CHANNEL S16 {LEGEND CUYERTM ' O 3 'E V DIWH1Eii STORM DRAN j i ' \ i - • • --► STR£JLLA/DRAiNAL CHANNEL f� S17 � 1 fm r WNEL eRANM NO I i1 72 \ P �P STATION E Y .� E ,/ —= BLACRIVER N - PUMP STATION - ,�- TO GREEN—DUWAMISH 1 RIVER '\� i ' I h a:+ 98 A r, \vAn\YAA02536 �, T>i+i BClt R OVERFLOW ! ! VALLEY ; S TABOT CK T DR FpNh{ER _ WEILANR will 'j �,rr y7 NGSP! T;A. Pt P2 P352 ._ por i W3rr r -ate € F; IIIRRR iiijjj . tt } + +j 1 �p i � S8 S'%b N I N' r ry .� S& Ev AV S _ 45 -tl,iti AVCAI ej 2 �.= S9Q z i 25 . �.: r 15 17 19 �! • 21 23 24 �',� � 16 18 O o } 28 - . 28 �S y N J, ic•tn J $ . ' S9c rJA�Zg)� AW Sig 30 W7c v s7c g I 31 ❑ t} 2 FEa PIPE eR't�cti not O �� r�trt Loa�or+ ;roRu otuei FOR tF SUeeAN s»,t oOK) GE OWMEL uwxx+ NO FM wErurro NO p5 FW a P5 (AHMER ME.y�. 5 I LJ S5 36 TUKW}!A �. RENTON CITY WITS =� HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR FLOOD PLAIN MAPPING STUDY OF"SPRINGBROOK CREEKWEST Hwy FIGURE 2 EEO MODEL SCHEMA11C r, Memorandum To: Allen Quynn and Ron Straka, City of Renton From: David M. Hartley and Derek L. Stuart, northwest hydraulic consultants, inc. Date: Revised October 25, 2005 Re: HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FOR FLOODPLAIN MAPPING STUDY OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON cc: Michael Giseburt, R.W. Beck 1 Executive Summary This memorandum documents the hydrologic methods and results associated with a floodplain re -mapping study of the lower 3.1 miles of Springbrook Creek between the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) and SW 43`d Street (also called South 180u' Street), which is the approximate boundary line between the Cities of Renton and Kent, Washington. The study reach is shown on FIRM numbers 53033C0976 F and 53033CO978 F revised May 16, 1995. On these maps, the BRPS is labeled "P-1 Pumping Station". Hydrologic analyses for this project were conducted following the approach described in an earlier nhc memorandum. This approach was reviewed and approved by the FEMA Map Coordination Contractor in a letter to the City of Renton, dated September 25a', 2002. Continuous hydrologic simulation modeling for a 53 year period of record (October 1, 1948 through September 30'h, 2002) were used to identify and adjust storm inflow hydrographs to Springbrook Creek that correspond to recurrence intervals required for unsteady flow hydraulic modeling and subsequent floodplain mapping. Two types of potential flood generating peak events were identified for hydraulic analysis: storage events that produce very high water surface elevations at the Black River Pump Station where flood waters from Springbrook Creek are pumped to the Green River and conveyance events that exhibit maximum peak flows into the pump station forebay. Results of the frequency analysis are summarized in the following tables. Peak Inflow to Forebay for Con ve ance Limited Storm Events, Current Conditions Return Period Flood Frequency Analysis' (cfs) Simulated (cfs) Multiplier2 Date of Simulated Event 2 710 707 1.00 1.2/3/1968 _ 10 977 _ �1.04 2/7/1955 25 _ _ 1100 _941 1125 0.98 2/8/1996 50 1 12091 1153 1.05 1/9/1990 1001 1307� 1153 1.13 1/9/1990 `Flood Frequency quantiles estimated from the simulated peak flow data using Bulletin 17B procedures 2Multiplier to scale simulated hydrograph to match estimated flood frequency quartile Fhe resultant combinations of soil and cover make up an inventory of acreages for each ubbasin in which all land is categorized as one of eight HRUs. These units are.- 1. Effective Impervious Area (EIA) 2. Till Forest (TF) 3. Till Grass (TG) 4. Outwash Forest (OF) 5. Outwash Grass (OG) 6. Wetland (W) 7. Alluvium Forest (AF) 8. Alluvium Grass (AG) A summary of the acreages of each HRU by major subbasin is provided in Table 3. Basin -wide, over 42% of the basin is EIA. or impervious area that is directly connected to the drainage system. Impervious area is heavily concentrated in the commercial and industrial areas of the flat Green River valley within the Springbrook, Middle, and Lower Mill Creek subbasins. HRU acreages for individual catchments within the major subbasins are shown in the schematic block of the HSPF input files in the digital appendix. Table 3: Summary of HRU Acreages by Major Subbasin- Current Land Use Subbasin EIA TF TG OF OG W AF AG Water Total Area (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) Springbrook 2152 296 437 1 3 487 153 703 4232.5 Rolling Hills 293 90 507 0 8 1 2 24 925.7 Panther 372 294 835 1 1 156 4 4 33 1700.2 Upper Springbrook 86 123 250 51 12 48 3 0 573.8 Garrison 539 383 1294 0 0 118 2 2 2338.2 Lower Mill 2200 0 0 0 0 361 83 838 3481.8 Middle Mill 756 16 93 0 0 53 19 248 1184.9 Upper Mill _ I 431 237 761 0 0 90 8 5 1531.8 Basin Sum 6795 1439 4176 53 24 1315 274 1826 33 15968.5 Basin %TYf 42.9% 9.0% 26.2% 0.3% _ 0.1% 8.2% 1.7% 11.5% I 0.2% 100.0% 6 8 Appendix C: Future Land Use Analysis and Modeling A model based on future build -out conditions was also constructed as part of this project, but was not referenced in the hydrology memorandum submitted to FEMA. In this future conditions model, the drainage system of Springbrook Creek is assumed to be the same as under current conditions. Only land use has been changed to reflect build -out conditions. Build -out conditions were based on zoning map information provided by the cities of Renton and Kent and by King County. A future land -cover GIS coverage was generated by combining parks, wetlands, zoning, and current land -cover GIS data and applied to the model using the following four rules: 1) all jurisdictionally designated wetland areas are modeled as wetland regardless of any underlying zoning, 2) wetland soil areas indicated by surficial geology coverages are assumed to be developed based on zoning if the area is not in a jurisdictionally designated wetland, 3) all parks area (and publicly owned area in Renton) is modeled with its current land cover, and 4) future land - Table BE Summary of HRU Acreages by Major Subbasin- Future Land Use Subbasin EIA TF (ac) (ac) TG (ae) OF (ac) OG (ac) W (ac) AF (ac) AG (ac) Water (ac) Total Area (ac) S rin brook 2717 62 496 0 3 443 55 457 4232.5 Rollin Hills 460 32 409 0 �____ 7 1 0 17 925.7 Panther 621 85 837 0 1 �117 1 6 _ I 33 _ 1700.3 Upper S rin brook 132 58 279 26 29 48 0 2 573.8 Garrison 694 144 1381 0 116 0 3 2338.2 Lower Mill 2418 0 0 0 - ^0 0 361 42 661 w� s 3481.8 Middle Mill 818 7 �602 94 0 0 53 10 203 1184.9 Upper Mill 75 755 0 0 90 2 9 1531.8 Basin Sum l8461 462 4284 27 38 1228 110 1359 33 15968.5 Basin % 53.0% 2.9% 26.8% 0.2% 0.2% ?.7% 0.7% 9: 1 _ 0.2% 100.0% cover is always at least as intensive as existing land cover. The methodology for determining HRU acreages for each subbasin was similar to that of the current -conditions model with one exception; the areas that experienced a change in landuse were routed to a separate storage area from those that did not. This was added so the model could be used in future projects to add storage with new development. A summary of the acreages of each HRU by major subbasin is provided in the table below. The future conditions model was applied in the same manner as the current conditions model to determine conveyance and storage controlled events under future conditions. The results of the future conditions analysis are shown in Tables B2 and B3 as follows: 21 APPENDIX C BACKWATER ELEVATIONS SET FROM "CHANNEL 42" (FROM THE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK FEMA RE -MAPPING STUDY R.W. BECK NOVEMBER 2004) From R.W. Beck November 2004 Draft Report "Hydraulic Analysis of Springbrook Creek FEMA Re -Mapping Study", "404C x.out" files where "x" denotes storm event modeled. The bold, boxed numbers below are the backwater elevations used. The elevations shown below were converted from the NGVD29 datum to the NAVD 88 datum for the Renton Village modeling analysis by adding 3.6 feet. 2-Year BRANCH NUMBER = 42 PONDING VOLUME= 0.0 AC -FT NODE NODEID STATION MAX DEPTH MAX ELEV MAX VELOC QMAX QMIN TIME OF MAX Z TIME OF MAX Q TIME OF MIN Q GIS Id String 4201 SR167-BU 0.7090 3.609 15.609 3.305 1.0347E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/28:15.000 4202 0.7035 3.571 15.54 3.354 1.0340E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/27:23.500 4203 0.6979 3.530 15.479 3.409 1.0334E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/27:23.500 4204 0.6924 3.485 15.409 3.471 1.0328E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/27:23.500 4205 0.6868 3.435 15.333 3.542 1.0323E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/27:23.500 4206 0.6813 3.380 15.252 3.624 1.0317E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/27:23.500 4207 0.6757 3.317 15.164 3.721 1.0312E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/21:21.000 4208 0.6702 3.245 15.067 3.837 1.0306E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/21:21.000 4209 0.6646 3.159 14.956 3.983 1.0302E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/21:21.000 4210 0.6591 3.055 14.826 4.175 1.0297E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/21:21.000 4211 0.6535 2.919 14.665 4.446 1.0294E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/21:21.000 4212 SR167-BD 0.6480 2.721 14.441 4.896 1.0292E+02 1.0000E+00 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/15:16.078 68/12/28:14.000 10-Year BRANCH NUMBER = 42 PONDING VOLUME= 0.0 AC -FT NODE NODEID STATION MAX DEPTH MAX ELEV MAX VELOC QMAX QMIN TIME OF MAX Z TIME OF MAX Q TIME OF MIN Q GIS Id String 4201 SR167-BU 0.7090 4.109 16.109 3.745 1.4200E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 4202 0.7035 4.065 16.039 3.808 1.4198E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 551 1/19: 8.000 4203 0.6979 4.017 15.966 3.878 1.4196E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 4204 0.6924 3.965 15.888 3.958 1.4195E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 4205 0.6868 3.907 15.805 4.049 1.4193E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 4206 0.6813 3.842 15.715 4.156 1.4191E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 4207 0.6757 3.769 15.616 4.283 1.4189E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 4208 0.6702 3.685 15.507 4.438 1.4187E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 4209 0.6646 3.586 15.382 4.636 1.4184E+02 1.0000E+00 55/ 2/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 4210 0.6591 3.464 15.235 4.905 1.4182E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 4211 0.6535 3.305 15.050 5.315 1.4179E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.078 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 4212 SR167-BD 0.6480 3.142 14.862 6.229 1.4174E+02 1.0000E+00 5512/ 7:19.500 5512/ 7:17.094 55/ 1/19: 8.000 25-Year BRANCH NUMBER = 42 PONDING VOLUME= 0.0 AC -FT NODE NODEID STATION MAX DEPTH MAX ELEV MAX VELOC QMAX QMIN TIME OF MAX Z TIME OF MAX Q TIME OF MIN Q GIS Id String 4201 SR167-BU 0.7090 4.584 16.584 4.053 1.8139E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 1/31:16.500 4202 0.7035 4.534 16.509 4.121 1.8141E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 1/31:16.500 4203 0.6979 4.481 16.430 4.197 1.8142E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/15: 3.000 4204 0.6924 4.422 16.346 4.282 1.8144E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/15: 3.000 4205 0.6868 4.357 16.255 4.380 1.8145E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/15: 3.000 4206 0.6813 4.285 16.157 4.493 1.8146E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/15: 3.000 4207 0.6757 4.203 16.050 4.626 1.8147E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 1/31:15.500 4208 0.6702 4.108 15.930 4.787 1.8147E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 1/31:15.500 4209 0.6646 3.996 15.792 4.989 1.8147E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 1/31:15.500 4210 0.6591 3.858 15.629 5.272 1.8146E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 1/31:15.500 4211 0.6535 3.674 15.419 5.703 1.8145E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 1/31:15.500 4212 SR167-BD 0.6480 3.470 15.190 6.621 1.8140E+02 1.0000E+00 96/ 2/ 8:11.500 96/ 2/ 8:11.145 96/ 1/31:15.500 100-Year BRANCH NUMBER = 42 PONDING VOLUME= 0.0 AC -FT NODE NODEID STATION MAX DEPTH MAX ELEV MAX VELOC QMAX QMIN TIME OF MAX Z TIME OF MAX Q TIME OF MIN Q GIS Id String 4201 SR167-BU 0.7090 5.404 17.404 4.433 2.5568E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4202 0.7035 5.354 17.329 4.498 2.5569E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4203 0.6979 5.300 17.249 4.569 2.5571E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4204 0.6924 5.242 17.166 4.649 2.5571E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4205 0.6868 5.179 17.077 4.738 2.5572E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4206 0.6813 5.109 16.982 4.838 2.5572E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4207 0.6757 5.033 16.880 4.954 2.5572E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4208 0.6702 4.947 16.768 5.089 2.5571E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4209 0.6646 4.849 16.645 5.250 2.5569E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4210 0.6591 4.736 16.507 5.448 2.5567E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4211 0.6535 4.607 16.352 5.794 2.5564E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.109 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 4212 SR167-BD 0.6480 4.491 16.211 6.650 2.5559E+02 1.0000E+00 90/ 1/ 9:10.328 90/ 1/ 9:10.063 89/12/26:10.000 APPENDIX D XP-SWMM MODELING OUTPUT FOR THE RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE 1 (4' X 6' WEST BOX CULVERT) 25-YEAR FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS AND 100-YEAR FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONS XP-SWMM MODELING OUTPUT - Alternative 1 (West -4' x 6' Box Culvert) — 25-Year Storm Current Directory: C:\XPS\XP-SWMM Engine Name: C:\XPS\XP-SWMM\swmmengw.exe Read 1 line(s) and found 1 items(s) from your cfg file. Input File: g\Design\Design Future\Altematives\Dec 06 Alt\Alt 125 dec 06.XP XP-SWMM Storm and Wastewater Management Model Interface Version: 9.52 Engine Version: 9.28 Developed by XP Software XP Software November, 2004 Data File Version ---> 11.7 Serial Number: 42-xxx-0000 XP Software (Evaluation) - - Engine Name: C:\XPS\XP-SWMM\swmmengw.exe Input and Output file names by Layer Input File to Layer # 1 JOT.US Output File to Layer # 1 JOT.US Special command line arguments in XP-SWMM2000. This now includes program defaults. $Keywords are the program) defaults. Other Keywords are from the SWMMCOM.CFG file.1 or the command line or any cfg file on the command line.1 Examples include these in the file xpswm.bat under the section :solve or in the windows version XPSWMM32 in the) file solve.bat Note: the cfg file should be in the subdirectory swmxp or defined by the set variable in the xpswm.bat file. Some examples of the command lines possible) are shown below: swmmd swmmcom.cfg swmmd my.cfg swmmd nokeys nconv5 pery extranwq $powerstation 0.0000 1 2 $pery 0.0000 0 4 $oldegg 0.0000 0 7 $as 0.0000 0 11 $noflat 0.0000 0 21 $oldomega 0.0000 0 24 $oldvol 0.0000 1 28 $implicit 0.0000 1 29 $oldhot 0.0000 1 31 $oldscs 0.0000 0 33 $flood 0.0000 1 40 $nokeys 0.0000 0 42 $pzero 0.0000 0 55 $oldvol2 0.0000 2 59 $storage2 0.0000 3 62 $oldhotl 0.0000 1 63 $pumpwt 0.0000 1 70 $ecloss 0.0000 1 77 $exout 0.0000 0 97 SPATIAL=0.55 0.5500 5 124 $djref = -1.0 -0.1000 3 143 $weirlen = 50 50.0000 1 153 $oldbnd 0.0000 1 154 $nogrelev 0.0000 1 161 $ncmid 0.0000 0 164 $new_nl_97 0.0000 2 290 $best97 0.0000 1 294 $newbound 0.0000 1 295 $q_tol = 0.1 0.0010 1 316 $new storage 0.0000 1 322 $old_iteration 0.0000 1 333 $minlen=30.0 30.0000 1 346 $review_ elevation 0.0000 1 383 $use half volume 0.0000 1 385 $min is = 0.5 0.5000 1 407 $design_restart = on 0.0000 1 412 $zero_value=l.e-05 0.0000 1 415 $relax depth = on 0.0000 1 427 Parameter Values on the Tapes Common B1ock.These are the values read from the data file and dynamically allocated by the model for this simulation. Number of Subcatchments in the Runoff Block (NW).... 0 Number of Channel/Pipes in the Runoff Block (NG).... 0 Runoff Water quality constituents (NRQ)............. 0 Runoff Land Uses per Subcatchment (NLU)............. 0 Number of Elements in the Transport Block (NET)..... 0 Number of Storage Junctions in Transport (NTSE)..... 0 Number of Input Hydrographs in Transport (NTH)...... 0 Number of Elements in the Extran Block (NEE)........ 17 Number of Groundwater Subcatchments in Runoff (NGW). 0 Number of Interface locations for all Blocks (NIE).. 17 Number of Pumps in Extran (NEP)..................... 0 Number of Orifices in Extran (NEO).................. 0 Number of Tide Gates/Free Outfalls in Extran (NTG).. 1 Number of Extran Weirs (NEW) ........................ 0 Number of scs hydrograph points ..................... 1 Number of Extran printout locations (NPO)........... 0 Number of Tide elements in Extran (NTE)............. 1 Number of Natural channels (NNC).................... 4 Number of Storage junctions in Extran (NYSE)........ 0 Number of Time history data points in Extran(NTVAL). 0 Number of Variable storage elements in Extran (NVST) 0 Number of Input Hydrographs in Extran (NEH)......... 5 Number of Particle sizes in Transport Block (NPS)... 0 Number of User defined conduits (NEW) ............... 17 Number of Connecting conduits in Extran (NECC)...... 20 Number of Upstream elements in Transport (NTCC)..... 10 Number of Storage/treatment plants (NSTU)........... 0 Number of Values for R1 lines in Transport (NR1).... 0 Number of Nodes to be allowed for (NNOD)............ 17 Number of Plugs in a Storage Treatment Unit......... 1 ####################################################### # Entry made to the HYDRAULIC Layer(Block) of SWMM # # Last Updated October,2000 by XP Software # Renton Village Existing HYDRAULICS TABLES IN THE OUTPUT FILE These are the more important tables in the output file. You can use your editor to find the table numbers, for example: search for Table E20 to check continuity. This output file can be imported into a Word Processor and printed on US letter or A4 paper using portrait mode, courier font, a size of 8 pt. and margins of 0.75 i i Table E1 - Basic Conduit Data Table E2 - Conduit Factor Data Table E3a - Junction Data Table E3b - Junction Data Table E4 - Conduit Connectivity Data Table E4a - Dry Weather Flow Data Table E4b - Real Time Control Data Table E5 - Junction Time Step Limitation Summary Table E5a - Conduit Explicit Condition Summary Table E6 - Final Model Condition Table E7 - Iteration Summary Table E8 - Junction Time Step Limitation Summary Table E9 - Junction Summary Statistics Table E10 - Conduit Summary Statistics Table El - Area assumptions used in the analysis Table E12 - Mean conduit information Table E13 - Channel losses(H) and culvert info Table E13a - Culvert Analysis Classification Table E14 - Natural Channel Overbank Flow Information Table E14a -Natural Channel Encroachment Information Table E14b - Floodplain Mapping Table E15 -Spreadsheet Info List Table E15a - Spreadsheet Reach List Table E16 - New Conduit Output Section Table E17 - Pump Operation Table E18 - Junction Continuity Error Table E19 - Junction Inflow Sources Table E20 - Junction Flooding and Volume List Table E21 - Continuity balance at simulation end Table E22 - Model Judgement Section Time Control from Hydraulics Job Control Year......... 2008 Month....... 1 Day.......... 8 Hour........ 18 Minute....... 0 Second...... 0 Control information for simulation Integration cycles ................. 5760 Length of integration step is...... 15.00 seconds Simulation length .................. 24.00 hours Do not create equiv. pipes(NEQUAL). 0 Use U.S. customary units for UO... 0 Printing starts in cycle........... 1 Intermediate printout intervals of. 500 cycles Intermediate printout intervals of. 125.00 minutes Summary printout intervals of...... 500 cycles Summary printout time interval of.. 125.00 minutes Hot start file parameter (REDO).... 0 Initial time ....................... 18.00 hours Iteration variables: Flow Tolerance. 0.00010 Head Tolerance. 0.00050 Minimum depth (m or ft)......... 0.00001 Underrelaxation parameter....... 0.85000 Time weighting parameter........ 0.85000 Conduit roughness factor........ 1.00000 Flow adjustment factor.......... 1.00000 Initial Condition Smoothing..... 0 Courant Time Step Factor........ 1.00000 Default Expansion/Contraction K. 0.00000 Default Entrance/Exit K......... 0.00000 Routing Method .................. Dynamic Wave Default surface area of junctions... 12.57 square feet. Minimum Junction/Conduit Depth...... 0.00001 feet. Ponding Area Coefficient............ 5000.00 Ponding Area Exponent ............... 1.0000 Minimum Orifice Length .............. 300.00 feet. NJSW input hydrograph junctions..... 5 or user defined hydrographs.... Natural Cross -Section information for Channel N3-F Cross -Section ID (from X1 card) : 1.0 Channel sequence number: 1 Left Overbank Length 171.0 ft Maximum Elevation 28.39 ft. Main Channel Length 171.0 ft Maximum depth 8.26 ft. Right Overbank Length 171.0 ft Maximum Section Area : 105.3132 ft^2 Maximum hydraulic radius: 3.40 ft. Manning N : 0.050 to Station -2.7 Max topwidth : 23.24 ft. " of : 0.025 in main Channel Maximum Wetted Perimeter: 3.10E+01 ft to " 0.050 Beyond station 7.6 Max left bank area 22.69 ft^2 Max right bank area . 11.34 ft^2 Allowable Encroachment Depth: 0.00 ft Max center channel area : 71.2900 ft^2 Natural Cross -Section information for Channel F-G Cross -Section ID (from X1 card) : 2.0 Channel sequence number: 2 Left Overbank Length 162.0 ft Maximum Elevation 26.50 ft. Main Channel Length 162.0 ft Maximum depth 7.59 ft. Right Overbank Length : 162.0 ft Maximum Section Area : 114.9073 ft^2 Maximum hydraulic radius: 3.38 ft. Manning N : 0.050 to Station -5.3 Max topwidth : 28.20 ft. it it 0.025 in main Channel Maximum Wetted Perimeter: 3.40E+01 ft 0.050 Beyond station 4.5 Max left bank area . 17.87 ft^2 Max right bank area : 31.77 ft^2 Allowable Encroachment Depth: 0.00 ft Max center channel area : 65.2666 ft^2 Natural Cross -Section information for Channel G-H Cross -Section ID (from X1 card) : 3.0 Channel sequence number: 3 Left Overbank Length 167.0 ft Maximum Elevation 30.01 ft. Main Channel Length 167.0 ft Maximum depth 10.74 ft. Right Overbank Length : 167.0 ft Maximum Section Area : 231.7196 ft^2 Maximum hydraulic radius: 5.78 ft. Manning N : 0.050 to Station -1.9 Max topwidth : 33.96 ft. " : 0.025 in main Channel Maximum Wetted Perimeter : 4.01E+01 ft 0.050 Beyond station 8.7 Max left bank area : 56.23 ft^2 Max right bank area : 66.77 ft^2 Allowable Encroachment Depth: 0.00 ft Max center channel area : 108.7145 ft^2 Natural Cross -Section information for Channel H-I Cross -Section ID (from X1 card) : 4.0 Channel sequence number: 4 Left Overbank Length 70.0 ft Maximum Elevation 25.23 ft. Main Channel Length 70.0 ft Maximum depth 6.37 ft. Right Overbank Length 70.0 ft Maximum Section Area : 130.4888 ft^2 Maximum hydraulic radius: 3.41 ft. Manning N : 0.050 to Station -8.9 Max topwidth : 36.34 ft. " 0.025 in main Channel Maximum Wetted Perimeter: 3.82E+01 ft " 0.050 Beyond station 9.9 Max left bank area . 10.53 ft^2 Max right bank area : 25.86 ft^2 Allowable Encroachment Depth: 0.00 ft Max center channel area : 94.0951 ft^2 Table E1 -Conduit Data Trapezoid Inp Conduit Length Conduit Area Manning Max Width Depth Side Num Name -------------------- (ft) ---------- Class (ft-2) Coef. (ft) (ft) Slopes 1 B-N1 74 ---------- Circular ------- 19.635 ------- 0.012 --------- 5 ----- 5 ------- 2N1-C 395 Circular 28.2743 0.014 6 6 3 C-D 336 Circular 28.2743 0.014 6 6 4N3-F 171 Natural 105.3132 0.025 23.2405 8.26 5A-NI 90 Circular 7.0686 0.014 3 3 6 N2-D 306 Circular 9.6211 0.014 3.5 3.5 7I-N4 375 Circular 12.5664 0.014 4 4 8 N4-N5 100 Circular 12.5664 0.014 4 4 9I-N5 500 Circular 95.0332 0.014 11 11 10 F-G 162 Natural 114.9073 0.025 28.2 7.59 11 G-H 167 Natural 231.7196 0.025 33.96 10.74 12 H-I 70 Natural 130.4888 0.025 36.34 6.37 13 Box 1 70 Rectangle 24 0.014 6 4 14 Box 3 114 Rectangle 24 0.014 6 4 15 Box 4 257 Rectangle 24 0.014 6 4 16 Box 2 162 Rectangle 24 0.014 6 4 Total length of all conduits .... 3349.0000 feet If there are messages about (sqrt(g*d)*dt/dx), or the sqrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length in the output file all it means is that the program will lower the internal time step to satisfy this condition (explicit condition). You control the actual internal time step by using the minimum courant time step factor in the HYDRAULICS job control. The message put in words states that the smallest conduit with the fastest velocity will control the time step selection. You have further control by using the modify conduit option in the HYDRAULICS Job Control. *_ ---- Conduit Courant Name Ratio B-NI 2.57 => Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*rime step/conduit length) NI-C 0.53 C-D 0.62 N3-F 1.06 =__> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) A-N1 1.64 =_> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity) *time step/conduit length) N2-D 0.52 I-N4 0.45 N4-N5 1.70 => Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) I-N5 0.56 F-G 1.06 =__> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) G-H 1.33 =_> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) H-1 2.30 =_> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*rime step/conduit length) Box 1 2.43 =_> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) Box 3 1.49 => Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) Box 4 0.66 Box 2 1.05 =_> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) Conduit Volume Full pipe or full open conduit volume Input full depth volume............ 1.7811E+05 cubic feet Warning ! ! The upstream and downstream junctions for the following conduits have been reversed to correspond to the positive flow and decreasing slope convention. A negative flow in the output thus means the flow was from your original upstream junction to your original downstream junction. Any initial flow has been multiplied by -1. 1. Conduit #...N2-D has been changed. Table E3a - Junction Data Inp Junction Ground Crown Invert Qinst Initial Interface Num Name Elevation Elevation Elevation cfs Depth-ft Flow (%) 1 B 35.0000 35.0000 23.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 2 N1 32.6600 32.6600 22.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 3 C 35.2200 35.2200 21.5700 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 4 D 28.6700 28.6700 20.8400 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 5 N3 28.0000 28.0000 19.3900 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 6 I 30.0000 30.0000 17.9400 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 7 A 33.3500 33.3500 24.4000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 8 N2 30.3000 30.3000 18.9000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 9 N5 28.0000 26.0000 15.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 10 N4 25.0000 25.0000 15.5000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 11 F 28.5100 28.5100 18.9375 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 12 G 30.0100 30.0100 18.5325 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 13 H 30.0100 30.0100 18.1150 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 14 Box cb B 28.5000 24.3296 20.3296 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 15 Box cb C 26.6000 24.0788 20.0788 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 16 Box cb A 30.2500 24.6860 20.6860 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 Table E3b - Junction Data Inp, Junction X Y Type of Type of Maximum Pavement Num ------------------ Name Coord. Coord. Manhole ---------------------- Inlet Capacity Shape Slope 1 B 152.5521 ---------------------- 446.4433 Flooded ---------------- Normal ------- 0 0.0000 2 N1 145.5257 436.6950 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 3 C 123.4209 437.1191 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 4 D 106.3969 437.5303 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 5 N3 95.8286 416.8616 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 6 I 67.4830 416.7636 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 7 A 146.0405 428.7429 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 8 N2 126.9908 454.2198 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 9 N5 66.0831 409.8093 No Ponding Normal 0 0.0000 10 N4 62.2778 416.4918 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 11 F 89.1392 416.9094 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 12 G 81.4822 417.0487 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 13 H 74.6604 416.9094 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 14 Box cb B 96.8341 435.2930 No Ponding Normal 0 0.0000 15 Box cb C 92.3030 432.6534 No Ponding Normal 0 0.0000 16 Box cb A 103.4470 434.9879 No Ponding Normal 0 0.0000 Table E4 - Conduit Connectivity Input Conduit Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream Number Name Node Node Elevation Elevation 1 B-NI B N1 23.3920 ----------------- 23.3000 No Design 2 N1-C N1 C 22.3000 21.6600 No Design 3 C-D C D 21.5700 20.9200 No Design 4 N3-F N3 F 19.3900 18.9375 No Design 5 A-N1 A N1 24.4600 23.3000 No Design 6 N2-D D N2 20.9200 18.9000 No Design 7 I-N4 I N4 17.9400 16.0000 No Design 8 N4-N5 N4 N5 15.5600 15.0000 No Design 9 I-N5 I N5 17.9400 15.0000 No Design 10 F-G F G 18.9375 18.5325 No Design 11 G-H G H 18.5325 18.1150 No Design 12 H-I H I 18.1150 17.9400 No Design 13 Box 1 D Box cb A 20.8400 20.6860 No Design 14 Box 3 Box cb B Box cb C 20.3296 20.0788 No Design 15 Box 4 Box cb C N3 20.0788 19.3900 No Design 16 Box 2 Box cb A Box cb B 20.6860 20.3296 No Design FREE OUTFALL DATA (DATA GROUP I1) BOUNDARY CONDITION ON DATA GROUP J1 Outfall at Junction .... N5 has boundary condition number... 1 __> Warning H Outfall Junction N5 has two or more connecting conduits. INTERNAL CONNECTIVITY INFORMATION CONDUIT JUNCTION JUNCTION ---------- ---------------- ---------------- FREE # 1 N5 BOUNDARY Boundary Condition Information Data Groups J1-J4 BC NUMBER.. 1 Control water surface elevation is.. 20.16 feet. XP Note Field Summary Conduit Convergence Criteria Conduit Full Conduit Name Flow Slope B-N1 99.4838 0.0012 N1-C 158.2956 0.0016 C-D 172.9674 0.0019 N3-F 728.0530 0.0026 A-N1 70.3134 0.0129 N2-D 75.9050 0.0066 I-N4 95.9369 0.0052 N4-N5 99.8147 0.0056 I-N5 1518.2495 0.0059 F-G 769.4335 0.0025 G-H 2216.8183 0.0025 H-I 879.2816 0.0025 Box 1 134.9276 0.0022 Box 3 134.9276 0.0022 Box 4 148.9257 0.0027 Box 2 134.9276 0.0022 Initial Model Condition Initial Time = 18.00 hours Junction / Depth / Elevation => "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 0.00 / 23.00 N1/ 0.00 / 22.00 C/ 0.00 / 21.57 D/ 0.00 / 20.84 N3/ 0.77 / 20.16 1/ 2.22 / 20.16 A/ 0.00 / 24.40 N2/ 1.26 / 20.16 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 1.22 / 20.16 G/ 1.63 / 20.16 H/ 2.05 / 20.16 Box cb B/ 0.00 / 20.33 Box cb C/ 0.08 / 20.16 Box cb A/ 0.00 / 20.69 Conduit/ FLOW => "*" Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 NI-C/ 0.00 C-D/ 0.00 N3-F/ 0.00 A-N 1 / 0.00 N2-D/ 0.00 I-N4/ 0.00 N4-N5/ 0.00 I-N5/ 0.00 F-G/ 0.00 G-H/ 0.00 H-I/ 0.00 Box 1/ 0.00 Box 3/ 0.00 Box 4/ 0.00 Box 2/ 0.00 FREE # 1/ 0.00 Conduit/ Velocity B-N 1/ 0.00 N 1-C/ 0.00 C-D/ 0.00 N3-F/ 0.00 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ 0.00 I-N4/ 0.00 N4-N5/ 0.00 I-N5/ 0.00 F-G/ 0.00 G-H/ 0.00 H-I/ 0.00 Box 1/ 0.00 Box 3/ 0.00 Box 4/ 0.00 Box 2/ 0.00 Conduit/ Cross Sectional Area B-N1/ 0.00 NI-C/ 0.00 C-D/ 0.00 N3-F/ 3.09 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ 1.40 I-N4/ 9.70 N4-N5/ 12.91 I-N5/ 27.24 F-G/ 7.81 G-H/ 14.77 H-V 18.62 Box 1/ 0.00 Box 3/ 0.22 Box 4/ 2.35 Box 2/ 0.00 Conduit/ Hydraulic Radius B-N1/ 0.00 Nl-C/ 0.00 C-D/ 0.00 N3-F/ 0.42 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ 0.32 I-N4/ 1.04 N4-N5/ 1.00 I-N5/ 1.92 F-G/ 0.93 G-H/ 1.27 H-V 1.28 Box 1/ 0.00 Box 3/ 0.04 Box 4/ 0.32 Box 2/ 0.00 Conduit/ Upstream/ Downstream Elevation B-Nl/ 22.00/ 22.00 NI-C/ 21.57/ 21.57 C-D/ 20.84/ 20.84 N3-F/ 20.16/ 20.16 A-N1/ 22.00/ 22.00 N2-D/ 20.84/ 20.16 I-N4/ 20.16/ 20.16 N4-N5/ 20.16/ 20.16 I-N51 20.16/ 20.16 F-G/ 20.16/ 20.16 G-H/ 20.16/ 20.16 H-I/ 20.16/ 20.16 Box l/ 20.69/ 20.69 Box 3/ 20.33/ 20.16 Box 4/ 20.16/ 20.16 Box 2/ 20.33/ 20.33 ######## Important Information ######## Start time of user hydrographs was... 18.000000000000000 Start time of the simulation was..... 18.000000000000000 Found a match between user hydrograph and simulation start time. Will move ahead 1.561251128379126E-017 hours __> System inflows (data group K3) at 18.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) ---- ----- N1 / 8.19E+00 N3 / 7.78E-01 N2 / 2.00E-02 N5 / 5.00E-03 N4 / 2.00E-02 ######################################## ===> System inflows (data group K3) at 18.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 9.50E+00 N3 / 1.25E+00 N2 / 2.05E-01 N5 / 5.40E-02 N4 / 2.05E-01 ######################################## ######################################## _=> System inflows (data group K3) at 19.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.28E+01 N3 / 2.21E+00 N2 / 6.14E-01 N5 / 1.56E-01 N4 / 5.94E-01 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 20.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.34E+01 N3 / 2.42E+00 N2 / 6.96E-01 N5 / 1.77E-01 N4 / 6.76E-01 ######################################## Cycle 500 Time 20 Hrs - 5.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation =_> "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 0.47 / 23.47 N1/ 1.47 / 23.47 C/ 1.15 / 22.72 D/ 0.67 / 21.51 N3/ 1.56 / 20.95 I/ 2.22 / 20.16 A/ 0.00 / 24.40 N2/ 2.61 / 21.51 N51 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 1.39 / 20.33 G/ 1.66 / 20.19 H/ 2.05 / 20.16 Box cb B/ 0.77 / 21.10 Box cb C/ 0.92 / 21.00 Box cb A/ 0.68 / 21.36 Conduit/ FLOW => ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 NI-C/ 12.83 C-D/ 12.80 N3-F/ 15.50 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -0.61 I-N4/ -2.71 N4-N5/ -2.11 I-N5/ 18.19 F-G/ 15.48 G-H/ 15.47 H-I/ 15.48 Box 1/ 13.41 Box 3/ 13.37 Box 4/ 13.32 Box 2/ 13.40 FREE # 1/ 16.24 ######################################## => System inflows (data group K3) at 21.00 hours( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.28E+01 N3 / 2.23E+00 N2 / 6.35E-01 N5 / 1.61E-01 N4 / 6.14E-01 ######################################## ######################################## _=> System inflows (data group K3) at 22.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.51E+01 N3 / 2.91E+00 N2 / 9.22E-01 N5 / 2.30E-01 N4 / 8.81E-01 ######################################## Cycle 1000 Time 22 Hrs - 10.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation => "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 0.49 / 23.49 N1/ 1.49 / 23.49 C/ 1.16 / 22.73 D/ 0.68 / 21.52 N3/ 1.58 / 20.97 U 2.21 / 20.15 A/ 0.00 / 24.40 N2/ 2.62 / 21.52 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 1.40 / 20.33 G/ 1.66 / 20.19 H/ 2.05 / 20.16 Box cb B/ 0.78 / 21.11 Box cb C/ 0.94 / 21.02 Box cb A/ 0.69 / 21.38 Conduit/ FLOW =_> ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ -0.01 N1-C/ 13.13 C-D/ 13.05 N3-F/ 15.89 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -0.67 I-N4/ -3.37 N4-N5/ -2.71 I-N5/ 19.23 F-G/ 15.87 G-H/ 15.86 H-I/ 15.86 Box l/ 13.70 Box 3/ 13.65 Box 4/ 13.60 Box 2/ 13.68 FREE # 1/ 16.69 ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 23.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 3.18E+01 N3 / 7.47E+00 N2 / 2.70E+00 N5 / 6.78E-01 N4 / 2.60E+00 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 24.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 3.34E+01 N3 / 7.86E+00 N2 / 2.87E+00 N5 / 7.19E-01 N4 / 2.74E+00 ######################################## Cycle 1500 Time 24 Hrs - 15.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation = => "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 1.14 / 24.14 N1/ 2.14 / 24.14 C/ 1.77 / 23.34 D/ 1.37 / 22.21 N3/ 2.37 / 21.76 1/ 2.18 / 20.12 A/ 0.00 / 24.40 N2/ 3.32 / 22.22 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 1.96 / 20.90 G/ 1.85 / 20.38 H/ 2.07 / 20.19 Box cb B/ 1.60 / 21.93 Box cb C/ 1.76 / 21.84 Box cb A/ 1.42 / 22.11 Conduit/ FLOW =_> "*" Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 NI-C/ 32.17 C-D/ 32.13 N3-F/ 42.36 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -2.74 I-N4/ -7.95 N4-N5/ -5.31 I-N5/ 50.28 F-G/ 42.34 G-H/ 42.33 H-I/ 42.33 Box 1/ 34.86 Box 3/ 34.83 Box 4/ 34.81 Box 2/ 34.84 FREE # 1/ 45.65 ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 25.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 3.24E+01 N3 / 7.47E+00 N2 / 2.68E+00 N5 / 6.71E-01 N4 / 2.56E+00 ######################################## ######################################## ___> System inflows (data group K3) at 26.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 4.06E+01 N3 / 9.42E+00 N2 / 3.40E+00 N5 / 8.47E-01 N4 ######################################## Cycle 2000 Time 26 Hrs - 20.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation ==> "*" Junction is Surcharged. / 3.26E+00 B/ 1.22 / 24.22 N1/ 2.22 / 24.22 C/ 1.85 / 23.42 D/ 1.45 / 22.29 N3/ 2.44 / 21.83 I/ 2.18 / 20.12 A/ 0.00 / 24.40 N2/ 3.40 / 22.30 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 2.03 / 20.97 G/ 1.89 / 20.42 H/ 2.08 / 20.20 Box cb B/ 1.68 / 22.01 Box cb C/ 1.84 / 21.92 Box cb A/ 1.50 / 22.19 Conduit/ FLOW => "*"Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-Nl/ -0.01 N1-C/ 35.07 C-D/ 34.87 N3-F/ 45.49 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -2.89 I-N4/ -8.21 N4-N5/ -5.42 I-N51 53.56 F-G/ 45.40 G-H/ 45.34 H-V 45.34 Box l/ 37.70 Box 3/ 37.57 Box 4/ 37.48 Box 2/ 37.65 FREE # 1/ 48.86 ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 27.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 7.67E+01 N3 / 1.70E+01 N2 / 5.98E+00 N5 / 1.50E+00 N4 / 5.73E+00 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 28.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.22E+02 N3 / 2.54E+01 N2 / 8.54E+00 N5 / 2.13E+00 N4 / 8.17E+00 ######################################## Cycle 2500 Time 28 Hrs - 25.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation =--> "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 2.55 / 25.55 N1/ 3.55 / 25.55 C/ 3.10 / 24.67 D/ 2.97 / 23.81 N3/ 3.72 / 23.11 V 2.17 / 20.11 A/ 1.15 / 25.55 N2/ 4.93 / 23.83 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 3.28 / 22.21 G/ 2.82 / 21.35 H/ 2.50 / 20.61 Box cb B/ 3.15 / 23.48 Box cb C/ 3.27 / 23.35 Box cb A/ 3.02 / 23.70 Conduit/ FLOW =__> ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ -0.05 NI-C/ 95.19 C-D/ 94.55 N3-F/ 120.26 A-N1/ -0.04 N2-D/ -7.01 I-N41 -10.37 N4-N5/ -3.62 I-N5/ 129.21 * F-G/ 119.86 G-H/ 119.39 H-I/ 119.17 Box l/ 101.05 Box 3/ 100.53 Box 4/ 100.14 Box 2/ 100.80 FREE # 1/ 127.34 ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 29.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) NI / 1.94E+02 N3 / 3.70E+01 N2 / 1.16E+01 N5 / 2.90E+00 N4 / 1.11E+01 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 30.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.74E+02 N3 / 3.36E+01 N2 / 1.07E+01 N5 / 2.66E+00 N4 / 1.02E+01 ######################################## Cycle 3000 Time 30 Hrs - 30.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation =_> " * " Junction is Surcharged. B/ 5.81 / 28.81 N1/ 6.81 / 28.81 C/ 6.42 / 27.99 D/ 6.45 / 27.29 N3/ 5.14 / 24.53 V 2.63 / 20.57 A/ 4.41 / 28.81 N2/ 8.43 / 27.33 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.82 / 20.32 F/ 4.70 / 23.63 G/ 3.94 / 22.47 H/ 3.28 / 21.40 Box cb B/ 5.95*/ 26.28 Box cb C/ 5.70*/ 25.78 Box cb A/ 6.32*/ 27.01 Conduit/ FLOW => ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.03 NI-C/ 184.01 C-D/ 184.03 N3-F/ 230.88 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -11.15 I-N4/ 40.56 N4-N5/ 51.25 I-N5/ 190.85* F-G/ 231.09 G-H/ 231.17 H-I/ 231.22 Box l/ 195.39 Box 3/ 195.37 Box 4/ 195.45 Box 2/ 195.66 FREE # 1/ 244.89 ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 31.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.68E+02 N3 / 3.24E+01 N2 / 1.03E+01 N5 / 2.56E+00 N4 / 9.83E+00 ######################################## ######################################## -> System inflows (data group K3) at 32.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.54E+02 N3 / 3.00E+01 N2 / 9.52E+00 N5 / 2.38E+00 N4 / 9.11E+00 ######################################## Cycle 3500 Time 32 Hrs - 35.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation = _> "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 4.32 / 27.32 N1/ 5.32 / 27.32 C/ 5.12 / 26.69 D/ 5.35 / 26.19 N3/ 4.83 / 24.22 1/ 2.48 / 20.42 A/ 2.92 / 27.32 N2/ 7.31 / 26.21 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.77 / 20.27 F/ 4.43 / 23.37 G/ 3.71 / 22.25 H/ 3.09 / 21.21 Box cb B/ 5.08*/ 25.41 Box cb C/ 4.97*/ 25.05 Box cb A/ 5.25*/ 25.93 Conduit/ FLOW =__> ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.03 NI-C/ 160.18 C-D/ 160.90 N3-F/ 201.49 A-N1/ 0.01 N2-D/ -9.80 I-N4/ 32.54 N4-N5/ 41.95 I-N5/ 169.54* F-G/ 201.87 G-H/ 201.95 H-I/ 201.98 Box 1/ 169.76 Box 3/ 169.85 Box 4/ 170.75 Box 2/ 169.79 FREE # 1/ 213.95 ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 33.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 7.05E+01 N3 / 1.36E+01 N2 / 4.30E+00 N5 / 1.07E+00 N4 / 4.12E+00 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 34.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 5.28E+01 N3 / 8.68E+00 N2 / 2.33E+00 N5 / 5.84E-01 N4 / 2.23E+00 ######################################## Cycle 4000 Time 34 Hrs - 40.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation =__> "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 1.79 / 24.79 N1/ 2.79 / 24.79 C/ 2.39 / 23.96 D/ 2.08 / 22.92 N3/ 2.98 / 22.37 I/ 2.14 / 20.08 A/ 0.39 / 24.79 N2/ 4.03 / 22.93 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 2.56 / 21.49 G/ 2.21 / 20.74 H/ 2.18 / 20.30 Box cb B/ 2.30 / 22.63 Box cb C/ 2.44 / 22.52 Box cb A/ 2.14 / 22.82 Conduit/ FLOW =__> "*" Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-Nl/ 0.02 NI-C/ 58.85 C-D/ 59.22 N3-F/ 73.28 A-N1/ 0.01 N2-D/ -3.03 I-N4/ -11.86 N4-N5/ -9.00 I-N5/ 85.51 F-G/ 73.47 G-H/ 73.62 H-I/ 73.68 Box 1/ 62.34 Box 3/ 62.58 Box 4/ 62.75 Box 2/ 62.46 FREE # 1/ 77.27 ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 35.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 4.85E+01 N3 / 7.43E+00 N2 / 1.84E+00 N5 / 4.58E-01 N4 / 1.76E+00 ######################################## ######################################## => System inflows (data group K3) at 36.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 4.65E+01 N3 / 6.92E+00 N2 / 1.64E+00 N5 / 4.07E-01 N4 / 1.56E+00 ######################################## Cycle 4500 Time 36 Hrs - 45.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation => "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 1.52 / 24.52 N1/ 2.52 / 24.52 C/ 2.14 / 23.71 D/ 1.73 / 22.57 N3/ 2.66 / 22.05 I/ 2.16 / 20.10 A/ 0.12 / 24.52 N2/ 3.68 / 22.58 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 2.24 / 21.18 G/ 2.00 / 20.53 H/ 2.11 / 20.22 Box cb B/ 1.94 / 22.27 Box cb C/ 2.09 / 22.17 Box cb A/ 1.78 / 22.47 Conduit/ FLOW =_> "*" Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 NI-C/ 47.05 C-D/ 47.09 N3-F/ 55.92 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -1.70 I-N4/ -9.85 N4-N5/ -8.25 I-N5/ 65.81 F-G/ 55.95 G-H/ 55.96 H-U 55.96 Box 1/ 48.80 Box 3/ 48.83 Box 4/ 48.85 Box 2/ 48.81 FREE # 1/ 57.99 ######################################## => System inflows (data group K3) at 37.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 4.39E+01 N3 / 6.29E+00 N2 / 1.39E+00 N5 / 3.46E-01 N4 / 1.33E+00 ######################################## ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 38.00 hours( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 4.26E+01 N3 / 5.98E+00 N2 / 1.29E+00 N5 / 3.20E-01 N4 / 1.23E+00 ######################################## Cycle 5000 Time 38 Hrs - 50.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation => "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 1.42 / 24.42 N1/ 2.42 / 24.42 C/ 2.04 / 23.61 D/ 1.61 / 22.45 N3/ 2.54 / 21.93 1/ 2.17 / 20.11 A/ 0.06 / 24.46 N2/ 3.55 / 22.45 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 2.13 / 21.06 G/ 1.94 / 20.47 H/ 2.09 / 20.20 Box cb B/ 1.82 / 22.15 Box cb C/ 1.97 / 22.04 Box cb A/ 1.66 / 22.34 Conduit/ FLOW =_> ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 NI-C/ 42.83 C-D/ 42.86 N3-F/ 50.26 A-N1/ 0.00* N2-D/ -1.31 I-N4/ -9.13 N4-N5/ -7.88 I-N5/ 59.41 F-G/ 50.28 G-H/ 50.29 H-U 50.29 Box l/ 44.18 Box 3/ 44.20 Box 4/ 44.22 Box 2/ 44.19 FREE # l/ 51.86 ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 39.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 3.93E+01 N3 / 5.10E+00 N2 / 9.42E-01 N5 / 2.33E-01 N4 / 9.01E-01 ######################################## ######################################## System inflows (data group K3) at 40.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) NI / 3.51E+01 N3 / 4.01 E+00 N2 / 5.12E-01 N5 / 1.31E-01 N4 ######################################## Cycle 5500 Time 40 Hrs - 55.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation -=> "*" Junction is Surcharged. / 4.92E-01 B/ 1.23 / 24.23 N1/ 2.23 / 24.23 C/ 1.86 / 23.43 D/ 1.38 / 22.22 N3/ 2.32 / 21.71 I/ 2.18 / 20.12 A/ 0.06 / 24.46 N2/ 3.32 / 22.22 N51 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 1.92 / 20.86 G/ 1.83 / 20.37 H/ 2.07 / 20.18 Box cb B/ 1.58 / 21.91 Box cb C/ 1.73 / 21.81 Box cb A/ 1.42 / 22.11 Conduit/ FLOW ==> "*" Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 NI-C/ 35.47 C-D/ 35.57 N3-F/ 40.46 A-N1/ 0.00* N2-D/ -0.56 I-N4/ -7.86 N4-N5/ -7.33 I-N5/ 48.39 F-G/ 40.51 G-H/ 40.54 H-I/ 40.54 Box 1/ 36.17 Box 3/ 36.24 Box 4/ 36.29 Box 2/ 36.20 FREE # 1 / 41.20 ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 41.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 3.28E+01 N3 / 3.48E+00 N2 / 3.28E-01 N5 / 8.20E-02 N4 / 3.07E-01 ######################################## Table E5 - Junction Time Limitation Summary (0.10 or 0.25)* Depth * Area Timestep = ------------------------------ Sum of Flow The time this junction was the limiting junction is listed in the third column. Junction Time(.10) Time(.25) Time(sec) ----------------- B --------- 38.8767 ------------------ 97.1918 41430.0000 N1 56.8356 142.0890 0.0000 C 84.2758 150.0000 0.0000 D 6.6822 16.7055 0.0000 N3 68.6864 150.0000 0.0000 I 150.0000 150.0000 0.0000 A 28.8947 72.2367 0.0000 N2 5.8373 14.5933 45.0000 N5 150.0000 150.0000 0.0000 N4 150.0000 150.0000 0.0000 F 150.0000 150.0000 0.0000 G 150.0000 150.0000 0.0000 H 150.0000 150.0000 0.0000 Box cb B 0.8465 2.1163 3690.0000 Box cb C 0.6407 1.6017 2430.0000 Box cb A 0.2581 0.6452 38805.0000 The junction requiring the smallest time step was ... B Table E5a - Conduit Explicit Condition Summary Courant = Conduit Length Timestep = -------------------------------- Velocity + sgrt(g*depth) Conduit Implicit Condition Summary Courant = Conduit Length Timestep = -------------------------------- Velocity The 3rd column is the Explicit time step times the minimum courant time step factor Minimum Conduit Time Step in seconds in the 4th column in the list. Maximum possible is 10 * maximum time step The 5th column is the maximum change at any time step during the simulation. The 6th column is the wobble value which is an indicator of the flow stability. You should use this section to find those conduits that are slowing your model down. Use modify conduits to alter the length of the slow conduits to make your simulation faster, or change the conduit name to "CHME?????" where ????? are any characters, this will lengthen the conduit based on the model time step, not the value listed in modify conduits. *� - ----- -__ ___ --- Conduit Time(exp) Expl*Crain Time(imp) Time(min) Max Qchange Wobble Type of Soln B-NI 5.3136 5.3136 150.0000 0.2500 0.1074 0.2987 Normal Soln NI-C 18.3015 18.3015 59.3487 0.0000 0.4980 2.4716 Normal Soln C-D 15.6861 15.6861 49.3781 0.0000 -0.7733 2.8139 Normal Soln N3-F 11.0098 11.0098 28.3293 0.0000 0.2795 0.7134 Normal Soln A-N1 6.4631 6.4631 150.0000 0.0000 0.0290 0.1391 Normal Soln N2-D 16.8880 16.8880 150.0000 0.0000 -0.2286 1.7754 Normal Soln I-N4 23.7242 23.7242 94.2353 0.0000 -0.1370 1.4750 Normal Soln N4-N5 5.8475 5.8475 23.7450 316.0000 -0.2106 1.5251 Normal Soln I-N5 25.4818 25.4818 74.2736 0.0000 0.3536 0.2499 Normal Soln F-G 11.1659 11.1659 26.8321 0.0000 0.2897 0.6061 Normal Soln G-H 11.4960 11.4960 27.8167 0.0000 0.3092 0.2103 Normal Soln H-I 4.7650 4.7650 9.7893 0.0000 0.3184 0.5442 Normal Soln Box 1 2.9875 2.9875 8.1342 1123.7500 -3.5446 25.4743 Normal Soln Box 3 5.0137 5.0137 13.2745 0.0000 1.9138 15.9792 Normal Soln Box 4 11.4964 11.4964 30.0577 0.0000 -0.8491 8.1638 Normal Soln Box 2 6.9450 6.9450 18.9202 0.0000 -1.7920 14.4332 Normal Soln The conduit with the smallest time step limitation was..Box 1 The conduit with the largest wobble was.................Box 1 The conduit with the largest flow change in any consecutive time step...................................Box 1 Table E6. Final Model Condition This table is used for steady state flow comparison and is the information] saved to the hot -restart file. Final Time = 42.004 hours Junction / Depth / Elevation ==> "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 1.15 / 24.15/ N1/ 2.15 / 24.15/ C/ 1.79 / 23.36/ D/ 1.29 / 22.13/ N3/ 2.23 / 21.62/ 1/ 2.19 / 20.13/ A/ 0.06 / 24.46/ N2/ 3.23 / 22.13/ N5/ 5.16 / 20.16/ N4/ 4.66 / 20.16/ F/ 1.84 / 20.78/ G/ 1.80 / 20.33/ H/ 2.06 / 20.18/ Box cb B/ 1.48 / 21.81/ Box cb C/ 1.64 / 21.72/ Box cb A/ 1.33 / 22.02/ Conduit/ Flow =_> ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 / NI-C/ 32.80 / C-D/ 32.85 / N3-F/ 36.79 / A-N1/ 0.00*/ N2-D/ -0.34 / I-N4/ -7.20 / N4-N5/ -6.89 / I-N51 44.02 / F-G/ 36.82 / G-H/ 36.83 / H-l/ 36.83 / Box 1/ 33.21 / Box 3/ 33.25 / Box 4/ 33.28 / Box 2/ 33.23 / FREE # 1/ 37.22 / Conduit/ Velocity B-N1/ 0.00 / NI-C/ 4.64 / C-D/ 5.121 N3-F/ 3.62 / A-N1/ 0.00 / N2-D/ -0.05 / I-N4/ -0.70 / N4-N5/ -0.54 / I-N5/ 1.62 / F-G/ 3.40 / G-H/ 2.34 / H-V 1.98 / Box 1/ 4.22 / Box 3/ 3.57 / Box 4/ 2.91 / Box 2/ 3.95 / Conduit/ Width B-N1/ 3.66 / N1-C/ 5.48 / C-D/ 5.36 / N3-F/ 7.67 / A-N1/ 1.86 / N2-D/ 2.51 / I-N4/ 2.63 / N4-N5/ 0.47 / I-N5/ 9.77 / F-G/ 7.52 / G-H/ 9.70 / H-I/ 13.61 / Box 1/ 6.00 / Box 3/ 6.00 / Box 4/ 6.00 / Box 2/ 6.00 / Junction/ EGL B/ 1.151 N1/ 2.15 / C/ 2.13 / D/ 2.00 / N3/ 2.36 / 1/ 2.25 / A/ 0.06 / N2/ 3.23 / N5/ 5.20 / N4/ 4.67 / F/ 2.05 / G/ 1.98 / H/ 2.15 / Box cb B/ 1.73 / Box cb C/ 1.84 / Box cb A/ 1.61 / Junction/ Freeboard B/ 10.85 / N1/ 8.51 / Cl 11.86 / D/ 6.54 / N3/ 6.38 / I/ 9.87 / A/ 8.89 / N2/ 8.17 / N51 7.84 / N4/ 4.84 / F/ 7.73 / G/ 9.68 / H/ 9.83 / Box cb B/ 6.69 / Box cb C/ 4.88 / Box cb A/ 8.23 / Junction/ Max Volume B/ 79.47 / N1/ 92.03 / C/ 86.45 / D/ 86.60 / N3/ 65.97 / 1/ 33.83 / A/ 61.88 / N2/ 111.90 / N5/ 64.84 / N4/ 60.88 / F/ 60.10 / G/ 50.54 / H/ 42.20 / Box cb B/ 79.48 / Box cb C/ 75.44 / Box cb A/ 86.32 / Junction/Total Fldng B/ 0.00 / N1/ 0.00 / C/ 0.00 / D/ 0.00 / N3/ 0.00 / U 0.00 / A/ 0.00 / N2/ 0.00 / N5/ 0.00 / N4/ 0.00 / F/ 0.00 / G/ 0.00 / H/ 0.00 / Box cb B/ 0.00 / Box cb C/ 0.00 / Box cb A/ 0.00 / Conduit/ Cross Sectional Area B-N1/ 2.05 / NI-C/ 7.06 / C-D/ 6.42 / N3-F/ 10.17 / A-N1/ 0.75 / N2-D/ 6.44 / I-N4/ 10.21 / N4-N5/ 12.85 / I-N51 27.09 / F-G/ 10.82 / G-H/ 15.73 / H-V 18.56 / Box 1/ 7.87 / Box 3/ 9.32 / Box 4/ 11.43 / Box 2/ 8.41 / Conduit/ Final Volume B-N1/ 151.59 / N1-C/ 2790.19 / C-D/ 2155.90 / N3-F/ 1739.52 / A-N1/ 67.16 / N2-D/ 1971.64 / I-N4/ 3830.33 / N4-N5/ 1285.20 / I-N5/ 13546.52 / F-G/ 1752.44 / G-H/ 2626.57 / H-I/ 1299.11 / Box 1/ 551.21 / Box 3/ 1062.94 / Box 4/ 2938.55 / Box 2/ 1362.64 / Conduit/ Hydraulic Radius B-Nl/ 0.49 / N1-C/ 1.02 / C-D/ 0.96 / N3-F/ 0.88 / A-N1/ 0.22 / N2-D/ 0.87 / I-N4/ 1.03 / N4-N5/ 1.00 / I-N5/ 1.91 / F-G/ 1.151 G-H/ 1.33 / H-I/ 1.27 / Box l/ 0.91 / Box 3/ 1.02 / Box 4/ 1.16 / Box 2/ 0.95 / Conduit/ Upstream/ Downstream Elevation B-N1/ 24.15/ 24.15 N1-C/ 24.15/ 23.36 C-D/ 23.36/ 22.43/ N3-F/ 21.62/ 20.78 A-N1/ 24.46/ 24.15 N2-D/ 22.13/ 22.13/ I-N4/ 20.13/ 20.16 N4-N5/ 20.16/ 20.16 I-N5/ 20.13/ 20.16/ F-G/ 20.78/ 20.33 G-H/ 20.33/ 20.18 H-I/ 20.18/ 20.13/ Box 1/ 22.13/ 22.02 Box 3/ 21.81/ 21.72 Box 4/ 21.72/ 21.62/ Box 2/ 22.02/ 21.81 Table E7 - Iteration Summary Total number of time steps simulated............ 5760 Total number of passes in the simulation........ 61986 Total number of time steps during simulation.... 20232 Ratio of actual # of time steps / NTCYC......... 3.513 Average number of iterations per time step...... 3.064 Average time step size(seconds)................ 4.270 Smallest time step size(seconds)................ 0.500 Largest time step size(seconds)................ 7.500 Average minimum Conduit Courant time step (sec). 5.703 Average minimum implicit time step (sec)........ 4.866 Average minimum junction time step (sec)........ 4.866 Average Courant Factor Tf....................... 4.866 Number of times omega reduced ................... 0 Table E8 - Junction Time Step Limitation Summary Not Convr = Number of times this junction did not converge during the simulation. Avg Convr = Average junction iterations. Conv err = Mean convergence error. Omega Cng = Change of omega during iterations Max Item = Maximum number of iterations Junction Not Convr Avg Convr Total Itt Omega Cng Max Item Ittm >10 Ittm >25 Ittrn >40 B 0 3.84 77768 0 19 132 0 0 N1 0 3.93 79601 0 35 584 9 0 C 0 1.04 20977 0 8 0 0 0 D 0 1.36 27558 0 19 1 0 0 N3 0 1.09 22016 0 17 1 0 0 I 0 1.16 23567 0 18 1 0 0 A 0 2.71 54755 0 62 235 1 1 N2 0 1.18 23931 0 21 3 0 0 N5 0 1.19 24108 0 20 1 0 0 N4 0 1.15 23349 0 17 2 0 0 F 0 1.08 21933 0 7 0 0 0 G 0 1.09 22099 0 7 0 0 0 H 0 1.08 21779 0 10 1 0 0 Box cb B 0 2.49 50363 0 33 897 888 0 Box cb C 0 1.42 28762 0 15 421 0 0 Box cb A 0 4.40 89020 0 58 1328 1276 1118 Total number of iterations for all junctions.. 611586 Minimum number of possible iterations......... 323712 Efficiency of the simulation .................. 1.89 Excellent Efficiency Extran Efficiency is an indicator of the efficiency of the simulation. Ideal efficiency is one iteration per time step. Altering the underrelaxation parameter, lowering the time step, increasing the flow and head tolerance are good ways of improving the efficiency, another is lowering the internal time step. The lower thel efficiency generally the faster your model will run. If your efficiency is less than 1.5 then you may try increasing your time step so that your overall simulation] is faster. Ideal efficiency would be around 2.0 1 Good Efficiency < 1.5 mean iterations Excellent Efficiency < 2.5 and > 1.5 mean iterations Good Efficiency < 4.0 and > 2.5 mean iterations Fair Efficiency < 7.5 and > 4.0 mean iterations Poor Efficiency > 7.5 mean iterations Table E9 - JUNCTION SUMMARY STATISTICS The Maximum area is only the area of the node, it does not include the area of the surrounding conduits) Uppermost Maximum Time Feet of Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Ground PipeCrown Junction of Surcharge Freeboard Junction Gutter Gutter Gutter Junction Elevation Elevation Elevation Occurence at Max of node Area Depth Width Velocity Name --------------- feet feet feet Hr. Min. Elevation feet ft^2 feet feet ftJs B --------- 35 -------- 28.392 -------- 29.3245 --------- 30 1 --------- 0.9325 -------- 5.6755 -------- 12.566 --------- 0 --------- 0 --------- 0 N1 32.66 28.3 29.3239 30 1 1.0239 3.3361 12.566 0 0 0 C 35.22 27.66 28.4496 30 0 0.7896 6.7704 12.566 0 0 0 D 28.67 26.92 27.7325 30 0 0.8125 0.9375 12.566 0 0 0 N3 28 27.65 24.6399 30 2 0 3.3601 12.566 0 0 0 I 30 28.94 20.6318 30 3 0 9.3682 12.566 0 0 0 A 33.35 27.46 29.3247 30 1 1.8647 4.0253 12.566 0 0 0 N2 30.3 22.4 27.8049 30 0 5.4049 2.4951 12.566 0 0 0 N5 28 26 20.16 18 0 0 7.84 12.566 0 0 0 N4 25 20 20.3446 30 3 0.3446 4.6554 12.566 0 0 0 F 28.51 27.1975 23.72 30 2 0 4.79 12.566 0 0 0 G 30.01 29.2725 22.5547 30 2 0 7.4553 12.566 0 0 0 H 30.01 28.855 21.473 30 3 0 8.537 12.566 0 0 0 Box cb B 28.5 24.3296 26.6517 30 0 2.3221 1.8483 12.566 0 0 0 Box cb C 26.6 24.0788 26.0805 30 0 2.0017 0.5195 12.566 0 0 0 Box cb A 30.25 24.686 27.5561 30 0 2.8701 2.6939 12.566 0 0 0 Table E10 - CONDUIT SUMMARY STATISTICS Note: The peak flow may be less than the design flow and the conduit may still surcharge because of the downstream boundary conditions. * denotes an open conduit that has been overtopped this is a potential source of severe errors Conduit Maximum Maximum Time Maximum Time Ratio of Maximum Depth Ratio Ratio Design Design Vertical Computed of Computed of Max. to at Pipe Ends d/D d/D Conduit Flow Velocity Depth Flow Occurence Velocity Occurence Design Upstream Dwnstrm US DS Name --------------- (cfs) ------- (ft/s) -------- (in) -------- (cfs) Hr. Min. (ft/s) Hr. Min. Flow (ft) (ft) B-N1 99.4838 5.0667 60 ------- 0.3718 ----------- 30 5 ------- -0.2257 ---------- 19 37 ------- 0.0037 -------- 29.3245 -------- ----- 29.3239 1.186 ----- 1.204 N1-C 158.2956 5.5986 72 193.892 30 1 6.6556 29 20 1.2249 29.3239 28.4495 1.17 1.131 C-D 172.9674 6.1175 72 194.001 30 1 6.8046 28 45 1.1216 28.4496 27.7325 1.146 1.135 N3-F 728.053 6.9132 99.12 242.452 30 2 6.0396 30 1 0.333 24.64 23.72 0.6356 0.579 A-N1 70.3134 9.9473 36 0.0898 33 32 -0.031 27 9 0.0013 29.3247 29.3239 1.621 2.008 N2-D 75.905 7.8894 42 -11.841 30 0 -1.221 30 0 -0.156 27.8049 27.7314 1.967 2.523 I-N4 95.9369 7.6344 48 43.021 30 4 3.9795 30 4 0.4484 20.6318 20.3446 0.6729 1.086 N4-N5 99.8147 7.943 48 54.0913 30 4 4.2131 30 4 0.5419 20.3446 20.16 1.196 1.29 I-N5 1518.25 15.976 132 199.3846 30 3 6.7319 30 3 0.1313 20.6318 20.16 0.2447 0.4691 F-G 769.4335 6.6961 91.08 242.3859 30 2 6.0376 30 1 0.315 23.72 22.5547 0.6301 0.5299 G-H 2216.818 9.5668 128.88 242.305 30 3 6.0056 30 3 0.1093 22.5547 21.473 0.3745 0.3127 H-I 879.2816 6.7384 76.44 242.3471 30 3 7.1535 30 3 0.2756 21.473 20.6318 0.5272 0.4226 Box 1 134.9276 5.622 48 208.0356 30 2 8.6399 30 2 1.5418 27.7314 27,5499 1.722 1.716 Box 3 134.9276 5.622 48 206.6663 30 0 8.5908 30 0 1.5317 26.6517 26.0805 1.58 1.5 Box 4 148.9257 6.2052 48 205.9513 30 1 8.564 30 1 1.3829 26.0805 24.64 1.5 1.312 Box 2 134.9276 5.622 48 206.7757 30 2 8.5906 30 2 1.5325 27.5499 26.6517 1.716 1.58 FREE # 1 Undefnd Undefnd Undefn 256.3057 30 3 Table E11. Area assumptions used in the analysis) Subcritical and Critical flow assumptions from Subroutine Head. See Figure 17-1 in the manual for further information. Duration Duration Durat. of Durat. of of of Sub- Upstream Downstream Maximum Maximum Maximum Conduit Dry Critical Critical Critical Hydraulic X-Sect Vel*D Name Flow(min) Flow(min) Flow(min) Flow(min) Radius-m Area(ft^2) (ft^2/s) -------- B-N1 -------------------- 87.2500 --------- 1342.1250 --------- 10.6250 --------- 0.0000 ----------------- 1.5207 20.5785 0.0622 Nl-C 0.1875 1434.7500 0.0000 5.0625 1.8254 29.6100 45.1745 C-D 0.1875 415.0000 0.0000 1024.8125 1.8248 29.6364 44.6692 N3-F 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.9191 40.1800 30.2655 A-N1 773.5000 664.8333 1.6667 0.0000 0.8395 7.2672 0.0421 N2-1) 3.1250 1436.8750 0.0000 0.0000 0.9604 9.8550 9.5425 I-N4 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0928 10.8152 13.9946 N4-N5 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 12.9107 20.9397 I-N5 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0567 29.6179 26.4286 F-G 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7776 40.1516 26.5755 G-H 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8640 40.3613 22.1525 H-I 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6416 33.8905 21.6286 Box 1 0.3750 1439.6250 0.0000 0.0000 1.6298 26.3150 57.8259 Box 3 3.2500 1436.7500 0.0000 0.0000 1.6233 26.3139 51.8803 Box 4 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5767 26.3055 47.7148 Box 2 1.8750 1438.1250 0.0000 0.0000 1.6200 26.3134 55.6875 Table E12. Mean Conduit Flow Information Mean Total Mean Low Mean Mean Mean Mean Conduit Flow Flow Percent Flow Froude Hydraulic Cross Conduit Name (cfs) (ft^3) Change Weightng Number Radius Area Roughness B-NI -0.0011-95.9550 0.0018 0.9654 0.0002 0.8648 8.3080 0.0120 NI-C 62.06115362080.7 0.0334 0.9998 0.5760 1.2890 14.6348 0.0140 C-D 62.0190 5358438.5 0.0388 0.9998 0.6378 1.2461 14.2927 0.0140 N3-F 77.1082 6662149.0 0.0445 1.0000 0.4715 1.3011 20.7742 0.0251 A -NI 0.0000-0.1598 0.0006 0.6045 0.0004 0.4719 3.2849 0.0140 N2-D -3.5594-307535.1 0.0086 0.9986 0.0006 0.8573 7.8521 0.0140 I-N4 0.6577 56822.627 0.0125 1.0000 0.1289 1.0422 10.2586 0.0140 N4-N5 4.0787 352400.39 0.0129 1.0000 0.0998 1.0000 12.8633 0.0140 I-N5 76.4380 6604240.1 0.0363 1.0000 0.4091 1.9452 27.6615 0.0140 F-G 77.0975 6661227.5 0.0408 1.0000 0.4901 1.4101 20.8632 0.0254 G-H 77.0932 6660849.5 0.0414 1.0000 0.4315 1.5197 23.9552 0.0255 H-I 77.0928 6660816.4 0.0424 1.0000 0.4793 1.3967 23.0679 0.0250 Box 1 65.5641 5664739.2 0.1771 0.9997 0.6057 1.0713 14.7190 0.0140 Box 3 65.5366 5662361.2 0.1122 0.9986 0.5315 1.1298 15.6640 0.0140 Box 4 65.5136 5660377.0 0.0706 1.0000 0.4627 1.2045 17.0603 0.0140 Box 2 65.5535 5663821.7 0.1063 0.9991 0.5826 1.0931 15.0717 0.0140 FREE # 1 81.4083 7033679.6 * _---__------------- Table E13. Channel losses(H), headwater depth (HW), tailwater depth (TW), critical and normal depth (Yc and Yn). Use this section for culvert comparisons *_-__------------- Conduit Maximum Head Friction Critical Normal HW TW Name Flow Loss Loss Depth Depth Elevat Elevat --------------------------- B-N1 0.1580 --------- 0.0000 --------- 0.0000 --------- 0.0577 --------- 0.1066 --------- 26.7606 26.7609 Max Flow N1-C 193.8907 0.0000 0.8761 3.8026 6.0000 29.3114 28.4407 Max Flow C-D 193.9331 0.0000 0.7440 3.8030 6.0000 28.4397 27.7003 Max Flow N3-F 242.4520 0.0000 0.7735 3.8851 5.6716 24.6400 23.7192 Max Flow A -NI 0.0881 0.0000 0.0000 0.0693 0.0505 25.8553 25.8552 Max Flow N2-D-0.3378 0.0000 -0.0001 0.1639 0.1605 22.1348 22.1349 Max Flow I-N4 43.0174 0.0000 0.4682 1.9595 1.8771 20.6302 20.3445 Max Flow N4-N5 54.0847 0.0000 0.1574 2.2092 2.0985 20.3443 20.1600 Max Flow I-N5 199.3838 0.0000 0.7689 3.2085 2.6892 20.6318 20.1600 Max Flow F-G 242.3852 0.0000 0.8871 3.8811 5.1329 23.7198 22.5547 Max Flow G-H 242.3050 0.0000 0.8553 3.1646 4.3555 22.5544 21.4728 Max Flow H-I 242.3025 0.0000 0.5296 3.0021 3.9304 21.4726 20.6318 Max Flow Box 1 207.2076 0.0000 0.3607 3.3331 4.0000 27.6659 27.2564 Max Flow Box 3 206.6012 0.0000 0.5850 3.3265 4.0000 26.5370 25.9537 Max Flow Box 4 205.6248 0.0000 1.3079 3.3160 4.0000 25.9673 24.6335 Max Flow Box 2 206.1120 0.0000 0.8264 3.3213 4.0000 27.4553 26.5680 Max Flow Table E13a. CULVERT ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION, and the time the culvert was in a particular classification during the simulation. The time is in minutes. The Dynamic Wave Equation is used for all conduit analysis but the culvert flow classification condition is based on the HW and TW depths. Mild Mild Steep Mild Mild Slope Slope TW Slope TW Slug Flow Slope Slope Critical D Control Insignf Outlet/ TW > D TW <= D Conduit Outlet Outlet Entrance Entrance Outlet Outlet Outlet Inlet Inlet Name Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Configuration B-N1 0.0000 1279.000 0 Kinematic Wave Approximations Time in Minutes for Each Condition Conduit Duration of Slope Super- Roll Name Normal Flow Criteria Critical Waves -------------------- B-N1 ------------------ 0.0000 794.9204 --------- 0.0000 0.0000 NI-C 0.5500 61.8475 0.0000 0.0000 C-D 0.4473 194.1637 1.1250 0.0000 N3-F 0.0000 304.3125 0.0000 0.0000 A-N1 255.0833 536.4167 0.0000 0.0000 N2-D 9.0000 11.8750 0.0000 0.0000 I-N4 0.0000 364.8750 0.0000 0.0000 N4-N5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I-N5 326.12501440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 F-G 0.0000 589.1875 0.0000 0.0000 G-H 0.0000 589.0000 0.0000 0.0000 H-1 0.0000 588.6250 0.0000 0.0000 Box 1 0.8750 1089.0625 2.7500 0.0000 Box 3 2.8750 1163.8500 0.0000 0.0000 Box 4 0.0000 1164.7750 0.0000 0.0000 Box 2 66.8750 1159.6375 2.8750 0.0000 Table E14 - Natural Channel Overbank Flow Information <---- Maximum Velocity -----> <------ Maximum Flow -------> <------ Maximum Area ------> <--- Max. Storage Volume ---> Conduit Left Center Right Left Center Right Left Center Right Left Center Right Maximum Name --------- Velocity Velocity Velocity Flow Flow --------------------------------------------- Flow Area Area Area Area Area Area Depth N3-F 1.0431 6.2922 0.9158 --------- 1.4036 240.5366 ------------------ 0.5118 --------- 1.3457 ------------------ 38.2276 0.5589 ------------------ 230.1094 6536.9261 95.5674 5.0469 F-G 1.0279 6.7845 1.4586 0.9847 234.7622 6.6390 0.9580 34.6028 4.5517 155.1912 5605.6473 737.3695 4.4553 G-H 1.1308 6.7608 1.5726 1.2514 233.8153 7.2384 1.1067 34.5838 4.6028 184.8157 5775.4881 768.6756 3.7333 H-I 0.0000 7.2561 0.8208 0.0000 241.9166 0.4305 0.0000 33.3400 0.5246 0.0000 2333.7970 36.7187 3.0840 Table E14a - Natural Channel Encroachment Information <------- Existing Conveyance Condition -------> <----- Encroachment Conveyance Condition -----> <- % Volume --> <-- Encroachment Data --> Conduit Left Centre Right Total Left Right Left Centre Right Total Left Right Reduction Depth Name Bank Channel Bank Station Station Bank Channel Bank Station Station Left Right Incr. Method N3-F 23.324 3997.1 8.5046 4028.9-5.5725 8.8090 23.324 3997.1 8.5046 4028.9-5.5725 8.8090 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None F-G 15.950 3802.5 107.53 3926.0-7.4033 10.669 15.950 3802.5 107.53 3926.0-7.4033 10.669 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None G-H 2O.504 3831.1 118.60 3970.2-3.8159 14.109 20.504 3831.1 118.60 3970.2-3.8159 14.109 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None H-I 0.0000 2991.7 5.3243 2997.0-6.8184 12.477 0.0000 2991.7 5.3243 2997.0-6.8184 12.477 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None Table E 14b - Floodplain Mapping Conduit Upstream Downstream Channel Center <----- Left Offsets ------> <----- Right Offsets ------> <- Channel Widths-> Name WS Elev. WS Elev. Length Station Natural Encroach Bank Natural Encroach Bank Total Encroach. N3-F 24.6400 23.7200 171.0000 2.4000 7.9725 7.9725 5.1000 6.4090 6.4090 5.1900 14.3815 14.3815 F-G 23.7200 22.5547 162.0000 0.0000 7.4033 7.4033 5.3100 10.6693 10.6693 4.4720 18.0726 18.0726 G-H 22.5547 21.4730 167.0000 0.0000 3.8159 3.8159 1.8800 14.1088 14.1088 8.7000 17.9247 17.9247 H-I 21.4730 20.6318 70.0000 0.0000 6.8184 6.8184 8.9100 12.4770 12.4770 9.8800 19.2954 19.2954 Table E15 -SPREADSHEET INFO LIST Conduit Flow and Junction Depth Information for use in spreadsheets. The maximum values in this table are the true maximum values because they sample every time step. The values in the review results may only be the maximum of a subset of all the time steps in the run. Note: These flows are only the flows in a single barrel. Conduit Maximum Total Maximum Maximum ## Junction Invert Maximum Name Flow Flow Velocity Volume ## Name Elevation Elevation (cfs) (ft^3) (ft/s) (ft^3) ## (ft) (ft) ----------- -------------------- -------------------- ##---------------- ------------------ B-N1 0.3718-95.9550-0.2257 1523.2005 ## B 23.0000 29.3245 NI-C 193.8920 5362080.728 6.6556 11700.9300 ## N1 22.0000 29.3239 C-D 194.0010 5358438.480 6.8046 9954.8555 ## C 21.5700 28.4496 N3-F 242.4520 6662148.971 6.0396 6806.3271 ## D 20.8400 27.7325 A -NI 0.0898-0.1598-0.0310 640.2530 ## N3 19.3900 24.6399 N2-D -11.8410-307535.088 -1.2210 2972.8176 ## I 17.9400 20.6318 I-N4 43.0210 56822.6268 3.9795 4247.2409 ## A 24.4000 29.3247 N4-N5 54.0913 352400.3922 4.2131 1288.0010 ## N2 18.9000 27.8049 I-N5 199.3846 6604240.138 6.7319 14984.5372 ## N5 15.0000 20.1600 F-G 242.3859 6661227.537 6.0376 6362.6754 ## N4 15.5000 20.3446 G-H 242.3050 6660849.518 6.0056 6616.7849 ## F 18.9375 23.7200 H-I 242.34716660816.447 7.1535 2314.6189 ## G 18.5325 22.5547 Box 1 208.0356 5664739.230 8.6399 1842.0619 ## H 18.1150 21.4730 Box 3 206.6663 5662361.218 8.5908 2999.9282 ## Box cb B 20.3296 26.6517 Box 4 205.9513 5660377.009 8.5640 6761.8546 ## Box cb C 20.0788 26.0805 Box 2 206.7757 5663821.721 8.5906 4263.0519 ## Box cb A 20.6860 27.5561 FREE # 1 256.3057 7033679.580 0.0000 0.0000 ## Table E15a -SPREADSHEET REACH LIST Peak flow and Total Flow listed by Reach or those conduits or diversions having the same upstream and downstream nodes. Upstream Downstream Maximum Total Node Node Flow Flow (cfs) (ft^3) -------------------------- B ---------- N1 0.3718 --------- -95.9550 N1 C 193.8920 5362080.73 C D 194.0010 5358438.48 N3 F 242.4520 6662148.97 A N1 0.0898 -0.1598 D N2 11.8410 307535.088 I N4 43.0210 56822.6268 N4 N5 54.0913 352400.392 I N5 199.3846 6604240.14 F G 242.3859 6661227.54 G H 242.3050 6660849.52 H I 242.3471 6660816.45 D Box cb A 208.0356 5664739.23 Box cb B Box cb C 206.6663 5662361.22 Box cb C N3 205.9513 5660377.01 Box cb A Box cb B 206.7757 5663821.72 ######################################################### # Table E16. New Conduit Information Section # # Conduit Invert (IE) Elevation and Conduit # # Maximum Water Surface (WS) Elevations # Conduit Name Upstream Node Downstream Node IE Up IE Dn WS Up WS Dn Conduit Type B-N1 B N1 23.3920 23.3000 29.3245 29.3239 Circular NI-C N1 C 22.3000 21.6600 29.3239 28.4495 Circular C-D C D 21.5700 20.9200 28.4496 27.7325 Circular N3-F N3 F 19.3900 18.9375 24.6400 23.7200 Natural A-N1 A N1 24.4600 23.3000 29.3247 29.3239 Circular N2-D D N2 20.9200 18.9000 27.7314 27.8049 Circular I-N4 I N4 17.9400 16.0000 20.6318 20.3446 Circular N4-N5 N4 N5 15.5600 15.0000 20.3446 20.1600 Circular I-N5 I N5 17.9400 15.0000 20.6318 20.1600 Circular F-G F G 18.9375 18.5325 23.7200 22.5547 Natural G-H G H 18.5325 18.1150 22.5547 21.4730 Natural H-I H I 18.1150 17.9400 21.4730 20.6318 Natural Box 1 D Box cb A 20.8400 20.6860 27.7314 27.5499 Rectangle Box 3 Box cb B Box cb C 20.3296 20.0788 26.6517 26.0805 Rectangle Box 4 Box cb C N3 20.0788 19.3900 26.0805 24.6400 Rectangle Box 2 Box cb A Box cb B 20.6860 20.3296 27.5499 26.6517 Rectangle Table E18 -Junction Continuity Error. Division by Volume added 11/96 1 Continuity Error = Net Flow + Beginning Volume - Ending Volume ------------------------------------------------- Total Flow + (Beginning Volume + Ending Volume)/2 Net Flow = Node Inflow - Node Outflow Total Flow = absolute (Inflow + Outflow) Intermediate column is a judgement on the node continuity error. Excellent < 1 percent Great 1 to 2 percent Good 2 to 5 percent Fair 5 to 10 percent Poor 10 to 25 percent Bad 25 to 50 percent Terrible > 50 percent Junction <------ Continuity Error -------> Remaining Beginning Net Flow Total Flow Failed to Name Volume % of Node % of Inflow Volume Volume Thru Node Thru Node Converge B-5.2698-3.7276 0.0001 90.8343 0.0000 85.5645 95.9550 0 N1 761.4298 0.0071 0.0108 1514.4294 0.0000 2275.859210726710.90 0 C 1091.9197 0.0102 0.0155 2471.1880 0.0000 3563.107710720519.21 0 D-1096.8109-0.0097 0.0156 2247.6267 0.0000 1150.8158 11330712.80 0 N3 360.3037 0.0027 0.0051 2368.2383 560.1840 2168.357913326490.36 0 I-64.6877-0.0005 0.0009 9304.1994 9361.6093 -122.097513321879.21 0 A-28.9509-222.6177 0.0004 25.6899 0.0000 -3.2609 0.1598 0 N2 207.8949 0.0337 0.0029 933.4377 15.8332 1125.4994 616195.9545 0 N5 91.2214 0.0006 0.0013 7498.6882 7540.2257 49.683814067420.53 0 N4 10.2509 0.0014 0.0001 2536.9494 2549.5502 -2.3500 704799.5028 0 F-5.2714 0.0000 0.0001 1751.8699 923.8147 822.783813323376.51 0 G-34.7104-0.0003 0.0005 2219.9180 1907.4362 277.771513322077.06 0 H-49.4470-0.0004 0.0007 2000.8521 1927.0530 24.352113321665.97 0 Box cb B 173.6725 0.0015 0.0025 1237.1994 0.0000 1410.8719 11326182.94 0 Box cb C 221.0021 0.0020 0.0031 2040.7485 284.0411 1977.7096 11322738.23 Box cb A 48.6575 0.0004 0.0007 977.4264 0.0000 1026.0838 11328560.95 0 The total continuity error was 1681.2 cubic feet The remaining total volume was 39219. cubic feet Your mean node continuity error was Excellent Your worst node continuity error was Excellent Table E19 - Junction Inflow Sources Units are either ft^3 or m^3 depending on the units in your model. Constant User Interface DWF Inflow RNF Layer Inflow Junction Inflow Inflow Inflow Inlow through Inflow Outflow Evaporation from Name ---------- to Node ---------- to Node ---------------------- to Node ----------- to Node Outfall to Node from Node from Node 2D Layer N1 0.0000 5.3646E+06 0.0000 ----------- 0.0000 ----------- 0.0000 ----------- 0.0000 ----------- 0.0000 ----------- 0.0000 0.0000 N3 0.0000 1.0040E+06 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2 0.0000 308659.1100 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N5 0.0000 77099.9775 0.0000 0.0000 0.4388 0.0000 7.0337E+06 0.0000 0.0000 N4 0.0000 295574.7525 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Table E20 - Junction Flooding and Volume Listing. The maximum volume is the total volume in the node including the volume in the flooded storage area. This is the max volume at any time. The volume in the flooded storage area is the total volume) above the ground elevation, where the flooded pond storage area starts. The fourth column is instantaneous, the fifth is the) sum of the flooded volume over the entire simulation] Units are either ft^3 or m^3 depending on the units. Out of System Stored in System Junction Surcharged Flooded Flooded Maximum Ponding Allowed Name Time (min) Time(min) Volume Volume Flood Pond Volume B 68.7000 0.0000 0.0000 79.4738 0.0000 N1 73.8026 0.0000 0.0000 92.0317 0.0000 C 64.6875 0.0000 0.0000 86.4485 0.0000 D 71.0139 0.0000 0.0000 86.6001 0.0000 N3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 65.9713 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 33.8257 0.0000 A 166.5833 0.0000 0.0000 61.8845 0.0000 N2 763.8333 0.0000 0.0000 111.8996 0.0000 N5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 64.8406 0.0000 N4 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 60.8769 0.0000 F 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 60.0964 0.0000 G 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 50.5424 0.0000 H 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 42.1971 0.0000 Box cb B 261.0625 0.0000 0.0000 79.4776 0.0000 Box cb C 262.5000 0.0000 0.0000 75.4423 0.0000 Box cb A 259.6875 0.0000 0.0000 86.3169 0.0000 Simulation Specific Information Number of Input Conduits.......... 16 Number of Simulated Conduits...... 17 Number of Natural Channels........ 4 Number of Junctions ............... 16 Number of Storage Junctions....... 0 Number of Weirs ................... 0 Number of Orifices ................ 0 Number of Pumps................... 0 Number of Free Outfalls........... 1 Number of Tide Gate Outfalls...... 0 Average % Change in Junction or Conduit is defined as: Conduit % Change => 100.0 (Q(n+l) - Q(n)) / Qfull Junction % Change => 100.0 (Y(n+l) - Y(n)) / Yfull The Conduit with the largest average change was..Box 1 with 0.177 percent The Junction with the largest average change was.Box cb A with 0.645 percent The Conduit with the largest sinuosity was ....... Box 1 with 25.474 * _____--------------------------- Table E21. Continuity balance at the end of the simulation Junction Inflow, Outflow or Street Flooding Error = Inflow + Initial Volume - Outflow - Final Volume Inflow Inflow Average Junction ---------- Volume,ft^3 Inflow, cfs N1 ------------------------- 5.36453E+06 62.0895 N3 1.00396E+06 11.6200 N2 308660.8665 3.5725 N5 77100.4173 0.8924 N4 295576.4838 3.4210 N5 -7.034E+06 -81.4083 Outflow Outflow Average Junction Volume,ft^3 Outflow, cfs N5 7.03368E+06 81.4083 Initial system volume = 25069.7474 Cu Ft Total system inflow volume = 7.049939E+06 Cu Ft Inflow + Initial volume = 7.075009E+06 Cu Ft Total system outflow = 7.033680E+06 Cu Ft Volume left in system = 39219.2956 Cu Ft Evaporation = 0.0000 Cu Ft Outflow + Final Volume = 7.072899E+06 Cu Ft Total Model Continuity Error Error in Continuity, Percent = 0.02381 Error in Continuity, ft^3 = 1681.2041 + Error means a continuity loss, - a gain ###################### # Table E22. Numerical Model judgement section # Your overall error was 0.0238 percent Worst nodal error was in node D with-0.0097 percent Of the total inflow this loss was 0.0156 percent Your overall continuity error was Excellent Excellent Efficiency Efficiency of the simulation 1.89 Most Number of Non Convergences at one Node 0. Total Number Non Convergences at all Nodes 0. Total Number of Nodes with Non Convergences 0. _> Hydraulic model simulation ended normally. XP-SWMM Simulation ended normally. _> Your input file was named : MARENTON\05731 Renton Village\Modeling\Design\Design Future\Altematives\Dec 06 Alt\Alt 1 25 dec 06.DAT _> Your output file was named: MARENTON\05731 Renton Village\Modeling\Design\Design Future\Alternatives\Dec 06 Alt\Alt 1 25 dec 06.out SWMM Simulation Date and Time Summary Starting Date... December 22, 2006 Time... 7:38:24:93 Ending Date... December 22, 2006 Time... 7:39:51: 6 Elapsed Time... 1.43550 minutes or 86.13000 seconds XP-SWMM MODELING OUTPUT - Alternative 1 (West -4' x 6' Box Culvert) — 100-Year Storm Current Directory: C:\XPS\XP-SWMM Engine Name: C:\XPS\XP-SWMM\swmmengw.exe Read 1 line(s) and found 1 items(s) from your cfg file. Input File: \Design\Design Future\Altematives\Dec 06 Alt\Alt 1 100 dec 06.XP XP-SWMM Storm and Wastewater Management Model Interface Version: 9.52 Engine Version: 9.28 Developed by XP Software =__ _—_---____--_— XP Software November, 2004 Data File Version ---> 11.7 Serial Number: 42-xxx-0000 XP Software (Evaluation) Engine Name: C:\XPS\XP-SWMM\swmmengw.exe Input and Output file names by Layer Input File to Layer # 1 JOT.US Output File to Layer # 1 JOT.US Special command line arguments in XP-SWMM2000. This now includes program defaults. $Keywords are the program) defaults. Other Keywords are from the SWMMCOM.CFG file.1 or the command line or any cfg file on the command line.1 Examples include these in the file xpswm.bat under the section :solve or in the windows version XPSWMM32 in the) file solve.bat Note: the cfg file should be in the subdirectory swmxp or defined by the set variable in the xpswm.bat file. Some examples of the command lines possible) are shown below: swmmd swmmcom.cfg swmmd my.cfg swmmd nokeys nconv5 pery extranwq $powerstation 0.0000 1 2 $pery 0.0000 0 4 $oldegg 0.0000 0 7 $as 0.0000 0 11 $noflat 0.0000 0 21 $oldomega 0.0000 0 24 $oldvol 0.0000 1 28 $implicit 0.0000 1 29 $oldhot 0.0000 1 31 $oldscs 0.0000 0 33 $flood 0.0000 1 40 $nokeys 0.0000 0 42 $pzero 0.0000 0 55 $oldvoi2 0.0000 2 59 $storage2 0.0000 3 62 $oldhotl 0.0000 1 63 $pumpwt 0.0000 1 70 $ecloss 0.0000 1 77 $exout 0.0000 0 97 SPATIAL=0.55 0.5500 5 124 $djref = -1.0 -0.1000 3 143 $weirlen = 50 50.0000 1 153 $oldbnd 0.0000 1 154 $nogrelev 0.0000 1 161 $ncmid 0.0000 0 164 $new nl 97 0.0000 2 290 $best97 0.0000 1 294 $newbound 0.0000 1 295 $q_tol = 0.1 0.0010 1 316 $new storage 0.0000 1 322 $old_iteration 0.0000 1 333 $minlen=30.0 30.0000 1 346 $review_ elevation 0.0000 1 383 $use_half volume 0.0000 1 385 $min is = 0.5 0.5000 1 407 $design_restart = on 0.0000 1 412 $zero_value=l.e-05 0.0000 1 415 $relax depth = on 0.0000 1 427 Parameter Values on the Tapes Common B1ock.These are the values read from the data file and dynamically allocated by the model for this simulation. Number of Subcatchments in the Runoff Block (NW).... 0 Number of Channel/Pipes in the Runoff Block (NG).... 0 Runoff Water quality constituents (NRQ)............. 0 Runoff Land Uses per Subcatchment (NLU)............. 0 Number of Elements in the Transport Block (NET)..... 0 Number of Storage Junctions in Transport (NTSE)..... 0 Number of Input Hydrographs in Transport (NTH)...... 0 Number of Elements in the Extran Block (NEE)........ 17 Number of Groundwater Subcatchments in Runoff (NGW). 0 Number of Interface locations for all Blocks (NIE).. 17 Number of Pumps in Extran (NEP)..................... 0 Number of Orifices in Extran (NEO).................. 0 Number of Tide Gates/Free Outfalls in Extran (NTG).. 1 Number of Extran Weirs (NEW) ........................ 0 Number of scs hydrograph points ..................... 1 Number of Extran printout locations (NPO)........... 0 Number of Tide elements in Extran (NTE)............. 1 Number of Natural channels (NNC).................... 4 Number of Storage junctions in Extran (NVSE)........ 0 Number of Time history data points in Extran(NTVAL). 0 Number of Variable storage elements in Extran (NVST) 0 Number of Input Hydrographs in Extran (NEH)......... 5 Number of Particle sizes in Transport Block (NPS)... 0 Number of User defined conduits (NHW)............... 17 Number of Connecting conduits in Extran (NECC)...... 20 Number of Upstream elements in Transport (NTCC)..... 10 Number of Storage/treatment plants (NSTU)........... 0 Number of Values for RI lines in Transport (NR1).... 0 Number of Nodes to be allowed for (NNOD)............ 17 Number of Plugs in a Storage Treatment Unit......... 1 ####################################################### # Entry made to the HYDRAULIC Layer(Block) of SWMM # # Last Updated October,2000 by XP Software # Renton Village Existing HYDRAULICS TABLES IN THE OUTPUT FILE These are the more important tables in the output file. You can use your editor to find the table numbers, for example: search for Table E20 to check continuity. This output file can be imported into a Word Processor and printed on US letter or A4 paper using portrait mode, courier font, a size of 8 pt. and margins of 0.75 i i Table El - Basic Conduit Data Table E2 - Conduit Factor Data Table E3a - Junction Data Table E3b - Junction Data Table E4 - Conduit Connectivity Data Table E4a - Dry Weather Flow Data Table E4b - Real Time Control Data Table E5 - Junction Time Step Limitation Summary Table E5a - Conduit Explicit Condition Summary Table E6 - Final Model Condition Table E7 - Iteration Summary Table E8 - Junction Time Step Limitation Summary Table E9 - Junction Summary Statistics Table E10 - Conduit Summary Statistics Table El 1 - Area assumptions used in the analysis Table E12 - Mean conduit information Table E13 - Channel losses(H) and culvert info Table E13a - Culvert Analysis Classification Table E14 - Natural Channel Overbank Flow Information Table E14a - Natural Channel Encroachment Information Table E14b - Floodplain Mapping Table E15 -Spreadsheet Info List Table E15a - Spreadsheet Reach List Table E16 - New Conduit Output Section Table E17 - Pump Operation Table E18 - Junction Continuity Error Table E19 - Junction Inflow Sources Table E20 - Junction Flooding and Volume List Table E21 - Continuity balance at simulation end Table E22 - Model Judgement Section Time Control from Hydraulics Job Control Year......... 2008 Month....... 1 Day.......... 8 Hour........ 18 Minute....... 0 Second...... 0 Control information for simulation Integration cycles ................. 5760 Length of integration step is...... 15.00 seconds Simulation length .................. 24.00 hours Do not create equiv. pipes(NEQUAL). 0 Use U.S. customary units for 1/0... 0 Printing starts in cycle........... 1 Intermediate printout intervals of. 500 cycles Intermediate printout intervals of. 125.00 minutes Summary printout intervals of...... 500 cycles Summary printout time interval of.. 125.00 minutes Hot start file parameter (REDO).... 0 Initial time ....................... 18.00 hours Iteration variables: Flow Tolerance. 0.00010 Head Tolerance. 0.00050 Minimum depth (m or ft)......... 0.00001 Underrelaxation parameter....... 0.85000 Time weighting parameter........ 0.85000 Conduit roughness factor........ 1.00000 Flow adjustment factor.......... 1.00000 Initial Condition Smoothing..... 0 Courant Time Step Factor........ 1.00000 Default Expansion/Contraction K. 0.00000 Default Entrance/Exit K......... 0.00000 Routing Method .................. Dynamic Wave Default surface area of junctions... 12.57 square feet. Minimum Junction/Conduit Depth...... 0.00001 feet. Ponding Area Coefficient............ 5000.00 Ponding Area Exponent ............... 1.0000 Minimum Orifice Length .............. 300.00 feet. NJSW input hydrograph junctions..... 5 or user defined hydrographs.... Natural Cross -Section information for Channel N3-F Cross -Section ID (from X1 card) : 1.0 Channel sequence number: 1 Left Overbank Length 171.0 ft Maximum Elevation 28.39 ft. Main Channel Length 171.0 ft Maximum depth 8.26 ft. Right Overbank Length : 171.0 ft Maximum Section Area : 105.3132 ft^2 Maximum hydraulic radius: 3.40 ft. Manning N : 0.050 to Station -2.7 Max topwidth : 23.24 ft. It It : 0.025 in main Channel Maximum Wetted Perimeter : 3.10E+01 ft " : 0.050 Beyond station 7.6 Max left bank area : 22.69 ft^2 Max right bank area . 11.34 ft^2 Allowable Encroachment Depth: 0.00 ft Max center channel area : 71.2900 ft^2 Natural Cross -Section information for Channel F-G Cross -Section ID (from X1 card) : 2.0 Channel sequence number: 2 Left Overbank Length 162.0 ft Maximum Elevation 26.50 ft. Main Channel Length 162.0 ft Maximum depth 7.59 ft. Right Overbank Length 162.0 ft Maximum Section Area : 114.9073 ft^2 Maximum hydraulic radius: 3.38 ft. Manning N : 0.050 to Station -5.3 Max topwidth : 28.20 ft. it " : 0.025 in main Channel Maximum Wetted Perimeter: 3.40E+01 ft " : 0.050 Beyond station 4.5 Max left bank area . 17.87 ft^2 Max right bank area : 31.77 ft^2 Allowable Encroachment Depth: 0.00 ft Max center channel area : 65.2666 ft^2 Natural Cross -Section information for Channel G-H Cross -Section ID (from X1 card) : 3.0 Channel sequence number: 3 Left Overbank Length 167.0 ft Maximum Elevation 30.01 ft. Main Channel Length 167.0 ft Maximum depth 10.74 ft. Right Overbank Length 167.0 ft Maximum Section Area : 231.7196 ft^2 Maximum hydraulic radius: 5.78 ft. Manning N : 0.050 to Station -1.9 Max topwidth : 33.96 ft. " 0.025 in main Channel Maximum Wetted Perimeter : 4.01E+01 ft 0.050 Beyond station 8.7 Max left bank area : 56.23 ft^2 Max right bank area : 66.77 ft^2 Allowable Encroachment Depth: 0.00 ft Max center channel area : 108.7145 ft^2 Natural Cross -Section information for Channel H-I Cross -Section ID (from X1 card) : 4.0 Channel sequence number: 4 Left Overbank Length 70.0 ft Maximum Elevation 25.23 ft. Main Channel Length 70.0 ft Maximum depth 6.37 ft. Right Overbank Length : 70.0 ft Maximum Section Area : 130.4888 ft^2 Maximum hydraulic radius: 3.41 ft. Manning N : 0.050 to Station -8.9 Max topwidth : 36.34 ft. if it : 0.025 in main Channel Maximum Wetted Perimeter: 3.82E+01 ft " : 0.050 Beyond station 9.9 Max left bank area . 10.53 ft^2 Max right bank area : 25.86 ft^2 Allowable Encroachment Depth: 0.00 ft Max center channel area : 94.0951 ft^2 Table E1 - Conduit Data Inp Conduit Length Conduit Area Manning Max Width Depth Side Num -------------------- Name (ft) ---------- Class ---------- (ft-2) Coe£ (ft) (ft) Slopes 1 B-N1 74 Circular ------- 19.635 ------- 0.012 --------- 5 ------------ 5 2 NI-C 395 Circular 28.2743 0.014 6 6 3 C-D 336 Circular 28.2743 0.014 6 6 4 N3-F 171 Natural 105.3132 0.025 23.2405 8.26 5 A -NI 90 Circular 7.0686 0.014 3 3 6 N2-D 306 Circular 9.6211 0.014 3.5 3.5 7 I-N4 375 Circular 12.5664 0.014 4 4 8 N4-N5 100 Circular 12.5664 0.014 4 4 9 I-N5 500 Circular 95.0332 0.014 11 11 10 F-G 162 Natural 114.9073 0.025 28.2 7.59 11 G-H 167 Natural 231.7196 0.025 33.96 10.74 12 H-I 70 Natural 130.4888 0.025 36.34 6.37 13 Box 1 70 Rectangle 24 0.014 6 4 14 Box 3 114 Rectangle 24 0.014 6 4 15 Box 4 257 Rectangle 24 0.014 6 4 16 Box 2 162 Rectangle 24 0.014 6 4 Total length of all conduits .... 3349.0000 feet If there are messages about (sqrt(g*d)*dt/dx), or the sqrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length in the output file all it means is that the program will lower the internal time step to satisfy this condition (explicit condition). You control the actual internal time step by using the minimum courant time step factor in the HYDRAULICS job control. The message put in words states that the smallest conduit with the fastest velocity will control the time step selection. You have further control by using the modify conduit option in the HYDRAULICS Job Control. Conduit Courant Name Ratio B-N1 2.57 =__> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) N1-C 0.53 C-D 0.62 N3-F 1.06 =_> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*rime step/conduit length) A-N1 1.64 =_> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) N2-D 0.52 I-N4 0.45 N4-N5 1.70 => Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) I-N5 0.56 F-G 1.06 => Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) G-H 1.33 => Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) H-I 2.30 =--> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) Box 1 2.43 => Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) Box 3 1.49 =_> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) Box 4 0.66 Box 2 1.05 =--> Warning ! (sgrt(wave celerity)*time step/conduit length) Conduit Volume Full pipe or full open conduit volume Input full depth volume............ 1.7811E+05 cubic feet => Warning ! ! The upstream and downstream junctions for the following conduits have been reversed to correspond to the positive flow and decreasing slope convention. A negative flow in the output thus means the flow was from your original upstream junction to your original downstream junction. Any initial flow has been multiplied by -1. 1. Conduit #...N2-D has been changed. Table E3a - Junction Data Inp Junction Ground Crown Invert Qinst Initial Interface Num Name Elevation Elevation Elevation cfs Depth-ft Flow (%) 1 B 35.0000 35.0000 23.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 2 N1 32.6600 32.6600 22.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 3 C 35.2200 35.2200 21.5700 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 4 D 28.6700 28.6700 20.8400 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 5 N3 28.0000 28.0000 19.3900 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 6 I 30.0000 30.0000 17.9400 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 7 A 33.3500 33.3500 24.4000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 8 N2 30.3000 30.3000 18.9000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 9 N5 28.0000 26.0000 15.0000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 10 N4 25.0000 25.0000 15.5000 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 11 F 28.5100 28.5100 18.9375 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 12 G 30.0100 30.0100 18.5325 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 13 H 30.0100 30.0100 18.1150 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 14 Box cb B 28.5000 24.3296 20.3296 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 15 Box cb C 26.6000 24.0788 20.0788 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 16 Box cb A 30.2500 24.6860 20.6860 0.0000 0.0000 100.0000 Table E3b - Junction Data Inp Junction X Y Type of Type of Maximum Pavement Num ------------------ Name Coord. Coord. Manhole Inlet Capacity ---------------------- Shape Slope 1 B 152.5521 -------------------------------------- 446.4433 Flooded Normal ------- 0 0.0000 2 N1 145.5257 436.6950 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 3 C 123.4209 437.1191 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 4 D 106.3969 437.5303 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 5 N3 95.8286 416.8616 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 6 I 67.4830 416.7636 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 7 A 146.0405 428.7429 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 8 N2 126.9908 454.2198 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 9 N5 66.0831 409.8093 No Ponding Normal 0 0.0000 10 N4 62.2778 416.4918 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 11 F 89.1392 416.9094 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 12 G 81.4822 417.0487 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 13 H 74.6604 416.9094 Flooded Normal 0 0.0000 14 Box cb B 96.8341 435.2930 No Ponding Normal 0 0.0000 15 Box cb C 92.3030 432.6534 No Ponding Normal 0 0.0000 16 Box cb A 103.4470 434.9879 No Ponding Normal 0 0.0000 Table E4 - Conduit Connectivity Input Conduit Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream Number Name Node Node Elevation Elevation 1 B-NI B N1 23.3920 23.3000 No Design 2 NI-C N1 C 22.3000 21.6600 No Design 3 C-D C D 21.5700 20.9200 No Design 4 N3-F N3 F 19.3900 18.9375 No Design 5 A -NI A N1 24.4600 23.3000 No Design 6 N2-D D N2 20.9200 18.9000 No Design 7 I-N4 I N4 17.9400 16.0000 No Design 8 N4-N5 N4 N5 15.5600 15.0000 No Design 9 I-N5 I N5 17.9400 15.0000 No Design 10 F-G F G 18.9375 18.5325 No Design 11 G-H G H 18.5325 18.1150 No Design 12 H-I H I 18.1150 17.9400 No Design 13 Box 1 D Box cb A 20.8400 20.6860 No Design 14 Box 3 Box cb B Box cb C 20.3296 20.0788 No Design 15 Box 4 Box cb C N3 20.0788 19.3900 No Design 16 Box 2 Box cb A Box cb B 20.6860 20.3296 No Design FREE OUTFALL DATA (DATA GROUP I1) BOUNDARY CONDITION ON DATA GROUP J1 Outfall at Junction .... N5 has boundary condition number... 1 _> Warning H Outfall Junction N5 has two or more connecting conduits. INTERNAL CONNECTIVITY INFORMATION I CONDUIT JUNCTION JUNCTION ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- FREE # 1 N5 BOUNDARY Boundary Condition Information Data Groups J1-J4 -- BC NUMBER.. 1 Control water surface elevation is.. 20.16 feet. XP Note Field Summary Conduit Convergence Criteria Conduit Full Conduit Name Flow Slope B-NI 99.4838 0.0012 N1-C 158.2956 0.0016 C-D 172.9674 0.0019 N3-F 728.0530 0.0026 A -NI 70.3134 0.0129 N2-D 75.9050 0.0066 I-N4 95.9369 0.0052 N4-N5 99.8147 0.0056 I-N5 1518.2495 0.0059 F-G 769.4335 0.0025 G-H 2216.8183 0.0025 H-I 879.2816 0.0025 Box 1 134.9276 0.0022 Box 3 134.9276 0.0022 Box 4 148.9257 0.0027 Box 2 134.9276 0.0022 Initial Model Condition Initial Time = 18.00 hours Junction / Depth / Elevation => " * " Junction is Surcharged. B/ 0.00 / 23.00 N1/ 0.00 / 22.00 C/ 0.00 / 21.57 D/ 0.00 / 20.84 N3/ 0.77 / 20.16 I/ 2.22 / 20.16 A/ 0.00 / 24.40 N2/ 1.26 / 20.16 N51 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 1.22 / 20.16 G/ 1.63 / 20.16 H/ 2.05 / 20.16 Box cb B/ 0.00 / 20.33 Box cb C/ 0.08 / 20.16 Box cb A/ 0.00 / 20.69 Conduit/ FLOW ==> "* ' Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 N1-C/ 0.00 C-D/ 0.00 N3-F/ 0.00 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ 0.00 I-N4/ 0.00 N4-N5/ 0.00 I-N5/ 0.00 F-G/ 0.00 G-H/ 0.00 H-I/ 0.00 Box l/ 0.00 Box 3/ 0.00 Box 4/ 0.00 Box 2/ 0.00 FREE # 1/ 0.00 Conduit/ Velocity B-N1/ 0.00 N1-C/ 0.00 C-D/ 0.00 N3-F/ 0.00 A-N 1 / 0.00 N2-D/ 0.00 I-N4/ 0.00 N4-N5/ 0.00 I-N51 0.00 F-G/ 0.00 G-H/ 0.00 H-I/ 0.00 Box 1/ 0.00 Box 3/ 0.00 Box 4/ 0.00 Box 2/ 0.00 Conduit/ Cross Sectional Area B-N1/ 0.00 N1-C/ 0.00 N3-F/ 3.09 A-N1/ 0.00 I-N4/ 9.70 N4-N5/ 12.91 F-G/ 7.81 G-H/ 14.77 Box l/ 0.00 Box 3/ 0.22 Box 2/ 0.00 Conduit/ Hydraulic Radius B-N1/ 0.00 N1-C/ N3-F/ 0.42 A-N1/ I-N4/ 1.04 N4-N5/ F-G/ 0.93 G-H/ Box l/ 0.00 Box 3/ Box 2/ 0.00 C-D/ 0.00 N2-D/ 1.40 I-N5/ 27.24 H-I/ 18.62 Box 4/ 2.35 0.00 C-D/ 0.00 0.00 N2-D/ 0.32 1.00 I-N5/ 1.92 1.27 H-I/ 1.28 0.04 Box 4/ 0.32 Conduit/ Upstream/ Downstream Elevation B-N1/ 22.00/ 22.00 N1-C/ 21.57/ 21.57 N3-F/ 20.16/ 20.16 A-N1/ 22.00/ 22.00 I-N4/ 20.16/ 20.16 N4-N5/ 20.16/ 20.16 F-G/ 20.16/ 20.16 G-H/ 20.16/ 20.16 Box l/ 20.69/ 20.69 Box 3/ 20.33/ 20.16 Box 2/ 20.33/ 20.33 ######## Important Information ######## Start time of user hydrographs was... 18.000000000000000 Start time of the simulation was..... 18.000000000000000 Found a match between user hydrograph and simulation start time. Will move ahead 1.561251128379126E-017 hours C-D/ 20.84/ 20.84 N2-D/ 20.84/ 20.16 I-N5/ 20.16/ 20.16 H-U 20.16/ 20.16 Box 4/ 20.16/ 20.16 -------------------------- __> System inflows (data group K3) at 18.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 6.23E+00 N3 / 6.14E-01 N2 / 2.00E-02 N5 / 5.00E-03 N4 / 2.00E-02 ######################################## ===> System inflows (data group K3) at 18.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 8.85E+00 N3 / 1.17E+00 N2 / 2.05E-01 N5 / 5.40E-02 N4 / 2.05E-01 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 19.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.47E+01 N3 / 2.38E+00 N2 / 6.14E-01 N5 / 1.56E-01 N4 / 5.94E-01 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 20.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.57E+01 N3 / 2.60E+00 N2 / 6.96E-01 N5 / 1.77E-01 N4 / 6.76E-01 ######################################## Cycle 500 Time 20 Hrs - 5.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation => "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 0.56 / 23.56 N1/ 1.56 / 23.56 C/ 1.23 / 22.80 D/ 0.74 / 21.58 N3/ 1.65 / 21.04 I/ 2.21 / 20.15 A/ 0.00 / 24.40 N2/ 2.68 / 21.58 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 1.43 / 20.37 G/ 1.67 / 20.20 H/ 2.05 / 20.16 Box cb B/ 0.86 / 21.19 Box cb C/ 1.01 / 21.09 Box cb A/ 0.75 / 21.44 Conduit/ FLOW =_> "*" Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 N1-C/ 14.82 C-D/ 14.78 N3-F/ 17.56 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -0.61 I-N4/ -2.64 N4-N5/ -2.04 I-N5/ 20.17 F-G/ 17.52 G-H/ 17.52 H-I/ 17.52 Box l/ 15.38 Box 3/ 15.32 Box 4/ 15.25 Box 2/ 15.36 FREE # 1/ 18.29 ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 21.00 hours( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.47E+01 N3 / 2.42E+00 N2 / 6.35E-01 N5 / 1.61E-01 N4 / 6.14E-01 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 22.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.87E+01 N3 / 3.24E+00 N2 / 9.22E-01 N5 / 2.30E-01 N4 ######################################## Cycle 1000 Time 22 Hrs - 10.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation =_> " * " Junction is Surcharged. / 8.81E-01 B/ 0.58 / 23.58 N1/ 1.58 / 23.58 C/ 1.25 / 22.82 D/ 0.76 / 21.60 N3/ 1.67 / 21.06 I/ 2.21 / 20.15 A/ 0.00 / 24.40 N2/ 2.70 / 21.60 N51 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 1.44 / 20.38 G/ 1.67 / 20.20 H/ 2.05 / 20.16 Box cb B/ 0.88 / 21.21 Box cb C/ 1.04 / 21.12 Box cb A/ 0.77 / 21.45 Conduit/ FLOW -_> "*" Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 N1-C/ 15.35 C-D/ 15.22 N3-F/ 18.18 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -0.66 I-N4/ -3.77 N4-N5/ -3.11 I-N5/ 21.90 F-G/ 18.14 G-H/ 18.13 H-I/ 18.13 Box 1/ 15.85 Box 3/ 15.77 Box 4/ 15.70 Box 2/ 15.82 FREE # 1/ 18.95 ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 23.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 4.62E+01 N3 / 8.72E+00 N2 / 2.70E+00 N5 / 6.78E-01 N4 / 2.60E+00 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 24.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 4.85E+01 N3 / 9.22E+00 N2 / 2.87E+00 N5 / 7.19E-01 N4 / 2.74E+00 ######################################## Cycle 1500 Time 24 Hrs - 15.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation =__> "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 1.52 / 24.52 N1/ 2.52 / 24.52 C/ 2.13 / 23.70 D/ 1.76 / 22.60 N3/ 2.70 / 22.09 1/ 2.16 / 20.10 A/ 0.12 / 24.52 N2/ 3.71 / 22.61 N51 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 2.28 / 21.22 G/ 2.03 / 20.56 H/ 2.12 / 20.23 Box cb B/ 1.98 / 22.31 Box cb C/ 2.13 / 22.21 Box cb A/ 1.81 / 22.50 Conduit/ FLOW => ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ -0.01 N1-C/ 46.75 C-D/ 46.70 N3-F/ 58.19 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -2.74 I-N4/ -10.02 N4-N5/ -7.38 I-N5/ 68.13 F-G/ 58.16 G-H/ 58.14 H-I/ 58.13 Box 1/ 49.42 Box 3/ 49.39 Box 4/ 49.37 Box 2/ 49.41 FREE # 1/ 61.43 ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 25.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 4.62E+01 N3 / 8.70E+00 N2 / 2.68E+00 N5 / 6.71E-01 N4 / 2.56E+00 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 26.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 5.83E+01 N3 / 1.10E+01 N2 / 3.40E+00 N5 / 8.47E-01 N4 / 3.26E+00 ######################################## Cycle 2000 Time 26 Hrs - 20.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation =_> "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 1.60 / 24.60 N1/ 2.60 / 24.60 C/ 2.20 / 23.77 D/ 1.85 / 22.69 N3/ 2.77 / 22.16 I/ 2.16 / 20.10 A/ 0.20 / 24.60 N2/ 3.79 / 22.69 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 2.35 / 21.28 G/ 2.07 / 20.60 H/ 2.13 / 20.25 Box cb B/ 2.06 / 22.39 Box cb C/ 2.21 / 22.29 Box cb A/ 1.90 / 22.58 Conduit/ FLOW => ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ -0.01 N1-C/ 50.11 C-D/ 49.84 N3-F/ 61.70 A-N1/ -0.01 N2-D/ -2.89 I-N4/ -10.14 N4-N5/ -7.35 I-N51 71.64 F-G/ 61.58 G-H/ 61.49 H-I/ 61.47 Box 1/ 52.65 Box 3/ 52.49 Box 4/ 52.38 Box 2/ 52.58 FREE # l/ 65.00 ######################################## -_> System inflows (data group K3) at 27.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.07E+02 N3 / 1.97E+01 N2 / 5.98E+00 N5 / 1.50E+00 N4 / 5.73E+00 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 28.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.62E+02 N3 / 2.89E+01 N2 / 8.54E+00 N5 / 2.13E+00 N4 / 8.17E+00 ######################################## Cycle 2500 Time 28 Hrs - 25.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation =_> "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 3.26 / 26.26 N1/ 4.26 / 26.26 C/ 3.89 / 25.46 D/ 4.01 / 24.85 N3/ 4.23 / 23.62 1/ 2.27 / 20.21 A/ 1.86 / 26.26 N2/ 5.97 / 24.87 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.68 / 20.18 F/ 3.86 / 22.80 G/ 3.25 / 21.79 H/ 2.75 / 20.87 Box cb B/ 4.02*/ 24.35 Box cb C/ 4.03*/ 24.11 Box cb A/ 4.02*/ 24.70 Conduit/ FLOW => "*" Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ -0.09 N1-C/ 129.13 C-D/ 127.70 N3-F/ 155.34 A-N1/ -0.06 N2-D/ -7.04 I-N4/ 11.61 N4-N5/ 18.34 I-N5/ 141.96* F-G/ 154.60 G-H/ 154.05 H-l/ 153.80 Box 1/ 133.96 Box 3/ 132.99 Box 4/ 132.43 Box 2/ 133.52 FREE # 1/ 162.06 ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 29.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 2.42E+02 N3 / 4.12E+01 N2 / 1.16E+01 N5 / 2.90E+00 N4 / 1.11E+01 ######################################## ######################################## �> System inflows (data group K3) at 30.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 2.18E+02 N3 / 3.75E+01 N2 / 1.07E+01 N5 / 2.66E+00 N4 / 1.02E+01 ######################################## Cycle 3000 Time 30 Hrs - 30.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation => "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 8.51 / 31.51 NI/ 9.51 / 31.51 C/ 8.60 / 30.17 D/ 8.19*/ 29.03 N3/ 5.52 / 24.91 I/ 2.85 / 20.79 A/ 7.11 / 31.51 N2/ 10.18 / 29.08 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.89 / 20.39 F/ 5.01 / 23.94 G/ 4.24 / 22.77 H/ 3.54 / 21.66 Box cb B/ 7.07*/ 27.40 Box cb C/ 6.52*/ 26.60 Box cb A/ 7.86*/ 28.54 Conduit/ FLOW => ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 Nl-C/ 229.88 C-D/ 229.89 N3-F/ 272.82 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -11.14 I-N4/ 49.88 N4-N5/ 60.55 I-N51 222.99* F-G/ 272.83 G-H/ 272.85 H-I/ 272.86 Box l/ 242.21 Box 3/ 242.21 Box 4/ 233.45 Box 2/ 242.21 FREE # 1/ 286.33 ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 31.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 2.10E+02 N3 / 3.61E+01 N2 / 1.03E+01 N5 / 2.56E+00 N4 / 9.83E+00 ######################################## ######################################## ___> System inflows (data group K3) at 32.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 1.94E+02 N3 / 3.34E+01 N2 / 9.52E+00 N5 / 2.38E+00 N4 / 9.11E+00 ######################################## Cycle 3500 Time 32 Hrs - 35.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation ==> "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 6.63 / 29.63 N1/ 7.63 / 29.63 C/ 7.10 / 28.67 D/ 7.05 / 27.89 N3/ 5.28 / 24.67 I/ 2.71 / 20.65 A/ 5.23 / 29.63 N2/ 9.00 / 27.90 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.84 / 20.34 F/ 4.81 / 23.74 G/ 4.05 / 22.58 H/ 3.38 / 21.49 Box cb B/ 6.32*/ 26.65 Box cb C/ 5.94*/ 26.02 Box cb A/ 6.82*/ 27.50 Conduit/ FLOW =_> ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ -0.02 NI-C/ 200.29 C-D/ 200.55 N3-F/ 245.47 A-N1/ -0.02 N2-D/ -9.86 I-N4/ 44.26 N4-N5/ 53.67 I-N5/ 201.39* F-G/ 245.45 G-H/ 245.58 H-I/ 245.63 Box l/ 209.71 Box 3/ 210.79 Box 4/ 211.23 Box 2/ 210.56 FREE # 1/ 257.52 ######################################## _=> System inflows (data group K3) at 33.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) NI / 8.72E+01 N3 / 1.51E+01 N2 / 4.30E+00 N5 / 1.07E+00 N4 / 4.12E+00 ######################################## ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 34.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 5.77E+01 N3 / 9.11E+00 N2 / 2.33E+00 N5 / 5.84E-01 N4 / 2.23E+00 ######################################## Cycle 4000 Time 34 Hrs - 40.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation => "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 1.99 / 24.99 N1/ 2.99 / 24.99 C/ 2.57 / 24.14 D/ 2.30 / 23.14 N3/ 3.16 / 22.55 1/ 2.13 / 20.07 A/ 0.59 / 24.99 N2/ 4.24 / 23.14 N51 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 2.73 / 21.66 G/ 2.34 / 20.87 H/ 2.24 / 20.36 Box cb B/ 2.50 / 22.83 Box cb C/ 2.63 / 22.71 Box cb A/ 2.35 / 23.03 Conduit/ FLOW => "*"Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.04 NI-C/ 67.82 C-D/ 68.23 N3-F/ 83.58 A-N1/ 0.02 N2-D/ -3.03 I-N4/ -12.48 N4-N5/ -9.62 I-N5/ 96.62 F-G/ 83.85 G-H/ 84.08 H-I/ 84.18 Box 1/ 71.61 Box 3/ 71.95 Box 4/ 72.20 Box 2/ 71.78 FREE # 1/ 87.75 ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 35.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 5.01E+01 N3 / 7.60E+00 N2 / 1.84E+00 N5 / 4.58E-01 N4 / 1.76E+00 ######################################## ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 36.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) NI / 4.72E+01 N3 / 6.96E+00 N2 / 1.64E+00 N5 / 4.07E-01 N4 ######################################## Cycle 4500 Time 36 Hrs - 45.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation => "*" Junction is Surcharged. / 1.56E+00 B/ 1.551 24.55 N1/ 2.55 / 24.55 C/ 2.16 / 23.73 D/ 1.76 / 22.60 N3/ 2.68 / 22.07 I/ 2.16 / 20.10 A/ 0.151 24.55 N2/ 3.70 / 22.60 N51 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 2.26 / 21.20 G/ 2.01 / 20.54 H/ 2.11 / 20.23 Box cb B/ 1.97 / 22.30 Box cb C/ 2.11 / 22.19 Box cb A/ 1.81 / 22.49 Conduit/ FLOW => "'Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 NI-C/ 47.96 C-D/ 48.02 N3-F/ 56.97 A-N1/ 0.00 N2-D/ -1.70 I-N4/ -10.00 N4-N5/ -8.39 I-N5/ 67.01 F-G/ 57.00 G-H/ 57.02 H-I/ 57.02 Box 1/ 49.74 Box 3/ 49.78 Box 4/ 49.81 Box 2/ 49.76 FREE # 1/ 59.05 ######################################## ___> System inflows (data group K3) at 37.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 4.33E+01 N3 / 6.21E+00 N2 / 1.39E+00 N5 / 3.46E-01 N4 / 1.33E+00 ######################################## ######################################## __> System inflows (data group K3) at 38.00 hours( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 4.13E+01 N3 / 5.86E+00 N2 / 1.29E+00 N5 / 3.20E-01 N4 / 1.23E+00 ######################################## Cycle 5000 Time 38 Hrs - 50.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation => "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 1.39 / 24.39 N1/ 2.39 / 24.39 C/ 2.01 / 23.58 D/ 1.58 / 22.42 N3/ 2.51 / 21.90 I/ 2.17 / 20.11 A/ 0.06 / 24.46 N2/ 3.52 / 22.42 N51 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 2.10 / 21.04 G/ 1.92 / 20.45 H/ 2.09 / 20.20 Box cb B/ 1.78 / 22.11 Box cb C/ 1.94 / 22.01 Box cb A/ 1.63 / 22.31 Conduit/ FLOW =_> "*" Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 NI-C/ 41.64 C-D/ 41.68 N3-F/ 49.00 A-N1/ 0.00* N2-D/ -1.31 I-N4/ -8.98 N4-N5/ -7.74 I-N5/ 58.01 F-G/ 49.02 G-H/ 49.03 H-I/ 49.03 Box 1/ 43.01 Box 3/ 43.04 Box 4/ 43.06 Box 2/ 43.02 FREE # 1/ 50.60 ######################################## ___> System inflows (data group K3) at 39.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 3.60E+01 N3 / 4.79E+00 N2 / 9.42E-01 N5 / 2.33E-01 N4 / 9.01E-01 ######################################## ######################################## _=> System inflows (data group K3) at 40.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 2.95E+01 N3 / 3.52E+00 N2 / 5.12E-01 N5 / 1.31E-01 N4 / 4.92E-01 ######################################## Cycle 5500 Time 40 Hrs - 55.00 Min Junction / Depth / Elevation =_> " * " Junction is Surcharged. B/ 1.08 / 24.08 N1/ 2.08 / 24.08 C/ 1.72 / 23.29 D/ 1.23 / 22.07 N3/ 2.18 / 21.57 I/ 2.19 / 20.13 A/ 0.06 / 24.46 N2/ 3.17 / 22.07 N5/ 5.16 / 20.16 N4/ 4.66 / 20.16 F/ 1.80 / 20.74 G/ 1.78 / 20.31 H/ 2.06 / 20.17 Box cb B/ 1.42 / 21.75 Box cb C/ 1.58 / 21.66 Box cb A/ 1.27 / 21.96 Conduit/ FLOW => "*" Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.01 NI-C/ 30.12 C-D/ 30.29 N3-F/ 34.82 A-N1/ 0.00* N2-D/ -0.58 I-N4/ -7.11 N4-N5/ -6.58 I-N5/ 42.03 F-G/ 34.90 G-H/ 34.93 H-V 34.93 Box 1/ 30.91 Box 3/ 31.02 Box 4/ 31.10 Box 2/ 30.96 FREE # 1/ 35.59 ######################################## _> System inflows (data group K3) at 41.00 hours( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 2.62E+01 N3 / 2.91E+00 N2 / 3.28E-01 N5 / 8.20E-02 N4 / 3.07E-01 ######################################## ######################################## => System inflows (data group K3) at 42.00 hours ( Junction / Inflow,cfs ) N1 / 2.62E+01 N3 / 2.91E+00 N2 / 3.28E-01 N5 / 8.20E-02 N4 / 3.07E-01 ######################################## Table E5 - Junction Time Limitation Summary (0.10 or 0.25)* Depth * Area Timestep = ------------------------------ Sum of Flow The time this junction was the limiting junction is listed in the third column. Junction Time(.10) Time(.25) Time(sec) B 3.0363 7.5907 39585.0000 NI 5.7325 14.3312 105.0000 C 6.0502 15.1254 90.0000 D 3.4898 8.7244 120.0000 N3 111.4043 150.0000 0.0000 I 150.0000 150.0006 0.0000 A 4.4383 11.0959 30.0000 N2 5.2084 13.0211 195.0000 N5 150.0000 150.0000 0.0000 N4 150.0000 150.0000 0.0000 F 142.3458 150.0000 0.0000 G 150.0000 150.0000 0.0000 H 150.0000 150.0000 0.0000 Box cb B 0.6556 1.6390 4320.0000 Box cb C 0.0979 0.2448 5670.0000 Box cb A 0.2451 0.6127 36285.0000 The junction requiring the smallest time step was ... B Table E5a - Conduit Explicit Condition Summary Courant = Conduit Length Timestep = -------------------------------- Velocity + sgrt(g*depth) Conduit Implicit Condition Summary Courant = Conduit Length Timestep = -------------------------------- Velocity The 3rd column is the Explicit time step times the minimum courant time step factor Minimum Conduit Time Step in seconds in the 4th column in the list. Maximum possible is 10 * maximum time step The 5th column is the maximum change at any time step during the simulation. The 6th column is the wobble value which is an indicator of the flow stability. You should use this section to find those conduits that are slowing your model down. Use modify conduits to alter the length of the slow conduits to make your simulation faster, or change the conduit name to "CHME?????" where ????? are any characters, this will lengthen the conduit based on the model time step, not the value listed in modify conduits. Conduit Time(exp) Expl*Cmin Time(imp) Time(min) Max Qchange Wobble Type of Soln B-N1 4.4365 4.4365 150.0000 0.2500 0.5360 1.5493 Normal Soln NI-C 15.1176 15.1176 46.4024 0.0000 0.4510 4.1610 Normal Soln C-D 13.2154 13.2154 39.4414 0.0000 0.7954 4.2719 Normal Soln N3-F 10.8318 10.8318 27.5211 0.0000 0.2080 0.7835 Normal Soln A-N1 5.3953 5.3953 150.0000 0.0000 0.2349 1.0395 Normal Soln N2-D 15.7241 15.7241 150.0000 0.0000 -0.2753 2.7535 Normal Soln I-N4 22.9002 22.9002 83.7291 0.0000 -0.1824 1.5828 Normal Soln N4-N5 5.6617 5.6617 20.9530 304.5000 -0.2493 1.6482 Normal Soln I-N5 24.7058 24.7058 68.0444 0.0000 0.2764 0.2831 Normal Soln F-G 10.8936 10.8936 26.2230 0.0000 0.2181 0.7028 Normal Soln G-H 11.1755 11.1755 26.9353 0.0000 0.2361 0.2425 Normal Soln H-1 4.6787 4.6787 9.5734 0.0000 0.2491 0.6224 Normal Soln Box 1 2.6071 2.6071 6.7183 1135.2500 -4.7444 24.8563 Normal Soln Box 3 4.4539 4.4539 10.9227 0.0000 -1.9217 16.5926 Normal Soln Box 4 10.6150 10.6150 26.4398 0.0000 -0.9440 8.1639 Normal Soln Box 2 6.1167 6.1167 15.5364 0.0000 2.3464 14.7769 Normal Soln The conduit with the smallest time step limitation was..Box 1 The conduit with the largest wobble was.................Box 1 The conduit with the largest flow change in any consecutive time step...................................Box 1 Table E6. Final Model Condition This table is used for steady state flow comparison and is the information] saved to the hot -restart file. Final Time = 42.004 hours Junction / Depth / Elevation => "*" Junction is Surcharged. B/ 0.96 / 23.96/ N1/ 1.96 / 23.96/ C/ 1.61 / 23.18/ D/ 1.10 / 21.94/ N3/ 2.05 / 21.44/ 1/ 2.20 / 20.14/ A/ 0.06 / 24.46/ N2/ 3.04 / 21.94/ N5/ 5.16 / 20.16/ N4/ 4.66 / 20.16/ F/ 1.69 / 20.63/ G/ 1.74 / 20.27/ H/ 2.05 / 20.17/ Box cb B/ 1.28 / 21.61/ Box cb C/ 1.44 / 21.52/ Box cb A/ 1.14 / 21.82/ Conduit/ Flow => ""Conduit uses the normal flow option. B-N1/ 0.00 / N1-C/ 26.26 / C-D/ 26.34 / N3-F/ 29.77 / A-N1/ 0.00*/ N2-D/ -0.34 / I-N4/ -6.12 / N4-N5/ -5.81 / I-N5/ 35.93 / F-G/ 29.80 / G-H/ 29.82 / H-I/ 29.82 / Box l/ 26.71 / Box 3/ 26.77 / Box 4/ 26.81 / Box 2/ 26.74 / FREE # l/ 30.20 / Conduit/ Velocity B-N1/ 0.00 / NI-C/ 4.34 / C-D/ 4.78 / N3-F/ 3.36 / A-N1/ 0.00 / N2-D/ -0.06 / I-N4/ -0.60 / N4-N5/ -0.45 / I-N5/ 1.32 / F-G/ 2.98 / G-H/ 1.94 / H-I/ 1.61 / Box 1/ 3.98 / Box 3/ 3.30 / Box 4/ 2.61 / Box 2/ 3.71 / Conduit/ Width B-N1/ 3.26 / N1-C/ 5.30 / C-D/ 5.17 / N3-F/ 7.41 / A-N 1 / 1.76 / N2-D/ 2.72 / I-N4/ 2.63 / N4-N5/ 0.47 / I-N5/ 9.78 / F-G/ 7.37 / G-H/ 9.66 / H-I/ 13.61 / Box l/ 6.00 / Box 3/ 6.00 / Box 4/ 6.00 / Box 2/ 6.00 / Junction/ EGL B/ 0.96 / D/ 1.78 / A/ 0.06 / N41 4.66 / H/ 2.11 / Box cb A/ 1.38 / Junction/ Freeboard N1/ 1.96 / N3/ 2.15 / N2/ 3.04 / F/ 1.86 / Box cb B/ 1.501 C/ 1.91 / 1/ 2.24 / N5/ 5.19 / G/ 1.88 / Box cb C/ 1.61 / B/ 11.04 / N1/ 8.70 / C/ 12.04 / D/ 6.73 / N3/ 6.56 / F 9.86 / A/ 8.89 / N2/ 8.36 / N51 7.84 / N4/ 4.84 / F/ 7.88 / G/ 9.74 / H/ 9.84 / Box cb B/ 6.89 / Box cb C/ 5.08 / Box cb A/ 8.43 / Junction/ Max Volume B/ 112.35 / N1/ 124.90 / C/ 111.82 / D/ 3799.50 / N3/ 69.54 / 1/ 35.86 / A/ 94.77 / N2/ 130.31 / N5/ 64.84 / N4/ 61.52 / F/ 63.00 / G/ 53.35 / H/ 44.62 / Box cb B/ 89.67 / Box cb C/ 81.95 / Box cb A/ 100.63 / Junction/Total Fldng B/ 0.00 / N1/ 0.00 / C/ 0.00 / D/ 4285.68 / N3/ 0.00 / 1/ 0.00 / A/ 0.00 / N2/ 0.00 / N5/ 0.00 / N4/ 0.00 / F/ 0.00 / G/ 0.00 / H/ 0.00 / Box cb B/ 0.00 / Box cb C/ 0.00 / Box cb A/ 0.00 / Conduit/ Cross Sectional Area B-N1/ 1.38 / N1-C/ 6.05 / C-D/ 5.511 N3-F/ 8.87 / A-N1/ 0.52 / N2-D/ 5.94 / I-N4/ 10.23 / N4-N5/ 12.85 / I-N5/ 27.13 / F-G/ 9.99 / G-H/ 15.38 / H-I/ 18.55 / Box 1/ 6.70 / Box 3/ 8.12 / Box 4/ 10.28 / Box 2/ 7.21 / Conduit/ Final Volume B-N1/ 101.76 / NI-C/ 2389.47 / C-D/ 1850.03 / N3-F/ 1516.61 / A-N1/ 46.75 / N2-D/ 1816.41 / I-N4/ 3836.23 / N4-N5/ 1285.20 / I-N51 13566.16 / F-G/ 1618.88 / G-H/ 2567.79 / H-F 1298.25 / Box 1/ 469.34 / Box 3/ 925.55 / Box 4/ 2642.97 / Box 2/ 1167.87 / Conduit/ Hydraulic Radius B-N1/ 0.38 / N1-C/ 0.93 / C-D/ 0.87 / N3-F/ 0.80 / A-N1/ 0.18 / N2-D/ 0.84 / I-N4/ 1.03 / N4-N5/ 1.00 / I-N51 1.92 / F-G/ 1.09 / G-H/ 1.31 / H-I/ 1.27 / Box 1/ 0.81 / Box 3/ 0.93 / Box 4/ 1.08 / Box 2/ 0.86 / Conduit/ Upstream/ Downstream Elevation B-N1/ 23.96/ 23.96 N1-C/ 23.96/ 23.18 C-D/ 23.18/ 22.27/ N3-F/ 21.44/ 20.63 A-N1/ 24.46/ 23.96 N2-D/ 21.94/ 21.94/ I-N4/ 20.14/ 20.16 N4-N5/ 20.16/ 20.16 I-N5/ 20.14/ 20.16/ F-G/ 20.63/ 20.27 G-H/ 20.27/ 20.17 H-I/ 20.17/ 20.14/ Box l/ 21.94/ 21.82 Box 3/ 21.61/ 21.52 Box 4/ 21.52/ 21.44/ Box 2/ 21.82/ 21.61 Table E7 - Iteration Summary Total number of time steps simulated ............ 5760 Total number of passes in the simulation........ 73364 Total number of time steps during simulation.... 25860 Ratio of actual # of time steps / NTCYC......... 4.490 Average number of iterations per time step...... 2.837 Average time step size(seconds)................ 3.341 Smallest time step size(seconds)................ 0.500 Largest time step size(seconds)................ 7.500 Average minimum Conduit Courant time step (sec). 5.419 Average minimum implicit time step (sec)........ 3.703 Average minimum junction time step (sec)........ 3.703 Average Courant Factor Tf. ....................... 3.703 Number of times omega reduced ................... 0 Table E8 - Junction Time Step Limitation Summary Not Convr = Number of times this junction did not converge during the simulation. Avg Convr = Average junction iterations. Conv err = Mean convergence error. Omega Cng = Change of omega during iterations Max Item = Maximum number of iterations Junction Not Convr Avg Convr Total Itt Omega Cng Max Item Ittm > 10 Ittm >25 Ittrn >40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B 0 4.24 109739 0 46 1990 23 4 N1 0 4.82 124742 0 55 2118 545 59 C 0 1.03 26683 0 8 0 0 0 D 0 1.45 37431 0 16 70 0 0 N3 0 1.06 27347 0 15 1 0 0 I 0 1.11 28773 0 12 1 0 0 A 0 2.80 72397 0 48 690 16 1 N2 0 1.22 31577 0 20 2 0 0 N5 0 1.16 29938 0 23 1 0 0 N4 0 1.10 28529 0 17 3 0 0 F 0 1.05 27224 0 7 0 0 0, G 0 1.06 27307 0 13 1 0 0 H 0 1.04 26944 0 9 0 0 0 Box cb B 0 1.50 38702 0 32 217 217 0 Box cb C 0 1.22 31518 0 20 108 0 0 Box cb A 0 2.88 74475 0 58 1357 1317 297 Total number of iterations for all junctions.. 743326 Minimum number of possible iterations......... 413760 Efficiency of the simulation .................. 1.80 Excellent Efficiency Extran Efficiency is an indicator of the efficiency of the simulation. Ideal efficiency is one iteration per time step. Altering the underrelaxation parameter, lowering the time step, increasing the flow and head tolerance are good ways of improving the efficiency, another is lowering the internal time step. The lower thel efficiency generally the faster your model will run. If your efficiency is less than 1.5 then you may try increasing your time step so that your overall simulation] is faster. Ideal efficiency would be around 2.0 Good Efficiency < 1.5 mean iterations Excellent Efficiency < 2.5 and > 1.5 mean iterations Good Efficiency < 4.0 and > 2.5 mean iterations Fair Efficiency < 7.5 and > 4.0 mean iterations Poor Efficiency > 7.5 mean iterations Table E9 - JUNCTION SUMMARY STATISTICS The Maximum area is only the area of the node, it does not include the area of the surrounding conduits) Uppermost Maximum Time Feet of Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Ground PipeCrown Junction of Surcharge Freeboar d Junction Gutter Gutter Gutter Junction Elevation Elevation Elevation Occurence at Max of node Area Depth Width Velocity Name --------------- feet feet feet Hr. Min. Elevation feet ft^2 feet feet ft/s B --------- 35 -------- 28.392 -------- 31.9408 --------- 30 0 --------- 3.5488 -------- 3.0592 -------- 12.566 --------- 0 --------- 0 --------- 0 N1 32.66 28.3 31.9398 30 0 3.6398 0.7202 12.566 0 0 0 C 35.22 27.66 30.4688 30 2 2.8088 4.7512 12.566 0 0 0 D 28.67 26.92 29.224 30 4 2.304 0 8701.1107 0 0 0 N3 28 27.65 24.9242 30 0 0 3.0758 12.566 0 0 0 I 30 28.94 20.794 30 1 0 9.206 12.566 0 0 0 A 33.35 27.46 31.9415 30 0 4.4815 1.4085 12.566 0 0 0 N2 30.3 22.4 29.2699 30 4 6.8699 1.0301 12.566 0 0 0 N5 28 26 20.16 18 0 0 7.84 12.566 0 0 0 N4 25 20 20.3956 30 1 0.3956 4.6044 12.566 0 0 0 F 28.51 27.1975 23.9509 30 0 0 4.5591 12.566 0 0 0 G 30.01 29.2725 22.778 30 0 0 7.232 12.566 0 0 0 H 30.01 28.855 21.6656 30 1 0 8.3444 12.566 0 0 0 Box cb B 28.5 24.3296 27.4659 30 4 3.1363 1.0341 12.566 0 0 0 Box cb C 26.6 24.0788 26.6 29 42 2.5212 0 12.566 0 0 0 Box cb A 30.25 24.686 28.6941 30 4 4.0081 1.5559 12.566 0 0 0 Table E10 - CONDUIT SUMMARY STATISTICS Note: The peak flow may be less than the design flow and the conduit may still surcharge because of the downstream boundary conditions. * denotes an open conduit that has been overtopped this is a potential source of severe errors Conduit Maximum Maximum Time Maximum Time Ratio of Maximum Depth Ratio Ratio Design Design Vertical Computed of Computed of Max. to at Pipe Ends d/D d/D Conduit Flow Velocity Depth Flow Occurence Velocity Occurence Design Upstream Dwnstrm US DS Name --------------- (cfs) ------- (ft/s) -------- (in) -------- (cfs) Hr. Min. (ft/s) Hr. Min. Flow (ft) (ft) B-N1 99.4838 5.0667 60 ------- -0.5808 ----------- 29 30 ------- -0.2982 ---------- 19 30 ------- -0.0058 -------- 31.9408 -------- 31.9398 ----- 1.709 ----- 1.728 NI-C 158.2956 5.5986 72 241.5501 30 0 8.5137 30 0 1.5259 31.9398 30.4688 1.606 1.468 C-D 172.9674 6.1175 72 241.5851 30 0 8.5208 30 0 1.3967 30.4688 29.224 1.483 1.384 N3-F 728.053 6.9132 99.12 273.9896 30 0 6.2134 30 0 0.3763 24.9242 23.9509 0.67 0.6069 A-N1 70.3134 9.9473 36 0.3367 31 17 0.0473 31 17 0.0048 31.9415 31.9398 2.493 2.879 N2-D 75.905 7.8894 42 -11.607 30 0 -1.1936 30 0 -0.1529 29.2699 29.224 2.385 2.949 I-N4 95.9369 7.6344 48 50.005 30 2 4.4787 30 3 0.5212 20.794 20.3956 0.7135 1.098 N4-N5 99.8147 7.943 48 61.0924 30 2 4.7726 30 2 0.6121 20.3956 20.16 1.208 1.29 I-N5 1518.25 15.976 132 223.9672 30 1 7.3482 30 1 0.1475 20.794 20.16 0.2595 0.4691 F-G 769.4335 6.6961 91.08 273.9776 30 0 6.1778 30 0 0.3561 23.9509 22.778 0.6605 0.5593 G-H 2216.818 9.5668 128.88 273.9714 30 1 6.2001 30 1 0.1236 22.778 21.6656 0.3953 0.3306 H-I 879.2816 6.7384 76.44 273.9691 30 1 7.3119 30 1 0.3116 21.6656 20.794 0.5574 0.448 Box 1 134.9276 5.622 48 251.3819 30 4 10.4194 30 4 1.8631 29.224 28.6941 2.096 2.002 Box 3 134.9276 5.622 48 251.3823 30 4 10.437 30 4 1.8631 27.4659 26.6 1.784 1.63 Box 4 148.9257 6.2052 48 233.9234 30 47 9.7225 30 47 1.5707 26.6 24.9242 1.63 1.383 Box 2 134.9276 5.622 48 251.3822 30 4 10.4271 30 4 1.8631 28.6941 27.4659 2.002 1.784 FREE # 1 Undefnd Undefnd Undefn 287.9489 30 1 Table E11. Area assumptions used in the analysis) Subcritical and Critical flow assumptions from Subroutine Head. See Figure 17-1 in the manual.for further information. Duration Duration Durat. of Durat. of of of Sub- Upstream Downstream Maximum Maximum Maximum Conduit Dry Critical Critical Critical Hydraulic X-Sect Vel*D Name Flow(min) Flow(min) Flow(min) Flow(min) Radius-m Area(ft^2) (ft^2/s) B-N 1 81.7500 1349.8750 N1-C 0.1875 1434.3750 C-D 0.1875 453.7500 N3-F 0.0000 1440.0000 A -NI 587.8333 850.5833 N2-D 3.6250 1436.3750 I-N4 0.0000 1440.0000 N4-N5 0.0000 1440,0000 I-N5 0.0000 1440.0000 F-G 0.0000 1440.0000 G-H 0.0000 1440.0000 H-I 0.0000 1440.0000 Box 1 0.3750 1439.6250 Box 3 3.6250 1436.3750 Box 4 0.0000 1440.0000 Box 2 2.1250 1437.8750 8.3750 0.0000 1.5207 20.5788 0.1964 0.0000 5.4375 1.8255 29.6049 78.4187 0.0000 986.0625 1.8249 29.6340 73.0143 0.0000 0.0000 1.9843 44.0965 32.7678 1.5833 0.0000 0.8395 7.2673 0.2882 0.0000 0.0000 0.9604 9.8549 11.1075 0.0000 0.0000 1.1049 11.1657 16.2332 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000 12.9108 23.8522 0.0000 0.0000 2.1009 30.4793 29.4440 0.0000 0.0000 1.8816 44.3487 28.5993 0.0000 0.0000 1.9656 44.1886 24.1677 0.0000 0.0000 1.6930 37.4688 23.4147 0.0000 0.0000 1.6298 26.3149 85.3956 0.0000 0.0000 1.6239 26.3134 71.2707 0.0000 0.0000 1.5781 26.3092 58.5138 0.0000 0.0000 1.6208 26.3131 78.9546 Table El2. Mean Conduit Flow Information Mean Total Mean Low Mean Mean Mean Mean Conduit Flow Flow Percent Flow Froude Hydraulic Cross Conduit Name --------------- (cfs) (ft^3) Change Weightng -------- -------- -------- Number Radius Area Roughness B-N1 -0.0007-58.2268 -------- 0.0066 ------ 0.9746 --------------- 0.0002 --------- 0.9525 11.4536 0.0120 NI-C 75.5146 6524465.1 0.0367 0.9998 0.5579 1.3262 18.4316 0.0140 C-D 75.4778 6521278.5 0.0397 0.9998 0.6107 1.2969 18.1135 0.0140 N3-F 91.3318 7891067.6 0.0340 1.0000 0.4773 1.4932 27.5362 0.0254 A -NI 0.0000-2.3095 0.0028 0.7746 0.0003 0.5506 4.3062 0.0140 N2-D -3.5608-307656.3 0.0099 0.9988 0.0005 0.8633 8.3775 0.0140 I-N4 3.7105 320585.88 0.0097 1.0000 0.2242 1.0607 10.5488 0.0140 N4-N5 7.1315 616160.90 0.0103 1.0000 0.1782 1.0000 12.8422 0.0140 I-N5 87.6128 7569745.0 0.0255 1.0000 0.5121 1.9923 28.5199 0.0140 F-G 91.3247 7890453.0 0.0319 1.0000 0.5023 1.5525 27.6955 0.0260 G-H 91.3223 7890245.4 0.0321 1.0000 0.4736 1.6568 29.8364 0.0260 H-I 91.3220 7890221.1 0.0377 1.0000 0.5557 1.4820 27.3608 0.0251 Box 1 79.0306 6828248.0 0.1378 0.9998 0.6205 1.1140 17.2376 0.0140 Box 3 79.0082 6826306.1 0.0947 0.9988 0.5875 1.1564 17.9016 0.0140 Box 4 78.5556 6787206.8 0.0599 1.0000 0.5491 1.2114 18.8913 0.0140 Box 2 79.0215 6827461.9 0.0924 0.9992 0.6149 1.1298 17.4869 0.0140 FREE # 1 95.6361 8262959.9 Table E13. Channel losses(H), headwater depth (HW), tailwater depth (TW), critical and normal depth (Yc and Yn). Use this section for culvert comparisons Conduit Maximum Head Friction Critical Normal HW TW Name Flow Loss Loss Depth Depth Elevat Elevat --------------------------- B-N1 0.5360 --------- 0.0000 --------- 0.0000 --------- 0.1959 --------- 0.2480 --------- 30.5751 30.5543 Max Flow N1-C 241.5127 0.0000 1.4796 4.2548 6.0000 31.9162 30.4417 Max Flow C-D 241.5315 0.0000 1.2605 4.2550 6.0000 30.4414 29.1867 Max Flow N3-F 273.9894 0.0000 0.8029 4.1661 6.0238 24.9242 23.9508 Max Flow A -NI 0.2983 0.0000 0.0000 0.1587 0.1351 30.7570 30.7714 Max Flow N2-D-0.3439 0.0000 -0.0001 0.1652 0.1617 21.9427 21.9428 Max Flow I-N4 50.0048 0.0000 0.5845 2.1201 2.0501 20.7937 20.3954 Max Flow N4-N5 61.0924 0.0000 0.2022 2.3547 2.2614 20.3955 20.1600 Max Flow I-N5 223.9662 0.0000 0.8906 3.4078 2.8479 20.7940 20.1600 Max Flow F-G 273.9758 0.0000 0.8918 4.0926 5.4016 23.9508 22.7779 Max Flow G-H 273.9705 0.0000 0.8727 3.3558 4.6178 22.7780 21.6655 Max Flow H-I 273.9682 0.0000 0.5383 3.1957 4.1284 21.6656 20.7939 Max Flow Box 1 251.3819 0.0000 0.5290 3.7914 4.0000 29.2238 28.6939 Max Flow Box 3 251.3823 0.0000 0.8644 3.7914 4.0000 27.4658 26.6000 Max Flow Box 4 233.8887 0.0000 1.6902 3.6133 4.0000 26.6000 24.9077 Max Flow Box 2 251.3822 0.0000 1.2260 3.7914 4.0000 28.6939 27.4658 Max Flow Table E13a. CULVERT ANALYSIS CLASSIFICATION, and the time the culvert was in a particular classification during the simulation. The time is in minutes. The Dynamic Wave Equation is used for all conduit analysis but the culvert flow classification condition is based on the HW and TW depths. Mild Mild Steep Mild Mild Slope Slope TW Slope TW Slug Flow Slope Slope Critical D Control Insignf Outlet/ TW > D TW <= D Conduit Outlet Outlet Entrance Entrance Outlet Outlet Outlet Inlet Inlet Name Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Control Configuration ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- B-N1 0.0000 1120.2500 81.7500 0.0000 238.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None N1-C 0.2500 1204.7500 0.0000 0.0000 235.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None C-D 416.2500 787.0000 0.0000 0.0000 236.7500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None N3-F 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None A -NI 0.0000 0.0000 614.0000 572.0000 0.0000 253.5000 0.5000 0.0000 None N2-D 0.0000 0.0000 12.5000 1094.0000 0.0000 331.0000 2.5000 0.0000 None I-N4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1378.2500 61.7500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None N4-N5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.2500 1410.7500 0.0000 0.0000 None I-N5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 997.7500 0.0000 0.0000 442.2500 0.0000 None F-G 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None G-H 0.0000 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None H-I 345.2500 1094.7500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None Box 1 4.7500 1119.2500 0.2500 0.0000 315.7500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None Box 3 1.0000 1117.7500 3.5000 0.0000 317.7500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None Box 4 0.0000 1100.2500 0.0000 0.0000 339.7500 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None Box 2 4.7500 1116.7500 2.0000 0.0000 316.5000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None Kinematic Wave Approximations Time in Minutes for Each Condition Conduit Duration of Slope Super- Roll Name Normal Flow Criteria Critical Waves B-N 1 0.0000 634.8917 0.0000 0.0000 NI-C 0.0500 6.1316 0.0000 0.0000 C-D 0.2375 83.9821 1.3750 0.0000 N3-F 0.0000 68.3125 0.0000 0.0000 A -NI 261.1667 575.8000 0.0000 0.0000 N2-D 11.2500 14.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I-N4 0.0000 431.5625 0.0000 0.0000 N4-N5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I-N5 371.00001440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 F-G 0.0000 323.4375 0.0000 0.0000 G-H 0.0000 556.7500 0.0000 0.0000 H-I 0.0000 556.3750 0.0000 0.0000 Box 1 0.5000 1036.0000 3.2500 0.0000 Box 3 6.6250 1142.4250 0.0000 0.0000 Box 4 0.0000 1140.8125 0.0000 0.0000 Box 2 14.3750 1136.1000 3.0000 0.0000 Table E 14 - Natural Channel Overbank Flow Information <---- Maximum Velocity -----> <------ Maximum Flow -------> <------ Maximum Area ------> <--- Max. Storage Volume ---> Conduit Left Center Right Left Center Right Left Center Right Left Center Right Maximum Name Velocity Velocity Velocity Flow Flow ------------------------ Flow Area Area Area Area Area Area Depth N3-F --------------------------- 1.2333 6.6008 1.0863 ------------------ 2.7261 270.2567 ------------------ 1.0068 --------- 2.2104 --------- 40.9429 --------------------------- 0.9268 377.9747 7001.2386 158.4862 5.3108 F-G 1.1990 7.1175 1.6906 1.7874 262.0535 10.1367 1.4908 36.8184 5.9960 241.5048 5964.5802 971.3589 4.6818 G-H 1.2772 7.1125 1.7607 1.9816 261.8131 10.1767 1.5516 36.8102 5.7799 259.1100 6147.2972 965.2451 3.9437 H-I 0.0000 7.5085 1.0385 0.0000 272.8408 1.1283 0.0000 36.3374 1.0865 0.0000 2543.6205 76.0548 3.2614 Table E14a - Natural Channel Encroachment Information <------- Existing Conveyance Condition -------> <----- Encroachment Conveyance Condition -----> <- % Volume --> <-- Encroachment Data --> Conduit Left Centre Right Total Left Right Left Centre Right Total Left Right Reduction Depth Name Bank Channel Bank Station Station Bank Channel Bank Station Station Left Right Incr. Method ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- N3-F 45.204 4481.4 16.694 4543.3-6.3815 9.1598 45.204 4481.4 16.694 4543.3-6.3815 9.1598 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None F-G 28.763 4216.9 163.12 4408.8-7.9213 11.028 28.763 4216.9 163.12 4408.8-7.9213 11.028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None G-H 32.174 4250.9 165.23 4448.3-4.1722 14.478 32.174 4250.9 165.23 4448.3-4.1722 14.478 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None H-1 0.0000 3399.2 14.058 3413.3-7.2107 13.618 0.0000 3399.2 14.058 3413.3-7.2107 13.618 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 None Table E14b - Floodplain Mapping Conduit Upstream Downstream Channel Center <----- Left Offsets ------> <----- Right Offsets ------> <- Channel Widths-> Name WS Elev. WS Elev. Length Station --------------------------------- Natural Encroach Bank Natural Encroach Bank Total Encroach. --------------------------- N3-F 24.9242 23.9509 171.0000 2.4000 --------- 8.7815 --------------------------- 8.7815 5.1000 --------- 6.7598 ------------------ 6.7598 5.1900 15.5412 15.5412 F-G 23.9509 22.7780 162.0000 0.0000 7.9213 7.9213 5.3100 11.0285 11.0285 4.4720 18.9498 18.9498 G-H 22.7780 21.6656 167.0000 0.0000 4.1722 4.1722 1.8800 14.4781 14.4781 8.7000 18.6504 18.6504 H-I 21.6656 20.7940 70.0000 0.0000 7.2107 7.2107 8.9100 13.6175 13.6175 9.8800 20.8282 20.8282 Table E15 -SPREADSHEET INFO LIST Conduit Flow and Junction Depth Information for use in spreadsheets. The maximum values in this table are the true maximum values because they sample every time step. The values in the review results may only be the maximum of a subset of all the time steps in the run. Note: These flows are only the flows in a single barrel. Conduit Maximum Total Maximum Maximum ## Junction Invert Maximum Name Flow Flow Velocity Volume ## Name Elevation Elevation (cfs) (ft^3) (ft/s) (ft^3) ## (ft) (ft) ----------- ---------------------------------------- ## ---------------------------------- B-NI -0.5808-58.2268 -0.2982 1523.1881 ## B 23.0000 31.9408 N1-C 241.55016524465.142 8.5137 11708.0598 ## N1 22.0000 31.9398 C-D 241.58516521278.461 8.5208 9959.2578 ## C 21.5700 30.4688 N3-F 273.9896 7891067.632 6.2134 7461.3985 ## D 20.8400 29.2240 A -NI 0.3367-2.3095 0.0473 643.7861 ## N3 19.3900 24.9242 N2-D -11.6070-307656.279 -1.1936 2980.8529 ## I 17.9400 20.7940 I-N4 50.0050 320585.8797 4.4787 4373.0399 ## A 24.4000 31.9415 N4-N5 61.0924 616160.9012 4.7726 1288.0010 ## N2 18.9000 29.2699 I-N5 223.9672 7569745.012 7.3482 15444.6755 ## N5 15.0000 20.1600 F-G 273.9776 7890453.018 6.1778 7035.0445 ## N4 15.5000 20.3956 G-H 273.9714 7890245.447 6.2001 7246.0089 ## F 18.9375 23.9509 H-I 273.96917890221.080 7.3119 2557.4028 ## G 18.5325 22.7780 Box 1 251.3819 6828247.978 10.4194 1842.0594 ## H 18.1150 21.6656 Box 3 251.3823 6826306.057 10.4370 2999.9281 ## Box cb B 20.3296 27.4659 Box 4 233.9234 6787206.834 9.7225 6762.3276 ## Box cb C 20.0788 26.6000 Box 2 251.3822 6827461.875 10.4271 4263.0570 ## Box cb A 20.6860 28.6941 FREE # 1 287.9489 8262959.867 0.0000 0.0000 ## Table E15a -SPREADSHEET REACH LIST Peak flow and Total Flow listed by Reach or those conduits or diversions having the same upstream and downstream nodes. Upstream Downstream Maximum Total Node Node Flow Flow -------------------------- (cfs) (ft^3) B ------------------- N1-0.5808-58.2268 N1 C 241.5501 6524465.14 C D 241.5851 6521278.46 N3 F 273.9896 7891067.63 A N1 0.3367-2.3095 D N2 11.6070 307656.279 I N4 50.0050 320585.880 N4 N5 61.0924 616160.901 I N5 223.9672 7569745.01 F G 273.9776 7890453.02 G H 273.9714 7890245.45 H I 273.9691 7890221.08 D Box cb A 251.3819 6828247.98 Box cb B Box cb C 251.3823 6826306.06 Box cb C N3 233.9234 6787206.83 Box cb A Box cb B 251.3822 6827461.88 ########################### ############### # Table E16. New Conduit Information Section # # Conduit Invert (IE) Elevation and Conduit # # Maximum Water Surface (WS) Elevations # ##### Conduit Name Upstream Node Downstream Node IE Up IE Dn WS Up WS Dn Conduit Type ------------------------ B-N1 ---------------- B ------------------------------------------------- N1 23.3920 23.3000 31.9408 31.9398 Circular NI-C N1 C 22.3000 21.6600 31.9398 30.4688 Circular C-D C D 21.5700 20.9200 30.4688 29.2240 Circular N3-F N3 F 19.3900 18.9375 24.9242 23.9509 Natural A-N1 A N1 24.4600 23.3000 31.9415 31.9398 Circular N2-D D N2 20.9200 18.9000 29.2240 29.2699 Circular I-N4 I N4 17.9400 16.0000 20.7940 20.3956 Circular N4-N5 N4 N5 15.5600 15.0000 20.3956 20.1600 Circular I-N5 I N5 17.9400 15.0000 20.7940 20.1600 Circular F-G F G 18.9375 18.5325 23.9509 22.7780 Natural G-H G H 18.5325 18.1150 22.7780 21.6656 Natural H-I H I 18.1150 17.9400 21.6656 20.7940 Natural Box 1 D Box cb A 20.8400 20.6860 29.2240 28.6941 Rectangle Box 3 Box cb B Box cb C 20.3296 20.0788 27.4659 26.6000 Rectangle Box 4 Box cb C N3 20.0788 19.3900 26.6000 24.9242 Rectangle Box 2 Box cb A Box cb B 20.6860 20.3296 28.6941 27.4659 Rectangle Table E18 -Junction Continuity Error. Division by Volume added 11/96 1 Continuity Error = Net Flow + Beginning Volume - Ending Volume Total Flow + (Beginning Volume + Ending Volume)/2 Net Flow = Node Inflow - Node Outflow Total Flow = absolute (Inflow + Outflow) Intermediate column is a judgement on the node continuity error. Excellent < 1 percent Great 1 to 2 percent Good 2 to 5 percent Fair 5 to 10 percent Poor 10 to 25 percent Bad 25 to 50 percent Terrible > 50 percent *_____ --- - ---- _------ ____________-----------__________* Junction <------ Continuity Error -------> Remaining Beginning Net Flow Total Flow Failed to Name Volume % of Node % of Inflow Volume Volume Thru Node Thru Node Converge B-2.3750-2.6410 0.0000 63.4002 0.0000 61.0252 58.2268 0 N1 627.5315 0.0048 0.0075 1280.2302 0.0000 1907.761813051021.14 0 C 1034.1769 0.0079 0.0124 2118.1390 0.0000 3152.315813045743.60 0 D-1296.8127-0.0095 0.0156 1964.5190 0.0000 667.7063 13657182.72 0 N3 297.2792 0.0019 0.0036 2107.7284 560.1840 1844.823615783984.55 0 I-9.2941-0.0001 0.0001 9319.1477 9361.6093 -51.755615780551.97 0 A-21.5711-189.7151 0.0003 18.1215 0.0000 -3.4495 2.3095 0 N2 179.1494 0.0290 0.0022 842.9150 15.8332 1006.2312 616316.6837 0 N5 67.8837 0.0004 0.0008 7509.9991 7540.2257 37.657116525966.08 0 N4 8.4495 0.0007 0.0001 2540,5729 2549.5502 -0.52791232322.813 0 F-69.5591-0.0004 0.0008 1576.0257 923.8147 582.651915781520.65 0 G-44.9372-0.0003 0.0005 2127.2966 1907.4362 174.923215780698.47 0 H-32.7243-0.0002 0.0004 1972.6617 1927.0530 12,884415780466.53 0 Box cb B 122.6144 0.0009 0.0015 1068.4580 0.0000 1191.0725 13653767.93 0 Box cb C 128.9322 0.0009 0.0016 1821.3869 284.0411 39081.4405 13613512.89 Box cb A 77.6157 0.0006 0.0009 836.4096 0.0000 914.0252 13655709.85 0 The total continuity error was 1066.4 cubic feet The remaining total volume was 37167. cubic feet Your mean node continuity error was Excellent Your worst node continuity error was Excellent Table E19 - Junction Inflow Sources Units are either ft^3 or m^3 depending on the units in your model. Constant User Interface DWF Inflow RNF Layer Inflow Junction Inflow Inflow Inflow Inlow through Inflow Outflow Evaporation from Name --------------- to Node to Node -------------------------------- to Node ----------- to Node Outfall to Node from Node from Node 2D Layer N 1 0.0000 6.5266E+06 0.0000 ----------- 0.0000 ----------- 0.0000 ----------- 0.0000 ----------- 0.0000 ----------- 0.0000 0.0000 N3 0.0000 1.1057E+06 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N2 0.0000 308659.1100 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 N5 0.0000 77099.9775 0.0000 0.0000 0.3220 0.0000 8.2630E+06 0.0000 0.0000 N4 0.0000 295574.7525 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Box cb C 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 37415.1625 0.0000 0.0000 Table E20 - Junction Flooding and Volume Listing. The maximum volume is the total volume in the node including the volume in the flooded storage area. This is the max volume at any time. The volume in the flooded storage area is the total volume) above the ground elevation, where the flooded pond storage area starts. The fourth column is instantaneous, the fifth is the) sum of the flooded volume over the entire simulation] Units are either ft^3 or m^3 depending on the units.1 Out of System Stored in System Junction Surcharged Flooded Flooded Maximum Ponding Allowed Name Time (min) Time(min) Volume Volume Flood Pond Volume B 236.3500 0.0000 0.0000 112.3501 0.0000 N1 238.0000 0.0000 0.0000 124.9041 0.0000 C 234.9182 0.0000 0.0000 111.8223 0.0000 D 236.5000 83.1189 0.0000 3799.5024 4285.6765 N3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 69.5429 0.0000 I 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 35.8635 0.0000 A 253.5500 0.0000 0.0000 94.7670 0.0000 N2 917.3333 0.0000 0.0000 130.3080 0.0000 N5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 64.8406 0.0000 N4 1440.0000 0.0000 0.0000 61.5187 0.0000 F 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 62.9981 0.0000 G 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 53.3484 0.0000 H 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 44.6165 0.0000 Box cb B 316.6875 0.0000 0.0000 89.6742 0.0000 Box cb C 317.6875 64.8575 37415.1625 81.9454 0.0000 Box cb A 315.7500 0.0000 0.0000 100.6293 0.0000 Simulation Specific Information Number of Input Conduits.......... 16 Number of Simulated Conduits...... 17 Number of Natural Channels........ 4 Number of Junctions ............... 16 Number of Storage Junctions....... 0 Number of Weirs ................... 0 Number of Orifices ................ 0 Number of Pumps................... 0 Number of Free Outfalls........... 1 Number of Tide Gate Outfalls...... 0 ________------- ---------- -* Average % Change in Junction or Conduit is defined as: Conduit % Change =_> 100.0 ( Q(n+1) - Q(n) ) / Qfull Junction % Change => 100.0 (Y(n+l) - Y(n)) / Yfull The Conduit with the largest average change was..Box 1 with 0.138 percent The Junction with the largest average change was.Box cb A with 0.563 percent The Conduit with the largest sinuosity was ....... Box 1 with 24.856 *_=_==-- ---- __——_=___=_____=______* Table E21. Continuity balance at the end of the simulation Junction Inflow, Outflow or Street Flooding Error = Inflow + Initial Volume - Outflow - Final Volume Inflow Inflow Average Junction Volume,ft^3 Inflow, cfs N1 6.52650E+06 75.5381 N3 1.10571E+06 12.7976 N2 308660.4044 3.5725 N5 77100.3006 0.8924 N4 295576.0319 3.4210 N5 -8.263E+06-95.6361 Box cb C-37415.1625-0.4330 Outflow Outflow Average Junction Volume, ft^3 . Outflow, cfs N5 8.26296E+06 95.6361 Box cb C 37415.1625 0.4330 Initial system volume = 25069.7474 Cu Ft Total system inflow volume = 8.313613E+06 Cu Ft Inflow + Initial volume = 8.338683E+06 Cu Ft Total system outflow = 8.300375E+06 Cu Ft Volume left in system = 37167.0115 Cu Ft Evaporation = 0.0000 Cu Ft Outflow + Final Volume = 8.337542E+06 Cu Ft Total Model Continuity Error Error in Continuity, Percent = 0.01281 Error in Continuity, ft^3 = 1066.3591 + Error means a continuity loss, - a gain ################################################### # Table E22. Numerical Model judgement section # ###### ########## Your overall error was 0.0128 percent Worst nodal error was in node D with-0.0095 percent Of the total inflow this loss was 0.0156 percent Your overall continuity error was Excellent Excellent Efficiency Efficiency of the simulation 1.80 Most Number of Non Convergences at one Node 0. Total Number Non Convergences at all Nodes 0. Total Number of Nodes with Non Convergences 0. —> Hydraulic model simulation ended normally. XP-SWMM Simulation ended normally. Your input file was named : M:\RENTON\05731 Renton Village\Modeling\Design\Design Future\Alternatives\Dec 06 Alt\Alt 1 100 dec 06.DAT Your output file was named: MARENTON\05731 Renton Village\Modeling\Design\Design Future\Alternatives\Dec 06 Alt\Alt 1 100 dec 06.out SWMM Simulation Date and Time Summary ----------------_________--- ------------- Starting Date... December 22, 2006 Time... 7:45:26:45 Ending Date... December 22, 2006 Time... 7:46:55:28 Elapsed Time... 1.48050 minutes or 88.83000 seconds I APPENDIX E DIGITAL XP-SWMM MODELING FILES Modeling Files: {Designed Alternatives}: • {Alternative 1 } o Alt 1 25 dec 06.xp [25-year storm under future conditions for Alt. 1] o Alt 1 100 dec 06.xp [100-year storm under future conditions for Alt. 1 ] • {Alternative 2} o Alt 2_25 dec 06.xp [25-year storm under future conditions for Alt. 2] o Alt 2 100 dec 06.xp [100-year storm under future conditions for Alt. 2] • {Alternative Output} o Alt 1_25 dec 06.out [25-year storm, Alt. 1 output file; Opens in Notebook or Word Pad programs] o Alt 1_100 dec 06.out [100-year storm, Alt. 1 output file; Opens in Notebook or Word Pad programs] o Alt 2_25 dec 06.out [25-year storm, Alt. 2 output file; Opens in Notebook or WordPad programs] o Alt 2_100 dec 06.out [100-year storm, Alt. 2 output file; Opens in Notebook or Word Pad programs] {Existing Flows in Existing System}: • Renton Village Existing 2.xp • Renton Village Existing 10.xp • Renton Village Existing 25.xp Renton Village Existing 100.xp [2-Year Storm, Existing System with Existing Land Use] [10-YearStorm, Existing System with Existing Land Use] [25-Year Storm, Existing System with Existing Land Use] [100-Year Storm, Existing System with Existing Land Use] • {Existing Output} o Renton Village Existing 2.out Existing System, Output file] o Renton Village Existing 10.out Use, Existing System, Output file] o Renton Village Existing 25.out Use, Existing System, Output file] o Renton Village Existing 100.out Use, Existing System, Output file] [2-Year storm, Existing Land Use, [1 0-Year storm, Existing Land [25-Year storm, Existing Land [100-Year storm, Existing Land {Future Flows in Existing System}: • RV fut 2.xp [2-Year Storm, Existing System with future Land Use] • RV fut 10.xp [10-Year Storm, Existing System with future Land Use] • RV fut 25.xp [25-Year Storm, Existing System with future Land Use] • RV fut 100.xp [100-Year Storm, Existing System with future Land Use] • {Future Output} o RV fut 2.6ut [2-Year storm, Future Land Use, Existing System, Output file] o RV fut 10.out [10-Year storm, Future Land Use, Existing System, RV fut 2.out o RV fut 25.out [25-Year storm, Future Land Use, Existing System, Output file] o RV fut 100.out [100-Year storm, Future Land Use, Existing System, Output file] APPENDIX F CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES Alt 1 (west box) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT No. Spec No. PRICE 1 1-04.12 Mobilization, Cleanup & Demobilization 1 LS $98,000.00 $98,000.00 2 1-05.4(2) Construction Surveying, Staking, and As -built Drawings 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 3 1-09.14(1) Traffic Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 8-01 Temporary Water Pollution / Erosion Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 5 7-08.3(1)D Dewatering 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 6 1-04.12 Temporary Bypass Pumping 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 7 1-04.12 Trench Shoring and Excavation Safety Systems 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 8 1-07.16(5) Locate and Protect Existing Utilities 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 9 2-02 Removal of Structure and Obstruction 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 10 1-09.14(1) Remove / Relocate Existing Signing 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 11 4'x6' Pre Cast Box Culvert (incl. bedding) 605 LF $1,140.00 $689,700.00 12 7-17.3(3) Bank Run Gravel for Trench Backfill 9700 TN $15.00 $145,500.00 13 1-09.14(1) Unsuitable Foundation Excavation, Incl. Haul 150 CY $20.00 $3,000.00 14 9-03.17 Gravel Backfill for Foundation Class B 270 TN $20.00 $5,400.00 15 9-03.22 Controlled Density Fill 150 CY $100.00 $15,000.00 16 Sanitary Sewer Crossing/Encasement 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 17 Relocate 12-inch Water Main 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 18 8-04 Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter 30 LF $12.00 $360.00 19 Cement Concrete Sidewalk 0 SY $50.00 $0.00 20 4-04 Crushed Surfacing Top Course 320 TN $20.00 $6,400.00 21 2-02.3(4) Sawcutting 1220 LF $3.00 $3,660.00 22 5-04.3 Temporary Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Patch 220 TN $75.00 $16,500.00 23 5-04.3(9) Asphalt Concrete Pavement Cl. "B" 120 TN $60.00 $7,200.00 24 8-22 Restore Pavement Markings 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 25 1-07.16(1) Remove / Restore Existing Landscaping 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 26 8-01.3(2)A Topsoil Type A 1 CY $25.00 $25.00 27 8-01.3(4)A Seeding, Fertilizing, and Mulching 10 SY $2.00 $20.00 28 7-04.6 Television Inspection 605 LF $1.25 $800.00 29 7-08.3(1)C Compaction Testing 12 EA $60.00 $800.00 30 1-04.4(1) Force Account 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Subtotal (Items 1-38) Sales Tax (8.8%) TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Construction Contingencies (10%) SUBTOTAL FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE $1,075,365.00 $94,632.12 $1,169,997.12 $116,999.71 $1,286,996.83 $1,287,000.00 1/16/2007 Renton Village Cost Est 1-12-2007.xls Alt 2 (East box) DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT AMOUNT No. Spec No. PRICE 1 1-04.12 Mobilization, Cleanup & Demobilization 1 LS $89,000.00 $89,000.00 2 1-05.4(2) Construction Surveying, Staking, and As -built Drawings 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00 3 1-09.14(1) Traffic Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 4 8-01 Temporary Water Pollution / Erosion Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 5 7-08.3(1)D Dewatering 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 6 1-04.12 Temporary Bypass Pumping 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 7 1-04.12 Trench Shoring and Excavation Safety Systems 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00 8 1-07.16(5) Locate and Protect Existing Utilities 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00 9 2-02 Removal of Structure and Obstruction 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 10 1-09.14(1) Remove / Relocate Existing Signing 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 11 4 x6' Pre Cast Box Culvert (incl. bedding) 497 LF $1,140.00 $566,580.00 12 7-17.3(3) Bank Run Gravel for Trench Backfill 8000 TN $15.00 $120,000.00 13 1-09.14(1) Unsuitable Foundation Excavation, Incl. Haul 230 CY $20.00 $4,600.00 14 9-03.17 Gravel Backfill for Foundation Class B 403 TN $20.00 $8,050.00 15 9-03.22 Controlled Density Fill 230 CY $100.00 $23,000.00 16 Sanitary Sewer Crossing/Encasement 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 17 Relocate 12-inch Water Main 1 LS $202000.00 $20,000.00 18 8-04 Cement Concrete Curb and Gutter 65 LF $12.00 $780.00 19 Cement Concrete Sidewalk 40 SY $50.00 $2,000.00 20 4-04 Crushed Surfacing Top Course 260 TN $20.00 $5,200.00 21 2-02.3(4) Sawcutting 1004 LF $3.00 $3,012.00 22 5-04.3 Temporary Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Patch 220 TN $75.00 $16,500.00 23 5-04.3(9) Asphalt Concrete Pavement Cl. "B" 100 TN $60.00 $6,000.00 24 8-22 Restore Pavement Markings 1 LS $500.00 $500.00 25 1-07.16(1) Remove / Restore Existing Landscaping 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 26 8-01.3(2)A Topsoil Type A 1 CY $25.00 $25.00 27 8-01.3(4)A Seeding, Fertilizing, and Mulching 10 SY $2.00 $20.00 28 7-04.6 Television Inspection 497 LF $1.25 $700.00 29 7-08.3(1)C Compaction Testing 10 EA $60.00 $600.00 30 1-04.4(1) Force Account 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Subtotal (Items 1-38) $969,067.00 Sales Tax (8.8%) $85,277.90 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,054,344.90 Construction Contingencies (10%) $105,434.49 SUBTOTAL $1,159,779.39 FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE $1,160,000.00 1/16/2007 Renton Village Cost Est 1-12-2007.xis RENi v/v V/LL/1G� = C h P (� 0' 7 z" C,9P,:� r1Ty i6 Te 2 J • �l Z For S = , o For S r- .002 � -72 Q I 3 002 DV�'H s p 7 i/ C (s►�. C . R y ,k, _ _p CI-rt./,,/0"i9c It - J, b 3 -lot/ 2 y , soo,Y 2&22 2. 2 y c ,�J ✓ - o0 .orl y , 002 5 3 45 ✓ Z�F =a /. 3 ? .0 025 6 2 �- �. oil Fit_ _ _ �_asaaaaaaam E N4 H— j ( Ch) G-H (Ch) F—G (Ch) N3—F (Ch) —N4c 4g ) H 0 F Zs ? q 0 J � N5 N2 i E )81D CITY OF' RENTON FIGURE n XP-SWMM MODEL SCHEMATIC Gray & Osborne, Izu-- CONSULTIN6 ENGiNEEQS Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 7 Modeling Results for Existing Pipes Under Existing Land Use Conditions Upstream Node Upstream Rim Elev ft Downstream Node Downstream Rim Elevation ft Conduit Name Pipe Diameter in. Pipe Length ft Upstream IE Downstream IE Sloe Pipe Design Capacity cfs) 2-Year Existing Flow (cfs) 10-Year Existing Flow (cfs) 25-Year Existing Flow (cfs 100-Year Existing Flow (cfs) A 35 NI 32.66 A-N1 60 74 24.46 23.30 1.57% 70 -1 1 3 B 33.35 N1 32.66 B-N1 36 90 23.39 23.30 0.10% 1 99 0 1 2 -3 N1 32.66 C 35.22 NI-C 72 395 22.30 21.66 0.16% 158 65 95 141 C 35.22 D 28.67 C-D 72 336 21.57 20.92 0.19% 173 64 95 141 l83 N2 30.3 D 28.67 N2-D 42 306 18.90 20.92 -0.66% 76 -6 -7 D 28.67 E 25.51 D-E 42 357 20.84 17.64 0.90% 88 68 E 25.51 N3 28 48 159 17.64 19.39 -1.10% 89 -68 N3 28 F 28.51 N - Channel 171 19.39 20.13 -0.43% 1 931 -85 -118 -131 -155 F 28.51 G 30.01 F-G Channel 162 18.91 19.27 -0.22% 725 -85 1 -118 -131 -155 G 30.01 H 30.01 G-H Channel 167 19.27 18.86 0.25% 2197 85 118 131 155 H 30.01 1 30 H-1 Channel 70 19.27 16.38 4.13% 3573 85 118 131 155 I 30 N4 25 I-N4 48 1 375 17.94 16.00 0.52% 96 27 23 -14 -19 N4 25 NS outfall 28 N4-N5 48 100 1 15.56 15.00 0.56% 100 30 30 -11 Is I 30 NS outfall 28 I-N5 132 500 17.94 15.00 0.59% 1518 58 95 135 173 ki ) riows exceemng pipe design capacity represent surcnarged conditions. " riooded manhole" conditions represent water flooding out of the manhole and into the parking lot. (2) Negative flows indicate flow in a negative direction occurring at some time during the model due to either backwater conditions or negative pipe slope. (3) Source: Tables E1, E9, El0, and El of XP-SWMM output files ("Renton Village Existing 2.out," "Renton Village Existing IO.out," etc.) located in digital files in Appendix E. - = Flooded Manhole Upstream 10 City of Renton October 2006 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis Gray & Osborne, Inc., Consulting Engineers TABLE 8 Modeling Results for Existing Pipes Under Future Land Use Conditions Upstream Node Upstream Rim Elev ft Downstream Node Downstream Rim Elevation ft Conduit Name Pipe Diameter in. Pipe Length ft Upstream IE Downstream IE Sloe Pipe Design Capacity cfs 2-Year Future Flow cfs 10-Year Future Flow cfs 25-Year Future 100-Year Flow Future cfs Flow (cfs) A 35 N1 32.66 A-N1 60 74 24.46 23.30 1.57% 99 3 5 4 B 33.35 N1 32.66 B-N1 36 90 23.39 23.30 0.10% 70 -15 1 -9 6 N 1 C 32.66 35.22 C D 35.22 28.67 N 1-C C-D 72 72 395 336 22.30 21.57 21.66 20.92 0.16% 0.19% 158 173 112 131 131 137 141 214 N2 30.3 D 28.67 N2-D 42 306 18.90 20.92 -0.66% 76 D 28.67 E 25.51 D-E 42 357 20.84 17.64 0.90% 88 E N3 25.51 28 N3 F 28 28.51 E-N3 N3-F 48 Channel 159 171 17.64 19.39 19.39 20.13 -1.10% -0.43% 89 931 -124 -131 -136 -161 F 28.51 G 30.01 F-G Channel 162 18.91 19.27 -0.22% 725 -124 -131 -136 1 -161 G 30.01 H 30.01 G-H Channel 167 19.27 18.86 0.25% 2197 124 131 136 161 H 30.01 I 30 H-1 Channel 70 19.27 16.38 4.13% 3573 124 131 136 161 1 30 N4 25 I-N4 48 375 17.94 16.00 0.52% 96 39 29 -16 -20 N4 25 NS outfall 28 N4-N5 48 100 15.56 15.00 4 0.56% 100 43 35 -12 -19 I 30 NS outfall 28 I-N5 132 500 17.94 15.00 0.59% 1518 86 ] 02 136 179 k i) r lows exceeaing pipe aesign capacity represent surchargea conaittons. -.r looaea manhole" conditions represent water flooding out of the manhole and into the parking lot. (2) Negative flows indicate flow in a negative direction occurring at some time during the model due to either backwater conditions or negative pipe slope. (3) Source: Tables El, E9, E10, E16 of XP-SWMM output files ("RV fut 2.out," "RV fut 10.out," etc.) located in digital files in Appendix E. - = Flooded Manhole Upstream City of Renton 11 Renton Village Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis October 2006 onMTI rN2.14 WN2: 20123a 4 -26 .26 D.*117,489 Ai 1 2 Es 10 228 6 `V? p W 1-405 ----------- y4 T? CITY OF RENTON FIGURE 5 25-YEAR CURRENT LAND Flooded Volume for Current Land Use (cf) Node.FOR USE MODEL RESULTS THE EXISTING SYSTEM Flooded Volume for Future Land Use (cf) Scale: 1' = 100 m CONSULTING ENGINEERS ',,I zo p" L 14': Renton Village Storm Project D. Carey 8/11/06 Comparing Peak Flows from Various Reports For the Rolling Hills Sub -basin Peak Flow Peak Flow Model Current Conditions Future Conditions Report Date Used 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr East Side Green River Watershed Hydrolgic Analysis by R.W. Beck March 1996 HSPF 107 117 130 140 163 198 Northwest Hydr Cons (NHC) Letter Report - Springbrook Creek Basin Validation Runs, Model v Gage Observations Jan. 1998 HSPF 10-yr, 24-hr Design Storm = 2.90" 2/8/96 3.06" Rain 95 observed Q 4/23/96 1.71" Rain 44 observed Q 12/29/96 1.92" Rain 87 observed Q Hydraulic Analysis of Springbrook Creek, FEMA Re-Mappiong Study Nov. 2004 FEQ FEQ Model flow Channel Branch 42, south of 132" culvert FEQ 181 ? _ 181 ? Extracted Flows for Rolling Hills, From Extracted x Mary Weber 8/10/06 Aug. 10, 2006 Multiplier 148 199 - 261 197 261 330 Northwest Hydr Cons (NHC) Memo - Nickel Project Downstream Analysis, Routed Flows? 2, 10, 50, 100-yr Dec. 2005 HSPF 134 na 165 153 na 172 Gray & Osborne Draft Hydrologic Report July 2006 KCRTS 297 381 618 337 506 756 SBUH 351 438 527 391 478 568 D. Carey - Check on KCRTS July 2006 15 min SeriE 298 384 618 1 hour Serie 133 152 257 File: Basin -Land Use-DCv01.xls - Tab: ReportFlows 0 Project: SWP-27-2711 Renton Village Storm System D. Carey 8/10/06 PIPE FLOW CAPACITY BY MANNING EQUATION Check on Existing Pipe Capacity by Manning Equation Ex 72-inch Length (ft) 720.00 Upstream IE (ft) 22.30 Slope = 0.0019 Downstream IE (ft)l 20.92 Ex 42-inch to 96" MH Length (ft) 385.00 Upstream IE (ft) 18.90 Slope = -0.0052 Downstream IE (ft)l 20.92 From Parking lot to 96" MH, negative slope, assume slope equals 72-inch pipe Alt 42-inch to Creek Length (ft) 510.00 Upstream IE (ft) 20.88 Slope = 0.0029 Downstream IE (ft) 19.39 = creek outfall Assume 42" pipe runs from 96" mh to creek outfall at a constant slope. Alt Box Culvrt to Creek Length (ft) 600.00 Upstream IE (ft) 20.92 Slope = 0.0026 Downstream IE (ft) 19.39 = creek outfall Assume box culvert runs from 132" mh to creek outfall at a constant slope Q = ( 1.49/n ) x A x R^2/3 x S^1/2 For pipes flowing full, not under pressure conditions For = 0.012 Q(cfs) Pipe Area Hyd. Rad. Slope Dia.(in) ( sq.ft.) (full, ft) 0.19% 0.20% 0.30% 0.50% 0.26% 0.0% Ex 72" 72 28.274 1.500 200.55 205.76 252.01 325.34 234.60 0.00 Ex. 42" to 96" MH 42 9.621 0.875 47.64 48.87 59.86 77.27 55.72 0.00 Assumed 42" to creek 42 1 9.621 0.875 47.6 Assumed 48" to creek 48.9 59.9 77.3 55.7 0.0 48 I 12.566 1.000 68.0 69.8 85.5 Assumed 4'x8' Box Culvert to creek R full = 32/24 = 1.5 4'x8' 1 32.000 1.500 227.0 232.9 285.2 110.3 79.6 0.0 368.2 265.5 0.0 File: PIPE-ManningQs.xls , Tab: Renton Vill Qs Page 1 0 Project: SWP-27-2711 Renton Village Storm System D. Carey 8/10/06 PIPE FLOW CAPACITY BY MANNING EQUATION Check on Existing Pipe Capacity by Manning Equation Ex 72-inch Length (ft) 720.00 Upstream IE (ft) 22.30 Slope=1 0.0019 Downstream IE (ft) 1 20.92 Ex 42-inch to 96" MH Length (ft) 385.00 Upstream IE (ft) 18.90 Slope = -0.0052 Downstream IE (ft) 1 20.92 From Parking lot to 96" MH, negative slope, assume slope equals 72-inch pipe Alt 42-inch to Creek Length (ft) 510.00 Upstream IE (ft) 20.88 Slope = 0.0029 Downstream IE (ft) 19.39 = creek outfall Assume 42" pipe runs from 96" mh to creek outfall at a constant slope. Alt Box Culvrt to Creek Length (ft) 600.00 Upstream IE (ft) 20.92 Slope = 0.0026 Downstream IE (ft) 19.39 = creek outfall Assume box culvert runs from 132" mh to creek outfall at a constant slope Q = ( 1.49/n ) x A x RA2/3 x S^1/2 For pipes flowing full, not under pressure conditions For = 0.011 Q(cfs) Pipe Area Hyd. Rad. Slope Dia.(in) ( sq.ft.) (full, ft) 0.19% 0.20% 0.30% 0.50% 0.26% 0.0% Ex 72" 72 28.274 1.500 218.78 224.47 274.92 354.91 255.93 0.00 Ex. 42"'to 96" MH 42 9.621 0.875 51.97 53.32 65.30 84.30 60.79 0.00 Assumed 42" to creek 42 I 9.621 0.875 52.0 Assumed 48" to creek 53.3 65.3 84.3 60.8 48 I 12.566 1.000 74.2 76.1 93.2 Assumed 4'x8' Box Culvert to creek R full = 32/24 = 1.5 4'x8' 1 32.000 1.500 247.6 254.0 311.1 120.4 86.8 401.7 289.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 File: PIPE-ManningQs.xls , Tab: Renton Vill Qs Page 1 mkf4 111 � NyC- 1 /f - Cuir•• 1 - 2 rr 11 C4r East Side Green River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis Report prepared for: R.W. Beck and City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. 16300 Christensen Road Suite 350 Tukwila, WA 98188-3418 206-241-6000 March 1996 r9 Table 10 Flood (cfs) and Storage (ac-ft) Quantiiles Current Conditions Return Period (yrs) Flood Quantiile (cfs) Stream/Sub-Basin Site 2 10 25 100 From ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis: Panther Creels (SB PI-P3) Flow upstream SR-167 80 119 139 170 Rolling Hills (Sub -basin P5) Flow upstream SR-167 83 107 117 130 Sub -basins Pl P5 Total flow upstream SR-167 146 224 270 347 Rolling Hills/PCW SR 167 North crossing 39 69 84 106 Panther Creek SR-167 South crossing 25 27 28 28 Sub -basin S-6 At Outfall 58 64 65 66 Springbrook Creek U/S Oakesdale Avenue 332 522 632 814 Springbrook Creek U/S P-9 channel 449 687 824 1049 Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow. 492 743 884 1111 Required storage at BRPS (ac-ft) 45 53 70 140 Water Surface Elevation U/S of Grady Way Box 5.6 6.4 6.8 7.3 From City of Kent Modeling: Garrison Creek SR-167 crossing 104 155 179 213 Upper Springbrook Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 39 43 43 44 Upper Springbrook Creek Overflows to SB S-6 6 20 28 43 Springbrook Creek U/S junction MR Creek 157 255 307 387 NO Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 176 274 336 442 For Alternative Current Conditions Scenario: Mill Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 275 435 .526 673 Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow 552 832 989 1243 Notes: (1) Flood quartiles are Log -Pearson III (2) Storage quantiles follow an empirical fit (3) PCW = Panther Creek Wetland (4) U/S = Upstream (5) BRPS = Black River Pump Station (6) Alternative Current Conditions Scenario for Mill Creek without lagoons project (see Report Section 3.4.1) Table 11 Flood (cfs) and Storage (ac-ft) Quantiles Future Conditions Return Period (yrs) Flood Ouantiile (cfs) or % Change From Current Conditions Stream Site 2 10 _ 25 100 From ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis: -- Panther Creek (SB Pl-P3) Flow upstream SR 167 90 13% 131 100/a 150 8% 179 5% Rolling Rills (Sub -basin P5) Flow upstream SR-167 95 14% 140 31% 163 390/0 198 52% Sub -basins PI-P5 Total flow upstream SR-167 165 13% 253 13% 307 14% 399 15% Rolling Hills/PCW SR-167 North crossing 42 80/0 73 6% 88 5% 11 5% Panther Creek SR-167 South crossing 426j 4% 28 4% 28 00/0 4% Sub -basin S-6 At Outfall 62 7% 65 2% 66 2% 67 20/a Springbrook Creek U/S Oakesdale Avenue 539 62% 767 47% 975 38% 1030 270/6 Springbrook Creek U/S P-9 channel 653 45% 911 33% 1043 27% 1243 19% Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow 723 47% 998 34% 1133 280/a 1332 200/c Required storage at BRPS (ac-ft) 49 90/0 59 11% 92 31% 221 58% Water Surface Elevation U/S of Grady Way Box 6.2 11% 7.2 13% 7.8 15% 8.7 190/a From City of Kent Modeling: Garrison Creek SR-167 crossing 127 22% 173 12% 191 7% 215 1% Upper Springbrook Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 66 69% 88 105% 101 135% 122 17711/6 Upper Springbrook Creek Overflows to SB S-6 0 n.a. 0 na. 0 na. 0 n a. Springbrook Creek U/S junction Mill Creek 236 500/o 355 39% 420 37% 521 35% Mill Creeds U/S of Springbrook Creek 311 77% 446 63% 510 52% 600 36% Notes: (1) Flood quantiles are Log Pearson III (2) Storage quantiles follow an empirical fit (3) PCW = Panther Creek Wedand (4) U/S = Upstream (5) BRPS = Black River Pump Station Black River Pump Station S16b S14 !13 t /� 40 !!17ii 111! S1O S15 ACre7ek: S9c j 7 S7a S8 r S5 c f W 43rd S 180th Note: This are which was not included in the HSPF model was subsequently S6 found to drain to sub —basin S7a. LEGEND HSPF sub —basin boundary S6 Sub —basin number 2C River reach number SCALE Miles > 1/2 a t northwesf hydraulic consultants S16c lo� Rolling Hills Tributary P5 P4 a Panther Creek Wetland rP3 \ 120; a,� f,� o n P2 .s ,m ,1 P1 Panther Lake I IW%AI v East Side Green River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis Report prepared for: R.W. Beck and City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. 16300 Christensen Road Suite 350 Tukwila, WA 98188-3418 206-241-6000 March 1996 Table 10 Flood. (cfs) and Storage (ac-ft) Quantiles Current Conditions Return Period (yrs) Flood Quantile (cfs) Stream/Sub-Basin Site 2 10 25 100 From ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis: Panther Creek (SB Pi P3) Flow upstream SR 167 80 119 .. 139 170 Rolling Hills (Sub -basin P5) Flow upstream SR 167 83 107 117 130 Sub -basins PI-P5 Total flow upstream SR 167 146 .224 . 270 347 Rolling Ifills/PCW SR-167 North crossing 39 69 84 106 Panther Creek SR 167 South crossing 25 27 . 28 28 Sub-lbasin S-6 At Outfall 58 64 65 66 Springbrook Creek U/S Oakesdale Avenue 332 522 632 814 Springbrook Creek U/S P-9 channel 449 687 824 .4049 Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow. 492 743 884 1111 Required storage at BRPS (ac-ft) 45 53 70 140 Water Surface Elevation U/S of Grady Way Box 5.6 6.4 6.8 7.3 From City of Kent Modeling: Garrison Creek SR 167 crossing 104 155 179 213 Upper Springbrook Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 39 43 43 44 Upper Springbrook Creek Overflows to SB S-6 6 20 28 43 Springbrook Creek . U/S junction Mill Creek 157 255 307 387 Mill Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 176 274 336 442 For Alternative Current Conditions Scenario: Mill Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 275 435 526 673 Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow 552 832 989 1243 Notes: (1) Flood quantiles are Log Pearson III (2) Storage quantiles follow an empirical fit (3) PCW = Panther Creek Wetland (4) U/S = Upstream (5) BRPS = Black River Pump Station (6) Alternative Current Conditions Scenario for Mill Creek without lagoons project (see Report Section 3.4.1) ! 1: . Table 11 Flood (cfs) and Storage.(ac-ft) Quantiles Future Conditions Return Period (yrs) Flood Ouantile (eft) or % ChanQe From Current Conditions Stream Site } .. .2 10 .... } 2S ,:. , ( 100 From ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis: Panther Creek (SB PI-P3) Flow upstream SR-167 90 13% 131 10% 150 8% 179 5% Rolling Hills (Sub -basin PS) Flow upstream SR-167 95 14% .140 31% 163 39-/a 198 52% Sub -basins Pl-P5 Total flow upstream SR 167 165 13% 253 13% 307 14% 399 15% Rolling MU& PCW SR 167 North crossing 42 8% 73 6% 88 5% --1 5./- Panther Creek SR 167 South crossing '261 4% 28 4% 28 0% %29 4% Sub -basin S-6 At Outfall 62 7% 65 2% ; .66 2% 67 2-/0 Springbrook Creek U/S Oakesdale Avenue 539 62% 767 47-/ 975 38-/- 1030 27% Springbrook Creek U/S P-9 channel 653 45% 911 33% 1043 27-/-. 1243 18-/- Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow 723 47% 998 34% 1133 28% . 1332 20-/- Required storage at BRPS (ac ft) 49 9-/- 59 11% 92 31% 221 58% Water Surface Elevation U/S of Grady Way Box 6.2 11% 7.2 13% 7.8 15% 8.7 19% From City of Kent Modeling: Garrison Creek SR- 167 crossing 127 22% 173 12% 191 7% 215 1% Upper Springbrook Creek U/S of Spnngbrook Creek 66 69% 88 105% 101 135% 122 177-/- Upper Springbrook Creek Overflows to SB S-6 0 as. 0 n a. 0 n a. 0 n a. Springbrook Creek U/S junction MR Creek 236 50-/- 355 39% 420 37% 521 35% Mill Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 311 77-/- 446 63% 510 52% 600 36% Notes: (1) Flood quartiles are Log Pearson III (2) Storage quantiles follow an empirical fit (3) PCW = Panther Creek Wetland (4) U/S = Upstream (5) BRPS = Black River Pump Station Black River Pump Station S16b V S160 14 0 !1 F, T, Si S1 6c 1162! -Rolling Hills Tributary R5 S15 S11 77 _­ 1 P4 LLL S9a S10 Springbrook S9b Creek s9c Panther Creek 7 Wetland S7a S 123 S8 S,5LL P3 W 43rd iK S 180th Note: This area which was P2 not included in the HSPF model was subsequently S6 found to drain to sub —basin S7a. LEGEND HSPF sub —basin boundary S6 Sub —basin number River reach number SCALE 1=1/2 1 Miles 1 2 northwest hydraulic consultants I Panther Lake rigure I 71 7 Draft Report Hydraulic Analysis of Springbrook Creek FEMA Re -Flapping Study City of Renton Movember2(O4 `CENTER, a , i 1 En \cl- a I i c 4Yr> m ! MORRI AV S Ai ►;T i , I. - c P5 z i `� HiLS tic ' SHA 1 I i t ;� sd i a ti { I •Ili l T ,�� o t'i a j � �i✓ r, n` -AiJ tlJ� N � ram' ;j'.L=- r' 43 •cE �� Wi 1 a W11 b 44 151 40 ` 'r �' \` • . ; i ; ii i i! I t \�''I ; � S13 39 '�_. } �"'/'7l7 l i v ...� i i f. • I-� '�� i i l ii - V: I { � � i ! �'t/ 6 1 n •ti� F-; '.J 40- 5 li 4., SEnEcIA i' : i t inn 3'1S12 I �ji l ;✓A� AV S ! i �I}_� 4 I li S1¢ SCALE : 37 O 14 15 I O i 1°=10Q0' 13 .f C 7 '. i63; O W12 60 OLD BUCK Rrvs CiiAJwmi S16 { 5 lP t,\ +,� ,S1 fi LEGEND O3 '` i`� / W DWETER STMI DRAIN I ! { !� S17 E Uzi l 1FED aw+Na BRANCH NONo i P , ' P- STATION $LAC RfVER PUMP ;�—'"` ; _.�—••—•-�� - --. STATION } 1 TO GREEN—DUWAMISH RIVER �f�i Ate 1� t VM VAA01536: v Low 1I r 1 i� � VAL �r (A,B,&,C) P4 04ERAL TAL30? r+iEST DR PCREEK �WETI.A14 � �53 �y? Hi`SPITALPi p } ANTHER Lt'� 10`1 �x 52 S8.S7b �j tNi r"^� i— SV 46 Ll Ii I i L3 {. 45 A'= W S9a ! !11 i 25 3, `I r 151 17 19►r26 �(-1 28� j6 18 c:> D o I O Ii t i f �'s y N I 3�: J i �� , 15 � 5-4' W7c S9c rprE x;A =� 30 I� � i t v5 =— S7o Q 31 i aFEQ PIPE BRANCH No 2 O M'DROGRAPN INPUT LOCAIM S17 FOR � SUBMM SI7,;sPPoNGAWO) , v ffORU DRAIN GE �"""� W1 FW WEILAND No 1 P5 Og�F PS PurneR CRm) 33 35 IIII Lj S5 IULL aZEEK 36 TUKY>rlLA RENTON C!?Y LfmiTS HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR FLOOD PLAIN i RR/^ - MAPPING STUDY OF-SPRINGBROOK CREEK FIGURE 2 FEO MODEL SCHEMA11C 'I Memorandum To: Allen Quynn and Ron Straka, City of Renton From: David M. Hartley and Derek L. Stuart, northwest hydraulic consultants, inc. Date: Revised October 25, 2005 Re: HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FOR FLOODPLAIN MAPPING STUDY OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON cc: Michael Giseburt, R.W. Beck 1 Executive Summary This memorandum documents the hydrologic methods and results associated with a floodplain re -mapping study of the lower 3.1 miles of Springbrook Creek between the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) and SW 43`d Street (also called South 180d' Street), which is the approximate boundary line between the Cities of Renton and Kent, Washington. The study reach is shown on FIRM numbers 53033C0976 F and 53033CO978 F revised May 16, 1995. On these maps, the BRPS is labeled "P-1 Pumping Station". Hydrologic analyses for this project were conducted following the approach described in an earlier nhc memorandum. This approach was reviewed and approved by the FEMA Map Coordination Contractor in a letter to the City of Renton, dated September 25d', 2002. Continuous hydrologic simulation modeling for a 53 year period of record (October 1, 1948 through September 30d', 2002) were used to identify and adjust storm inflow hydrographs to Springbrook Creek that correspond to recurrence intervals required for unsteady flow hydraulic modeling and subsequent floodplain mapping. Two types of potential flood generating peak events were identified for hydraulic analysis: storage events that produce very high water surface elevations at the Black River Pump Station where flood waters from Springbrook Creek are pumped to the Green River and conveyance events that exhibit maximum peak flows into the pump station forebay. Results of the frequency analysis are summarized in the following tables. Peak Inflow to Forebay for Con ve ance Limited Storm Events, Current Conditions Return Period Flood Frequency Analysis' (efs) Simulated (efs) Multiplier Date of Simulated Event 2 710 707 1.00 12/3/1968 10 977 941 �w 2/7/1955 25 �_ 1100 __— __---___-- 1125 _....__-1.04 �0.98 2/8/1996 �`— 501 1209 j _ 1153 I_ i_0?_J _ 1/9/1990_ 100 ___� __-. 1 1307 1 1153 1.13 1 1/9/1990 'Flood Frequency quantiles estimated from the simulated peak flow data using Bulletin 17B procedures ZMultiplier to scale simulated hydrograph to match estimated flood frequency quantile 'he resultant combinations of soil and cover make up an inventory of acreages for each ubbasin in which all land is categorized as one of eight HRUs. These units are: 1. Effective Impervious Area (EIA) 2. Till Forest (TF) 3. Till Grass (TG) 4. Outwash Forest (OF) 5. Outwash Grass (OG) 6. Wetland (W) 7. Alluvium Forest (AF) 8. Alluvium Grass (AG) A summary of the acreages of each HRU by major subbasin is provided in Table 3. Basin -wide, over 42% of the basin is EIA or impervious area that is directly connected to the drainage system. Impervious area is heavily concentrated in the commercial and industrial areas of the flat Green River valley within the Springbrook, Middle, and Lower Mill Creek subbasins. HRU acreages for individual catchments within the major subbasins are shown in the schematic block of the HSPF input files in the digital appendix. Table 3: Summary of HRU Acreages by Major Subbasin- Current Land Use Subbasin EIA TF TG OF OG W AF AG Water Total Area (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) Springbrook 2152 296 437 1 3 487 153 703 4232.5 Rolling-- Hills 293 - -L--- 90 — _ _ 507 0 8 i 2 24 925.7 Panther_ 372J_294_ 835 1 1 156_ 4 33 1700.2 Upper _ I I I �4 Sorinabrook 86 123 51 12 48 3 0 573.8 ` `250 _ _ _ --I Garrison 539 383 1294 0 0 I 118 2 ? _ .—__..._.�_2338.2 Lower Mill 2200 0 0 0 0 361 83 838 I 3481.8 Middle Mill 756 16 93 0 ! 0 53 19 248 I 1184.9 1531.8 Upper Mill 431 237 I 761 0� 0 I 90 l 8 S Basin Sum 6795 1439 4176 53 24 1315 274 1826 33 15968.5 Basin % ° 42.9 /o 19.0 /° ° 26.2 /° ° 0.3 /° 0.1% 8.2% 1.7% 11.5% 0.2% 100.0% 0 8 Appendix C: Future Land Use Analysis and Modeling A model based on future build -out conditions was also constructed as part of this project, but was not referenced in the hydrology memorandum submitted to FEMA. In this future conditions model, the drainage system of Springbrook Creek is assumed to be the same as under current conditions. Only land use has been changed to reflect build -out conditions. Build -out conditions were based on zoning map information provided by the cities of Renton and Kent and by King County. A future land -cover GIS coverage was generated by combining parks, wetlands, zoning, and current land -cover GIS data and applied to the model using the following four rules: 1) all jurisdictionally designated wetland areas are modeled as wetland regardless of any underlying zoning, 2) wetland soil areas indicated by surficial geology coverages are assumed to be developed based on zoning if the area is not in a jurisdictionally designated wetland, 3) all parks area (and publicly owned area in Renton) is modeled with its current land cover, and 4) future land - Table Bl: Summary of HRU Acreages by Major Subbasin- Future Land Use Subbasin EIA TF TG OF OG W AF AG Water Total Area (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) Sp_ringbroo_k 2717 62 0 3 55_�---4-57 4232.5_ Hills _ 460_ 32 �� _496 I� 0 _,. _.. _44_3 �_ 1, L 0 I- ! 7 I I L,� _.925.7 -Rolling _ Panther 621� 85 _409 I 837 r� 0 I 1 L 117 I.. 1 16 .y (.. 33 I` 1700:3 Upper Springbrook 132 58 _ 279 26 �-,--- 29 ._._..__I_____.__.__I I0_L 48) 116 0 _- - f 573.8 2 i 9_L_..._._.._....._L__-2338.2 144I 1381 Ia_ �0 .Garrison _. Lower Mill _.._._:_.694� 2418_. 0 _ I 0 0 I 0 . _.__-..o..I__ I_._ 361 _53_..I_..__ I _ 42 10 .I- 661 203yI ( _. _I_ I3481.8 _ 1184.9 _Middle Mill J 818 - _-- �_ 94 t I ._w,0 Upper Mill 602 75 755 _I 0 0 9 __._.. .. _ 1531.8 90 2 Basin Sum 8461 462_ 4284 27 3.8 _1228 0 7.7 /o _110 0 0.7 /o 1359 0 9 /o _ _33 0 0.2 /o 15968.5 0 Basin o 0 1­53.0% 2.9 /0 _ 0 26.8 /0 0 0.2 /0 0 0.2 /0 cover is always at least as intensive as existing land cover. The methodology for determining HRU acreages for each subbasin was similar to that of the current -conditions model with one exception; the areas that experienced a change in landuse were routed to a separate storage area from those that did not. This was added so the model could be used in future projects to add storage with new development. A summary of the acreages of each HRU by major subbasin is provided in the table below. The future conditions model was applied in the same manner as the current conditions model to determine conveyance and storage controlled events under future conditions. The results of the future conditions analysis are shown in Tables B2 and B3 as follows: 0 Ale ✓ Z, o o Y lv Bed R s I rJ �!, ��� Cr �c l S- 8 �EMA h-/hro,;, Section 3 FLOOD PROFILES The water surface elevation results of the FEQ model simulation for the 10-, 50- and 100-year events are presented in Table 8 and plotted in Exhibit A- The elevation reference for the results is NAVD 1988. Table 9 presents peak flow results at several locations throughout the system. The complete output it included in the digital appendix in Appendix C. The resulting base flood water surface elevations are considerably lower, especially at the downstream end of the study reach, than in the previous FEMA study of Springbrook Creek. At the upstream end of the study reach, the base flood water surface elevations are about the same. The difference between the base flood water surface elevations is a result of several factors: t ■ Conveyance Improvements. Several conveyance improvements constructed since the last FEMA study have reduced several hydraulic restrictions and help to lower water surface elevations. ■ Capacity at the Black River Pump Station. The capacity of the BRPS at the time of the prior hydrologic and hydraulic study was 875 cfs. The current capacity is approximately 2180 cfs when all the operational pumps are included, although the simulated maximum capacity of 1700 cfs was used in the FEQ modeling to build in some pump redundancy. ■ Unsteady Flow Analysis. The previous FEMA study used a steady state model to evaluate the flood profiles along Springbrook Creek. With a steady state model, flows are input as a constant, and the model does not allow for attenuation of the peak as a storm is routed through the system. For a basin such as Springbrook Creek, which contains a considerable amount of storage, the attenuation can be significant. By accounting for the flow attenuation, the unsteady model resulted in lower flows in the downstream end of the study reach, and therefore, the corresponding base flood water surface elevations are lower in this area. ■ Updated Channel Cross Section Data and Topographic Mapping. The current FEMA study incorporates new topographic mapping data used to provide information on the floodplain as well as new field survey of channel cross sections. R:\Seattle\11-00781 Springbrook Creek FEMA remapping\Reports\FEMA Dmft\SpringbrookCreckHydraulics2.doc 11124/ FLOOD PROFILES Once the new updated flood profiles were developed, they were checked to see if they reasonably tie into the existing Flood Insurance Study Mapping at the study boundaries. The two areas where this mapping update ties into upstream floodplain mapping areas include Springbrook Creek at SW 43rd Street (the city limits) and Rolling Hills Creek where it enters the Panther Creek Wetland. At both locations, the comparison was made at the upstream ends of the study reach, which are both at the downstream side of a culvert (i.e., the SW 43rd Street culvert and the Rolling Hills crossing of I-405). The resulting flood profiles at the boundaries of the study reach correspond fairly well with the existing flood profiles. At 'SW 43rd Street the new and prior base flood elevation in NAVD 1988 vertical datum are 21.35 feet and 21.18 feet, respectively. At the Rolling Hills discharge to the Panther Creek Wetland, the new and prior base flood elevations in NAVD 1988 vertical datum are 19.79 feet and 19.58 feet, respectively. The new mapping results compare well with the current FEMA base flood elevations at these locations. At Rolling Hills Creek the FEQ model extends beyond the study reach for the current mapping update and it was noted that results at the upstream of the model do not match as closely with the current regulated base flood elevation for Rolling Hills Creek. The portion of the FEQ model for Rolling Hills Creek includes a set of parallel culverts upstream of the Panther Creek wetlands as well as a short channel reach upstream of 1-405. The simulated base flood elevations upstream of I-405 (outside of the study reach) are considerably lower than the existing base flood elevation. This is because the previous hydraulic analysis was conducted prior to the addition of the second parallel culvert under 1-405 which resulted in reduced headloss and lower water surface elevations than the prior hydraulic analysis. Because this was upstream of the current study reach, reconciling this difference was considered is beyond the scope of this study. However, future re -mapping of Rolling Hills Creek Floodplain (Panel No. 977 and 979) upstream of I-405 is recommended. The peak flow results presented in Table 9. The resulting peak flows as modeled by FEQ are quite similar to the hydrologic HSPF modeling results. The 100-year peak flow as established by the HSPF frequency analysis is 1307 cfs compared to the FEQ simulation of 1363. This difference (4 percent) can be attributed to the inherent modeling differences (steady state versus steady state) as well as likely small differences between the HSPF characterizations of the system conveyance system compared with FEQ (i.e. HSPF use of HEC-RAS to develop F-TABLES vs. the FEQ simulation of the system). a, IUSeattle\11-00781 Springbrook Creek FEMA remapping\Reports\FEMA Draft\SpringbrookCreekHydraulics2.doc 11/24/04R. W. Beck 3-3 f Section 3 Table 9 Simulated Peak Flows at Selected Locations 10-, 50-, and 100-Year Floods Location/Description FEQ Node ID 10-Yr Flow Conveyance Flow (cfs) 50-Yr Flow Conveyance Flow (cfs) 50-Yr Flow Storage Flow (cfs) 100-Yr Flow Conveyance Flow (cfs) 100-Yr Flow Storage Flow (cfs) SW 23rd Street Channel d/s of East Valley Road 4701 131 191 102 202 158 Springbrook Creek BRPS outflow 7223 942 1146 1360 1216 1700 BRPS inflow 7201 942 1147 863 1219 1312 Grady Way u/s 611+6402 835 1034 762 1104 1125 SW 16th Street 1015 831 1031 743 1100 1115 Confluence of Rolling Hills Creek 1301 819 1022 718 1092 1057 Confluence of SW 23rd St Channel 1601 779 971 667 1034 973 SW 27th d/s 1901 665 880 581 920 807 SW 27th u/s 2003 665 880 581 920 806 SW 34th d/s 2501 677 1042 578 1124 760 SW 34th u/s 2605 677 1042 578 1124 760 Oakesdale d/s 3001 684 1045 581 1127 769 Oakesdale u/s 3143 649 987 558 1069 743 SW 43rd d/s 3301 644 981 558 1060 746 3-2 R. W. BeckR:` Seattle' 1I-00781SpringbrookCreek FEMAremapping\ReportsTEMADraffSpringbrookCreekHydraulics2.doc II;24iO4 pd"+,uf C-(� C) nffr,G,X Memorandum To: Allen Quynn and Ron Straka, City of Renton From: David M. Hartley and Derek L. Stuart, northwest hydraulic consultants, Inc. Date: February 13, 2004 Re: HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS FOR FLOODPLAIN MAPPING STUDY OF SPRINGBROOK CREEK, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON cc: Michael Giseburt, R.W. Beck 1 Executive Summary This memorandum documents the hydrologic methods and results associated with a floodplain re -mapping study of the lower 3.1 miles of Springbrook Creek between the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) and SW 43rd Street (also called South 1801' Street), which is the approximate boundary line between the Cities of Renton and Kent, Washington. The study reach is shown on FIRM numbers 53033CO976 F and 53033CO978 F revised May 16, 1995. On these maps, the BRPS is labeled "P-1 Pumping Station". Hydrologic analyses for this project were conducted following the approach described in an earlier nhc memorandum. This approach was reviewed and approved by the FEMA Map Coordination Contractor in a letter to the City of Renton, dated September 25`h, 2002. Continuous hydrologic simulation modeling for a 53 year period of record (October 1, 1948 through September 30t', 2002) were used to identify and adjust storm inflow hydrographs to Springbrook Creek that correspond to recurrence intervals required for unsteady flow hydraulic modeling and subsequent floodplain mapping. Two types of potential flood generating peak events were identified for hydraulic analysis: storage events that produce very high water surface elevations at the Black River Pump Station where flood waters from Springbrook Creek are pumped to the Green River and conveyance events that exhibit maximum peak flows into the pump station forebay. Results of the frequency analysis are summarized in the following tables. Peak Inflow to Forebay for Con ve ance Limited Storm Events, Current Conditions Return Period Flood Frequency Simulated (cfs) Multiplier Date of Simulated Event Analysis, (cfs) 2 710 1 707 1.00 1 12/3/1968 10 I 977 941 I 1.04 ( 2/7/1955 25 1100 1125 0.98 2/8/1996 50 1209 1153 1.05 1/9/1990 100 1307 1153 1.13 1/9/1990 'Flood Frequency quantiles estimated from the simulated peak flow data using Bulletin 1-1b procedures ZMultiplier to scale simulated hydrograph to match estimated flood frequency quantile Fer Storage at Forebay for Stora a Limited Storm Events, Current Conditions Return Period Estimated Stage Frequency Simulated Z Event Multiplier Date of Simulated (years) 1 Quantiles (acre-ft) (acre-ft) - Event 25 106 110 0.99 2/10/1951 50I 243I 121 I 1.33 _ 12/7/1975. 100 515 494 1.03 2/8/1996 'Used Gringorten plotting position to define event return period ZMultiplier to scale simulated hydrograph to match estimated flood frequency quantile As shown in the tables above, 100-year storage volumes (and water surface elevations) were nearly matched by simulation of the flood event that occurred in February, 1996, while the largest simulated peak discharge in the study reach occurred in January, 1990. The simulated peak flow for the January, 1990 event was approximately 13% less than the estimated 100-year peak flow. The unsteady flow hydraulic model will be applied to each of these 100-year conditions to. estimate the base flood water surface elevations throughout the system. 2 Introduction Springbrook Creek drains a basin of approximately twenty five square miles located in a highly urbanized area of western King County, Washington (see Figure 1). The basin is bounded on the west by the Green River levee system and on the east by uplands of the Soos Creek basin. The creek drains portions of the cities of Kent, Renton, Tukwila, and unincorporated King County, however, Kent to the south and Renton to the north are by far the largest areas within the basin. The predominant drainage direction of the basin is from south to north along the mainstems of Springbrook Creek and its major tributary, Mill Creek, which drains the southwestem portion of the East Side Green River Watershed. The east side of the basin consists of an upland plateau which is drained by creeks in steep ravines. These include Rolling Hills Creek, Panther Creek, Upper Springbrook Creek, and Garrison Creek, which all drain to the mainstem of Springbrook Creek. Upper Mill Creek drains the southeastern, upland headwaters of the Mill Creek tributary into Middle Mill Creek on the valley floor near downtown Kent, WA. Besides the major creek branches and upland tributaries, significant hydrographic features in the basin include Panther Lake in the headwaters of Panther Creek subbasin, the Panther Creek wetland along the northeastern margin of the valley floor, and the Kent Lagoons within the Green River Natural Resource Area in the southwestem comer of the basin. Currently, during moderate and large floods on Mill Creek, water is diverted to the lagoons for storage and later release (see Figure 1). The eastern, upland sub -basins and their associated ravines comprise approximately 40% of the basin area. The flat, western, lowland valley areas (Springbrook Creek subbasin, Middle Mill Creek subbasin, and Lower Mill Creek sub -basin) make up the remaining 60% of the basin. Surficial geology of the upland areas tends to be dominated by relatively low permeability glacial tills, while the valley is dominated by wetland soils and highly variable Green River alluvium. Landuse in the upland areas is primarily single family suburban r• . residences with scattered parks and commercial areas, while valley areas tend to be dominated by commercial and industrial uses with some high density multifamily residential development and recreational areas. i` This technical memorandum documents the hydrologic analysis conducted for purposes of revising the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) of Springbrook Creek from the Black River Pump Station (BRPS) upstream to SW 43`d Street, Renton, Washington. This analysis has been conducted in accordance with the methodology described in a technical memorandum dated July 25, 2002, prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants for the City of Renton. For technical review, the 2002 memo was forwarded by the City to the FEMA Map Coordination Contractor who found that "the approach and methodology is reasonable and appropriate for floodplain mapping purposes". (Andrea Ryon, Michael Baker, Jr., September 25, 2002). Unsteady flow (hydrodynamic) hydraulic modeling will be used to characterize water surface profiles in Springbrook Creek in order to account for dynamic flood storage in basin wetlands and, more significantly, to accurately simulate flood discharges from Springbrook Creek to the Green River, via the Black River Pump Station (BRPS). Pump station operations, including limitations on pumped discharges when Green River flows are high, impose a dynamic downstream boundary condition on the Springbrook Creek drainage system. 3 Hydrologic Model Development Stream flow data has been collected by the USGS since 1994 on both Mill Creek (gage 12113349) and Springbrook Creek (gage 12113346), upstream of their confluence. Additional flow data has also been collected by King County and the cities of Renton and Kent at other locations within the basin. While these data are useful for purposes of calibrating or validating a hydrologic model, they are insufficient in record length or homogeneity to provide a database of annual peaks for flood frequency analysis. Likewise, the application of regional regression equations to determine peak annual flow frequency curves was determined to be inapplicable in a highly urbanized, hydraulically dynamic, and complex basin such as Springbrook Creek. Based on the available data and basin conditions, the Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF) model was selected as the primary tool to generate flood hydrographs for input into a Full Equations Model (FEQ), which will be used to estimate water surface elevations corresponding to events of specified recurrence interval in the study reach. A continuous, hourly precipitation record from Seattle -Tacoma International Airport (NWS gage 7473 at Sea-Tac), spanning water years 1949-2001, was used to generate 53 years of continuous flows at points of interest within the study reach and at boundary inflow points to the FEQ model. A schematic of the FEQ model, showing locations where HSPF-generated hydrographs are input as boundary conditions, is provided in Figure 2. Note that the FEQ model only covers the study reach which is located in the northern half of the Springbrook mainstem subbasin, shown in Figure 1, downstream of the confluence of Mill Creek with Springbrook Creek. 3.1 Development of the Basin Hydrologic Model The HSPF model of the Spingbrook basin consists of a set of hydrologic response units (HRUs) representing pervious and impervious land surfaces that drain to elements of the routing network, including stream reaches, lakes, stormwater facilities, and other features of the drainage system. Hydrologic response units and their spatial distribution within each subbasin were determined using methods described below. 3.1.1 Subbasin Delineation Basin boundaries and subbasin delineations in the upland portion of the basin were delineated using the best available topography data (City of Kent, 5ft; City of Renton, 0.5 meter) and King County GIS stream data, corrected using recent digital orthophotos (City of Renton 1999; USGS, 1990). Subbasin delineations in the lowland regions were based on previous drainage studies conducted for the cities of Renton and Kent (nhc, 1996 and 1994, Gray and Osborne, 2003). (A detailed HSPF catchment map is provided in Figure 3.) 3.1.2 Surficial Geology Basin soils were classified as till, outwash, wetland, or alluvium. The spatial distribution of basin soils was determined from the King County surficial geology GIS coverage which was converted to a basin -wide GIS layer of the four soil classes- till, outwash, saturated, and alluvium (see Table 1). Till and outwash dominate the upland plateau and ravine areas, while alluvium dominates the flatter, floodplain shared by Springbrook Creek and the Green River. (A surficial geology map is shown in Figure 4.) Table 1: Cross -Reference of Soil Classification and GIS Soil Type Soil Classification GIS Soil Type Alluvium Modified land (Holocene) Alluvium Younger alluvium (Holocene) Outwash Advance outwash deposits Outwash Recessional outwash deposits Outwash Recessional outwash deposits (lowland lacustrine) Till Mass wastage deposits (Holocene and Pleistocene) Till Sedimentary deposits of pre -Fraser glaciation age Till Transitional beds (Pleistocene) Till Surficial deposits, undivided (Holocene and Pleist) Till Ice contact deposits Till Till Till Vashon Drift, undivided Till Intrusive Rock (Miocene, Oligocene & Eocene) Till Renton Formation (late and middle Eocene) Till Tukwila Formation (late and middle Eocene) Water water Wetland Wetland deposits (Holocene) i A 4 LA 3.1.3 Current Land Cover Homogeneous land cover polygons were delineated by hand on hardcopies of orthophotos provided by the'City of Kent (July, 1999), City of Renton (1999), and King County (June 16, 2000). These were merged with wetland GIS data provided by the City of Kent, City of Renton, and King County. Delineated land cover classes included commercial, multifamily, high density residential, medium density residential, low density residential, grass, forest, and wetland. Multifamily areas are defined by attached housing with greater than seven dwelling units per acre, high density areas have four to seven dwelling units per acre, medium density have one to three dwelling units per acre, and low density have less than one dwelling unit per acres. The land cover polygons were digitized into abasin-wide coverage of land use. (Current land cover is shown in Figure 5.) 3.1.4 Wetlands A basin -wide wetlands GIS coverage was created from available data from King County and the cities of Kent and Renton. The coverage represents designated wetland land use areas that are assumed to remain undeveloped in the future. These are distinct from the broader coverage of saturated, wetland -type soils. (Designated wetlands are also shown on Figure 5.) 3.1.5 Determination of Subbasin HRU Acreages GIS processing of subbasins, soils, and land cover layers was used to create subbasin summaries of land cover -soil complexes. The land cover component of these complexes was further processed to create impervious and pervious HRU acreages for each modeled subbasin using conversions shown in Table 2. These conversions represent typical values applied to these land use categories for HSPF modeling in the Lower Puget Sound region. Table 2: Derivation of Modeled Land Cover from Mapped Land Categories Modeled Land Cover Category Percentages GIS Mapped Land Cover Category Effective Impervious Grass Forest Wetland Commercial 86 14 0 0 Forest 0 I 0 I 100 I 0 Grass -Open 5 I 80 I 15 I 0 High -Density -Residential 25 70 5 I 0 Open-Water1 0 0 I 0 I 100 Low -Density -Residential 5 75 I 20 0 Medium -Density -Residential 15 70 15 I 0 Multi -Family -Residential 45 I 50 I 5 I 0 0 Wetland2 0 0 100 open water areas were modeled as wetland HRUs with the exception of Panther Lake which was modeled as a routing reach (RCHRES) that receives rainfall loses water to evaporation from its surface. 2wetland areas represent the union of wetland or "saturated" soil areas that are not currently covered by impervious surfaces and legally protected and designated wetland land use areas. The resultant combinations of soil and cover make up an inventory of acreages for each subbasin in which all land is categorized as one of eight HRUs. These units are: 1. Effective Impervious Area (EIA) 2. Till Forest (TF) 3. Till Grass (TG) 4. Outwash Forest (OF) 5. Outwash Grass (OG) 6. Wetland (W) 7. Alluvium Forest (AF) 8. Alluvium Grass (AG) A summary of the acreages of each HRU by major subbasin is provided in Table 3. Basin -wide, over 42% of the basin is EIA or impervious area that is directly connected to the drainage system. Impervious area is heavily concentrated in the commercial and industrial areas of the flat Green River valley within the Springbrook, Middle, and Lower Mill Creek subbasins. HRU acreages for individual catchments within the major subbasins are shown in the schematic block of the HSPF input files in the digital appendix. Table 3: Summary of HRU Acreages by Major Subbasin- Current Land Use Subbasin Springbrook Rolling EIA ac 2152 TF ac -- 296 TG ac 437 _.__..__.. OF ac 1 _.___ . _ . OG ac ___ _ 3 W ac 487 - - AF ac(ac) AG =Water 153 I 703 —.- 4232.5 _ Hills 293 90 507 0 8 1 2 24 __. 925.7 Panther 372 294 835 I 1 156 4 4 Upper _ _ .._ 33 1700.2 Springbrook 86 123 250 51 12 4830573.8 arrison L 539 383 1294 p 0 1182 2 2338.2 Lower Mill 2200 0 0 0 0 361 83 838 3481.8 Middle Mill 756 16 93 0 0 53 19 248 I 1184.9 Upper Mill 431 237 761 0 0 90 8 5 1531.8 Basin Sum 6795 1439 417IL53 24 1315 274 1826 33 15968.5 Basin % 42 9% 9.0% 26.2%0.1% 1 8.2% 1.7% 1 11.5% 0.2% 100.0% Z 3.2 Development of Routing Network Model Components HSPF routes runoff in the drainage network using a level -pool routing method in which each routing reach is represented with a unique elevation -storage -discharge table known as an FTABLE. Figure 6 provides a schematic of the HSPF catchments and routing network. Each circle represents a catchment and each arrowed line represents a reach that requires a corresponding FTABLE within the model. Routing network topology and FTABLES used in the HSPF model were based primarily on previous hydrologic and hydraulic modeling work conducted for the cities of Renton and Kent. (nhc, 1996, R. W. Beck, 1996). The network and FTABLES from these earlier models were updated to include alterations and improvements to the system installed since the mid-1990s using as -built drawings, reports, and field observations. HEC-RAS modeling of the mainstem of Springbrook and Mill Creeks was utilized to estimate HSPF FTABLES for these low gradient streams. The routing portions of the HSPF model were updated to include the following recent alterations of the drainage system: 1. New bridges, channel improvements, and culvert upgrades along Springbrook Creek between SW 16t' Street and SW 41' Street were incorporated into the HEC-RAS model used to generate Springbrook Creek FTABLES (Reaches 13, 15, 21, and 27 on Figure 6). 2. A new outlet for Panther Creek wetland crossing under SR 167 and connecting to a tributary of Springbrook along SW 23`d Street was added (Reach 101 on Figure 6) to the routing network. 3. A new culvert connecting Subbasin 9 in the City of Tukwila to Springbrook Creek at SW 16t' Street was added to the model. 4. Regional stormwater facilities including the Green River Natural Resource Enhancement Area (Kent Lagoons) in lower Mill Creek (Reach 65), and the 98`h Avenue detention pond on the southernmost ("Benson") fork of Garrison Creek (Reaches 325, 325, 327). 5. Improved Upper Springbrook Creek culvert crossing at SR 167 (Reach 203). W, , _A, 3.2.1 Model Calibration The HSPF model was calibrated to streamflow data from water years 1995 and 1996 using land use, channel, and basin storage conditions representative of that time period. Gage records used for calibration included USGS data from gages upstream of the study area (HSPF reaches 33 and 51) and from the gage maintained by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants for the City of Renton at SW 27t' Street within the study area (HSPF reach 21). Storms were relatively large and numerous during the calibration period and included the peak of record at the USGS gage sites making this a very good period for calibrating to flood conditions. The downstream gage record was employed as the primary gage for checking model performance because of its location within the study reach. 3.2.2 Parameter Values and Model Calibration The USGS (Dinicola, 1989) studied the application of HSPF to stream basins in the Puget lowland and developed a set of parameter values for the most common HRUs found in this region. Since the publication of that study, the USGS regional parameter values have become the starting point for most HSPF model calibration studies. Within the Springbrook basin model, a subset of the standard USGS HRUs have been employed and augmented by two additional HRUs representing grass -alluvium and forest -alluvium as. reflected in Table 3. Pervious areas in the Sprinbrook valley subbasins are dominated by alluvium as compared upland subbasins in which till and outwash soils prevail. Calibrated HSPF parameter values for all HRUs are summarized in Table 4. In upland subbasins dominated by till and outwash soil HRUs, with the single exception of DEEPFR, there are no significant differences between the final calibration parameters and the regional parameters developed by the USGS. The DEEPFR parameter removes a fraction of groundwater from the surface drainage system of a basin to account for losses to inactive groundwater (or a regional groundwater system). This parameter was set at 0.45 for all HRUs and signifies that simulated annual and seasonal volumes of stream flow best matched observed volumes when 45% of base flow was assumed to be lost from the stream system. This is not unreasonable within the Springbrook basin given that the coarse valley alluvium provides ample opportunity for groundwater to escape to either the Green River or deep percolation. In any case, peak flood discharges are not generally sensitive to DEEPFR values and are even less so in this heavily urbanized basin. Table 4. Calibrated HSPF Parameter Values HRU(HSPF IMPLND and PERND IDs EIA TF TG OF OG AF AG Parameter Units (11) (13) (23) (31) (41) (51) (62) (72) FOREST - N/A 0.75 0.05 0.75 0.05 0.75 0.75 0.05 LZSN IN N/A 4.5 4.5 5.0 1 5.01 4.01 2.01 2.0 INFILT IN/HR N/A 0.08 0.03 2.00 1 0.801 2.00 1 1.001 0.40 LSUR FT N/A 400 400 400 1 400 1 1001 400 1 400 SLSUR - 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.001 0.01 0.01 KVARY IN"' N/A 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.05 0.05 AGWRC DAY"' N/A 0.996 0.996 0.993 0.993 0.996 1 0.9981 0.998 INFEXP - N/A 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.01 10.0 1 2.5 1 2.5 INFILD - N/A 2.0 2.01 2.0 1 2.01 2.0 1 2.01 2.0 DEEPFR - N/A 0.45 0.45 1 0.45 1 0.45 1 0.45 1 0.45 1 0.45 BASETP - N/A 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.01 0.0 1 0.01 0.0 AGWETP - N/A 0.0 1 0.01 0.0 1 0.01 0.7 1 0.01 0.0 CEPSC IN N/A 0.20 1 0.101 0.20 1 0.101 0.101 0.10 0.10 UZSN IN N/A 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 3.00 0.25 0.50 NSUR - 0.10 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.50 INTFW - N/A 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 IRC DAY' N/A 0.35 0.35 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.60 0.60 LZETP - N/A 0.70 0.25 0.701 0.251 0.70 0.801 0.80 RETSC IN 0.10 N/A N/A N/A I N/A IN/AI N/A N/A W1 The lowland, valley subbasins are dominated by commercial and industrial development with high rates of hydraulically connected (effective) impervious area (EIA). The Springbrook subbasin, and the Middle and Lower Mill Creek subbasins, are currently more than 50% covered by EIA. There are only a few EIA parameters and typically they are not adjusted in an HSPF calibration. Grass on alluvial soils dominates the pervious areas of these subbasins. This HRU was initially assigned parameter values that were enerally a hybrid till and outwash soil parameter values. During calibration, alluvium HRU parameters were adjusted by comparing simulated and observed flows at the Mill Creek USGS gage. In general, trial runs of the model produced flashier response with higher peak flows compared to the observed flows at this gage. Even so, only limited improvement in overall model performance could be achieved by adjusting these parameters because flood response of the model was so strongly dominated by the high rate of impervious area in valley. 3.2.3 Valley Storage Added to Model Given the overly flashy response of the model and the relative insensitivity of simulated flows at the Mill Creek USGS gage site to PERLND HRU parameter changes, it was reasoned that the model was under -representing the dispersed hydrologic storage within the many flat parking lots and ditches that exist in the valley areas. Although much of the Mill Creek basin between Earthworks Park (Reach 401) and the confluence with Springbrook Creek (Reach 51) consists of commercial development with a very high percentage of total impervious area, this portion of the basin lies within the relatively flat -gradient Green River valley where there are many opportunities for impervious surface runoff to pond prior to entering the main stem of Mill Creek. iTo achieve a reasonable calibration on Mill Creek, storage that is approximately equivalent to the City of Kent stormwater standard for the valley was assumed to be in place for a portion of existing impervious area. This standard is equivalent to approximately 3.0 inches of depth over the contributing impervious area. Outflow from the storage was based on an overflow of approximately 0.9 cfs per ac-ft of storage or 0.23 cfs per acre of contributing impervious. Trial runs of the model and comparisons with observed storm hydrographs were then used to adjust the portion of impervious area subjected to the assumed storage. This resulted in storage being applied to 52% of the impervious area runoff within each of eleven subbasins (53, 57, 61, 63, 65, 67, 81, 85, 87, 91, 93 ). A similar amount of storage was also added to other valley areas within the City of Kent to represent stormwater mitigation that was required by the City for impervious areas constructed after 1996. One exception to this assumption was made for post-1996 development in the areas draining directly to Green River Natural Resource Area (GRNRA). No on -detention storage was added for recent development in these areas as all development in this basin is directed to the regional storage in the GRNRA as part of the LID that created this project. 3.2.4 Peak Flow Table 5 shows the results of the calibration in terms of instantaneous storm peak discharges and storm volumes for the nine largest storm events of the two year calibration period. At the SW 27�' Street gage site, modeled hourly storm peak discharges differed from gaged peak discharges by between -16% and 42%. The RMS of the error percentages is 17% and average model bias is very low (approximately +1%). Model error for the peak of record ' (rank = 1) on February 9, 1996 is 2%. The largest peak error (42%) occurs on November 11, 1995, one of the smallest storm peaks (rank =8). Based on these results, the model is considered to be well calibrated for prediction of peak discharges within the study reach. Similar agreement was obtained between simulated and observed peaks at the USGS site on Springbrook Creek, but simulated flows at the USGS site on Mill Creek (gage 12113349) ' tended to consistently overestimate the gaged peaks. The USGS rates the Mill Creek gage record "poor" for the larger peak discharges (> 200 cfs), and "fair" otherwise. The Springbrook gage record was rated "poor". Given the relatively low reliability of these gages and their location upstream of the study reach, model performance in matching flow records is not considered as significant as at the SW 27`h Street gage site. 3.2.5 Storm Volumes The range of errors for storm volumes at the SW 27' Street gage is -23% to 20% with an RMS error 17% and an average bias of -12%. The bias suggests that the -model , moderately underestimates storm volumes at this site. In contrast, results at the other two gages suggest an over estimation of 17% on the Springbrook branch and 12% on the Mill , Creek branch. Based on drainage area, the sum of storm volumes at the upstream gages should equal 92% of the storm volume at the SW 27`h gage. Clearly, the three gage records are not consistent with one another. The USGS gages consistently (8 out of 9 storm events) predict less volume by an average of 21 % than is indicated by 92% of the recorded volume at SW 27t' Street. Given the previously mentioned issues with data quality at the USGS gages and the inconsistency of recorded volumes among the gages, there was no basis on which to make further adjustments to the HSPF model and the calibration was judged to be adequate within the study reach. In addition to storm peaks and volumes, model agreement with gaged data was checked for annual and seasonal flow volumes. Results of these checks are considered to be of minor importance to the floodplain study, but they are provided in Appendix A for reference purposes. 10 Table 5: Simulated and observed instantaneous storm peak discharges and storm volumes for nine largest storm events during water years 1995 and 1996 Peak Date Peak Rank Springbrook Creek near Orillia USGS 12113346 Mill Creek near Orillia USGS 12113349 Springbrook Creek at SW 27th Renton OBS SIM ERROR OBS SIM ERROR OBS SIM ERROR 11/30/1994 6 Storm Vol (ac-ft) Peak cfs) 6919 129 8595 123 24% -5% 11202 145 12943 169 16% 17% 26958 353 23356 318 -13% -10% 12/20/1994 7 Storm Vol (a-ft) Peak (cfs) 11459 117 15616 .125 36% 7% 21486 151 1 23699 179 J 10% 19% 52856 1 328 1 42638 318 1 -19% -3% 12/27/1994 5 Storm Vol (ac-ft) Peak cfs 7660 143 11097 171 45% 20% 13682 187 15832 221 16% 18% 32573 357 28918 399 -11% 12% 2/18/1995 3 Storm Vol (ac-ft) Peak cfs 11757 148 26574 184 75% 24% 22489 189 28447 250 26% 32% 57650 472 52737 441 -9% -6% 11/11/1995 8 Storm Vol (ac-ft) Peak (cfs) 8454 191 7824 153 -7% -20% 8992 131 11778 222 31% 70% 17666 252 21220 358., 20% 42% 11/29/1995 4 Storm Vol(ac-ft) Peak cfs 25944 202 19186 147 -26% -27% 25752 162 21011 198 9% 23% 62093 364 50997 350 -18% 4% 1/21/1996 9 Storm Vol (ac-ft) Peak .(cfs)89 24294 23654 71 -3% -20% 35887 86 34533 105 -4% 23% �81244 218 62870 192 -23% -12% 2/9/1996 1 Storm Vol (ac-ft) Peak cfs 36395 447 33033 347 -9% -22% 45093 376 43145 423 -4% 13% 96359 714 82401 731' -14% 2% 4/24/1996 2 Storm Vol (ac-ft) Peak cfs) 11890. l75 15441 179 30% 3% 18183 189 20222 238 11% 26% 46537 498 38358 419 -18% -16% 8 Appendix C: Future Land Use Analysis and Modeling A model based on future build -out conditions was also constructed as part of this project, but was not referenced in the hydrology memorandum submitted to FEMA. In this future conditions model, the drainage system of Springbrook Creek is assumed to be the same as under current conditions. Only land use has been changed to reflect build -out conditions. Build -out conditions were based on zoning map information provided by the cities of Renton and Kent and by King County. A future land -cover GIS coverage was generated by combining parks, wetlands, zoning, and current land -cover GIS data and applied to the model using the following four rules: 1) all jurisdictionally designated wetland areas are modeled as wetland regardless of any underlying zoning, 2) wetland soil areas indicated by surficial geology coverages are assumed to be developed based on zoning if the area is not in a jurisdictionally designated wetland, 3) all parks area (and publicly owned area in Renton) is modeled with its current land cover, and 4) future land - Table B1: Summa of HRU Acrea es by Major Subbasin- Future Land Use Subbasin EIA TF TG OF OG W AF AG Water Total Area (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) (ac) Springbrook 2717 62 496 0 3 443 55 457 4232.5 Rolling Hills 460 32 409 0 I 7 I 1 I 0 17 ( I 925.7 _ Panther 621 85~ 837 _ 0 I 1 117 I 1 i 6 I 33 I 1700.3 Upper 132 58 279 26I 29I 48I 0 2I I 573.8 Springbrook Springbrook Garrison 694 144 1381 0 0 I 116 I 0 3 I 2338.2 Lower Mill 2418 0 0 0 I 0 I 361 I 42 I 661 I 3481.8 Middle Mill 818 7 94 0 0 I 53 I 10 I 203 I 1184.9 Upper Mill 1 602 75 755 1 0 1 0 1 90 1 2 9 1 1 1531.8 Basin Sum 8461 462 4284 27 1 38 1 1228 110 1 1359 33 1 15968.5 Basin % 53.0% 2.9% 26.8% 1 0.2% 1 0.2% 17.7% 1 0.7% 1 9% 1 0.2% 1 100.0% cover is always at least as intensive as existing land cover. The methodology for determining HRU acreages for each subbasin was similar to that of the current -conditions model with one exception; the areas that experienced a change in landuse were routed to a separate storage area from those that did not. This was added so the model could be used in future projects to add storage with new development. A summary of the acreages of each HRU by major subbasin is provided in the table below. The future conditions model was applied in the same manner as the current conditions model to determine conveyance and storage controlled events under future conditions. The results of the future conditions analysis are shown in Tables B2 and B3 as follows: 21 Kent Lagoons /( SR-516 Lr:(j-Fiid Stream Railroad Road Basin Boundary Sub -Basin Boundary 21164 /NMM87 PWG111 LM65 Middl� S43 G323 \ 321 Mill Greek MM89 MM85 G331 G333 MM93 UM4038 Upper G335 Mill Creek` UM403C 1 \ ` UM403D\` 1 �M407 Scale 1"=3500' feet 3500 0 3500 7000 UM405 Study Area = N = Springbrook Creek FIS HSPF Catchments northwest hydraulic consultants inc. Date: 11/14/2003 1 Figure 3 CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: October 14, 2004 TO: Ron Straka FROM: Daniel Carey (x7293) SUBJECT: SWP-27-2711 - Renton Village Flooding Problem Project Overview The Surface Water Utility is considering a CIP project to help reduce flooding at Renton Village. The purpose of this memo is to identify existing conditions, the historical development of the storm system, define the problem, identify potential solutions, and map out how the SWU will proceed with the project. Project Location and Existing Conditions The Renton Village complex is located between S Grady Way and 1-405, and SR- 167/Rainier Ave S and Talbot Rd S (see Figure 1). There are a number of different property parcels owned by different companies. The owners of the parcels where the main,drainage system is located are listed in the table below. Parcel # Owner Main Building Mailing Address 7232000020 RVA Office LLC Evergreen Bldg 520 Pike St #1500 7232000010 RVA Cinema LLC Renton Cinema C/o Sandorffy M & Co, 520 Pike St #1500 1923059043 RVA Center LLC Thriftway, C/o Sandorffy M & Co, Shopping Center 520 Pike St #1500 7231600542 Renton One Renton HAL Real Estate Replacement Prop. Invstmts, Brad Lange 2025 1 St Ave #700 1923059001 Renton Two Renton HAL Real Estate Replacement Prop Invstmts, Brad Lange (Boeing Co. 2025 1 St Ave #700 leasing) RVA Cinema LLC, RVA Office LLC, and RVA Center LLC are limited liability companies owned by a common set of owners. Any easements or agreements on those properties would have to be obtained from each LLC company and their owners. Renton Replacement Properties is owned and managed by HAL Real Estate Investments. Any easements or agreements on those properties would have to be obtained from that owner(s). HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2006 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 1 of 13 4 Existing Drainage Basin The Renton Village complex is located at the bottom of the Rolling Hills Drainage Sub -basin (P5 in Figure 2). The Rolling Hills Sub -basin was analyzed as part of the East Side Green River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis (Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC), March 1996). The majority of the Rolling Hills Sub -basin is located south of 1-405 and consists of approximately 900 acres. The sub -basin has a high level of development with about 66 percent of it characterized as commercial, multifamily residential, or high density residential. NHC used the HSPF hydraulic simulation model to model the hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of the Watershed. Flows from the Rolling Hills Sub -basin go through the Renton Village complex in the existing drainage system and flow under 1-405 in the 48-inch and 132-inch culverts. The HSPF flow modeling results for the Rolling Hills Sub -basin are given below. Sub -basin 2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year Rolling Hills (P5) Current Conditions 83 cfs 107 cfs 117 cfs 130 cfs Rolling Hills (P5) Future Conditions 95 cfs 140 cfs 163 cfs 198 cfs The NHC analyses included larger regional detention systems, mainly in the City of Kent, but did not include smaller on -site detention systems that could be required by the King Count Surface Water Manual. Tables from the NHC report are included in Appendix A attached to this memo. Existing Drainage System The existing drainage system appears to have been constructed over time partially by Renton Village Company or its' predecessors and partially by the City or WSDOT (see Figure 1). At the downstream end of the main drainage system a 48-inch culvert and a 132-inch culvert carry stormwater runoff under 1-405 to the southwest (Figure 1, point A). A 700-foot long open channel runs from the culverts to the east, along the south side of Renton Cinema (point A to B). A 48-inch culvert runs to the northeast toward the shopping center, changes to a 42-inch diameter, and is joined by a 72-inch culvert (point B to C). At point C the main flow comes from the 72-inch culvert, which runs to the east to where it changes to 60-inch diameter (point D). From point D the 60-inch culvert runs east to the corner then north to a vault (point E). At point D a major offsite drainage system connects to the 72-inch pipe. The system comes from Talbot Road S and carries flow from Talbot Road S, City streets, and the west branch of Rolling Hills Creek. At point E three different offsite drainage systems connect to the vault. From the north a City system carries flow from Grady Way S, City Hall, and the north portion of Sam's Club. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 2 of 13 From the east a culvert carries flow from the south side of Sam's Club, and from a flume that carries runoff from east of 1-405 (from City streets and the east branch of Rolling Hills Creek). From the south a system in Talbot Road S carries flow from a small section of Talbot Road. At the north side of the Renton Village area at least two City storm systems carry runoff from S Grady Way into the storm systems on those properties. There may be other connections from S Grady Way that are not shown on the City inventory system. Flooding Problem Renton Village experiences frequent flooding due to the lack of capacity of the main drainage system running through the complex. The connection of the 72-inch storm system to the 42-inch system (point C) forms a bottleneck when flows exceed the capacity of the 42-inch pipe. In addition, the 48-inch pipe that discharges to the open channel (point B) has a negative slope of —1.2%. The outlet of the 48-inch pipe is about 2.1 feet lower than the inlet. Finally, the west end of the open channel south of Renton Cinema lost capacity by partially filling with sediment and vegetative growth. During intense or prolonged storms the drainage system experiences backwater, and storm water flows out of the lowest manholes and catch basins in Renton Village. Flooding seems to start in the manhole at the bend of the 48-inch pipe on the One Renton property, and at point C where the 42-inch and 72-inch pipes connect. Flooding continues out of the lowest catch basins in the parking lots. In severe events water has flooded the lower sections of the complex parking lots to a depth of 2 feet or more. During prolonged rainfall events the storm systems continue to backwater causing flooding on S Grady Way and Talbot Road S. The Renton Village area is a low area that has probably always been susceptible to flooding. Approximately the west half of the area between Rainier Ave. S and Talbot Road S is shown on the FEMA Flood Maps as a flood area for the 100-year flood (see Figure 3). Even with improvements to the drainage system it is likely that some flooding will continue to occur on the Renton Village area. Drainage System Development and Ownership This section attempts to answer questions on ownership and maintenance responsibility of sections of the existing drainage system starting at the downstream end (Figure 1, Point A). 48-inch Culvert under 1-405 — Point A At the downstream end of the main drainage system the 48-inch culvert under 1-405 was probably built by WSDOT. Ownership and maintenance responsibilities are probably WSDOT's. 132-inch Culvert under 1-405 — Point A The 132-inch culvert was constructed by WSDOT about 1987-88 as part of the "Tukwila to SR-167 HOV Lanes" project. The City Council passed Resolution 2682 on June 8, 1987 authorizing the Mayor to execute the necessary agreements with WSDOT (CAG-87-041). The Mayor signed Local Agency Participating Agreement Number GC 8164 with the WSODT on June 8, 1987 for upsizing the culvert to 132-inches to make it a 100-year design HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 3 of 13 culvert. The City's share was estimated at 52.43% ($393,924) of the total cost for the culvert. It appears that the City had an agreement with Renton Village to pay $60,000 toward construction of the new culvert. A letter dated October 6, 1987 requests Renton Village Company to pay $60,000 to the City so the City can pay WSDOT for the project (Appendix B). I could not find a signed agreement with Renton Village in the Clerk's records or City files. The Local Agency Participating Agreement with WSDOT contains a sections stating "Upon completion of the work outlined herein, all future operations and maintenance of the LOCAL AGENCY's facilities shall be at the sole cost of the LOCAL AGENCY and without expense to the STATE". The Agreement does not seem clear about culvert ownership and any future replacement. It appears that the City is responsible for maintenance of the 132-inch culvert. Open Channel South of Renton Cinema — Point A to B The open channel was probably originally constructed as part of the property development, and/or when 1-405 was constructed. Before 1988 the existing drainage system south of the cinema consisted of the 48-inch culvert under 1-405, about 125 feet of open channel, 210 feet of 48-inch culvert, and the remaining open channel heading for point B. In 1988 Renton Village Cinema submitted a plan to enlarge the cinema (City plan number D- 1883). As part of that plan the 210 foot section of 48-inch pipe was removed and replaced with a new open channel that connected to the existing channel. Since the open channel is located on three private properties it appears that parts of it would be owned by RVA Office LLC, RVA Cinema LLC and HAL Real Estate. Those entities would also be responsible for maintenance. 48-inch and 42-inch Pipes — Point B to C These pipes were probably constructed by the property owner(s). Part of the storm system may have been constructed as part of the One Renton building. The City does not have plans for their construction. There appear to be no easements for the pipes on private property. Part of the 42-inch pipe runs across City ROW (S Renton Village Place). Appendix B contains some letters in the SWP-27-1269 file between the City and Renton Village Company. The letters discuss RVC's paying $60,000 for the 132-inch culvert under 1-405. The RVC letter dated April 16, 1986 mentions completing the storm drainage system through their 55 acre tract by installing a second 42-inch pipe from the open ditch to the recently constructed concrete storm system (72-inch pipe in next section). Since the pipes are located on two private properties it appears that parts of it would be owned by RVA Center LLC and HAL Real Estate. Those entities would also be responsible for maintenance. 72-inch and 60-inch Pipes — Point C to E The storm system was built in 1982 by the Renton Village Company and plans are in the City file system (D-1269). The 60-inch pipe on the east side of the site (point D to E) was H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 4 of 13 built on pile supports for its length of 432 feet. The Two Renton Building was built about 1986 after the storm system. On October 30, 1986 Renton Village Company granted the City an Easement over the 72- inch and 60-inch storm line, and a Bill of Sale for the storm line. The easement specifically states that the City "shall maintain, repair, or reconstruct the Drain as necessary to keep it in good condition". A reduced copy of the design plans are attached to the Easement and Bill of Sale. Recorded Easement number 8612031437 and Bill of Sale number 8612031438 are in the City Clerks records. Based on the Bill of Sale and Easement it appears that the City owns the 72-inch and 60- inch pipes and is responsible for their maintenance. 1990 Proposed Site Plan by RVA Extending the 72-inch Pipe From Point C to the Open Channel In 1990 Renton Village Associates submitted a site plan to the City to construct a new ten story office tower and a five story parking garage. The site plan included extending the 72- inch storm line from point C to the open channel next to the cinema (see Appendix C). It appears that the 72-inch line would be kept in the City ROW and on the various RVA LLC properties. The plan recognized that the site was in the 100-year flood plain and would be subject to flooding even with the new 72-inch pipe. The project proposed compensatory flood storage in vaults under the new roads and in the first floor of the parking garage. The City issued a DNS -Mitigated on December 21, 1990 which included recommendations to develop a storm drainage plan and flood protection plan. The applicant was also required to provide a "Hold Harmless" agreement acknowledging that the development was in the 100-year flood plain and would not hold the City liable for any flooding and damages to property or persons. The Hearing Examiner issued a decision on February 5, 1991 which denied the Conditional Use Permit and approved the Site Plan with additional conditions. One of the conditions was that no additional development of the site would occur until the current flooding problem was resolved. The garage could not be used for compensatory flood storage. The applicant appealed the decision to the City Council. On June 17, 1991 the Council found errors in the Hearing Examiner's decision and approved the Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan. A draft Hold Harmless agreement was review and approved by the City Attorney on January 25, 1991 (Appendix C). There is no record of an executed Hold Harmless agreement in the City Clerk's files. It appears that Renton Village Associates decided not to proceed with the project. The Site Plan Approval expired on June 17, 1994. In January 1999 RVA rescinded a Covenant to extend a City street through the property. 1997 Proposed Hazard Mitigation Grant Application by City Extending the 72-inch Pipe From Point C to the Open Channel In 1997 the City proposed submitting an application to the Washington State Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for a grant to construct a new 72-inch pipe from Point C to the open channel. The plan also included improvements to widen the entire open channel from Point B to Point A. A majority of the 72-inch pipe would be on the One Renton (HAL Real Estate) property. The open channel improvement would be on HAL Real Estate property and various RVA LLC properties. H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 5 of 13 One of the requirements of the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program was that the estimated project costs would be less than the anticipated cost of damages (flooding damages) if the project was not constructed. Project cost estimates ranged from $590,000 to $630,000. The Surface Water Utility requested flood damage costs from the owners and tenants of Renton Village. Apparently, the City was not able to obtain documented damages that would exceed the project cost estimate, and the Hazard Mitigation Grant application was not submitted. 2004 Open Channel Cleaning by the City On August 24, 2004 an intense rainfall caused flooding in the Renton Village and One Renton building parking lots. In response to requests from Renton Village Management Company the City applied for a Hydraulic Permit from Washington State to remove accumulated sediment and vegetation from in front of the 132-inch culvert and about 150 feet of the channel upstream of the culvert. The HPA was issued and the work was performed by City crews in September 2004. POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS There are three basic ways to address the flooding problem. — Do Nothing The existing 48-inch and 42-inch drainage system and open channel are owned by the private property owners. It is their responsibility to convey water from upstream through their site, even if it happens to be from a large drainage basin. Renton Village Associates recognized this problem in the April 16, 1986 letter, and they had a site plan approved in 1991 that included installing a extension of the 72-inch pipe to the open channel. The extension would probably have reduced the frequency and duration of flooding on the site. RVA chose not to proceed with the development project. If they wanted to reduce the flooding problem on their property they could have continued with the plans for the storm system improvement alone. Doing nothing does not help to resolve the flooding problem. The flooding adversely affects a significant number of private businesses. RVA has no ability to limit the stormwater flow coming on to their site and is in the position of having to deal with increased flows as upstream development occurs. During longer events the City streets are flooded causing a public health and safety problem. Because the majority of the flow is from upstream from developments and City streets the City has an interest in ensuring that the drainage system has the capacity to convey those flows. 2 — Limited Fix by City The City would help reduce the flooding problem by installing a extension of the 72-inch pipe from Point C to the open channel. A new 72-inch pipe, box culvert, or open channel would provide additional capacity to the storm system and would reduce the frequency and duration of flooding in the Renton Village area and City streets. There are a variety of questions regarding ownership, easements, and agreements that need to be considered if this type of option is chosen. HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 6 of 13 It is assumed that the City will retain ownership and maintenance responsibility of any storm system it constructs. Under this option RVA and HAL would still be responsible for maintaining the open channel from point A to B. 3 — City Takeover of the Entire Drainage System The City could determine that the flooding is a regional problem and that it is in its' best interest to take over ownership and maintenance of the entire storm system from 1-405 to the existing 72-inch pipe (Point A to C). That approach would ensure that the storm system is properly maintained and kept at maximum flow capacity. The City would help reduce the flooding problem by installing a extension of the 72-inch pipe (or box culvert or open channel) from Point C to the open channel. There are a variety of questions regarding ownership, easements, and agreements that need to be considered if this type of option is chosen. This option would reduce the liability and expenses for the current property owners and increase them for the City. If this option is used the City should consider requiring a Hold Harmless Agreement from the property owners. The City should consider requiring cost sharing from the property owners to help pay for the drainage improvements that would be constructed. AGREEMENTS THAT MAY BE NEEDED The solution chosen will involve some or all of the following issues with the private property owners: Easements If the City builds a new drainage system it will need permanent access easements over the system. The easement should include a significant area around the new system so there is room for future maintenance, construction access, and eventual replacement. A 30 to 50 foot easement may be appropriate for this type of storm system. At the start of the project the City should obtain a binding agreement from the property owners that they will grant an easement of this size wherever the new storm system is located on their property. The agreement should cover whatever type of system is chosen, pipe, culvert, or open channel. Hold Harmless Agreement In exchange for constructing a new storm system and taking over maintenance responsibility the City should have a Hold Harmless agreement from the property owners. L Similar to the draft agreement the City required for the 1991 Site Plan (Appendix he purpose of the agreement would be to protect the City .against any claims in the event that property or persons are harmed as a result of flooding that occurs after the City takes over the existing storm system, and constructs a new storm system. Because the property is in the 100-year flood plain it is possible that flooding will still occur even with storm system improvements. Cost Sharing HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 7 of 13 The City should consider requesting that the private property owners contribute to the construction cost of the new storm system. There appears to be a precedent for this since RVC constructed the 72-inch and 60-inch pipes, then turned them over to the City. There is the October 6, 1987 letter from the City to Renton Village asking them to pay their $60,000 contribution for the 132-inch culvert construction. There is the April 16, 1986 letter from RVC stating that they agree to install a new 42-inch pipe from the 72-inch storm system to the open ditch behind the Cinema, and, upgrade the ditch cross-section.. Overall Development Agreement Before the City proceeds very far with preliminary engineering an overall development agreement should be executed with the property owners to ensure and guarantee their cooperation with the project. The development agreement should include the following: General project scope and location. Private Owner support for the project. Easements, any that can be executed at this time. Guarantee for easements when design is finalized. Hold Harmless Agreement. Cost Sharing. Penalty Clause for failure to execute any of the agreements, easements, and payments. We do not want to have a situation where the Surface Water Utility issues Consultant contracts for preliminary design and surveying, and later finds that a private owner disagrees with an aspect of the project and refuses to cooperate. The City Attorney will need to be involved from the start of the project to help draft and finalize the agreements and clauses needed. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS — PROJECT PLAN The following is a outline of how SWU may proceed with the project and what work may be required. 1. Review this memo with managers and administrators. Determine which potential solution to pursue. Obtain concurrence. Consult with City Attorney on issues and agreements needed. Contact property owners to discuss potential project and issues. Determine their level of interest and cost sharing support. Identify any crucial issues they may have. Contact WSDOT regarding future redesign of 1-405 in that area. Their ideas and preliminary plans could affect the future of the open channel, and how a new 72-inch pipe system would be routed. 2. In-house Preliminary Engineering. Using available City information perform a preliminary hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to verify preliminary stormwater flow amounts. Develop design alternative and project route locations. HAFile Sys\SWP -Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 -Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 C I P Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 8 of 13 Identify and evaluate potential conflicts and problems with the design. 3. Contact Property Owners, Obtain Agreements. Contact the affected property owners to discuss the potential design, issues, and agreements needed. Resolve any issues and finalize Overall Development Agreement 4. City Council approval of Overall Development Agreement (needed?). (Will the Council need to be involved before this stage?) 5. Engineering and Permitting Select an Engineering Consultant and Execute a Contract. Preliminary Design Work Tasks: Geological Investigation, Surveying, Hydrologic Analysis (HSPF Model), Preliminary Routing and Design, Project Recommendations, Permit Assistance. Permitting: SEPA Checklist, HPA Final Design Tasks: Final Design, Final Hydraulic Modeling, Construction Plans and Specifications. 6. Obtain final Easements and other agreement items from Private Owners. 7. Construction. CONCLUSION The P/B/PW management needs to review the issues associated with this project. Management needs to determine the scope of the project improvements, the amount of cooperation that will be required/requested from the private owners, and how to achieve that cooperation. The City Attorney will need to be consulted. HAFile Sys\SWP -Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 -Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 9 of 13 Figures HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 10 of 12 t ... ._.: Black River Pump Station S16b S16a `�� !13! S 14 0 Silo S15 Sil S90 LL S9b sio Springbrook Creek — s9c S7a S S8 W 43rd S 180th Note: This area which was not included in the HSPF model was subsequently S6 found to drain to sub —basin S7a. LEGEND HSPF sub —basin boundary S6 Sub —basin number 2 River reach number S1 6c P4 zi Panther Creek Wetland Re- hton vlllaye_ Rolling Hills Tributary .P5 P3 P2 SCALE Wes 1 1/2 0 1 northwest hydraulic consultants Pi Panther Lake i-igure z (q F LooP MAPS V25jr4GTON 09 ZONE AE / (EL 24)� 47028.07" ZONE AE O (E— T 0 S 1TH 21 1 i9 u r e— J y�Py CITY OF RENTON j 530088 —(EL 24) ZONE AH (EL 24) SOUTH SOUT}.I FLOODING EFFECTS FROM SPRINGBROOK 19 CREEK s0 o 19 l xRM285 ZONE AH (EL 24) SOUTH RENTON VILLAGE PLACE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY ZONE A 0 ZONE A LIMB OF Q DETAILED STUDY STREET Rolling 14Tti N w Hills > w z Creek a z > 0 0 a O N w i = 0 15TH 3 STREET X J 0 w Z w ir N 2 O Z SOUTH 17TH STREET S 18TH STREET 19TH STREET U SOUTH 7T TON 1RTH -:::LG LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY tollingIT H creeklls reek LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD -HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY 100—YEAR FLOOD ZONE A No base flood elevations determined. ZONE AE Base flood elevations determined. ZONE AH Flood depths of I to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); base flood elevations determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined. ZONE A99 To be protected from 100-year flood by Federal food protection system under construction; no base elevations determined_ ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); no base flood elevations determined. ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE lr OTHER FLOOD AREAS €q s ZONE X Areas of 500-year food; areas of 100 year flood with average depths of less than I foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood. OTHER AREAS ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500-year floodplain. ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined. UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS Identified Identified Otherwise 1983 1990 Protected Areas Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. Flood Boundary Floodway Boundary Zone 0 Boundary Boundary Dividing Special Flood Hazard Zones. and Boundary Dividing Areas of Different Coastal Base Flood Elevations Within Special Flood Hazard Zones. Base Flood Elevation Line: 513 Elevation in Feet. See Map Index for Elevation Datum, Cross Section Line Base Flood Elevation in Feet (EL 987) Where Uniform Within Zone. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. RM7 X Elevation Reference Mark • MZ Hiver Mile Horizontal Coordinates Based on North 97007'30". 32022'30" American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) Projection. NOTES This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program: it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding. particularly from local drainage sources of small size, of all planimetric features outside Special Flood Hazard Areas. Coastal base flood elevations applv oniv landward of 0.0 NGVD and inrl u(P W Appendix A HAFile Sys\SWP -Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 -Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 C I P Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 7 of 7 East Side Green River Watershed Hydrologic Analysis Report prepared for: R.W. Beck and City of Renton, Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. 16300 Christensen Road Suite 350 Tukwila, WA 98188-3418 206-241-6000 March 1996 Black River Pump Station *S�l i I=r v S14 !13' ( f� 40 !1 ; FT. S10 S15 ' S11 1 1 S9a` S 10 / Springbrook S9b Creek S9c S7 S7a S8 ;" W 43rd. S 180th Note: This area which was not included in the HSPF model was subsequently S6 found to drain to sub —basin S7a. LEGEND HSPF sub —basin boundary S6 Sub —basin number 2C River reach number SCALE Miles 1 1/2 0 1 northwest hydraulic consultants S16c Rolling Hills Tributary P5 P4 ;2 , Panther Creek Wetland P3 \ '2& a� f� H P2 ,m P1 Panther Lake t-igure z Table 1 East Side Green River Watershed Project HSPF Modeling - Current Land Use (Acres) Basin / Sub -Basin COM MF HDR MDR LDR OF UC LU LK Total Mill Creek to confluence 2342.4 351.2 710.2 0.0 186.2 312.5 127.9 2003.7 52.6 6086.7 with Springbrook Creek ' Garrison Creek to confluence 129.4 183.3 0.0 661.9 845.2 291.1 0.0 0.0 45.3 2156.2 with Springbrook Creek' Upper Springbrook Creek to confluence 42.2 295.3 47.5 115.0 118.3 254.7 58.1 0.0 0.0 931.1 with Springbrook Creek' Springbrook Creek to confluence 470.0 56.6 25.3 0.0 0.0 118.4 0.0 306.1 0.0 976.4 with Mill Creek' Panther / Rolling Hills Creeks PI 0.0 42.2 95.3 77.8 105.7 31.0 82.5 0.0 34.7 469.2 P2 91.4 38.5 118.9 80.4 243.6 180.8 61.5 0.5 0.0 815.6 P3 52.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.7 0.0 55.0 P4 16.1 0.0 136.8 93.7 24.2 73.8 41.3 64.6 49.7 500.2 -� P5 137.3 105.6 359.5 28.5 18.0 201.8 41.3 12.4 0.0 904.4 Panther / Rolling Hills Creek Basins Total 296.9 186.3 710.5 280.4 391.5 487.6 226.6 80.2 84.4 2744.4 Lower Springbrook Creek S5 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 0.0 50.1 S6 220.8 14.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 15.0 0.0 60.3 0.0 313.3 S7a 22.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.4 0.0 70.9 S7b 30.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.4 0.0 77.0 S8 149.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.2 0.0 222.8 S9a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.9 0.0 43.9 S9b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 0.0 37.0 S9c 20.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 213.1 0.0 233.7 S10 98.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 103.4 0.0 202.1 Table 1 East Side Green River Watershed Project HSPF Modeling - Current Land Use (Acres) Basin / Sub -Basin COM MF HDR MDR LDR OF UC LU LK Total S11 40.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.1 0.0 0.0 96.1 0.0 172.9 S 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.1 0.0 26.1 S13 47.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.7 0.0 105.3 S14 33.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 43.6 0.0 89.1 S15 40.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39.7 0.0 80.4 S16a 53.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.1 0.0 68.8 S 16b 185.5 15.8 0.0 0.0 62.4 13.0 9.0 1.5 0.0 287.2 S16c 82.3 0.0 76.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 0.0 171.8 S17 & S18 228.7 31.9 0.0 0.0 79.3 82.0 1.1 193.3 0.0 616.3 Lower Springbrook Creek Basin Total 1278.0 61.7 76.7 0.0 192.6 110.0 10.1 1139.6 0.0 2868.7 East Side Green River Watershed Total 4558.9 1134.4 1570.2 1057.3 1733.8 1574.3 422.7 3529.6 182.3 15763.5 COM: Commercial MDR: Medium Density Residential UC: Upland Cleared MF: Multifamily Residential LDR: Low Density Residential LU: Lowland Undeveloped HDR: High Density Residential UF: Upland Forested LK: Lake Sources: ' NHC for City of Kent (RW Beck, 1994) s Entranco for City of Kent (1994) Table 10 Flood (cfs) and Storage (ac-ft) Quantiles Current Conditions G1 Return Period (yrs) Flood Quantfle (cfs) Stream/Sub-Basin Site 2 10 25 100 From ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis: Panther Creek (SB Pl P3) Flow upstream SR-167 80 119 139 170 Rolling Hills (Sub4win P51 Flow upstream SR-167 83 146 107 224 117 270 130 347 Sub -basins P1 P5 Total flow upstream SR-167 Rolling Hills/PCW SR-167 North crossing 39 69 84 106 Panther Creek SR-167 South crossing 25 27 28 28 Sub -basin S-6 At Outfall 58 64 65 66 Springbrook Creek U/S Oakesdale Avenue 332 522 632 814 Springbrook Creels U/S P-9 channel 449 687 824 1049 Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow . 492 743 894 1111 Required storage at BRPS (ac-ft) 45 53 70 140 Water Surface Elevation U/S of Grady Way Box 5.6 6.4 6.8 7.3 From City of Kent Modeling: Garrison Creek SR-167 crossing 104 155 179 213 Upper Spnngbrook Creek U/S of Spnngbrook Creek 39 43 43 44 Upper Springbrook Creels Overflows to SB S-6 6 20 28 43 Springbrook Creek U/S junction Mill Creek 157 255 307 387 NO Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 176 274 336 442 For Alternative Current Conditions Scenario: Nfill Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 275 435 526 673 Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow 552 832 989 1243 Notes: (1) Flood quartiles are Log Pearson III (2) Storage quintiles follow an empirical fit (3) PCW = Panther Creek Wetland (4) U/S = Upstream (5) BRPS = Black River Pump Station (6) Alternative Current Conditions Scenario for I\TIl Creek without lagoons project (see Report Section 3.4.1) Table 11 Flood (cfs) and Storage (ac-ft) Quandles Future Conditions Return Period (yrs) Flood Ouantile (cfs) or % ChanQe From Current Conditions Stream Site 2 10 25 100 From ESGRWP Hydrologic Analysis: -- Panther Creek (SB PI-P3) Flow upstream SR 167 90 13% 131 10% 150 8% 179 5% Rolling Hills (Sub -basin P5) Flow upstream SR 167 95 14% 140 31% 163 39% 198 52% Sub -basins PI-P5 Total flow upstream SR 167 165 13% 253 13% 307 14% 399 15% Rolling Hills/PCW SR 167 North crossing 42 8% 73 6% 88 5% _l l l 5% Panther Creek SR-167 South crossing 4% 28 4% 28 0`/0 29 4% Sub -basin S-6 At Outfall 62 7% 65 2% 66 2% 67 2% Springbrook Creek U/S Oakesdale Avenue 539 62% 767 47% 875 38% 1030 27% Springbrook Creek U/S P-9 channel 653 45% 911 33% 1043 27% 1243 180/9 Springbrook Creek BRPS inflow 723 474/o 998 34% 1133 28% 1332 200/a Required storage at BRPS (ac-fl) 49 90/0 59 11% 92 31% 221 58% Water surface Elevation U/S of Grady way Box 6.2 11% 7.2 13% 7.8 15% 8.7 19% From City of Kent Modeling: Garrison Creek SR 167 crossing 127 22% 173 12% 191 7% 215 1% Upper Springbrook Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 66 69% 88 105% 101 135% 122 177% Upper Springbrook Creek Overflows to SB S-6 0 n.a. 0 n_a. 0 n a. 0 n a. Springbrook Creek U/S junction MR Creek 236 50% 355 39% 420 37% 521 35% Mill Creek U/S of Springbrook Creek 311 77% 446 63% 510 52% 600 36% Notes: (1) Flood goantiles are Log Pearson III (2) Storage quartiles follow an empirical fit ' (3) PCW = Panther Creels Wetland (4) U/S = Upstream (5) BRPS = Black River Pump Station Appendix B HAFile Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 12 of 12 4 tau Barbara Y. Shinpoch, Mayor Mr. Everett Johnson RENTON VILLAGE COMPANY 830 Logan Building Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: Drainage Under 405 Dear Everett: yo "V CITY OF RENTON .� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Richard C. Houghton, Director October 6, 1987 Per our agreement, Renton Village has promised to pay the City of Renton the amount of $60.000.00 toward construction of the new 120 inch diameter pipe under I-405 at South Renton Interchange. As you know the project is now being advertised. Shortly we are going to have to pay the State D.O.T. so I am requesting at this time that you pay the City the $60,000. The money will be deposited in an account with the City from which we will ultimately pay the D.O.T. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, X L'6 ` ,7 Richard C. Houghton Public Works Director RCH:pmp ')An 1 9:11 A .. Q-+t, - D.,.,.- , 0Qncc - (1n,<) RENTON VILLAGE COMPANY 8 3 0 L O G A N BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 624-5810 April 16, 1986 Mr. Dick Houghton Director of Public Works City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA. 98055 ` Dear Dick: This letter supersedes our letter of April 15th on the same topic. Renton Village, in order to mitigate the drainage impacts of our proposed III Renton Place Office Building, is prepared to enter into a concomitant agreement with the City to assist in the funding of an additional storm water pipe system. This system would start on the, southwest corner of our property and pass under I-405, eventually terminating in the wetlands directly South of 'I-405 and East of S.R. 167. We agree to provide, when actually required, between fifty and sixty thousand dollars to be used for this project, assuming it can be accomplished within the next five years. 5 D- 6C, oc0 In addition, and in order to complete the storin drainage' system through our 55 acre tract, we agree to install a second 42" minimum diameter pipe between the recently t%�;e�•cc constructed concrete system, which has its western -most manhole just North of One•Renton Place, and the open ditch on the southwestern edge of our property. We will also change C- the ditch cross section to match the projected increase in flow rates and volumes. Thank you very much for your support. Yours very truly, JAME�; EDDY WARJONE Joint Venture Manager INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: April 2, 1986 TO: Dick Houghton FROM: Bob Bergstrom SUBJECT: Renton Village Request.to Assume Operation and Maintenance RENTON VILLAGE STORM SEWER I have reviewed the request by Renton Village Co. I am recommending that we NOT accept this storm sewer at this time. The conditions of acceptance should be: 1. Accept 1/3 of cost of I-405 Storm Drainage upgrading jointly WSDOT, City and Renton Village funded. 2. Provide plans, bonds and schedule for upgrading of the remaining 36" undersized storm sewers in the shopping center at -their cost. (Storm sewers west of Ernst and to freeway). - We should have Renton Village make firm commitments via agreements or bonds on the cost participation for the freeway crossing and upgrading their own old and under -sized piping. I believe we should negotiate with them in a cooperative manner, and we can assume operation and maintenance of the complete system; but we do need from Renton Village, firm cost share commitments. :mf CC: Jack Crumley Don Monaghan 1/z RENTON VILLAGE COMPAN 15 SOUTH GRADY WAY, RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 • (206) 228 V March 18, 1986 Mr. Dick Houghton Director of Public Works City of Renton 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Dear Dick: Thank you very much to responding to our request for additional advice on how respond to the broad request for a drainage proposal for our new Three Renton Place office building. As we discussed when we were with you, Renton Village is prepared to participate in the ultimate solution of the drainage problems �— that are resident on our site. We are willing to make a contribution to what is deemed to be in our judgment, a fair share of the cost of putting the large culvert under Interstate 405 in the Southwestern corner of our property. In our opinion, a formula which addresses our responsibility as a percentage of the total square footage of hard surface in the drainage area or an equivalent system would probably be be the fairest --a system which might be incorporated in your proposed drainage utility. Renton Village has always tried to shoulder its responsibility by providing at its own cost, a significant part of the City's ultimate build -out of the storm interceptor system. A recent investment of nearly three quarters of a million dollars in the system on the eastern boundary of our property is indicative of our interest in helping the City solve its drainage problems. Prior to doing that work, we did quite a bit of engineering work. Our studies show that the proposed pipe under I-405 if sized to handle the 1001 year storm's flow that could flow on to our property (which includes the water which was diverted off of the 7th Avenue Interceptor on to our property) should be at 212 D. Houghton 3/18/86 page 2 at least 72 inches in diameter. We certainly appreciate your department's support in our efforts to obtain a rezone for the sites of Two and Three Renton Place. We hope that the City will proceed soon with its administrative rezone of our area to 'caring our current usage into compliance. Again, thank you very much for your assistance. Yours very truly, <Ztis E. War�one Joint Venture Manager JEW:rj RENTON VILLAGE COMPAN January 24, 1983 Mr. Bob Bergstrom, City of Renton 200 Mill South Renton, Washington Dear Bob: 830 LOGAN BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 624-5810 Engineering Supervisor 98101 p( 4' v- f C V1'e- - -j__ Thank you for calling last week and asking about the status of our newly completed storm interceptor on Renton Village property west of Talbot and north of Renton Village Place. As we discussed on the phone, Renton Village Company is not in a position where it can make a commitment for land owned by Puget Western and Puget Power south of 405 and east of 167. We, however, laud your interest in trying to move ahead on drainage activities which will ultimately benefit all of the occupants of the City of Renton. After some discussion among ourselves we have come to the conclusion that it would probably be best in the short term for Renton Village to accept the cost of maintenance of that sewer interceptor for at least another year. It might be mutually beneficial at some time in the future for us to transfer the ownership of the pipe to the city, along with the maintenance requirements but, at this time, we feel that it is in our best interest to leave the situation as it is now with ownership and maintenance responsibility resting with the Renton Village Company. We look forward to your help with regards to maintaining the 48" outflow south of I-405 and hope that in the years to come you will be able to put together a drainage plan which ultimately will vent under- neath Rainier carrying water to Springbrook Creek north of I-405. Again, thank you for your interest. AJA very truly, �YfD EZ N `IAfV Venture Manager 1y�� UTj� Pies E�'C11144?'14Q Appendix C H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Projects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2711 Renton Village\2005 CIP Pipe Rplcmt\1000 Corrspd\041004 Project-Outline.doc Page 14 of 14 A41, Earl Clymer, Mayor February 26, 1991 Loren Laskow Renton Village Associates 15 S Grady Way, #509 Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Village Place North CU;ECF;SA;V-078-90 Dear Mr. Laskow: CITY OF R,ENT®N Planning/Building/Public, Works Department Lynn Guttman, Administrator Ot G ` %t1C, This is to inform you that the draft Hold Harmless Agreement submitted by Lonny Townsend on January 25, 1991, has been approved by our City Attorney. Foliowing Issuance of the Hearing Examiner's report for this project, you may proceed with preparation of the final document for signature and recording. Please contact me, at 235-2550, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lenora Blauman Project Manager 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT THIS HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 1991 by RENTON VILLAGE ASSOCIATES ('Renton Village"), a Washington general partnership, in favor of the CITY OF RENTON, a Washington municipal corporation ("City"). 1. Acknowledgment of Flood Plain. Renton Village hereby acknowledges that City has informed Renton Village that the property legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto ('Property") is located in an area that may be included in a 100-year flood plain as of the date of this Agreement. Notwithstanding this information, Renton Village has decided to proceed with development of the Property. 2. Hold Harmless. Renton Village hereby releases and agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any damage to the Property, or to property, improvements or persons located on the Property, and from any liability, suit, action, judgment or claim arising from any flooding of the Property resulting from conditions of the Property and surrounding area existing as of the date of this Agreement or resulting from Renton Village's work on the Property pursuant to Site Plan No. CU; SA; V-078-9G and any building permit(s) related thereto. Dated as of the date first above written. RENTON VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, a Washington general partnership I0 TOWNL\01160.AGW1.25.91 Seattle Its �4 WF�IC� I�.ti I� � r3•o fKUMAN 5fA% R16AWAY W i brl qot� 60010#m 0.0 To 5ALlxW Y�AQAi6ofV -A It K{ioK,4 k? YAKof fH6 N "P IDMeW W:N6 L. - \ ��wvO �0t } MaµoI& M weAOD. I i I I I I I I, I I A I I I j l I 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 i y RIN t3.y` 14 m �, wH 2+►.e s 1YP61L avcPi IJ 1 I 1 7 6 UN9Ffi6Rol GOMPN* (+.boo yf-e MICROBOX !r vlt l I I T I T I T I T I I I T I I _ _, 2orItAO ' �,\ — `_" � ✓� � /-" _ , _ any a q•� ; 9� tiro r r ori wull— "ram r1-7 ay u�ie a U 0� _ y� r 2� el 61 ,_ aian� ' x ►u d� ,fi a ey 0006 driomn-wonT d B9 AN soasy dO1�dNd �'! hIY0�1�IVM 7 T M/llo oy woejo C- 0_ o o a � v- VILLAGE PLACE NORTH 'M'MEM 4LPJMAN 4CD3EL4Gll-.AL3WXMj 607 S6 GRADY VAY, SUITE 210, RENTON, VALSM4GTON SW55 PHONE (206) 226-3522