Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStorm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Port Burwell and Vienna Storm Sewers Municipality of Bayham - 151ilk MERIT ECH 1315 Bishop Street North, Suite 202 Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.623.7334 www.meritech.ca Project No.: 4423 ,. RITECH November 25, 2015 Municipality of Bayham 9344 Plank Road Stradfordville, ON NOJ 1Y0 Attention: Mr. Paul Shipway CAO, Municipality of Bayham Dear Mr. Shipway, Re: Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Port Burwell and Vienna Storm Sewer Assessment Municipality of Bayham The following report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Municipality of Bayham, as set out in our proposal from March 2015 and is built upon the Storm Sewer Assessment Report submitted October 30, 2015. A conceptual system map was prepared and sizing of the sewers within this system was performed in order to assess the needs to provide Vienna and Port Burwell with storm 13 sewers in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Assessment Report. iii Due to the condition of the sewers, this assessment assumed new installation of sewers E throughout the system. Where a high point exists and adequate drainage is provided, the Li 7 detailed design will determine the extent of sewers that can be excluded. A recommendation was also made to install curbs for streets of a larger right of way width, this cost has been incorporated. Furthermore, we have assumed that the Municipality and the County will work together for the inter-connectedness of the storm sewers. Please review the enclosed information, and if you have any qu- -• , ., we would be please to meet and discuss at your convenience. oesliski i cR, , 4 K‹. , Yours very truly, ife4116-41/9,z. t l kJ. F f ESE MEM-TECH ENGINEERING 100044355 -, tnx 5 'ice -) O NCEOF0 r 3 Jason Tulumello Amanda J. Froese, P.Eng., FEC Construction Inspector Project Manager JCT/mb Enclosures (0) agniesnuelting4/,rs407/ Professional Engineers MEV2014 K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer of Ontario Ontario Costs Assessm n .rpt docxM ritech Engineering 1315 Bishop St. North Suite 202 Cambridge ON N1R 6Z2 t 519.623.1140 f 519.623.7334 MERIT ECH Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Executive Summary The two villages that were studied were Vienna and Port Burwell, part of the Municipality of Bayham. The storm drainage flows to Big Otter Creek, and eventually to Lake Erie. Meritech Engineering performed a storm sewer assessment program and concluded that the existing storm sewer systems are not functioning as intended. Storm runoff is currently being conveyed predominately overland instead of within the sewer systems. Road drainage appeared to be draining without proper outlets, or secured easements. A proposed sewer network was estimated utilizing existing topographic information, sanitary sewer design drawings and the inverts and sizes from the existing conditions assessment. A network for both towns was created and catchments estimated. This information was combined into a spreadsheet (and sizes of storm sewers were in order to provide the municipality with expected costs. The proposed conceptual network was scored based on area served, path and importance to a network as well as the condition of the existing infrastructure. Four priorities were assigned. The analysis concludes that Priority 1 networks are to be replaced first and is expected to cost the municipality $2,912,000 over the proposed 5-year program. Priority 2 networks total $1,677,000 and Priority 3 and 4 streets are proposed for works greater than 10-years from today and would improve the conditions for the remainder of the towns. It is recommended that the outlet configurations and storm drainage areas be assessed in each town independently, and this document be used as a guide as to where to put the resources. The majority of the works identified are with outlets and this remedial work will give the Municipality a strong spine to work from in the future, by providing adequate systems to connect the minor local systems into. Work with the County of Elgin is required due to the inter-relation of the roads and storm sewers. K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page i MERIT E Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Disclaimer This Storm Sewer Costs Assessment report was prepared by Meritech Engineering for the Municipality of Bayham. The comments, recommendations and materials presented in this report reflect our best judgement in light of the information available at the time of preparation. Except for approval and commenting municipalities and agencies in their review and approval of this project, any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance upon, or decisions as a result of, are the responsibility of such third parties. Meritech Engineering accepts no responsibility for damages suffered by any third party, other than an approval or commenting municipality or agency, as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this report. Use and Reproduction of This Document No part of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transcribed in any form, or by means including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording and scanning without the prior written approval of the author. For Further Information For further information regarding this report please contact the author at the following address: Meritech Engineering Attention: Mr. Ian S. Robertson, P. Eng. Director of Engineering 1315 Bishop Street North, Suite 202 Cambridge, ON N1R 6Z2 t (519) 623-1140 f (519) 623-7334 email: ianr@meritech.ca K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page ii MERIT ECH Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Table of Contents Introduction 1 Background 1 Storm Sewer Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations 2 Approach 2 Discussion 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 7 References 8 List of Figures Figure 1: Municipality of Bayham. (image from Google Maps. October 26, 2015) 1 List of Tables Table 1: Storm Sewer Network in Port Burwell 5 Table 2: Storm Sewer Network in Vienna 6 Table 3: Cost Estimates for Priority 7 Appendices Appendix A: Storm Sewer Network K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page iii MERITECH Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Introduction This section describes the communities and summarizes the recommendations of the previous assessment work. Background These two villages are located within the Municipality of Bayham which is part of Elgin County (see Figure 1). The storm drainage flows to Big Otter Creek, and eventually to Lake Erie. These villages are small in size and population with large lots and rural street sections. 3 Q Richmond � pf 19 Str8 loedviIlr i Z ul T _ �5 Callon a; L iJ i 19 emew P urt [PA U 111111 f BurwNl OE Figure 1: Municipality of Bayham. (image from Google Maps. October 26, 2015) K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page 1 MERITECH Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Storm Sewer Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations The assessment concluded that the existing storm sewer systems are not functioning as intended. Storm runoff is currently being conveyed predominately overland instead of within the sewer systems. Road drainage appeared to be draining without proper outlets, or secured easements. All networks should be discretized with catchment areas accurately measured, and each pipe sized accordingly using each network's existing outlet. All of the manhole and catchbasin structures should be designed and installed using current (MOE or Elgin County) standards and all new developments should provide on site storm water management. The Municipality is best served by having their infrastructure moved within their own right of ways where possible in order to facilitate future maintenance if required. Creating new outlets will require a Schedule C Class EA to be processed, complete with public consultation. It will be important to include Elgin County in this process as the storm systems intertwine. Port Burwell currently utilizes mostly roadside swale drainage systems without curb and gutter. It is recommended that curb and gutter be installed at any roadway equal to or greater than 18m in width. In Vienna all of the deficient sewers should be replaced with an underground storm system as opposed to a roadside swale and culvert system. Culverts commonly cause frost heaving in the winter months which can cause damage to public and private driveways. Approach This section provides how the costing analysis of a proposed network was prepared. A proposed sewer network was estimated utilizing existing topographic information, sanitary sewer design drawings and the inverts and sizes from the existing conditions assessment. A network for both towns was created and catchments estimated. This information was combined into a spreadsheet (refer to Appendix A), and sizes of storm sewers were estimated (based on assumed lengths, slopes and initial time of concentration). The network was proposed to be within municipal rights of way and discharging to existing outlets. Some of these outlets are County Roads, and we have assumed that for the detailed design work the County will be involved as a team partner. It was assumed that in Port Burwell a new outlet would be required to correct the current situation within the beach. A cost estimate was prepared based on a cost per metre for the length of storm sewer. K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page 2 MERIT ECH Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Once the networks were set up, they were compared against one another for priorities. Each section was scored on three categories; 1. Catchment 2. Area Serviced 3. Existing Condition The Catchment category refers to the importance each section played in the overall network with the outlet being the most important to the critical path and the beginning of the network as the least important to the path. A low score represents a section of pipe that is not very important in creating the network, whereas a high score represents a critical segment, such as the outlet. The Area Serviced category refers to the size of the catchment area each section represents. A score of 1 represents a small catchment area, normally at the crest of a hill, with few homes contributing to the sewer. A score of 10 represents a large catchment, with a large number of homes draining to the sewer. The Existing Conditions category refers to how structurally damaged and/or how blocked the water flow is in each section based on the CCTV inspections. A score of 1 represents a pipe in good condition and a score of 10 represents a broken pipe, or unknown connection. The categories were weighted mathematically based on the maximum catchment area, the worst condition, and the largest pipe and issued a number between 1 and 10. Each section was totalled with the sections with largest numbers being greater priorities. For example a pipe segment with a small catchment, that services only a few houses, doesn't have many pipes connecting into it, is in fair to good condition would not need to be replaced. However the pipe leading to the outlet, with a large number of pipes feeding into it, servicing a large catchment area, is ranked high on the priority. It is also worthy of noting that the pipes that service the largest areas are of higher costs. The storm sewer sizing spreadsheet was also used to rank the pipe segments by ranking the accumulated catchments. As this represents areas as they are combined into the sewer segments. This simplified numeric ranking was compared to the score ranks to see the impact of condition. K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page 3 MERIT ECH Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Discussion Tables 1 and 2 show the pipe segments as they were analysed, with their representative scores. From this analysis the priorities are determined. In the rankings, if there are two with the same rank, the higher value is assigned to both, and the lower value is skipped (i.e. if there are two ranks 41, then 42 is skipped and the next rank assigned is 43). Catchment Area Condition Total Rank based Priority Estimated Score Score Score Score on Score Cost Pitt Street Node 1 Node 2 10 1 10 21 12 1 $187,000.00 Strachan Street Node 3 Node 2 5 2 10 17 40 2 $61,000.00 Node 2 Node 4 8 1 10 19 34 2 $75,000.00 Node 4 Node 5 9 1 10 20 24 2 $64,000.00 Erieus Street Node 6 Node 5 4 1 10 15 46 3 $115,000.00 Brock Street Node 5 Node 10 9 1 10 20 24 2 $80,000.00 Robinson Street Node 8 Node 10 2 1 3 6 72 4 $105,000.00 Node 10 Node 11 9 1 3 13 62 3 $83,000.00 Node 11 Creek 10 10 20 24 2 $125,000.00 Elizabeth Street Node 13 Node 12 10 1 2 13 62 3 $115,000.00 Node 12 Lake 10 10 20 24 2 $65,000.00 Milton Street Node 14 Node 15 3 1 10 14 54 3 $53,000.00 Node 15 Node 17 3 2 10 15 46 3 $66,000.00 Shakespeare St. Node 16 Node 17 3 1 10 14 54 3 $53,000.00 Node 18 Node 17 3 2 10 15 46 3 $66,000.00 Waterloo Street Node 17 Node 20 7 3 10 20 24 2 $78,000.00 Strachan Street Node 21 Node 20 3 4 10 17 40 2 $64,000.00 Node 19 Node 20 3 2 10 15 46 3 $66,000.00 Waterloo Street Node 20 Node 22 8 2 10 20 24 2 $85,000.00 Erieus Street Node 23 Node 22 9 4 10 23 2 1 $80,000.00 Node 22 Node 24 10 3 10 23 2 1 $92,000.00 Elizabeth Street Node 25 Node 28 10 1 10 21 12 1 $134,000.00 Victoria Street Node 26 Node 27 10 1 9 20 24 2 $115,000.00 William Street Node 36 Node 29 10 3 2 15 46 3 $69,000.00 Victoria Street Node 30 Node 29 7 9 7 23 2 1 $189,000.00 K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page 4 MERIT EC H Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Catchment Area Condition Total Rank based Priority Estimated Score Score Score Score on Score Cost Node 29 Node 31 7 1 7 15 46 3 $35,000.00 Node 31 Node 32 8 2 7 17 40 2 $117,000.00 Shakespeare St. Node 33 Node 32 3 10 10 23 2 1 $118,000.00 Node 32 Node 34 9 4 6 19 34 2 $82,000.00 Node 34 Node 35 10 4 10 24 1 1 $85,000.00 Node 35 Creek 10 1 10 21 12 1 $182,000.00 Addison Street Node 41 Node 40 9 3 3 15 46 3 $268,000.00 Node 40 Ravine 10 1 3 14 54 3 $20,000.00 Table 1: Storm Sewer Network in Port Burwell Catchment Area Condition Total Rank based Priority Estimated Score Score Score Score on Score Cost Ann Street Node 1 Node 2 7 6 10 23 2 1 $147,000.00 Oak Street Node 6 Node 2 1 1 10 12 68 4 $24,000.00 Node 5 Node 2 2 2 10 14 54 3 $48,000.00 Ann Street Node 2 Node 3 8 1 10 19 34 2 $67,000.00 Elm Street Node 8 Node 3 3 3 10 16 45 3 $ 69,000.00 Node 7 Node 3 4 3 10 17 40 2 $95,000.00 Ann Street Node 3 Node 4 9 2 10 21 12 1 $92,000.00 Edison Drive Node 9 Node 4 1 3 10 14 54 3 $48,000.00 Node 4 Creek 10 1 10 21 12 1 $113,000.00 Chestnut Street Node 10 Node 11 6 6 10 22 9 1 $135,000.00 Oak Street Node 16 Node 11 5 1 4 10 70 4 $39,000.00 Node 11 Node 12 7 3 3 13 62 3 $46,000.00 Node 12 Node 13 7 3 _ 3 13 62 3 _ $70,000.00 Node 13 Node 14 8 2 10 20 24 2 $98,000.00 Node 14 Node 15 9 4 5 18 39 2 $70,000.00 Node 15 Creek 10 1 10 21 12 1 $151,000.00 Union Street Node 24 Node 19 2 5 3 10 70 4 $75,000.00 Node 19 Node 20 6 1 10 17 40 2 $50,000.00 Node 20 Node 21 7 5 10 22 9 1 $135,000.00 Node 21 Node 22 8 2 10 20 24 2 $70,000.00 Node 22 Node 23 8 1 10 19 34 2 $85,000.00 K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page 5 MERIT EC H Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report Catchment Area Condition Total Rank based Priority Estimated Score Score Score Score on Score Cost Edison Drive Node 28 Node 23 2 3 10 15 46 3 $53,000.00 Node 23 Creek 10 1 10 21 12 1 $126,000.00 Pine Street Node 43 Node 25 10 1 10 21 12 1 $76,000.00 Node 25 Node 41 10 10 20 24 2 $94,000.00 Oak Street Node 44 Node 20 10 1 2 13 62 3 $94,000.00 Elm Street Node 45 Node 27 10 1 10 21 12 1 $89,000.00 Edison Drive Node 29 Node 30 10 4 9 23 2 1 $55,000.00 Chapel Street Node 33 Node 34 9 3 10 22 9 1 $144,000.00 Node 34 Creek 10 1 10 21 12 1 $93,000.00 Front Street Node 31 Node 32 3 1 10 14 54 3 $63,000.00 North Street Node 35 Node 36 4 1 9 14 54 3 $113,000.00 Node 39 Node 36 2 3 9 14 54 3 $85,000.00 Node 36 Node 37 6 1 5 12 68 4 $64,000.00 Node 40 Node 37 7 2 10 19 34 2 $37,000.00 Node 37 Creek 10 1 10 21 12 1 $68,000.00 Centre Street Node 17 Node 18 10 10 3 23 2 1 $236,000.00 Node 42 Node 18 1 2 10 13 62 3 $42,000.00 Node 18 Ravine 10 1 10 21 12 1 $85,000.00 Table 2: Storm Sewer Network in Vienna The rankings were broken into Priorities 1 through 4 to represent areas to focus on the repairs. The top quarter of rankings were assigned to the Priority 1 or the first 5 years. This allows the Municipality of Bayham to budget appropriately for the works to be carried out and will get the work done to the more important pieces in the network first. This analysis ignored the town boundaries and therefore has work in both towns being done within each priority. The estimates show the top two priorities having the highest cost, and they can be balanced out to meet budgetary requirements. The outlets to the creek became the majority of the Priority 1 projects, because they serve the largest area with the most legs of sewers connecting into them. It is also logical to replace these outlets first, to give the upstream areas a functioning discharge point and construction is easier working from the low invert upstream. A new outlet would require a Class EA to be carried out, and the cost of this analysis has not been included. A Class EA is currently being proposed for Port Burwell to analyze the outlet to the beach and the ability to change the network within the town. A similar study may be carried out for Vienna. Table K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page 6 MERIT ECH Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report 3 shows the priorities, their representative rankings and the associated cost estimates. These estimates are based on the information available at the time this report was prepared, and without the benefit of detailed design, it includes 10% contingency and 10% engineering, but not HST. Priority Rankings Cost Estimate Priority 1 (0-5yrs) 1 to 22 $2,912,000 Priority 2 (6-10yrs) 23 to 44 $1,677,000 Priority 3 (11-19yrs) 45 to 66 $1,740,000 Priority 4 (>20yrs) 67 to 88 $307,000 Table 3: Cost Estimates for Priority One of the recommendations from the Meritech report was to incorporate curb and gutter on right of ways that are of an appropriate size. This recommendation should be considered in the EA process further as it results in an estimated $1,116,000 of additional cost to the Municipality (based on 6.9km of curb). Conclusions and Recommendations This analysis concludes that Priority 1 networks are to be replaced first and is expected to cost the municipality $2,912,000 over the proposed 5-year program and includes: • Edison Drive at the creek outlet • Works on Pine Street to the County Road, • Elm Street, Chapel Street to the creek outlet, • North Street at the creek outlet, • Centre Street to the creek outlet • Pit Street at Victoria Street to Strachan Street • Erieus Street at Victoria Street • Victoria Street at Union Street • Shakespeare Street to the Creek Priority 2 networks totals $1,677,000 and includes sections of: • Elm Street at the County Road, • Oak Street, • Anne Street, • Union Street, • North Street, • Centre Street Priority 3 and 4 streets are proposed for works greater than 10-years from today and would improve the conditions for the remainder of the towns. It is recommended that the outlet configurations and storm drainage areas be assessed in each town independently, and this document be used as a guide as to where to put the resources. The majority of the works identified are with outlets and this remedial work will K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page 7 MERITEGH Storm Sewer Costs Assessment Report give the Municipality a strong spine to work from in the future, by providing adequate systems to connect the minor local systems into. Work with the County of Elgin is required due to the inter-relation of the roads and storm sewers. References Bayham, ON. Google Maps. Retrieved October 26, 2015, from https://www.google.ca/maps. K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx November 2015 Page 8 Appendix A: Storm Sewer Network MERITECH K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\4423.Storm Sewer Costs Assessment.rpt.docx Page 1 of 5 M E 117_1_,)T E C I-I Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Bayham-Vienna for I=A/(Tc+B)^C File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by: JCT Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 30-Oct-15 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: AJF Tc= 10 Date: 30-Oct-15 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q : peak flow(L/s) Where: ti: inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)^2.667*(S/100)^0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C: runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D: pipe size(mm) I : rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf= L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A: area(ha) ti = 15 n: roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) (L/s) (m) (mm) (%) (L/s) (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) Ann Street Node 1 I Node 2 1 2.20 0.40 0.880 0.880 15.00 17.49 82.743 202.261 230.0 525 Concrete 0.60% 333.125 1.539 2.49 61% 1.616 Oak Street Node 6 Node 2 2 0.21 0.40 0.084 0.084 15.00 15.53 82.743 19.307 30.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 0.53 42% 0.882 Node 5 Node 2 3 0.77 0.40 0.308 0.308 15.00 15.95 82.743 70.791 70.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.95 52% 1.242 Ann Street @ Node 2 1.272 17.49 201.855 713.220 Node 2 Node 3 4 0.19 0.40 0.076 1.348 17.49 18.52 76.013 284.625 95.0 525 Concrete 0.60% 333.125 1.539 1.03 85% 1.739 Elm Street Node 8 Node 3 5 1.14 0.40 0.456 0.456 15.00 16.49 82.743 104.808 110.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.49 77% 1.365 Node 7 Node 3 6 1.34 0.40 0.536 0.536 15.00 16.80 82.743 123.195 150.0 450 Concrete 0.60% 220.842 1.389 1.80 56% 1.416 Ann Street @ Node 3 2.340 18.52 201.855 1312.056 Node 3 Node 4 7 0.63 0.40 0.252 2.592 18.52 19.71 73.575 529.742 130.0 675 Concrete 0.60% 651.117 1.820 1.19 81% 2.038 Edison Drive Node 9 Node 4 8 1.11 0.40 0.444 0.444 15.00 15.95 82.743 102.050 70.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.95 75% 1.359 @ Node 4 3.036 19.71 201.855 1702.309 Node 4 Creek 9 0.04 0.40 0.016 3.052 19.71 20.14 70.964 601.617 50.0 750 Concrete 0.60% 862.341 1.952 0.43 70% 2.118 Chestnut Street Node 10 I Node 11 10 2.22 0.40 0.888 0.888 15.00 17.27 82.743 204.100 210.0 525 Concrete 0.60% 333.125 1.539 2.27 61% 1.616 Oak Street Node 16 Node 11 11 0.25 0.40 0.100 0.100 15.00 16.07 82.743 22.984 60.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 1.07 50% 0.929 @ Node 11 0.988 17.27 33.34 76.549 210.084 Node 11 Node 12 12 1.06 0.40 0.424 1.412 33.34 33.99 51.138 200.577 60.0 525 Concrete 0.60% 333.125 1.539 0.65 60% 1.616 Node 12 Node 13 13 1.27 0.40 0.508 1.920 33.99 35.07 50.492 269.289 100.0 525 Concrete 0.60% 333.125 1.539 1.08 81% 1.724 Node 13 Node 14 14 0.80 0.40 0.320 2.240 35.07 36.46 49.453 307.710 140.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.39 65% 1.800 Node 14 Node 15 15 1.64 0.40 0.656 2.896 36.46 37.40 48.192 387.674 95.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 0.94 82% 1.884 Node 15 Creek 16 0.02 0.40 0.008 2.904 37.40 38.49 47.375 382.162 110.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.09 80% 1.884 Union Street Node 24 I Node 19 17 1.96 0.40 0.784 0.784 15.00 16.38 82.743 180.196 115.0 450 Concrete 0.60% 220.842 1.389 1.38 82% 1.555 `:\Projects\4435\bu-Lfesig n\Proposeds i Ivisize.both MEV2014 Page 2 of 5 M E 117_1_,)T E C I-I Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Bayham-Vienna for I=A/(Tc+B)^C File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by: JCT Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 30-Oct-15 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: AJF Tc= 10 Date: 30-Oct-15 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q : peak flow(L/s) Where: ti: inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)^2.667*(S/100)^0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C: runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D: pipe size(mm) I : rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf= L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A: area(ha) ti = 15 n: roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) (L/s) (m) (mm) (%) (L/s) (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) Node 19 Node 20 18 0.30 0.40 0.120 0.904 16.38 17.22 78.856 198.017 70.0 450 Concrete 0.60% 220.842 1.389 0.84 90% 1.583 Node 20 Node 21 19 1.79 0.40 0.716 1.620 17.22 19.20 76.684 345.077 200.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.98 73% 1.850 Node 21 Node 22 20 0.98 0.40 0.392 2.012 19.20 20.14 72.053 402.699 95.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 0.94 85% 1.901 Node 22 Node 23 21 0.25 0.40 0.100 2.112 20.14 21.33 70.066 411.052 120.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.19 86% 1.909 Edison Drive Node 28 Node 23 22 1.05 0.40 0.420 0.420 15.00 16.08 82.743 96.534 80.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.08 71% 1.340 @ Node 23 2.532 21.33 201.855 1419.712 Node 23 Creek 23 0.04 0.40 0.016 2.548 21.33 21.97 67.723 479.332 70.0 675 Concrete 0.60% 651.117 1.820 0.64 74% 2.001 Pine Street Node 43 _ Node 25 24 0.47 0.40 0.188 0.188 15.00 17.04 82.743 43.210 130.0 300 Concrete 0.60% 74.904 1.060 2.04 58% 1.091 Node 25 Node 41 25 0.00 0.40 0.000 0.188 17.04 19.64 77.127 40.278 165.0 300 Concrete 0.60% 74.904 1.060 2.60 54% 1.070 Oak Street Node 44 1 Node 20 26 0.18 0.40 0.072 0.072 15.00 18.11 82.743 16.549 175.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 3.11 36% 0.845 Elm Street Node 45 1 Node 27 27 0.34 0.40 0.136 0.136 15.00 17.93 82.743 31.259 165.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 2.93 68% 1.009 Edison Drive Node 29 1 Node 30 28 1.51 0.40 0.604 0.604 15.00 15.96 82.743 138.825 80.0 450 Concrete 0.60% 220.842 1.389 0.96 63% 1.472 Chapel Street Node 33 Node 34 29 1.18 0.40 0.472 0.472 15.00 18.39 82.743 108.486 250.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 3.39 80% 1.371 Node 34 Creek 30 0.01 0.40 0.004 0.476 18.39 18.66 73.877 97.682 20.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.27 72% 1.340 Front Street Node 31 1 Node 32 31 0.22 0.40 0.088 0.088 15.00 16.95 82.743 20.226 110.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 1.95 44% 0.891 North Street Node 35 Node 36 32 0.39 0.40 0.156 0.156 15.00 18.82 82.743 35.855 215.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 3.82 78% 1.042 Node 39 Node 36 33 1.06 0.40 0.424 0.424 15.00 16.90 82.743 97.453 140.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.90 72% 1.340 @ Node 36 0.580 18.82 201.855 325.211 Node 36 Node 37 34 0.10 0.40 0.040 0.620 18.82 20.17 72.900 125.550 100.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.36 92% 1.414 Node 40 Node 37 35 0.92 0.40 0.368 0.368 15.00 15.68 82.743 84.582 50.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.68 62% 1.303 @ Node 37 0.988 20.17 201.855 553.979 K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\ProposedSTM.size.both MEV2014 Page 3 of 5 M E 117_1_,)T E C I-I Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Bayham-Vienna for I=A/(Tc+B)^C File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by: JCT Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 30-Oct-15 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: AJF Tc= 10 Date: 30-Oct-15 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q : peak flow(L/s) Where: ti: inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)^2.667*(S/100)^0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C: runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D: pipe size(mm) I : rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf= L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A: area(ha) ti = 15 n: roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) (L/s) (m) (mm) (%) (L/s) (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) Node 37 Creek 36 0.26 0.40 0.104 1.092 20.17 22.34 70.003 212.343 160.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 2.17 156% 1.402 Centre Street Node 17 Node 18 37 3.97 0.40 1.588 1.588 15.00 18.57 82.743 364.989 360.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 3.57 77% 1.867 Node 42 Node 18 38 0.91 0.40 0.364 0.364 15.00 15.81 82.743 83.663 60.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 0.81 62% 1.291 @ Node 18 1.952 18.57 18.57 73.468 398.361 Node 18 Ravine 39 0.01 0.40 0.004 1.956 18.57 19.59 73.468 399.177 120.0 750 Concrete 0.60% 862.341 1.952 1.02 46% 1.913 Port Burwell Pitt Street Node 1 I Node 2 1 0.25 0.40 0.098 0.098 15.00 21.57 82.743 22.616 370.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 6.57 49% 0.929 Strachan Street Node 3 Node 2 2 0.52 0.40 0.207 0.207 15.00 16.57 82.743 47.531 100.0 300 Concrete 0.60% 74.904 1.060 1.57 63% 1.123 @ Node 2 0.305 21.57 201.855 171.128 Node 2 Node 4 3 0.22 0.40 0.087 0.392 21.57 23.20 67.273 73.253 120.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.63 54% 1.242 Node 4 Node 5 4 0.10 0.40 0.040 0.432 23.20 24.55 64.381 77.258 100.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.36 57% 1.267 Erieus Street Node 6 I Node 5 5 0.29 0.40 0.116 0.116 15.00 18.91 82.743 26.754 220.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 3.91 58% 0.976 Brock Street @ Node 5 0.548 24.55 201.855 307.492 Node 5 Node 10 6 0.00 0.40 0.000 0.548 24.55 26.32 62.175 94.713 130.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.76 70% 1.334 Robinson Street Node 8 Node 10 7 0.15 0.40 0.060 0.060 15.00 18.55 82.743 13.791 200.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 3.55 30% 0.798 @ Node 10 0.608 26.32 201.855 341.135 Node 10 Node 11 8 0.14 0.40 0.056 0.664 26.32 28.15 59.547 109.898 135.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.83 81% 1.377 Node 11 Creek 9 0.00 0.40 0.000 0.664 28.15 29.23 57.069 105.324 80.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.08 78% 1.365 Elizabeth Street Node 13 Node 12 10 0.39 0.40 0.156 0.156 15.00 18.91 82.743 35.855 220.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 3.91 78% 1.042 Node 12 Lake 11 0.00 0.40 0.000 0.156 18.91 20.95 72.702 31.504 115.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 2.04 68% 1.018 Milton Street Node 14 Node 15 12 0.14 0.40 0.056 0.056 15.00 16.60 82.743 12.871 90.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 1.60 28% 0.769 Node 15 Node 17 13 0.62 0.40 0.248 0.304 16.60 18.33 78.279 66.102 110.0 300 Concrete 0.60% 74.904 1.060 1.73 88% 1.208 `: ` :\l -LSesig n\Proposeds i Ivisize.both MEV2014 Page 4 of 5 M E 117_1_,)T E C I-I Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Bayham-Vienna for I=A/(Tc+B)^C File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by: JCT Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 30-Oct-15 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: AJF Tc= 10 Date: 30-Oct-15 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q : peak flow(L/s) Where: ti: inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)^2.667*(S/100)^0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C: runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D: pipe size(mm) I : rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf= L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A: area(ha) ti = 15 n: roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) (L/s) (m) (mm) (%) (L/s) (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) Shakespeare St. Node 16 Node 17 14 0.21 0.40 0.084 0.084 15.00 16.60 82.743 19.307 90.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 1.60 42% 0.882 Node 18 Node 17 15 0.56 0.40 0.224 0.224 15.00 16.73 82.743 51.485 110.0 300 Concrete 0.60% 74.904 1.060 1.73 69% , 1.150_ Waterloo Street @ Node 17 0.612 18.33 201.855 343.153 Node 17 Node 20 17 0.87 0.40 0.348 0.960 18.33 19.77 74.015 197.374 120.0 450 Concrete 0.60% 220.842 1.389 1.44 89% 1.583 Strachan Street Node 21 Node 20 18 1.06 0.40 0.424 0.424 15.00 16.36 82.743 97.453 100.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.36 72% 1.340 Node 19 Node 20 19 0.59 0.40 0.236 0.236 15.00 16.73 82.743 54.243 110.0 300 Concrete 0.60% 74.904 1.060 1.73 72% 1.166 Waterloo Street @ Node 20 1.620 19.77 201.855 908.347 Node 20 Node 22 21 0.43 0.40 0.172 1.792 19.77 20.96 70.842 352.634 120.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.19 74% 1.859 Erieus Street Node 23 Node 22 22 1.28 0.40 0.512 0.512 15.00 16.76 82.743 117.679 130.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.76 87% 1.396 @ Node 22 2.304 20.96 201.855 1291.871 Node 22 Node 24 24 0.73 0.40 0.292 2.596 20.96 22.15 68.442 493.543 130.0 675 Concrete 0.60% 651.117 1.820 1.19 76% 2.011 Elizabeth Street Node 25 I Node 28 25 0.19 0.40 0.076 0.076 15.00 19.62 82.743 17.468 260.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 4.62 38% 0.854 Victoria Street Node 26 1 Node 27 26 0.20 0.40 0.080 0.080 15.00 18.91 82.743 18.387 220.0 250 Concrete 0.60% 46.063 0.938 3.91 40% 0.868 William Street Node 36 1 Node 29 27 0.92 0.40 0.368 0.368 15.00 16.49 82.743 84.582 110.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 1.49 62% 1.303 Victoria Street Node 30 Node 29 28 2.56 0.40 1.024 1.024 20.00 23.25 70.361 200.137 300.0 525 Concrete 0.60% 333.125 1.539 3.25 60% 1.616 @ Node 29 1.392 23.25 201.855 780.505 Node 29 Node 31 29 0.37 0.40 0.148 1.540 23.25 23.65 64.295 275.039 40.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 0.40 58% 1.733 Node 31 Node 32 30 0.48 0.40 0.192 1.732 23.65 25.33 63.634 306.149 170.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.68 64% 1.800 Shakespeare St. Node 33 Node 32 31 2.80 0.40 1.120 1.120 15.00 16.95 82.743 257.423 180.0 525 Concrete 0.60% 333.125 1.539 1.95 77% 1.708 @ Node 32 ( 2.852 25.33 201.855 1599.139 K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\ProposedSTM.size.both MEV2014 Page 5 of 5 M E 117_1_,)T E C I-I Pipe Velocities: 0.6 m/s min. Storm Sewer Hydraulic Design Sheet 6.0 m/s max. Project: Bayham-Vienna for I=A/(Tc+B)^C File: 4423 Municipality of Bayham A= 1007.05 n= 0.024 CSP Calc'd by: JCT Ref# MOE Ref Num B= 7.382 n= 0.013 Conc./PVC/HDPE Date: 30-Oct-15 C= 0.804 Chk'd by: AJF Tc= 10 Date: 30-Oct-15 5 Year Design Storm Rational Formula: Q=CIA/0.36 Concentration time:tc=ti+tf(minute) Manning Equation: Where: Q : peak flow(L/s) Where: ti: inlet time before pipe(minute) Qcap.=(D/1000)^2.667*(S/100)^0.5/(3.211*n)*1000(L/s) C: runoff coefficient tf:time of flow in pipe(minute) D: pipe size(mm) I : rainfall intensity(mm/hr) tf= L/60V S:slope(grade)of pipe(%) A: area(ha) ti = 15 n: roughness coeffiecient Location Runoff Pipe Area Section Accum. Peak Flow Length N.D. Pipe Slope Qcap. V Actual From To Area A "C" "AC" "AC" ti tc "I" Q L D Mat'I S (full) (full) tf Q/Qcap. Velocity ID (ha) (ha) (ha) (Min.) (Min.) (mm/hr) (L/s) (m) (mm) (%) (L/s) (m/s) (Min.) (m/s) Node 32 Node 34 32 1.22 0.40 0.488 3.340 25.33 26.47 60.986 565.812 115.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.14 119% 1.918 Node 34 Node 35 33 1.17 0.40 0.468 3.808 26.47 27.66 59.330 627.577 120.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.19 132% 1.918 Node 35 Creek 34 0.00 0.40 0.000 _ 3.808 27.66 29.24 57.706 610.398 160.0 600 Concrete 0.60% 475.611 1.682 1.59 128% 1.918 Addison Street Node 41 Node 40 35 0.76 0.40 0.304 0.304 15.00 21.51 82.743 69.872 480.0 375 Concrete 0.60% 135.810 1.230 6.51 51% 1.230 Node 40 Ravine 36 0.00 0.40 0.000 0.304 21.51 21.82 67.396 56.912 20.0 300 Concrete 0.60% 74.904 1.060 0.31 76% 1.171 K:\Projects\4423\60-Design\ProposedSTM.size.both MEV2014 MERIT ECH