FUNCTIONAL SITE SERVICING REPORT

FUNCTIONAL SITE SERVICING REPORT

3223701 CANADA INC. LIMOGES MIXED-USE SUBDIVISION

The Nation Municipality United Counties of Prescott & Russell

October 2017

Prepared for:

3223701 CANADA INC. 98 Lois Street

Gatineau, Québec J8Y 3R7

Prepared by:

J.L. RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED Consulting Engineers, Architects & Planners

864 Lady Ellen Place Ottawa, Ontario

K1Z 5M2

JLR 27046



JLR 27046 J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 2017 i

- TABLE OF CONTENTS -

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 General .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Property Description and Proposed Development ................................................ 1

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 1

3.0 WATER SERVICING ........................................................................................................ 2

4.0 WASTEWATER SERVICING ............................................................................................ 3

5.0 STORM SERVICING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT .......................................... 5 5.1 Background ........................................................................................................... 5 5.2 Servicing Criteria ................................................................................................... 5 5.3 Pre-development Hydrological Model ................................................................... 6

5.3.1 Pre-development Model Parameters ................................................... 6 5.3.2 Pre-development Simulation Results ................................................... 7

5.4 Proposed Storm Servicing and SWM Approach.................................................... 8 5.4.1 Quantity Control ................................................................................... 8 5.4.2 Quality Control ..................................................................................... 8

5.5 Post-Development Hydrological Model ................................................................. 8 5.5.1 Post-Development Model Parameters ................................................. 8 5.5.2 Post-Development Model Results ....................................................... 9 5.5.3 Water Quality Control Calculations .................................................... 10

6.0 SUMMARY OF SERVICING ........................................................................................... 10

- LIST OF TABLES -

Table 1: Hydrant Flow Testing Data ............................................................................................. 2 Table 2: Conceptual Peak Flow Calculations for Limoges Mixed-Use Subdivision ...................... 4 Table 3: Pre-Development Peak Flows ........................................................................................ 7 Table 4: Post-Development Peak Flows ....................................................................................... 9 Table 5: Dry Ponds Characteristics ............................................................................................ 10

- LIST OF FIGURES -

Figure 1: Location Plan Figure 2: Pre-Development Drainage Plan Figure 3: Post-Development Drainage Plan



JLR 27046 J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 2017 ii

- LIST OF APPENDICES -

APPENDIX ‘A’ – Draft Plan of Subdivision APPENDIX ‘B’ – Existing Calypso Street Plan & Profile APPENDIX ‘C’ – HNA Boundary Condition, Model Results and Conceptual Fire Flow Calculation

APPENDIX ‘D’ – PCSWMM Model Results APPENDIX ‘E’ – Water Quality Calculations

- LIST OF DRAWINGS -

CS1 Conceptual Servicing Plan CG1 Conceptual Grading Plan



JLR 27046 J.L. Richards & Associates Limited October 2017 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

3223701 Canada Inc., herein referred to as the Owner, has retained the services of J.L.

Richards & Associates Limited (JLR) to proceed with the functional design of municipal

infrastructure for their mixed-use development known as the Limoges Subdivision,

located in the Nation Municipality, part of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell.

This Functional Servicing Report outlines the design objectives and criteria, servicing

constraints and strategies for developing the subject lands with water, wastewater, storm

and stormwater management services.

1.2 Property Description and Proposed Development

The proposed subdivision is sited on a ± 15 ha parcel of land that is bounded by

Limoges Road (County Road No. 5) to the west, Calypso Street (formerly Route 300) to

the north, the Provincial Highway 417 off-ramp to the south and an existing commercial

development and private residence to the east, refer to the Location Plan in Figure 1.

The legal description of the subject property is Part of Lot 30, Concession 4,

(Geographic Township of Cambridge) The Nation Municipality, Country of Russell, as

indicated on the Draft Plan of Subdivision provided in Appendix ‘A’. The subject site

currently consists of undeveloped fallow agricultural land that generally slopes in a

southerly direction towards existing ditches alongside Limoges Road and the Highway

417 off-ramp.

The Owner proposes to develop the subject site to include industrial and commercial

mixed-uses. The proposed development will include two public right-of-ways (ROW):

Street No. 1 which will extend southerly from Calypso Street and terminate in a cul-de-

sac, and Street No. 2 which will extend easterly from Street No. 1 and connect to the

adjacent commercial property. The proposed site also includes a public stormwater

management block and four (4) private development blocks, as shown on the Draft Plan

of Subdivision in Appendix ‘A’.

2.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the findings of a preliminary geotechnical investigation carried out in 2015,

Paterson Group (Paterson) recommended a maximum permissible grade raise range

between 0.6 m to 1.2 m throughout the site. A grading concept, as shown on the

3223701 Canada Inc. Functional Site Servicing Report Limoges Mixed-Use Subdivision


Conceptual Grading Plan (Drawing CG1), was developed to minimize grade raises

throughout the site. Grades were set based on a minimum longitudinal slope of 0.30%,

and the ROW cross section shown on the Conceptual Site Servicing Plan (Drawing

CS1). Although the conceptual grading was developed to minimize grade raises, they

are anticipated to range between 1.0 m to 1.7 m at the future slab on grade buildings.

Most building are, therefore, expected to exceed the preliminary grade raise restriction

identified by Paterson. Consequently, light-weight fill or a pre-loading program or a

combination of both are anticipated to be required and will be confirmed by Paterson

based on additional geotechnical investigation work being carried out in fall 2017.

3.0 WATER SERVICING

Potable water will be supplied to the subject site by two (2) watermain connections to the

existing 300 mm diameter watermain along Calypso Street, refer to Appendix ‘B’ for

existing Plan & Profile Drawing. A third connection is also proposed to the existing

200 mm diameter watermain located on the adjacent commercial property to the east of

the subject site. This watermain connection at Street No. 2 is proposed to increase the

fire flow availabilities for the southern portion of the proposed development as well as

provide system redundancy for the entire development.

A hydraulic network analysis (HNA) was conducted using the WaterCAD software

platform to assess the performance of the conceptual watermain network shown on

Drawing CS1. To simulate the hydraulic characteristics of the existing distribution

system, hydrant flow testing data was utilized. This flow test was completed on May 12,

2016 at the existing hydrant located at the intersection of Limoges Road and Calypso

Street (refer to Appendix ‘C’ for May 19, 2016 e-mail correspondence). Converting the

recorded pressures obtained at the hydrant (expressed in psi) to an equivalent head in

metres, the following head and flows indicated in Table 1 below were calculated. The

information summarized in Table 1 was used as the boundary condition in the

WaterCAD model as it reflects the hydraulic characteristics of the existing water

distribution system.

Table 1: Hydrant Flow Testing Data

Flow (L/s) Pressure (psi) Head (m)

0 64 45.0 m

60.6 40 28.1 m

94.6 35 24.6 m

118.5 20 14.1 m



The water demands assigned for the Limoges Subdivision to the WaterCAD nodes were

calculated based on the proposed development land use and the 2008 MOECC Design

Guidelines for Drinking-Water Systems. Average demands of 35,000 L/day/ha and

28,000 L/day/ha were utilized for the industrial and commercial land uses, respectively.

Similarly, peaking factors in accordance with the 2008 MOECC Design Guidelines were

applied to the average theoretical demands to obtain the maximum day and peak hour

demands.

The simulation results under peak hour demands indicate that the conceptual 200 mm

diameter watermain network, as shown on the Conceptual Site Servicing Plan (Drawing

CS1), will satisfy the minimum pressure requirement of 276 kPa (40 psi) prescribed in

the 2008 MOECC Design Guidelines. Results of the preliminary HNA are provided in

Appendix ‘C’.

The maximum day plus fire flow condition was also evaluated with the model. The fire

flow availabilities were found to range between 80 L/s and 103 L/s while maintaining a

minimum pressure of 140 kPa (20 psi) throughout the system. Under this condition,

there would be a minimum flow of 80 L/s at the southern limit of the ROW. A conceptual

fire flow demand calculation was carried out for a typical industrial lot in accordance with

the “Fire Protection Water Supply Guideline for Part 3 in the Ontario Building Code

(Office of the Fire Marshall Guideline). Based on the assumptions made for a typical

industrial building (i.e., building has 30% lot coverage, a low-risk occupancy and is

constructed of fire resistive materials), the simulation results for the on-site watermains

will provide adequate fire flow (refer to calculation provided in Appendix ‘C’).

Alternatively, if at detailed design the assumed parameters vary such that the available

fire flow does not meet the fire flow requirement per the Ontario Building Code (OBC),

then buildings with automated sprinklers could be implemented to decrease the fire flow

requirements. Alternatively, fire trucks could be used to supplement the fire flow

availability of the on-site watermains. It is proposed that the HNA be further refined and

water servicing specifics such as hydrant spacing and watermain looping be addressed

at the engineering detailed design stage.

4.0 WASTEWATER SERVICING

Wastewater flows generated within the subject site will be conveyed to the existing

200 mm diameter gravity sanitary sewer located along Calypso Street (refer to the plan

& profile provided in Appendix ‘B’). This existing gravity sewer, in turn, conveys

wastewater flows to an existing pumping station, located on Calypso Street, ± 340 m

east of Limoges Road. This pumping station then delivers wastewater flows to a

forcemain that ultimately discharges to an existing sewage lagoon. Wastewater



generated by the proposed development will be conveyed to the 200 mm diameter outlet

on Calypso Street via three (3) independent 200 mm diameter sanitary sewers, as

shown on Drawing CS1. Due to the relatively shallow depth of the existing Calypso

Street sanitary sewer and the anticipated grade raise restrictions on the subject site, it is

anticipated that a wastewater pump station will be required at approximately 170 m

south of Calypso Street to convey wastewater from the southerly, low-lying portion of the

site, to the outlet sanitary sewer. Based on the conceptual grades shown on Drawing

CG1 and targeting a minimum 2.0 m cover over the sanitary sewers, a minimum slope

of 0.32% (in accordance with the MOECC Design Guidelines for Sewage works), invert

elevations at the pump station of 66.78 m (south inlet) and 67.66 m (west inlet) and

68.03 m (north outlet) are anticipated.

A theoretical peak wastewater flow was calculated for the Limoges Subdivision based on

the proposed development land use. Average daily flow rates of 35,000 L/ha and

28,000 L/ha were used to calculated the theoretical wastewater flows for industrial and

commercial developments, respectively. These theoretical unit rates are consistent with

the MOECC Design Guidelines for Drinking-Water Systems. Table 2 below summarizes

the theoretical peak flows for the development.

Table 2: Conceptual Peak Flow Calculations for Limoges Mixed-Use Subdivision

Land Use Population(1) Area Average

Flow Rate Peaking Factor

Peak Flow

Infiltration Flow(1)

Total Flow

Industrial - 7.72 ha 35,000

L/ha/day 2.0 6.3 L/s 2.2 L/s 8.5 L/s

Commercial - 6.55 ha 28,000

L/ha/day 1.5 3.2 L/s 1.8 L/s 5.0 L/s

ROWs - 1.12 ha - - - 0.3 L/s 0.3 L/s

TOTAL THEORETICAL PEAK FLOW: 13.8 L/s

(1) Based on 0.28 L/s/ha infiltration allowance which is consistent with the City of Ottawa Sewer Design Guidelines.

Based on the aforementioned parameters and current proposed land use, a peak flow of

13.8 L/s was calculated for the conceptual development. The theoretical peak flow will

be further reviewed at detailed design once additional details are available regarding the

proposed development. It is also anticipated that the Municipality will confirm the

allocated reserve capacity for the subject site to the outlet sanitary sewer on Calypso

Street.



It is noted that the 200 mm diameter sanitary sewer on Calypso Street has a maximum

free flowing capacity of 21.6 L/s based on the slope of 0.40%, as per the plan & profile

provided in Appendix ‘B’. At detailed design, should the calculated peak flow for the

development exceed the allocated peak flow for the site, then alternative wastewater

servicing options may be required such as the use of septic or sewage holding tanks.

5.0 STORM SERVICING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

5.1 Background

As mentioned in Section 1.2 of this Report, the subject site generally drains in a

southerly direction towards existing ditches adjacent to the Highway 417 off-ramp and

Limoges Road. Based on the topographical survey completed by Annis O’Sullivan and

Vollebekk Ltd. (AOV) during the spring of 2016, the on-site runoff is conveyed by two (2)

existing ditches that discharge to two (2) existing outlet culverts: i) a circular culvert that

appears to cross under Limoges Road, herein referred to as the Limoges Road outlet,

and ii) a concrete box culvert, which appears to cross under the Highway 417, herein

referred to as the Highway 417 outlet. Additional survey work will be completed in

advance of the detailed design stage to confirm the outlet locations and existing

drainage patterns to these two culverts.

5.2 Servicing Criteria

The following summarizes the stormwater design criteria for the Limoges Subdivision:

Stormwater quantity control to be provided so that the post-development peak

flow during the 1:2 year to the 1:100 year recurrences are limited to those under

pre-development conditions, in accordance with MOECC Stormwater Planning

and Design Manual (SMPDM) and Design Guidelines for Sewage Works, herein

referred to as the Design Guidelines.

Quality control to be provided to meet a Ministry of the Environment and Climate

Change (MOECC) Enhanced Level of Protection (i.e., minimum 80% total

suspended solids (TSS) removal), as discussed at the pre-consultation meeting

on February 17, 2016.

Open ditches and storm sewers to be sized using the Rational Method based on

rainfall intensities calculated based on the City of Ottawa Intensity-Duration-

Frequency (lDF) curve provided in the City of Ottawa Sewer Design Guidelines.



Runoff coefficients (C-factors) for the development calculated in accordance with

the MTO Drainage Management Manual.

Maximum street/parking lot ponding depth of 300 mm as per the Design

Guidelines.

5.3 Pre-development Hydrological Model

A hydrological model was developed in the PCSWMM platform to evaluate the pre-

development peak flows during the 1:2 year to the 1:100 year design storm events. The

selection of hydrological parameters is described in Section 5.3.1.

5.3.1 Pre-development Model Parameters

Based on topography, runoff generated by 4.11 ha of the site currently outlets to the

Limoges Road outlet while the remainder 11.28 ha discharge to the Highway 417 outlet,

as shown on the Pre-development Drainage Plan in Figure 2. The SCS Curve Number

(CN) methodology was used to simulate the infiltration and runoff response of these

drainage areas. A review of aerial mapping indicated that under the existing condition,

there are no impervious surfaces across the subject site. The modified CN* value was,

therefore, used in the model to assess infiltration losses. The CN values were calculated

using a weighted average based on hydrological soil groups from the Ontario Ministry of

Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) and Ontario Geological Survey (OGS)

mapping, and land cover as per the aerial photography. A CN value for the site of 80 and

a modified value of 79 were selected based on the Hydrological Soil Group (HSG) B and

row crop agricultural land use cover, and the MTO Drainage Manual Design Chart 1.09.

The overland time to peak was estimated by PCSWMM based on the sub-catchment’s

overland flow paths and sub-catchment’s width parameter. The width parameter (W)

was taken as:

2 1

Where L is the length of the main channel, A is the area of the sub-catchment and Am is

the larger of the two areas either side of the main channel. The use of Am accounts for



the skew of a given catchment area. Other parameters included in the model are as

follows:

NPerv – Manning’s roughness “n” of pervious areas – value of 0.25 used to

represent overland sheet flow across short grasses;

Dstore Imperv – Initial sbstraction component – value of 1.57 mm based on the City

of Ottawa Sewer Design Guidelines for impervious cover where occurring;

Dstore Perv – Initial abstraction for the pervious surfaces – value based on the CN

value of the subcatchment where:

For CN ≤ 70 0.075 x S

For CN ≤ 80 0.1 x S

For CN ≤ 90 0.15 x S

For CN > 90 0.2 x S

Storage (S) within each subcatchment calculated by PCSWMM based on the SCS

relationship: S = 25400/CN – 254.

5.3.2 Pre-development Simulation Results

Hydrological simulations were first carried out to identify the critical distribution for the

subject site. Based on those simulations, the 3-hour Chicago storm distribution was

identified as the critical storm distribution for the site in terms of peak flow rates. Pre-

development peak flows were, therefore, simulated under 1:2 year and 1:100 year for

the 3 hour Chicago design storms. Pre-development simulation results are summarized

in Table 3 below, refer to Appendix ‘D’ for model output files.

Table 3: Pre-Development Peak Flows

Outlet 1:2 year Peak Flow (L/s) 1:100 year Peak Flow (L/s)

Limoges Road Outlet 14 305

Highway 417 Outlet 21 438

At detailed design, it is recommended that peak flows be evaluated for recurrences

between the 1:2 year and 1:100 year.



5.4 Proposed Storm Servicing and SWM Approach

5.4.1 Quantity Control

Servicing of the subject site will consist of a roadside ditch system that will convey runoff

to two (2) dry pond facilities before discharging to the two (2) existing culvert outlets. The

geometry of the proposed ditches along the 20.0 m wide ROW is shown on the cross

section on Drawing CS1. The two (2) dry ponds will be equipped with inlet control

devices (ICDs) to restrict post-development peak flows to pre-development levels. The

dry ponds will store stormwater in excess of the allowable pre-development release

rates.

Post-development drainage areas were delineated and are presented on Figure 3.

Runoff generated by approximately 3.5 ha will to be conveyed westerly towards the

proposed privately owned dry pond at the western limit of the subdivision before

discharging, at a restricted release rate, to the existing the Limoges culvert outlet. Runoff

from approximately 11.9 ha will be conveyed southerly towards the proposed public dry

pond at the southern limit of the subdivision before discharging to the Highway 417

Outlet.

5.4.2 Quality Control

Servicing of the site will need to incorporate water quality measures in order to satisfy

the enhanced level of protection (TSS removal of 80%). It is proposed that quality

control be provided by individual privately-owned water quality units (i.e., Stormceptor or

Vortechs) for each storm sewer service lateral. Quality control for the ROW will be

provided by means of infiltration along the roadside ditches, which will be vegetated and

underlain by clear stone and a perforated pipe wrapped in filter cloth. Since on-site and

conveyance control Best Management Practices (BMPs) are proposed, runoff

discharging to one of the two (2) dry ponds will meet the enhanced protection level.

5.5 Post-Development Hydrological Model

5.5.1 Post-Development Model Parameters

In addition to the parameters used in the pre-development simulation, the following

parameters were used in the post-development PCSWMM model:

NImperv – Manning’s roughness “n” of impervious areas – value of 0.013 used to

represent asphalt and concrete surfaces where occurring;



Percent impervious was based on the weighted average runoff coefficients

calculated for similar commercial and industrial developments. It was assumed that

the value reflecting the impervious level will be representative of the area once

developed;

The curve number was modified from the pre-development conditions to reflect more

efficient man-made pervious areas that are less conducive to infiltration. On this

basis, a CN of 80 was used, which in turn yielded a modified CN* of 81. It should be

noted that the CN value is only applied to the pervious areas in the model;

The pervious depression storage value for the post development condition reflects

the CN value and was set to 6.4 mm based on the formula in Section 5.3.1; and

Since the flow paths will be channelized and follow the road network, their length

with be shorter when compared to the pre-development conditions. Hence, the width

parameter was computed as the area divided by the flow path length.

5.5.2 Post-Development Model Results

The response of the subject site under post-development was assessed under the 3-

hour Chicago 1:2 year and 1:100 year storm events. The post-development simulation

results are summarized in the following table:

Table 4: Post-Development Peak Flows

Outlet 1:2 year

Uncontrolled Release (l/s)

1:2 year Controlled

Release (l/s)

1:100 year Uncontrolled Release (l/s)

1:100 year Controlled

Release (l/s) Limoges Road 450 14 1,298 291 Highway 417 1,361 21 3,952 427

As shown in the above table, the proposed stormwater management dry ponds will limit

the post-development peak flows to pre-development levels during both the 1:2 year to

1:100 year events. This will be achieved at both ponds by two (2) outlet storm sewers

equipped with ICDs, which were combined with a broad crested weir structure. At each

pond outlet, one ICD will control frequent storm events (i.e., the 1:2 year storm) while the

other ICD and broad crested weir will control events that exceed the 1:2 year up to the

1:100 year event.

In terms of pond volume, the critical storm event was identified as the 12-hour SCS Type

II distribution. The conceptual pond characteristics for both dry ponds during the 1:100

year 12-hour SCS Type II storm are summarized in Table 5 below.



Table 5: Dry Ponds Characteristics

Dry Pond Characteristics Limoges Road Outlet Highway 417 Outlet Maximum Pond Depth (m) 0.78 0.90 Pond Water Surface Area (m²) 2,000 7,400 Maximum Pond Volume (m³) 1,340 5,815 Pond Invert (m) 68.4 67.6 Outlet Orifice #1 Elev. (m) 68.4 67.6 Outlet Orifice #1 Size (mm) 100 125 Outlet Orifice #2 Elev. (m) 68.84 68.02 Outlet Orifice #2 Size (mm) 350 375 Outlet Weir Elevation (m) 68.95 68.20 Outlet Weir Width (m) 2.0 1.8

The above-noted configurations were found to meet pre-development conditions. It is

proposed that the above-noted configurations be re-evaluated at the detailed design

stage based on the design constraints identified at that time.

5.5.3 Water Quality Control Calculations

The imperviousness level for the ROWs has been calculated at 58% based on the cross-

section presented on Drawing CS1. As per Table 3.2 of the MOECC’s SWMPDM, to

achieve 80% TSS removal with infiltration for an area with an imperviousness of 70%, a

storage volume of 35 m3/ha is required. Based on a ROW area of 1.12 ha, 39 m3 of

storage volume is required to achieve 80% TSS removal. The proposed perforated pipe

system with a clear stone envelope provides a total available storage volume of 130 m3

thereby satisfying the MOECC criterion. Detailed water quality calculations are included

in Appendix ‘E’.

The remainder of the site will require individual privately owned water quality units, which

will be sized by the owner’s engineer to achieve 80% TSS removal.

6.0 SUMMARY OF SERVICING

This Report presents the functional servicing strategy for the Owner’s Limoges Mixed-

Use subdivision. The functional servicing strategy is as follows:

Potable water for domestic use and fire protection will be provided by an on-site

200 mm diameter watermain distribution system that will be fed by the existing

300 mm diameter watermain along Calypso Street. It is proposed to provide

A P P E N D I X ‘A’

DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

A P P E N D I X ‘B’

CALYPSO STREET

PLAN AND PROFILE DRAWING

A P P E N D I X ‘C’

HNA BOUNDARY CONDITIONS, MODEL RESULTS & CONCEPTUAL

FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS

2

Derrick Upton, P.Eng. Associate Senior Civil Engineer J.L. Richards & Associates Limited 864 Lady Ellen Place, Ottawa, ON K1Z 5M2 Tel: 613-728-3571 Fax: 613-728-6012

From: Airoldi, Luc [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May 19, 2016 10:25 AM To: Derrick Upton; Guylain Laflèche Cc: [email protected]; 'Doug Renaud'; 'Nicholas Pigeon'; Marc Rivet; Roy, Denis; Marc Legault Subject: RE: Brigil projet de développement et stormwater management

Hi Derrick,

1) Static pressure 64 PSI

2) With one pitot pressure

· Static pressure on hydrant one (Calypso road corner Limoges Road) 40 PSI

· Dynamic pressure on hydrant two (Calypso road near the entry of By-Town Lumber) 33 PSI ( 960 US Gal)

3) With two pitots pressure on same

· Static pressure on hydrant one (Calypso road corner Limoges Road) 35 PSI

· Dynamic pressure on hydrant two (Calypso road near the entry of By-Town Lumber) 20 PSI ( 750 US Gal) x 2 pitot = 1 500 US Gal.

For the dynamic pressure we are waiting than all pump start (5- 10 minutes) to have the max flow. It’s a small system.

The test was done May 12 at 10 am, the pressure (flow) can change with the demand, again it’s a small system.

Regards

3

LUC AIROLDI,

Chef d'équipe / Team leader

Exploitation

Simo

1200, St-Martin Ouest

Laval (Québec)

Canada H7S 2E4

Cell. 514.248.3046

F 450.646-9832

C [email protected]

www.simo.qc.ca

De : Derrick Upton [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : 10 mai 2016 14:07 À : Airoldi, Luc; Guylain Laflèche Cc : [email protected]; 'Doug Renaud'; 'Nicholas Pigeon'; Marc Rivet; Roy, Denis Objet : RE: Brigil projet de développement et stormwater management

Luc,

Can you please confirm when the hydrant testing will be completed as per the comments attached and provided on April 19/16.

Regards,

Peak HourBrigil Limoges Subdivision

P-5

P-10

P-11

P-3

P-2

P-15

P-9

P-12

204 mm

297 mm

297 mm

297 mm

297 mm

204 mm

204 mm

297 mm

J-2

J-10

J-1

J-9

J-8

J-7

J-6

J-5

J-4

J-3

J-11

368 kPa

394 kPa

368 kPa

386 kPa

378 kPa

378 kPa

376 kPa

372 kPa

373 kPa

367 kPa

403 kPa

108.42 m

108.26 m

108.47 m

108.41 m

108.26 m

108.25 m

108.26 m

108.33 m

108.36 m

108.42 m

108.19 m

PMP-1

69.85 m

Ex. Hydrant69.85 m

Color Coding Legend

Pipe: Diameter (mm)

<= 204

<= 297

Other

Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16662017-10-10

Bentley WaterCAD CONNECT Edition[10.00.00.55]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center27046 Limoges Subdivision Oct2017.wtg

Maximum Day + Fire FlowBrigil Limoges Subdivision

P-5

P-10

P-11

P-3

P-2

P-15

P-9

P-12

204 mm

297 mm

297 mm

297 mm

297 mm

204 mm

204 mm

297 mm

J-2

J-10

J-1

J-9

J-8

J-7

J-6

J-5

J-4

J-3

J-11

98 L/s

88 L/s

103 L/s

96 L/s

84 L/s

80 L/s

86 L/s

93 L/s

92 L/s

95 L/s

75 L/s

395 kPa

422 kPa

395 kPa

413 kPa

406 kPa

406 kPa

404 kPa

400 kPa

400 kPa

394 kPa

432 kPa

PMP-1

69.85 m

Ex. Hydrant69.85 m

Color Coding Legend

Pipe: Diameter (mm)

<= 204

<= 297

Other

Page 1 of 127 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-16662017-10-10

Bentley WaterCAD CONNECT Edition[10.00.00.55]Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center27046 Limoges Subdivision Oct2017.wtg

J.L. RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED 2017-05-12 1:12 PM

Type of Structure: Industrial (Low Hazard F-3)A= Area of structure considered (1214 m2 = 30% lot coverage)

One storey building in height (6 m)Combustible with fire-restiance ratings per 3.2.2 of the OBCExposure: 0 m, 0 m, 0 m

Needs a Water Supply Evaluation

Q= = Required fire flow (litres) 160222 L

= K V Stot

"K" - Water Supply Coefficient from Table 1 K = 22Assume F-3 - Low Hazard Industrial OccupancyWith fire reistance ratings

"V" - Total building volume in cubic meters V = 7282.8 m3

Assumes 30% of 1 acre lot coverage

"Stot" - total of spatial coefficient values Stot = 1.0

Fire Flow Requirement = 4500 L/min990 IGPM75 L/s

Fire Flow Calculation(per OFM/OBC Guidelines)

FILENAME: P:\20555\CIVIL\WATERCAD\Copy of FIRE_CALC_OFMOBC_com.xls No_Sprinkler

A P P E N D I X ‘D’

PCSWMM MODEL RESULTS

3223701 CANADA INC. Pre-Development Model – 1:100 yr 3hr Chicago Storm Limoges Mixed-Use Subdivision

JLR 27046 J.L. Richards & Associates Limited September 2017 1

EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.011) -------------------------------------------------------------- ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages ...... 1 Number of subcatchments ... 2 Number of nodes ........... 2 Number of links ........... 0 Number of pollutants ...... 0 Number of land uses ....... 0 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHI_3hr_100 CHI_3hr_100 INTENSITY 5 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E-1 4.11 939.90 0.00 2.0940 CHI_3hr_100 OF-1 E-2 11.28 843.10 0.00 1.9200 CHI_3hr_100 OF-2 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OF-1 OUTFALL 68.37 0.00 0.0 OF-2 OUTFALL 67.50 0.00 0.0 ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... CURVE_NUMBER Starting Date ............ 01/01/2000 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 01/02/2000 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:05:00 ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 1.103 71.708 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 0.685 44.498 Surface Runoff ........... 0.400 25.966 Final Storage ............ 0.019 1.247 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.006 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.400 3.996 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 0.400 3.996 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000 Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) ..... 0.000 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E-1 71.71 0.00 0.00 42.83 27.67 1.14 0.31 0.386 E-2 71.71 0.00 0.00 45.11 25.35 2.86 0.44 0.353 Analysis begun on: Fri Sep 01 11:19:45 2017 Analysis ended on: Fri Sep 01 11:19:45 2017 Total elapsed time: < 1 sec

3223701 CANADA INC. Post Development Model – 1:100 yr 3hr Chicago Storm Limoges Mixed-Use Subdivision


EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.011) -------------------------------------------------------------- ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages ...... 1 Number of subcatchments ... 7 Number of nodes ........... 8 Number of links ........... 10 Number of pollutants ...... 0 Number of land uses ....... 0 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CHI_3hr_100 CHI_3hr_100 INTENSITY 5 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P1 0.26 65.00 100.00 0.5000 CHI_3hr_100 PND-1 P2 0.82 205.00 100.00 0.5000 CHI_3hr_100 PND-2 S1 3.99 222.26 75.01 0.5000 CHI_3hr_100 J1 S2 3.43 526.55 75.01 0.5000 CHI_3hr_100 J2 S3 3.28 216.57 75.01 0.5000 CHI_3hr_100 PND-1 S4 1.82 326.05 75.01 0.5000 CHI_3hr_100 PND-2 S5 1.81 290.37 75.01 0.5000 CHI_3hr_100 PND-2 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 70.29 1.00 0.0 J2 JUNCTION 69.11 1.00 0.0 OF-1 JUNCTION 68.37 1.32 0.0 OF-2 JUNCTION 67.52 2.40 0.0 OF1 OUTFALL 67.51 1.00 0.0 OF-10 OUTFALL 68.36 1.00 0.0 PND-1 STORAGE 68.40 1.25 0.0 PND-2 STORAGE 67.60 1.20 0.0 ************ Link Summary ************ Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1 J1 J2 CONDUIT 235.6 0.5009 0.0350 C2 J2 PND-2 CONDUIT 62.2 0.4982 0.0350 C3 OF-1 OF-10 CONDUIT 50.0 0.0200 0.0350 C4 OF-2 OF1 CONDUIT 35.1 0.0285 0.0350 OR_PND-2 PND-2 OF-2 ORIFICE OR1 PND-1 OF-1 ORIFICE OR2 PND-2 OF-2 ORIFICE OR3 PND-1 OF-1 ORIFICE W_PND-1 PND-1 OF-1 WEIR W_PND-2 PND-2 OF-2 WEIR ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1 TRAPEZOIDAL 1.00 4.00 0.55 7.00 1 5.40 C2 TRAPEZOIDAL 1.00 4.00 0.55 7.00 1 5.39 C3 TRAPEZOIDAL 1.00 4.00 0.55 7.00 1 1.08 C4 TRAPEZOIDAL 1.00 4.00 0.55 7.00 1 1.29 ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... CURVE_NUMBER Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ 01/01/2000 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 01/02/2000 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Routing Time Step ........ 1.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.001500 m ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 1.104 71.708 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 0.144 9.359 Surface Runoff ........... 0.946 61.430 Final Storage ............ 0.023 1.499 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.809 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.946 9.461 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 0.734 7.341 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000



Final Stored Volume ...... 0.212 2.125 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.056 *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** None ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.50 sec Average Time Step : 1.00 sec Maximum Time Step : 1.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.00 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P1 71.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.75 0.19 0.16 0.987 P2 71.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.74 0.58 0.50 0.987 S1 71.71 0.00 0.00 10.30 60.44 2.41 1.31 0.843 S2 71.71 0.00 0.00 9.89 60.95 2.09 1.46 0.850 S3 71.71 0.00 0.00 10.21 60.57 1.99 1.14 0.845 S4 71.71 0.00 0.00 9.84 60.98 1.11 0.79 0.850 S5 71.71 0.00 0.00 9.87 60.96 1.10 0.77 0.850 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Meters Meters Meters days hr:min Meters --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 0.03 0.51 70.80 0 01:08 0.51 J2 JUNCTION 0.05 0.71 69.82 0 01:08 0.71 OF-1 JUNCTION 0.13 0.56 68.93 0 01:32 0.56 OF-2 JUNCTION 0.20 0.62 68.14 0 02:01 0.62 OF1 OUTFALL 0.20 0.62 68.13 0 02:01 0.62 OF-10 OUTFALL 0.13 0.56 68.92 0 01:32 0.56 PND-1 STORAGE 0.31 0.71 69.11 0 01:30 0.71 PND-2 STORAGE 0.47 0.80 68.40 0 02:00 0.80 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CMS CMS days hr:min 10^6 ltr 10^6 ltr Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 1.310 1.310 0 01:05 2.41 2.41 -0.077 J2 JUNCTION 1.456 2.469 0 01:06 2.09 4.5 0.044 OF-1 JUNCTION 0.000 0.291 0 01:30 0 2.02 0.106 OF-2 JUNCTION 0.000 0.427 0 02:00 0 5.33 0.058 OF1 OUTFALL 0.000 0.427 0 02:01 0 5.32 0.000 OF-10 OUTFALL 0.000 0.289 0 01:32 0 2.02 0.000 PND-1 STORAGE 1.300 1.300 0 01:05 2.17 2.17 0.001 PND-2 STORAGE 2.059 3.960 0 01:07 2.79 7.29 0.003 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 m3 Full Loss Loss 1000 m3 Full days hr:min CMS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PND-1 0.498 21 0 0 1.198 51 0 01:30 0.291 PND-2 2.858 35 0 0 5.147 63 0 02:00 0.427 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CMS CMS 10^6 ltr ----------------------------------------------------------- OF1 97.40 0.063 0.427 5.325 OF-10 97.38 0.024 0.289 2.016 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 97.39 0.087 0.647 7.341 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CMS days hr:min m/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1 CONDUIT 1.191 0 01:08 0.70 0.22 0.61 C2 CONDUIT 2.312 0 01:09 1.34 0.43 0.61 C3 CONDUIT 0.289 0 01:32 0.19 0.27 0.56 C4 CONDUIT 0.427 0 02:01 0.24 0.33 0.62 OR_PND-2 ORIFICE 0.132 0 02:00 1.00 OR1 ORIFICE 0.014 0 01:12 1.00 OR2 ORIFICE 0.022 0 01:18 1.00



OR3 ORIFICE 0.068 0 01:28 0.77 W_PND-1 WEIR 0.214 0 01:30 0.23 W_PND-2 WEIR 0.278 0 02:00 0.34 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 C2 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 C3 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 C4 1.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Fri Sep 01 11:58:48 2017 Analysis ended on: Fri Sep 01 11:58:50 2017 Total elapsed time: 00:00:02

3223701 CANADA INC. Post Development Model – 1:100 yr 12hr SCS Storm Limoges Mixed-Use Subdivision


EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.1 (Build 5.1.011) -------------------------------------------------------------- ************* Element Count ************* Number of rain gages ...... 1 Number of subcatchments ... 7 Number of nodes ........... 8 Number of links ........... 10 Number of pollutants ...... 0 Number of land uses ....... 0 **************** Raingage Summary **************** Data Recording Name Data Source Type Interval ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SCS_12h_100 SCS_12h_100 INTENSITY 15 min. ******************** Subcatchment Summary ******************** Name Area Width %Imperv %Slope Rain Gage Outlet ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P1 0.26 65.00 100.00 0.5000 SCS_12h_100 PND-1 P2 0.82 205.00 100.00 0.5000 SCS_12h_100 PND-2 S1 3.99 222.26 75.01 0.5000 SCS_12h_100 J1 S2 3.43 526.55 75.01 0.5000 SCS_12h_100 J2 S3 3.28 216.57 75.01 0.5000 SCS_12h_100 PND-1 S4 1.82 326.05 75.01 0.5000 SCS_12h_100 PND-2 S5 1.81 290.37 75.01 0.5000 SCS_12h_100 PND-2 ************ Node Summary ************ Invert Max. Ponded External Name Type Elev. Depth Area Inflow ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 70.29 1.00 0.0 J2 JUNCTION 69.11 1.00 0.0 OF-1 JUNCTION 68.37 1.32 0.0 OF-2 JUNCTION 67.52 2.40 0.0 OF1 OUTFALL 67.51 1.00 0.0 OF-10 OUTFALL 68.36 1.00 0.0 PND-1 STORAGE 68.40 1.25 0.0 PND-2 STORAGE 67.60 1.20 0.0 ************ Link Summary ************ Name From Node To Node Type Length %Slope Roughness --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1 J1 J2 CONDUIT 235.6 0.5009 0.0350 C2 J2 PND-2 CONDUIT 62.2 0.4982 0.0350 C3 OF-1 OF-10 CONDUIT 50.0 0.0200 0.0350 C4 OF-2 OF1 CONDUIT 35.1 0.0285 0.0350 OR_PND-2 PND-2 OF-2 ORIFICE OR1 PND-1 OF-1 ORIFICE OR2 PND-2 OF-2 ORIFICE OR3 PND-1 OF-1 ORIFICE W_PND-1 PND-1 OF-1 WEIR W_PND-2 PND-2 OF-2 WEIR ********************* Cross Section Summary ********************* Full Full Hyd. Max. No. of Full Conduit Shape Depth Area Rad. Width Barrels Flow --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1 TRAPEZOIDAL 1.00 4.00 0.55 7.00 1 5.40 C2 TRAPEZOIDAL 1.00 4.00 0.55 7.00 1 5.39 C3 TRAPEZOIDAL 1.00 4.00 0.55 7.00 1 1.08 C4 TRAPEZOIDAL 1.00 4.00 0.55 7.00 1 1.29 ********************************************************* NOTE: The summary statistics displayed in this report are based on results found at every computational time step, not just on results from each reporting time step. ********************************************************* **************** Analysis Options **************** Flow Units ............... CMS Process Models: Rainfall/Runoff ........ YES RDII ................... NO Snowmelt ............... NO Groundwater ............ NO Flow Routing ........... YES Ponding Allowed ........ NO Water Quality .......... NO Infiltration Method ...... CURVE_NUMBER Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE Starting Date ............ 01/01/2000 00:00:00 Ending Date .............. 01/02/2000 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days ...... 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:01:00 Wet Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Dry Time Step ............ 00:05:00 Routing Time Step ........ 1.00 sec Variable Time Step ....... YES Maximum Trials ........... 8 Number of Threads ........ 1 Head Tolerance ........... 0.001500 m ************************** Volume Depth Runoff Quantity Continuity hectare-m mm ************************** --------- ------- Total Precipitation ...... 1.478 96.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Infiltration Loss ........ 0.144 9.326 Surface Runoff ........... 1.309 84.997 Final Storage ............ 0.034 2.198 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.543 ************************** Volume Volume Flow Routing Continuity hectare-m 10^6 ltr ************************** --------- --------- Dry Weather Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 Wet Weather Inflow ....... 1.309 13.090 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 0.000 RDII Inflow .............. 0.000 0.000 External Inflow .......... 0.000 0.000 External Outflow ......... 1.025 10.252 Flooding Loss ............ 0.000 0.000 Evaporation Loss ......... 0.000 0.000 Exfiltration Loss ........ 0.000 0.000 Initial Stored Volume .... 0.000 0.000



Final Stored Volume ...... 0.284 2.845 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.053 *************************** Time-Step Critical Elements *************************** None ******************************** Highest Flow Instability Indexes ******************************** All links are stable. ************************* Routing Time Step Summary ************************* Minimum Time Step : 0.50 sec Average Time Step : 1.00 sec Maximum Time Step : 1.00 sec Percent in Steady State : 0.00 Average Iterations per Step : 2.00 Percent Not Converging : 0.00 *************************** Subcatchment Runoff Summary *************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Total Total Total Total Total Peak Runoff Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment mm mm mm mm mm 10^6 ltr CMS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P1 96.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.09 0.25 0.11 0.991 P2 96.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 95.09 0.78 0.33 0.991 S1 96.00 0.00 0.00 10.03 84.04 3.35 1.24 0.875 S2 96.00 0.00 0.00 10.03 84.38 2.89 1.21 0.879 S3 96.00 0.00 0.00 10.03 84.12 2.76 1.05 0.876 S4 96.00 0.00 0.00 10.03 84.41 1.53 0.65 0.879 S5 96.00 0.00 0.00 10.03 84.39 1.52 0.64 0.879 ****************** Node Depth Summary ****************** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Reported Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Max Depth Node Type Meters Meters Meters days hr:min Meters --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 0.05 0.51 70.80 0 06:00 0.51 J2 JUNCTION 0.09 0.71 69.82 0 06:00 0.71 OF-1 JUNCTION 0.14 0.67 69.04 0 06:10 0.67 OF-2 JUNCTION 0.22 0.73 68.25 0 06:32 0.73 OF1 OUTFALL 0.22 0.73 68.24 0 06:32 0.73 OF-10 OUTFALL 0.14 0.67 69.03 0 06:10 0.67 PND-1 STORAGE 0.36 0.78 69.18 0 06:09 0.78 PND-2 STORAGE 0.46 0.90 68.50 0 06:31 0.90 ******************* Node Inflow Summary ******************* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Maximum Lateral Total Flow Lateral Total Time of Max Inflow Inflow Balance Inflow Inflow Occurrence Volume Volume Error Node Type CMS CMS days hr:min 10^6 ltr 10^6 ltr Percent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J1 JUNCTION 1.244 1.244 0 06:00 3.35 3.35 -0.025 J2 JUNCTION 1.206 2.389 0 06:00 2.89 6.24 0.021 OF-1 JUNCTION 0.000 0.429 0 06:08 0 2.65 0.108 OF-2 JUNCTION 0.000 0.633 0 06:31 0 7.61 0.042 OF1 OUTFALL 0.000 0.633 0 06:32 0 7.6 0.000 OF-10 OUTFALL 0.000 0.427 0 06:10 0 2.65 0.000 PND-1 STORAGE 1.157 1.157 0 06:00 3.01 3.01 0.001 PND-2 STORAGE 1.617 3.886 0 06:00 3.84 10.1 0.003 ********************** Node Surcharge Summary ********************** No nodes were surcharged. ********************* Node Flooding Summary ********************* No nodes were flooded. ********************** Storage Volume Summary ********************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Evap Exfil Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume Pcnt Pcnt Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 m3 Full Loss Loss 1000 m3 Full days hr:min CMS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PND-1 0.576 25 0 0 1.338 57 0 06:09 0.429 PND-2 2.823 35 0 0 5.815 71 0 06:31 0.633 *********************** Outfall Loading Summary *********************** ----------------------------------------------------------- Flow Avg Max Total Freq Flow Flow Volume Outfall Node Pcnt CMS CMS 10^6 ltr ----------------------------------------------------------- OF1 94.25 0.093 0.633 7.604 OF-10 94.20 0.033 0.427 2.648 ----------------------------------------------------------- System 94.22 0.126 0.999 10.252 ******************** Link Flow Summary ******************** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Max/ Max/ |Flow| Occurrence |Veloc| Full Full Link Type CMS days hr:min m/sec Flow Depth ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1 CONDUIT 1.191 0 06:00 0.69 0.22 0.61 C2 CONDUIT 2.298 0 06:00 1.33 0.43 0.61 C3 CONDUIT 0.427 0 06:10 0.21 0.40 0.67 C4 CONDUIT 0.633 0 06:32 0.27 0.49 0.73 OR_PND-2 ORIFICE 0.149 0 06:13 1.00 OR1 ORIFICE 0.014 0 05:56 1.00 OR2 ORIFICE 0.023 0 05:59 1.00



OR3 ORIFICE 0.084 0 06:08 0.97 W_PND-1 WEIR 0.337 0 06:08 0.33 W_PND-2 WEIR 0.470 0 06:31 0.49 *************************** Flow Classification Summary *************************** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adjusted ---------- Fraction of Time in Flow Class ---------- /Actual Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Norm Inlet Conduit Length Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit Ltd Ctrl ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 C2 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 C3 1.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 C4 1.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 ************************* Conduit Surcharge Summary ************************* No conduits were surcharged. Analysis begun on: Fri Sep 01 11:58:50 2017 Analysis ended on: Fri Sep 01 11:58:52 2017 Total elapsed time: 00:00:02

A P P E N D I X ‘E’

WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS

J.L. RICHARDS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED 2017-09-06

LIMOGES SUBDIVISION

JLR No. 27046

Prepared by: H.M.Checked by: G.F.

Water Quality Storage Requirements Calculation

Per Table 3.2 of the 2003 SWMPDMWater quality storage volume requirement for Infiltration - 70% Imperviousness (m3/ha): 35Area (ha): 1.12Storge Requirement (m3): 39

Length of Perforate Pipe and Ditch = 803 m

Area of 200 mm dia. Perforated Pipe = 0.03 m2

Volume of Perforated Pipe = 24.1 m3

Area of Clearstone 0.33 m2(100 mm cover, 150 mm bedding, 300 mm either side)

Volume of Clearstone (40% Porosity) 106.0 m3

Total Storage Volume = 130 m3

WQ Storage RequirementsR:\27000\27046 - Brigil Limoges Mixed-Use Subdivision\Design\Civil\Functional Site Servicing Report\September 2017\Appendices\Appendix E - Water Quality

Calculations\27046 - WATER QUALITY CALCS LIMOGE SUBDIVISION (APP-E).xlsx

DRAWINGS

FUNCTIONAL SITE SERVICING REPORT

Documents

Transcript of FUNCTIONAL SITE SERVICING REPORT