HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200900036 Calculations 2009-04-30 GLOECKNER ENGINEERING/SURVEYING, INC.
Engineers—Surveyors—Land Planners
Kurt M.Gloeckner,P.E.,P.L.S.
President
April 30, 2009
Amy Pflaum, Engineer
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Synthetic Turf Field
Post Development Run-off Coefficient
Dear Amy
Enclosed are copies of data supplied by the proposed supplier of the field to be installed
at Saint Annes—Belfield.
The Springfield data is the closest model data. The use of a post construction run-off
coefficient of 0.4 is realistic for this area. In the 40 years of computing coefficients, post
development for grass fields would be worse than the penetration through the artificial
turf with gravel and sand bases. The enclosed study proves the storage capacity of this
type of field.
For my minor amendment for the turf field I am not going to claim any storage but will
use 0.4 as my post construction run-off coefficient. The existing sand filters I have under
the practice field and in front of the parking lot have the treatment/detention volume to
handle the additional post development volumes.
If necessary, I will be glad to discuss this further. Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely,
Kurt M. Gloeckner, P.E., P.L.S.
President
KMG:tpm
508 Dale Avenue,Suite A • Charlottesville,Virginia 22903 • Tel:(434)971-1591 • Fax:(434)293-7612
9 T (41)CZW T - a AU ? L - m zo IiUUoiaiaion0iooa
-13
2
o a a a a a a a o o a o f01 D A V} +n
:D O N O A N V :,' O W .9 7�737
W w rD ry O W O N D Z m(n+r0o000000000 0 0 0 =
AO T ^
T /�
T i
T v
0 0 000 0 0 0 0 000 Z mo
— 0 w N o m 0Q
EC FA $ N m a a Ln
S D 00
- 0 C 0,�J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CDi Zm
:4 E 7....„...) N W O A (p V A W N 00 IND CA A C• /'�X
_ o=,
II
(---------,:,
N (T N (T (JT ST (T U cm N N Ir N z m , Z
C O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O
�. a $ C--
V v ti v v 0 v V V v V V 0 Z a z .,X
A 0
N '''I
N N N N N N N N N = T O
:.71V V V V V V V V V V V V i (D > D
( r -'I-13 r. O
C Oma _. _. N .� —. W 0 N N N .r 0 C
Z
E§ `4 W A N W N N to W 0 -+ O QT D Z 0
rn
1 II— w w w w w w w w w w w w w C �r
j W w w (.4 w W w w w w 0 0 .n 9 Z 0
• N V a V V N V V a a V V 'y
(T A CO A A N W 0 CO CO tT A co m m 0
W o (0 CD N CO V o (0 0 0 CO CD 73 A
————— . i rw, w {<."�' �WW'' w w w w Iwi Wi <W'' cW'' v OC rm ID D
0 ` A O> O> O> V (T O (T Ot Oy 7.41 K G O
iK ` _ O OV O lAD N A N 8 A O O w m m
p
.. • 0 0 N cm r
..._{ i a __. m N A O! CJI (OT O A (OT co T Z
-- �� i' ! O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 2
A Ga0 O 0 0 0 o O O O 000a
N
0 o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 g o 0 -+ r! (P o
V OOOW o0
IN N (T N o o T
i W 0' O O O O 8 0 0 0 - 9
i i i a O N N N N N N N 0 N N N Z 5,-
0
0 0 a a s 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0
a 0o 0 o a O o O O 0 0 0
w w w W w w 0 w w w w w
D
O
N N N N N Oy, 0 N N N N N T D
71
o co N N N N co V a co a N N a 0
ri
a
,.• aw w w CO a w w w La w T r4
G (.� V w N CO a V 0 O N — y l!
T
ONi a COD —. :D A W can <0 CD Nr,
r,
l A -. 4- •-a :b. W a N N V N Lo V a m
t
WEST SPRINGFIELD DRAWN BY VGY
HIGH SCHOOL FIELDTURF TARKETT SCALE, BA ASYSHOWN
S[ORM COMPUTATIONS UNITED IN SPORT FIELD AREA, 65,550 SQUARE FEET
DATE=RAY 5,2006 ISSUE: 1 SHEET -
nil Rights Reserved. Confidential Infornatlon. No portion of these drowings nay be disclosed,used,modified or shown without prior written consent of Fieldiurf.
ELA Group, Inc. 743 South Broad Street
Litt, PA 17543
(717)
Engineers & Landscape Architects Phone: 62e-7271
Far (717)6264040
Fax
To: Vincent Yoos From: Craig Smith
Finn. Field Turf Date: October 2.2007
Fax (412)220-5308 Pages,: 13
Phone: (412)220-5304 CC:
Re: Field Turf Study
---
CI Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment U Please Reply
..Comments:
Hey Vincent.
Here is the testing,procedure,and conclusion section of a study we did on a grass field converted to a
synthetic turf field for Coatesville High School. Basically we just monitored rainfall and then recorded
flow rates through a junction point between multiple underground drainage pipes The same procedure
was then performed once the grass held was converted into a synthetic turf field. If you look at Table C.
we averaged the results based on the rainfall amounts,and compared the results between the pre and
tne post condition. It you look at the Average Peak Flow Column,at least for this study, a decrease by
almost 50/0 was observed in the peak runoff flow rate. The total volume was increased in the post
condition. which is probably justifiable by the fact that there is no longer natural grass to
evapotranspirate the water. I'm not sure how much ground water recharge would actually occur once a
synthetic turf field is installed, as a result of the original subgrade being compacted pnor to installation
, of stone and sand sub--base,in preparation of the synthetic turf. What are your thoughts?
Thanks
Craig Smith. E.I.T
ctsmith ,z)elagroup.corn
NOTE: THIS MESSAGE iS iN(ENDED ONLY r-,01-it THE INDIVIDUAL 10 WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED.
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT IS PROTECTED BY LAW DISCLOSURE, COPYING,
DISTRIBUTION,OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OTHER THAN EP(RECIPIENT IS PROHIBITED_ IF YOU RAVE
RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT IN ERROR,PLEASE CONTACT RA GROUP,INC.AT(717)626-7271
eirast)s‘voi11,Data,337-RLPS\337,01.ci MOS'402 CiviltStormwutet\Conettpoirdentv.\Fax tu Fieki Turklot;
-- ------ Coatesville H gh`,z"�oui A ttk Itc Fi.gs__.__�_W i 03070
rf
TESTING EQUIPMENT, DATA, AND PROCEDURE
is
FIA Cai:tip,Inc
Lititz.PA
O.
1
1 Synthettg Turf Fteld TeAL _ _.1 j.34370.
_____....
Ai
1 -
TESTING EQUIPMENT DATA, AND PROCEDURE
:14 —
The testing was completed by installing a Greyline STINGRAY Level-Velocity Logger
with 0Z02 submersible ultrasonic Level-Velocity Sensor into the 24 RCP storm sewer
1 that collects stormwater runoff from the site, Please see the Appendix for the
specifications for the STINGRAY. The same STINGRAY unit with serial number 23(31
l
. was used for the pre and post-construction testing. The STINGRAY was installed on
i. April 27. 2006 and collected data until June 1, 2006 for the pre-construction condition
I
-14 Then the STINGRAY was installed on September 22, 2006 and collected data until
November 3, 2006 for the post-construction condition. I he data that the STINGRAY
collects includes the time of the data entry (typically every 30 to 60 seconds), level of the
1 stormwater in the storm sewer pipe, and finally the velocity of the stormwater. Software
1
Afor the STINGRAY computed the flow through the pipe using the level and velocity of the
stormwater Data from the STINGRAY is shown in graph form on the following pages.
'AA
I The data collected by the STINGRAY was then compared to the amount of rainfall that
occurred Rainfall amounts were determined by using the U.S. Department of
1 Commerce's NOAA National Weather Service The NOAA provides copies of collected
.--,
.--1 weather data from sites all over the country The Coatesville 2 W 1983-02 . 2006-11
''!.1 (361591) COOP Station was used to obtain results that since it is the closest official
location to the Site. Please see the Record of River and Climatological Observations
I
A, sheets in the Appendix.
1
I
1
1
1
1
AA
1
ei
4
1
I
.=_
,—.
[LA Group.Inc
btitz,P4
1
I
1
i
A
A
I
1
0,
-------
- --1---
. i c
•-• 1 -- •
43
••• • •Ip ___
ki)41,,--- •si. .__. -1. 0-
...
..
...,
•..
.....
ta -
= '.-:.•
L
•
trel —
• -1 CO
or
C:,rar; . 1
I X
0.4 —
1 CP
Ire ..•
....
._
; 1--
. .
65
1 -
a.)
....,
usmi-1 esi '
I ›*
es
1...
on t- i
es" z4. I
-II
Z a.
i
t .
__ . _ t,_ 1 •-•-
1... ...-- ,
. C
!NM
*NO '05 I
''''
0
CL
a'l
I 0
i
ti!
CuC4
7
o
1 I
I
-..
• * * a IS
• •
1' 1
I,
1 1 1--,,
0 ul in in CS CM
c: r-. ir) CNI CA f:Z CA Ci
tv
CI
(4) lanai IS(41) AWJOI43A (A,,,) oAnieladwai <
I .
1
1
:I
, ................... .„.. ........._
1 1
..._ .
I ...
2.:
1
i
i .
• •,. . . ........ . . e
rr,---
do•
• 0 6,-- - 4--4!. 81
7.: .. •
,...
.... (4 ,
'i... 4
- 1
- i
*NM
a
,-
1 0
1 7
l't9 40 V-, E
... ,.... ,,
_ ots
i,
N 0
-.•• t 4.0
tr,
,":•• • S. • *____ ••- • i
0..0
!t, i H 8
.... S.. • 0 417
••• ,--
, ros.
t#'4 eV _,
7.1't t
N . 1
,-,-
e,4 -,-..
.,... t.t.
C: .6-
;7.
— t...
..= .
0
: 04
a. c.4
I ZNI i
40 1
1:13 I
. 1
1
•,
0
,t-
44.t —1
et * e, • 1
.,_
* • s 1 a s
,
1 ._ _ 1 I -
L. i .t li , ... .. 1 , , , , ,
t..
to
4.)
/41 q 14 C) CN ir-, 0 0 0
Cki 0
T. CV
4 >,
1 CU
(14) laAal (sill) ICI3010A (1,) einiesadulai
1
i
1
t'04
I
1
fe,
I
i
O
lri
(41 IO
-' a i
r.. a
... a44144 :
J
rolC
`� h7
4
eo
^a
i,
a
." `I h-
N Mm
c.
CIf
C ru-
<
VI"
. v
to..
C I
ha 1
MEW
t
0.
as
L._-i CO _._ S!}
�! M
Nu N
4
4 4
t
I
1 I ( tit I f l (1 I L I [1 L I I i1_Ll_1_}..(..l j I t(j : 1 , 1 1 11 I l I 1 i L ii I I I I 1 1,1 U I i 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 i".1
Q i0
ff 11
N 'r O Op 05 1'- 44! H) Q' C? N r Q N
t" 1- r O G O O 0 G Q O Q o
( / )M0J A d
•
3
1
.-
T
40
V)
M
II--
k 4 4
1^w
r
ow
iffy
Z
T
4,0
or 4
i
d od
re
LL w
N + Q
... .4
V Y
7
4.
40,
Q
ti
(NI
LT.. f.•� f0,
a
0
1 ,- '4
I
, , . 1
_L.-. ..., i i 1 L I i._.-{__ i f i I L 1 L l^L�f_ I L_L_L ct'
f o
a ul a t) a aHc civ
4"1 fV N c- 4. C! Q
to
=r
, .
.',.- .
_ .._ _........_-.1 0
- ---
..._
, 1
- 1 I 0!)
404° • • *.
• t
, • •
4.0)
• •
0
.,...,:.
,-
S.,
• •• e.41 •-• *II•
*41-..,..„
-
al
I—
111
....!
SRI
''',, •00•1
....0
'..{
U)
N a- •• S
••
,.
odt
1 "
;..,!,;.• Z.") *-
IP-- .it •el
= s...2.- • • • •
; ,.....
1,.., Cis;
5
• 01 ..,
,., i ,....
111. . •S.4
c ,..
--,..-' .#1. --•-•
to
:•.: - 4:5
it)-,:.....
....,
;1-1J 7 t• CI
( _
..,
i.„. ...ii ,c..
e#),
-:,, r— g •
eS*',1 eNi
11 el r-I
" (1)
. co
1', •• ••• 1 • '
0-1, 1 ii
;;...., E
;.--„- lc •.::
.. —
...
la
c
?.
•ONO
vow '
z • • *I 47:5)
,.
.. .
6- , •• 0- •
;-;
• 1 * U‘'-'
•,-_
hi
. .
, 1 j ' , 1 t t 1 1 H I 1 1 ,! _L_1 1 1 . ' 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 j_j_j_i 1 1 1_1_
0 4) 0 41 0 0 II 010 C, 0 0 0 Ca (t)
0
q t-- 43 (".1 0 '
0 U) 0 WI
0
'.i 6 6 ci
h4
i Cd.
ad
U 10A01 (5'n l) Air.)010A (4.,) aittielodulai (.17
I
, .
la
2 - --
1 ,
2 03
5 '2
21 2
1
I4
.,- 4 '.„,„
0
i
4 1
i ._.
3
1 ev
3 ...
a.... •U,
C
co i 4 - ---— . . 4
#
4 4
ta
I 34.4
:2.4 01
5 02/
... .22.2
I.. 5,
I 4"
I ze, o 1
I C
h
=
I ftioi" ' 27'7
r`l
I ...i
C4
4 Cat ""
4 -4
4
2
44 .
0
c E
; Z
4
eN,I in
e... 04
1 ill 'eT 41
0
Z -
_.
2 Z ':••-]
I
fa
- 0
4 .... r•
44 ,4
I
1 4.
✓ C
1 ...
1— >
4 rAL o
1 •......• _ as
15
I ;,03o . 0
, 03 U
i roam
4 —— ---
44
,
4,
I
I
11
i
3
3
1
er
1 il LA i i 1 S T i 1 i 1, L i 1 1 i 1 I LH 1 tH, LI 1 I 1 i I 1 1.1_14-1-1_11.1 I LL[.f 1 I I III 1_1-1+1-1-J I 10
CS
CS
I°
I
4N1 Vct) a+ co r- co on .0. m cw .- c:.• C.4
.- ,,- v. 6 ci 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 0.
I
I (sl£14)mOti w
I
1
i
I
4 •
; 1
1
I •
Coatesville Hutt Atti. POWS . _
_
I
DATA RESULT CHART
[LA Group Inc.
Liutz.PA
•
Sylittetk.Terf Field Tew
. EXPLANATION OF DATA CHARTS
Tables A and 13 on the next page represent the data downloaded from the STINGRAY
and the NOAA data sheets for the Coatesville Station. The following are definitions for
the terms used in the following charts:
• Amount of Rainfall: This value is taken directly from the NOAA data sheet
and represents the total accumulation of rainfall for each event in inches.
• Aneroximate Storm DurationEach NOAA data sheet gives a general time of
duration for a storm event by crossing a line through the hours that
precipitation was detectable. The duration of each storm was taken from this
information,
• ae_roxLeials.Lkitensily: This value represents the average rainfall intensity of
each storm event and is calculated by dividing the Amount of Rainfall by the
Approximate Storm Duration.
• Beginning of Runoff Data: The STINGRAY logs flow data in time increments
of 30 to 60 seconds: this is the first logging of a storm event (i.e. the first
detection of flow in the pipe after a period of zero flow).
• End of Runoff Datw The STINGRAY logs flow data in time increments of 30
to 60 seconds: this is the last logging of a storm event (i.e. the last detection
of flow in the pipe prior to a period of zero flow).
• k.)pration of_Runoff. This value represents the length of time flow that was
detected within the pipe for each storm event and is calculated by subtracting
the End of Runoff Data minus the Beginning of Runoff Data. This value can
be used to show if storrnwater detention occurs within a watershed.
• Peak How The STINGRAY logs velocity and level of the storrnwater passing
through the storm sewer at determined intervals. The STINGRAY software
then determines the flow at each of the time intervals. The peak flow is the
largest logged flow rate through the storm sewer pipe for each storm event.
• Volume of Runoff, This value represents the generalized volume of a give
storm event. The instantaneous flow for each time increment in a storm
event was added together arid then multiplied by 30 seconds, which was the
interval between each data log
Table C. The Comparison of Averages chart, on the next page takes the storm data from
Tables A& 13 and breaks them into two subsets of storm ranges based on the amount of
rainfall for each stone event. The two ranges, 0,00 to 0.60 inches and 0.61 to 1 20
inches, were chosen as means to show more representative average value sets that
were not skewed in either direction This chart will help determine if the peak flow from
the site increases after the construction of the synthetic turf field or if the synthetic turf
field decreases the peak runoff from the Site and there by acts as a stormwater
management detention facility.
ELA Group,In
!Adz Pit
7 0 '. CV
D up c+. QO TccCW 11,1. in Nt j t Cr
`ct +"' • 40 N
ON el
N s- r > c•7 •.- N r. 0.1N
au000u 'F5 pUvc> ovoc)
S' V- N 4/ 0) Ch N 07 CO lL.
Y (C) 47 (0 CO r (y t•^) •7' CV UD Cc) Il') r- co
ICS n- C7 C7 .-• r pp 01 V) Q Cq to r O(1
CU to C04 o w- to N s C
aC700000o a0 oa6 .- o
a.
b ' p q
E e U U
o r 0 0 e e. E. 4 4 cin '�N N
.c .c c c N G G C
G C*) P7 c•) NI in CV Si' m 4t
Q 4 h` co «7 C'7 Cp c1 tf) 0 0 o
7 N .�- U7 r. c m h,41' O '- CA N I[1 0 t? 0 C)
p0. u---0 41 .4�v' cvcul 1 a, 0. 0u, 0, u7c�. c"7r o 0
0 r 0. 0. 0.
.- __- p N V N V M N Q.
p N V 4) fV 4) N IAC) Q) `•� V E O v. tN V 1�
j N : r-) C9 CO W c S� M- O �N. CU 00 01
t� ig ( �(pp c(�p cc�� 7 A7 N w-
C) C� Qccpc7ocg !a tr . oACiccpp8o0 4 c7 U U U
}. pCaNNN `� 5' [70 cQ p ((0C) N60006CD N 0 n Cfin N eo
T3 N. � C N ` SV KV 0. CCS CO
cz Cn tf) CT W c'' N Q W -' CnN q Ih D7 N N
.-• .•- rAi Q r. 7 C Cn � N N N C7 •S r
U1 CA Ill tC) �[`) en N W CV r w `� C_"'7 O r'•-„ Cf
r.. N ON,-.1 Ch 4/ ': h. pv .2ICJ CV (,,, 117
V' co D CCt P+ flS
� u7cc ; aan `46 � cc rnQ ncocmt: coco � n. u 0 v)
CiJ� N N CD C? a p CJo in C o ..--•• 8 c, Cl Ca N ... CI
47
NE'`I. c CD CD .- 6 0
CLS ,- C!S )uo" !n cG r.. N Al CC1) 0 co toll r• C CZI h N 4_ C) 4:7 O
F t t) � Cp N ai 0 .-13 f4 CO LL' N O O 10 .t. N `-
N
o n�iw �vvrncoet .- o � v .-in � .� S .� @' c •E
Cz c `� C7OC� N a C '- c7 0000 y . a 0 - w
i C3 0 O 0 Q C4 0 � t C 0 0 C) O Cy n ci p
O C L
.2 LLtq .G L L L fi ..�.� 4 C3 69 m
`
(n CU .0 ..' .r +a.. in
x " Ln CV 5 CV V) N V' ev ._ to V. C° C° L: .� L L`
o O ao ,• x
ca cY M ms inQ
f" cn Q p +.. Cv•j 1+.. ^ r
a C C11 N C" 9 'C Q V"
I:2-
'j
wl 4u C/1 0'> u7 Tr to
cu
S CD C' r7 r 00 ti u? b G .:Q ,G G -C .0 Q! 4) ._. c 6 G C
4 1.- Q O ed K) N M CV c4 C .. 7 c E° g ,� c) i Q) - > ..�..
Z •C ,C �. ::? C.7 C.') O C7 C7 C? !!? C;,) C7 C7 C? O tib.. T N N uV c... m.,
co a`a Q`-- ...�..(-.•_.....a O u < Q < (1' C] CJ C+ p
N c C. N O
- ,--
W C w en n G NCp
_) o O ft 0 - C 0 Q
` oO000ww6d � cvc� g` cDo cvwyto
$ C
cl N
1Npsa0t - o ' o4,0
-- W 01nel4cnio6 C1) ' - " oc> nV c c'
mn ` iii $ 02 04 Qi „toLoalto iaQ .T. V u ccn N a) wbfir,, - O« Q3 cp
V . CSri i co
A , , O � ' Fy
. I ••, v.; c) C 7
as
l3
:!tic arc._
Coatesville High School Athletic;Fields 1U3-0A)
CONCLUSION
t.I 1(liotip Inc
l Utr.PA
4
° ^ ~
—. ________-==�``
CONCLUSION OF FIELD DATA
The Average Rainfall column in Table C shows that the comparison of storm events is
not exact since both of the post-construction ranges for the average are higher then the
pre-construction values. thus being larger rain events. This must be kept in mind when
comarinq the other columns
The Average Duration of Runoff column in Table C clearly shows that the synthetic turf
field is detaining stormwater The time that is takes before the runoff is complete is three
to five times as long as in the pre-coristruction condition The prolonged detention time
will help prevent downstream flooding and verifies that the reduction in the Average
Peak flow in the post—construction condition is correct
The Average Intensity column in Table C shows that the comparison of storm events is
not exact since both of the pre-construction ranges for the average are higher then the
post-construction values, thus being different shaped hydrographs and effecting the
runoff response time in the watershed, This must also be kept in mind when comparing
the other columns,
The Average Peak Flow column in Table C shows that the synthetic turf field system is
detaining stormwater as aforementioned The peak flow in the post-construction
condition is reduced by half or more from the pre-constructiori condition. This reduction
is even more significant when considering that the post-construction storm events were
larger then the pre-construction events in total inches of accumulated rainfall.
Fina|/ytheAvereQuVu|un`eo| Runoffco|umninTobiaCahowaanmc/eaaeinthepost-
construction Condibon, huwever, this can be expected due to the increase in impervious
area within the watershed and due to the Average Rainfall being larger in the post-
construction condition This further proves that the synthetic turf field can be used as a
stormwater management facility for detention, The increase volume should directly relate
to a higher peak flow if the system was not detaining stormwater runoff. ConmaquonUy.
the peak flow is |nvver, which means the synthetic turf field is storing the stormwater
onsite and releasing it Slowly.
Thus the data proves that the synthetic turf held system can be calculated as a
stormwater management facility Until a larger subset of data can be collected that can
match storm events in the pre-development condition in rainfall amount and average
intensity it would be difficult to determine the amount of stormwater recharge that occurs
within the system and what runoff coefficient should be used to model the synthetic turf
field system. Other studies for other test sites are still on going and will thus allow for
more accurate modeling in the future
•
pt A Group.Inc --------