Final Design Report
Team 06: The Calvin Drain Trust
Michael DeWeerd, Matthew Schanck, Aaron Venema, Katherine Wever
Calvin College ENGR 339/340 Senior Design Project
May 9, 2016
© 2016, Team 06 and Calvin College
Executive Summary:
Calvin College’s engineering program requires a capstone design project for senior students. Team 06 is
made up of four civil and environmental engineers: Mike DeWeerd, Matt Schanck, Aaron Venema and
Katherine (Kat) Wever.
There are three problems presented in this project. The first problem is that the well on the eastside of
campus is currently operating at capacity and will be unable to provide an adequate supply of water if
Calvin College decided to expand and develop on that side of campus. The second problem is located in
the Commuter Parking Lots. Currently when it rains the water from the parking lot discharges into the
Grand Rapids stormwater system; however, due to the uneven surface of the parking lot, water often
pools in the low areas of the parking lot. The third problem occurs at the bioswales in front of the
Seminary Building. When it rains the stormwater flows through the existing bioswales at a high velocity
that does not allow for the proper settlement of particles in the pond before the water is discharged into
Plaster Creek. The three main goals were determined to be the reuse of stormwater for irrigation in
Knollcrest East (KE) apartments, reduce runoff and prevent standing water in the commuter parking lots,
and decrease the velocity of water flowing through the Seminary pond bioswales.
The team is proposing a concrete tank with a connection to irrigation for the KE apartments area, a series
of stormwater chambers underneath the parking lot in the commuter parking lots, and a combination of a
detention pond, a meandering system, and a check dam bioswale to help slow the velocity of the water
and increase sedimentation.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. INTRODUCTION OF TEAM ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 CURRENT SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3. IRRIGATION SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.4. INTRODUCTION OF PROJECT ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.5. PROJECT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................. 4 2. PROJECT MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 6 2.1. TEAM ORGANIZATION ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.2. SCHEDULING .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.3. BUDGET ................................................................................................................................................ 7 2.4. METHOD OF APPROACH .......................................................................................................................... 7 3. MODELING ....................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 RUNOFF AREAS ....................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2. STORMWATER SYSTEM .......................................................................................................................... 15 4. DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1. DESIGN NORMS ................................................................................................................................... 18 4.2. SOUTH COMMUTER LOT ........................................................................................................................ 18 4.2.1. Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 18 4.2.2. Design Alternatives................................................................................................................... 18 Porous Asphalt ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Infiltration Chambers ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Bioswales ........................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Porous Pipes .................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Underdrain ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Irrigation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 22 4.2.3. Design Solutions ....................................................................................................................... 23 Parking Lot Surface ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Islands ............................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Storm Chambers ............................................................................................................................................................. 26 Subbase ........................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Connecting Storm Drains ................................................................................................................................................ 30 Irrigation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 System Overflow ............................................................................................................................................................. 31 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................................... 31 4.3. KNOLLCREST EAST APARTMENTS ............................................................................................................. 31 4.3.1. Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 32 4.3.2. Design Alternatives................................................................................................................... 32 Detention pond ............................................................................................................................................................... 33 Underground Storage ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 Cudo Cube ....................................................................................................................................................................... 34 RainStore ......................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Concrete Tank ................................................................................................................................................................. 35 Irrigation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 36 4.3.3. Design Solution ......................................................................................................................... 36 Decision Matrix ............................................................................................................................................................... 36 Storage Design ................................................................................................................................................................ 37 4.4. SEMINARY POND .................................................................................................................................. 43 4.4.1. Design Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 43 4.4.2. Design Alternatives................................................................................................................... 43 i
Weirs ............................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Detention Basins ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 Meandering ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Rain Gardens ................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Check Dams ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47 4.4.3. Design Solutions ....................................................................................................................... 47 Channel Design ............................................................................................................................................................... 49 Bioswale 1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Bioswale 2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 51 Vegetation....................................................................................................................................................................... 56 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................................................... 56 5. IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................................................... 57 5.1. COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................................... 57 5.1.1. Commuter Parking Lot ............................................................................................................. 57 5.1.2. KE Apartments .......................................................................................................................... 58 5.1.3. Seminary Pond .......................................................................................................................... 59 5.2. PRESENTATION TO BOARD FOR MASTER PLAN .......................................................................................... 60 6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 61 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................. 62 8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 63 ii
Table of Figures
FIGURE 1: TEAM 06, (LEFT TO RIGHT) KAT WEVER, AARON VENEMA, MIKE DEWEERD AND MATT SCHANCK ............................................................................................................................................. 1 FIGURE 2: WATERSHED BOUNDARIES FOR CALVIN COLLEGE’S CAMPUS ............................................... 2 FIGURE 3: PROPOSED PROJECT ZONES FOR BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) ........................... 4 FIGURE 4: KE SUBBASIN DELINEATIONS ................................................................................................ 8 FIGURE 5: ZONE 4 SUBBASIN DELINEATION .......................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 6: KE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE (SCS) SOILS MAP ............................................................ 11 FIGURE 7: ZONE 4 SCS SOILS MAP ...................................................................................................... 11 FIGURE 8: SC LOT SCS SOILS MAP ....................................................................................................... 13 FIGURE 9: KE SWMM MODEL FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS .................................................................. 16 FIGURE 10: NODE 26 STORAGE CURVE ............................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 11: PROFILE VIEW FROM INLET TO OUTFALL .......................................................................... 17 FIGURE 12: POROUS PAVEMENT EXAMPLE ........................................................................................ 19 FIGURE 13: MODEL OF INFILTRATION CHAMBER ................................................................................ 20 FIGURE 14: EXAMPLE OF BIOSWALE ................................................................................................... 21 FIGURE 15: DIAGRAM OF POROUS PIPES ............................................................................................ 22 FIGURE 16: REDIRECTION OF CALVIN’S ROADS ................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 17: AREA OF STORMWATER RETENTION DESIGN ................................................................... 24 FIGURE 18: ISLAND DESIGN ................................................................................................................ 25 FIGURE 19: PROFILE VIEW OF ISLAND ................................................................................................. 26 FIGURE 20: PROFILE VIEW OF ISLAND ................................................................................................. 26 FIGURE 21: DIAGRAM OF STORM CHAMBERS WITH PUMP ................................................................ 27 FIGURE 22. STORMCHAMBER 44 SPECS. ............................................................................................. 28 FIGURE 23: PLAN VIEW OF CHAMBERS ............................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 24: TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP OF KE SYSTEM .............................................................................. 33 FIGURE 25: CUDO CUBE SYSTEM ........................................................................................................ 34 FIGURE 26: RAINSTORE SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 35 FIGURE 27: CONCRETE TANK ............................................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. FIGURE 28: PROFILE VIEW OF INLET OVER TANK ................................................................................ 37 FIGURE 29: PROFILE VIEW OF OVERFLOW STRUCTURE ....................................................................... 38 FIGURE 30: LAYOUT VIEW OF TANK .................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 31: CROSS‐SECTION OF DAYLIGHTED PIPE .............................................................................. 39 iii
FIGURE 32: PROFILE VIEW OF INLET ................................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 33: UPDATED MODEL OF TANK .............................................................................................. 41 FIGURE 34: TANK PROFILE WITH SPILLOVER ....................................................................................... 41 FIGURE 35: GRAPHIC PROOF OF WATER RETENTION .......................................................................... 42 FIGURE 36: VISUAL PROOF OF WATER RETENTION ............................................................................. 42 FIGURE 37: VOLUME OF FLOODING AT INLET ..................................................................................... 43 FIGURE 38: EXAMPLE OF WIERS ......................................................................................................... 44 FIGURE 39: EXAMPLE OF DETENTION BASIN ....................................................................................... 45 FIGURE 40: MEANDERING RIVER ........................................................................................................ 46 FIGURE 41: EXAMPLE OF RAIN GARDEN ............................................................................................. 47 FIGURE 42: EXISTING SUB‐BASIN AND PIPE NETWORK SYSTEM IN ZONE 4 ......................................... 48 FIGURE 43: CHANNEL DIMENSIONS .................................................................................................... 49 FIGURE 44: ORIFICE WEIR STRUCTURE EPA‐SWMM ............................................................................ 50 FIGURE 45: FLOW OF WATER THROUGH ORIFICE WEIR STRUCTURE ................................................... 50 FIGURE 46: WATER ELEVATION IN DETENTION POND FOR 100‐YEAR STORM ..................................... 51 FIGURE 47: MODIFIED CHANNEL GEOMETRY ...................................................................................... 52 FIGURE 48: DESIGNED MEANDERS ..................................................................................................... 53 FIGURE 49: WATER VELOCITY PROFILE ............................................................................................... 53 FIGURE 50: CHECK DAM AND POOL PROFILE ...................................................................................... 54 FIGURE 51: WATER VELOCITY PROFILE ............................................................................................... 54 FIGURE 52: COMPLETE WATER PROFILE FOR BIOSWALE ..................................................................... 55 FIGURE 53: WATER VELOCITY PROFILE ............................................................................................... 56 FIGURE 54: PRICING FROM STORMCHAMBER .................................................................................... 57 Table of Tables
TABLE 1: KE SOIL MAP LEGEND........................................................................................................... 11 TABLE 2: ZONE 4 SOIL MAP LEGEND ................................................................................................... 12 TABLE 3: SC LOT SOIL MAP LEGEND .................................................................................................... 13 TABLE 4: AREAS AND RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS (RCN) FOR KE APARTMENTS ................................... 14 TABLE 5: RUN‐OFF VOLUMES FOR COMMUTER LOT ........................................................................... 14 TABLE 6: RUN‐OFF VOLUMES FOR KE ................................................................................................. 15 TABLE 7: STORMCHAMBER DETAILS. .................................................................................................. 30 TABLE 8: DECISION MATRIX FOR UNDERGROUND STORAGE .............................................................. 36 iv
TABLE 8: COST ESTIMATE FOR COMMUTER LOT ................................................................................. 58 TABLE 9: COST ESTIMATE FOR KE APARTMENTS ................................................................................. 59 TABLE 10: COST ESTIMATE FOR SEMINARY POND .............................................................................. 60 v
1. Introduction
1.1. Introduction of Team
The Calvin Drain Trust is a Senior Design team of four Civil Engineering students. The four group
members are Mike DeWeerd, Matt Schanck, Aaron Venema and Kat Wever.
Figure 1: Team 06, (left to right) Kat Wever, Aaron Venema, Mike DeWeerd and Matt Schanck
Mike is a senior Civil/Environmental Engineering major with a business minor. He was involved in
Capella for a year and a half, and is a founding member of uKnighted, a men's acapella group on campus.
During the summer between sophomore and junior year, he worked as an intern at Prein & Newhof, and
between junior and senior year, he worked at Weaver Consultants Group. He is engaged right now and is
getting married in August and will start working at Exxel Engineering after graduation. His hobbies
include music, board games and solving rubix cubes.
Matt is a senior Civil/Environmental Engineering student with a writing minor. He is from Howell, NJ.
He is involved in Calvin's Ballroom and Social Dance Club as well as Dance Guild. The past two
summers he has interned at R.C. Burdick Engineering, the summer before that he studied in Germany. In
his free time he dances ballroom, writes stories and poems, works on bikes, and crafts metal wire art.
Aaron is a senior Civil/Environmental Engineering student from Grand Haven, MI. He was a Calvin
swimmer on the Men’s Varsity Swimming and Diving Team, and the founder of the Calvin Cycling Club.
In the summer before his junior year Aaron studied in Germany and would love to travel there again. The
following summer he worked as an intern for the City of Grand Rapids Engineering Department. Some of
his hobbies include cycling, triathlons, board games, and crafting projects.
1
Kat is a senior Civil/Environmental Engineering major with a French major. During the summers after her
sophomore year and junior year, she worked as an intern at Prein & Newhof. She worked with the survey
department and collected data for the S.A.W. grant work they were performing for various townships
surrounding Grand Rapids. Her hobbies include music, drawing, and playing intramural volleyball.
1.2 Current System
Currently a large portion of stormwater surface runoff is not contained within the Calvin College campus.
The infiltration of stormwater into the soil on the campus is severely limited by loamy clay, with the
exception of the Knollcrest East (KE) apartments which has a primarily sandy clay soil with higher
infiltration rates. Because the majority of campus experiences low infiltration rates, the campus is prone
to standing water where there are no catch basins or underdrain to capture and transport stormwater. To
determine the general flow of stormwater, the team has delineated the campus into five runoff zones as
displayed in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Runoff Zones for Calvin College’s Campus
2
The first zone is located on the northeast side of campus, divided by the road between the Prince
Conference Center and Knollcrest East apartments, and by the east beltline. The runoff discharges into a
series of ponds in constructed marshlands. The runoff water in this zone is treated as the ponds allow time
for settling of particles.
The second zone is located on the southeast side of campus centered on the KE Apartments. In this zone,
water gathers quickly due to steep ground surfaces. The stormwater here either infiltrates in the sandy soil
or flows into the Grand Rapids stormwater system. The volume of water that comes out of this zone can
cause flooding issues for larger storm events.
The third zone is located on the west side of campus, which includes parking lots 1-5 in the south west
corner of campus. This zone contains underdrains and catch basins to capture storm water. Runoff
collected from these basins enters the Grand Rapids stormwater system through storm drains on the south
end of campus.
The fourth zone is located directly east of zone 3 and extends to the Beltline. The runoff water in this
zone discharges to the seminary pond. The pond is designed to allow for particles to settle before the
water exits over a weir on the south end of the pond and is discharged to Plaster Creek. During larger
rainfall events settling does not happen. The water flows through the seminary pond with a high velocity
that prevents settling of the particles.
The fifth zone contains the remainder of the northwest side of campus. The water from this zone enters
the Calvin’s north pond on the northwest corner of campus. An underdrain pipe connects Calvin’s north
pond to a series of marshland and ponds that eventually flow into Reeds Lake.
1.3. Irrigation System
Part of the appeal of Calvin College is the pleasant aesthetics around the campus. One of the contributing
factors to the aesthetic appeal is the lush green grass. Keeping the campus maintained at this standard
requires upwards of 33 million gallons of water a year for irrigation. The water is currently being drawn
from wells on campus. The wells draw from the local water table down and it may contain metallic ions
that can cause issues for irrigation like damaging the plant life and corrosion of the piping system.
Additionally, the current well water supply is not sustainable for long-term irrigation needs. Calvin is
looking to expand the east side of campus and existing irrigation wells will not be capable of supplying
additional water for irrigation. To continue irrigating Calvin’s campus to the same quality standards, the
college will eventually need to invest in an additional water supply for irrigation.
1.4. Introduction of Project
The team’s goal is to reduce runoff water entering the Grand Rapids stormwater system, limit pollutants
entering Plaster Creek watershed, and increase the irrigation systems water supply. To help understand
the project goals the team has established Geoffrey Van Berkel, irrigation specialist of Calvin College, as
our representative to our client Calvin College. He assisted in the designing phase, comparing design
alternatives, and general guidance. The team has also established Travis Vruggink from GMB
Engineering as our industrial consultant for the project.
This project is part of an Engineering Senior Design class at Calvin College. This gives the team two
semesters to complete the project before the deadline. The team used the first semester to collect rainfall
data, perform simulations, visit existing sites, research, and meet with professionals for guidance. The
3
team used the second semester to design the system and run the calculations necessary to verify the
design that is proposed.
1.5. Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to reduce the volume of runoff water from Calvin’s Campus entering the
Grand Rapids stormwater system, limit pollutants entering Plaster Creek watershed, increase the irrigation
systems water supply and meet the master campus plan requirements. Based on stormwater outflow
location and irrigation needs the team has identified three key zones as seen in Figure 3; A: Parking lots
1-5, B: The bioswales upstream of the Seminary pond, and C: The KE apartments.
Figure 3: Proposed Project Zones for Best Management Practices (BMPs)
The team plans to find a solution to meet future irrigation needs, limit outflow, and reduce pollutant
discharge. The team investigated the reuse of runoff storm water and drilling another well as alternatives
for additional irrigation water supply. The team found suitable locations to collect and store the water and
perform water quality tests to ensure adequate water quality. In the case of reusing rainwater or drawing
from the pond, a method for isolating the rainwater from the well will have to be developed. Department
4
of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations do not allow for an open connection between a well and a
rainwater reuse system. Additionally, the team will research and evaluate methods of removing pollutants
and increasing infiltration for stormwater runoff
The end result of the project is to get approved and have this project used in the future. The campus
master plan includes reducing the campus runoff. Part of being good stewards includes responsible
management of our campus. The team plans to use Professor Wunder in assistance of obtaining master
plan approval.
5
2. Project Management
2.1. Team Organization
The team has four members, as well as a faculty advisor, industrial consultant, client and other mentors
for the project. The team’s faculty advisor is Professor Masselink. The team’s industrial consultant is
Travis Vruggink from GMB. The team’s client for the project is Calvin College, and the team’s main
contact is Geoff Van Berkel. Other mentors that the team has consulted with on this project are Scott
Davidson from Frederick Meijer Gardens, and Mike Herrema from Cornerstone University. Both Scott
and Mike have similar systems in place and the team met with each to discuss how their system works
and some things they would like to improve.
Each team member was focused on a specific section of the project. Mike has been communicating with
the clients, mentors, setting up meetings with different people and coordinating trips to places such as
Frederick Meijer Gardens and Cornerstone University. Mike worked on the team and schedule
management, making sure that each of the assignments are completed correctly, on time, and done well.
Mike prepared a majority of the visual aids for the team’s presentations that were given in class.
Matt has been focusing on the design aspect of the project. He worked with AutoCAD to model each of
the drainage areas. He researched the soil types for each location. Matt calculated the peak stormwater
discharges for each zone. For more detailed account of his work, see section 3.
Aaron created the team’s website and has been working on optimizing the website, making sure that it is
up to date and looking good. Aaron was involved in the design of the South Commuter lot and the design
decisions for that zone.
Kat has been doing the research for the project by focusing on the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regulations as well as DEQ and design options for the KE Apartments, the parking lots, and the
seminary pond. She designed the system for the seminary pond.
The team scheduled a regular weekly meeting for around 1 hour as well as meetings when needed. A few
of the meetings were spent traveling to Frederick Meijer Gardens, and Cornerstone University, as well as
meetings with Travis from GMB, with Geoff Van Berkel, as well as meetings with Professor Masselink
and with a variety of different people. Each member worked on different projects throughout the week
and reported on how each of the projects were progressing.
All of the team’s documents, including project documents, meeting notes, and other documents are stored
in a shared Google Drive folder. This folder has many different sections including project documents,
project presentations, research, organization, and meeting notes.
2.2. Scheduling
Scheduling is an essential part of a senior design project. From the start of the project the planning for the
project has to be firm, but still be flexible enough to adjust if the requirements are not met in time or are
met before time. The schedule has been managed by Mike mainly using Excel and Word to allocate tasks.
The schedule was updated at every meeting to accommodate what the team was working on that week.
6
2.3. Budget
The team has far we have not spent any of the money on equipment at this time. If the team was to spend
money, Mike would be in charge of the budget, which would be managed using Excel.
2.4. Method of Approach
While working on this project, the team approached each section of the design through team
collaboration. The team discussed different design alternatives and determined which alternative was the
best. The team collaborated to think of different design alternatives and information to research, and each
member contributed thoroughly to the goal. The primary research method included using case studies
from Kent country and EPA stormwater regulations to retrieve bioretention principles and ideas.
According to the EPA, stormwater needs little to no further filtration before being used for irrigation. If
the stormwater is kept in a cistern, the captured water must be used in a timely fashion. The team
examined Chapter 7 in the Low Impact Development (LID) Manuel for Michigan to obtain design
guidelines for bioswales, bioretention, check dams, porous pavement, infiltration practices, detention
basins, and captured reuse. Many resources were found via online databases; Glenn Remelts of Calvin
College’s Hekman Library trained team members in the use of these databases and provided some
research ideas.
Team communication was kept open, with opportunities to share new ideas ranging from minor editorial
preferences to major alterations in scope definition. Efforts were made to respect the suggestions of team
members, even when making decisions which lacked universal agreement. Team members were flexible
in the decision making process, which created less friction during team meetings and task completion.
Disagreements were not taken personally but were recognized as mere differences in project ideas.
7
3. Modeling
3.1 Runoff Areas
When approaching the problem of modeling the two major areas (namely the KE Apartments, and the
South Commuter [SC] Lot), the initial task was performing a delineation. This meant dividing the land
into drainage subbasins. The subbasins for KE were centered around storm drains depicted in a campus
map given to the team from Geoff VanBerkel, with the addition of three storm drains not depicted on the
drawing. The delineation of the subbasins was very approximate and based on the combination of contour
elevation maps and physical on-site observation for the KE apartments. These delineations are shown in
Figure 4.
Figure 4: KE Subbasin Delineations
The delineation of Zone 4, the area where surface runoff discharges into the Seminary Bioswales, was
done using the topographical campus map. The subbasins were determined using the ridges on the
topographical map as well as Calvin College’s academic buildings. The delineations are shown in Figure
5.
8
Figure 5: Zone 4 Subbasin Delineation
9
The delineation of zone 3, the commuter parking lot, was completed based on drain locations and counter
lines on the parking surface. This delineation is shown in Figure 6. Since the parking lot is the only
surface considered the curve number remains consistent for the entire lot. A delineation of the
neighboring Calvin Loop was also performed, but these values were not considered as the group felt it
was outside the scope of the project, especially with the master campus plan already committed to resign
the road.
Figure 6: Zone 3 Commuter Lot Delineation
After the sites were delineated, the team determined runoff curve numbers to calculate the surface runoff
volume. The first step was to determine the hydraulic soil type for each sub-basin. The hydraulic soil type
for most of the area around the KE apartments was determined to be a type C; moderately well drained
soil. A small portion of the KE apartments was determined as a type D; poorly drained soil. The SCS Soil
Map for KE is shown in Figure 7 and the corresponding soil legend is in Table 1.
10
Figure 7: KE Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soils Map
Map Unit
Symbol
18B
18C
45B
75
78
82B
Table 1: KE Soil Map Legend
Map Unit Name
Hydrologic Soil
Rating
Glynwood loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
D
Glynwood loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
D
Perrinton loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
C
Udorthents, loamy
C
Urban land
Urban land-Perrinton complex, 0 to 8
percent slopes
Acres in
AOI
0.4
3.4
4.9
13.5
0.2
1.9
The hydraulic soil types for Zone 4 was determined to be mostly type D, a moderately poorly drained soil.
Figure 8 shows the SCS Soil Map for Zone 4 and corresponding soil legend in Table 2.
Figure 8: Zone 4 SCS Soils Map
11
Table 2: Zone 4 Soil Map Legend
Map Unit
Symbol
18B
18C
18
82B
Map Unit Name
Glynwood loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Glynwood loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Urban land
Urban land-Perrinton complex, 0 to 8
percent slopes
Hydrologic Soil
Rating
D
D
D
Acres in
AOI
4.7
2.7
13.1
1.2
The hydraulic soil type for the SC Lot was type D, poorly drained soil, the SCS Soil Map for SC Lot is
shown in Figure 9 and the corresponding soil legend is in Table 3.
12
Figure 9: SC Lot SCS Soils Map
Map Unit
Symbol
18B
18C
78
82B
Table 3: SC Lot Soil Map Legend
Map Unit Name
Glynwood loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
Glynwood loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
Urban land
Urban land-Perrinton complex, 0 to 8
percent slopes
13
Hydrologic Soil
Rating
D
D
D
Acres in
AOI
6.2
0.4
2.5
27.7
The next step is determining the land usage of each area. The KE apartments land usage consists of
woods in poor condition, meadows, and impervious structures. The SC Lot is mostly impervious
pavement and some meadow land. Using the information of the land usage and soil types, the team
determined the runoff curve numbers. The breakdown of the Curve Number for the Subbasins in the KE
apartments is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Areas and Runoff Curve Numbers (RCN) for KE Apartments
Subbasin Area RCN
Sq. ft.
units
16666 96.63
1
32252 87.96
2
27164 97.07
3
132216 80.48
4
37100 80.65
5
54741 84.77
6
6705
98
7
23290 78.35
8
35147 75.49
9
25751 73.41
10
14242
98
11
6058
98
12
7655 93.89
13
16146 83.06
14
3485 78.93
15
24047 95.23
16
27448 93.92
17
15546 93.86
18
12225 74.01
19
The Curve Method was used to determine the runoff volume for specific rain events. The same method
applies for SC Lot, which has a curve number of 98 with an area of 287,487 ft2. Then the team used the
MDEQ Computing Flood Discharges for Small Ungauged Watersheds document to determine an initial
runoff volume. The runoff volumes for a 1 year, 2 year, 25 year, and 100 year 24 hour storm are shown
for the Commuter Lot and the entire KE area as well as the basin area where the tank will be installed in
Tables 5 & 6. The final modelling will be done in EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM),
which requires the subbasins to be a rectangular area with a set channel in the middle. The channel flows
into a drain at the end of the subbasin with a constant slope.
Table 5: Run-off volumes for Commuter Lot
Commuter Lot
Precipitation
Volume
24 hr. Storm Event
in
cubic ft.
Yr.
2.22
47,737
1
2.56
56,068
2
4.7
106,937
25
6.34
146,175
100
14
Volume
Gallons
357,095
419,419
799,946
1,093,468
Table 6: Run-off volumes for KE
KE Area Total
24 hr. Storm Event Precipitation Volume Volume
in
cubic ft.
Gallon
Yr.
2.22
44,593
333,581
1
2.56
55,849
417,781
2
4.7 134,682 1,007,491
25
6.33 199,378 1,491,453
100
Storm year
yr.
1
2
25
100
KE Area Basin
Precipitation Volume Volume
in
cubic ft.
Gallon
2.22
32,624
244,042
2.56
41,265
308,682
4.7 102,660
767,949
6.33 153,525 1,148,448
3.2. Stormwater System
The project deals with an existing stormwater pipe network that transports the water towards a central
outflow for each zone (there were some variations in the team’s project, which will be discussed in the
sections discussing the area where the variations occur). The team will be using the existing stormwater
system as a means of conveyance for each of the subbasins into the storage and retention areas that will
be designed. Since this existing system is important to the design of the project, the stormwater system
must be modelled with the subbasins and this modelling requirement makes EPA SWMM as the better
modeling system to be used.
Using the data obtain between on-site observation, the CAD file the team obtained, and the MDEQ
method described in section 3.1, the team created a SWMM model for KE with the entire pipe network,
shown in Figure 10.
15
Figure 10: KE SWMM Model for Existing Conditions
In this model, the team modelled pipe 3 as an open channel and the inlet at node 26, which is the low
point in KE, as a tank with a storage volume set-up, shown in Figure 11, which roughly represents the
existing condition the depression at KE.
16
Figure 11: Node 26 Storage Curve
Using this model, the team modelled a 2 year 24-hour storm and determined the outflow through pipe
from the inlet, which was approximately 397,000 gallons. This volume is larger than the volume
determined by the MDEQ method and this was the volume used in designing the tank for this area. The
model shows significant flooding in the depression area with a water depth of 4.7 feet, as show in Figure
12, and the team designed will help reduce this issue.
Figure 12: Profile view from inlet to outfall
17
4. Design
4.1. Design Norms
The team considered focusing on a few design criteria on for this project. The principle focus of the team
was reducing stormwater runoff water leaving Calvin College’s campus.
The team focused on three different design norms while evaluating this project: sustainability, caring, and
transparency.
Sustainability is the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources. The
team’s project is being sustainable by not being harmful to the environment or ecosystem that are at
Calvin and the surrounding areas. The team was looking to contain runoff water that originated at Calvin
and would otherwise end up in the Grand Rapids stormwater system or Plaster Creek. This design will
reduce the negative impact on the watershed by stromwater from Calvin’s campus.
Another design norm that the team was focused on for the project is caring. Caring is important to the
project because the project design should care for Calvin’s campus and the people who are on the campus.
The design will care for the campus by helping use the water that is retained on the campus, and not
transport it to other areas. The project design focused on caring by helping to meet the needs of the
current and future irrigation system, and improving the water supply for the system. The new design
system still has to fulfil the needs of the current irrigation system.
The third design norm that the team focused on was transparency. The team wants to be as transparent as
possible in the completion of this project. Whether it is with the EPA, DEQ, or Calvin, the team wants to
be as transparent as possible and to show the progress that the team is making, as well as making sure that
the data needed is available to be used.
4.2. South Commuter Lot
The south commuter lot on campus contains parking lots 1-5. Currently the parking lot discharges runoff
water directly into the city of Grand Rapids stormwater system. Another issue is the uneven parking lot
surface that promotes standing water after rainfall events and snow melt. A project objective is to
redesign the parking lot to eliminate runoff water entering the Grand Rapids stormwater system for a 2year 24 hour storm event and minimize standing water.
4.2.1. Design Criteria
The goals of redesigning the south commuter lot were to increase parking capacity, reduce stormwater
outflow to the city of Grand Rapids stormwater system and minimize standing water. To minimize
standing water and increase parking capacity a reconstruction of the parking lot was recommended. The
standing water is caused by poor initial grading of the parking lot. This means the team must redefine the
parameters of the parking lot and design a more efficient parking solution. To reduce the runoff
stormwater entering the Grand Rapids stormwater system the team must determine a solution to either
reduce, reuse or reallocate runoff stormwater.
4.2.2. Design Alternatives
18
The design alternatives for the commuter lot consisted of methods to reduce, reuse or reallocate the
stormwater runoff. The team considered porous asphalt, infiltration chambers, bioswales, and porous
pipes as a methods to reduce the stormwater runoff, underdrain to reallocate the stormwater runoff and
irrigation to reuse the stormwater runoff.
Porous Asphalt
Porous asphalt would cover the entire parking lot, allowing a large surface for infiltration to occur. This
solution would minimize ponding as water on the surface would infiltrate through the asphalt. One
drawback for porous asphalt is upkeep; the typical recommendation of vacuuming the surface at least
once a year. Porous asphalt also has a risk factor because the long-term durability is unproven. The major
drawback to this solution is the loamy clay underneath the parking lot will severely limit infiltration rates
into the subsurface soils. The loamy clay underneath the parking lot turns this into a collection system
rather than an infiltration system.
Figure 13: Porous Pavement Example
Infiltration Chambers
Collecting water in infiltration chambers allows for a few points throughout the parking to collect all of
the runoff water. The benefits being the limited space and resources this requires. The water head created
during storm events increases infiltration rates. The drawback to this solution being the percolation may
decrease over time. Over time as fine silt sediments enter the loamy clay and the soil mixture becomes
less permeable.
19
Figure 14: Model of Infiltration Chamber
Bioswales
Creating bioswales around the parking lot will remove silt, sediments and pollutants such as oil on the
parking lot from the surface stormwater runoff before infiltrating the water. The benefit to this solution is
the prevention of silt from entering the loamy clay, which if mixed will lower percolation rates over time.
The need for increased parking capacity makes the main drawback the space required for the bioswales.
20
Figure 15: Example of Bioswale
Porous Pipes
The porous pipes will run underneath the parking lot. These pipes contain a large storage area for runoff
water along with a large surface area that allows for infiltration. To construct these underneath the
parking lot the site must be excavated several feet deep to create a boundary layer between the asphalt and
pipes as well as sand soil around the pipes. The main drawback for this solution is the cost of excavating
the entire parking lot.
21
Figure 16: Diagram of Porous Pipes
Underdrain
This design solution is meant to reallocate the storm water. The stormwater catch basins would be
connected to underdrain that extends to the north pond on campus. During rainfall events the pollutants
from the parking lot surfaces would be sent directly into the north pond. The benefit being this is a simple
solution, but with the drawback of not actually eliminating the issue, only reallocating the issue.
Irrigation
The final solution is to determine a way to reuse the stormwater runoff. This solution would require an
underdrain connecting catch basins to a storage tank. After rainfall events, collected water would be used
for irrigation. This solution would increase the irrigation systems water supply. The drawback for this
solution is possibility of pollutants from the parking lot surface entering the irrigation system. These
pollutants could potentially harm the grass being irrigated or clog the sprinkler head. Another obstacle is
that a direct connection cannot be made to the wells. A control device would need to be implemented to
maintain the separation between the systems.
22
4.2.3. Design Solutions
Based on the combined project objectives of containing runoff water and increasing the irrigation capacity
on campus, a stormwater retention system for irrigation was decided upon. This design was able to
address the needs of the campus master plan towards becoming a more sustainable and eco-friendly
campus. The team needed to consider the proposed changes in the campus master plan to avoid conflicts
between the teams redesign and the master campus plans. The published master plan recommends
rerouting the campus loop road to the exterior of the commuter of the parking. With the exception of the
most southern section, the parking lot will move towards campus when the road is relocated to the
exterior of the parking lot. These changes are shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Redirection of Calvin’s Roads
23
The team decided to make the design of the stormwater retention adaptable to the current system as well
as the proposed master plan. Therefore the team determined to place the designed system in the southern
most section of the committer parking lot, seen in Figure 18, since this area will not experience any major
changes. This placement will allow the teams system to function in conjunction with the current parking
lot underdrain with the capability to connect to a redesigned stormwater collection system for the
proposed parking lot.
Figure 18: Area of Stormwater Retention Design
Parking Lot Surface
The team decided not to use porous asphalt. Porous asphalt allows for a large surface area to infiltrate
water given a sandy subgrade, but this location has a loamy-clay subgrade. Additionally, porous asphalt
typically cost an extra forty percent, making this an ineffective and expensive system for the commuter
parking lot. The parking lot surface will be completely repaved with MDOT spec 13A; typical impervious
asphalt. This paving will be done in two lifts. The first lift will be a 2 inch base and the surface will be a
24
1.5 inch top layer. Having the two layers will promote sustainability for this parking lot. The separation
between the two layers will help to prevent the spreading of cracks in the top layer and as the top layer
deteriorates it can easily be milled and the surface repaved (Mill and Fill). The surface grading for this
parking lot will slope towards the center of the parking lot islands, this design ensures that during rainfall
water will flow towards the islands for drainage to prevent flooding or standing water on the parking lot.
Islands
Parking lot islands will be reconstructed in the existing locations. The new islands will be reconstructed to
utilize space by having a rectangular shape as opposed to the existing triangular islands, which contain a
lot of dead space. These islands are currently placed strategically to help define traffic ways, especially
during winter when parking lot markings are not visible. Due to the limited parking available to students,
the intent is to maintain current parking capacity in this region while redesigning the parking lot.
Figure 19: Island Design
The existing trees will need to be replaced during the reconstruction of the parking lot. According to
Geoff VanBerkel, these trees typically only last 10-15 years and are currently nearing the end of their
lifespan. Groundskeeping has recently cut a few of these trees down because they are dying. The
reconstructed islands would each receive two new trees. These trees should be capable of growing well in
sandy soil, have limited root sizes, and will be chosen at the recommendation of the biology department.
The islands will have a top layer of mulch followed by a sandy base to promote tree grow and allow for
sufficient infiltration. The island will bank down at a 3:1 slope towards a flow point in the center where
an elevated storm drain is location. Sheet flow from the parking lot will infiltrate through the islands
media bed until the island becomes saturated and the water overflows into the elevated storm drain. The
design premise behind capturing initial runoff water is to capture pollutants and oils that run off the
parking lot surface and filter them through the media bed. Some of these contaminates can then be
consumed by the biological growth located in the islands. The design for the islands can be seen in
Figures 20 and 21.
25
Figure 20: Profile View of Island
Figure 21: Profile View of Island
Storm Chambers
Storm chambers were chosen as the most effective way to store and utilize water in this section. The
manufacturer that the team chose for these chambers was the company StormChamber. They are designed
with an open bottom that connects the chamber with the artificial water table for the surrounding rocks. A
diagram of the chambers can be seen in Figure 22.
26
Figure 22: Diagram of Storm Chambers with Pump
This design increased the storage efficiency of the chambers by combining storage between the rocks and
the open chamber. There will be two series of StormChambers, specification SC-44, underneath the
parking lot as seen in Figure 23.
27
Figure 23. StormChamber 44 specs.
These Chambers at a depth of 22” below the parking surface are rated at 2.5 times above the minimum
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) requirements. A plan
view of the chambers can be seen in Figure 24.
28
Figure 24: Plan View of Chambers
These Chambers will serve as a collection basin for the inlets at the islands and connecting storm drains.
The details for the two StormChamber systems can be seen in Table 7. Following inlet points the
chambers will have a wall with a sediment trap to allow for the settlement of particles in the water. This
29
water will then either be used for irrigation purposes or overflow into The City of Grand Rapids
stormwater system when the system's capacity is exceeded.
Table 7: StormChamber Details.
Chambers
7.5
Length [ft]
53
# per row
2
# of rows
397.5
Row length [ft]
106
# of Chambers
Subbase
The subbase will consist of two layers that promote the storage, transfer, and filtration of the runoff water.
The top layer will be MDOT 21AA modified; open graded crushed stone (depth varies on location). This
top layer will create a surface suitable for paving, while at the same time allowing water to infiltrate. The
next layer will be MDOT spec 6A aggregate stone. This stone has a void space of approximately 40% and
can be used in combination with the StormChambers for water storage. This base layer of stone will be
surrounded with non-woven fabric to help contain the stone and water inside the storage system.
Connecting Storm Drains
The existing stormwater management system for this section consist of storm drains underneath the
Calvin Loop and parking lot that feed into the Grand Rapids stormwater system at the south end of the
commuter parking lot. The proposed retention system has the ability to connect to the existing underdrain,
allowing the existing stormwater conveyance system to be redirected into the proposed retention system.
The system will have the capability of connecting with the redesign of the parking lot by installing piping
to direct stormwater into the StormChamber storage system.
Irrigation
Water collected in this retention system will be used to supply irrigation water for the Burton entrance of
Calvin and in front of the Dewitt Manor. The sprinkler system contains 6 zones near the Burton entrance
of Calvin College. With the assistance of Geoffrey VanBerkel, the head groundskeeper at Calvin College,
we determined the gallons per month based on the number of zones, number sprinklers in each zone, run
time, run frequency and sprinkler flow. We estimated each zone to have a flow of between 7000-9000
gallon/month resulting in a total of 48,000 gallons/month for all six zones.
The water will be drawn using a submersible pump in the southern end of the StormChamber with an
enclosed pump station at the east edge of the parking lot. In accordance with Goeff, the head
groundskeeper, the pump should be 220 volts, 5 horsepower and can be purchased from Fuller Supply.
The pumping system will prevent backflow from occurring and remain under constant water pressure to
prevent air gaps from forming inside the irrigation system. A float valve will be used at the influent end of
the pump to activate an emergency shutoff in the scenario of a diminished water supply. In this scenario
of inadequate supply a gate valve will be closed to the stormwater retention system and another gate valve
opened to allow the well water system to provide irrigation water. According to the DEQ regulations the
runoff water from the parking lot must at all times have an air separation from the wells to prevent
30
contamination of the groundwater. This will be solved using an air separation valve to stop flow from
both directions and allow for an air gap between the two systems.
One of the major concerns with using runoff water for irrigation is particles collecting and clogging the
sprinkler system. As mentioned previously the runoff water will receive filtration of particles through the
sediment traps in the StormChambers and the media bed for the parking lot islands. Our design condition
is to prevent particles from clogging a TORO 570 sprinkler head, the sprinkler heads currently in use on
Calvin College’s campus. There are no published specifications for particle sizes that can pass through
this specific sprinkler head. Although, according to Irrigation Tutorials, a website focused on irrigation
information, a 100 mesh (150 micron) screen will remove particles capable of clogging the sprinkler
head. Based on this information a 100 mesh filter screen will be added at the enclosed pumping station to
prevent clogging particles from entering the sprinkler heads.
System Overflow
The ends of the StormChambers will connect to effluent storm drains. These drains will be placed at the
top of the StormChambers to only allow water to overflow as the StormChamber reaches capacity. This
overflow system will accommodate for rainfall events that exceed our systems maximum desired storage.
It’s optimal to not allow these chambers to sit full due to the possibility of water freezing in a full
chamber causing expansion and breakage. In the case of a near full system at the start of a major storm
event the system will be capable of temporarily holding additional storage volume as it passes through.
The 18 inches above the StormChambers will be a combination of stone and crushed stone to act as a
buffer between the StormChamber system and the parking lot. This buffer zone could potentially serve as
additional storage volume temporarily as the water drains into the Grand Rapids Stormwater System at
the south end of the parking lot. Any overflow for this system will go through an existing bioswale at the
south end of the parking lot before entering the existing City’s stormwater inlet structures. This will
utilize existing bioswale to maximize filtration and infiltration before discharging Calvin College’s runoff
water into the city’s stormwater system.
Maintenance
The first measure to maintenance of this system is prevention. It is recommend by the manufacturer that
after construction the parking lot surface should be cleared of all debris and two storm events should be
allowed to wash sediment from the impervious surfaces before opening the StormChambers to runoff
water. Inside the StormChambers water will flow the downhill direction towards Burton Street. As water
flows in this direction sediment will be transported downstream until it hits a wall similar to a cofferdam,
as noted on StormChambers detailing and design specifications (Appendix C). After hitting the wall the
sediments will settle and enter into sediment trap. Above the sediment trap there is a 10” riser pipe to the
parking lot surface. On a yearly basis a pump truck goes around campus to pump out all of the storm
drains and manholes. These sediment traps would need to be included in the annual maintenance done by
the pump truck. Additionally the 100 mesh screen filter in the pumping station will need to be cleared on
an annual basis or more if required.
4.3. Knollcrest East Apartments
The KE Apartments are owned and operated by the campus and are located on the east half of campus.
The land surface consists of several parking lots, pathways, apartment buildings and as open grassland.
Currently the stormwater collection system drains into the City of Grand Rapids stormwater system. The
main objective for the KE Apartments is to collect and reuse stormwater for irrigation with a design
capable of holding a 2 year 24-hour rainfall event.
31
4.3.1. Design Criteria
The main objective for the KE Apartments is to limit flooding and reuse runoff stormwater for irrigation.
The irrigation on the east side of campus is currently running on one well. In order to accommodate the
future expansion of Calvin’s campus the east side of campus needs additional water capacity for
irrigation. Resulting in drilling of an additional well or finding another water source for irrigation.
Therefore, most of the design alternatives are storage based to collect water for reuse. Another major
design criteria for this area is space due to the lack of available space with the reconstruction of the KE
Apartments in the master campus plan. The final major design criteria is safety, since the KE Apartments
is home to seminary students and undergraduate students, the former having the likelihood of having kids.
The existence of children in this area means that for safety reasons standing water should be avoided in
open areas accessible to children.
4.3.2. Design Alternatives
The team looked at placing the storage device in the KE Apartments at the low point of the system. This
is located in the lawn near the Zeta-Lambda apartment complex. This spot was chosen because it is a
topographical low point in the system and a major hub for the stormwater system. This spot is located in
the blue rectangle in Figure 25.
32
Figure 25: Topographical Map of KE System
Some design alternatives considered for the KE Apartments were detention ponds, underground storage,
and irrigation.
Detention pond
This design method would work as an effective means of storing the stormwater in the KE Apartments
while not taking up a large amount of space and still allowing for some drainage. The team decided
against this design because there would not be enough room to create a detention pond in the KE
apartments. One of the main design norms is caring, and putting a detention pond in this area would not
be caring. Putting a detention pond in that area of the lawn would cut off all access to the area and a fence
would have to be put up to prevent people from going into the pond, especially for the safety of the
seminary children. Additionally, Calvin has large focus around a greener campus and aesthetic appeal, a
fence in the middle of the apartments would contradict this focus.
33
Underground Storage
This design method involves an underground tank system either in the form of tanks or stormwater
chambers that can hold a large volume of water without requiring a large amount of aboveground space.
The major downside is the difficulty associated with the maintenance of the storage system. Although
maintenance would be relatively infrequent if filters were applied before the water entered the storage
system. This solution would be an ideal method to apply in the KE apartments. The team looked at three
main alternatives for an underground storage system: Cudo Cubes, RainStore, and a concrete tank.
Cudo Cube
Cudo Cube is a system of interlocking plastic cubes that work together as a unit to store water
underground. This system has a maximum height of 8 feet with a ground cover range of 2’-5’ with the
strength to support a truck. This plastic system can use 96% of its total volume to store water. This system
would be lined with plastic liner and sealed in order to hold water, see Figure 26. This storage unit is a
modular system, which is constructed on site to the client’s specific dimensions. The designed size would
be 82 by 84 feet with a maximum height of 8 feet, which is 55,104 cubic feet or 398,000 gallons. The cost
of the cubes with the liner comes to $500,000.
Figure 26: Example of Cudo Cube System
RainStore
RainStore is a system factory stacked plastic gridlocked columns that work together as a unit to store
water underground, see Figure 27. This system has a maximum height of 7.97 feet with a ground cover
range of 1’-3’ with the strength to support a truck. This plastic system can use 94% of its total volume to
34
store water. This system would be lined with plastic liner and sealed in order to hold water. This storage
system would have to be installed in preformed column units. The designed size would be 83 feet by 70
feet set at max height of 8 feet, which is 53,900 cubic feet or 398,000 gallons. The cost of the Rainstore
System with the liner comes to $315,000.
Figure 27: Example of Rainstore System
Concrete Tank
The concrete tank is set as an underground tank with an interior volume of 70 by 70 feet and 11 feet tall,
which is a size of 53,900 cubic feet or 398,000 gallons. The walls of the tank are one foot thick. The tank
would be designed of reinforced concrete designed to sustain uplift and to handle the possibility of
cracking of the concrete. The tank would be design with columns to support the ceiling of the tank. This
tank shall be designed to be waterproof. The cost of the tank will be around $300,000.
35
Figure 28: Concrete Tank
Irrigation
This method will use the storm water stored in the detention pond or in the underground storage and reuse
if for irrigation, which is the primary objective for the KE Apartments.
4.3.3. Design Solution
Decision Matrix
To make a final decision about which underground storage solution to use, the team made a decision
matrix in which cost, design life, expandability, containment, ease of upkeep, water accessibility,
structural integrity, negative impact, cover requirement, and piping change were factored into the decision
matrix. The primary consideration in the decision matrix, which were not dependent on the team’s design
size, was negative impact on the current campus conditions. Negative impact was defined as requiring
major changes in current utility set-up, major changes in grading that would require a detention wall or
carving out a hill, filling the depression area to the point where open channel draining into a single low
point is no longer effective, or requiring major changes to permanent structures.
Table 8: Decision Matrix for Underground Storage
36
Storage Design
The recommended alternative for this system using the decision matrix is the concrete tank. The concrete
tank that the team is looking to implement shall be designed with columns that are 1 foot by 1 foot
columns spaced 10 feet apart. Due to time constraints on the project, the team recommends that a
structural engineer designs the tank for the system implementation to meet the design criteria specified by
the team. The final design calls for an inlet with a sump installed a foot above the tank as shown in Figure
29. This inlet is designed to be almost directly over the center of the tank.
Figure 29: Profile view of inlet over tank
The water that overflows the sump depth of 2 feet will overflow into a pipe that empties into an overflow
structure connected to the tank, shown in Figure 30. The overflow structure will be located at the western
edge of the tank centered at the connection point to the existing outflow pipe from the existing inlet,
shown in Figure 30.
37
Figure 30: Profile view of overflow structure
The current design also calls for the removal of existing outlet pipe, which is 6” with an 8” pipe to reduce
water buildup for overflow in larger storms. The irrigation draw point will be in the northeast corner of
the tank and will be installed as a manhole with a submersible pump with a float valve connected to a
pump control structure, which will be connected to the irrigation line, see Figure 31.
38
Figure 31: Layout View of Tank
The team’s current design also calls for the daylighting of the 12” pipe that drains the eastern half of KE
in order to spread out the water and give it time to filter out some of the pollutants before dumping into
the sump. This change is shown in the southeast corner of Figure 32. The channel cross-section, shown in
Figure 30, is designed with stones and sloped sides to increase the spread before it reaches the grass.
Figure 32: Cross-Section of Daylighted Pipe
The changes to the area were modelled in EPANET SWMM. The proposed inlet changed were modeled
as well. The profile is shown in Figure 33.
39
Figure 33: Profile View of Inlet
The tank was also modelled with its pipe connections, the updated model is shown in Figure 33 and the
tank profile with spillover back into the depression is shown in Figure 34.
40
Figure 34: Updated Model of Tank
Figure 35: Tank Profile with Spillover
41
The tank is designed to hold a 2-year 24-hour storm and the modeled tank holds the water, Figure 36
graphically shows flow in pipe 22 and volume in node 26 while Figure 37 shows this visually for final
volume. The volume of flooding at the inlet is shown in Figure 38.
Figure 36: Graphic Proof of Water retention
Figure 37: Visual proof of Water retention
42
Figure 38: Volume of Flooding at Inlet
This format of modeling is very limited in predicting what will happen, since it is a theoretical storm, and
annual variance in irrigation demand. For this information, the team ran a year worth of rain data and past
irrigation data through excel to determine how well tank size met with irrigation demands. The
information was obtained and place into a spreadsheet, shown in Appendix B, and the team determined
that for the year 2014, with the tank starting empty on January 1, 2014, the tank would be able to provide
irrigation with excess at the end of the year. A system of plan should be designed to handle the excess
standing water to follow current government regulations. This could be solved by installing a pump that
empties to a bioswale and then connect to the overflow by expanding the irrigation region. The irrigation
system will have a submersible pump with a flout valve and a control box and filtration screen specified
by the client.
4.4. Seminary Pond
4.4.1. Design Criteria
In order to allow for particles to settle in the seminary pond properly the velocity of the water being
discharged into the pond must be slowed. Currently when large storms occur the amount of runoff that
accumulates from the Covenant Fine Arts Center (CFAC) parking lot and surrounding roads is too large
and the flow through the bioswales do not allow for water to be retained in the bioswales long enough for
the proper settlement of particles once the water reaches the pond. To slow down the velocity of water it
is necessary to redesign the area where the two bioswales are located.
4.4.2. Design Alternatives
There are many possible solutions to slow down the velocity of water through the bioswales. The
following design options for BMPs have the capability to slow down the flow of water and allow for the
proper settlement of particles.
43
Weirs
A weir is a barrier across a moving water feature designed to alter the flow characteristics of the water. In
most cases a weir causes the water upstream to rise and regulates the flow of water. As a result of this
regulated flow there will be an adequate amount of time for particles to settle. Figure 39 displays a weir.
Figure 39: Example of Wiers
Detention Basins
A detention basin is a stormwater storage area that fills and holds water to reduce downstream flow.
There are various types of detention basins such as dry ponds, wet ponds, and constructed wetlands. The
main purpose of a detention basin is to reduce runoff peaks during storm events. Figure 40 displays a
detention basin.
44
Figure 40: Example of Detention Basin
Meandering
Meandering water is water that flows in a winding path or course. When a stream or river meanders it
allows particles in the water to be deposited in the inside corners of the stream and increases the time
water flows before it reaches body of water it empties into. Figure 41 displays a meandering river.
45
Figure 41: Meandering River
Rain Gardens
A rain garden is a garden which takes advantage of rainfall and storm water runoff in its design and plant
selection. Usually, it is a small garden which is designed to withstand the extremes of moisture and
concentrations of nutrients, particularly Nitrogen and Phosphorus, which are found in stormwater runoff.
46
Figure 42: Example of Rain Garden
Check Dams
Check dams are dams are placed in the flow path of water with the purpose of slowing the velocity of
water. By interrupting the flow of the water, the water's velocity is reduced and particles settle easier, thus
resulting in a reduced amount of sediments discharged.
4.4.3. Design Solutions
Before a hydrological model could be constructed, a number of important sources of data had to be
obtained to determine the feasibility of the model. This background data may not be information that will
be directly entered into the model but it will support the hydrological model and allow for some inputs to
be calculated. The most important piece of data was determining the impervious and pervious surfaces in
each drainage zone. The resulting numbers were used to calculate the runoff coefficient numbers and
times of concentration. These numbers were inserted into the MDEQ stormwater calculator; excel
spreadsheet, to determine the runoff volume for each zone. The calculated runoff volume is
approximately one million gallons. The flow data is used as the target for pre-existing flow calculations in
the model to determine the accuracy of the both the inputs in the model and the selected calculation
method. Once the accuracy of the pre-existing conditions have been assured, preliminary designs could be
created and tested with confidence.
With the established flow data from the MDEQ storm calculator, an EPA-SWMM model was created. It
is capable of producing runoff hydrographs and analyzing the resulting flows through channel and pipe
47
networks. Figure 43 displays the EPA-SWMM sub-basin and pipe network for the existing stormwater
system in Zone 4.
Figure 43: Existing Subbasin and Pipe Network System in Zone 4
The flows from these models are based on average velocity and cross-sectional area; however, this
program lacks a velocity distribution calculation engine and output. These drawbacks lower the accuracy
of the model when calculating flows over large flood plains. EPA-SWMM is also limited to a uniform
channel shape between network nodes, unlike Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System
(HEC-RAS), which creates a stream channel from multiple cross-sections between nodes. HEC-RAS is
an excellent tool for hydraulic engineering. In this project is was used to demonstrate the flows in the
proposed stream channels and to determine the depth of flow to properly control storm water flows
ranging up to a 25- year storm event. This allows for a more realistic stream cross-sections and the
program interpolates the cross-sections between the enter shapes. These outputs will become important
for designing the shape and size of the new stream section.
48
Channel Design
The team used EPA-SWMM to determine preliminary designs for the seminary bioswales. Several
models were developed to determine which design alternative would allow for an acceptable decreased
velocity through the second bioswale. The first challenge the team faced was to establish a defined
channel through both bioswales. The team estimated the dimensions for the reaches in each bioswale by
first calculating the minimum depth of the channel. The calculated minimum calculated depth is 1.93 ft.
Figure 44 displays the design channel dimensions.
Figure 44: Channel Dimensions
The channel will be lined with Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) plain riprap to provide a
stable channel walls. The team then determined that the flow velocity of the water was still too high to
allow for the proper settlement of sediments before the water discharges into Whisky Creek. It was
determined that a separate design for each bioswale would be necessary to control the discharge from
Bioswale 1 into Bioswale 2 and then Bioswale 2 into the Seminary Pond.
Bioswale 1
With the new channel dimensions established the flow through the first bioswale is less restricted
increasing the velocity of the water. The team decided to design an orifice weir outlet structure for the
first bioswale. The orifice weir will connect with the existing culvert and allow for a steady controlled
discharge of water with a steady velocity. Figure 45 shows the EPA-SWMM model of the detention pond
with the orifice weir structure and Figure 46 shows the velocity of water as it flow through the structure.
49
Figure 45: Orifice weir structure EPA-SWMM
Figure 46: Flow of water through Orifice Weir Structure
In turn this outlet structure causes the first bioswale act as a detention pond when large storm events
occur. The detention pond is designed to hold up to a 100-year storm event without flooding, Figure 47.
50
Figure 47: Water Elevation in Detention Pond for 100-Year Storm
The water elevation will rise up to four feet but the weir will not allow the water to rise any higher. A
berm will be built around the edges that run along the road to prevent any possible flooding that could
occur.
Bioswale 2
The second bioswale stretches from the end of a 24-inch culvert to the 27-inch culvert that discharges into
the Seminary Pond. The channel was originally designed with the same dimensions as the channel that
runs through Bioswale 1; however, it was later determined that the channel geometry from Station 221 to
Station 281 would have to be modified to control the flow coming from the culvert. The channel
geometry from Station 221 to Station 281 can be seen in Figure 48.
51
Figure 48: Modified Channel Geometry
The channel that runs through this bioswale is also lined with MDOT plain riprap for stream stability. As
a result of creating a wider channel the velocity of the water increased due to the increased area in the
channel. Meanders were then designed and implemented to increase the length of the channel in hopes
that this would decrease the velocity of the water. The meanders were calculated and designed with radii
large enough so that the corners would not be damaged by the flow of water. Figure 49 shows the
meanders designed for the bioswale modeled in HEC-RAS and Figure 50 shows the velocity profile of
the water as it flows through the meanders.
52
Figure 49: Designed Meanders
Figure 50: Water Velocity Profile
The meanders decreased the velocity of flow but the team decided that as the velocity of the water was
decreased more than more sediments would settle out of the water. The team designed three check dams
in the channel to decrease the velocity of the water. Along with each check dam a pool was designed to
53
obstruct the flow and catch the sediments as they settle out of water. Figure 51 displays a profile view of a
check dam and pool.
Figure 51: Check Dam and Pool Profile
The check dams and pools decrease the velocity to a rate that allows for sediments to settle out of the
water. The velocity for of the water is shown in Figure 52.
Figure 52: Water Velocity Profile
54
With the completed the design the team provided an additional four locations for sediments to
settle out of the water. Figure 53 displays the water profile for the completed Seminary
Bioswales containing the orifice/weir outlet structure, stream meanders, and check dams and
Figure 54 displays the velocity profile for the design.
Figure 53: Complete Water Profile for Bioswale
55
Figure 54: Water Velocity Profile
Vegetation
The team has decided to vegetate the stream banks and the flood bank area with semi-wetland plants. In
the event of large storm events these plants will help prevent erosion and add to the aesthetic appeal of
both swales. The team consulted with Professor David Warners to determine which plants would be most
appropriate for the design. The existing trees in bioswale 1 are water loving trees and can handle the rise
in water for the period of time when bioswale 1 would be flooded due to a storm event.
Maintenance
The maintenance required to maintain this system will add to the duties of the Calvin College’s Physical
Plant but will increase the lifespan of the design. These duties include these additional task: inspecting the
channels at regular intervals and after storm events; checking for rock stability, sediment accumulation,
and possible scour holes through the length of the channel, and looking for erosion at inlets and outlets.
When stones have been displaced, remove the debris and replace the stones in such a way as to not restrict
the flow of water. Give special attention to outlets and points where concentrated flow enters the channel
and repair eroded areas promptly by extending the riprap as needed.
56
5. Implementation
5.1. Cost Estimate
The cost estimate has been made for each section using the MDOT unit pricing system as well as
contingencies determined by the team and Professor Masselink.
5.1.1. Commuter Parking Lot
The cost estimate for the Commuter Parking Lot was made by the MDOT unit pricing as well as pricing
from StormChamber received from their local representative, Tom Mullen. The pricing for the Commuter
Parking Lot system is shown in Figure 55 and Table 8.
Figure 55: Pricing from StormChamber
57
Table 8: Cost Estimate for Commuter Lot
Quantity Unit Price Start Chamber 2 300 End Chamber 2 300 Middle Chamber 228 300 Frame and lid for 10" rise pipe 6 165 Sediment Trap 6 400 Heavy Duty Netting ‐ 6.7 x 10' 8 150 Light duty Netting ‐ LD 4330 4 305 4 oz Non‐woven Filter Fabric 6 400 6A aggregate base [yd3] 3945 28.88 3
Modified Crushed Stone 21AA [yd ] 2798 45 3
Excavation [yd ] 8737 5 3
Load offsite disposal [yd ] 8737 5 3
Sand Backfill [yd ] 82 10 2
Pavement Removal [yd ] 14247 6 Tree / stump removal 6‐18' 24 500 HMA commercial [ton] 1389 125 Curb and Gutter [ft] 2489 5 Tree Planting 24 250 Total Total 600 600 68400 990 2400 1200 1220 2400 113931.6 125910 43685 43685 820 85480 12000 173625 12445 6000 695391.6 Using the cost estimate, this accounts for the excavation of the parking lot as well as the regarding and
applying the asphalt. The total cost is 696,000.
5.1.2. KE Apartments
The pricing for the KE Apartments was determined using MDOT unit pricing as well as advice from
Professor Masselink. The results can be seen in Table 9.
58
Table 9: Cost Estimate for KE Apartments
Material Costs
Item
Quantity Units Cost/Quantity
Structural Concrete for Tank
514.3704 Yd3
12" PVC
8" PVC
Channel (Poured Concrete including non
material costs)
Pump+System
Concrete Catch basin
Manhole Access (48" w rubber joints)
Structural Concrete Other
units
500 $/yd3
Cost
$ 257,185.19
29 Ft
22.87 $/ft
$
663.23
105 Ft
12.37 $/ft
$
1,298.85
$
674.80
$
2,500.00
256 $/Catchbasin
$
256.00
58.6 $/V. ft
$
761.80
500 $/yd3
Total
$
1,017.78
$ 264,357.64
Units
Cost
2.41 Yd3
1 system
ft (dia)
ft
24" x 4' (depth)
13 V. Ft
2.04 Yd3
280 $/yd3
Non-Material Costs
Item
Quantity Units Cost/Quantity
Excavation
4625.02 Yd3
5 $/yd3
$
23,125.10
Spread on-site
1673.25 Yd3
2 S/yd3
$
3,346.50
Offsite Disposal
2951.77 Yd3
10 $/yd3
$
29,517.70
655.95 Yd2
6 $/yd2
$
3,935.70
total
$
59,925.00
Restoraation of Area
Material Cost
$ 324,282.64
Labor (75% of Material)
$ 243,211.98
Sub-Total Cost
$ 567,494.63
Contigency (20%)
$ 113,498.93
Total
$ 680,993.55
Using the cost estimate, the estimated total cost to implement the system is $681,000.
5.1.3. Seminary Pond
The final cost estimates for the bioswales was completed using MDOT unit prices. These prices were
provided to us by Professor Robert Masselink. By using these prices the team was able to arrive at a more
complete estimate which included basic engineering services and a 20% contingency fund. All quantities
were calculated using the current drawing produced on AutoCAD Civil 3D. Volumes of cut and fill were
calculated by comparing the proposed stream channel surfaces with the current ground surface. All other
measurements, such as fencing lengths and ground clearing area were calculated based on the proposed
design. The final cost of the Seminary Bioswale design was $65,000. Table 10 shows the breakdown of
project cost.
59
Table 10: Cost Estimate for Seminary Pond
Material
Rip-rap
Geotextile fabric (light weight
150" x 360')
Concrete Orifice/Weir Structure
Amount
Units
Unit Cost
270
Cubic
Yards
$25
2
Feet
$375
Cubic
Yards
Cubic
Yards
Cubic
Yards
Feet
3.6
333
Fill
Excavation Costs
Ditch Clean out
Possible Tree Removal
332.4
3000
10
2
Tree Replacement
Silt fence (2' x 100')
Wetland Plants
2
1
4
10
Black
Walnut
Red Oak
White ash
Cottonwood
feet
$500
$10
$5
$1.50
$1,000
$34.95
Total Cost
($)
$6,750
$750
$1,800
$3,330
$1,662
$4,500
$10,000
$24.95
$29.95
$19.99
$19.97
$70
$50
$30
$80
$200
$1,000
Material Cost
30221.41
Labor (75% of
Material)
22666.0575
Sub-Total Cost
52887.4675
Contingency (20%) 10577.4935
Total
63464.961
5.2. Presentation to Board for Master Plan
The group is in the process of looking at the current master plan for Calvin’s campus and looking to how
the group’s design can be incorporated into the new master plan.
60
6. Conclusion
The ultimate goal for this project is to reduce runoff water, limit sediments entering Plaster Creek
watershed and increase the irrigation systems water supply. This was accomplished by responsible time
management, following the design norms, and determining design locations and their design alternatives.
The first semester was used to collect rainfall data, perform simulations, visit existing sites, research, and
meet with professionals for guidance. During the second semester the team designed the system and
request it to be approved as part of master campus plan. The structure of the semesters kept the team
members responsible and knowledgeable of their responsibilities.
Following our design norms kept our team accountable. Sustainability held the team members responsible
for developing an effective system that does what we intended. Caring helped ensure that we develop a
system that is safe. Transparency allowed our peers to see and offer constructive criticism of our project.
The design norms created responsibility for the team that held us to a higher standard.
In keeping to the project goal the team focused on the three key zones; Parking lots 1-5, the bioswales
near the Seminary pond, and the KE apartments. The different design alternatives were evaluated for each
section. The team had responsibility of weighing each design alternative and determining a solution that
best served the needs of Calvin College.
By following the time management structure, design norms, and weighing the design alternative the team
decided the best solution and design a system that will reduce runoff water, limit sediments entering
Plaster Creek watershed and increase the irrigation systems water supply. The system once finished will
then be submitted to become a part of Calvin’s master campus plan.
61
7. Acknowledgements
Team 06 would like to those who have assisted in creating the project proposal and feasibility study. The
team would like to thank their advisor Professor Masselink for raising valuable questions to take into
consideration over the course of the project. His guidance helped deepen the team’s understanding of their
project and ensure the best result can be produced by the end of the year.
Team 06 would also like to thank Travis Vruggink for being the team’s industrial consultant and
critiquing ideas during the development of the project. Travis was able to provide meaningful insight for
improving the weak points of the project.
Finally, thanks to Geoff Van Berkel from Calvin’s Physical Plant for being their client and providing
them with valuable information about how Calvin’s irrigation system operates and where storm water
runoff drains to.
62
8. References
Barr Engineering Co. “Sediment Control Check Dams.” 2000.
Pond Outlet Structures. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/metro/finaldesign/pdf/sampleplan/drndetl.pdf
Calvin Tree Map. http://gis.calvin.edu/trees/
Plaster Creek Stewards. http://www.calvin.edu/admin/provost/pcw/
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments. “Low Impact Development Manuel for Michigan: A
Design Guide for Implementors and Reviewers.” SEMCOG 2008.
63
Appendices
Appendix A: Business Plan
Appendix B: Excel Spreadsheets
Appendix C: Final Drawings
1
Appendix A: Business Plan
December 11, 2015
Investment Proposal
By Kemal Talen, Aaron Venema, Matthew Schanck, and Kat Wever
Calvin College
2
Executive Summary SI Consulting
Company Leadership Consulting Engineer - Matt Schanck
Consulting Engineer - Katherine Wever
Receptionist - Kemal Talen
Consulting Engineers (2)
Both engineers have Bachelor’s degrees in civil engineering, a Professional Engineering License,
and four years of design experience. The implementation of these design solutions are relatively
new, and both engineers have experience designing these systems. These two engineers are
knowledgeable about stormwater reuse design and are highly self-motivated to complete assigned
tasks. The resumes for these employees is attached and can be seen in the Appendix.
Receptionist (1)
This employee will manage phone calls, clients, paperwork, and handle busy work around the
office.
Company Brief SI Consulting is a start-up consulting firm that focuses on design of storm water irrigation systems
and installment through building contractors and developers. The company values sustainability,
caring, transparency, and trust.
Market SI Consulting’s target will be several types of clients. First, the company will market design
services to engineering firms. This will allow the company to have a steady inflow of design work
as the engineering firms supply the company with projects that require the company’s specialty
design service. The company will not have much name recognition initially and being subcontracted by other firms will help with increasing clientele and name recognition. Next, the
company will seek out to be the primary consultant for projects. This means it will design the
system then sub contract all of the work. This will require the company to manage the project and
all of the subcontractors. Initially, this method will be challenging, but overtime the company will
develop name recognition and contractor relationships. Finally, the company will contract out
design services to developers who wish to use the company’s specialty designs.
Business Strategies Several strategies have been developed to ensure the success of the company. The company will
create multiple design alternatives to show traditional designs compared to stormwater reuse
designs. The initial cost and the return on investment (ROI) analysis will show customers that the
product is not only an environmentally friendly option, but also a cost effective method. This will
reassure potential clients that the specialty design service is the correct decision. The company
plans to develop good professional relationships, customer relationships, network, and
3
advertisements of their product. Implementing these strategies will give the company a good
reputation and name recognition.
Financials SI Consulting is requesting an initial loan of $ 144,500. This will cover the first 6 months of
employee salaries as the company is still establishing a regular client workload, office lease,
engineering software, computers, engineering printers, and a printing budget.
4
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 2 COMPANY LEADERSHIP .................................................................................................................................. 3 COMPANY BRIEF ........................................................................................................................................... 3 MARKET ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 BUSINESS STRATEGIES .................................................................................................................................... 3 FINANCIALS .................................................................................................................................................. 4 1. VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT ............................................................................................... 8 1.1 ENTREPRENEUR’S VISION FOR THE COMPANY ............................................................................................... 8 1.2 VALUES AND PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THE BUSINESS STANDS ............................................................................ 8 2. INDUSTRY PROFILE AND OVERVIEW ................................................................................................ 8 2.1 INDUSTRY BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 8 2.1.1 MAJOR CUSTOMER GROUPS .................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.1.1 AGRICULTURAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS ............................................................................ 8 2.1.1.2 LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ...................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 INDUSTRY BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 9 2.3 SIGNIFICANT TRENDS ............................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 GROWTH RATE ....................................................................................................................................... 9 2.5 BARRIERS TO ENTRY ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.6 KEY SUCCESS FACTORS IN INDUSTRY ........................................................................................................... 9 2.7 OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE ....................................................................................................................... 9 3 BUSINESS STRATEGY ...................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 DESIRED IMAGE AND POSITION ON MARKET .............................................................................................. 10 3.2 COMPANY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 OPERATIONAL .................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2.2 FINANCIAL ......................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3 SWOT ANALYSIS................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.1 STRENGTHS ....................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.2 WEAKNESSES ..................................................................................................................................... 10 3.3.3 OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................................................. 11 3.3.4 THREATS ........................................................................................................................................... 11 3.4 COMPETITIVE STRATEGY ......................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.1 COST LEADERSHIP ............................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.2 DIFFERENTIATION ............................................................................................................................... 11 3.4.2 RESPONSIVE ...................................................................................................................................... 11 4 COMPANY PRODUCTS AND SERVICES ............................................................................................ 11 4.1 DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................ 12 4.1.1 PRODUCT FEATURES ........................................................................................................................... 12 4.1.2 WARRANTIES AND GUARANTEES ........................................................................................................... 12 4.1.3 UNIQUENESS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 4.2 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE PROCESS ........................................................................................................... 12 5 MARKETING STRATEGY .................................................................................................................. 13 5.1 TARGET MARKET ................................................................................................................................... 13 5.1.1 PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED AND BENEFIT TO BE OFFERED ............................................................................. 13 5.1.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 13 5
5.1.3 OTHER SIGNIFICANT CUSTOMER CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................. 13 5.2 CUSTOMERS' MOTIVATION TO BUY .......................................................................................................... 13 5.3 MARKET SIZE AND TRENDS ..................................................................................................................... 13 5.3.1 MARKET SIZE ..................................................................................................................................... 13 5.3.2 MARKET TRENDS ................................................................................................................................ 14 5.4 ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION ............................................................................................................... 14 5.4.1 MEDIA .............................................................................................................................................. 14 5.4.2 PROMOTION COSTS ............................................................................................................................ 14 5.5 PRICING ............................................................................................................................................... 14 5.5.1 DESIRED IMAGE IN MARKET ................................................................................................................. 14 5.5.2 COMPARISON AGAINST COMPETITORS' PRICES ........................................................................................ 14 5.5.3 DISCOUNT POLICY .............................................................................................................................. 14 5.5.4 PROJECTED GROSS PROFIT MARGIN ...................................................................................................... 15 5.6 DISTRIBUTION STRATEGY ‐ CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................. 15 6 LOCATION LAYOUT ........................................................................................................................ 15 7 COMPETITOR ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 15 7.1 EXISTING COMPETITORS ......................................................................................................................... 15 7.1.1 EXISTING COMPANY’S STRENGTHS ........................................................................................................ 15 7.1.2 EXISTING COMPANY’S WEAKNESSES ...................................................................................................... 15 7.2 POTENTIAL COMPETITORS ....................................................................................................................... 16 8 DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT TEAM ......................................................................................... 16 8.1 KEY EMPLOYEES .................................................................................................................................... 16 8.2 FUTURE ADDITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 16 8.2.1 CONSULTANTS ................................................................................................................................... 16 8.2.2 FINANCIAL EXPERTS ............................................................................................................................ 16 8.2.3 FIELD INSPECTORS/MODELERS .............................................................................................................. 17 9 PLAN OF OPERATION ..................................................................................................................... 17 9.1 LEGAL FORM OF OWNERSHIP .................................................................................................................. 17 9.2 ORGANIZATION ..................................................................................................................................... 17 9.3 DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY ................................................................................................................ 17 9.4 COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS ............................................................................................................... 17 9.5 FACILITY ............................................................................................................................................... 17 10 FINANCIAL FORECASTS ................................................................................................................ 18 10.1 FINANCIAL FORECAST ........................................................................................................................... 18 10.2 KEY ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 18 10.3 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 18 10.3.1 INCOME STATEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 18 10.3.2 BALANCE SHEET ............................................................................................................................... 18 10.3.3 CASH FLOW STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 18 10.4 BREAK‐EVEN ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 19 10.5 RATIO ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 19 11 LOAN OR INVESTMENT PROPOSAL .............................................................................................. 19 11.1 AMOUNT REQUESTED .......................................................................................................................... 19 11.2 PURPOSE OF USES OF FUNDS ................................................................................................................ 19 11.3 REPAYMENT SCHEDULE ........................................................................................................................ 19 6
11.4 TIMETABLE FOR IMPLEMENTING PLAN AND LAUNCHING THE BUSINESS .......................................................... 19 7
1. Vision and Mission Statement 1.1 Entrepreneur’s Vision for the Company SI Consulting’s vision is to promote environmental stewardship through consulting with building
contractors in the implementation of stormwater irrigation systems that help meet runoff standards.
1.2 Values and Principles on which the Business Stands
The company values sustainability, caring, transparency, and trust in everyday business practices.
The company strongly believes in the sustainability design norms because the owners want to
protect and preserve the environment. The second design norm is caring. This applies to the
company maintaining the safety of all of the individuals that interact with the stormwater irrigation
system. The third design norm is transparency. Due the high publicity of these types of projects,
the company will disclose any information pertinent to the safety and health of any affected
communities. The last design norm is trustworthiness. The company will offer a service that people
can rely on and trust that it will meet their demands. The company has decided on these design
norms to be implemented and upheld in their work. These design norms are strongly tied to the
owner’s Christian values and ideals.
2. Industry Profile and Overview
2.1 Industry Background and Overview
Major uses for stormwater harvesting are in irrigation. Stormwater harvesting is becoming more
popular with homeowners, institutions, and industrial plants. Overall, stormwater harvesting is
used mostly for irrigation and non-potable water (flushing toilets), but some uses even include
potable-water. Irrigation accounts for 34% of water use in the world. Making irrigation more
renewable through stormwater harvesting is a growing industry in Michigan. In Washington state,
stormwater harvesting is being used more frequently in residential homes due to large water bill
costs.
2.1.1 Major Customer Groups
2.1.1.1 Agricultural/Industrial Building Contractors
SI Consulting’s end customers will be agricultural/industrial building contractors. The company
will work directly with building contractors to implement stormwater irrigation systems into their
building plans. The company’s expertise in this area will be highly valued with building
contractors trying to meet runoff standards in industrial areas.
2.1.1.2 Local Municipalities
SI Consulting will also work directly with city officials to educate them on the cost benefits of
stormwater irrigation. The company will work with city contractors to implement these systems
into existing and new constructions. As well as performing case studies for large projects that
involve large public funding.
8
2.2 Industry Background and Overview
The DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) has placed limitations on construction for new
development. The DEQ requires that new development stormwater surface runoff is lower or equal
to the pre-development runoff for a 2-year 24 hour storm event or the first 2 inches of rainfall
(Location dependent). This requires developers in Michigan to consider stormwater harvesting.
Stormwater harvesting provides a way to manage runoff water while gaining an economical gain
from the reuse of greywater. Stormwater harvesting means that buildings retain the water that
would accumulate from a rainfall. Stormwater irrigation is an additional process that repurposes
collected water for non-potable (flushing toilets, irrigation, etc) and irrigation water. The type of
buildings that use stormwater irrigation systems range from residential to commercial to
agricultural.
2.3 Significant Trends
Stormwater irrigation is becoming more common in urban areas where infiltration is not always
possible and cost savings from reuse of water are high. It is also becoming more common with
commercial buildings that require large amounts of non-potable water. In terms of water treatment,
the level of water quality requirements for reuse are determined by local municipalities and state
governments and can affect the use of stormwater irrigation systems. In general, when public
health is not a safety issue, stormwater irrigation is allowed.
2.4 Growth Rate
Stormwater reuse and irrigation is rapidly growing in popularity across the US. It is especially
popular in states that have drought problems and high water utility costs. In states such as
Washington, water reuse is becoming more popular in residential homes. In other countries such
as Australia, water reuse is being used to overcome water shortages.
2.5 Barriers to Entry
Barriers to entering the consulting business are raising starting capital, developing a project team,
finding clientele, utilizing development software, and obtaining legal rights to operate. Barriers to
exiting the industry include on-going projects, unreturned starting funds, and binding contracts.
2.6 Key Success Factors in Industry
One key success factor in the industry is utilizing inexpensive, small, above ground space usage.
Another pair of factors is utilizing minimal effective filtration for small-scale systems and high
effective filtration with large capacity for large scale systems.
2.7 Outlook for the Future
As the years go on, more local governments will establish regulations for stormwater reuse water
treatment levels, which will allow the company to expand into new markets.
9
3 Business Strategy
3.1 Desired Image and Position on Market
SI Consulting desires to be a leader in the residential and commercial stormwater harvesting
market. Also well-known and trusted among commercial building contractors and other civil
engineering firms. While creating a trustworthy company image by through quality design and
maximum return on investment for clients.
3.2 Company Goals and Objectives 3.2.1 Operational
SI Consulting’s operational goal is to design stormwater reuse systems for irrigation in
commercial, academic, and some residential areas. The company also wishes to implement these
practices in an economically feasible manner. This will be done by developing designs with site
specific details as well as generic pre-site development designs to produce fast turnaround time.
3.2.2 Financial
SI Consulting’s financial goal is to make the design and implementation of the stormwater reuse
system as cost effective as possible for the clients while still allowing for general profit for the
design firm.
3.3 SWOT Analysis 3.3.1 Strengths One of the main strengths of the SI Consulting is that the service is of high quality and has a low
overhead cost. The design for a cleaner and more environmentally friendly system will attract
environmentally friendly clients. The company will be specializing in the reuse system designs.
This means the company will focus on similar designs and become very effective as they become
well versed with the local geography and client needs. Another strength of the company is that the
employees are fully invested in the success of the company because they own the company.
3.3.2 Weaknesses One of the primary weaknesses of the SI Consulting is being dependent on building contractors
for work. Another weakness of the company is the size of the company; the company is small
(only three employees) and does not have the reach that other consulting firms have to attract
customers. One last weakness is that there will be no senior engineer in the company.
10
3.3.3 Opportunities The main opportunity of SI Consulting is the growth of the market in the field of consulting. As
stormwater reuse becomes more accepted by the general public the company will gain more
business.
3.3.4 Threats The primary threat to the SI Consulting is the potential for no employment. Smaller engineering
firms have a potential of not receiving consulting opportunities, while larger firms have a potential
of not needing the company’s services in lieu of the larger firms may potentially have departments
for this specialized service.
3.4 Competitive Strategy 3.4.1 Cost Leadership Companies offering stormwater management, and irrigation systems will be the SI Consulting’s
primary competitors. The company's price objective will be to offer stormwater reuse design
solutions at the same rate as traditional stormwater management. Being able to offer design
solutions and project implementation at a competitive price will draw consumers to choose the
more environmentally friendly option. This solution also has a return on investment with water
saved, making this the long term financially responsible decision.
3.4.2 Differentiation SI Consulting will strive to have a service to differentiate themselves from competitors. This
involves finding methods to stay ahead of the curve with technology and design standards. These
two methods are investing resources in research and development, along with staying invested in
the new emerging systems globally.
3.4.2 Responsive
The response to customer demand ties directly into what differentiates SI Consulting. The
company will constantly look to seek improvements to their design approach, keeping the design
team ahead of the curve. Using the latest available design approaches keeps the company highly
sought after for design development.
4 Company Products and Services
SI Consulting’s main service is consulting with building contractors on stormwater reuse and
irrigation implementation.
11
4.1 Description
4.1.1 Product Features
SI Consulting provides planning and design services for the storage and reuse of stormwater
runoff. This service will include the stormwater calculations required by the DEQ for new
construction projects. The company will get the client approved for construction on the new
development sites. If the company is hired as the primary contractor for the project, it will take the
responsibility of subcontracting and managing the project.
4.1.2 Warranties and Guarantees
SI Consulting will guarantee a structurally sound and functional design. If the company is the
primary contractor for the design, it will claim responsibility of ensuring that the subcontractors
do a satisfactory job. If the subcontractors are at fault of poor construction, it is the responsibility
of SI Consulting to enforce reconstruction at the subcontractor's expense. If the structure fails due
to design problems, SI Consulting will take responsibility for reconstruction and recover all the
costs. Proper client maintenance must be performed as necessary. If the design fails due to poor
maintenance, SI Consulting will not be responsible for the failure.
4.1.3 Uniqueness
Some benefits to the client will be the potential for LEED certification for commercial and
institutional clients. For clients installing irrigation systems, they will benefit from the reductions
in city water use. For all clients, SI Consulting’s services will help give developers the image of
going green for their business, while creating financial savings.
4.2 Description of Service Process
SI Consulting will tailor their work to the needs of each client. Every project consists of different
variables such as soil type, topography, local features, site type, and client needs. The design team
will begin with retrieving any available information from the client. Then, the company will
proceed using Atlas 14 and SCS to find site information. If necessary for the project site the
company may have contract someone to determine site contour lines. Using the site information
the company’s consultants will perform modeling on HEC-HMS, HEC-RAS and SWWM. Using
the modeled information and the client needs, the consultants with design a system specific to the
site.
If SI Consulting is the primary contractor for the project they will be in charge of managing the
project entirely. This means creating bid proposals, organizing bidding processes, and selecting
the subcontractors. From here the firm will manage that the subcontractors construct the system to
design specifications.
12
5 Marketing Strategy
5.1 Target Market
The target markets will be primarily civil engineering firms and building contractors in
commercial, agricultural, and municipal building construction. The target markets will also be in
regions with intense stormwater regulations.
5.1.1 Problem to be Solved and Benefits to be Offered
The problem to be solved will be the rising need for developers to meet stormwater regulations.
The company will work with provided site plan to design and creates a parts list for a cost effective
system. The benefits offered by the company is a reduced workload for clients and a robust design.
5.1.2 Demographic Profile
Market demographics for SI Consulting will be other engineering firms, building contractors, and
individual clients. The initial goal will be to market design services to other engineering firms.
Engineering firms receive large volumes of projects and the company would provide services
supplement their specialty design needs for reuse systems. After developing some market presence
the company will seek to work directly with contractors and clients.
5.1.3 Other Significant Customer Characteristics
Clients will be concerned with sustainability either by mandates, or by their own desire to build
sustainable water systems. Contractors might also be involved with the construction of buildings
for non-profit organizations concerned with environmental stewardship. Contractors working for
city governments might have available grants for sustainable systems.
5.2 Customers' Motivation to Buy A customer’s motivation is to meet stormwater regulations for his/her area of development. They
are also interested in sustainable irrigation systems because they, or the landowners, are motivated
to help the environment. Additionally clients have the benefit of receiving grants through the EPA,
GLRI, wege foundation, DEQ, and GR community foundation.
5.3 Market Size and Trends The market is relatively small, only serving a handful of states in the United States. However, the
size is continually growing as state governments establish standards for stormwater reuse, costs of
water continue to increase, and more states establish grants for sustainable building systems.
5.3.1 Market Size
The market is mostly in industrial building projects, but also includes buildings that require LEED
certification. As SI Consulting gains recognition they will be able to perform business with many
developers that may reach into new markets, such as institutional and agricultural.
13
5.3.2 Market Trends Based on research, there is a growing demand for stormwater reuse. The market is growing because
more building complexes want to become LEED certified. By using LEED (a voluntary, marketdriven green building certification program) buildings have greater zoning allowances, save
money through tax rebates and demonstrate environmental stewardship.
5.4 Advertising and promotion 5.4.1 Media
The target market of SI Consulting primarily includes engineering firms and developers. Because
of this, using media such as TV advertisements or social media advertisements will not be
appropriate. SI Consulting will have a website to promote the stormwater reuse projects this
company has worked on. The site will also display case comparisons between the traditional
methods and the reuse systems, along with a detailed description of the benefits of stormwater
reuse. The company will initially underbid projects to get their foot in the door. As the company's
consulting service receives good reviews, the clients will spread these good reviews by word-ofmouth. In turn as more engineering firms and developers use the company’s services the company
will a good reputation.
5.4.2 Promotion Costs
Since the majority of the advertising will be done by the website and word-of-mouth, website
developer will not be necessary since the team members have experience with website design. The
cost of maintaining the domain of the website will be $10 per year.
5.5 Pricing
5.5.1 Desired Image in Market
SI Consulting wants to be portrayed as a company that values sustainability, caring, transparency,
and trust in everyday business practices.
5.5.2 Comparison Against Competitors' Prices
Compared to other consulting firms, this consulting cost offers competitive design prices.
Although the customer experiences savings in the implementation and use of the design.
5.5.3 Discount Policy
Initially the firm will offer services at a lower rates to establish relationships with larger
engineering firms and developers. After the company has shown that they offer a quality product
with a quality service the company will charge standard rates. Low discount pricing will be used
for establishing business and working relationships.
14
5.5.4 Projected Gross Profit Margin
The projected gross profit margins for the first three years is $ 317,444.
5.6 Distribution Strategy ‐ Channels of Distribution
SI Consulting will produce designs for engineering firms, developers and clients. The company
will receive projects from connected engineering firms as well as seek out bids from developers
and clients.
6 Location Layout
The company will be based in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Since SI Consulting is a consulting firm
and very little space is needed, the company will rent out office spaces to fulfill the space
requirement for the company.
7 Competitor Analysis
7.1 Existing Competitors
The current market consists of companies that use traditional stormwater management design
practices. The primary method is to eliminate the excess runoff water through detention to slowly
release back into the environment, through infiltration practices to put the water back into the
ground, or focus on conveyance to allow high storm flows to pass through.
7.1.1 Existing Company’s Strengths
Existing companies have the advantage of being the market norm. Developers currently expect to
use the systems implemented in traditional consulting firms’ designs. The name recognition and
developed relationships with the developers will help the existing companies maintain market
control. Also, traditional stormwater management, depending on the site requirements, can
sometimes offer less expensive design alternatives.
7.1.2 Existing Company’s Weaknesses
Existing design methods of conveyance and detention come with a few weaknesses, including no
potential return on investment and lacking the “going green” aspect, which has less appeal to the
environmentally conscious customer. While infiltration methods have the “going green” aspect,
they lack any potential return on investment. Additionally, these methods are not always a feasible
option, since construction sites may not have space for an open detention pond, and a submerged
concrete detention pond would be too expensive. Regional code may prevent conveyance as a
solution due to regulations to reduce flooding downstream of the development or a requirement of
retaining the first 2 inches of rainfall for new developments.
15
7.2 Potential Competitors
Because of the relatively new acceptance of reusing greywater, this is an emerging market. As the
use of environmentally friendly tactics become industry standards, new consulting firms will
emerge, and existing firms will modify their site development tactics to be competitive in this
market.
Project bidding competition will increase as a result of new consulting firms entering the market.
The company will have to develop good client relationships by providing quality service in a
timely manner. This will allow the consulting firm the continuation of obtaining new construction
bids, even at times when others bid lower.
8 Description of Management Team 8.1 Key Employees
Consulting Engineer - Matt Schanck
Consulting Engineer - Katherine Wever
Receptionist - Kemal Talen
Consulting Engineers (2)
Both engineers have Bachelor’s degrees in civil engineering, a Professional Engineering License,
and four years of design experience. The implementation of these design solutions are relatively
new, and both engineers have experience designing these systems. These two engineers are
knowledgeable about stormwater reuse design and are highly self-motivated to complete assigned
tasks.
Receptionist (1)
This employee will manage phone calls, clients, paperwork, and handle busy work around the
office.
8.2 Future Additions
8.2.1 Consultants
As workload increases, SI Consulting will seek more consulting engineers with a minimum of a
Bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and related design experience. This will give the company
the ability to work with more clients at a given time.
8.2.2 Financial Experts
As SI Consulting gains more consultants and projects, the amount of bidding proposals, salary
expenses, project payments, and general financial hassle will increase. The need for an employee
16
to handle this will increase. This employee will assist in project bidding, and take responsibility
for overarching financial work for the company. This employee will have a Bachelor’s degree in
business or finance and at least 4 year of related work experience.
8.2.3 Field Inspectors/modelers As SI Consulting becomes more developed and becomes the primary contractor for projects, they
will need to supervise the construction of the projects. This will require the company to hire
employees for inspection. These employees will also be trained in drafting and basic modeling
software to assist in the office when there are currently no construct jobs.
9 Plan of Operation 9.1 Legal Form of Ownership The company will be owned by the original consulting engineers. Ownership of the company is
50% owned by Matthew, and 50% owned by Katherine.
9.2 Organization
Matthew and Katherine are dual owners that have their own clients. This is initially a small
organization where Matt and Katherine both have equal responsibilities and rights. So both
consultant/co-owners will be responsible for leadership and project responsibility.
9.3 Decision Making Authority Each owner makes their own decisions concerning projects for their clients. Any decision
involving the company itself such as capital expenses or hiring of another employee will be agreed
upon by both Matt Schanck and Katherine Wever.
9.4 Compensation and Benefits
Because the company is run by its owners, there are no compensation and benefits packages.
9.5 Facility
The office will be located in Grand Rapids, MI. The office will be located in a relatively
inexpensive region of town. There are many locations with inexpensive lease agreements and close
proximity to the booming construction business surrounding Grand Rapids, and in West Michigan
in general. Because of the limited amount of employees there is a limited amount of office space
needed. The office will have enough space for a receptionist, printing equipment, two offices, a
storage room for project files, and additional space for future employees.
17
10 Financial Forecasts
10.1 Financial Forecast
The financial forecast for SI Consulting is the Project Financials in Appendix A. The detailed
statement shows the company's cash flows for predicted first 3 years of business. The projection
shows the break even analysis, ratio analysis, debt repayment schedule, and possible but unlikely
exit strategy.
10.2 Key Assumptions
The key financial assumption for this company is that the business experiences a healthy amount
of clientele work. The company has accounted for a lack of initial work. Over the first year the
company expects to expand their foothold in the market. The company plans to have an average
of 40 total billable consulting hours a week for 50 weeks the first year, and 60 total billable
consulting hours a week for 50 weeks the second year. The assumption would be the consulting
firm may work slightly longer hours during the summer when construction is booming and less
hours during the winter months. With the variation the company still assumes that within the
seasons the company will be able to evenly distribute the workload over the course of the season.
Another main key assumption is that the two co-owners of the company are credible. The
consultant owners will be licensed professional engineers with 4 years of greywater reuse system
design experience. The company can initially gain subcontracting under engineering firms, as well
as work periodic work from small consulting firms. The credibility and assumed workload load
will allow the company to charge $100 per hour service charge. The company will therefore have
a total sales charge of $200,000 the first year and $300,000 the following years.
10.3 Financial Statements
10.3.1 Income Statement
The key points of the income statement is the sales revenue, fixed operating cost, and net
income. The company’s profitability is based upon the amount of consulting hours the engineering
firm is capable of obtaining. Apart from employee pay, the company has relatively low operating
costs.
10.3.2 Balance Sheet
The company assets are its equipment, office space, and cash. The equity is equal to the initial loan
amount. The liabilities are its loan payments and retained earnings.
10.3.3 Cash Flow Statement The company will take out a $144,500 loan in the first year, and invest $25,000 of its own money
as well to cover a portion of the initial fixed costs. Then, debt repayments of $30,000 will be made
at the end of each year.
18
10.4 Break‐Even Analysis
The break-even analysis uses hours of consulting as the unit. Based on the yearly fixed operating
costs of $258,000 and a total variable cost of $500, the break-even amount of consulting hours
worked at $100 per hour is 2,585 hours. This equal to about 25 hours a week for 52 weeks.
10.5 Ratio Analysis
A ratio analysis was not performed due to the only source of revenue being wage hours.
11 Loan or Investment Proposal
11.1 Amount Requested
SI Consulting is requesting an initial loan of $144,500. This initial loan will be combined with an
invested capital of $25,000 from the two company co-owners.
11.2 Purpose of Uses of Funds
These initial funds will be used to cover 6 months salary for all employees, engineering printer,
printing budget, lease expense, engineering software and computer equipment for engineering
purposes.
11.3 Repayment Schedule
SI Consulting plans to pay off the borrowed debt at the rate of $30,000 a year. This will allow the
company to easily repay the debt while retaining capital for potential company investment. If the
company reaches the intended goal of achieving 3,000 project hours a year, then the company will
have no issue repaying the debt while achieving financial gain.
If the company does not achieve desired project hours, the consultant engineers will take a
reduction in pay, allowing the company to pay off debt. If the co-owners wish to exit the business
they will work on severely cut pay and sell all of the equipment, and use all of the money to pay
off the debt. If the company can’t pay the debt, then they will declare bankruptcy.
11.4 Timetable for implementing plan and launching the business
SI Consulting is planned to start after both of the engineers Katherine Wever and Matt Schanck
obtain a Bachelor's in civil engineering and four years of experience. The company will launch in
2020.
Appendix A
SI Consulting
Pro‐Forma Statement of Income
19
Sales revenue
Variable Cost of Goods Sold
Fixed Cost of Goods Sold
Depreciation
Gross Margin
Variable Operating Costs
Fixed Operating Costs
Operating Income
Interest Expense
Income Before Tax
Income tax (40%)
Net Income After Tax
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
200,000
500
‐
2,429
197,071
‐ ‐
258,000
(60,929)
5,058
(65,987)
(26,395)
(39,592)
300,000
500
‐
4,306
295,194
‐
258,000
37,194
9,065
28,129
11,252
16,877
300,000
500
‐
3,361
296,139
‐
258,000
38,139
6,965
31,174
12,470
18,704
SI Consulting
Pro‐Forma Statement of Cash Flows
Beginning Cash Balance
Net Income After Tax
Depreciation expense
Invested Capital (Equity)
Increase (decrease) in borrowed funds
Debt Outstanding
Equipment Purchases
Ending Cash Balance
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
‐
(39,592)
2,429
25,000
144,500
144,500
(17,000)
115,337
115,337
16,877
4,306
‐
(30,000)
114,500
(1,000)
105,521
105,521
18,704
3,361
‐
(30,000)
84,500
(1,000)
96,586 Year 1
Total Fixed Costs
Contribution Margin %
Break Even Sales Volume
Year 2
Year 3
265,487 271,371 268,326
100%
100%
100%
266,152.18 271,824 268,774
Equipment
Purchases
Equipment Purchases Year 1
17,000
20
Depreciation
Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
2,429
4,163
2,973
Equipment Purchases Year 2
Equipment Purchases Year 3
1,000
1,000
MACRS Rates (7‐year recovery period)
Interest Expense:
Annual interest rate on debt
143
2,429
4,306
0.2449
0.1749
Year 1
Year 2
72,250 129,500
5,058
9,065
Year 3
99,500
6,965
0.1429
7%
Average debt balance
Interest expense
21
245
143
3,361
Appendix B: Excel Spreadsheets
Knollcrest East Calculations:
Storm Probability
Sub Basin Percent Ponding
units
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q
cfs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
cfs
59.16
Total Outflow
43.78
Basin outflow
8.40
Courtyard Ou
All but Spring
gallon
856848
Total Outflow
856848
Basin outflow
Cudo Store
Rainstore
Concrete
$
Average Precipatation
2 years
V
V
Re‐Use Option
gallon
cubic ft
3.90
3034
22694
3.01
3844
28753
3.28
5049
37767
7.77
10543
78868
3.87
2986
22338
7.85
5527
41345
2.36
1302
9742
2.89
1639
12260
2.25
2074
15512
1.84
1325
9913
1.92
2766
20690
2.84
1177
8802
2.47
1223
9148
1.28
1487
11123
0.38
254
1899
3.62
4096
30638
4.33
4391
32848
2.65
2479
18546
0.65
655
4897
V
cubic ft
55849
41265
7714
All but Fall
gallon
683168
683168
Only Summer
Only July
V required
gallon
gallon
417781
880000
660006
358950
308682
880000
660006
358950
57705
All but summer
SWMM V
gallon
cubic ft
219994
53082.5
11818
219994
397,084.70
V
gallon
5430 $ 449,173.39 $ 535,731.00 $ 554,282.40 $
5415.5
5416
6505
6732
41161.6
1083.2
49438
51163.2
33
49031.4
66
383724
356,911.22
4825.681818 70x70x11
69.46712761
2.56 in
Geoff's volume w/o PC
87752.44
767185.19
22
571,009.60 $ 567,179.20
6936
6888
52713.6
52348.8
Sub Basin
units
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
S
in
SRO
tc
hours
in
0.35
1.37
0.30
2.42
2.40
1.80
0.20
2.76
3.25
3.62
0.20
0.20
0.65
2.04
2.67
0.50
0.65
0.65
3.51
2.18
1.43
2.23
0.96
0.97
1.21
2.33
0.84
0.71
0.62
2.33
2.33
1.92
1.11
0.87
2.04
1.92
1.91
0.64
0.046
0.084
0.105
0.090
0.045
0.041
0.030
0.031
0.056
0.042
0.097
0.021
0.026
0.075
0.039
0.072
0.063
0.057
0.063
qp'
DA
cfs/(in/sqmi)
sq mi
2984.95
1818.15
1509.66
1713.13
3011.70
3301.92
4213.93
4093.21
2522.47
3219.30
1614.32
5603.69
4686.88
1999.76
3445.39
2056.13
2291.41
2482.64
2300.13
23
0.0006
0.0012
0.0010
0.0047
0.0013
0.0020
0.0002
0.0008
0.0013
0.0009
0.0005
0.0002
0.0003
0.0006
0.0001
0.0009
0.0010
0.0006
0.0004
connects to 4
Add pipe
Add pipe
add pipe
9.4425
0.794252436
2.4460
Sub Basin
units
Area
Sq ft
Wooded C
sq ft
Wooded D
sq ft
1
16666.85
0
0
2
32252.89
0
0
3
27164.93
0
0
4
132216.64
0
0
5
37100.56
15240.93
0
6
54741.47
34485.95
0
7
6705.84
0
0
8
23290.54
0
0
9
35147.00
0
0
10
25751.86
0
0
11
14242.11
0
0
12
6058.87
0
0
13
7655.70
0
0
14
16146.10
10642.07
1180.70
15
3485.50
3165.75
0
16
24047.04
0
0
17
27448.77
0
0
18
15546.79
0
0
19
12225.79
0
0.00
%Wooded %Meadow
Sub Basin %Wooded
Type D
Type C
units
Type C
1
0%
0%
5.08%
2
0%
0%
37.18%
3
0%
0%
3.45%
4
0%
0%
64.87%
5
41.08%
0%
32.32%
6
63.0%
0%
0%
7
0%
0%
0%
8
0%
0%
72.80%
9
0%
0%
83.36%
10
0%
0%
91.06%
11
0%
0%
0%
12
0%
0%
0%
13
0%
0%
0%
14
65.91%
7.31%
0%
15
90.83%
0%
0%
16
0%
0%
10.25%
17
0%
0%
15.10%
18
0%
0%
15.34%
19
0%
0%
83.73%
Meadow C
sq ft
846.14
11992.64
936.44
85771.98
11989.46
0
0
16954.48
29297.84
23449.00
0
0
0
0
0
2465.31
4143.73
2384.67
10236.29
%Meadow
Type D
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
20.53%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
6.94%
Meadow D
sq ft
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1572.00
0
0
0
0
0
848.79
%Impervious
Type C
94.92%
62.82%
96.55%
35.13%
26.60%
37.00%
100%
27.20%
16.64%
8.94%
100%
100%
0%
25.72%
9.17%
89.75%
84.90%
84.66%
8.25%
24
Impervious C
Impervious D
Pond
DA (pervious)
sq ft
sq ft
sq ft
15820.71
0
1
846.14
20260.25
0
1
11992.64
26228.50
0
1
936.44
46444.66
0
1
85771.98
9870.18
0
1
27230.39
20255.52
0
1
34485.95
6705.84
0
1
0.00
6336.06
0
1
16954.48
5849.16
0
1
29297.84
2302.86
0
1
23449.00
14242.11
0
1
0.00
6058.87
0
1
0.00
0
6083.70
1
1572.00
4153.22
170.10
1
11822.78
319.76
0
1
3165.75
21581.74
0
1
2465.31
23305.04
0
1
4143.73
13162.12
0
1
2384.67
1008.65
132.06
1
11085.08
%Impervious
RCN
RCN SWMM
Type D
0%
96.63
71
0%
87.96
71
0%
97.07
71
0%
80.48
71
0%
80.65
74.36
0%
84.77
77
0%
98.00
0
0%
78.35
71
0%
75.49
71
0%
73.41
71
0%
98.00
0
0%
98.00
0
79.47%
93.89
78
1.05%
83.06
77.60
0%
78.93
77
0%
95.23
71
0.00%
93.92
71
0%
93.86
71
1.08%
74.01
71.54
rcn C
Wooded
Meadow
Impervious
rcn D
77
71
98
83
78
98
flow type
small tributary
waterway
sheet flow
K
2.1
1.2
0.48
Sub Basin Soil C Area Soil D Area Wooded Area
meadow Area
impervious area
Pond
units
sq ft
sq ft
sq ft
sq ft
sq ft
1
16666.85
0
0
846.14
15820.71
2
32252.89
0
0
11992.64
20260.25
3
27164.93
0
0
936.44
26228.50
4 132216.64
0
0
85771.98325
46444.66
5
37100.56
0.00
15240.93
11989.45509
9870.18
6
54741.47
0
34485.95
0.00
20255.52
7
6705.84
0
0
0
6705.84
8
23290.54
0
0
16954.47922
6336.06
9
35147.00
0
0
29297.83971
5849.16
10
25751.86
0
0
23449.00
2302.86
11
14242.11
0
0
0.00
14242.11
12
6058.87
0
0
0.00
6058.87
13
0.00
7655.70
0
1571.9991
6083.70
14
16146.10
1351
11823
0
4323.32
15
3485.50
0
3165.75
0.00
319.76
16
24047.04
0
0
2465.31
21581.74
17
27448.77
0.00
0
4143.73
23305.04
18
15546.79
0
0
2384.6719
13162.12
19
11244.95
980.85
0
11085.08
1140.710243
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24 hr KE Storms (Atlas 14)
Recurance Average Precipation
Years
in
1
2.22
2
2.56
5
3.2
10
3.79
25
4.7
50
5.48
100
6.33
200
7.27
500
8.61
1000
9.71
Percent Ponding
0
0.2
Ponding Factor
1
0.93
1
0.94
1
0.95
1
0.96
1
0.97
1
0.98
1
0.99
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
0.87
0.88
0.89
0.9
0.91
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.83
0.84
0.86
0.87
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
26
2
3
Water Use
Option
Water Average Use
Zones #
gallons/zone
26315
44
Average vol
26315
48
Average Vo
20000
44
Geoff's volu
20000
48
Goeff's Volu
144192.5
137
Total Zones
Tc calcs
sb1
type
sheet flow
K
type
sheet flow
waterway
K
deltaz
0.48
sb2
L
1
sb4
deltaz
0.48
1.2
#N/A
ti
85.69233333
L
12
30
type
K
0.045905975 sheet flow
waterway
ti
137.901025
607.6292833
0.02705309
0.063301452 type
K
0.090354542 waterway
tc
deltaz
L
0.48
1.2
#N/A
6
3
tc
K
type
sheet flow
K
type
sheet flow
deltaz
L
12
0.48
3
sb10
deltaz
0.48
K
deltaz
type
sheet flow
waterway
K
type
sheet flow
K
ti
type
K
0.041864014 sheet flow
207.207775
deltaz
L
0.48
22
deltaz
ti
113.588725
L
3
2
3
type
K
0.026479518 sheet flow
sheet flow
0.48
0.48
deltaz
0.48
#N/A
0.055062526 type
K
0.017263111 sheet flow
0.072325637
0.48
#N/A
tc
L
deltaz
ti
192.4628667
ti
186.8638083
188.39075
L
9
0.063081362
#N/A
27
type
K
sheet flow
deltaz
0.48
0.097144
type
K
sheet flow
0.052264
0.07482 type
K
sheet flow
sb17
ti
139.5212417
103.6124333
L
6
0.031235
ti
203.7109
8
4
sb19
deltaz
185.7512167
L
0.48
deltaz
0.48
1.2
ti
sb14
L
deltaz
type
K
0.030147243 sheet flow
type
K
0.045409 sheet flow
waterway
sb11
7
sb16
0.48
1.2
#N/A
ti
93.37586667
L
17
sb13
0.48
ti
358.7671917
sb8
L
type
K
deltaz
0.062651 sheet flow
0.48
0.02138 waterway
1.2
0.084031
#N/A
sb5 (add pipe)
deltaz
1.2
sb7
type
sheet flow
ti
191.5856083
136.7853333
deltaz
0.48
deltaz
0.48
ti
220.9963583
0.063374 type
K
#N/A
sheet flow
deltaz
0.48
#N/A
sb3
L
206.0077
43.43584
tc
sb6
L
6 94.43234
18 229.0199
tc
sb9
L
16 247.6028
sb12
L
5 87.81014
sb15
L
1 76.25902
sb18
L
7 190.4151
ti
3
1
0.098791745
0.006626567
0.105418312
ti
0.021680125
0.018909927
0.040590052
ti
0.056367616
ti
0.021295521
ti
0.038538345
ti
0.057472413
#N/A
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Commuter Lot Calculations:
Sub Basin
units
Storm Probability
Percent Ponding
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average Precipatation
2 years
V
V
Re‐Use Option
gallon
cubic ft
5.18
8335
62348
3.97
9392
70254 2.255810538
2.28
5323
39818
1.87
3277
24513
1.29
983
7351
3.44
4159
31115
1.23
2015
15074
2.94
6744
50451
2.47
3209
24004
1.78
3925
29360
1.45
6569
49136
0.87
1293
9671
Q
cfs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
All but Spring All But Fall
V
V
V required
gallon
gallon
Gallon
Gallon
cubic ft
28.80
55223
413095
753900
708552.7559
595493.8583
Q
cfs
Total Outflow
SWMM V
cubic ft
49611
Sub Basin
units
S
in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2.56 in
Front of Calvin
SRO
0.26
0.28
0.32
0.28
0.27
0.25
0.36
0.23
0.22
0.25
0.27
0.20
5612
tc
hours
in
2.27
2.26
2.21
2.25
2.26
2.29
2.17
2.31
2.32
2.28
2.26
2.33
Only Summer Only July
Gallon
Gallons
550259.0551
293974.0157
0.111
0.178
0.175
0.123
0.045
0.078
0.113
0.172
0.086
0.163
0.393
0.101
1.737
qp'
DA
cfs/(in/sqmi)
sq mi
1444.66
982.59
996.99
1327.36
3058.98
1923.22
1421.21
1012.91
1789.63
1055.59
513.42
1569.55
37
0.0016
0.0018
0.0010
0.0006
0.0002
0.0008
0.0004
0.0013
0.0006
0.0007
0.0013
0.0002
0.0105
6.711693303
Sub Basin
units
Area
Sq ft
Wooded C
sq ft
Wooded D
sq ft
Meadow C
sq ft
1
44047.13
0
0
0
2
49959.70
0
0
0
3
28855.54
0
0
0
4
17445.36
0
0
0
5
5213.39
0
0
0
6
21839.05
0
0
0
7
11122.44
0
0
0
8
35082.51
0
0
0
9
16629.05
0
0
0
10
20657.51
0
0
0
11
34869.56
0
0
0
12
6656.90
0
0
0
%Wooded %Meadow %Meadow
Sub Basin %Wooded
Type D
Type C
Type D
units
Type C
1
0%
0%
0%
2.75%
2
0%
0%
0%
3.45%
3
0%
0%
0%
5.44%
4
0%
0%
0%
3.53%
5
0%
0%
0%
3.16%
6
0%
0%
0%
2.06%
7
0%
0%
0%
7.35%
8
0%
0%
0%
1.07%
9
0%
0%
0%
0.67%
10
0%
0%
0%
2.32%
11
0%
0%
0%
3.23%
12
0%
0%
0%
0%
Meadow D
sq ft
1212.27
1722.27
1571.02
615.37
164.96
450.41
817.02
377.13
112.19
479.40
1125.35
0.00
%Impervious
Type C
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
38
Impervious C
sq ft
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%Impervious
Type D
97.25%
96.55%
94.56%
96.47%
96.84%
97.94%
92.65%
98.93%
99.33%
97.68%
96.77%
100.00%
Impervious D
DA (pervious)
sq ft
sq ft
42834.86
1212.27
48237.43
1722.27
27284.52
1571.02
16829.99
615.37
5048.43
164.96
21388.64
450.41
10305.42
817.02
34705.38
377.13
16516.86
112.19
20178.11
479.40
33744.21
1125.35
6656.90
0.00
RCN
RCN SWMM
97.45
97.31
96.91
97.29
97.37
97.59
96.53
97.79
97.87
97.54
97.35
98.00
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
0
rcn C
Wooded
Meadow
Impervious
rcn D
77
71
98
Sub Basin Soil C Area
units
sq ft
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
flow type
small tributary
waterway
sheet flow
83
78
98
Soil D Area Wooded Area
sq ft
sq ft
44047.13
49959.70
28855.54
17445.36
5213.39
21839.05
11122.44
35082.51
16629.05
20657.51
34869.56
6656.90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
K
2.1
1.2
0.48
meadow Area
impervious area
Pond
sq ft
sq ft
1212.27
42834.86
1722.27
48237.43
1571.02
27284.52
615.37
16829.99
164.96
5048.43
450.41
21388.64
817.02
10305.42
377.13
34705.38
112.19
16516.86
479.40
20178.11
1125.35
33744.21
0.00
6656.90
39
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
24 hr KE Storms (Atlas 14)
Recurance Average Precipation
Years
in
1
2.22
2
2.56
5
3.2
10
3.79
25
4.7
50
5.48
100
6.33
200
7.27
500
8.61
1000
9.71
Percent Ponding
0
0.2
Ponding Factor
1
0.93
1
0.94
1
0.95
1
0.96
1
0.97
1
0.98
1
0.99
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Months
Water Use
Water AveraZones #
Total WaterMay
June
July
August
September
October
All but SprinAll but Fall Only SummeAll
gallons/zone
gallons
Only Sem Po
25130
15
376950
22617.4016 60302.3622
146987.0079
67840.1575 75377.9528 3768.8976 354276.4 297746.9 275129.5 376893.8
25130
30
753900
45234.8031 120604.724
293974.0157
135680.315 150755.906 7537.7953 708552.8 595493.9 550259.1 753787.6
Front of Calv
Total Zones
127
191,494.00
510,560.00
1,244,490.00
574,380.00
638,200.00
31,910.00
Option
0.87
0.88
0.89
0.9
0.91
0.92
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.83
0.84
0.86
0.87
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
40
Tc calcs
sb1
type
sheet flow
K
deltaz
0.48
type
sheet flow
K
type
sheet flow
K
type
sheet flow
K
3.2
sb4
deltaz
0.48
227.8044833
deltaz
L
0.48
3.6
ti
type
K
324.1188333 0.177976 sheet flow
sb3
deltaz
0.48
type
K
0.123332009 sheet flow
ti
type
K
0.113472633 sheet flow
ti
type
K
0.163083674 sheet flow
deltaz
L
0.48
0.6
ti
type
K
0.044555 sheet flow
233.23545
deltaz
ti
type
K
0.171501 sheet flow
ti
type
K
0.392773 sheet flow
70.8505
L
0.48
7
394.6747
sb11
L
217.7462083
deltaz
0.48
L
0.5
41
284.52075
L
3
sb6
deltaz
0.48
sb8
3.3
sb10
1.3
tc
165.6073833
L
deltaz
type
K
0.111230701 sheet flow
sb5
1
sb7
0.48
ti
L
deltaz
0.48
sb2
L
0.48
L
1
sb9
deltaz
ti
301.4228
0.174848
ti
122.5048
L
0.078467
ti
1.5 148.6856 0.085667
sb12
deltaz
L
ti
0.48
1.5 165.4244 0.100533
Top rows Bottom Rows Top Columns Bottom Columns Chamber Overlap Total 6A Gravel Width [ft] 173.5 173.5 16.5 16.5 6A aggregate gravel volume
Height [ft] Area [ft2] Number 20 3470 2.0 54.5 9455.75 1.0 132 2178 2 179 2953.5 2 Total Area [ft2] Volume [ft3] 6940 30652 9455.75 41763 4356 19239 5907 26089 11236 106507 Storage Before overflow begins (0.4 void space for 6A)
Volume [ft3] Volume [yd3] Total 6A Gravel Storage 42603 1578 Total Chamber Storage 11236 416 Total Combined Storage 53839 1994 Top rows Bottom Rows Top Columns Bottom Columns Addition for Grade Total Gravel 21AA modified crushed stone, above 6A
Height [ft] Area [ft2] Number Total Area [ft2] 20 3470 2.0 6940 54.5 9455.75 1.0 9455.75 132 2178 2 4356 179 2953.5 2 5907 1 26658.75 Width [ft] 173.5 173.5 16.5 16.5 Excavation Required
Volume [yd3] 6A aggregate base 3945 Modified Crushed Stone 21AA 2798 Total Chamber Storage 1994 Total Excavation 8737 Storage system perimeter
Perimeter [ft] Outside 1516.5 Top Gap 459 Bottom Gap 364 Total 2340 Layer depths and stone type
Gravel Height [in] Above Chamber (21AA) 22 (minimum) Below Chamber (6A) 9 42
Volume [yd3] 471 642 296 401 987 2798 Chamber (6A) Below + Chamber (6A) 43
44 53 Appendix C: Final Drawings
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58