Armel Corporation Paisley Road Sanitary …...January 3, 2016 4.67 0.22 G2 (calc) 25.20 April 7,...

ARMEL CORPORATION

PAISLEY ROAD SANITARY Monitoring REPORT

GMBP FILE: 114133

REVISED JULY 2018

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Objective .................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. STUDY METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 1 3. RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 4. SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY AND THEORETICAL SURCHARGING ANALYSIS ............................................. 3 5. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 4

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: SANITARY FLOW MONITORING SUMMARY REPORT THOMPSON FLOW INVESTIGATIONS INC., AUGUST 19, 2016 APPENDIX B: CONCEPT PLAN FOR PAISLEY PARK DEVELOPMENT GSP GROUP LTD., MARCH 16, 2018 APPENDIX C: PAISLEY ROAD SITE CONCEPT PLAN GM BLUEPLAN ENGINEERING LTD., MARCH 2014 APPENDIX D: PAISLEY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION DESIGN BRIEF GM BLUEPLAN ENGINEERING LTD., NOVEMBER 7, 2014

PEOPLE | ENGINEERING | ENVIRONMENTS

PAGE 1 OF 4

1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a sanitary sewer flow monitoring study undertaken in the City of Guelph to support the Paisley Park residential development. The monitoring program began on November 5th, 2015 and data collection ended on July 13, 2016.

1.1 Background The subject property is approximately 7.01 ha in area and is bound by the City limit to the west, Paisley Road to the north, Whitelaw Road to the east, and residential lands to the south.

Figure 1 shows the location of the Paisley Park lands, as well as the 0 Paisley lands.

Paisley Park – Appendix B – maximum of 800 units (approximately)

0 Paisley – Appendix C – 600 units (approximately)

Both developments are to be serviced from Paisley Road, which was recently reconstructed to accommodate this development.

1.2 Study Objective The objective of the sanitary sewer flow monitoring study was to determine actual sewage flow rates at several points downstream of the proposed developments, in order to determine whether any surcharging would result from the addition of flows from these developments.

2. STUDY METHODOLOGY Flow monitors were installed by Thompson Flow Investigation Inc. (TQI) at four monitoring locations as shown on Figure 2 and described in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the path of sanitary flows from Paisley Road south and east, ultimately discharging to the City of Guelph Wastewater Treatment Plant. Flow monitor locations G1, G2 and G3 were selected in consultation with City of Guelph staff as appropriate locations downstream of the proposed development at which to measure sanitary flows and to check for potential surcharging. As summarized in Table 1 and discussed in TQI’s report in Appendix A, a fourth monitor location (G4) was added due to concerns about poor hydraulics at location G2 that could cause erroneous measurements.

The flow monitors recorded the flow rate at 5-minute intervals.

PAISLEY ROAD SANITARY MONITORING REPORT

ARMEL CORPORATION

REVISED JULY 2018

GMBP FILE: 114133

ARMEL CORPORATION


GMBP FILE: 114133

REVISED JULY 2018

PAGE 2 OF 4

Table 1: Monitoring Locations

Monitor Location Justification

G1 450mm inlet pipe of MH at Northwood and West Acres Crescent.

Downstream of proposed development

G2 525mm inlet pipe of MH along west edge of Imperial Road a short distance north of CNR

Downstream of proposed development (upstream of junction)

G3 525mm inlet pipe of MH along west edge of Imperial Road a short distance south of CNR crossing

Downstream of proposed development (downstream of junction)

G4 600mm inlet pipe of MH near centre of Imperial Road a short distance north of CNR crossing

Allow flow at G2 to be calculated if flow measurement is disrupted by poor hydraulics (upstream of junction; G2 + G4 = G3.)

Flow data were compared to the theoretical capacity of each downstream sanitary sewer, which was calculated from the pipe diameter and slope information shown in plan and profile drawings. The capacity of each sewer was then compared to the total theoretical peak flow at each location after theoretical peak flows from upstream development were added. These theoretical peak flows were calculated for the Paisley Park lands, as well as the 0 Paisley lands (same catchment). Areas of planned development are shown in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 2. A concept plan for 0 Paisley is included in Appendix C.

Table 2: Planned Development in Study Area

Name Drainage Area (ha)

Description Downstream Monitors

Paisley Park 5.85 Multi-family residential and Apartment development

G1, G2, G3

0 Paisley 5.2 Medium density apartments and wooded area

G1, G2, G3

Note: Sanitary drainage areas include half of adjacent road allowances Note: Wooded area was excluded from sanitary drainage area

Theoretical peak flows were calculated using the City of Guelph sanitary sewer design coefficients:

• 0.0010 cubic metres per second/ha for single family residential development,

• 0.0025 cubic metres per second/ha for multi-family residential development,

• 0.0017 cubic metres per second/ha for commercial and industrial development,

• 0.0060 cubic metres per second/ha for apartment developments (150 units per hectare), and

• 0.0070 cubic metres per second/ha for high density apartment (190 units per hectare) developments.

ARMEL CORPORATION


GMBP FILE: 114133

REVISED JULY 2018

PAGE 3 OF 4

3. RESULTS Table 3 below summarizes the observed maximum, average, and minimum flow at each monitoring location. Detailed graphs of instantaneous and daily average flows are included in Appendix A.

Table 3: Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring Results

Monitor Peak Flow (L/s) Peak Flow Date Average Flow (L/s) Low Flow (L/s)

G1 14.76 January 3, 2016 4.67 0.22

G2 (calc) 25.20 April 7, 2016 9.08 0.02

G3 36.27 March 31, 2016 13.92 3.02

G4 17.21 March 31, 2016 4.88 0.46

As discussed in the report by TQI in Appendix A, hydraulics at G2 were poor and caused erroneous flow readings. Therefore, flow rates at G2 were estimated by subtracting the reported flow at G4 from the reported flow at G3. The three stations (G2, G3, and G4) are within about 20 m of each other and there are no additional sanitary inlets or outlets between the three monitoring locations.

4. SANITARY SEWER CAPACITY AND THEORETICAL SURCHARGING ANALYSIS Based on the City’s sanitary sewer design coefficients, the maximum theoretical peak flow rate generated from the development at Paisley Park and 0 Paisley were calculated as shown in Table 4. Paisley Park has been subdivided to show the maximum theoretical peak flows from the apartment complex and multi-family areas, using their respective sanitary coefficients.

Table 4: Maximum Theoretical Peak Flow Rates from Planned Development

Name Drainage Area (ha) Sanitary Coefficient (m3/s/ha) Peak Flow (L/s)

Paisley Park 2.58 0.0025 6.45

Paisley Park 3.27 0.006 19.62

0 Paisley 5.2 0.006 31.20

Total -- -- 57.27

The sanitary sewer capacities at monitoring locations G1, G2 and G3 are compared to the theoretical total peak flows at each location in Table 5 below. G4 is not downstream of the proposed development and has been excluded from the analysis.

Table 5: Existing Sanitary Sewer Capacity Analysis

Monitor Sewer Diameter (mm)

Slope (%)

Capacity (L/s) Maximum Observed Flow (L/s)

Total Theoretical Peak Flow (L/s)

G1 450 0.34 166 14.76 72.03

G2 525 1.32 494 25.20 82.47

G3 525 1.54 534 36.27 93.54 Note: Sewer capacity calculated using Manning’s equation assuming n=0.013 Note: Theoretical total peak flow is the sum of the observed peak flow and the theoretical peak flow from upstream planned development.

ARMEL CORPORATION


GMBP FILE: 114133

REVISED JULY 2018

PAGE 4 OF 4

As shown, the total theoretical peak flow is considerably less than the sanitary sewer capacity at each location. Therefore, no surcharging is anticipated as a result of development at the Paisley Park Development.

5. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the sanitary sewer flow monitoring, as well as the sanitary sewer capacity and theoretical surcharging analysis, we offer the following conclusions:

• The measured peak flows between November 2015 and July 2016 were considerably less than the capacity of the sanitary sewers for all monitoring stations;

• There is sufficient capacity remaining in the sanitary sewers to accommodate the planned development in the study area. No surcharging is anticipated as a result of the planned development.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Carolyn Chan, B. Eng., M.A.Sc.

Chris Sims, P. Eng.

FIL

E:W

:\G

ue

lp

h\1

14

-2

01

4\1

14

13

3\D

esig

n P

ha

se

\D

ra

win

gs\1

14

13

3 - F

IG

UR

ES

- 2

01

6-0

8-3

0.d

wg

L

AY

OU

T:F

ig

ure

1

- S

ite

L

oca

tio

n

LA

ST

S

AV

ED

B

Y:D

wa

te

rs, 8

/3

0/2

01

6 4

:2

6:4

0 P

M P

LO

TT

ED

B

Y:D

avid

W

ate

rs - G

M B

lu

eP

la

n 8

/3

0/2

01

6 4

:3

7:3

5 P

M

Figure No. 1

114133

FLOW MONITORING

CITY OF GUELPH

N.T.S.

AUGUST 2016

SITE LOCATION

MAP

PAISLEY

R

O

A

D

E

L

M

IR

A

R

O

A

D

WH

IT

ELA

W R

OA

D

FIFE ROAD

IM

PE

RIA

L R

D

I

M

P

E

R

I

A

L

R

O

A

D

S

T

E

P

H

A

N

I

E

D

R

ROCHELLE DR

WEST ACRES DR

C

N

R

R

A

IL

L

IN

E

ADDITIONAL

DEVELOPMENTS

"0 PAISLEY ROAD"

SITE

"WESTLAW WEST"

rdejong

Rectangle

Typewriter

"PAISLEY PARK"

FIL

E:W

:\G

ue

lp

h\1

14

-2

01

4\1

14

13

3\D

esig

n P

ha

se

\D

ra

win

gs\1

14

13

3 - F

IG

UR

ES

- 2

01

6-0

9-3

0.d

wg

L

AY

OU

T:F

ig

ure

2

- 8

.5

x1

1

LA

ST

S

AV

ED

B

Y:D

wa

te

rs, 8

/3

0/2

01

6 4

:2

1:1

3 P

M P

LO

TT

ED

B

Y:D

avid

W

ate

rs - G

M B

lu

eP

la

n 8

/3

0/2

01

6 4

:2

2:5

1 P

M

Figure No. 2

114133

FLOW MONITORING

CITY OF GUELPH

N.T.S.

AUGUST 2016

LEGEND

PAISLEY ROAD

SANITARY FLOW

MONITORING LOCATIONS

SANITARY MONITORING LOCATION

G1

G4

G3

G2

APPENDIX A: SANITARY FLOW MONITORING SUMMARY REPORT

THOMPSON FLOW INVESTIGATIONS INC., AUGUST 19, 2016

2015-16 Flow Monitoring re Paisley Rd. Area in Guelph for GM BluePlan-documentation Page # 1

TQI - 4129 Varden Court, Mississauga, ON L5L 4A7 [email protected] Ph: 905-607-2728 Fax:905-607-9180

GM BluePlan Engineering Limited, August 20, 2016 650 Woodlawn Road West, Block C, Unit 2, Guelph, ON, N1K 1B8

Attention: Carolyn Chan, B.Eng., M.A.Sc. Project Designer

Re: Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring carried out for Paisley Rd. Area in Guelph

Scope of Work

We are writing to document the sanitary sewer flow monitoring carried out at requested

locations in the Paisley Road area in Guelph. We were authorized on October 23, 2015 to

carry out the work according to our proposal dated September 2, 2015. The intent was to

create 3 monitoring stations at specified locations, and operate them for 6 months with

twice monthly visits to retrieve data and check sensors.

Setup and Operation of Monitoring Stations

We have indicated the location of the monitoring stations on a figure provided by your firm

(Figure No. 1, GM BluePlan) which follows. The requested 3 stations (G-1 to G-3) were

located along the sewer line highlighted in black on this figure.

Station G1 was located in a 450mm sewer on West Acres Drive a short distance east of

Elmira Road.

Station G2 covered the 525mm sewer running along Fairmeadow Drive and then turning

south adjacent to Imperial Road where it joins a 600mm sewer running south on Imperial

Road just north of the CNR bridge.

Station G3 was located just south of the CNR bridge, downstream of the sewer junction.

When we first visited it we found that one of our Custom Compound Weirs (CCW) that was

installed for CH2M Hill over 10 years ago was still in place and in very good condition. We

decided to utilize this weir in the current monitoring program as it would provide more

accurate data than an A/V meter alone and would facilitate comparison to the earlier

monitoring. The inlet and outlet sewers to the G3 manhole are 525mm diameter.

We were concerned that the sewer hydraulics at station G2 (525mm inlet to this manhole)

were not ideal for accurate flow monitoring. The hydraulics at the next upstream manhole



with a 90 degree bend were even worse. We thus decided to create station G4 (at our own

expense) on the 600mm Imperial Road sewer 1 manhole upstream of the junction. This

allowed us to determine the desired “G2” flows by subtracting flows at G4 from those at

G3.

ISCO model 2150 A/V meters were installed at all 4 locations on November 5, 2015 and

were operated until July 13, 2016 (8+ months). On the last service visit of July 13/16 all

monitors and the weir were removed.



Presentation of Data

The data was reduced to flow rates (5 minute time steps) and plotted in weekly form where

each plot covers a Monday through Sunday period. A complete set of weekly flow plots is

attached at the end of this document. The flows were also interval averaged to daily

average flows. A plot of daily average flows covering the entire monitoring period is also

attached. All data is at EST to avoid loss of data or gaps during shifts to/from daylight

savings time. EST is equal to local time during the winter bur 1 hour behind during the

summer.

The A/V meter at station G2 had erratic results as was suspected at installation. Thus we

used station G4 in conjunction with G3 to obtain flows for G2 as we provided for at

installation..

No rainfall data at the monitoring time step of 5 minutes was available.

A review of the plotted flows indicates that flows increase somewhat in the latter half of

March and most of April but are fairly consistent otherwise. Flows in the 600mm Imperial

Road sewer (G4) are similar to those in the 450mm sewer at G1.

.

Yours truly,

Thompson Flow Investigations Inc. (TQI)

Larry R. Thompson, M. A. Sc., P. Eng.,

Project Manager, TQI President

APPENDIX B: CONCEPT PLAN FOR PAISLEY PARK DEVELOPMENT

GSP GROUP LTD., MARCH 16, 2018

APPENDIX C: PAISLEY ROAD SITE CONCEPT PLAN

GM BLUEPLAN ENGINEERING LTD., MARCH 2014

Tel. 519-748-1440 www.gamsby.com

GUELPH - OWEN SOUND - L ISTOWEL - KITCHENER - EXETER

APPENDIX D: PAISLEY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION DESIGN BRIEF

GM BLUEPLAN ENGINEERING LTD., NOVEMBER 7, 2014

Armel Corporation Paisley Road Sanitary …...January 3, 2016 4.67 0.22 G2 (calc) 25.20 April 7,...

Documents

Transcript of Armel Corporation Paisley Road Sanitary …...January 3, 2016 4.67 0.22 G2 (calc) 25.20 April 7,...