HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence
Date:
Project:
Address:
Subject:
From:
To:
January 11, 2023
Carmel Midtown Development
Carmel, IN
Foundation Design
Sam Runningen
To Whom It Concerns
To Whom It Concerns,
The foundations for the Carmel Midtown Development project have been designed to account for
the storm water detention system with a permeable bottom.
Sincerely,
LYNCH, HARRISON & BRUMLEVE, INC.
Sam Runningen, PE
REF # CYCLE REVIEWED BY TYPE FILENAME DISCUSSION STATUS RESPONSE
61 1 Sign Permits
Aliza Shalit
10/25/22 3:09 PM
Changemark
Blade sign
Please label this as building sign or tenant sign.
A311 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS.pdf Responsed by: Krissy Roberts - 1/20/23 8:47 AM
At this time, no commercial tenant signage is anticipated.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Aliza Shalit - 12/12/22 11:37 AM
Will there be no commercial tenants in this building
(ground floor) that will ever require signage?
----------------------------------------------------------
Responsed by: Krissy Roberts - 11/22/22 10:08 PM
All signs shown are building signs. Signage is intended to
be provided for multifamily component and for public
garage.
Question
No commercial signage being provided, this
comment should be closed out.
81 1 Sign Permits
Aliza Shalit
10/25/22 3:24 PM
Comment
Will there be any ground signs or directional signage for this development? If so,
please submit with sign plan.
Responsed by: Krissy Roberts - 1/20/23 3:06 PM
Per previous response, there are no ground signs or
directional signage anticipated at this time. Please confirm
what additional information is needed to close out this
comment.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responsed by: Krissy Roberts - 11/22/22 10:14 PM
There are no ground sounds or directional signage
anticipated at this time.
Question
No ground sings being provided, this
comment should be closed out.
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2022-00202 DP ADLS - Buckingham AT&T Carmel Midtown Parcel A
Workflow Started: 10/4/2022 4:19:36 PM
Report Generated: 05/15/2023 11:44 AM
REVIEW COMMENTS
report from ProjectDox
by Avolve Software
Plan Review - Review Comments Report
Project Name: PZ-2022-00202 DP ADLS - Buckingham AT&T Carmel Midtown Parcel A
Workflow Started: 10/4/2022 4:19:36 PM
Report Generated: 05/15/2023 11:44 AM
169 2 Planning & Zoning
Rachel Keesling
12/7/22 11:49 AM
Changemark
Apartment patio amenity area changes needed
We need to look at this area in more detail. The width of the pergola and base
structure in conjunction with proposed bike racks and walkway space does not
allow enough space for people to walk around on the east end. I've also noticed
that the west end doesn't terminate in the same place on the elevations as it
does on the site plan. We need to match these up and determine which is
correct.
C3.0 SITE PLAN.pdf Reviewer Response: Angie Conn - 5/15/23 10:04 AM
The Planning Director confirmed this with the CRC Director.
Please upload a revised Site Plan and Landscape Plan to
show that change (removal or pergola and knee wall), as
well.
----------------------------------------------------------
Responsed by: Krissy Roberts - 5/3/23 2:09 PM
Pergola is and knee wall is being removed from the project.
Note that developer has discussed this modification with
CRC staff, CRC staff noted that omission of pergola and
knee wall is acceptable.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Angie Conn - 3/28/23 12:44 PM
Thanks for making the change. But, now it now looks like
the masonry knee wall has slid to the east, and now
people/bikes cannot access through the east side of the
pergola area. Is this intended?
----------------------------------------------------------
Responsed by: Krissy Roberts - 3/6/23 10:03 AM
The proposed bike racks have been relocated to provide
sufficient walking width. The civil plans have been revised
to show the latest building footprint.
----------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer Response: Rachel Keesling - 1/27/23 1:43 PM
Ok, please keep me posted.
UnResolved
Updated site plan and landscape plans have
been posted as requested.
report from ProjectDox
by Avolve Software
1
Carmel
Public Parking Sign Design & Criteria
Department of Community Services
CarmelCITYOF
2
Blade Signs
A Blade Sign is the primary sign type used for public parking identification. It is to be located above or near
all garage entrances and must be visible from each approach to the garage. If the entrance to the garage is
not visible from the roadway, additional wayfinding signage is required to direct patrons from the road to the
garage. The exact measurements and color specifications can be found below and must be adhered to.
APPROVED BY
DATE
PAGE 3
Field survey required prior
to fabricaon.
All electrical is configured
to 120V unless otherwise
specified.
The concepts herein are the property of ISF INC. Permission to reproduce, copy or use the design or proposal can only be obtained through written agreement with ISF INC. Due to screen calibration and printing capabilities, the colors shown are only to be used as a close representation or final product.
•DESIGN FABRICATION
isfsigns.com317.251.1219
6468 Rucker Road
•INSTALLATION SERVICE
Indianapolis, IN 46220
DESIGNED BY: CA
REVISED LAST BY: CA
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
RIGHT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
STREET FACING ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
WALL FACING ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
Style and construction
to match existing sign
24”
S4
Fabricate and install (1) 2 sided face lit blade sign
Main Cabinet - .080” aluminum cladding,
.040” returns, & 2” retainer painted
MP 413420 brushed aluminum
Boarder: 1/2” Clear Acrylic Push-thrus w/ second
surface diffuser vinylFace: .090” Aluminum Painted PMS 072C Blue match
w/ routed text and boarder
“P”: 1/2” push through clear acrylic “P” with
second surface diffuser vinyl
Bottom Arm - .080” aluminum cladding,
routed for 1/2” arrow clear acrylic push-thru
w/ second surface diffuser,
Front elevation painted PMS 1245C Yellow, side and back
elevations painted PMS 1245C Yellow, PMS 491C Red
Mounting: Thru-bolt mounted flush via aluminum spacers
painted MP 413420 brushed aluminumIllumination: AVL 6500 white LEDs
SCALE: 1/16”=1’72 1/2"56"60"10 3/4"3 3/4"9 1/4”28 1/2”9 1/4”2"31 5/8”S4
Railyard
Chris Young
Carmel, IN
7-12-2021
rail_5-3119-A_v2
PUBLICPARKING PUBLICPARKING
APPROVED BY
DATE
PAGE 3
Field survey required prior
to fabricaon.
All electrical is configured
to 120V unless otherwise
specified.
The concepts herein are the property of ISF INC. Permission to reproduce, copy or use the design or proposal can only be obtained through written agreement with ISF INC. Due to screen calibration and printing capabilities, the colors shown are only to be used as a close representation or final product.
•DESIGN FABRICATION
isfsigns.com317.251.1219
6468 Rucker Road
•INSTALLATION SERVICE
Indianapolis, IN 46220
DESIGNED BY: CA
REVISED LAST BY: CA
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
RIGHT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
STREET FACING ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
WALL FACING ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
Style and construction
to match existing sign
24”
S4
Fabricate and install (1) 2 sided face lit blade sign
Main Cabinet - .080” aluminum cladding,
.040” returns, & 2” retainer painted
MP 413420 brushed aluminum
Boarder: 1/2” Clear Acrylic Push-thrus w/ second
surface diffuser vinylFace: .090” Aluminum Painted PMS 072C Blue match
w/ routed text and boarder
“P”: 1/2” push through clear acrylic “P” with
second surface diffuser vinyl
Bottom Arm - .080” aluminum cladding,
routed for 1/2” arrow clear acrylic push-thru
w/ second surface diffuser,
Front elevation painted PMS 1245C Yellow, side and back
elevations painted PMS 1245C Yellow, PMS 491C Red
Mounting: Thru-bolt mounted flush via aluminum spacers
painted MP 413420 brushed aluminumIllumination: AVL 6500 white LEDs
SCALE: 1/16”=1’72 1/2"56"60"10 3/4"3 3/4"9 1/4”28 1/2”9 1/4”2"31 5/8”S4
Railyard
Chris Young
Carmel, IN
7-12-2021
rail_5-3119-A_v2
PUBLICPARKING PUBLICPARKING
APPROVED BY
DATE
PAGE 3
Field survey required prior
to fabricaon.
All electrical is configured
to 120V unless otherwise
specified.
The concepts herein are the property of ISF INC. Permission to reproduce, copy or use the design or proposal can only be obtained through written agreement with ISF INC. Due to screen calibration and printing capabilities, the colors shown are only to be used as a close representation or final product.
•DESIGN FABRICATION
isfsigns.com317.251.1219
6468 Rucker Road
•INSTALLATION SERVICE
Indianapolis, IN 46220
DESIGNED BY: CA
REVISED LAST BY: CA
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
RIGHT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
STREET FACING ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
WALL FACING ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
Style and construction
to match existing sign
24”
S4
Fabricate and install (1) 2 sided face lit blade sign
Main Cabinet - .080” aluminum cladding,
.040” returns, & 2” retainer painted
MP 413420 brushed aluminum
Boarder: 1/2” Clear Acrylic Push-thrus w/ second
surface diffuser vinylFace: .090” Aluminum Painted PMS 072C Blue match
w/ routed text and boarder
“P”: 1/2” push through clear acrylic “P” with
second surface diffuser vinyl
Bottom Arm - .080” aluminum cladding,
routed for 1/2” arrow clear acrylic push-thru
w/ second surface diffuser,
Front elevation painted PMS 1245C Yellow, side and back
elevations painted PMS 1245C Yellow, PMS 491C Red
Mounting: Thru-bolt mounted flush via aluminum spacers
painted MP 413420 brushed aluminumIllumination: AVL 6500 white LEDs
SCALE: 1/16”=1’72 1/2"56"60"10 3/4"3 3/4"9 1/4”28 1/2”9 1/4”2"31 5/8”S4
Railyard
Chris Young
Carmel, IN
7-12-2021
rail_5-3119-A_v2
PUBLICPARKING PUBLICPARKING
Created by
"ISF Signs
PMS 1245
(Mustard Yellow)
PMS 431C
(Brick Red)
PMS 072C
(Blue)
2 sided face-lit Blade Sign specs:
Main Cabinet - .080" aluminum cladding,
.040" returns, 2" retainer painted MP
413420 brushed aluminum.
Boarder - ½" Clear Acrylic Push-thrus
with second surface diffuser vinyl
Face - .090" Aluminum Painted PMS
072C Blue match with routed text and
boarder.
"P" - ½" push-thru clear acrylic "P"
with second surface diffuser vinyl.
Bottom Arm - .080" aluminum cladding,
routed for ½" arrow clear acrylic
push-thru with second surface diffuser.
Front elevation painted PMS 1245C
Yellow, side and back elevations painted
PMS 1245C Yellow, PMS 491C Red.
Mounting - Thru-bold mounted flush
via aluminum spacers painted MP
413420 brushed aluminum.
Illumination - AVL 6500 white LEDs.
Left Elevation
Scale: ¾"=1'
Right Elevation
Scale: ¾"=1'
APPROVED BY
DATE
PAGE 3
Field survey required prior
to fabricaon.
All electrical is configured
to 120V unless otherwise
specified.
The concepts herein are the property of ISF INC. Permission to reproduce, copy or use the design or proposal can only be obtained through written agreement with ISF INC. Due to screen calibration and printing capabilities, the colors shown are only to be used as a close representation or final product.
•DESIGN FABRICATION
isfsigns.com317.251.1219
6468 Rucker Road
•INSTALLATION SERVICE
Indianapolis, IN 46220
DESIGNED BY: CA
REVISED LAST BY: CA
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
RIGHT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
STREET FACING ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
WALL FACING ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’
Style and construction
to match existing sign
24”
S4
Fabricate and install (1) 2 sided face lit blade sign
Main Cabinet - .080” aluminum cladding,
.040” returns, & 2” retainer painted
MP 413420 brushed aluminum
Boarder: 1/2” Clear Acrylic Push-thrus w/ second
surface diffuser vinylFace: .090” Aluminum Painted PMS 072C Blue match
w/ routed text and boarder
“P”: 1/2” push through clear acrylic “P” with
second surface diffuser vinyl
Bottom Arm - .080” aluminum cladding,
routed for 1/2” arrow clear acrylic push-thru
w/ second surface diffuser,
Front elevation painted PMS 1245C Yellow, side and back
elevations painted PMS 1245C Yellow, PMS 491C Red
Mounting: Thru-bolt mounted flush via aluminum spacers
painted MP 413420 brushed aluminumIllumination: AVL 6500 white LEDs
SCALE: 1/16”=1’72 1/2"56"60"10 3/4"3 3/4"9 1/4”28 1/2”9 1/4”2"31 5/8”S4
Railyard
Chris Young
Carmel, IN
7-12-2021
rail_5-3119-A_v2
PUBLICPARKING PUBLICPARKING
Wall Facing
Elevation
Scale: ¾"=1'
Street Facing
Elevation
Scale: ¾"=1'
3
Wall Signs
When room is available, a wall sign may be used in conjunction with a blade sign. Wall signs must include the
development’s name, “Parking Garage,” and the standard public parking P, as defined on page 7, on both sides
of the name. Doing so communicates to drivers that the garage is public and identifies the development they
will be parking at.
Wall signs are to be flush or pin mounted and the colors and illumination must fit within the context of the
development and surrounding uses.
Example:
4
Suspended & Vinyl Signs
A suspended sign is meant for pedestrians and vehicular drivers as they approach a garage opening.
Hanging from a canopy, it signals vehicles to slow down, as well as for pedestrians to watch for
oncoming traffic. This sign type must include the garage name, the standard public parking P,
and a directional arrow. A red stripe is present at the top of the sign.
Vinyl signage may also be used on canopy faces or garage doors. This sign type is meant as a secondary sign
when a Suspended Sign is unfeasible. This sign type must include the garage name, the standard public
parking P, and any other instructional or wayfinding text.
Carmel P (See specifications page)Background color to match canopyCopy is Arial Bold
65"
8.5"
PMS 491C (Brick Red)
PARKING GARAGE
Canopy Face
PARKING GARAGE
Carmel P (See specifications page)Copy is Arial Bold
8"
5
Digital Signs
TBD
6
Entrance &
Directional Signs
Standard Public Parking and Resident Parking Signs
A “Public Parking” header is required above all public vehicle entrances of the parking garage.
This header must be mounted on black metal backing to increase visibility and include
“Public Parking” text, two standard public parking P’s, and the standard lane indicator symbols.
A “Resident Parking Only” header may be used above private vehicle entrances of the parking garage.
This header must be mounted on black metal backing to increase visibility and include
“Resident Parking Only” text and the standard lane indicator symbols.
7
Specs
Public Parking/Resident Parking Only Specifications:
3D Metal Text Font: Arial Bold
White Type on Black Metal Backing
8"13"
13"8"
8½"
1¾" thick
9"
1¾" thick
8"6½"
¼" white border
PMS 186C
(Red)
PMS 368C
(Green)
PMS 072C
(Blue)
"P" Font: Franklin Gothic Heavy
White Type on Blue Background
Red "X": 3D Metal Green Arrow: 3D Metal
Note: The X is recommended to be .5" shorter
than the arrow to match the illusion of size.
Note: Entrance Arrow is purposely shorter arrow.
PMS 13-0630TN
(Yellow)
Note: Pay attention to word tracking
and spread layout for visual balance.
Clearance Bar Font: Franklin Gothic Demi
Black Type on Safety Yellow Plastic Hanging Bar
5"3" Lettering
Main Cabinet Specs
.080” aluminum cladding, .040” 3” deep returns painted Black
- “P” circles: NON-LIT 1/2” flat cut acrylic digitally printed / UV treated White / (PMS 072C) Oracal 651 printable vinyl on face only
mounted flush to cabinet (non-lit P’s and the circles are not routed copy and are just printed/laminated vinyl on the routed flat circle face)
- faces routed for 1/2” clear acrylic push-thrus with 2nd surface diffuser vinyl
- “X” has digitally printed / UV treated (PMS 186C) Oracal 651 printable vinyl on face only
- Arrow has digitally printed / UV treated (PMS 368C) Oracal 651 printable vinyl on face only
Backs: .063” aluminum
Illumination: Sloan Prisms White LEDs
Mounting: Thru-bolt mounted flush to brick fascia - depending on thickness of facade stud mounting may be required
Small Public Parking P and Directional Symbol Specifications:
Clearance Bar Specification:
8
Other Exterior Signs
The City will allow signage for public parking to be installed on light poles or as stand alone off-premise signs.
These options are available when locating a particular parking garage has proven difficult for drivers and
additional direction is required.
Under special circumstances the
City will allow uniquely designed
public parking signs. These
sign types should blend with a
building’s architecture or contain
designs and images unique to the
district or surrounding uses.
Pedestrian-scale exterior
signage is required on
all exterior doors to the
garage. This signage
shall include the name
and address of the
parking garage as well
as “Parking Garage” text.
9
Sign Specs
White and black borders
are both 1/2”
3'1'-5"7¼"7¼"2'
Reflective White Paint
Text, Arrow & Borders
on dibond sign face.
Sign face color should
emulate the structure
color it is installed on.
PMS 072C
(Blue)
The City of Carmel public parking symbol is a PMS 072 C
(Blue) circle with a Franklin Gothic Heavy P centered in
the middle. A white ring is also included. If used for
directing traffic a white arrow is included below.
P is Franklin Gothic Heavy
and centered on circle
Sign panel color should
emulate the structure
color it is installed on
PMS 072C
(Blue)
Smaller directional style signs require reflective
white paint text, arrow, and borders.
10
Interior Signs
In addition to exterior signs, the City requires interior signage. Specifically, bicycle parking,
video surveillance, and “No loitering or skateboarding” signs are required.
Additionally, interior wayfinding, directory, and reserved parking signs should be included.
The City recommends a cohesive design throughout the garage. Final design is subject to approval
by the Carmel Redevelopment Commission.
Bike Parking Copy is Arial Bold
PMS 072C
(Blue)
When bike parking is present, directional signage is required.
The public bike parking sign is similar to the public parking
signs, however, the copy Bike Parking and image of a bicycle is
incorporated on the sign. Signs will be installed near entrances and
any other locations to properly direct cyclists to the parking area.
A vector image of the bicycle can be provided upon request.
24-Hour Video Surveillance signs are required when City
cameras are installed in the garage. Signs are installed at
the main entrances to the garage.
Please direct questions to the Carmel Information and
Communications Systems Department (317-571-2567).
11
Interior Signs
1.5" Radius
3/8" Holes
NO
LOITERING
OR
SKATEBOARDING
PERMITTED
Carmel City Code §§6-66; 6-73
18"
1.5"
1.5"
Per Ordinances D-2534-20 and D-2484-19 , skateboarding and loitering are not permitted within public parking
garages. Signage, matching the adjacent specifications, is required to be installed in all public parking garages.
Privately owned public parking garages are not automatically covered by the no loitering and no
skateboarding ordinances. All privately owned public parking garages will need to enter into an Agreement
for Parking and Traffic Regulation on Private Business Property with the City of Carmel to be protected by
Carmel City Code § §6-66; 6-73, allowing police enforcement in the garage. Please work with the Carmel
Redevelopment Commission to execute this agreement.
12
Please direct any questions to the City of Carmel
Department of Community Services (317-571-2417)
or Carmel Redevelopment Commission (317-819-7207)
All Exterior Signs require Sign Permits through the Department of Community Services.
Commonwealth of Virginia
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
1111 E. Main Street, Suite 1400, Richmond, Virginia 23219
P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, Virginia 23218
(800) 592-5482
www.deq.virginia.gov
Matthew J. Strickler David K. Paylor
Secretary of Natural Resources Director
(804) 698-4000
February 14, 2019
Mr. Corey Simonpietri
ACF Environmental, Inc.
2831 Cardwell Road
Richmond, Virginia 23234
Transmitted electronically to: corey@acfenv.com
Re: Assignment of Percent Removal Efficiencies for Total Phosphorus
Dear Mr. Simonpietri:
The Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed the Manufactured Treatment Device (MTD)
Registration Form and supporting documentation for the ACF R-Tank Treatment/Maintenance Row
received on December 24, 2018. The submittal included the Registration Form, a performance study and other
supporting documentation. These reports will be posted on the Virginia Stormwater Clearinghouse website.
In accordance with § 62.1-44.15:28 of the Stormwater Management Act, 9VAC25-870-65 C, and Guidance
Memo No. 14-2009 Interim Use of Stormwater Manufactured Treatment Devices to meet the Virginia
Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Technical Criteria, Part IIB Water Quality Design Requirement,
the ACF R-Tank Treatment/Maintenance Row is hereby approved.
The R-Tank Treatment/Maintenance Row is approved with a 20 percent total phosphorous pollutant
removal efficiency. This information will be posted on the Virginia Stormwater Clearinghouse website. This
device and the assigned removal efficiency can be manually added into Virginia Runoff Reduction spreadsheet
to demonstrate compliance with Runoff Reduction Method.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact Robert E. Cooper, P.E. at (804) 698-4033
or e-mail at Robert.Cooper@deq.virginia.gov.
Sincerely,
Jaime B. Robb, Manager
Office of Stormwater Management
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
R-Tank System
Maintenance Row Performance Testing
Via ASTM C1746
Submitted to:
ACF Environmental, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Scott Gorneau
sgorneau@acfenv.com
Submitted by:
C. Joel Sprague, P.E.
Technical Director
TRI/Environmental
112 Martin Road
Greenville, SC 29607
September 2018
C. Joel Sprague
Sr. Engineer
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Executive Summary
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
R-Tank System, Maintenance Row Performance Testing
Hydraulic Performance and Sediment Removal Efficiency via ASTM C1746
Executive Summary
The R-Tank system is underground stormwater storage system comprised of interlocking plastic
modules. The R-Tank System includes five different module configurations, providing system
height options from 2” to over 7’ tall. The R-Tank system is designed for inflow rates ranging
from 20 to 100 gallons per minute and commonly incorporates a Maintenance Row at the initial
in-flow point. The Maintenance Row is surrounded by R-Tank modules, as needed, to increase
the detention volume and infiltration footprint. The Maintenance Row is comprised of
Maintenance Modules that are designed to trap solid pollutants where they can be easily
removed. These modules are wrapped in geotextile to retain solids and are fully accessible by
conventional jet-vac systems to remove captured pollutants.
Hydraulic performance and sediment removal efficiency testing was performed on the
Maintenance Row components of ACF Environmental’s R-Tank System at TRI Environmental’s
TRI South Carolina lab in accordance with ASTM C1746/C1746M-12. Testing was done at
flow rates representing the full range of design flows. The testing used commonly manufactured
components, manufacturer’s published installation details, and actual in-service flow conditions.
Hydraulic performance was based on flow rate monitoring and water depth measurements within
the test chamber. Sediment removal efficiency was based on both direct measurements
(collecting, drying, and weighing input, captured, and passing sediments) and indirect
measurements (suspended sediment concentration determination of influent and effluent bottle
samples).
Both direct and indirect measurements found very high sediment removal efficiencies over the
range of design flow rates. At all flow rates, using both direct and indirect measurements, the
sediment removal efficiency exceeded 94%.
The highest removal rates were at the lowest flow rates but were only slightly reduced as the
flow rates increased. The direct measures showed the highest removal efficiencies. These direct
measurements used the known weight of sediment introduced into the system influent during the
testing and the accurate measurement of all sediments collected in the sump, dried, and weighed.
Simply put, sediment in minus sediment out equals the sediment trapped/removed by the system.
Hydraulic performance in terms of the relationships between hydraulic loading rate versus
detention time and hydraulic loading rate versus water depth in the test basin was also measured.
The detention time is the flow rate divided by the volume of the test basin at the water depth
measured in the basin. As the flow rate increased the detention time decreased and the water
volume (depth within the basin and depth within modules) increased.
Both the hydraulic loading rate vs. detention time and the hydraulic loading rate vs. stage depth
graphs suggests that the perforated system discharge (effluent) pipe begins to slightly limit
system discharge as the flow rate into the system increases.
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Page 1
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
R-Tank System, Maintenance Row Performance Testing
Hydraulic Performance and Sediment Removal Efficiency via ASTM C1746
Overview
This report presents the results of hydraulic performance and sediment removal efficiency testing
performed on the Maintenance Row components of ACF Environmental’s R-Tank System. The
testing was performed at TRI Environmental’s TRI South Carolina lab in accordance with
ASTM C1746/C1746M-12. The testing used commonly manufactured components,
manufacturer’s published installation details, and actual in -service flow conditions. Hydraulic
performance was based on flow rate monitoring and water depth measurements within the test
chamber. Sediment removal efficiency was based on both direct measurements (collecting,
drying, and weighing input, captured, and passing sediments) and indirect measurements
(suspended sediment concentration determination of influent and effluent bottle samples).
The R-Tank System
The R-Tank system is underground stormwater storage system comprised of interlocking plastic
modules. The R-Tank System includes five different module configurations, providing system
height options from 2” to over 7’ tall. Maintenance Modules can be assembled into a
“Maintenance Row” to trap solid pollutants where they can be easily removed. These modules
are wrapped in geotextile to retain solids and are fully accessible by conventional jet-vac systems
to remove captured pollutants.
Test Setup
The test setup includes a test basin and adjoining sump, a water reservoir connected to the test
basin and sump by a pumping/piping system, and a sediment injection system. Figure 1a shows
the test setup used in the testing reported herein. A schematic is included in Appendix A.
The test basin must be of sufficient size to accommodate a representative array of modules to be
tested and to permit the test modules to be deployed according to the manufacturer’s published
installation guidelines. The sump must be of a sufficient size to assure that sediments contained
in the effluent draining from the test basin can settle before sump waters are recirculated through
a 50 μm filter sock. The test basin measured 6 ft wide x 12 ft long and the sump measured 6 ft
wide x 8ft long.
The 2400 gallon potable water reservoir system was comprised of eight 300 gallon “totes”
connected to the pump/pipe recirculation system through a 2 inch PVC header system. The
pump/pipe recirculation system was comprised of 2 inch PVC pipe and fittings and a variable
speed 3 hp pump. The recirculation system was able to maintain constant flows through the test
basin and sump system at a wide range of flow rates.
The sediment injection was accomplished using vibrating screw auger system. The auger system
was able to maintain a constant feed rate into the influent flows at a wide range of feed settings
enabling an accurate infiltrate concentration at any given flow rate.
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Page 2
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
Figure 1a. Test Apparatus Setup
Testing Parameters
The R-Tank system is designed for inflow rates ranging from 20 to 100 gallons per minute and
commonly incorporates a Maintenance Row at the initial in-flow point. The Maintenance Row
is surrounded by R-Tank modules, as needed, to increase the detention volume and infiltration
footprint. Testing was done at flow rates representing the full range of design flows.
Fifteen (15) modules were used in the tested array. Ten (10) R-Tank modules and five (5)
Maintenance modules. All modules measured 28.15 inches long x 15.75 inches wide x 17.32
inches tall. The central (maintenance) row was underlain by two layers of woven geotextile
(type S300) and covered on the top and sides by a nonwoven geotextile (8 osy). Figure 1b shows
the installed modules.
Figure 1b. R-Tank System Array Being Installed
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Page 3
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
Sediments were introduced into the inflow to create an influent having a target concentration of
200 mg/L. The sediments used for this testing were manufactured silica sand (AGSCO #110).
The manufacturer’s information on the AGSCO #110 is included in Appendix B.
Testing Procedures
Testing was done in accordance with ASTM C1746. The pre-test, component preparation, test
setup, procedural, and breakdown steps are detailed in Tables 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d.
Table 1a. Pre-Test Determinations (example values shown)
Pre-1 Select the target influent suspended sediment concentration (SSC). 200 mg/L
Pre-2 Select the total amount of sediment to be injected into the test. 22 lbs
Pre-3 Calculate the total flow needed to achieve the targe SSC. (Pre-2/Pre-1) 13193 gal
Pre-4 Select the desired test flow rate. 120 gpm
Pre-5 Calculate the total test time. (Pre-3/Pre-4) 110 minutes
Pre-6 Calculate the required sampling interval based on 6 even intervals. (Pre-5/6) 18 minutes
Table 1b. Component Preparation Steps (example values shown)
1 Cut/Weigh woven geotextile: 2 pieces @ 31" by 12.5 ft 2.826 lbs
2 Cut/Weigh nonwoven geotextile: 1 piece @ 5.5 ft by 15 ft 4.088 lbs
3 Filter sock: Cut steel band (but leave in) & Weigh 0.330 lbs
4 Cut/Weigh wash geotextile: 1 piece approx 4 ft x 4ft (to collect spray from units) 0.444 lbs
5 Weigh out 36 lbs of test sand in clean bucket 36 lbs
Table 1c. Test Setup Steps
6 Install 2 pieces of woven geotextile (one on top of the other) along the centerline of the test basin. Be sure
to secure against the upstream basin wall.
7
Install the R-Tank Maintenance Row units along the centerline of the test basin over the woven
geotextiles. There should be no gaps between the units. There should be at least 6 inches of woven
geotextile extending beyond the sides of the units.
8 Install the nonwoven geotextile over and down the sides of the Maintenance Row units. The nonwoven
should be turned horizontal at the bottom of the units and lay on top of the woven geotextile at least 6 in.
9 Install R-Tank Standard units on either side of the Maintenance Row leaving no gaps between the units.
10 Place precast weights on top to of the R-Tank units to assure no shifting during testing.
11
Create access to sample influent by cutting and fold back approximately 12 inches of the nonwoven
geotextile overlying the top of the first Maintenance Row unit. Cut and remove the portion of the top
panel of the first Maintenance Row unit corresponding to the folded back geotextile.
12 Insert the perforated PVC pipe section into the filter sock and then slide the filter sock over the sump
outlet assembly. Secure the filter sock to the sump wall.
13 Pour the preweighed 36 lbs of sand into the vibrating auger feeder.
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Page 4
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
Table 1d. Test Procedure and Breakdown Steps
14 Turn on the system flow meter.
15 Open the valve to the water supply to the pump while keeping the sump discharge valve closed. Also
open the valve to the test basin influent pipe and close the valve to the water supply recirculation.
16 Set RPMs on the variable speed pump to the pre-calibrated speed for the desired test flow rate.
17
Turn on the pump and allow the flow to proceed into and through the test basin and collect in the sump
until such time as the flow becomes uniform and the sump reaches the depth that was used to calibrate
flows. Minor adjustments to the pump RPMs may be necessary to achieve the desired test flow rate.
18 Open the sump discharge valve while closing the water supply inflow valve to create a closed system for
the test. This begins the "Equilibrium Phase". Record the time and water temperature in the sump.
19 Allow the Equilibrium Phase to run for 10 detention times. The detention time is the volume of the test
basin holding water during the test divided by the test flow rate.
20 At the end of the Equilibrium Phase, draw a 1L bottle sample of the influent as it enters the first module.
This sample will provide a typical "background" suspended sediment concentration (SSC).
21
Select the setting on the variable speed vibrating auger feeder to the pre-calibrated speed for the desired
test sediment injection rate. Minor adjustments to the feeder setting may be necessary during the test to
maintain the desired test injection rate.
22 After one detention time, draw a 1L bottle sample of effluent from the test basin discharge pipe.
23 As soon as the initial effluent sample is taken, record the temperature of the sump water and initiate the
sediment feed from the vibrating auger feeder. This is the beginning of the test time.
24 Both system flow rate and auger feed rate are to be monitored regularly throughout the test and adjusted,
as necessary, to maintain uniform conditions.
25 1L influent bottle samples shall be taken at the prescribed sampling interval throughout the test.
26 A 1 minute dry feed sample shall be taken immediately following the influent 1L bottle sampling.
27 A 1L Effluent bottle sample shall be taken 1 detention time after each Influent sample.
28
Immediately following the final effluent bottle sample, the variable speed pump and auger feeder are
turned off, and the sump discharge is diverted to effluent settlement vessels until the water level reaches
4± inches. The sump water temperature is measured one final time.
29 Sediments are allowed to settle prior to syphoning of remaining clear water. (Step 32 is initiated)
30 When the water depth is too shallow to support syphoning, remaining liquids and settled solids are
vacuumed and collected in buckets.
31 The filter sock is removed.
32 The R-Tank array in the test basin is carefully disassembled, including removing the geotextiles and all
the sediments held.
33 R-Tank units are spray-washed, as necessary, over a "wash" geotextile to collect any sediments that are
retained within the units.
34 Vacuum / Weigh sediment remaining in auger feeder.
35 Geotextiles and filter sock are spread out on plastic to dry. Bucket(s) of vacuumed water/solids are
allowed to settle.
36 Weigh dry geotextiles and associated sediments and filter sock.
37 Decant clear water from above settled solids in bucket and vacuum filter/dry settled solids.
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Page 5
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
Testing Results
Hydraulic performance was based on flow rate monitoring and water depth measurements within
the test chamber. Sediment removal efficiency was based on both direct measurements
(collecting, drying, and weighing input, captured, and passing sediments) and indirect
measurements (suspended sediment concentration determination of influent and effluent bottle
samples). The data sheets for each test (i.e. flow level) are included in Appendix C. Primary test
parameters are summarized in Table 2. Sediment removal efficiencies and hydraulic
performance are summarized in Table 3 and Figures 2 and 3.
Table 2. Test Parameters
Total
Influent
(gal)
Flow
(gpm)
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate*
(gpm/ft2)
Flow
(cfs)
Maximum
Stage
(in)
Total
Volume
(gal)
Detention
Time
(min)
Test
Length
(min)
Sampling
Interval
(min)
Sediment
Delivery
(lb/min)
Influent
Conc.
(mg/L)
2200 20.1 1.30 0.04 4.25 191 9.50 657 110 0.036 217
2200 39.9 2.59 0.09 6.0 269 6.75 331 55 0.067 202
2200 58.9 3.83 0.13 7.0 314 5.33 224 37 0.107 217
2200 80.8 5.25 0.18 8.0 359 4.44 163 27 0.140 208
2200 101.2 6.57 0.23 9.0 404 3.99 130 22 0.171 203
2200 119.9 7.79 0.27 10.0 449 3.74 110 18 0.197 197
*Flow per Area of Maintenance Row Footprint Area - 5 chambers (ft2): 15.4
Table 3. Hydraulic Performance And Sediment Removal Efficiency
Test Date: 9/19/18 9/18/18 9/17/18 9/20/18 9/20/18 9/25/18
Flow Rate (gpm): 20.1 39.9 58.9 80.8 101.2 119.9
Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2): 1.30 2.59 3.83 5.25 6.57 7.79
Maximum Stage (in): 4.25 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Depth in Chamber (in): 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
SOLIDS MASS BALANCE:
Retained Solids - Within Units (lbs): 16.68 14.81 13.43 12.09 11.99 11.71
Passed Solids (lbs): 0.12 0.19 0.22 0.28 0.36 0.50
Actual Solids Injected (lbs): 23.12 22.59 23.58 22.73 23.00 22.92
Unaccounted Solids - Within Basin (lbs): 6.32 7.59 9.93 10.35 10.66 10.71
DIRECT - USING SEDIMENT WEIGHTS:
Solids in Influent (lbs): 23.12 22.59 23.58 22.73 23.00 22.92
Passed Solids (lbs): 0.12 0.19 0.22 0.28 0.36 0.50
Direct Removal Efficiency (%): 99.48% 99.16% 99.06% 98.75% 98.46% 97.81%
INDIRECT - USING CONCENTRATIONS:
Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L): 217.17 201.71 217.32 208.15 202.77 197.25
Average Concentration in Effluent (mg/L): 1.95 3.42 5.97 7.39 8.86 11.16
Indirect Removal Efficiency (%): 99.10% 98.30% 97.25% 96.45% 95.63% 94.34%
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Page 6
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
y = -7E-07x2 -0.0004x + 0.9984
R² = 0.994
y = -1E-06x2 -3E-07x + 0.9945
R² = 0.9779
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Sediment Removal Efficiency (%)Flow Rate (gpm)
Flow vs. Sediment Removal Efficiency
Indirect Direct Poly. (Indirect)Poly. (Direct)
Figure 2. Flow Rate vs. Sediment Removal Efficiency
y = 10.999x-0.534
R² = 0.9979
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00Detention Time (minutes)Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Hydraulic Loading Rate vs. Detention Time
Figure 3. Hydraulic Loading Rate vs. Detention Time
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Page 7
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
y = 3.774x0.4655
R² = 0.9972
y = 0.191x + 1.5049
R² = 0.9996
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00Water Depth (inches)Hydraulic Loading Rate (gpm/ft2)
Hydraulic Loading Rate vs. Water Depth
Stage Depth (including 9 inch stone bed)Depth within Modules
Power (Stage Depth (including 9 inch stone bed))Linear (Depth within Modules)
Figure 4. Hydraulic Loading Rate vs. Water Depth
Discussion
Sediment Removal Efficiency: As shown in Figure 2, by both direct and indirect measures the
testing demonstrated very high sediment removal efficiencies over the range of design flow rates.
At all flow rates, using both direct and indirect measurements, the sediment removal efficiency
exceeded 94%.
The highest removal rates were at the lowest flow rates but were only slightly reduced as the
flow rates increased. The direct measures showed the highest removal efficiencies. These direct
measurements used the known weight of sediment introduced into the system influent during the
testing and the accurate measurement of all sediments collected in the sump, dried, and weighed.
Simply put, sediment in minus sediment out equals sediment trapped/removed by the system.
The indirect measure was based on bottle samples taken to determine suspended sediment
concentrations (SSC) in accordance with ASTM D3977. It is believed that the bottle sampling
technique is somewhat less accurate as it can be difficult to take a truly representative sample of
influent and effluent, especially as the flow rate increases and the sample bottle fills in a fraction
of a second. Still the indirect samples results were within a few percentage of the direct
measures and generally demonstrated a similar trend associated with decreasing efficiency with
increasing flow.
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Page 8
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
Hydraulic Performance: Figures 3 and 4 show the relationships between hydraulic loading rate
versus detention time and hydraulic loading rate versus water depth in the test basin,
respectively. The detention time is the flow rate divided by the volume of the test basin at the
water depth measured in the basin. As the flow rate increased the detention time decreased and
the water volume (stage depth – depth within the basin - and depth within modules) increased.
The parabolic shape of both the hydraulic loading rate vs. detention time and the hydraulic
loading rate vs. stage depth graphs suggests that the perforated system discharge (effluent) pipe
begins to slightly limit system discharge as the flow rate into the system increases. Still, the
hydraulic relationships defined during testing have very significant correlations (high R2 values).
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Appendix A
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
Appendix A: Test Setup Schematic
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Appendix A
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Appendix B
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
Appendix B: Silica Sand (AGSCO #110)
Revised: 2/10/2015
AGSCO SILICA SAND
TYPICAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
FUSION POINT 3135 OF
HARDNESS Knoop - 820; Mohs - 7
GRAIN SHAPE Spherical
SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.65 g/cm3
LOOSE PACK BULK DENSITY 1.60 g/cm3 (100 lbs/ft3)
pH 6.8 to 7.2
TYPICAL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
#10-20 and Coarser Sizes #12-20 and Finer Sizes
SiO2 98.2 % SiO2 99.8 %
Fe2O3 0.14 Fe2O3 0.016
Al2O3 0.49 Al2O3 0.034
TiO2 0.02 TiO2 0.007
CaO 0.02 CaO 0.011
MgO 0.01 MgO 0.007
K2O 0.21 Loss on Ignition 0.094
Na2O 0.06
Loss on Ignition 0.40
TYPICAL SCREEN ANALYSIS
(Percent Retained)
US SIEVE #4-8 #8-12 #10-16 #10-20
6 3.4
7 21.7
8 6.0 2.8
10 74.4 54.0 16.6
12 0.5 35.3 30.7 1.6
14 4.7 32.7 35.3
16 T 13.7 40.4
18 2.4 17.7
20 1.1 4.0
25 0.9
40
Pan 0.1
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Effective Size (mm) 2.00 1.70 1.20 1.00
Revised: 2/10/2015
TYPICAL SCREEN ANALYSIS
(Percent Retained)
US SIEVE 12-20 16-30 20-40 (#1)
35-50
(#2)
40-70
50-80
(#7)
70-100
(#10)
100-140
(#110)
140-200
(#16)
140-270
12
14
16 70.5
18 26.0 1.3
20 1.8 48.2 0.2
25 0.5 45.4 7.0 0.3
30 0.3 3.8 20.6 2.0 0.3
35 0.5 0.9 42.8 20.5 5.2
40 0.3 0.4 23.3 35.3 16.5 2.7 2.9 1.2 0.3
50 6.0 32.7 37.0 39.3 17.4 2.9 1.5
60 4.7 14.2 23.8 --- --- ---
70 2.2 9.3 16.2 39.9 13.2 4.4
80 2.3 5.5 9.1 --- --- ---
100 4.8 5.4 27.7 41.4 19.8
120 7.2 3.5 --- --- --- ---
140 11.2 36.3 42.8 27.8
170 --- --- --- ---
200 0.9 4.8 20.5 50.9
230 --- --- ---
270 0.1 8.3 19.3
325/PAN 0.1 2.3 2.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
AFS Grain
Number 11 15 25 35 47 50 59.6 80.3 111.8 144
Effective Size
(mm). 1.0 0.71 0.43 0.30 .15 .15 .11
SILICA FLOUR
(Typical Percent Retained/Passing)
U.S. Sieve #70 / 250u #140 / 106u #200 / 90u #230/63u #270/53u #325 / 45u
70 3
100 11 T
140 8 1 T
200 14 6 3 1 T
270 9 10 7 4 3 T
325 5 8 7 5 4 2
Passing 325 50 75 83 90 93 98
Totals 100 100 100 100 100 100
September 30, 2018
R-Tank, Maintenance Row
Appendix C
Corporate Lab: 9063 Bee Caves Road, Austin, TX 78733 / www.geosynthetictesting.com
Southeast Labs: 112 Martin Rd., Greenville, SC 29607 / www.erosiontest.com
Appendix C: Test Data Sheets
Test Date:
Test ID:
Influent Volume per Sample:gallons
Sample Interval:minutes
Sample Interval:hours:minutes (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Approx. Test Length:minutes
Detention Time:minutes
Detention Time:minutes:seconds (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Target Influent Concentration:mg/L
Target Sediment Injected:lbs
Target Sediment Injection Rate:lb/min 90.75 g/min (40 setting on auger)
Target Flow Rate:gpm 454 lpm
DIRECT - USING SEDIMENT MEASUREMENTS:
(4.088 NW + 1.428 W + 1.398 W + 0.444 Wash)Dry Geotextile Weight - Initial:lbs Retained Solids - Within Units (lbs):11.71
Dry Geotextile Weight - Final:lbs
(0.330 + 0)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Initial:lbs Passed Solids (lbs):0.501
(0.440 + 0.391)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Final:lbs
Dry Weight in Feeder - Initial:lbs Actual Solids Injected (lbs):22.9
Dry Weight in Feeder - Final:lbs
Unaccounted Solids - Within Basin (lbs):10.7
22.9 22.4 97.8%
INDIRECT - USING CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS:
Flow Rate:lpm (2900 rpm on pump)
Flow Rate:gpm 0.267 cfs
R-Tank Footprint Area:ft2 (15.75" W x 28.15" L x 17.34" H) x 5
Hydraulic Loading Rate (flow per area):gpm/ft2
Stage Relative to Outlet (in)inches (Measure in well near start of test.)
Total Volume:ft3 448.80 gallons
Equilibrium Start Time:min.:sec.(Begin recirc for 10 detention times;Take sump temp.)
Equilibrium End Time:min.:sec.(Take first influent/effluent samples, then start feeder.)
Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Initial Sample Time:hours:minutes:sec
Initial Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Final Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Depth in Chamber:inches (Measure near end of test.)
Sample Time
hrs:min:sec
1 min. dry
feed (g)Sample
Time to Fill 1L,
sec Bottle Tare (g)
Bottle Gross
(g)Bottle Net (g)Water (mL)
Filtrate Tare
(g)Filtrate Dry (g)Solids (mg)Dry Feed Calc.
Bottle Sample
Calc
9:17:30 Influent 0 < 1 sec 50.45 1075.64 1025.19 1025.19 104.6663 104.6724 6.1 0.0 6.0
9:39:15 87.40 Influent 1 < 1 sec 49.49 1075.40 1025.91 1025.91 103.6036 103.8019 198.3 192.5 193.3
9:57:15 87.90 Influent 2 < 1 sec 50.48 1079.70 1029.22 1029.22 105.3073 105.5147 207.4 193.6 201.5
10:15:15 89.32 Influent 3 < 1 sec 50.50 1077.44 1026.94 1026.94 104.2367 104.4389 202.2 196.7 196.9
10:33:15 89.24 Influent 4 < 1 sec 49.70 1081.15 1031.45 1031.45 104.4590 104.6615 202.5 196.6 196.3
10:51:15 89.80 Influent 5 < 1 sec 50.36 1079.14 1028.78 1028.78 104.1951 104.4068 211.7 197.8 205.8
11:09:15 93.65 Influent 6 < 1 sec 49.41 1078.68 1029.27 1029.27 104.5469 104.7504 203.5 206.3 197.7
197.3 198.6
9:21:15 Effluent 0 < 1 sec 49.43 1058.09 1008.66 1008.66 103.6772 103.6785 1.3 1.3 1.3
9:43:00 Effluent 1 < 1 sec 49.60 1074.14 1024.54 1024.54 103.1229 103.1362 13.3 13.0 13.0
10:01:00 Effluent 2 < 1 sec 50.58 1072.53 1021.95 1021.95 104.2605 104.2728 12.3 12.0 12.0
10:19:00 Effluent 3 < 1 sec 49.77 1065.49 1015.72 1015.72 104.9544 104.9673 12.9 12.7 12.7
10:37:00 Effluent 4 < 1 sec 49.42 1055.55 1006.13 1006.13 104.4083 104.4183 10.0 9.9 9.9
10:55:00 Effluent 5 < 1 sec 49.55 1055.14 1005.59 1005.59 103.8415 103.8521 10.6 10.5 10.5
11:13:00 Effluent 6 < 1 sec 50.52 1067.08 1016.56 1016.56 103.5248 103.5337 8.9 8.8 8.8
11.2 11.2
197.3 11.2 94.3%
198.6 11.2 94.4%
0:18
Test Summary
9/25/2018
R-Tank_120
2200
18
0.330
110
3.74
03:45.0
200
22
0.200
120
Test Data Collection
7.358
19.068
SOLIDS MASS BALANCE
0.831
36.000
13.082
Solids Retained (lbs):Solids in Influent (lbs):Direct Removal Efficiency (%):
9:17:30
454
120
15.4
7.79
(Fill system from reservoirs at target flow rate until sump reaches the desired fill line. Close/open valves to create closed loop.)
10
60
8:40:00
9:17:30
25.7 8:40:00
25.7 9:26:00
26.0 11:12:00
3
Influent Bottle Samples Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
Concentration (mg/L)
(Take initial sump temp.)Average Concentration:
(Take final sump temp.)Average Concentration:
Influent Dry Feed Samples Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
Sample Data Collection (ASTM D3977)
Test Date:
Test ID:
Influent Volume per Sample:gallons
Sample Interval:minutes
Sample Interval:hours:minutes (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Approx. Test Length:minutes
Detention Time:minutes
Detention Time:minutes:seconds (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Target Influent Concentration:mg/L
Target Sediment Injected:lbs
Target Sediment Injection Rate:lb/min 76.56 g/min (35 setting on auger)
Target Flow Rate:gpm 379 lpm
DIRECT - USING SEDIMENT MEASUREMENTS:
(4.222 NW + 1.402 W + 1.376 W + 0.558 Wash)Dry Geotextile Weight - Initial:lbs Retained Solids - Within Units (lbs):11.986
Dry Geotextile Weight - Final:lbs
(0.350 + 0)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Initial:lbs Passed Solids (lbs):0.355
(0.382 + 0.323)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Final:lbs
Dry Weight in Feeder - Initial:lbs Actual Solids Injected (lbs):23.0
Dry Weight in Feeder - Final:lbs
Unaccounted Solids - Within Basin (lbs):10.7
23.0 22.6 98.5%
INDIRECT - USING CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS:
Flow Rate:lpm (2450 rpm on pump)
Flow Rate:gpm 0.225 cfs
R-Tank Footprint Area:ft2 (15.75" W x 28.15" L x 17.34" H) x 5
Hydraulic Loading Rate (flow per area):gpm/ft2
Stage Relative to Outlet (in)inches (Measure in well near start of test.)
Total Volume:ft3 403.92 gallons
Equilibrium Start Time:min.:sec.(Begin recirc for 10 detention times;Take sump temp.)
Equilibrium End Time:min.:sec.(Take first influent/effluent samples, then start feeder.)
Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Initial Sample Time:hours:minutes:sec
Initial Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Final Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Depth in Chamber:inches (Measure near end of test.)
Sample Time
hrs:min:sec
1 min. dry
feed (g)Sample
Time to Fill 1L,
sec Bottle Tare (g)
Bottle Gross
(g)Bottle Net (g)Water (mL)
Filtrate Tare
(g)Filtrate Dry (g)Solids (mg)Dry Feed Calc.
Bottle Sample
Calc
14:40:00 Influent 0 < 1 sec 50.45 1075.88 1025.43 1025.43 103.8294 103.8347 5.3 0.0 5.2
15:06:00 78.09 Influent 1 < 1 sec 49.48 1082.10 1032.62 1032.62 104.6705 104.8885 218.0 203.9 211.1
15:28:00 76.90 Influent 2 < 1 sec 50.50 1079.80 1029.30 1029.30 104.5519 104.7633 211.4 200.8 205.4
15:50:00 76.19 Influent 3 < 1 sec 50.42 1080.83 1030.41 1030.41 104.2045 104.4099 205.4 198.9 199.3
16:12:00 77.46 Influent 4 < 1 sec 49.71 1081.71 1032.00 1032.00 105.3107 105.5190 208.3 202.2 201.8
16:34:00 77.66 Influent 5 < 1 sec 50.36 1080.51 1030.15 1030.15 103.5315 103.7412 209.7 202.8 203.6
16:56:00 79.66 Influent 6 < 1 sec 49.38 1078.59 1029.21 1029.21 104.9598 105.1775 217.7 208.0 211.5
202.8 205.5
14:44:00 Effluent 0 < 1 sec 49.41 1051.33 1001.92 1001.92 104.2693 104.2729 3.6 3.6 3.6
15:10:00 Effluent 1 < 1 sec 49.60 1057.56 1007.96 1007.96 104.4253 104.4355 10.2 10.1 10.1
15:32:00 Effluent 2 < 1 sec 50.58 1053.06 1002.48 1002.48 104.2396 104.2501 10.5 10.5 10.5
15:54:00 Effluent 3 < 1 sec 49.77 1072.63 1022.86 1022.86 103.5944 103.6045 10.1 9.9 9.9
16:16:00 Effluent 4 < 1 sec 49.42 1054.78 1005.36 1005.36 104.4420 104.4518 9.8 9.7 9.7
16:38:00 Effluent 5 < 1 sec 49.55 1068.11 1018.56 1018.56 103.1266 103.1357 9.1 8.9 8.9
17:00:00 Effluent 6 < 1 sec 50.54 1053.12 1002.58 1002.58 103.6741 103.6781 4.0 4.0 4.0
8.9 8.9
202.8 8.9 95.6%
205.5 8.9 95.7%
130
14:45:00
17:01:00
Test Summary
R-Tank_100
2200
22
0:22
0.705
3.99
04:00.0
200
22
0.169
100
SOLIDS MASS BALANCE
Test Data Collection
7.558
19.544
0.350
9
36.000
12.996
15.4
6.57
(Fill system from reservoirs at target flow rate until sump reaches the desired fill line. Close/open valves to create closed loop.)
Solids Retained (lbs):Direct Removal Efficiency (%):
383
101
Solids in Influent (lbs):
(Take initial sump temp.)Average Concentration:
54
14:00:00
14:40:00
26.1
14:40:00
27.4
Influent Bottle Samples Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
9/20/2018
14:00:00
(Take final sump temp.)Average Concentration:
Influent Dry Feed Samples Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
28.0
2.75
Sample Data Collection (ASTM D3977)Concentration (mg/L)
Test Date:
Test ID:
Influent Volume per Sample:gallons
Sample Interval:minutes
Sample Interval:hours:minutes (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Approx. Test Length:minutes
Detention Time:minutes
Detention Time:minutes:seconds (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Target Influent Concentration:mg/L
Target Sediment Injected:lbs
Target Sediment Injection Rate:lb/min 61.17 g/min (30 setting on auger)
Target Flow Rate:gpm 303 lpm
DIRECT - USING SEDIMENT MEASUREMENTS:
(4.222 NW + 1.402 W + 1.252 W + 0.776 Wash)Dry Geotextile Weight - Initial:lbs Retained Solids - Within Units (lbs):12.094
Dry Geotextile Weight - Final:lbs
(0.334 + 0)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Initial:lbs Passed Solids (lbs):0.284
(0.360 + 0.258)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Final:lbs
Dry Weight in Feeder - Initial:lbs Actual Solids Injected (lbs):22.7
Dry Weight in Feeder - Final:lbs
Unaccounted Solids - Within Basin (lbs):10.4
22.7 22.4 98.8%
INDIRECT - USING CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS:
Flow Rate:lpm (2000 rpm on pump)
Flow Rate:gpm 0.180 cfs
R-Tank Footprint Area:ft2 (15.75" W x 28.15" L x 17.34" H) x 5
Hydraulic Loading Rate (flow per area):gpm/ft2
Stage Relative to Outlet (in)inches (Measure in well near start of test.)
Total Volume:ft3 359.04 gallons
Equilibrium Start Time:min.:sec.(Begin recirc for 10 detention times;Take sump temp.)
Equilibrium End Time:min.:sec.(Take first influent/effluent samples, then start feeder.)
Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Initial Sample Time:hours:minutes:sec
Initial Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Final Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Depth in Chamber:inches (Measure near end of test.)
Sample Time
hrs:min:sec
1 min. dry
feed (g)Sample
Time to Fill 1L,
sec Bottle Tare (g)
Bottle Gross
(g)Bottle Net (g)Water (mL)
Filtrate Tare
(g)Filtrate Dry (g)Solids (mg)Dry Feed Calc.
Bottle Sample
Calc
9:22:10 Influent 0 < 1 sec 50.00 1074.13 1024.13 1024.13 102.9639 102.9679 4.0 0.0 3.9
9:53:53 65.49 Influent 1 < 1 sec 50.61 1078.20 1027.59 1027.59 101.6652 101.8798 214.6 214.0 208.8
10:20:53 64.36 Influent 2 < 1 sec 50.47 1079.90 1029.43 1029.43 101.3517 101.5736 221.9 210.3 215.6
10:47:53 65.96 Influent 3 < 1 sec 49.07 1078.16 1029.09 1029.09 100.7423 100.9571 214.8 215.6 208.7
11:14:53 63.13 Influent 4 < 1 sec 49.66 1079.68 1030.02 1030.02 102.0552 102.2759 220.7 206.3 214.3
11:41:53 62.30 Influent 5 < 1 sec 50.42 1080.18 1029.76 1029.76 100.9438 101.1638 220.0 203.6 213.6
12:08:53 60.93 Influent 6 < 1 sec 49.25 1080.30 1031.05 1031.05 101.0648 101.2844 219.6 199.1 213.0
208.2 212.3
9:26:53 Effluent 0 < 1 sec 49.57 1056.71 1007.14 1007.14 100.9458 100.9502 4.4 4.4 4.4
9:58:36 Effluent 1 < 1 sec 49.63 1061.59 1011.96 1011.96 101.6796 101.6889 9.3 9.2 9.2
10:25:36 Effluent 2 < 1 sec 49.73 1061.36 1011.63 1011.63 102.8029 102.8117 8.8 8.7 8.7
10:52:36 Effluent 3 < 1 sec 50.47 1075.67 1025.20 1025.20 100.7668 100.7742 7.4 7.2 7.2
11:19:36 Effluent 4 < 1 sec 50.40 1055.74 1005.34 1005.34 102.8149 102.8218 6.9 6.9 6.9
11:46:36 Effluent 5 < 1 sec 50.37 1055.63 1005.26 1005.26 101.4183 101.4256 7.3 7.3 7.3
12:13:36 Effluent 6 < 1 sec 50.42 1062.78 1012.36 1012.36 102.5306 102.5358 5.2 5.1 5.1
7.4 7.4
208.2 7.4 96.4%
212.3 7.4 96.5%
163
Test Summary
R-Tank_80
2200
27
0:27
0.618
4.44
04:43.0
200
22
0.135
80
Test Data Collection
7.652
19.746
0.334
SOLIDS MASS BALANCE
8
36.000
13.268
Solids Retained (lbs):
(Fill system from reservoirs at target flow rate until sump reaches the desired fill line. Close/open valves to create closed loop.)
Solids in Influent (lbs):Direct Removal Efficiency (%):
306
81
15.4
5.25
26.9 12:14:00
2.5
Sample Data Collection (ASTM D3977)
48
8:35:00
9:22:10
26.6 8:35:00
9:22:10
Influent Bottle Samples Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
9/20/2018
Concentration (mg/L)
(Take initial sump temp.)Average Concentration:
(Take final sump temp.)Average Concentration:
Influent Dry Feed Samples Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
26.7 9:26:00
Test Date:
Test ID:
Influent Volume per Sample:gallons
Sample Interval:minutes
Sample Interval:hours:minutes (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Approx. Test Length:minutes
Detention Time:minutes
Detention Time:minutes:seconds (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Target Influent Concentration:mg/L
Target Sediment Injected:lbs
Target Sediment Injection Rate:lb/min 44.58 g/min (20 setting on auger)
Target Flow Rate:gpm 227 lpm
DIRECT - USING SEDIMENT MEASUREMENTS:
(3.898 NW + 1.234 W + 1.252 W + 1.012 Wash)Dry Geotextile Weight - Initial:lbs Retained Solids - Within Units (lbs):13.43
Dry Geotextile Weight - Final:lbs
(0.280 + 0)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Initial:lbs Passed Solids (lbs):0.221
(0.292 + 0.209)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Final:lbs
Dry Weight in Feeder - Initial:lbs Actual Solids Injected (lbs):23.6
Dry Weight in Feeder - Final:lbs
Unaccounted Solids - Within Basin (lbs):9.9
23.6 23.4 99.1%
INDIRECT - USING CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS:
Flow Rate:lpm (1500 rpm on pump)
Flow Rate:gpm 0.131 cfs
R-Tank Footprint Area:ft2 (15.75" W x 28.15" L x 17.34" H) x 5
Hydraulic Loading Rate (flow per area):gpm/ft2
Stage Relative to Outlet (in)inches (Measure in well near start of test.)
Total Volume:ft3 314.16 gallons
Equilibrium Start Time:min.:sec.(Begin recirc for 10 detention times;Take sump temp.)
Equilibrium End Time:min.:sec.(Take first influent/effluent samples, then start feeder.)
Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Initial Sample Time:hours:minutes:sec
Initial Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Final Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Depth in Chamber:inches (Measure near end of test.)
Sample Time
hrs:min:sec
1 min. dry
feed (g)Sample
Time to Fill 1L,
sec Bottle Tare (g)
Bottle Gross
(g)Bottle Net (g)Water (mL)
Filtrate Tare
(g)Filtrate Dry (g)Solids (mg)Dry Feed Calc.
Bottle Sample
Calc
13:40:20 Influent 0 < 1 sec 50.27 1075.71 1025.44 1025.44 0.5582 0.5696 11.4 0.0 11.1
14:22:40 45.86 Influent 1 < 1 sec 51.15 1053.23 1002.08 1002.08 0.5567 0.7566 199.9 205.7 199.5
14:59:40 49.95 Influent 2 < 1 sec 51.05 1074.36 1023.31 1023.31 0.5609 0.7768 215.9 224.0 211.0
15:36:40 47.21 Influent 3 < 1 sec 49.66 1080.67 1031.01 1031.01 0.5598 0.7496 189.8 211.7 184.1
16:13:40 48.73 Influent 4 < 1 sec 50.20 1078.57 1028.37 1028.37 0.5560 0.7646 208.6 218.5 202.8
16:50:40 53.34 Influent 5 < 1 sec 50.85 1081.24 1030.39 1030.39 0.5620 0.7738 211.8 239.2 205.6
17:27:40 45.68 Influent 6 < 1 sec 51.00 1079.53 1028.53 1028.53 0.5555 0.7599 204.4 204.8 198.7
217.3 200.3
13:45:40 Effluent 0 < 1 sec 50.01 1048.47 998.46 998.46 0.5616 0.5668 5.2 5.2 5.2
14:28:00 Effluent 1 < 1 sec 50.17 1050.52 1000.35 1000.35 0.5585 0.5655 7.0 7.0 7.0
15:05:00 Effluent 2 < 1 sec 50.17 1043.42 993.25 993.25 0.5644 0.5705 6.1 6.1 6.1
15:42:00 Effluent 3 < 1 sec 50.89 1047.75 996.86 996.86 1.1218 1.1284 6.6 6.6 6.6
16:19:00 Effluent 4 < 1 sec 50.90 1054.76 1003.86 1003.86 0.5613 0.5675 6.2 6.2 6.2
16:56:00 Effluent 5 < 1 sec 50.90 1054.83 1003.93 1003.93 0.5550 0.5611 6.1 6.1 6.1
17:33:00 Effluent 6 < 1 sec 50.83 1029.20 978.37 978.37 0.5535 0.5572 3.7 3.8 3.8
6.0 6.0
217.3 6.0 97.3%
200.3 6.0 97.0%
Solids in Influent (lbs):
224
Test Summary
R-Tank_60
2200
37
0:37
9/17/2018
Solids Retained (lbs):Direct Removal Efficiency (%):
0.501
5.33
05:20.0
200
22
0.098
60
Test Data Collection
7.396
20.826
SOLIDS MASS BALANCE
0.280
13:40:20
13:46:00
12:47:00
36.000
12.422
7
42
12:47:00
13:40:20
26.0
223
59
15.4
3.83
(Fill system from reservoirs at target flow rate until sump reaches the desired fill line. Close/open valves to create closed loop.)
26.1
(Take final sump temp.)Average Concentration:
17:34:00
Concentration (mg/L)Sample Data Collection (ASTM D3977)
26.5
2.25
(Take initial sump temp.)Average Concentration:
Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
Influent Bottle Samples Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
Influent Dry Feed Samples Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):
Test Date:
Test ID:
Influent Volume per Sample:gallons
Sample Interval:minutes
Sample Interval:hours:minutes (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Approx. Test Length:minutes
Detention Time:minutes
Detention Time:minutes:seconds (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Target Influent Concentration:mg/L
Target Sediment Injected:lbs
Target Sediment Injection Rate:lb/min 30.18 g/min (15 setting on auger)
Target Flow Rate:gpm 151 lpm
DIRECT - USING SEDIMENT MEASUREMENTS:
(3.898 NW + 1.234 W + 1.252 W + 0.880 Wash)Dry Geotextile Weight - Initial:lbs Retained Solids - Within Units (lbs):14.812
Dry Geotextile Weight - Final:lbs
(0.365 + 0)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Initial:lbs Passed Solids (lbs):0.19
(0.406 + 0.149)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Final:lbs
Dry Weight in Feeder - Initial:lbs Actual Solids Injected (lbs):22.6
Dry Weight in Feeder - Final:lbs
Unaccounted Solids - Within Basin (lbs):7.6
22.6 22.4 99.2%
INDIRECT - USING CONCENTRATION MEASUREMENTS:
Flow Rate:lpm (1100 rpm on pump)
Flow Rate:gpm 0.089 cfs
R-Tank Footprint Area:ft2 (15.75" W x 28.15" L x 17.34" H) x 5
Hydraulic Loading Rate (flow per area):gpm/ft2
Stage Relative to Outlet (in)inches (Measure in well near start of test.)
Total Volume:ft3 269.28 gallons
Equilibrium Start Time:min.:sec.(Begin recirc for 10 detention times;Take sump temp.)
Equilibrium End Time:min.:sec.(Take first influent/effluent samples, then start feeder.)
Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Initial Sample Time:hours:minutes:sec
Initial Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Final Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Depth in Chamber:inches (Measure near end of test.)
Sample Time
hrs:min:sec
1 min. dry
feed (g)Sample
Time to Fill 1L,
sec Bottle Tare (g)
Bottle Gross
(g)Bottle Net (g)Water (mL)
Filtrate Tare
(g)Filtrate Dry (g)Solids (mg)Dry Feed Calc.
Bottle Sample
Calc
10:52:30 0.00 Influent 0 < 1 sec 51.23 1080.65 1029.42 1029.42 102.0440 102.0511 7.1 0.0 6.9
11:54:15 30.34 Influent 1 < 1 sec 49.94 1063.21 1013.27 1013.27 100.7382 100.9251 186.9 200.9 184.5
12:49:15 26.34 Influent 2 < 1 sec 51.14 1081.26 1030.12 1030.12 101.6606 101.8276 167.0 174.4 162.1
13:44:15 29.43 Influent 3 < 1 sec 50.83 1079.97 1029.14 1029.14 102.1394 102.3253 185.9 194.9 180.6
14:39:15 32.35 Influent 4 < 1 sec 51.02 1072.62 1021.60 1021.60 101.3476 101.5324 184.8 214.2 180.9
15:34:15 31.80 Influent 5 < 1 sec 49.90 1080.71 1030.81 1030.81 101.4191 101.6278 208.7 210.6 202.5
16:29:15 32.49 Influent 6 < 1 sec 50.20 1082.83 1032.63 1032.63 100.5333 100.7288 195.5 215.2 189.3
201.7 183.3
10:59:15 Effluent 0 < 1 sec 51.00 1060.31 1009.31 1009.31 100.7669 100.7709 4.0 4.0 4.0
12:01:00 Effluent 1 < 1 sec 50.05 1058.84 1008.79 1008.79 102.5333 102.5375 4.2 4.2 4.2
12:56:00 Effluent 2 < 1 sec 50.05 1066.55 1016.50 1016.50 100.9437 100.9478 4.1 4.0 4.0
13:51:00 Effluent 3 < 1 sec 49.62 1063.35 1013.73 1013.73 101.6787 101.6824 3.7 3.6 3.6
14:46:00 Effluent 4 < 1 sec 50.97 1067.87 1016.90 1016.90 102.8154 102.8188 3.4 3.3 3.3
15:41:00 Effluent 5 < 1 sec 50.74 1068.65 1017.91 1017.91 101.0627 101.0660 3.3 3.2 3.2
16:36:00 Effluent 6 < 1 sec 51.23 1057.76 1006.53 1006.53 102.7903 102.7924 2.1 2.1 2.1
3.4 3.4
201.7 3.4 98.3%
183.3 3.4 98.1%
331
Test Summary
R-Tank_40
2200
55
0:55
0.555
6.75
06:45.0
200
22
0.066
40
Test Data Collection
6.384
21.196
0.365
SOLIDS MASS BALANCE
6
36.000
13.412
Solids Retained (lbs):
(Fill system from reservoirs at target flow rate until sump reaches the desired fill line. Close/open valves to create closed loop.)
Solids in Influent (lbs):Direct Removal Efficiency (%):
151
40
15.4
2.59
26.2 16:30:00
2
Sample Data Collection (ASTM D3977)
36
9:45:00
10:52:30
26.0 9:45:00
10:52:30
Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
9/18/2018
Influent Dry Feed Samples
Influent Bottle Samples
Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):
Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):
Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):
Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):
Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
Concentration (mg/L)
(Take initial sump temp.)Average Concentration:
(Take final sump temp.)Average Concentration:
26.0 10:59:00
Test Date:
Test ID:
Influent Volume per Sample:gallons
Sample Interval:minutes
Sample Interval:hours:minutes (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Approx. Test Length:minutes
Detention Time:minutes
Detention Time:minutes:seconds (convert decimal to minutes:seconds)
Target Influent Concentration:mg/L
Target Sediment Injected:lbs
Target Sediment Injection Rate:lb/min 15.19 g/min (8 setting on auger)
Target Flow Rate:gpm 76 lpm
DIRECT - USING SEDIMENT WEIGHTS:
(3.898 NW + 1.234 W + 1.252 W + 0.820 Wash)Dry Geotextile Weight - Initial:lbs Retained Solids - Within Units (lbs):16.68
Dry Geotextile Weight - Final:lbs
(0.350 + 0)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Initial:lbs Passed Solids (lbs):0.121
(0.410 + 0.061)Dry Filter Sock & Vacuum Filter Weights - Final:lbs
Dry Weight in Feeder - Initial:lbs Actual Solids Injected (lbs):23.1
Dry Weight in Feeder - Final:lbs
Unaccounted Solids - Within Basin (lbs):6.3
23.1 23.0 99.5%
INDIRECT - USING CONCENTRATIONS:
Flow Rate (lpm):(800 rpm on pump)
Flow Rate (gpm):0.045 cfs
R-Tank Footprint Area:ft2 (15.75" W x 28.15" L x 17.34" H) x 5
Hydraulic Loading Rate (flow per area):gpm/ft2
Stage Relative to Outlet (in)(Measure in well near start of test.)
Total Volume:ft3 190.74 gallons
Equilibrium Start Time:min.:sec.(Begin recirc for 10 detention times;Take sump temp.)
Equilibrium End Time:min.:sec.(Take first influent/effluent samples, then start feeder.)
Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Initial Sample Time:hours:minutes:sec
Initial Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Final Sample - Sump Water Temp / Time:°C /
Depth in Chamber (in):(Measure near end of test.)
Sample Time
hrs:min:sec
1 min. dry
feed (g)Sample
Time to Fill 1L,
sec Bottle Tare (g)
Bottle Gross
(g)Bottle Net (g)Water (mL)
Filtrate Tare
(g)Filtrate Dry (g)Solids (mg)Dry Feed Calc.
Bottle Sample
Calc
7:35:00 Influent 0 < 1 sec 50.84 1075.45 1024.61 1024.61 102.8037 102.8082 4.5 0.0 4.4
9:34:30 18.16 Influent 1 < 1 sec 49.85 1081.86 1032.01 1032.01 101.6810 101.9315 250.5 238.9 242.7
11:24:30 13.74 Influent 2 < 1 sec 50.49 1080.97 1030.48 1030.48 100.7620 100.9674 205.4 180.8 199.3
13:14:30 16.14 Influent 3 < 1 sec 50.42 1081.36 1030.94 1030.94 102.5535 102.7813 227.8 212.4 221.0
15:04:30 17.71 Influent 4 < 1 sec 49.71 1080.92 1031.21 1031.21 102.0682 102.3204 252.2 233.0 244.6
16:54:30 18.43 Influent 5 < 1 sec 50.43 1076.90 1026.47 1026.47 102.8334 103.0863 252.9 242.5 246.4
18:44:30 14.85 Influent 6 < 1 sec 49.43 1080.69 1031.26 1031.26 102.1568 102.3678 211.0 195.4 204.6
217.2 226.4
7:44:30 Effluent 0 < 1 sec 50.80 1059.00 1008.20 1008.20 102.9854 102.9901 4.7 4.7 4.7
9:44:00 Effluent 1 < 1 sec 50.03 1063.35 1013.32 1013.32 101.0846 101.0867 2.1 2.1 2.1
11:34:00 Effluent 2 < 1 sec 50.60 1064.80 1014.20 1014.20 101.3713 101.3738 2.5 2.5 2.5
13:24:00 Effluent 3 < 1 sec 49.78 1070.54 1020.76 1020.76 101.6692 101.6717 2.5 2.4 2.4
15:14:00 Effluent 4 < 1 sec 50.41 1064.55 1014.14 1014.14 100.7982 100.7997 1.5 1.5 1.5
17:04:00 Effluent 5 < 1 sec 50.38 1061.12 1010.74 1010.74 100.9633 100.9647 1.4 1.4 1.4
18:54:00 Effluent 6 < 1 sec 50.38 1065.51 1015.13 1015.13 100.5550 100.5569 1.9 1.9 1.9
2.0 2.0
217.2 2.0 99.1%
226.4 2.0 99.1%
657
Test Summary
R-Tank_20
2200
110
1:50
0.471
9.50
09:30.0
200
22
0.033
20
Test Data Collection
6.384
23.064
0.350
SOLIDS MASS BALANCE
4.25
36.000
12.880
Solids Retained (lbs):Direct Removal Efficiency (%):
76
20
15.4
1.30
(Fill system from reservoirs at target flow rate until sump reaches the desired fill line. Close/open valves to create closed loop.)
Solids in Influent (lbs):
26.3 18:54:00
1.75
Sample Data Collection (ASTM D3977)
25.5
6:00:00
7:35:00
26.1 6:00:00
7:35:00
Influent Bottle Samples Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):Indirect Removal Efficiency (%)
9/19/2018
Concentration (mg/L)
(Take initial sump temp.)Average Concentration:
(Take final sump temp.)Average Concentration:
Influent Dry Feed Samples Average Concentration in Influent (mg/L):Average Concentration in
Effluent (mg/L):Indirect Removal Efficiency (%):
25.9 6:00:00
1 | Page
Ferguson Waterworks
12500 Jefferson Ave.
Newport News, VA 23602
Connor Strege, PE
Kimley-Horn
250 East 96th Street, Suite 580
Indianapolis, IN 46240
11/28/2022
SUBJECT: Carmel Midtown Development
R-Tank Parking Garage Installation
Dear Connor,
Thank you for forwarding the City Engineering Department requests related to the permit plan
review for the proposed Carmel Midtown Development in Carmel, Indiana to Ferguson Waterworks
for review.
Regarding the installation of an R-Tank system under the slab of a parking garage, the manufacturer
has performed numerous installations under building and garage slabs. The product load rating is
based on providing the minimum required cover per the specification.
That said, it is important to note that the project Geotechnical Engineer and Structural Engineer must
evaluate the proximity of the R-Tank units to the foundations of the building. These engineers must
ensure the product is adequately separated from the foundations of the building to ensure no load
from the building foundation is imparted upon the units. We recommend the foundations extend to
the invert of the tank or provide a minimum 1H:1V separation distance. This means the tanks must
be a distance from the foundation equal to or greater than the distance from the bottom of the footing
to the bottom of the tank.
Additionally, the Geotechnical Engineer and Structural Engineer must evaluate the impact of the
tanks on the foundation. This typically comes from ensuring any saturated soils caused by infiltration,
if the system is not enclosed in an impermeable liner, does not negatively impact the foundation.
Please review and contact me with any questions from your office. We look forward to working with
you on this project.
Sincerely,
Jason Bailey, PE
Urban Green Infrastructure Engineering Services Manager
Ferguson Waterworks
Cc: