1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Camp Shelby is a military training facility located throughout three counties of southern Mississippi: Perry, Forrest, and Greene. Camp Shelby is classified as a Joint Forces Training Center for the Army Reserves, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and active Army. It occupies over 134,000 acres; the area relevant to this project is in the north eastern border adjacent to an air field north of Lee Avenue. There are two facilities located at the air strip currently utilizing septic tanks for waste water disposal. The first building is a fire station which implements an oil separator prior to its septic. The second building is currently under construction but already has service lines routed into a septic tank. Figure 1 shows the location of the facilities relative to Camp Shelby.

1.2 Statement of Need Septic systems have multiple disadvantages. It has maintenance intensive and when BOD and nitrates are not treated properly can cause ground water contamination. Camp Shelby currently has its own Waste Water Treatment Facility and sewer main in place for the entire property. Since there is a local Waste Water Treatment Facility, the clients wish for both facilities waste water to be added to the sewer system. The closest connection site is approximately 1 mile away and has roughly an elevation difference of 7 (Figure 1). Because of this elevation difference a Waste Water Pump Station will need to be installed to transfer the waste water from the facilities to the sewer main.

Figure 1: Locations of facilities and sewer main connection

SCOPE OF WORK The scope of this design was to determine the best-suited pump station. This includes

determining the optimal location of the wet well, the design of the gravity fed, the design of the force main, the determination of required pumps and the design of the overall wet well including the dimensions, structure, foundation and the arrangements of components inside and outside.

DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

3.1 Economic The project design had to stay within the required budget given by the customer. This was achieved through considering different aspects for cost efficiency: pipe sizing, efficiency of pump, linear footage of pipe, and tree removal.

3.2 Environmental The location of the wet well is located some distance away from the facilities to keep the effluent smell down as there are no current laws or regulations pertaining to this project. Two routes for the sewer force main were considered, one including the removal of trees. During construction, fabric fencing was installed in order to keep removed dirt from leaving the construction area. After installation was completed, along various portions of the project, the disturbed areas were reseeded. Because of the small size of our construction area (approx. 0.17 acres), a permit from MDEQ was not required (MDEQ, 1999).

3.3 Sustainability This design was not only cost effective, but it has sustainability. As Civil Engineers our designs should always illustrate environmental friendly aspects and efficient. Whether it contain less intrusive materials in the design or that the materials life be durable. For this design the number of times the pump has to start was a heavy factor in life of the pump and its selection. The design of the system included the possibility of operating at higher volumes without complete reconstruction of the sewer force main and wet well.

3.4 Constructability The location of the pump station allows gravity sewer pipes to feed waste water into the wet well from both buildings. The wet well implements submersible pumps to force waste water into the force main and then transported to the manhole. The routing of the force main was laid along the sides of existing roads for ease of maintenance and reduction of labor cost. This design was completed using the following process. The first aspect was to determine the system curve using

an in-depth survey for the intended route. Once the system curve was generated, it was compared to various options of acceptable pump models. After this pump was selected, the calculations and determination of the interior dimensions of the wet well was completed. The next step was to recalculate the system curve using the new parameters and making minor adjustments where needed. After the number of pumps has been determined and the interior dimensions were completed, calculations of the exterior dimensions of the wet well were completed. These dimensions include the thickness of the walls and dimensions of the foundation.

3.5 Safety Access to the wet well and controls are limited by a lock on both the access door and control panel door. Since the wet well is located in close proximity to a road, for an added safety feature, concrete bollards are located at each corner of the wet well. The design considered the production of gasses and pressure inside the force main. To deter the production of those gases and the pressure, pressure release valves are located at various locations along the force main. The elevation of the wet well and its controls were constructed above the 100 year flood elevation. (See Figure 1 in Appendix A)

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Different Routes The sewer force main route was controlled by the cost and ease of installation. This cost was related to the length, size, connections, and location of the pipes. The location was related to the layout of the route, which did not include removal of trees or relocation of any obstacles. The first choice of routes traveled approximately 6200 feet from the wet well to the manhole and its highest elevation point was approximately 288 feet (See Figure 2 in Appendix A). The second route travels approximately 5800 feet and its highest elevation point was approximately 290 feet (See Figure 3 in Appendix A). The difference in elevation was minimal, leaving the decision to be determined by the cost of material, labor for installation, and the frictional head loss of the force main. Route 1 had one extra bend in the path which added a minor head loss to the total head loss in the system, but the 2 ft. higher water head in Route 1 as compared to Route 2 offset the minor head loss. Route 2 required tree removal increasing the total cost and damaging to the ecosystem. Therefore, Route 1 was a better choice for both cost effectiveness and reduction of deforestation.

4.2 Various Pumps There were several different types of pumps available on the market, each pump meeting the requirements of the project. However, the customer requested a submersible pump to be used for this project. In Table 1, located in Appendix A, lists 11 pumps and impeller options from Flygt, a local submersible pump manufacture.

PIPELINE DESIGN

5.1 Flow Calculations The flow calculation for the design began with determining the relative load of the different fixtures with no known value of usage located in both facilities, using the Drainage Fixture Unit (DFU) method (See Table 1 in Appendix B). The following plumbing was located in both facilities: Table 5.1.1 Number of Fixtures in Faculties Fixtures Toilet Urinal Sink Shower Drinking Fountain Floor Drain No. of Fixtures 16 4 10 15 7 1 Assigned Value (DFU) 4 2 1 2 2 Total Divide by Total (gpm) Total Value (DFU) 64 8 10 30 3.5 2 117.5 2 59

Using the Drainage Fixture Unit (DFU) method gave a total of 117.5 DFU. To convert DFU to gallons per minute (GPM), the total was divided by 2 giving 58.75 or 59 gallons per minute of sewage exiting both facilities. Once the average flow rate was determined the peak flow was determined for design purposes. To determine the peak flow, the average flow rate of 59 gallons per minute was multiplied by a minimum peak factor of 4 (See Table 5.1.2), giving a peak flow rate of 236 gallons per minutes.

Table 5.1.2 Minimum Peak Factors Design Average Daily Flow for Peak Design Flow (GPD) Less than 100,000 100,000 to 250,000 250,000 to 1,000,000 Greater than 1,000,000 Minimum Peaking Factor 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5

The results of the flow rate calculations are described in the following table. . Table 5.1.3 Flow Rate Results Flow Rate Gallons per Minute Average Peak 59 236

5.2 Gravity Fed The gravity fed was designed based on Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MEDQ) standards which required a minimum 8-inch diameter gravity sewer pipe, a minimum depth of 3 feet and a minimum of 0.34 percent slope per 100 feet of piping. The gravity fed for this project is an 8-inch ASTM D3034 Gasketed Gravity Sewer Pipe SDR 35-20 with a slope of 0.54 percent per 100 feet of piping. The slope for the gravity fed was determined by subtracting the elevation of the pre-existing manhole inverts, located in front of Building A, from the second pre-existing manhole, located in front of Building B, dividing the difference by the distance and then multiplying the answer by one hundred to obtain the percent grade of the piping. Using an 8-inch gravity fed gave a velocity of 1.09 meters per second or 3.58 feet per second, allowing 602.3 gallons per minute to flow at full capacity. 7

Each building had a service line which connected to its own septic tank. Building A service line led southwest of the building, turning northwest and then going north to the septic tank. Building B service line led southwest of the building, turning southeast and then turning northeast to the septic tank. The gravity fed was cut at manhole #1, located in front of Building A, and redirected to Building B pre-existing manholes using 8-inch gravity fed. At manhole #2 the gravity fed was disconnected from the service line leading to the septic tank and continued towards the pump station. The portion of the sewer gravity fed, which left manhole #1 connected with pre-existing sewer gravity fed from Building B, crossed underneath a concrete slab used for access to Building B. This section of the sewer gravity fed was inserted through a steel casing after the casing was inserted into a predrilled tunnel bored out from under the slab. The steel casing covers the full length of the concrete slab which was 56 linear feet.

5.3 Force Main The sewage force main begin inside of the wet well with a 4-inch ductile iron discharge pipe connected to both pumps. The 4-inch ductile iron discharged pipes travels from the wet well into the valve vault connecting the swing check valve and the shut off valve per set of pipes. The swing check valve is connected to the discharge pipe allowing the flow of the wastewater to pass through the swing gate and closing to prevent reversed flow. The valve has a low head loss when fully opened and is automatic which requires no external power source. The shut-off valve is connected after each swing check valve for maintenance purposes. Each shut-off valve is made of brass with a manufacturer minimum rated pressure of 150PSI. After the shut-off valves both pipes are connect with a tee attachment and enlarged to accommodate the 6-inch PVC force main. The 6-inch PVC force main travels from the wet well for roughly 6200 feet using PVC

piping until discharged into the pre-existing manhole having a, gasket ASTM F477 standard, connection every 20 feet. The force main was trenched at a minimum depth of 3 feet on the opposite sides of the roads from any water lines per MDEQ standards. Open cuts were used when crossing asphalt roads with a steel case box cased around the force main to prevent breakage from the loads of the earth and asphalt acting on the pipe. From the route chosen, five 90 degree and one 45 degree fittings were used. At each peak and change in slope, in the force main, a release valve was placed to remove any air in the system. The air release valves were sized according to the size of the force main using a tee connection and extending XX feet above the surface. The calculations of the force main were done through trial and error and known MDEQ standards. The known standards used were a minimum velocity of 0.6 meters per second to a maximum velocity of 3.5 meters per second. During the trial and error calculations, three force mains of 4-inches, 6-inches, and 8-inches were tested. First determining the area of the piping using:

A= Area of inner pipe (ft2) D = inside diameter of pipe (ft) Then, using the following equation, the velocity was determined in each individual size force main using the average and peak flow rate.

V = Velocity (ft3/sec) Q= Flow rate (ft/sec) A= Area of the pipe (ft2) 9

5.3.1 Results of Force Main Trail-n-Error Velocity Calculations Area Pipe Size Minimum Flow Peak Flow (in) ft/sec ft/sec 4 0.09 1.51 6.04 6 0.20 0.67 2.68 8 0.35 0.38 1.51

From the results of the trial and error calculations, the results shows the 6-inch force main meet both the minimum velocity of 0.6 meter per second and maximum velocity of 3.5 meter per second. With the size of 6-inches for the force main determined this information could be used to determine the static head. Appendix E contains all CAD drawings associated with both the gravity feed portions of this design as well as the force main section.

PUMP SELECTION

6.1 System Curve The system curve was used to analyze the pumping system needed for the project by determining the amount of static head, friction head loss and minor losses in which the pump has to cover in the system. Using the following equation the static head was determined.

Table 6.1.1 Static Head Results Point Manhole Pump Total Elevation (ft) 268.2 258.7 9.5

10

The discharge elevation was the centerline of the invert pipe entering the pre-existing manhole and the low water pump elevation was the depth of the wet well minus 0.5, per manufacturer specifications. The friction head loss in the system was determined first by selecting a force main size and then using the Darcy-Weisbach equation, ( )

f= friction factor L= length of pipe D= pipe diameter V= pipe average velocity g= gravity

The roughness factor for the force main was determined using the Moody diagram and yielding a friction factor of 0.015. The friction head loss was determined to be hf = 1.30 ft. Next, minor losses such as valves, bends, expansions, and other appurtenances creating any additional losses over the piping system, was determined using the following formula

Km = the minor loss coefficient V= velocity g= gravity

11

The following minor losses are in the force main: Table 6.1.2 Minor Losses Minor Losses 90 Bend 45 Bend Swing Check Valve Shut-off Valve Enlargements Entrance Exit Loss Quantity 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 K Value 1.1 0.3 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.25 1 Total Total (ft) 7.7 0.3 1.5 1.5 0.6 0.25 1 12.85

After calculating a total of 12.85 feet from the assigned values for each minor loss, the value was inputted into the equation and yielded a hL= 0.09 feet. After determining the static head, friction head loss, and the minor losses, the total head was determined using the following equation

Therefore, the total head was TH= 10.88 feet. To graph the system curve, a table was created inputting different flow rates, which produced different total head results for at different flow rates.

Table 6.1.3 System Curve Data

12

Q (gpm) 88 108 128 148 168 188 208 228 248 268

Q (cfs) 0.196065 0.240626 0.285186 0.329746 0.374307 0.418867 0.463427 0.507987 0.552548 0.597108

S 0.00033 0.000482 0.00066 0.000864 0.001092 0.001345 0.001622 0.001923 0.002247 0.002594

hf (ft) 2.04479 2.987849 4.092638 5.355115 6.771914 8.340154 10.05733 11.92122 13.92984 16.0814

V=Q/A (fps) 0.999059 1.226118 1.453177 1.680236 1.907294 2.134353 2.361412 2.588471 2.81553 3.042589

V2/2g (ft) 0.015499 0.023344 0.032791 0.043838 0.056487 0.070737 0.086588 0.10404 0.123093 0.143748

H (ft) 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89 10.89

TDH (ft) 12.93 13.88 14.98 16.25 17.66 19.23 20.95 22.81 24.82 26.97

System Curve
30 25

20

H (ft)

15

10

0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

Q (cfs)

Figure 2: Generated system curve

13

6.2 Pump Selection In making the pump selection, several different manufacturers of pumps were considered. After analyzing the system curves and several manufacturers pump curves, Flygt was chosen to be the supplier of the pumps in this project. Flygt uses primarily metric units of measure, therefore, it was easier to convert the system curve to metric units rather than convert multiple pump characteristic charts. Pump selection began with 11 pump and impeller variations. All of the pump characteristic curves were then plotted against the system curve. The needed pump characteristics curve had to interact with the system curve above the average flow rate of 59 gal/m or 9.3 L/s (See Figure 3, Appendix B). The various models located within range of the criteria need for the pump in this project, were sorted through to find optimal performance (high efficiency) and mounting characteristics. Figure 3 below shows the interaction of the optimal pump with system curve.

D-3057 (230)
18 16 14 12

H (m)

10 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 D 3057 (230) System Curve

Q (l/s) Figure 3: Selected Pump and System Curve

14

The optimal model selected was the D-3057 pump with impeller option 230. The D-3057 was classified as a medium head submersible pump that mounts inside the wet well with various mounting options. The chosen mounting style was a semi-permanent design that allows the pump to be installed on 2 guide bars and have an automatic connection to the discharge pipes. Table 6.3.1 lists tables and figures, available in Appendix D, detailing pertinent information made available from Flygt about the pump and motor.

Table 6.3.1: Features of the D-3057 Figure/Table Location Figure 1 Table 1 Table 2 Figure 2 Figure 3 Description Image of Pump Features of the D-3057 Detail Pump Motor Specifications Pump Detail Dimensions Control Duplex Dimensions

WET WELL DESIGN

7.1 Wet Well Dimensions In determining the interior dimensions we must analyze the how the pump flow rate interacts with the flow rate entering the wet well. Calculations started by using the number of starts per hour to determine the amount of time the pump would run per hour. The selected pump had a maximum of 15 starts per hour, as one of its limitations, which was shortened to 5 starts per hour, for an added benefit of extending the life of each pump. Using the following equation determining the length of one cycle, if the cycles were to run consecutively, was calculated.

15

With the length of the cycles determined we turned our attention to determining the storage volume needed. The storage volume is the amount of fluid that should be held before the pump begins each cycle. Since it should be presumed that fluids are continuously flowing into the wet well, these calculations will be controlled by the flow rate of fluid entering the well and the flow rate at which the can be removed. Calculations can begin with the following equation:

Where: ( )

Using a cycle length of 12 min and an output flow rate of 174 gal/min, we can rearrange the above formula and calculate the storage volume: ( )

Wet well diameters generally range from 5 to 6 feet. The larger diameter was chosen for the purpose of being able to expand on the design in later years. Utilizing a larger diameter will allow for another pump to be installed at a later date and thus upgrading the output capacity of

16

the wet well. Using a diameter of 6 ft. for the wet well, the height needed to handle this volume is:

The height determined from the above equation is the height needed before the pump turns on. This height can be increased to 2.5 ft. to ease the construction. These calculations have all been completed using an average flow rate for the optimal pump. Since these facilities will not be operating at these capacities at all times, a second pump is being installed primarily as back up pump. Under normal operating conditions these pumps will alternate, this will again decrease the number of starts on each pump and keep each pump used frequently. When large inflow occurs, both pumps operate to insure that the wet well will not overflow. The only way to synchronize all of these separate pumps functions is to implement electronic controls. The wet well will have the following level sensors hanging inside: 1. 2. 3. 4. All pumps off Lead pump on Lag pump on System Warning

The all pumps off elevation is the minimum level of water needed in the wet well to keep the pumps from introducing air into the force main and causing cavitation. The manufacture of the pumps specifies that the minimum water level should not be less than 0.5 ft. For an added safety feature, the all pumps off elevation will be set 1.0 ft. The lead pump on elevation has already been determined above; this is the control volume which is 2.5 ft. Typically, for wet wells with

17

operating flows under 200 gal/m, it is recommended that the lag pump on elevation not be less than 0.5 ft. (Jensen, 2011). Here 1 ft. is chosen in the design. The next elevation needed to be established for this design is the system warning elevation. The same generalized concept that was used in determining the storage volume was reevaluated from a concept of time. The pumps should cycle around every 12 min under normal operations. If the cycle time is adjusted to 24 minutes, we calculate a storage elevation of 4.44 ft. from the all pumps off elevation. This calculation is completed under single pump operation conditions. If the water level ever reaches this elevation, this would indicate an extreme increase of flow into the wet well or failure of both pumps. The system warning elevation has been determined to be 1 ft. above the lag pump on, or 4.5 ft. above the all pumps off elevation. There should also be some storage volume above the system failure level; this should allow some time for maintenance personnel to assess the situation. This storage volume height will extend from the warning level to the top of the wet well, this dimension is 4.5 ft. Table 7.1.1 compiles all of the valid heights inside the wet well. These levels can also be seen on page 7 of the CAD drawings in Appendix E.
Table 7.1.1: Wet well water levels for controls

Description Reserve Storage System Warning Lag Pump On Lead Pump On All Pumps Off

Height per aspect (ft) 4.5 1 1 2.5 1

Compiled Height (ft) 10 5.5 4.5 3.5 1

18

7.2 Structure Design The lateral earth pressure at rest on the wall (pa) was suggested by the force equation with a known height (H), unit weight () and unit of coefficient (ka). Based on the given soil profile distribution, the lateral earth pressure at rest on the wall was determined using the force equation. The data from this calculation was required to determine the required reinforcement. By comparing the result from the forces calculated, reinforcement would be required at the weaker section of the concrete. The surface close to the soil would be the area in tension and reinforcement would be required at this section.
( )= 0.172

7.2.1 Red Silty Clayed and Brownish Red Sandy

Unit weight() 80 95 Ka 0.172 0.172 Pa (lb. /ft.) 688 817

The internal water pressure on the wall would be determined from the horizontal force equation with a known unit weight of water (), the height (h) and the area (A). The result from the computations on the structure shows that the internal force exceeds the external force. Table 7.2.2 contains parameters for calculating hydrostatic pressure at full condition.

=17645.5lb

19

7.2.2 Water pressure at full condition Hydrostatic Pressure

Unit weight() Height(ft.) Area(ft) FH(lb.)

62.4

10

28.278

17645.5

7.3 Foundation The vertical dead load on the foundation had been determined from the composition of concrete material , rebar and weight of the two

pumps= 150lb. The live load was the amount of the total volume of water in the wet well V=3803.04lb Column Loading is the total factor load ( ) ( )

One of the main methods of foundation design was to determine the bearing capacity on the soil using Terzaghi equations in addition with the soil profile to determine the water level. The ultimate bearing capacity (qutl), allowable bearing capacity (qa) and point load (Pu) had been 20

compared with the calculated result the value calculated is within the acceptable range. Table 7.3.1 contains the ultimate bearing capacity for the foundation and Figure 1 in Appendix C illustrates the excel spreadsheet used for calculations.

7.3.1 Bearing Capacity of shallow Foundation Terzaghi qutl qa 19467lb/ft 4867lb/ft Vesic qa 4654lb/ft

pu 175k

qutl 16617lb/ft

pu 168k

The settlement of the foundation was determined using classical method base. The result shows delta () of 0.14 a very small amount of settlement in the soil foundation. Also, the minimum shift is due to the moisture at 20 below the foundation. Table 7.3.3 contains the settlement analysis for the foundation and Figure 2 in Appendix C illustrates the excel spreadsheet used for calculations.

7.3.3 Settlement Analysis of shallow foundation q 3929lb/ft Delta 0.14in

Result use #6@12

21

22

COST

Description 8" Gravity Feed System 6" Service 6" Force Main 16" Steel Casing 12 " Steel Casing Tunneling Pumps Controls Wet Well/Valve Vault Fabric Fence Seeding Construction Total Contingencies Professional Fees Project Total

Quantity 291 64 6130 90 210 300 2 1 1 6600 0.5

Units LF LF LF LF LF LF Each Each Each FT Acre

Unit Price $6.25 $5.50 $8.50 $15.25 $12.75 $150.00 $18,000.00 $2,500.00 $65,000.00 $3.50 $1,200

Total $1,819 $352 $52,105 $1,373 $2,678 $45,000 $36,000 $2,500 $65,000 $23,100 $600 $230,000 $23,000 $34,000 $287,000

23

RESOURCES Nakarsha Bester is completing her Bachelors of Science degree in Civil Engineering at Jackson State University, an ABET accredited program. As a civil engineering contract worker for Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), for the past several months, Nakarsha has gained remarkable experience and knowledge. Nakarsha has learned a vast amount of skills pertinent to performing a verity of tasks in the civil engineering through the departments curriculum and projects. Don Baldwin is in the final stages of finishing his Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering at Jackson State University in Jackson, MS. He is currently working under Dr. Himangshu Das in the Hydraulics Lab as a contract employee. Lawrence Oyelami: have worked with professional engineers in the area of concrete material testing to analyze the strength of concrete and other composite material at different curing duration. I am currently a senior student at Jackson States University in the civil engineering program and one of the courses to complete the program is capstone Design.

Technical Support Dr. Yadong Li P.E., Faculty advisor Mr. Tramone Smith P.E., SD&W, Provided of plans Dr. Dantua Leszczynska, Ph.D., Environmental Support Dr. Lin Li, P.E. Geotechnical Support Dr. Wei Zheng, P.E., Reinforced Concrete Support

24

REFERENCES 100 Year Flood Map. (2006). Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality. http://geology.deq.state.ms.us/floodmaps/Projects/MapMOD/panels/28035C0185. pdf Allen & Hoshall Engineer Architect and Planners Edwin K. Dedeaux 713 South Pear Orchard Road Suite 100. JOBS\Philadelphia city\71725 water and sewage\Bid\Tab of Bids Crowe, C.T.; Elger, D.F.; Williams, B.C.; Roberson, J.A.; (2009). Engineering Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Danvers, MA. Das, B. (2011). Principles of Foundation Engineering (7th ed.). Stamford, CT. Das, B/ (2010). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering (7th ed.). Stamford, CT. Google Earth [Computer Software]. (2012). Google Inc. Jensen Engineered Systems. (2011). http://www.jensenengineeredsystems.com/controlelevations/ Leszczynska, Dr. Danuta. (2012). Wastewater: Characteristics and Treatment. Jackson State University. CIV-441-01 Spring 2012. Jackson, MS Mississippi Dept. of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).(1999).Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Guidance for the Design of Publically Owned Wastewater Facilities and DWSIRLF Funded Drinking Water Facilities. http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/pdf/epd_PELF40/$File/PELF40.pdf?Open Element National Guard Bureau International Affairs (2010) http://ms.ng.mil/aboutus/installations/shelby/Pages/default.aspx Wurbs, R.A. & James, W.P. (2002). Water Resources Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. Shows, Dearman & Waits, Inc. (2011). Geotechnical Investigation of Camp Shelby Recycling Compound.

25

APPENDIX A

Figure 1: 100 year flood map for lift station

Figure 2: Route 1

26

Figure 3: Route 2 the orange section shows area of tree removal

Table 1: Flygt pump and impeller options C 3085 (432) D 3045 (230) D 3057 (230) D 3057 (232) D 3057 (238) D 3057 (270) D 3057 (272) M 3102 (210) M 3102 (430) M 3102 (433) M 3127 (210)

27

Appendix B
Table 1: Drainage Fixture Unit

Pump Curves
40 35 30 25 C 3085 (432) M 3127 (210) M 3102 (210) D 3057 (230) D 3057 (232) D 3057 (238) D 3057 (270) D 3057 (272) D 3045 (230) 0 10 20 30 40 50 C 3102 (430) C 3102 (433)

H (m)

20 15 10 5 0

Q (l/s) Figure 3: Various Pump Characteristics

28

Appendix C

29

30

Figure 1: Bearing capacity calculation

Figure 2: Settlement calculation

31

Boring Log
120 100 Elevation (ft) 80 60 40 20 0 0 2 4 WC, LL, & PL (%) 6 8 Water Content Liquid Limit Plastic Limit

Figure 4:Soil analysis

0 Brownish red sandy Lean Clay

10 Red Silty Clayey Sand

Red Silty Clayey Sand Brownish red Sandy Lean Clay

15

20

25

Figure 5:Design soil profile

32

Appendix D

Figure 1: Flygt D-3057 (230) Table 1:Features of the D-3057

33

Table 2: Detail Pump Motor Specifications

34

Figure 2: Pump Detail Dimensions

35

Figure 3: Flygt duplex control box

36

Appendix E

37

38

39

40

41

42

43