SF SSMP 2030 Task 500 TM501 - Collection System Modeling - 2010 Draft PDF

City and County of San Francisco
2030 Sewer System Master Plan
TASK 500
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO. 501
COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING
FINAL DRAFT
December 2010
2700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD • SUITE 300 • WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 • (925) 932-1710 • FAX (925) 930-0208
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/SFPUC/7240A00/Final Draft PM-TM/500 Collection System/Task500TM501_CollectionSystemModeling.doc (FinalDraft_rev2)
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
2030 SEWER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
TASK 500
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
NO. 501
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 PURPOSE OF COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING MEMO ............................... 501-1
2.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT MEMORANDA ........................................................... 501-2
3.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 501-4
APPENDIX - Model Development, Validation and Baseline Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Model Network for the SSMP, DDMP, and SSIP ...................................... 501-2
Figure 2 Focus Areas of DDMP Analysis (2007)..................................................... 501-3
DRAFT - January 21, 2011 501-i

Technical Memorandum No. 501
1.0 PURPOSE OF COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING MEMO

The purpose of this memo is to document the efforts to develop a collection system model
that represents the configuration and historical performance of San Francisco’s combined
sewer system. The TM includes the Model Development, Validation and Baseline Report
(October 2007) that describes the efforts to update and recalibrate the collection system
model in support of the SSMP from 2005 - 2006. This document describes development of
the model network and runoff basin delineation as well as the calibration and validation
efforts. As part of the calibration discussion, the memo discusses the rain gauge and flow
monitoring network and how this data was used to calibrate and verify the model’s
performance. The document concludes with a presentation of the baseline configuration
and associated annual CSD activation frequency and overflow volumes. This baseline
network then became the basis from which collection system configurations were
examined. The anticipated CSD reduction benefit from different configurations could be
quantified and understood.
After completion of the SSMP, SFPUC through amendments and additional contracts, have
continued to update the collection system model and further refine baseline sewer system
performance estimates. Reports from these studies and projects are described below (by
reference) in this cover memo to provide the reviewer with additional resources to examine
understand the current baseline configuration of the model. The extent of the model
network for the SSMP, DDMP, and SSIP are shown in Figure 1.
2.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT MEMORANDA

Since completion of the SSMP Model Development, Validation and Baseline Report two
additional studies have been conducted that effectively updated the baseline model
network:
DDMP Draft Technical Memorandum #3, Modeling Approach (12/6/07): Included by

reference only. This document developed as part of an amended scope of work to the
SSMP summarizes updates made to the baseline model configuration to support detailed
evaluation of drainage and flooding concerns in seven focus areas shown in Figure 2. As
described in Section 1 of the memo, the general approach to modeling for this work focused
on updates to the model configuration developed as part of the SSMP project:
DRAFT - December 29, 2010 501-1

Figure 1 Model Network for the SSMP, DDMP, and SSIP

Figure 2 Focus Areas of DDMP Analysis (2007)
The seven focus areas for the study have been selected with input from Bureau of
Engineering (BOE) staff based on the potential and susceptibility to flooding issues.
The types, causes, and degree of potential for flooding vary across the seven areas.
The study will address the potential flooding issues, recommend mitigation criteria
and alternatives, and provide insight for further future analyses.
The San Francisco Sewer System Master Plan (SSMP) model was developed using
the InfoWorks software package to simulate dry-weather and wet weather flows in
pipes 30-inches and larger. It was developed primarily to predict the frequency and
volume of combined sewer discharges (CSD) to the Ocean and San Francisco Bay.
Once calibrated, this tool was then used to analyze the impact of alternatives
designed to reduce flooding and combined sewer overflows to San Francisco Bay
and the Pacific Ocean. The current planning level model does not provide the level
of detail necessary to conduct detailed drainage and flooding assessments. As
such, it will need to be extended, refined and updated to improve drainage and
flooding analysis capability. The modifications will server to better simulate existing
conditions as well as the measures and alternatives that may be considered to

improve the system. In general, three measures that could be taken to enhance the
model include: (1) add additional network details (more pipes in upstream areas,
less than 30-inches in diameter), (2) add more detail to the hydrologic runoff
simulation component, and (3) add a surface routing hydraulic component. One or
more of these measures may be used according to the conditions and needs in
each area. The model may also be further enhanced by taking advantage of more
extensive or refined data that have become available since the development of the
original SSMP model. These data include flow and rainfall monitoring data as well
as more refined physical data such as multi-spectral land use data.
Sewer System Improvement Program Report, DRAFT Report for SFPUC Commission
Review Included by reference only. In support of the SFPUC, the DDMP model was used
to complete a series of additional analyses to address flooding and conveyance concerns
outlined in the memo. Substantative updates to the model were not made from the DDMP
configuration, however, minor updates were made to local sewer networks to better reflect
the objective of the configurations explored as part of this program. The model network
developed under this project represents the most up-to-date representation of San
Francisco’s sewer collection system.
3.0 SUMMARY
In general, the consultants and SFPUC staff were confident of model representations and
sewer system performance estimates and believe the baselines used for the different
studies were an appropriate starting point for considering control options. The additional
documents, included by reference only, provide a reader with information that can be
reviewed in order to understand the evolution and development of the collection system
model and baseline sewer system performance estimates used for master planning efforts.

Technical Memorandum No. 501
APPENDIX - MODEL DEVELOPMENT, VALIDATION AND
BASELINE REPORT
DRAFT - January 21, 2011

F in a l D r a f t
Model Development,
Validation and Baseline
Report
Prepared for
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
October, 2007
Contents
Contents .................................................................................................................. i
Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................................................... v
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Project Description and History......................................................... 1-1
1.2 Description of Collection System ....................................................... 1-3
2.0 Model Development ................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Software Description ....................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Hydrology....................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Sub-basin Delineation ........................................................... 2-3
2.2.2 Flow Monitoring and Rainfall Gauging Program ....................... 2-5
2.2.3 Flow Monitoring Analysis ....................................................... 2-8
2.2.4 Parameter Estimation.......................................................... 2-13
2.3 Model Network.............................................................................. 2-16
2.3.1 Collection System ............................................................... 2-16
2.3.2 Facilities Characterization .................................................... 2-22
2.3.3 Tidal Data.......................................................................... 2-34
3.0 Model Calibration and Validation.................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Calibration Process .......................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Dry Weather Flow (DWF) Calibration ...................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Wet Weather Flow (WWF) Calibration .................................... 3-2
3.2 Calibration Storms......................................................................... 3-11
3.3 Calibration Criteria......................................................................... 3-11
3.4 Calibration Results......................................................................... 3-12
3.4.1 Model Calibration................................................................ 3-12
3.4.2 Meter Calibration ................................................................ 3-14
3.4.3 DCS Calibration .................................................................. 3-15
3.5 Validation Results.......................................................................... 3-15
3.5.1 Flooding ............................................................................ 3-16
3.5.2 Combined Sewer Discharges................................................ 3-16
4.0 Baseline Analysis........................................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Baseline Model................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Design Rainfall Conditions................................................................ 4-2
4.2.1 Rainfall Events ..................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Model Results ................................................................................. 4-5
4.3.1 Capacity and Flooding........................................................... 4-5
4.3.2 Combined Sewer Discharges.................................................. 4-9
4.3.3 Wastewater Treatment Flows ................................................ 4-9
5.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 5-1
i
Tables
Table 1-1 Highlights of CCSF Sewer System History................................................ 1-2
Table 1-2 Age of Sewers ....................................................................................... 1-6
Table 2-1 Basin Number for Major Drainage Basins.................................................. 2-2
Table 2-2 Summary of Sub-basins in each Major Drainage Basins ........................... 2-4
Table 2-3 SFPUC Rain Gauge Network and Location ................................................ 2-5
Table 2-4 - Rain Gauge Data substitutions .............................................................. 2-9
Table 2-5 Zone and Percent Impervious .............................................................. 2-15
Table 2-6 System Types ...................................................................................... 2-21
Table 2-7 Major Offshore Outfalls in the Wastewater System.................................. 2-31
Table 2-8 Parameters Used to Adjust Bayside Tidal Data........................................ 2-35
Table 3-1 Manning’s Roughness Coefficient............................................................ 3-9
Table 3-2 Horton Infiltration Model ..................................................................... 3-10
Table 3-3 Summary of Calibration Storms ............................................................ 3-11
Table 3-4 Summary of Meter Calibration Results.................................................... 3-12
Table 3-5 Model Predicted CSD Activations Compared to Reported CSD Activations for
October 19, 2004- April 3, 2004 .................................................................... 3-17
TABLE 4-1 COMPARISON OF TYPICAL PERIOD TO ORIGINAL PERIOD AND 30 YEAR
AVERAGE ...................................................................................................... 4-3
TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF DESIGN STORMS USED FOR BASELINE ANALYSIS.............. 4-4
Table 4-3 Model Predicted CSD Activations for 5-Year Typical Period......................... 4-9
Figures
Figure 1-1 Combined sanitary –storm system .......................................................... 1-3

Figure 1-2 Separate sanitary sewer and storm drain system ..................................... 1-4
Figure 1-3 San Francisco Collection System............................................................. 1-5
Figure 1-4 Sewer Materials .................................................................................... 1-6
Figure 2-1 Major and Minor Drainage Basins in CCSF ............................................... 2-3
Figure 2-2 Sub-basin delineation of each of the major drainage basins...................... 2-5
Figure 2-3 Location of rain gauges and flow meters for the 2004-05 monitoring period2-7
Figure 2-4 Location of rain gauges and flow meters for the 2005-06 monitoring period2-8
Figure 2-5 Typcial Flow Response ........................................................................ 2-10
Figure 2-6 Wastewater Hydrograph ...................................................................... 2-11
Figure 2-7 Analysis of Percent of Rainfall Captured ................................................ 2-13
Figure 2-8 Zoning Areas of CCSF.......................................................................... 2-16
Figure 2-9 Modeled Extents ................................................................................. 2-19
Figure 2-10 Network Flags................................................................................... 2-20
Figure 2-11 Collection System Facilities................................................................. 2-22
Figure 2-12 Transport and Storage Boxes ............................................................. 2-23
Figure 2-13 Current Bayside DWF Diagram ........................................................... 2-24
Figure 2-14 Current Bayside WWF Diagram........................................................... 2-25
Figure 2-15 Current Westside Dry Weather Flow Diagram ...................................... 2-28
Figure 2-16 Current Westside Wet Weather Flow Diagram ..................................... 2-29
Figure 2-17 Isometric of Lincoln Way Overflow and Westside Pump Station............. 2-32
ii
Figure 2-18 Plan view of IWCS Network of Lincoln Way Overflow............................ 2-33
Figure 2-19 Plan View of IWCS Network of Westside Pump Station ......................... 2-34
Figure 3-1 A Sample Plot of Dry Weather Flow Calibration........................................ 3-2
Figure 3-2 Rain Gauge Boundaries ......................................................................... 3-3
Figure 3-3 Subcatchment Table with Rainfall Profile Highlighted ............................... 3-3
Figure 3-4 Land Use and Runoff Surface Tables ...................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-5 Hydraulic Simulation Scheduling Interface............................................... 3-5
Figure 3-6 Parameter Selection for Runoff Hydrographs ........................................... 3-6
Figure 3-7 Sample Runoff Hydrographs Plotted in InfoWorks.................................... 3-6
Figure 3-8 Wet Weather Flow Calibration Plots ........................................................ 3-7
Figure 3-9 Example of Excluding Park from T Area .................................................. 3-8
Figure 3-10 DWF Model Calibration Results ........................................................... 3-13
Figure 3-11 WWF Model Calibration Results .......................................................... 3-14
Appendices
A Flow Meter Locations
A-1 2004-2005 Monitoring Period
A-2. 2005-2006 Monitoring Period
B Calibration Plots of Meters
C Calibration Plots of DCS Data
D Validation Plots
E Capital Improment Projects
F Rainfall Analysis Technical Memorandum
G SFHHDAR Rainfall Nework
H Baseline Results
iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CCSF City and County of San Francisco

CFS Cubic feet per second
CIP Capital Improvement Project
COC Channel Outfalls Consolidation
CSO Combined Sewer Discharge
DCS Data Collection System
DTM Digital Terrain Model
DWF Dry Weather Flow
GIS Geographical Information System
gpcpd Gallon per capital per day
ICP Ironstone Pipe
IN InfoNet
IWCS InfoWorks Collection System
LMT Lake Merced Transport
MG million gallon
MGD millions gallon per day
MPS Mariposa Pump Station
NPF Northpoint Facility
NSOC North Shore Outfall Consolidation
NSPS North Shore Pump Station
NWS National Weather Service
OSP Oceanside Plant
OWPCP Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant
PLS Pine Lake Pump Station
QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
RMT Richmond Transport or Richmond Tunnel
v
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
RTC Real Time Control

SEP Southeast Plant
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SOMA South of Market Area
SQL Structured Query Language
SWOO Southwest Ocean Outfall
SWPCP Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant
T/S Transport and Storage Box
VCP Vitrified Clay Pipe
WSS Westside Pump Station
WST Westside Transport
WWF Wet Weather Flow
WWMP Wastewater Master Plan
ZWS Zoo Wet Weather Pump Station
vi
1.0 Introduction
Faced with an aging wastewater collection system and treatment facilities, and
an increase in operational problems associated with aged and undersized
infrastructure (such as combined sewer discharge (CSD) and flooding), the San Deleted: ng
Francisco Public Utilities Commission has embarked on developing a Wastewater

Master Plan (WWMP). This plan will help identify capital improvement projects
which will improve the performance of the wastewater collection and treatment
system, providing benefit to ratepayers and the environment.
As part of the collection system evaluation, a sophisticated computer model was

developed and calibrated to mimic the hydraulic performance of the City and
County of San Francisco (CCSF, City) system under a variety of hydrologic
(rainfall) conditions. Once calibrated, this tool can be used to evaluate the
performance of a range of alternatives designed to reduce the discharge of CSDs
and the occurrence of flooding across the city.
This report presents a summary of the work activities that were undertaken by
the Scope C Master Planning Team (Metcalf & Eddy, Olivia Chen Consultants,
HydroConsult, and the San Francisco Bureau of Engineering) to build and
validate the computer model.
The model is viewed as tool that is continuously being refined and adjusted. The
discussion and the results presented here provide an overview of the initial
master planning model. During subsequent phases of the Master Plan project,
the model will be further refined and more detail will be added.
1.1 Project Description and History
The construction of San Francisco’s collection system first started during the gold
rush era in the 1850s. As the City continued to develop, three Wastewater
master plans have been developed and implemented to accommodate the
increased flow, the need for environmental improvements, and various
regulatory requirements.
The 1899 and 1935 Wastewater Master Plans were developed to provide
direction for control of the dry weather pollution problems. The last Master Plan
1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
was adopted in 1973 to meet requirements of the “Clean Water Act” of 1972 and
was meant to protect the beneficial uses of coastal waters. The 1973 Master
Plan included the upgrade of treatment plants to secondary treatment and
control of the quantity and volume of the CSOs. To reduce the number of
overflows and meet the current State and Federal discharge regulations, a series
of large underground structures known as Transport/Storage boxes (T/S) were
built to intercept, temporarily store, and transport the wet weather flow to
upgraded treatment facilities before discharge to the San Francisco Bay and
Pacific Ocean. The highlights of the San Francisco Sewer system history are
listed in Table 1-1.
TABLE 1-1 HIGHLIGHTS OF CCSF SEWER SYSTEM HISTORY

YEAR HIGHLIGHTS
1850-99 City growth resulted in the construction of ~ 150 miles of combined sewers
First facilities plan adopted and guided development of ~700 miles of sewer though
1899
1935
The second facilities plan recommended 3 sewage treatment plants with deep-
1935
water outfalls
1938 The City’s first water pollution control plant was put into operation
1951-52 Second and third treatment plants put into operation
1965 Final dry weather flows connected
1969 State of California adopted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
1971 The City updates its Master Plan to comply with the Porter-Cologne Act
1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act adopted by Congress and signed into law
1974 The City adopts the Master Plan after the EPA and the City completed the EIR
1977 Construction on WWMP facilities begins
1982 Bayside core facilities put into operation (excluding Islais Creek System)
1986 Oceanside core facilities put into operation (excluding Lake Merced and Richmond)
Additional Bayside facilities were completed; the Sunnydale transport/storage

1992
structure and pump station; and Mariposa pumping and transport/storage facilities.
1992 Lake Merced transport/storage facilities completed
1993 Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant operational
1995 Richmond transport/storage facilities completed
1997 Islais Creek transport/storage facilities completed
1-2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.2 Description of Collection System
The City’s collection system currently consists of approximately 950+ miles of Deleted: 900
sewers, 24,600 manholes, 15,000 catch basins, and 200,000 laterals that
connect to the sewer mains. In addition to these facilities, there are
transport/storage facilities and several sewer tunnels in the City. Most of the Deleted: Over 99%
sewered area of the City is served by a combined sanitary-storm system with the
remaining area served by a separate sanitary system. As shown in Figure 1-1,in
a combined sewer system, runoff from streets and roofs are directed to the same
pipe as the wastewater from homes, businesses, and industry.
Figure 1-1 Combined sanitary –storm system
Conversely, in a separate system, the stormwater runoff from the streets and
roofs is directed to a stormwater pipe, while wastewater from homes,
businesses, and industry is directed to a separate sanitary sewer (Figure 1-2).
1-3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-2 Separate sanitary sewer and storm drain system
If sized properly, a combined sewer system can provide a greater degree of

treatment than a separate system as all stormwater runoff, in addition to
wastewater flows, is treated at a wastewater treatment plant. In a separate
system, the stormwater is often allowed to discharge to receiving water bodies
with little or no treatment. As such, debris and contamination picked up with
stormwater runoff can have significant impacts to the quality of the receiving
water.
In San Francisco’s combined sewer system, there are 10 major drainage basins
from where the wastewater and stormwater runoff is collected and conveyed to
treatment plants through various trunk sewers and transport structures. These
basins and major collection system components are illustrated in Figure 1-3.
1-4
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-3 San Francisco Collection System
Based on the “SFPUC Wastewater System Reliability Assessment” report (Water

Infrastructure Partners, SFPUC, and Bureau of Engineering, 2003) the combined
sewer system in San Francisco is made up of a variety of materials: vitrified clay
pipe (VCP), ironstone pipe, brick, and reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) represent
the major materials of construction (Figure 1-4).
1-5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
NO INFO
19%
OTHER
1% VCP
45%
CONCRETE
11%
BRICK
7%
IRONSTONE
17%
Figure 1-4 Sewer Materials
Many of these sewer pipes are old, with more than 26% of the system built prior
to 1892. The City’s sewers range in age from newly installed to over 100 years.
Table 1-2 shows the percent of City sewers in relation to the year built.
TABLE 1-2 AGE OF SEWERS
Year Built Age Miles Percent of Total

Prior to 1892 114 yrs & Older 233 26%
1892 – 1905 100 - 113 yrs 60 7%
1906 – 1938 67 - 99 yrs 342 38%
1938 – 1964 42 - 66 yrs 162 18%
1964 – 2006 0 - 42 yrs 103 11%
TOTAL 900 100%
1-6
2.0 Model Development
2.1 Software Description
InfoWorks CS was selected to model the City’s combined sewer system.

InfoWorks, developed and maintained by Wallingford Software in the UK, is a
state-of-the-art, fully dynamic, hydrologic and hydraulic modeling program. The
software combines a relational database with geographical analysis that
integrates asset planning with detailed modeling. InfoWorks CS incorporates
interactive views of data using geographical plan views, cross sections,
spreadsheet and time varying graphical data. A 3-D terrain view allows visual
presentation of above ground terrain and the impact of localized sewer
problems.
InfoWorks CS contains algorithms similar to those used by HydroWorks, which

was its predecessor. The program uses the Preissman 4-point scheme
approximation of the Saint Venant equations to determine flow, velocity, and
water depth in simulated pipes. In addition to simulating hydrology and flow,
InfoWorks CS can simulate sediment and other water quality parameters. Rules
for real time control (RTC) can be coded into the model. The program contains Deleted: InfoWorks is highly stable,
with fast simulation time.
several pre- and post-processing tools, allowing the user to examine both the
network and model results from model runs.
InfoWorks CS includes a data-management system that allows several people to

work with the model at the same time. Changes are tracked and recorded by
users as they are made, and data can be flagged to denote the source from
which they came. Information can be selected and changed based on Structured
Query Language (SQL) queries. In addition, InfoWorks CS supports the import
of network data from models such as HydroWorks, DHI/MOUSE and SWMM as
well as MapInfo and ESRI shape files.
2.2 Hydrology
The CCSF, excluding Treasure Island, is naturally divided into two drainage
areas: Oceanside and Bayside. Each of these drainage areas can be further
divided into major drainage basins. Oceanside consists of 3 major basins –
Richmond, Sunset and Lake Merced. Bayside consists of 5 major basins – North
2-1
2.0 MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Shore, Channel, Islais Creek, Yosemite and Sunnydale. Each of these major
basins can be further divided into minor basins (depicted alphabetically). Table
2-1 lists the basin number assigned to each of these major drainage basins and
the number of minor drainage basins in each major drainage basin. Figure 2-1
shows the major and minor drainage basins for the CCSF.
TABLE 2-1 BASIN NUMBER FOR MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS

Drainage Major Major Number Labels of Minor Drainage
Area Drainage Drainage of Minor
Basin # Basin Drainage
Name Basins
20 Richmond 4 A, B, C, D
Oceanside 40 Sunset 13 A, B, C, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N
60 Lake 5 A, B, C, D, E
Merced
10 North 9 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J
Shore
30 Channel 13 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N
Bayside
50 Islais Creek 15 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, P, Q
70 Yosemite 5 A, B, C, E, H
70 Sunnydale 2 A, B
2-2
Figure 2-1 Major and Minor Drainage Basins in CCSF
2.2.1 Sub-basin Delineation
Each of the major and minor drainage basins were further divided into sub-
basins. The purpose of sub-basin delineation was 1) to capture dry weather flow
(DWF) from the tributary pipes and assign it to manholes in the model’s network,
and 2) to capture the likely wet weather flow (WWF) drainage patterns within
the sub-basins.
The approach taken to create sub-basins was to begin at the most upstream
portion of the model network and work downstream, using the following criteria
as guidelines:
Sub-basin areas should be around 20-100 acres, with an average of about 50

acres.
2-3
Sub-basin boundaries should be drawn at flow monitoring locations and at

hydraulic control points such as:
Flow diversion chambers
Pump stations
Constructed overflow points
Significant tributary junctions
Large parcels of land such as parks, golf courses and freeways that are not
connected to the collection system should be excluded from the sub-basins
for the purposes of collection system modeling.
Sub-basin delineations should not cross over combined or sanitary pipes and
should always end at a manhole.
Sub-basins were delineated based on the location of the smaller sewers in the
tributary areas, aerial photographs, city lot maps and contour information.
AutoCAD and ArcMap software programs were utilized to create these sub-
basins. Table 2-2 gives a summary of the number of sub-basins and the min,
max and average areas for each of the major basins. Figure 2-2 illustrates the
sub-basin delineation.
TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF SUB-BASINS IN EACH MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS

Major Drainage Total Area Number of Average Minimum Maximum
Basins (acres) Sub-basins Sub-basin Sub-basin Sub-basin
Area Area Area
(acres) (acres) (acres)
Richmond 2567 36 71.3 2.2 420.8
Sunset 5613 70 80.2 19.2 426.1
Lake Merced 2757.3 23 119.9 21.8 977.6
North Shore 2900.5 103 28.2 3.1 919.6
Channel 5726.6 248 23.1 3.1 79.2
Islais Creek 6967 205 34.0 5.3 230.2
Yosemite 1615.3 59 27.4 0.03 337.5
Sunnydale 1397.1 40 34.9 2.4 150.0
2-4
Figure 2-2 Sub-basin delineation of each of the major drainage basins
2.2.2 Flow Monitoring and Rainfall Gauging Program
Rainfall and flow monitoring were conducted throughout the CCSF from
November 19, 2004 through April 9, 2005. Rainfall data are routinely collected
from 21 locations from the SFPUC rain gauge network (see Figure 2-3 and Figure
2-4). Table 2-3 lists the rain gauge locations.
TABLE 2-3 SFPUC RAIN GAUGE NETWORK AND LOCATION

Site Site Name Location
#
Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant

10 3500 Great Highway (@ Sloat)
(OWPCP)
1530 43rd Ave. (between Kirkham &

11 Francis Scott Key School
Lawton)
12 Legion of Honor 100 34th Ave. (34th & Clement)
2-5
13 Presidio Building 1450 (on Battery-Caulfield Rd.)
651 6th Ave. (between Balboa &

14 Frank McCoppin School
Cabrillo)
15 Herbert Hoover Middle School 2290 14th Ave. (14th Ave. & Santiago)
San Francisco State University - Thornton 19th Ave. (between Holloway &
16
Hall Buckingham)
17 Lake Merced Great Highway & Skyline
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant

20 750 Phelp St. (near 3rd & Evans)
(SEWPCP)
21 Griffith Pump Station Griffith & Thomas
810 Silver Ave.(between Cambridge &

22 Hillcrest School
Yale)
859 Prague St. (between Cordova &

23 Guadalupe School
Naylor)
24 Balboa Pool San Jose & Havelock
25 Mission Education Center 1670 Noe (@ 30th)
26 Sunshine High School 2730 Bryant (between 25th & 26th St.)
30 Channel Pump Station Channel & 7th St.
Bureau of Engineering - Department of

31 1680 Mission (@ 13th St.)
Public Works
32 Ashbury Tank House Twin Peaks & Clayton
33 Dr. William Cobb School 2725 California St. (Scott & California)
34 Palace of Fine Arts (Exploratorium) 3301 Lyon St. (@ Bay)
35 North Shore Pump Station North Point & Kearney
ADS Environmental Services installed 109 flow meters in the CCSF combined
sewer system. These meters were installed at most pipe exits for minor
drainage basins and in areas of known flooding. In addition, nine flow meters
were placed in combined sewers in the SOMA area and were monitored from
March 19, 2005 through April 9, 2005.
Figure 2-3 show the locations of the rain gauges and flow meters. The general
naming convention of the meters is by major and minor drainages. A more
detailed description of each meter placement can be found in Appendix A-1.
2-6
Figure 2-3 Location of rain gauges and flow meters for the 2004-05 monitoring
period
An additional thirty-two flow meters were installed by ADS and monitored from
December 6, 2005 through April 4, 2006. These flow meters were installed in
locations where there was a lack of information from the previous monitoring
period or a desire for more information in particular areas. These flow meters
will be used for validation of the calibrated model. Figure 2-4 shows the location Deleted: at a future time
of these meters. A more detailed description of the meter placements can be

found in Appendix A-2.
2-7
Figure 2-4 Location of rain gauges and flow meters for the 2005-06 monitoring
period
2.2.3 Flow Monitoring Analysis

2.2.3.1 Rainfall Analysis
Rainfall data was collected at 5-minute intervals. The rainfall data was examined
for data gaps or unusual data. On the occasion that data was missing due to
malfunctioning, data from an adjacent gauge was used. Table 2-4 shows the
times and location where data was substituted for these particular rain gauges.
2-8
TABLE 2-4 - RAIN GAUGE DATA SUBSTITUTIONS

Rain Gauge ID Dates & Time that Rain Gauge Substituted Rain Gauge
was Malfunctioning Data
13 – Presidio 1/18/05 00:00 through 1/18/05 12 – Legion of Honor

23:55
2/13/05 01:40 through 2/28/05
23:55
15 – Herbert Hoover Middle 1/18/05 00:00 through 1/18/05 16 – San Francisco State
School 23:55 University
2/13/05 01:40 through 3/19/05
00:00
17 – Lake Merced 1/18/05 00:00 through 1/18/05 10 – Oceanside Water

23:55 Pollution Control Plant
2/13/05 01:40 through 3/19/05
00:00
22 – Hillcrest School 1/18/05 00:00 through 1/18/05 23 – Guadalupe School

23:55
2/13/05 01:40 through 3/19/05

00:00
24 – Balboa Pool 1/18/05 00:00 through 1/27/05 23 – Guadalupe School

15:15
25 – Mission Education 1/18/05 00:00 through 2/03/05 26 – Sunshine High School

Center 14:55
32 – Ashbury Tank House 1/19/04 00:00 through 11/29/04 25 - Mission Education

13:50 Center
3/01/05 00:00 through 3/19/05

00:00
34 – Palace of Fine Arts 1/18/05 00:00 through 2/04/05 33 – Dr. William Cobb School
15:25
2.2.3.2 Flow Meter Data Analysis
Flow meters recorded depth and velocity at 5-minute intervals. Flow was
computed by multiplying the velocity by the cross-sectional area of the pipe.
Therefore, three sets of data (depth, flow and velocity) were obtained for each
the flow meter.
2-9
Meter QA/QC Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
As a preliminary evaluation of the meter data, flow was plotted over time for the
entire monitoring period to identify missing and/or unrealistic data and to
observe the meter’s response to rain. Figure 2-5 illustrates an example of a
meter’s response.
5.00 0
Flow (mgd)
4.50 Baseflow 0.05
Rainfall (inches) Wet Weather
4.00 0.1
Flow (WWF)
3.50 0.15
3.00 0.2
Flow (MGD)
Rainfall (in)
2.50 0.25
2.00 Dry Weather Meter 0.3

Flow (DWF) Malfunctioned
1.50 0.35
1.00 0.4
0.50 0.45
0.00 0.5
1/25/05 1/25/05 1/26/05 1/26/05 1/27/05 1/27/05 1/28/05
12:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM
Date/Time
Figure 2-5 Typcial Flow Response
Flow meters that exhibited unrealistic responses were subjected to further

analysis. A scattergraph of depth vs. velocity was plotted to determine if there
was a clear signature of the flow meter’s response. Generally, a positive
correlation is shown for meters with unobstructed flow. However, the
scattergraph response could be indicative of obstruction in the pipe or other
hydraulic issues.
A list of flow meters with unrealistic or questionable responses was returned to

ADS for further investigation. These meters were resubmitted with corrections.
In general, the corrections were typically unit conversions (CFS vs. MGD), Deleted: incorrect units
miscalculation of the cross-sectional area or incorrect installation pipe

information.
2-10
Dry Weather Flow Estimate
Dry weather flow (DWF) is defined as periods with no direct wet weather
influence, such as rainfall or snow melt. A typical DWF period was 3 days after a
storm event through the beginning of the next storm event. This was based on
the assumption that 3 days is adequate for flow to return to base flow depth
after the end of a storm.
DWF was divided into a sanitary flow component and an infiltration component,
as shown in the wastewater hydrograph (Figure 2-6). Infiltration, generally from
groundwater, enters the sewer through service connections and through
defective pipes, pipe joints, connections or manhole walls. Infiltration is
assumed to be approximately 88% of the minimum nighttime DWF.
5.00 0
Flow (mgd)
4.50 Baseflow 0.05
Rainfall (inches)
4.00 0.1
Inflow = Total Flow – Sanitary =

3.50 0.15
DWF Average DWF -
Infiltration
3.00 0.2
Rainfall (in)
Flow (MGD)
2.50 0.25
2.00 Infiltration = 0.3

0.88*minimum
1.50 0.35
1.00 0.4
0.50 0.45
0.00 0.5
1/25/05 1/25/05 1/26/05 1/26/05 1/27/05 1/27/05 1/28/05
12:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 AM
Date/Time
Figure 2-6 Wastewater Hydrograph
An estimate of the average DWF for each meter was determined by taking the
average of the daily sanitary and infiltration component of the DWF for the entire
monitoring period. The average DWF was used as a QA/QC tool to determine
theflow-balance between meters. In the event that the downstream meter has a
lower flow rate than the upstream meter or sum of upstream meters, further
investigation of these meters was undertaken.
2-11
Diurnal Curves
Diurnal curves were established based on the normalized sanitary flow

component. A diurnal factor was determined for each hour by dividing the
hourly sanitary flow by the average daily sanitary flow. Diurnal factors were
calculated for all days in the DWF period and the average were used to create
the diurnal curves for each meter. Since the diurnal patterns differ during the
weekdays and weekends, a weekday curve and a weekend curve was developed
for each meter.
Wet Weather Flow Estimate
Wet weather flow (WWF) usually refers to the stormwater or snowmelt runoff
that contributes directly to the combined sewer system. This is also known as
the inflow, as shown in the wastewater hydrograph in Figure 2-6. To assess the
wet weather response at each meter, storm events that were at least 2 days
apart were used in the analysis. Each wet weather flow period begins with the
first drop of rain and ends when flow returns to the DWF depth.
The inflow volume was plotted against rainfall depth for different storm events.
The slope of the line-of-best-fit is a function of the percentage of rainfall entering
the sewer recorded by that meter (see Figure 2-7). Contributions from
impervious areas cause the slope to increase for larger storms, while system
capacity limitations cause the slope to decrease. Percentage of rainfall captured
can be obtained by dividing the slope with the total drainage area contributing to
the meter. The x-intercept of the line-of-best-fit can be considered as
depression storage.
2-12
30.00
y = 3.2974x + 0.0399
2
R = 0.9865
25.00
Runoff Volume (MG)
20.00
15.00
10.00
Slope is a
function of
5.00 percent capture
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00
Rainfall (in)
Figure 2-7 Analysis of Percent of Rainfall Captured
InfoWorks CS includes several runoff models. The one selected for this
application is the SWMM RUNOFF model because it is widely used in the US and
has been shown to perform well for urban settings. In this model, the
catchment is divided into impervious and pervious fractions. In the impervious
fraction, runoff is calculated using a non-linear reservoir model based on
Manning’s equation applied to overland flow. The flow depth is determined from
a mass balance over the basin with input from rainfall and output from runoff.
In Manning’s equation, the flow depth is reduced by the depression storage. The
same approach is used in the pervious fraction, with the addition of infiltration as
an outflow in the mass balance. Several equations are available to simulate
infiltration, and among those the Horton equation was selected for this project.
Overall, the parameters needed to simulate runoff are the catchment area,
percent impervious, Manning’s n, width, slope and depression storage, as well as
the Horton infiltration parameters.
2.2.4 Parameter Estimation
For each sub-basin, the following parameters were estimated as initial values for
calibration purposes –unit wastewater rate, population, baseflow due to
infiltration, sub-basin width, slope, and percent impervious and pervious area.
2-13
2.2.4.1 Unit Wastewater Rate
Data from the SFPUC indicated that water consumption for residential use in San
Francisco was approximately 63 gallons per person per day. Based on this
information, the unit wastewater rate was estimated to be 50 to 60 gallons per
person per day.
2.2.4.2 Population
Population per sub-basin was estimated using GIS geoprocessing of the 2000
United States Census Bureau data based on the sub-basin boundaries.
2.2.4.3 Baseflow due to Infiltration
The infiltration flow rate, determined from the DWF processing of each of the
meters, was distributed to the upstream sub-basins in proportion to the pipe
lengths or area of the sub-basin as an initial estimate of the baseflow for each
sub-basin. For sub-basins located between flow meters, the infiltration flow of
the upstream meter was subtracted from the downstream meter before the
infiltration flow was allocated to those sub-basins. Sub-basins that are
predominately parkland, such as the Presidio, were excluded in the allocation of
infiltration flow rate.
2.2.4.4 Sub-basin Width
The sub-basin width was estimated by dividing the sub-basin area by the sub-
basin length. The length of the sub-basin is determined by measuring the
longest path of overland flow that it would take to reach the exit manhole.
2.2.4.5 Sub-basin Slope
Sub-basin slope was estimated using a spatial GIS analysis of contours from a
digital elevation map. The slope in each sub-basin was calculated by taking the
difference in the maximum and minimum elevation and dividing it by the sub-
basin length.
2.2.4.6 Percent Impervious and Percent Pervious
The percent of impervious area in each of the sub-basins was estimated using
GIS geoprocessing of a San Francisco simplified zoning map (see Figure 2-8)
based on sub-basin boundaries. A percent impervious value was assigned to
each zone as indicated in Table 2-5. The percent impervious for each sub-basin
was calculated by taking the sum weighted average of the zoning areas in that
2-14
sub-basin. The percent pervious was obtained by subtracting the percent

impervious from 100.
TABLE 2-5 ZONE AND PERCENT IMPERVIOUS

Zone Cover Type and Hydrological Condition Assigned percent
Impervious (%)
C or N Commercial or Business 85
M Industrial 70
Open space fair condition (grass cover 50 to

P 5
75%)
RH Residential lot 1/8 acre (65% impervious) 65
RC Residential commercial (no pervious area) 95
RM Residential lot (no pervious area) 65
S Streets 98
2-15
Figure 2-8 Zoning Areas of CCSF
2.3 Model Network

2.3.1 Collection System
2.3.1.1 Populate Database – GIS import
In order to assure that the model would closely correspond to the City GIS
database for future updates and modeling use, a software program was selected
that would allow for multiple users to perform quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC) work on the system data prior to the initial import into
2-16
InfoWorks CS. To accomplish this task, the City converted the GIS database
(SQL server) into an Oracle spatial database so that the Munsys software could
be used to interface with the data tables by staff who are more familiar with
AutoDesk drafting program tools and functionality.
The aim of this initial data population effort was to assure that major trunk lines
intended to be part of the Wastewater Master plan (WWMP) model had size and
shape data, as well as rim and invert elevations at the manhole node locations.
Data gaps in the Oracle spatial database were filled using as-builts via the
Munsys software. After information was input from available as-builts, the
Digital Terrain Model (DTM) was used to populate missing manhole rim
elevations. Missing invert elevations at nodes were populated with the
elevations obtained after subtracting a fixed depth value (average depth from
dataset that had values) from the rim surface elevation.
The City Sewer GIS database represented many of the various hydraulic
structures including weirs, orifices, sluice gates, and pumps. However, the
actual data required by the model for importing these various objects was not
known during the time that this City GIS was under development and
modification. Instead of inputting this data into Oracle via the Munsys interface,
it was decided to implement InfoNet (IN), an asset management database
software program companion to InfoWorks developed by Wallingford.
The sewer links and nodes were exported from Oracle spatial database into ESRI
GIS shapefiles for import into IN so that special structures could be coded and
for the continuation of QA/QC work on the existing data. Two access database
look-up tables were created and used in the export process so that the sewer
shapes and material types would have all data required by the IN software
program. Once data was inputted, modified, or coded within IN, it can be
exported back to ESRI GIS shapefiles and incorporated back into the City Oracle
spatial database for future use.
IN provided several advantages over Munsys for further database population.

For example, IN had the ability to view the sewer profiles and Munsys did not.
This feature expedited the QA/QC process. Also, the ability to flag data changes
allowed multiple users to quickly identify the reasons behind such changes.
Further,IN had easier import/export routines than Munsys. Upon completion of
the model extents, QA/QC work, and coding of special structures, all desired
network data was imported directly into the InfoWorks CS model using IN.
The sewer links and nodes were initially imported into IN on two systems types
2-17
so that a color scheme could assist in quickly identifying which sewers would be
included in the model. IN also allowed for some user defined fields to be
imported into the dataset from the City GIS database. Even though this
information is not required to run the hydraulic model, having as-built document
numbers, and surface elevations at nodes from the DTM aided QA/QC and
coding work.
Aside from collection system network data, subcatchments were also imported
into Infoworks CS from ESRI GIS shapefiles. After delineation work was
performed in AutoCAD, the boundaries were converted to ESRI GIS shapefiles so
that ESRI’s ArcMAP software could be used to clean up boundary gaps and
overlaps. Lastly, the subcatchment shape file was populated with preliminary
data required for running the Infoworks CS model.
Other data imported into the Infoworks CS model included the various diurnal
pattern profiles developed for each meter location, rain gage data, outfall tide
levels, and real time control (RTC) rules at various pump station locations.
2.3.1.2 Model Extent
The model is intended to cover only the main interceptors and sewers. The initial
criterion was that conduits 30 inches in diameter (or equivalent, if not circular)
and larger were included in the model, however, some smaller and larger sewers
were included and excluded from the model, respectively.
Sewer that were smaller than 30” diameter were included in the model when it
was determined that they were essential to the modeling effort and included
various auxiliary sewers, sewers on steeper grades with a large amount of
upstream area contributing to large flows, and even dry weather flow diversion
lines. Larger sewers were excluded from the model when it was determined that
the sewer (ie.3’x5’ brick) was plugged at its upstream end and no longer carried
significant flows, when larger brick wings were located at intersections in
upstream parts of the smaller sewer system network, and when there was a
small enough subcatchment contributing runoff to the upstream end of the pipe.
All manholes on the sewers and interceptors were included in the model. There
were cases where the City GIS nodes represented junctions of two pipes of a
different size and were not actually manholes. When identified, these were
noted appropriately. All manholes were included in order to provide a one-to-
one relationship between the model, the GIS, and the actual sewer system.
The San Francisco wastewater collection system is divided into a number of
2-18
basins that are largely independent, although they do interact as they reach the
transport/storage (T/S) boxes or the plants. Therefore, model development
proceeded on a basin-by-basin basis with different modelers working on their
respective basins. Regardless, the individual basin models were combined into
two overall models for analysis of the Bayside and Oceanside systems.
Figure 2-9 Modeled Extents
2.3.1.3 Network QA/QC
The IN software was used for coding special structures as well as performing
QA/QC work on the existing network. Since IN allows for ESRI GIS shapefiles to
be imported, a boundary showing the location of these special structures was
exported from the City Oracle database and used in IN to identify their locations.
By writing queries in IN, it was possible to select sewers in the system network
that had adverse slopes so that they could be targeted for profile review. Linear
interpolation was used to correct sewer invert elevations as well as manhole
chamber depths.
2-19
Upon review of the network, it was evident where assumed data was used by
the City before the GIS was imported into IN. By creating and using customized
IN queries, locations where the rim elevation had the same value as the DTM
surface or where the chamber depth value was the assumed average depth were
easily located. If there was data missing upon review of a sewer profile, then
available as-builts were reviewed for required information. If no data was
available, then IN inference tools were used to populate missing data. Once a
sewer link and node was reviewed and checked, its system type was changed as
well as the flag. Figure 2-10 indicates the flags that were used to identify where
data originated and why it was changed.
Figure 2-10 Network Flags
Table 2-6 provides a list of the system types used throughout the QA/QC
process.
2-20
TABLE 2-6 SYSTEM TYPES

IN System
Color Description
Type
Nodes/links that are not going to be in the model (i.e.,
Unspecified Yellow
pipes < 30 inch)
Dark Nodes/links that will be in the model but haven’t been
Foul
Blue checked yet
Nodes/links that will be in the model and have been
Combined Green
checked
“Special” structures or strange configurations that need
Surface Orange
additional review
Nodes/links that have been checked and will be in the
Light
Transition model but include estimated data because as-built data
Blue
was not available
In the original import into IN, the user defined field that held the cross section
area data was used to put links and nodes connected to those links on either a
foul or unspecified system type. Also, links that had zero for size data were
assigned a system type of foul to assure that they were reviewed during the
QA/QC process.
In order to determine the model extents, obvious links for foul system types
were changed to an unspecified (smaller upstream links that had zero data) or
3’x 5’ brink wings. There were also cases where unspecified sewers needed to
be changed to a foul system type for further review. Once model extents were
established, all links and nodes on the foul system type were examined using
query tools and profile reviews. If data was changed for a sewer link and node,
it was flagged and the system type was changed to combined, surface, or
transition. The model was separated into major basins with a different modeler
assigned to a unique basin. This was done to expedite the validation and QA/QC
process. IN also has a built in conflict resolution flag if different users modified
the same piece of data.
Once network data was imported into Infoworks CS from IN, a few more QA/QC
checks were performed. Not all special structures data required to run the model
could be input into IN. For example, a large box chamber could be identified in
IN, but the top and side cross sectional areas required input within Infoworks CS.
Further, custom cross sections required to more accurately model a non-
standard sewer shape were identified as bizarre system types within IN and
addressed within Infoworks CS. Since further modifications to the network were
anticipated during calibration work, the data flags assisted the modelers in
determining whether data was either assumed, interpolated, inferred, or from an
as-built drawing.
2-21
2.3.2 Facilities Characterization
In order to assure that this model will be an effective tool during the alternative
analysis phase of the Wastewater Master Plan Project, major collection system
facilities were included in the network. Major existing collection system facilities
are illustrated in Figure 2-11. The transport/storage (T/S) boxes and tunnels
ring the City like a moat around San Francisco’s shoreline. The Bayside T/S
collects wastewater from the east side of the City and ultimately routes flow to
the SEP during dry and wet weather seasons and to the NPF during wet weather
periods. The oceanside system conveys water from the western side of the City
to the OSP.
The three main functions of the T/S boxes are to capture combined storm water
from the gravity collection system and prevent overflows into the coastal waters,
store for later treatment, and provide a level of treatment by settling out grit
prior to discharge into the coastal water when the system’s storage capacity is
exceeded. Figure 2-12 shows the location of the various T/S boxes around the
periphery of the City.
Figure 2-11 Collection System Facilities
2-22
Figure 2-12 Transport and Storage Boxes
2-23
2.3.2.1 Bayside System
The Bayside System was

brought into operation in
1982 to meet the dry-
weather sewage
treatment requirements
on the east side of the
City. It also provides a
reduction in volumes of
combined sewer
overflows during the
rainy season. Bayside
Wet Weather
Transport/Storage and
Diversion Structures
consist of a series of
interconnected large
underground rectangular
tanks or tunnels, and 29
overflow structures.
The Bayside service area

comprises two thirds of
the City’s area and
generates 80% of the
present DWF. The
Bayside system includes
one water pollution
control plant (SEP), one
wet weather facility
(NPF), four outfall
locations, several major T/S structures, pump stations, and 29-combined sewer
outfall structures.
Figure 2-13 Current Bayside DWF

Diagram
The SEP has a wet weather treatment capacity of 250 MGD, a maximum
secondary treatment peak flow of 150 MGD and a design secondary average flow
of 85 MGD. The NPF is a wet weather only treatment facility with a wet weather
2-24
treatment capacity of 150 MGD. Dry and wet weather flow diagrams for the
Bayside Drainage Basins are shown in Figure 2-13 and Figure 2-14, respectively.
The Northern Bayside facilities include a seven-mile system of underground T/S
sewers that are 20 feet in
width and 45 feet in
depth, and feed two
pumping stations (North
Shore and Channel Pump
Station). The Southeast
Bayside facilities were
designed to store and
transport flow to the SEP
through 3 miles of
concrete T/S structures,
enlarged pipe sewers, and
four small pump stations.
This system is comprised
of five distinct facilities
listed below:
Mariposa Facilities
Islais Creek Outfall
Consolidation and
Flynn Pump
Station,
Hunters Point
Facilities
Yosemite/Fitch
Outfall
Consolidation and
Griffith Pump
Station
Sunnydale Outfall
Consolidation and Pump Station.
Figure 2-14 Current Bayside WWF

Diagram
These T/S structures provide storage and treatment equivalent to primary

treatment for additional stormwater and wastewater during wet weather
conditions. When capacities at the wastewater treatment plants, wet weather
2-25
facilities and T/S structures are exceeded, the excess flow is discharged into the
Bay via the 29-shoreline overflow structures.
North Shore Outfalls Consolidation (NSOC)
The Northern Bayside Facilities begin with the Jackson and Marina T/S systems
that receive flow from Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA) and the
northeastern sector of the City. The T/S structures plus associated sewer
storage capacity is 24 million gallons. In dry weather, flows are conveyed to the
North Shore Pump Station, which pumps 15-34 MGD to the Channel transport
system. In wet weather, it is capable of pumping 150 MGD of combined flows to
the North Point Wet Weather Facility (its maximum treatment capacity). The
NPF provides screening, primary treatment, chlorination and dechlorination for
wet weather flows, and discharges these flows offshore through the North Point
Bay Outfalls.
Channel Outfalls Consolidation (COC)
The Channel T/S structure collects and transports flows from the South of Market
and northern Mission Districts and has a total storage volume of 38 million
gallons.
The Channel System handles sewage pumped from the North Shore Pump
Station during dry weather and gravity flow from the Channel drainage area
sewers. The Channel Pump Station pumps all flows through a 66-inch force
main directly to the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant (SEP). Dry weather
flows from the Channel and North Shore areas average 40 MGD. In wet
weather, the North Shore flows are diverted to the NPF, and the Channel Pump
Station is capable of pumping 103 MGD of combined flows from the local
drainage area to the SEP.
Mariposa and 20th Street Facilities
The Mariposa Pump Station (MPS) and the 20th Street Pump Station (TWS)
pump dry and wet weather flows to the SEP and were constructed in 1992. The
T/S structure has a capacity of 0.6 million-gallon volume and was designed to
collect/transport wastewater from the Potrero Hill and 20th Street areas. The
Mariposa pump station capacity is 3 MGD during dry weather and 13 MGD during
wet weather. Discharge from the Mariposa Pump Station is routed to a gravity
sewer at 21st and Illinois Streets for transport to the SEP for treatment.
2-26
The 20th Street transport and pump station facilities are included within the
Mariposa Facilities and flows are discharged to the same location. It has a
pumping capacity of 0.78 MGD and the transport storage volume is 0.2 MG.
Hunters Point Facilities and Islais Creek Facilities
These facilities were completed in 1989 in order to limit the frequency of

combined sewer overflows along Evans Avenue and Hudson Street. The Islais
Creek T/S and associated sewers storage volume capacity is 45 MG. Dry
weather flows generated from the Mariposa System, the Islais Creek drainage
and southeast drainage area are intercepted by the SEP lift station before they
are pumped directly into the plant for treatment. Excess flows are diverted to
the Islais Creek T/S facilities during wet weather periods. The Flynn Pump
Station has a maximum capacity of 110 MGD, and sends flows from the Islais
Creek T/S facility into the SEP. These facilities were completed in 1997.
Yosemite Facilities
Sewage and storm water runoff from the Bayview/Hunters Point and Candlestick
areas are intercepted and transported by the Yosemite Facilities, which were
completed in 1989. The combined volume of T/S structure plus associated
sewer storage capacity is 11.5 million gallons. Dry weather flow from the upper
Yosemite area flows to the SEP via the Hunters Point Tunnel. Flows generated
from the lower Yosemite areas combine with flows from Sunnydale and are
pumped to the SEP by the Griffith Pump Station.
The Griffith Pump Station capacity during dry and wet weather is 10 MGD and
120 MGD, respectively. Flows from the Griffith Pump Station are discharged to
the southeast sewer system and flow by gravity to the SEP.
Sunnydale Facilities
The Sunnydale T/S and associated facilities were completed in 1991 and
designed to collect and transport sewage and runoff from the Sunnydale
drainage area. The total storage volume of this structure and associated sewers
is 6.2 million gallons.
During normal dry weather operation, flow bypasses the Sunnydale Facilities,
flows toward the Yosemite system, and the Griffith pump station and pumps it to
the SEP. Combined flows are diverted from the gravity system to the T/S
structure, and then conveyed to the Sunnydale pump station. This station
2-27
pumps a maximum rate of 50 MGD toward the Candlestick tunnel sewer which
then flows towards the Yosemite Facilities.
2.3.2.2 Oceanside System
The Westside System for which construction was completed in 1994, consists of
the Richmond (RMT), Westside (WST), and Lake Merced (LMT) transports, the
Westside Pump Station
(WSS), the Oceanside
Water Pollution Control
Plant (OSP), the Southwest
Ocean Outfall (SWOO),
and seven CSO near-shore
discharge points.
During dry weather,

sanitary sewage (18 MGD)
is pumped to the OSP and
treated to secondary
effluent quality before
flowing by gravity to the
ocean via SWOO. During
light rainfall, flows up to 43
MGD continue to receive
this level of treatment and
up to 65 MGD receives
primary treatment.
Overflows occur when the

WSS wet weather pumps
are at capacity. Combined
flows exceeding a
maximum of 65 MGD and
up to 110 MGD receive
treatment in the WST
before being pumped to SWOO.
Figure 2-15 Current Westside Dry Weather
Flow Diagram
2-28
Dry and wet weather flow diagrams for the Bayside Drainage Basins are shown
in Figure 2-15 and Figure 2-16, respectively.
Richmond
Transport/Storage (T/S)
System
The Richmond T/S project

was completed in 1994 to
transport and store up to 12
million gallons. The
Richmond Transport system
consists of several
elements:
The Richmond Tunnel

(RMT) segment that
extends from the
Presidio to the
northern end of the
Great Highway (14-
foot diameter, and ~ 2
mile long)
A 2100-foot long
segment of 10-foot
diameter pipe that
connects to the
upstream end of the
RMT
A 2000-foot long
segment of 42-inch
diameter pipe
connecting the RMT to
the WST
The Mile Rock outfall that provides hydraulic relief by allowing discharges
near Land’s End
Figure 2-16 Current Westside Wet Weather
Flow Diagram
Flows from the northwest section of the City are controlled and conveyed by
RMT. Combined sewage is intercepted at 17th, 22nd, 24th Avenues and the
2-29
Presidio, and is eventually delivered to the WST at Great Highway and Fulton
Street intersection. Because of the elevation of the Mile Rock Overflow structure,
segments of the Richmond Facilities are pressurized during wet weather events.
Richmond District drainage area, Sunset District and Lake Merced flows all
converge in the WST and are pumped by the Westside Pump Station (WSS) to
Oceanside Plant (OSP) for treatment. Flows that exceed the OSP capacity pass
through a decanting process in the WST. This process removes grit and debris
before it is pumped out via the SWOO (95 -110 MGD).
Westside Transport (WST)
WST is a 45-foot deep and 25-foot wide reinforced concrete box structure
running north-to-south under Great Highway from Fulton Street to Sloat
Boulevard and has a useable storage volume of 49.3 million gallons.
All combined storm water and sanitary sewage flows leaving WST receive the
equivalent of primary treatment before being discharged out SWOO or, during
extreme storm conditions, from Mile Rock, Lincoln, Vicente, or Lake Merced
Outfalls. Nearly all WST influent arrives via gravity. Flows from low areas are
pumped by Pine Lake Pump Station (PLS) in the west end of Stern Grove and by
the Zoo Wet Weather Pump Station (ZWS) northeast of the intersection of Sloat
and the Great Highway.
Lake Merced Transport (LMT)
The LMT system was constructed with the intent to capture and control flow
generated from the southwestern portion of the City. Major components consist
of the discharge structure, outfall line, transport line, and transition structure.
Combined sewage flows from the southwest of the City are conveyed to OSP via
the LMT, which discharges to the WST east box cunette. All Westside dry
weather flows (as well as combined flows prior to decanting to the west
chamber) mix at this point. Flows entering the WSS east inlet are pumped to the
OSP. A transition structure at the north end of the LMT directs flows under the
Great Highway to the east box. Flows enter the LMT System through a 3-
compartment sewer adjoining the transport structure on John Muir Drive. This
structure directs both dry and wet weather flows to the LMT and excess storm
flows to an outfall line and with a capacity of 10 MG.
Offshore Outfalls
2-30
There are four offshore outfalls in the wastewater system which discharge
treated effluent from the three treatment facilities. In addition to these outfalls,
a series of onshore outfalls exist in the wastewater system. These onshore
outfalls operate infrequently during high flow events and allow for discharge
from the transport/storage (T/S) system. Table 2-7 provides a summary of the
offshore outfalls in the City’s combined sewer system.
TABLE 2-7 MAJOR OFFSHORE OUTFALLS IN THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM

Facility Receiving
Name Location Discharge Dilution
Served Water
Southeast 810 feet from shore/ Lower San
SEP Pier 80 30:1
Bay Outfall 42 feet below MLLW Francisco Bay
Islais Creek Quint Islais Creek
SEP Shoreline outfall 10:1
Outfall Street (flows to SF Bay)
Dual outfalls 800 feet
North Point Bay Pier 33 & Central San
Outfalls
NPF from shore/ 10:1 (1)
Pier 35 Francisco Bay
18 feet below MLLW
Southwest
3500 Great 3.75 miles from shore/
Ocean OSP 100:1(2) Pacific Ocean
Hwy 80 feet below MLLW
Outfall
Coding of Facilities within IWCS
The IWCS model has the capability of modeling the operation of the various
collection system facilities and components. However, the model is limited to
collection system components and the operation of the treatment plant facilities
and discharge of treated flow through the various outfalls.
Before these complicated facilities and structures could be coded into the
modeling software, available as-builts and other in-house information was
reviewed so that schematics could be developed. Field inspections were
performed to obtain information that was not available upon review of in-house
records. The schematic in Figure 2-17 illustrates a few critical components of the
WST facility that were included in the model.
2-31
Figure 2-17 Isometric of Lincoln Way Overflow and Westside Pump Station
In order to model complicated overflow structures and a double box chamber

with an overflow weir ledge along its length (decanting chamber) within the
IWCS model, a series of weirs and gates of equal width were evenly distributed
along the length of the box chambers. The box segments between each weir
link varied in size as the dimensions of the true chamber shape varied along its
length (custom cross sections). Therefore, water rises within the first chamber
before it can flow over the weirs for eventual discharge out of the overflow
sewer lines. Figure 2-18 shows an aerial view of the Lincoln Way outfall
structure and IWCS model network.
The pump station operations and modeling was achieved by coding the various
pumps, screens, gates, sump chambers, and force mains into the network as
illustrated in Figure 2-19. Data from the station pump curves were input into
model as well as real time control rules guiding how they operate during the
time-step simulations within the model. Many of the initial assumptions on the
operation of these facilities were modified during calibration phase of the project.
2-32
Manho
Lincoln Way
Overflow
Sewer
Weir
s Gat
Figure 2-18 Plan view of IWCS Network of Lincoln Way Overflow
2-33
Sloat Blvd
WS
Wei
Sluic
e
Screens
Pum
Sewer
Manhol Link
Figure 2-19 Plan View of IWCS Network of Westside Pump Station
2.3.3 Tidal Data
Tidal data was obtained from the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA) San Francisco gage. The gage is located on the
Northeast side of the National Parks Service Wharf on the western portion of
Crissy Field in the Presidio. The coordinates of the gage are Latidude: 37º 48.4’,
Longitude: 122º 27.9’.
For the 2004-2005 wet season, 12-minute tide data obtained from the NOAA
gage at Chrissy Field was adjusted to account for changes in high water levels
2-34
and shifts in time for four other locations in the bay, Pier 41, Pier 22 ½, Islais
Creek and Hunter’s Point. High water levels at these four locations were
increased by a value (as described in Table 2-8) and water levels for times within
3 hours of the high water level were scaled accordingly. The data was then
shifted in time by an appropriate value. Table 2-8 provides a summary of the
factors used to adjust Bayside tidal data at the various locations. The five tidal
data points were used to define the boundary conditions of the 36 different
outfalls in the InfoWorks model. The outfalls were assigned the tidal data that
corresponded to the data point located closest to the outfall. Oceanside outfalls
were assigned tidal data equivalent to the Chrissy Field Gage.
TABLE 2-8 PARAMETERS USED TO ADJUST BAYSIDE TIDAL DATA

Location Time Shift (minutes) Increase in Maximum Height (feet)
Chrissy Field 0 0
Pier 41 12 0.1
Pier 22 ½ 24 0.4
Islias Creek 30 0.75
Hunter’s Point 30 0.9
For the 1977-1981 5 year typical period, a similar procedure as described for the
2004-2005 wet season tidal data was used, with the exception that 1-hour tidal
data was used. Because the time scaling factors used to adjust the points along
the bay were all half an hour or less and a 1-hour interval was used, it was not
necessary to time shift the tidal data.
2-35
3.0 Model Calibration and
Validation
3.1 Calibration Process
The hydraulic model of San Francisco’s system was calibrated using a three step
process. First, the dry weather flow in the system was calibrated to meter data
for a dry weather period during flow monitoring. Second, a wet weather
calibration was performed for a three-week period starting in late December,
2004. This period contained several moderate sized storms and a few dry
weather days. At this stage, model parameters were adjusted to match wet
weather flows and major discrepancies were resolved. Third, two other several
day periods were simulated.
3.1.1 Dry Weather Flow (DWF) Calibration
Dry weather flow calibration involved determining the unit flow rates and 24-
hour diurnal flow profiles in the model that resulted in the best match of
modeled flows to monitored flows for a typical dry period. Two flow components
were calibrated during dry weather: the minimum dry weather base flow and the
domestic sanitary flow. The dry weather base flow (minimum flow in the sewer)
was determined from metering data. The measured base flow at each meter
was distributed to upstream sub-basins by area in gallons per acre per day
(gpad). Per-capita flows in gallons per day per capita (gpcd) were calibrated for
both domestic and employee populations. Equivalent populations were used to
account for flows from commercial, institutional and industrial uses. Calibrated
domestic per-capita rates ranged from 50 to 60 gpcd and were based on water
consumption rate data. Weekday and weekend diurnal profiles were adjusted to
better match hourly flows. Over 100 diurnal profiles were developed to match
each meter’s flow and sub-basin characteristics. Figure 3-1 shows an example
of dry weather calibration for meter 40G4. Overall, the DWF calibration results
are excellent for depth, flow and velocity, with different diurnal patterns for
weekdays and weekends apparent.
3-1
3.0 MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION
----------- Meter
Weekend Weekday ----------- Model
Figure 3-1 A Sample Plot of Dry Weather Flow Calibration
3.1.2 Wet Weather Flow (WWF) Calibration
Wet weather flow calibration involved adjusting the model parameters for
groundwater infiltration, and for the volume and timing of I/I entering the sewer
system to match monitored flows during particular rainfall events. The rainfall
events from November 2004 to April 2005 were used for calibration and
verification.
3.1.2.1 Rainfall Profile Linking
Rainfall data were imported into InfoWorks and assigned to rain gauge polygons.
All subcatchments located within the rain gauge boundary used that gauge’s
data. When the need arose to use data from another guage, the centroid of the
subcatchment was modified to make it fall within the boundary of the other
gauge.. The rain gauge boundary setup overrode the rainfall profile number
specified in the subcatchment table (Figure 3-3). Figure 3-2 shows the
boundaries of the 21 rain gauges used in the model
3-2
Figure 3-2 Rain Gauge Boundaries
Figure 3-3 Subcatchment Table with Rainfall Profile Highlighted
3.1.2.2 Wet Weather Flow Parameters
Wet weather flow parameters were entered in the subcatchment table (Figure 3-
3) including total and contributing area, % impervious, catchment width, and
3-3
ground surface slope. Figure 3-4 shows other parameters used in the land use
and runoff surface tables. The parameters in these tables had the most influence
on the wet weather flows in the model. The land use table is used to globally
control population derived flows and runoff flows. In the current setup, there is
only one land use type in the Oceanside model, which is named as “West Side”.
If no population data and wastewater profiles are specified in the subcatchment
table, the model defaults to a population density of 10 person/acre and the first
wastewater profile specified in the model (for dry weather diurnal variation) to
generate dry weather flows for that subcatchment. For example, in figure 3-4,
runoff surfaces 10 and 20 are linked to the “Runoff Surface” table, where surface
10 is defined as “West Side Impervious” with overland surface Manning’s
n=0.011 using the surface runoff routing model SWMM1. Surface 20 is defined
as “West Side Pervious”. It also uses SWMM for the surface runoff routing with
overland surface Manning’s n=0.15. Infiltration is simulated using the Horton
equation. Infiltration parameters listed in Figure 3-7 are examples of the input
parameters.
Figure 3-4 Land Use and Runoff Surface Tables
Because the model relied so heavily on flow meter data accuracy, the meter data
was checked again prior to wet weather flow calibration using the following
factors:
Operating efficiency of depth and velocity sensors (with reference to flow,

depth, velocity, and scattergraphs)
Consistency of flow measurements (whether the sensors recorded similar
responses for similar flows)
Sensor blockage (whether sensors were blocked by debris)
Site appropriateness (whether site hydraulic conditions were likely to
produce valid data, e.g. meters installed at sites with supercritical flows
were flagged)
Mass balance checks (did other flow monitors in the vicinity confirm the
data)
1 Runoff routing models determine how quickly the rainfall enters the drainage system from the catchment. SWMM is one
of 5 routing models available in the Infoworks CS software. In Infoworks CS, one can assign different routing models to
each surface type but all the surfaces on a particular land use must have the same routing model. SWMM is a non-linear
reservoir model developed in the USA.
3-4
If the velocity data was questionable, but the depth data seemed reasonable, the
model was calibrated with depth data, or vice versa. In the absence of
reasonable data, the model was not calibrated with flow monitoring data in that
location.
Two approaches were employed to quickly see the effect of parameter changes.
First, a shorter period was run, and second, a runoff only simulation was
conducted using the option shown in Figure 3-5. This option allowed a quick
view of how the model responded to changes made to the following wet weather
flow parameters: contributing area, % impervious, catchment width, and runoff
surface Manning’s roughness.
Figure 3-5 Hydraulic Simulation Scheduling Interface
A sample runoff hydrograph showing the results from simulating runoff only is
shown in Figure 3-7. If the volume of rainfall is less than the volume of
infiltration, there will be no runoff generated from the pervious area, i.e. surface
02 in figure 3-6. Once the wet weather runoff parameters have been refined, the
“Simulate Runoff Only” option was unchecked so that the real impact on pipe
flows could be seen.
3-5
Figure 3-6 Parameter Selection for Runoff Hydrographs
Figure 3-7 Sample Runoff Hydrographs Plotted in InfoWorks
Full simulations involved determining proper surface runoff generation by

adjusting subcatchment parameters contributing area, percent impervious,
depression storage, catchment width and slope, Horton infiltration parameters,
and Manning’s roughness coefficient for the surface areas. Figure 3-8 shows the
3-6
results from a full simulation for one of the meters in Basin 40. The model under
predicts flow at the beginning of the storm but over-predicts at the end. Velocity
was under-predicted during dry weather. Volume comparison shows about 4 MG
over-prediction. In this case, decreasing the percent impervious area resulted in
a decrease in flow, but the catchment width was increased in order to maintain
the hydrograph peak and shape. The proper adjustment of these parameters
helped match the hydrograph shape (i.e. time to peak and recessions) and peak
flow rates.
3.1.2.3 Contributing Area
In the subcatchment table, there are two columns for area, one for “Total Area”
and another for “Contributing Area”. By default, the contributing area is the
same as the total area. However, areas like parks and golf courses need to be
excluded from the contributing area since they do not usually connect to the
collection system. These areas were subtracted from the contributing area
acreages (Figure 3-9). For example, subcatchment 17613 covers a large area in
the Golden Gate Park, which was taken out of the contributing area for wet
weather flow calculations. Comment [b1]: How was this
done? How did you determine what
area came out. Surely some areas of
the park must drain towards a
manhole or combined sewer line. If
so, was GIS used?
----------- Meter
----------- Model
Figure 3-8 Wet Weather Flow Calibration Plots
3-7
Figure 3-9 Example of Excluding Park from T Area
3.1.2.4 Percent Imperviousness
The percent imperviousness of a subcatchment denotes the percentage of the

subcatchement which is directly connected to the sewer system. It can be
estimated from land uses and normal percentages of paved and unpaved area
for such land uses. It can also be estimated from flow metering data. These
two estimates can be cross checked and used as the starting point for wet
weather flow calibration. Combined sewer systems have a wide range of percent
imperviousness. They can be as low as 30% and as high as 80%. It is common
to have percent impervious values in the range of 50% to 70%. As a first cut,
percent impervious was assigned based on the zoning by lot (see Section
2.2.4.6)
3.1.2.5 Catchment Width and Manning’s Roughness
The ”Catchment Width” is the equivalent width of overland flow in the

subcatchment. It may be estimated by dividing the subcatchment area by the
average length of overland flow. Runoff from pervious areas is delayed and
attenuated, and hydrographs from these areas are flatter. Hydrographs from
impervious areas show a quicker and peakier response to rain because surface
runoff from impervious areas such as parking lots and roads can quickly enter
3-8
the sewers. The majority of the flow in a combined sewer system comes from
impervious areas. Impervious areas usually show a shorter recession limb than
pervious areas. Catchment width can change the hydrograph shape significantly.
Decreasing catchment width results in a lower peak and longer duration
hydrograph. Adjustments are usually done on a trial and error basis.
Increasing the Manning’s surface roughness coefficient attenuates the peak flow.
Table 3-1 presents Manning’s roughness coefficients from InfoWorks. The
catchment width can vary from basin to basin, but only one Manning’s roughness
coefficient can be assigned to each runoff surface type.
TABLE 3-1 MANNING’S ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT

Ground cover Manning’s roughness (n) Range
concrete/asphalt 0.011 0.01 - 0.013
bare sand 0.01 0.01 - 0.016
graveled surface 0.02 0.012 - 0.033
bare clay-loam (eroded) 0.02 0.012 - 0.033
range (natural) 0.13 0.01 - 0.32
bluegrass sod 0.45 0.39 - 0.63
short grass prairie 0.15 0.10 - 0.20
Bermuda grass 0.41 0.30 - 0.48
3.1.2.6 Infiltration
Factors that influence the process of infiltration into the soil include soil property,
soil surface condition, soil moisture content at the time of the storm and
compaction. When the rate of infiltration is greater than the rainfall rate, all
rainfall is lost to infiltration. If the rainfall rate is greater than the infiltration
capacity of the soil, surface ponding and/or surface runoff will occur. The Horton
equation was chosen to model infiltration, which requires the minimum and
maximum infiltration rates and decay factors to be defined. Different values for
Horton's infiltration model are available from the literature (see table below).
Minimum infiltration factors as determined by infiltrometer studies are highly
variable and vary by orders of magnitude on seemingly similar soil types. The
factors in Table 3-2 were adjusted if necessary during wet weather flow
calibration.
3-9
TABLE 3-2 HORTON INFILTRATION MODEL

SCS Meaning Max. Min. Decay
Soil Infiltration Infiltration Factor
Group (in/hour) (in/hour) (1/hour)
Low runoff potential. Soils having high
infiltration rates even when thoroughly
A 9.8 1.0 2
wetted and consisting chiefly of deep, well
to excessively drained sands or gravels.
Soils having moderate infiltration rates
when thoroughly wetted and consisting
chiefly of moderately deep to deep,
B 7.9 0.5 2
moderately well to well-drained soils with
moderately fine to moderately coarse
textures. E.g., shallow loess, sandy loam.
Soils having slow infiltration rates when
thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of
soils with a layer that impedes downward
C 4.9 0.2 2
movement of water, or soils with
moderately fine to fine textures. E.g., clay
loams, shallow sandy loam.
High runoff potential. Soils having very
slow infiltration rates when thoroughly
wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils
with a high swelling potential, soils with a
D 3.0 0.1 2
permanent high water table, soils with a
clay-pan or clay layer at or near the surface,
and shallow soils over nearly impervious
material.
To ensure uniformity between modelers, parameters were adjusted in the

following order:
1. Catchment contributing area

2. Percent imperviousness
3. Catchment width
4. Infiltration characteristics
5. Manning’s roughness for runoff surfaces
For example, if the contributing area is correct and the model is over-predicting
the flow, the percentage of impervious area was decreased with a corresponding
increase of pervious area. Adjusting percent imperviousness and infiltration
characteristics were done using several iterations. Once the total volume is
matched, then the depth and velocity were occasionally modified by changing
pipe slope (only if the inverts were estimated) and roughness.
3-10
3.2 Calibration Storms
The flow monitoring period of November 19, 2004 through April 9, 2005 included
a number of rainfall events. Some of these were selected to calibrate the model.
After reviewing flow data and rain gauge data, the main period selected for
calibration was from 12/26/04 to 1/14/05. This period was chosen based on
the sufficient length of time, the total rain depth, and peak intensities of the
rains. Two other periods, 1/25/05 to 1/30/05 for 5 days and 2/14/05 to
2/23/05 for 9 days, were used to verify the calibrated model. Table 3-3
summarizes the selected rainfall periods.
TABLE 3-3 SUMMARY OF CALIBRATION STORMS

Total Depth per Maximum 5 Minute
Calibration Period Intensity
Period
Duration (inches) (inches/hour)
(days) Max Min Avg Max Min Avg
12/26/04 -
01/14/05 18 10.46 7.27 9.44 2.04 1.20 1.51
01/25/05 -
01/30/05 5 0.97 0.49 0.70 1.20 0.36 0.72
02/14/05 -
02/23/05 9 4.53 1.61 3.65 1.56 0.36 1.02
3.3 Calibration Criteria
Typical calibration goals are indicated below for both dry-weather and wet-
weather conditions. Those goals recognize that the monitoring data themselves
have a certain degree of error. Flow measurements in sewer systems are
considered accurate to ±10% when conditions are good.
Peak Flow Rate: ± 15% of measured

Flow Volume : ± 15% of measured
Elevations: Minimum and maximum depths within 6 inches of
measured, for depths of flow larger than ¼ of the pipe diameter.
These parameters were evaluated for dry-weather conditions, as well as for

selected storms during the monitoring period. These goals were not met for all
cases for a variety of reasons, including meter malfunction, system repairs,
system blockage, etc. When the calibration goals could not be met with
reasonable parameter adjustments, the reasons for the discrepancy were
identified.
3-11
3.4 Calibration Results

3.4.1 Model Calibration
Calibration results were reviewed using the above criteria. As summarized in

Table 3-4, for both the dry weather and the wet weather calibration, the majority
of the meters were considered fairly well calibrated. Figures 3-10 and 3-11 show
that calibration results are independent of meter location. Therefore, the poorly
calibrated meters suggest a potential metering problem or other small-scale
problem. Calibration plots, meter results and a description of criteria used to
classify meter results are provided in Appendix B.
TABLE 3-4 SUMMARY OF METER CALIBRATION RESULTS

Excellent % Good % Fair % Could % Uncalibrated/
not Faulty
meet
the
criteria
DWF 27 24.55% 34 30.91% 12 10.91% 29 26.36% 8
WWF 24 21.82% 24 21.82% 22 20.00% 34 30.91% 6
3-12
Figure 3-10 DWF Model Calibration Results
3-13
Figure 3-11 WWF Model Calibration Results
3.4.2 Meter Calibration
The collected meter data was verified both in-field and in-office.
The in-field data verification was performed by ADS technicians who manually verified
depth measurements to ensure their equipment was recording correctly. Whenever a
disparity arose between the electronic equipment and the manual equipment,
technicians would remedy the situation, either by recalibrating or replacing the
equipment. Any questionable data is flagged by the field technician to be further
analyzed by office technicians.
In-office data verification was performed by both ADS technicians and master plan
personnel. Although both groups did independent data verification, the same processes
were used to locate possible problems with the data. These processes include:
3-14
Analyzing scattergraphs (depth vs. velocity) to root out inconsistencies,

Comparing calculated dry-weather values to established numbers, and
Conducting mass-balance calculations to verify meter connectivity.
3.4.3 DCS Calibration
DCS flow data were used to assist with the calibration of the North Shore and
Channel pump stations.
3.4.3.1 North Shore Pump Station
DCS flow data was available at the downstream end of both the DWF and WWF
pumps. Since the pumps were manually operated, it was not possible to
calibrate these pumps to the exact operating conditions as captured by the DCS
data. However, crucial operating conditions, such as the DWF pumps are turned
off when the WWF pumps are on, were captured in the calibration.
Furthermore, the model was calibrated to the general average flow rates of both
the DWF and WWF pumps.
3.4.3.2 Channel Pump Station
DCS flow data was available for each of the four pumps at the Channel Pump
Station, as well as at the downstream pipe of these pumps. Although there are
four pumps, a maximum of three pumps are operating at one time (one pump is
for standby). However, there is no one designated standby pump. This role of
standby is cycled between the four pumps, so it was difficult to match the DCS
data for each of the pumps. Therefore, for modeling purposes, Channel Pump
#4 was designated as the standby pump at all times and the remaining pumps
were calibrated to match the average flow rates.
3.5 Validation Results
After meter calibration, the network was put through a series of validation
procedures to complete the verification of the network. The model was used to
simulate various design storms and periods for comparison to known system
characteristics. Model results were compared to such parameters as flooding
and CSD activations.
3-15
3.5.1 Flooding
The model was used to compare simulated flooding locations with reported
flooding locations throughout the city. The 2 and 5-year design storms were
simulated and results analyzed to determine the water levels and surcharge
characteristics of the manholes. Manholes were characterized based on the
maximum surcharge level in relation to the manhole rim elevation during the
given storm. The surcharge characteristics of the manholes were then mapped
to show locations of flooding throughout the city. This map was analyzed to
compare locations of known flooding with those predicted by the model.
3.5.2 Combined Sewer Discharges
During the verification stage of the InfoWorks model, the calibrated model was
used to simulate the 2004-2005 wet weather season. Rainfall and flow
monitoring were conducted throughout the CCSF from November 19, 2004
through April 9, 2005. Rainfall data are routinely collected from 21 locations
from the SFPUC rain gauge network (see Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4). Table 2-3
lists the rain gauge locations. The number and duration of reported CSDs were
compared to the modeled CSDs for the 2004-2005 wet weather season. The
modeled CSDs were based on actual rainfall that fell during the 2004-2005
calibration period over the SFPUC rain guage network discussed in section 2.2.2.
The CSDs reported from Bayside system were obtained from the NPDES
monitoring report sent to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board on
February 3, 2006. The CSDs reported from Oceanside system were obtained
from a Wastewater Enterprise Division Inter-Office Memo sent on August 11,
2005 with the subject “CSOs for 2004-2005.”
In order to remain consistent with San Francisco’s NPDES Permit, overflows were
considered multiple events if they occurred greater than six hours apart.
Overflows which occurred within six hours of each other were considered the
same overflow event.
It was concluded that for the entire wet weather season, the model accurately
predicted the reported number of overflow occurrences at various locations.
However, the model did not always match the reported number of individual
overflows. Many of these discrepancies are attributed to differences in pump
system operations, as discussed in Section 3.4. It should also be noted that
there are individual outfalls, particularly in the Islais Creek region, for which
there are no reported overflows. It is likely that at the time of the overflows,
monitoring equipment was not present at all of the outfalls. Therefore, this
report has grouped overflows by region instead of by individual outfall. Table 3-
5 includes a summary of the reported and modeled overflows for the 2004-2005
3-16
wet weather season. Refer to Appendix D for a list of modeled versus reported
overflows for the individual outfalls.
TABLE 3-5 MODEL PREDICTED CSD ACTIVATIONS COMPARED TO REPORTED

CSD ACTIVATIONS FOR OCTOBER 19, 2004- APRIL 3, 2004
Basin Location Modeled Reported
Oceanside Oceanside 4 11
North Basin North Shore 2 4
Mission Creek 8 12
Mariposa 10 10
Central Basin
20th Street 2
Islais Creek 10 9
Griffith St.
South Basin System 2 1
Sunnydale 2 1
3-17
4.0 Baseline Analysis
The goal of the baseline analysis is to apply the model of the existing system
under various design conditions to identify limitations in the system, such as
CSOs and flooding. Two different types of design conditions were developed for
baseline analysis. First, a typical long term period of 5 years was developed
from historical data to evaluate master planning control alternatives. Second, a
series of short, intense, discrete storms of various return periods were developed
to evaluate system capacity. Once system conditions are evaluated, the baseline
model will serve as the basis from which different alternative solutions can be
analyzed.
4.1 Baseline Model

Recently constructed projects and projects that are under design and scheduled
to be constructed in the next 2 years were incorporated into the calibrated
model. Relevant projects are those that either contain a pipe size change to 30”
diameter and larger and/or those that significantly alter the flow pattern of the
existing system. Figure 4-1 identifies the locations of these projects. A summary
description of these relevant projects can be found in Appendix E.
5-1
4.0 BASELINE ANALYSIS
Figure 4-1 Locations of CIP Projects Included in Baseline Model
4.2 Design Rainfall Conditions

4.2.1 Rainfall Events
Two sets of design rainfall conditions were created for evaluating the San
Francisco sewer system.
Typical five-year and one-year rainfall periods for evaluating CSO control
alternatives.
Design storms of various return periods for evaluation of the system during
discrete storm events.
The technical memorandum detailing the development of these design conditions

can be found in Appendix F.
4-2
4.2.1.1 Typical Period
Long-term typical periods lasting one and five years were developed by selecting
a period which closely matched the average record from the National Weather
Service (NWS) rain gauge for the past 30 years and adding and removing storm
events to further improve the match. The period that was selected was 1977-
1981. For typical period simulations, rainfall from the more detailed SFHHDAR
citywide rain gage network will be used to take into account spatial variation in
storms. The selected five year period was tailored to match rainfall averages for
the past 30 years instead of the overall period of record to take into account
factors such as global warming and El Niño (See Appendix F). A summary of the
30 year average as well as the five year typical period can be found in Table 4-1.
TABLE 4-1 COMPARISON OF TYPICAL PERIOD TO ORIGINAL PERIOD AND 30 YEAR

AVERAGE
30 Year Original Typicalized
Statistic
Average 1977-1981 1977-1981
Average Depth (in) 23.9 21.4 23.5
Count of < 0.25" 84.0 77 84
storms in 0.25" to 0.5" 29.9 26 30
depth 0.5" to 1" 29.9 26 30
ranges 1" to 2" 21.3 24 22
2" to 3" 8.2 7 9
> 3" 5.7 6 6
Count of < 0.1 in/hr 90.1 84 90
storms in 0.1 to 0.25 60.2 54 61
peak in/hr
intensity 0.25 to 0.5 24.2 25 25
ranges in/hr
0.5 to 0.75 3.5 3 4
in/hr
> 0.75 in/hr 1.0 0 1
The rainfall analysis used the long-term historical data from the NWS gage. For
the InfoWorks model, however, the data from SFHHDAR network was utilized so
that spatial variation would be taken into account. The SFHHDAR network was
in operation from 1972-1985, and consisted of 27 gages. For the actual
locations of all the gages, refer to Appendix G.
During analysis of the SFHHDAR network data it was discovered that all gages
were missing rainfall during instances where the NWS gage reported storms. For
these time periods, the InfoWorks rain gage profiles were populated by spatially
varying the data from the NWS gage data. The NWS data was spatially varied
according to the parameters set forth in the Hydrometerorological Report
(Hydroconsult, 1981). Refer to Appendix G for a list of time periods when the
4-3
SFHHDAR network was down as well as a list of the scaling factors used for
spatial variation.
After importing the complete rain gage data of the five year typical period into
InfoWorks, Thiessen Polygons were created around the rain gage network. The
rainfall profile for each subcatchment was assigned the value of the rain gage
whose Thiessen Polygon contains the subcatchment.
4.2.1.2 Design Storms
To develop design storms, an analysis was conducted based on the past 30 years
of rainfall recorded at the NWS rain gauge. Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF)
curves for the rain gauge were developed based on information provided by the
State Climatologist’s Office, and extrapolated to cover the 3-month, 6-month,
and 1-year return periods. The resulting design storms were compared to the
storms currently being used in the City of San Francisco. The currently used IDF
curves have a higher peak intensity for very short times (5-10 minutes), but a
lower overall volume compared the curves developed as part of this analysis.
There are significant implications to switching from currently used design storms
that affect issues outside of the Wastewater Master Plan, such as recommended
sewer design sizes. Therefore, it was decided to use the current design storms
for the design analysis. Table 4-2 is a summary of the characteristics of the
design storm events.
TABLE 4-2 SUMMARY OF DESIGN STORMS USED FOR BASELINE ANALYSIS

Peak
ReturnPeriod Duration Intensity Rainfall Depth
(hours) (in/hr) (in)
3 Month 3 1.16 0.66
6 Month 3 1.56 0.82
1 Year 3 1.95 0.96
2 Year 3 2.36 1.10
5 Year 3 3.13 1.14
10 Year 3 3.35 1.48
25 Year 3 3.83 1.65
50 Year 3 4.32 1.84
100 Year 3 4.78 2.07
These design storms were multiplied by the regional factors described in the
Hydrometerorological Report (Hydroconsult, 1981). A list of the scaling
factors used for spatial variation can be found in Appendix G.
4-4
4.3 Model Results

4.3.1 Capacity and Flooding
The capacity analysis was performed by applying the calibrated hydraulic model
with added CIP improvements to compute flows and levels in each modeled pipe
under 2-year and 5-year design storm conditions. The results of these model
runs may indicate where additional capacity will be required to continue to
provide the desired level of protection against flooding and overflows. The 2-year
and 5-year design storms were chosen for the following reasons: the City’s
design criteria used a 5 year storm, the storms provided a valid characterization
of how the system might respond, and the storms gave the best means of
comparison to the City’s known areas of flooding. Figures 4-2 and 4-3 show the
relative surcharging and flooding in the system due to the 2-year and 5-year
storms. Figure 4-4 shows the severity of flooding related problems from the
February 25, 2005 storm (100-year storm).
4-5
Flood Volume between .00264 and .264 MG

Flood Volume > .264 MG
Surcharged due to pipe overcapacity

Surcharged due to downstream hydraulics
Pipe d/D between .8 and 1.0
Pipe d/D between 0 and .8
Figure 4.3.1 Baseline Model Capacity and Flooding using 2-year, 24 hour Design
Storm
4-6
Flood Volume between .00264 and .264 MG

Flood Volume > .264 MG
Surcharged due to pipe overcapacity

Surcharged due to downstream hydraulics
Pipe d/D between .8 and 1.0
Pipe d/D between 0 and .8
Figure 4.3.2 Baseline Model Capacity and Flooding using 5-year, 24 hour Design
Storm
4-7
Figure 4.3.3 Flooding Incidents from February 25, 2005 Storm.
The 5-year design storm shows much more flooding than the 2-year design
storm for medium sized flooding incidents, or those between .0024 MG and .24
MG. There were only two manholes from the 5-year analysis that flooded more
than the largest single incident from the 2-year storm. In general, the areas with
the most flooding from the 5-year modeled storm match the observed areas
pretty well. There are a few areas where the model predicts large amounts of
flooding but the February 25, 2005 storm does not and vice versa. The model
shows large flooding in the northwest reach of the 10th Street zone but the
actual response is minimal. Actual responses are heavy in the North Point, Down
Town, and So Market zones, but the model shows very little response there.
These issues are important and can not be clarified with the model at this time.
However, a more detailed model will be built during the next phase of
4-8
the project and should be able to provide better insight into the
capacity and flooding issues.
4.3.2 Combined Sewer Discharges
The baseline model was used to simulate the 5-year typical period. The results
of the 5-year typical period simulation were evaluated to determine the
frequency of CSD activations during the simulation. Using a similar method as
used during the model verification stage, as described in Section 3.5, the
occurrence of CSDs were compiled for the various locations and outfalls
throughout the city. CSDs which occurred within 6 hours of another overflow
were considered the same discharge event; dicharges separated by greater than
6 hours were considered separate events. To determine the effect of
alternatives on CSD activation frequency, the results from this baseline analysis
will be compared to the results from the analysis of system alternative
simulations. Table 4-3 includes a summary of the reported versus modeled
overflows for the 5-year typical period. Refer to Appendix H for a list of modeled
versus reported overflows for the individual outfalls.
TABLE 4-3 MODEL PREDICTED CSD ACTIVATIONS FOR 5-YEAR TYPICAL

PERIOD
Year from Typical Period
Basin Location 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Average
Oceanside Oceanside 4 4 9 3 9 5.8
North Basin North Shore 2 7 4 5 2 4
Central Basin 20th Street 6 7 1 2 3.2
Islais Creek 8 12 12 10 11 10.6
Mariposa 10 13 13 12 8 11.2
Mission Creek 11 16 11 8 6 10.4
South Basin Griffith St. System 1 1 2 0.8
Sunnydale 1 1 0.4
4.3.3 Wastewater Treatment Flows
The following table shows the modeled average and peak DWF an d WWF into
the City’s major treatment facilities for baseline conditions. The model
overpredicts flow at SEP by 40% for a typical dry day.
4-9
5.0 Conclusions
A detailed dynamic model has been developed and calibrated for the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission. The steps taken to build, calibrate, and validate the model
have been discussed. Initial calibration of the model during both dry and wet weather
conditions was performed using a series of flow meters deployed across the system for a
5-month month period in 2004. The initial calibration was successful and will serve as
the foundation for more refinements later.
The capacity analysis was performed by applying the calibrated hydraulic model with
added CIP improvements to compute flows and levels in each modeled pipe under 2-
year and 5-year design storm conditions. The results of these model runs indicate
where additional capacity will be required to continue to provide the desired level of
protection against flooding and overflows.
Following initial calibration and baseline validation, the hydraulic model is being used to
evaluate the impacts to the collection system (both positive and negative) resulting from
the alternatives developed by the Master Plan team.
5-1
APPENDIX B
Appendix A
FLOW MONITORING LOCATIONS
12
APPENDIX B
Appendix B
FLOW METER CALIBRATION RESULTS
13
APPENDIX B
In the following summary tables, the DWF calibration period was from December
15, 2004 through December 22, 2004. The WWF calibration period was from
December 26, 2004 through January 14, 2005. If a meter met calibration criteria
it is marked YES, and if it did not, it is marked NO. If predicted results were
within +/- 15% of observed results at a given meter, it was successfully
calibrated.
The above criteria should be met for the verification period, unless circumstances
at the monitoring locations (1) cannot be modeled and are determined to be
unimportant, (2) are not detrimental to the model, or (3) are due to infiltration
and can be accounted for in subsequent use of the model. Currently, USEPA’s
Combined Sewer Overflow: Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling provides only
vague non-numerical criteria for calibration assessment.
14
TABLE B-1 CALIBRATION SUMMARY
Meter ID Pipe ID DWF WWF

Flow Depth Velocity Flow Depth Velocity Comments
Basin 10
10B_10C 10146.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO
10D1 10070.1 YES NO NO NO YES NO
10D2 10641.1 YES YES YES YES YES NO
10D3 10675.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
10EB 10577.1 NO NO NO NO NO NO
10E2 12476.1 YES NO YES NO NO NO
10F1 116991.1 NO NO NO NO NO NO
10G1 10332.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
10H1 10203.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO
10J1 85332.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO
30AE 861661.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Basin 20
20B2 15664.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
20B5 86245.1 NO NO NO YES NO NO
20C1 86329.1 NO NO NO NO NO NO Meter out during 12/15/04 through 12/22/04 period and another DWF period used for calibration.
20C2 33911.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
20D1 86236.1 NO NO NO YES NO NO
Basin 30
30A1 32063.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO Believe that ADS meter data 30A1 and 30A4 may have been switched.
30A3 17992.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
30A4 15984.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO Believe that ADS meter data 30A1 and 30A4 may have been switched.
30EB 15455.1 NO NO NO NO YES NO
300 16591.1 N/A N/A N/A NO YES NO
30000 16539.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
30EE1 * 8888.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO Believe that ADS meter data 30EE1 and 30EE2 may have been switched.
30EE2 * 17408.1 YES NO YES YES NO NO Believe that ADS meter data 30EE1 and 30EE2 may have been switched.
30F1R 17300.1 YES YES YES YES YES YES
30F2 16324.1 NO NO NO YES NO NO Modeled a 1.6 ft “sediment step” to divert flow to the DWF channel on Division St. to reduce flow to this meter. Because the DWF is not calibrated well, the
WWF calibration is also off – however it matches the profiles.
30FL1 17429.1 YES YES YES YES YES NO
30G2 16961.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO
30J1 18307.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO
30J2 19711.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
30J-K 18465.1 YES NO YES YES NO YES
5-1
APPENDIX B

30K1 85711.1 YES NO NO NO YES NO
30K2 22229.1 YES YES NO NO YES NO
30L1 18585.1 YES NO YES YES NO NO
30L2 17230.1 NO NO NO NO NO NO Believe that the meter should be in the WWF channel and not the DWF channel.
30ME * 12662.1 N/A N/A N/A NO NO NO
30NE * 80088.1 NO NO NO YES NO NO
30NEE * 15445.2 NO NO NO NO YES NO
30NEE1 * 32634.1 N/A N/A N/A YES NO NO
Basin 40
20B3 34310.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO
40A2 16682.1 YES YES NO YES YES NO
40B2 16710.1 YES YES YES YES YES YES
40C1 18860.1 YES YES YES YES YES YES
40C4 17609.1 NO NO NO YES NO NO
40C5 20098.1 YES NO NO YES YES NO
40D1 90007.1 NO NO YES NO YES YES
40D2 33073.1 NO NO NO YES NO NO
40D4 20391.1 NO NO NO NO NO NO 40D4: this meter was installed near the intersection of Laguna Honda Blvd and Clarendon Ave. Flows are stagnant and 8 inch of silt was noted on the flow meter
site sheet. Meter accuracy was questioned. However, this is the most upstream meter. Its impact to the entire model would be very minimal.
400 25625.1 YES YES YES YES YES YES
40G1 24124.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO 40G1, 40G3 and 40G4: these three meters are in the same vicinity. 40G3 and 40G4 are upstream of 40G1 and installed in parallel pipes. 40G1 collects flows from
40G3, 40G4, and 40E1. Both 40G1 and 40E1 were fairly calibrated. The flow balancing at 40G3 and 40G4 very likely contributes to the discrepancies at these
locations.
40G2 24203.1 NO NO YES YES YES NO
40G3 24127.1 NO NO NO NO NO YES 40G1, 40G3 and 40G4: these three meters are in the same vicinity. 40G3 and 40G4 are upstream of 40G1 and installed in parallel pipes. 40G1 collects flows from
locations.
40G4 24128.2 YES YES YES YES NO NO 40G1, 40G3 and 40G4: these three meters are in the same vicinity. 40G3 and 40G4 are upstream of 40G1 and installed in parallel pipes. 40G1 collects flows from
locations.
40H1 21317.1 YES YES YES YES YES YES
40J1 21242.1 NO NO YES NO YES YES
40J2 18764.1 NO NO YES YES YES NO
40J3 85357.1 NO NO NO YES YES NO
40J4 17548.1 YES NO YES YES YES YES
40K1 86079.2 NO NO NO NO NO NO 40K1: This meter was installed in the West Side box. Most of the time, the meter was not functional due to the debris/sand coming from upstream.
40K2 300069.1 YES NO NO YES YES NO
40M1 100006.1 YES YES NO YES NO NO
40M2 24055.1 NO NO NO YES YES YES
Basin 50
50A1 28428.1 NO NO NO YES NO NO Depth is less than 12 feet so velocity and depth are not accurate. Minimal flow – upstream meter <0.67 MGD
50AK1 86277.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO Depth is less than 12 feet so velocity and depth are not accurate
16
APPENDIX B

50B2 22126.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO Depth is less than 12 feet so velocity and depth are not accurate
50B3 22096.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO Depth is less than 12 feet so velocity and depth are not accurate
50B4 22469.1 NO N/A NO NO NO NO Meter malfunctioned during the calibration period
50B5 23240.1 NO NO NO YES NO NO Depth is less than 12 feet so velocity and depth are not accurate. Minimal flow – upstream meter <0.67 MGD
50C2 22212.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO Geary Underpass Pump Station not included in the model
50D1 19879.1 NO YES NO NO NO NO Depth is less than 12 feet so velocity and depth are not accurate. Minimal flow – upstream meter <0.67 MGD
50EE1 21168.1 NO NO NO NO NO NO Geary Underpass Pump Station not included in the model
50EE2 21190.1 NO NO NO NO NO NO Geary Underpass Pump Station not included in the model
50J1A 26762.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO Potential wrong meter location. Unable to verify.
50J2 80175.1 NO NO NO YES NO NO
50K1 26401.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO
50L1 26246.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
50LM1 80185.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
50M1 28709.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO Depth is less than 12 feet so velocity and depth are not accurate. Minimal flow – upstream meter <0.67 MGD
50N1 28768.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO
50NP 86280.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
50P1 29652.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
50P2 30379.1 NO NO NO NO NO NO
50Q1 29603.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO Meter malfunctioned during the calibration period
50Q2 30489.1 NO NO NO NO NO NO Depth is less than 12 feet so velocity and depth are not accurate. Minimal flow – upstream meter <0.67 MGD
Basin 60
40N1 25804.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO Meter showed unreliable data during the period of 12/2004 thru 1/2005. Meter data indicated possible backwater conditions for the January 7th and 8th storm event.
Calibration for WWF and DWF was performed on other periods than the two general calibration periods.
40N60B 25773.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
60B1 29264.1 NO NO NO YES YES NO **
60C2B 27288.1 YES NO NO N/A N/A N/A Meter not used for WWF calibration. Suspect unreliable WWF data and backwater conditions. Metered flows and depth were approximately 10x that of modeled.
60C3 27445.1 YES YES YES YES YES NO
600 97193.1 YES NO NO NO NO NO **
6000 28378.1 YES NO YES YES NO YES
Basin 70
70A1 27964.1 YES NO NO YES NO NO
70B1 90094.1 N/A N/A N/A YES NO NO Installed in wet-weather pipe, so very minimal dry-weather flow.
* SOMA meters – use DWF and WWF calibration period from March 10 through March 20, 2005.
** Issue with meter 60B1 and 60E1. 60B1 installed upstream of weir and dry weather flow dropout that was found to be plugged. ADS reported a range of sediment depth at any one time of 0“, 2.5”, 10” and 22.5”. ADS also reported that results show 24” of standing water even during
periods of low flows. Downstream meter 60E1 recorded less flow than upstream meter 60B1. ADS corrected meter 60E1 by adding 0.66” to depth results. Due to the weir condition and since meter 60B1 is located mid reach of pipe ID 29264.1 with a relatively step slope, 1.01 feet was
added to ADS depth data so that depths could be compared at the downstream end or pipe ID 29264.1. DWF calibration of catchments upstream of 60B1 was based on data from 60E1 due to 60B1 metering issues. WWF calibration of 60B1 was only for depth due to meter location,
chunette, irregular section and possible unknown amount of sediment. Based on 60E1 dry weather flow calibration parameters values seem low suggesting unreliable data.
17
5-1
APPENDIX B
Appendix C
CALIBRATION PLOTS OF DCS DATA
20
5-1
Appendix D
VALIDATION RESULTS
22
Model Predicted CSD Activations Compared to Reported CSD
Activations
for October 19, 2004- April 3, 2005
TABLE D-1 OVERFLOW COUNT BY OUTFALL

Basin Location Outfall Number Modeled Reported
Oceanside Oceanside 1 4 7
2 4 7
3 4 6
4 3
5 4
6
7 8
North
Basin North Shore 9 2
10 2
11
13 2
15 2 4
17 2
Central Mission
Basin Creek 18 6 7
19 7 8
22 1
23 1
24 3 4
25 3 3
26 5 6
27 1
28 1
Unknown 1
Mariposa 29 10 10
20th Street 30 2
30A
Islais Creek 31 10
31A 10 9
32 10
33 10
35 3
37 4
38 1
South Griffith St.
Basin System 40 2 1
41 2 1
42 1
Sunnydale 43 2 1
23
24
25
Appendix E
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS
26
Baseline Capital Improve Projects (CIPs)
1.0 Oceanside
1.1 Constructed
Vicente Street Sewer System Improvement - Phase I (CW-387, 1148J)

o New 42”Ø RCP on Vicente Street from Sunset Boulevard to 34 th
Avenue
o New 84”Ø RCP on Vicente Street from 45 th Avenue to 44th Avenue
o New 78”Ø RCP on Vicente Street from 44 th Avenue to mid-block of
43rd Avenue
o New 30”Ø RCP connection between manhole for 2’6”x3’9” and
manhole for 48”Ø SRCP at the intersection of 44th Avenue and
Wawona Street
o Modified junction structure and weir location at the intersection of
45th Avenue and Vicente Street
o New 72” Ø RCP on Ulloa from 46th Avenue to the Westside
Transport; inverted weir at 46th Avenue and Ulloa
Teresita Boulevard (North) Sewer Replacement (CW-386, 1147J)

o Replace existing 8”Ø, 18”Ø, and 21”Ø with 27”Ø, 30”Ø, and 33”Ø
VCP on Del Sur Avenue from Portola Drive to Juanita Way, Juanita
Way from Del Sur Avenue to Evelyn Way, and on Evelyn Way from
Juanita Way to Teresita Boulevard.
Clement/Geary – Sewer Replacement (0187J)

o Replace existing 15”Ø VCP with 33”Ø RCP on Clement Street from
26th Avenue to 27 th Avenue
Steiner - 8th Avenue Sewer Replacement (CW-332, 0538J)

o Replace existing 2’6”x3’9” brick sewer with 42”Ø RCP on 8 th Avenue
from Geary Boulevard to Anza Street
Parker/McAllister/17th Ave Sewer Replacement (CW-367, 1111J)

o Replace existing 24”Ø ISP with 33”Ø RCP on 17th Avenue between
Balboa Street and Cabrillo Street (the existing 24” Ø sewer on 17 th
from Geary to Balboa was also added to the model as part of this
change)
27
1.2 Under Construction
Vicente Street Sewer System Improvement - Phase II (CW-400, 1175J)

o Replace existing 15”Ø and 8”Ø with 72”Ø RCP on Ulloa Street from
Lower Great Highway to 46th Avenue
o Replace existing 2’6”x3’9” concrete sewer with 48”Ø RCP on
Vicente Street from 29th Avenue to 26th Avenue
o New 36”Ø RCP and 24”Ø VCP on Vicente Street from 32nd Avenue
to 29 th Avenue
1.3 Under Design
Brotherhood Way/St. Charles Ave Sewer Improvement (WW-411, 1202J)

o Replace existing 2’x3’, 2’6”x3’9”, 3’x4’6” and 4’x4’9” sewer with
36”Ø, 39”Ø, 45”Ø and 48”Ø RCP on Brotherhood Way from Head
Street to Thomas Moore Way
Replace existing 18”Ø, 21”Ø, 24”Ø and 27”Ø with 24”Ø and 30”Ø VCP on Saint
Charles Avenue from Brotherhood Way to Alemany Boulevard to BART
Connection
2.0 Bayside
2.1 Constructed
3rd Street Light Rail Transit, Segment B (MR-1141, 0711J)

o New 48”Ø RCP on Third Street from Mariposa Street to 19 th Street
o Replace existing 2’6”x3’9” sewer with 48”Ø RCP on Third Street at
19th Street intersection
o Replace existing 3’x4’6” sewer with 39”Ø at Third Street at
Mariposa Street intersection
o Modified pipe cross-section on 4th Street from King to Berry Streets.
3rd Street Light Rail Transit, Segment C (MR-1142, 0712J)

o New 36”Ø RCP on Third Street at Evans Avenue intersection
o Replace existing 2’x3’ sewer on Third Street from Evans to Galvez
Avenues.
3rd Street Light Rail Transit, Segment D (MR-1143, 0713J, CW-202E)

o New 33”Ø, 36”Ø, and 42”Ø RCP on Third Street from Palou Avenue
to Jerrold Avenue
3rd Street Light Rail Transit, Segment E (MR-1144, 0714J)
28
o Replace existing 2’x3’ sewer on Third Street from Gilman to Salinas
Avenues.
3rd Street Light Rail Transit, Segment F (MR-1145, 0715J)

o New 30”Ø VCP on Bayshore Boulevard from Visitacion Avenue to
mid-block of Sunnydale Avenue
Mission Street/Foote Avenue/Leo Sewer Replacement (CW-388, 1151J)

o Replace existing 8”Ø sewer with 30” VCP on Leo Street from
Mission Street to Alemany Boulevard
o Replace existing 22”Ø ISP with 30” VCP at the Mission Street and
Russia Avenue intersection
McAllister Street Emergency Sewer Replacement (CW-375E, 1121J)

o Replace existing 3’x5’ brick sewer with 48” fiberglass pipe located
on McAllister Street from Leavenworth Street to Charles Brenham
Place
Vicente - Phase I, Cayuga @ Milton Change Order (CW-387, 1148J)

o New 36”Ø VCP connection between 9’Ø sewer and 2’6”x3’9” sewer
located east of the intersection of Cayuga Avenue and Milton Street
2.2 Under Construction
Shotwell and 18th Street Sewer Drainage Improvements (WW-406, 1177J)

o New 60”Ø RCP auxiliary sewer constructed on 18 th Street from
Shotwell Street to Treat Avenue.
o New 36”Ø RCP on Shotwell Street from 18 th Street to 19th Street.
o New pump station near the intersection of Shotwell Street and 17th
Street
Mission/Mount Vernon Sewer Improvement Project (WW-405, 1184J)

o Replace existing 2’x3’, 2’6”x3’9”, and 3’x4’6”sewer with 54”Ø, 57”Ø,
60”Ø, 66”Ø, and 72”Ø RCP along Mission Street from Huron
Avenue to Mount Vernon Avenue, and on Mount Vernon Avenue
from Mission Street to Alemany Boulevard
Toland/Hudson/Phelps Sewer Replacement (WW-424, 1139J)

o Replace existing 2’x3’ sewer with 36”Ø and 42”Ø RCP on Phelps
Street from Vesta Street/Williams Avenue to Donner Avenue
29
The above list was reviewed against available information to ensure that the
correct and complete set of CIP projects was implemented. Changes to the
model were identified by using the network compare function in Infoworks, and
were compared against the above list.
30
31
Appendix F
Rainfall Analysis Technical Memorandum
32
Insert Sharon’s Rainfall Tech memo.
33
Appendix G
SFHHDAR Network
34
Dates of Storm Events During Which the SFHHDAR Network was Down
Duration
Start of Event (hours)
1/1/1977 14:00 44
5/3/1977 11:00 2
8/24/1977 7:00 3
11/20/1973 0:00 3
11/20/1977 18:00 30
2/4/1978 20:00 62
9/9/1978 11:00 8
2/18/1979 6:00 21
7/21/1979 8:00 2
5/9/1980 9:00 8
3/18/1981 8:00 70
3/25/1981 3:00 20
4/1/1981 0:00 2
4/18/1981 16:00 12
4/25/1981 14:00 2
5/17/1981 22:00 11
10/27/1981 8:00 40
11/21/1981 7:00 14
1/27/1982 23:00 14
12/30/1983 2:00 12
12/4/1985 20:00 8
Scalars Used for Spatial Variation of the SFHHDAR Network
SFHHDAR Gage Scalar

2 1.11
3 1.11
4 1.1
5 1.07
7 1.1
8 1.18
9 1.13
10 1.05
11 1.3
12 1.25
13 1.19
14 1.18
21 1.29
22 1.1
23 1.1
35
24 1.12
25 1
26 1.18
27 1.16
28 1.1
29 1.12
41 1.17
42 0.94
43 0.95
44 0.95
46 1.03
47 1.05
36
37
Appendix H
Baseline Results
38
Modeled CSD Activation for the 5 Year Typical Period
TABLE H-1 OVERFLOW COUNT BY OUTFALL

Outfall
Basin Location Number 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Average
Oceanside Oceanside 1 2 0.4
2 3 3 8 3 8 5
3 3 1 1 1
4 2 1 0.6
5
6
7
North Basin North Shore 9 2 7 3 5 2 3.8
10 2 7 3 5 2 3.8
11 2 0.4
13 2 4 4 1 2.2
15 2 6 1 5 1 3
17 2 3 3 1 1.8
Central
Basin Mission Creek 18 11 15 11 8 6 10.2
19 11 16 11 8 6 10.4
22 5 7 3 5 1 4.2
23 5 7 2 5 1 4
24 6 7 5 5 2 5
25 6 7 5 5 2 5
26 8 11 9 7 5 8
27 5 7 1 5 1 3.8
28 5 7 3 5 1 4.2
Mariposa 29 10 13 13 12 8 11.2
20th Street 30 1 0.2
30A 6 7 1 2 3.2
Islais Creek 31 8 12 12 10 11 10.6
31A 8 12 12 10 10 10.4
32 8 12 12 10 11 10.6
33 8 12 12 10 11 10.6
35 8 12 12 10 11 10.6
37 3 5 3 4 3
38 1 1 0.4
Griffith St.
South Basin System 40 1 1 1 0.6
41 1 1 1 0.6
42 1 1 2 0.8
Sunnydale 43 1 1 0.4
39

SF SSMP 2030 Task 500 TM501 - Collection System Modeling - 2010 Draft PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SF SSMP 2030 Task 500 TM501 - Collection System Modeling - 2010 Draft PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

City and County of San Francisco

2030 Sewer System Master Plan

1.0 PURPOSE OF COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING MEMO ............................... 501-1

2.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT MEMORANDA ........................................................... 501-2

3.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 501-4

APPENDIX - Model Development, Validation and Baseline Report

DRAFT - January 21, 2011 501-i

1.0 PURPOSE OF COLLECTION SYSTEM MODELING MEMO

2.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT MEMORANDA

DDMP Draft Technical Memorandum #3, Modeling Approach (12/6/07): Included by

DRAFT - December 29, 2010 501-1

DRAFT - December 29, 2010 501-2

DRAFT - December 29, 2010 501-3

DRAFT - December 29, 2010 501-4

DRAFT - January 21, 2011

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Figure 1-1 Combined sanitary –storm system .......................................................... 1-3

CCSF City and County of San Francisco

RTC Real Time Control

Francisco Public Utilities Commission has embarked on developing a Wastewater

As part of the collection system evaluation, a sophisticated computer model was

1.1 Project Description and History

TABLE 1-1 HIGHLIGHTS OF CCSF SEWER SYSTEM HISTORY

1951-52 Second and third treatment plants put into operation

1965 Final dry weather flows connected

1969 State of California adopted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act

1977 Construction on WWMP facilities begins

Additional Bayside facilities were completed; the Sunnydale transport/storage

1992 Lake Merced transport/storage facilities completed

1993 Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant operational

1995 Richmond transport/storage facilities completed

1997 Islais Creek transport/storage facilities completed

1.2 Description of Collection System

Figure 1-1 Combined sanitary –storm system

Figure 1-2 Separate sanitary sewer and storm drain system

If sized properly, a combined sewer system can provide a greater degree of

Figure 1-3 San Francisco Collection System

Based on the “SFPUC Wastewater System Reliability Assessment” report (Water

Figure 1-4 Sewer Materials

TABLE 1-2 AGE OF SEWERS

Year Built Age Miles Percent of Total

2.1 Software Description

InfoWorks CS was selected to model the City’s combined sewer system.

InfoWorks CS contains algorithms similar to those used by HydroWorks, which

InfoWorks CS includes a data-management system that allows several people to

TABLE 2-1 BASIN NUMBER FOR MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS

Figure 2-1 Major and Minor Drainage Basins in CCSF

2.2.1 Sub-basin Delineation

Sub-basin areas should be around 20-100 acres, with an average of about 50

Sub-basin boundaries should be drawn at flow monitoring locations and at

TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF SUB-BASINS IN EACH MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS

Richmond 2567 36 71.3 2.2 420.8

Sunset 5613 70 80.2 19.2 426.1

Lake Merced 2757.3 23 119.9 21.8 977.6

North Shore 2900.5 103 28.2 3.1 919.6

Channel 5726.6 248 23.1 3.1 79.2

Islais Creek 6967 205 34.0 5.3 230.2

Yosemite 1615.3 59 27.4 0.03 337.5

Sunnydale 1397.1 40 34.9 2.4 150.0

Figure 2-2 Sub-basin delineation of each of the major drainage basins

2.2.2 Flow Monitoring and Rainfall Gauging Program

TABLE 2-3 SFPUC RAIN GAUGE NETWORK AND LOCATION