^EA^ WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES 11024DOC08/71
Storm Water Management Model
Volume II—Verification and Testing
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY • WATER QUALITY OFFICE
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Reports describe the results and progress
in the control and abatement of pollution of our Nation's waters. They provide
a central source of information on the research, development and demonstration
activities of the Water Quality Office of the Environmental Protection Agency,
through in-house research and grants and contracts with the Federal, State
and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial organizations.
Previously issued reports on the Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution Control
Program:
11023 FDB 09/70
11024 FKJ 10/70
11024 EJC 10/70
11023 12/70
11023 DZF 06/70
11024 EJC 01/71
11020 FAQ 03/71
11022 EFT 12/70
11022 EFF 01/71
11022 DPP 10/70
11024 EQG 03/71
11020 FAL 03/71
11024 FJE 04/71
Chemical Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows
In-Sewer Fixed Screening of Combined Sewer Overflows
Selected Urban Storm Water Abstracts, First Quarterly
Issue
Urban Storm Runoff and Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution
Ultrasonic Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflows
Selected Urban Runoff Abstracts, Second Quarterly Issue
Dispatching System for Control of Combined Sewer Losses
Prevention and Correction of Excessive Infiltration and
Inflow into Sewer Systems - A Manual of Practice
Control of Infiltration and Inflow into Sewer Systems
Combined Sewer Temporary Underwater Storage Facility
Storm Water Problems and Control in Sanitary Sewers -
Oakland and Berkeley, California
Evaluation of Storm Standby Tanks - Columbus, Ohio
Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff Abstracts, Third
Quarterly Issue
To be continued on inside back cover...
-------
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL
Volume II - Verification and Testing
by
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, California
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
Water Resources Engineers, Inc., Walnut Creek, California
for the
Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 14-12-501 Project No. 11024EBI
Contract No. 14-12-502 Project No. 11024DOC
Contract No. 14-12-503 Project No. 11024EBJ
August 1971
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing omoo, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.60
Stock Number C501-0108
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents neces-
sarily reflect the views and policies of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
A comprehensive mathematical model, capable of representing urban
storm water runoff, has been developed to assist administrators and en-
gineers in the planning, evaluation, and management of overflow abate-
ment alternatives.
Hydrographs and pollutographs (time varying quality concentrations
or mass values) were generated for real storm events and systems from
points of origin in real time sequence to points of disposal (including
travel in receiving waters) with user options for intermediate storage
and/or treatment facilities. Both combined and separate sewerage systems
may be evaluated. Internal cost routines and receiving water quality out-
put assisted in direct cost-benefit analysis of alternate programs of
water quality enhancement.
Demonstration and verification runs on selected catchments, varying
in size from 180 to 5,400 acres, in four U.S. cities (approximately 20
storm events, total) were used to test and debug the model. The amount
of pollutants released varied significantly with the real time occurrence,
runoff intensity duration, pre-storm history, land use, and maintenance.
Storage-treatment combinations offered best cost-effectiveness ratios.
A user's manual and complete program listing were prepared.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Projects 11024 EBI, DOC,
and EBJ under Contracts 14-12-501, 502, and 503 under the sponsorship of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
The titles and identifying numbers of the final report volumes are:
Title EPA Report No.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL 11024 DOC 07/71
Volume I - Final Report
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL 11024 DOC 08/71
Volume II - Verification and Testing
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL 11024 DOC 09/71
Volume III - User's Manual
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL 11024 DOC 10/71
Volume IV - Program Listing
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SAN FRANCISCO 9
3 CINCINNATI 43
4 WASHINGTON, D.C. 65
5 PHILADELPHIA 97
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 129
7 REFERENCES 133
8 ABBREVIATIONS 137
9 APPENDIX
-------
FIGURES
Page
SAN FRANCISCO
2-1 Baker Street Study Area Looking North on
Broderick Street from Broadway 13
2-2 Baker Street Combined Sewer Outfall 13
2-3 Plan of Selby Street System 17
2-4 Plan of Baker Street System 18
2-5 Baker Street Dry Weather Flow Comparisons with
Reported Values 23
2-6 Selby Street Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
Quantity 25
2-7 Selby Street Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
Quality 26
2-8 Baker Street Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
Storm of April 4-5, 1969 27
2-9 Baker Street Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
Storm of October 14-15, 1969 28
2-10 Baker Street Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
Storm of December 19-20, 1969 29
2-11 Baker Street Receiving Water Grid System 31
2-12 Baker Street Receiving Water BOD Movement 33
2-13 Concentration History at Three Junction Points 35
CINCINNATI
3-1 General Location Map of Cincinnati Bloody Run
Drainage Basin 46
3-2 Characteristic Photographs of the Cincinnati
Drainage Basin 48
3-3 Cincinnati Rain Gage and Runoff Sampling Point
Locations 50
VI
-------
3-4 Division of Cincinnati Drainage Basin into
Subcatchments 52
3-5 Division of Cincinnati Subcatchments into Subareas 53
3-6 Plan of Cincinnati Bloody Run System 55
3-7 Location of Sampling Points for Dry Weather Flow 56
3-8 Cincinnati - Comparisons Between Measured and
Computed Hydrographs - Storm of April 1, 1970 57
3-9 Cincinnati Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
Storm of May 12, 1970, Sampling Point 3 60
3-10 Cincinnati Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
Storm of April 1, 1970, Sampling Point 3 63
WASHINGTON, D.C.
4-1 Characteristic Photographs of Kingman Lake Drainage
Basin 69
4-2 Plan of Kingman Lake System 71
4-3 Kingman Lake Rain Gage Locations and Subcatchments 72
4-4 Kingman Lake Rainfall Hyetographs - Storm of
July 22, 1969 74
4-5 Kingman Lake Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
(Quantity) - Storm of July 22, 1969 75
4-6 Kingman Lake Surcharges in Conduit System -
Storm of July 22, 1969 76
4-7 Kingman Lake Rainfall Hyetographs - Storm of
August 20, 1969 77
4-8 Kingman Lake Combined Sewer Overflow Results -
(Quantity) - Storm of August 20, 1969 78
4-9 Record of Rain at Washington, D.C., National
Airport - Summer 1969 81
4-10 Kingman Lake Receiving Water System 84
4-11 Kingman Lake Receiving Water Dissolved Oxygen Profile 85
4-12 Kingman Lake Receiving Water SS Profile 86
VI1
-------
4-13 Kingman Lake BOD Comparisons With and Without
Separation 88
4-14 Kingman Lake Simulated Relief Sewer 89
4-15 Kingman Lake Hydrographs With and Without Relief
Sewer - Storm of July 22, 1969 91
PHILADELPHIA
5-1 Plan of Wingohocking System 102
5-2 Wingohocking Rain Gage Locations 103
5-3 Wingohocking Rainfall Hyetographs -
Storm of July 3, 1967 107
5-4 Wingohocking Combined Sewer Overflow
Results (Quantity) -
Storm of July 3, 1967 108
5-5 Wingohocking Rainfall Hyetographs -
Storm of August 3-4, 1967 110
5-6 Wingohocking Combined Sewer Overflow
Results (Quantity) -
Storm of August 3-4, 1967 111
5-7 Wingohocking Combined Sewer Overflow
Results (Quality) -
Storm of August 3-4, 1967 115
5-8 Wingohocking Receiving Water System 116
5-9 Wingohocking Receiving Water Computed
Stages at Nodes 1, 10, and 18 117
5-10 Wingohocking Stages in Storage Basin
Storm of August 3-4, 1967 124
viii
-------
TABLES
Page
SAN FRANCISCO
2-1 Selby Street Subcatchment Data 16
2-2 Selby Street Surface Quality Data 16
2-3 Selby Street Dry Weather Flow Results 20
2-4 Selby Street Dry Weather Flow Variation Factors 21
2-5 Selby Street - Computed Settled Solids in the Pipe
System Before and After Storm 22
2-6 Computed BOD Concentrations in Receiving Water 32
2-7 Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Option 1 36
2-8 Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Option 2 37
2-9 Summary of Treatment Effectiveness - Option 3 38
2-10 Summary of Treatment Costs - Option 1 39
2-11 Summary of Treatment Costs - Option 2 40
2-12 Summary of Treatment Costs - Option 3 41
CINCINNATI
3-1 Cincinnati Dry Weather Flow Results 58
WASHINGTON, D.C.
4-1 Combined Sewer Overflow Quality Comparisons 80
4-2 Computed Time Variation of Overflow Quality 82
4-3 Kingman Lake Basic Design Data 92
4-4 Kingman Lake Summary of Treatment Effectiveness 93
4-5 Kingman Lake Summary of Level Performance 94
ix
-------
PHILADELPHIA
5-1 Preliminary Dry Weather Flow Results 104
5-2 Rainfall Data Storm of July 3, 1967 106
5-3 Rainfall Data Storm of Aug. 3-4, 1967 109
5-4 Wingohocking Combined Sewer Overflows - Quality
Comparisons 114
5-5 Wingohocking Receiving Water Frankford Creek
Flows and Velocities 118
5-6 Wingohocking Receiving Water (Quality) Results 120
5-7 Wingohocking Basis of Design 126
5-8 Wingohocking Summary of Treatment Effectiveness 127
5-9 Wingohocking Summary of Treatment Costs 128
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Paqe
PRESENTATION FORMAT 3
SELECTION OF DEMONSTRATION SITES 4
San Francisco 4
Cincinnati 5
Washington, D.C. 5
Philadelphia 5
PURPOSE OF TESTS 6
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency a
consortium of contractors—Metcalf fi Eddy, Inc., the University of
Florida, and Water Resources Engineers, Inc.—has developed a compre-
hensive mathematical model capable of representing urban storm water
runoff and combined sewage overflow phenomena. Correctional devices in
the form of user selected options for storage and/or treatment are pro-
vided with associated estimates of cost. Effectiveness is portrayed by
computed treatment efficiencies and modeled changes in receiving water
quality.
PRESENTATION FORMAT
The project report is divided into four volumes. This volume. Volume II,
"Verification and Testing," describes the methods and results of model
application in four urban catchment areas.
Volume I, the "Final Report," contains the background, justifications,
judgments, and assumptions used in model development. It further in-
cludes descriptions of unsuccessful modeling techniques that were
attempted and recommendations for forms of user teams to implement
systems analysis techniques most efficiently.
Volume III, the "User's Manual," contains program descriptions, flow
charts, instructions on data preparation and program usage, and test
examples.
-------
Volume IV, "Program Listing," lists the main program, all subroutines,
and JCL as used in the demonstration runs.
SELECTION OF DEMONSTRATION SITES
The selection of demonstration sites was based on five major considera-
tions. First, the availability of data necessary to run the Model and
against which to compare the results was checked. Basic needs included
rainfall data, and concurrent runoff hydrographs and pollutographs.
Second, in order to test the general applicability of the Model, wide
geographical separation between study areas and contrasts in storm
patterns was required.
Third, the size and character of each area was checked to stress dif-
ferences in land use, topography, population density, and income.
Fourth, existing problem areas were sought so that techniques of analy-
sis could be stressed and possible solutions could be compared. Fifth,
the close cooperation of the city representatives had to be assured to
support the data collection efforts.
The four sites thus selected were San Francisco, Cincinnati, Washing-
ton, D.C., and Philadelphia.
San Francisco
A valuable BPA-sponsored report (Grant No. WPO-112-01-66) (Ref. 1) char-
acterizing combined sewer overflows in the city had been completed in
November 1967, and work was continuing toward construction of a demon-
stration facility (in-line dissolved air flotation) by fall of 1970. The
-------
demonstration facility was to serve a rather small (187-acre) combined
sewer area with sharply varying topography.
Cincinnati
A comprehensive sampling and analysis survey for a 2,600-acre combined
sewer area in Cincinnati was initiated on another EPA project (Project
No. 11024 DQU) in March 1970. Several points in the collection system
were monitored simultaneously, thus providing a good test of the flow
and quality routing efficiency of the Model.
Washington, D.C.
A storm water reclamation project (Project No. 11023 FIX) was under con-
sideration which would impound portions of the combined sewer overflow
from a 4,200-acre area. The impounded sewage would be treated and re-
leased to one of two lakes for recreational use. Between storm events,
effluent from this lake would be repumped through the treatment facility
and released with improved quality to the second lake.
Philadelphia
The City of Philadelphia had monitored storm and runoff conditions on
a 5,400-acre combined sewer area in varying detail since 1954. Weekly
sampling runs had also been made in the receiving waters, the Delaware
River estuary. Further, in a separate area of the city, a demonstration
treatment system for combined sewer overflows using a microstrainer
had recently completed its first year of operation.
-------
Initially, the intention was to model separate storm sewers as well as
combined sewers in the demonstration series. However, combined sewers
could be converted to separate storm sewers -in the model by simply
leaving out the dry weather flow. Therefore, these tests were sus-
pended and the additional combined systems were substituted.
PURPOSE OF TESTS
The purpose of the Storm Water Management Model tests was to demonstrate
the model's ability to simulate real systems under known storm events.
In addition, possible solutions to existing problems were compared by
manipulating the flow control and treatment alternatives in the model.
From these, the apparent best solutions were indicated on the basis of
cost effectiveness information and the following limitations:
1. The "apparent best solutions" to test cases were generated
without regard to the several sociopolitical factors which
would have to be considered in arriving at the final
solution.
2. While this task was approached in a systematic manner,
formal systems analysis techniques, such as linear or
dynamic programming (optimization), were beyond the
scope of work and were not used.
In no instance was a complete analysis of a drainage basin attempted.
Investigations were pressed only to gain preliminary results and to
test and refine the more significant options within the program.
-------
This volume describes each of the study ct^eas modeled, the sources and
methods used in ferreting out data, the verification results obtained,
and the corrective actions modeled.
-------
SECTION 2
SAN FRANCISCO
Page
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS H
Selby Street 11
Baker Street 12
DATA SOURCES 12
Selby Street 15
Baker Street 15
VERIFICATION RESULTS 19
Dry Weather Flow 19
Combined Sewer Overflows 24
Selby Street 24
Baker Street 24
Receiving Waters 3<->
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED 34
-------
SECTION 2
SAN FRANCISCO
The results of two drainage basin modeling efforts are reported in this
section. The first, Selby Street, was the trial basin used in the ba-
sic development of many of the subroutines and, as such, was frequently
mentioned in Volume I. The second basin, Baker Street, is the principal
subject of this section and demonstrates a technique of transferring
results between neighboring basins.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREAS
Selby Street
The Selby Street basin drains a major portion (3,800 acres) of the
southeast quadrant of the city and discharges into inner portions of
San Francisco Bay. The land use is predominantly (77 percent) resi-
dential. The total population is 88,000, or 24 persons per acre. The
basin is approximately 35 percent impervious, and varies in elevation
from 600 feet on its western boundary to sea level at its point of
discharge.
The main trunk is 4 miles long and branches into approximately 130 miles
of lateral conduits. It drops below sea level over its last mile and
is therefore protected by an elevated weir and tide gates. This feature
creates a significant impoundment (approximately 400,000 cubic feet)
prior to overflows. The DWF interceptor has a maximum capacity equiv-
alent to the expected runoff from 0.02 inch of rainfall per hour (Ref.
1).
11
-------
The system carries an average DWF of 12 cfs and is designed to handle
a 5-year design storm flow of 2,700 cfs.
Baker Street
The Baker Street basin drains a small, 187-acre, average-to-high income
residential area adjacent to the Presidio in the northeast quadrant of
the city. The main trunk sewer, 0.8 mile long, discharges into San
Francisco Bay approximately 1 mile east of the Golden Gate Bridge.
Characteristic photographs of the study area and outfall are shown in
Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively. The most notable topographical fea-
ture of the area is the sharp rise in elevation, from 90 feet to 350
feet in four city blocks, toward the southern boundary.
The drainage basin is 60 percent impervious and has a total population
of 11,700 (including a population equivalent of 3,000 persons from the
Presidio), or a density of approximately 50 persons per acre. The
DWF averages 2.7 cfs and the design system capacity is 450 cfs.
A dissolved air flotation treatment facility, designed to treat combined
sewer overflows at a flow rate up to 37 cfs (maximum hydraulic capacity
of 60 cfs), is now under construction adjacent to the outfall. This
project was undertaken by the City of San Francisco with grant assis-
tance from the EPA (Project No. 11023 DXC).
DATA SOURCES
The City of San Francisco, Department of Public Works, furnished maps
of the sewer system, catchbasin construction and locations, aerial
12
-------
Figure 2-1. BAKER STREET STUDY AREA LOOKING NORTH
ON BRODERICK STREET FROM BROADWAY
Figure 2-2. BAKER STREET COMBINED SEWER OUTFALL
13
-------
photographs of the study area, summaries of street cleaning data, and
the sampling results of three storms on Baker Street (Ref. 2) and eight
storms on Selby Street (Ref. 1).
The Baker Street storms were:
Date Total Rainfall, in.
February 24-25, 1969 0.25
April 4-5, 1969 0.33
October 15, 1969 1.67
Rainfall data from the city sources were supplemented by hourly rain-
fall data collected by the U. S. Weather Bureau and published by the
U. S. Department of Commerce as local climatological data. The largest
storm reported in the 1968 and 1969 data (December 19-20, 1969) as re-
corded at the Federal Building, San Francisco, was modeled for Baker
Street for the treatment and receiving water tests.
The following census tract data for 1960, published by the U. S. Depart-
ment of Commerce (Ref. 3), were used for the DWF computations:
Item Census Tract Table No.
Total Population P-l
Population Per Household P-l
Median Income, Families P-l
All Housing Units H-l
Condition and Plumbing H-l
Year Structure Built H-l
Median Value H-2
Renter Occupied H-2
14
-------
Subcatchments and sewer system representation for use in the model were
determined from sewer maps, aerial photographs, and a half-day inspec-
tion of each field site.
Selby street
The Selby Street system was subdivided into 26 subcatchments (15 acres
minimum, 466 acres maximum) as listed in Table 2-1. Complete listings
of the input data for selected computer runs are provided in Appendix A.
Surface quality data are listed in Table 2-2. The sewer system was re-
presented by 74 elements (37 manholes, 36 pipes, and 1 internal storage
unit) as shown in Figure 2-3. The internal storage unit, element 74,
was used to model the impoundment prior to overflow as previously
described.
Baker Street
A total of 16 subcatchments (no minimum, 25 acres maximum), as shown in
Figure 2-4, were selected for the watersheds, and 39 elements (20 man-
holes and 19 pipes, varying from 250 feet to 1,510 feet long) were
selected for the sewer system. The sewer elements, with identifying
numbers and inlet points, are shown in the figure. In this case approx-
imately 30 percent of the total pipes in the system were modeled as
compared to 7-1/2 percent for Selby Street.
Two sets of rainfall data were reviewed for the Baker Street modeling.
The first gage was located adjacent to the project site but only about
15 feet (ground elevation) above sea level. The second gage was lo-
cated 1-3/4 miles from the project site but at 70 feet above sea level.
15
-------
Table 2-1. SELBY STREET SUBCATCHMENT DATA
SUBARE4
NUM8EW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
GUfTER
H1DTM
OR MANHULE (FT)
1
3
5
6
9
11
13
17
21
23
.27
29
30
34
41
43
46
«.3
0.250
0.250
0.25D
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
O.?50
0. ?50
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.253
0.250
0 ,?53
0. ^50
0.250
3.250
0.2*0
0.253
SURFACE Stl
IWERV.
0 •")&£
0.352
U.O(,i
9.0!>2
4.002
0.062
3.362
0.062
" >3&2
O.U62
0 .062
0.062
0.362
0.062
0,062
0.052
P. 062
0.3&2
0. 3[>2
0.062
3RAC(( 1*1
PFRV.
0. 114
0.1 14
0. 1H'»
0.1S4
0.194
0.1«H
0.1«4
0.134
0.1S4
0.184
0. 184
O.I ?<•
0. 184
0.194
0.194
0. 1H4
O.lfl(
C13 LON(6^fi ROD (MC/L)t CBISCU
Cb SIOKSC VOLUMfc (CAD, CBVOL
IS.. NOPASS
I.
125.
150.
&5UB
GUTTCrt
1
2
3
4
5
6
/
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
If.
if
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2b
27
I
3
7
6
9
11
13
17
21
23
27
2')
30
34
41
43
46
4J
?1
51
5V
ol
65
67
u9
71
71
i
I
2
1
2
I
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
t,
4
3
139.00
65.00
uH ,oO
U4.00
140 .CO
i n.oo
135. OC
«6.00
2B7.0C
B9.PO
39.00
90.00
2)2.00
77.00
zn.?c
ja.oo
2C7.0C
ii.OO
40.00
109.00
iifl.no
237.00
366. CC
64.f)0
1S6.CC
200.00
13.00
360.00
100.00
164.00
320. 00
500.00
6U4.UO
7iO.OO
292.30
716.00
92T.50
64.00
316.00
560.20
350.00
1296.00
14H.OO
HI/. .00
8H.OO
14tj .00
480.00
460.00
105? .00
UHS.OO
244.00
7ao,oo
6? 4. 00
50.00
16
-------
5l^Jt /
_,^ 7 /
'14^15 ^Yso46-'
OUTFLOW
DWF
INTERCEPTOR
O MANHOLE
• INPUT MANHOLE
CITY BOUNDARY {APPROX. 411 ACRES OF THE DRAINAGE
BASIN FALL OUTSIDE CfTY)
Figure 2-3. PLAN OF SELBY STREET SYSTEM
-------
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
PAL A
FINE ARTS ,
HkJ
Vxs i
PRESIDIO SEWER
PRESIDIO
LEGEND
O MANHOLE
• INPUT MANHOLE
•_._C«TCHBASIN
DRAINAGE BASIM
SUBCAICHUENT
40
YACHT HARBOR
Figure 2-4. PLAN OF BAKER STREET SYSTEM
18
-------
VERIFICATION RESULTS
Dry Weather Flow
Dry weather flow for Selby Street, shown in Table 2-3, was computed and
adjusted to within 2 percent of the reported average daily values.
Hourly variations in quantity and quality were set equal to the average
of the reported values. The correction factors obtained are shown in
Table 2-4. Note that the maximum hourly BOD is 1.34 x 1.77 = 2.37
times the average at 9 p.m. and 0.30 x 0.30 = 0.09 times the average at
5 a.m., an overall variation of 26 to 1. For suspended solids, the
overall variation is greater, reaching a maximum of 45 to 1. The
quality significance of the dry weather flow's contribution to combined
sewage overflows is therefore largely dependent on the time (hours) of
occurrence of the storm event.
Table 2-5 shows the computed settled solids in the Selby Street pipe
system before and after the November 6, 1966, storm. The large accumu-
lations prior to the storm are typical for these first-of-the-season
storms on the West Coast. The quality contribution to the overflow,
where significant, is seen as the first flush effect.
The computed DWF results from Baker Street are compared to the reported
values in Figure 2-5. The uncertain (no maps or population figures
were furnished) contribution from the Presidio was represented as an
industrial source entering at element 36 with somewhat stronger than
average domestic waste characteristics. The hourly variation factors
were transferred from the nearby Laguna street area where a more
19
-------
Table 2-3. SELBY STREET DRY WEATHER FLOW RESULTS
KNUH IMCOf
21
23
27
30
34
29
OUANTI1V ANO Oimnr OF 0 W f fO« EACH SUUAREA
AIROO * 95a.l2iaSPEHOl FS
•1SS • 1197.53 LBSPEar CFS
A] COll - i.tOf 14 ffH/01 >SR CAPITA
•0*f - 12.20 CFS
D'jr » IMF it. . aaowr KLA OMOOO owiS TOTPOP BODCONC
CFS CFS CFS LUS/HIN LBS/HIN PERSONS HC/L
0.48 0.07 0.51 0.27 0.14
C.26 0.04 0.24 0.18 0.22
0.11 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.10
0.48 0.07 fl.SS 0.33 0.42
«.20 0.03 0.22 0.13 0.17
C.2t> 0.04 0.30 0.18 0.22
SSCONC COL (FORMS
HC/L NPN/1QOHL
sua TOTALS
7
8
9
1C
11
12
13
14
41
43
46
17
49
SU
51
11
li
S3
1.79
0.43
C. 12
0.71
0.21
0.40
HQTALS
4.16
0.11
0.34
0.44
0.27
0.2S
0.13
O.O2
0.13
0.03
0.06
0.58
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.04
2.04
1.06
0.14
O.Dl
0.24
0.46
4.74
0.12
0.39
O.SO
0.30
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
J.14 LBS
0.«4
0.08
0.3S
0.11
0.27
13.34 LBS
0.07
0.24
o.zt
0.14
7.32 LftS 17601. If3.
4.80
0.10
0.4«
0.14
0.34
16.67 LSi 37364. ISO.
0.09
0.30
0.30
0.18
14?. T.41E 10
18«. 6.7AE 10
SUBTOTALS
16
17
18
19
20
21
6
1
3
t
9
S9
5.31
0.23
O.IC
0.12
0.14
0.30
0.4S
0.74
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
o.os
0.06
6. OS
0.26
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.44
O.SI
I
2
2
2
2
2
16.81 LBS
O.I/
0.08
0.00
o.oe
0.21
0.2S
21. Ol L8i 4828*. 148.
8. 21
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.2&
0.31
186. 6.6SE 10
suaioiALS
22
2)
231
61
6*
65
6.71
0.73
l.Cl
c.os
0.94
0.10
0.14
0.0
7.69
0.84
1.17
O.OS
2
2
4
21.12 LBS
0.40
O.S7
0.04
26.40 LBS 630*1. 147.
0.51
0.71
0.37
183. 7.D4f 10
SUBTOTALS
24
251
253
67
69
69
69
69
8.16
0.36
O.OS
0.0)
1.12
o.u
1.18
0.05
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.02
9.7S
0.41
O.OS
0.03
1.12
0.18
2
4
4
4
2
26.46 LBS
0.20
0.04
0.00
0.84
0.09
32. Bt US »3»»». It*.
a.zs
0.07
0.»7
I.?6
0.11
189. 7.09E 10
SUBTOTALS
261
71
71
10.29
0.23
a. 10
1.26.
0.03
0.0
11.54
'0.26
0.10
2
4
12. S6 LBS
0.13
0.19
41.67 IBS 8S960. 1SI.
0.16
Q.il
193. 6.39E 10
SOHKIALS
10.62
1.29
11.91
34. 14 LBS
43. S» LOS 88346. 153.
196. A.17F 10
TOTALS
10.62
1.29
11.91
34.14 IBS
43.Sd LBS 88346. 1S3.
196. 6. 376 10
.COMPARISON OF HEISUREO AMD CALCULATED TOTAL SEUAGE FLOW! ADVf> 12.20 CFS SHT3WF* 11.41
FAcrui (CF2i or 1.02 APPLIED TO tut IMF (QUAWIIV AMD CJUAHITI AT EACH INLET
20
-------
Table 2-4. SELBY STREET DRY WEATHER FLOW VARIATION FACTORS
DAILY AND HOURLY CORRECTION FACTORS
FOR SEWAGfc DATA
1
2
3
4
5
h
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
R
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
?1
22
23
24
DAY
HOUR
DVOWF
OVBOD
DVSS
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1. 000
1.000
1 .000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.003
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
DVCULI
0.760
0.500
0.400
0.320
0.300
0.320
0.470
1.040
1.410
1.370
l.iBO
1.370
1.310
1.210
1.170
1.110
1.140
1.1 1.0
1.270
1.370
1.340
1.210
1.120
0.980
0.730
0.550
0.340
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.610
0.080
1.223
1.220
1.250
1.250
1.220
1.190
1.160
1.130
1.070
1.040
1.280
1.520
1.770
1.490
1.220
0.940
0.840
0.570
0.37D
0.270
O.?30
0. 150
0.570
0.990
1.3n
1.460
1. 540
1.500
1.480
1.310
1.070
1.010
0.970
0.920
1.040
1.243
1.460
1.410
1.170
1.010
0.840
0.57D
0.370
0.270
0.23J
0.150
0.57D
0.990
1.310
1.460
1.540
l.bdD
1.4UO
1.310
i.oro
1.010
0.970
O.S20
1.040
1.243
1.460
1.410
1.170
1.010
21
-------
Table 2-5. SELBY STREET - COMPUTED SETTLED SOLIDS IN THE PIPE SYSTEM BEFORE AND AFTER STORM
INITIAL BED OF SULIOS UBS) IN SEWER DUE TO
50.0 DAYS OF DRY WEATHER PRIuR TO STURM
BED OF SOLIDS IN SEWER AT END OF STORM
to
to
ELEMENT
NUMBER
2
4
7
8
10
12
14
16
IB
20
22
24
26
28
31
33
35
37
38
40
42
44
47
48
50
52
34
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
SOLIDS IN
BOTTOM
(IBS)
0.0
0.02668
0.29763
0. 14997
0.0
0.13717
0. 9926b
2.36231
0.90106
10.70633
1.15119
0.32377
0.59344
3.48855
0.53567
O.BOB66
1.74615
O.P5363
2.71647
2.83775
1.49950
4.H1593
4, 01B54
1.03989
0.0
3.15479
1.14104
11.25840
3.57339
10.62061
0. 04679
26.60228
55.93730
7.81516
1080.21924
1704. 82 93 ;>
ELEMENT
NUMBER
2
4
7
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
31
33
35
37
38
40
42
44
47
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
6b
68
70
72
SOL IDS IN
BOTTOM
(LBS)
0.0
0.00001
0.00038
0.00010
0.0
0.00007
0.00120
0. 00365
0.00149
0.01414
0.00143
0.00012
0. 00044
0.00546
0.00051
0. 00096
0.00246
0. 000 13
0.00372
0.00387
0. 00162
0.00754
0.00687
0.00097
0.0
0.00336
G. 00056
0.01684
0. 00370
0.01346
0.0
0.04175
0.09837
0.00892
1.54411
2.60031
-------
4.Q|-
3,0
O
UI
O
REPORTED
IX)
AVERAGE REPORTED VALUE = 2.74 CFS
CALCULATED VALUE = 2.70 CFS
12
18
21 24 3
TIME, HOUR OF DAYS
12
20O
150
H
Q
O
100
50
fl/ERAGE REPORTED VftLUE = 95
CALCULATED VWJJE ^ISa
12
I i I i I i I . I i I i I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I' . I
15
18
21 24 3
TIME, HOUR OF DAYS
200
ISO
E
«
if,
100
50 -
AVERAGE REPORTED VALUE =
CALCULATED VALUE = 150
I . I . I . I j I . I . I . I . I . I .
15 18 21
I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . I . |
24 3 6 9 12
TIME.HOUR OF DAYS
Figure 2-5. BAKER STREET DRY WEATHER FLOW COMPARISONS WITH
REPORTED VALUES
23
-------
comprehensive dry weather flow sampling program had been completed.
The results as shown in Figure 2-5 were quite satisfactory.
Combined Sewer.Overflows
Selby Street. The results of the computed and reported hydrographs
for Selby Street for the storm of November 6, 1966 (0.94 total inch
of rainfall) are shown along with the hyetograph in Figure 2-6. The
results for BOD and suspended solids are compared to reported values
in Figure 2-7. Units of pounds per minute rather than concentrations
were used in the comparison as these reflect the total pounds discharged
(flow times concentration). In terms of pounds discharged, an error of
20 percent in predicting concentrations at the time of maximum overflow,
could have an effect several magnitudes greater than an error of 100
percent or more at the tails of the curve where flows are low. The
fit of computed to reported data was considered exceptionally good.
Baker Street. Four storms were computed for the Baker Street test
area. The verification results of the April 4-5, 1969, and the October
14-15, 1969, storms (0.33 and 1.67 inches of rainfall, respectively)
are shown in Figures 2-8 and 2-9. The model results of the December
19-20, 1969 (2.51 inches) storm are shown in Figure 2-10; no sampling
was reported for this storm.
The Federal Building rain gage (elevation 70 feet) gave the best cor-
relation to the reported results, which is not surprising since over
70 percent of the project area is above this elevation. The lower rain
gage (elevation 15 feet) correlated poorly with the recorded runoff,
24
-------
RAINFALL HYETOGRAPH
e.too -
o.«oo
RAINFALL
IN
IN/HR
o.«oo
0.100
».«
«.1 10.4 II.*
BASIN NO 26
k.7 IS.fc Ik.4 11.2
•03.000 -
kOO.OOO
FLOW
IN
CFS
*00.000
200.000
««INClCf IICEND
IT. S*
.
• I
RAGE
O.I 1.0 1.* 2.7 l.t *.l ».» »-» ''1 *<°
TIME IN MOJUi
Figure 2-6. SELBY STREET COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW RESULTS - QUANTITY
25
-------
160.000 -
120.000
BOO
IN
LRS/H1N
eo.ooo
o.o
1*04.000 -
1200.000
\H
IBS/HIM
100.000
SEL8» ST. SAN FRANCISCO
274
- REPORTED
COMPUTED BEFORE STORAGE
COMPUTED AFTER STORAGE
O.I 1.0
3-*
•>.<. 6.J '.I 8.0 8.9
TIHE IN HOUtS
MIST ST. SAN FRANCISCO
COMPUTED BEFORE STORAGE
COMPUTED AFTER STORAGE
Figure 2-7. SELBY STREET COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW RESULTS •• QUALITY
,'
-------
S Q
u. ci
i.
•?• o
V
8
-,
;
fa
§ •
m
8
,,
35
TIME, HOURS OF DAY
COMPUTED SS,
Ibj/min
357
TIME. HOURS OF DAY
Figure 2-8. BAKER STREET COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW RESULTS
STORM OF APRIL 4-5, 1969
-------
or 6
i1
:>
RAINFALL-
COMPUTED RUNOFF
>
MEASURED RUNOFF
n
TIME , HOURS OF DAY
S
2
8
*
t;
0
- a
0
.- °
o
o
ID
. 9
. 9
o
-
-
/"S /
.-COMPUTED BOO, mfl/1 / •.
'""**% / '
s COMPUTED BOO, lb«Anin-^ »V I \
' \ ^) v V
'\ ^ MEASURED BOO, j .'
, 1 ! ^"l"4"' 1 _l 1
§ 9
•*$
Ol- o
21
* i T *
TIME, HOURS OF DAY
OMPUTED SS, mfl/l
»* MEASURED SS,mg/
25
i t J
TIME, HOURS OF DAY
Figure 2-9.
BAKER STREET COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW RESULTS
STORM OF OCTOBER 14-15, 1969
28
-------
t«>l> irifit (UN FMICIHOI It (UI-WM mtM
I*
u / m
•*••••••
n.o
Jl.« H.O . tt.l H.5
0.0 —-
0.2
*.«
TIM Ik HOWS
,-! ,
TIM III MOUIU
II. » tl.»
10.1 11.0
to
VO
LCCCMO I
lt«f(1 IUk (MCIUO) t» 1U>-UI> UlttH
M««« IrtCCT IS1N fUMCIUVI I* SUt-ME< JTtltH
Si
I*
~ *."* T.O »-> H-» !'•» "•
IIX » «ou»
10. T H.O
>••«••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••«•••••••••••••••••«•••••••••••*
..7 f.O 1.1 ll.t 11.1 It.) !«•• 10.' J»-0
i iiw IN HOMIS
Figure 2-10. BAKER STREET COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW RESULTS - STORM OF DECEMBER 19-20, 1969
-------
once runoff was recorded before the storm reached the gage area. The
significance of these findings is that topography and storm patterns
can greatly influence the runoff results^ and rainfall data must repre-
sent the entire drainage basin in order to be applicable to the Model.
Receiving Waters
The receiving waters were modeled only for the storm of December 19-20,
1969 (the largest) and only for Baker Street. The grid system used is
shown in Figure 2-11. The storm flow was so small in comparison with
the tidal flows through the Golden Gate as to make quality influences
indiscernible. The pattern of the flow in the estuary was defined,
however, and is shown in Table 2-6. Time cycle 1, hour 0, is the start
of the rainfall event (3 hours before the first low water at Golden
Gate). Initial junction concentration values were preset to zero; thus
a number at any junction indicates the arrival of the pollutant field
at that point. For example, at time step 2 the pollutant field encom-
passed junctions 27, 28, and 33, in addition to the outfall near junc-
tion 40 (see Figure 2-11). The boundary of the pollutant field of BOD
concentrations greater than 0.01 mg/L plotted at 3, 4, and 5 hours
after the start of rain is shown in Figure 2-12. This figure shows
the tidal influence on the movement of the field. Trace concentrations
appeared at all junctions at the end of 20 time steps (5 hours). The
tendency for the higher concentrations to remain near shore is because
there is less mixing water available.
30
-------
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
ES5E
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 2-11. BAKER STREET RECEIVING WATER GRID SYSTEM
-------
Table 2-6. COMPUTED BOD CONCENTRATIONS IN RECEIVING WATER
CONSTITUCNT punscft i Boo /IT BAKER ST
StWK eoflCENTnATTOV .00
TMITI't CONCENTRATIONS (M60)i BY JUNCTION
1 2 3 4 S 6 7
1 'C 10 .0000 .000? .OC'OO. .i?COQ .0007 .(3000 .0000
IT TO 20 .onm .OOOP .no.io .?2oo .oono .oona .0000
21 TO so .anno .coo1? .OQOO .cooo .0000 .ooon .oonn
si TO no «ao3o .nor? .nnac .0000 .0000 .ooco .nooo
JUHfTtOW COMCENTff)|T IONS i CU» IMG TIKC CYCLE 1 .HOUR 2 t CONSTITUENT NUP3ER 1
1 ? 3 4 5 fi T
JIJ'ICT'CN
1 T8 10 .3C90 .0370 .OCOO .OT30 .0000 .0000 .00 DP
ii TO 20 ."otic .(!•>?(' .0000 .nooo .orni .0000 .ocoo
21 TC 30 ,?r3io .onpc .0000 .0020 .OnCC .0000 .1E35-02
31 TO fO .0000 .09PO . SSPM-02 .CPOO .OOCO .0000 .0000
JUNCTION CONCErfT/MTIONSt OU&TNG TTMF CYCLf 1 .HMIP 4 .CON'STUuf Mr NUMBER 1
I 2 3 4 S 6 7
t TO to .OTIO .MOO .cnnn .ncno .onnp .nono .oono
it TO 20 .0000 .no a1] .anon .0000 .im-os .i«.<>i-ii .0000
»i TO jo .S5oo-c«t .1446-11 .oonn .noon .oooc .1311-02 .55R2-.1.?
31 TO »0 .J9.)i-r;i .4751-07 .4330-01 .nono .ooon .0000 .oaoo
juwrrie.M coucEMTRiiTCM'. on»r»«c TTHC CYCLE i .HOUR e .COHSTJTIJEXT IIIJKJER i
rn' 2 3 * 5 6 7
1 TO 10 .l«7l?-13 .i<£?-15 .7*04-04 .3S56-03- .0000 .0000 .0000
ti TO 20 .ao-j'3 .2*1*1-12 .anno .ooro .7123-04 .i^i-n .0000
21 TO 30 .1030-03 .2629-11 .nOOC .Oono .0000 .R101-07 .5481-02
?t TC JO .&1&2-02 .15-ii-OI .52.1S-01 .OCOO .0000 .0000 .nCOS
JUNCTION ro«rrwTRAT!ONSt OUSTUG TIIE CYCLE i IHOUR e .CONSTITUENT NUNSFR t
1 234567
JOMCTTPK
1 TO 10 .6253-13 .2237-0* .5813-0* .2134-02 .0000 .Onno .00m
tt TO 20 .aono .2401-12 .ooon .oooa .2263-03 .49*6-1? .nnc*00 .0000
8 9
.0003 .0000
.oonn .ooon
.noon .0000
.0000 .nooo
900 AT BAKER ST
8 9
.0000 .0000
.0000 .neon
.2835-08 .0000
.onun .ooon
9C, M B«EP ST
8 9
.nono .oono
.0030 .4102-04
.ISG2-IG .0000
.cgcn .0000
BCD AT BAKfR ST
8 4
.0000 .nooo
.ooco .893$-nj
.1870-14 .noon
.0000 .no co
BOO AT BAKER ST
8 9
.onon .ooco
.anuo .2112-02
.1171-18 ,onn«
.0000 .0000
3CD AT BAKER ST
8 9
.nono .otJB3
.0300 .23S«-02
.2794-22 .0000
.anno .oono
BOO AT BAKER ST
8 9
.0000 .COCO
.aonn .3559-0?
.1502-27 .1478-US
.0000 .ooon
BOD AT B»XEff ST
8 9
.14S5-1& .1554-06
.3813-04 .2338-02
.2034-01 .2138-01
.oaoo .anno
10
.coon
.333T
10
.nnoo
.nnco
10
.0000
.1903-03
.0000
.8140-01
11
.0000
.11 3O-02
.nnoo
.6384-01
in
.0300
.149n-02
.0700
.1403*00
in
.18S8-02
.nmn
.3718*00
in
.0000
.4554-02
.099C
.6693,*0n
10
.1181-02
.2676-02.
.J14&-OI
.8121-01
32
-------
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
BAKER STREET
COMBINED SEWER
SAN FRANCISCO
1000 0 IQOO EOOO SOO< 4000
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 2-12. BAKER STREET RECEIVING WATER BOD MOVEMENT
I :
-------
The concentration versus time history at three junction points for sus-
pended solids is shown in Figure 2-13.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED
As in the case of the Receiving Water Model, only the storm of December
19-20, 1969, for Baker Street was used in the treatment analysis.
Three options were investigated:
1. Treatment by mechanically cleaned bar racks followed by
an on-line 25.0 mgd dissolved air flotation unit and no
ch emi c als added.
2. Same as 1 but with chemicals and chlorination added.
3. Same as 2 but with a 3.5 million gallon (maximum)
capacity storage basin and effluent pumps added
ahead of the dissolved air flotation facility to
minimize bypassing of the treatment unit.
The treatment efficiencies of the three options are compared in
Tables 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9, and the costs in Tables 2-10, 2-11, and 2-12,
respectively. For the large storm modeled, the increase in efficiencies
under option 3 over option 1 or 2 (shown below) appears to more than
justify the additional (28 percent) incremental cost.
REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Option
1
2
3
34
BOD
36.5%
36.7
58.4
SS
49.2%
49.2
64.9
Coli
58.1%
72.8
99.9
-------
BAKER STREET
RECEIVING WATER
DEC. 19,1969
STORM
NODE 4O (OVER OUTFALL)
TIME
Figure 2-13. CONCENTRATION HISTORY AT THREE JUNCTION POINTS
35
-------
Table 2-7. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS - OPTION 1
CJ
CT>
SlifMM* PF TRCAT.MCNT EFFrCTIvr\T.SS
TQTAIS FLOW (x.r..) «nn (in) *.<;
MVFPFLilV (BYPASS) ?.'»4P ?'?»>? ">. 7 *'.o<>71 .(. S.61F 14
TI!F,«,TTn 5.7J3 43^7.1 7r,.~,B?6.*> 1.7«F 1 *
Hr"r\Tll 0.0^6 ?riH5»6 'i'.O"%'.4. T 1 . <, T 1*
ITLTA^rn R.075 4^11^.0 M.0r'^r..3 1.P3F JS
Rri'iiVAl S rLOHtM.G.) POP (in) ^5 IL^J
LFVCL t C.OOO ]7.fl 7S7.0
LI V L ^ (TTTAI) O.OtU. ?^'i??.H 6--,on>(?.4
I.FVI 4 o.oco o.r o.o
LFVrl «i O.OrP 0.0 0.0
LrvTL 7 C.O^P T'.T ".f>
•Is- ASH;
JA" I'AfKS 34.262 CU.FT (AT «!f LH/f.U.FT.I
rrrLtJFKT srufpfis P.P^O CK.TT (AT so i r/fu.rr.i
OCMCV/L pfprrNTAf.rs FLOK (voi i Ptin (ini ss ILI'I COLJF (MPN»
iff )'Vri ALL If::>"T, 1.0^ ">h ,4i, 41. 7p 71.72
trvi i o.c o.o
LI-V'L '• C.C O.r
LFV<:( 7 0.0 0.0
TCTAL O.P 0.0
RFt>PrSFf|TAT!V/F VAP1AT!^)M OF TRtATMFMT ofpfORMAMrF Wlllt Tf^F (•''VFRALl ) .
TtMF ?•*: 5 ritts 1:'K ?:3r> 3:4S 4:5S 6: s
HATER
AV. FLOW (CFS) 2.6« ?.63 64.74 A1.B3 «0. 03 2T.3S ?1.U
p.nn
AP". IV'M'i (MT./1 ) lS7..t«) 33R.71 7">11.AR l.'<1t'.65 r,ot.i», 01, /, 7 7"»."p
kFLfASfO (Mf./L) 67.61 137.75 1973. "1 7CT.04 /,?*.. -in 4'. 34 34. IR
t PECItf. TI(!f! (t.ril 6P.06 60.01 35. 16 37.36 ?F.<)0 4S.78 *3,pr>
s. stuins
AP.RlVIJiT. (r'C/l ) 7.11.47 7.11?.. ^5 ^'170.2'' 7JA00.04 H7,">».'-6 1*17.71 1'»"'';.64
RcLrA$FI) (fIG/L) Sfj.01 3H4.57 ?7?45.06 llftll.71 7^lp.A7 ?T..?0 7^.03
T vrr^i.r T u.r1 .!4e O7 .''.Iflr 07 l.«")F P7 6.7. 3?r ",(, 7.131= 05 Ul^F P6
PEL ("PIl/lOffL ) "?.7?r 06 3.17P 06 7. (,-ir 0*' 3.3ST T6 7.<"."<^ (>». I.?1" 01 7.(.°F T^
« ('?I)IICfI(lN (LRI 7?. 60 PP.O'J 41.17 5!. 08 "X5.50 9?. 1C *»?. 11
« BAR RACKS
» OISS AIR FLOAT«N
* HYPASS LIVF1 4
» NO FFFL. SCKfFMS
' NO CONTACT TAW
» OtSS AIR FLOAT'N
* BYPASS LFVEl 4
= NU CONTACT TANK
7:15 «:?? °:35
6.48 4.7° ^.54
80.87 163.?o 1B0.54
3^. b8 66.10 73.10
60.13 60.07 60. P6
49<>.64 315. 6* 26°. OS
94. ?7 77.4? 60.55
81.39 75. SO 74.41
1. UK 07 J.62f C7 3.77F 07
2. 486 C6 B.riHF O6 0.77F 06
Bl.43 75. P6 74.47
IOS45
3,40
133.65
74.36
6P.06
237.81
63.78
73.54
3.52E 07
9.47F 06
7>.60
-------
Table 2-8. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS - OPTION 2
to
S'JfMAKY TF TPFATMFKT rcFrCT IVNTSS
rnuts FLOW («.<•,.> con (IP» sr, usi C.OLIF (MPNI
INPUT «.lh) 7C90H.I H<".0754.0 7.46F 1 *
nV.PFlflW (PYPASS) 2.448 77*.3'.7 5l«>n71.6 "> .(.or 14
TRTATtf) *.71't 433h7,J 7POH?f-.6 !.7°F 1*
HfPVFI) 0.1R6 26P75.3 f^ri'J.q 1.7C": 15
muser B.O^S **OT,.I ^.047. .0 <..7,r .4
ftr-WALS FLOW(w.r,.J pur, (LM M PF TP^ATvr«jT PrrrrowAf.T. P W1T|« TTMT tr>Vr-- ILL 1 .
TIKE 2^: s 0:15 1:21 2:^5 3:4S 4:5s 6: s
WATFR
AV. FL^V, 3.63 64.?* 61.83 RO.fM ?->.38 21.11
BOO
AKP.l V!f:C. (»ir,/L) 16"*. 09 31i<.7'» ?9«1./,B 1?3<).<,5 ri14.1'> •13.47 7?. 9R
PFLFASTl (f'f./l » 6T.SI> H7.?5 1073. 0] 7^,->.fi/, t?«.oO -».-'4 ?Q.4p
T l>F.OyCTJr*| (I.K1 6f.0f- 6^) .r 3 3K.°t "'''.36 rft.°0 60.1'' ftO. 1 "
S. SOLICS
Att^IVlflC '!4.<;7 77?A*,I>* M'"O1.7-J 7li»«,t7 ^^^.^C ZK0.0'
f RrnijCTIiri (L1!) "t^.AH B7.05 40. H 51.05 ">«. 49 fl> . 06 R7.C7
AI'P (MI'fi/lf (;**L I .^.I4r- 07 2.1ft': 07 l.SOf "7 >.. T-tr Q<, ^.'.?r oh 7,1^F D*» 1.1*F 0>
PTL (wPN/:{,rwLI 3.O5>" O4 2.17J: 04 C-.07F ff 7. nor O6 1 . 7fcr 0"i 7,O9f O.-> l.'tr 03
<; cF.nucTuirj (uu "i.n 10.^0 so.1*? 6?.?o 4n.io t^.^t oo.oo
= OAR RACKS
= UISS AIR FLOAT'N
- BYPASS LFVEl 4
= NO EFFL. SCRFFNS
= NU CONTACT TA^K
- OISS AIR FLOST'N
* BYPASS Lfc'VFL 4
• NO CONTACT WK
7:15 8:25 9:^5
6.48 4.?«J 3.54
B'J. 87 163.29 130.54
32.66 66.10 71.1.0
60.13 60.07 60.06
499.64 .'IS.'.S 26f».OS
90.18 56,'-l 47.c»3
82.19 87.31 R'.36
l.ME 07 ?.62F 07 3.77F Q7
1.30F. 04 3.55F O4 3.6PF 04
9*^ • 90 ^*^ » ^(^ Q® • ^0
10:45
3.40
l«3.f.f
74.?6
60. C6
737.81
42.41
8T.41
3.57F 07
3.43F C4
99.90
-------
Table 2-9. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS - OPTION 3
oo
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
TOTALS
INPUT
OVERFLOW (BYPASS)
TREATED
REMnvrn
RELEASED
REMOVALS
LEVFL 1
LEVEL 3 ITUT4LI
LEVFL 4
LEVFL 5
LEVEL 7
TRASH:
BAR RACKS
EFFLUENT SCREENS
REMUVAL PERCENTAGES
OF OVERALL INPUTS
FLOW (H.G.I 600 (IH)
7. S60 765.6
0.000 0.0
7.860 765.6
O.llf) 4'.7.6
7.7*1 318.0
FLt)H(M.G.I BOO (LH)
0.000 17.7
O.llB *29.9
0.000 0.0
0.000 C.O
0.000 0.0
47. 137 CU.F T (AT SO
0.000 CU.f-T (AT 50
FLOW (VOLI BOO ( L« )
l.*JO ^B.^7
OF TREATED FKAt.TUm 1.50 58.47
CCNSUMPTIONS (LBI
LEVEL 3
LFVFL 4
LEVEL 7
TCTAL
REPRESENTATIVE VAR1A1UJN
TIME 21: 5
HATFR
AV. FLOW (CFS) 0.00
BCD
ARRIVING (KG/L) 0.00
RELEASED (MG/L ) 0.00
« HfOUCTION (L0> 0.00
S . SOL II) S
AHFUVING IMG/L) 0.00
RELEASED (MO/LI 0.00
t REDUCTION (LU» 0.00
CCUFORMS
ARR (HP.V100ML) C.COl-Ol
RtL HPN/IOOMLI O.OOC-01
% REDUCTION (LQI 0.00
ChLORINF t»OLYH£RS
655. ft 7d'».'J
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
65->.6 7BV.9
OF TREATMENT PERFORMANCE M
0:15 l: it 2:3i
0.00 36.56 36.^1
1.00 34.81 15. bl
0.00 Is. 57 !>.5H
0.00 5ft. 70 -irt.lO
0.00 B6.76 100.16
0.00 31.42 3h.l5
0.00 64.27 6o
0.10
0.30
o. en
0.00
0. COF-ru
3.00F-C1
0.00
-------
Table 2-10. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT COSTS - OPTION 1
COST PARAMfTTCRS . .
INTEREST RATE =
AMORTIZATION PERIOD «
CAP. KECOVERV FACTOR =
YEAR OF SIMULATION
SITE LOCATION FACTOR »
7.00 PfcRCFNT
25 VEA»S
0.0858
1.1452
OJ
VO
UfllT COSTS . .
LAMC = 20000.00 t/ACRE
POWER » ri.070 »/KWH
CHLORINE = 0.2CO t/LH
POLYMERS « 1.250 VLB
ALUM = 0.03 i/LH
ITMENT
RACKS
;T Plir'Plnr.
R FLOAl'K
LfVEL *<
.. SCREENS
ET JHMPS
ACT TANK
LEVEL
1
2
3
^
5
ft
7
CAPt 1AL
ItiSTAL
1«.1915.
0.
15496^Z.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ccsrs
LANi)
1Z93.
0.
5280.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ANNUAL COiTS
INSTAL
12178.
0.
'.32976.
0.
0.
0.
0.
LAND
91.
0.
370.
0.
C.
0.
0.
HlH MAINT
0.
30993.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ST01M
CHLORINE
0.
o .
0.
0;
0.
0.
0.
EVENT COSTS
CHf*
o.
Q
0.
0.
0.
0>
0.
OTHER
33.
38.
A
0.
0.
SUBTOTAL t 1691557. t
6573. * 14515*.
400. t
0. t
TUTAL
* 1698130.
1760E6.
0.
70.
70.
TOTAL PER
TRID ACRE
9295.
TOTAL LAND RCOMIREMENT
O.i3 ACPTS.
-------
Table 2-11. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT COSTS - OPTION 2
COST PARAMCTCKS . .
INTEREST RATF. = 7.00 PERCENT
AfOHTlZAT ION PERIOD * 25 V6AKS
CAP. RECOVERY FACTOR •= O.ORb1}
YEAR OF SIMULATION » I<»70
SITE LOCATION FACTOR « 1.1452
mm COSTS . .
LAND = 20000.00 */ACRE
POV.ER = 0.0?0 k/KWH
CHLORINE = 0.200 S/LB
POLYMERS * 1 .250 »/LB
ALUM = 0.03 t/LH
CAPITAL COSTS
TREATMENT
uAK RACKS
nn INLET Fu"ft''(r-
OISS AIK FLOATN
BYPASS LEVEL 4
NO EFFL. SCREENS
NO OUTLFT PU.1PS
NO CONTACt TANK
LF.VEL
I
2
3
b
A
7
SUBTOTAL t
TOTAL
TOTAL PF.R
TRI8 ACRE
IUSTAL
141915.
0.
1562142.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1704057. »
< 1710630.
t 9363.
LA MO
1293.
0.
S280.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6573. 1
ANNUAL COSTS
INSTAL LANO HlN NAINT
121T6. 91. JA10.
0. 0. n.
0. 0. 0.
0, o» (>,
0. 0. C.
0. 0. 0.
J 46226. i 1
Q
0.
0.
714. *
915.
5.
OTHTR
337"
38.
0.
0.
70.
TOTAL LAND RCOMIHEMENT
0.3J
-------
Table 2-12. SUMMARY OF TREATMENT COSTS - OPTION 3
COST PARAMETERS . .
IMPREST RATE
APOaTHATlON PERIOD
CA". RtCuVeRY FACTOR
YEAR OF SIMULATION
SITE LOCATION FACTOR
7.00 PERCFNT
25
O.OR59
1970
1.1452
urn COSTS
LANC
PCWER
ChLUR
PCLVM
AL'JH
TREATMENT
3A* BACKS
tuLiT PUMPING
01SS M* FLflAT'N
STUHAGE
NJ EFFL. SCREENS
i.U uUUET PU.4PS
NO CC.\TACr TANK
» 20000.03 »/ACRE
« 0.070 l/KWH
KIE = 0.2CO t/LH
ERS - 1 .250 VLB
« 0.01 t/LB
LEVEL
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
SUBTOTAL $
TUT1L
CAPITAL
INSTAL
1 & 1 O t ti
1 0 20 ^ T •
1562142.
2*>fl606.
0.
0.
0.
215W50.
ccsrs
LAND
1201.
Hrt.
52HO.
24122.
0.
0.
0.
4 3<*833.
$ 2189583.
ANNUAL COiJS
INSTAL
12178.
16'tfll.
134043.
22191.
0.
0.
P.
$ 181)900.
$
LAND
91.
10.
370.
1969.
0.
P.
0.
$ 2.
0.
0.
0.
39090. $
STORM
CHLUKINE
0.
0.
131.
0.
0.
0.
0.
•131. $
$
EVENT COSTS
CHF«
0.
9.
9B?.
0.
0.
0.
0.
982. $
1251.
OTHER
17.
16.
46.
19.
0.
0.
0.
138.
TCTAL PER
TRIB ACRE
11965.
1237.
TOTAL LAND RCO'JIREMENT
1.81 ACRES.
-------
Because of the infrequent occurrence (once in two years) of storms of
this magnitude on the drainage basin, similar analyses should be made
using a complete representative series of storms in arriving at the
final decision. This is because the efficiency of option 1 will con-
tinue to improve with increasingly smaller storms due to the reduction
in the amount bypassed, yet the cost comparisons will be substantially
unchanged. Because of the relatively short duration of storm events,
the use of chemicals to assist removals seems to be justified. This
is not seen for BOD and SS in comparisons of options 1 and 2 because
the design parameters selected for option 1 achieved the maximum re-
movals permitted by the Model in the treated fraction of the flow.
42
-------
SECTION 3
CINCINNATI
Page
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 45
DATA SOURCES 47
VERIFICATION RESULTS 57
Dry Weather Flow 57
Combined Sewer Overflows 57
43
-------
SECTION 3
CINCINNATI
A section of Cincinnati was selected as a demonstration site for the
verification of the Storm Water Model. Demonstration runs, in cooper-
ation with the University of Cincinnati (EPA Project 11024DQU), were
made on the Runoff and Transport Blocks of the Model. Internal storage,
flow dividers, or other transport options were not utilized. In com-
parison with the other demonstration runs, no corrective actions were
made with the Cincinnati test site. The drainage basin used for these
test runs is referred to as the Bloody Run Sewer System because of a
meat packing plant that was once located in the area.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The test site is a drainage basin located in the northeast section of
the city as shown in Figure 3-1. The area is composed of 2,380 acres
of hilly land. Fifty-five percent of the area is residential, 17 per-
cent is commercial, 5 percent is industrial, and 22 percent is open
land or parks. The drainage basin has two main valleys running ap-
proximately east and west. Most of the coomercial and industrial sec-
tions of the test site are located in these valleys,- the residential
housing is found on the ridges. The total population for the test site
is approximately 26,000, or an average of 11 persons per acre.
The drainage basin is serviced by a combined sewer system. The sewer-
age network has a main trunk line that splits into three branches
45
-------
M
BLOODY RUN
DRAINAGE BASIN
Figure 3-1. GENERAL LOCATION MAP OF
CINCINNATI BLOODY RUN DRAINAGE BASIN
46
-------
running down the valleys of the test area. The outfall to the test site
is located at the southwestern tip of the area which discharges to an
interceptor leading to the Mill Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant.
Overflows from storms are discharged directly to Mill Creek via an open
channel. Photographs of the drainage basin are shown in Figure 3-2.
DATA SOURCES
The University of Cincinnati was contracted by EPA to collect data for
the verification runs on the Storm Water Model. It was their respon-
sibility to define a test site in Cincinnati, to set up several sampling
points in the sewerage system, and to collect the required data for the
verification runs. Their principal source of information was the
Department of Public Works which furnished maps of the sewer system,
types of trunk lines and their slopes, street cleaning data, types of
catchment basins, and other required data. information was also taken
from the 1960 census and from the U.S. Weather Bureau. For the verifi-
cation runs, four storms were sampled, both for the rainfall hyetographs
and runoff hydrographs, and for the quality constituents in the run-
off waters. Three sampling stations were set up for these storms and
were located as shown in Figure 3-3. Data were also collected on subse-
quent dry weather days to define the amount and quality of the DWF in
this drainage basin.
After the collection of the data for the purpose of modeling the test
site, the drainage basin was divided into 38 subcatchments by using
sewer, topographical, and zoning maps, with the ideal that each area
47
-------
Storm Water Outfall from the Bloody Run
Drainage Basin
Typical Residential Street
Figure 3-2. CHARACTERISTIC PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
CINCINNATI DRAINAGE BASIN
48
-------
Typical Parking Lot Next to a Shopping Center
Typical Park Land
Figure 3-2. (continued)
49
-------
*
-
-
f
RESIDENTIAL
/
APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF
DRAINAGE BASIN
IT-—
O - SAMPLING POINT
A- RAIN GAGE
'
1000 2000 3000 4000
^^^5^5
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-3. CINCINNATI RAIN GAGE AND RUNOFF SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
-------
should include one major type of land use and should incorporate an
individual inlet manhole. However, the nature of the test site and the
sewerage network prevented following this ideal in many cases. The
resulting division is shown in Figure 3-4. The maximum size of a sub-
area was 250 acres; the minimum was 3.6 acres. Each subcatchment was
then further subdivided according to land use, as shown in Figure 3-5,
resulting in 71 subareas.
The required information for each of the subcatchments was then fur-
nished, paying particular attention to the width of the subcatchment
which is, in effect, twice the length of the main sewer system through
that subcatchment. The input width is used to calculate the length that
the overland runoff flows must travel before entering a modeled gutter,
gutter pipe, or the inlet manhole as shown in the following sketch.
BOUNDARY OF SUBCATCHMENT-
LENGTH OF
OVERLAND FLOWS
OIRECTION OF RUNOFF FLOWS
s
i ft.
t
"WIDTH" OF
1 1 -1
SUBCATCHMENT ^
CONDUIT w
** INLET MANHOLE
FOR SUBCATCHMENT
In the illustration, the runoff flows are shown to run overland across
the "length" of the subcatchment to an imaginary gutter which instantan-
iously transfer the flows to the inlet manhole. Had a gutter or gutter-
pipe been modeled, the flows would then have entered the gutter/gutter-
pipe and been routed by the RUNOFF Block to the inlet manhole.
Data input for the subareas was basically straightforward except in
51
-------
). ;
-' - .; •-$*$?-
^i'
\ 3
.I}1'814 X
SUBCATCHMENT NUMBER
AREA, ACRES
IMPERVIOUSNESS. %
Figure 3-4. DIVISION OF CINCINNATI DRAINAGE BASIN INTO SUBCATCHMENTS
-------
APPROXIMATE LIMITS
OF DRAINAGE BASIN
a
--
....
LEGEND
Z
SUBCATCHMENT NUMBER
SU8AREA NUMBER
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
OPEN LANDS 6 PARKS
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-5. DIVISION OF CINCINNATI SUBCATCHMENTS INTO SUBAEEAS
-------
areas of extensive parking lots and/or open lands. For the purpose of
modeling the amount of solids accummalation on these lands, the actual
gutter lengths, as measured from a city map or aerial photo, was in-
creased. For parking lots, a single gutter was assumed to run the length
of the lot every 25 feet. This amounted to 1,740 feet of gutters per
acre of parking lots. For open lands with no vegetational cover, 1,740
feet of gutters per acre were used. A minimum of 1,000 feet of gutters
for park lands/ since many parks contributed suspended solids and BOD
even though gutters are absent from the area.
The development of a sewer system is based upon sewer maps of the test
area. For the Transport Block, main sewer lines must be determined and
laid out in what usually results in a tree-like structure. For the Cin-
cinnati Bloody Run drainage basis, all pipes smaller than 27 inches were
omitted from the pipe network. Manholes were located whenever there was
a significant change in pipe size, direction, or slope. Inlet manholes
were located so that every subcatchment had its individual inlet manholes.
Figure 3-6 shows the Cincinnati Bloody Ran sewer system. The majority of
the pipes used in this test site were either circular or rectangular round
bottom. Some of the actual shapes were not the same as those supplied by
the computer model; however, instead of supplying the flow characteristics
for these new pipe shapes, an equivalent modeled section was used.
In addition to storm flow monitoring stations, six DWF stations were set
up as shown in Figure 3-7. Data from these stations were used both to
compute the daily and hourly variation factors as required by subroutine
FILTH and to compare the calculated DWF values with the real numbers.
54
-------
O MANHOLE
• INPUT MANHOLE
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 3-6. PLAN OF CINCINNATI BLOODY RUN SYSTEM
-------
.-
:
r
/
/ RESIDENTIAL
/)
.^-APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF
f DRAINAGE BASIN
^••v r n
•vj
O- SAMPLING POINT
1000 2000 3QOO
^^C^5~
SCALE IN FEET
4000
Figure 3-7. LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS FOR DRY WEATHER FLOW
-------
The choice of time-step length and the number of time-steps was based
upon the duration of measured runoff from the storm. The average length
of time-steps was usually between 1 minute and 10 minutes. Much of the
sampling at Cincinnati was done on a 2-1/2 minute increment; however,
for the purpose of shortening computer runs, a 5-minute interval was
used. Fifty time-steps were required to extend the simulation beyond
the recorded storm water flows.
VERIFICATION RESULTS
Dry Weather Flow
The computed DWF was adjusted as described elsewhere in this volume.
The results matched the measured flows within several percentage points
at the six sampling locations. A comparison is shown in Table 3-1. As
was the case in the San Francisco verification runs, the start time of
the storm was of particular importance because of large daily and hourly
variations for the flow and contaminant concentrations. The results
for the DWF were considered good.
Combined Sewer Overflows
Of the four storms sampled, only two were used for verification runs.
Figures 3-8 and 3-9 show the comparisons between the measured hydro-
graphs and the computed hydrographs for the storms of April 1, 1970,
and May 12, 1970, respectively. The match was considered only fair.
In Figure 3-8, three sets of hydrographs are given for the storm of
April 1 at three different locations in the sewer system. This figure
shows that the comparison between the measured and computed flows was
57
-------
Table 3-1. CINCINNATI DRY WEATHER FLOW RESULTS
ui
CO
Sampling
Location
1
2
3
4
5
6
Flow,
Reported*
0.93
0.54
1.45
15.50
0.50
13.94
cfs
Computed
0.90
0.50
2.12
12.58
0.80
13.61
BOD,
Reported*
360.
350.
1160.
618,
292.
412.
mg/L
Computed
403.
529.
517.
SS , mg/L
Reported* Computed
224. 206.
230.
236.
265. 226.
181.
252. 224.
Coli, MPN/100 ml
Computed
9.5 x 107
7.0 x 107
7.6 x 107
*Reported values are averages of approximately 10 grab samples each over a two-week period.
NOTE: Data listing for the above results can be found under Section 8, Cincinnati data.
-------
12.0
It e.o
o
z
i
!.
SAMPLING POINT I
16 30 I7:OO 17 SO 18 OO
TIM£,HOURS OF DAY
10
81
5
ol
IS:JO
SAMPLING POINT Z
1630 1700 17 SO
TIME, HOURS OF DAY
• 00
400r
500
SOO
00
SAMPLING POINT 3
I5.JO
1630 17 OO I7:SO
TIME,HOURS OF DAY
i»oo
Figure 3-8. CINCINNATI - COMPARISONS BETWEEN
MEASURED AND COMPUTED HYDROGRAPHS
STORM OF APRIL 1, 1970
59
-------
s:
8 30 900 930
TIME, HOURS OF DAY
lO'OO
5
B
o
a
in
MEASURED BC
mg/l
COMPUTED B
Ibi/rwi
o1—
T30
• 30 900 430
TIME. HOURS OF DAY
1
,;
'COMPUTED SS,
Ibi/min
»X> 900 130
TIME. HOURS OF DAY
Figure 3-9. CINCINNATI - COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW RESULTS
STORM OF MAY 12, 1970, SAMPLING POINT 3
60
-------
reasonably consistent throughout the drainage basin. Figure 3-9, which
shows the runoff hydrograph and pollutographs, was for the May 12
storm where only one sampling point was in operation. For both storms,
the time of peak flows coincided with good accuracy, but the volume of
flow for each calculated hydrograph was below the measured hydrograph.
Several factors may have attributed to this low peak:
1. Accuracy of the input hyetograph. The collected hyetographs
for all four rainstorms were based on 30-minute intervals for
two rain gages located outside of the test area. These rain
gages apparently produced the same measurements and were
several hundred feet below the average elevation of the test
site. As was noted in Section 2, difference in elevation
between the rain gages and the actual test site can make a
difference in the amount of rainfall for the higher elevations.
Also, it is possible that the charts were misread and that the
reported intensities were, in fact, accumulations over
30-minute or other time periods and were not corrected to
hourly rates.
2. Flow measurements. The flow measurements were made by
recording the depth of flow in the drainage conduits and
calculating the flow rate. An improper C factor for that
particular pipe will give a faulty hydrograph.
3. Lack of gutter pipes for the larger subcatchment basins. This
can cause a delay in the runoff peak and also a flatter and
broader hydrograph than will actually occur. The flow rate
over land surfaces as calculated by the Runoff Block has a
61
-------
much slower flow rate than the runoff through a pipe or a gut-
ter. Thus, for large subcatchment areas the water is stored
on the surface and is allowed to come off at a much slower rate
than would actually be found in a gutter of one of the smaller
drainage pipes.
Figures 3-9 and 3-10 show a comparison between the measured pollutographs
and the computer pollutographs for the two storms. To improve the pollu-
tographs1 fit, three dummy subareas were required to increase the concen-
tration of the suspended solids and BOD in the runoff waters. These dummy
subareas were located upstream of the three sampling points at manholes
25, 53, and 59 (Figure 3-6) and each consisted of a one-acre area with
long lengths of gutters to increase pollutant runoff. Gutter length is
used in the Model to determine the amount of pollutants washed off in a
storm. The need for these dummy subareas was attributed to the unusually
large amount of open land and parts, 22 percent, that seem to contribute
a continuous amount of pollutants varying only with the amount of runoff
and/or the possible data errors previously discussed.
A second possible explanation for the mismatch between the measured and
calculated pollutographs may be caused by inaccurate runoff figures which
undermine the validity of the pollutographs. The equations that determine
the amount of solids washed off during a storm utilize the simulated run-
off quantities calculated by the Runoff Block. The quanitities of solids
removed are in direct proportion to the quantity of runoff. Therefore,
if simulated hydrographs were flatter and broader (less peak flows),
smaller amounts of pollutants would be introduced into the storm sewers.
62
-------
I«>OO IB>30 I7<00 17'JO 18 OO
COMPUTE BOO, Ibi/mln
I»'3O
Ir
l«>00
16'SO I7-OO IT'SO
TIME, HOURS OF DAY
II OO
. o
COMPUTED SS, mg/1
I
L— COMPUTED SS, "N.
lb»/min X
o
l» '30
16.00 I«'X> 17.00 17.SO
TIME, HOURS OF DAY
li'OO
Figure 3-10. CINCINNATI COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW RESULTS - STORM OF
APRIL 1, 1970, SAMPLING POINT 3
63
-------
Figure 3-8 shows that the simulated hydrographs are flatter and of longer
duration. These hydrographs, in turn, govern the calculated BOD mg/L
curves as shown in Figure 3-9. The curve has been depressed by the flat-
ter hydrograph for a longer period of time than was observed at the test
site. As was noted above, the addition of gutter pipes to the larger
subcatchments should increase the peak flows and thus improve the pollu-
tographs.
The sampling and modeling work is continuing and the questions raised
will be resolved in a report under Project No. 11024 DQU.
64
-------
SECTION 4
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Page
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 67
DATA SOURCES 68
VERIFICATION RESULTS 70
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quantity 73
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quality 79
Receiving Waters 83
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED 87
Complete Sewer Separation 87
Construction of a Relief Sewer 87
External Storage and Treatment 90
65
-------
SECTION 4
WASHINGTON, D.C.
The results of two storms modeled on the Kingman Lake drainage basin
are discussed in this section.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The Kingman Lake drainage basin (4,200 acres) is served by the North-
east Boundary Trunk Sewer and lies wholly within the one-third portion
of the District of Columbia still using combined sewers. It is by far
the largest combined sewer basin in the District and overflows under
the influence of storm water runoff approximately 57 times per year for
an overall duration of 300 hours (Ref. 1). The land use is predomi-
nantly (69 percent) residential, with family incomes ranging from
average to low, followed by industrial (13 percent), parks and open
space (12 percent), and commercial (6 percent). The total population
is 146,700, or 35 persons per acre. Several large schools, hospitals
and similar institutions lie within the basin.
As estimated by the District, the basin is highly impervious. Over
half of the subcatchments are considered to be 90 percent impervious;
the average of all subcatchments is high—75 to 80 percent. The topo-
graphy is gentle, and drainage is southeasterly from a high elevation
of 310 feet at the northwest to a low elevation of 0 feet at its dis-
charge to the Anacostia River.
67
-------
Only about 15 percent of the Northeast Boundary Trunk Sewer has the
hydraulic capacity to carry off the runoff from a 15-year return-
frequency storm (8,600 cfs versus an available maximum trunk capacity
of 4,000 cfs, Ref. 1). The trunk sewer is about 4.9 miles long and
terminates in a triple-barrel section, each barrel 16.5 feet by 8 feet
in size. The DWF, computed,at 29.8 cfs, is intercepted by a 6-foot
diameter conduit (96 cfs capacity) a half-mile west of the Anacostia
River for eventual treatment at the District's Water Pollution Control
Plant (Ref. 2). When the combined sewer flow reaches approximately
800 cfs, a regulator stops all diversion to the interceptor and the
full flow is bypassed to the Anacostia River.
Photographs taken in the study area are shown in Figure 4-1.
DATA SOURCES
A conceptual design for combined sewer storage and reclamation in the
Kingman Lake basin was conducted for the EPA in January-June 1970
(Ref. 1) and the initial data collection was performed in cooperation
with this study. The recommended storage and treatment facilities of
the conceptual engineering report were modeled as discussed later in
this section.
The Department of Sanitary Engineering for the District of Columbia
furnished sewer plans, watershed data, and aerial photomaps of the
complete drainage basin. Libraries and statistical abstracts were
consulted for data on the three major schools and six major hospitals
in the drainage basin for dry weather flow computations. Average
68
-------
Outfall to Anacostia River
Typical Street of Rowhouse
Apartments
Typical Garage Way After Storm
Surface Ponding After Storm
Figure 4-1. CHARACTERISTIC PHOTOGRAPHS OF KINGMAN
LAKE DRAINAGE BASIN
69
-------
DWF characteristics were taken from Ref. 3, and population and income
figures were taken from census tract data as in the previous tests.
The Kingman Lake system was subdivided into 53 subcatchments varying
from 5 acres to 225 acres in size and from 2 percent to 7 percent in
slope. Fifty-seven subareas were used in the surface quality computa-
tions to allow for multiple land uses in some subcatchments.
The sewer system was represented by 152 elements as shown in Figure 4-2.
Pipe configurations modeled included circular, rectanglular, egg-
shaped, gothic-shaped, and modified basket-handle.
Two rain gages were used as shown in Figure 4-3. The first was
located at D. C. General Hospital (ground elevation 35 feet), and the
second was located at the D. C. Water Filtration Plant (ground elevation
170 feet).
VERIFICATION RESULTS
The two storms modeled for the Kingman Lake drainage basin were:
Date Total Rainfall, in.
July 22, 1969 3.20
August 20, 1969 0.64
Direct sampling data were not available for quality comparisons.
However, a chart recording the depth of sewage flow at element 115 was
available for each storm. The computer program was modified to print
out depths of flow for this element for direct comparisons with this
measured data.
70
-------
APPROXIMATE LIMITS
OF DRAINAGE BASIN
/
Figure 4-2. PLAN OF KINGMAN LAKE SYSTEM
71
-------
r '' --
I
i J ?;>
\ ^'
V*-- x
/v ^
o
rffl
^r-.j i ^
vf^« r
GAGE I
D. C. GEN. HOSPITAL
RAIN GAGE
Figure 4-3. KINGMAN LAKE RAIN GAGE LOCATIONS
AND SUBCATCHMENTS
72
-------
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quantity
Figure 4-4 shows the rainfall hyetographs used in the model for the
storm of July 22, 1969. The comparison of the computed and recorded
depths of flow in element 115 is shown in Figure 4-5. With the excep-
tion of the maximum computed stage value, the fit was good. The over-
estimation of the peak stage may have resulted from restrictive capa-
cities and storage in the feeder lines which were not modeled. From
discussions with District personnel, it was understood that sections of
the Northeast Boundary Trunk Sewer cannot flow full without surcharging
and backing up flows in large sections of the feeder system. This
assumption was reinforced by the fact that the recorded stage remained
high for a period well after the computed stage dropped off, which is
typical of outflow from storage.
During the large storm of July 22, 1969, the capacities of several
sewer elements as represented by the model were exceeded and surcharging
developed. In order to maintain continuity, the model stored the excess
flow at each manhole immediately upstream of a surcharged element until
capacity became available. The locations, times, and durations of the
modeled surcharging are shown on Figure 4-6.
Hyetographs and stage comparisons for the storm of August 20, 1969, are
shown in Figures 4-7 and 4-8, respectively. Again, the fit was good
with the feeder system-storage effects still evident. No trunk sewer
surcharging was computed for this lesser storm.
73
-------
8.000 -
6.000
RAINFALL
IN
IN. / HR
4.000
z.ooo
4
4
4 4
*4 t
*44
*44
*44
*
* ** *4
* 44* 4
• 4 4* 4
*# *4«* 444 4 * 4 4* 4
«C 4 44*4 4 444 4444 f- *4
44 44*
**
**
**
**
«*
**
**«
*»**
****
***«^
*»**
«*«*
**
*
*
*
*
*
» f *
4 * *
4 444
4 44*4
4 44 4
4 44 4
*4
*4 4
* 44
* «*44 *
** * 4 *
* *444*44
**
* *
* 4
t ***
> 4 *
t 44 4*
4 44*
4 4
4 * 4*4*44* 4
0.0
+44-444 ---- t* **.4*
0.12
7.04
0.?'.
oil?
0.17
0.77
0.0
1 .70
O./.H
1..SO
0.0
n.36
0.0
1 . ?0
0. ?4
1.20
0.0
0.36
0.0
7.40
0. 12
1.20
0.0
0.96
O.fO
0.0
0. 17
1.70
1 .OS
0.0
P. 30
n. 36
7.40
0. 17
O.SO
0.12
Figure 4-4.
KINGMAN LAKE RAINFALL HYETOGRAPHS
STORM OF JULY 22, 1969
74
-------
1 PEAK, 19.3 FT
\^S TIME, 6
COMPUTED
DAY
Figure 4-5.
KINGMAN LAKE COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
RESULTS (QUANTITY) • STORM OF
JULY 22, 1969
75
-------
RAINFALL HYETOGRAPH
19.000
1.000
6.000
AMNfUL
II
IN./ HI
4.100
2.0CO
BASIN NO I
»
*
4*
•** *
*#* • ** »»
*+* • *»• *
f
*
*
*
• •
•
*
t *
* * •
• ft*
* •
fr »*
0.0
17.C
ID.*
I*.*
ZO.Z Jl.O 21.7
TIME IN HOURS
22.9
PlAIMCJCE UCENO
I • *
ELEMENT NO*
22
38
82
96
103
1 IS
139
DURATION
1 1
1 1
|...
|...
| 1
1 1
I I
I I
1 1
1 1 1 1 1 ill
1 | 1 1 1 1 | 1
MAXIMUM SURCHARGE, CU FT
•427,489
08,893
49,208
94,244
46,802
129,677
IS3, 183
> 999,999
867,633
17.0 18.0 19.0 20.0
TIME IN HOURS
21.0
22.0
SEE FIGURE 4-2
Figure 4-6.
KINGMAN LAKE SURCHARGES IN CONDUIT SYSTEM
STORM OF JULY 22, 1969
76
-------
1.000
o.aoo
0.600
RAINFALL
IN
IN./ HR
0.400
** *
** »
** *
** 4
** *
**44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
* *
44 *
4- 4 **
0.200 * * •»
» 4- **
4 4 *4
» 4 *«
4 4****
44 * *4* 4*
* 4-4 * 44* 4*
»**4**4 * 44* 4»
4-4 * *** *4 *
* 4 * * 4 *4 *
0.0 *44444 44444444-4444-*-
J3.5 14.3 15.1
*
*
*
*
**
**
»*
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
* *
* *
* *
*»+
*4*
44*
44*
**4 + 44
**4 -4 44
**4 4 44
**4 4 44
»*» 4- 44
**4 4 44
*»4 4 44
**4 4- 44
**4 4 44
**4 4 44
»*+ 4 44
**4 4 44
**4 4 44
* 4 » 44
*4* » 44
»* *»« 4 44
** *4* 4 44
»* *4* 4 44
** *4* 444
*** 4* » « *
*** 4* 4 4 4
** 4* 4 4 4
** 4* »» t
»*4 * 44 *
*.*4 **44 4
»*4 ** 4
»*4 *** 4
**4 *** 4
»4 +** 4
»4 * * *
»«. * ** 4
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
**
*«
*** **
*** **
*«« **
»** «*
*** **
* * ***
* **** * *44***44*444 **
* » ** *»»4 4444 * *•
** * ** *4*4 4 44 4 *
*** « *4+4 » », + *
*** * *4*4 4 44 4 *
* * * »**4 4 44 4* *
* * * 44***4 4 4 4**.«*
*4 *
*4»
»+»
*4* 4
* 4
***-44+44444+
15.9 16.7
4
4
4>
44
4>4
»4
«4
17.5
4
4
4
4
4
44444444
18.Z
RAINGAGE LEGEND
I " •
TIME tN HOURS
2 « »
FOR 5<> RAINFALL STFPSt THE TIMF INTERVAL IS 5.00 MINUTFS
FOR RAINGACE NUMBER 1 RAINFALL HISTORY IS
0.12
0.12
0.24
C.O
0.46
0.24
0.12
0.24
0.0
0.12
0.24
0.24
0.06
O.C
0.96
C. C
0.36
O.Z4
0.06
0.0
0.60
0.12
0.0
C.?4
0.06
0.0
0.12
0.24
0.4A
0.12
FOR RAINGAGE NUMBER
RAINFALL HISTORY IS
0.0
0.0
0.1?
0.12
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.24
O.C
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.12
0.24
0.0
0.0
0.36
0.0
0.12
0.24
0..0
0.0
0.72
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.06
0.60
0.24
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.0
0.12
0.84
C.O
0*0
0.06
0.0
0.12
0.24
o!l2
0.30
0.0
0.24
o.n
0.12
0.0
0.06
0.0
0.12
0.24
0.24
0.12
0.30
O.C
0.24
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.I?
0.0
0.0
0.?4
0.24
0.0
0.0
o!o
0.2*.
n.o
0.12
0.60
C.O
0.12
0.24
C.O
O.C
0.36
0.0
0.24
Figure 4-7. KINGMAN LAKE RAINFALL HYETOGRAPHS
STORM OF AUGUST 20, 1969
77
-------
10
!
„
'
I
in
<;
RECORDED
COMPUTED
I
4 5
TIME OF DAY
10
Figure 4-8. KINGMAN LAKE COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
RESULTS (QUANTITY) - STORM OF AUGUST 20, 1969
78
-------
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quality
Although no direct sampling of the Kingman Lake combined sewer over-
flows was accomplished, others (Ref. 1) had monitored two combined
sewers in the District (drainage basins of about 200 acres) over a six-
month period. The results are compared to the computed storm values
in Table 4-1. The verification was favorable except that the July 22,
1969, concentrations were weaker due to the extremely high runoff volume.
Figure 4-9, a chart of recorded rainfall for the District for the
summer of 1969, further explains the observed variations in the mean
concentrations of pollutants overflowing in the two storms. A large
storm occurred just two days prior to the July 22 storm, effectively
flushing much of the accumulated surface pollution from the drainage
basin. A storm of similar magnitude did not occur until 18 days prior
to the August 20 storm. These variations in antecedent conditions were
accounted for in the Storm Water Model by adjusting the dry day esti-
mates supplied in the input data (see Volume III).
Typical variations of pollutant concentrations in the overflow with time
computed for the two storms are shown in Table 4-2. From these data it
is obvious that the source of surface pollutants was effectively ex-
hausted after 3 hours of the extremely intense July 22 storm.
In terms of mass quantities, the total computed (untreated) releases in
the two storms were:
79
-------
Table 4-1. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW QUALITY COMPARISONS
oo
o
Reported*
Computed**
July 22, 1969 August 20, 1969
Waste Constituent
BOD, mg/L
SS, mg/L
Total coli forms ,
MPN/100 ml
Range Mean*** Range
10-470 71 4-220
35-2,000 622 6-977
420,000- 2,800,000
5,800,000
Mean*** Range
47 43-245
267 173-827
380,000-
4,670,000
Mean***
97
394
1,730,000
*Roy F. Weston, "Preliminary Draft Conceptual Engineering Report, Kingman Lake Project,"
FWQA, May 1970 (Ref. 1).
**Based on 95 five-minute time-steps.
***Not weighted according to flow.
-------
(N
-------
Table 4-2. COMPUTED TIME VARIATION OF OVERFLOW QUALITY
Time from Start
of Overflow, min
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
330
360
390
420
450
480
Storm of July
BOD, mg/L
220
135
79
54
48
40
14
4
6
6
10
18
27
37
42
63
90
22, 1969
SS , mg/L
261
425
921
755
798
698
252
25
9
7
13
20
28
38
44
60
80
Storm of Aug.
BOD, mg/L
245
239
218
150
87
70
60
54
55
47
43
47
58
67
72
96
125
20, 1969
SS, mg/L
321
327
289
277
506
675
779
576
518
450
410
325
241
201
179
175
180
82
-------
Total SS Total BOD
Storm Released, Ib Released, Ib
July 22, 1969 581,000 46,500
August 20, 1969 250,000 30,900
Receiving Waters
Although no sampling data were available, the Anacostia-Potomac Rivers
were modeled by the 47 node system shown in Figure 4-10. An appropriate
tide was imposed at node 32, fresh water inflows were imposed at nodes
1 and 47, and the Kingman Lake basin discharge was imposed at node 15.
The computed oxygen balance in the receiving water system for 5 and 25
hours following the storm of July 22 is shown in Figure 4-11. The max-
imum deficit occurred at node 17, 3,000 feet from the point of release
and 25 hours after the start of the storm. The oxygen deficit was con-
tinuing to increase and move seaward at the end of the simulation.
Similarly, the computed travel of suspended solids is shown in Figure
4-12.
It should be noted that these changes were the direct result of one
outfall discharging for one very large storm. The residual effects
from earlier storms and pollution releases from coincident discharges
would have to be evaluated to determine the full impact on the river
system.
83
-------
APPROXIMATE LIMITS
OF DRAINAGE BASIN
SCALE IN MILES
Figure 4-10. KINGMAN LAKE RECEIVING WATER SYSTEM
84
-------
o
ui
o
I
o
HJ
cn
O
9.0 r-
8.0
7.0
6.0
1
o
a.
25
5 HOURS
25 HOURS
d
I
to
a
_L
20 15 10 5
NODE POINTS ALONG ANACOSTIA
0
Figure 4-11. KINGMAN LAKE RECEIVING WATER
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
85
-------
zoo
ISO
100
in
m
SO
5 HOURS
o
ZS HOURS
§
fc
5
20
15
10
NODE POINTS ALONG ANACOSTIA
Figure 4-12. KINGMAN LAKE RECEIVING WATER SS PROFILE
86
-------
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED
Three modifications to the existing system were modeled:
1. Complete sewer separation.
2. Construction of a relief sewer to relieve surcharges in the
main trunk.
3. Construction of an external storage and treatment facility at
Kingman Lake.
Again, the modifications were pressed only to demonstrate modeling
techniques and not to real system solutions.
Complete Sewer Separation
Complete sewer separation was simulated by setting NFILTH = 0 for the
storm of July 22, 1969. Because of the great magnitude of the storm
and the relatively short time span over which overflows occurred, qual-
ity improvements were small. The total suspended solids released were
reduced by 16,000 pounds or only 3 percent. The total BOD released was
reduced by 15,600 pounds or 33 percent.
The line printer graphs of the BOD results are shown in Figure 4-13.
Construction of a Relief Sewer
The District representatives spoke of the possible construction of a
relief sewer to reduce flooding and surcharge along the main trunk sew-
er. A dummy pipe system, shown in Figure 4-14, was modeled, intercep-
ting all flows upstream of elements 45, 63, and 69. The resultant flow
reduction in the main trunk and the total diverted flow are shown in
87
-------
IM.OOO
400.0OO
)00.000
BOO
IM
USSMN
100.000
100.000
t»»6 OtiTAItl. UUMtHftlO* DC
• *
* *
* *
• *
*t*« *
WITHOUT SEPARATION
11,0 11.9
1 --------- 1 --------- 1 --------- :— ------ 1
. * 10.2 21.0 11, 1 U.S
TItft IN
1
24.1
500.000
300.000
aao
in
US/MM
f00*000
100.000
*
nut Dumier, III»MINCTON oe
• •*•
» ••
144
WITH SEPARATION
11.
n.o
f|M( IN HOVOS
Figure 4-13. KINGMAN LAKE BOD COMPARISONS WITH
AND WITHOUT SEPARATION
88
-------
APPROXIMATE LIMITS
OF DRAINAGE BASIN —
156
Figure 4-14. KINGMAN LAKE SIMULATED RELIEF SEWER
89
-------
Figure 4-15. The diversion, as expected, eliminated the surcharge in
elements 139 and 115 on the main trunk sewer.
External Storage and Treatment
Based on the recommendations stated in the Kingman Lake Report, Ref. 1
(Contract No. 14-12-829), a storage-treatment scheme consisting of a
175-million gallon storage basin and a 50-mgd treatment plant was
modeled and the output of the August 20, 1969 storm was applied. The
treatment system consisted of the storage basin, mechanically cleaned
bar racks, effluent pumps, high rate filters, and postchlorination.
The basic design data for the units are shown in Table 4-3, and the
summary of treatment effectiveness is shown in Table 4-4.
For the 95 five-minute time-steps modeled, the total inflow to storage
was 7,741,961 cubic feet and the total outflow to treatment was 1,776,956
cubic feet or 23 percent. To empty the basin completely would require
an additional 257 time-steps (21.4 hours) if all inflows to the basin
were stopped. The maximum depth reached in the basin during the storm
was 8.94 feet of the available 35.0 feet, assuming the basin was empty
at the start of the storm. A major portion of the suspended solids
and over 50 percent of the BOD removed in the first 95 time-steps were
removed in the storage basin. Such removals would create a significant
sludge handling problem.
A final summary of the flows and characteristics passed between treatment
levels is shown in Table 4-5. Removals in storage are represented by
level 3, the high rate filters in level 4, and chlorination in level 7.
90
-------
KINSMAN LAKE DISTRICT, WA S KING TON DC
KINGMAN LAKE
STORM OF JULY 22,1969
KINGMAN LAKE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON DC
ouuu. uuu
4000. OOO
3000.000
(£> FLOW
H IN
«FS
2000. 000
10 00. 000
A A
: :~....
•~
• ' •
• *
««••••
MAIN TRUNK FLOW
WITHOUT RELIEF
5000.000
4000.000
3000.000
FLOW
IN
CFS
2000.000
1000.000
0.0
MAIN TRUNK FLOW
WITH RELIEF
* *
17.0 17.8 18.6 19.4 202 21.0 217 22.S 23,3 24.1 24.9
TIME IN HOURS
KINGMAN LAKE blS TRICT, WAS HIN GTON DC
2500.000!
2000.000
ISOO.OOO
17:0 17.6 16.6 19.4 20.2 21.0 217 22.9 23.3 £4.1 24.9
TIME IN HOURS
FLOW
I"
CFS
Figure 4KL5. KI.NGMAN LAKE HYDROGRAPH WITH
AND WITHOUT RELIEF SEWER"
STORM OF JULY 22, 1969
1000 .000
500.000
0 .0
RELIEF SEWER FLOW
v •••*»»»*
I7.o""l7'.8 18.6 19.4 20.2 21.0 21.7 22.5 13.3 24.1 24.9
TIME IN HOURS
-------
Table 4-3. KINGMAN LAKE BASIC DESIGN DATA
SPECIFIED TSEAIPFNT CAPACITY USFD.
OEStii.i FlUWiUTE = 75.00 CFS.
SYSTEM INCLUDES MOGUL F UNITS
iN FLOW IS THfKFFrjRF iuCRbASFfl tu (UXT LARofSI MJOflLF SUE
ACJUSTl'C DESIGN ritJWKATt « 7 7. 3i O i. r " ^0.00 MOD.
IKMff) * HI
CMAKACTfJISTICS OF STORAGE UNIT ARC
TYPE = 6
wunr * i
STUKAOE 1YPF. * 2
- £i PRIM CnNTHQL USPR1M •* I
HAN-MAOE KeSFKVUIK.miH MAX. OEPTH « IS.CO FT., AM) CIMHACTERISTICS
PASE APEA - 67COOO. SQ.fT., BASF CIPCIIMF. - 327?.H., COTISIOESLOPEI • 0.00000
HESFRVQIR OUTFLOW BY Flxm-HATF »>IIMI'INv.
fVAflM, RATF » 77.40 CFS, PUMPING STAUT DEPTH * 10.DO FT, PJHPINC STOP DEPTH * O.OD FT
QFPTHIFM STlJRCC'J.FT I OEPTH(FI| SrimiCU.FTI OfPTMII-TI SOMClLtT) DFPTHIFTI STORICU.FTI
^•f"0 0, T.50 ?145'JOO. 7.03 46<3000. 10.50 7035000.
14.00 'MfiOOCO. I?. SO U7?-j001. 71.00 K.0/0100.
2B.CO 19760COO. 31.SO /llfiwin. JS.OP
SfDKAGF •JFTWFEN I'UMP STA^T AND ST>J(» I f Vf I $ = 21H.5» Tlrtf-S
- -• - - UNIT CUSt IFXCAV/UIUN, HNINv, ilC.I - IS.00 l/C'I.Vi).
1PFAHF.il (IV rtf-f.HAUlC ALLY CLtAUfi) HAH KAOS ILEtftl II
CF iCKt'CNS * 2
CAPACITY PEf SCHEFN * 3B.67 CFS
SUH^tKCFC AKfA = If.nn SiJ.rt. ( tTHI'FNni Cut A« Ti) IMF FLUHI
FACE AKFA OF BARS * IB.OS Sg.FI.
HY INLET HUHPINO ILIVCL 21
PUMPED HEAD * 35.00 FT. WATFR
OY SfUMnNIATIUM Id ASSof.l ATtl) STuRAOF > SFF IF. (/EL 9 ABJVE
M. CHl.UUINf 4UUH)
4
U SO.FT
?ft.0.0 Cptl/SO.FI.
'*U.OO PtRCFMI
MO.OO PfRCEMT
I?.00 FT.
IREATfffNT I!V UGH KAC£ FILTERS NCV
MAX, HI SIOn MF.AO LUS5
fAX. SDHOi HilLOINli CAP.
J.OC Ltt/SJ.FT. IAT MAX H AND 01
CHCHICALS MILL Of AOOfcO
NO EFFIUENT SCREWS (LFVft SI
CUlFLCx AY URAVITY IM) PUMPINul (LEVEL 61
tREATi4F,«f BY ClR(jRI: KATF. i'f-K OKI T « RQnn.no L»/i)ft»
J4AXIMIM OfMAM) PATF * 10J<,1.U5 LB/OAY
WClUMf CF CCMTACt IANK * fc">fcl^. CH.VT. AT 15 MIN. DETFNHJN TIME
-------
Table 4-4, KINGMAN LAKE SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
SUMMARY Of TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
TOTALS
INPUT
OVERFLOW (BYPASS)
TREATED
REMOVED
RELEASED
FLOW (M.S.)
13.374
0.009
13.365
0.114
13.260
BOD (LB)
8999.3
5.8
899*. %
T206.2
17V3.2
SS .
TIHE
MATER
AV. FLOW ICFS)
BOD
ARRIVING (NG/L)
RatASED IMC/L)
t REDUCTION ILBI
S. SOLIDS
AMIVIMG (MG/L)
RELEASED (MG/LI
t REDUCTION (L&)
COllFORKS
ARR (HPN/100NL)
REL (MPN/lOONLt
% REDUCTION (LBl
01 5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0:50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
77.31
120.85
J2.2C
73.J7
168.79
25.17
85. 10
ZlZC
77.11
133.73
34. 86
74.09
505.24
63.55
B7.50
3t S
76.99
79.49
15.91
80.17
701.98
88.83
87.46
3:50
7T.OI
68.12
11.90
82.68
674.77
85.33
87.46
STORAGE
HIGHRATE FILTERS
CONTACT TANK
4535
77.03
64.05
10.45
83.81
626.75
79.15-
87.47
5:20
77.07
58.93
8.63
85.46
S73.ZL7
72.28
87.48
6; S
77.OB
57.38
8.08
86.02
541.14
68.15
87.49
6:50
77.10
57.66
a.17
85.92
7:35
77.10
58.25
8.37"
85.71
521.85 509.66
65. 6 8 64.12
87.49 8T.50
O.OOE-01 O.OOt-OI 2.25E 06 2,2ZE 06 8.46E 05 S.3.7E 05 6.15E 05 6.83E 05 7.42E 05 7.93E 05 g.21E 05
O.OOE'Ql O.OOE-01 1.79E 03 1.72E 03 6.586 02 4.96E 02 4.79E 02 5.31E 02 5.76E 02 6.16E 02 6.37E 02
0.00 0.00 99.92 99.92 99.92 99.92 99.92 99.9Z 99.92 99.92 99.92
-------
Table 4-5. KINGMAN LAKE SUMMARY OF LEVEL PERFORMANCE
vo
SlIKMARY OF FLOWS - MAXIMA, AVERAGES, AND MINIHA
ARRIVING
FLOW RATES IM.G.tXI
MAXIMUM 50.032
AVERAGE 40.552
fUN|l"UM 0.000
TO LEVEL. 3 LEVEL 4
OVERFLOW TREATMENT REMOVAL OUTFLOW REHOVAL OUTFLOW
0.032
0.032
0.000
BOO CONCENTRATIONS
-------
The asterisks, signifying a number larger than the field width, in the
removal fraction of level 4 result from the intermittent nature of fil-
ter backwashing.
The recommended combination of storage and treatment appears quite
feasible if the problem of residual solids in the storage basin can be
solved.
95
-------
SECTION 5
PHILADELPHIA
Page
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 99
DATA SOURCES 100
VERIFICATION RESULTS 101
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quantity 105
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quality 113
Receiving Waters 113
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED 119
In-System Storage 119
External Storage with Treatment 123
97
-------
SECTION 5
PHILADELPHIA
The results of two significant storms modeled on the Wingohocking drain-
age basin and the Frankford Creek-Delaware River receiving waters are
discussed in this section.
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA
The Wingohocking drainage basin is the largest combined sewer area in
Philadelphia and the largest area attempted by the model to date. The
past sampling and analysis performed by the City of Philadelphia for
drainage catchments and receiving waters are discussed briefly in
Ref. 1.
A further description of the study area quoted from Ref. 2 follows:
"The combined sewered area with a population of 173,000
named Wingohocking is situated in north central Philadelphia
and drains some 5400 highly developed residential acres (8.4
sq. miles), via 45 miles of branch sewers. The dry weather
flow is intercepted by a low, broad crested weir and inter-
ceptor arrangement for treatment at the Northeast Water Pol-
lution Control Plant. During significant rains, the inter-
ceptor is mainly bypassed and a mixture of sanitary waste
and stormwater discharges into' the receiving Frankford Creek
through a 21 ft. by 24 ft. outfall.
Four recording raingages are distributed over the
catchment area. A depth of flow recorder and a composite
sampler are located at the outfall just upstream of the weir.
This instrument system has been operated by the R & D Unit
of the Philadelphia Water Department since 1966. Prior to
that time, the runoff and sampling instruments were main-
tained by the FWQA for the purpose of studying combined sewer
overflows."
The average imperviousness of 75 percent (range 40-80 percent) and pop-
ulation density of 32 persons per acre (predominantly in single-family
99
-------
row houses) compare closely with the Kingman Lake study area. Six
industrial waste sources were reported in the basin, but their combined
reported discharge of less than 0.1 cfs (suspected data error) had
negligible effect on the waste stream. Quality characteristics of the
discharge were not reported.
The basin topography, varying from an elevation of 60 feet at the point
of discharge to an elevation of 380 feet at the northwest corner, is
also similar to the Kingman Lake area.
DATA SOURCES
The Research and Development Division of the City of Philadelphia Water
Department furnished essentially all data used for the model takeoffs.
These included rainfall data, topographic maps, system maps, aerial
photographs, catchbasin and street sweeping data, daily operating stat-
istics at the Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant, weekly quality
analyses of the receiving waters, and the storm runoff and quality
composite data discussed below. The collection, collation, and pres^
entat-ion of this data represented approximately 200 engineering man-!
hours on the part of the City. This total does not include approxim-
ately 400 additional man-hours by the authors for the data reduction,
evaluation, simulation, and execution of the computer program.
These efforts are in no way proportional to the basin size but are
contingent on the complexities of the system and the availability of
the data. No sampling, measuring, or analyses efforts are included.
A principal advantage of the model is that numerous additional storms
and basin modifications can be readily executed for a small percentage
100
-------
•increase in man-hours once the original basin modeling and correlation
has been accomplished.
The Wingohocking drainage basin was subdivided into 57 subcatchments
(range 38-210 acres). The sewer system was represented by 129 elements
as shown in Figure 5-1. The total length of sewer lines modeled was
73,385 feet or approximately 32 percent of the total in the drainage
basin.
The four rain gages used in the study were:
Approximate Ground
Model No.
1
2
3
4
Name
Roosevelt
Heinz
Harrow Gate
Queen Lane
Elevation, ft.
300
140
80
220
The locations of the gages and the approximate areas where they were
applied are shown in Figure 5-2. The cities rain gage network is de-
scribed in Ref. 3.
VERIFICATION RESULTS
Time and budget restrictions did not permit the measurement, sampling,
and correlation of dry weather flows, including estimates of industrial
discharges and infiltration. The preliminary computed dry weather flow
based on census data and assumed uniform single-family residential
development is shown in Table 5-1. These values had no allowance for
infiltration or for industrial or commercial wastes and totaled only
about one-half the expected value based on prior Kingman Lake study.
101
-------
:
E
SCALE IN FEET
Figure 5-1. PLAN OF WINGOHOCKING SYSTEM
-------
r
.*J~*
-
-
ROOSEVELT
"X^-vd-
<
/
/
GAGE 2
HEINZ
>
\
'
>
W
THE ISEN POLYGONS
USED FOR GAGE LIMITS
6AGE
HARROW GATE
\
\
/-GAGE 4
/ QUEEN LANE
2000 4CK30
E IN FEET
Figure 5-2. WINGOHOCKING RAIN GAGE LOCATIONS
-------
Table 5-1. PRELIMINARY DRY WEATHER FLOW RESULTS
lUH I-
221
222
223
224
225
iff
2Jl
232
2J J
234
235
236
3*1
334
315
33fi
381
424
425
427
428
429
431
432
434
491
492
493
41*
4PUT
21
53
51
43
3 r
31
4i
51
57
65
6»
09
104
106
100
96
11
19
98
100
96
98
94
79
109
31
31
31
71
OMF
CFS
0.37
0. 11
0.25
0.61
0.14
0.09
0.52
o.aa
0.22
0.60
0.36
SUBTOTALS
4.35
0.54
0.04
0.00
0.01
o.?o
0.08
0.06
o.o-s
0.17
0.32
SUBTOTALS
5.83
0.22
0.55
0.42
0.01
0.01
0.61
0.76
0.18
SUBTOTALS
495
4Sb
4>7
*>)<9
'Hit
510
511
512
513
514
516
5V I
592
543
594
5V5
596
599
600
602
433
too
85
8)
*)2
a->
i
5
9
1 3
21
29
23
77
77
67
ol
61
111
53
41
3i
85
77
8.57
0.41
0.46
0.14
0.38
'J.U4
0. 33
0.34
0.58
0.30
0.11
0. 30
0.-I6
0.15
0.49
0.15
0.40
0.06
0.04
0.00
0.01
0. 10
SUBTOTALS
14.77
0. 12
lUlAli
14.89
II1F1L
CFS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.n
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
oanwF KLASC
CFS
0.37 1
O.I I
0.25
0.61
0. 14
0.09
0.57
o.aa
0.22
0.60
0.36
) OWBJD
IBS/Ml*
0.27
0.08
0. 18
0.**
0.25
0.07
0.19
0. 64
0. 16
0. «.*
0.26
DWSS
L3S/HM
0.29
0.0")
0.20
0.i,S
0.27
0.07
0.41
0. 70
0.17
3.48
0.28
TOTP3P
PERSONS
BOOCUNC
MS/I
SSCOMC
MC/L
COLIFORMS
MPN/103ML
4.35
0.54
0.04
0.00
0.01
0.20
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.17
0.32
5.83
0.22
0.55
0.42
0.01
0.01
0.61
0.76
0.18
e.5T
0.41
0.46
0.
0.12
0.39
0.12
0.11
O.OS
0.33
0.33
0.00
0.38
59851.
193.
211.
1.12E 08
72050.
193.
211,
1.01F 08
30.98 L8S 31.83 IBS 10785*.
193.
211.
I. Oil? 08
53.61 IBS 58.51 LBS 152701.
0.11 3.12
54.18 LBS 57.19 LBS 152701.
194.
194.
712.
212.
9.OIF 07
07
104
-------
The two storms modeled for Wingohocking were:
Date Total Rainfall, in.
July 3, 1967 1.30
August 3-4, 1967 0.97
Measured flow data (depth of flow correlated to diversion weir) were
available for each storm. In addition, quality results from composite
samples (not proportional to flow) were available for rough comparisons.
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quantity
Table 5-2 and Figure 5-3 show the rainfall hyetographs for the storm of
July 3, 1967. The resulting runoff hydrograph at element 108 is com-
pared to the reported data in Figure 5-4.
Table 5-3 and Figures 5-5 and 5-6 show the same data for the storm of
August 3-4, 1967. In the comparisons the computed data are higher and
of longer durations than the reported values. This is probably because
the diversions to the DWF interceptor (102-inch diameter, maximum
carrying capacity = 270 cfs) are not accounted for in the model. The
interceptor receives flow not only from the Wingohocking basin but also
from an upstream (60-inch diameter, maximum carrying capacity = 150 cfs)
DWF interceptor. The actual diversion during storm events could there-
fore vary from 0 to 250 cfs depending upon the storm pattern. At the
time of the demonstration the allowance for this diversion was beyond
105
-------
Table 5-2. RAINFALL DATA STORM OF JULY 3, 1967
AREA. PHILADELPHIA PA.
OF JULY 3, 1967. NO GUTTERS
INLET NJMttER 1
NUMBER Of TIME STEPS 99
4 TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES)i 5.00
2i.O PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH
FOR 60 RAINFALL STEPS, THE TIME INTERVAL IS 5.00 MINUTES
;e NUMBER i RAINFALL HISTORY is
0.0
0.12
0.84
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.0
FOR R4IN*At»E
0.12
0.24
l.5i
O.U
0.0
0.12
0.2*
FUR RAl.NGAliE
0.0
0.24
0.84
0.03
0.0
0.0
0.01
FOR RAlN.iA.iE
O.J
0.12
1.03
0.0
0.84
0.24
0.0
0. 12
0.12
C.48
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NUMBER
0.12
0. 12
0.24
0.0
0.60
0.0
0.24
NUMBER
0.0
0.24
0.24
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.24
NUMBER
0.12
0.12
0.48
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.36
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RAINFALL
0.12
0.0
1.20
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.12
RAINFALL
0.0
0.0
0.84
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
RAINFALL
0.0
0.12
0.48
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.72
1.08
0.0
0.12
0.0
HI STORY
0.0
0.24
1.08
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.12
HISTORY
0.0
0.12
2.04
0.0
O.U
0.0
0.0
HI STORY
0.48
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.0
0.24
0.0
0.4B
0.0
0.0
2.28
0.0
0.0
0.0
IS
0.24
0.0
1.32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IS
0.60
0.12
1.20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
IS
0.96
0.12
0.24
O.U
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.48
0.12
1.08
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9S
0.12
0.72
0.0
0.12
0.0
0.0
1.08
0.12
0.24
0. 12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.60
0.24
0.12
0.0
3.3
0.24
0.72
0.03
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.48
0.4 A
0.33
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.7,!
0.24
0.43
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.48
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.48
0.24
0.03
O.U
0.72
O.U
0.0
0.60
0.12
0.24
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.24
0.60
0.0
0.0
0.?4
0.24
1.BO
0.0
O.C13
0.24
0.0
0.48
0. 1«>
0.24
0.48
0.12
0.0
0.03
2.04
0.24
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.12
1.80
0.0
0.12
0.24
0.0
106
-------
RAINFALL HrETOGRAPH
BASIN NO
2. SCO
RAINFALL
IN
IN / HR
O
-J
2.000 -
1.500
1.000
0.500
X
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
X'X
X X
X'*X»
X'tX *
X' X'*
X«»X' *
X'tX' *
X'»X' *
X'+X« *
X' X *
X« X' »
X* XX*"
X'* X*"
X **• *X * *
*
*
*
* *
* *
XX
XX*
XX*
XX'
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X
X'X *
X'X*'*
X'X*'*
*+
**
*«
**
**
**
**
**
**
»*
**
**
**
**
• •
**
*•
*
»
X'X*' •
X'X*' »
X'X*' •
X"X' '
Xf*X' •
X 'X1 •»
X 'X' •»
X «X'» '»
X *X'* •*
X'+ X'* •**'
X'* X«» '*»•
X'* XX** •*•
x«* «x*« •»•
X«» «x * '»•
*X'* «*X* •«•
*X'» • X* •»•
» *»x«* • XXX'*'
* »*X«* XXX" *•
X
X
XX
*X XX
*XX XX
*XX XX
*XX XX*
*xx»xx» ••
XX»XX* "
XX* XX* I '
XX*XX» • I
XX+XX* ' '
XX»XX» XXXX X '* • *•
XXtX*X» X X XX '* '*"
****X'* XX X' • * XXX»*X* X X XX •*•*•!
«XX* 'XXXXXXX X* X**XX* • *XXX XXX*>X' • X »>X XX '• •»«•*»
X X« •• t
O.o x«x»~— 1-»
24.0 2* .a
•*»XX *»XXX*»»*X X«X»"X»"'X'« X XX • *•»•• »
**— — I— *-X*XXXXXi"X»'-«*XXXXX*'" 'XX'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXKK«X(X
-------
FLOW-
IN
CFS
o
CD
3000.000 -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2000.000 -
I
•9
I
I
I
!
I
t
I
I
1000.000 -
0.0
WINGOHOCKING AREA. PHILADELPHIA, PA.
108
/-REPORTED
E* ! *
O| o
rl fS rCOMPUTED CORRECTED FOR
Ln) DIVERSION TO DWF INTERCEPTOR
******************************************
12.0
16.8
19.2
TIME IN HOURS
Figure 5-4.
WINGOHOCKING COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
RESULTS (QUANTITY) - STORM OF JULY 3, 1967
-------
Table 5-3. RAINFALL DATA STORM OF AUG. 3-4, 1967
f-ftf lit B«!HFAl.L tTEPSt THE TIMf INTCDVM. li 5.CO HlNUTFS
•HP
HISTOPV is
0.0
c.o
1.0
o.t?
0.0
o.o
o.o
O.I?
fl.C
0.0
O.C
o.o
O.I2
oln
0.0
0.12
0.0
c.o
0.0
F(l* PA t SCARE
e.o
0.2*
O.C
0.0
c.o
o.o
C.?*
C.J*
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,12
0.1
c.c
0.12
C.I2
c.o
0.0
0.12
riM P* INC AGE
0.0
0,2*
0.0
c.o
0.0
c.a
o.o
C.36
c.o
0.0
r.o
0.0
0.0
c.o*
c.?*
0.12
c.o*
a. i«
0.0
0.1?
fan PAinciGE
0.0
0."*
0.9
c.o
0.0
0.0
0.?*
O.I?
C.I?
o.o
do
0.0
Q.C6
0*2*
C.I?
O.I?
C.I?
c.a
0.12
0.0
0.0
0.0
C.I?
0.4
n.o
c.c
0.12
c.o
0.0
0.0
O.C
0.12
O.C
0.7*
0.12
0.?*
0.12
0.0
0.0
HUHBEf
0.0
Oil*
c.o
0.0
o.r
0.0
0.2*
0.2*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.12
o.z*
0.12
0.12
0.0
e.o
0.0
MJM8E»
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.06
t.Ofl
0.06
c.o
0.0
P.O
0.0
o.o
C.?*
0.12
0.06
o.ot
0.0
0.1?
NUI-SE*
0.^6
o.o
O.C
0.0
o.o
0.0
1.20
0.12
0.0*
O.C
0.0
c.o
0.12
0.06
0,2*
0.13
0.06
c.o
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
C.60
n.o
0,*!
0.0
O.C
C. 2*
r.o
c.o
O.C
0.0
0.17
c.o
c.?*
p.;*
0. ft
O.J6
0.12
2 PIINfALL
0.0
C. 2*
0.0
C.O
r..o
c.o
C.l?
0.2*
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7*
C.I2
0.06
0.0
o.n
} PMNFALL
0.0
0.0
O.r
C.O
C.O
O.C
C.C6
0.6P
0.06
c.o
0.0
c.o
r.c
e.a
C.!?
C. 12
C.I*
C.I2
C.C
* PA1MFAU
0.1?
n.o
o.n
ft.C
0."
o.r.
C.T2
P.O
r.o
C.O
c.o
c.o
0.12
r.n
0.2*
0.12
-------
RAINFALL
IN
!N./ HR
,000 -
I
I
I
2.000 -
I
RAINFALL HVETOGRAPH
I
I
.000 -
I
I '
I '
I •
I* '
I*1
). 0
-------
the scope of work. For a rough approximation of this effect, however,
it was estimated as follows:
Wingohocking Computed Estimated
Flow Without Diversion, cfs Diversion, cfs
0-500 up to 200
500-1,000 150
1,000-1,500 100
>1,500 50
Applying these diversion allowances to the computed results produced
the corrected curves shown in Figures 5-4 and 5-6. These preliminary
results, while not exceptional, correlate well and, for design purposes,
would adequately define the storm event (i.e., peaks, volume, time of
occurrence). A closer fit may have been obtained by comparing computed
with measured depths, since the cross-sectional area of the storm con-
duit is so great (21 by 24 feet) that minor depth changes make large
changes in flow.
It should be noted however that the final model provides for three types
of flow diversion:
Type 18 - Diverts all surplus flow above a specified maximum.
Type 21 - Special case of Type 18 for cunnette sections.
Type 20 - Diverts a percentage of the surplus flow above a specified
maximum according to a linear relationship (such as a
weir formula).
The use of these diversion models is discussed in Volume III.
112
-------
Combined Sewage Overflows - Quality
Table 5-4 compares the computed quality results with the reported com-
posite sample results. The computed quality results for BOD and sus-
pended solids for the storm of August 3-4 are shown in Figure 5-7.
The curves show how the removals in the first phase of the storm sub-
stantially reduced the net removals in the second phase. Correlation
with the reported data is only fair possibly due to the low estimate
for "dry days" (3.0 days) used for each storm.
Receiving Waters
The Frankford Creek-Delaware River receiving water system was modeled
by the 18-node system shown in Figure 5-8. A tide condition was im-
posed at node 1 and the Wingohocking overflows were received at node
18. For the July 3, 1967, storm, fresh water inflows were added as
follows:
Node Inflow, cfs
2 30.
4 1000.
13 60.
14 4130.
18 70.
The computed stages at nodes 1, 10, and 18 are shown in Figure 5-9 for
the day of the storm. The storm flow can be seen superimposed on the
tide induced stage for node 18. Although Frankford Creek is not tidal
up to the point of discharge, this assumption was necessary to simplify
the modeling. The computed flows and velocities in the Frankford Creek
channels are shown in Table 5-5 for the day of the storm. A total of
113
-------
Table 5-4. WINGOHOCKING COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS - QUALITY COMPARISONS
Reported
Composite Sample Values
Computed Values
Combined Overflow Average DWF
Storm #1, July 3, 1967
5-Day BOD, mg/L
Suspended Solids, mg/L
Coliform, MPN/100 ml
17.4
7.2 x 10
1-38 194
7-210 212
1 x 103-3 x 104 9 x 10'
Storm #2, August 3-4, 1967
5-Day BOD, mg/L
Suspended Solids, mg/L
Coliform, MPN/100 ml
36-148
1-15
1 x 107-1 x 108
1-48 194
9-581 212
4 x 103-7 x 104 9 x 10'
-------
Ufl.eao -
uo.cto
BOB
IN
iBS/XIH
•0.000
«o .«co
WINGOHOCKING AREA, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
4 *
• *
« *
BOD
0. I
».» 10.»
T IMC IN «4»
0.9
O.I 1.2
i 1.3
TIME IU HOUHS
Figure 5-7. WINGOHOCKING COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
RESULTS (QUALITY) - STORM OF AUGUST 3-4, 1967
115
-------
T
WINGOHOCKING
STUDY AREA
Figiire 5-8. WINGOHOCKING RECEIVING WATER SYSTEM
-------
>«•» »•»
10
»•> »•« »•>
18
Figure 5-9. WINGOHOCKING RECEIVING WATER
COMPUTED STAGES AT NODES 1, 10, AND 18
117
-------
Table 5-5. WINGOHOCKING RECEIVING WATER FRANKFORD CREEK FLOWS AND VELOCITIES
DELAWARE !?.1V?R RECEIViNG
WINGOHOCK3MG AREA JULY 3t
DAY IS 2
HOUR
2't.CO
25.00
20.00
£ 27.CO
00 23-. 00
29-00
30.00
31-00
3-.?.. 00
33.00
3 A. CO
35.00
36.CO
37.00
36.00
39.CC
40.CO
41.00
42.00
43.00
4^.00
45.00
46.00
'«7. CO
48. CO
4-9. CO
CHANNEL
FLOW
(CFS)
-12276.
-1]265.
-illgS.
-IOCfeS>
•0.44
•0,45
-901, -C.97
2.4/*
2.13
-1544.
-778.
-226.
258.
457.
325.
-23.
-439.
-597;
-542.
-484.
-40 1 .
-233.
-1.3S.
70.
467.
655,
511.
20-2.
-259.
-0.30
0.28
O.38
0.23
0.02
-0.31
0.47
-0.50
-0.53
-0.53
-0.25
0.12.
0.54
0.57
0.36
0.12
-0.16
-622. -C.42
-615. -0.4fl
CHANNEL 15 16
TLOVI VEL.
(CFS) CFPS)
-339.
-279.
-720 .
-1752.
-1493.
-683.
T9S.
330.
-62.
-287.
-337.
-289-
-223.
-ua.
-139,
11.3.
329.
230.
58.
-'1.92.
•309.
-384.
-0-67
-0.73
-2-2.4
•4.32
3.02
2.15
0.03
0.43
0.22
0.10
47
0.74
0.88
05
22
29
30
1.6
-0
-1
-I
-1
-1
-I
O.52
0.79
0-3?
0.03
-0.26
•0.60
-0.75
CHANNEL
FLOW
fCFS
-?.?6.
-134.
-746.
-1540.
-1393.
-592.
-379.
-158.
67.
30.
-83.
-216.
-264.
-242.
-210.
-173.
-141.
-123.
-124.
-32.
153.
68.
-14.
-160.
-276.
-272.
16 17
VEL.
1 CFPS)
-0.55
-0,53
-2.27
-3.20
-3.06
-1 .86
-.1.52
-0.67
0.13,
C.06
-0.16
-0,44
-0.65
-0.77
-0.83
-0.95
-0.91
-0.82
-0.86
-0.14
0.46
0.!9
-0.03
-0.27
-0.53
-0.66
CHANNEL
FLOW
fCFS
-3 16.
-122.
-1003.
-12.4-5.
-1230.
-'( 82 .
-307.
-179.
-69.
-74.
-108.
-147.
-161.
-1 54.
-1 44 .
-1-33.
- ! 24 .
-120.
-1 ?0.
-11~3.
-38.
-57 .
-88.
-131.
-165.
-164.
17 18
VEL.
) (FPSJ
-0.37
-0.51
-3.19
-2.94
-3.03
-1 .76
-1.40
-0.99
-0.26
-0.21
-0.28
-0.40
-0.52
-0.64
-0.75
-0.85
-0.90
-0.90
-0.91
-0.83
-0.16
-O.lfa
-Ck.21
-0.30
-0. 42
-0.52
-------
3 days, starting 24 hours before the initial storm discharge, were
simulated.
For the quality analyses, initial dissolved oxygen concentrations were
set to 0.5 mg/L on the day preceding the storm. A quality integration
step of 1 hour was used, as opposed to the 3-minute integration step
necessary for the quantity computations. The computed junction concen-
trations at the end of 2 hours {from the start of overflow), 10 hours,
and 20 hours are shown in Table 5-6. As computed, the dissolved oxy-
gen in Frankford Creek was completely depleted after 5 hours, and
maximum deficit in the Delaware due to the storm was 0.07 mg/L occurring
at node 10, 25 hours after the start of the storm. Traces of coliforms
from the storm had reached all node points by the 25th nour. Again it
should be noted that the effects are limited to this single storm and
single discharge.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS MODELED
Two corrective actions were modeled for the Wingohocking system, both
using the computed output of the storm of August 3-4, 1967:
1. In system storage using a simulated inflatable rubber dam
across the mouth of the overflow conduit.
2. External storage with treatment by microstrainers.
In-System Storage
The concept of in-system storage is to create backwater impoundments in
the pipe system by installing a temporary dam partially blocking the
overflow. It is hoped that this action will completely trap runoffs
119
-------
Table 5-6. WINGOHOCKING RECEIVING WATER (QUALITY) RESULTS
DELAWARE RIVEP. RECEIVING WATER
W1NGOHQCKING AREA JULY 3i 1967
JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS, DURING TIME CYCLE
CONST ITUENT
1
1
JUNCTION
1 TO 10
i TO ia
JUNCTION
t TO 10
i ro is
I
O.CO
0.00
CONSTITUENT
1
0.0
O.O
2
0
0
2
9
0
CONSTITUENT
1
1
JUNCTION
1 TO 10
1 TO 18
JUNCTION
1 TO 10
1 TO 13
1
0.0
0.0
CONSTITUENT
1
O. 50
O.50
2
0
0
NUMBER
.00
.00
NUMBER
.0
.0
NUM6FR
.0
.0
NWA1BER
Z
0.50
0
.50
180D FROM
3
0.00
0.0
?SS FROM
3
0.0
r>.0
3 COL 1 FORM
3
O.O
O.O
480O FROM
3
O.SO
0.50
2 .QUALITY
TIDE AT MARCUS
CYCLE ?
HOOK
EPA STORMMA7ER MQOFL
RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
WlWGdHQCKlNG
4
0.00
0.0
WINGO
4
0.0
0.0
5
0.00
0.00
5
0.0
0.0
6
0.00
0.00
6
0.0
0.0
7
0.00
1.13
7
0.0
z.w
8
0.00
33.63
3
0.0
238.17
9 10
0. 00 0. 00
9 10
0.0 0.0
FROM WINGO
4
0.0
0.0
WINGCJHOCK
4
0.50
0.50
5
0.0
0.0
IN (DO)
5
0.50
0.50
6
0.0
0.0 "**
6
0.50
0.50
7
0.0
<;«<>:«#*«*«:
7
0.50
0,49
&
0.0
*#•*****«
8
0.50
0.37
9 10
0.0 0.0
9 10
0.50 0.50
-------
Table 5-6 (continued)
DELAWARE RIVER RECEIVING WATER
EPA STORMWATFR MQOFL
RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
WINGWCCMNG ARfA JULY 3, 1967 TIDE AT MARCUS HOOK
JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS, OURING TIME CYCLE 2 .QUALITY CYCLE 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
JUNCTION
to
1 TO
13 TO
10
18
0.00
0,11
O.OO
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
70.1)
0.00
106.50
o-oo
122.92
8 9
0.00 0.00
1?3. 0*
10
0.06
CONSTITUENT NUMBER 2SS FROM WIWGO
1
2
3
A
5
6
JUNCTION
1 TO
11 TO
10
18
0.0
0.63
0.0
0-20
0.0
0.0?
0.0
0.00
0.0
1079'.65
0.
16*1.
0
8O
7 8
0.0 0.
19Z4.08 1937.
Q
78
9
0.0
10
CONSTITUENT NUMBER 3COLIFORM FROM WINCQ
1 2 3 ' 4 5
JUNCTION
1 TO TO 0.0 O.O O.O
11 T0 18 ****#*********»#***********#**
8
0.0 0.0 0.0 O.O 0.0
6^^5.85*******^** ******************=************
9 10
0.0 **********
CONSTITUENT NUMBER 4BOD PROM WINGOHOCKIN/DQ)
I
2_
3
4
5
6
7
8
JUNCTION
1
11
TO
TO
10
18
0.50
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
0.00
9 10
0.50 O.A9
-------
rable 5-6 (continued)
DELAWARE RIVER RECEIVING WATER
E PA STORMWATER MODEL
RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
WINGOHOCMNG AREA JULY 3t 1967 TIDE AT MARCUS HOOK
JUNCTION CONCENTRATIONS, DURING TIME CYCLE 2 ,QUALITY CYCLE 20
to
JUNCTION
1 TO 10
11 TO 18
JUNCTION
I TO 10
11 TO 18
JUNCTION
I TO 10
1 2
0.00 0.00
0.57 0.16
CONSTITUENT NUMBER
1 Z
0.0 0.0
10.47 2.. 27
CONSTITUENT NUMBER
1 ?
0,0 0.0
3 4
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
2SS FROM WINGO
3 4
0.00 0.00
0.13 C.CO
5
0.00
72.20
5
0.01
1149.3V
6
o.oo
107.15
6
0.06
1702.23
7
0.02
120.86
7
0.34
1937.76
8
0.11
119.96
8
I. 56
1937.78
9 10
0.36 0.85
9 10
5.48 13.43
3.COLIFQRM FROM WINGO
3 4
5
6
7
8
9 10
967. 97 1 47 ft 0 3. O668.92 84 5. 00 **************************************************
11 TO 18 *******x-#*********:*i:********** 831874. 13****************************************
JUNCTION
I TO 10
11 TO 18
CONSTITUENT NUM86R
1 ' Z
0.50 0.50
0.46 0.49
4800 FROM WINGOHQCKINCno)
3 4
0.50 P. SO
0.50 0.50
5
0.50
0.00
f>
0.50
0.00
7
0.50
0.00
g
0.49
0.00
9 10
0.47 0.44
-------
from small storms, until they can be treated at the DWF treatment
facility, and reduce overflows from large storms.
For Wingohocking, a dam height of 10 ft above the sewer invert was
selected for the simulation. The plan areas of the storage basin thus
created were then estimated at 2 ft-increments of depth to provide
necessary data for the storage model. The resulting variation of the
stage (depth) in the conduit is shown in Figure 5-10 assuming that no_
flow was diverted to the DWF interceptor. With no diversion the total
volume overflowing was 10.9 million cubic feet or 92 percent of the
arriving flow. However, had the DWF interceptor been capable of accept-
ing 100 cfs throughout the storm, an additional 3.0 million cubic feet
would have been diverted, reducing the overflow to 66 percent. Thus
in order for in-system dams to be effective for large storms there must
be substantial available capacity in the DWF interceptor. On the other
hand, the percentage of diverted flow increases as the size of the
storm decreases. The greater frequency of the smaller storms forms a
significant basis of appeal of this type of impoundment.
External Storage With Treatment
To test the feasibility of linking in-system storage (of the type just
described) with a pumped outflow to treatment, the following system
was devised.
1. The storage chamber was held to the dimensions of the existing
conduit except that the simulated dam crest was raised to
20 feet in an attempt to contain the entire storm.
123
-------
• INGOHOCKINO AREA. P H I L A 0 E L P H I A , P A .
too o.ooo
1600.000
1200,000
FLOW
N
C F 8
400.000
0,O
O.I
2,2 3.3 4.4
TIME IN HOURS
6,5 7.6 1.7 9.S
15 0 r
100 -
:ROWN EL
22.0 FT
TEST t
WEIR EL 20.0FT
€00 CFS PUMPED OUTFLOW
PUMP START EL 10.0 FT
PUMP STOP EL 10 FT
4 S
TIME IN HOURS
Figure 5-10. WINGOHOCKING STAGES IN STORAGE BASIN
STORM OF AUGUST 3-4, 1967
124
-------
2. Several discharge pumping rates and settings were tested with
the final selection of 600 cfs effluent pumps, starting at
elevation 10.0 ft and stopping at elevation 5.0 ft.
3. This inflow set the treatment unit module size to 450.0 mgd
as shown in Table 5-7. Microstrainers and mechanically
cleaned bar racks were selected for the treatment units.
The resulting stages in the storage chamber and pump operation cycles
are shown in Figure 5-10. The summaries of computed treatment effect-
iveness and costs are given in Tables 5-8 and 5-9 respectively. It
appears that a more economical solution would be to supplement the in-
system storage and reduce the number of treatment units.
125
-------
Table 5-7 . WINGOHOCKING BASIS OF DESIGN
DESIGN STORM USED. TREATMENT CAPACITY HILL 6F SELECTED TO SUIT.
DESIGN FLOHRATE - 632.3* CFS.
l» 0.500 TIMES MAXIMUM ARRIVAL PATE OF 1264.67 CFS. »
TREATMENT SYSTEM JNXLUPFS MODULE UNITS
DESIGN FLOW is THEREFORE INCREASED TO NFXT LARGEST MOOULF SIZE
AnJUSTfD DESIGN FLOWRATE • 6<>6.15 CFS.. " *53.00 MOD.
IKWOO - IB)
CIIARACTFPISTICS OF STORAGE UNIT ARE
UUTLF.T TYPE • 6
STORAGE Mnne • i
STORAGE TYPF « 1
IPOL * I, PRINT CONTROL IISPRIN! . 1
NATURAL RFSFRVniH, WITH MAX. DEPTH • 20.00 FT. 11 DFPTH/AREA PARAMETERS ARE
OFPTHtFTI AftEA(SQ.FT) DFPTH(FT) APEAJSQ.FTI PEPTH(FT) AREA AREACSQ.FTI
0.00 0. 2.00 JI<»20. *.0(1 57600. 6.00 82SOO.
B.OO 1U*«0. 10,00 176000. 12.00 138000. 14.00 1550*0.
If..00 168T?0. Ifl.OC 1H5780. 21.00 185260.
H RESERVOIR OUTFLOW BY FIXED-RATE PUMPING
(O PUMPING RAT-f • 600.00 f.FS, PUMPING START DEPTH - 13.00 FT, PUMPING STOP DEPTH - 5.00 FT
& D"=PTH(FTI SrO STORICU.FTI
O.CO 0. 2.00 J10ZO. *.00 l?l**0. 6.00 2618*0.
p.00 456<.«0. 10.00 ^''«.^?0. 12.00 9SS120. 1«.00 1251360.
H.fO 1S7M70. 1C.00 1<»?')1?0. 20.00 2299680.
STORAGE BETWEEN PUMP START AND STllP LFVFLS » 2.79 TIMES (QPUMP*DT)
ASSUMFO UNIT C3ST (EXCA VATI UN, LINlMT, fTC.I «15.00 l/Cll.ro.
PRFLIMIMARY TREATMENT BY MECHANICALLY CLEANED BAH RACKS (ICVEL II
NUMHER OF SCRFfflS • ?
CAPACITY PFR SfREfN . 34H.07 CIS
SUHHfPCfl) AREA « 11*.0? SO.FT. (PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOMI
FACE ARfA OF BARS • 162.*."* SO.FT.
INFLOW flY GRAVITY (NO PuMPINGI (LEVEL 2»
TREATMFNT BY SEDIMENT AT ION IN ASSOCIATED iTORAGE - SEE LEVEL 0 ABOVE
N) CHLORINF AODfD
TREATMENT l)Y MICRUSTPAINERS
NUMfFB OF UNITS • 36
CAPACITY PEP UNIT . 12.50 MGO
SIIBMfRf.Fn SCREEN AREA- 217.01 1.Q.FT. PER UNIT
NO EFFLUFNT Sf.RFFNS (LEVEL 5)
OUTFLOW BY OUTLET PUMPING (LEVEL 6)
PUMPEO HFAO - 30.00 FT. WATFR
NO CHLORIMF CONTACT TANK FOR OUTFLOW (LEVEL 7j
-------
Table 5-8. WINGOHOCKING SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
N)
•vj
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS
TOTALS FLOW (H.G.) BOO (LBI SS (LB) COLIF
-------
Table 5-9. WINGOHOCKING SUMMARY OF TREATMENT COSTS
Kl
03
COST
UNIT
INTJUFST PATf
AWOfTIJEATfCN
CAP. pfcnvcuv
VEA* Of SI Hilt
SITE tncAtrroN
CCSTS . .
•
T.OO 1-MCfwT
PF*IOt> 7^ VEASS
FACTQt O.OB54
AT ION 14TO
FACTO" 1.H5?
LAND • 70000.00 »/ACPf
POwCR •
CHLORINE •
ALUM •
TMATHCNT LfVCt
BAH PACK
NO INLCT PU
STOPAGf
mC*OSf*At
NO fML. $f
OUTLET MJ«
NO CONTACT
S 1
HP INC 7
J
NE*$ *
ftCCNS *
PING *
TANK T
SUMTOfA
TOTAL
TOTAL »
0.070 »/».»IAINT CHI
l70IM-«. Hv«. 1PJU6. 15*. 120tT.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
1*56*)*. 106)16. 17*T1. T***. K56«..
10)0*MO. tC<>04. *H«i«t7. 15<-1. 7041)6.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
ZlTMOOi. IJTO. 7CKO*». 40. *T>60.
0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
i M5U7-.00. * 16C5U. » tlU4«l. » 117 J6. 1 ZW7T7. »
t li*0)*70. t 160(04$.
•l«
Tftlft ACRE t 2IS). 1 746.
STn** FVFNT COSTS
OHlNf CHf< Illnf"
0. 0. f>».
o. o. o.
0. 0. 140.
-------
SECTION 6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
129
-------
SECTION 6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The consortium is deeply indebted to the following persons and their
organizations for the services they rendered to the project group in the
development, demonstration, and verification of the EPA Storm Water
Management Model:
1. Mr. William A. Posenkranz, Chief, and Mr. Darwin R. Wright,
Project Officer, of the Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution
Control Branch of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., for their generous assistance and guidance.
2. Mr. Alan O. Friedland, Chief, Mr. Harold C. Coffee, Jr., and
Mr. Robert T. Cockburn of the Division of Sanitary Engineering,
City of San Francisco, and Mr. T. G. Shea of Engineering-
Science, Inc., for furnishing data on the Baker and Selby
Street systems.
3. Dr. Louis M. Laushey and Dr. Herbert C. Preul of the Civil
Engineering Department of the University of Cincinnati and the
graduate student project group coordinated by Abdul S. Rashidi
for providing necessary data on the Bloody Run drainage basin,
Cincinnai, Ohio.
4. Mr. George A. Moorehead, Chief of Systems and Planning,
Department of Sanitary Engineering, District of Columbia, and
Mr. Michael S. Neijna of Roy F. Weston, Inc., for furnishing
data on the Kingman Lake study area.
5. Mr. Joseph V. Radziul, Chief, and Mr. William L. Greene of the
Research and Development Unit of the City of Philadelphia Water
131
-------
Department for furnishing data on the Wingohocking and Callowhill
study areas.
The consortium management and the project work of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,
were under the direction of Mr. Dean F. Coburn, Senior Vice President,
and Mr. John A. Lager, Project Manager and Principal Investigator.
Other key personnel of Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., were Drs. Byrne Perry,
George Tchobanoglous, and E. John Finnemore, and Messrs. William G.
Smith, Dennis A. Sandretto, Charles D. Tonkin, and Ferdinand K. Chen.
Particular acknowledgment is given to Mr. Allen J. Burdoin, staff con-
sultant, for his worthy contributions to the theoretical development of
the surface quality and treatment models.
The project work of the Department of Environmental Engineering of the
University of Florida was directed by Dr. Edwin E. Pyatt, Chairman and
Principal Investigator, and Mr. Larry W. Russell, Senior Research
Assistant. Other key personnel for the University of Florida were
Drs. Wayne C. Huber and James P. Heaney, and Messrs. Ralph A. Aleutian
and B. James Carter. Dr. John C. Schaake, Jr., consultant, provided
valuable assistance in the development of the Transport Model.
The project work of Water Resources Engineers, Inc., was directed by
Drs. Gerald T. Orlob, President, and Robert P. Shubinski, Principal
Engineer and Project Leader. Other key personnel for Water Resources
Engineers were Mr. Marvin R. Lindorf, Vice President, Drs. Ian King and
Carl W. Chen, and Mr. John R. Monser.
132
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
133
-------
SECTION 7
REFERENCES
Introduction (Section 1)
1. Engineering-Science, Inc., "Characterization and Treatment
of Combined Sewer Overflows."
San Francisco (Section 2)
1. Engineering-Science, Inc., "Characterization and Treatment
of Combined Sewer Overflows."
2. Engineering-Science, Inc., Progress Reports to the City of
San Francisco upon "Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows
by the Dissolved Air Flotation Process," February 1969 to
January 1970.
3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Tract Data, 1960.
Washington, D.C. (Section 4)
1. Roy F. Weston, Inc., "Preliminary Draft Conceptual Engineering
Report, Kingman Lake Project," Federal Water Quality Adminis-
tration, Contract No. 14-12-829, May 1970.
2. Metcalf & Eddy,. Inc., "Report to District of Columbia upon
Investigation of Sewerage System," June 1955.
3. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., "Report to District of Columbia upon
Development Plan for the Water Pollution Control Plant with
Implementation Program for 1969-1972," February 1969.
Philadelphia (Section 5)
1. American Society of Civil Engineers, "Technical Memorandum
No. 10, Sewered Drainage Catchments in Major Cities," New
York, March 1969.
135
-------
Philadelphia (Section 5) continued
2. Guarino, Carmen P., Radziul, Joseph V., and Greene, William L.,
"Combined Sewer Considerations by Philadelphia." Journal_of_the_
Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Engineers, Vol. 96, Ho. SA1, February 1970.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers, "Technical Keaorandvaa
No. 9, Raingage Networks in the Largest Cities," New York,
Harch 1969.
136
-------
SECTION 8
ABBREVIATIONS
137
-------
SECTION 8
ABBREVIATIONS
JCL - job control language
DWF - dry weather flow
BOD - biochemical oxygen demand
SS - suspended solids
cfs - cubic feet per second
mg/L - milligrams per liter
139
-------
SECTION 9
APPENDIX A
Page
SAN FRANCISCO, Baker Street Input Data 143
CINCINNATI, Bloody Run Input Data 147
WASHINGTON, D.C., Kingman Lake Input Data 152
PHILADELPHIA, Wingohocking Input Data 166
141
-------
SAN FRANCISCO, BAKER STREET INPUT DATA
BAKER STREET SAN FRANSICO, CAU
I 187.0 1
DEC. I9/ 1969 AVERAGE=2.51
0 10 10 11
I 2 3 4 13
WATERSHED
BAKER STREET (SAN FR ANCISCOJ 16 SUU-AH.EA SYSTEM
STORM OF 19 DEC 1969 AT SF FOB GAGE. NU &JTTEK.S.
1
96
.02
.02
.15
.62
.*)<»
.73
.22
.22
.19
.04
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
1
9
3
1
40
17
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
I
1
1
150
5.00
.02
.02
.15
.62
.54
.73
.22
.22
.19
.04
1
3
^
7
9
11
19
21
23
25
29
31
33
36
3d
40
3
5
7
lo
.25
1.
1
3
5
7
9
11
19
21
23
25
29
31
33
J3
30
38
40
2300
.02
.15
.15
.62
.54
.73
.22
.19
.19
.04
1
3
5
7
9
11
19
21
23
25
29
31
33
36
38
40
5
9
5.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
5.
.02
. 15
.15
.62
.54
.73
.22
.19
.19
.04
300.
300.
150.
300.
300.
200.
460.
350.
900 .
330.
340.
4dO .
870.
1.
880.
520.
7
21
23
7.
100.
1
.02
.15
.62
.62
.54
.73
.22
.19
.04
.04
13.23
12.93
6.56
d. 13
12.60
a. 02
12.03
8. 3b
15.00
12. H6
•J.32
12.35
24. 52
0.05
13.93
12.79
9
23
00
2
13.23
12.93
6.56
8. 13
12.60
8.02
12.03
8.3B
15.0C
12.86
9.32
12.35
20. b?
3.65
C.OO
13.93
12.79
.02
.15
.62
.62
.54
.73
.22
.19
.Ot
.04
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
60.
bO.
60.
60.
60.
oO.
60.
60.
60.
11
29
150
150.
.02 .02 .02
.15 .15 .15
.62 .62 .62
.54 .54 .54
.54 .54 .73
.73 .73 .73
.22 .22 .22
.19 .19 .19
.04 .04 .04
.035
.030
.061
.067
.081
.134
.lob
.121
.043
.033
.200
.088
.055
.000
.0041
.0034
19 21 23
33 38 40
0
4720.
5620.
4740.
3100.
5320.
4560.
4640.
3500.
6220.
4740,
3800.
4920.
9800.
2000.
0.
6240.
6040.
.02
.15
.62
.54
.73
.73
.22
. 19
.04
2
29 31 33 36 33 40
143
-------
TRANSPORT
0
1 BAKER ST
39 150
300.
1 0
1 0
2 1
3 2
4 3
5 4
0 5
7 0
8 7
9 S
10 9
11 10
12 11
13 12
.14 13
15 14
Lt> 15
17 Ib
Ib 17
IV Id
20 19
21 20
22 21
23 22
-------
5 92
6 112
I
10
11
12 232
I
I* 252
16 292
17 312
13 332
I
Id 364
1
19 382
1
20 402
1
GRAPH
27 1 2
GRAPH OF THE TRANSPORT OUTPUT TAPE
TIME IN HOURS
FLUW IN CfS
ENUPKOGAAM
12. oO 40.0 162. 2.8225.00 1.84
8.02 40.0 103. 2.U225.00 1.42
12.03 36. C 175. 2.2825.00 4.62
8.36 J7.0 130. 2.3225.00 2.29
15.00 38.0 248. 2.1025.00 4.73
12.86 35..0 164. 2.3825.00 5.85
9.32 35.0 119. 2.3825.00 5.05
12.35 38.0 I9tt. 2.1425.00 3.05
24.52 94.0 490. 2.0225.00 3.46
8.89
6,89
15.05
10.49
8.95
18.28
18.28
9.94
a. 75
0. 0. 0. 0.25.00 Q. 1.50 100. 120. 0.
13.93 54.0 350. 1.9625.00 2.00 9.31
12.79 54.0 3!>0. 1.9625.00 1.56 9.31
BAKER STREET
I 187.0
DEC. 19, 1969 AVERAGE:
11 12
1 2 3 4 13
STORAGE
SAN FRANSICO, CAL
2.51
40
3
01 12
2
37.0
0 0
23 00
7.0
1314
1570
2COOO.
01 12
2
37.0
1 1
23 00
7.0
1314
1570
2CCOO.
0.0
21 32
1
5000.0
25
1346
1602
0.02
21 32
1
5000.0
25
1346
1602
0.02
41 51
1
15.0
1970
1378
1634
0.20
41 51
1
15.0
1970
1378
1634
0.20
61 71
1
10.0
1.1452
1410
1.25
61 71
1
10.0
1.1452
1410
1.25
1442
0.03
1442
0.03
1474
1506
1538
1474
1506
1538.
145
-------
0? 12
2
37.0
1 2
2
9.5
4<*000.
37.
0.
15.
15.
1 I
23 00
7.
1314
1570
20000.
STORAGE
40
1
02 12
2
37.
1 2
2
9.5
49000.
37.
0.
15.
15.
23 00
7,
1314
1570
2COOO.
STORAGE
40
1
01 12
2
37.
1 2
2
9.5
49000 .
37.
0.
15.
15.
1 1
23 00
7.
1314
1570
20000.
ENUPKLiGAAM
22 32
1
6
1
785.
5.
0.
5000.
25
1346
1602
0.02
0.
21 35
1
6
1
785.
5.
0.
25
1346
1602
0.02
0.
22 32
I
6
1
785.
0.
5000.
25
1346
1602
0.02
41 51
1
0.0
0.0
15.
1970
1378
1634
0.20
41 51
1
0.
0.15
1970
1378
1634
0.20
41 51
1
0.
15.
1970
1378
1634
0.20
61 71
1
10.
1.1452
1410 1442 1474
1.25 0.03
TRAM. OUT. BAKER2 ON SYS04
62 71
1
1.1452
1410 1442 1474
1.25 0.03
TREAT, OUT, BAKER2 ON SYS
61 71
1
10.
1.1452
1410 1442 1474
1.25 0.03
1506
1538
1506
1538
1506
1538
146
-------
CINCINNATI, BLOODY RUN INPUT DATA
CINCINNATI BLOODY RUN SEWEP SYSTEM
1 2380. 0.00 0
MAY 12, 1970 1.80
C 8 8 9 910
1 2 3 4 13
WATERSHED
BLOODY RUN WATERSHED, CINCINNATI
STORM OF MAY 12, 1970
38 50 0730 5.0 1 25.
40 5.0
STORM 1
0.0 1
0.0
10 11 11 12 12 14
COMBINED SEWF* SYSTFM
FWOA STOHMWATER MOOFl
.000
1.27 1
.61
.OC5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
38
1
45
114
0
C
71
.080
.03 1
.40
.005
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
9
51
97
0
0
38
15.
1.
.430 .77 1.15 1.52 1.52 1.52 1.52 I
.03 1.03 1.03 .80 .30 .61 .61
.40 .21 .21 .21 .21 .21 .005
11530.176.0 33.7.0310
91138. 68.6 29.7.0545
151262. 73.2 43.5.0545
1741 1?. 59.0 ?4.7.03?0
191558. 38.0 36.8.1120
21 970. 33.4 38.9.1050
25 481. 69.0 73.3.0450
271701. 53.7 56.8.0940
312389.250.2 51.9.0393
332625. 45,2 58.5.0200
351487. 38.4 81.4.0430
372591. 81 .8 54.5.0320
391523. 49.8 10.8.0500
41 3flO. ?0.2 34.7.0350
112116*. 72.0 45.6.0370
435515.116.0 45.6.0375
451593. 91 .2 64.5.0233
108 B30. 14.3 5.0.0400
512053. 58.9 39. B. 0220
531646. 42.5 39.7.0150
57179R. 36.1 42.3.04?0
591545. 39.9 46.4.0250
613571. 87.1 60.8.0570
652461. 88.3 38.7.0630
71 839. 30.1 43.6.0830
751310. 29.9 71.7.0640
771072. 21.9 56. 4. 0590
872335. 60.3 48.7.0430
892091. 48.0 39.9.0360
911954. 50.6 29.7.0660
931243. 66.0 5.0.0495
95 904. 54.0 4.9.0250
114 725. 25.0 16.8.0270
97 896. 54.0 .10.9.0Z35
116 838. 62.5 39.5.0125
1017600.122.0 49.7.0659
1051138. 49.0 33.8.0710
109 210. 3.6 95.0.0400
15 17 19 21 25 27 31
53 108 57 59 61 65 71
116 101 105 109
0
5.0 07 30 50 0
14. I
125. 100.
.27
.610
.005
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
,01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
33 35 37
75 77 87
.01
,01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
•» 01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
,01
.01
.01
.01
.01
39
89
.00113
.00113
.30113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.30113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.C0113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.ooin
.00113
.ooli?
.•00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.00113
.3011?
41 43 112
91 93 95
147
-------
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
46
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
bO
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
I
1
1
9
9
15
15
17
17
19
21
21
25
27
27
31
31
33
33
35
35
35
37
39
39
41
41
112
112
43
43
45
45
45
108
109
51
53
57
57
57
59
51
61
61
61
65
65
71
71
75
77
77
87
87
87
89
91
91
93
95
114
97
97
116
101
1
5
3
1
5
1
3
3
I
I
\
5
1
4
2
3
I
1
2
3
2
1
1
5
3
2
3
5
3
I
3
3
5
2
5
3
1
I
1
5
3
?
5
1
3
2
2
I
5
4
4
2
I
1
5
4
1
5
1
5
5
5
5
1
1
2
105.6
52. B
17.6
34.3
34.3
59.6
14,6
14.8
44.2
3H.O
20.0
13,4
69.0
43.0
10.7
37.5
212.7
21.1
18.1
23.0
11.6
3,3
81.8
37.4
12.4
13.5
7.3
43.2
28.8
5a.o
58.0
36.7
Z7.5
27.5
H»3
3.6
58.9
42.5
10.8
14.5
10.8
29.9
10.0
21 .8
47.9
17.4
2?. I
66.2
10.5
19.6
29.9
10.9
11.0
36.1
12.1
12.1
44.0
an, 4
?0.2
66.0
54.0
25.0
40.1
10.0
62.5
24.4
454.
1.
47.
147.
1.
252.
33.
39.
190.
164.
36.
1.
180.
43.
46.
98.
916.
117.
76.
60.
50.
16.
352.
1.
32.
5S.
19.
1.
75.
250.
151.
96.
1.
108.
1.
9.
254.
183.
46.
1.
28.
129.
1.
94.
125.
75.
95.
285.
1.
20.
30.
47.
47.
155.
1.
12.
211.
U
87.
1.
1.
1.
1.
4.3.
269.
105.
148
-------
68 ICl
69 101
70 101
71 105
72 105
TRANSPORT
1
117
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
5
1
3
5
4
24.4
54.9
18.3
24,5
24.5
CINCINNATI'S
50
300.
I
0
1
2
3
4
7
8
9
0
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
0
23
?6
29
30
31
0
27
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
43
44 1
45
46
47
110 1
49
50
51
0
53
0
55
56
0
0
0
0
6
0
C
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
25
0
0
0
28
C
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
0
c
0
42
0
13
0
66
C
11
0
52
0
0
c
0
0
53
33
.
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0001
1
16
1
16
I
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
I
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
2
16
?
16
2
16
2
16
2
16
9
16
9
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
I
16
1
16
5
0
394.
689.
380.
467.
319.
345.
577.
462.
142B.
1641.
43?.
149.
1238.
750.
700.
700.
900.
438.
1473.
350.
1673.
1433.
595.
291.
231.
76.
698.
1.
236.
48.
1.
25.
BLOODY RUN WATFRSHEDi TRANSPORT
5
15.
0
3
4
0
4
3
0
7
5
0
0
7
5
0
0
0
0
3
6
0
I
4
4
2
0
0
7
0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
5.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.5
7.0
5.0
7.5
5.0
5.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
8.63
8.63
B.O
4.5
3.5
3.0
6.5
3 4
2.60
2.30
2.20
2.60
1.40
0.90
1.00
1.40
i.ao
1.25
1.10
I. 00
1.30
l.?0
1.00
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.28
0.60
1.30
2.40
3.40
0.90
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
• 015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.016
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
10.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
149
-------
56 57
57 0
58 59
59 60
60 61
61 62
62 63
63 64
64 65
65 0
66 67
67 68
68 69
69 70
70 71
71 72
72 73
73 74
74 75
75 76
76 77
77 78
78 79
79 80
80 81
81 82
82 83
fl3 84
84 85
85 86
86 67
87 0
38 89
89 90
90 91
91 0
92 41
93 92
94 95
95 0
96 93
97 96 1
98 97
C
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
G
88
0
C
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
94
c
c
0
15
0
99 98 100
100 101
101 0
102 99
103 102
104 103
105 104
1C6 105
107 106
108 54
109 48
110 109
111 108
112 0
113 112
114 0
115 114
116 0
117 116
109 108
51
109 108
2550.
0
0
c
c
0
c
0
0
0
c
c
0
c
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
117
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
41
0.0
1
16
I
16
I
16
1
16
1
16
I
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
1
16
I
16
1
16
12
16
I
16
12
16
12
16
1
16
12
16
12
16
12
16
16
16
I
I
16
1
16
1
16
1
41
45
209.3
46?. 8
1086.0
463.4
475.5
1251.9
930.4
365.0
404.7
800.2
481.0
354.4
253.6
389.4
342.0
325.9
R58.0
1700.0
2190.0
170.0
775.0
495.0
706.5
500.0
1556.0
334.0
1,0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
107
107
0.0
3.5
6.5
5.5
5.0
4.5
6.5
6*0
5.5
5.5
5.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.75
2.25
4.00
3.5
9.25
4»0
9.25
9.25
4.5
9.25
9.25
9.25
8.0
8.0
8.0
1.0
8.0
2.10
o.ao
1.30
1.50
1.50
0.86
I. 00
1.90
2.30
I. 10
1.57
2.18
5.70
1.42
1.67
1.65
?. 10
1.50
0.28
0.90
0.32
0.32
0.50
0.32
0.34
0.34
2. CO
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
.015
15.0 23.125
15.0 23.125
15.0 23.125
15.0 23.125
15.0 23.125
15.0 23.125
316 2550.
0 0 39 208 55B 86? 915 7°0 6
-------
0.96
1.00
1.00
0.74
1.42
1.21
0.85
0.77
1.14
1.05
1.03
1.16
1.10
1.37
0.96
24 2
I 591
2 511
3 751
31 755
4 452
41 453
4? 454
5 431
51 432
J>2 433
53 435
6 1*5
61 151
(,? 157
7 211
8 274
9 331
10 415
101 411
102 412
103 413
11 975
111 971
121054
GRAPH
9 1
1.
1.
1.
C.
1.
1.
G.
1.
0.
1.
C.
0.
0.
1 .
1.
3
0
08
00
CO
67
19
23
71
57
99
05
91
94
64
49
18
2
5
1 .05
I .00
1.00
0.63
1.20
I. 75
0.60
1.0?
1.45
1.10
0.66
1 .33
0.45
1.30
0.84
0 0
259.3
101 .4
160.7
50.0
50.0
41.8
30.0
50.0
20.0
50.0
Bfl.8
100. 0
150.0
67.8
130.4
122.7
295.4
50.0
90.0
18.0
11.0
195.1
184.5
49.0
10.
20.
10.
I.
25.
20.
25.
20.
25.
20.
20.
22.
30.
20.
0.90
l.CO
1.00
0.59
1.15
!.?!
0.41
0.87
1.16
0.50
0.63
1,22
0.87
1.12
I. 01
1.04
1.00
1.00
0.54
1.17
1.17
0.46
0.91
1.55
0.66
0.04
1.44
0.54
0.89
2.B2
50.000
25.
15.
15.
25.
10.
10.
40.
30.
10.
10.
15.
40.
20.
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.56
1.11
1.15
0.40
0.94
1.29
1.33
0.94
1.10
0.4B
0.5B
1.77
.2 200.
.2 300.
.3 200.
2.01000.
.2 180.
.4 300.
0.97
1.00
l.CO
0.67
I. OH
0.88
0.72
1.07
C.99
1.10
1.05
0,88
1.29
0.45
0.84
200.
300.
200.
ROD.
2CO.
400.
10.
7.
8.
10.
7.
7.
15.
12.
8.
8.
9.
15.
10.
0.96
1.15
i .07
0.87
1.07
1.60
C.U8
1 .05
1.05
1.18
0.67
0.71
1
I
1
1
1
108 109
Q - CFS BOD
ENDPPOCRAM
45 41 107
GRAPHS OF CINCINNATI'S BLOODY RUN
TIME IN HOURS
#/MIN
WATERSHED
151
-------
WASHINGTON, D.C., KINGMAN LAKE INPUT DATA
KINGMAN LAKE WASHINGTONi
2 4060.0 27.8
JULY 20 1969
JULY 22 1969
AUG. 20 1969
0 8 8 9 8 10
1 2 3 4 13
D.C.
15
1,04
3.20
0.64
6600.0
4000.00
WATERSHED
KINGMAN LAKE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON DC
STORM OF JULY 22 1969. NO GUTTERS
1 95 17CO 5. 2
64 5.
0.00 0.00 0
0.00 0.00 0
60 0.48 2.16 0.00 0.24 0.72 0.36 0.36
00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
.96
.CO
.00
.20
.00
.00
.60
.36
.40
.12
.84
.00
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
c
.44
.60
.12
.96
.00
.00
.60
.24
.20
.12
.36
.00
I
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
.72 1.21
.20 0.24
.12 0.12
.24 0.12
.00 0.00
.00 0.00
.60 0.24
.08 1.08
.40 1.60
.00 0.12
.CO 0.12
.00 0.12
1 300.
318CO.
51200.
71800.
916CO.
111300.
13 600.
151100.
171800.
191300.
21 700.
23 750.
2513CO.
27 200.
291200.
31 600.
33 600.
35 400.
371400.
39 400.
41 750.
43 600.
45 950.
47 800.
49 550.
5115CO.
53 800.
551900.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
20
140
94
98
73
183
13
20
116
74
43
36
79
23
136
36
12
36
156
39
150
101
75
41
32
79
49
78
36
36
60
12
00
48
24
20
12
00
.7
.1
.1
.1
.5
.0
.8
.2
.2
.2
.5
.4
.2
.4
.3
.0
.3
.9
.8
.9
.4
.4
.2
.2
.3
.6
.3
.3
0.72
0.60
1.20
0.24
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.84
0.00
0.12
40.
40.
80.
60.
85.
70.
90.
90.
90.
85.
90.
80.
90.
90.
40.
90.
90.
80.
40.
30.
40.
60.
90.
90.
90.
85.
90.
90.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.48
0.60
1.80
0.12
2.04
0.60
0.24
C.96
0. 12
0.12
.070
.070
.070
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.070
.050
.020
.020
.070
.050
i070
.050
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
.020
1.20 1.20 2.40
0.48 0.24 0.12
1.80 1.20 1.20
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.36 0.30 0.30
0.24 0.36 0.36
0.96 1.20 2.40
0.60 0.60 0.12
0.00 1.08 0.60
0.12 0.00 0.12
152
-------
2
2
2
2
?
?
2
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
53
1
33
65
108
5
3
1
116
57
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
A3
57
59
61
63
65
67
69
73
75
77
81
67
93
95
97
93
100
102
1C4
106
108
110
112
II*
116
3
35
67
110
2
25
1
53
11.0
1.5
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
571200. 78.2
59 350. 33.?
611000.158.5
631700.225.0
651000.121.0
672000.151.1
691900.145.4
732400.135.3
751100. 62.1
772500.220.3
811500. 50.0
871000. 50.0
93 500. 20.4
95 500. 49.6
97 200. 4.7
9B 450. 32.0
1001000. 22.8
102 500. 39.1
104 250. 8.0
106 500. 14.6
1061700. 70.7
11015CO. 79.1
112 450. 11.4
1141600. 61.4
1161000. 73.3
579
37 39 41
69 73 75
112 114 116
63 77 116
0
5. 17 00
10.0 1
125.
5 20.7
5 140.1
5 94.1
1 98.1
I 73.5
1 183.0
2 13.6
2 20.2
2 116.2
2 74.2
2 43.5
2 36. A
2 79.2
2 23.4
5 186.3
2 36.0
2 12.3
5 36*9
5 156.8
5 39.9
5 150.4
1 101.4
85.0.020
90.0.020
85.0.020
60.0.020
75.0.020
80.0.020
60.0.020
80.0.020
50. C. 020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
90.0.020
85.0.020
90.0.020
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63
77 81 87 93 95 97 98 100 102 104 106
95 0
100.
48.4-4
327.84
220.00
695.4?
520.38
1006.48
97.70
143.08
822.72
374,74
308.00
224.32
505.56
94.00
435.94
198.00
87,08
159.40
366.92
164.40
351.92
469.26
153
-------
45 45 2 75.2 532.42
47 47 2 41.2 291.72
49 49 2 32.3 232.20
51 51 2 79.6 453.72
53 53 2 49.3 352.56
55 55 2 78.3 554.36
57 57 2 78.2 481.92
59 59 2 33.3 235.76
61 61 2 145.5 1030.0
1061 61 4 13.0 40.0
63 63 2 141.0 1000. 0
1063 63 4 34.0 280.0
65 65 5 121.0 605.52
67 67 1 151.1 753.78
65 69 2 80.4 568.0
1069 69 4 65.0 240.0
73 73 2 92.6 655.62
1073 73 5 92.6 400.4
75 75 1 61.1 249.98
77 77 2 220.3 1560.0
81 31 2 50.0 354.0
87 87 2 50.0 354.0
93 93 2 20.4 144.42
95 95 2 49.6 351.18
57 97 2 4.7 33.28
98 98 2 32.0 204.48
100 100 2 22.8 161.40
102 102 2 39.1 276.82
104 104 2 8.0 56.64
1C6 106 2 14.6 103.38
10P 108 2 70.7 483.48
110 110 2 79.1 560.02
112 112 2 11.4 80.70
114 114 2 61.4 274.30
116 116 2 73.3 478.68
TRANSPORT
0 0
1 KINGMAN LAKE DATA USING REVISED FORMAT AND
152 95 53 I 5 1 034
300. 11.0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0
1
2
3
137
5
0
7
8
9
6
11
0
119
0
15
120
17
18
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
135
0
0
0
0
0
143
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
16 0.
32940.
16 11.
11780.
16 0.
11900.
16 0.
11320.
16 0.
1 510.
16 11.
14685.
16 0.
16 11.
16 0.
31055.
16 11.
11C59.
16 11.
11622.
0
000
000
000
0
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
000
000
0.0
4.500
0.0
5.500
0.0
6.500
0.0
5.750
0.0
5.750
0.0
8.00C
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.125
0.0
6.000
0.0
6.000
0.0
1.570
0.0
1.300
0.0
1.600
0.0
1.600
0.0
1.700
0.0
1.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.880
0.0
2.030
0.0
1.320
VERSION,
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
. JUL 22» 1969 STORM
0.0
2.300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.800
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
030
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
154
-------
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
43
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61'
62
63
64
65
66
67
6' 8
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
30
81
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0
29
30
31
0
33
32
35
0
37
36
39
0
41
40
43
44
150
0
47
48
4<3
50
51
52
53
131
55
56
57
58
59
46
61
12
151
64
65
0
67
63
152
76
71
70
73
0
75
66
77
91
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
127
0
0
0
129
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
0
0
0
16 11
3 405
16 0
31956
16 0
3 525
16 0
3 656
16 0
2 385
16 11
32819
16 0
32333
16 11
680
16 0
I 210
16 11
11567
16 0
11013
1>> 11
12165
16 11
12616
16 0
11150
16 11
1 378
16 0
1 171
16 11
11231
16 0
11542
16 0
1 480
16 11
12105
16 11
5 544
16 11
51350
16 11
14544
16 0
12590
16 11
. 000
.coo
.0
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.coo
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.oco
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.oco
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
13430.000
16 0
1 180
16 11
12650
16 0
32820
16 11
J 315
11165
11525
16 0
.0
.000
.000
.oco
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
9.750
0.0
9.750
0.0
9.750
0.0
6.000
0.0
9.000
0.0
3. COO
0.0
9.000
0.0
2.750
0.0
6.550
0.0
5.000
0.0
7.640
0.0
10.000
0.0
6. 000
0.0
B.5
0.0
8,500
0.0
8.500
0.0
9.000
0.0
9.000
0.0
10.000
0.0
17.500
0.0
17.500
0.0
22.000
0.0
7.000
0.0
7.500
0.0
22.000
0.0
9.750
0.0
4.675
0.0
22.000
3.500
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.620
0.0
0.850
0.0
1.080
0.0
1.190
0.0
3.100
O.Q
1.800
0.0
1.010
0.0
1.300
0.0
1.180
0.0
0.810
0.0
1.000
0.0
0.840
0.0
0.390
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.300
0.0
0.350
0.0
0.380
0.0
0.220
0.0
1.060
0.0
0.490
0.0
1.500
0.0
0.450
0.0
1.490
0.0
0.540
0..740
1.580
0.0
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0,013
0,013
0,013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.0
0.0
6.500
0.0
6.500
0.0
6.500
0.0
6.000
0.0
6.000
0.0
2,000
0.0
6.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.Q
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
O.Q
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
D.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
155
-------
82
33
64
65
96
67
P8
89
90
91
92
93
94
?5
96
97
93
99
IOC
101
102
103
104
IC5
106
107
IC8
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
123
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
81
0
83
82
142
0
87
0
89
90
79
0
93
SO
95
78
0
98
0
ICO
99
102
96
97
0
106
1C7
1C6
109
110
0
112
111
114
141
13
117
118
14
16
38
122
123
124
125
126
42
128
54
130
10
132
133
134
4
136
105
138
115
140
88
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
94
0
86
0
0
0
0
101
0
103
0
0
0
0
C
139
0
0
0
113
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
147
0
0
0
145
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000.
16 0.
11250.
16 11.
53980.
16 0.
12260.
16 0.
11550.
16 11.
16 11.
16 0.
11071.
16 11.
1 425.
16 11.
16 0.
32542.
16 0.
32062.
16 11.
3 422.
16 11.
11601.
16 0.
12170.
16 11.
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
000
000
0
000
000
11290.000
16 11.
5 585.
16 0.
31670.
16 11.
5 670.
16 11.
3 713.
16 11.
3 720.
31370.
16 11.
16 11.
1 830.
16 11.
2 712.
16 11.
13300.
16 0.
12041.
16 11.
1 552.
16 11.
2 470.
16 11.
1 800.
16 11.
1. 400.
16 11-
51199.
16 11.
101520.
16 11.
000
000
0
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
oco
000
000
000
000
0
000
000
oco
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
coo
000
4.500
0.0
3.500
0.0
6.000
0.0
3.000
0.0
3.250
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.500
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
4.500
0.0
4.875
0.0
6.750
0.0
22.000
0.0
4.000
0.0
4.500
0.0
23.500
0.0
4.875
0.0
23.500
0.0
3.000
0.0
4.125
4.500
0.0
0. 0
4.000
0.0
4.000
0.0
5.000
0.0
5.250
0.0
9.000
0.0
4.000
0.0
6.500
0.0
5.750
0.0
23.500
0.0
18.250
0.0
0.950
0.0
0.590
0.0
0.800
0.0
1.670
0.0
0.760
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.000
0.0
0.730
0.0
0.0
1.770
0.0
1.500
0.0
0.350
0.0
0.540
0.0
1.250
0.0
0.66C
0.0
0.100
0.0
2.800
0.0
0.100
0.0
1.760
0.0
2.270
1.700
0.0
0.0
1.210
0.0
1.700
0.0
2.000
0.0
1.950
0.0
0.320
0.0
0.960
0.0
0.350
0.0
1.030
0.0
0.100
0.0
0.120
0.0
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
3.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.800
0.0
3.000
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.000
0.0
2.500
0.0
22.000
0.0
2.300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
156
-------
143 121 0
144 0 0
145 144 0
146 116 0
147 85 0
148 104 0
149 146 0
150 28 45
151 62 63
152 69 0
149
45 63
1CCO.
7 4100
0 0
0.96
1.
1.
C.74
1.42
1.21
0.65
0.77
1.14
1.05
1.03
1.16
1.10
1.37
0.96
47 1
27.8
4060.
21
39
24
41
45
11
63 2
65
67 2
81
30 1521
3612121
31 1421
35 2121
351 2131
352 2141
32 3121
23212411
34 3921
341 3<54l
41 4141
33 4521
331 4E41
332 4531
951 111
69
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
16
1
21
5
1
16
16
16
16
140
7C2.000
0.0
970.000
260.000
800.000
4.500
0.0
3.000
16.500
6.000
1.090 22.000
0.0
11.000
11.000
11.00
149
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.500
0.0
0.660
0.230
0.800
0.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
3.000
0.0
0.0
15.500
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.000
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
33
217
1.08
1
I
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
c
1
1
10
52.
.07
.30
.15
.22
.14
.05
.00
.05
.00
.08
.
.
.67
.19
.23
.71
.57
.99
.05
.91
.94
.64
.49
.18
190
7
2
.0
519 834
1.05
1.
1.
0.63
1.20
1.25
0.60
1.02
1.45
I. 10
0.66
1.33
0.45
1.30
0.34
17 00
220.0
22.
150.
150.
300.
300.
300.
150.
200.
150.
200.
300.
35.6
43.2
62.5
90.2
69.8
471.1
247.6
144.8
87.6
871 762 626
0.90
1.
1.
0.59
1.15
1.21
0.41
0.87
1.66
0.50
0.63
1.22
0.87
1.12
1.01
1.
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
288
04 1
.
.
.54
.17
.17
.46
.91
.55
.66
.94
.44
.54
.89
.82
74 0
.00
1.
1.
0.56
1.11
1.15
0.49
0.94
1.29
1.33
0.94
1.10
0.48
0.58
1.77
0.
97
1.
1.
0.67
1.08
0.88
0.72
1.07
0.99
1.10
1.05
0.88
1.29
0.45
0.84
0.96
1.15
1.07
0.87
1.07
1.60
0.88
1.05
1.05
1.16
0.67
0.71
146.078
4.00E+06
3985.
150.
150.
350.
350.
350.
150.
250.
150.
250.
350.
102.1338.
100 .1779.
60.1103.
29. 772.
71.1306.
4. 22.
28.1679.
66.2541.
5. 125.
2.56
2.39
3.35
3.35
3.72
3.09
3.13
3.65
2.43
IS. 4
14.3
12.7
12.3
13.8
13.9
12.7
13.7
14.4
.80
.07
.15
.30
.22
.14
.80
190.
150.
300.
150.
300.
300.
190.
220.
150.
350.
150.
350.
350.
220.
1
1
9313421
168.9 IB. 928. 3.20 15.0
157
-------
44 4721 63.5 58.1147. 2.99 12.6
45 4<32l 50.8 43. 722. 3.27 12.5
50 5121 68.6 60.1841. 2.21 14.0
4S 5321 64.8 76.1556. 2.99 12.3
4813021 96.5 61.1557. 3.59 12.1
46 5521 90.2 68.1442. 4.18 11. 1
92 1121 367.0 22.2158. 3.00 13.0
921 1141 .05 150. 150.
87 6321 232.4 31.1863. 3.79 12.8
371 6341 2.00 200. 250.
872 6331 .80 190. 220.
95 6521 ^9.5 64. 740. 4.17 12.3
351 6531 .20 190. 220,
B52 6541 .05 150. 150.
91 6721 336.5 13.1301. 3.25 14.2
911 6741 2.00 200. 250.
881 6521 370.7 18.1954. 3.21 12.3
8«2 7721 87.6 87.2107. 3.56 13.2
84 7721 105.4 43.1163. 3.79 12.1
69 7721 141.0 61.2733. 3.13 12.6
891 7131 .80 190. 220.
82 8-521 39.4 32. 557. 2.18 16.5
66 8121 17.8 34. 244. 2.40 17.9
83 8521 8.9 111. 260. 3.75 12.1
67 8721 10.2 67. 190. 3.55 12.9
81 S121 72.4 77.1532. 3.63 12.9
661 8141 .08 300. 350.
8010421 187.9 53.2975. 4.07 12.5
7913321 104.1 64.1920. 3.47 13.3
6911621 71.1 29. 440. 3.77 12.9
GRAPH
<* 1 3
GRAPH OF THE TRANSPORT OUTPUT TAPE
TIME IN HOURS
FLClis IN Cf-S
TRANSPORT
0 0
I K1NGMAN LAKE AREA WITH DIVERSION OF STORM FLOW FROM ELEMENTS #45t63tC69
156 95 53 1 6 2 0 3 4
300. 11.0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
0
1
2
3
137
5
0
7
8
9
6
11
0
119
0
15
120
17
18
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
135
0
0
0
0
0
143
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
16 0
32940
16 11
11790
16 0
11900
16 0
11320
16 0
I 510
16 11
I468b
16 0
16 11
16 0
31055
16 11
11059
16 11
11622
0
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.000
.oco
.000
.000
0.0
4.500
0.0
5. 500
0.0
6.500
0.0
5.750
0.0
5.750
0.0
8.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.125
0.0
6.000
0.0
6.000
0.0
1.570
0.0
1.300
0.0
1.600
0.0
1.600
0.0
1.700
0.0
1.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.880
0.0
2.030
0.0
1.320
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0,013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.0
2.800
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.800
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
030
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0*0
158
-------
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
4"
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
0
2<5
30
31
0
33
32
35
0
37
36
39
0
41
40
43
44
150
0
47
48
49
5C
51
52
53
Ul
55
56
57
58
59
46
61
12
151
64
65
C
67
68
152
76
71
70
73
0
75
66
77
91
92
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
127
0
0
0
129
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
153
0
0
0
0
0
154
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
0
0
0
16 11.
3 405.
16 0.
31956.
16 C.
3 525.
16 0.
3 656.
16 0.
2 385.
16 11.
32819.
16 0.
32333.
16 11.
680.
16 0.
1 210.
16 11.
11567.
16 0.
11013.
16 11.
12165.
18 11.
12616.
16 0.
11150.
16 11.
I 378.
16 0.
1 171.
16 11.
11281.
16 0.
11542.
16 0.
1 480.
16 11.
12105.
16 11.
5 544.
18 11.
51350.
16 11.
14544.
16 0.
12590.
IS 11.
13430.
16 0.
1 180.
16 11.
12650.
16 0.
32820.
16 11.
1 315.
000
000
0
000
0
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
0
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
coo
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
0
000
000
000
11165.000
11525.
000
16 0.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
9.750
0.0
9.750
0.0
9.750
0.0
6.000
0.0
9.000
0.0
3.000
0.0
9.0QO
0.0
2.750
0.0
6.550
0.0
5.000
0.0
7.640
20.0
10.000
0.0
6.000
0.0
8.5
0.0
8. SCO
0.0
8.500
0.0
9.000
0.0
9.000
0.0
10.000
0.0
17.500
18.0
17.500
0.0
22.000
0.0
7.000
11.0
7. 500
0. 0
22.000
0.0
9.750
0.0
4.875
0.0
22.000
3.500
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.500
0.0
0.620
0.0
0.850
0.0
1.080
0.0
1.190
0.0
3.100
0.0
1.800
0.0
1.010
0.0
1.300
0.0
1.180
0.0
0.810
0.0
1.000
0.0
0.840
0.0
0.390
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.430
0.0
0.300
0.0
0.350
0.0
0.380
0.0
0.220
0.0
1.060
0.0
0.490
0.0
1.500
0.0
0.450
0.0
1.490
0.0
0.540
0.240
1,580
0.0
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.0
0.0
6.500
0.0
6.500
0.0
6.500
0.0
6.000
0.0
6.000
0.0
2.000
0.0
6.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
150.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.c
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
151.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
152.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
159
-------
82
83
84
65
86
87
ea
89
90
91
92
«3
94
55
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
1C9
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
113
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
81
0
83
62
142
0
87
0
89
90
79
0
93
80
95
78
0
98
0
100
99
102
96
97
0
106
107
1C8
109
110
0
112
111
114
141
13
117
113
14
16
33
122
123
124
125
126
42
128
54
130
10
132
133
134
4
136
105
138
115
140
86
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
94
0
86
0
0
0
0
101
0
103
0
0
0
0
0
139
0
0
0
113
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
147
0
0
0
1*5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1000
16 0
11250
16 11
53960
16 0
12260
16 0
11550
16 11
16 11
16 0
11071
16 11
I 425
16 11
16 0
32542
16 0
32062
16 11
3 422
16 11
11601
16 0
12170
16 11
11290
16 11
5 585
16 0
31670
16 11
5 670
16 11
3 713
16 11
3 720
31370
16 11
16 11
1 830
16 11
2 712
16 11
13300
16 0
12041
16 11
1 552
16 11
2 470
16 11
1 800
16 11
1 400
16 11
51199
16 11
101520
16 11
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.coo
.000
.000
.000
.000
.0
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
,000
.000
.000
.000
.000
4.500
0.0
3.500
0.0
6.000
0.0
3.000
0.0
3.250
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.500
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
4.500
0.0
4.375
0.0
6.750
0.0
22.000
0.0
4.000
0.0
4.500
0.0
23.5.00
0.0
4.875
o.b
23.500
0.0
3.000
0.0
4.125
4.500
0.0
0.0
4.000
0.0
4.000
0.0
5. COO
0.0
5.250
0.0
9.00.0
0.0
4.000
0.0
6.500
0.0
5.750
0.0
23.500
0.0
18.250
0.0
0.950
0.0
0.590
0.0
O.BOO
0.0
1.670
0.0
0.760
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.000
0.0
0.730
0.0
0.0
1.770
0.0
1.500
0.0
0.350
0.0
0.540
0.0
1.250
0.0
0.660
0.0
0.100
0.0
2.800
0.0
0.100
0.0
1.760
0.0
2.270
1.700
0.0
0.0
1.210
0.0
1.700
0.0
2.000
0.0
1.950
0.0
0.320
0.0
0.960
0.0
0.350
0.0
1.030
0.0
0.100
0.0
0.120
0.0
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
3.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.800
0.0
3.000
0.0
4.500
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.000
0.0
2.500
0.0
22.000
0.0
2.300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.000
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
160
-------
143 121 0
i«4 0 0
145 144 0
14A 116 0
147 85 0
148 104 0
149 146 0
150 28 45
151 62 63
152 6<5 0
153 45
154 63
155 69
156 155
149 156
13
45 63
1GCO.
7 41CO
C 0
o.st
1.
1.
0.74
1.42
1.21
0.65
0,77
1.14
1.05
1.C3
1.16
1.10
1.37
0.96
47 1
27.8
4060.
21
39
24
41
45
11
63 2
65
67 2
SI
30 1521
3612121
31 1421
35 2121
351 2131
352 2141
32 3121
23212411
23312441
34 3921
341 3941
41 4141
33 4521
0 3 702.000 4.500 1.500 0.013
0 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.013
0 1 970.000 3.000 0.680 0.013
0 21260.000 16.500 0.230 0.013
0 5 800.000 6.000 O.BOO 0.013
0 1 1.090 22.000 0.500 0.013
0 16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.013
0 16 11.000 0.0 0.0 0.013
0 16 li.OCO 0.0 0.0 0.013
0 16 11.00 0.0 0.0 0.013
13500.000 8.5 0.8 0.013
14500.000 11.0 0.8 0.013
19400.000 12.0 1.0 0.013
16 11.00 0.0 0.0 0.013
69 140 149 156
6.0
33 217 519 834 871 76Z 626 288
1.08 1.05 0.90 1.04
1. 1. 1. 1.
1. 1. 1. 1.
0.67 0.63 0.59 0.54
1.19 1.20 1.15 1.17
1.23 1.25 1.21 1.17
0.71 0.60 0.41 0.46
1.57 1.02 0.87 0.91
0.99 1.45 1.66 1.55
1.05 1.10 0.50 0.66
0.91 0.66 0.63 0.94
0.94 1.33 1.22 1.44
0.64 0.45 0.87 0.54
1.49 1.30 1.12 0.89
1.18 0.84 1.01 2.82
10 2 17 00 146. 07b
190.0 220.0 4.GOE+06
52.7 22. 3985.
.07 150. 150.
.30 150. 150.
.15 300. 350.
.22 300. 350.
.14 300. 350.
.05 150. 150.
.00 200. 250.
.05 150. 150.
.00 200. 250.
.08 300. 350.
35.6 102.1338. 2.56 15.4
43.2 100.1779. 2.39 14.3
62.5 60.1103. 3.35 12.7
90.2 29. 772. 3.35 12.3
69.6 71.1308. 3.72 13.8
471.1 4. 22. 3.09 13.9
247.6 28.1679. 3.13 12.7
144.8 66.2541. 3.65 13.7
3. QUO 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
15.500 3.000
4.bOO 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
74 0
I. 00 0.97
1. 1.
1. 1.
0.56 0.67
1.11 1.08
1.15 0.88
0.49 0.72
0.94 1.07
1.29 0.99
1.33 1.10
0.94 1.05
1.10 0.88
0.48 1.29
0.58 0.45
1.77 0.84
.80 190. 220.
.07 150. ISO.
.15 300. 350.
.30 150. 150.
.22 300. 3SO.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.96
1.15
1.07
0.87
1.07
1.60
0.88
1.05
1.05
1.18
0.67
0.71
1
161
-------
331 4541
332 4531
951 111
9313421
44 4721
45 4S21
50 5121
49 5321
4813C21
46 5921
1121
1141
6321
6341
6331
6521
6531
6541
6721
.14 300. 350.
.80 190. 220,
92
87
671
872
85
351
852
91
911
681
b82
34
89
391
82
66
83
67
81
661
6741
7721
7721
7721
7731
8321
8121
8521
6721
9121
8141
8010421
7913321
681U21
GRAPH
10
GRAPH
1
OF
87,
168.
63,
50.
68.
64,
96.
90,
367.
.6
,9
,5
.8
.6
,8
.5
,2
,0
5,
18,
58,
46,
60,
76,
61,
68,
22.
, 125.
. 928.
,1147.
. 722.
.1341.
>1556.
.1557.
.1442.
. ?15fl.
2.
3.
2.
3.
2.
2.
3.
4.
3.
43
20
99
27
21
99
59
18
00
14,
15.
12,
12.
14,
12,
12.
11.
13.
,4
,0
,6
,5
,0
.3
,1
,1
iO
232.4 31.1863. 3.79 12.8
49.5 64. 740. 4.17 12.3
336.5 13.1301. 3.25 14.2
370.7
87.6
105.4
141.0
18.1954,
87.2107.
43.1163.
61.2733.
FLCW
ENDPROGRAM
39.4 32. 557.
17.8 34. 244.
8.9 111. 260,
10.2 67. 190.
72.4 77.1532.
187.9 53.2975.
104.1 64.1920.
71.1 29. t40.
THE TRANSPORT OUTPUT TAPE
IME IN HOURS
IN CFS
3.21 12.3
3.56 13.2
3.79 12.1
3.13 12.6
2.18 16.5
2.40 17.9
3.75 12.1
3.55 12.9
3.63 12.9
4.07 12.5
3.47 13.3
3.77 12.9
.05 150. 150.
2.00 200. 250.
.60 190. 220.
.20 190. 220.
.05 150. 150.
2.00 200. 250.
.80 190. 220,
.08 300. 350.
KINGfAN LAKE VIA
2 406C.O
JULY 20
JULY 22
AUG. 20
11 1
12 3
STORAGE
1
02 12
2
75.
1 2
2
35.0
670000.
1969
1969
1969
4 13
2?. 35
1
6
1
3272.
WASHINGTON, O.C.
27.8
15
1.04
3.20
0.64
Gl
8600.0
4000.00
72
1
0.
162
-------
77. /»
0.
15.
35.
20.
0 0
7.00
1570
20000. 0.
ENOPROGRAM
10.
0.
1
25
1G02
02000
0.0
12.
1970
1573
1G3I»
0.20
3.0
l.H»52
1410
1.25
l'»U2
0.03
MONFY FACTORS
l'»7i> 150G 1538
UNIT COSTS
KINGMAN LAKE
JULY
JULY
AUG.
11
12
4060.0
20 1969
22 1969
20 1969
WASHINGTON!
27.8
D.C.
15
1.04
3.20
0.64
8600.0
4000.00
1
3
13
RECEIVING
QUANTITYQUALITY
POTOMAC-ANACOSTIA RECEIVING WATCR
20 JULY TIDE 1969 TlOfc AT ALEXANDRIA
1
5.52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
o
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1^
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
1
2
1
4
1. 60. 17.
7
14 15 15
15
50 1
0.5 11.38
.73 20.
.65
.2)
.65
.26
.26
.26
.65
.65
.65
.65
.26
.65
1.30 20.
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
2.26
2.66
2.86
3.08
6
13
16
> 2
19
30 32
2.9
34.70
25.00
5.-57
40.
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
8.0
8.0
11.0
15.0
20.0
16.0
10.5
24.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
18.0
16.0
0.
25
40 42
0.
1
32
48 49
17
72 0.3
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.013
.018
.018
.018
23.98
3.1
163
-------
27
2*
29
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
33
39
40
4 1
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
GO
V"
1
2
T
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
27
28
28
30
30
36
37
38
37
40
40
42
41
43
44
45
46
17.30
14.70
4.16
38.10
14.70
27.90
4.95
2.31
4.5o
7.18
1.71
.52
6.96
1.63
2.93
3. 41
4.68
4.10
3.25
.912000
13.00
8.17
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
43
44
45
46
47
1500.
1500.
1500,
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1530.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
1500.
2500.
2500.
2500.
2500.
2500.
7500.
3000.
6000.
5409.
2100.
5400.
3000.
4800.
2700.
1BOO.
3000.
5300.
2300.
3900.
3300.
4500.
2700.
4500.
5100.
4800.
21.
20.
14.
25.
15.
30.
24.
22.
10.
6.
10.
7.
10.
12.
20.
30.
50.
40.
35.
35.
10.
15.
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
450.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
300.
417.
533.
550.
600.
600.
675.
775.
800.
850.
900.
1200.
1300.
1800.
3000.
1600.
2800.
1800.
900.
1400.
1400.
1400.
150.
150.
600.
1850.
125.
1162.
938.
550.
1050.
900.
650.
220.
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.013
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.016
.018
.018
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
7
10
15
20
16
18
24
16
17
17
16
20
18
12
18
24
17
26
17
31
9
9
6
17
12
20
25
6
10
43
32
35
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.s
.6
.0
.0
.0
.5
.0
.5
.8
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.6
.0
.1)
.0
.0
.7
.0
.0
.6
.5
.0
.5
.0
.0
.0
.3
.3
.2
.old
.018
.018
.016
.018
.016
.018
.018
.016
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.oia
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.016
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.Old
.018
.018
.018
.Old
.018
.018
.018
.018
164
-------
44
45
46
47
4fl
49
50
9999
39
48
37
24
34
33
24
41
49
49
48
36
34
33
4800.
4300.
2200.
3900.
2100.
4800.
6000.
ISO.
2100.
2250.
3030.
900.
900.
1350.
STAGE
42
C
63000.
64800.
66600.
7?OCO.
10000000.
ENOCUJNT
POTOMAC-ANACOSTIA RECEIVING MATER
TIME IN HOURS
IN FEET
3000.
1300.
QUALITY
2
2
0
2
32 C
99999
32
99999
ENPPRCGRAM
1 1
1 25
1 .50
8. 4.E-92.E-1
4.0
14.0
18.0
11.0
10.0
23.0
22.0
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
.018
BOO FROM KINGMAN LAKE
SS FROM KINGMAN
165
-------
PHILADELPHIA, WINGOHOCKING INPUT DATA
VINGChOCKING AREA
•< 5434.0
PHILAnFLPHIAt PA.
JULY 3t
AUG. 3
0
1
1*567
, 1967
8 ft
?. 3
4-CAGF AVG.M.43
4-GAGE AVG.=1.?1
9
4
WATFf> SHED
WINGOHOCKING ARFA. PHILADELPHIA, PA.
STOP!* OF JULY ?, 1967. MO O.UTTFP.S
j 09 2'»OC 5.C 4
66 5.
O.Or 0.12 O.CO 0.24 0.4ft 0.7? 0.72 0.36 0.24 0.24
0.1? C.i* 0.1? O.CO C.OO 0.24 O.'fc 0.36 1.?0 ?.16
C.B4 0.43 0.36 0.72 O.CO 0.12 0.12 0.00 O.12 0.00
r.Or 0.00 O.CO 1.08 2.2« 0.«4 0.48 0.36 0.00 0.24
0.12 0.00 0.00 O.CC C.OO 0,12 0.00 C.OO 0.00 O.CO
O.CO O.CO 0.00 0.12 C.OO 0.03 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00
0,10 0.00 O.CO O.CO C.OO 0,00
0.12 0.12 0.12 O.CO 0.24 0.48 0.60 0.72 0.60 0.48
0.24 0.12 O.CO 0.24 C.CC 0.12 P.?4 0.?_4 0.12 0.19
1.56 0.?4 1.20 I.OR 1.32 1.08 0.12 0.60 0.?4 0.24
0.1? 0.00 C.OO O.CO 0.00 0.00 0.00 n.OO 0.1? 0.43
0.00 0.60 0.24 0.1? O.CO 0.00 O.CO 0.00 0.00 0.12
0.1? C.OO 0.00 C.OO 0.00 0,00 C.24 O.03 0.00 0.00
0.24 0.24 0.1? 0.12 O.CH 0,00
0,00 O.CO 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.96 0.72 0.4fl 0.03 0.03
0.?4 0.?4 C.CO 0.1? 0.1? 0.1? 0.03 O.i? 0.24 2.04
O.P4 0.?4 P.34 2.T4 1.20 0.72 C.OO 0.12 0.60 0.?4
O.C? 0.00 C.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.1? O.CO 0.12
O.CO 0.12 O.CO O.I? 0.00 0.1.2 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00
o.oo o.co c.oo o.oo o.on c.oo 0.43 o.4« 0.24 o.oo
o.
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
}
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
i
i
2
A
?
i.
4
4
A
?
?
^*
3
T
3
•s
T
7
3
Tl
1
3
r>
57
1
33
61
9iS
s
1
1
ion
59
1
2
3
A
5
6
17
IB
IP
?o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
?6
37
?P
3.7
352300.126.7
37KCO. 50.^
'o??GO .17-T.4
^11300. 45,4
431200. ftf-.l
4512CC. 51. S
47 800. 65.4
40HC0.119.5
5124CO. 147.0
5^14-!0. 67.0
5511CO. 70.6
57 700. 67. 4
50 noo. 51.1
iniPCO.210.3
612000. 1P1. 9
63 600. 81.^
651100. 7S.7
67r3CT,. 106.1
601200. 75.0
7l2«0n.l79.5
731300. R6.4
7512CO. 72.7
772100.27? .0
792100.143.4
81 «CC. 44,4
831300. "2.3
l*2icr;.iQ->.o
3T44CC .242.6
B-l 000. 60.?
9"1 700. 55.1
94l?00. 33.4
061^00. 57.7
it^QC.IZZ.V
10012^0. 3^.4
IC^l^'lO. 36.0
1112203.144.4
1021900.142.1
IP^nCO. 90.1
1061100. 4C.3
1091000. 63. f>
5 7 <>
37 39 41
67 69 71
100 109 in
59 77 93
0
5, ?4 00
5.0 I
150.0 1
I 61.9
] 3Q.7
1 B1.4
1 53.3
1 79.3
1 66.0
no. .oino
HO.. 01 CO
fi*..C100
f*0. .OKO
80..0VCO
flO.,0100
BO..OICO
80.. 0100
RO.,0100
65. .0100
R0..010Q
ftO.. OOflO
R0..0100
BO. .0080
80. .0100
80..00QO
flC. .00^0
80..CORO
00.. OOfiO
no. .or no
R0..onao
no..coao
BC..OOPO
flO..OORO
80..0CSO
BO. .crao
BO..C-OPO
ao..ropo
so. .on PC
80..CCPO
60..ooao
80. .OCflO
fl'O..C080
PO. .0060
40.. 0060
7 S... 10 60
40. .0060
45.. 0060
40..P060
flO. .0060
80.. 0060
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 ?5 27 29 31
4? 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 113 61
73 75 77 79 81 «3 85 87 ft** 92 94
102 10^ 106 108
99 0
10.0
561.54
32->.56
663.41
•434.40
646. '0
537.90
167
-------
7
((
0
If
I1
1 2
!.•»
14
l«i
1 A
17
1 ft
I"
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2*
2°
30
31
32
33
34
3 5
T f.
37
3"
3°
4il
41
4?
43
44
45
46
47
4rt
40
50
51
52
5"»
54
55
56
57
53
13
15
17
10
21
23
25
27
29
"*1
33
35
37
30
41
43
4?
A7
40
5 1
53
55
57
50
113
61
63
65
67
60
71
71
73
75
77
79
PI
83
R5
87
8''
01
94
Oft
«<8
100
100
111
102
104
106
108
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
2
2
2
I
1
1
I
5
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
t
1
I
I
I
5
I
I
5
5
1
1
74.2
42.1
54. O
£7.4
11". 0
1 52. ?&. 7C
2920.30
1224.31
760.40
2334. C'
1526. fiq
502.50
10?2.6l
41<>. 02.
104*,. 47
370.01
5*3.72
<• 2 ? . I 7
1240. 14
073.93
1 IOH, 05
! 20f,.89
575.30
54-1.? I
^16, 47
1 71^. 05
1530.54
720. A3
14? .83
P64.72
142.^0
647. OT
100.00
704.16
502.51
7 ? 0 fl . 6 5
1161. 71
34R.C4
75?. ?5
?4in. ai
4?4fl,22
H21.72
1 t 40.07
733.^4
1006.57
1024, PI
71.06
700.00
1176. fl6
?6°.o<>
171. 19
76.57
517.53
TKAriSPORT
0
1
120
1
1
2
3
0
Wf MOO HOCK ING
OQ
30P.
1
0 0
1 0
?. 0
57
APF.A RUf!
1 *
tCOCl
I
0
0
0
1 0
16 C. 0
01 780.
- PEMOMSTP.ATION PHASE - STORM OF JULY
1034
1.0
0.0 0.0 0«0 0'. 0 0,
5. 1.7
-------
4
5
6
7
1
q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
IP
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
?fl
29
?0
31
32
33
34
35
16
37
39
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
0
1
'. I
* ,
Sj
r:t
5'J
cc
ft'.
6t
63
64
•*
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
1°
?0
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
?o
30
31
0
33
34
35
76
37
33
39
40
'
50
5V
5?
53
54
55
56
57
53
59
114
61
62
63
0
0
?
c
0
c
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
c
f)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
46
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ft
60
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
02
16
o?
16
02
16
c?
16
02
16
0?
16
0?
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
Cl
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
Cl
16
Cl
16
01
16
Cl
u
C2
16
01
16
Cl
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
01
16
01
IA
0?
16
09
1170.
O.C
13<:>7.
12 .COO
SHfl.
11 .000
1170.
0.0
4flO.
e.o
6'0.
0.0
10?5 .
o.O
564.
11. COO
870.
0.0
1530.
0.0
If24.
C.C
371.
11.000
2f?6.
ll.OOC
15?7.
H.Ono
2^65.
0.0
945.
11.000
1COO.
11.^00
1013.
13 .oro
1090.
0.0
•1 <) t. ,
ll.r.oo
1 Ih2 .
0.0
?80.
0.0
VO.
0.0
1410.
C.O
1410.
u.noo
1260.
0.0
14H5,
C.O
5 -JO.
ll.OOC
?70.
r.c
ROO.
11.000
1357.
6.
0.0
7.S
r .^
7.5
C.C
fl.O
0.0
fl.O
o.r
n.o
0.0
8.0
C.O
8.5
0.0
8.5
0.0
8.5
C.O
8. 5
0.0
P. 5
0.0
9.?
0.0
1C.O
0,0
10.5
OoO
4', f
O.C
6.0
O.C
7.0
0 .^
7.5
0.0
10. n
0.0
7. •;
0.0
s.?5
o.r
ft.?5
o.n
8. ?5
0.0
ft. 25
0,0
8.5
0.0
8.5
0.0
P. 5
0.0
12.
0.0
6.5
C.O
12.0
1.53
0.0
1.50
0.0
»5<-»
0.0
.80
0.0
.94
0.0
1.13
0.0
1.57
0.0
1.65
0.0
1.09
0.0
.flB
0.0
1.75
0.0
2.6B
n.o
1.16
0.0
1 .19
0.0
1.03
0.0
3.98
0.0
1.1 1
0.0
1.14
0.0
.94
0.0
,73
0.0
.6 a
0.0
1.1R
C.O
2. 75
n.o
. B5
0.0
.95
0.0
.90
0.0
.90
0.0
.9C1
0.0
.90
0.0
.90
0.0
.90
.013
0.0
.01 3
0.0
,013
C.O
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
O.C
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
,013
5.
0.0
6. 0
0.0
7.5
0.0
7.5
0.0
7.5
0.0
7.5
0.0
7,5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
O.C
0.0
9.
0.0
0.0
o.o
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C.O
8.
O.C
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C.O
0.0
C.O
0.0
0.0
C.O
C.O
0.0
0.0
n.o
0.0
0.0
C.Q
0.0
0.0
0.0
169
-------
t5
66
67
( ft
t9
7C
71
7?
73
?4
75
76
77
78
79
90
61
82
P3
P4
35
66
87
115
116
iir
ii3
1 1^
120
121
f>8
89
90
122
123
"I
92
S3
1?4
1?5
126
127
94
S5
= 6
57
qg
59
ICO
IC1
1C3
104
1C5
1C6
107
KB
109
110
III
112
128
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
0
77
C
79
30
81
02
83
7f,
85
86
97
115
1 16
117
Hfl
119
120
121
88
09
90
12?
85
91
9?
"3
124
125
126
127
94
95
96
<» 7
93
99
100
102
103
104
105
1C6
107
0
109
110
111
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
3?
o
0
0
0
n
0
c
0
0
0
0
78
0
84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
f\
0
0
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
123
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
01
1 fc
Cl
16
Ci
16
0?
16
Cl
16
0!
16
Cl
16
Cl
16
01
16
01
21
11
01
16
01
16
Cl
16
ci
16
04
16
04
16
01
02
16
02
16
04
16
02
16
02
16
02
16
10
16
C4
10
16
10
16
02
16
16
01
16
01
16
11.000
1570.
0.0
1 f> 3 0 .
I! .OCC
1497.
11. COO
704.
ll.OCO
13^0 .
C.O
125^.
0. C
lorn.
o.o
250 .
0.0
1500.
0.0
475.
145.
2300.
119.
199.
263.
628.
0.0
I4i>n.
415,
146.
0.0
305.
2347.
2374.
475.
50.
0.0
20*0.
11.000
252.
2919.
0.0
515.
C.O
1312.
1! .Of 0
2765.
r. o
2730.
0.0
°. 5
o.r
^ • 5
0.0
11.
0.0
15.
0.0
13.
0.0
13,
0.0
7.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
6. 5
0.0
8.0
6.2
14.
15.
16.
17.25
17.25
0.0
17.5
17.5
6.26
C.O
16.
16.0
1?..
15.
15.
0.0
7.5
0.0
19.0
9.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
21.0
C.O
5.5
0.0
7.0
P.O
."0
0.0
1.6?.
0.0
1.3
0.0
.67
0.0
.37
0.0
.37
C.O
.90
0.0
.^7
0.0
.37
0.0
1.33
.54
.54
.54
. ?4
.54
. 54
0.0
.54
.54
.54
0.0
.54
.54
.54
.54
. 39
0.0
.35
0.0
.33
.17
0.0
.13
0.0
.24
0.0
1 .0
0.0
1.0
0.0
.01 3
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
.013
.013
.013
.013
,013
.013
0.0
.013
.013
.013
0.0
.013
.013
.013
.013
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
.013
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.5
0.0
10.
0.0
14.
21.
17.
17.
0.0
21.
0.0
?4.
0.0
?4.
o.o
24.
0.0
0.0
r.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0.
0.
0.
c.
3.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
R6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
170
-------
129 123 0 0 10
1C2 129 112 0 16
113 0 0 016
T14 113 0 C C?
10*
(IS 91 86 95
1000.
353 55CO. 6.C
0 0 30 205
1. I.
!. 1.
0.60 0.53
1.40 1.46
1.73 1.16
.73 .55
1.77 1.22
1.07 1.04
.P4 .57
1.31 1.46
.97 .92
1,10 0.64
1.37 1.49
0.96 1.18
51 2 0 1
,??! .'11
222 531
273 "Ml
274 4M
725 ?71
726 331
231 Ml
I!**? 531
233 "71
734 651
235 651
236 6^1
3331081
3341061
3351001
33d ^61
381 771
424 891
4?5 °81
4771061
4?fl °6 1
429 S81
431 941
4?2 ">91
4341091
491 ?! 1
4^2 3ll
493 ?1 1
4') 4 711
495 8?1
496 851
497 °2l
<.<58 f»Ql
5CS 31
510 51
P?3 .
C.O
3100.
123 96
51? 956
1.
1 .
0.50
1 .44
1. 10
.34
1.75
1.28
.37
1.54
1.04
0.45
1.3C
0. 84
24 00
8^. 7
189.7
1 ? 0 . 7
193.8
593.5
74. 6
145.3
239.1
79.1
737.7
1?7. 3
709. 1
70.2
66.2
212.6
7, .6
96.0
13.6
?,4 «4
52. rt
105.5
80.5
198.1
107.7
32.0
151 .6
151, ft
326.9
65.7
130.4
183.1
167.9
10^.1
63.3
145.6
8.0 .n
0.0 0.
6. 2.5
101 108
924 »23
1.
1.
0.53
1.4?
l.ni
.30
1 .7'i
1.52
.27
1.58
1 > ^4
0.87
1.12
1.01
5^.1441.
67. 401.
1". 70-}.
28. 1^1.
17.11.41.
303.
44.?0->9.
41 .3368.
">4. fl^O,
31 .7.T77.
29.1442.
^0.7137.
1?6.
1. 8.
1 . 4 .? .
15. 811.
370.
33. 236.
3fl , ?4'3.
647.
3C.1261.
27. 859.
31.1158.
47 .1A73.
50. 20.
37. 78.
32.2152.
28 . 797").
76. 6B5.
34.1517.
30.1P05.
51 ,31"4.
50.1448.
283.
73.1074.
.013 77.
0 0.0 0.0
.013 7.
691 351 en 0
1. 1.
1. 1.
0.55 0.60
1.36 1.34
0.95 0.86
.30 .30
1.7? 1.19
1.77 1.49
.23 .15
1.48 l.?l
1.46 1..41
0.54 0.48
0.89 0.58
2.82 1.77
7.o
9.0
16.4
15.5
14.4
15.8
8.2
9.0
8.6
7.8
7,1
7.3
11.2
«
.
7.2
6.4
8.3
ft.O
8.3
B.O
7.9
7.6
7.0
7.5
11.8
1U8
8.5
9.5
10,5
7.7
9.4
8.6
15.3
18.3
0.0
1.
1.
0.75 1.12
1.32 l.?5
0.80 0.70
.61 .83
1.16 1.13
1.22 0.94
.57 .99
1.07 1.01
1.17 1.01
1.29 1.18
0.45 O.A7
0.84 0.71
1
1
1
171
-------
512
91
291
516 231
591 771
592 771
593 671
504 611
595 611
5961131
131.7
166.7
75.9
23.3
91. *
126.2
58.0
117.3
fl6.6
36.6
125.6
25.4
20.2
34.6
*>2. 103d.
34.2024.
1143.
414.
1176.
37.1ROO.
?.?., 55*.
37.1"12.
15. 556.
15.1470.
30. 211.
140.
2.
21.
413.
600 4H
602 351
433 R51
ICO 77i 0.12
I
GRAPH
9 1 3
GRAPH OF THE TRANSPORT OUTPUT TAPE
TIME IN HOURS
FLOW IN CFS
ENDPROCRAM
13.7
12.5
9.6
9.7
8.2
8.1
9.4
8.2
9.0
9.7
12.1
11.5
14.4
8.5
7.4
WINC.HHOCKING AREA
3 5434.0
JIILV 3, 196^
AUG. 3f 1967
PMH.AOn.PHIA, PA.
4-GAUF AVC.=1.43
AVO.=1.31
9 10 ".
1 2 3
STORAGE
108
1
02 12
2
1 1
1
20.
0.
3.
16.
600.
0.
15.
30.
10 50
7.00
1311*
1570
20000.
ENDPROGRAM
9
4 n
.50
21 35
1
6
1
0.
11181(0.
168720.
10.
0.
25
13l(G
1602
0.02000
1(2 51
1
2.
10.
18.
5.0
1970
1378
1631*
0.20
62 71
1
31920.
126000.
185280.
1.1U52
1410
1.25
!(. 57600.
12. 138000.
21. 185280.
0.03
6.
Id.
82800.
15501(0.
MONEY FACTORS
1506 1538
ENR IMOECES
UNIT COSTS
172
-------
/Icce.ssio/i Number
Subject Field & Group
013B
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
c I Organization
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Palo Alto, California ; Florida University, Gainesville, Dept.
of Environmental Engineering ; Water Resources Engineers, Inc., Walnut Creek, Calif.
Title
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL
|Q Authors)
~Lager, John A.,
Pyatt, Edwin E., and
Shubinski, Robert P.
16
21
Project Designation
EPA Contract Nos. 14-12-501, 502, 503
Note
Set of four volumes: Volume I - Final Report,
Volume II - Verification and Testing, Volume III
User's Manual, Volume IV - Program Listing
22 Citation
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
Water Quality Control*, Computer Model*, storm Water*, Simulation Analysis, Rainfall-
Runoff Relationships, Sewerage, Storage, Waste Water Treatment, Cost Benefit Analysis
25 I Identifiers (Starred First) ~
—Combined Sewer Overflows*, Urban Runoff
27
Abstract
A comprehensive mathematical model, capable of representing urban storm water runoff,
has been developed to assist administrators and engineers in the planning, evaluation,
and management of overflow abatement alternatives. Hydrographs and pollutographs
(time varying quality concentrations or mass values) were generated for real storm
events and systems from points of origin in real time sequence to points of disposal
(including travel in receiving waters) with user options for intermediate storage
and/or treatment facilities. Both combined and separate sewerage systems may be
evaluated. Internal cost routines and receiving water quality output assisted in
direct cost-benefit analysis of alternate programs of water quality enhancement.
Demonstration and verification runs on selected catchments, varying in size from
180 to 5,400 acres, in four u.s. cities (approximately 20 storm events, total) were
used to test and debug the model. The amount of pollutants released varied
significantly with the real time occurrence, runoff intensity duration, pre-storm
history, land use, and maintenance. Storage-treatment combinations offered best
cost-effectiveness ratios. A user's manual and complete program listing were
prepared.
Abstractor
John
A.
Lager
Institution
Proiect
Manaoer .
Metcalf
&
Eddy.
Inc.
WR:102 (REV JULY 1»6B>
WRSIC
SEND TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
* SPO: ieee-35»-sj9
-------
Continued from inside front cover.
11022 08/67
11023 — 09/67
11020 12/67
11023 05/68
11031 08/68
11030 DNS 01/69
11020 DIH 06/69
11020 DBS 06/69
11020 06/69
11020 EXV 07/69
11020 DIG 08/69
11023 DPI 08/69
11020 DGZ 10/69
11020 EKO 10/69
11020 10/69
11024 FKN 11/69
11020 DWF 12/69
11000 01/70
11020 FKI 01/70
11024 DOK 02/70
11023 FDD 03/70
11024 DMS 05/-70
11023 EVO 06/70
11024 06/70
11034 FKL 07/70
11022 DMU 07/70
11024 EJC 07/70
11020 08/70
11022 DMU 08/70
11023 — 08/70
11023 FIX 08/70
11024 EXF 08/70
Phase I - Feasibility of a Periodic Flushing System for
Combined Sewer Cleaning
Demonstrate Feasibility of the Use of Ultrasonic Filtration
in Treating the Overflows from Combined and/or Storm Sewers
Problems of Combined Sewer Facilities and Overflows, 1967
(WP-20-11)
Feasibility of a Stabilization-Retention Basin in Lake Erie
at Cleveland, Ohio
The Beneficial Use of Storm Water
Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff, (WP-20-15)
Improved Sealants for Infiltration Control, (WP-20-18)
Selected Urban Storm Water Runoff Abstracts, (WP-20-21)
Sewer Infiltration Reduction by Zone Pumping, (DAST-9)
Strainer/Filter Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows,
(WP-20-16)
Polymers for Sewer Flow Control, (WP-20-22)
Rapid-Flow Filter for Sewer Overflows
Design of a Combined Sewer Fluidic Regulator, (DAST-13)
Combined Sewer Separation Using Pressure Sewers, (ORD-4)
Crazed Resin Filtration of Combined Sewer Overflows, (DAST-4)
Stream Pollution and Abatement from Combined Sewer Overflows •
Bucyrus, Ohio, (DAST-32)
Control of Pollution by Underwater Storage
Storm and Combined Sewer Demonstration Projects -
January 1970
Dissolved Air Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer
Overflows, (WP-20-17)
Proposed Combined Sewer Control by Electrode Potential
Rotary Vibratory Fine Screening of Combined Sewer Overflows,
(DAST-5)
Engineering Investigation of Sewer Overflow Problem -
Roanoke, Virginia
Microstraining and Disinfection of Combined Sewer Overflows
Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Technology
Storm Water Pollution from Urban Land Activity
Combined Sewer Regulator Overflow Facilities
Selected Urban Storm Water Abstracts, July 1968 -
June 1970
Combined Sewer Overflow Seminar Papers
Combined Sewer Regulation and Management - A Manual of
Practice
Retention Basin Control of Combined Sewer Overflows
Conceptual Engineering Report - Kingman Lake Project
Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Alternatives -
Washington, D.C.
------- |