IMPLEMENTATION OF SEWER AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM SOLIDS DEPOSITION CONTROLS, CAMBRIDGE, MASS. William Pisano P.E., Ph.

D, Owen O Rio!"an P.E., F!an# A$o%%e P.E., Dennis Ca!!, P.E., Ma%%hew T!a&e!s P.E., 'ohn (is)on%i, P.E. MW* Ame!i)as, In). +, Fa!nswo!%h S%!ee%, Se)on" Floo! Bos%on, Massa)h-se%%s .,,+. ABSTRACT/ Deposition of solids within flat drainage and sewerage conveyance pipes can result in problematic hydraulic restrictions, potential odor and corrosion conditions, and the initial flush of pollutants and solids to receiving waters. This paper reviews planning, design and operational details for managing problematic sedimentation problems within three new major sewer separation project areas in the City of Cambridge. These projects are elements of the Citys $3 million dollar, ! "year program of area wide sewer separation and storm water management, and cover a combined area of #!$ ha of dense residential, commercial and institutional land uses. Two of the three projects described use passive automatic flushing systems to manage problematic sedimentation problems, while the third project includes a networ% of in"line grit sump manholes, e&tensive catch basin rehabilitation, and isolation structures at river outfalls. The first project described summari'es the design of passive automatic flushing systems installed in the City of Cambridges storm and sanitary sewer system tributary to the (lewife )roo% as part of a $*+ million dollar sewer separation program. ,rit and debris deposition is severe in the e&isting combined sewers, storm drains, and sanitary trun% sewers due to the flat topography of the area. This condition is e&acerbated by hydraulic constraints imposed on the systems outlet by the (lewife )roo% -shallow stream. and downstream sanitary siphons -again because of the (lewife )roo%.. The use of pumps to lift flows from sewers and drains to permit self"scouring velocities is prohibitively e&pensive. To overcome this problem, five automated flushing systems using /uic% opening -hydraulic operated. gates discharging collected storm water are constructed in conjunction with downstream collector grit pits covering a distance of 0$ # m for storm drain pipes ranging from 0.# m circular to 0.! m by 0.1 m rectangular. 2ew #+ mm and $ mm sanitary trun% sewers, +$0 m long are flushed daily by two flushing systems using spent filtrate water from Cambridges water treatment plant recently constructed nearby. The flushing systems are si'ed to achieve wave velocity of 0 m3s the end of the flushing segment. The flush vault volumes range from 00 to # m3 for the storm drain systems and $ m3 for the sanitary system. Construction was completed in 4ay ! ! and functional testing of the flushing systems occurred in ! #. 5artial test results are reported.

This paper also reviews the Crescent Carver sewer separation and storm water management project behind 6arvard 7niversity. This project is an element of a multi"phased program designed to reduce sewage and storm water flooding within a 0$$ ha densely populated residential area. 8i& new storm water off"line retention tan%s totaling +9 m3 have been constructed as the e&isting combined sewer system in the area is over a century old and cannot contain the high rate of storm water and sanitary flow during heavy rainstorms. These conditions result in sewage surcharging from the system causing local area public health and flooding problems. 8everal large diameter sanitary sewers were once used as combined sewers, but in the last several decades were converted to :over and under; storm3sanita ry systems with common manholes. (s part of this wor%, these common manholes were separated. The sanitary conduits are e&tremely flat and sewer solids deposition and odor problems have been problematic. (utomated flushing systems using collected storm water from several catch basins were constructed to flush the $0 mm by 9$! mm sanitary sewers. To date all deposition and odor problems have been eliminated. The third topic reviewed is the Cambrideport improvement program in the southeast portion of Cambridge including the western portion of the 4<T campus area adjacent to the Charles =iver. The objective of this program is to separate combined sewers, eliminate common manholes for over and under storm and sanitary systems (under consent order), reduce inflow to the sanitary sewer system, remove illicit building connections, and increase the storm drain level of service. The area covers 162 ha of residential and light industrial facilities including portions of the MIT campus. HydroWorks modeling of the area indicated a significant lack of storm water conveyance capacity. Modeling had been preceded by an investigation of the condition of the six existing storm water outlets to the Charles River. Diving team investigations discovered that these outfalls were badly silted and several were completely blocked. In an effort to provide limited drainage service about two thirds of the plates within 109 common manholes had been removed over time, allowing drainage to enter the sanitary system, mix, and during severe sanitary sewer surcharge, create in effect CSOs at the storm outfalls. Evidently when the downstream Charles River Dam was constructed last century, the river level permanently rose and submerged over half of the drains, reducing and even eliminating available hydraulic gradients for the flat drains to discharge with scouring velocities. All settleable solids not captured by catch basins would discharge, settle, and only move by bed load transport during major storm events. No means were constructed within the existing drainage system to either isolate the system from the river or to even collect solids by bed load movement. Additional outfall capacity and routine control of storm water solids has to be accomplished before common manholes can be eliminated. The hydraulic model was used to identify problematic :solids depositors;. 4ore than 9 percent of the entire drainage system does not generate pea% velocities of 0 m3s for up to +"year, !#"hour storm events. )ed load movement would be the only way of transporting solids not captured by catch basins to the river. (n elaborate system of in"line grit pits -oversi'ed manholes with 0 m sumps. were designed into the new improvements. <n addition, isolation chambers near the river were designed with slide gates or stop logs -location dependent.. The number of catch basins in the area were doubled and constructed with 0.13 m sumps and floatables hoods. (n elaborate

se/uencing plan was developed to ensure that improved and or new drainage systems had both ade/uate hydraulic conveyance capacity and means for stormwater solids to be captured in place prior to common manhole removals. INTROD0CTION The deposition of sewage solids during dry weather in combined sewers has long been recogni'ed as a major contributor to >first"flush> phenomena. (nother manifestation of :first" flush;, in addition to the scouring of materials already deposited in the lines, is the first flush of loose solid particles on the urban ground surface that are transported into the sewerage system and not trapped by catch basins or inlets. These particulate materials may settle out in the system and be available for scour and re"suspension during wet periods. 8uch materials also create first flush loading from storm drainage systems. Deposition of heavy solids is also a problem in separate sanitary systems and can also result in significant odor and corrosion problems. 8ewer sediments create odor problems due to septic conditions in the sewer that result from the activity of microorganism and anaerobic conditions of the sediment layer. The process begins with the biological reduction of sulfate to sulfide by the anaerobic slime layer residing on pipe and sediment surfaces below the water in wastewater collection systems. The resulting sulfide ion is transformed into hydrogen sulfide gas after pic%ing up two hydrogen ions from wastewater. ?nce released to the sewer atmosphere, aerobic bacteria and fungi that reside on sewer walls and surfaces above the water line consume the hydrogen sulfide gas and secrete sulfuric acid. <n severe instances, the p6 of the pipe can reach .+ under these conditions which causes severe damage to unprotected collection system surfaces and may eventually result in the failure of the sewer -Davis et al. 0**1@ Cho and 4ori, 0**+.. ,enerally if sediments are left to accumulate in pipes, hydraulic restrictions can also result and bloc%ages can eventually occur. <n recent years, considerable attention has focused on appropriate maintenance strategies to maintain sewers free of sediment. Different strategies includeA manual and physical cleaning methods, silt traps and automatic :self"operating; flushing e/uipment. P*YSICAL CLEANING MET*ODS 4anual methods of sediment removal have commonly been employed and these methods usually involve the movement of the sediment to a location for subse/uent removal by mechanical or suction e/uipment. ( number of such methods are discussed below. The most uni/ue e&ample of a manual techni/ue is that employed within the )russels, )elgium sewer system where a wagon incorporating a flushing vane is physically moved along the sewer. The vane disturbs the sediment, which is subse/uently transported with the sewer flow. This successful method evolved due to the :cunette shape; of the sewer inverts. Common sewer cleaning techni/ues include the use of rodding, balling, flushing, poly pigging and buc%et machines. These methods

are used to clear bloc%ages once they have formed, and also as preventative maintenance tools to minimi'e future problems. Bith the e&ception of flushing, these methods are generally used in a >reactive> mode to prevent or clear up hydraulic restrictions. 5ower rodding includes an engine and drive unit, steel rods and a variety of cleaning and driving units. The power e/uipment applies tor/ue to the rod as it is pushed through the line, rotating the cleaning device attached to the lead end. 5ower rodders can be used for routine preventative maintenance, cutting roots and brea%ing up grease deposits. 5ower rodders are efficient for pipes up to 3 mm. )alling is a hydraulic cleaning method in which the pressure of a water head creates high velocity water flow around an inflated rubber"cleaning ball. The ball has an outside spiral thread and swivel connection that causes it to spin, resulting in a scrubbing action of the water along the pipe. )alls can remove settled grit and grease buildup inside the line. This techni/ue is useful for sewers up to $ mm. 5oly pigs, %ites, and bags are used in a similar manner as balls. The rigid rims of bags and %ites cause the scouring action. Bater pressure moves these devices against the tension of restraining lines. The shape of the devices creates a bac%ward jet of water. The poly pig is used for large sanitary sewers and is not restrained by a line, but moves through the pipe segment with water pressure buildup behind it. Cetting is a hydraulic cleaning method that directs high velocities of water against the pipe walls at various angles. The basic jetting machine e/uipment is usually mounted on a truc% or trailer and consists of water supply tan% of at least # D, a high pressure water pump, an au&iliary engine, a powered drum reel holding at least 0+ m of !+ mm hose on a reel having speed and direction controls and a variety of no''les. Cetting is efficient for routine cleaning of small diameter, low flow sewers. <t effectively removes grease buildup and debris. The power buc%et machine is a mechanical cleaning device effective in partially removing large deposits of silt, sand, gravel, and grit. These machines are used mainly to remove debris from a brea% or an accumulation that cannot be cleared by hydraulic methods. 8ilt traps have successfully been used to collect sewer sediments at strategic locations within the system with the traps being periodically emptied as part of a planned maintenance program. The design and operational performance of two e&perimental rectangular -plan. shaped silt traps in sewer systems in Erance was reported by -)ertrand"Frajews%i et al. 0**$.. 8imilar but full scale traps are used in 4arseille -Erance. since the beginning of the 0** where there have been developed and first implemented -Daplace et al. 0**3.. <nformation on design procedures and methodology for silt traps is scarce. The most recent synthesis of %nowledge about Erench traps has been published by -Daplace et al. 0**1.. SEWER FL0S*ING

Elushing of sewers either by manual or by automated means is generally used to reduce hydraulic restriction problems and infre/uently as pollution prevention approach. The concept of sewer flushing is to induce an unsteady waveform by either rapidly adding e&ternal water or creating a >dam brea%> effect by the /uic% opening of a restraining gate. This aim is to re" suspend and transport deposited pollutants to the sewage treatment facility during dry weather and3or to displace solids deposited in the upper reaches of large collection systems closer to the system outlet. During wet weather events these accumulated loads may then be more /uic%ly displaced to the treatment headwor%s before overflows occur or be more efficiently captured by wet weather first flush storage facilities. 4anual methods usually involve discharge from a fire hydrant or /uic% opening valve from a tan% truc% to introduce a heavy flow of water into the line at a manhole. Elushing readily removes organic deposits@ saturated, water logged floatable solids and fine sand and grit, but is not very effective for removing heavy debris. A0TOMATED FL0S*ING E10IPMENT <n recent years three types of commercial automated flushing e/uipment have emerged in Erance and ,ermany. The most commonly used system is the flush gate system that has been recently used in 2orth (merica. -5isano et al. 0**1. provide an in"depth review of flushing gate and pertinent flushing technologies for C8? tan%s and sewerage and drainage conveyance systems. -5isano et al. ! 0. and -5isano et al. ! 3. described design and construction details of the first automated flushing system in Cambridge. *YDRASS This system, developed in Erance -8i%ora, 0*1*., is comprised of a balanced hinged gate with the same shape as the cross section as the sewer. (t low flows the self"weight of the gate holds the gate in the vertical position and the sewer flow builds up behind the gate. The depth of flow continues to build up behind the gate until the force created by the retained water becomes sufficient to tilt the gate. (s the gate pivots about the hinge to a near hori'ontal position, the sewer flow is released and this creates a flush wave, which travels downstream and subse/uently cleans deposited sediment from the invert of the sewer. The gate then returns to the vertical position and the cyclic process is repeated, thus maintaining the sewer free of sediment. ,ates are positioned in series at intervals dictated by the nature, magnitude and location of the sedimentation problem. -Chebbo et al. 0**$. reported the effective operation of the 6GD=(88 system.

*YDROSELF <n ,ermany as of 0**+ over 03, C8? tan%s have been constructed with over + being in" line pipe storage tan%s 0.1 to !.0 m in diameter with lengths of 0!+ to 01 m. 4any different methods for cleaning these pipe storage tan%s were tried over the years. ( popular method used to clean pipe storage facilities as well as conveyance systems is the 6GD=?8HDE system. The 6GD=?8HDE system has been used to clean settled debris in sewers, interceptors, tunnels, and detention tan%s in ,ermany and 8wit'erland. <n Hurope there are over !1 installations in operation since 0*1$. (ppro&imately 39 percent of these projects are designed to flush sewers, interceptors and tunnels ranging from !+ mm to #.3 m in diameter and flushing lengths up to 3# m for large diameter pipes and up to 0 m for small diameter pipes. The balance of these facilities are used in C8? tan%s. This system consists of a hydraulically operated flap gate, a flush water storage area created by the erection of a concrete wall section, a float or pump to supply hydraulic pressure and valves controlled by either a float system or an electronic control panel. The water level in the sewer can be used to activate the release and3or closure of the gate using a permanently sealed float controlled hydraulic system. Bithout e&ternal system control, the flushing system control is designed to operate automatically whenever the in"system water level reaches a pre"determined level, thereby releasing the gate and causing a :dambrea%; flushing wave to occur. (ctivation by remote process control is also possible noting when both the flushing volume chamber has reached a pre"determined level and the downstream discharge level is favorable. Eor large diameter sewers greater than ! m, the flushing system may be installed in the sewer pipe itself. The re/uired storage volume for the flush water is created by erecting two walls within the sewer pipe to form a flush water storage area. Eor the area to remain free of debris, a floor slope of 0 to ! percent must be provided in the storage area. The re/uirements for the storage area slope will determine, in most instances, the ma&imum flushing length possible for a single flush gate. <n order to increase the ma&imum flushing length it is also possible to build additional flush water storage area by creating a rectangular chamber in"line or adjacent to the sewer line itself. ?ne of the largest pipe storage projects using a single flushing chamber is in Bhitten, -near Dortmund. ,ermany -5isano, et al. 0**9. is depicted in Eigure 0, and has been operational since 0**#. The project entails flushing with a single flushing chamber, a rehabilitated bric% storage channel having a diameter of ! m -with a 3 "mm dry weather channel. 99 m long with a slope e/ual to .!! percent. The upstream flushing chamber holds about 3+ m3. 2ormally at least two chambers in series would have been necessary to flush a pipe of this length with this slope. 8ince an e&ternal water supply was readily available it was decided to use a single chamber having the fle&ibility to flush several times during a single operation. The facility went into successful operation in ?ctober 0**$.

VOLUME=35m3

2000mm 300mm

PUMP FEED FROM RIVER

Fi2-!e +3 Fl-shin2 Ga%e Ins%alla%ion Whi%%en, Ge!man$

BIOGEST (AC00M FL0S*ING SYSTEM ( variation of the 6GD=?8HDE is the )<?,H8T system comprised of a concrete storage vault and a vacuum pump system to create a cleaning wave to re"suspend sediment in the sewer invert. The system consists of a flush water storage area, diaphragm valve, vacuum pump, level switches, and a control panel for automatic operation of the system. The water level in the sewer is used to activate the vacuum pump. The vacuum pump evacuates the air volume from the flush chamber and as the air is evacuated the water is drawn in from the sewer and rises in the chamber. The vacuum pumps shuts off when a predetermined level in the flushing vault is reached. ( second level sensor detects the water level in the sewer and activates the flush wave. The flush wave is initiated by opening the diaphragm valve above the flush chamber and subse/uently releasing the vacuum and vault contents. NAT0RE OF SEWER SOLIDS AND SEDIMENT MO(EMENT IN SEWERS The generic term sewer sediment is used to describe any type of settleable particulate material that is found in storm water or sewage and is able to form bed deposits in sewers and associated hydraulic structures. 8ome particles of very small si'e or low density may remain in suspension under all normal flow conditions and would be transported through a sewerage system as wash" load. 8uch particles have a negligible effect on the hydraulic capacity of sewerage systems, but can have an important influence on pollutant loading in the flow and at points of discharge such as treatment wor%s and sewer overflows. 8ewer sediments with low settling velocities may only form deposits during periods of very low flow, and may easily be re"entrained when higher velocities occur in the pipes due either to storms or diurnal variations in flow. )y contrast, larger -inorganic and organic. and denser particles -inorganic with a specific gravity in the range of 0.+ to !.+. are constantly inputted into sanitary systems may only be transported by pea% flows that occur relatively infre/uently. <n some cases, they may form permanent stationary deposits at the point of entry to the sewer system. <f li/uid flows over a sediment bed in a sewer running full or partially full, hydrodynamic lift and drag forces are e&erted on the deposited particles. <f two combined forces do not e&ceed the restoring force, then entrainment occurs, resulting in the movement of the particles at the flow3sediment boundary. 2ot all the particles of a given si'e at the flow3sediment boundary are dislodged and moved at the same time because the flow is turbulent and contains short term fluctuations in velocity. The limiting condition, below which sediment movement is negligible, %nown as the threshold of movement, is usually defined in terms of either the critical bed shear stress or the critical erosion velocity.

?nce sediment has been entrained, it may travel down the sewer in one of two general ways. Einer, lighter material tends to travel in suspension, while heavier material travels in a rolling, sliding mode as bed load. <n the transport of suspended sediment, there is a continuous e&change between particles settling out and those being entrained upwards into the flow. <f the flow velocity or turbulence level decreases, there will be a net reduction in the amount of sediment held in suspension. The material accumulated at the bed may continue to be transported as a stream of particles without deposition. 6owever, below a certain limit, the sediment will form a deposited bed, with transport occurring only in the surface layer -the limit of deposition.. <f the flow velocity is further reduced, sediment transport will cease completely. The flow conditions necessary to prevent deposition depend on the pipe si'e and on properties of the sediment, such as particle si'e and specific gravity. Elocculation of fine particles can also be important. The flow velocities needed to entrain sediment tend to be higher than those at which deposition occurs. (n important parameter in the criteria for sewer self"cleansing is average shear stress. (verage shear stress is the amount of force the fluid e&erts on the wetted perimeter of the pipe. (nother important parameter is bed"shear stress that is the amount of force the fluid e&erts on the bed of sediment in the pipe. )ed"shear stress is related to bed load re"suspension and movement. The deposited sediments will e&hibit additional strength due to cohesion and provided that the pea% DBE velocity or bed"shear stress is of sufficient magnitude to erode these sediments, the sewer will maintain self"cleansing operation at times of DBE. <f this condition is not satisfied, then long"term :mature; sediment beds will form that may be scoured during occasional periods of e&treme flow conditions. -4ay, 0**3., presented a definition to describe an efficient self cleansing sewer as :one having a sediment"transporting capacity that is sufficient to maintain a balance between the amounts of deposition and erosion, with a time"averaged depth of sediment deposit that minimi'es the combined costs of construction, operation and maintenance.; To achieve such self"cleansing performance, these criteria applyA Elows e/ualing or e&ceeding a limit appropriate to the sewer should have the capacity to transport a minimum concentration of fine"grain particles in suspension -applicable for all types of sewerage systems.. The capacity of flows to transport coarser granular material as bed"load should be sufficient to limit the depth of deposition to a specified proportion of the pipe diameter. This criteria generally relates to combined and stormwater systems. Dimit of deposition considerations, i.e., :no deposition; generally applies to sanitary sewer designs. <n this conte&t, there must be sufficient shear forces in sanitary systems to avoid deposition of large particles. Elows with a specified fre/uency of occurrence should have the ability to erode bed particles from a deposited granular bed that may have developed a certain degree of cohesive strength -applicable to all systems..

To meet these criteria, a modified design approach has been developed by the 7nited Fingdom Construction <ndustry =esearch and <nformation (ssociation -C<=<(. for achieving self" cleansing design velocity -(c%ers et al. 0**$.. The C<=<( design guidelines include criteria for the transport of fine"grained material in suspension, the transport of coarser sediments as near bed solids, and the erosion of cohesive sediment deposits as well as guidelines on the minimum flow velocity and pipe gradient for different types and si'es of sewer. Eor instance, results of laboratory testing indicated that the design flow condition should produce a minimum value of bed"shear stress of !. 23m! on a flat bed with a Colebroo% Bhite roughness of 0.! mm -(c%ers et al. 0**$.. The third criterion is of specific interest to the problem of flushing :mature; sediment beds. Iarious researchers have studied the flow conditions re/uired to release particles from a deposited bed, which has developed a degree of cohesion. 8ummaries of investigations forming much of the basis for Criterion 3 areA -2alluri and (lvare',0**!. whose laboratory studies used synthetic cohesive sediments, concluded that there were two ranges of bed"shear stress at which erosion occurredA !.+ 23m!for the wea%est material, comprising a surface layer of fluid sedimentA and $ to 9 23m! for the more granular and consolidated material below. <t was found that, after erosion, the synthetic cohesive sediments behaved very much li%e non"cohesive material. -=istenpart and 7hl, 0**3. found in field tests that during dry weather an average bed"shear stress of .9 23m! was re/uired to initiate erosion, increasing to an average of about !.3 23m! during wet weather, or to 3.3 23m! after a prolonged period of dry weather and presumably, consolidation of the deposited bed. -(shley and Crabtree, 0**!. have suggested that the bonds between particles at the surface of a deposited bed are wea%ened by the presence of the water, so that surface layers can be successively stripped away by the flow. 4easurements in the Dundee, 8cotland sewers indicated that it began to move at a fluid"shear stress of about 0. 23m!, with significant erosion of a deposited bed occurring at bed"shear of !. to 3. 23m!. Ta%ing account of a review of wor% by other researchers, it was concluded that most deposits should be eroded at a shear stress e&ceeding $. to 9. 23m!. <n terms of flow velocity, it appears that velocities in e&cess of 0. m3s are needed to scour :juvenile; consolidated sediment beds. ?ne rule"of" thumb used in Hurope for designing flushing systems assumes that the pea% velocity at the end of segment being flushed is at least 0. m3s.

Consideration of the above recent C<=<( criteria indicates that minimum flow velocity of 0 m3s be reali'ed on an average basis, and fluid shear stress levels should fre/uently e/ual or e&ceed ! 23m! to scour and carry away consolidated sediment beds. These criteria form the technical basis for the design of flushing systems in Cambridge.

FRES* POND PAR4WAY SEWER SEPARATION PRO'ECT/ STORM DRAIN AND SANITARY SEWER FL0S*ING SYSTEMS ?ver the last twenty years, the City of Cambridge has aggressively separated old combined and over -storm. and under -sanitary. sewerage systems throughout the city to enhance drainage service and to improve the water /uality in the (lewife )roo% and the Charles =iver. 5resently, the City is in the construction phase of separating a 0 ha catchment %nown as C(4 # north west of 6arvard 8/uare and within a highly urbani'ed and heavily traveled area. Eigure ! depicts this catchment.

Fi2-!e , Th!ee Ci%$ o5 Cam6!i"2e S%-"$ A!eas ,rit deposition within both e&isting sewerage and storm drainage systems is a major problem because of general flatness of the area, the use of siphons in the collection system, and the high bac%water levels that occur in the receiving water bodies during wet weather conditions, which fre/uently bac%waters into the storm systems. The e&isting and recently constructed storm drains on Eresh 5ond 5ar%way and Concord (venue have invert slopes of appro&imately . 3 to . +. Deposition of the stormwater solids that are not captured by the surface best

management practices -)45s. and discharge into these conduits would be severe. 8ince no chemical salting during winter conditions can be tolerated in the low, flat Eresh 5ond =eservation watershed, heavy winter sanding only e&acerbates potential deposition problems. To overcome this problem, automated flushing systems using /uic% opening -hydraulic operated. flushing gates to discharge collected stormwater will flush grit and debris to downstream enlarged manholes with open grit pits. ,rit pits are not provided on the sanitary systems being flushed. The storm drain and sanitary sewer systems to be flushed are located along the eastern side of the Eresh 5ond =eservoir. They start near the Cambridge Bater Treatment 5lant -CBT5., continue east to Concord Circle and then northeast to the Eresh 5ond Circle. )oth systems then proceed down Bheeler 8treet. 8ee Eigure 3 of the general locus plan showing locations for the two sanitary sewer and two storm drain flushing vaults.

Fi2-!e 7 8 Fl-shin2 (a-l%s o5 %he F!esh Pon" Pa!#wa$ Sewe! Se9a!a%ion P!o:e)% The piping systems consist of appro&imately +$0 m of sanitary trun% sewers, ranging from #$ mm to $ mm, and appro&imately 0$ # m of storm drains with pipe si'es ranging from * mm to 0.! m by 0.1 m. 5ertinent design information for the flushing systems is provided in Table 0.

Ta6le + 3 Desi2n In5o!ma%ion S-mma!$ F!esh Pon" Pa!#wa$ Fl-shin2 P!o2!am

Si%e

Downs%!eam Fl-she" Pi9e Diame%e! ;m<

Drain Iault J0 .*0 to 0.39 Drain Iault J! 0. $ Drain Iault J3 0.39 Drain Iault J# 0.!! by 0.13 -)o&. Drain Iault J+ 0.13 To%al D!ain (a-l%s 8anitary Iault J0 .#$ 8anitary Iault J! .$ To%al Sani%a!$ (a-l%s

Fl-shin2 Len2%h ;m< 39$ !0! !03 3#+ #+1 +=.> 0*# 3$9 ?=+

Fl-sh (ol-me ;+... L< 09.# 00.3 0!.+ !!.9 3*.9 +.7.= +.9 $.1 +,.?

The flushing volumes for the storm drain vaults noted in Table 0 were developed as followsA <nformation regarding pipe si'e, roughness, shape, slope, distance between location of flushing vault and the downstream receiving grit pit were provided to the 6GD=?8HDE e/uipment vendors, ,rande, 2ovac and (ssociates, <nc. 5roprietary flushing volume si'ing rules have been developed in ,ermany based on a combination of physical modeling, mathematical modeling and empirical visual observations of prototype pipe flushing installations using rapid opening flush gate and other conventional more slowly opening valve schemes. The salient feature of the flushing gate technology is the ability of the gate to be nearly instantaneously unlatched, to fully open, and to create a flush wave with rapid initial velocities. The flush wave is designed to have a depth of appro&imately + to 9+ mm and a velocity range between .* to 0.! m3s at the end of pipe segment being flushed. )ased on this information, the vendor provided the recommended flushing volumes. These volumes were then adjusted upwards by 0+"! percent by the designers where feasible, to account for uncertainty, e&pected high amount of sand used during winter operations on Eresh 5ond 5ar%way, and the e&treme space limitations imposed by other utilities within the Eresh 5ond 5ar%way. <t is noteworthy that fourteen other utilities share the same four" lane corridor. Elushing volumes for the sanitary sewers were also similarly upsi'ed. Custification for providing flushing systems for the new $ provided in Table !. mm sanitary trun% sewer system is

Ta6le , 3 Desi2n Flow @ (elo)i%$ E&al-a%ion =.. mm Sani%a!$ T!-n# Sewe! F!esh Pon" Pa!#wa$ Sani%a!$ Sewe! S$s%em

4easured Elows -00 months.

Elow -D3s.

Ielocity -m3s. .93 .+1 .+$

8hear -23m!. 0.1 0.3 0.0

5ea% Daily Dry Beather Elow 9* (verage Gearly Dry Beather Elow 39 (verage 8ummer Dry Beather Elow !1

(verage pea% dry weather and pea% infiltration flow velocities throughout most of the year e&cluding inflow periods will not approach 0 m3s as a limit. 5ea% daily velocity and shear stress conditions for the upstream #+ mm sanitary trun% sewer are less than the estimates provided for the downstream $ mm sanitary sewer noted in Table !. The design criteria for the project was to achieve was to achieve, minimum velocity and minimum average shear stress levels of 0 m3s and ! 23m! be reali'ed on a regular basis for the sanitary systems. <n addition to the low discharge velocities, the wastewater tributary to the Eresh 5ond 5ar%way and Concord (venue sanitary system is unusual for two reasons. Eirst, the waste contains high /uantities of fats, oils and grease -E?,. discharged into the sewers from the numerous restaurants in the catchment. Bhile a rigorous E?, program is in place, complete control is not possible. ,rease buildups have been a significant problem and are e&pected to continue. 8econd, the new CBT5 will dispose -by permit. filtration bac%wash process waste on a daily basis into the sanitary sewer system. This waste contains high levels of silt within a congealed matri& of coagulants and other flocculent aids. 8ince the new sewers will be fairly flat in the area, significant deposition problems e&acerbated by the combination of E?, and CBT5 process wastes are e&pected. The new storm drain system consisted of e&isting drains, rehabilitated combined sewers, and a new bo& culvert. This system was designed to handle a 0 year storm having a pea intensity of +1 mm3h. The design criteria for this system to be self cleansing was to obtain pea% flow velocities of at least 0 m 3s for the 3 month storm event. The 78 H5( 8B44 HKT=(2 model was used to simulate system flows for the trun% sewers for the regional 3"month storm having a pea% hourly intensity e/ual to 0 mm 3 h with a total rainfall depth of + mm. The modeling results indicated that pea% velocities for the new storm drain system did not e&ceed .+ m 3 s. Elow velocities for lesser, more fre/uent storms will be even smaller and more problematic with respect to solids deposition. (utomated flushing systems with downstream grit collection manholes were therefore provided. Eigure # illustrates the proposed new sewerage and drainage system piping at the intersection of Eresh 5ond 5ar%way and Da%eview (venue. 8anitary Iault 2o.0 and Drain Iault 2o.! are also depicted in closer detail in Eigure #. 5umped process -bac%wash. filtrate flow from the new Cambridge BT5 is daily pumped into 8anitary Iault 2o.0. This vault is filled and overflow continues 0*# m down to 8anitary Iault 2o. !. This scheme is used in lieu of an e&ternal water

source to flush the sanitary trun% sewers. )oth vaults will be flushed at least once daily. Controls at both vaults are programmed to flush in se/uence once full.

Fi2-!e > 3 Sani%a!$ an" D!ain (a-l% Ins%alla%ion on F!esh Pon" Pa!#wa$ During a rainfall event, stormwater from the incoming storm drain to Drain Iault 2o. ! -as shown in Eigure #. fills the sump adjacent to the flush chamber. 8ubmersible pumps then pump stormwater from the sump into the flush chamber. ( level sensor within the flushing volume chamber relays water level data to the 5DC in the control panel which terminates pump operation

when the chamber reaches a predetermined fill elevation. ( level sensor in the downstream storm drain notes when the water level in down stream drain in sufficiently low to initiate the flushing operation. (ctivation of the hydraulic power pac% then causes the flush gate to unlatch creating the flush wave. ?nce the system has been activated it is possible to repeat the process during a multi"pea%ed storm event. ( generic !#"hour time cloc% function adds an additional level of operational fle&ibility. Eor e&ample it is possible to interrogate the system !# hours after the first flush to unlatch any partially filled flush volumes. This procedure is the same for all other drain vaults. (n adjustable bottom acting gate on the side of the entrance to the pump wet well controls the depth of storm flow entry. This feature can be used to ensure that the vault is not filled with base flows and that bed load sediment is presented from entering the sump during storm events. The four receiving grit pits have been si'ed to provide ma&imum capture volume given the e&traordinary spatial site constraints along the par%way. (verage capture volume per pit is about 3 m3. <nspection of the grit pits is programmed on a biannual basis with clean out annually. The initial phase of functional testing of the flushing systems commenced in 4ay ! 5reliminary testing results are noted in Table 3. !.

Ta6le 7 3 Downs%!eam Dis%an)es 5!om Fl-shin2 (a-l%s an" Wa&e (elo)i%$ F-n)%ional Tes%in2 Res-l%s, Ma$ ,.., 8ite Docation 0 Distance from Iault -m. 013 !0! 0!1 0+*0 !1! 0*# !33 Docation ! Distance from Iault -m. 39$ 23( !03 3#+ #+1! 23( 3$93

8torm Iault J0 8torm Iault J! 8torm Iault J3 8torm Iault J# 8torm Iault J+ 8anitary Iault J0 8anitary Iault J!

Bave Ielocity -m3s. 0.9! 0.+ !.1# 0.9$ 0.$ 0.9+ !.#3

Bave Ielocity -m3s. .1# 23( !.!# .+! 23( 23( 0.#!

2otesA 0. 5artial obstruction within pipe segment. !. Iertical pipe sag and deposits within pipe segment. 3. 5artial restriction near end of pipe segment.

The test procedure involved noting the elapsed time between flush onset and sighting of the flush wave at intermediate and terminus flushing segment locations. The flush vaults were filled during dry weather with water from fire hydrants. (verage velocities from two separate trials are also reported in Table 3. Bith the e&ception of results for Drain Iaults 2o. # and 2o. +, the flush velocities at the end of the flush segments e&ceeded design e&pectations. (dditional pipe cleaning and invert repair wor% for drains downstream of the Drain Iaults 2o. # and 2o. +, and the last 3 m of the sanitary trun% sewer downstream of 8anitary Iault 2o. ! will be completed prior to final functional testing. 4echanical performance and readiness statuses of these facilities are inspected on a /uarterly basis. To date the operation has been satisfactory. 2ormal wear and tear :parts replacement; of several of the storm water fill pumps has occurred. <n general, the City reports that the /uarterly visual inspections of the conduits indicate relatively clean conduits. CRESCENT CAR(ER AAREA +7 SEWER SEPARATION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRO'ECT The Crescent"Carver stormwater management project is located in northwest Cambridge within a sewershed catchment called :(rea 03 : and is appro&imately 0$$ ha in si'e. 8ee Eigure !. This catchment is bounded by 4assachusetts (venue to the west, )eacon 8treet in 8omerville, 5orter 8/uare to the north, and the Charles =iver to the south. Docated within the upper portion of the catchment is the 2orth Gard and 8cience Gard of 6arvard 7niversity, Desley College, and an e&tremely dense comple& of residential homes and apartment buildings. The main corridors for traffic, all utilities, drainage and sewerage are along ?&ford 8treet and Fir%land 8treet. Topographically, the area is fairly flat which hinders surface drainage efficiency. 8evere surface flooding and sewer surcharging above street level occurs during major storm events. The area includes 0#+ ha of natural topographic depression area in the Crescent3Carver 8treet area. 4uch of the area north of the 8cience and 2orth yards of 6arvard 7niversity are filled pine swamps with )eacon 8treet on the east as high ground. 8everal of the lowest topographic areas within the City are actually in this area. Elooding problems are e&tremely severe in the Crescent3Carver 8treet area. The root cause of the drainage problems within the upper portion of the catchment is the lac% of ade/uate trun% drain conveyance to capture e&cess runoff and discharge to the Charles =iver. The e&isting 0.!! m by 0.39 m combined trun% sewer passing underneath 6arvard 7niversity campus can only convey the !"year storm without surface flooding occurring that is mi&ed with sewage from surcharging combined sewers. This trun% sewer passes directly under the 6arvards Bidener Dibrary, one of the largest in the world. 5ublic health is a major concern during severe rainstorms. 4ost of the e&isting combined systems in the area were constructed in the late 01 s. The spatial density of catchbasins within the area is e&tremely sparse, on the order of 0 basin per .90 ha. Iery few of the basins have deep sumps for grit collection. 8evere sedimentation, odor, and pipe corrosion and collapse problems have been reported and are problematic throughout the entire area.

?ver the last two decades, on the lower portion of the catchment the City of Cambridge has completed sewer separation and has constructed a new 0.13 m drain to collect separated storm flows from this lower area. Conveyance of storm flows from the upper area connected into the 0.13 m drain to the Charles =iver will be problematic. 6ydraulic analysis of the entire system indicates that overall a 3" to #"year design service for the entire area will result. Construction of a new major drainage outlet in e&cess of !.## m diameter to convey the flows generated by the !+" year storm would be needed from the Charles =iver up to at least the Fir%land 8treet area to augment the capacity of the 0.13 m storm drain. Construction of this outfall would result in major disruption of 6arvard 8/uare area in its entirety, 6arvard 7niversity -the 8cience Gard, the 2orth Gard, 6arvard Gard and the downstream dormitories below 4assachusetts (venue.. This new pipe would also re/uire a major storm water pump station at its downstream terminus at the Charles =iver since a gravity outlet of this magnitude at river bottom elevation would cause significant erosion negatively impacting water /uality and would li%ely interfere with recreational boating in this area. This solution is simply not feasible. The uni/ue feature of the preferred area wide solution within the 0$$ ha entails construction of 09,3 m3 of new underground, storm water storage facilities in streets within highly congested urban neighborhoods. These improvements are coupled together with the optimi'ed storm water conveyance system to provide !+"year, !#"hour storm protection for the entire area. The proposed storm water collection system includes the utili'ation of the 0.13 m storm drain as the main conveyance pipe and the construction of a composite pipe within the e&isting 0.!! m by 0.39 m combined sewer that will carry storm water and sanitary wastewater in separate sections through 6arvard Gard. To date, three storm water management projects entailing underground storage facilities have been already constructed. H&tensive catch basin rehabilitation programs were accomplished in each of the completed project areas, upgrading the density of catch basin to 0 basin per .! ha. The first project within the 8cott"6olden area solved flooding problems in one of the lowest topographic depressions in Cambridge. The ne&t most problematic area is the Crescent 3 Carver area. Dast year a third storm water tan% was constructed on )eacon 8treet on the Cambridge 8omerville border. The Crescent 3 Carver project area e&tends south from Hustis 8treet down to Erancis 8treet and generally bounded by )eacon 8treet and ?&ford 8treet. The storm water management program for this area involved installation of three underground storage tan%s with post event pump out capabilities@ a new drain along Carver 8treet between Crescent 8treet and Erancis 8treet, and surface enhancements. These facilities have provided immediate relief to the current flooding problems in the areas of Carver 8treet and Crescent 8treet. 2ew underground infrastructure systems -water, gas, sewers and local drains. have also been constructed. <n some areas, the e&isting combined sewers have been rehabilitated using slip lining and cured"in"place methods. Eigure + shows the system components of the project including the storage tan%s and flush vaults.

Fi2-!e ? 8 C!es)en% 8 Ca!&e! A!ea S%o!a2e Tan#s an" Fl-sh (a-l%s ?ne uni/ue feature of the project is the underground storage facilities. 8urface flows from catch basins and or overflows from diversion structures from new drain discharge into the storage basin during an event. Eollowing an event, the storage basin is de"watered when the downstream pipe has sufficient capacity available. The decision rule for pump"out is relatively simple. <nterloc%ing level sensors activate small pumps -39+ to 9+ l3m. without standby power. The distinct advantage of this technology is its operational simplicity, which has an enormous benefit in areas of high property value. (nother benefit of this type of tan%age concept is that both a high degree of fine settleable solids and floatables controls are provided by the pump"out facilities. The storage tan%s are constructed of pre"cast 3.$+ m & 3. # m bo& culvert sections with :v; shaped floors to enhance movement of sediment. 8ince the pump"out occurs typically 1 to0! hours after storm events much settlement of fine materials will occur. The small pumps will not create sufficient scouring velocities to re"suspend settled materials. 7sing fire hoses these materials can be periodically scoured on a semi"annual basis and moved to an end sump for removal using catch basin cleaning e/uipment. To date, visual observations within the tan%s indicate that the intensive catch basin program within the vicinity of the tan% has resulted in very little sediment accumulations.

8everal large diameter sanitary sewers once used as combined sewers but in the last several decades were converted to : ?ver and 7nder; storm sanitary systems with common manholes. (s part of this wor%, these over and under systems with missing plates were separated. These conduits are e&tremely flat and sewer solids deposition and odor issues have been problematic. Two automated flushing systems utili'ing collected stormwater from several catchbasins were constructed to flush the # mm by +3 mm and the +3 mm by 90 mm sanitary sewers. To date all deposition and odor problems have disappeared. This project received the 2ational (CHC ! 3 Design (ward in the :<nnovative; category. Details are provided below. CRESCENT3CAR(ER FL0S* (A0LTS There are two sanitary sewer flush vaults installed in the Crescent"Carver neighborhood of Cambridge, 4(. The purpose of the flush vaults is to flush sediments from relatively flat sanitary sewers in the project area during and after rain events. The vaults are situated to wor% in series where upstream sediments are flushed to the downstream flush vault and then pushed further down system by the second vault. The flush vaults were designed to automatically scour sediments from appro&imately $ m of # mm & +3 mm and +3 mm & 90 mm sanitary sewers. Eigure + shows the location of the flush vaults and target sewers in the Crescent"Carver neighborhood. FL0S* (A0LT DETAILS The two flush vaults are located on 8acramento 8treet. Elush Iault 2o. 0 is situated near the intersection with ?&ford 8treet at the upstream end of the sanitary sewer system and Elush Iault 2o. ! is located at the intersection with Carver 8treet downstream of the first flush vault. =efer Eigure + for the locations of the vaults and the sanitary sewer networ%. Hach flush vault is a pre"cast concrete structure with two chambers. ( hydraulically activated flush gate separates the larger flush water storage area from the outlet structure. The floors of the storage areas are sloped 0+ percent towards the flush gate to provide energy for the flush wave and allow drainage of the storage area. The vaults are charged with rainwater through dedicated catch basins. Eigure $ shows the plan and section of a typical flush vault installed in the Crescent L Carver project area.

Fi2-!e = 8 Plan an" Se)%ion o5 T$9i)al Fl-sh (a-l% Table # shows the overall dimensions of each flush vault install in the Crescent L Carver neighborhood and lists the storage capacity.

Ta6le > 8 Sa)!amen%o S%!ee% Fl-sh (a-l% Dimensions an" Ca9a)i%ies 8ite Elush Iault 2o. 0 Elush Iault 2o. ! Dength -m. +. $.9+ Bidth -m. !.+ 3. Depth -m. !.9+ !.9+ 8torage Iolume -D. +,+# 00,!

The operational logic for each flush vault is identical. There are two level indicating transmitters associated with the structures that transmit level readings to an on"site control panel. ?ne is located in the flush water storage area upstream of the flush gate and another just downstream of the flush gate in the vault outlet structure. The system is designed to activate when there is a high level reading in the storage vault and a low level reading in the outlet structure. Bhen this situation occurs, the hydraulically activated flush gates open and release the flush wave into the downstream sanitary sewers. 8ince Elush Iault 2o.0 is located at the upper end of the sanitary sewer networ% it releases first and flushes sediments downstream of Elush Iault 2o. ! which then flushes the combined sediments further down the system to the 4B=( trun% sewers. Iisual observations during performance testing in ! 3 indicated that the flush waves near the end of each flushing segment were well in e&cess of 0 m3s. 4echanical performance and readiness statuses of these facilities are inspected on a /uarterly basis. To date the operation has been satisfactory. CAMBRIDGEPORT COMMON MAN*OLE @ STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM <n 0*** the City of Cambridge desired to fast trac% a 4assachusetts 6ighway initiative involving major surface improvements along 8idney 8treet, a major north south traffic corridor in Cambridgeport adjacent to the 4<T campus. This new surface improvement program would be part of the infrastructure improvement program needed to service much of 4<Ts new multi" million"dollar initiatives for new science and research facilities. 7nfortunately, much of the underground storm and sewerage systems in the area were in dismal physical condition and little was %nown about the detail of the system. 5ortions were combined but much of the 0$! ha were serviced by storm under sanitary systems with separation plates in common manholes removed. Typically 8tate of 4assachusetts surface restoration projects re/uire that no new or replacement of utilities be constructed for a ten year period. <n addition, the City was under consent order by the 4assachusetts DH5 to separate all common manholes as run off from the area directly impacts the highly visible and utili'ed Charles =iver shore line with several adjoining par%s.

<n !

4B6 prepared a fast trac% master plan for the area with flow gauging, mapping, TI inspection and facility planning followed by a 6ydroBor%s analysis of the storm water drainage system presently servicing the entire 0$! ha area. The evaluation indicated a significant lac% of storm water conveyance capacity. 8torm water and sanitary system improvements were identified which will provide collection, conveyance and discharge capacity for the !+"year design storm. These improvements were mostly located within three catchments -(mesbury 8treet, Hndicott 8treet, and Talbot 8treet.. These catchments include combined sewer areas -to be separated to create both sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems. and a partially separated sewer areas -e&isting storm drainage pipes located over the sanitary pipes..

5erformance of an area"wide hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the storm water system presently servicing the entire 0$! ha Cambridgeport area indicated a significant lac% of stormwater conveyance capacity. 8tormwater and sanitary system improvements located within the project area were identified. These improvements provided collection, conveyance and discharge capacity for the !+"year !#"hour design storm -8oil Conservation Type <<< rainfall distribution. with a hydraulic grade line of .9$ m or more below the ground surface. The 6ydroBor%s model was used to analy'e and to confirm the hydraulic design of the recommended stormwater collection system pipe si'es and alignments. 6ydrologic analyses were also performed to identify the number and location of catch basin inlets re/uired to collect stormwater runoff from the design storm without adversely impacting the traveled way. The proposed stormwater system within the area consists of predominantly 31 mm to 0.39 m diameter conduits located appro&imately 3 m below grade. These area wide drainage improvements are being constructed in three phases. The entire set of outfalls, e&isting and proposed, is interconnected so the hydraulic system acts as a whole. =emoval of one outfall dramatically decreases the level of service within the entire area. <t is important to note that a portion of the outfall system must be in place prior to ma%ing fully operational the new surface improvement project. The initial phase of wor% will be completed by the end of ! +. The second phase will commence in early ! $. The area"wide hydraulic analysis had been preceded by an investigation of the condition of the various stormwater outlets to the Charles =iver from this area. The diving teams investigations discovered that these outfalls were badly silted and several completely bloc%ed. Two of the si& outfalls were not functional. To provide limited drainage service two thirds of the common manhole plates over time had been removed. Hvidently when the Charles =iver Dam was constructed last century, the level of the river permanently rose by about .9$ m -tidal. otherwise reducing and even eliminating available hydraulic gradients for the flat drains to discharge with scouring velocities under these submerged conditions. (ll settleable solids not captured by catchbasins would discharge under /uiescent conditions, settle, and only move by bed load transport during major storm events. There were no means within the e&isting drainage system to either isolate the system from the river or to even collect solids by bed load movement.

The 6ydroBor%s model was used to analy'e to identify problematic :solids depositors;. 4ore than 1+ percent of the entire modeled drainage system -310 mm and larger. would not generate pea% velocities of 0 m3s for the 3"month event. 4ore than 9 percent of the entire modeled drainage system -310mm and larger. would not generate pea% velocities 0 m3s for the +"year, !#" hour storm event. 8ee Table +. )ed load movement would be the only way of transporting solids not captured by catchbasins to the river. (n elaborate system of in"line grit pits -oversi'ed manholes with three foot sumps. were designed into the new improvements. <n addition, isolation chambers with slide gates or stop logs -location dependent. were designed at the outfall locations. (ll e&isting and 3or new catchbasins would be constructed to have 0.13 m sumps and floatables hoods.

Ta6le ? 3 Cam6!i"2e9o!% S%o!mwa%e! Con&e$an)e Ne%wo!# Final Mas%e!9lan Con"i%ions Mo%i&a%ion 5o! In%ensi&e S%o!mwa%e! TSS BMP P!o2!am Cambridgeport Ielocity Distribution -6ydrowor%s. 5ercentage of 4odeled 5ipes with 5ea% Ielocity Ielocity -m3s. 3"month 0"year !"year +"year 0 "year !+" year M .3 !1 !! 09 0# 03 00 .3 L .9$ #* #! # 39 3# 30 .9$ L 0. 9 0$ !# !# !$ !3 !! 0. 9 L 0.$1 9 * 0$ !0 !+ 3 N 0.$1 ! ! 3 + 9 Considering the general flatness of the Cambridgeport area, the number of e&isting catch basins is inade/uate to effectively capture street runoff for discharge to the subsurface conveyance systems. Table $ presents the number of e&isting catch basins for the entire area. The range of area served per catch basin for different sub catchments varied from .!1 ha3 catch basin to .## ha 3catch basin. The ade/uacy of the e&isting catch basins within the entire Cambridgeport area was initially reviewed by field reconnaissance. Ta6le = 3 N-m6e! o5 Ca%)h Basins in %he Cam6!i"2e9o!% A!ea H&isting 5roposed Density Catch )asins -ha 3c.b.. Total 033.+ 3#+ .3* 3!9 2otesA Density O (rea3sum of e&isting and proposed catch basins Docation (rea -ha. H&isting Catch )asins 5roposed Density0 -ha3c.b.. .!

The overall proposed number of catch basin and areal densities are also noted in Table $. The average acreage per catch basin in the future proposed condition for the Cambridgeport area is .! ha 3basin. This density is commensurate with other areas in Cambridge that are presently undergoing sewer separation with greatly enhanced level of stormwater service. <t is noteworthy that increasing the relative number of catch basins for stormwater runoff capture also increases the capture and retention of particulate solids. H&perimental physical modeling and empirical testing of catch basins indicates a pronounced decrease in solids retained with increased flows to basins. -5itt,0*1+. measured the solids removal effectiveness of 0 catch basins and concluded that solids removal is principally a function of the rate of incoming gutter flow. =emoval rates approach #+ percent when the inflow is discharging less than 0.#! D3s and is negligible for flow rates in e&cess of #!.+D3s. -Dager et al.,0*99. reported physical modeling results for grit removals in catch basins, which appro&imate 5itts results. Eor e&ample, e&pected removal of fine sand -0!+ micron. would be reduced from $+ percent to 0+ percent if incoming flow increased from 9.0 D3s to #+.3 D3s. This information is used as justification for the proposed high density of catch basins within the Cambridgeport area. The new catch basin locations are based on the results of field reconnaissance, such as topographical low points or areas that may be prone to flooding, and the design re/uirement to provide inlet capacity to capture runoff from the !+"year storm. The number and location of proposed catch basins will be determined during final designs of on"going improvement projects. The ultimate objective is to provide new catch basins and rehabilitate e&isting catch basins as part of continuing infrastructure improvements. Eor e&ample, new catch basins will be constructed and e&isting catch basins rehabilitated at intersections re/uiring common manhole replacement. The same is true for localised traffic calming or other street improvements. Bhen related wor% is constructed, catch basin wor% will be included. 8ince the outfalls of the e&isting system are currently filled with silt and sediment, problematic sedimentation and deposition can still be e&pected in e&isting and new outfalls added for additional conveyance. Therefore, flow velocities for less intense, more fre/uent storms will be slower and more problematic with respect to solids deposition. The system"wide 6ydroBor%s model was used to calculate drainage system velocities for the 3"month storm event. The 3" month storm was used because * percent of the annual runoff for an area with a high degree of :connectiveness; occurs for storms with a recurrence interval of 3"month or less. 5ipe segments included in the model were trun% drains 310 mm and larger. The results were reviewed to note pipe segments with a flow velocity of .9$ m3s or less. (ppro&imately 9 percent of the storm drain system pipes have a pipe velocity less then .9$ m3s for the 3"month storm and !1 percent have a velocity less then .3 m3s. 8ediment deposition control using grit pits at critical locations within these areas was considered. (ll modeled pipes with an invert less then the Charles =iver water surface elevation were included within the subset of critical pipes. The grit pits were designed to be open depressions in pre" cast concrete manholes with depths no greater than 0 m.

To date nine such pits have been constructed as part of the 8idney 8treet surface improvement project. These devices will also be incorporated into future design projects in the Cambridgeport area. <solation structures are proposed at outfalls near the river. The isolation structures will provide the ability to isolate and dewater these sections of the system for pipe cleaning and maintenance. Hach isolation structure will incorporate a grit pit for sediment storage. To date three such facilities have been constructed.

(n elaborate se/uencing plan was developed to ensure that improved and 3or new drainage systems had both ade/uate hydraulic conveyance capacity and means for stormwater solids capture in place prior to common manhole removals. Bor% will continue over the ne&t 1 years with an e&pected e&penditure of $3 million.

CONCL0SIONS Deposition of solids within flat drainage and sewerage conveyance pipes can result in problematic hydraulic restrictions, potential odor and corrosion conditions, and the initial flush of pollutants and solids to receiving waters. This paper reviews methods and e/uipment for cleansing and flushing deposited sediments in pipe inverts. Details of a recently completed sewer separation project in Cambridge 4assachusetts are presented describing the design and implementation of seven automated pipe flushing systems which use /uic% opening -hydraulic operated. gates discharging stored waters from off"line vaults ranging in si'e from $ to # m3. These systems are used to re"suspend and transport deposited solids in 0$ m of large flat storm drains and +$0 m of new sanitary sewage trun% sewers. 5reliminary functional testing indicate that the passive flushing systems create flush waves having velocities in e&cess of 0 m3s at the terminus of the flushing segments. The e&tensive )45 catchbasin programs initiated in all three areas appear to provide a solid first line defense in the overall storm water solids management program AC4NOWLEGDEMENTS The authors owe special than%s to Christopher 4 )rown, 4B6 (mericas for the design layout of all three referenced projects. 4B6 (mericas participated in the overall civil design wor% for the C(4 # and (rea 03 projects with 8H( Consultants, <nc. Thomas =itchie, )runo Cardiarelli, David (rthur, Iincent 8pada, and Cohn 8tru''iery of 8H( Consultants helped prepared the design documents and manage engineering services during construction programs. Cohn 2ardone, Douis 4othon, and Cames Bilco&, City of Cambridge Department of 5ublic Bor%s provided invaluable insights during the construction phase of wor%.

REFERENCES (c%ers, C.C.@ )utler, D.@ 4ay, =.B.5. -0**$. Design of Sewers to Control Sediment Problems, =eport 0#0, Construction <ndustry =esearch and <nformation (ssociation, Dondon, Hngland. (rthus, 8.@ (shley, =.4. -0**1. The <nfluence of 2ear )ed 8olids Transport on Eirst Eoul Elush in Combined 8ewers. Water. Sci. Techn. 7B -0., 030031. (shley, =.4.@ Crabtree, =.B. -0**!. 8ediment ?rigins, Deposition and )uild"up in Combined 8ewer 8ystems. Water Sci. Techn. ,? -1., 00!. )ertrand"Frajews%i C.@ 4adiec 6.@ 4oine ?.@ 6eneau T.@ Tougne 5.@ 8chaal C. -0**$. (ssessment of H&perimental )ed Doad 8ediment Traps to =eplace 7sual ,rit Chambers in 8ewer 8ystems, 9th <nt. Conf. 7rban 8torm Drainage, 6annover, ,ermany, !, 939"9#!. Chebbo ,.@ Daplace D.@ )achoc (., 8anche' G.@ De ,uennec ). -0**$. Technical 8olutions Hnvisaged in 4anaging 8olids in Combined 8ewer 2etwor%s, Water Sci. Technol., 77 -*., !39" !3#. Cho, F.@ 4ori T.-0**+..( 2ewly <solated Eungus 5articipates in the Corrosion of Concrete 8ewer 5ipes, Water Sci. Technol. 7+ -9., !$3"!90. Davis C.@ 2ica D.@ 8hields F.@ =oberts D. -5atent for the 6ydrass gate.. -0**1. (nalysis of Concrete from Corrode 8ewer 5ipe, Int. Bio-deterioration Biodegradation , >,, 9+"1#. Ean H. @ Eield, =.@ 5isano B.@ )arsanti, C.@ Coyce C., 8orenson 6. -! 0. 8ewer and Tan% Elushing for 8ediment, Corrosion, and 5ollution Control, J. Water Resources Planning !anagement, >7, +#"19. Dager, C.@ 8mith B.,.@Tchobanoglous ,. -0*99. Catchbasin Technology ?verview and (ssessment, H5("$ 3!"99" +0, Cincinnati, ?6. Daplace D.@ )achoc (.@ 8anche' G.-0**3. 8olutions techni/ues pour gerer les depots en collecteurs visitables -Technical solutions to manage sewer solids in man entry sewers., 584, -0 ., +0*"+!3 -in Erench.. Daplace D.@ )ertrand"Frajews%i C.@ Chebbo ,.@ Eelou'is D. -0**1. Des pieges a charriageAde la theorie a la prati/ue -)ed load trapsA from theory to practice., 5roceedings of 2?I(THC6 *1, Dyon Erance !, 3!*"33$ -in Erench.. 4ay, =.B.5. -0**3.. Sediment Trans"ort in Pi"es and Sewers with De"osited Beds, =eport 8=3! , 6= Ballingford Dtd., Ballingford, Hngland.

2alluri, C@ (lvare', H.4. -0**!. The <nfluence of Cohesion on 8ediment )ehavior, Wat. Sci. Tech.# ,? -1. 0+00$#. 5isano B.@ 2ovac ,.@ ,rande 2. -0**9. (utomated 8ewer Elushing Darge Diameter 8ewers Collection 8ystems =ehabilitation and ?P4 Conf.A 8olving Todays 5roblems and 4eeting Tomorrows 2eeds, Bater Hnvironment Eederation, (le&andria, Ia. -session 0!., *"! . 5isano B.@ )arsanti C.@ Coyce C.@ 8orensen 6. -0**1. Sewer and Tan$ Sediment %lushing& Case Studies, H5(3$ 3="*130+9, 7.8. Hnvironmental 5rotection (gency, Cincinnati, ?6. 5isano B @ )arsanti C.@ (yotte E. -! 0a. Sewer Sediment %lushing '(aluation and Design ) Case Stud*, H5( Contract 2o. $1"C*1"0+9, 7. 8. Hnvironmental 5rotection (gency, 2ational =is% 4anagement =esearch Daboratory , Hdison, 2ew Cersey. 5isano, B.@ ?=iordan ?.@ (yotte E.@ )arsanti C.@ Carr D. - ! 3. (utomated 8ewer and Drainage Elushing 8ystems in Cambridge, 4ass., )SC' J. +*draulic 'ngineering# 129 ,, !$ " !$$. 5itt, =. -0*1+. Characteri'ing and Controlling 7rban =unoff through 8treet and 8ewerage Cleaning,H5(3!"1+3 31, Cincinnati, ?6. =istenpart, H.@ 7hl, 4. -0**3. )ehavior and 5ollution of 8ewer 8ediments 5roc. 8i&th <nternational Conference on 7rban 8torm Drainage, 2iagara Ealls, Canada, (8CH. 8i%ora ).-0*1*. Ianne cycli/ue autocurante a decantation, 5aris -Erance.@ <25<, demande de brevet d invention ,no. !$#3*90 -5atent for the 6ydrass gate..