Coal Runoff Analysis Complete Report

COAL RUNOFF MODIFICATION REPORT & ANALYSIS

By Muhammad Arif Susetyo

CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND OF MODIFICATION

1.1 Background of analysis

It is reported by EPC via SCJO letter No. L-SJ-P-T-43 0026 dated 27 December 2012 regarding “Retention BASIN-Water Discoloration from coal yard runoff pond water” that Total Suspended Solid in WWT retention basin is abnormally high (TSS = 6950 mg/L). Based on retention basin observation, this elevated level of TSS is mostly due to fine coal material consisted in water being sent to the retention basin, and causes extensive damage to the retention pumps. While in warranty period, such reparation of pump is covered by EPC, but after the warranty period damage of the pump will be the responsibility of PLN/KPJB. Due to the aforementioned situation, such condition must be resolved.

1.2 Root Cause Failure Analysis

Because most of the Suspended Solid consisted of fine coal particle, additional TSS measurement is done to Coal Runoff Basin (CS1), and Coal Transfer Sump (CS2). Detailed location of sampling are as follow :

Picture 1 : Coal

Coal Runoff Basin Top

View

Coal Runoff Basin & Pump Pit SIde View

CS1 Upper Sample

CS1 Bottom Sample

Heavy Equipment Entry

Pump Pit

Data of TSS Measurement are as follow :

Sample Location TSS (mg/l)Coal Runoff Basin (CS1) Upper 24,2Coal Runoff Basin (CS1) Bottom 233.577,87Transfer Pump Pit (CS2) Upper 106,06Transfer Pump Pit (CS2) Bottom 4.712,08

Table 1 : Total Suspended Solid Data

The data above shows the condition of CS1 & CS2 approximately 1 week after rainstorm. It can be concluded that settling of coal sludge occurs in sump pit, and the aforementioned pump transfers most of the sludge into WWT retention basin. It can be observed that the upper portion of CS1 & CS2 has very little amount of coal as observed in CS1 Upper TSS data of 46 mg/L versus CS1 Bottom TSS of 233.500 mg/l. The barrier wall located in front of CS1 Sump Intake is ineffective in isolating the sludge from entering the aforementioned sump pit.

1.3 Design Criteria of system modification

As previously explained, it can be concluded that there needs to be a way to filter and isolate the CS1 Sump pump from sludge existing in CS1 Basin. Based on the condition of upper portion of CS1, it would be advantageous to fill CS1 pump pit using coal runoff water from the upper portion of the coal runoff basin due to low TSS level. The existing system in the coal retention basin does not have any filtration system, and

Also, it would be beneficial that strainer to be installed in the system. However, the inclusion of strainer can also pose risk of plugging. So this risk needs to be carefully addressed.

Based on the explanation, the following design criteria can be defined;

- System able to fill sump pit with water from upper part of coal runoff basin whereas TSS level is the lowest

- System able to filter the suspended solid still available in the upper part of CS1 - System able to isolate Sump Pit from Coal Runoff Basin- Strainer system can be easily cleaned by operator if clogged

CHAPTER 2PROPOSED SOLUTION

1.1 Solution Concept

Based on the Root Cause Failure Analysis and Design Criteria explained in the previous chapter, A coal runoff modification design is proposed. The main purpose of the modification is to minimize sludge being offtaken into the Waste water treatment plant by selective filling of the Pump Pit. The coal runoff water beng transferred into the pump pit is the top portion, above the sludge deposit below. The method used to achieve this feat is by isolating the pump pit hole using floating hose assembly.

The hose assembly concept are as follow :

Picture 2 : Coal Runoff Modification 3D View (Note : Hose Assembly x2)

Picture 3 : Coal Runoff Modification Side View (Note : Hose Assembly x2)

Picture 4 : Coal Runoff Modification Top View (Note : Hose Assembly x2)

Purpose of the modification are as follow;

1. To enable filtration of coal runoff water entering pump pit2. To enable isolation between coal runoff water 3. To enable adjustment of water coal runoff water level source entering the pump pit in

regard of optimum suspended solid level. 4. To enable ease of maintenance and cleaning of strainer

Proposed operational procedure of Coal Runoff Strainer system;

1. Hose and strainer assembly should be in isolation position at all times. 2. After level of coal runoff is increased due to rain, if possible, wait or 2-3 days to ensure

settling of suspended solid. 3. After coal suspended solid is deemed settled enough, lower the hose and strainer assembly

into submerged position in the upper level of coal runoff water, and run CS1 pump.4. Adjust the filter level in accordance to coal runoff water level. 5. If filter is clogged, lift and clean strainer.

Based on the previously mentioned explanation, the following Aim and Risk table can be formulated.

Aim Risk1.To isolate CS1 pump pit from sludge. 1.Ineffectiveness of the existing system to isolate

sludge.2.To filter out the un isolated sludge 2. Possibility of sludge plugging the filtration

system3.Protection of CS1, CS2, & Retention Basin pump

3.Maximum coal particle size allowed into the pump pit. Mesh size of strainer needs to be determined

4.Durability of sludge isolation system 4.Quaility of sludge isolation material and connection design.

5.SOP of CS pumping to ensure sufficient settling 5. Rate of coal sludge settling needs to be considered.

Table 2 : Aim and Benefit Table of the Modification

5. Aspects and Parameters to be further determined

- Hose Diameter and Length

- Detailed Drawing

-Consideration of Connection specification and material specification

-Consideration of installation of self cleaning strainers (pictured below)

CHAPTER 3 Picture 5 : Example of self cleaning strainers

CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS OF HOSE CONFIGURATION

3.1 Basis of Analysis For Hose Diameter and length

In Regard of coal runoff basin modification, it is understood that in the proposed solution, industrial grade hose is utilized to enable minimum amount of sludge offtaken into the pump pit (CY1) and furthermore transferred to Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). Due to the high flow nature of the Coal Runoff Pump (CY1 Pump) with flow of approximately 3.208 m3/min (0.0535m3/s), it is imperative that optimum hose diameter and length is selected to consider the following aspects;

- Head Loss from hose assembly into CY1 needs to be minimized to maintain sufficient flow supplied from coal basin into CY1. If Head loss is too high, then flow from coal runoff Basin will be insufficient, and difference of level between pump pit and coal runoff basin will be too high, and pump level switch will be activated, causing undesirable intermitten pump operation. The Level Switch is located

- Length of hose needs to be in optimum length to minimize loss of settlement capability of coal runoff, and minimize head loss. The decision of hose length needs to consider flexibility of hose. The bigger diameter the hose, the less flexible it becomes, and the longer the hose needs to be to enable proper lifting by chainblock.

Due to the pump not being connected into the hose, Difference in Water Level Between Pump Pit and Coal runoff basin is necessary to enable any transfer of water. This difference in level will induce difference in pressure, and enable water flow. Analysis regarding the hose specification is very important to ensure Acceptable surface level difference.

Based on the above mentioned condition, Analysis need to be made considering the following :

- Head Loss Exerted By Hose Assembly- Difference of water Surface Level between Pump Pit and Coal Runoff Basin when pump is in

operation

3.2 Analysis of Ideal Hose Diameter and Length

Based on the explanation mentioned in the previous Chapter, the following problem is formulated:

Figure 6 : Coal Runoff Basin Modification Problem ilustration

Known :

The Pump Pit and Coal Runoff Basin pictured above is connected via hose assembly. When Pump is not running, Then Surface of Coal runoff basin is the same level . Thus, distance between connection to Pump Pit Surface (LC) and connection to Coal runoff Basin level (LB) is the same. When pump is

transferring water into WWTP, then Lb will be higher than LC due to Head loss exerted by

installation of Hose assembly (∆H=LB−LC)

To Be Determined :

Solve for ∆H with the following configurations :

Configuration A B C D E F G H Hose

Diameter4 in 4 in 6 in 6 in 8in 8 in 10 in 10 in

Hose Length 10 m 10 m 10 m 10 m 10 m 20 m 10 m 20 mHose

Quantity1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Assumption :

- Fluid used in the problem is assumed to be water @ 20 Celcius- The roughness of Inner portion of Hose is equivalent to Coarse Concrete (E=0.25mm)- Gravity is 9.8 m/s2- Coal runoff basin and pump pit is in Steady State Condition

LB

BC

LC

∆ H❑

Pump Pit Pump Capacity : 0.0535 m3/s Coal Runoff Basin

A

Lb

o When Steady state, Water Level of Coal runoff and Pump pit is steady, and constant

(∆H=Constant )o When Steady State, Flow of Pump equals to flow of water Entering Hose (Qp = Qa =

3.47 m3/s)

Solve : Find ∆H (Level Difference between Pump Pit and Coal Runoff Basin)

Figure 7 : Coal Runoff Basin Modification Problem Illustration

Step 1 : Establish Equation when pump pit is not operating

Point C is the point Just outside the piping

Pressure in Point C : PC= ρ. g .LC

Point B is the point inside the piping

Pressure in Point B : PB=ρ .g . LB

When Pump pit is not operating, Lc = Lb, thus Pressure In Point C equals To Pressure in point B

PC=PB

ρ .g . LC= ρ. g .LB

LC=LB

Step2 : Establish Equation when pump pit is running

When Pump is running, There will be slight difference betweenPC and PB, but when there PC <PB, water will flow from Point A, equalizing the Pressure between Point B and C.

BC

Lc

A

Lb

Coal Runoff Basin

Dh

Pump Pit Pump Capacity : 0.0535 m3/s

When Point B and C is close by, then it can be assumed that Pressure difference is very small between the two points.

In conclusion, when Pump is running

PC≈PB

When Pressure is the same, then Head (H) is also same. Then;

HC ≈ HB

When pump is running, water is flowing in hose, thus exerting Drag Force on the surface of the hose (Head Losses = H L)

The Equation forHead in point B (HB ¿ when pump is running :

PB=( ρ .g ) .(LB−H L)

Equation of Head Loss in Pipe (Assuming Hose is straight line)

H L=f D .LD.v2

2.g

Whereas f D : Darcy Friction Factor

L : Length Of Hose

D : Inner Diameter of Hose

v : Velocity f water inside Hose

g : gravity Constant (9.8 m/s2)

When Pump is running, PC= ρ. g .LC Because Point C is located outside the piping, and velocity in point C is negligible.

Thus, because when pump is running PC≈PB

The equation becomes

ρ .g . LC=( ρ. g )(LB−( f D . LD .v2

2.g ))Height Difference Between Pump Pit Water Surface and Coal Runoff Basin (∆H ¿

∆H=LB−LC

LC=LB−∆H

Then ;

ρ .g . (LB−∆H )=( ρ .g )(LB−( f D . LD .v2

2. g ))Eliminate ρ .g

LB−∆H=LB−(f D .LD.v2

2.g)

Eliminate LB

−∆H=−( f D .LD.v2

2. g)

Then, ∆HEquals To :

∆H=f D .LD.V 2

2g

Whereas :

f D= Darcy Friction factor (Obtain from moody diagram)

L = Length of Hose

V = Velocity of water inside of hose

D = Inner Diameter of Hose

g = Gravitational Constant (9,8m

s2

The equation is applicable for finding difference between Coal runoff Basin and Pump Pit ( ∆H) in steady condition (flow going through pipe = Flow of Pump in Pump Pit) when Pump is running continuously regardless of surface level of Coal Runoff Basin

3.3 Calculation of ∆ H

Based on the above mentioned formula, ∆ H can be obtained by the following calculation:

3.3.1 Problem Set A&B

Flow of fluid going through hose : Q = 0.0535m3

s

Determine Reynolds Number

ℜ= 4.Qπ .v . D

Whereas :

Q = Water Flowing Through Hose

D = Inner Diameter of Pipe

v = Kinematic Viscosity of Water (1 x10−6 m2

s)

ℜ4∈ ,1hose=4.Q

π .v . D=

4 x 0.0535m3

s

πx (1 x10−6 m2

s )x 0.1016m

=6.7 x105(Turbulent Flow )

Relative Pipe Roughness (assume Hose equivalent to coarse concrete) :

∈D

= 0.25mm101.6mm

=2.46 x10−3

Configuration AHose

Diameter4 in

Hose Length 10 m Hose

Quantity1

Based on Moody Diagram, Darcy Friction Factor = f ≈0.025

Velocity of water flowing through Hose :

V 4∈, 1hose=QA

=0.0535

m3

sπ .(0.1016m)2

4

=6.599m/ s

Determining ∆ H

∆H ( 10m,4∈,1hose )=f D .LD.V 2

2.g=0.025 x

10mx (6.599ms )

2

0.1016mx 2x 9.8ms2

=5.467m

Water Flowing Into Hose is 50 % due to addition of another Hose Q=

0.0535m3

s2

=0.02675m3

s


ℜ4∈ ,2hose=4.Q

π .v . D=

4 x 0.02675m3

s

πx (1 x10−6 m2

s )x 0.1016m

=3.35 x105(Turbulent Flow)


∈D

= 0.25mm101.6mm

=2.46 x10−3



V 4∈, 2hose=QA

=0.02675

m3

sπ .(0.1016m)2

4

=3.29m/ s

Configuration BHose

Diameter4 in


Quantity2

Determining ∆ H

∆H ( 10m,4∈,2hose )=f D .LD.V 2

2.g=0.025 x

10mx (3.29ms )

2

0.1016mx 2x 9.8ms2

=1.358m

3.3.2 Problem Set C & D


s


ℜ6∈, 1hose=4.Q

π .v .D=

4 x 0.0535m3

s

πx(1x 10−6 m2

s ) x 0.1524m



∈D

= 0.25mm152,4mm

=1.64 x10−3



Configuration CHose

Diameter6 in


Quantity1

V 6∈,1hose=QA

=0.0535

m3

sπ .(0.1524m)2

4

=2.93m / s

Determining ∆ H

∆H ( 10m,6∈ ,1hose)=f D .LD.V 2

2.g=0.025 x

10mx (2.93ms )

2

0.1524mx 2x 9.8ms2

=0.7185m


0.0535m3

s2

=0.02675m3

s


ℜ6∈, 2hose=4.Q

π .v .D=

4 x 0.02675m3

s

πx (1x 10−6 m2

s ) x 0.1524m

=2.2x 105(Turbulent Flow)


∈D

= 0.25mm152.4mm

=1.64 x10−3



V 6∈,2hose=QA

=0.02675

m3

sπ .(0.1524m)2

4

=1.466m/ s

Determining ∆ H

Configuration DHose

Diameter6 in


Quantity2

∆ H ( 10m,6∈ ,2hose)=f D .LD.V 2

2.g=0.025 x

10mx (1.466ms )

2

0.1524mx 2x 9.8ms2

=0.179m

3.3.3 Problem Set E & F


s


ℜ8∈, 1hose=4.Q

π .v .D=

4 x0.0535m3

s

πx(1x 10−6 m2

s ) x 0.2032m



∈D

= 0.25mm203.2mm

=1.23 x10−3



V 8∈,1hose=QA

=0.0535

m3

sπ .(0.2032m)2

4

=1.649m /s

Determining ∆ H

∆H ( 10m,8∈ ,1hose)=f D .LD.V 2

2.g=0.025 x

10m x (1.649ms )

2

0.2032mx 2 x9.8ms2

=0.17m

Configuration EHose

Diameter8 in


Quantity1


0.0535m3

s2

=0.02675m3

s


ℜ8∈, 2hose=4.Q

π .v .D=

4 x0.02675m3

s

πx (1x 10−6 m2

s ) x 0.2032m



∈D

= 0.25mm203.2mm

=1.23 x10−3



V 8∈,2hose=QA

=0.02675

m3

sπ .(0.2032m)2

4

=0.82m /s

Determining ∆ H

∆H ( 10m,8∈ ,2hose)=f D .LD.V 2

2.g=0.025 x

10m x (0.82ms )

2

0.2032m x2 x9.8ms2

=0.0422m

3.3.4 Problem Set G & H

Configuration FHose

Diameter8 in


Quantity2

Configuration GHose

Diameter10 in


Quantity1


s


ℜ10∈,1hose=4.Qπ .v . D

=4 x0.0535

m3

s

πx (1 x10−6 m2

s ) x0.254m

=2.6 x 105(Turbulent Flow)


∈D

=0.25mm254mm

=9.84 x10−4



V 10∈ ,1hose=QA

=0.0535

m3

sπ .(0.254m)2

4

=0.829m /s

Determining ∆ H

∆H ( 10m,10∈, 1hose)=f D .LD.V 2

2. g=0.025 x

10m x(0.829ms )

2

0.254m x2 x9.8ms2

=0.0345m

Configuration HHose

Diameter10 in


Quantity2

Fluid flow within hose is 50 % due to addition of another Hose Q=

0.0535m3

s2

=0.02675m3

s


ℜ10∈,2hose=4.Qπ .v . D

=4 x0.02675

m3

s

πx (1 x10−6 m2

s ) x0.254m

=1.34 x 105(Turbulent Flow)


∈D

=0.25mm254mm

=9.84 x10−4



V 10∈ ,2hose=QA

=0.02675

m3

sπ .(0.254m)2

4

=0.527m / s

Determining ∆ H

∆H ( 10m,10∈, 2hose)=f D .LD.V 2

2. g=0.025 x

10m x(0.527ms )

2

0.254mx2 x 9.8ms2

=0.0139m

3.3.5 Summary and Conclusion of Calculation




Quantity1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Fluid Velocity within Hose

6.599m /s

3.29m /s

2.93m /s

1.466m /s

1.649m /s

0.82m /s

0.829m /s

0.527m /s

∆ H❑ Difference of Water Level

Between Coal

5.467m 1.358m 0.718m 0.179m 0.17m 0.042m 0.034m 0.013m

Runoff and Pump PitVerdict Not

SuitableAlmost Suitable

Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

Table 3 : Summary of Calculation

Calculation reference :

1. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics – Second Edition : Philip M Gerhart, Richard J Gross, John L Hochstein

3.4 Conclusion of analysis:

Based on the above mentioned calculation, it can be concluded that the following configuration is ideal :

Configuration C DHose

Diameter6 in 6 in

Hose Length 10 m 10 m Hose

Quantity1 2


2.93m /s

1.466m /s

∆H Difference of Water Level Between Coal

Runoff and Pump Pit

0.718m 0.179m

Based on the calculation and data above, Configuration A & B is not acceptable,due to excessive ∆ H (Difference of Water Level Between Coal Runoff and Pump Pit) that will cause intermitten pump operation due to activation of level switch before coal runoff level have reached minimum level.. On the other hand, Configuration B and C is the preferred for Modification of coal runoff basin because it allows minimum Head Loss, thus enabling reasonable ∆ H❑. The ∆ H exerted due to the installation of 6 inch diameter hose with 10 meter length for 1 hose and 2 hose assembly is 0,718 m and 0.179m respectively. This ∆ H is acceptable, especially for 2 hose operation, because it will allow 17 cm in level difference, thus minimizing intermitten pump operation. In the case of single hose operation, the ∆ Hwill still be approximately 0,718 m, thus being acceptable for pump pit operation.

A more robust Configuration is Configuration E & F, because it allows even lower Head Loss. The

∆ H exerted due to the installation of 8 inch diameter hose with 10 meter length for 1 hose and 2 hose assembly is 0,17 m and 0.042m respectively. This configuration will eliminate any intermitten pump operation regardless of double or single hose operation. Another benefit of this configuration

is less prone for sludge plugging. However, this configuration is more expensive than 6 inch diameter configuration, and increased hose stiffness will increase difficulty of installation.

The last configuration, 10 inch hose is Not recommended because of exorbitant hose price and high stiffness factor of hose. The 6 inch and 8 inch hose configuration can provide adequate performance, and there is no need to increase hose diameter.

3.4.1 Final Verdict of hose configuration based on analysis :

4 Inch Hose : Unacceptable ∆ H

6 Inch Hose : Acceptable ∆ H , Optimum Configuration, considering Performance and Price

8 Inch Hose : Acceptable ∆ H , More Robust than 6 Inch Configuration but more expensive and stiffer.

10 Inch Hose : Overkill, because smaller Diameter hose can provide acceptable performance.

CHAPTER 4

DETAIL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION

Based on the explanation provided in previous Chapters, it can be Concluded of the following technical details;

4.1 Design of Coal Modification

Design of modified coal runoff basin is as follow, utilizing floating heavy duty hose line with chain block to enable surface coal water off taking with safety latch to enable cleaning and maintenance of

the pump pit when regardless of coal runoff basin level. Additional hose support is needed to minimize sagging and reduce stress in the connection. The hose assembly installed is 2 assembly.

Pictured below of 1 assembly is for simplification purposes only.

Picture 8 : Coal Runoff Modification 3D View (Note : Hose Assembly x2)

Figure 9 : Coal Runoff Basin Modification Side View illustration (Note : Hose Assembly x2)

Figure 10 : Coal Runoff Basin Modification Top View illustration (Note : Hose Assembly x2)

4.2 Hose Type

The preferred hose utilized for the modification is heavy duty oil rated hose with spring steel wire helix reinforcement and nylon mesh reinforcement. One good example of such hose is is 6 inch diameter hose in BVI warehouse produced by IVG (website http://www.ivgspa.it)

Figure 11 : 6 in diameter oil rated hose with steel wire helix nylon mesh reinforcement

Rubber Hose : Oil Rated, Circular wire & Nylon Weave reinforcement, Diameter 6 or 8 Inch, length 10 m each.

4.3 Detail of connection design

Figure 12 : Existing Basin connecting hole

The modification of hose assembly will be installed on the existing holes pictured above.

4.3.1 Connection A

Detail of Connection A (Connection between Hose and Wall) as follow ;

Figure 13 : Detail Design of Connection A (Note : Hose and piping will be 6 or 8 inch instead of 10 inch pictured)

In Connection A, Galvanized steel with 10 inch diameter schedule 40 is installed into existing pipe via welded ring plate of 6 mm thickness in 2 sides and filled with concrete. This connection is waterproof and isolates water between Coal Runoff and Pump Pit.

Rubber Hose is clamped into pipe using stainless steel pressure clamp.

Figure 14 : Example of Pressure Clamp for hose

Oil rated Waterproof latch utilizes bolt tightener and rubber seal that can withstand pressure of 1 bar. If waterproof latch option is not feasible, then waterproof waterproof threaded cap or blind flange option can be considered, provided it is fully suitable for operation.

Figure 15 : Example of Waterproof Latch

Connection A is guaranteed for 1 year by Contractor of the following ;

- Waterproof latch/equivalent is waterproof for 1 bar- All Flange Connection is waterproof- All Hose connection is waterproof- Connection between additional and existing pipe is waterproof (ring connection)- No Hose Slip

4.3.2 Connection B

Detail Of Connection B (Hose end connection) as follow ;

Figure 14 : Detail Design of Connection B (Note : Hose and piping will be 6 or 8 inch instead of 10 inch pictured)

Concection B : Rubber Hose is connected to chain block and floater via conection welded into pressure clamp. Additional flange connection is made for fire hose connection for clearing the hose in plugging situation.

1 Year Guarantee by Contractor:

-Chainblock dan Floater Connection is adequate

-No Hose Slip

Basic Configuration of Chain Block Assembly as follow

Figure 15 : Basic Dimension of Chain Block Assembly

Chainblock capacity is 2 x 1,5 ton, with 1 chainblock for each hose. Chainblock structure utilize UNP Profile with dimension of 100 x 50 x 5mm. Detail design and chainblock support structure is designed by contractor, and will be reviewed by PLN/KPJB with consideration of structural soundness. A small roof will be included in the chanblock structure to provide some weather protection to the chainblock.

1 Year Warranty by Contractor

-Chainblock & Support Structure is adequate for lifting hose assembly above water level

- Structure and Foundation is adequate

4.4 Material List :

- 1x : Rubber Hose Oil Rated, Circular wire & Nylon Weave reinforcement, Diameter 6Inch, 20 Meter Length

- 2x : Waterproof stainless steel Latch with bolt tightener

- 2X : Chainblock 1.5 ton, 5 meter chain length

- 3X : Galvanized steel pipe Diameter 6 inch schedule 40x 800 mm

- 2X : Galvanized UNP Profile size 10x50x6 mm

- 4X : Stainless Steel/equivalent Pressure Clamp 6 inch

Special Note : The following items are available on site by BVI

- 1x 6 Inch IVG hose length 9.5 m - (Located at BVI Laydown) - 2x Aluminum Hose Connecction for 6 Inch Hose (Located at BVI Site Office) - 2x Threaded Brass Hose Connection for 6 Inch Hose (Located at BVI Site Office) - 8x Hose Clamp for 6 Inch Hose (Located at BVI Site Office)

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

Based on the explanation and analysis of coal runoff strainer modification, it can be concluded that the modification is necessary, and technically feasible to minimize the sludge being offtaken into Waste Water Treatment. This is due to the fact that the system can selectively offtake the top portion of coal runoff basin, instead of the bottom part, like the existing system. Furthermore, the main constraint of the system is the level difference between Pump Pit and Coal runoff basin. This

It can be concluded that the system needs to be installed immediately before rainy season, due to the fact that the coal runoff basin is flooded in rainy season, and any construction within the basin is impossible. Furthermore, 6 inch hose configuration is adequate, however 8 inch is more robust, as explained in the data table below.




Quantity1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2


6.599m /s

3.29m /s

2.93m /s

1.466m /s

1.649m /s

0.82m /s

0.829m /s

0.527m /s

∆ H❑ Difference of Water Level

Between Coal Runoff and Pump Pit

5.467m

1.358m

0.718m

0.179m

0.17m

0.042m

0.034m

0.013m

Verdict Not Suitable

Almost Suitable

Suitable SuitableACCEPTED COFIGURA

TION

Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

Special Note :

Based on on the success of Hose Flexibility testing today ( 6 June 2012) located in BVI Worskhop, it is decided to use 6 inch hose configuration, 10 meters Length. BVI also have some parts available such as

- 1x 6 Inch IVG hose length 9.5 m - (Located at BVI Laydown) - 2x Aluminum Hose Connecction for 6 Inch Hose (Located at BVI Site Office) - 2x Threaded Brass Hose Connection for 6 Inch Hose (Located at BVI Site Office) - 8x Hose Clamp for 6 Inch Hose (Located at BVI Site Office)

Usage of these parts should alter the design accordingly.

Calculation reference :

1. Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics – Second Edition : Philip M Gerhart, Richard J Gross, John L Hochstein

Date post:	25-Oct-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	arif-susetyo
View:	149 times
Download:	4 times

Coal Runoff Analysis Complete Report

Documents