20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Maximizing Secondary Clarifier Capacity with Three- dimensional Modeling
Randal Samstag and Ed WickleinCarollo Engineers
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Presentation Outline
• Introduction to the problem• Comparison of models• Case studies:
Center feed circular radial flowCenter feed square radial flowPeripheral feed square countercurrent flowRectangular lamella clarifiers
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
The Clarifier
• Used for both primary and secondary separation of solids
• Efficiency depends on Settling characteristicsTank geometry
• The good news:Both settleability and tank geometry can often be improved
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Settleability Can be Improved
• Analysis of the biological populations is crucial
• Selectors encourage populations that settle well
• Depends on:ConfigurationSRT
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Why do Modeling?
• Thirty years of development using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for analysis of sedimentation has proven that CFD can 1) Capture the main features of clarifier
behavior2) Model detailed features of hydraulic behavior3) Efficiently predict performance of novel
designs4) Be more cost effective than full-scale
prototypes
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Types of Sedimentation Models
• Solids flux models (state point analysis)• One-dimensional dynamic models
(Biowin, Sedtank, Takacs, Vitasovic, Stenstrom)
• Two-dimensional dynamic models (UNO, TANKXZ, Carollo Fluent UDF)
• Three-dimensional dynamic models (Zhou/McCorquodale, Carollo Fluent UDF)
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
State Point Analysis (Clariflux®)• Developed by Vesilind.
Implemented by Carollo Engineers (among others)
• Solves solids flux equations based on measured settling velocity coefficients (or SVI)
• Calculates state point for steady state operation
SOR LineMLSS LineRAS line
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
One-dimensional (1D) Dynamic Models
• Developed by Stenstrom, Tracy, Vitasovic, Takacs, Sedtank, Biowin
• Simulate average upward velocity versus downward settling velocity
• Solved dynamically• Layered model• Used for long-term
dynamic simulations
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Two-dimensional (2D) Models
• Incorporate 2D tank hydraulics
Boundary effectsTurbulenceDensity effects
• Used for geometric optimization of symmetrical elements
• Proprietary codes or public domain programs
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Three-dimensional (3D) Models
• Resolution and detail limited only by computing power
• Very detailed grids can be used to capture geometric features as small as several inches
• Crucial for modeling of non-symmetric features
• Implemented in proprietary code or commercial CFD packages with special add-ons
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Each Type of Model Has its Place• State Point Analysis – Steady State
Capacity Analysis• 1D Dynamic Models – Long-term
Dynamic simulations• 2D Models – Simple design evaluations• 3D Models – For design problems that are
not simple
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Examples of 3D Problems
• Analysis of inlet conditionsAlmost all inlet flow is three-dimensional
• Analysis of tank shapes that are not simple
Square radial flow tanksCircular peripheral feed tanksCircular or square peripheral feed and withdrawal tanksTanks with eccentric baffles or effluent troughs
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Case Studies
• Center feed square radial flow• Center feed circular radial flow• Square peripheral feed / withdrawal• Rectangular lamella clarifiers
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Center-feed, Radial-flow Square Clarifiers
• Case study for use of models
State Point Analysis2D Model3D Model
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
2D Model – UNO Model
• Developed by J. A. McCorquodale and associates at the University of New Orleans for EPA
• Two-dimensional model based on
Vorticity / stream function model (2D only)Turbulent hydraulicsRadial flow coordinates (axi-symmetric)Solids transportComposite settling modelFlocculation
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
3D Model (Zhou CFD)
• Developed by Siping Zhou and J. A. McCorquodale
• Three-dimensional solution based on
Control volume modelTurbulent hydraulicsGeneralized coordinatesSolids settlingSolids transportNo flocculation or compression modeling
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
3D Model Results Summary of Model Runs
Clarifier Configuration
Operational Conditions Clarifier Performance
Clarifier Flow (mgd)
SOR (gpd/sf)
RAS Ratio (%)
MLSS (mg/L) SVI (mL/g)
Theoretical RAS Predicted
ESS (mg/L)Predicted
RAS (mg/L)(mg/L)Test Calibration 3.5 714 33 3,600 126 14,509 15 11,000
Existing Clarifier 2.5 510 33 3,250 110 13,000 7.1 10,821
Existing Clarifier 3.5 714 33 3,250 110 13,000 13.1 10,773
Existing Clarifier + Perimeter Effluent Weir
and Baffle
3.5 714 33 3,250 110 13,000 14.5 10,772
Existing Clarifier 4.5 918 33 3,250 110 13,000 83 10,183
Existing Clarifier 3.5 714 66 3,250 190 8,100 428 6,234
Existing Clarifier 3.5 714 100 3,250 190 6,500 1017 5,167
3-Layer MEDIC + Middle Feed Well
2.5 510 33 3,250 110 13,000 5.2 10,943
3-Layer MEDIC + Middle Feed Well
3.5 714 33 3,250 110 13,000 5.7 11,025
3-Layer MEDIC + Middle Feed Well
4.5 918 33 3,250 110 13,000 6.7 10,904
3-Layer MEDIC + Middle Feed Well
3.5 714 33 3,250 190 13,000 10.5 8,482
3-Layer MEDIC + Middle Feed Well
3.5 714 66 3,250 190 8,100 7.9 6,985
3-Layer MEDIC + Middle Feed Well
3.5 714 100 3,250 190 6,500 7.8 6,015
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
3D Model Results Inlet Improvements (SVI 110)
Figure 16 Performance comparison between the existing and optimized clarifiers under a peak flow condition (Clarifier flow = 4.5 MGD, RAS = 33.3%, MLSS = 3250 mg/L and SVI = 110)
1) Existing Clarifier
2) Optimized Clarifier
a) Inlet jets entering clarifier [2.45 ft/s (73.4 cm/s)]
a) Inlet jets entering MEDIC (2.45 ft/s) and ones entering clarifier [0.13 ft/s (3.88 cm/s)]
b) Strong turbulence induced by intensive clarifier influent flow
b) Significantly damped turbulence due to substantially reduced clarifier influent flow intensity
c) Dispersed sludge blanket
c) Dispersed sludge blanket
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
3D Model Results Inlet Improvements (SVI 190)
Figure 20 Performance comparison between the existing and optimized clarifiers under a poor SVI combined with a low RAS of 33.3% (Clarifier flow = 3.5 MGD, MLSS = 3250 mg/L and SVI = 190)
1) Existing Clarifier
2) Optimized Clarifier
Significant solids inventory due to poor SVI combined with limited RAS capacity
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Conclusions from 3D Modeling
• Optimized inlet would allow increase of safe operating flow from 3.5 to 4.5 mgd per clarifier with good SVI (110 mL/g)
(30% Increase)
• Optimized inlet would allow safe operation at 3.5 mgd per clarifier with poor SVI (190 mL/g) compared to 2.5 mgd with existing inlet
(40% increase)
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Center-feed Circular Radial Flow Tank Comparison of Tangential to Puzzled Inlets
Tangential Inlet Puzzled Inlet
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Carollo Fluent UDF Model• 2D or 3D • Sophisticated grid
generation and visualization tools
• Choice of turbulence models
• User defined functions (UDF) to implement
Solids transportDensity couplingSolids settling velocity
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Comparison of Tangential to Puzzled Inlets Inlet Velocities
Tangential Inlet Puzzled Inlet
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Comparison of Tangential to Puzzled Inlets (3D Model)
Inlet Velocity IntensityTangential Inlet Puzzled Inlet
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Optimization of Inlet Comparison of Inlet Velocity and
EnergyExisting Inlet Optimized Inlet
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Rectangular Lamella Clarifier
• Carollo Fluent UDF Model
• 2D and 3D flow in and around the lamella plate modules
• Activated sludge clarifiers
• Two different settling models:
VesilindVesilind with Boycott in lamella zone
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Conclusions• CFD models are well developed for
evaluation of sedimentation tanks• Each level of model has its place• Several important problems can only be
adequately evaluated using 3D modelsInlet designRadial flow / square shapeNon-symmetrical elements
• Commercial 3D CFD codes can be productively used but only with custom add-ons
20-WMWDPre-6-07.ppt
Questions?
Randal W. Samstag([email protected])
Ed A. Wicklein([email protected])