Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Hydraulic Design Handbook Ch22
Hydraulic Design Handbook Ch22
Hydraulic Design Handbook Ch22
CHAPTER 22
WATER AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
HYDRAULICS
Federico E. Maisch
Sharon L. Cole
David V. Hobbs
Frank J. Tantone
William L. Judy
Greeley and Hansen
Richmond, VA
22.1 INTRODUCTION
Designers of water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants are faced with the
need to design treatment processes which must meet the following general hydraulic
requirements:
Water treatment plants. Provide the head required to allow the water to flow through
the treatment processes and to be delivered to the transmission/distribution system in
the flow rates and at the pressures required for delivery to the users.
W
Wastewater treatment
r plants. Provide the head required to raise the flow of wastewater
from the sewer system to a level which allows the flow to proceed through the treat-
ment processes and be delivered to the receiving body of water.
22.2 GENERAL
22.2.1 Introduction
This section addresses some elements which are common to both water treatment plants
and wastewater treatment plants including:
Flow distributionmanifolds
Gates and valves
Flowmeters
Local losses
In the design of water and wastewater treatment plants, proper flow distribution can be as
critical as process design considerations, which typically receive much more attention.
Plant failures resulting from unequal and unmanageable flow distribution are possibly as
common and as serious as those resulting from errors in process design.
Flow distribution devices, such as distribution channels, pipe manifolds or distribution
boxes, are commonly used to distribute or equalize flow to parallel treatment units, such
as flocculation tanks, sedimentation basins, aeration tanks, or filters.
22.2.2.1 Distribution boxes. The simplest of these devices, the distribution box, typical-
ly consists of a structure arranged to provide a common water surface as the supply to two
or more outlets. The outlets are typically over weirs and the key to equal flow distribution
is to provide independent hydraulic characteristics between the downstream system and
the water level in the distribution box. In other words, provide a free discharge weir (non-
submerged under all conditions) for each outlet to eliminate the impact of downstream
physical system differences on the flow distribution. Velocity gradients across the distrib-
ution box must be nearly zero to equalize flow conditions over each outfall weir. Weirs
clearly should be of uniform design in terms of physical arrangement length and materi-
als of construction. They should also be adjustable to account for any minor flow differ-
ences noted in actual operation. The same principles apply if the designer wishes to dis-
tribute flows in specific proportions which are not necessarily equal. In this case the
designer could control the proportions of flow distribution by varying the relative geom-
etry of the weirs (i.e., change the width or invert of each weir to achieve a desired flow
distibution). The specifics of weir hydraulics are covered in various texts in the literature.
Attention should always be paid to the selection of the proper coefficients to model the
specific weir geometry and the geometry of the approach flow.
22.2.2.2 Distribution channels and pipe manifolds. Distribution channels and manifolds
are also common in plant design but a bit more complex in their function and design. The
distribution of flow in these devices is impacted by the flow distribution itself. Since a por-
tion of the flow leaves the channel or manifold along the length of the device, the veloci-
ty of flow and, therefore, the relationship of energy grade line, velocity head and hydraulic
grade line varies along the length of the device. This is more clearly visible in a distribu-
tion channel of uniform cross section, using side weirs along its length for flow distribu-
tion. At each weir, flow leaves the channel, resulting in less velocity head in the channel
and possibly a higher water surface at each ensuing weir. Chao and Trussell (1980), Camp
and Graber (1968), and Yao (1972) have presented comprehensive approaches for the
design of distribution channels and manifolds and should be reviewed for details of
design.
As in distribution boxes, the most important consideration to achieving equalized flow
distribution is to minimize the effects of unequal hydraulic conditions relative to each
point of distribution. In channels this can be accomplished by tapering the channel cross
section, varying weir elevations, making the channel large enough to cause velocity head
changes to be insignificant or a combination of these. Similar considerations may be
applied to manifolds with submerged orifice outlets. A reliable approach here is to pro-
vide a large enough manifold, resulting in a total headloss along the length of the distrib-
ution of less than one tenth the loss through any individual orifice. This approach essen-
tially results in the orifices becoming the only hydraulic control and the accuracy of the
flow distribution is then dependent on the uniformity of the orifices themselves.
Gates and valves generally serve to either control the rate of flow or to start/stop flow.
Gates and valves in treatment plants are typically subjected to much lower pressures
than those in water distribution systems or sewage force mains and can be of lighter
construction.
22.2.3.1 Gates. Gates are typically used in channels or in structures to start and stop flow
or to provide a hydraulic control point which is seldom adjusted. Because of the time and
effort required to operate gates, they are not suited for controlling flow when rapid
response, frequent variation, or delicate adjustments are needed. Primary design consid-
erations when using gates are the type of gate fabrication and the installation conditions
during construction.
There are many fabrication details including materials used, bottom arrangement, and
stem arrangement. For instance, for solids bearing flows, a flush bottom, rising stem gate
can be used to avoid creating a point of solids deposition and to minimize solids contact
with the threaded stem. Gate manufacturers are a good source of information for gate fab-
rication details and can assist with advice regarding specific applications.
Most commonly used gates are designed to stop flow in a single direction. They may
use upstream water pressure to assist in achieving a seal (seating head), but typically also
must be designed to resist static water pressure from downstream (unseating head). Both
seating and unseating heads must be evaluated in design of a gate application. For most
manufacturers, the seating or unseating head is expressed as the pressure relative to the
center line of the gate.
22.2.3.2 Valves. Table 22.1 provides a summary of several types of valves and their
applications. Valves are used to either throttle (control) flow or start/stop flow.
Start/stop valves are intended to be fully open or fully closed and nonthrottling. They
should present minimum resistance to flow when fully open and should be intended for
infrequent operation.
Gate valves, plug valves, cone valves, ball valves, and butterfly valves are the most
common start/stop valve selections. Butterfly valves have a center stem, are most common
in clean water applications and should not be used in applications including materials that
could hang-up on the stem. Therefore, they are seldom used at wastewater plants prior to
achieving a filter effluent water quality.
Sluice gate X X X
Slide gate X X X
Gate valve X X X
Plug valve X X X X
Cone valve X X X X
Ball valve X X X X
Butterfly valve X X X
Swing check X X X
Lift check X X
Ball check X X X
Spring check X X X
Globe valve X X
Needle valve X X
Angle valve X X
Pinch/diaphragm X X X X
*
Typical applicationsexceptions are possible, but consultation with valve manufacturers is recommended.
Check valves are a special case of a start/stop valve application. Check valves offer
quick, automatic reaction to flow changes and are intended to stop flow direction rever-
sal. Typical configurations include swing check, lift check, ball check and spring loaded.
These valves are typically used on pump discharge piping and are opened by the pressure
of the flowing liquid and close automatically if pressure drops and flow attempts to
reverse direction. The rapid closure of these valves can result in unacceptable water-
hammer pressures with the potential to damage the system. A detailed surge analysis may
be required for many check valve applications (see Chapter. 12). At times, mechanically
operating check valves should be avoided in favor of electrically or pneumatically operat-
ed valves (typically plug, ball, or cone valves) to provide a mechanism to control time of
closing and reduce surge pressure peaks.
Throttling valves are used to control rate of flow and are designed for frequent or near-
ly continuous operation depending on whether they are manually operated or electroni-
cally controlled. Typical throttling valve types include globe valves, needle valves, and
angle valves in smaller sizes, and ball, plug, cone, butterfly, and pinch/diaphragm valves
in larger sizes. Throttling valves are typically most effective in the mid-range of loose line
open/close travel and for best flow control should not be routinely operated nearly fully
closed or nearly fully open.
The most common types of flow meters used in water and wastewater treatment plants are
summarized in Table 22.2 and fall into the following categories:
Pressure differential/pressure measuring meters (e.g., Venturi, orifice plate, pitot tube,
and Parshall flume meters)
Magnetic meters
Doppler (ultrasonic) meters
Mechanical meters (e.g., propeller and turbine meters)
Accurate flow measurements require uniform flow patterns. Most meters are
significantly impacted by adjacent piping configurations. Typically a specific number of
straight pipe diameters is required both upstream and downstream of a meter to obtain
reliable measurements. In some cases, 15 straight pipe diameters upstream and 5 straight
pipe diameters downstream are recommended. However, different types of meters have
varying levels of susceptibility to the uniformity of the flow pattern. Meter manufacturers
should be consulted.
In any piping system as flow travels along the pipe, pressure drops as a result of headloss
due to friction along the pipe and local losses at bends, fittings, and valves. The local
losses at bends, fittings, and valves are least significant in long, straight piping systems
and most significant at treatment plants where the length of straight pipe is relatively short
and therefore, the frictional pipe losses comprise a smaller fraction of the total losses
when compared to the summation of all local losses. A term often used to refer to local
losses is minor losses, however, because of the later consideration the term minor loss-
es can be misleading.
Traditionally, local losses have been computed in terms of equivalent length of
straight pipe or in terms of multiples of velocity head. The equivalent length or loss fac-
tor K methods attempt to estimate the local losses based on the characteristic of the spe-
cific bend, fitting or valve. The K loss factor method is discussed here. Essentially, a local
loss is computed as follows:
2
hL KV (22.1)
2g
where hL local loss, K loss factor, V velocity, g gravitational acceleration.
The values for K reported by various sources vary considerably for some local losses
and are relatively consistent for others. See references. There are many literature sources
for K values. The Bureau of Reclamation (1992) is one such source of information regard-
ing energy loss equations. Table 22.3 shows a range of K factors from additional sources
as well as a typically used value for each. Judgment must be applied in computing local
losses, taking into account any unique system conditions. Throughout this chapter K val-
ues were obtained from equipment manufacturers when available. Values from Table 22.3
were used only as an approximation when more specific data were unavailable. The read-
er is cautioned that there are application-specific characteristics which have significant
influence on the K factors. One of these characteristics, for example, is size. A K value of
0.6 is often encountered in literature to characterize the losses associated with flow
through the run of a tee. However, for flow past tees in large pipes this factor can be very
small and nearly zero.
Simon (1986)
Sanks (1989)
Gate valve
100% open 0.39 0.19 0.19 0.10.3 0.2 0.2
75% open 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.2
50% open 4.8 5.6 5.6 5.6
25% open 27 24 24 25
Globe valveopen 10 10 10 4.06.0 10 10
Angle valveopen 4.3 5 2.13.1 5 1.82.9 2.5 5
Check valveball 4.5 6570 5
Swing check 0.62.3 062.2 0.62.5 2.5
Butterfly valveopen 1.2 0.160.35 0.5
Foot valvehinged 2.2 1.01.4 2.2
Foot valvepoppet 12.5 5.014.0 14
Elbows
45 regular 0.300.42 0.42 0.42
45 long radius 0.180.20 0.18 0.5 0.2
90 regular 0.210.3 0.25 0.7 0.25
90 long radius 0.140.23 0.18 0.6 0.19
180 regular 0.38 0.38
180 long radius (flanged) 0.25 0.25
Tees
Std. teeeflowthrough run 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.8 0.6
Std. teeeflow-through branch1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.75 1.8
Return bend 1.5 2.2 2.2 0.4 2.2
Mitre bend
90 1.8 1.1291.265 0.8 1.3
60 0.75 0.4710.684 0.35 0.6
30 0.25 0.1300.165 0.1 0.16
Expansion
d/D = 0.75 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.2
d/D = 0.5 0.55 0.56 0.6 0.6
d/D = 0.25 0.88 0.92 0.9 0.9
Contraction
d/D = 0.75 0.18 0.19 0.2 0.2
d/D = 0.5 0.33 0.33 0.3 0.33
d/D = 0.25 0.43 0.42 0.4 0.43
Entranceeprojecting 0.78 0.78 0.83 0.8 0.8 0.78 0.8
Entranceesharp 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Entranceewell rounded 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.25 0.04 0.04
Exit 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
22.3.1 Introduction
Water treatment comprises the withdrawal of water from a source of supply and the
treatment of raw water through a series of unit processes for the beneficial use of the
system customers. Raw water quality can vary widely. The ultimate uses of water by the
system customer (e.g., drinking, fire protection, irrigation, aquifer recharge, etc.) can also
vary and be subject to different treatment level requirements and regulations. Therefore,
the selected treatment processes vary widely over a multitude of treatment technologies in
use. Water treatment consists of a series of chemical, biological, and physical processes
connected by channels and pipelines. Figures 22.1 and 22.2 illustrate process
flow diagrams (flowsheets) for typical surface water and groundwater treatment plants,
respectively. The designer of the water treatment process must carefully evaluate source
water characteristics and desired water quality characteristics of the treated water to
design treatment processes capable of purifying the source water to water suitable for the
system customers. The objective of this chapter is to review the hydraulic considerations
required to convey water through the treatment process.
Design of a plants treatment process is closely linked with the hydraulic design of the
treatment plant. This chapter presumes that the designer has evaluated and selected treat-
ment processes for the water treatment plant. Although design flows are discussed below,
we have also assumed that the designer has chosen a design flow requirement for the treat-
ment process. For municipal treatment plants, design flows are based on the service area
FIGURE 22.1 Typical surface water treatment plant process flow diagram.
population and the per capita use of water by the population served. The per capita use of
water can be obtained from literature sources as an initial approximation. However, these
initial estimations must be corroborated with actual site specific population counts and
water usage. For nonmunicipal treatment facilities, treated water needs of the service area
must be individually evaluated.
22.3.1.1 Sources of supply. Natural sources of supply include groundwater and surface
water supplies. Groundwater supplies typically are smaller in daily delivery but serve
more systems than surface water supplies. Groundwater supplies normally come from
wells, springs, or infiltration galleries.
Wells constitute the largest source of groundwater. Except in rare circumstances of
artesian wells (wells under the influence of a confined aquifer) and springs, groundwater
collection involves pumping facilities. Hydraulics of groundwater treatment plants are fre-
quently based on hydraulics of conduits under pressure, such as pipelines, pressure
filters, and pressure tanks. Raw water characteristics of groundwaters are uniform in
quality compared with surface supplies.
Surface water supplies are normally larger in daily delivery. Surface supplies are used
to service larger population centers and industrial centers. In areas where groundwater
supplies are limited in yield or where groundwater supplies contain undesirable chemical
characteristics, smaller surface water treatment plants may be utilized. Surface water
sources of supply include rivers, lakes, impoundments, streams, and ponds. The treatment
processes chosen in plants treating surface water favor nonpressurized systems such as
gravity sedimentation. The larger flow volumes characteristic of surface water supplies
also favor open channel hydraulic structures for conveying water through the treatment
process. Raw water characteristics of surface supplies can vary rapidly over short periods
of time and also experience seasonal variation.
22.3.1.3 General design philosophy. Effective design of water treatment plant hydraulics
requires that the hydraulic designer have a thorough knowledge of all aspects of the water
system. The overall treatment system hydraulic design must be integrated and coordinat-
ed including the treatment plant, the raw water intake and pumping facilities, the treated
water storage, and treated water pressure/head requirements. The design within the water
treatment plant must also be integrated between the various treatment processes.
22.3.2.1 Head available. For the design flow to pass through a water treatment plant, the
total available head must exceed the head requirements of the unit processes and con-
necting conduits. The head available is the difference in energy grade line (EGL) in the
hydraulic profile between the head works of the plant and the end of the plant. Additional
head may be provided by pumping or by lowering the elevation of treatment units at the
end of the plant. See Figure 22.3 for a typical water treatment plant hydraulic profile.
For most surface water plants, the hydraulic profile at the head of the plant is
controlled by raw water pumps pumping from the intake facilities. The hydraulic profile
at the head of a plant in a groundwater system is typically determined by the well pumps
serving the plant.
22.3.2.2 Typical unit process head requirements. Following below is a table of typical
head requirements for water treatment plant processes. This table may be used for initial
evaluation of unit processes. More detailed hydraulic evaluations must be performed after
plant operating modes and design flows are determined. Detailed hydraulic evaluations
must also include headlosses in connecting conduits.
Head Requirement
Unit Process at Rated Capacity, m (ft)
Plant sites are normally selected before the hydraulic designer initiates design of the treat-
ment system. If a plant site has not been selected, the designer should be aware of
hydraulic considerations which may influence site selection.
Site elevation has the most significant impact on plant hydraulics. A plant site located
above the service area will eliminate or reduce pumping requirements from the plant to
the service areas. Typical municipal distribution system pressures are 4070 psi, therefore
the elevation of the treatment plant should be at least 100 ft above the service area to elim-
inate finished water pumping. Similarly, plant sites which permit gravity intake of the
source water may reduce or eliminate raw water pumping. Few plants are able to meet
these optimal conditions.
The typical surface water plant must pump both raw and finished water. Raw water
(low-lift) pumps are used to pump water from the water source into the treatment facilities
and finished water (high-lift) pumps are used to pump from the treatment plant into the
service area distribution system.
After the plant site has been identified, the plant design may be arranged for optimal
hydraulic benefit. In particular, arrangement of treatment processes to allow flow to move
down gradient minimizes excavation needs for structures. Arrangements which are
designed for future expansion should consider the hydraulic needs of the expanded plant
as well as the process needs. Grouping of processes together facilitates movement of
water through the treatment process train.
The designer should also consider secondary hydraulic systems for optimal design.
Chemical feed systems and dewatering systems are examples of secondary hydraulic
systems which must be coordinated with the treatment flow system. Normally it is
desirable to minimize the length of chemical piping systems. Dewatering systems are usu-
ally based on gravity drainage of basins and conduits.
After evaluation and selection of a source of supply and development of the treatment
plant process train, the designer is prepared to develop the plant Bases for Design. The
Bases for Design is a summary of design flow and capacity, and proposed treatment
processes, including the chemical storage and feed facilities.
22.3.5.1 Design flows. Design flows for water treatment plants serving municipalities
are typically based on the projected population within the water service area for the
design life of the treatment facilities. Population data is normally determined from
census records, land use zoning information, and studies of existing and projected
population densities. Service area per capita demands are affected by the mix of
domestic, commercial, and industrial water users which are unique to each service
area.Typically water consumption records are available for water service areas. For new
facilities, the use of generalized water consumption data may be needed. In the United
States, water consumption varies widely but generally ranges between 100200 gal-
lons per capita per day.
From studies of projected population and per capita demand, planned design flows for
the water treatment facilities may be developed. These demands include the following:
Annual average demand. The average daily water consumption for the water service
areas, generally computed by multiplying the average daily consumption (gallons per
capita) by the projected population of the service area.
Maximum demand. Maximum demand experienced by the water plant throughout its
service life. The maximum hour demand is generally 200 to 300 percent of the aver-
age demand but numerous factors affect the peak demand experienced by water treat-
ment plants. These factors include seasonal demands (particularly for plants where ser-
vice areas are located in extremes of hot and cold temperatures), normal daily flow
variations, the community size, industrial usage, and system storage. Normally system
storage is provided to service peak hour demands, allowing the treatment facilities to
be designed on peak day demands. Peak day demands generally range between 125
and 200 percent of the average demand.
Minimum flow. As the name suggests, the minimum flow expected to be processed
through the treatment facilities. Minimum flow depends upon system operations. In
general, minimum flows for municipal plants may be estimated as 50 percent of the
average demand, but range between 25 and 75 percent of the average demand.
22.3.5.2 Rated treatment capacity. The rated treatment capacity of a plant is that capac-
ity for which each of the unit processes are designed. For municipal treatment plants with
adequate system storage, the rated treatment capacity is the systems maximum day
demand. Where storage is limited, the rated treatment capacity may be greater, for exam-
ple, the system maximum hour demand or greater. Smaller systems may be designed to
produce the rated treatment capacity in one or two 8-h shifts rather than over the entire
24-h day.
22.3.5.3 Hydraulic treatment capacity. Treatment plants are normally designed for a
hydraulic capacity greater than the rated treatment capacity. Hydraulic treatment capaci-
ties are normally equal to 125 to 150 percent of the rated treatment capacity. The hydraulic
treatment capacity provides flexibility for future process changes or alternative flow rout-
ings through the plant. Hydraulic capacities in excess of the rated treatment capacity pro-
vide some margin of safety for operations which may not be optimal (e.g., control gates
inadvertently left partially open).
22.3.5.4 Treatment process bases for design. The development of the water treatment
plants Bases for Design is a key step in establishing the criteria to which the plant will
be designed. This document must be reviewed carefully with the water treatment plant
owner representatives and understood and agreed to by all before the final design pro-
ceeds. The Bases for Design presents a summary of each treatment process including
design flows (minimum, average, rated capacity), specification of dimension of major ele-
ments (e.g., tanks, pumps), both hydraulic and process loading characteristics, required
performance, and design data for the chemical storage and feed system. Table 22.4 pre-
sents an example of the bases for design for sedimentation basins (one of the many unit
processes in a water treatment plant).
Bases for Design, the designer determines the rated treatment capacity, average flow,
minimum flow and hydraulic capacity of the plant.
Following development of the Bases for Design, the designer must evaluate plant
operating modes to develop a detailed plant flow diagram and hydraulic profile
through the plant.
22.3.6.1 Plant operating modes. Operating modes describe the sequence of treatment
processes the water goes through to achieve the required level of purification. Operational
modes are normally presented in the form of simplified block diagrams which illustrate
the flow path through the plant from one process to the next. These operational mode
block diagrams are useful in visualizing stages during construction, future planned plant
expansions or simply alternative operating modes.
Figures 22.4 through 22.9 show an example of a sequence of plant operating modes for
a surface water treatment plant which illustrate three stages of a plant expansion program
with alternatives for the flocculation and sedimentation basins to work in series or in par-
allel. Plant processes proposed include raw water control chambers, rapid mix chambers,
flocculation/sedimentation basins, ozone contact chambers, and filters. In this example,
the raw water control chambers are used to split flow between plant process groups and
also as a rapid mix chamber for chemical addition.
The Stage III split parallel operational mode is similar to the parallel operational mode
except that the ozonated settled water from each set of basins is not combined prior to
flowing to the filters. Side-by-side plant scale treatment studies are possible with the
future split parallel mode since part of the flocculation/ sedimentation/filtration processes
can be operated as a control while the remainder of the plant can be operated in a
controlled experimental mode.
The series flocculation/sedimentation operational mode is designed to permit opera-
tion of the sedimentation basins in two stages in lieu of the singlestage parallel mode.
Under certain raw water conditions, operation of the basins in series may enhance perfor-
mance of the basins. Chemical feed for the first and second sedimentation stages may be
adjusted to respond to raw water conditions and settled water quality after the firststage
sedimentation. Series flocculation/sedimentation increases hydraulic losses through the
plant. Under this mode, twice as much flow is routed to each basin and the flow pattern is
longer, since the settled water from the first sedimentation stage must be returned to the
influent of the second sedimentation stage.
Operational mode block diagrams are also a convenient means to illustrate the effect
of side stream flows which may impact the overall plant flow. For example, removal of
sludge from the sedimentation basins is accompanied by a decrease in flow leaving the
basins compared with flow entering the basins. In a similar manner, filter backwash water
removes a certain amount of flow. A plant designed to produce a certain rated capacity
may have to treat more than the rated capacity through certain processes. The impact of
these side stream flows must be evaluated on an individual basis. In many treatment
plants, backwash water treatment facilities are installed to recycle backwash water to the
head of the plant.
22.3.6.2 Plant flow diagrams. After establishing plant operating modes, more detailed
flow diagrams are developed by the designer. The diagrams normally start with possible
valving and gating arrangements and are then expanded with tentative valve, sluice gate,
pipeline, and conduit sizes.
Valving arrangements are designed to enable any of the major operational units (e.g.,
sedimentation basin, ozone contact chamber) to be removed from service. The arrange-
ment may include design of temporary flow stop devices, such as stop logs (sectional bar-
riers which were originally constructed of logs but are now commonly metal plates). The
arrangement should be designed to permit maintenance work on major valves and sluice
gates while minimizing the impact on plant process. Major channel sections should be
designed so they can be removed from service and dewatered while minimizing impacts
on the rest of the plant.
The designer should distinguish between units taken out of service frequently (such
as filters), periodically (such as sedimentation basins), or rarely (such as conduits).
Filter backwashing occurs so frequently that the rated treatment capacity can be met
with one filter out for backwashing. Sedimentation basins may be removed from service
once or twice per year for equipment maintenance. Since the basins outages occur at
widely scattered intervals, it is reasonable to design the units to be removed from ser-
vice during lower flow periods. Conduits and pipelines are rarely removed from service,
but the hydraulic impacts can be significant. Depending on the conduit location,
removal of a conduit can remove a portion of the plant from service. Effective design
will provide redundant conduits so that a portion of the plant can remain in service dur-
ing conduit dewatering.
The focus of this section has been on the main plant hydraulics, but the hydraulic
designer must also design for hydraulic subsystems. An important group of these subsys-
tems include dewatering of all basins and conduits. Where plant elevations will allow,
gravity dewatering is recommended. In most cases, dewatering pumps are necessary.
These pumps may be located in the unit being dewatered or may be located in a separate
structure connected to the process unit by dewatering pipelines.
22.3.6.3 Hydraulic Profile. One of the most important tools in the hydraulic design of a
water treatment plant is the development of a hydraulic profile. The hydraulic profile is a
diagram showing the energy grade line (EGL) at each unit process. For open tanks with
flows at minimal velocities, which is the case in most water treatment plants, the velocity
head is negligible and the hydraulic grade line (HGL) or water surface elevation (WSEL)
provide an adequate representation of the EGL. Profiles normally include critical struc-
tural elevations of processes and conduits. The profile may also include ground surface
profiles and other site information.
Hydraulic profiles are developed for each of the design flows. In the case of water
treatment plants, the design flows may include rated treatment capacity, hydraulic capac-
ity, average flow, and minimum flow. Hydraulic profiles should also take into considera-
tion unit processes or conduits which may be taken out of service. Hydraulic profiles are
valuable design and operational tools to assist in scheduling routine maintenance activi-
ties and for evaluating the impact to the treatment plant capacity during outages of process
units or conduits.
Computations of hydraulic profiles begin at control points where there is a definite
relationship between the plant flow and water surface depth. For gravity flow plants, the
most common forms of control points are weirs and tank water surface elevations (e.g.,
clear well water surface elevations), but other types of control points may be used. From
each control point, head losses associated with local losses, plant piping, and open chan-
nel flow are added to the control water surface. Since flows in water treatment plants are
mostly in the subcritical regime (Froude number 1), most hydraulic designers will work
upstream from the control point. For pressure plants, control points are typically pressure
regulating or pressure control points, frequently in the service area distribution system.
From these control points and knowledge of the flow velocity, both the EGL and HGL
may be computed back to the treatment facilities.
Hydraulic profiles are valuable design tools to identify overall losses through the plant.
Profiles are also valuable to identify units with excessive losses. Since total head available
is normally limited, units with excessive losses should be considered for redesign to
reduce local loss coefficients or to reduce velocities.
Figure 22.3 is an example hydraulic profile for a gravity surface water treatment plant
with conventional treatment processes. The method of computing headlosses is presented
in Section 22.3.7.
In this section calculations required to establish the WSEL through a medium-sized water
treatment plant will be presented. A schematic of the water treatment plant is shown in
Fig. 22.10. Notice that future growth has been considered in the initial design. Three
examples are included which illustrate typical hydraulic calculations. The first example
calculates the WSEL from the sedimentation basin effluent chamber back through the
flocculation/sedimentation basins to the Raw Water Control Chamber. The second follows
the flow from the clear well back through the filters. Filter hydraulics are illustrated in the
third example. All examples are presented in a spreadsheet format which is designed to
facilitate calculating the EGL, HGL, and WSEL at various points through the treatment
process and for multiple flow rates (i.e., minimum, daily average, peak hour, future
conditions).
22.3.7.1 Coagulation. Process criteria and key hydraulic design parameters. The coag-
ulation process, used to reduce particulates and turbidity, is carried out in three steps: mix-
ing (often referred to as rapid or flash mixing), flocculation, and sedimentation. Each of
these steps is briefly discussed below.
Rapid mixing. The mixing process imparts energy to increase contact between
existing solids and added coagulants. Possible mixer types include turbine, propeller,
pneumatic, and hydraulic. Headloss that occurs in mixing chambers depends on the cho-
sen mixing device. Most mechanical mixers do not create significant head losses. The
headloss coefficient (K)
K associated with a specific mixer can be obtained from the manu-
facturer. Pneumatic mixing, which is not common, has associated losses similar to those
for aeration (see table in Section 22.3.2.2, above). Hydraulic mixing takes place using
weirs, swirl chambers, throttled valves, Parshall flumes, or other devices to induce turbu-
lence. Head loss coefficients for these devices can be obtained from the manufacturer.
Important considerations during the initial design of a mixing chamber include:
Velocity gradient. This is mixerspecific information and can be obtained from the
manufacturer. The system should be designed to provide a velocity gradient that is
optimal for the coagulation process taking place.
Dead spots and short circuiting. An ideal mixing system will have minimal dead spots
and short circuiting. These can be avoided with proper sizing and placement of
mixers.
Flocculation. Coagulated particles form larger particles (flocs) during the gentle mix-
ing of flocculation, where the flow travels slowly through a series of flocculator paddles,
baffles, or conduits. Inlets and weirs are designed to provide low turbulence for protection
of the flocs. The energy provided to the system by the flocculators (manufacturer-specif-
ic) or baffling is decreased as the flow approaches the sedimentation basins.
Sedimentation. Gravity sedimentation removes coagulated solids prior to filtration.
There are four zones in a clarifier as shown in Fig. 22.11 and listed below:
Inlet zonewhere upstream flow conditions transition smoothly to uniform flow set-
tling conditions
Sedimentation zonewhere sedimentation takes place
Sludge zonewhere solids collect and are removed
Outlet zonewhere settling conditions smoothly transition to downstream flow
conditions
Each of the zones is designed to minimize turbulence and avoid short circuiting. The
velocity in the sedimentation zone is limited to 0.3 m/s (1 ft/s) for average flow. Sludge
removal equipment moves slowly so that settling patterns are not disturbed. Because the
process is designed for smooth flow and minimal turbulence, very little head loss occurs
in sedimentation basins. Ports at the inlet and outlet produce the greatest head losses in
this process.
Hydraulic design example. Table 22.5 illustrates the calculation of the WSEL, using
metric units, through the coagulation process at the medium-sized water treatment plant
shown in Fig. 22.10. Figs. 22.12 through 22.14 show plan views and details of the
Flow depth WSEL @ 9 invert (109.12 m) (m) 0.68 0.72 0.77 0.90
Flow area 0.91 m width depth (m2) 0.62 0.65 0.71 0.82
Velocity flow/area (m/s) 0.29 0.39 0.39 0.44
/ (P w 2d) (m)
r = A/P 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30
Conduit loss [(V n)/(rr2/3)]2 L (m)
where n 0.014 and L 3.86 m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WSEL at Point 10 (m) 109.80 109.84 109.89 110.02
12. Point 10 to Point 11
Flow Q/8, m3/s 0.27 0.38 0.41 0.55
Flow depth WSEL @ 10 invert (109.12 m) (m) 97.34 97.38 97.44 97.56
Flow area 0.91 width depth (m2) 89.01 89.04 89.09 89.21
Velocity flow/area (m/s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
2
Loss at two 45 bends 2 0.2 V /2g (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WSEL at Point 11 (m) 109.80 109.84 109.89 110.02
13. Point 11 to Point 12
Flow Q/4 (m3/s) 0.55 0.77 0.82 1.09
Flow depth WSEL @ 11 invert (109.12 m) (m) 0.68 0.72 0.78 0.90
Flow area 1.52 m width depth (m2) 1.04 1.09 1.18 1.37
Velocity flow/area (m/s) 0.52 0.70 0.69 0.80
Loss at two 45 bends 2 0.2 V 2/2g (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
/ (P w 2d) (m)
r = A/P 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.41
Conduit loss [(V n)/(rr2/3)]2 L (m)
where n 0.014 and L 9.75 m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WSEL at Point 12 (m) 109.81 109.84 109.90 110.03
14. Point 12 to Point 13
Flow Q/4, (m3/s) 0.55 0.77 0.82 1.09
Flow depth WSEL @ 12 invert (109.12 m) (m) 0.69 0.72 0.78 0.91
Inlet area 1.52 m width depth (m2) 1.05 1.10 1.19 1.38
Velocity flow/area (m/s) 0.52 0.69 0.69 0.79
Inlet loss 1 V 2/2g (m) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03
WSEL at Point 13 (Mixing Chamber No. 2 outlet) (m) 109.82 109.87 109.92 110.06
15. Point 13 to Point 14
Note: Mixers provide negligible head loss
Flow Q/4 (m3/s) 0.55 0.77 0.82 1.09
Chamber area 1.83 m 1.83 m (m2) 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34
Velocity flow/area (m/s) 0.16 0.23 0.25 0.33
Losses Mixer (1 V 2/2g) Sharp bend (1.8 V 2/2g) (m) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02
WSEL at Point 14 (Mixing Chamber No. 2 inlet) (m) 109.82 109.87 109.93 110.07
Note: For Points 14 through 21, see Fig. 22.14
16. Point 14 to Point 15
Flow Q/2 (m3/s) 1.09 1.53 1.64 2.19
Conduit area 2.29 m wide 1.22 m deep (m2) 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.79
Velocity flow/area ( m/s) 0.39 0.55 0.59 0.78
/ (P 2w 2d) (m)
R = A/P 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Conduit losses L [V/(0.849
V C R0.63)] 1/0.54 (m)
where L 47.24 m and Hazen-Williams C 120 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02
Local losses flow split (0.6 V 2/2g) contraction
(0.07 V 2/2g) 0.67 V 2/2g (m) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
WSEL at Point 15 (at Mixing Chamber No. 1) (m) 109.83 109.89 109.95 110.11
hydraulic reaches analyzed in the example. The circled numbers indicate points at which
the WSEL is calculated. Hydraulic calculations start downstream of the sedimentation
basins (Fig. 22.12) and proceed upstream through the mixing chamber (Fig. 22.13) and
the Raw Water Control Chamber (Fig. 22.14). Mechanical mixers and mechanical floccu-
lators are used. Conduit losses between the rapid mix chambers and the Raw Water
Control Chamber are also calculated in the example. Three different flow rates (i.e., min-
imum day, average day, and, maximum hour) are used in the calculations. This is a range
of design flow conditions that a design engineer would typically take into consideration.
The longest path through the flocculation and sedimentation processes, through Basin
No. 4, is followed (Points 1 through 15). Although not shown, losses along the shortest
path have also been calculated. As would be expected, the calculated head loss is smaller
for the shorter path. The actual losses are equal for each path. The flows through each path
naturally adjust to equalize losses. The flow through the longest path is slightly smaller
than the flow through the shortest path. In the example, the WSEL at Point 15 is adjusted
to reflect the average losses through the basins. The WSEL calculations upstream of Point
15 are based on the adjusted WSEL. Alternatively the weirs or ports feeding flow into each
basin may be adjusted to create an equal distribution of flows in all basins as discussed in
Sec. 22.2.1.
22.3.7.2.2 Filtration. Process criteria. Suspended solids are removed from the water as
it passes through a porous medium during filtration. Filters operate under either gravity or
pressure. Filters also differ in the type and distribution of the media used (fine, course,
uniformly graded, graded coarse to fine, etc.) and the direction of flow through the media
(upflow, downflow, and biflow). Pressure filter hydraulics information is very product
specific and should be obtained from the manufacturer. The design engineer using pres-
sure filters should then apply this information to the project using projectspecific
hydraulic considerations. This section presents information on gravity filters.
Key hydraulic design parameters. The headloss through a filter increases with use as
the voids become filled with solid particles. When the headloss reaches a certain point
(terminal headloss), the filter is backwashed to remove the solids. The rate of headloss
buildup is dependent on several factors, including how the filter is graded (the arrange-
ment of media particle sizes). The rate of headloss buildup is reduced (and filtration is
more effective) when the flow first goes through the coarse media and then the fine media.
However, during backwash, the high rate of flow expands the filter bed and, over time, the
media are regraded so that the more coarsely graded grains are located at the bottom and
the fines are located at the top. To benefit from the coarse-to-fine grading, an upward flow
pattern can be used, but is very uncommon. More often the filter media are selected such
that the fine media have a higher specific gravity than the coarse media to maintain the
course-to-fine gradation during backwash. The most commonly used filter media are nat-
ural silica sand and crushed anthracite coal; however garnet and ilmenite are used in
mixed media beds. Granular carbon is often used if taste and odor control is desired.
The terminal headloss is determined by a combination of factors including filter break-
through (when the filter bed loses its adsorptive capacity), available static head, and out-
let pressure required. The filter should be designed so that the headloss in any level of the
filter bed does not exceed the static pressure. A negative head can result in air binding in
the filter which will, in turn, further increase headloss.
Filter influent piping is sized to limit velocities to about (0.6 m/s). Wash-water and
effluent piping flow velocities are kept below (1.8 m/s) so that hydraulic
transients(waterhammer) and excessive headlosses are minimized and controlled to
within tolerable limits.
Hydraulic design example. Table 22.6 illustrates the calculation of the WSEL from the
clear well back upstream to the Sedimentation Basin effluent at the medium-sized water
treatment plant shown in Fig. 22.10. Figures 22.15 and 22.16 show details of the hydraulic
reaches analyzed in the example. Table 22.7 illustrates the filter hydraulic calculation, the
details of which are shown in Figs. 22.17 and 22.18.
The hydraulic profile of the plant (based on hydraulic calculations done in Tables 22.5,
22.6 and 22.7) is shown in Figure 22.3.
TABLE 22.6 Hydraulic Calculations in a MediumSized Water Treatment Plant from the Filter
Effluent to the Effluent Clearwell
FIGURE 22.18 Available head over which filter effluent rate controller operatesmetric units.
Membranes are synthetic filtering media manufactured from a variety of materials includ-
ing polypropylene, polyamide, polysulfone, and cellulose acetate. The membrane materi-
al can be arranged in various configurations, including the following:
Spiral wound
Hollow fiber
Tubular
Plate frame
Examples of these configurations are presented in Fig. 22.19. In water and wastewater
treatment applications, the most common configurations are spiral wound and hollow fiber.
In general, there are four classes of membranes: microfilters (MF), ultrafilters (UF),
nanofilters (NF), and hyperfilters. Treatment through hyperfilters is referred to as hyper-
filtration, or reverse osmosis (RO).
The hydraulics associated with membranes are membrane-specific and can be obtained
from the manufacturer. This section presents general considerations pertinent to flow
through membranes.
As with natural particle media filters, clean membranes have a specific headloss and,
over time, as the membranes become covered with a cake buildup, the effectiveness of the
membrane decreases and headloss increases. Fouling (excessive buildup) may damage the
membrane.
The need for pretreatment ahead of membranes is determined by the raw water qual-
ity and the membrane type. In general, microfilters and ultrafilters do not require pre-
treatment for treating surface or groundwater. Nanofilters and reverse osmosis mem-
branes may require pretreatment depending on the type of fouling. Membrane fouling
can result from particulate blocking, chemical scaling, and biological growth within the
membranes.
An estimate of particulate blocking can be made using indices such as the Silt Density
Index (SDI) and the Modified Fouling Index (MFI). These fouling indices are determined
from simple bench membrane tests using 0.45 micron Millipore filters and monitoring
flow through the filter at a given pressure, usually 30 psig. Approximate values of suitable
SDIs for nanofiltration are 03 units, and for reverse osmosis, 02 units. Corresponding
values of MFI are, for nanofiltration 0 to 10 s/L2, and for RO, 02 s/L2.
Scaling control is essential in RO and nanofilter membrane filtration, especially when
the filtration provides water softening. Controlling precipitation or scaling within the
membrane element requires identification of limiting salt, acid addition for prevention of
calcium carbonate precipitation within the membrane, and/or the addition of an
antiscalant. The amount of antiscalant or acid addition is determined by the limiting salt.
A diffusion controlled membrane process will naturally concentrate salts on the feed side
of the membrane. As water is passed through the membrane, this concentration process
will continue until a salt precipitates and scaling occurs. Scaling will reduce membrane
productivity and, consequently, recovery is limited by the allowable recovery just before
the limiting salt precipitates. The limiting salt can be determined from the solubility prod-
ucts of potential limiting salts and the actual feed stream water quality. Ionic strength must
also be considered in these calculations as the natural concentration of the feed stream
during the membrane process increases the ionic strength, allowable solubility and recov-
ery. Calcium carbonate scaling is commonly controlled by sulfuric acid addition, although
sulfate salts, such as barium sulfate and strontium sulfate, are often the limiting salt.
Commercially available antiscalants can be used to control scaling by complexing the
FIGURE 22.19 Membrane configurations. (a) Spiral wound, (b) hollow fiber, (c) tubular, (d) plate
and frame.
metal ions in the feed stream and preventing precipitation. Equilibrium constants for these
antiscalants are not available which prohibits direct calculation. However, some manufac-
turers provide computer programs for estimating the required antiscalant dose for a given
recovery, water quality, and membrane.
Biological fouling is controlled with some membranes such, as cellulose acetate, by
maintaining a free chlorine residual of not more than 1 mg/L. Other membranes, such as
the thin-film composites, are not chlorine tolerant and must rely on upstream disinfection
by, for example, ultraviolet disinfection or chlorination-dechlorination. The extent of foul-
ing for a specific application and its influence in the design of nanofiltration and RO mem-
brane systems is best determined by pilot studies.
It has been suggested that some buildup on the membrane may be beneficial to treat-
ment by providing an additional filtering layer. At facilities operated by the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD), removal rates of 1.72.9 logs were
observed for seeded virus MS2 bacteriophage through microfilters that had a pore size an
order of magnitude larger than the nominal size of MS2 (1).
The microfiltration system used by MWD utilizes an air backwash procedure where-
by compressed air at 90100 psig is introduced into the filtrate side of the hollow fiber
membranes. Accumulated particulates dislodged by the compressed air are swept away
by raw water introduced to the feed side of the membranes. The backwash sequence is
carried out automatically at preset time intervals. MWD found the best interval to be
every 18 minutes. The total volume of backwash represents approximately 57 percent
of influent flow.
The difference between influent and effluent pressure across the membrane is termed
the transmembrane pressure (TMP). Despite the frequent air and water backwashes, the
TMP gradually increases over time. Generally, when the TMP reaches approximately
15 psig, chemical cleaning of the membranes is carried out. If the TMP is allowed
to increase beyond 15 psig, particulates can become deeply lodged within the lattice struc-
ture of the membranes and will not be removed, even by chemical cleaning. Chemical
cleaning typically lasts 23 hours and involves circulating a solution of sodium hydroxide
and a surfactant through the membranes, and soaking them in the solution.
The membranes at the MWD microfilter plants have a surface loading rate of 4067
ft2. The lower flux rate of 40 ft2 has the advantage that the rate of increase of TMP is
reduced and the interval between chemical cleanings is increased. A possible explanation
for this is that particulates are not forced as deeply into the lattice structure of the mem-
branes, thereby allowing the air-water backwash to clean the membranes more effective-
ly. By reducing the flux rate from 6740 ft2, the interval between chemical cleanings was
increased from 2 to 3 weeks to almost 20 weeks. However, MWD has instituted a maxi-
mum run time of 3 months between chemical cleanings to ensure the long-term integrity
of the membranes.
Nanofiltration is widely used for softening groundwaters in Florida. A typical nanofil-
tration plant would include antiscalant for scale control added to the raw water. Cartridge
filters, usually rated at 5 microns, remove particles that may foul the membrane system.
Feed water pumps boost the pretreated water pressure to about 90130 pounds per square
inch (psi) before entering the membrane system. The membranes typically are spiral
wound nanofiltration membranes generally with molecular weight cutoff values in the
200500 dalton range.
Hydraulic decision making for a new wastewater treatment plant or expansion of an exist-
ing plant involves several planning phases. Typical planning phases are presented below
in their common order of consideration.
22.4.1.1 Service area and flows. More than 15,000 municipal wastewater treatment plants
are in operation in the United States today. The plants are designed to treat a total of about
140 million m3 of flow each day. Flow quantities requiring treatment change over time based
on a number of factors related to service area. These factors include the following:
Changes in service area size. Most often the service area will increase in size during
the wastewater treatment plant service life. However, service area size may decrease, such
as when wastewater in larger metropolitan areas is diverted to an alternate wastewater
treatment plant. Information about anticipated changes in the size of a wastewater treat-
ment plant service area can sometimes be found in regional planning documents.
Changes in service area land use. Changes in the type of land use in the service
area, such as from residential to industrial, will impact the flow rates to be served by
the treatment plant. Also, the development of impervious areas within the wastewater
treatment plant service area will reduce infiltration and increase runoff volume and rate.
If this runoff then enters the sewer system it will impact the flow rate to the plant. A
combined sewer system will be more susceptible to this type of change than a separate
sewer system.
Changes in service area density. Wastewater treatment plant flows are a function of
the number of inhabitants and industries which generate the wastewater. An understand-
ing of the regional planning issues which may affect the wastewater treatment plant ser-
vice area assists in estimating future increases in flow and making appropriate provisions
for future plant expansions. Such flow increases will likely be partially offset by increased
water conservation in water-limited areas.
Changes in service area infiltration/inflow. Most often the rates of infiltration/inflow
will increase as the collection system becomes older. Such flow increases can generally
be offset by periodic sewer rehabilitation, manhole rehabilitation, and enforcement of
inflow control ordinances.
The quantity of wastewater to be handled by a wastewater treatment plant is affected
primarily by the type of wastewater produced in the service area and type of wastewater
collection system used. The four types of wastewater which may be produced in a given
sewer system service area include sanitary wastewater, industrial wastewater, stormwater,
and infiltration/inflow. The three types of sewer systems used to collect some or all of
these flow types include sanitary, storm, and combined-sewer systems. The types of
wastewater are defined as follows:
Sanitary flow. Wastewater discharged from residences and from institutional, com-
mercial and similar facilities. Quantities of sanitary flow can be estimated on a per capita
basis for each type and size of residence or facility producing the flow.
Industrial flow. Wastewater discharged from industrial facilities. In a heavily industri-
alized area, industrial flow can make up a majority of a wastewater plants influent flow.
Industrial wastewater quantities produced by a given facility can be estimated based on
facility type, size, and rate of production.
Stormwater. Stormwater is precipitation runoff. Stormwater enters storm or combined
collection systems as surface or subsurface inflow. The rate of stormwater entering a
storm or combined sewer system as inflow mirrors the intensity and quantity of the pre-
cipitation event, although if the precipitation is frozen the runoff will be delayed until
melting occurs.
Infiltration Water (including stormwater) that seeps into a wastewater collection sys-
tem through the ground, usually through cracks or leaks in the collection system.
Accordingly, infiltration rates typically vary both annually and seasonally. The age of the
collection system should be considered when estimating infiltration rates because older
collection systems are prone to higher infiltration rates. If the amount of infiltration is sig-
nificant enough to affect plant influent water quality, the treatment processes must be
selected accordingly.
Inflow. Surface and subsurface stormwater discharging directly into a wastewater
collection system. Precipitation events significantly impact inflow rates and can also
impact infiltration rates by surcharging the groundwater table. The elevation of the
groundwater table relative to the sewer elevation directly affects the infiltration flow rate.
The types of sewer systems include sanitary-sewer systems which collect sanitary
wastewater, industrial wastewater (if present in service area), and infiltration/inflow.
Storm-sewer systems collect stormwater and infiltration/inflow, and combined-sewer sys-
tems collect sanitary wastewater, industrial wastewater (if present in service area),
stormwater, and infiltration/inflow. Flows to wastewater treatment plants are conveyed by
separate-sewer systems and, in some older systems, combined-sewer systems. Hydraulic
design guidelines for sanitary-sewer systems have been compiled by the American Society
of Civil Engineers and the Water Environment Federation (1982).
22.4.1.4 Hydraulic bases for design. Flow rates for the wastewater treatment plant must
be established for the hydraulic design. Design year flow projections are often based on
estimated conditions 1520 years in the future. Providing sufficient treatment capacity to
accommodate new development can be an important municipal commodity for expanding
the municipal tax base. The design should also provide allowances for the initial plant
operation when flow may be significantly less than the design flow, as well as expansion
or rehabilitation to handle flows reasonably anticipated beyond the design year.
Peak flow is used for hydraulic design, whereas average flow is used for treatment
process design. Peak flow is defined as the maximum hour flow experienced by the waste-
water treatment plant throughout its service life. The maximum hour flow is generally two
to five times the average daily flow. Plants serving combined collection systems can expe-
rience even greater flow variations. Treatment plant unit processes must convey the max-
imum flow unless this flow would cause a hydraulic washout of the treatment plant. In this
situation, the designer should consider the use of equalization basins to minimize negative
impact on the treatment process. In addition, the plant must also be able to fully process
minimum flow without undesirable settling of solids throughout the treatment train. Plants
normally encounter diurnal fluctuation of pollutant loadings, as well as flow loadings.
Fluctuation in pollutant loadings may impact treatment process selection and consequent-
ly impact process hydraulics.
22.4.1.5 Flow diagram. A flow diagram should be prepared to depict the results of
process selection and hydraulic bases of design. Details in a flow diagram should include
the type of unit processes, number of basins for process redundancy, flow distribution and
junction chambers, piping, and conduits for interconnecting the unit processes and major
recycle streams such as return-activated sludge (RAS). Figure 22.20, which was men-
tioned above, shows a typical flow diagram.
22.4.1.6 Plant siting. Several factors affect the plant site selection process, including site
elevation, topography, geology, and hydrology; site access; utility availability; seismic
activity; surrounding land use and future availability; noise, odor and air quality require-
ments at and near the site; existing collection system and receiving water proximity; and
other environmental considerations.
A sites hydraulic suitability for a wastewater treatment plant is determined primarily
by site elevation and topography. The typical site elevation is low-lying, which facilitates
the flow of wastewater from the service area by gravity and minimizes costly pumping in
the collection system. Such a site, however, may require flood protection. The difference
in head between the plant influent sewer and the receiving water body is the head avail-
able for the treatment plant. If available head does not exceed the plants head require-
ments, additional head can be provided by pumping the wastewater. Selecting processes
with lower head requirements can also reduce the need for pumping. Pumping of waste-
water, especially untreated wastewater, should be avoided when possible due to potential
operational difficulties of handling the associated rags, grit, stringy material and other
large solids. A mild, continuous slope usually provides optimal gravity flow conditions.
Relatively flat sites often necessitate higher pumping heads. Sites on a severe, uneven
slope or slopes can require costly hydraulic and structural features, and should be avoid-
ed when possible.
22.4.1.7 Plant layout. The selected treatment processes establish the major space and
hydraulic requirements needed to develop initial plant layouts. Also, provisions for future
unit process additions and plant capacity expansions should be included both spatially and
hydraulically. Support facilities, such as maintenance, laboratory and administrative
facilities, must also be considered.
Arranging process elevations to generally follow plant site topography minimizes the
amount of structural excavation. Site geology constraints may limit the practical depth and
elevation of the processes. In such cases, additional pumping facilities may be necessary
to provide sufficient head for the required water surface elevation.
When arranging treatment processes, a preliminary hydraulic profile should be devel-
oped as discussed below. The plant hydraulic profile and site topography and geology
information together determine the location having the optimal elevation for each process.
Other objectives when developing a plant layout at a selected site include: close proxim-
ity of processes to associated facilities; structure grouping according to process;
transportation equipment and staff traffic pattern efficiency; minimization of process
piping; and safe, isolated hazardous chemical and material locations.
When preparing layouts for addition of a new process to an existing plant, the existing
plant hydraulic profile should be consulted to determine the amount of head available for
the new process. If adequate hydraulic head is not available for the new process, new
pumping facilities will be necessary.
22.4.1.8 Hydraulic profile and calculations. A hydraulic profile should be prepared for
the flow train to graphically depict the results of hydraulic calculations and site layouts.
Details in a profile should include free water surface elevations throughout the flow train,
including unit treatment processes, interconnecting piping and channels, junction cham-
bers, flowmeters and flow control devices, as well as structural profiles. Figure 22.21
shows a typical hydraulic profile. Both high and low water levels are shown to illustrate
the range of liquid levels anticipated at each structure. Sufficient freeboard must be pro-
vided to prevent liquid or floating material from splashing over the sides under conditions
of high water level. Low water levels are important when designing devices requiring a
mimimum amount of submergence, such as surface skimmers or baffles.
In addition to normal high and low water levels, hydraulic calculations should address
other potential conditions. For example, for each process having redundant structures, the
largest capacity unit should be assumed to be out of service during maximum flow for
consideration of a worst case. The process structure should always be hydraulically
capable of accommodating the change in elevation due to the worst case. head require-
ments without liquid overtopping the walls.
The process head requirement is the amount of head lost by the wastewater as it pass-
es through a process at maximum flow. The head requirement for a specific process can
vary with flow rate, influent water quality, process equipment size, process equipment lay-
out, process equipment components included, and process equipment manufacturer.
22.4.2.1 Bar screens. Process criteria. The first unit operation typically encountered in
a wastewater treatment plant is screening. A schematic diagram of a typical bar screen sys-
tem is shown in Fig. 22.22. A screen is comprised of a screening element with circular or
rectangular openings designed to retain coarse sewage solids. The screens are designated
as hand cleaned or mechanically cleaned based on the method of cleaning. Based on the
size of the openings, screens are designated as coarse or fine. The general dividing line
between coarse and fine screens is an opening size of 6 mm (1/4 in). A bar screen is a
coarse screen designed to remove large solids or trash that could otherwise damage or
interfere with the downstream operations of treatment equipment, such as pumps, valves,
mechanical aerators, and biological filters. The bar screens are oriented vertically or at a
slope varying from 30 80 with the horizontal.
Key hydraulic design parameters. The key hydraulic design parameters for bar
screens include the approach channel, effective bar opening, and operating head loss.
Approach channel. Velocity distribution in the approach channel is an important fac-
tor in successful bar screen operation. A straight channel ahead of the channel provides
good velocity distribution across the screen and promotes effectiveness of the device. Use
of a configuration other than a straight approach channel has often resulted in uneven flow
distribution within the channel and accumulation of debris on one side of the screen. The
velocity in the approach channel should be maintained at a self-cleaning value to dislodge
deposits of grit or screenings. Ideally, the velocity in the screen chamber should exceed
0.4 m/s (1.3 ft/s) at minimum flows to avoid grit deposition if grit chambers follow bar
screens. However, this is not always practical with the typical diurnal and seasonal fluc-
tuation in wastewater flows. In general, common design practice provides velocities of
0.61.2 m/s (24 ft/s) for mechanically cleaned bar screens and 0.30.6 m/s
(12 ft/s) with a velocity of 0.9 m/s (3 ft/s) at peak instantaneous velocity for manually
cleaned bar screens.
Effective bar opening. Various types of bar screens, including trash racks, manual
screens and mechanically cleaned bar screens, employ a wide range of openings from
6 to 150 mm (146 in). The smaller screen openings collect larger quantities of screenings
and generally produce higher head losses. The effective area of the screen openings equals
the sum of the vertical projections of the screen openings.
Operating head loss. As the screenings are collected, the openings in the screen
become partially clogged and head losses increase. The maximum design allowance for
headloss through the clogged screens is generally limited to 0.8 m (2.5 ft). Curves and
tables for head loss through the screening device are usually available from the equipment
manufacturer. To prevent flooding of the screening area caused by severe blinding of the
screen during a power failure or similar disruption to cleaning, the design should provide
for an overflow weir or gate and a parallel channel allowing overflows to flow around
the screen.
Hydraulic design example. The wastewater influent transported through the inlet
sewer passes the bar screens prior to discharge into the pump well. Three bar screens are
provided to handle hydraulic loadings varying from 1.0 m3/s (23 mgd) for minimum day
flow during initial operation to 3.2 m3/s (73 mgd) for maximum hour flow during design
operation. Sluice gates and stop logs are provided as part of the bar screen design so that
any bar screen can be isolated for maintenance as required.
Design hydraulic calculations for the bar screens are shown in Table 22.8. The WSEL
at the pump well provides a downstream control point for the bar screens and channels.
The WSEL at the pump well normally fluctuates between the pump control high water
level and low water level. A high water level (HWL) of 100.60 m at the pump well is
assumed. The channel bottom elevation of 99.50 m is determined to provide channel flow
velocities in a range of 0.21.3 m/s for the flow range between the minimum and maxi-
mum day flow rates. The head requirements for the sample bar screen system is in the
range of 0.170.36 m (0.561.2 ft) when the pump wet well level is at the maximum ele-
vation of 100.60.
22.4.2.2 Grit tanks. Process criteria. Grit, consisting of sand, gravel, cinders, and other
heavy solid materials, is present in wastewater conveyed by either separate or combined
sewer systems, with far more in the latter. Grit removal prevents unnecessary abrasion and
wear of mechanical equipment, grit deposition in pipelines and channels, and accumula-
tion of grit in primary sedimentation basins or aeration basins and anaerobic digesters.
Traditionally removal of 95 percent of grit particles larger than 0.21 mm (0.008 in or 65
mesh) has been the target of grit equipment design. Modern designs are now capable of
removing up to 75 percent of 0.15 mm (0.006 in or 100 mesh) to avoid adverse effects on
downstream processes.
A variety of grit removal devices have been applied over the years. The basic types of
grit removal processes include aerated grit chambers, vortex-type, detritus tank, horizon-
tal flow type and hydroclone. Vortex systems are increasingly being selected. Detritus
tanks and aerated grit chambers are still popular. Depending on the type of grit removal
process used, the removed grit is often further concentrated in a cyclone, classified, and
then washed to remove light organic material captured with the grit.
Key hydraulic design parameters. The key hydraulic design parameters for grit tanks
include the inlet channel or inlet baffle, and effluent weir.
Inlet channel/inlet baffle. For aerated grit chambers, the tank inlet and outlet should be
positioned so that the flow through the tank is perpendicular to the roll pattern created by the
diffused air. Inlet and outlet baffles serve to dissipate energy and minimize short circuiting.
For vortex tanks, the flow into the vortex tank should be straight, smooth and stream-
lined. As a good practice, the straight inlet channel length should be seven times the width
of the inlet channel or 15 ft, whichever is greater. The ideal velocity in the influent chan-
nel ranges from 0.6 to 0.9 m/s (23 ft/s) and should be used for flows between 40 and 80
percent of the peak flow. The minimum acceptable velocity for low flow is 0.15 m/s (0.5
ft/s). A baffle, located at the entrance, helps control the flow system in the tank and also
forces the grit downward as it enters the tank.
For detritus tanks, the performance relies on well-distributed flow into the settling
basin. Allowances for inlet and outlet turbulence, as well as short circuiting, are necessary
to determine the total tank area required.
For horizontal flow grit chambers, velocity control throughout the chamber at approx-
imately 0.3 m/s (1 ft/s) is important. An allowance for inlet and outlet turbulence is nec-
essary to determine the actual length of the channel.
Effluent weir. The effluent weir of the grit chamber provides the hydraulic control
point of this process. With a free fall at the weir, critical depth occurs upstream near the
weir and it affects the water surface profile upstream if the flow is subcritical. The efflu-
ent weir should be designed to keep the velocity below 0.3 m/s (1 ft/s) and to minimize
turbulence in the outlet.
Hydraulic design example. A schematic diagram of a typical vortex grit tank system
is shown in Fig. 22.23. The effluent from the bar screen is pumped to the grit tank influ-
ent channel. The influent is distributed to three grit tanks. The hydraulic loading
conditions are the same as those for the bar screens.
Design hydraulic calculations for the vortex grit tank system is shown in Table 22.9.
The head requirements for the sample grit tank system are in the range of 0.300.69 m
(1.02.3 ft).
22.4.2.3 Sedimentation tanks. Process criteria. A typical municipal wastewater treat-
ment system consists of primary sedimentation and secondary (or final) sedimentation
tanks. The purpose of both type of sedimentation tanks is to separate the settleable solids
from the liquid stream by gravity settling.
The primary sedimentation tank receives the wastewater passed through bar screens
and/or grit tanks. The objectives of primary sedimentation are to produce a liquid effluent
suitable for downstream biological treatment and to achieve solids separation. The solids
result in a sludge that can be conveniently and economically treated before ultimate
disposal. On an average basis, the primary sedimentation tank removes approximately
60 and 30 percent of influent total suspended solids (TSS) and 5-day biological oxygen
demand (BOD5), respectively.
The secondary sedimentation tank receives mixed liquor from the aeration tank. Mixed
liquor is a suspended biological growth stream containing microorganisms and treated
wastewater. The microorganisms settle with other settleable solids and the clear water is dis-
charged from the sedimentation tank as an effluent. The sedimentation process also thickens
the settled solids, a major part of which is returned to the aeration tank and the remainder is
wasted as secondary sludge. Sedimentation tank performance is critical for meeting effluent
limits for TSS and BOD5. The secondary sedimentation effluents are usually designed to
produce 30 mg/L or lower for TSS or BOD5, depending on the effluent requirement.
Both primary and secondary sedimentation tanks are commonly arranged in either
rectangular or circular shape. Key design parameters include surface overflow rate (SOR),
tank water depth, hydraulic detention time, and weir loading rate. Solids loading rate is anoth-
er important parameter for the secondary sedimentation tank. A properly designed sedimen-
tation tank will provide similar performance for both rectangular and circular shapes. Choice
of the shape depends on the site constraints, construction cost, and designer preference.
Key hydraulic design parameters. The key hydraulic design parameters for sedimen-
tation tanks include the inlet conditions, inlet channel, inlet flow distribution, inlet baffle,
outlet conditions, overflow weir, and effluent launder.
Inlet conditions. Inlets should be designed to dissipate the inlet port velocity, distrib-
ute flow and solids equally across the cross-sectional area of the tank, and prevent short
circuiting in the sedimentation tank. The minimum distance between the inlet and outlet
should be 3 m (10 ft) unless the tank includes special provisions to prevent short
circuiting.
Inlet channel. Inlet channels should be designed to maintain velocities high enough to
prevent solids deposition. The minimum channel velocity is typically 0.3 m/s (1 ft/s).
Alternatively, inlet channel aeration or water jet nozzles can be designed to prevent solids
deposition.
Inlet flow distribution. Inlet flow can be distributed by inlet weirs, submerged ports,
or orifices with velocities between 0.05 and 0.15 m/s (0.150.5 ft/s), and sluice gates or
gate valves. Uniform flow to the sedimentation tanks can be achieved by locating inlet
ports away from sides, adding partitions or baffles in the inlet zone to redirect the influ-
ent, and creating a higher head loss in the inlet ports relative to that in the inlet channel.
Alternatively, splitter boxes are used for equally splitting the flow as well as solids con-
tained in the liquid into multiple sedimentation tanks.
Inlet baffle. Inlet baffles are designed to dissipate the energy of the inlet velocities.
Baffles are usually installed 0.60.9 m (23 ft) downstream of the inlet port and
submerged 0.450.6 (1.52 ft), depending on tank depth. The top of the baffle should be
far enough below the water surface to allow scum to pass over the top. Circular tanks typ-
ically have a feed well with a diameter 15 to 20 percent of the tank diameter. The
submergence varies depending on the manufacturer.
Outlet conditions. Effluent should be uniformly withdrawn to prevent localized high
velocity zones and short circuiting. Typically, effluent is withdrawn from a sedimentation
TABLE 22.9 Example Hydraulic Calculation of a Typical Vortex Grit Tank System
tank over an effluent weir into a trough and/or effluent channel. Clarifier performance can
often be improved by installation of interior baffles. For circular tanks, particularly for
secondary sedimentation tanks, a baffle mounted on the wall beneath the effluent weir can
deflect solids rising along the wall. Alternatively, mid-radius baffles supported by the
sludge removal mechanism are also available.
Overflow weir. The overflow weir must be level to promote uniform effluent with-
drawal. Weirs may be either straight edged or V-notched. V-notched weirs have high-
er headloss, but provide better lateral distribution than straight-edged weirs that are imper-
fectly leveled.
Effluent launder (or trough). Effluent launders may be designed with submerged ori-
fices or free discharge into the collection chamber or channel from which the effluent
flows to the effluent pipe. Disadvantage of the submerged launder is that it is not effective
in varying flow rates. Disadvantage of the free fall launder is potential release of odorous
gases. Two principal approaches to weir and launder design are the long-launder and
short-launder options. Long launders control the head loss over the weir within a narrow
range. In cold regions, fluctuating water levels with short launders would minimize ice
attachment to launders and basin walls.
Hydraulic design example for primary sedimentation. A schematic diagram of typical cir-
cular primary sedimentation tank system is shown in Fig. 22.24. The primary sedimenta-
tion tanks receive the grit tank effluent and hydraulic loading conditions are the same as
those of the grit tanks. A single primary sedimentation tank is shown for simplicity.
Design hydraulic calculations for the primary sedimentation tank system is shown in
Table 22.10. Note that the design locates Points 5 and 6 at elevations such that down-
stream flow conditions will not impact flow conditions in the effluent channel or overflow
weir. The head requirements for the sample primary sedimentation tanks are in the range
of 1.11.5 m (3.64.9 ft).
Hydraulic design example for secondary sedimentation. A schematic diagram of typical
rectangular secondary sedimentation tank system is shown in Figure 22.25. The secondary
sedimentation tanks receive flows from the aeration tanks and hydraulic loading condi-
tions are same as those of the aeration tanks. A single secondary sedimentation tank is
shown for simplicity. Design hydraulic calculations for the secondary sedimentation tank
system is shown in Table 22.11. The head requirements for the sample secondary sedi-
mentation tanks are in the range of 1.61.7 m (5.26.2 ft).
22.4.2.4 Aeration tanks Process criteria. The most common aerobic suspended
growth treatment system for municipal wastewater is the activated sludge system.
Wastewater and biological solids (mixedliquor suspended solids or MLSS) are com-
bined, mixed, and aerated in the aeration tank. The biological MLSS solids take up the
organics and nutrients contained in the wastewater and convert them into more biosolids
and gaseous by-products. After sufficient time for biological reactions, the mixed liquor
is transferred to the following secondary sedimentation tanks where biosolids are separat-
ed from the wastewater. The separated wastewater is discharged as an effluent. The sepa-
rated biosolids are returned to the aeration tank (return activated sludge or RAS) while a
predetermined amount of the separated biosolids is wasted as waste activated sludge
(WAS).
Factors that must be considered in the design of the activated sludge process include
loading criteria, selection of reactor type, sludge production, oxygen requirements and
transfer, nutrient requirements, environmental requirements, solid-liquid separation, and
effluent characteristics.
Sizing of aeration basins is based on two key factors: providing sufficient time for
oxidation of organics or ammonia nitrogen; and maintaining of a flocculent, well-set-
tling MLSS that can be effectively removed by gravity settling. Solids residence time
(SRT) or mean cell residence time (MCRT) is often used to relate substrate removal
time requirements to biological growth and biosolids production. Once an SRT is select-
ed, calculation of aeration tank volume requires an estimation of biosolids production
and selection of proper MLSS concentration. The selected MLSS concentration along
with the solids settling characteristics is important to the final sedimentation tank per-
formance. Therefore, sizing of the aeration tank is always optimized with the final sed-
imentation tank design.
The aeration tank should be provided with sufficient oxygen required for the biologi-
cal reaction and sufficient power required for thorough mixing of the biomass with the
incoming wastewater stream. Although a variety of diffused aeration and mechanical aer-
ation systems are available, diffused aeration systems are more popular in the municipal
wastewater treatment.
Aeration basin configurations.. Common aeration basins include various process con-
figurations, physical configurations and designs for process selectors. A schematic dia-
gram of a typical rectangular aeration tank system is shown in Fig. 22.26.
Process configuration Various aeration process configurations can be used depending
on the range of loading conditions, design effluent quality, aeration system design require-
ments and flexibility of operation. Configurations often encountered include complete
mix, plug flow, oxidation ditch, and a combination of these. For smaller plants, oxidation
Critical depth, yc (qc2/(g w62)0.33 (m) 0.19 0.26 0.23 0.31 0.41
Water depth at upstream end
of channel, yu 2 (yc)2 (yc
L 2]0.5 (2 Sc L
(S*L/3) L/3) (m) 0.21 0.33 0.28 0.42 0.58
Channel bottom El at upstream
end of trough, 104.70 104.70 104.70 104.70 104.70
ELucb ELdcb ELdif (m)
HGL at trough downstream,
HGL6d ELdcb yc (m) 104.75 104.82 104.79 104.87 104.97
HGL at trough upstream,
HGL6u ELucb yu (m) 104.91 105.03 104.98 105.12 105.28
3. Point 6 to Point 5
Allowance to Weir from
high trough HGL (m) 0.10 0.10 0.10 .010 0.10
Weir elevation, Elwe, max.
HGL6u allowance (m) 105.38 105.38 105.38 105.38 105.38
Headloss over VVnotch weirs
Number of weirs per tank, Nw 1 1 1 1 1
Tank diameter, Dt, (m) 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00
Weir length, Lw (Dt) 3.14 (m) 141.30 141.30 141.30 141.30 141.30
Hydraulic load, So q/Lw
/ , [(m3/s)/m] 0.0035 0.0057 0.0047 0.0075 0.0113
Weir angle, A, (degrees) 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.00
V-notch height, Vh (m) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
V-notch width, Vw 2
(TAN(A( /2) Vh (m) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Space between notches, Esv (m) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Number of notches per weir,
nv Lw/(Ew Esv) 614 614 614 614 614
Flow per notch, Qcw q/nv (m3/s) 0.0008 0.0013 0.0011 0.0017 0.0026
Weir coefficient for 90 notch, Cw 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34
Water depth over the weir, hle5
(Qcw/Cw)(1/2.48) 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08
hle5 < Vh? (If not, need to
readjust calculations) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
HGL at Point 5, HGL5
ELwe hle5 (m) 105.44 105.45 105.44 105.45 105.47
4. Point 5 to Point 4
Headloss through primary
sedimentation tanks
Number of tanks, Nt 2 2 3 3 2
Flow per tank, q (m3/s) 0.50 0.80 0.67 1.07 1.60
Tank diameter, Dt (m) 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00 45.00
Side water depth, Dsw (m) 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30
Tank bottom elevation,
ELt HGL5 Dsw (m) 101.14 101.14 101.14 101.14 101.14
Tank floor slope, St (%) 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33 8.33
Minimum floor tank elevation, ELtf 99.27 99.27 99.27 99.27 99.27
0.0833 (Dt/2)
t EL (m)
Headloss through tank, hlt4
t (m) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
(available from equipment
manufacturer)
HGL at Point 4, HGL4
HGL5 hlt4t (m) 105.49 105.50 105.49 105.50 105.52
5. Point 4 to Point 3
Headloss through PST influent pier
Pier diameter, Dp 1.07 m 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07
Pier length, Lp (m) 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50
V Q/(3.14
Velocity, V3
(Dp/2)2) (m/s) 0.56 0.89 0.74 1.19 1.78
Hazen-Williams coefficient, Cp 120 120 120 120 120
Hydraulic radius, Rp Dp/4 (m) 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
Slope, Sp [V3/(0.85
V Cp Rp(0.63)](1/0.54)
(%) 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.26
Headloss, Hlf3f Lp Sp (m) 0.0020 0.0047 0.0033 0.0079 0.0168
Exit headloss from pier
Exit headloss coefficient
Kexit 1.0 1 1 1 1 1
Headloss, hle3 K V3V 2/2g (m) 0.0158 0.0404 0.0281 0.0719 0.1617
HGL at Point 3, HGL3
HGL4 Hlf3 f hle3 (m) 105.50 105.54 105.52 105.58 105.69
6. Point 3 to Point 2
Total number of pipes 3 3 3 3 3
Number of pipes per primary
sedimentation tank 1 1 1 1 1
Pipe diameter, Dp (m) 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Flow per pipe, q (m3/s) 0.50 0.80 0.67 1.07 1.60
Velocity, VV2 0.44 0.71 0.59 0.94 1.42
Friction headloss through primary
sedimentation tank influent pipe
Hazen-Williams coefficient, Cp 120 120 120 120 120
Hydraulic radius, Rp Dp/4 (m) 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
Length of pipe, Lp (m) 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0 70.0
Slope, Sp [V2/(0.85
V Cp Rp(0.63)](1/0.54)
(%) 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.15
f Lp Sp (m)
Headloss, hlf2 0.0120 0.0287 0.0205 0.0490 0.1037
Fitting headloss through two 45 bends
Fitting headloss coefficient
Kbend 0.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Headloss, hlb2 K V2 V 2/2g (m) 0.0050 0.0128 0.0089 0.0227 0.0511
HGL at Point 2, HGL2
HGL3 hlb2 hlf2f (m) 105.52 105.58 105.55 105.65 105.85
7. At Point 1
ditches are more popular and for larger plants, plug flow is favored. Various modifications
of plug flow systems include conventional, tapered aeration, step aeration, modified aera-
tion, and contact stabilization.
Physical configuration. Various physical configurations are used in the aeration tank
design, including rectangular, circular, oval, and octagonal shapes.
Selector design. Selectors are small compartments for aerobic, anoxic or anaerobic
processing usually located in the front end of the aeration tank. The purpose of the selec-
tors is to promote the growth of floc-forming microorganisms by providing a favorable
food to microorganisms (F:M) ratio while suppressing filamentous growth. Typically
selectors are designed with low HRTs and high F:M ratio.
Key hydraulic design parameters. The key hydraulic design parameters for aeration
tanks include the distribution box, inlet channel, inlet flow distribution, inlet baffles, aer-
ation equipment, RAS, effluent weir, and effluent channel.
Distribution box. Sluice gates, weirs, gate valves or orifices installed in a distribution
box are often used to distribute the upstream flow to multiple aeration tanks and to a sec-
ondary treatment bypass line. Design should provide the desired rate of flow distribution
at all flow conditions with minimum headloss. Provisions to minimize solids deposition
in the distribution box and appurtenances should be considered.
Inlet channel. Inlet channels should be designed to maintain velocities high enough to
prevent solids deposition but low enough to minimize headloss. A velocity of 0.3 m/s
(1 ft/s) is typically used to keep organic solids in suspension. Alternatively, inlet channel
aeration with diffused air, fed at a rate of 0.50.8 m3/min (2030 scfm), is often used.
Inlet flow distribution. Inlet flow can be distributed by inlet weirs, submerged ports or
orifices, and sluice gates or gate valves. Return activated sludge may be introduced prior
TABLE 22.11 Example Hydraulic Calculation of a Typical Final Sedimentation Tank System
to or after the inlet flow distribution. Good mixing should be provided to promote uniform
distribution of the influent flow and RAS flow. Wastewater flow split inlet design with a
relatively high headloss is often used to provide reasonably equal distribution of flow to
multiple aeration tanks or to multiple inlets in each aeration tank operating in a step feed
mode. Sometimes influent distribution piping which is extended to and having an inlet
port at each step feed point is used.
Inlet baffles. Depending on the aeration tank configuration, inlet baffles are used to
dissipate the energy from the inlet velocities. Inlet baffles are designed to direct uniform
distribution of MLSS along the width of the aeration tank.
Aeration equipment. Diffused aeration systems are predominantly used in the munic-
ipal treatment plants. Although the air bubbles dispersed in the wastewater occupy approx-
imately 1 percent of the volume, no allowance is made in aeration tank sizing. The vol-
ume occupied by submerged piping and diffusers is usually negligible. If spiral-flow mix-
ing with coarse bubble diffusers is used, the width-to-depth ratios vary from 1:1 to 2.2:1.
The tank depth, most commonly 45 m (1316 ft), is usually determined by desired oxy-
gen transfer efficiency of various aeration equipment. Freeboard from 0.3 to 0.6 m (1 to 2
ft) above the water surface is normally provided. If surface mechanical aerators are used,
a freeboard of more than 0.6 m (2 ft) may be required depending on the power input for
the aeration and mixing. Freezing during the winter due to the mist should also be con-
sidered in the design.
Return activated sludge (RAS). The rate of RAS is normally 30 to 50 percent of the
wastewater flow. Peak rate of RAS may go up to 100 percent of the wastewater flow for
large plants and up to 150 percent of the wastewater flow for small plants. Design should
provide adequate mixing, hydraulic capacity, and uniform distribution where RAS is
introduced to the incoming wastewater.
Effluent weir. The effluent weir provides a fixed control elevation of hydraulics in the
aeration tank. Sometimes effluent ports instead of effluent weir are used to minimize
headloss.
FIGURE 22.26 Schematic diagram of aeration tank system. (AT = aeration tank; PST = primary
sedimentation tank).
Effluent channel. The design considerations described in the inlet channel also apply
to the design of the effluent channel. Often the effluent channel from the aeration tanks is
the same as the influent to the final sedimentation tanks.
Hydraulic design example. The aeration tanks receive the primary sedimentation tank
effluent and hydraulic loading conditions are the same as those of the primary sedimenta-
tion tanks. Design hydraulic calculations for the aeration tank system is shown in Table
22.12. The head requirements for the sample aeration tanks are in the range of 0.41.0 m
(1.33.3 ft).
22.4.2.5 Granular media filter. Process criteria. Granular media filtration is usually
used where the plant suspended solids effluent limit is equal to or less than 10 mg/L. It
may also be applied following secondary biological treatment to remove particulate car-
bonaceous BOD5 and residual insolubilized phosphorus. The degree of suspended solids
removal when filtering secondary effluents without the use of chemical coagulation
depends on the degree of bioflocculation achieved during secondary treatment. The pres-
ence of significant amounts of algae impedes filtration of lagoon effluents. Pretreatment
with a coagulant is considered to be a good practice for such cases.
There are many types of proprietary granular filters available. However, granular
media filters are generally classified according to direction of flow, type, and number of
media comprising the bed, the driving force, and method of flow control. Most wastewater
filters are downflow units while some proprietary filters use various combinations of
upflow and downflow. The driving force for filtration may be either gravity or pressure.
Gravity filters are commonly used in large municipal treatment plants while pressure fil-
ters are often used in smaller plants.
Gravity filters are generally sized for a filtration rate of 1.44 L/(m2s)/ (26
gal/(ft2min) and terminal headlosses of 2.43.0 m (810 ft). Multiple units are used to
allow continuous filtration during backwash or maintenance. Typical length to width ratio
of gravity filters vary from 1:1 to 4:1.
Key hydraulic design parameters. The key hydraulic design parameters for granular
media filters include headlosses, filter operation, collection and distribution systems, and
backwash requirements.
Head losses. The head losses includes the losses associated with piping, valves,
meters, bends, constrictions, filter media, underdrains, and collection systems. All losses
vary with the square of the velocity. Clean water headloss for the filter media is influenced
by media type, size, uniformity, and depth. As filtration rate increases within the terminal
head loss range, less headloss capacity is available for solids storage. The head required
for the filter is the sum of all headlosses including the terminal head loss of the filter
media. If sufficient head is not available, pumping of filter influent is required.
Filter operation. Three basic methods of filter operation are constant pressure, con-
stant rate and variable declining rate. The constant pressure system requires a large
upstream storage and is seldom used with gravity filters. The constant rate system requires
a relatively costly rate control system and true constant-rate filtration is seldom used. In
declining-rate filtration, the filtration rate may be kept constant using influent or effluent
control weirs during the initial period of operation and, thereafter, declining rate of filtra-
tion. Generally, declining-rate filters are the best mode of gravity filter operation unless
the design terminal headloss exceeds 3 m.
Collection and distribution systems. (underdrain). In conventional downflow filters,
the underdrain system serves to both collect the filtrate and distribute the backwash water.
Traditional systems using gravel layers with perforated pipe are no longer commonly
used. More popular underdrain materials include precast channels, poured-in-place con-
crete, or steel pipe with built-in nozzles and orifices. Porous plates made of aluminum
oxide or stainless steel are also available but they are susceptible to clogging.
Backwash requirements. Backwash is the cleaning of the filter by reversing the flow
through the filter media at a controlled flow rate. Backwashing causes an expansion of the
bed, normally no more than 10 percent of the depth, by allowing abrasive action among
particles. The quantity of backwash water will generally be about 30004000 L/m2
(75100 gal/ft2). Bachwashed water is collected in the wash-trough which is located about
0.9 m (3 ft) above the filter media. Biological solids in secondary effluent are strongly
attached to the media and air scour before or during backwash is often required to pro-
mote successful cleaning. Air requirements for the air scour are on the order of
0.0150.025 (m3/m2)/s [35 (ft3ft
2)/min].
TABLE 22.12 Example Hydraulic Calculation of a Typical Final Aeration Tank System
Hydraulic design example. A schematic diagram of a typical granular media filter sys-
tem is shown in Fig. 22.27. The granular media filters receive the secondary effluent either
before or after chlorination and hydraulic loading conditions are the same as those of the
secondary effluent. A single granular media filter is shown for simplicity. Design
hydraulic calculations for the granular media filter system is shown in Table 22.13.
The head requirements for the granular media filters are in the range of 2.83.2 m
(9.310.6 ft).
22.4.2.6 Mixing and contact chambers. Process criteria. Physical and chemical waste-
water treatment processes involve mixing, coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation.
Chemical coagulation is often used for enhanced treatment in primary sedimentation and
for tertiary treatment after secondary treatment, and before or after filtration. Advantages
of coagulation include greater removal efficiencies of total suspended solids, organic
materials, phosphorus, and other pollutants. Disadvantages include an increased produc-
tion of chemical sludge and an increased operating cost.
Chemical coagulants are mixed with wastewater during rapid mix which is the first
step of the coagulation process. The coagulants destabilize the colloidal particles which
allows their agglomeration. Velocity gradients (G) or a mixing intensity of 300 (mmm)/s
are generally sufficient for rapid mix. The rapid mix can be accomplished with mechani-
cal mixers, in-line blenders, pumps, or air mixers.
Following the rapid mixing, flocculation takes place through gentle prolonged mixing
which promotes the destabilized particles to grow and agglomerate. Typical detention
times for flocculation range between 20 and 30 minutes. During this period, velocity gra-
dients of 5080 (m mm)/s should be maintained. Following flocculation, the settleable
solids are settled in the following sedimentation tank.
Key hydraulic design parameters. The key hydraulic design parameters for mixing
and contact chambers include the inlet channel, inlet baffles, mixing equipment, and
outlet channel
Inlet channel. Inlet channels should be designed to maintain velocities high enough to
prevent solids deposition and to promote equal distribution of flow if multiple tanks are
used.
Inlet baffles. Inlet baffles should be designed to dissipate the energy from the veloci-
ties and to prevent short circuiting.
22.4.2.7 Cascade aerators Process criteria. Cascade aeration is a physical unit process
typically used for effluent aeration. The system employs a series of steps or weirs over
which the effluent is discharged. The system is configured to maximize turbulence in
order to increase oxygen transfer. The head requirements vary depending on the initial dis-
solved oxygen (DO) and the desired final DO. If the necessary head is not available, efflu-
ent pumping or mechanical aeration is required.
Although cascade aeration is not a new concept, its application to wastewater treatment
is relatively new. Design criteria for an efficient cascade aeration system design include a
fall height at each step equal to or less than 1.2 m (4 ft); a flow rate equal to or less than
235 (m3h)/m
[315(gal/min)/ft] of width; and a pool depth after each fall equal to or less than
0.28 m
(0.9 ft).
Hydraulic design example. A schematic diagram of a typical cascade aeration system
is shown in Figure 22.28. Cascade aerators normally receive the secondary treatment
effluent and hydraulic loading conditions are the same as those of the secondary treatment
effluent. Design hydraulic calculations for the cascade aeration system is shown in Table
22.14. The head requirements for this example of the cascade aerators is 4.6 m (15.1 ft).
22.4.2.8 Effluent outfall. Process Criteria. The treatment plant accomplishes as much
pollutant removal as required to produce effluent meeting the criteria established by the
regulatory agencies. Ultimate disposal of wastewater effluents are by dilution in receiving
waters, by discharge on land, seepage into the ground, or reclamation and reuse. Of these,
disposal into the receiving waters is the most common practice. The receiving waters
include rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans.
The outfall size is determined by the velocity, headloss, structural considerations, and
the economics of the situation. Velocities of 0.60.9 m/s (23 ft/s) at average flow are nor-
mally recommended in pipeline design to avoid excessive head loss. If the effluent
received preliminary treatment, lower velocities can be used. However, velocities higher
than 2.43.0 m/s (810 ft/s) should be avoided due to excessive headloss.
Key hydraulic design parameters. The key hydraulic design parameters for effluent
outfalls include available head, mixing and dispersion, submerged discharge, and dif-
fusers.
Available head. Sufficient head for gravity flow from the point of plant effluent
discharge to the receiving stream is not always possible. If sufficient head is not avail-
able, effluent pumping is required to prevent flooding of the plant area. Some plants
require effluent pumping during storm events or where tidal waves cause salt water
intrusion.
Mixing and dispersion. The outfall should be designed to operate at an adequate veloc-
ity to promote rapid dispersion and mixing of the effluent with the receiving stream. This
will minimize localized deposits of settleable solids and stratification of the residual organ-
ics and nutrients in the localized area, which may cause a DO deficit and algae growth.
22.4.2.9 Slurry and chemical pumping. Sludge solids. Typical needs for sludge pump-
ing involve transporting sludge from primary and secondary clarifiers to and between
thickening, conditioning, digestion or dewatering facilities, and from biological process-
es for recycle or further treatment. Several different types of sludge pumps are used since
various types of sludge require a wide range of service conditions.
The flow characteristics (rheology) of wastewater sludges vary widely from process to
process and from plant to plant. Because rheological properties directly influence pipeline
friction losses of pumped sludges, head loss characteristics of wastewater sludges also
vary extensively. Minimizing pumping distance and applying a conservative multiplier to
headlosses calculated for equivalent flows of water is the traditional approach to the
design of sludge pumping and piping systems. However, this approach is often inade-
quate. As a result of past research of non Newtonian fluid characteristics of sludges,
sludge pumping system design data based on specific measured rheological characteris-
tics of sludge and the characteristics on piping systems are now available. These data are
presented in Section 22.5.
Scum. Scum is collected from the surface of primary sedimentation tank or sec-
ondary sedimentation tank. Scum from the secondary treatment is more dilute and is usu-
ally returned to the head of the treatment plant or thickened prior to combining the thick-
ened scum with that from primary treatment. The scum is collected to a scum wet well
and pumped to another location for processing. Progressive cavity pumps, pneumatic ejec-
tors, and recessed impeller centrifugal pumps are used to pump scum. Key design ele-
ments for the scum collection and handling system include sloping the bottom of the scum
tank, use of smooth pipe such as glass-lined pipe, providing flushing connections, pigging
stations and cleanouts.
Grit slurry. Removal and conveyance of grit from the grit chamber can be accom-
plished with varying degrees of success by a number of different methods, including
inclined screw or tubular conveyers, chain and bucket elevators, clamshell buckets, and
pumping. Of these methods, pumping of grit from hoppers in the form of slurry offers dis-
tinct advantages over other methods but also has some disadvantages. The advantages
include small space requirement and flexibility of service by any grit pump from any grit
tank to any grit handling system with simple valve operation. A disadvantage is frequent
maintenance required for piping and valves due to the abrasive grit. Considerations to be
given in piping design include minimization of bends, providing cleanouts at critical
bends, providing redundant piping at the location of likely clogging, and maintaining a
velocity of 12 m/s (36 ft/s).
Vortex or recessed impeller pumps and air lift pumps normally handle grit slurries.
Frequent pumping and applying waterjets or compressed air to loosen the compacted grit
in the hopper prior to pumping is a good practice for grit pumping.
Chemical solutions. Chemicals used in municipal treatment plants are received in
either liquid or solid form. The chemicals in solid form generally are converted to solu-
tion or slurry prior to feeding although dry feeding is also practiced. Design of solution
feed systems mainly depends on liquid volume and viscosity.
Liquid feed units include piston, positive-displacement, and diaphragm pumps, as well
as liquid gravity feeders. The unit best suitable for a particular application depends on the
required head, chemical corrosiveness, application rate, other liquid properties, and the
type of control.
where Sy yield stress coefficient of rigidity and the corresponding Reynolds num-
ber becomes
V
VD 3Dv2
R (22.4)
3v 16SyD
Using the Babbitt and Caldwell (1939) recommendation, and taking 2000 as the lower
and 3000 as the upper limits of R, the critical velocities are:
For flow in suspension, where M
ML (flow in suspension);
2000
VLC (22.5)
D
3000
VUC (22.6)
D
1000 103
9
4
2
D2S
y
VLC D (22.7)
140
1500 127 2
D2S
y
VUC D (22.8)
ably and were designated as the curve of Poor Digestion in an attempt to represent the
upper limit of the range. The limiting moisture ML can be determined from Fig. 22.30 as
the point where Sy 0 cuts the curve.
related to M. The experimental determination of the coefficient of rigidity indicat-
ed its variation with moisture M to be less pronounced than Sy. Accordingly, the plots are
more scattered. The two lines (shown in Fig. 22.31) of High and Mean are
suggested for design purposes.
Case 1Suspension/Laminar Stage. For flow in suspension, the solid particles are free
to move past one another and there is consequently no yield value to overcome. Reduction
of moisture content only slightly increases the specific weight ( 62.4 G) and the vis-
cosity . Both remain close to the values for water. The yield stress, Sy, is zero for flow in
suspension.
The equation for headloss for laminar stage flow in suspension becomes
H V
2 (22.9)
L 62.4G D
where G specific gravity
in which both G and for the corresponding M can be determined from the Figs. 22.29
and 22.31.
Case 2Suspension/Turbulent Stage. Streck (1950) and Winkel (1943) reported the
headloss of turbulent flow in suspension may be computed as follows:
HS G2HW (22.10)
where HS the headloss of flow in suspension with moisture M HW the corresponding
headloss of pure water
G the specific gravity of the suspension (from Fig. 22.29)
The headloss of flow in suspension for both laminar and turbulent conditions is not sig-
nificantly greater than the corresponding headloss for water.
Case 3Plastic Flow/Laminar Stage. Plastic flow in the laminar stage is the most com-
mon case in sludge flow. As discussed above, the headloss is partly due to yield value and
partly due to coefficient of rigidity, both of which are affected by the moisture M. Babbitt
and Caldwell (1939) reported headloss for this case as follows:
H 16Sy V
2 (22.11)
L 3D D
in which the values of , Sy, and may be determined from Figs. 22.29, 22.30 and 22.31,
respectively. For any moisture below the limiting value, plastic flow conditions mean Sy
0 and a headloss occurs due to yield value, Sy, alone. As motion begins,
headloss increases with the first power of velocity in the laminar stage. Hence, as soon
as the applied head is greater than Sy, relatively little additional head is required to
accelerate the flow to critical velocity. Therefore, it may be concluded that the most
economical velocity of sludge flow is the critical velocity, above which the headloss
increases rapidly with the velocity.
Case 4Plastic Flow/Turbulent Stage. Published data for turbulent plastic flow headloss
are variable and inconsistent. Due to variation of sludge characteristics, the velocities, the
results are extremely unpredictable.
For fully turbulent flow, it seems reasonable that the headloss results primarily from
kinetics and is proportional to v2/2g and the specific weight and, therefore, will differ
from that of water only slightly by the effect of . This ideal condition of full turbulence
rarely occurs for plastic flows. As the moisture drops below ML, the critical velocities
increase and the thickness of the boundary layers is increased in proportion to moisture
reduction. The velocity distribution in a cross section and the impacts of the boundary lay-
ers are not the same as the regular patterns of homogeneous liquids. Due to the compli-
cated and variable phenomena occurring during turbulent plastic flow, it is difficult, if not
impossible, to accurately anticipate headloss for flow in this condition. Designing for this
SPECIFIC GRAVITY G
FIGURE 22.29 Specific gravity G of sludge (From Chou, 1958)
condition is uncertain and not recommended. However, some experimental data are avail-
able for guidance when turbulent plastic flow is unavoidable. Brisbin (1957) compiled
headloss data for raw, thickened sludge. Thus, from such complicated phenomena, uni-
form results can hardly be expected.
The corresponding C in the Hazen-Williams formula
was computed from the observed headlosses. These C ' values are tabulated in Table 22.15
along with the ratio to water headloss.
Yield Stress, Sy
FIGURE 22.30 Yield value of Sy of sewage sludges (From Chou, 1958)
With the source and M of the sludge known or assumed, the first step is to determine if
the flow is a suspension or plastic. Empirically this can be done by the curves in Fig.
22.30. Values for G, Sy and are then chosen from curves in Figs. 22.29, 22.30, and 22.31.
1030 .01513
4
.145
D2
VLC 12.7 (22.13)
63.77D
PERCENTAGE OF MOISTURE BY WEIGHT
1270 .0226
4
.145
D2
VUC 19.1 (22.14)
63.77D
The values are tabulated against the pipe diameter D for a range of laminar flow veloc-
ities in Table 22.17.
Turbulent stage: Assume C 100 for M 100, and from a plot of Table 1 C' values,
the corresponding C' 54.7 for M 95.
D 8 in 10 in 14 in 20 in
D 8 in 10 in 14 in 20 in
H ft
0.000458v 0.000293v 0.000149v 0.000073v
L ft
V 0, H 0.00833 0.00666 0.00476 0.00333
L
V 3, H 0.00970 0.00754 0.00521 0.00355
L
VLC , H 0.00997 0.00770 0.00527 0.00358
L
Varies (see Table 22.16)
REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers, and Water Environment Federation, Gravity Sanitary Sewer
Design and Construction, American Society Civil Engineers Manuals and Reports on
Engineering Practice No. 60 and Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice No. FD-5,
1982.
Babbitt, H. E., and Caldwell, David H., Laminar Flow of Sludges in Pipes with Special Reference
to Sewage Sludge, University of Illinois, Bulletin 319, 1939.
Bingham, E. C., Fluidity and Plasticity, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1922.
Brisbin, S. G., Flow of Concentrated Raw Sewage Sludges in Pipes, Proceedings Paper 1274,
American Society Civil Engineers 1957.
Bulletin No. 2552 University of Wisconsin.
Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No.3, Water Conveyance Systems, Chapter 11 General
Hydraulic Considerations (Draft), (7-2071) (6-84), Sept. 30, 1992.
Camp, T. R., and Graber, S. D., Dispersion Conduits, Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineer, 94(SA1), February 1968.
Chao, J.L., and Trussell, R. R., Hydraulic Design of Flow in Distribution Channels, Journal of
Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, 6(EE2), April 1980.
Chou, T.L., Resistance of Sewage Sludge to Flow in Pipes, Journal of Sanitary Engineering
Div., American Society of Civil Engineer, Paper 1780, September 1958.
Committee on Pipeline Planning, Pipeline Division, Pipeline Design for Water and Wastewater,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1975.
Crane Co., Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe, Technical Paper No. 410-C, 23rd
ed., Banford, Ontario, 1987.
Daugherty, R. L., and J. B. Franzini, Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications, 7th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977.
Hatfield, W. D., Viscosity or Psendo-Plastic Properties of Sewage Sludges, Sewage Works
Journal, 10, 1938.
Ito, H., and Imani, K., Energy Losses at 90o Pipe Junctions. Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
American Society of Civil Engineer, HY9, 1973.
Keefer, C. E., Sewage Treatment Works, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1940.
Sanks, R. L., Pumping Station Design, Butterworths, Stoneham, MA, 1989.
Shaw, G. V., and A. W. Loomis, eds., Cameron Hydraulic Data, Ingersoll-Rand Co., Cameron
Pump Division, 14th Ed., 1970.
Simon, A. L., Hydraulics, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1986.
Streck, O., Grund und Wasserbrau in Praktischen Biespielen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1950.
Ten-State Standards, Recommended Standards for Sewage Works, Great LakesUpper Mississippi
Board of Sanitary Engineers, Health Education Service, Inc., Albany, NY, 1978.
Walski, T. M., Analysis of Water Distribution Systems, Krieger, Malabar, FL, 1992.
Williamson, J. V., and Rhone, T. J., Dividing Flow in Branches and Wyes, Journal of the
Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineer, No. HY5, 1973.
Winkel, R., Angwandte Hydromechanik im Wasserbau, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 1943.
Yao, K. M., Hydraulic Control for Flow Distribution, Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineer, 98 (SA2), April 1972
APPENDIX
WATER AND WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT
HYDRAULICS
TABLE 22.6 Hydraulic Calculations in a Medium Sized Water Treatment Plant from the Filter
Effluent to the Effluent Clearwell
7. Point 27 to Point 28
Port to filter clearwell. Calculate losses through port
as if it were a weir when depth of flow is
below top of port.
Port Dimmensions 9 ft wide by 2 ft 8 in feet deep
Flow Q/4 (ft3/s) 19.34 27.08 29.01 38.68
Weir (bottom of port) elevation (ft) 344.00 344.00 344.00 344.00
Depth of flow over weir (WSEL @ 27
weir elevation) (ft) 1.15 1.29 1.33 1.75
Flow over submerged weir = q = 3.1 h3/2
[1 (d/
d h)3/2]0.385 L
Note: Rather than solve for h, find an h
by trial and error that gives a q equal to the
flow for the given flow scenario (given in item 1).
assume h (ft) = 1.3 1.4 1.5 2
then q (ft3s) = 20.8841 20.2379 25.5883 41.0387
assume h (ft) = 1.28 1.49 1.55 1.97
then q (ft3/s) = 19.4646 27.0883 29.232 38.485
Note: These qs equal the flows for the given
scerios (Item 1)
h (feet) 1.28 1.49 1.55 1.97
WSEL at Point 28, (ft) 345.28 345.49 345.55 345.97
FiltersSee Filter Hydraulics in Table 22.7
Note: For Points 29 thruogh 33, see Fig. 22.16
8. Point 29
WSEL above filters (ft) 360.00 360.00 360.00 360.00
9. Point 29 to Point 30
Entrance to Filter #4
Flow Q/8 (ft3/s) 9.67 13.54 14.51 19.34
Channel Velocity
V Flow/
F /Area
(area 4 ft 4 ft) (ft/s) 0.60 0.85 0.91 1.21
Submerged entrance loss =
0.8 V 2/2g (ft) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02
48 in Pipe velocity flow/area
(area d 2/4 ) (ft/s) 0.77 1.08 1.15 1.54
Butterfly valve loss 0.25 V 2/2g (ft) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
Sudden elargement loss 0.25 V 2/2g (ft) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
WSEL in influent channel (Point 30) (ft) 360.01 360.02 360.02 360.04
10. Point 30 to Point 31
Flow depth WSEL @ 30 invert (352 ft) (ft) 8.01 8.02 8.02 8.04
Flow area 6 ft width depth (ft2) 48.05 48.11 48.12 48.22
Velocity flow/area (ft/s) 0.20 0.28 0.30 0.40
R A/P/ (P w 2d) (ft) 2.18 2.18 2.18 2.18
Condiut loss [(V n)/(1.486 R 2/3)] 2 L
where n 0.014 and L 35 ft 4 in (ft) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WSEL at Point 31 (ft) 360.01 360.02 360.02 360.04
11. Point 31 to Point 32
TABLE 22.9 Example Hydraulic Calculation of a Typical Vortex Grit Tank System
Headloss Kbend V6 2
V /2g, Hlb6 (ft) 0.0046 0.0103 0.0151 0.0168 0.0322
HGL at Point 6, HGL6
HGL7 Hlf6 f Hlb6 (ft) 348.46 348.72 348.88 348.93 349.31
6. Point 6 to Point 5
Headloss through sluice gate
Sluice gate headloss coefficient
Kgate 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Sluice gate width (ft) 4.92 4.92 4.92 4.92 4.92
Sluice gate height (ft) 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28
Water depth, h5 (ft) 3.97 4.22 4.37 4.42 4.78
Sluice gate height or h5,
whichever smaller 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28 3.28
Velocity through sluice gate, V
V5 (ft/s) 1.09 1.75 2.19 2.33 3.50
Headloss, Hls5 Kgate V5 /2g (ft)
2
0.0186 0.0475 0.0743 0.0845 0.1902
HGL at Point 5, HGL5
HGL6 Hls5 (ft) 348.48 348.77 348.95 349.01 349.50
7. Point 5 to Point 4
Channel width, w4 (ft) 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20
Bottom of channel EL (ft) 345.14 345.14 345.14 345.14 345.14
Water depth, h4 (ft) 3.34 3.62 3.81 3.87 4.35
Channel velocity, VV4 (ft/s) 0.65 0.95 1.13 1.19 1.58
Fitting headloss through a 90 bend
Fitting headloss coefficient Kbend 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Headloss, Hlb4 Kbend V4 V 2/2g (ft) 0.0065 0.0140 0.0199 0.0219 0.0389
Friction headloss through channel
Length of approach channel, L4, (ft) 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81
Mannings n for concrete channel 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
Hydraulic radius R4 h4 w4/
(2 h4 w4) (ft) 1.84 1.92 1.97 1.99 2.11
Headloss, Hlf4f (V4
V n/1.486 R4(2/3))2
L4 (ft) 0.0005 0.0009 0.0013 0.0014 0.0023
HGL at Point 4, HGL4
HGL5 Hlb4 Hlf4 f (ft) 348.49 348.78 348.97 349.04 349.54
8. Point 4 to Point 3
Headloss across vortex grit tank, H1tank (ft) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
(per manufacturer recommendations)
HGL at Point 3, HGL3 HGL4 H1tank (ft) 348.68 348.98 349.17 349.23 349.73
9. Point 3 to Point 2
Channel width, w2, (ft) 6.56 6.56 6.56 6.56 6.56
Bottom of channel EL (ft) 346.46 346.46 346.46 346.46 346.46
Water depth, h2 (ft) 2.23 2.52 2.71 2.78 3.28
Channel velocity, VV2 (ft/s) 1.21 1.71 1.98 2.07 2.63
Friction headloss through channel
Length of approach channel, L2 (ft) 45.93 45.93 45.93 45.93 45.93
Mannings n for concrete channel 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
Hydraulic radius R2 h2R4(2/3))2
w2/(2*h2 w2) (ft) 1.33 1.43 1.48 1.50 1.64
TABLE 22.10 Example Hydraulic Calculation of a Typical Primary Sedimentation Tank System
Initial Operation Design Operation
Parameter Min Day Avg Day Avg Day Max Hour Peak
Slope, Sp [V3/(1.318
V Cp
Rp(0.63))](1/0.54) (%) 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.12 0.26
Headloss, Hlf3 f Lp Sp (ft) 0.0064 0.0153 0.0109 0.0261 0.0552
Exit headloss from pier
Exit headloss coefficient Kexit 1.0 1 1 1 1 1
2
Headloss, hle3 K V3 V /2g (ft) 0.0517 0.1324 0.0920 0.2354 0.5297
HGL at Point 3, HGL3
HGL4 Hlf3 f hle3 (ft) 346.16 346.28 346.22 346.42 346.78
8. Point 3 to Point 2
Total number of pipes 3 3 3 3 3
Number of pipes per primary
sedimentation tank 1 1 1 1 1
Pipe diameter, Dp (ft) 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94
Flow per pipe, q (cfs) 17.66 28.25 23.54 37.67 56.50
Velocity, VV2 1.45 2.32 1.93 3.10 4.64
Friction headloss through primary
sedimentation tank influent pipe
Hazen-Williams coefficient, Cp 120 120 120 120 120
Hydraulic radius, Rp Dp/4 (ft) 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98
Length of pipe, Lp (ft) 229.7 229.7 229.7 229.7 229.7
Slope, Sp [V2/(1.318
V Cp
(1/0.54)
Rp (0.63))] (%) 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.15
Headloss, hlf2 f Lp Sp (ft) 0.0395 0.0942 0.0672 0.1605 0.3402
Fitting headloss through two 45 bends
Fitting headloss coefficient Kbend 0.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Headloss, hlb2 K V2 V 2/2g (ft) 0.0164 0.0419 0.0291 0.0744 0.1674
HGL at Point 2, HGL2
HGL3 hlb2 hlf2f (ft) 346.21 346.42 346.32 346.65 347.29
9. At Point 1
Entrance headloss from primary
sedimentation tank influent
distribution box to influent pipe
Pipe diameter, Dp (ft) 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.94
Flow per pipe, q (ft3/s) 17.66 28.25 23.54 37.67 56.50
Velocity, V1 (ft3/s) 1.45 2.32 1.93 3.10 4.64
Entrance headloss coefficient
Kentrance 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Headloss, Hle1 Kentrance V12/2g (ft) 0.0164 0.0419 0.0291 0.0744 0.1674
HGL at point 1, HGL1 HGL2 Hle1 (ft) 346.23 346.46 346.35 346.73 347.46
Allowance to grit tank effluent weir
from maximum 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
HGL1, Hall (ft)
Grit tank effluent elevation,
ELgr HGL1 Hall (ft) 347.79 347.79 347.79 347.79 347.79
3. Point 3 to Point 4
Effluent troughs
Number of troughs, nt 10 10 10 10 10
Flow per trough, qt qeff /nt 1.18 1.88 2.35 2.83 3.77
Trough slope, St (%) (select to
prevent solids settling) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Trough width, w6 (ft) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Approximate trough length, Lt (ft) 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Change in trough EL, difEL4 St Lt (ft) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Critical depth, yc (qt 2/(gw62)0.33 (ft) 0.26 0.35 0.41 0.46 0.56
Water depth at upstream end of trough
for free fall 0.41 0.57 0.67 0.76 0.93
from trough into final effluent channel
yu4 [2 (yc)2 (yc-(S L/3))
L 2]0.5
(2 S L L/3) (ft)
Max water EL downstream of weir (occuring
at max, hour flow with one 338.83
tank out of service),
Elmax4 weir EL-0.33 ft
(see Point 3 for weirEL)
Trough bottom EL at upstream
end of trough, TbuEL4 ft 337.90 337.90 337.90 337.90 337.90
TbuEL4 ELmax4 yu for max hour
flow with one tank out of service
HGL at upstream end, HGL4u TbuEL4
yu4 (ft) 338.31 338.47 338.57 338.66 338.83
V u0
Velocity head, HV4
(assume V 0) (ft) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EGL at upstream end,
EGL4u HGL4u HV4 V u (ft) 338.31 338.47 338.57 338.66 338.83
Trough bottom EL at
downstream end of trough 337.86 337.86 337.86 337.86 337.86
Tbd EL4 TbuEL4 dif EL4 (ft)
HGL at Point 4, HGL4 TbdEL4 yc (ft) 338.12 338.21 338.27 338.32 338.41
Velocity head, HV4
V d = Vc2/ 2g (ft) 0.39 0.54 0.63 0.71 0.87
EGL at upstream end, EGL4u
HGL4u HV4 V u, ft 338.51 338.75 338.90 339.03 339.28
4. Point 4 to Point 5
Effluent channel upstream
Max. water surface level at upstream end of
effluent channel,
ELmax5 = TbdEL4-0.33 (ft) 337.53 337.53 337.53 337.53 337.53
HGL at Point 5, HGL5 ELmax5 (ft) 337.53 337.53 337.53 337.53 337.53
V 0 (assume V 0) (ft)
Velocity head, HV5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EGL maximum at point 5,
EGL5m HGL5m HV5 V (ft) 337.53 337.53 337.53 337.53 337.53
5. Point 5 to Point 6
Effluent channel downstream
Flow through channel, Qeff (ft3/s) 35.31 56.50 70.63 113.01 113.01
Hydraulic calculations at
filter effluent
3. At Point 7
Max HGL in filtered water
storage tank, HGL7 (ft) 323.72 323.72 323.72 323.72 323.72
Velocity in storage tank, V
V7 (ft/s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max EGL in storage tank,
EGL7 HGL7 V7 V 2/2g (ft) 323.72 323.72 323.72 323.72 323.72
4. At Point 6
Filtered water effluent channel weir
Sharp-crested weir EL,
Wel6 HGL7 0.33 (ft) 324.05 324.05 324.05 324.05 324.05
Flow rate over weir Q (ft3/s) 35.31 56.50 70.63 113.01 113.01
Length of weir (ft) 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97 22.97
Headloss, Hlw6 (q/3.33L)(2/3) (ft) 0.60 0.82 0.95 1.30 1.30
HGL at Point 6, HGL6
Wel6 Hlw6 (ft) 324.65 324.87 325.00 325.35 325.35
Velocity in weir box, V
V6, m
(assume V 0) (ft) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EGL at Point 6, EGL6
HGL6 V6 2/2g (ft) 324.65 324.87 325.00 325.35 325.35
5. Point 6 to Point 5
Loss through effluent concrete condiut
Flow rate, Q (ft3/s) 35.31 56.50 70.63 113.01 113.01
Width of condiut, Wc (ft) 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84 9.84
Depth of condiut, Dc (ft) 6.56 6.56 6.56 6.56 6.56
Length of condiut, Lc (ft) 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81 32.81
Velocity, Vc (ft/s) 0.55 0.87 1.09 1.75 1.75
Hydraulic radius,
R Wc Dc/2/(Wc Dc) (ft) 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97 1.97
Manning's n 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
Headloss, Hlc5 (Vc n/1.486
R(2/3) )2 Lc (ft) 0.0003 0.0008 0.0012 0.0031 0.0031
Exit loss from pipe to concrete conduit
Effluent pipe diameter, Dp (ft) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
Pipe flow (for each filter) (ft3/s) 8.83 11.30 14.13 18.83 22.60
Velocity, Vp (ft/s) 1.04 1.34 1.67 2.23 2.67
Hle5 Vp 2/2g for sharp
concrete outlet (ft) 0.0170 0.0278 0.0434 0.0772 0.1111
EGL at Point 5, EGL5
EGL6 Hlc5 Hle6 (ft) 324.66 324.89 325.04 325.43 325.46
Velocity head at Point 5,
V Vp2/2g (ft)
HV5 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.11
HGL at Point 5, HGL5
EGL5 HV5 V (ft) 324.65 324.87 325.00 325.35 325.35
6. Point 5 to Point 4
Filter effluent pipe loss
Pipe diameter, Dp (ft) 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95