ACFrOgCABTRADw6S0x3TiETVxdMHOeul YDPOa85w-JuC5f9KDl hiMC05pWShhmFJ-RwTlMdUGpO20XscXIvbov8NIyX3rKgeNeYNdKOmlEuWou6oKv3IWfEzuyeVvXyrcPy9Fe98E53DX2X6un

7/27/2019 Chapter
Source: 22 - WaterDESIGN
HYDRAULIC and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics
HANDBOOK
CHAPTER 22
WATER AND WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PLANT
HYDRAULICS
e er co . a sc
Sharon L. Cole
av . o s
ran . antone
am . u y
Gree ey an Hansen
Ric mon , VA
22.1 INTRODUCTION
Designers of water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants are faced with the
nee to esign treatment processes which must meet the following general hy raulic
requirements:
• Water treatment p ants. Provide the head required to allow the water to flow through
the treatment processes an to e elivere to the transmission/ istri ution system in
the flow rates and at the pressures required for delivery to the users.
• W s ewa er reatment p ants. Provi e the hea require to raise the flow of wast water
from the sewer and
ment processes system to a leveltowhich
be delivered allows the
the receiving flow
body of to procee through the treat-
water.
The above requires knowledge of open-channel, closed-conduit, and hydraulic

machine flow principles. It also requires an un erstan ing of the interaction etween these
elements an their impact on the overall plant (site) hy raulics. Hea is either availa le
through the difference in elevation (gravity) or it has to be converted from mechanical
energy using hy raulic machinery. Distri ution of flows using open channels or close
con uit is critical for proper hy raulic loa ing an process performance.
This chapter rings together information on commonly use hy raulic elements an
specific applications to water treatment plants an wastewater treatment plants. The evel-
opment of hydraulic profiles through the entire treatment process with examples for water
treatment plants an wastewater treatment is also presente .
Many processes and flow control devices are similar in both water treatment plants and
wastewater treatment plants. Both types of plants require flow istri ution evices, gates
an valves, an flowmeters. These evices are iscusse in Section 22.2. The evelopment
of water treatment plant hy raulics, inclu ing examples from in-place facilities, are pre-
sente in Section 22.3. Wastewater treatment plant hy raulics are iscusse in Section
22.4, and Section. 22.5 is devoted to non-Newtonian flow principles.
22.1
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Copyright © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-22-water-and-wastewater-treatment-plant-hydraulics
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website. 1/90
7/27/2019 Chapter 22 - Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/chapter-22-water-and-wastewater-treatment-plant-hydraulics 2/90
7/27/2019 WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Chapter 22 - Water PLANT
and Wastewater HYDRAULICS
Treatment Plant Hydraulics
Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22 3
an possi ly a higher water surface at each ensuing weir. Chao an 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
esign.
As in istri ution oxes, the most important consi eration to achieving equalize flow
istri ution is to minimize the effects of unequal hy raulic con itions relative to each
point of istri ution. In channels this can e accomplishe y tapering the channel cross
section, varying weir elevations, making the channel large enough to cause velocity head
changes to e insignificant or a com ination of these. Similar consi erations may e
applied to manifolds with submerged orifice outlets. A reliable approach here is to pro-
vi e a large enough manifol , resulting in a total hea loss along the length of the istri -
ution of less than one tenth the loss through any in ivi ual orifice. This approach essen-
tially results in the orifices ecoming the only hy raulic control an the accuracy of the
flow istri ution is then epen ent on the uniformity of the orifices themselves.
22.2.3 Gates and Valves
Gates an va ves 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 istri ution systems or sewage force mains an can e of lighter
construction.
22.2.3.1 ates. Gates are typically use in channels or in structures to start an stop flow
or to provi e a hy raulic control point which is sel om a juste . Because of the time an
effort require to operate gates, they are not suite for controlling flow when rapi
response, frequent variation, or delicate adjustments are needed. Primary design consid-
erations when using gates are the type of gate fa rication an the installation con itions
during construction.
There are many fa rication etails inclu ing materials use , ottom arrangement, an
stem arrangement. For instance, for soli s earing flows, a flush ottom, rising stem gate
can e use to avoi creating a point of soli s eposition an to minimize soli s contact
with the threa e stem. Gate manufacturers are a goo source of information for gate fa -
rication details and can assist with advice regarding specific applications.
Most commonly use gates are esigne to stop flow in a single irection. They may
use upstream water pressure to assist in achieving a seal (seating ea ), but typically also
must e esigne to resist static water pressure from ownstream (unseating ea ). Both
seating an unseating hea s must e evaluate in esign of a gate application. For most
manufacturers, the seating or unseating hea is expresse as the pressure relative to the
center line of the gate.
22.2.3.2 Valves. Ta le 22.1 provi es a summary of several types of valves an their

applications. Valves are used to either throttle (control) flow or start/stop flow.
Start/stop valves are inten e to e fully open or fully close an nonthrottling. They
shoul present minimum resistance to flow when fully open an shoul e inten e for
infrequent operation.
Gate va ves, plug valves, cone valves, all valves, an utterfly valves are the most
common start/stop valve selections. Butterf y va ves have a center stem, are most common
in clean water applications an shoul not e use in applications inclu ing materials that
could hang-up on the stem. Therefore, they are seldom used at wastewater plants prior to
achieving a filter effluent water quality.

22.4 Chapter Twenty-Two
TABLE 22.1 Typical Valves and Their Application*
Type Open/C ose T rott ing Water Wastewater
S u ce gate X X
Slide gate X X X
Gate valve X X X
Plug valve X X X X
Cone va ve X X X
Ball valve X X X X
Butterfly valve X X X
Swing check X X X
L t c ec X
Ball check X X X
Spring check X X X
Globe valve X X
Needle valve X X
Ang e va ve X
Pinch/diaphragm X X X X
*
Typical applications–exceptions are possible, but consultation with valve manufacturers is recommended.
C ec va ves are a special case of a start/stop valve application. Check valves offer
quick, automatic reaction to flow changes an are inten e to stop flow irection rever-
sal. Typical configurations inclu e swing check, lift check, all check an spring loa e .
These valves are typically use on pump ischarge piping an are opene y the pressure
of the flowing liquid and close automatically if pressure drops and flow attempts to
reverse irection. The rapi closure of these valves can result in unaccepta le “water-
hammer” pressures with the potential to amage the system. A etaile surge analysis may
e require 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.
T rott ing va ves are use to control rate of flow an are esigne for frequent or near-
ly continuous operation epen ing on whether they are manually operate or electroni-
cally controlle . Typical throttling valve types inclu e glo e valves, nee le valves, an
angle valves in smaller sizes, an all, plug, cone, utterfly, an pinch/ iaphragm valves
in larger sizes. Throttling valves are typically most effective in the mi -range of loose line
open/close travel an for est flow control shoul not e routinely operate nearly fully
closed or nearly fully open.
22.2.4 Flow meters
The most common types of flow meters used in water and wastewater treatment plants are
summarize in Ta le 22.2 an fall into the following categories:

TABLE 22.2 Common Types of Flow Meters
Type Typica Accuracy Size Range Hea oss Cost W WW
Venturi Ϯ0.7 % of rate 1–120 in Low Medium X X
Orifice plate Ϯ2% of scale Any size Medium Low X X
P tot tu e 0. – % of scale 1/2–96 in Low Low
Parshall flume Ϯ % of rate Wide range Low Medium X X
Magnetic 0. % of rate 1/10–120 in None High X X
Doppler Ϯ1–2. % of rate 1/8–120 in None High X X
Propeller Ϯ2% of rate Up to 24 in High High X
Tur ne 0. –2% of rate Up to 24 in High High X
• Pressure ifferential/pressure measuring meters (e.g., Venturi, orifice plate, pitot tu e,

an Parshall flume meters)
• Magnetic meters
• Doppler (ultrasonic) meters
• Mechanical meters (e.g., propeller an tur ine meters)
Accurate flow measurements require uniform flow patterns. Most meters are
significantly impacted by adjacent piping configurations. Typically a specific number of
straight pipe iameters is require oth upstream an ownstream of a meter to o tain
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
shoul e consulte .
22.2.4.1 Pressure ifferentia /pressure measuring meters. Pressure ifferential/pressure
measuring flow. meters

Pars a f umes includemeasure
These meters Venturi the
meters , orifice
change p ates, through
in pressure averaging pitot meters
a known , and
flow cross
section–or in the case of the pitot meter, measure the ifference in pressure at a point in
the flow versus static pressure just ownstream in a uniform section of pipe.
Venturi meters and orifice plates are commonly used in water and wastewater. Solids
in wastewater coul plug the openings of a pitot tu e meter-limiting their use to relative-
ly clean liqui s. The Venturi meter an orifice plate meter use pressure taps at the wall of
the evice an can e arrange to minimize potential for e ris from clogging the taps.
The Parshall flume can be arranged with a side stilling well and level measuring float sys-
tem or an ultrasonic level sensing evice to measure water level.
22.2.4.2 Magnetic meters. In a magnetic f owmeter , a magnetic fiel is generate aroun

a section of pipe. Water passing through the fiel in uces a small electric current propor-
tional to the velocity of flow. Because a magnetic meter imposes no o struction to the
flow, it is well suited to measuring solids bearing liquids as well as clean liquids and pro-
duces no headloss in addition to the normal pipe loss. Magnetic meters are among the least
suscepti le to the uniformity of the stream lines in the approaching flow.

TABLE 22.3 Typical Factors for Computing Local Losses
i
s
n
n )
5
o
c 7
s
i 9
1
W (
g
n
o i
y
t n
n
) i
s a
8
7 r a l
Va ve an Fitting Types 9 e
v t P
1 i a e
( n D n
i e
s U c
i l
e u
l
) d
r ,
2 ) l p a
7 a 5 7 u
a i V
8 d 5 7
9 r P d
) 9
1 n
a 2 1 d ) ) n e
2
9 ( t . ( y 6 9 o s
9 . S o y H 8 8 e U
1
(
i C
o t
e
a
t N
n
i t
r
e
h n
o
r 9
1
( 9
1
( t
e
i l
y
k e S t
e g e n s m a
c
s
l n
a - l
l u m o k m i
a r n u a a m
i n
a o p
y
W C e
T B D C S S C T
Gate valve
100% open 0.39 0.19 0.19 0.1–0.3 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 valve–open 10 10 10 4.0–6.0 10 10
Angle valve–open 4.3 5 2.1–3.1 5 1.8–2.9 2.5 5
Check valve–ball 4.5 65–70 5
Swing check 0.6–2.3 06–2.2 0.6–2.5 2.5
Butterfly valve–open 1.2 0.16–0.35 0.5
Foot valve–hinged 2.2 1.0–1.4 2.2
Foot valve–poppet 12.5 5.0–14.0 14
Elbows
45° regular 0.30–0.42 0.42 0.42
45° long radius 0.18–0.20 0.18 0.5 0.2
90° regular 0.21–0.3 0.25 0.7 0.25
90° long radius 0.14–0.23 0.18 0.6 0.19
180° regular 0.38 0.38
180° long radius (flanged) 0.25 0.25
Tees
Std. teee–flowthrough run 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.8 0.6
Std. teee–flow-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 1.129–1.265 0.8 1.3
60° 0.75 0.471–0.684 0.35 0.6
30° 0.25 0.130–0.165 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
Entrancee–projecting 0.78 0.78 0.83 0.8 0.8 0.78 0.8
Entrancee–sharp 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Entrancee–well 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

population an the per capita use of water y the population serve . The per capita use of
water can e o taine 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, treate water nee s of the service area
must e in ivi ually evaluate .
22.3.1.1 Sources of supply. Natural sources of supply inclu e groun water an surface
water supplies. Groun water supplies typically are smaller in aily elivery ut serve
more systems than surface water supplies. Groun water 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. Hy raulics of groun water treatment plants are fre-
quently
filters, anasepressure
on hytanks.
raulicsRaw
of water
con uits un er pressure,
characteristics such waters
of groun as pipelines, pressure
are uniform in
quality compare with surface supplies.
Surface water supplies are normally larger in daily delivery. Surface supplies are used
to service larger population centers an in ustrial centers. In areas where groun water
supplies are limited in yield or where groundwater supplies contain undesirable chemical
characteristics, smaller surface water treatment plants may e utilize . Surface water
sources of supply inclu e rivers, lakes, impoun ments, streams, an pon s. The treatment
processes chosen in plants treating surface water favor nonpressurize systems such as
gravity se imentation. 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 rapi ly over short perio s
of time an also experience seasonal variation.
22.3.1.2 Treatment requirements. Treatment requirements for municipal water treat-

ment plants are normally defined by regulatory agencies having authority over the plant’s
service area. In the Unite States, regulatory agencies inclu e national government regu-
lations promulgate through the Environmental Protection Agency an state government
regulations. Water treatment plants are esigne to meet these regulations. Treatment reg-
ulations change through improved knowledge of health effects of water constituents and
through i entification of possi le new water- orne threats. The esigner therefore shoul
attempt to select treatment processes which will also meet treatment requirements which
are expected to be promulgated over the next few years. To the extent possible, treatment
plant process esign shoul provi e flexi ility for future plant expansions or for possi le
additional treatment processes. Because hydraulic design of plants must go hand-in-hand
with the process selection, plant hy raulic esign shoul provi e for the flexi ility to a
future plant facilities.
Treatment requirements for industrial water treatment plants are dictated by process
nee s of the in ustry an less y regulatory agency requirements. In ustrial water treat-
ment plants that result in contact etween or ingestion of the treate water y humans
must conform to the local regulatory requirements.
22.3.1.3 Genera esign p i osop y. Effective esign of water treatment plant hy raulics
requires that the hy raulic esigner have a thorough knowle ge of all aspects of the water
system. The overall treatment system hydraulic design must be integrated and coordinat-
e inclu ing the treatment plant, the raw water intake an pumping facilities, the treate
water storage, an treate water pressure/hea requirements. The esign within the water
treatment plant must also e integrate etween the various treatment processes.

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22.11
.
e
l
i
f
o
r
p
c
i
l
u
a
r
d
y
H
.
2
2
E
R
U
G
I
F

From stu ies of projecte population an per capita eman , planne esign flows for
the water treatment facilities may e evelope . These eman s inclu e the following:
• Annua average eman . The average aily water consumption for the water service
areas, generally compute y multiplying the average aily consumption (gallons per
capita) y the projecte population of the service area.
• Maximum eman . Maximum eman experience y the water plant throughout its
service life. The maximum hour eman is generally 200 to 300 percent of the aver-
age eman ut numerous factors affect the peak eman experience y water treat-
ment plants. These factors inclu e seasonal eman s (particularly for plants where ser-
vice areas are located in extremes of hot and cold temperatures), normal daily flow
variations, the community size, in ustrial usage, an 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
an 200 percent of the average eman .
• Minimum f ow. As the name suggests, the minimum flow expecte to e processe
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 rate treatment capacity of a plant is that capac-
ity for which each of the unit processes are esigne . For municipal treatment plants with
a equate system storage, the rate treatment capacity is the system’s maximum ay
demand. Where storage is limited, the rated treatment capacity may be greater, for exam-
ple, the system maximum hour eman or greater. Smaller systems may e esigne to
produce the rated treatment capacity in one or two 8-h shifts rather than over the entire
24-h ay.
22.3.5.3 Hydraulic treatment capacity. Treatment plants are normally esigne for a
hy raulic capacity greater than the rate treatment capacity. Hy rau ic 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. Hy raulic capacities in excess of the rate treatment capacity pro-
vide some margin of safety for operations which may not be optimal (e.g., control gates
ina vertently left partially open).
22.3.5.4 Treatment process bases for design. The evelopment of the water treatment
plant’s “Bases for Design” is a key step in esta lishing the criteria to which the plant will
e esigne . This ocument must e reviewe carefully with the water treatment plant
owner representatives and understood and agreed to by all before the final design pro-
cee s. The Bases for Design presents a summary of each treatment process inclu ing
design flows (minimum, average, rated capacity), specification of dimension of major ele-
ments (e.g., tanks, pumps), oth hy raulic an process loa ing characteristics, require
performance, an esign ata for the chemical storage an fee system. Ta le 22.4 pre-
sents an example of the ases for esign for se imentation asins (one of the many unit
processes in a water treatment plant).
22.3.6 Plant Hydraulic Design
As note a ove, a water treatment plant consists of a series of treatment processes

connected by free surface flow channels and pipelines. During development of the plant’s

TABLE 22.4 Treatment Process Bases for Design—Sedimentation Basins
Item Stage I Stage II StageIII
Maxi– Maxi– Maxi-

Annua mum Annua mum Annua mum
verage Day verage Day verage Day
Number of basins 4 4 8 8 12 12
Basin characteristics
Plan–7 ft ϫ 230–6 in
Nominal side water
depth–12 ft (SWD)
Sur ace area/ as n–17,288 t
o ume as n– ,
Channels/basin–2
L:W ratio–6.1:1
Displacement time (h) 3.17 1.99 3.17 1.99 3.17 1.99
Surface loading [(gal m)/ft2] 0.47 0.7 0.47 0.7 0.47 0.7
Flowthrough velocity (ft/min) 1.21 1.93 1.21 1.93 1.21 1.93
Sludge collectors
Long tu na co ectors
Type: c a n g t
Number per basin 8 8 8 8 8 8
Cross collectors
Type: chain flight
Number per basin 1 1 1 1 1 1
Settled sludge pumps
Type: progressive cavity

Num er:
100 gal/min capacity 4 4 4 4 4 4
400 gal/min capacity 4 4 4 4 4 4
200 gal/min capacity — — 8 8 16 16
Capacity (gal/min)
Installed 2000 2000 3600 3600 200 200
Firm 1600 1600 3200 3200 4800 4800
Bases for Design, the esigner etermines the rate treatment capacity, average flow,
minimum flow an hy raulic capacity of the plant.
Following evelopment of the Bases for Design, the esigner must evaluate plant
operating modes to develop a detailed plant flow diagram and hydraulic profile
through the plant.

22.3.6.1 P ant operating mo es. Operating mo es escri e the sequence of treatment

processes the water goes through to achieve the require 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 operationa mo e
oc iagrams are useful in visualizing stages uring construction, future planne plant
expansions or simply alternative operating mo es.
Figures 22.4 through 22.9 show an example of a sequence of plant operating mo es for
a surface water treatment plant which illustrate three stages of a plant expansion program
with alternatives for the flocculation an se imentation asins to work in series or in par-
allel. Plant processes proposed include raw water control chambers, rapid mix chambers,
flocculation/se imentation asins, ozone contact cham ers, an filters. In this example,
the raw water control cham ers are use to split flow etween plant process groups an
also as a rapi mix cham er for chemical a ition.
FIGURE 22.4 Stage I—operational mode diagram.
FIGURE 22.5 Stage II—parallel operational mode diagram.

The Stage I facilities inclu ing raw water control cham er, flocculation/se imentation
asins an filters are epicte in Fig. 22.4. Operational mo es for a propose plant expan-
sion to double the plant capacity (Stage II) are shown in Figs. 22.5 through 22.7 and oper-
ating mo es for a secon plant expansion to triple the plant capacity (Stage III) are shown
in Figs. 22.8 an 22.9. Settle water ozone contact cham ers were a e to the expan e
plant, which illustrates treatment upgra es.
Operational mo es for the Stage II treatment plant inclu e parallel an series floc-
culation/sedimentation. When the plant is operated in the parallel mode, influent raw
water for each set of se imentation asins flows y gravity from the raw water control
chamber serving the basin set. Raw water flow is divided between each sedimentation
asin in service at the raw water control cham er. Settle water from each set of asins
is route to an ozone contact cham er. Ozonate settle water is then com ine prior to
flowing to the filters.
FIGURE 22. Stage II—series flocculation/sedimentation basin

operational mode diagram.
FIGURE 22.7 Stage II—split parallel operational mode diagram.

Hy raulic profiles are evelope for each of the esign flows. In the case of water
treatment plants, the esign flows may inclu e rate treatment capacity, hy raulic capac-
ity, average flow, and minimum flow. Hydraulic profiles should also take into considera-
tion unit processes or con uits which may e taken out of service. Hy raulic profiles are
valua le esign an operational tools to assist in sche uling routine maintenance activi-
ties an for evaluating the impact to the treatment plant capacity uring outages of process
units or con uits.
Computations of hydraulic profiles begin at control points where there is a definite
relationship etween the plant flow an water surface epth. 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), ut other types of control points may e use . From
each control point, hea losses associate with local losses, plant piping, an open chan-
nel flow are a e to the control water surface. Since flows in water treatment plant’s are
mostly in the su critical regime (Frou e num er Ͻ 1), most hy raulic esigners 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 istri ution system.
From these control points and knowledge of the flow velocity, both the EGL and HGL
may e compute ack to the treatment facilities.
Hy raulic profiles are valua le esign tools to i entify overall losses through the plant.
Profiles are also valua le to i entify units with excessive losses. Since total hea availa le
is normally limite , units with excessive losses shoul e consi ere for re esign to
reduce local loss coefficients or to reduce velocities.
Figure 22.3 is an example hy raulic profile for a gravity surface water treatment plant
with conventional treatment processes. The metho of computing hea losses is presente
in Section 22.3.7.
22.3.7 Water Treatment Plant Process Hydraulics
In this section calculations require to esta lish the WSEL through a me ium-size water
treatment plant will e presente . 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 inclu e which illustrate typical hy raulic calculations. The first example
calculates the WSEL from the sedimentation basin effluent chamber back through the
flocculation/se imentation asins to the Raw Water Control Cham er. The secon follows
the flow from the clear well ack through the filters. Filter hy raulics are illustrate in the
thir example. All examples are presente in a sprea sheet format which is esigne to
facilitate calculating the EGL, HGL, an WSEL at various points through the treatment
process and for multiple flow rates (i.e., minimum, daily average, peak hour, future
con itions).
22.3.7.1 Coagu ation. Process criteria an ey y rau ic esign parameters. The -

u ation process, use to re uce particulates an tur i ity, is carrie out in three steps: mix-
ing (often referre to as rapi or flash mixing), flocculation, an se imentation. Each of
these steps is riefly iscusse elow.
Rapi mixing. The mixing process imparts energy to increase contact etween
existing soli s an a e coagulants. Possi le mixer types inclu e tur ine, propeller,
pneumatic, and hydraulic. Headloss that occurs in mixing chambers depends on the cho-
sen mixing evice. Most mechanical mixers o not create significant hea losses. The
hea loss coefficient (K ) associate with a specific mixer can e o taine from the manu-
facturer. Pneumat c m x ng, which is not common, has associate losses similar to those

TABLE 22.5 (Continue )
Initia Operation Design Operation

Parameter Min. Day. Avg. Day Avg. Day Max. Hour
Velocity ϭ flow/area (m/s) 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03

r A / P (P w ϩ 2 ) (m) 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.41
Conduit loss ϭ [(V ϫ n)/(r 2/3)] 2 ϫ L (m)
where n 0.014 and L 21.95 m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WSEL at Point 4 (m) 109.73 109.73 109.74 109.74
6. Point 4 to Point 5
Flow ϭ Q /32 (m3 /s) 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.14
Port area 0.30 m deep ϫ 0.76 m wide (m2) 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
Submerged entrance loss .8 /2 (m) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
WSEL at Point 5 (in Sedimentation Tank) (m) 109.73 109.74 109.74 109.76
Width of sedimentation basin (W ) (m) 23.16 23.16 23.16 23.16
Flow (Q /4) (m3 /s) 0.55 0.77 0.82 1.09
Invert elevation of sedimentation baffles (m) 105.97 105.97 105.97 105.97
Flow depth ( H ) (WSEL at Point 5—baffle invert) (m) 3.76 3.77 3.77 3.79
Area downstreams of baffle (W ϫ H (m2) 87.21 87.36 87.41 87.68
Horizontal openings in baffle, 2.54 cm wide
spaced every 22.86 cm. Area of
openings ϭ A ϭ W ϫ .0254 ϫ H/.2286 (m ) 9.69 9.71 9.71 9.74
Velocity of downstream baffle ( V ownstream) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
(Q /A) (m/s)
Velocity of 2.54 cm opening section (V 1) (Q / ) (m/s) 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.11
Local losses ϭ sudden expansion (1.0 ϫ (V downstream)2 /2 )
2
ϩ sudden contraction (0.36 ϫ (V I) / 2 ) (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WSEL at Point 6 (Upstream of sedimentation baffles) (m) 109.73 109.74 109.74 109.76
Loss per stage (provided by flocculator manufacturer) (m) 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
Total loss (three stages) (m) 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.15
WSEL at Point 7 (m) 109.77 109.78 109.83 109.91
Flow Q /24 (m3 /s) 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.18
Port area ϭ 0.30 m deep ϫ 0.46 m wide (m2) 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Velocity flow / area (m/s) 0.65 0.92 0.98 1.31
Entrance loss ϭ 1.25 V /2 (m) 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.11
WSEL at Point 8 (inlet port) (m) 109.80 109.83 109.89 110.02
Note: For Points 8 through 14, see Fig. 22.13
Average flow ϭ Q /24 (m /s) 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.18
Flow depth ϭ WSEL @ 8 – invert (109.12 m) (m) 0.68 0.72 0.77 0.90
Flow area ϭ 0.91 m width ϫ depth (m ) 0.62 0.65 0.71 0.82
r A/P (P ϭ w ϩ 2d (m) 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30
Conduit loss [(V ϫ )/(r 2/3)] ϫ L (m)
where n ϭ 0.014 and L ϭ 3.86 m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WSEL at Point 9 (m) 109.80 109.83 109.89 110.02
Average flow Q /12 (m3 /s) 0.18 0.26 0.27 0.36


Flow depth WSEL @ 9 – invert (109.12 m) (m) 0.68 0.72 0.77 0.90
Flow area 0.91 m width ϫ depth (m2) 0.62 0.65 0.71 0.82
r = A / P (P ϭ w ϩ 2 ) (m) 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.30
Conduit loss [(V ϫ )/( 2/3)]2 ϫ L (m)
where ϭ 0.014 and L ϭ 3.86 m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WSEL at Point 10 (m) 109.80 109.84 109.89 110.02
Flow ϭ Q /8, m3 /s 0.27 0.38 0.41 0.55
Flow depth ϭ WSEL @ 10 Ϫ invert (109.12 m) (m) 97.34 97.38 97.44 97.56
Flow area 0.91 width ϫ depth (m2) 89.01 89.04 89.09 89.21
2
Loss at two 45° bends ϭ 2 ϫ .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
Flow Q /4 (m3 /s) 0.55 0.77 0.82 1.09
Flow depth WSEL @ 11 Ϫ invert (109.12 m) (m) 0.68 0.72 0.78 0.90
Flow area ϭ 1.52 m width ϫ depth (m2) 1.04 1.09 1.18 1.37
Loss at two 45° bends 2 ϫ .2 V 2 /2 (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
r = A / P (P ϭ w ϩ 2d ) (m) 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.41
Conduit loss ϭ [(V ϫ )/(r 2/3)]2 ϫ L (m)
where 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
Flow Q /4, (m3 /s) 0.55 0.77 0.82 1.09
Flow depth ϭ WSEL @ 12 Ϫ invert (109.12 m) (m) 0.69 0.72 0.78 0.91
Inlet area ϭ 1.52 m width ϫ 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 2 /2 (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
Note: Mixers provide negligible head loss
Flow ϭ Q /4 (m3 /s) 0.55 0.77 0.82 1.09
Chamber area 1.83 m ϫ 1.83 m (m2) 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34
Losses ϭ Mixer (1 V 2 /2g) ϩ 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
Flow Q /2 (m /s) 1.09 1.53 1.64 2.19
Conduit area ϭ 2.29 m wide ϫ 1.22 m deep (m ) 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.79
Velocity ϭ flow/area ( m/s) 0.39 0.55 0.59 0.78
R A / P (P 2 ϩ 2 ) (m) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Conduit losses ϭ L ϫ [V (0.849 ϫ C ϫ R0.63)] 1/0.54 (m)
where L ϭ 47.24 m and Hazen-Williams C ϭ 120 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02
Local losses flow split (0.6 V 2 /2g) ϩ contraction
(0.07 /2 0.67 /2 (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


17. The above calculations (for Points 1 through 15) have

been for flow routed through Tank No. 4. When the
flow is routed through Tank No. 1. the WSEL (m) is: 109.82 109.88 109.94 110.08
In reality, the headloss through each basin is equal.
The flow through the basin naturally adusts to
equalize headlosses, i. e. flow through Tank
No. 1 is greater than Q /4 and flow through Tank
No. 4 is less than Q /4. The actual headloss through
each basin can be estimated as the average of: Losses
through Tank No’s. 1 and 4
and the WSEL (m) at Point 15 is: 109.83 109.89 109.95 110.10
Flow Q (m3 /s) 2.19 3.06 3.28 4.38
Conduit area ϭ 2.29 m wide ϫ 1.22 m deep (m2 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.79
R A / P (P 2 ϩ 2 ) (m) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
Conduit losses ϭ L ϫ V (0.849 ϫ C ϫ R0.63)]
1/0.54 (m) where L ϭ 125.58 m and
Hazen-Williams C 120 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.16
WSEL at Point 16 (m) 109.87 109.97 110.04 110.26
Flow Q (m3 /s) 2.19 3.06 3.28 4.38
Conduit area @ 16 ϭ 2.29 m wide ϫ 1.22 m deep (m2) 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.79
Conduit area @ 17 ϭ 1.68 m wide ϫ 1.68 m deep (m2) 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.81
Average area (m2) 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80
Velocity flow / Area (m/s) 0.78 1.09 1.17 1.56
R @ 16 ϭ A16/ (2 ϫ (2.29 m ϩ 1.22 m)) (m) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
R @ 17 ϭ A17/ (2 ϫ (1.68 m ϩ 1.68 m)) (m) 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
Average R, (m) 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
Conduit losses ϭ L ϫ V (0.849 ϫ C ϫ
R0.63)]1/0.54 (m) where L ϭ .14 m
and Hazen-Williams C 120 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
WSEL at Point 17 (m) 109.88 109.98 110.05 110.27
Flow Q (m3 /s) 2.19 3.06 3.28 4.38
Conduit area @ 17 ϭ 1.68 m wide ϫ 1.68 m
deep (m2) 2.81 2.81 2.81 2.81
Velocity 17 flow/area 17 (m/s) 0.78 1.09 1.17 1.56
(ᎏDᎏ) ϫ ␲ (m) where D
2
Pipe area @ 18 1.68 m 2.21 2.21 2.21 2.21
4
Velocity 18 ϭ flow/area 18 (m) 0.99 1.39 1.49 1.98
Exit osses ϭ V 182 /2g – V 172 /2g (m/s) 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.8
WSEL at Point 18 (m) 109.90 110.01 110.09 110.35

R = A / P (P ϫ ␲ ) (m) 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
Local losses 3 elbows (3 ϫ 0.25 /2 ϩ
entrance (0.5 ϫ V 2 /2 ) ϭ 1.25 ϫ V 2 /2g (m) 0.06 0.12 0.14 0.25
Conduit losses ϭ L ϫ V (0.849 ϫ C ϫ
R0.63)]1/0.54 (m) where L 138.68 m
and Hazen-Williams C ϭ 120 0.07 0.13 0.15 0.26
WSEL at Point 19 (exit of Control Chamber) (m) 110.03 110.27 110.39 110.86



Weir elevation (m) 109.73 109.73 109.73 109.73
Depth of flow over weir ϭ (WSEL @
19 – weir elevation), (m) 0.30 0.54 0.66 1.13
Length of weir, L, (m) 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74
3/2 0.385
Flow over weir q 1.71 ϫ /2 ϫ [ 1 Ϫ ( / n ]
ϫ L
Note: Rather than solve for , find an by trial

and error that gives a q equal to the flow
for the given flow scenarios (given in Item 1)
assume h (m) ϭ 0.60 0.90 0.95 1.35
then (m3 /s) 1.84 3.14 3.12 4.21
assume h (m) ϭ 0.66 0.89 0.97 1.37
then (m3 /s) 2.18 3.07 3.27 4.42
Note: These q’s equal the flows for the given
scerios (Item 1)
h (m) 0.66 0.89 0.97 1.37
WSEL at Point 20 ( ϩ WSEL @ Point 19) (m) 110.39 110.62 110.70 111.10
Flow Q (m /s) 2.19 3.06 3.28 4.38
Sluice gate area ϭ 1.37 m ϫ 1.37 m (m2 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88
Velocity Flow/Area (m/s) 1.16 1.63 1.74 2.33
Gate Losses ϭ 1.5 ϫ V 2 /2g (m) 0.10 0.20 0.23 0.41
WSEL at Point 21 (Raw Water Control
Chamber) (m) 110.49 110.82 110.93 111.51
The overflow weir in the Raw Water Control
Chamber is 3.05 m long and is sharp crested
Q = 1.82 ϫ ϫ /2 so (Q /1.82 )2/3 (m) 0.54 0.67 0.70 0.85
The water surface must not rise above elevation 112.78 m
The overflow weir elevation may be safely set at 111.86 m
hy raulic reaches analyze in the example. The circle num ers in icate points at which
the WSEL is calculate . Hy raulic calculations start ownstream of the se imentation
asins (Fig. 22.12) an procee upstream through the mixing cham er (Fig. 22.13) an
the Raw Water Control Chamber (Fig. 22.14). Mechanical mixers and mechanical floccu-
lators are use . Con uit losses etween the rapi mix cham ers an the Raw Water
Control Chamber are also calculated in the example. Three different flow rates (i.e., min-
imum ay, average ay, an , maximum hour) are use in the calculations. This is a range
of esign flow con itions that a esign engineer woul typically take into consi eration.
The longest path through the flocculation an se imentation 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 adjuste
to reflect the average losses through the asins. The WSEL calculations upstream of Point

FIGURE 22.13 Mixing chamber
FIGURE 22.14 Raw water control chamber


Parameter Min Day Avg Day Avg Day Max Hour
WSEL at Point 23 (m) 105.16 105.17 105.17 105.18

Flow Q /2 (m3 /s) 1.09 1.53 1.64 2.19
1.68 (m) diameter pipe
Flow area ϭ 2 /4 ϫ ␲ (m2 2.21 2.21 2.21 2.21
2
Exit loss @ clearwell /2 (m) 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05
o
Loss @ 2 - 90 bends ϭ (0.25 V 2 /2g ϫ 2 (m) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03
Entrance loss @ Filter Building ϭ 0.5 V /2g (m) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03
Pipe loss (3.022 ϫ V 1.85 ϫ L)/
(C 1.85 ϫ D 1.165) where C ϭ 120 and
L ϭ 57.91 m (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WSEL at Point 24 (m) 105.19 105.22 105.23 105.28
Flow ϭ Q /4 (m3 /s) 0.55 0.77 0.82 1.09
Flow area 1.52 m ϫ 1.52 m 2.32 2.32 2.32 2.32
Velocity ϭ Q /A (m/s) 0.24 0.33 0.35 0.47
Loss as flows merge ϭ 1.0 V 2 /2g (m) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
Conduit loss [(V ϫ n)/( R 2/3 )]2 ϫ L (m)
where 0.013, 16.76 m and A /
(P ϭ 6.10 m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
WSEL at Point 25 (m)
Sluice Gate No. 1 flow area ϭ 1.22 m ϫ .91 m (m2) 1.11 1.11 1.11 1.11
Velocity Q / A (m/s) 0.49 0.69 0.74 0.98
Loss 0.5 /2 (m) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
WSEL at Point 26 (m) 105.20 105.24 105.24 105.32
Sluice Gate No. 2 Loss ϭ 0.8 V 2 /2g (m) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04
WSEL at Point 27 (m) 105.21 105.25 105.27 105.36
Port to Filter Clearwell: Calculate losses through port
as if were a weir when depth of flow is below top
of port. Port dimmensions 2.74 m wide
by 0.813 m deep. Flow ϭ Q /4 (m s) 0.55 0.77 0.82 1.09
Weir (bottom of port) elevation (m) 104.85 104.85 104.85 104.85
Depth of flow over weir ϭ
(WSEL @ 27 – weir elevation) (m) 0.36 0.40 0.42 0.51
Flow over submergedweir ϭ q ϭ 1.71 ϫ h /2
/2 0.385
ϫ [1 - ( / ] ϫ L
Note: Rather than solve for h, find an h, by trial

and error, that gives a equal to the flow for the
given flow scenario
assume (m) 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.60
then q (m3 /s) ϭ 0.59 0.69 0.95 1.23
assume (m) 0.39 0.46 0.48 0.58
then q (m3 /s) ϭ 0.52 0.76 0.82 1.09
Note: These q’s equal the flows for the given
scenarios
h (m) 0.39 0.46 0.48 0.58

FIGURE 22.15 Clearwell to filter effluent
FIGURE 22.1 Filter effluent

TABLE 22.7 Example Hydraulic Calculation of a Typical Filter

Parameter Min. Day Avg. Day. Avg. Day. Max. Hour.
Plant flow (m3 /s) 2.19 3.06 3.28 4.38
Filter loading, [(m3 m)/m2] 0.083 0.167 0.250 0.334

Filter area per filter—seven (7) out of eight (8) 115 115 115 115
filters in operation (m )
Flow ϭ loading ϫ area (m3 /s) 0.16 0.32 0.48 0.64
Losses through filter effluent piping (Fig. 22.17)
0.51 m piping (Q :
Pipe velocity ϭ Q /
A (m/s) 0.79 1.58 2.37 3.16
Local losses Exit (0.5) ϩ butterfly
o
valves (2 ϫ 0.25) ϩ 0 elbows (2 ϫ .4)
ϩ tee (1.8) ϭ 3.6 V 2 /2g (m) 0.11 0.46 1.03 1.83
R A / P ( 2 /4 ϫ p /( ϫ p) /4 (m) 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13
Conduit losses L ϫ [V (0.849 ϫ C ϫ R0.63)]
1/0.54 where L 6.10 m and Hazen-
Williams C 120 (m) 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.11
0.51 m piping (Q /2):
Pipe velocity Q /A (m/s) 0.40 0.79 1.19 1.58
Local Losses Butterfly Valve (0.25) (m) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03
R A / P ( /4 ϫ )/( ϫ /4 (m) 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

Conduit losses L ϫ [V (0.849 ϫ C ϫ R0.63)]
1/0.54 where L 3.05 m and Hazen-
Williams C 120 (m) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02
0.61 m piping (Q /2):
Pipe velocity Q /
A (m/s) 0.27 0.55 0.82 1.10
Local losses entrance (1.0) ϩ tee (1.8)
2.8 V 2 /2 (m) 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.17
Filter (clean) and underdrain losses (obtain from
manufacturer) (m) 0.09 0.15 0.23 0.34
Total losses (effluent pipe and clean filters) (m) 0.23 0.70 1.45 2.50
Assume that headloss will be allowed to increase 2.44 m before the filters are backwashed. A rate controller
will be used to maintain a constant flow through the filters. Determine the ranges of available head over
which the rate controller will operate.
Static Head (Fig. 22.18)

WSEL above filters (m) 109.73 109.73 109.73 109.73
WSEL in filter effluent conduit, Point 29
(see Example 22.2) break Maximum (m) 105.61 105.61 105.61 105.61
Minimum (m) 105.16 105.16 105.16 105.16
Static head WSEL above filters—WSEL at
Point 29 (Filter effluent conduit-2)
Maximum (m) 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57
Minimum (m) 4.11 4.11 4.11 4.11
Available head static head Ϫ2.44 m
Maximum (m) 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13
Minimum (m) 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68

FIGURE 22.19 Membrane configurations. (a) Spiral wound, (b) hollow fiber, ( ) tubular, (d ) plate
and frame.
metal ions in the fee stream an preventing precipitation. Equili rium constants for these
antiscalants are not available which prohibits direct calculation. However, some manufac-
turers provi e computer programs for estimating the require antiscalant ose for a given
recovery, water quality, an mem rane.
Bio ogica fou ing is controlle with some mem ranes such, as cellulose acetate, y
maintaining a free chlorine resi ual of not more than 1 mg/L. Other mem ranes, such as
the thin-film composites, are not chlorine tolerant an must rely on upstream isinfection
y, for example, ultraviolet isinfection or chlorination- echlorination. The extent of foul-
ing for a specific application and its influence in the design of nanofiltration and RO mem-
rane systems is est etermine y pilot stu ies.
It has een suggeste that some uil up on the mem rane may e eneficial to treat-
ment y provi ing an a itional filtering layer. At facilities operate y the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD), removal rates of 1.7–2.9 logs were

o serve for see e virus MS2 acteriophage through microfilters that ha a pore size an
or er of magnitu e larger than the nominal size of MS2 (1).
The microfiltration system used by MWD utilizes an air backwash procedure where-
y compresse air at 90–100 psig is intro uce into the filtrate si e of the hollow fi er
mem ranes. Accumulate particulates islo ge y the compresse air are swept away
y raw water intro uce to the fee si e of the mem ranes. The ackwash sequence is
carrie out automatically at preset time intervals. MWD foun the est interval to e
every 18 minutes. The total volume of backwash represents approximately 5–7 percent
of influent flow.
The difference between influent and effluent pressure across the membrane is termed
the transmem rane pressure (TMP). Despite the frequent air an water ackwashes, the
TMP gra ually 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 2–3 hours an involves circulating a solution of so ium hy roxi e
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 40–67
ft . The lower flux rate of 40 ft has the a vantage that the rate of increase of TMP is
re uce an the interval etween chemical cleanings is increase . A possi le explanation
for this is that particulates are not force as eeply 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 67–40 ft , the interval etween chemical cleanings was
increase from 2 to 3 weeks to almost 20 weeks. However, MWD has institute a maxi-
mum run time of 3 months etween chemical cleanings to ensure the long-term integrity
of the mem ranes.
Nanofiltration is widely used for softening groundwaters in Florida. A typical nanofil-
tration plant woul inclu e antiscalant for scale control a e to the raw water. Cartri ge
filters, usually rated at 5 microns, remove particles that may foul the membrane system.
Fee water pumps oost the pretreate water pressure to a out 90–130 poun s per square
inch (psi) efore entering the mem rane system. The mem ranes typically are spiral
woun nanofiltration mem ranes generally with molecular weight cutoff values in the
200–500 dalton range.
22.4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT
Many factors and considerations influence the hydraulic design of a wastewater treatment
plant. This section escri es typical phases of wastewater treatment planning require for
design of new plants or additions to existing plants, and then presents typical unit process
hy raulic computations.
22.4.1 Wastewater Treatment Planning
Hy raulic ecision making for a new wastewater treatment plant or expansion of an exist-
ing plant involves several planning phases. Typical planning phases are presente elow
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 Unite States to ay. The plants are esigne to treat a total of a out

Peak flow is use for hy raulic esign, whereas average flow is use for treatment
process esign. Pea f ow is efine as the maximum hour flow experience y the waste-
water treatment plant throughout its service life. The maximum hour flow is generally two
to five times the average aily flow. Plants serving com ine collection systems can expe-
rience even greater flow variations. Treatment plant unit processes must convey the max-
imum flow unless this flow woul cause a hy raulic washout of the treatment plant. In this
situation, the esigner shoul consi er the use of equalization asins to minimize negative
impact on the treatment process. In addition, the plant must also be able to fully process
minimum flow without un esira le settling of soli s throughout the treatment train. Plants
normally encounter diurnal fluctuation of pollutant loadings, as well as flow loadings.
Fluctuation in pollutant loa ings may impact treatment process selection an consequent-
ly impact process hy raulics.
22.4.1.5 Flow diagram.

process selection A flowasesiagram
an hy raulic shoul
of esign. e prepare
Details in a flow toiagram
epict shoul
the results
inclu of
e
the type of unit processes, num er of asins for process re un ancy, flow istri ution an
junction chambers, piping, and conduits for interconnecting the unit processes and major
recycle streams such as return-activate s u ge (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, an hy rology; site access; utility availa ility; seismic
activity; surroun ing lan use an future availa ility; noise, o or an air quality require-
ments at an near the site; existing collection system an receiving water proximity; an
other environmental consi erations.
A site’s hydraulic suitability for a wastewater treatment plant is determined primarily
y site elevation an topography. The typical site elevation is low-lying, which facilitates
the flow of wastewater from the service area y gravity an minimizes costly pumping in
the collection system. Such a site, however, may require floo protection. The ifference
in hea etween the plant influent sewer an the receiving water o y is the hea avail-
able for the treatment plant. If available head does not exceed the plant’s head require-
ments, a itional hea can e provi e y pumping the wastewater. Selecting processes
with lower head requirements can also reduce the need for pumping. Pumping of waste-
water, especially untreate wastewater, shoul e avoi e when possi le ue to potential
operational ifficulties
large soli s. A of han ling
mil , continuous theusually
slope associate
provirags, grit, stringy
es optimal material
gravity an itions.
flow con other
Relatively flat sites often necessitate higher pumping hea s. Sites on a severe, uneven
slope or slopes can require costly hydraulic and structural features, and should be avoid-
e when possi le.
22.4.1.7 Plant layout. The selecte treatment processes esta lish the major space an
hy raulic requirements nee e to evelop initial plant layouts. Also, provisions for future
unit process additions and plant capacity expansions should be included both spatially and
hy raulically. Support facilities, such as maintenance, la oratory an a ministrative
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, a itional pumping facilities may e necessary
to provi e sufficient hea for the require water surface elevation.
When arranging treatment processes, a preliminary hy raulic profile shoul e evel-
ope as iscusse elow. The plant hy raulic profile an site topography an geology
information together determine the location having the optimal elevation for each process.

Other o jectives when eveloping a plant layout at a selecte site inclu e: close proxim-
ity of processes to associate facilities; structure grouping accor ing to process;
transportation equipment an staff traffic pattern efficiency; minimization of process
piping; an safe, isolate hazar ous chemical an material locations.
When preparing layouts for a ition 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 a equate hy raulic hea is not availa le for the new process, new
pumping facilities will be necessary.
22.4.1.8 Hy rau ic profi e an ca cu ations. A hy raulic profile shoul e prepare for
the flow train to graphically epict the results of hy raulic calculations an site layouts.
Details in a profile should include free water surface elevations throughout the flow train,
inclu ing unit treatment processes, interconnecting piping an channels, junction cham-
bers, flowmeters and flow control devices, as well as structural profiles. Figure 22.21
shows a typical hy raulic profile. Both high an low water levels are shown to illustrate
the range of liqui levels anticipate at each structure. Sufficient free oar must e pro-
vi e to prevent liqui or floating material from splashing over the si es un er con itions
of high water level. Low water levels are important when esigning evices requiring a
mimimum amount of submergence, such as surface skimmers or baffles.
In a ition to normal high an low water levels, hy raulic calculations shoul a ress
other potential con itions. For example, for each process having re un ant structures, the
largest capacity unit shoul e assume to e out of service uring maximum flow for
consi eration of a “worst case”. The process structure shoul always e hy raulically
capable of accommodating the change in elevation due to the “worst case.” head require-
ments without liqui 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 hea requirement for a specific process can
vary with flow rate, influent water quality, process equipment size, process equipment lay-
out, process equipment components inclu e , an process equipment manufacturer.
22.4.2 Typical Unit Process Hydraulics
22.4.2.1 Bar screens. Process cr ter a. The first unit operation typically encountere in
a wastewater treatment plant is screening. A schematic iagram of a typical ar screen sys-
tem is shown in Fig. 22.22. A screen is comprised of a screening element with circular or
rectangular openings esigne to retain coarse sewage soli s. The screens are esignate
as han cleane or mechanically cleane ase on the metho of cleaning. Base on the
size of the openings, screens are esignate as coarse or fine. The general ivi ing line
between coarse and fine screens is an opening size of 6 mm (1/4 in). A ar screen is a
coarse screen designed to remove large solids or trash that could otherwise damage or
interfere with the ownstream 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 inclu e the approach channel, effective ar opening, an operating hea loss.
Approac c anne . Velocity istri ution in the approach channel is an important fac-
tor in successful ar screen operation. A straight channel ahea of the channel provi es
goo velocity istri ution across the screen an promotes effectiveness of the evice. Use
of a configuration other than a straight approach channel has often resulte in uneven flow

.
m
e
t
s
y
s
n
e
e
r
c
s
r
a
b
f
o

m
a
r
g
a
i
d
c
i
t
a
m
e
h
c
S
2
2
.
2
2
E
R
U
G
I
F

tanks an aerate grit cham ers are still popular. Depen ing on the type of grit removal
process use , the remove grit is often further concentrate in a cyclone, classifie , an
then washed to remove light organic material captured with the grit.
Key y rau ic esign parameters. The key hy raulic esign parameters for grit tanks
inclu e the inlet channel or inlet affle, an effluent weir.
In et c anne /in et aff e. For aerate grit cham ers, the tank inlet an outlet shoul e
positioned so that the flow through the tank is perpendicular to the roll pattern created by the
iffuse air. Inlet an outlet affles serve to issipate energy an minimize short circuiting.
For vortex tanks, the flow into the vortex tank shoul e straight, smooth an stream-
line . As a goo practice, the straight inlet channel length shoul e seven times the wi th
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 (2–3 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 ownwar as it enters the tank.
For etritus tanks, the performance relies on well- istri ute flow into the settling
basin. Allowances for inlet and outlet turbulence, as well as short circuiting, are necessary
to etermine the total tank area require .
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 an outlet tur ulence is nec-
essary to etermine the actual length of the channel.
TABLE 22.8 Example Hydraulic Calculation of a Typical Bar Screen System
Initial Operation Design Operation
Parameter Min Day Avg.Day Avg.Day Max Hour Max Hour
1. Wastewater flow rate, Q (m /s) 1.0 1.6 2.0 3.2 3.2

(mgd) 23 36 46 73 73
Bar screens
Total number of units 3 3 3 3 3
Number of units in operation 2 2 2 2 2

Number of units on standby 1 1 1 1 1
Flow rate per screen in operation, (m3 /s) 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.6
Width of each bar screen, (m) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
2. At point 8
Pump wetwell HGL at high water level, HGL7 (m) 100.60 100.60 100.60 100.60 100.60
(pump starts at EL 100.60 and stops at EL 100.00)
Pump well bottom EL (m) 99.00 99.00 99.00 99.00 99.00
Critical depth in a rectangular channel,
Yc=(q /g/w2 1/3 0.16 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.35
Bar screen channel depth= 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
pump WW HGL - channel bottom EL (m)

(Water level at pump well controls upstream
hydraulics if bar screen channel depth is higher
than c)
Is bar screen channel depth higher than Yc? yes yes yes yes yes
3.Point 8 to point 7
Channel bottom EL (m) 99.50 99.50 99.50 99.50 99.50

Parameter Min Day Avg.Day Avg.Day Max Hour Max Hour
Depth in channel, y7 (m) 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10

Velocity, V7 (m/s) 0.18 0.29 0.36 0.39 0.58
Exit loss from channel to pump well
Exit loss coeficient, K exit 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Headloss, Hle7=K exit .ϫ V7 2 /2g (m) 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02
HGL at point 7, HGL7 HGL8+H e7 (m) 100.60 100.60 100.61 100.61 100.62
4.Point 7 to Point 6
Friction headloss through channel
Length of approach channel, L6 (m) 7 7 7 7 7
Manning’s number for concrete channel, n 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
Channel width, w6 (m) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Water depth, h (m) 1.10 1.10 1.11 1.11 1.12
Velocity, V6 (m/s) 0.18 0.29 0.36 0.39 0.57
Hydraulic radius, R (h ϫ w )/ 2 ϫ h ϩ w ) 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59
Headloss, Hlf6 ϭ (V6 ϫ n/r6 2/3)2 ϫ L6 (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HGL at Point 6, HGL HGL7 + Hlf (m) 100.60 100.60 100.61 100.61 100.62
Bar width (m) 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
Bar shape factor, bsf 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42 2.42
Cross-sectional width of bars, w (m) 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Clear spacing of bars, b (m) 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61 1.61
Upstream velocity head, (m) 0.0041 0.0104 0.0163 0.0186 0.0418
Angle of bar screen with horizontal, p (degrees) 60 60 60 60 60
(Kirschmer’s eq),. H s s ϫ w /
1.33 ϫ h ϫ sin p (m) 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.06
Allow 0.15 m head for blinding
by screenings, Ha (m) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
HGL upstream of bar screen, HGL5 ϭ
HGL6 ϩ H s ϩ Ha (m) 100.76 100.77 100.78 100.79 100.83


Length of approach channel, L4 (m) 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Manning’s number for concrete channel n 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
Channel width, 4 (m) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Channel bottom elevation (m) 99.65 99.65 99.65 99.65 99.65
Water depth, (m) 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.18
Channel velocity, V (m/s) 0.18 0.29 0.35 0.38 0.54
Hydraulic radius R ϭ ϫ
4/(2 ϫ h ϩ w4) 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.60 0.61

(2/3)
Headloss , H ϭ (V *n / R4
2 ϫ L4 (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HGL at Point 4, HGL4 HGL5 H (m) 100.76 100.77 100.78 100.79 100.83
Headloss at sluice gate contraction
K gate 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Sluice gate width (m) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Sluice gate height (m) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Velocity through sluice gate, Vs (m/s) 0.38 0.59 0.74 0.78 1.13

The primary se imentation tank receives the wastewater passe through ar screens
an /or grit tanks. The o jectives of primary se imentation are to pro uce a liqui effluent
suitable for downstream biological treatment and to achieve solids separation. The solids
result in a slu ge that can e conveniently an economically treate efore ultimate
isposal. On an average asis, the primary se imentation tank removes approximately
60 and 30 percent of influent total suspended solids (TSS) and 5-day biological oxygen
eman (BOD ), respectively.
The secondary sedimentation tank receives mixed liquor from the aeration tank. Mixe
iquor is a suspen e iological growth stream containing microorganisms an treate
wastewater. The microorganisms settle with other settleable solids and the clear water is dis-
charge from the se imentation tank as an effluent. The se imentation process also thickens
the settle soli s, a major part of which is returne to the aeration tank an the remain er is
waste as secon ary slu ge. Se imentation tank performance is critical for meeting effluent
limits for TSS an BOD . The secon ary se imentation effluents are usually esigne to
produce 30 mg/L or lower for TSS or BOD , depending on the effluent requirement.
Both primary an secon ary se imentation tanks are commonly arrange in either
rectangular or circular shape. Key design parameters include surface overf ow rate (SOR),
tank water epth, hy raulic etention time, an weir loa ing rate. Soli s loa ing rate is anoth-
er important parameter for the secon ary se imentation tank. A properly esigne se imen-
tation tank will provi e similar performance for oth rectangular an circular shapes. Choice
of the shape epen s on the site constraints, construction cost, an esigner preference.
Key y rau ic esign parameters. The key hydraulic design parameters for sedimen-
tation tanks inclu e the inlet con itions, inlet channel, inlet flow istri ution, inlet affle,
outlet con itions, overflow weir, an effluent laun er.
In et con itions. Inlets shoul e esigne to issipate the inlet port velocity, istri -
ute flow and solids equally across the cross-sectional area of the tank, and prevent short
circuiting in the se imentation tank. The minimum istance etween the inlet an outlet
shoul e 3 m (10 ft) unless the tank inclu es special provisions to prevent short
circuiting.
In et c anne . Inlet channels should be designed to maintain velocities high enough to
prevent soli s eposition. The minimum channel velocity is typically 0.3 m/s (1 ft/s).
Alternatively, inlet channel aeration or water jet nozzles can e esigne to prevent soli s
eposition.
In et f ow istri ution. Inlet flow can be distributed by inlet weirs, submerged ports,
or orifices with velocities between 0.05 and 0.15 m/s (0.15–0.5 ft/s), and sluice gates or
gate valves. Uniform flow to the sedimentation tanks can be achieved by locating inlet
ports away from si es, a ing partitions or affles in the inlet zone to re irect the influ-
ent, an creating a higher hea loss in the inlet ports relative to that in the inlet channel.
Alternatively, splitter oxes are use for equally splitting the flow as well as soli s con-
taine in the liqui into multiple se imentation tanks.
In et aff e. Inlet affles are esigne to issipate the energy of the inlet velocities.
Baffles are usually installed 0.6–0.9 m (2–3 ft) downstream of the inlet port and
submerged 0.45–0.6 (1.5–2 ft), depending on tank depth. The top of the baffle should be
far enough elow 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
su mergence varies epen ing on the manufacturer.
Out et con itions. Effluent should be uniformly withdrawn to prevent localized high
velocity zones an short circuiting. Typically, effluent is with rawn from a se imentation

Parameter Min Day Avg.Day Avg.Day Max Hour Pea
Length of weir, L (m) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00

Head over end contracted weir,
He (assumed) 0.20 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.45
Headloss, He8 ϭ ( / 1.84 ( L – 0.2 He)(2/3) (m) 0.20 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.45
H e8 – He (must be zero) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
HGL at Point 8, HGL8 weir

EL ϩ Hle8 (m) 106.20 106.28 106.32 106.34 106.45
Channel width, w7 (m) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Water depth, 7 (m) 1.20 1.28 1.32 1.34 1.45
Velocity, V 7 (m/s)
Exit headloss from channel to effluent weir
Exit headloss coefficient K xit ϭ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Headloss, H e7 ϭ K xit ϫ V72 /2g (m) 0.0010 0.0022 0.0032 0.0036 0.0069
HGL at Point 7, HGL7 ϭ HGL ϩ H e7 (m) 106.20 106.28 106.33 106.34 106.45
Channel width, 6 (m) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Water depth, 6 (m) 1.20 1.28 1.33 1.34 1.45
Velocity, V 6 (m/s) 0.17 0.25 0.30 0.32 0.44
Length of approach channel, L6 (m) 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Manning’s number for concrete channel .013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
Hydraulic radius, R6 ϭ (h6 ϫ w6)/
(2 x 6 ϩ 6) (m) 0.61 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.67
2
Headloss Hlf ϭ[(V 6 ϫn / R6 (2/3)] ϫ L6(m)0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0003 0.0006
Fitting headloss through 90º bend
Fitting headloss coefficient
K bend 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Headloss, Hlb6 ϭ K bend ϫ V 6 2 /2g(m) 0.0014 0.0032 0.0046 0.0051 0.0099
HGL at Point 6, HGL6 HGL7 ϩ
Hlf ϩ Hlb6 (m) 106.21 106.28 106.33 106.35 106.46
Headloss through sluice gate
Sluice gate headloss coefficient
K gate ϭ 1.0 1.0 1..0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Sluice gate width (m) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Sluice gate height (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Water depth, h5 (m) 1.20 1.28 1.33 1.34 1.45
Sluice gate height or 5,
whichever is smaller (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Velocity through sluice gate,
V 5 (m/s) 0.33 0.53 0.67 0.71 1.07


Critical depth, yc ( c2 /(g ϫ w62 0.33 (m) 0.19 0.26 0.23 0.31 0.41
Water depth at upstream end
of channel, yu 2 ϫ ( yc ϩ ( yc Ϫ
(S * L /3)2]0.5 Ϫ (2 ϫ Sc ϫ 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
ELuc EL c ϩ EL i (m)
HGL at trough downstream,
HGL6 EL c ϩ (m) 104.75 104.82 104.79 104.87 104.97
HGL at trough upstream,
HGL6 ELuc ϩ (m) 104.91 105.03 104.98 105.12 105.28
Allowance to Weir from
high trough HGL (m) 0.10 0.10 0.10 .010 0.10
Weir elevation, Elwe, max.
HGL6 ϩ a owance (m) 105.38 105.38 105.38 105.38 105.38
Headloss over V notch 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 ϫ 3.14 (m) 141.30 141.30 141.30 141.30 141.30
Hydraulic load, o ϭ / Lw, [(m ·/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 ϫ
(TAN( A /2) ϫ 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,
Lw /( Ew ϩ Esv) 614 614 614 614 614
Flow per notch, Qcw ϭ / nv (m3 /s) 0.0008 0.0013 0.0011 0.0017 0.0026
Cw
Weir coefficient for 90º notch, 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 ϭ
ELwe ϩ e5 (m) 105.44 105.45 105.44 105.45 105.47
Headloss through primary
sedimentation tanks
Number of tanks, Nt 2 2 3 3 2
Flow per tank, q (m /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 Ϫ 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


Entrance headloss from

primary sedimentation
tank influent distribution box
to influent pipe
Pipe diameter, Dp (m) 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
Flow per pipe, q (m /s) 0.50 0.80 0.67 1.07 1.60
Velocity, V (m/s) 0.44 0.71 0.59 0.94 1.42
Entrance headloss coefficient
K entrance 0.5 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Headloss, Hle1 ϭ
K entrance ϫ V 12 /2 (m) 0.0050 0.0128 0.0089 0.0227 0.0511
HGL2 ϩ H e1 (m) 105.52 105.60 105.56 105.68 105.90
Allowance to grit tank
effluent weir from maximum 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
HGL1, Ha (m)
Grit tank effluent elevation, ELgr ϭ
HGL1 ϩ Ha (m) 106.00 106.00 106.00 106.00 106.00
itches are more popular an for larger plants, plug flow is favore . Various mo ifications
of plug flow systems inclu e conventional, tapere aeration, step aeration, mo ifie aera-
tion, an contact sta ilization.
P ysica configuration. Various physical configurations are use in the aeration tank
design, including rectangular, circular, oval, and octagonal shapes.
Se ector esign. Selectors are small compartments for aero ic, anoxic or anaero ic
processing usually located in the front end of the aeration tank. The purpose of the selec-
tors
oo istotomicroorganisms
promote the growth
(F:M)ofratio
floc-forming microorganisms
while suppressing y provi
filamentous ing a Typically
growth. favora le
selectors are esigne with low HRTs an high F:M ratio.
Key y rau ic esign parameters. The key hy raulic esign parameters for aeration
tanks inclu e the istri ution ox, inlet channel, inlet flow istri ution, inlet affles, aer-
ation equipment, RAS, effluent weir, and effluent channel.
Distri ution ox . Sluice gates, weirs, gate valves or orifices installe in a istri ution
ox are often use to istri ute the upstream flow to multiple aeration tanks an to a sec-
on ary treatment ypass line. Design shoul provi e the esire rate of flow istri ution
at all flow conditions with minimum headloss. Provisions to minimize solids deposition
in the istri ution ox an appurtenances shoul e consi ere .
In et c anne . Inlet channels shoul e esigne to maintain velocities high enough to
prevent soli s eposition ut low enough to minimize hea loss. 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 0.5–0.8 m /min (20–30 scfm), is often use .
In et f ow istri ution. Inlet flow can e istri ute y inlet weirs, su merge ports or
orifices, an sluice gates or gate valves. Return activate slu ge may e intro uce prior

.
k
n
a
t
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
i
d
e
s
l
a
n
i
f
f
o

m
a
r
g
a
i
d
c
i
t
a
m
e
h
c
S
5
2
.
2
2
E
R
U
G
I
F

TABLE 22.11 Example Hydraulic Calculation of a Typical Final Sedimentation Tank System

PARAMETER Min Day Avg.Day Avg.Day Max Hour Pea
1. Wastewater flow rate, Q (m3 /s) 1.0 1.6 2.0 3.2 3.2

(mgd) 23 36 46 73 73
RAS flow, Qras (% of average day flow) 20 50 50 100 100
RAS flow, Qras
/100, (m3 /s) 0.32 0.80 1.00 2.00 2.00
Final sedimentation tank influent
flow, Qin, (m3 /s) 1.32 2.40 3.00 5.20 5.20
Final sedimentation tank effluent
flow, Qe (m3 /s) 1.00 1.60 2.00 3.20 3.20
Final sedimentation tanks
Tank width (m) 16 16 16 16 16
Influent per operating tank,
qin, (m3 /s) 0.44 0.80 1.00 1.30 1.73
Effluent per operating tank,
qe (m3 /s) 0.33 0.53 0.67 0.80 1.07
2. Select control point at Point 3
(where effluent wiers are located)
Hydraulic calculations downstream
of contro point
At Point 3
V-notch weir
Number per tank, Nw 20 20 20 20 20
Individual weir length, Lw (m) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Total weir length, Lwt ϭ Lw ϫ Nw (m) 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0 140.0
Weir angle, A degrees 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 90.0
V-notch height, Vh (m) 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Vw ϫ
V-notch width, 2
(TAN ( A /2) ϫ 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
Total number of notches per
tank, /(Vw ϩ Esv)
Lwt 608 608 608 608 608
Flow per notch, Qcw ϭ e nv 0.0005 0.0009 0.0011 0.0013 0.0018
Weir coefficient for 90º notch, Cw 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34
Water depth over the weir,
e3 (Qcw / Cw)(1/2.48) (m) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07
hle3 Ͻ Vh? (If not, need to
readjust calculations) yes yes yes yes yes
Weir EL (m) (Select weir

elevation so that HGL1 103.37 103.37 103.37 103.37 103.37
equals aeration tank’s HGL6)
EGL at Point 3, EGL3
Weir EL ϩ hle3 (m) 103.41 103.42 103.43 103.43 103.44
Velocity head, HV 0
(assume V 3 ϭ ) (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22. 1
Initia Operation Initia Operation

HGL at point 3, HGL3 ϭ

Weir EL ϩ e3 (m) 103.41 103.42 103.43 103.43 103.44
Effluent troughs
Number of troughs, n 10 10 10 10 10
Flow per trough, qt ϭ qef nt (m3 /s) 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.11
Trough slope, t (%) (select
to prevent solids settling) 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
Trough width, w6 (m) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Approximate trough length, Lt (m) 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Change in trough EL due to slope
ifEL4 ϭ t * Lt (m) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Critical depth at downstream end, yc
(qt 2 /(gw62)0.33 (m) 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.17
Water depth at upstream end
of trough for free fall 0.12 0.17 0.20 0.23 0.28
from trough into final
effluent channel
yu4 [2 ϫ ( yc)2 ϩ ( yc Ϫ (S * L /3)2].5
Ϫ (2 ϫ S ϫ L /3) (m)
Max water EL downstream of weir

(occurring at max. hourly flow 103.27
with one tank out of service)
Elmax 4 ϭ eir EL Ϫ 0.1 (m)
(see Point 3 for weirEL)
Trough bottom EL at upstream
end of trough, TbuEL4 (m) 102.99 102.99 102.99 102.99 102.99
Tbu EL ϭ EL max 4 Ϫ yu for max
hour flow with one tank out of service
HGL at upstream end,
HGL4u ϭ T u EL4 ϩ yu4 (m) 103.11 103.16 103.19 103.22 103.27
Velocity head, HV u ϭ 0
(assume V ϭ ) (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EGL at upstream end, EGL u ϭ
HGL4u ϩ HV u (m) 103.11 103.16 103.19 103.22 103.27
Trough bottom EL at downstream
end of trough 102.97 102.97 102.97 102.97 102.97
T EL4 ϭT u EL4 Ϫ if EL4 (m)
HGL at point 4, HGL4
T EL4 ϩ yc (m) 103.05 103.08 103.10 103.11 103.14
2
Velocity head, Vc /2 (m) 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08


Difference, (Qsu Ϫ sg (m /s)

(should be zero) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Head difference between tank
and channel, Hl 1 ϭ Du Ϫ Dd (m) 0.051 0.077 0.090 0.106 0.130
Top of sluice gate set elevation,
Els ϭ HGL2 Ϫ Dd (m) 103.26 103.19 103.15 103.10 103.04
HGL at Point 1 (upstream of sluice
gate), HGL1 ϭ HGL2 ϩ H 1 (m) 103.46 103.50 103.52 103.54 103.57
Velocity head, 1 0
(assume V ϭ ) (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EGL at Point 1, EGL1 HGL1 ϩ 1 (m) 103.46 103.50 103.52 103.54 103.57
Maximum HGL1 (m) 103.57
Max HGL1 should equal HGL6
for aeration tank
to or after the inlet flow istri ution. Goo mixing shoul e provi e to promote uniform
istri ution of the influent flow an RAS flow. Wastewater flow split inlet esign 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 fee
mode. Sometimes influent distribution piping which is extended to and having an inlet
port at each step fee point is use .
In et aff es. Depending on the aeration tank configuration, inlet baffles are used to
issipate the energy from the inlet velocities. Inlet affles are esigne to irect uniform
istri ution of MLSS along the wi th of the aeration tank.
Aeration equipment . Diffuse aeration systems are pre ominantly use 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 ma e in aeration tank sizing. The vol-
ume occupie y su merge piping an iffusers is usually negligi le. If spiral-flow mix-
ing with coarse u le iffusers is use , the wi th-to- epth ratios vary from 1:1 to 2.2:1.
The tank depth, most commonly 4–5 m (13–16 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) a ove the water surface is normally provi e . If surface mechanical aerators are use ,
a freeboard of more than 0.6 m (2 ft) may be required depending on the power input for
the aeration an mixing. Freezing uring the winter ue to the mist shoul also e con-
si ere in the esign.
Return activate s u ge ( 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 shoul
provi e a equate mixing, hy raulic capacity, an uniform istri ution where RAS is
intro uce to the incoming wastewater.
Eff uent weir . The effluent weir provides a fixed control elevation of hydraulics in the
aeration tank. Sometimes effluent ports instea of effluent weir are use to minimize
hea loss.

FIGURE 22.2 Schematic diagram of aeration tank system. (AT = aeration tank; PST = primary
sedimentation tank).
Eff uent c anne . The esign consi erations escri e in the inlet channel also apply
to the esign of the effluent channel. Often the effluent channel from the aeration tanks is
the same as the influent to the final se imentation tanks.
Hy rau ic esign examp e. The aeration tanks receive the primary se imentation tank
effluent and hydraulic loading conditions are the same as those of the primary sedimenta-
tion tanks. Design hy raulic calculations for the aeration tank system is shown in Ta le
22.12. The hea requirements for the sample aeration tanks are in the range of 0.4–1.0 m
(1.3–3.3 ft).
22.4.2.5 Granu ar me ia fi ter. Process criteria. Granu ar me ia fi tration is usually

use where the plant suspen e soli s effluent limit is equal to or less than 10 mg/L. It
may also be applied following secondary biological treatment to remove particulate car-
onaceous BOD an resi ual insolu ilize phosphorus. The egree of suspen e soli s

removal when filtering secon ary effluents without the use of chemical coagulation
epen s on the egree of ioflocculation achieve uring secon ary treatment. The pres-
ence of significant amounts of algae impedes filtration of lagoon effluents. Pretreatment
with a coagulant is consi ere to e a goo practice for such cases.
There are many types of proprietary granular filters availa le. However, granular
me ia filters are generally classifie accor ing to irection of flow, type, an num er of
me ia comprising the e , the riving force, an metho of flow control. Most wastewater
filters are downflow units while some proprietary filters use various combinations of
upflow an ownflow. The riving force for filtration may e either gravity or pressure.
Gravity filters are commonly used in large municipal treatment plants while pressure fil-
ters are often use in smaller plants.
Gravity fi ters are generally size for a filtration rate of 1.4–4 L/(m s)/ (2–6
gal/(ft min) an terminal hea losses of 2.4–3.0 m (8–10 ft). Multiple units are use to
allow continuous filtration uring ackwash or maintenance. Typical length to wi th ratio
of gravity filters vary from 1:1 to 4:1.
Key y rau ic esign parameters. The key hy raulic esign parameters for granular
media filters include headlosses, filter operation, collection and distribution systems, and
ackwash requirements.
Hea osses. The head losses includes the losses associated with piping, valves,
meters, en s, constrictions, filter me ia, un er rains, an collection systems. All losses
vary with the square of the velocity. Clean water hea loss for the filter me ia is influence
y me ia type, size, uniformity, an epth. As filtration rate increases within the terminal
hea loss range, less hea loss capacity is availa le for soli s storage. The hea require
for the filter is the sum of all headlosses including the terminal head loss of the filter
me ia. If sufficient hea is not availa le, pumping of filter influent is require .
Fi ter operation. Three asic metho s of filter operation are constant pressure, con-
stant rate an varia le eclining 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 an true constant-rate filtration is sel om use . In
declining-rate filtration, the filtration rate may be kept constant using influent or effluent
control weirs uring the initial perio of operation an , thereafter, eclining rate of filtra-
tion. Generally, eclining-rate filters are the est mo e of gravity filter operation unless
the design terminal headloss exceeds 3 m.
Co ection an istri ution systems. (un er rain). In conventional ownflow filters,
the un er rain system serves to oth collect the filtrate an istri ute the ackwash water.
Tra itional systems using gravel layers with perforate pipe are no longer commonly
used. More popular underdrain materials include precast channels, poured-in-place con-
crete, or steel pipe with uilt-in nozzles an orifices. Porous plates ma e of aluminum
oxi e or stainless steel are also availa le ut they are suscepti le to clogging.
Bac was requirements Bac was is the cleaning of the filter y reversing the flow
through the filter media at a controlled flow rate. Backwashing causes an expansion of the
e , normally no more than 10 percent of the epth, y allowing a rasive action among
particles. The quantity of backwash water will generally be about 3000–4000 L/m
(75–100 gal/ft ). Bachwashe water is collecte in the wash-trough which is locate a out
0.9 m (3 ft) a ove the filter me ia. Biological soli s in secon ary effluent are strongly
attache to the me ia an air scour efore or uring ackwash is often require to pro-
mote successful cleaning. Air requirements for the air scour are on the or er of
0.015–0.025 (m /m )/s [3–5 (ft ր f t )/min].

TABLE 22.12 Example Hydraulic Calculation of a Typical Final Aeration Tank System

PARAMETER Min Day Avg. Day Avg. Day Max Hour Pea

(mgd) 23 36 46 73 73
RAS f ow. (% of average flow)
(added downstream of aeration tank 20 50 50 100 100
influent sluice gates)
RAS flow, Qras (m3 /s) 0.32 0.80 1.00 2.00 2.00
2. Aeration tanks
Total of nunber of units 3 3 3 3 3
Flow rate per aeration tank in
operation, (m3 /s) 0.50 0.80 0.67 1.07 1.60
Flow rate per aeration tank in operation
including RAS flow (downstream
of influent sluice gate), qras (m /s) 0.66 1.20 1.00 1.73 2.60
Control point is located at Point 5
(aeration tan eff uent weir).
3. At Point 6
Set maximum HGL6 ϭ effluent
weir elevation Ϫ 0.10 (m) 103.57 103.57 103.57 103.57 103.57
Hydraulic Calculations Upstream
of Control Point
Headloss over sharp-crested weir
Sharp-crested weir EL (m) 103.67 103.67 103.67 103.67 103.67
Effluent channel bottom EL (m) 100.67 100.67 100.67 100.67 100.67
Flow rate over weir, qras (m /s) 0.66 1.20 1.00 1.73 2.60
Length of weir L (m) 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
(2/3)
Headloss, Hle5 ϭ (q /1.84 L) (m) 0.15 0.23 0.20 0.29 0.38
HGL at Point 5, HGL5
weir EL ϩ H e5 (m) 103.82 103.90 103.87 103.96 104.05
Velocity head, 5 (qra /
H e5)2 /2g (m)
Wp / 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.07
HGL5 ϩ HV 5 (m) 103.85 103.94 103.91 104.01 104.12
Flow rate per aeration tank in
operation, ras (m3 /s) 0.66 1.20 1.00 1.73 2.60
Pass width, Wp (m) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Tank length, Lt (m) 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0
Tank bottom elevation, ELtb ϭ
Avg. day WSEL - 6 (m) 97.87 97.87 97.87 97.87 97.87
Water depth in tank at design
average flow, Dt (m) 5.95 6.03 6.00 6.09 6.18
Number of passes per tank, Np 5 5 5 5 5


Difference, (Qsub Ϫ ) (m3 /s)

(should be zero) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Head difference between tank
and channel, Hl4 ϭ Du Ϫ Dd (m) 0.13 0.18 0.16 0.22 0.30
Velocity head downstream of sluice
gate, HVsd ϭ (q / Ws'/
Dd /2g, (m) 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.16
Velocity head upstream of sluice
gate, HVsu ϭ (q / W s' Du)2 /2g (m) 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.09
Top of sluice gate elevation,
Els ϭ HGL4 ϩ Dd (m) 103.45 103.38 103.42 103.33 103.18
HGL upstream of sluice gate,
HGLsu ϭ HGL4 ϩ Hl4 (m) 103.98 104.12 104.06 104.23 104.42
EGL upstream of sluice gate,
EGLsu ϭ HGLsu ϩ HVsu (m) 104.02 104.17 104.11 104.30 104.51
Friction headloss through influent
channel to tank #3
Average length of influent
channel per tank, L3 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5
Np ϫ Wp ϫ 3 tanks1/2 (m)
Influent channel width, W 3 (m) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Manning’s number for concrete channel .013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
Influent channel bottom elevation,
E avg. EGLsu Ϫ 3 (m) 101.1 101.1 101.1 101.1 101.1
Water depth in influent channel,
3 HGLs Ϫ El (m) 2.87 3.00 2.95 3.12 3.31
Hydraulic radius, R ϭ (h3 ϫ w3)/
(2 ϫ 3 ϩ w3) (m) 1.18 1.20 1.19 1.22 1.25
Velocity, V 3 ϭ / w3/ h3 (m/s) 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.12
Headloss, H (V 3 ϫ n /
R(2/3))2
ϫ L3 (m) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001
channel to tank #2
Flow rate, q2 2 ϫ (m3 /s) 1.00 1.60 1.33 2.13 3.20
Velocity, V 2 ϭ / w2 / h (m/s) 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.24
Headloss, H (V 2 ϫ n /
R(2/3))2
ϫ L3 (m) 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002
channel to tank #1
Flow rate, q1 3 ϫ (m3 /s) 1.00 1.60 2.00 3.20 3.20
Velocity, V 1 ϭ / w1/ h1 (m/s) 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.26 0.24
Headloss, H 1 R(2/3))2
(V 1 ϫ n /
ϫ L3 (m) 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0003 0.0002


HGL at Point 3, HGL3

HGLs ϩ Hlf ϩ Hlf ϩ Hlf 1 (m) 103.98 104.12 104.06 104.23 104.42
Headloss through sluice gate
Sluice gate headloss
coefficient K ate 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Sluice gate width, 2 (m) 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80
Sluice gate height, Hg (m) 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80
Channel water depth, c (m) 2.87 3.00 2.95 3.12 3.31
Gate opening depth, Hg r
c, whichever is smaller (m) 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80
Velocity through sluice gate,
5 Q / 2 (m/s) 0.31 0.49 0.62 0.99 0.99
Headloss, H s2 ϭ K ate ϫ
5 /2 (m) 0.0049 0.0124 0.0194 0.0498 0.0498
HGL3 ϩ H s2 (m) 103.98 104.13 104.08 104.28 104.47
Exit headloss from primary sed. tank effluent

pipe to aeration tank influent channel
Primary effluent pipe diameter, Dp (m) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
All PST effluent flow, Q (m3 /s) 1.00 1.60 2.00 3.20 3.20
Velocity, V 1 (m/s) 0.32 0.51 0.64 1.02 1.02
Exit headloss coefficient K xit 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Exit headloss, e1 (V 12 /
exit
2g ϫ K (m) 0.0052 0.0132 0.0207 0.0529 0.0529
Friction headloss through PST effluent
pipe section 2
Flow per pipe, q (m /s) 1.00 1.60 2.00 3.20 3.20
Pipe diameter, ( Dp2) (m) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Velocity, V 12 (m/s) 0.32 0.51 0.64 1.02 1.02
Hazen-Williams coefficient, Cp 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00
Hydraulic radius, Rp2 ϭ ( Dp2)/4 (m) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Length of pipe, Lp2 (m) 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Slope Sp2ϭ V 12/(0.85ϫCpϫ Rp2(0.63)](1/0.54)
(%) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0004 0.0004
Headloss, Lp2 ϫ Sp2 (m) 0.0026 0.0061 0.0093 0.0221 0.0221
Friction headloss through PST
effluent pipe section 1
Flow per pipe, q (m /s) 0.50 0.80 0.67 1.07 1.60
Pipe diameter, Dp1 (m) 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50

Velocity, V 11 (m/s) 0.28 0.45 0.38 0.61 0.91
Hazen-Williams coefficient, Cp 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00
Hydraulic radius, Rp1 ϭ ( Dp1)/4 (m) 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Slope,Sp1ϭ[V 11/(0.85ϫCpϫ Rp1(0.63)](1/0.54)
(%) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0005

M x ng equ pment. A sufficient free oar shoul e provi e to prevent liqui

spillage over the walls ue to intense mixing. Provisions for easily removing the mixing
equipment for repair and maintenance should be considered. Tank geometry should be
configure to minimize areas with ina equate mixing.
Outlet channel. Velocity in the outlet channel which leads to the sedimentation tank
shoul e high enough to prevent soli s from settling ut not too high to cause reak own
of flocculated solids.
22.4.2.7 Cascade aerators Process criteria. Casca e aeration is a physical unit process
typically use 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
or er to increase oxygen transfer. The hea requirements vary epen ing on the initial is-
solve oxygen (DO) an the esire final DO. If the necessary hea is not availa le, efflu-
ent pumping or mechanical aeration is require .
Although casca e 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 (m ր h)/m[315(gal/min)/ft] of wi th; an a pool epth after each fall equal to or less than
0.28 m
(0.9 ft).
Hy rau ic esign examp e. A schematic iagram of a typical casca e aeration system
is shown in Figure 22.28. Casca e aerators normally receive the secon ary treatment
effluent and hydraulic loading conditions are the same as those of the secondary treatment
effluent. Design hy raulic calculations for the casca e aeration system is shown in Ta le
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 require to pro uce effluent meeting the criteria esta lishe y 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,
isposal into the receiving waters is the most common practice. The receiving waters
include rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans.
The outfall size is etermine y the velocity, hea loss, structural consi erations, an
the economics
mally of the
recommen e situation. Velocities
in pipeline esignofto0.6–0.9
avoi m/s (2–3 ft/s)
excessive heaat average
loss. If flow
the are nor-
effluent
receive preliminary treatment, lower velocities can e use . However, velocities higher
than 2.4–3.0 m/s (8–10 ft/s) should be avoided due to excessive headloss.
Key y rau ic esign parameters. The key hy raulic esign parameters for effluent
outfalls include available head, mixing and dispersion, submerged discharge, and dif-
fusers.
Avai a e ea . Sufficient hea for gravity flow from the point of plant effluent
ischarge to the receiving stream is not always possi le. If sufficient hea is not avail-
able, effluent pumping is required to prevent flooding of the plant area. Some plants
require effluent pumping uring storm events or where ti al waves cause salt water
intrusion.
Mixing an ispersion. The outfall shoul e esigne to operate at an a equate veloc-
ity to promote rapid dispersion and mixing of the effluent with the receiving stream. This
will minimize localize eposits of settlea le soli s an stratification of the resi ual organ-
ics and nutrients in the localized area, which may cause a DO deficit and algae growth.

TABLE 22.13 Example Hydraulic Calculation of a Typical Multimedia Filter System

PARAMETER Min Day Avg Day Avg Day Max Hour Pea

(mgd) 23 36 46 73 73
2. Multimedia filters
Flow rate per operating multimedia
3
filter, q (m /s) 0.25 0.32 0.40 0.53 0.64
Hydraulic Calculations at Filter Effluent
3. At Point 7
Max. HGL in filtered water
storage tank, HGL7 (m) 98.67 98.67 98.67 98.67 98.67
Velocity in storage tank, V (m/s) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Max. EGL in storage tank, EGL7
HGL ϩ V 2 /2g (m) 98.67 98.67 98.67 98.67 97.67
4. At Point 6
Filtered water effluent channel weir
ϭ
Sharp-crested weir EL , We 6
HGL ϩ 0.1 (m) 98.77 98.77 98.77 98.77 97.77
Flow rate over weir ϭ Q (m3 /s) 1.00 1.60 2.00 3.20 3.20
Length of weir (m) 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Headloss, H w6 ϭ ( /1.84 L)(2/3) (m) 0.18 0.25 0.29 0.40 0.40
HGL at Point 6, HGL We 6 ϩ H w6 (m) 98.95 99.02 99.06 99.17 99.17
Velocity in weir box,
V (assume V 0) (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EGL at Point 6, EGL6 ϭ
HGL6 ϩ V 62 /2 (m) 98.95 99.02 99.06 99.17 99.17
Loss through effluent concrete conduit

Flow rate, Q (m /s) 1.00 1.60 2.00 3.20 3.20
Width of conduit, Wc (m) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Depth of conduit, c (m) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Length of conduit, Lc (m) 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Velocity, c (m/s) 0.17 0.27 0.33 0.53 0.53
Hydraulic radius, R ϭ (Wc ϫ Dc /2)
/( c ϩ c) (m) 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Manning’s n 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013
Headloss, H c5 ( c ϫ / ( 2/3 ) 2
ϫ Lc (m) 0.0001 00002 0.004 0.0009 0.0009
Exit loss from pipe to concrete conduit
Effluent pipe diameter, Dp (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Pipe flow (for each filter) (m /s) 0.25 0.32 0.40 0.53 0.64
Velocity, Vp (m/s) 0.32 0.41 0.51 0.68 0.82
H e5 p2 /2 for sharp
concrete outlet (m) 0.0052 0.0085 0.0132 0.0236 0.0339
EGL6 ϩ H c5 ϩ H e6 (m) 98.96 99.03 99.07 99.19 99.20


Dirty filter HGL, HGLdf ϭ
EGL Ϫ HV 3 (m) 101.47 101.55 101.61 101.75 101.79
Clean filter headloss
Filter bed area (m ) 160 160 160 160 160
Flow per filter, (m3 /s) 0.25 0.32 0.40 0.53 0.64
Filter rate, qfi t m3(min m2) 0.094 0.120 0.150 0.200 0.240
Media depth, Dm (m) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Effective media size, M (mm) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Headloss through filter,
Hl 2.32 m loss per m3(min m2)
(consultant with manufacturer) 0.2175 0.2784 0.3480 0.4640 0.5568
Entrance headloss through underdrain
flume, Hlu ϭ 0.45 m m (min m2) 0.0422 0.0540 0.0675 0.0900 0.1080
(consult with filter manufacturer)
Clean filter EGL, EGLc ϭ
EGL ϩ H ϩ H u (m) 99.23 99.38 99.52 99.81 99.95
Velocity head, HV 3 ϭ 0 (assume
V 3 ) (m)
Clean filter HGL, HGLc ϭ EGLc Ϫ HV 3 (m)
EGL required at Point 3, EGL3 Ϫ EGL (m) 101.47 101.55 101.61 101.75 101.79
HGL required at Point 3, HGL3 Ϫ HGLdf (m)101.47 101.55 101.61 101.75 101.79
(Head required for dirty filter controls)
Filter inlet discharge loss
K ff 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Flow rate, (m3 /s) 0.25 0.32 0.40 0.53 0.64
Pipe diameter, Dp 2 (m) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Velocity, Vp2 (m/s) 0.39 0.50 0.63 0.84 1.01
Headloss, Hld 2 ϭ K eff ϫ (Vp22 /2g) (m) 0.0079 0.0129 0.0202 0.0359 0.0517
EGL EGL ϩ H
EGL at Point 2, 2 3 2 (m) 101.48 101.56 101.63 101.79 101.084
Velocity head, HV 2 ϭ Vp22 / g (m) 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05
HGL at Point 2, HGL2 EGL2Ϫ HV (m) 101.47 101.55 101.61 101.75 101.79
Headloss through butterfly valve
K val (fully open) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Headloss, Hlv1 ϭ K val ϫ (Vp2 /2g) 0.0024 0.0039 0.0061 0.0108 1.0155
Headloss through inlet pipe
Hazen-Williams coefficient, Cp 120 120 120 120 120
Hydraulic radius, Rp ϭ Dp2/4 (m) 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23
Headloss, H 1 (Vp2/(0.85 ϫ Cp
ϫ Rp1.63)(1/0.54) ϫ Lp (m) 0.0039 0.0061 0.0092 0.0157 0.0220
Headloss through entrance to pipe
Kent 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Headloss, H ent K nt ϫ Vp2 /2g (m) 0.0039 0.0065 0.0101 0.0179 0.0258


EGL at Point 1, EGL1 ϭ

EGL2 ϩ H v1 ϩ H ϩ H ent (m) 101.49 101.58 101.65 101.83 101.90
Velocity head, HV 1 ϭ 0
(assume V 0) (m) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
EGL1 Ϫ HV 1 (m) 101.49 101.58 101.65 101.83 101.90
Minimum required control
HGL at Point 1 (m) 101.90 101.90 101.90 101.90 101.90

( Max. HGL must equal HGL7
of final sedimentation tank)
22.4.2.9 S urry an c emica pumping. S u ge so i s. Typical nee s for slu ge pump-

ing involve transporting slu ge from primary an secon ary clarifiers to an etween
thickening, conditioning, digestion or dewatering facilities, and from biological process-
es for recycle or further treatment. Several ifferent types of slu ge pumps are use since
various types of sludge require a wide range of service conditions.
The flow
process characteristics
an from (r eo
plant to plant. ogy) ofrheological
Because wastewaterproperties
slu ges vary wi ely
irectly from process
influence to
pipeline
friction losses of pumpe slu ges, hea loss characteristics of wastewater slu ges also
vary extensively. Minimizing pumping istance an applying a conservative multiplier to
headlosses calculated for equivalent flows of water is the traditional approach to the
esign of slu ge pumping an piping systems. However, this approach is often ina e-
quate. As a result of past research of non Newtonian fluid characteristics of sludges,
slu ge pumping system esign ata ase on specific measure rheological characteris-
FIGURE 22.28 Schematic diagram of cascade aeration system.


Select cascade aerator dimensions

corresponding to those
calculated for average flow.
4. Calculation of number of steps to obtain desired DO
Desired DO concentration
at average flow, Cu (mg/L) 5.00
Step 1 effluent DO, C 9.07
(1 Ϫ (1/ 20)) ϩ CO / 20) (mg/L) 3.14 2.73 2.55 2.21 2.21
Step 2 effluent DO , C 2 ϭ 9.07
(1 Ϫ (1/ r 20)) ϩ C / r2
0) (mg/L) 4.81 4.51 4.39 4.14 4.14
Step 3 effluent DO , C 3 ϭ 9.07
(1 Ϫ (1/ r 20)) ϩ C2 / r2
0) (mg/L) 6.01 5.80 5.70 5.52 5.52
In this example, the desired downstream DO

concentration for average flow is achieved
after three steps.
5. Calculation of HGL at each step
Head loss
from filtered water
storage tank to point 1 (m) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cascade fall height, (m) 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20
HGL at Point 1, HGL1 (m) 97.53 97.53 97.53 97.53 97.53
HGL at Point 2, HGL2 HGL1 Ϫ (m) 96.33 96.33 96.33 96.33 96.33
HGL at Point 3, HGL3 ϭ HGL2 Ϫ (m) 95.13 95.13 95.13 95.13 95.13
HGL at Point 4, HGL4 HGL3 Ϫ (m) 93.93 93.93 93.93 93.93 93.93
tank, use of smooth pipe such as glass-line pipe, provi ing flushing connections, pigging
stations an cleanouts.
Grit s urry. Removal and conveyance of grit from the grit chamber can be accom-
plishe with varying egrees of success y a num er of ifferent metho s, inclu ing
incline screw or tu ular conveyers, chain an ucket elevators, clamshell uckets, an
pumping. Of these metho s, pumping of grit from hoppers in the form of slurry offers is-
tinct advantages over other methods but also has some disadvantages. The advantages
inclu e small space requirement an flexi ility of service y any grit pump from any grit
tank to any grit han ling system with simple valve operation. A isa vantage is frequent
maintenance required for piping and valves due to the abrasive grit. Considerations to be
given
en s,in piping
provi esign
ing re un inclu e minimization
ant piping of of
at the location enlikely
s, provi ing cleanouts
clogging, at critical
an maintaining a
velocity of 1–2 m/s (3–6 ft/s).
Vortex or recesse impeller pumps an air lift pumps normally han le grit slurries.
Frequent pumping an applying waterjets or compresse air to loosen the compacte grit
in the hopper prior to pumping is a good practice for grit pumping.
C emica so utions. Chemicals use in municipal treatment plants are receive in
either liquid or solid form. The chemicals in solid form generally are converted to solu-

tion or slurry prior to fee ing although ry fee ing is also practice . Design of solution
feed systems mainly depends on liquid volume and viscosity.
Liqui fee units inclu e piston, positive- isplacement, an iaphragm pumps, as well
as liquid gravity feeders. The unit best suitable for a particular application depends on the
require hea , chemical corrosiveness, application rate, other liqui properties, an the
type of control.
22.5 NON-NEWTONIAN FLOW CONSIDERATIONS
This section addresses pipe transport of mixtures of solids in a liquid media. This is rele-
vant to us for the analysis of wastewater slu ge transport. When a flui motion egins
within a pipe, the velocities of flow at all points along the cross section of the pipe are
equal. Over time, velocity gra ients are esta lishe , eginning at the wall of the pipe ue
to the resistance forces evelope at the flui -soli interface. Eventually the velocity
gra ients exten throughout the cross section of the flow. The velocity gra ients result
from the relative movement etween flui layers an the resultant shear. Flui s resist
shear and, therefore, shear stresses are caused within a fluid in motion in a pipe. For water
an other newtonian flui s, the shear stress is irectly proportional to the velocity
gra ient.
Many suspensions ehave in non-newtonian fashion, as plastic flui s. In thin suspen-
sions, the suspen e particles are not in contact an the suspension will exhi it the new-
tonian properties of water. When the concentration becomes sufficiently great to force the
particles into contact with each other, a measura le stress is nee e to pro uce motion.
Experiments by Bingham (1922) and Babbitt and Caldwell (1939) demonstrated that
sewage slu ges exhi it oth types of flow characteristics epen ing on the type of soli s
an the moisture content. At low soli concentrations, the soli particles are generally not
in contact with one another. In this case the presence of the solids has negligible impact
on the ensity an the viscosity of the liqui . As the soli s concentration increases, the
suspended particles come into contact with each other and the resultant shearing stress
must e overcome efore any movement can start. Un er such con itions, the flow
assumes plastic characteristics an the hea loss varies almost irectly with the re uction
of mo sture . The hea losses associate with the two types of flow are ifferent. The
ivi ing point etween these two is calle the imiting moisture content M , which is
L
defined as the moisture content in percent where a measurable yield stress, S y, first occurs.
As described by Chou (1958), below M L, the flow is plastic, an , a ove it, the flow is in
suspension only.
Furthermore, it is generally recognize that in slu ge flow, as in other flui flow, there
is a critical velocity an , consequently, the Reynol s num er, which ivi es the flow into
laminar an tur ulent stages.
With flow in suspension there is no yiel stress value an the Reynol s num er
takes the form of
ρ
Re ϭ ᎏᎏ (22.2)
where Re ϭ Reynol s num er ρ ϭ specific weight, V ϭ velocity, D ϭ pipe iameter, µ

ϭ coefficient of viscosity similar to that for water.
In plastic flow the apparent viscosity decreases with the increase in velocity, as dis-
cusse y Hatfiel (1938) an , in a given range, it may e expresse as
16S D
µϭ η ϩ ᎏ yᎏ (22.3)
3

a ly an were esignate as the curve of “Poor Digestion” in an attempt to represent the

upper limit of the range. The limiting moisture L can e etermine from Fig. 22.30 as
the point where S y ϭ 0 cuts the curve.
η re ate to M. The experimental etermination of the coefficient of rigi ity in icat-
e its variation with moisture M to e less pronounce than S y. Accor ingly, the plots are
more scattered. The two lines (shown in Fig. 22.31) of “High” and “Mean” are
suggeste for esign purposes.
Case —Suspension/Laminar Stage. For flow in suspension, the solid particles are free
to move past one another an there is consequently no yiel value to overcome. Re uction
of moisture content only slightly increases the specific weight ρ (ρ ϭ 62.4 G) an the vis-
cosity . Both remain close to the values for water. The yiel stress, y , is zero for flow in
suspension.
The equation for headloss for laminar stage flow in suspension becomes
H ϭ
ᎏᎏ
η ᎏᎏ (22.9)
L 62.4
where G ϭ specific gravity
in which oth G an η for the correspon ing can e etermine from the Figs. 22.29
an 22.31.
Case 2—Suspension/Tur u ent Stage. Streck (1950) and Winkel (1943) reported the
headloss of turbulent flow in suspension may be computed as follows:
H S G H W (22.10)

where S the hea loss of flow in suspension with moisture W ϭ the correspon ing
headloss of pure water
G ϭ the specific gravity of the suspension (from Fig. 22.29)
The hea loss of flow in suspension for oth laminar an tur ulent con itions is not sig-
nificantly greater than the correspon ing hea loss for water.
Case 3—P astic F ow/Laminar Stage. Plastic flow in the laminar stage is the most com-
mon
partlycase
duein
toslu ge flow.of
coefficient Asrigidity,
iscusse a of
both ove, the hea
which loss is partly
are affected by theue to yiel M
moisture value an
. Babbitt
and Caldwell (1939) reported headloss for this case as follows:
H
ᎏᎏ
16
ᎏᎏ
y ηV
ᎏᎏ (22.11)
3
in which the values of , S y, an η may e etermine from Figs. 22.29, 22.30 an 22.31,
respectively. For any moisture below the limiting value, plastic flow conditions mean S y
0 an a hea loss occurs ue to yiel value, S y, alone. As motion egins,
hea loss increases with the first power of velocity in the laminar stage. Hence, as soon
as the applied
accelerate head tois critical
the flow greater velocity.
than S , Therefore,
relatively little
it mayadditional
e concluhead
e is required
that to
the most
economical velocity of sludge flow is the critical velocity, above which the headloss
increases rapi ly with the velocity.
Case 4—P astic F ow/Tur u ent Stage. Pu lishe ata for tur ulent plastic flow hea loss
are varia le an inconsistent. Due to variation of slu ge characteristics, the velocities, the
results are extremely unpre icta le.

For fully tur ulent flow, it seems reasona le that the hea loss results primarily from
kinetics an is proportional to /2 an the specific weight ρ an , therefore, will iffer
from that of water only slightly by the effect of ρ. This ideal condition of full turbulence
rarely occurs for plastic flows. As the moisture rops elow L, the critical velocities
increase an the thickness of the oun ary layers is increase in proportion to moisture
re uction. The velocity istri ution in a cross section an the impacts of the oun ary lay-
ers are not the same as the regular patterns of homogeneous liqui s. Due to the compli-
cated and variable phenomena occurring during turbulent plastic flow, it is difficult, if not
impossi le, to accurately anticipate hea loss for flow in this con ition. 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) compile
ea loss ata for raw, thickene slu ge. Thus, from such complicate phenomena, uni-
form results can har ly e expecte .
The correspon ing in the Hazen-Williams formula
. 0. 4
V .318Cr (22.12)
where ϭ hydraulic radius and H L ϭ hydraulic slope
was compute from the o serve hea losses. These C ' values are tabulated in Table 22.15
along with the ratio to water hea loss.
Yield Stress, Sy
FIGURE 22.30 Yield value of Sy of sewage sludges (From Chou, 1958)

22.5.1 Headloss Computation
With the source an of the slu ge known or assume , the first step is to etermine if
the flow is a suspension or plastic. Empirically this can e one y the curves in Fig.
22.30. Values for G, S and η are then chosen from curves in Figs. 22.29, 22.30, and 22.31.
Examp e. Given primary slu ge, 95. The flow is plastic since L ( L ϭ 99.8
percent at point in Fig. 22.30 where y ϭ 0).
From Figs. 22.29, 22.30 an 22.31,

G ϭ 1.022, ␳ ϭ 1.022 ϫ 62.4 63.77 lb/ft
S y 0.065 lb/ft/s
η ϭ 0.0127 (l ft)/s
Critica ve ocities
LC ϭ 12.7 ϩ ᎏᎏᎏ

͙ ෆ ෆ ෆ ෆ ෆ ෆ ෆ ෆ ෆ ෆ ෆ ෆ ෆ
03 0.01513 ϩ 4.1 5
63.77 D
(22.13)
T
H
G
I
E
W
Y
B
E
R
U
T
S
I
O
M
F
O
E
G
A
T
N
E
C
R
E
P
FIGURE 22.31 Coefficient of rigidity of sludge (From Chou, 1958)

V UC ϭ 19.1 ϩ ᎏᎏᎏ

͙ ෆ
27 0 ෆ
.0 ෆ
2 ෆ
63.77
6 ෆ ෆ ෆ
2 ෆ .1 ෆ
4 ෆ ෆ ෆ
5 D
(22.14)
The values are given in Table 22.16.

Laminar stage
H
ᎏᎏ ϭ ᎏ ᎏ
.00555 ϩ 0.000204 V
ᎏᎏ (22.15)
The values are ta ulate against the pipe iameter for a range of laminar flow veloc-
ities in Ta le 22.17.
Tur u ent stage: Assume C ϭ 100 for ϭ 100, an from a plot of Ta le 1 C ' values,
the correspon ing ' ϭ 54.7 for M ϭ 95.
V ϭ 72.09r 0. s0. 4 (22.16)
ᎏ ᎏ
1. 1.
ϭ ᎏᎏ ϭ
L 72.09 r 1. 5 1.16
ϭ ᎏ ᎏ
Cons an
The headlosses are computed in Table 22.18.

It is useful to plot results as shown in Figs. 22.32 an 22.33 with critical velocities
in icate . For laminar flow, values are taken from the left of LC , an for tur ulent flow,
they are taken from right of V LC . It is also useful to tabulate results as shown in Table
22.19, inclu ing the minimum hea loss to account for y as well as the operating
hea loss.
Hea losscomputations for soli s earing flows are not an exact science. Where the
physical properties of the slu ge cannot e measure , use of the ata repro uce here in
Figs. 22.29, through 22.31 and the methodology developed by Chou et al. (1958) and
summarize here shoul provi e reasona le results.
TABLE 22.15 ’ Values for Raw, Thickened Sludge
M C’ Ratio to Water Hea oss

 100  . 5
Moisture Content (%) Percentage of C at M ϭ 100%
 C ’ 
100 100 100
98 80.5 1.49
97 — —
96 62.8 2.37
9 — —
94 0. 3. 4
91. 37.6 6.11
90 33.6 7. 4

FIGURE 22.32 Results of Headloss computation examples–laminar flow

TABLE 22.16 xamp e o Cr t ca Ve oc t es
D 8 in 10 in 14 in 20 in
LC (ft/s) 3. 8 3. 3.4 3.40

C (ft/s) 4. 2 4.42 4.31 4.23
TABLE 22.17 Example Hydraulic Slope for Laminar Stage
D n n n n
 
ᎏᎏ ᎏᎏ ϩ . 5 v
  ϩ . v ϩ . v ϩ . 7 v
ϭ , ᎏᎏ 0.00833 0.00666 0.00476 0.00333
3, ᎏᎏ 0.00970 0.007 4 0.00 21 0.003
H 0.00997 0.00770 0.00 27 0.003 8

LC ᎏᎏ
L
Varies (see Table 22.16)
TABLE 22.18 Example Hydraulic Slope for Turbulent Stage
D: in D: in D: in D: in
. 5 . 5 . 5 . 5
ᎏᎏ ᎏᎏ ᎏᎏ ᎏᎏ
. 5
338.9 439.6 6 0. 986 .

ps
VUC Varies Table 22.16 0.0481 0.03 6 0.0229 0.0146

19.64 0.0 80 0.0447 0.0302 0.019
6 27. 1 0.0813 0.062 0.0423 0.0279
7 36.60 0.108 0.0832 0.0 62 0.0371
8 46.8 0.138 0.106 0.072 0.0474
9 8.2 0.172 0.133 0.0896 0.0 9
10 70.80 0.209 0.161 0.109 0.0718
TABLE 22.19 Summary of Results
Pipes Q Hea oss, feet

L ---------- D ga /m ft3/s ft/s Minimum( ) Operating
16 ft ------- 0 in 2000 4.46 8.20 0.11 1.7

ft ------- 8 in 2000 4046 12.80 0.04 1.6
11 ft ------- 14 in 4000 8.91 8.36 0.0 0.86
20 ft ------- 20 in 4000 8.91 4.08 0.08 0.28
20 ft ------- 10 in 600 1.34 2.44 0.13 0.1
0 ft ------- 8 in 00 1.11 3.21 0.42 0.49
30 ft ------- 14 in 1600 3. 7 3.34 0.14 0.16
40 ft ------- 20 in 3300 7.3 3.37 0.13 0.14
M n mum s t e ea oss requ re to overcome y an n t ate ow.

REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers, and Water Environment Federation, Gravity Sanitary Sewer
Design an Construction, Amer can Soc ety C v Eng neers Manua s an Reports on
Engineering Practice No. 60 and Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice No. FD- ,
1982.
Babbitt, H. E., and Caldwell, David H., Laminar F ow of S u ges in Pipes wit Specia Reference
to Sewage S u ge, University of Illinois, Bulletin 319, 1939.
Bingham, E. C., F ui ity an P asticity, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1922.
Brisbin, S. G., “Flow of Concentrated Raw Sewage Sludges in Pipes,” Proceedings Paper 1274,
American Society Civil Engineers 19 7.
Bulletin No. 2 2 University of Wisconsin.
Bureau of Reclamation, Design Stan ar s No.3, Water Conveyance Systems, C apter 11 Genera

Hy rau ic Consi erations (Draft), (7-2071) (6-84), Sept. 30, 1992.
Camp, T. R., and Graber, S. D., Dispersion Conduits, Journa of t e Sanitary Engineering Division,
American Society of Civi Engineer , 94(SA1), February 19 8.
Chao, J.–L., and Trussell, R. R., “Hydraulic Design of Flow in Distribution Channels,” Journa of
Environmenta Engineering Division, ASCE , 6(EE2), April 1980.
Chou, T.–L., “Resistance of Sewage Sludge to Flow in Pipes,” Journa of Sanitary Engineering
Div., American Society of Civi Engineer , Paper 1780, September 19 8.
Committee on Pipeline Planning, Pipeline Division, Pipe ine Design for Water an Wastewater ,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 197 .
Crane Co., “Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings, and Pipe”, Technical Paper No. 410-C, 23rd
e ., Ban or , Ontar o, 1987.
Daugherty, R. L., and J. B. Franzini, F ui Mec anics wit Engineering App ications, 7th ed.,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977.
Hatfield, W. D., “Viscosity or Psendo-Plastic Properties of Sewage Sludges,” Sewage Wor s

Journa , , .
Ito, H., and Imani, K., “Energy Losses at 90o Pipe Junctions.” Journa of t e Hy rau ics Division,
American Society of Civi Engineer , HY9, 1973.
Keefer, C. E., Sewage Treatment Wor s, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1940.

San s, R. L., Pumping tation Design, Butterwort s, Stone am, MA, 1989.
Shaw, G. V., and A. W. Loomis, eds., Cameron Hy rau ic Data, Ingersoll-Rand Co., Cameron
Pump Division, 14th Ed., 1970.

ACFrOgCABTRADw6S0x3TiETVxdMHOeul YDPOa85w-JuC5f9KDl hiMC05pWShhmFJ-RwTlMdUGpO20XscXIvbov8NIyX3rKgeNeYNdKOmlEuWou6oKv3IWfEzuyeVvXyrcPy9Fe98E53DX2X6un

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACFrOgCABTRADw6S0x3TiETVxdMHOeul YDPOa85w-JuC5f9KDl hiMC05pWShhmFJ-RwTlMdUGpO20XscXIvbov8NIyX3rKgeNeYNdKOmlEuWou6oKv3IWfEzuyeVvXyrcPy9Fe98E53DX2X6un

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7/27/2019 Chapter

WATER AND WASTEWATER

The above requires knowledge of open-channel, closed-conduit, and hydraulic

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22 3

22.2.3 Gates and Valves

22.2.3.2 Valves. Ta le 22.1 provi es a summary of several types of valves an their

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

22.4 Chapter Twenty-Two

TABLE 22.1 Typical Valves and Their Application*

Type Open/C ose T rott ing Water Wastewater

22.2.4 Flow meters

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22 5

TABLE 22.2 Common Types of Flow Meters

Type Typica Accuracy Size Range Hea oss Cost W WW

Venturi Ϯ0.7 % of rate 1–120 in Low Medium X X

Orifice plate Ϯ2% of scale Any size Medium Low X X

P tot tu e 0. – % of scale 1/2–96 in Low Low

Parshall flume Ϯ % of rate Wide range Low Medium X X

Magnetic 0. % of rate 1/10–120 in None High X X

Doppler Ϯ1–2. % of rate 1/8–120 in None High X X

Propeller Ϯ2% of rate Up to 24 in High High X

Tur ne 0. –2% of rate Up to 24 in High High X

• Pressure ifferential/pressure measuring meters (e.g., Venturi, orifice plate, pitot tu e,

22.2.4.1 Pressure ifferentia /pressure measuring meters. Pressure ifferential/pressure

measuring flow. meters

22.2.4.2 Magnetic meters. In a magnetic f owmeter , a magnetic fiel is generate aroun

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22 7

TABLE 22.3 Typical Factors for Computing Local Losses

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22 9

22.3.1.2 Treatment requirements. Treatment requirements for municipal water treat-

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22.11

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22.13

22.3.6 Plant Hydraulic Design

As note a ove, a water treatment plant consists of a series of treatment processes

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

22.14 Chapter Twenty-Two

TABLE 22.4 Treatment Process Bases for Design—Sedimentation Basins

Item Stage I Stage II StageIII

Maxi– Maxi– Maxi-

Type: progressive cavity

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22.15

22.3.6.1 P ant operating mo es. Operating mo es escri e the sequence of treatment

FIGURE 22.4 Stage I—operational mode diagram.

FIGURE 22.5 Stage II—parallel operational mode diagram.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

22.16 Chapter Twenty-Two

FIGURE 22. Stage II—series flocculation/sedimentation basin

FIGURE 22.7 Stage II—split parallel operational mode diagram.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Hydraulics 22.19

22.3.7 Water Treatment Plant Process Hydraulics

22.3.7.1 Coagu ation. Process criteria an ey y rau ic esign parameters. The -

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com)

22.22 Chapter Twenty-Two

TABLE 22.5 (Continue )

Initia Operation Design Operation