Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin

Student No. 1085208

Locker 013

The horizontal flow rectangular sedimentation tanks should be designed for a river water treatment
plant with the design capacity of 1300 m3/h. The influent concentration of suspended particles is
260 mg/L, and the mass density of these particles is 2300 kg/m3. The water temperature is 16 oC. It
can be assumed that the particles settle discrete and under ideal settling conditions.

The settling characteristics of the particles in the river water obtained from the laboratory-settling
test are given in the table below:

s (mm/s) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1

P (%) 0 5 20 50 78 94 100

The particle removal efficiency of the sedimentation tank should be >80%.

1. Suggest the number and dimensions of the sedimentation tanks for clarification of the given
river water.

2. 2. For the proposed design of the sedimentation tank determine the removal ratio, the
detention time, the effluent concentration of the particles and cumulative frequency distribution
in the effluent.

After trying several time and evaluating the different conditions, the dimension and standards of the
sedimentation tanks are as follow.

Figure 1. Tanks Dimensions

Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

Dimension and standards for sedimentation tanks

Total Area Required (A) 1204 m2 A= Q/s0
A for each tank (Ao) 401 m2 A0+ A/3
H 1.60 m H=1/12L˄0.8
B 10.0 m (A/4)˄1/2
L 40 m L≈4*B
V 640.3 m3 V=L*B*H
s0 0.3 mm/s s0= Q/LB
Number of Tanks 3

Table 1. Dimensions and standards for sedimentation tanks

To achieve the design of a tank with an efficiency of more than 80%, the settling velocity was
calculated as shown in table 2, where with an s0= 0.3, it is possible to reach an efficiency of 88.8%,
which at this point meet the requirement.

Calculation of Removal Efficiency

s(mm/s) p(%) po si (mm/s) dp si/so*dp Partial Remove Complete remove Total Remove Influent (mg/L) Effluent (mg/L)
∑si/so*dp (1-po) (1-po) + ∑si/so*dp
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0
0.1 5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025 0.950 0.975 0.953 0.1072305
0.2 20 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.1125 0.138 0.800 0.938 19.063 2.14461
0.3 50 0.5 0.25 0.3 0.2500 0.3875 0.500 0.888 95.316 10.72305
0.5 78 0.78 0.4 0.28 0.224 0.612 0.220 0.832 190.63 21.4461
0.8 94 0.94 0.65 0.16 0.130 0.742 0.060 0.802 244.4 27.495
1.1 100 1 0.95 0.06 0.052 0.793 0.000 0.793 260 29.25

Table 2. Calculation of Removal Efficiency

Graphic 1. The cumulative Frequency distribution curve of Settling.

Also, from table 2, it is possible to get the absolute removal which was calculated as follows:

1-po = (1-0.5) = 0.5 or 50%

Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

And from table 3, the partial removal efficiency was calculated using the equation below:

si
∑ so ∗dp=( 0.025+ 0.1125+ 0.25 )=0.3875∨38.75 %

Calculation of the Cumulative Frequency distribution of effluent

Removed Remaining
s(mm/s) p(%) po si (mm/s) dp si/so*dp Fraction % cum%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.1 5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025 22.22222 22.22222
0.2 20 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.1125 0.0375 33.33333 55.55556
0.3 50 0.5 0.25 0.3 0.25 0.05 44.44444 100
∑ 0.3875 0.1125 100
r 0.888

Table 3. Calculation of the Cumulative Frequency distribution of effluent.

Graphic 2. Cumulative Frequency Distribution Curve

Table 4 summarizes the removal ratio, the detention time, the effluent concentration of the
particles, and the cumulative frequency distribution in the effluent calculation.
Detention Time Effluent Concentration
(1-po) Parial Remove Removal Efficiency (h) (mg/L)
0.500 0.3875 0.888 2 29.25

Table 4. Removal Ratio, Detention Time, the effluent concentration of the particles, cumulative frequency

3. Check the hydraulic conditions in the settling zone, comment on the results and propose
appropriate measures (with calculations) to improve the hydraulic conditions if required.

It is necessary now to check if the dimension and standards mentioned before meet the hydraulic
conditions required in the settling zone; according to the guideline, the flow condition should be
laminar, which means that Reynold’s number (Re) should be < 2000, and also is expected a stable
flow which is achieved when Froud number (Fr)is > 10 -5. From table 5 is possible to conclude that
with the dimensions proposed above is not possible to meet the Re and Fr conditions.
Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

Hydraulic Condition
v0 0.00841 m/s v0 = Q/BH
T 16 °C
R 1.9265 m R= BH/B+2H
ʋ 1.1108E-06 m2/s ʋ= 497*10-6/(T+42.5)1.5
Re 14578.2857 Re= (vo*R) / ʋ) <2000
Fr 3.7384E-06 Fr=vo2/gR >10-5

Table 5. Hydraulic Condition.

To improve the hydraulic condition, the first step is to consider adding more tanks and have them in
parallel; after analyzing tables 6,7, and 8, it is possible to notice that Re and Fr decrease considerably
when 3 tanks are used. However, the criteria still need to be met.

Data for one tank

Data Value Unit s0 0.0003 m/s s0= Q/LB v0 0.008405 m/s v0 = Q/BH
Q 1300 m3/h 1.08 m/h T 16 °C
0.361111 m3/s 0.3 mm/s R 1.926498 m R= BH/B+2H
Co 260 mg/L A 1203.704 m2 A= Q/s0 ʋ 1.11E-06 m2/s ʋ= 497*10-6/(T+42.5)1.5
ρ 2300 Kg/m3 H 2.47657 m H=1/12L˄0.8 Re 14578.29 Re= (vo*R) / ʋ) <2000
T 16 °C B 17.34722 m (A/4)˄1/2 Fr 3.74E-06 Fr=vo2/gR >10-5
rreq > 80 % L 69.38887 m L≈4*B
r 0.888 V 2981.056 m3 V=L*B*H
88.8 % Ceff 46.54 mg/L Ceff= Ci. (1-r)
vo 0.008405 m/s Q/BH
T 2.29312 h T=V/Q

Table 6. Hydraulic Condition using one tank

Data for 2 tanks

Data Value Unit s0 0.3 mm/s s0= Q/LB v0 0.007843 m/s v0 = Q/BH
Q for each tank 650 m3/h 1.08 m/h T 16 °C
0.180556 m3/s A 601.8519 m2 A= Q/s0 R 1.437103 m R= BH/B+2H
Co 260 mg/L H 1.876889 m H=1/12L˄0.8 ʋ 1.11E-06 m2/s ʋ= 497*10-6/(T+42.5)1.5
ρ 2300 Kg/m3 B 12.26633 m (A/4)˄1/2 Re 10146.65 Re= (vo*R) / ʋ) <2000
T 16 °C L 49.06534 m L≈4*B Fr 4.36E-06 Fr=vo2/gR >10-5
rreq > 80 % V 1129.609 m3 V=L*B*H
r 0.888 Ceff 46.54 mg/L Ceff= Ci. (1-r)
88.88 % vo 0.007843 m/s Q/BH
T 1.73786 h T=V/Q

Table 7. Hydraulic Condition using two tanks

Data for 3 tanks

Data Value Unit s0 0.3 mm/s s0= Q/LB v0 0.007530925 m/s v0 = Q/BH
Q for each tank
433.3333 m3/h 1.08 m/h T 16 °C
0.12037 m3/s A 401.2346 m2 A= Q/s0 R 1.210209926 m R= BH/B+2H
Co 260 mg/L H 1.595887 m H=1/12L˄0.8 ʋ 1.11077E-06 m2/s ʋ= 497*10-6/(T+42.5)1.5
ρ 2300 Kg/m3 B 10.01542 m (A/4)˄1/2 Re 8205.148682 Re= (vo*R) / ʋ) <2000
T 16 °C L 40.06168 m L≈4*B Fr 4.77713E-06 Fr=vo2/gR >10-5
rreq > 80 % V 640.325 m3 V=L*B*H
r 0.888 Ceff 46.54 mg/L Ceff= Ci. (1-r)
88.88 % vo 0.007531 m/s Q/BH
T 1.477673 h T=V/Q

Table 8. Hydraulic Condition using three tanks

Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

According to table 9, adding a baffle is necessary to meet hydraulics conditions; after checking
different options, the Found Number can be improved by adding 6 baffles, and the Reynolds number
is decreased considerably. Considering the thickness of the baffles, the new dimension was
calculated, as shown in Table 10.

Number of baffles

With 1 Baffles With 2 Baffles

Data Value Unit Data Value Unit

R 0.974664 m R= BH/B+12H R 0.815869 m R= BH/B+6H
Re 6608.159 Re= (vo*R) / ʋ) <2000 Re 5531.541 Re= (vo*R) / ʋ) <2000
Fr 5.93E-06 Fr=vo2/gR >10-5 Fr 7.09E-06 Fr=vo2/gR >10-5

With 3 Baffles With 4 Baffles

Data Value Unit Data Value Unit

R 0.701568 m R= BH/B+8H R 0.615358 m R= BH/B+10H
Re 4756.586 Re= (vo*R) / ʋ) <2000 Re 4172.087 Re= (vo*R) / ʋ) <2000
Fr 8.24E-06 Fr=vo2/gR >10-5 Fr 9.4E-06 Fr=vo2/gR >10-5

With 5 Baffles With 6 Baffles

Data Value Unit Data Value Unit

R 0.548016 m R= BH/B+12H R 0.49396 m R= BH/B+12H
Re 3715.517 Re= (vo*R) / ʋ) <2000 Re 3349.018 Re= (vo*R) / ʋ) <2000
Fr 1.05E-05 Fr=vo2/gR >10-5 Fr 1.17E-05 Fr=vo2/gR >10-5

Table 9. Number de baffles necessary to meet hydraulic Condition

Taking into consideration thickness of the buffles

Data Value unit

Number Baffles 6
Thickness 30 cm
0.3 m
B 8 m
L 33
H 1
Space Buffles 1.173631459 m
Vo 0.009180952 m/s
R 0.47909271 m
Re 3959.904391
Fr 1.79344E-05
So 0.00036573 m/s
0.365730052 mm/s

Table 10. Dimension after Hydraulic Conditions

Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

The reduction of efficiency based on the Camp chart is calculated as shown in table 10 and Graphic
3, which show that removal efficiency reduces from 88.88% to 82.73% due to turbulent conditions,
and re-suspension of the particle can be observed in table 12.

s(mm/s) p(%) p si dp si/s0 si/v0 r fraction r tot

0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.1 5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.0075
0.2 20 0.2 0.15 0.15 0.50 0.02 0.5 0.075
0.3 50 0.5 0.25 0.3 0.83 0.03 0.82 0.246
0.34 56 0.556 0.32 0.056 1.07 0.04 0.98 0.05488
0.5 78 0.78 0.42 0.224 1.40 0.06 1 0.224
0.8 94 0.94 0.65 0.16 2.17 0.09 1 0.16
1.1 100 1 0.95 0.06 3.17 0.13 1 0.06
∑ 0.82738

Table 11. Reduction in Basin Efficiency due to Turbulent Flow.

Graphic 3. Removal Ratio with Turbulent Flow.

Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

Re-suspension
vo 0.007530925 m/s
7.531 mm/s
ρs 2300 Kg/m3
ρw 1000 Kg/m3
ʋ 1.11077E-06 m2/s
s 7.12E-08 m/s
7.12E-05 mm/s
p 0.000039

Table 11. Extent of re-suspension

4. Calculate the sludge deposition rate (in grams of suspended solids/m2 s) at 5 meter intervals.
What are the average and maximum sludge deposition rates in kg of suspended solids per m2 per
day? What will be the length of the zone where maximum sludge deposition takes place? Draw
the sludge deposition diagram.

s0 0.3 mm/s s0= Q/LB

0.0003 m/s
davg 0.064536 g/m2/s davg=(QcO/BL)*r
Pdry 3 %
0.03
dsl-avg 2.151188 g/m2/s dsl-avg=davg*100/Pdry
185.8626 kg/m2/day
Smax 1.1 mm/s Smax=SoL/Lmax
0.0011 m/s
Lmax 10.92591 m Lmax=SoL/Smax
QCs/B 3.124811

Table 13. Data Sludge deposition

l sl pl si dp sidp ∑sidp rl dl

0.1 0.05 0.025 0.05 0.00125 0.00125

0.2 0.2 0.125 0.15 0.01875 0.02
40 0.300462606 0.394228 0.297114 0.194228 0.057708 0.077707742 0.258627 0.020204
35 0.343385836 0.477213 0.43572 0.082985 0.036158 0.113865941 0.331598 0.029605
30 0.400616808 0.587859 0.532536 0.110647 0.058923 0.172789197 0.431308 0.044925
25 0.48074017 0.742764 0.665312 0.154905 0.10306 0.275849424 0.573801 0.071721
20 0.600925213 0.833827 0.788296 0.091062 0.071784 0.34763355 0.578497 0.090385
15 0.801233617 0.890452 0.86214 0.056626 0.048819 0.396452673 0.494803 0.103078
10.9 1.1 1 0.945226 0.109548 0.103547 0.5 0.454545 0.13

Table 14. Sludge Disposition

Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

davg 0.064536 g/m2/s davg=(QcO/BL)*r

5.575879 kg/m2/day
dsmax 4.333333 g/m2/s dsmax=(100/Pdry)*dlmax
374.4 kg/m2/day
dsmin 0.673467 g/m2/s
58.18756 kg/m2/day dsmax=(100/Pdry)*dlmin

Table 15. Average, Maximum, and minimum Sludge Deposition

Graphic 4. Sludge Deposition Diagram.

5. If the allowable maximum sludge build-up is 0.40 m, after what time interval the cleaning of the
sludge zone will be necessary? Dry solid content in sludge equals 3% by weight.

After the Sludge deposition builds–up to 0.40m, the cleaning time is 26 hours, as shown in Table 16.
Cleaning Time of the sludge deposition

ρsl 1017.249005 kg/m3

Pdry 3 %
ρds 2300 Kg/m3
ρw 1000 Kg/m3
dsmax 374.4 kg/m2/day
hs 0.368051478 m/day
hs (0.40m) 1.086804492 day
26.08330782 hours

Table 16. Cleaning Time of the Sludge Deposition

Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

6. Design inlet and outlet structures for your sedimentation tank.

Inlet Zone
Q 1300 m3/h
0.361111111 m3/s
Vi 0.656565657 m/s between 0.3 to 1
bi 0.5 m
hi 1.1 m hi<H
Dh 0.486344931 m 4*(Ai/Pi)
Ai 0.55 m2 hi*bi
Pi 2.7 m bi+2hi
number of Holes (no) 28
λ 0.042
B 10 m (A/4)˄1/2
Diameter of holes 10 cm
Δ 0.014852219 m Δ= vi^2/2g*(1-λ/3*B/Dh-1/no)
Vo 1.64207481 m/s
z 0.549726744 m
Area of the Intel (m2) 11 m2
Opening area 0.392857143 m
39*39 cm2
No of opening along the height 1.753641322
No of opening along the width 15.96677704
Vq 0.013601217
1.360121716 %

Table 17. Design of the inlet

The number of openings along the height and width should be rounded. Therefore, the number of
holes and the actual Vq% are recalculated, as shown in Table 18.

No of opening along the height 2

No of opening along the width 16
Number of holes (no) 32
Vq 0.017921137
% Vq 1.792113676

Table 18. Recalculation of the variation in the flow through the opening
Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

Outlet Zone

Q for each tank 433.3333333 m3/h

0.12037 m3/s
s0 0.0003 m/s
1.08 m/h
0.3 mm/s
vo 0.007530925 m/s
7.530925201 mm/s
H 1.253858039 m H= (0.17 A˄1/3)
1.595886817 m H=1/12L˄0.8
B 10.01542021 m (A/4)˄1/2
L 40.06168084 m L≈4*B
Q/B (weir loading) 0.012018504
5HSo 0.00239383
n 5.020616801
5
rechecking 0.002403701
total weir length 50.07710105
Q/nBweir loading 0.002403701
h (Height of the weir) 0.05
α 90
Qw 0.000782624 m3/s
Number of weir notches 153.8036175
154
spacing of notches 0.584415584
58.44155844
number of notches per meter 1.711111111
Number of launder 3
Flow through each launder 0.040123457 m3/s
b 0.5 m
h 0.15009498 m
Hl 0.25009498

Table 19. Design of the outlet

Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

7. Provide a drawing of the horizontal flow rectangular sedimentation tank that you have designed
showing the front elevation, top view as well as sectional left- and right-side views.

Figure 2. Top View

Figure 3. Front view

Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

Figure 4. Sectional view

8. What will be removal efficiency of your sedimentation tank in the winter when the water
temperature is 10oC. (Assume the particle size distribution and the total amount suspended solids
in the river water will be the same as in the summer and the particles settle under laminar
conditions).

The ratio of change of settling is related to the ratio of Viscosity at different temperatures, the new
viscosity at 10 oC is shown in table 20. The absolute removal can be calculated as follows:

1-po = (1-0.37) = 0.63 or 63%

And from table 21, the partial removal efficiency was calculated by (si/so)*dp 0.2027 or 20.27%. The
removal efficiency for the sedimentation tank in winter at 10 oC is 83.27%

Viscosity Value
T 16 °C
T 10 °C
ʋ16 1.1108E-06 m2/s ʋ= 497*10-6/(T+42.5)1.5
ʋ10 1.3065E-06 m2/s ʋ= 497*10-6/(T+42.5)1.5

Table 20. Viscosity Value

s16(mm/s) s10 (mm/s) po si dp si/so*dp Partial Remove Complete remove

Total Remove
0 0 0 0 ∑si/so*dp (1-po) (1-po) + ∑si/so*dp
0.1 0.08501688 0.042508 0.042508439 0.042508 0.006023 0.006023225 0.957492 0.963514785
0.2 0.17003376 0.16 0.127525318 0.112542 0.04784 0.053863156 0.844949 0.89881252
0.3 0.25505064 0.37 0.212542197 0.210101 0.148851 0.202714442 0.634848 0.837562534
0.5 0.42508439 0.68 0.340067515 0.309966 0.351365 0.554079274 0.324882 0.878961124
0.8 0.68013503 0.88 0.552609711 0.200954 0.370164 0.924242799 0.123928 1.048170784
1.1 0.93518567 1.0 0.807660347 0.090965 0.244896 1.169139194 0.032963 1.202102061

Table21. Removal Efficiency calculation

Andrea Stephanie Camargo Holguin
Student No. 1085208
Locker 013

9. For the given water quality and flow, design the settling zone, check hydraulic conditions and
calculate the detention time of an inclined plate separator, which will have the same removal
efficiency (>80%) as that of the horizontal flow rectangular sedimentation tank that you have
proposed.

H of plates 1.6 m
B 10 m
L 40.06168 m
So 0.0003 m/s
Thickness of
plates 0.005
Space between
plates 0.1
Q 0.12037 m3/s
Degree 60
S'/S0 0.116667
S0/S' 8.571429
Si 0.000035 m/s
V0 0.000364 m/s
T 5079.365 s
T 1.410935 h
Area 401.2346 m2
Area needed 46.8107 m2
A plate 18.47521 m2
Number of plate 2.533703
3
l new 5.888973
Detention Time 1.41

Table 22. Inclined plater separator design.