thomas soerens university of arkansas n.
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Thomas Soerens University of Arkansas

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 45

Thomas Soerens University of Arkansas - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 105 Views
  • Uploaded on

Mechanical Treatment of Storm Water. Thomas Soerens University of Arkansas. Outline. Fundamentals of Settling Catch basin sizing examples Alternative mechanical treatment technologies. Settling. Example Regulation Storm water treatment should remove 80% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Thomas Soerens University of Arkansas' - booth


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
thomas soerens university of arkansas

Mechanical Treatment of Storm Water

Thomas Soerens

University of Arkansas

outline
Outline

Fundamentals of Settling

Catch basin sizing examples

Alternative mechanical treatment technologies

settling
Settling

Example Regulation

Storm water treatment should remove 80% of Total Suspended Solids (TSS).

vague: what size solids?

System 1: Removes 80% solids with d50 of 50 microns

System 2: Removes 80% solids with d50 of 100 microns

System 2 not remove 80% of solids with d50 of 50 microns

In comparing systems, must see data side by side and compare apples to apples

Example Basin (next slide)

slide4

A rectangular settling tank processes 48,000 m3/day, is 6 m wide, 36 m long, and 4 m deep.

What is the average hydraulic retention time in the tank (hr)?

t0 = Vol/Q = (6m x 4m x 36m) / 48000 m3/day = 0.018 day = 0.432 hr = 26 min

Assuming horizontal flow, what is the flow (approach) velocity (m/d)?

vx = Q/(w x h) = Q / (6m x 4m) = 2000 m/day = 1.4 m/min

What is the overflow rate for the tank (m/d)?

v0 = Q/(w x L) = Q / (6m x 36m) = 222 m/day = 0.15 m/min note: vo = 4 m / 0.018 day = depth / retention time

slide5
Does a particle settle out?

If it enters 4 m above bottom, it has to drop 4 m in 26 min to hit bottom

If particle has a settling velocity greater than the overflow rate (0.15 m/min), it will settle out.

example: vs = 0.20 m/min

in 26 minutes, it drops 0.20 x 26 = 5.2 m > depth

to drop 4 m, it takes 4/0.20 = 20 min < t0

in 20 minutes, it travels 20 x 1.4 m/min = 28 m < L

If the settling velocity is less than the overflow rate, it doesn’t hit bottom

example: vs = 0.10 m/min

in 26 minutes, it drops 0.10 x 26 = 2.6 m < depth

to drop 4 m, it takes 4/0.10 = 40 min > t0

in 40 minutes, it travels 40 x 1.4 m/min = 56 m > L

slide6
If it doesn’t hit bottom?

Approximately vs/vo fraction of particles will settle out

example: vs = 0.10 m/min

Removal =~ 0.10/0.15 = 0.65 = 65% removal

note: this is for horizontal clarifiers

note: turbulence happens

settling velocity stoke s law
Settling Velocity – Stoke’s Law

Stoke’s law for settling velocity of spheres:

vs = [(rp – rw)d2g]/18m

rp , rw = density of particle, water

d = diameter of particle

g = gravity

m = viscosity

A 100 micron particle will have a settling velocity 4 times that of a 50 micron particle

side note for water or wastewater treatment:

In Stoke’s Law, what can be changed?

Do you see why we coagulate and flocculate

basin sizing approaches
Basin Sizing Approaches

Using d50

Set overflow rate of basin at design flow equal to d50 of a grain-size analysis of dirt you want to remove.

Can have v0 up to 1/0.8 = 1.25 of settling velocity

100 micron particle

slide9
for Q = 0.17 m3/sec (6 cfs)

choose aspect ratio: Length = 4 x width

set vo = Q/Asurface = Q/(w x 4w) = 0.015 m/sec

w = 1.7 m (5.5 ft) , L = 6.7 m (22 ft)

will a 5 ft x 20 ft basin work?

vo = Q/wL = 0.018 m/sec

vs/vo = 0.015/0.018 = 0.82  82% removal

okay for 80% removal

disclaimer: the above process is a principle, not a regulation or a standard.

slide10
Wait, how deep is it?

depth not involved in calculation

choose depth based on practical considerations of separating clean water from dirt.

1 inch deep?

1.7 second retention time - solids only have to fall 1 in to reach bottom

can’t separate

100 feet deep?

34 min retention time - solids fall 100 feet in 34 minutes

impractical

4 feet deep?

1.4 min ret time, velocity = 16 ft/min, might be good

slide12
For an overflow rate of 7m/24 min (depth/to)

at 24 min, 45% of particles have hit bottom (7m)

60% of particles have settled to 2 m; 75% to 0.6m

avg settling velocity of 15% of particles between 45% and 60% contours is about 3.4 m in 24 min; for next interval it’s 1.3m/24min.

removal rate = vs/vo

overall removal = 45% + 15% x (3.4m/24min)/(7m/24min) + 15% x (1.3/7) + …

= 45% + 7.3% + 2.8% =~ 55%

note: could also take this approach with grain size analysis data

questions
Questions?

next: examples of mechanical storm water treatment systems

slide14
Advanced Drainage Systems (ADS) Water Quality and Underground Detention/Infiltration Units
slide15
ADS system

2 units in series

Water Quality Unit (WQU)

series of weirs from 60-in diameter HDPE pipe.

two manholes for maintenance

Detention/Infiltration Unit (DIU)

three 40-ft sections of 48 in perforated HDPE pipe

top and sides of excavation are wrapped in geotextile

flow

1 cfs or less though WQU then DIU

> 1 cfs bypass WQU and go into DIU

prevents resuspension

slide16
ADS system

WQU:

WQU size: 5 ft x 20 ft

catchment area: 1 acre

peak flow 1 cfs

treatment volume 3264 cf

$50k per acre

requires high maintenance

slide20

WAL-MART SITE SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVEWATER GROUP

Mechanical Treatment

Thomas Soerens

University of Arkansas

479-575-2494

Scott Franklin

PACLAND

503-659-9500

slide21

OBJECTIVE

Identify existing and emerging mechanical storm water treatment technologies and describe design and decision parameters.

slide22

EXISTING TECHNOLOGIESMechanical Treatment

  • Manholes
  • Stormceptor
  • Downstream Defender
  • Continuous Deflective Separation (CDS)
slide23

EXISTING TECHNOLOGIESMechanical Treatment

  • Manholes
  • Aquafilter and Aquaguard
  • BaySeparator and BayFilter
slide25

EXISTING TECHNOLOGIESMechanical Treatment

  • Vaults
  • Stormfilter
  • Stormvault
  • Storm Water Quality Unit
slide26

EXISTING TECHNOLOGIESMechanical Treatment

  • Vaults
  • StormTreat
  • Contech Vortech
  • Crystal Stream Vault
slide27

EXISTING TECHNOLOGIESMechanical Treatment

  • Inserts
  • Fabco StormX inserts
  • SmartSponge (AbTech)
    • Skimmers, inserts, or vault
  • EcoSense filters
slide28

EXISTING TECHNOLOGIESMechanical Treatment

  • Other
  • various inserts and screens
slide29

EXISTING TECHNOLOGIESMechanical Treatment

  • Other
  • ADS Retention Systems
  • Kleerwater Oil/Water Separators
  • More, see: http://www.epa.gov/ne/assistance/ceitts/stormwater/techs.html
slide31

DESIGN PARAMETERS Mechanical Treatment

  • Constituent parameters – design for % removal of
    • Trash
    • Solids
    • Oil and grease
    • Organics
    • Nutrients
    • Metals
    • Pathogens
slide32

DESIGN PARAMETERS Mechanical Treatment

  • Concrete manhole possible retrofit
    • Downstream Defender
    • SmartSponge Vault
  • Designed in or major reconstruction concrete manholes
    • BaySaver
    • Stormceptor
  • Larger vaults – Designed in or major reconstruction
slide33

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES Mechanical Treatment

  • Emerging Technologies:
  • Membrane Processes - microfiltration
  • Dissolved Air Flotation – for oils and grease
  • Revolving Drum Screens
  • Other wastewater process
  • Example: Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility
smurrf

SMURRF

Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility

Joint Santa Monica-Los Angeles Project

  • Reuse a local water resource.
  • Keep a pollution source out of Santa Monica Bay.
  • Reduce imported water & impacts on other watersheds.
  • Open, walk-through facility to educate the public.
  • Up to 500,000 gallons/day
    • 325,000 average
  • 3% of City’s daily water use.
  • $12 Million for 0.3 MGD
    • $175,000 O&M
dissolved air floatation
Dissolved Air Floatation

SMURRF Process

Rotating Drum Screens

Grit Chamber

Membrane Microfiltration

UV Disinfection

slide36

DESIGN LIMITATIONS Mechanical Treatment

  • Advance processes applications (e.g., SMURFF), are demonstration projects paid by grants
    • Not economically feasible at this time
  • Retrofit and construction issues
    • Inserts can be placed in, but are not as effective
    • Some manhole applications can be retrofit with relatively minor reconstruction
slide37

DESIGN LIMITATIONS Mechanical Treatment

  • Vault applications
    • Must be designed in. Retrofit is difficult.
    • Stormfilter and some other applications may allow changing or expanding treatment processes in the future.
  • Flexibility and upgradeability of systems should be considered.
slide38

PROS / CONS Mechanical Treatment

  • Pros:
  • more reliable, flexible than natural treatment or infiltration
    • Not sensitive to climate, soil, season
  • can remove hydrocarbons, metals, nutrients
    • designed for desired constituents and removal rates
  • Cons:
  • The most effective systems are expensive
    • O & M cost and effort can be considerable
  • difficult retrofits for the most effective systems
slide42

CLIMATE / REGIONAL RESTRICTIONS Mechanical Treatment

  • In general, no climate or regional restrictions
    • Ice, snow, deicing issues dealt with in site-specific design
  • StormTreat is a constructed wetland
    • Not as effective in Winter in some climates
    • A system in California had to be watered
slide43

RANKING OF ALTERNATIVES Mechanical Treatment

  • Natural treatment and infiltration are preferred when feasible and appropriate. Mechanical systems tend to be more expensive and require more operation and maintenance.
  • Mechanical treatment systems in addition to or instead of natural treatment can be designed to meet specific goals.
  • Vault systems (e.g., StormFilter), if affordable, may offer more flexibility and upgradeability than manhole systems.
  • Inserts can be retrofitted to remove trash, solids, and oils.
slide44

RECOMMENDED FOR DETAILED STUDYMechanical Treatment

  • Can a standard protocol be established to evaluate which natural treatment, infiltration, and mechanical treatment alternatives are most appropriate for each site?
  • Can a standard design of a mechanical treatment system be established that can be adapted to different site conditions including hydrology, water constituents, and discharge limits?