Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Rosebank Sewage Pumping Station and

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Rosebank Sewage Pumping Station and"— Presentation transcript:

1 Rosebank Sewage Pumping Station and
Forcemain Design Group Members: Tony Tsui Lyutfiye Gafarova  Sherif Kinawy Raf Qutub

2 Outline Background Design Objectives Pump Sizing and Selection
Instrumentation & Control Environmental Considerations Mitigation Measures Preliminary Cost Analysis Conclusion 2 2 2 2

3 City of Pickering

4 Design Objectives Design a new Sewage Pumping Station and Forcemain in Pickering, Ontario Provide additional sewage pumping capacity to accommodate future population growth Comply with current engineering standards, and health and safety regulations Design Criteria (year 2031) Population: 4,760 Future Drainage Area: ha Estimated Peak Flow: 138 L/s

5 Forcemain Less expensive (use existing forcemain)
New Forcemain: 350 mm HDPE Pipe Less expensive (use existing forcemain) Minor disruption of Waterfront trail and valley area Twinned Forcemain: 250 mm Asbestos Cement Pipe 250 mm PVC Pipe

6 Sewage Pumping Station
Proposed Location Adequate Space Located Away From Residential Properties Existing Location

7 Floor Plan Diesel Generator Room Exhaust Louvre Washroom
Access to Pumps Wet Well Ventilation Entrance

8 Side View Pump Guide Rails Forcemain Surge Relief Drain Inlet Sewer
Explain why duty pumps not in the same chamber, guide rails Duty Pump Standby and Duty Pumps

9 Wet Well and Valve Chamber
Knife Gate Valve Wet Well #2 Forcemain Check Valve Gate Valve Surge Relief Valve Explain flow of sewage even with a water arrow Air Release Valve Wet Well #1 Inlet Sewer

10 Outline Background Design Objectives Pump Sizing and Selection
Instrumentation & Control Environmental Considerations Mitigation Measures Preliminary Cost Analysis Conclusion 10 10 10 10

11 Pumping Station Layout
Discharge 88.5 m Rosebank Sewage Pumping Station Ground Elevation 82.0 m Inlet / HWL 77.9 m 285 m HDPE Pipe 350 mm 1,030 m twin-barrel forcemain 250 mm Max. Static Lift = 12.1 m Station Piping 250 mm ANSI B36.10 Steel LWL 76.4 m 11

12 Design Flow and Hydraulic Calculations
Design flow = 138 L/s (year 2031 flow) TDH = Static Head + Friction Head Hydraulic Calculations: Used Hazen-Williams Formula Assigned C values based on peak flow conditions Flow guidelines of the Ontario MOE 12

13 Station Head Loss Station Piping
Standard Weight (ANSI B36.10) Steel Pipe Nominal Size = 250 mm (10”) C= 100 Total head loss = 0.2 m 13

14 Forcemain Head Loss Existing Forcemain
MOE Velocity range 0.6 – 3.0 m/s Minimum velocity to re-suspend solids is 0.8 m/s Utilize both old pipes to reduce fluid velocity Nominal pipe size = 250 mm (10”) Total length = 1,030 m C=100 At peak flow, v = 1.5 m/s in each Total head loss = 16.0 m 14

15 Forcemain Head Loss New HDPE pipe 1000 Series Driscopipe HDPE SDR17
Nominal size 350 mm (14”) Length= 285 m C= 120 v= 1.4 m/s Total head loss = 1.7 m 15

16 Valves and Fittings Inventory
Item K-Value Head Loss (m) Qty Total Loss (m) Velocity head 1.00 0.38 1 0.4 45° Wye Branch 0.50 0.19 2 45° Elbow 0.21 0.08 0.2 90° Elbow 0.39 0.15 0.1 Check Valve 2.00 0.76 0.8 Gate Valve 0.03 0.0 Knife Gate Valve 0.13 0.05 Total 2.0 16

17 Total Dynamic Head (TDH)
Head Loss (m) SSPS Steel Piping 0.2 Forcemain, PVC Pipe 1A 16.0 Forcemain, A-C Pipe 1B Forcemain, HDPE Pipe 2 1.7 Fittings and Valves 2.0 Static Head (at LWL) 12.1 Total Dynamic Head 32.0 17

18 Pump Selection ITT Flygt Pumps Model Number NP3202.185 HT
Used by pumping stations in Durham Region Model Number NP HT Three identical pumps: 2 duty, 1 standby Constant speed: 1,175 rpm Motor power: 70 hp 18

19 System and Pump Performance Curves

20 Pump Selection Checking for cavitation:
Therefore, cavitation is unlikely to occur Net Positive Suction Head 1 Pump 2 Pumps Parallel Min. Available (LWL) 9.2 m Required 8.8 m 5.4 m 20

21 Outline Background Design Objectives Pump Sizing and Selection
Instrumentation & Control Environmental Considerations Mitigation Measures Preliminary Cost Analysis Conclusion 21 21 21 21

22 Instrumentation and Control
Designed for unattended operation Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system A Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) will be installed The pumping station is designed for unattended operation An operator might be required for routine checks and in response to alarms For that reason, a SCADA system is most appropriate to use A RTU will be installed at the PS The RTU is capable of independently controlling the station in case communication is lost with the Master Terminal Unit (MTU) Central Station

23 Piping & Instrumentation
The piping and instrumentation diagram shows key piping and instrumentation details [shows some of our control mechanisms]

24 Instrumentation and Control
Monitoring Control Alarms Level Flow Pressure Programmed Pumps Power Security Wet well levels

25 Power Main utility supply An emergency diesel generator
Complemented by a series of step-down transformers An emergency diesel generator Rated at 200 kW In the event of power failure Commercial silencer Powered through the main utility supply and a series of step-down transformers An emergency diesel generator provides backup power for the pumps and electrical equipment in the event of power failure

26 Outline Background Design Objectives Pump Sizing and Selection
Instrumentation & Control Environmental Considerations Mitigation Measures Preliminary Cost Analysis Conclusion 26 26 26 26

27 Environmental Concerns
Fresh Intake Noise Exhaust Vents Wet Well Ventilation Fan Ventilation Supply Duct Odour H2S 27

28 Outline Background Design Objectives Pump Sizing and Selection
Instrumentation & Control Environmental Considerations Mitigation Measures Preliminary Cost Analysis Conclusion 28 28 28

29 Mitigation Measures 29 29 Short Term Construction Phase Long Term
Community Acceptance Reclamation 29 29

30 Short Term Mitigations
Traffic Local traffic Waterfront trail route Water Quality Sedimentation Control Silt Fencing Sedimentation Traps Grass swales HDD 30 30

31 HDD: Horizontal Directional Drilling
31 31

32 Long Term Mitigations Architecture Reclamation
Blend in with the surrounding neighbourhood Reclamation New Site Petticoat Creek 32 32 32 32

33 Outline Background Design Objectives Pump Sizing and Selection
Instrumentation & Control Environmental Considerations Mitigation Measures Preliminary Cost Analysis Conclusion 33 33 33 33

34 Total Capital Investment Breakdown
34 34

35 Annual M&O Cost Breakdown
35 35 35 35 35 35

36 Outline Background Design Objectives Pump Sizing and Selection
Instrumentation & Control Environmental Considerations Mitigation Measures Preliminary Cost Analysis Conclusion 36 36 36 36

37 Conclusion New Submersible Sewage Pumping Station
3 submersible pumps (2 duty, 1 standby) Meet projected sewage flow demands Maximize operational efficiency Community and Environment Safer work environment Noise and odour control measures Environmental rehabilitation Community acceptance Cost Reduction Incorporate existing forcemain Minimize environmental impacts 37 37 37 37 37 37

38 Acknowledgments Dr. Barry Adams (Professor, University of Toronto)
Hugh Tracy (Delcan) Fabian Papa (Adjunct Professor, University of Toronto) Kevin Waher (Wardrop) Steve O’Brien (Wardrop) Brent Galardo (Hudson’s Bay Trading Company) 38 38 38 38

39 Thank You! Tony Tsui Sherif Kinawy Raf Qutub Lyutfiye Gafarova 39 39

40 Supplementary Design Slides
Raf Qutub 40

41 Pumping Station Design
Design parameters: Peak flow: 138 L/s Forcemain = 1,030 m twin barrel (Old) m (New) Static elevation Ground elevation at proposed site= 82.0 ASL Highest point of forcemain (discharge)= 88.5 ASL Invert elevation of inlet sewer to wet well = 77.9 ASL Assumed wet well depth 1.5 m Total static lift = 12.1 m (from LWL to discharge) 41

42 Pumping Station Design
Peak Flow: 138 L/s Forcemain Section 1A: 10” ID 1,030 m A-C pipe (old, 1961) Section 1B: 10” ID 1,030 m PVC pipe (new, 1998) Section 2: 12” ID, 285 m HDPE pipe, joins 1A+1B At peak flow, velocity in one 10” forcemain = 3.03m/s MOE velocity range 0.6 m/s – 3.0 m/s Hence, utilize both old forcemain pipes (1A + 1B) 42

43 Head Loss Calculations
TDH = Static Head + Friction Head + Velocity Head Hazen-Williams Formula (Jones et al., 2006) hf = Friction head loss in pipe per meter of piping, [m] Q = Volumetric flow rate, [m3/s] C = Hazen-Williams “C” factor, [dimensionless] D = Internal pipe diameter, [m] 43

44 Head Loss Calculations
Station piping C= 100 (MOE guidelines) Total head loss = 0.22 m Existing Forcemain To simply, assume identical dimensions At peak flow, Q= 69 L/s, v= 1.51 m/s in each Head loss = m/m Total head loss = m New 12” HDPE pipe C= 120 Total head loss = 4.96 m 44

45 Velocity Head, Valves and Fittings
General head loss equation (m) hm = Friction head loss due to pipe or fitting, [m] hv = Velocity head, [m] K = Constant factor that depends on shape of fitting or valve, [dimensionless] v = Fluid velocity, [m/s] g = Gravitational acceleration constant, [9.81 m/s2] Obtain K values from manufacturers or literature 45

46 Checking for Cavitation
Net Positive Suction Head (Available) for the System Hbar= Barometric pressure of water column for elevation above sea level. hs= Static head of intake water above the impeller. Since the pump is submersible, hs is always positive. Hvap = Vapour pressure of fluid at maximum expected temperature, [m] To avoid cavitation, NPSHA >> NPSHR 46

47 Valves and Fittings Inventory
Item K-Value Head Loss (m) Qty Total Loss (m) Velocity head 1.0 0.38 1 0.4 45° Wye Branch 0.5 0.19 2 45° Elbow 0.21 0.08 0.2 90° Elbow 0.39 0.15 0.1 Check Valve 2.00 0.76 0.8 Gate Valve 0.03 0.0 Knife Gate Valve 0.13 0.05 Total 2.0 47 47

48 Total Dynamic Head (TDH)
Head Loss (m) SSPS Steel Piping 0.2 Forcemain, PVC Pipe 1A 16.0 Forcemain, A-C Pipe 1B Forcemain, HDPE Pipe 2 5.0 Fittings and Valves 2.0 Static Head (at LWL) 12.1 Total Dynamic Head 35.2 48 48

49 System H-Q and Pump Curve
49 49

50 System H-Q and Pump Curve
50 50

51 Pump Specifications ITT Flygt
Model NP Submersible Wastewater Pumps Motor Shaft power 70 hp Outlet 6 inches Hydraulic efficiency (2 Parallel) = 71% Single pump operation flow = L/s (71% eff.) Rated speed 1,175 rpm Impeller diameter 310 mm (2 blades) 51

52 Checking for Cavitation
Hbar= m (measured at 74.9 m ASL) hs= 0.12 m (from pump AutoCAD drawing) Hvap = 0.44 m (assumed Max. Temperature = 30°C) NPSHA = – 0.44 = 9.92 m (at LWL) Net Positive Suction Head 1 Pump 2 Pumps Parallel Available (LWL) 9.9 m Required 8.8 m 5.2 m 52

53 Supplementary Design Slides
Lyutfiye Gafarova 53 53 53

54 Mitigation Strategies in Affected Areas
©2009 Google – Imagery ©DigitalGlobe, First Base Solutions, GeoEye, Map Data ©2009 Tele Atlas Forcemain Traffic Control Silt Fencing Odour, noise control measures New Site Introduce native species Existing Site 54 54

55 Natural Vegetation in the Creek Area
Birch Chokecherry Sugar Maple Poplar Trembling Aspen Examples of natural vegetation in the creek area: Poplar, Trembling Aspen, White and Yellow Birch, Sugar Maple, Chockecherry. 55 55

56 Rodd Ave. Natural Vegetation
Red Maple Grey / Red Oiser Dogwood Green / Red Ash Examples of vegetation in the Rodd Ave. area. : Red Maple Grey / Red Oiser Dogwwod Green / Red Ash Salix Discolor Arbovitae Arrorwwood Special considerations must be taken when allocating planting spots for tall trees. The roots of the trees extent to 1.5 – 3 times the height hence causing destruction to the existing infrastructures. Special control measures must be taken to minimize infrastructure and tree destructions, and possible future litigations due to infrastructure damage by the tree roots. Salix Discolor Arbovitae Arrowwood 56 56

57 Implementation Schedule
57 57


Download ppt "Rosebank Sewage Pumping Station and"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google