Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Predictive Performance Scaling Method for Hydrodynamic Separators Mark B. Miller, P.G. Research Scientist Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Predictive Performance Scaling Method for Hydrodynamic Separators Mark B. Miller, P.G. Research Scientist Chattanooga, Tennessee."— Presentation transcript:

1 Predictive Performance Scaling Method for Hydrodynamic Separators Mark B. Miller, P.G. Research Scientist mmiller@aquashieldinc.com Chattanooga, Tennessee (888) 344-9044 EPA Region 6 MS4 Stormwater Conference July 27 – August 1, 2014 Ft. Worth, Texas

2 ? How do I predict an HDS performance curve for a different particle size than the performance curve derived from using the HDS’s lab test sediment’s particle size distribution? GET OUT YOUR SLIDE RULE… OR YOUR TI-30.

3 Topics of Discussion Overview of Hydrodynamic Separators (HDSs)  Overview of Hydrodynamic Separators (HDSs)  The Problem: Evaluating Lab Performance Tests  A Solution: Performance Prediction Method  Calculations, Tables & Graphs  Example Comparison of HDS #1 to HDS #2  Texas DOT Specification Example for 70% annual TSS removal and d 50 = 75 µm for 38-500 µm PSD

4 ReferenceReference

5 Derivation of Peclet Number

6 Some Examples of Hydrodynamic Separators

7 Types of Hydrodynamic Separators Vortex type = Gravitational & Centrifugal Forces Captures sediment, debris, free-floating oil, floatables Vault type = Gravitational Forces

8 LID Technology Selection Pyramid

9 Pretreatment or Standalone Hydrodynamic Separator Applications Off-lineOn-line

10 HDS Verifications and Use Level Designations “TARP” (New Jersey) Technology Acceptance Reciprocity Partnership Protocol for Stormwater BMP Demonstrations  New Jersey DEP Lab Test Protocol for HDSs 1/25/13 now applies, no field test req’d  NJ PSD 1-1,000 µm, Scour test 50-1,000 µm for on-line HDS  NJDEP Certification for HDSs limited to 50% TSS removal credit regardless if higher rate achieved in lab or field test  Field test per TARP Tier II 2003/2006 NJDEP 2009 protocol expires w/ new lab test  Sizing based on MTFR for net annual TSS removal “TAPE” (Washington) Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology  Use Level Designations GULD and CULD require field test in Pacific NW, lab data may supplement  PULD based on lab test  Influent TSS <100 mg/L, Effluent <20 mg/L  Influent TSS 100-200 mg/L, Effluent ≥80% removal  Influent TSS >200 mg/L, Effluent >80% removal  ULDs for Dissolved Metals (Cu, Zn), Total Phosphorus, Oil (TPH), Pretreatment for TSS  Sizing based on 80% TSS removal per storm event

11 Evaluating HDS Laboratory Performance Testing FRUSTRATION We’ll explore NJCAT Lab Test Verifications and try to reduce the level of FRUSTRATION you may have when evaluating reports and results

12 * Author does not guarantee accuracy of report interpretations

13 * NJDEP 1/25/13 lab protocol d50 <75 µm

14 Steps for Predictive Performance Method 1. Calculate: Pe = (d · h · Vs) / Q using lab test data 2. Solve for: Q = (d · h · Vs) / Pe 3. Convert Q to surface area loading rate (gpm/ft 2 ) 4. Make table for RE% vs. Loading Rate 5. Plot performance curve for selected particles size 6. Make sizing chart(s) for: a)per storm TSS removal, or b)annual TSS removal

15 Peclet Number Peclet Number can be used to predict performance between different particle sizes Pe = advection diffusion Pe = advection diffusion “Peclet Number is defined as the ratio of advection to diffusion, where advective settling forces are opposed by turbulent diffusion in the system tending to keep solids in suspension.” (SAFL)

16 Peclet Number (Pe) Pe = (d · h · Vs) / Q Pe = Unitless d = Horizontal flow dimension in feet h = Vertical flow dimension in feet Vs = Particle settling velocity in feet/sec Q = Flow rate in cubic feet/second d in Vortex HDS = diameter of effective treatment area d in Vortex HDS = diameter of effective treatment area d in Vault HDS = long axis of effective treatment area (parallel to flow) d in Vault HDS = long axis of effective treatment area (parallel to flow)

17 Three Assumptions for Peclet Number (SAFL): 1.Settling Velocity assumes equivalent spherical particle shapes. 2. Mixing dynamics, and associated removal efficiency, scales with size (diameter and depth) for each device. 3. Turbulent diffusion coefficient (Dt) scales with Q/d across the range of tested flow rates.

18 Method Variables & Assumptions 1.Stoke’s Law for particle settling velocity using: a)Specific gravity = 2.65 b)Water temperature 20°C (68°F) c)Other constant variables for Vs calculation 2.100% TSS Removal Efficiency @ Zero Loading Rate 3.Calculations based on median (d50) particle size, not full particle size distribution 4.Performance curve profile does not change for different d50 simulations, but expected to change more as d50 decreases below ~ 50 µm (presently undefined).

19 Calculate Pe: HDS #1 Test Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 110 µm (OK-110)00100NA Vs = 0.021 ft/s0.2010.8891.33 SG = 2.650.5027.1820.53 D = 3.3 ft0.8043.3570.33 h = 3.83 ft1.2064.9180.22 Example: Q = 0.2 cfs Pe = (3.3 ft · 3.83 ft · 0.021 ft/sec) / 0.2 cfs = 1.33 Pe = (d · h · Vs) / Q

20

21 TermVariableUnitsDescription Gs2.65Specific gravity of particle ρsρs 165.07lb/ft 3 Density of particle ρwρw 62.29lb/ft 3 Density of water g32.20ft/s 2 Acceleration due to gravity T20.00C°Temperature of water T68F°Temperature of water μ2.09E-05lb*s/ft 2 Dynamic viscosity of water at given temp. υ1.08E-05ft 2 /sKinematic Viscosity of water D110micronDiameter of particle Vs0.024ft/sSettling velocity, Cheng Formula Vs0.02080ft/sSettling velocity, Stoke's Law Vs0.029ft/sSettling velocity, Ferguson & Church Calculate Particle Settling Velocity (Vs) Input Value

22 Particle Size (µm) Vs (ft/sec) 450.0085 500.010 670.013 750.014 900.017 1100.021 1250.024 Stoke’s Law Particle Settling Velocities

23 Performance Summary - 45 µm Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 45 µm00100NA Vs = 0.0085 ft/sec0.0814.4891.33 SG = 2.650.20210.9820.53 d = 3.3 ft (8.3 ft 2 )0.32517.5570.33 h = 3.83 ft0.48626.3180.22 Rearrange equation to solve for Q Q = (3.3 ft · 3.83 ft · Vs) / Pe RE and Pe constant Loading Rate = Q cfs · 448.83 gpm/cfs / Area ft 2

24

25 50 µm Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 50 µm00100 NA Vs = 0.010 ft/sec0.105.2891.33 SG = 2.650.2412.9820.53 D = 3.3 ft0.3820.6570.33 h = 3.83 ft0.5730.9180.22 67 µm (d 50 from NJDEP PSD) Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 67 µm00100 NA Vs = 0.0.013 ft/sec0.1246.7891.33 SG = 2.650.31016.7820.53 D = 3.3 ft0.49526.8570.33 h = 3.83 ft0.74340.2180.22

26 75 µm Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 75 µm00100NA Vs = 0.014 ft/sec0.1337.2891.33 SG = 2.650.33318.0820.53 D = 3.3 ft0.53328.9570.33 h = 3.83 ft0.80043.3180.22 90 µm Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 90 µm00100 NA Vs = 0.017 ft/sec0.1628.8891.33 SG = 2.650.40521.9820.53 D = 3.3 ft0.64835.0570.33 h = 3.83 ft0.97152.6180.22

27 110 µm (lab test) Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 110 µm00100NA Vs = 0.021 ft/sec0.210.8891.33 SG = 2.650.527.1820.53 D = 3.3 ft0.843.3570.33 h = 3.83 ft1.264.9180.22 125 µm Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 125 µm00100NA Vs = 0.024 ft/sec0.22912.4891.33 SG = 2.650.57130.9820.53 D = 3.3 ft0.91449.5570.33 h = 3.83 ft1.37174.2180.22

28 45 µm50 µm67 µm75 µm90 µm110 µm125 µm RE (%) LR gpm/ft 2 RE (%) LR gpm/ft 2 RE (%) LR gpm/ft 2 RE (%) LR gpm/ft 2 RE (%) LR gpm/ft 2 RE (%) LR gpm/ft 2 RE (%) LR gpm/ft 2 894.4895.2896.7897.2898.88910.88912.4 8210.98212.98216.78218.08221.98227.18230.9 5717.55720.65726.85728.95735.05743.35749.5 1826.31830.91840.21843.31852.61864.91874.2 HDS #1 Performance Summary Note: Removal efficiencies are constant for each particle size

29

30 * NJDEP 1/25/13 lab protocol d50 <75 µm

31 HDS #2: 63 µm Lab Test (Calculate Pe) Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 63 µm00100NA Vs = 0.013 ft/sec0.276.4850.69 SG = 2.650.5512.8820.34 D = 5 ft (19.6 ft 2 )0.8319.180.20.23 h = 2.6 ft1.125.5790.17 HDS #2: Q @ 110 µm by Peclet Method Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 110 µm00100NA Vs = 0.021 ft/sec0.44811.0850.69 SG = 2.650.9622.0820.34 D = 5 ft (19.6 ft 2 )1.4332.780.20.23 h = 2.6 ft1.9344.2790.17 HDS #2 Performance

32 HDS #1: 110 µm Lab Test Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 110 µm00100NA Vs = 0.021 ft/sec0.210.8891.33 SG = 2.650.527.1820.53 D = 3.3 ft (8.3 ft 2 )0.843.3570.33 h = 3.83 ft1.264.9180.22 HDS #1: Q @ 63 µm by Peclet Method Parameters Q (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft²) RE (%) Pe (unitless) d 50 = 63 µm00100NA Vs = 0.013 ft/sec0.126.5891.33 SG = 2.650.3116.8820.53 D = 3.3 ft (8.3 ft 2 )0.5027.0570.33 h = 3.83 ft0.7540.6180.22

33

34

35 HDS #1 Particle Size and Peak Loading Rate for 80% TSS Removal Efficiency Per Storm Particle Size (µm) Peak Loading Rate (gpm/ft 2 )* 4510.5 5012.2 6716.0 7517.5 9021.0 11026.0* 12530.0 * Exact Loading Rate can be calculated using equation for slope of performance curve

36 Example HDS Model Diameter (ft) Effective Treatment Area (ft 2 ) Particle Size and Loading Rate 45 µm50 µm67 µm75 µm90 µm110 µm125 µm 10.5 gpm/ft 2 12.2 gpm/ft 2 16.0 gpm/ft 2 17.5 gpm/ft 2 21.0 gpm/ft 2 26.0 gpm/ft 2 30.0 gpm/ft 2 WQTF (cfs) 2.54.90.110.130.170.190.230.280.33 5.019.60.460.530.700.760.921.141.31 6.028.30.660.771.011.101.321.641.89 8.050.31.181.371.791.962.352.913.36 10.078.51.842.132.803.063.674.545.24 Water Quality Treatment Flow = (Area · Loading Rate) / 448.83 gpm/cfs Example: WQTF @ 1.4 cfs for 75 µm = HDS Model 8 ft diameter Example HDS #1 Sizing Charts: 80% TSS Removal per Storm

37 Special Specification 5848 “The SWTU shall be capable of removing at least 70% of the net annual Total Suspended Solids (TSS) based on a typical gradation of 38-500 microns with a d50-micron particle size of 75; remove particles greater than 150 –microns (sand-size particles); capture and retain 100% of pollutants greater than 1 inch in size based on the objects smallest dimension; and capture and retain total petroleum hydrocarbons.”

38

39 75 µm TXDOT Specification - HDS #1 Q 75 (cfs) Loading Rate (gpm/ft 2 ) RE (%) Pe Given Q 110 µm (cfs) Q 75/Q 110 % Flow 75 µm/110 µm 00100NA0 0 0.1337.2891.330.20.133/0.266.5 0.33318.0820.530.50.333/0.566.6 0.53328.9570.330.80.533/0.866.6 0.80043.3180.221.20.8/1.266.7  HDS lab test showed 80% net annual TSS removal up to 100 gpm/ft 2.  Make sizing chart based on peak flow, 66.6% of 100 gpm/ft 2, or 66.6 gpm/ft 2

40 80% net annual TSS removal @ 100 gpm/ft 2

41 HDS Model Diameter (ft) Treatment Area (ft 2 ) Water Quality Treatment Flow @ 66.7 gpm/ft 2 (cfs) 2.54.90.73 5.019.62.92 6.028.34.20 8.050.37.47 10.078.511.67 WQTF = (Treatment Area · Loading Rate) / gpm/cfs WQTF = (X.X ft 2 · 66.7 gpm/ft 2 ) / 448.83 gpm/cfs TXDOT HDS Sizing Chart for HDS #1 80%* Annual TSS Removal for 75 µm * Exceeds specification of 70% annual TSS removal

42 Here’s the steps to follow: 1. Calculate: Pe = (d · h · Vs) / Q using lab test data 2. Solve for: Q = (d · h · Vs) / Pe 3. Convert Q to surface area loading rate (gpm/ft 2 ) 4. Make table for RE% vs. Loading Rate 5. Plot performance curve for selected particles size 6. Make sizing chart(s) for: a)per storm TSS removal efficiency, or b)annual TSS removal efficiency 7.Brag to boss how you solved a mystery of stormwater life

43

44 Mark Miller mmiller@aquashieldinc.com


Download ppt "Predictive Performance Scaling Method for Hydrodynamic Separators Mark B. Miller, P.G. Research Scientist Chattanooga, Tennessee."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google