Articles & Issues
- Language
- English
- Conflict of Interest
- In relation to this article, we declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- Publication history
-
Received April 1, 2009
Accepted September 3, 2009
-
This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync/3.0) which permits
unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright © KIChE. All rights reserved.
All issues
Evaluation of the buffing volume in last third flocculation basin using CFD
Water Quality Research of Busan Water Authority, Kimhae, Gyeongnam 621-813, Korea 1Department of Environment Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Korea
chol221@korea.kr
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, February 2010, 27(2), 511-517(7)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-010-0085-y
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11814-010-0085-y
Download PDF
Abstract
In Korea, the party walls of the flocculation basin consist generally of four parts, as three party walls and the outlet wall. The space between the third party wall and the outlet wall is therefore not the full extent of the flocculation basin and sedimentation basin. This space is theoretically totally unfounded. In order to practically apply the third party wall as an outlet wall, the volume capacity of the last third flocculation process needs to be determined on the ground that the perforated baffle (opening ratio 6%) is not ideal for the rectification effect. The buffer zone, according to the G value, is required in the last third flocculation process for a uniform flow at the outlet. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the size of the buffer zone in the last third flocculation process using CFD. Conclusions are made as follows: The difference of outflow rate percentage between the upper, middle and bottom part sections reduces according to the expansion of the third basin volume from 4.2 to 7.7 at each G value. We can suggest that the effluent percentage at the three sections is less affected by the G value than by the volume increase. For G values ranging from 11 to 16(1/s), the buffer zone needs to range from 10% to 20% compared with the last third volume by the velocity of standard deviation of 5 at the outlet. Also, when the velocity of standard deviation at the outlet is 2.5 or less, the buffer zone needs to range from 45% to 55%.
References
Kawamura S, John Wiley and Sons, 2nd edition, 104 (2000)
Jung YJ, Min KS, J. Korean Society on Water Quality, 21, 230 (2005)
Prabhata, Swamee K, Tyagi A, ASCE, J. Env. Eng., 122, 71 (1996)
Kim J, Han GY, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 24(3), 445 (2007)
Cockx A, Do-Quang Z, Line A, Roustan M, Chem. Eng. Sci., 54(21), 5085 (1999)
Dupont R, Dahl C, Water Sci. Technol., 31, 215 (1995)
Larwen P, Report No. 1001, Department of Water Research Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology, University of Lund, Sweden (1997)
Ekama GA, Barnard JL, Krebs P, McCorquofale JA, JAWQ, 173 (1997)
Krebs P, Water Sci. Technol., 31, 181 (1995)
Copyright by Fluent Inc, Fluent6.3 user's guide, 3, 14.1 (2006)
Bridgeman J, Jefferson B, Parsons SA, Advances in Engineering Software, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 21 (2009)
Jung YJ, Min KS, J. Korean Society on Water Quality, 21, 230 (2005)
Prabhata, Swamee K, Tyagi A, ASCE, J. Env. Eng., 122, 71 (1996)
Kim J, Han GY, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 24(3), 445 (2007)
Cockx A, Do-Quang Z, Line A, Roustan M, Chem. Eng. Sci., 54(21), 5085 (1999)
Dupont R, Dahl C, Water Sci. Technol., 31, 215 (1995)
Larwen P, Report No. 1001, Department of Water Research Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology, University of Lund, Sweden (1997)
Ekama GA, Barnard JL, Krebs P, McCorquofale JA, JAWQ, 173 (1997)
Krebs P, Water Sci. Technol., 31, 181 (1995)
Copyright by Fluent Inc, Fluent6.3 user's guide, 3, 14.1 (2006)
Bridgeman J, Jefferson B, Parsons SA, Advances in Engineering Software, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 21 (2009)
