Stormwater treatment: examples of computational fluid dynamics modeling

doi:10.1007/s11783-012-0442-7

Front Envir Sci Eng

2012, Vol. 6

Issue (5) : 638-648 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-012-0442-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Stormwater treatment: examples of computational fluid dynamics modeling

Gaoxiang YING¹, John SANSALONE¹(

), Srikanth PATHAPATI¹, Giuseppina GAROFALO¹, Marco MAGLIONICO², Andrea BOLOGNESI², Alessandro ARTINA²

1. Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-6450, USA; 2. DISTART, Universita di Bologna, Viale del Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italia

Download: PDF(336 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Control of rainfall-runoff particulate matter (PM) and PM-bound chemical loads is challenging; in part due to the wide gradation of PM complex geometries of many unit operations and variable flow rates. Such challenges and the expense associated with resolving such challenges have led to the relatively common examination of a spectrum of unit operations and processes. This study applies the principles of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to predict the particle and pollutant clarification behavior of these systems subject to dilute multiphase flows, typical of rainfall-runoff, within computationally reasonable limits, to a scientifically acceptable degree of accuracy. The Navier-Stokes (NS) system of nonlinear partial differential equations for multi-phase hydrodynamics and separation of entrained particles are solved numerically over the unit operation control volume with the boundary and initial conditions defined and then solved numerically until the desired convergence criteria are met. Flow rates examined are scaled based on sizing of common unit operations such as hydrodynamic separators (HS), wet basins, or filters, and are examined from 1 to 100 percent of the system maximum hydraulic operating flow rate. A standard turbulence model is used to resolve flow, and a discrete phase model (DPM) is utilized to examine the particle clarification response. CFD results closely follow physical model results across the entire range of flow rates. Post-processing the CFD predictions provides an in-depth insight into the mechanistic behavior of unit operations by means of three dimensional (3-D) hydraulic profiles and particle trajectories. Results demonstrate the role of scour in the rapid degradation of unit operations that are not maintained. Comparisons are provided between measured and CFD modeled results and a mass balance error is identified. CFD is arguably the most powerful tool available for our profession since continuous simulation modeling.

Keywords stormwater unit operations and processes (UOPs) hydrodynamic separation filtration adsorption computational fluid dynamics (CFD) turbulence modeling discrete phase model particle separation detention/retention basins clarification

Corresponding Author(s): SANSALONE John,Email:jsansal@ufl.edu

Issue Date: 01 October 2012

Cite this article:

Gaoxiang YING,John SANSALONE,Srikanth PATHAPATI, et al. Stormwater treatment: examples of computational fluid dynamics modeling[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2012, 6(5): 638-648.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-012-0442-7
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2012/V6/I5/638

Fig.1 Isometric view of the screened HS

Fig.2 Profile view of the RCF apparatus.

Fig.3 Measured and modeled effluent concentrations measured as SSC for controlled prototype testing of the screened HS and RCF

Fig.4 Measured and modeled effluent PSD for controlled prototype testing of the screened HS and RCF

Tab.1 Measured and modeled effluent mass loads and concentrations as a function of flow rate and depth of pre-loaded sediment in the screened HS; of the poorly-graded non-cohesive gradation with a of 110 μm

Fig.5 Measured and modeled pre-deposited PSDs and scoured effluent PSD for real-time testing of a screened HS

Fig.6 Influent hydrology for real-time testing of a screened HS

Fig.7 Measured and modeled influent PSD and separated PSD for real-time testing of a screened HS

1	Sansalone J J. Physical and chemical nature of stormwater pollutants. In: Field R, Sullivan D, eds. Wet Weather Flow in the Urban Watershed . Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2002, 43–66
2	Andoh R Y G, Saul A J. The use of hydrodynamic vortex separators and screening systems to improve water quality. Water Science and Technology , 2003, 47(4): 175–183 pmid:12666815
3	USEPA. Stormwater technology fact sheet – Hydrodynamic Vortex Separators. EPA 832–99–017 . 1999
4	Kim J Y, Sansalone J J. Event-based size distributions of particulate matter transported during urban rainfall-runoff events. Water Science and Technology , 2008, 42(10–11): 2756–2768 doi: 10.1016/j.watres.2008.02.005 pmid:18342357
5	Sansalone J J. Adsorptive infiltration of metals in urban drainage—media characteristics. Science of the Total Environment , 1999, 235(1–3): 179–188 doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00211-9 pmid:10535118
6	Geldof G, Jacobsen P, Fujita S. Urban storm water infiltration perspectives. Water Science and Technology , 1994, 29(1–2): 245–254
7	Wilson M A, Gulliver J S, Mohseni O, Hozalski R M. Assessing the effectiveness of proprietary stormwater treatment devices. In: Proceedings of World Environmental & Water Resources Conference, Tampa, FL, USA , 2007
8	Rossman L A. Stormwater Management Model Users Manual, Version 5.0, USEPA/600/R-05/040, Cincinnati, OH, USA , 2007
9	Huber W C, Dickinson R E. Storm Water Management Model User’s Manual, Version 4, EPA/600/3–88/001a (NTIS PB88–236641/AS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, USA , 1988
10	Huber W C. BMP Modeling Concepts and Simulation. EPA/600/R-06/033, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D C, USA , 2006
11	Weib G J. Vortex separator: proposal of a dimensioning method. Water Science and Technology , 1997, 36(8–9): 201–206 doi: 10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00598-2
12	Paul T C, Sayal S K, Sakhuja V S, Dhillon G S. Vortex-settling basin design considerations. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering , 1991, 117(2): 172–189 doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1991)117:2(172)
13	Keblin V, Barrett M, Malina J, Charbeneau R. The effectiveness of permanent highway runoff controls: sedimentation/filtration systems. CRWR Online Report 97–4, University of Texas at Austin , 1997
14	Curtis J S, van Wachem B. Modeling particle-laden flows: a research outlook. American Institute of Chemical Engineers , 2004, 50(11): 2638–2645 doi: 10.1002/aic.10394
15	Dickenson J A, Sansalone J J. Discrete phase model representation of particulate matter (PM) for simulating PM separation by hydrodynamic unit operations. Environmental Science & Technology , 2009, 43(21): 8220–8226 doi: 10.1021/es901527r pmid:19924947
16	Pathapati S S, Sansalone J J. Can a stepwise steady flow computational fluid dynamics model reproduce unsteady particulate matter separation for common unit operations? Environmental Science & Technology , 2011, 45(13): 5605–5613 doi: 10.1021/es103584c pmid:21644537
17	Stovin V R, Saul A J. Efficiency prediction for storage chambers using computational fluid dynamics. Water Science and Technology , 1996, 33(9): 163–170 doi: 10.1016/0273-1223(96)00383-6
18	Stovin V R, Saul A J. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) particle tracking approach to efficiency prediction. Water Science and Technology , 1998, 37(1): 285–293 doi: 10.1016/S0273-1223(97)00780-4
19	Naser G, Karney B W, Salehi A A. Two-dimensional simulation model of sediment removal and flow in rectangular sedimentation basin. Journal of Environmental Engineering , 2005, 131(12):1740–1749
20	Jayanti S, Narayanan S. Computational study of particle-eddy interaction in sedimentation tanks. Journal of Environmental Engineering , 2004, 130(1): 37–49
21	Faram M G, Harwood R. A method for the numerical assessment of sediment interceptors. In: Proceedings of 3rd international Conference on Sewer Processes and Networks, Paris, France , 2002
22	Tyack J N, Fenner R A. Computational fluid dynamics modeling of velocity profiles within a hydrodynamic separator. Water Science and Technology , 1999, 39(9): 169–176 doi: 10.1016/S0273-1223(99)00230-9
23	Guo Q, England G, Johnston C E. Development of certification guidelines for manufactured stormwater BMPs. ASCE/EWRI task committee on guidelines for certification of manufactured stormwater best management practices (BMPs). In: Proceedings of World Environmental and Water Resources Congress EWRI , 2008
24	Gulliver J S, Guo Q, Wu J S. Scaling relations for manufactured stormwater BMPs. ASCE/EWRI Task Committee on Guidelines for Certification of Manufactured Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs). In: Proceedings of World Environmental and Water Resources Congress , 2008
25	USEPA. Urban stormwater BMP performance monitoring. A Guidance Manual for Meeting the National Stormwater BMP Database Requirements, EPA-821-B-02–001 , 2002
26	Annandale G W. Scour Technology. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2005, 24–25
27	Pathapati S, Sansalone J. Application of CFD to Stormwater Clarification Systems. In: Proceedings of World Environmental and Water Resources Congress EWRI , 2007
28	Rushton B. Broadway outfall stormwater retrofit project (Phase II – Monitoring CDS unit and constructed pond). Draft Report to EPA and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) , 2006, 124
29	American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard test method for determining sediment concentration in water samples. Annual Book of Standards, Designation: D 3977–97, Vol. 04.08, Philadelphia , 2000, 395–400
30	American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Standard practice for dry preparation of soil samples for particle size analysis and determination of soil constants. Annual Book of Standards, Designation: D 421–85. Vol. 04.08, Philadelphia , 1993, 8–9
31	Finlayson-Pitts B J, Pitts J N. Chemistry of the Upper and Lower Atmosphere –Theory, Experiments and Applications. CA: Academic Press, 2000, 365–368
32	American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Automated Pore Volume and Pore Size Distribution of Porous Substances by Mercury Porosimetry (ASTM Designation: BMP578–02). West Conshohocken, PA, USA , 2003
33	Kim J Y, Ma J, Pathapati S, Sansalone J. Continuous deflective separation of non-colloidal particulate matter in rainfall-runoff. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual North American Surface Water Quality Conference and Exposition, Forrester Communications . CA: Palm Desert, 2004
34	Sheng Y, Ying G, Sansalone J J. Differentiation of transport for particulate and dissolved water chemistry load indices in rainfall-runoff from urban source area watersheds. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam) , 2008, 361(1–2): 144–158 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.07.039
35	Urbonas B R. Recommended parameters to report with BMP monitoring data. Water Research , 1995, 121(1): 23–34
36	Versteeg H, Malalasekera W. An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method Approach. London: Prentice Hall, 1995
37	Nowakowski A F, Cullivan J C, Williams R A, Dyakowski T. Application of CFD to modeling of the flow in hydrocyclones. Is this a realizable options or still a research challenge? Minerals Engineering , 2004, 17(5): 661–669 doi: 10.1016/j.mineng.2004.01.018
38	Statie E C, Salcudean M E, Gartshore I S. The influence of hydrocyclone geometry on separation and fibre classification. Filtration and Separation , 2001, 38(6): 36–41
39	Petty C A, Parks S M. Flow predictions within hydrocyclones. Filtration and Separation , 2001, 38(6): 28–34
40	Launder B E, Spalding D B. The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Computer Method in Applied Mechanics , 1974, 3(2): 269–289 doi: 10.1016/0045-7825(74)90029-2
41	Elghobashi S E. Particle laden turbulent flows: direct simulation and closure models. Applied Scientific Research , 1991, 48(3–4): 301–314 doi: 10.1007/BF02008202
42	Morsi S A, Alexander A J. An investigation of particle trajectories in two-phase flow systems. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 1972, 55(02): 193–208 doi: 10.1017/S0022112072001806
43	Qi D, Lin W. TGrid: a new grid environment. In: Proceedings of First International Multi-Symposiums on Computer and Computational Sciences Conference (IMSCCS’06) , 2006
44	Barth T J, Jespersen D. The design and application of upwind schemes on unstructured meshes. In: Proceedings of AIAA 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting , 1989
45	Patankar S. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. Atlanta, USA: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, 1980
46	Ranade V V. Computational Flow Modeling for Chemical Reactor Engineering. London: Academic Press, 2002

[1]	Seyyed Salar Meshkat, Ebrahim Ghasemy, Alimorad Rashidi, Omid Tavakoli, Mehdi Esrafili. Experimental and DFT insights into nitrogen and sulfur co-doped carbon nanotubes for effective desulfurization of liquid phases: Equilibrium & kinetic study[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 109-.
[2]	Guolong Zeng, Yiyang Liu, Xiaoguo Ma, Yinming Fan. Fabrication of magnetic multi-template molecularly imprinted polymer composite for the selective and efficient removal of tetracyclines from water[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(5): 107-.
[3]	Danyang Liu, Johny Cabrera, Lijuan Zhong, Wenjing Wang, Dingyuan Duan, Xiaomao Wang, Shuming Liu, Yuefeng F. Xie. Using loose nanofiltration membrane for lake water treatment: A pilot study[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(4): 69-.
[4]	Ragini Pirarath, Palani Shivashanmugam, Asad Syed, Abdallah M. Elgorban, Sambandam Anandan, Muthupandian Ashokkumar. Mercury removal from aqueous solution using petal-like MoS₂ nanosheets[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 15-.
[5]	Shuo Wei, Lei Du, Shuo Chen, Hongtao Yu, Xie Quan. Electro-assisted CNTs/ceramic flat sheet ultrafiltration membrane for enhanced antifouling and separation performance[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 11-.
[6]	Min Li, Shuai Liang, Yang Wu, Meiyue Yang, Xia Huang. Cross-stacked super-aligned carbon nanotube/activated carbon composite electrodes for efficient water purification via capacitive deionization enhanced ultrafiltration[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(6): 107-.
[7]	Yang Deng. Low-cost adsorbents for urban stormwater pollution control[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 83-.
[8]	An Ding, Yingxue Zhao, Zhongsen Yan, Langming Bai, Haiyang Yang, Heng Liang, Guibai Li, Nanqi Ren. Co-application of energy uncoupling and ultrafiltration in sludge treatment: Evaluations of sludge reduction, supernatant recovery and membrane fouling control[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 59-.
[9]	Jing Li, Haiqin Yu, Xue Zhang, Rixin Zhu, Liangguo Yan. Crosslinking acrylamide with EDTA-intercalated layered double hydroxide for enhanced recovery of Cr(VI) and Congo red: Adsorptive and mechanistic study[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 52-.
[10]	Alisa Salimova, Jian’e Zuo, Fenglin Liu, Yajiao Wang, Sike Wang, Konstantin Verichev. Ammonia and phosphorus removal from agricultural runoff using cash crop waste-derived biochars[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 48-.
[11]	Ziwen Du, Chuyi Huang, Jiaqi Meng, Yaru Yuan, Ze Yin, Li Feng, Yongze Liu, Liqiu Zhang. Sorption of aromatic organophosphate flame retardants on thermally and hydrothermally produced biochars[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 43-.
[12]	Zhenyu Yang, Rong Xing, Wenjun Zhou, Lizhong Zhu. Adsorption characteristics of ciprofloxacin onto g-MoS₂ coated biochar nanocomposites[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(3): 41-.
[13]	Tiancui Li, Yaocheng Fan, Deshou Cun, Yanran Dai, Wei Liang. Dibutyl phthalate adsorption characteristics using three common substrates in aqueous solutions[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 26-.
[14]	Keke Li, Huosheng Li, Tangfu Xiao, Gaosheng Zhang, Aiping Liang, Ping Zhang, Lianhua Lin, Zexin Chen, Xinyu Cao, Jianyou Long. Zero-valent manganese nanoparticles coupled with different strong oxidants for thallium removal from wastewater[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(2): 34-.
[15]	Kanha Gupta, Nitin Khandelwal, Gopala Krishna Darbha. Removal and recovery of toxic nanosized Cerium Oxide using eco-friendly Iron Oxide Nanoparticles[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 15-.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed