Page 143 -
P. 143

7.8                        CHAPTER  SEVEN

           One approach  to address  the vertical velocity problem is to use a perforated end wall,
        similar to the inlet distribution  wall, to  maintain  parallel hydraulic  flow along the length
        of the  basin  (Monk  and  Willis,  1987).  Velocity  approaching  the  wall  does  not increase
        except near the ports because  the entire basin cross section is used.  Velocity remains  low
         along the floor, reducing  the potential for scouring.  Flow uniformity approaching  the end
         wall helps to ensure that  flow covers the entire basin  surface to achieve the  design over-
         flow rate.  The  approach  to  designing  the  perforated  wall  is  the  same  as  for the  inlet.  A
         small head loss must be taken to obtain uniform distribution.  Velocities through the ports
         may be higher than  those for the  inlet because  the  smaller floc carried  over is less likely
         to  be  sheared.  In  some  cases  it is  preferable  to  increase  the  head  loss  through  the  efflu-
         ent ports  to  obtain  hydraulic  flow splitting  to  the basins  rather  than  taking  the head  loss
         at the inlet. This avoids high inlet velocities that  may cause breaking  up of a fragile floc.
           The use of effluent baffle walls may not be effective in controlling density currents  in
         the  settled  solids.  Such  density  currents  may  be  as  high  as  2.5  to  6  ft/min  (0.8  to  1.8
         m/min),  much  faster than  the  tank  average  flow-through  velocity that  could carry  solids
         through  a  baffle wall  (Kawamura,  1991).  Control  of density  currents  in the  sludge blan-
         ket  may  be  best  accomplished  by  frequent  solids  removal  at  several  locations  (Taebi-
         Harandy  and  Schroeder,  1995).  Traditional  mechanical  sludge removal equipment,  how-
         ever,  does  not  typically  provide  for  draw-off at  several  locations.  However,  frequent  or
         continuous  solids removal  should  minimize density currents  in the  settled  solids.

         Manual  Solids  Removal.  Although  no  longer  used  in  many  modem  water  treatment
         plants,  basins can be designed for manual cleaning. In such cases basins must be designed
         to  store  sludge for a reasonable  period of time.  An extra depth  of 4  to 5  ft (1.2 to  1.5  m)
         should  be  provided,  basin  floors  must  slope  to  a  drain,  and  adequate  pressurized  water
         must  be  available for flushing.  Manually  cleaned  basins  are  suitable  for  use  in develop-
         ing countries  with low  labor rates.
           Basins  can  be  designed  with  hoppers  in  the  first  half of the  tank,  where  most  of the
         sludge  is likely to  settle,  and  equipped  with  mud  valves that can be frequently opened to
         waste  the  bulk  of the  sludge.  This  design  reduces  the  frequency  of removing the  basin
         from  service for complete  cleaning.  However,  withdrawal  of sludge  from  these hoppers
         should  be  frequent  and  controlled.  Otherwise,  if the  solids  become  too  thick,  flow may
         "pipe" through  to  the  drain,  leaving  the  bulk  of solids  on  the  sides  of the  hoppers.  Fre-
         quent  removal of solids  through  these  hoppers  may  also disrupt  density currents  and im-
         prove performance.
         Mechanical Solids  Removal.  Most modern  sedimentation  basins are designed to be me-
         chanically  cleaned  using  a  variety  of mechanisms,  most  of which  are  proprietary.  These
         include  systems  that  drag  or  plow  sludge  along  the  basin  floor  to  hoppers  and  systems
         that  rely on hydraulic  or siphon  action  to  withdraw  solids.  Because  each  system has  dif-
         ferent design  requirements  for basin  dimensions  and  solids  draw-off,  it is  important  that
         the designer research the available equipment or systems around which to design the tanks.
         The following text discusses  various types of equipment commonly used.  It is not a com-
         plete  discussion,  and  new  devices are  being  developed all  the  time.  Good  references  for
         lists of currently available equipment and the names of manufacturers  is the Public Works
         Manual,  an  annual  publication  of  Public  Works  Magazine  and  the  A WWA  Sourcebook,
         annually  published  by  AWWA.
           Traditional  Equipment.   Traditional  desludging  equipment  was  mostly  chain-and-
         flight drags  made  up  of two  strands  of iron  chain  with  wooden  flights  attached  at  10-ft
         (3-m)  intervals  and  operated  at  about  2  ft/min  (0.6  m/min)  to  convey  dense  sludge  to  a
         hopper.  Flights  were usually  made  of redwood  in lengths  up  to  20  ft (6 m).  Cast iron or
         steel  wearing  shoes were  attached  to the  wooden  flights to prevent the  wood from wear-
   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148