A Gritty Face-Off: A Gritty Face Off: Mechanical Vortex Versus
Transcription
A Gritty Face-Off: A Gritty Face Off: Mechanical Vortex Versus
A Gritty Face Face-Off: Off: Mechanical Vortex Versus Stacked Tray Grit Removal Jeff Sober May 27, 2011 NTMWD Filename.ppt Today, we will discuss: 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. North Texas Municipal Water District District’s s Panther Creek Regional WWTF Why y we e decided dec ded to put ttwo o tec technologies o og es side-by-side How we did it for as cheap p as p possible The grit testing methods used The results! Filename.ppt In 2007, Panther Creek Regional WWTF was built for 5 mgd g average g flow Filename.ppt In 2009, Panther Creek underwent an expansion from 5 to 10 mgd g Filename.ppt The headworks has both forced and free vortex grit basins Filename.ppt Forced vortex basins have a low capital cost 65% 100 200 95% 300 Micron Size • Filename.ppt Low headloss 400 The Headcell in theory provides higher efficiency grit removal 95% 100 200 300 400 Micron Si Size e • • • • Filename.ppt Large surface area in a small footprint Short settling distance N moving No i parts t iin-basin b i Same level of O&M effort How can we provide this at the lowest possible cost? Don t design Headcell for peak flow Don’t Provide system in existing footprint Optimize flow between systems Filename.ppt The headworks is rated for 10 mgd average, 30 mgd peak Filename.ppt Flows of 0 to 15 mgd are sent to the Headcell Filename.ppt Peak flows of 15 to 30 mgd are routed to the vortex Filename.ppt GRIT TESTING Filename.ppt To compare the units, we utilized two testing protocols 1. Totall grit accumulation testing performed by NTMWD 2. Third Party vertical flow p profile testing g Filename.ppt For the first test, we isolated each unit for one week at a time Filename.ppt This four week test required weighing grit every two hours Filename.ppt This test focused on total grit removed from the classifiers Filename.ppt This test focused on total grit removed from the classifiers Filename.ppt There was a significant difference in the total pounds 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 Week 2 Vortex Pou unds 1,200 Week 4 Vortex 1,000 ,000 800 600 400 200 0 Filename.ppt Week 1 Headcell Week 3 Headcell We also measured TS and VS 7,000 Total Pounds Removed Total Solids Removed 6,000 Grit Removed (Inorganics) Pounds s Removed P Per Week 5 000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Week 1 (Headcell) Filename.ppt Week 2 (Vortex) Week 3 (Headcell) Week 4 (Vortex) Results were not as expected Avera age Pound ds Remove ed Per Day y 250 200 150 Grit Removed (Inorganics) 100 50 0 Headcell Average Filename.ppt Vortex Average TEST PROTOCOL NO. 2 – THIRD PARTY TESTING Filename.ppt Grit Solutions ran vertical profile tests before and after the grit basins g Filename.ppt This test measures the amount of grit that makes it past the grit basins g Filename.ppt A non-native grit was also used Filename.ppt The results show that the grit basin was working as designed 88% Removal 6,000 97% Removal 5,000 Total Pou unds 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Headcell Influent Filename.ppt Headcell Effluent Vortex Influent Vortex Effluent Why did this test not agree with our previous results? Filename.ppt The system was adjusted 1 1. 2. Blow down sequence frequency increased Wash water rates increased Filename.ppt Another week of testing had improved results 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 Pounds Week 4 Vortex Week 2 Vortex 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Filename.ppt Separate Test Headcell Week 1 Headcell Week 3 Headcell Another week of testing had improved results 1,200 1,000 Pounds Removed Solids Removed Solids Removed Pounds Reemoved 800 Grit Removed (Inorganics) 600 400 200 0 Headcell Average Filename.ppt Vortex Average Headcell Test 2 Average Let this be a lesson, your eyes can fool you! Don’t assume a system is optimized, even if it is proprietary black box information Filename.ppt In summary, the new grit system does remove less organics g Vortex Average Headcell Average 80% 74% 45% 30% Percent Solids Filename.ppt Percent Inorganics Acknowledgements 1. 2 2. 3. Steve Kramer, Plant Manager Elizabeth Turner Turner, NTMWD Lab Drew Satterwhite, NTMWD Engineer Filename.ppt