A Novel Sludge Suction Retrofit of the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant's Final Settling Tanks

Wahlberg, Eric J.; Block, Timothy J.; Garman, Katherine H.; Parker, Denny; Voth, Harold

doi:10.2175/193864700784607398

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• Increase in length of rectangular clarifiers (Narayanan et al, 1997) • Retrofit of mid-length hopper cross-collector to manifold suction header (Wahlberg et al, 2000). • Comparison of shallow rectangular clarifier with deep circular tanks (Stahl and Chen, 1996) • Depth requirement study for high purity oxygen activated sludge clarifiers (Hashman et al, 1997) • Conversion of longitudinal flow rectangular clarifiers to transverse flow (Gross et al, 2003) …”

Section: Case Historiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rectangular Clarifiers

Pettit¹,

Stahl²,

Selna³

2005

proc water environ fed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The focus of the presentation is to explore rectangular clarifiers and their design feature for various primary, secondary and tertiary wastewater applications. Typical hydraulic flow patterns and sludge removal patterns are examined. The concepts of relative physical dimensions and surface area are discussed. Also addressed are the importance of flow distribution to multiple clarifiers and the development of the proper inlet conditions. Different locations for sludge hoppers and sludge removal systems are given. Outlet conditions and the endwall effect are considered examined along with different types of effluent launders. The concepts of internal baffles and stacked clarifiers are explored. Recent case histories are presented for the design and retrofit of rectangular clarifiers, while recommendations are given for future research.

show abstract

Section: Case Historiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rectangular Clarifiers

Pettit¹,

Stahl²,

Selna³

2005

proc water environ fed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We made use of early versions of the WERF protocols for nitrifier growth rate and sedimentation tank evaluation previously mentioned as well as the systematic approach shown in Figure 4 (e.g. see Garman et al, 1996, Wilson et al, 1999, Wahlberg et al, 2000. The payoff for our client was that they obtained the highest plant rating in terms of the plant's capacity prior to phosphorus removal (and the lowest cost) using the scientific procedures described here in.…”

Section: Figure 2 -Test Apparatus For Two Werf Protocols For Nitrifiementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Here we designed the full-scale test and conducted some stress testing, but routine data collection was done by the utility (Wahlberg et al, 2000). The project showed that remodeling the tanks was worthwhile in terms of removing their solids removal capacity bottleneck and was a critical component in the rerating of the plant to 100 percent of its preexisting capacity after upgrading for biological phosphorus removal.…”

Section: Recommendedmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Conversation the Consulting Engineer and the Utility Manager Ought to Have: What Does Getting More for Less Mean?

Parker¹,

Goehring²

2002

proc water environ fed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an era of greater expectations from the public for greater efficiency in utility operations, managers are examining all aspects of their operation, including their relationships with consultants. When expecting "more for less" from their own staff and infrastructure, it is not surprising that some of them are carrying that demand to consultants. But what does "more" mean and what does "less" mean? These are important definitions to come to common understanding about.First and foremost, the competitiveness issue is not the only trend that should be important to both managers and engineers, as technology has significantly evolved over the last three decades. The example chosen for this paper is wastewater treatment technology. Technology changes include the level of understanding of unit process performance, moving from rules of thumb to process models, as well as the type of financing available (grants to self-financing) that have had a marked impact on project development. Also, the level of innovation has been remarkable, with significant capital cost savings; information technology has unlocked the usefulness of all kinds of data to utility managers. Taking advantage of these trends has got to be an important element of getting "more."When initiating capital projects, the manager must estimate both the cost of the construction and the cost of the engineering. But which is the important cost? Is it the cost of construction, the cost of engineering and related administrative costs, or the total cost of the project? And how is the quality of the project defined (the "more" issue)? Utility managers and consulting engineers are often put at odds during the critical project initiation phase. At this time the manager often wants to show to governing bodies that the engineer's costs have been contained while the engineer wants to develop the project concept through additional investigation, but may be forced to forego this in the competitive selection process. Focusing on the cost of the total project is the answer to this initial project imbalance. Not finding balance here may result in finding truth in the old saying that "there is nothing more expensive than cheap engineering." KEYWORDSCost, capital projects, design consultant, utility manager, innovation, scientific method.

show abstract