page 317 |
Previous | 1 of 8 | Next |
|
|
Loading content ...
BIOKINETIC MODELS TO OPTIMIZE AERATED STABILIZATION BASINS Yogesh M. Mehta, Staff Manager Ralph L. Stephenson, Senior Engineer Brown & Root U.S.A., Inc. Houston, Texas 77210 INTRODUCTION Aerated Stabilization Basin (ASB) is a common and popular unit process for the treatment of paper mill wastewater in North America. A situation already faced by several mills, and one which can be anticipated to occur more frequently in the future, is the desire to upgrade effluent quality as a result of raw waste load increases resulting from incremental production increases, without major expenditures on the existing treatment facilities. Numerous mathematical models are available to evaluate the performance of ASBs and for use in predicting the performance of ASBs when operating and/or loading conditions are changed. The dilemma is which model to use in making predictions of treated effluent quality and when investigating changes in operating conditions as all give slightly different results. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various models? This paper gives the results of the investigation of four different models as applied to three different ASBs and presents a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each model. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS The four models that were analyzed are: • Eckenfelder's Firsl Order Model |l| • Lawrence & McCarty Model (2) • The Exponential Model • The NCAS1 Dynamic Model The formulas for the first three of these models are shown in Table I. Formulas for the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement Model (NCASI) were more extensive and complex than can be presented in this paper, so the reader is referred to the literature [3,4,5]. The NCASI Model is based on Lawrence & McCarty's equations, but adds many more concepts to these equations. Table I. List of Design Formulas Model Equation for Effluent BOD Equation for the Rate Constant Eckenfelder s, s, = 1 + Kct S, - Sr Sct Exponential Sc = S,e<-K'''> K'c = Irfe) I Lawrence & McCarty Ks(l + bt) S, - t(yk - b) - 1 (Ks + Sc)(bt + 1) K = Scyt 317
Object Description
Purdue Identification Number | ETRIWC198532 |
Title | Biokinetic models to optimize aerated stabilization basins |
Author |
Mehta, Yogesh M. Stephenson, Ralph L. |
Date of Original | 1985 |
Conference Title | Proceedings of the 40th Industrial Waste Conference |
Conference Front Matter (copy and paste) | http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/engext,36131 |
Extent of Original | p. 317-324 |
Collection Title | Engineering Technical Reports Collection, Purdue University |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Rights Statement | Digital object copyright Purdue University. All rights reserved. |
Language | eng |
Type (DCMI) | text |
Format | JP2 |
Date Digitized | 2009-07-15 |
Capture Device | Fujitsu fi-5650C |
Capture Details | ScandAll 21 |
Resolution | 300 ppi |
Color Depth | 8 bit |
Description
Title | page 317 |
Collection Title | Engineering Technical Reports Collection, Purdue University |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Rights Statement | Digital copyright Purdue University. All rights reserved. |
Language | eng |
Type (DCMI) | text |
Format | JP2 |
Capture Device | Fujitsu fi-5650C |
Capture Details | ScandAll 21 |
Transcript | BIOKINETIC MODELS TO OPTIMIZE AERATED STABILIZATION BASINS Yogesh M. Mehta, Staff Manager Ralph L. Stephenson, Senior Engineer Brown & Root U.S.A., Inc. Houston, Texas 77210 INTRODUCTION Aerated Stabilization Basin (ASB) is a common and popular unit process for the treatment of paper mill wastewater in North America. A situation already faced by several mills, and one which can be anticipated to occur more frequently in the future, is the desire to upgrade effluent quality as a result of raw waste load increases resulting from incremental production increases, without major expenditures on the existing treatment facilities. Numerous mathematical models are available to evaluate the performance of ASBs and for use in predicting the performance of ASBs when operating and/or loading conditions are changed. The dilemma is which model to use in making predictions of treated effluent quality and when investigating changes in operating conditions as all give slightly different results. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the various models? This paper gives the results of the investigation of four different models as applied to three different ASBs and presents a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each model. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELS The four models that were analyzed are: • Eckenfelder's Firsl Order Model |l| • Lawrence & McCarty Model (2) • The Exponential Model • The NCAS1 Dynamic Model The formulas for the first three of these models are shown in Table I. Formulas for the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement Model (NCASI) were more extensive and complex than can be presented in this paper, so the reader is referred to the literature [3,4,5]. The NCASI Model is based on Lawrence & McCarty's equations, but adds many more concepts to these equations. Table I. List of Design Formulas Model Equation for Effluent BOD Equation for the Rate Constant Eckenfelder s, s, = 1 + Kct S, - Sr Sct Exponential Sc = S,e<-K'''> K'c = Irfe) I Lawrence & McCarty Ks(l + bt) S, - t(yk - b) - 1 (Ks + Sc)(bt + 1) K = Scyt 317 |
Resolution | 300 ppi |
Color Depth | 8 bit |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for page 317