Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stormwater treatment: examples of computational fluid dynamics modeling

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 multiphase 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andoh RY 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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sansalone J J. Adsorptive infiltration of metals in urban drainage-media characteristics. Science of the Total Environment, 1999, 235(1–3): 179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Geldof G, Jacobsen P, Fujita S. Urban storm water infiltration perspectives. Water Science and Technology, 1994, 29(1–2): 245–254

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  10. Huber W C. BMP Modeling Concepts and Simulation. EPA/600/R-06/033, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D C, USA, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  11. Weib G J. Vortex separator: proposal of a dimensioning method. Water Science and Technology, 1997, 36(8–9): 201–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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, vanWachem B. Modeling particle-laden flows: a research outlook. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2004, 50(11): 2638–2645

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jayanti S, Narayanan S. Computational study of particle-eddy interaction in sedimentation tanks. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 2004, 130(1): 37–49

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 storm-water 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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sheng Y, Ying G, Sansalone J J. Differentiation of transport for particulate and dissolved water chemistry load indices in rainfallrunoff from urban source area watersheds. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam), 2008, 361(1–2): 144–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Urbonas B R. Recommended parameters to report with BMP monitoring data. Water Research, 1995, 121(1): 23–34

    Google Scholar 

  36. Versteeg H, Malalasekera W. An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics: The Finite Volume Method Approach. London: Prentice Hall, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Petty C A, Parks S M. Flow predictions within hydrocyclones. Filtration and Separation, 2001, 38(6): 28–34

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Launder B E, Spalding D B. The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Computer Method in Applied Mechanics, 1974, 3(2): 269–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Elghobashi S E. Particle laden turbulent flows: direct simulation and closure models. Applied Scientific Research, 1991, 48(3–4): 301–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  46. Ranade V V. Computational Flow Modeling for Chemical Reactor Engineering. London: Academic Press, 2002

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering School of Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611-6450, USA

    Gaoxiang Ying, John Sansalone, Srikanth Pathapati & Giuseppina Garofalo

  2. DISTART, Universita di Bologna, Viale del Risorgimento 2, 40136, Bologna, Italia

    Marco Maglionico, Andrea Bolognesi & Alessandro Artina

Authors
  1. Gaoxiang Ying
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Sansalone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Srikanth Pathapati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giuseppina Garofalo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marco Maglionico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrea Bolognesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alessandro Artina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Sansalone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ying, G., Sansalone, J., Pathapati, S. et al. Stormwater treatment: examples of computational fluid dynamics modeling. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 6, 638–648 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-012-0442-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-012-0442-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation