4.7 Article

Computational fluid dynamics modelling of primary sludge classification in an activated sludge process based wastewater treatment plant: Simulating the hydrodynamic behaviour and experimental verification of the classification efficiency

期刊

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING JOURNAL
卷 464, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.cej.2023.142475

关键词

Activated sludge process; CFD; Hydrocyclone; Primary sludge; Suspended solids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study on the classification of primary sludge using a Rietema type hydrocyclone in an activated sludge process (ASP) based wastewater treatment plant. The CFD simulation was performed to study various parameters and validate the experimental results. The installation of the hydrocyclone for primary sludge classification resulted in energy savings of 3194 kWh/year for wastewater treatment.
The primary treatment of wastewater, which involves the sedimentation of solid debris, results in the production of primary sludge. This paper presents the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study of the Rietema type hydrocyclone for primary sludge classification in an activated sludge process (ASP) based wastewater treatment plant. The CFD simulation of hydrocyclone was performed to study the pressure profiles (absolute pressure, total pressure), axial velocity, tangential velocity, particle track and classification efficiency for the experimental validation. The experimental values of concentration factor (CF) for total suspended solids (TSS), fixed suspended solids (FSS) and volatile suspended solids (VSS) were 1.50 & PLUSMN; 0.18, 1.69 & PLUSMN; 0.27 and 1.35 & PLUSMN; 0.21, respectively. The simulation and experimental classification efficiencies were 27.6% and 28.2%, respectively. Furthermore, the results of this study shows that the installation of hydrocyclone for the classification of the primary sludge saves 3194 kWh/year of energy required for wastewater treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据