Taking wind into account

in the design
of waste stabilisation ponds

F. Badrot-Nico, V. Guinot , F. Brissaud

Laboratoire Hydrosciences, UMR 5569, Université Montpellier 2, France

1
 How to model a WSP? (1)
Ž2 basic strategies

In
? Out

Model inlet-outlet data using: Physical equations to compute

- hypothesis on hydraulic regime - fluid flow
- mathematical function - transport of contaminants
so as to reproduce field data.

Calibration requiring additional

information on fluid flow 2
 How to model a WSP? (2)
Ž2 basic strategies

Strategy developped in this study

- to understand and evaluate the influence
of the wind direction and wind speed on
the pond performance
- to be able to test different hypothetical
configurations

3
Hydrodynamic numerical model
Theoretical result

Model adapted from COHERENS

(MUMM, 1997) with
MDPM substantial improvement aiming
at the development of
innovative low numerical
diffusion method
(Badrot-Nico et al., Adv. Wat.
MUSCL Res, 2007)

Badrot-Nico, F., Brissaud, F. & Guinot, V. (2007). A finite volume upwind scheme for the solution of the linear
advection-diffusion equation with sharp gradients in multiple dimensions. Advances in Water Res. Vol. 30 (9), 4
2002-2025.
 Model calibration
Temperatures simulated and measured at site 7 on a Mèze (France)
finishing pond, for stratified and non-stratified days.
Depth: A = water surface; B = 0.225m; C=0.450m; D =0.675; E = 0.9 m.
03/18/2005 - Simulation 03/31/2005 - Simulation

03/18/2005 - Measured 03/31/2005 - Measured

5
F. Badrot-Nico, V. Guinot and F. Brissaud (2009). Fluid flow pattern and water residence time in waste stabilisation
ponds, Water Science and Technology, in press.
 Case study strategy (1)
1000 Solar radiation

Solar radiation (W.m-2)

ŽFor each simulation: 800
600
400
Ž Constant wind speed and 200

direction 0
04/26/05 04/27/05 04/28/05 04/29/05 04/30/05
30 time (h)

Air temperature (°C)

Ž Other meteorological forcings
25 Air temperature
20

(the same for all scenarios): 15

10
derived from field 5
0
measurements 04/26/05 04/27/05 04/28/05 04/29/05 04/30/05
time (h)

Ž Meteorological conditions
from April 26th to April 30th
2005: representative of the
most frequent meteorological Air relative humidity
conditions in coastal areas of
Southern France 6
 Case study strategy (2)
ŽFor each layout:
ŽConstant wind speed and direction during
the simulation
ŽSimulations for 12 wind directions
ŽWind speeds: 2, 4 and 6 m.s-1

Ž Simulations were run for 4 layouts:

Ž2 without baffles
Ž2 with baffles 7
 Layouts
Flow rate (in and out): 5 L.s-1
Retention time: 6.7 d

N 30 m N
30 m
Layout 1 Layout 2

60 m 60 m

15 m
15 m 15 m

21 m 21 m
Layout 3 Layout 4
21 m
30 m 21 m 30 m
15 m 15 m
60 m 60 m

8
 Computation of RTD
RTD computation from numerical tracer results

Q (t )C out (t ) where
f (t ) =
M • f(t): RTD
• Q(t): flow rate at date t
• Cout(t): concentration at the outlet at date t
• M: total mass of tracer injected in the pond

North wind West wind

2 m.s-1 2 m.s-1

Examples of concentrations at the outlet computed by the hydrodynamic model. 9

Black line = CSTR model
 Evaluation of microbial pond
performance
Hypothesis:

• first order microbial decay

• coliform die-off coefficient
k = 0 . 6 d -1

(representative of polishing pond in Mèze (France)

(Brissaud et al., 2005)

Bacterial removal evaluation

⎛ N outlet ⎞ ⎛ ∞ −k t ⎞
R = log 10 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = log 10 ⎜ ∫ e f (t )dt ⎟
N ⎜ ⎟
⎝ inlet ⎠ ⎝0 ⎠
10
Velocity & concentration:layout 1
12 hrs after injection
N v (m.s-1)
wind coming from the West, at 2 m.s-1
surface bottom

C (g.m-3)

Major part of tracer transported

- from inlet to outlet low removal
- in top layer

Higher velocities in top layer

11
Complex ciculation pattern with opposite current at bottom
Velocity & concentration:layout 1
12 hrs after injection
N v (m.s-1)
wind coming from the East, at 2 m.s-1
surface bottom

Major part of tracer transported

- from inlet to outlet low removal
- in bottom layer

Higher velocities in top layer

12
Wind opposite to inlet-to-outlet direction not more beneficial
Results: layouts without baffles (1)
bacterial removal as a function of the wind direction
1 N 2 N
1.5 1.5
NNW NNE NNW NNE
1.0 1.0
WNW ENE WNW ENE
0.5 0.5

W 0.0 E W 0.0 E

WSW ESE WSW ESE

SSW SSE SSW SSE

S wind speed S
Layout 1 2 m.s-1 Layout 2

Best removals with transverse wind (N/S) (up to 1.05 log)

Worse removals with longitudinal wind (W/E) (0.73 log)
Hydraulic short circuiting
13
Shifting inlet and outlet brings no major change
Results: layouts without baffles (2)
1 h 40 min after injection
N v (m.s-1)
wind coming from the West, at 4 m.s-1

surface bottom

Flow directs tracer from inlet to outlet

Outlet already reached 1h40 after injection
Most part of tracer quickly evacuated
C (g.L-1) 14
Results: layouts without baffles (3)
bacterial removal as a function of the wind direction
1 N 2
1.5
NNW NNE
1.0
WNW ENE
0.5

W 0.0 E

WSW ESE

SSW SSE
S wind speed
Layout 1 4 m.s-1 Layout 2
Little change for transverse winds
Longitudinal winds: lower removals (up to a 50% variation)

Hydraulic short-cicuiting accentuated

15
Velocity & concentration:layout 3
12 hrs after injection
wind coming from the West, at 2 m.s-1
v (m.s-1)
Little participation
Recirculation to water flow
and mixing
surface

Hydraulic short-circuiting

Despite baffles, lower removal for West winds

16
Velocity & concentration:layout 3
12 hrs after injection
wind coming from the North, at 2 m.s-1
v (m.s-1)

surface

- Better mixing in each part of the pond for transverse winds

- Still some hydraulic short-circuiting along walls

17
 Layout 3: RTDs

West wind – 2 m.s-1 North wind – 2 m.s-1

18
Velocity & concentration:layout 4
12 hrs after injection
wind coming from the West, at 2 m.s-1
v (m.s-1)
L-shaped baffle added to diminish short-circuiting

surface

Reduced dead zones and short-circuiting

Longer retention time
19
Velocity & concentration:layout 4
12 hrs after injection
wind coming from the North, at 2 m.s-1
v (m.s-1)
L-shaped baffle added to diminish short-circuiting

surface

- Better mixing in each part of the pond for transverse winds

- Reduced hydraulic short-circuiting along walls

20
Results: layouts with baffles (1)
bacterial removal as a function of the wind direction
3 4

wind speed
Layout 3 Layout 4
2 m.s-1
Overall improvement of removals
- 0.86 to 1.12 log for layout 3 (10% to 42% increase)
- 1.03 to 1.24 log for layout 4

Layout 3: West and East winds still detrimental 21

Layout 4: removal almost independent of wind direction
Results: layouts with baffles (2)
bacterial removal as a function of the wind direction
3 4

wind speed
Layout 3 6 m.s-1 Layout 4

Higher wind speed:

- lower removals
- lower sensitivity to wind direction than without baffles
22
BUT still better removals than without baffles
Bacterial removal: influence of k
Removals for a wind speed of 2 m.s-1 k=0.6 d-1
k=1.2 d-1

West wind North wind

Layout 1 0.725 1.050
1.000 (+37.9%) 1.534 (+46.1%)
Layout 2 0.764 1.043
1.065 (+39.4%) 1.508 (+44.6%)
Layout 3 0.855 1.137
1.172 (+37.1%) 1.607 (+41.3%)
Layout 4 1.073 1.151
1.500 (+39.8%) 1.629 (+41.5%)
23
 Conclusion (1)
• wind affects significantly pond disinfection
performance

• poorer performance along inlet-outlet direction

• best orientation: dominant wind orthogonal to inlet-
outlet direction

• addition of baffles:
• positive impact on bacterial removal
• positive impact on sensitivity to wind direction

• 2 baffles: still sensible to wind direction

• L-shaped baffle: lower sensitivity to wind direction, 24

especially for low wind speeds
 Conclusion (2)

CFD model (3D, non steady state, non

isothermal : MDPM)
- influence of wind is not negligible even at very
low wind speeds

- can be used to test new layouts and predict

performance

- influence of other meteorological parameters?

25
- seasonal variability ?
Thank you for your attention

26