Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Mathematical Modelling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apm

The effect of number of baffles on the improvement efficiency of primary

sedimentation tanks
Mahdi Shahrokhi a, Fatemeh Rostami a, Md Azlin Md Said a,⇑,
Saeed Reza Sabbagh Yazdi b, Syafalni a
a
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 14300 Nibong Tebal, Seberang Perai Selatan, P. Penang, Malaysia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, No. 1346, ValiAsr St., Post Code 19697, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, the effect of different numbers of baffles is investigated using computational
Received 29 January 2011 simulation. Laboratory measurements using different numbers of constant height baffles in
Received in revised form 30 October 2011 a rectangular primary sedimentation tank are conducted. The velocity fields measured by
Accepted 2 November 2011
an Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) are used to verify the results of the computational
Available online 11 November 2011
model. The effects of the number of baffles arrangement on the hydraulic performance of
primary settling tanks are studied by using two different ways: the parameters of flow pat-
Keywords:
tern and the Flow Through Curves (FTCs) method. The results of both the experimental and
Sedimentation tanks
Optimization
computational investigations indicate that increasing the number of baffles in suitable
Baffles positions provides minimum volume of the recirculation region, dissipates the kinetic
Design energy, creates a uniform flow field in the tank and finally the hydraulic efficiency of the
Numerical models sedimentation tank will be improved.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Sedimentation is one of the most important units used in the treatment of industrial and domestic wastewater. Although
it is a conceptually simple process, it is actually complex in practice. There are two main types of sedimentation tanks: pri-
mary and secondary. Primary settlers have a low influent concentration. Flow field in these systems are not influenced by
concentration field, and the buoyancy effects can be negligible. Secondary settlers (i.e., those in the activated-sludge process
or chemical coagulation processes are also sedimentation tanks where flocs are removed by hindered gravity) have a higher
influent concentration resulting in increased particle size and the flow field being influenced by concentration distribution
[1].
The sedimentation performance depends on the characteristics of the suspended solid and flow field in the tank. Given
that there is low concentration in the primary settling tanks, flow-field is not influenced by particles; further, the flow pat-
tern and the track taken by suspended solid through the tank are closely linked to each other and the settling tank efficiency
[2]. The flow field in the sedimentation tanks is turbulent, and such turbulence affects particle concentration and deposition;
thus, if the turbulence is not predicted correctly, it may cause re-suspension of particles that have already settled. Recent
numerical models have shown fractional success in predicting the velocity field and the concentration distribution of
suspended solids in sedimentation tanks [3–7]. On the other hand, several researchers have used the two-equation k  e

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 4 5995834x6202; fax: +60 4 5941009.

E-mail addresses: mhd.shahrokhi@gmail.com (M. Shahrokhi), fa.rostami@gmail.com (F. Rostami), azlin@eng.usm.my (M.A. Md Said), SYazdi@kntu.ac.ir
(S.R. Sabbagh Yazdi), cesyafalni@eng.usm.my ( Syafalni).

0307-904X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.apm.2011.11.001
3726 M. Shahrokhi et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735

turbulence model [4,7]. Kahane et al. [8] mentioned that the transport of suspended particles from the inlet to various points
in the settling zone is governed by the hydrodynamics and turbulent of the flow.
Circulation zones are also called dead zones in sedimentation tanks. This region occupied a considerable volume of sed-
imentation tanks and the effective volume for sedimentation process will be decreased. Therefore, the suspended particles
will not have sufficient space for deposition. The existence of the large circulation regions can lower tank performance. Cir-
culation regions or dead zones in the settling tanks create high flow mixing problems and cause the optimal particle sedi-
mentation to decrease. Thus, the important objective in designing settling tanks is to decrease the likelihood of the formation
of the circulation region. One applicable method to reduce the volume of the dead zones and increase the performance of the
sedimentation tanks is to use a proper baffle configuration [9].
Wills and Davis [10] have studied the effects of transverse and longitudinal baffles on the performance of the sedimen-
tation tanks and showed that the transverse baffles decreased short circuiting. Bretscher et al. [11] showed that intermediate
baffle in a rectangular clarifier affected the velocity and concentration fields. Zhou et al. [12] used the numerical model in
studying the performance of circular secondary clarifiers with reaction baffles under varying solids and hydraulic loadings.
Their model revealed the importance of a baffle in dissipating the kinetic energy of the incoming flow and reducing short-
circuiting and indicated that the location of the baffle has a pronounced effect on the nature of the flow. After testing many
potential raceway design modifications, Huggins et al. [13] noticed that adding a baffle the overall percentage of solids re-
moval efficiency increased from 81.8% to 91.1%, resulting in a reduction of approximately 51% of the effluent solids.
Meanwhile, Goula et al. [14] used a numerical model to study the particle settling in a sedimentation tank using a vertical
baffle installed in the inlet section; they showed that the baffle increased the particle settling efficiency from 90.4% for a
standard tank without baffle to 98.6% for one with an installed baffle. Razmi et al. [9] used experimental and numerical ap-
proaches to investigate the effects of the baffle position on the flow field. They also found that best location of the baffle is
obtained when the volume of the circulation zone is minimized or the dead zone is divided into smaller parts. This type of
baffle provides more uniform distribution of velocity in the tank and reduces the volume of dead zones.
Tamayol et al. [15] mentioned that it is necessary to have uniform and calm flow field for improving the efficiency of the
settling tank. The uniform flow pattern can help suspended particles deposition with a constant velocity during short time.
The non-uniformity of the velocity field occurs as a result of the circulation zone in the settling tank [9]. Liu et al. [16] men-
tioned that the formation of uniform velocity region leads the suspended particles to be removed easily. Sammarraee and
Chan [17] concluded that the installation of baffles can improve the efficiency of the tank in terms of settling. The baffles
act as barriers that effectively suppress the horizontal velocities of the flow and force the particles to the bottom of the basin.
The main objective of the present work is to determine the arrangement effects of the number of baffles on the perfor-
mance of sedimentation tanks. Using baffles without enough caution can worsen performance compared with the tank with-
out a baffle. Given that complete standards are not available for the design of a proper baffle configuration, the best number
of baffles and their location layout is determined through experimental and numerical simulations. The results of numerical
simulation were verified by experimental tests in the case of a tank without baffle and a single baffle. The proper locations of
baffles in the cases of two and three baffles in the tank were investigated using 10 numerical models. The optimum position
of baffles was tested in laboratory. In the numerical models, volume-of-fluid method was used. This is a powerful tool used
to determine the morphology and raise characteristics of the hydrodynamic of fluid at the free surface. The velocity fields in
the laboratory tank were measured by ADV (which uses a technique known as pulse-to-pulse coherent Doppler sonar for
measuring the three dimensional velocity vectors). In the last part of this study, a comparison of hydraulic efficiency is then
made between settling tanks with different number of baffles at the optimum position by the Flow Through Curves (FTCs)
method.

2. Experimental setup and methods

To validate the computational simulation of settling tanks, experimental measurements were conducted. The same flow
rates equal to Q = 0.002 m3/s and water depth to tank length ratio of 0.155 were used. Fig. 1 illustrates the experimental setup
and measurement system. This figure shows a rectangular primary settling tank with the following parameters: L = 200 cm,
W = 50 cm, H = 50 cm, height of inlet opening Hin = 10 cm, height of the baffle Hb = 5.5 cm and height of weir Hw = 30 cm. One
pump replenished the tank and an inverter regulated the discharge in the output pipe and an electromagnetic flow meter
measures the volumetric flow of conductive water. This flow meter consisted of a sensor and electromagnetic flow rate
transducer.
The x, y, and z velocity components were measured by ADV. The ADV uses the Doppler effect to measure flow velocity by
transmitting short pairs of sound pulses, listening to their echoes, and then measuring the change in pitch or frequency of the
returned sound. Sound does not reflect from the water itself, but rather from particles suspended in the water. These par-
ticles are usually zooplanktons or suspended sediments. These small particles move with the same average speed as the
water [18].
A 10 MHz Nortek acoustic Doppler velocity meter was used for measuring instantaneous velocities of the liquid flow at
different points in the tank. The probe head included one transmitter and four receivers. It transmitted through a central
beam and received through four beams displaced off to the side. The measurement volume was defined by this intersection
and by the range gating in time. In this process, the transmit transducer sends a short pulse covering 3–15 mm vertically
 M. Shahrokhi et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735 3727

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of (a) experimental system (b) settling tank.

(user adjustable), after which the receivers listened to an echo that corresponded from this volume. The diameter of the vol-
ume was 6 mm. The ADV used four receivers, all focused on the same volume, to obtain the three velocity components from
that very volume. The accuracy of the measured data was no greater than ±0.5% of the measured value ±1 mm/s [18]. The
remote sampling volume was located 5 or 10 cm from the tip of transmitter, but some studies showed that the distance
might change slightly [19]. The advantage of the ADV is such that while the probe is inserted into the flow, the sensing vol-
ume is away from the probe and the presence of the probe generally does not affect the measurement. To reach to reliable
results, all experimental data were repeated 4 times.

3. Governing equation

3.1. Time-averaged flow equations

Steady state incompressible flow conditions with viscosity and inertia effects are generally considered in hydraulic
numerical modeling and the Navier–Stokes equations have been well adopted to solve the governing equations. The Na-
vier–Stokes equations comprise an incompressible form of the conservation of mass and momentum equations, and are
composed of non-linear advection, rate of change, diffusion, and source term in the partial differential equation. The mass
and momentum equations coupled via velocity can be used to derive an equation for the pressure term. In turbulent flow,
the computations become more complex. The modified form of the Navier–Stokes equations, including the Reynolds stress
term, which approximates the random turbulent fluctuations by statistics, is represented by the Reynolds-Averaged Navier–
Stokes (RANS) equations. Hence, the continuity and momentum equations were solved for the steady, incompressible, tur-
bulent and isothermal flow. As the flow pattern was assumed to be two dimensional, two momentum equations in the x and
z directions, length and height of the tank, respectively, were solved. The general mass continuity equation is expressed as
[20,21]:

@q @ @
Vf þ ðquAx Þ þ ðqwAz Þ ¼ 0; ð1Þ
@t @x @z

where Vf is the fractional volume of flow in calculation cell; the fluid density is q, x and z direction velocity is shown by u
and w respectively. The momentum equations for two dimensional computational domain (Navier–Stokes equations)
expressed as:
 
@u 1 @u @u 1 @P
þ uAx þ wAz ¼ þ Gx þ fx ; ð2Þ
@t V f @x @z q @x
 
@w 1 @w @w 1 @P
þ uAx þ wAz ¼ þ Gz þ fz ; ð3Þ
@t V f @x @z q @z
3728 M. Shahrokhi et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735

where Gx, Gz are body accelerations and fx, fz are viscous accelerations that form a variable dynamic viscosity l given by:
 
@ @
qV f f x ¼ wsx  ðAx sxx Þ þ ðAz sxz Þ ; ð4Þ
@x @z
 
@ @
qV f f z ¼ wsz  ðAx sxz Þ þ ðAz szz Þ ; ð5Þ
@x @z
where
 
@u @w @u @w
sxx ¼ 2l ; szz ¼ 2l ; sxz ¼ l þ : ð6Þ
@x @x @z @x
The terms wsx and wsz refer to wall shear stresses. The wall stresses are modeled by assuming a zero tangential velocity on
the part of any area closed to flow. Since the tangential velocities at the mesh boundaries could be non-zero, the flow con-
dition at the mesh boundaries is different. A law-of-the-wall velocity profile is supposed near the wall with modified the wall
shear stress magnitude in the situation of turbulent flow [22].
The volume-of-fluid (VOF) method was used to define the appropriate boundary conditions on a free surface [20]. The
VOF method calculates the volume of fluid within each computational cell. If a cell is empty, the value of F becomes equal
to zero, and if a cell is full, it receives a value of F = 1. If a cell contains the free surface, it got a value between 0 < F < 1, which
is correlated to the volume fraction of fluid to cell volume. The VOF equation for finding water surface profile is:
 
@F 1 @ @
þ ðFAx uÞ þ ðFAz wÞ ¼ 0: ð7Þ
@t V f @x @z

3.2. Turbulence model

The simplest model consists of a transport equation for the specific kinetic energy associated with turbulent velocity fluc-
tuations and a parameter that characterizes some other property of the turbulence. The choice of parameters is arbitrary,
provided it can be used with the kinetic energy to determine the length and time scales characterizing the turbulence. A
slightly more sophisticated and more widely used model consists of two transport equations for turbulent kinetic energy
k and its dissipation e; this is the so-called k  e model [23]. The k  e model provides reasonable approximations of many
types of flows, although it sometimes requires modification of its dimensionless parameters or even functional changes to
terms in the equations [24]. The turbulence kinetic energy (k) and its rate of dissipation (e) are obtained from the following
transport equations:
 
@k 1 @k @k
þ uAx þ uAz ¼ P þ Diff  e; ð8Þ
@t V f @x @z
 
@e 1 @e @e Pe e2
þ uAx þ uAz ¼ C 1e þ DDif  C 2e ; ð9Þ
@t V f @x @z k k
where P is shear production, Diff and DDif represent diffusion, and C1e and C2e are constant. In a standard k  e model,
C1e = 1.44 and C2e = 1.92 [22].
    
1 @ @K @ @K
Diff ¼ m k Ax þ mk Az ; ð10Þ
Vf @x @x @z @z
    
1 @ @e @ @e
DDif ¼ me Ax þ m e Az ; ð11Þ
Vf @x @x @z @z

where mk and me are diffusion coefficient of K and e respectively, which are computed based on the local value of the turbulent
viscosity.

4. Numerical model

In this study, a module of Flow-3DÒ (Version 9.4.1) flow solver, which utilizes finite difference scheme for structured
meshes, has been used to model the free surface flow in these tanks. Flow-3DÒ uses a simple grid of rectangular elements,
so it has the advantages of ease of generation, regularity for improved numerical accuracy; and it requires minimal memory
storage. Geometry is defined within the grid using the Fractional Area/Volume Obstacle Representation (FAVOR) method.
FAVOR computes the fractional face areas and fractional volumes of each element that are blocked by obstacles [21]. For each
cell, mean values of the flow parameters, such as pressure and velocity, are determined at discrete times. The new velocity in
each cell is calculated from the coupled momentum and continuity equation using previous time step values in each center
of the face of cells. The pressure term is gained and adjusted using the estimated velocity to satisfy the continuity equation.
 M. Shahrokhi et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735 3729

With the computed velocity and pressure for a later time, remaining variables are estimated involving turbulent transport,
density advection and diffusion, and wall function evaluation. Pressure and velocity levels are then associated implicitly
using time-advanced pressures in the momentum equations and time-advanced velocities in the mass (continuity) equation.
This semi-implicit formulation of the finite-difference equations prepares for the efficient solution of low speed and incom-
pressible flow problems. The semi-implicit formulation, however, results in coupled sets of equations that must be solved by
an iterative technique.
The boundary condition for the inflow (influent) was constant velocity, while that selected for the outlet (effluent) was
outflow condition. Out flow boundary conditions are applied to simulate flow exits where the characteristics of the flow such
as velocity and pressure are not known prior to solution of the flow governing equations. In this type of boundary condition
assumes a zero normal gradient for all flow variables except pressure. No slip conditions were applied at the rigid walls, and
these were treated as non-penetrative boundaries. A law-of-the-wall velocity profile was supposed near the wall, which
modifies the wall shear stress magnitude.

5. Verification test

Given that primary settling tanks have low concentration, flow-field is not greatly influenced by particle distribution. The
flow pattern and the path taken by suspended solids through the tank are closely linked to each other and to the settling tank
performance. Stamou et al. [2] concluded that the influence of the solid particle on the fluid phase could be ignored in a low
suspended solid (LSS) concentration (LSS < 200 mg/L). Consequently in this study, the flow is pure and without any particles.
Razmi et al. [9], also found that the best location of a single baffle is at the 12.5% of the tank length from the inlet slot. Thus, in
this study, the first baffle was fixed in the optimum location (d/L = 0.125) and with spoil the circulation zone behind the first
baffle, the position of the second and third baffle was achieved. The VOF method predict more accurate result in comparison
with fixed surface flow [25], so in present study the effect of VOF method was considered on the flow field.
The flow in sedimentation tanks is actually three dimensional, especially in the inlet section of the tank and this subject is
related to the position of the inlet and outlet of a tank as well as their opening sizes. In the current study, the inlet and outlet
spread out all over the width of the tank. Therefore, the three dimensional effects are limited to small area close to the wall,
which approximately can be ignored. In addition, some velocity profiles in y direction in different position were measured,
which are shown in Fig. 2. Clearly, there are no significant differences between these velocity profiles. Consequently, for sim-
plicity, the flow field can be represented as two-dimensional vertical plane models. Figs. 3 and 4 show the computed velocity
profiles in comparison with experimental measurements for the case with single baffle at proper position and a tank without
baffle. The numerical results show good agreement with experimental data, but some errors are observed near the bed sur-

Fig. 2. Experimental x-velocity profiles for different points in width of settling tank (a) x = 50 cm (b) x = 100 cm (c) x = 150 cm.
3730 M. Shahrokhi et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735

Table 1
Descriptions of different baffle position (d/L).

Case number Location of baffles

1st baffle 2nd baffle 3rd baffle
1 0.125 – –
2 0.125 0.256 –
3 0.125 0.300 –
4 0.125 0.388 –
5 0.125 0.519 –
6 0.125 0.256 0.300
7 0.125 0.256 0.388
8 0.125 0.256 0.519
9 0.125 0.300 0.388
10 0.125 0.300 0.519
11 0.125 0.388 0.519

Table 2
Circulation volume percentage in different location of the baffle.

Case number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Without baffle

Circulation volume (%) 32.3 30.9 30.6 30.0 30.4 30.0 29.2 29.5 28.6 29.4 29.1 37.1

Table 3
Kinetic energy k in x/L sections.

Case number x/L

0.4 0.6 0.8
1 1.72E04 1.19E04 9.1E05
2 1.72E04 1.26E04 9.8E05
3 1.57E04 1.15E04 9.4E05
4 1.55E04 1.14E04 9E05
5 1.86E04 1.21E04 9.8E05
6 1.51E04 1.13E04 8.9E05
7 1.55E04 1.19E04 9.6E05
8 1.60E04 1.09E04 8.9E05
9 1.45E04 1.08E04 8.7E05
10 1.58E04 1.09E04 8.9E05
11 1.66E04 1.17E04 9.6E05
No baffle 1.95E04 1.36E04 9.7E05

face, particularly in the regions near the inlet zone. The discrepancies between the result of the computational model and
experimental measurements are probably due to the differences of the flow patterns in the inlet section. Although there
is a uniform velocity profile in the numerical model, this condition differs from experimental tests.
Some numerical simulations were thus conducted with various numbers of cells to found the grid-independent solution
and at last a 69  288 grid with approximately 19872 cells was chosen for the computation modeling.

6. Results and discussion

The performance of different baffle arrangements with various numbers of baffles in the sedimentation tank was com-
pared using two methods: comparing the size of the circulation zone and the parameter of flow pattern, such as velocity
profiles and kinetic energy; and through the FTCs method, which gives some information about short-circuiting, degree
of mixing and hydraulic efficiency in the tanks.
The proper position for the baffle is obtained when the volume of the circulation zone is minimized. The motion of the jet
at the bed surface of the tank, non-uniformity of the velocity field and the short-circuiting at the surface because of the cir-
culation zone in the sedimentation layer and consequently, water flow may exit the tank without any settling process. The
lower size of circulation zone leads to create uniform flow field in the settling tank.
Circulations zones may also induce high turbulence intensity in some certain regions. This condition not only reduces the
possibility of particle deposition, but may also cause resuspension problems. Therefore, Minimization of the circulation zone
is essential to find the suitable location of the baffle and consequently improve sedimentation process.
 M. Shahrokhi et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735 3731

6.1. Proper position of the two and three baffles

The high performance of the settling tank is obtained when the volume of the circulation zone is minimized or when the
dead zone is divided into smaller parts. For that reason, the best sitting of the baffles may lead to a more uniform distribution
of velocity in the tank and minimizes the dead zones. The location of baffles affects the size of circulation zones and unsuit-
able placement of baffles may give the worse results.
Different cases of baffles positions were modeled in this study (Table 1). Computed values of circulation volume, which
have been normalized by the total volume of water in the tank, are shown in Table 2. Using the baffles in settling tanks can
decrease the volume of the circulation zone. In addition, if the number of baffles increases, the volume of dead zone would
decrease in comparison with the case of that without baffle. However, the position of baffles is more important. It is shown
that position of two baffles at d/L = 0.125 and 0.388 and three baffles at d/L = 0.125, 0.3, and 0.388 gave the best performance
because they have the lowest amounts of circulation volume between the related cases (Table 2).
Another important parameter in the settling tank is the kinetic energy, and it has a great importance in the sedimentation
of particles. At the same time, the baffles must be used in the sedimentation tanks to reduce kinetic energy and reach the
uniform fluid condition. The variations of the velocity magnitude and turbulence intensity will reduce if the flow pattern
approach to uniform flow field in the sedimentation tanks. In this situation, suspended particles have more chances to re-
move with a constant velocity in short period of time.
Table 3 shows the amount of the kinetic energy for the different case. As can be seen, between the cases with two baffles,
case 4 has the minimum kinetic energy in the different position (x/L = 0.4, 0.6, 0.8); then, in between the cases 6–11, where
the three baffles were positioned in the settling tanks, case 9 seemed to have the lowest kinetic energy magnitude. Hence,
increasing the number of baffles resulted in lower circulation region and kinetic energy, thereby improving the efficiency of
the settling tanks will improve. However it is not possible to use more baffles and the numbers of baffles should be selected
carefully. As mentioned before the location of second and third baffle were obtained with spoil of the circulation zone behind
the first baffle. In addition, baffles implementation increase the cost and can shut down a running plant for a significant time.
Hence, it is necessary to investigate the best location of the baffles in settling tank. Moreover from a design point of view, a
very large number of baffles are infeasible.

Fig. 3. x-Velocity component for baffle height (Hb/H = 0.18) (a) no baffle (b) case (1).

Fig. 4. z-Velocity component for baffle height (Hb/H = 0.18) (a) no baffle (b) case (1).
3732 M. Shahrokhi et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735

6.2. Flow field in the sedimentation tanks

Comparison between the normalized volumes of the dead zones for the case of no baffle with cases 1, 4, and 9 indicates
that the sizes of the circulation regions decreased by 4.8%, 7.1% and 8.5%, respectively. In other words, the second or third
baffle spoiled the dead zone of the first baffle, thereby affecting on the size of the sedimentation area in the settling tank.
Meanwhile, the velocity profiles and vectors in a no-baffle tank and the tank with one, two and three baffles at the opti-
mum position are shown in Figs. 3–7. The comparison between these four profiles and vectors show that the velocity after
last baffles were installed from bottom to half of the tank’s height is smaller than that in the tank where no baffle was used.
This means that the uniform and calm velocity condition for case 9 is the best, and that case 4 is better than case 1 and that
with no baffle. In other words, case 9 can produce the suitable area and condition for settlement of the particles due to the
smallest area of the circulation zone, minimum magnitude of the kinetic energy and lowest amount of velocity vector after
the baffles position.
Computed streamlines for the cases 1, 4, 9 and no baffle are shown in Figs. 8(a)–(d). In the case of no baffle, a large cir-
culation zone existed in the surface of the settling tank with length of about 130 cm, which occupied 37.1% of the total vol-
ume of the tank. Two circulation zones are shown for cases 1, 4 and 9 in Figs. 8 with lengths of about 130, 129 and 128 cm,
respectively, which spoiled 32.3%, 30.0% and 28.6% of the total volume of the tank, respectively. This means that increasing
the number of baffle reduces the size of circulation region and consequently improves the sedimentation process. In other
words, adding the number of baffle in the proper position leads to diminishing the height of the circulation zones after the
added baffle.
Next, the computed contours of kinetic energy for cases 1, 4, 9 and no baffle are shown in Figs. 9(a)–(d). The maximum
magnitude of kinetic energy for the case of no baffle is near the surface of the bottom with the length about 140 cm from the
inlet of the tank. Thus, in this case the amount and position of maximum kinetic energy may lead to re-suspension of the
already settled particles. A comparison between the contour of kinetic energy for the cases 1, 4 and 9 illustrates that increas-
ing the number of baffle can decrease the area occupied by the high value of kinetic energy and produce the better area for
sedimentation process. The length related to the maximum kinetic energy is continued to 120, 110 and 106 cm from the inlet
for cases 1, 4 and 9, respectively.

Fig. 5. x-Velocity component for baffle height (Hb/H = 0.18) (a) case (4) (b) case (9).

Fig. 6. z-Velocity component for baffle height (Hb/H = 0.18) (a) case (4) (b) case (9).
 M. Shahrokhi et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735 3733

Fig. 7. Computed velocity vectors for a baffle height (Hb/H = 0.18) (a) no baffle (b) case (1) (c) case (4) (d) case (9).

Fig. 8. Computed streamlines for baffle height (Hb/H = 0.18) (a) no baffle (b) case (1) (c) case (4) (d) case (9).

6.3. Flow Through Curves and hydraulic efficiency

One method used in determining the efficiency of settling tanks is FTCs. This method is simple and gives some informa-
tion about short-circuiting and degree of mixing in the tank. We use the FTCs method just for comparing the hydraulic effi-
ciency between the cases 1, 4, 9 and no baffle. In this method, dye is injected at the inlet of the tank, and the concentration is
measured at the outlet. The time for injection is about 10% of theoretical detention time (TTH = V/QD, where QD = flow rate of
the tank and V = volume of the tank). The concentration is plotted versus time. For a better comparison, the concentration
and time axes is non-dimensioned by CO, which is mean concentration of the tank and is determined by dividing the total
mass of injected dye (Min) by the volume of the tank (V), and TTH, respectively.
For determining different hydraulic characteristics and performance of the tank with FTCs method, the related parame-
ters are mentioned below.
Here, t0 and t10 are two parameters used to specify the short-circuiting problem in the tank. Therefore, the higher values
of these two parameters mean less possibility of short-circuiting. Indices are percentage of dye that passed the outlet.
The parameters for investigation of mixing degree in the tank are t75–t25, t90–t10, and t90/t10. When the values of these
parameters are higher, it means that flow is highly mixed in the tank.
Meanwhile, t50 and tmax are parameters for predicting the efficiency of the tank. The higher values of these parameters
lead to higher performance.
The FTCs diagram for cases 1, 4, 9 and no baffle are shown in Figs. 10. Different values of FTCs method are listed in Table 4.
It can be seen that cases 4 and 9 have higher values of t0 and t10, which means that short-circuiting is lower for these cases.
The values of t75–t25, t90–t10, and t90/t10 illustrate the degree of flow mixing in these two cases are lower than the other cases.
3734 M. Shahrokhi et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735

Fig. 9. Computed contour of kinetic energy for baffle height (Hb/H = 0.18) (a) no baffle (b) case (1) (c) case (4), (d) case (9).

Fig. 10. FTC diagram for no baffle and optimum cases of baffles (Hb/H = 0.18).

Table 4
Important data from FTC diagrams.

Case t0 t10 t50 tmax t75–t25 t90–t10 t90/t10

1 0.493 0.535 0.612 0.593 0.203 0.693 2.295
4 0.507 0.549 0.626 0.607 0.198 0.691 2.259
9 0.520 0.562 0.641 0.620 0.194 0.687 2.222
No baffle 0.487 0.529 0.610 0.587 0.198 0.690 2.261

As previously mentioned, t50 and tmax are indicators of efficiency so if they are high the hydraulic efficiency will be also
high. Hence, it is clear that cases 9 and 4 have high hydraulic efficiency.
Consequently, the degree of formation the short-circuiting and flow mixing are the lowest values for case 9, and thus, the
performance of sedimentation process in this case is highest.

7. Conclusion

Sedimentation tanks comprise one of the most important components of any water and wastewater treatment plants.
Thus, it is crucial for the sedimentation tank to operate at its full potential. Overdesign due to a lack of knowledge of
 M. Shahrokhi et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 36 (2012) 3725–3735 3735

hydraulics in sedimentation tank is common, leading to unnecessary capital and operating expenditure as well as water
wastage in the form of excessive sludge. Improper and inadequate design cause overloading of filters, and lead to frequent
backwashing, which in turn waste a significant percentage of treated water.
It is required that uniform flow field be created in the tank in such a way that the settling process is carried out in best
way. However, the creation of the circulation zone disturbs the uniformity of the flow and leaves negative effects on the effi-
ciency of the tank.
In this study, the experimental and numerical approaches were performed to investigate the effects the baffles number on
the flow field. Laboratory tests were conducted to find the effect of the baffles number on the velocity profiles by ADV. In
addition results of experimental tests used to verify numerical model results. Then, using CFD and VOF method, the optimal
location of the baffles number were found. For comparison of the efficiency of different models the FTCs method was used.
The results show that the more the baffles number the larger the suppression of the horizontal velocities and more
chances the suspended particles deposition. In other words, addition of new baffles in suitable locations reduces the size
of the circulation zone, kinetic energy and maximum velocity magnitude and create uniform velocity vector inside the set-
tling zone. Finally, the results of the FTCs method for several cases indicated that using number of baffles lead to increasing
the performance of the sedimentation tanks.

Acknowledgements

The authors of this paper are grateful to all who provided useful assistance. We especially offer our gratitude to the
Hydraulic and Hydrology Laboratory at the School of Civil Engineering, and to the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) who sup-
ported this research. We also express our thanks to the respected reviewers of the paper for their valuable comments.

References

[1] Metcalf, Eddy, Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003.
[2] A.L. Stamou, E.W. Adams, W. Rodi, Numerical modeling of flow and settling in primary rectangular clarifiers, J. Hydraul. Res. 27 (1989) 665–682.
[3] P. Larsen, S. Gotthardson, Om sedimenteringsgassangers hydraulic, in, Bulletin Erie A. Nr. Inst. for Tekniks Vattenresurslare Lund, Sweden (in Swedish),
1977.
[4] D.R. Schamber, B.E. Larock, Numerical analysis of flow in sedimentation basins hydraulic division, ASCE 107 (1981) 575–591.
[5] E. Imam, J.A. McCorquodale, J.K. Bewtra, Numerical modeling of sedimentation tanks, J. Hydraulic Eng., ASCE 109 (1983) 1740–1754.
[6] S.M. Abdel-Gawad, J.A. McCorquodale, Strip integral method applied to settling tanks hydraulic engineering, ASCE 110 (1984) 1–17.
[7] I. Celik, W. Rodi, A. Stamou, Prediction of hydrodynamic characteristics of rectangular settling tanks, in: Proceeding international Symposium of
Refined Flow Modeling and Turbulent Measurements, Iowa City; IA (USA), 1985, pp. 641–651.
[8] R. Kahane, T. Nguyen, M.P. Schwarz, CFD modelling of thickeners at Worsley Alumina Pty Ltd, Appl. Math. Model. 26 (2002) 281–296.
[9] A.M. Razmi, B. Firoozabadi, G. Ahmadi, Experimental and numerical approach to enlargement of performance of primary settling tanks, J. Appl. Fluid
Mech. 2 (2008) 1–13.
[10] R.F. Wills, C. Davis, Flow Patterns in a Rectangular Sewage Sedimentation Tank, in: 1st International Conference on Water Pollution research, 1962.
[11] U. Bretscher, P. Krebs, W.H. Hager, Improvement of flow in final settling tanks, J. Environ. Eng., ASCE 118 (1992) 307–321.
[12] S. Zhou, J. McCorquodale, Z. Vitasovic, Influences of density on circular clarifiers with baffles, J. Environ. Eng. ASCE 118 (1992) 829–847.
[13] D.L. Huggins, R.H. Piedrahita, T. Rumsey, Analysis of sediment transport modeling using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for aquaculture raceways,
Aquacult. Eng. 31 (2005) 277–293.
[14] A.M. Goula, M. Kostoglou, T.D. Karapantsios, A.I. Zouboulis, A CFD methodology for the design of sedimentation tanks in potable water treatment case
study: the influence of a feed flow control baffle, Chem. Eng. J 140 (2007) 110–121.
[15] A. Tamayol, B. Firoozabadi, G. Ahmadi, Effects of inlet position and baffle configuration on hydraulic performance of primary settling tanks, J. Hydraulic
Eng. ASCE 134 (2008) 1004–1009.
[16] B. Liu, J. Ma, L. Luo, Y. Bai, S. Wang, J. Zhang, Two-dimensional LDV measurement, modeling, and optimal design of rectangular primary settling tanks, J.
Environ. Eng. ASCE 136 (2010) 501–507.
[17] M.A. Sammarraee, A. Chan, Large-eddy simulations of particle sedimentation in a longitudinal sedimentation basin of a water treatment plant. Part 2:
The effects of baffles, Chem. Eng. J. 152 (2009) 315–321.
[18] Nortek, Nortek Vectorino Velocimeter-User Guide, in, 2004.
[19] H. Chanson, S. Aoki, M. Maruyama, Unsteady two-dimensional Orifice flow: an Experimental Study, in, Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan,
2000.
[20] C.W. Hirt, B.D. Nichols, Volume of fluid (VOF) method for the dynamics of free boundaries, J. Comp. Phys 39 (1981) 201–225.
[21] C.W. Hirt, J.M. Sicilian, A Porosity Technique for the Definition of Obstacles in Rectangular Cell Meshes, in: Fourth International Conf. Ship Hydro.,
National Academy of Science, Washington, DC, 1985, pp. 1–19.
[22] FlowScience, Flow-3D user manual, in, Santa Fe, NM, USA, 2009.
[23] F.H. Harlow, P.I. Nakayama, Turbulence transport equations, Phys. Fluids 10 (1967) 2323–2333.
[24] I. Svendsen, J. Kirby, Numerical study of a turbulent hydraulic jump, in: 17th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, University of Delaware,
Newmark, DE, 2004.
[25] F. Rostami, M. Shahrokhi, M.A. Md Said, R. Abdullah, Syafalni, Numerical modeling on inlet aperture effects on flow pattern in primary settling tanks,
Appl. Math. Model. 35 (2011) 3012–3020.