Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
ScienceDirect
Journal of Hydro-environment Research 12 (2016) 91104
www.elsevier.com/locate/jher
Research papers
Abstract
Low-cost household technologies, as horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands, are important to address water and sanitation needs in
the Asia-Pacific region in a more integrated and sustainable manner, and a better understanding of these technologies would benefit their
engineering design. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations of a modified constructed wetland system (EvaTAC) were undertaken to
determine empirical effects of geometric and flow parameters on the hydraulic performance and the effluent pollutant fraction. The CFD model
was validated by comparing the computed residence time distribution (RTD) with experimental results. RTD functions were then used to quantify
hydraulic indexes: short-circuiting, mixing, and moment. The EvaTAC is composed of an evapotranspiration and treatment chamber (CEvaT) and
a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland (HSSF-CW). For the CEvaT, length and the interaction between length and flow rate were the
most important factors for the hydraulic efficiency. For the effluent pollutant fraction, the most important factor was flow rate. For the HSSF-CW,
the strongest influence on the hydraulic efficiency was the length. Baffles and the interaction between length and baffles also had significant
statistical influence on the hydraulic efficiency. Furthermore, the results showed that flow rate, length, and the interaction between flow rate and
length influenced the effluent pollutant fraction significantly. Finally, a poor correlation between hydraulic indexes and effluent pollutant fraction
was obtained, indicating that the hydraulic indexes are not good predictors of the effluent pollutant fraction.
2016 International Association for Hydro-environment Engineering and Research, Asia Pacific Division. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Residence time distribution (RTD); Hydraulic efficiency; Constructed wetland; Tracer test; Evapotranspiration and treatment chamber (CEvaT);
Flow rate
1. Introduction
Improving global access to clean drinking water and safe
sanitation is one of the least expensive and most effective
means to improve public health and save lives. The developed
countries, where water and sanitation services are nearly universal, significantly reduced water-, sanitation-, and hygienerelated diseases by the start of the 20th century by installing
water and sanitation systems. However, in developing regions,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2016.04.002
1570-6443/ 2016 International Association for Hydro-environment Engineering and Research, Asia Pacific Division. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.
92
Nomenclature
C
C2
C()
D
d
E()
k
M
M0
M1
M2
MDI
MI
p
Q
RTD
Si
t
t10
t90
V
X
x
10
V
Q
(1)
93
Kadlec, 2000). RTD can be obtained by an instantaneous injection of a known quantity of tracer mass, M, at the inlet section
of the wetland and the subsequent measuring of the tracer
concentration, C, with time, t, at its outlet section. In order to
allow direct comparison of measured RTDs having dissimilar
conditions (e.g. different volumes and flow rates, mass tracer),
they are usually normalized (Wahl et al., 2010). The dimensionless RTD function, C(), and the dimensionless time, , can be
defined, respectively, as:
C ( ) =
C ( ) Q
= E ( )
M
(2)
(3)
M0 =
M1 =
M2 =
C ( ) d
(4)
C ( ) d
(5)
( M1 ) C ( ) d
2
(6)
94
Fig. 1. Geometry configurations of the bench scale models used for validation: (a) Evapotranspiration and Treatment Chamber (CEvaT) and (b) Horizontal
Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland (HSSF-CW).
MI = 1
(1 )C ( ) d
(7)
The moment index assumes that residence times of a completely efficient wetland will meet or exceed the nominal residence time. The portion of tracer exiting the wetland prior to the
nominal residence time adversely impacts hydraulic efficiency
being considered inefficient with more weight assigned to the
more severely premature residence times. If the bulk of tracer
exiting has a close proximity to the nominal residence time,
then hydraulic efficiency is high. As more tracer exits earlier,
hydraulic efficiency is low.
ui
=0
xi
(8)
u j ui
1 p
2 ui
=
+
+ Si
x j
xi
x j x j
(9)
95
Fig. 2. Computational grid for the Evapotranspiration and Treatment Chamber (CEvaT): (a) main computational domain; (b) close-up view of the Anaerobic
Chamber (AnC) near the inlet.
1
Si = ui + C2 u ui
(10)
d602
3
150 (1 )2
(11)
3.5 1
d60 3
(12)
C2 =
C
C C C
+U j
=
D
t
x j xi x j
(13)
96
Table 1
Design matrix of the 22 factorial experimental design, levels of independent variables (L and Q) and observed responses (10, M2, Mo, MI, and X) for the
evapotranspiration and treatment chamber (CEvaT).
Experiment
Length
L (m)
Flow rate
Q (L/min)
Short-circuit
indicator
10
Variance
index
M2
Morril
index
MDI
Moment
index
MI
Effluent pollutant
fraction
X*
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
2
7
30
7
30
0.25
0.25
0.23
0.24
0.56
0.62
0.65
0.58
7.91
8.02
9.04
8.28
0.72
0.71
0.70
0.71
0.91
0.98
0.83
0.96
X = ekt
(14)
Fig. 3. Geometries of the Evapotranspiration and Treatment Chamber (CEvaT) 22 factorial experimental design with the triangular Anaerobic Chamber (AnC).
(a) L = 1 m and (b) L = 2 m.
Table 2
Design matrix of the 23 factorial experimental design, levels of independent variables (L, Q, and baffles) and observed responses (10, M2, Mo, MI, and X) for the
horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland (HSSF-CW).
Experiment
Length
L (m)
Flow rate
Q (L/min)
Baffles
Short-circuit
indicator
10
Variance
index
M2
Morril
index
MDI
Moment
index
MI
Effluent pollutant
fraction
X*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
7
30
7
30
7
30
7
30
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
0.54
0.59
0.60
0.62
0.66
0.74
0.70
0.68
0.21
0.21
0.11
0.12
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.07
2.95
2.72
2.37
2.35
2.13
1.86
1.87
1.97
0.82
0.82
0.86
0.85
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.88
0.94
0.99
0.94
0.99
0.89
0.97
0.89
0.97
97
Fig. 4. Geometries of the Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland (HSSF-CW) 23 factorial experimental design. (a) L = 2 m, without baffles; (b) L = 2 m,
with baffles.
X=
E (t ) ekt dt
(15)
where E(t) is the RTD. All other simulation parameters were the
same as those in Section 2.2.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Validation of the computational model
For the HSSF-CW, there is a good agreement between
experimental and computational RTDs (Fig. 5). The data show
that the maximum difference between numerical and experimental results was in general within experimental uncertainty.
For the CEvaT, there is a satisfactory agreement between the
two curves (Fig. 5). At the first part of the curve (ascending
part), the peak of the CFD simulation is higher and lags behind
the experimental results. At the second part of the curve
(descending part), the two curves almost coincide and have an
exponential shape.
3.2. CEvaT
Fig. 6 presents the dimensionless velocity magnitude and
streamlines for the different CEvaT configurations. The velocities are normalized with inlet velocities. It can be seen that the
inlet jet travels through the bottom of the triangle with high
velocity. The areas of recirculation, which occurs once the jet
hits the back of the AnC, dissipates the energy of the jet. Once
in the porous medium, lower velocities are found, and the fluid
moves up and toward the outlet. Though the order of magnitude
is greater for the system with peak flow, the behavior of the
velocity remains consistent. Note that the flow structure may
not be fully captured if a 2D model is considered.
In order to enhance our understanding of the CEvaT hydrodynamics discussed above, hydraulic indexes are calculated
to benchmark the CEvaTs across a spectrum of flow rates and
lengths (see Table 1). Table 3 shows the main effects of Q
and L and their interactions on 10, M2, MDI, and MI. It can be
noted that 10 remains almost unchanged to changes in Q and
decreases slightly (from 0.25 to 0.23) as L increases from 1 to
2 m. The interaction Q and L on 10 is low and equal to 0.007.
The sequence of the main and interaction effects with respect
to 10 is found to be L > Q > LQ. The values of 10 are low
Fig. 5. Comparison of the simulated (solid line) nondimensional concentration C() along nondimensional time () with the experimental data (solid line). (a)
Evapotranspiration and Treatment Chamber (CEvaT) and (b) Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland (HSSF-CW). Horizontal and vertical bars represent
the experimental uncertainty.
98
Fig. 6. Isocontours and streamlines of dimensionless velocities, V/Vinlet, for the Evapotranspiration and Treatment Chamber (CEvaT) (see Table 1): (a) Experiment
1; (b) Experiment 2; (c) Experiment 3; (d) Experiment 4.
Table 3
Average and main effects of Q and L and their higher order interactions of the 22 factorial design on the 10, M2, MDI, and Moment index for the evapotranspiration
and treatment chamber (CEvaT).
Effect
Average effect
Main effects
Flow rate Q
Length L
Two-factor interactions
QL
Short-circuit
indicator
10
Variance
index
M2
Morril
index
MDI
Moment
index
MI
Effluent pollutant
fraction
X*
0.240
0.600
8.310
0.710
0.920
+0.008
0.018
0.003
+0.027
0.327
+0.700
+0.005
0.007
+0.098
0.051
+0.007
0.062
0.433
+0.008
+0.029
99
Fig. 7. Pareto chart of the effects of the 22 factorial design on the (a) 10, (b) M2, (c) MDI, (d) MI and (e) X for the Evapotranspiration and Treatment Chambers
(CEvaTs). The vertical line in the chart indicates the minimum statistically significant effect magnitude for a 95% confidence level.
Fig. 8. Hydraulic indices versus effluent pollutant fraction, X, for the Evapotranspiration and Treatment Chambers (CEvaTs). () MI; () M2; () 10.
100
important for wetland treatment efficiency. Since the parameters that influence the hydraulic behavior vary from those that
influence the fraction of pollutant X, we infer that the hydraulic
indexes do not demonstrate good correlation to X. This result
may be true only for our design rather than a generic feature of
a horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands.
3.3. HSSF-CW
Fig. 9 presents isocontours of the dimensionless velocity
magnitude and streamlines for the various configurations of
the HSSF-CW. Again, the velocities are normalized with inlet
Fig. 9. Isocontours and streamlines of dimensionless velocities, V/Vinlet, for the Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetland (HSSF-CW) (see Table 2): (a)
Experiment 1; (b) Experiment 2; (c) Experiment 3; (d) Experiment 4; (e) Experiment 5; (f) Experiment 6; (g) Experiment 7; (h) Experiment 8.
101
Table 4
Average and main effects of Q, L, and baffles, and their higher order interactions of the 23 factorial design on the 10, M2, MDI, and Moment index for the horizontal
subsurface flow constructed wetland (HSSF-CW).
Effect
Average effect
Main effects
Flow rate Q
Length L
Baffles
Two-factor interactions
QL
Q Baffles
L Baffles
Three-factor interactions
Q L Baffles
Short-circuit
indicator
10
Variance
index
M2
Morril
index
MDI
Moment
index
MI
Effluent pollutant
fraction
X*
0.64
0.12
2.27
0.86
0.95
+0.033
+0.108
+0.018
+0.000
0.086
0.059
0.105
0.640
0.275
+0.001
+0.048
+0.018
+0.062
0.033
+0.001
0.003
0.033
0.028
0.004
+0.009
+0.039
+0.020
+0.145
+0.200
+0.004
0.009
0.015
+0.019
0.000
+0.001
0.018
+0.006
+0.040
0.007
0.000
HSSF-CWs with baffles, after entering into the system, the flow
follows a plug flow path parallel to the baffles and finally
exits via the outlet pipe. In spite of the higher velocities, the
short-circuiting time is higher (in comparison to the system
without baffles) because of the longer flow path. In the corners,
velocity is low. As the HSSF-CW without baffles, the shortcircuiting time in the HSSF-CW with baffles increases with the
increase of the length because the flow path is longer. Again, the
flow structure may be considered as mainly 2D.
In the same way as the CEvaT, we analyzed the hydrodynamic performance of the HSSF-CW via the study of hydraulic
indexes discussed previously (see Table 2). Table 4 shows the
main effects of Q and L and their interactions on 10, M2, MDI,
and MI for the HSSF-CW.
Fig. 10. Pareto chart of the 23 factorial design on the (a) 10, (b) M2, (c) MDI, (d) MI and (e) X for the Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands
(HSSF-CWs). The vertical line in the chart indicates the minimum statistically significant effect magnitude for a 95% confidence level.
102
Fig. 11. Hydraulic indices versus effluent pollutant fraction, X, for the Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands (HSSF-CWs). () MI; () M2;
() 10.
103
Bartram, J., Lewis, K., Lenton, R., Wright, A., 2005. Focusing on improved
water and sanitation for health. Lancet 365 (9461), 810812.
Berthouex, P.M., Brown, L.C., 2002. Statistics for Environmental Engineers,
second ed. Lewis Publishers/CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p. 489.
Celik, I., Ghia, U., Roache, P.J., Freitas, C.J., Coleman, H., Raad, P.E., 2008.
Procedure for estimation and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization
in CFD applications. J. Fluids Eng. 130 (7), 14.
Chazarenc, F., Merlin, G., Gonthier, Y., 2003. Hydrodynamics of horizontal
subsurface flow constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 21, 165173.
Choffnes, E.R., Mack, A., 2009. Global Issues in Water, Sanitation, and Health:
Workshop Summary. The National Academies Press. 328 pp.
Fan, L., Hai, R., Wang, W., Lu, Z., Yang, Z., 2008. Application of computational
fluid dynamic to model the hydraulic performance of subsurface flow
wetlands. J. Environ. Sci. 20, 14151422.
Garca, J., Chiva, J., Aguirre, P., lvarez, E., 2004. Hydraulic behaviour of
horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands with different aspect ratio
and granular medium size. Ecol. Eng. 23, 177187.
Haberl, R., Grego, S., Langergraber, G., Kadlec, R.H., Cicalini, A.R., Dias,
S.M., et al., 2003. Constructed wetlands for the treatment of organic
pollutants. J. Soils Sediments 3 (2), 109124.
Headley, T.R., Kadlec, R.H., 2007. Conducting hydraulic tracer studies of
constructed wetlands: a practical guide. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 7 (34),
269282.
Holland, J.F., Martin, J.F., Granata, T., Bouchard, V., Quigley, M., Brown, L.,
2004. Effects of wetland depth and flow rate on residence time distribution
characteristics. Ecol. Eng. 23 (3), 189203.
Kadlec, R.H., Knight, R.L., 1996. Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL. 893 pp.
Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S.D., 2009. Treatment Wetlands, second ed. New York,
New York.
King, A.C., Mitchell, C.A., Howes, T., 1997. Hydraulic tracer studies in a pilot
scale subsurface flow constructed wetland. Water Sci. Technol. 35, 189196.
Konnerup, D., Koottatep, T., Brix, H., 2009. Treatment of domestic wastewater
in tropical, subsurface flow constructed wetlands planted with Canna and
Heliconia. Ecol. Eng. 35, 248257.
Mesquita, M.C., Albuquerque, A., Amaral, L., Nogueira, R., 2013. Effect of
vegetation on the performance of horizontal subsurface flow constructed
wetlands with lightweight expanded clay aggregates. Int. J. Environ. Sci.
Technol. (Tehran) 10, 433442.
Paulo, P.L., Begosso, L., Pansonato, N., Shrestha, R.R., Boncz, M.A., 2009.
Design and configuration criteria for wetland systems treating grey water.
Water Sci. Technol. 60 (8), 20012007.
Persson, J., Somes, N., Wong, T., 1999. Hydraulics efficiency of constructed
wetlands and ponds. Water Sci. Technol. 40 (3), 291300.
Prss-stn, A., Bos, R., Gore, F., Bartram, J., 2008. Safer Water, Better
Health: Costs, Benefits and Sustainability of Interventions to Protect and
Promote Health. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Rengers, E.E., 2014. Otimizao da eficincia hidrulica de um sistema tipo
wetland construdo usando cfd. Dissertation (Unpublished masters
dissertation). Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande,
Brazil (in Portuguese).
Rizzo, A., Langergraber, G., Galvo, A., Boano, F., Revelli, R., Ridolfi, L.,
2014. Modelling the response of laboratory horizontal flow constructed
wetlands to unsteady organic loads with HYDRUS-CWM1. Ecol. Eng. 68,
209213.
Samso, R., Garcia, J., 2013. BIO PORE, a mathematical model to simulate
biofilm growth and water quality improvement in porous media: application
and calibration for constructed wetlands. Ecol. Eng. 54, 116127.
Seeger, E.M., Maier, U., Grathwohl, P., Kuschk, P., Kaestner, M., 2012.
Performance evaluation of different horizontal subsurface flow wetland
types by characterization of flow behavior, mass removal and
depth-dependent contaminant load. Water Res. 47 (2), 769780.
Silva, J.B., Magalhes Filho, F.J.C., Menezes, C.S., Paulo, P.L., 2014.
Hidrodinmica no Desenvolvimento de Ecotecnologia para o Tratamento
de guas Cinza. In: Org: Silva, G.F., Leite, N.A., 4 workshop rede de
pesquisa: Uso racional de gua e eficincia energtica em habitaes de
interesse social. Editora da Universidade Federal de Sergipe cap. 9, pp.
203220 (in Portuguese).
104
United Nations Publication, 2014. Statistical Yearbook for Asia and the Pacific.
United Nations.
Van der Walt, J.J., Haarhoff, J., 2000. Is a reservoir really that simple? A CFD
investigation into the internal hydraulics of reservoirs. In: Proceedings
WISA 2000 Conference. Sun City, South Africa.
Vymazal, J., Krpfelov, L., 2009. Removal of organics in constructed wetlands
with horizontal sub-surface flow: a review of the field experience. Sci. Total
Environ. 407, 39113922.
Wahl, M.D., Brown, L.C., Soboyejo, A.O., Martin, J., Dong, B., 2010.
Quantifying the hydraulic performance of treatment wetlands using the
moment index. Ecol. Eng. 36, 16911699.
Werner, T.M., Kadlec, R.H., 2000. Wetland residence time distribution
modeling. Ecol. Eng. 15 (12), 7790.