Experimental Method for Retrofit Designs

One of the contributing factors to air entrainment at the beginning of the water treatment process in AguaClara plants is the waterfall effect inside the LFOM. This effect is composed of two basic entrainment mechanisms: 1)*still editting** To minimize this waterfall effect the following retrofit design options were calculated and tested in lab:
1) Pipe Inside LFOM: A pipe of a small diameter would be placed within LFOM with about a few inches of separation between the outer surface are of the pipe and the inner surface area of the LFOM.
2) Vertical/Inclined Plane: A verticle or inclined plane would be placed within the LFOM that would prevent the water jets from hitting the surface of the water directly.
3) Bucket with Holes: A bucket would be placed inside of the LFOM that would catch the water jets and slow down the inflow of water by using an orifice.
4) Bucket with out Holes: Rather than have an orifice slow down the flow of water in the LFOM the bucket would be over flooded so that the water dribbles down the side of the bucket.

See the retrofit designs page for visuals of each option.

In addition to these designs, we also tested for the three limiting parameters of foam formation from water jets:

Figure: setup testing parameters for foam formation

For this experiment, dial soap mixed in water, pump, flow accumulator, water tank and water container were used in order to create water jets.

Three parameters were investigated to study foam formation,
        1) Average velocity of jets

        2) Type of surface

        3) Length the water travels down the incline plane

The velocity of the jets was increased by increasing the number of pump (heads?) used during the experiment. In the first run, the jets fall onto the accumulated water on the tank, then a plane was used to catch the water jets upon falling to the tank. The plane was placed at different distance and angle to observe the change in bubble formation.  

Calculations
As a team, we worked in MathCAD to calculate the distance that the jets of water coming into the LFOM would travel inside the LFOM. If we had discovered that a bucket inserted into the LFOM below the orifices can could catch the jets before they hit the water, the bucket theory will would be a viable option. We determined that all but the top three jets of water would in fact hit the far wall of the LFOM before reaching any size bucket that we could place in the LFOM. Also, we used MathCAD to determine the size of the orifice needed in the bottom of the bucket to maintain the plant flow rate. We determined that the orifice would have to have a 4.5cm radius, which was far too large for our buckets. The MathCAD calculations eliminated both the teacup theory (what is the teacup theory?) and the variation on that theory as possible solutions. The MathCAD files are attached.
(Please document equations used and summarize results obtained on the wiki as well)
Jet Distance Calcs 7-13-09.xmcd
CDC_Retrofit_Designs.xmcd

After eliminating both bucket theories, we decided that testing the last two designs in a lab would not be difficult and would give more realistic, tangible results than our calculations. (You need to put this as a separate page and list separate experiments on different pages)

Testing

We used the pilot plant to test our retrofit design in an environment that replicated the actual plants as closely as possible. We set the flow rate of the pilot plant at about 150L/min, which, coupled with the 7.5cm-diameter LFOM, would be roughly comparable to the 400L/min, 15cm diameter LFOM in the plant at Cuatro Comunidades. (You need to compare it to the sizes in AguaClara plants as well as parameters in AguaClara plants)

The first design we tested was the vertical/inclined plane. We used a 5cm-wide, 60cm-long steel plate to test the effectiveness of this plan to reduce water aeration. We were looking at the amount of bubbles formed under the LFOM to determine results, and documented them photographically.

Next, we used various-sized pipes inserted within the LFOM to test the "pipe within the LFOM" theory. First, we tested a 3cm-diameter pipe by inserting it vertically into the 7.5cm-inner diameter LFOM. Second, we tested a 5cm pipe, and noticed that it produced a reduction of bubbles. After leaving the 5cm pipe in the LFOM for 5 minutes to ensure no overflow, we moved to test the 6cm pipe. This pipe also showed signs of reducing the amount of bubbles, so we left it in for 5 minutes as well to determine if it would overflow, which it eventually did.

Results and Discussion

Vertical/Incline Planes

Unfortunately, we determined visually that there was very little, if any, change in the amount of bubbles formed before and after inserting the steel plate into the LFOM. Even at various angles of inclination, the amount of bubbles formed was the same. We believe it was ineffective for two reasons. First, the spread of orifices wraps around the pipe far enough that the jets of water at the edge do not touch the steel plate. Second, the water jets are flowing fast enough that the water simply ricochets off the steel plate, instead of running down the plate as intended. See the gallery of photos below for photos illustrating our results.

"Pipe within the LFOM"

With our initial test of the 3cm pipe, there was no noticeable change in the amount of bubbles formed under the LFOM. For the 5cm-diameter pipe we found a drastic reduction in the amount of bubbles formed under the LFOM. Keeping the pipe in for 5 minutes showed no signs of overflowing the LFOM or even raising the water level, so we can assume that 5cm is a possible solution. Finally, we tested a 6cm pipe for 5 minutes in the LFOM. We noticed that the water level outside the LFOM rose slowly throughout the 5 minutes until the water flowed over the top of the LFOM. This clearly meant that the 6cm pipe was too big, and was causing a backup of water within the LFOM. (When explaining these results, how are these helpful to the dimensions in an AguaClara plant at 6". If they are helpful, talk about how you would scale this.)

We were able to document results for each variation of the designs visually with photographs and short movies on cameras.

Testing for Three Limiting Parameters of Foam Formation from Water Jets

The experiment proved (how were these proven?) that the three parameters: the average velocity of jets, the type of surface, and the length the water travels down the incline, all matter. To test for the significance of the average velocity of the jets we increased flow rate from 380ml/min to 416 ml/min (This flow rate is not insignificant and it was 460 mL/min, but even that is not a significant change) using the same 0.17 (when did you mention a 0.17" before? You do not make it clear what this tubing is for. ) in diameter tubing and observed that there was more bubble formation with the higher flow rate in all instances of the experiment. From the experiment we also observed that when the jet hit a hard surface there was far less bubble formation then when it hit the water surface. This proves that in order for the inclined plane option to work, the plane cannot be partially submerged in water or have a significantly thick wet surface. The last parameter was tested by varying the proximity of the 45o inclined plane to the tube. We noticed that when the inclined plane further away from the opening of the tube the water there was far less bubble formation because the water traveled a longer length down the plane before it joined the water surface at the bottom. The closer the inclined plane was to the opening of the tube (so is this equivalent to where the jet would hit?) the more bubble formation was observed given that the distance the water traveled down the plane after hitting the plane surface was greatly reduced. It is believed that the shorter the length the water travels down the inclined plane the shorter time for the velocity of the water to gradually decrease with gravity. (The two sentences above are not clear. I'm not sure what you mean.)

Conclusions

At the end of all of our testing, we determined that inserting a 5cm-diameter pipe would effectively reduce the amount of bubbles produced by the LFOM, while not constricting the overall plant flow rate. Hopefully this design change can be easily executed in the AguaClara plants in Honduras to fix the foam problem. (This only works for a 7.5" I.D. LFOM. You cannot make this conclusion for the AguaClara plant. What about the inclined plane? Does this work??)