Transcript WEFTEC SSPS Design Presentation

Rosebank Sewage Pumping Station and
Forcemain Design
Group Members:
Tony Tsui
Lyutfiye Gafarova
Sherif Kinawy
Raf Qutub
1
Outline
 Background
 Design Objectives
 Pump Sizing and Selection
 Instrumentation & Control
 Environmental
Considerations
 Mitigation Measures
 Preliminary Cost Analysis
 Conclusion
2
City of Pickering
3
Design Objectives
 Design a new Sewage Pumping Station and
Forcemain in Pickering, Ontario
 Provide additional sewage pumping capacity to
accommodate future population growth
 Comply with current engineering standards, and
health and safety regulations
 Design Criteria (year 2031)
 Population: 4,760
 Future Drainage Area: 121.3 ha
 Estimated Peak Flow: 138 L/s
4
Forcemain
New Forcemain:
350 mm HDPE Pipe
 Less expensive (use existing forcemain)
 Minor disruption of
valley area
Twinned Forcemain:
250 mm Asbestos
Waterfront
trailCement
and Pipe
250 mm PVC Pipe
5
Sewage Pumping Station
Proposed Location
 Adequate Space
Existing Location
 Located Away From Residential Properties
6
Floor Plan
Diesel Generator
Room
Exhaust Louvre
Washroom
Access to Pumps
Wet Well Ventilation
Entrance
7
Side View
Pump Guide Rails
Forcemain
Surge Relief Drain
Inlet Sewer
Duty Pump
Standby and Duty Pumps
8
Wet Well and Valve Chamber
Wet Well #2
Knife Gate Valve
Check Valve
Forcemain
Gate Valve
Surge
Relief Valve
Air Release Valve
Wet Well #1
Inlet Sewer
9
Outline
 Background
 Design Objectives
 Pump Sizing and
Selection
 Instrumentation & Control
 Environmental
Considerations
 Mitigation Measures
 Preliminary Cost Analysis
 Conclusion
10
Pumping Station Layout
Ground
Elevation
82.0 m
Discharge
88.5 m
Inlet / HWL
77.9 m
Rosebank Sewage
Pumping Station
285 m HDPE
Pipe 350 mm
1,030 m twin-barrel
forcemain 250 mm Max.
Static Lift
= 12.1 m
Station Piping 250 mm
ANSI B36.10 Steel
LWL 76.4 m
11
Design Flow and Hydraulic Calculations
 Design flow = 138 L/s (year 2031 flow)
 TDH = Static Head + Friction Head
Hydraulic Calculations:
 Used Hazen-Williams Formula
 Assigned C values based on peak flow conditions
 Flow guidelines of the Ontario MOE
12
Station Head Loss
Station Piping
 Standard Weight (ANSI B36.10) Steel Pipe
 Nominal Size = 250 mm (10”)
 C= 100
 Total head loss = 0.2 m
13
Forcemain Head Loss
Existing Forcemain
 MOE Velocity range 0.6 – 3.0 m/s
 Minimum velocity to re-suspend solids is 0.8 m/s
 Utilize both old pipes to reduce fluid velocity
 Nominal pipe size = 250 mm (10”)
 Total length = 1,030 m
 C=100
 At peak flow, v = 1.5 m/s in each
 Total head loss = 16.0 m
14
Forcemain Head Loss
New HDPE pipe
 1000 Series Driscopipe HDPE SDR17
 Nominal size 350 mm (14”)
 Length= 285 m
 C= 120
 v= 1.4 m/s
 Total head loss = 1.7 m
15
Valves and Fittings Inventory
Item
KValue
Head
Loss (m)
Qty
Total Loss
(m)
Velocity head
1.00
0.38
1
0.4
45° Wye Branch
0.50
0.19
2
0.4
45° Elbow
0.21
0.08
2
0.2
90° Elbow
0.39
0.15
1
0.1
Check Valve
2.00
0.76
1
0.8
Gate Valve
0.08
0.03
1
0.0
Knife Gate Valve
0.13
0.05
1
0.1
Total
2.0
16
Total Dynamic Head (TDH)
Head
Loss (m)
SSPS Steel Piping
0.2
Forcemain, PVC Pipe 1A
16.0
Forcemain, A-C Pipe 1B
Forcemain, HDPE Pipe 2
1.7
Fittings and Valves
2.0
Static Head (at LWL)
12.1
Total Dynamic Head
32.0
17
Pump Selection
 ITT Flygt Pumps
 Used by pumping stations in Durham Region
 Model Number NP3202.185 HT
 Three identical pumps: 2 duty, 1 standby
 Constant speed: 1,175 rpm
 Motor power: 70 hp
18
System and Pump Performance Curves
60
50
TDH, (m)
40
2 Pumps
1 Pump
30
20
Design System Curve
10
Pump Q
Design Point
System Curve During Initial Conditions
0
0
20
40
60
80
Flow, Q (L/s)
100
120
140
160
19
Pump Selection
 Checking for cavitation:
NPSHA Hbar  hs  Hvap
Net Positive Suction Head
1 Pump
2 Pumps Parallel
Min. Available (LWL)
9.2 m
9.2 m
Required
8.8 m
5.4 m
 Therefore, cavitation is unlikely to occur
20
Outline
 Background
 Design Objectives
 Pump Sizing and Selection
 Instrumentation & Control
 Environmental
Considerations
 Mitigation Measures
 Preliminary Cost Analysis
 Conclusion
21
Instrumentation and Control
 Designed for unattended operation
 Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system
 A Remote Terminal Unit (RTU) will be installed
Central
Station
22
Piping & Instrumentation
23
Instrumentation and Control
Monitoring
 Level
 Flow
 Pressure
Control
 Programmed
 Pumps
Alarms
 Power
 Security
 Wet well levels
24
Power
 Main utility supply
 Complemented by a series of
step-down transformers
 An emergency diesel generator
 Rated at 200 kW
 In the event of power failure
 Commercial silencer
25
Outline
 Background
 Design Objectives
 Pump Sizing and Selection
 Instrumentation & Control
 Environmental
Considerations
 Mitigation Measures
 Preliminary Cost Analysis
 Conclusion
26
Environmental Concerns
Fresh Intake
Noise
Diesel
Generator
Room
Wet Well
Ventilation
Fan
Wet Well
Exhaust Vents
Valve
Chamber
Ventilation
Supply
Duct
Odour
H2S
27
Outline
 Background
 Design Objectives
 Pump Sizing and Selection
 Instrumentation & Control
 Environmental
Considerations
 Mitigation Measures
 Preliminary Cost Analysis
 Conclusion
28
Mitigation Measures
Short Term
Long Term
• Construction Phase
• Community Acceptance
• Reclamation
29
Short Term Mitigations
 Traffic
 Local traffic
 Waterfront trail
route
 Water Quality
 Sedimentation
Control
 Silt Fencing
 Sedimentation Traps
 Grass swales
 HDD
30
HDD: Horizontal Directional Drilling
31
Long Term Mitigations
 Architecture
 Blend in with the
surrounding
neighbourhood
 Reclamation
 New Site
 Petticoat Creek
32
Outline
 Background
 Design Objectives
 Pump Sizing and Selection
 Instrumentation & Control
 Environmental
Considerations
 Mitigation Measures
 Preliminary Cost Analysis
 Conclusion
33
Total Capital Investment Breakdown
74%
$ 4.35 M
13%
13%
TOTAL SPS CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL FORCEMAIN CONSTRUCTION COST
SUB-TOTAL - FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
34
Annual M&O Cost Breakdown
78%
$ 50.6 K
22%
Energy
Maintenance
35
Outline
 Background
 Design Objectives
 Pump Sizing and Selection
 Instrumentation & Control
 Environmental
Considerations
 Mitigation Measures
 Preliminary Cost Analysis
 Conclusion
36
Conclusion
 New Submersible Sewage Pumping Station
 3 submersible pumps (2 duty, 1 standby)
 Meet projected sewage flow demands
 Maximize operational efficiency
 Community and Environment
 Safer work environment
 Noise and odour control measures
 Environmental rehabilitation
 Community acceptance
 Cost Reduction
 Incorporate existing forcemain
 Minimize environmental impacts
37
Acknowledgments
 Dr. Barry Adams (Professor, University of Toronto)
 Hugh Tracy (Delcan)
 Fabian Papa (Adjunct Professor, University of
Toronto)
 Kevin Waher (Wardrop)
 Steve O’Brien (Wardrop)
 Brent Galardo (Hudson’s Bay Trading Company)
38
Thank You!
Tony Tsui
Sherif Kinawy
Raf Qutub
Lyutfiye Gafarova
39
Supplementary Design Slides
Raf Qutub
40
Pumping Station Design
 Design parameters:
 Peak flow: 138 L/s
 Forcemain = 1,030 m twin barrel (Old) + 285 m (New)
 Static elevation
 Ground elevation at proposed site= 82.0 ASL
 Highest point of forcemain (discharge)= 88.5 ASL
 Invert elevation of inlet sewer to wet well = 77.9 ASL
 Assumed wet well depth 1.5 m
 Total static lift = 12.1 m (from LWL to discharge)
41
Pumping Station Design
 Peak Flow: 138 L/s
 Forcemain
 Section 1A: 10” ID 1,030 m A-C pipe (old, 1961)
 Section 1B: 10” ID 1,030 m PVC pipe (new, 1998)
 Section 2: 12” ID, 285 m HDPE pipe, joins 1A+1B
 At peak flow, velocity in one 10” forcemain = 3.03m/s
 MOE velocity range 0.6 m/s – 3.0 m/s
 Hence, utilize both old forcemain pipes (1A + 1B)
42
Head Loss Calculations
 TDH = Static Head + Friction Head + Velocity Head
 Hazen-Williams Formula (Jones et al., 2006)
1.85
 151Q 
hf  
2.63 
 CD 
 1000
 hf = Friction head loss in pipe per meter of piping, [m]
 Q = Volumetric flow rate, [m3/s]
 C = Hazen-Williams “C” factor, [dimensionless]
 D = Internal pipe diameter, [m]
43
Head Loss Calculations
 Station piping
 C= 100 (MOE guidelines)
 Total head loss = 0.22 m
 Existing Forcemain
 To simply, assume identical dimensions
 At peak flow, Q= 69 L/s, v= 1.51 m/s in each
 Head loss = 0.015 m/m
 Total head loss = 15.96 m
 New 12” HDPE pipe
 C= 120
 Total head loss = 4.96 m
44
Velocity Head, Valves and Fittings
 General head loss equation (m)
v2
hm  K
2g
v2
hv 
2g
 hm = Friction head loss due to pipe or fitting, [m]
 hv = Velocity head, [m]
 K = Constant factor that depends on shape of fitting or
valve, [dimensionless]
 v = Fluid velocity, [m/s]
 g = Gravitational acceleration constant, [9.81 m/s2]
 Obtain K values from manufacturers or literature
45
Checking for Cavitation
 Net Positive Suction Head (Available) for the System
NPSHA Hbar  hs  Hvap
 Hbar= Barometric pressure of water column for
elevation above sea level.
 hs= Static head of intake water above the impeller.
Since the pump is submersible, hs is always positive.
 Hvap = Vapour pressure of fluid at maximum expected
temperature, [m]
 To avoid cavitation, NPSHA >> NPSHR
46
Valves and Fittings Inventory
Item
KValue
Head
Loss (m)
Qty
Total Loss
(m)
Velocity head
1.0
0.38
1
0.4
45° Wye Branch
0.5
0.19
2
0.4
45° Elbow
0.21
0.08
2
0.2
90° Elbow
0.39
0.15
1
0.1
Check Valve
2.00
0.76
1
0.8
Gate Valve
0.08
0.03
1
0.0
Knife Gate Valve
0.13
0.05
1
0.1
Total
2.0
47
Total Dynamic Head (TDH)
Head
Loss (m)
SSPS Steel Piping
0.2
Forcemain, PVC Pipe 1A
16.0
Forcemain, A-C Pipe 1B
Forcemain, HDPE Pipe 2
5.0
Fittings and Valves
2.0
Static Head (at LWL)
12.1
Total Dynamic Head
35.2
48
System H-Q and Pump Curve
49
System H-Q and Pump Curve
50
Pump Specifications
 ITT Flygt
 Model NP3203.180 Submersible Wastewater Pumps
 Motor Shaft power 70 hp
 Outlet 6 inches
 Hydraulic efficiency (2 Parallel) = 71%
 Single pump operation flow = 113.1 L/s (71% eff.)
 Rated speed 1,175 rpm
 Impeller diameter 310 mm (2 blades)
51
Checking for Cavitation
 Hbar= 10.24 m (measured at 74.9 m ASL)
 hs= 0.12 m (from pump AutoCAD drawing)
 Hvap = 0.44 m (assumed Max. Temperature = 30°C)
 NPSHA = 10.24 + 0.12 – 0.44 = 9.92 m (at LWL)
Net Positive Suction Head
1 Pump
2 Pumps Parallel
Available (LWL)
9.9 m
9.9 m
Required
8.8 m
5.2 m
52
Supplementary Design Slides
Lyutfiye Gafarova
53
Mitigation Strategies in Affected Areas
Forcemain
•Traffic Control
•Silt Fencing
New Site
•Odour, noise control
measures
•Introduce native species
Existing Site
©2009 Google – Imagery ©DigitalGlobe, First Base
Solutions, GeoEye, Map Data ©2009 Tele Atlas
54
Natural Vegetation in the Creek Area
Birch
Sugar
Maple
Chokecherry
Poplar
Trembling Aspen
55
Rodd Ave. Natural Vegetation
Red Maple
Salix Discolor
Grey / Red Oiser
Dogwood
Arbovitae
Green / Red Ash
Arrowwood
56
Implementation Schedule
Dec 2008
Submit Final Preliminary
Report for approval to
the Regional Review
Committee
Sep 2009
Prepare Pre-tender
Cost-Estimate
Apr 2009
Detailed Design
Jan 2009
December 2008
Oct 2009
Tender Evaluation
and Recommendations
Jan 2010
Nov 2010
Construction
Acceptance
Nov 2011
Warranty Period
Ends
Jan 2011
November 2011
Oct 2009
Tender Period
for Contractors
Apr 2009
MOE and Stakeholders
Approvals and Sing-off
Oct 2009
Award of Contract
and Construction
57