3/7/2019 Water Treatment

Plant Design for

Flint, MI
CE 5230

Harry Vaslo, Ramaiz Imran, Wadood Khan

HRW ENGINEERING
 1

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Initial Deductions ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Rapid Mix Tank Design ................................................................................................................................. 2
Flocculation Tank Design.............................................................................................................................. 3
Baffle Wall .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Sedimentation Basin Design ........................................................................................................................ 4
Rapid Sand Filtration Design ........................................................................................................................ 5
Disinfection Design....................................................................................................................................... 7
Safety Precautions and Chemical Handling ................................................................................................. 8
Fluoridation Design ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Storage Tank Design & System Redundancy ............................................................................................... 9
Softening Basin Design ................................................................................................................................. 9
Appendix..................................................................................................................................................... 11
References .................................................................................................................................................. 24
 2

Executive Summary
In this paper, we will present our proposed design for a water treatment plant to service
the citizens of Flint, Michigan. Using water provided exclusively from the Flint River, water in
our plant first passes through one of four rapid mix tanks for initial treatment. Water then
enters a flocculation tank, where alum is added to clump together toxic particulates. It then
flows into a sedimentation basin where the flocs settle for removal. The next stage is rapid sand
filtration, where the water is filtered even more to remove additional microbes. The water is
disinfected and fluoridated before being sent to a storage tank, where it is sent out for
consumption. Our plant is designed with redundancy, so if one section of the plant has a
change in water quality, water can still be run through the system and provided to the
community. We believe our design to be the optimal choice to provide water to the people of
Flint.

Introduction
HRW Engineering has been contracted by the City of Flint, Michigan to design a new
water treatment plant to service its residents. In this report, a detailed description of the
proposed plant will be provided, with each stage of the treatment process being discussed in-
depth. The justifications for our design choices will be given as well. (Closing sentence)

Initial Deductions
Our facility is built to provide 67,219.2 cubic meters of water per day, or 0.778 cubic
meters per second. This value was determined by multiplying the population of Flint by the
average consumption rate of water by Michigan residents (Census, 2010; Davis, 2010). Water
for this plant will come exclusively from the Flint River. Flint River was chosen over Well No. 8
due to the significant amount of sludge that would have been produced had the groundwater
source been picked. We decided against implementing a blended system due to magnesium
concentration in the Flint River being low.

Rapid Mix Tank Design

Water that enters our facility will first enter one of four rapid mix tanks. As continuous-
flow stirred tank reactors (CSTR), our tanks must have a detention time between 1 and 6
seconds and a velocity gradient between 600 𝑠 −1 and 1000 𝑠 −1 ; therefore, we decided the
detention time of our tanks to be 6 seconds and have a velocity gradient of 800 𝑠 −1 . The total
volume of our rapid mix tank system is found by multiplying our detention time by our inflow of
0.778 cubic meters per second, giving us a volume of 4.668 cubic meters across all four tanks,
and a volume of 1.167 cubic meters per tank. We also found our Gt value to be 4,800.

To determine the dimensions of our tanks, we first assumed a depth to diameter ratio of
1.1. Using the volume equation for a cylinder and setting the variable for depth to 1.1 times the
diameter, we calculated our tanks to be 1.11 meters across and 1.22 meters deep. The height
 3

of water below our impeller was found by assuming the height to be one-third of our depth,
giving us 0.405 meters of water below the impellers in our tanks.

The impeller we chose for our design is a radial-flow impeller, as these are better for
rapid mixing than axial-flow impellers (Davis, 2010). It is also a turbine impeller, with 6 flat
blades, with an impeller number of 5.7, and a diameter of 0.45 meters. By comparing the
diameter of our impeller to the other dimensions of our tank, we see our impeller falls within
acceptable ranges for a rapid-mix tank (see Appendix B for ranges).

The required power input for our impeller is found by squaring our velocity gradient and
multiplying it with our tank volume and the dynamic viscosity of our water. The required power
of our impeller is found to be 837.7 kW, or 840 kW, when rounded. By assuming our motor to
run at 80% efficiency in water, we find the actual motor power of our impeller to be 1,047 kW,
or 1,050 kW when rounded. Using the required power, diameter, and number of our impeller,
we determined our impeller to run at 2 rps, or 120 rpm. Refer to Appendix B for equations,
variables, and tables used in this design.

Flocculation Tank Design

After running through one of our rapid mix tanks, water enters one of two flocculation
tanks. The flow to each tank will be 23.34 cubic meters per minute. Due to the temperature of
our water being close to 15 degrees Celsius, we chose a detention time of 22 minutes (Davis,
2010). The depth of flocculation tanks must be between 3 meters and 4.5 meters, so we chose
our tanks to be a depth of 4 meters. The location of our impeller was assumed to be located
a distance of one-third of our depth, putting it at 1.33 meters from the top of our tank.

Each flocculation tank has three compartments, with velocity gradients of 70 𝑠 −1 , 50

𝑠 , and 30 𝑠 −1 . The total volume per tank is 513.48 cubic meters, with each compartment
−1

having a volume of 171.16 cubic meters. The surface area of each compartment was found by
dividing the volume by the depth, giving us a value of 42.79 meters squared. By assuming that
the compartments are square-shaped, we can take the square root of the surface area to get a
length and width of 6.54 meters for each compartment. Finally, with our surface area, we can
determine an equivalent diameter for our flocculation compartments to be 7.38 meters.

Water power and motor power was found for each compartment and was calculated
the same way as the rapid mix tanks. The water power for each compartment is 940.67 kW,
479.93 kW, and 172.78 kW. Assuming 80% efficiency in water, the motor power of each
compartment is 1,175.83 kW, 599.92 kW, and 215.97 kW.

We chose to use an axial impeller for our flocculation tanks, with a diameter of
1.4 meters and an impeller number of 5.7. With these values and the water power of our first
compartment, we found that our impellers will have a rotational speed of 0.31 rps, or 18.78
rpm. Using this speed and our impeller diameter, our tip speed is found to be 1.38 meters per
second, well below the maximum tip speed of 2.7 meters per second (Davis, 2010).
 4

It is during flocculation that we add our coagulant to remove toxic products from the
water. Using data collected from our coagulation jar test, we decided a dosage of 40 mg/L of
alum to be best, as it the dosage that lowers the turbidity the most, and was derived from our
jar test data, which can be found in Appendix C. The alkalinity in our water is reduced from 136
mg/L as calcium carbonate to 116 mg/L as calcium carbonate. Since alkalinity is still sufficiently
present in our water, we can assume that pH will not drastically change (Davis, 2010). Based on
the flow of water entering our plant, we determined that we will need 2.69 metric tons of dry
alum per day to remove the maximum amount of sludge (see Appendix A). Refer Appendix C for
equations, variables, and tables used in this design.

Baffle Wall
To design a baffle wall, we followed Example 6-8 from Davis and solved iteratively. This
baffle wall separating each sedimentation basin and final flocculation chamber is designed
according to GLUMRB standards. Our baffle wall will have 140 orifices, each with a diameter of
150 mm. Each orifice will have a design velocity of 0.3145 m/s and a head loss of 7.876 mm at
maximum flow. Refer Appendix D for variables and tables used in this design.

Sedimentation Basin Design

To accomplish settling our team decided to implement sedimentation basins into our
design. These basins will allow for particles and debris to settle to the bottom using gravity as
their force. The settled water will then be removed from the outlet of the basin, while a sludge
collector is placed to remove sludge from the bottom of the basin.

To formulate a design for our settling tanks we used the criteria found in Table 10-6
(Davis, 2010). First, we calculated the surface area required for our tanks, which was found to
be 448.128 cubic meters. We were then able to select the number of tanks we wanted to use
for settling in our system, which was chosen to be four. Using this number of tanks, we were
able to calculate a surface area of 112.032 cubic meters per tank. Next, we assumed a width of
5 meters per tank and calculated our settler length to be 22.406 meters. Knowing the setting of
the settler is at 75% of the length of the basin we were able to calculate the length of the tank
to be 29.875 meters. After measuring the length of the tank, we calculated a side water depth
of 3.6 meters.

We checked our approach velocity by dividing our flow rate by the area of all the tanks.
In doing so, we found our approach velocity to be .01080 meters per second. Then we were
able to calculate the settling velocity by dividing the flow rate by the area of the tanks
multiplied by the angle of the settler tubes. The settling velocity was found to be .002 meters
per second. Afterwards, by assuming a hydraulic diameter of .07 meters, we were able to
calculate a hydraulic radius of .0175 meters. Calculating the hydraulic radius and settling
velocity allowed us to find our Reynolds number and Froude number.
 5

The Reynolds number was found by multiplying the settling velocity and hydraulic radius
together and dividing by the kinematic viscosity, which gave us a value 29.481. Next, we
calculated the Froude number by taking the settling velocity squared and dividing it by the
gravity constant multiplied by the hydraulic radius. This calculation gave us a Froude number of
0.0000234. Following these calculations, we found our launder length which is equal to the
settler length of 22.406 meters. Thus, we decided to place them 1.5 meters apart so there are
two launders per tank. Finally, we checked our weir loading rate by dividing our flow by our
number of tanks multiplied by our number of launders per tank which is also multiplied by
length of the launders multiplied by our number of sides, giving us a weir loading rate of 187.5
cubic meters per day meters. Checking all our calculations with Table 10.6 in Davis, we were
able to determine that the parameters calculated were within standards and were ideal to
implement in our treatment plant.

From Equation 15-17 in Davis we calculated the amount of sludge produced by our
system. The equation yielded a sludge estimate of 554.9 metric tons of sludge per year. Since
this estimate is for dry sludge, additional cost will be included during the dewatering process.
The dewatered sludge that is produced will be removed off-site for proper disposal via trains.
Train transport will be ideal since it allows for large volumes of sludge to be transported when
compared to trucks. Ship transport is not possible for this sludge because of the geographic
location of Flint. Refer to Appendix E for equations, variables, and tables used in this design.

Rapid Sand Filtration Design

The first step in designing a rapid sand filter is determining the number of filters that are
required by using Equation 11-17 in Davis. To solve for the total number of filters we will take
the square root of the maximum daily flow rate, 67,219.2 cubic meters per day, and then by
multiplying it by 0.0195 we calculated 5.056 and rounded up to 6 since there needs to be an
even number of filters. Then by using Equation 11-18 in Davis, we can find the area of each
individual bed by dividing the maximum daily flow rate by the product of the number of filter
and the filtration rate of 180 meters per day. Therefore, we can find the area of each bed,
which is 62.23 square meters per filter.
Dimension criteria states that the cell width needs to be less than 6 meters and the
length-to-width ratio needs to be between 2:1 to 4:1. Since the width of the gullet is 2 meters,
the recommended range is 0.2 meters to 0.4 meters. The depth of the expanded bed is 0.776
meters.
To find the bed depth and amount of sand needed we look at Table 11-7 in Davis, where
the depth of sand is found to be 0.6 meters. W then multiply it by the area of the individual
beds to find the amount of sand needed, which is 37.34 cubic meters. To find the bed depth
and amount of gravel needed we are going to repeat the process we used above. We once
again look at 11-7 in Davis to get a depth of gravel of 0.3 meters. We then multiply it by the
area of the individual beds to find the amount of gravel needed, which is 18.67 cubic meters.
 6

At this stage the head loss when filtering through clear sand must be found. To solve for
this problem, we need to use Equation 11-9 in Davis. To solve for this section a series of
equations must be solved to have the necessary variable depth of filter sand to solve for
Equation 11-9. The Reynolds number was found to be 3.6 using the shape factor, filtration
velocity, diameter of particles and velocity using Equation 10-9. Using Figure 11-7, with a given
particle diameter of 0.001 meter, the estimated setting velocity was found to be 1.6 meters per
second. The porosity of expanded bed was found by using Equation 11-12, which uses the
backwash velocity, settling velocity and Reynold number, resulting in a value of 0.5605. By
solving for the Reynolds number, settling velocity, and the porosity of the expanded bed, we
can now solve for the head loss when filtering through clear sand, which is 0.585 meters.
The design elevation of the weir edge is found by taking the depth required for
maximum expansion, taking away the value of depth of filter sand and adding the depth of the
through. This will result in a value of 0.517 meters. To meet the safety factor, we will add a
margin of 0.15 meters, giving us a final design elevation of the weir edge of 0.667 meters.
The rate of backwash to achieve 50% expansion is solved using Equation 11-11, which
uses the porosity of the bed, depth the unexpanded bed, porosity of expanded bed, and mass
fraction of filter media with expanded porosity. This will give is a depth of the expanded bed
value of 0.776 meters. To achieve adequate expansion, we need to find what depth the
unexpanded bed is needed by taking the depth of the expanded bed divided by the depth of
the unexpanded bed and setting this ratio equal to 1.5. The depth of the unexpanded be is
found to be 0.561 meters. The head loss when backwashing is solved with the density of the
media, density of water, porosity of expanded bed, cross sectional area of filter bed, depth of
expanded bed and acceleration of gravity using Equation 11-15, which results in a value of
0.206 meters.
The final phase is to calculate the backwash through the design. First we divide the area
by double the width of the cell resulting in a length of 8.21 meters, which meets the design
criteria since the width, 3.86 meters, is less than 6 meters and the L:W ratio is between 2:1 and
4:1. Next, using Example 11-6, we take our backwash velocity, length and width of the cell to
find the backwash which is 570 cubic meters. To find the volume of the backwash water we will
use the number of cells, backwash velocity, length and width of the cell to get a value of 1,140
cubic meters. In the same example it is advised to provide 2 times the volume which means
that the final volume is 2,280 cubic meters. Refer to Appendix F for equations, variables, and
tables used in this design.
 7

Disinfection
The bacteriological analysis of the Flint River, the TOC and turbidity of our water, and
the design flow rate of our plant is what guided our disinfection design, which is summarized in
the table below:
Flint River Water Analysis
E. Coli Median 21/100 mL (210/1 L) (range 9 to 90)
Cryptosporidium oocysts 1/1000 mL (1/1 L) (range 0.1 to 1)
Giardia cysts 4/1000 mL (4/1 L)
Viruses 1/100 mL (10/1 L)
TOC 4.4 mg/L
Bromide Not Detected
Turbidity 0.81 NTU

With a TOC greater than 2 mg/L and a low Bromide concentration, we used Figure 13-8
in Davis to determine that our best primary disinfectant choices were between ozone,
ultraviolent radiation, and chlorine dioxide. Using Tables 13-4 and 13-5, we check for the log
requirements for Giardia cysts, viruses, and cryptosporidium oocysts:
Log-Inactivation Requirements
1.0 oocysts/L ≤ Cryptosporidium < 3.0 3 log treatment
oocysts/L
Viruses > 10/100 L 6 log treatment
Giardia cyst > 10/100 L 5 log treatment

Using Table 13-6 in Davis, we see that ozone, UV radiation, and chlorine dioxide all meet
the > log 2.0 removal for Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and viruses. In addition, ozone and UV do
not have a maximum residual disinfectant level while chlorine dioxide does. Finally, UV is not
applicable to large utilities. Therefore, we believe ozone is the best disinfectant for our plant.

With ozone treatment there is no residual persistence, but AOC is a problem. Using
Figure 13-9 in Davis, we see our treatment plant requires a secondary treatment option that
reduces DBPFP and is biological. If we assume that our plant will reach our farthest customers
in less than 48 hours, we can select either chloramine or chlorine dioxide as a secondary
treatment option. According to Table 13-6, chlorine dioxide is only sometimes used as a
secondary disinfectant; therefore, our secondary disinfectant will be chloramine.
 8

As we are a conventional filtration plant, the log removal credits for these bacteria are
as follows (according to Table 13-10):
Log Removal Credits
Required log Treatment log removal credit Disinfectant log inactivation
removal/inactivation required to meet standard
Cryptosporidium: 3 2.5 0.5
Giardia: 5 2 3
Viruses: 6 3 3

Using EPA’s Ct tables in Appendix D of Davis, to achieve the required log inactivation for each
microorganism at our water temperature of 15.6°C, we must provide the following Ct:
Giardia cysts 0.9224 mg*min/L
Viruses 0.588 mg*min/L
Cryptosporidium oocysts 2.968 mg*min/L
Since Cryptosporidium has the largest Ct, 2.968 mg*min/L governs our calculations.

Based on our flow and Ct value, we find that our disinfection tank must have 9 cells,
with dimensions 6 meters deep by 2 meters long by 1.5 meters wide. Refer to Appendix G for
equations, variables, and tables used in this design.

Safety Precautions and Chemical Handling

There are many safety parameters our plant will have to follow since we are handling
ozone. At concentrations greater than 23 percent ozone is explosive. At ambient temperature
and pressure, it rapidly decays. Thus, it is important to follow the parameters of temperature
being kept equal to or below 30°C, and 100 percent removal of particulate matter greater than
or equal to 0.3 micrometers (Davis, 2010). As for our secondary disinfectant of chloramine the
most important parameter that needs to be enforced is a pH concentration of 7 to 8 (Davis,
2010)
With regards to chemical handling, operators should wear full face gas masks that meet
standards set by National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). These units will
be available but not stored inside any room where gaseous chemicals are used or stored. Also,
the units shall use compressed air and have at least a 30-minute capacity. The facility will have
continuous leak detection equipment with an audible alarm and warning light. There will be a
deluge shower and eyewash installed in the room where disinfection chemicals are used or
stored. Finally, each operator shall be provided with appropriate protective clothing including
rubber gloves, face shields, and rubber aprons appropriate for the chemicals being
handled (Davis, 2010).
 9

Fluoridation
To determine the fluoridation dosage as well as the solution feed rate we used Equation
13-42 and Example 13-10 (Davis, 2010). From Equation 13-42 we found our dosage to be
1.0299 milligrams per liter. We then determined we will use the compound
sodium fluorosilicate since it is the most cost-effective method to achieve fluoridation. Sodium
fluorosilicate with a purity of 98.5 percent will cost $400 per ton. Having established our
compound, we continued to calculate our solution feed rate. First, we determined the dosage
to be added to the natural background concentration; this was done by subtracting the
naturally occurring fluoride concentration of 0.55 milligrams per liter from 1 milligram per liter
which gave us a dosage to be added equal to 0.45 milligrams per liter of fluoride. Next, we
found available fluoride in the sodium fluorosilicate ion by dividing the molecular weight of the
fluoride by the molecular weight of the sodium fluorosilicate ion; this calculation gave us an AFI
of 0.606. Afterwards, we calculated our mass feed rate by multiplying our dosage to be added
to our flow rate and then dividing this number by our AFI multiplied by the commercial purity of
the sodium fluorosilicate. We found the mass feed rate to be 36.169 grams per minute. Finally,
we calculated the solution feed rate to be 4,615.355 milliliters per minute. This was
accomplished by dividing the mass feed rate by the solubility.

Storage Tank Design & System Redundancy

The final stop for water in our treatment plant before distribution is our storage tank.
We decided to have our storage tank store half of the normal daily flow our plant; therefore,
since our plant has a flow of 67,219 cubic meters per day, our storage tank will store 33,609.6
cubic meters of water.

To ensure a constant supply of water to the residents of Flint, our plant was designed
with redundancy in mind. Each stage of the treatment process is interconnected to allow flow
through the plant to be shuttled from one treatment train to another. They are also connected
so that if water quality in one stage of treatment is compromised, then water can still flow from
other uncompromised sections of the plant. Lastly, by having at least two of each type of
treatment unit, and by setting the design capacity at the projected maximum daily demand, our
treatment units are large enough and plentiful enough to meet any expected demand (Davis,
2010).

Softening Basin Design

We determined which water source to tap into based on the amount of sludge each
source would produce. We found that selecting Well No. 8 would produce 31,737 metric tons
of sludge per year, while the Flint River would produce 554.9 metric tons of sludge per year;
therefore, we chose to use the Flint River as the exclusive source of water for our plant. If we
had chosen Well No. 8 as our water source, we would have had to implement a softening
reaction basin in our design.
 10

Instead of a conventional softening basin, we chose to design a upflow solids contact

basin for our plant, since they are smaller and fewer in number, which lowers capital costs
(Davis, 2010). The designs of upflow solids contact basins are determined by the manufacturer,
so we chose a basin with the following design elements:
Upflow Solids Contact Unit Design
Nominal Diameter (m) 18
Nominal SWD (m) 5.5
Nominal Volume (m3) 1500
Cone Height (m) 4.3
Radius at Bottom of Cone (m) 8.5
Radius at Top of Cone (m) 3.3
Separation Zone Area (m2) 230
Column Diameter (m) 2
Motor Power (kW) 5.5
Number of Weirs 10

When softening is being conducted by an upflow solids contact unit, the following
GLUMRB standards must be met:
Softening Requirements
Overflow Rate v < 4.2 m/h
Detention Time 1h<t<2h
Mixing Time t ≥ 30 min
Weir Hydraulic Loading Rate WL ≤ 0.240 m3/min

With those requirements in mind, we determined our plant would require 3 softening
tanks to function properly. The design of the upflow solids contact unit provided values that all
fell within the GLUMRB standards. Refer to Appendix I for equations, variables, and tables used in this
design.
 11

Appendix
Appendix A: Initial Calculations
𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 434 𝐿𝑝𝑐𝑑 (𝐷𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑠, 2 − 7)
𝑚𝑔 𝐸𝑊𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂3
𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎+ , 𝑀𝑔2+ (𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝑂3 ) = ( 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠) ∗ ( )
𝐿 𝐸𝑊𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠

𝐶𝑎𝐶𝐻, 𝑀𝑔𝐶𝐻 = 𝐼𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎+ /𝑀𝑔2+ − 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐶𝑎 + /𝑀𝑔2+

𝐶𝑎𝑁𝐶𝐻, 𝑀𝑔𝑁𝐶𝐻 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 − 𝐶𝑎𝐶𝐻, 𝑀𝑔𝐶𝐻
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑆𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒 (𝑆𝑜𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑆𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛)
= 86.4𝑄(2𝐶𝑎𝐶𝐻 + 2.6𝑀𝑔𝐶𝐻 + 𝐶𝑎𝑁𝐶𝐻 + 1.6𝑀𝑔𝑁𝐶𝐻 + 𝐶𝑂2 )
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑟𝑦 𝑆𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒 (𝐶𝑜𝑎𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛) = 86.4𝑄(0.44𝐴 + 𝑆𝑆 + 𝑀)
Mass of Sludge Produced
Well No. 8 Flint River
Initial Ca (mg/L) 110 Softening Q (m3/s) 0.778
Initial Ca (CaCO3) 274.314 Sedimentation Basin, Alum Dose (mg/L) (Optimal) 40
Final Ca Present (CaCO3) 30 Mass of Dry Sludge Suspended Solids 5
Ca Removed (CaCO3) 244.314 Produced, Equation 15- Miscellaneous 0
CaCH (mmol/L CaCO3) 4.886 17 in Davis Mass of Dry Suldge (kg/d) 1519.154
Mass of Dry Suldge (kg/yr) 554491.181
Initial Mg (mg/L) 31 Coagulation Sedimentation Basin, Mass of Dry Sludge
Initial Mg (CaCO3) 127.572 Produced, Equation 15-14 in Davis
Final Mg Present 40
Mg Removed (CaCO3) 87.572
Q (L/d) 67219200
Temperature (Kelvin) 280.95 Alum per Day (mg/d) 2688768000
ka1 3.27726E-07 Alum per Day (kg/d) 2688.768
Hydrogen Conc. (mol/L) 2.51189E-08 Alum per day (metric ton/d) 2.688768
Bicarbonate Conc (mol/L) 0.0064 Price of Alum (dry) ($/metric ton) 375
CO2 (mol/L) 0.000491 Cost of Alum ($/d) 1008.288
CO2 (CaCO3) 49.053

CaNCH 106.686
MgNCH 263.428

Mass of Dry Sludge (kg/d) 86950.69598

Mass of Dry Sludge (kg/yr) 31737004.03

Appendix B: Rapid Mix Calculations

1
𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐵𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 = 𝐵 = ( ) 𝐻
3
𝐻
𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑡𝑜 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = = 1.1
𝑇
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 = 𝑉 = 𝑄 ∗ 𝑡
 12

𝑉
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑘 =
# 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑠
𝑉∗4
𝑇= (𝐻) → 𝐻 = 1.1𝑇
𝜋
𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 = 𝐺 2 ∗ 𝜇 ∗ 𝑉𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘
𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟
𝑀𝑜𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 =
0.8
1
𝑃 3
𝑅𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 = 𝑛 = [ ]
𝑁𝑝 (𝐷𝑖 )5 𝜌

Impeller Diameter
Geometric Ratio Range 0.45
D/T (radial) 0.14-0.5 0.40708311
D/T (axial) 0.17-0.4 n/a
H/D (either) 2.0-4.0 2.702150918
H/T (axial) 0.34-1.6 n/a
H/T (radial) 0.28-2.0 1.1
B/D (either) 0.7-1.6 0.900716973

Rapid Mix Design

Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR) 1s<t<6s, 600<G<1000
Impeller Description Turbine, Radial, 6 flat blades, Np=5.7, Diameter=Di=0.45m
Detention Time (s) 6
Flow (m3/s) 0.778
Number of Tanks 4
Water Temperature (𝐶 𝑜 ) 15.6
Dynamic Viscosity (Pa*s) 1.12e-3
Kinematic Viscosity (m2/s) 1.12e-6
Velocity Gradient (𝑠 −1 ) 800
Motor Efficiency in Water 80%
Total Volume (m3) 4.668
Volume per Tank (m3) 1.167
T (m) 1.11
H (m) 1.22
B (m) 0.405
Required Power Input (kW) 837.7 (≈840)
Motor Power 1,047 (≈1,050)
Rotational Speed (rps, rpm) 2.00, 120
Gt 4800
 13

Appendix C: Flocculation Tank Calculations

Jar Test 1
Jar Numbers
1 2 3 4 5 6
pH 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.22 8.22 8.21
Alum Dose 10 20 40 60 70 80
Turbidity 2 1.43 0.81 0.83 0.92 1.5

Jar Test 2
Jar Numbers
1 2 3 4 5 6
pH 7.62 7.41 6.4 6.02 5.83 5.2
Alum Dose 20 20 20 20 20 20
Turbidity 2 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.5
 14

Refer to Attachment A for Sedimentation Curve

1
𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = ( ) ∗ 𝐻
3
𝑇𝑖𝑝 𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑 = (𝑟𝑝𝑠)(𝜋)(𝐷𝑖 )
𝑄𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑄𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 =
# 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑠
𝑉
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 =
𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ

𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 ∗ 4 0.5

𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = ( )
𝜋
Change in Alkalinty Rules of Thumb:
Alum Dose (mg/L) 40 (1) 6 mol HCO3-
Alum Dose (mol/L) 6.73401E-05 consumed for
HCO3- Consumed (mol/L) 0.00040404 each mole of
HCO3- Consumed (mg/L) 0.024646465 alum (2) 1 mg/L
Akalinity of River (CaCO3) 136 of alum
Initial pH 8.4 destroys 0.5
Alkalinity of River after mg/L of
Alum dose (CaCO3) 116 alkalinity as
Water Temperature (Cel.) 15.6 CaCO3 (3) pH is
not drastically
pH after Alkalinity Change 8.4 reduced as a
 15

Impeller Diameters (m)

Geometric Ratio Allowable Range 0.8 1.4 2
D/T 0.17-0.4 0.108383653 0.18967139 10.0254879
H/D 2.0-4.0 5 2.85714286 2
H/T 0.34-1.6 0.541918265 0.54191826 0.54191826
B/D 0.7-1.6 1.666666667 0.95238095 0.66666667
Chosen Diameter (m)
1.4

Flocculation Design
Impeller Description Axial, Np=5.7, Possible Diameters (m)=0.8,
1.4, 2
Chosen Impeller Diameter (m) 1.4
Detention Time (min) 22
Number of Tanks 2
Depth (m) 4
Flow (m3/min) 46.68
Flow to Each Tank (m3/min) 23.34
−1
G1, G2, G3 (𝑠 ) 70, 50, 30
Dynamic Viscosity (Pa*s) 1.12e-3
Volume (m3) 513.48
Volume per Compartment (m3) 171.16
Surface Area (m2) 42.79
Length (m) 6.541
Width (m) 7.381
Equivalent Diameter (m) 7.381
Water Power in Each Compartment (kW) WP1=940.67(≈941), WP2=479.93(≈480),
WP3=215.97(≈216)
Motor Power in Each Compartment (kW) P1=1,175.83(≈1,176), P2=599.92(≈600),
P3=215.97(≈216)
Impeller Location (m) 1.333
Rotational Speed (rps, rpm) 0.313, 18.784
Tip Speed (m/s) 1.377
 16

Appendix D: Baffle Wall Calculations:

Baffle Wall Design
Flow (m3/d) 67,219.2
Flow (m3/s) 0.778
Coefficient of Discharge (Cd) 0.8
Diameter of Each Orifice (mm) 150
Diameter of Each Orifice (m) 0.15
Area of Each Orifice (m2) 0.01767
Number of Orifices 140
Flow per Orifice (m3/s) 0.00556
Orifice Velocity Check (m/s) 0.3145
Headloss (m) 0.00788
Headloss (mm) 7.876

Appendix E: Sedimentation Basin Calculations

𝑄𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 =
𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑠 =
# 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑠
𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎
𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ =
𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ
𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ =
. 75
𝑆𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ = 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ + 𝐿𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑍𝑜𝑛𝑒 + 𝑆𝑙𝑢𝑑𝑔𝑒 𝑍𝑜𝑛𝑒
𝑄𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
𝑠
# 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑠 ∗ 𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑘 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ ∗ 𝑆𝑊𝐷 ∗ (864,600 )
𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑄𝑚3⁄
𝑠
𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 =
# 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑠 ∗ 𝑆𝐴 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 ∗ 𝑆𝑖𝑛(60)
𝐻𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝐻𝑦𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 =
4
𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 ∗ 𝐻𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑅𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠
𝑅𝑒𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑑 ′ 𝑠 # =
𝐾𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑑𝑒 # =
𝑔 ∗ ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟𝑎𝑢𝑙𝑖𝑐 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠
𝐿𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 𝑆𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
 17

𝑄𝑑𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑦
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 =
# 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑠 ∗ 𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 ∗ 𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ ∗ 2 𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑠
Sedimentation Design
Flow (m3/d) 67,219.2
Flow (m3/s) 0.778
Overflow Rate (m3/d*m2) 150
Total Surface Area (m2) 448.128
Number of Tanks 4
Surface Area per Tank (m2) 112.032
Trial Width (m/tank) 5
Length of Settler (m) 22.4064
Length of Tank (75%) (m) 29.8752
Depth of Settler (m) 0.6
Sludge Zone (m) 2
Allowance Above Settler Launder (m) 1
SWD (m) 3.6
Approach Velocity (m/s) 0.0108
Settling Velocity (Vfc) (m/s) 0.002
Hydraulic Diameter (m) 0.07
Hydraulic Radius (Rh) (m) 0.0175
Kinematic Viscosity (m2/s) 1.12e-3
Reynolds Number 29.581
Froude Number 2.341e-5
Length of Launder (m) 22.4064
Number of Launders 2
Weir Loading Rate (WL) (m3/d*m) 187.5
Weir Length (m) 358.5024
 18

Settling Test Data

% Suspended Solids at Given Depth (m)
Time (min) 1 2 3 4 5
0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
20 27% 8% 0% 0% 0%
30 54% 25% 13% 10% 10%
40 65% 45% 29% 21% 20%
50 75% 56% 45% 34% 30%
60 85% 65% 54% 45% 40%
70 71% 60% 53% 50%
80 85% 66% 54% 55%
90 69% 65%
100 75% 70%
 19

Settling Test Data

Overflow Rate at Depths (m/d)
Time (min) 1 2 3 4 5
0
20 72.00 144.00 216.00 288.00 360.00
30 48.00 96.00 144.00 192.00 240.00
40 36.00 72.00 108.00 144.00 180.00
50 28.80 57.60 86.40 115.20 144.00
60 24.00 48.00 72.00 96.00 120.00
70 20.60 41.10 61.70 82.30 102.90
80 18.00 36.00 54.00 72.00 90.00
90 16.00 32.00 48.00 64.00 80.00
100 14.40 28.80 43.20 57.60 72.00

Appendix F: Rapid Sand Filtration Calculations

𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 = 0.0195(𝑄)0.5
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑑𝑠 =
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 ∗ 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒
1.07 ∗ (𝑉𝑎 )2 (𝐷) 𝐶𝐷 ∗ 𝑓
𝐹𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 4
∑
𝜑∗𝑔∗𝜀 𝑑𝑔
𝜑 ∗ 𝑉𝑎 ∗ 𝑑
𝑅𝑒𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑠 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 =
𝑉
𝐶𝐷 ∗ 𝑓
𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑑 = (1 − 𝜀)(𝐷) ∑
𝑑𝑔
 20

0.1
𝑉𝑏 0.2247𝑅
𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑑 = ( )
𝑉𝑠
𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑒𝑑 = 𝑚𝑔 = (𝑝𝑠 − 𝑝)(1 − 𝜀𝑒 )(𝑎)(𝐷𝑒 )(𝑔)
𝐹𝑔
ℎ𝐿𝑒 =
(𝑎)(𝑝)(𝑔)

Rapid Sand Design

Filtration Rate (m/d) 180
Number of Filters 6
Flow (m3/d) 67,219.2
Bed Depth of Sand (m) 0.6
Bed Depth of Gravel (m) 0.3
Dynamic Viscosity (Pa*s) 1.12e-3
Porosity 0.44
Diameter (m) 0.6
Density of Media (kg/m3) 1,602
Density of Water (kg/m3) 1,000
Number of Filter Beds 5.056(≈6)
Area of Individual Bed (m2) 62.24
Amount of Sand Needed (m3) 37.344
Amount of Gravel Needed (m3) 18.672
Headloss Backwashing (m) 0.585
Porosity of Expanded Bed 0.5605
Rate of Backwash to Exceed 50% Expansion 0.6586
Headloss when Backwash (m) 0.1742
Reynold’s Number 3.6
Backwash Velocity (m/s) 45
Length (m) 8.21
Cell Height (m) 1.267
Backwash through Design 570
Backwash through Design 2,280

Appendix G: Disinfection Calculations

𝐿
𝐿 3.5
𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 ( )=( 𝑚𝑜𝑙 ∗𝑠 )
𝑚𝑔 ∗ 𝑠 𝑚𝑔
48,000 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑧𝑜𝑛𝑒
𝑚𝑜𝑙
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑡 𝐶𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 𝐶 =
1 + (𝐷𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑦 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒)(𝐻𝐷𝑇)(𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛)
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 = 𝑉 = 𝑡𝑜 𝑄
 21

𝐻 = 4𝐿
𝐿
𝑉 = (𝐻) ( ) (# 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠)(𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙)
𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑙
Cell # Concentration @ Residual @ Cell Ct
(Assume 10) Cell Influent (mg/l) HDT (min) Effluent (mg/L) t10 (min) (mg*min/L)
1 2 0.824 1.9857 0.1978667 N/A
2 1.9857 0.824 1.9716 0.1978667 0.39010499
3 1.9716 0.824 1.9576 0.1978667 0.38735042
4 1.9576 0.824 1.9439 0.1978667 0.38463449
5 1.9439 0.824 1.9304 0.1978667 0.38195638
6 1.9304 0.824 1.9170 0.1978667 0.3793153
7 1.9170 0.824 1.9039 0.1978667 0.3767105
8 1.9039 0.824 1.8909 0.1978667 0.37414123
9 1.8909 0.824 1.8781 0.1978667 0.37160676
10 1.8781 0.824 0.1978667

Sum (Cells 1 thru 9) 3.04582007

Disinfection Design
Ct (mg*min/L) 2.968
C (mg/L) 1.5
Ct/C (min) 1.9787
t10/t0 0.6
t0 (min) 3.2978
Decay Rate (L/mg*s) 7.292E-05
Decay Rate (L/mg*min) 0.004375
Number of Cells 9
Flow (m3/d) 67219.2
Volume (m3) 153.940
Depth (m) 6
Length (H=3L) (m/cell) 2
Width (m/cell) 1.425
Width (m/cell) (rounded) 1.5

Appendix H: Fluoridation Calculations

𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 8 ∗ 10−4 (𝑇)2 − 5.82 ∗ 10−2 (𝑇) + 1.7432
𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑 = 1 𝑚𝑔/𝑙 − 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝐺𝑀𝑊 𝐹 −
𝐴𝑣𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑢𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝐼𝑜𝑛 =
𝐺𝑀𝑊 𝑁𝑎2 𝑆𝑖𝐹6
 22

𝐷𝑜𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑒𝑑 ∗ 𝑄𝑚3 ∗ 1000𝐿/𝑚3

ℎ
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 =
𝐴𝐹𝐼 ∗ 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑁𝑎2 𝑆𝑖𝐹6
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝑆𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑔
𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 ( )
𝑚𝑙

Fluoridation Design
Temperature (𝐶 𝑜 ) 15.6
Fluoride Concentration 0.55
Purity of 𝑁𝑎2 𝑆𝑖𝐹6 0.985
Solubility (g/100 mL) 0.762
Flow Rate (m3/h) 2800.8
GMW, F 19
GMW, 𝑁𝑎2 𝑆𝑖𝐹6 188
Dosage (mg/L) 1.030
Dosage to be Added (mg/L) 0.45
Available Fluoride Ion 𝑁𝑎2 𝑆𝑖𝐹6 0.6064
Mass Feed Rate (mg/h) 2.11e6
Mass Feed Rate (g/h) 2,110.141
Mass Feed Rate (g/min) 35.169
Solution Feed Rate (mL/min) 4,615.356

Appendix I: Softening Calculations

Softening Requirements
Overflow Rate v < 4.2 m/h
Detention Time 1h <t<2h
Mixing Time t ≥ 30 min
Weir Hydraulic Loading Rate WL ≤ 0.240 m3/min
Upflow Solids Contact Units
Nominal Nominal Nominal Cone Dimensions (m) Separation Zone Column Motor Power # of
Diameter (m) SWD (m) Volume (m3) h r1 r2 Area (m2) Diameter (m) (kW) Weirs
12 4.8 580 3.6 6.5 2 100 1.3 2 8
15 5.3 970 4.1 7.5 2.7 160 1.7 3.5 8
18 5.5 1500 4.3 8.5 3.3 230 2 5.5 10
21 5.6 2140 4.4 9.5 4.2 300 2.3 7.5 10
24 5.8 2850 4.6 10 5 390 2.6 10 10
27 5.9 3730 4.7 10.5 6 480 3 15 10

𝑄
𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 𝑣 =
𝐴𝑠
𝑉
𝐷𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 = 𝑡 =
𝑄
𝜋ℎ 2
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑒 = ∀= (𝑟 + 𝑟1 𝑟2 + 𝑟22 )
3 1
 23

∀
𝑀𝑖𝑥𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑒 =
𝑄
𝑁𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 − 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑛 𝐷𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝐿 = (# 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟𝑠)(𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑟) ( )
2
𝑄
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 =
𝐿

Softening Basin Calculations

Flow, Q (m3/s) 0.778

Flow, Q (m3/d) 67219.2
Number of Tanks 3
Flow to each tank 22406.4
Surface Area (m2) 230
Overflow Rate (m/d) 97.41913
Overflow Rate (m/h) 4.05913
Volume (m3) 1500
Detention Time (d) 0.066945
Detention Time (h) 1.606684
Height of Cone (m) 4.3
Radius at Bottom of
8.5
Cone (m)
Radius at Top of Cone
3.3
(m)
Volume of Truncated
500.683
Cone (m3)
Mixing Time (d) 0.022346
Mixing Time (min) 32.17757
# of Weirs 10
# of sides water enters
2
each Weir
Nominal Diameter (m) 18
Column Diameter (m) 2
Weir Length (m) 160
Weir Hydraulic Loading
Rate (m3/d/m) 140.04

Weir Hydraulic Loading

Rate (m3/min/m) 0.09725
 24

References
Davis, M. L. (2010). Water and wastewater engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York.

“U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Flint city, Michigan.” (n.d.). Census Bureau QuickFacts, United
States Census Bureau, <https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/flintcitymichigan> (Mar. 7, 2019).