Kevin Kraus, Saint Francis University Environmental Engineering Department, “Trompe Aeration”
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•1,345 views
Ancient technology that found its roots in the Catalan Forge in Spain, has seen a revival in recent years to treat acid mine drainage. This technology harnesses the power of hydraulics and hydrology by passively compressing air via the use of falling water, using no moving parts. A group of recently-graduated students from Saint Francis University have done extensive research in attempt to procure sizing guidance and parameters for the installation of this passive technology.
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Kevin Kraus, Saint Francis University Environmental Engineering Department, “Trompe Aeration”
Similar to Kevin Kraus, Saint Francis University Environmental Engineering Department, “Trompe Aeration” (20)
More from Michael Hewitt, GISP
More from Michael Hewitt, GISP (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Kevin Kraus, Saint Francis University Environmental Engineering Department, “Trompe Aeration”
- 1. Trompe: Design and Analysis of a Passive Aeration Mechanism TROMPES “R” US By: Michael Fox, Kevin Kraus, Nicholas Pyo
- 2. Outline Background Approach Taken Summary of Results Sustainability Assessment Cost Assessment Guidance
- 3. History Originated in the Catalan Forge, Spain Used in Ragged Chute mine in North Bay, Canada New Revival: Treatment of AMD BioMost, Inc.
- 4. What is a Trompe?
- 5. Energy Balance 𝑣1 2 2𝑔 + 𝑃1 𝛾 + ℎ1 = 𝑣2 2 2𝑔 + 𝑃2 𝛾 + ℎ2 Kinetic Energy Potential Energy Elevation Head
- 6. Outline Background Approach Taken Summary of Results Sustainability Assessment Cost Assessment Guidance
- 7. Approach Taken Problem Statement: Investigate the problems with configurations and efficiency of trompe Limited information and knowledge of trompe Objectives: Better understanding of trompe Breaking down each component Disseminate the information as guidance Lab, Field and Computer Model
- 8. Design Criteria and Constraints Criteria and Constraints: Design criteria – Hydraulics Steady Flow Design constraints Material – PVC Water Flow: Lab: 0 – 45 GPM Field: 0 – 3000 GPM
- 9. Lab Experiment Independent Variables: Design of the aspirator Length and diameter of air containment chamber Height of outflow Flow rate of water Dependent Variables: Air production
- 10. Lab Experiment Aspirator Designs Figure 2: One-inch trompe aspirator design. Figure 3: Two-inch trompe aspirator design.
- 11. BioMost Field Aspirator Design
- 13. Field Monitoring B C D A E
- 14. Computer Model Developed from Energy Equation Takes inputs (Right) Outputs graph (shown later) 𝑣1 2 2𝑔 + 𝑃1 𝛾 + ℎ1 = 𝑣2 2 2𝑔 + 𝑃2 𝛾 + ℎ2
- 15. Outline Background Approach Taken Summary of Results Sustainability Assessment Cost Assessment Guidance
- 16. Air Production vs Water Flow Rate 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 AirFlowRateintoTrompe(cfm) Water Flow Rate (GPM) One-inch Lab-Scale Two-inch Lab-Scale Field-Scale
- 17. Air Production Efficiency 5 15 25 35 45 10 20 30 40 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 AirFlowRateOut(cfm) Air Flow Rate In (cfm) One-Inch Trompe Two-Inch Trompe Efficiency Line Field-Scale Efficiency Line 2
- 19. Height of Water in Reservoir -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 HEAD(FT) FLOW RATE OF WATER (GPM) P in Venturi (psi) P before Venturi (psi) P after Venturi (psi) Head H2O z_5 (ft)
- 20. Pressure Before Aspirator -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 HEAD(FT) FLOW RATE OF WATER (GPM) P in Venturi (psi) P before Venturi (psi) P after Venturi (psi) Head H2O z_5 (ft)
- 21. Pressure In Aspirator -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 HEAD(FT) FLOW RATE OF WATER (GPM) P in Venturi (psi) P before Venturi (psi) P after Venturi (psi) Head H2O z_5 (ft)
- 22. Pressure After Aspirator -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 HEAD(FT) FLOW RATE OF WATER (GPM) P in Venturi (psi) P before Venturi (psi) P after Venturi (psi) Head H2O z_5 (ft)
- 23. -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 HEAD(FT) FLOW RATE OF WATER (GPM) P in Venturi P before Venturi P after Venturi Head H2O One Inch Trompe Critical Range
- 24. -5 -3 -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 10 20 30 40 50 HEAD(FT) FLOW RATE OF WATER (GPM) P in Venturi P before Venturi P after Venturi Head H2O Two Inch Trompe Critical Range
- 25. -15 -5 5 15 25 35 45 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 HEAD(FT) FLOW RATE OF WATER (GPM) P in Venturi P before Venturi P after Venturi Head H2O Rock Tunnel - Ten inch Trompe Critical Range
- 26. Sensitivity Analysis *With k_expansion > 1 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Head(ft) Flow Rate of Water (GPM) Head H2O P_head_in_asp P_head_before_asp
- 27. Sensitivity Analysis-Criteria *With k_expansion < 1 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Head(ft) Flow Rate of Water (GPM) Head H2O P_head_in_asp P_head_before_asp
- 28. Energy Efficiency y = 0.0343x + 0.3808 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 10 20 30 40 50 %Efficiency Water Flowrate (GPM) Energy Efficiency of 2" Trompe 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 200 400 600 800 %Efficiency Water Flowrate (GPM) Energy Efficiency of Each Field Trompe Low Medium High
- 29. Outline Background Approach Taken Summary of Results Sustainability Assessment Cost Assessment Guidance
- 30. Air Compressor: 7.5 HP | 30 CFM Operates on 6.93 kWh Operate Compressor: 1 year 61,000 kWh Sustainability Assessment Carbon Emissions: Assume the burning of coal 2.10 lbs CO2 per kWh Emissions into Atmosphere: 1 year 130,000 lbs of CO2 Average Household: 15,000 lbs of CO2 per year
- 32. Outline Background Approach Taken Summary of Results Sustainability Assessment Cost Assessment Guidance
- 33. Cost Assessment 10 Year Analysis: Average Cost of Electricity is $0.12/kWh Air Compressor: Cost of Structure and Install – $23,000 Cost of Operation – $73,000 Present Worth: $96,000 Trompe: Cost of Install - $46,000 Cost of Operation - $0 Present Worth: $46,000 Trompe:$50,000 Savings!
- 34. Outline Background Approach Taken Summary of Results Sustainability Assessment Cost Assessment Guidance
- 35. Guidance Key Design Elements: Critical Range Dependent on Water Flowrate Aspirator Design 25-50% Area Reduction Air-Separation Chamber Varying Length Following Recommendations: Improved System Efficiency
- 36. Conclusion Trompes needed for Passive Treatment Lab experiments Field monitoring Calibrate computer model Design guidance and recommendations Disseminate Information
- 37. Acknowledgements BioMost, Inc. Kevin Tomkowski Joel Bandstra, PhD Douglas Daley, PE Kelsea Palmer Bruce Leavitt