Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations KootK on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Wastewater lift station/forcemain problem 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

OneManWolfpack

Civil/Environmental
Feb 27, 2012
22
I have one of those dreaded "intermediate high point" issues for y'all.

Our client recently replaced an older submersible wastewater lift station with a new one pumping into the same 14-inch forcemain. The forcemain has an several intermediate high points, and combination air/vacuum valves installed along the line. When the new station was put online, the pumps would not operate without throttling the valves at the pump discharge. By throttling, I mean almost closing. They're 21-turn plug valves, and they must be closed 15 turns to keep the station from sounding like it's pumping gravel.

We've done some pretty extensive analysis, conducted drawdown testing, installed pressure logging equipment downstream of the throttled valves, and I think we've pretty much made sense of what's happening in the forcemain that's causing the problems for the pumps. In a nutshell, the line drains from the high point(s) in between pumping cycles, and when the pumps kick back on, they're only pumping against a fraction of the friction head for which they were designed.

The pressure logging data (examples attached) shows that most days, the line pressure at the pump station is around 30 psi when the pumps are running. The pressure gradually increases as the pumps run to 35-40 psi (as the line fills) and then drops off to static pressure when they shut down.

The system changes significantly after heavy rainfall. I assume because higher inflow to the station in question as well as the four other stations that pump into the forcemain allow the forcemain to stay full. After rainfall events, the pressure in the line is up around 70-75 psi during pumping.

The attached graph shows system curves for these two conditions (purple = dry weather, pumping to the high point of the forcemain; blue = wet weather, pumping into a full forcemain; red = wet weather, pumping into a full forcemain with all stations running). Each color, purple, blue, and red, has a heavy and a light line. The light line is adding the headloss through the throttled plug valves, and the heavy line is what the system would be with the valves open.

Obviously, throttling the plug valves is not an acceptable long-term solution, so we're trying to find a better way to operate the system. We've looked at several options.

1) Install a permanent throttling device (orifice plate? different type of valve?) at the pump station. This alternative would essentially make the system permanently operate on the three light system curves on the attached graph. This isn't my favorite solution, but it will likely end up being the cheapest.

2) Install some type of backpressure sustaining valve at the end of the line to keep it from draining between cycles. I'm not sure what type of valve/controls would be required, but the idea is that it would remain closed to a 5-psi or so backpressure and open when backpressure increases due to the pumps turning on.

3) Install a "gooseneck" at the end of the line to create a new high point (it would have to be approximately 8-feet above grade). This wouldn't be the prettiest sight driving by, but I feel like it is a good hydraulic solution, and it should be relatively inexpensive and maintenance free unlike option 2.

4) Install VFDs at the pump station. The attached graph shows where the pumps would operate at reduced speeds. At 50%, they would be able to operate at the low pressure/empty line condition. This would work, but is the most expensive alternative.

I would appreciate any comments or advice on these alternatives and any other solutions you guys and gals can come up with.

Thanks in advance, and a happy Friday to you all!


Attachments:



 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Do you have the design flow and the pump curves?
 
The design flow is 1500 gpm. The dark green curve on the attached Curves.pdf is the certified pump curve. Based on the system curves I've calculated, the pumps are a bit oversized for 1500 gpm, but that is acceptable as long as they don't run all the way out on their curve.

The light green lines on there are where the pump would operate at reduced speeds (90%, 80%, 70%, and 50%) if VFDs were installed.
 
A few observations:

The 14-Inch force main should have a minimum continously operating flow rate of 1000 gpm (2 ft/sec) to avoid solids deposition.

If you operate the force main intermittently, the flow rate when the pump starts should initially be 1700 gpm (3.5 ft/sec) to resuspend the solids that settle out when the flow stops.

It appears that the force main design flow is too large for the application or perhaps designed for the future. Because of this, the benefits to using VFD's or a permanent throttling device are limited.

Unless you have extreme elevations differences that will collapse the pipe, you should consider closing the combination air/vacuum valves. They are probably not necessary. Most wastewater textbooks recommend NOT using combination air/vacuum valves on wastewater force mains.

The best solution is to close the combination air/vacuum valves and install a pressure-sustaining valve on the discharge.

You can get one from Red Valve, GA Industries or Ross Valve:



Similar discussion on another site:

 
Thanks bimr.

I got a quote for a 14-inch backpressure sustaining valve from Ross. It looks like a good valve and a good solution here. The problem is, that the thing is 6.5 ft tall and costs around $30k just for the valve.

What are your thoughts about option 3? I've got this estimated at around $30k total. Would we need to install an air/vac valve at the apex of the gooseneck?

 
In reviewing your post again, the issue really is cavitation of the pumps on startup because the pumps are not pumping against enough head. This is causing the pump curve to shift to the right.

Don't understand the significance of the "8 feet" elevation on the gooseneck. The 8 feet only represent 3-4 psi of water head. I don't see how it will shift the pump curve enough so that you do not have pump cavitation.

However, the gooseneck would work to keep the force main full assuming the top of the gooseneck is within several feet of the top of the hill.

You would have to have an air break at the top of the gooseneck; otherwise the wastewater will siphon through the gooseneck. There may be odors associated with the gooseneck as well, depending on the source and residence time of the sewage.

Before you spend money on a solution, I would experiment by closing the ARV's. It may be enough to close the ARV's if your elevation is not that significant. Install manually operated valves on the ARV's (if valves are not already present) and close the ARV's.


The problem is really caused by the start/stop operation of the force main. Is there enough sewage available so that it is possible to operate the force main continuously? The minimum flow for the 14-Inch line would have to be at least 1000 gpm.

I don't know how deep the lift station is. Is it possible to operate the wet well at a lower depth; operating at a lower level will effectively increase the pump power required and this will also serve to shift the pump curve to the left.

There is an advantage to using a VFD on this application because you can slow the pump down at the beginning of the pumping cycle (to prevent the cavitation) or operate continuously.
 
The intent of both the gooseneck option and the backpressure sustaining valve option is to keep the line full. When the line is full, the pumps will see the friction head from the entire forcemain when they start. The gooseneck would have to be 8 ft above grade to match the elevation of the high point on the forcemain. Likewise, the backpressure sustaining valve would have to remain closed to a 8 ft (~3psi) backpressure.

I understand that with the gooseneck option, the pumps would initially see a static head corresponding to the height of the gooseneck, but once the downward leg of the gooseneck is full, the static head would again correspond to the discharge elevation. This is just fine during pumping, my question is would a gooseneck without a vent still prevent the line from draining from the intermediate high point when the pumps turn off?

There is not enough inflow to the station to operate continuously above 1,000 gpm. We have on two separate occasions measured the inflow (during dry weather) as part of drawdown testing to be below 500 gpm.

The wetwell can not operate at a lower level. Presently, the "pump-off" setpoint is nearly as low as it can go.

The way I see the VFDs operating is that they would still operate the pumps intermittently, at a given flow (say 1,500 gpm), but at lower heads during times where the forcemain is not completely full, and higher heads when it is full.
 
Also important to note, the original 1975 plans for the forcemain show air release valves (no vacuum function). The owner replaced these several years ago with combination air-vacuum valves.

I don't believe an 8-ft elevation drop is enough to collapse a 14-inch DIP pipe, so I'm pretty sure the vacuum-breaking function is not necessary. Is there a way to disable the vacuum function, while retaining the air release function without replacing the valve?

In addition to the combination valves installed along the forcemain, there is a air-vac valve installed at the pump station. The way I understand air-vac valves is that they serve to release a large amount of air initially, but once the pipe is full they do not operate (as opposed to a traditional air release valve which continually allows smaller pockets of air to release). When a vacuum condition is created in the line the air-vac valve breaks the vacuum by allowing air into the system.

We experimented with disabling this valve, but saw no difference other than a more pronounced downsurge (as much as -10 psi) immediately following pump shut off.
 
If 8 feet is all you need, that should work.

I would expect the force main to continue to siphon unless you install a vacuum break. You can construct a vacuum breaker using pipe. Use 3-Inch pipe to form a second gooseneck. Attach the 3-Inch pipe gooseneck to the top of the 14-Inch gooseneck and drain the other end of the 3-Inch pipe into the discharge manhole above the water level. When the flow stops, the 14-Inch pipe will siphon out the 3-Inch and break the siphon.

You will have to ask the manufacturer how to disable the vacuum function.

I am not understanding how as little as an 8 foot elevation will enable the force main to drain during the pump off periods. Also how closing the valve almost all the way replicates a full force main.

However, you seem to have an understanding of what is going on.

 
Is there room in the wet well to install some smaller pumps for this very duty and leave the larger pumps for wet weather conditions?

"Sharing knowledge is the way to immortality"
His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

 
bimr:

Scratched my head over this one for a long time. I have no idea what would be causing the pumps to see less than half of the head they should be seeing other than they're pumping into half (or less) of the forcemain. If you have any other hypotheses, please let me know.

Closing the valve doesn't quite represent a full forcemain. If you look at the curves from my original post you can see that throttling the valve just brings the system curve up enough so that it hits the pump curve.

stanier:

Excellent idea. I'll work this option in with the others, but I have a feeling it will not be cost competitive with the loop or backpressure sustaining valve.


On a side note, I found a much less expensive option for a backpressure valve. It's a GA weight-loaded globe valve. $6k. Music to my ears after seeing the $30k pricetag on the Ross valve. Any thoughts on this?
 
The GA valve should work fine.
 
Does the wet well operate at a higher level in the wet weather? If so higher suction head solves the problem. Maybe your problem is suction head rather than delivery? You can modify the suction pipework to reduce head loss,
trim impellers on a couple of pumps or fit car's to over come the issue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor