See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269333012

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD): What is Good CFD- Modeling Practice and
What Can Be the Added Value of CFD Models to WWTP Modeling?

Conference Paper · January 2012

DOI: 10.2175/193864712811704161

CITATIONS READS

2 395

6 authors, including:

Ingmar Nopens Damien J. Batstone

Ghent University The University of Queensland
375 PUBLICATIONS   4,443 CITATIONS    276 PUBLICATIONS   8,866 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alonso Griborio Randal W Samstag

Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. Randal W. Samstag Civil and Sanitary Engineer
43 PUBLICATIONS   153 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   148 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

population balance modelling of granule sizes in a twin screw wet granulator (part of a continuous pharmaceutical powder-to-tablet) View project

Model-based knowledge buildup of mixing behavior in anaerobic digesters View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Randal W Samstag on 09 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WEFTEC 2012

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD): What is Good CFD-

Modeling Practice and What Can Be the Added Value of CFD
Models to WWTP Modeling?
Ingmar Nopens1, Damien J. Batstone2, Alonso Griborio3, Randal Samstag4, Ed Wicklein4
and Jim Wicks5
1
BIOMATH, Department of Mathematical Modelling, Statistics and Bioinformatics, Ghent
University, Coupure links 653, 9000 Gent, Belgium
2
Advanced Water Management Center, University of Queensland, 4072, Brisbane, Australia
3
Hazen and Sawyer, P.C., 4000 Hollywood Blvd 750N, Hollywood, Florida, USA
4
Carollo Engineers, Seattle, Washington, USA
5
The Fluid Group, The Magdalen Centre, Robert Robinson Avenue, The Oxford Science Park,
Oxford OX4 4GA, UK

ABSTRACT
CFD modeling is increasingly used in the wastewater treatment (WWT) field, both in academia
and practice, with a significant increase in the last 5 years. However, the future use of CFD
models and their added value to the wastewater field will be very much dependent on their
proper use. As was recently established for biokinetic models, this requires a code of Good
Modeling Practice (GMP) for CFD as well. Discussions towards GMP for CFD and potential
current and future uses and challenges were subject for thorough discussion at a dedicated
workshop at the 3rd IWA/WEF Wastewater Treatment Modeling Seminar held in Mont-Sainte-
Anne (Canada). This paper summarises the major outcomes of that workshop.

KEYWORDS: computational fluid dynamics; good modeling practice

INTRODUCTION

CFD models have been extensively used in a wide variety of engineering disciplines including
general environmental engineering, chemical engineering, and mechanical/aerospace
engineering. Over the last 15 years, there has been a steady increase in CFD modeling in the
wastewater treatment (WWT) field, both in academia and practice, with a significant increase in
the last 5 years. The general growth of CFD for practical applications has seen its use by
wastewater design engineers in various areas. As illustrated in Figure 1, nearly all unit processes
used in wastewater treatment facilities have been modelled by using CFD. Furthermore, also
other types of systems like MBR (Brannock et al., 2010) and waste stabilisation ponds (Alvarado
Martinez et al., 2012) have been modelled with CFD. Despite this growth, the application of
CFD has not reached comparable levels compared to other application fields where it has
become standard for prototyping and evaluating equipment to assess factors which would not
normally be evaluated in any other way.
There are a number of barriers to widespread application of CFD based analysis of wastewater
treatment systems. One is its limited penetration within the educational and academic sector.
Typical users are either mechanical, or chemical engineers, that received a supplementary
training in Environmental Engineering, or Environmental Engineers that took training
(sometimes based on self-study) in CFD from books, through colleagues or by taking training
courses provided by commercial CFD software manufacturers. Another is the relatively high cost
of commercial CFD software. Only large environmental engineering consulting companies often
feel that their work can justify this cost. Despite the current successful spread and usage of CFD
modeling, there is also a potential danger in its misuse, due to either poor model selection and
setup, and interpretation of results. Misuse leads to bad designs or processes that result in

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

7400
 WEFTEC 2012

suboptimal hydraulic design, contributing to distrust of CFD models in the WWT field. While
there are several textbooks available on the general use of CFD modeling, currently there is no
targeted textbook or scientific report available that addresses the proper use of CFD for
wastewater treatment.
The WWTmod2012 workshop was meant to be a first step towards such a technical report as it
focused on achieving consensus on good modeling practice when developing and using CFD
WWT models, including proper interpretation of simulation results. A second important
objective of the workshop was to discuss how CFD models can be useful for WWT engineering
practice to date and how they can further be developed to serve WWT modeling in general. This
paper is therefore broken down in two parts, a first one addressing GMP and a second one
outlining ideas towards future use of CFD models in WWT.

Figure 1. Overview of WWT unit processes that have in the past been modeled using CFD

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Towards good modeling practice for CFD

Good modeling practice has recently received ample attention in WWT modeling, more
specifically with regard to biokinetic models. In that respect the IWA Task Group on Good
Modeling Practice released a detailed report (Rieger et al., 2012). The typical ingredients of good
modeling practice for any modeling exercise are illustrated in Figure 2a. It consists of (1) clearly
defining the objective of the modeling work with all parties involved; (2) the collection of data,
defining the model configuration (e.g. level of detail of the model) and simulation settings; (3)
running the simulations (steady state, dynamic) and (4) post-processing, calibration and
validation. After these steps, either the objective is met or the developed model is ready to be
used to explore the answer to the objective with additional methods such scenario analysis.

However, setting up a CFD model includes additional considerations compared to developing a

biokinetic model. A first important addition is the fact whether the objective justifies and really
necessitates the use of a CFD model for the purpose. Secondly, a CFD model may or may not
undergo a calibration step as the degrees of freedom that could be used to fine-tune the model
may be limited. On the other hand, a CFD model may be used in the context where important
parameters are unknown, and calibration and validation is absolutely required. In contrast, it may
also be used where the analysis is of fundamental interactions between geometry, fluid
properties, and the hydraulic model. In this case, validation is not essential, since the underlying
physics and geometry are known. Furthermore, it should be noted that data collection for
validation is both time consuming and resource intensive as it typically requires advanced
measurement techniques. Mostly velocity measurements such as Acoustic Doppler Velocimetry
(ADV) or Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) are used, which require specific skills and expertise
to conduct (Vanrolleghem et al., 2006). Additionally, also spatial profiling of certain components
within the reactor (e.g. dissolved oxygen) and reactive tracer methods have been reported
(Gresch et al., 2010). Usually, the validation is performed by visual inspection of 2-3D graphs of

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

7401
 WEFTEC 2012

experimental data and model predictions, which can be subjective, as it involves pattern
recognition rather than the normal comparison of model error using e.g. an objective function.
Verification by solids and dye profiling (tracer test) is a relatively inexpensive and well-
documented procedure, however, and can be used for verification of solids transport modeling
for many wastewater treatment applications (Bender and Crosby, 1984).
Next to these differences in the generic methodology, the different steps in the procedure also
contain differences related to the specificities of CFD. This is the case for whatever unit is being
modelled. These steps are outlined in Figure 2b and further briefly discussed.

a)
b)
Figure 2. a) Typical ingredients of good modeling practice and b) specific ingredients of
good modeling practice when applied to a CFD modeling study

With regard to the model configuration, several crucial choices need to be made which have a
significant impact on the computational burden of the model and the correctness of the
predictions. In this respect, the objectives should be accurately defined and the system analysed
as to what level of detail a model is required.
A first choice is the dimensionality of the model (2-3D). A 3D-problem is not particularly more
complex in use, but one should realize that this has significant impact on the computational
requirements. Hence, one should check whether the assumptions made when modeling in 2D are
too harsh for the objective to be met. If not, a 2D model might be able to provide the answer to
the objective in a fraction of the time compared to 3D. It should be noted that there are a large
number of opportunities to infer 3D outcomes from 2D geometry by for example, locating areas
of axial symmetry.
A second important choice is the number of different phases to be used. In WWT we are
typically dealing with liquid flows in which solids are dispersed and, moreover, in aerated zones
a gas phase is introduced. Furthermore, dissolved components are present too. There are several
ways to account for dispersed components, each coming at a certain cost. The easiest approach is
to model only one phase and assume the solids to follow the advective flow (i.e. by using a
separate solids transport equation). The advantage of this approach is that a large body of data
can be used to model solids settling. Another way is to use a two-phase approach which tracks
the mass and momentum balances (Navier-Stokes equations) for both phases and includes
momentum transport between both phases (normally through a slip model). This approach may
have limited validity, especially when individual fluid properties are not known (e.g., for solid
phases). A compromise solution is provided by the so-called “mixture” model. A disadvantage of
the standard mixture model approach is that it relies on input of a single particle diameter for
calculation of settling velocity by the Stokes equation. This is unrealistic for most wastewater
applications where a wide range of particle diameters are present and which change as they flow

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

7402
 WEFTEC 2012

through a tank (Wicklein and Samstag, 2009). When it comes to dissolved components, these are
assumed to just follow the fluid motion and are usually modeled as separate species through
species equations that predict local concentrations accounting for both advection and diffusion.

A third choice to be made is with respect to material properties that impact fluid properties such
as density and viscosity, which can be chosen independently for all phases that are modeled.
With respect to solids, density of the fluid is fundamentally MLSS dependent, and viscosity is
normally related to solids also. The impact of solids on density is relatively straightforward to
include (being an ideal mixture). Recent research indicates that neutral density analysis of
activated sludge tanks can dramatically over-predict the degree of mixing (Samstag et al, 2012).
Some models have been reported in literature, but there is a lack of consensus, particularly at
higher solids concentrations. The impact of solids on viscosity, although been studied quite
often, is still less well defined.
A fourth choice is whether additional models apart from the CFD are required. If conversion of
dispersed and dissolved components is occurring (and of interest to either hydraulics, rheology,
or the process itself), conversion terms need to be added to their respective scalar equations. If
settling is to be modeled, a settling velocity in the direction of gravity should be introduced.
The next step in the protocol concerns data collection. For CFD models, accurate geometric
information is required as this can have a significant impact on flow behavior, and often the
model objective is to assess the impact of geometry on fluid hydraulics. If available, CAD-
drawings can be imported in most software tools. If not, it is advised to spend ample time on
collecting this data accurately (and properly validate existing data). Next to this, information on
incoming and outgoing flows from the studied system as well as concentrations of important
components should be collected. If more rigorous models will be used for certain material
properties (density, viscosity), data to calibrate those need to be collected as well.
The data collected in the previous step now allows, after further system assessment, to decide on
the fluid kinetic model. Based on the Reynolds number it should be decided whether the flow is
in a laminar or turbulent regime. The second is more computationally complex, requiring
calculation of additional turbulent model field states (e.g., - model variables, as well as the
standard velocity and pressure fields). Finally, in this step boundary conditions for all incoming
and outgoing flows (for each phase), walls, and surfaces, need to be set. The latter also includes
boundary conditions for the turbulent quantities if turbulence appears to be important. All of
these boundary conditions can be steady state or dynamic.
In a final step, the geometry needs to be divided into nodes, a process referred to as “meshing”.
The latter is a complex problem in itself and has many degrees of freedom with respect to mesh
type, number of nodes, spatially dependent mesh coarseness, etc. As a last step, the type of
solvers for the different equations and their settings can be chosen along with the rules for
convergence which can be set by the user. The latter will determine the speed of simulation, its
accuracy and the fact whether useful or useless results will be obtained. This final step is
iterative as usually a grid independency check is performed in order to verify whether the grid
coarseness has an effect on the solution. A coarse grid has a lower level of inherent stability (and
higher degree of numerical diffusion) with respect to solution, while a fine grid will be more
stable, but will be more difficult to solve, both because of the increased number of states, but
also because of an increased model stiffness (order of magnitude in model processes).

Current and future added value of CFD

The current portfolio of CFD models in the field of WWT is illustrated in Figure 3. Next to
“plain CFD” which simply computes (single phase) flow patterns, different ingredients can be
added resulting in an “extended CFD” approach. Some of these are more straightforward than
others and are recommended to be used as state of the art (e.g. density, soluble transport). Others
have not reached consensus yet and are being debated in literature (e.g. rheology, solids
transport, flocculation). They should be used with caution. Efforts to combine CFD with ASM

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

7403
 WEFTEC 2012

models are ongoing as well (e.g. Sobremisana et al., 2011).

Figure 3. Current portfolio of CFD models in the field of WWT

To date CFD models have primarily been used for design analysis and troubleshooting, mainly
due to the computational effort. However, more frequent use of CFD and the accumulation of
knowledge should increasingly allow for optimization of design and operation. This has, in the
past, already been applied to secondary sedimentation (e.g., Griborio et al., 2006, Xanthos et al.,
2011) and mixing (Samstag et al., 2012), but will also be true for other processes. Optimization
can both be in terms of process performance (e.g. improved conversion through better mixing) as
well as in energy reduction (e.g. smarter location and operation of impellers and aerators).

The time-scale when these benefits can become available really depend on the complexity of the
system and how much effort was already invested into it in the past. An overview of expectations
is given in Table1.

Table 1. Time-scale of expected different developments using either plain or extended CFD
Timing / CFD type Plain CFD Extended CFD
Short term Flow splitters and combiners Secondary clarifiers
Medium to long term Mixing of tanks Coupled biokinetics
Optimisation of heat transfer
Environmental dispersion Two-phase models
Membrane fouling
Aeration and gas-liquid
transfer
Integration of CFD and
extended plant wide models

Next to the use of CFD as stand-alone tool in system optimization, a second route will be to use
CFD as a means to build up knowledge which can then serve to improve the models we are
currently using. The first examples have been reported in literature where CFD models are used
to build somewhat more detailed mixing models called “compartmental models” (compared to
the current practice of tanks-in-series) (Le Moullec et al., 2011, Alvarado Martinez et al., 2012).
This is likely required to restore the balance in complexity between different submodels used in
current WWT modeling. In this way CFD models clearly have a complementary and supporting
role to play in WWT modeling and by no means will replace them in the near future.On the
contrary, they are an important tool to further extend our knowledge and further exploit the
power of mathematical modeling for WWT systems.

CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

7404
 WEFTEC 2012

The potential for CFD in WWT applications is tremendous. However, to date, this potential has
not been fully exploited. One of the reasons, next to training of people, is the lack of a good
guidance with respect to good modeling practice in water and wastewater. This should cover the
complete process from objective definition through to solution and visualisation. In this paper,
we have tried to briefly outline the main differences with GMP of biokinetic models and the
specificities of developing CFD models. Furthermore, an overview of the current and future
potential of CFD in WWT is provided.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ingmar Nopens thanks the Flemish Fund for Scientific Research (Project G.A051.10).

REFERENCES
Alvarado Martinez, A., Vedantam, S., Goethals P., and Nopens, I. (2012). Compartmental
Models to Describe Hydraulics in Full-scale Waste Stabilization Ponds. Water Research,
46(2), 521-530.
Bender, JH, and Crosby, RM, "Hydraulic Characteristics of Activated Sludge Secondary
Clarifiers," Project Summary, US EPA 600/S2-84-131 (1984).
Brannock, M., Wang, Y. and Leslie, G. (2010). Mixing characterisation of full-scale membrane
bioreactors: CFD modeling with experimental validation. Water Research, 44(10), 3181-
3191.
Gresch, M., Braun, D., and Gujer, W. (2010). Using reactive tracers to detect flow field
anomalies in water treatment reactors. Water Research, 45(5), 1984-1994.
Griborio, A., and McCorquodale, J.A (2006). Optimum design of your center well: Use of a CFD
model to understand the balance between flocculation and improved hydrodynamics. In:
Proceedings of the 79th Annual Conference and Exposition, Dallas, TX, October 21-26,
2006.
Le Moullec, Y., Potier, O., Gentric, C. and Leclerc, J P. (2011). Activated sludge pilot plant:
Comparison between experimental and predicted concentration profiles using three
different modeling approaches. Water Research, 45(10), 3085-3097.
Rieger, L., Gillot, S., Langergraber, G., Ohtsuki, T., Shaw, A., Takacs, I. and Winkler, S. (2012).
Guidelines for using Activated Sludge Models. IWA Scientific and Technical Report.
Technical Report. IWA Publishing. London.
Samstag, R.W., Wicklein, E.W., Reardon, R.D., Leetch, R.J., Parks, R.M., and Groff, C.D.
(2012). Field and CFD Analysis of Jet Aeration and Mixing. In: Proceedings of the 84th
Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Conference & Exposition, New
Orleans, LA, October, 2012.
Sobremisana, A.P., Ducoste, J.J, and de los Reyes, F.L.III (2011). Combining CFD, Floc
Dynamics and Biological Reaction Kinetics to Model Carbon and Nitrogen Removal in
Activated Sludge System. In: Proceedings of the 84th Annual Conference and
Exposition, Los Angeles, CA, October 15-19, 2011.
Vanrolleghem, P.A., De Clercq, B., De Clercq, J., Devisscher, M., Kinnear, D.J., Nopens I.
(2006). New Measurement Techniques for Secondary Settlers: A Review. Water Sci.
Technol. 53(4-5), 419-429.
Wicklein, E.A. and Samstag, R.W. (2009). Comparing Commercial and Transport CFD Models
for Secondary Sedimentation. In: Proceedings of the 81st Annual Technical Exhibition
and Conference, Orlando, FL, October, 2009.
Xanthos, S., Gong, M., Ramalingam, K., Fillos, J., Deur, A., Beckmann, K., and McCorquodale,
J.A. (2011). Performance assessment of secondary settling tanks using CFD modeling.
Water Res. Man., 25, 1169-1182.

Copyright ©2012 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

7405
View publication stats