OctoAir-10™ AERATION SYSTEM BY 9/8/11

EVALUATION

OF THE

OXYGEN TRANSFER CAPABILITIES

OF

CANADIANPOND.CA PRODUCTS LTD.

¾” BUBBLE TUBING™ AERATION SYSTEM½” BUBBLE TUBING™ AERATION SYSTEMOctoAir-10™ AERATION SYSTEM

BY

GSEE, INC.LA VERGNE, TN.SEPTEMBER, 2011

9/8/11

599 WALDRON RD., LAVERGNE, TN 37086 (615) 793-7547 FAX (615) 793-5070 PAGE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................3

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AERATION TEST BASIN ............................................3

2.1. Horsepower ................................................................................................4

3. TEST PROCEDURES .......................................................................................6

4. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS ...........................................................................8

4.1. Standard ASCE Data Analysis Method ..........................................................8

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .............................................................................11

6. CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................22

7. CERTIFICATION .............................................................................................23

8. APPENDIX ......................................................................................................24

8.1. Regression Analysis Printouts .......................................................................24

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 GSEE Test Facility ............................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2 - Bubble Tubing™ Arrangement ............................................................................................ 6

Figure 5-1 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. KLa20 - ½” Bubble Tubing™ ........................................................ 12

Figure 5-2 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTR/100’ of tubing - ½” Bubble Tubing™ ............................... 12

Figure 5-3 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - ½” Bubble Tubing™ ....................................................... 13

Figure 5-4 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - ½” Bubble Tubing™ ...................... 13

Figure 5-5 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - ½” Bubble Tubing™ ....................................................... 14

Figure 5-6 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SAE - ½” Bubble Tubing™.......................................................... 14

Figure 5-7 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. KLa20 - ¾” Bubble Tubing™ ........................................................ 15

Figure 5-8 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTR/100’ of tubing - ¾” Bubble Tubing™ ............................... 16

Figure 5-9 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - ¾” Bubble Tubing™ ....................................................... 16

Figure 5-10 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - ¾” Bubble Tubing™ .................... 17

Figure 5-11 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - ¾” Bubble Tubing™ ...................................................... 17

Figure 5-12 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SAE - ¾” Bubble Tubing™ ........................................................ 18

Figure 5-13 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. KLa20 - OctoAir-10™ ................................................................... 19

Figure 5-14 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTR/100’ of tubing - OctoAir-10™ ......................................... 19

Figure 5-15 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - OctoAir-10™ ................................................................. 20

Figure 5-16 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - OctoAir-10™ ................................ 20

Figure 5-17 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - OctoAir-10™ .................................................................. 21

Figure 5-18 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SAE - OctoAir-10™ .................................................................... 21

Figure 5-19 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence – All Tubing ................................... 22


LIST OF TABLES

Table 5-1 Summary of ½” Bubble Tubing™ Test Results ................................................................... 11

Table 5-2 Summary of ¾” Bubble Tubing™ Test Results ................................................................... 15

Table 5-3 Summary of OctoAir-10™ Test Results ............................................................................... 18


1. INTRODUCTION

During June-August, 2011, CanadianPond.ca Products Ltd. retained GSEE, Inc., to perform unsteady state clean water shop oxygen transfer tests on the CanadianPond.ca Products Ltd. ½” & ¾” Bubble Tubing™ and the OctoAir-10™ aeration systems. Tests were performed on each system at airflow rates of 2.5, 5 and 10 SCFM at water depths of 5, 10 and 15 feet.

Oxygen transfer is determined using the ASCE clean water non-steady state test procedures. The ASCE standard requires a regression analysis on the data from each sample location and then averages the obtained results.

Test results are reported at standard conditions of 20°C liquid temperature, one (1) atmosphere

barometric pressure, zero (0) dissolved oxygen, and alpha () and beta (ß) equal to 1.0 (clean tap water). All test results are calculated using the ASCE non-linear regression analysis method for the determination of the mass transfer coefficient KLaT, the steady-state D.O. saturation value C*

∞, and the D.O. concentration at time zero C0. The final results are corrected to a standard TDS value of 1,000 mg/L.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE AERATION TEST BASIN

All testing occurred in the 21' diameter x 31' tall GSEE, Inc. test basin located in LaVergne, TN. as shown in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1 GSEE Test Facility

The air source is a 1 HP blower. A bypass valve is used to obtain airflow rates from 0 to 10 SCFM. Exact measurement of the airflow was determined using a Dwyer 0-10 SCFM rotometer installed in the header pipe. A Dwyer digital manometer is used to monitor the flowing air line pressure. A temperature probe monitors line temperature during each test. A mercury barometer is used to monitor local atmospheric pressure.

Airflow rate is defined as follows:

SCFM = Standard Cubic Feet per Minute (14.7 PSIA, 68ºF, 36% RH and a density of 0.075 Lb/Ft³)

STEEL GRIDFOR ANCHORING

AERATION PIPING

0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

SCALE - FEET.

Blower 1

350 SCFM

Blower 2

350 SCFM

Pulsation.Arrestor.

Sulfite.Dissolution.Tank.

Window.Access.Hatch.

ORIFICE PLATE.

TEMPERATURE & PRESSURE GAGES.

4" ANR 73 ANNUBAR.

SUPPORTS FOR VARIABLE.

HEIGHT BRIDGE STRUCTURE.

4" AIR HEADER.

40 H

P.

JIB CRANE.

LADDER.

PLATFORM.

MOVEABLE.

ELECTRIC HOIST.

ELEVATION VIEW.

26' BRIDGE.

GROUND LEVEL.

SUPPORTS.

LADDER.

GUARD.

DRAIN.

31'.

4'.

21'.

40 H

P.

NOTE: 4" Ø FLEXIBLE HOSE

AVAILABLE TO CONNECT AIRHEADER TO AERATION GRID

PIPING.

599 Waldron Rd.LaVergne, TN 37086Aeration Test Facility21' Diameter Tank

30' Max Liquid Depth

6” Fla

nge Penetra

tion

6” Flange Penetration


The air flow rate observed using the Dwyer flowmeter must be corrected to standard conditions using the following equations1:

To correct for temperature and pressure:

ReadingFlowmeterLT

LPBPACFM

528

4607.14 Eq. 2-1

Where: LT = Line Temperature, °F LP = Line Pressure, PSIG BP = Site Barometric Pressure, PSIA

The air flow rate in ACFM is then corrected for relative humidity using Eq. A-1 from the ASCE Standard:

ACFM

LT

BP

PvaRhLPBP

QS

460

1

2.36 Eq. 2-1

where: Rh = Relative Humidity, % Pva = Vapor Pressure of Water at ambient temperature QS = Humidity corrected air flow rate, SCFM SCFM = Standard Cubic Feet per Minute (14.696 PSIA, 68ºF, 36% RH and a

density of 0.075 Lb/Ft³)

The observed airflow rate may be converted to SI units as follows:

6366.0

Nm3 SCFM

hr Eq. 2-2

Where: Nm³/h = Normal Cubic Meters per Hour (1013 hPa, 0ºC, 0% Rh)

2.1. Horsepower

The blower HPmotor can be determined as follows:

MHPGHPHPmotor Eq. 2-3

Where: GHP = Gas Horsepower (From adiabatic compression, shown below) MHP = Mechanical Horsepower (Loss in gear reducers, etc.)

The basic equation for determining the gas horsepower is:

1 Spink, L.K.

"Principles and Practice of FLOW METER ENGINEERING" Ninth Edition, 1975 The FOXBORO COMPANY, Foxboro, Mass.


o

aa HWGHP

000,33 Eq. 2-4

Where: Wa = Weight flow of gas, Lbs./Min Ha = Adiabatic Head, Ft-Lbf/Lbm

o = Blower Overall Efficiency, % 33,000 = Units Conversion Factor, Ft-Lbf/Min/HP

The Weight Flow of gas (Wa) can be determined as follows:

ACFMWa Eq. 2-5

Where: ACFM = Actual flow of gas at discharge conditions

= Density of flowing gas at discharge conditions

= 46072.10

LT

LPBPMWm

Where: MWm = Molecular Weight of Moist flowing gas

= GMWd

Where: MWd = Molecular Weight of dry gas G = Specific Gravity of moist gas

= BP

PvRh a

378.01

The Adiabatic Head (Ha) is calculated as follows:

k

k

BP

LPBPTaR

H

k

k

a 1

1

1

Eq. 2-6

Where: R = Gas Constant, Ft-Lbf/Lbm ºR

=

mMW

545,1

k = Ratio of specific heats, Cp/Cv

Four (4) Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) D.O. probes are installed in the test basin to monitor the dissolved oxygen concentrations during each test. A YSI Model 556 MPS multi parameter meter and probe are used to monitor water quality (Temp, TDS, D.O., and Barometric Pressure) during each test.

The following sketch shows the arrangement used for the ½” & ¾” Bubble Tubing™ in the GSEE, Inc. test basin. For both sizes of Bubble Tubing™ 100-feet of tubing was installed in the GSEE test basin. The OctoAir-10™ was installed centered in the GSEE test basin. The OctoAir-10™ consists of 100-feet of ½” tubing installed in a compact spiral configuration on an easily retrievable stainless steel frame.


Figure 2 - Bubble Tubing™ Arrangement

3. TEST PROCEDURES

Before testing, the aeration basin is cleaned and filled to the required test depth with potable water.

Four (4) YSI dissolved oxygen meters and probes are placed in the test basin and later used to monitor the dissolved oxygen concentration during each test. The probes are located as follows:

Probe Probe Depth 1 2’ Above Floor 2 2’ Below Surface 3 Mid-Depth 4 Mid-Depth YSI MPS 556 Mid-Depth

Overall test procedures include:

After installing the diffusers in the test basin, add water to a depth even with the top surface of the diffusers. Check diffusers to insure that the level of all is within ±¼".

16.7 in 221.6 in12.8 in

49

.1 i

n

Access Hatch

Window

Bridge Bar Spacing1’ starting 1’ above floor

100’ of TubingInstalled

Blank Diffuser


After filling the test basin with tap water, add enough cobalt chloride catalyst to obtain a concentration of cobaltous ion less than 0.1 mg/l. Dissolve the catalyst into the basin contents by running the aeration system a minimum of thirty minutes before testing.

Add enough (150-300% of stoichiometric) sodium sulfite to deoxygenate the tap water in the basin to start each test. Monitor the dissolved oxygen concentration as it depletes then starts to rise, using the in-situ dissolved oxygen probes. Record the water temperature using the YSI MPS 556 thermister.

With the aeration system operating at the specified liquid depth and air flow rate, start monitoring as the oxygen concentration increases. Collect data to cover a range of dissolved oxygen concentrations from 1.0 mg/l to 98% of saturation, obtaining a minimum of 300 data points for each probe.

I. The general test procedures are:

1. Thoroughly clean the aeration basin before testing and fill with tap water to the desired liquid depth.

2. Operate the aeration system in potable water at the test airflow rate and operating liquid depth for 30 minutes before testing to obtain temperature and mixing equilibrium. Record the liquid temperature a minimum of three times during each test run. Maintain the required airflow rate during testing by monitoring manometers connected across the airflow devices. Monitor operating air pressure and headloss via a mercury manometer. Measure the operating line temperature.

3. Install 4 dissolved oxygen probes with integral stirrers at locations in the test tank as required.

4. Use Cobalt Chloride (CoCl2 * 6H2O) as a catalyst at a concentration of 0.1 mg/l. 5. Use anhydrous sodium sulfite technical grade (Na2SO3) to deoxygenate the test

liquid. Add sulfite solution before each test run to decrease the oxygen concentration to zero (0.50 mg/l or less D.O.) and maintained zero for 1 minute.

6. Use the azide modification of the Winkler method to calibrate the D.O. probes. Collect a minimum of three-hundred (300) D.O. observations for each D.O. probe between 10 and 98% of saturation.

II. Detailed test procedures:

A. Initial setup 1. Inspect aeration basin for adequate cleanliness, level of diffusers and correct

water depth. 2. Check installation of airflow monitoring device. 3. Check D.O. probe thermisters for liquid temperature monitoring. 4. Prepare YSI (Yellow Springs Instruments) Dissolved Oxygen (D.O.) probes for

installation. a) Replace electrolyte solution and membranes on each D.O. probe b) Connect probes to YSI D.O. meters c) Check each probe for functioning stirrer mechanism d) Connect all D.O. meters to computer for data logging

5. Check the placement of each D.O. probe in the test basin. 6. Start the blowers and begin aerating the test tank. 7. Check all air flow meters, gages, valves, and fittings on the air supply system for

air leakage. 8. Collect at least two samples from the oxygen saturated aeration basin for analysis

using the Winkler titration method to determine the D.O. concentration. 9. Calibrate all D.O. probes and meters to the saturation value determined by the

Winkler method. 10. Check installation of the temperature gage in the aeration header piping system

for the accurate determination of flowing air temperature. 11. Dissolve Cobalt Chloride into a container of water.


12. Pour Cobalt solution into the aeration basin. 13. Allow a minimum of thirty minutes mixing of the cobalt into the aeration basin

before the start of testing. B. Procedure for clean water aeration testing.

1. Adjust the airflow rate to the test basin to the required test airflow. 2. Read and record the following data:

a) Site barometric pressure (PSIA) b) Operating line pressure from the mercury manometer connected to the

header system (PSIG) c) Operating line temperature (°F)

d) h from the Annubar and Orifice, (Inches of H2O) e) Liquid Temperature (°C) f) Aeration basin oxygen saturation value Cso (mg/l) [Winkler Analysis] g) Ambient temperature h) Relative Humidity, %

3. Pump sodium sulfite slurry into the aeration test basin. 4. Begin observing D.O. meters. 5. Monitor D.O. on each of the YSI meters as it drops to 1.0 mg/l. 6. Continue recording D.O. values versus time for each of the D.O. probes, obtaining

a minimum of 300 D.O. values for each probe. 7. Stop all recording of D.O. values when the aeration basin has reached 6/KLa. 8. Collect a basin water sample and analyze for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS – mg/L) 9. Perform linear regression analysis on the collected data.

a) Determine KLa20 values for each probe b) Calculate SOTR and SOTE.

10. Repeat steps 1-9 for each test run.

4. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS

4.1. Standard ASCE Data Analysis Method

The basic mass-transfer model used to determine oxygen transfer is as follows:

CCaKdT

dCL

* Eq. 4-1

Which, upon integration, with initial condition C = Co at t =0, becomes:

(logarithmic form)

taKln L*

*

oCC

CC Eq. 4-2

or

(exponential form)

tak

OLeCCC

**C Eq. 4-3

Where: C = D.O. Concentration, mg/L

C* = Equilibrium D.O. concentration, the concentration obtained as time approaches

infinity, mg/L


C0 = D.O. concentration at time zero, mg/L KLa = Apparent volumetric mass transfer coefficient, t-1

The overall mass transfer coefficient (KLaT) is obtained experimentally by aerating deoxygenated water and observing the rate of change of dissolved oxygen (D.O.) concentration about time.

A non-linear regression of D.O. about time is used to determine KLaT, C*∞, and C0.

The logarithmic form of the mass transfer model can be rearranged to determine KLaT using a log-deficit linear regression as follows:

2*

1*

12

TL ln60

aKCC

CC

tt Eq. 4-4

Where: KLaT = Apparent volumetric mass transfer coefficient at test liquid temperature T, hr-1

C* = The observed saturation concentration of oxygen in the test basin at test

temperature and barometric pressure at equilibrium, mg/L after an aeration period equal to 6/KLaT

C1 and C2= Dissolved oxygen concentration at time t1 and t2 respectively, mg/L

For purposes of comparison, KLaT must be corrected to standard temperature, 20°C. The appropriate correction has been found empirically to be:

T

TLaK 20

20LaK Eq. 4-5

Where: T = test liquid temperature (°C)

= 1.024 for all T

With the value of KLa20 known, it is possible to calculate the pounds of oxygen transferred to the test liquid at standard conditions of 20°C, maximum oxygen deficit (dissolved oxygen equal to zero), one atmosphere barometric pressure, and alpha and beta equal to 1.0 (clean tap water) for each sample point.

VCaK iiL

*

2020iSOTR Eq. 4-6

Where: SOTRi = pounds of oxygen transferred to the test liquid, lb. O2 /hr., for Probe i V = Liquid volume of water in the test tank with aerators turned off

C*20i =

1*C

= Temperature correction factor, C*st/C*

s20 C*

s20 = 9.092 mg/L, standard D.O. concentration at 20°C and one atmosphere

C*st = oxygen saturation concentration from Standard Methods,

mg/L, at test liquid temperature T

= Pressure correction factor, Pb/Ps Pb = Site barometric pressure, PSIA Ps = Standard barometric pressure, 14.73 PSIA

The overall average value of SOTR is then calculated as the average of the individual SOTRi values determined for each sample point.

Calculate the standard percent oxygen transfer (SOTE - %) once the oxygen transfer rate is known using the following equation:


232.060075.0

100SOTE

SCFM

SOTR Eq. 4-7

The blower wire HP is determined using the adiabatic compression formula as described in Section 2 of this report.

Calculate the standard aerator efficiency (SAE) using the following equation:

HP

SOTRNO SAE Eq. 4-8

Where: No = aerator efficiency, lb. O2/hr-Hp SOTR = Qo, standard oxygen transfer rate, lb. O2/hr. HPwire = Blower HP determined by the adiabatic compression formula

Finally, the reported values are corrected to a standard TDS concentration of 1,000 mg/L using the following:

TDS

observedTLCorrectedTDSTL eaKaK 10000000965.0 Eq. 4-9

Where:

TDS = Observed Total Dissolved Solids concentration for each run, mg/L

All values are then recalculated based on the corrected KLaT.


5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

The following table and graphs summarize the results obtained for the various CanadianPond.ca Products Ltd. tests. Individual computer printouts of the data analysis including time versus D.O. plots for each test run using the specified data analysis method are contained in Appendix.

Table 5-1 Summary of ½” Bubble Tubing™ Test Results

DATE: 20-Jun-11 20-Jun-11 20-Jun-11 22-Jun-11 23-Jun-11 23-Jun-11 24-Jun-11 27-Jun-11 27-Jun-11

RUN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Barometric Pres. (PSIA) 14.36 14.36 14.37 14.36 14.34 14.33 14.36 14.41 14.41

Ambient Temperature (°F) 86.5 83.9 76.4 76.9 78.8 76.7 79.2 78.9 78.0

Relative Humidity (%) 0.68 0.62 0.80 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.54 0.63 0.70

Line Pressure (PSIG) 7.72 6.79 6.62 4.43 5.63 4.71 2.59 4.90 3.40

Line Temperature (°F) 111 93 87 85 106 91 88 110 93

Water Temp. (°C) 23.48 23.91 24.09 23.82 23.78 24.13 24.27 23.42 23.80

Number Of Aeration Devices 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Air Release Depth (ft) 15.00 15.00 15.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Blower HPwire 0.58 0.27 0.13 0.09 0.42 0.19 0.05 0.38 0.14

Average Air Flow (SCFM) 10.23 5.33 2.57 2.50 9.77 5.29 2.62 10.09 5.14

Average Air Flow (SCFM/ft) 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.10 0.05

C*20 Standard Conditions 10.74 10.69 10.78 10.14 10.17 10.16 9.62 9.61 9.59

Tank Volume (Ft³) 5,195 5,195 5,195 3,464 3,464 3,464 1,905 1,905 1,905

TDS (mg/L) 315 395 472 551 639 726 807 878 954

KLa20 (hr-1) 0.86 0.50 0.26 0.31 0.96 0.60 0.44 1.26 0.73

KLa20 (hr-1) 0.92 0.53 0.27 0.32 0.99 0.61 0.44 1.27 0.73

SOTR (Lb O2/Hr) 3.2 1.9 1.0 0.7 2.2 1.3 0.5 1.5 0.8

SOTE OBSERVED (%) 30.3% 33.5% 35.7% 27.1% 21.6% 24.6% 18.8% 14.0% 15.7%

SOTE (%/Ft) 2.02% 2.24% 2.38% 2.71% 2.16% 2.46% 3.76% 2.79% 3.14%

SAE (Lb O2/Hr/HP) 5.49 6.83 7.40 8.16 5.20 6.98 9.40 3.84 6.07

Air Flow (Nm³/h) 16.07 8.37 4.04 3.93 15.35 8.31 4.11 15.84 8.08

SOTR (g/Hr) 1456.4 839.9 431.5 319.0 990.5 611.5 231.0 661.8 380.0

SOTE - %/m 6.63% 7.34% 7.80% 8.90% 7.08% 8.07% 12.32% 9.16% 10.31%

TDS Corrected Results

Metric Results (TDS Corrected)


Figure 5-1 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100’ of tubing) versus the Mass Transfer Coefficient (KLa20 – hr-1).

Figure 5-1 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. KLa20 - ½” Bubble Tubing™

Figure 5-2 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100’ of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Rate (SOTR – Lb. O2/Hr./100’ of tubing).

Figure 5-2 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTR/100’ of tubing - ½” Bubble Tubing™

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

KLa

20

-H

r-1

Total Airflow - SCFM

15'

10'

5'

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

SO

TR

-L

b O

2/H

r


15'

10'

5'


Figure 5-3 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100’ of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE – %).

Figure 5-3 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - ½” Bubble Tubing™

Figure 5-4 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100’ of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE – %/Ft. of Submergence).

Figure 5-4 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - ½” Bubble Tubing™

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

SO

TE

-%


5'

10'

15'

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

SO

TE

-%

/Ft


5'

10'

15'


Figure 5-5 is a plot of air flow rate (Nm³/h/100’ of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE – %/m of Submergence).

Figure 5-5 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - ½” Bubble Tubing™

Figure 5-6 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100’ of tubing) versus Standard Aerator Efficiency (SAE – Lb. O2/Hr./HPwire).

Figure 5-6 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SAE - ½” Bubble Tubing™

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0

SO

TE

-%

/m

Total Airflow - Nm³/h

15'

10'

5'

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

SA

E -

Lb

O2

/Hr

/HP

wir

e


5'

10'

15'


Table 5-2 Summary of ¾” Bubble Tubing™ Test Results


Figure 5-7 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. KLa20 - ¾” Bubble Tubing™

DATE: 30-Jun-11 30-Jun-11 1-Jul-11 5-Jul-11 5-Jul-11 6-Jul-11 7-Jul-11 8-Jul-11 8-Jul-11

RUN: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18






Water Temp. (°C) 23.31 23.60 23.84 25.60 25.82 25.86 25.69 25.08 25.66



Blower HPwire 0.60 0.29 0.13 0.48 0.23 0.10 0.20 0.47 0.08




Tank Volume (Ft³) 5,310 5,310 5,310 3,464 3,464 3,464 1,963 1,963 1,963

TDS (mg/L) 308 382 481 583 685 792 764 764 940

KLa20 (hr-1) 0.91 0.57 0.30 1.03 0.67 0.40 0.80 1.31 0.50

KLa20 (hr-1) 0.97 0.61 0.32 1.08 0.69 0.41 0.81 1.34 0.50

SOTR (Lb O2/Hr) 3.4 2.1 1.1 2.4 1.5 0.9 1.0 1.6 0.6

SOTE OBSERVED (%) 31.8% 37.3% 42.1% 22.7% 26.5% 34.6% 16.8% 14.4% 21.3%

SOTE (%/Ft) 2.12% 2.49% 2.81% 2.27% 2.65% 3.46% 3.26% 2.78% 4.11%

SAE (Lb O2/Hr/HP) 5.74 7.35 8.67 4.92 6.53 9.19 4.80 3.40 7.39

Air Flow (Nm³/h) 16.36 8.74 4.08 15.73 8.61 3.93 8.63 16.71 4.20

SOTR (g/Hr) 1555.0 974.6 514.4 1070.0 682.6 407.5 434.7 718.8 267.2

SOTE - %/m 6.95% 8.15% 9.21% 7.46% 8.69% 11.36% 10.69% 9.13% 13.50%



0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

KLa

20

-H

r-1


15'

10'

5'



Figure 5-8 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTR/100’ of tubing - ¾” Bubble Tubing™


Figure 5-9 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - ¾” Bubble Tubing™

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

SO

TR

-L

b O

2/H

r


15'

10'

5'

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

SO

TE

-%


5'

10'

15'



Figure 5-10 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - ¾” Bubble Tubing™


Figure 5-11 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - ¾” Bubble Tubing™

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

SO

TE

-%

/Ft


5'

10'

15'

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

SO

TE

-%

/m


15'

10'

5'



Figure 5-12 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SAE - ¾” Bubble Tubing™

Table 5-3 Summary of OctoAir-10™ Test Results

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

SA

E -

Lb

O2

/Hr

/HP

wir

e


5'

10'

15'

DATE: 1-Aug-11 1-Aug-11 2-Aug-11 8/84/2011 4-Aug-11 3-Aug-11 11-Jul-11 12-Jul-11 13-Jul-11

RUN: 22 23 24 27 26 25 19 20 21






Water Temp. (°C) 26.81 26.99 27.16 26.99 27.78 27.73 25.76 26.35 26.67



Blower HPwire 0.69 0.32 0.14 0.49 0.25 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.33




Tank Volume (Ft³) 5,195 5,195 5,195 3,464 3,464 3,464 1,934 1,934 1,934

TDS (mg/L) 325 410 506 778 681 596 331 416 503

KLa20 (hr-1) 0.56 0.34 0.25 0.69 0.50 0.30 0.63 0.43 0.92

KLa20 (hr-1) 0.60 0.36 0.26 0.71 0.52 0.31 0.67 0.45 0.97

SOTR (Lb O2/Hr) 2.1 1.3 0.9 1.6 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.1

SOTE OBSERVED (%) 18.6% 21.6% 32.7% 15.0% 19.6% 26.3% 14.9% 19.4% 11.1%

SOTE (%/Ft) 1.24% 1.44% 2.18% 1.50% 1.96% 2.63% 2.97% 3.88% 2.23%

SAE (Lb O2/Hr/HP) 3.00 3.96 6.49 3.17 4.56 7.28 6.08 9.40 3.37

Air Flow (Nm³/h) 16.92 8.88 4.14 15.74 8.78 3.90 7.97 4.10 15.29

SOTR (g/Hr) 943.1 573.3 404.2 705.3 515.8 306.7 354.2 237.7 510.0

SOTE - %/m 4.07% 4.72% 7.14% 4.91% 6.45% 8.62% 9.75% 12.72% 7.32%





Figure 5-13 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. KLa20 - OctoAir-10™


Figure 5-14 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTR/100’ of tubing - OctoAir-10™

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0

KLa

20

-H

r-1


15'

10'

5'

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

SO

TR

-L

b O

2/H

r


15'

10'

5'



Figure 5-15 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - OctoAir-10™


Figure 5-16 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence - OctoAir-10™

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

SO

TE

-%


5'

10'

15'

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

SO

TE

-%

/Ft


5'

10'

15'



Figure 5-17 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE - OctoAir-10™


Figure 5-18 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SAE - OctoAir-10™

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

SO

TE

-%

/m


15'

10'

5'

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

SA

E -

Lb

O2

/Hr

/HP

wir

e


5'

10'

15'


Figure 5-19 is a plot of air flow rate (SCFM/100’ of tubing) versus Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency (SOTE – %/Ft. of Submergence) for all tubing tested.

Figure 5-19 SCFM/100’ of tubing v. SOTE/Ft. of Submergence – All Tubing

6. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results obtained testing the CanadianPond.ca Products Ltd. aeration systems, the following conclusions are offered:

1. Over the airflow range tested, SOTR increases with increasing airflow rate and increasing air release depth.

2. SOTE and SAE decrease with increasing airflow rate. 3. SOTE increases with increasing air release depth. 4. SAE only marginally changes as the air release depth increases. 5. SOTE per Ft. of diffuser submergence decrease with increasing airflow rate over the range of

airflows tested. 6. SOTE per Ft. of diffuser submergence decreases with increasing air release depth over the range

of depths tested. 7. The ¾” Bubble Tubing™ results indicate a performance advantage compared to the other

systems tested.

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

SO

TE

-%

/Ft


½'' - 10'

½'' - 15'

½'' - 5'

¾'' - 15'

¾'' - 10'

¾'' - 5'

Octo-10 - 15'

Octo-10 - 10'

Octo-10 - 5'


8. The OctoAir-10™ produced lower results than the other systems tested. Note that this is expected due to the concentration of the aeration system in a small area of the tank as opposed to the Bubble Tubing which has more complete floor coverage of the basin.

Overall, the results obtained for the CanadianPond.ca Products Ltd. aeration systems were uniformly excellent and produced some of the highest SOTE values GSEE, Inc. has observed.

7. CERTIFICATION

GSEE, Inc., certifies that the results presented in this report are accurate and were obtained using the test procedures described above.

Gerald L. Shell, PE

OctoAir-10™ AERATION SYSTEM BY 9/8/11

Documents

Transcript of OctoAir-10™ AERATION SYSTEM BY 9/8/11