bvu college of engineering, pune, india -...
TRANSCRIPT
1
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering September 2017, 3:23| Cite as
Geotextile Tube Assessment Using Hanging Bag Test Results of Dairy Sludge Pooja Deepak Pawar1, Ankita Kumar2 , S. K. Ahirwar3 and J. N. Mandal4
1Assistant Professor, Bhartiya Vidyapeeth Deemed University, College of Engineering, Pune, 411043, India,
,2 ,3Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai,
400076, India, [email protected]
4Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay Mumbai, 400076, India,
ABSTRACT
Geotextile tube is an innovative product developed by sewing permeable high strength geotextiles to form large
tubes. The main application of geotextile tube is dewatering of dredge materials sediments and industrial waste
slurry. The present study describes the performance of dairy sludge dewatering using hanging bag test. The
effect of addition of coagulant has been studied. Alum was used as a coagulant. Dewatering was carried out for
dairy sludge without addition of alum and dairy sludge mixed with alum. The environmental analysis was
carried out of the sludge before and after hanging bag test to study the quality of filtrate. Also, analysis of filter
cake was done to check its suitability for reuse thus proving zero waste condition. It was found that geotextile
tube was efficient in dewatering the sludge and its efficiency increases with the addition of coagulant. Dairy
sludge dewatering without addition of alum showed the maximum flow rate of 4.95 cm3/sec and dewatering
time of 2280 min as compared to dairy sludge dewatering with addition of alum which showed the maximum
flow rate of 7.66 cm3/sec and dewatering time of 2160 min.
Keywords: Geotextile Tube, Dewatering, Hanging Bag Test, Sludge, Dairy sludge
2
1. INTRODUCTION
The constituents removed in wastewater treatment plants include screening, grit, scum and sludge. The sludge
resulting from wastewater treatment operation and processes is usually in the form of a liquid or semisolid liquid
that typically contains from 0.25 to 12 percent solids by weight, depending on the operations and processes
used. Dredging is a process by which sediments are removed from the bottom of water bodies and discharged to
land or water. Belt filter presses, centrifuges, and other common mechanical dewatering techniques can be used
for removing water from dredged sediments and produce a non-liquid material or cake .The disadvantages of
these mechanical techniques may include odors, excessive noise, high energy requirements, increased operator
attention, blinding and short-circuiting due to a lack of optimal flocculation, high daily maintenance times,
expensive spare parts, and major repair work that may take several days to weeks to complete (Kutya and
Aydilek, 2004; Moo-Young, 2000). Thus there is an acute need for innovative technologies which can
effectively, economically and environmentally aid in the dewatering and disposal of dredged materials.
Geotextile tube is an innovative product for dewatering the digested bio-solids, dredge material
sediments and industrial solid wastes, fly ash, coal ash slurry, lake and reservoir sediments, pulp and paper
waste, dairy waste and sewage sludge. It is made by using permeable high strength geotextile sewn to form a
large geotextile tube for gravity dewatering and consolidation of fine grained solids.
Several researchers (Moo-Young et al., 1999a; Moo-Young et al., 1999b; Flower et al., 2000; Moo-
Young et al., 2002; Mori et al., 2002; Koerner and Koerner, 2003; Kutay and Aydilek, 2004; Flower et al., 2005;
Koerner and Koerner, 2006; Muthukumar and Illamparuthi, 2006; Lawson, 2008; Das et al., 2013) have carried
out experimental investigation on geotextile tube. Leschinsky et al. (1996) and Pilarczyk (2000) had performed
various technical studies on the geotextile tube establishing different relationships which are very useful in
determining pumping pressure, seam pressure and the height of geotextile tube. However, studies related to
formulating design guidelines for understanding and predicting the relationship between index properties,
dewatering efficiency, dosage and type of additives to be used and the field performance are very limited. Thus
there is a need to carry out such studies
The main objectives of the present research is to quantify the effect of coagulants for enhancing
dewatering parameters, to assess the suitability of test methods in predicting field dewatering performance, to
evaluate the characteristics of filter cake and environmental analysis of filtrate in order to check its suitability
for reuse thus proving zero waste condition.
2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
2.1 Waste Characterization
The sludge used for the present study is dairy sludge. It was procured from Pune Zillha Sahakari Dudh Utpadak
Sangh Maryadit, Katraj Dugdhalaya, Pune. Settled sludge from the sedimentation tank is taken, which they
disposed to sludge drying bed for dewatering. Sludge used has water content of 99.72%. Standard methods
given by APHA have been used to characterize the sludge. The properties of sludge have been tabulated in
Table 1.
3
Table 1 Properties of Sludge
Properties Value Specification
pH 6.77 APHA 4500H+
Total solids (mg/l) 9130 APHA 2540-B
COD (mg/l) 13056 APHA 5220-C
BOD3days (mg/l) 4900 APHA 5210-B
Chlorides (mg/l) 101.10 APHA 4500-Cl
Sulphates (mg/l) 17.30 APHA 4500 So42
Phosphate (mg/l) 22.00 APHA 4500-D
TKN 110.00 mg/l APHA 4500-C
TVS 6748.00 mg/ APHA 2540-E
2.2 Geotextile Properties
For performing hanging bag test, woven polyester multifilament geotextile was selected. The woven geotextile
was characterized for its mechanical and hydraulic properties. Table 2 shows the properties of geotextile.
Table 2 Properties of Geotextile.
Properties Value Specification
Wide Width Tensile Strength 94.65 kN/m ASTM D4595
Trapezoidal Tear Strength 0.70 kN/m ASTM D4533
Puncture Strength 0.66 kN ASTM D4833
Grab Strength 0.94 kN/m ASTM D4632
Permittivity 0.037s-1 ASTM D4491
Apparent Opening Size <0.075μmm ASTM D4751
4
3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
3.1 Hanging Bag Test
The hanging bag and working platform were fabricated. The flange system consisting of 8 metal bolts was
attached at the top of hanging bag test set up to hang geotextile bag. A stainless steel pan of dimension 75mm
deep and 60 cm in length was placed under the bag to collect the filtrate. Fig. 1 shows the test apparatus used for
the study.
The hanging bag set up was leveled to ensure proper alignment. Then, the wet geotextile bag was
attached to flange system. Time for every 5cm drop in the water level of geotextile bag was recorded until water
stops draining from the geotextile bag. Filtrates were collected after 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30
minutes, 40 minutes and 50 minutes in a sealed bottle for analysis and to check dewatering quality through the
geotextile fabric. After completing the test, filter cake inside the geotextile bag was collected for the
determination of moisture content, specific gravity and density. The tests were carried firstly, without adding
coagulant and secondly after adding alum as coagulant at a dose of 1400ppm. Fig. 2 shows the experimental
procedure of hanging bag test. Fig. 3 shows the addition and mixing of alum into the slurry.
3.2 Jar Test on Dairy Sludge:
Fig. 4 shows the jar test apparatus. The jar test has been widely used to determine the optimum
coagulant dosage for removing turbidity by chemical pre-treatment. In this mixing apparatus was used to ensure
identical mixing conditions in all tests. The apparatus consist of six 1 L beakers and six stirrers. A stirring
velocity of 50 rotations per minute (rpm) was selected and the alum mixing duration was 180 seconds
(Kanchanm.m et al., 2011) to ensure the proper flocculation of fines. The alum dose was varied from 0 to
200ppm but showed no effect on sludge, then trials and errors were carried out for various dose and optimum
dose obtained is 1400ppm.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Hanging Bag Test Results
The test were carried in two phase, first without adding coagulant and second adding alum as coagulant
at a dose of 1400ppm. Time taken to fill the bag was 2.06 minutes without addition of alum and 4.00 minutes
with addition of alum. Table 3 shows the result of hanging bag test for woven polyester multifilament geotextile
with Katraj dairy sludge.
Fig. 5 shows the relationship between the flow rate and water level from the hanging bag test of dairy
sludge. Fig. 6 shows the relationship between the flow rate and time from the hanging bag test. Results show
that maximum flow rate for dairy sludge without addition of alum and for dairy sludge with addition of alum
were 4.95 cm3/sec and 7.66 cm3/sec. The time taken to completely dewater dairy sludge without addition of
alum was 2280 minutes, whereas, it was 2160 minutes for dairy sludge with addition of alum. It was found that
the depth of slurry decreased up to 45 cm from the initial state for sludge without alum and up to 40 cm from the
initial state for sludge with alum. Dense filter cake was formed inside the geotextile tube for both the cases
which led to the slowing down of dewatering.
5
Table 3 Results of Hanging Bag Test for Woven Polyester Multifilament Geotextile with Katraj Dairy
Sludge
Water level
drop(cm)
Incremental Time, tf (min) Flow Rate (cm3/sec)
Without
addition of
alum
with addition
of alum
Without
addition of
alum
with addition
of alum
5 -- -- -- --
10 13.92 9 4.950 7.660
15 32.46 22 2.130 3.140
20 249.60 128 0.280 0.538
25 960.00 240 0.072 0.290
30 960.00 680 0.072 0.101
35 1440.00 1080 0.048 0.060
40 1470.00 2160 0.047 0.032
45 2280.00 -- 0.030 --
4.2 Environmental Analysis
Filtrate was collected in sealed bottles at time interval 5min, 10min, 20min, 30min, 40min, 50min and 24 hours
for environmental analysis to check dewatering quality of geotextile fabric. Table 4 shows environmental
analysis of sludge. The parameters determined are TS (total solids), COD (Chemical oxygen demand), BOD
(biochemical oxygen demand), Cl2 (Chlorides), SO4 (Sulphates), PO4 (Phosphate), TKN (total kjeldahl
nitrogen) and TVS (Total Volatile Solid )
6
Table 4 Comparison of filtrate through woven polyester multifilament geotextile without adding alum
and with adding alum for Katraj dairy sludge
Sample
Parameters Influent
Filtrate
without
adding
alum
%
removal
Filtrate
with
adding
alum
%
removal
pH 6.77 8.2 - 7.73 -
TS mg/l 9,130 1,392 84.75 1888 79.32
COD mg/l 13,056 329.7 97.47 490.46 96.24
BOD mg/l 4,900 118 97.57 190 96.12
Cl2 mg/l 101.1 39.13 61.29 53.17 47.41
SO4 mg/l 17.3 5.6 67.63 8.2 52.6
PO4 mg/l 22 3.2 85.45 0.1 99.55
TKN mg/l 110 0.51 99.53 Nil 100
TVS mg/l 6,748 468 93.061 500 92.59
4.3 Filter cake analysis
Filter cake analysis was done to know the characteristic of filter cake without addition of alum and with addition
of alum. Table 5 summarizes the properties of Filter cake.
Table 5 Properties of Filter cake.
Filter Cake Properties Without Addition Of
Alum
With Addition Of
Alum
pH 7.8 7.73
Moisture content, (%) 72.6 78.8
Phosphates (mg/l) 19.05 30.80
Nitrogen (mg/l) 29.96 31.54
7
Specific gravity 1.06 1
Dry density 0.560 0.546
5. CONCLUSION
In case of woven polyester multifilament geotextile for Katraj dairy sludge without adding alum shows the
maximum flow rate of 4.95 cm3/sec and it takes 2280min to completely dewater as compared to Katraj dairy
sludge with addition of alum which shows the maximum flow rate of 7.66 cm3/sec and it takes 2160 min to
completely dewater. We can conclude that Flow rate is significantly affected due to the addition of coagulant.
The environmental analysis of Katraj dairy sludge was done before and after the hanging bag test with and
without adding alum finding showed that 84.75 % removal of total solids, 97.47 % removal of COD, 97.57 %
removal of BOD, 61.29% removal of Cl2, 67.63% removal of SO4 , 85.45% removal of PO4, 99.53% of TKN
and 93.061% removal of TVS for sludge without adding alum and with adding alum the findings are 79.32 %
removal of total solids, 96.24 % removal of COD, 96.12 % removal of BOD,47.41 % removal of Cl2,52.6 %
removal of SO4 , 99.55 removal of PO4 , 100% of TKN and 92.59% removal of TVS
References
1. APHA 4500H+. “Standard test method for determination of pH(By digital pH meter)”, Standard
Methods for the examination of water and wastewater, APHA Washungton DC 22nd edition 2012
2. APHA 2540-B. “Standard test method for determination of Total Solids”, Standard Methods for the
examination of water and wastewater, APHA Washungton DC 22nd edition 2012
3. APHA 5220-C. “Standard test method for determination of Chemical Oxygen Demand”, Standard
Methods for the examination of water and wastewater, APHA Washungton DC 22nd edition 2012
4. APHA 5210-B. “Standard test method for determination of Biochemical Oxygen Demand”, Standard
Methods for the examination of water and wastewater, APHA Washungton DC 22nd edition 2012
5. APHA 4500-Cl-. “Standard test method for determination of Chlorides (Argentometric Titration)”,
Standard Methods for the examination of water and wastewater, APHA Washungton DC 22nd edition
2012
6. APHA 4500-So42-. “Standard test method for determination of Sulphates (Turbidimetric Method)”,
Standard Methods for the examination of water and wastewater, APHA Washungton DC 22nd edition
2012
7. APHA 4500-D. “Standard test method for determination of Phosphates”, Standard Methods for the
examination of water and wastewater, APHA Washungton DC 22nd edition 2012
8. APHA 2540-E. “Standard test method for determination Total Volatile Solids”, Standard Methods for
the examination of water and wastewater, APHA Washungton DC 22nd edition 2012
9. APHA 4500-C. “Standard test method for determination of Nitrogen”, Standard Methods for the
examination of water and wastewater, APHA Washungton DC 22nd edition 2012
8
10. ASTM D4491. “Standard Test Method for Water Permeability of Geotextiles by Permittivity”, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
11. ASTM D4533. “Standard Test Method for Trapezoidal Tearing Strengt of Geotextiles”, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
12. ASTM D4595. “Standard Test Method for Tensile properties of Geotextiles by Wide With Strip
Method”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
13. ASTM D4632. “Standard Test Method for Grab Breaking Load and Elongation of Geotextiles ”,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
14. ASTM D4833. “Standard Test Method for Index Puncture Resistance of Geomembranes and Related
Products”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
15. ASTM D5199. “Standard Test Method for Measuring the Nominal Thickness of Geosynthetics”,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
16. ASTM D5261. “Standard Test Method for Measuring Mass per Unit Area of Geotextiles ”, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
17. Das, N.K., Mandal, J.N. and Rathanlal, R.B. (2013). “Experimental, Environmental and Finite
Element Analysis of the Woven Polyster Geotextile Tube”. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 18, Bund C, 577-587.
18. Douheret, J., Trainer, E., Lister, A. and Hauthier, S. (2009) “The use of geotextile tube containers for
dewatering the Restigouche open pit zinc mine and settling pond basin in New Brunswick, cinada.”
Geosynthetics 2009, Salt Lake City, Utah, IFAI., 449-454
19. Fowler, J., Duke, M., Schmidt, M.L., Crabtree, B., Bagby, R.M. & Trainer, E. (2002). “Dewatering
sewage sludge and hazardous sludge with geotextile tubes”, Proceedings of 7th Int. Conf. on
Geosynthetics, Vol. 3, Nice, France, 1007-1012.
20. Gaffney, D.A., Chambers, M., Fatheringham, C. and Minoz, R. (2011). “The value of chemical
conditioning with geotextlie tube dewatering”. Geo-Frontiers ASCE, 2152-2162.
21. Grzelak, M.D., Maurer, B.W., Pullen, T.S., Bhatia, S.K., and Ramarao, B.V. (2011). “A Comparison of
Test Method Adopted For Assessing Geotextile Tube Dewatering Performance”. Geo-Frontiers ASCE,
2141-2151.
22. Huang, W. and Koerner, R. (2008) “An Amendment Strategy for Enhancing the Performance of
Geotextile Tubes used in Decontamination of Polluted Sediments and Sludges.” Geosynthetics
Research and Development in Progress, 1-6. doi: 10.1061/40782(161)13
23. Howard, L. I., Smith, M. E., Saucier, L. C. and White, D. T. (2008), “2008 Geotextile Tubes
Workshop” SERRI Report 70015-002, Mississippi.
24. Khachan, M.M., Bader, M.S., Bhatia, S.K. and Maurer, B.S. (2011) “Comparative dewatering
performance with synthetic polymer vs. Eco-friendly polymer”. Geo-Frontiers, ASCE, 3050-3058.
25. Koerner, R.M. (1999). “Designing with Geosynthetics”. 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, NJ.
26. Koerner, G.R. and Koerner, R.M. (2005). “Geotextile Tube Evaluation by Hanging Bag and Pressure
Filtration Testing” GRI-18 Geosynthetics Research and Development in Progress, 1-7.
9
27. Koerner, G.R and Koerner, R.M. (2006). “Geotextile tube assessment using a hanging bag test.”,
Geotextile and Geomembranes, Elsevier, 24, 129-137.
28. Kutay, M. E. and Aydilek, A. H. (2004). “Retention performance of geotextile containers confining
geomaterials”. Geosynthetics International, 11, 2, 100–113
29. Kutay, M.E., Aydilek, A. and Hussein, H.A. (2005) “Dewatering Fly Ash Slurries Using Geotextile
Containers.” GRI-18 Geosynthetics Research and Development in Progress. pp. 1-7. doi:
10.1061/40782(161)52
30. Lawson, C.R. (2008). “Geotextile Containment for Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering.”
Geosynthetics International, 15, 6, 384–427.
31. Lebster, G.E., Mastin, B. and Salley,J. R. (2008). “Use of Geotube Dewatering Containers in
Environmental Dredging.” Proceedings of GeoAmericas 2008, cancum Mexico.
32. Lundi, G.M., Escobar, G. L. and Stephens, T. (2006). “Pulp and Paper Mills #1 ASB Lagoon Cleanout
goes directly into Geotube Containers.” 8th IWA Symposium on Forest Industry Waste-water, Vitoria,
Espirito Santo, Brazil.
33. Maurer, B,W., Gustafson, A.C., Bhatia, S.K., Palomino, A.M., (2012) “Geotextile Dewatering of
Flocculated, Fiber Reinforced Fly-Ash Slurry” Fuel, 411-417.
34. Miratech (2003) Activated Sludge Treatment Plant case study TencateGeosynthetics city of Eatonton,
GA
35. Moo-Young, H.K. andOchola, C. (1999 a). “Laboratory evaluation of geosynthetic fabric containers
for contaminant migration.” In: G.C. Schafran, Editor, Environmental Engineering ’99, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,VA (1999), 141–151.
36. Moo-Young and Ochola, C. (1999 b). “Strain effects on the filtration properties of
37. Geotextiles.” Geosynthetics’99. Boston, MA, Industrial Fabrics Association International, Roseville,
MN, 757–768.
38. Moo-Young, H.K., Douglas, A. G. and Xinghua, Mo. (2002). “Testing Procedures to Assess the
Viability of Dewatering with Geotextile Tubes.”, Geotextiles and Geomemebranes, 20, 5, 289–303
39. Moo-Young, H.K., and Tucker, W. R. (2002). “Evaluation of vacuum filtration testing for geotextile
tubes.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 20, 191–212.
40. Mori, H., Miki, H. and Tsunekoa, N. (2002). “The use of geo-tube method to retard the migration of
contaminants in dredged soil.”, Geosynthetics – 7, ICG -Delmas, Gourc& Girard (Eds),
Swets&Zeitlinger, Lisse, ISBN 90 5809 523 1.
41. Mukhtar,S.,Wagner,K., and Gregory,L. (2009) “Field demonstration of the performance of a geotube
dewatering system to reduce phosphorous and other substances from dairy lagoon effluent.”, Texas
Water Resources Institute Technical Report.
42. Muthukumaran, A.E. andIlamparuthi, K. (2006). “Laboratory studies on geotextile filters as used in
geotextile tube dewatering.”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24, 4, 210–219
43. Newman, P., Hodgson, M., and Rosselot, E., (2004) “The disposal of tailing and minewater sludge
using geotextile dewatering techniques” Minerals Engineering, 17, 115-121.
10
44. Shinde, M.N. and Ilamparuthi, K. (2010). “Performance of Geotextiles in Dewatering High Water
Content Sludge”. Indian Geotechnical Conference-2010, GEOtrendz, IGS Mumbai chapter and IIT
Bombay, 393-396.
45. Stefan, C. and Cantre, S. (2006). “Estimation the dewatering time in geosynthetic tube dewatering
projects.”, Proceedings of 8th International Conferenence on Geosynthetics, Sep 18-22, Yokohama,
Japan., Kuwani & Koseki, J (eds), Millpress, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5966 0447
46. Torre, M. and Timpson C. (2011). “Development and evolution of key industry dewatering tests
(HBT,Cone,RDT,GDT) and Accuracy in predicting full scale results.” 2194-2202.
47. Yee, T.W., Lawson, C.R., Wang, Z.Y., Ding, L. and Liu,. Y. (2012). “Geotextile tube of dewatering of
contaminated sediments, Tianjin Eco-City, China.”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 31, pp 39-50.
Fig. 1 Test Apparatus of Hanging Bag Test
11
Fig. 2 Experimental Procedure: (a) Collection of Effluent at the Beginning of the Test (b) Collection of Effluent
at the End of the Test (c) Formation of Filter Cake inside the Geotextile Tube (d) Sample Collected Before and
After the Test
Fig. 3 (a) Addition of Alum to Slurry (b) Mixing of Alum into the Slurry
12
Fig. 4 Jar test apparatus used to decide alum dosage
Figure 5 Relationship between the flow rate and water level drop
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 10 20 30 40 50
Flo
w R
ate
(cm
3/s
ec)
Water Level Drop (mm)
without addition of alum
with addition of alum
13
Figure 6 Relations between the Flow Rate and Time of Dairy Sludge
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Flo
w R
ate
(cm
3/s
ec)
Time(min)
without addition of alum
with addition of alum