Loading…
Assessing the effects of flow distribution on the internal hydraulic behavior of a constructed horizontal subsurface flow wetland using a numerical model and a tracer study
This study was aimed at investigating the effects of flow distribution on a constructed subsurface horizontal flow wetland of 26m length, 4m width and one percent bed dip. Inlet configurations were selected as a variable parameter. Three different inlet flow configurations including midpoint–midpoin...
Saved in:
Published in: | Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology 2017-11, Vol.17 (4), p.264-273 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | This study was aimed at investigating the effects of flow distribution on a constructed subsurface horizontal flow wetland of 26m length, 4m width and one percent bed dip. Inlet configurations were selected as a variable parameter. Three different inlet flow configurations including midpoint–midpoint (A), corner–midpoint (B) and uniform–midpoint (C), with the same fixed outlet configurations, were studied. The combined use of tracer and numerical modeling for the evaluation of hydraulic characteristics of constructed wetlands in the horizontal subsurface flow system was presented. The mean retention time for each configuration was found to be 4.53, 3.24 and 4.65 days, respectively. According to tracer breakthrough curve, the effective volumes for configurations A and C were 87.5%, as compared to 62.1% for the configuration B. Retention distribution curves were useful in assessing the internal dispersion and hydraulic parameters to interpret the short-circuiting flow for each configuration setup. Finally, the best configuration of inlet–outlet layout to improve the performance of effluent treatment based on both numerical simulations and physical experiments was found to be the uniform–midpoint by all performance criteria and this was followed by midpoint–midpoint as the second best one. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1642-3593 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.ecohyd.2017.07.002 |