Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Advances in Engineering Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

The development and application of CFD models for water treatment flocculators
J. Bridgeman a,*, B. Jefferson b, S.A. Parsons b
a
School of Engineering (Civil Engineering), University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
b
Centre for Water Science, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 0AL, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of CFD to simulate turbulent flows in laboratory and full scale flocculation processes commonly
Received 21 December 2007 found at water treatment works is reported. The paper considers a range of modelling strategies and sim-
Accepted 2 December 2008 ulation techniques including, inter alia, steady and unsteady flow, two-equation and Reynolds stress tur-
Available online 21 January 2009
bulence modelling, sliding mesh and multiple reference frames approaches to rotational flow simulation,
and mesh density optimisation. Through analysis of turbulence dissipation rate, this work considers the
Keywords: development of models for environmental engineering problem solving and demonstrates clearly the
CFD
benefits to be gained from the use of CFD in flocculation vessels.
Mixing
Rotating mesh
Ó 2008 Civil-Comp Ltd. and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Turbulence
Water treatment

1. Introduction
The destabilisation (via coagulation) and subsequent agglomer-
ation (via flocculation) of fine particles and colloids into larger par-
ticles is a proven means of removing impurities (e.g. turbidity and
colour) at water treatment works (WTW). Chemical coagulant
addition brings about a change in the nature of small particles, ren-
dering them unstable, whilst flocculation encourages particle
agglomeration via gentle mixing and the formation of irregularly-
shaped, loosely connected mass fractal aggregates, known as flocs.
The size and structure of flocs are considered fundamental to the
efficient operation of WTW. Ineffective coagulation and floccula-
tion result in poorer quality feed water to downstream treatment
processes, potentially jeopardising treated water quality and
increasing operational costs. Several interrelated criteria govern
the efficiency of the coagulation and flocculation stages; viz. coag-
ulant type and dosage, pH and mixing arrangements.
Particle removal efficiency decreases with decreasing particle
size [1]. Therefore, flocs must be able to withstand shear energy
applied to them in various different unit processes. When the de-
gree of shear exceeds a threshold value, floc breakage will occur.
However, quantification of the energy requirements for floc break-
age is not straightforward, and despite much work in this field, no
standard strength test exists.
The literature contains examples of practical investigations into
floc strength at laboratory scale using a standard jar test apparatus
and procedure [2]. However, there is little reported research which
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 121 414 5145; fax: +44 121 414 3675.
E-mail address: j.bridgeman@bham.ac.uk (J. Bridgeman).
has attempted to model the process using CFD. The research which
has been published [3–6] is limited in scope. These papers consid-
ered the flow fields generated by small scale flocculators and
recognised the limitations of the existing design parameters. How-
ever, none of the papers considered, other than qualitatively, how
these results would impinge on flocculation performance.
In this work, the commercially-available CFD code, Fluent v6
(Ansys Inc., Sheffield, UK) was used to model the flow field within
flocculators at both laboratory and full scale. The focus of the work
concentrated on the development and application of simulation
techniques and the analysis of computational models to increase
understanding of floc formation and breakage mechanisms. Previ-
ous work [7] provided a quantitative analysis of floc growth and
breakage. The work reported here complements that previous
work, providing a fundamental understanding of the hydrody-
namic environments to which flocs are exposed at a range of
scales.
2. Flocculation
2.1. Conceptual view of flocculation
Flocculation is the transformation of smaller destabilised parti-
cles into larger aggregates or flocs, with the rate of growth gov-
erned by the rate of inter-particle collisions. Flocs are mass
fractal objects whose density approximates to that of water [8],
but is found to decrease as size increases and so as the flocs grow
in size, induced shear forces may give rise to floc breakage. The rate
of floc growth has been expressed conceptually as [2]:
Rfloc ¼ aij Rcol  Rbr ð1Þ

0965-9978/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Civil-Comp Ltd. and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.12.007
100 J. Bridgeman et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109
where Rfloc represents the overall rate of floc growth, a is the colli-
sion efficiency factor (0 < a < 1), Rcol is the rate of particle collision
and Rbr is the rate of floc breakage.
More accurately, the aijRcol term should be broken down further
into its constituent parts where aijRcol is a function of
BM
aij BM Rcolij ; Sh aij Sh Rcolij ; and DS aij DS Rcolij and i and j refer to discrete
particles, and BM, Sh and DS refer to the collision mechanisms of
Brownian Motion, shear and differential settlement, respectively.
Floc size may be considered to be a balance between the hydro-
dynamic forces exerted on a floc and the strength of the floc [9,10].
As a result, flocs do not continue to grow throughout the floccula-
tion stage, but rather, attain a limiting size beyond which breakage
prevents further overall growth. Where the floc strength is resis-
tant to the hydrodynamic forces, one would expect floc size either
to remain constant or for growth to occur. Where the hydrody-
namic forces exceed floc strength, floc breakage will occur. Conse-
quently, the conceptual growth breakage mechanism may be
expressed as follows [10]:
Hydrodynamic forces F
B¼ ¼ ð2Þ
Floc strength J ciated with calculation of G, workers have traditionally replaced
where F represents the hydrodynamic forces exerted by the flow,
and J represents the strength of the floc. It is clear from Eq. (2) that
breakage will occur when B > 1, and floc size will be maintained or
increased when B < 1. Floc strength, J, is a function of the physico-
chemical conditions (raw water type, coagulant type and dose)
and the floc structure [2].
Previous workers [11] suggested that the hydrodynamic force
required to pull apart a floc in tensile mode may be expressed
as:
p 2
F rd ð3Þ
4
where r represents the hydrodynamic stress exerted on thepfloc, ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
and d is the area of the floc. In the viscous subrange, r ¼ l  e=m.
Substituting into Eq. (2) shows that the breakage mechanism in
the viscous sub-range, BVSR, may be expressed as:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
C1l e=m  d2
BVSR ¼ ð4Þ
J
where C1 is a constant.
In the inertial sub-range
r ¼ q  u2 ð5Þ
and
 2 ¼ C 2 ðe  dÞ2=3 ½12
u ð6Þ
Substituting into Eq. (2) shows that the breakage mechanism in
the inertial sub-range, BISR, may be expressed as:
C 2 qe2=3  d
8=3
BISR ¼ ð7Þ
J GL ¼
where C2 is a constant.
Consequently, it is deduced from Eqs. (4) and (7) that floc size is
dependent on the turbulence energy dissipation rate and floc
strength, irrespective of subrange. This is clearly of great signifi-
cance when one attempts to gain an understanding of floc break-
age mechanisms and limiting floc size as it directs workers to
focus their efforts towards e and J. Thus, it is both physico-chemical
and turbulent conditions within the containing vessel which con-
trol the flocculation process. In water treatment, the velocity gradi-
ent term is used to characterise mixing and thereby predict
aggregation kinetics and break-up phenomena.
2.2. Velocity gradient
Previous workers [2] have shown that floc size is dependent on
the turbulence energy dissipation rate. The concept of the absolute
velocity gradient, G (s1), which encapsulates the turbulence en-
ergy dissipation rate, was developed by Camp and Stein [13], and
is defined as:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffi
P=V e
G¼ ¼ ð8Þ
l m
where P is the power dissipated, V is tank volume, l is dynamic vis-
cosity of the water, e is energy dissipation rate per unit mass, and m
is the kinematic viscosity of the water.
In theory, the absolute velocity gradient can be calculated at
any point within a mixing vessel, provided that the power dissi-
pated is known at that point. In practice, however, the flow charac-
teristics vary within the mixing vessel from point to point, and so
too does the energy dissipation. Consequently the velocity gradient
is a function of both time and position. Given the difficulties asso-
the absolute velocity gradient with an approximation of the exact
value; that is its average value throughout the vessel, Gave:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pav e
Gav e ¼ ð9Þ
Vl
where the average power consumption, Pave, is readily obtained
via:
Pav e ¼ P0 qN3 D5 ð10Þ
and P0 is the impeller power number, q is the fluid density, N is the
rotational speed of the impeller, and D is the impeller diameter.
The average velocity gradient value, Gave, is used worldwide to
characterise mixing in a wide range of environmental engineering
applications, including flocculators. However, since its introduc-
tion, authors have argued that the concept of the Gave value is
flawed, as it attempts to represent a complex flow field within a
single number [14]. The distribution of velocity gradients within
a stirred tank is clearly not uniform, and local power consumption
at a point of high turbulence within a vessel (e.g. adjacent to the
impeller) can be several orders of magnitude in excess of the rest
of the vessel [14,15]. Thus, the Gave value does not describe ade-
quately the fluctuations in local velocity gradient experienced at
a specific point within the flow field. This is unfortunate as it is pre-
cisely the magnitude and fluctuations in local shear to which a floc
is subjected, and not the average value, which determine the like-
lihood of floc agglomeration, breakage and re-growth. CFD offers
the opportunity to quantify and understand the local impact of
mean flow and turbulence on floc formation and break-up via
the concept of the local velocity gradient, GL, where:
rffiffiffi
e
ð11Þ
m
Using CFD, for the first time GL can be calculated for any and all
points in the mixing vessel, to give a complete distribution of val-
ues, rather than a simple average value.
2.3. Laboratory scale flocculation
Coagulation and flocculation optimisation are generally consid-
ered at the laboratory scale, using a jar test apparatus and proce-
dure. The test apparatus typically comprises a glass vessel with a
powered paddle to stir the contents. No absolute standard apparatus
 J. Bridgeman et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109
Fig. 1. Mechanical and hydraulic flocculation.
or procedure exists for the jar test. However, typically the paddle is
set to rotate at high speed for a short period, during which time
coagulant (and acid or alkali for pH adjustment as necessary) is
added to each vessel and mixed. After a short period of intense
mixing (30–60 s) to simulate the coagulation process, the paddle
speed is reduced to a produce more gentle mixing to simulate the
flocculation process. After 20 min of flocculation, mixing is termi-
nated, the paddle removed and the suspension allowed to settle.
The flocs and treated water are then analysed for floc size and
strength, allowing conclusions to be drawn regarding optimum
coagulant dose and pH. These conclusions are often then applied
to the operation of the main treatment plant with no account taken
of scaling characteristics.
Various different jar test configurations are in use today and the
literature contains many examples of practical investigations into
flocculation and floc strength using the jar test apparatus and pro-
cedure. A review of 34 different experimental approaches used by
several workers in recent years can be found at [16]. Thus, it is
clear from the literature that many jar test experiments have been
conducted in which the shape of the containing vessel, the shape
and location of the impeller, the volume of water, and the mixing
speed have all differed. Within the literature, data from previous
work are often compared with new data, and workers have com-
pared and contrasted the chemical characteristics of flocs and
coagulants in detail. However, it is known that physical parame-
ters, such as mixing intensity and retention time, bring a signifi-
cant bearing on coagulation and flocculation efficiency [16]. It is
interesting to note that there is usually no allowance made for
the different conditions under which the experiments have invari-
ably taken place and one of the key elements of this work was to
examine how, if at all, changes to the configuration of the jar test
experiments might affect results.
2.4. Full scale flocculation
In practice, full scale flocculation at WTW is effected via either
mechanical or hydraulic means. For mechanical flocculation, the
energy input is via an agitator which generates the necessary shear
stress (and, hence, velocity gradients), and power dissipation may
be obtained via Eq. (10). In hydraulic flocculation, energy is im-
parted via the headloss across a baffled, serpentine channel and
power is obtained via consideration of that headloss. The velocity
gradient is then obtained via
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
qgh
G¼ ð12Þ
lt
where h is the headloss across the channel, t is the retention time
within the channel. The two processes are shown schematically in
Fig. 1.
Having expended time and energy in developing flocs, it is
important that operating conditions do not subsequently cause
their break up. As a result, floc strength, growth and breakage have
been the subject of detailed research in recent years [1,2,7]. How-
ever, much of this work has been undertaken experimentally at
laboratory scale. Whilst the literature contains a number of exam-
101
ples of CFD analyses of full scale water treatment unit processes,
there are very few examples of numerical studies of either
mechanical or hydraulic flocculators. A thorough search of the lit-
erature found just two published, peer-reviewed articles relating
to the performance of a full scale hydraulic flocculator [17,18]. In
view of the apparent lack of attention paid to CFD studies of floc-
culators, it was considered appropriate for this work to consider
one example of each installation in order that their design and
operation might be considered in relation to each other. In com-
mon with some previous research, the work reported in this paper
considers flow patterns but, unlike previous work, here we con-
sider the impact on floc fate. However, it is not just the hydrody-
namic behaviour of flocculators which is of interest, but the
agglomeration, growth and breakage processes are significant also.
Multiphase models which incorporate a particle size distribution
(PSD), such as those found in a flocculator, require a population
balance model (PBM) to describe particle population changes. Sev-
eral solution methods exist, however a full description of each is
outside the scope of this paper. Recent work [19] provided proof
of concept for the decoupling of fluid flow and flocculation dynam-
ics but did not provide information regarding the growth and
strength of flocs in specific water treatment applications. Other re-
cent work includes that of Nopens [20] (CFD and PBM in wastewa-
ter clarifier) and Feng and Li [21] (theoretical PBM approach,
encapsulating internal body forces and fluid shear stress). Whilst
a detailed review of all recent PBM work is not appropriate here,
it is the work of Nopens which has advanced the application of
CFD and PBM modelling to the greatest extent thus far. However,
it is clear from the literature that there has been no work under-
taken on raw waters abstracted from WTW at either lab or full
scale. Consequently, there remains the need to simulate accurately
realistic water treatment flocculation processes at both laboratory
scale using raw water samples taken from WTW, and also at full
scale.
3. CFD modelling of jar tester
3.1. Jar test configurations
The Fluent software (v6, Ansys Inc., Sheffield, UK) was used to
model the flow field within two sets of jar test apparatus and to ex-
plore possible relationships between the turbulence dissipation
rate and mixing speed in the two vessels. The first configuration
comprised an unbaffled 100 mm diameter Perspex stirred vessel,
liquid depth 127 mm, containing one litre of water (the ‘‘cylindri-
cal vessel”). This replicated the geometry adopted by previous
workers [7]. The second configuration comprised a 115 mm square
section Perspex vessel, liquid depth 150 mm, containing two litres
of water (the ‘‘square vessel”), replicating another commonly used
geometry (e.g. [15]). The contents of both vessels were mixed with
a 76 mm diameter, 25 mm deep paddle impeller, mounted on a
6 mm diameter shaft. For the cylindrical vessel, the paddle offset
from the base of the vessel was 35 mm, whereas the corresponding
distance for the square vessel was 53 mm. The two configurations
are shown in Fig. 2.
102 J. Bridgeman et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109

where, um, is velocity magnitude at point m, h is the number of cells

in the mesh and subscripts 1 and 2 refer to coarse and fine mesh,
6
6 respectively.
A factor of safety of 3 (i.e. Fs = 3.0) was applied in accordance
with published recommendations [23]. Taking the 87,777 mesh
as the baseline, CGIs were calculated for the finer grids as 3.75
25

150
127

(98,517), 2.89% (283,470) and 2.31% (337,944). The increase in grid

25
density between the 98,517 and 283,470 cell grids led to an in-
crease in computing time from 16 h to 24 h to achieve a converged
76
solution. It was concluded that the increased computational effort

53
30

76 was not reflected in a corresponding increase in accuracy of results

and so the 98,517 cell grid was selected as the model for validation
100 115 in this study.
Section A-A Section B-B
For each geometry, converged solutions were produced for mix-
ing speeds of 30, 40, 50, 75, 100, 150 and 200 rpm, matching those
used previously [7].

6
3.3. Model validation
A 6 A B B
115

A two phase approach was adopted to model validation; firstly

Plan
Fig. 2. Modelled cylindrical and square vessel configurations (not to scale, all
dimensions in millimetres).
3.2. Model development
During the development and use of any CFD model, several
project-specific criteria must be taken into account, including
the choice of turbulence model, grid density, and the selection
of appropriate boundary conditions. The case of the jar test,
where there is highly swirling flow within a constricted volume,
presents some specific and interesting challenges for the model-
ler. For the cylindrical vessel, sensitivity analyses were under-
taken on four grid densities (87,777, 98,517, 283,470, and
337,944 cells), six turbulence models (Standard k–e (Sk–e), Real-
izable k–e (Rk–e), Renormalised Group k–e (RNG k–e), Standard
k–x (Sk–x), Shear Stress Turbulence k–x (SST k–x) and Rey-
nolds Stress Model (RSM)) and two treatments of the rotating
mesh (sliding mesh and multiple reference frames). Full descrip-
tions are outside the aegis of this paper, but may be found at
[22].
Free slip conditions were specified at the water surface and no
slip conditions were specified at the walls. The near-wall region
was modelled via standard semi-empirical logarithmic wall func-
tions. To initialise the model, all velocities were set to zero, whilst
k and e were set to 0.001 m2 s2 and 0.01 m2 s3, respectively. For
all simulations, the residuals to assess convergence (continuity,
velocity components, turbulent kinetic energy, turbulence dissipa-
tion rate, specific dissipation rate, and Reynolds stresses, where
applicable) were set to 1  105.
Grid density analysis was undertaken using the grid conver-
gence index (CGI) method to provide an indication of error bands
[23]. Velocity magnitude values were extracted for 1000 individual
points in the flow field, and the CGI calculated as:
erms
GCI ¼ F s 2
r 1
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P1000 2 ments via:
m¼1 jðu m;1  u m;2 Þ=u m;2 j
erms ¼
1000
 1=3
h2
r¼
h1
using laser Doppler anemometry (LDA) measurements to validate
velocity components, and secondly using power input measure-
ments to validate power dissipation.
Plan
Two-channel LDA measurements were undertaken on the jar
test apparatus using a laser Doppler anemometer operating in dual
beam mode. The system included a 3 W argon-ion laser, beamsplit-
ter and Bragg cell for frequency shifting. The signal was fed to a
correlation-type signal processor and the amplified Doppler signal
was monitored on a digital oscilloscope. Signal processing was per-
formed on a personal computer. The axial and tangential compo-
nents were measured simultaneously along an axial profile at
x = y = 0.025 m (i.e. midway between shaft and wall). Twenty-three
measurements were taken along the profile at 5 mm intervals and
at seven different mixing speeds; viz. 30, 40, 50, 75, 100, 150 and
200 rpm. (The percentage error in the calibration factor was
approximately 1.5%).
CFD model results and LDA axial velocity data for a mixing
speed of 100 rpm in the cylindrical vessel are compared in
Fig. 3. Numerical data are provided for the RSM and Rk–e turbu-
lence models, used in conjunction with both multiple reference
frames (MRF) and sliding mesh (SM) techniques, and also for the
RNG turbulence model used with the sliding mesh technique, all
applied to the 98,517 cell mesh. Good correlations between the
observed and MRF RSM data are observed, particularly in the pad-
dle region and below. There would appear to be some loss of accu-
racy around tank mid-depth and upwards for all models except
the SM RSM simulation. This is likely to be as a result of vortexing
within the vessel. The correlation between observed data and the
Rk– data (both MRF and SM) is rather more inferior, particularly
for the MRF Rk– simulation, with large errors found at mid-depth
and also in the region below the paddle. The SM RNG models
shows reasonable accuracy in the lower tank region, but this is
lost in the paddle region and above.
Using the energy dissipation rate calculated from each turbu-
lence closure model, the overall power consumption was calcu-
lated for each mixing speed by numerically integrating the local
power consumption over the entire vessel contents, expressed as:
Z
P¼q edV ð14Þ
Actual power input was calculated from applied torque measure-
ð13Þ
P ¼ 2  p  N  Tq ð15Þ
where Tq is the applied torque, measured on a torque transducer
unit.
 J. Bridgeman et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109 103

140

120

100
Depth, mm

80

60

40

20

0
-0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05
-1
Axial Velocity, ms

LDA MRF RSM MRF rk- ε SM rk- ε SM RSM SM RNG k- ε

Fig. 3. Simulated axial velocity profiles calculated for various modelling approaches, over tank depth compared to experimentally-derived value (N = 100 rpm).

Values for the vessel average velocity gradient were then calcu-
lated for both the experimental and CFD results using Eq. (9) and
the results for a mixing speed of 100 rpm are shown at Table 1.
The MRF with Sk–e solution is clearly wholly unrepresentative of
the actual flow field, as this modelling combination yields a Gave
of 989 s1, compared to an experimentally-derived value of
104 s1. The Rk–e and RS models, used in combination with the
MRF treatment for rotating meshes, produced reasonable results
when compared to the work of previous authors [5,6,24]. SM and
Rk–e also produced acceptable results.
It is widely acknowledged that the Reynolds Stress Model is the
most rigorous of the available models [22], and this was indicated
by the increased simulation time required when using this model
(an additional 40–50% when compared to two-equation models
and using the MRF approach). Furthermore, there is an inherent
difficulty with all two-equation models when modelling this type
of swirling flow as they are all predicated on the assumption that
turbulence is isotropic, meaning that the turbulent stress tensor
is independent of direction (or, more precisely, invariant with re-
spect to rotation and reflection of the coordinate axes of the coor-
dinate system moving with the mean motion of the fluid). This
assumption is not true for swirling flow which may be anisotropic
in nature. For swirling flow, turbulence is generally more in the
tangential and axial directions as compared to the radial direction.
The effects of strong turbulence anisotropy can be modelled rigor-
ously only by the second-moment closure adopted in the RSM.
The modelling strategy exercise confirmed that the sliding
mesh approach, coupled with the RSM, provided the greatest de-
gree of accuracy for the determination of velocity data but under-
estimated power dissipation. The MRF RSM simulation was found
to offer reasonable correlation with the LDA data and the experi-
mentally-derived power dissipation, at a substantially reduced
computational cost. Consequently, in light of the good correlation
found between the RSM results and the observed data, the limita-
tions of two-equation models in predicting highly swirling flow
patterns, and the expense of the SM approach, the RSM MRF com-
bination was selected for all jar test CFD models.
Similar exercises were undertaken for the square vessel. Two
separate grids were developed, one with 144,718 cells and the
other with 281,785 cells. Excellent agreement was observed be-
tween two sets of axial velocity data. However, the increase in
computing time when undertaken on a modest laptop was signif-
icant. Convergence for the coarser of the two grids was achieved in
17 h, whereas the finer grid took 30 h to converge. In view of the
good agreement between the two datasets, and taking account of
the increased computing time associated with the finer grid, it
was decided to use the model grid density of 144,718 cells for fu-
ture work.
3.4. Jar test simulation results
Contours of velocity magnitude for the two vessels taken
through the horizontal plane corresponding to the centreline of
the paddle are shown in Fig. 4. For both vessels it is apparent that
the highest velocities are limited to the paddle tip zone. There is
good distribution of velocities in the cylindrical vessel whereas
the same is not true of the square vessel. High values are apparent

Table 1
Vessel average velocity gradient values, Gave, s1 for cylindrical vessel, N = 100 rpm.

Scenario Expt MRF and MRF and MRF and SM and SM and SM and
Sk– Rk– RSM RNG Rk– RSM
Gave, s1 104 989 77 71 62 72 33
Fig. 4. Contours of velocity magnitude taken at paddle mid-depth N = 50 rpm.
104 J. Bridgeman et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109
Fig. 5. Contours of velocity magnitude taken z = 2 mm, N = 50 rpm.
in the paddle wake for both scenarios, but they dissipate quickly in
the square vessel, with evidence of dead spots in the vessel corners.
Similar observations were found in the vertical plane (not shown)
with the cylindrical vessel demonstrating good coverage from the
surface to just above the base. Velocities calculated 2 mm above
the vessel bases at a mixing speed of 50 rpm are shown in Fig. 5.
Velocities in the square vessel are approximately 50% of those in
the cylindrical vessel and there are significant dead spots in the
square vessel. Overall, an increased distribution of the higher
velocities in the cylindrical vessel compared to the square vessel
was observed. The implication of these observations is that the
supplied mechanical energy is dissipated throughout the majority
of the cylindrical vessel, generating a greater degree of mass flow
within it. The same is not true of the square vessel indicating im-
proved mixing in the cylindrical vessel than the square.
Considering the link between turbulence dissipation rate, e, GL
and floc strength [2,16], an informed understanding of e in various
different scenarios (i.e. test configurations and mixing speeds) can
be used to develop important information with regard to floc
behaviour. Plots of the variation of e over the mid-planes of the
two vessels are shown in Fig. 6 for the 200 rpm scenarios. For both
scenarios, there is a strong non-uniformity of turbulence dissipa-
tion. In the impeller zone, the turbulent kinetic energy is highly
dissipated, whereas outside of the impeller zone, the dissipation
rate is reduced. The higher proportion of larger e values in the
square vessel is evident.
Fig. 6. Contours of turbulence dissipation rate for cylindrical and square vessels,
N = 200 rpm.
Using the cylindrical vessel model, turbulence dissipation rate
values were extracted from a plane in the wake of the paddle when
mixing at 200 rpm (Fig. 7). It is apparent that much of the turbu-
lence dissipation takes place within, and immediately adjacent
to, the impeller zone. A qualitatively similar result was obtained
previously when considering mixing in the square vessel at
60 rpm [15], but this was not related in any quantitative fashion
to floc breakage and size.
In order to develop the understanding of the magnitude and
distribution of the turbulence dissipation rate in each vessel fur-
ther and to link this to impacts on floc breakage, four volumes of
interest were identified and studied for each of the two vessel
models; specifically:
(i) vessel contents – i.e. all liquid in vessel,
(ii) paddle swept volume (PSV) – i.e. volume of vessel traced by
paddle,
(iii) continuum – i.e. that part of the vessel not included within
the paddle swept volume,
(iv) paddle tip zone (PTZ) – i.e. an annulus extending 1.5 mm
beyond the paddle tip in both the radial and vertical
directions.
The volume-specific average turbulence dissipation rate val-
ues were found to exhibit the hierarchy paddle tip zone > paddle
swept volume > vessel > continuum for both the cylindrical and
square vessels. Data for the two vessels are compared directly
in Fig. 8, where the results for the paddle tip zone and vessel
averages are plotted together. It is apparent from Fig. 8 that
the square vessel exhibits higher average turbulence dissipation
rate values than the cylindrical vessel. It is also clear that the
rate of increase in e with increasing mixing speed is greater in
the square vessel than in the cylindrical vessel; this observation
being particularly true in the paddle tip zone. Similar shaped
curves for the PSV and vessel average for the square vessel using
LDA-derived data have been published and these new CFD data
show good agreement [15].
The differences between the e values found in the different
zones were investigated further. For the cylindrical vessel it was
found that, considering the full range of mixing speeds, the average
e value in the paddle tip zone was 3.5 times greater than that found
in the vessel overall (i.e. eptz = 3.5  evessel). However, the corre-
sponding relationship for the square vessel shows that
eptz = 5.0  evessel. This result agrees well with previous work in
which LDA-derived data showed that for the square vessel at mix-
ing speeds of 100 rpm and below 4.0 < eptz: evessel < 6.0 [15]. It is
apparent from the results that the degree of turbulence generated
in the paddle tip zone in the square vessel is significantly greater
than the cylindrical vessel. However, it is interesting to note that
for both vessels econtinuum/evessel = 0.5 (i.e. the average e value in
the continuum is half of that found in the vessel overall). This re-
sult further confirms the conclusion drawn above that although
higher e values are generated in the square vessel, they are less
well dissipated than in the cylindrical vessel.
There is a significant range of velocities and turbulence dissipa-
tion rates, and consequently velocity gradients, found in the two
vessels, with the highest values found in the paddle swept volume
and the paddle tip zone. The above results demonstrate that the
hydrodynamic environments generated by the same paddle at
the same mixing speeds but in different vessels can be significantly
different. The logical extension of this conclusion is that it is nei-
ther appropriate nor valid to compare results from one jar test sce-
nario to another when the configurations are different. It is clear
from the above that comparisons of floc behaviour made between
different jar test configurations (of which there are several in the
literature) must be treated with caution.
 J. Bridgeman et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109 105

0.4000

0.3500
Dissipation Rate, m 2/s3
0.3000

0.2500

0.2000

0.1500

0.1000

0.0500

0.0000
0.0409
0.000

0.013

0.027

0.0234
0.040

0.053

0.067 Radial Distance, m

0.080
0.0058

0.094

0.107

0.120
Depth, m

0-0.05 0.05-0.1 0.1-0.15 0.15-0.2 0.2-0.25 0.25-0.3 0.3-0.35 0.35-0.4

Fig. 7. Variation in local turbulence dissipation rate in cylindrical vessel at 200 rpm.

4. CFD modelling of full scale flocculators the production of high density flocs quickly in the first cell, encour-
ages growth rather than breakage in the second cell, with a mini-
4.1. Description mum amount of turbulence generated in the final cell to avoid
floc breakage but sufficient to maintain suspension in the floccula-
Two full scale flocculators at operational WTW were selected tor. Each cell comprises a rectangular section vessel, 6.4 m 
for modelling and analysis; one a mechanical flocculator and one 7.0 m  4.75 m deep, within which a four blade, 6.0 m diameter
an hydraulic flocculator. The mechanical system considered in this rake paddle rotates slowly.
work comprises three identical vessels and paddles rotating at dif- The hydraulic system considered here is a rudimentary process
ferent, reducing speeds. This way of tapering flocculation enhances of coagulation and hydraulic flocculation through a mixing

1.00
Average Turbulence Dissipation Rate, ε, in Zone, m2/s3

0.10

0.01

0.00

0.00
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Mixing Speed, N, rpm

Square Vessel Square Paddle Tip Zone Cyl Vessel Cyl Paddle Tip Zone

Fig. 8. Comparison of average turbulence dissipation rate in paddle tip zone and vessel for the cylindrical and square vessels.
106 J. Bridgeman et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109

Table 2 To develop a converged solution for one flocculation cell over 15

Model and convergence time summary. revolutions using either the Sk–e or Rk–e model took approxi-
Vessel Mesh Rotation Turbulence model Machine CPU time mately five days’ CPU time using a high performance computing
size (Hours) (HPC) facility. The work undertaken here made use of a Sun cluster
Cylindrical 98,517 MRF RSM Laptop 16 grid, comprising 19 2  3.06 dual processor computers, each with
Cylindrical 283,470 MRF RSM Laptop 24 6GB RAM available, all managed by the Sun grid engine from which
Square 144,718 MRF RSM Laptop 17 100% of a processor could be made available for up to five days at a
Square 281,785 MRF RSM Laptop 30
Cylindrical 98,517 MRF Sk–e, Rk–e, k–x, Laptop 12
time. Modelling in excess of one vessel at any one time was not
SST k–x achievable with the available resources. For each mixing speed,
Cylindrical 98,517 SM RNG HPC 17 three different flow rates were simulated (21.1, 24.0 and 16.0 Ml/
Mechanical 338,213 MRF Sk–e, HPC 24 d) representing the average, maximum and minimum flows
Mechanical 338,213 SM Sk–e, Rk–e, HPC 120
through the vessels. Thus, nine separate simulations were
Hydraulic 395,328 – Sk–e HPC 6
Hydraulic 776,187 – Sk–e HPC 12.25 undertaken.
It was considered that the flow generated in the hydraulic floc-
culator would not follow a swirling path which would have neces-
chamber and single baffled channel. The channel is 2.5 m wide, sitated the use of a rigorous turbulence modelling approach such
4.165 m deep and 50 m long. Vertical baffles are positioned at reg- as the Reynolds Stress Model. The Sk–e model has been used suc-
ular intervals along the length of the channel, causing the flow to cessfully in previous work undertaken on similar structures,
move in a serpentine manner. [17,18,25], and was chosen in this instance also. As the hydraulic
flocculator runs at average output for the majority of the time of
4.2. Model development the time, just one flow rate was modelled; that being 160 Ml/d.

The software packages, Gambit and Fluent (Ansys Inc., Sheffield,
UK) were used to generate the mesh and solve the equations of
flow in both cases. The mesh, turbulence modelling and rotating
mesh details (where appropriate) are shown at Table 2. Plan and
sectional views of the two flocculators are shown in Figs. 9 and 10.
Appropriate boundary conditions were specified; in particular,
free slip conditions at the top water level, no slip conditions at
the walls, standard logarithm wall boundary layer profile, normal
velocity inlet and pressure outlet.
The mechanical flocculator offered the most significant chal-
lenges in deriving a converged solution. In order to derive an initial
solution, the rotating grid was first modelled using the Sk–e turbu-
lence model and the MRF method. (Convergence criteria were set
at 1  105). These data were then interpolated into a sliding mesh
version of the grid and the analysis refined using that method of
solution. 100 time steps per revolution were specified, and, in
the first instance, 15 revolutions were specified in order to ensure
a steady solution had been reached. Point velocities and pressures
were monitored to ensure that a time-independent solution had
been reached. The Sk–e turbulence model was then replaced by
the Rk–e turbulence model and a converged solution obtained once
more. The selection of the Rk– model for the mechanical floccula-
tor was made on the basis of its suitability to round jets, such as
may be found at the flocculator inlet. To reduce computational ex-
pense, just one vessel was modelled at any one time, and each of
the three mixing speeds (3.2, 2.4 and 1.6 rpm) were simulated.
4.3. Full scale flocculator results
4.3.1. Velocity
Simulated velocity contours for one quadrant of the mechanical
flocculator are shown in Fig. 11 (mixing speed = 2.4 rpm, flow
rate = 21.1 Ml/d). Some small dead spots at the vessel corner and
around the shaft are apparent; otherwise there is a reasonable de-
gree of movement within the vessel. Fig. 11 indicates that the high-
est velocities are located towards the tips of the paddles. The
velocity varies from 0 to 0.89 ms1 within the vessel; the upper
limit being some 1.83 times greater than the inlet velocity of
0.486 ms1. The corresponding values for the 1.6 and 3.2 rpm sim-
ulations were 1.23 and 2.42, respectively.
For the hydraulic flocculator, a plot of velocity vectors calcu-
lated on a vertical plane along a section of the centreline of the
channel is shown in Fig. 12. Working from the left hand side of
the plot, it is apparent that the flow at the surface strikes the baffle
wall and is deflected vertically downwards. A significant propor-
tion of the flow continues under the baffle wall and into the next
cell. However, it is also clear that in each cell a recirculation loop
is set up, with a proportion of the flow returning, at low speed
along the top or bottom of the vessel. This recirculation flow pat-
tern is observed in all flocculation cells of the channel. Velocities
range from 1.29 ms1 along the channel floor to 0 ms1 in the
centre of cells. Dead areas are also found at the upper and lower
corners of each cell.

Fig. 9. Plan and sectional views of meshed mechanical flocculation cell.

 J. Bridgeman et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109 107

Table 3
Turbulence dissipation rate summary.

eave, 103, m2 s3 GL ave s1 GL max s1 Gave s1

Hydraulic, 160 Ml/d 4.11 45.7 734.9 46.6
1.6 rpm, 16.0 Ml/d 0.42 16.9 268.7 19.4
1.6 rpm, 21.1 Ml/d 0.48 18.2 286.5
1.6 rpm, 24.0 Ml/d 0.53 19.2 289.6
2.4 rpm, 16.0 Ml/d 1.31 29.6 544.3 31.8
2.4 rpm, 21.1 Ml/d 1.36 30.4 538.6
2.4 rpm, 24.0 Ml/d 1.45 31.6 526.0
3.2 rpm, 16.0 Ml/d 3.07 44.9 839.9 45.4
Fig. 10. Plan and elevation views of hydraulic flocculator channel. 3.2 rpm, 21.1 Ml/d 3.11 45.5 837.9
3.2 rpm, 24.0 Ml/d 3.19 46.5 832.8

to grow flocs [7]. Therefore, it is instructive to consider the range of

Fig. 11. Velocity contours z = 3.0 m, N = 2.4 rpm, Q = 21.1 Ml/d.
Fig. 12. Velocity vectors along centreline of channel.
4.3.2. Turbulence dissipation rate
For the mechanical flocculator, local turbulence dissipation rate
values above the vessel average were found to occur around the
paddle edges and in the wake of the paddle, whereas for the
hydraulic flocculator local velocity gradient values greater than
the average were generally to be found at the baffle walls tips
and on the facing walls. The average and maximum local velocity
gradients, GLave and GLmax, respectively, vessel average velocity gra-
dient, Gave, and average turbulent eddy dissipation values, eave,
were calculated for each mixing speed and flow rate and the results
are shown at Table 3. For the mechanical flocculator, it is apparent
that both the average and maximum local velocity gradients are af-
fected by the mixing speed, but are effectively independent of flow
rate at each mixing speed. For both flocculators, the average local
velocity gradient is similar to the overall average; however, a sig-
nificant variation of GL value is noted (similar to the jar test data),
once again demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the Gave value in
describing accurately the flow field characteristics.
4.3.3. Velocity gradient
It is known that the hydrodynamic environment induced by
mixing the contents of the cylindrical vessel at 30 rpm is sufficient
GL values found in that vessel with those found in the full scale
flocculators. GL values were extracted for the jar tester, mechanical
and hydraulic flocculator models and their distributions are pre-
sented in Fig. 13. At a mixing speed of 1.6 rpm, the mechanical floc-
culator vessel has a 90% coverage of GL values below 50 s1, and
95% coverage of GL values of 65 s1 or below. The three mechanical
flocculator curves are all of a similar shape, shifting towards higher
GL values as the mixing speed increases. For the 3.2 rpm simula-
tion, 90% vessel coverage is attained at a GL value of 117 s1, and
95% coverage is attained at a GL value of 170 s1. For the hydraulic
flocculator, 90% vessel coverage is attained at GL = 104 s1, and 95%
coverage is attained at GL = 130 s1 (Table 4). There is only a small
percentage of the overall channel volume where the local velocity
gradient exceeds 100 s1, with some 82% of the channel having a GL
value of 100 s1 or less.
Comparison of the hydraulic flocculator curve with the three
mechanical curves is interesting. At low velocity gradient values
(i.e. GL < 15 s1), the hydraulic velocity gradient distribution is
approximately midway between the mechanical 1.6 and 2.4 rpm
scenarios. However, beyond 15 s1, the rate of change of volume
decreases, indicating that a greater volume of higher local velocity
gradient values are found within the channel. The rate of volume
change is greater for the mechanical flocculator than for the
hydraulic one, and thus a greater volumetric change occurs over
a reduced band of GL values. The curve showing the distribution
of velocity gradients in the cylindrical jar tester when mixing at
30 rpm is shifted to the left of all mechanical and hydraulic floccu-
lator curves, indicating a less turbulent mixing regime. However,
previous work postulated that flocs formed from upland water
(such as those found at these two WTW) will withstand velocity
gradient values of up to 150 s1 and below [26]. It is apparent that
the vast majority of the velocity gradient values within the both
the flocculation channel and the mechanical flocculator are at or
below the postulated breakage threshold, thus indicating that the
magnitudes of velocity gradients induced are acceptable for ade-
quate flocculation. Therefore, this work demonstrates the develop-
ment and novel use of CFD modelling strategies and techniques to
assess the performance of pilot and full scale water treatment
plant, thus negating the need for detailed on-site assessments.
5. Use of CFD in the water industry
As part of this work, a number of CFD simulations of laboratory
and full scale unit processes commonly found at water treatment
works have been undertaken. The early work (MRF, two-equation
modelling of jar testers) was undertaken using a 1.4 GHz, 250 MB
RAM laptop computer. The most straightforward of these runs took
at least 12 h of CPU time to obtain a converged solution and it be-
came apparent that modelling anything more complex would re-
quire significantly enhanced computing facilities. As a result, a
108
100
Cummulative % vessel volume occupied
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.6 rpm
Table 4
Local velocity gradient values at which 90% and 95% volume coverage is attained.
Volumetric GL value at which stated coverage attained
coverage (%)
Mechanical:
3.2 (rpm)
95 170
90 117
high performance computing (HPC) facility was used for the more
complex jar tests scenarios (SM and RSM) and all full scale simula-
tions. Using the HPC, the full scale mechanical flocculator SM sim-
ulations still required up to 12 days’ CPU usage. As a test, an
attempt was made to run the same model on a laptop. The test
was abandoned after two weeks of continuous running, with the
solution still distant from convergence. Mixing scenarios and the
associated turbulence model and rotating mesh treatment are tab-
ulated with time to convergence at Table 3.
Several articles have been published in trade magazines espous-
ing the benefits of CFD to the water industry and it is accepted that
the cost of undertaking simple CFD modelling has fallen in real
terms as the cost of basic hardware and memory has fallen and,
although annual licence fees for commercially-available codes re-
main relatively high, short-term licences have made the use of
CFD more cost-effective. However, this work has shown how mod-
est computing hardware is capable of running only the most
straightforward models. Challenges facing the modeller are, there-
fore, a function of system complexity. For example, the modelling
of species concentration in a chlorine contact tank or ozone reactor
is a relatively computationally inexpensive procedure. However, as
can be seen from the work reported here, the development of tur-
bulence dissipation profiles in mechanically mixed vessels is rather
more challenging. Furthermore, even when runs are possible on
such machines, the machine is likely to be redundant for all other
purposes during that time. This observation leads one to question
the appropriateness of CFD in the water industry. Accepting the
fact that complex modelling can only be undertaken by skilled
operatives using HPC facilities, one must consider the costs in-
volved. Specialist consultants and software developers do offer
CFD expertise and access to remote simulation facilities, all of
which attract commercial rates. This author believes that tradi-
J. Bridgeman et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109
1 10 100 1.000
Local Velocity Gradient, s -1
2.4 rpm 3.2 rpm Hydraulic Cyl Jar Tester - 30rpm
Fig. 13. Cumulative distribution of local velocity gradient for full and lab scale flocculators.
tional commercial IT management in the water industry perceives
HPC systems to be a niche environment, and so will not be dis-
posed to significant capital investment, or the training of staff, in
that area. This is borne out to some extent by the fact that in the
Mechanical: Mechanical: Hydraulic UK, it is only Anglian Water and Thames Water which are known
2.4 (rpm) 1.6 (rpm)
to have specialist CFD capabilities; this, from a cohort of ten major
111 65 130 water and sewerage companies. It is even less surprising to note
80 50 104
that the water-only companies have no specialist in-house CFD
expertise. This issue was also raised by Morvan [27] who stated
that ‘‘CFD requires a background knowledge whose cost is still high
to industrialists for whom CFD only provides either an occasional
tool or a tool that is too sophisticated to be used in its most general
form in their daily business”. Gujer [28] also questioned the likeli-
hood of widespread CFD modelling in the water industry and
wrote ‘‘. . . to what extent this ever more detailed research will lead
towards models that will be applicable in daily consulting busi-
ness. Who can afford to identify accurately parameters that are
subject to high sensitivity but are only amenable to expensive
and time-consuming analytical procedures?”
Although CFD offers undoubted benefits for those seeking to
understand better the flow in and around complex geometries,
the level of complexity demands extensive computing power and
trained staff to such an extent that this author believes its wide-
spread use for water industry applications outside academic and
specialised consultancies is unlikely. Nevertheless, this work has
demonstrated clearly the benefits to be gained from this powerful
tool.
6. Conclusions
This paper has demonstrated the range of scales and applica-
tions to which CFD can be applied successfully to flocculation pro-
cesses used for water treatment.
For straightforward unbaffled paddle mixing in a small vessel,
the computational expense of the sliding mesh technique to model
rotating flows was found not to be necessary where the user’s
scope of interest is limited to a broad consideration and apprecia-
tion of the magnitude of shear zones and turbulent effects within a
mixing system. The MRF approach was found to be sufficient to
develop an understanding of the magnitude of velocity gradients
to which a floc may be subjected within a vessel.
 J. Bridgeman et al. / Advances in Engineering Software 41 (2010) 99–109
CFD analysis has demonstrated that, when the jar test vessel
contents were mixed at the same speed, the turbulence dissipation
rates generated in a square section vessel were significantly higher
than those found in a circular section vessel, albeit they were less
well-distributed.
For the full scale mechanical flocculator, changes to the flow
rate were shown to exert only a small influence on the distribution
of local velocity gradient values. Changes to the mixing speed did
impose a significant impact on the local velocity gradient
distribution.
For the hydraulic flocculator, large recirculation loops and dead
spots were identified in flocculation cells between baffles.
For both the mechanical and hydraulic flocculators, the distri-
bution of turbulence dissipation rate was found to be broadly sim-
ilar to that found in the cylindrical jar tester at 30 rpm and so
conducive to floc growth.
Using modest computing hardware (e.g. desktop personal com-
puters) CFD modelling is restricted to the analysis of relatively sim-
ple flows. More complex scenarios, such as rotating meshes,
require greater computing power which is not generally found out-
side academic environments or specialised consultancies. CFD
modelling also requires trained staff to generate robust models
and solutions. The combination of these two factors is likely to pre-
clude the widespread use of CFD in most water companies and
mainstream consultancies in the foreseeable future. However, this
work has demonstrated clearly the benefits to be gained from this
powerful tool.
Acknowledgements
The submitted manuscript has been made possible through the
funding from the American Water Works Association Research
Foundation and Co-funding Utilities. The authors would also like
to thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC), Yorkshire Water, Thames Water, United Utilities, Severn
Trent Water, Scottish Water and Fort Collins Utilities for their
financial support.
References
[1] Boller S, Blaser S. Particles under stress. Water Sci Technol 1998;37(10):9–29.
[2] Jarvis P, Jefferson B, Gregory J, Parsons SA. A review of floc strength and
breakage. Water Res 2005;39:3121–37.
[3] Korpijarvi J, Ahlstedt H, Saarenrinne P, Renanen J. Modelling of flow field in the
mini-flocculator. In: Benkreira H, editor. IChemE symposium series no. 146,
fluid mixing 6; 1999. p. 361–72.
109
[4] Korpijarvi J, Laine E, Ahlstedt H. Using CFD in the study of mixing in
coagulation and flocculation, in chemical water and wastewater treatment VI.
In: Hahn HH, Hoffmann E, Odegaard H, editors. Proceedings of the ninth
Gothenburg symposium, Springer; 2000. p. 89–99.
[5] Essemiani K, de Traversay C. Optimisation of the flocculation process using
computational fluid dynamics, in chemical water and wastewater treatment
VII. In: Hahn HH, Hoffmann E, Odegaard H, editors. Proceedings of the 10th
Gothenburg symposium, IWA Publishing; 2002.
[6] Essemiani K, de Traversay C. Optimum design of coagulation/flocculation
vessels, WQTC 2002 conference, Seattle, USA; 2002.
[7] Jarvis P, Jefferson B, Parsons SA. The duplicity of floc strength. Water Sci
Technol 2004;50:63–70.
[8] Gregory J. The density of particle aggregates. Water Sci Technol
1997;36(4):1–13.
[9] Biggs CA, Lant PA. Activated sludge flocculation: on-line determination of floc
size and the effect of shear. Water Res 2000;34:2542–50.
[10] Coufort C, Bouyer D, Liné A. Flocculation related to local hydrodynamics in a
Taylor–Couette reactor and in a jar. Chem Eng Sci 2005;60:2179–92.
[11] Yeung AKC, Pelton R. Micromechanics: a new approach to studying the
strength and breakup of flocs. J Colloid Interface Sci 1996;184:579–85.
[12] Thomas DG. Turbulent disruption of flocs in small particle size suspensions. J
AIChE 1964;19(4):517–23.
[13] Camp TR, Stein PC. Velocity gradients and internal work in fluid motion. J
Boston Soc Civ Eng 1943;30:219–37.
[14] Luo C. Distribution of velocities and velocity gradients in mixing and
flocculation vessels: comparison between LDV data and CFD predictions.
PhD thesis, New Jersey Institute of Technology; 1997.
[15] Stanley SJ, Smith DW. Measurement of turbulent flow in standard jar test
apparatus. J Environ Eng 1995(December):902–10.
[16] Bridgeman J. Investigating the relationship between shear and floc fate using
CFD. PhD thesis, Cranfield University; 2006.
[17] Haarhoff J. Design of around-the-end hydraulic flocculators. J Water Supply:
Res Technol AQUA 1998;47(3):142–52.
[18] Haarhoff J, van der Walt JJ. Towards optimal design parameters for around-
the-end hydraulic flocculators. J Water Supply: Res Technol AQUA 2001;
50(3):149–59.
[19] Prat OP, Ducoste JJ. Simulation of flocculation in stirred vessels – Lagrangian
versus Eulerian. Chem Eng Res Des 2007;85(A2):207–19.
[20] Nopens I. Improved prediction of effluent suspended solids in clarifiers
through integration of a population balance model and a CFD model. In:
Proceedings of PS-IWA 2007: particle separation, Toulouse; July 2007.
[21] Feng X, Li XY. Modelling the kinetics of aggregate breakage using improved
breakage kernel. Water Sci Technol 2008;57(1):151–7.
[22] Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W. An introduction to computational fluid
dynamics. The finite volume method. Prentice Hall; 1995.
[23] Roache PJ. Verification of codes and calculations. AIAA J 1998;36(5):
696–702.
[24] Armenante PM, Luo C, Chou C-C, Fort I, Medek J. Velocity profiles in a closed,
unbaffled vessel: comparison between experimental LDV data and numerical
CFD predictions. Chem Eng Sci 1997;52(20):3483–92.
[25] Yeung H. Modelling of service reservoirs. J Hydroinformatics 2001;3(3):
165–72.
[26] Bridgeman J, Jefferson B, Parsons SA. Assessing floc strength using CFD to
improve organics removal. Chem Eng Res Des 2008;86(8):941–50.
[27] Morvan HP. Automating CFD for non-experts. J Hydroinformatics 2005;7(1):
17–29.
[28] Gujer W. Activated sludge modelling: past, present and future. Water Sci
Technol 2006;53(3):111–9.