76.diss IFH BD 2006 3 Bleninger

Tobias Bleninger
Coupled 3D hydrodynamic models for submarine outfalls:

Environmental hydraulic design and control of multiport diffusers
Dissertationsreihe am Institut für Hydromechanik
der Universität Karlsruhe (TH)
Heft 2006/3
Coupled 3D hydrodynamic models
for submarine outfalls: Environmen-
tal hydraulic design and control of
multiport diffusers
von
Tobias Bleninger
Dissertation, genehmigt von der
Fakultät für Bauingenieur-, Geo- und Umweltwissenschaften
der Universität Fridericiana zu Karlsruhe (TH), 2006
Referenten: Prof. Gerhard H. Jirka, Ph.D., Prof. Dr.-Ing. E.h. Hermann H. Hahn, Ph.D.,
Prof. Peter A. Davies, University of Dundee, UK
Impressum
Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe
c/o Universitätsbibliothek
Straße am Forum 2
D-76131 Karlsruhe
www.uvka.de
Dieses Werk ist unter folgender Creative Commons-Lizenz

lizenziert: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/de/
Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe 2007

Print on Demand
ISSN: 1439-4111
ISBN: 978-3-86644-160-6
Coupled 3D hydrodynamic models for submarine outfalls:
Environmental hydraulic design and control of multiport diffusers
Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines
DOKTOR - INGENIEURS
von der Fakultät für
Bauingenieur-, Geo- und Umweltwissenschaften

der Universität Fridericiana zu Karlsruhe (TH)
genehmigte
DISSERTATION
von
Dipl.-Ing. Tobias Bleninger

aus Marbach (Neckar)
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 19. Juli 2006
Hauptreferent: Prof. Gerhard H. Jirka, Ph.D.
Korreferenten: Prof. Dr.-Ing. E.h. Hermann H. Hahn, Ph.D.

Prof. Peter A. Davies, University of Dundee, UK
Karlsruhe 2006
Abstract
Long submarine outfalls with a multiport diffuser are an efficient discharge device avoiding
pollutant accumulation and collapse of ecosystems by dispersing the treated effluents. This
thesis describes the results of a project to raise the current level of hydraulic design and envi-
ronmental impact prediction technologies for such installations. Focus are the hydrodynamic
aspects approached by computer modeling techniques. First, a multiport diffuser design pro-
gram was developed. Secondly, two model systems for discharge analysis, CORMIX for the
near-field and intermediate-field and Delft3D for the far-field were coupled, and third a regu-
latory procedure is proposed to license and monitor outfall installations.
The multiport diffuser design program CorHyd calculates the flow distribution along the dif-
fuser and the related pressure losses in the pipe system. It considers different pipe materials
and geometric configurations, and releases restrictions of previous diffuser programs by con-
sidering flexible geometry specifications, high risers and variable area orifices, all with auto-
matic definition of loss coefficients. Additional features regarding blocked ports, sensitivity
analysis and performance evaluation for varying parameters guarantee proper diffuser opera-
tion and reduced costs for installation, operation and maintenance. Case studies show a
strong sensitivity to the representation and formulation of local losses even for relatively sim-
ple riser/port configurations.
CORMIX was coupled to Delft3D for the prediction of the substance fate, especially for bac-
teria distributions. CORMIX includes a near-field buoyant jet model for the source induced
turbulent mixing and additional modules to consider boundary interaction and buoyant
spreading processes in the intermediate-field. Delft3D models the ambient flow hydrodynam-
ics and water quality parameters. The coupling algorithm pays special attention to the inter-
mediate-field modeling, where the CORMIX flow classification system is an important com-
ponent for the modeling approach. The existing set of length scales as base for the flow clas-
sification has been extended by an additional unsteady length and time scale. These ascertain,
whether buoyant spreading results as predicted by the steady intermediate-field model corre-
late with the unsteady motions in the receiving waters. The proposed coupling approach
firstly classifies field-data and CORMIX time-series results for the near-field / intermediate-
field and computes input and source files for both models according to the chosen far-field
grid resolution and intermediate-field plume geometry and concentration. Secondly, the water
quality model within Delft3D computes the substance concentrations. The algorithm is im-
plemented and tested for the Cartagena outfall in Colombia. The study incorporated the ocean
bathymetry and predicted ocean currents and density distributions through the water column
that are generated by wind stresses and the appropriate boundary conditions. Results showed
significant improvements compared to traditional design approaches.
Moreover, a proposal for improved water quality regulations and their implementation for
discharge permits has been added to the engineering design approach. Especially the specifi-
cation of where in the water body the environmental quality standards apply and how to pre-
dict and monitor has been considered. The proposal of a regulatory discharge zone in combi-
nation with a regulatory preservation zone promises to improve procedures regarding dis-
charge licensing and monitoring. Its implementation with support of coupled hydrodynamic
and water quality models are demonstrated for the Cartagena outfall.
Kurzfassung
Gekoppelte 3D hydrodynamische Modelle für Einleitungen in Küstengewässer:

Hydraulische Bemessung, Berechnung und Kontrolle der Auswirkungen von Einleitungen
über mehrdüsige Diffusorbauwerke
Mehrdüsige Diffusorbauwerke, die über lange Rohrleitungen das gereinigte Abwasser einer
Kläranlage in den Vorfluter einleiten, stellen hocheffiziente Systeme zur Vermeidung von
Gewässerqualitätsproblemen dar. Die starke Durchmischung und Verteilung des behandelten
Abwassers vermeidet die lokale Anhäufung von Schadstoffen und unterstützt somit natürliche
Abbauprozesse. Die vorliegende Arbeit beschreibt das Resultat eines Projektes zur Verbesse-
rung von Bemessungs- und Vorhersageinstrumenten für mehrdüsige Diffusorbauwerke in
Küstengewässern. Im Mittelpunkt stehen die hydrodynamischen Aspekte der Umwelttechno-
logie, welche mit der Anpassung und Neukonzeption von Modellen untersucht werden. Als
erstes wurde ein Bemessungsprogramm für Diffusorbauwerke entwickelt. Als zweites Pro-
grammmodule zur Kopplung des Nahfeld Misch- und Transportmodellsystems CORMIX mit
dem Fernfeldmodell Delft3D entwickelt und als drittes Vorschläge ausgesprochen, um die
Bewilligung und Überwachung einer Abwassereinleitung zu verbessern.
Das Bemessungsprogramm für Diffusorbauwerke, CorHyd, berechnet die Durchflussvertei-

lung in einem mehrdüsigen Rohrleitungssystem. Es beinhaltet die Berechnung von Druckver-
lusten infolge verschiedener Rohrmaterialien und geometrischer Konfigurationen, wie lange
Steigrohre, aufgesetzte Verteilerrosetten und Ventile mit durchflussvariabler Öffnung. Zu-
sätzliche Programmoptionen ermöglichen die Anpassung der notwendigen Betriebsdruckhö-
he, auch für Betriebszustände, die sich stark von den Bemessungsbedingungen unterscheiden.
Die erhöhte Leistungsfähigkeit der somit bemessenen Systeme garantiert des Weiteren einen
niedrigeren Unterhaltungsaufwand und stabile Betriebsbedingungen. Die Programmtauglich-
keit wurde anhand von zwei Fallstudien überprüft. Beide Studien zeigen eine starke Abhän-
gigkeit von Definitionen zur Bestimmung lokaler Druckverluste.
Zur Prognose der Einleitungsauswirkungen auf das Gewässer und dessen Nutzungen, insbe-
sondere von Bakterienkonzentrationsverteilungen wurde CORMIX, mit Delft3D gekoppelt.
CORMIX berechnet die Ausbreitung von Auftriebsstrahlen sowie Interaktionen mit Beran-
dungen und Dichteströmungen. Delft3D berechnet die Küstenströmung und den Schadstoff-
transport, dem noch zusätzliche Abbauprozesse obliegen. Der Kopplungsalgorithmus befasst
sich insbesondere mit dem Übergangsbereich. Die CORMIX Strömungsklassifizierung wurde
hierfür um eine instationäre Zeit- und Längenskala erweitert, um die dynamische Interaktion
zwischen den Modellen korrekt zu erfassen. Hiermit ist es möglich die Ergebnisse einer stati-
onären Berechnung bis zum Übergangsbereich mit der Instationarität der Küstenströmung zu
vergleichen und gegebenenfalls die Kopplungsposition anzupassen. Zuerst werden Naturdaten
und Zeitreihen der CORMIX Ergebnisse klassifiziert und Eingabedaten für Randbedingungen
und Quellenterme für beide Programme CORMIX und Delft3D erzeugt. Die Ergebnisse bein-
halten die Durchmischung, die Fahnenposition und Fahnengeometrie am Ende des Über-
gangsbereichs und Strömungsabhängige Kopplungsposition und Zeitpunkt. Die abschließende
Anwendung des Fernfeldtransportmodells ergibt die Konzentrationsverteilungen. Der Algo-
rithmus wurde in die Programmsysteme implementiert und am Beispiel des Einleitungsbau-
werks für die Stadt Cartagena in Kolumbien getestet. Die Rechnungen beinhalteten die Be-
rechnung des Strömungs- und Dichtefeldes unter zusätzlichem Einfluss von Wind. Ergebnisse
zeigen, dass realistischere Resultate im Vergleich zu früheren Vorhersagemethoden erzielt
wurden.
Neben der ingenieurmäßigen Bemessung und Standortbestimmung des Bauwerks wurde auch
die gängige Praxis der Genehmigungsverfahren für solche Bauwerke erörtert. Es wurden zwei
Konzepte vorgeschlagen, um vorhandene Defizite, insbesondere in neuen Richtlinien, zu be-
heben. Ersteres ist die Definition einer behördlichen Einleitungszone, die festlegt, an welcher
Stelle im Gewässer die Umweltqualitätsnormen einzuhalten sind. Die bisherige Praxis hatte
nicht berücksichtigt, dass Mischprozesse nur langsam und über lange Strecken ablaufen.
Zweites ist die Definition einer behördlichen Schutz- bzw. Erhaltungszone. Diese soll Einlei-
tungsauswirkungen auf Gewässerbereiche mit besonderer Nutzung, zum Beispiel als Bade-
gewässer oder für Trinkwassernutzung, auf die gesetzlichen nutzungsspezifischen Grenzwerte
reduzieren. Beide Ansätze wurden auf die Fallstudie für die Einleitung der Stadt Cartagena
angewandt und verdeutlichen die Vorteile einer Erweiterung der gesetzlichen Richtlinien in
diesem Sinne.
Preface and acknowledgements
This doctoral thesis was elaborated at the Institute for Hydromechanics at the University of
Karlsruhe in Germany in parallel to the appointment as teaching and research assistant. The
thesis works have been fully funded by the Institute. Complementary support was offered
from Delft Hydraulics regarding the software license for the applied program suite Deflt3D.
Further support from the German Academic Exchange Service was related to the travel ex-
penses for two research stays at the University of São Paulo, Brazil. The case has been sup-
ported by the World Bank, regarding travel expanses for two research stays at the Georgia
Institute of Technology in the United States.
I would like to express my gratitude especially to my supervisor Gerhard Jirka for his every
time friendly and open discussions and all the helpful ideas. I enjoyed listening to his lively
and active visions and feeling his strong enthusiasm for teaching and researching environ-
mental hydraulics. Thanks also to all colleagues from the Institute for Hydromechanics pro-
viding such a beautiful and nice working environment and support.
I thank very much Peter Davies from the University of Dundee, Herrmann Hahn, and Wolf-
gang Rodi from the University of Karlsruhe for contributing to my thesis offering their super-
vision as member of my committee and their helpful comments. Moreover, I appreciate the
support from Arthur Mynett from Delft Hydraulics for providing a research license of the
software Delft3D. The software system CORMIX has been offered by Rob Doneker from
MixZon, which included an outstanding support and very friendly exchange of ideas.
Regarding my research stay in São Paulo, I thank Jayme Ortiz from the University of São
Paulo for the kind hospitality and scientific exchange. I furthermore appreciate the assistance
and friendship from Emilia Arasaki and Edward Brambilla. I am grateful to Paolo Rosman
from the University of Rio de Janeiro and João Carvalho from the University of the Vale de
Itajaí for sharing their data and ideas.
I am very glad that Phil Roberts from the Georgia Institute of Technology and Menahem Lib-
haber from the World Bank did believe in my ideas and supported my stay in Atlanta. It was
a very efficient and most interesting practical application of research outcomes, what I kindly
appreciate.
Thanks to RedValve Company and Elasto-Valve Rubber Products for providing their data
regarding Duckbill valves. I also express my gratitude to the student assistants Martina
Kurzke and Gudrun Hillebrand who contributed to the coding of the present programs. And
thanks to Volker Weitbrecht and John Fenton for their patience in correcting my draft ver-
sions and keeping me laughing even in the last days before submitting the thesis.
Finally yet importantly, I thank my wife Katya and my children Vincent and Valentina for
their love and understanding.
Karlsruhe, 12th June 2006

Tobias Bleninger
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background and motivation - coastal water quality problems 2
1.2 Problem - wastewater discharges 3
1.3 Objectives and outline 5
2 Characteristics of coastal wastewater discharges............................................................ 7
2.1 Coastal waters characteristics 7
2.1.1 Coastal circulation .......................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Density stratifications ..................................................................................... 9
2.1.3 Natural purification....................................................................................... 10
2.2 Wastewater sources and characteristics 11
2.3 Wastewater treatment technologies 13
2.3.1 Limitations of conventional treatment technologies..................................... 15
2.4 Discharge technologies - outfall characteristics 16
2.4.1 Discharge processes and their characteristics ............................................... 19
2.4.2 Limitations of discharge technologies .......................................................... 24
2.5 Need for a discharge assessment - improved outfall design 24
2.5.1 Outfall design parameters - dilution characteristics...................................... 25
2.5.2 Outfall design tools - need for prediction models......................................... 27
3 Governing equations: assumptions and simplifications................................................ 29
3.1 General simplifications for coastal discharges 30
3.2 Simplifications regarding spatial scales 30
3.2.1 Effect of earth rotation .................................................................................. 30
3.2.2 Shallow water approximation - hydrostatic assumption............................... 31
3.2.3 Spatial averaging: 1, 2 or 3 dimensions ........................................................ 31
3.3 Simplifications regarding time scales 32
3.3.1 Steady flow ................................................................................................... 32
3.3.2 Time averaging - simplification of turbulent fluctuations ............................ 32
3.4 Simplifications regarding boundaries 33
3.4.1 Closed boundaries......................................................................................... 34
3.4.2 Open boundaries ........................................................................................... 35
4 Multiport diffuser design program - CorHyd................................................................ 37
4.1 Multiport diffuser configurations 38
4.2 Internal diffuser hydraulics - manifold processes 38
4.2.1 Governing equations for turbulent pipe flow................................................ 41
4.2.2 Friction losses - cross-sectional non-uniformities ........................................ 42
4.2.3 Local losses - streamwise non-uniformities.................................................. 43
4.2.4 Simplifications and modeling assumption .................................................... 45
4.3 CorHyd model 49
4.3.1 Governing equations ..................................................................................... 49
4.3.2 Solving scheme ............................................................................................. 53
4.3.3 Data Input ..................................................................................................... 55
4.3.4 Data Output................................................................................................... 57
4.4 Diffuser design and optimization 57
4.4.1 Design constraints......................................................................................... 57
4.4.2 Design and optimization steps ...................................................................... 59
4.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................................... 62
4.4.4 Transients, saline intrusion and purging ....................................................... 63
4.4.5 Design rules .................................................................................................. 63
4.5 Case studies 64
4.5.1 Ipanema outfall - Rio de Janeiro - Brazil...................................................... 64
4.5.2 Berazategui - Buenos Aires - Argentina ....................................................... 75
4.6 Discussion and recommendations 78
5 Coupled discharge and transport modeling - CorLink................................................. 81
5.1 Near-field processes and modeling applications 82
5.1.1 Governing equations for multiport buoyant jets ........................................... 84
5.1.2 Dimensional analysis - empirical methods ................................................... 88
5.1.3 Integral methods ........................................................................................... 94
5.1.4 Numerical methods ....................................................................................... 96
5.1.5 Near-field jet models..................................................................................... 97
5.2 Intermediate-field processes and modeling applications 101
5.2.1 Near-field instability ................................................................................... 101
5.2.2 Boundary interaction processes .................................................................. 102
5.2.3 Buoyant spreading processes ...................................................................... 105
5.2.4 Intermediate field models ........................................................................... 109
5.3 Far-field processes and modeling applications 111
5.3.1 Passive ambient mixing - empirical dilution equations .............................. 111
5.3.2 Governing equations for 3-D shallow water flows ..................................... 114
5.3.3 Numerical methods - CFD .......................................................................... 117
5.3.4 Far-field flow models - coastal circulation ................................................. 120
5.3.5 Far-field transport models - transport and mixing ...................................... 122
5.3.6 Water quality modeling - decay and transformation processes .................. 125
5.4 Model coupling - approaches and algorithms 126
5.4.1 Review of coupling concepts ...................................................................... 131
5.4.2 Coupling approach ...................................................................................... 132
5.4.3 Coupling algorithm and program modules ................................................. 135
6 Regulatory discharge and preservation zone - CorZone ............................................ 145
6.1 Water quality objectives 145
6.2 Regulatory water quality control measures 146
6.3 Regulatory discharge and preservation zone concept 150
6.3.1 Regulatory discharge zone specification .................................................... 150
6.3.2 Regulatory preservation zone specification ................................................ 152
6.4 Discharge licensing procedure 152
7 Case study - Cartagena outfall ...................................................................................... 155
7.1 Background and problem 155
7.1.1 Caribbean circulation .................................................................................. 157
7.2 Data basis - CorField analysis 162
7.2.1 Bathymetry and shoreline ........................................................................... 162
7.2.2 Wind............................................................................................................ 162
7.2.3 Currents....................................................................................................... 164
7.2.4 Tides............................................................................................................ 168
7.2.5 Density (Salinity and Temperature) profiles............................................... 168
7.3 Near-field baseline modeling - CorTime 170
7.4 Ambient hydrodynamics baseline modeling with Deflt3D flow 174
7.4.1 Computational domain................................................................................ 175
7.4.2 Boundary and initial conditions .................................................................. 177
7.4.3 Hydrodynamic simulation........................................................................... 178
7.5 Source representation in far-field model - CorLink 183
7.6 Coupled water quality modeling 184
7.7 Regulatory consequences - CorZone 185
7.8 Discussion and recommendations 189
8 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 191
9 Outlook ............................................................................................................................ 193
Annex A: Loss coefficients in CorHyd.............................................................................. 195
Annex B: Example of CorHyd report............................................................................... 205
References ............................................................................................................................. 207
Curriculum vitae .................................................................................................................. 219
List of Figures
Fig. 1: Pollutant sources and environmental objectives (underlined) in coastal waters. Water
quality management needs to balance pollutant reduction and ecosystem response. ............. 1
Fig. 2: Aerial photograph of Santos Bay, Brazil showing Santos city (approx. 500,000
inhabitants) and Santos harbor (along the river). Visual contours of the waste plume
(arrow) from the Santos outfall, 4 km offshore, show a plume impact with the city´s most
frequented beaches (courtesy of municipality of Praia Grande, Brazil). ................................ 4
Fig. 3: Aerial view of the receiving waters of outfalls discharging in the Santos Bay, Brazil (left,
courtesy of municipality of Praia Grande) and the São Sebastião channel, Brazil (right,
Lamparelli, 2003).................................................................................................................... 8
Fig. 4: Aerial view of an outfall, discharging in the São Sebastião channel at two different time-
steps, showing completely different dispersion patterns (Lamparelli, 2003). ........................ 9
Fig. 5: Satellite image from Rio Magdalena (Colombia), showing the river plume (courtesy of
Menahem Libhaber, World Bank). ....................................................................................... 10
Fig. 6: Inactivation in seawater of echovirus 6 as a function of temperature (left) and E. coli as a
function of solar radiation (right) (reproduced from Bitton, 1994) ...................................... 11
Fig. 7: Milliscreens for preliminary treatment (Huber technology) ................................................. 14
Fig. 8: Pictures from offshore, submerged, and positively buoyant wastewater discharges. Left:
single port (www.cormix.info), right: multiport diffuser (Lamparelli, 2003) ...................... 17
Fig. 9: Schematic view of submarine outfall with diffuser length LD, port diameter D, port
spacing ℓ, port and diffuser orientations β, γ, θ, effluent flowrate Qo and density ρo,
average depth of receiving water H with density ρa and velocity ua (reproduced from
Jirka et al., 1996)................................................................................................................... 17
Fig. 10: Antalya outfall (Turkey) during installation in 1997. Top: Diffuser section assembling
on shore. Down: Feeder section (LF = 5 km, HDPE pipe, D = 1600 mm) while sinking
with attached concrete weights on the seabed (PipeLife Company).................................... 18
Fig. 11: Boston outfall during installation in 1998. Left: View into tunnel section (16 km with 8
m diameter). Right: One out of 55 riser caps with eight outlets each in rosette like
configuration (Roberts and Snyder, 1993)............................................................................ 19
Fig. 12: Schematic view of an operating multiport diffuser outfall merged with a laboratory
picture of a trapped waste plume in stratified ambient (modified from Domenichini et al.,
2002) 19
Fig. 13: Typical temporal and spatial scales for transport and mixing processes related to coastal
wastewater discharges (Jirka et al., 1976, Fischer et al., 1979) ............................................ 21
Fig. 14: Comparison of two wastewater systems and their impact on receiving waters as
exceedance-frequency of ambient standards (i.e. beach water quality). Left: Secondary
treatment plant with short outfall. Right: Preliminary treatment with long outfall and
multiport diffuser. ................................................................................................................. 22
Fig. 15: Comparison of technical and natural contributions to pollutant concentration reductions.
Left: Technically achievable concentration reductions for primary and secondary
treatment. Right: Naturally occurring concentration reductions after discharging
preliminary treated wastewater (reproduced from WRc, 1990)............................................ 22
Fig. 16: Replaced diffuser, blocked with sediment (courtesy of Eng. Pedro Campos, Chile) ........... 37
Fig. 17: Outfall configuration showing feeder pipe and diffuser from side view and top view,
defining the pipelines and port/riser configurations.............................................................. 39
Fig. 18: Pictures of multiport diffusers during construction (Bonnasabla.com) ................................ 39
Fig. 19: a): standard diffuser; b): Y- or T-shaped diffuser configuration .......................................... 39
Fig. 20: a) Buried outfall with short riser; b) tunneled outfall with long riser and multiple ports; c)
terrain following outfall laid on seabed (reproduced from Davies, 2003) ............................ 40
Fig. 21: a) simple port (courtesy of Carlo Avanzini); b) variable-area orifices (‘duckbill valves’,
RedValve Company); c) riser/port configuration (Guarujá, Brazil); d) rosette like riser /
port arrangement (Lee et al., 2001)....................................................................................... 40
Fig. 22: Definition diagram for a general pipe flow (reproduced from Jirka, 2001).......................... 41
Fig. 23: Shear-stress in pipe flows (reproduced from Jirka, 2001) .................................................... 42
Fig. 24: Examples for local pressure losses in pipe flows (Miller, 1990) .......................................... 44
Fig. 25: Picture of the headworks of a coastal outfall showing the inlet to the feeder pipe
(courtesy of Carlo Avanzini) ................................................................................................ 44
Fig. 26: Steady pipe flow with constant boundary conditions (Qin,a = const.) ................................... 46
Fig. 27: Pipe flow immediately after a relatively fast change of the water level elevation in the
headworks tank (Qin,b > Qin,a)................................................................................................ 46
Fig. 28: Pipe flow after the acceleration of the whole fluid in the outfall took place ........................ 47
Fig. 29: Definition scheme for the port-to-port analysis: pa,i = ambient pressure, H = average
ambient water level elevation, qi = discharge through one riser/port configuration with
velocity vi at elevation zj,i. pd,i = internal diffuser pipe pressure upstream a flow division
(node) with diffuser pipe centerline elevation zd,i and horizontal pipe location xd,i .............. 50
Fig. 30: The graphical user interface of CorHyd................................................................................ 55
Fig. 31: Coordinate system used in CorHyd. Five pipe sections and two port/riser groups are
shown in this example........................................................................................................... 56
Fig. 32: Graphical output: bar charts showing the discharge per riser, the relative discharge
deviation and port/riser headloss distribution, the discharge velocity at ports and in the
final jet, the velocity in the diffuser pipe as well as port and diffuser diameter. .................. 58
Fig. 33: Graphical output: Energy and Hydraulic grade line of the whole system and the diffuser .. 59
Fig. 34: Schematization of general diffuser design algorithm............................................................ 59
Fig. 35: Location map of the Ipanema outfall of the city Rio de Janeiro in Brazil (reproduced
from Carvalho, 2003)............................................................................................................ 65
Fig. 36: Side view and cross section of the Ipanema outfall. ............................................................. 66
Fig. 37: Image from the construction site of the Ipanema outfall (reproduced from Grace, 1978).... 66
Fig. 38: Flow characteristics for design flow. Top-down: Individual riser flow distribution along
diffuser, riser flow deviation from mean, pressure losses in port/riser configurations
(line), port and jet discharge velocities and diffuser pipe velocities, port and diffuser
diameter (lines) ..................................................................................................................... 67
Fig. 39: Riser flow deviation from mean flow, for a horizontal diffuser line (top) and a sloped
diffuser line (3 m / 449 m, down). Pressure losses in port/riser configuration is shown as
line. 68
Fig. 40: Flow characteristics for different flowrates Q and sloped diffuser, showing riser flow
deviation, port/riser headloss, jet discharge velocities, diffuser pipe velocities and total
head Ht 69
Fig. 41: Changes in total head for varying discharges vs. constant ambient water level. .................. 69
Fig. 42: Flow characteristics for different flowrates Q for tapered diffuser where diffuser
diameter is reduced to 1.2 m for the end section. Top-down: riser flow deviation from
mean, pressure losses in port/riser configurations, jet discharge velocities and diffuser
pipe velocities ....................................................................................................................... 70
Fig. 43: Side view and cross section of two design alternatives for the Ipanema outfall. Left:
covered diffuser pipe and short risers, right: diffuser pipe laid in a refilled trench and
short risers............................................................................................................................. 71
Fig. 44: Flow characteristics for: top: tapered diffuser covered or laid in a trench with additional
short risers and two different riser diameters, down: tapered diffuser on piles without
risers. 72
Fig. 45: Side view and cross section of a constructional design alternative for the Ipanema outfall
with a tunneled diffuser pipe, long risers, and rosette like port arrangements...................... 73
Fig. 46: Flow characteristics for: top: tapered tunneled diffuser with long riser and rosette like
port arrangements, down: tapered diffuser on piles without risers ....................................... 73
Fig. 47: Flow characteristics for different discharges (Q), for a diffuser with additional Duckbill
valves (D = 200 mm), showing the riser flow deviation, port/riser headloss, port and jet
discharge velocities, diffuser pipe velocities and total head (Ht).......................................... 74
Fig. 48: Schematic view of diffuser longitudinal section of Berazategui outfall ............................... 75
Fig. 49: Side and top view of riser/port configuration of diffuser...................................................... 75
Fig. 50: Top view of the Rio de la Plata delta showing the location of the Berazategui outfall and
the ambient characteristics at its location (source: Nasa, 2005) ........................................... 76
Fig. 51: Flow characteristics for final design at maximum flow. Top-down: Individual riser flow
distribution along diffuser, riser flow deviation from mean, pressure losses in port/riser
configurations (line), port and jet discharge velocities and diffuser pipe velocities, port
and diffuser diameter (lines). ................................................................................................ 77
Fig. 52: Flow characteristics for the final design and attached Duckbill valves (150 mm), for
different discharges (Q), showing the riser flow deviation................................................... 78
Fig. 53: Changes in total head for varying discharges ....................................................................... 78
Fig. 54: Instantaneous picture and long-term exposure picture of laboratory studies for pure
single jets, showing entrainment motions diluting the effluent (source: G.H. Jirka)............ 82
Fig. 55: Schematized figures and visualizations from laboratory experiments showing different
jet trajectories influenced by a) ambient density, b) ambient current ua, and c) ambient
stratification (Jirka, et al., 1996; pictures from G.H. Jirka; L. Fan)...................................... 83
Fig. 56: Schematization and visualization of laboratory experiment for merging of jets discharged
unidirectional by multiport diffusers (reproduced from Jirka 2006) .................................... 83
Fig. 57: Schematization of merging jets discharged by a multiport diffusers with an alternating
port arrangement in stagnant conditions and in crossflow (reproduced from Jirka 2006).... 84
Fig. 58: Definition diagram for a multiport diffuser (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)................. 85
Fig. 59: Definition diagram for the plane jet (reproduced from Jirka, 2006)..................................... 86
Fig. 60: 3-dimensional horizontal buoyant jet trajectories for a single port discharge in stagnant
ambient. Comparison between predictions and experimental data. Left: normalized with
port diameter. Right: normalized with momentum length scale LM (reproduced from
Jirka, 2004) ........................................................................................................................... 90
Fig. 61: Jet to plume transition length scale LM for a single jet allows distinguishing between a jet
like or plume like single jet behavior (reproduced from Jirka et al, 1996) ........................... 90
Fig. 62: Schematic illustration of the range of model applicability in Regulatory discharge zone
analysis (source: www.cormix.info) ................................................................................... 101
Fig. 63: Submerged buoyant slot jet discharging into stagnant water of finite depth (Jirka, 1982).
a) Deep water discharge with stable discharge configuration, b) shallow water discharge
with unstable recirculation zone (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)................................ 102
Fig. 64: Diagram for selection of predictive models for submerged multiport diffusers with
variable spacing and stability characteristics (reproduced from Jirka, 2006) ..................... 103
Fig. 65: Pictures of laboratory experiments showing boundary interactions with the surface, the
bottom and the pycnocline (courtesy of G.H. Jirka, L. Fan, Keck Lab, CIT)..................... 103
Fig. 66: Examples of boundary interactions for submerged jets in finite depth (reproduced from
Jirka et al., 1996)................................................................................................................. 104
Fig. 67: Examples of a) wake attachment and b) Coanda attachment conditions for jets
discharging near boundaries (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)...................................... 104
Fig. 68: Buoyant spreading processes after near-field region (upstream and lateral spreading),
superimposed on the transport by ambient currents (reproduced from Jirka and Akar,
1991) 106
Fig. 69: Buoyant surfacing plume. Boundary (surface) interaction and density difference cause
slight upstream spreading of the plume against the ambient current (Source: I. Wood) .... 106
Fig. 70: Definition diagram for surface spreading model for an unstratified ambient water body
with uniform velocity (reproduced from Akar and Jirka, 1995)......................................... 109
Fig. 71: CORMIX flow classification tree for bottom attachment (reproduced from Jirka et al.,
1996) 110
Fig. 72: CORMIX flow classification tree for a buoyant multiport discharge into uniform ambient
water (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996).......................................................................... 110
Fig. 73: Flow classification tree within CORMIX, for a buoyant multiport discharge in stratified
ambient waters (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996). ......................................................... 111
Fig. 74: Passive ambient diffusion process with advection in the far-field (reproduced from Jirka
et al., 1996) ......................................................................................................................... 112
Fig. 75: Example showing far-field waste plume transport and dispersion. The transport is
governed by the tidal current and mixing is governed by the wind shear stress (courtesy
of Torben Larsen, Denmark)............................................................................................... 113
Fig. 76: Unstructured finite element mesh for the Telemac model (www.telemacsystem.com) ..... 117
Fig. 77: Structured finite difference mesh for the Delft3D model, top: horizontal curvilinear,
down: vertical σ-coordinate discretization (Delft Hydraulics, 2001).................................. 118
Fig. 78: Nesting of a small-scale water quality model (Siu Lam Model) and a large-scale
hydrodynamic model for Hong Kong waters using the Delft3D modeling system (Delft
Hydraulics, 2005)................................................................................................................ 124
Fig. 79: Schematization of a zonal modeling approach for buoyant waste discharges and the
related velocity and substance concentration fields. Hydrodynamic regions are the near-
field (NF), the intermediate field (IF) and the far-field (FF). ............................................. 129
Fig. 80: Schematization of coupling approaches for zone models, either using boundary
conditions (B.C.) or source definitions for the near-field representation in the far-field
domain. 130
Fig. 81: Definition of source term locations for two different time steps, where ambient
conditions changed considerably. ....................................................................................... 133
Fig. 82: CORMIX schematization for vertical density profiles. CORMIX distinguishes between
a uniform density distribution, a linear distribution (A), a two layer density distribution
with constant densities (B), and a two layer system with constant surface density and
linear bottom layer density separated with a jump (C) (reproduced from Jirka et al.,
1996) 137
Fig. 83: Example for a CORMIX schematization applied on a measured vertical density profile
(reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996).................................................................................... 137
Fig. 84: CORMIX schematization for ambient velocity and diffuser orientation. CORMIX only
requires the input of a vertically and horizontally uniform, depth averaged ambient
velocity, and its direction related to the diffuser orientation (reproduced from Jirka et al.,
1996) 138
Fig. 85: CORMIX schematization of diffuser configurations (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996) 140
Fig. 86: Example for a 2D CORMIX visualization of a surfacing waste plume discharged from a
single port (www.mixzon.com) and contacting the shore after a short distance. ............... 140
single port (www.mixzon.com) and contacting the shore after a short distance. The
changing flow characteristics after surface interaction can clearly be seen. Blue dashed
lines indicate where CORMIX switches to another module to compute the related flow
class. 141
Fig. 88: Example of a CorJet prediction of a diffuser discharge into a stratified flowing
environment with an oblique alignment angle (γ = 45°) seen in the plan view, leading to
an internally trapped plume, seen in the side view, resulting in a concentration profile
along the plume centerline of an effluent concentration of 100%. ..................................... 141
Fig. 89: CORMIX schematization for the horizontal and vertical concentration distributions at
one specific plume cross-section, depending on the dominant processes (reproduced from
Jirka et al., 1996)................................................................................................................. 143
Fig. 90: Example of a CORMIX prediction of a diffuser discharge into a stratified flowing
environment, leading to an internally trapped plume, seen in the side view. Superposed
are far-field grid characteristics, where source characteristics may enter the far-field
model. 144
Fig. 91: Overview of instruments improving water quality ............................................................. 146
Fig. 92: Pollutant sources and water quality management in coastal waters: Compliance with
emission limit values (ELV) for point-source discharges guarantees local protection at
the outfall site, whereas compliance with environmental quality standards (EQS) outside
a specified regulatory discharge zone (dashed line) guarantees water body usage and
preservation (underlined items) partly based on ecological standards (ES). ...................... 147
Fig. 93: Illustration of interpretations regarding the location where EQS-values apply .................. 149
Fig. 94: Definition of a numeric dimension for the regulatory discharge zone in relation to the
average water depth Have and a factor N, and the regulatory preservation zone as a fixed
distance from the preserved area (here the beaches)........................................................... 151
Fig. 95: General map of studied area ............................................................................................... 155
Fig. 96: Proposed outfall for Cartagena City, Colombia (Roberts, 2005)........................................ 156
Fig. 97: Aerial views of Cartagena city. Left: prestigious beaches. Right: low-income
neighborhoods (courtesy of M. Libhaber, World Bank)..................................................... 156
Fig. 98: Existing wastewater / drainage situation, where raw sewage flows in open canals or
sewers to either the Bahía de Cartagena (40%) or the Cienaga de Tesca (60%) causing
considerable environmental and public health impacts (courtesy of M. Libhaber, World
Bank) 157
Fig. 99: ELCOM grid nodes in the numerical domain (Roberts and Villegas, 2006)...................... 158
Fig. 100: Schematic representation of the Southern Caribbean Coastal Undercurrent, including the
Panama - Colombian gyre (reproduced from Andrade et al., 2003) ................................... 158
Fig. 101: ELCOM prediction for the Panama-Colombian gyre. Rotating directions are not
consistent with measurements or literature for half of the observed scenarios (Roberts
and Villegas, 2006) ............................................................................................................. 159
Fig. 102: Large scale satellite picture of project region, showing the influence of the Magdalena
river plume on the coast around Cartagena (courtesy of M. Libhaber, World Bank)......... 159
Fig. 103: Comparison of modeled density differences over the vertical at the proposed outfall
location for two different boundary conditions related to the inclusion or exclusion of the
buoyant river discharge (Roberts and Villegas, 2006)........................................................ 160
Fig. 104: Comparison of modeled current velocities at two different depths at the proposed outfall
buoyant river discharge (Roberts and Villegas, 2006)........................................................ 160
Fig. 105: Magnitudes of modeled velocities compared with measured ADCP data (Roberts and
Villegas, 2006).................................................................................................................... 161
Fig. 106: Polar scatter plots of modeled velocities for different depths and two different months
(Roberts and Villegas, 2006). ............................................................................................. 161
Fig. 107: Wind angle definition diagram. A 45° wind is blowing from northeast to south-west...... 163
Fig. 108: Time-series feather plot of wind magnitudes and direction measured at the Cartagena
airport for February 1998.................................................................................................... 163
Fig. 109: Histogram of wind velocity magnitudes (a) and direction (b), and a diagram for the
cumulative distribution of the velocities (c) for the wind data measured at the Cartagena
airport during February 1998 .............................................................................................. 163
Fig. 110: Statistical analysis of wind directions and velocities for 1998-2000 (reproduced from
Roberts, 2005)..................................................................................................................... 164
Fig. 111: Feather plots of measured current directions and velocities in different water depths (top
is near surface and bottom near bed) for February 1998. Right column shows histograms
of velocity magnitude in every layer................................................................................... 165
Fig. 112: CorField velocity profile analysis for all profiles of February 1998. Top: histogram of
standard deviations of the velocities over the vertical, middle: histogram of standard
deviations of the horizontal velocity angles to the depth-averaged mean, bottom: relative
frequency of horizontal angles of the velocities compared to the dept-averaged mean,
shown for every depth......................................................................................................... 166
Fig. 113: Feather plot of the depth averaged velocities at Punta Canoas, for February 1998 ............ 166
Fig. 114: Scatter plot, cumulative velocity, and histograms for depth averaged velocities and
direction, measured from an ADCP moored at Punta Canoas for February 1998 (left) and
November 1998 (right) ....................................................................................................... 167
Fig. 115: Tide gauge comparison for February 1998 at Punta Canoas and Boca Grande.................. 168
Fig. 116: Temperature data at the planned outfall location showing temperature difference between
5.5 m and 17.4 m probes (Roberts and Villegas, 2006)...................................................... 169
Fig. 117: Typical density profile for maximum stratification. Results from measurements offshore
Cartagena (Hazen & Sawyer, 1998) ................................................................................... 169
Fig. 118: Assumed flow pattern for the effluent flow rate (Roberts and Carvalho, 2000)................. 170
Fig. 119: Proposed design for the Cartagena outfall .......................................................................... 170
Fig. 120: CORMIX flow classification tree for the basecase example calculation for the Cartagena
outfall .................................................................................................................................. 172
Fig. 121: CORMIX plume visualization (side view) for the example basecase for the Cartagena
outfall 172
Fig. 122: CorTime output. Time-series of dilution, plume thickness and plume elevation at the end
of the near-field / intermediate-field, as predicted by CORMIX for every single time-step
out of 672 time-steps for February 1998 data. .................................................................... 173
Fig. 123: CorTime histograms for parameters at the end of the near-field / intermediate field:
dilution, downstream location, plume elevation, thickness and width and the cumulative
travel time. .......................................................................................................................... 173
Fig. 124: Statistical analysis of the plume centerline dilution at 500 m downstream the diffuser.
Left: Histogram of the relative frequency, right: cumulative distribution of frequencies... 174
Fig. 125: Model domains for ELCOM and Delft3D (Roberts and Villegas, 2006) ........................... 175
Fig. 126: Delft3D model domain for the Cartagena coastal region. Grayscales indicate different
depths. Boundary conditions (B.C.) are described at all open and closed boundaries....... 176
Fig. 127: Vertical cross section through model domain to visualize sigma-layers with high
resolution at shallow regions. The diffuser is located at 2.8 km distance from the shore. 177
Fig. 128: Depth-averaged velocity field zoomed in to the outfall region at Punta Canoas................ 179
Fig. 129: Time-series of model and measured water levels at Punta Canoas (outfall location) for
February 1998 ..................................................................................................................... 180
Fig. 130: Time-series feather plot of depth averaged modeled (top) and measured (down)
velocities at the planned outfall location for February 1998............................................... 180
Fig. 131: Time-series of modeled (dashed-line) and measured (continuous-line) depth averaged
current components at planned outfall location for February 1998 .................................... 181
Fig. 132: Scatter plot of measured (left) and modeled (right) depth averaged currents for February
‘98. 181
Fig. 133: Statistical comparison of measured (left) and modeled (right) depth averaged current
magnitudes and directions for February 1998..................................................................... 181
Fig. 134: Comparison of modeled and measured 3-D visualizations of vertical velocity profiles at
Punta Canoas for different time steps ................................................................................. 182
Fig. 135: Histogram of the frequency of duration of periods where ambient velocities are below
0.1 m/s for November 1998. ............................................................................................... 184
Fig. 136: Modeled depth averaged concentration [MPN/m³] of total coliforms at 21st of February.
Effluent concentration is Co = 1011 MPN/m³. Bathing water standard is C = 107 MPN/m³
= 103 MPN/100 ml (dashed line) ........................................................................................ 185
Fig. 137: Positions, where concentration data is saved as time-series, shown in Fig. 138 ................ 186
Fig. 138: Time-series of modeled depth averaged concentration [MPN/m³] of total coliforms at
different locations (Fig. 137). The figure named “outfall” has an axis one magnitude
larger than the others. Effluent concentration is Co = 1011 MPN/m³. Bathing water
standard is C = 107 MPN/m³ = 103 MPN/100 ml (dashed line). ......................................... 186
Fig. 139: Exceedance frequency of total coliforms exceeding 1000 MPN/100 ml for the month
February 1998. Effluent concentration is Co = 1011 MPN/m³. ............................................ 187
Fig. 140: Exceedance frequency of total coliforms exceeding 1000 MPN/100 ml for the month
November 1998................................................................................................................... 188
Fig. 141: Frequency that total coliforms exceed 1000 MPN / 100 ml, left: for Feb. 1998 (Delft3D)
and the whole year 1998 (Roberts, 2005), and right: for Nov. 1998. Contours in
foreground are modeled with NRFIELD-FRFIELD (exceedance frequencies for 1%,
10% and 20%, reproduced from Roberts, 2005) compared with the final results of the 3-
D coupled modeling (background, where exceedance frequencies are shown for 1%,
10%, 20% and 50%). .......................................................................................................... 188
Fig. 142: Diagram for the coefficients to compute the loss coefficient for a flow division
(reproduced from Idelchik, 1986) ......................................................................................... 199
Fig. 145: Additional loss coefficients for orifices (reproduced from Idelchik, 1986)........................ 202
List of Tables
Table 1: Typical composition of untreated municipal wastewater (Lee, 2003; Maier et al., 2000).... 12
Table 2: Typical wastewater treatment techniques and residual disposal and effluent discharge ...... 13
Table 3: Comparison of removal efficiencies for conventional primary treatment and chemically
enhanced primary treatment (CEPT), (reproduced from National Research Council,
1992) 14
Table 4: Typical effluent changes depending on treatment (Lee, 2003; Maier et al., 2000) .............. 15
Table 5: Overview of dominant processes for coastal submerged multiport discharges .................... 20
Table 6: Typical effluent concentration reductions depending on applied treatment or discharge
technology (Lee, 2003; Maier et al., 2000). nn: difficult to detect ...................................... 21
Table 7: Required effluent dilution for different levels of treatment (modified from Wilkinson and
Wareham, 1996).................................................................................................................... 27
Table 8: Comparison of different turbulence modeling approaches (Rodi, 2004).............................. 33
Table 9: Outfall pipe materials and their related equivalent sand roughness values ks (Idelchik,
1986) 43
Table 10: Step 1: Baseline calculation - for far future design conditions ............................................ 60
Table 11: Step 2: Diffuser characteristics - diffuser performance calculations ................................... 61
Table 12: Step 3: Off-design calculation - near future design conditions............................................ 62
Table 13: Step 4: Sensitivity analysis - prediction accuracy................................................................ 62
Table 14: Sensitivity of involved parameters on head loss, total head, and homogeneity of the
discharge profile.................................................................................................................... 63
Table 15: Comparison of constructional alternatives for Ipanema diffuser .......................................... 75
Table 16: Scales and resolutions of different modeling techniques...................................................... 81
Table 17: Comparison of typical flux quantities (modified from Jirka (1982), listing length and
time scales for two typical discharges for a city with a population of 1 million people and
a diffuser with length LD = 400 m. The average ambient velocity is assumed to 0.1 m/s
and 0.5 m/s (values in brackets), with a stratification defined by ε = -(g/ρa)(dρa/dz) =
0.0064 1/s²............................................................................................................................. 92
Table 18: Comparison of typical flow quantities at different hydrodynamic regions. Discharge
characteristics are assumed for a population of 1 million people and a diffuser with
length LD = 400 m discharging at a depth of H = 20 m (modified from Jirka (1982).
Considered discharge cases only differ in the total flow and density (e.g. wastewater and
thermal). Ambient conditions differ only in velocity, where only the horizontal
components of small and medium (in brackets) flows are considered (note that discharge
velocities and momentum may act in orientations different to the horizontal)................... 126
Table 19: Overview on modeling techniques regarding waste discharge modeling. Middle column
adjusted characteristics denote the capability to model intermediate-field processes. ....... 128
Table 20: Coupling step 1: Classification of measured ambient conditions - CorField..................... 136
Table 21: Coupling step 2: Near-field baseline modeling - CorTime................................................. 139
Table 22: Coupling step 3: Ambient hydrodynamics baseline modeling with Deflt3D flow ............ 142
Table 23: Coupling step 4: Source representation in far-field model - CorLink ................................ 142
Table 24: Coupling step 5: Far field modeling with Delft3D Part/WAQ (mixing, transport, decay) 144
Table 25: Examples for emission limit values (ELV) and environmental quality standards (EQS)
for two selected pollutants .................................................................................................. 147
Table 26: CORMIX sensitivity analysis for slow current velocities (ua) and stratified or unstratified
conditions. Results are for a plume location at 1000 m downstream. Values in brackets
() are plume width results at 100 m downstream. ............................................................... 184
List of Symbols
Parameter Dimension Definition
A m² pipe cross sectional area
B m equivalent slot width B = Ap/ℓ
Cc - jet contraction coefficient
C mg/ℓ,kg/m³ substance concentration
D m internal pipe diameter
E m energy head
F - densimetric Froude number
Fe N external Forces
g m/s² gravitational acceleration
g’ m/s² reduced gravity, g’ = ∆ρ/ρg
H m head above datum / water depth
i - numbering of port/riser configurations
j - numbering of local losses in ports, risers or the diffuser
jo m³/s2 buoyancy flux per diffuser length, jo=g’qo
Jo m4/s3 buoyancy flux
ks m equivalent sand roughness
ℓ m riser spacing
L m length of the considered pipe section
LM m momentum length scale
ℓM m slot jet / plume transition length scale ℓM = mo/jo2/3
ℓm m crossflow length scale ℓm = mo/ua2
ℓ m´ m stratification length scale ℓm´ = mo1/3/ε1/3
ℓb´ m stratification / plume length scale ℓb´ = jo1/3/ε1/2
ℓa m stratification / crossflow length scale ℓa = ua/ε1/2
m m³/s² momentum flux per diffuser length
M m4/s2 momentum flux
n - total number of local losses j in between one pipe section
N - total number of port/riser locations i of diffuser
Nd - total number of diffuser sections (includes feeder)
Ng - total number of port/riser groups
Ngp - number of risers per group
Np - number of ports per riser
p Pa = N/m² pressure
Q m³/s total flow through outfall system
qi m³/s individual discharge through a riser or port at position i
q m²/s mass flux per diffuser length
R m radius of pipe bend
Re - Reynolds number Re = VD/ν
S - dilution
t s time
tM s jet / plume time scale tM = ma/jo
tm s jet / crossflow time scale tm = ma/ua3 [s]
T90 h the time taken for 90% of the bacteria to die-off
u, v, w m/s velocity
U, V, W m/s mean velocity
x, y, z m Cartesian coordinates
Greek symbols
α - Coriolis coefficient (kinetic energy correction coefficient)
αi - 1 / (number of ports at a riser at position i)
β ° angle of gradual expansion or contraction
ζ - dimensionless loss coefficient for local losses
λ - dimensionless friction coefficient
µ Ns/m² dynamic viscosity
ν m²/s kinematic viscosity
τb N/m² bed-shear stress
τw N/m² wind-shear stress
ε stratification parameter, ε = -(g/ρa)(dρa/dz)
ρ kg/m³ density Ω = earth rotation vector
Ω 1/s earth rotation vector
Inidices
a ambient
b background
c centerline
dec decay
D diffuser
e effluent
F feeder
ff far-field
j jet
lim limit
min minimal
nf near-field
o initial quantity
p port
r riser
tot total
- Introduction -
1 Introduction
High child mortality and significant economic damages are frequent consequences of water
quality problems (WHO, 2000). Waterborne diseases are directly related to deficiencies in
wastewater systems (UNEP, 2002). Wastewater treatment is commonly seen as the only way
to cope with water quality problems, although waste source and effluent discharge control
play a considerable role especially for coastal environments. Optimized discharge systems as
part of the wastewater system may substantially reduce investment costs still reaching the
same environmental objectives as higher treatment levels without discharge control. Thus,
there are a rapidly increasing number of long ocean outfall installations worldwide. These
efficient mixing devices avoid pollutant accumulation and collapse of ecosystems by dispers-
ing the treated effluents via long submarine pipelines with multiport diffuser, which are sev-
eral openings at the end section of the pipeline (Fig. 1). Environmental monitoring campaigns
show significant improvement on public health and economic growth for the entire beneficent
communities, often directly related to good beach or fishing water quality. A major break-
through for that development to continue is new environmental regulations emphasizing on
the ecosystem rather than on water quality indicators alone. Plans for wastewater systems
will have to concentrate on actions targeted at improving (at least not deteriorating) the state
of ecosystem and not at emissions alone. Especially for poorer communities and developing
countries even strongly biased solutions with pre-treated effluents and high-level discharge
installations may considerably improve public health. Intensive monitoring studies of such
outfalls show no evidence, that these may have deteriorating impacts on the ecosystem, pro-
vided design and siting is appropriate.
Fig. 1: Pollutant sources and environmental objectives (underlined) in coastal waters. Water qual-
ity management needs to balance pollutant reduction and ecosystem response.
-1-
- Introduction -
1.1 Background and motivation - coastal water quality problems

Coastal waters, including estuaries, wetlands, mangrove forests, and bays represent enormous
natural and economic importance for most of the countries in the world. These productive
and diverse areas host a multitude of species important for nature and man. The coastal popu-
lation is attracted by, and depends strongly on these values for their livelihood, food, health,
recreation, and enjoyment. The areas within 100 km from the shoreline coastal areas occupy
18% of the earth’s surface and host more than 60% of the human population (UNEP, 2004).
Coastal cities grow faster than cities in the interior. This trend is expected to continue espe-
cially for developing countries creating additional environmental pressures. Beside the direct
physical coastline alterations, coastal water quality is the most affected part (UNEP, 2002).
A major primary water quality issue is infectious diseases caused by pathogenic bacteria, vi-
ruses, protozoa or parasites, which are the most common and widespread health risks associ-
ated with water. Faecal contamination of water is responsible for many disease outbreaks
(WHO, 1998), where marine contamination-related diseases are estimated to have an eco-
nomic impact of 13 billion dollars worldwide and up to 2 million people, most of them chil-
dren in developing countries die annually due to marine contamination-related diarrhoeal dis-
eases (Shuval, 2000). Thus, badly managed wastewater systems are directly responsible for
adverse health problems.
The second major water quality issue is environmental degradation. Excessive uses of coastal
waters cause destruction of ecosystems and thus the living base of coastal communities. Ma-
jor threats are again wastewater discharges exceeding the environmental capacities causing i)
accumulation of harmful substances, where lethal or chronic concentrations affect fishery and
shellfish or accumulate in benthic or aquatic resources, and ii) eutrophication due to nutrient
inputs, where overloading leads to excessive vegetation and algal blooms and so far in low
dissolved oxygen and high turbidity. Consequences are economic problems due to reduced
fishing, recreational, and commercial activities.
Water quality problems, especially in urban coastal regions, often are directly related to badly
or non-controlled point-source discharges originating from municipal and industrial wastewa-
ter systems and storm water overflows. This is especially true for all Mega cities (e.g. Rio de
Janeiro, Istanbul, Mumbai, or Hong Kong), densely populated or touristic high-frequented
regions (e.g. Spanish Mediterranean coast), or regions with poor infrastructure (e.g. develop-
ing countries). There, point source contributions to water quality problems may exceed 80%
(IETC, 2000) causing considerable public health impacts and environmental degradation
(UNEP, 2004). In these regions, pollution control is most efficient if improving engineering
point-source control techniques (National Research Council, 1993), which will be described
as follows. Diffuse sources, originating mainly from surface runoff, instead dominate water
quality problems especially in rural and agricultural regions or environmentally sensitive re-
gions with weak flushing characteristics of the receiving waters (e.g. mangrove forests at
Paranaguá, Brazil or Wadden Sea at the northern German coast). Impacts are related mainly
to ecosystem damages and only marginally to public health impacts (e.g. algal blooms and
drinking water resource pollution). Controlling diffuse sources is still challenging and long-
winded to control diffuse sources. Techniques strongly depend on long-term administrative
control mechanisms rather than on engineering solutions. Therefore, the present approach
will focus on the improvement of the point-source control techniques, but nonetheless consid-
ers diffuse source loads while analyzing the environmental response of receiving waters.
-2-
- Introduction -
1.2 Problem - wastewater discharges

Water quality problems from point-source discharges arise once the capacity of the receiving
waters to assimilate the introduced substances in their natural cycles is exceeded. Pollution is
caused by exceeding critical assimilation time-scales (too many substances in a too short
time), and assimilation length scales (too much substance mass at one location). Engineering
action is then required to reduce substance concentrations by combinations of reducing the
substance loads (wastewater treatment technology) and increasing the substance dispersion
(effluent discharge technology). The engineering system therefore consists of a wastewater
treatment plant and a discharge structure - the outfall. However, the misconception that
treatment results in a “pure” and “clean” effluent lead to a strong under utilization of dis-
charge technologies. On the other side, highly efficient discharges without treatment do not
necessarily eliminate pollution because of their unchanged substance loads. Consequences
are non-efficient or too expensive wastewater systems and ongoing water quality problems
(UNEP, 2002).
Both systems, the treatment plant and the discharge structure are characterized by complex
hydrodynamic and biodegradation processes. Treatment plants need to control these processes
to operate efficiently, whereas discharge structures need to be designed to fit best to mostly
uncontrollable natural dispersion and biodegradation processes within the receiving waters.
Although discharge technologies are used and studied since decades, there is still a high un-
certainty and standard solutions are not available for designing such systems. A large range
of combinations regarding treatment level and outfall specifications is possible. There is high
potential in improving such systems by optimizations of the discharge structure or siting in
combination with appropriate treatment. The existing problems are illustrated in Fig. 2,
which raises the partly unsolved (public) questions: “What is the bacterial concentration at
Santos Beaches for that situation, and for the rest of the year?”, “Are the beaches safe for
swimming?“, “Are beach closures related to this outfall plume or to other waste sources?”,
“Are the fish safe to eat?”, “Is the environment being degraded?“, ”How could the outfall de-
sign or siting be improved?”, “Is the level of treatment appropriate?”. A discharge assessment
answers these questions by field studies (monitoring ocean currents, ocean and beach water
quality, sediment and organisms quality) and modeling campaigns (mixing models and waste
plume modeling) (CETESB, 2005). Although Fig. 2 suggests strong negative impacts on the
city beaches, first results from these studies undertaken from the local environmental regula-
tor (CETESB) do not show evidence that the outfall causes beach closures or significant envi-
ronmental degradation. Near-shore creeks, harbor access dredging and industrial spills seem
to be dominant pollutant sources for the actual water quality problems in this case.
Discharge assessment problems are summarized in four problem categories:
A) Strategic problem: Once recycling or reutilization is maximized there is no single concept

to balance treatment technologies and discharge strategies. Historically only one-way ap-
proaches have been followed, either emission-based, reducing effluent concentrations as
much as possible or feasible, or immission based, discharging as much as environmentally
sound. Obviously, a two-way approach combines advantages of both and follows the princi-
ples of closing substance cycles. Public concerns on discharge technologies are often related
to sustainability, often mixing up the differences of dumping harmful substances and dispos-
ing natural substances. The latter is related to the reintegration of substances into the bio-
geochemical cycle instead of removing them. It is therefore needed to extend and communi-
cate engineering strategies on a more interdisciplinary level regarding the system-wide social
and integral environmental impacts.
-3-
- Introduction -
B) Regulatory control problem: Most of the recent water quality regulations (e.g. EC-Water
framework directive, 2000; CONAMA, 2000) account for environmental values and already
follow the two-way approach with two strategies in combination: limitations on pollutant re-
leases at the source due to promulgation of emission limit values (“discharge regulations”) as
well as the establishment of environmental quality standards (“environmental regulations”).
However, actual implementation is vague and incomplete. In particular, the fact that most of
the regulations do not state where and when precisely in the water body the environmental
quality objective-values should be applied will lead to arbitrary and contradictory interpreta-
tions on part of water authorities (Jirka et. al, 2004; Ragas et al. 1997). A clear definition of a
regulatory discharge and preservation zone approach is needed.
Fig. 2: Aerial photograph of Santos Bay, Brazil showing Santos city (approx. 500,000 inhabitants)
and Santos harbor (along the river). Visual contours of the waste plume (arrow) from the
Santos outfall, 4 km offshore, show a plume impact with the city´s most frequented beaches
(courtesy of municipality of Praia Grande, Brazil).
C) Outfall design problem: Outfall design requires on one hand an intensive analysis of the
receiving water bodies, and on the other hand detailed predictions of possible impacts for the
environment due to different discharge alternatives. Although prediction models exist for
coastal environments and for multiport diffusers there is neither a “complete model” including
all important spatial and temporal scales of the dominant processes nor a standard procedure
for the coupling of single models (IMPRESS, 2002). Therefore, a methodology for the link-
age of predictive models especially for submerged wastewater discharges is needed.
D) Multiport diffuser design problem: The constructional design and the operation of multi-
port diffusers have to account for the dilution requirements, and particularly that the ports
flow full and the discharge is distributed evenly along the diffuser. Existing design algo-
rithms and diffuser programs do not comply with all of these demands. Furthermore, the con-
struction itself is seldom checked and tested. There is a demand from engineers and planners
for a more sophisticated internal diffuser hydraulics program.
-4-
- Introduction -
1.3 Objectives and outline

Objectives are to provide supporting tools for the solution of previously listed major water
quality problems with focus on public health impacts in less developed or densely populated
regions. The approach is based on an increased, innovative, and efficient utilization and de-
velopment of hydraulic modeling tools for design and control techniques for submerged mul-
tiport diffuser outfalls. Therefore new model developments are undertaken and existing mod-
els are coupled and integrated into a design scheme considering regulatory, constructional,
and operational demands.
The following developments especially address the formulated needs from the Specialist
Groups: “Wastewater Treatment Systems Utilizing Submarine Outfalls” at IWA (International
Water Association) and “Sea outfalls” at TechWaRe (Technology for Water Resources)
summarized in Burrows et al. (1998):
• Comprehensive summary of technologies and governing processes for coastal wastewater

discharges to point up the fundamental basis for strategic decisions (chapter 2 and 3).
• Development of a design and optimization program for internal diffuser hydraulics
(CorHyd) resulting in an improved engineering design of multiport diffuser pipe geome-
tries and configurations for a balanced flow rate distribution along the diffuser, minimized
total head and sufficient pipe velocities to prevent plugging due to sediments in the pipe
under most operational conditions (chapter 4).
• Development of a coupling routine for near-field and far-field models (CorLink) resulting
in improved modeling of short-term and long-term predictions for waste field characteris-
tics. This allows optimally siting and designing planned discharges or modify existing
ones satisfying water quality standards under given technological constraints (chapter 5)
• Critical analysis and improved regulatory control, permit and licensing using the regulatory
discharge and preservation zone approach resulting in a definition of numerical dimensions
and statistical compliance assessment (CorZone) for coastal discharges (chapter 6).
The contributions and developments are based on point-source discharges of municipal

wastewater into coastal waters, focusing on submerged multiport diffuser installations. Dif-
fuse source control, thermal discharges, surface discharge installations and discharges into
rivers will not be covered in this thesis although several analogies allow for similar technolo-
gies and solutions.
Beneficiaries of these developments are directly entities that discharge wastewater into coastal
water bodies and indirectly their customers and water body users.
-5-
- Introduction -
-6-
- Coastal wastewater discharges -
2 Characteristics of coastal wastewater discharges

Coastal discharges of treated wastewater differ from inland discharges by their proximity to
very large receiving waters, the oceans or seas. These have generally large assimilative ca-
pacities regarding the natural substances contained in municipal wastewater. Inland waters
generally do have only limited assimilative capacities. Thus coastal pollution control de-
mands for a good knowledge on the characteristics of the receiving waters as well as more
comprehensive discharge assessments due to increased hydrodynamic complexity and an in-
creased number of engineering alternatives.
Modern wastewater management offers a wide variety of solutions to avoid impacts of

wastewater discharges on the receiving waters, human health, and the ecosystem. A keyword
is sustainability, focusing on not only environmentally sound solutions, but also long-term,
integrated, system wide approaches. The three following major approaches and their techno-
logical mechanisms should therefore be applied in strict hierarchical order:
I. Development and implementation of source control and recycling technologies to reduce

the amount of waste substances, to close the material cycles locally, and to ban persistent
pollutants (e.g. highly oxidizing cleaning agents or detergents), which are neither decom-
posed in conventional treatment plants, nor in receiving waters. For example, washing
agents have been the major source for phosphate in German municipal waste effluents.
Long-term political and social efforts nowadays lead to the elimination of phosphate from
washing agents, thus reducing the amount of phosphate in municipal wasterwater signifi-
cantly. Other examples are: using less detergents, substituting harmful substances with
biodegradable ones, separating urine and feces, water re-use, etc.
II. Installation of treatment technologies to remove harmful substances (i.e. non-
degradables), to recycle ressources (e.g. phosphorus as fertilizer for agriculture, wastewa-
ter re-use for irrigation, energy recovery from waste sludge), and to reduce the concentra-
tion or harmfulness of substances (e.g. nutrient reduction, or bacteria inactivation by disin-
fection). Treatment technologies reduce substance loads of the wastewater.
III. Installation of discharge technologies to re-integrate substances into the natural cycles and
to enhance natural processes in the receiving water body to minimize the harmfulness of
substances by adequate siting and fast dilution to tolerable concentrations.
If feasible every step should be fully utilized before heading to the next step to obtain a sus-
tainable wastewater management solution. The following considerations will focus on the
technical solutions for and the trade-off between step II and III, but keeping in mind that step
I is preferential, if feasible.
2.1 Coastal waters characteristics

Enormous quantities of organics and sediments are naturally carried to the oceans by rivers, as
a result of natural processes within the water cycle. Man's contribution of wastes transported
in the water cycle causes problems when concentrating waste products in rather restricted
areas instead of dispersing them over larger areas where natural purifying processes can better
act. Environmental engineering needs to analyze to what extent substances should be re-
moved prior to the discharge, and what may be reasonably left for the receiving waters to ab-
sorb and disperse. Technologies reducing pressures or enhancing natural processes thus
-7-
should achieve the return without damage or undue changes of the ecosystem. It is therefore
essential for planners and designers to understand not only coastal physical processes, but also
the natural purification processes, which are described briefly as follows. Problems are their
high temporal and spatial variability in combination with slow and weak mixing and flushing
characteristics, thus vulnerable to local impacts related to substance accumulation.
2.1.1 Coastal circulation

The dispersive characteristics, especially the mixing and transport characteristics are directly
related to the coastal currents, which themselves are strongly influenced by the coastline as
lateral borders and the bed-forms as vertical borders (Fischer et al., 1979). Circulation pat-
terns in bathymetrical complex regions (bays and inlets or channels) cause strongly irregular,
non-uniform current features with scales even larger than the irregularity. Extreme but fre-
quent situations are illustrated in Fig. 3, where discharges are dispersed in a shallow (10 m)
enclosed coastal bay or a relatively deep (36 m) coastal channel. Lateral extensions are of the
order of kilometers. The depth/width ratio clearly shows that coastal waters can generally be
considered as shallow flows.
Fig. 3: Aerial view of the receiving waters of outfalls discharging in the Santos Bay, Brazil (left,
courtesy of municipality of Praia Grande) and the São Sebastião channel, Brazil (right,
Lamparelli, 2003)
Except for buoyancy driven zones (close to river outflows and estuaries), current systems in
coastal regions used for outfall installations are dominated by the combined effects of surface
wind forcing and tidal action resulting in non-uniform, unsteady flows. Winds cause surface
waves and shear stress on the water surface leading to the establishment of a surface current.
Estimates indicate that the surface current is typically about 3-4% of the wind speed at a ref-
erence height of 10 m above the water surface. Wind field characteristics are generally un-
steady and non-uniform and are mainly influenced by the coastal topography. The wind in-
duced surface current speed typically reduces with depth by a factor of 4-5 within the top 3 m
of the water column (Davies, 2003). Tidally forced currents arise from the (astronomical)
gravitational forcing of the water surface. The tide-generating force may be resolved into a
series of harmonic components with as many as 60 of these components being required to
make tidal elevation predictions with acceptable accuracy. The resulting tidal currents show
more variability than tidal elevations because of local flow effects (bathymetry). Especially
sensitive and touristically attractive regions generally have only weak currents (mainly wind
dominated, e.g. Mediterranean) and low flushing characteristics (weak tides, e.g. Caribbean).
Consequences of different circulation patterns on waste plumes are shown in Fig. 4.
-8-
Fig. 4: Aerial view of an outfall, discharging in the São Sebastião channel at two different time-
steps, showing completely different dispersion patterns (Lamparelli, 2003).
Current data are best obtained by the use of both, Eulerian and Lagrangian measurements.
For Eulerian field measurements a vertical profile with several moorings and at different loca-
tions near the diffuser location is preferred (Roberts, 2000). Sampling should cover at least
one-year data (hourly or less values) to get seasonal changes. Fixed installed acoustic Dop-
pler current profiler (ADCP) are good instruments to resolve entire vertical profiles. Lagran-
gian measurements in addition are necessary to analyze spatial variations of current direc-
tions. There are consequent difficulties with non-synchronicity and doubts that the measured
values at one point can be correlated with those at another because the flow may have
changed during the survey process (Davies, 2003). This is even more complex if correlations
with measured temperature (thermistor string data) and salinity profiles (conductivity probes)
are needed. Although numerous data and studies exist for the deep-sea oceanography (ocean
circulation models), there are only limited approaches available for near coast oceanographi-
cal analysis. This because ocean studies have mainly been made for climate or weather fore-
cast, rather than for waste dispersion studies (TetraTech, 2000). Engineers and oceanogra-
phers have to meet this challenge by approaching each other more than before.
2.1.2 Density stratifications

The density of coastal waters, if not uniform over depth is characterized by stratifications
caused by salinity and/or temperature differences over the depth. In temperate climates, the
existence of thermally derived stratification and a thermocline separating cold and hot water is
seasonal (summer surface heating), while in low latitude waters the thermal stratification may
be permanent. Salinity variations arise usually from significant freshwater flows into coastal
waters, resulting from drainage of land joining the coastal region, primarily river outflows
with seasonal variations (Fig. 5). Large rivers form distinct river plumes flowing along the
coast and attaching to it (with the coast at left in the southern hemisphere, Fig. 5, Davies,
2003). These plumes are characterized by strong horizontal and vertical density gradients and
convergence. Stratifications and the position and thickness of the transition halocline depend
on the degree of the shear-induced interfacial mixing and diffusion processes between these
layers. Velocities within river plume density currents may be comparable with those of tidal
residual currents.
Generally, vertical density gradients in stratified waters inhibit vertical motion of fluid dis-
charged into it. Under these circumstances, substances within the waste plume do not reach
the surface of the water column but a subsurface equilibrium level where the mean density of
the diluted effluent matches that of the surrounding fluid.
-9-
Fig. 5: Satellite image from Rio Magdalena (Colombia), showing the river plume (courtesy of Me-
nahem Libhaber, World Bank).
2.1.3 Natural purification

In nature, waste materials are produced by living organisms (plants, animals, and people) and
transformed by natural processes. These wastes are characterized by their organic nature con-
sisting of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other elements constituting organisms, as also
described for wastewater in chapter 2.2. These constituents are continuously cycled in nature
dominated by four cycles, the carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and the water cycle (in detailed
described in common textbooks). Biodegradation, an element of these biogeochemical cy-
cles, is the transformation of organic substances into energy or when complete into minerals
due to oxidation processes forming carbon dioxide and water. Most of the agricultural or in-
dustrial substances based on carbon (organic solvents, or petroleum based products) are also
considered biodegradable because of their similarity to naturally occurring organic carbon.
Basically, every man-made waste treatment technology is based on natural purification proc-
esses. A limitation of natural purification processes is that they can only handle naturally
occurring wastes and no toxic chemicals that in addition may disturb the natural processes.
Another limitation are physical-chemical parameters (temperature, salinity), as well as bio-
logical ones (number of microbes in the receiving waters) making natural purification a rela-
tively slow process with limited capacities.
Large coastal cities affect the waste cycling by generation and discharge of large amounts of
waste and in addition by removing or reducing large areas of natural ecosystem. Once waste
discharges exceed the natural purification capacity, also called carrying capacities (Maier et
al., 2000), a maximum of microbial activity is reached and environmental degradation occurs.
Commonly degradation takes place by accumulation of organic materials, nitrogen, phospho-
rus, or other pollutants that cannot be absorbed any more by the ecosystem.
An additional problem of anthropogenic discharges are pathogens. Pathogens generally are

inactivated (die-off), once the conditions outside their hosts are unfavorable or competition
with naturally occurring microorganisms occurs. For example, for faecal bacteria, nutrient
levels in coastal waters are generally too low to support their growth, except in highly pol-
luted freshwaters in warm climates. Pathogen inactivation rates are highly sensitive to envi-
ronmental parameters and their variations. Laboratory and field studies have shown, that for
the marine environment mainly temperature and ultraviolet radiation from solar radiation are
of major importance (Bitton, 1994 and Fig. 6). Due to small and transient variations in salin-
- 10 -
ity inactivation by salinity is unlikely to decrease mortality rates significantly (WRc, 1990).
Reduced radiation intensities instead, for example due to light attenuation in few meters be-
low the water surface, may reduce inactivation rates up to 90% of the value at the surface
(WRc, 1990). In turbid waters, inactivation is even smaller. Thus, significant differences
exist between daylight and night conditions. Variations in temperature do not have these
drastic changes. Increases in temperature accelerate the rate of inactivation under dark condi-
tions, but do not have significant effect in light over normal temperatures (WRc, 1990). Virus
inactivation instead mainly depends on temperature. Adsorption to sediments is the most sig-
nificant factor affecting virus survival. Viruses never grow. Nevertheless, inactivation rates
are of the same order as for bacteria.
Fig. 6: Inactivation in seawater of echovirus 6 as a function of temperature (left) and E. coli as a

function of solar radiation (right) (reproduced from Bitton, 1994)
All above mentioned variability and uncertainties in describing pathogen inactivation in un-
steady, non-uniform and stratified flows indicate the difficulties in describing assimilative
capacities and transport characteristics and their representative scales in general and for
wastewater discharges into coastal waters in particular.
2.2 Wastewater sources and characteristics

Three kind of wastewater sources are generally considered, which characteristics may differ
considerably: municipal wastewater originating from households, public facilities, and busi-
nesses; industrial wastewater from production facilities; and stormwater from roof, streets,
places, and surface run-off. The raw wastewater is often transported away from the commu-
nities in open canals or pipe systems to the treatment facility, which is generally located near
the discharge location of the receiving waters. Such waste conveyance systems are divided
into separated and combined sewer systems, where the latter combines stormwater and mu-
nicipal sewage. The flow of municipal wastewater is generally variable with peak flows coin-
ciding with high household activities in the morning and evening, while in the night minimal
flow occurs. An average measure is the water consumption, for example of around 200 ℓ per
person and per day (Brazilian raw average), resulting in a wastewater flow of 2.3 m³/s for a
city of one million inhabitants. Seasonal changes in touristic coastal areas may influence de-
sign flows considerably. Stormwater is underlying high natural variability. Municipal
wastewater is the dominant source of bacteria pollution and public health impacts. If sanita-
tion coverage is poor, also stormwater run-off may contain significant pollutant loads. Indus-
trial wastewater in many instances should be treated directly on the production site, resulting
in effluent characteristics, which then should not differ significantly from municipal wastes
consisting primarily of biodegradable organic substances. These industrial effluents are
- 11 -
commonly mixed with municipal wastewater or discharged separately. Therefore, the follow-
ing discussion regarding especially public health impacts will focus on municipal wastewater
characteristics only. Nonetheless slight modifications on effluent characteristics allow for
consideration of stormwater and industrial wastewater too. Special industrial effluents, hav-
ing physical characteristics which considerably differ from municipal wastewater (i.e. regard-
ing temperature and salinity, e.g. originating from mining sites, desalination plants or power
plants), will not be considered here because these follow other process scales.
Municipal wastewater consists of freshwater (99.9%) and substances added during the usage.
Its density is equal to that of drinking water. Wastewater components are generally divided
into biodegradable and other organic materials (e.g. detergents, pesticides, fat, and oil), mi-
croorganisms (i.e. pathogenic bacteria and virus), nutrients, metals, and other inorganic mate-
rials (e.g. acids, bases) (Henze et al., 2002). Pollutants may occur dissolved or suspended in
water. The division of both is essential, as many of the treatment or dispersion processes are
only effective for one of these (Henze et al., 2002). Copper for example is to 50% attached to
particles and not dissolved, whereas Ammonia is 100% dissolved. Typical concentrations of
raw wastewater components are listed in Table 1.
Concentration [mg/ℓ]
Constituent Strong Medium Weak
Solids
solids, total 1200 720 350
dissolved, total 850 500 250
suspended, total 350 220 100
settleable solids [mℓ/ℓ] 20 10 5
Organic material (nutrients)
biochemical oxygen demand, BOD5 400 220 110
nitrogen (total as N) 85 40 20
phosphorus (total as P) 15 8 4
Bacteria
total coliform [count/100ml] 1012 108 107
faecal coliforms [count/100ml] 108 107 106
E. coli [count/100ml] 108 107 106
Table 1: Typical composition of untreated municipal wastewater (Lee, 2003; Maier et al., 2000)
Difficulties exist describing concentrations for organics or microorganisms, because it is im-

possible to consider each of the existing thousands organic compounds or microorganisms.
Thus, organic matter commonly is described by BOD5, the biochemical oxygen demand in 5
days. This and other methods like the chemical oxygen demand (COD), total oxygen demand
(TOD) or the total organic carbon (TOC) are described in detail in Henze et al., 2002.
Microorganisms instead are quantified by indicator microorganisms that are easier to sample.
There is no interest in knowing all microorganisms, but especially in those related to human
health or treatment plant efficiency. Typical indicators are coliform bacteria indicating the
probability of the existence of pathogens. Coliform bacteria also occur in faeces of warm-
blooded animals, thus their concentrations are roughly proportional to the degree of faecal
pollution (WHO, 2000). They are none pathogenic organisms, which are easy to isolate and
to quantify. Many countries adopted coliform bacteria as indicator of faecal contamination.
Decades of experience with these indicators show, that waterborne disease outbreaks are di-
rectly related to bacteria in drinking water (Maier et al., 2000). Nowadays not only total coli-
forms, but also especially faecal coliforms are measured to distinguish between faecal and
other origin. However, this does still not allow distinguishing between human or animal ori-
gin. For example, sheep produce almost 10 times more total coliforms but the same amount
- 12 -
of E. coli than humans do. Escherichia coli (E. coli) are a widely used faecal coliform spe-
cies, which occurs in high numbers in faeces. In addition, its inactivation rates are similar to
enteric bacteria. However, it has been observed, especially in the tropics, that inactivation
rates of coliform bacteria are highly dependent on the environmental conditions (Paul, 2001).
Therefore new standards not only measure coliform bacteria, but also include Enterococci (a
faecal bacteria), but they also do not allow to distinguish between human or animal origin.
Their advantage against coliform bacteria is their very slow inactivation rates, thus allowing
for better evidence of past pollutions. Enterococci are also much more resistant against disin-
fection using chlorine, thus useful for examination of such treated waters. Disadvantages of
indicator organisms in general are deficiencies relating high indicator concentrations to health
threats on one hand or to pollution sources (man-made, animal based) on the other hand. Paul
(2001) therefore summarizes that there will be no unique indicator in future and highly rec-
ommends the testing of indicators at the observed region.
2.3 Wastewater treatment technologies

Wastewater treatment technologies aim for removal of harmful substances and transformation
into effluents or residuals acceptable for re-use or discharge. General treatment techniques
are classified in Table 2. Important extensions or special details of each technique will briefly
be described as follows. Detailed descriptions on the processes involved are described in
various textbooks, for example in Henze et al. (2002).
Type technique purpose residuals residual effluent

disposal discharge
Preliminary screening remove solid waste, avoid rubbish, landfill long outfall,
clogging and damage of pipes wood, paper high carrying
and pumps capacities
Primary sedimentation and remove settleable and floatable sand, fat, landfill and/or long outfall,
grit chambers matter, primary sludge forma- sludge incineration high carrying
tion and removal capacities
Secondary biological oxidation remove BOD large landfill, incin- short outfall,
amounts of eration, low carrying
sludge agriculture capacities
Tertiary disinfection, filtra- remove nitrogen, phosphorous very large landfill incin- very short
tion, flocculation, and bacteria amounts of eration, outfall
settling sludge agriculture
Table 2: Typical wastewater treatment techniques and residual disposal and effluent discharge
Preliminary treatment is commonly done with milli screening (Fig. 7) or fine screening using
screen bar distances of 0.25 - 5 mm, or 5-15 mm respectively. Details are described for ex-
ample in (Huber et al. 1995), where removal efficiencies for a grid with 1 mm are given to:
90% for floatable solids, 10% for suspended solids, 30% for total oil and grease, 70% for
floatable oil and grease and 20% regarding BOD5. If preliminary treatment is applied alone,
effluent disinfection may be needed.
Conventional primary treatment consists of sedimentation tanks and grit chambers aiming for
the removal of suspended solids (SS). Besides the conventional primary treatment, new tech-
nologies have been developed especially for discharges into sensitive receiving waters using
long sea outfalls (National Research council, 1992). A prominent example is the chemically
enhanced primary treatment (CEPT, Harleman and Murcott, 1999, Table 3), because of its
successful installation and operation for the Hong Kong wastewater treatment. Preliminary
and primary treatment is of main importance if sediment deposition in the receiving waters is
- 13 -
possible and metals or toxics are contained in the wastewater (attached to particles). Primary
treatment may considerably reduce ecotoxicological impacts (Abessa et al., 2005).
Fig. 7: Milliscreens for preliminary treatment (Huber technology)
Total suspended BOD5 [%] Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen [%]

solids [%] [%]
Conventional 55 35 20 15
primary treatment
Conv. primary + 91 85 30 31
secondary treatment
CEPT 85 57 85 37
Table 3: Comparison of removal efficiencies for conventional primary treatment and chemically
enhanced primary treatment (CEPT), (reproduced from National Research Council, 1992)
Conventional secondary treatment consists traditionally of installations reducing the wastewa-

ters biological oxygen demand (BOD). Removal of SS and BOD produces sludge, and the
sludge has to be treated prior to reuse or disposal. These processes usually are expensive to
operate due to the large energy, skilled labor, infrastructure, and maintenance requirements.
The costs of treatment of sludge are generally of the same order as the costs of removing the
sludge from the wastewater. Heavy metals and other pollutants are not generally a problem
unless the sewerage system receives industrial discharges. In this case, treatment of industrial
wastes prior to discharge to the sewerage system is the solution.
Tertiary treatments must be added to the process to effectively reduce pathogen and nutrient
levels (Table 4). Nutrient removal is realized by flocculation and sedimentation processes
adding chemical substances. Separate or additional disinfection is applied for destruction of
microorganisms. Heat, chemicals, filtration or radiation are the most common techniques of
disinfection. Widespread, because cheapest is chlorine used as chemical disinfectant. Its ef-
ficiency depends especially on water temperature and reaction time. Alfredini and Roma
(1999) showed that disinfection of preliminary treated effluents with chlorine reduces total
coliform concentration by the order of 95%. Examples from the Sao Paulo coast, where chlo-
rine disinfection of preliminary effluents is commonly applied showed a reduction from 107
counts / 100 ml to 6*105 counts / 100 ml after a chlorine addition 0.5-1.5 mg/l and a contact
time of 30 min. (Alfredini and Roma, 1999). However, effluent chlorination is generally con-
sidered as harmful due to the possible generation of halogenated hydrocarbons, which are
cancer-causing (Lattemann and Höpner, 2003). Therefore, in several regions (e.g. California
- 14 -
(USA) or Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)) chlorine is not permitted for discharge. Interim solutions are
dechlorination and/or further treatment to neutralize chlorine. Addition of further treatment
steps however, significantly increases the cost and complexity of the process.
A summary of general removal efficiencies of the different techniques is listed in Table 4.
Concentration reduction [%]

Constituent Primary Primary + Primary +
Secondary Secondary
+ Tertiary
Solids, suspended, total 60 85 95
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD, 5d, 20°C) 20 85 95
Nitrogen (total as N) 3 10 95
Phosphorus (total as P) 3 10 95
Total coliform [count/100ml] 95 96 98
Table 4: Typical effluent changes depending on treatment (Lee, 2003; Maier et al., 2000)
2.3.1 Limitations of conventional treatment technologies

The inherent problem of treatment technologies is its focus on removal efficiency thus process
engineering instead of also considering the ecosystem response, thus the wastewater man-
agement efficiency. Though especially hydromechanical aspects are fundamental for all
treatment processes and for water pollution control in general, these are still under-
represented in most wastewater system designs.
Treatment technologies are expensive technologies regarding their investment costs but also
their high operational demands. Maintenance demands increase strongly with increasing re-
moval characteristics. Therefore theoretical treatment plant efficiencies (Table 4) strongly
depend on proper operation, which is still not guaranteed for an alarmingly high number of
treatment plants worldwide (UNEP, 2002, 2004). In developing countries, estimates suggest
that only about 5% of all sewage is treated before discharge (World Resources Institute,
1998). Despite more investment in water and sanitation projects in the last decades, the total
number of people without access to water and sanitation services remains high, particularly in
urban and peri-urban areas (WHO, 1997). In addition, even industrialized countries still need
to improve wastewater management. About 20% of the surface water resources in the Euro-
pean Union are considered heavily contaminated (EU-Commission, 2002) and major Euro-
pean rivers are characterized by steadily increasing average coliform levels (Meybeck et al.,
1990). The European environmental agency shows that the percentage of the population
served by wastewater treatment varies from about 50% in the Southern to about 80% in the
Northern and Western European countries. It concludes that wastewater treatment and dis-
posal has improved in many countries during the past 10 to 15 years, especially in the South
of Europe where the backlog was large. However, most of the new eastern European coun-
tries cannot afford these large investments in future.
Consequently, World Bank and World Health Organization studies indicate that past invest-
ments regarding wastewater treatment have been excessive compared to their practical effi-
ciency on one hand and society/ecosystem needs on the other hand. Given that there will be
very large investments in wastewater infrastructures in the next decades in developing, but
also in industrialized countries, wastewater system management improvements may consid-
erably affect the environment and society.
- 15 -
For example, the history of Sanitation in Latin America has shown that only the main centers
of the most important cities benefited from conventional wastewater treatment (IETC, 2000).
These small gains in sanitation on a Regional scale are attributed firstly to the diversion of
most of the resources generated from sewerage tariffs to improve the financial situation of the
existing water systems and secondly because conventional sewerage, at least under the design
codes prevailing in almost all the countries of the Region, is in itself too expensive (Ludwig,
1988, Arasaki, 2004). As a result, the sewerage coverage in the Region has been disastrous
(IETC, 2000). The experience in the Latin America Region to date has been to copy, without
adaptation, prevailing urban patterns of American sewerage design codes. This may be cor-
rect if stable population areas are assumed, as happen to occur in the developed world cities.
However, for a typical Latin American city whose estimated population in the next 25 years is
expected to be 4 times present population the adoption of developed world codes is not effi-
cient. In addition there are also in Europe several examples where upgrades of treatment
plants did not show any significant environmental difference (Neves, 2003; Larsen, 2004).
Following studies considering ecosystem response showed instead, that for these cases in-
vestments would have been much more efficient if put into other infrastructural elements like
polluted storm water overflows or other waste sources.
Another fundamental problem of treatment technologies is their centralized structure. Con-

ventional treatment is usually carried out at the point of discharge, also called 'end of pipe'
treatment. The sewage collection systems needed are the most expensive part of such a waste-
water management solution with up to 80 % of the whole investment costs of a sanitanion
system. However, there are actually numerous ongoing activities and first technical solutions
available for alternative and de-centralized treatment systems to approach that problem.
Thus integrated wastewater management technologies will allow improving infrastructural

efficiencies even without significant increases of planned budgets. Environmental hydraulic
engineering design should therefore not only focus on treatment technologies, which are effi-
cient for single processes, but especially on the hydrodynamically dominated eco-system re-
sponse processes for the integrated system. Such approaches are also the major design instru-
ment to show and improve efficiencies of alternative and de-centralized solutions.
2.4 Discharge technologies - outfall characteristics

Discharge technologies aim for enhanced effluent dispersion in the receiving environment and
adequate discharge siting to avoid pollutant accumulation, to protect sensitive regions and to
utilize natural purification processes. General discharge techniques are outfalls designed as
efficient mixing devices installed at locations with high transport and purification capacities.
An outfall is the facility where (treated) wastewater is discharged into the receiving water
body. Commonly this is the outlet, canal, or pipeline from the municipal or industrial waste-
water treatment plant or drainage system discharging into a water body (Fig. 8).
Ocean outfalls are classified according their location (onshore surface discharges / offshore
submerged discharges), their mixing features (single port / multiport) and their effluent char-
acteristics (positive buoyant, e.g. treated sewage or cooling water, or negatively buoyant, e.g.
desalination brine or dredging material). In the following only submerged multiport diffuser
outfalls for positively buoyant effluents (i.e. municipal wastewater) are considered. They con-
sist of three components (Fig. 9): the onshore headworks (e.g. gravity or pumping basin); the
feeder pipeline that conveys the effluent to the discharge area; and the diffuser section where
a set of ports releases and disperses the effluent into the environment.
- 16 -
Fig. 8: Pictures from offshore, submerged, and positively buoyant wastewater discharges. Left:
single port (www.cormix.info), right: multiport diffuser (Lamparelli, 2003)
Fig. 9: Schematic view of submarine outfall with diffuser length LD, port diameter D, port spacing
ℓ, port and diffuser orientations β, γ, θ, effluent flowrate Qo and density ρo, average depth of
receiving water H with density ρa and velocity ua (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)
Outfall dimensions may vary considerably, mainly depending on available construction tech-
niques. A literature survey (i.e. Salas (1994), Neves and Neves (1992), Grace (1978),
www.mwwd.org, www.emisarios.unican.es) contacts with pipe companies (i.e. Sweco, Her-
- 17 -
renknecht and others) and a online database with voluntary input (Bleninger and Jirka, 2002)
resulted in a table containing about 200 large wastewater and industrial outfalls worldwide
(http://outfalls.ifh.uni-karlsruhe.de). The following compilation of average characteristics and
minimum - maximum values (in brackets) is intended to exemplify the dimension of outfall
projects. Images from the medium size Antalya outfall (Turkey) and the large size Boston
outfall (USA) illustrate these values (Fig. 10 and Fig. 11):
• Investment costs: 7 million US$ (2 to 3,500 million US$)

• Half of all systems are connected to the drainage system, thus conveying also rainwater
• More than 60% of all systems have preliminary treatment only
• Maximum flow rates: Qo = 1.5 m³/s (0.1 to 55 m³/s)
• Feeder pipe diameters: DF = 1 m (0.1 to 8 m)
• Pipe materials changed according to new available technologies:
1950 - 1980: carbon steel or cast iron
1970 - 2000: reinforced concrete
1990 - now: high density polyethylene or tunnels
• Diffuser length: LD = 100 m (10 to 1000 m), around 60% with decreasing diameter
• Outfall lengths: L = LF + LD = 1300 m (100 to 16,000 m)
• Port diameters: D = 100 mm (10 to 300 mm), almost 10% with attached Duckbill valves
and 2% with rosette like discharge arrangements
• Discharge depth: H = 10 m (4 to 60 m)
Fig. 10: Antalya outfall (Turkey) during installation in 1997. Top: Diffuser section assembling on
shore. Down: Feeder section (LF = 5 km, HDPE pipe, D = 1600 mm) while sinking with at-
tached concrete weights on the seabed (PipeLife Company)
- 18 -
Fig. 11: Boston outfall during installation in 1998. Left: View into tunnel section (16 km with 8 m
diameter). Right: One out of 55 riser caps with eight outlets each in rosette like configura-
tion (Roberts and Snyder, 1993)
2.4.1 Discharge processes and their characteristics

Discharge processes are an interplay of ambient conditions (see chapter 2.1) and the outfall
configuration. Different hydrodynamic processes drive and control the system. Most proc-
esses are running simultaneously, but with very clear dominance in different temporal and
spatial regions, according to their predominant flow characteristics, schematized in Fig. 12:
Fig. 12: Schematic view of an operating multiport diffuser outfall merged with a laboratory picture
of a trapped waste plume in stratified ambient (modified from Domenichini et al., 2002)
The first region is the outfall pipe system, conceptualized as an internal hydraulic manifold.
It does not change effluent characteristics, but considerably contributes to the subsequent dis-
persion processes by conveying the effluent to adequate discharge locations and spatially dis-
tributing the effluent in the discharge region. The flow is driven by the pressure difference
between the headworks and the receiving waters as well as the density difference between the
- 19 -
effluent and the ambient water. Manipulations of manifold geometries have direct implica-
tions on the flow distribution and the pressures losses.
In the second region, the "near-field" (also called active dispersal region or initial mixing re-
gion), the initial jet characteristics of momentum flux, buoyancy flux, and outfall configura-
tion (orientations and geometries) influence the effluent trajectory and degree of mixing.
Source induced turbulence entrains ambient fluid and dilutes the effluent. Though ambient
characteristics affect the discharge once the effluent left the diffuser openings, they are still
only of minor importance until any bottom or terminal layer interaction occurs. This charac-
terizes the transition to the intermediate field.
The “intermediate field” (or zone of wastefield establishment (Ridge, 2002)) is characterized
by the impact of the turbulent plume with boundaries and the transition from the vertically
rising plume/jet characteristics to a horizontal motion generated by the gravitational collapse
of the pollutant cloud. Source characteristics become less important. Generally, a pool of
initially diluted wastewater is formed either at the surface or at the level of submergence un-
der stratification conditions (shown in Fig. 12). Vertical and horizontal boundary conditions
will control trajectory and dilution in the intermediate field through buoyant spreading mo-
tions and passive diffusion due to interfacial mixing. Intermediate field processes have often
been neglected in practical applications (i.e. model formulations), because focus has been
given to either the near-field or the far-field processes and not their combination. In addition,
only few lab and field studies examined these processes in more detail (Jirka & Lee, 1994;
Akar and Jirka, 1995). Although these works generally confirm negligible scales of interme-
diate field effects for discharges into reasonable strong turbulent current fields, they clearly
show their importance in either stagnant or shallow waters, where large spreading processes
or instabilities occur.
After the wastefield establishment ambient conditions will control trajectory and dilution of
the turbulent plume in the “far-field” (also called passive dispersal region), through passive
diffusion due to ambient turbulence, and passive advection by the often time-varying, non-
uniform, ambient velocity field. The flow is forced by tides and large-scale currents, wind
stress at the surface, pressure gradients due to free surface gradients (barotropic) or density
gradients (baroclinic), and the effect of the Earth's rotation (Coriolis force). Dynamic dis-
charge related effects are unimportant in that region. Vertical mixing in stratified water bod-
ies is damped by buoyancy, so dilution is mainly due to horizontal mixing by turbulent eddies
(Zielke & Mayerle, 1999). Concentration reductions in the far-field are related to natural dis-
persion but also significantly to natural purification processes.
An overview of the physical processes is given in Table 5, and an example for their character-
istic length and time scales for large discharges in the coastal environment in Fig. 13.
manifold near-field intermediate-field far-field

dominant forcing pressure difference momentum and buoyancy flux and tidal, baroclinic,
buoyancy flux boundary resistance barotropic and wind
dominant mean pipe velocity jet/plume induced density current or ambient velocity
advection velocity field ambient velocity field
dominant fully mixed strong shear in- frontal mixing at bed and wind shear
mixing duced turbulence plume borders induced turbulence
temporal variance steady quasi steady unsteady highly unsteady
spatial variance uniform non-uniform non-uniform non-uniform
Table 5: Overview of dominant processes for coastal submerged multiport discharges
- 20 -
Fig. 13: Typical temporal and spatial scales for transport and mixing processes related to coastal
wastewater discharges (Jirka et al., 1976, Fischer et al., 1979)
The combination of strong initial mixing induced by a multiport diffuser installation and ade-
quate siting regarding high ambient mixing, transport and natural purification capacities re-
duces concentrations significantly. The theoretical comparison between treatment and dis-
charge technologies qualitatively illustrated in Fig. 14 and quantitatively described in Table 6
and Fig. 15 shows that without proper consideration of water quality response and without
proper outfall design even secondary treated effluents may cause ambient concentrations
which fail environmental standards. This because of i) an improper discharge siting at a loca-
tion where coastal conditions near the coastline (shallow, slow currents, poor flushing) do not
allow for sufficient substance dispersion and transformation, and ii) an insufficient treatment
regarding the environmental objectives defined for the receiving waters. Thus conventional
short outfall solutions, though connected to high-level treatment plants do often not guarantee
sufficient protection of the sensitive coastline ecosystems, nor public health. Well designed
and sited outfalls instead may guarantee that protection and in addition may require less
treatment, thus not only saving investment and operating costs (Harleman and Murcott, 1999;
Arasaki, 2004), but also allowing for the reduction of environmental pressures on-shore due to
reduced sludge production.
Concentration reduction [% of raw sewage concentration]

Constituent primary primary + primary + preliminary preliminary
secondary secondary WWTP, long WWTP, long
+ tertiary outfall, 1h after outfall, 6h after
discharge discharge
Solids, suspended, total 60 85 95 99 nn
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 20 85 95 99 nn
Nitrogen (total as N) 3 10 95 99 99
Phosphorus (total as P) 3 10 95 99 99
Total coliform [count/100ml] 95 96 98 99 99,9
Table 6: Typical effluent concentration reductions depending on applied treatment or discharge tech-
nology (Lee, 2003; Maier et al., 2000). nn: difficult to detect
- 21 -
Fig. 14: Comparison of two wastewater systems and their impact on receiving waters as exceedance-
frequency of ambient standards (i.e. beach water quality). Left: Secondary treatment plant
with short outfall. Right: Preliminary treatment with long outfall and multiport diffuser.
Fig. 15: Comparison of technical and natural contributions to pollutant concentration reductions.
Left: Technically achievable concentration reductions for primary and secondary treatment.
Right: Naturally occurring concentration reductions after discharging preliminary treated
wastewater (reproduced from WRc, 1990)
- 22 -
Even though pure discharge solutions seem to be clearly competitive with treatment technolo-
gies they do reduce concentrations by dilution and do not reduce substance loads. This has to
be considered carefully regarding long-term impacts. Regarding sustainable solutions dis-
charge technologies furthermore should neither head for the replacement, nor for a competi-
tion with treatment technologies, but should be understood as an important tool for improving
water quality in combination with treatment technologies.
However, the lack of co-ordination between the selection of treatment technologies and dis-
charge technologies has led to suboptimal solution in the past (Wilkinson and Wareham,
1996). For example, regarding minimal health risks associated with bathing waters there is no
reason to suggest that health risks from preliminary treated long sea outfall discharges will be
different to those from high level treatment plants and short outfalls provided the schemes are
designed to produce a similar microbial quality in the bathing waters (e.g. by meeting the bac-
teria standards in the bathing water regulations). It can hereby be shown, that regarding
pathogen removal conventional treatment technologies generally need additional disinfection
of their effluents, if discharged directly at a bathing shoreline. Even activated sludge, the
most efficient biological treatment technology for bacteria pollution, does not guarantee efflu-
ent concentrations in compliance with bathing water regulations (compare Table 6 and Fig.
15). Moreover, because variations in inflow concentrations and treatment plant performance
still cause significant bacteria concentrations in treatment plant effluents (Maier et al., 2000).
Where short-term exposures to pathogens may result in significant risk, the issue of reliability
is of major importance. WHO guidelines state that an effective outfall preceded by prelimi-
nary treatment has low risk of human health impacts. WRc (1990) further summarizes, that
regarding capital costs preliminary treatment plants with a long sea outfall are most cost ef-
fective because of less plant requirements to treat, and smaller area of land. Operating costs
for preliminary treated ocean outfalls are generally around one third of a secondary treatment
plant operating costs (WRc, 1990). Investment costs are about the same, whereas up to 40%
is related to the analysis of receiving waters for outfalls (Water Research Centre, 1990). The
implementation of new discharge adopted treatment technologies like the chemically en-
hanced primary treatment will cause less environmental impacts with cheaper solutions (Na-
tional Research Council, 1998). This or similar options should be considered especially for
regions with strongly increasing sanitation coverage (UNEP, 2004, 2002).
New environmental philosophies and adopted technology approaches confirm the need for
efficient integrated approaches including strong discharge technologies. This explains the
worldwide increasing utilization of submarine outfalls. Positive examples with detailed moni-
toring programs of the receiving waters have been reported recently, showing no adverse ef-
fects of outfalls on the environment: Sydney Australia (Philip and Pritchard, 1996), Boston,
USA (Signell et al., 2000), Lisbon, Portugal (Silva et al., 2004), Santos, Brazil (Berzin, 1992
and Braga et al., 2000), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Roldão et al, 2001), Hong Kong (Lee et al.,
2002), Huntington Beach, California, USA (USGS, 2004). There are six out of seven outfalls
along the Sao Paulo coast which operate well (Cetesb, 2005), Northern Spain (Revilla et al.,
2002), Chile (Galindo and Simpson, 2003), Montevideo, Uruguay (Crosignani et al., 2002).
The Pan American Health organization (PAHO) states generally that over 100 outfalls are in
operation in Latin American countries with no problem. Numerous publications during the
conference series “Marine Waste Water Discharges - MWWD” (www.mwwd.org) are related
to discharge impacts and give a positive image.
- 23 -
2.4.2 Limitations of discharge technologies

The inherent problem of discharge technologies is their focus on the ecosystem response in-
stead of also considering load reductions thus foreseeing more sustainable solutions including
alternative treatment technologies. This is also important considering the accumulation of
non-biodegradable substances, which eventually could have been removed by treatment tech-
nologies or source control.
Technical limitations of discharge technologies are related to difficult and complex design
procedures, which need an interdisciplinary approach, because of the need to understand the
interaction of the discharge with the receiving waters. Problems with projects handling
wastewater discharges have been mainly related to a poor understanding of what measures
need to be taken to protect the environmental values of receiving waters. Measures to ensure
bathing water quality may be different to those ensuring fishing water quality.
Another drawback of discharge technologies is little public acceptance which is directly re-
lated to the previously stated little understanding and poor scientific communication. There is
the prevalent misconception that the discharge of less treated effluents is dumping wastes into
the environment, although there is indeed a clear difference between discharge “re-enter sub-
stance into bio-geochemical cycle, forcing the ambient to react” and disposal “final disposi-
tion, isolating substance from bio-geochemical cycle, avoiding any further reaction.” The
poor public acceptance is further facilitated by prevailing post-installation pollution suspected
those to be a result of malfunctioning or improper designed outfalls. However, it has been
shown, that most of these problems are related to other waste sources (often illegal discharges
or surface run-off (USGS, 2004 or Berzin, 1992) or uncontrolled industrial sources (Braga et
al., 2000) or nearby treatment plants with inappropriate discharge systems (Garber, 1998) and
not to the outfall discharges. In polluted regions often very little is discussed regarding the
adequate sewage treatment and discharge option that may restore environmental conditions
now damaged by uncontrolled wastes discharges. An example for better public involvement
is given in Garber (1998) for Victoria, B.C. in Canada.
Such limitations mainly show the need for a better understanding and control of discharge
processes. The additional advantage of studies based on the ecosystem-response on the instal-
lation of discharge technologies is their capability to detect the critical pollution sources, thus
providing tools for a more efficient wastewater management (USGS, 2004).
2.5 Need for a discharge assessment - improved outfall design

The failure to properly manage and dispose wastewater has enormous financial implications.
The economic damage due to medical treatment and loss of productivity associated with dis-
eases caused by exposure to contaminated food and water are high but difficult to estimate
(IETC, 2000). However, Esrey et al. (1991) found that when well-designed basic water, sani-
tation, and hygiene interventions were implemented at the community level, sickness from
Diarrhoea was reduced by 25 - 33%, Schistosomiasis was reduced by 77%, trachoma was
reduced by 25%, and overall child mortality was reduced by 60%. The World Bank (1993)
estimated 40% reductions for both Diarrhoea and intestinal worm infections using similar
interventions. The consequent loss in costs is estimated in a few examples: In the US water-
borne diseases cost the country between 3 and 22 billion dollars per year in medical bills and
lost productivity (Bennett et al., 1987; Murphy, 1999). Illnesses related to water contami-
nated by untreated wastewater in China cost the country almost 4 billion dollars per year
(World Bank, 1997).
- 24 -
In addition coastal regions are often rich in touristic resources, thus depending on intact and
clean ecosystems. Closed beaches have enormous implications on the local economy. For
example, the beach closures of Huntington Beach, California, strongly affected regional tour-
ism industry with an annual budget of 80 million US $ and five million visitors each summer
(USGS, 2004). Costs for proper treatment and discharge installations are small compared to
these implications.
The balancing approach to decide on an appropriate discharge technology and the compatible
treatment technology is analyzed in discharge assessments. Different design alternatives are
hereby compared and evaluated regarding environmental impacts, investment costs, and op-
erational demands. These assessments nowadays play an important role not only for the final
discharge permit or for permit prolongation, but also especially for investors and politicians.
Wastewater systems are fundamental infrastructural investments and generally so big, that
safe and sustainable financing is essential. Financers are development banks (e.g. the World
Bank) if projects for poorer communities are planned or private banks or even large compa-
nies (i.e. water related multinational groups). Both financing lines nowadays demand finan-
cially safe, thus sustainable, environmentally sound, and socio-economically adopted and
economically stimulating investments. Projects hereby have to pass challenging and compre-
hensive pre-planning investigations. A well-elaborated discharge assessment is substantial for
the approval. Further extensions of such assessments are subsequent steps to the final plan-
ning, public communication, and permit approval. Even the regular monitoring can be based
on the outcomes of the previous assessment, for example the existing models.
The main question in discharge assessments are pollutant plume concentrations, locations, and
geometries. A good example of such an assessment for a coastal water quality problem is
described in Connolly et al. (1999) for the Mamala Bay (Hawaii) outfall, showing the impor-
tance of an efficiently designed outfall. This thesis provides solutions to improve the model-
ing techniques for such outfall designs.
2.5.1 Outfall design parameters - dilution characteristics

Outfall design includes the evaluation of alternatives for different treatment technologies,
outfall locations (siting options) and constructional alternatives (outfall lengths, diffuser ge-
ometries and orientations). The design criteria are resulting distributions of pollutant concen-
trations C in the receiving waters:
C = substance mass per unit volume [mg/l, ppm, ppb, bacteria - counts, etc.] (2.1)
Outfall design aims for avoiding temporally or spatially concentration peak stresses and sub-
stance accumulation by reducing local concentrations due to mixing, transport, decay and
transformation processes (Jirka and Bleninger, 2004). As a measure for the concentration
reduction generally a reciprocal volume fraction of effluent in a sample defined as dilution S
(Fischer et al., 1979) is used:
S = total volume of sample / volume of effluent in sample (2.2)
Though the term dilution is generally associated with a pure physical mixing process only,
strictly speaking, processes leading to dilution (or concentration reductions) are:
• physical mixing: reducing substance concentration by increasing the volume of the car-
rier medium, e.g. adding water to a concentrated fluid and mixing, to reduce its strength
- 25 -
• transformation and decay, decreasing dissolved substance mass, e.g. bacteria inactiva-
tion
• boundary interaction processes, reducing a constituents concentration by removing it
from the carrier medium (e.g. particle settling or adsorption processes at the bed)
These processes naturally occur in receiving waters, however over huge temporal and spatial
scales. Diffusers are designed to enhance the naturally slow mixing by strong initial-
dilutions. Thus, initial concentration peaks are reduced to comply with ambient standards
outside a Regulatory discharge zone around the outfall and a proper siting allows natural
processes to further dilute the effluent to comply with with public health standards at the
Regulatory preservation zone (i.e. beaches, see also chapter 6 and Jirka et al, 2004).
Therefore, it is commonly distinguished between dilutions related to different processes or

design steps. In the following S is used for the pure hydrodynamic dilution describing the
mixing of the effluent with the ambient and Stot = Sdec S for the total dilution including trans-
formation and decay processes and marginally also the boundary interaction processes. Re-
garding different design steps it is often distinguished between a discharge induced initial or
near-field dilution Snf, generally not including decay processes, and an ambient flow induced
far-field dilution Sff that occasionally includes bacterial decay, depending on the analyzed
parameter. For the total dilution Stot then follows:
Stot = Snf Sff Sdec = S Sdec (2.3)
With a background ambient concentration Cb the pollutant concentration can be calculated by
C = Cb + (Ce - Cb)/ Stot (2.4)
Ecological effects are often related to lethal or chronic concentrations, thus discharge permits
generally demand ambient pollutant concentrations not exceeding critical values defined as
ambient concentration limits Ca,lim. Permit compliance requires C < Ca,lim, which can be
achieved by varying the design parameters Ce and S. The design optimum is the cheapest so-
lution achieving permit compliance, generally a combination of maximized dilution and
minimized effluent concentration. Design limitations are technological limits for the minimi-
zation of Ce and limits regarding the assimilative capacity of receiving waters for the maximi-
zation of Stot.
Design optimization for discharges into sensitive water bodies are limited, because achievable
dilutions in those waters are generally small and temporally and spatially approximately con-
stant values (e.g. for rivers Stot ≈ 10 - 30). In addition, often pre-defined effluent concentra-
tion limits Ce,lim are specified from authorities. Thus, the design equation results in the mini-
mum necessary treatment technology (effluent concentration Ce) dominating the total costs,
with slight variations in discharge structure optimizations:
min [ Ce = Cb + Stot(Ca,lim - Cb) ; Ce,lim ] (2.5)
Coastal discharges instead are generally characterized by high and strongly variant achievable
dilutions (e.g. from 100 to 10,000 depending on location and time) in combination with weak
or non-existing effluent concentration limits. A typical design approach thus compares alter-
natives for different treatment technologies (preliminary, primary, secondary, or tertiary
treatment, Ce,pre, Ce,1, Ce,2, Ce,3) regarding their required dilution:
- 26 -
Stot,min,i = (Ce,i - Cb) / (Ca,lim - Cb) ) (2.6)
For example the ambient concentration limits of the Brazilian bathing water standards regard-
ing E. coli bacteria counts are Ca,lim = 1000 / 100 ml (CONAMA, 2000). An application of
equation (2.6) results in dilution requirements for different treatment technologies and zero
background concentrations as summarized in Table 7. Results indicate that only treatment
plant effluents, which passed primary and secondary treatment together with disinfection are
allowed to discharge directly in bathing waters, provided that there is no background concen-
tration and no concentration built-up. Discharges from treatment plants with lower treatment
levels have to be located a sufficient distance away from the bathing water zone to allow dilu-
tion processes to occur before reaching the bathing waters. Long distances (long outfalls) and
high dilutions (i.e. multiport diffusers) allow for reduced treatment. Required concentration
reductions thus can be achieved by several combinations of treatment and discharge tech-
niques. The optimal solution is the cheapest technology combination.
Treatment Effluent concentration Ce: Required dilution

E. coli [counts / 100 ml] S = Ce/Ca,lim
Untreated 107 104
Primary treatment 106 103
Primary and secondary treatment 105 102
Primary and secondary treatment 10 0
and disinfection
Table 7: Required effluent dilution for different levels of treatment (modified from Wilkinson and
Wareham, 1996)
2.5.2 Outfall design tools - need for prediction models

Whereas the prediction of Ce is a standard application including uncertainty and variation
mainly as a function of technological processes within the treatment plant, there is a large
degree of uncertainty related to the prediction of Stot, where the determination of pollutant
concentrations as a function of natural processes within the receiving waters poses the major
problem. Thus, discharge assessment is mainly related to the prediction of the dilution. His-
torically only conservative estimates on initial dilution have been used to design and control
outfalls. These worst-case scenarios based for example on the Cederwall equation (Wood et
al., 1993) or simply using still water conditions (WRc, 1990) resulted in under-estimations of
real initial dilutions and did not allow for considerations of far-field dilution values for exam-
ple at beaches. Advancements have been made regarding additional processes summarized in
empirical dilution equations and design procedures, outfall guidelines and books (Jirka and
Lee, 1994; Wood et. al, 1993; Water Research Centre, 1990; Williams, 1985; UNEP, 1996;
Grace, 1978; National Research Council, 1993; Telford, 1989 and proceedings from the con-
ference series “Marine Waste Water Discharges - MWWD, www.mwwd.org). However,
these techniques are still unreliable for outfalls where receiving water conditions depart sig-
nificantly from the idealized cases (Davies, 2003). Therefore submarine outfalls generally
discharging into highly unsteady, non-uniform coastal waters are still challenging design
cases.
Traditional designs are mostly based on measured parameters (currents, densities, tracer tests,
etc.). Such measurements are costly, spatially limited to a few locations and temporally lim-
ited to short time periods. Therefore, modeling techniques are needed to receive spatial data
over longer time-scales. Appropriate combination with field studies allow the definition of
missing boundary conditions, model calibration and model validation. Simplest models “just”
- 27 -
interpolate or extrapolate field data for example to infer currents between meter locations or
measurement periods. However, field data extrapolation is limited to relatively small spatial
scales and cannot predict changes due to planned installations. Furthermore, interpolation
models do not necessarily allow for dynamic representations and understanding. A waste
plume generally cannot be tracked or resolved by a few point measurements and interpolation.
Hydraulic laboratory model studies are quite reliable if certain conditions on minimum scales
are met as has been demonstrated in the past. Nevertheless, just like field tests, they are
costly to perform and inefficient for examining a range of possible ambient/discharge condi-
tions and long time-scales. Therefore, hydrodynamic mathematical models are needed.
Larsen (2000) summarizes that there are excellent computer packages available for the gen-
eral diffuser design (e.g. CORMIX), also confirmed by measurements (e.g. Carvalho et al.,
2002), whereas the procedure for outfall siting on one hand and optimization of outfall hy-
draulics on the other hand is much more complex and troublesome. He recommends that pre-
dictions of bathing water quality should have highest priority in the design of an outfall in-
cluding reasonable safety factors. The question of initial dilution should only have a secon-
dary priority in balance with a reliable engineering design. Nonetheless the strong interaction
of these processes makes a proper model coupling necessary. A discussion of these issues
and an example of predicting dispersion from the Boston Harbor outfall is given by Blumberg
et al. (1993), Zhang and Adams (1999), Tetratech (2000), Zhang (1995). This thesis aims for
an improved discharge assessment linking simple dilution equations for continuous discharges
in steady environments (e.g. Fischer et. al, 1979, Jirka and Lee, 1994) with complex expert
systems (Jirka et al, 1996) up to high resolved 3D, unsteady hydrodynamic models for time
variant discharges. Contributions are related especially to three hydraulic regions according
the occurring physical processes: the hydraulic constructional design, the hydrodynamic mix-
ing induced by the outfall (defined as near-field) and the transport and dispersion due to natu-
ral processes (defined as far-field):
• Environmental design (far-field):

Analysis and optimization of different alternatives regarding outfall location (siting) and
the necessary treatment options according to an improved interaction with assimilative ca-
pacities of receiving waters. These analyses are mainly focused on large scales for long
periods, where natural far-field processes dominate with partially overlaying intermediate-
field processes.
• Hydrodynamic design of discharge structure (near-field):
Optimization of main outfall characteristics (geometries and configuration) to improve the
outfall induced mixing efficiency. These analyses are focused on smaller scales and
shorter periods, where outfall induced near-field processes dominate with partially overlay-
ing intermediate-field processes.
• Hydraulic design of discharge structure:
Optimization of the diffuser characteristics and features to improve the internal hydraulic
performance and operational demands. This analysis is based on pipe hydraulics, where
manifold processes dominate.
The design and the extraordinary construction conditions for submarine installations will not
be covered here, though also mainly derived from hydraulic models for the analysis of wave
and current resistance loadings and further risks (scour, anchor, earthquakes, and tsunamis).
- 28 -
- Governing equations -
3 Governing equations: assumptions and simplifications

Effluent flow and effluent mixing follows conservation principles. The governing equations
are generally derived for an infinitesimal control volume in a Cartesian coordinate system and
are valid everywhere. The governing equations are the continuity equation, the Navier-Stokes
equation and the transport equation (Ferziger and Peric, 2002):
Continuity equation - conservation of mass
∂ρ ∂(ρui)
∂t + ∂xi = 0 (3.1)
where ρ = density, t = time, ui = velocity vector, xi = location vector.
Momentum equation - conservation of forces and momentum
∂(ρui) ∂(ρujui) ∂p ∂²ui

∂t + ∂xj + ρ2Ωi x ui = - ∂xi - ρgz + µ∂xj² + Fi,e (3.2)
{
{
(hydrostatic) {
viscous stress {
external forces {
local acceleration
Coriolis accelera-
advective accelera-
pressure force
gravitational force
tion
tion
where Ω = earth rotation vector, p = pressure, gz = gravitational acceleration acting against the
vertical, µ = dynamic viscosity, Fi,e = external forces. The equation follows from Newton’s
second law, F = ma, where the left-hand side of equation (3.2) consists of acceleration terms
per unit volume (if the density is factored out) and the right-hand side of force terms per unit
volume.
Transport equation - conservation of dissolved substance
∂c ∂(cui) ∂2 c
∂t + ∂xi = Dm
∂xi2 + kc (3.3)
where c = substance concentration, Dm = molecular diffusion coefficient and k = decay or

growth function.
For most of the hydrodynamic problems and especially for discharge processes, it is not pos-
sible to solve these exact equations. However, engineering design does not necessarily de-
mand exact solutions, but safe and reliable approximations. Additional safety factors fur-
thermore account for inaccuracies in constructional techniques (there is no exact construction)
and for uncertainties of the interaction with the environment of the installation, (nature cannot
be predicted exactly). Therefore, scale analysis is used to make assumptions and approxima-
tions based on characteristic scales occurring in the problem (Ferziger and Peric, 2002). Re-
sults are simplified equations, which can be solved either numerically or, in rare instances
analytically. However, the definition or finding of characteristic scales is strongly problem or
- 29 -
process dependent. There is no unique characteristic scale for waste discharges, but there are
characteristic scales for each hydrodynamic region dominated by distinct processes. There-
fore, one could try to find a common denominator heading for a final unique equation set, or
one could try to develop as much equation sets, as hydrodynamic regions exist. The result
then will not be a unique equation set, but as much equations sets as hydrodynamic regions
exist. There is still a scientific and engineering controversy, if a unique equation set based on
one common characteristic scaling can be solved with sufficient accuracy or if different cou-
pled equation sets may solve the problem in equal or even better accuracy. Both approaches
will be discussed here.
3.1 General simplifications for coastal discharges

The following simplifications are valid for all hydrodynamic regions of waste discharges con-
sidered in this text:
Single-phase flow: This thesis will not cover multi-phase flows (e.g. air-water or particle-
water), thus only describe the liquid phase.
Incompressible fluids: Waste discharges occur in hydrodynamic regimes where fluids can be
considered as incompressible. This means that the density ρ is constant along a streamline.
This approximation is valid for velocities and pressures occurring in environmental flows,
provided that the Mach number is below 0.3 (Ferziger and Peric, 2002). The only exception
is water-hammer in artificial pipe-systems, which will be discussed separately.
Newtonian fluids: Water (even when heated and with typical seawater or wastewater proper-
ties) is a Newtonian fluid. Therefore, approximations for the viscous terms of the momentum
equation can be used. An example for a non-Newtonian fluid would be mudflow processes,
where other approximations have to be used. Furthermore the dynamic viscosity can be ap-
proximated as a constant if temperature differences are not exceeding ∆T = 100°C, which is
clearly the case in this study.
Boussinesq approximation: Density variations ρ' in natural flows are generally small com-
pared to the average density ρ , thus ρ'/ ρ << 1. Therefore, it is only necessary to retain
density differences, thus simplifying the equations for decomposed parameters.
Spatial and temporal approximations: Reducing the dimensionality of a problem and/or in-
creasing the time scales, probably have the strongest implications on simplifying and acceler-
ating problem solutions. However, these are also related to crucial changes of accuracy.
Therefore, both simplifications are discussed in more detail as follows.
3.2 Simplifications regarding spatial scales
3.2.1 Effect of earth rotation

For very large scales, forcing due to earth rotation (Coriolis force) may have significant influ-
ence on the flow and transport characteristics. The Rossby Number
Ro = ΩL/(2π u ) (3.4)
- 30 -
where Ω = 7.29E-05 1/s = earth rotation speed, L = characteristic length scale, u = average
characteristic velocity, allows distinguishing between flows where rotation is important or
not. If the Rossby number is of the order of one, rotation has to be considered.
For example, if a characteristic average velocity of approximately 0.1 m/s is assumed for
ocean currents, earth`s rotation is important if scales larger than L > 8.6 km are considered.
Therefore, in accordance with typical scales of waste discharges (Fig. 13) the earth´s rotation
is only important for the far-field region. Near-field and intermediate-field equation sets can
be simplified neglecting effects of earth rotation.
3.2.2 Shallow water approximation - hydrostatic assumption

If the water depth H is much smaller than the characteristic horizontal length scale L,
H/L << 1, vertical accelerations are dominated by gravitational accelerations and other contri-
butions of accelerations can be neglected. This results in the so-called hydrostatic assumption
reducing the governing equations significantly, i.e. the vertical components, thus leaving only
the term ∂p/∂x3 = -ρg. One may even eliminate the pressure variable writing it as a function
of the water surface elevation zs (assuming constant density, DVWK, 1999),
∂p ∂zs
∂xi = -ρg∂xi, (3.5)
using in addition a depth averaged continuity equation for the unknown water level elevation.
The vertical velocity then results from the continuity equation. Thus, immediate effects of
buoyancy on the vertical flow cannot be considered. Vertical density differences only affect
horizontal pressure gradients. Therefore small-scale convective mixing, occurring when less
dense water ascends through the water column (a typical near-field process), cannot be re-
solved with that assumption.
Assuming an average characteristic depth for waste discharges to be from 10 - 50 m and the
water body to be shallow for H/L < 0.2 the hydrostatic assumption is only valid for character-
istic problem scales L larger than approximately 200 - 1000 m. Therefore, in accordance with
typical scales of waste discharges (Fig. 13) hydrostatic assumptions are only valid for the far-
field region. For the near-field region instead, or problems related to steep vertical gradients
(bathymetrical slopes > 1:8, DVWK, 1999) or strong internal waves this assumption is not
valid.
3.2.3 Spatial averaging: 1, 2 or 3 dimensions

If flows are even more constrained than described for shallow flows (chapter 3.2.2) and accel-
erations and forces are dominated by one or two components, the accelerations and forces of
the other components can be neglected as a whole. In analogy to shallow flows, characteristic
length scales are used to distinguish if these rather strong simplifications are valid.
Manifold flows are generally described with 1-D equation sets only. This can be justified
assuming a characteristic length of an outfall pipe to be in the order of L ≈ 100s of meters and
a diameter of D ≈ 1 m resulting in D/L << 1.
Near-field flows are generally dominated by fully 3-D motions, only very simple cases can be
described by one or 2-D equation sets (e.g. 1-D description valid for a single, non-buoyant
- 31 -
turbulent jet discharging in infinite uniform and stagnant environment and a 2-D description
for multiport diffuser plumes after merging, discharged into a steady, uniform environment).
Far-field flows in receiving waters are characterized by two-dimensional (2D, depth-

averaged) or three-dimensional (3D) unsteady flow and transport phenomena resulting from
tidal and meteorological forcing, including the effect of density differences due to a non-
uniform temperature and salinity distribution (density-driven flow). A depth-averaged ap-
proach (2D) is thus only appropriate, if the fluid is vertically homogeneous. Examples in
which the two-dimensional, depth-averaged flow equations can be applied are tidal waves,
storm surges, tsunamis, harbor oscillations (seiches) and transport of pollutants in vertically
well-mixed flow regimes. Three-dimensional modeling is of particular interest in transport
problems where the horizontal flow field shows significant variation in the vertical direction.
This variation may be generated by wind forcing, bed stress, Coriolis force, and bed topogra-
phy or density differences. Examples are dispersion of waste or cooling water in lakes and
coastal areas, upwelling and downwelling of nutrients, salt intrusion in estuaries, fresh water
river discharges in bays, thermal stratification in lakes, seas, and strong wind shear.
3.3 Simplifications regarding time scales
3.3.1 Steady flow

If the flow does not change with time, or only very slowly, derivations related to time are neg-
ligible ∂/∂t = 0, thus allowing for considerable simplifications of the governing equations. A
measure to distinguish if unsteady effects are important is the comparison of typical time
scales of changes at the boundaries and time scales of the system to react (accelerate or decel-
erate). If the latter are small compared to the former unsteady effects are negligible.
Manifold flows are generally described as steady. This can be justified assuming that outfall
inflow changes and receiving water level changes are in the order of minutes to hours and
times to accelerate or decelerate pipe flows are in the order of seconds to minutes (see de-
tailed discussion in 4.2.4.1).
Similar assumptions apply for near-field flows and partly also for intermediate flows, for con-
siderable ambient flow. However, for still water conditions or quiescent ambient time scales
of intermediate field motions to accelerate or decelerate (i.e. buoyant spreading) may be con-
siderably larger than the changes of the flow. Thus, the simplification of steady flow condi-
tions should only be applied for the equation sets regarding the near-field region.
The far-field region is generally highly transient, notably tidally influenced flows, and no
simplification applies.
3.3.2 Time averaging - simplification of turbulent fluctuations

Regarding the small-scale temporal variations, it is still very difficult to resolve up to the tur-
bulence scales (Kolmogorov scale) and very often, there is no need for, because only temporal
averaged values are needed. Therefore techniques to decompose the velocity in average val-
ues u i and turbulent fluctuations ui' are used. The flow is hereby assumed stationary over the
integral time scale tI and the "Reynolds Average" equations are obtained by substituting the
Reynolds decomposition ui(t) = u i + ui'(t) and averaging over tI. Thus, decomposition tech-
- 32 -
niques apply if the average velocities u i are changing in time scales bigger than the integral
time scale tI. The resulting simplified equations still need further approximations for the tur-
bulence closure, before being solved numerically.
Regarding the characteristic scales of all hydrodynamic regions of waste discharges, Reynolds
averaging using above decomposition in the governing equations theoretically applies for all
regions. However, problems exist describing appropriate turbulence closures, thus limiting
these solutions to flow conditions where available turbulence models exist and apply. There
is no standard closure and the choice of the turbulence closure is strongly oriented to the ap-
plication. Most experience exists for the classical statistical eddy-viscosity models, but
nowadays also computationally more demanding approaches like the Large-Eddy-Simulation
or Reynolds-stress models are used (Rosman, 1987, DVWK, 1999, Rodi, 2004). These ap-
proaches are still considered as research approaches but are indeed necessary for extreme
complex geometries, high buoyancy effects, or swirling flows, which might occur in near-
field regions. However, the far-field region generally does not require these approaches. This
is because far-field waste discharges analysis does still not require analysis of vortex shedding
frequencies or flow separation zones, which would demand these model types. An overview
of existing approaches and their performance related to specific problems is given in Table 8.
Details of the k-ε model are described for the far-field modeling in chapter 5.3.2.1.
eddy-viscosity eddy-viscosity large-eddy Reynolds-stress

performance (k-ε) (k-ω) (LES) (RS)
well for… • local equilib- • adverse pressure • external un- • non-equilibrium
rium of turbu- gradients (i.e. steadiness (vortex turbulent struc-
lence structure, near walls) shedding) tures (swirling
e.g. free flow • unsteady forces flows, high buoy-
turbulence ancy, geometrical
complexity)
bad for… • adverse pres- • free flow turbu- • difficult boundary • difficult boundary
sure gradients lence (far-field) conditions (insuf- conditions
(i.e. near walls) • strong buoyant ficient vortex in- (needed for each
• curved flows processes (cause formation) stress component)
• non-isotropic bad mixing char- • near walls
turbulence acteristics in
• low Re near-field)
problems • excessive tur- • limited experi- • expensive • expensive
bulence pro- ence for practical • only few models • available models
duction in stag- applications available and still still not universal
nation points under develop- enough to com-
ment, but promis- pete with eddy-
ing for future ap- viscosity in prac-
plications tical applications
Table 8: Comparison of different turbulence modeling approaches (Rodi, 2004)
3.4 Simplifications regarding boundaries

Waste discharge problems are spatially limited regarding the process scales, but also regard-
ing the region of interest. Thus, the problem domain for the equations sets is constrained by
natural and artificial boundaries. The former are defined as closed boundaries, where no flow
across the boundary is assumed. The latter are boundaries limiting the region of interest, but
without any physical meaning (i.e. allowing the flow to pass). The solution of the governing
- 33 -
equations (regardless of their simplification) requires the definition of boundary conditions at

all boundaries.
3.4.1 Closed boundaries

Closed boundaries are defined by the pipe walls, the known shoreline, the bathymetry, and the
free water surface, where the flow through the boundary is set to zero. The vertical diffusive
flux through the free surface and bed is also set to zero except for the heat flux through the
free surface.
Shear stresses act on all closed boundaries. However, for the far-field region often only the
bed shear is important, whereas the influence of the lateral shear stresses along the lateral
boundaries may be neglected. Latter approximation applies generally for shallow flows,
where a so-called free slip boundary condition is set at all lateral boundaries. Approximations
related to the bed shear formulation, like
∂u
τb = ρν ∂z (3.6)
with τb = bed-shear stress, ν = kinematic viscosity, may be useful, if the bed shear stress can-
not be resolved near boundaries. This because strong velocity gradients occur in relatively
short distances from the wall and laminar regions exist, where standard turbulence models,
like the k-ε turbulence model fail due to a wrong turbulence damping. In these cases or in
cases where universal velocity distributions apply (i.e. in pipe flows) wall-functions simplify
the problem. Common wall functions relate the bed shear stress to the current just above the
bed and universal velocity distributions at the wall are used (i.e. the Newton-Taylor approach
(DVWK, 1999)):
τb = ρr u i u (3.7)
where r = dimensionless roughness coefficient. For r = λ/8 this results in the Darcy-Weisbach
equation with λ defined after Colebrook-White depending on the Reynolds number Re and the
equivalent sand roughness. The definition of λ will be discussed in detail in chapter 4.2.2.
Regarding wind-shear at the free surface a formulation analogous to bed-shear is
τw = ρacd Wi W (3.8)
where W = wind velocity in 10 height above the surface, ρa = density of air, cd = wind drag
coefficient.
The free surface in addition is influenced by waves. Flow contributions from wave-induced
flows (e.g. Stokes-waves or due to asymmetry of waves) are generally negligible in all hydro-
dynamic regions. Nevertheless, waves can have considerable effect near the bed or in the
surf-zone, which is especially important if particle settling is of interest. Neves (2003) de-
scribed that deposition of fine matter might be prevented by wave motions, thus identifying
waves as an important process for predictions of benthic impacts. This is not the objective of
this study, thus the equation sets do not need to resolve short waves and can be simplified.
- 34 -
3.4.2 Open boundaries

Open boundaries are boundaries in the mathematical model with no physical meaning. In
nature, waves can cross these boundaries unhampered and without reflections. In a mathe-
matical model, this property must be included in the open boundary conditions. If the incom-
ing characteristic at an open boundary is not prescribed exactly, the outgoing characteristic
will reflect at the boundary and propagate as a disturbance into the area (Courant and Hilbert,
1962). Unfortunately this information is not available and consequently the incoming charac-
teristic not known. It is therefore almost impossible to represent the open boundaries in an
accurate way. Nonetheless influences of inaccurate boundary conditions can be minimized by
choosing them as far away from the observed project region and choosing a location where
flows are easier to describe. Thus, subcritical flows and perpendicular flows are a good mod-
eling practice.
- 35 -
- 36 -
- Multiport diffuser design program CorHyd -
4 Multiport diffuser design program - CorHyd

Good outfall design must consider the hydraulics outside and inside a diffuser. External hy-
draulics affects the effluent mixing with the ambient fluid. Given dilution requirements
hereby result in major choices for the riser/port spacing and diameter and a minimum diffuser
length. Internal hydraulics affects the flow partitioning and related pressure losses in the
manifold resulting in a discharge profile along the diffuser. The computer program developed
in the course of this work, CorHyd, covers the internal diffuser hydraulics, predicting veloci-
ties, pressures losses, and flow distribution for varying discharge and ambient conditions.
The integration of CorHyd into the mixing zone expert system CORMIX (Jirka et. al, 1996)
will provide a direct linkage to subsequent waste plume modeling. This will allow for evalua-
tions of design alternatives regarding a cost effective internal hydraulics design, environ-
mental sound solutions, and operational feasible systems.
Recent monitoring of diffuser installations showed that inadequate attention to the internal
diffuser hydraulics often lead to hydraulic problems like partial blockage (Fig. 16), high pres-
sure losses, uneven flow distribution and salt water intrusion (Bleninger et al., 2003, Domen-
ichini et al., 2002, Neville-Jones and Chitty, 1996a, b). Consequences are higher energy de-
mands on one hand but also increased public health and environmental risks due to reduced
effluent dilutions. A simple estimate of effects from a distorted discharge profile is a compari-
son of the centerline dilution for two different volume fluxes. A 10% discharge variation
along the diffuser line results in a dilution difference of 7%. Neither laboratory studies nor
field studies exist for that phenomena, though for example Faisst et al. (1990) proposed
strongly inclined diffusers as source for observed parallel plume layers at different depths for
the Vancouver outfall.
Fig. 16: Replaced diffuser, blocked with sediment (courtesy of Eng. Pedro Campos, Chile)
Internal diffuser hydraulics design objectives are:
• uniform discharge distribution along the diffuser in order to meet dilution requirements
and to prevent operational problems (e.g. intrusion of ambient water through ports with
low flow). Exceptions should avoid near-shore impacts by keeping the seaward discharge
higher.
• minimized investment and operation and maintenance costs using simple, flow optimized
manifold geometries causing small pressure losses
- 37 -
• prevention of off-design operational problems like particle deposition or salt-water intru-

sion in the pipe system. This requires full flowing pipe sections and reasonably high ve-
locities.
• robustness to unsteady operation conditions in order to reach steady flow condition after
short purging during start-up periods, optimized intermittent pumping cycles and consid-
erations of wave induced circulations and transients.
These conflicting design parameters require compromises, in many cases not sufficiently re-
solved (Bleninger et. al, 2004). Existing diffuser hydraulic programs (Fischer et al., 1979,
implemented as code PLUMEHYD; and Wood et al., 1993, implemented as DIFF) have defi-
ciencies for diffuser designs other than pipes with simple ports in the wall. They only con-
sider short risers with negligible friction and local pressure losses and lack the implementation
of long risers (like in deep-tunneled outfalls) with significant frictional and local pressure
losses, Y-shaped diffusers, complex port/riser configurations like rosette like arrangements,
multiple ports on one riser, duckbill valves or other port pressure losses. In addition, avail-
able design rules regarding velocity ratios (Fischer et al., 1979) or loss ratios (Weitbrecht et
al., 2002) for diffuser sections and downstream ports are only applicable for simple and uni-
form geometries (i.e. no geometrical changes along the diffuser). For others, unnecessarily
conservative designs are achieved, because velocities and pressure losses may change in an
irregular manner along the diffuser line in actual diffuser installations.
4.1 Multiport diffuser configurations

An outfall is a pipe system between the dry land and the receiving water. It consists of three
major components (Fig. 17): the onshore headworks (e.g. gravity or pumping basin); the
feeder pipeline that conveys the effluent to the discharge area; and the diffuser section (Fig.
18), where a set of openings releases and disperses the effluent into the water body. The dif-
fuser section can be a single branched or double branched system (T- or Y-shaped, Fig. 19),
buried, tunneled or laid on the seabed (Fig. 20). If the diffuser section is installed open on the
seabed it consists of port orifices in the wall of the diffuser pipe (simple port configuration,
Fig. 21a), which may carry additional elements like elastic, variable area orifices (duckbill
valves, Fig. 21b). If diffusers are covered with ballast, laid in a trench or even tunneled in the
ocean floor, vertical risers (riser/port configuration, Fig. 21c) are connected to the diffuser to
convey the effluent to the water body. For deep-tunneled solutions often rosette-like port ar-
rangements (similar to a gas burner device, Fig. 21d) are used to save the number of costly
riser installations. In addition, risers may carry duckbill valves, which change their effective
open port area related to the pressure difference between inside and outside the valve. They
avoid salt-water intrusion during low flow periods and allow high discharges during peak
flow periods.
4.2 Internal diffuser hydraulics - manifold processes

The flow in multiport diffusers is a turbulent pipe flow controlled by two boundaries: first, the
entrance boundary (flow rate or head), and, second, the ambient/discharge boundary, where
the effluent properties differ from the ambient fluid. Both conditions vary in time due to dis-
charge variations (diurnal changes, storm water events and long-term changes due to in-
creased sanitation coverage) and ambient pressure variations caused by density and/or water
level variations (tides or waves). However manifold flow time-scales are considerably
smaller than the time-scales of boundary condition variations, thus a steady-state approach
can be justified (a brief example on unsteady effects is shown in chapter 4.2.4.1).
- 38 -
Fig. 17: Outfall configuration showing feeder pipe and diffuser from side view and top view, defin-
ing the pipelines and port/riser configurations
Fig. 18: Pictures of multiport diffusers during construction (Bonnasabla.com)
Fig. 19: a): standard diffuser; b): Y- or T-shaped diffuser configuration
- 39 -
Fig. 20: a) Buried outfall with short riser; b) tunneled outfall with long riser and multiple ports; c)
terrain following outfall laid on seabed (reproduced from Davies, 2003)
a) b)
c) d)
Fig. 21: a) simple port (courtesy of Carlo Avanzini); b) variable-area orifices (‘duckbill valves’,
RedValve Company); c) riser/port configuration (Guarujá, Brazil); d) rosette like riser / port
arrangement (Lee et al., 2001)
- 40 -
4.2.1 Governing equations for turbulent pipe flow

The definition diagram for a general steady pipe flow is shown in Fig. 22, for a pipe in a Car-
tesian coordinate system. For means of scale analysis and measurement techniques (piezome-
ter tubes), it is convenient to define pipe flow parameters in length scales (heads). There is
the diameter D, the geodetic head z, the pressure head p/γe with the internal pressure p and the
effluent specific weight γe, the velocity head V²/2g with the mean pipe flow velocity V. The
sum of the geodetic and the velocity head is called the hydraulic head, whereas the sum of the
hydraulic head and the velocity head is defined as the energy head. The description of the
hydraulic and the energy head along the streamwise coordinate s are called hydraulic grade
line (hgl) or energy grade line (egl), respectively. Consequently, the difference of energy
heads between two locations 1 and 2 is defined as the headloss hℓ.
Fig. 22: Definition diagram for a general pipe flow (reproduced from Jirka, 2001)
Flows in pipe systems can be classified into laminar and turbulent flows by the pipe Reynolds
number Re = VD/νe with the kinematic viscosity of the effluent νe. Pipe flows with Reynolds
numbers above a critical Reynolds number Recrit ≈ 2000, are considered as turbulent flows,
which is essentially the case for wastewater pipe systems.
The governing equations for such a pipe system can either be derived from the Navier-Stokes
equations (equations 3.1 and 3.2) for a 1-D flow, by integrating the shear-stresses over the
wall surfaces) or by using energy conservation principles together with mass conservation.
The latter is probably more convenient because of better parameterization means for the tur-
bulent fluctuations. The derivation of the so-called work-energy equation is described in Jirka
(2001) in the dimensions of length (energy heads):
V1² p1 V2² p2
α1 2g + z1 + γ + hp = α2 2g + z2 + γ + ht + hℓ (4.1)
e e
where hp is an energy head input into the system, generally caused by mechanical energy in-
puts of pumps. ht is an energy extraction head, generally from turbines. α1 and α2 denote co-
efficients related to the non-uniformity of velocity profiles while using mean velocities only:
- 41 -
1 ⎛ V ⎞3
α = A⌠
⎮⎜ V ⎟ dA (4.2)
⌡⎝ ⎠
A
Uniform velocity profiles would result in α = 1, whereas typical non-uniform turbulent pipe
flow profiles result in α = 1.05. The definition of hℓ can be seen as the turbulence closure for
pipe flow hydraulics. The dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy causes heat losses in the
system. This energy loss is compensated by decreasing pressure. Pressure losses in pipe
flows are classified according the source of turbulence production in continuous pressure
losses due to wall friction and local pressure losses due to geometrical changes. Wall friction
causes cross-sectional flow non-uniformities, whereas geometrical changes cause streamwise
flow non-uniformities.
Mass conservation results in the continuity equation:
Q1 = Q2 Ù V1A1 = V2A2 , (4.3)
where A denotes the pipe cross-sectional area.
4.2.2 Friction losses - cross-sectional non-uniformities

Pipe flows are axisymmetrical with a linear shear-stress distribution (Fig. 23). Therefore,
universal definitions for the velocity and shear-stress distributions apply. The velocity distri-
bution can be approximated by a logarithmical profile, in practice often simplified with power
laws in the form of V/Vmax = (y/ro)m, where Vmax defines the maximum velocity, y the transver-
sal coordinate, ro the pipe radius and m the power (e.g. m = 1/7 for Re = 105 (Jirka, 2001)).
Fig. 23: Shear-stress in pipe flows (reproduced from Jirka, 2001)
Using the wall function from equation (3.7) results in a definition for the wall-shear stress τo:
λ V²
τo = 4ρ 2 (4.4)
or in terms of a friction headloss in the so-called Darcy-Weisbach equation:
L V²
hℓ,f = λD2g (4.5)
where L = the length of the considered pipe section and λ = the friction coefficient defined by
the Colebrook-White equation.
- 42 -
The friction coefficient λ describes the relative influence of fluid viscosity and wall roughness
by the dimensionless parameters ks/D with the equivalent sand roughness ks (after Nikuradse)
and the Reynolds number Re. For laminar flows it is possible to derive λ analytically to λ =
64/Re (for Re < 2000). However, for turbulent flows only empirical values from experimental
studies exist. For computer applications, an explicit formulation after Swamee and Jain
(1976) is used λ:
0.25
λ = , (4.6)
⎛ ⎛ ks 5.74 ⎞⎞ 2
⎜lg⎜3.7D+Re0.9⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠⎠
which is valid for 10-6 < ks/D < 10-2 and 10-3 < Re < 108
Values of ks for different pipe materials and surface conditions of use are listed in Table 9.
Further materials and conditions are listed in almost all hydraulics textbooks or are available
from pipe manufacturers. A comprehensive summary is given in Idelchik (1986).
material condition ks [mm]

steel
HDPE (high density polyethylene) new 0.0015 - 0.0070
used 0.2 - 0.5
cast iron new 0.25 - 1
used (corroded) 1 - 1.5
old (heavily corroded) 3 - 4.5
with deposits 2 -4
reinforced concrete new (smoothed) 0.3 - 0.8
new (average) 2-3
with joints 2
Table 9: Outfall pipe materials and their related equivalent sand roughness values ks (Idelchik, 1986)
If only Manning’s n values are known from literature or pipe manufacturers a conversion to ks
can be done by:
ks = (n 5.87 (2g) 0.5)6 (4.7)
4.2.3 Local losses - streamwise non-uniformities

Streamwise changes of the pipe system cause non-uniform streamwise velocities. Even grad-
ual changes may hereby cause internal flow detachment processes, reverse currents in dead-
zones, locally increased accelerations or decelerations and overall increased turbulence. This
increase is associated with additional energy, thus pressure losses. Typical geometrical dif-
ferences occurring between one cross-sectional area and the adjacent one are inlets at the
headworks (Fig. 24) or orifices at the outlet ports, pipe diameter expansions, contractions,
bends, or combining and dividing flows (Fig. 24).
Local pressure losses hℓ,ℓ are generally parameterized as:
V²
hℓ,ℓ = ζ 2g (4.8)
where ζ denotes the dimensionless loss coefficient.
- 43 -
Fig. 24: Examples for local pressure losses in pipe flows (Miller, 1990)
Fig. 25: Picture of the headworks of a coastal outfall showing the inlet to the feeder pipe (courtesy of
Carlo Avanzini)
ζ depends on the geometrical configuration (diameter ratios, angles and radii of bends, grad-
ual or immediate (rounded or sharp edged) changes), and the Reynolds number. For combin-
ing and dividing flows additional consideration of the flow ratios have to be included. Again
mainly empirical values are available, which have been obtained in laboratory studies. There
- 44 -
are numerous publications defining local loss coefficients ζ for a large number of different
geometries under different flow conditions. Comparisons between some of these publications
showed considerable discrepancies even for simple geometries. The most accurate works
stem from Idelchik (1986) and Miller (1990), which have been chosen for this study. The few
analytical solutions (e.g. for sudden expansions) are also included.
Annex A gives an overview of implemented local loss coefficients ζ. These coefficients as-
sume reasonably high Reynolds numbers (above 104) and reasonable geometrical distance
between the changes (> 5D) to avoid interaction of pressure losses. If needed, modification of
the listed formulations can be found in Idelchik (1986). Furthermore, additional optional
pressure losses, which are not considered here (e.g. obstructions due to valves or monitoring
instruments), can be added manually. Examples for non-conventional nozzles or flanged ori-
fices are therefore given in the Annex A.
Loss coefficients can be combined to reduce the amount of computation. The bulk loss coef-
ficient is the sum of all coefficients, providing that the reference velocity is the same. Thus,
all loss coefficients are being modified to refer to the same reference velocity Vref: However,
the velocity is an unknown quantity, but the flow rate Q in one pipe section does not change.
The modified loss coefficient ζmod is obtained by:
V² ⎛ Q/A ⎞2 ⎛ A ⎞2
ζmod = ζ V ² = ζ ⎜Q/A ⎟ = ζ ⎜A ⎟ (4.9)
ref ⎝ ref ⎠ ⎝ ref ⎠
with Aref being the cross-sectional area of the reference section.
4.2.4 Simplifications and modeling assumption

The whole pipe system is assumed as flowing full under all conditions. A two-phase flow due
to air entrance at the inlet or a stratified flow due to saltwater intrusion at the outlets will not
be considered here. However, CorHyd allows specifying the hydraulic conditions down to
which flowrate a full flowing system can be guaranteed. Air entrance at the inlet is avoided
by keeping the top pipe invert under the minimum sea level or using backpressure valves or
deaeration chambers. Saltwater intrusion can be avoided by keeping the port densimetric
Froude number larger than unity (Wilkinson, 1988):
Vp
Fp = >1 (4.10)
∆ρ
g ρ Dp
where Vp and Dp denote the port exit velocity and the port diameter respectively and
g∆ρ/ρ = g´ the reduced gravity with the density difference ∆ρ at the port orifice between the
effluent and the ambient water. This condition can be achieved by designing either small
enough port diameters or using variable area orifices.
4.2.4.1 Steady flow assumption

Real manifold flow is an unsteady flow, where the driving head difference between the head-
works and the ambient water level is changing continuously due to discharge variations and
water level variations (i.e. tides). However, time scales of these variations are generally lar-
ger than time scales of the outfall and diffuser flow. It is therefore assumed, that unsteady
- 45 -
flow effects can be neglected in the calculation of the manifold flow, which is discussed in the
following example:
For a steady inflow Qin,a into the headworks and a steady ambient water level H a steady wa-
ter level elevation za is obtained in the headworks. The flow in a single port diffuser pipe is
Q = Qin,a with velocity Va (Fig. 26). Now an unsteady motion is assumed by increasing the
inflow into the headworks (Qin,b > Qin,a) during the time ∆t. This causes the water level in the
headworks to rise to zb = za + ∆z. For short time-scales (e.g. pump switched on immediately)
fast water level rises ∆z/∆t > 1 may cause pressure waves including water hammer effects in
the pipe system. These transients should be prevented by operational means (e.g. gradual
pump start-up) keeping ∆z/∆t << 1. For the latter case, the pressure waves are of small ampli-
tudes and dissipate after a very short time (order of seconds) due to pipe elasticity and fric-
tion. A new pressure difference with higher headworks water level elevation zb and un-
changed ambient water level is developed (Fig. 27). However fluid inertia prevents the pipe
flow to react immediately to increase from Qin,a to Qin,b. The whole pipe flow needs time to
accelerate. During that time the internal pressure in the outfall is generally higher than that
for both flow rates Qin,a and Qin,b. This additional pressure is needed to accelerate the fluid
until equilibrium is reached. However, accelerations do not stop immediately at the equilib-
rium point and overshoot causing oscillations until steady conditions prevail again (Fig. 28).
Fig. 26: Steady pipe flow with constant boundary conditions (Qin,a = const.)
Fig. 27: Pipe flow immediately after a relatively fast change of the water level elevation in the head-
works tank (Qin,b > Qin,a)
- 46 -
Fig. 28: Pipe flow after the acceleration of the whole fluid in the outfall took place
The time t during that accelerations take place is estimated by using the unsteady, but incom-
pressible pipe flow equations along the coordinate s following a streamline:
1 ∂v ∂E
g ∂t + ∂s = 0, (4.11)
where E denotes the energy head.
Mass conservation for an incompressible fluid (∂ρ/∂t = 0) in an non-deformable pipe

(∂A/∂t = 0) gives
∂(ρvA) ∂(ρA) ∂Q
+ =0Æ =0 (4.12)
∂s ∂t ∂s
Assuming a pipeline with constant cross section A and length L the first term of equation
(4.11) results in
s(O)
1 ∂v 1 dQ ⌠ 1 1 dQ L L dv
g ∂t = g dt ⎮
⌡Ads = g dt A = g dt
s(H)
moreover, the second term is
∂E
= EO - EH + hℓ,f,
∂s
where EH, the energy head at the headworks water level
⎛ vH² pH ⎞
EH = ⎜ 2g + γ +zH⎟ = za + ∆z = zb (4.13)
⎝ e ⎠
and EO, the energy head at the outlet related water level surface
- 47 -
⎛ v² pO ⎞ v²
EO = ⎜ 2g + γ + zO⎟ = 2g + zO,a (4.14)
⎝ ⎠
and hℓ,f the headloss due to friction is
⎛ v² ⎞
hℓ,f = r⎜ 2g⎟ where r = λL/D and λ the friction coefficient, (4.15)
⎝ ⎠
all at the time right after the water level rise in the headworks, but before acceleration took
place.
Substituting equations (4.13), (4.14) and (4.15) in (4.11) gives
L dv v² ⎛ v² ⎞
+ + z O,a - zb + r ⎜ ⎟ = 0. (4.16)
g dt 2g ⎝ 2g⎠
Additionally, the terminal velocity vb is defined as
⎛ v b ²⎞
zO,a - zb = -(1+r) ⎜ 2g ⎟ (4.17)
⎝ ⎠
Substituting equation (4.17) solved for r in equation (4.16) and assuming a hydraulic rough
regime, where λ is independent of the flow velocity gives
L dv v² ⎛ (zO,a - zb)2g ⎞ v²
+ + z O,a - zb - ⎜ +1⎟ 2g = 0
g dt 2g ⎝ vb ² ⎠
L dv (zO,a - zb)v²
g dt + zO,a - zb - vb ² =0
L dv ⎛ v² ⎞
+ (z O,a - zb)⎜1- ⎟ =0
g dt ⎝ vb²⎠
L vb ²
dt = -g(z - z ) v ²-v²dv
O,a b b
vc
tc
⌠
L ⌠ vb² dv ,
⌡dt = -g(zO,a - zb) ⎮ ⌡ vb²-v²
ta va
Lvb ⎛ ⎛ vc ⎞ ⎛va⎞⎞
tc - ta = -g(z - z ) ⎜arcoth⎜v ⎟ - arcoth ⎜v ⎟⎟
O,a b ⎝ ⎝ b ⎠ ⎝ b⎠⎠
where vc = c vb, when the velocity ratio of the prevailing velocity vc and the terminal steady
velocity vb is c.
For ta = 0, tc is the time needed to reach the velocity vc = c vb:
Lvb ⎛ ⎛ vc ⎞ ⎛va⎞⎞
tc = -g(z - z ) ⎜arcoth⎜v ⎟ - arcoth ⎜v ⎟⎟
O,a b ⎝ ⎝ b⎠ ⎝ b⎠⎠
⎛ vb²⎞
or using zO,a - zb = -(1+r) ⎜ 2g ⎟ it is
⎝ ⎠
- 48 -
2L ⎛ ⎛ vc ⎞ ⎛va⎞⎞
tc = (1+r)v ⎜arcoth⎜v ⎟ -arcoth ⎜v ⎟⎟ (4.18)
b⎝ ⎝ b⎠ ⎝ b⎠⎠
For example applying equation (4.18) for c = 0.99 and a 4 km long outfall an acceleration
from va = 0.6 m/s to vc = 0.99·1.2 m/s takes approx. tc = 2 min. until reaching a velocity 1%
smaller than the terminal steady flow velocity vb = 1.2 m/s. Thus, the order of tc is relatively
small compared to the order of time-scales of tidal water level variations at the outlet or in-
flow variations at the inlet. It is therefore justified to assume steady flow conditions for the
calculation of pressures, velocities and the discharge flow distributions of the diffuser mani-
fold. The additional pressure during acceleration periods is hereby expected to be not avail-
able for changing local parameters (e.g. discharge at one specific port) because inertia of the
whole water mass prevents especially those accelerations which are not directly related to the
general flow changes.
However, extreme conditions during start-up or shutdown have to be considered in the head-
works design, where sufficient storage capacities are needed for water level changes increas-
ing faster than the fluid in the outfall accelerates. Decreasing discharges furthermore may
lead to a situation, where moving fluid in the outfall sucks the effluent from the headworks
even beyond the equilibrium level, and swinging back once the flow is entirely shut down,
sucking seawater in the outfall (Burrows, 2001). Besides the necessity of subsequent outfall
purging the latter has critical impacts on valves mounted on discharge ports.
Another critical situation might be related to wave motions in the ambient water, changing
ambient pressure along the diffuser (wave crest above one riser and wave trough above other).
These pressure differences can have effects on the flowrate distribution, if the fluid volume in
the riser/port configuration is relatively small, compared to additional forcing (Mort, 1989).
4.3 CorHyd model

Three methodologies for the analysis of the internal hydraulics have been adopted by various
authors. The first involves a 1-D pipe flow port-to-port analysis (Fischer et al., 1979, Wood
et al., 1993) the second discretizes a fictitious porous conduit (French, 1972) while the third is
based on solving the 2 or 3-D field equations on an Eulerian grid for every point of the dif-
fuser (Shannon, 2002, Mort, 1989). The latter two have the advantage that unsteady, stratified
flow (i.e. saltwater intrusion) calculations are easier to implement than into the port-to-port
analysis. However, they have the disadvantage in defining appropriate local loss formulations
for common or complex geometries. Besides numerical grid based calculations are very time
consuming. This study focuses on a steady state pipe flow analysis without considerations of
salt water purging or intrusion processes, which are covered elsewhere (Wilkinson, 1984,
1985; Wood et al. 1993, pp. 122, pp. 326; Wilkinson und Nittim, 1992; Burrows, 2001). The
assumption of steady flows has been discussed in the previous chapter, justifying the choice
of using a port-to-port analysis for CorHyd.
4.3.1 Governing equations

Manifold hydraulics is characterized especially by several flow separations, where local pres-
sure losses not only depend on geometrical relations but also on the discharge ratios. For
wastewater diffuser manifolds, discharge ratios furthermore are influenced by the pressure
difference between the effluent and the ambient.
The governing equations are continuity equations (4.3) at each flow division and the work-
energy equation (4.1) along pipe segments with constant or known flowrate (Fig. 29). Re-
- 49 -
quired input data are the geometries of the discharge structure with sets of diffuser pipe seg-
ment locations x, y, z, riser/port segment geometries (i.e. cross-sections A, riser/port number
and allocation, and roughness ks). Pipe lengths L and pipe joint configurations are calculated
automatically out of these parameters. Indices used are ‘d’ for diffuser pipe sections, ‘r’ for
riser sections, ‘p’ for port sections and ‘j’ for jet properties at the vena contracta of the dis-
charging jet. The ambient fluid is described by its density distribution ρa(z) and the average
water level elevation H resulting in different external hydrostatic pressures pa,i at the vertical
location of the jet centerline at the vena contracta at each i position along the diffuser pipe,
where risers or ports are attached. The effluent is described by its fluid density ρe and either
the total flowrate Qo or the total available water level at the headworks (total head Ht).
Fig. 29: Definition scheme for the port-to-port analysis: pa,i = ambient pressure, H = average ambient
water level elevation, qi = discharge through one riser/port configuration with velocity vi at
elevation zj,i. pd,i = internal diffuser pipe pressure upstream a flow division (node) with dif-
fuser pipe centerline elevation zd,i and horizontal pipe location xd,i
Optional input fields are foreseen in the computer model to allow specifying more detailed
information on unusual local pressure losses ζi, T- or Y-shaped diffuser configurations or the
denomination of clogged or temporary closed ports. Implemented are all common local pres-
sure losses, which are listed in Annex A. Therefore ζp,i,j , ζr,i,j , ζd,i,j denote the local loss coef-
ficients for each j-component of the total number np,i of pressure losses in a port, nr,i in a riser
or nd,i in the diffuser pipe with pipe cross-sectional areas Ap,i,j , Ar,i,j and Ad,i,j respectively. λp,i,j
, λr,i,j and λd,i,j denote the friction coefficients for related pipe components with length Lp,i,j ,
Lr,i,j and Ld,i,j diameter Dp,i,j , Dr,i,j Dd,i,j equivalent pipe roughness ksp,i,j, ksr,i,j, ksd,i,j respectively
for either port, riser or diffuser component j. For each port or riser, the local and friction loss
coefficients are determined iteratively, since they depend on the discharge.
- 50 -
To calculate the individual riser discharge qi of such a system at the position i (Fig. 29) fol-
lowing considerations are in order:
1) The work energy equation (equation 4.1) is applied along a streamline following the dif-
fuser pipe centerline. This results in equation (4.19). It equals the diffuser pressure pd,i
directly upstream the port/riser branch with the known downstream diffuser pressure pd,i-1
plus the known static pressure difference due to the elevation difference, plus the dynamic
pressure difference plus the known pressure losses occurring in the main diffuser pipe.
The pressure losses are divided into friction losses and local pressure losses like bends and
diameter changes or the passage of a branch opening:
ρe ρe
pd,i = pd,i-1 + ρeg(zd,i-1 - zd,i) + 2 vd,i-1² - 2 vd² + pℓ,d,i , (4.19)
nd,i-1
where pressure losses pℓ,d,i

ρe
= 2 vd,i-1²
∑
j=1
⎛
⎝
Ld,i-1,j ⎞
⎜ζd,i-1,j + λd,i-1,jD
d,i-1,j⎠
⎟ , with loss coefficients re-
lated to the reference velocity vd,i-1 (compare with chapter 4.2.3).
2) The continuity equation (equation 4.3) between i and i-1 allows specifying the velocities:
1 ⎛ i-1 ⎞2
vd,i-1² = A² ⎜ ∑qk⎟
d,i-1⎝
k=1 ⎠
1 ⎛ i
⎞2
vd² = A² ⎜ ∑qk⎟
d,i⎝
k=1 ⎠
3) The work energy equation (equation 4.1) applied along a streamline following the branch
pipe and leaving the diffuser through the orifice results in equation (4.20). It equals the
upstream diffuser pressure pd,i with the ambient pressure pa,i plus the static pressure differ-
ence due to the elevation difference between diffuser centerline and jet centerline, plus
dynamic pressure difference between the diffuser and one single jet plus the pressure
losses occurring in all pipe segments between these points:
ρe ρe
pd,i = pa,i + ρeg(zjet,i - zd,i) + 2 vp,i² - 2 vd² + pℓ,,i , (4.20)
ρe ⎛ λp,i,jLp,i,j⎞⎞ ρe ⎛ λr,i,jLr,i,j⎞⎞
np,i nr,i
where pressure losses pℓ,i = 2 vp,i²⎜

⎝ j=1
∑ ⎛
⎜ζp,i,j + D
⎝ p,i,j ⎠⎟
⎠
⎟ + 2 vr,i²⎜
⎝ j=1
∑ ⎛
⎜ζr,i,j + D
⎝ r,i,j ⎠⎟
⎠
⎟ ,
with loss coefficients related to the reference velocity vr,i-1 (compare with 4.2.3).
4) The continuity equation (equation 4.3) between the diffuser and the port at position i al-
lows specifying the velocities:
ρe
vp,i² = (α q )²
2(Cc,iAp,i)² i i
vr,i² = qi/Ar,i ,
where the individual jet discharge for more than one port at a riser is defined as qjet,i = αiqi
with αi = 1/(number of ports at a riser at position i), thus assuming that the discharge
through one specific riser with multiple ports is homogeneously distributed among these
ports. This is valid for ports with similar geometry at this diffuser position that are
- 51 -
mounted at the same elevation, what is common practice for multiport risers. Equation
(4.20) therefore applies for multiple ports at one diffuser position or on the riser, but not
for multiple risers at one location on the diffuser pipe, because constructional impractical.
In addition Cc,i defines the jet contraction coefficient either given by the user or calculated
iteratively if Duckbill Valves are applied using Cc,i,DBV = αiqi/(VDBV,iAp,i) with VDBV,i = the
duckbill jet velocity, which itself depends on the discharge individual port discharge αqi.
5) For the calculation of the pressure outside the diffuser pa, namely at the port orifice loca-
tion, it is important to consider the exact elevation zjet, a vertical density distribution
ρa = f(z) and the elevation of the water level zo = H.
pa zjet
⌠
⌡ dp = - ⌠
⌡γa(z)dz, (4.21)
po zo
where γa(z) = gρa(z) and po the reference pressure at the water surface, thus
zjet
pa = - ⌠
⌡γa(z)dz + po (4.22)
zo
6) The individual discharge qi is then given by solving equation (4.19) and (4.20) for qi:
2
⎡ 1 n d ,i −1
⎛ L ⎞⎤
(p d,i−1 − p a ,i ) + 2g(z d,i−1 − z jet ,i ) + ⎛⎜ ∑ q k ⎞⎟
i −1
2 1
ρe
⎢ 2
+ ∑ ⎜ ζ d ,i−1, j + λ d ,i−1, j d ,i−1, j ⎟⎥
⎜ 2
D d ,i−1, j ⎟⎠⎦⎥ (4.23)
qi =
⎝ k =1 ⎠ ⎣⎢ A d ,i−1 j=1 A d ,i −1, j
⎝
2 2
αi
2 n p ,i
⎛ αi ⎞ ⎛ λ p,i , jL p,i , j ⎞ n r ,i ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎛ λ L ⎞
+ ∑⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ζ p,i , j + ⎟ + ∑⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ζ r ,i , j + r ,i , j r ,i , j ⎟
(C c ,i A p ,i )
2 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜
j=1 ⎝ A p ,i , j ⎠ ⎝ D p ,i , j ⎟⎠ j=1 ⎜⎝ A r ,i , j ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ D r ,i , j ⎟⎠
For simple diffusers equation (4.23) reduces to equation (4.24) if no risers and no port con-
figurations are applied and the diffuser is just represented by simple holes in the pipe wall.
Equation (4.24) is the one presented in Fischer et al. (1979) which has been used for simple
diffuser calculations.
2
⎡ 1 n d , i −1
⎛ L ⎞⎤
(p d,i −1 − p a ,i ) + ⎛⎜ ∑ q k ⎞⎟
i −1
2 1
q i = C c ,i A p ,i
ρe ⎝ k =1 ⎠
⎢ 2
+ ∑ 2
⎜ ζ d ,i −1, j + λ d ,i −1, j d ,i −1, j ⎟⎥
⎜ D d ,i −1, j ⎟⎠⎥⎦
(4.24)
⎢⎣ A d ,i −1 j=1 A d , i −1, j ⎝
Fischer et al. (1979) furthermore defined a bulk loss coefficient Cc,i for example for sharp-
edged entrances:
⎛ −1
⎞
0.58 ⎜ ⎛ i −1 ⎞ ⎡ 1 ⎤⎛⎜ 2 ⎛ i −1 ⎞ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎞⎟ ⎟
2 2
C c ,i = 0.63 − ⎜∑qk ⎟ ⎢ ⎥ (p d,i−1 − p a ,i ) + ⎜ ∑ q k ⎟ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎟ ⎟ (4.25)

2g ⎜⎜ ⎝ k =1 ⎠ ⎢⎣ A d ,i −1 2 ⎥⎦⎜ ρ e ⎝ k =1 ⎠ ⎢⎣ A d ,i −1 ⎥⎦ ⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠
in addition, for bell-mouthed ports:
3/8
⎛ −1
⎞
1 ⎛ i −1 ⎞ ⎡ 1 ⎤⎛⎜ 2 ⎛ i −1 ⎞ ⎡ 1 ⎤ ⎞⎟ ⎟
2 2
⎜
C c ,i = 0.975⎜1 − ⎜ ∑ q k ⎟ ⎢ 2 ⎥
(p d,i−1 − p a ,i ) + ⎜ ∑ q k ⎟ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎟ ⎟ (4.26)
⎜ 2g ⎝ k =1 ⎠ ⎣⎢ A d ,i −1 ⎦⎥⎜⎝ ρ e ⎝ k =1 ⎠ ⎣⎢ A d ,i −1 ⎦⎥ ⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
- 52 -
The latter two equations are limited for the application of Duckbill valves and extensions with
other loss coefficients.
4.3.2 Solving scheme

The pre-processor of CorHyd is used to calculate geometrical relations (i.e. lengths of pipe
sections, horizontal and vertical angles between pipe axis and diameter ratios) and pre-
defining necessary formulations for the calculation of loss coefficients according to the speci-
fied input data (chapter 4.3.1). CorHyd then solves for either the total head or the total flow
together with the discharge distribution along the diffuser line. The post-processor allows for
graphical visualization and saves the results additionally in an ASCII file for further coupling
or external analysis. Additional program features allow for design optimization and off-
design analysis.
To allow for an easy input procedure and fast calculations, CorHyd consist of different mod-
ules. Depending on the input details, CorHyd chooses automatically the applicable modules
without user interaction. The available modules are
1. one diffuser (simple setup)

2. two diffuser (T or Y setup), where two diffuser calculations are coupled with one feeder
pipe calculation
3. both modules 1 and 2 are furthermore subdivided into a module for diffusers without risers
or ports (just holes in the wall) and those with risers
4. all calculations can be done either for a given total discharge and solving for the individual
discharges and the total head or for a given total head and solving for the individual dis-
charges and the total discharge
4.3.2.1 Algorithm for given bulk discharge: solving for total head
Probably the typical application is related to the problem, where a total discharge Qo is given
(e.g. treatment plant flow rate). For existing diffuser geometry and given boundary conditions
(i.e. ambient pressure and/or ambient water level and density distribution) the governing
equations can then be solved for the individual discharges and the total head (bulk head) at the
headworks necessary to drive the system.
The solving scheme then starts with an estimate (initial condition) of the initial discharge q1 at
the first port/riser on the seaward side (i = 1). CorHyd already implemented this estimate us-
ing q1 = Qo/N with N = total number of risers. Equation (4.20) then gives the first internal
pressure of the diffuser pd,1. Subsequent discharges q2 until qN are then calculated by equation
N
(4.23). The total discharge is Qc(s) = ∑qk. The error compared to the planned total discharge
k=1
is e(s) = Qo - Qc(s). Further iterations (numbering s) are performed with modified initial condi-
tions q1,m(s) until sufficient accuracy is achieved (CorHyd uses the default stop condition
e(s) < Qo/10,000). To achieve fast convergence the algorithm in equation (4.27) has been im-
plemented to calculate q1,m(s):
Qo e(1)
q1,m(1) = q1 Q ; q1,m(2) = q1 e(2) - q1,m(1)e - e ; ...
c(1) (2) (1)
e(s-1)
q1,m(s) = q1,m(s)e(s) - q1,m(s-1)e - e for s > 2 (4.27)
(s) (s-1)
- 53 -
A final application of equation (4.19) gives the total pressure pd,N+1 at the headworks. The
total head Ht is defined as Ht = pd,N+1/γe for example if the water level elevation of a gravity
driven system or the necessary pump head has to be defined.
4.3.2.2 Algorithm for given total head: solving for total flow
The solution method changes for cases where the total head is limited, for example if gravity
discharge is desired and treatment plant operation results in a given water level elevation Ht.
For existing diffuser geometry and given boundary conditions (i.e. ambient pressure and/or
ambient water level and density distribution) the governing equations can be solved for the
individual discharges and the total flow (bulk flow) which is possible for those conditions.
The solving scheme then starts with an estimate (initial condition) of the initial internal pres-
sure pd,1 at the first port/riser location on the seaward side. CorHyd already implemented this
estimate using pd,1 = Ht γe/N + pa,1 + γe(zjet,i - zd,i). Equation (4.20) then gives the first dis-
charge q1. Subsequent discharges q2 until qN are then calculated by equation (4.23). Equation
(4.19) gives the total pressure pd,N+1 at the headworks. The total head is Ht,c(s) = pd,N+1/γe. The
error compared to the planned total head is e(s) = Ht - Ht,c(s). Further iterations (numbering s)
are performed with modified initial conditions pd,1,m(s) until sufficient accuracy is achieved
(CorHyd uses the default stop condition e(s) < Ht/10,000). To achieve faster convergence the
algorithm in equation (4.28) has been implemented to calculate pd,1,m(s):
Ht e(1)
pd,1,m(1) = pd,1 Ht,c(1) ; p d,1,m(2) = pd,1,m(1)e(2) - pd,1,m(2)
e(2) - e(1); …
e(s-1)
pd,1,m(s) = pd,1,m(s)e(s) - pd,1,m(s-1)e - e for s > 2 (4.28)
(s) (s-1)
N
The total discharge is Qo = ∑qk.
k=1
4.3.2.3 Program coding and structure

The CorHyd algorithm (chapters 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2) has been coded within the commercial
software MatLab® Release 14 from the company Mathworks®. The code includes a graphical
user interface, allows using all additional MatLab facility functions for graphics, analysis, and
facilitates further modifications. CorHyd is no self-executable and needs MatLab® to be in-
stalled. Also open source software like Scilab (http://scilabsoft.inria.fr/) or Octave
(http://www.octave.org) usual allow importing and executing MatLab based CorHyd files,
though some debugging is needed in these cases. CorHyd is an open source code and allows
for easy modifications. Downloads of the code and a manual, as well as further information is
available under http://www.cormix.de/corhyd.htm.
An additional version is under development, which will be embedded into CORMIX (Cornell
Mixing Zone Expert System from MixZon, www.cormix.info). It is based on the same algo-
rithm and includes the same loss formulations, but will be accessed and linked via the COR-
MIX interface, thus allowing for easy data transfer between an external hydraulics calculation
with CORMIX and the internal hydraulics calculation with CorHyd. Publications from Blen-
inger et al., 2002, 2004, and 2005 describe the code development and demonstrate compari-
sons and validation.
- 54 -
For easier understanding of the code as well as to reduce the number of repeated lines, the
program consists of several short subprograms (so called m-files). Subprogram definitions
and structure, as well as code elements are described in the user manual (Bleninger, 2004).
4.3.3 Data Input

The graphical user interface (GUI, Fig. 30) consists of five tabs: ambient data, effluent data,
diffuser/feeder pipe data, port/riser data, and output. The input can be done either by typing
the data directly into the designated spaces or by importing an existing text file. In addition, a
help system is available.
Fig. 30: The graphical user interface of CorHyd
The definition diagram for the input parameters is shown in Fig. 31. The input methodology
was based on the concept of grouping similar diffuser, and riser/port sections (Delft Hydrau-
lics, 1995). This reduces the number of datasets to be defined, which is especially important
for large diffusers with more than hundreds of ports. Diffuser and feeder pipe sections are
defined by their start and end point coordinates xs, ys, zs, the diameter Dd and the roughness
ks,d. The number of used feeder/diffuser sections is Nd. Section limits are generally defined at
locations where either bends or diameter changes or roughness changes occur. Input on sec-
tion transition configurations are necessary for bends or gradual changes, where the radius R
- 55 -
(typical R = 3Dd) for a bend or an angle β (typical 90 - 180°) for gradual diameter changes
have to be specified, respectively. Diffuser/feeder sections can be chosen independently of
the port/riser configurations. If two (different) diffusers are connected to one feeder (T- or Y-
shape configuration), the diffuser joint location has to be specified in addition to both diffuser
configurations. The input for each diffuser is analogue to the input for single diffuser outfalls.
Fig. 31: Coordinate system used in CorHyd. Five pipe sections and two port/riser groups are shown
in this example.
Port/riser configurations are also defined in groups. The total number of different groups is
Ng. The number of risers in each group is Ngp. Different port/riser groups can be assigned to
one diffuser group, but should fit into one diffuser group. Thus there have to be at least as
many port/riser groups as diffuser groups. The spacing between two groups Lg and between
each riser S in a group has to be defined. Finally, port elevations Lr above the diffuser center-
line, port and riser diameters Dr, Dp and the roughness ks,r have to be specified. If more than
one port is located at one position or at one riser the number of ports, Np is needed. If ports
consist of little attached pipes their length Lp and related roughness ks,p should be given. De-
sign variations and performance evaluations can be analyzed by specifying blocked ports.
- 56 -
4.3.3.1 Automatic implementation of loss formulations

CorHyd automatically applies the necessary local loss formulations for the user given geomet-
rical inputs. For example, calculations for risers with more than one port already include loss
formulations for a T-shape flow diversion (assuming that the flow is distributed evenly among
the attached ports). Following loss formulations are included:
Local feeder losses: inlet loss at headworks, horizontal and vertical bends, contrac-
tions/expansions along the feeder pipe, flow separation, if several diffusers are mounted on
one feeder
Diffuser manifold pressure losses: pressure losses at the division of flow for the diffuser pipe
passing a riser, horizontal or vertical bends, contractions/expansions along the diffuser pipe
Port - riser branch pressure losses: the division of flow from the diffuser pipe into a riser,
optional: bends or additional pressure losses in the riser, the transition or division of flow
from riser to port(s), optional: additional pressure losses in the port or at the orifice, contrac-
tion of jet, duckbill valves at the port orifices
For special and unusual configurations, which need more detailed specifications of geometries
or loss formulations, optional input facilities are foreseen (marked as optional in previous
listing). These include input for additional loss coefficients ζ (related to the port exit velocity)
jet contraction ratios Cc and duckbill valve nominal diameters. The applied formulations and
coefficients are summarized in Annex A.
4.3.4 Data Output

The CorHyd post-processor includes a visualization of the input parameters, a detailed report
(ASCII file, see example in Annex B), and graphics for the results. The latter shows the out-
put parameters along the diffuser line: absolute and relative discharges and the port/riser head-
loss (first and second bar chart in Fig. 32), port and jet velocities and the related diameters
(third chart in Fig. 32), velocities in the diffuser and the related diameters (fourth chart in Fig.
32). Fig. 33 shows the results as energy and hydraulic grade lines.
4.4 Diffuser design and optimization
4.4.1 Design constraints

The feeder diameter design is constrained by a maximum diameter to allow scouring of sedi-
ments during low flow periods. The near future design discharge Qnf (daily maximum) should
therefore result in feeder velocities vf,nf > 0.5 m/s (DIN EN 1671, ATV-DVWK-A 110 (2001)
and ATV-DVWK-A 116 (2005)). This corresponds to a maximum feeder pipe diameter of
Dd,max = (Qnf8/π)0.5 ≈ 1,6 Qnf0.5. The feeder velocity for the far future design flowrate Qff and
the same diameter results then in vf,ff = vf,nfQff/Qnf. Generally, flow rates do not more than
double or triple during the lifetime of an outfall, so far field feeder velocities are from 1 to 2
m/s, what is clearly acceptable in terms of operational viewpoints considering the related
pressure losses.
The same considerations apply for the diffuser pipe, though that the flow decreases with every
riser. Theoretically this would result in a continuously decreasing diffuser pipe diameter, but
- 57 -
practical solutions include only very few of these tapers. This because tapered diffusers are
more expensive to install (about 20% more expansive than single diameter diffuser) and main-
tain (i.e. cleaning).
Port diameters are constrained by operational restrictions, where a 50 mm minimum port size
for secondary- or tertiary-level treated effluent and storm water inflow to the sewage system
was suggested by Wilkinson and Wareham (1996), to avoiding the risk of blockage. A mini-
mum port size of 70 to 100 mm was specified for primary treatment plants (just screening and
settling tank).
Fig. 32: Graphical output: bar charts showing the discharge per riser, the relative discharge deviation
and port/riser headloss distribution, the discharge velocity at ports and in the final jet, the
velocity in the diffuser pipe as well as port and diffuser diameter.
- 58 -
Fig. 33: Graphical output: Energy and Hydraulic grade line of the whole system and the diffuser
4.4.2 Design and optimization steps

The design of multiport diffusers depends on several interacting parameters. The general ap-
proach is schematized in Fig. 34, which converges to an optimized system.
Fig. 34: Schematization of general diffuser design algorithm
- 59 -
The first design flow rate should be the maximum foreseen at the end of design life. Gener-
ally there is a headworks basin (or the treatment plant itself) with sufficient capacity to accept
daily peaks and storm waters. The ratio of the peak rate of flow to the average rate of flow
might hereby range from 6 for small areas down to 1.5 for larger areas. For large ratios
commonly additional storm water outfalls are foreseen. In the former cases, the design can be
made on the average daily maximum flow at life end. For installations without storage facili-
ties the design flowrate is the daily peak flow either including or excluding the stormwater
peak discharges. The latter design discharge does not occur on a daily basis; therefore, opti-
mization procedures for non-design discharges are even more important than for the other
cases. The first internal hydraulics design step described in Table 10 uses the resulting ge-
ometries for a baseline calculation regarding the maximum design flow.
Step 1: Baseline calculation - for far future design conditions
- The data from the first successful mixing calculations is used as first design alternative for the
internal hydraulics
⇒ run CorHyd with very few diffuser and port/riser sections and plot results
- Pipe velocities: Diffuser, riser and port velocities should be in between reasonable ranges, oth-
erwise the diameters have to be increased or decreased generally for all sections and/or groups
(Vd < Vr < Vp < Vj)
⇒ modify feeder/diffuser diameter to obtain operable velocities (0.5 m/s < Vd < 5 m/s)
⇒ modify riser diameters to obtain operable velocities (0.5 m/s < Vr < 5 m/s)
⇒ modify port diameters to obtain operable velocities (0.5 m/s < Vp < 12 m/s) at least at
the majority of port/riser configurations
⇒ port diameters should not be less than 100 mm to avoid possible problems of blockage
- Total head: The necessary total Head or the final flow should be in the desired order of mag-
nitude, otherwise velocities and/or locations of high pressure losses should be reduced
⇒ simplify geometries and/or increase diameters to reduce the total head
- Flow distribution:
⇒ check whether the flow distribution lies in between reasonable limits (qmin = -0.1qi/N <
qi < 0.1qi/N = qmax) for at least the majority of port/riser configurations
⇒ modify riser diameters for the whole diffuser to obtain a more homogeneous distribu-
tion of the riser inlet pressure losses
⇒ modify port diameters for the whole diffuser to obtain a more homogeneous distribu-
tion of the port pressure losses (i.e. if Duckbills are applied)
- Check external hydraulics with modified diffuser
- If either the external hydraulics or even the modified internal hydraulics does not fulfill the
general requirements listed above, the user should try to do a re-design of the main diffuser
characteristics. Else, proceed to the optimization in step 2.
Table 10: Step 1: Baseline calculation - for far future design conditions
However, diffusers are generally operated under varying flow conditions due to diurnal or
seasonal changes. CorHyd does include an automatic routine for diffuser analysis of varying
effluent flow or varying total head respectively in combination with varying ambient water
level elevations (still steady state). Varying inflows hereby affect the discharge distribution
- 60 -
for diffusers, which are not horizontal. Under low-discharge conditions, diffusers are fur-
thermore confronted with issues of sediment deposition and/or intrusion of seawater. Sea-
water intrusion can seldom be avoided for all discharges. Duckbill valves and small diameter
pipes prevent those problems, but lead to additional pumping costs or higher headworks stor-
age buildings. Intrusion can be prevented if the port densimetric Froude number (equation
4.10) is bigger than one (Wilkinson, 1988). Particle deposition can be avoided by achieving
pipe velocities bigger than critical velocity (≈ 0.5 m/s) at least once a day. Thus, the second
design step (Table 11) considers the diffuser performance for varying conditions and im-
proves the design mainly by local changes along the diffuser line.
Step 2: Diffuser characteristics - diffuser performance calculations
- Analyze diffuser performance for intermediate flows

⇒ run CorHyd time-series for varying discharges and plot results
- Pipe velocities: time-series results allow to denote diffuser sections, where scouring velocities
are too low for most of the flow rates and/or where port Froude numbers are below or near
unity.
⇒ create additional diffuser sections at positions, where scouring velocities are not ob-
tained for discharges which occur once a day
⇒ create additional port/riser groups for added diffuser sections (starting with the same
geometry).
⇒ modify diffuser section diameters locally (tapering) to obtain scouring velocities
- Flow distribution: check whether the flow distribution lies in between reasonable limits (qmin
= -0.1qi/N < qi < 0.1qi/N = qmax) for at least the majority of port/riser configurations
⇒ modify the riser group diameters locally
⇒ modify port group diameters locally
⇒ introduce additional port/riser groups if necessary and repeat local modifying
- If either the external hydraulics or even the modified internal hydraulics do not fulfill the
general requirements as listed above the user should try to do a re-design of the main diffuser
characteristics. Else, proceed to the optimization in step 3.
Table 11: Step 2: Diffuser characteristics - diffuser performance calculations
Additional analysis is needed, once the diffuser flows at startup differ considerably from those
of the final design. A common technique to overcome the problem of initial malfunctions is
“expanding diffusers” (Avanzini, 2003). These are designed to meet the initial and final re-
quirements by either closing initially a certain number of ports (with fixed closures, welded
duckbills or backpressure regulations, where former have to be removed manually and the
latter open autonomous if enough discharge enters the system) or modifying port diameters
using replaceable flanged orifices (Bleninger et al., 2004). Furthermore, it is often easier and
cheaper to operate the diffuser under these optimized conditions than operating the final dif-
fuser with low flows.
CorHyd allows analyzing the diffuser performance for these scenarios by simply closing the
ports or modifying the configurations. This routine may also be used for the analysis of acci-
- 61 -
dents like port/riser ruptures due to anchor collisions, earthquakes, or structural failures. Step
3 (Table 12) thus considers off-design analysis and optimization.
Step 3: Off-design calculation - near future design conditions
- Near-future mixing calculations are used to figure out the number of necessary ports for low
flow discharges.
⇒ run CorHyd with clogged ports and plot results
- Analyze pipe velocities, and the flow distribution, if the final diffuser configuration with
clogged ports allows discharging near-future flows under reasonable conditions.
⇒ modify the number and the location of the clogged ports to optimize near-future
flow conditions
- If either the external hydraulics or even the modified internal hydraulics do not fulfill the gen-
eral requirements as listed above the user should try to do a re-design of the main diffuser char-
acteristics. Else, proceed to the optimization in step 4.
Table 12: Step 3: Off-design calculation - near future design conditions
4.4.3 Sensitivity Analysis

Multiport diffuser installations are complex and large constructions submerged in coastal wa-
ters. Besides the previously discussed varying environmental conditions, further uncertainties
regarding constructional imprecision and deterioration have to be analyzed. In addition the
governing equations are based on certain simplifications (i.e. empirical loss coefficients),
which contain another source of inaccuracy. It is therefore strongly recommended to elabo-
rate sensitivity analysis by varying critical parameters and comparing the consequences on the
design parameters (total head and discharge distribution). This is especially important for the
local loss coefficients and pipe roughness. Examples for that analysis are given in Wood et
al. (1993, p. 133) and WRc (1990). Once considerable differences are obtained, it is recom-
mended to perform laboratory studies for more accurate definitions of the coefficients.
Step 4: Sensitivity analysis - prediction accuracy
- Final diffuser design under maximum discharge conditions

⇒ run CorHyd with additional port pressure losses to check influences of loss formula-
tions on final result
⇒ vary geometrical details to check influences of construction imprecision on final result
⇒ add additional pressure losses on whole pipe-system to account for imprecision
⇒ vary material properties, roughness to check influences of deterioration
Table 13: Step 4: Sensitivity analysis - prediction accuracy
- 62 -
Table 14 summarizes the results of a sensitivity analysis performed with CorHyd. It is hereby
distinguished between horizontal and sloped diffusers where the port elevations are either at
constant depth or varying along the diffuser.
leads to … of the total head or the dis-

Increasing the … : charge distribution resp.
Total Head Uniformity
Total discharge (no slope) ↑↑ 0
- “ - (with slope) ↑↑ ↓↓ or ↑↑
Ambient water depth (no slope) ↑↑ 0
- “ - (with slope) ↑↑ ↓ or ↑
Density difference (no slope) ↑ ↑
- “ - (with slope) ↑ ↓ or ↑
Feeder length ↑ 0
Diffuser length (constant total length) ↓↓ ↓
Diffuser pipe diameter ↓↓ ↓ or ↑
Pipe roughness ↑ 0
Number of risers (constant diffuser length) ↓ 0
Riser spacing (variable diffuser length) ↓↓ ↓
Riser height ↑ 0
Ports per riser ↓ ↓
Port diameter ↓ ↓↓
Flexible valves ↑↑ ↑↑
↑/↓ = moderate in- / decrease

↑↑ / ↓↓ = strong in- / decrease
0 = neutral or small changes
Table 14: Sensitivity of involved parameters on head loss, total head, and homogeneity of the dis-
charge profile.
4.4.4 Transients, saline intrusion and purging

Extraordinary conditions, like very short pumping cycles (order of minutes), full shutdown of
flow, purging of a saline wedge during start-up or water-hammer issues cannot be analyzed
with CorHyd due to its steady state assumption. Any of these conditions should be avoided
by using duckbill valves, slowly closing valves, or pumps, sufficiently large headworks reser-
voirs allowing for long pumping cycles or flushing periods.
For the analysis of saline wedge purging usually laboratory or numerical studies are per-
formed. Saline wedge purging can be guaranteed, for example, by using some velocity crite-
rion (Wilkinson, 1984) or a plug flow system, where one half of the outfall volume is accu-
mulated in the headworks storage and then pumped at high velocities (e.g. 1.5m/s proposed by
Wood et al. (1993, pp. 122, pp. 326)). The time required to reach steady state once purging
was initiated must also be determined (see Wilkinson und Nittim, 1992). Furthermore, flow
accelerations during pump start-up could lead to oscillations (WRC 1990, p. 212). Wave-
induced oscillations occur if large waves are passing over a diffuser section in shallow water
(Grace, 1978, p. 302). Resonance effects and internal density-induced circulations are possi-
ble (Wilkinson, 1985).
4.4.5 Design rules

A design rule that is often mentioned in literature (Grace 1978), recommends to keep the ratio
between the cumulative port areas downstream a diffuser pipe ΣNk=1 Ap,k and the cross sec-
- 63 -
tional area of the diffuser pipe Ad,N smaller than one. This is explained by the justification that
"it is impossible to make a diffuser flow full if the aggregate jet area exceeds the pipe cross-
section area, since that would mean that the average velocity of discharge would have to be
less than the velocity of flow in the pipe" (Fischer et al. 1979, p.419). A further suggestion
taken from Fischer et al. (1979, p.419) resumes that the best ratio "is usually between 1/3 and
2/3", 1/3 < Σik=1 (Ap,k/Ad,i) < 2/3. These criteria work fine for simple and uniform geometries
without risers and for horizontal laid diffusers or for first estimates. However, they can be
unnecessarily conservative if no further optimization is done. For example, sloped diffusers
(following the sloped bathymetry) may equalize the distortion of the discharge profile result-
ing from an area ratio bigger than one. First estimates for non-uniform riser systems can be
done by replacing the port cross-sectional area in the mentioned criteria with the riser cross-
sectional area and applying these criteria for each section separately.
Nevertheless, for changing geometries along the diffuser the previous criteria are not applica-
ble in general. This, because 1) the diffuser velocities generally decrease along the diffuser or
change considerably if tapering is applied, 2) the port/riser velocities may change if port/riser
diameters are varied along the diffuser line causing a variation of Cc and 3) the flow distribu-
tion depends also on the pressure losses along the diffuser, causing a variation of ζdr. For ex-
ample, pressure losses along the diffuser are considerably different for systems with same
area ratio, but different number of openings.
Design rules regarding general loss ratios (Weitbrecht et al., 2002) for diffuser sections and
downstream ports are also only applicable for simple geometries (no changes along the dif-
fuser). For others, they are either unnecessarily conservative or not applicable, because pres-
sure losses are changing drastically along actual diffuser installations and cannot be summa-
rized for the whole diffuser construction.
Therefore a design rule for non-uniform systems or for uniform sections and groups of a non-
uniform system has to come out of a combination of a loss ratio (buoyancy and riser inlet (or
port outlet) and a velocity ratio (diffuser velocity and branch velocity (port or riser)). Fur-
thermore, sections and groups of a non-uniform system have to be balanced in between each
other to achieve an overall uniform diffuser performance. The optimal procedure to organize
these modifications also under different flow conditions and further design criteria is de-
scribed in the following chapters.
4.5 Case studies

Two case studies have been chosen to demonstrate CorHyd capabilities: the Ipanema outfall
in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which has been operating since 1975 and the planned Berazategui
outfall in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
4.5.1 Ipanema outfall - Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

To demonstrate CorHyd capabilities the outfall from Ipanema in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, has
been chosen as base case. The outfall design is herein compared with typical other construc-
tional configurations as they would be applied in actual designs.
The Ipanema outfall in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, is operating since 1975 and discharges actually
about 6 m³/s (+/- 1 m³/s daily variation, from 2.1 million people) coarse screened municipal
sewage from the southern part of the city into the coastal waters of the Atlantic ocean (Fig.
35, Carvalho, 2003). The outfall was designed for an average discharge of 8 m³/s (equivalent
- 64 -
4.0 million people) with peak discharges up to 12 m³/s. The outfall is made of a 4326 m long
concrete pipe with a diameter of 2.4 m including a 449 m long diffuser section with 90 ports
on each side of the pipe, each with a nominal diameter of 0.17 m, a spacing of 5 m and point-
ing downwards with an angle of 45° to the horizontal (Carvalho et al., 2002, Fig. 36 and Fig.
37). The diffuser is in a depth of about 27 m. The slope of the diffuser line could not be
found in literature. The Ipanema outfall is one of the few outfalls, which have been moni-
tored in detail, with special emphasize on mixing characteristics (Carvalho et al., 2002).
These monitoring studies showed in general good mixing characteristics. At commissioning
59 of the 180 ports were closed on purpose to achieve reasonable flow conditions until design
flow was reached. Since 1996, all ports have been discharging. The constructional design
itself is unusual, with a concrete diffuser line fixed on piles above the seabed. The piles
proved to be the weak point of the construction, where pile breaks lead to a major rupture in
year 2000. Today simpler and cheaper laying methods are available (e.g. HDPE pipes with
weights or laid in a trench), which promise to be more resistant to dynamic wave forcing and
currents.
Fig. 35: Location map of the Ipanema outfall of the city Rio de Janeiro in Brazil (reproduced from
Carvalho, 2003).
- 65 -
Fig. 36: Side view and cross section of the Ipanema outfall.
Fig. 37: Image from the construction site of the Ipanema outfall (reproduced from Grace, 1978)
The calculated internal flow characteristics are summarized in Fig. 38 for design flow
Qd = 8 m³/s and a horizontal diffuser line. A reasonably good discharge distribution along the
diffuser (first bar-chart, Fig. 38) with maximum deviations from the mean discharge of not
more than 5% of the mean discharge (second bar-chart, Fig. 38) is obtained. Due to different
pressure losses along the diffuser pipe and the port/riser configurations (line in second bar-
chart, Fig. 38) the discharge is increasing here to the seaward end. Usually diffuser cannot be
laid horizontally as assumed here, because of the sloping bathymetries. Therefore another
calculation is shown in Fig. 39 (second chart), with a sloped diffuser with an assumed eleva-
tion difference of 3 m along the diffuser length of 449 m (= 6.7%o). The discharge deviation
in this case is almost negligible, which is due to a higher pressure difference between the sew-
age in the diffuser pipe and the heavier ambient water especially in deeper waters at the sea-
ward diffuser end.
- 66 -
The flow velocities in the diffuser pipe continuously decrease in seaward direction (fourth
bar-chart, Fig. 38). For the last 25 port locations velocities below 0.5 m/s are predicted,
which might cause sedimentation of particles in the diffuser. This number reduces for peak
flows (Q = 12 m³/s), to about 16 but still the last 75 m of the diffuser have velocities much
lower than 0.5 m/s. That means that even for maximum discharges scouring velocities are not
obtained for the end part of the diffuser. Considering, that the present treatment is only coarse
screening, this might cause problems for the diffuser end part.
Fig. 38: Flow characteristics for design flow. Top-down: Individual riser flow distribution along
diffuser, riser flow deviation from mean, pressure losses in port/riser configurations (line),
port and jet discharge velocities and diffuser pipe velocities, port and diffuser diameter
(lines)
- 67 -
Fig. 39: Riser flow deviation from mean flow, for a horizontal diffuser line (top) and a sloped dif-
fuser line (3 m / 449 m, down). Pressure losses in port/riser configuration is shown as line.
Fig. 40 shows the flow characteristics for several intermediate flow rates and the sloped dif-
fuser. A slight variation of the discharge distribution can be observed for these flow varia-
tions, and only for the sloped diffuser. The changes of the total head for increasing discharges
are shown in Fig. 41. Changes in the ambient water level do not have any effect on the flow
characteristics but increase the total head. To prevent intrusion of ambient water (including
sediments), especially during low flow, the port densimetric Froude number should be bigger
than unity. This gives a critical port velocity Vp,crit = (∆ρ/ρgDp)0,5 = 0.041 m/s for Ipanema
outfall. All port and jet exit velocities (third bar-chart, Fig. 40) are considerably higher for all
applied flow rates. However, the most critical point stays the low scouring velocity, which
affects almost 40% of the diffuser (169 m and about 60 ports) for the flowrate of 6 m³/s,
which is presently the average flow.
4.5.1.1 Diffuser optimization
Scouring velocities
The present geometry does not allow for scouring velocities in the end part of the diffuser.
The maximal flow, which occurs actually once a day, is 7 m³/s. The last 150 m of the diffuser
do have too low velocities under this condition. Therefore, as an example a taper is intro-
duced at exactly this position and the diameter reduced from 2.4 m to 1.2 m. Results shown
in Fig. 42 indicate that the pipe section with velocities lower than 0.5 m/s are only the last
25 m (10 ports) of the diffuser. Furthermore, under peak design discharge (12 m³/s), there are
only the last 10 m (4 ports) of the diffuser where velocities are lower than 0.5 m/s. Negative
consequences of the taper are a higher head (5% increase of the relative head) and a more
distorted discharge distribution (Fig. 42).
- 68 -
Fig. 40: Flow characteristics for different flowrates Q and sloped diffuser, showing riser flow devia-
tion, port/riser headloss, jet discharge velocities, diffuser pipe velocities and total head Ht
Fig. 41: Changes in total head for varying discharges vs. constant ambient water level.
- 69 -
Fig. 42: Flow characteristics for different flowrates Q for tapered diffuser where diffuser diameter is
reduced to 1.2 m for the end section. Top-down: riser flow deviation from mean, pressure
losses in port/riser configurations, jet discharge velocities and diffuser pipe velocities
Constructional alternatives
The piling of the diffuser pipe caused problems due to broken piles and therefore leakage at
diffuser pipe joints. Contemporary constructional design alternatives would try to avoid these
problems by using a HDPE pipe with concrete weights fixing the diffuser on the ground. The
internal hydraulics would be affected only by minor differences in roughness.
i. Covered diffuser or in trench - short risers

If wave forcing, sediment transport or navigation and fishing activities are a major problem
for the diffuser pipe, it also can be covered or laid in a trench (Fig. 43). In both cases, short
risers have to be used to connect the buried pipe with the ambient water. The riser pipes with
the two attached ports are causing additional pressure losses and therefore distort the dis-
charge profile. Changing riser diameters within the diffuser sections allows equilibrating
these additional changes, because the additional separation pressure losses depend on the di-
ameter ratio between diffuser pipe and riser pipe. Fig. 44 shows an improved discharge dis-
- 70 -
tribution for riser diameters of 0.3 m at the end section and 0.2 m at the near-shore section of
the diffuser. This solution increases the total head of about 4% compared to the tapered dif-
fuser with no risers and 10% compared to the basecase. These differences especially caused
by the local pressure losses of the flow entering a riser and further additional loss formula-
tions would not result out of existing diffuser programs (e.g. Fischer et al., 1979, implemented
as code PLUMEHYD; and Wood et al., 1993, implemented as DIFF). The design and the
important optimization of the riser diameters, is not possible in other programs, although in-
fluences on design parameters are huge.
Fig. 43: Side view and cross section of two design alternatives for the Ipanema outfall. Left: covered
diffuser pipe and short risers, right: diffuser pipe laid in a refilled trench and short risers
- 71 -
Fig. 44: Flow characteristics for: top: tapered diffuser covered or laid in a trench with additional
short risers and two different riser diameters, down: tapered diffuser on piles without risers.
ii. Tunneled diffuser - long risers and rosette like port arrangements
Nowadays tunneled outfalls are affordable in some cases. Often long risers have been used in
these circumstances. It is furthermore tried to reduce the number of risers, because drilling
operations are quite expensive. Instead of many risers, a few large risers with rosette like port
arrangements at the top are constructed (Fig. 45). The flow changes in flow distribution for
the tapered tunneled diffuser with long risers and a rosette like port arrangement, using half of
the risers and having four ports discharging at every rosette are shown in Fig. 46. The riser
diameters have been increased to 0.6 m at the tapered diffuser section and 0.35 m at the near-
shore section to cope with the increased riser flowrate.
However, it has to be considered, that the application of few rosettes compared to many risers
does have a considerable effect on the external hydraulics. A detailed mixing calculation
should be analyzed to study this drastic change of the diffuser geometry.
iii. Duckbill valves - variable area orifices

Existing diffusers may also be modified by attaching variable area orifices (Duckbill valves,
DBV) to avoid intrusion of saltwater, debris or sediment as well as to make the discharge dis-
tribution more homogeneous during low flows. Fig. 47 shows results for different flowrates
for a system with duckbill valves compared to a system without. Improvements regarding the
discharge profile are especially seen for low flows, and even more effective for sloped diffus-
ers. Beside the additional costs for Duckbill valves, also an increased total head has to be
considered (11% increase compared to same system without duckbills and 14% compared to
basecase).
- 72 -
Fig. 45: Side view and cross section of a constructional design alternative for the Ipanema outfall
with a tunneled diffuser pipe, long risers, and rosette like port arrangements.
Fig. 46: Flow characteristics for: top: tapered tunneled diffuser with long riser and rosette like port
arrangements, down: tapered diffuser on piles without risers
- 73 -
Fig. 47: Flow characteristics for different discharges (Q), for a diffuser with additional Duckbill
valves (D = 200 mm), showing the riser flow deviation, port/riser headloss, port and jet dis-
charge velocities, diffuser pipe velocities and total head (Ht)
Table 15 shows the comparison between the different alternatives listed above. An optimized
diffuser design often results in an increased total head. Maximum values here are a 15% in-
crease. However, even cheaper solutions in the order of 5% allow for very good diffuser per-
formance and result in lesser maintenance necessities, better dilution characteristics, and
therefore cheaper operation.
- 74 -
name total head / relative difference in total discharge no scouring [m] /

head [m] head to basecase distribution [no. of ports]
[m /%] [%] (Ld = 449, 180
ports)
basecase (build) 33.32 / 6.32 0/0 +/- 5 125 m / 50
taper 33.69 / 6.69 0.37 / 6 +/- 8 20 m / 8
taper short riser 33.92 / 6.92 0.60 / 9.5 +/- 8 20 m / 8
taper long riser rosettes 33.72 / 6.42 0.4 / 6.2 +/- 8 20 m / 12
taper DBV 200 34.23 / 7.23 0.91 / 14.4 +/- 6 20 m / 12
Table 15: Comparison of constructional alternatives for Ipanema diffuser
4.5.2 Berazategui - Buenos Aires - Argentina

The Berazategui outfall is planned to discharge the treated effluents of a wastewater treatment
plant to be constructed for the city of Buenos Aires. The sewer-system is separated from the
storm-water sewer and is designed for an average effluent flowrate of about 25 m³/s with a
maximum peak discharge of 33.5 m³/s. The outfall starts at the pumping basin on the onshore
headworks, from where a 4500 m long feeder tunnel conveys the effluent to the 3000 m long
diffuser in the discharge area (Fig. 48). The diffuser is composed of vertical risers carrying
four ports in a rosette-like arrangement (Fig. 49).
Fig. 48: Schematic view of diffuser longitudinal section of Berazategui outfall
Fig. 49: Side and top view of riser/port configuration of diffuser

- 75 -
The receiving water body is the Rio de la Plata estuary of the rivers Paraná and Uruguay (av-
erage annual fresh water discharge: 23,000 m³/s). The width of the estuary at the outfall loca-
tion is about 50 km with a depth varying from 4 to 7 m (Fig. 50). Tidal currents, including
temporal density stratifications dominate the velocity field (average local velocity:
ua = 0.04 m/s, maximum velocities during tidal cycle ua,max = 0.3 m/s).
50 km
4-7 m deep
Berazategui
Fig. 50: Top view of the Rio de la Plata delta showing the location of the Berazategui outfall and the
ambient characteristics at its location (source: Nasa, 2005)
The calculated internal flow characteristics of the diffuser are summarized in Fig. 51 for
maximum flow Qmax = 33.5 m³/s. A reasonably good discharge distribution along the diffuser
(first bar-chart Fig. 51) with maximum deviations from the mean discharge of not more than
10% of the mean discharge (second bar-chart, Fig. 51) could be obtained to an equal dilution
requirement along the diffuser. Due to different pressure losses along the diffuser pipe and
the port/riser configurations (line in second bar-chart, Fig. 51) the discharge is decreasing
typically to the seaward end, which can be prevented by modifying the geometries along the
diffuser. In this case by reducing the main diffuser diameter to the seaward end, which also
improves the diffuser velocities at the end sections (fourth bar-chart, Fig. 51).
The use of duckbill valves with a nominal diameter of 150 mm provides a more homogeneous
flow distribution especially for low flows (Fig. 52). Without duckbills the flow distribution is
unaffected by changing the total flow due to negligible density differences between the efflu-
ent and the ambient and the almost horizontal installation of the diffuser. However, the total
head (Ht) necessary to drive the system is higher with duckbill valves (Fig. 52, legend). Lar-
ger duckbills (200 mm) reduce the total head almost to the level without duckbills, but de-
crease also the effects on the discharge distributions to negligible levels. Changes in the am-
bient water level do not have any effect on the flow characteristics but increase the total head.
To prevent intrusion of ambient water (including sediments), especially during low flow, the
port densimetric Froude number should be bigger than unity. This gives a critical port veloc-
ity Vp,crit = (∆ρ/ρgDp)0,5 = 0.041 m/s for Berazategui. All port and jet exit velocities are con-
siderably higher for all applied flow rates. Duckbill valves cause additionally a homogeniza-
tion of the jet exit velocities.
- 76 -
Fig. 51: Flow characteristics for final design at maximum flow. Top-down: Individual riser flow
distribution along diffuser, riser flow deviation from mean, pressure losses in port/riser con-
figurations (line), port and jet discharge velocities and diffuser pipe velocities, port and dif-
fuser diameter (lines).
An increasing inflow or increasing ambient water level mainly increases the total head (Fig.
53). Headworks storage tanks should be capable of managing these changes. For slowly in-
creasing future flows, an extension of storage tanks can be done only when necessary, saving
investment costs for the commissioning.
- 77 -
Fig. 52: Flow characteristics for the final design and attached Duckbill valves (150 mm), for differ-
ent discharges (Q), showing the riser flow deviation
Fig. 53: Changes in total head for varying discharges
4.6 Discussion and recommendations

The computer program developed, CorHyd, releases restrictions of previous ‘diffuser pro-
grams’ by considering flexible geometry specifications with high risers and variable area ori-
fices, all with automatic definition of loss coefficients. Additional design features regarding
blocked ports, sensitivity analysis and performance evaluation for varying parameters guaran-
tee proper diffuser operation and reduced costs for installation, operation and maintenance.
CorHyd capabilities are demonstrated within a case study for the Ipanema outfall in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. The application of a large number of design alternatives shows sensities on
design parameters regarding the total head at the headworks, the discharge distribution and
- 78 -
diffuser performance regarding particle deposition during low flows. Further optimization
procedures indicate potential for improvements.
Detailed calculations for the internal manifold hydraulics in the 3 km exceptionally long dif-
fuser of the Berazategui (Buenos Aires) sewage outfall show a strong sensitivity on the repre-
sentation and formulation of local losses even for relatively simple riser/port configurations.
Special attention is necessary to account for all these losses in multiport diffuser design, a fact
that is often neglected in common programs. Diameter reductions in long diffusers allow
maintaining scouring velocities, but change the discharge distribution. An optimization meth-
odology accounted for a homogeneous discharge distribution along the diffuser, minimization
of the total head and prevention of sedimentation or ambient water intrusion in the diffuser
under varying inflow and ambient conditions. The additional application of Duckbill valves
cause higher velocities and achieve only slightly more uniform distribution for low flows, but
higher total head and additional costs. The final design achieves more economic and appro-
priate solutions for material use and operation as well as the minimization of environmental
impacts and operational stability for off-design conditions.
General CorHyd design recommendations thus improve diffuser performance, and prevent
hydraulic problems (partial blockage, high head losses, uneven flow distribution, salt water
intrusion and poor dilution) often observed in diffusers with inadequate design. The utilization
of CorHyd in combination with outfall performance monitoring would furthermore allow re-
vealing such defects at an early stage (Bleninger et al., 2004). However, reality shows, that
for example until 1990 only 30% of the UK outfalls incorporate some form of flow monitor-
ing. In the Brazilian State of São Paulo only one out of 8 submarine outfalls has a flow moni-
toring device (Arasaki, 2004). Furthermore, beside the possiblities of pre-emptive remedial
action before problems become acute a good knowledge of the flows is valuable for the envi-
rontmental monitoring, permit and augmentation works.
The combination of CorHyd with CORMIX allows optimizing the internal hydraulics design
(cost effective) resulting in environmental sound solutions.
- 79 -
- 80 -
- Coupled discharge and transport modeling (CorLink) -
5 Coupled discharge and transport modeling - CorLink

Offshore, submerged, multiport discharges of municipal wastewater in coastal waters pose a
challenge for pollutant modeling because of the following dilemmas:
• Offshore: The discharge area and associated near-field lies in the inner part of the ob-
served region which – in contrast to shoreline discharges – makes it more difficult to spec-
ify boundary or matching conditions for modeling approaches.
• Submerged: The buoyant waste water discharge flow is introduced near the bottom of the
salt water column and after completion of the near-field motions including interaction
with a potential coastal ambient stratification the transition conditions to the far-field may
range anywhere from layered flow near the surface to terminal layer flow within the water
column to vertically fully mixed flow. This is another major uncertainty in handling tran-
sition conditions to the far-field.
• Multiport discharges: The discharge geometries and orientations are rather small com-
pared to the resulting plume sizes, though having major significance for the important ini-
tial dilution processes. Correct scaling in a computational sense is an inherent problem
with modeling issues.
• Municipal wastewater: Wastewater discharges show considerable diurnal variation and
change with population changes. These effects are amplified if stormwater is connected
to the sewer system. Though flows are small compared to ambient flows, density differ-
ences cause buoyant processes changing near-field ambient characteristics. In addition,
municipal wastewater contains non-conservative substances, like nutrients or pathogens
which transformation processes and interactions need to be addressed. Considerations of
large time-scales are therefore necessary.
• Coastal waters: As distinct from river discharges or discharges in lakes and reservoirs,
coastal discharges are highly unsteady and three-dimensional, including further density
stratification and tidal variations.
At present, different types of computer models exist for either predicting near-field or far-
field characteristics of the effluent discharged into a water-body over different time and space
scales (Table 16).
Model Scale Typical Grid Resolution

Ocean Circulation Ocean wide 10 - 100 of km
Coastal Circulation (far-field) Coastal Zones, Estuaries 0,1 - 1 km
Discharge Mixing Models (near- no grid;
Local (scale of outfall)
field) predictions for 100 m - 5 km
Table 16: Scales and resolutions of different modeling techniques
Several massive developments in this scientific area resulted in numerous improvements re-
garding numerical stability and computational performance. Anybody with reasonable com-
puter knowledge can nowadays solve complex three-dimensional fluid mechanical problems
by applying computational fluid dynamic (CFD) codes. However, substantial deficits remain
regarding the basic understanding or practical implementation. Faulty designs do not neces-
sarily originate from faulty models, but from either using the wrong model or the wrong mod-
eling perception. This work therefore concentrates on problem schematization and model
choice for practical solutions. First, a review of existing process descriptions and modeling
- 81 -
approaches is given for all hydrodynamic regions, and second a coupling algorithm is devel-
oped, which finally is applied to a case study for the Cartagena outfall (Colombia).
5.1 Near-field processes and modeling applications

Waste discharges originate either from pipes or from channels entering the receiving waters at
the shoreline, through the water surface or from the inside through a submerged installation.
Resulting hydrodynamic features are generally defined as jets, because the effluent flow from
the port provides a velocity discontinuity between the discharged fluid and the ambient fluid
causing an intense shearing action (Jirka et al., 1996). Then jets are further distinguished re-
garding the source of the velocity discontinuity into “jets” if the momentum flux or “plumes”
if the buoyancy flux dominates (Jirka et al., 1996). One speaks of pure jets or pure plumes or
also pure puffs, wakes or thermals if special asymptotic cases are considered (Jirka, 2004).
There are large databases and literature resources for these asymptotic regimes and exact
theoretical solutions and reasonably, specification of the closure coefficients can be given.
However, the actual feature will be a combination generally called a buoyant jet. Furthermore
buoyant jets are distinguished regarding their discharge configuration into “surface jets”,
“wall jets”, “single port,” or “multiport jets.”
In the following, attention is restricted to turbulent buoyant jet flows resulting from sub-
merged multiport diffuser installations. Buoyancy resulting from the density difference of the
freshwater like waste effluent and the salty seawater cause the plume to rise. The shear region
at the interface between the jet and the ambient increases rapidly by incorporating ("entrain-
ing") ambient fluid. Thus jet characteristics (e.g. fluid momentum or pollutants) become di-
luted by the entrainment of ambient water (Jirka et al., 1996), illustrated in Fig. 54.
Fig. 54: Instantaneous picture and long-term exposure picture of laboratory studies for pure single
jets, showing entrainment motions diluting the effluent (source: G.H. Jirka)
Discharge orientation, ambient currents, and densities influence the jet trajectories shown in
Fig. 55 for the example of single buoyant jets. Consequences are generally higher dilutions
for ambient velocity induced jet deflections and lower dilutions due to density induced damp-
ening of vertical motions for trapped plumes. Multiport jets are additionally influenced by the
merging processes of individual jets, forming a two-dimensional buoyant jet plane with its
own characteristics, as illustrated in Fig. 56 and Fig. 57. A general review of these processes
has been given by Fischer et al. (1979), Wood et al. (1993), Roberts (1990, 1996) or Jirka and
Lee (1994).
- 82 -
Fig. 55: Schematized figures and visualizations from laboratory experiments showing different jet
trajectories influenced by a) ambient density, b) ambient current ua, and c) ambient stratifi-
cation (Jirka, et al., 1996; pictures from G.H. Jirka; L. Fan)
Fig. 56: Schematization and visualization of laboratory experiment for merging of jets discharged
unidirectional by multiport diffusers (reproduced from Jirka 2006)
- 83 -
Fig. 57: Schematization of merging jets discharged by a multiport diffusers with an alternating port
arrangement in stagnant conditions and in crossflow (reproduced from Jirka 2006)
5.1.1 Governing equations for multiport buoyant jets

Buoyant jet equations are all based on the simplifications explained in chapter 3 regarding the
near-field region. This means steady-state in the mean, unbounded ambient environments
(until the intermediate field) with stable density stratification and steady ambient current con-
ditions. These are justified in many cases because time scales for the near-field mixing proc-
esses are usually of the order of minutes up to perhaps one hour. A review of single buoyant
jet studies is given in Jirka (2004). The extension to plane jets and multiport jets is described
in Jirka (2006), which will be summarized here. Multiport diffuser parameters are schema-
tized in Fig. 58 and defined as the diffuser length LD, the individual port diameter D, individ-
ual port cross-sectional area Ao = πD²/4, port spacing ℓ, port and diffuser orientations β, γ, θ,
port exit velocity Uo, effluent density ρo and concentration co, average depth of receiving wa-
ter H with stable vertical density distribution ρa(z) and a vertically sheared, steady velocity
profile ua(z).
- 84 -
Fig. 58: Definition diagram for a multiport diffuser (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)
The extension of single buoyant jet theories to multiport jets is based on another major as-
sumption regarding the so-called equivalent slot concept. Here a series of round jets from a
multiport diffuser are idealized as a single two-dimensional plane jet, with similar characteris-
tics after merging takes place (Fig. 56b, and Fig. 57b). The slot dimensions are hereby chosen
as the diffuser length LD for the total width and the equivalent slot width B calculated to
achieve diffuser flux quantities equal to those caused by the individual multiport jets (see
equations 5.1 - 5.4). This assumption is generally valid for most of the existing closely
spaced multiport diffuser installations, where merging takes place after reasonable distances
and in a rather uniform manner (Jirka, 2006, Roberts, 1996, Tian et al., 2004). However, two
main limitations need to be considered:
i) Complex discharge configurations: In recent years, more tunneled outfalls with buried
diffusers have been built. These are often equipped with only few largely spaced long
risers and rosette like port arrangements. Individual jet quantities are then not any more
the right measure for calculating the equivalent slot width. Additional hydrodynamic
considerations have to amplify the equivalent slot width concept, which are currently
under development (Kwon and Seo, 2005, or Jirka, 2006). Experiments from Kwon
and Seo (2005) hereby showed a strong dynamic regime between the individual jets,
however this hold only for stagnant ambient. In strong ambient crossflows, these ef-
fects probably are reduced. The proposed equivalent slot jet concept calculating an
equivalent port diameter (Jirka, 2006) followed by the application of the equivalent slot
concept looks promising and straightforward. Another issue shown by Roberts and
Snyder (1993) indicates that there are quite large regions of insensitivity of dilution on
riser spacing.
ii) Non-uniform distribution of jet quantities along diffuser: The assumption that an aver-
age of all individual jet quantities along the diffuser suffices to describe the mean plane
jet quantities may be too general. It has been shown in chapter 4, that significant varia-
tions of jet quantities might occur along the diffuser line, though designs clearly should
aim for nearly uniform distributions. A stepping of the whole slot into several different
slots might be proposed here, though neglecting interaction between two resulting plane
jets.
Thus buoyant plane jet parameters can be specified according the definition diagram in Fig.
59, where the slot is located in the horizontal plane and aligned, in general, at an oblique an-
gle to the ambient current. Definitions are conform Jirka (2006) with the discharge slot lo-
cated at the height ho above the x-y plane and obliquely aligned with an angle γ relative to the
- 85 -
x-axis and a vertical angle θo above horizontal and a horizontal angle σo between the vertical
projection of the jet and the x axis.
Fig. 59: Definition diagram for the plane jet (reproduced from Jirka, 2006)
The jet discharges through the cross-sectional area ao = BLD with a steady top-hat velocity
profile Uo. The initial fluxes for the individual buoyant jets (with index i) and the idealized
plane jet are:
The initial volume flux
Qo = ∑Qo,i = ∑Uo,iAo,i = Uoao (5.1)
The initial mass flux
Qco = ∑Qco,i = ∑Uo,iCo,iAo,i = Uocoao (5.2)
The jet is forced by two dominant dynamic quantities, the initial momentum flux
Mo = Mo,i = Uo,i (∑Uo,iAo,i) = Uo²ao (5.3)
and the initial buoyancy flux
Jo = Jo,i = go,i´ (∑Uo,iAo,i) = Uogoáo (5.4)
where go,i´ = g(ρa(ho,i) - ρo)/ρref defines the initial buoyant acceleration with a constant refer-
ence density ρref.
- 86 -
Buoyant plane jets from waste discharges are generally considered as fully turbulent, because
of sufficiently high values of the slot Reynolds number Reo = UoB/ν in which ν is the kine-
matic viscosity. Laboratory experiments show that its critical value is Reo ≈ 1000 (Jirka,
2006). Jet analysis is based on an Eulerian description of the centerline trajectory s as a func-
tion of the Cartesian coordinates x, y, z with superimposed Lagrangian type description of the
evolution of the jet quantities Q, M, and J along that centerline trajectory (Fig. 59). Turbulent
fluctuations caused by turbulence shearing mechanisms lead to a gradual growth of the char-
acteristic jet thickness 2b and characteristic width LD + 2b. The parameter b is a measure
typically defined where the excess velocity is e-1 (37%) of the centerline value. The relatively
large diffuser lengths compared to plume thickness LD/(2b) >> 1 generally allow neglecting
the entrainment at the lateral plume ends. Plane plume growth thus is dominated by two-
dimensional processes (Jirka, 2006) and quantities per unit jet length can be described for the
initial fluxes (Jirka, 2006):
qo = Qo / LD = UoB (5.5)
qco = Qco / LD = UocoB (5.6)
mo = Mo / LD = Uo²B (5.7)
jo = Jo / LD = Uogo´B (5.8)
Main interest in buoyant jet analysis is the development of the plane jet fluxes q, m and j
along the centerline. These depend on the unknown distributions of jet parameters u, v, and c
in a coordinate system with axial distance s and transverse distance r inclined with the local
horizontal angle θ and horizontal angle σ (Fig. 59) and are defined as:
1
q= L ⌠⌡u dr (5.9)
D
r
1
qc = L ⌠⌡uc dr (5.10)
D
r
1
m= L ⌠⌡u² dr (5.11)
D
r
1
j= L ⌠⌡ug´ dr (5.12)
D
r
The governing equations for the distribution functions then result from the Navier-Stokes
equations described in chapter 3 with simplifications regarding a steady (time averaged) 2-D
flow along the jet centerline (for the steady velocity u and v the averaging bar will not be used
for simplicity reasons). Approximations from the boundary layer type of flow (b/s << 1) al-
low the assumption that ∂/∂r << ∂/∂s. Furthermore the jet internal pressure will be equal to
the ambient pressure field (here assumed to be constant) thus ∂p/∂r = ∂p/∂s = 0, giving:
Continuity equation
∂u 1 ∂rv
∂s + r ∂r = 0 (5.13)
Momentum equation
∂u ∂u 1 ∂
u ∂s + v ∂r = r ∂r⎛⎝r u´v´ ⎞⎠ - g´ sin θ (5.14)
- 87 -
Transport equation
∂c ∂c 1 ∂
u ∂s + v ∂r = r ∂r⎛⎝r c´v´ ⎞⎠ (5.15)
And three additional equations to solve for the 3-D jet trajectory (Jirka, 2006):
dx
ds = cosθ cosσ (5.16)
dy
ds = cosθ sinσ (5.17)
dz
ds = sinθ (5.18)
For the initial conditions it follows for s = 0 that u = Uo, c = Co and v = 0. The boundary con-
ditions for r Æ ∞ can be prescribed as u Æ 0, c Æ 0, u´v´ Æ 0 and c´v´ Æ 0. Different
methods have been used to solve these equations:
i) Empirical methods: For simple geometries and flows considerable simplifications of the
governing partial differential equations, allow solving these problems analytically. Under
these conditions, a zero equation turbulence closure can be assumed with a constant eddy
viscosity νt calibrated with laboratory experiments. Results of empirical models often are
only related to final dilution values.
ii) Integral methods: Self-similarity approaches allow defining jet-cross-sectional distribution
functions a priori thus converting the governing partial differential equations into ordinary
differential equations, which are easier and faster to solve. Integral models are the stan-
dard type of models for jet analysis. Results of integral models generally are dilutions and
trajectories of the resulting plume in an infinite water body, thus without any boundary in-
teraction.
iii) Numerical methods: For more complex geometries and flows numerical solution of the
partial differential equations are needed. Furthermore an advanced (at least two equation)
turbulence closure, e.g. the k-ε model, Reynolds-stress or Large Eddy simulation model is
necessary. These solutions are difficult, demanding, and not yet practical. Results of nu-
merical models are complete, giving dilutions and trajectories in limited water bodies.
5.1.2 Dimensional analysis - empirical methods

Flow parameterization and scaling of flow conditions allows classifying and analysis of dif-
ferent flows. Dimensional analysis is extremely useful for analytical studies and the flow
classification, where dominant processes can be determined for the subsequent modeling and
minor processes excluded. This is especially important for consideration regarding the as-
ymptotic regimes (e.g. pure jet). However, for complex flows (i.e. unsteady non-uniform
flows) the finding and definition of (steady) characteristic scales becomes difficult. Nonethe-
less, equations resulting from dimensional analysis then still provide a helpful tool for an “or-
der of magnitude analysis” and means of flow classification.
5.1.2.1 Velocity and concentration distributions - dimensionless parameters

Unknowns (dependent variables) of the present problem are the jet velocities u and v, the con-
centrations c and the trajectory locations s. Considering now for example the asymptotic case
- 88 -
of a horizontal plane jet in stagnant, uniform ambient. Characteristic quantities are the width
b = f1(x, mo, ao, ν, …) and the centerline velocity uc = f2(x, mo, ao, ν, …), both as a function of
independent parameters. Dimensional analysis then results in dimensionless parameters:
b
x = const. (5.19)
uc x
= const. (5.20)
mo
Thus, the width development follows a linear function with the proportionality factor k1 (e.g.
from experiments k1 = 0.14 (Jirka, 2006)):
b = k1 x , (5.21)
and the centerline velocity decays inversely with the distance with the proportionality factor
k2 (from experiments k2 = 3.36 (Jirka, 2006))
uc B
Uo = k2 x (5.22)
For the centerline concentration cc, mass flux conservation results in
qco = coUoB ≈ ccuc2b (5.23)

cc UoB 1 B
Ù c ≈ u 2b = k k x (5.24)
o c 2 1
Any buoyant jet property can theoretically be described in analogy to the previous examples.
However, with increasing complexity, the number of independent parameters increases and
difficulties arise in defining consistent relations on one hand and elaborating necessary labo-
ratory studies on the other. Thus dimensional analysis is restricted to steady asymptotic cases
with some slight extensions.
5.1.2.2 Plume dynamics and trajectories - length scales and flow classification
Another application of dimensional analysis is not directly related to the aim of developing
dilution equations or characteristic profile distributions, but to distinguish between different
flow regimes, namely a flow classification. Whereas velocities and concentrations have been
successfully normalized by their initial values the results for the trajectories historically nor-
malized by the individual jet diameter showed large scatter, for example for single buoyant
jets in the left diagram of Fig. 60. Numerous different solutions have hereby been obtained
for different initial densimetric Froude numbers:
Uo
Fo = (4.25)
g´B
Another parameter combination based on the flux definitions instead resulted in the correct
scaling (Fig. 60, right) using the so called momentum length scale, here for a single jet,
LM = Mo3/4/Jo1/2 (Jirka, 2004). This length scale allows distinguishing between dominating jet
flow regions, thus classifying the flow, as illustrated in Fig. 61.
- 89 -
Fig. 60: 3-dimensional horizontal buoyant jet trajectories for a single port discharge in stagnant am-
bient. Comparison between predictions and experimental data. Left: normalized with port
diameter. Right: normalized with momentum length scale LM (reproduced from Jirka, 2004)
Fig. 61: Jet to plume transition length scale LM for a single jet allows distinguishing between a jet
like or plume like single jet behavior (reproduced from Jirka et al, 1996)
A consistent length scale based categorization of the different buoyant jet regimes in the pres-
ence of crossflow and/or stratification is summarized in Fischer et al. (1979) and modified for
plane jets by Jirka and Akar (1991) resulting in the following length scales:
The discharge length scale, which denotes a scaling for the region over which the discharge
slot geometry has a strong influence on the flow. This scale is generally very small (ℓQ = B)
and therefore relatively unimportant.
qo²
ℓQ = m (5.26)
o
- 90 -
The slot jet / plume transition length scale, which denotes a scaling for the transition from jet
to plume behavior in a stagnant ambient (note that the ratio of ℓM and ℓQ gives Fo):
mo
ℓM = j 2/3 (5.27)
o
The slot jet / crossflow length scale, which denotes a scaling for the distance of transverse jet
penetration beyond which strong deflection by the crossflow occurs:
mo
ℓm = u ² (5.28)
a
The slot jet / stratification length scale, which denotes a scaling for the distance at which the
jet becomes strongly affected by the stratification (defined by ε = -(g/ρa)(dρa/dz), the ambient
buoyancy gradient), leading to terminal layer formation and horizontally spreading in a stag-
nant linearly stratified ambient:
mo1/3
ℓm´ = ε1/3 (5.29)
The slot plume / crossflow length scale, which denotes the distance at which a plume becomes
strongly affected by the crossflow, leading to less lateral spreading:
jo1/3
ℓb = ε1/2 (5.30)
The slot plume / stratification length scale, which denotes the distance at which a plume be-
comes strongly affected by the stratification, leading to terminal layer formation and horizon-
tally spreading in a stagnant linearly stratified ambient:
jo1/3
ℓb´ = ε1/2 (5.31)
The crossflow / stratification length, which denotes a scaling for the vertical flotation beyond
a plume, becomes strongly affected by the stratification:
ua
ℓa = ε1/2 (5.32)
In addition, time scales regarding some of the above length scales have been described by
Nash (1995) and Nash and Jirka (1996): The slot jet / plume transition time scale, which de-
notes a scaling for the time until turbulent jet mixing dominates before buoyant mixing takes
over in a stagnant ambient:
mo
tM = j (5.33)
o
The slot jet / crossflow time scale, which denotes a scaling for the time required after that the
ambient flow dominates:
mo
tm = (5.34)
ua3
- 91 -
An example for the magnitude of these scales is given for two typical discharges (medium
and large flowrates) and two typical ambient conditions (medium and small velocities) as
summarized in Table 17 (compare with Fig. 13, p. 21). This shows that near-field plume de-
velopment occurs in regions of the order of one to tens of meters and time scales of the order
of minutes. A comparison with typical ambient conditions, where time scales are of the order
of hours and days, and water depths are of the order of tens of meters, confirms the steady
state, unlimited ambient approach for the near-field region. Nonetheless, extreme cases (large
discharges into slow and shallow waters) indicate, that additional considerations, beyond this
simplified approach are necessary.
Variable small discharge (I) large discharge (II) ratio (I/II)

(e.g. wastewater) (e.g. thermal dis-
charges)
initial velocity Uo, [m/s] 5 5 1
initial total volume flux 8 80 0.1
Qo [m3/s]
initial volume flux 0.02 0.2 0.1
qo = Qo/LD[m2/s]
initial momentum flux 0.1 1 0.1
mo = Uoqo [m3/s²]
density difference 0.025 0.0025 10
∆ρ/ρ [kg/m3] (freshwater) (heated salt-water)
initial buoyancy flux 0.005 0.005 1
jo = qogo´ [m3/s²]
momentum length scale 3.4 34 0.1
ℓM = mo/jo2/3 [m]
crossflow length scale 0.4 (10) 4 (100) 0.1
ℓm = mo/ua2 [m]
stratification length scale 2.5 5.4 0.5
ℓm´ = mo1/3/ε1/3 [m]
stratification / plume 2.1 2.1 1
ℓb´ = jo1/3/ε1/2 [m]
stratification / crossflow 6.25 (1.25) 6.25 (1.25) 1
ℓa = ua/ε1/2 [m]
jet / plume time scale 20 200 0.1
tM = ma/jo [s]
jet / crossflow time scale 0.8 (100) 8 (1000) 0.1
tM = ma/ua3 [s]
Table 17: Comparison of typical flux quantities (modified from Jirka (1982), listing length and time
scales for two typical discharges for a city with a population of 1 million people and a dif-
fuser with length LD = 400 m. The average ambient velocity is assumed to 0.1 m/s and 0.5
m/s (values in brackets), with a stratification defined by ε = -(g/ρa)(dρa/dz) = 0.0064 1/s².
5.1.2.3 Empirical dilution equations

The principles and scaling described above have been applied to wastewater dispersion analy-
sis already in the beginnings of environmental related research. Major contributions are from
Brooks (1960, 1965, 1980, 1984, 1988), and by Koh (1988). Comprehensive reviews are
given in Fischer et al. (1979), Wood et al. (1983) and Jirka and Lee (1994). Detailed discus-
sion on buoyant jets were presented by Jirka (1979, 1994), Roberts (1980, 1986) Roberts et al.
(1989a,b,c), Lee and Jirka (1981) and Lee and Neville Jones (1987). The resulting equations
are all based on the near-field assumption stated in chapter 5.1.1 and trying to calculate the
minimum jet centerline dilution Sc = co/cc at the end of the near-field, i.e. after surface contact
or at the terminal layer for trapped plumes. However as stated previously limitations exist
regarding mostly near asymptotic regimes.
- 92 -
One of the key equations is the equation for a line plume in a stagnant unstratified ocean
(Rouse et al., 1952):
jo1/3H
Sc = 0.38 q (5.35)
o
For a given flow Qo, the unit discharge qo and unit buoyancy flux j are inversely proportional
to the diffuser length LD, and equation 5.35 suggests that a higher dilution is obtained by in-
creasing the length of the diffuser. For a line plume, the minimum dilution can be multiplied
by a factor of 21/2 to give the average dilution.
It has been demonstrated both theoretically and experimentally (Fischer et al., 1979) that
maximum mixing can be achieved with closely spaced ports that allow some interference of
adjacent jets. In relatively shallow coastal waters of typical depth 5 – 15 m, however, it is
often the case that, given practical considerations (e.g. in order to maintain a minimum jet
velocity and minimum diameter), multiport diffusers are designed to minimize interference of
adjacent plumes. In such cases, the required spacing is about H/3.
In case of a linearly stratified ambient with a density gradient dρa/dz the maximum height of
rise zmax to the terminal level and corresponding dilution Sc are given by
⎛ g dρa⎞ -1/2
zmax = 2.84 jo1/3 ⎜- ρ dz ⎟ = 2.84ℓb´ (5.36)
⎝ a ⎠
jo1/3zmax
Sc = 0.31 q (5.37)
o
In a linearly stratified ambient, the spreading layer is found to occupy about 40 – 50% of the
rise height. For computing bulk dilutions, one must allow for the thickness of the wastewater
field. Simple models to account for blocking in the presence of an ambient current can be
found in Fischer et al. (1979).
Roberts (1979, 1980) studied the mixing of a line source of buoyancy in an ambient current,
and found that the shape of the flow field and the dilution are determined by the ambient
Froude number F = ua3/jo. F measures the ratio of the ambient current velocity to the buoy-
ancy-induced velocity. For F < 0.1, the minimum surface dilution Sm is little affected by the
current and is given by:
jo1/3H
Sm = 0.27 q (5.38)
o
Compared with equation 5.35, the smaller dilution coefficient reflects the effect of blocking
of the surface layer. For higher crossflow, F > 0.1, however, the entrainment is dominated by
the crossflow, and the alignment angle γ between the diffuser line and the current direction is
important. Higher dilution results for a perpendicular alignment, γ = 90°, in which the maxi-
mum amount of flow is intercepted while the parallel alignment, γ = 0°, gives the lowest dilu-
tion. For F ≈ 100, the perpendicular alignment results in a dilution
uaH
Sm = 0.6 q (5.39)
o
- 93 -
that is proportional to volumetric mixing between ambient (velocity ua) and discharge flow,
but with a reduced coefficient 0.6. For parallel alignment, the dilution is lower by a factor of
about four. Experiments by Mendez-Diaz and Jirka (1996) have examined the different
plume trajectories for various crossflow strengths.
The simple dilution equations given in the foregoing are useful for initial design screening of
alternatives. They are limited to simplified ambient conditions. For final design evaluations
and for more general and complex ambient oceanographic conditions models that are more
comprehensive must be employed.
5.1.3 Integral methods

The following description of the integral method applied to buoyant plane jets is a brief sum-
mary of the detailed considerations from Jirka (2006). Integral methods are based on the ap-
proach that distribution functions for jet velocities or concentrations can be defined a priori.
Chapter 5.1.2 and comparisons of extensive laboratory (e.g. in Fig. 60) studies showed, that
jet trajectories, but also jet cross-sectional distributions of velocity and density are self-
similar. Transverse distribution functions are commonly described with Gaussian functions
(Jirka, 2006):
u = uce-r²/b² + ua cosσ cosθ (5.40)

g´= gcé-r²/(λb)² (5.41)
c = cce-r²/(λb)² (5.42)
Xi = Xice-r²/(λb)² + Xia(z) (5.43)
where uc is the excess axial velocity, gc´= (ρa(z) - ρc)g/ρref the buoyancy, ρc the density, Xic the
excess value of the state parameters on the jet centerline and λ > 1 a plane jet/plume disper-
sion ratio as the observed width of the scalar distribution is larger than for the velocity (turbu-
lent Schmidt number).
The plane jet integral method proceeds by making use of the boundary-layer nature of the
flow and by integrating all terms of the governing turbulent Reynolds equations of motion
(equations 5.13 to 5.15) across the cross-sectional plane per unit width. Jet bulk variables for
the total volume flux q, the axial momentum flux m, the buoyancy flux j, the flux of excess
state parameter qxi and tracer mass flux qc (equations 5.44 to 5.48) result from the cross-
sectional integration of the transverse distributions functions (equations 5.40 to 5.43) between
the integration limits -bj and bj. These limits are understood according to the boundary-layer
theory as the “edge of the jet” at which boundary conditions can be clearly specified or, alter-
natively, beyond which no further contributions to the integration should arise (Jirka, 2006).
The bulk fluxes are:
( )
+bj
q=∫ udr = π b uc + 2ua cos θ cos σ (5.44)
−b j
π
( )
bj 2
m = ∫ u 2 dr = b uc + 2ua cos θ cos σ (5.45)
−b j 2
bj ⎛ λs ⎞
j = ∫ ug ′dr = π b ⎜ uc + λs ua cos θ cos σ ⎟ g c′ (5.46)
−b j ⎜ 1 + λs 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
- 94 -
bj ⎛ λs ⎞
qΧi = 2π ∫ u ( Χ i − Χ ia ) dr = π b ⎜ uc + λs ua cos θ cos σ ⎟Χ ic (5.47)
−b j ⎜ 1 + λs 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
bj ⎛ λs ⎞
qc = ∫ ucdr = π b ⎜ uc + λs ua cos θ cos σ ⎟ cc (5.48)
−b j ⎜ 1 + λs 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Conservation principles for volume (continuity), momentum components in the global direc-
tions x, y and z, state parameters, and scalar mass lead to the following equations formulated
for a jet element of differential length ds and unit width located on the trajectory (Jirka, 2006).
dq
=e
ds (5.49)
d
( m cos θ cos σ ) = eua + f D 1 − cos 2 θ cos2 σ
ds (5.50)
d cos θ sin σ cos σ
2
( m cos θ sin σ ) = − f D
ds 1 − cos 2 θ cos 2 σ (5.51)
d sin θ cos θ cos σ
( m sin θ ) = π λsbgc′ − f D
ds 1 − cos 2 θ cos 2 σ (5.52)
dqΧi d Χ ia
= −Q sin θ
ds dz (5.53)
dqc
=0
ds (5.54)
Furthermore, the geometry of the trajectory is defined by (Jirka, 2006)
dx dy dz
= cosθ cos σ , = cosθ sin σ , = sin θ
ds ds ds (5.55)
and the centerline density ρc contained in the definition of centerline buoyancy gc´ is given by
the equation of state
ρc = ρ c ( Χ ic ) (5.56)
Definitions for the “turbulence closure coefficients” e, the specific entrainment rate and fd, an
ambient pressure force, are given by Jirka (2006):
⎛ sin θ u cos θ cos σ ⎞

e = 2uc ⎜ α1s + α 2 s 2 + α 3 s a ⎟
⎝ Fl uc + u a ⎠
(5.57)
⎛ tan θ eq ⎞
+ ua 1 − cos 2 θ cos 2 σ ⎜ α 4 s + α 5 s ⎟ cos θ cos σ
⎝ tan θ ⎠
f D = cDs ua2 (1 − cos 2 θ cos 2 σ ) sin γ
- 95 -
where coefficients are α1s for the pure jet, α2s for the pure plume and α3s for the pure wake, cDs
for the blocking effect of the plane jet relative to the oncoming flow. Jirka (2006) proposed
the set of coefficients:
α1s = 0.0625, α 2 s = 0.815, α 3s = 0.031, α 4 s = 0.5, α 5 s = 1.0

(5.59)
λ = 1.30, cDs = 15.0
5.1.4 Numerical methods

Nowadays comprehensive and easy to use numerical flow models, so-called computational
fluid dynamic codes (CFD) are available (e.g. Ansys - CFX, Fluent, and Flow3D). CFD
models solve the governing field equations (5.13 - 5.15) numerically on a fixed predefined
grid (see chapter 5.3.2 for details). As distinct from the previously discussed approaches, they
need to calculate all flow characteristics at every point of the flow domain, thus they need to
resolve the entire jet induced velocity field and its interaction with the surrounding fluid. A
dynamically coupled solution together with the transport equation is necessary, due to strong
buoyancy effects. In addition, especially jet like motions require specialized turbulence mod-
els, where only a Reynolds stress model or a realizable k-ε model and second order accurate
convection schemes apply (Zhu and Shih, 1994). Thus, grid generation and computations are
time-consuming, limiting its applicability. Furthermore, uncertainties exist in prescribing
appropriate boundary conditions for the ambient flow. Calibration is needed, limiting the
predictive capabilities of these models. Recently, research approaches have been discussed
where either one single model is used in different modes (e.g. a hydrostatic mode and a non-
hydrostatic mode) or resolutions (model-nesting), or models of the same type are blended
(e.g. a k-ε turbulence model with a k-ω model) in transitional regions. However, even if the
increasing computational speed and memory of modern computers is considered, these ap-
proaches do not appear feasible for present-day engineering practice. Therefore it is not ex-
pected, that CFD models will be applied for practical problems regarding the near-field re-
gion. Nonetheless, CFD models are helpful for the analysis of special cases, where either
experiments are too difficult or too expensive and integral models do not apply. Examples are
described in Law at al. (2002).
Disregarding all above limitations, there have been efforts in the past to use even simplified
CFD models attempting to represent major near-field characteristics. Studies by Blumberg et
al. (1996) and Zhang and Adams (1999) have shown that in a stratified environment the near-
field dilution levels can be predicted “surprisingly well” even if a coarse grid and hydrostatic
far-field ocean circulation model (ECOM) is used. Zhang et al (1999) attributed the success
to three factors: (1) the total dilution is partly due to large scale density exchange flow that the
far field model can resolve; (2) the strong pycnocline provides a natural ceiling for the plume;
(3) there is beneficial feedback such that if the entrainment is overpredicted, the trap height
will be underpredicted and less total dilution will occur. However, their agreement is strongly
dependent on intensive calibration of the turbulence model used. Field data is generally not
available for that purpose so they use near-field model results, which in conclusion does not
necessarily imply physical process representations. Predictions beyond these tuned/calibrated
regimes thus have to be treated carefully. Furthermore tuned far-field models strongly depend
on grid resolutions, thus major deviations regarding trapping height and terminal layer thick-
ness occur.
However, successful examples are shown in the literature for simple and large-scale dis-
charges, like a river discharge. This can be explained by the less complex near-field proc-
- 96 -
esses within large-scale surface discharge in comparison with the small-scale submerged mul-
tiport discharge. Furthermore, most ocean circulation models are developed for large-scale
processes and their turbulence closure and boundary interactions normally do not include the
necessary detail for near-field processes, dominated by shear stresses within jets. For exam-
ple the k-ε model (Rodi, 1993), which is a standard model in coastal circulation models and
i.e. important for far-field processes does not perform well in flows with adverse pressure
gradients or strong buoyant processes which might occur in near-field regions (Rodi, 2004).
Besides the shallow water approximation (hydrostatic assumption), this limitation of far-field
models regarding near-field processes probably has the strongest implications.
5.1.5 Near-field jet models

The near-field region of wastewater discharges is governed by the initial mixing processes.
Most important among these is the buoyant jet mixing process. For buoyant jet flows, it is
convenient to apply the integral technique. A large number of buoyant jet integral models can
be found in the literature, with many variations. Most prominent models for outfall analysis
are CorJet (part of the CORMIX system), NRFIELD (former RSB model, part of the Visual
Plumes system) and JetLag (part of the VisJet system), which are briefly reviewed in the fol-
lowing.
5.1.5.1 CorJet (CORMIX system)

The CORMIX system (Doneker and Jirka, 1990; Jirka and Akar, 1991; Jirka et al., 1996) ad-
dresses the full range of discharge geometries and ambient conditions, and predicts flow con-
figurations ranging from internally trapped plumes, buoyant plumes in uniform density layers
with or without shallow water instabilities, and sinking (negatively-buoyant) plumes. Bound-
ary interaction, upstream intrusion, buoyant spreading, and passive diffusion in the far field
are also considered. A flow classification system based on hydrodynamic criteria using
length scale analysis and empirical knowledge from laboratory and field experiments provides
a rigorous and robust expert knowledge base that distinguishes among the many hydrody-
namic flow patterns that may occur. For every flow class, CORMIX assembles and executes
a sequence of appropriate hydrodynamic simulation modules. The modules are based on
buoyant jet similarity theory, buoyant jet integral models, ambient diffusion theory, and strati-
fied flow theory, and on simple dimensional analysis. The basic tenet of the simulation meth-
odology is to arrange a sequence of relatively simple simulation modules which, when exe-
cuted together, predict the trajectory and dilution characteristics of a complex flow.
Additional features are contemporary 3D plume and diffuser visualizations, comprehensive

documentation and help system, GIS linkage, benchmarking analysis and validation database,
far-field locator post-processor, sensitivity analysis, batch running mode and time-series, all
fully linked within the expert-system interface. CORMIX results include design recommen-
dations, flow class descriptions and reporting oriented on discharge zone analysis.
At the heart of CORMIX is the integral jet model CorJet which is based on the equations de-
scribed in chapter 5.1.3 developed by Jirka (2004, 2006). The model formulation includes the
significant three-dimensional effects that arise from the complex geometric details that distin-
guish actual diffuser installations in the water environment. Local three-dimensional effects
deal with the merging process to form the plane buoyant jet. A simple flux-preserving merg-
ing transition that considers geometric contact between adjacent individual jets is found to be
sufficiently accurate for simple port arrangements with like orientation. For complex port
arrangements with opposing or rosette-like orientation the highly complicated merging proc-
- 97 -
ess is not considered in detail and a buoyancy flux-preserving equivalent slot jet assumption is
made for the zone of flow establishment. A variable drag force formulation is introduced to
provide an accurate representation of the merging and jet bending process under crossflow
conditions. Finally, proximity effects due to the presence of a horizontal bottom boundary
near the level of the efflux are included in CorJet. These are related to a “leakage factor” that
measures the combined affect of port height and spacing in allowing the ambient flow to pass
through the diffuser line in order to provide sufficient entrainment flow for the mixing down-
stream from the diffuser. Multiport diffuser discharges with small leakage factors are thus
predicted to have reduced plume rise trajectories in the crossflow. The model has been vali-
dated intensively and the range of applicability of the integral model has been carefully evalu-
ated where a number of spatial limitations have been proposed beyond which the integral
model necessarily becomes invalid. Whenever horizontal or lateral boundaries exist in the
flow domain, e.g. the free surface or bottom of a water body, complex flow interactions may
occur. Such resulting phenomena as jet impingement, attachment, internal hydraulic jumps,
instabilities, and recirculation are of course beyond the predictive powers of a simple integral
model. In these instances, additional techniques for flow classification and prediction must be
used, embedded in the CORMIX expert system structure.
5.1.5.2 NRFIELD (Visual Plumes package)

Visual Plumes (Frick et al., 2001) is a collection of initial dilution models that simulate single
and merging submerged plumes in arbitrarily stratified ambient flow and buoyant surface dis-
charges. Predictions include dilution, rise, diameter, and other plume variables. Visual
Plumes models are: UM3, a Lagrangian entrainment model, NRFIELD and FRFIELD (former
RSB) using semi-empirical formulations based on laboratory experiments for the near-field
(Roberts, 1999a) and the Brooks equations for the far-field, DKHW that is based on
UDKHDEN (Muellenhoff et al., 1985), and PDS, a surface discharge model (Davis, 1999).
Additional features are a conservative tidal background-pollutant build-up capability, a sensi-

tivity analysis capability, and a multi-stressor pathogen decay model that predicts coliform
bacteria mortality based on temperature, salinity, solar insolation, and water column light ab-
sorption. The FRFIELD model estimates the long-term distribution of pollutants in the vicin-
ity of the outfall. This model is based on the two-dimensional "visitation-frequency" model.
Out of these models NRFIELD is probably the most used model from this compilation. It is
an empirical model for multiport diffusers based on the experimental studies on multiport
diffusers in stratified currents described in Roberts, Snyder, and Baumgartner (1989, a, b, c)
and subsequent experimental works. NRFIELD is based on experiments using T-risers, each
having two ports, so at least four ports must be specified for it to apply. An important as-
sumption is that the diffuser may be represented by a line source. NRFIELD is restricted to
predictions regarding the strict near-field. No information on trajectory or boundaries is in-
cluded.
Visual Plumes models are separated and the user has to choose the one desired. In this way, it
promotes the idea that in the future modeling consistency will be achieved by recommending
particular models in selected flow categories. Visual Plumes models may be run consecu-
tively and compared graphically to help verify their performance.
- 98 -
5.1.5.3 JetLag (VisJet system)

VISJET (Lee and Cheung, 1990) is a general predictive, flow visualization tool to portray the
evolution and interaction of multiple buoyant jets discharged at different angles to the ambi-
ent tidal current. VISJET can be used to study the impact of either a single or a group of in-
clined buoyant jets in three-dimensional space.
Special features are computer graphics techniques to trace the path and mixing characteristics
of a group of arbitrarily inclined jets in three-dimensional space, in a uniform or density-
stratified crossflow.
The Lagrangian buoyant jet model JETLAG (Lee and Cheung, 1990) is part of the model
VISJET and predicts the mixing of buoyant jets with three-dimensional trajectories. The
model, strictly speaking, does not solve the usual Eulerian governing differential equations of
fluid motion and mass transport. Instead, the model simulates the key physical processes ex-
pressed by the governing equations. The unknown jet trajectory is viewed as a series of non-
interfering “plume-elements” which increase in mass as a result of shear-induced entrainment
(due to the jet discharge) and vortex-entrainment (due to the crossflow) - while rising by
buoyant acceleration. The model tracks the evolution of the average properties of a plume
element at each step by conservation of horizontal and vertical momentum, conservation of
mass accounting for entrainment, and conservation of tracer mass/heat. The vortex entrain-
ment is determined by a heuristic Projected-Area Entrainment (PAE) hypothesis for buoyant
jets with 2D trajectories, while pressure drag is ignored. Predictions of the model have com-
pared well with basic laboratory experimental data; the model also predicts correctly the as-
ymptotic behavior of pure jets and plumes, and advected line puffs and thermals.
5.1.5.4 Model comparison and model choice

However, all three jet models, CorJet, JetLag, and NRFIELD are embedded in major mixing
zone models, all packages allow for separate applications. Comparison for strict near-field
applications, thus the prediction of the minimum dilution at the end of the near-field with re-
lated near-field location and plume dimension shows, that all models perform well and give
reasonable results. This is confirmed by comprehensive peer-reviewed validations of each of
these models. However comparing usability, range of application, physical process simula-
tion, and modeling, philosophy differences are identified:
• CorJet and JetLag give results on trajectories, centerline dilution, flow, and entrainment
characteristics, whereas NRFIELD only gives the final minimum near-field dilution and
related near-field location and plume dimensions.
• CorJet applies for arbitrary, i.e. non-uniform, multi-directional velocity profiles, which are
not covered in JetLag or NRFIELD
• CorJet deals with significant three-dimensional effects regarding the merging process to
form the plane buoyant jet and/or the bending process under crossflow. It allows defining
merging positions and characteristics. VisJet instead neglects this effects and uses super-
position principles, whereas NRFIELD includes these processes as aggregated effects
only
• CorJet includes proximity effects due to the presence of a horizontal bottom boundary
near the level of the efflux. Both JetLag and NRFIELD do not consider those.
• CorJet includes clear statements of spatial limitations beyond which the integral model
necessarily becomes invalid. JetLag and NRFIELD lack such clear statements.
- 99 -
Model differences might be considerably amplified when comparing performance of the jet
models within their system. Though all three model suites pretend to be optimum for mixing
analysis of wastewater discharges into coastal waters their system capabilities are quite differ-
ent, which are summarized as follows:
A first difficulty is the different definition for the end of the near-field. Controversy exists
especially regarding the question whether the near-field includes buoyant spreading, upstream
spreading, or other boundary interaction processes or if they are already related to the far-
field. This becomes critical once discharge permits are related to a minimal near-field dilu-
tion and different models lead to inconsistent implementations of regulations (Tetratech,
2000). Nonetheless Visual Plumes and CORMIX are both US EPA (Environmental protec-
tion agency) approved models for Regulatory discharge zone analysis.
Major differences of the model systems are regarding model extensions beyond the buoyant
jet model. There are a number of other mixing processes that occur in the near-field of the
discharge depending on a given situation, such as boundary/surface interaction, internal hy-
draulic jumps and unstable mixing, stratified exchange flow, and buoyant spreading proc-
esses. The CORMIX model is, in fact, a collection of zone models for all these sub-
processes. These models are invoked through a length-scale based classification scheme that
first predicts the discharge flow behavior (so-called flow classes) and then consecutively links
(couples) the appropriate zone models (so-called modules) to provide a prediction. PLUMES
and VISJET do not address the effects of vertical or horizontal boundaries on mixing or on
discharge stability. They simply assume the ambient water body is infinite. However,
PLUMES allows for a coupling of NRFIELD results to FRFIELD an empirical ambient dis-
persion model. VISJET does not account for any processes beyond the near-field region.
All jet models have been validated with a wide range of fundamental laboratory data sources.
The amount of comprehensive and reliable field data for actually operating diffusers that can
be used for model validation is still limited at present. The field survey of Carvalho et al.
(2002) for the Ipanema outfall in Rio de Janeiro has provided a highly satisfactory validation
for all models regarding the near-field predictions and additionally for CORMIX as regards
its predictive ability and accuracy not only for the immediate near-field but also the transition
to the far-field in form of the buoyant spreading of the internally or surface-trapped plume
(see Jirka and Doneker, 2003). The other models are clearly limited in that regard.
Reasons for these model differences are not necessarily failures or inconsistencies. They
should also be seen in the context, that VISJET and CORMIX are commercial models with
order of magnitudes difference in pricing (VISJET prices for a commercial/academic license
are 300 / 150 US $, whereas CORMIX prices are 5200 / 1500 US $). The CORMIX system
includes a high-level quality assurance, professional support and detailed documentation
(Jirka et al., 1996), help system and bug fixing. VISJET is at the beginning in that regard,
whereas the mostly academically oriented Visual Plumes system, which can be downloaded
for free does not include any of these.
In summary, situations where PLUMES and VISJET can be applied would typically be deep
ocean outfalls (e.g. sewage outfalls) and if near-field mixing is of interest only and there is no
possibility of dynamic bottom attachments and surface interaction is unimportant. However,
if discharge zone information after the near-field is desired, then the possibility of a density
current in the far-field must be considered (compare Fig. 62).
- 100 -
Fig. 62: Schematic illustration of the range of model applicability in Regulatory discharge zone
analysis (source: www.cormix.info)
The CORMIX model system has been chosen for this study, because of its additional capa-
bilities and the expert system approach allowing especially for design optimization and Regu-
latory discharge zone analysis.
5.2 Intermediate-field processes and modeling applications

Near-field jet models assume unlimited and steady ambient conditions. This assumption
holds until the plume reaches vertical boundaries or the shallowness of a water body prevents
the development of a stable jet regime. The intermediate field thus starts at the end of the jet
regime (region (1) in Fig. 63a) and is classified according to three main processes: the bound-
ary interaction, where the vertical boundaries inhibit any vertical motion (region (2) in Fig.
63a), the buoyant spreading, where the wastefield establishes horizontally (part of region (3)
in Fig. 63a) and the near-field instability (Fig. 63b). Once these processes are of minor order
compared to far-field transport and dispersion processes, the far-field is attained (region (4) in
Fig. 63). For weak ambient flows or quiescent ambient the intermediate-field may extend
over distances that are substantially greater than the water depth (Jirka, 1982), however, for
strong ambient motions its effects are often negligible.
The classification of these hydrodynamic regimes is facilitated by the utilization of non-

dimensional parameters, in particular ratios of the previously defined length scales (Jirka et
al., 1996, see chapter 5.1.2.2), which provide assistance in the parameterization.
5.2.1 Near-field instability

Near-field instability is defined as the situation when discharge induced motions considerably
influence the ambient motions in the near-field region (Jirka, 1982, 2006). Large recircula-
tion zones or vertically mixed currents that laterally entrain ambient water are typical exam-
ples for an unstable near-field (Fig. 63b).
Jirka (2006) summarized the criterion to predict the occurrence of stable configurations as:
lM l h +l
(1 + cos 2 θ o ) 2 + M sin γ o − 0.1 o sin γ o ≤ 0.54 . (5.60)
H lm lm
- 101 -
Fig. 63: Submerged buoyant slot jet discharging into stagnant water of finite depth (Jirka, 1982). a)
Deep water discharge with stable discharge configuration, b) shallow water discharge with
unstable recirculation zone (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)
The combination of hydrodynamic length scales hereby provides means for a general classifi-
cation scheme (schematized in Fig. 64), which is also implemented in the CORMIX flow
classification system (see Fig. 72, p. 110 for details). "Stable discharge" conditions, usually
occurring for a combination of strong buoyancy, weak momentum, and deep water, are often
referred to as "deep water" conditions. "Unstable discharge" conditions, on the other hand,
may be considered synonymous with "shallow water" conditions, when a multiport diffuser
represents a large source of momentum with a relatively weak buoyancy effect (i.e. for ther-
mal plumes). Technical discussions on discharge stability are presented elsewhere (Jirka,
1982; Holley & Jirka, 1986).
5.2.2 Boundary interaction processes

Boundary interactions have strong implications on waste discharge assessments, because lo-
cation and concentration of plumes when hitting either the surface or the shoreline are impor-
tant project criteria. Boundary interaction processes are classified into interaction with verti-
cal boundaries (surface, bed, or pycnocline) and horizontal boundaries (shoreline), as illus-
trated in Fig. 65 and Fig. 66.
For large ambient velocities the boundary interaction can simply be conceptualized as a grad-
ual transition of a bent-over plume to a far-field surface layer flow (Fig. 66a). However,
boundary interaction processes become important for weak ambient currents. The almost
vertically rising plume motions are either stopped suddenly by surface impingement or over-
shoot and fall down back on the terminal layer for pycnocline impacts. Both plumes conse-
- 102 -
quently experience rapid horizontal spread in all directions. Additional mixing is referred to
this impact and spreading motions, where so-called upstream spreading may extend consid-
erably (Fig. 66b). Shallow conditions may furthermore lead to local recirculation (Fig.
66c,d).
Fig. 64: Diagram for selection of predictive models for submerged multiport diffusers with variable
spacing and stability characteristics (reproduced from Jirka, 2006)
Fig. 65: Pictures of laboratory experiments showing boundary interactions with the surface, the bot-
tom and the pycnocline (courtesy of G.H. Jirka, L. Fan, Keck Lab, CIT)
Another type of interaction process concerns submerged buoyant jets discharging in the vicin-
ity of the water bottom into a stagnant or flowing ambient. Two types of dynamic interaction
processes can occur that lead to rapid attachment of the effluent plume to the water bottom as
illustrated in Fig. 67. These are wake attachment forced by the receiving water's cross flow or
Coanda attachment forced by the entrainment demand of the effluent jet itself. The latter is
due to low-pressure effects as the jet periphery is close to the water bottom.
Jirka et al. (1996) described criteria for the prediction of boundary interactions, which are
mainly based on dimensionless numbers, parameterized out of ratios of the geometrical length
scales (e.g. port elevation, water depth, distance to shore) and the hydrodynamic length scales
(Jirka et al., 1996, and chapter 5.1.2.2). These criteria are implemented in the CORMIX clas-
sification scheme regarding boundary interactions (see Fig. 71, p. 110 for details).
- 103 -
Fig. 66: Examples of boundary interactions for submerged jets in finite depth (reproduced from Jirka
et al., 1996)
Fig. 67: Examples of a) wake attachment and b) Coanda attachment conditions for jets discharging
near boundaries (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)
- 104 -
5.2.3 Buoyant spreading processes

Buoyant spreading processes are related to the plume collapse after boundary or pycnocline
interaction. These motions are no longer jet-like and concentration distributions change ac-
cording to transport motions and spreading motions. Transport motions carry the substances
away from the source with ambient velocities. Spreading motions spread the wastefield in the
horizontal (Fig. 68). It is there distinguished between the far-field spreading motions by tur-
bulent spreading and the intermediate spreading by density differences. The former is related
to mixing motions, whereas the latter are density current like motions, with rather small mix-
ing due to entrainment at the frontal heads of the current. Thus, buoyant spreading collapses
the vertical, initially thick wastefield into a thin and wide horizontal layer. The weaker the
ambient currents and the stronger the stratification the faster buoyant spreading motions are
induced. This holds especially for steady quiescent ambient (i.e. lakes or reservoirs), where
density differences of the discharge and the ambient cause density current spreading over
large distances at the terminal layer (either surfacing or trapped plumes). Also for weak and
steady flow fields (i.e. rivers) situations occur where spreading velocities are high, even caus-
ing upstream spreading plumes (Fig. 69). However, reported waste discharge studies in
coastal waters generally neglect buoyant spreading processes.
Consequences of large buoyant spreading processes are modified flow fields superimposed on
far-field transport processes thus influencing concentration distributions. In addition, near-
field dilutions are relatively small during periods with weak ambient velocities. Both in com-
bination cause higher risk for public or environmental impacts. Therefore, the stagnant ambi-
ent water case has traditionally been considered as the worst case for discharge assessments,
however, only related to pure near-field considerations, i.e. without influence of spreading
motions. Furthermore, most recently used approaches using additional far-field dispersion
models either do not include any buoyant spreading process, or do have considerable defi-
ciencies in calculating these thin near-field-diluted waste layers, spreading at either the sur-
face or the pycnocline in unsteady environments (see chapters 5.3 and 5.4 for details).
Laboratory studies and field studies in quiescent ambient confirm the importance of such
processes (e.g. Koh, 1983; Akar and Jirka, 1994, 1995), provided that the period considered is
long enough (i.e. steady) allowing these motions to develop. Akar and Jirka (1995) described
criteria for the prediction of the occurrence of buoyant spreading motions, based on dimen-
sionless numbers, parameterized out of ratios of the hydrodynamic length scales (chapter
5.1.2.2). For a stable discharge in unstratified water the criteria for a weak current regime,
thus allowing buoyant spreading motions to develop on considerable scales is given by:
Lb
H > 0.65 (5.61)
where Lb = Jo/ua³ describes the plume/cross-flow length scale for a single jet. For a multiport
diffuser the criterias are scaled with the ratio of two length scales for a stable discharge in
unstratified water:
ℓM
ℓm < 1, (5.62)
or for a stable discharge in stratified waters:
ℓb´
ℓa > 1, (5.63)
- 105 -
which both are actually describing the same parameter ratio, denoting whether ambient veloc-
ity or buoyancy dominates:
ℓM ua² ⎛ℓb´⎞ -1/2

ℓm = jo2/3 = ⎜⎝ ℓa ⎟⎠ (5.64)
Fig. 68: Buoyant spreading processes after near-field region (upstream and lateral spreading), super-
imposed on the transport by ambient currents (reproduced from Jirka and Akar, 1991)
Fig. 69: Buoyant surfacing plume. Boundary (surface) interaction and density difference cause
slight upstream spreading of the plume against the ambient current (Source: I. Wood)
- 106 -
These criteria are also implemented in the CORMIX classification scheme regarding the mod-
eling of buoyant spreading motions for waste discharges (see Fig. 72 and Fig. 73, pp. 110, p.
110 for details). However, as distinct from to near-field processes, buoyant spreading mo-
tions may extend over time-scales, which are considerably larger than those of the ambient
motions and unsteady considerations, become important. Whether or not these processes
dominate in unsteady coastal environments at all, depends on the degree of temporal variabil-
ity. Field studies from Carvalho et al. (2002) for the Ipanema outfall in Rio de Janeiro pro-
vided good information on the immediate near-field and also the transition to the far-field,
showing that buoyant spreading of the internally trapped or surfaced plume actually occurs in
nature (see Jirka and Doneker, 2003). However, Carvalho et al. (2002) concluded that, al-
though scientifically important, buoyant spreading processes do not have major influences on
the overall plume dispersion characteristics due to the truly unsteady flow field. This might
be true for the observed overall discharge performance regarding weekly or monthly averages,
but not for specific ambient conditions for example on a daily basis. Therefore, the present
study proposes a flow classification based on a characteristic length-scales to determine when
buoyant spreading in unsteady environments dominate plume dispersion.
5.2.3.1 Flow classification regarding buoyant spreading in unsteady ambient

Time scale measures and unsteady length scales, have been proposed by Nash and Jirka
(1996), with focus on the parameterization of unsteady plume bending in reversing tidal
flows. These processes are similar to the jet in crossflow cases and therefore dominated by
the initial momentum flux and the ambient velocity. In addition to the steady diffuser fluxes,
they use a value for the time rate of reversal of ambient velocity,
dua
dt . (5.65)
Dimensional analysis then leads to the unsteady jet / crossflow length and time scales (modi-
fied from Nash and Jirka (1996) for multiport diffusers):
⎛ mo ⎞ 1/2
ℓmu = ⎜ ⎟ , (5.66)
⎝ dua /dt ⎠
a measure of the distance of the forward propagation into the ambient flow of a discharge
during the reversal episode, and
⎛ mo ⎞ 1/4
tmu = ⎜ 3⎟
, (5.67)
⎝ dua /dt ⎠
a measure of the duration over which an effluent may be considered as discharging into stag-
nant water while the velocity field is reversing.
Nash and Jirka (1996) furthermore showed that for most of the time ambient acceleration is
negligible compared to the instantaneous velocity. Only as slack tide is approached the rever-
sal length scale becomes dominant. However, in case of buoyant spreading in unsteady envi-
ronments it is not the jet to crossflow behavior, but the buoyancy to crossflow, which param-
eterizes a buoyant spreading process in an ambient flow. Thus, in analogy to Nash and Jirka
(1996) it is proposed an unsteady plume /crossflow length and time scale:
- 107 -
jo2/3
ℓbu = , (5.68)
dua/dt
a measure of the distance of the forward propagation into the ambient flow of a buoyant
spreading motion, and
jo1/3
tbu = , (5.69)
dua/dt
a measure of the duration over which buoyant spreading motions may develop. It is further-
more proposed to use the dimensionless parameter
ℓbu
LD, (5.70)
to distinguish whether the length scales of buoyant spreading motions are considerably large
or not. Furthermore the dimensionless parameter
tbu
∆t, (5.71)
might be used to distinguish, whether buoyant spreading motions occur over time scales,
which are significant compared to the considered time scales ∆t. These numbers allow classi-
fying the duration and spatial extents of spreading motions for weak ambient currents. An
application of these scales and comparison with field data is discussed in chapter 5.4.2.1.
5.2.3.2 Buoyant spreading models

Estimates for modeling buoyant spreading processes, i.e. the buoyant spreading velocities,
might be derived from mass conservation principles, assuming that the entrainment flow
needed by the buoyant plume is supplied by an undercurrent distributed uniformly with the
vertical and neglecting interfacial friction. Koh (1983) developed a model for line plumes:
us = β3/2(2g´h)1/2 (5.72)
where us denotes the buoyant spreading velocity, β = 0.83 an experimental coefficient and h =
layer thickness. Koh (1983) furthermore rewrote that equation as a function of the initial
plume volume flux and initial dilution S:
us = Sqo/(2h) (5.73)
For the undercurrent velocity it is
uu = (S - 1)qo/(2(ztop - h)) (5.74)
where ztop = plume top elevation above bed.

For a line diffuser normal to a current, the initial width of the wastewater field can be taken to
be equal to the diffuser length; the depth of the field in moving stratified water can be esti-
mated on the basis of continuity considerations and accounting for partial blocking above the
base of the field (Brooks, 1972):
- 108 -
⎛ QoS/(uaLDztop) ⎞
h = ztop ⎜1+Q S/u L z ⎟ (5.75)
⎝ o a D top⎠
Equation (5.76) is expected to hold for SQo/(uaLDztop) ≤ 2. These dimensions are needed as
initial conditions for transport calculations in the far field. Typical minimal dilutions for
weak ambient currents are approximately 100. Assuming an initial volume flux of qo = 0.02
m²/s and a water depth of H = 30 m the spreading velocity is of the order of 0.1 m/s. As a
consequence the spreading plume could reach the beaches if these conditions prevail for at
least 8 h and an outfall length of 3000 m.
Akar and Jirka (1995) described a comprehensive surface spreading model. It describes the
downstream evolution of a buoyant surface plume in an unstratified ambient flow. The model
includes interfacial mixing, additional wind induced mixing and entrainment either due to
interfacial shear instabilities or the plume fronts (Fig. 70). Furthermore the model includes a
simple calculation regarding passive far-field mixing. The model is implemented into the
CORMIX system.
Fig. 70: Definition diagram for surface spreading model for an unstratified ambient water body with
uniform velocity (reproduced from Akar and Jirka, 1995)
5.2.4 Intermediate field models

Yet, there are a number of other mixing processes that occur in the intermediate-field of the
discharge depending on a given situation, such as internal hydraulic jumps and stratified ex-
change flow. The CORMIX model is, in fact, a collection of zone models for all these sub-
processes. These models are invoked through a length-scale based classification scheme
(Jirka and Akar, 1991; Jirka and Doneker, 1991) that first predicts the discharge flow behav-
ior (so-called flow classes) and then consecutively links (couples) the appropriate zone mod-
els (so-called modules) to provide a near-field prediction, briefly illustrated in Fig. 71 to Fig.
73. Though CORMIX lacks a limitation of buoyant spreading processes in unsteady envi-
ronments it includes the most comprehensive intermediate-field analysis for waste-discharges.
- 109 -
Fig. 71: CORMIX flow classification tree for bottom attachment (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)
Fig. 72: CORMIX flow classification tree for a buoyant multiport discharge into uniform ambient
water (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)
- 110 -
Fig. 73: Flow classification tree within CORMIX, for a buoyant multiport discharge in stratified
ambient waters (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996).
5.3 Far-field processes and modeling applications

Distinct from near-field motions, far-field processes do not focus on the jet, plume, or waste-
field driven motions, but on the natural water body motions. Whereas background turbulence
and spatial velocity field characteristics can be fully neglected in near-field approaches, they
play a considerable role in the far-field region. Therefore, far-field processes are mainly re-
lated to the description of natural coastal flows. Once these processes are known, wastefield
characteristics as a result from the intermediate region, are coupled with these flows either at
the surface level or trapped within density stratification, and transported and dispersed by
ambient currents and ambient turbulence.
5.3.1 Passive ambient mixing - empirical dilution equations

The existing turbulence in the ambient environment is the dominating mixing mechanism at
sufficiently large distances from the discharge point. In general, the passively diffusing flow
grows in width and in thickness until it interacts with the channel bottom and/or banks as il-
lustrated in Fig. 74.
The strength of the ambient diffusion mechanism depends on a number of factors relating
mainly to the geometry of the ambient shear flow and the amount of ambient stratification. In
the context of classical diffusion theory (Fischer et al., 1979), gradient diffusion processes in
the bounded flows of rivers or narrow estuaries can be described by constant diffusivities in
the vertical and horizontal direction that depend on turbulent intensity and on channel depth
or width as the length scales. In contrast, wide "unbounded" channels or open coastal areas
are characterized by plume size dependent diffusivities leading to accelerating plume growth
- 111 -
described, for example, by the "4/3 law" of diffusion. Under high dilution conditions in mov-
ing water, the wastewater field is essentially advected passively in a tidal current. Vertical
mixing is damped by buoyancy, so that the subsequent dilution is mainly due to horizontal
mixing by the turbulent eddies, allowing vertical and longitudinal dispersion to be neglected.
Fig. 74: Passive ambient diffusion process with advection in the far-field (reproduced from Jirka et
al., 1996)
Brooks (1960) gives a widely used method of estimating the subsequent dilution of a waste-
water field due to lateral mixing by oceanic turbulence. However, rigorous assumptions are
necessary, i.e. a steady, two-dimensional, uniform flow condition without external forcing. A
line source is assumed with initial conditions determined by the initial near-field mixing
phase as discussed in chapter 5.1; the horizontal transport of a pollutant layer of constant
thickness in a steady uniform current normal to the source is then formulated according the
intermediate-field as described in chapter 5.2.3.2. By assuming a 4/3 power dependence of
the eddy diffusivity on the local plume width and a first order decay with rate constant k, the
centerline concentration in the plume is given by:
1/2
cmax ⎛ ⎛ 3/2 ⎞⎞ -kt
ci = ⎜erf⎜ 3 ⎟⎟ e (5.76)
8E t
⎜ ⎜⎛⎜1+ 2i ⎞⎟ - 1⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝⎝ ℓi ⎠ ⎠⎠
where t = travel time = x/ua, Ei = diffusivity corresponding to the initial width of the plume ℓi
= LD, and ci = initial concentration at the end of the near-field.
Subject to the global flushing constraints, equation (5.76) is useful in giving a conservative
estimate for the order of magnitude analysis of the subsequent dilution and elucidating the
- 112 -
relative importance of horizontal diffusion and decay processes. It is, however, limited in
following respects, illustrated in Fig. 75: a) coastal currents are unsteady, b) near-shore cur-
rents are horizontally non-uniform (e.g. vortex shedding at headlands), and c) coastal currents
are vertically non-uniform (wind-generated onshore surface current is usually accompanied
by a compensatory offshore bottom current). Munro & Mollowney (1974) have shown that in
shallow coastal waters vertical mixing in such a counter current system can lead to substantial
additional reductions in concentration. This result is supported by detailed observations of
bacterial distributions at several sea outfalls (Gameson, 1982; Munro, 1984).
Fig. 75: Example showing far-field waste plume transport and dispersion. The transport is governed
by the tidal current and mixing is governed by the wind shear stress (courtesy of Torben
Larsen, Denmark)
Thus, the required detail of a far field prediction can vary considerably from case to case. It
depends on i) the complexity of the coastal ocean environment, ii) the availability of data, and
finally, iii) the severity of the pollution problem:
Regarding environmental complexity, for an open coastal environment with a prevailing uni-
directional current structure a simple plume model may suffice if a far field calculation is
needed at all. As such, the above equation has also been incorporated as an extension of near-
field models (e.g. CORMIX). Effects of unsteady motions, if spatially uniform, can be con-
sidered through “puff” models, which travel and disperse the plume in 2D according to meas-
ured velocity information; however, those are not reliable near the shore. A puff model is
included in the Visual Plumes modeling system (called FRFIELD). For estuaries or semi-
enclosed bays, a flushing analysis may be required to ascertain the net flow-through and po-
tential long-term accumulation of pollutants. Finally, in coastal environments or tidal net-
works of complex topography and current structure, numerical transport models have to be
employed in order to predict the far-field pollutant distribution under more general conditions
- 113 -
regarding the coastal circulation, mass transport, and transformation (water quality parame-
ters). The velocity field in these transport models may have to be calculated from a separate
circulation model or be obtained from detailed field measurements.
Regarding available data, good information on current velocities is essential for far-field
transport. Estimates show that for long diffusers (e.g. 500 m) it is more important to know
where the wastefield goes rather than whether the far-field dilution is of the order of 3 or 5
(Roberts, 1979, 1980). For short diffusers instead far-field dilution increases to considerable
values.
Regarding the pollution problem, near-field models suffice, if only acute impacts on the out-
fall zone are of interest. A simple reversal motion with built-up effects can be predicted if
currents are clearly oscillating with the tidal cycle. As such, a built-up model (Nash and
Jirka, 1996) has also been incorporated as an extension of the near-field model CORMIX.
However, near-shore, water-quality (i.e. bacteria) impacts on the bathing zone are related to
large and unsteady plume travel times of the order of several hours, defining the necessity of
an unsteady tidal flow model. Moreover, because “old” diluted sewage can return with the
tidal current the scenario for a computation should be around 24 hours. Finally water quality
parameters demand extensive information on additional parameters, like salinity and tempera-
ture, and plume depth and geometry (to define light attenuation), to name only a few (Blen-
inger and Jirka, 2004).
Therefore, large outfall projects for coastal cities should not only include the mentioned “or-
der of magnitude analysis”, but also a full far-field flow analysis. Generally, numerical mod-
els in combination with field-measurements provide such information. This far-field analysis
may also serve to deduce the relevant parameter for near- and intermediate field analysis, es-
pecially if predictions beyond the measured parameters are to be considered. At first sight,
this recommendation appears to be rather costly, though it is relatively cheap compared with
the considerably large investments for coastal outfalls and even cheaper compared to the rela-
tively strong socio-economic and environmental impacts, for inappropriate solutions.
A full far-field analysis includes a general flow model coupled with a transport model. Both
are described in detail in the following chapters.
5.3.2 Governing equations for 3-D shallow water flows

Implementing the simplifications from chapter 3 regarding the far-field region results in the
U-RANS (unsteady Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes) equations for 3 D shallow flows, e.g.
after Rodi (1993):
Continuity equation
∂ui
∂xi = 0 (5.77)
Momentum equation
∂ui ∂ui 1 ∂p ∂² u i ∂ uiúj´ Fi,e

∂t + u j
∂xj + 2Ωi x u i =- - ρ gz + ν + + (5.78)
ρ ∂xi ∂xj² ∂xj ρ
- 114 -
∂ uiúj´
where ρ = time averaged density and p = time averaged pressure. The term ∂xj is
defined as additional stress term called Reynolds stress, which represents the turbulent varia-
tions. A turbulence closure is necessary, which is described in the following chapter.
Transport equation
∂c ∂c ∂⎛ ∂2 c
⎞
∂t + u i ∂xi + ∂xi⎝ uić´ ⎠ = Dm ∂xi2 + k c (5.79)
where c = mean substance concentration and c´ = concentration variations. A turbulence

∂
closure is necessary to describe the term∂x ⎛⎝ uić´ ⎞⎠, discussed in the following chapter.
i
5.3.2.1 Turbulence closure
The term ∂ uiúj´ / ∂x in the momentum equation (5.78) and the term ∂/∂xi⎛⎝ uić´ ⎞⎠ in the
transport equation (5.79) require further approximations, a turbulence closure as described in
chapter 3.3.2. For the far-field region, a classical turbulence closure based on eddy-viscosity
principles is applicable. These define a proportionality factor νt, the eddy-viscosity, in anal-
ogy to the molecular viscosity. The eddy-viscosity links Reynolds-stresses to the gradients of
the mean flow (DVWK, 1999):
⎛∂ ui´ ∂ uj´ ⎞
- uiúj´ = νt⎜ ∂x + ∂x ⎟ - 2kδij (5.80)
⎝ j i ⎠ 3
where δij, the Kronecker-Delta, guarantees that the sum of normal stresses is consistent to the
definition of the turbulent kinetic energy:
1
k = 2 ⎛⎝ uiúj´ ⎞⎠
The turbulent diffusion term in the transport equation can be written in analogy to the Rey-
nolds-stress term as:
∂c
- uić´ = Dt ∂x (5.81)
j
where Dt = turbulent diffusion coefficient as analogous to the eddy-viscosity νt. If νt has been
calculated by the hydrodynamic flow equations it can directly be used for the calculation of Dt
using the turbulent Schmidt number Sct = 1.0 - 1.2 (DVWK, 1999):
νt
Dt = Sc (5.82)
t
Otherwise, Dt has to be defined from experimental values.
- 115 -
Turbulent diffusion is of orders of magnitudes larger than molecular diffusion. Therefore, the
molecular diffusion term can be neglected and the advection-diffusion equation written as:
∂c ∂c ⎛ ⎞
∂⎜ ∂c⎟
∂t + u i D
∂xi ∂xi⎝ t ∂xi ⎠ + k c
= (5.83)
Unfortunately, νt varies with the flow field. Turbulence models therefore try to describe these
changes, often in combination with model calibration using experimental data. If sufficient
experimental or field data is available, simple approaches like constant eddy viscosities or
algebraic or mixing length models (Nezu and Nakagawa, 1993 or Rodi, 1993) might be used
with careful calibration. However, these approaches do not include the transport of turbulent
structures with the mean flow, which is an important issue for modeling natural flows and
transport processes. Furthermore, model calibration is often not possible due to missing data.
Thus, models including turbulent transport have to be used. Most experience exists for the k-ε
model (Rodi, 1993), which is a standard model for free flow turbulence, therefore i.e. impor-
tant for far-field processes. The k-ε model tries to describe the distribution of νt in the flow
field according to a characteristic velocity and length scale for turbulent flows, where the tur-
bulent kinetic energy k is used as velocity scale and the dissipation ε as length scale (large
eddies define the dissipation rate). Still, model assumption and calibration is necessary to
close the equations for k and ε, but those can often be related to general values from experi-
mental studies. The classical equations are (Rodi, 1993):
k²
νt = cµcD ε (5.84)
Dk ∂ ⎛⎛ νt ⎞ ∂k ⎞
=
Dt ∂xj⎝⎝ ⎜ ⎜ν + σk⎟⎠∂xj⎟⎠ + Pk - ε (5.85)
Dε ∂ ⎛⎛ νt ⎞ ∂ε ⎞ ε ε²
=
Dt ∂xj⎝⎝ ⎜⎜ ν + ⎟
σε⎠∂xj⎠ ⎟ + c 1ε Pk - c2ε
k k (5.86)
∂ ui ⎛∂ ui´ ∂ uj´ ⎞ ∂ ui
Pk = - uiúj´ ∂x = νt⎜ ∂x + ∂x ⎟ ∂x (5.87)
j ⎝ j i ⎠ j
where the source term Pk describes the production of turbulent energy out of mean flow prop-
erties. The empirical constants have been defined experimentally (Launder and Spaulding,
1974 and Nezu and Nakagawa, 1993) for a Karman constant of κ = 0.41 to cµ = 0.09, σk = 1.2,
σε = 1.2, c1ε = 1.44, c2e = 1.92. Several extensions of the classical k-ε model exist depending
on the application to be modeled.
However, limitations of the k-ε model are related to flows with adverse pressure gradients or
strong buoyant processes, which generally occur only in near-field regions (Rodi, 2004).
Therefore, besides the shallow water approximation (hydrostatic assumption) this limitation
of far-field models regarding near-field processes probably has the strongest implications.
There have been attempts to use other turbulence models (e.g. the k-ω model which performs
good near walls or with adverse pressure gradients, but is not appropriate for free flow turbu-
lence (Rodi, 2004)) or tuned versions of existing models to extend far-field model capabili-
ties, but this requires good calibration data, which generally is not available.
- 116 -
5.3.3 Numerical methods - CFD

The far-field equations as listed above cannot be solved analytically. Numerical solution
methods divide the problem scales (temporal and spatial) into discrete elements, thus reducing
the differential equations to algebraic equations, which can be solved. There are different
discretization methods possible for each differential, allowing for different kinds of numerical
schemes. In their continuous forms, all these systems are equivalent. Unfortunately, discreti-
zation for a numerical model creates truncation errors whose detailed form and behavior differ
from one coordinate system to another. Hence, each of these systems may be better suited for
certain classes of problems than for others.
5.3.3.1 Spatial discretization methods

Finite Elements method is based on a group of elements comprised of two or more grid points
(Fig. 76). Basis functions are chosen to describe the variation of an unknown over the ele-
ment and coefficients of the basis functions are found by substituting the basis functions as
solutions into the governing equations. Unstructured finite elements give better simulation of
complex geometries, e.g. usage of different numbers of elements vertically. However mass
conservation may be limited, because these equations are not solved themselves, but rather a
weighted residual version. This may not be an issue in ocean circulation applications, such as
water temperature predictions, but could be important in the simulation of constituents, such
as coliform organisms. In addition, computational time for finite element models may be
longer, due to high-order interpolation schemes.
Fig. 76: Unstructured finite element mesh for the Telemac model (www.telemacsystem.com)
Finite Differences, where the differential equations are discretized over the numerical grid,
built up from a series of nodes, and derivatives become difference equations that are functions
of the values around surrounding cells. This method is the easiest to implement and so far the
most widely used method. The restriction of structured finite difference schemes regarding
complex geometries can be overcome in coastal engineering by applying curvilinear grids
(Fig. 77). However, coastal structures still cannot be resolved sufficiently and unstructured
- 117 -
mesh models should be preferred in that case. A finite volume approach would therefore be
more appropriate.
Finite Volumes are a generalization of finite-differences and built up from a group of cells.
Fluxes through cells are tracked and the differential equations are integrated over the cell vol-
ume. Cells can be of different shapes and unstructured orientation and therefore apply to
complex geometries, similar to finite element methods. Finite volume methods generally ap-
ply especially for non-hydrostatic modeling.
Especially finite difference methods may use other then the geopotential or z-coordinate for-
mulations for the vertical coordinate. An important alternative for coastal flows are terrain-
following (σ-coordinate) systems (Fig. 77). These allow for high vertical resolution in coastal
regions, which are most important for waste discharge analysis.
Fig. 77: Structured finite difference mesh for the Delft3D model, top: horizontal curvilinear, down:
vertical σ-coordinate discretization (Delft Hydraulics, 2001)
- 118 -
σ-coordinate equations are based on the transformation (Blumberg and Mellor (1980, 1987):
z-η
x* = x, y* = y, σ = H + η, t* = t (5.88)
where x, y, z are the conventional Cartesian coordinates, H (x, y) the bottom topography eleva-
tion and η (x, y, t) the surface elevation.
The main advantage of σ-coordinate systems is that, when cast in a finite difference form, a
smooth representation of the bottom topography is obtained (Mellor et al., 2002). On the
other hand, it will not always have enough resolution around the pycnocline, especially for
steep bathymetric gradients (Stelling, 2001). Mellor et al. (2002) compared z-level grids with
σ-coordinates in the vertical and concluded, "the σ grids can tolerate much smaller levels of
horizontal viscosity and diffusivity. In shallow water, errors arise in the z-level grid which,
depending on viscosity (which itself may be considered a source of error), are of a different
nature and obviously much larger than errors due to the sigma pressure gradient error. In the
final analysis, the straight σ-coordinate grid may be a good choice for many ocean applica-
tions, including basin-scale climate calculations. Adequate resolution of the surface layers are
a significant advantage of the σ-coordinate grid. However, if the vertical grid spacing is, say,
logarithmically reduced near the surface to adequately resolve the surface layer in the deepest
portions of the model domain, then the only penalty of the σ-grid is that, in the shallower por-
tions, the surface layers are over resolved.
5.3.3.2 Temporal discretization methods

Explicit schemes, are easiest to solve because the unknowns are written as functions of known
quantities (e.g., concentration at the new time is dependent on concentrations at the previous
time step and at upstream (known) locations. However, stability problems arise once the
pathway of a fluid particle over one time step ∆t is larger than the grid resolution ∆x defined
as the Courant criterion:
u∆t
Cr = ∆x ≤ 1 (5.89)
This rather strong restriction has the consequence that either high resolutions are needed or
models have to be tuned to overcome stability problems.
Implicit schemes are computationally more demanding, because equations for the unknowns
are functions of other unknown quantities (e.g. concentration at the new time may depend on
other concentrations at the new time or on downstream locations not yet computed). These
equations must be solved using matrix algebra. Implicit schemes are generally considered
more accurate and do not demand a time step limitation.
In practice numerous computational fluid mechanics (CFD) codes exist, which mainly differ
in the applied numerical schemes and therefore are limited to the related application. Al-
though all CFD codes are based on general fluid mechanical principles, they are generally not
applicable for all problems. The correct model choice or correct choice of the numerical
scheme in a modeling system is a major task for CFD applications. Model results and unfor-
tunately computational efforts generally vary considerably if different schemes are used.
- 119 -
5.3.4 Far-field flow models - coastal circulation

The quality of a discharge assessment strongly depends on a good knowledge of the receiving
waters. In contrast to the near-field assessment, a far-field analysis needs much more detail
on ambient currents and turbulence than the time and depth averaged values used for the near-
field. This holds especially for the description of stratified coastal waters.
Deep-sea oceanography and coastal oceanography hereby offer process descriptions and mod-
eling tools that help to understand main features of the current scheme in an ocean region
(Davies et al. 1997a, b). However most of these models are set up for large domains (order of
hundreds of kilometers), where near coastal features are not as important, thus not resolved in
detail. However, discharge modeling especially needs to know about near coastal flow fea-
tures for domains of the order of tens of kilometers, with high resolution in the outfall region.
Furthermore most oceanographic models are depth averaged (Davies et al., 1997a), which is
sufficient for large-scale flows, but not for discharge assessments.
Wind-shear effects on stratified waters, non-uniform velocity profiles, and baroclinic proc-
esses require a three dimensional flow representation (Signell et al., 2000). This is even more
relevant considering the limitations of field measurements especially regarding the surface
layer. Fully three dimensional models, without the hydrostatic assumption are still under de-
velopment (DVWK, 1999), with one exception (the MIKE3 modeling system from the Danish
Hydraulics Institute). On the other hand, there are fully 3D models available, which are gen-
erally used in mechanical engineering, but not for coastal currents (Fluent, CFX, etc.). Their
deficiencies are related to the free surface, the complexity for grid generation and the appro-
priate calculation of the dispersion coefficient, which is often directly related to the turbulence
model used (Law et al., 2002). Generally, they can only be used for limited regions and sev-
eral restricting limitations (rectangular geometries, rigid lid surface). However, unless strong
vertical motions occur (due to strong bed slopes or breaking of internal or surface waves) a
3D hydrostatic model captures all important processes.
There are more than 20 circulation models in use today. Most are used for oceanographic
studies (ocean models), whereas only a few are applied for more resolved coastal circulation
studies (coastal models) (Tetratech, 2000). With a few exceptions, these are all finite differ-
ence models. Most cited models are Mike 3 (from DHI - Danish Hydraulics Institute), POM
(Princeton Ocean Model - Princeton University), ECOM-si (modified version of POM used at
Hydroqual), Delft3D (from Delft Hydraulics), Telemac 3D (from EDF, Electricité de France,
and Wallingford), SisBAHIA (University of Rio de Janeiro, COPPE, 2000).
Coastal circulation problems generally demand time-varying velocity information all over the
problem domain. The Eulerian flow description is used. The heat (temperature) and salinity
conservation equations have to be solved in parallel with the equations of motion since these
parameters are linked to the water density by an equation of state.
A drawback of Eulerian models is the requirement of a substantial amount of input data, in

terms of detailed topographical information, and temporal and spatial varying ambient data at
the open boundary conditions (such as current speeds, temperature and salinity distributions).
This data is generally not available and has to be provided from either a larger scale model,
where the problem domain is nested in or by field measurements. Optimal would be a com-
bination.
Nonetheless, these models promise to solve the majority of problems related to waste dis-
charges, a few problems are still not solved in that regard. There is for example the problem
- 120 -
of Huntington Beach (California, USGS, 2004) where complex modeling efforts in combina-
tion with extensive field-studies have been undertaken to verify hypotheses regarding the bac-
terial pollution at Huntington Beach. Whether internal waves together with wind induced
flow transport may cause bacteria pollution or these are caused by other sources could not
finally be solved in that case. Results at least indicate that outfall contributions are not the
most significant. The main open question in pollutant transport modeling is whether trapped
waste plumes may reach the beaches at certain conditions due to upwelling, internal waves, or
other processes.
5.3.4.1 Hydrodynamic model Deflt3D-FLOW

For this study the model suite Delft3D from Delft Hydraulics (2003) was chosen for the fol-
lowing reasons regarding the hydrodynamic and software capabilities (model assumptions are
all based on those mentioned in chapter 5.3.2 regarding the far-field region if not explicitly
stated in the following):
The Delft3D package is composed of several modules, grouped around a mutual interface,
while being capable to interact with one another. Delft3D-FLOW is the model providing the
hydrodynamics. That includes tidal forcing, Coriolis force, density driven flows (pressure
gradient terms in the momentum equations), an advection-diffusion solver to compute density
gradients with an optional facility to treat very sharp gradients in the vertical, coupled source
and sink term formulations and space and time varying wind fields and atmospheric pressure.
Typical intermediate-field processes like buoyant spreading and the damping of vertical ex-
change due to stratified conditions may be directly modeled and represented in the flow field
if sufficiently resolved. Further coupling to transport modeling allows for considerations of
mixing, diffusion and decay processes in direct relation to far-field processes.
Delft3D-FLOW solves the unsteady non-linear shallow water equations in three dimensions
(hydrostatic assumption). The equations are formulated in orthogonal curvilinear co-
ordinates or in spherical co-ordinates on the globe. In the vertical either a geopotential z-
coordinate or a terrain-following, σ-coordinate system can be used. For the latter a built-in
anti-creep correction is implemented to suppress artificial vertical diffusion and artificial flow
due to σ-grids. The horizontal advection terms are discretized by the Cyclic Method (Stelling
and Leendertse, 1991), an extension of the alternate direction implicit (ADI) method based on
the dissipative reduced phase error scheme (Stelling, 1984). It is a splitting of a third order
upwind finite difference scheme for the first derivative into two second order consistent dis-
cretization: a central discretization and an upwind discretization, which are successively used
in both stages of the ADI-scheme. For the space discretization of the vertical advection term,
a second order central difference is used.
Delft3D-FLOW includes advanced turbulence models (algebraic, k-L or k-ε) to account for
the vertical turbulent viscosity and diffusivity based on the eddy viscosity concept. The eddy
viscosity is anisotropic. The aspect ratio for shallow water flow hereby allows assuming that
the production of turbulence is dominated by the vertical and not the horizontal gradients of
the horizontal flow and that the horizontal eddy viscosity is much larger than the vertical eddy
viscosity. For this project, the k-ε turbulence model was chosen for the vertical turbulent vis-
cosity and diffusivity. The standard approach (see chapter 5.3.2.1) has been modified regard-
ing the following processes (Rodi, 1984; Uittenbogaard et al., 1992):
• Turbulent motions are damped in stable stratifications. This process is generally de-
scribed by a damping function, which depends on the gradient Richardson number (Si-
- 121 -
monin et al., 1989), and determined by fitting mathematical functions, which fulfill the
limiting conditions to laboratory data sets. In Delft3D-FLOW, the algebraic eddy viscos-
ity model (AEM) is extended to stratified flows by the formulation of Busch (1972).
• The turbulence model does not account for the vertical mixing induced by shearing and
breaking of short and random internal gravity waves, because the turbulent eddy diffusiv-
ity at the interface reduces to zero. This process would require an additional transport
equation for Internal Wave Energy (IWE-model, Uittenbogaard and Baron, 1989). How-
ever, only the simplest approximation of that effect using a constant vertical ambient mix-
ing coefficient of momentum and/or heat and matter has been implemented for the present
purpose, to consider such forms of unresolved mixing. Delft Hydraulics (2003) therefore
recommended an ambient eddy viscosity in the order of 10-4 m²/s for the vertical exchange
of momentum, based on experience with highly stratified flows and field experiments.
• The numerical scheme for the vertical advection of heat and salt (central differences) may
introduce small vertical oscillations. This computational noise may enhance the turbulent
mixing. Delft3D-FLOW has a vertical filtering technique to remove this noise and to re-
duce the undesirable mixing.
• The logarithmic wall law is used for the turbulent kinetic energy and energy dissipation at
the free surface and bottom.
5.3.5 Far-field transport models - transport and mixing

The introduction of solute substances into a hydrodynamic model can either be performed
using source terms, which add mass- and momentum fluxes to a grid cell, or through transport
boundary conditions, which add mass and momentum fluxes to the specified boundary. The
definition of the location of sources in the model domain and the related mass- and momen-
tum fluxes is a challenging and difficult task regarding the complexity of waste plumes from
off-shore, submerged wastewater discharges using multiport diffusers. This in fact is defined
as the coupling problem, and a solution is proposed in chapter 5.4.3. However, assuming that
information on source location and fluxes is available; two approaches exist for transporting
and mixing the substances within the far-field domain, the Eulerian, and the Lagrangian ap-
proach.
5.3.5.1 Eulerian transport modeling

Discharges, which affect the hydrodynamic conditions in the far-field region (e.g. large mo-
mentum fluxes from thermal discharges or strong and large buoyancy fluxes from river dis-
charges), have to be solved within the Eulerian hydrodynamic model. Substance transport is
performed by the advection-diffusion equation, which in that case is coupled to the momen-
tum equation via the equation of state.
For discharges which do not affect the hydrodynamic conditions in the far-field region (re-
gardless of the near-field region, e.g. wastewater discharges) the Eulerian approach solves the
advection-diffusion equation subsequently on the same mesh which has been used for the
flow or a new, generally smaller mesh using interpolations of the previously obtained hydro-
dynamic quantities. An advantage of that approach is the possibility to calculate long time
periods and interacting hydrodynamics for the whole domain. A disadvantage of Eulerian
transport models is additional numerical diffusion due to the relatively coarse grids used for
coastal hydrodynamic simulations. Nonetheless, in reality the contaminant concentration in
the far-field is often much more dependent on advection by the mean flow than dispersion, as
the latter occurs at a lower rate.
- 122 -
5.3.5.2 Lagrangian transport modeling

The Lagrangian approach instead only tracks unknown quantities independently along lines of
known values (i.e. velocity field). This approach does not consider active effects of the dis-
charge on the far-field region. These models are also called particle tracking or random walk
models, if particles are the observed quantities, which are released at a certain location at dif-
ferent times. If each particle carries an assigned amount of mass, the density distribution of
particles can be related to the concentration distribution. Particles follow the prevalent veloc-
ity field (advection) and turbulent diffusion is represented by random particle jumps (of
length equal to the estimated turbulent length scale). Velocity and turbulence information are
taken from the flow model. The transport and diffusion calculation to be considered then re-
sults in tracking the location of a quantity using the information of the velocity field:
xi(t+∆t) = xi(t) + ui(t)∆t + [fi(2εi∆t)]0.5 (5.90)
where xi(t+∆t) = location of a particle at time t + ∆t after release; ui = velocity components; εi

= turbulent diffusion coefficients; fi = normally distributed random variable that takes the
value +1 or -1.
Typically, the last term in (5.90) is negligible if x is in the direction of the predominant cur-
rent. However, if v or w is small, then the turbulent correction term should not be ignored.
Particularly w may denote a small settling velocity or buoyant velocity (for emulsion droplets)
and the diffusion term becomes extremely important.
Lagrangian algorithms are often included in either near-field mixing models to track near-
field results for measured currents (e.g. Visual Plumes FRFIELD), or within far-field mixing
models to track the plume according to the fully predicted velocity field (all of the above-
mentioned models contain a particle tracking module).
Advantages relative to Eulerian models are: Numerical diffusion can be eliminated by replac-
ing a concentration model with a Lagrangian particle-tracking model, which is grid size inde-
pendent. There is no theoretical limitation on the time step size regarding numerical stability,
but accuracy determines limits for Lagrangian models. Due to the independent movement of
involved particles, the programming structure is preferable for non-homogeneous flow and
parallel computing.
Disadvantages relative to Eulerian models are: Within Lagrangian transport models there is
no backwards interaction possible with the flow. Thus, transport is limited to quantities,
which do not interact with the flow, like solute substance mass. The transport of other quanti-
ties (like salinity or heat) can only be accomplished if independently to the flow. Another
drawback of particle models is their limitation on short to medium scale time periods due to
the statistical analysis for obtaining the particle distributions. Large-scale water quality is
limited in that regard.
Within both approaches, reaction or decay processes can be simulated in addition.
5.3.5.3 Transport modeling within Delft3D

The hydrodynamic module Delft3D-FLOW automatically solves the Eulerian formulation of
the advection-diffusion equation for salinity and temperature if baroclinic flows are to be con-
sidered. The equation is solved in parallel and coupled with the momentum equation via the
equation of state. In addition, it may be solved for a solute, conservative substance.
- 123 -
However, advection-diffusion scales are different from those for the hydrodynamics, therefore
often additional separate transport models exist, as for the case of Delft3D. The Delft3D
model suit allows for both the direct coupling of the flow field with either an Eulerian water
quality model or a mid-field particle-tracking model. The hydrodynamic conditions (veloci-
ties, water elevations, density, salinity, vertical eddy viscosity, and diffusivity) resulting from
the flow field module Delft3D-FLOW are therefore used as input to the other modules of
Delft3D, which are: Delft3D-WAQ: Eulerian far-field water quality module or Delft3D-
PART: Lagrangian mid-field particle tracking module.
In addition to the Delft3D-FLOW module, the Delft3D-WAQ module allows concentrating

the calculation of mixing and transport processes on temporal and spatial scales, which can be
considerably different from the hydrodynamic scales (Fig. 78). The advection diffusion equa-
tion is solved for the substances of interest only on that spatially limited grid within the time-
scales of interest using the hydrodynamic conditions from the results of Delft3D-FLOW. An
advantage compared to Delft3D-FLOW only are better temporal resolutions regarding disper-
sion processes and less numerical diffusion. Moreover, Delft3D-WAQ includes numerous
formulations for substance decay and transformation, which will be discussed in the following
chapter.
Fig. 78: Nesting of a small-scale water quality model (Siu Lam Model) and a large-scale hydrody-
namic model for Hong Kong waters using the Delft3D modeling system (Delft Hydraulics,
2005)
The Lagrangian transport model Delft3D-PART is independent of a grid, thus allowing water
quality processes to be described in a detailed spatial pattern, resolving sub-grid concentration
distributions. Delft3D-PART is best suited for studies over the mid-field range (200m-15 km)
of instantaneous or continuous releases. It calculates advection and diffusion processes using
- 124 -
the Lagrangian approach and the hydrodynamic quantities resulting from Delft3D-FLOW. In
addition, reaction or decay processes can be simulated using different particle attributes (den-
sity, surface area, and ages). Various realistic features (e.g. the return of previously diluted
sewage over the outfall and different source conditions) and especially substance accumula-
tion can be readily simulated by superposition methods.
5.3.6 Water quality modeling - decay and transformation processes

Beside the advection and dispersion, substances might undergo further transformation and
decay processes (see chapter 2.1.3). Focus of this study are bacteria concentrations because of
its impacts on public health (Roberts, 2004). The chosen indicator bacteria are total coliforms.
As soon as these organisms enter the surface waters, they start to die since the conditions are
essentially hostile to them. The mortality rate is enhanced by solar radiation, particularly short
wavelength, ultraviolet radiation. The decay rate for bacteria is a function of temperature,
salinity (or chloride concentration), and UV radiation intensity.
Most bacteria decay models assume a first order decay:
dC
dt = -kC (5.91)
where C denotes the bacteria concentration, t the time, and k a decay coefficient.
This results in so-called Chick-Watson model
Ct -kt
Co = e (5.92)
where Ct = concentration of bacteria at time t, Co = concentration at time 0
The first order decay is justified by experimental studies, where logarithmic plots follow
straight lines. However, there are other experiements showing considerable variations from
this straight line.
Environmental hydraulic studies often express the decay rate in terms of a so-called T90 value,
the time taken for 90% of the bacteria to die-off
-ln(0.1)
k= T90 (5.93)
Numerous empirical equations exist for the prediction of bacteria decay rates (Guillaud et al.,
1997; Bellair et al., 1977; Solic and Krstulovic, 1992; Canteras et al., 1995). Unfortunately
there are partly order of magnitudes of differences between some formulations. Values for T90
vary between 2 to 15 hours during sunlight and 20 to 100 hours during night. Experimental
data, without proposing a specific model can be found in Noble et al. (2004). Probably the
most used model for bacteria inactivation in coastal waters is based on the Mancini (1978)
formulation, which is also used in the water quality model from Delft3D. Carvalho (2003)
presented a modification of the original equation, which also takes in account that plumes
might be trapped, thus having different uv radiation. He also showed that bacterial models
need accurate position and geometry of waste plumes to be able to predict bacteria decay ac-
curately.
- 125 -
5.4 Model coupling - approaches and algorithms

Table 18 summarizes the previous descriptions regarding the hydrodynamic regions, by com-
paring characteristic flow quantities. As an example, a typical discharge situation for a large
coastal city is described (modified from Jirka, 1982). The example compares two kinds of
multiport diffuser discharges with two kinds of ambient flow conditions. The discharges dif-
fer only by their flowrate and density representing either a wastewater effluent or a thermal
effluent (cooling water). Discharge characteristics are assumed for a population of 1 million
people and a diffuser with length LD = 400 m. The ambient conditions just differ in velocity,
where the values in brackets indicate higher velocities. Velocity distributions are all assumed
uniform, allowing estimating the fluxes using the average velocity. The ambient volume flux
estimates result from Qo,a ≈ uaLDH, with an assumed water depth H = 20 m.
Variable medium discharge large discharge shallow flow (III) ratios (I/II ; II/III)
(I) (II) (large velocities in
(e.g. wastewater) (e.g. cooling water) brackets)
initial velocity 5 5 0.1 50 ; 50
Uo,ua [m/s] (0.5) (10 ; 10)
initial total volume 8 80 800 0.01 ; 0.1
flux Qo, Qo,a [m3/s] (4000) (0.002; 0.02)
initial volume flux 0.02 0.2 2 0.01 ; 0.1
qo = Qo/LD [m2/s] (10) (0.002 ; 0.02)
init. momentum flux 0.1 1 0.2 0.5 ; 5
mo = Uoqo [m3/s²] (5) (0.02 ; 0.2)
density difference 0.025 0.0025 - -
∆ρ/ρ [kg/m3] (freshwater) (heated salt-water)
initial buoyancy flux 0.005 0.005 0 >> 1
jo = qogo´ [m3/s²] (vertical) (vertical) (stable, barotropic)
NF dilution S > 100 > 10 - -
distributed FF mo- 0.005 0.05 0.2 0.025 ; 0.25
mentum flux mff = (5) 0.001 ; 0.01
mo/H ; mo,a/1 [m2/s]
order of momentum 0.05 0.5 0.1 0.5 ; 5
induced FF velocities 0.5 0.1 ; 1
uff,m = mo/(Sqo) [m/s]
order of buoyancy 0.17 0.17 0.1 1.7 ; 1.7
induced FF velocities 0.5 0.34 ; 0.34
uff,b = Sqo/(2(0.3H))
[m/s]
Table 18: Comparison of typical flow quantities at different hydrodynamic regions. Discharge charac-
teristics are assumed for a population of 1 million people and a diffuser with length
LD = 400 m discharging at a depth of H = 20 m (modified from Jirka (1982). Considered
discharge cases only differ in the total flow and density (e.g. wastewater and thermal). Am-
bient conditions differ only in velocity, where only the horizontal components of small and
medium (in brackets) flows are considered (note that discharge velocities and momentum
may act in orientations different to the horizontal).
Several comments regarding the initial quantities (upper half of Table 18) are in order: 1) the
strong discharge induced velocity discontinuity indicates the necessity of a highly resolved
near-field mixing model, capable to capture these strong shear flow processes. In addition,
note that the considered ambient velocities are horizontal velocities, whereas the discharge
velocities may act in arbitrary orientations. Thus, diffuser configurations need to be included
in near-field models. 2) The discharge volume fluxes per unit length are small compared to
the volume flux of the ambient flow passing over the diffuser. Note that cooling water dis-
charges are generally an order of magnitude larger than wastewater discharges (Jirka, 1982).
- 126 -
3) Comparison of initial momentum fluxes per unit length, show a clear dominance of dis-
charge induced momentum for large discharges into weak ambient. However, for stronger
ambient flows discharge momentum fluxes are negligible for small discharges. 4) The den-
sity difference between the effluent and an average ambient density if generally an order of
magnitude smaller for cooling water discharges. 5) Buoyancy acts in the vertical, where the
ambient is assumed stable (either uniform or stratified). Both effluents are introduced through
a submerged diffuser, causing strong buoyancy induced motions until reaching equilibrium
stable conditions.
The comparison of initial quantities is useful for near-field analysis. It is concluded that near-
field modeling for wastewater outfalls requires a high resolved near-field model with the
buoyancy flux as dominant parameter, complemented by interactions of source induced and
ambient momentum fluxes.
Comments regarding estimated source flux characteristics beyond the near-field by assuming
typical minimal dilutions (lower half of Table 18) are in order: 6) Wastewater outfalls are
generally designed and sited to achieve initial dilutions S above 100 to comply with regula-
tory demands. Thermal discharges often only need to be designed to achieve dilutions above
10. 7) Assuming that the initial momentum flux disperses all over the water depth and acts in
the horizontal might allow estimating its importance compared to the ambient momentum. It
follows that contributions from large discharges are still considerably when discharging into
weak ambient flows. However, momentum fluxes from wastewater discharges have negligi-
ble effects on any ambient flow. 8) Another way to compare flow quantities in the far-field
are comparisons of induced velocities. The order of the horizontal component of the momen-
tum induced velocity can be estimated by dividing the total discharge related far-field mo-
mentum flux (= initial flux mo) by the total discharge related far-field volume flux (qff = Sqo).
Comparison shows that weak ambient flows are experiencing considerable changes on the
velocity field due to the discharge even beyond the near-field region. However, stronger am-
bient flows are only affected by large discharges. 9) The buoyancy-induced velocities can be
estimated by equation (5.73) assuming that buoyant spreading occurs only in the upper third
of the water body. Comparison show that buoyant spreading motions may dominate over far-
field motions for weak ambient flows. Moreover, for larger ambient flows, contributions
from buoyant spreading are still large.
Consequently conclusions for the intermediate-field / far-field analysis are: Far-field model-
ing for wastewater outfalls requires a sufficient resolved model to represent primarily the am-
bient velocity distribution without any near-field interaction. However, weak ambient flows
either require higher resolution models to include effects of buoyant plume spreading, or re-
quire a separate intermediate-field model.
Consequently, Table 19 summarizes applications and modeling techniques capable to model

the different flows. No specific intermediate-field model has been found, though either near-
field or far-field models include intermediate field processes partly, shown by the adjustment
to the middle column in Table 19. It is shown, that for the general case of waste discharges,
i.e. for large coastal wastewater outfalls, no unique model applies, whereas for restricted
cases, modeling efforts might be reduced to one model only. For that reason a zonal model-
ing approach is necessary (Fig. 79). This approach considers the application of zone models
in regions with distinct hydrodynamic properties. It is then possible to simplify the governing
equations by dropping unimportant terms. As an example, in the near-field region it is often
possible to distinguish specific buoyant jet zones for which integral models apply. These only
calculate near-field substance concentrations without explicitly calculating the complex flow
- 127 -
field (NF in Fig. 79). On the other hand, in the far-field region, it is often possible to neglect
vertical accelerations and employ the hydrostatic assumption and calculate the far-field flow
field omitting the near-field processes (FF in Fig. 79). Thus, zone models have a considerable
advantage in the mathematical treatment and improved accuracy and detail in the solution. In
addition, different model types can be used in the zonal approach.
Near-field type models Far-field type models
Intermediate-field type related components

A) General cases: A) General cases:
- high/low momentum fluxes - complex coastal topography and
- high/low buoyancy fluxes bathymetry
- high/low ambient velocities - complex current structure (tidal,
- arbitrary ambient stratification wind-driven)
- arbitrary alignment - free surface flow
- deep/shallow conditions - hydrostatic conditions
- boundary interactions - arbitrary stable stratification
- buoyant spreading - baroclinic (high resolved)
Specialized mixing models: Specialized coastal models:
Æ CORMIX Æ Delft3D, Mike3, POM/ECOM, Telemac
B) Restricted cases: B) Restricted cases:

- weak momentum fluxes - open ocean
- high/low buoyancy fluxes - simple current patterns
- arbitrary ambient stratification - unsteady currents
- arbitrary alignment - simple pollutant kinetics
- deep conditions - moderate pollutant loads
- no boundary interactions Dispersion models:
- no buoyant spreading Æ FRFIELD
Jet models:
Æ CORJET, NRFIELD, JETLAG C) Special far-field cases:
- selected conditions only
C) Special near-field cases: - steady currents or simple reversals
- selected conditions only Mixing and transport models:
- negligible or weak buoyancy effects Æ CORMIX, CFX, FLUENT
CFD models:
Æ CFX, Fluent
- hydrostatic conditions
- large scale interests
Coastal models / ocean models:
Æ Delft3D, Mike3, POM/ECOM, Telemac
Table 19: Overview on modeling techniques regarding waste discharge modeling. Middle column
adjusted characteristics denote the capability to model intermediate-field processes.
However, Fig. 79 also illustrates deficiencies of zonal models leading to incomplete and
abrupt changes in transitional regions. In addition, major problems remain as time, length
scales vary considerably, and solutions are restricted to zones. Thus, there might be a lack of
criteria on (i) how to establish a meaningful division of the whole region into zones, (ii) how
to provide transition conditions between the zones and (iii) how to combine the zonal predic-
tions. This can be referred to as the “coupling problem”.
Coupling models means introducing flow quantities (e.g. momentum or mass) from one
model into the other and vice-versa. There are only two possibilities for introducing flow
quantities into a model, either over the boundary conditions, or via source terms. The former
may only be specified at model boundaries and have direct effect on the whole flow. The
latter only modify the existing flow by adding quantities. In addition, sources can be speci-
- 128 -
fied for single grid cells, i.e. at any vertical location of the domain, which is impossible for
open boundary conditions. Both concepts are schematized in Fig. 80.
Fig. 79: Schematization of a zonal modeling approach for buoyant waste discharges and the related
velocity and substance concentration fields. Hydrodynamic regions are the near-field (NF),
the intermediate field (IF) and the far-field (FF).
At first glance, the most straightforward coupling approach would be linking a near-field
model (i.e. CorJet) to the far-field model Delft3D. In reality, however, this coupling is quite
complicated and no robust standard solutions exist. The reason is the disparate nature of these
zone model types:
• 3-D far-field circulation models have an elliptic differential equation structure, i.e. they
need distributed boundary conditions at all the domain boundaries (Fig. 80, choice 1).
- 129 -
• Integral type near-field models are parabolic in the governing differential equations. They
only need initial boundary conditions (= initial conditions) and then use a forward march-
ing solution technique along a defined trajectory (e.g. buoyant jet motion or density cur-
rent motion). Thus, the output of such a model does not directly provide all the informa-
tion that can be used as a boundary condition input for the far-field model.
• Furthermore, the integral type near-field models cannot easily deal with re-entrainment of
already mixed water back from the far-field. The only way to do that in these models is
by assuming a certain background concentration that is then added to the predicted output.
A nested coupling (Fig. 80, choice 3A) with an integral type zone model requires additional
boundaries around the near-field zone. This approach is clearly limited, because near-field
models do not provide field information. A boundary condition would need to be “con-
structed” out of the near-field plume results as schematized in Fig. 79, and a lot of inter- and
extrapolation, would be necessary. The superposition approach instead (Fig. 80, choice 3B)
does not require the whole field information, but only at characteristic source locations, where
near-field flow quantities are introduced as source terms in the far-field model, which is easier
to accomplish Fig. 79.
Fig. 80: Schematization of coupling approaches for zone models, either using boundary conditions
(B.C.) or source definitions for the near-field representation in the far-field domain.
- 130 -
5.4.1 Review of coupling concepts

All practical model applications for outfall design and siting used the superposition-coupling
concept (Fig. 80, choice 3B). Hereby generally, only near-field substance concentrations
have been introduced as a source term into the related grid cells of the far-field domain. Rob-
erts (1999) for example used the near-field model NRFIELD coupled to the far-field particle-
tracking model FRFIELD for a Hawaii outfall. No circulation model was used in that case
but single velocity measurements at the planned outfall position served as velocity informa-
tion for the particle-tracking algorithm. Zhang and Adams (1999) coupled NRFIELD to the
far-field circulation model ECOM-si for the Boston outfall and distributed the near-field con-
centration over far-field model cells nearest the diffuser. Miller et al. (1996) applied a similar
approach for the Sydney outfall. However, all these coupled models neglect any intermediate
field process. First, because the applied near-field models do not consider boundary interac-
tions, or buoyant spreading processes, and second because the coupling does not include other
flow quantities than the substance concentration. This is especially critical for quiescent am-
bient conditions, as shown previously.
To overcome these deficiencies Blumberg and Ziegler (1996) proposed including also volume
fluxes into the source terms, in addition to the substance mass fluxes. This idea is based on
the entrainment approach, which causes the plume volume flux to increase considerably. To
guarantee mass balance the entrained fluid needs to be subtracted via sink term formulations.
Zhang and Adams (1999) applied that approach for a simple model setup using NRFIELD
and ECOM-si, but encountered difficulties due to strong grid dependency and turbulence
model formulations. Besides, only a simple approach has been used to define source loca-
tions and entrainment flows, because NRFIELD does not provide information on plume tra-
jectories or centerline flux developments. Choi and Lee (2005) recently presented an ap-
proach using JetLag for step-wise calculations of the entrained fluid volume during plume
rise. The diluted substance mass and fluid volume was then introduced into the upper cells of
the far-field domain, while the same amount of fluid is excluded from the domain in the lower
cells. This approach is probably the most comprehensive regarding the specific dynamic in-
teractions between the rising plume and the ambient. However, the wastefield collapse and
intermediate motions are not fully included. This, because these do not depend on entrain-
ment, but on density currents. The far-field model is generally not capable or not resolved
enough to model these thin density currents as consequence of a source term definition. Fur-
thermore, this rather strong, but too coarse far-field forcing is influencing the far field more
than would be realistic. A third approach has been mentioned by Kim and Seo (2000) who
established a momentum linkage with focus on thermal discharges, by introducing a diffuser
line slot as momentum source into the far-field model. Limitations of their approach are es-
pecially related to the missing buoyancy representations, thus upstream spreading or buoyant
spreading could not be solved sufficiently (also due to the hydrostatic assumption).
A nested coupling approach (Fig. 80, choice 3A) for the present application is not known.
Nevertheless, solutions exist for simpler configurations. Dallimore et al. (2001) for example
coupled a plunging heavy density current (integral model approach) into a stratified reservoir
(2-D circulation model). The ambient hereby affected the plume as a source for entraining
mass, momentum, salinity and turbulence and the plume affected the ambient by displacing it
and including shear along the interface together with detrainment (sink). However, this ap-
proach cannot be generalized, because of a missing unsteady formulation or trapped plume
formulation. For that reason, intensive research is actually being undertaken in that direction.
- 131 -
5.4.2 Coupling approach

Existing approaches seem to have problems especially at still water conditions or during slow
ambient velocities, which often are considered as the worst-case scenarios. This is explained
by the necessary, but too strict division of dilution processes in either near-field mixing proc-
esses or far-field transport processes and neglecting intermediate processes. Therefore, an
approach will be followed, which is based on elements from Zhang and Adams (1999), Kim
et al. (2002) and Choi and Lee (2005), but including special extensions for the intermediate
field. Computational efforts are reduced by a previous far-field flow classification in analogy
to the CORMIX flow classification (5.2.4). The classification allows distinguishing whether
an intermediate field model is needed and which flow quantity is needed.
5.4.2.1 Dynamic aspects - flow classification

Given the different scales of interaction regarding different source strengths (Table 18), there
appear two ways to coupling:
i. Passive coupling
Passive coupling assumes that the source-induced flow, though considerably important for
near-field mixing, does not change the flow characteristics of the far-field, beyond the
near-field or intermediate-field region. Thus, only a linkage between passive flow quanti-
ties (i.e. substance concentrations) has to be accomplished between the models. Simple
substance-mass conservation principles could therefore be used. Passive coupling re-
quires dynamic criteria, to distinguish when and where source induced motions are negli-
gible. Following the scaling for typical wastewater discharges given in Table 18 this tran-
sition occurs right after the near-field for average and large velocities and after the inter-
mediate-field for stagnant or slow flowing ambient.
ii. Active coupling

Once considerable large effluent flows have to be considered (i.e. for thermal discharges)
the ambient flow will be strongly disturbed and modified by the discharge induced flows,
causing changes in the flow and concentration fields even beyond the near-field and in-
termediate-field regions. For these cases source induced motions can never and at no re-
gion be neglected in the far-field flow model. A coupling of all flow quantities has to be
accomplished. Momentum conservation principles have to be considered in addition to
fluid and substance mass conservation for that linkage. Stagnant ambient are even more
critical in that case.
The present approach will focus on wastewater discharges and therefore only follow a passive
coupling. Criteria to distinguish whether a passive coupling is applicable are either the stabil-
ity criterion (equation (5.60)) or a distributed momentum criterion. Active coupling is there-
fore necessary if at least one of the following conditions apply:
i) the near-field is considered unstable (equation (5.60))

ii) ℓm/H > rcrit (5.94)
The term ℓm/H hereby results from the ratio of the discharge momentum distributed over the
depth mo/H and the ambient momentum per unit depth ua². The critical value has been de-
fined to rcrit = 1, however this needs to be validated with experiments.
For cases where passive coupling applies it is then distinguished furthermore, if buoyant
spreading processes are considerable large or not. The CORMIX classification criteria (equa-
- 132 -
tion (5.62)) are therefore used. Two flow classes result for the intermediate field: a buoyant
spreading flow class and a passive diffusion flow class.
Based on that classification coupling locations and times can be specified according to the
following definitions.
5.4.2.2 Temporal aspects

The present approach needs to couple a steady state model (CORMIX) to an unsteady state
model (Delft3D). It is therefore necessary to include time-averaging of far-field results before
a coupling step. The period of time averaging (the coupling time-step) hereby influences cou-
pling accuracy. For example, very short periods (∆t = order of minutes) might result in abrupt
changes of the near-field results, where locations of source definitions in the far-field domain
change in an unrealistic manner, as illustrated in Fig. 81. Too long periods however, cause
too much information loss due to a long time-averaging. Unsteady accumulation of waste
substances is hereby underrepresented. Reasonable estimates for coupling time-steps are de-
fined in eq. (5.95) based on near-field time scales as described in Table 26 (p. 184).
Fig. 81: Definition of source term locations for two different time steps, where ambient conditions
changed considerably.
- 133 -
∆tc = (1 to 3) max(tM, tm) (5.95)
The leading factor (1 to 3) expresses some uncertainty depending on local conditions and dif-
fuser design and alignment. This results in coupling time-steps of approximately one hour for
typical wastewater diffusers, which has been successfully applied also in previous modeling
approaches for typical near-field processes. However, time-scales related to intermediate-
field processes are considerably larger. Modifications regarding the coupling position are
applied to account for that discrepancy (described in the next chapter). Further limitation for
the coupling time-step is either the temporal resolution of the measurements or the time-step
chosen for the far-field model.
Regarding model execution, two approaches are possible:
A static (offline) linkage generates the output for one model for the entire time of interest.
This output is then specified as boundary or source condition for the other model in a subse-
quent simulation. This is simple from the viewpoint of computation and data management,
but obviously, there is a limited feedback between the two separate simulations. For example,
the far-field model is run without any discharge information and saves all results in a data-
base. Afterwards the near-field model is run choosing the appropriate data from the database.
The amount of programming necessary is much less than for online coupling due to the clear
separation of computations.
A dynamic (online or realtime) coupling the models exchange data after every time-step, thus,
the zone models run in parallel. Obviously, the two models must have a great degree of com-
patibility for this linkage to work efficiently. On the other hand, a much higher degree of ac-
curacy can be attained in this fashion. For example the far-field model is applied for time step
1 and results are handed over to the near-field model, which itself provides input for the next
time-step for the far-field model. That kind of linkage generally requires a substantial amount
of code modifications in both models. However, dynamic coupling is only necessary if flow
quantities from either region are dynamically important. This is only the case for active cou-
pling, but not for passive coupling approaches.
A static coupling approach was chosen for two reasons: i) Wastewater discharges do not de-
mand for a dynamic coupling approach, if intermediate-field processes are modeled appropri-
ately, and ii) Regulators, consultants and water companies generally use different models.
Changes in such codes (regardless if commercial or open-source) are generally costly and
time-consuming, whereas the application of an onset coupling approach between existing
models provides a cheaper and easier solution.
5.4.2.3 Spatial aspects

Problem length scales generally vary considerably from time-step to time-step. Therefore, a
criteria is needed to define the proper coupling locations. Fig. 81 schematizes the definition
of source locations for two different time steps and illustrates the complexity of the problem.
The coupling locations depend on four criteria:
i) the flow class

ii) the coupling time step
iii) the persistence of a flow class
iv) either the results from the near-field model or the intermediate-field model
- 134 -
The flow class is defined by the previously described flow classification (flow with or without
buoyant spreading). For flows, where buoyant spreading is not important, the coupling loca-
tion can be defined at the end of the near-field. This location is given by the near-field model.
However, theoretically cases exist, where these locations are far away from the source and a
limiter is needed to account for unsteady effects. Thus in a second step the plume travel time
until the end of the near-field, also given within a CORMIX calculation, is compared with the
coupling time step to verify if the assumption of stepwise steady state near-field calculations
holds for the considered condition. The persistence of a flow class is not important for cases
without buoyant spreading. In a final step, the flow quantities (i.e. substance concentrations)
from the near-field model are distributed over the related far-field grid cells, according to the
calculated near-field plume geometries and distributions. However, a minimum far-field grid
resolution is required in the coupling region to distribute near-field results onto the far-field
grid. Therefore, the length scales ℓm and ℓM provide reasonable estimates (Akar and Jirka,
1991; Jirka and Akar, 1991). Obviously, in a tidal environment with variable ua, ℓm can be
highly variable. Typically, low velocity values, such as occurring near slack tide should be
used for evaluation, resulting in sub-domain sizes of
SizeNF = (1 to 3) min (ℓM, ℓm, LD) (5.96)
measured in each direction from the centerpoint of the diffuser line (length LD). The leading
factor (1 to 3) expresses some uncertainty depending on local conditions and diffuser design
and alignment. To resolve the plume at least 6-8 cells are required. This results in grid reso-
lutions of the order of 50 m for a diffuser with LD = 400 m.
For flow classes where buoyant spreading is important the coupling location is defined be-
yond the near-field region, at a distance proportional to ℓbu/LD (equation (5.70)). However,
travel times of plumes until reaching these locations can be considerably larger than typical
time-steps specified. Therefore, the unsteady time scale tbu/∆t (equation (5.71)) is used as a
measure for the flow class persistence. The longer the flow class for buoyant spreading mo-
tions prevails, the larger the coupling location can be located away from the source. For
highly unsteady flows, however tbu will be small and coupling locations near the near-field
coupling locations.
Both measures have to be compared with measurements, to verify, if such parameterization is

correct for that process. A case study in chapter 7 will discuss this issue in detail.
5.4.3 Coupling algorithm and program modules

The coupling algorithm is described for the programs CORMIX and Deflt3D. However, it
can be used for other programs with similar capabilities, with generally slight modifications
only. No modification of the programs is necessary. The algorithm uses the existing in- and
output features, generally based on ASCII files.
The coupling classification, data averaging, interpolation and transformation, as well as the
modifications regarding specific formats are coded within the commercial software MatLab®
Release 14 from the company Mathworks®. The MatLab m-files are also ASCII files and
may easily recoded for other languages, if MatLab is not available. The m-files are open
source. Once passing the beta-testing period the coupling-codes will be embedded into
CORMIX.
The coupling modules are in order:
- 135 -
• CorField classifies time-series data from field measurements and converts those into
CORMIX input files or Delft3D boundary condition files.
• CorLink classifies CORMIX output files and converts those into Delft3D source-files
• CorTime runs a time-series simulation with CORMIX. This new development for COR-
MIX has already been implemented and allows reading and run time-series files and
summarizes the output.
• CorZone analyses results statistically to be included in regulatory permit procedures.
The coupling algorithm is generally run in the following sequence:
1. CorField: analysis and preparation of field measurements

2. CorTime: baseline near-field / intermediate-field modeling based on measured data
3. Delft3D-FLOW: ambient baseline hydrodynamic modeling using measured data as
boundary conditions and to validate coastal hydrodynamics.
4. CorLink: Source representation in far-field model
5. Delft3D-WAQ: Coupled water quality modeling. Running Delft3D-WAQ including
source terms generated by CorTime.
6. CorZone: summarize overall results within a statistical analysis based on regulatory pa-
rameters (described in chapter 6)
Details of each module are described as follows.
5.4.3.1 Analysis and classification of field measurements - CorField

Field data is essential for discharge modeling. Necessary datasets are bathymetrical informa-
tion, current profiles, density profiles, wind velocities, water levels, drogue studies, or dye
studies. The bathymetry data is the only steady information (assuming no significant morpho-
logical changes). All others are generally given as time-series at different locations (horizon-
tally or vertically). CorField input data are ASCII files defining the horizontal and vertical
position and time, magnitude, and direction. CorField classification is based on spatial and
temporal classification routines summarized in coupling step 1 (Table 20).
Step 1: Classification of measured ambient conditions - CorField
- Classify measurements of density profiles according to CORMIX profile classes.
- Classify velocity profiles in uniform / non-uniform, unidirectional / non-unidirectional
- Statistical analysis of wind data and water level data
- Compute classified time-series files according to CorTime input format for datasets measured
near outfall location (and eventually also at alternative outfall locations)
- Compute classified time-series files according to Delft3D boundary condition format for data-
sets nearest to open boundaries
Table 20: Coupling step 1: Classification of measured ambient conditions - CorField
- 136 -
Density profiles
CORMIX requires a schematization of the vertical density distribution. Measured profiles are
hereby approximated by one of three schematic stratification profile types illustrated in Fig.
82. These are: Type A, linear density profile; Type B, two-layer system with constant densi-
ties and density jump; Type C, constant density surface layer with linear density profile in
bottom layer separated by a density jump. An example for the approximation step is shown in
Fig. 83. An advantage of that classification is the independency of the total water depth, thus
predictions can be made for different total depths, and another advantage are reduced datasets.
Difficulties during that classification step can be re-evaluated for these special cases using the
CORMIX module CORJET, which applies for arbitrary (but stable) density and velocity pro-
files. A coarse schematization routine is included in CorField resulting in the characteristic
parameters describing either of these profiles. These are surface and bottom density for type
A, additionally the height hint for type B, and additionally the density difference ∆ρa at the
jump for type C.
Fig. 82: CORMIX schematization for vertical density profiles. CORMIX distinguishes between a
uniform density distribution, a linear distribution (A), a two layer density distribution with
constant densities (B), and a two layer system with constant surface density and linear bot-
tom layer density separated with a jump (C) (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)
Fig. 83: Example for a CORMIX schematization applied on a measured vertical density profile (re-
produced from Jirka et al., 1996)
- 137 -
Velocity profiles
CORMIX requires that the actual cross-section of the water body be described as a rectangu-
lar straight uniform channel that may be bounded laterally or unbounded (e.g. the nearest
shoreline and an unbounded open sea, Fig. 84). CORMIX only requires the input of a depth
averaged velocity ua (however, universal velocity profiles are used within the CORMIX mod-
ules) and its orientation in relation to the diffuser orientation (angle γ).
Fig. 84: CORMIX schematization for ambient velocity and diffuser orientation. CORMIX only
requires the input of a vertically and horizontally uniform, depth averaged ambient velocity,
and its direction related to the diffuser orientation (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)
CorField includes a routine to calculate CORMIX ambient velocities ua and related angles γ.
This routine furthermore reports whenever measured velocity profiles differ considerably
from this rather strong approximation of ambient conditions. If such, sensitivity studies with
the CORMIX post-processor CorJet allow distinguishing whether strongly non-uniform pro-
files cause considerable changes for the near-field mixing or not. However, comparisons of
CorJet calculations for strongly non-uniform velocity profiles and depth-averaged calcula-
tions showed only little influence on mixing characteristics. Major influence is only related to
the location of the plume trajectory. Regarding near-field lengths scales of the order of me-
ters, however this does not have considerable effects on the overall analysis. For the far-field
model, instead a proper representation of the velocity field is essential.
The spatial evolution of the velocity profiles can by analyzed if more than one location has
been measured, by subsequent CorField classifications and comparison. CorField therefore
includes statistical measures to calculate mean, deviation from mean, standard deviation, and
histograms. The temporal evolution of each profile is included by computing statistical pa-
rameters of each time-series.
Wind velocities and water levels

Time-series of wind velocities and water levels are also analyzed within CorField, especially
for statistical analysis. For example, it is interesting to define the duration of periods with
strong onshore wind, which might cause the plume to reach the shore faster than without wind
effects. A good knowledge of water level variations, i.e. tidal variations, is important as
boundary condition for the far-field model.
Computation of coupling files

The classified and schematized datasets are automatically reformatted within CorField ac-
cording to either a CorTime input format or a Delft3D boundary condition format. Both can
readily be imported in these programs.
- 138 -
5.4.3.2 CORMIX time-series - CorTime

A first engineering design analysis is possible by applying CORMIX for the periods, where
measured data is available and running CorTime to calculate plume properties for every given
time-step. This near-field baseline modeling is summarized in step 2 (Table 21):
Step 2: Near-field baseline modeling - CorTime
- Apply CorTime using the following input conditions: general outfall design parameters as dis-
charge conditions and time-series computed in step 1 as ambient conditions
- Analysis of CorTime results allows evaluating the mixing performance of the applied engineer-
ing diffuser design. Re-running CorTime with either modified design or at alternative locations
allows to optimized design and siting regarding the near-field mixing performance.
Table 21: Coupling step 2: Near-field baseline modeling - CorTime
Discharge representation
CORMIX requires detailed input regarding the discharge configuration. For the multiport
diffuser installations, it is hereby distinguished between three major diffuser types (Jirka,
1982; Jirka and Akar, 1991) as shown in Fig. 85. There is: the unidirectional diffuser (Fig.
85a), where all ports point in a mostly horizontal direction, more or less perpendicular to the
diffuser line, thus β = 90°, θo = 0°, the staged diffuser (Fig. 85b), where all ports point in a
mostly horizontal direction, more or less parallel along the diffuser line, thus β = 0°, θo = 0°,
and the alternating diffuser (Fig. 85c), where all ports are arranged in an alternating or rosette-
like direction relative to the diffuser line, thus β = +/- 90°, θo = undefined, including simply
vertically upward. The overall diffuser configuration is complemented by definitions regard-
ing port and riser configurations, giving diameters and number and orientation of openings.
All information regarding ambient conditions or related to ambient velocity orientations are
given by the CorField computed input file, thus no further input is necessary for these pa-
rameters.
CorTime output and mixing performance evaluation

CORMIX output is manifold. CorTime automatically creates a CORMIX input file for every
single time-step, runs the model, and saves the output reports. These reports contain informa-
tion regarding plume trajectories and dilutions, as well as detailed information on boundary
interactions, flow classes, and even design recommendations (Jirka et al., 1996). It is fur-
thermore possible to visualize the result for every time step as shown in Fig. 86 - Fig. 88.
Comparison of model runs for different designs and siting locations allows comparing the
mixing performance of each alternative. CorTime may therefore be specified to produce ad-
ditional output at a fixed distance downstream the diffuser. Comparing dilutions, plume ge-
ometries, and plume locations between the different alternatives opens a large field for opti-
mization of either diffuser configurations or siting.
- 139 -
Fig. 85: CORMIX schematization of diffuser configurations (reproduced from Jirka et al., 1996)
single port (www.mixzon.com) and contacting the shore after a short distance.
- 140 -
single port (www.mixzon.com) and contacting the shore after a short distance. The chang-
ing flow characteristics after surface interaction can clearly be seen. Blue dashed lines indi-
cate where CORMIX switches to another module to compute the related flow class.
Fig. 88: Example of a CorJet prediction of a diffuser discharge into a stratified flowing environment
with an oblique alignment angle (γ = 45°) seen in the plan view, leading to an internally
trapped plume, seen in the side view, resulting in a concentration profile along the plume
centerline of an effluent concentration of 100%.
- 141 -
5.4.3.3 Ambient hydrodynamics baseline modeling with Deflt3D flow

The base for any coastal water quality analysis is a good knowledge of the coastal hydrody-
namics. Field measurements offer important high-resolution information at specific locations;
however, spatial measurements are limited to very short time periods. Hydrodynamic model-
ing offers high-resolution information all over the considered project domain for large time-
periods, thus offers a perfect complement for field measurements. Though simple interpola-
tion techniques are helpful tools in the open ocean, complex 3D far-field models are needed
for near-coast analysis. Delft3D requires geometrical information for the grid generation and
boundary conditions to be specified at open boundaries. Required scales are summarized in
step 3 (Table 22):
Step 3: Ambient hydrodynamics baseline modeling with Deflt3D flow

- Generate far-field grid for project region with special focus on a proper resolution at the
planned discharge region(s): a good estimate for a minimum grid size is LD/6 within a region of
minimal size = (1 to 3) min (ℓM, ℓm, LD). The vertical resolution should consider at least 10 lay-
ers, with higher resolutions at the surface, around the pycnocline and the bed.
- Define boundary conditions from measured data or large-scale model or both.
- Simulate a sufficiently long and characteristic time period (e.g. typical time frame of 10 days
up to one month, each for typical seasonal conditions)
- Compare simulation results with available field data (e.g. current meter, or temperature time se-
ries, drogue studies). This constitutes, in essence, a validation of the far-field zone modeling.
Table 22: Coupling step 3: Ambient hydrodynamics baseline modeling with Deflt3D flow
5.4.3.4 Source representation in far-field model - CorLink

CorLink uses CorTime output in combination with CorField and Delft3D-FLOW results to
distinguish between the necessary coupling approaches and to define the appropriate coupling
locations. Further linkage with Delft3D is performed via source term definitions, summarized
in step 4 (Table 23):
Step 4: Source representation in far-field model - CorLink

- Analyze and classify CorTime output in combination with CorField and Delft3D-FLOW results
regarding the coupling properties. Passive coupling appropriate for ℓm/H < 1; buoyant spreading
important for ℓM/ℓm < 1, cut-off from buoyant spreading intermediate model result, when either
tbu/∆t or ℓbu/LD >> 1 .)
- Distribute plume properties for every time-step on the related far-field grid cells according the
appropriate coupling location and plume characteristics.
- Compute time-series source files according to Delft3D input format
Table 23: Coupling step 4: Source representation in far-field model - CorLink
CorTime output generally consists of locations of the plume centerline trajectory and associ-
ated dilutions values. The horizontal and vertical concentration distribution at one specific
plume cross-section depends on the dominant processes. CORMIX includes four different
concentration distributions, illustrated in Fig. 89. A distribution of these continuous distribu-
tions on a discrete grid however requires some simplifications. Generally it is not necessary
- 142 -
to represent concentration gradients inside the plume and the calculated centerline concentra-
tion be evenly distributed over the considered plume cross-section, as schematized in Fig. 90.
With the near-field computed plume dilutions D = f(t) the far-field volume flux is:
QFF = QoD = f(t) (5.97)
and the concentration
CFF = C0/D (5.98)
The resulting mass flux is
QcFF = QFF CFF (5.99)
Having n grid cells for coupling locations each source term has a mass flux of QcFF/n.
Fig. 89: CORMIX schematization for the horizontal and vertical concentration distributions at one
specific plume cross-section, depending on the dominant processes (reproduced from Jirka
et al., 1996)
- 143 -
Fig. 90: Example of a CORMIX prediction of a diffuser discharge into a stratified flowing environ-
ment, leading to an internally trapped plume, seen in the side view. Superposed are far-field
grid characteristics, where source characteristics may enter the far-field model.
5.4.3.5 Coupled far-field transport modeling with Delft3D WAQ

The source definitions from step 4 are then advected and dispersed according to the hydrody-
namic velocity field and turbulence quantities using the water quality module Delft3D-WAQ.
It includes substance transformation and decay as summarized in step 5 (Table 24):
Step 5: Far field transport modeling with Delft3D Part / WAQ (mixing, transport, decay)
- Include source files from step 4 into far-field model from step 3
- Simulate far-field waste transport and mixing for measured periods
- Consider transformation and decay processes for the introduced substances.
- Evaluate far-field mixing performance and repeat modeling for other alternatives. This in-
cludes other sites (e.g. longer and deeper outfalls) or treatment options.
Table 24: Coupling step 5: Far field modeling with Delft3D Part/WAQ (mixing, transport, decay)
Generally, field data is limited to specific climatic conditions and does not necessarily include
all-important combinations regarding worst-case scenarios. Thus, the calibrated far-field
model can be used with extended or modified boundary conditions (e.g. strong onshore winds
and stratified conditions) and analyzed for that specific case. The far-field mixing perform-
ance may hereby be compared for different alternatives regarding siting alternatives or treat-
ment options. CorField applied on hydrodynamic model results provides the necessary ambi-
ent conditions for CorTime applications.
One way to evaluate far-field performance is the comparison of concentrations at specific

locations. Another way already includes information regarding the permitting procedure.
The latter provides helpful information on compliance with water quality standards and is
described in detail in the following chapter.
- 144 -
- Regulatory discharge zone (CorZone) -
6 Regulatory discharge and preservation zone - CorZone

The mixing processes due to discharges into water bodies occur according to the previously
described physical principles, and lead to a spatial and temporal configuration of the mass
plume and the associated concentration distribution. Public health or environmental risks can
be associated with these concentration distributions by comparison with concentration limits.
Technological measures to reduce these risks by controlling concentration distributions (or
water quality problems in general) have been discussed in chapter 2 and described in detail
regarding the discharge technologies in chapter 5. However, problems remain unsolved re-
garding the decision on which risks to avoid or accept (definition of concentration limits) and
which technological measures are advisable and appropriate. Technological approaches like
the prediction of bacteria concentrations in receiving waters thus have to be embedded into a
regulatory framework. Unfortunately existing regulatory control measures do not necessarily
correspond to physical facts. Inconsistent, disproportionate, expensive, or even dangerous
decisions regarding discharge permits/licenses on one hand, or beach closures on the other
hand might be the consequence (Jirka et al., 2004). Water quality related regulations there-
fore need to harmonize and clarify measures to guarantee water quality objectives.
6.1 Water quality objectives

Water quality objectives are manifold. Historically they have been related to drinking water
only, thus a pure user-oriented approach. Meanwhile environmental concerns extended water
quality objectives also to surface and groundwater, which are not necessarily used for drink-
ing water supply. Examples are bathing water or shellfish water regulations. But still most of
these existing objectives are related to the water usage (i.e. recreation and fishing) and do only
apply in designated regions for example defined as recreational or fishing waters. Nowadays
it has furthermore been understood and agreed on, that at least basic water quality objectives
have to account for all water bodies or even beyond, for the whole water environment includ-
ing transitional regions thus closing the water cycle. Experience showed that improvements
of water quality are generally driven by legislation. The continuous extension of legislative
requirements increasingly involves engineers and scientist.
A prominent example for this new paradigm in water quality objectives is the new European
Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000) which has the objective of an integrated catchment-
oriented water quality protection for all European waters with the purpose of attaining a good
quality status by the year 2015. The water quality evaluation for surface waters should fur-
thermore rely predominantly on biological (such as flora and fauna) and hydromorphological
(such as flow and substrate conditions) parameters - however, aided by the traditional phys-
ico-chemical quality components (such as temperature, oxygen, or nutrient conditions) and
specific pollutants (such as metals or synthetic organic compounds). A good chemical quality
status is provided when the environmental quality standards are met for all pollutants.
In addition to the general protection of surface waters, a new regulation regarding especially
bathing waters has been decided on recently (EC bathing water directive, 2006). EC member
states shall ensure that, by the end of 2015, all European bathing waters are at least in a suffi-
cient status.
Though other countries and regions recently defined similar objectives or are on the way to do
so, the following discussion will be oriented on definitions regarding the European directive.
- 145 -
6.2 Regulatory water quality control measures

The WFD defines new strategies against water pollution because of releases from point or
diffuse sources. A new aspect is the “combined approach”, i.e. both limitations on pollutant
releases at the source due to promulgation of emission limit values as well as the establish-
ment of environmental quality standards. Releases of pollutants – especially from point
sources – must meet both requirements. For most European member countries (but also on
the international level) this new policy means a considerable deviation from current water
quality management practice by which the releases of pollutants have been controlled by ei-
ther one of these two control mechanisms, but usually not their combination.
Ragas et al. (1997) have reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of different control
mechanisms in the permitting processes of releases into surface water, summarized and illus-
trated in Fig. 91, Fig. 92:
Emission limit values (ELV), also called effluent standards, present a direct and effective
method for the limitation of pollutant loadings by restricting the mass flux of specific pollut-
ants. ELVs are preferred from an administrative perspective because they are easy to pre-
scribe and to monitor (end-of-pipe sampling). From an ecological perspective, however, a
quality control that is based on ELVs alone appears illogical and limited, since it does not
consider directly the quality response of the water body itself and therefore does not hold the
individual discharger responsible for the water body. To illustrate that point consider a large
point source on a small water body or several sources that may all individually meet the ELVs
but would accumulatively cause an excessive pollutant loading.
Fig. 91: Overview of instruments improving water quality
Environmental quality standards (EQS), also called ambient standards or immission limit
values, set as concentration values for pollutions or pollutant groups, that may not be ex-
ceeded in the water body itself (WFD, 2000) They have the advantage that they consider di-
rectly the physical, chemical and biological response characteristics due to the discharge and
therefore they put a direct responsibility on the discharger. However, a water quality practice
that would be based solely on EQSs could lead to a situation in which a discharger would
- 146 -
fully utilize the assimilative capacity of water body up to the concentration values provided
by the EQSs. Furthermore, the water quality authorities would be faced with additional bur-
dens because of a more difficult monitoring – where in the water body and how often should
be measured? – in the case of existing discharges or due to the increased need for a predic-
tion modeling in case of new discharges. The “combined approach” combines the advantages
of both of these quality water control mechanisms while largely avoiding their disadvantages.
Fig. 92: Pollutant sources and water quality management in coastal waters: Compliance with emis-
sion limit values (ELV) for point-source discharges guarantees local protection at the outfall
site, whereas compliance with environmental quality standards (EQS) outside a specified
regulatory discharge zone (dashed line) guarantees water body usage and preservation (un-
derlined items) partly based on ecological standards (ES).
The relevant values for ELV and EQS for various pollutants and pollutant groups can be
found in different directives of the EU (see e.g. Appendix IX of the WFD, or UNEP Guide-
lines, 1996)) or of the national authorities. By way of example for further analysis, Table 25
contains the values for two chemical pollutants (cadmium and triochlorethane). The ratio
ELV/EQS is 10 for triochlorethane and 500 for cadmium. The range of 5 to 1000 is typical
for most chemical as well as physical parameters, such as heat (temperature). This ratio de-
scribes the impact of the pollutants on the ecosystem, since the ELV is considered to protect
against acute (lethal) effects on organisms, while the EQS is supposed to prevent long-time
chronic influences. The ratio also expresses the necessary dilution that must be attained
through physical mixing or - to some extent - through biological decay and chemical trans-
formation processes.
Pollutant Emission limit values Env. quality standards ELV

ELV EQS EQS
Cadmium 0.5 mg/ℓ 1 µg/ℓ 500
(83/513/EEC) (76/464/EEC)
Trichlorethane 0.1 mg/ℓ 10 µg/ℓ 10
(AbwV, Germany, 2000) (76/464/EEC)
Table 25: Examples for emission limit values (ELV) and environmental quality standards (EQS) for
two selected pollutants
- 147 -
There can be other ways of prescribing ELV-values, namely through the specification of a
“best available technology (BAT)”. For example, for sea outfalls this may be described as
some form of treatment, at least preliminary (e.g. UNEP Guidelines, 1996), or chemically
enhanced primary. The requirement may be set by national authorities depending on type of
coastal water body and its use (fisheries or recreation) or on sensitive ecological zones. In
general, such BAT requirements assure a certain degree of substance removal.
For other parameters, such as indicator bacteria or viruses ELV-values do not even exist,
though EQS-values are specified (e.g. for total coliform bacteria given to 500 counts / 100 ml
in the EC Bathing Water Directive). Typical total coliform concentrations in raw sewage are
106 to 108 counts / 100 ml. Concentration reductions are achieved by treating the effluent (e.g.
reduction by a factor 100 to 1000 during secondary and by 1000 to 10,000 during tertiary
treatment (Larsen, 2000)), and dilution and decay in the natural environment. The latter con-
tribution still needs to be of the order of 2 - 200 assuming an average factor of 1000 for the
treatment. This compares with the “traditional” minimum dilution requirements of about 50
to 100 (Lee, 2003) that has been used for many years for outfall design in the coastal waters
of several European countries (Larsen, 2000).
Measures, concentration values, and removal degrees are useful to reduce and control water
pollution, but the practical implementation does not correspond to physical facts. In particu-
lar, one question of central importance to the practice of water authorities has to be con-
cerned: Where in the water body relative to the discharge point do the EQS-values apply?
The “end-of- pipe“ specification for the ELV is clear and unequivocal in Art. 2 (40) of the
WFD: “The emission limit values for substances should normally apply at the point where
the emissions leave the installation, dilution being disregarded when determining them“.
Surprisingly, and quite illogical from the viewpoint of the physical features of the mixing
processes, the WFD does not provide any information on the spatial application of the EQS-
values. It also does not oblige the national authorities to establish such specification. There-
fore, it must be expected that considerable uncertainties and highly variable interpretations or
monitoring methods will occur in the practice of water authorities, both as regards the con-
tinuing approval of existing discharges as well as the permitting of new ones. The “combined
approach” that appears sensible for an integrated ecological water pollution control is in dan-
ger of being by-passed or undermined in its practical implementation.
From discussions with personnel from regional water authorities, two extreme interpretations
are known regarding this omission in the WFD (Jirka et al., 2004), as illustrated in Fig. 93:
i) The EQS-value should be applied “as near as possible” to the discharge point in order to
obtain a good chemical status in an area as large as possible. This highly restrictive inter-
pretation negates the fact that the physical mixing process cannot be reduced to extremely
small areas (in the limit this approaches an “end-of-pipe” demand EQS synonymous with
the ELV-values!), but requires a certain space – in particular for imposed high ELV/EQS
ratios. Actual legislation somehow undermines the balanced objectives of the “combined
approach” by requiring at least secondary treatment for all coastal discharges, unless envi-
ronmental impact studies show, that lesser treatment has “no deteriorating effect” on water
quality. There is again no statement regarding the definition of deteriorating effects
(EQS-values?) or the location where these concentrations apply.
ii) The EQS-value is supposed to apply “after the completion of initial mixing” (California
Ocean Plan, 1988, currently under revision) or “at the beach” or “at the water surface”.
- 148 -
This interpretation negates the unsteady and non-uniform behavior of waste plumes and
ambient conditions (Fig. 93) thus the continuously changing region of initial mixing.
From the viewpoint of any monitoring program (either with fixed sensors or with pre-
scribed boat traverses), this specification becomes very difficult to verify. In addition,
such qualitative statements make them either unenforceable or overly generous. Since the
actual physical mixing processes take place gradually leading to a “discharge plume”,
considerable areas in the water body would be affected by concentrations above the EQS-
values and would have to be considered as “sacrificial regions”, in which a good chemical
status would no longer be provided.
Fig. 93: Illustration of interpretations regarding the location where EQS-values apply
Considering these two extreme interpretations it is obvious that a compromise, in the form of
a numeric definition of spatial dimensions appears greatly preferable for permitting and moni-
toring from both vantage points, that of the discharger and of the authority. This dilemma is
not only a European legislation one. Several countries with such new regulations seem to
have similar deficiencies in their regulatory formulations (Bleninger et al., 2004), e.g. the Bra-
zilian water quality regulations (CONAMA 20, 2000) or the German water laws (LAWA-
Arbeitshilfen, Annex 3, 2002), where guidance documents for the implementation of the
WFD suggest: “For the estimation whether a pressure on a water body is significant, the pres-
sure has to be set in relation to the water body (that means, a discharge of equal size is more
significant for a small water body than for a large one”. On the other hand countries with a
relatively long tradition on immission based water quality regulations already have clear for-
mulations regarding the location where EQS-values apply (e.g. UK: SEPA, 1998, USA: EPA
1994). These regulations serve as base for the development of the following concept.
- 149 -
6.3 Regulatory discharge and preservation zone concept

When performing design work and predictive studies on effluent discharge problems, it is
important to distinguish between the physical aspects of hydrodynamic mixing processes that
determine the fate and distribution of the effluent from the discharge location, and the admin-
istrative formulation of discharge or preservation zone regulations that intend to prevent any
harmful impact of the effluent on the aquatic environment and associated uses. These regula-
tory zones are twofold. Spatial limits exist either for a water body protection, so-called mix-
ing zone regulations or for a water usage preservation (e.g. bathing water regulations).
For example, US regulations define a “Regulatory Mixing Zone (RMZ)”, which is sometimes
also referred to as the legal mixing zone. This definition has been established in the scientific
literature and even influenced the naming of regulations outside the US. However, substantial
misunderstandings have occurred confusing the Regulatory mixing zone with the “near-field
mixing zone” or the “initial mixing zone” or the “zone of initial dilution” (Jirka et al., 1996,
Bleninger et al., 2004). For that reason and regarding the previously described deficiencies in
new regulations, it is proposed to modify the naming to “Regulatory discharge zone” or legal
discharge zone. This naming clearly defines a region to be influenced by a discharge without
necessarily saying how this influence acts or which processes do occur. In addition, even
translations in other languages clearly provide distinguishing between a mixing region and the
(Regulatory) discharge region.
On the other hand, numerous regulations exist related to specific water body uses. There is
for example the European bathing water directive, or the shellfish directive. To summarize
these, the naming of a “Regulatory preservation zone” or legal preservation zone is proposed.
The definition and specification of both is shown in the following sections.
6.3.1 Regulatory discharge zone specification

Jirka et al. (2004) already proposed a future amendment of the EC-WFD and national regula-
tions for its implementation, respectively, containing the following wording: “The environ-
mental quality standards apply in the case of point sources outside and at the edge of the dis-
charge zone. The discharge zone is a spatially restricted region around the point source
whose dimensions should be specified either according to water body type and use or on an
ad-hoc basis.” The discharge zone defined in the above statement is a regulatory formulation
with the following general attributes: 1) the term “discharge zone” signifies explicitly that
discharges in its related processes require a certain space. 2) The term “spatially restricted”
should guarantee that the discharge zone should be minimized by the regulatory authority for
attaining the environmental quality goals. 3) While the discharge zone includes a portion of
the actual physical mixing processes, these processes will continue beyond the discharge zone
where they lead to further concentration drop-offs in the pollutant plume below the EQS-
values. 4) The definition is restricted to “point sources” since diffuse sources usually do not
contain clearly distinct mixing processes.
In comparison the regulations used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency state in its
Water Quality Handbook “… the concept of a mixing zone as a limited area or volume of
water where initial dilution of a discharge takes place” (USEPA, 1994).
The specification of numeric Regulatory discharge zone dimensions however should corre-
spond to hydrodynamic characteristics of outfalls. For coastal discharges with submerged
- 150 -
offshore outfalls, it seems advisable to constrain the Regulatory discharge zone to a limited
region around the outfall in which the initial buoyant jet mixing is dominant. In that fashion
the EQS-values can be achieved within short distances. Thus, the following specification
appears effective: “The mixing zone is a volume with vertical boundaries in the coastal water
body that is limited in its horizontal extent to a distance equal to N multiples of the average
water depth Have at the outfall location and measured in any direction from the outfall struc-
ture.” For a multiport diffuser outfall with many ports arranged along a straight diffuser line
it would be a rectangular prismatic volume with attached semicircular cylinders at the diffuser
ends located along the diffuser line (Fig. 94). For diffusers with a curved diffuser line or
piecewise linear sections the volume would follow the diffuser line. The value N would typi-
cally be in the range of at least 1 to about 10 and set by the regulatory authority according to
local water use and ecological sensitivity. For highly sensitive waters, the minimum of 1
should be set. Common values for most coastal waters might be N = 2 to 3.
Fig. 94: Definition of a numeric dimension for the regulatory discharge zone in relation to the aver-
age water depth Have and a factor N, and the regulatory preservation zone as a fixed distance
from the preserved area (here the beaches).
In addition, Regulatory discharge zone dimensions might be defined in an ad-hoc manner.

After prior ecological evaluations or predictions, the discharger can request the authority for a
Regulatory discharge zone with a certain dimension with the claim that this would guarantee
an integrated water quality protection. Based on its own examinations the authority can agree
with that proposal or else demand further restrictions.
- 151 -
6.3.2 Regulatory preservation zone specification

A similar specification is needed for regions of water bodies with special preservation attrib-
utes (e.g. bathing waters, natural reserves, protected areas, etc.), where stronger and additional
EQS-values apply.
For example UNEP Guidelines (1996) proposed for the Mediterranean sea that the discharge
of municipal wastewater into the sea should always take into account the openness of the af-
fected area and the reservation of a 300 m wide band, parallel to the beach line of the coast or
the affected area, where no discharges should be made whatsoever the treatment applied to the
effluent or the dilution obtained with the outfall.
The proposed wording for a future amendment of regulations is: “The environmental quality
standards for specific water uses and preserved areas apply inside and at the edge of the
preservation zone. The preservation zone is a spatially restricted region whose dimensions
should be specified according to water body type and use. In the case of point source dis-
charges, no discharge, whatsoever treatment, is allowed inside a preservation zone.” The
preservation zone defined in the above statement is a regulatory formulation with the follow-
ing general attributes: 1) the term “preservation zone” signifies explicitly that preservation
cannot be guaranteed everywhere. 2) The term “spatially restricted” should guarantee that the
preservation zone should be optimized by the regulatory authority for attaining the environ-
mental and public health objectives. 3) The additional restriction regarding “point sources”
corresponds to the limited scales of mixing process especially in sensitive and physically
weak environments.
The specification of numeric Regulatory preservation zone dimensions however should corre-
spond to hydrodynamic characteristics of coastal waters. Thus, the following specification
appears effective: “The preservation zone is a volume with vertical boundaries in the coastal
water body that is limited in its horizontal extent to a distance equal to 300 m measured in
any direction from the preservation area.” For a bathing water zone, a 300 m wide band par-
allel to the beach would result (Fig. 94).
In addition, a black list of improper discharge solutions improves the awareness of discharge
technologies. Any discharge should avoid bottom interaction (benthic impacts), or shore hug-
ging, and even small discharges should not be sited in sensitive waters or water bodies with
low flushing characteristics (e.g. between groynes).
6.4 Discharge licensing procedure

There are approximately 50,000 discharge permits with 5 years duration in the USA
(www.mixzon.com). This is a number of 10,000 permits per year and this is probably similar
in other countries. An optimization of the discharge licensing procedure will not only im-
prove the licensing administration, but also water quality.
In addition to the definition of concentration limits (ELVs and EQSs), regulatory discharge,
and preservation zone dimensions, it is furthermore important to define relevant time scales.
Concentrations in the far-field vary over large distances from near background to near plume
maximum centerline concentration. Lee and Neville-Jones (1987) measured dilutions in the
near field of effluent plumes from a number of British outfalls and found that with supposedly
constant discharge and current speed the standard deviation of the dilution measured at the
surface was 40% of the average dilution. High variability is therefore to be expected. A
- 152 -
quantification of environmental impacts and public health risks is still discussed controversial.
Three approaches are usually applicable: the worst case, the mean, and the statistical ap-
proach. Worst-case scenarios consider a parameter combination leading to a maximum possi-
ble concentration at the edge of regulatory zones. Result is a single maximum concentration
at the edge of the regulatory zone, which occurrence probability (i.e. the probability of stan-
dard violation) is usually unknown. Worst-case predictions are simple but eventually more
stringent than necessary. The other extreme would be a long-term average (yearly average).
However, there is typically a strong intermittency of standard violations at the edge of the
regulatory zones, which cannot be resolved with long term averaging. Unfortunately, stan-
dard violations for example for bacteria are most common during the high season, thus caus-
ing higher risks, because of high loads and weak ambient conditions. Shorter averaging peri-
ods (monthly averages or periods of the order of sampling periods) showed to be more effi-
cient for decreasing public health risks. The probabilistic approach describes time-series or
probability distributions. Results are exceedance probability of concentrations at the end of
the regulatory zones. The concept of ‘visitation frequency’ has been suggested and applied to
estimate the probability of the wastefield reaching a particular coastal location (Csanady &
Churchill, 1987; Roberts, 1999). The exceedance probability is defined as:
EP (Ca) = accumulated time for C > Ca / total time of observed period (6.1)
where C = measured or computed concentration Ca = ambient concentration limit
Once standards, zone dimensions, and times are defined, the previously described coupling
approach can be used to design and optimize the discharge installation and the related treat-
ment option. Minimum dilutions necessary to comply with the given standards can be calcu-
lated out of the regulatory definitions.
- 153 -
- 154 -
- Case study -
7 Case study - Cartagena outfall
7.1 Background and problem

The Colombian Caribbean Coast includes complex and dynamic ecosystems whose main bio-
logical environments are estuaries, bays, coastal lagoons, coral reefs and mangrove ecosys-
tems. The region is home to many different activities from manufacturing industries, located
mainly in Cartagena and Barranquilla, an oil terminal and refinery, international maritime and
trade terminals, the Cerrejón mining area, the tourism industry, the agrochemical industry,
small-scale and industrial fishing, and agriculture, among others (Roberts and Villegas, 2006).
However, environmental degradation and severe public health problems exist due to the lack
of planning policy for social welfare, including urbanization issues. Coastal rivers, beaches,
bays, and estuaries have been suffering the effects of pollution caused by uncontrolled waste
discharges even though the adjacent ocean environment has a high capacity for dilution and
dispersion of waste effluents.
Cartagena, is situated at the south coast of the Caribbean Sea (Fig. 95 and Fig. 96). It has a
population of about 1 million people, 750,000 of who are classified in the 1, 2, or 3 poverty
classes (Hazen and Sawyer, 1998). The cities economy is strongly dependent on tourism in-
dustry, which generates an estimated US$315 million in annual revenue (Libhaber and Rob-
erts, 2002). Aerial views of the city are shown in Fig. 97.
Cartagena
Fig. 95: General map of studied area
The population connected to a sewer system is approximately 60% (Hazen and Sawyer,
1998). The resulting effluent is either preliminary treated or directly discharged into near
coast enclosed regions (Fig. 98). Consequences are high bacterial pollution at open sewers
and near shore waters, resulting in severe environmental and public health impacts. The wa-
ter sector reform with private sector participation and World Bank financing resulted in a
wastewater master plan (US$240 million; Libhaber and Roberts, 2002). The project objec-
tives are: Improvements of the sewer system network (almost finished), having a total length
of 80 km and 400,000 beneficients; upgrading the wastewater treatment to primary treatment;
and installation of a long sea-outfall (Fig. 96, ca. 25 million US $). The outfall has a total
- 155 -
- Case study -
length of about 2.85 km and terminates in 540 m long multiport diffuser that discharges pri-
mary treated wastewater at a depth of about 20 m.
N
Outfall Arroyo
de Piedra
Punta
10 km Canoa
Planta de
Tratamiento
Manzanillo
del Mar
Tierra Baja
La Boquilla
Puerto Bay
Cienega
de Tesca
Estación de
Bombeo Paraíso
Boca
Grande Cartagena
Bahía de
Cartagena
Fig. 96: Proposed outfall for Cartagena City, Colombia (Roberts, 2005)
Fig. 97: Aerial views of Cartagena city. Left: prestigious beaches. Right: low-income neighbor-
hoods (courtesy of M. Libhaber, World Bank)
Previous discharge assessments using intensive model applications by Roberts (2003, 2004,
2005) and Roberts and Carvalho (2000) concluded that the planned outfall design complies
with the Regulatory discharge zone requirements by achieving high initial (near field) dilu-
tions ranging from 100 to almost 1000 with a median value of about 230 in short distances
(approximately of the order of the diffuser length) from the diffuser location. They also con-
cluded that compliance with the rather strict California bathing water standards and WHO
standards for bacteria would be met at the shoreline by a wide margin.
- 156 -
- Case study -
Fig. 98: Existing wastewater / drainage situation, where raw sewage flows in open canals or sewers
to either the Bahía de Cartagena (40%) or the Cienaga de Tesca (60%) causing considerable
environmental and public health impacts (courtesy of M. Libhaber, World Bank)
However, an inspection panel has reviewed the outfall design project (Inspection Panel, 2005)
and raised concerns about the outfall design with respect to three main issues:
1. The integrity of the database: Both, the near-field and the far-field model from Roberts
(2004) are based on the velocity and density measurements only at the outfall location.
Although high-resolution data (in time and space, i.e. the depth) has been measured, it has
been suspected by the Inspection Panel (2005) that those velocities and densities espe-
cially in the surface layer are not resolved adequately.
2. The accuracy of the near-field modeling approach: The Inspection panel (2005) raised
concerns with respect to the underestimation of buoyant spreading processes. It was sus-
pected, that during low current periods (thus low dilutions) the plume still surfaces and
might extend kilometers due to density spreading processes in the surface layer. Addi-
tional onshore wind might then cause increased bacteria concentrations at the shoreline.
3. The accuracy of the far-field modeling approach: The Inspection panel (2005) raised con-
cerns with respect to the focus on a single point as base for the transport predictions. Al-
though this approach is considerably conservative due to the over representation of on-
shore currents at near-shore locations and other effects (Stolzenbach, 2005), the Inspection
panel (2005) suspects that worst case scenarios would cause considerable changes for
these predictions.
A first approach to challenge concerns raised from a basic sensitivity analysis on the involved
processes (Roberts, 2005 and Annex A, Inspection panel, 2005) did not find full agreement.
The inspection panel (2005) therefore asked for a 3-D model study.
7.1.1 Caribbean circulation

The inspection panel (2005) suggested applying a large-scale model (ELCOM) for the south-
ern Caribbean Sea for the above-mentioned considerations. This model application is summa-
rized in Roberts and Villegas (2006), however they conclude, that it is not accurate enough for
waste discharge analysis of the Cartagena outfall. Nevertheless, model results serve as impor-
tant information regarding the boundary conditions for the smaller scale coupled modeling
approach presented. Therefore, a very brief summary is given on the large-scale circulation
modeling.
- 157 -
- Case study -
ELCOM (Estuary and Lake Computer Model, CWR, 2002) is a three-dimensional numerical
modeling tool for lakes and estuaries developed by the Centre for Water Research (CWR) of
the University of Western Australia. ELCOM capabilities are the based on the hydrostatic
assumption, baroclinic forcing, semi-implicit finite differences method developed by Casulli
and Cheng (1992), three-dimensional mixing layer approximations derived from a mixing
energy budget developed for one-dimensional lake simulation (Imberger and Patterson, 1981),
on a structured, rectangular grid. The model domain extended for approximately 1400 x 450
km. Within this domain, a horizontal plaid grid with variable cell sizes was defined, as shown
in Fig. 99. The cell sizes range from a minimum of 500 m near the outfall to a maximum of
80 km at the western boundary. There are 17 vertical layers of differing thickness.
Fig. 99: ELCOM grid nodes in the numerical domain (Roberts and Villegas, 2006)
Major modeled oceanographical circulation features have been compared with literature
sources and on-site measurements at the proposed outfall region. Conclusions from Roberts
and Villegas (2006) are briefly summarized in the following sections.
7.1.1.1 Panama Colombian Gyre

The Panama Colombian gyre (Fig. 100) is known from previous investigations. This counter
current varies significantly with the seasons. The ELCOM model represents the gyre (Fig.
101), however ELCOM predicts a gyre that does not always occur compared with measure-
ments, and the observed current reversals are not predicted.
CAYMAN BASIN NORTH

HONDURAS
ATLANTIC
VENEZUELA BASIN
OCEAN
NICARAGUA COLOMBIAN BASIN GRENADA BASIN
Gulf of
Mosquitos
VENEZUELA
COSTA RICA COLOMBIA
Gulf of
PANAMA Darien
PACIFIC OCEAN
Fig. 100: Schematic representation of the Southern Caribbean Coastal Undercurrent, including the
Panama - Colombian gyre (reproduced from Andrade et al., 2003)
- 158 -
- Case study -
Fig. 101: ELCOM prediction for the Panama-Colombian gyre. Rotating directions are not consistent
with measurements or literature for half of the observed scenarios (Roberts and Villegas,
2006)
7.1.1.2 Magdalena river plume

The Magdalena River (average discharge of 7100 m³/s) discharges approximately 100 km
north of Cartagena into the Caribbean. Its river plume extends over considerable distances
and occasionally reaches Cartagena waters (Fig. 102). Besides, it is known that this river car-
ries high levels of contaminants, however, the manner in which these substances influence the
biological and chemical process of the region are unknown. The ELCOM model reasonably
reproduced the river plume. Though it does not predict absolute characteristics, related to the
previous mentioned problem with gyre and current directions, it is most useful in predicting
relative influences of the river plume on the project region. Two calculations have been per-
formed either including, or excluding the river discharge in the model. Roberts and Villegas
(2006) show (Fig. 103, Fig. 104) that the effects of the river plume on the project region’s
density and velocity field is negligible.
Fig. 102: Large scale satellite picture of project region, showing the influence of the Magdalena river
plume on the coast around Cartagena (courtesy of M. Libhaber, World Bank)
- 159 -
- Case study -
0.3
With river
Without river
sigma-t
0.2
0.1
0
1-Feb-98 28-Feb-98
Fig. 103: Comparison of modeled density differences over the vertical at the proposed outfall location
for two different boundary conditions related to the inclusion or exclusion of the buoyant
river discharge (Roberts and Villegas, 2006)
0.4
Speed (m/s)
Northerly With river

-0.4
Without river
0.4
Speed (m/s)
-0.4
Easterly
1-Feb-98 28-Feb-98
Depth 0.25 m
0.4
Speed (m/s)
Northerly With river

-0.4
Without river
0.4
Speed (m/s)
-0.4 Easterly
1-Feb-98 28-Feb-98
Depth 19.5 m
Fig. 104: Comparison of modeled current velocities at two different depths at the proposed outfall
buoyant river discharge (Roberts and Villegas, 2006).
7.1.1.3 Flow characteristics in the project region

Field data at the proposed outfall location have been compared with ELCOM model results.
Though magnitudes are of the same order, measured currents are much more variable and
often in opposite directions (Fig. 105). Furthermore polar scatter plots showed a more dis-
persed distribution regarding the principal directions (Fig. 106). Thus, Roberts and Villegas
(2006) concluded that the discrepancies are too large and would render bacterial predictions at
the shoreline unreliable, as local wastefield transport is heavily dependant on advective trans-
port by the currents. The reasons for the discrepancies between the observed and modeled
currents are not known. It could be due to the limited boundary conditions that were available
to drive the model. It would be desirable to use actual measured winds that vary spatially
- 160 -
- Case study -
over the whole model domain, but these were not available, nor were current measurements at
the model boundaries.
0.25 m
1.25 m
3.65 m
19.5 m
0.4 ADCP Average
Speed (m/s)
-0.4
Northerly
0.4
Speed (m/s)
-0.4
1-Feb-98 Easterly 28-Feb-98
Fig. 105: Magnitudes of modeled velocities compared with measured ADCP data (Roberts and
Villegas, 2006)
40
ADCP
Depth ave.
0
-40 0 40
0.4 0.4
0.25 m 1.25 m
-40
0 0
-0.4 0 0.4 -0.4 0 0.4
-0.4 -0.4
0.4 0.4
3.65 m 19.5 m
0 0
-0.4 0 0.4 -0.4 0 0.4
-0.4 -0.4
Fig. 106: Polar scatter plots of modeled velocities for different depths and two different months (Rob-
erts and Villegas, 2006).
- 161 -
- Case study -
It was therefore decided to use a local-scale model to predict the fate and transport of the
wastefield in the vicinity of the proposed outfall location. The boundary conditions for the
local model consisted of the measured currents spatially modified according to the ELCOM
predictions. The coupling approach presented will be used for the local-scale model specially
representing the processes regarding buoyant spreading motions.
7.2 Data basis - CorField analysis

The entire project data base and especially the extensive measurements of currents, tempera-
ture, salinity, waves, and tidal height in the coastal waters at the proposed diffuser site are
described in Hazen and Sawyer (1998) and summarized in Roberts (2003, 2004, 2005). Only
consolidated datasets prepared for the coupled 3-D modeling will be presented here. Two
periods have been modeled, November 1998 and February 1998, considered the worst-case
scenarios. However, the results presented in the following only show February 1998, because
more datasets have been available for that period, especially regarding the vertical velocity
profiles. The only significant differences between both periods are slower depth averaged
current velocities for November 1998. Results affected by this difference will be shown in
addition to those for February 1998.
7.2.1 Bathymetry and shoreline

Bathymetry and shoreline data was available from different sources, in different resolutions
and in different coordinate systems:
• High-resolution digital shoreline and bathymetry information from International

Bathymetric Chart of the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico (IBCCA, 2003).
This data lacks information neat the coast (< 5 km distance from coast).
• Digitized nautical chart from the Centro de Investigaciones Oceanograficas e Hidro-
graficas (CIOH, 2005, Serguei Lonin) for near coast information
• Sonar scans from the outfall location (Hazen & Sawyer, 1998).
The data has been validated, modified, and interpolated to get a final merged dataset of
bathymetrical data and shoreline information necessary for the 3D modeling.
7.2.2 Wind
The wind data used in this study are hourly point measurements at the Cartagena airport of the
year 1998 and 1999 (Roberts, 2005). Further data for the years 1986 to 1990 (Hazen & Saw-
yer, 1998, p. 8-3) has only been used for qualitative analysis.
The wind is given as time-series data with magnitude and direction. The magnitude is posi-
tive for all values. The direction is measured clockwise to the north. For example, a 45°
wind with 5.5 m/s magnitude is blowing from north-east to south west (see Fig. 107). Fig.
108 and Fig. 109 show the output of CorField analysis of the time-series for February 1998.
- 162 -
- Case study -
Fig. 107: Wind angle definition diagram. A 45° wind is blowing from northeast to south-west
Fig. 108: Time-series feather plot of wind magnitudes and direction measured at the Cartagena airport
for February 1998
(a)
(b) (c)
Fig. 109: Histogram of wind velocity magnitudes (a) and direction (b), and a diagram for the cumula-
tive distribution of the velocities (c) for the wind data measured at the Cartagena airport dur-
ing February 1998
- 163 -
- Case study -
The time-series data printed within CorField as feather plot (Fig. 108) gives a qualitative
overview of the wind velocity directions and magnitudes. The histogram for wind velocity
magnitudes and direction (Fig. 109a,b) show the occurrence frequencies of typical winds.
Winds blow generally from the north or northeastern direction with magnitudes varying from
0 to 6 m/s with an average of approximately 2.4 m/s. The cumulative distribution of wind
magnitudes (Fig. 109c) is important to determine the duration of periods with specific wind
conditions. For example, for 80 % of the month the wind velocities are lower than 4 m/s.
These winds, although relatively near the discharge region, might not fully represent the
winds at the outfall location due to geographical features in that region. However, compari-
son with other wind stations shows similar characteristics. The summarized statistical results
for the years 1998 - 2000 (Fig. 110) show that February data is representative compared to the
yearly data.
Speed (m/s)
<=2
>2 - 4
N N N
>4 - 6
>6 - 8
NW NE NW NE NW NE
>8 - 10
>10
W E W E W E
0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 50%
SW SE SW SE SW SE
S S S
1998 1999 2000
Fig. 110: Statistical analysis of wind directions and velocities for 1998-2000 (reproduced from Rob-
erts, 2005)
7.2.3 Currents
Current velocities were measured with an acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) moored
about 2.5 km from Punta Canoas at the planned outfall location from January 1998 until De-
cember 1999.
Further data, only used for qualitative analysis in this study:

• Major patterns influenced by River Magdalena (Hazen & Sawyer, 1998, Fig. 8-13)
• 25. June 1997 – 27. February 1998, ADCP depth averaged velocities (Hazen &
Sawyer, 1998, Annex 1)
Fig. 111 shows CorField analysis for magnitudes, direction, and histograms of velocities at
six different depths. Vertical correlations of velocity directions indicate barotropic condi-
tions. This is confirmed from the density profiles and the large-scale modeling (Roberts and
Villegas, 2006). Velocities are reducing from surface to bed, whereas the near surface layers
have considerably higher velocities than the other layers. The CorField velocity profile analy-
sis for all profiles of February 1998 is shown in Fig. 112. The standard deviations of veloci-
ties over the vertical are at average of the order of 0.3 m/s with generally small deviations
regarding the horizontal angle compared to the mean direction. The near-bed points are devi-
ating with largest angles to the mean orientation. However, the deviation from typical loga-
rithmic profiles is not significant, thus CorField classification assumes that depth averaged
velocities suffice for the subsequent calculations with CORMIX. The depth-averaged veloci-
ties are shown in Fig. 113. A comparison with Fig. 108 shows general correlation with wind
velocities. This is confirmed by the large-scale calculations from Roberts and Villegas (2006)
- 164 -
- Case study -
having similar periodicities of winds and currents. There is no clear semi-diurnal periodicity,
which would indicate tidal influences. Thus, tides have minor influence on the local circula-
tion.
Fig. 111: Feather plots of measured current directions and velocities in different water depths (top is
near surface and bottom near bed) for February 1998. Right column shows histograms of
velocity magnitude in every layer
Statistical quantities of the depth-averaged currents are summarized in Fig. 114. The rela-
tively strong residual current of 0.3 m/s oriented to the south-west can be related to the large-
scale motions (i.e. Panama Colombian Gyre). Roberts (2003) showed for other seasons, that
- 165 -
- Case study -
this residual current changes to the opposite direction in November, shown in Fig. 114(right).
The driving forces of these currents are large-scale baroclinic motions in the southern Carib-
bean Sea with additional wind shear (Roberts and Villegas, 2006).
Fig. 112: CorField velocity profile analysis for all profiles of February 1998. Top: histogram of stan-
dard deviations of the velocities over the vertical, middle: histogram of standard deviations
of the horizontal velocity angles to the depth-averaged mean, bottom: relative frequency of
horizontal angles of the velocities compared to the dept-averaged mean, shown for every
depth.
Fig. 113: Feather plot of the depth averaged velocities at Punta Canoas, for February 1998
- 166 -
- Case study -
Fig. 114: Scatter plot, cumulative velocity, and histograms for depth averaged velocities and direc-
tion, measured from an ADCP moored at Punta Canoas for February 1998 (left) and No-
vember 1998 (right)
- 167 -
- Case study -
7.2.4 Tides
Measurements of water level elevations have been available from three different locations
(compare with Fig. 96):
• Tide gauge at Islas del Rosario at depth of 15.3 m, 23.02.1998 - 17.08.1998 (Rob-
erts). Hourly measurements Minimum: –0.59 m, Maximum: 0.51 m
• Tide gauge at Boca Grande at depth of 16 m, 25.09.1997 – 16.08.1998 (Roberts).
Hourly measurements, Minimum: -0.37 m, Maximum: 0.52 m
• Tide gauge at Punta Canoas, at depth of 20.6 m, 01.01.1998 – 26.04.99 (Roberts).
Hourly measurements, Minimum: -1.7, Maximum: 0.56
• September 1997 – March 1998 (Hazen & Sawyer, 1998, Figs. 8-3pp and 2-12)
Maximum tidal amplitudes are around 0.5 meters. There is almost no phase shift between the
different tidal stations. Time-series of the water level variations near the planned outfall at
Punta Canoas are shown in (Fig. 115).
Fig. 115: Tide gauge comparison for February 1998 at Punta Canoas and Boca Grande.
7.2.5 Density (Salinity and Temperature) profiles

Temperature and salinity profiles have been measured all along the coast of Cartagena for
short time-periods. Continuous thermistor string measurements (temperature profiles) have
been recorded for a long period. The data is summarized in:
• Hazen & Sawyer (1998), Roberts (2003) for periods from 23 January 1998 - 25 June 1998
• Roberts (2006) for the thermistor string data from November 1999 to June 2001
Measurements and model results from Roberts and Villegas (2006, Appendix A) show a neg-
ligible salinity variation along the vertical profiles around the outfall location. The continu-
ous thermistor string data (temperature profiles, Fig. 116) indicate only small temperature
differences over the water column. This confirms the analysis from Roberts and Carvalho
(2000) stating that the water column is frequently homogeneous, i.e. well mixed over depth.
There are either uniform density profiles with densities around 1023 kg/m³ or slightly strati-
fied conditions with a layer of slightly lower salinity and higher temperature above 7-5 m
depth, reducing the density at the surface to minimum values of around 1022 kg/m³. A typical
- 168 -
- Case study -
measured profile of the latter situation is shown in Fig. 117. Maximum density differences
(bed-surface) seem not to exceed 1 kg/m³. Salinity and temperature variations at the surface
are supposed to result from both the Magdalena River (discharging 100 km north of Cart-
agena) and solar radiation. This is confirmed by Roberts and Villegas (2006) as discussed in
chapter 7.1.1.2.
Thus, the CORMIX type A profile (linear density distribution) applies for almost all time-
steps, with only slight differences in surface and bottom density. Both computed out of the
data presented in Roberts and Carvalho (2000).
3
Delta T (C)
0
Nov-99 Dec-99 Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 Jul-00
3
Delta T (C)
0
Aug-00 Sep-00 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00 Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01
Fig. 116: Temperature data at the planned outfall location showing temperature difference between
5.5 m and 17.4 m probes (Roberts and Villegas, 2006)
Fig. 117: Typical density profile for maximum stratification. Results from measurements offshore
Cartagena (Hazen & Sawyer, 1998)
- 169 -
- Case study -
7.3 Near-field baseline modeling - CorTime

The CorTime coupling module uses the output from the field data converter CorField, such as
ambient conditions like the depth average flow velocity and density distributions. However,
for scenarios where no measurements are available it would also be possible to take the results
from the hydrodynamic model, which then may be processed also using CorField.
Further input is required regarding the effluent characteristics and the outfall geometries.
This data is based on the description from Roberts (2003) and Hazen & Sawyer (1998) and
summarized as follows:
Effluent characteristics:
• Time variant flow (Fig. 118) with a maximum of Qo = 3.9 m³/s
• Total coliform concentration of Co = 107 MPN/100 ml (or 1011 MPN / m³)
• Effluent density ρe = 998 kg/m³
Fig. 118: Assumed flow pattern for the effluent flow rate (Roberts and Carvalho, 2000)
The effluent is discharged approximately 2.85 km offshore at 20 m depth through a diffuser

with the following characteristics (Fig. 119):
Fig. 119: Proposed design for the Cartagena outfall
- 170 -
- Case study -
CORMIX furthermore requires input on far-field parameters, though these are not going to
influence the near-field predictions. Therefore the wind velocity was defined to uw = 2 m/s
and for bed friction the mannings friction coefficient to n = 0.025. A CORMIX calculation
for the example of an average ambient velocity of ua = 0.3 m/s perpendicular to the diffuser
and a linear density profile with ρsurf = 1023 kg/m³ and ρbottom = 1023.5 kg/m³ and a water
depth of H = 20 m results in the following parameter specifications and plume characteristics:
Equivalent slot width Bo = 0.0031 m

Total area of openings Ao = 1.7 m2
Discharge velocity Uo = 2.30 m/s
Diffuser alignment angle γ = 90°
Vertical discharge angle θ = 90°
Horizontal discharge angle σ = 0°
Relative orientation angle β = 90°
Buoyant acceleration go´ = 0.2441 m/s2
Stratification ε = 0.23E-03
Discharge concentration Co = 100%
Discharge (volume flux) qo = 0.0072 m²/s
Momentum flux mo = 0.016 m3/s2
Buoyancy flux jo = 0.0017 m3/s3
Length scales:
ℓQ = 0.003 m ℓm = 0.18 m ℓM = 1.14 m
lm' = 4.11 m ℓb' = 7.81 m ℓa = 19.38 m
Slot Froude number Fo = 83.02
Port/nozzle Froude number Fo = 10.40
Velocity ratio R = 7.66
End of near-field:
Pollutant concentration Cnf = 0.34 %
Dilution S = 292.0
Centerline location: x = 68.47 m; y = 0 m; z = 12.83 m (above the bed)
Plume dimensions: half-width = BH = 273.35 m (top hat half-width in horizontal
plane normal to trajectory)
thickness = BV = 6.94 m (Gaussian 1/e (37%) half-width in ver-
tical plane normal to trajectory
Cumulative travel time: 194.75 s
Plume conditions in the intermediate field at 1000 m downstream (buoyant spreading motions
still continue after that distance):
Pollutant concentration Cnf = 0.28431 %
Dilution S = 351.0
Centerline location: x = 1000 m; y = 0 m; z = 12.83 m (above the bed)
Plume dimensions: half-width = 466.02 m; thickness = 4.91 m
Cumulative travel time: 3299 s
This specific plume calculation has been classified as flow class MS5. The flow classification
scheme used in CORMIX is shown in Fig. 120. A plume visualization as direct results is
shown in Fig. 121. For that specific case, the plume gets trapped at around 13 m above the
bed and then spreads horizontally.
- 171 -
- Case study -
Fig. 120: CORMIX flow classification tree for the basecase example calculation for the Cartagena
outfall
Fig. 121: CORMIX plume visualization (side view) for the example basecase for the Cartagena out-
fall
A full CorTime application processes all parameters for every time step out of the 672 hourly
time-steps for February 1998 data. Results are firstly time-series files for each parameter
(Fig. 122), which are then analyzed using histograms (Fig. 123) showing the occurrence fre-
quency of each parameter.
- 172 -
- Case study -
Fig. 122: CorTime output. Time-series of dilution, plume thickness and plume elevation at the end of
the near-field / intermediate-field, as predicted by CORMIX for every single time-step out
of 672 time-steps for February 1998 data.
Fig. 123: CorTime histograms for parameters at the end of the near-field / intermediate field: dilution,
downstream location, plume elevation, thickness and width and the cumulative travel time.
- 173 -
- Case study -
These results show that the plume is surfacing more then 70 % of the time. This causes high
dilutions with an average of about 1000 and dilutions above 100 for about 96 % of the time.
The end of the near-field / intermediate-field region is on average 170 m downstream the pre-
dominant current and about 98 % of the time encountered before 500 m downstream. The
plume width (two times the resulting half width) is for almost all cases of the order of the dif-
fuser length, thus no significant spreading occurred until that position. The average duration
to reach the end of the near-field location is about 7 min and for all steps below one hour.
These results however are different from those of the near-field modeling studies from Rob-
erts (2001). One explication is the usage of the full velocity profile data considering all 6
pins. Roberts (2001) used 4 instead. However even, CorTime runs using 4 pin data result in
considerably higher dilutions (almost double), though the near-field locations and elevations
are rather similar. Another explication is the different definition of the near-field region in
either model. CORMIX near-field definition partly includes intermediate-field processes (i.e.
boundary interaction and buoyant spreading motions), whereas NRField used from Roberts
(2001) stops after reaching the terminal level. A comparison of both models would be needed
for further evaluation. It is however justified to continue using the CorTime results, because
of its extensive validation and if the coupling procedure properly handles the definition of the
near-field region.
Further applications of CorTime allows optimizing the mixing performance of the applied
engineering diffuser design by re-running CorTime with either modified design or at alterna-
tive locations. Furthermore, the results might already be used for evaluating compliance re-
garding the environmental quality objectives defined for the regulatory discharge zone. For
example if defined in a distance of 5 times the average water level elevation of H = 20 m, the
concentrations in 100 m distance are larger than 100 for 97 % of the time. Alternatively, if
defined in larger distances, for example at 500 m downstream relative frequencies and a cu-
mulative distribution of frequencies (Fig. 124) allow estimating the dilutions and concentra-
tions in a larger area, without running a far-field model yet. Fig. 124 demonstrates that dilu-
tions are larger than 400 for more than 95 % of the time.
Fig. 124: Statistical analysis of the plume centerline dilution at 500 m downstream the diffuser. Left:
Histogram of the relative frequency, right: cumulative distribution of frequencies.
7.4 Ambient hydrodynamics baseline modeling with Deflt3D flow

The base for any coastal water quality analysis is a good knowledge of the coastal hydrody-
namics. Field measurements offer important high-resolution information at specific locations;
however, spatial measurements are limited to very short time periods. Hydrodynamic model-
- 174 -
- Case study -
ing offers high-resolution information all over the considered project domain for large time-
periods, thus perfectly complementing field measurements. Though simple interpolation
techniques are helpful tools in the open ocean, complex 3D far-field models are needed for
near-coast analysis of stratified non-uniform water bodies.
The Delft3D model package includes all necessary utilities for pre- and post-processing:
• Delft3D-RGFGRID (2004) for generating curvilinear grids
• Delft3D-QUICKIN (2004) for preparing and manipulating grid oriented data, such as
bathymetry or initial conditions for water levels, salinity or concentrations of constituents
• Delft3D-GPP (2004) for visualization and animation of simulation results
• Delft3D-QUICKPLOT (2004) a second tool for visualization and animation of simulation
results
The solver for the hydrodynamics is Delft3D-FLOW (2003), for the intermediate field particle
tracking approach transport Delft3D-PART (2003) and for the full system water quality
Delft3D-WAQ (2003).
7.4.1 Computational domain

The domain size was chosen to be approximately 20 km around the proposed outfall location.
It is considerably smaller than the large-scale model ELCOM (Fig. 125). However, it is large
enough to represent all hydrodynamic features regarding transport and mixing of waste
plumes and small enough to assume a negligible influence of spatial climatic variations, like
temperature or density fields.
Elcom model
Delft3D model domain
domain
Fig. 125: Model domains for ELCOM and Delft3D (Roberts and Villegas, 2006)
- 175 -
- Case study -
7.4.1.1 Horizontal discretization – structured curvilinear grid along shoreline

The computational grid should have a high resolution at locations of interest and critical hy-
drodynamics (strong gradients) and lower resolution far away from these points, thus saving
computational efforts. A structured curvilinear grid was set up, where grid lines may be
curved along land boundaries and channels, so that 'stair case' boundaries (from rectangular
grids) are avoided and artificial diffusion is reduced (Delft3D-RGFGRID, 2000).
The minimum grid size for the near-field region has been defined according to chapter 5.4.2.3
to less than LD / 6 = 90 m. The size of the near-field region is estimated with eq. (5.96) to at
least SizeNF = (1 to 3) min(ℓM, ℓm, LD) = (1 to 3) 540 m ≈ 1000 m. Grid resolution increases
beyond the near-field.
Locations for the open boundaries have been defined by a large-scale flow analysis using the
ELCOM model results (Roberts and Villegas, 2006). Observations and analysis of the un-
steady flow around the outfall location allowed characterizing areas where only weak spatial
gradients and more uniform flows occurred. Together with the bathymetrical data, this infor-
mation was used to define the location of open boundaries. The domain is bounded by the
coastline and three straight open boundaries that encompass an area of about 930 km2 (Fig.
126).
Fig. 126: Delft3D model domain for the Cartagena coastal region. Grayscales indicate different
depths. Boundary conditions (B.C.) are described at all open and closed boundaries.
Previous calculations have been performed using a coarser grid. A compromise between grid
dependency and computational demands has been found for the present resolution. Influence
of grid spacing on the final exceedance diagrams are considered small compared with other
modeling uncertainties.
- 176 -
- Case study -
7.4.1.2 Vertical discretization – sigma layers along bathymetry

Available bathymetrical data (see chapter 7.2.1) was interpolated onto the computational grid.
The σ-coordinate system was used in the vertical because of its high vertical resolution in
coastal regions. To resolve near-bed and near-surface processes, considering the thin fresh-
water layer from Magdalena river plume and the waste plume itself while either surfacing or
stratifying near the surface, the vertical thickness of the σ-layers was chosen as follows: There
were 13 layers going from surface to bottom, and the layer thickness were 2%, 3%, 4.5%,
6.75%, 10%, 15%, 17.5%, 15%, 10%, 6.75%, 4.5%, 3%, 2% of the water depth. Fig. 127
illustrates the applied σ-coordinate system, showing a cross-sectional view through the do-
main.
Fig. 127: Vertical cross section through model domain to visualize sigma-layers with high resolution
at shallow regions. The diffuser is located at 2.8 km distance from the shore.
7.4.1.3 Temporal discretization

The time step chosen depended upon the grid resolution and was chosen to be 5 min. Calcula-
tions have been done for a one-month period resulting in a total of 8064 time-steps for Febru-
ary 1998.
7.4.2 Boundary and initial conditions

The model boundaries and an overview of the boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 126.
7.4.2.1 Closed boundaries - shear stresses

The closed boundaries are defined by the known shoreline and the bathymetry. For shallow
flows like the observed coastal waters in the project region, the influence of the shear stresses
along the lateral boundaries is neglected and a so-called free slip boundary condition is ap-
plied. In the σ-coordinate system, the free surface and the bottom are σ-coordinate surfaces
and the vertical velocities are relative to the σ-plane. The impermeability of the surface and
the bottom is taken into account. The vertical diffusive flux through the free surface and bed
- 177 -
- Case study -
is set to zero and heat flux through the free surface has been ignored, because no thermal
stratification has been observed.
The bed shear stress is related to the current just above the bed. The contribution of the verti-
cal velocity component to the magnitude of the velocity vector is neglected. The first grid
point above the bed is assumed to be situated in the logarithmic boundary layer. Bottom fric-
tion is accounted for by the Manning equation with n = 0.025.
Unsteady wind stress is applied on the free surface and a wind drag coefficient given to
cD,w = 0.0025.
7.4.2.2 Open boundaries

Open boundaries are necessary to restrict the computational domain. These conditions repre-
sent the influence of the outer world, i.e. the area beyond the model area, which is not mod-
eled. The present flow is numerically forced by combinations of time-variant water levels and
currents. The hydrodynamic forcing is prescribed using harmonic or astronomical compo-
nents or as time-series. The transport of salinity, temperature, and/or constituents is pre-
scribed by specifying the inflow concentrations. None of this information was available, thus
it is impossible to represent the open boundaries in an accurate way. Therefore, the open
boundaries have been chosen far away from the observed project region, that their effects on
the problem are negligible. In fact, one of the most difficult aspects of limited-coastal model-
ing is the adequacy of the open boundary condition information available.
A coarse semi-artificial nesting has been applied between ELCOM, Delft3D, and the meas-
urements. Direction and magnitude for the unsteady logarithmic velocity information has
been taken from the measured data and distributed along the boundaries according the mod-
eled linearly interpolated large scale velocity field. At the western boundary only tidal forcing
is applied using the water level time-series interpolated between a northern and southern sta-
tion from Hazen and Sawyer (1998, Annex1).
The transport boundary conditions are uniform at all open boundaries for the unstratified case.
For stratified calculations, steady density stratification similar to the measurement and EL-
COM predictions has been applied for reasons of simplicity. The stratification showed less
density in the first 5 m of the water column, followed by a density jump and further uniform
density.
7.4.2.3 Initial conditions

The initial conditions are average water level elevations and zero velocities at all grid points.
Forcing this model with the previously mentioned boundary conditions leads to a reasonable
solution (without effects of the initial condition) after a few simulation days. The results of
the simulation are then used as initial conditions for the next runs.
7.4.3 Hydrodynamic simulation

First runs have often been characterized by unstable solutions leading to unsuccessful calcula-
tions and no results. This is caused by inaccurate setups (too coarse temporal or spatial reso-
lutions) or boundary and initial conditions (inaccurate or unstable conditions), as well as the
wrong choice of the numerical scheme (e.g. implicit or explicit, 1st order or 2nd order
schemes). Once the calculations are stable, results were obtained after a successful run. Cal-
- 178 -
- Case study -
culation times for a one month simulation, with a time step of 5 min. and approximately
10000 grid points in the horizontal and 13 layers in the vertical takes approximately 5 hours
on a 3GHz (1GB RAM) standard single processor PC.
Visualization of large data sets of 3-dimensional, unsteady velocity data is still a challenging
task and depends on the interpretation interests. Delft3D postprocessors allow for different
spatial data arrangements (profiles, horizontal and vertical cross-sections) and temporal ar-
rangements (time-series or movies). Import options allow for further post-processing with
other programs. Following visualizations however have been made by processing the data
using either post-processors from Delft3D or the routines from CorField or combinations. An
advantage in that regard is the MatLab based post-processor QuickPlot in Delft3D. Basic
plots can easily be exported and further processing be done with user-defined variables.
Fig. 128 shows the velocity field of depth averaged velocities in the project region. It clearly
points out one of the major advantages of hydrodynamic modeling, giving highly resolved
information at all grid points and therefore offering spatial flow analysis, which cannot be
done with measured data.
Fig. 128: Depth-averaged velocity field zoomed in to the outfall region at Punta Canoas.
- 179 -
- Case study -
For validation, Fig. 129 compares a computed and measured time-series plot of water levels at
Punta Canoas, the planned outfall location, showing good agreement. Comparing the meas-
ured velocities at Punta Canoas with the modeled currents indicates whether the model is able
to represent major flow characteristics at that point. Fig. 130 and Fig. 131 show time-series
plots of depth averaged velocities at the planned outfall location. A relatively good agreement
of major flow characteristics can be seen by comparisons of the peak flow events. However,
it can also be observed that there are several discrepancies between modeled and measured
data. These can be deficiencies of either the model (inaccurate boundaries or resolutions) or
the measurements (lack of surface layer velocities and near-bed velocities) or both. Further
model calibration and optimization would allow defining the source of inaccuracies in more
detail. The comparison of scatter plots, Fig. 132, show that the modeled results seem to be
more dispersed in the horizontal than the measured values. This behavior is clearly to the
inaccurate boundary conditions or effects of the spatial grid resolution. However, major flow
characteristics seem to match reasonably well.
Fig. 129: Time-series of model and measured water levels at Punta Canoas (outfall location) for Feb-
ruary 1998
Fig. 130: Time-series feather plot of depth averaged modeled (top) and measured (down) velocities at
the planned outfall location for February 1998.
- 180 -
- Case study -
Fig. 131: Time-series of modeled (dashed-line) and measured (continuous-line) depth averaged cur-
rent components at planned outfall location for February 1998
Fig. 132: Scatter plot of measured (left) and modeled (right) depth averaged currents for February ‘98.
A second tool for comparing measured and modeled velocities is comparisons of the statisti-
cal flow quantities. Fig. 133 shows histograms of frequencies for depth averaged velocity
magnitudes and direction. These confirm the previous deficiencies of the model to represent a
more constraint distribution of velocities along the major direction.
Fig. 133: Statistical comparison of measured (left) and modeled (right) depth averaged current magni-
tudes and directions for February 1998.
- 181 -
- Case study -
A third interpretation method is the comparison of the vertical profiles. Fig. 134 shows 3D
visualizations of a vertical velocity profile at Punta Canoas for two different time-steps.
These visualizations confirm the previous characteristics. At some instances there are quite
good agreements between modeled and measured profiles, at other instances there are clear
disagreements. Generally, the profiles seem to show that the wind-shear effects, which can be
seen in the measured profiles, are underrepresented in the modeled results. Furthermore, the
eastern component of velocity seems to be too big, whereas the northern velocities are often
too small.
Fig. 134: Comparison of modeled and measured 3-D visualizations of vertical velocity profiles at
Punta Canoas for different time steps
It can be concluded for the hydrodynamic modeling that major characteristics are represented
in the model, but not all details. More intense optimization and analysis would be necessary
for improvements of absolute values. Nevertheless, these results together with the results of
the large-scale model and the measurements provide further insight in the flow field around
the planned outfall location. Further relative comparisons between the two modeled periods
show, that effects regarding the stronger onshore winds during November 1999 do not have
considerable consequences on the resulting flow field. In addition, influences of stratification
are of minor importance if model results are compared in between each other.
- 182 -
- Case study -
7.5 Source representation in far-field model - CorLink

The coupling module CorLink is used to classify the near-field / intermediate-field results and
writing source input files to be included into a Delft3D calculation. The results of the classi-
fication can be summarized to:
• The maximum value for ℓm/H for all time-steps within February 1998 was 0.8, and the
mean value 0.007. Thus, it is justified to follow a passive coupling approach, neglecting
momentum fluxes in the coupling procedure. However, for the period of November 1998,
38 time-steps out of 699 exceeded that criterion, especially for almost stagnant ambient ve-
locities.
• There are 6 time-steps, where ℓM/ℓm < 1. The medium value is about 30. Thus, buoyant
spreading processes are only or marginal importance. However, for November 1998, 277
time-steps out of 699 (almost 40 %) are indicating that buoyant spreading processes might
be important.
• The unsteady scale analysis for the 6 cases of February 1998, shows, that only one exceeds
the ratio of ℓbu/LD or tbu/∆t respectively. This case has been modified by choosing a shorter
distance for the coupling, the other include the full intermediate field results. For Novem-
ber 1998, all time-steps classified as buoyant spreading class exceed the ratios of both
ℓbu/LD and tbu/∆t. Thus, model results from CorTime regarding these large spreading mo-
tions, have been modified by reducing the coupling distance. The cut-off was proportional
to the duration of the period where the plume was classified into the buoyant spreading
class.
• Generally, a critical ambient velocity can be defined for average flux values. For ℓm/H = 1
and the average initial momentum flux of mo = 0.013 m3/s2 it is ua,crit = 0.03 m/s. For ve-
locities below that value the near-field momentum flux, might not be neglected during the
coupling process.
• Generally, a critical ambient velocity can also be defined for buoyant spreading processes.
For ℓM/ℓm = 1 and the average initial buoyancy flux of jo = 0.0015 m3/s3 it is ua,crit = 0.11
m/s. For velocities below that value buoyant spreading motions are significant.
Ignoring buoyant spreading processes in the near-field - far-field coupling procedure can
therefore only be justified if the assumption is valid, that periods with very small velocities do
not last for hours. For February 1998, there are only 6 time-steps with duration of maximum
one hour. For November 1998, Fig. 135 shows the histogram of durations of the 277 time-
steps, where velocities are below 0.1 m/s. The average duration is about 8 h, whereas longer
periods occur seldom. The results from the intermediate field calculations can be considera-
bly larger than these periods as summarized in Table 26 for a sensitivity analysis. CorLink
classification therefore cuts-off most of the strongly spreaded intermediate-field results, which
cannot occur in reality, due to often relatively short durations of such periods.
This sensitivity analysis using CORMIX and including buoyant spreading processes calcu-
lated plume properties for a location of 1000 m and 100 m downstream and for stratified and
uniform ambient density profiles. The modeling approach from Roberts (2003) using
NRFIELD predicts values for the plume width of around 600-700 m at a distance of 100 m
downstream. Differences to CORMIX-values are only considerable large for current veloci-
ties smaller 0.07 m/s (Table 26, values in brackets are for a distance at 100 m downstream).
This sensitivity analysis indicates that different results are to be expected only for periods
with velocities smaller than 0.07 m /s and durations longer than 5 hours. Such periods only
occur with 7% of November 1998. CorLink classification considers those and modifies the
- 183 -
- Case study -
necessary source files respectively. The modified plume parameters at the end of the inter-
mediate field have been converted into Delft3D source files.
Fig. 135: Histogram of the frequency of duration of periods where ambient velocities are below 0.1
m/s for November 1998.
stratified density profile uniform density profile

current dilution plume width thickness travel dilution plume width thickness travel
velocity ua @1000(@100) time @1000(@100) time
[m/s] [-] [m] [m] [h] [-] [m] [m] [h]
0.1 158 1600 (700) 4 2.8 418 1700 (700) 9.5 2.7
0.09 140 1660 (700) 3.7 3 396 1940 (700) 9 3
0.08 81 1400 (800) 2.8 3.5 127 2100 (800) 3 3.4
0.07 72 1500 (880) 2.6 4 117 2300 (880) 2.8 3.9
0.06 65 1740 (1000) 2.5 4.6 111 2700 (1000) 2.8 4.6
0.05 60 2000 (1200) 2.4 5.5 80 5200 (1200) 1.2 7.5
0.04 55 2350 (1600) 2.3 7 89 9200 (1600) 1 16
0.03 52 3100 (2400) 2.3 9 44 9400 (2400) 18 72
0.02 52 4800 (4000) 2.2 16 42 14000 (4400) 15 72
Table 26: CORMIX sensitivity analysis for slow current velocities (ua) and stratified or unstratified
conditions. Results are for a plume location at 1000 m downstream. Values in brackets ()
are plume width results at 100 m downstream.
7.6 Coupled water quality modeling

The source files resulting from CorLink are introduced into Delft3D. These can directly be
imported into the water-quality module Delft3D-WAQ that is based on the hydrodynamic
results from Delft3D-FLOW. Delft3D-WAQ models bacteria decay using the Mancini (1978)
model. Default parameters were used with the first order mortality rate equal to 0.8 1/d, am-
bient water temperature 15°C, UV irradiation at the upper-boundary segment 160 W/m², and
the duration of solar radiation 0.58 d. The integration method chosen was the explicit back-
ward scheme in space and time including diffusion.
Fig. 136 shows total coliform concentration of a certain time-step. The plume is traveling
with the predominant velocity field, while unsteady variations cause additional accumulation
- 184 -
- Case study -
or stretching of the plume. Fig. 137 indicates four locations, for which time-series of total
coliform concentrations for February are shown in Fig. 138. Highest values occur at the out-
fall location (the vertical axis at the outfall location is one magnitude larger than at the other
positions) and decreasing concentrations away from the diffuser. Near-shore concentrations
are very small and show strong intermittency, usually expected for ocean discharges into spa-
tially and temporally varying currents (Roberts, 1999). The intermittency increases and aver-
age concentration levels decrease with increasing distance from the source. Because of this
intermittency, average levels are much lower than peak values. Concentrations near shore
only very occasionally exceed background levels, and when they do, they are of order 1,000
per 100 ml or less.
Fig. 136: Modeled depth averaged concentration [MPN/m³] of total coliforms at 21st of February.
Effluent concentration is Co = 1011 MPN/m³. Bathing water standard is C = 107 MPN/m³
= 103 MPN/100 ml (dashed line)
7.7 Regulatory consequences - CorZone

Water quality standards for protection of human health are usually based on indicator organ-
isms that indicate the presence of pathogens. The standards for the Cartagena outfall are dis-
cussed in Roberts (2003, 2004, and 2005). The widely adopted California Ocean Plan stan-
dards (SWRCB, 2001) have been used here. However, the California standards have recently
been revised. The original standards were based on exceedance frequencies, for example,
total coliforms should not exceed 1,000 per 100 ml for more than 20% of the time. The new
standards (SWRCB, 2005) use geometric means rather than exceedance levels. For example,
- 185 -
- Case study -
the 30-day geometric mean of total coliforms should not exceed 1,000 per 100 ml (107 per
m³). The original standards, which have been applied here, are stronger than the new stan-
dards and results in the following sections are expressed as the exceedance frequency. These
indicate how often during a monthly period this standard is exceeded. The applied standard is
a concentration of 103 MPN/100 ml (or 107 MPN/m³) (Roberts, 2004).
Fig. 137: Positions, where concentration data is saved as time-series, shown in Fig. 138
Fig. 138: Time-series of modeled depth averaged concentration [MPN/m³] of total coliforms at differ-
ent locations (Fig. 137). The figure named “outfall” has an axis one magnitude larger than
the others. Effluent concentration is Co = 1011 MPN/m³. Bathing water standard is C = 107
MPN/m³ = 103 MPN/100 ml (dashed line).
- 186 -
- Case study -
Fig. 139 shows the modeled exceedance frequencies for the month February 1998 and Fig.
140 for November 1999. For February 1998 at approximately four percent of the time, the
standard is exceeded at the coast around Punta Canoas. This is in general agreement with the
previous calculations made by Roberts (2004), shown in Fig. 141. In Roberts (2005), only
yearly-averaged results for 1998 were presented so they cannot be compared directly with the
present results for February 1998, although the magnitudes of the shoreline impacts and longi-
tudinal plume extensions are similar. For November 1998, instead a direct comparison is pos-
sible. The contours in the present study are more curved around the local topography (Punta
Canoas) compared to those in Roberts (2005) that are more linear along the current principal
axes. This can be related to the effect of buoyant spreading motions in combination with on-
shore winds in the present study. Roberts (2005) assumed the currents spatially homogene-
ous, which becomes less reliable with increasing distance from the current meter site. Longi-
tudinal plume extension is very similar, though transversal plume extensions are not. Never-
theless, the conclusion is still similar, that the California exceedance standard of 20% is met
far from the shore.
Concentrations in lower layers are smaller than in the surface layer. Beyond the 6th σ-layer (at
the outfall location in a depth of about 9 m) almost no bacteria is found.
Fig. 139: Exceedance frequency of total coliforms exceeding 1000 MPN/100 ml for the month Febru-
ary 1998. Effluent concentration is Co = 1011 MPN/m³.
- 187 -
- Case study -
Fig. 140: Exceedance frequency of total coliforms exceeding 1000 MPN/100 ml for the month No-
vember 1998
Fig. 141: Frequency that total coliforms exceed 1000 MPN / 100 ml, left: for Feb. 1998 (Delft3D) and
the whole year 1998 (Roberts, 2005), and right: for Nov. 1998. Contours in foreground are
modeled with NRFIELD-FRFIELD (exceedance frequencies for 1%, 10% and 20%, repro-
duced from Roberts, 2005) compared with the final results of the 3-D coupled modeling
(background, where exceedance frequencies are shown for 1%, 10%, 20% and 50%).
- 188 -
- Case study -
7.8 Discussion and recommendations

A three-dimensional model was applied to the coastal environment around Cartagena, Co-
lombia. The model used was Delft3D, developed by Delft Hydraulics. The model incorpo-
rates the ocean bathymetry and predicts ocean currents through the water column that are
generated by wind stresses and the appropriate boundary conditions.
Although not sufficient boundary condition data has been available the present model setup
allowed representing major characteristics of both, the measured velocity data at the outfall
location and the large-scale influences compared with a large-scale model. Statistical charac-
teristics are in reasonable agreement.
The hydrodynamic model was used to predict bacteria concentrations resulting from a
planned wastewater discharge of the Cartagena district. The effluent is discharged via a
2.8 km long submerged outfall including a diffuser installation. Model linkage was realized
by coupling the hydrodynamic results with the near-field mixing model CORMIX and linking
both to a water quality model in Delft3D to predict bacteria concentrations including the
modeling of bacterial decay.
Results show that compliance with near-shore water quality standards is guaranteed for 97 %
of the time for worst-case scenarios of the months February 1998 and November 1999. This
means, that compliance is even higher for all other months. A worst-case consequence would
be a half-day beach closure on a monthly basis due to elevated bacteria concentrations. This
is more than adequate in comparison with national or international public health standards.
Furthermore, it allows for an effective solution of the existing water quality problems due to
onshore discharges.
Comparison with results from Roberts (2005) show the advantage of the proposed coupling
approach, which releases limitations for weak currents and spatial current variations, often
resulting in underestimation of near-shore currents and intermediate-field processes. How-
ever, difficulties exist regarding the missing boundary condition information, such as current
speed and direction and density over depth, and their variability with time. Coastal waters are
usually very much undersampled, especially spatially, and such detail is almost never avail-
able. A complementary approach using both data sources is even more important for the
modeling of flow conditions, which have not been covered by measurements. The present
approach allows extending simulations in that direction. However, the present more rigorous
and detailed approach confirms the other results that shoreline bacterial standards will be met
by a large margin.
It has been shown, that buoyant spreading and wind-induced velocities enhance the plume
transport, especially during periods of weak velocities. However, particularly during the
worst-case November 1999, the shoreline bacterial levels were still considerably below the
water quality standards. Moreover, instances of low current speeds are infrequent, and, when
they occur, of short duration. Thus, concerns from the Inspection panel (Inspection panel,
2005) regarding limitations of the previously applied modeling approach and the present ap-
proach have been eliminated.
The results thus confirm that the present outfall design and siting complies with national and
international standards. Compliance on one hand with near-field discharge criteria assuring
protection of the area around the outfall itself and compliance on the other hand with bacteria
standards improving public health.
- 189 -
- Case study -
- 190 -
- Conclusions -
8 Conclusions
Coastal waters are of enormous natural and economic importance for most countries in the
world. However, coastal water quality is threatened in large part by uncontrolled wastewater
discharges, causing severe public health impacts and environmental degradation. Unfortu-
nately, the choice for the appropriate technological measure is manifold and the response of
the coastal waters difficult to predict. The option for submarine outfalls in the form of sub-
merged multiport diffusers has shown to be a very positive and reliable element in coastal
water quality management. Prevailing uncertainties in the design of multiport diffusers and of
predictions regarding the environmental impacts have been discussed and reduced. The inte-
gral approach taken allows designing the engineering structure optimized by parameters de-
fining its integration into the environment. In addition, formulations for water quality regula-
tions have been improved to correspond to physical processes and allow communicating pre-
dictive results to the beneficiary. This thesis covered the following contributions: First a mul-
tiport diffuser design program was developed. Secondly, two model systems for discharge
analysis, CORMIX for the near-field and intermediate-field and Delft3D for the far-field were
coupled, and third a regulatory procedure was proposed to license and monitor outfall installa-
tions.
CorHyd, the computer program developed for the hydraulic design of multiport diffusers, by-
passes restrictions of previous diffuser programs by considering flexible geometry specifica-
tions with high risers and variable area orifices, all with automatic definition of loss coeffi-
cients. It calculates the flow distribution along the diffuser and the related pressure losses in
the pipe system. Additional design features regarding blocked or closed ports, a sensitivity
analysis and performance evaluation for varying parameters guarantees a proper diffuser op-
eration and reduced costs for installation, operation and maintenance. Program capabilities
have been demonstrated within two case studies for the Ipanema outfall in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil and the Berazategui outfall in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The applications showed
strong sensitivity to the representation and formulation of local losses even for relatively sim-
ple riser/port configurations. The proposed optimization methodology converged relatively
fast accounting for a homogeneous discharge distribution along the diffuser, minimization of
the total head and prevention of sedimentation or ambient water intrusion in the diffuser under
varying inflow and ambient conditions.
Submarine outfalls for treated municipal wastewater discharging in coastal waters pose a
challenge for pollutant modeling because of large scale disparities. The waste dispersal can be
conceptualized to occur in three hydrodynamic regions, according to dominant mixing proc-
esses. The near-field region is dominated by the source induced turbulent mixing in form of
buoyant jets. The intermediate-field is characterized by small mixing, but strong spreading
motions due to boundary interactions and buoyant spreading processes. The far-field region is
dominated by the ambient flow, where advection causes the wastefield to be transported and
ambient diffusion causes further wastefield spreading. Time scales of far-field processes can
be large, thus water quality parameters need to be considered in addition to physical proc-
esses. Scale analysis showed, that the only feasible modeling approach is by coupling zonal
models applied for each hydrodynamic region. The chosen models are CORMIX for the near-
field and intermediate-field and Delft3D for the far-field. Special attention was given to the
intermediate-field modeling, which generally has been neglected in previous coupling ap-
proaches. The CORMIX flow classification system proved to be an important component for
the modeling approach. It allows distinguishing between the hydrodynamic regions in general
- 191 -
- Conclusions -
and applicable modeling tools for specific flow conditions in particular. The existing set of
length scales as base for the flow classification has been extended by additional unsteady
length and time scales. These define, whether buoyant spreading results as predicted by the
steady intermediate-field model, correlate to the unsteady motions in the receiving waters.
The proposed coupling approach is based on three main steps. Firstly, the coupling module
CorField classifies and analyses available field-data. Resulting time-series are computed to
correspond with CORMIX and Delft3D input file formats. Secondly, the CorTime module is
applied to a baseline near-field / intermediate-field modeling. Resulting time-series include
dilutions, plume locations and plume geometries until the end of the intermediate-field region
for every single time-step. An evaluation of the mixing performance might be used for op-
timizations regarding the outfall configuration. Thirdly, CorTime results are classified with
the new unsteady scales, to define the appropriate coupling position. The CorLink coupling
module therefore computes source-files for the Delft3D model according to the chosen far-
field grid resolution and intermediate-field plume geometry and concentration. The water
quality model within Delft3D is then run with these source files to compute the substance
concentrations.
The coupling approach was applied to the planned outfall for the city of Cartagena in Colom-
bia. The study incorporated the ocean bathymetry and predicted ocean currents and density
distributions through the water column that are generated by wind stresses and the appropriate
boundary conditions. Although insufficient boundary condition data has been available the
present model setup allowed representing major characteristics of both the measured velocity
data at the outfall location and the large-scale influences compared with a large-scale model.
Statistical characteristics are in reasonable agreement. The flow classification system showed
that intermediate-field processes are significant especially for the period of November 1998.
Model linkage was realized by coupling the hydrodynamic results with the near-field mixing
model CORMIX and linking both to a water quality model in Delft3D to predict bacteria con-
centrations including the modeling of bacterial decay. Results show that compliance with
near-shore water quality standards is guaranteed for 97% of the time for worst-case scenarios
of the months February 1998 and November 1999. Furthermore the coupled computation
gives more realistic results than previous approaches.
Unfortunately, existing regulatory control measures (e.g. those in the EU-WFD) do not neces-
sarily correspond to physical facts involved in coastal wastewater discharges. Most water
quality regulations omit the definition of the location, where environmental quality standards
apply. Therefore two regulatory amendments have been proposed. First, the regulatory dis-
charge zone defines a limited region around the outfall, where general environmental quality
standards apply. This definition accounts for the fact, that mixing processes need space and
time to reduce effluent concentrations. Second, the regulatory preservation zone defines a
limited region around preserved areas, like beaches or protected areas, where specific envi-
ronmental quality standards are defined in addition to the general ones. Both definitions im-
prove the procedure of either licensing or monitoring wastewater outfalls. The application
within the case study for the Cartagena outfall shows that results presented in that way con-
siderably improve the understanding of coastal wastewater discharges and their efficieny in
improving water quality and public health for the coastal environment.
- 192 -
- Conclusions -
9 Outlook
The computed pollutant concentrations of this study were based on measured scenarios, calcu-
lating the missing velocity data on one hand and predicting the changes due to a planned dis-
charge on the other hand. Due to moderate computation times it might be feasible to extend
that hindcasting to a full forcasting system. Therefore the existing model could be used to run
scenarios with modified boundary conditions, for example linked to forecasted metereological
data or even climate change models and predict concentration distributions for the near future
or long term impacts due to climate change. Similar to a weather forecast and storm warning
systems such a system could be used as a forecast or warning system for beach water quality.
Such systems are planned (e.g. from NOAA for the Great Lakes, www.glerl.noaa.gov), al-
ready in operation (e.g. from DHI at Kopenhagen beaches, http://bathingwater.dhigroup.com),
and will be increasingly developed.
The present study was focused on wastewater discharges into coastal waters using multiport
diffuser installations. Amplifications of the approach presented are specifically interesting for
considerations of other effluents and receiving waters. For example dense discharges from
desalination plants, or thermal discharges from power plants or accidential spills might be of
major interest for further studies. Especially dense discharges pose a challenging problem,
because of the irregular bathymetry strongly influencing the resulting density currents. Dis-
charges into rivers or lakes, however, can probably be modeled directly with the present ap-
proach, because the current fields are uni-directional and less unsteady.
Another amplification should consider the transport of non-dissolved substances, like pollut-
ants attached to particles, which undergo further settling and resuspension. This would extend
the predictions regarding environmental impacts to more ecological parameters, including
sediment quality or biotic life and habitat conditions. Wave motions then might influence the
problem and thus be included in the modeling approach.
However, a major problem is still related to an accurate representation of the coastal current
and density fields. Hydrodynamic models still may include a high degree of uncertainty, espe-
cially, when only little field data is available. A good measure for evaluating uncertainty for
coastal water flows is near-coast oceanographic analysis based on oceanographic principles.
An inclusion of such analysis in engineering hydraulics would probably improve the under-
standing of coastal flows. Another issue is the uncertainties related to real predictions or fore-
casts, rather than hindcasting. The application of climate models would then be needed to
predict winds and temperatures, water levels and densities. However, this is only possible on
large scales, but not on scales influenced by a submarine outfall discharge. This problem
seems to remain even with the perspective of strongly increasing computer power. Increasing
domain sizes and resolutions and higher order numerical methods still demand proper bound-
ary conditions. An improvement of spatial field-measurement techniques, like the Ocean Sur-
face Current Radar (OSCR) will probably contribute more to the solution of that problem than
different numerical schemes.
- 193 -
- Conclusions -
- 194 -
- Annex -
Annex A Loss coefficients in CorHyd

Type Definition
Inlet Sharp edged inlet (Idelchik, 1986)
(Reference
velocity is V) ζ = 0.5
The value ζ = 0.5 is automatically implemented in the code, if a feeder pipe exists. Although most
of the constructions do have sharp edged inlets from the headworks into the feeder pipe other con-
figurations may be applied by using the following graphs and changing the code in the mentioned
files (zeta_entry = “new value”).
Rounded inlets (Idelchik, 1986, Miller, 1978)
The loss coefficient ζ for rounded (radius r) or edged inlets (angle Θ and edge
width t) depends on either the relation of rounding radius r and the pipe diameter d
or the edge width t and the pipe diameter d as well as the angle Θ.
- 195 -
- Annex -
Expansion Sudden expansion (Idelchik, 1986)

(Reference 2
velocity is ⎛ A ⎞
2
⎛ ⎛d ⎞
2
⎞
V1) ζ e = ⎜⎜1 − 1 ⎟⎟ = ⎜1 − ⎜⎜ 1 ⎟⎟ ⎟
⎝ A2 ⎠ ⎜ ⎝ d2 ⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Gradual expansion (Idelchik 1986)

2
β 4 β⎛ A ⎞
ζ e = 3.2 ⋅ tan ⋅ tan ⎜⎜1 − 1 ⎟⎟
2 2⎝ A2 ⎠
with β in rad
Contraction Sudden contraction (Idelchik, 1986)

(Reference 3/ 4
velocity is ⎛ A ⎞
3/4
⎛ ⎛ d ⎞2 ⎞
V2) ζ c = 0.5 ⋅ ⎜⎜1 − 2 ⎟⎟ = 0.5 ⋅ ⎜1 − ⎜⎜ 2 ⎟⎟ ⎟
⎝ A1 ⎠ ⎜ ⎝ d1 ⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Gradual contraction (Idelchik 1986)
( 4 3 2
)
ζ c = − 0.0125 ⋅ n 0 + 0.0224 ⋅ n 0 − 0.00723 ⋅ n 0 + 0.0044 ⋅ n 0 − 0.00745 ⋅ (β3 − 2πβ2 − 10β )
with A0 and β in rad
n0 = ≤ 1 .0
A1
Bending Bend (Kalide 1980)

(reference
velocity = ⎡ ⎛D⎞ ⎤ δ
3 .5
velocity after ζ 0 = ⎢0.131 + 0.159⎜ ⎟ ⎥ ⋅

⎣⎢ ⎝ R ⎠ ⎦⎥ 180°
bending
where D is the pipe diameter and R the radius of the bend. Often applied as R = 3D. Delta is the
angle of the bend (e.g. 90° for rectangular bends).
Friction due to bend (Idelchik 1986)
L with L δ R
ζ fr = λ =π
D D 180° D
- 196 -
- Annex -
Division of T-division (Idelchik 1986)

flow
ζt = 1+1.5(αAr/Ap)²
Flow is devided equally at an end of a pipe.
Unequal flow division (Idelchik 1986)
Branch (entering riser): ζs = ζc,s / (Vr/Vd)²

Main pipe: ζst = ζc,st / (Vr/Vd)²
with an angle between riser and diffuser axis assumed to be nearly 90°, and where ζc,st from Fig.
142 - Fig. 144 (Idelchik, 1986), ζc,s = Aζ ζ’c,s , with
determination of Aζ from Idelchik (1986, Paragraph 15)

Ar/Ad <= 0.35 and qr/qd <= 0.4 Aζ = 1.1 - 0.7 qr/qd
Ar/Ad <= 0.35 and qr/qd > 0.4 Aζ = 0.85
Ar/Ad > 0.35 and qr/qd <=0.6 Aζ = 1 - 0.65 qr/qd
Ar/Ad > 0.35 and qr/qd > 0.6 Aζ = 0.6
and determination of ζ’c,s

Dr/Dd <= 2/3 ζ’c,s = 0.7956(Vr/Vd)² + 0.2732(Vr/Vd) + 0.956
Dr/Dd = 1 ζ’c,s = 0.3(Vr/Vd)² + 1
2/3 < Dr/Dd < 1 ζ’c,s = 0.3(Vr/Vd)² + 1 + (1-Dr/Dd/(1-2/3))((0.7956(Vr/Vd)² + 0.2732(Vr/Vd) + 0.956)
- (0.3(Vr/Vd)² + 1))
Orifices Straight orifice
ζ=1
In addition, especially for straight orifices covered with perforated plates further losses can be
added (e.g. Fig. 145 - Fig. 147)
Side branching orifice (Fischer et al. 1979)
For sharp-edged and rounded orifices see eq. (4.25) and (4.26)
- 197 -
- Annex -
Flexible orifices (duckbills)

Lee et.al. (1998) , Red Valve Company, Abromaitis 1995, Elasto-Valve Rubber Products (EVR)
H ⋅ (ρ e ⋅ g ) 2⋅ H ⋅ g
ζ duck = 2
= 2
Vduck Vduck
ρe ⋅
2
Where H denotes the headloss, Vduck the discharge velocity which depends on the effective open
area Aduck which depends on the flow through the valve. All these parameters are dependend also on
the used stiffness of the rubber material. The following formulas are taken from Lee et al. (1998)
but should be adapted to the used material from the providing company. If other materials are used
the following formulations have to be modified in the code.
Tideflex H [m] Aduck [cm2] Vduck [m/s]

TF 100 0,0634 * Q 13,075 ln Q - 9,201 1,3485 Q0,5536
0,0606 * Q 0,9090 Q0,6089
TF 150 0,0232 * Q 38,828 ln Q – 27,300 0,5277 Q0,5558
0,0235 * Q 0,6084 Q0,5638
TF 200 0,0124 * Q 40,466 ln Q – 6,429 0,2917 Q0,5967
0,0129 * Q 0,4692 Q0,5395
TF 305 0,0067 * Q 95,950 ln Q – 200,940 0,4529 Q0,4732
0,0052 * Q 0,3091 Q0,5203
with Q in [ℓ/s]
Inaccuracies ζ = n ζs, where n is the number of fittings (ATV-DVWK A110, 2001)

in pipe sit-
ing D [mm] ζs
200 0.017
300 0.014
400 0.012
500 0.010
600 - 1000 0.005
> 1000 0
Inaccuracies ζ = n ζf, where n is the number of fittings (ATV-DVWK A110, 2001)

in pipe fit-
tings D [mm] ζf
200 0.009
300 0.006
400 0.004
500 0.003
600 - 1000 0.0015
> 1000 0.001
- 198 -
- Annex -
Fig. 142: Diagram for the coefficients to compute the loss coefficient for a flow division (reproduced
from Idelchik, 1986)
- 199 -
- Annex -
- 200 -
- Annex -
- 201 -
- Annex -
Fig. 145: Additional loss coefficients for orifices (reproduced from Idelchik, 1986)
- 202 -
- Annex -
- 203 -
- Annex -
- 204 -
- Annex -
Annex B Example of CorHyd report

If the report radio button has been activated for the output, an ASCII file is written to the pro-
gram directory containing the following information:
The header with the date:

Summary of the results
27-Apr-2005
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Input data:
INPUT ambient data
Water level Hd [m] above datum (z = 0 m): Hd =
4.00
Ambient density rho_0 in [kg/m³]
1000.00
---------------------------------------------------
INPUT effluent data
Density rho_e of effluent in [kg/m³]
999.00
Flowrate of effluent in [m³/s]
33.62
---------------------------------------------------
INPUT outfall sections
Length, slope, x, y, and z coordinates for different sections
# Length Slope x y z
- - - 7500.00 0.00 -2.50
1 450.00 0.00 7050.00 0.00 -2.50
2 500.00 0.00 6550.00 0.00 -2.50
3 2050.00 0.00 4500.00 0.00 -2.50
4 4480.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 -2.50
5 21.03 0.31 0.00 0.00 4.00
---------------------------------------------------
Output data:
OUTPUT flowrates and velocities
Riser Discharges (q), Total discharge (Q), Port Velocities (Vp) and diameter (Dp), Jet
Velocities (Vj), Riser Velocities (Vr),
Densimetric Froude number, Diffuser diameter (Dd) & Diffuser Velocities (Vd) upstream
of port #
# q [m³/s] Q [m³/s] Vp[m/s] Dp[m] Vj[m/s] Vr [m/s] Fr[-]
Vd [m/s] Dd [m]
1 4.633519e-001 4.633519e-001 5.1034 0.170 5.1034 1.6388 124.9 0.3010 1.400
2 4.595955e-001 9.229474e-001 5.0621 0.170 5.0621 1.6255 123.9 0.5996 1.400
3 4.579980e-001 1.380945e+000 5.0445 0.170 5.0445 1.6198 123.5 0.8971 1.400
4 4.558982e-001 1.836844e+000 5.0213 0.170 5.0213 1.6124 122.9 1.1932 1.400
5 4.548185e-001 2.291662e+000 5.0095 0.170 5.0095 1.6086 122.6 1.4887 1.400
6 4.550564e-001 2.746719e+000 5.0121 0.170 5.0121 1.6094 122.7 1.7843 1.400
7 4.569866e-001 3.203705e+000 5.0333 0.170 5.0333 1.6163 123.2 2.0812 1.400
8 4.610083e-001 3.664713e+000 5.0776 0.170 5.0776 1.6305 124.3 2.3806 1.400
...
---------------------------------------------------
OUTPUT riser locations - intersection with pipe centerline
# x y z
1 7500.000 0.000 -2.500
2 7450.000 0.000 -2.500
3 7400.000 0.000 -2.500
4 7350.000 0.000 -2.500
5 7300.000 0.000 -2.500
6 7250.000 0.000 -2.500
7 7200.000 0.000 -2.500
8 7150.000 0.000 -2.500
9 7100.000 0.000 -2.500
10 7050.000 0.000 -2.500
11 7000.000 0.000 -2.500
....
---------------------------------------------------
OUTPUT losses and total head
____________________________
Name of loss Loss [m] % of the relative head
Inlet head loss [m] 0.080 1.3

Feeder head loss [m] 5.141 81.4
Diffuser head loss [m] 0.206 3.3
Av. port/riser headloss [m] 0.069 1.1
(Max. port/riser headloss [m] 0.226 3.6
(Min. port/riser headloss [m] -0.000 -0.0
- 205 -
- Annex -
Av. jet velocity head [m] 0.196 3.1

(Max. jet velocity head [m] 0.213 3.4
(Min. jet velocity head [m] 0.184 2.9
Density head difference [m fresh water] 0.676 10.7
________________________________________________________________________________
Sum of averages [m] 6.368 100.8
(Sum of all maximum losses [m] 6.543 103.6
(Sum of all minimum losses [m] 6.287 99.5
Calc. relative total head, above sea level [m] 6.316

Calc. absolute total head [m] 33.316
Losses in port/riser configuration at position i

# Headloss in port/riser [m]
1 0.879
2 0.905
3 0.926
4 0.962
5 1.008
6 1.067
7 1.143
8 1.236
....
---------------------------------------------------
OUTPUT design recommendations (Fischer et al, 1979)
(Sum of Area of ports cross-sections downstream) / (Area of diffuser cross sections)
# (Sum Ap(#))/Ad(#)
1 0.059
2 0.118
3 0.177
4 0.236
5 0.295
6 0.354
.....
END OF RESULTS
- 206 -
- References -
References
Abessa, D.M.S., Carr, R.S., Rachid, B.R.F., Sousa, E.C.P.M., Hortelani, M.A., and Sarkis, J.E., 2005,
“Influence of A Brazilian sewage outfall on the toxicity and contamination of adjacent sediments”,
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50, 875-885
Abromaitis, A.T., and Raftis, S.G., 1995, “Development and Evaluation of a Combination Check
Valve / Flow Sensitive Variable Orifice Nozzle for use on Effluent Diffuser Lines”, Proceedings of
the 68th Annual Conference & Exposition “Water Environment Federation”, October 21 –25, Mi-
ami Beach, USA,
Adams, E.E., Stolzenbach, K.D., and Harleman, D.R.F., 1975, “Near and far field analysis of buoyant
surface discharges into large bodies of water”, Techn. Rep. 205, MIT Parsons Laboratory
Akar, P.J., and Jirka, G.H., 1994, "Buoyant Spreading Processes in Pollutant Transport and Mixing.
Part I: Lateral Spreading in Strong Ambient Current", J. Hydraulic Research, 32, 815-831
Akar, P.J., and Jirka, G.H., 1991, "CORMIX2: An expert system for hydrodynamic mixing zone
analysis of conventional and toxic submerged multiport diffuser discharges", U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Tech. Rep. EPA/600/3-91/073, Env. Res. Lab, Athens, Georgia
Akar, P.J., and Jirka, G.H., 1995, "Buoyant Spreading Processes in Pollutant Transport and Mixing.
Part II: upstream spreading in weak ambient current", J. Hydraulic Research, 33(1), 87-100
Alfredini, P. and Roma, M.C.B., 1999, “As condicionantes referents a Hidraulica Maritima na Dis-
posicao Oceanica de Esgoto na Costa Paulista”, Relatorio 2, Escola Politecnica da Universidade de
Sao Paulo, Departamento de Engenharia Hidraulica e Sanitaria, Brazil
Arasaki, E., 2004, “Sistemas predominantes de tratamento de esgoto na costa paulista - metodologia
para a tomada de dicisao”, Ph.D. thesis, Escola Plitechnica da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil
ATV-DVWK A110, 2001, “Hydraulische Dimensionierung und Leistungsnachweis von Abwasser-
kanälen und -leitungen”, ISBN 3-935669-22-4 (based on DIN EN 1671), www.dwa.de
ATV-DVWK-A 116, 2005, “Teil 2: Druckentwässerungssysteme ausserhalb von Gebäuden“, März
2005, ISBN 3-937758-15-1, www.dwa.de
Avanzini, C., 2003, “Construction techniques, supervision, “As built report”, maintenance and moni-
toring planning as a key to a successful operation of submarine outfalls”, Proceedings Workshop:
Submarine Outfalls: Design Considerations and Environmental Performance Monitoring, Sao
Paulo, Brazil
Bellair, J.T., Parr-Smith, A., Wallis, I.G., 1977, “Significance of diurnal variations in fecal coliform
die-off rates in the design of ocean outfalls”, Journal WPCF, 2022-2030
Bennett J.V., Holmberg S.D., Rogers M.F., and Solomon S.L., 1987, “Infectious and Parasitic Dis-
eases”, In: Amler RW, Dull HB, eds. Closing the Gap: The Burden of Unnecessary Illness, New
York, Oxford University Press, 102-114.
Berzin, G., 1992, “Monitoring of the Santos Submarine Outfall, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 10 years in opera-
tion”, Water Science and Technology Vol. 25, No. 9, 59-71
Bitton, G., 1994, “Wastewater Microbiology”, Wiley-Liss, New York
Bleninger T. , Avanzini, C.A., and Jirka, G.H., 2004, “Hydraulic and technical evaluation of single
diameter diffusers with flow rate control through calibrated, replaceable port exits”, Proc. Int. Conf.
Marine Waste Water Discharges and Marine Environment, Catania, Italy
Bleninger T., and Jirka G.H., 2004, “Near- and far-field model coupling methodology for wastewater
discharges”, Proceedings, 4th International Symposium on Environmental Hydraulics and 14th
Congress of Asia and Pacific Division, International Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Re-
search, Hong Kong, China, 15. - 18.12., Lee J.H.W., Lam K.L., Eds.
Bleninger T., Hauschild I., Jirka G. H., Leonhard D., and Schlenkhoff, 2004, "Immissionsorientierte
Bewertung von Einleitungen in Gewässer: Mischzonen oder Opferstrecken, wo gelten die Gütek-
- 207 -
- References -
riterien?“, KA - Abwasser, Abfall, 51.Jahrgang, Nr.3, , bzw. Wasserwirtschaft, 94.Jahrgang, Nr.4,

April 2004
Bleninger T., Lang C., and Weitbrecht V., 2004, "Generalentwässerungsplan Stadt Mainz Neubau
Auslass Gassnerallee, Hydraulische Berechnungen im Rahmen der Optimierung der Abfluss-
verhältnisse im Auslassbauwerk Gassnerallee", University Karlsruhe, Institutsbericht, Instituts für
Hydromechanik, Nr. 810,
Bleninger T., Perez L.M., Milli H., and Jirka G.H., 2005, “Internal hydraulic design of a long diffuser
in shallow water: Buenos Aires sewage disposal in Rio de la Plata estuary”, Proc. XXXI Interna-
tional Association of Hydraulic Engineering and Research Congress, 11.-16.09.2005, Byong-Ho
Jun (Ed.), Seoul, South Korea
Bleninger, T., and Jirka, G.H., 2002, "Outfalls database and information exchange", Proc. Int. Conf.
Marine Waster Water Discharges, Istanbul, Turkey, 16.-20.Sep
Bleninger, T., Lipari, G., and Jirka, G.H, 2002, "Design and optimization program for internal diffuser
hydraulics", Proc. Int. Conf. Marine Waster Water Discharges 2002, Istanbul, Turkey, 16.-20.Sep
Blumberg, A.F. and Mellor, G.L., 1985, "Modelling vertical and horizontal diffusivities with the
sigma coordinate system", Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 113, No. 8
Blumberg, A.F., Ji, Z.G. and Ziegler, C.K., 1996, "Modeling outfall plume behaviour using far field
circulation model, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 11
Blumberg, A.F., Signell, R.P., and Jendter, H.L., 1993, “Modeling transport processes in the coastal
ocean” Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering,1, 31-52
Braga, E.S., Bonetti, C.V.D.H., Burone, L., and Bonetti Filho, J., 2000, “Eutrophication and Bacterial
Pollution caused by industrial and domestic Wastes at the Baixada Santista Estuarine System - Bra-
zil”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 2, 165-173
Brooks, N.H. , 1960, “Diffusion of sewage effluent in an ocean current”, Proc. of First International
Conference on Waste Disposal in the Marine Environment, Univ. of California, Pergamon Press,
New York
Brooks, N.H. and Koh, R.C.Y., 1965, “Discharge of sewage effluent from a line source into a strati-
fied ocean”, XI Congress, IAHR, Paper No. 2.19, Leningrad
Brooks, N.H., 1972, “Dispersion in hydrologic and coastal environments”, W.M. Keck Laboratory of
Hydraulics and Water Resources, California Institute of Technology, Rep. KH-R-29
Brooks, N.H., 1980, “Synthesis of stratified flow phenomena for design of ocean outfalls”, Second
International Symposium on Stratified Flows, Trondheim, Norway, 24-27 June, 809-831
Brooks, N.H., 1988, “Seawater intrusion and purging in tunneled outfall” Schweizer Ingenieur und
Architekt, 106(6), 156-160 ( I think this is a journal, oder?)
Brooks, N.H.,1984, “Dispersal of wastewater in the ocean - a cascade of processes at increasing
scales”, Proc. of the Conf. Water for Resource Development, Coeur dÁlene, Aug 14-17
Burrows, R., 2001, “Outfalls I: Pipeline and diffuser manifold design and hydraulic performance”,
IAHR Short Course Environmental Fluid Mechanics: Theory, Experiments and applications held at
University Dundee
Burrows, R., Neves, M.J.V., Larsen, T., Carratelli, E.P., Veltri, P., 1998, “European attitude to the
disposal of wastewater in the sea: the case for a (european) network for sea outfall research”, Water
Science and Technology, Vol. 38, No. 10, 317-321
Busch, N.E., 1972. On the mechanics of atmospheric turbulence. Workshop on micrometeorology, A.
Met. Soc., 1-65.
Canteras, J.C., Juanes, J.A., Perez, L., Koev, K.N., 1995, “Modelling the coliforms inactivation rates
in the Cantabrian Sea (Bay of Biscay) from in situ and laboratory determinations of T90”, Water Sci-
ence and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 2, 37-44
Carvalho, J.L.B., 2003, “Modelagem e análise do lancamento de efluentes atraves de emissaries sub-
marines”, Ph.D. thesis, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (COPPE-UFRJ), Brazil
Carvalho, J.L.B., Roberts, P.J.W. and Roldao, J., 2002, "Field Observations of Ipanema Beach Out-
fall", Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 2, 151-160
- 208 -
- References -
CETESB (Companhia de Tecnologia de Saneamento Ambiental), 2005, “Relatoria de qualidade das

agues litoraneas no estado de Sao Paulo, Balneabilidade das praias 2004”, CETESB, Brazil
Chin, D.A. and Roberts, P.J.W., 1985, “Model of dispersion in coastal waters”, J. of Hydraulic Engi-
neering, ASCE, 111(1), 12-27
Choi, K.W. and Lee, J.H.W., 2005, “A new approach to effluent plume modelling in the intermediate
field”, Proc. 31st IAHR Congress, Seoul, Korea, September 11-16, 2005, 4303-4311
Chyan, J. and Hwung H., 1994, “On the interaction of a turbulent jet with waves”, J. Hydr. Research,
31 (6), pp. 791-810
Chyan, J., Hwung H. and Chang Y., 1991, “Wave effects on the mean flow characteristics of turbulent
round jets”, Environmental Hydraulics, Lee J. and Cheung Y. (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam
CIOH, 2005, Centro de Investigaciones Oceanograficas e Hidrograficas, http://www.cioh.org.co
CONAMA 20, 2000, Article 23, §3, Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente, Ministerio do Meio Ambi-
ente, Brasilia, Brazil
Connolly, J.P., Blumberg, A.F., Quadrini, J.D., 1999, ” Modeling fate of pathogenic organisms in
coastal waters of Oahu, Hawaii ”, J. Environmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 5
COPPE, 2000, “SisBAHIA - Sistema de Base Hidrodinamica Ambiental, Documentacao tecnica”,
COPPE, Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro
Courant, R. and Hilbert, D., 1962, "Methods of mathematical physics", Interscience, New York
Crosignani, L., Alsina, J., and Piaggio, R., 2002, “Montevideo Outfall, 14 years of a wastewater dis-
charge in a large and shallow estuary”, Proc. Marine Waste Water Discharges, MWWD 2002, Is-
tanbul, 16-20 September
Csanady, G.T. and Churchill, J.H., 1987, “Environmental engineering analysis of potential dump-
sites”, In T.P.O’Connor (ed.), Ocean processes in marine pollution, 2, 21-31
Csanady, G.T., 1983, “Dispersal by randomly varying currents” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 132,
375-394
Dallimore, Imberger and Hodges, 2001, "Coupling an underflow model to a 3d hydrodynamic model",
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Centre for Water Research reference ED-1474CD
Davies, A.M., Jones, J.E., and Xing, J., 1997a, “Review of Recent Developments in tidal hydrody-
namic modeling. I: Spectral Models”, J. Hydr. Eng., Vol. 123, No. 4, 278-292
Davies, A.M., Jones, J.E., and Xing, J., 1997b, “Review of Recent Developments in tidal hydrody-
namic modeling. II: Turbulence Energy Models”, J. Hydr. Eng., Vol. 123, No. 4, 293-302
Davies, P.A., 2003, “Submarine Outfalls: Design and construction”, Proc. Submarine Outfalls: De-
sign, Compliance and Environmental Monitoring, 1.-3.12.2003, CETESB, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Davis, L.R., 1999, "Fundamentals of environmental discharge modeling", CRC Press, Baton Raton,
FL.
Delft Hydraulics, 1995, User Manual v.1.0 “Difflow - A simulation program for the design of a multi-
port diffuser”, Author: G.A.L. Delvigne, Delft, Neatherlands
Delft Hydraulics, 2001, “Delft3D user interface, Capabilities and applications”, Delft Hydraulics,
Delft
Delft Hydraulics, 2005, “Delft3D-NESTWQ - Offline nesting of water quality models”, User Manual,
Delft Hydraulics, the Netherlands
Delft3D-FLOW, 2003, “Simulation of multi-dimensional hydrodynamic flows and transport phenom-
ena including sediment - User Manual”, Delft Hydraulics, Delft, Netherlands, www.wldelft.nl,
March, 2003
Delft3D-GPP, 2004, “Visualisation of Delft3D simulation results and measurement data - User Man-
ual”, Delft Hydraulics, Delft, Netherlands, www.wldelft.nl, April, 2004
Delft3D-PART, 2003, “Simulation of mid-field water quality and oil spills, using particle tracking -
User Manual”, Delft Hydraulics, Delft, Netherlands, www.wldelft.nl, March, 2003
- 209 -
- References -
Delft3D-QUICKIN, 2004, “Generation and manipulation of gridrelated parameters such as bathym-

etry, initial conditions and roughness - User Manual”, Delft Hydraulics, Delft, Netherlands,
www.wldelft.nl, April, 2004
Delft3D-QUICKPLOT, 2004, “Visualisation and animation program for analysis of simulation results
- User Manual”, Delft Hydraulics, Delft, Netherlands, www.wldelft.nl, August, 2004
Delft3D-RGFGRID, 2004, “Generation and manipulation of curvilinear grids for FLOW and WAVE -
User Manual”, Delft Hydraulics, Delft, Netherlands, www.wldelft.nl, October, 2004
Delft3D-WAQ, 2003, “Versatile water quality modelling in 1D, 2D or 3D systems including physical,
biochemical and biological processes - User Manual”, Delft Hydraulics, Delft, Netherlands,
www.wldelft.nl, March, 2003
DHI, Danish Hydraulic Institute, 2000, "Mike3 Estuarine and Coastal Hydraulics and Oceanography",
Scientific Documentation
Domenichini, P., Bazurro, N., Avanzini, C., Da Molo, E., Marchese, A., Ottonello, P., and Roc-
catagliata, E., 2002, “Outfall operation monitoring and environmental control: the experience of
LIFE - Aquarius Project”, Proc. Marine Waste Water Discharges, MWWD 2002, Istanbul, 16-20
Septermber
Doneker, R.L. and Jirka, G.H., 1990, "CORMIX1: An Expert System for Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone
Analysis of Conventional and Toxic Submerged Single Port Discharges", Tech. Rep., DeFrees Hy-
draulics Laboratory, School of Civil and Env. Eng., Cornell University (also published by U.S. En-
vironmental Pro-tection Agency, Tech. Rep. EPA/600/3-90/012, Environmental Research Lab,
Athens, Georgia, 1990)
Doneker. R.L., Jirka, G.H., 1990, “Expert system for hydrodynamic mixing zone analysis of conven-
tional and toxic submerged single port discharges (CORMIX1)”, Rep. No. EPA/600/3-90/012, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
DVWK (Deutscher Verband für Wasserwirtschaft und Kulturtechnik, now DWA), 1999, “ Nu-
merische Modelle von Flüssen, Seen und Küstengewässern”, Heft 127
EC Bathing water directive, 2006, “Directive concerning the management of bathing water quality and
repealing Directive 76/160/EEC”, Directive 2006/7/EC, the European Parliament and Council, 15
of February, 2006
Esrey, SA, Potash, JB, Roberts, L & Shiff, C, 1991, “Effects of Improved water supply and sanitation
on ascariasis, diarrhoea, dranculiasis, hookworm infection, schistosomiasis and trachoma”. Bull
WHO, 69 (5):609-621
EU-Commission, 2002, Faltblatt der EU-Kommission zur Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: „Wasser ist Le-
ben“, Europäische Gemeinschaft
Faisst, W.R., McDonald, M., Noon, T. and Marsh, G., 1990, “Iona outfall, plume characterization
study”, Proc. 1990 Nat. Conf. on Hydraulic Engineering, H.Chang, ASCE, New York
Falconer, R.A., Lin, B., 2005, “Water quality management of river and estuarine waters”, Proc. Envi-
ronmental Hydraulics and Sustainable Water Management, Lee and Lam (Eds.), Tayler and Francis
Group, London
Ferziger, J.H., Peric, M., 2002, “Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics”, Springer Berlin / Hei-
delberg / New York
Fischer, H.B., List, E.J., Koh, R.C.Y., Imberger, J. and Brooks, N.H., 1979, “Mixing in Inland and
Coastal Waters", Academic Press, New York
Fox, D.C., 1970, “Forced plume in a stratified fluid”, J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 75, 33, 6818-35
French, J., May 1972, “Internal hydraulics of multiport diffusers”, Journal WPCF, Vol. 44, No. 5, p.
782pp
Frick, W.E., Roberts, P.J.W., Davis, L.R., Keyes, J., Baumgartner and D.J., and George, K.P., 2001,
"Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges, 4th Edition, (Visual Plumes)", Environmental Research
Division, NERL, ORD, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens,
(http://www.cee.odu.edu/model/visual_plume.php)
- 210 -
- References -
Galindo, U.R., and Simpson, G.L., 2003, “Nuevas tendencias centrales del diseno ambiental robusto
de un emisario submarino: experienca obtenido del programa de sanemiento de Valparaíso”, Proc.
XV Congreso de ingenieria sanitaria y ambiental, AIDIS - Chile, Concepcion, October 2003
Gameson, A.L.H., 1982, “Investigations of sewage discharges to some British coastal waters, Chapter
5, Bacterial distributions”, Part 4, Tech. Rep., Water Research Centre
Garber, W.F., 1998, “Wastewater treatment and risk assessment in ocean outfall evaluations”, Water
Science and Technology, Vol. 38, No. 10, 309-316
Gillaud, J.F., Derrien, A., Gourmelon, M., and Pommepuy, M., 1997, “T90 as a tool for engineers:
interests and limits”, Water Science and Technology, Vol. 35, No. 11-12, 277-281
Grace, R.A., 1978, "Marine Outfall Systems, planning, design, and construction", Department of Civil
Engi-neering, University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey ISBN 0-13-
556951-6
Gunnerson, C.G., February 1988, "Wastewater Management for Coastal Cities: The Ocean Disposal
Option", World Bank Technical Paper Number 77, pdf: http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000178830_98101904165665
Hazen and Sawyer, 1998, “Mediciones Oceanograficas y Hidrodinamicas Diseno Detallado,” Memo-
rando Tecnico, report for the World Bank
Harleman, D.R.F. and Murcott, S., 2001, “CEPT: challenging the status quo. Water 21, 57-59
Henze, M., Harremoes, P., Jansen, J.C., and Arvin, E., 2002, “Wastewater treatment, Biological and
Chemical processes”, Springer, Berlin
Ho, C.M. and Gutmark, E., 1987, “Vortex induction and mass entrainment in a small aspect ratio ellip-
tic jet”, J. Fluid Mech., 179, 383-405.
Hodgins, D.O., Tinis, S.W., and Taylor, L.A., 1998, “Marine Sewage outfall assessment for the capital
regional district, British Columbia, using nested three-dimensional models”, Water Science and
Technology, Vol.38, No. 10, 301-308
Holley, E.R. and Jirka, G.H., 1986, "Mixing and solute transport in rivers", Field Manual, Waterways
Experiment Station, Tech. Report E 86 11, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss.
Huang, W. and Spaulding, M., 1996, "Modelling horizontal diffusion with sigma coordinate system",
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 6, 349-352
Huber, A.B., Tanik, A.B., Gercek, M., 1995, “Case studies on preliminary treatment facilities at ma-
rine outfalls”, Water Science and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 2, 265-271
HydrosCH2MHill, 2000, “Modelamento da campanha de tracadores”, COPPE, Federal University of
Rio de Janeiro, Consulting - Report HydrosCH2MHill, PENO-565
IBCCA, 2003, International Bathymetric Chart of the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico,
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/ibcca/
Idelchik, I.E., 1986, “Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance”, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
IETC, 2000, “International Source Book on Environmentally Sound Technologies for Wastewater and
Stormwater Management”, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Division of Technol-
ogy, Industry, and Economics (DTIE), International Environmental Technology Centre (IETC) ,
Osaka, http://www.unep.or.jp/Ietc/Publications/TechPublications/TechPub-15/main_index.asp
IMPRESS, 2002, „Guidance for the analysis of Pressures and Impacts in accordance with the Water
Framework Directive“, http://www.wasserblick.net, 21.11.2002
Inspection Panel, 2005, “Investigation Report Colombia: Cartagena Water Supply, Sewerage and En-
vironmental Management Project (Loan No. 4507-CO),” The World Bank, Report No. 32034-CO
Jirka G. H., Bleninger T., Burrows R., and Larsen T., 2004, “Environmental Quality Standards in the
EC-Water Framework Directive: Consequences for Water Pollution Control for Point Sources”,
European Water Management Online (EWMO) www.ewaonline.de, January 26, 2004
Jirka G.H., 1982, "Multiport Diffusers for Heat Disposal: A Summary," J. Hydraulics Division, ASCE,
(108), HY12, pp. 1423-68
Jirka G.H., Bleninger T., 2004, " Design of multiport diffuser outfalls for coastal water quality protec-
tion", Proceedings, XXI Congreso Latinoamericano de Hidráulica, International Association for
- 211 -
- References -
Hydraulic Research and Engineering (IAHR), São Pedro, Brazil, October 18-22, A.M. Genovez,
Ed. (english+spanish, http://www.ifh.uni-karlsruhe.de/people/Bleninger/)
Jirka, G.H. & Akar, P.J., 1991a, "Hydrodynamic Classification of Submerged Single-Port Dis-
charges", J. Hydraulic Engineer-ing, ASCE, (117), 1095-1111, HY9
Jirka, G.H. & Doneker, R.L., 1991b, "Hydrodynamic Classification of Submerged Multiport Diffuser
Discharges", J. Hydraulic Engineer-ing, ASCE, (117), 1113-1128, HY9
Jirka, G.H. and Harleman, D.R.F., 1973, "The mechanics of submerged multiport diffusers for buoy-
ant discharges in shallow water", R.M. Parsons Lab. Water Res. Hydrodyn., Tech. Rep. 169, Mass.
Inst. Tech., Cambridge, Mass.
Jirka, G.H. and Lee, J. H. W., 1994, "Waste disposal in the ocean", in Water Quality and its Control,
Vol. 5 of Hydraulic Structures Design Manual, M. Hino (Ed.), A.A.Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam
Jirka, G.H., 1979, Discussion of 'Line plume and ocean outfall dispersion' by P.J.W. Roberts, J. Hydr.
Div., ASCE, HY 12
Jirka, G.H., 1982, “Turbulent Buoyant Jets in Shallow Fluid Layers”, in Turbulent Jets and Plumes,
Rodi, W. (Ed.), Pergamon Press
Jirka, G.H., 1994, "Shallow Jets", in Recent Advances in the Fluid Mechanics of Turbulent Jets and
Plumes, P.A. Davies and M.J. Valente Neves (Ed.s), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Jirka, G.H., 2001, “Hydromechanik”, Lecture notes, University Karlsruhe, Institute for Hydromechan-
ics
Jirka, G.H., 2003, “Mixing processes in wastewater discharges, jets and plumes, effect of currents and
stratification”, Workshop at the IAHR Congress, 24.08.03-29.08.03, Thessaloniki, Greece
Jirka, G.H., 2004, „Integral Model for Turbulent Buoyant Jets in Unbounded Stratified Flows. Part 1:
The Single Round Jet“, Env. Fluid Mech., Vol. 4, 1-56
Jirka, G.H., 2006, “Integral Model for Turbulent Buoyant Jets in Unbounded Stratified Flows, Part 2:
Plane Jet Dynamics Resulting from Multiport Diffuser Jets”, Environmental Fluid Mechanics, Vol.
6, No. 1, 43-100
Jirka, G.H., Abraham, G., and Harleman, D.R.F., 1976, "An Assessment of Techniques for hydro-
thermal prediction", Department of Civil Engineering, MIT for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion, Cambridge
Jirka, G.H., and Doneker, R.L., 2003, Discussion of “Field Observation of Ipanema Beach Outfall” by
J.L.B. Carvalho, P.J.W. Roberts and J. Roldao, J. Hydraulic Engineering, Vol.129, 10, 823-6
Jirka, G.H., and Harleman, D.R.F., 1979, “Stability and mixing of a vertical plane buoyant jet in con-
fined depth”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 94(2), 275-304
Jirka, G.H., Doneker, R.L. and Hinton, S.W., 1996, “User´s Manual for CORMIX: A Hydrodynamic
Mixing Zone Model and Decision Support System for Pollutant Discharges into Surface Waters”,
Tech. Rep., DeFrees Hydraulics Laboratory, Cornell University (also published by U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Tech. Rep., Environmental Research Lab, Athens, Georgia)
Jirka, G.H., T. Bleninger, R. Burrows & T. Larsen, 2004, "Management of point source discharges
into rivers: where do environmental quality standards in the new EC-water framework directive ap-
ply?" Journal of River Basin Management, Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2004, www.jrbm.net
Jirka, G.H., Wilkinson, H.I., and Bell, I.R., "Jet interaction in a still environment", World Scientific
Publ., Singapore
Kalide, W., 1980, “Technische Strömungslehre”, Carl Hanser Verlag, München Wien, 5th edition,
Kim, D.G., and Seo, I.W., 2000, “Modeling the mixing of heated water discharged from a submerged
multiport diffuser”, Journal of Hydralic Research, Vol, 38, No. 4, 259-269
Kim, Y.D., Seo, I.W., Kang, S.W., and Oh, B.C., 2002, “Jet Integral-Particle Tracking Hybrid Model
for Single Buoyant Jets”, J. Hydraulic Engineering, vol. 128, No. 8, 753-760
Koh, R.C.Y., 1983, “Wastewater field thickness and initial dilution”, J. of Hydraulic Engr., ASCE,
109(HY9), 1232-1240
- 212 -
- References -
Kolmogorov, A.N., 1942, "Equations of turbulent motion in incompressible fluid", Izv. Akad. Nauk.
SSR, Seria fizicheska Vi., No.1-2, 56-58 (English translation: 1968 Imperial College, Mech. Eng.
Dept. Rept. ON/6)
Kuang, C.P. and Lee, J.H.W., 2001, “Numerical experiments on the mixing of a duckbill valve jet”,
Proc. Third Int. Symp. on Env. Hydraulics, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Kwon, S.J., and Seo, I.W., 2005, “Experimental Investigation of Wastewater Discharges from a Ro-
sette-type Riser using PIV”, J. Civil Engineering, KSCE, Seoul, Vol.9, No.5, 355-362
Lattemann, S., and Höpner, T., 2003, “Seawater desalination - impacts of brine and chemical dis-
charge on the marine environment”, Balaban Desalination Publicatinos, LÁquila, Italy
Lamparelli, C., 2003, “Commissioning and monitoring challenges regarding ocean outfalls: São Paulo
State Experience”, Proc. Submarine Outfalls: Design, Compliance and Environmental Monitoring,
1.-3.12.2003, CETESB, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Larsen, T,. 2004, “Far-field modeling issues”, Proc. Short course B, Marine Waste Water Discharges,
Catania, 2004
Larsen, T., 2000, “Necessity of Initial Dilution for Sea Outfall Diffusers in Respect to the European
Directive on Municipal Discharges”, Proc. Marine Waste Water Discharges, Genova, November
2000
Larsen, T., 2004, “Unsteady pipe and diffuser hydraulics - transient flow”, Proc. Short course B, Ma-
rine Waste Water Discharges, Catania, 2004
Launder, B.E., and Spalding, D.B., 1974, “The numerical computation of turbulent flows”, Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 3, pp. 269-289
Law, A.W.K., Lee, C.C., and Qi, Y., 2002, “CFD Modeling of a Multi-Port Diffuser in an Oblique
Current”, Proc. Marine Waste Water Discharges, MWWD 2002, Istanbul, 16-20 September
LAWA (Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser), 2003, „Arbeitshilfe zur Umsetzung der EG-
Wasserrahmenrichtlinie“ “German Guidance Document for the implementation of the EC Water
Framework Directive”, http://www.wasserblick.net, 30.04.2003
Lee J.H.W. ”Need for sea outfalls, wastewater disposal, environmental regulation”, International
Short Course, August 21-22, 2003, Thessaloniki, Greece
Lee J.H.W., Karandikar J., and Horton, P.R., 1998, “Hydraulics of DuckBill Elastomer Check
Valves”, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, April
Lee J.H.W., Wilkonson D.L., and Wood I.R., 2001, “On the head-discharge relation of a ‘‘duckbill’’
elastomer check valve”, Journal of Hydraulic Research, Vol. 39, 2001, no. 6
Lee, J.H.W. and Cheung, V., 1990, "Generalized Lagrangian model for buoyant jets in current", Jour-
nal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 116(6), pp. 1085-1105
Lee, J.H.W., and Jirka, G.,1981, “Vertical round buoyant jet in shallow water”, Journal of the Hydrau-
lics Division, ASCE, 107(HY12), 1651-1675
Lee, J.H.W., and Neville-Jones, P.,1987, “Initial dilution of horizontal jet in crossflow” Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE, 113(5), 615-629
Lee, J.H.W., Cheung, V., Wang, W., and Cheung, S.K.B., 2002, "Lagrangian modeling and visualiza-
tion of rosette outfall plumes", Department of Civil Engineering, Department of Computer Science
& Information Systems, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China http://www.aoe-
water.hku.hk/visjet/visjet.htm
List, E.J., Gartrell, G., and Winant, C.D., 1990, "Diffusion and Dispersion in Coastal Waters", Vol.
116, No. 10
Ludwig, R.G., “Evaluacion del impacto ambiental ubicacion y desno de emisarios submarinos”, CE-
PIS (Centro Panamericano de Ingenieria Sanitaria, Lima, PE)
Maier, R.M., Pepper, I.L., Gerba, C.P., 2000, “Environmental Microbiology”, Academic Press, San
Diego
Mellor, G., Häkkinen, S., Ezer, T. and Patchen, R., 2002, "A Generalization of a Sigma Coordinate
Ocean Model and an Intercomparison of Model Vertical Grids", Ocean Forecasting: Conceptual
Basis and Applications, N. Pinardi, J. Woods (Eds.), Springer, Berlin, 55-72
- 213 -
- References -
Libhaber, M., Roberts, P.J.W., 2002, “Social aspects of wastewater submarine outfalls in developing
countries: the case of Cartagena, Colombia”, Proc. Marine Waste Water Discharges, 16.-20. Sep-
tember, Istanbul
Mendéz Díaz, M.M. and Jirka, G.H., 1996 , "Trajectory of Multiport Diffuser Discharges in Deep Co-
Flow", J. Hydraulic Engineering, 122, 8, 428-435
Meybeck M, Chapman D and Helmer R, 1990, “Global freshwater quality a first assessment”, Oxford,
Blackwell
Miller, B.M., Peirson, W.L., Wang, Y.C., and Cox, R.J., 1996, “An overview of Numerical Modelling
of the Sydney Deepwater Outfall Plumes”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol, 22, No: 7-12, 147-159
Miller, D.S., 1990, “Internal Flow Systems”, BHRA, Cranfield
Mort, R. B., September 1989, “The Effects of wave action on long sea outfalls”, Ph.D. thesis, Univer-
sity of Liverpool
Muellenhoff, W.P., Soldate Jr., A.M., Baumgartner, D.J., Schuldt, M.D., Davis, L.R., and Frick, W.E.,
1985, "Initial mixing characteristics of municipal ocean outfall discharges: Volume 1. Procedures
and Applications", EPA/600/3-85/073a, Athens
Munro, D. and Mollowney, B.M., 1974, “The effect of a bottom countercurrent and vertical diffusion
on coliform concentrations at the shore due mainly to wind-induced onshore currents, Rapports et
Proces-verbaux des Reunions Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 167, 37-40
Munro, D., 1984, “Sewage dilution between outfall and shore”, Public Health Engineer, 12(2), 113-
114
Murphy S, 1999, “Emerging Microbes 101: A Basic Course”, Journal of the American Water Works
Association, 91(9):10-11.
Nash, J.D., 1995, “Buoyant discharges into reversing ambient currents”, Master thesis, DeFrees Hy-
draulics Laboratory, Cornell University, Ithaca NY
National Research Council, 1993 "Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas", National Acad-
emy Press, Washington D.C.
Neves, M. and Neves, A. 1992, “Descarga de Águas Residuais no Mar. Exutores Submarinos”, Actas
do I Encontro da Engenharia Civil Ibero-Americana, Cáceres, Espanha e Revista nº62 da Ordem
dos Engenheiros
Neves, R., 2003, “Modelling Applied to Waste Disposal systems. Application of MOHID for simulat-
ing trophic activity in the Tagus and for assessing the impact of Costa do Estoril submarine outfall”,
Proc. Submarine Outfalls: Design, Compliance and Environmental Monitoring, 1.-3.12.2003,
CETESB, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Neville-Jones, P.J.D., and Chitty, A.D., 1996a, “Sea outfalls - construction, inspection and repair. An
engineering guide”, CIRIA, R159, UK
Neville-Jones, P.J.D., and Chitty, A.D., 1996b, “Sea outfalls - inspection and diver safety”, CIRIA,
R158, UK
Nezu, I., Nakagawa, H.,1993 , “Turbulence in Open-channel flows”, IAHR, Monograph Series, A.A.
Balkema/Rotterdam/Brookfield
Noble, R.T., Lee, I.M., Schiff, K.C., 2004, “Inactivation of indicator micro-organisms from various
sources of faecal contamination in seawater and freshwater”, J. of applied microbiology, 96, 464-
472
Paul, J.H., 2001, “Methods in Microbiology”, Volume 30, Marine Microbiology, Academic Press, San
Diego
Philip, N.A., and Pritchard, T.R., 1996, “Australias First Deepwater Sewage Outfalls: Design Consid-
erations and Environmental Performance Monitoring”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 33, Nos 7-
12, pp 140-146
Ragas, A.M.J., Hams, J.L.M., and Leuven, R.S.E.W., 1997, „Selecting water quality models for dis-
charge permitting“, European Water Pollution Control, 7(5), 59-67
- 214 -
- References -
Revilla, J.A., Álvarez, C., García, A., Medina R., and Juanes, J.A., 2002, “Environmental design of
submarine outfall according to the European Water Framework Directive”, Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. On
Marine Wate Water Discharges
Ridge, M.M., 2002, “Three-dimensional simulation of pollutant dispersion in coastal waters”, Ph.D.
thesis, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, partly included in Sanchez-Arcilla, A.,
Rodriguez, A., Mestres, M., 1998, “A three-dimensional simulation of pollutant dispersion for the
near- and far-field in coastal waters, Journal of Marine and Environemtnal Engineering, 4, 217-243
Roberts, P.J.W. and Carvalho, J. L., 2000, “Modeling of ocean outfall for Cartagena, Colombia”, 23
June 2000, report for World Bank
Roberts, P.J.W. and Villegas, 2006, “Three-Dimensional Modeling of Bacterial Transport for the
Cartagena Ocean Outfall”, for Aguas de Cartagena, Atlanta, 2006
Roberts, P.J.W., 1977, “Dispersion of Buoyant Waste Water Discharged from Outfall Diffusers of
Finite Length”, W.M. Keck Laboratory of Hydraulics and Water Resources Report No. KH-R-35,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., 1977, 183pp.
Roberts, P.J.W., 1979, “Line plume and ocean outfall dispersion”, J. of Hydraulics Div., ASCE,
105(HY4), 313-331 (see also discussion by G. H. Jirka, HY12, 1573-1575)
Roberts, P.J.W., 1980, “Ocean outfall dilution: Effects of Currents” Journal of the Hydraulics Divi-
sion, ASCE, 106(HY5), 313-330
Roberts, P.J.W., 1986, “ Engineering of ocean outfalls”, In: The Role of the Oceans as a Waste Dis-
posal Option, G. Kullenberg, ed., NATO ASI Series C, 172, 73-109
Roberts, P.J.W., 1990, “Outfall design considerations”, in The Sea: Ocean Engineering Science, B. Le
Mehaute and D.M. Hanes (Ed.s), Wiley-Interscience
Roberts, P.J.W., 1996, “Sea outfalls”, in Environmental Hydraulics, V.P. Singh and W.H. Hager,
(Eds.), Kluwer Academic
Roberts, P.J.W., 1999 (a and b), “Modeling Mamala Bay Outfall Plumes. I. Near Field. II: Far Field, J.
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 125, No.6.
Roberts, P.J.W., 2003, “Dilution Modeling for the Cartagena Ocean Outfall”, Report for the World
Bank, 31 October 2003
Roberts, P.J.W., 2004, “Additional Water Quality Modeling for the Cartagena Ocean Outfall”, Report
for the World Bank, 19 May 2004
Roberts, P.J.W., 2005, “Modeling of Wind Effects on Bacterial Transport for the Cartagena Ocean
Outfall”, Report for the World Bank, 29 July 2005
Roberts, P.J.W., 2006, “Modeling for the Cartagena Ocean Outfall”, Report for the World Bank
Roberts, P.J.W., and Snyder, , W.H. , 1993, “Hydraulic model study for the Boston outfall. I: Riser
configuration. J. Hydraulic Engineering, 119(9), 970-987
Roberts, P.J.W., and Snyder, W.H. & Baumgartner D.J., 1989c, “Ocean outfalls III, Effect of diffuser
design on submerged wastefield”, J. Hydraulic Engineering, 115, 49-70
Roberts, P.J.W., and Snyder, W.H. and Baumgartner, D.J., 1989a, “Ocean outfalls I: Submerged
waste field formation”, J. Hydr. Eng., 115, HY1, 1-25
Roberts, P.J.W., and Snyder, W.H. and Baumgartner, D.J., 1989b, “Ocean outfalls II: Spatial evolu-
tion of submerged waste field”, J. Hydr. Eng., 115, HY1, 26-48
Roberts, P.J.W., and Williams, N., 1992, “Modeling of ocean outfall discharges”, Water Science and
Technology, 9, 155-164
Roberts, P.J.W., Hunt, C.D., and Mickelson, M.J., 2002, “Field and model studies of the Boston out-
fall”, Proc. Marine Waste Water Discharges, MWWD 2002, Istanbul, 16-20 September
Rodi, W., 1984. Turbulence models and their application in Hydraulics, State-of-the-art paper article
sur l'etat de connaissance. Paper presented by the IAHR-Section on Fundamentals of Division II:
Experimental and Mathematical Fluid Dynamics, The Netherlands.
Rodi, W., 1993, “Turbulence Models and Their Application in Hydraulics, A State-of-the-Art Review”,
Third Edition, IAHR Monograph Series, A.A. Balkema / Rotterdam / Brookfield
- 215 -
- References -
Rodi, W., 2004, “Numerische Berechnung turbulenter Strömungen in Forschung und Praxis”, Hoch-
schulkurs vom Institut für Hydromechanik, Universität Karlsruhe, 13-15.9.04
Rodriguez, A., Sánchez-Arcilla, A., Redondo, J.M., Bahia, E., and Sierra, J.P., 1995, “Pollutant dis-
persión in the nearshore region: modelling and measurements”, Water Science and Technologiy,
Vol. 32, No. 9-10, 169-178
Roldao, J., Carvalho, J.L.B., Roberts, P.J.W., 2001, “Field observations of dilution on the Ipanema
Beach outfall”, Water Science and Technology, Vol. 43, No. 11, 351-360
Rosman, P. C. C., 1987, “Modeling Shallow Water Bodies via Filtering Techniques” Ph.D. Thesis,
Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics, Civil Engineering De-
partment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Rosman, P.C.C., 1989, “Modelos de Circulação em Corpos d'Agua Rasos”, Capítulo 3 do livro Méto-
dos Numéricos em Recursos Hídricos 1, Associação Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos
Rosman, P.C.C., 1989, “Um system computatcional de hidrodinamica ambiental”, Capítulo 1 do livro
Métodos Numéricos em Recursos Hídricos 5, Associação Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos
Rosman, P.C.C., 1998, “Avaliação da Eficiência de Diluição do Emissário Submarino de Esgotos de
Ipanema (ESEI), - Relatório Final sobre Modelagem Computacional”, Relatório COPPETEC-ET-
150663, 02/98, COPPE / Universidade Federal de Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Rouse, H., Yih, C.S., and Humphreys, H.W., 1952, “Gravitational convection from a boundary
source”, Tellus, 4
Salas, H., 1994, ”Emisarios submarinos; alternativa viable para la disposición de aguas negras de
ciudades costeras en América Latina”, CEPIS (Centro Panamericano de Ingenieria Sanitaria, Li-
ma, PE)
Salas, H., 2000, “Historia y aplicacion de normas microbiologicas de calidad de abua en el medio mar-
ino”, CEPIS (Centro Panamericano de Ingenieria Sanitaria, Lima, PE), also published with older
information in Water Science Technology, Vol. 18, No. 11, 1986
SEPA, , 1998, “Initial dilution and mixing zones for discharges from coastal and estuarine outfalls”,
Scottish environment protection agency (SEPA)
Sfeir, A.A., 1976, “The velocity and temperature fields of rectangular jets”, Int. J. Heat Transfer, 19,
1289-1297.
Shannon, N.R., Mackinnon, P.A., and Hamill, G.A., 2002, “Evaluation of a CFD model of saline in-
trusion in marine outfalls”, Proc. Int. Conf. Marine Waster Water Discharges 2002, Istanbul, Tur-
key, 16.-20.Sep, 2002
Shuval H, 2000, “A Preliminary Estimate of the Global Disease Burden Associated with Disease
Caused by Wastewater Pollution of the Marine Environment”. Unpublished report prepared for the
Division on the Protection of Human Environment, World Health Organization and GESAMP,
10pp.
Signell, R.P., Jenter, H.L., and Blumberg, A.F., 2000, "Predicting the Physical Effects of Relocating
Boston's Sewage Outfall", U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA, U.S.A.
Silva, S., Ré, A., Pestana, P., Rodrigues, A., and Quintino, V.,2004, “Sediment disturbance off the
Tagus Estuary, Western Portugal: chronic contamination, sewage outfall operation and runoff
events”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 49, (2004), 154-162
Simonin, O., R.E. Uittenbogaard, F. Baron and P.L. Viollet, 1989. Possibilities and limitations to
simulate turbulence fluxes of mass and momentum, measured in a steady stratified mixing layer, In
Proc. XXIII IAHR Congress, Ottawa, August 21-25, published by National Research Council Can-
ada, A55-A62.
Solic, M. and Krstulovic, N., 1992, “Separate and combined effects of solar radiation, temperature,
salinity, and pH on the survival of faecal coliforms in seawater”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol.
24, No. 8, 411-416
Stelling, G.S. and J.J. Lendertse, 1991. Approximation of Convective Processes by Cyclic ACI meth-
ods, Proceeding 2nd ASCE Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modelling, Tampa, 1991.
- 216 -
- References -
Stelling, G.S. and Van Kester, J.A.Th..M., 1994, "On the approximation of horizontal gradients in
sigma co-ordinates for bathymetry with steep bottom slopes", Int. J. Num. Meth. Fluids, Vol. 18,
915-955
Stelling, G.S., 1984. On the construction of computational methods for shallow water flow problems.
Rijkswaterstaat communications, No. 35, The Hague, Rijkswaterstaat, 1984.
Stelling, G.S., 2001, Modelling in 1,2, and 3 Dimensions, The Croucher Foundation, University of
Hong Kong, February 5-12
Stolzenbach, K.D., 2005, “ Review of design approaches for the Cartagena submarine outfall”, Com-
munication for the World Bank, November 4
Swamee, P.K., Jain, A.K., “Explicit Equations for Pipe-Flow Problems”, Journal of the Hydraulic
Division of the ASCE, 102, no HY5 (May 1976)
Sweers, H.E., 1976, "A monogram to estimate the heat exchange coefficient at the air-water interface
as a function of windspeed and temperature; a critical survey of some literature", J. of Hydrology,
Vol. 30
Telford. T.,1988 , "Long sea outfalls", Proceedings of the conference held in Glasgow 19-21 October
1988, organized by the Institution of Civil Engineers, Co-sponsored by the Water Research Centre,
ISBN 072771516 X, London, 1989
Tetra Tech Inc, 2000, "Ocean Circulation and Plume Dispersion Modeling Review, with Emphasis on
Orange County Sanitation District's Offshore Outfall and Wastewater Plume", Orange County Sani-
tation District, USA,
(http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/pdfs/Ocean_Circulation_Plume_Dispersion_Modeling.p
df)
Tian, X., Roberts, P.J.W. and Daviero, G.J., 2004a, “Marine wastewater discharges from multiport
diffusers. I: Unstratified stationary water”, J. Hydr. Eng., 130, 12, 1137-46
Tian, X., Roberts, P.J.W. and Daviero, G.J., 2004b, “Marine wastewater discharges from multiport
diffusers. II: Unstratified flowing water”, J. Hydr. Eng., 130, 12, 1147-55
Uittenbogaard, R.E. and Baron, F., 1989, "A proposal: extension of the k-e model for stably stratified
flows with transport of Internal Wave Energy", In 7th Turbulent Shear Flows Symp., Stanford, Au-
gust, paper 18.4, 21-23
Uittenbogaard, R.E., J.A.Th.M. van Kester and G.S. Stelling, 1992. Implementation of three turbu-
lence models in 3D-TRISULA for rectangular grids, report Z81, Delft Hydraulics.
UNEP, 2002, “Water Supply & Sanitation Coverage in Regional Seas, Need for Regional Wastewater
Emis-sions Targets?”
http://www.gpa.unep.org/documents/RS%20Sanitation%20&%20WET%20draft%20report
UNEP, 2004, “Guidelines on Municipal Wastewater Management”, Version 3,
http://www.gpa.unep.org/documents/wastewater/Guidelines_Municipal_Wastewater_Mgnt%20vers
ion3.pdf
UNEP, United Nations Environment Program, 1996, "Guidelines for submarine outfall structures for
Medi-terranean small and medium-sized coastal communities", MAP Technical Reports Series No.
112, ISBN 92-807-1618-2 Athens
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1994, „Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second
Edition“, EPA 823-B-94-005a, Washington, DC, USA
USGS (United States Geological Survey), 2004, “ Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investi-
gation Phase III, Coastal Circulation and Tranport Patterns: The Likelihood of OCSD’s Plume Im-
pacting the Huntington Beach Shoreline”, Final Report 04-1019 by Noble, M. and Xu J. (Ed’s)
Villegas, B., 2005, Personal communication, participant of project
Wallis, I.G., 1977, “Initial dilution with deep water diffusers”, J. Water Pollution Control Federation,
49(7), 1621-1626
Weitbrecht V., Lehmann D.and Richter A., “Flow distribution in solar collectors with laminar flow
conditions”, Solar Energy, Vol. 73, No. 6, 2002
- 217 -
- References -
WFD (Water Framework Directive), 2000, Official Publication of the European Community, L327,
Brussels
WHO, 1997, “Environmental matters, Strategy on sanitation for high-risk communities”, Report by
the Director-General. Executive Board, 101st Session, Provisional agenda item 12.3. Geneva,
World Health Organization, (unpublished document EB101/19)
WHO, 2000, “The world health report 2000 - Health systems: Improving performance”, Geneva,
World Health Organization
Wilkinson, D. L., “Avoidance of seawater intrusion into ports of ocean outfalls”, Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 2, February, 1988
Wilkinson, D. L., “Purging of saline wedges from ocean outfalls”, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
Vol 110, No. 12, December, 1984
Wilkinson, D. L., “Seawater circulation in sewage outfall tunnels”, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering,
Vol. 111, No. 5, May, 1985
Wilkinson, D. L., and Wareham, David G., “Optimization Criteria for Design of Coastal City Waste-
water Disposal Systems”, Proc. Clean Sea 96, Toyohashi, 1996
Wilkinson, D.L. and Wareham, D.G, 1998, “Optimization of Coastal City Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal Systems to Achieve Sustainable Development”, Proc. of the 1998 IPENZ Conference, 12-
16, p. 6.3-6.7
Wilkinson, D.L., and Nittim, R., "Model studies of outfall riser hydraulics", Journal of Hydraulic Re-
search, Vol. 30, No. 5, 1992
Williams, B.L., 1985 "Ocean Outfall Handbook", National Water and Soil Conservation Authority,
Water&Soil Miscellaneous publication number 76, ISSN 0110-4705, Wellington
Wood, I.R.; Bell R.G.; Wilkinson D.L.,1993, “Ocean Disposal of wastewater”, World Scientific, Sin-
gapore
World Bank, 1993, “World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health”, New York, Oxford Uni-
versity Press
World Bank, 1997, “Clear Water, Blue Skies: Chinas Environment in the New Century”, Washington,
DC, World Bank
World Resources Institute, 1998, “A guide to the global environment: environmental change and hu-
man health”, New York, Oxford University Press
WRc, 1990, "Design Guide for Marine Treatment Schemes", Water Research Centre plc., Swindon
Wright, S J., 1994, “The effect of ambient turbulence on jet mixing”, in Recent Research Advances
in the Fluid Mechanics of Turbulent Jets and Plumes (eds P A davies & M J Valente Neves), NATO
ASI Series, Series E: Applied Sciences, Vol 255, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, NL
Zhang, Xue-Yong and Adams, E.E., 1999, "Prediction of near field plume characteristics using far
field circulation model, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 125, No.3
Zhang, Xue-Yong, 1995, “Ocean Outfall Modeling - Interfacing Near and Far Field Models with Par-
ticle Tracking Method”, Dissertation thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, USA
Zhu, J., And Shih, T.H., 1994, “Computation of confined coflow jets with three turbulence models”, J.
for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 19(10), 939-956
Zielke W. & Mayerle R., 1999, “Küstengewässer” in: Zielke, W. [Hrsg.]: Numerische Modelle von
Flüssen, Seen und Küstengewässer, DVWK Schriften 127, Bonn
A summary on outfalls references is also available at: http://outfalls.ifh.uni-karlsruhe.de/
- 218 -
Curriculum vitae
General Information
Birth data: 21st October 1972 • Marbach (Neckar) • Germany
Marital status: married, two children
Nationality: German
Private address: Douglasstr. 34 • 76133 Karlsruhe • www.bleninger.com
Office address: Institut für Hydromechanik • Universität Karlsruhe
Kaiserstr. 12 • 76131 Karlsruhe • Germany
[email protected] • www.ifh.uni-karlsruhe.de
Education
- Dipl.-Ing. • University Karlsruhe • March 2000 • Civil Engineering, subject Hydraulic & En-
vironmental engineering
- Kepler - Gymnasium (high - school) of natural-sciences • 1983-1992 • Ulm, Germany
Professional experience
- Head of teaching department, research and teaching assistant • University Karlsruhe •
Institute for Hydromechanics • April 2003 - present
- Research and teaching assistant • University Karlsruhe • Institute for Hydromechanics •
July 2000 - March 2003
Lectureships
- Lecturer: „Environmental Fluid Mechanics“, Advanced School (one week) • University
Karlsruhe • June 2006
- Lecturer: “Design of Ocean Outfalls for Heated Water and Wastewater Discharges”, short
course • Seoul, South Korea • 9.9.-10.9.05
- Coordinator and lecturer: “Hydraulics of the waste water treatment plant – outfall systems”,
short course • Catania, Italy • 24 - 25.09.04
- Lecturer: “Submarine Outfalls: Design Considerations and Environmental Performance
Monitoring”, workshop • São Paulo, Brazil • 1-5.12.2003
- Coordinator and lecturer: “CORMIX course” • University Karlsruhe • 07-08.12.2000
Short term assignments
- Research stay • Georgia Institute of Technology, USA • December/January 2005/2006
- Research stay • Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil • Aug. 2002, Nov. - Dec. 2003 • “PRO-
BRAL (DAAD project): “Reducing water pollution on the São Paulo Coast: Development of
methodologies for planning and design of multiport diffusers for wastewater discharges”
- Research stay • Universidade Porto, Portugal • Sept. ‘98 • Experiments on particle laden jets
Professional Societies and memberships
- DWA (Deutsche Vereinigung für Wasserwirtschaft, Abwasser und Abfall, / German Asso-
ciation for Water resources, waste water and waste) • since 2001 • member of working group
WW-3.4 "Mixing and Transport problems due to discharges"
- International Association for Hydraulic Engineering and Research (IAHR) • since 2003
- International Water Association (IWA) • since 2007 • member and secretary of specialist
group “Wastewater treatment systems utilising submarine outfalls”
- American Geophysical Union • since 2007 • member
- EWB – Engineers without borders University Karlsruhe • since 2004 • founding member
- 219 -

76.diss IFH BD 2006 3 Bleninger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

76.diss IFH BD 2006 3 Bleninger

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

76.diss IFH BD 2006 3 Bleninger

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tobias Bleninger

Coupled 3D hydrodynamic models for submarine outfalls:

Dieses Werk ist unter folgender Creative Commons-Lizenz

Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe 2007

Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines

von der Fakultät für

Bauingenieur-, Geo- und Umweltwissenschaften

Dipl.-Ing. Tobias Bleninger

Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 19. Juli 2006

Hauptreferent: Prof. Gerhard H. Jirka, Ph.D.

Korreferenten: Prof. Dr.-Ing. E.h. Hermann H. Hahn, Ph.D.

Gekoppelte 3D hydrodynamische Modelle für Einleitungen in Küstengewässer:

Das Bemessungsprogramm für Diffusorbauwerke, CorHyd, berechnet die Durchflussvertei-

Karlsruhe, 12th June 2006

1.1 Background and motivation - coastal water quality problems

1.2 Problem - wastewater discharges

Discharge assessment problems are summarized in four problem categories:

A) Strategic problem: Once recycling or reutilization is maximized there is no single concept

1.3 Objectives and outline

• Comprehensive summary of technologies and governing processes for coastal wastewater

The contributions and developments are based on point-source discharges of municipal

2 Characteristics of coastal wastewater discharges

Modern wastewater management offers a wide variety of solutions to avoid impacts of

I. Development and implementation of source control and recycling technologies to reduce

2.1 Coastal waters characteristics

2.1.1 Coastal circulation

2.1.2 Density stratifications

2.1.3 Natural purification

An additional problem of anthropogenic discharges are pathogens. Pathogens generally are

Fig. 6: Inactivation in seawater of echovirus 6 as a function of temperature (left) and E. coli as a

2.2 Wastewater sources and characteristics

Difficulties exist describing concentrations for organics or microorganisms, because it is im-

2.3 Wastewater treatment technologies

Type technique purpose residuals residual effluent

Fig. 7: Milliscreens for preliminary treatment (Huber technology)

Total suspended BOD5 [%] Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen [%]

Conventional secondary treatment consists traditionally of installations reducing the wastewa-

A summary of general removal efficiencies of the different techniques is listed in Table 4.

Concentration reduction [%]

2.3.1 Limitations of conventional treatment technologies

Another fundamental problem of treatment technologies is their centralized structure. Con-

Thus integrated wastewater management technologies will allow improving infrastructural

2.4 Discharge technologies - outfall characteristics

• Investment costs: 7 million US$ (2 to 3,500 million US$)

2.4.1 Discharge processes and their characteristics

manifold near-field intermediate-field far-field

Table 5: Overview of dominant processes for coastal submerged multiport discharges

Concentration reduction [% of raw sewage concentration]

2.4.2 Limitations of discharge technologies

2.5 Need for a discharge assessment - improved outfall design

2.5.1 Outfall design parameters - dilution characteristics

S = total volume of sample / volume of effluent in sample (2.2)

Therefore, it is commonly distinguished between dilutions related to different processes or

Stot = Snf Sff Sdec = S Sdec (2.3)

With a background ambient concentration Cb the pollutant concentration can be calculated by

C = Cb + (Ce - Cb)/ Stot (2.4)

min [ Ce = Cb + Stot(Ca,lim - Cb) ; Ce,lim ] (2.5)

Stot,min,i = (Ce,i - Cb) / (Ca,lim - Cb) ) (2.6)

Treatment Effluent concentration Ce: Required dilution