大连市开发区给水工程工艺设计

天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）1摘 要随着人口增长、经济发展及人民生活水平的提高，人类对水的需求日益增长，对水质的要求也越来越高。本设计的主要任务是辽宁省大连市给水工程初步设计。设计的主要内容包括：设计工艺规模的确定、给水系统选择、给水方案比较、各种构筑物计算、净水厂设计、二级泵房设计。设计书由设计说明书和设计计算书两部分组成。本设计的设计规模是 12 万 m3/d，以地面为水源。采用的给水系统为：水源一泵站配水井管式静态混凝器往复式隔板絮凝池斜管沉淀池普通快滤池清水池二级泵房城市管网。选用精致硫酸铝为混凝剂，液氯为消毒剂。水厂出水水质达到生活饮用水卫生标准 （GB5749-2006 ） 。关键词：往复式隔板絮凝池；斜管沉淀池；普通快滤池（双层滤料） ；二级泵站；天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）2ABSTRACTWith the population growth, economic development and the improving of living standards , human not only demands for more and more water, but also increases their demands on water quality .The main task of this design is in DaLian City in LiaoNing Province, the preliminary design of the county water supply project. The key elements of design: design to determine the size, water supply systems, water supply schemes, water engineering, water treatment plant design, the secondary pumping station design . Design specification and design of the book is composed of two parts calculation. This design is the size of the recent design of 120,000m3 / d, for the water to river. used for water supply system: the source of the water primary water pumping stationMatch wellTubular static mixterReciprocating clapboard flocculating tankInclined tube sedimentation tankrapid filter(Double filter material)Clearance pondtwo pumping stationsCity pipeline. Selection of coagulant aluminum sulfate, liquid chlorine as disinfectant. Water plant to meet water quality requirements, Drinking Water Health Standards （GB5749-2006）Key words：Reciprocating clapboard flocculating tank；Inclined tube sedimentation tank；Rapid filter(Double filter material)；two pumping stations；天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）3目 录第一章 绪论 .11.1 设计范围 .11.2 设计原 始资料 .11.3 水处理用材料和药剂资料 .3第二章 设计用水量 .42.1 供水系 统的选择 .42.2 设计用水量 .42.3 二级泵站设计流量 .4第三章 给水 处理工艺流程和给水构筑物的工艺选择 .53.1 水厂工艺流程选择 .53.2 处理构筑物的选择 .5第四章 二级泵 房 .134.1 设计规模 .134.2 二级 泵房 .13第五章 净水 构筑物的计算 .145.1 设计供水量 .145.2 配水井计算 .145.3 投药系统计算 .145.4 混 合设备（管式静态混合器） .15天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）45.5 絮凝 设备 .165.6 斜管沉淀池的计算 .195.7 普通快滤池计算 .235.8 加氯间 .295.9 清 水池 .295.10 吸 水井 .30第六章 水厂平面和高程布置 .326.1 平面布置 .326.2 高程布置 .32第七章 送水泵站的设计 .347.1 送水泵站设计的意义 .347.2 送水泵站的设计 .34参 考文献外文资料中 文译文致谢天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）5第一章 绪论1.1 设计范围1.1.1 设计任务根据所给资料进行辽宁省大连市给水工程工艺设计，包括净水工程的初步设计，送水泵房的初步设计，用水量的计算。净水工程设计分为混合工艺设计、絮凝工艺的设计、沉淀工艺的设计、过滤工艺的设计、清水池的设计，消毒系统的设计，加药系统的设计以及水厂的布置。送水工程设计包括选泵和泵房的计算。1.1.2 设计内容（1）选择、确定处理工艺流程；（2）工艺设计 （含工艺及单体构筑物图的设计） 。1.1.3 设计成果要求（1）设计说明书一份（1.2 万字） ；参考文献10 篇；相关外文文献资料翻译 1 份（5000 汉字） 。（2）绘制的图纸折合零号图纸3 张，其中至少包括手绘图 2 张，其内容应满足表 1-1 要求。表 1-1 毕业设计绘制图纸要求图纸内容 数量及尺寸要求1 水厂总平面和高程布置图 1 张，1 号2 絮凝和沉淀池平剖面图 2 张，1 号3 滤池平剖面图 1 张，1 号4 清水池平剖面图 1 张，1 号5 送水泵站平剖面图 1 张，1 号1.2 设计原始资料1.2.1 水质资料 给水厂出水水质需达到生活饮用水卫生标准 （GB5749-2006 ）如表 1-2所示。天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）6表 1-2生活饮用水卫生标准 （GB5749-2006）常规检验项目序号 项 目 单 位 标准限值1 PH 值 / 6.58.52 色度 度 D250mm,V=1.52.0m/sBD250mm,V=2.0 2.5m/s500S59A 型清水泵压水管：DN800，v=1.48m/s,i=2.78（5）吸水井尺寸: B=5m；L=14.53m；H=8.6m （其中超高取 0.3m）（6）起重设备最大起重量为 3600 公斤，故选 DL 型单梁桥式电动吊车，起重量为 4 吨，起吊高度为 12 米，跨度为 11 米。由于泵房较深，故采用电动水泵排水。沿泵房内壁设置排水设备即排水沟将水汇集到集水坑中。集水坑为 100100100，取水泵站的排水量一般按 20-40 立方米考虑，排水扬程在 30m 以内。故采用 Is50-32-16A 型水泵：Q=10-30m3/h，H=28.5-20m，N=2.2kw，n=2900r/min。配用电机 Y90L-2 型两台，一用一备。天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）41天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）42参 考 文 献1 严煦世、范瑾初主编. 给水工程M. 第 4 版. 北京：中国建筑工业出版社， 19992 中国市政工程东北设计研究院主编. 给水排水设计手册（第 1 册）常用资料M. 第 2 版. 北京：中国建筑工业出版社，20003 北京市政工程设计研究总院主编. 给水排水设计手册（第 3 册）城镇给水M. 第 2 版. 北京：中国建筑工业出版社，20044 室外给水设计规范 （GB500132006）. 中国计划出版社， 20065 崔玉川等主编给水厂处理设施设计计算M 北京：化学工业出版社， 20036 高湘主编给水工程技术及工程实例M 北京：化学工业出版社， 20027 姜乃昌、陈锦章主编水泵及水泵站M第 4 版北京：中国建筑工业出版社，19988 张智等主编给水排水工程专业毕业设计指南M北京：中国水利水电出版社，19999 市政工程设计施工系列图集给水排水工程（上、下册） ，中国建筑工业出版社，200310 王启山主编水工业工程常用数据速查手册M 北京：机械工业出版社， 200511 严煦世主编给水排水工程快速设计手册（1）给水工程M北京：中国建筑工业出版社，199912 Dr B C Punmia, Ashok Kr Jain, Arun Kr JainWater Supply EngineeringMLaxmi，199513 American Water Works Association，American Society of Civil EngineersWater Treatment Plant Design (4th edition)McGraw-Hill Professional, 2004天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）43外文资料the United NationsInternational Drinking Water Supply and Sanitation Decade(19811990) failed to achieve its goal of universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation by 1990 (World Health Organization WHO, 2003). Even though service levels rose by more than 10 percent during the decade, 1.1 billion people still lacked access to improved water supplies, and 2.4 billion people were without adequate sanitation, in 1990 (WHO/UNICEF, 2000). Reasons cited for the decades failure include population growth, funding limitations, inadequate operation and maintenance, and continuation of a traditional “business as usual” approach (WHO/UNICEF, 1992).The world is on schedule to meet the Millennium Development Goal (MDG), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2000 and revised after the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, to “halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation” (World Bank Group, 2004; WHO/ UNICEF, 2004). However, success still leaves more than 600 million people without access to safe water in 2015 (WHO/ UNICEF, 2000).In addition, although the MDG target specifically states the provision of “safe” drinking water, the metric used to assess the MDG target is the provision of water from “improved” sources, such as boreholes or household connections, as it is difficult to assess whether water is safe at the household level (WHO/UNICEF, 2004). Thus, many more people than estimated may drink unsafe water from improved sources.HOUSEHOLD WATER TREATMENT AND SAFE STORAGETo overcome the difficulties in providing safe water and sanitation to those who lack it, we need to move away from “business as usual” and research novel interventions and effective implementation strategies that can increase the adoption of technologies and improve prospects for sustainability. Despite general support for water supply and sanitation, the most appropriate and effective interventions in developing countries are subject to significant debate. The weak links among the water, health, and financial sectors could be improved by communication programs emphasizing health1as well as micro- and macroeconomicbenefits that could be gained. The new focus on novel interventions has led researchers to re-evaluate the dominant paradigm that has guided water and sanitation activities since the 1980s. A literature review of 144 studies by Esrey et al. (1991) represents the old paradigm, concluding that sanitation and hygiene education yield greater reductions in diarrheal 天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）44disease (36 percent and 33 percent, respectively) than water supply or water quality interventions.2 However, a more recent meta-analysis commissioned by the World Bank contradicted these findings, showing that hygiene education and water quality improvements are more effective at reducing the incidence of diarrheal disease (42 percent and 39 percent, respectively) than sanitation provision and water supply (24 percent and 23 percent, respectively) (Fewtrell & Colford, 2004).The discrepancy between these findings can be attributed in part to a difference in intervention methodology. Esrey et al. (1991) reviewed studies that largely measured the impact of water quality improvements at the source (i.e., the wellhead or community tap). Since 1996, a large body of published work has examined the health impact of interventions that improve water quality at thepoint of use through household water treatment and safe storage (HWTS; Fewtrell & Colford, 2004). These recent studiesmany of them randomizedcontrolled intervention trialshave highlighted the role of drinking water contamination during collection, transport, and storage (Clasen & Bastable, 2003), and the health value of effective HWTS (Clasen et al., 2004; Quick et al.,1999, 2002; Conroy et al., 1999, 2001; Reller etal., 2003). In 2003, as the evidence for the health benefits of HWTS methods grew, institutions from academia, government, NGOs, and the private sector formed the International Network to Promote Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage,housed at the World Health Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. Its stated goal is “to contribute to a significant reduction in waterborne disease, especially among vulnerable populations, by promoting household water treatment and safe storage as a key component of water, sanitation, and hygiene programmes” (WHO, 2005).HWTS OPTIONSThis article summarizes five of the most common HWTS optionschlorination, filtration (biosand and ceramic), solar disinfection, combined filtration/ chlorination,and combined flocculation/chlorinationand describes implementation strategies for each option.3 We identify implementing organizations and the successes, challenges, and obstacles they have encountered in their projects. We consider sources of funding and the potential to distribute and sustain each option on a large scale, and propose goals for future research and implementation. This article focuses on point-of-use drinking water treatment and safe storage options, which can accelerate the health gains associated with improved water until the longer-term goal of universal access to piped, treated water is achieved. By preventing disease, HWTS practices can contribute to povertyalleviation and development. Their widespread use, 天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）45in conjunction with hygiene education and sanitation, could save millions of lives until the infrastructure to reliably deliver safe water to the entire world population has been created. We use a consistent evaluation scheme for eachof the HWTS options discussed (see Table 1):1. Does the HWTS option remove or inactivate viral, bacterial, and parasitic pathogens in water in a laboratory setting?;2. In the field, is the HWTS option acceptable, can it be used correctly, and does it reduce disease among users?3. Is the HWTS option feasible at a large scale?The sodium hypochlorite solution is packaged in a bottle with directions instructing users to add one full bottle cap of the solution to clear water (or two caps to turbid water) in a standard-sized storage container, agitate, and wait 30 minutes before drinking. In four randomized controlled trials, the SWS reduced the risk of diarrheal disease by 4484 percent (Luby et al., 2004; Quick et al., 1999, 2002; Semenza et al.,1998).At concentrations used in HWTS programs, chlorine effectively inactivates bacteria and some viruses (American Water Works Association, 1999); however, it is not effective at inactivating some protozoa, such as cryptosporidium.5 Initial research shows water treated with the SWS does not exceed WHO guidelines for disinfection by-products, which are potentially cancer-causing agents (CDC, unpublished data). Because the concentration of the chlorine solution used in SWS programs is low, the environmental impacts of the solution are minimal.Chlorination: Implementation StrategiesSWS implementation has varied according to local partnerships and underlying social and economic conditions. The disinfectant solution has been distributed at national and subnational levels in 13 national and subnational levels in 13 countries through social marketing campaigns, in partnership with the NGO Population Services International (PSI). In Indonesia, the solution is distributed primarily by private sector efforts, led by a local manufacturing company. In several countriesincluding Ecuador, Laos, Haiti, and Nepalthe ministries of health or local NGOs run the SWS programs at the community level. In Kabul, Afghanistan, the SWS is provided at no charge to pregnant women receiving antenatal care. The SWS has also been distributed free of charge in a number of disaster areas, includingIndonesia, India, and Myanmar following the 2004 tsunami, and also in Kenya, Bolivia, Haiti, Indonesia, and Madagascar after other natural disasters. When SWS programs are in place, the products ready availability greatly facilitates emergency 天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）46response. The CDC has developed an implementation manual and provides technicalassistance to organizations implementing SWS projects (CDC, 2001).Solar Disinfection: Benefits and DrawbacksThe benefits of SODIS include: Proven reduction of bacteria, viruses, and protozoa; Proven health impact; Acceptability to users because of the minimal cost to treat water, ease of use, and minimal change in water taste; and Unlikely recontamination because water is consumed directly from the small, narrownecked bottles (with caps) in which it is treated.The drawbacks include: Need to pretreat water that appears slightly dirty;8 Low user acceptability because of the limited volume of water that can be treated at one time and the length of time required to treat it; and Requires a large supply of intact, clean, and properly sized plastic bottles.Solar Disinfection: Implementation StrategiesAs a virtually zero-cost technology, SODIS faces marketing constraints. Since 2001, local NGOs in seven countries in Latin Americaas well as in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Kenyaare disseminating SODIS by training and educating users at the grassroots level, providing technical assistance to partner organizations, lobbying key players, and establishing information networks. The program has been funded by the AVINA and Solaqua Foundations, private and corporate sponsors, and official development assistance. The program has shown that SODIS is best promoted and disseminated by local institutions with experience in community health education. Creating awareness of the importance of treating drinking water and establishing corresponding changes in behavior requires a long-term training approach and repeated contact with the community. The Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology has developed an implementation manual, and provides technical assistance to NGOs implementing SODIS. The method, which has been disseminated in more than 20 developing countries, is regularly applied by more than one million users.Ceramic Filtration: Implementation StrategiesPFP is a U.S.-based NGO whose mission is to build an international network of potters concerned with peace and justice issues. PFP helps potters learn appropriate 天津大学仁爱学院 2010 届本科生毕业设计（论文）47technologies and marketing skills that improve their livelihoods and sustain their environment and cultural traditions. After staff members were introduced to the ceramic filter design, PFP established a filter-making factory in Managua, Nicaragua. Funding for the project initially came from private donations. The filter factory is now a self-financed microenterprise in Nicaragua. NGOs pay US$10 per filter, and transport the filters themselves to project locations. From 19992004, PFP made and sold a total of 23,000 filters in Nicaragua. PFP has also established filter-making factories in 12 other countries, contracted by organizations that provide funding for technical assistance and factory construction. In the current model, the factory sells filters to NGOs, who then implement a water program. This model is attractive to NGOs because they do not have to produce the filters, but it suffers from a lack of consistent training and education for both the NGO implementers and the users. Poor cleaning and maintenance of the filter often leads to recontamination of finished water (Lantagne, 2001b). To address this issue, PFP is working with cooperating NGOs to develop, implement, and evaluate an educational program that includes safe storage, proper procedures for cleaning the filter, and follow-up visits to ensure proper use continues and broken filters are replaced. This educational component is critical for the realworld performance of the filter to match its effectiveness in the laboratory, and to test whether filters made with locally produced materials will prevent diarrhea.BioSand Filtration: Benefits and Dra