Case Study Vibrating Screen

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry
Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen
Case Study 4
VIBRATING SCREEN
Contents
CASE STUDY 4 VIBRATING SCREEN ........................................................ 4-1
4.1
Description of the System............................................................................. 4-2
4.2
Manufacturer / Distributor ........................................................................... 4-3
4.3
Information Sources....................................................................................... 4-4
4.4 Performance Data ........................................................................................... 4-4

4.4.1 Shutt et al. (1975) Piggery wastewater (2 screen types) ....................... 4-4
4.4.2 Pain et al. (1978) Cow and piggery wastewaters and slurries ............ 4-6
4.4.3 Hegg et al. (1981) Animal wastewaters (3 screen types) ...................... 4-7
4.4.4 Holmberg et al. (1983) Piggery wastewater........................................... 4-8
4.4.5 Abery (1994) Piggery wastewater .......................................................... 4-8
4.4.6 Charles (2000) Piggery wastewater (2 screen types)............................ 4-9
4.4.7 Summary of performance data ................................................................ 4-10
4.5
Running Costs and Maintenance .............................................................. 4-11
4.6
Practical Operating Issues........................................................................... 4-11
4.7
Piggery Case Studies.................................................................................... 4-11
4.8 Summary Selection Criteria..................................................................... 4-12

4.8.1 Solids removed........................................................................................... 4-13
4.8.2 Capital cost ................................................................................................. 4-13
4.8.3 Operating costs .......................................................................................... 4-13
4.8.4 Ease of operation........................................................................................ 4-13
4.8.5 Solids management options ..................................................................... 4-13
4.9
References ...................................................................................................... 4-14

List of Figures
Figure 4-1 Schematic diagram of a Vibrating Screen................................................... 4-2

Figure 4-2 Flamingo Quad-deck Vibrating Screen ...................................................... 4-3
Figure 4-3 TS removal vs influent TS content for cow slurry - Pain et al. (1978) ..... 4-6
Figure 4-4 TS content of removed solids vs solids removal rate (all data)............. 4-10
List of Tables
Table 4-1 - Vibrating screen performance - Shutt et al. (1975) ...................................... 4-5
Table 4-2 Vibrating Screen data - Hegg et al. (1981)..................................................... 4-7
Table 4-3 Flamingo screen performance Charles (2000) .......................................... 4-9
Table 4-4 Capital and operating costs of Vibrating Screens ..................................... 4-12
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-1
FIGURE 4-1 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A VIBRATING SCREEN

4.1
Description of the System
A vibrating screen is similar to a static rundown screen except that the liquid for
separation is poured onto a rapidly vibrating horizontal screen (see Figure 4-1). The
solids slide to the edge of the screen, while the liquid passes through the screen.
A vibrating screen consists of one to four plates (mesh or cloth screen bases) in series,
driven by a vertical electric motor. An adjustable, eccentric weighted arm controls
the motion of the unit. Adjusting the arm changes the frequency of vibration of the
screens, varying the vertical, horizontal and inclinational motion. By changing the
weights and their position, the flow of materials can be directed either towards or
away from the centre of the screens. Solids are removed via a discharge outlet
extending from the perimeter of each screen deck.
In Australia, the only vibrating screen known to have been tested in the pig industry
is the Flamingo (see Section 4.2). The manufacturers claim that the screens are `easy
to operate, easy to change the screen cloth and easy to clean. Anti-blinding devices
keep the screen clean during all operations. The screen units are `highly efficient,
have an elegant design, are durable and available for any powder and viscous
liquid. Screen cloths are available in a range of apertures from 32 m to 5.6 mm.
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-2
FIGURE 4-2 FLAMINGO QUAD-DECK VIBRATING SCREEN

The key features of the Flamingo Vibratory Screen are claimed to be:
Suitable for sifting, granulating and liquid filtration
Waste water treatment
Contact parts stainless steel (Grade 304)
Screens can be changed quickly and easily by changing the mesh only
Units fitted with tapping balls as standard
Lids standard
Discharge control gate
Galvanised base
A large number of sieves available ex stock.
Screens are available from 450 mm diameter to 1430 mm diameter and from one to
three layers. Power requirements range from 0.37 kW to 2.2 kW.
4.2
Manufacturer / Distributor
Lao Soung Machinery Co. Ltd of Taiwan developed the equipment. Information is
available at www.commerce.com.tw/c/029900668. It is claimed that these screens
are used extensively in piggeries in Taiwan and other parts of Asia.
In Australia, the equipment is distributed by:
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-3
Ernst Fleming
Flamingo Products
79 Derby St,
Silverwater NSW 2128
Ph:
02 9648 3308
Facsimile:
02 9648 5441
Email:
sales@flamingoproducts.com
Further information is available at www.flamingoproducts.com.
Other manufacturers of vibrating screens are Sweco and Kason.
4.3
Information Sources
The information presented in this case study is derived from the following sources.
No site visits were undertaken to see an operating vibrating screen.
Manufacturers product information (Flamingo).
Shutt et al. (1975) Solid separation pf piggery wastewater using screens.
Pain et al. (1978) Solid separation of piggery and cow wastewater and slurries.
Hegg et al. (1981) Solid separation of animal wastewater.
Holmberg et al. (1983) Solids separation of piggery wastewater.
Abery (1994) Solids separation of piggery wastewater.
Charles (2000) - PRDC Group Demonstration Project No 1667
4.4
Performance Data
4.4.1
Shutt et al. (1975) Piggery wastewater (2 screen types)
Shutt et al. (1975) compared the solids removal efficiencies of stationary rundown
screens and vibrating screens with different-sized screen openings. Piggery
wastewater with a TS content of 0.2-0.7%, and a range of flow rates were used for the
comparisons. The wastewater was flushed out of pig fattening barns by discharging
large quantities of water down the gutters.
The manufacturer of the screen was not specified but the unit had one deck, 460 mm
in diameter, with a surface area of 0.164 m2. The screen was operated at three flow
rates (41 L/min, 67 L/min and 110 L/min) using four different screen opening
apertures (0.12 mm, 0.17 mm, 0.21 mm and 0.39 mm) (see Table 4-1). No mention
was made of changes to or settings of the vibratory motion of the unit.
The best result was achieved with the largest screen size (0.39 mm) and a flow rate of
0.0011 m3.s-1. This removed 0.6% of the influent volume, 22.2% of the TS, 28.1% of
the VS and 16.1% of the BOD. The TS concentration of the solids removed was 16.4%
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-4
wb. For the other vibrating screen opening sizes, performance was optimised at the
same flow rate.
Because screen sizes and flow rates were different for the stationary and vibrating
screens, direct comparisons are difficult. However, for a given flow rate, it was
concluded that static rundown screens would be more effective than vibrating
screens at removing solids.
TABLE 4-1 - VIBRATING SCREEN PERFORMANCE - SHUTT ET AL. (1975)

Solids removal performance (percent of indicated parameter retained in screened
fraction)
(i)
Loading rate 41 L/min
Parameter
Units
Flow removal
TS removal
TS of output
VS removal
BOD
COD
0.12
0.2
2.5
5.7
3.3
-
% of inflow
% of inflow
% wb
% of inflow
% of inflow
% of inflow
(ii)
Parameter
Units
Flow removal
TS removal
TS of output
VS removal
BOD
COD
% of inflow
% of inflow
% wb
% of inflow
% of inflow
% of inflow
% of inflow
% of inflow
% wb
% of inflow
% of inflow
% of inflow
0.39
0.4
12.6
12.2
4.3
10.0
0.12
1.2
13.8
8.5
18.5
-
Size of Opening (mm)

0.17
0.21
0.7
0.7
14.0
9.8
10.9
10.8
17.0
12.9
2.4
15.3
8.9
0.39
0.6
22.2
16.4
28.1
16.1
0.12
2.1
18.7
4.8
42.8
-

0.17
0.21
0.8
0.9
1.8
7.0
1.9
4.8
2.4
9.0
3.9
12.5
10.7
0.39
1.6
12.3
4.9
17.2
12.2
(iii)
Parameter
Units
Flow removal
TS removal
TS of output
VS removal
BOD
COD

0.17
0.21
0.5
2.8
5.8
14.3
3.9
8.7
8.4
12.4
4.5
3.3
16.3
The data highlights the need to select the optimum flow rate and mesh size
combinations to achieve the best recovery results. High flow rates (110 L/min)
increased the water content of the solids fraction substantially. Similarly, the use of a
small aperture cloth (0.12 mm) and a low flow rate tended to blind the screen,
increasing the water content of the solids. The best TS content of separated solids
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-5
was 16.4%, with a flow rate of 67 L/min and the largest screen aperture of 0.39 mm..
These solids would be spadeable for composting purposes.
4.4.2
Pain et al. (1978) Cow and piggery wastewaters and slurries
Pain et al. (1978) evaluated the use of a vibrating screen (and other devices) for cow
and piggery wastewaters and slurries containing from 4% to 15% TS. They were
evaluating practical devices suitable for use in Britain. No details are given on the
influent characteristics or history and there is no particle size distribution of the
solids. The differences between the cow and pig wastewaters are not stated.
The configuration of the vibrating screen was similar to Figure 4-1. Woven stainless
steel screens with nominal mesh sizes of 0.75 mm and 1.5 mm were used. Neither
screen diameter nor manufacturer was specified.
The authors only reported on the performance of the screen on cow wastewater and
slurry. They found that the screens were ineffective when the influent solids content
was above 8%, because the slurry accumulated on top of the screen. At influent
solids of about 7%, the device removed up to 50% of TS, but this rapidly declined as
influent TS content declined. At about 4% TS influent, removal efficiency was only
15% of TS (see Figure 4-3). They noted that a very wet solid was produced and
therefore a considerable amount of seepage from the stack occurred. The removed
solids were in the range of 11% to 13% TS (thick slurry).
FIGURE 4-3 TS REMOVAL VS INFLUENT TS CONTENT FOR COW SLURRY - PAIN ET

AL. (1978)
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-6

4.4.3
Hegg et al. (1981) Animal wastewaters (3 screen types)
The objective of this study was to determine potential amounts of TS and COD
removable from manure wastewaters using three types of commercially available
screens. They tested rotating, static and vibrating screens. The vibrating screen was
similar in configuration to Figure 4-1. It was a 457 mm diameter, Sweco single deck
device. Three mesh sizes were tested (1.57 mm, 0.83 mm and 0.64 mm). Operating
performance was optimised using manufacturers recommendations.
The pig wastewater was from finishing pigs fed a pelleted, corn-soybean ration.
Detailed particle size analysis is given. However, the particle size appears large
compared to other literature, 53.5% > .42 mm (see Part A report Table 5-2). For
each test, a grab sample of influent, effluent and separated solids was collected and
analysed. The TS removal rate was based on a ratio of the difference between TS in
influent, minus TS in effluent (screened solids), divided by the TS of the influent. All
of this data is expressed as a concentration and no mention is made of measuring
flow rates. Hence, TS removal rates are not based on mass balance.
Table 4-2 provides a summary of their data. The percentage TS removed ranged
from 3% to 27% for the 1.5 mm and 0.63 mm mesh respectively. The COD removal
rates were also larger for the finer mesh. The finer mesh did not produce TS
concentrations of solids because the screen was partially plugged with pig hair.
This data illustrates that the outcome of the experiment is linked to how
appropriately the experiment is designed to match the device characteristics. For
example, the highest solids recovery of 27% may be due to reduced flow rate (not just
opening size). It also produced the driest solids (20.9%). Overtopping the screen
with too high a flow rate substantially diluted the solids recovered. The TS content
of the screened solids varied (in this experiment) from 16.9% to 20.9%. This is
spadeable and possibly stackable.
TABLE 4-2 VIBRATING SCREEN DATA - HEGG ET AL. (1981)

Mesh Size Mm
Slurry Concentration
Influent
% TS
Effluent
% TS
TS
%
removed
Removed % TS
solids
Influent
g/L
COD
Effluent
g/L
COD
COD
%
removed
Flowrate
L/min
range
April 2002
0.83
1.57
0.64
2.88
2.75
5.0
1.83
1.34
27.0
0.83
Low
1.52
1.36
10.0
High
2.86
2.56
10.0
1.57
1.55
1.51
3.0
19.3
20.9
20.9
18.4
16.9
29.7
21.5
20.4
13.7
12.9
25.4
20.7
15.4
13.6
12.2
14.0
4.0
24.0
1.0
6.0
15-35
53-126
37-57
37-108
37-103
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-7

4.4.4
Holmberg et al. (1983) Piggery wastewater
Holmberg et al. (1983) tested the feasibility of using a vibrating screen to concentrate
flushed piggery wastewater for use in an anaerobic digester. Four flow rates (37.5,
75, 112.5 and 150 L/min) and five screen mesh sizes (0.10 mm, 0.23 mm, 0.52 mm,
0.98 mm and 2.4 mm) were tested. The device used as a 457 mm Sweco device
similar to that used by Hegg et al. (1981). The wastewater was obtained from a
finishing house that was flushed daily and collected in a sump before being pumped
to the screen.
Analysis of the flushed effluent, and the solid and liquid separated components
included TS, VS, FS, TC (total carbon), COD, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia
nitrogen, total phosphorus and ortho-phosphorus. Mass balances were used to
determine solids reductions.
The TS of the flushed effluent varied from less than 1.5% to 5.4% with an average of
2.92%. In this wastewater, the fraction of the TS that was FS, VS and TC were
consistent and averaged 17%, 83% and 44% respectively. Complete analyses are
provided.
The data shows that, over the range of flow rates and screen sizes, the solid fraction
(as a percentage of the inflow) contained from 1-45% of the flow, 11-67% of TS, 1470% of VS, 11-69% of TC, 2-58% of COD, 9-57% of ortho-phosphorus, 2-58% of total
phosphorus, 2-51% of total Kjeldahl nitrogen and 2-51% of ammonia nitrogen.
Complete analyses of the solid and liquid fractions are presented. The TS content of
the solid fraction ranged from 2.4% to 18.1%. The wettest solids came from the finest
screens that also had the highest solids recovery. The ratio of VS to TS in the solids
varied slightly from 86-96%.
This wide range of performance efficiencies again reflects the importance of
matching device performance to inflow rate. As with other experiments, improved
TS recovery is achieved with a finer mesh, but this results in a wetter solid fraction.
4.4.5
Abery (1994) Piggery wastewater
Avery (1994) tested sedimentation, centrifugation, screening and dissolved air

floatation as methods of removing solids from piggery effluent at Bunge, Corowa.
The screens were already part of the effluent treatment system but no technical
details are provided in the report. They are simply described as two-layer, vibrating
mesh screens with an inflow rate of 20 L/s. The screens used a 3.75 kW motor.
Effluent was flushed into a sump from which it was pumped to the screens. The pit
pump used a 15 kW motor and the sediment pump (agitator) used a 4 kW motor.
Only one test was conducted using the screens as the sole separation system. The TS
of the influent was 0.57%. In this case, the screens removed 0.2% of the total inflow
and only 6.7% of the TS inflow. The TS of the separated solids was 21.1%. It was
estimated that the cost of electricity was $40.63 per ML treated. They noted that the
main advantage of this process is its simplicity, being able to operate 24-hours per
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-8
day with very little monitoring, and it is unaffected by the start/stop operation
which occurs at night when the raw effluent flow is low.
4.4.6
Charles (2000) Piggery wastewater (2 screen types)
The objective of this project was to compare the performance of a vibratory screen
with a static rundown screen. The wastewater was flushed from a piggery, with a TS
concentration of 1.02%. Detailed particle size analyses of the wastewater were
provided and only 6% of the TS had particle sizes greater than 0.5 mm. This would
indicate that it had been through a chopper type pump of had degraded into smaller
particles before separation.
The equipment used was a 2-deck Flamingo system, with a 450 mm screen diameter
(see Figure 4-2). Screen mesh sizes tested were 0.074 mm, 0.104 mm, 0.147 mm, 0.175
mm and 0.246 mm, with a flow rate of <33.3 L/min. Different decks used different
mesh sizes, with the finest mesh at the bottom. Table 4-3 presents summarised
comparative data. Metallic salts and polymers as additives to the influent were
tested to see if they would improve the solids removal efficiency of the device.
They found that the 0.074 mm screen was not viable as it began to clog within two
hours and produced very wet solids.
The use of metallic salts and polymers failed for two reasons. The polymer, which is
a thick sticky liquid, quickly resulted in the screens blocking up. Also, the vibrating
action of the screen caused the suspended solid flocs to break and separate. Hence,
there was no benefit in using additives.
TABLE 4-3 FLAMINGO SCREEN PERFORMANCE CHARLES (2000)

Slurry
characteristics
1.02% TS
50% TS <0.026 mm
Total N 1350 mg/L
Total P 244 mg/L
Total K 310 mg/L
Separator specs
Flow rate
<33.3
L/min
Mesh size
0.175 mm
top
0.104 mm
bottom
Effluent characteristics
Concentrations
TS - 7580 mg/kg
Output - 19.6% TS
Total N 6010 mg/L
Total P 1550 mg/L
Total K 200 mg/L
Reduction
%
23.5%
na
na
na
Using the % removal of TS in the liquid fraction before and after screening, the %
reduction was 23.5%. Substituting the screen with a smaller 0.074 mm aperture
improved the solids reduction to 25.7% but screen clogging occurred. The
approximate flow rate is indicated, but the data are expressed as a concentration.
Hence the TS removal rates are not based on mass balance principles. Figures for
reduction in nutrient concentrations could not be calculated, as concentrations in the
liquid exiting the screen were not given. In the trial a polymer (type not specified)
was tested, but the vibratory motion of the unit fractured the flocs, increasing the
incidence of screen blinding.
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-9

4.4.7
Summary of performance data
The following conclusions can be drawn from the above data.

a. Performance of vibrating screens is highly variable as it depends on TS of
influent, influent characteristics, screen mesh size, flow rate, manufacturers
settings and other factors.
b. In the literature, the range of performance data includes:
TS removal from 1.8% to 67%
VS removal from 2% to 70%
COD removal from 1% to 59%
TS content of separated solids from 1.9% to 21%.
c. Generally, there is a trade-off between solids removal efficiency and the
quality of the solids that are removed (see Figure 4-4).
d. Solids removal efficiency is strongly related the TS content of the influent.
e. Generally, vibrating screens work better with TS in the influent that is below
7% to prevent clogging but over 1% to improve removal efficiency.
f.
Clogging or blinding of the screen openings due to slimy effluents is a major

problem and frequent cleaning is often required.
g. Figure 4-4 shows the combined data of Shutt et al (1975), Hegg et al (1981),
Avery (1994) and Charles (2000). There is a general trend of reduced solids
content in the separated solids versus increased solids removal efficiency but
the performance data is erratic and unpredictable.
FIGURE 4-4 TS CONTENT OF REMOVED SOLIDS VS SOLIDS REMOVAL RATE (ALL

DATA)
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-10
4.5
Running Costs and Maintenance
No information has been provided by the manufacturer on running costs

other than power required to run the system (2 kW per hr).
Maintenance is replacement of mesh (fine mesh 6 months to 1 year, coarse
mesh 2 to 4 years depending on abrasiveness of slurry)
In practice the screens need to be washed preferably twice daily
In practice with an average daily flow rate of 22,000L using a 2.2 kW motor
over 11 hours operation, $4.00 of power was used.
Because of the moving parts, vibrating screens have higher maintenance and power
requirements than stationary rundown screen (Kruger et al. 1995). While vibrating
sometimes helps to prevent blinding (Mukhtar et al. 1999; Fulhage & Pfost 1993),
regular cleaning is still required to maintain high efficiencies.
Performance of vibrating screens is affected by both the flow rate and the TS
concentration of the wastewater. Therefore, to optimise performance, the TS
concentration and the flow rate should remain constant. Accordingly a sump,
agitator and lift pump should be included in the running costs of a stationary screen.
4.6
Practical Operating Issues
It is generally reported that vibrating screens have a low requirement for regular
monitoring and maintenance. However, some authors mention problems with screen
blinding. It appears that a problem with these devices is the correct matching of
influent quality and quantity to device performance.
Another issue is the water content of the separated solids. This is often reported as
being too wet. Separated solids that are not stackable and they leak water after
separation, presenting handling and odour problems.
4.7
Piggery Case Studies
Four piggery case studies have been analysed. These are a 200-sow and a 2000-sow
unit operated under low flushing (5 L/SPU/day) and high flushing (25 L/SPU/day)
regimes. Capital and operating costs were estimated using data supplied by the
manufacturer. It was assumed that power costs $0.13/kWhr and labour costs are
$25/hr. The power costs calculated below are similar to that those proposed by
Abery (1994).
Table 4-4 provides summarised capital and operating costs. They offered two screen
sizes. The finer screen with the lower flow rate was used in the analysis. A major
issue with this analysis is selection of the appropriate solids removal efficiency. We
have used 10% for the low TS effluent and 20% for the higher TS effluent. Sumps,
pumps and agitators have been built into the capital and operating cost of the screen.
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-11
TABLE 4-4 CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS OF VIBRATING SCREENS

Item
Units
200-sow
low-flush
200-sow
high flush
2000-sow
lowflush
2000-sow
high flush
No of pigs
SPU
2,134
2,134
21,340
21,340
Flushing
L/SPU/day
5
25
5
25
Hosing
L/SPU/day
1
2
1
2
Total effluent a ML/yr
9
25
85
250
Effluent flow
L/s
0.27
0.79
2.7
7.9
(24 hr)
Solids content % TS
3.1
1.2
3.3
1.2
of effluent
Solids
t/yr
270
290
2,800
2,940
Flamingo Vibrating Screen Data
Flowrate
L/s
1.8
2.5
8.3
16.7
Operation
hrs/day
3.5
7.6
7.8
11.4
hrs/yr
1,300
2,780
2,850
4,160
Solids
%
20
10
20
10
Removal b
t/yr
54
29
560
294
Capital cost c
$
31,000
34,000
68,500
107,000
$/ML treated
3,630
1,360
800
430
/yr
$/t solids
580
1,170
120
360
removed /yr
Operating
kWhr/yr
13,920
31,920
67,230
113,2400
Cost
$/yr (power)
1,810
4,150
8,740
14,720
Labour hr/day
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
$/yr (labour) d
1,830
1,830
2,7400
3,650
$/yr (main.) e
1,000
1,000
2,000
2,000
Total
$/yr
4,630
6,970
13,480
20,370
Operating
$/ML treated
540
280
160
82
$/t solids
86
240
24
69
removed
a Total wastewater includes flushing water, hosing water, manure and drinking water
wastage.
b This figure is adopted until better data is available.
c Capital cost includes a manure collection sump with pumps and agitator.
d Labour for monitoring and maintenance costed at $ 25/hr
e Routine maintenance of pumps and agitators
4.8
Summary Selection Criteria
The vibrating screen is an advance on the static rundown screen. Solid separation
occurs due the liquid component passing through a screen. Mechanical reliability
appears good, but clogging of screens seems to be an issue when inappropriate flow
rates are used. Chemical additives do not improve performance, but gravity
thickening to a TS concentration of above 3% may.
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-12

4.8.1
Solids removed
Solid removal efficiencies reported in the literature vary widely. Assuming that the
device is correctly matched to the inflow rate, then it would be appropriate to
assume that 10% of solids are removed with the influent at 1.2% TS and 20% with the
influent at 3.1% TS. These results indicate that gravity thickening to a concentration
of above 3% would improve the operational efficiency of vibrating screens.
4.8.2
Capital cost
From Table 4-4, the capital cost could be $31,000 to $34,000 for a 200-sow piggery and
$68,500 to $107,000 for a 2000-sow piggery. This includes the single vibrating screens
for the 200-sow case studies, 2 screens for the 2000-sow low flush case study and 4
screens for the 2000-sow high flush case study. The capital cost also includes
collection sumps, agitators and pumps.
4.8.3
Operating costs
From Table 4-4, the operating costs could range from $280 to $540/ML of effluent
treated for the 200-sow case studies and $80 to $160/ML of effluent treated for the
2000-sow case studies. Operating costs per tonne of dry solids removed range from
$86 to $240 for a 200 sow piggery and $24 to $69 for a 2000 sow piggery. The lower
costs reflect economies of scale with larger piggeries. The lower costs reflect
economies of scale with larger piggeries. Vibrating screens have more maintenance
requirements that static rundown screens.
4.8.4
Ease of operation
The device is reported as easy to operate with little monitoring, provided that the
flow rate and TS concentration of the wastewater have been matched to the screen
size. However, pressure hosing would be required on a regular basis (daily) to
remove biofilms from the screens.
4.8.5
Solids management options
If the flow rate and TS concentrations are correctly matched to the screens used, then
spadeable solids suitable for composting can be obtained (>15%). A bulking agent
(straw or sawdust) could be added to solids that are spadeable but not stackable, to
absorb any seepage during composting. Wetter slurries (greater than 5% but less
than 15%) would be difficult to pump or spade, and would be prone to odour
generation.
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-13
4.9
References
Abery R. 1994. An evaluation of methods of effluent treatment at Module 5,

Corowa. Bunge Meat Industries, Corowa, NSW.
Charles J. 2000. Solid separation using a Vibrating Sieve No. 1667. Pig Research and
Development Corporation Group Demonstration Project.
Fulhage C. and Pfost D.L. 1993. Mechanical solid/liquid separation for dairy waste.
University of Missouri. Accessed on-line 23/01/2000.
Hegg R.O., Larson R.E. and Moore J.A. 1981. Mechanical liquid-solid separation in
beef, dairy and swine waste slurries. Transactions of the American Society
of Agricultural Engineers 24(1):159-63.
Kruger I., Taylor G. and Ferrier M. 1995. Effluent at Work. Australian Pig Housing
Series. New South Wales Agriculture, Tamworth NSW Australia.
Mukhtar S., Sweeten J.M. and Auvermann B.W. 1999. Solid-liquid separation of
animal manure and wastewater. Texas Agricultural Extension Service
publication E-13. Texas A&M University System. 5pp.
Shutt J.W., White R.K., Taiganides E.P. and Mote C.R. 1975. Evaluation of solids
separation devices. Managing Livestock Wastes. Proceedings of 3rd
International Symposium on Agricultural Wastes, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers Urbana, Illinois, USA. pp 463-467.
April 2002
FSA Environmental
Page No.4-14

Case Study Vibrating Screen

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Case Study Vibrating Screen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen

Description of the System............................................................................. 4-2

Manufacturer / Distributor ........................................................................... 4-3

Information Sources....................................................................................... 4-4

4.4 Performance Data ........................................................................................... 4-4

Running Costs and Maintenance .............................................................. 4-11

Practical Operating Issues........................................................................... 4-11

Piggery Case Studies.................................................................................... 4-11

4.8 Summary Selection Criteria..................................................................... 4-12

References ...................................................................................................... 4-14

Figure 4-1 Schematic diagram of a Vibrating Screen................................................... 4-2

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen

FIGURE 4-1 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF A VIBRATING SCREEN

Description of the System

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen

FIGURE 4-2 FLAMINGO QUAD-DECK VIBRATING SCREEN

Suitable for sifting, granulating and liquid filtration

Waste water treatment

Contact parts stainless steel (Grade 304)

Units fitted with tapping balls as standard

Discharge control gate

A large number of sieves available ex stock.

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen

Manufacturers product information (Flamingo).

Shutt et al. (1975) Solid separation pf piggery wastewater using screens.

Hegg et al. (1981) Solid separation of animal wastewater.

Holmberg et al. (1983) Solids separation of piggery wastewater.

Abery (1994) Solids separation of piggery wastewater.

Charles (2000) - PRDC Group Demonstration Project No 1667

Shutt et al. (1975) Piggery wastewater (2 screen types)

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen

TABLE 4-1 - VIBRATING SCREEN PERFORMANCE - SHUTT ET AL. (1975)

Size of Opening (mm)

Size of Opening (mm)

Size of Opening (mm)

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen

Pain et al. (1978) Cow and piggery wastewaters and slurries

FIGURE 4-3 TS REMOVAL VS INFLUENT TS CONTENT FOR COW SLURRY - PAIN ET

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen

Hegg et al. (1981) Animal wastewaters (3 screen types)

TABLE 4-2 VIBRATING SCREEN DATA - HEGG ET AL. (1981)

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen

Holmberg et al. (1983) Piggery wastewater

Abery (1994) Piggery wastewater

Avery (1994) tested sedimentation, centrifugation, screening and dissolved air

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen

Charles (2000) Piggery wastewater (2 screen types)

TABLE 4-3 FLAMINGO SCREEN PERFORMANCE CHARLES (2000)

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry

Case Study 4 Vibrating Screen

Summary of performance data

The following conclusions can be drawn from the above data.

Clogging or blinding of the screen openings due to slimy effluents is a major

FIGURE 4-4 TS CONTENT OF REMOVED SOLIDS VS SOLIDS REMOVAL RATE (ALL

Solid Separation Systems for the Pig Industry