Difference between revisions of "Settled sewerage (small diameter)"
(→External links) |
(→External links) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|- | |- | ||
! width="50%" style="background:#efefef;" | Advantages | ! width="50%" style="background:#efefef;" | Advantages | ||
| − | ! style="background:# | + | ! style="background:#e9f5fd;" | Disadvantages |
|- | |- | ||
| valign="top" | Less dependent on active user involvement. <br> | | valign="top" | Less dependent on active user involvement. <br> | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | == Costs == | + | <br> |
| + | === Costs === | ||
* Investment per household US$ 150 500 (Honduras, 1990). | * Investment per household US$ 150 500 (Honduras, 1990). | ||
| Line 28: | Line 29: | ||
* Where septic tanks already exist, the cost reduction can be 40%70% (USA). | * Where septic tanks already exist, the cost reduction can be 40%70% (USA). | ||
| − | == Applying conditions == | + | === Applying conditions === |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>The system can be appropriate in high- and low-density areas. </li> | <li>The system can be appropriate in high- and low-density areas. </li> | ||
| Line 37: | Line 38: | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| − | + | === External links === | |
| − | + | * [http://wedc.lboro.ac.uk General information] . | |
| − | == External links == | + | * [http://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/824-ZACA97-14245.pdf Settled Sewerage], IRC. |
| − | * | + | * [http://washdev.iwaponline.com/content/3/2/230 Challenges facing sanitation-provision partnerships for informal settlements: a South African case study]. |
| − | * | + | * [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197397510000755 The PAQPUD settled sewerage project (Dakar, Senegal): Problems arising, lessons learned]. |
| − | * | ||
Latest revision as of 20:07, 3 October 2020
Settled sewerage, also called small diameter or small-bore sewerage is designed to prevent solids in wastewater from entering a communal small bore sewer network. An important condition for the functioning of these sewer networks is that a minimum average of 25 litres per person per day enters the system. First wastewater settles in a small interceptor tank. Later, wastewater is conveyed via small (50 200 mm) diameter sewers of PVC or other durable material. Pipes are laid at various gradients from 0% to 10%. Inspection manholes are limited to minimise unauthorised opening and disposal into the system. Costs can be reduced if a group of households shares one interceptor tank. Although settled sewerage is mainly used to transport wastewater, small diameter sewers are also appropriate to transport urine.
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
| Less dependent on active user involvement. All kind of wastewater can be transported. |
Institutional operation and maintenance required. Interceptor tanks need to be desludged periodically. |
Costs
- Investment per household US$ 150 500 (Honduras, 1990).
- Investment per person US$ 35 85 (North East Brazil).
- Investment 20%-50% less than conventional sewerage in rural areas.
- Where septic tanks already exist, the cost reduction can be 40%70% (USA).
Applying conditions
- The system can be appropriate in high- and low-density areas.
- In areas where elevation differences do not permit gravity flow, pump stations are required.
- The system is appropriate for areas where septic tanks already exist, but effluent is causing public health or environmental risks.
- Understanding of the system hydraulics is required.
- The system needs to be flushed periodically to avoid blockages.
