Jellyfish Compliance with SEQ MUSIC Modelling Guidelines · MCU15/0122

   
   

   
   




Page | 11


[OCR of page images]
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eR
Commercial ROOF (0.027 ha, 100% Imp)
m™
M™
; 1G
‘Commercial ROOF (0.027 ha, 190% imp} Humes fecha eehina ade”
|
Treatment Train : Node a
Sources Residual Load % Reduction |
Flow (ML/yr) 4.13 Lo 10.2 }
Total Solids (kg/yr) 310 488 843 }—
Total Phosphorus (kg/yr) 0.593 0.228 61.6 t—
Total nitrogen (kg/yr) 3.58 1.38 36
4
| Gross Pollutants (kg/yr) 28.5 0.739 974 ,
Commercial ROAD (0.443 hs, 400% imp) |
&| & |
aay a a a

 

 

 

Figure 5 - MUSIC Modelling for Humes Test Site at Ipswich

Figure 5 shows the results of the MUSIC modelling for the Ipswich test site that the Jellyfish
Filter was treating. The details of the model are:

MUSIC Version 6

Rainfall Station 40659 Greenbank (West of Brisbane) with 6 minute time step from
1/01/1980 to 31/12/1989 (10 years)
Commercial Source Nodes (as described in the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines)
Modified Generic Node to model the Jellyfish Filter with the high flow bypass set to the
treatment flow rate for JF1200-2-1 (13L/s)

The table below compares the differences between the actual field test data collected and the

MUS

IC modelling.

Table 1- Comparisons between Published Results and Modelling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pollutant Published Load | Modelling Load | Difference (%)
Reductions (%) | Reductions (%)
TSS 89 84.3 47
TP 65 61.6 3.4
TN 55 56 1

 

 

Given the approximations and accuracies within MUSIC and the above minor differences in
load reductions between the field data and modelling, the parameters modelled accurately
reflect the published field data as per the guidelines. The results suggest that MUSIC modelling
presents a more conservative approach to using the Jellyfish Filter as all the above pollutants
in table 1 resulted in slightly less than was actually recorded at the test site (and almost

exactly for TN). The transform functions used in MUSIC can be found in Appendix C

Page

| 41