Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

Solids flushing, mixing, and water velocity profiles

within large (10 and 150 m3) circular
‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain tanks
John Davidson, Steven Summerfelt∗
The Conservation Fund’s Freshwater Institute, 1098 Turner Road, Shepherdstown, WV 25443, USA

Received 5 December 2003; accepted 7 March 2004

Abstract

The objectives of this research were to evaluate how bottom drain flow rate and water inlet structure
affect solids flushing, water mixing, and water velocity profiles within large (i.e., 10 and 150 m3 ) circu-
lar ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture tanks. Results show relatively uniform water mixing was achieved
in both ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture tanks when tested at high fish densities (90–98 kg/m3 ) and
at hydraulic exchange rates of one tank volume every 20–32 min. The results of the dissolved oxy-
gen profiles showed that the minimum and maximum dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from
10.0 to 10.6 mg/L across the cross-section of the 10 m3 tank and from 9.0 to 11.2 mg/L across the
cross-section of the 150 m3 tank when inlet dissolved oxygen levels were 16–18 mg/L. Mixing was
not influenced by bottom-drain flow over the range tested, but was influenced by the orientation of
the water injection nozzles projecting through the side-wall of the culture tanks.
Adjustment of the orientation of the water inlet structure and of the water flow discharged through
the bottom-center drain was shown to influence the water rotational velocities throughout the circular
tank. Water rotational velocity profiles taken in a vertical plane bisecting the tank indicated that
velocities were consistently higher at the tank’s perimeter and that these velocities increased nearly
linearly with radial distance from the tank center. Results also show that higher rotational velocities
were produced at larger bottom flow rates, i.e., a 12% bottom flow created higher rotational velocities
than 6 or 0% bottom flows. Reorienting the direction of the water inlet nozzles also provided a simple
method for adjusting rotational water velocities within the culture tank. For example, simply reversing
the direction of one of the six 45◦ flow injection nozzles decreased the rotational velocity about the
perimeter of the 10 m3 tank from 17.8 to 13.4 cm/s.
Additional studies with arctic char or rainbow trout present at commercial culture densities showed
that the rate that settleable solids are flushed from 10 and 150 m3 circular ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain

∗Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-304-870-2211/876-2815; fax: +1-304-870-2208.

E-mail address: s.summerfelt@freshwaterinstitute.org (S. Summerfelt).

0144-8609 © 2004 Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2004.03.009
246 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

culture tanks depended strongly on the water flow exiting the bottom-center drain and on the rota-
tional period of the water within the tank. A rotational period of 1.3–1.7 min produced optimal water
velocities for flushing solids from the ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain tank. Also, a water flow through the
tank’s bottom-center drain of at least 5–6 L/min for every 1 m2 of tank plan area was found to flush
settleable solids within 1–2 min and 3–6 min from 10 and 150 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain tanks,
respectively.
© 2004 Elsevier B.V. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: Solids flushing; Mixing; Water velocity; Hydraulics; Aquaculture

1. Introduction

Culture unit design and operation must account for the many physical and biological
interactions that occur as fish—with their varied behaviors and metabolic loads—interact
with the culture space and its hydraulic characteristics, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (Ross and
Watten, 1998). In addition, fish farms can have a large percentage of their fixed and variable
costs invested in their culture units (Timmons et al., 1998). These culture units are also the
point of water use and waste production within a fish farm. Therefore, a large portion of a
fish farm’s operating costs go into labor required to manage culture tanks and control their
waste discharge. Consequently, a considerable financial incentive exists to operate fewer
but larger culture units—within reasonable management and risk objectives—in order to
optimize fish farm production and profitability (Timmons et al., 1998; Summerfelt et al.,
2000a).
Circular fish-culture tanks have been widely used for fish culture because they can be
designed and operated to effectively exercise fish, provide uniformly high-quality water,
self-clean, and rapidly flush wastes (Skybakmoen, 1989; Tvinnereim and Skybakmoen,
1989; Timmons et al., 1998). Water rotational velocities in circular tanks can be adjusted to
provide much higher swimming speeds than are typically found in linear raceway units. The
higher swimming speeds that can be achieved in circular tanks (i.e., at 0.5–1.5 body length
per second) have been found to improve growth rate and food conversion efficiencies in
teleost fish (Davison, 1997). Also, circular tanks are self-cleaning when primary rotational
velocities about the tank’s central axis are sufficient to create a secondary radial flow along
the tank bottom towards the center drain. This has been described as the ‘tea-cup’ solids
transport mechanism, which rapidly sweeps settleable solids from the tank (Skybakmoen,
1989; Tvinnereim and Skybakmoen, 1989; Paul et al., 1991; Goldsmith and Wang, 1993;
Timmons et al., 1998; Veerapen et al., 2003). Circular tanks are traditionally operated
with a single discharge through their bottom-center drain. However, circular fish-culture
tanks can be converted into “swirl” separators by taking advantage of the ‘tea-cup’ solids
transport mechanism through the use of a second elevated drain to discharge the majority
of flow relatively free from solids (Mäkinen et al., 1988; Eikebrokk and Ulgenes, 1993;
Skybakmoen, 1993; Lunde et al., 1997; Twarowska et al., 1997;Timmons et al., 1998;
Summerfelt et al., 2000b, 2004, in press).
The ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain tank is one type of dual-drain tank that has seen wide use
as it rapidly fractionates settleable solids into the flow discharged from its bottom-center
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 247

Fig. 1. Rearing unit design is often dependent upon physical and biological variables, which has been illustrated
by Ross and Watten (1998). Solid arrows depict relationships demonstrated by research and dashed arrows depict
hypothesized effects.

drain, while discharging the majority of its flow relatively free from solids through an
elevated drain located at its side-wall (Timmons et al., 1998; Summerfelt et al., 2000b,
2004, in press). Other types of dual-drain culture tanks are used, but these locate their
elevated drain at the center of the tank (Mäkinen et al., 1988; Eikebrokk and Ulgenes, 1993;
Skybakmoen, 1993; Lunde et al., 1997; Twarowska et al., 1997; Timmons et al., 1998).
There is a distinct difference in the tank’s hydraulic characteristics when the majority of
water flow is withdrawn at the elevated sidewall drain (as with ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain
248 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

tank) as compared to tanks that withdraw the majority of flow at an elevated-center drain
that is located above or adjacent to the bottom-center drain. Withdrawing all of the water
flow at the center of the tank—whether through a single bottom-center drain or through
a bottom-center drain and an elevated-center drain—creates a relatively large flow to the
center of the tank and a strong vortex at the tank center. A strong vortex in the center of
the tank is likely to contain higher water rotational velocities than elsewhere in the tank.
Because ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain tanks withdraw a majority of flow through their sidewall
drains, they do not create a large mass action of flow to the center of the tank nor a strong
vortex at the tank center. The low velocity conditions created at the center of ‘Cornell-type’
dual-drain tanks can create conditions optimized for particle collection at the tank center.
In stark contrast, the dual-drain designs that place both drains at the bottom-center of the
tank can create a strong enough vortex at the center of the tank to generate an upward water
flow velocity at the tank center with sufficient force to pull solids back up into the water
column, causing settled solids to “plume” up in the same location as the elevated center
drain. In addition, even with 100% discharge through drains located at the tank center,
mixing within these tanks can still be an issue due to a so called ‘irrotational zone’ that is
located in a torus-shaped region about the tank center (Skybakmoen, 1989; Tvinnereim and
Skybakmoen, 1989; Timmons et al., 1998). However, in ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture
tanks, mixing is an even larger question because water is injected near or through the tank
sidewall and then rotates past the tank’s side-wall drain. Therefore, some have expressed
concern that a portion of water injected into the tank might short-circuit from the water
injection point along the tank wall to the sidewall drain and create poor tank mixing and
an even larger irrotational zone in a torus-shaped region about the tank center that could
contain relatively low dissolved oxygen concentrations and relatively high concentrations
of dissolved wastes such as ammonia and carbon dioxide. For these reasons, and to provide
a more comprehensive understanding of the mixing, water velocity profiles, and solids
fractionation characteristics of ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture tanks, we have conducted
three different experiments to better elucidate these issues. These studies should also provide
a valuable reference data set that could be used to validate computational fluid dynamics
models of culture tank hydrodynamics that are currently under development (Rasmussen,
2002; Veerapen et al., 2003).

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Long-term evaluation of solids fractionation during fish culture

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus), and an Arc-
tic char × brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) hybrid were cultured within a partial-reuse
nursery system (for 4+ years) and a fully-recirculating growout system (for 2+ years)
that were located at the Conservation Fund Freshwater Institute (Shepherdstown, WV).
Details regarding the design and performance of the partial-reuse nursery system and
the fully-recirculating growout system have been reported elsewhere (Summerfelt et al.,
2004, in press). Both of these systems used ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture tanks. The
partial-reuse system used three 3.66 m (12 ft) diameter ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 249

Table 1
Culture tank design, operation, and performance parameters identified during 2+ to 4+ years of fish culture
experience within the 150 m3 tank (Summerfelt et al., 2004) and the 10 m3 tanks (Summerfelt et al., in press),
respectively, that were used in these studies
Nursery tanks, Growout tank,
3.7 m (12 ft) i.d. 9.2 m (30 ft) i.d.
Culture tank diameter:water depth ratio 4.8:1–4.0:1 4.0:1
Culture tank operating depth (m) 0.76–0.91 2.3
Culture tank operating volume (m3 ) 8.0–9.6 150
Observed optimum water rotational velocity at 15–20 30–37
perimeter of culture tank (cm/s)
Observed optimum rotational period (min/rotation) 1.0–1.3 1.2–1.6
Hydraulic exchange rate through culture tank (min) 15–26 32
Percent of total tank flow discharged through bottom 12–18 7
drain, % of total tank flow
Mean time required to flush waste feed from culture 1–2 3–6
tank with fish present (min)
Surface loading rate discharged through bottom 5.7–7.0 5.2–5.9
drain (L/min) flow per m2 culture tank floor area
Maximum sustained fish density (kg/m3 ) 100–150 100–150
Maximum loading conditions supported as indicated 13 9∗
by difference between culture tank inlet and outlet
DO concentrations (mg/L)
Mean difference between DO concentrations 0.4 1.0
discharged from bottom drain and sidewall drain
under maximum loading conditions (mg/L)
Maximum densities of 150 kg/m3 were sustained at full feed loading rates. However, qualitative observations
indicate that operation at densities of ≤100 kg/m3 reduced fin deterioration.
∗ 9 mg/L is the maximum difference between the culture tank inlet and outlet DO concentrations to date, but

Arctic char growth was slower than that expected for the rainbow trout that have now just been stocked into the
150 m3 tank. This system is capable of supplying a DO demand of 13 mg/L.

tanks that were all plumbed in parallel and the growout system contained one 9.15 m (30 ft)
diameter ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture tank. The 3.66 and 9.15 m diameter culture tanks
were operated at depths of 0.76–0.91 m and 2.3 m, respectively, to produce diameter to wa-
ter depth ratios of 4.8:1–4.0:1 and 4.0:1, respectively, and water volumes of 8.0–9.6 m3
and 150 m3 , respectively. During this research, the total water flow through the three 3.7 m
diameter nursery tanks and the one 9.2 m diameter growout tank was sufficient to exchange
their culture volumes every 15–26 min and every 32 min, respectively. These exchange rates
were used to rapidly flush waste metabolites and carry dissolved oxygen to the fish. Ap-
proximately 12–18% and 7% of the total flow was discharged through the bottom-center
drains of the 3.66 m diameter and the 9.15 m diameter culture tanks, respectively (Table 1).
Specifics on the design, operation, and performance of these dual-drain culture tanks are
reported in Table 1.
Water rotational velocities were adjusted by adjusting the orientation and nozzle diameter
of the water inlet structure in both tank sizes. When fish were present, the water rotational
velocities were measured by timing a submerged object transported with the water flow
at a given distance (approximately 15–30 cm) from the tank wall. The optimum rotational
250 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

Table 2
Minimum, average, and maximum fish size in the 10 and 150 m3 tanks, along with their minimum swimming
speed, i.e, at 0.5 body length per second (BL/s) and maximum safe swimming speed according to Eq. (1) in
centimeter per second
Fish length Minimum Maximum Maximum safe
(cm) swimming speed swimming speed velocity (cm/s)
at 0.5 BL/s, cm/s (Vsafe ), BL/s
10 m3 tanks in nursery system
Minimum fish size (cm) 12 6 2.1 25.2
Average fish size (cm) 18 9 1.8 32.4
Maximum fish size (cm) 24 12 1.6 38.4
150 m3 tanks in growout system
Minimum fish size (cm) 24 12 1.60 38.4
Average fish size (cm) 36 18 1.40 50.4
Maximum fish size (cm) 48 24 1.25 60.0

velocities were selected based on observations on the tanks ability to rapidly flush waste
feed in the presence of fish, observations of fish swimming behavior, and the requirement
to provide at least 0.5 body length per second (BL/s) swimming speed but no more than the
maximum safe non-fatiguing water velocity (Table 2), i.e., Vsafe in fish body lengths per
second, as reported by Timmons and Youngs (1991):
5.25
Vsafe ≤ (1)
(L)0.37
where L is the fish body length in cm.
The effectiveness of settleable solids flushing was determined by adding relatively large
100–450 g pulses of a slow-sinking fish feed within 0.6 m of the side of the culture tank and
then monitoring how long it took to flush the feed through the tank’s bottom-center drain
using an ultrasonic waste feed detector (Tsukuda et al., 2000) or using a stop watch and a
screen positioned to capture the feed as it exited the bottom drain standpipe. Feed flushing
was not deemed effective if the majority of feed did not flush from the culture tank within
10–20 min of its addition. In addition, solids fractionation between the bottom-center drain
and the side-wall drain was quantified by frequent (i.e., one to three times per week over the
course of 2–4 years) analysis of total suspended solids concentrations exiting each drain,
as described elsewhere (Summerfelt et al., in press)

2.2. Water inlet structure design and orientation

The culture tanks used in this research were designed with two types of specialized
water distribution mechanisms that were built into the sidewall of each culture tank (Figs. 2
and 3). The water flow supplied to the 3.7 m diameter culture tanks entered a manifold pipe
that was located adjacent to and just outside of each culture tank. The manifold pipe was
tapped with multiple orifices that branch off and enter adjustable 45◦ PVC nozzles (4.2 cm
inside diameter) that are threaded into the inside wall of the culture tank. The inlet manifold
provided inlet nozzles across the depth of the tank (Fig. 2). In practice, the top port was
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 251

Fig. 2. To produce the desired water rotational velocities and tank mixing effects in the 3.7 m diameter nursery
tanks, four of the water inlet nozzles were oriented at a 45◦ angle from the tank tangential (and approximately
parallel with the tank floor) while the two bottom most inlet nozzles were oriented into the center of the tank.
Note that the bottom most inlet nozzle does not contain a 45◦ elbow and is not visible in this photo because it is
covered by water. In most situations, one of the four inlet nozzles that are oriented at a 45◦ angle from tangential
was reversed to inject water in the opposite direction from the others (shown here) to select for the desired water
rotational speed.

capped and unused. However, the remaining six ports were individually oriented such that:
(a) four ports contained a 45◦ elbow to inject the water at a 45◦ angle away from tangential
and a parallel with the bottom of the tank, (b) one port (the 2nd port from the bottom)
contained a 45◦ elbow directing the water down towards the center of the tank, and (c) the
bottom port contained no fitting and injected the water flow straight into the center of the
tank along the tank bottom (Fig. 2). Water flow splitting between the nozzles was not actively
controlled, except for the relatively small pressure drop created as the water flowed through
each nozzle. A water head pressure of approximately 0.42 cm was maintained during all
trials. In addition to providing options to adjust tank mixing and water rotational speeds,
the design minimized obstacles within the tank compared to other inlet designs.
The 9.2 m diameter culture tank used an inlet manifold that contained eleven 7.5 cm
diameter inlet ports (Fig. 3). To produce the desired water rotational velocities and tank
mixing effects in the growout tank, the five highest water inlet nozzles were oriented at a
45◦ angle from the tank tangential (and approximately parallel with the tank floor) while the
six lower water inlet nozzles were oriented to direct water towards the bottom-center of the
tank (Fig. 3). The five openings at the top of the manifold were fixed with straight 7.5 cm
(3 in.) male adapters with reducer bushings that create a 5.1 cm (2 in.) opening for water
252 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

Fig. 3. To produce the desired water rotational velocities and tank mixing effects in the 9.2 m diameter growout
tank, approximately 50% of the upper water inlet nozzles were oriented at a 45◦ angle from the tank tangential
(and approximately parallel with the tank floor) while the lower water inlet nozzles were oriented to direct water
towards the bottom-center of the tank.

injection. The six openings at the bottom of the manifold were fixed with 7.5 cm diameter
45o elbows, which are directed towards the center of the tank. Water flow splitting between
the nozzles was not actively controlled, except for the relatively small pressure drop created
as the water flowed through each nozzle. The restriction through the inlet nozzles increased
the water pressure behind the nozzles to approximately 60 cm of water head.

2.3. Water velocity, feed flushing, and mixing experiments in the 10 m3 tanks

The partial-water reuse system was operated using two pumps and the three 3.7 m diame-
ter × 0.91 deep ‘Cornell-type dual-drain culture tanks (9.6 m3 ) each received approximately
475 L/min of water flow for all trials. Data was collected while operating each 10 m3 tank
at bottom flow rates averaging 57.0, 28.5, and 0 L/min, i.e., approximately 12, 6, and 0%
of the total flow. Pumped return flow to the culture tanks was monitored using a pipeline
mounted Signet Paddlewheel flow meter (USA Bluebook, Northbrook, IL). Bottom flow
rates were measured by timing how long it took to fill the bottom-drain outlet sump when
a stand-pipe was placed in its outlet.
Fig. 2 illustrates the primary nozzle configuration used during the velocity studies. The
water inlet structure nozzle orientation was pre-determined during a long-term evaluation
of solids fractionation during fish culture (see Section 2.1 and Fig. 2). Several studies were
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 253

Fig. 4. Several studies were also conducted where the top four 45◦ nozzles were turned in the same direction as
the primary rotation. The two bottom most inlet nozzles were directed into the center of the tank. Note that the
bottom most inlet nozzle does not contain a 45◦ elbow and is not visible in this photo because it is covered by
water. The second nozzle from the bottom is visible and contains a 45◦ elbow that is directed down towards the
center of the tank.

also conducted where all of the 45◦ nozzles were turned in the direction of the primary
rotation (Fig. 4).
Velocities were measured using a Sontek Argonaut-ADV ultrasonic velocity meter (San
Diego, CA). The velocity meter operates using a physical principle called the Doppler effect.
The meter functions with a central transducer that emits sound waves into the water. The
sound waves reflect off of fine and dissolved particles and reflect back to three receivers,
which represent an x, y, and z direction. The x-axis, which was oriented in the direction of the
flow, was measured to provide the primary rotating water velocity at different locations in the
tank. The y and z directions represented the water’s radial flowing and the vertical flowing
velocity components. However, the y and z velocity measurements were much smaller in
magnitude than in the x direction, were somewhat inconsistent and are not reported here.
All Doppler velocity studies were conducted without fish in the culture tank, because high
densities of fish interfered with the Doppler measurements. Primary rotating velocities were
measured at 60 different locations across two cross sections of the tank. Measurements
were taken at 12 different locations, 15.2 cm apart, relative to the horizontal view of the
tank, and at five different depth locations, also 15.2 cm apart. The deepest water velocity
measurements were taken at an elevation approximately 6 cm above the tank floor; the tank
floor was flat and did not slope towards the center drain. The first cross-section extended
from a point approximately 38 cm behind the inlet of the tank to a point 180◦ around the
254 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

perimeter of the tank. The second cross-section was established perpendicular to the first
cross section. Two complete replications of the water velocity profiles were collected for
each cross-section at each condition. For a given cross-section, results were averaged for
each location to produce the final velocity profile and used to produce contour graphs with
SigmaPlot 8.0 for Windows (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Only velocity data from the first
cross-section is reported. Data from the second cross-section is not included because it did
not provide any additional information of significance.
Feed flushing trials were conducted in conjunction with the water velocity studies. Indi-
vidual feed pellets (4.0 mm) were manually dropped into the tank at a fixed location, 0.6 m
from the side of the tank. The feed was then timed using a stopwatch until it entered the
bottom-center drain. Visual observations of the feed track as it passed through the tank were
also made to determine how many tank rotations occurred prior to feed flushing.
Dissolved oxygen levels were also measured in the 10 m3 dual-drain culture tank to
evaluate the effectiveness of water mixing. During this study, the culture tank contained a
biomass of approximately 820 kg of Arctic char × brook trout hybrids. Fish densities during
the study averaged 90 kg/m3 . The fish received approximately 10.5 kg of feed/day prior to
and during the study. Feed was applied every 3 h throughout each 24 h day and lighting
was continuous to minimize diurnal fluctuations. Each trial was conducted between feeding
times and was completed in 30 min to minimize deviations in dissolved oxygen levels. The
culture tank received a total flow of 475 L/min for all trials while operating at bottom flow
rates of 57, 30, and 0 L/min, i.e., 12, 6, and 0% of the total flow, respectively. The inlet nozzle
configuration was the same as pictured in Fig. 2. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were
monitored at 72 locations within cross-section #1, which was established during velocity
trials. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were measured at six depths, 15.2 cm apart, and 12
horizontal locations, 30.5 cm apart to create a cross sectional profile of dissolved oxygen.
Measurements were taken using Oxyguard probes (Point Four Systems, BC, Canada). The
oxygen probes relay a signal to a monitoring system that displays dissolved oxygen in
mg/L. Multiple probes were attached to a trolley system that was developed to transport the
probes to specific points across a metal beam spanning the culture tank. Three complete
replications of the dissolved oxygen concentration profile were collected for each condition.
These results were averaged for each sample location to produce the final velocity profile,
which was produced as a contour graph using Sigma Plot.

2.4. Water velocity, feed flushing, and mixing experiments in the 150 m3 tank

Water rotational velocities were also measured at 60 locations across one cross-section in
a plane that bisected the center of the 150 m3 (9.2 m diameter) culture tank. The cross-section
extended from a point approximately 36◦ (2.7 m) behind the inlet of the tank to a point 180◦
around the perimeter of the tank. Measurements were taken at 15 horizontal locations, 61 cm
apart and 4 depth locations, also 61 cm apart. The deepest water velocity measurements were
taken at an elevation approximately 6 cm above the tank floor; the tank floor was flat and
did not slope towards the center drain. The study was repeated using bottom flow rates
of 520, 465, 204, and 0 L/min. These conditions represented 11.0, 9.8, 4.3, and 0% of
the total system flow, respectively. The total flow was measured at 4730 L/min during the
study using a pipeline mounted ultrasonic flow meter (Transport Model PT868 Portable
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 255

Flowmeter, Panametrics Inc., Waltham, MA). Water levels were set at the normal operating
level for all bottom flow conditions except for 11.0%. A dam board was inserted in the side
box to raise the water level to provide 15 cm of additional tank depth, which created slightly
more water flow through the bottom drain. Two complete replications of the water velocity
profiles were collected for each condition and then these results were averaged to produce
the final velocity profile for that condition, which was produced as a contour graph using
Sigma Plot.
Feed flushing trials were conducted in conjunction with the water velocity studies in a
manner similar to that described for the 10 m3 tanks.
Dissolved oxygen levels were measured at 120 locations within the 150-m3 grow-out
tank to determine the effectiveness of water mixing throughout the tank. Sampling locations
included eight depths (30.5 cm apart) and 15 horizontal locations (61 cm apart) to create
a cross sectional profile of dissolved oxygen. Measurements were taken using Oxyguard
probes (Point Four Systems, BC, Canada). The oxygen probes relay a signal to a monitoring
system (Point Four Systems Inc.), which displays dissolved oxygen levels. Four dissolved
oxygen probes were attached to a length of PVC conduit at specific elevations. The conduit
was attached to a trolley that transported the probes to specific locations across a steel
I-beam that spanned the culture tank. During these studies, fish density was 99 kg/m3 and
feeding rates were approximately 125 kg/day, which created a high oxygen demand within
the culture tank. Feed was applied every 3 h throughout each 24 h day and lighting was
continuous to minimize diurnal fluctuations. Each trial was conducted between the regular
3 h feeding interval and was completed within one hour to minimize deviations in dissolved
oxygen levels. The dissolved oxygen profiles were collected at bottom flow rates of 394,
204, and 0 L/min, which were measured using the Transport Model PT868 ultrasonic flow
meter (Panametrics, Waltham, MA). These conditions represented 8.7, 4.3, and 0% of the
total system flow, respectively. Three complete replications of the dissolved oxygen profiles
were collected for 8.7% bottom flow and two complete replications were completed for the
0 and 4.3% bottom flow conditions. Results for each location were averaged to produce the
final dissolved oxygen profile, which was produced as a contour graph using SigmaPlot.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Solids fractionation and flushing rates

Fish densities of 100–150 kg/m3 resulting in maximum dissolved oxygen consumption

rates of 9–13 mg/L have been routinely supported in the 10 and 150 m3 culture tanks furing
the past 4+ years and 2+ years, respectively (Summerfelt et al., 2004, in press).
During this period, water rotational velocities were adjusted by adjusting the orientation
and nozzle size at the water inlet to the circular tank to improve conditions for fish health
and solids flushing. Determination of optimum water rotational velocities was based on ob-
servations of the tanks ability to rapidly flush waste feed, on observations of fish swimming
behavior, and on the requirement of providing a water velocity that was at least 0.5 fish
body length per second but less than the maximum swimming speed predicted by Eq. (1),
as shown in Table 2. Optimum water rotational velocities (measured by timing the distance
256 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

traveled by a submerged object carried unobstructed by the rotating flow) near the tank wall
were 15–20 cm/s and 30–37 cm/s for the 10 m3 nursery tanks and the 150 m3 growout tank,
respectively (Table 1). Maximum water velocities occurred near the tank periphery (Table 1)
and were always greater than the minimum swimming speed requirement, but were never
more than the maximum safe swimming speed limit, as shown in Table 2. In contrast, water
rotational velocities reported in linear raceways are typically only 2–4 cm/s (Timmons and
Youngs, 1991), which are much lower than the minimum water velocities recommended
for fish health and condition. In practice, rotational velocities that were below optimum
would not usually flush feed as rapidly, and in the worst case scenario, would not provide
a self-cleaning tank if velocities dropped too low. Interestingly, under commercial culture
densities of rainbow trout or Arctic char, the observed optimum rotational period about the
tank were 1.0–1.3 min/rotation and 1.2–1.6 min/rotation for the 10 m3 nursery tanks and
the 150 m3 growout tank, respectively (Table 1). The similarity in the observed optimum
rotational period is significant because the tank’s rotational period influences the strength
of the radial flow along the bottom of the tank and the ability of the tank to move settleable
solids towards its center drain.
The 10 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain tanks were found to rapidly (within only 1–2 min)
and gently concentrate and flush approximately 68–88% (79% overall average) of the TSS
produced daily within only 12–18% of the tank’s total water flow (Summerfelt et al., in
press). Mean TSS concentrations discharged through the three culture tanks’ bottom-center
drains over eight cohort production cycles averaged 17.1 mg/L, which was 8.7 times greater
than the TSS concentration discharged through the three culture tanks’ side-wall drains, i.e.,
that averaged 2.2 mg/L (Summerfelt et al., in press). Similar results were found with solids
removal from the 150 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain tank located in the fully-recirculating
growout system, except that the side-wall drain TSS concentration was a little higher at
3–4 mg/L (Summerfelt et al., 2004).
Experiences within the 150 and 10 m3 tanks over the past 2–4 years, respectively, have
shown that to achieve optimum solids flushing hydraulics within ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain
culture tanks requires a rotating flow and approximately 5–6 L/min of water flow through
the bottom drain for every 1.0 m2 of the tank’s plan area (Table 1). At much lower surface
loading rates, solids would collect in a torus-shaped region about the bottom-center drain
and the tank would no longer be self-cleaning. Then, the bottom drain standpipe would
have to be pulled to flush solids that have accumulated about the center drain sump. Solids
storage within the culture tank is not desirable because it provides opportunity for their
degradation into smaller or dissolved products that are more difficult to remove and can
degrade water quality.
The bottom flow guideline of 5–6 L/min per square meter of the tank plan area was
determined during studies at tank hydraulic turnover times of once every 15–32 min. We have
additional unpublished experience that indicates that this minimum bottom flow guideline
will hold for lower hydraulic turnover times, down to one exchange every 60 min, but we
have no experience at hydraulic turnover times lower than this. Note that a hydraulic tank
turnover of only once per hour requires twice the fraction of the total tank flow to flush
through the bottom-center drain than would a twice per hour tank turnover rate. Taking as
an example a tank with a once per hour hydraulic turnover time, the 5–6 L/min per square
meter of the tank plan area guideline could require a bottom flow that amounts to 15–30%
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 257

of the total tank flow, but this depends upon tank water depth. In this example, a 15–30%
bottom flow might be a larger flow split than is desired when the goal is to concentrate solids
in the bottom flow. Therefore, dual-drain designs that place both drains in the center of the
tank might be an option to consider when designing culture tanks with hydraulic turnover
times longer than 1 hr. Note that deeper tanks require a smaller fraction of the total flow
discharged through the bottom-center drain to meet the 5–6 L/min per square meter of the
tank plan area guideline, so achieving a relatively low fraction of bottom drain flow is more
likely when tank water depths approaches 2–4 m.

3.2. Dissolved oxygen profiles and mixing in the 10 and 150 m3 culture tanks

Hydraulic mixing is critical in all circular culture tanks, especially in this study where
the culture tanks were installed with ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drains that were operated with
a relatively small fraction of the total tank flow discharged through their bottom-center
drain. Some have hypothesized that if water is improperly mixed within the ‘Cornell-type’
dual-drain tank, then a portion of the water might short-circuit from the water injection
point along the tank wall to the sidewall drain, producing poor tank mixing. In the two
recirculating systems studied here, culture tank mixing efficiency could not be tested using
traditional dye-tracer analysis because the dye flushed from a tank would be recycled back
into that tank and confound the dye-tracer analysis. However, culture tank mixing efficiency
was determined based upon a dissolved oxygen profile collected across a vertical plane
bisecting the culture tank center during periods when intensive feed loading rates were
applied. The dissolved oxygen data was collected when the culture tanks were heavily
loaded with feeding fish, i.e., sustained fish densities of 90–98 kg/m3 , to produce a relatively
large dissolved oxygen demand (e.g., 7–9 mg/L) across the culture tanks (Figs. 5–10).
Therefore, under intensive feed loading conditions, poor mixing would produce a relatively
large difference in the dissolved oxygen concentration profile within the tank and within
the water flowing out of the culture tank bottom drain and side-wall drain. Table 3 and
Figs. 5–7 show the dissolved oxygen data collected from the 10 m3 culture tanks. Table 4
and Figs. 8–10 show the dissolved oxygen data collected from the 150 m3 culture tanks. This
data shows that both tanks were relatively well mixed and that the mixing was independent
of the percentage of flow exiting the bottom-center drain at the 0, 6, and 12% bottom flow
rates tested for the 10 m3 tanks (Figs. 5–7) and the 0, 4.3, and 8.7%, bottom flow rates
tested for the 150 m3 tank (Figs. 8–10). The results of the dissolved oxygen profiles showed
that the minimum dissolved oxygen concentration was 9.8 mg/L (across all three tests) and
the maximum dissolved oxygen concentrations were approximately 10.2–10.5 mg/L across
the 10 m3 culture tank cross-sections (Table 3 and Figs. 5–7). In the 10 m3 culture tank,
the difference between minimum and average dissolved oxygen concentrations was only
0.2–0.3 mg/L (Table 3). In the 150 m3 culture tank, the results of the dissolved oxygen
profiles showed that the minimum dissolved oxygen concentrations were 8.5–9.1 mg/L
and the maximum dissolved oxygen concentrations were approximately 10.7–11.2 mg/L
(Table 4 and Figs. 8–10). Consequently, the difference between minimum and average
dissolved oxygen concentrations was only 0.9–1.1 mg/L throughout the 150 m3 culture tank
(Table 4), which indicates that even the relatively large ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain tank was
in fact relatively well mixed and that mixing was relatively independent of the percent flow
258 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

Fig. 5. Dissolved oxygen profile across a vertical cross-section that bisects a 10 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain
culture tank when operated with a 0% bottom flow, a 20 min hydraulic residence time, a fish density of 90 kg/m3 ,
an inlet dissolved oxygen concentration of 15.7 mg/L, and a sidewall outlet dissolved oxygen concentration of
10.2 mg/L.

Fig. 6. Dissolved oxygen profile across a vertical cross-section that bisects a 10 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture
tank when operated with a 6% bottom flow, a 20 min hydraulic residence time, a fish density of 90 kg/m3 , an inlet
dissolved oxygen concentration of 16.1 mg/L, a sidewall outlet dissolved oxygen concentration of 10.4 mg/L, and
a bottom drain dissolved oxygen concentration of 10.0 mg/L.
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 259

Fig. 7. Dissolved oxygen profile across a vertical cross-section that bisects a 10 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture
tank when operated with a 11.7% bottom flow, a 20 min hydraulic residence time, a fish density of 90 kg/m3 , an
inlet dissolved oxygen concentration of 15.9 mg/L, a sidewall outlet dissolved oxygen concentration of 10.2 mg/L,
and a bottom drain dissolved oxygen concentration of 9.9 mg/L.

Fig. 8. Dissolved oxygen profile across a vertical cross-section that bisects a 150 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain
culture tank when operated with a 0% bottom flow, a 32 min hydraulic residence time, a fish density of 99 kg/m3 ,
an inlet dissolved oxygen concentration of 18.0 mg/L, and a sidewall outlet concentration of 10.1 mg/L.
260 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

Fig. 9. Dissolved oxygen profile across a vertical cross-section that bisects a 150 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain cul-
ture tank when operated with a 4.4% bottom flow, a 32 min hydraulic residence time, a fish density of 99 kg/m3 , an
inlet dissolved oxygen concentration of 17.0 mg/L, a sidewall outlet dissolved oxygen concentration of 10.4 mg/L,
and a bottom drain dissolved oxygen concentration of 9.4 mg/L.

Fig. 10. Dissolved oxygen profile across a vertical cross-section that bisects a 150 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain cul-
ture tank when operated with a 8.7% bottom flow, a 32 min hydraulic residence time, a fish density of 99 kg/m3 , an
inlet dissolved oxygen concentration of 18.2 mg/L, a sidewall outlet dissolved oxygen concentration of 10.4 mg/L,
and a bottom drain dissolved oxygen concentration of 10.1 mg/L.
Table 3
A summary of changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations between inlet and outlets of the 10 m3 growout tank, along with average, minimum, and maximum dissolved
oxygen concentrations found throughout the tank during the three bottom-drain flow tests
Bottom Bottom Fish Inlet Outlet System Bottom High Low Tank delta Average
drain flow drain flow density dissolved dissolved delta drain dissolved dissolved dissolved tank
(L/min) (%) (kg/m3 ) O2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L) dissolved dissolved o2 (mg/L) o2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L) dissolved

J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

O2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L) in tank in tank O2 (mg/L)
57.3 11.7 89 15.9 10.2 5.7 9.9 10.2 9.8 0.4 10.0
30.0 6.1 90 16.1 10.4 5.7 10.0 10.5 9.8 0.7 10.1
0 0 92 15.7 10.2 5.5 – 10.4 9.8 0.6 10.1

Table 4
A summary of changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations between inlet and outlets of the 150 m3 growout tank, along with average, minimum, and maximum dissolved
oxygen concentrations found throughout the tank during the three bottom-drain flow tests
Bottom Bottom Fish Inlet Outlet System Bottom Hi Low Tank delta Average dissolved
drain flow drain flow density dissolved dissolved delta drain dissolved dissolved dissolved tank O2 change
(L/min) (%) (kg/m3 ) O2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L) dissolved dissolved O2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L) dissolved during
O2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L) in tank in tank O2 (mg/L) studya
394 8.7 96 18.2 10.4 7.8 10.1 11.2 9.1 2.1 10.0 0.2
204 4.4 98 17.0 10.4 6.7 9.8 11.3 8.9 2.4 10.0 0.2
0 0 98 18.0 10.1 7.9 – 10.7 8.5 2.2 9.6 0.2
a Difference between dissolved O2 concentrations measured at the side-wall drain at the beginning of the study compared to the concentration measured at the end

261
of the study.
262 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

withdrawn through the bottom-center drain. These dissolved oxygen profiles (Figs. 5–10)
show that a large irrotational zone of poor mixing was never formed in a torus-shaped
region about the tank, which some had hypothesized might create problems with mixing in
‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain circular tanks. If it had formed, a torus-shaped region containing
relatively lower dissolved oxygen concentrations would have indicated formation of a poorly
mixed irrotational zone. Interestingly, the region of poorest mixing—as indicated by the
minimum dissolved oxygen concentration measured within the tank profile—was typically
located at the center of the culture tank and was not torus shaped, but contained the lowest
concentration at the center and top (Figs. 5–10). Mixing was thorough in both tank sizes, but
mixing not quite as thorough in the larger (i.e., 150 m3 ) ‘Cornell-type’ circular dual-drain
culture tank, as the mixing observed in the smaller (i.e., 10 m3 ) tanks. In the 150 m3 tanks, the
poorest mixing—as indicated by the lowest dissolved oxygen concentrations—was found at
the top and center of the tank (Figs. 8–10). Mixing success was attributed to flow injection,
but primarily to mixing caused by the 90–98 kg/m3 fish.
This research also found that mixing was influenced by the orientation of the nozzles
projecting through the side-wall of the 10 m3 culture tank when stocked with 90–95 kg/m3
of arctic char (Table 5). When all of the inlet nozzles were aligned parallel to the culture tank
wall (i.e., tangential to the tank wall) and parallel to the culture tank floor, then the resulting
dissolved oxygen profiles showed a difference between minimum and maximum dissolved
oxygen concentrations of 1.0–1.2 mg/L, which was about two to three times the difference
in minimum and maximum dissolved oxygen concentrations measured when nozzles were
oriented more optimally (i.e., the orientation shown in Fig. 2).

3.3. Water velocity profiles and feed flushing in the 10 and 150 m3 culture tanks

Water velocity profiles were measured across a vertical plane bisecting the center of the
10 and 150 m3 culture tanks. Water velocity profiles were measured when there were no
fish within the culture tank, because fish swimming below the acoustic probe interfered
with water velocity measurement. Water velocity profiles were taken in the 10 m3 culture
tanks under four conditions. The first three conditions used bottom-center drain flow rates
of 0, 6, and 12% of the total culture tank flowrate, in which all but two of the inlet nozzles
were oriented at a 45◦ angle towards the tank center (i.e., a 45◦ angle away from tangential)
and parallel to the culture tank floor; the bottom inlet nozzle was oriented straight towards
the center of the tank and another inlet nozzle was oriented at a 45◦ angle in the opposite
direction (Fig. 2). The fourth condition used an inlet nozzle orientation with all of the 45◦
inlet nozzles oriented in the same direction and at a bottom-center drain flow of 12% (Fig. 4).
Results from these velocity profiles (Figs. 11–13 and 15) show that rotational velocities were
consistently higher at the tank’s perimeter, that water velocities were sometimes similar
across depths at a given radial location, and that these water velocities increased nearly
linearly with radial distance away from the tank center (Fig. 14). These results also showed
that higher rotational velocities were produced at the higher bottom flow rates, i.e., a 12%
bottom flow created higher rotational velocities than a 6% bottom flows (Fig. 11), and also
when all of the 45◦ inlet nozzles were oriented in the same direction (Fig. 15). Note that
re-orienting the water inlet nozzles provided a simple method for adjusting rotational water
velocities within the culture tank. For example, the rotational velocity about the perimeter of
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271
Table 5
A summary of the changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations between inlet and outlets of the 10 m3 nursery tank, along with average, minimum, and maximum dissolved
oxygen concentrations found throughout the tank during the three bottom-drain flow tests when all inlet nozzles (except the bottom nozzle) were replaced with 90◦
elbows and oriented parallel with the tank wall (shown in Fig. 4)
Bottom-drain Bottom-drain Fish density Inlet Outlet System delta Bottom Hi dissolved Low dissolved Tank delta Average tank
flow (L/min) flow (kg/m3 ) dissolved dissolved dissolved drain O2 (mg/L) in O2 (mg/L) in bottom-drain bottom-drain
O2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L) dissolved tank tank flow dissolved flow dissolved
O2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L) O2 (mg/L)
57.6 11.8 0 16.9 11.0 5.9 10.4 10.8 9.8 1.0 10.3
30.7 6.3 0 16.9 11.6 5.3 11.0 11.6 10.4 1.2 10.9
0 0 0 16.5 10.5 6 – 10.8 9.8 1.0 10.3

263
264 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

Fig. 11. Water velocity profiles across a vertical plane splitting the center of a 10 m3 nursery tank when zero flow
was exiting the tank’s bottom-center drain and one nozzle was oriented in the opposite direction of the rotating
flow. Note that the location of the flow injection structure has pushed the center vortex slightly off center.

Fig. 12. Water velocity profiles across a vertical plane splitting the center of a 10 m3 nursery tank when the bottom
flow rate was 6% of the tank’s total flow and one nozzle was oriented in the opposite direction of the rotating flow.
Note that the location of the flow injection structure has pushed the center vortex slightly off center.
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 265

Fig. 13. Water velocity profiles across a vertical plane splitting the center of a 10 m3 nursery tank when the bottom
flow rate was 12% of the tank’s total flow and one nozzle was oriented in the opposite direction of the rotating
flow. Note that the location of the flow injection structure has pushed the center vortex slightly off center.

the tank increased from a maximum 13.4 cm/s (Fig. 12) to a maximum 17.8 cm/s (Fig. 15)
simply by changing the direction of one of the 45◦ nozzles, while maintaining the same
water flow through the inlet and both outlets.
Water velocity profiles were taken in the 150 m3 growout tank under four conditions
(Figs. 16–19), where the bottom flow rate was adjusted to pass 0.0, 4.3, 9.8, and 11% of

Fig. 14. When water rotational velocities were averaged across all depths within the 10 m3 culture tank, the water
velocity near the tank center can be clearly shown to increase with increasing percent bottom-drain flow rate. Note
that one nozzle was oriented in the opposite direction of the rotating flow.
266 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

Fig. 15. Water velocity profiles across a vertical plane splitting the center of a 10 m3 nursery tank when the bottom
flow rate was 6% of the tank’s total flow and when no inlet nozzle were oriented in the opposite direction of the
rotating flow. Note that reorienting the inlet nozzles so that none were facing in the opposite direction provided
an increased rotational velocity compared to the same conditions but with one nozzle in the opposite orientation
(Fig. 12).

Fig. 16. Water velocity profiles across a vertical plane splitting the center of the 150 m3 growout tank when zero
flow was exiting the tank’s bottom-center drain.
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 267

Fig. 17. Water velocity profiles across a vertical plane splitting the center of the 150 m3 growout tank when the
bottom flow rate was 4.3% of the tank’s total flow.

the tank’s total flow through its bottom-center drain. When these water velocity profiles
were compressed to provide an average velocity across all depths at a given radial location,
i.e., Fig. 20, it showed that water velocities were consistently higher at the tank’s perimeter
and that increasing bottom-drain flow (at least above 4.3% bottom flow) increased the

Fig. 18. Water velocity profiles across a vertical plane splitting the center of the 150 m3 growout tank when the
bottom flow rate was 9.8% of the tank’s total flow.
268 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

Fig. 19. Water velocity profiles across a vertical plane splitting the center of the 150 m3 growout tank when its
bottom flow rate was 11% of the tank’s total flow.

water velocities at the center of the tank and increased the uniformity of water velocities
throughout the tank (Fig. 20).
Additional feed pellet flushing experiments were conducted in the 10 and 150 m3 culture
tanks at the same time as the water velocity studies when no fish were present. These feed
flushing studies indicate that a bottom flow of 9.8–12% was necessary to rapidly flush feed
from the culture tank (Table 6). Interestingly, the surface loading rate on the bottom-drain
was at least 5.4–7.9 L/min per m2 of tank plan area in order to rapidly flush feed from

Fig. 20. When water rotational velocities were averaged across all depths within the 150 m3 culture tank, water
velocities near the tank center are shown to increase with increasing percent bottom-drain flow rate after the
bottom-drain flow exceeds 4.3%.
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 269

Table 6
Feed flushing tests that were conducted during velocity studies when there were no fish in the tanks
Tank (m3 ) Flow discharged through Surface loading rate on bottom Feed begins to exit
bottom drain (%) drain (L/min per m2 plan area) bottom drain (min)
10 12.0 5.4 2.0 ± 0.9
10 6.0 2.7 Poor solids flushing
150 11.0 7.9 1.5 ± 0.21
150 9.8 7.1 2.05 ± 0.42
150 4.3 3.1 Solids did not flush

the tank (Table 6). These are similar surface loading rates that were found when fish were
present, as discussed in Section 3.1.

4. Conclusions

Dissolved oxygen profiles indicate that relatively uniform water mixing was achieved in
both the 10 m3 and the 150 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture tanks when tested at high
fish densities (90–98 kg/m3 ). Mixing efficiency was largely attributed to the high density of
fish, but was somewhat dependent upon the orientation of the tank’s flow injection nozzles
and was not dependent on the percent of tank flow discharged through the bottom-center
drain flow.
Water rotational velocities within the 10 m3 and the 150 m3 ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain
culture tanks were found to be adjustable by reorienting the direction of the water inlet
nozzles. Under all conditions tested, water rotational velocity profiles were consistently
higher at the tank’s perimeter and these velocities decreased towards the tank center. With no
bottom-drain flow, rotational velocities near the center of the tank approached 0 cm/s. Low
velocities at the tank center promoted solids settling and capture at the bottom-center of the
tank. Higher water rotational velocities were produced at the tank center when larger flows
were discharged through the bottom-center drain, which influenced the rate that settleable
solids were flushed from the tank. The rate that settleable solids flushed from 10 and 150 m3
‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain culture tanks was found to depend on the water flow exiting
the bottom-center drain and on the rotational period of the water within the tank, i.e., a
rotational period of 1.3–1.7 min produced optimal water velocities for flushing solids from
the ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain tanks; a water flow through the tank’s bottom-center drain of
at least 5–6 L/min for every 1 m2 of tank plan area was found to rapidly flush settleable
solids and maintain a self-cleaning ‘Cornell-type’ dual-drain tank.
Also, these results can provide a valuable reference data set for validating computational
fluid dynamics models of culture tank hydrodynamics that are currently under development
(Rasmussen, 2002; Veerapen et al., 2003).

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricul-
tural Research Service under grant agreement number 59-1930-1-130. We thank Thomas
270 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271

Waldrop, Mark Sharrer, Susan Glenn, Grover Wilson, Jeremy Joiner, John Alucci, Brian
Mason and Frederick Ford for their assistance. The experimental protocol and methods
used in this study were in compliance with Animal Welfare Act (9CFR) requirements
and are approved by the Freshwater Institute Institutional Animal Care and Use
Committee.

References

Davison, W., 1997. The effects of exercise training on teleost fish, a review of recent literature. Comp. Biochem.
Physiol. 117A (1), 67–75.
Eikebrokk, B., Ulgenes, Y., 1993. Characterization of treated effluents from land based fish farms. In: Keinertsen,
H., Dahle, L.A., Jorgensen, L., Tvinnereim, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of First International Conference on Fish
Farming Technology, 9–12 August 1993. Trondheim, Norway, pp. 361–366.
Goldsmith, D.L., Wang, J.-K., 1993. Hydromechanics of settled solids collection using rotating flow. In: J.-K. Wang
(Ed.), Proceedings of the conference on Techniques for Modern Aquaculture. 21–23 June 1993. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, Saint Joseph, MI, pp. 467–480.
Lunde, T., Skybakmoen, S., Schei, I., 1997. Particle Trap. US Patent 5,636,595.
Mäkinen, T., Lindgren, S., Eskelinen, P., 1988. Sieving as an effluent treatment method for aquaculture. Aquacult.
Eng. 7, 367–377.
Paul, T.C., Sayal, S.K., Sakhuja, V.S., Dhillon, G.S., 1991. Vortex-settling basin design considerations. J. Hydraul.
Eng. 117, 172–189.
Rasmussen, M.R., 2002. Numerical modeling of hydrodynamics in aquaculture systems: a civil engineering
perspective. In: Rakestraw, T.T., Douglas, L.S., Flick, G.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of Fourth International
Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 22–23 July
Roanoke, VA. pp. 152–162.
Ross, R.M., Watten, B.J., 1998. Importance of rearing-unit design and stocking density to the behavior, growth
and metabolism of lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush). Aquacult. Eng. 19, 41–56.
Skybakmoen, S., 1989. Impact of water hydraulics on water quality in fish rearing units. In: Proceedings of AquaNor
89 Conference on Water Treatment and Quality, 11–16 August1989. Trondheim, Norway, pp. 17–21.
Skybakmoen, S., 1993. Fish Rearing Tanks. Aquaculture Series Brochure, AGA AB, Lidingö, Sweden, 12 pp.
Summerfelt, S.T., Timmons, M.B., Watten, B.J., 2000a. Tank and Raceway Culture. In: Stickney, R.R. (Ed.).
Encyclopedia of Aquaculture. Wiley, New York, pp. 921–928.
Summerfelt, S.T., Davidson, J., Timmons, M.B., 2000b. Hydrodynamics in the ’Cornell-type’ dual-drain tank. In:
Libey, G.S., Timmons, M.B. (Eds.), The Third International Conference on Recirculating Aquaculture, 22–3
July, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Roanoke, VA, pp. 160–166.
Summerfelt, S.T., Wilton, G., Roberts, D., Savage, T., Fonkalsrud, K., 2004. Developments in recirculating systems
for arctic char culture in North America. Aquacult. Eng. 30, 31–71.
Summerfelt, S.T., Davidson, J., Waldrop, T., Tsukuda, S., Bebak-Williams, J.A. Partial-reuse system for coldwater
aquaculture. Aquacult. Eng., in press.
Timmons, M.B., Youngs, W.D., 1991. Considerations on the design of raceways. In: Proceedings of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers on Aquaculture Systems Engineering, 16–20 June 1991. American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, San Juan, Puerto Rico, ASAE Publication 02-91, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 34–45.
Timmons, M.B., Summerfelt, S.T., Vinci, B.J., 1998. Review of circular tank technology and management.
Aquacult. Eng. 18, 51–69.
Tsukuda, S., Wallace, R., Summerfelt, S., Hankins, J., 2000. Development of a third generation acoustic waste feed
monitor. In: Libey, G.S., Timmons, M.B., Flick, G.J., Rakestraw, T.T. (Eds.), Third International Conference on
Recirculating Aquaculture. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, pp. 105–108.
Tvinnereim, K., Skybakmoen, S., 1989. Water exchange and self-cleaning in fish rearing tanks. In: De Pauw, N.,
Jaspers, E., Ackefors, H., Wilkens, N. (Eds.), Aquaculture: A Biotechnology in Progress. European Aquaculture
Society, Bredena, Belgium, pp. 1041–1047.
 J. Davidson, S. Summerfelt / Aquacultural Engineering 32 (2004) 245–271 271

Twarowska, J.G., Westerman, P.W., Losordo, T.M., 1997. Water treatment and waste characterization evaluation
of an intensive recirculating fish production system. Aquacult. Eng. 16, 133–147.
Veerapen, J.P., Lowry, B.J., Couturier, M.F., 2003. Solids removal in recirculating aquaculture systems—modeling
and experiments. In: C.I. Henry (Ed.), Proceedings of the Contributed Papers of the 19th Annual Meeting of
the Aquaculture Association of Canada (Special Publication Number 6). Aquaculture Association of Canada,
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, pp. 81–83.