nd

Proceedings of the 2 International Conference on Current Trends in Engineering and Management ICCTEM -2014
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF CIVIL
17 19, JulyENGINEERING
2014, Mysore, Karnataka, India
AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)

ISSN 0976 6308 (Print)

ISSN 0976 6316(Online)
Volume 5, Issue 9, September (2014), pp. 27-33
IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com

IJCIET
IAEME

SELECTION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS BASED ON

ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS
PAVITHRA1, LOKESH K.S.2
1

(M. Tech Scholar, Department of Environmental Engineering, Sri Jayachamarajendra College of

Engineering, Mysore 570 006, Karnataka, India)
2
(Professor and Head, Department of Environmental Engineering, Sri Jayachamarajendra College of
Engineering, Mysore 570 006, Karnataka, India)

ABSTRACT
This paper presents an application of the analytical hierarchy process for selection of best
wastewater treatment process. The analytical hierarchy process is one of the best ways for deciding
among the complex criteria structure in different levels. In current practice, in Karnataka state, India
(except Bengaluru) the wastewater treatment facilities are being constructed with waste stabilization
ponds / aerated lagoons. These methods are being adopted due to less operation and maintenance
cost of the plants. At present, the urban local bodies are maintaining the wastewater treatment
facilities. As there is no skilled labor for proper operation and maintenance of the treatment facilities
in local bodies, it has been made compulsory to opt the waste stabilization ponds / aerated lagoons
which offer less operation and maintenance cost with very low operator attention. The construction
of waste stabilizations ponds / aerated lagoons requires maximum land area. It causes odour in
surrounding areas. The public are agitating for construction of the same on the outskirt of cities /
towns. Due to non availability of land, the private land is to be acquired for construction which
increases the cost of construction. At present, it is felt that there are lots of constraints in acquiring
the land for implementation of sewerage system in cities / towns. Hence, it is felt necessary to
optimize the different processes for efficient removal of BOD, COD and suspended solids. The
alternatives consist of activated sludge process, extended aeration, sequencing batch reactor and upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Standard designs have been made for 10 MLD WWTP
keeping in mind the general requirement in urban local bodies of towns / cities in Karnataka. Cost
estimates are done based on the present rates. Based on the technical / administrative, economical
and environmental criteria and their sub-criteria are weighted, then criteria evaluated and priorities of
alternatives have been done by analytical hierarchy process. Finally, selection of best process among
these five processes is carried out by AHP method.

27

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Engineering and Management ICCTEM -2014
17 19, July 2014, Mysore, Karnataka, India

KEYWORDS: Analytical hierarchy process, Design, Domestic Wastewater treatment, Multi criteria decision-making.
1. INTRODUCTION
Selection of an appropriate treatment process is an important issue before designing and
implementing any wastewater treatment process. Traditionally, the alternatives of wastewater
treatment are compared only based on the economic data provided in the pre-design studies of
wastewater treatment plant project. Therefore, the alternative with minimum capital and operation
cost is chosen.
Process selection involves the detailed evaluation of the various factors that must be
considered when evaluating unit operations and processes and other treatment methods to meet
current and future treatment objectives. The purpose of process analysis is to select the most suitable
unit operations and processes and the optimum cost, operational and environmental criteria. The
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is useful for handling multiple criteria and objectives in the
decision making process. The AHP method, which was first introduced by Saaty (1988), is an
effective method for solving MCDM problems. It has been widely used for MDM and applied to
many practical problems successfully. The AHP approach is a systematic analysis technique for
multi criteria decision making and it facilitates a definition of priorities and preferences of the
decision makers.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
Fig.1 shows a typical hierarchy structure of best alternative selection with multiple criteria
and indices. The objective of the decision positioned at the top of hierarchy structure then criteria,
indices and alternatives are on downward levels, i.e. level 1 to level 4).
Level 1: Objective

Level 2

C1

I1

C2

I2

I3

I4

Criteria

C3

I5

I6

I7

Level 3

Indices

Alternatives

Level 4

Fig. 1: Typical hierarchy structure

This paper considers four processes which are as follows: 1. Activated sludge process (ASP),
2. Extended aeration (EA), 3. Sequential batch reactor (SBR), and 4.Up-flow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactor (UASB).
2.1. Comparing criteria
The general procedure for making process selection usually consists of:
The criteria that are used to evaluate the alternatives.
28

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Engineering and Management ICCTEM -2014
17 19, July 2014, Mysore, Karnataka, India

Identifying the criteria that are important.

Develop treatment alternatives.
Evaluate the alternatives and select the best process.
The criteria used for comparing are as follows:
1. Technical / Administrative criteria analyzed into next four sub-criteria.
Applicability: Evaluated based on past experience and published data.
Performance: Performance is measured in terms of effluent quality.
Resistance to hydraulic shocks: Ability of the process for a wide range of flow rates.
Co-ordination with local facilities: Local facilities are to be considered before
implementation of WWTP.
2. Economic Criteria analyzed into next three sub-criteria.
Capital cost: Includes cost of construction both civil and electro-mechanical works.
Land requirement: Includes cost of land required for construction of WWTP.
Operation and maintenance (O & M cost): Includes repair cost and energy cost.
3. Environmental criteria analyzed into next three sub-criteria.
Odor generation: It is the major consideration in the wastewater treatment process
selection.
Sludge generation: Includes the amount of sludge generated by each treatment
alternatives.
Effluent disposal: Includes the method of effluent disposal.
Table 1: Criteria for selection of wastewater treatment process
Criteria
2nd level criteria
Technical / Administrative criteria
Applicability
Performance
Resistance to hydraulic shocks
Co-ordination with local facilities
Economic criteria
Capital cost
Land cost
Operation and maintenance cost
Environmental criteria
Odor generation
Amount of sludge generation
Effluent disposal
2.2. Analytical hierarchy process
The AHP is based on hierarchical structuring of the elements that are involved in a decision
problem. The evaluation of the hierarchy is based on pairwise comparisons. The decision maker
compares two alternatives, Ai and Aj, using criterion and assigns a numerical value to their relative
weight. When n elements of a level are evaluated in pairs using an element of the higher level, an n x
n comparison matrix A of alternative with respect to criteria K is as follows:
K
A1
A2

A1
1
1/a12

A2
a12
1

An
a1n
a2n

An

1/a1n

1/a2n

29

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Engineering and Management ICCTEM -2014
17 19, July 2014, Mysore, Karnataka, India

The decision makers judgement may not be consistent with one another, so AHP measures
the inconsistency of judgements by calculating the consistency index CI of the matrix. The CI in turn
divided by the average random consistency index RI to obtain the consistency ratio CR. The table 2
presents the random average indices for n matrix. The consistency ratio CR will be worked out based
on thumb rule (CR=CI/RI).
The following steps are to be considered for applying AHP: (Saaty, 1990)
1. Define the problem and determine the goal.
2. Structure the hierarchy from the top level to lowest level through intermediate levels which
contains alternatives.
3. Construct a set of pair-wise comparison matrices for lower levels with one matrix for each
element in the level immediately above by using the standard preference scale used for the
AHP in a range of 1 to 9 scale as per Table 3.
4. There are n (n-1) judgments required to develop the set of matrices in 3rd step. Reciprocals
are automatically assigned in each pair-wise comparison.
5. Hierarchical synthesis is used to weight the eigen vectors by the weight of the criteria and the
sum is taken over all weighted eigen vectors entries corresponding to those in the next lower
level of the hierarchy.
6. Having made all the pair-wise comparisons, the consistency is determined by using the eigen
value, max, in order to calculate the consistency index.
7. The above steps are repeated for all the levels in the hierarchy.

N
RI

Table 2: The random average consistency indices (RI) for various n

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12
1.24
1.32
1.41
1.45
Table 3: Pair-wise comparison scale for AHP preferences
Verbal judgments of preferences
Numerical rating
Equally preferred
1
Equally to moderately
2
Moderately preferred
3
Moderately to strongly
4
Strongly preferred
5
Strongly to very strongly
6
Very strongly preferred
7
Very strongly to extremely
8
Extremely strong
9

In this the AHP analysis is done in Microsoft Excel.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The designs are made to the standards for 10 MLD as per the general requirement of urban
local bodies of cities / towns in Karnataka state based on the population with same wastewater
characteristics for all the four processes considered for the study. The cost estimation is done as per
the present schedule of rates and market rates. Mainly, in cost evaluation, the land cost and the
operation and maintenance cost plays a major role in decision making. Table 4 shows the details of
cost estimation:
30

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Engineering and Management ICCTEM -2014
17 19, July 2014, Mysore, Karnataka, India

Table 4: Details of cost estimation for 10 MLD WWTP

Secondary
treatment process
Activated Sludge
Process
Extended Aeration
Sequential Batch
Reactor
Up-flow Anaerobic
Sludge Blanket
Reactor

Capital
Land
cost
requirement

Land cost
Plain
Coastal
area
area
300.00
140.00

in lakhs
O&M
cost

628.00

4.00

Ghat
area
48.00

460.00
505.00

6.00
1.00

72.00
12.00

450.00
75.00

210.00
35.00

24.00
27.00

460.00

3.00

36.00

225.00

105.00

14.40

24.00

In this study, the three criteria, technical / applicability criteria such as applicability,
performance, resistance to hydraulic shocks and co-ordination with local facilities, economical
criteria such as capital cost, land cost and operation and maintenance cost, and environmental criteria
such as effluent disposal and their sub criteria are considered for evaluation.
According to AHP methodology, the second level criteria are evaluated through pair-wise
comparisons with respect to the overall goal i.e., selection of best wastewater treatment process. The
alternatives are compared according to their performance in each selection criteria using scales for
the quantitative parameters and AHP scale of weights for the qualitative criteria. Four treatment
alternatives, i.e. activated sludge process, extended aeration, sequencing batch reactor and up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor are studied.
Fig. 2 shows the hierarchy decision model.
Best WWTP Selection

Technical / Administrative criteria

I1
I2

Economic

Environmental criteria

I5

I8

I6

I9

I7

I10

I3
I4

Fig 2: Hierarchy decision model used in WWT Process selection

For evaluation of treatment processes, pair-wise comparison matrices are created for each
criteria and sub-criteria. After obtaining the satisfactory consistency ratio for each matrix, relative
weights of each criteria are calculated for different alternatives. The ranking order of alternatives
with respect to each main criteria and overall goal are shown in the fig. 3 to 6.
The ranking order of the alternatives in AHP method is SBR>EA>UASB>ASP.

31

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Engineering and Management ICCTEM -2014
17 19, July 2014, Mysore, Karnataka, India

UASB

0.163

SBR

0.474

EA

0.278

ASP

0.084

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500

Fig 3: Synthesis with respect to Technical criteria for the Alternatives

UASB

0.177

SBR

0.407
0.297

EA
ASP

0.120

0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500

Fig 4: Synthesis with respect to Economic criteria for the Alternatives

UASB

0.081
0.543

SBR
0.163

EA
ASP

0.213

0.000

0.200

0.400

0.600

Fig 5: Synthesis with respect to Environmental criteria for the Alternatives

UASB

0.15

SBR

0.45

EA

0.27

ASP

0.13
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Fig 6: Synthesis with respect to wastewater treatment process

From the above comparative study, the optimum treatment process selected is sequential
batch reactor. Even though, the cost of construction and operation and maintenance is more when
compared to other treatment process, there will be savings in land cost which is reducing the capital
cost of the WWTP. Even the effluent quality is also better when compared to other processes. In the
matter of UASB, the treatment is successful only when the generation of methane and bio gas is
occurred. Even it requires further post treatment units like polishing ponds or aeration. In case of
activated sludge process and extended aeration, the requirement of land is more which increases the
capital cost and also skilled labours are required for operation and maintenance.
32

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Engineering and Management ICCTEM -2014
17 19, July 2014, Mysore, Karnataka, India

4. CONCLUSIONS
Selection of the wastewater treatment process is a complicated multi-criteria decision making
process, in which uncertainty, complexity and hierarchy are the most important.. In this paper, a
practical approach is presented for selecting and weighing the wastewater treatment process based on
the methods. The decision criteria were technical / administrative, economical, and environmental
criteria as well as their sub-criteria. These criteria were evaluated to determine the order of aerobic
alternatives for selecting the most appropriate one. The ranking order of the alternatives in AHP
method is SBR>EA>UASB>ASP.
From the above study, the following conclusions are made:
1. Application of AHP method in multi criteria decision making is easy to use and easily
understandable by the users as it handles multiple criteria with a certain value of consistency
is allowed.
2. The appropriate process selected from the above study is Sequential Batch Reactor even
though the capital cost is more when compared to other processes due to less land
requirement.
3. The effluent of the sequential batch reactor will meet the required regulations. The effluent
may be re-used with proper chlorination.
4. The UASB reactor may be implemented as it requires less operation and maintenance cost,
but the generation of methane is compulsory for the proper operation. Also, it needs further
posts treatments like polishing ponds or aeration.
5. If the land is available easily, it is better to implement the extended aeration system as next
priority.
5. REFERENCES
1. Saaty T.L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of
operations Research, 48, 1990, 9 26.
2. Saaty T.L, Basic theory of analytical heirarchy process: How to make a decision,
Rev.R.Acad.Cienc.Exact.Fis.Nat. (Esp), Vol. 93(4), 1999, pp 395-423.
3. Saaty T.L, Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of
Services Sciences, Vol. 1(1), 2008.
4. Karimi A.R., Mehrdadi N., Hashemian J., Bidhendi G.R.N., and Moghaddam R.T., Selection of
wastewater treatment process based on the analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytical
hierarchy process methods, International Journal for Environmental Science and Technology,
Vol. 8(2), 2011, 267 280.
5. George Tchobanoglous, Franklin L.Burton and H. David Stensel, Wastewater Engineering
Treatment and Reuse (Metcalf and Eddy, New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Education Private
Limited , 2003).
6. G.L. Karia and R.A. Christian, Wastewater Treatment and design approach (New Delhi: PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2009).
7. Syed R. Qasim, Wastewater Treatment Plants Planning, Design and Operation (CRC Press,
USA:1999).
8. Schedule of Rates 2013-14, Karnataka Urban Water supply & Drainage Board, Bengaluru,
Karnataka, India.

33