ID: 1114132

Design Project 1

University of Mauritius
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering
11/28/2014

Soomaree Keshav
1114132

Page 1 of 134
ID: 1114132

DESIGN OF A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

Student Group: 3A

Members
Soomaree Keshav
St Paul M.M Eldora
Ramanah R. Devi
Ramdewar P.Kumar
Ramdhonee A.K.R Mishra

Coordinator: Mr A Mudhoo

Page 2 of 134
ID: 1114132

Table of Contents
Table of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Acknowledgment ....................................................................................................................................... 8
List of abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 10
1.1 Aim of the design ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.2 Environmental and social impact .......................................................................................... 10
1.3 The trend of treated water, demand and supply ................................................................. 11
1.4 Existing and Future market for treated water...................................................................... 12
1.5 Brief comparison and competitors......................................................................................... 12
1.6 Development of new process techniques ............................................................................. 12
1.6.1 Preliminary/Primary Treatment ................................................................................... 12
1.6.2 Secondary Treatment ....................................................................................................... 13
1.6.3 Tertiary Treatment ........................................................................................................... 13
1.7 The problem statement .............................................................................................................. 14
CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 15
2.1 Literature review for primary Treatment ............................................................................. 15
2.1.1 Oil-water separator Design ............................................................................................. 15
2.1.2 Equalisation tank .............................................................................................................. 15
2.2 Literature review for secondary Treatment ......................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Primary Clarifier .............................................................................................................. 16
2.2.2 Aerobic versus Anaerobic treatments ........................................................................... 17
2.2.3 The Aerobic Membrane Bioreactor ................................................................................ 20
2.3 Literature review for tertiary treatment................................................................................ 24
2.3.1 Filtration ............................................................................................................................ 25
2.3.2 Disinfection ....................................................................................................................... 28
2.4 Literature review on sludge thickening, digestion and gas handling .............................. 29
2.4.1 Thickening of sludge ....................................................................................................... 29
2.4.2 Sludge disposal................................................................................................................. 30
2.4.3 Sludge dewatering ........................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 3: PROCESS CONSIDERATION .................................................................................... 32

Page 3 of 134
ID: 1114132

3.1 Process consideration for preliminary treatment ................................................................ 32

3.1.1 Screenings.......................................................................................................................... 32
3.1.2 Balancing/equalizing tank ............................................................................................. 33
3.2 Process consideration for secondary treatment ................................................................... 34
3.2.1 Circular primary settling tank ........................................................................................ 34
3.2.2 Secondary treatment methods........................................................................................ 34
3.2.3 Aeration equipments ....................................................................................................... 36
3.3 Process consideration for tertiary treatment ........................................................................ 36
3.3.1 Filtration processes .......................................................................................................... 36
3.4 Disinfection ............................................................................................................................... 37
3.5 Process consideration for sludge thickening and digestion ............................................... 37
3.5.1 Thickening primary and waste activated sludge ........................................................ 37
3.5.2 Stabilization....................................................................................................................... 37
3.6 Process Consideration for process in anaerobic digestion ................................................. 38
3.7 Process consideration for sludge conditioning, dewatering and disposal ...................... 38
3.7.1 Type of sludge conditioning ........................................................................................... 38
3.7.2 Type of chemical conditioning aids............................................................................... 39
3.7.3 Dewatering ........................................................................................................................ 39
3.8 Sludge disposal......................................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 5: PREIMINARY DESIGN [SIZING] ............................................................................. 43
5.1 Sizing of the preliminary treatment unit .............................................................................. 43
5.1.1 The Oil-Water Separator ................................................................................................. 43
5.1.2 Bar Screen .......................................................................................................................... 43
5.1.3 Fine screen ......................................................................................................................... 44
5.1.4 Equalization Tank ............................................................................................................ 44
5.2 Sizing of the secondary treatment units ............................................................................... 45
5.2.1 Primary Clarifier .............................................................................................................. 45
5.2.2 The Membrane Bioreactor............................................................................................... 45
5.3 Sizing of the tertiary treatment units .................................................................................... 46
5.3.1 Sand Filter ......................................................................................................................... 46
5.3.2 Chlorination ...................................................................................................................... 47

Page 4 of 134
ID: 1114132

5.3.3 Thickener ........................................................................................................................... 47

5.3.4 Sludge Digester ................................................................................................................ 48
5.3.5 Dewatering Tank .............................................................................................................. 49
CHAPTER 6: ENERGY BALANCE ................................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 7: PRELIMINARY HAZOP ........................................................................................... 51
7.1 The oil-water separator ........................................................................................................... 51
7.2 Screening ................................................................................................................................... 52
7.3 Equalization Tank .................................................................................................................... 54
7.4 Primary Clarifier ...................................................................................................................... 54
7.5 The Membrane Bioreactor....................................................................................................... 55
7.6 Sand Filter ................................................................................................................................. 56
7.7 Thickener ................................................................................................................................... 56
7.8 Digester...................................................................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 8: WASTE TREATMENT ................................................................................................ 59
8.1 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT ......................................................................................................... 59
8.1.1 Oil-Water Separator ......................................................................................................... 59
8.1.2 Screen bars and grit chamber ......................................................................................... 59
8.1.3 Primary sedimentation tanks ......................................................................................... 59
8.2 SECONDARY TREATMENT ................................................................................................. 59
8.2.1 The MBR Tank .................................................................................................................. 59
8.3 TERTIARY TREATMENT ....................................................................................................... 59
8.3.1 Sand filter .......................................................................................................................... 59
8.4 SLUDGE TREATMENT .......................................................................................................... 59
8.4.1 GRAVITY THICKENER .................................................................................................. 59
8.4.2 FINAL DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE CAKE........................................................................ 60
8.5 BIOGAS ........................................................................................................................................ 61
CHAPTER 9: CONTROL STRATEGY ............................................................................................... 61
9.1 Control of Liquid level ............................................................................................................ 61
9.2 Control of Flow......................................................................................................................... 62
9.3 Control of temperature ............................................................................................................ 64
9.4 Control of pH ............................................................................................................................ 64

Page 5 of 134
ID: 1114132

9.5 Control of Pressure .................................................................................................................. 65

CHAPTER 10: PRELIMINARY COSTING ..................................................................................... 65
10.1 Cost of Equipment ................................................................................................................... 66
10.2 Calculating of working capital ............................................................................................... 66
10.3 Calculating payback period .................................................................................................... 67
CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 67
References ................................................................................................................................................. 68
Appendices 1: Mass Balance................................................................................................................... 75
Mass Balance for Preliminary treatment............................................................................................... 75
Mass Balance for Secondary treatment ................................................................................................. 79
Mass Balance for Tertiary treatment ..................................................................................................... 89
Mass Balance for Sludge Treatment ...................................................................................................... 91
Appendix 2: Energy Balances ............................................................................................................... 94
Energy balance for Preliminary treatment ........................................................................................... 94
Energy balance for Secondary treatment .............................................................................................. 95
Energy balance for Sludge treatment .................................................................................................... 97
Appendix 3: SIZING ............................................................................................................................ 100
Sizing of the Bars Screen ..................................................................................................................... 100
Sizing of Oil water separator ................................................................................................................ 103
Sizing of equalisation tank .................................................................................................................... 111
Sizing of the primary clarifiers ............................................................................................................. 112
Sizing of the MBR................................................................................................................................... 113
Sizing the Sand filter .............................................................................................................................. 117
Sizing of chlorination unit .................................................................................................................... 119
Sizing of thickener.................................................................................................................................. 120
Sizing of Sludge digester....................................................................................................................... 123
Sizing of dewatering unit ...................................................................................................................... 126
Freeze Design ............................................................................................................................................ 128
Minutes of meeting ................................................................................................................................ 129
09/08/2014 ............................................................................................................................................... 129
20/09/2014 ............................................................................................................................................... 131

Page 6 of 134
ID: 1114132

04/10/2014 ............................................................................................................................................... 132

11/10/2014 ............................................................................................................................................... 132
25/10/2014 ............................................................................................................................................... 133
08/11/2014 ............................................................................................................................................... 133

Table of Figures
Table 1.1: Characteristic of waste water

Table 2.1: A brief comparison between aerobic and anaerobic systems

Table 2.2: Characteristic comparison between aerobic and anaerobic systems

Table 2.3: Advantages and disadvantages of MBR

Table 2.4: Comparison of the main MBR systems

Figure 1: Aeration demand for the biodegradation of the organic matters as a

function of target MLSS

Figure 2: Relative cost decrease of kubata membrane and MBR systems

Table 2.5: Sand filter maintenance

Table 3.1: Manually versus mechanically cleaned screen bar

Table 3.2: Design criteria for the screening

Table 3.3: Comparative analysis of rectangular and circular clarifiers

Table 4.1: Summary of mass balance for the sewage flow over the system

Table 4.2: Mass balance for biogas

Table 9.1: The control of liquid level for the whole plant

Table 9.2: The control of flow rate for the whole plant

Table 9.3: The control of temperature for the whole plant

Page 7 of 134
ID: 1114132

Table 9.4: The control of pH for the plant

Table 9.5: The control actions for pressure in the plant

Table 10.1: Equipment costs

Acknowledgment
I wish to thank Mr. Ackmaz Mudhoo, our design coordinator, for guiding us and giving
us all the possible help that he could. I am thankful to him since he was always present
when we needed him and was here to direct us to the right way.

I am also grateful to Mr. Arvinda Ragen, our program coordinator, who ensured that
we did not lack anything with regards to the project and he did his best to give us all
the facilities we needed.

A special thank goes to all my group members; St Paul, Ramanah, Ramdewar and
Ramdhonee, who actively participated in the design project to make it successful.

I would also like to thank Dr. Dinesh Soorup, the head of department, who responded
positively to all the problems faced by us.

Page 8 of 134
ID: 1114132

List of abbreviations
OWS: Oil Water Separator

B.S: Bar Screen

C1: Primary Clarifier 1

C2: Primary Clarifier 2

MBR: Membrane Bioreactor

S.D: Sludge Digester

BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand

COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand

TSS: Total suspended solids

EQ tank: Equalisation tank

Veq: Equalisation Volume

Abs: Absolute

Q: Influent Flowrate

SE: BOD in Effluent

S0: BOD in influent,

X: MLSS concentration

SRT: Sludge Retention Time

F/M: food to microorganism ratio

Xo : Amount of TSS entering

Xe: Amount of TSS leaving

Page 9 of 134
 ID: 1114132

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION

1.1 Aim of the design

Without treatment the water from toilets, baths, sinks and washing machines from
domestic and residential premises contaminated with metals, oils and other pollutants
in rainwater run-off from urban areas draining to sewers would have significant
adverse impacts on the water environment. The aim of this project is to design an
economically-realistic wastewater treatment plant to process raw sewage from urban
residential areas, the treated water can be re-used for any other activities except for
consumption. The design includes all unit operations from inlet works to the disposal
of the final effluent and also the handling and safe disposal of sludge and consideration
potential economic use of the final sludge. This design also makes a comprehensive
assessment of the possibility to capture and process the metabolically generated biogas
for eventual electricity conversion.

1.2 Environmental and social impact

Since independence, Mauritius has experienced environmental problems owing to
economic development and demographic expansion. The household and industrial
wastewater is currently discharged generally without any proper treatment into the
lagoons and oceans around the island, threatening the tourism industry (which is a
major source of earnings in foreign currency) and the livelihoods of artisanal fishermen
with oceanic pollution. The standard of living in terms of per capita income has
increased, but the quality of life was adversely affected by increased public health and
sanitation problems including intestinal and eye diseases.1
The demand for wastewater treatment in Port Louis was expected to increase from
25000 m3 per day (1997), through 48 thousand m3 per day (2005), to 61000 m3 per day
(2007). This exceeds the existing capacity of wastewater treatment plants (17000 m3 per
day) in Fort Victoria and Pointe aux Sable, both of which was in a deteriorated
condition and requires immediate replacement with new treatment systems.
Meanwhile, the Government of Mauritius requested the Japanese
Government to help establish a new wastewater treatment system in the Montagne
Jacquot area, which was located six km south-west of the city. Wastewater was to be
sent to this facility through compression pipes from new pumping stations, covering
1,340 ha (or a population of 118 thousand, as of 1997) in residential and commercial
districts.2

1
http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/nos-news/item/8181-news-in-
brief.html?tmpl=component&print=1

2 http://statsmauritius.gov.mu (2007)

Page 10 of 134
ID: 1114132

The Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1993 to license, regulate and
control activities for the purposes of environmental protection. In Section 60 of the
Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992, it is stated that "the Agency may, and shall
if so directed by the Minister, specify and publish criteria and procedures, which in the
opinion of the Agency are reasonable and desirable for the purposes of environmental
protection, in relation to the management, maintenance, supervision, operation or use
of all or specified classes of plant, sewers or drainage pipes vested in or controlled or
used by a sanitary authority for the disposal of any sewage or other effluent to any
waters ". Criteria and procedures in relation to the treatment and disposal of
wastewater are being published by the Agency in a number of manuals under the
general heading: 'Wastewater Treatment Manuals'. Where criteria and procedures are
published by the Agency, a sanitary authority shall, in the performance of its functions,
have regard to them. 3

1.3 The trend of treated water, demand and supply

Many water treatment technology trends have been observed for some time in Europe,
where supranational directives forced the enhancement of national standards for water
quality and wastewater discharges. With a population roughly equivalent to that of the
U.S. compacted into approximately one-fourth as much space and a historic location of
infrastructure in central settings, Europe has already faced the challenge of upgrading
treatment plants despite limited room for expansion (Limbachyia, et al., 2001).

Growth in population is leading to an appreciation of the water value within

wastewater streams and increasingly municipalities are recognizing the need to recover
this water globally. For example, Florida has set a target to reuse 75 percent of
wastewater by 2025. A major sustainability initiative introduced in the UK is to reduce
overall potable water consumption from 180 litres per day, a 56 percent reduction, by
2016. It is estimated that 25 percent of the potable water entering homes is used to flush
toilets. Given the future risks of water shortages and the cost of providing purified
water for drinking, any unnecessary waste of potable water on activities such as

3 http://www.gov.mu

Page 11 of 134
ID: 1114132

flushing toilets, washing clothes, washing the car and watering the garden is not
sustainable (Laakkoken et al., 2010)4.

1.4 Existing and Future market for treated water

Many municipal wastewater treatment systems are large, centralized works that often
waste the water resource rather than reuse it and consume significant amounts of
energy to move wastewater from the source to the treatment plant. This has led to a
growing recognition that infrastructure investment should be on the principle of
sustainable, decentralized water reuse technologies where water is captured, treated
and reused locally. In both developed and developing countries, sludge disposal is an
issue growing in line with the increase in the volume of wastewater treated.

New technologies such as moving bed bioreactors and submerged aerated filters are
starting to replace the traditional activated sludge systems due to their cost-
effectiveness, smaller footprints, use of recycled plastics for media, and lower power
consumption. The ability to upgrade existing systems with minimal new construction
provides for a low-impact solution. For residential wastewater systems, which require
minimal maintenance, do not require mechanical blowers and feature very low power
consumption. These are becoming a popular solution.

1.5 Brief comparison and competitors

In the present days there is concretely no market for treated water in Mauritius
resulting in almost no competitors. However, it is expected to have an increased
competition in this particular market for the next coming decades which will bring
more evolution to the local Sewage treatment plants.

1.6 Development of new process techniques

1.6.1 Preliminary/Primary Treatment

 Salsnes Filter

The Salsnes filter uses a removable fine mesh screen attached to an inclined moving belt
of wire cloth to sieve solids from wastewater simultaneously filtering the water and
dewatering the solids. The belt rotates to an “air knife” for self-cleaning with
compressed air to remove the solids to a sludge compartment. In one installation, the
Salsnes filter has proven to reduce influent BOD and TSS by 40% and 65% respectively
(McElroy, 2012)5. Performance depends on the size distribution of influent solids and

4 LAAKKONEN, LAURILA, KANSANEN and SCHULMAN, [ca.2010]. History of wastewater treatment

5
McElroy, R. et al., “Restoring Lost WWTP Capacity through Innovative Technologies”, WEFTEC 2012

Page 12 of 134
ID: 1114132

the size of the mesh selected for the filter screen which typically ranges from 100 to 500
microns (Sutton et al. 2008)6 although a 1000 micron mesh screen was installed at the
Daphne Utilities WWTF. The screen surface hydraulic loading rate is an important
factor affecting screen performance. A pressure transmitter varies belt speed to
maintain liquid level at near the overflow elevation to assure effective flow distribution.
The belt is backwashed to remove fats, oils, and grease. Filters are available in sizes
with capacities up to 2200 gpm for free standing units and 3500 gpm for units installed
in a concrete channel. Multiple units may be installed in parallel to achieve the desired
capacity. A dewatering screw press is available to transport the solids, and when used
can produce sludge at up to 27% solids (Sutton 2008).

1.6.2 Secondary Treatment

 Vacuum Rotation Membrane System

This membrane system employs flat-sheet, ultrafiltration-membrane segments

configured into disks rotating on a horizontal shaft. The hydrophilic membrane has a
pore size of approximately 38 nm. Sequential cleaning of the rotating membranes is
achieved with scouring air introduced next to the shaft at about half the water depth,
providing high-intensity scouring of 1/6 to 1/8 of the disk near the 12 o’clock position.
The membranes rotate through the scouring section several times per minute.
Operating results show that neither back-pulsing nor regular cleaning is required.
Average flux is typically 8-12 gal/ft2/day with a suction head of less than 10 feet. (Shear
forces introduced by the rotational movement together with the high-intensity air scour
remove solids buildup on the membranes to decrease membrane fouling. Chemical
cleaning once or twice a year has shown to be sufficient for operating VRM plants.7

1.6.3 Tertiary Treatment

 Microwave Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection

UV disinfection transfers electromagnetic energy from a mercury arc lamp to

wastewater. Electromagnetic radiation, between the ranges of 100 to 400 nm (UV range),
penetrates bacterial cells, and works as a bactericide. Typical mercury vapor UV lamps
contain electrodes that facilitate the generation of UV radiation by striking an electric
arc.8 These electrodes are delicate and their deterioration is the primary source of failure
in UV disinfection systems. Microwave UV disinfection technology eliminates the need

6 Sutton, P. et al. “Rotating Belt Screens: An Attractive Alternative for Primary Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater” WEFTEC 2008.
7 Schuler, S. “Operating Experience with Rotating Membrane Bioreactors”, Water World, March 2009.
8 Meera, V., et al., “Microwave UV Comes to Texas,” WEFTEC Proceedings, 2010

Page 13 of 134
ID: 1114132

for electrodes by using microwave-powered, electrodeless, mercury UV lamps. In this

technology, microwave energy is generated by magnetrons and directed through wave
guides into quartz lamp sleeves containing argon gas.9,10 The directed microwave
energy excites the argon atoms, which in turn excite the mercury atoms to produce
radiation as they return from excited states to lower energy states, as is the case with
other mercury UV lamps. The intensity of the radiation increases when the applied
microwave power is increased. Microwave UV disinfection systems are available in
modular, open-channel, and closed-vessel designs.11

1.7 The problem statement

The Sewage Treatment plant (STP) is expected to receive raw sewage of the
characteristics shown in table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Characteristic of water

Parameter Value at inlet

Sewage flow (m3/day) 70 000

TSS (mg L-1) 285

pH 7.40

Total NH3–N (mg L-1) 25

Temperature (0C) 29

Total NO3—N (mg L-1) 20

BOD5 (mg L-1) 307

Total Phosphorus (mg L-1) 10

COD (mg L-1) 984

Total coliforms count (MNP 100mL-1) 420000

9Black and Veatch Corporation, “White’s Handbook of Chlorination and Alternative Disinfectants,”
5thed., Wiley, 2010

11 Newton, J., “Disinfection Utilizing an Innovative Microwave UV System,” WEFTEC Proceedings, 2009

Page 14 of 134
 ID: 1114132

The raw sewage will enter the STP from a complex network of pipes and it is assumed
that the site requirements needed for the construction of the plant is available. Also,
some amount of oil is assumed to be entering in the effluent.

CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Literature review for primary Treatment

2.1.1 Oil-water separator Design

The oil-water separation is based on the difference in density. Oil being less dense than
water will float on the surface of water under quiescent conditions. Flow of water
should be sufficiently low enough to provide the quiescent condition.

In essence, an oil trap is a chamber designed to provide flow conditions sufficiently

quiescent so that globules of oil rise to the water surface and coalesce into a separate oil
phase, to be removed by mechanical means. Oil-water separation theory is based on the
rise rate of the oil globule (vertical velocity: Vt) and its relationship to the surface-
loading rate of the separator.

The AIP Oil-Water Separator is highly efficient and can remove up to 99.9% of oil
droplets 20 microns or larger. It has a compact design, requires smaller footprint and
space. It has also almost zero operation and maintenance cost with zero power
consumption. Furthermore, no chemical cleaning of the media is required as the media
can be cleaned by just high pressure water jet.

2.1.2 Equalisation tank

The sewage from the oil-water separator and bar screen chamber comes to the
equalization tank which is the first collection tank in an STP. Its main function is to
collect the incoming raw sewage that comes at widely fluctuating rates, and pass it on
to the rest of the STP at a steady flow rate. During the peak hours, the equalization tank
stores sewage coming at a high rate and lets it out during the non-peak time when there
is little/no incoming sewage.(Ananth S. Kodavasal, 2011) Thus, the tank dampens
fluctuations and provides a constant outflow rate, which can improve performance of
subsequent steps in the STP. This can help design the rest of the plant with smaller
equipment (less capital investment) because of this improvement in performance.

Sewer line is gravity-fed, and is likely to be at considerable depth below the ground
level. Hence, it is effective not to place the tank too deep; otherwise it will demand very
deep excavations and expensive construction. It also renders the maintenance and
cleaning processes very hazardous and costly. The equalization tank is used only for

Page 15 of 134
ID: 1114132

buffering the daily fluctuations in the sewage flow quantity and must be of sufficient
capacity to hold the peak time inflow volumes, else the tank will overflow. Peak time
volumes are site-specific and variable. In the case of residential complexes, there is a
distinct morning major peak when all residents are using their kitchens, bathrooms and
toilets, followed by a minor peak in the late evening hours. In addition, the sewage
generation may be heavier during the weekends. In a typical residential complex, an
equalization tank with a capacity to hold 4-6 hours of average hourly flow should be
adequate. (Ananth S. Kodavasal, 2011)

2.2 Literature review for secondary Treatment

Secondary treatment can be defined as the utilization of microorganisms to treat the
primary effluent, where a considerable amount of BOD and COD as well as nutrients
such as nitrogen compounds are removed. Secondary treatment consists of reactor
tanks; that is, activated sludge, and final clarifiers

2.2.1 Primary Clarifier

Primary clarifiers or primary sedimentation tank are a physical treatment process used
to remove settleable solids and solids in suspension by the principle of specific gravity.
Selection of sedimentation tanks depends on plant size, the nature of the wastewater to
be treated, and effluent parameters. Primary sedimentation is currently used as a
preliminary step ahead of biological treatment and is designed to operate continuously.
The three different types of sedimentation tanks are rectangular, circular and square
clarifiers. In the rectangular type, wastewater flows from one end of the tank to the
other. In the circular and square types, the wastewater typically enters at the center and
flows towards the outside edge with the settled solids scraped or otherwise transported
to the center.

The main function of primary sedimentation is firstly to reduce the load on the
biological treatment units and to increase sludge solids concentration in sludge
thickening. For efficient design and operation, primary clarifiers should remove 50 to 65
percent of the suspended solids and 25 to 40 percent of the BOD. The clarification tanks
are designed to provide shorter detention time and a higher rate of surface loading.
Efficient grit removal is very important at plants since it prevents abrasion and wear of
mechanical equipment, deposition of grit in pipes and also accumulation in aerators
and anaerobic digesters (Marcos von Sperling et aL, 2005).

Page 16 of 134
ID: 1114132

2.2.2 Aerobic versus Anaerobic treatments

Table 2.1: A Brief comparison between Aerobic and anaerobic Systems

Parameter Aerobic Treatment Aerobic Treatment

• Microbial reactions take

• Microbial reactions take place in
place in the
the
absence of molecular/ free
Process Principle presence of molecular/ free
oxygen
oxygen
• Reactions products are
• Reactions products are carbon
carbon dioxide,
dioxide, water and excess biomass
methane and excess biomass

Wastewater with low to Wastewater with medium to

medium organic high organic

impurities (COD < 1000 ppm) impurities (COD > 1000 ppm)
and for and easily
Applications
wastewater that are difficult to biodegradable wastewater
biodegrade e.g. food and

e.g. municipal sewage, refinery beverage wastewater rich in

wastewater starch/sugar/

etc. alcohol

Reaction Kinetic Relatively fast Relatively slow

Relatively low (generally one

Net Sludge Yield fifth to one
Relatively high
tenth of aerobic treatment
processes)

Typically direct discharge or

Post Treatment Invariably followed by
filtration/
aerobic treatment
disinfection

Page 17 of 134
ID: 1114132

Foot-Print
Relatively large Relatively small and compact

Capital
Investment Relatively high Relatively low with pay back

Continuously stirred tank

reactor/digester, Upflow
Example Activated Sludge e.g. Extended
Anaerobic sludge Blanket
Technologies Aeration, Oxidation Ditch, MBR,
Fixed Film Processes e.g. Trickling (UASB), Ultra High Rate
Filter/Biotower. Fluidized Bed

Reactors.

Table 2.2: Characteristic comparison between aerobic and anaerobic systems

Feature Aerobic Anaerobic

Organic removal High High

efficiency

Effluent quality Excellent Moderate to poor

Organic loading rate Moderate High

Sludge production High Low

Nutrient requirement High Low

Alkalinity requirement Low High for certain

industrial waste

Energy requirement High Low to moderate

Temperature sensitivity Low High

Start up time 2–4 weeks 2-4 month

Page 18 of 134
ID: 1114132

Odor Less opportunity for odors Potential odor problems

Bioenergy and nutrient No Yes

recovery

Mode of treatment Total (depending on feedstock Essentially pretreatment

characteristics)

2.2.2.1 Advantages of Aerobic Digesters:

 Fewer operational problems.

 Less daily maintenance.

 Lower BOD Concentrations in supernatant liquor.

 Lower capital costs.

2.2.2.2 Disadvantages of Aerobic Digesters:

 Higher energy requirement (lot of aeration and mixing required).

 No methane produced.

 Digested sludge has lower solid content, thus volume of sludge to be dewatered
is much larger.

2.2.2.3 Advantages of Anaerobic Digesters:

 Methane recovery of microbial biomass produced in aerobic growth (biogas), can
be used as alternate fuel source.

 Reduces production of landfill gas which when broken down aerobically releases
methane into atmosphere.

 Sludge occupies less volume, easier to dry.

 Lower operating costs.

2.2.2.4 Disadvantages of Anaerobic Digesters:

 Accumulation of heavy metals and contaminants in sludge

 Narrow temperature control.

 Longer start up time.

Page 19 of 134
ID: 1114132

2.2.3 The Aerobic Membrane Bioreactor

Over the last two decades the technology of membrane bioreactors (MBRs) has reached
a significant market share in wastewater treatment and it is expected to grow at a
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.2%, higher than that of other advanced
technologies and other membrane processes, increasing its market value from $ 337
million in 2010 to 627 million in 2015 (BCC, 2011). Aerobic MBRs represent an important
technical option for wastewater reuse, being very compact and efficient systems for
separating suspended and colloidal matter, which are able to achieve the highest
effluent quality standards for disinfection and clarification. The main limitation for their
widespread application is their high energy demand – between 0.45 and 0.65 kWh/m3
for the highest optimum operation from a demonstration plant, according to recent
studies (Garcés et al., 2007; Tao et al., 2009).

Table 2.3: Advantages and Disadvantages of the MBR

Advantages of MBR Disadvantages of MBR

1. There is complete biomass
retention in the aerobic reactor, which
decouples the sludge retention time
(SRT) from the hydraulic retention time
(HRT), allowing biomass concentrations
to increase in the reaction basin, thus
facilitating relatively smaller reactors
or/and higher organic loading rates
(ORL)
2. In addition, the process is more
compact than a conventional activated
sludge process (CAS), removing 3
individual processes of the conventional
scheme and the feed wastewater only
needs to be screened (1-3 mm) just prior
to removal of larger solids that could
damage the membranes
1. The implantation is limited by its high
costs, both capital and operating expenditure
(CAPEX and OPEX), mainly due to
membrane installation and replacement and
high energy demand. This high energy
demand in comparison with a CAS, is closely
associated with strategies for
avoiding/mitigating membrane fouling (70%
of the total energy demand for MBR)
(Verrech et al., 2008; Verrech et al., 2010)
2. Fouling is the restriction, occlusion or
blocking of membrane pores or cake building
by solids accumulation on the membrane
surface during operation which leads to
membrane permeability loss.

2.2.3.1 Pre-treatment
Membranes are very sensitive to damage with coarse solids such as plastics, leaves, rags
and fine particles like hair from wastewater. In fact, a lack of good pre-
treatment/screening has been recognized as a key technical problem of MBR operation
(Santos and Judd, 2010a). For this reason fine screening is always required for
protecting the membranes. Typically, screens with openings range between 1 mm (HF

Page 20 of 134
ID: 1114132

modules) to 3 mm (FS modules) are common in most facilities. However, data reported
by Frechen et al. (2007) for 19 MBR.

2.2.3.2 Membrane fouling control and cleaning

It is generally accepted that the optimal operation of an MBR depends on
understanding membrane fouling (Judd, 2007). Abatement of fouling leads to elevated
energy demands and has become the main contribution to OPEX (Verrech et al., 2008).
In addition, uncertainty associated with this phenomenon has led to conservative plant
designs where the supplied energy is so far to be optimized. Traditional strategies for
fouling mitigation such as air sparging, physical cleaning techniques (i.e. back flushing
and relaxation) and chemical maintenance cleaning have been incorporated in most
MBR designs as a standard operating strategy to limit fouling. Air sparging, expressed
as specific aeration demand SADm, takes a typical value for full-scale facilities between
0.30 Nm3/h m2 (FS configuration) to 0.57 Nm3/h m2 (HF configuration).

Relaxation and back flushing (only for HF) are commonly applied for 30–130 seconds
every 10–25 min of filtration (Judd, 2010). Frequent maintenance cleanings (every 2–7 d)
are also applied to maintain membrane permeability. However, these pre-set fixed
values of key parameters, based on general background or the recommendations of
membrane suppliers, lead to under-optimized systems and results in loss of permeate
and high energy demand. Recently, several authors have proposed a feedback control
system for finding optimal operating conditions. For example, Smith et al. (2006) have
successfully validated a control system for back flush initiation by permeability
monitoring. This system automatically adjusts the back flushing frequency as a function
of the membrane fouling, which results in a reduction of up to 40% in the back flushing
water required. Ferrero et al. (2011) have used a control system at semi-industrial pilot
scale trials based on monitoring membrane permeability, which achieved an energy
saving between 7 to 21% with respect to minimum aeration recommended by
membrane suppliers.

2.2.3.3 Sludge retention time (SRT) and biomass concentration

SRT contributes to a distinct treatment performance and membrane filtration, and
therefore, to system economics. Specifically, these parameters act on biomass
concentration (MLSS), generation of soluble microbial products (SMP) and oxygen
transfer efficiency. Increasing the SRT increases the sludge solids concentration and
therefore, reduces bioreactor volume required. Furthermore, because of the low growth
rates of some microorganisms (specifically nitrifying bacteria), a longer SRT will achieve
a better treatment performance, as well as generating less sludge. In addition, it has
been reported that high values of SRT can increase membrane permeability by

Page 21 of 134
ID: 1114132

decreasing SMP production (Trussel et al., 2006). Conversely, high solids concentration
results in a higher viscosity of the microbial suspension (Rosenberger et al., 2002b), as a
consequence, higher concentrations decrease air sparging efficiency and oxygen transfer
rate to the microorganisms, resulting in a higher energy demand as well as increasing
membrane fouling and the risk of membrane clogging. Given all of these factors, for
economical reasons, most full-scale facilities are designed for MLSS range of 8-12 g/l
and SRT range of 10-20 d (Asano et al., 2006; Judd, 2010).

2.2.3.4 Application and Cost Analysis of a Membrane Bioreactor

Table 2.4: Comparison of the main MBR systems (Source: Yang et al., 2006)

Mitsubishi-Rayon
Kubota (Japan) Zenon (Canada)
(Japan)
Number of installations 1538 374 374
Membrane FS HF HF
Vertical Horizontal Vertical
Configuration
immersion immersion immersion
Pore size (μm) 0.4 0.1/0.4 0.04
Material Chlorinated PE PE PVDF
Module size (m2) 0.8 105 31.6
Backpulse and
Cleaning method Relax Relax
relax
Cleaning
1/60 2/12 0.5/15
frequency(min/min)
Chlorine
Recovery method Chlorine backwash Chemical soak
backwash

Energy usage for membrane aeration is a significant operating cost for any membrane
bioreactor facility (Yoon et al., 2004) calculated the total variable operational cost of
MBR by summing the decreasing sludge-treatment cost and increasing aeration cost(See
fig 2). Since minimized sludge production implies maximized aeration cost, and vice
versa, they considered the existence of an optimum point between these two extreme
cases, where the total operational cost is minimized. They concluded that for reasonable
ranges of HRT and MLSS sludge treatment cost overwhelms aeration cost, so the most
adequate strategy for MBR cost reduction would be maintenance of low sludge
production conditions.

Page 22 of 134
ID: 1114132

Fig 1 Aeration demand for biodegradation of organic matters as a function of target MLSS and
HRT. Flow rate and COD of influent were 1000m3 day–1 and 400 mg/L, respectively (Source:
from Yoon SH et al., 2004)

Despite its relative youth, MBR technology has developed over a decade to a mature
product available for all sizes of application, in domestic, municipal, or industrial
sector. Further improvement of the process will increase its cost-effectiveness and MBR
technology is expected to play a key role for wastewater treatment in the next years, in
Europe as well as worldwide. To date, European countries with the highest number of
full-scale MBR plants are England, France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands.
MBR markets are expected to open in other countries as well: in dry southern states like
Spain, Greece, and Italy, due to their water shortages, and in Central and Eastern
European countries (such as Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, etc.) that will be obligated to
develop their wastewater treatment technologies and adapt them to the standards and
environmental legislation of the European Union.

Page 23 of 134
ID: 1114132

Fig 2 Relative cost decrease of Kubota membranes and MBR systems (Source: Kennedy et al.,
2005)

2.3 Literature review for tertiary treatment

Tertiary treatment consists of a balancing tank which controls the flow of wastewater
going to the filtration unit where solids that have not been removed in the FST are
removed. Before the final disposal of wastewater, it should be treated for pathogen
removal thus the need for disinfection. The main reason for tertiary treatment is to
meet the requirements of the standards of the environment for irrigation. Classifying
advanced wastewater treatment is to differentiate on the basis of desired treatment
goals. Advanced wastewater treatment is used for: Additional organic and suspended
solids removal, Removal of nitrogenous oxygen demand (NOD), Nutrient removal and
Removal of toxic materials (Spellman et al. 2012).

Page 24 of 134
ID: 1114132

2.3.1 Filtration
Filtration is a physical and usually the final step in the solids removal process in a plant
with no advanced treatment. Filters like screens are used to remove about 99.5 percent
of solids which comprise mainly floc and associated minerals but of a more particulate
size, some BOD, nutrients, heavy metals and some coliforms in water. . There are four
mechanisms which form part of the filtration process namely straining, adsorption,
biological action, and absorption. Each filter is equipped with a sequential automatic
wash system known as filter backwash. A sensor will detect the level of water after
filtration. After which a backwash pump takes part of the filtered water and re-
circulates it through the media and porous plate. This washes the filter media and
solids are aspired by a pump which goes to a backwash tank.

2.3.1.1 Types of filter media

There are three types of filter media: granular media which includes sand,
anthracite, granular activated carbon, garnet, ilmenite and gravel chosen for their
particular grain size and specific density, micro screens which are two dimensional and
are mainly metal screens, wire cloth, metal fiber, natural fiber or fabric, synthetic fiber
or fabric, paper, plastic, fiberglass chosen for their specific opening size and other
medias such as diatomaceous earth, synthetic fuzzy balls and resin beads.

2.3.1.2 Types of filters

The main types of filters are gravity and pressure filters. In gravity filters, the
wastewater to be treated flows through the filter from top to bottom. The wastewater is
evenly distributed to the filters through an inlet distribution system. The water is
allowed to pass through a porous plate and a filter media like sand whereby solid
particles are trapped. . Gravity filters are divided into rapid and slow type. Rapid
gravity filters are 20 to 30 times more rapid than slow filters so that the former require
less space.

Page 25 of 134
ID: 1114132

2.3.1.3 The Sand filter

Sand filters works in an aerobic condition. As the wastewater percolates slowly through
the filter media, natural physical processes such as straining and sedimentation,
biological processes, and chemical processes such as chemical adsorption of pollutants
onto media surfaces plays a finite role in the removal of some chemical constituents
(e.g., phosphorus) combine to provide the treatment. In the first 6 to 12 inches of the
filter surface, most of the treatment occurs.

Biomat is a thick layer which forms part of the filter ecosystem. This layer is formed
near the surface of the filter. This layer contains bacteria which consume particles in the
wastewater. In turn, protozoa feed on the bacteria and help prevent the biomat from
becoming so dense that it clogs the filter. This balance between the various life forms
and the physical and chemical processes that take place in the sand filter results is
extremely efficient in wastewater treatment requiring minimal operation and
maintenance. Eventually, the biomat becomes clogged, and the top layer of sand needs
to be raked or removed as part of regular filter maintenance.

 Sand filters cost less to construct in rural areas than centralized treatment
systems.

 They are energy-efficient

 They have relatively low maintenance requirements but should be serviced by

trained technicians.

 They can provide high quality effluent.

 Sand filters may enable development in difficult sites.

 They can remedy an existing malfunctioning system.

 They can be a good option for homes in environmentally sensitive areas.

Page 26 of 134
ID: 1114132

Table 2.5: Sand Filter Maintenance

Item Requirement

Pre-treatment Depends on process (septic tank, aerobic unit, etc.)

Pumps and Check every 6 months.

controls

Timer sequence Check and adjust every 6 months.

Appurtenances Check every 6 months.

Raking Check every 6 months. If drainage time between doses has increased
significantly, rake top 3 in. (for surface filters only).

Replacement Skim media when heavy incrustations occur. Add new media when
depth falls below 24 in. Rest when ponded continuously. Replace top
2-3 in. media when surface ponds more than 12 in. deep. Rest while
alternate unit in operation (60 days).

Other Weed as required, Maintain distribution device as required, Protect

against ice sheeting on the surface of the filter, Check high water
alarm (for single pass sand filters only).

The filter design and local costs for labour and materials are dependent on exact costs
for sand filter construction, operation, and maintenance. Costs for pre-treatment and
additional treatment and disposal also need to be factored in when calculating the
entire system costs.

The filters can be constructed or assembled onsite using local labour and materials as
construction of the sand filter units themselves usually is economical. Land and media
costs are two most significant factors that affect the cost of sand filter treatment. In areas
where media is expensive or needs to be hauled a long distance, costs are much higher.

Page 27 of 134
ID: 1114132

Operating costs include electricity used by the pump, and the cost for inspections and
maintenance.

2.3.2 Disinfection
Disinfection is normally the last step before final disposal. This practice removes and
reduces about 99.5 percent of microorganisms and waterborne pathogenic organisms
that would otherwise be transmitted to human beings. Protection of public water
supplies, fish and aquatic life, irrigation and agricultural waters is ensured by
disinfection. The most common types of disinfection are UV radiation, halogens
compounds like chlorine, chlorine dioxide, bromine, sodium hypochlorite and use of
ozone.

2.3.2.1 UV radiation
This method is a highly effective means of disinfection but has no residual capacity
which means re-growth of microorganisms is possible. The efficiency of UV radiation
depends on the quality and temperature of water, turbidity, flow rate and also UV
transmittance. UV disinfection is now becoming an economically competitive
alternative to chlorination and ozonation and does not generate toxic or genotoxic by
products. It is a physical process that instantaneously neutralizes microorganisms as
they pass by ultraviolet lamps submerged in the effluent.

2.3.2.2 Ozone
Air or oxygen-generated ozone is a highly effective disinfectant. It is
normally generated on-site by electrical discharge and is thus energy intensive. Ozone
has the same effects as UV radiation means it has no residual effects.

2.3.2.3 Chlorination
Chlorine is the most widely used disinfectant in water and wastewater treatment. It is
used to destroy pathogens, control nuisance microorganisms, and for oxidation.. It is,
however, a highly toxic substance and recently concerns have been raised over handling
practices and possible residual effects of chlorination.

Page 28 of 134
ID: 1114132

2.4 Literature review on sludge thickening, digestion and gas handling

Sewage sludge consists of organic and inorganic solids present in the raw wastewater
that were removed in the primary settling tank, as well as the organic solids generated
during the activated sludge process, removed in the final sedimentation tank. Typically
in the form of a liquid or semisolid, the sludge contains 0.25 to 12 percent solids by
weight, depending on the treatment chosen for the wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy,
2003). Sludge handling, treatment and disposal are quite complex as a result of the
unpleasant constituents present, varying with the type of wastewater and the process
involved.

2.4.1 Thickening of sludge

Thickening is a process of increasing the solids content of sludge by removing a portion
of its liquid content, decreasing its volume, and also to increase the efficiency and
decrease the costs of subsequent sludge-processing steps (Ghebremichael, 2004. The
thickened sludge remains in the fluid state. Thickening of WAS is important owing to
its high volume and low solids concentration. A number of technologies are available
to achieve thickening namely: gravity thickener, gravity belt, rotary drum thickener.
Described below, dissolved air flotation and centrifugation (Ghebremichael and
Hultman, 2004).

2.4.1.1 Gravity thickener

The mechanism of a gravity thickener is similar in design to primary clarifier; sludge is
fed to a centre feed well and is allowed to settle and compact before being withdrawn
from the bottom of the basin. The sludge scraping mechanism is often provided with
vertical pickets, which gently agitate the sludge, contributing to its densification by
releasing trapped gas and waters. The thickened sludge is pumped to digesters or
dewatering equipment, while the supernatant is returned to the head works of the
treatment plant, or to the primary settling tank (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)

2.4.1.2 Flotation
Dissolved air flotation is used for thickening of sludge that originates from suspended
growth biological treatment processes. It involves the introduction of air into a sludge
solution that is being held at an elevated pressure. When the solution is depressurized,

Page 29 of 134
ID: 1114132

the dissolved air is released as finely divided bubbles which attach to the suspended
solids. The floating solids are collected by a skimming mechanism similar to a scum
skimming system. (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)

2.4.1.3 Centrifugation
Centrifuges are used to thicken and dewater waste activated sludges. They involve the
settling of sludge particles under the influence of centrifugal forces. Two basic types of
centrifuges are the solid bowl and the imperforate basket.

2.4.1.4 Gravity belt

Gravity belt thickeners consist of a gravity belt that moves over rollers driven by a
variable-speed drive unit. It is used for the thickening of raw and digested sludges after
conditioning by the addition of polymer. The conditioned sludge is fed into a box,
which distributes it evenly across the width of the moving belt. (P.A.Vesilind, 2003)

2.4.2 Sludge disposal

2.4.2.1 For the production of electricity

It is the process of burning dewatered sludge with a moisture content of fifty percent
at existing incineration stations as a fuel for the production of electricity. This way
of disposal can be used if more profit is made with incineration rather than soil
conditioner due to reduce waste volume as ash and electricity production.

2.4.2.2 Sludge as fertilizer

It is a process of converting sludge into NPK granulated fertilizer in which the water
content is first reduced to fifty percent through a filtration process followed by an
exothermic reaction to evaporate the remaining water. Normal dewatered sludge
can achieve a moisture content of fifty percent but for fertilizing purposes, more
water removal is required.

2.4.3 Sludge dewatering

This is a mechanical unit operation where there is a volume reduction greater than that
attained by the thickening process; that is, from about 4 – 20 percent to that of one-fifth,
resulting in a non-fluid material known as sludge cake. The different technologies

Page 30 of 134
 ID: 1114132

available are: 1) vacuum filtration, 2) centrifuge, 3) belt filter press, 4) filter press, 5)
drying beds and 6) lagoons.
i.Vacuum filtration
In this method, vacuum is applied downstream to the filter media, causing the liquid
phase to move through the porous media, thus the separation of solid particles from
water. The vacuum filter consists of a horizontal cylindrical drum that rotates which is
partially submerged in a mat of conditioned sludge and there is a porous media that is
covered on the surface of the drum.

Page 31 of 134
 ID: 1114132

CHAPTER 3: PROCESS CONSIDERATION

The wastewater treatment plant designs require an efficient working capacity with the
lower energy consumption at the lower possible cost, thus the need to carefully choose
the different treatment methods and equipments with regard to the benefits they have
to offer, their inconveniences but also their costs in terms of capital investment and
maintenance. The choices made are not necessarily the best but practical under certain
circumstances. Once the construction of the plant is completed changes in the design or
any other alteration in the choice of equipments or methods cannot be entertained, so
the selection of treatment process and equipments must take into account the amount of
wastewater that will be generated in the design period. Below is the different treatment
methods and equipments used involved for each part of the treatment plant.

3.1 Process consideration for preliminary treatment

3.1.1 Screenings
Table 3.1: Manually versus mechanically cleaned screen bar.

Manually cleaned screen bar Mechanically cleaned screen bar

Inexpensive Expensive

Labor intensive Low labor/ automatic

Inefficient Efficient

Usually found in small plants Used in both small and large plants

Difficult to collect screenings Screenings easily gathered

Page 32 of 134
ID: 1114132

Require frequent raking to avoid Less prone to clogging

clogging

Low maintenance costs High maintenance costs

The mechanically cleaned screen bar is chosen because even though it is expensive, it is
the one that involves less labor as well as is more efficient in terms of removal of
screenings. It has been used at the head works of most medium to large wastewater
treatment plants for the past fifty or more years. The fact that the sewage plant would
be operated continuously, automated units would be favorable for us.

Table 3.2: Design criteria

Item Manually cleaned Mechanically cleaned

Bar size: Width (mm) 5 - 15 5 - 15

Depth (mm) 25 - 80 25 - 80

Bar spacing (mm) 20 - 50 5 - 80

Angle of inclination 45o – 60o 18o – 90o

Approach velocity (m/s) 0.3 – 0.6 0.6 – 1.0

The medium screening mechanical screen bar that has been chosen has bar spacing of
25mm. Two medium screening will be used; of which one will be continuously in use
and the remaining one is kept as spare in case of breakdown. Also, the medium screen
bars will be followed by fine mechanically cleaned screen bars of bar spacing 6mm.
Two fine screening will be used; one of them to be continuously in use while the
remaining one is kept as spare.

3.1.2 Balancing/equalizing tank

Balancing tanks can of two types: in-line equalizing and off-line equalizing tanks, in
which the in-line tank is chosen since off-line tanks require an overflow structure, hence

Page 33 of 134
ID: 1114132

the need for more space and an increase in construction costs. It provides sufficient
storage volume to permit a non-uniform flow of waste water to be collected, mixed and
pumped forward to a treatment system at a uniform rate. For the design, the flow
entering the balancing tank is by gravity.

3.2 Process consideration for secondary treatment

3.2.1 Circular primary settling tank

Two circular or upward-flow tanks, connected in parallel, are being chosen for the
purpose of this design. Wastewater enters at the center and rises vertically to be drawn
off by flowing over a peripheral weir situated at the surface. Mechanical scrapers
collect the sludge, concentrating it towards the center, from where it is removed for
further treatment. Circular tank diameters range from 25 to 150 feet. In a circular tank,
the feed often flows through the center column and then outwards through ports in the
column. The water then flows in a radial direction to a peripheral weir where a baffle is
not required (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003).
Table 3.3: Comparative analysis of rectangular and circular clarifier
Shape Rectangular Circular

Retention time/h 4-8 2-3

Dead spaces Yes No
Short circuiting No Yes
Energy consumption Low High
Sludge collection Complicated Simple
Maintenance
High Low
and operation costs

3.2.2 Secondary treatment methods

After well analyzing all the data obtained (see literature review), we decided to use an
aerobic treatment system mainly because of the following reasons:

 Minimum odor when properly loaded and maintained,

Page 34 of 134
 ID: 1114132

 Large biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removals providing a good quality

effluent,
 High rate treatment allowing smaller scale systems, e.g., less land required;
 The final discharge may contain dissolved oxygen which reduces the immediate
oxygen demand on a receiving water,
 The aerobic environment eliminates many pathogens present in agricultural
wastes.

Compared to anaerobic treatment systems, the most striking advantages of high-rate

aerobic wastewater treatment are:

1. A higher level of treatment which may make a smaller drain field possible,
2. May work when the soil or ground water level will not support a standard septic
system,
3. Help reduce environmental impacts,
4. Helps to protect valuable water resources,
5. Higher efficiency regarding removal of nutrient/COD/BOD,
6. Lower capital cost and rapid recovery of the cost due to high efficiency and good
quality of product,
7. It provides much more sludge than anaerobic systems which is important to our
design because it includes sludge treatment with biogas removal,

By comparison between anaerobic and aerobic systems, anaerobic digestion has more
benefits for consuming less energy to achieve good BOD and COD removal, for the
production of energy as methane which can be used for heating purposes and less
sludge production. However, anaerobic digestion works best for wastewater with COD
above 4000 mg/L, which is not the case with the design COD which is below
1000mg/L, thus aerobic system is chosen. Furthermore, solids that form anaerobically
do not flocculate well, also its effluent needs further treatment which is not economical
and such systems are susceptible to small changes in temperature and pH, thus the
need to control these parameters. There is nutrients removal like nitrogen and
phosphorus and the possibility of yielding methane from waste activated sludge in
aerobic systems making it a better choice than anaerobic systems (Metcalf and Eddy,
2003). However, the activated sludge process differs in two ways:

i.Aerobic tank with mechanical aerators

ii.Aerobic tank with diffusers (Diffused air systems)

Page 35 of 134
ID: 1114132

3.2.3 Aeration equipments

Diffusers are preferred over mechanical aerators since they have low maintenance cost
and high oxygen efficiency, thus more efficient in terms of energy consumption. They
also have the inconvenience of being clog, but still this can be overcome by a sudden
increase in air pressure.

Fine bubble diffusers, specially ceramic diffusers due to its resistivity to chemical and
biological fouling, are chosen for its high oxygen transfer and aeration efficiencies;
therefore satisfying the demand of oxygen.

3.3 Process consideration for tertiary treatment

3.3.1 Filtration processes

TSS and TDS of secondary treated sewage (from secondary clarifier) will still be at a
high concentration so that further processes will be required. Filtration is one of the
most cost effective processes for removing TSS since the energy requirement is low and
bears no complex reactions. TSS removal methods such as reverse osmosis chemical
precipitation, electrodialysis, distillation and micro/ultrafiltration are overlooked due
to their high energy requirement and investment as well as operating costs. Media
filtration and surface filtration are hence compared. There are various types of filter
media used such as sand, coal, dual media for example sand and coal, or mixed media
(coal, sand and garnet).

3.3.1.1 Sand Filtration

Slow sand filters proved to be uneconomical when compared to rapid sand filters
and micro screen where the efficiency reached were about 60 % for suspended solids
(TSS) and about 40 % for BOD. Operation of a rapid sand filter consists of regular
backwashing. The period between backwashes depends on the quality of the water
being filtered. The purpose of backwashing is to remove the suspended material that
has been deposited in the filter bed during the filtration cycle. Periodic repacking of the
filter bed may be required at infrequent intervals to ensure efficient operation

Page 36 of 134
ID: 1114132

(Negulescu, 2011). Rapid sand filter are preferred compared to slow filter as back
washing occurs rapidly and it has a high filtration rate of about 150 to 200 million
gallons of water per acre per day.

3.4 Disinfection
The most frequent disinfectants are chlorine, ozone and UV rays (See literature review).
UV rays, being highly effective for pathogen sterilization, are also very expensive.
Ozone is highly toxic but not readily available. Considering the effects and
inconveniences of UV rays and ozone, Chlorination is chosen, even though it is
somehow toxic as it increases the total dissolved solids in the effluent, it is the less
expensive one (Hung et al. 2012). It must be noted that due to the selection of the
membrane bioreactor in our system, which has a very high initial cost, we need to
minimize the cost for our other units.

3.5 Process consideration for sludge thickening and digestion

3.5.1 Thickening primary and waste activated sludge

Gravity thickener is the most common type of thickener which can act as a thickener
and achieve blending, important to produce a uniform mixture for subsequent
processes at the same; thereby eliminating the need for a separate blend tank. This type
of thickener is chosen since the solids concentration of 4 – 6 % achieved by a gravity
thickener that is required by the high rate digester. It requires the minimum power
consumption compared to dissolved air flotation and centrifugal thickener. It also has
the least operation skill requirement and operating costs. Conditioning chemicals and
polymer are typically not needed as is the case for gravity belt thickener and rotary
drum thickener. The pH can also be adjusted in this type of thickener which can
provide space for storage (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003).

3.5.2 Stabilization
Anaerobic digestion is the process chosen for the stabilization of sludge since it is a
closed system which eliminates odors. Even though it involves a high capital costs, the
recovery of methane and thus the production of energy offset the high operational costs

Page 37 of 134
ID: 1114132

of the energy intensive aerobic process. This energy can be used for the plant’s own use
decreasing the dependency on external sources. The digested sludge can then be used
as fertilizers or a fuel source. Although a large detention time is required and therefore
a large reactor, the positive outcome is the destruction of pathogens and at the same
time reducing about 50 to 65 % of the total solids mass. Methane captured can be piped
to boilers to generate electricity and produce hot water which can be used for heating
purposes.

3.6 Process Consideration for process in anaerobic digestion

High rate digestion is deemed suitable for the process as it requires less space and short
detention time of 10 – 30 days compared to low rate digestion. Mesophilic digestion is
chosen since the operating temperature for these organisms is 30 – 38 0C; thus reducing
less energy requirement compared to the thermophilic digestion where fluctuations in
temperature can cause process instability and a risk of higher odor potential.
Thermophilic and 2 stage digestion process produce a poorer quality supernatant which
contains dissolved materials; requiring further special treatment. As for the 2-stage
digestion process, it is still under pilot studies and will be more energy intensive;
requiring 2 mixing devices for both tanks.

3.7 Process consideration for sludge conditioning, dewatering and disposal

3.7.1 Type of sludge conditioning

Chemical conditioning is preferred over physical methods where the most common
method is thermal conditioning. Thermal treatment of sludge has a high capital and
operation costs owing to its mechanical complexity and corrosion resistant material
and its requirements in terms of skilled personal. Production of odorous off-gases,
which are not environmental and societal-friendly, can be an inconvenience as it needs
to be collected and treated before release. Chemical conditioning, on the other hand, is
economical, produces increased yields and has a greater flexibility.

Page 38 of 134
ID: 1114132

3.7.2 Type of chemical conditioning aids

Despite, the high costs of polyelectrolyte, an organic polymers; it is chosen over
inorganic chemical aids for their easy handling and less space requirements for the feed
system. Besides, inorganic chemicals can severely corrode dewatering equipment,
increasing the costs of operational and maintenance in the storing, handling. They also
produce an extra kilogram of sludge for every kilogram of inorganic aid used,
increasing the disposal costs. Organic polymers, in contrast, has the advantage of
reducing conditioning costs and are much safer for use and has a dosage feed rate of
3.632 kilogram per ton of dry solids; thereby compensating for its high cost, around $
19.75 per ton dry polymer.

3.7.3 Dewatering
The aim of the dewatering equipment is to achieve fifty percent by dry weight solids
content and centrifuge equipment can produce the required percent. In addition, its
capital cost is low when compared to other methods, there is minimization of odor as it
is an enclosed unit and requires little supervision; thus continuous solid bowl centrifuge
is chosen since it is more suited for high solid content and used for medium and large
plants compared to imperforated basket centrifuge. Filter press has many
inconveniences such as mechanical complexity; high chemical and labor costs and
limitation on filter cloth life while vacuum filtration has low operational costs but
higher initial costs and land requirements.

3.8 Sludge disposal

The proposed method for disposing of dewatered sludge is as a fuel source in power
stations since the electricity demand in on the rise in Mauritius and it will help to move
towards a green island and reduce our dependency on exported fuel sources. Sludge as
compost is a good option but requires large land area and causes odor problems.
Digested sludge usually is too low in nutrients such that its use as fertilizers has some
drawbacks. The other methods such as pyrolysis and gasification are complex disposal
options on pilot basis, requiring highly trained and experienced operators. As for
dumping in landfills, it is not very environment friendly and there is the risk of odor
problems with the leachate formed.

Page 39 of 134
 ID: 1114132

Chapter 4:MASS BALANCE

Table 4.1: Summary of mass balance for sewage flow over the system

Bar
Oil-water Sand filter
Influent screens
separator Eq. tank to Primary MBR to
Stream to
to to Primary Clarifiers sand
to disinfectio
Oil-water clarifiers to MBR filter
Bar screens Eq. tank n unit
separator

Q (m3/d) 70,000 70,000 70,000.0 70,000.0 69,789 69,778 69,673.5

COD
68,880 68,880 68,880.0 69,091 38,000 1221 1221
(kg/d)

BOD
21,490 21,490 12,105 21,491 9,671 2800 1148
(kg/d)

TSS (kg/d) 19,950 1596.7 10,376.6 4,988 4,988 1364.6 478

NH3-N
1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 140.0 140
(kg/d)

NO3—N
1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 623.1 623
(kg/d)

P (kg/d) 700 700 700 700 700 24.5 24.5

Coliforms
(MPN 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,000.0 420,000 420,000 420,000
100mL–1)

Total
114,170 114,170 114,170 98,020 56,509 6,174 3634.5
Page 40 of 134
(kg/d)
ID: 1114132

Table 4.1: Summary of mass balance for sewage flow over the system [continued from table 4.1]

Disinfection
Sludge
Streams unit MBR Primary Thickener
Digester to Sludge
clarifier to to Sludge
to Irrigation to thickener Dewatering output
Thickener Digester
Unit
authority

Q (m3/d) 69,777.70 1,831 211 532.3 505.7 69,777.70

COD (kg/d) 1,221.40 9,945 31,091 41,036 4,082.5 1,221.40

BOD (kg/d) 1,120.00 20,852 11,820 23,286 2,328.6 1,120.00

TSS (kg/d) 122.80 13,140 14,963 27,810 9,733.5 122.80

NH3-N
140.00 490 490 490 135.45 140.00
(kg/d)

NO3—N
623.12 903 903 903 490 623.12
(kg/d)

P (kg/d) 24.50 655 655 655 589.5 24.50

Coliforms
(MPN 420 - - - - 420
100mL–1)

Total (kg/d) 3,252 45,985 59,922 94180 16770 3,251.82

Note: Refer to appendix 1 for detailed calculations

Page 41 of 134
ID: 1114132

MASS BALANCE FOR BIOGAS

Table 4.2: Mass balance for biogas

Parameters Flow rate (m3/d)

Total biogas 7,566.7

CH4 5069.7

CO2 2421.33

H2O 52.8065

H2S 0.1604

Note: Refer to appendix 1 for more detail about the biogas balances

Page 42 of 134
 ID: 1114132

CHAPTER 5: PREIMINARY DESIGN [SIZING]

5.1 Sizing of the preliminary treatment unit

5.1.1 The Oil-Water Separator

Vertical Velocity 0.18083 cm/s

Horizontal flow velocity 1.5 cm/s

minimum vertical cross-sectional area 54 m2

number of channels 2

Width of channel 8m

Depth of channel 3.38 m

Length of channel 3.33 m

5.1.2 Bar Screen

Depth of chamber, d 1.50 m

Total width of opening at the rack, w 0.6m

Clear bar spacing 50 mm

Number of bars 12

Width of bar 10 mm

Thickness of bar 50 mm

Width, W of the chamber 0.72 m

Height of rack( allowing 0.6 m of freeboard) 2.0 m

Angle of inclination of the bars to the horizontal, θ 80˚

Page 43 of 134
ID: 1114132

5.1.3 Fine screen

Depth of chamber, d 2m

Total width of opening at the rack,

w 0.45 m

Clear bar spacing 9.5 mm

Number of bars 48

Width of bar 10 mm

Thickness of bar 50 mm

Width, W of the chamber 0.93 m

Height of rack( allowing 0.6 m of

2.63 m
freeboard)

Angle of inclination of the bars to

80˚
the horizontal, θ

Mainly of stainless steel for protection

Material of construction
against corrosion and for higher lifetime

5.1.4 Equalization Tank

Number of Equalization tank 3

Flow rate per tank, Q (m3/h) 967.87 m3/h

Retention time (hours) 3 hours

Area (m2) 556.42 m2

Volume (m3) 3,338.52 m3

Page 44 of 134
ID: 1114132

Length (m) 33.36 m

Breadth (m) 16.68 m

Freeboard (m) 0.5 m

Inlet velocity (m/h) 1.73 m/h

Material of construction Concrete

5.2 Sizing of the secondary treatment units

5.2.1 Primary Clarifier

Number of tank 2 clarifiers in parallel

Flow rate per tank, Q (m3/h) 1458.3

Retention time (hours) 2.5

Area (m2) 1000

Volume (m3) 3646

Tank Diameter (m) 36

Height (m) 3.65

Material of construction Concrete

5.2.2 The Membrane Bioreactor

Shape Rectangular

Total volume 14934 m3

Dimensions (L x B x H) 42.5m × 88 m × 4.4 m

Number Of channels 20 channels

Material reinforced concrete

Page 45 of 134
ID: 1114132

Water temperature 28 0C brought to 20 0C

Liquid depth 7m

Fine bubble ceramic diffuser

Aeration system Oxygen demand =
3
1565.40 𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑂2⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Aeration period 5.12 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠

Diffuser submergence 7m

Oxygen transfer efficiency (OTE) 35%

Aeration configuration Covering the floor completely

Using a centrifugal blower

Air supply feeding
7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

SRT 10 days

𝐾𝑔
BOD vol. loading 0.938
𝑚3 . 𝑑𝑎𝑦

F/M 0.3

5.3 Sizing of the tertiary treatment units

5.3.1 Sand Filter

Number of sand filter 1

Flow rate/ sand filter, Q (m3/h) 69,674 m3/day

Area (m2) 87.5 m2

Breadth (m) 9.35 m

Length (m) 9.35 m

Page 46 of 134
ID: 1114132

Volume (m3) 305.98 m3

Under drain depth (m) 0.8 m

Filtration duration (h) 20 hours (per day)

Reinforced concrete is used

Material of construction for the tank with the filter
media being sand.

5.3.2 Chlorination
Number of tank 4

Flow rate of NaOCl /channel, Q 0.00564 m3/s

Volume of 1 tank 362.9 m3

Volume of 4 tanks 1,451.5 m3

Depth 1.8 m

Breadth 2.2m

Cross sectional area 3.96 m2

Length 91.6 m

Length of each channel 30.5 m

5.3.3 Thickener
Number of thickeners 2

Volume (m3) 956.12 m3

Surface area (m2) 152.59m2

Diameter (m) 13.94 m

Page 47 of 134
ID: 1114132

Side water depth (m) 5.8 m

Depth at central hopper (m) 7.19 m

Thickening period (days) 3.48 days

Total flow (m3/d) 548.94 m3/d

Reinforced concrete for tank while inner

Material for construction equipments are of stainless steel,
resistant to corrosion

5.3.4 Sludge Digester

Number of digesters 2

Volume (m3) 2019.6 m3

Area (m2) 176.71m2

Diameter (m) 15 m

Side wall height (m) 13.22 m

Central hopper depth (m) 14.72 m

Amount of VSS in thickened

13511.96 Kg/d
sludge (Kg /d)

Reinforced concrete is used for the

digesters while any other
Material for construction
equipment is made up of stainless
steel.

Page 48 of 134
ID: 1114132

5.3.5 Dewatering Tank

FIRST TANK

Number of tank 1

Surface area 1.85 m2

Volume designed 1.92 m x 0.96 m x 1m + 0.5m (freeboard)

Total solids flowrate 763 kg/hr

total amount of polymer

2.771 kg/hr
used

Fiber glass is used. Inox stainless steel is chosen the

Material for construction
stirrer.

MATURATION TANK

Number of tank 1

Volume designed 1.85m3

Surface area 1.85 m2

Flow rate of polymer

17.08 m3 /hr
solution

Fiber glass is used. Inox stainless steel is chosen the

Material for construction
stirrer

Note: Detailed calculation can be obtained from appendix 3.

Page 49 of 134
 ID: 1114132

CHAPTER 6: ENERGY BALANCE

% of the
Total power total
Infrastructure Units using power
(kWh)/day
(%)

 Screen Bar (Fine +

Preliminary -72.0
Medium) 0.25
treatment -23.6
 Oil-water separator

4 Scrappers in PST + 4
Primary treatment sludge pump + -5604.48 14.37
8 dosing pump

MBR tanks + clarifiers -8241.11 21.13

Secondary
treatment 12 centrifugal pumps + 1
-435.2 1.12
centrifugal blower

Pumps
Tertiary treatment -25.6 4.57

Thickening + 2 pumps+ 2
-2693.96 6.90
scrappers

2 pumps -6978.16 17.89

Sludge handling & Digestion + 2 pumps + 2

-7758 19.89
conditioning draft tube

2 Stirrers (polymer and

-1725.3 4.42
ageing tank) + 2 pumps

Dewatering + 2 pumps -6.356 0.02

Building Electricity -2340 6

Total -35808 100

Page 50 of 134
 ID: 1114132

CHP +17185 48
Net electricity to be taken from CEB 18623 52
Energy is the measure of the use of electricity over time. It is measured in kilowatt-
hours (kWh). One kWh is a kW used for 1 hour. The minus sign (-) indicates electricity
consumption whereas the plus sign (+) refers to electricity production. Energy balances
can be calculated theoretically, based on the running time and power consumption of
the equipment.

The calculations are shown in Appendix 2.

CHAPTER 7: PRELIMINARY HAZOP

The common hazards in a wastewater treatment plant include physical injuries,
confined spaces, electric shock, explosive gas mixtures and noise. Most of the accidents
and incidents occurring on the site are due to unsafe work practice or incorrect
procedures and inadequate supervision. The HAZOP process is used to identify
potential hazards and operational problems in terms of plant design and human error.

7.1 The oil-water separator

Hazard Deviatio Possible Consequenc
Parameters Safeguard Action
s n causes es
1. Contact 1. Chemicals Provide Assistance
with absorbed hand should be
the through skin gloves and provided
Wastewate when in stay away and
High;
r; contact with from the immediate
Good
wastewater. wastewate actions
State/
r should be
Bad state
Toxic taken in
Person substances case of
al present Skin
Safety in Contact
wastewater 2. Needle 2. Disease
stick can also
injury enter the
when body
removing through cuts
screenings and abrasion
from a bar
screen

Page 51 of 134
ID: 1114132

Screen 1. Efficiency Two- stage 1.

blockage of screens screen in Provide a
or decreases; order to sensor and
Clean/ clogging facilitate an alarm to
Unclean; safe monitor
Good cleaning; the risks of
State/ to reduce blockage;
Cleaning
Bad state the
and
possibility
Maintenan
of
ce
blockage;
2. Wastewate to allow regular
r unable to proper check up
pass through maintenan and
causing ce maintenan
overflow; ce should
be done

7.2 Screening
Hazards Causes Consequences Preventive measures
Can result in health problems Provide correct
such as nausea, nerve storage, increase
irritations in respiratory tracts, frequency of removal
Inappropriate mouth or eyes and may cause and disposal
Obnoxious
or extended breathing difficulties,
odors
storage of sneezing, swelling of nasal
and vermin membranes, tearing of the eyes
screenings
etc.

Slows down or completely Spot the source of

stops the uniform wastewater excessive debris and
flow and this may stop the stop it.
Abnormal treatment process completely.
Excessive
quantity of
screen
debris in the
clogging
wastewater.

Page 52 of 134
ID: 1114132

Provide a coarser rack

Low velocity
through the
rack

Retune the timer cycle

or fit a level override.

Automatic
rake action
not frequents
enough.

Remove flow
Excessive Low irregularities, reslope
grit velocities in the floor, rake the
accumulation the channel channel and flush
frequently.
Eliminate the
Jammed obstruction
Obstruction
raking
still on the
mechanism
screen
will not reset

Seek advice from

Moment
manufacturer
setting too
concerning setting
fine
arrangement

Screen not
Broken chain, Inspect the rakes,
being raked
cable or limit switches and chains,
but motor is
switch replace them if needed.
working

Page 53 of 134
ID: 1114132

Rake not Check control circuits

Defective
functioning- and motors and
control
no detectable replace them is
mechanism
reasons necessary.

7.3 Equalization Tank

Hazard Deviatio Possible Consequenc Safeguar
Parameters Action
s n causes es d
Solids This can Protective Local
building mean safety goggle, exhaust
up can issues, face ventilation
cause excess shields, is installed
septicity, electricity impervio to remove
Risks of growth of costs, excess us gloves airborne
overflo filaments, polymer or and contaminant
Solid
w due organic chemical chemical s.
accumulati high
to acids, consumption boots
on
Blockag gassing and excess should be
e and solids worn.
sometime handling
s even costs.
H2S
generatio
n.

7.4 Primary Clarifier

Possible Consequenc
Parameters Deviation Safeguard Action
causes es
Without a 1. the Provide a Regular
support at blades get bottom steady maintenance
the bottom, damaged bush which should be
the rake when it supports the done
assembly strikes the central rotary
Sludge swings bottom shaft of the
High/ Low
Removal around. violently; rake.
2. the
blades do
not sweep
the floor
uniformly

Page 54 of 134
ID: 1114132

7.5 The Membrane Bioreactor

Hazard Deviatio Possible Consequence Safeguar
Parameters Action
s n causes s d
Safety Constructio High Safety Falling into Hand Emergenc
n and rules and the ponds railing y
maintenanc regulation causing provided measures
e s not injuries; at all should be
properly places provided;
abided where provide
there is with
potential protective
of falling clothing
around and other
all tanks personal
and other protective
places equipmen
where t and
falling chemical
height is resistant
greater clothing to
than 1.5m avoid
exposure
of skin
DiseaseUse of
caused by
life buoys
infectious and
agents like
Safety
protozoa, jackets to
virus uponget the
skin contact;person
out of
water;
chronic Bridges
poisoning by must
inhalation

Page 55 of 134
ID: 1114132

7.6 Sand Filter

Paramete Deviatio Possible Consequence
Hazards Safeguard Action
rs n causes s
Exposur Serious health Wear 1. Limit
e to UV problems personal the UV
radiation protective radiation;
equipmen
t and
Chemical
Risk of
resistant
causing UV High/lo
Clothing
health radiation w
2.
problem
Equipmen
t must be
designed
with safe
handling
in mind

7.7 Thickener
Parameter Deviatio Possible Consequence Safeguar
Hazards Action
s n causes s d
Major Gases High Odor 1. Discomfort Safety 1. Limit the
spills of such as Spreadin and mask are access to
liquor or methane g psychological provided such places
cake and HsS problems
sludge: related to bad
smells of the
waste
Risks of 2. Contain 2. Check
slippery the spills valves and
surfaces within an pipe works
earth bund for leaks
and absorb
the contained
liquid using
additional
sand / earth

Page 56 of 134
ID: 1114132

Spillage 3. Earth 3. Respect

/ contaminated the
Pollutio with liquid maintenanc
n sludge should e and
be treated as servicing
such schedules
Low 4. For cake 4. Safe
height spills, dispose systems of
objects: of cake to an work and
open skip for practice
removal off- should be
site adopted
Injury 5. Clean-up
on the personnel
head must
shower and
disinfect
themselves
before
leaving the
site

7.8 Digester
Deviati Possible Consequen Safeguar
Hazards Parameters Action
on causes ces d
Safety Flammable High Formati Risks of fire 1. Avoid 1. Obey all
problems gases on of or being safety
Flamma explosion exposed instructions
ble gases to this concerning
unit for a entry into
long confined
period of spaces e.g.
time; check
atmosphere for
oxygen or
poisonous
gases,

Page 57 of 134
ID: 1114132

2. Wear 2. use
personal respiratory
protective protection
equipmen equipment if
ts and needed,
Chemical
resistant
Clothing
3. have a co-
worker stand
guard in case
of need for
help

Risks of Friction Low/H Due to Damage to Seek Wearing of ear

hearing igh vibratio the ears medical protection
damage n and help if equipments
from the motors exposed
operation too long
of pumps
Risks of cleaning Low/H Due to leads to Remove Install a
clogging and igh presence high scum skimmer in the
maintenanc of fats effluent layer settling
e (formation suspended from the compartment
of scum solids container
layer in the and
settler) regularly
do the
maintena
nce
Risks of cleaning Compl Due to uneven Regular Arrange for a
Blockage and ete/ hydrolys distribution maintena system to clean
of the maintenanc Incomp is of fats of waste nce the reactor
nozzle at e lete over the should be easily
the inlet reactor done
system

Page 58 of 134
 ID: 1114132

CHAPTER 8: WASTE TREATMENT

As the treatment of wastewater is ongoing, there is generation of waste products that
needs to be handled and disposed of in the most efficient, economical way to prevent
any environmental harm. When waste is created, it gives priority to preparing it for re-
use, then recycling, then recovery, and last of all disposal (Da Zhu,P U Asnani,2008).

8.1 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT

8.1.1 Oil-Water Separator

The oil removed from the oil-water separator can be sent to an oil refinery industry.

8.1.2 Screen bars and grit chamber

Screen bars and grit particles such as sand, clay are removed and are sent to the landfill
since it is considered to be the most efficient and environmental friendly method.

8.1.3 Primary sedimentation tanks

Primary sludge has to be treated and handled properly as it contains pathogens and can
cause odor and health problems. It is sent to the sludge handling unit for further
treatment such as anaerobic digestion.

8.2 SECONDARY TREATMENT

8.2.1 The MBR Tank

Sludge from the MBR has more or less the same characteristics as primary sludge but
the particles are fine and cause more odors. A large portion of it is recycled in the
aeration basin.

8.3 TERTIARY TREATMENT

8.3.1 Sand filter

Solids particles are trapped in the media during the filtration in the sand filter. These
are further treated and safely disposed as a waste solid. These can be used in fertilizers
or other by products.

8.4 SLUDGE TREATMENT

8.4.1 GRAVITY THICKENER

 Supernatant from thickener:

Page 59 of 134
ID: 1114132

As the solid content of the sludge is increased, a small fraction of the liquid is removed.
This liquid is overflowed from the thickener. It is returned to the inlet of the primary
wastewater treatment plant for further treatment.

 Scum on the surface of the thickener:

It is found on the surface of the thickener: caused by prolonged retention time in the
thickener. It is pumped to digester immediately after removal for treatment since scum
is full of pathogens that can be deactivated during digestion process.

8.4.2 FINAL DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE CAKE

8.4.2.1 Land filling

Landfills can be used for all types of sludge since they are designed to prevent the
contamination of ground water and to prevent the migration of the wastes from the
landfill. It also has a cover for avoiding penetration of wastewater by rainwater. The
sump collects leachate from the landfill and is pumped to a wastewater treatment plant.

8.4.2.2 Composting
It is the biological decomposition of organic constituents in the water. Compost is
made by mixing sludge with a bulking agent to ensure that the mixture can be aerated
for an accelerated aerobic degradation process; and thus drying it. The resultant
product can be applied on land. (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)

8.4.2.3 Pyrolysis and gasification of sludge

 Pyrolysis

It is a thermal treatment process in which the sludge (or biomass) is heated under
pressure to a temperature of350–500 °C in the absence of oxygen. In this process, the
sludge is converted into char, ash, pyrolysis oils, water vapor, and combustible gases.
Part of the solid and/or gaseous products of the pyrolysis process are incinerated and
used as heating energy in the pyrolysis process.

 Gasification

Page 60 of 134
 ID: 1114132

This involves the breakdown of dried sludge (or biomass) in an ash and in combustible
gases at temperatures usually about 1000 °C in an atmosphere with a reduced amount
of oxygen.

Pyrolysis and gasification of sewage sludge have some potential advantages compared
to incineration. One advantage is that the conversion of the combustible gases of both
systems into electrical power can be achieved more efficiently (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).

8.4.2.4 Sludge incineration:

All organics are incinerated with the resulting heat recovered by preheating fluidizing
air and/or generating steam. Ash/fines are recovered using a flue gas cyclone with
water quench/ slurrying conveying system at its bottom and a two stage flue gas
scrubber. The main types of incinerators are: multiple hearth and fluidized bed.
(Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)

8.5 BIOGAS

Biogas is a gas that is formed by anaerobic microorganisms in the anaerobic digester.

These microbes feed off carbohydrates and fats, producing methane and carbon
dioxides as metabolic waste products. This gas can be harnessed by man as a source of
sustainable energy. . During the upgrading process the calorific value of the biogas is
increase from 6.5 kW to 9.7 kW.

CHAPTER 9: CONTROL STRATEGY

As per the Process instrumentation diagram, several pump control, chemical storage
tank and process level controls or alarms are implemented to properly control the flow
rates.

9.1 Control of Liquid level

Table 9.1: The control of liquid level for the whole plant

Sensing device Unit Control actions

Float: The liquid level is In When water is at its maximum level, the
detected and converted receiving valve at receiving chamber will close,
onto an electric signal to causing the opening of the storage tank

Page 61 of 134
ID: 1114132

produce a control signal chamber (another receiving chamber).

for immediate actions.
Screening When water already to its level an alarm
will be heard to avoid overflow or there
PSTs will be an automatic closing of valve
and the next valve will be open to fill
the other tanks.

Polymer When there is a change in the level of

solution in solution, the position the stem of the
maturation level control valve is altered, controlling
tank the amount of polymer fed into the
maturation tank from the dissolving
tank.

Ultrasonic level measuring Equalizing When the maximum level has been
devices: A pulse of tank reached, the valve will be closed,
ultrasonic wave is causing water to be stored in preceding
In rapid
generated which bounce units.
gravity
off the liquid surface. The
sand filters
echo and echo’s travel time
is detected and calculated
respectively, which is then
converted to a level In As the maximum water surface has
measurement. anaerobic been reached, the sludge inflow to
digester digester and outflow of gravity
thickener close. This will cause the
primary and WAS to be stored in the
spare primary sedimentation tank.

an optical sludge level In the whereby the sludge level blanket should
detector is used which Gravity be measured, taking into consideration
determines the thickener its corrosivity and sticking process,
concentration of sludge
through the intensity of
light

9.2 Control of Flow

Table 9.2: The control of flow rate for the whole plant

Page 62 of 134
ID: 1114132

Flow nozzle meter: works by differential In pipes

pressure.

Electromagnetic Flow meter: It works by Diluted polymer

the principles of electromagnetic from dissolving
induction. When the fluid flows through tank to
the metering tube, a magnetic field is maturation tank
applied, resulting in a potential difference
Water for
which is proportional to flow velocity
polymer dilution
perpendicular to the flux lines
in the dissolving
tank

Digested sludge
towards
centrifuge

Centrate towards
the primary units As the flow increases or
decreases, a signal is sent such
Dry polymer
that the inlet valve adjusts itself
from hopper to
to the preset flow rate.
dissolving tank

Ultrasonic flow meter: A pulse of Rapid gravity

ultrasonic wave is generated on the liquid filters
surface. The resonance and resonance time
Chlorination
is sensed and measured. This time is then
converted to flow measurement.

Magnetic flow meter: As the sludge passes waste activated

through the meter, generating a magnetic sludge in
field, the voltage produced is measured thickener
and converted into velocity; thus flow rate.
To

anaerobic
digester

RAS

(Return

Page 63 of 134
ID: 1114132

Activated
Sludge)

Orifice meter: It consists of a straight Digester

If the flow rate is too high or
length of pipe inside which an orifice
gas flow low, the flow is adjusted to the
affects the flow by inferring the rate of
pre-set value.
flow by measuring the pressure difference.

9.3 Control of temperature

The process of digestion occurs through the action of microorganisms which break
down the organic matter into the resulting products of carbon dioxide and methane.
However, these microorganisms have an optimum growth temperature. Large
fluctuations in temperature can cease or slow down considerable the production of the
large, stable population needed for digestion process. To measure the temperature, a
thermocouple is used.

Table 9.3: The control of temperature for the whole plant

Thermocouple: It MBR In low or high temp the mean cell residence time
operates on the can be raised or decreased accordingly.
Aeration
principle that
tank
current flows in a
circuit made of two Chlorination Any change in temp will cause the flow/amount
different metals of chlorine to be added to change
when the two
electrical junctions Anaerobic If the temp of the digester goes down, part of the
between the metals digestion digester contents is recycled to the heaters.
are at different
temperatures.

9.4 Control of pH
The control of pH is an important parameter to achieve the norms for irrigation and to
be within the range, chemicals are added to control pH.

Page 64 of 134
 ID: 1114132

Table 9.4: The control of pH for the whole plant

pH meter MBR If the pH is not that

Aeration required, buffering agents
tank such as NaHCO3 will be
added.
Glass electrode: The electrode In
produces a voltage related to anaerobic
Buffering agents is added
hydrogen ion activity and to pH. The digester
into the mixing stream of
pH is determined by measuring the
the digester.
voltage against a reference electrode.

9.5 Control of Pressure

Pressure should be controlled in the gas holder to prevent bursting and this is achieved
by using a pressure relief valve whereby as soon as the desired pressure is reached, the
valve is automatically closed. Also, Pressure monitoring should be done in the
anaerobic digester, too high or too low pressure will cause an explosion or even
collapse; thus the flow of gas must be increased or gas stored in the digester
respectively.

Table 9.5: The control actions for pressure in the plant

Mechanical pressure gauges: Anaerobic Too high or low pressure will

It works on the principle of digester cause an explosion / collapse;
physical displacement caused thus the flow of gas must be
by changes in pressure, shown increased or gas is stored in the
by a link to indicator or digester respectively.
pointer on a scale.

CHAPTER 10: PRELIMINARY COSTING

A large sum of money is required to purchase and install the necessary machinery and
equipment before the full operation of industrial plant. Land and service facilities must
be obtained and the plant must be constructed with all the piping system, controls and
services, together with the money for the payment of expenses involved in the plant
operation known as working capital.

Page 65 of 134
ID: 1114132

10.1 Cost of Equipment

Table 10.1: Equipment costs

Equipment QTY Cost ( Rs) / unit Total Cost / Rs

Coarse screens (Inclined bar
screen with rack and pinion
1 2 253,150 506,300
system- Infilco Degremont bar
screen)
Fine bar screen (Fine straight bar
2 2 305,000 610,000
screen GFD type)
Rectangular in-line equalization
3 1 300,212.17 300,212
tank equipped with mixer
4 Circular clarifier 2 23,082,825.07 46,165,650
5 MBR 1 3,536,920 3,536,920
Rapid Sand Filtration equipped
6 1 226,441.24 226,441
with an inlet chamber
7 Thickener 1 40,371,838.51 40,371,839
Square Based UASB sludge
8 1 6,955,415.34 6,955,415
digester
9 Centrifuge 1 2,003,400 2,003,400
10 Pumps 9 61,500 553,500
15,762,107.85 15,762,108
11 Oil separator 1

Total Purchase Equipment Cost 116,991,785

10.2 Calculating of working capital

Assumptions:

 1 kg of sludge cake will be sold at Rs 3.00

 1 m3 of treated water will be sold at Rs 1.

 all biogas produced will be used in the plant itself for providing energy for
pumps and other equipments(Calculation to be done in appendix)

Page 66 of 134
 ID: 1114132

1) For sludge cake, total sludge cake = 14,492.71 kg/d (from mass balance)

Total revenue = 14,482.91 kg/d× 365×2 = Rs 10,572,524.30

2) For treated water, total amount of treated water = 70000m3/d

Total revenue 70000 × 365 × 0.70= Rs 17,885,000

Hence, total income = Rs 28,457,524

3) 10 % income tax = 10 % × Rs 32,837,498.75

= Rs 2,845,752.4

4) Net income = Rs 28,457,524 - Rs 2845752.4 = Rs 25,611,771.6

10.3 Calculating payback period

Payback period = Total capital investment/ total income

= Rs 181,821,085.30/ Rs 25,611,771.6

= 7.0

Hence the payback period is estimated to be around 7 years.

CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSIONS

The objective of the project was to design a wastewater treatment plant which can treat
domestic wastewater with the inlet parameters as stated in the design statement in the
introduction.

The wastewater received at the head works undergoes oil-water separation, screening,
grit removal as preliminary treatment, primary sedimentation, activated sludge process
for the destruction of many of the inlet parameters such as BOD, COD and also
nitrification and de-nitrification and the most important treatment in the plant being the
disinfection unit where 99.8 percent of the total coliforms count were deactivated. All
these treatment units were necessary for the treated wastewater to meet the standards
for effluent regulations for irrigation. Mauritius, being a water-stressed country can

Page 67 of 134
ID: 1114132

benefit on the re-use of wastewater such that it does not have to utilize fresh water for
irrigation and this water can be used for other purposes.

Almost all the waste within the treatment unit was analyzed, with sludge production
being the major waste. The sludge was treated by anaerobic digestion after being
thickened. The choice for this treatment was the recovery of energy to be used for the
plant, thus reducing the electricity bill.

An energy analysis was performed for the consumption of electricity for the different
equipments in the treatment plant with 22% taken up by the activated sludge process,
while on the other side; energy is being generated by the biogas. The percentage of
energy generated is 48, that is; requiring only 52 percent for the operation of the plant.

The equipments used in the treatment plant have to be purchased and the tanks,
chambers and other buildings constructed making up the capital investment together
with the installation, piping and other costs. The income for the plant comes from the
sales of wastewater for irrigation and sludge cake to power station and thus the range
for payback period is about 7 years.

Hence we can conclude that the wastewater treatment plant can provide an
environmentally friendly, cost effective production of the product and most probably
socially acceptable.

References
 Albertson,O.E ,1991,Dewatering Municipal Wastewater sludges, Noyes Data
Corporation Publications

 Ananth S. Kodavasal, 15 August 2011. The STP Guide – Design, Operation and
Maintenance.(Pg 33, 34) Available at: http://kspcb.kar.nic.in/STP-Guide-web(Lo).pdf
 APHA (1992). Standard Methods for the examination of Water and Wastewater,
18th ed. AmericanPublic Health Association/Water Environment Federation,
Washington, DC, USA.

Page 68 of 134
ID: 1114132

 Asano, T.; Burton, F., Leverenz, H.; Tsuchinashi, R. & Tchobanoglous, G. (2006).
Water Reuse:Issues, Technologies and Applications. Metcalf & Eddy/AECOM. ISBN:
978-0-07-145927-3. 1st ed.
 Ayala, D.F.; Ferre, V. & Judd. S.J. (2011). Membrane life estimation in full-scale
immersedmembrane bioreactors. Journal of Membrane Science (in press), doi:
10.1016/j.memsci. 2011.03.013.
 BCC. (2011). Membrane bioreactors: global markets. BCC Report MST047C.
March 2011.

 Berlinwasser Wastewater Basic and Advanced Training Manual Course, Vol 16,
polsh J of Environment

 Brepols, C.; Dorgeloh, E.; Frechen, F.-B.; Fuchs, W. ; Haider, S.; Joss, A.; de Korte,
K. ; Ruiken, C.; Schier, W.; van der Roest, H.; Wett, M. & Wozniak, T. (2008). Upgrading
and retrofitting of municipal wastewater treatment plants by means of membrane
bioreactor (MBR) technology. Desalination, Vol. 231, No. 1-3, pp. 20-26.
 Chang, I.S.; Le-Clech, P.; Jefferson, B. & Judd, S. (2002). Membrane fouling in
membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Engineering,
Vol. 128, No. 11, pp. 1018–1029.

 Cheremisinoff,N.P., 2002. Handbook of Water and Wastewater Treatment

Technologies, U.S.A: Butterworth-Heinemann

 Cicek, N., Franco, J.P., Suidan, M.T., Urbain, V., Manem, J. (1999).
Characterization and comparison of a membrane bioreactor and a conventional
activated-sludge system in the treatment of wastewater containing high-molecular-
weight compounds. Water Environ. Res., Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 64-70.
 Coello Oviedo, M.D., López-Ramírez, J.A., Sales Márquez, D. & Quiroga Alonso,
J.M. (2003). Evolution of an activated sludge system under starvation conditions. Chem.
Eng. J., Vol. 94, pp. 139-146.

 Coulson and Richardson, 2002. Chemical Engineering. Fifth Edition. Vol. 2.

Woburn: Burtherworth Heinemann Publishers.

 Cui, Z.F., Chang, S. & Fane, A.G. (2003). The use of gas bubbling to enhance
membrane processes, Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 221, pp. 1–35.
 Defrance L., Jaffrin, M.Y.; Gupta, B.; Paullier, P. & Geaugey, V. (2000).
Contribution of various constituents on activated sludge to membrane bioreactor
fouling. Bioresource Technology, Vol. 73, pp. 105-112.
 Delgado, S.; Villarroel, R.; González, E. (2010). Submerged Membrane Bioreactor
at Substrate-Limited Conditions: Activity and Biomass Characteristics. Water
Environment Research, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 202-208.

Page 69 of 134
ID: 1114132

 Dennis Gellerman, Steve Clary and Mark Takemoto, 2011, SMCSD Headworks,
Primary and Secondary Treatment Pre-Design

 Desalination, Vol. 231, No. 1-3, pp. 108-114.

 Design and Retrofits of Wastewater Treatment Plants for Biological Nutrient

Removal, Randall et al, p.245

 Dubois, M.; Gilles, K.A.; Hamilton, J.K.; Rebers, P.A. & Smith, F. (1956).
Calorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal Chem.,
Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 350-356.
 Environmental Engineering. 2008-2010. Equalisation Tank Design. Available
at: http://www.4enveng.com/edetails.php?id=58.
 EQ tanks - Equalization Tanks, Flow Equalization Tanks EQ tanks Available at:
http://www.wedotanks.com/eq-equalization-tanks.html.
 Ferrero, G.; Monclús, H.; Buttiglieri, G.; Comas, J. & Rodriguez-Roda, I. (2011).
Automatic control system for energy optimization in membrane bioreactors.
Desalination, Vol. 268, No. 1-3, pp. 276-280.
 Foley, G. (2006) A review of factors affecting filter cake properties in dead-end
microfiltration of microbial suspensions. Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 274, pp. 38–
46.
 Frechen, F.B.; Schier, W.; & Linden. C. (2008). Pre-treatment of municipal MBR
applications.

 Gans, N., Mobini, S. and Zhang, X.N., 2006. Mass and Energy Survey at the
Gaobeidian Wastewater Treatment Plant in Beijing, China. Water and Environmental
Engineering, Department of Chemical Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund
University

 Garcés, W.; De Wilde, C.; Thoeye & De Gueldre, G. (2007). Operational cost
optimisation of

 Handbook of Wastewater Treatment, Spellman, Chapter 18.8.1.1

 Icon. (2008). the 2009-2014 world outlook for membrane bioreactor (MBR)
systems for wastewater treatment. Icon Group Publications.
 Judd, S. (2008). The status of membrane bioreactor technology. Trends in
Biotechnology, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 109-116.
 Judd, S. (2010). The MBR Book. Principles and Applications of Membrane
Bioreactors in Water and Wastewater Treatment, Elvesier, ISBN: 978-0-08-096682-3, 2nd
Ed, London.

Page 70 of 134
ID: 1114132

 Karia G. L & Christian R. A, Wastewater Treatment Concepts and Design

Approach, Easter Ecomomy Edition, Prentice Hall PTR

 Kennedy S, Churchouse SJ (2005) Wastewater Europe Conference. Milan, Italy

 Laera, G.; Pollice, A.; Saturno, D.; Giordano, C.; Lopez, A. (2005). Zero net
growth in a membrane bioreactor with complete sludge retention. Water Research, Vol.
30 No. 20, pp. 5241-5249.
 Le-Clech, P.; Chen, V. & Fane, T.A.G. (2006). Fouling in membrane bioreactors
used in wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science, Vol. 284, pp. 17–53.
 Le-Clech, P.; Fane, A.; Leslie, G. & Childress, A. (2005b). The operator’s
perspective. Filtration & Separation, Vol. 42, pp. 20-23.
 Le-Clech, P.; Jefferson, B. & Judd, S. J. (2005a). A comparison of submerged and
sidestream tubular membrane bioreactor configurations. Desalination, Vol. 173, pp. 113-
122.
 Lesjean, B.; Ferre, V. ; Vonghia, E. & Moeslang, H. (2009). Market and design
considerations of the 37 larger MBR plants in Europe. Desalination Water Treat., Vol. 6,
pp. 227-233.
 Lowry, O.H.; Rosebrough, N.H.; Farr, A.L. & Randall, R.J. (1951). Protein
measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 193, pp. 265-275.
 Masse, A., Sperandio, M. & Cabassud, C. (2006). Comparison of sludge
characteristics and performance of submerged membrane bioreactor and an activated
sludge process at high solids retention time. Water Research, Vol. 40, pp. 2405-2415.
 MBR Schilde. Proceedings of the 4th IWA International Membranes Conference,
Membranes for Water and Wastewater Treatment, Harrogate, UK, May 15-17.
 Meng, F.; Chae. S-R.; Drews, A.; Kraume, M.; Shin, H-S.; Yang, F. (2009). Recent
advances in membrane bioreactors (MBRs): Membrane fouling and membrane material.
Water Research, Vol. 43, pp.1489-1512.

 Metcalf and Eddy, 2003, Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed.,
McGraw Hill, China

 Ms. Anne Butler, Mr. Gerry Carty, Dr. Matt Crowe, Dr. Paddy Flanagan and Ms.
Marion Lambert, 1995, Waste water treatment manuals, preliminary treatment, Ireland

 Napier – Reid, 2007, NR-Coarse Screens, Manual and Mechanical Coarse Screens,
Canada

 Nouri, J., Jafarnia, M., Naddafi, K., Nabizadeh, R., Mahvi, A.H. and Nouri, N.,
2006. Energy Recovery from Wastewater Treatment Plant, Pakistan Journal of Biological
Sciences, Vol. 9, 3-6, pp 3, 6.

 Okun.D.A, Wastewater Engineering, Vol. 1, Prentice Hall PTR

Page 71 of 134
ID: 1114132

 Pearce, G. (2008). Introduction to membranes - MBRs: Manufacturers’

comparison: part 1, Filtration & Separation, Volume 45, pp. 28-31 Pirt, S.J. (1965). The
maintenance energy of bacteria in growing cultures. Proc. R. Soc. London,
 Peng Chau Sewage Treatment Works Upgrade – Investigation, Design and
Construction Environmental Impact Assessment Report (Final). August 2004. Available
at:
http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_0962004/eia/html/Appen
dix_2C.pdf.

 Peters M. S, Timmerhaus K. D, Plant Design and Economics for Chemical

Engineers Fourth Edition, Mc Graw Hill, Inc.

 Peters, M.S., Timmerhaus, K.D., 1991. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers. Fourth edition. Singapour: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

 Pollice A., Giordano, C., Laera, G., Saturno, D. & Mininni, G. (2007). Physical
characteristics of the sludge in a complete retention membrane bioreactor. Water
Research, Vol. 41, pp. 1832-1840.
 Pollice A., Laera, G. & Blonda, M. (2004). Biomass growth and activity in a
membrane bioreactor with complete sludge retention. Water Research, Vol. 38, pp.
1799-1808.

 Rahzia Hendricks, 2011, Assessment of the biological quality of raw and treated
effluents from three sewage treatment plants in the Western Cape, South Africa

 Reemtsma T, Zywicki B, Stueber M, Kloepfer A, Jekel M (2002) Environ Sci

Technol 36:1102
 Rodde-Pellegrin M.L.; Winieswski, C.; Gramick, A.; Tazi, A. & Buisson, H. (2002).
Respirometric needs of heterotrophic populations developed in an immersed
membrane bioreactor working in sequenced aeration, Biochemical Engineering Journal,
Vol. 11, pp. 2-12.
 Rozzi A, Malpei F, Bianchi R, Mattioli D (2000) Water Sci Technol 41:189
 Santos, A. & Judd, S. (2010). The commercial status of membrane bioreactor for
municipal wastewater. Separation Science and Technology, Vol. 45, No. 7, pp-850-857.
 Santos, A; Ma, W. & Judd, S. (2010). Membrane bioreactors: Two decades of
research and implementation. Desalination (in press), doi:10.1016/j.desal.2010.07.063.
 Science and Technology, Vol. 53, No. 179.
 Smith, P.; Vigneswaran, S.; Ngo, H.; Nguyen & H. Ben-Aim, R. (2006).
Application of an automation system and a supervisory control and data acquisition
(SCADA) system for the optimal operation of a membrane adsorption hybrid system.
Water

Page 72 of 134
ID: 1114132

Sudarshan Prasad Mahajan, 2009, Air Pollution Control, TERI Press, India p. 139

 Syed. R, Motley.E.M, Guang Zhu, Chiang.P & Yerby, Water Works Engineering
Planning, Design and Operation, First Edition. Prentice Hall PTR

 Tao, G.; Kekre, K.; Oo, M-H.; Viswanath, B.; Lew, C-H.; Kan, L-M. & Seah, H.
(2009). Large scale membrane bioreactor plant design (retrofit) and optimisation.
Proceedings of the 4th IWA Membrane Technology Conference, Beijing, China, Sept 1-3.

 Tchobanoglous G., Burton F.L., Stensel H.D., Wastewater Engineering Treatment

and Reuse, 4th Edition, Metclf & Eddy Inc, China: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc

 Tottie O., 2008. Evaluation of sludge management in Wuhan, China, Department

of Microbiology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, ISSN 1401-5765

 Trusell, R.; Merlo, R.; Hermanowicz, S. & Jenkins, D. (2006). The effect of organic
loading on process performance and membrane fouling in a submerged membrane
bioreactor treating municipal wastewater. Water Research, Vol. 40, pp. 2675-2683.

 Turovskiy, I.S., Mathai, P.K., 2006. Wastewater Sludge Processing. New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 United Nations, 2003. Waste-water Treatment Technologies: A General Review.

New York: United Nations, E/ESCWA/SDPD/2003/6

 Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M. & Hence, M. (1999). Maintenance, endogenous

respiration, lysis, decay and predation. Water Science and Technology. Vol. 39, No.1,
pp. 107-117.
 Vanrolleghem P.A., van Daele, M. & Dochain, D. (1995). Practical identifiability
of a biokinetic model of activated sludge respiration. Water Research, Vol. 29, pp. 2561-
2570.
 Verrecht, B.; Judd, S.; Guglielmi, G.; Mulder, J. W. & Brepols, C. (2008). An
aeration energy model for an immersed membrane bioreactor. Water Research, Vol. 42,
pp. 4761-4770.
 Verrecht, B.; Maere, T.; Nopens, I.; Brepols, C. & Judd, S. (2010). The cost of a
large-scale hollow fibre MBR. Water Research, Vol. 44, No. 18, pp. 5274-5283.
 Vol. 163B, pp. 224-231.

 Wastewater Treatment Plants: Planning, Design and Operation, 2nd edition by

Syed Qasim, Chemical Coagulation and precipitation, p.347

 Wastewater Treatment plants; planning,design and operations, 2nd edition, Syed

Qasim, p.322-323

Page 73 of 134
ID: 1114132

 Wicaksana, F.; Fane, A.G. & Chen, V. (2006). Fibre movement induced by
bubbling using submerged hollow fibre membranes, Journal of Membrane Science, Vol.
271, pp. 186–195.
 Wilén, B-M.; Nielsen, J.; Keiding, K. & Nielsen, P. (2000). Influence of microbial
activity on the stability of activated sludge flocs. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces,
Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 145-156.
 Wu, J., Le-Clech P., Stuetz, R., Fane, A., Chen, V. (2008). Effects of relaxation and
backwashing conditions on fouling in membrane bioreactor. Journal of Membrane
Science, Vol. 324, pp. 26–32.
 Yang W, Cicek N, Ilg J (2006) J Membr Sci 270:201
 Yoon SH, Kim HS, Yeom IT (2004) Water Res 38:37
 Zaloum R, Lessard S, Mourato D, Carriere J (1994) Water Sci Technol 30:21
 Zhang S. (2000). Polluted water treatment by the combining processes of
membrane separation and biodegradation. PhD thesis, Research Centre for Eco-
Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China.

Page 74 of 134
 ID: 1114132

Appendices 1: Mass Balance

Mass Balance for Preliminary treatment

a. Coarse screen

From literature review:

5-25% BOD removal efficiency (assuming 15 % efficiency)

15-30% TSS removal efficiency (assuming 20% efficiency)

BOD 260.95mg/l
BOD 307 mg/l
Coarse screen
TSS 228mg/l
TSS 285 mg/l
COD 984mg/l
COD 984mg/l
Nitrogen 45mg/l
Nitrogen 45mg/l
Phosphorus 10mg/l
Phosphorus 10mg/l
BOD 46.5 mg/l

TSS 57.0 mg/l

By product

15% of 307 mg/l ----------------- 46.5mg/l

20 % of 285mg/l ----------------- 57.0 mg/l

Performing mass balance for BOD:

Mass inlet = mass of by product + mass of outlet

307 mg/l = 46.5 mg/l + Q

Q = 260.95mg/l

Page 75 of 134
ID: 1114132

The same procedure is done for TSS

Flow rate calculation

Conversion of mg/l to kg/s

For BOD 307 mg/l

307 mg/l-----------------307x10-6 kg/l

307x10-6 kg/l----------------- 307x10-3 kg/m3

1 sec ----------------- 0.8103 m3

1m3 ----------------- 1/0.8103 sec

1m3 ----------------- 1.234 sec

Therefore 307x10-3 kg/m3----------------- 307x10-3/(1.234x1000) kg/s

307mg/l ----------------- 0.2488 kg/s

Kg/s Kg/m3

BOD 0.2438 0.307

COD 0.7974 0.9841

TSS 0.2130 0.2850

NITROGEN 0.0398 0.0450

PHOSPHORUS 0.0081 0.01

Page 76 of 134
 ID: 1114132

Total 1.6311

Approximate density of wastewater in: 1.6311 + 1,000 = 1,001.6311 kg/m3

By product flowrate (kg/s) = 0.0373 kg/s + 0.0462 kg/s = 0.0835kg/s

Flowrate of by-product (m3/s) = by-product flowrate (kg/s) / density of wastewater in

(kg/m3)

Flowrate of by-product (m3/s) = 0.0835/1001.63 = 0.00008336 m3/s

Therefore flowrate of wastewater at outlet = 0.8102 m3/s - 0.00008336 m3/s = 0.810 m3/s

b. Fine screen

From literature review:

20-45% BOD removal efficiency (assuming 30 % efficiency)

25-50% TSS removal efficiency (assuming 35% efficiency)

BOD 260.95mg/l BOD 182.7 mg/l

Coarse screen
TSS 228mg/l TSS 148.2 mg/l

COD 984mg/l COD 984 mg/l

Nitrogen 45mg/l Nitrogen 45 mg/l

Phosphorus 10mg/l Phosphorus 10 mg/l

BOD 78.3 mg/l

TSS 79.8 mg/l

Page 77 of 134
ID: 1114132

By product

30% of 307 mg/l BOD ----------------- 78.3 mg/l

35% of 285mg/l TSS----------------- 79.8 mg/l

Flow rate calculation

Kg/s Kg/m3

BOD 0.2115 0.2610

COD 0.7974 0.9841

TSS 0.1848 0.2280

NITROGEN 0.0398 0.0450

PHOSPHORUS 0.0081 0.01

Total 1.528

Approximate density of wastewater in: 1.528 + 1,000 = 1,001.528 kg/m3

By product flowrate (kg/s) = 0.06345 kg/s + 0.06468 kg/s = 0.1280 kg/s

Flowrate of by-product (m3/s) = by-product flowrate (kg/s) / density of wastewater in

(kg/m3)

Flowrate of by-product (m3/s) = 0.1280/1001.528 = 0.0001278 m3/s

Therefore flowrate of wastewater at outlet = 0.810 m3/s - 0.0001278 m3/s = 0.8099 m3/s

Performing mass balance for BOD:

Mass inlet = mass of by product + mass of outlet

260.95 mg/l = 78.3 mg/l + Q

Page 78 of 134
 ID: 1114132

Q = 182.7 mg/l

The same procedure is done for TSS

c. Equalization Tank

Mass Balance for Secondary treatment

a. Primary Clarifiers

Total flow rate= 2916.7 m3/day

Number of clarifier tank = 2

Flow in one tank = (2916.7/2) = 1458.3 m3/day

I.Assumptions12 :

Average removal efficiencies of primary clarifier,

TSS Removal efficiency= 75%

BOD Removal efficiency = 55%

COD Removal efficiency= 45 %

II.TSS Mass Balance in 1 tank

Concentration = 285 mg/L

Concentration = 0.285 kg/m3

Mass flow rate in = 0.285 × 1458.3 = 415.625 kg/h

Mass out in underflow (in sludge) = 0.75 × 415.625 = 311.71875 = 311.7 kg/h

Mass out in overflow = (415.625 - 311.71875) =103.90625 = 104 kg/h

Total mass in effluent to MBR = 207.8125 = 207.8 kg/h

12
Wastewater Treatment Plants: Planning, Design and Operation, 2 nd edition by Syed Qasim, Chemical Coagulation
and precipitation, p.347

Page 79 of 134
 ID: 1114132

III.BOD balance 1 tank

Concentration of BOD = 307 mg/L

Concentration of BOD = 0.307 kg/m3

Mass flow rate in = 447.7 kg/h

Mass out in underflow (in sludge) = 0.55 × 447.7 = 246.2 kg/h

Mass out in overflow = 447.7 – 246.2 = 201.5 kg/h

COD Balance in 1 tank

Concentration = 987 mg/L

Concentration = 0.987 kg/m3

Mass flow rate in = 1439.4 kg/h

Mass out in underflow (in sludge) = 0.45 × 1439.4 = 647.7 kg/h

Mass out in overflow = 1439.4 – 647.7 = 791.7 kg/h

IV.VOLUME OF SLUDGE DISCHARGED TO THICKENER

Mass flow rate of sludge from one clarifier = 311.7 kg/h

Knowing that typical solids concentrations in raw primary sludge from settling
municipal wastewater are 6%-8%13, an average concentration of 7% will be assumed to
be the solids concentration.

Mass flow rate of sludge equals to the mass of dry solids. Therefore let mass of dry
solids be Sdry = 311.7 kg/h and wet solids be Swet

Accounting for 7% solids by weight,

𝑆𝑑𝑟𝑦 311.7
Swet = = 0.07 = 4453.125 kg/h
0.07

13
Information retrieved from a word document available online at
http://home.engineering.iastate.edu/~leeuwen/CE%20523/Supplementary%20Notes/Sludge%20Disposal.doc

Page 80 of 134
ID: 1114132

The primary sludge density ranges from 1.0 to 1.03 g/cm3 [14] which makes an average
of 1.015 g/cm3 or 1015 kg/m3

Therefore, assuming a sludge density of ρ = 1015 kg/m3, this corresponds to a flow of

𝑆𝑤𝑒𝑡 4453.125
Qsludge from one clarifier = = = 4.38 m3/ h
ρ 1015

Therefore total flow rate from both clarifiers, Qs = 4.38 × 2 = 8.77 m3/ h

Hence,

Flow rate to MBR = 2916.67 – 8.77 = 2907.9 m3/h

14
Wastewater sludge processing, Izrail S. Turovskiy et al, Physical and Biological properties, p.47

Page 81 of 134
 ID: 1114132

b. Mass Balance for the MBR

I.Mass Balance on the MBR

Influent = Waste Sludge + Effluent

 Q = Influent Flowrate

 SE = BOD in Effluent, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

 S0 = BOD in influent, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

Hence BOD efficiency can be calculated as follows:

Given: BOD in domestic wastewater entering Primary Settling Tank = 307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

Assuming BOD removal efficiency in primary clarifier = 40 %

Primary effluent BOD = 307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 × (1 − 0.40) = 184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

Page 82 of 134
ID: 1114132

Therefore;

As assumed permissible limits, that is 40 mg/L = 2800 kg/day is in the effluent

184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 −40𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

BOD Removal Efficiency in MBR = 184𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
× 100 = 78%

Hence;

307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 − 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = ( ) × 100 = 87%
307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

The recycle ratio can be expressed as follows:

𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Typical recycle ratio for conventional activated sludge process = 0.25 – 0.50

Average Recycle Ratio = 0.375

Therefore;

𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑄𝑅 = 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 × 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑄0 = 0.375 × 70000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑄𝑅 = 26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Also by the methodology of Shu Dar lin (2005), 𝑄𝑅 can be expresses as follows:

𝑄0 (𝑥 − 𝑥0 )
𝑄𝑅 =
𝑥𝑤 − 𝑥

Whereby:

X = MLSS concentration, 2500 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

X0 = Primary Effluent TSS, 102.6 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

𝑄𝑅 = 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

70000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 (2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3 − 102.6 𝑔⁄𝑚3 )

26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 =
𝑥𝑤 − 2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3

𝑥𝑤 = 3893.07 𝑔⁄𝑚3

Page 83 of 134
 ID: 1114132

Also;

𝑄𝑅 𝑋
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = =
𝑄0 𝑋𝑅 − 𝑋

Whereby:

𝑋𝑅 is the concentration in recycle sludge and as assumed R is 0.375.

2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝑋𝑅 − 2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3

Inlet Flowrate:XO = Concentration of TSS in influent Primary Settling Tank

Outlet Flowrate:Xe = Concentration of Biomass in effluent

Return Sludge: QR = return flow pumping rate, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Xu = return microorganism concentration

Waste Activated Sludge: QW = Waste flow from recycle waste line, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

And µ = growth of solids (𝑑𝑎𝑦 −1 )

II.BOD Balance around MBR

𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 − 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 + 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝜇𝑋𝑉 𝑑𝑆
(𝑄0 𝑆0 + 𝑄𝑅 𝑆𝐸 ) − (𝑄0 + 𝑄𝑅 )𝑆𝐸 − = 𝑉
𝑌 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑆
𝑉=0
𝑑𝑡
Y = cell yield in kg MLSS/ kg BOD removed
At steady state
𝜇𝑋𝑉
= 𝑄0 𝑆0 − 𝑄0 𝑆𝐸
𝑌
𝜇 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
= 𝑓⁄𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝑌 𝑉𝑥
𝑆0 = 184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

Page 84 of 134
 ID: 1114132

Assuming no chemical changes occur:

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝐸 = 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Therefore:
𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑅 = 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
III.Flow Balance
Influent Flow Q0 = 70,000 m3/day

Initial BOD = BOD0 = 184 g/m3

As calculated:

BOD Efficiency = 78 %

BOD in Effluent = 40 g/m3

IV.Solid Balance on membrane

𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝐴𝑆 = 𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑅 = 𝑋𝑈 𝑔⁄𝑚3 × 𝑄𝑅 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑅 = 10.65 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚3 × 26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 279,562.5 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 𝑋𝑢 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚3 × 𝑄𝑊 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 2367.07 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Assume TSS Removal Efficiency = 81%

Therefore:

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑂𝑓 𝑇𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.19 × 102.6 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 = 19.494 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

= 1364.6 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

V.Balance on VSS on membrane

The removal efficiency of VSS in an MBR system is 90%, therefore;

𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑉𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 10% × 82.08 𝑔⁄𝑚3 = 8.208 𝑔⁄𝑚3= 574.6𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Whereby VSS = 80% TSS = 82.08𝑔⁄𝑚3 =5745.6𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Assuming:

𝑉𝑆𝑆𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 𝑉𝑆𝑆𝑅 = 5745.6 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 − 574.6 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 5171.04 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Page 85 of 134
 ID: 1114132

VI.NH3-N Balance on the membrane skid

Overall Balance:

𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡

𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑂𝑈𝑇 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝐸 + 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆

By the methodology of N.F.Gray, 2005, the removal efficiency of 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁 in an ASP

system is 90%

𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 1400 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 90% × 1400 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 1260 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝐸 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑅 = 1400 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 − 1260 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 140 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

VII.NO3-N Balance on membrane skid

Overall Balance:

𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡

Since nitrification occurs, let 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 be the amount of nitrates obtained by the
nitrification of ammonia.

Therefore:

𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁1 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥

Assuming 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 = 5031.2 Kg⁄day

𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝐸 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆

𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝐸 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆

According to N.F.Gray (2005), Removal Efficiency=90%

Since 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 1200 Kg⁄day 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 = 5031.2 Kg⁄day

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 6231.2 Kg⁄day

𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 0.90 × 6231.2 Kg⁄day = 5608.08 Kg⁄day

𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝐸 = 6231.2 Kg⁄day − 5608.08 Kg⁄day = 623.12 Kg⁄day

𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 623.12 Kg⁄day

𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑅 = 623.12 Kg⁄day

Page 86 of 134
 ID: 1114132

VIII.Phosphorus Balance on the membrane skid

Overall Balance:

[𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚]

= [𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚] + [𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑊𝐴𝑆]

𝑃𝑖𝑛 = 70 Kg⁄day = 1 g⁄m3

Assuming Efficiency of Phosphorus Removal is 65%

𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 65% × 70 Kg⁄day = 45.5 Kg⁄day = 0.65 g⁄m3

𝑃𝐸 = 70 Kg⁄day − 45.5 Kg⁄day = 24.5 Kg⁄day

𝑃𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 24.5 Kg⁄day

𝑃𝑅 = 24.5 Kg⁄day

Page 87 of 134
ID: 1114132

Summary of balances:

Streams Influent
Oil water Equalization Primary Membrane
to Bioreactor
seperator tk clarifiers Skid
screening

Q (m3/d) 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00 69,984.28 69,777.7 69,777.7

COD
65,436.00 68,880.00 65,436.00 48,363.00 1221.4 1221.4
(kg/d)

BOD
20,415.50 21,490.00 20,415.50 12,894.00 2800.0 2800.0
(kg/d)

TSS
17,955.00 19,950.00 17,955.00 3,990.00 3,990.00 1364.6
(kg/d)

NH3-N
1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 1,750.00 140.0
(kg/d)

NO3—N
1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 623.1
(kg/d)

P (kg/d) 700.00 700.00 700.00 700.00 700.00 24.5

Coliforms
(MPN 420,000.00 420,000.00 420,000.00 420,000.0 420,000.0 420,000.0
100mL )–1

Total
107,656.50 114,170.00 107,656.50 69,984.28 11861.4 6,173.6
(kg/d)

Page 88 of 134
ID: 1114132

Mass Balance for Tertiary treatment

a. Sand Filter

Filtration across the sand filter normally achieves reductions of 65% in TSS and 59% in BOD.

Qo SAND FILTER Qe

So Se

Xo Xe

Qo: Flow rate coming from second clarifier

Qe: Flow rate of effluent coming from sand filter

So: Amount of BOD entering sand filter

Se: Amount of BOD leaving sand filter

Xo: Amount of TSS entering sand filter

Xe: Amount of TSS leaving sand filter

Given,

Qo & Qe = 69,673.5 m3/day (flow rate is same for both inlet and outlet)

So = 2800.0 kg/day,

Xo = 1364.6 kg/day

Se = So – (59/100 x So)

= 2800.0 – (59/100 x 2800.0)

= 1148.0 kg/day

Xe = Xo – (65/100 x Xo)

= 1364.6 – (65/100 x 1364.6)

= 477.61 kg/day

Page 89 of 134
ID: 1114132

Calculating whether amount of BOD & TSS are within permissible limits

In a flow rate of 69,673.5 m3/day we get 1148.0 kg/day of BOD

Therefore in,

69,673.5 m3 1148.0 kg of BOD

69,673.5 x 103 L 1148.0 x 106 mg of BOD

1L (1148.0 x 106) ÷ (69673.5 x 103)

1L 16.48 mg of BOD

BOD = 16.48 mg/L

69,673.5 m3 477.61 kg of TSS

69,673.5 x 103 L 477.61 x 106 mg of TSS

1L (477.61 x 106) ÷ (69673.5 x 103)

1L 6.84 mg of TSS

TSS = 6.84 mg/L

Both BOD and TSS are within permissible limit.

b. Chlorination

Parameters r

Q in Q out
Disinfection
Parameters in Parameters
out

Page 90 of 134
ID: 1114132

Assumptions:

 Chlorination is used for the removal of coliforms only.

 Q in = Q out remains constant through UV disinfection.

Efficiency of chlorination unit = 99.9%

Therefore coliforms out = 420 MPN 100 mL–1

Mass Balance for Sludge Treatment

a. Thickener

S thickened sludge

S influentt Seffluent

Gravity thickener
Parameters in Parameters out

S influent = Seffluent+Sthickened slugde

Efficiency of gravity thickener is taken to be 90% from wastewater engineering (Metcalf

& Eddy, 2003)

S effluent=0.90*S influent

= 0.90 x (326.45+ 222.26 + 1282.37)

=1831 m3/d.

S thickened sludge= Sinfluent - S effluent = 183.11 m3/d.

Parameters thickened sludge = Removal efficiency of parameters × Parameters influent

COD thickened sludge= 0.9 x 3454.4 Kg/d

COD thickened sludge = 3109 Kg/d

Page 91 of 134
ID: 1114132

b. Sludge Digester

Qin Qout

CODin CODout

BODin Sludge digester BODout

NH3in NH3out

PO4-in PO4-out

TSSin TSSin

Flowrate, Qin = 532.3 m3/day

The sludge digester has an efficiency of 95%

Qout = 0.95 x 532.3

= 505.7 m3/day

% removal in sludge digester:

TSS: 65%, COD: 90%, BOD: 90%, NH3: 85% and PO4-: 10%

 TSSout = TSSin – (0.65 x TSSin)

= 27,809.9 – (0.65 x 27,809.9)

= 9733.5 kg/day

 CODout = CODin - (0.9 x CODin)

= 40825 – (0.9 x 40825)

= 4082.5 kg/day

 BODout = BODin - (0.9 x BODin)

= 23826 – (0.9 X 23286)
= 2328.6 kg/day
 NH3out = NH3in - (0.9 x NH3in)
= 903 – (0.85 x 903)

Page 92 of 134
ID: 1114132

= 135.45 kg/day
 PO4-out = PO4-in - (0.9 x PO4-in)
= 655 – (0.1 x 655)
=589.5 kg/day

c. Dewatering unit
Scentrate

Parameterscentrat
e

S in
S cake
Centrifuge

Parameters in Parameters cake

S in = Scake+ Scentrate

Scentrare= Removal efficiency = 0.90 (D.C Bacley, 1997) x Sin

Scentrate = 0.9 x 583.77 = 525.39 Kg/d

S cake= Sin - Scentrate

S centrate= 58.38Kg/d

Parameters in = Parameters centrate+ Parameters cake

Parameterscentrate= Removal efficiency of parameters × Parameters in

Parameterscake = Parameters in- Parameters centrate

Page 93 of 134
ID: 1114132

Appendix 2: Energy Balances

Energy balance for Preliminary treatment

a) Screen bars

Assuming both screens uses same amount of power, the energy consumption can be
computed as follows:

Wattage of screen bar = 1.5 kW

E = 2(1.5 x 24) = 72 kWh/d

ρgHQ
Pump energy consumption, PE = (Frank R. Spellman, 2003)
Ƞ

PE is the input power required (W)

ρ is the fluid density (kg/m3)

g is the standard acceleration of gravity

H is the energy Head added to the flow (m)

Q is the flow rate (m3/s)

Ƞ is the efficiency of the pump plant as a decimal

ρ = 2650 kg/m3 for grit removal

g = 9.81 m/s2

Assume H = 2m, Q = 0.001 m3/s and Ƞ = 90 %

Therefore, total PE = 2(2650 x 9.81 x 1 x 0.001) / 0.9 = 57.77 W

57.77 x 24 = 1.386 kWh/d

Total energy consumed by screen bars = 4.374 + 1.386 = 5.76 kWh/d

Page 94 of 134
ID: 1114132

Energy balance for Secondary treatment

a) Circular settling tank

Wattage for electric motor = 2.18 kWh

Energy for each motor per day = (2.18 x 24) = 52.32 kWh/d
Energy for all motors per day = (52.32 x 4) = 209.28 kWh/d
Wattage for each dosing pump = 2.5 kWh
Energy for each dosing pump = (2.5 x 24) = 60 kWh/d
Energy for all dosing pumps =(60 x 8) = 480 kWh/d

Wattage for each pump = 51.2 kWh

Energy for each pump = (51.2 x 24) = 1228.8 kWh/d
Energy for all pump = (1228.8 x 4) = 4915.2 kWh/d

b) Distribution Chamber

It is assumed that the flow from the distribution chamber to the primary circular
settling tanks is through gravity. Therefore there is no consumption of energy in this
section.

Secondary treatment

a) Power requirement for the Membrane Bioreactor

In order to meet the oxygen demand in the aeration tanks, diffusers are placed and
these diffusers require energy.

Energy Balance on Aeration Tank

Normally the newer technology include centrifugal blowers or positive displacement

blowers, since positive displacement blowers is limited to only 425 m3/min volumetric
flow rate and centrifugal blowers can be used for volumetric flow rate beyond 80
m3/min, a centrifugal pump is preferred in this case.

By the methodology of Frank R. Spellman (2013), the power requirement for aeration is
calculated as follows:

Average power required for aeration = Pav

QxRxT
= x [(Pdis /P) 0.283– 1]
3600 x 29.7 x 0.283 x η

Page 95 of 134
ID: 1114132

Whereby:

P is the atmospheric pressure

Q is the air flow rate

T is the inlet temperature in Kelvin (280C = 301.15 K)

η is the efficiency of the blower which is normally within the range 70%-80%

R is the gas constant, 8.314kJmol-1K-1

Pdis = discharge pressure of blower which varies between 1.7 and 2.4 bar for fine bubble
diffusers. Therefore:

1,447.22 𝑚3 ⁄𝑚𝑖𝑛 x 8.314 x 301.15 K 2.05 𝑏𝑎𝑟 0.283

Pav = x [( ) – 1]
3600 x 29.7 x 0.283 x0.75 1.01325 𝑏𝑎𝑟
Pav = 35.24 x 24 = 845.76 kWh/d

b) Energy Balance on membrane biofilter

Using the equation:𝑇 = 𝑤𝑅 2

Whereby:

T is the torque in Kg.m

W is the work kg/m

R is the radius of the clarifier, m

Assuming W = 20 lb/ft , W = 20 x 1.49 = 29.8 kg/m

Since Diameter of clarifier = 26m

Radius of clarifier, R = 13 m

Hence;
kg
𝑇 = 29.8 m × 13.02 𝑚2 = 5036.2 𝐾𝑔. 𝑚 = 49,405.12 𝑁𝑚

𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 × 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑇 ×
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠

Page 96 of 134
ID: 1114132

From N.F Gray (2005), the speed of rakes varies between 3-6m/min and taking an
average speed; Speed of rake = 4.5m/min = 0.075m/s

Speed of rake 0.075 𝑚⁄𝑠

𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = = 0.00577 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 13.0𝑚
Hence:

𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 49,405.12 𝑁𝑚 × 0.00577 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠 = 285.07 𝑥 24 = 6841.68 𝑊ℎ/𝑑

Since 6 clarifiers are used, overall power requirements= 6841.68 x 6 = 41.05 kWh/d

c) Energy balance on the amount of pumps

As illustrated in the process flow diagram, 13 pumps are being used, therefore, the
energy required by the pumps are calculated as follows:

Number of pumps= 12 centrifugal pumps which operate 24 hours + 1 centrifugal

blower which operate only 5.12 hours /day

The wattage of the centrifugal pump = 25.1 kW

Energy required = (12 × 25.1 x 24hr) kW + (25.1 ×5hr) = 7354.3 kWh/day

Energy balance for Sludge treatment

The input power calculation formula is Ph = q ρ g h / (3.6 x106)

Where:

Ph = power (kW)

q = flow capacity (m3/h)

ρ = density of fluid (kg/m3)

g = gravity (9.81 m/s2)

h = differential head (m)

Assuming a head of 2 m

Page 97 of 134
 ID: 1114132

Pump for Q m3/d Q m3/hr kW/d Number of Total

pumps kW/d

Blending tank 1831.08 76.3 9.98 1 9.98

Thickener 1831.08 76.3 9.98 2 19.96

Digester 183.1 7.6 0.998 2 1.996

Polymer 409.9 17.08 2.236 2 4.472

Centrifuge 583.77 24.3 3.178 2 6.356

(U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Industrial Technologies, 2001 and F. Spellman,

2003)

In the high rate sludge digestion, the sludge is mixed by recirculating the gas formed in
a draft tube or by pumping. Power consumption for stirrers is generally 20-100kW/m3.
(R.L. King, R.A Hiller and G.B Tatterson, 2004)

i.scrapper

Energy consumption 55.5kWh for scrapper

Energy consumed by 1 scrapper = 55.5x 24 =1332 kW/d

ii.Thickener

Energy consumed by 2 scrappers +2 pumps = (1332x 2) + (19.96) = 2683.96 kW/d

iii.Digester

Average energy consumed by draft tube = 80 kWh/ m3

Volume of tank = 2019.6 m3

Energy consumed by 1 draft tube = 161568 W x 24 hour = 3.878 MW/d

Energy consumed by 2 draft tube +2 pumps = (3.878x 2 x 1000) + (1.996) = 7758 kW/d

iv.Polymer

Energy consumed by 1 stirrer= 16 kW/ m3

Volume of tank = 1.85 m3

Page 98 of 134
ID: 1114132

Energy consumed by 1 stirrer = 29.6 kW x 24 hour = 710.4 kW/d

Energy consumed by 2 stirrers +2 pumps = (710.4 x 2) + (4.472) = 1725.3 kW/d

1. Energy production from biogas

For biogas containing 67% of methane:

1 m3 of biogas 6.7 kWh (FNR, 2009)

Assumption:
 Density of biogas is 1.18 kg/m3
 Efficiency of CHP plant is 40%

Amount of biogas going in the CHP = 7566.7 kg/d

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 7566.7
Flowrate of biogas = = = 6412.46 m3/d
𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 1.18
1 m3 of biogas 6.7 kWh

6412.46 m3 of biogas (6412.46 x 6.7) = 42963.48 kWh

Efficiency of CHP plant is 40%

Energy obtained from CHP per day = (42963.48 x 0.4) = 17185.39 kWh/d

Page 99 of 134
ID: 1114132

Appendix 3: SIZING

Sizing of the Bars Screen

Sizing coarse screening

Head-loss range: 0.15-0.76 m

Depth of channel: 1.5-5.0 m

Width of channel: 0.6-2.0 m

Bar spacing: 12-80 mm

Bar screen spacing:

Assuming velocity through aperture= 0.9m/s

Area = peak flow/velocity through aperture

Area= 0.81/0.9= 0.9m2

Calculating total width of opening (W):

W= area (A)/ depth (d)

Assuming depth= 1.5m

W=A/d = 0.9/1.5= 0.6m

Calculating number of opening (n):

Choose a 50mm clear opening

n= W/opening size = 0.6/0.05 = 12

To use 12 bars with 10mm width and 50mm thick

Calculating width of chamber (w)

w = 0.6 + (0.01 x 12)

w = 0.72 m

Height of rack (h):

Page 100 of 134

ID: 1114132

h = 1.5m/ sin 80o (assuming inclination angle 80o)

h= 1.52m (assuming 0.6m free board)

h = 2m

Efficiency coefficient = clear opening/width of chamber

Eff. Coe. = 0.6/0.72 = 0.833

Head loos of rack (H):

Selecting rectangular bar with semi-circular upstream face (β=1.83)

𝑤 𝑣2
H = β. ( 𝑏 )4/3. (2𝑔). Sin Q

H= 1.83 x 1 x (0.92/2 x 9.81). sin 80o

H= 0.0744m

H = 74.4mm

Fine screen:

Spaced bar: 1.5-6.4mm

Head loss H = 1/2g x (V/c)2

H = ½ x (Q/ A.c)2

A: area of effective opening

c: discharge coefficient

Q: discharge through the screen

Typical value c= 0.6

Area, A = Peak velocity/ velocity through screen aperture

A = 0.81/0.9 = 0.9m2

Page 101 of 134

ID: 1114132

Width of rack (W)

W= A/d = 0.9/2 (d= 2.0m for minimum excavation)

W= 0.45m

Calculating number of opening:

Choosing 9.5mm clear opening

n= W/ opening space

n= 0.45/ 0.0095m

n=47.36

Therefore 50 bars with 10mm width and 50mm thick

Width of chamber (W):

W = (0.01 x 50) + 0.45m

W = 0.95m

Height of rack: 2m/ sin 80o = 2.03m

h = 2.63m (with 0.6m freeboard)

Head loss (H):

H = 1/2g x (V/c)2

H = (0.5 x 9.81) x (0.9/0.6)2

H = 0.115m (115mm)

Page 102 of 134

ID: 1114132

Sizing of Oil water separator

In an ideal separator, any oil globule with Vt equal or greater than surface loading rate
will reach the separator surface and be removed.

Page 103 of 134

ID: 1114132

Design variables

Qm = Flow of oily water into the oil-water separator, m3/s

d = depth of water in channel, m

L = length of channel, m

B = width of one channel, m

n = number of channel

AH = total surface area, m2

Ac = total cross section, m2

VH = horizontal flow velocity, m/s

Vt = rise rate of oil globule, m/s

The design

The design is based on the rise rate of oil globule:

Page 104 of 134

ID: 1114132

Assume oil globule diameter of 0.015 cm:

Data Given:

 Sewage Flow = 70000 m3/day = 0.8102 m3/s

 Temperature = 29 °C

Assumptions taken:

 Specific gravity of water = 0.99

 Specific gravity of oil = 0.92

Page 105 of 134

ID: 1114132

 Viscosity of wastewater = 0.0062 poise = 0.3871 cm2/s

 Oil globule size = 0.015 cm

Design constraints

• VH ≤ 1.5 cm/s or VH = 15 Vt, whichever the smaller

• 1.0 m ≤ d ≤ 2.5 m

• 0.3 ≤ d/B ≤ 0.5

• 1.8 m ≤ B ≤ 6.0 m

• n = 2 (minimum 2 channels)

• L/B ≥ 5

Calculating Vt using:

Vt = 0.0123[(Sw - So)/μ]

Vt = 0.0123[(990 – 920)/ (0.3871)]

Vt = 2.224 cm/s

Vertical Velocity = 2.224 cm/s

Horizontal flow velocity is taken as 1.5 cm/s

Also,

Page 106 of 134

ID: 1114132

Hence,

Ac = (0.8102 x 100)/1.5

Ac = 54 m2

Therefore the minimum vertical cross-sectional area is 54 m2

Similarly,

By assuming ‘B’ to be 8m and n = 2

Page 107 of 134

ID: 1114132

d = 54/ (8 x 2)

d =3.38 m

Depth of channel = 3.38 m

Depth/width ratio = 3.38/8 = 0.4

Calculating L using:

Page 108 of 134

ID: 1114132

Using the following graph:

F is found to be 1.46

Page 109 of 134

ID: 1114132

Hence,

L = F x (VH/Vt) x d

L = 1.46 x (1.5/2.224) x 3.38

L = 1.46 x 0.67446 x 3.38

L = 3.33 m

Length of channel = 3.33 m

Design inputs:

Sewage Flow (in m3/s) 0.8102

Temperature (in °C) 29

Specific gravity of water 0.99

Specific gravity of oil 0.92

Viscosity of wastewater (in poise) 0.0062

Oil globule size (in cm) 0.015

Results:

Vertical Velocity (in cm/s) 0.18083

Horizontal flow velocity ( in cm/s) 1.5

minimum vertical cross-sectional area (in m2) 54

number of channels 2

Width of channel (in m) 8

Depth of channel (in m) 3.38

Length of channel (in m) 3.33

Page 110 of 134

ID: 1114132

Sizing of equalisation tank

Daily volumetric flow rate from Primary Settling Tank = 69,673.55 m3/d (from mass
balance).

69,673.55
Flow rate per hour = = 2,903.06 m3/h
24

Assumptions:

 The number of equalization used is 3.

 Detention time is 2-5 hours (Yung-Tse Hung et al., 2012). A typical detention
time of 3 h is chosen as the detention time needs to be long enough so as to
effectively balance fluctuating flows and to assist self-neutralization.
 A safety factor of 15% is considered to make sure that there is no overflow of
wastewater (Water Environment Federation, 2008).
 A freeboard of 0.5 m is considered (Karia. G.L et al., 2006).
 A depth of 5.5 m is considered with a 0.5 m of freeboard with a total of 6 m.

i. Volume = Flow rate (m3/h) × detention time (h)

= 2,903.06 × 3 = 8,709.18 m3

ii. Total volume = volume of tank + 15 % volume of tank

= 8,709.18 + (0.15 × 8,709.18) = 10,015.56 m3

10,015.56
iii. Volume/ tank = = 3,338.52 m3
3
3,338.52
iv. Surface area/ tank = = 556.42 m2
6

Assuming Length to Breadth ratio is 2:1

2× Breadth2 = 556.42 m2

v. Breadth = 16.68 m and Length = 2× 16.68 m = 33.36 m

Page 111 of 134

ID: 1114132

2,903.06 m3
Flow rate per tank ( )
vi. Inlet velocity = Surface area of tank = 556.42
3 h
= 1.73 m/h
(m2)

Sizing of the primary clarifiers

Primary Clarifiers

Design parameters:

Flow rate per day = 70 000 m3

Flow rate per hour = 2917 m3 ≈ 2920 m3

Detention time = 2 h

Assumptions: From Qasim (livre avec amit) p. 329, a surface loading rate of 35 m3/m2.day and a
weir loading rate of 250 m3/m.day are assumed for a daily flow rate of 113,500 m3 , therefore, the
same design parameters will be assumed for a flow of 70, 000 m3.
35 (m3/m2.day)
Surface loading rate per hour = = 1.46 m3/m2.h
24 (ℎ)

250 (m3/m.day)
Weir loading rate per hour = = 10.42 m3/m.h
24(ℎ)

Design Calculation:
2920
Flow in unit tank per hour = = 1460 m3
2

Flow rate 1460

Area required for one tank (m2) = = = 1001.14 ≈ 1002 m2
Surface loading rate 1.46

Volume of unit clarifier tank (m3) = Flow rate × retention time = 1460 × 2 = 2920 m3

Knowing that, area of circle = 𝜋r2, diameter of tank can be found using cross sectional area of
circular clarifier.

𝐷2
𝜋 = 1001.14
4

D = 35.7 ≈ 36 m

Hence,

Diameter of one clarifier tank (m) = 36 m

Page 112 of 134

ID: 1114132

Given, volume of cylinder = πr2h, height of cylindrical part of clarifier can be found using

D2
π h = 𝑉 = 2920 m3
4

D= 35.7 m

Making h subject of formula,

h = 2.92 ≈ 3 m

From Clarifier Design 2nd Edition, p.468, it is said that for tanks having diameter approximately
above 25 m, a slope of 18 m is usually taken. Therefore the bottom slope of the primary clarifier
will be 18 m.

Sizing of the MBR

1. Sludge age or sludge retention time

As per methodology, the SRT for a membrane bioreactor tank is typically 5 to15 days so
as to achieve efficient achieve BOD & nitrogen removal. Therefore, the average SRT is
assumed:

5 + 15
𝑆𝑅𝑇 = = 10 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
2
2. Feed to microorganism ratio

As the biomass is actively removing the organic substrate in the wastewater, it follows
that the BOD loading should be related to the volume of the biomass in the aeration
tank (i.e. Sludge Loading)

Assume F/M ratio for conventional process = 0.2-0.4

𝐹 0.2 + 0.4
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = = 0.3
𝑚 2
The lower the f/m ratio, the lower the rate of metabolism and the greater the BOD
removal and sludge settleability. However, as removal efficiency increases so does the
overall oxygen demand of the system and so the overall cost of BOD removal. F/m ratio
is also the rate of BOD or COD applied per unit volume of mixed liquor.

From Metcalf and Eddy, 2003; F/M ratio can be expressed as:

Page 113 of 134

ID: 1114132

𝐹 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
=
𝑀 𝑉𝑥
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑏𝑦:

F/M = food to microorganism ratio, 𝐾𝑔𝐵𝑂𝐷⁄𝐾𝑑𝑀𝐿𝑆𝑆, 𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑄0 = Inlet Flowrate, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑆0 = Inlet 𝐵𝑂𝐷, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

𝑆𝐸 = 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡𝐵𝑂𝐷, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

X = Reactor solids, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

V = Volume of Aeration tank, 𝑚3

3. Total aeration volume and dimensions of the MBR tank

From the equation of food to microorganism ratio

𝐹 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
=
𝑀 𝑉𝑥
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑏𝑦:

F/M =0.3 𝐾𝑔𝐵𝑂𝐷⁄𝐾𝑑𝑀𝐿𝑆𝑆, 𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑄0 = 70,000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑆0 = 200𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 = 14000 kg/day

𝑆𝐸 = Taking into consideration permissible limits, that is 40 mg/L = 2800 kg/day

X = Reactor solids, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

Assuming that the bioreactor have a concentration varying in the range 2000 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿-
3000𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 Hence, an average MLSS concentration is calculated which equals to 2500
𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

V = Volume of Aeration tank, 𝑚3

Page 114 of 134

ID: 1114132

(𝐾𝑔𝐵𝑂𝐷) 70,000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 (200 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 − 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿)

0.3 =
(𝐾𝑑𝑀𝐿𝑆𝑆, 𝑑𝑎𝑦) 𝑉 × 2500 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

𝑉 = 14934 𝑚3

From methodology, range of depth should vary from 4m to 7 m

Assuming depth 4 m and width 4.4 m typical length to width ratio for MBR

Therefore:

Width = 4.4 m

Length = 44 m

14934 𝑚3
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = = 3733.33 𝑚2
4𝑚

3733.33 𝑚2
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑠 = = 19.28 = 20 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑠
4.4 𝑚 × 44𝑚
Therefore:
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 3733.33
Actual Length = = = 42.42 𝑚
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 4.4×20

Dimensions of one channel = 42.5 m × 4.4m ×4.5 m

Total surface area of the Aeration tank = 42.5m × (4.4m × 20) = 3740 𝑚2

Dimensions of the tank = 42.5m × 88 m

4. Aeration Period or Hydraulic Retention time

𝑉 𝑚3 14934
𝐻𝑅𝑇 = 3
= = 0.213 𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 5.12 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
𝑄 𝑚 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 70000

5. Volumetric BOD loadings

The volumetric BOD loading is defined as the ratio of BOD (Kg/day to the Volume
(m3).

Page 115 of 134

ID: 1114132

𝐵𝑂𝐷, 𝐾𝑔/𝑑𝑎𝑦 13,968.5𝐾𝑔/𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝐾𝑔

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝐵𝑂𝐷 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 3
= 3
= 0.938 3
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒, 𝑚 14934 𝑚 𝑚 . 𝑑𝑎𝑦

6. Oxygen Requirements

Air requirement = 0.8 Kg/ Kg BOD removed

Therefore:

𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.8 Kg × 11200 Kg/ day = 8960 Kg / day

Also since density of air = 1.202 Kg/𝑚3

8960 Kg / day
Air Requirement = = 7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
1.202 Kg/𝑚3

Assuming 21% of oxygen in air;

Oxygen Requirement = 7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 × 0.21 = 1565.40 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑂2 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Air supplied per 𝑚3 of wastewater treated

7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 = = 0.106 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑚3 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
70000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Oxygen supplied per 𝑚3 of wastewater treated

1565.40 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑂2⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑂𝑥𝑦𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 = = 0.022 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓𝑂2⁄𝑚3 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
70000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Membrane biological reactor

Shape Rectangular

Total volume 14934 m3

Dimensions (L x B x H) 42.5m × 88 m × 4.4 m

Number Of channels 20 channels

Material reinforced concrete

Page 116 of 134

ID: 1114132

Water temperature 280C brought to 200C

Liquid depth 7m

Fine bubble ceramic diffuser

Aeration system Oxygen demand =
3
1565.40 𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑂2⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

Aeration period 5.12 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠

Diffuser submergence 7m

Oxygen transfer efficiency (OTE) 35%

Aeration configuration Covering the floor completely

Using a centrifugal blower feeding

Air supply
7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

SRT 10 days

𝐾𝑔
BOD vol. loading 0.938
𝑚3 . 𝑑𝑎𝑦

F/M 0.3

Sizing the Sand filter

Sizing of sand filter

The filter should be able to treat all the water that is decanted from secondary clarifier
tank.

The following calculations and assumptions show the filter capacity required for our
sewage treatment plant:

Page 117 of 134

ID: 1114132

 Assumptions

Parameters Value Remarks

Inlet flowrate 70,000 m3/day -

Number of sand filter 4 -

Effective size of the sand 0.45 mm -

average porosity for sand 0.435 -

specific gravity for silica 2.6 -

sand

Sphericity for sand 0.75 -

Duration of filtration 20 hours (per day) Allow 4 hours for rest,

backwash, etc.

Filtration rate 10 m/h -

Depth of sand layer 0.8 m -

Height of filter 3.5 m -

 Calculations
70000
Flow rate in each filter bed = = 17500 m3/d
4

m3
Flowrate ( ) 17500
Area = h
d
m = 20×10 = 87.5 m2
(20 ×Filtration rate )
d h

Assuming square base, Length = √Area = √87.5 m2= 9.35 m

Breadth = Length = 9.35 m

Volume = Surface Area of 1 sand filter × bed depth

= (9.35 m × 9.35 m) × 3.5 m

= 305.98 m3

Page 118 of 134

ID: 1114132

Available head loss in each filter unit is assumed to be 2.5 m

Sizing of chlorination unit

Chlorination system:

Assumption (Dar Lin, S., 2007 & Metcalf & Eddy,2002)

 Considering 4 contacts tanks, the flow in the chlorination system divided in 4.

 Recommended dosage of chlorine/mg/l from activated sludge effluent without

any filter: 7mg/l

 Concentration of available chorine in NaOCl =10% correction factor=0.45

 Considering a minimum contact time of 30 minutes

 Depth to width ratio<1

 Length to width ratio ranges between 40-70

 Considering a basin with 3 passes and an free overboard of 0.6m

 Stock of NaOCl is kept for 15 days and considering a decay rate of 0.03% per day

From literature review

Dosage: 7mg/l (7ppm)

Daily requirement = (dosage of chlorine (kg/m3) x flowrate (m3/day)

Daily requirement = 7/1000 x 69,673.5 = 487.7kg/day

Chlorine concentration in solution (kg/m3) = 10% =100g/l = 100kg/m3

Amount of chlorine in solution (kg/s) = 487.7/ ( 86400 x 10) = 0.000564 kg/s

Amount of solution required (m3/day) = 487.7/100 = 4.87m3/day

Flowrate of NaOCl (m3/s) = 4.72/86400 = 0.00564 m3/s

Page 119 of 134

ID: 1114132

Determining the volume of one contact tank (m3)

Volume of contact tank = flowrate in contact tank (m3/s) x contact time (s)

Volume of contact tank = 0.806/4 x 30 x 60 = 362.9 m3

4 contact tank = 1,451.5 m3

Applying correction factor= number of day×decay/day=15day×0.03decay/day= 0.45

Storage tank volume for NaOCl soln/m3 = ((volume of NaOCl/m3/day× number of

day ×10)/(10-Correction factor))

=((4.87 m3/day ×15×10)/(10-0.45)) =76.5 m3

Length, Width and Height of tank = 3m×4m×7m

From assumptions above

Depth of the tank/m =1.8m

Width of the tank/m=2.2m

Therefore cross sectional area = 1.8x 2.2 = 3.96 m2

Length of tank = volume of tank / cross sectional area

Length of tank = 362.9 m3/ 3.96 m2 = 91.6m

Length of each pass (m) = length of tank inside basin / number of passes in basin =
91.6/3 = 30.5m

Sizing of thickener
Solids from primary clarifier = 10773 kg/d

Solids from final clarifier = 7538.07 kg/d

1) Total solids = (10773+7538.07) = 18311.07 Kg/d

Flow from primary clarifier = 326.45 m3/d

Page 120 of 134

ID: 1114132

Flow from final clarifier = 222.26 m3/d

2) Total flow = (326.45 +222.26) = 548.71 m3/d

Assumptions from Metcalf & Eddy, 2003:

(a) Specific gravity of combined sludge = 1.02

(b) Hydraulic loadings for combined sludge = 6 - 12 m3/m2.d

(c) Solids capture efficiency = 90 %

(d) According to table 14-19 in Wastewater Engineering Book, for a solids

concentration of 3.27 %, a solids loading of 40 – 80 Kg/m2.d

(e) Bottom of thickener is sloped at 20 cm/m (1:5)

(f) 6% solids concentration in thickened sludge

(g) The typical value of diameter obtained is 10-24 m.

𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠
3) Percentage solids in sludge = ( ) x 100
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑥 𝑠.𝑔 𝑥 1000
18311.07
= (548.71 𝑥 1.02 𝑥1000 ) x 100 = 3.27 %

𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠
4) Total area =𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔= (18311.07Kg /d) / (60 kg/ m3.d) = 305.18 m3

5) Diameter of thickener
305.18
2 thickeners are provided; area of 1 thickener = = 152.59 m2
2

Required diameter of 1 thickener = √ {(4 x 152.59 m2) / ∏} = 13.94 m

6) Checking hydraulic loading

𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 548.71
Hydraulic loading = = 305.18= 1.80 m3/m2.d
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎

For combined primary and waste activated sludge, hydraulic loading should be in the
range of 6 – 12m3/m2.d.

1.80 m3/ m2.d is less than the minimum value; therefore provision for dilution water
should be provided.

Amount of dilution water = (6 m3/m2.d x 305.18 m2) –548.71m3 = 1282.37m3

Page 121 of 134

ID: 1114132

7) Side – water depth

Generally, clear water and settling zone is in the range of 1.2 m – 1.8 m and the
thickening zone is 3.0 m (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003).

For the purpose of design, clear water zone = 1.1 m; settling zone = 1.7 m; thickening
zone = 3.0 m

Total side – water depth = (1.1 + 1.7 + 3.0) m = 5.8 m + freeboard of 0.6 m

8) Depth of central hopper

20 13.94
Depth of central hopper = 100 x = 1.394 m
2

Total water depth at central hopper = (5.8 + 1.394) m = 7.194 m

9) Thickening period

Volume of each thickener = {(∏ / 4) x 13.942 m2 x 5.8 m} + {(∏ / 12) x 13.942 m2 x 1.394
m} = 956.12 m3
2 𝑥 956.12
Thickening period = = 3.48 days
548.71

For the total amount of thickened sludge, TSS in dilution water has been assumed to be
negligible in thickened sludge withdrawal:

Total TSS in sludge = 18311.07Kg/d; 90 % of TSS removal in thickened sludge

Amount of thickened sludge = 0.9 x 18311.07Kg /d = 16478 Kg/d

Volume of 6% solids concentration = (16478 kg /d) / (0.06 x1.02 x 1000 kg / m3)

= 269.28 m3

10) Quality of thickener overflows

Overflow solids in supernatant = (0.1 x 18311.07Kg/d) = 1831.107Kg/d

Overflow of recovered water = (inflow + dilution water) – thickened sludge outflow

= (548.94+1282.37) – 305.18 m3 = 1526.13 m3 / d

1831.107 𝑥 106
Concentration of solids in recovered water = 1526.13 𝑥 1000=1200 mg/ L

Page 122 of 134

ID: 1114132

Sizing of Sludge digester

Assumption:

(a) Percentage VSS in primary sludge = 70 %

(b) From equation 14 – 14 in Wastewater Engineering, solids retention time at 40 0C

= 10 days as a minimum requirement; 15 days is chosen for higher destruction of VSS
(liptak equation)

(c) 2 digesters are provided

(d) According to Metcalf & Eddy, Diameter should be 6-38 m and height should be
7.5 -15 m

(e) Conical tank floor is at a slope of 1:5

(f) Gas produced is 1 m3/Kg per VSS destroyed

(g) 67 % of digester gas is methane gas (water environment research,2004)

(h) Specific gravity of digested sludge = 1.01(Metcalf& eddy ,2003, S.

Takikawa,2009))

Solids from primary clarifier = 10773 Kg/d; vss Solids from final clarifier =
7538.07Kg/d
10773 𝑥 0.7+7538.07
Percentage VSS for combined primary and WAS =( ) x 100 % = 82%
18311.07

Amount of VSS in thickened sludge = 0.82 x 16478 Kg / d = 13511.96Kg / d

1) Digester volume = (269.28 m3 / d) x 15 d = 4039.2 m3

2) Checking VSS loading rate = (13511.96 kg VSS / d) / (4039.2m3) = 3.35 kg VSS /

m3.d

From table 14-28, VSS loading rate should be between 3.3-3.8 Kg VSS / m3.d for 15 days
4039.2
Volume of 1 digester = = 2019.6 m3
2

Since diameter is taken to be 15m; radius = 15/2 = 7.5 m

Area = ∏ x (7.5m) 2 = 176.71 m2

2019.6
Active depth = 176.1 =11.4 m

Page 123 of 134

ID: 1114132

3) Additional depth as follows

Grit deposit = 0.608 m; scum blanket = 0.608m; space below cover at maximum level =
0.608m

4) Side wall height & central hopper depth:

Total sidewall height = 11.4 m + (0.608 x 3) m = 13.22 m

1 15
Depth of central hopper = 5x 2 = 1.5 m

Total water depth at central hopper = (13.22 + 1.5) m = 14.72m

5) Percentage & Amount of VSS destroyed

By equation: Vd = 13.7 x ln (SRTdes) + 18.9 = 13.7 x ln(15 ) +18.9 = 56% = 0.56

Amount of VSS destroyed = (0.56 x 13511.96 Kg/d) = 7566.7 Kg/d

6) Amount of methane gas produced due to destruction of VSS

Gas produced = (7566.7 Kg / d) x (1 m3 / d) = 7566.7 m3 /d

Methane gas produced = 0.67 x 7566.7m3 m3 / d = 5069.7 m3 / d

7) Quality of digested sludge

Fixed solids in feed sludge = (16478–13511.96)Kg/d = 2966.04 Kg/d

VSS remaining after digestion = (13511.96–7566.7) Kg/d = 5945.26Kg/d

Total solids in digested sludge = (2966.04 +5945.26) Kg/d = 8911.3Kg/d

Single stage digesters operate without supernatant withdrawal. Therefore, the volume
of m3/d fed is the same as the volume withdrawn.

Volume of digested sludge removed = 159.2 m3/d

8911.3 𝑥 100
Solids concentration in digested sludge =269.28 𝑥 1.01 𝑥 1000= 3.28 %

1. Calculations over sludge heating

Assumptions:

a) The minimum air temperature = 19.80C

Page 124 of 134

ID: 1114132

b) The average temperature for earth around wall = 22.4 0C

c) The temperature of earth below floor = 25.2 0C

d) The temperature of raw sludge feed = 250C

e) Heat transfer coefficient of:

I) Insulated wall exposed to air = 0.6 – 0.8 W/m2.0C

ii) Wall exposed to dry earth = 0.57 – 0.58 W/m2.0C

iii) Moist earth below floor = 0.7 W/m2.0C

iv) Insulated roof = 0.16 – 0.18 W/m2.0C

f) The specific heat of sludge = 4200 J/Kg. 0C

g) Half of the digester is found below the earth (Metcalf& Eddy,2003)

Sludge solids feed to each digester = 16478Kg / d = 8239Kg / d

1) Heat required for 1 digester

Heat required for 1 digester, Q1 = feed sludge weight * specific heat of sludge *
(operating temp. of digester – temp. of incoming sludge)

= (8239kg /d) x (4200 J /kg. 0C) * (40 – 250C) =519.06 MJ/d

Each digester will have its own heat exchanger; thus the need for 2 heat exchangers
with capacity of 519.06 MJ/d each.

2) Computing area of each component

a) Wall area = 2∏rh = 2 x ∏ x (5 m) x (13.98m) = 439.19 m2

b) Floor area = ∏rl = ∏ x (5m) x √[(5m)2 + (1m)2] = 80.10m2

c) Roof area = ∏r2 = ∏ x (5m)2 = 78.54m2

Assumption:

(a) Heat loss to surroundings is minimized due to insulation and will be analyzed in
detailed design

(b) Constant properties of materials

Page 125 of 134

ID: 1114132

(c) Fouling factors and tube resistance will be taken care of in detailed design

(d) Mass flow rate of water (the heating liquid) will be twice that of sludge

(e) Temperature of water is available at 60 0C from the CHP

(f) Sludge has the same properties as water

(g) Diameter of inner and outer tubes are 75 mm and 150 mm respectively to heat
thickener sludge (Metcalf& Eddy, 2003)

Sizing of dewatering unit

a. Tank Sizing

Total solids = (10773+7538.07) = 18311.07Kg/d= 763 kg/hr

From literature review, the amount of polymer used = 8 lb of polymer per ton of dry
solids

= (8 x 0.454) = 3.632 kg of polymer per ton of dry solids

Thus, total amount of polymer used = [18311.07 kg/d / (1000kg)] x 3.632kg = 39.27 kg/
day

= 2.771 kg/hr

The following assumptions are made:

o A detention time of 6.5 minutes is considered for the first tank.

o The depth of balancing tank is taken to be 1 m.

o The polymer is diluted by water to 0.1 to 0.2 % concentration. A concentration of

0.15 % is chosen for this tank design (MELTCALF & EDDY, 2003)

1) Volume of Tank

The volume of tank is calculated as follows:

A concentration of 0.15 % is chosen for this tank design.

1.5 g of polymer is present in 1 L of water

Thus, 2771 g of polymer (total amount of polymer per hour) is present in (1/1.5) x
2771= 1847.4L of water

Page 126 of 134

ID: 1114132

Thus the volume of water (and polymer) in the first tank = [1847.4L/ (1000 L / m3)]
=1.85m3

2) Surface Area of Tank

The surface area of the tank is calculated as follows:

Surface area of tank = Volume of tank / Depth of tank= 1.85 m3 / 1 m= 1.85 m2

1 tank is used.

Length: Breadth = 2:1

L x B = 2B * B =2B2

Thus; B = 0.96 m and L = 1.92 m

Volume designed = 1.92 m x 0.96 m x 1m + 0.5m (freeboard)

3) Flow rate of polymer solution to maturation tank

Flow rate of polymer solution = volume of tank/detention time

= 1.85m3 / (6.5 min / 60 min) = 17.08 m3 /hr

b. Maturation tank

The following assumptions were made:

a. Detention time in maturation tank must be in the range of 1hour.

b. The depth of balancing tank is taken to be 1 m .

c. The tank mixer should be low speed with a low shear impeller designed for a
maximum tip speed of less than152.4 m /min

1) Sizing of Tank

The volume of the dissolving tank is the same as the volume of maturation tank since
all the contents of the dissolving tank goes into the maturation tank; thus the volume
and surface area are the same.

Volume = 1.85 m3

Page 127 of 134

ID: 1114132

Surface area = 1.85 m2, since depth of tank is 1 m.

Freeze Design
This primary design was an overview of a typical sewage treatment plan.
However, many basic assumptions were taken, where detailed information are not
taken into consideration.

The detailed design introduces a more specific plan of the plant where each and every
single steps of calculations, sketches, instrumentation and control, detailed mass and
energy balances are further discussed. The detailed design will include:

 A much further description of the equipment and processes used,

 Heat and mass transfer around specific equipment allocated,
 Energy balance around each equipments,
 Detailed mechanical design sketches of each equipment in concerned,
 Detailed information about the material of construction,
 More detailed instrumentation and control measures,
 Safety considerations,
 A feasible economic consideration of the whole plan.

Hence, all the units discussed in this primary design would be further elaborated in
much more detail in the detailed design coming next.

Page 128 of 134

 ID: 1114132

Minutes of meeting

09/08/2014
Chairperson: Mr. Mudhoo

Secretary: Keshav Soomaree

MEETING DETAIL:

Discussion on the weekly meetings:

 Each meeting on the will consists of a secretary and a chairperson.

 The roll of secretary or chairman will be assigned to every member of the group
in a specific order at each meeting intervals:

Secretary Chairperson

Keshav Mr.Mudhoo

Teesha Keshav

Amit Teesha

Pravish Amit

Mr.Mudhoo Pravish

 The secretary need to take notes of the important topics talked in the meeting.

 Notes taken must be converted to PDF and handled to the supervisor.

Discussion on the Project: Design of a sewage treatment plant:

 Overview on the problem statement.

 Understanding what need to be done.

Note: Members of the group agreed that they will be able to follow the guideline given.

 A backup of the project must be safely kept.

Page 129 of 134

ID: 1114132

 Each member of the group needs to keep record of the different individual work
of all the group members in separate folders.

 There will be at least ten unit operations both majors and minors.

Discussion on the project introduction:

 Brief intro on sewage system

 Impact on environment

 Why must it be treated

 The different harmful constituents of the waste

 What are the benefits associated

 Cost implications(Locally)

 Actual sewage treatment plant in Mauritius

The introduction must be concluded by an intro on the design project: “The design
project will consist of designing: ....”

Discussion on the literature review and researches to be done:

 Each member must do their own research and give their ideas on the next
meeting scheduled.

 The overall PFD of the system must be ready and submitted to the supervisor in
five weeks time, that is, on the 30/08/2014.

 Different types of equipments or material to be used must be analysed and one

of them must be selected with appropriate justification.

 Chapter 1, 2 & 3 must be ready by the fifth week (30/08/14).

 Each member of the group must have a printed copy of the work done on every
chapter covered.

Discussion about the Process Consideration:

 Group members should bring innovative ideas or improvements relevant to the

design project.

Page 130 of 134

ID: 1114132

 Any module done in the previous academic years must be pin pointed in every
relevant section worked.

Discussion on the distribution of work:

 The name of each member must be noted on a separate sheet specifying which
work they performed.

 A note need to be affixed at the end of the project confirming: “Each member of
the group has fairly contributed in every part of the design works”.

 The note must be signed by all members and approved by the supervisor.

End of meeting

20/09/2014
Chairperson: Pavish Ramdewar

Secretary: Keshav Soomaree

Members present: Keshav Soomaree, Pravish Ramdewar, Eldora St Paul, Amit

Ramdhonee, Teesha Ramanah.

Discussion we made on:

 The researches made on PFD

 Selection of an appropriate PDF for our plant

We agreed to work on the followings for the equipment we were assigned:

 Introduction

 Literature review

 Process consideration

 Mass balance

 Energy balance

 Sizing

Page 131 of 134

ID: 1114132

 Control strategies

 Preliminary Hazop

 Waste treatment

 Costing

End of meeting

04/10/2014
Chairperson: Eldora St Paul

Secretary: Pravish Ramdewar

Members present: Pravish, Eldora, Keshav, Teesha

 Discussion on the problems of mass balances,

 Discussion on how to manage our energy balances,

 Tackled the problems faced on sizing of the equipments,

 We agreed to complete our mass balances and share the work by the week after.

Note: All problems tackled and discussion made were shared with Amit

End of meeting

11/10/2014
Chairperson: Keshav Soomaree

Secretary: Amit Ramdhonee

Members present: Amit, Keshav, Pravish

 Discussion was done on the biogas balances and energy strategies of the out but
biogas.

Page 132 of 134

ID: 1114132

 We decided to fully use the electricity, being obtained from the biogas, for the
self consumption of the plant (Pumps Blower, mechanical stirrer, etc...).

 We discussed how to manage our recycle streams especially for the secondary
treatment.

 The issue of sludge digester was also raised.

 We analysed the screening units and the oil-water separator in detail.

End of meeting

25/10/2014
Chairperson: Pravish Ramdwar

Secretary: Teesha Ramanah

Members Present: Teesha, Pravish, Amit, Eldora, Keshav

 Significant changes in our units,

 Replacing the anaerobic system to aerobic one,

 All biogas to be removed would be obtained only from the sludge digester,

 The unit of carbon adsorption is removed from the plant: No need of it; costly
and difficult to design,

 The addition of two primary clarifiers + one secondary clarifier,

 Clarifiers are changed from rectangular to circular one.

Re distribution of the work

Note: The new work format of our treatment plant was approved by Mr. Mudhoo.

End of meeting

08/11/2014
Chairperson: Amit Ramdewar

Page 133 of 134

ID: 1114132

Secretary: Eldora St Paul

Members Present: Eldora, Amit, Keshav, Pravish

 Discussion of the compilation of our work,

 Each member brought their work

We discussed the followings:

 Sizing of the equipments + finalisation of the Material balances,

 Control strategies

 PID

 Primary costing(seen in detail)

A specific format was chosen for the compiled work.

End of meeting

Page 134 of 134