BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF RESEARCH AND POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

FACULTY OF CIVIL AND WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERIN

Evaluation of surface water treatment plant efficiency (Case of shire Enda

Selassie town, Ethiopia)

By
ZUFAN DESALEGN

Program: MSc. in Water Supply and Sanitary Engineering.

Main Advisor: Elfu Amare (ph.D)
Co-Advisor: Eshetu A (Msc)

Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

July , 2020
Evaluation of surface water treatment plant efficiency (Case of Shire Enda Selassie
town, Ethiopia).

By
Zufan Desalegn

A thesis submitted to the school of Research and Graduate Studies of Bahir Dar Institute of
Technology, BDU in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
in the Water Supply and Sanitary Engineering in the Faculty of Civil and Water Resource
Engineering.

Advisor Name: Elfu Amare(Ph.D.)

Co-Advisor: Eshetu A. (M.Sc.)

Bahir Dar , Ethiopia

July, 2020

i
 DECLARATION
I declare that the thesis comprises my own work. In compliance with internationally accepted
practices, I have acknowledged and refereed all materials used in this work. I understand that
non-adherence to the principles of academic honesty and integrity, misrepresentation/ fabrication
of any idea/data/fact/source will constitute sufficient ground for disciplinary action by the
University and can also evoke penal action from the sources which have not been properly cited
or acknowledged.

Name of the student: Zufan Desalegn Signature _____________

Date of submission: ________________

Place: Bahir Dar

This thesis has been submitted for examination with my approval as a university advisor.

Advisor Name: __________________________________

Advisor’s Signature: ______________________________

ii
 © 2018
Zufan Desalegn Zufan
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

iii
 Bahir Dar University
Bahir Dar Institute of Technology-
School of Research and Graduate Studies
Civil and Water Resource Engineering
THESIS APPROVAL SHEET
Student:

________________________________________________________________________
Name Signature Date
The following graduate faculty members certify that this student has successfully
presented the necessary written final thesis and oral presentation for partial fulfillment of
the thesis requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Water Supply and Sanitary
Engineering.

Approved By:
Advisor:
___________________ _____________ ____________
Name Signature Date
External Examiner:
___________________ _____________ ____________
Name Signature Date
Internal Examiner:
___________________ _____________ ____________
Name Signature Date
Chair Holder:
___________________ _____________ ____________
Name Signature Date
Faculty Dean:
___________________ _____________ ____________
Name Signature Date

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Frist of all I would like to thanks almighty God for helping in my all life and in this work.
My sincere gratitude goes to my advisory members, Dr. Elfu Amare and Mr. Eshetu Assefa for
their valuable advice, encouragement and endless support throughout my work.
Great thanks go to Shire town water service office members who have played a big role for the
success of my study. Great thanks go to mekelle water resource office of water quality director
Mr. Solomon Abera and laboratories technicians Ms. Jemila Nurey and Mr. Hogos Gigar and
other members who have played a big role directly or indirectly for the success of my study.
I would like to express my great thanks to staff members and my best friends for support during
my study. Finally, I would like to express my special thanks to my mother Berinesh Areki for all
her endless help and for all my family members for support during my study.

v
 ABSTRACT
Treatment or purification of water is considered as a critical challenge especially in the
developing countries since this treatment is an essential facility to conserve the public health and
environment by eliminating of waterborne diseases and pathogens. This study was made to
assess the efficiency of Shire town water treatment plant and to evaluate the treated water quality
that reached to people. The treatment plant was implemented in 2008 E.C by construction
Enterprise consists of conventional components. The key problems in Shire town water treatment
plant were filtering deteriorated or turbid water from the treatment plant system and
distribute it to the community.
Methods used in this study for the data collection was using primary and secondary data
collection however the primary data would be collected from laboratory analysis, observation
and for secondary data collection would be from journal, book and reports. In addition, the
methods used for the evaluation of performance were using water quality characterization,
calculating removal efficiency and the hydraulic design parameter would be evaluated. The study
was conducted to evaluate drinking water treatment plant in Shire town for about six months
from April to end of August 2019 G.C and January and February in 2020 G.C because of
suitability for seasonal variation of dry and rainy season. Four sample sites were selected
representing raw water, the sedimentation basin, the filtration basin and the final stage after the
chlorination.
In this research, 12 physicochemical and bacteriological parameters of both the
raw and treated water were sampled and studied according to Standard Methods. These
parameters were temperature, electrical conductivity, turbidity, pH, TSS, TDS, Residual
chlorine, Manganese, Iron, Total hardness and bacterial indicators of drinking water
contamination fecal Coliforms and total coliform. The results indicated that the source raw water
is poor quality and the treated water is relatively satisfactory. The treatment process units in
Shire also evaluated. The average removal efficiency of water turbidity in Shire water treatment
plant is 63.25% and 37.53% dry and rain season respectively. the study suggests that the Shire
water treatment plant units and process operation need to be improved, rescaled, and redesigned
to enhance diseases and contamination that may occur in future in Shire town drinking water.

Keyword: Raw water, Treated water, Treatment plant, Efficiency and Water quality

vi
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... v

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................. vi

List of table ................................................................................................................................................... x

List of figure ................................................................................................................................................ xi

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................. xii

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background ................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2. Research problem.......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3. Research question ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Research objectives ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.4.1. General objective ...................................................................................................................... 4

1.4.2. Specific Objective ..................................................................................................................... 4

1.5. Scope of the study ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.6. Significance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 4
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 6

2.1. Introduction to water treatment plant ............................................................................................ 6

2.2. Objective of water treatment plant .......................................................................................... 6
2.3. Water treatment process ................................................................................................................ 7
2.3.1. Preliminary water treatment ...................................................................................................... 7

2.3.2. Plan Sedimentation tank............................................................................................................ 8

2.3.3. Roughing per Filtration ............................................................................................................. 9

2.3.4. Slow Sand Filtration................................................................................................................ 10

2.3.5. Disinfection ............................................................................................................................. 12

3. Materials and Methods ........................................................................................................................ 15

3.1. Description of the Study Area ..................................................................................................... 15

3.2. Existing water treatment plant .................................................................................................... 16
3.3. Study design ................................................................................................................................ 17

vii
 3.4. Research methods ....................................................................................................................... 17
3.4.1. Data collection and sources..................................................................................................... 17

3.4.2. Sampling time and sample size ............................................................................................... 17

3.4.3. Sampling procedure ................................................................................................................ 18

3.4.4. Sample Handling and Preservation ......................................................................................... 18

3.4.5. Laboratory Methods ................................................................................................................ 18

3.4.6. Data analysis ........................................................................................................................... 19

3.5. Material used ............................................................................................................................... 19

3.6. Plant efficiency Evaluation Method ............................................................................................ 20
3.6.1. Evaluating the major unit processes of the hydraulic parameter performance ....................... 21

3.6.2. Plant Capacity Assessment Methods ...................................................................................... 21

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 24

4.1. Water quality results ................................................................................................................... 24

4.1.1. Turbidity ................................................................................................................................. 25

4.1.2. Temperature ............................................................................................................................ 26

4.1.3. Total dissolved solid ............................................................................................................... 27

4.1.4. Total suspended solid .............................................................................................................. 28

4.1.5. Electrical conductivity ............................................................................................................ 29

4.1.6. PH ........................................................................................................................................... 30

4.1.7. Residual chlorine..................................................................................................................... 30

4.1.8. Iron .......................................................................................................................................... 31

4.1.9. Manganese .............................................................................................................................. 32

4.1.10. Total hardness ......................................................................................................................... 33

4.1.11. Fecal coliform ......................................................................................................................... 34

4.1.12. Total coliform ......................................................................................................................... 34

4.2. Performances evaluation of Unit processes ................................................................................ 35

4.2.1. Turbidity removal efficiency .................................................................................................. 35

viii
 4.2.2. Total and fecal coliform removal efficiency ........................................................................... 39

4.3. Evaluation of hydraulic performance by comparing with standards........................................... 42

4.3.1. Evaluation of Hydraulic Performance for plan Sedimentation tank ....................................... 43

4.3.2. Evaluation of Hydraulic Performance for slow sand filter ..................................................... 44

4.4. Capacity assessment of Shire town water treatment plant .......................................................... 45

5. Conclusion and recommendation ........................................................................................................ 47

5.1. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 47

5.2. Recommendation ........................................................................................................................ 49
Reference .................................................................................................................................................... 50

A. Appendixes: - Collected data during different months ....................................................................... 54

B. Appendix: - Population and demand assessment ................................................................................ 60

ix
List of table
Table 2-1 Design criteria for rectangular sedimentation tanks ....................................................... 8
Table 2-2 Preliminary design guidelines for horizontal flow-roughing filters ............................... 9
Table 2-3 Typical design features of a slow sand filter are as follows ......................................... 10
Table 3-1 Sample point and frequency ......................................................................................... 17
Table 3-2 Laboratory test technique or methods .......................................................................... 19
Table 3-3 Summary of materials used in laboratory ..................................................................... 20
Table 4-1 The average value of water quality compliance with ESA and WHO of dry season ... 24
Table 4-2 The average value of water quality compliance with ESA and WHO of rainy season 25
Table 4-3 Turbidity concentrations of treatment plant on unit processes .................................... 35
Table 4-4 Total coliform and Fecal coliform concentrations of treatment plant on unit processes
....................................................................................................................................................... 39
Table 4-5 Comparison between allowable design characteristics, actual and required
characteristics for plan sedimentation tank at Shire town WTP ................................................... 43
Table 4-6 Comparison between allowable design characteristics, actual and required
characteristics for slow sand filter at Shire town WTP................................................................. 45
Table 4-7 Current, design and required capacity of Shire WTP .................................................. 46
Table A-1 Collected data during the first month (April, 2019) .................................................... 54
Table A-2 Collected data during the second month (January, 2020) ........................................... 55
Table A-3 Collected data during the third month (February,2020) .............................................. 56
Table A-4 Collected data during the fourth month (Jun, 2019) .................................................... 57
Table A-5 Collected data during the fifth month (July, 2019) .................................................... 58
Table A-6 Collected data during the sixth month (August, 2019) ................................................ 59
Table B-1 Population of Shire Indasilase town 1984 - 2015 ........................................................ 60
Table B-2 Population growth rates by region ............................................................................... 60
Table B-3 Town category grouping .............................................................................................. 61
Table B-4 Per capital demand by mode of service (l/c/d) ............................................................ 61
Table B-5 Population percentage distribution by mode of service ............................................... 62
Table B-6 Climate factor .............................................................................................................. 62
Table B-7 Socio-economic factor ................................................................................................ 63
Table B-8 Summary Estimated of water demand for Shire town ................................................. 63

x
List of figure
Figure 3-1 Location of study area ................................................................................................. 15
Figure 3-2 flow chart of shire water treatment plant .................................................................... 16
Figure 3-3 Location of Sample point ............................................................................................ 18
Figure 3-4 Summary of Research Methodology in chart.............................................................. 23
Figure 4-1 Turbidity of the water in NTU .................................................................................... 26
Figure 4-2 Temperatures of the water in oC.................................................................................. 27
Figure 4-3 Concentration of TDS of the water ............................................................................. 28
Figure 4-4 Concentration of TSS of the water .............................................................................. 28
Figure 4-5 Electrical conductivity of water .................................................................................. 29
Figure 4-6 pH value of water ........................................................................................................ 30
Figure 4-7 Concentration of residual chlorine of the water .......................................................... 31
Figure 4-8 Iron concentration of the water ................................................................................... 32
Figure 4-9 Manganese concentration of the water ........................................................................ 32
Figure 4-10 Concentration of total hardness of the water............................................................. 33
Figure 4-11 Fecal coliform of the water ....................................................................................... 34
Figure 4-12 total coliform of the water ......................................................................................... 35
Figure 4-13 Plan sedimentation removal efficiency of turbidity in rainy and dry seasons .......... 37
Figure 4-14 Average Turbidity removal efficiency of sedimentation in dry and rainy season .... 37
Figure 4-15 Slow sand filter removal efficiency of turbidity in dry and rainy seasons ................ 38
Figure 4-16 Average Turbidity removal efficiency in dry and rainy season of SSF .................... 38
Figure 4-17 Total coliform and fecal coliform removal efficiency of slow sand filter in both
season ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 4-18 Average total and fecal coliform removal efficiency in dry and rainy season of SSF
....................................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 4-19 Total coliform and fecal coliform removal efficiency of chlorination tank in both
season ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 4-20 Average total and fecal coliform removal efficiency in dry and rainy season of
chlorination tank ........................................................................................................................... 42

xi
 Abbreviations
APHA American Public Health Associations
AWWA American Water Work Association
CFU Colony Formation Unit
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Ethiopian Standard Agency
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
RW Raw Water
TDS Total Dissolved Solid
TSS Total Suspended Solid
ST Sedimentation Tank
SSF Slow Sand Filter
WHO World Health Organization

xii
 1. Introduction
Water is the most essential element on earth for all kinds of living creatures to maintain their life.
In various times with rapid urban and rural expansion, the demand for water supply has increased
many times as a result of more water has been used in domestic, agriculture and industrial sector
(Al-Jlil, et al, 2014).Therefore water is an important natural resource in the world, and life
cannot exist and most industries could not operate without water (Tebbutt, 1997). Providing safe
and reliable source of water is thus an essential prerequisite for the establishment of a stable
community and provision of safe drinking water to the people is very essential as up 80%of all
sickness in the world are caused by poor sanitation or unavailability of safe water (Janna H. a.-S.,
2014).
It is very necessary to treat water to purify water sources and make them suitable for human
consumption through the removal and killing of pathogenic organisms and remove the taste,
smell and other undesirable chemical and physical constituents (Mohammed, 2012). Various
treatment processes are used to take out impurities from raw water, these processes may be
arranged in a treatment sequence of flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection for
water (Angreni, E, 2009).
In the conventional flocculation – filtration treatment process, suspended solids and natural
organic matter are removed from the raw water supply by the addition of coagulants, resulting in
the production of water treatment residuals (Ippolito, 2011). One of the purification stages is
filtration, solids separation from fluids water by using physical or mechanical technique to
introducing a medium through which only the water can pass through (Hamdy, S.M.A, 2016).
In disinfection stage, usually a chlorination process is implemented at most of the water
treatment plant, and it is supplied to the public through distribution network, where the dissolved
chlorine in drinking water is preferred as a chemical in many countries due to low cost and
effectiveness (Sharma, 2015). Many biological factors are used as bacterial indicators for water
treated by disinfection process such as Total Coliform, Fecal Coliform, fecal streptococci, and
Escherichia coli (Sadik, 2014).
The performance of each treatment process in a water treatment plant is important and needs to
be evaluated to ensure the unit’s performance is successful, for this purpose many factors have
been applied such as variability in source water quality or units operational and technical
conditions to ensure that the performance of each unit is satisfactory (Zhang, k., et al, 2012). The

1
assessment of the technical condition needs to consider comprehensively both in structural and
technical terms and in operational and technological terms while it is necessary to take into
account the quantity and the quality of the produced water (Kučera, 2016).
In evaluation of a water treatment plant depending on treatment process efficiency, all involved
processes could be assessed or a key unit is chosen to decide whether the plant operates in
acceptable way or not (Wei, J., et al, 2010) have selected the disinfection unit to evaluate a water
treatment plant. However, many works evaluated the performance or not like (Mishera, 2014).
In another trend, WTP may also be evaluated through testing water quality produced in the
treatment units that applied in various conventional treatment plants. Identifying water quality
parameters is varying due to water source used in these WTP (Eassa, 2012). Generally
physicochemical are taken as key parameters to classify the quality of both raw and treated water
were included (Varadhajan, R.B, 2009).
1.1.Background
The study area (Shire town) has two source of water which is ground water and surface water.
The surface water treatment plant in Shire town is implemented in 2008 E.C by national regional
state of Tigray bureau of water resources Consists of conventional components, including
collection chamber, pumping house, plan sedimentation tank, slow sand filters, chlorination tank.
In this case the chlorination tank is used to treat the water which is come from the ground and
surface water sources. According to the design draft or project of the water treatment plant of
shire town the quantity of water to be treated by the surface water treatment plant is 47 l/s.
Water treatment is the process of improving water quality in accordance with water quality
criteria to suit the intended use. Water treatment plants are those that treat ground or surface
water and produce drinking water for public consumption. The supply of potable water must be
adequately and continuously controlled until the water meets the customer’s needs in terms of
turbidity, test, PH and odor, which is the main objective of water treatment. According to the
(WHO, 2013).mentioned “many cases in the world have been caused by unsafe drinking water:
1.6 million people die every year from diarrhea, 160 million people are infected with
schistosomiasis 1.5 million cases of clinical hepatitis per year and intestinal helminths are
spreading to developing countries due to the lack of clean drinking water and inadequate
sanitation.

2
According to the WHO study, 80% of all diseases in developing countries are associated with
water. Diseases caused by the consumption of contamination water and poor hygiene practice are
among the most common causes of death among children worldwide (WHO, 2004). The
majority of the Ethiopian population does not have access to safe and reliable sanitation service.
In addition, most households do not have a sufficient understanding of hygiene practices related
to food, water and personal care. As a result, more than 75% of the health problems with the
communicable diseases of Ethiopia are due to unsanitary and in adequate water supply and
treatment of a hygienic waste, particularly human waste (UN-WATER, 2004).
The main objective of water treatment plant is to purify contaminated water and make it suitable
for human consumption, by eliminating interference parameters and destroying the
organism(pathogenic organism), as well as taste, smell, some of the surplus dissolved metals and
a number of other items in accordance with the relevant standards (Ali Ahmed Mohammed, et al,
2012). Drinking water does not mean a significant risk to health during the whole life of the
consumption, including the different sensitivities that may occur between the stages of life.
The study of the effectiveness of water treatment systems is essential to be taking into account all
aspects and considerations, including bacteriological aspects evaluated to determine their
efficiency and produce high quality water.
1.2.Research problem
The problem happened in Shire water supply treatment plant is passing turbid water and
distribute to the community. Turbidity can decrease the attraction of the people to drinking the
water and also interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for growth of microbial. It also
indicates the presence of disease causing organisms. These organisms includes bacteria, viruses
and parasites, which can cause symptoms such as sickness, diarrhea and associated headaches
(Allen, M. J. and Copes, R, 2014).Since a wide variety of particles cause turbidity, it is difficult
to determine the health risk. The health risk is usually not the particles themselves but the impact
of the suspended particles on disinfection of the water.
Pre assessment is done for two parameters which are turbidity and PH. The result indicates
turbidity 12 NTU, PH 7.43. Although the turbidity recorded in the pre- assessment process is less
which is almost approaches to the recommended range but as the information gathered through
interview with the workers and local communities, the turbidity is increase on the rainy season.
The water borne diseases are also seen in these seasons which magnifies the impact of turbidity

3
to health. In the previous year (2009 &2010 EC) water supply service of the town is done water
quality assessment by taking sample water from the service reservoir and tap water, that result
shows presence of bacterial coliforms (total coliform and fecal coliform). The presence of total
coliform and other fecal coliforms in water indicates possible presence of intestinal disease-
causing bacteria, viruses, and protozoa. Due to this problem the community which turbid water
distributed for is infected by different water borne diseases such as diarrhea, typhoid fever and
others. In the study area (Shire town) peoples infected by typhoid fever 1723 and 1002 and also
by diarrhea 7676 and 6171 in the year 2017 and 2018 respectively. These situation shows there is
a problem in the treatment plant efficiency.
1.3.Research question
1. Do the water quality parameters compliance with the drinking water quality standards?
2. Which treatment plant unit is not more efficient?
3. Does Hydraulics design parameters of the treatment plant is within the recommended
limits?
1.4. Research objectives
1.4.1. General objective
The general objective of this research is to evaluate the current water quality and water quantity
of Shire enda Selassie related with the efficiency of water treatment plant.
1.4.2. Specific Objective
 To analyze the characteristic of water quality parameters of the treatment plant.
 To evaluate each unit of the treatment plant efficiency related with water quality.
 To evaluate the Hydraulic design parameters and capacity of the treatment plant.
1.5. Scope of the study
The scope of the study was to evaluate the efficiency of Shire water treatment plant based on
quality and quantity by analysis water quality for about six months with the main objective of
justifying the treatment plant efficiency through actually delivering quality and quantity of water
to the public and the treatment was well designed.
1.6. Significance of the Study
The outcome of this study helps to the town water supply system to be more effective by
providing acceptable water quality and quantity standard. When safe and clean water is provided
to the communities, the health of the people will be good and mortality rate due to waterborne

4
diseases will decrease. Also, the community members will have good sanitation and hygiene
practice. In process, this will facilitate meeting the targets set by the government regarding water
supply coverage; sanitation and hygiene practice of the people.

5
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction to water treatment plant
Water treatment is the process of improving water quality in accordance with water quality
criteria to suit the intended use. Water treatments are plants those that treat ground or surface
water and produce drinking water for public consumption (WHO, 2013).The supply of potable
water must be adequately and continuously controlled until the water meets the customer's needs
in terms of color, pH, taste and odor, which is the main objective of water treatment
Throughout history, the practice of water treatment has found that the writings of ancient Greece
and Sanskrit (India) have recommended water treatment methods such as charcoal filtering,
cooking, pressing and exposure to sunlight (EPA, 2002).During this period, turbidity has been
the driving force in water treatment and has not been overly concerned with microorganisms or
chemical contaminants. But over time, new techniques are developed and then the disinfection of
water with chlorine and filtration becomes an effective treatment technique (EPA, 2002).
2.2. Objective of water treatment plant
These objectives provide treatment requirements that address the following microbiological
parameters: enteric viruses, pathogenic bacteria, Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts. The
general objectives of the water treatment plant are, the turbidity value is less than or equal to
5NTU and no detectable fecal coliform and total coliform.
These drinking water treatment objectives represent a minimum performance objective for water
suppliers to treat water to produce microbiologically safe drinking water. Depending on certain
situations, the actual amount of treatment required depends on the risks identified and may
require a higher level of treatment. Water treatment is only part of the multi barrier approach to
providing drinking water. Selecting an adequate source of water, protecting that source and
reducing the risks of the distribution system can be complementary key steps to address
microbiological risks (EPA, 2002).
While there are numerous precautionary treatment steps available to reduce the risk of
microbiological contamination of drinking water supplies, no system is fail-safe. Risk
management is based on applying scientific evidence that documents the quality and variability
of the water source and the efficacy of management measures selected to achieve acceptable
public health outcomes ( Drinking water protection, 2012).

6
2.3. Water treatment process
The design of treatment facilities is determined by feasibility studies that take into account all
technical, economic, energy and environmental factors. All legitimate alternatives are identified
and evaluated using life cycle cost analysis. In addition, the energy consumption among the
possible processes is taken into account. For energy consumption, only the energy purchased or
acquired is included in the utilization evaluation. All treatments are compared to a basic
treatment in which the treatment system provides the required treatment at the lowest cost. The
experimental or laboratory analysis used in conjunction with published design data from similar
existing facilities to ensure optimal treatment. It is the responsibility of the designer to ensure
that the chosen process of the water treatment plant complies with applicable state or local
regulations.
2.3.1. Preliminary water treatment
Surface water contains fish and debris which can clog or damage pumps, clog pipes and cause
problems in water treatment. Preliminary treatment processes are employed for removal of debris
and part of sediment load.
Screens: -
Screening of water which is one form of pre-treatment is done by passing the water through
closely spaced bars, gratings or perforated plates. Screening does not change the chemical or
bacteriological quality of the water. It serves to retain the coarse material and suspended matter
that are larger than the screen openings.
i. Removal of floating and suspended matter which clogs pipes, damages pumps, etc.
ii. Clarification by removal of suspended matter to lighten the load on subsequent treatment
processes.
Bar screen spacing is typically between 0.5 and 5cm. Angle of inclination of bars is 60-750 if
screening is very small and 30-450 if larger amount is retained over the screen bar. Velocity of
flow should be low towards the screen bar (0.1-0.2m/sec). It may be increased to 0.3-0.5 after the
screen to prevent settling there. Between the openings the velocity should be restricted to up to
0.7m/sec to avoid forcing through the suspended solids. If regular cleaning is done an allowance
for loss of heads of up to 0.1 to 0.2m is made. However to allow for delay and mechanical
failures a loss of head allowance between 0.5 to 1.0m is made (Water, A., Association, W. and
Society, A, 2005).

7
2.3.2. Plan Sedimentation tank
Finer suspended particles can be reduced further by allowing the raw water from the grit
chamber to flow slowly through a sedimentation tank. The sedimentation tank should be
designed for a specific retention time and in most cases for a minimum of 2 hours. The
arrangement and design of inlet, outlet, baffle structures, settling and sludge zones are very
important in order for the sedimentation tank to function properly. The settling of suspended
solids and removal is realized by positioning a large diameter drain valve at the lowest point of
the floor of the sedimentation tank and with the floor adequately tilted towards the drain valve.
Table 2-1 Design criteria for rectangular sedimentation tanks

Parameters Calculation Range of value

Detention time V/Q 4-12hr
Surface loading Q/A 2-10 m/d
Depth of basin H 1.5-2.5 m
Outlet weir overflow rate Q/R 3-10 m3/m/h
Length/width ratio L/W 4:1 to 6:1
Length/depth ratio L/H
Large basins 25:1 to 35:1
Small basins 5:1 to 20:1
The inlet structure of the sedimentation tank includes an inlet pipe and a perforated vertical
baffle. The baffle wall is located a little way forward from the inlet pipe to distribute the water
evenly across the tank. Water must flow evenly into the tank to avoid turbulence and areas of
stagnation. There may be also a weir across the width of the tank before the baffle. Rapid transit
of water across the tank must be avoided as this will reduce the retention time. A low retention
time will prevent the suspended solids from settling in the sedimentation tank. The outlet of the
sedimentation tank includes a weir and an outlet pipe. The weir collects clarified water from the
top layer of the tank after the settling zone and the outlet pipe conveys the water to the next
treatment component, either a roughing pre filter or slow sand filter, depending on the reduction
in turbidity of the effluent water from the sedimentation tank. An effective sedimentation tank
should remove 70-90% of turbidity from the raw water (UNICEF, 2009).

8
2.3.3. Roughing per Filtration
Roughing filters if designed well, can serve as effective pretreatment units prior to slow sand
filtration for water with raw water turbidity of 20 to 150 NTU. For high turbidity waters, it may
be difficult to clarify to below 30NTU without sedimentation or other pretreatment such as
storage. In addition to reducing suspended matters, a roughing pre-filter also contributes to the
removal of microorganisms from the water during the treatment process. In a typical roughing
pre-filter, water passes through packs of gravel of different sizes where suspended particles are
trapped. Flow through gravel may be horizontal, vertical up-flow or vertical down-flow. The up
flow configuration is the most efficient and facilitates hydraulic cleaning
Aspects of design to be considered:
1. The turbidity of water leaving the roughing pre-filter should be less than 10NTU after 70-
90 percent reduction in turbidity.
2. The flow rate through the pre-filter should be in the range of 0.5-1.5 meter per hour.
3. The filter media should have several sections, usually three, each filled with different
sizes of gravel. For three-section gravel pre-filter, the sizes of gravel would be 15-25mm,
8-15mm and 4-8mm. The largest size of gravel is used at the raw water inlet side and the
smallest towards the outlet.
4. The dimensions of a horizontal flow roughing filter can be estimated using the
parameters indicated blow.
Table 2-2 Preliminary design guidelines for horizontal flow-roughing filters
Parameter Average suspended solid concentration in raw water
High (150mg/l) Medium (100-150mg/l)
Horizontal flow (m/h) 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.50
Depth(m) 1.0-1.50 1.0-1.50
Width (m) 1.0-1.50 1.0-1.50
length of filter media (m):
First compartment (15-25mm) 3.0 – 5.0 3.0 – 4.0
Second compartment (8-15mm) 2.0 – 4.0 2.0 – 3.0
Third compartment (4-8mm 1.0 – 3.0 1.0 – 2.0
(UNICEF, 2009)

9
2.3.4. Slow Sand Filtration
A water treatment system incorporating slow sand filtration can be designed to produce a safe
drinking water from even polluted turbid river water. In such a system, the slow sand filter is the
most important treatment process but not necessarily the only one. Unless the raw water is
relatively free of suspended and colloidal impurities, an exceptional situation in developing
countries, a pretreatment stage is necessary before the slow sand filter. Water from a slow sand
filter will be relatively safe; certainly much improved over the raw surface water, and will be of
better quality than water from this source treated by rapid sand filters. However, to guarantee
pathogen-free water at all times, particularly during the initial ripening period after filter
cleaning, disinfection is necessary. Clear water storage will usually be required before collection
or distribution.
Table 2-3 Typical design features of a slow sand filter are as follows
Feature Characteristic Range
A Depth of water above sand 1-1.5 m
freeboard water level 0.2-0.3 m
B Depth of media 0.8-1.4 m
Grading of sand - effective size 0.15 – 0.3 mm
- uniformity coefficient 2–5
Filtration size 0.1-0.2m/h
C Size of gravel (0.3 – 0.5 m depth) 25 – 50 mm
Depth of under drainage system 0.3 – 0.5 m
Spacing of laterals 1- 2 m
Size of holes in laterals 2 – 4mm
Spacing of holes in laterals 0.1 – 0.3 m
D Effluent weir level above sand 30 – 40 mm
(UNICEF, 2009)
2.3.4.1. Physical and Biological Processes
After entry of water to the filter box and during several hours of storage above the sand surface,
flocculation and sedimentation of large particles takes place. In passing through the sand bed,
straining, filtration and adsorption processes are proceeding simultaneously, especially in the
first 40-60cm, and biological action occurs near the surface. During storage above the sand bed

10
the water will be exposed to sunlight during daytime and this will have a bactericidal effect. In
addition, some micro-and macro organisms will settle out with solids during this storage period.
However, the major biological activity in a slow sand filter occurs in the surface layer, called the
'schmutzdecke' or dirty skin, where bacteria, algae, protozoa, and rotifer siren trapped, proliferate
and die. Organic components of the raw water are broken down by organisms in this layer and
the end result is physical, chemical and bacteriological improvements in water.
2.3.4.2. Unit Cost of Treatment
In countries where resources for development are grossly inadequate, the water supply sector
must compete for its share of available funds with other deserving sectors. Most National Plans
now include provisions for water supply. The unit cost of providing water to communities
becomes extremely important. The lower the cost per person, the greater the number of people
who will benefit from available resources and the sooner the total population will be provided
with at least basic needs. Water supply executives, planner sand designers who fail to take
advantage of the low cost benefit of slow sand filtration will be condemning significant numbers
of people to continuing exposure to water borne diseases and denying them the improved quality
of life which a safe and adequate water supply would help to bring (Countries, D, 2007).
2.3.4.3. Operation and Maintenance
There as on why so many 'white elephant' water treatment plants lie derelict in developing
countries is because the technology chosen was too sophisticated for the recipient communities
to operate and maintain. In many cases, the cost of operating conventional chemical treatment
plants was beyond the capacity of low-income communities to bear without government subsidy.
Adoption of slow sand filtration, where technically feasible, will reduce operation and
maintenance costs and allow plant operators to be provided by the local community. The water
agency's technical support system will only be required for general supervision, solution of
major problems and provision of spares. Community involvement in planning the supply will
ensure that valuable local knowledge can be used in site selection and that local needs are
considered. If members of the community are aware of what is being provided and why, and
know what contributions are expected of them, their involvement will promote an attitude of
identity with and interest in the water supply system which will contribute to its long-term
success. In the past, Government support systems for water supply schemes outside major cities
in developing countries have not been effective and unless a community can operate and

11
maintain its own system, and can afford to do so, the chances are high that the benefits of the
investment will be lost.
Generally, using sand filter for water treatment offers unique advantage for solving water
shortage problem. Though the technology is cheap and simple, it is not widely used in the
Philippines, perhaps due to lack of expertise for the maintenance and operations of such kind of
treatment. An evaluation of the use of local sand for slow filtration and its eventual use in local
water districts for water treatment is an important contribution to water demand of the local
population (Bagundol, 2013).
2.3.5. Disinfection
Chlorination, the use of chlorine dioxide, ozonation, UV radiation and advanced oxidation
processes are the methods of disinfection. However, chlorine is the most common disinfectant
used for the disinfection of filtered water, since it is cheap, effective, reliable and harmless to an
acceptable degree. The bleaching powder is mixed for iron oxidation and disinfection. The
filtered water is finally disinfected by chlorination, whereby the microorganisms that are still
present in the water are killed or inactivated, and effective against the bacteria that are normally
associated with water-related diseases. Combat and algae and other plants, as it is powerful
germicide and algaecide. Eliminates the taste and odor of chlorine, oxidized iron and manganese,
improves coagulation and eliminates color (WHO, 2013).
Chlorination Chemistry: - When chlorine is added to water, a variety of chemical processes take
place. The chlorine reacts with compounds in the water and with the water itself. Some of the
results of these reactions (known as the chlorine residual) are able to kill microorganisms in the
water.
Chlorine Demand: - The total amount of chlorine which is used up in reactions with compounds
in the water is known as the chlorine demand. A sufficient quantity of chlorine must be added to
the water so that, after the chlorine demand is met, there is still some chlorine left to kill
microorganisms in the water.
Dosage of Chlorine: - The amount of chlorine needed to disinfect water will vary from source to
source. Waters should be clear, and free from organic matters and suspended solids. When
chlorine is added to water some is used immediately to oxidize any organic matter and to kill
bacteria in the water. Any that is not used straight away remains in solution in water as residual
chlorine and protects against any possible future contamination of the water. There is no purpose

12
in adding to little chlorine to water, because the chlorine will be used up in oxidation of the
organic material, and there may be insufficient chlorine to kill bacteria present. Disinfection is
performed by any chlorine that remains after organic matter has been oxidized, and therefore is
carried out by the last, and not the first, few parts per millions of chlorine in the water. A
sufficient quantity of chlorine should be added to leave adequate chlorine residual in the water.
The residual chlorine level should not, however, be so great as to cause consumers to complain
about the taste of chlorine in the water. Applied chlorine dosage rates are usually in the range of
0.5 to 2.0mg/l, depending up on the initial quality of the water. A suitable contact time following
addition of chorine should be provided to allow the water to be fully disinfected before it reaches
the consumers. Contact times are between 10 and 30 minutes, with a time of 30 minutes being
recommended. After this contact time the water should have a chlorine residual of 0.2 to 0.5mg/l.
Higher chlorine dosage may be necessary for disinfecting new water mains, new wells or
reservoirs, or other items that may have been contaminated. Samples of water should be taken
immediately after disinfection to ensure that no coliforms are present. New water mains need to
be disinfected prior to commissioning, and older mains should be disinfected after repairs or
after any major cleaning program if they are found to be contaminated. First of the entire pipe
lines should be flushed out with clean water and a foam swab passed through the pipe to remove
slime, dirt and deposits. Pipe lines may then be disinfected by filling them with water containing
chlorine at a concentration of 20mg/l (50mg/l is frequently used) and leaving this in the pipe line
for not less than 24 hours for draining the chlorine solution away. Wells, reservoirs and storage
tanks should also be disinfected before being put in to service following construction, repairs,
cleaning or maintenance. The walls should brush down as thoroughly as possible using a strong
chlorine solution containing between 50 and 100mg/l of chlorine. Prior to this, reservoirs and
storage tanks may be washed down using high pressure water jets. Following cleaning the well,
reservoir or tank should be filled with water containing at least 20mg/l of chlorine and left to
stand for not less than 24 hours before the contents are drained away to waste. The tank should
then be refilled with fresh water to remove any chlorine that may create undesirable taste in
water.
Break Point Chlorination: - if water contains –ammonia or certain nitrogenous organic matter
which reacts with chlorine, the addition of chlorine causes the formation chloramine until the
ratio of elemental chlorine to ammonia compounds is about 5 to 1. Further addition of chlorine

13
results in the oxidation of chloramines to gaseous nitrogen and nitrogen oxides, which decrease
the quantity of chloramines present. After all of the chloramines have been oxidized additional
chlorine added to the water forms only free available chlorine. The point at which all of the
chloramines have been oxidized and only free chlorine is Formed is called the” break point. “If
no ammonia is present in the water, there will be no break pointe. The chlorine required to reach
the break point is usually about 10 times the ammonia nitrogen content of the water. However, in
certain waters, because of the presence of other chlorine consuming substances, as much as 25
times the ammonia nitrogen concentration may be required. Enough chlorine should be added
past the break point to ensure adequate free chlorine residual.
Point of application: - Chlorine can be applied to water in a variety of locations in the water
treatment plant, storage facilities or the distribution system.
Pre chlorination: Pre chlorination was often used for water to maintain residual chlorine
throughout the treatment period, thus prolonging contact time. It has been suggested that the
coagulation, flocculation and filtration processes are improved by pre-chlorination of the water
and the disturbing growth of algae in the settling tanks has been reduced. At pre chlorination,
chlorine was usually injected into the raw water at or near the raw water inlet. Pre chlorination
has been the most common disinfection practice in the past.
Post-chlorination: Post-chlorination generally involves the use of chlorine immediately after
filtration and before clarification. The design and construction of the water treatment facilities of
the military installations will include the necessary provisions to modify the locations of the
chlorine applications that may later be desirable to improve the treatment or disinfection
procedures (WHO, 2011).
De chlorination; during de chlorination, chlorine is added to the water in the distribution system
to maintain minimum residual chlorine content throughout the system.
Chlorination equipment: The hypochlorite salts must be applied to water in the form of solutions.
The hypochlorite solutions are pumped through a membrane pump through an injection system
in the water to be chlorinated. If elemental chlorine is used for disinfection, it must be injected
through chlorine blenders in solution. Because chlorine solutions are acidic, many components of
a chlorination system must consist of corrosion-resistant materials, such as glass, silver, rubber,
or plastics. It is essential to keep the chlorinator in conditions without problems.

14
 3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Description of the Study Area
Shire Enda Selassie town is located in North West zone of Tigray national regional state at 1095
km along Addis Ababa-Dedebit road. Geographically, Shire town is located at latitude of
14006’N and 38017’E. The total area of the town is estimated to be 1460ha and is divided into
five kebele. The town water supply is provided from surface water (dam water called “May
Dumu”, in which the water is collect from rain and from different non perennial rivers in the
rainy season) and from ground water sources.
The surface water treatment plant is near to the dam which is 17 km far from the town. The
treatment plant consists with modern treatment units such as collection chamber, plan
sedimentation tank, slow sand filter, clear water tank and other power supply units used for
pumping. The general topography of the town is characterized as a flat land. According to the
GPS location, the elevation of the built-up area ranges between 1890 m.a.s.l. and 1915 m.a.s.l.
The location of the town is shown below (Desta, L, 2015).

Figure 3-1 Location of study area

15
3.2. Existing water treatment plant
The water treatment technology involves the removal of large solids that implement barrel
screens, followed by conventional treatment. In Shire town, water treatment plant consists
collection chamber, plan sedimentation, slow sand filter and chlorination tank.
Plan sedimentation tank: - Finer suspended particles can be reduced further by allowing the raw
water from collection chamber to flow slowly through a sedimentation tank. The sedimentation
tank should be designed for a specific retention time. The arrangement and design of inlet, outlet,
baffle structures, settling and sludge zones are very important in order for the sedimentation tank
to function properly.

After the sedimentation tank provides slow sand filter and water passing through a filter medium
consisting of filters and filter nozzles. The filter removes flocculated materials trapped in the
sand. Then, the water in the contact tank is disinfected with chlorine and goes to the service
reservoir tank to be distributed in the city. The sand filters are cleaned by scraping, in which the
direction of the water is inverted and compressed air is added.

Figure 3-2 flow chart of shire water treatment plant

16
3.3. Study design
This research would be chosen an experimental study design which was to analysis the
bacteriological and physico-chemical drinking water quality in order to evaluate the performance
of the treatment plant. By taking sample water from raw water (collection chamber), outflow
from the sedimentation tank, filtration processes (slow sand filter) and after chlorination.
3.4. Research methods
3.4.1. Data collection and sources
The data sources were divided into two categories, primary and secondary data. The primary data
in this study area were collect through laboratory analysis by taking sample from the treatment
plant and test the physico-chemical and bacteriological analysis. Secondary data would be gained
from the national regional state of Tigray Bureau of water resource, water supply service of Shire
town, different journals and books. The samples were collected for the examination of physico-
chemical and a bacteriological property by the plastic bottles (1L). Samples of raw and treated
water were taken (sedimentation, filtration and disinfection).
3.4.2. Sampling time and sample size
When selecting the sampling points, each location must be considered individually; however, the
following general criteria are normally applicable: sampling points should be selected so that the
samples taken are representative of the various sources from which the water comes or enters the
system. Water sampling for laboratory analysis would be taking from the treatment plant, raw
water and treated water, sedimentation effluent and filtration effluent. Water sample is taking
once pre month by taking one day randomly from the fourth week of the month and analysis the
water quality for about six months and sample taking in the morning (1:30 to 5:30 hr local
time).The sampling frequency was taken in accordance with ESA of the potable water once per
month (ESA, 2013).
Table 3-1 Sample point and frequency
Sno Sample point Symbol Frequency of sample both season
1 Raw water
(collection chamber ) 01 4
2 Sedimentation effluent 02 4
3 Filtration effluent 03 4
4 After chlorination 04 4

17
 Figure 3-3 Location of Sample point
3.4.3. Sampling procedure
Sampling techniques: - A sample technique was adopted. Sample of treated and untreated water
supplies would be taken from the designated location within the water treatment plant. A water
sample was taken in the morning for both the dry and the wet season of the month. Samples were
taken once pre month and recorded the result after analysis. All sampling would be carried out
according to standard methods and procedures.
3.4.4. Sample Handling and Preservation
Appropriate sample handling and preservation is essential to ensure data quality. A water sample
was collected for the study the following standard procedure as described by (APHA, 1998).
Prewashed plastic bottle was used to collect sample for water quality analysis. Sample containers
was labeled on the filed using appropriate codes and water sample was temporary stored in ice
packed cooler (ice box) and transport to the laboratory and stored in refrigerator at 40c until
processing and analysis. In general, to avoid sample deterioration the analysis of sample was
started as soon as possible after collection of sample.
3.4.5. Laboratory Methods
Field and laboratory measurement were carried out according to the standard methods (APHA,
2012). The result per sample in laboratory is recorded two times. And also used controls by
analysis distill water to identify the errors of the materials used for analysis of water quality.
Physical test: - turbidity was measured by turbidity meter, Electric conductivity measured by
conductivity meter, total solids, total suspended solid (TSS) and TDS determined by gravimetric
method and temperature determined by pH meter.

18
Chemical test: -the concentration of the hydrogen ion (PH) was determined by means of PH
meter introducing the probe into the sample. The chemical analyzes, residual chlorine, iron and
manganese were measured using a spectrum-photo-meter: water test tubes vacuum and sample
water test tubes submerged in the instrument and the measured value was recorded. The device
would be cleaned with a cloth to allow the absorption of free light. The instrument was filled
with a sample of water and the instrument was switched on, the reading was recorded.
Microbial Tests: The membrane filtration process (MF) was used, after mixing the sample by
inverting, 100 ml of water sample was added through the cellulose filter membrane filter (0.45
μ). Then it was transferred to the selective isolation medium and fecal coliform and total
coliform are determined by membrane filtration techniques using an incubator 44 ° C and 37 ° C
at the correct temperature and the correct time for 24 hours according to (APHA, 2012).The
complete laboratory analysis will be performed according to standard methods and procedures.
Table 3-2 Laboratory test technique or methods
Sno Water quality characteristic Methods or analysis technique
1 Physical quality characteristic
Turbidity Turbidity meter
Temperature PH meter
TSS and TDS Gravimetric
2 Chemical quality characteristic
The chemical quality analysis Spector photometer method
3 Bacteriological analysis
Fecal coliform and total coliform Membrane filtration method

3.4.6. Data analysis

After all the necessary information’s are collected; the result was summarizing by Microsoft
Excel and the data analysis was organized to determine drinking water quality compliance with
the ESA and WHO guideline values and performance calculation.
3.5. Material used
The material that was used to determine the physical analysis, turbidity measure by turbidity
meter, TSS and TDS measured gravimetrically and oven drying. Materials for the analysis of
chemical components; quantitative spectrophotometer techniques model 7100 Palintest, and a

19
PH meter was used for chemical tests of water quality. Incubating sample water in media which
selectively promote growth coliform bacteria and fecal coliform are the prominent pathogenic
contamination indicator of Fecal coliform and total coliform. Sample bottle, test tube flavor tube
diameter, distilled water, 70% alcohol for disinfection, Incubation machine incubate at 44 oC and
37 oC looking for fecal coliform and total coliform respectively. The plastic bottles are properly
labeled to identify the samples, especially first from the raw water and the sedimentation effluent
and the filter effluent. This required labeling the bottles for identification. All bottles were
washed with soap and washed several times. The sample was temporary stored in ice packed
cooler and transport to the laboratory and stored in refrigerator at 4 0c until processing and
analysis.
Table 3-3 Summary of materials used in laboratory
Sno Name of material Used for
A Physical analysis
1 Turbidity meter To measure turbidity
2 Oven dry To dry filter paper and dish
3 Pump and filter To pump and filter sample water
4 Digital balance To weight
B Chemical analysis
5 pH meter To measure the sample water acidity or
alkalinity
6 Reagent For chemical analysis
7 Test tube To measure sample water
8 Photo meter (photo 7100) For measure of chemical concentration
C Biological analysis
9 Membrane filtration To filter sample water
10 Incubator To grow up bacteria
3.6. Plant efficiency Evaluation Method
The performance of Shire WTP was evaluated as removal efficiency between the individual
parameter of raw water and treated water. The removal efficiency of the plant was calculated
using the log removal value (LRV) and percentage removal as the following equation (Tadesse
Sisay, at el, 2017) And ( W. R. Australia, 2014).

20
Log Removal Value (LRV): - is a measure of the ability of a treatment processes to remove
pathogenic microorganisms. LRVs are determined by taking the logarithm of the ratio of
pathogen concentration in the influent and effluent of water treatment process.
influent concentration − effluent concentration
𝑅𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑎𝑙 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 (%) = ∗ 100 … … (1)
influent concentration
Parametric influent concentration (01) minus parametric effluent concentration (04) the whole
divide by influent concentration. The influent concentration means the raw water inter in to the
treatment plant to treated and effluent concentration the final treated from the treatment plant.
3.6.1. Evaluating the major unit processes of the hydraulic parameter performance
The hydraulic performance of Shire water treatment plant (plan sedimentation, slow sand filter
and chlorination tank) was evaluated by comparing the actual design dimensions with the
required design characteristics. Although the capacity was evaluated by comparing the current or
required demand with the current treated water supply by the water treatment plant. The
designed dimensions or hydraulic parameters were comparing with standard values means
(allowable design characteristics) for conventional water treatment plant. The allowable design
number of sand filters to be used was calculated by following relation.
13
𝑁 = 2 √𝐴 … … … … … . (2)

Where, A: total required area for slow sand filter in m2

N: number of filters
3.6.2. Plant Capacity Assessment Methods
3.6.2.1. Population Estimation
Water treatment plant (WTP) capacity is always based on the real population of the town being
served. In this case, to estimate the needed capacity of Shire WTP, it is necessary to know the
existing population number of Shire town. The population forecasting method that used in this
study was the CSA method as follows.
𝑃𝑛 = 𝑃𝑜 ∗ 𝑒 𝑘𝑛 … … … … … … … … (3)
Where, Pn = population at n decades or years
Po = initial population
n = decade or year
k = growth rate in percentage

21
3.6.2.2. Water Demand Estimation
In the design of any water treatment plant capacity it is necessary to estimate the amount of
water that is required to adequately served up to the end of the design period. This is involves
determining the number of people who are served and their per capita water consumption,
together with an analysis of the factors that may operate to affect consumption. In this study
water demand estimates by using the existing population of the town and the per capita water
consumption of each connection type, house connection, yard connection, yard shared
connection and public tap connection these includes domestic water demand. However, the total
water demand includes domestic demand, non-domestic demand and un- accounted for water.
The water sources for Shire town are from two separate sources, which are ground water source
and the surface water sources. The total water demand of the Shire town is estimated to be
6906m3/day. Whereas, the water production of the borehole is 1625m3/day in 2019G.C. and
design capacity of the plan sedimentation and slow sand filter is subtraction of the two which is
5281m3/d.

22
 Methods

Data collection

Primary data Secondary data

Observation Laboratory current

Design of
analysis Water
treatment
supply
plant
record

Investig Physical
ation chemical
biological
Photos

Data
analysis

Excel
program

Final document

Figure 3-4 Summary of Research Methodology in chart

23
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Evaluating the performance of Shire town water treatment plant, the water quality being supplied
from these treatment plant was analyzed. For this purpose, samples were collected from the raw
water and treated water from the treatment plant. The result of the analysis is shown blow in the
Table 4.1 and table 4.2. The result indicates that more of the water quality parameters are within
the limits WHO drinking water quality guideline, except the turbidity, suspended solid, free
chlorine, fecal coliform and total coliform microbial contents.
4.1. Water quality results
Table 4-1 The average value of water quality compliance with ESA and WHO of dry season
April January February
ESA
Raw Treated Raw Treated Raw Treated
Sno parameter unit and
water water water water water water
WHO
(01) (04) (01) (04) (01) (04)
1 Turbidity NTU 24 15 24 5 26 7 5
o
2 Temperature C 25 24.4 26 25 27 25 25
3 TDS mg/l 84.6 82.5 135.3 78.5 109.5 60 1000
4 TSS mg/l 130 85 100 50 125 45 ----
5 E. μS/cm 260 100 200 110 230 80 1500
conductivity
6 pH 8.1 7.8 8.2 7.75 8 8.1 6.5-8.5
7 Free chlorine mg/l 0.006 0.08 0.003 0.12 0.004 0.11
0.2-0.5
8 Iron mg/l 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.22 0.18 0.2 0.3
9 Manganese mg/l 0.12 0.052 0.25 0.058 0.3 0.095 0.05-0.5
10 Total mg/l as 40 45 45 50 50 52 300
hardness CaCo3
11 Total CFU/ 50 6 43 5 60 7 0
coliform 100ml
12 Fecal CFU/ 30 4 30 1 35 1 0
coliform 100ml

24
Table 4-2 The average value of water quality compliance with ESA and WHO of rainy season
Jun July August
Raw Treated Raw Treated Raw Treated ESA
Sno parameter unit water water water water water water and
(01) (04) (01) (04) (01) (04) WHO
1 Turbidity NTU 26 20 30 16 28 16 5
2 Temperature oC 26 24.1 24 22.4 22.9 20.2 25
3 TDS mg/l 92.5 42 74.6 90.5 72.5 95.2 1000
4 TSS mg/l 110 50 1110 690 800 390 -----
5 E. μS/cm 97.1 102.2 190 160 190 120 150
conductivity
8 pH 8.2 8.1 8.4 8.1 8.5 8.4 6.5-8.5
9 Free chlorine mg/l 0.04 0.07 0.006 0.11 0.07 0.25 0.2-0.5
10 Iron mg/l 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.28 0.3
9 Manganese mg/l 0.23 0.06 0.32 0.15 0.45 0.25 0.05-0.5
10 Total mg/l as 50 60 50 65 80 100 300
hardness CaCo3
11 Total CFU/ 30 8 100 13 70 10
coliform 100ml 0
12 Fecal CFU/ 20 5 100 7 40 9 0
coliform 100ml
4.1.1. Turbidity
Turbidity is measure of the clarity of a water body and is an optical measurement that compares
the intensity of light scattered by a water sample with the intensity of light scattered by a
standard reference suspension. It is commonly recorded in Nephelometric turbidity units (NTU).
Turbidity in water is caused by suspended and colloidal matter such as clay, silt, finely divided
organic and inorganic matter, and plankton and other microscopic organisms. It is also due to
sediments which comes largely from shoreline erosion and from the re suspension of bottom
sediments due to wind mixing. Turbidity is the very serious and commonly used water quality
physical parameter that can provide the most important data of treatment process.

25
During the study period the Turbidity of the raw and treated water ranges from 24 to 30 NTU
and 5 to 20 NTU respectively. The result of turbidity value shows slightly high during the rainy
season for both raw and treated water. This may be due to runoff from different non- perennial
rivers which causes agitation and mixture of debris in the water which are ended in the dam
water during the rainy season. The maximum and minimum turbidity value during the study
period was above the permissible limits 5 NTU. Turbidity value less than or equal to 5 NTU is
recommended for effective disinfection in drinking water. However, up to 5 NTU is considered
acceptable to the consumers (WHO, 2011).
The turbidity removal efficiency of the whole treatment system was 37.5%, 79.17%, 73.08%,
23.08%, 46.67% and 42.86% (estimated using equation 1, shown chapter 3) for the six months
of laboratory test which includes the dry and rainy season in Shire water treatment plant. Shire
treatment plants were not efficient for the removal of turbidity both dry and rainy season.

35
Turbidity concentration in NTU

30
25
20
15 RW
10 TW
5 WHO
0

Sampling time

Figure 4-1 Turbidity of the water in NTU

4.1.2. Temperature
The climate of Shire town is characterized by tropical savanna and the temperature is slightly
varying between the night and among seasons. Temperature is one of the factors affecting floc
settlement of clarifiers. Increase in water temperature reduces floc settlement. This is due to
reaction against water molecule to temperature changes. When the water temperature decreases
the molecule of water come closer to each other resulting in density increases; in such case, the
density difference between water and solid particles becomes less; therefore, the particles settle

26
more slowly. This phenomenon facilitates suspension of lighter flocs initiating molecules of
water become less dense as temperature increases above 4oc or as temperature decreases down to
4oc molecules of water becomes denser (Fikrat M, 2018). The water temperature of the raw water
treated water was ranged from 22.9 to 27oC and 20.2 to 25oC respectively. The result shows
water temperature was slightly high value during dry season and slightly less value during rainy
season from the permissible limit (25oc) of WHO standards for drinking water. These variations
were directly related with weather condition of the study area.

30
25
Temperature in Oc

20
15
RW
10
TW
5
WHO
0

Sampling time

Figure 4-2 Temperatures of the water in oC

4.1.3. Total dissolved solid
Total dissolved solid includes inorganic salts (principally calcium, magnesium, potassium,
sodium, bicarbonates, chlorides and sulfates) and small amounts of organic matter that are
dissolved in water. Concentrations of TDS in water vary considerably in different geological
regions due to differences in the solubility of minerals. And have a linear relation with electrical
conductivity. The WHO and Ethiopian drinking water quality guide lines for TDS is 1000 mg/l.
During this study period, the total dissolved solid (TDS) value of raw water and treated water is
ranged from 72.5 to 135.3 mg/l and 42 to 109.5 mg/l respectively. This shows that the TDS
value is within the permissible limits (1000mg/l) of ESA and WHO standards for drinking water.
Hence based on TDS criteria the water being supplied from the water treatment plant is fit for
drinking purposes.

27
 1200

concentration of TDS in mg/l

1000
800
600
RW
400
TW
200
WHO
0

Sampling time

Figure 4-3 Concentration of TDS of the water

4.1.4. Total suspended solid
During this study period the concentration of total suspended solid of raw water was found in the
range between 100 to 1110 mg/l. And the concentration TSS after chlorination was ranged
between 45 to 690 mg/l in both seasons.

1200
concentration of total suspended

1000
800
solid in mg/l

600
RW
400
TW
200
WHO
0

Sampling time

Figure 4-4 Concentration of TSS of the water

The result shows the highest value of total suspended solid of the treatment plant were observed
during rainy season and this may be due to run off and erosion ended in the dam water (A. H.
Al-Obaidi etal, 2009) and (R. K. Gangwara etal, 2017), TSS is no direct significance health
effect. Matter which is suspended in still water consists of finely divided light solid which may

28
never settle or settle very slowly. Definitely, the net effect may be one of apparent of turbidity
without any visible solids. In flowing water, on the other hand, the solids which are kept in
suspension by the turbulence may be settleable if the water is let stand.
The suspended solid removal efficiency of Shire town water treatment plant was 34.61%, 50%,
64%, 54.54%, 37.84% and 51.25% (estimated using equation 1, shown chapter 3) for the
laboratory test of six months respectively. The town water treatment plant was not efficient for
the removal of TSS.
4.1.5. Electrical conductivity
Electrical conductivity is the measure of the ability of water to conduct an electric current and
depends upon the number of ions or charged particles in the water, and is measured by passing a
current between two electrodes (a known distance apart) that are placed into a sample of water.
The unit of measurement for electrical conductivity is expressed in micro Siemens per centimeter
(μS/cm). Low values are characteristic of high- quality, low nutrient waters and high values of
conductance can be indicative of salinity problems. Very high values are good indicator of
possible polluted sites. A sudden change in electrical conductivity can indicate a direct discharge
or other source of pollution into the water. However, electrical conductivity readings do not
provide information on the specific ionic composition and concentrations in the water.

1600
concentration of EC in μS/cm

1400
1200
1000
800
600 RW
400 TW
200 WHO
0

Sampling time

Figure 4-5 Electrical conductivity of water

Based on the study period the value of electrical conductivity of the raw water ranged between
97.1 to 260 µs /cm. and the concentration of electrical conductivity of treated water ranged

29
between 80 to 160 µs/cm. The EC values were within the permissible limits (1500µs/cm) of the
ESA and WHO.
4.1.6. PH
The PH of a solution is the concentration of hydrogen ions, expressed as a negative logarithm of
hydrogen ion. It reflects the acidity or alkalinity of a solution, water with a PH of 7 is neutral;
lower PH levels indicate increasing acidity, while PH levels higher than 7 indicate increasingly
alkaline solutions. It is important to consider the effects of PH on other potential toxicants; e.g.
the bioavailability of heavy metals.
During the study period PH value of raw water was ranged from 8 to 8.5. And the PH value of
treated water was ranged between 7.75 to 8.4. The pH more than 8 is not suitable for effective of
disinfection with chlorine while values less than 6.5 enhance corrosion in water pipes and
household plumbing systems (WHO, 2011). The pH of the water source was found within the
recommended limits of ESA and WHO drinking water guideline values of 6.5 to 8.5.

8.6
8.4
8.2
PH Value

8
7.8 RW
7.6 TW
7.4 WHO
7.2

sampling time

Figure 4-6 pH value of water

4.1.7. Residual chlorine
During the study period the concentrations of residual chlorine of the water was ranged between
0.07 to 0.25mg/l in the dry and rainy season respectively. This result shows the concentration of
residual chlorine was below the recommended limits of ESA and WHO (0.2 -0.5mg/l) except the
result recorded in August which was 0.25mg/l and also based on this study the result shows high
value of residual chlorine in the drinking water was during the rainy season, although the largest

30
doses of chlorine were added to the water in most of the water purification stations in rainy
season because of the increase of pollution (FDRE, 2010). According to the WHO guideline, for
inactivating 90% of fecal coliform a free chlorine residual of 1mg/l is required for about 25-30
minutes. But during the study period the result shows the value of residual chlorine is very less
from the recommended limits (0.2 -0.5mg/l) of the treated water.

0.6
concentration of residual chlorine

0.5
0.4
0.3
in mg/l

RW
0.2
TW
0.1
WHO
0

Sampling time

Figure 4-7 Concentration of residual chlorine of the water

4.1.8. Iron
The value of iron for the raw water was found in the range 0.15 to 0.3mg/l. And the iron
concentration of the treated water was 0.2 to 0.3mg/l for the whole study period. The result
shows under the recommended limit (0.3mg/l) of the ESA and WHO. Comparing between both
seasons, higher value of Iron for both raw and treated water (water sample after filtration) were
observed during the rainy season. This may be due to the intrusion of Iron containing minerals
with the soil eroded from the surrounding of the dam. But, even if, the Iron concentration is
elevated in the rainy season comparing to the dry season, it is below the maximum permissible
limit recommended by WHO and ESA.
Water source with high concentration of Iron can cause taste, color, corrosion of plumbing
systems and liver diseases (M.K. Das et al, 2014).But in the study the value of Iron was closed to
the recommended value (0.3mg/l) so there is no consequence of Iron.

31
 0.35
concentration of Iron in mg/l
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15 RW
0.1 TW
0.05 WHO
0

Sampling time

Figure 4-8 Iron concentration of the water

4.1.9. Manganese
Manganese is one of the most abundant metals in the Earth’s crust, usually occurring with Iron.
It is used principally in the manufacture of Iron and steel alloys, as an oxidant for cleaning,
bleaching and disinfection as potassium permanganate and as an ingredient in various products.
Manganese is an essential element for humans and other animals. Adverse effects can result from
both deficiency and overexposure. Manganese is known to cause neurological affects following
inhalation exposure, particularly in occupational settings, and there have been epidemiological
studies that report adverse neurological effects following extended exposure to very high levels
in drinking –water.

0.6
concentration of Manganese

0.5
0.4
0.3
in mg/l

0.2 RW
0.1 TW
0 WHO

Sampling time

Figure 4-9 Manganese concentration of the water

32
The minimum and maximum concentration values of Mn during the dry season was ranged
between 0.12 and 0.45 mg/l while for the rainy season it was ranged between 0.052 and 0.25
mg/l respectively. The result shows the Mn concentration of the water for Shire Town is within
the desired recommended permissible limit for drinking water purpose as per WHO and ESA.
Exposure to Mn is associated with intellectual impairment in children (A. Q. Ibrahim, 2014).
Studies link levels of Mn greater than 0.5mg/l Mn in drinking water with: child attention and
memory impairments, speech, poor balance, coordination and fine motor skills (G. Wasserman,
2006).
4.1.10. Total hardness
The total hardness is the sum of the hardness formers in water (Ca and Mg ions). Originally
hardness was understood to be a measure of the capacity of water to precipitate soap. Soap is
precipitated mostly by the calcium and Mg ions present. During the study period concentration
of the total hardness for the raw water ranged from 40 to 80mg/l and the concentration total
hardness for the treated water ranged from 45 to 100mg/l for the whole study period. Based on
this study the result shows the high value of total hardness is during the rainy season. this may be
due to the erosion of soil across the non-perennial river as a result of rainfalls and reached these
pollutants into the dam water, especially calcium salts also the agricultural wastes of the nearby
lands, lead to the raising of hardness in the water. But all the result shows within the permissible
limits of hardiness in drinking water of the ESA and WHO which is 300mg/l as CaCO3.

350
concentration of total hardness in

300
250
200
150
mg/l

RW
100 TW
50 WHO
0

Sampling time

Figure 4-10 Concentration of total hardness of the water

33
4.1.11. Fecal coliform
Fecal coliform (FC) contents in the dry and rainy season of the raw water and treated water are
above the permissible limit of WHO drinking water quality guideline value (0 CFU/100ml). This
may be due to high runoff during the rainy season and failure of the treatment plant and the
presence of fecal coliform in the treated water is an indication of fecal contamination and an
indicator that the water become contaminated (A.N.Elisante, 2016). However, due to the
presence of turbidity effluent through the filter plant and pathogen would be hiding in the turbid
treated water.

120
concentration of fecal coliform in

100
80
CFU/100ml

60
RW
40
TW
20
WHO
0

Sampling time

Figure 4-11 Fecal coliform of the water

The FC removal efficiency of Shire town water treatment plant was not in line with the removal
efficiency of recommended standard (100%) for target pathogen removal (WHO, 2011). The FC
removal efficiency of the treatment plant was 86.67%, 96.67%, 97.14%, 75%, 93%, and 77.5%
(estimated using equation 1, shown chapter 3) laboratory test of the six months respectively.
Depending on this study Shire water treatment plant was not efficient in removal of fecal
coliform.
4.1.12. Total coliform
The total coliform (TC) contents in dry and rainy season of the raw water and treated waters are
above the permissible limit of WHO drinking water quality guideline value (0 CFU/100ml) like
the fecal coliform. The increased TC during the dry seasons may be the result of the favorable

34
temperatures for growth of bacteria which is associated with increasing temperature and human
activities may increase the production rate of bacteria. (Al-Jlil, et al, 2014).
The TC removal efficiency of Shire town treatment plant was not in line with the removal
efficiency of recommended standard of 100% for target pathogen removal (WHO, 2011). The
TC removal efficiency of the treatment plant system was 88%, 88.37%, 88.33%, 73.33%, 87%
and 85.71% (estimated using equation 1, shown chapter 3) laboratory test of the six months
respectively. Based on this study Shire water treatment plant was not efficient in removal of total
coliform.

120
concentration of total coliform in

100

80
CFU/100ml

60
RW
40
TW
20 WHO

Sampling time

Figure 4-12 total coliform of the water

4.2. Performances evaluation of Unit processes
4.2.1. Turbidity removal efficiency
Table 4-3 Turbidity concentrations of treatment plant on unit processes
Turbidity concentration during rainy season
Sample day Raw water (01) Effluent of Effluent of slow sand
sedimentation (02) filter (03)
Jun 26 20 15
July 30 18 10
August 28 18 10
Average 28 18.67 11.67

35
 Turbidity concentration during dry season
Sample day Raw water (01) Effluent of Effluent of slow sand
sedimentation (02) filter (03)
April 24 12 10
January 24 16 8
February 26 17 8
Average 24.67 15 8.67
1. Plan sedimentation removal efficiency of turbidity
According to the study removal efficiency of the plan sedimentation tank were the maximum
40% and the minimum 23.08% of the rainy season and maximum and minimum removal
efficiency of dry season was 50% and 33.33% respectively. And also the average removal
efficiency of rainy and dry season was 33.33% and 39.2% respectively. Therefor the turbidity
removal efficiency of plan sedimentation of the treatment plant was lower than from the
recommended standards (70 -90%).
ST removal efficiency of turbidity

40
35
30
25
in %

20 rainy season
15 removal efficiency
10
5
0
Jun July August
Sampling time

36
 ST removal efficiency of
50

turbidity in %
40
30
dry season removal
20
efficiency
10
0
April January February
Sampling time

Figure 4-13 Plan sedimentation removal efficiency of turbidity in rainy and dry seasons

40
Average turbidity removal
efficiency of ST in %

38

36 seasonal varation on
the plan
34 sedimentation

32

30
rainy season dry season

Figure 4-14 Average Turbidity removal efficiency of sedimentation in dry and rainy season
2. Slow sand filter removal efficiency of Turbidity
According the study, the removal efficiency of Filtration was the maximum 44.44% and the
minimum 25% rainy season and also the maximum and minimum removal efficiency for dry
season 52.94% and 16.67% respectively. And the average removal efficiency of rainy and dry
season was 37.5% and 42.22% respectively. Therefore, the turbidity removal efficiency of slow
sand filter in the treatment plant was lower than that of EPA standards.

37
 50

SSF removal efficiency of

40

turbidity in %
30
Rainy season
20
removal efficiency
10

0
Jun July August
sampling time

60
SSF removal efficiency of

50
turbidity in %

40
30
dry season removal
20 efficiency
10
0
April January February
sampling time

Figure 4-15 Slow sand filter removal efficiency of turbidity in dry and rainy seasons
of average turbidity in %
SSF removal efficiency

44
42
40
seasona varetion on
38 SSF
36
34
rainy dry season
season

Figure 4-16 Average Turbidity removal efficiency in dry and rainy season of SSF

38
4.2.2. Total and fecal coliform removal efficiency
Table 4-4 Total coliform and Fecal coliform concentrations of treatment plant on unit processes
Total coliform and Fecal coliform during rainy season
Total coliform Fecal coliform
Sample Effluent of Effluent After Effluent of Effluent of After
day sedimentation of slow chlorination sedimentation slow sand chlorination
tank (02) sand filter tank (04) tank (02) filter (03) tank (04)
(03)
Jun 15 10 8 15 10 5
July 100 50 13 80 40 7
August 50 20 10 25 15 9
Average 55 26.67 10.33 40 21.67 7
Total coliform and Fecal coliform during dry season
Total coliform Fecal coliform
Sample Effluent of Effluent After Effluent of Effluent of After
day sedimentation of slow chlorination sedimentation slow sand chlorination
tank (02) sand filter tank (04) tank (02) filter (03) tank (04)
(03)
April 40 20 6 20 10 4
January 40 17 5 20 6 1
February 45 20 7 30 10 1
Average 41.67 19 6 23.33 8.67 2

1. Slow sand filter removal efficiency of total coliform and fecal coliform
In most cases a slow sand filter is the least expensive water treatment facility for rural areas
the basic process involves slow sand filtration of raw water through a bed of fine sand at a
rate of 0.1 to 0.2 m3/m2/h. the process removes turbidity and greatly reduces number of
micro-organisms (cysts, bacteria, viruses), considerably improving the quality of water. they
are sensitive and commonly used indicators of bacterial pathogen contamination of the water.
Their presence implies the potential presence of microorganisms that are pathogenic to
humans. Fecal coliform bacteria have a strong correlation with fecal contamination of water

39
 from warm-blood animals. Slow sand filter is mandatory to remove 100% of the total and
fecal coliform from the water. But during this study total and fecal coliform removal
efficiency of slow sand filter is not fit with the standard.

Total and Fecal coliform Removal 60

efficiency of SSF in % 50
Total coliform
40 Removal efficiency
of SSF in rainy
30
season
20 Fecal coliform
Removal efficiency
10 of SSF in rainy
0 season
Jun July August
sampling time
Total and Fecal coliform Removal

70
60
efficiency of SSF in %

50 SSF Removal
efficiency of Total
40 coliform in dry
30 season
SSF Removal
20
efficiency of Fecal
10 Coliform in dry
0 season
April January February
sampling time

Figure 4-17 Total coliform and fecal coliform removal efficiency of slow sand filter in both
season

40
 Average Total and Fecal coliform
Removal efficiency of SSF in %
70
60
50 Average total
40 coliform Removal
30
efficiency of SSF
Average Fecal
20
coliform Removal
10 effiency of SSF
0
Rainy season Dry season
seasonal varation of TC and FC on SSF

Figure 4-18 Average total and fecal coliform removal efficiency in dry and rainy season of SSF
2. Chlorination tank removal efficiency of total and fecal coliform
The water after chlorination is used for drinking or distributes to the customer. The drinking
water or the water after chlorination tank is obligatory to free from any detection of total
coliform and fecal coliform bacteria. However, in the study period there is presence of total
and fecal coliform after the chlorination thank. The detection of high counts of total coliform
and fecal coliform (E. coli) implies a serious health concern. According to WHO guideline,
drinking water should not total as well as fecal coliform bacteria. Therefore, it could be said
that the bacteriological quality of drinking water of Shire town is unacceptable. The residual
chlorine was not detected in any of drinking water samples that indicate lack of disinfection.
efficiency of chlorination tank in %
Total and Fecal coliform Removal

90
80
70 Total coliform
60 Removal efficiency
50 of Chlorination tank
40 in rainy season
30 Fecal coliform
20 Removal efficiency
10 of Chlorination tank
rainy sesaon
0
Jun July August
sampling time

41
 Total and Fecal coliform Removal
efficiency of chlorination tank in
90
80
70 Total coliform
60 Removal efficiency
50 of Chlorination tank

%
40 in dry season
30 Fecal coliform
20 Removal efficiency
10 of Chlorination tank
0 in dry season
April January February
sampling time

Figure 4-19 Total coliform and fecal coliform removal efficiency of chlorination tank in both
season
Average Total and Fecal coliform

80
Removal efficiency of
chlorination tank in %

60 Average Total
coliform Removal
40 efficiency of
Chlorination Tank
20 Average Fecal
coliform Removal
0 efficiency of
Rainy Dry season ChlorinationTank
season
seasonal varation of TC and FC on chlorination tank

Figure 4-20 Average total and fecal coliform removal efficiency in dry and rainy season of
chlorination tank
4.3. Evaluation of hydraulic performance by comparing with standards
Evaluation of the hydraulic performance of the water treatment process described below are
evaluated by the technical Guidelines for the Construction and Management of Slow Sand Filters
manual document, specific performance requirements were considered during the evaluation of
each process. The criteria for major unit process evaluation presented in table 4.5 and 4.6 and the

42
technical Guidelines for the Construction and Management of Slow Sand Filters manual were
used as the basis to compare each treatment process.
4.3.1. Evaluation of Hydraulic Performance for plan Sedimentation tank
In this section, the performance of the sedimentation basin at Shire WTP was evaluated by
comparing between two conditions stated shown in Tables 4-5. It is somewhat clear that the
current performance for sedimentation basins at Shire WTP cannot deliver the needed quality of
treated water to the next filtration step in the plant. From Table 4.5 it can be found that present
performance of the plan sedimentation basin is not suitable because of the surface loading rate
and detention time in the sedimentation basin is not with the allowable design dimension.
The need to supply the minimum necessary outlet water quantity affected the performance
basins, where short and non-appropriate retention time was used. To overcome these obstacles,
the number of sedimentation basins at Shire WTP need to be increased and reformed. The design
of this basin also needs to be modified to be more suitable for the existing condition of water
treatment capacity and quality at Shire town.
Table 4-5 Comparison between allowable design characteristics, actual and required
characteristics for plan sedimentation tank at Shire town WTP
Allowable design Actual design Required design
basin basin basin
characteristics characteristics characteristics
water demand (m3/d) 4320 5281
water demand (m3/hr) 180 220
number of basin 2 4
Detention time (hr) 4-12 1.25* 4
total volume of tank (m3) 225 880
Surface loading rate (m3/m2/d) 2-10 30* 10
total surface area of basin (m2) 131, 144 528
surface area of each unit of
basin (m2) 72 132
water depth (m) 1.5-2.5 1.7 1.67
free board (m) 0.3-0.5 0.3 0.5

43
total depth of basin (m) 2 2.17
Length/width ratio 4:1 to 6:1 3.5* 4
width (m) 8, 4.54 5.74
Length (m) 12, 15.87 23
flow velocity (m/sec) 0.005 0.0035 0.0016
* Unsatisfactory to standards
In the study area length and width takes 8m and 12m. and this is not much with the used area
which is 131m2.but when calculate using the given demand which is 4320m3/d the area of the
basin is 144m2 and length and width of the basin is 4.54m and 15.87m respectively as shown in
the table 4.5. generally, in the study area there is dimension arrangement errors.
4.3.2. Evaluation of Hydraulic Performance for slow sand filter
For the used, slow sand filters in Shire water treatment plant are usually contain a wide pore,
especially at the upper filtration layers of hard sand, is used, where particulates sand inserts may
penetrate these pores easily. The efficiency of these filters is mostly suitable for filtrate high
turbidity water quality to catch these undesirable constituents. For the used slow sand filter in
Shire WTP, a performance evaluation was performed in this study on the same basis followed
with plan sedimentation basin.
The performance of the slow sand filter at Shire WTP was evaluated by comparing between two
conditions stated in the table 4.6. The required number of slow sand filters was calculated using
equation 2, shown in chapter 3. The performance of the slow sand filter is not acceptable way.
As the filtration rate 0.5m3/m2/d is higher than the recommended highest allowable filtration rate
of 0.2m3/m2/d for slow sand filters in conventional water treatment plant. This high filtration rate
causes a low treated outlet water quality for filtration step. The remaining design characteristics
of the filters are all fall in the recommended limits for these types of sand filters.
For the filtration stage of Shire water treatment plant comparison between results of actual
design dimensions and required design dimensions these shows a major modification are
necessary to enhance the performance of this step to be qualified to struggle the increasingly
water consumption of the town.

44
Table 4-6 Comparison between allowable design characteristics, actual and required
characteristics for slow sand filter at Shire town WTP
Allowable design Actual design Required design
basin basin basin
characteristics characteristics characteristics
water demand (m3/d) 4320 5281
water demand (m3/hr) 180 220.0416667
number of Filter Eq. 2 2 6
filtration rate (m3/m2/hr) 0.1-0.2 0.5* 0.2
total surface area (m2) 360 1100
area of each filter unit (m2) 200 180 183.3
wall length of unit (m) 18;15.49 17.73
breadth of filter unit (m) 10;11.62 10.34
Depth of water above sand (m) 1-1.5 1.2

freeboard water level (m) 0.2-0.3 0.3

Depth of media (m) 0.8-1.4 1

4.4. Capacity assessment of Shire town water treatment plant

In this study capacity of Shire water treatment plant evaluates, first evaluate the capacity of slow
sand filter and the second evaluate capacity of the whole treatment plant man’s due to demand
satisfaction of the people. Capacity of slow sand filter evaluates by comparisons of the three
conditions stated in the table 4-7 and the whole treatment plant evaluates by comparison of the
current water supply with the required capacity (required demand of the town). The required
capacity of Shire water treatment plant was estimated in depending on the current situation of the
town. Table 4-7 shows the current and required capacity for Shire WTP to provide enough
amount of water for Shire town over 24 hours a day. The required capacity was calculated as
follows.
The total number of population of Shire town in this time means in 2019 G.C was estimated
about 83954 capita using equation 3, shown chapter 3. The required average capacities were
calculated by multiplying the population number with the water consumption per capita of each
connection type. In this study the current capacity mans treated amount of water from Shire
water treatment plant including production of the borehole. And also the maximum required

45
capacity mans required demand or maximum daily demand of shire town in 2019. The values in
Table 4-7 show that a major modification needs to be made in the Shire WTP construction to
overcome the vast increasing demand on the water supply now.
Table 4-7 Current, design and required capacity of Shire WTP
Current Design Maximum required
capacity Capacity Capacity
Q (m3/d) Q (m3/d) Max. Qreq (m3/d)
Slow sand filter 2242 4320 5281
The Whole WTP 3867 5018 6906

46
 5. Conclusion and recommendation

5.1. Conclusion
It was found in depending on this general investigation made by this study for the performance
of Shire town water treatment plant for a short term observation around six months April –
August in 2019 and January and February in 2020, the resulting conclusions were obtained.
The removal efficiency of Shire treatment plant has a low ratio elimination rate of turbidity and
suspended particles are not completely removed by the plan sedimentation and filtration
processes. The performance of sedimentation basin has not efficient operated, the reasons for this
the amount of turbidity from the source and increase in demand on water supply leads to reduce
the detention time in the basin and flow velocity of water due to this settling velocity of the
particle was reduced and the particle pass to the next processes.
Slow sand filters have the same performance difficulties same as a sedimentation basin of high
water supply demands and limited unit capacity and less media size.
Shire water treatment plant was not efficient in bacterial removal where chlorination applied was
not efficient because of the system of addition of chlorine and presence of turbidity after
filtration these were suitable for hiding of bacteria. The residual chlorine from the effluent water
in the treatment plant was low and not met the residual chlorine standard.
The four parameter values (Turbidity, TSS, Total coliform, fecal coliform) were exceeded the
permissible limits and residual chlorine value is low and not met with the standard. The drinking
water produced from the Shire treatment plant has contained by contaminants like the bacteria.
The values of microbial pathogens (E. coli) exceeded the allowable limit of drinking water in
both season in the treatment plant.
Suspended solid concentration in treated water was higher than the recommended limits.
Therefore, looking adjustment of sand media and filtration rate is a solution to avoid high
suspended solid concentration problems.
The removal efficiency of treatment plants was ineffective for removal of contaminant in dry and
rainy season and not effective in pollutant removal values of in the unite processes of
sedimentation and filtration and also low removal efficiency for rainy and dry season
respectively. Generally, the whole and unite process efficiency of treatment plant in the study
area were not acceptable performance.

47
The capacity evaluation of Shire WTP are comparatively not acceptable, the general capacity
evaluation of Shire town water treatment plant was evaluated by compared with two conditions;
one of current supply of water by the treatment plant with the required water demand of Shire
town, man’s depending on the fulfillment of the customary.
The generally study concluded that the treatment plants were still technologically appropriate to
deliver safe and sufficient water to the public, but giving attention on an arrangement of
treatment plant component and technical skills on water quality monitoring may improve the
observed negative findings on physical, chemical and bacteriological quality.

48
5.2. Recommendation
Improving raw water quality of the sources improves efficiency of water treatment plant. Various
water quality and quantity improvement measures can be taken for this. The primary tasks to be
done are reducing the turbidity load in to the plan sedimentation tank.
Maintain or provide additional plan sedimentation tank and fixed the detention time with the
standards to decrease the flow velocity of the water and increase settling velocity of the particle.
And also fixed the surface loading rate with the standards to make the appropriate area, length
and width of the basin with in the required demand water this should be used to get acceptable
quality and quantity of water. Generally, fix appropriate dimension arrangement of the basin.
The efficiency of the treatment process can be increased by decreased the filter medium size of
in line to the design criteria because the media sized was above the design criteria and by
minimizing the filtration rate efficiency of the treatment process should be increased.
Increase the filtration unit and fixed the filtration rate within the standards, used to reduce the
turbidity after filtration, minimize the total and fecal coliform and also to get sufficient amount
of water within frequently scraping or clean the filtration processes should be done according to
the design.
The efficiency of the treatment plant can be increased using automatically addition or dosing of
chlorine to mix appropriately and get potable water or water free from pathogenic bacteria.

49
Reference
A. H. Al-Obaidi etal. (2009). Evaluation of Tigris River Quality in Baghdad for the period
between (November 2005- October (2006). Engineering and Technology Journal, vol.
27, no. 9, 1736-1746.
A. Q. Ibrahim, P.C. Onyenekwe and I.M. Nwaedozie, (2014). An efficiency assessment of lower
usuma watertreatment plant in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria. IOSR J. Environ. Sci. Toxicol.
Food Technol. 8(12), 46-53.
A.I, Hart, (2005). Physico-chemical in lower Niger Delta, Nigeria. Environ. Ecol,.23(2),, 361-
368.
A.N.Elisante, (2016). Sources and seasonal variation of coliform bacteria abundance in
groundwater around the slopes of Mount Meru, Arusha, Tanzania. Environ. Monit.
Assess.7, 188-395.
Ali Ahmed Mohammed, Shayma A. Shaker and Alaa A. Shakir, (2012). Sustainability and
Performance Evaluation of Drinking Water Treatment plants: A case Study in Iraq ofAl-
Krama Project. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 510-516.
Al-Jlil, S. A. Alromaih, H., Alshabonah, F., Alsoubaei, F., Alshamary, A., and Hazzazy, H,
(2014). Evaluation of Performance of Wastewater Treatment Plant t KACST, Riyadh
Saudi. Research Journal of Environmental Sciences, 8, (2), pp. 117.
Allen, M. J. and Copes, R, (2014). Turbidity and microbial risk in drinking water.”(March
2008). Bagundol, T. B., Awa, A. L. and Enguito, M. R. C. (2013) “Efficiency of Slow
Sand Filter in Purifying Well Water,” 2(1),. 86–102.
Al-Mashagbah, A. F, (2015). Assessment of Surface Water Quality of King Abdullah Canal,
Using Physico - Chemical Characteristics and Water Quality Index, Jordan. Journal of
Water Resource and Protection, 7, 339-352.
AL-Sulaimen, A.M, (2014). Evaluation of Potable Water Quality of AL-Diwaniyah Water
Treatment Plants’,. Kufa journal of Engineering 1, (1), 40-58.
Angreni, E, (2009). Review on optimization of conventional drinking water treatment plan.
World Applied Sciences Journal, 7, (9), pp. 1144-1151.
APHA, AWWA and WEF, (1998). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 22st edition, Washington, DC: American Public Health Association
American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation.

50
APHA, AWWA and WEF, (2012). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 22st edition, Washington, DC: American Public Health
Association,American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation.
Bagundol, T. B., Awa, A. L. and Enguito, M. R. C, (2013). Efficiency of Slow Sand Filter in
Purifying Well Water. 86–102.
Desta, L, (2015). MAY DUMU Water supply project.
Eassa, A.M., and Mahmood, A.A, (2012). An Assessment of the treated water quality for some
drinking water supplies at Basrah. Journal of Basrah Researches , 38, (3).
EPA, (2002). Water treatment manuals, clarification & filtration Published by EPA. Ireland.
EPA, (2002). water treatment manuals, Coagulation, flocculation & clarification Published by
EPA. Ireland.
ESA, (2013). Compulsory Ethiopian Standard Drinking water specification 1st Edition.
Ethiopian Standard Agency.
FDRE, (2010). Rapid assessment of drinking- water quality in the Country Report, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Fikrat M, ,. H, (2018). Evaluate the Efficiency of Drinking Water Treatment Plants. Journal of
Applied & Environmental Microbiology, vol. 6, no. 1 : 1-9. Doi: 10.12691/jaem-6-1-1.
G. Tchobanoglous, (1986). Waste water engineering treatment and reuse 4th edition,McGraw
Hill publish.
G. Wasserman, X. Liu, F. Parvez, H. Ahsan, D. Levy and P. Factor-Litvak, (2006). Water Man
dren’s Intellectual Function in Araihazar, Bangladesh. Environmental Health
Perspectives, Vol. 114, No. 1,, 124-129.
Hamdy, S.M.A, (2016). Examination and Analysis of Water from Household Water Filter
System Kifllo. Engineering & Technology Journal, 34, (3 Part (B) Scientific), pp.
418-424.
Ippolito, J., Barbarick, K., and Elliott, H, (2011). Drinking water treatment residuals: a review of
recent uses,. Journal of Environmental Quality, 40, (1), pp. 1-12.
Janna, H. a.-S, (2014). Performance Evaluation of Al-Karkh Water Treatment. International
Journal of Advanced Research, 2, (10),PP. 823-829.

51
Janna, H., and Al-Samawi, A.A, (2014). An Efficiency Assessment of Lower Usuma Water
Treatment Plant in Abuja Metropolis, Nigeria. Journal of Environmental Science
Toxicology and Food Technology, 46-53.
Kučera, T., Tuhovčák, L., and Biela, R, (2016). Methodology for the Estimation of the
Technical Condition in the Case of Water Treatment Plants. Procedia Engineering, , 162,
pp. 71-76.
M.K. Das, B. Karmakar and R.L. Rajib Paul, (2014). Assessment of physicochemical
characterstics of drinking water sources in Chawmanu, Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol 3(7), 33-
38.
Ministry of water Resource and Irrigation, (2006). Water work Design Guide line standards for
Ethiopia.
Mishera, A., and Kadu, P, (2014). Performance Evaluation of Water Treatment Plant at
Yavatmal (MS): Case Study. International Journal of Research in Advent Technology, 2,
(5), pp. 455-458.
Mohammed, A.A., and Shakir, A.A, (2012). Evaluation the Performance of Al-wahdaa Project
Drinking Water Treatment plant: A case Study in Iraq’,. International Journal of
Advances in Applied Sciences, 1, (3), pp. 130-138.
Drinking water protection, (2012). DRINKING WATER TREATMENT OBJECTIVES
(MICROBIOLOGICAL ) FOR SURFACE WATER SUPPLIES IN BRITIS
COLUMBIA. 1-9.
R. K. Gangwara, P. Khareb, J. Singha, and A. P. Singha, (2017). Assessment of physicochemical
properties of water: River Ramganga at Bareilly U.P,. Journal of Chemical and
Pharmaceutical Research.vol. 4, no. 9,, 4231-4234.
Sadik, W.H., and Al-Salman, I.M, (2014). Evaluate the efficiency of two water treatment plants
of drinking water in City of Kerbala - Kerbala Governance – Iraq. journal of kerbala
university, pp. 1-9.
Sharma, H.K., and Rather, M.A, (2015). Assessment of Chlorination Efficiency and Quality of
Municipal Drinking Water in Gwalior City, Madhya Pradesh, India. International
Journal of Science and Research, 4, (1), pp. 1699-1707.

52
Tadesse Sisay, Abebe Beyene and Esayas Alemayehu, (2017). Assessment of drinking water
quality and treatment plant efficiency in Southwest Ethiopia,t. J. Env. Sci. Pollu Res.
3(3), 208–212.
Tebbutt, T.H.Y, (1997). Principles of water quality control. Butterworth-Heinemann.
UNICEF, (2009). Technical Guidelines For the Construction and Management of Drinking
Water Distribution Networks A Manual for Field Staff and Practitioners,.
UN-WATER, (2004). UN water report on water supply and sanitation issue Water Research
Australia.Log removal values in wastewater treatment, Australia. W.Stumm, C. R.
O‟Melia and J. Amer. Water treatment America Water Works Assoc.
Varadhajan, R.B, (2009). Importance of Biological Parameters of Water Quality to Reform
Water Quality Index in Practice’, in Editor (Eds.) Book Importance of Biological
Parameters of Water Quality to Reform Water Quality Index in Practice. edn., pp. 199-
204.
Water, A., Association, W. and Society, A, (2005). WATER TREATMENT PLANT DESIGN.
Wei, J., Ye, B., Wang, W., Yang, L., Tao, J., and Hang, Z, (2010). Spatial and temporal
evaluations of disinfection by-products in drinking water distribution systems in Beijing
China. Sci. Total Environ., 408, (20), pp. 4600-4606.
W. R. Australia, (2014). Log removal values in wastewater treatment, Australia. W. Stumm C.
R. O’Melia and J. Amer. (1968).Water treatment America Water Works Assoc.
WHO, (2004). The world health report, changing the history, comprehensive
prevention,treatment and care report.
WHO, (2011). Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 3rd Ed., World Health Organization,.
Geneva.
WHO, (2013). Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 5th Ed Health Criteria and Other
Supporting InformationWorld Health Organization. Geneva.
Zhang, K., Achari, G., Sadiq, R., Langford, C.H., and Dore, M.H, (2012). An integrated
performance assessment framework for water treatment plants. Water Res, 46, (6), pp.
1673-1683.

53
 A. Appendixes: - Collected data during different months
Table A-1 Collected data during the first month (April, 2019)

April

Sno parameter unit Raw Effluent Effluent After ESA WHO

water of ST of SSF chlorination
(01) (02) (03) (04)
1 turbidity NTU 24 12 10 15 5 5
2 temperature oC 25 23.4 25 24.4 25 25
3 TDS mg/l 84.6 83.4 80.4 82.5 1000 1000
4 TSS mg/l 130 100 100 85
5 E. μS/cm 260 200 150 100 1500 1500
conductivity
6 PH 8.1 8.03 7.2 7.8 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5
7 Free chlorine mg/l 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.08 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5
8 Iron mg/l 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.23 0.3 0.3
9 Manganese mg/l 0.12 0.08 0.065 0.052 0.05-0.5 0.05-0.5
10 total as 40 40 40 45 300 300
hardness CaCo3
11 Total CFU/ 50 40 20 6 0 0
coliform 100ml
12 Fecal CFU/ 30 20 10 4 0 0
coliform 100ml

54
Table A-2 Collected data during the second month (January, 2020)

January
Raw Effluent Effluent After
Sno parameter unit water of ST of SSF chlorination ESA WHO
(01) (02) (03) (04)
1 turbidity NTU 24 16 8 5 5 5
2 temperature oC 26 26 24 25 25 25
3 TDS mg/l 135 107.5 85 78.5 1000 1000
4 TSS mg/l 100 80 55 50
5 E. μS/cm 200 150 100 110 1500 1500
conductivity
6 PH 8.2 7.9 7.5 7.75 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5
7 Free chlorine mg/l 0.003 0.0053 0.006 0.12 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5
8 Iron mg/l 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.22 0.3 0.3
9 Manganese mg/l 0.25 0.15 0.085 0.058 0.05-0.5 0.05-0.5
10 total as 45 45 40 50 300 300
hardness CaCo3
11 Total CFU/ 43 40 17 5 0 0
coliform 100ml
12 Fecal CFU/ 30 20 6 1 0 0
coliform 100ml

55
Table A-3 Collected data during the third month (February,2020)

February
Raw Effluent Effluent After
Sno parameter unit water of ST of SSF chlorinatio ESA WHO
(01) (02) (03) n (04)
1 turbidity NTU 26 17 8 7 5 5
2 temperature oC 27 26 26 25 25 25
3 TDS mg/l 109.5 102.25 95.25 60 1000 1000
4 TSS mg/l 125 90 60 45
5 E. μS/cm 230 165 100 80 1500 1500
conductivity
6 PH 8 7.6 7.9 8.1 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5
7 Free chlorine mg/l 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.11 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5
8 Iron mg/l 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.3
9 Manganese mg/l 0.3 0.25 0.12 0.095 0.05- 0.5 0.05- 0.5
10 total as 50 45 45 52 300 300
hardness CaCo3
11 Total CFU/ 60 45 20 7 0 0
coliform 100ml
12 Fecal CFU/ 35 30 10 1 0 0
coliform 100ml

56
Table A-4 Collected data during the fourth month (Jun, 2019)

Jun
Sno parameter unit Raw Effluent Effluent After
water of ST of SSF chlorination ESA WHO
(01) (02) (03) (04)
1 turbidity NTU 26 20 15 20 5 5
2 temperature oC 26 23.2 23 24.1 25 25
3 TDS mg/l 92.5 52.25 48.5 42 1000 1000
4 TSS mg/l 110 70 60 50
5 E. μS/cm 97.1 91.7 90.4 102.2 1500 1500
conductivity
6 PH 8.2 8.03 7.9 8.1 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5
7 Free chlorine mg/l 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5
8 Iron mg/l 0.15 0.12 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3
9 Manganese mg/l 0.23 0.15 0.08 0.06 0.05-0.5 0.05-0.5
10 total as 50 45 40 60 300 300
hardness CaCo3
11 total CFU/ 30 15 10 8 0 0
coliform 100ml
12 Fecal CFU/ 20 15 10 5 0 0
coliform 100ml

57
Table A-5 Collected data during the fifth month (July, 2019)

July
Raw Effluent Effluent After ESA WHO
Sno parameter unit water of ST of SSF chlorination
(01) (02) (03) (04)
1 Turbidity NTU 30 18 10 16 5 5
2 temperature Oc 24 22.3 23 22.4 25 25
3 TDS mg/l 74.6 67.3 60.3 90.5 1000 1000
4 TSS mg/l 1110 1070 580 690
5 E. μS/cm 190 180 150 160 1500 1500
conductivity
6 PH 8.4 8.1 8.2 8.1 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5
7 Free chlorine mg/l 0.006 0.05 0.03 0.11 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5
8 Iron mg/l 0.3 0.25 0.23 0.3 0.3 0.03
9 Manganese mg/l 0.32 0.25 0.21 0.15 0.05-0.5 0.05-0.5
10 total hardness as 50 50 45 65 300 300
CaCo3
11 total coliform CFU/ 100 100 50 13 0 0
100ml
12 Feacal CFU/ 100 80 40 7 0 0
coliform 100ml

58
Table A-6 Collected data during the sixth month (August, 2019)

August
Raw Effluent Effluent After
Sno parameter unit water of ST of SSF chlorination ESA WHO
(01) (02) (03) (04)
1 Turbidity NTU 28 18 10 16 5 5
2 temperature oC 22.9 22.5 20.6 20.2 25 25
3 TDS mg/l 72.5 69.3 72 95.2 1000 1000
4 TSS mg/l 800 690 500 390
5 E. μS/cm 190 180 150 120 1500 1500
conductivity
6 PH 8.5 8.5 8.1 8.4 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5
7 Free chlorine mg/l 0.07 0.02 0.17 0.25 0.2-0.5 0.2-0.5
8 Iron mg/l 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.28 0.3 0.3
9 Manganese mg/l 0.45 0.33 0.3 0.25 0.05-0.5 0.05-0.5
10 total hardness as 80 60 60 100 300 300
CaCo3
11 Total CFU/ 70 50 20 10 0 0
coliform 100ml
12 Fecal CFU/ 40 25 15 9 0 0
coliform 100ml

59
 B. Appendix: - Population and demand assessment
Population
Table B-1 Population of Shire Indasilase town 1984 - 2015
Population
Census census census projection
Name Admiration 9/5/1984 11/10/1994 28/5/2007 1/7/2015
Shire Tigray 12846 25269 47284 70800
Source: (1984) Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (provided by Clive Thornton). (1994, 2007
and 2015) of Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (web).
Ethiopian population growth rate
Estimates for the future population in Ethiopia are based on CSA projections, as indicated in
Table B-2. These growth rates are given for 5-year intervals (from the year 2000 up to the year
2030). The growth rates for the individual Regions are applied to all individual towns in these
Regions.
Table B-2 Population growth rates by region

2000 2005 2010 2015 2019 2020 2025 2030

AFFAR 3.84% 4.27% 3.94% 3.99% 3.62% 3.63% 3.48%
AMHARA 5.09% 4.53% 4.67% 4.41% 4.25% 4.05% 3.85%
BENISHANGUL
4.34% 4.65% 4.35% 4.51% 4.05% 3.99% 3.59%
GUMUZ
DIRE DAWA 4.93% 4.40% 4.15% 3.78% 3.51% 3.27% 3.12%
GAMBELLA 5.15% 4.56% 4.10% 4.64% 4.01% 4.16% 3.78%
HARARI 4.19% 4.00% 3.63% 3.44% 3.25% 2.98% 2.99%
OROMIYA 5.29% 4.88% 4.74% 4.53% 4.32% 4.08% 3.84%
SNNPRS 5.50% 4.94% 4.70% 4.46% 4.25% 4.02% 3.77%
SOMAU 4.61% 4.65% 4.52% 4.39% 4.16% 3.90% 3.68%
TIGRAY 5.06% 4.63% 4.56% 4.41% 4.26% 4.22% 4.04% 3.81%
Source: CSA, 1994 Population and Housing Census Analytical Report, Vol. II, 1999, Addis
Ababa).
𝑃𝑛 = 𝑝𝑜 ∗ 𝑒 𝑘𝑛

60
 Where Pn = population in the nth year =P2019
Po= base population= P2015
K = population growth rate = 4.26% using interpolation from the above
n= number of year =4year = difference between the 2019 and 2015
𝑃2019 = 𝑝2015 ∗ 𝑒 4.26%∗4 = 83954
Water demand assessment
Analysis of the existing data has shown that certain characteristics of towns are strongly linked
to their population size. In order to attribute certain characteristics to each town, the towns have
been grouped into categories according to their population size (as shown in the table B-3).
Table B-3 Town category grouping

From To Category
Over 250,000 1
80000 250000 2
50000 80000 3
30000 50000 4
20000 30000 5
10000 20000 6
5000 10000 7
2000 5000 8
1000 2000 9
Less than 1000 10
Source: water demand assessment of MOWR guided line
The population size of shire town is 83954 which are in between 80000 and 250.000. Therefore,
according to table 3, shire town is group under category 2. The following table 4 and 5 shows per
capital demand and population percentage distribution by mode of service for category 2.
Table B-4 Per capital demand by mode of service (l/c/d)
Connection type 2000 2005 2010 2015 2019* 2020 2025 2030
House 103 109 115 123 128.6 130 138 138
Yard 28 30 32 34 35.6 36 38 38
Yard Shared 21 22 23 25 25.8 26 28 28

61
Public Tap 15 16 17 18 18.8 19 21 21
Table B-5 Population percentage distribution by mode of service
2000 2005 2010 2015 2019* 2020 2025 2030
House 3.9% 4.4% 5.0% 5.7% 6.26% 6.4% 7.3% 8.2%
Yard 17.0% 19.2% 21.7% 24.6% 27.24% 27.9% 31.6% 35.8%
Yard Shared 19.7% 22.3% 25.3% 28.7% 31.66% 32.4% 36.7% 41.6%
Public Tap 52.5% 51.0% 45.4% 39.0% 33.16% 31.7% 23.4% 13.4%
Non Domestic 40.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 30% 30.0% 30.0% 30.0%
Un-accounted 29.5%
40.0% 34.6% 31.8% 30.7% 29.2% 27.5% 26.9%
for
Source; Water demand assessment of MoWR guideline
 The per capita demand and percentage distribution by mode of service in 2019 is
calculated using interpolation.
Climatic grouping
Climate of an area is one of the factors, which is directly related to water consumption. Three
climatic grouping based on mean annual rainfall of the study area and corresponding factors are
shown in table
Table B-6 Climate factor
Group Mean annual rainfall in mm Factor adopted
A 900 or less 1.1
B 900-1200 1
C 1200 or more 0.9
Source; Source; Water demand assessment of MoWR guideline, 2006
Since, shire town has a mean rainfall of 700-800 mm: the town falls under group A. therefore,
climatic factor of 1.1 is adopted.
Socio-Economic Adjustment factor
Socio-economic factors determine the degree of development of the town under study which in
turn play role in determines its water consumption. Hence provision has been made to consider
the socio-economic factors according to stages of development and development potential of the
town.

62
Table B-7 Socio-economic factor
Group Description Factor
A Towns enjoying living standard and with very high potential 1.1
B Towns having a very high potential for development buy lower living 1.05
C Towns under normal Ethiopian conditions 1.0
D Advanced rural 0.9
Source; Source; Water demand assessment of MoWR guideline, 2006
Shire town having a very high potential for development buy lower living. The town is being
center of business and education; there are ample opportunities for growth. There is huge
investment on hotels, commercial activities and rising buildings. Therefore, Shire town is
categorized under group B.
Table B-8 Summary Estimated of water demand for Shire town
year 2019
Population
83954
by level of Per-capital Demand Demand
Total
service demand by service by service
population
Percent (l/c/d) (l/d) (m3/d)

House 6.26% 5256 128.6 675922 675.922

Yard 27.24% 22870 35.6 814172 814.172
Connection Yard 31.66%
type shared 26580 25.8 685767 685.767
Public 33.16%
Tap 27840 18.8 523392 523.392
Domestic demand (m3/d) 2699.2
Climatic adjustment factor 1.1
Socio-economic adjustment factor 1.05
Adjusted domestic demand (m3/d) 3117.58
Non-domestic percent 30%

63
Non –domestic demand (m3/d) 935.27
Average demand (m3/d) 4052.85
Un –accounted for percent 29.5%
Un -account for factor (un-ac/ (1-un-ac)) 0.42
Demand of Un -account for (m3/d) 1702.2
Total average demand (m3/d) 5755
Maximum day factor 1.2
Maximum daily demand (m3/d) 6906

64