WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In an existing community of about 110 000 people, each household has an existing septic tank- soak away system. However, environmental impact assessments have indicated that groundwater pollution is evident. Accordingly it is proposed to provide an aerobic activated sludge system for the community. There are two basic design considerations. The first is to connect the sewerage reticulation system into the septic tanks to be treated in an activated sludge system or to bypass the septic tank system completely. In this report an investigation is made into the two proposed activated sludge systems. The objective of this investigation is to determine which of these systems is the most economically viable solution. It should however be noted that the systems are only designed to accomplish total COD removal. A short overview is given of three different activated sludge model calibration protocols as background to wastewater design. These protocols are the BIOMATH protocol, STOWA protocol and the HSG guidelines. The objective of the protocol overview is to emphasize the importance of water characterization for any activated sludge system design. This report then covers the wastewater characterization for raw and settled sewage produced by the community. The calculation procedurefor the required volume of the two proposed activated sludge reactors are also included. It was found that the total COD present in the raw influent was 800 mg/L and in the settled wastewater it was 400 mg/L. This has a considerable effect on the required volume, oxygen required and overall capital cost of an activated sludge system. The sludge production was also found to be dramatically different between the two proposed systems. A summary of these results are given in the table below: Raw wastewater Settled wastewater 13638.1 4305.1 m3 ZAR 6,637,204.13 ZAR 2,338,587.78 6676.4 3509.4 kg/d 3636.8 6908.0 kg/d

Vp = Cost = M(Oc) = Total mass wasted =

It is finally recommended that an activated sludge plant without a primary settling tank be provided for the community. The initial capital costs are large, but over the operational lifetime of the activated sludge system the operational costs will be much lower than a settled wastewater facility. Another reason for this recommendation is the fact that an environmental impact assessment has already indicated that groundwater pollution is evident. The decommissioning of the septic tank system will ensure that ground water pollution is not a problem in the future.

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ASM Bh COD dXt FSA fus fup fcv f fi M( ) MLVSS MLSS Nti Nobsi Nobpi Nousi Noupi OrgN Q Qw Rs Rhn Activated Sludge Model Endogenous Respiration Rate Chemical Oxygen Demand Sludge production concentration Free and Saline Ammonia Unbiodegradable Soluble COD fraction Unbiodegradable Particulate COD fraction COD/VSS ratio Endogenous Residue MLVSS/MLSS Ratio Mass Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids Total Influent TKN Organic Biodegradable Soluble Influent TKN Organic Biodegradable Particulate Influent TKN Organic Unbiodegradable Soluble Influent TKN Organic Unbiodegradable Particulate Influent TKN Organic Nitrogen TKN Flow rate Waste flow rate Sludge Age Nominal hydraulic retention time

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sti Sbi Sui Supi Susi Sbsi Sbpi TKN TSS VSS Vp WWTP Xa Xe Xi Xv Xt Yh

Total Influent COD concentration Biodegradable Influent COD concentration Unbiodegradable Influent COD Concentration Unbiodegradable Particulate Influent COD concentration Unbiodegradable Soluble Influent COD concentration Biodegradable Soluble Influent COD concentration Biodegradable Particulate Influent COD concentration Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total Suspended Solids Volatile Suspended Solids Volume of the process reactor Waste Water Treatment Plant Active Volatile Solids concentration Endogenous Residue Volatile Solids concentration Inert Volatile Solids concentration Total Volatile Suspended Solids concentration Total Suspended Solids concentration Yield Coefficient

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. LIST OF TABLES................................ ................................ ............. Error! Bookmark not defined. 1. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 5 2. CALIBRATION PROTOCOLS OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODELS ................................ ........ 5 2.1. BIOMATH CALIBRATION PROTOCOL................................ ................................ .............. 6 2.2. STOWA CALIBRATION PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ .................. 8 2.3. HOCHSCHULGRUPPE GUIDELINES ................................ ................................ ................ 10 2.4. SUMMARY OF PROTOCOLS ................................ ................................ ................................ 11 3. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION ................................ ................................ .................. 12 3.1. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION METHODOLOGY ................................ ............ 12 3.3. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY ................................ .......................... 18 4. ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN ................................ ................................ ............... 22 4.1. DESIGN METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ . 24 4.2. ACTIVATED SLUDGE DESIGN RESULTS ................................ ................................ ....... 25 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ .......... 29 6. REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 31 APPENDIX A: WASTEWATER EXCEL CALCULATIONS ................................ ............................ I APPENDIX B: ACTIVATED SLUDGE EXCEL CALCULATIONS ................................ ............... II

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION
In an existing community of about 110 000 people, each household has an existing septic tank soak away system producing about 600 m3/h. However, environmental impact assessments have indicated that groundwater pollution is evident. Accordingly it is proposed to provide an aerobic activated sludge system for the community. It is therefore considered to either connect the sewerage reticulation system into the septic tanks to be treated in an activated sludge system or to bypass the septic tank system completely. In this report an investigation is made into the two proposed activated sludge systems. The objective of this investigation is to determine which of these systems isthe most economically viable solution. It should however be noted that the systems are only designed to accomplish total COD removal. The removal of the nitrogen and phosphates does not fall within the scope of this report.This report covers the wastewater characterization of the sewerage produced by the community as well as the estimation of the required volume for the two proposed activated sludge reactors. A short overview is given of three different activated sludge model calibration protocols. The objective of the protocol overview is to emphasize the importance of water characterization for any activated sludge system design. A finalrecommendationis then made for the most economically viable solution, whichis mainlybased upon the cost-to-volume relationship of the reactor.

2. CALIBRATION PROTOCOLS OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODELS

The modelling of activated sludge systems has been increasing in importance within recent years. The application of dynamic models for full-scale activated sludge systems requires a comprehensive method for calibration of the activated sludge models (ASM) used in the study of a design. Until recently the studies of ASMs have been done through many different approaches without a uniform calibration method. These calibration methods included different influent wastewatercharacterization methods, kinetic parameter estimation methods, selection of calibrated parameters and different priorities within the calibration method (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). This basically leaded to no standard approach being maintained to ensure that results can be used and compared to other ASMs while having the ability to apply quality checkson the produced data. Thus there have been advancements with developing systematic calibration protocols that have the objectiveto guide the calibration method of activated sludge systems and the full-scale ASMs (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). This has led to the development of four calibration protocols. These protocols are the BIOMATH calibration protocol (Vanrolleghem, et al. 2003), the STOWA calibration protocol (Hulsbeek, et al. 2003), the Hochschulgruppe (HSG) guidelines (Langergraber, et al. 2004) and the WERF protocol for model 5

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

calibration (Melcer, et al. 2003). Only the BIOMATH protocol, STOWA protocol and HSG guidelines will be briefly explained in this section. Firstly one needs a definition of what an activated sludge model entails. Activated sludge models are the compact and elegant summary of the state-of-the-art understanding of activated sludge processes (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). Thus the protocols provide a framework where the ASMs may be calibrated to make use of dynamic models for a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). The calibration procedure is complex and consists of steps such as lab-scale experiments for the characterization of wastewater and determining the stoichiometry of the biological processes active in the WWTP (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). These complex steps have always been implemented by numerous methods of unsystematic calibration applications to full-scale modelling. The basic steps in these unsystematic calibrations are the identification of the influent and effluent variables, and the transfer of collected results from the lab-scale experiments to the characterization of the wastewater used in the calibration The waste . water characterization and basic stoichiometry are covered by a later sectionin this report. These basic steps continue in using the wastewater characterization variable to construct dynamic influent data to be implemented to the plant model. Dynamic data refers to data that covers a range of differences in the data due to varying different factors such as time, temperature, sludge age, etc. After the dynamic influent data has been created, the data is then applied to the ASM and calibrated to obtain a satisfactory fit to the measured variables in the WWTP such as the MLSS. Calibration is normally performed manually, this thus means that the modeller changeseach parameter one at a time until a satisfactory fit is found and this way of calibration is based upon expert knowledge only (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). Thus far every calibration modelfollows its own approach and procedures with influent lab experiment characterization, stiochiometric estimations, model hydraulics and settling characterization (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). It can thus be deducted that by using these unstructured and unsystematic procedures it is not possible to compare result from different models. This is where the introduced protocols may develop a framework for a more uniform calibration method. These calibration protocols have the main objective of aiding the modellers and creating a standard from where the models may be analysed and compared (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005).

2.1. BIOMATH CALIBRATION PROTOCOL

The BIOMATH protocol is a systematic calibration protocol developed by Vanrolleghem (Vanrolleghem, et al. 2003). The general steps in the systematic calibration procedure areillustrated in Figure 1. The BIOMATH protocol is composed of four main stages namely the plant survey and characterization, steady state calibration, dynamic calibration and evaluation of the results. (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). The first step of the protocol is used to define the requirements of the model and the objectives. Then the second stage consists of a plant survey. In the plant survey the general plan layout, configuration, operational parameter, influent and effluent characteristics and plant

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

performance data is obtained (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). It is possible to perform quality checks on the obtained data through the application of mass-balances for the COD, Nitrogen, etc. This obtained data then leads to the selection of the different method for steps 3, 4 and 5. The selection of the models for the hydraulic and aeration model, settling characterization and the biological processes are of utmost importance for an accurate study of the proposed WWTP. In the selection process these models are calibrated individually from the data collected in the previous steps. The models are then incorporated together in the full scale model and calibrated once again for steady state conditions.The objective of the steady state conditions is then to obtain a satisfactory fit to the parameters of the WWTP. These parameters are the sludge production and the oxygen consumption within the activated sludge process. The estimation of the sludge production and the oxygen consumption are discussed in a later section of this report. The calibration of the selected parameters is performed in conjunction with a sensitivity analysis on the parameters that affect the sludge production over a long period such as bh and Yh (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). After the calibrations of the steady state conditions have been performed the dynamic calibration of the full-scale model is performed. The most important parameter is once again calibrated using a sensitivity analysis. After completion of the dynamic calibration the model is then validated. This is performed by collecting data from the WWTP under different operation conditions and if the calibrated model delivers satisfactory predictions, the model is accepted for modelling. If the predictions are not found to be satisfactory, the whole calibrationprocess is repeated (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005).

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Stage I

Decision on inforamtion needed and calibration levels

3. Mass transfer hydraulic model and aeration Stage II

6. Calibraction of hydraulic model and aeration

1.Plant Survey 2.Data Analysis

5. Biological and influent characterization

4. Settling characterization 8. Simple steady state calibration of ASM

7. Calibration of settling model

Stage III

9. Sensitivity analysis and steady state model of ASM

10. Dynamic calibration of model and sensitivty analysis

11. Target reached Stage I

Figure 1: BIOMATH calibration protocol flow diagram (Vanrolleghem, et al. 2003)

2.2. STOWA CALIBRATION PROTOCOL

This protocol was developed by obtained analysis and results of over 100 WWTP in the Netherlands (Hulsbeek, et al. 2002). The basic calibration steps are presented in Figure 2 as a flow diagram. The STOWA protocol is very similar to the BIOMATH protocol in the sense that it closely relates the steps in the BIOMATH procedure. The first stage starts by defining the objectives and goals for the

12. Evaluations

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

ASM. In the next step the choice and description of the required processes can be made. In the third stage, the data relevant to the calibration and application of the ASM are identified and defined. The data obtained is then validated for different flows and process volumes. The verification is once again performed with the use of mass balance checks for data consistency.If the obtained datais not consistent, the data should be corrected before any further calibration steps are taken (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). The fourth step consists of defining the model structure, through selecting the appropriate models for the WWTP hydraulics, settlers and aeration. The fifth step is the wastewater characterization and quantification of the influent and effluent as described by this report. The STOWA protocol bases its wastewater characterization on the biological oxygen demand tests and presents a detailed discussion on the use of BOD tests (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). The sixth step is where the ASM is calibrated according to the obtained results and a preliminary calibration is performed to compare the simulated results with the actual WWTP data. If there are large differences between the simulated data and measured data there must be additional data validation through mass balances or the data should be obtained again. If the verification is satisfactory a detailed calibration is performed on the ASM and follows a manual calibration procedurefor finding the best fit to the WWTP data (Grkan Sin. et al. 2005). After successful calibration of the ASM the data should be validated against the WWTP data and can then be used for its study.
1. Formulation of objectives
2. Process description

3. Data collection and data verification

4. Model structure

5. Characterization of flows
6. Calibration

8. Validation
9. Study

7. Detailed characterization

Figure 2: STOWA calibration protocol flow diagram (Hulsbeek, et al. 2002)

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.3. HOCHSCHULGRUPPE GUIDELINES

This calibration model was developed by several academic institutes (Hochschulgruppe) through working on simulations throughout Europe (Langergraber, et al. 2004). This protocols general structure is once again very similar to the other two protocols. The general structure is presented in Figure 3. The first step is once again defining the requirements and objectives. Then data is collected on the plant layout, operation and plant performance (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). With this data available the models for the hydraulics, settlers and biological processes can be selected. The third step consists of data quality control, where the data is evaluated and the required data gaps are filled. The data quality is then verified through the use of mass balances as with the other protocols. The next step is to evaluate the hydraulic model and structure of the ASM through the use of presimulation which enables necessary calibrations to obtain satisfactory results. The pre-simulation consists of multiple sensitivity and steady stateanalyses. The fifth step is the collection of data. Ameasurement campaign is set-up to collect data about the plant dynamics in order to be used for dynamic calibration of the ASM (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). This leads to performing the dynamic calibration, where the model parameters are evaluated through aniterative process similar to the STOWA protocol. The second last step is to validate the model data through the simulation of different operation conditions that are not used in the calibration of the ASM. The final step is to evaluate and document every step in the calibration process.

10

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Definition of objectives

3. Data quality control 4. Evaluation of o el structure an ex eri ental esign 5. Data collection for si ulation stu y

7. Stu y an evaluation of success

Figure 3: HSG guidelines flowdiagram (Langergraber, et al. 2004)

2.4. SUMMARY OF PROTOCOLS

The systematic protocols have many characteristics in common. They all start with a clear definition of the requirements and objectives for the ASM. They all focus on a specific method for collecting data, data validation through mass balances and preliminary simulations, and then ultimately correcting any discrepancies in the data. The prescribed experimental data collection methods are not consistent for the different protocols approaches.This data includes the wastewater characterization and stoichiometric parameter estimation (Grkan Sin, et al. 2005). Thus the same problem is present in the calibration of the dynamic modelling. As a final remark, there must be an investigation for developing one standard calibration protocol applicable to ASMs, so that all large-scale models can be compared to each other with accuracy. The protocol must be developed in order to extend its scope beyondmunicipalwastewaters but industrial wastewaters as well. This protocol will combine the definite advantages that theprotocols exhibit in detailing the correct procedure for calibrating ASMs and optimizing the overall design of the current activated sludge systems. 11

6. Calibration an vali ation

2. Data collection an o el selection

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Wastewater characterization greatly affects the biological treatment of waste in activated sludge system designs. These flows can be characterized chemically and physically. Chemical characterization consists of determining the different fractions of carbonaceous and nitrogenous elements in the wastewater. These fractions are then further divided into biodegradable and unbiodegradable groups that can be classified as soluble or particulate. The physical characterization consists of distinguishing between dissolved, suspended and settleable fractions. The following sections describe the basic methodology and results for characterising the wastewater. Data for the wastewater was obtained through water batch testing and is provided in this report. The test result data used for characterization ispresented in Table 1.

Table 1: Wastewater testing results

Raw sewage influent

COD TKN FSA

Septic tank effluent

COD TKN FSA

Raw Wastewater 800 70 52.5 0.45 m Filtrate

216 55.9 52.5

mg COD/L mg N/L mg N/L

Settled septic tank effluent 400 mg COD/L 58 mg N/L 52.5 mg N/L

COD TKN FSA

mg COD/L mg N/L mg N/L

Septic tank Laboratory results

VSS TSS OUR Unfiltered COD Unfiltered TKN COD TKN FSA Nitrate 3989 4693 71.17 5960 401.2 Effluent 56 2.3 0.22 50.3 mg VSS/L mg TSS/L mg O/(L.h) mg COD/L mg N/L mg COD/L mg N/L mg N/L mg N/L

Raw water Laboratory results

VSS TSS OUR Unfiltered COD Unfiltered TKN COD TKN FSA Nitrate 3268 4357 31.08 4892 329.1 Effluent 56 2.3 0.22 49.48 mg VSS/L mg TSS/L mg O/(L.h) mg COD/L mg N/L mg COD/L mg N/L mg N/L mg N/L

3.1. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION METHODOLOGY

The effluent from the septic tank is treated as settled wastewater. The main objective of this report is to determine the effect on the total costs through treating a settled wastewater effluent from the septic 12

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

tank or treating raw wastewater directly without any primary sedimentation.The first step is to calculate what concentration of the COD and TKN is removed by primary sedimentation within the septic tank. The assumption is made that 100% of settleable solids are removed within the primary settling tank (septic tank). The COD of settled solidsis the difference between the raw unsettled COD concentration and the effluent (supernatant) from the septic tank. The calculation is similar for the TKN and FSA. The calculations are represented in the Table 2.

Table 2: Calculation of settled solids

Settled solids
COD TKN FSA = = = Raw COD - Septic COD = Raw TKN - Septic TKN = Raw FSA - Septic FSA = 400 mg COD/L 12 mg N/L 0 mg N/L

Next the suspended solids are calculated. The suspended material is the solids retained by the 0.45m filter membrane. This is basically the difference between the septic tank effluent and the filteredraw sewage for the COD, TKN and the FSA. The calculations are represented in Table 3.

Table 3: Calculation of suspended solids

Suspended solids
COD TKN FSA = = = Septic COD - Filtrate COD = Septic TKN - Filtrate TKN = Septic FSA - Filtrate FSA = 184 mg COD/L 2.1 mg N/L 0 mg N/L

Now the different concentrations for settleable, suspended and soluble materials can be determined from the above results. The flow that has passed through the 0.45m filter membrane represents the solublefraction of wastewater. A comprehensive summary of all the settleable, suspended and soluble material concentrations is represented by Table 4. The soluble fraction is represented by the single soluble portion and the particulate portion is represented by the suspended and settleable materials in the wastewater.

13

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4: Settleable, suspended and soluble concentrations

COD and TKN fractions

Raw COD = 800 = 100 = = 400 = 100 = = 70 = 100 = = 58 = 100 = = 52.5 = 100 = = 52.5 = 100 = soluble + 216 27.0 soluble + 216 54.0 soluble + 55.9 79.9 soluble + 55.9 96.4 soluble + 52.5 100.0 soluble + 52.5 100.0 suspended + 184 23.0 suspended + 184 46.0 suspended + 2.1 3.0 suspended + 2.1 3.6 suspended + 0 0.0 suspended + 0 0.0 settleable 400 mg COD/L 50.0 % settleable 0 mg COD/L 0.0 % settleable 12 mg N/L 17.1 % settleable 0 mg N/L 0.0 % settleable 0 mg N/L 0.0 % settleable 0 mg N/L 0.0 %

Septic COD

Raw TKN

Septic TKN

Raw FSA

Septic FSA

The next classification comprises of distinguishingbiodegradable and unbiodegradable materials that are soluble, suspended and settleable. The results from the aerobic laboratory-scale activated sludge system are used to calculate the unbiodegradable soluble COD (S ). It is assumed that all the usi biodegradable COD, soluble and particulate, are degraded within the laboratory-scale biological reactor. This assumption allows us to determine the Susi concentration directly from the laboratory results. Thus from the laboratory results, the Susi component of the wastewater can be calculated as a fraction of the total COD (Sti). This fraction is represented by the symbol fus. Another fraction of importance is the unbiodegradable soluble organic nitrogen (fnu). This fraction is used to determine the unbiodegradable Organic Nitrogen as described later in the next section. The calculations for Susi,fus and fnuare shown in Table 5.

14

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 5: Unbiodegradable classification

Unbiodegradable
Susi =

Raw sewage Laboratory Effluent COD = Septic tank effluent Laboratory Effluent COD = Raw sewage Susi / Sti = (Eff TKN - Eff FSA)/Influent TKN = Septic tank effluent Susi / Sti = (Eff TKN - Eff FSA)/Influent TKN =

56 mg COD/L

Susi

56 mg COD/L

fus fnu

= =

0.070 mgCOD/mgCOD 0.030 mgN/mgN

fus fnu

= =

0.140 mgCOD/mgCOD 0.036 mgN/mgN

Now the different components of the wastewater classification can be determined. Assumptions are made for the unbiodegradable particulate fractions (fup ). Ekama & Marais ([s.a.])prescribe values of fup = 0.15 for unsettled conditions and fup = 0.04 for settled conditions. All the necessary calculations for the raw sewage and the septic tank effluent are presented in Table 6 and 7 respectively. The equations are presented by Ekama & Marais ([s.a.]). The value of the nitrogen fraction of the influent biodegradable volatile particulate material is prescribed by Ekama & Marais ([s.a.]) as fn = 0.1 mgN/mgXii. The COD/VSS ratio of the volatile solids is a constant value where fcv = 1.48 mgCOD/mgVSS (Ekama, et al. 2008).

15

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 6: Raw sewage final classification calculations

Raw sewage (Analytical formulation) COD

Sti fus fup fn fcv fnu Sbi Sui Sbsi Sbpi Susi Supi = = = = = = = = = = = = COD = 800 mg COD/L 0.07 0.15 0.1 1.48 0.030 624 176 160 464 mgCOD/mgCOD mgCOD/mgCOD mgN/mgXii mgCOD/mgVSS mgN/mgN mg COD/L mg COD/L mg COD/L mg COD/L

(given) = (given) = (given) =

Sti * ( 1 - fus - fup ) = Sti - Sbi = Soluble COD - Susi = Sbi - Sbsi = Sti * fus = Sti * fup =

56 mg COD/L 120 mg COD/L

TKN
Nti FSA OrgN Unbiodegradable OrgN Biodegradable OrgN Noupi Nousi Nobsi Nobpi = = = = = = = TKN = 70 mg N/L 52.5 mg N/L 17.5 mg N/L

Nti - FSA =

Noupi + Nousi = 10.19 mg N/L Nobsi + Nobpi = 7.31 mg N/L fn * Supi / fcv = fn * Nti = 8.11 mg N/L 2.08 mg N/L 1.32 mg N/L 5.99 mg N/L

= Filter TKN - Nai -Nusi = = Nti - Noupi -Filter TKN =

16

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 7: Septic tank effluent final classification calculations

Septic tank settled water (Analytical formulation) COD

Sti fus fup fn fcv fnu Sbi Sui Sbsi Sbpi Susi Supi = = = = = = = = = = = = COD = 400 mg COD/L 0.14 0.04 0.1 1.48 0.036 328 72 160 168 mgCOD/mgCOD mgCOD/mgCOD mgN/mgXii mgCOD/mgVSS mgN/mgN mg COD/L mg COD/L mg COD/L mg COD/L

(given) = (given) = (given) =

Sti * ( 1 - fus - fup ) = Sti - Sbi = Soluble COD - Susi = Sbi - Sbsi = Sti * fus = Sti * fup =

56 mg COD/L 16 mg COD/L

TKN
Nti FSA OrgN Unbiodegradable OrgN Biodegradable OrgN Noupi Nousi Nobsi Nobpi = = = = = = = TKN = 58 mg N/L 52.5 mg N/L 5.5 mg N/L 3.16 mg N/L 2.34 mg N/L 1.08 mg N/L 2.08 mg N/L 1.32 mg N/L 1.02 mg N/L

Organic Nitrogen = Noupi + Nousi = Nobsi + Nobpi = fn * Supi / fcv = fn * Nti =

= Filter TKN - Nai -Nusi = = Nti - Noupi -Filter TKN =

17

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.3. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION SUMMARY

The following figures represent the different concentrations classified by the calculation of the wastewater characteristics. The results are presented in Tables 8 and 9. Tables 8 and 9 serve as a characteristic summary of the raw and settled wastewaters. The basic classification of the different fractions for the raw and settled wastewater is presented inthe form of a flow diagram to best illustrate the relationships between the different components. Figure 4 represents the fraction classification of the raw sewage and Figure 5 represents the fraction classification of thesettled septic tank effluent. The Excel spreadsheets that are used in this report, are provided on a compact disc (CD) attached to the back of the report.

Table 8: Raw water characteristics

Raw water characteristics

Settleable COD Soluble COD Suspended TKN Soluble TKN Suspended FSA Soluble FSA sol_FSA/sol_TKN ratio % soluble COD % particulate COD % soluble TKN % particulate TKN OrgN % Soluble OrgN % Particulate OrgN OrgN removed by settlement = Soluble portion of OrgN = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Soluble FSA / Soluble TKN = Suspended COD% + Settled COD% = Suspended TKN% + Settled TKN% = (Nousi + Nobsi ) / OrgN *100 = (Noupi + Nobpi ) / OrgN *100 = Raw OrgN - Septic OrgN = Filtered TKN - FSA = 400 216 2.1 55.9 0.0 52.5 0.939 27.0 73.0 79.9 20.1 17.5 19.429 80.571 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

% % % % mg/L % %

12 mg N/L 3.4 mg N/L

18

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 9: Septic tank settled water characteristics

Septic tank settled water characteristics

Settleable COD Soluble COD Suspended TKN Soluble TKN Suspended FSA Soluble FSA sol_FSA/sol_TKN ratio % soluble COD % particulate COD % soluble TKN % particulate TKN OrgN % Soluble OrgN % Particulate OrgN = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Soluble FSA / Soluble TKN = Suspended COD% + Settled COD% = Suspended TKN% + Settled TKN% = (Nousi + Nobsi ) / OrgN *100 = (Noupi + Nobpi ) / OrgN *100 = 0 216 2.1 55.9 0.0 52.5 0.939 54.0 46.0 96.4 3.6 5.5 61.818 38.182 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L

% % % % mg/L % %

All these wastewater characteristics are not however required in the next section to determine the reactor characteristics for COD removal, but is presented in this report to demonstrate the methodology required for basic wastewater characterization.

19

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 4: Raw sewage classification diagram

20

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 5: Septic tank effluent classification diagram

21

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

4. ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

The objective of this investigation is to determine which of the two proposed activated sludge systemsisthe most economically viable option for the community. The first option of connecting an aerated activated sludge plant to the already existing septic tank system is illustrated in Figure 6. The second option of bypassing the septic tank completely is illustrated in Figure 7. The activated sludge systems represented below make use of a completely mixed regime. In a completely mixed regime the influent is thoroughly mixed with the contents in the reactor. This implies that the effluent from the reactor has the exact same composition and compound concentrations as the reactor contents (Ekama, et al. 2008). The reactor effluent then flows into the secondary settling tank where the overflow is treated as the waste outflow for the whole system. The underflow contains high concentrations of sludge and is recycled back to the reactor in order to maintain effective mass retention. The underflow has no significant effect on the reactor, but if there is an excessive sludge build up in the secondary settling tank, it should be extracted through the waste flow (q) (Ekama, et al. 2008).

Figure 6: Activated sludge system with a primary settling tank (Stellenbosch University, 2005)

22

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 7: Activated sludge system without a primary settling tank (Stellenbosch University, 2005)
In the reactor the biodegradable organic material is utilized by the heterophic organisms to reproduce and maintain their population(Ekama, et al. 2008). These organisms form part of the volatile suspended solids (VSS) in the reactor that is called the sludge. There are three different sludge fractions that are applicable to determine the required volume forCOD removal in activated sludge reactor. These components are the active sludge (Xa), endogenous residue (Xe) and the inert sludge (Xi) (Stellenbosch University, 2005). The active sludge represents the living organisms in the reactor that are actively utilizing the substrate. The organisms also use oxygen (O2) throughout the whole process. Oxygen is utilized firstly as anelectronacceptor to oxidize the substrate in orderto create new cell material and secondly by the respiratory functions of the organisms (Stellenbosch University, 2005). In Figures 6 and 7 this oxygen demand is represented as a required addition to the reactor contents.The second fraction of the sludge is the endogenous sludge. The organisms in the reactor die and leave behind unbiodegradable organics that is called endogenous residue. This then also becomes part of the VSS mass in the reactor. Normally there are additional particles in the influent that are 23

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

biologically inactive. These particles do not take part in any reactions, but form part of the produced sludge and is called the inert sludge. It is very important to have an accurate estimation of the wastewater characteristics. The characterization for COD removal is however elementary, but it is very important to determine the influent COD and the different fractions of biodegradable and unbiodegradable COD. The unbiodegradable particulate COD concentration has a strong effect on the sludge mass accumulation within the reactor (Ekama, et al. 2008). The systems under investigation are analysed and designed by assuming steady state (Q = 600 m3/h) conditions and that 100% of the settleable solids in the influent does settle in the primary settling tank. In the next section the basic activated sludge COD removal system design for the steady state is described and applied to the two activated sludge systems in Figures 6 and 7.

4.1. DESIGN METHODOLOGY

The basic design algorithm for determining the characteristics of an activated sludge COD removal system is presented below (Ekama, et al. 2008). Determine:

1. Supi, Susi, Xii 2. M(Sti) 3. M(Xa), M(Xe), M(Xi), M(Xv), M(Oc), M(Xt) 4. Vp 5. Rhn 6. Ste
The values for Supi , Susi and Xii can be calculated from the total influent COD (Sti ) and the

fractions fus and fupis as determined by the wastewater characterization. The second step is calculating the mass of the total influent COD ( M(Sti) ). From M(S ti) the other mass fractions for the active sludge, endogenous sludge and inert sludge can be determined. The total volatile suspended solids massM(Xv) is then represented by the sum of M(Xa), M(Xe) and M(Xi). The total suspended solids can then be determined from M(Xv) through the MLSS/MLVSS ratio (fi). The carbonaceous oxygen can also be determined from the known relationships of fus, fup and Sti. All the above characteristics are dependant on the sludge age (Rs), yield coefficient (Yh), endogenous respiration rate (b h), endogenous residue (f) and the COD/VSS ratio for volatile solids (fcv). All these values are constant except for bh which depends on the reactor temperature. The only chosen parameter is the sludge age. All of the
24

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

above characteristics are heavily dependant on the sludge age. In example, a long sludge age will lead to large sludge masses in the reactor and will directly lead to large reactor volumes. The reactor volume calculation is determined by the total mass of solids (MXt ) in the reactor and a specified value for the MLSS concentration allowed in the reactor. With the required reactor volume known it is possible to calculate the nominal hydraulic retention time (Rhn). The nominal hydraulic retention time is however irrelevant to the design of an activated sludge system (Ekama, et al. 2008). Finally the effluent COD concentration (Ste) is determined. The COD in the effluent mainly consists of soluble unbiodegradable organics (COD). The soluble biodegradable COD is completely utilized within a short period. The biodegradable and unbiodegradable particulate is however absorbed and forms part of the sludge in the system (Ekama, et al. 2008). The sequence of calculations briefly explained above is best illustrated by Table 10 and 11 in the next section. The relevant formulas are also presented in the tables and explain the calculation procedure.

4.2. ACTIVATED SLUDGE DESIGN RESULTS

In this section the reactor calculation of the volume required for the raw and settled wastewater is explained and calculated. These tables will provide enough information to make an educated recommendation on which activated sludge system options will be the most economically viable. The capital cost without Value Added Tax (VAT)for each reactor is calculated with an empirical relationship presented below: Cost = 770 000*(Vp/ 1000)0.761 where Vp is in m3 and Vp is between 500 and 10 000 m3

The values in orange are the required input values for the Excel spreadsheet.

Table 10: Raw wastewater activated sludge reactor calculations

Raw wastewater
Input from wastewater characterization
Sti = fus = fup = fi = T= fcv = Rs = 800 mg COD/L 0.07 0.15 0.750 17 mgCOD/mgCOD mgCOD/mgCOD MLVSS/MLSS C

(given) = Lab VSS / Lab TSS =

(given) =

1.48 mgCOD/mgVSS 15 days

25

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Q= MLSS = Yh = bh = f=

(given) = (given) = bht = bh20

(T-20)

14400 m3/d 4000 mg TSS/L 0.45 mgVSS/mgCOD 0.2203 /d 0.2 mgVSS/mgVSS = 1.029

(given) =

Calculated activated sludge reactor characteristics

Supi = Susi = Xii = M(Sti) = M(Sbi) = M(Xii) = M(Xa) = M(Xe) = M(Xi) = M(Xv) = M(Xt) = M(Oc) = fup * Sti = fus * Sti = fup * Sti / fcv = Q * Sti = M(Sti) * (1-fus-fup) = Q * Xii = M(Sbi) * Yh * Rs / (1 + bh *Rs) = f * bh * Rs * M(Xa) = M(Sti) * (fup/fcv) *Rs = M(Xa) + M(Xe) + M(Xi) = M(Xt) = M(Xv) / fi = M(Sti) * (1-fus-fup) * [(1-fcv*Yh) + fcv*(1-f)*bh*(Yh*Rs)/(1+bh*Rs)] = 120 mg COD/L 56 mg COD/L 81.1 mg VSS/L 11520.0 kg COD/d 8985.6 kg COD/d 1167.6 kg VSS/d 14091.8 kg VSS/d 9312.2 kg VSS/d 17513.5 kg VSS/d 40917.5 kg VSS/d 54552.5 kg TSS/d

6676.4 kg O/d

Vp = Cost =

M(Xt) / MLSS = M(Xt) / Xt 13638.1 m3 1000 * 770 * (Vp/1000)^0.761 = ZAR 6,637,204.13 Total price of two reactors if the volume is larger than 10 000 m2 Vp / Rs = Vp / Q = Mass wasted per day = M(Xt) / Rs = Filtered effluent = Susi =
3 909.2 m /d

Qw = Rhn = M(dXt) = Ste =

0.947 days 3636.8 kg TSS/d 56.0 mg COD/L

26

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 11: Settled wastewater activated sludge reactor calculations

Settled wastewater
Input from wastewater characterization
Sti = fus = fup = fi = T= fcv = Rs = Q= MLSS = Yh = bh = f= 400 mg COD/L 0.14 0.04 0.850 17 mgCOD/mgCOD mgCOD/mgCOD MLVSS/MLSS C

(given) = Lab VSS / Lab TSS =

(given) =

1.48 mgCOD/mgVSS 15 days 14400 m3/d 4000 mg TSS/L 0.45 mgVSS/mgCOD 0.2203 /d 0.2 mgVSS/mgVSS = 1.029

(given) = (given) = bht = bh20

(T-20)

(given) =

Calculated activated sludge reactor characteristics

Supi = Susi = Xii = M(Sti) = M(Sbi) = M(Xii) = M(Xa) = M(Xe) = M(Xi) = M(Xv) = M(Xt) = M(Oc) = fup * Sti = fus * Sti = fup * Sti / fcv = Q * Sti = M(Sti) * (1-fus-fup) = Q * Xii = M(Sbi) * Yh * Rs / (1 + bh *Rs) = f * bh * Rs * M(Xa) = M(Sti) * (fup/fcv) *Rs = M(Xa) + M(Xe) + M(Xi) = M(Xt) = M(Xv) / fi = 16 mg COD/L 56 mg COD/L 10.8 mg VSS/L 5760.0 kg COD/d 4723.2 kg COD/d 155.7 kg VSS/d 7407.2 kg VSS/d 4894.9 kg VSS/d 2335.1 kg VSS/d 14637.2 kg VSS/d 17220.5 kg TSS/d

M(Sti)* (1-fus-fup)*[(1-fcv*Yh) +fcv*(1-f)*bh*(Yh*Rs)/(1+bh*Rs)]=

3509.4 kg O/d

Vp = Cost =

M(Xt) / MLSS = M(Xt) / Xt 4305.1 m3 1000 * 770 * (Vp/1000)^0.761 = ZAR 2,338,587.78 Total price of two reactors if 27

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

the volume is larger than 10 000 m2 Qw = Rhn = Vp / Rs = Vp / Q = Mass wasted per day = M(Xt) / Rs = Filtered effluent = Susi =
3 287.0 m /d

0.299 days

M(dXt) = Ste =

1148.0 kg TSS/d 56.0 mg COD/L

Total system mass wasted per day = M(dXt) + Settled solids in primary settling tank*Q = 6908.0 kg / d

The above tables represent the basic calculations of the sludge masses and required reactor volumes. The raw wastewater required volume is more than 10 000 m3 and thus the required volume is divided between two reactors. This implies that the total capital cost for the required reactors for raw wastewater are for two reactors. In the case of settled wastewater there is a primary settler present. This causes that a large amount of sludge is trapped in the primary settling tank (septic tank). Thus the actual total mass of sludge wasted per day is the settled sludge in the primary settling tank together with the sludge wasted by the reactor. This calculation is shown above.In Table 12 the criteria for design selection is given for the two different proposals. The last two columns on the right of Table 12 indicate how much the values change from raw wastewater to settled wastewater.

Table 12: Activated sludge reactor design criteria

% % reduction increase 68.4 0.0 64.8 0.0 47.4 0.0 0.0 47.4 68.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Vp = Cost = M(Oc) = Total mass wasted = Qw = Ste =

Raw wastewater Settled wastewater 13638.1 4305.1 m3 ZAR 6,637,204.13 ZAR 2,338,587.78 6676.4 3509.4 kg/d 3636.8 6908.0 kg/d 909.2 287.0 m3 mg 56.0 56.0 COD/L

28

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The wastewater classification presented in his report describes the various chemical and physical characteristics of the raw sewage and septic tank effluentas these various characteristics influence the design of an activated sludge process.These characteristics are now quantified and are used in the design process for activated sludge systems. In Table 12 it can be noted that there is a significant difference between the reactor characteristics of raw wastewater and settled wastewater. Primary sedimentation removes 50 % of the influent COD and this leads to the required reactor process volume for the raw wastewater being much larger than for settled wastewater. This ultimately leads to the reactor costs and required carbonaceous oxygen demand being much higher than for settled wastewater. The daily sludge production is however much higher in an activated sludge system that incorporates a primary settler due to the fact that 50% of the influent COD is trapped by the settler and not utilized (degraded) by the organisms in the reactor. It is clear that there are distinct differences in the selection criteria that require detailed analysis. The advantages of treating settled wastewater is that a smaller reactor can be used. The required oxygen is also much lower and secondary sludge is also reduced. The disadvantage of treating settled wastewater is that a larger total sludge mass is produced each day. The treatment of raw wastewater has the opposite advantages and disadvantages. A raw waste water disadvantage is the requirement of a much larger reactor volume and thus larger capital costs. Raw wastewater also requires greater oxygen demands per day. The obvious advantage is that a smaller amount of secondary sludge is produced. It can be concluded that activated sludge systems which incorporate primary settling tanks have a much smaller capital costbecause of the smaller reactor volume and required oxygen dispensing equipment. The aeration can be done with air, but aeration equipment still needs to be installed. This system does however require a costlier operational cost because the sludge production is much larger. The operational costs include the removal of the sludge from every septic tank and a more extensive stabilizing process before it can be introduced into the environment again. The stabilization process is not only more expensive because of the larger amounts of sludge but also because the required stabilization process is more extensive due to the high level of energy available in the sludge. Sludge with a high energy level can cause eutrophication (accumulation of nutrients that promote plant growth) in fresh water systems which lead to a loss of oxygen and the reduction of water quality. In the treatment of raw wastewater the capital costs are much more expensive (64.8% more than settled wastewater). The reactor volume is so large that two reactors are required to meet the COD removal requirements. The expensive capital costs can be attributed to the large amount of COD in the influent. This system also requires much more oxygen and this only increase the total capital s 29

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

costs of the system. The treatment of raw waste water however does have its advantages through the fact that the overall sludge production is much less than with the settled wastewater system (47.4% lower). The sludge that is produced from the secondary settling tank is less, thus thesludge extraction required is less.The process of stabilizing the wasteis also accomplished much easier due to the fact that the energy content of the waste is lower due to degradation of the sludge by the micro-organisms. The last two points contribute to far cheaper operational costs. It is finally recommended that an activated sludge plant without a primary settling tank be provided for the community. The initial capital costs are large, but over the operational lifetime of the activated sludge system the operational costs are much lower than a settled wastewater facility. Another reason for this recommendation is the fact that an environmental impact assessment has already indicated that groundwater pollution is evident. The decommissioning of the septic tank system will ensure that ground water pollution is not a problem in the future. The recommendation presented in this report only serves as a preliminary recommendation. Further studies and investigations should be made on the impact of the proposed activated sludge system. Other site specific factors should also be considered for the proposed activated sludge system . Theseare the sufficiency of existing sludge treatment facilities, sludge disposal, the future growth of the community and the available finances and adequate management services.

30

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

6. REFERENCES
Ekama, G.A. Marais, G.v.R. [s.a.]Nature of municipal wastewaters. Cape Town:University of Cape Town. Ekama, G.A. Wentzel, M.C. 2008.Biological Wastewater Treatment: Principles, Modelling and Design, Chapter 4: Organic Material Removal. Cambridge University Press. Grkan Sin. et al. 2005. A critical comparison of systematic calibration protocols for activated sludge models: A SWOT analysis. Ghent University, Belgium. Hulsbeek, J.J.W. et al. 2002. A practical protocol for dynamic modelling of activated sludge systems. Water Science Technology 45 (6), 127-136. Langergraber, G. et al. 2004. A guideline for simulation studies of wastewater treatment plants. Water Science Technology 50 (7), 131-138. Melcer, H. 2003. Methods for wastewater characterization in activated sludge modelling. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, USA. Vanrolleghem, P.A. 2003. A comprehensive model calibration procedure for activated sludge models. 76th Annual Technical Exhibition and conference, Los Angeles.

31

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX A:WASTEWATER EXCEL CALCULATIONS

ACTIVATED SLUDGE SYSTEM DESIGN

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

APPENDIX B: ACTIVATED SLUDGE EXCEL CALCULATIONS

II