Lecture Notes for Session 3

Week 15


Sewage and Wastewater Treatment



The development of urban sewerage systems has been fundamental to
the enhancement of public health throughout the world. The objective
of such systems is to convey wastewaters to a sewage treatment works
(or a watercourse) at minimum cost consistent with safeguards for
public health, water pollution and amenity. The sewerage system and
associated treatment works are extremely expensive to build and
maintain, and there is, therefore, considerable interest and research into
the design and safe operation of such infrastructure.
This unit is designed to give an understanding of the differing types of,
and need, for urban sewerage systems and the basic design criteria
universally employed for sewer flows. The characteristics of both
domestic and trade effluents are described and the unit process
functions of typical preliminary and primary wastewater treatment are
examined. The various forms of settling characteristics encountered in
primary sedimentation are developed and the three basic types of
sedimentation tank or basin are discussed.

3

1. ORIGINS OF PRESENT DAY PRACTICE
Most nineteenth century urban and industrial towns were without any
proper provision for waste disposal or water supply. It was, therefore,
inevitable that water-borne diseases were endemic in such populated
areas and it became obvious by 1820 - 30 that centralised approaches
needed to be introduced to safeguard public health. One of the earliest
and most significant campaigners for such facilities in the UK was
Edwin Chadwick, Secretary to the Poor Law Commission. His work led
to a 1841 government report on The Sanitation of Towns which linked
diseases such as cholera with bacteria in contaminated waters. In turn,
this led to the enactment of the first Public Health Acts of 1848 and the
later River Pollution Acts of 1876 and 1890 which established a piped
sewage system of foul sewers to convey foul sanitary wastewater and
effluent waters from domestic and trade premises for treatment in
central sewage treatment works (STWs).
This sewerage system was soon extended to also carry storm rainfall
such systems comprising combined sewers. It was clearly uneconomic
to make combined sewers large enough to take all possible range of
flows given that, even in the UK where maximum rainfall intensities are
only moderate, the maximum surface runoff rate can be up to 150 times
the average wastewater flow. Thus, most urban interceptor sewers have
been provided with overflow devices (see section 2.3 below).
Since the early 1950s, further sewer systems have been developed to
handle only rainfall-runoff from impermeable roof, paving and road
surfaces. These separate stormwater sewer systems , primarily for
new residential and commercial developments, were intended to take
excess discharge loading from the combined system and, as it was
considered that such surface runoff was relatively unpolluted, the
separately piped flows could be discharged directly to the nearest
watercourse without any prior treatment.
The two sets of separate and combined sewers are often trench laid side-
by-side, with the combined sewer set at a lower level than the surface
water sewer so that side connections can be accommodated.
There are also some partially separated sewer systems where only a
specific proportion of surface runoff, such as roof drainage, is allowed
into a foul or sanitary sewer in order to enhance the hydraulic
performance and self-cleansing capacity of the foul sewer.
Table 11 overleaf provides some brief comparative details of the three
basic types of sewer system.
Table 11: A comparison of sewer system types
Advantages Disadvantages
Combined Systems
Large enough for storm flows in the
same pipe.
Involve considerably less cost in
construction and maintenance.
No connections to the wrong pipe
system.

Often excessively large and subject to
sedimentation during dry weather.
Large quantities of clean storm water
are passed to the treatment works for
costly and unnecessary treatment.
May have been provided ad-hoc and so
age, condition and capacity not known,
but often decaying.
Overflow discharges to receiving
watercourses prejudice water quality.
Often subject to high infiltration and
exfiltration rates.
Separate Systems
Design of hydraulic capacity for surface
runoff is accurate.
Smaller pipes require less space.
Sewage treatment costs minimised.

Greater infrastructure cost incurred
through a dual system.
Foul sewage and greywaters can be
connected into the surface water
systems in error.
Lower flows in the upper reaches (or
head) of a foul sewer may cause
sedimentation.
The first-flush from surface
stormwater sewers is often heavily
polluted.
Where the sewers downstream are
combined, some of the benefits of the
separate system are lost.
Partially separate systems
Storm drainage assists foul sewers to
self-cleanse and aids the resuspension of
any deposited material.
Greater flexibility in design and
therefore can be cost-effective.

Not popular in many areas and seen as
compromise solution.
Not used to any considerable extent for
new developments.
The quality of the discharge will be very
variable and the operation of the older
systems which incorporate river outfalls
may not be well understood or
controlled.

5

(Note that the first two disadvantages given, in the table, for partially
separate systems are not operational ones. Thus, the water industry is
now recognising that, used appropriately, such systems may have a
greater role to play than previously thought.)
Today, some 96% of the UK population and 75% of the Hong Kong
population is connected to a mains sewer line and, in the UK, some 70%
of the sewers are of combined type and 25% are separate sewers.
However, about a third of the total sewer system in the UK is nearly 100
years old and subject to crumbling, collapse, exfiltration and infiltration.
This has led over the past 10 to 15 years to substantial sewer
rehabilitation and renewal involving a high investment by the sewerage
utility companies approaching some 500M per annum.
2. SEWAGE FLOWS AND DESIGN CRITERIA
The design of a sewage system is a function of the flows in terms of
both their nature and volume with which it must cope
2.1 Sewage strength
The strength of a sewage effluent is normally expressed in terms of the
BOD5 per population served and is generally known as the population
equivalent or PE Value.
It is commonly accepted that the average per capita daily BOD5
production is about 55 - 60 g/m
3
(or mg/l), generating an average daily
load to the STW of between 0.05 to 0.07 kg BOD/head/day.
Thus, a small residential development producing 800 m
3
/day sewage
effluent and having an average BOD5 concentration of 700 g/m
3
will
have a BOD loading of:
800 x 700 = 560,000 g BOD/day.
This would correspond to a PE value of:

55
000 , 560
= 10,182 PE.
Some typical PE values for differing industrial enterprises are given in
Table 2-1.
Table 2-1: Examples of industrial PE values
Industry PE Value
Brewing
Dairy plant
Abattoir
Paper mill
Tanning
Laundry
150 - 350
25 - 70
5,000 - 8,000
200 - 900
1,000 - 4,000
20 - 100

2.2 Sewage flows
Sewage effluent is delivered to about 8,000 sewage treatment works in
the UK, with about 1,000 of these serving a population of more than
10,000.
7

In general terms, the design range for domestic sewage flows is
universally considered to lie between 150 and 300 litres/head/day
(l/hd/d, or l/hd.day as it is often expressed), largely depending on
geographic location and cistern design. However, there are substantial
variations in wastewater flow volumes throughout the day with the
diurnal flow peak (Qpk) being about 2 to 3 times the minimum Dry
Weather Flow (DWF) rate (see Figure 21). There is also a ratio between
minimum and maximum flows on a daily basis that can vary between
4:1 and 10:1.
Figure 21: Diurnal variations in dry weather flow
(Data for an industrial town of 85,000 population)













DWF is normally defined as the average daily flow in a sewer over
seven consecutive days without rainfall and where the previous seven
day period received less than 0.25 mm on any day.
A minimum sewer flow velocity of about 0.75 - 1.0 m/s is required in
order to ensure a satisfactory self-cleansing sewer under DWF
conditions. Reductions in velocity below this threshold self-cleansing
value lead to deposition of solids on the sewer invert. This is a
particular problem in lengthy sewer systems and those having low
gradients, and leads to the production of septic sewage. Septic sewage
may produce gases, including potentially explosive methane and H2S
which can cause corrosion of the sewer walls and ring joints.
Given the variation in diurnal flows, the pollution load carried through
to the STW is also subject to daily variation, irrespective of any
superimposed storm flows that may occur in a combined system.
However, flow rates and pollutant concentrations occur together in
unison which implies that both hydraulic and organic loadings are
exerted on the STW at the same time.
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
8 12 16 20 24 4 8
Time of day
R
a
t
e

o
f

f
l
o
w


(
m
3
/
h
)
Peak flow
Day time
average
Daily average
(24 hrs)
Night time
average
Minimum night
time flow
2.3 Design criteria
The 1970 UK Ministry of Housing and Local Government Technical
Committee on Sewage Disposal recommended that all sewer (foul and
combined) flows up to 5 - 6 DWF (roughly equivalent to 35 - 45 x 10
3

m
3
/day effluent) should be conveyed and treated at STWs. Excess
sewer flows above this (which could reach 15 or 20:1 DWF) were to be
diverted untreated to receiving waters via overflow structures.
Thus, traditionally, the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) setting of
5 - 6 DWF has been based on the desired carry-on flow in the sewer
i.e. the effluent flow to be diverted to and treated at the STW. This fixed
DWF approach makes no allowance for diurnal or regional variations in
sewage strength and flow rates or of the actual dilution capacity
available in the receiving water when the overflow is operating. A
rough operational rule-of-thumb would suggest that at least a
minimum 8 to 10:1 dilution capacity should be available at low receiving
water levels to prevent the river water DO level falling below 4 mg/l.
The working assumption in this design practice is that spillage from
overflow structures should only operate during rainfall events when
receiving water levels are high providing sufficient dilution and
assimilative capacity.
Formula A
The 1970 Technical Committee also produced what is called the Formula
A approach which is still a widely accepted and used rule adopted
internationally to derive the sewer overflow setting and sewer flow
design. This is expressed as:
Q = DWF + 1,360P + 2E (Equation 1)
where: Q is the required carry-on flow to the STW (in l/d);
P is the population served; and
E is the trade effluent;
and where DWF is defined as:
DWF = PG + I + E (Equation 2)
where: G is the average daily domestic water consumption (l/hd/d);
and
I is the infiltration rate into the sewer.
The rate of flow at which CSO spillage will first occur into the
receiving water should then be:

60) x 60 x (24
2E) 1,360P (DWF + +
(l/s) (Equation 3)
Whatever the answer to equation 3, it should not exceed the 8 to 10:1
dilution ratio and, before the overflow structure operates, the sewage
9

effluent should be diluted by 1.36 m
3
per head and any industrial
effluent by a factor of at least two.
Unfortunately, few of these anticipated safeguards are rarely met. CSOs
are rarely monitored for compliance as it is assumed that, on average,
they will only operate some 2% to 5% of the time and thus would fall
outside the regulatory 95% compliance requirement standard. Many
CSOs operate (or spill) at levels below the design level of 5 - 6 DWF,
principally due to the fact that settings on overspill weirs have not been
adjusted to cater for new urban development or suburban expansion
which generates new and increased sewer flows. Thus, settings today
are rarely at the 5 - 6 DWF design level as they might have been when
they were first designed and installed. In any case, Formula A entirely
disregards the sensitivity of any receiving water in both chemical and
ecological terms.
As much as 20 to 30% of CSOs in the UK (and in Europe and the USA)
are deemed to be unsatisfactory in terms of premature spillage or
receiving water quality.
2.4 Using Formula A
We can illustrate the application of Formula A by considering the
following example.
Example 1
In a residential area of 100 persons/hectare, the per capita daily water
use is 220 litres/head.day. Compare the foul sewage flow with a
separate stormwater runoff flow produced by a rainfall event with
intensity (In) of 40 mm/hour given that the catchment area (A) has a
runoff coefficient (Rc) of 0.35 (35%).
To calculate the stormflow discharge (Q) utilise the rational formula:
Q = Rc x In x A
Solution
For the foul sewage:
DWF = G x P (i.e. there is no I or E value)
= 220 x 100 l/hd.day
= 22 m
3
/hd.day
However, we need to compare this with the separate sewer which will
only flow during wet weather conditions, so assume that the foul
seweris at full flow and therefore at 6 DWF design capacity. The total
capacity, then, is:
6 DWF = 22,000 (litres) x 6
= 132,000 l/hd.day
flow rate =
60) x 60 x (24
132,000

= 1.5 l/s/hd.
For the separate stormwater sewer:
Q = C x In x A
= 0.35 x
|

\
|
60 x 60
40
x 10
4
x (10
-3
).
The last two terms are required to transform, respectively, hectares to m
2

and l/s to m
3
/s to maintain the correct units. Therefore:
Q = 0.039 m
3
/s or 39 l/s per head.
Thus, the ratio of foul sewage to stormwater effluent is:
1.5l/s/hd to 39 l/s/hd, or 1:26


11

3. TRADE EFFLUENT
Where industrial wastewaters are to be discharged into a public sewer,
strict consent conditions have to be met given the potential toxicity of
the effluent and the problems that this might pose for the treatment
works.
The consent and charging criteria for trade effluents is based on the
COD load rather than BOD, as the former includes both oxidisable
organic and inorganic material as well as being a simpler and quicker
test procedure. The following generic formula defines the typical
charging approach (per m
3
) for trade effluents under average flow
conditions:
C = R + V + B
|

\
|
Os
Ot
+ S
|

\
|
Ss
St
(Equation 4)
where: C = total charge
R = reception and conveyance charge
V = volumetric and primary treatment cost
B = biological oxidation costs for settled effluent
Ot = the effluent COD following one hour quiescent settling and
with pH adjusted to 7.0
Os = the COD of the settled sewage
S = treatment and disposal costs of primary sewage sludge
St = TSS (total suspended solids) of the effluent
Ss = TSS of the crude sewage
As indicated by equation 4, the charge is only levied for those treatment
elements actually applied at the STW. Thus, if a trade effluent receives
only a primary treatment, the biological part of the equation (B) is
ignored. Further, if the trade enterprise makes a capital contribution in
any form for example, financial support for an extension to the STW
then a reduction in the trade effluent charge is made.
The sewage undertaker (or sewerage utility company) is not required to
accept the full trade effluent discharge and the industrial enterprise
might, therefore, have to carry out some pre-treatment of its effluent
prior to discharge into the sewer system. This is particularly the case for
toxic substances which might seriously prejudice either the STW consent
discharge conditions to the receiving water or final sludge disposal
standards. This is illustrated in the example overleaf.
Example 2
A 1,400 m
3
/day trade effluent containing 200 mg/l of chromium is
discharged into the public sewer. The DWF sewer flow to the STW is
60,000 m
3
/day and 70% of the chromium settles out in the primary
sedimentation tanks and is left in the sludge. A further 80% is removed
in the secondary treatment stage with 50% of the activated sludge taken
off as surplus sludge and mixed with the primary sludge for digestion.
The receiving water immediately downstream to the STW final effluent
is abstracted for potable water supply and this has a regulatory standard
for chromium of 0.05 mg/l.
(a) What weight (kg) of Cr per day will be present in the total sludge
going to the digester and eventually either to land or sea?
(b) What will be the Cr concentration in the STW final effluent?
(c) If the receiving water provides a four-fold dilution and has a
zero chromium background level, what will the Cr concentration
be after the final STW effluent mixes in the river water?
Solution
(a) Trade discharge is 1.4 x 10
3
m
3
/d, and the Cr content is 200 mg/l.
The weight of Cr discharged per day is, therefore:
1.4 x 10
3
x
3
10
200
= 280 kg
However, only 70% of the Cr appears in the primary sludge,
amounting to:
280 x
100
70
= 196 kg
Therefore, the quantity of Cr passing to secondary activated
sludge process (ASP) treatment is:
280 - 196 = 84 kg
In the ASP unit, 80% of the Cr is removed, amounting to:
84 x
100
80
= 67.2 kg
Therefore, the total Cr in sludge sent to the digester is:
196 + (67.2 x 50%) = 229.6 kg
13

(b) The quantity of Cr in the final STW effluent is:
84 - 67.2 = 16.8 kg
The total STW discharge is given as 60 x 10
3
m
3
/d. Therefore, the
Cr concentration is:

3
3
10 x 60
10 x 16.8
= 0.28 g/m
3
(or mg/l)
(c) With a four-fold dilution, the Cr concentration in the receiving
water is:

4
28 . 0
= 0.07 g/m
3
(or mg/l)
As the UK drinking water standard for chromium is set at 0.05
mg/l, the trade effluent would need to have a lower
concentration to be allowed to discharge to the public sewer.
Thus, some form of source pre-treatment on the premises of the
industrial factory would need to be installed.


4. SEWAGE COMPOSITION AND
CHARACTERISTICS
The typical composition of raw domestic wastewater is given in Table 4-
1, expressed in terms of concentration, with Table 4-2 showing typical
solids content distributions for domestic sanitary sewage.
Table 4-1: Typical composition of untreated domestic wastewater
Constituent
(mg/l, except where stated)
Concentration
Strong Medium Weak
Total suspended solids (TSS) 500 250 100
Total dissolved solids (TDS) 850 500 250
Settleable solids (ml/l) 20 10 5
BOD5 450 220 110
COD 1,000 500 250
Total nitrogen 85 40 20
Free ammonia (NH3) 50 25 12
Nitrite 0 0 0
Nitrate 0 0 0
Total phosphorus 15 8 4
Chlorides* 100 50 30
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 200 100 50
Grease 150 100 50
* Values should be increased by the amount in domestic water supply

Table 4-2: Solids type and concentration (mg/l) in domestic sewage
Mineral Organic Total BOD5
Total suspended solids (TSS)
Settleable solids
Non-settleable solids

110
55

220
110

330
165

105
65
Total dissolved solids (TDS) 275 275 550 130
Totals 440 605 1,045 300
15

The four basic chemical parameters conventionally used to describe
sewage composition are BOD5, COD, TSS and NH4 (ammonium), with
the latter being used as a basic index of toxicity.
Wastewater can only be treated biologically if sufficient carbon and
nutrients are present in the effluent. Normally, there is a surplus, but
STW managers confirm this excess in terms of the C:N:P ratio which
should be optimised at 100:5:1 (BOD5 : Ntotal : Ptotal in mg/l). Raw
domestic sewage has a ratio of approximately 10:17:5, so both N and P
are present in excess. However, it is the C:N ratio which is really critical
and this must remain less than about 18 - 20:1.
It is trade effluent wastes that cause most problems as they come to the
STW in a nutrient-deficient (and often toxic) state and so must be mixed
with the sanitary waste to bring it up to appropriate nutrient levels to
facilitate bacterial oxidation.
Raw sewage possesses a strong odour due to H2S, sulphur, chlorine,
ammonia and fatty acids. This is possibly the most objectionable
characteristic parameter of sewage to the public and odour control is
treated as a high priority in most STWs. Sewage tends to be yellowish in
colour, having a fairly uniform temperature of around 12 - 15C with a
neutral pH of 7.0 - 7.5 and a DO of 1 - 2 mg/l. However, sewage can
become anaerobic (and smelly as a consequence) very quickly indeed if
the forward flow of the effluent becomes retarded or blocked for any
reason.
Figure 4-1 provides an alternative view of sewage composition which
emphasises its physico-chemical structure and the operational
requirements in terms of unit treatment processes.
This is followed by two tables which set out the inorganic and organic
constituents of domestic sewage Table 4-3 provides a detailed
elemental listing of the inorganic constituents, whilst Table 4-4 indicates
the proportion of the principal organic fractions found.

Figure 4-1: The composition of domestic sewage
Domestic/crude sewage


99.9% Water 0.1% Solids
(300 - 400 TSS mg/l)


70% Organic 30% Inorganic


Grit Salts Metals


Protein
(60%)
Equally in
solution and
suspension;
derived from
animal and
plant foodstuffs
Carbohydrates
(25%)
Comprise of
organic load;
starch, glucose,
cellulose, lignin ;
mainly in
solution
Fats
(8%)
Not easily
degraded;
esters, glycerol,
grease
Amino acids
(4%)
Vitamins
Hormones
Pesticides
Surfactants
Hydrocarbons
(1%)

Table 4-3: Inorganic constituents of domestic sewage
Constituent US Sewage
(Soft water area;
mg/l)
UK Sewage
(Hard water area;
mg/l)
Cl 20.10 68.00
Al 0.13 -
Ca 9.80 109.00
K 5.90 20.00
Na 23.00 100.00
Cu 1.56 0.2
Pb 0.48 0.08
S 10.30 22.0
P 6.60 22.0
17

Table 4-4: Organic constituents of domestic sewage
Constituent
In solution In suspension
Concentration
(mg/l)
Proportion
C of total C in
solution (%)
Concentration
(mg/l)
Proportion
C of total C in
suspension (%)
Fats - - 140 50
Carbohydrates 70 31.3 34 6.4
Free and bound
amino acids
18 10.7 42 10
Volatile acids 25 11.3
12.5 2.3
Non-volatile
acids
34 15.2
Detergents 17 11.2 5.9 1.8
Uric Acid 1 0.5 - -
Creatine 6 3.9 - -
Amino sugars - - 1.7 0.3
Amides - - 2.7 0.6
Organic carbon 75.6 84.1 151 71.4


5. PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
Preliminary treatment comprises screening the raw sewage and grit
removal.
5.1 Screening
Initial treatment of the raw sewage entering into a STW consists of the
removal and/or disintegration of large solids and detritus. This is
necessary to prevent damage to and blockage of equipment downstream
within the treatment plant. This unit process is carried out using screens
and/or comminutors.
Screens
These generally have steel bars set 10 to 15 mm apart which may be
hand or machine raked. The forward velocity of wastewater flow
through the screens should not be less than 0.3 - 0.5 m/s to avoid settling
out of grit and other coarse solids.
Screenings may be disposed of by incineration or burial, but are often
disintegrated on-site and then returned into the incoming sewage flow.
Comminutors
These combine the processes of screening and disintegration. A variety
of systems are available to handle effluent flows of between 350 to
100,000 m
3
/day.
The screen has horizontal slats and is rotated by means of an electric
motor. As the process is carried out under continuous flow conditions, it
is highly efficient. The sewage passes through the screens, down the
centre of the comminutor (or detritor as it is sometimes called) and into
the downstream channel by means of an inverted syphon. Solids are
held against the outside surface of the comminutor drum by the
pressure of the liquid flow.
Head losses through comminutors are usually higher than through
screens and they can become easily blinded.
5.2 Grit removal
Coarse inorganic gritty material must be removed from sewage to avoid
abrasive damage to pumps and machinery in the STW as well as to
avoid silting-up of various parts of the treatment works. The grit
removal equipment should also be designed to reduce the organic
content of the grit to not more than 15%. Additionally after removal, the
grit should be washed and the washings returned to the main sewage
flow.
19

Because grit is denser than the organic solids, its removal is achieved by
controlling the velocity of sewage flow to a critical value at which only
the coarse grit will settle out. This critical threshold velocity is 0.3 m/s,
but the range of 0.2 - 0.45 m/s will generally allow a satisfactory
operation.
The operation takes place in either a constant-velocity grit channel or in
proprietary grit tanks.
Constant-velocity grit channels
Theoretically, these should be parabolic in cross-section, although
trapezoidal shapes are quite frequently used with side slopes greater
than 45 degrees to encourage grit to fall down to the invert. At least two
(parallel) channels should be provided (with a total capacity of 6 DWF)
allowing for one channel to be emptied for grit removal, whilst the other
remains on-line. Channel length should be about 20 x depth, with
channel width being equal to

|

\
|
nV
3

where: n is the Manning n roughness (0.012 for concrete); and
V is average flow velocity.
Grit removal can be effected by automatic or manual methods using
dredging, conveyors or suction pumps. Automatic control and re-
direction of wastewater flow may be carried out by means of rectangular
standing-wave flumes connected to automatic penstocks upstream of the
grit channels.
Grit tanks
There are three basic types of grit tank.
Detrition
In this type of tank, entry is over a full-width weir, flowing
through a square tank to a narrow exit channel. The forward
velocity through the tank is kept low to enable grit to settle out.
It is then swept to one side of the tank by a centrally mounted,
continuously-rotating set of three arms, from where it falls to a
sloping channel and is carried upwards and discharged. At the
same time, clean water flows down the channel and washes the
grit.
Pista grit trap
Here, the sewage enters tangentially into a circular tank and is
swept by a set of rotating paddles and leaves at the same level.
The velocity in the tank is then reduced and the grit settles to the
tapered bottom of the tank. The grit is washed in-situ by a
counterflow of air and water in the sump before being
discharged by a pump.
Spiral flow tanks
In these, the sewage enters orthogonally to the direction of flow
along rectangular tanks. Air diffusers along the sides create a
spiral flow and the grit settles down the sloping floors into grit
hoppers from where it can be pumped out.
21

6. PRIMARY TREATMENT
6.1 Stormwater treatment
Since it is uneconomic to fully treat all flows which reach the STW, and
secondary biological processes are adversely affected by widely varying
hydraulic and organic loadings, full treatment can only be given at any
one time to about 3 DWF. Flows between 3 DWF and the design level of
5 - 6 DWF are, therefore, subject to only preliminary and stormwater
treatment on the basis that the majority of the flow is likely to consist of
surface runoff. Storm treatment consists of screening, grit removal and a
final sedimentation in stormwater holding tanks before discharge to the
watercourse. This is considered acceptable as the rivers are normally
carrying higher flows during rainfall periods and hence will be able to
dilute the effluent effectively.
To divide the incoming flow, a separation weir is provided after
preliminary treatment to divert flows in excess of 3 DWF and up to 5 - 6
DWF to the stormwater sedimentation tanks. The use of the weir
ensures that the quantity passing through the penstock is independent of
the head over the weir. This is important since otherwise the capacity of
downstream sections in the treatment works may become overloaded.
The stormwater tanks fill up one at a time and no discharge is made
until all tanks are filled and then discharge to the watercourse may take
place. After the rainfall event has ceased, the tanks should be gradually
re-routed back to the works inlet as soon as possible to enable full
treatment up to the 3 DWF capacity. The sludge which settles in the
storm tanks is removed by means of mechanical scrapers after the
stormwater has been removed from the tanks and is then discharged to
sludge treatment works.
6.2 Primary sedimentation
Primary sedimentation is intended to remove as large a proportion as
possible of the coarse settleable solids in sewage in order to allow later
biological processes to work efficiently. Effective sedimentation can
remove up to 90% of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and reduce the
BOD5 by up to 40%. The basic principle of sedimentation is simple in
that any liquid containing heavy particles in suspension will clarify if
allowed to stand.
Four different types of process may apply, depending on the nature of
the wastewater.
Type I: Discrete particle settlement
The process of discrete particle settlement (or Type I settlement) under
laminar flow conditions is described by Stokes Law which balances
gravitational forces of particle settlement with the drag or frictional
resistance forces:
Vs =
18
g
(1 - )

2
d
(Equation 5)
where: Vs is particle settling velocity;
1 and are particle and fluid density respectively;
g is gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s
2
);
d is particle diameter; and
is the kinematic viscosity (1.01 x 10
-6
m
2
/s at 20C).
The basic design approach for primary sedimentation tanks or basins is
to select a design particle having a particular terminal or settling velocity
(Vs) say, for example, coarse sand of 0.25 mm diameter with a Vs of 0.5
m/s and then to design the tank so that all particles (i.e. 100%) having
a terminal velocity equal or greater than Vs will be captured and
removed in the tank.
The effect of particle size on settling velocity can be illustrated by
reference to two particles with diameters of 0.01 mm and 0.06 mm, and
having a density (or Specific Gravity, SG) of 2.5, settling in water having
a kinematic viscosity of 1.0 x 10
-6
m
2
/s:
For the 0.01 mm particle:
Vs =
18
81 . 9
(2.5 - 1.0)
) 10 x 01 . 1 (
) 10 x 1 (
6 -
2 -5

= 0.81 x 10
-4
m/s
= 0.08 mm/s
The same calculation for the 0.06 mm diameter particle derives a
settling velocity of 29.2 x 10
-4
m/s (or 2.92 mm/s).
The only watchpoint in the calculation is to ensure that the various
parameters are all entered into the equation in similar units.
In actual STW practice, the Vs value corresponds to medium sand sizes
of about 0.15 mm diameter and is achieved under loading rates in the
general range of 15 - 25 m
3
/m
2
.day.
23

The suspended solids will not settle if the upward velocity exceeds the
settling velocity, i.e.:
if Vs <
A
Q

where: Q is the discharge flow rate; and
A is the surface area of the tank.
This sometimes occurs in upward flow tanks (see section 6.4 below). In
horizontal tanks, suspended particles may be assumed to remain in the
tank if the time of flow along the tank is greater than the full-depth
settlement time:
Time of flow (t) =
Q
bdL

where: b is the breadth (width) of the tank;
d is the tank depth; and
L the tank length.
Given that settlement time =
Vs
d
, then
Vs =
bL
Q
or
A
Q

This value of Q/A is known as the overflow rate or surface loading rate.
Note that the settling velocity is independent of the depth of the tank,
hence a shallow tank is more efficient than a deep one. Thus, all
particles with a velocity greater than Q/A will reach the bottom of the
tank before the outlet, and particles with a velocity less than Q/A will be
removed in the same proportion that velocity bears to Q/A. Stokes
Law can, therefore, be used to determine the performance characteristics
and efficiency of ideal settling conditions.

Example 3
A 25 l/s flow of suspended discrete particles (of varying size) having a
SG of 2.5 is settled in a sedimentation tank which is 5 m long and 2 m
wide. Given a kinematic viscosity of 1 x 10
-6
m/s, what will be the
diameter of the particles which completely (i.e. 100%) settle out in the
tank?
Solution
Vs = Q/A =
b) x L (
Q
=
2) x (5
10 x 25
-3
= 2.5 x 10
-3
m/s
From re-arrangement of Stokes Law (equation 5):
d
2
=
) - g(
) 18 x (Vs
1

and therefore:
d =

1
) - g(
) 18 x (Vs
(

6 - 3 -
1.0) - (2.5 9.81
) 10 x (1 x 18 x ) 10 x (2.5
(
(

= 57 x 10
-6
m
= 0.057 mm

The 1970 UK Royal Commission recommended that sedimentation tanks
should be sufficient to provide the following retention periods (based on
DWF):
static settlement tanks: 2 hours;
continuous flow sedimentation tanks: 15 hours.
At least two tanks should be provided, although additional tanks may
be arranged in parallel. The location of entry and exit points should be
arranged to avoid short-circuiting or scouring and settled sludge should
be removed at regular intervals to avoid anaerobic decomposition in the
tanks.
Type II: Flocculent settlement
Settling of typical wastewater solids rarely conforms to the ideal
conditions and discrete particle analysis described by Stokes Law as
organic solids tend to flocculate very readily. In addition, crude sewage
is composed of a variety of particle sizes and shapes which will settle at
different rates, so that the larger, heavier and fast settling solids may
overtake and collide with smaller, slower settling particles. As particles
collide, they coalesce and the aggregation alters their settling velocity.
For such Type II Flocculent settlement conditions, the sedimentation
tank must be sufficiently deep to allow them to settle out. In other
words, the settlement velocity is no longer independent of depth and the
surface overflow rate (Q/A) is not as important. The three parameters
of surface loading, tank depth and retention time are inter-
25

related, so that once values for any two are chosen, the third becomes
fixed, i.e.:
detention time (t) =
A
Vs
=
Q
bLd

since bL equals A, then t must equal
) A / Q (
d

However, no mathematical relationship exists to state the influence of
depth and detention time on solids concentration for flocculating
conditions and so it is determined empirically through laboratory
settling column tests.
Type III: Hindered settlement and
Type IV: Zone settlement
In wastewater effluents having very high solids concentration, both
Type III Hindered settlement and Type IV Zone settlement can occur in
addition to Type II.
Type III Hindered settlement occurs when particles are sinking so close
together that they hinder each other and are no longer capable of settling
independently. The velocity fields of the fluid displaced by adjacent
particles overlap and there is consequently a net upward flow of the
displaced liquid which acts as a cushion against further settling. This
results in a reduced overall particle settling velocity and thus reduced
sedimentation efficiency.
Where solids concentration is extremely high perhaps due to hydraulic
overloading of the STW during the onset of extreme storm conditions
when first-flush solids are rapidly conveyed to the works the entire
wastewater suspension in the tank settles out as a blanket. This is Type
IV Zone settling where all particles regardless of size are forced to settle
out at the same velocity.
6.3 Enhanced sedimentation
Whilst the UK, in common with other EU member states as well as the
US and Canada, has been forced to install expensive secondary sewage
treatment facilities by strict regulatory directives, Hong Kong has been
able to largely avoid this situation. Hong Kong is fortunate in being able
to discharge only primary treated sewage into the surrounding marine
environment where saline conditions and strong sunlight can rapidly
adsorb and degrade the treated organic effluent.
Recent reviews of Hong Kongs sewage disposal strategies have
recommended the use of chemically-enhanced primary treatment with a
final disinfection prior to marine discharge in order to kill remaining
bacteria. The principal chemicals used are alum, ferric chloride and
synthetic organic polymers which considerably stimulate particle
coalescence and flocculent settlement. The screened sewage is passed
through a flocculation tank and subjected to flash-dosing before passing
on to the primary sedimentation tank. This chemical dosing can increase
solids removal rates by 80% and BOD5 removal by up to 50%.
Such enhanced primary sedimentation has been trialed in Europe and
North America, but there have been carry-over problems resulting from
the chemical dosing toxicity into the secondary treatment stages as well
as to inland receiving waters.
6.4 Types of sedimentation tanks
There are three basic types of primary settling tank used in STWs
illustrated in Figure 61. All of the designs would normally be expected
to give at least 65 - 70% TSS removal and 20 - 25% BOD5 removal with 3
- 7% dry sludge production.
Horizontal flow tanks
Here, flows enter and leave by weirs with a controlled (or baffled)
velocity of flow (> 0.3 m/s) through the tank to minimise disturbance of
the settled sludge and help establish a uniform forward velocity. With
mechanical de-sludging, a detention period of 6 - 10 hours may be
adopted or 8 - 15 hours for manual de-sludging, and the maximum weir
loading rate is about 20 - 30 m
3
/m
2
.day to limit the influence of
drawdown currents.
The most common unit process uses mechanical de-sludging. The
sludge scraper is suspended below a power-driven bridge which travels
along rails either side of the tank. The scraper travels slowly against the
effluent flow and deposits the sludge in a hopper below the floor of the
tank from which it is pumped to the sludge treatment works. The
bridge returns with the scraper raised above the water level. The rate of
travel of the scraper must be limited to 1.2 m/min.
Upward flow tanks
These are normally square in plan with deep hopper bottoms and are
very common in small STWs. Their main advantage is that sludge
removal is carried out entirely by gravity and no mechanical parts are
required for cleaning.
Sewage enters the tanks below the top water-level, but above the sludge
level. As the sewage flows upwards and outwards, the velocity
decreases and the sludge flocculates and aggregates, with the large
sludge flocs settling to the bottom of the tank where it is removed under
hydrostatic head or by pumping. Upward velocity is usually 1.2 -
1.8 m/hour at maximum flow with the required upward flow being
maintained by weir troughs adjacent to the stilling well in addition to
those at the tank perimeter. The sides of the tank slope in a conical form
with side slopes steeper than 60 degrees to concentrate the sludge to the
27

hopper base although this means that scum removal has to be a daily
manual operation. The capacity of the tanks is about 5 - 6 hours average
DWF volume.
True upflow tanks have a disadvantage in that hydraulic overloading
may have more serious effects than in a horizontal flow tank. Any
particles with a velocity lower than Vs = Q/A will not be removed in an
upward flow tank, but will escape in the clarified effluent. In a
horizontal flow tank, assuming that such particles were uniformly
distributed throughout the flow, particles with Vs1 < Q/A would still be
removed in the proportion of Vs1 / Vs.
Radial flow tanks
These need very careful baffling as the radial flow pattern can easily set
up excessive turbulence around the central sludge hopper, causing re-
suspension. It is, therefore, normal to have a central stilling box to give
stable flows in the tank.
In circular radial flow tanks, sewage enters at the centre stilling well and
flows radially out over an outer perimeter weir into a channel. The
floors of the tank slope (at between 1 - 15 degrees) to the centre of the
tank. Sludge is guided down the slope by means of continuously-
rotating scrapers or chains to a central sludge hopper which is
intermittently discharged by pumping. Scum removal is carried out by
a surface skimming board attached to the sludge scraper mechanism and
positioned so that scum is moved towards a collecting hopper at the
surface.
Radial tanks are designed on the principle of limiting the surface
loading to 35 - 45 m
3
/m
2
.day with:
Surface loading =
) (m area Tank
) (m hours 24 in flow Daily
2
3
and
Discharge overflow rate =
(m) length Weir
area Tank x loading Surface

The weir length around the tank perimeter is usually sufficient to give a
satisfactory weir loading rate at maximum flow, but at low flows, very
low flow depths may occur. To overcome the sensitivity of these tanks
to such variations in level, as well as for errors in weir level and wind
effects, it is common to have serrated or notched weirs.
Figure 61: Typical primary sedimentation tanks
(a) Rectangular horizontal flow tank










(b) Upward flow tank











(c) Circular radial flow tank








Effluent
Sludge
Stilling box
Influent
Scum baffle
Scum pit
Scum baffle
Stilling box
Rotating arm
Sludge
scraper blades
Influent
Effluent
Sludge
Scum trough
Skimming blade
Influent
Effluent
Sludge
Sludge scrapers
Baffle
Scum
Scum removal
trough
Effluent decanting
weirs