111401-3636 Ijcee-Ijens

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 19
111401-3636 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

I J E N S
OPTIMAL SIZING OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS
WITH ASM3

Walid El-Shorbagy
1*,
Abdulhameed Arwani
2
, and Ronald L. Droste
3

1
Civil and Environmental Engineering Dept., UAE University, AlAin, UAE (Corresponding Author)
2
Parsons International Limited, PO Box 5498, Abu-Dhabi, UAE
3
Civil Engineering Dept., Ottawa University, Canada

ABSTRACT A mathematical framework is developed for use in optimal sizing of a
wastewater treatment system that includes primary clarification and an activated sludge
process. The International Water Association (IWA) model; ASM3, is used in the
developed framework, as it is among the most comprehensive models that closely
describe the biological reactions taking place in the activated sludge process. A nonlinear
optimization problem is formulated with the objective to produce optimal sizes of
different units with least cost while meeting the effluent requirements. The optimization
model is applied to an illustrative activated sludge system treating domestic wastewater of
typical strengths. The effect of a number of parameters and conditions on the optimal
solution and the associated state variables is investigated. This includes the solids
retention time, temperature, influent conditions, effluent requirements, in addition to a
number of ASM3 parameters. The findings indicate that the temperature significantly
affects the optimal size of aeration tank. Increase in the soluble components
(biodegradable substrate and ammonia-ammonium nitrogen) of the influent results in
increased volume of the aeration tank, air flow rate, and the total cost. The system is
found to be most sensitive to variability of influent characteristics and maximum growth
rate of autotrophic biomass.

Keywords: Activated Sludge; ASM3; mathematical modeling; optimization; model
sensitivity.

I J E N S
INTRODUCTION
The most widely used biological treatment process for municipal and industrial
wastewater is the activated sludge (AS) process. Recent developments in process
modeling have resulted in the inauguration of advanced dynamic general-purpose models.
Among the most common and recent applied AS models is the International Water
Association (IWA) model; ASM3.
The main objective of a treatment plant design, in general, is to provide a cost effective
treatment for a given wastewater. Mathematical models are usually employed in a trial-
and-error fashion to achieve such an objective. Upon evaluating the performance, the
design is iteratively modified until it becomes satisfactory. The composite nature of such
problems generally makes it difficult to test all design possibilities. Moreover, the design
process becomes more difficult when considering the complex biokinetics of treatment
operations and the potential interaction between treatment processes that may all lead in
some cases to counterintuitive performance.
An alternative to this design paradigm is one in which the design process, essentially a
search through design possibilities, is automated using optimization. In an optimization-
driven design context, the designer supplies mathematical descriptions of design
objectives and constraints, e.g., minimize total cost while meeting effluent targets and
maintaining system-governing relations. An optimization algorithm is then used to
identify one or more design alternatives that best meet these criteria. The optimum design
is the one that satisfies certain constraints and is the best among several alternatives with
respect to prescribed criteria; among which the cost. This approach has the advantage of
being capable of considering design objectives, constraints, and performance
comprehensively and simultaneously. In addition, it can be extended to provide system-
wide optimization wherein all of the plants processes are optimized together. The most

I J E N S
common design parameters that the designer usually selects are the dimensions of the
units that make up the plant (biological reactors and settlers) and its operational variables
[1] such as hydraulic retention time (HRT), sludge retention time (SRT), areas, volumes,
and sludge recycle flow from the settlers.
During the last decade, several studies have treated the problem of wastewater systems
optimization following different approaches. Examples include studies from [1], [2], [3],
[4], [5], [6], and [7]. Reference [1] presented a mathematical formulation based on ASM1
for the optimum design of a new AS treatment plant. The minimum volumes of the
biological reactors and the minimum total cost (including construction and operation
costs) have been considered as optimization criteria. Practical results are also included, as
a case study, using the design of the second stage of the Galindo-Bilbao wastewater
treatment plant.
This study applies recent developments in modeling and understanding of AS process to
develop a mathematical framework that can optimally size its various units. The model
combines unit processes models and ASM3 for the biological reactor within an overall
optimization framework as an analysis and design tool. An optimal solution for typical
input conditions and effluent requirements is obtained based on prescribed constraints and
assumptions. The study also investigates the effect of varying a number of conditions on
the obtained optimal solution. This includes the effect of temperature, influent and
effluent characteristics, in addition to a number of ASM3 model parameters.

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
AS Systems constitute two main units, one for biological treatment and the other for
physical treatment or sedimentation, namely, aeration tank and secondary (final) settling
tank, respectively. In most AS treatment plants, especially conventional and complete-

I J E N S
mix plants, a primary sedimentation unit is installed before the AS system [8]. The
presence of primary sedimentation unit is necessary for removing inert organics that may
adversely affect the biological reactions coming after. The proposed optimal sizing model
considers the interaction among primary sedimentation, biological treatment, and final
sedimentation in terms of process continuity and costs.
Optimizing the AS system separately or incorporating it in a comprehensive treatment
system that includes both liquid and sludge treatment streams is a controversial research
issue. This study considers optimizing the AS system alone for two main reasons. First,
the system can be optimized alone then incorporated into a comprehensive optimization
model that includes the sludge-processing streams. Second, it has been proven that there
is a negligible difference in t.
The system layout is shown in Figure 1. All the streams are numbered to facilitate the
description of the model. Stream 1 represents the system influent while stream 4 is the
effluent. Streams 2 and 3 connect primary clarifier to the aeration tank and aeration tank
to secondary settler, respectively. Stream 5 is the underflow from the secondary settler
which is divided into stream 6 (recirculation of sludge from final settler to aeration tank)
and stream 7 which represents along with stream 8 the wastage sludge streams that might
be subjected to further treatment or disposal according to the applied legislations.

UNIT PROCESSES PERFORMANCE MODELS
Several models have been developed to describe the performance of unit processes that
make up the AS system. The incorporation of a particular model into the overall system
model highly influences the system design and the insights gained from the system
analysis as well.

I J E N S
The mathematical formulations describing the system components utilized in this study
are presented below.

Primary Clarification
Modeling the performance of primary clarifiers involves modeling the two main functions
they fulfill, namely, clarification and thickening. The overflow rate (q) and influent
suspended solids concentration (X
SS1
) (the subscript number denotes the stream in Figure
2) have been identified as two important parameters that affect the performance of
primary clarifiers.
For the clarification function, several theoretical and empirical models have been
proposed over the last two decades. Theoretical mathematical models, though helpful in
understanding the sedimentation process, are still far from being reliable and effective
design tools [9]. Empirical models are more suitable for the design of primary clarifiers in
the absence of more valid theoretical models. The reference suggests the following
expression:
)] exp( [ 1
1 1
2
cq
X
b
a
X
X
SS SS
SS
= (1)
where a, b (mg/L), and c (d/m) are positive parameters. q is the overflow rate (in m/d) and
defined as:
p
A
Q
q
2
=
(2)
where Q
2
is the primary effluent flow rate and A
p
is the primary clarifier surface area.
Thickening function of primary clarifiers is mainly modeled using the deferential
thickening technique, which is based on the limiting flux theory [10]. This technique
proposes that the primary sludge concentration (X
SS8
) equals:

I J E N S
n
p
n
SS
Q
A
n
n
n k L g X
/ 1
8
/ 1
8
1
)] 1 ( [ ) / (
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
(3)
where k (m/d) and n are settling constants of primary sludge and their ranges are (65
460 m/d) and (1 5), respectively [11]. A
p
and Q
8
(underflow rate) are in m
2
and m
3
/d,
respectively.
In this study, no certain model is considered to predict the removal of organic matter.
Instead, the species distribution of the suspended solids in the primary effluent is assumed
to be the same as in the primary influent. i.e. X
i2
= X
i1
(X
SS2
/X
SS1
). Using Equations 1 to 3
and the flow and mass balance equations, primary clarifier can be designed. q is usually
chosen as the decision variable, i.e., its specification leads to complete design of the
primary clarifier.

Activated Sludge
Standard biokinetic models are widely accepted in practice for the design of AS process
[10]. However, such models comprise too many approximations and their prediction of
systems behavior is poor. In contrast, advanced multi-component models that encompass
evolving understanding of phenomena in biotreatment, like ASM models, are the most
application in the design and research of AS systems [12].
In this study, ASM3 model [13] has been chosen as the basis for the design of AS
process. ASM3 was developed to correct for some defects noticed in ASM1 and to
incorporate latest advances in the modeling of AS systems. In ASM3, all the conversion
and the decay processes of the two groups of organisms are clearly separated. The new
addition in ASM3 is the assumption that all substrate passes storage before being
metabolized in the heterotrophic microorganisms. Moreover, the ammonification known

I J E N S
with its difficult quantification, was eliminated in ASM3 as it is fast and minimally
affects other processes.
In the literature ASM3 is rarely utilized in its full version and a reduced version is usually
adopted [14]. A reduced ASM3 based model is utilized here by considering two reduction
assumptions that are common in literature and utilized by several studies. Such
assumptions are:
(1) A completely aerobic bioreactor is assumed where oxygen is controlled all the time to
be 2 mg/L. Therefore, all anoxic reactions are neglected and the oxygen dynamics
are not taken into account [12], [15], [16].
(2) Alkalinity dynamics are neglected. Hence, the state variable describing the total
alkalinity is excluded [3], [17]. This assumption is logical since the effect of alkalinity
on other reactions is minor given the small values of its stoichiometric coefficients in
the original model [13], [18].
More simplifying assumptions beside the aforementioned ones are considered in other
studies [12], [15].
The resulting reduced ASM3 model consists of 10 components and 7 biochemical
processes compared to 13 components and 12 processes in the original model. Typical
values for the stoichiometric and composition parameters as suggested by Reference [19]
at 20
o
C were utilized to produce the stoichiometric matrix of the reduced ASM3 (Table
1). The stoichiometric matrix was used to write the conversion rate of each component as
explained in Reference [19]. To design the aeration tank, the stream constituents around
the AS system are calculated using steady state mass balances:
(dx
i
/dt)V = Q
2
. x
i2
[Q
4
. x
i4
+ Q
7
. x
i7
] + r
xi
V = 0 (4)

I J E N S
where x
i
is a vector of the state variables [S
I
, S
S
, S
NH4
, S
NOX
, X
I
, X
S
, X
H
, X
STO
, X
A
, X
SS
]. r
xi
is
the component conversion rate of x
i
, V is the aeration tank volume, and Q denotes the
flow rate.
Solids Retention Time (SRT) is among the most important design parameters in AS
systems and defined as follows:
SRT = V. X
H3
/[Q
7
. X
H7
+ Q
4
. X
H4
] (5)
Other important design parameters include the Hydraulic Residence Time (HRT) defined
as V/Q
2
, the Recycle Ratio (r) defined as Q
6
/Q
2,
and the Waste Ratio (w) defined as Q
7
/Q
2
.
The total oxygen requirement is the sum of the oxygen required for the removal of
organic matter (RO
H
) plus the oxygen requirement associated with nitrification (RO
A
) and
defined as follows (Grady et al, 1999):
(
+
+
+ =
SRT b
Y SRT b f
S X S Q RO
H
H H XI
S S S H
1
) 1 (
1 ) (
3 2 2 2
(6)
(
+
+
+ =
SRT b
Y SRT b f
S S S Q RO
A
A A XI
NH NOX NH A
1
) 1 (
57 . 4 ) (
3 2 2 2
4 4
(7)
where f
XI
is the production of X
I
in endogenous respiration, Y
H
is the aerobic yield of
heterotrophic biomass, and Y
A
is the yield of autotrophic biomass per NO
3
-N, and b
H
and
b
A
are identical to b
H,O2
and b
A,O2
.
For diffused air systems, the air requirement can be calculated from the following
dimensional expression (Grady et al, 1999):
e
A H
n
RO RO
AFR
) ( 0 . 6 +
=
(8)
where AFR is the air flow rate in m
3
/min, (RO
H
+ RO
A
) is the total oxygen requirement in
kg/h, and n
e
is the field oxygen transfer efficiency expressed as the percent of the oxygen
in the air actually transferred to the liquid. The value of n
e
depends on the nature of the

I J E N S
diffuser and the depth at which the air is released. It typically lies in the range of 6 to 15%
with 10% as an average value.
In AS systems, for economic reasons, the equipment used to transfer oxygen also
provides the turbulence necessary to maintain solids in suspension. This results in
constraints on process design and operation. The upper and lower feasible bioreactor
volume (in m
3
) can be related to the AFR and to the minimum air input rate (AIR) as
follows [8]:
L U
AIR
AFR
V
AIR
AFR 1000 1000

(9)
where AIR
L
and AIR
U
values depend on the type of diffusers used. Values of 20 and 90
m
3
/(min1000 m
3
) are generally applied, respectively.
For the types of oxygen transfer systems typically used nowadays, the maximum
volumetric oxygen transfer rate that can be achieved economically on a sustainable basis
is around 0.10 kg O
2
/(m
3
.h). This imposes another constraint on V. The lower limit based
on oxygen transfer can be expressed as follows [8]:
)] /( [ 10 . 0
) (
3
2
h m O kg
RO RO
V
A H
(10)

Secondary Sedimentation
Like the primary clarifier, the secondary sedimentation tank performs two functions,
clarification and thickening. Clarification, in this study, is modeled according to [20]
where the effluent suspended solids concentration (X
SS4
) is given as follows:
43 . 26
) ln( ) ln( 67 . 0
) ln( 21 . 6
) / (
4

=
SR H
SVI MLSS
L mg X
SS
(11)

I J E N S
where MLSS is equal to X
SS3
(g/L), SVI (Sludge Volume Index) is in (mL/g), H is the side
water depth in the settling tank (m), and SR is the surface overflow rate (m/h) which is
equal to Q
4
/A
f
(A
f
is the surface area of final settler).
The thickening function is modeled according to the solids flux theory as given by [11]
and presented earlier (Eq. 3). The settling constants appear in the equation represent
thickening properties of the wastage sludge. The ranges for n and k considered earlier are
applicable also for the final settler [11]. X
SS5
, A
f
and Q
5
replace X
SS8
, A
p
, and Q
8
,
respectively. One can choose the SRT, HRT, and r as decision variables to design the AS
system (aeration tank and secondary settler).

OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM FORMULATION
An optimum sizing of the system units is obtained using the processes models described
above along with an optimization technique. The objective function (total cost function)
is minimized subject to constraints given by design equations and variable constraints
where the constraints defining a feasible design space.
The set of constraints described earlier is used to provide a steady-state solution for the
AS system shown in Figure 1. Any equation-solving program can be used for this
purpose. A Microsoft Excel program was developed and utilized in solving the system by
selecting feasible values for q, SRT, HRT, and r (decision variables). The obtained
solution represents a starting point for the optimization model that proceeds in
establishing a search direction and step size toward new solution points of improved
objective function value.


I J E N S
Cost Functions (objective function)
The total cost of the wastewater treatment system is the sum of the capital costs of all unit
processes and the costs associated with pumping flow between these units. The cost
functions compiled and developed by [10] were considered in this study and presented in
Table 2.
The total annual cost in 2003 dollars is used to express the total system cost. Since the
capital cost is expressed as a lump sum, a design life of 20 years and a discount rate of
7% are assumed to amortize the capital costs. The Engineering News Record construction
cost index of 2003 is used to update the capital costs and the costs for material and supply
from the base year they were developed (1971) into the year of study (2003). Annual
operation and maintenance costs are calculated by multiplying the person-hour
requirement by the hourly wage rates. The cost for pumping is the product of the power
requirement and the unit power cost.
The objective function f(x) is the summation of capital, operation, maintenance, material
and supply and power costs for all the units and processes in the system considered.

APPLICATION PROBLEM
The model described above is applied to the system shown in Figure 1. The influent
wastewater characteristics are assumed as medium strength wastewater as given by [21]
and listed in Table 3.
Parameters appear in the model are either ASM3 stoichiometric and kinetic parameters or
other parameters associated with settling models or cost calculation equations.
Stoichiometric and kinetic parameters are assumed to have the same typical values
suggested in the original model as explained in [19] (Table 4). A number of parameters
varying with the temperature are summarized in Table 5. The values shown in the table

I J E N S
were deriven from models original studies as explained before. The CRF is calculated
assuming a design life of 20 years and a 7% discount rate. All capital costs ate multiplied
by CRF to be annual costs. Since the cost functions are developed in the year 1971, they
are updated to the year of the study. Using Engineering News Record construction cost
index, the cost of 1971 (BCI = 1581) is updated to the cost of 2003 (CI = 6581) as
follows, cost on 2003 = cost on 1971 CI (BCI)
1
. OMW and EC are to be defined
according to local practices. In this study, they are assumed to be 8.3 and 0.05 dollars,
respectively. PH and PE are used to calculate the pumping power cost.
Effluent quality is of great importance in the design process. Three main species are of
interest in the effluent, organic content, TSS, and ammonia/ammonium nitrogen. Effluent
characteristics are to be set according to local regulations. In this study, they are chosen
as usually recommended in literature. According to [21] in a well-operating AS plant that
is treating domestic wastewater, the soluble carbonaceous BOD
5
in the effluent will
usually vary from 2 to 10 mg/L. Suspended organic material will range from 5 to 15
mg/L, and non-biodegradable organics will range from 2 to 5 mg/L. According to the
same reference, the AS process can achieve as low as 10 mg/L of TSS in the effluent.
Regarding the ammonia/ammonium nitrogen, the system is assumed to achieve complete
nitrification. Bounds on variables are very important to derive the solution to a feasible
region. Bounds are set based on literature findings [21].
The abovementioned constraints are applied to the optimization problem. Using the
General Algebraic Modeling System (GAMS) program, the optimization problem is
solved. The solution (presented in Figure 2) is found to be robust to different starting
points, which indicates the possibility of being a global optimum. The TSS and SS
(indicating BOD) are reduced from 230 and 162 in the influent to 10 and 0.568 in the
effluent, respectively. The total annual cost associated with the optimized sizes is about

I J E N S
$598,138; this is 23.3% less than the total cost associated with the initial solution
($780,258).
The primary clarifier overflow rate is found at its upper limit indicating a less efficient
clarification. This also indicates that more saving can be attained by eliminating this unit
(5.6% saving is achieved by eliminating the primary clarifier). However, such a finding
does not mean a feasible option from a practical engineering point of view.
Similarly, since the sludge pumping represents a major capital cost, the optimal sizes are
found associated with minimum recycle ratio (r = 0.25) indicating that further saving can
be achieved by reducing r as well as HRT. This is obvious since the obtained effluent
quality in terms of S
S
and S
NH4
are far less than their lower applied limits (0.568 < 2.0
g/m
3
for S
S
and 0.778 < 1.0 g/m
3
for S
NH4
). Thus an acceptable effluent can be produced
with less cost by reducing HRT and/or r.
According to [8], practically, selection of SRT for domestic wastewaters is usually
controlled by factors other than soluble substrate removal. This is apparent in the solution
where both effluent soluble COD (S
S
) and effluent ammonium (S
NH4
) are relaxed while
the effluent suspended solids (X
SS
) is at its lower limit 10 g/m
3
and therefore limiting the
optimal solution.
Values of the total effluent COD (soluble COD plus particulate COD) and the total
nitrogen (ammonium plus the nitrate/nitrite) in the obtained solution are 45.2 g/m
3
and
30.4 g/m
3
, respectively. Such values fall within acceptable practical ranges even though
they are not constrained in the original formulation. This proves again the valid argument
made earlier stating that constraining the TSS is adequate and should implicitly constrain
the total COD. This is due to the fact that a major portion of total COD is in particulate
form that is constrained by the TSS. Similarly, the low levels of total nitrogen are
attributed to low level of ammonia in the influent.

I J E N S
The major portion of the MLSS is heterotrophic biomass (43.37%) while the inert
particulate organics comprises 37%. The rest is slowly biodegradable substrate (7.69%),
autotrophic biomass (2.54%), and organics stored by heterotrophs (9.48%). This is
compatible with the practical expectation that the two main portions contributing to the
MLSS are inert organics and active biomass.

EFFECT OF SOLIDS RETENTION TIME
As was mentioned earlier, SRT plays a major role in determining the performance of AS
system. Earlier studies showed that SRT is usually controlled by flocculation requirement
of suspended solids for proper sedimentation in the final clarifier and not the removal of
soluble substrate. Reference [8] has stated clearly that once the SRT was sufficient for
effective flocculation and treatment to occur, further increases had only minor effects on
the soluble substrate removal. This indicates that increasing SRT above the required value
would not affect the effluent quality significantly. This is investigated here by finding the
optimal solutions at different values of SRT (starting from 3.5 days; the value considered
in the base design).
Figure 3 shows the effect of SRT on the effluent biodegradable substrate (S
S3
) and
ammonium/ammonia nitrogen (S
NH3
). For SRT larger than 8 days, the decrease in effluent
soluble substrate is very small. The same trend is noticed for the ammonium/ammonia
nitrogen. On the other hand, the total COD in the effluent shows a completely different
effect. The COD decreased rapidly with increased SRT reaching a minimum value at
8days then increased again. Although such decrease and increase happened only within a
range less than 0.5 mg/L, it is still worthwhile to be noticed. Mathematically, this is
attributed to the low drop in soluble COD after 8 days while the production of biomass
and inert particulates contributing to the total COD continues to occur. The total cost

I J E N S
system increased with SRT at the same rate even after 8 days. Increase in the cost is
mainly due to increase in the aeration tank volume and oxygen requirement.

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE
Wastewater treatment systems can operate in a wide range of ambient temperatures
varying from less than 10
o
C to about 40
o
C. The temperature is known to significantly
affect different treatment processes with different levels and its effect on biological
treatment is obvious. In AS processes, such effect is associated with biological growth of
different species of biomass to remove pollutants from the wastewater. The temperature
affects the biological reactions in two ways; by influencing the rates of reactions and by
affecting the rate of diffusion of substrate to the cells. Quantifying the temperature effect
is usually considered by varying the kinetic and stoichiometric parameters governing the
biological rates. For ASM Models, a number of kinetic parameters significantly vary with
temperature as shown in Table 5 at four temperature values; 10
o
C, 20
o
C, 30
o
C, and 40
o
C
(values at 10
o
C and 20
o
C are given by [19] and estimated at other temperatures from
Arhenius Equation). Table 6 lists typical values of other kinetic parameters not affected
by temperature [19]. The model performance under different temperatures is examined by
finding the optimal solution for each set of kinetic parameters at a certain temperature.
The results are summarized in Table 7.
Obviously the temperature change did not affect the optimal design of the primary
clarifier or the secondary clarifier. Design of both unit operations remains unchanged for
the various temperatures examined. Moreover, the primary clarifier overflow rate still at
its practical upper bound which indicates that this unit is not effectively participating in
the treatment process and economically a reduction in the total cost can be achieved by
considering a system without such a unit.

I J E N S
Total system cost increased at low temperatures and at high temperatures with minimum
cost found when operating at 20
o
C. At low temperatures, the rate of reaction for all
processes is slow especially for the autotrophic biomass which is known to have lower
reaction rate than heterotrophic biomass. Such low reaction rates of autotrophic biomass
affects the treatment process significantly. This type of biomass is responsible for the
removal of ammonium/ammonia nitrogen (S
NH4
); that is at its effluent requirement limit.
This indicates that this component has dictated the system to operate at higher sludge age
and higher HRT to allow some time for the autotrophic biomass to remove S
NH4
. HRT is
directly related to volume of aeration tank, which in turn caused the system cost to
increase. This becomes clear if we compare the design at 10 and 40
o
C where the design
SRT is almost the same while the HRT at 10
o
C is higher and effluent S
NH4
is at its limit.
Hence the volume of aeration tank is higher and so is the cost. At low temperature, the
rate is low so the HRT increased to the time required. In contrast, although HRT at high
temperature is much less, the high rate produced better effluent quality of S
S
and S
NH4
.
On the other hand, contrary to the expectation that the rate of reaction increases
dictate a shorter sludge age as the temperature increases, the increase in reaction rates
resulted in very high concentration of X
I
and low concentrations of X
H
and X
A
in the
aeration tank. Due to the high rate of death at high temperatures, most of the biomass was
converted to X
I
. This required higher SRT and HRT to maintain the level of treatment
required. This eventually increased the volume of aeration tank and the AFR required.
Both contributed to the increase in cost.
Comparing the situation at low and high temperatures, the particulate substrate
apparently controls the biological process and requires longer sludge age at high
temperatures. In contrast, at low temperatures soluble substrate controls and this clearly
appears if one compares the soluble effluent characteristics at the both situations. At low

I J E N S
temperatures, soluble components are at their effluent limits while these components at
high temperatures are at very low levels.
In summary, temperature affects the AS process design significantly. According to this
study the best operating temperatures are around 20
o
C. This is consistent with what is
reported in literature about optimum operating temperature for the AS process [21].
However, the above discussion is based on the assumption that the kinetic parameters
follow in nature the Arhenius equation considered in calculating such parameters at
different temperatures

EFFECT OF INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
In this section, the model performance is examined for various scenarios of influent
characteristics.
Influent flow rate
In the base solution the influent flow rate was 40,000 m
3
/d (1500 m
3
/h), which is
considered an average for a domestic wastewater treatment plant. The performance was
examined for other flow rates keeping the concentrations of species the same. Results are
summarized in Table 8. Clearly, a change in the flow rate affects the system cost because
the sizes of the units are changed to accommodate the increased flows. However,
biological treatment remains unchanged since the concentrations of influent organics
were not changed. Such performance is expected.

Strength of wastewater
This section explores the effect of influent strengths different from the base medium-
strength wastewater upon the optimal cost and design. The influent characteristics were
varied one at a time to observe the effect of each condition on the system design Table 9

I J E N S
reports the optimized solutions for various influent conditions along with the influent
conditions.
In case 1, only the readily biodegradable substrate (S
S
) was changed to 324 mg/L
as COD while other characteristics were unchanged. This resulted in a more expensive
system (7.8% increase in cost) which is attributed mainly to the increase in aeration tank
volume and air flow rate. The volume increase is due to the higher HRT required for the
metabolism of the increased mass of S
S
and to eventually higher needed AFR. However it
is noted that the SRT is lower than the base design associated with higher concentration
of heterotrophic biomass maintained in the aeration tank.
In case 2, only ammonium plus ammonia nitrogen (S
NH4
) concentration was
changed to 50 mg/L as N. Again other characteristics were kept at the base design. This
resulted in significant increase in the optimized system cost (10.6% increase). This is
attributed again to the significant increase in the aeration tank volume and the AFR. In
contrast to case 1, the AFR increase here is due to the increase in the oxygen requirement
of autotrophic biomass while in case 1 it was due to the increase in the oxygen
requirement of heterotrophic biomass. In this case, the SRT suffers a significant increase.
This is due to the low concentration of X
H
maintained in the aeration tank and the low
wastage ratio. However, better quality is noticed in the effluent.
In case 3, both soluble components in case 1 and 2 (S
S
and S
NH4
) were changed
together to examine their combined effect. The increase in optimal cost is found to be
major (18.1%) again due to the increase in V and AFR which is now reach high value due
to the increase in the oxygen requirement for both heterotrophic and autotrophic biomass.
Further increases in HRT, SRT, and are noticed due to the combined increase.
Comparing the above three cases indicates that S
NH4
exerts more influence on the system
than S
S
. This is expected since the reaction rate of autotrophic biomass is much lower than

I J E N S
that for heterotrophic biomass, i.e, the treatment of S
NH4
is more expensive than the
treatment of S
S
.
In case 4, only the inert particulate organic matter concentration (X
I
) was changed
to 184 mg/L as COD. This component does not undergo any treatment during the process
and some production of X
I
takes place through the aerobic endogenous respiration
processes of heterotrophic and autotrophic organisms. So, the amount of X
I
increases
during the biological treatment and then settles in the final sedimentation tank. The cost
of the system after increasing X
I
in the influent is not much different from the base model
cost. However, this increase has altered the effluent quality (S
NH4
at its effluent limit)
explained as follows. An increase in X
I
in the aeration tank caused a decrease in X
H
and
X
A
to keep the MLSS at its level and hence the volume of the tank stays at its minimum
since it affects the cost significantly. In addition, extra wastage is required to remove the
extra amount of X
I
. These actions result in lowering the SRT significantly and hence alter
the effluent quality. Increasing the X
I
further in the influent has shown an increase in the
system cost due the increased cost associated with waste sludge pumping. The biological
treatment remains unaltered. This trend remains valid until the system starts to reach its
capacity of removing solids in the primary and secondary clarifiers. Before reaching the
clarifier limit, the extra amount of X
I
added is wasted with the wastage sludge out the
system.
The situation is completely different in case 5 when the slowly biodegradable
substrate (X
S
) is increased to 428 mg/L as COD. X
S
is consumed in the hydrolysis process
to produce S
S
and a small amount of S
NH4
. X
S
does not participate in other reactions. Thus
the influence of increasing X
S
is very similar to the influence of increasing S
S
(case 1) as e
evidenced by examining the system design produced for the two situations. The only
difference comes from the small amount of S
NH4
produced during the hydrolysis. This

I J E N S
small amount has required a small increase in the SRT and the HRT. However, some
amount of X
S
has been removed in the primary clarifier and hence not converted to S
S
or
S
NH4
. Therefore, the total amount of S
S
and X
S
is less than the total in case 1 and this
explains the reduction in AFR required in this case.
In case 6, combining cases 4 and 5 is explored. The result is a combination of the results
for the two cases. The most notable point here is the contribution of the primary clarifier.
The huge increase in influent total suspended solids due to the increase in X
I
and X
S

forced the system to rely on the primary clarifier to achieve the required treatment. The
overflow rate of primary clarifier is no longer at its upper practical limit in this case
indicating the actual and effective need of this unit. In order to show the economic
importance of primary clarifiers in situations like case 6, the same influent characteristics
have been considered in a system without a primary clarifier. There is more load on the
secondary clarifier and more total system cost (0.63% increase in cost). In other
situations, the treatment plant might fail to operate without a primary clarifier.
Case 7 combines all the aforementioned cases representing a high-strength wastewater
instead of the medium-strength wastewater considered in the base design. As expected,
the solved system involves an increase in V, AFR, SRT, HRT, and total system cost.
However, it is noticed that the design of primary clarifier and secondary clarifier have
been unaffected by this change in the strength of influent wastewater indicating that the
biological treatment alone was able to absorb the increase more economically than the
two sedimentation processes.
The last case shown in Table 9 (case 8) examines the presence of heterotrophic biomass
in influent. Results are design a very close to the base scenario. The presence of biomass
in the influent helps the system achieve better quality of S
S
at lower SRT which at the
same time altered the effluent of S
NH4
at an acceptable limit. The lower SRT has lowered

I J E N S
the AFR which in turns cause a decrease in the total system cost. Otherwise the system
design is similar to the base system designThe presence of autotrophic biomass in the
influent was not tested because it is unlikely to happen.

Effect of Effluent Limits
The effluent requirements applied on the base design are derived from the practical limits
recommended in the literature. Tightening the limits will govern the system capacity. The
system reaches its full capacity when the effluent suspended solids are set to 6 mg/L.
Slightly lower than this limit, the primary clarifier reaches its full capacity, so does the
secondary clarifier and the biological treatment system. This indicates that for the
conditions applied on the base design, the system cannot achieve lower concentration
than this in the effluent.

SENSITIVITY TO MODEL PARAMETERS
Uncertainty exists in the kinetic parameters due to their random nature and their
temperature-dependence. In this section, the sensitivity of model results to kinetic
parameters variations at low and high temperatures is explored. At low and high
temperatures; 20
o
C and 40
o
C respectively, the kinetic parameters were assigned values
suggested by [19] and shown in Table 10. For every parameter, three runs were conducted
at each temperature, one at the suggested parameter value, another at 50% of this
suggested value, and the third at 150% of it. At each run, other parameters were kept at
their original values Table 10 shows the percentage change in objective function (total
cost) due to 50% change in parameter value (a minus sign indicates a reduction in cost).
The table indicates that variability of kinetic parameters has different effects on the
optimum solution. A general or specific trend for most effects cannot be drawn from the

I J E N S
table. Moreover, all the changes are negligible except those imposed by the variability of
b
H
,
A
, and K
A
. The most apparent change is due to a reduction in
A
assumed value by
50% at 20
o
C. The assumed value at this temperature is 1.0, which means if
A
becomes
0.5 for one reason or another then a system with 11.3% higher cost is required to achieve
the same treatment requirements. Such indicates that the system is very sensitive to this
parameter and poor estimation of it would lead to system malfunctioning.
The sensitivity of model to
A
is explained here. The developed model has been assumed
to perform complete nitrification which requires the concentration of
ammonium/ammonia nitrogen in the effluent to be less than or equal to one. It is well
known that the growth rate of autotrophic biomass is naturally very slow. Any alteration
in this growth rate (variability of
A
) would significantly affect the nitrification process
which is limiting the solution most of the time. In the shown case, the decrease in the
growth rate required the system to increase the SRT to allow more time for nitrification.
Hence the system cost increased significantly.

CONCLUSIONS
Significant cost savings can be achieved by utilizing the concept of optimization in the
design of wastewater treatment facilities. This work presented the formulation and use of
an optimal sizing model for the widely used AS process considering the ASM3 model to
simulate the kinetic relations of relevant biochemical processes. The developed model
was extended to examine the influence of various parameters and inputs upon the system
performance and relevant results.
SRT increase was found to produce a slight drop in effluent biodegradable substrate (S
S3
)
and ammonium/ammonia nitrogen (S
NH3
) while a minimum COD is achieved at 8 days
after which COD increases. Temperature was found to have no effect on the optimal size

I J E N S
of primary or secondary clarifiers but it does significantly affect the aeration tank
performance. The system minimum cost was obtained at 20
o
C associated with minimum
aeration volume, HRT, and SRT. The study portrayed the importance of considering
kinetic parameters precisely in the design of AS process due to their major effect on the
optimal system size.
Increased flow rates result in increased cost because of increased sizes but the biological
performance stays unchanged. Various influent conditions result in different responses of
the optimized system depending on the influent characteristics. Soluble pollutants exert
different influence than particulate ones reflecting the important need of careful
characterization of the influent wastewater. Uncertainties and shock changes in such
characteristics should be taken into consideration when a reliable and robust design is
sought. Increase in the soluble components (S
S
and S
NH4
) of the influent results in
increased volume of the aeration tank, air flow rate, and the total cost with more
pronounced effect found from the increased S
NH4
.
Increase in the inert particulate organic matter concentration (X
I
) in the influent results in
slight increase in the total cost as well as slight increase in the soluble organics and
nitrogenous content in the effluent.
The system is most sensitive to variability of influent characteristics and maximum
growth rate of autotrophic biomass (
A
). Variability of these parameters should be
considered in the design of AS plants. Ignoring their variability would involve major risks
and possibility of failure.

REFERENCES
[1] A. Rivas, E. Ayesa, A. Galarza, and A. Salterain, Application of Mathematical Tools
to Improve the Design and Operation of Activated Sludge Plants. Case Study: The

I J E N S
New WWTP of Galindo-Bilbao Part I: Optimum Design, Water Sci. Technol., 43, 7,
pp. 157-165, 2001.
[2] E. Ayesa, B. Goya, A. Larrea, L. Larrea, and A. Rivas, Selection of Operational
Strategies in Activated Sludge Processes Based on Optimization Algorithms, Water
Sci. Technol., 37, 12, pp.327-334, 1998.
[3] B. Chachuat, N. Roche, and M.A. Latifi, Dynamic Optimization of Small Size
Wastewater Treatment Plants Including Nitrification and Denitrification Processes
Computers and Chemical Engineering, 25, pp. 585-593, 1991.
[4] S.E Scuras, A. Jobbagy, and C.P. Leslie Grady, Optimization of Activated Sludge
Reactor Configuration: Kinetic Considerations Water Res., 35, 18, pp. 4277-4284,
2001.
[5] T.A. Doby, D.H. Loughlin, J.J. Ducoste, and F.L. de Los Reyes III, Optimization of
Activated Sludge Designs Using Genetic Algorithms, Water Sci. Technol, 45, 6, pp.
187198, 2002.
[6] Walid El Shorbagy, Nawras Nabil, and Ronald L. Droste
.
(2011). Optimization of
A2O BNR Processes Using ASM and EAWAG Models: Model Formulation. Water
Quality Research Journal of Canada, in press.
[7] Walid El Shorbagy, Nawras Nabil, and Ronald L. Droste
.
(2010). Optimization of
A2O BNR Processes Using ASM and EAWAG Models: Model Performance.
Elsevier Journal of Water Research, in Review.
[8] C.P. L Grady, G. Daigger, and H. Lim, Biological Wastewater Treatment, 2
nd
ed.
Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 1999.
[9] D. G. Christoulas, P.H. Yannakopoulos, and A.D. Andreadakis, An Empirical Model
for Primary Sedimentation of Sewage, Environment International, 24, 8, pp. 925-
934, 1998.

I J E N S
[10] C. Tang, E. D. Brill Jr., and J. Pfeffer, Mathematical Models and Optimization
Techniques for Use in Analysis and Design of Wastewater Treatment Systems,
Research Report No. 194, Water Resources Center, University of Illinois, 1984.
[11] S. Cho, H. Chang, and C. Prost, Steady State Analysis of the Coupling Aerator and
Secondary Settling Tank in Activated Sludge Process, Water Res., 30, 11, pp. 2601-
2608, 1996.
[12] H. Shahriar, C. Eskicioglu and R.L. Droste, Simulating Activated Sludge System by
Simple-to-Advanced Models, Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 132, 1,
pp. 42-50, 2006.
[13] W. Gujer, M. Henze, T. Mino, and M. van Loosdrecht (1999), Activated Sludge
Model No. 3, Water Sci. Technol, 39, 1, pp. 183-193.
[14] T.T Lee, F.Y. Wang, and R.B. Newell, Robust Model-Order Reduction of Complex
Biological Processes, Journal of Process Control, 12, 7, pp. 807-821, 2002.
[15] G. Koch, M. Khni, and H. Siegrist, Calibration and Validation of an ASM3-Based
Steady-State Model for Activated Sludge Systems-Part I: Prediction of Nitrogen
Removal and Sludge Production Water Res., 35, 9, pp. 2235-2245, 2001.
[16] M.A. Steffens, P. A. Lant, and R. B. Newell, A systematic approach for reducing
complex biological wastewater treatment models Water Res., 31, 3, pp. 590-606,
1977.
[17] U. Jeppsson, Modeling Aspects of Wastewater Treatment Processes, PhD Thesis,
Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden, 1996.
[18] M. Henze, C. P. Leslie Grady Jr., W. Gujer, G. Marais, and T. Matsuo, A General
Model for Single-Sludge Wastewater Treatment Systems, Water Res., 21, 5, pp. 505-
515, 1987.

I J E N S
[19] M. Henze, W. Gujer, T. Mino, and M. van Loosdrecht, Activated Sludge Models
ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d, and ASM3. (IWA Scientific and Technical Report No. 3.)
London: IWA, 2000.
[20] N. Voutchkov, Relationship for Clarification Efficiency of Circular Secondary
Clarifiers, Wat. Sci. Tech., 26, 9, pp. 2539-2542, 1992.
[21] Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse, 3
rd

ed., G. Tchobanoglous and F. L. Burton, eds., Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, India,
1991.
[22] D. Tyteca, D., Mathematical Models for Cost-Effective Biological Wastewater
Treatment, in Mathematical Models in Biological Wastewater Treatment, S.E.
Jorgensen and M.J. Gromiec, eds., Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1985.
[23] C. Tang, E. D. Brill Jr., and J. Pfeffer, Mathematical Models and Optimization
Techniques for Use in Analysis and Design of Wastewater Treatment Systems,
Research Report No. 194, Water Resources Center, University of Illinois, 1984.


I J E N S
List of Tables
Table 1: Stoichiometric matrix of the developed reduced ASM3 based model
Table 2: Summary of cost functions utilized in the study
Table 3: Summary of model parameters
Table 4: Kinetic parameters at different temperatures
Table 5: Kinetic parameters not affected by temperature

List of Figures
Figure 1. System layout
Figure 2. Application problem final solution


I J E N S
Table 1: Stoichiometric matrix of the reduced ASM3 based model
Component I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
j Process S
I
S
S
S
NH4
S
NOX
X
I

X
S
X
H
X
STO
X
A
X
SS

Expressed as COD COD N N COD COD COD COD COD SS
Process rate equation
j
,
all
j
0.
1 Hydrolysis 0 1 0.01 -1 -0.75 H
H S X
H S
H
X
X X K
X X
k . .
+

2
Aerobic storage of
S
S
-1 0.03 0.85 0.51
H
S S
S
STO
X
S K
S
k . .
+

3
Aerobic growth of
X
H
-0.07 1 -1.60 -0.06
H
H STO STO
H STO
NH NH
NH
H
X
X X K
X X
S K
S
. .
.
4 4
4
+
+

4
Aerobic endog.
Respiration of X
H

0.066 0.2 -1 -0.75
H O H
X b .
2
,

5
Aerobic respiration
of X
STO
-1 -0.60
STO O STO
X b .
2
,

6
Aerobic growth of
X
A
, nitrific.
-4.24 4.17 1 0.90
A
NH NH A
NH
A
X
S K
S
. .
4 4
4
,
+

7
Aerobic endog.
Respiration of X
A

0.066 0.2 -1 -0.75
A O A
X b .
2
,

S
I
: soluble inert organics, S
S
: readily biodegradable substrates, S
NH4
: ammonium, S
NOX
: nitrite plus
nitrate, X
I
: inert particulate organics, X
S
: slowly biodegradable substrates, X
H
: heterotrophic biomass,
X
A
: autotrophic (nitrifying) biomass, X
STO
: organics stored by heterotrophs, X
SS
: total suspended solids,
k
H
: hydrolysis rate constant, K
X
: hydrolysis saturation constant, k
STO
: storage rate constant, K
S
:
saturation constant for substrate S
S
,
H
: heterotrophic max. growth rate of X
H
, K
NH4
: saturation constant
for ammonium, K
STO
: saturation constant for X
STO
, b
H,O2
: aerobic endogenous respiration rate of X
H
,
b
STO,O2
: aerobic respiration rate for X
STO
,
A
: autotrophic max. growth rate of X
A
, K
A,NH4
: ammonium
substrate saturation for X
A
, b
A,O2
: aerobic endogenous respiration rate of X
A
.

I J E N S
Table 2: Summary of cost functions utilized in the study
Process Unit Capital
(1971$)
Operation
(personhours/yr)
Maintenance
(personours/yr)
Material and Supply
(1971$/yr)
Power
(k Wh/yr)
Primary Clarifier
[22]
77 .
824A
6 . 0
1 . 17 A
6 . 0
23 . 9 A
76 .
62 . 8 A

Primary Sludge
Pumping [22]
53 .
9870Q
41 .
257Q
43 .
112Q
64 .
214Q p
QH / 85 . 23
Aeration Tank
[23]
71 .
461V

Diffused
Aeration [23]
66 .
8533
a
Q
48 .
187
a
Q
55 .
4 . 74
a
Q

Secondary
Clarifier [22]
77 .
824A
6 . 0
1 . 17 A
6 . 0
23 . 9 A
76 .
62 . 8 A

Return & Waste
Sludge Pumping
[22]
53 .
9870Q
41 .
257Q
43 .
112Q
64 .
214Q p
QH / 85 . 23
A is the surface area in m
2
, Q is the flow in m
3
/hr, V is the volume in m
3
, Q
a
is the air flow rate in
m
3
/min, H is the pumping head in meters, and
p
is the pumping efficiency.

Table 3: Typical composition of untreated medium domestic wastewater [21]
Contaminants Concentration (mg/L)
Solids, Total (TS) 720
Total Dissolved (TDS) 500
Fixed 300
Volatile 200
Suspended Solids (SS) 220
Fixed 55
Volatile 165
BOD, 5-day, 20
o
C (BOD
5
) 220
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 160
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 500
Nitrogen (total as N) 40
Organic 15
Free ammonia 25
Nitrites 0
Nitrates 0

I J E N S
Table 4: Summary of model parameters
Symbol Characterization Value/range Units
A
Constant in Christoulas model for primary

1.71-0.03T -
B

683.6-21.13T mg/L
c

0.0035 d/m
k
Settling constant of primary sludge
65-460 m/d
n
Settling constant of primary sludge
1-5 -
kw
Settling constant of wasting sludge
65-460 m/d
nw
Settling constant of wasting sludge
1-5 -
SVI
Sludge Volume Index of sludge
<200 mL/g
H
Side water depth of final clarifier
>3.1 M
ne
Efficiency depends on diffuser and depth at

6-15%
AIR
U
Maximum air input rate
90 m
3
/(min.1000m
3
)
AIR
L
Minimum air input rate
20 m
3
/(min.1000m
3
)
CRF
Capital Recovery factor
0.0944
BCI
Base (1971) Cost Index
1581 $
CI
Cost Index for 2003
6581 $
OMW
Operating maintenance wages
8.3 $ per hour
EC
Electricity cost
0.05 $ per kWh
PH
Pumping head
10.0 m
PE
Pumping efficiency
0.6


I J E N S
Table 5: Kinetic parameters at different temperatures*

Symbol Characterization
Temperature
Units
10
o
C 20
o
C 30
o
C 40
o
C

k
H
Hydrolysis rate
constant
2 3 4.5 6.75 g COD
XS
(g
COD
XH
)
-1
d
-1

k
STO
Storage rate
constant
2.5 5.0 10.0 20.0 g COD
SS
(g
COD
XH
)
-1
d
-1

H
Heterotrophic
max. growth rate
of X
H

1 2 4 8 d
1

b
H,O2
Aerobic
endogenous
respiration rate of
X
H

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 d
1

b
STO,O2
Aerobic
respiration rate
for X
STO

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 d
1

A
Autotrophic max.
growth rate of X
A

0.35 1 2.86 8.16 d
1

b
A,O2
Aerobic
endogenous
respiration rate of
X
A

0.05 0.15 0.45 1.35 d
1

*Values at 10
o
C and
o
C as given by Henze et al. (2000) and estimated at other temperatures from Arrhenius
Equation

Table 6: Typical values of kinetic parameters not affected by temperature [17]

Symbol Characterization Value Units
K
X
Hydrolysis saturation constant 1 g COD
XS
(g COD
XH
)
1

K
S
Saturation constant for substrate S
S
2 g COD
XS
m
3

K
STO
Saturation constant for X
STO
1 g COD
XSTO
(g COD
XH
)
1
K
NH4
Saturation constant for ammonium, S
NH4
0.01 g N m
3

K
A, NH4
Ammonium substrate saturation for X
A
1 g N m
3


I J E N S
Table 7: System design at various temperatures

Symbol Units
Temperature,
o
C
10 20 30 40
q m/d 120 120 120 120
Ap m
2
299.8 299.8 299.8 299.8
SRT d 8.00 3.48 5.19 7.08
HRT d 0.276 0.125 0.142 0.155
V m
3
9926 4497 5119 5570
AFR m
3
/min 268.4 264.5 307.2 334.2
XSS3 g/m
3
as SS 4626 4628 4617 4610
R - 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
W - 0.665 0.696 0.516 0.401
SR m/d 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.9
Af M
2
1890 1890 1893 1894
SS3 g/m
3
as COD 0.502 0.568 0.284 0.213
SNH3 g/m
3
as N 1.0 0.778 0.290 0.224
XSS4 g/m
3
as SS 10 10 10 10
Cost $/yr 653,223 598,138 621,080 635,637


I J E N S
Table 8: System design at different influent flow rates

Symbol Units Influent flow rate, m
3
/h
1000 1500 2000
O m/d 120 120 120
Ap m
2
199.9 299.8 399.7
SRT d 3.479 3.479 3.479
HRT d 0.125 0.125 0.125
V m
3
2998 4497 5996
AFR m
3
/min 176.3 264.5 352.7
XSS3 g/m
3
as SS 4628.0 4628.0 4628.0
R - 0.25 0.25 0.25
W - 0.696 0.696 0.696
SR m/d 18.90 18.90 18.90
Af m
2
1260 1889.9 2519.9
SS3 g/m
3
as COD 0.568 0.568 0.568
S
NH3
g/m
3
as N 0.778 0.778 0.778
XSS4 g/m
3
as SS 10 10 10
Cost $/yr 460567 59818 720932


I J E N S
Table 9: System design optimization for different influent conditions
Case
Symbol Units Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Influent Conditions
Q

m
3
/h
1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
S
I
mg/L as
COD
32 32 32 32 32 32 32 64 32
S
S
mg/L as
COD
162 324 162 324 162 162 162 324 162
S
NH4
mg/L as N
25 25 50 50 25 25 25 50 25
S
NOX
mg/L as N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X
I
mg/L as
COD
92 92 92 92 184 92 184 184 92
X
S
mg/L as
COD
214 214 214 214 214 428 428 428 214
X
H
mg/L as
COD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
X
STO
mg/L as
COD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X
A
mg/L as
COD
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X
SS
mg/L as SS
230 230 230 230 299 390 460 460 239

Final Solutions
O m/d
120 120 120 120 120 120 113.2 120 120
Ap m
2
299.8 299.8 299.8 299.8 299.5 298.8 315.9 298.1 299.8
SRT d
3.479 3.444 5.328 5.048 2.857 3.534 2.857 4 3.361
HRT d
0.125 0.161 0.176 0.218 0.13 0.148 0.144 0.233 0.125
V m
3
4497 5799.2 6348.6 7825.2 4672.5 5306.4 5135.5 8322.9 4497
AFR m
3
/min
264.5 348.0 380.92 469.51 248.76 318.38 296.07 499.38 263.1
XSS
3
g/m
3
as SS
4628.0 4641.8 4624.4 4637.0 4640.1 4635.5 4646.1 4656.2 4629.6
R -
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
W -
0.696 0.928 0.636 0.848 0.9 0.822 1.003 1.176 0.722
SR m/d
18.90 18.89 18.91 18.90 18.90 18.90 18.89 18.88 18.90
Af m
2

1889.9 1886.4 1890.8 1887.6 1884.9 1881.8 1874.6 1872.0 1889.5
SS
3
g/m
3
as COD 0.568 0.573 0.405 0.42 0.691 0.56 0.691 0.502 0.544
S
NH3
g/m
3
as N 0.778 0.787 0.51 0.534 1 0.764 1 0.667 0.81
XSS
4
g/m
3
as SS 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Cost 1000$/yr 598.1 644.6 661.2 706.2 598.8 638.9 635.4 737.0 597.7

I J E N S
Table 10: Percentage change in optimal total cost due to variations in kinetic parameters

Kinetic
Parameters
Units At 20
o
C At 40
o
C
-50% +50% -50% +50%
k
H
mg/L as COD -0.1511 0.0469 -0.0615 0.0164
K
X
g COD
XS
(g
COD
XH
)
1

0.0630 -0.0561 0.0222 -0.0222
k
STO
mg/L as COD 0.0296 -0.0065 -0.0168 0.0048
K
S
g COD
XS
m
3
0.0083 -0.0083 0.0068 -0.0068
K
STO
g COD
XSTO
(g
COD
XH
)
1
-0.0006 -0.0002 -0.0139 0.0128
H
d
1
-0.0047 -0.0004 0.0318 -0.0099
K
NH4
g N m
3
0.0000 0.0000 -0.0006 0.0007
b
H,O2
d
1
-1.5146 1.8623 -2.0542 0.6479
b
STO,O2
d
1
-0.0601 0.0571 -0.0285 0.0263
A
d
1
11.338 0.0959 -0.1320 0.0323
K
A,NH4
g N m
3
0.1019 1.2096 0.0428 -0.0420
b
A,O2
d
1
0.0042 0.3355 0.0030 -0.0368


I J E N S

Aeration Tank
V=4497 m
3

SRT=3.479 d
HRT=3 h

1 2 3 4
5
7 6
8
1500
32
162
25
0
92
214
0
0
0
230
0
70.43
163.8
0
0
0
176.1
25
162
32
1499
28.78
2283
474.7
2230
126.2
731.0
4628
0.778
0.568
32
1874
28.78
4.934
1.026

4.819
0.273
1.580
10
0.778
0.568
32
1489
10.43
32
0.568
0.778
28.78
11089
2305
22475
3550
612.8
10830
1.014
32
162
25
0
31980
74387
79949
0
0
0
374.7
32
0.568
0.778
28.78
11089
2305
22475
3550
612.8
10830
Q: m
3
/hr
S
I
: g/m
3

S
S
: g/m
3
S
NH4
: g/m
3
S
NOX
: g/m
3
X
I
: g/m
3
X
S
: g/m
3
X
H
: g/m
3
X
A
: g/m
3
X
STO
: g/m
3
X
SS
: g/m
3
LEGEND:
Primary
qp=120 m/d
Ap=299.8 m
2

Secondary
qS=18.9 m/d
Af=1890 m
2

r = 0.25

Figure 1: System Layout

Figure 2: Application problem final solution

Primary
Settling
Final
Settling
Aeration
1 2 3 2 4
5
7 6
8

I J E N S

Figure 3: Effect of SRT on biodegradable substrate, ammonium/ammonia nitrogen, and
total COD

111401-3636 Ijcee-Ijens

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

111401-3636 Ijcee-Ijens

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 11 No: 01 19

111401-3636 IJCEE-IJENS February 2011 IJENS

Anda mungkin juga menyukai