Detailed Design Project

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/283084418
Detail Design of Wastewater Treatment Plant
Research · October 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3503.4327
CITATIONS READS
0 57,713
1 author:
Keshav Soomaree
University of Mauritius
4 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Keshav Soomaree on 23 October 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Design Project 2: DESIGN OF A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT | keshav soomaree
DESIGN PROJECT 2: DESIGN OF A

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
University of Mauritius
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering
4/3/2015
keshav soomaree
1114132
Coordinator: Mr A.K Ragen
Project supervisor: Mr A Mudhoo
Student Group: 3A
Table of Contents
List of Tables & Figures: ...................................................................................................................... 6
Acknowledgment ................................................................................................................................. 8
List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 13
1.1 Aims and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 13
1.2 Summary of starting points for the detailed design ..................................................... 15
Summary of Preliminary mass balances ................................................................................. 15
Summary of preliminary Sizing of equipment ...................................................................... 16
1.3 Description of the wastewater treatment plant’s processes ......................................... 24
Screens ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Oil and Grease Removal............................................................................................................ 24
Equalization Tank ...................................................................................................................... 25
Circular Primary Settling Tank ................................................................................................ 25
The Membrane Bioreactor......................................................................................................... 25
Sand Filter ................................................................................................................................... 26
Chlorination ................................................................................................................................ 26
Thickener ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Sludge Digester .......................................................................................................................... 27
Dewatering Tank ........................................................................................................................ 27
1.4 Process Flow of Proposed Wastewater ........................................................................... 27
1.5 Key findings of the preliminary design .......................................................................... 29
1.6 Job allocation to other members ...................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 2: Detailed Design .......................................................................................................... 30
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 30
2.2 Design Calculations for the MBR ..................................................................................... 33
2.3 Determination of Calculated Parameters ....................................................................... 45
Pressure Calculations ................................................................................................................ 45
Flux Calculation ......................................................................................................................... 46
Temperature Correction ............................................................................................................ 46
Specific Flux ................................................................................................................................ 46
Salt Rejection ............................................................................................................................... 46
Sludge Retention Time .............................................................................................................. 47
Page | 1
Recycle Ratio ............................................................................................................................... 47
2.4 Sizing of the MBR............................................................................................................... 47
2.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 49
2.6 Oil-Water separator design............................................................................................... 50
Horizontal Velocity (vH) ............................................................................................................ 52
Minimum Vertical Cross-Sectional Area (Ac) ........................................................................ 52
Channel Width and Depth ........................................................................................................ 53
Separator Length ........................................................................................................................ 53
Minimum Horizontal Area ....................................................................................................... 54
Maintenance ................................................................................................................................ 55
Construction Details .................................................................................................................. 56
Terminal Velocity of Oil Globules in Water ........................................................................... 57
Size and Gravity of Oil Globules ............................................................................................. 59
Derivation of Equation for Separator Length ........................................................................ 59
Calculation and results .............................................................................................................. 60
2.7 PIPE SELECTION AND PIPE SIZING FOR MBR TANKS OUTLETS AND INLETS
63
Pipe Selection .............................................................................................................................. 63
PE (Polyethylene) pipes ............................................................................................................ 64
PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) pipes................................................................................................ 65
Pipe sizing ................................................................................................................................... 65
Calculations................................................................................................................................. 66
2.8 Pump selection for MBR ................................................................................................... 67
2.9 Power requirements for pumps in MBR ......................................................................... 68
Pressure drop in pipelines ........................................................................................................ 69
Miscellaneous pressure losses .................................................................................................. 70
Summary of results .................................................................................................................... 71
CHAPTER 3: Heat and material Balance ........................................................................................ 72
3.1 Material Balance for the MBR........................................................................................... 72
3.2 Energy Balance ................................................................................................................... 77
Heat transfer during cooling .................................................................................................... 77
Analysis of system ..................................................................................................................... 78
Chapter 4: Mechanical sketches and schedules......................................................................... 79
Chapter 5: Material of Construction .......................................................................................... 84
Page | 2
5.1 Material of construction for the membrane Bio-reactor Tank ..................................... 84
5.2 Material of construction for the module membrane ..................................................... 84
5.3 Material of construction for the oil-water separator ..................................................... 87
CHAPTER 6: Instrumentation and Control.................................................................................... 89
6.1 Control Strategies for the Membrane Bio-reactor.......................................................... 89
Process control and software .................................................................................................... 89
Pre-treatment and residuals management ............................................................................. 89
Tank sizing and redundancy .................................................................................................... 90
CHAPTER 7: Safety Considerations ................................................................................................ 94
7.1 The oil-water separator ..................................................................................................... 94
7.2 The Membrane Bioreactor................................................................................................. 95
CHAPTER 8: Review of the final design......................................................................................... 95
8.1 Summary of key Deviations ............................................................................................. 95
8.2 Review of API Separator ................................................................................................... 96
8.3 Review of the membrane bioreactor ............................................................................... 96
CHAPTER 9: ECONOMICS OF THE PROJECT, AS DESIGNED ............................................... 98
9.1 Total purchase equipment cost ........................................................................................ 98
9.2 Total capital investment (TCI) .......................................................................................... 98
9.3 Total product cost .............................................................................................................. 99
9.4 Total revenue ...................................................................................................................... 99
9.5 Gross earning cost .............................................................................................................. 99
9.6 Pay-back period ................................................................................................................ 100
9.7 The rate of return ............................................................................................................. 100
9.8 The Net Present Value (NPV) and Initial Rate of Return (IRR)................................. 100
CHAPTER 10: Environmental Concerns..................................................................................... 102
CHAPTER 11: Conclusion............................................................................................................. 103
References ......................................................................................................................................... 104
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 108
Appendices A: Mass Balance.......................................................................................................... 108
Mass Balance for the MBR .......................................................................................................... 108
Overall Balance around the MBR .......................................................................................... 108
BOD Balance around MBR ..................................................................................................... 110
Flow Balance ............................................................................................................................. 111
Solid Balance on membrane ................................................................................................... 111
Page | 3
Balance on VSS on membrane ................................................................................................ 111
NH3-N Balance on the membrane skid ................................................................................. 111
NO3-N Balance on membrane skid........................................................................................ 112
Phosphorus Balance on the membrane skid ........................................................................ 113
Appendix B: Energy Balances ...................................................................................................... 113
Power requirement for the Membrane Bioreactor .................................................................. 113
Energy Balance on Aeration Tank ......................................................................................... 113
Energy Balance on membrane bio filter ................................................................................ 114
Energy balance on the amount of pumps ............................................................................. 115
Energy production from biogas ............................................................................................. 115
Appendix C: SIZING ..................................................................................................................... 116
Sizing of the MBR......................................................................................................................... 116
Sludge age or sludge retention time ...................................................................................... 116
Feed to microorganism ratio................................................................................................... 116
Total aeration volume and dimensions of the MBR tank ................................................... 117
Aeration Period or Hydraulic Retention time...................................................................... 118
Appendix D: Costing ....................................................................................................................... 120
Purchased Equipment Table....................................................................................................... 120
Bar screen ...................................................................................................................................... 124
API.................................................................................................................................................. 124
Rapid Mixing Tank ...................................................................................................................... 124
Flocculation Tank ......................................................................................................................... 125
Primary clarifiers .......................................................................................................................... 125
Calculating cost of equipment:............................................................................................... 125
Calculating present cost of equipment:................................................................................. 125
Cost index values: .................................................................................................................... 126
Cost estimation of Primary Clarifiers and Pumps............................................................... 126
Primary Clarifiers..................................................................................................................... 126
Pumps ........................................................................................................................................ 127
Cost estimation of Centrifuge................................................................................................. 127
Cost of Ancillaries .................................................................................................................... 127
COMPUTING THE TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT ......................................................... 128
Calculating the total product cost .............................................................................................. 129
Computing the general expenses............................................................................................... 131
Page | 4
Calculations for depreciation cost ............................................................................................. 132
Computing the total income ....................................................................................................... 133
Computing the gross profit ........................................................................................................ 134
Computing the payback period ................................................................................................. 134
Calculating Rate of Return .......................................................................................................... 134
Calculating Net Present Value (NPV) ....................................................................................... 134
Calculating Internal Rate of Return (IRR) ................................................................................ 136
Discounted Payback Period ........................................................................................................ 138
Page | 5
List of Tables & Figures:
1TABLE 1.2.1: SUMMARY OF MASS BALANCE FOR SEWAGE FLOW OVER THE SYSTEM ........... 15
2TABLE 1.2.2.1: THE OIL-WATER SEPARATOR ........................................................................................ 16
3TABLE 1.2.2.2: BAR SCREEN ........................................................................................................................ 17
4TABLE 1.2.2.3: FINE SCREEN ....................................................................................................................... 18
5TABLE 1.2.2.4: EQUALIZATION TANK ..................................................................................................... 18
6TABLE 1.2.2.5: PRIMARY CLARIFIER ......................................................................................................... 19
7TABLE 1.2.2.6: THE MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR ..................................................................................... 20
8TABLE 1.2.2.7: SAND FILTER ....................................................................................................................... 21
9TABLE 1.2.2.8: CHLORINATION ................................................................................................................. 21
10TABLE 1.2.2.9: THICKENER ........................................................................................................................ 22
11TABLE 1.2.2.10: SLUDGE DIGESTER ......................................................................................................... 22
12TABLE 1.2.2.11: DEWATERING TANK ..................................................................................................... 23
13TABLE 1.5: KEY FINDINGS OF THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN ............................................................ 29
14TABLE 1.6: JOB ALLOCATION OF GROUP MEMBERS ........................................................................ 30
15FIGURE 2.1: EUROPEAN MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR MARKET ....................................................... 31
16TABLE 2.1: BIOLOGICAL OPERATING PARAMETERS ....................................................................... 33
17TABLE 2.2: FEED IN MBR ............................................................................................................................ 39
18TABLE 2.4: KINEMATIC CONSTANTS .................................................................................................... 39
19TABLE 2.5: BIOLOGICAL OPERATING PARAMETERS ....................................................................... 40
20TABLE 2.6: MEMBRANE OPERATING DATA ........................................................................................ 40
21TABLE 2.7: AERATION OPERATING DATA .......................................................................................... 40
22TABLE 2.8: BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ................................................................................................ 41
23TABLE 2.9: SLUDGE YIELD ........................................................................................................................ 41
24TABLE 2.10: MEMBRANE CALCULATIONS .......................................................................................... 42
25TABLE 2.11: MEMBRANE OPERATION................................................................................................... 42
26TABLE 2.12: AERATION DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 42
27TABLE 2.13: POWER REQUIREMENT ...................................................................................................... 43
28FIGURE 2.1: SPECIFIC COST VS. FLUX FOR HS AND FS TECHNOLOGIES, FLUX TO BE RELATED
TO AERATION DEMAND ...................................................................................................................... 44
29FIGURE 2.3: SPECIFIC COST VS. AERATION DEMAND OVER THE RANGES OF AERATION
DEMAND OBSERVED IN PRACTICE FOR HF AND FS TECHNOLOGIES .................................. 44
30FIGURE 2.4: DESIGN VARIABLES FOR OIL INTERCEPTORS. ............................................................ 51
31FIGURE 2.5: RECOMMENDED VALUES OF F FOR VARIOUS VALUES OF VH/VT ...................... 54
32FIGURE 2.6: SKETCH OF PARALLEL PLATE SEPARATOR - CROSS-FLOW ................................... 57
33TABLE 2.14: FLUID DENSITY AND VELOCITY ..................................................................................... 66
34TABLE 2.15: PUMP TYPES AND MAJOR APPLICATIONS IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT ..... 67
Page | 6
37TABLE 2.17: SUMMARY OF RESULT INVOLVING THE MAIN PIPELINE CONNECTING THE
MBR ............................................................................................................................................................ 71
38TABLE 3.1: ENTHALPY OF DIFFERENT GAS COMPONENTS ........................................................... 78
39TABLE 5.2.1: MEMBRANE CONFIGURATION DEFINITIONS ............................................................ 85
40TABLE 5.2.2: MEMBRANE MODULE DETAILS OF FS .......................................................................... 85
41TABLE 5.2.3: MEMBRANE MODULE DETAILS OF HF ......................................................................... 86
42FIGURE 5.3.1: STAINLESS STEEL OIL-WATER SEPARATOR.............................................................. 88
43TABLE 9.0: SUMMARY OF THE ECONOMICS OF THE TREATMENT POWER PLANT ............. 101
Page | 7
Acknowledgment
I wish to thank Mr. Ackmez Mudhoo, our design coordinator, for guiding us and
giving us all the possible help that he could. I am thankful to him since he was always
present when we needed him and was here to direct us to the right way.
I am also grateful to Mr. Arvinda Ragen, our program coordinator, who ensured that
we did not lack anything with regards to the project and he did his best to give us all
the facilities we needed.
I would also like to thank Dr. Dinesh Soorup, the head of department, who responded
positively to all the problems faced by us.
List of abbreviations
ABR Anaerobic baffled reactor
Ac total cross section, m2
AD Anaerobic digestion
ADUF Anaerobic digester ultrafiltration
AH total surface area, m2
Alum Aluminum [aluminium?] sulphate
AN Anaerobic
anMBR Anaerobic membrane bioreactor
AOC Assimilable organic carbon
ASP Activated sludge process
AX Anoxic
B width of one channel, m
BAC Biologically activated carbon
BAF Biological aerated filter
Page | 8
BNR Biological nutrient removal
BOD Biochemical oxygen demand
BPA Biological potential activity
CEB Chemically-enhanced backwash
CF Crossflow
CFV Crossflow velocity
CIL Cleaning in line
CIP Cleaning in place
COD Chemical oxygen demand
CP Concentration polarisation
CPR Chemical phosphorous removal
CST Capillary suction time
CT Capillary tube
d depth of water in channel, m
Da Dalton
DE Dead-end (or full flow)
dMBR Diffusive membrane bioreactor
DO Dissolved oxygen
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
DS Dry solids
EBPR Enhanced biological phosphate removal
EGSB Expanded granular sludge bed
eMBR Extractive membrane bioreactor
Page | 9
F:M Ratio Food-to-micro-organism ratio
FBDA Fine bubble diffusion aeration
FC Filter cartridge
Flocs Flocculated particles
FS Flat sheet (or plate-and-frame)
GAC Granular activated carbon
GLD Gigalitres per day
GT Gas transfer
HF Hollow fibre
HPSEC High performance size exclusion chromatography
HRT Hydraulic retention time
ID Internal diameter
iMBR Immersed membrane bioreactor
kDa kiloDalton
L length of channel, m
LMH Litres per m2 per hour
LMH/bar Litres per m2 per hour per bar
MABR Membrane aeration bioreactor
ME Membrane extraction
MF Microfiltration
MHBR Membrane hydrogenation bioreactor
MLD Megalitres per day
MLSS Mixed liquor suspended solids
Page | 10
MLVSS Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
MPE Membrane performance enhancer
MT Multitube
MW Molecular weight
MWCO Molecular weight cut-off
n number of channel
NADH Nictotinamide adenine dinucleotide hydrogenase
NF Nanofiltration
NOM Natural organic matters
O&M Operation & Maintenance
OC Organic carbon
OD Outer diameter
OLR Organic loading rate
ON Organic nitrogen
OTR Oxygen transfer rate
OUE Oxygen utilisation efficiency
p.e. Population equivalent
PAC Powdered activated carbon
PAN Polyacrylonitrile
PE Polyethylene
PES Polyethylsulphone
PP Polypropylene
PV Pervaporation
Page | 11
PVDF Polyvinylidene difluoride
Qm Flow of oily water into the oil-water separator, m3/s
RBC Rotating biological contactor
Rc Cake resistance
Redox Reduction-oxidation
rMBR (Biomass) rejection membrane bioreactor
RO Reverse osmosis
SAD Specific aeration demand
SADm Specific aeration demand – membrane area
SADp Specific aeration demand – permeate volume
SAE Standard aeration efficiency (kgO2/kWh)
SBR Sequencing batch reactor
SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisitions
SDI Silt density index
sMBR Sidestream membrane bioreactor
SMP Soluble microbial product
SMPc Soluble microbial product (carbohydrate)
SMPp Soluble microbial product (protein)
SNdN Simultaneous nitrification/denitirification
SRF Specific resistance to filtration
SRT Solids retention time
SVI Sludge volume index
SW Spiral-wound
Page | 12
TDS Total dissolved solids
TF Trickling filter
THMFP Tri-halo methane formation potential
TKN Total Kjedldahl nitrogen
TMDL Total maximum daily load
TMP Transmembrane pressure
TOC Total organic carbon
TSS Total suspended solids
UF Ultrafiltration
VH horizontal flow velocity, m/s
VRM Vacuum rotating membrane
VSS Volatile suspended solids
Vt rise rate of oil globule, m/s
WRP Water recycling (or reclamation) plant
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Sewage is a major carrier of disease and toxins .The safe treatment of sewage is thus
crucial to the health of any community. This Project focuses on the complex physical
and biological treatments used to render sewage both biologically and chemically
harmless.
1.1 Aims and Objectives

The design project consists of two parts namely a ‘Preliminary report’ (Design Project
1) and a ‘Detailed report’ (Design Project 2). This detailed design is a follow up of the
previous preliminary design conducted and it deals with the review of all the
limitations of the design 1. The results obtained previously are fine-tuned and
Page | 13
mechanical designs of the major equipment are prepared. In Mauritius, rapid
population growth and unplanned development are contributing to rapid depletion
of per capita water availability. Moreover, a limited amount of rainfalls accompanied
with a high rate of evaporation and redundant habit of wasting water of the
population; even though severe dry season prevailing are the breeding factors for
water shortage. Similarly, with an annual swell of 3% in the volume of water injected
into the distribution system during the past 20 years, has shot the daily water
consumption per capita from 152 liters in 1990 to 216 liters in 2013(Digest of Energy
and Water Statistics, 2013) and many are convinced that we are just a few drops away
from the “Water Scarce” status. Thus, there was an urgent need for a strategic plan that
tackle this issue.
Likewise, more emphasis is being laid on preservation and protection of environment

while the government came forward with an excellent strategic plan; National
Sewerage Project (NSP, 2011), set up to solve at one go the water scarce. Opting for
wastewater treatment ensures that not much great demands are been made on the
environment in Mauritius, therefore it is a step forward towards safeguarding the
ecological and marine resources, in particular surf water and ground water and as
well as improve sanitation and protect public health. In addition, the opting for
wastewater treatment and reuse makes provision for long term water reliability
within the community by providing substitute for fresh water and also is a plus-point
for water demand and drought management in overall water resources planning.
Likewise, reuse of wastewater also enables the allocation of good quality fresh surface
water or ground water for higher value purposes, which can be either for human
consumption or meeting domestic needs, thus also protecting existing sources of fresh
water as it obviate the requirement of mobilization of additional resources to
increasing demand.
On the other hand, one of the aims of this project is to study the feasibility of
implementing a wastewater treatment plant for an industrial wastewater possessing
certain specified characteristics and simultaneously device certain processing
strategies that will enable compliance of the treated water with the irrigation norms.
Page | 14
The objective of the detailed design project is intended to bring together the
knowledge and skills that have been assimilated through the B Eng. (Hons) Chemical
& Environmental Engineering undergraduate course and to demonstrate creative and
critical powers in making decisions in areas of uncertainty.
1.2 Summary of starting points for the detailed design

The Detailed Design Project will be started based upon values of the preliminary
design. The limitations which are revised in this report are also listed.
Summary of Preliminary mass balances

1Table 1.2.1: Summary of mass balance for sewage flow over the system
Page | 15
Table 1.2.1(continued)
Summary of preliminary Sizing of equipment

1.2.1.1 The Oil-Water Separator
2Table 1.2.2.1: The oil-water separator
Vertical Velocity 0.18083 cm/s
Horizontal flow velocity 1.5 cm/s
minimum vertical cross-sectional area 54 m2
number of channels 2
Page | 16
Width of channel 8m
Depth of channel 3.38 m
Length of channel 3.33 m
Limitation: The system was designed assuming that only free oil is present in the
effluent, other types of oil may be present which may affect the efficiency of the
system.
1.2.1.2 Bar Screen

3Table 1.2.2.2: Bar screen
Depth of chamber, d 1.50 m
Total width of opening at the rack, w 0.6m
Clear bar spacing 50 mm
Number of bars 12
Width of bar 10 mm
Thickness of bar 50 mm
Width, W of the chamber 0.72 m
Height of rack( allowing 0.6 m of freeboard) 2.0 m
Angle of inclination of the bars to the horizontal, θ 80˚
Page | 17
1.2.1.3 Fine screen
4Table 1.2.2.3: Fine screen
Depth of chamber, d 2m
Total width of opening at the rack, w

0.45 m
Clear bar spacing 9.5 mm
Number of bars 48
Width of bar 10 mm
Thickness of bar 50 mm
Width, W of the chamber 0.93 m
Height of rack( allowing 0.6 m of

2.63 m
freeboard)
Angle of inclination of the bars to the

80˚
horizontal, θ
Mainly of stainless steel for protection

Material of construction against corrosion and for higher
lifetime
1.2.1.4 Equalization Tank

5Table 1.2.2.4: Equalization Tank
Number of Equalization tank 3
Flow rate per tank, Q (m3/h) 967.87 m3/h
Retention time (hours) 3 hours
Area (m2) 556.42 m2
Volume (m3) 3,338.52 m3
Page | 18
Length (m) 33.36 m
Breadth (m) 16.68 m
Freeboard (m) 0.5 m
Inlet velocity (m/h) 1.73 m/h
Material of construction Concrete
Limitations:
1. The effluent was assumed to have an overall constant mass loading which is
practically impossible in reality.
2. The tank was assumed to be constant volume basin, again since no interior slope
was provided it is impossible to be achieved.
3. The assumptions and calculations yield a large volume of equalization tank which
is may not be required.
1.2.1.5 Primary Clarifier

6Table 1.2.2.5: Primary Clarifier
Number of tank 2 clarifiers in parallel
Flow rate per tank, Q (m3/h) 1458.3
Retention time (hours) 2.5
Area (m2) 1000
Volume (m3) 3646
Tank Diameter (m) 36
Height (m) 3.65
Material of construction Concrete
Page | 19
1.2.1.6 The Membrane Bioreactor
7Table 1.2.2.6: The membrane Bioreactor
Shape Rectangular
Total volume 14934 m3
Dimensions (L x B x H) 42.5m × 88 m × 4.4 m
Number Of channels 20 channels
Material reinforced concrete
Water temperature 28 0C brought to 20 0C
Liquid depth 7m
Fine bubble ceramic diffuser
Aeration system Oxygen demand =

1565.40 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑂2⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Aeration period 5.12 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
Diffuser submergence 7m
Oxygen transfer efficiency (OTE) 35%
Aeration configuration Covering the floor completely
Using a centrifugal blower

Air supply feeding
7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
SRT 10 days
𝐾𝑔
BOD vol. loading 0.938
𝑚3 . 𝑑𝑎𝑦
F/M 0.3
Page | 20
1.2.1.7 Sand Filter
8Table 1.2.2.7: Sand Filter
Number of sand filter 1
Flow rate/ sand filter, Q (m3/h) 69,674 m3/day
Area (m2) 87.5 m2
Breadth (m) 9.35 m
Length (m) 9.35 m
Volume (m3) 305.98 m3
Under drain depth (m) 0.8 m
Filtration duration (h) 20 hours (per day)
Reinforced concrete is used

Material of construction for the tank with the filter
media being sand.
1.2.1.8 Chlorination
9Table 1.2.2.8: Chlorination
Number of tank 4
Flow rate of NaOCl /channel, Q 0.00564 m3/s
Volume of 1 tank 362.9 m3
Volume of 4 tanks 1,451.5 m3
Depth 1.8 m
Breadth 2.2m
Cross sectional area 3.96 m2
Length 91.6 m
Page | 21
Length of each channel 30.5 m
1.2.1.9 Thickener
10Table 1.2.2.9: Thickener
Number of thickeners 2
Volume (m3) 956.12 m3
Surface area (m2) 152.59m2
Diameter (m) 13.94 m
Side water depth (m) 5.8 m
Depth at central hopper (m) 7.19 m
Thickening period (days) 3.48 days
Total flow (m3/d) 548.94 m3/d
Reinforced concrete for tank while inner

Material for construction equipment are of stainless steel, resistant
to corrosion
1.2.1.10 Sludge Digester

11Table 1.2.2.10: Sludge Digester
Number of digesters 2
Volume (m3) 2019.6 m3
Area (m2) 176.71m2
Diameter (m) 15 m
Side wall height (m) 13.22 m
Central hopper depth (m) 14.72 m
Page | 22
Amount of VSS in thickened
13511.96 Kg/d
sludge (Kg /d)
Reinforced concrete is used for the

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

12Table 1.2.2.11: Dewatering Tank
FIRST TANK
Number of tank 1
Surface area 1.85 m2
Volume designed 1.92 m x 0.96 m x 1m + 0.5m (freeboard)
Total solids flowrate 763 kg/hr
total amount of polymer

2.771 kg/hr
used
Fiber glass is used. Inox stainless steel is chosen the

stirrer.
MATURATION TANK
Number of tank 1
Volume designed 1.85m3
Surface area 1.85 m2
Flow rate of polymer

17.08 m3 /hr
solution
Page | 23
Fiber glass is used. Inox stainless steel is chosen the
stirrer
1.3 Description of the wastewater treatment plant’s processes

Industrial wastewater treatment encloses various mechanisms and processes used to
treat water that have been contaminated in some way by anthropogenic industrial or
commercial activities prior to its release into the environment or its re-use. Similar the
mechanisms or processes to be employed to treat the water is chiefly dependent on
the characteristics of the water and depend on the subsequent possible reuse of the
water. Thus the treatment facility has designed to treat the effluent to comply with the
irrigation norms and in subsequent text below provide an overview of different
system employed.
Screens
A screen is a device with openings, generally of uniform size, that is used to retain
solids found in effluent wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy, 2004) and often the first unit
operation in wastewater treatment plant. Basically screens can be classified by two
methods; firstly by their method of cleaning: hand cleaned or mechanically cleaned
and secondly by the size of their clear openings: coarse, medium and fine screens.
Likewise in our case, the wastewater will pass through a climber type mechanically
raked screen for the removal of coarse screens since the designed flow-rate is
considerably large.
Oil and Grease Removal

To start with, a simple assumption that was prompted while considering the design
of the oil and grease separator; is that the total oil and grease concentration was due
to the presence of free oil. The latter is in the form of discrete globules with size
sufficient enough for its globules to rise as a result of buoyant forces forming an oil
layer at the water surface. Free oil can be removed under proper quiescent conditions
by gravity method. Thus in the case of our design we will go for the API gravity
separator due to the fact that it has been successfully been used in refineries for many
years (Kirby S. Mohr 2001). The basic design of an oil water separator is a long
Page | 24
rectangular basin with a detention time of about 30 minutes (Metcalf and Eddy, 2004)
with an efficiency of 92%. Most of these separators are divided into more than one bay
and are usually equipped with scrapers to move the oil downstream where it is
collected on a drum. The sludge produced can be dewatered, incinerated or disposed
of in hazardous waste landfills.
Equalization Tank
In the preliminary design, assuming that the wastewater has an overall constant mass
loading; and in line equalization tank was considered despite its constraints like larger
volume requirement and higher operational cost due to continuous pumping of
wastewater from the equalization since it offers a more uniform flow and strength of
wastewater. Since the tank was placed just after the PST and with a short detention
time so neither no mixing or aeration processes was provided as a control measure to
avoid deposit solids or odor formation.
Circular Primary Settling Tank

Prior to the settling tank, there are the flocculation tanks and mixing tanks that will
allow for the formation of flocks that will trap both the total suspended solids and the
organic matter as biochemical oxygen demand present in the wastewater. This
technique is referred as advanced sedimentation process and the mostly applied
flocculent is alum. The settling tank can remove up to 80% of total suspended solids
and 40% of the biochemical oxygen demand. A circular setting was selected since this
allows for central feeding of wastewater to the top of the tank, therefore increasing
favoring better settling of the flocks formerly produced. Sludge will be collected at the
bottom of the tank and will be used, mixed with sludge from other units of the plant
for the production of biogas.
The Membrane Bioreactor

There are essentially three main elements of a membrane bioreactor (MBR)
contributing to operating costs, ignoring membrane replacement. These are:
1. Liquid pumping
2. Membrane maintenance
3. Aeration
Page | 25
Of these by far the most significant, especially for immersed technologies, is aeration.
As already discussed in the primary design, aeration is used both for scouring an
immersed membrane and for suspending and maintaining a viable biomass. Design
of an MBR therefore demands knowledge both of the feed water quality, which
principally determines the oxygen demand for bio-treatment, and the aeration
demand for fouling control, which relates to a number system characteristics.
Sand Filter
Slow sand filters proved to be uneconomical when compared to rapid sand filters and
micro screen where the efficiency reached were about 60 % for suspended solids (TSS)
and about 40 % for BOD. Operation of a rapid sand filter consists of regular
backwashing. The period between backwashes depends on the quality of the water
being filtered. The purpose of backwashing is to remove the suspended material that
has been deposited in the filter bed during the filtration cycle. Periodic repacking of
the filter bed may be required at infrequent intervals to ensure efficient operation
(Negulescu, 2011). Rapid sand filter are preferred compared to slow filter as back
washing occurs rapidly and it has a high filtration rate of about 150 to 200 million
gallons of water per acre per day.
Chlorination
The most frequent disinfectants are chlorine, ozone and UV rays UV rays, being highly
effective for pathogen sterilization, are also very expensive. Ozone is highly toxic but
not readily available. Considering the effects and inconveniences of UV rays and
ozone, Chlorination is chosen, even though it is somehow toxic as it increases the total
dissolved solids in the effluent, it is the less expensive one (Hung et al. 2012). It must
be noted that due to the selection of the membrane bioreactor in our system, which
has a very high initial cost, we need to minimize the cost for our other units.
Thickener
Gravity thickener is the most common type of thickener which can act as a thickener
and achieve blending, important to produce a uniform mixture for subsequent
processes at the same; thereby eliminating the need for a separate blend tank. This
type of thickener is chosen since the solids concentration of 4 – 6 % achieved by a
Page | 26
gravity thickener that is required by the high rate digester. It requires the minimum
power consumption compared to dissolved air flotation and centrifugal thickener. It
also has the least operation skill requirement and operating costs. Conditioning
chemicals and polymer are typically not needed as is the case for gravity belt thickener
and rotary drum thickener. The pH can also be adjusted in this type of thickener
which can provide space for storage (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003).
Sludge Digester
High rate digestion is deemed suitable for the process as it requires less space and
short detention time of 10 – 30 days compared to low rate digestion. Mesophilic
digestion is chosen since the operating temperature for these organisms is 30 – 38 0C;
thus reducing less energy requirement compared to the thermophilic digestion where
fluctuations in temperature can cause process instability and a risk of higher odor
potential. Thermophilic and 2 stage digestion process produce a poorer quality
supernatant which contains dissolved materials; requiring further special treatment.
As for the 2-stage digestion process, it is still under pilot studies and will be more
energy intensive; requiring 2 mixing devices for both tanks.
Dewatering Tank
The aim of the dewatering equipment is to achieve fifty percent by dry weight solids
content and centrifuge equipment can produce the required percent. In addition, its
capital cost is low when compared to other methods, there is minimization of odor as
it is an enclosed unit and requires little supervision; thus continuous solid bowl
centrifuge is chosen since it is more suited for high solid content and used for medium
and large plants compared to imperforated basket centrifuge. Filter press has many
inconveniences such as mechanical complexity; high chemical and labor costs and
limitation on filter cloth life while vacuum filtration has low operational costs but
higher initial costs and land requirements.
1.4 Process Flow of Proposed Wastewater

Next is the process flow diagram of proposed wastewater treatment
Page | 27
BS1:1st Bar Screen PC1: 1st Primary Clarifier CS: Clear Supernatant ET: Equalization Tank BT: Bioreactor Tank TT: Transportation Truck
BS2:2nd Bar Screen PC2: 2nd Primary Clarifier S: Screenings CD: Centrifuge Dewatering MS: Membrane Skid WAS: Waste Activated Sludge
RS: Raw Sewage GT: Gravity Thickener OGT: Oil & grease Trap SF: Sand Filter LT: Landfill Truck EI: Effluent to Irrigation
PS: Primary Sludge SD: Sludge Digester AB: Air Blower EP: Electricity to Plant CU: Chlorination Unit OG: Oil & Grease
AB
PC1
BS1 BT
MS
ET
SF
PC2
BS2
OGT
S PS
OG
WAS
CS
GT
LT
FLOWLINE ANNOTATIONS
Raw Sludge Biogas SD EP

EG
Oil & Grease Electicity
Screenings Filtered Effluent
Sewage Air Disinfected Effluent
Air Chlorine CS CD
Clear Supernatant TT
Primary Sludge
Waste Activated Sludge
Page | 28
1.5 Key findings of the preliminary design
13Table 1.5: Key findings of the preliminary design
Equipment QTY Cost ( Rs) / unit Total Cost / Rs

Coarse screens (Inclined bar
screen with rack and pinion
1 2 253,150 506,300
system- Infilco Degremont bar
screen)
Fine bar screen (Fine straight bar
2 2 305,000 610,000
screen GFD type)
Rectangular in-line equalization
3 1 300,212.17 300,212
tank equipped with mixer
4 Circular clarifier 2 23,082,825.07 46,165,650
5 MBR 1 3,536,920 3,536,920
Rapid Sand Filtration equipped
6 1 226,441.24 226,441
with an inlet chamber
7 Thickener 1 40,371,838.51 40,371,839
Square Based UASB sludge
8 1 6,955,415.34 6,955,415
digester
9 Centrifuge 1 2,003,400 2,003,400
10 Pumps 9 61,500 553,500
15,762,107.85 15,762,108
11 Oil separator 1
116,991,785
Total Purchase Equipment Cost
Net income = Rs 25,611,771.6
Payback period = 7 years
Page | 29
1.6 Job allocation to other members
14Table 1.6: Job allocation of group members
Wastewater Treatment – Group 3A

Name Equipment Allocated
RAMDHONEE A.K.R. Mishra Gravity Thickener & Equalization Tank
SOOMAREE Keshav Membrane Bioreactor(Major) & Oil-Water
Separator(Minor)
RAMANAH R. Devi (Ms) Sludge digester & Sand filter
ST PAUL M.M. Eldora (Ms) Clarifier & dewatering unit
RAMDEWAR P. Kumar Screening & Disinfection unit (Chlorination)
CHAPTER 2: Detailed Design

Major: Design of the Aerobic Membrane Bioreactor.
2.1 Introduction
The progress of technological development and market penetration of membrane
bioreactors (MBRs) can be viewed in the context of key drivers, historical development
and future prospects. As a relatively new technology, MBRs have often been
disregarded in the past in favor of conventional bio treatment plants. However, a
number of indicators suggest that MBRs are now being accepted increasingly as the
technology of choice.
Market analyst reports indicate that the MBR market is currently experiencing
accelerated growth, and that this growth is expected to be sustained over the next
decade. The global market doubled over a 5-year period from 2000 to reach a market
value of $217 million in 2005, this from a value of around $10 million in 1995. It is
expected to reach $360 million in 2015 (Hanft, 2006). As such, this segment is growing
faster than the larger market for advanced wastewater treatment equipment and more
rapidly than the markets for other types of membrane systems.
In Europe, the total MBR market for industrial and municipal users was estimated to
have been worth €25.3 million in 1999 and €32.8 million in 2002 (Frost and Sullivan,
Page | 30
2003). In 2004, the European MBR market was valued at $57 million (Frost and
Sullivan, 2005). Market projections for the future indicate that the 2004 figure is
expected to rise annually by 6.7%; the European MBR market is set to more than
double its size over the next 7 years (Frost and Sullivan, 2005), and is currently roughly
evenly split between UK/Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, the Benelux nations and
Iberia (figure 1.1)
The future for the MBR market is thus generally perceived to be optimistic with, it is
argued, substantial potential for growth. This level of optimism is reinforced by an
understanding of the key influences driving the MBR market today and those which
are expected to exert an even greater influence in the future. These key market drivers
include greater legislative requirements regarding water quality, increased funding
and incentives allied with decreasing costs and a growing confidence in the
performance of the technology.
15Figure 2.1: European membrane bioreactor market
(Frost and Sullivan, 2005)
MBR Market
16%
19% UK and Ireland
Germany
19%
France
18%
Italy
16% Iberia
12%
Benelux
It appears to be true that traditionally decision-makers have been reluctant to invest

the relatively high start-up costs required on a relatively new technology (15 years)
which produces an output of higher quality than that required. This is especially so
Page | 31
when MBRs have historically been perceived as requiring a high degree of skill and
investment in terms of operation and maintenance (O&M) with key operating
expenditure parameters, namely membrane life, being unknown (Frost and Sullivan,
2003). Whilst robust to changes in loading with respect to product water quality, MBR
O&M protocols are critically sensitive to such parameters because of their impact on
the membrane hydraulics (i.e. the relationship between throughput and applied
pressure). Whilst there are many examples of the successful application of MBRs for
a number of duties, there are also some instances where unscheduled remedial
measures have had to be instigated due to under-specification, inappropriate O&M
and other factors generally attributable to inexperience or lack of knowledge. All of
this has fed the perception that MBRs can be difficult to maintain.
In the past there have been an insufficient number of established reference sites to
convince decision-makers of the potential of MBRs and the fact that they can present
an attractively reliable and relatively cost effective option. This is less true today, since
there are a number of examples where MBRs have been successfully implemented
across a range of applications, including municipal and industrial duties. In many
cases the technology has demonstrated sustained performance over the course of
several years with reliable product water quality which can, in some cases, provide a
clear cost benefit.
Lastly, developing new water technology, from the initial laboratory research stage to
full implementation, is costly and time consuming (ECRD, 2006). This problem is
particularly relevant considering that the great majority of water technology
providers in Europe are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that do not have
the financial resources to sustain the extended periods from conception at laboratory
scale to significant market penetration.
Whilst the most significant barrier to the more widespread installation of MBRs
remains cost, there are a number of drivers which mitigate this factor. Foremost of
these is increasingly stringent environmental legislation relating to freshwater
conservation and pollution abatement which has driven technological development
in the water sector over the last 30–40 years. This, along with various governmental,
Page | 32
institutional and organizational incentives, has encouraged problem holders to
appraise more sophisticated technologies such as MBRs in recent years. Moreover,
both capital (and particularly membrane) and operational costs of the MBR process
have decreased dramatically over the past 15 years, although further significant cost
reductions may be unattainable unless membrane modules become standardized in
the same way as has taken place for RO technologies.
2.2 Design Calculations for the MBR

16Table 2.1: Biological operating parameters
Raw data Calculated data

Maximum specific
Average flow
Q substrate Utilization µm/Y
(m3/day)
rate (kg/(g/day))
Peak flow
Qpeak Effluent BOD (Sg/m3) Ks(1-Keθx)/ θx(YK-Ke)-1
(m3/day)
Specific growth of
BOD influent
S0 nitrifying 1/θx
(mg/L)
bacteria, µng/(g/day)
Biodegradable
COD (mg/L) Effluent nitrogen (Ne
bCOD Kn(µn+Ke,n)/µn,m- Ke,n-µn
(often taken a 1.6 g/m3)
BOD)
Total suspended
solids influent TSS Cell debris ( fd g/g) ≈ VSS/S0
(mg/L)
TSS effluent [QY(So-S)/(1+ Keθx)] – [fdKeQY
Sludge yield (Px
(mg/L) (normally TSSe θx(So-S)/ (1+ Keθx)] –
g/day)
negligible) [QYnNOx/(1+ Ke,nθx)]
Volatile suspended Non-biodegradable
VSS (TSS -VSS)Q
solids (mg/L) solids (X0 g/day)
Page | 33
Wastewater Sludge wastage flow
Tw V/ θx
temperature (°C) (Qw m3/day)
Observed yield, Yobs
[Y/(1+ ke θx)] + [fd Ke Y θx/(1+ ke
SRT (day) θx mg VSS/(mg BOD
θx)]
day)
Design mixed
Aerobic tank volume
liquor suspended MLSS Px θx/X
V m3
solids (mg/L)
Food to micro-
Anoxic tank as
organisms ratio, F:M
percentage of Va /Van SQ/VX
kg BOD/(kg
aerobic tank size
TSS/day)
Maximum specific
growth rate
Oxygen requirement, Q [(So-S) - 1.42Px/Q + 4.33 NOx-
(heterotrophic) µm
m0 kg/day 2.83NOx
(mg VSS/(mg
VSS/day))
Saturation Required airflow to
coefficient meet biological
Ks (RoXOTE)/(ρA0.21αβτ)
(heterotrophic) requirements, QA’,b
(mg/L BOD) kg/day
Endogenous decay
coefficient
(heterotrophic), Ke α factor e-0.084.X
(mg VSS/(mg
VSS/day)
Yield coefficient
Sludge wastage, Qw
(heterotrophic) Y V/ θx
m3/day
(mg VSS/(mg BOD
Page | 34
Maximum specific
growth rate Sludge waste per unit
(nitrification), (mg µm,n permeate QW/J’netAm
VSS/(mg (Qw,vm3/(m3day)
VSS/day))
Endogenous decay
coefficient Airflow per unit
(nitrification) (mg Ke,n permeate (Rb QA,B/ ρA J’netAm
VSS/(mg m3/(m3/day))
VSS/day))
Yield coefficient
(nitrification), mg Yn
VSS/(mg BOD)
Normalized or derived
Raw data
data
Temperature-corrected
Mean flux (LMH) J J/1.024 (T-20)
flux, J’, LMH
Mean Temperature-corrected
transmembrane ∆Pm mean permeability J’/∆Pm
pressure (bar) (LMH/bar)
Temperature, pressure-
QA,m(293/ Ta,K)*(
Aeration rate (m3/h) QA,m corrected aeration rate,
Pa.l/101.323)
Q’A,m (m3/h)
Temperature of Temperature-corrected net
TW,K N[(J’ tb – J’ τb)/( tc + τc)
wastewater (K) flux, J’net (LMH)
Page | 35
Membrane aeration
Inlet air temperature demand per unit
Ta,K Q’A.m/A’m
(K) membrane area, SADm
(Nm3/(hm2))
Membrane aeration
Inlet air pressure
Pa.l demand per unit permeate Q’A.m/J’Am
(kPa)
flow, SADp
Specific membrane aeration
Membrane area (m2) Am energy demand, Wb,V KQ’A.m/ ρaJ’Am
(kWh/m3)
Physical Specific hydraulic energy
cleaning(backflush) tb demand for membrane ∆P/ ρp
interval (h) permeation, Wh (kWh/m3)
Specific recirculation
Physical
energy demand per unit
cleaning(backflush) τb RρbgH/1000 ξ
permeate volume, Wp
duration (h)
(kWh/m3)
Mass of chemical reagent
Backflush flux (LMH) Jb per unit permeate volume, cc vc/ J’net Am( tc + τc)
Mc (kg/m3)
Cleaning interval (h) tc
Cleaning duration (h) τc
Cleaning reagent
cc
strength (kg/m3)
Cleaning reagent
vc
volume (m3)
Density (kg/m3) ρ
Pumping efficiency ξ
Conversion
According to Metcalfe and Eddy (2003), pp. 709.
Page | 36
Sizing of the MBR
Packing density given by ratio of fibre surface area to volume
Φ = Af / V Where (1)
Af = surface area of fibres = Nπdf (2)
V = module volume
Av = volume occupied by fibres = Nπdf 2/4 (3)
So: Av/ Af = df / 4 (4)
Thus; Ax = (4V – df Af) / 4L (5)
Where Ax = free x-sectional area
So: QA = 3600U / 4L x (4V - – df Af) (6)
Where
QA = aeration rate in m3/hr
U = air flow velocity in channels (m/s)
SADm = 3600U / 4V x (4V/Af – df) (7)
Where SADm = aeration demand with respect to fibre area
Substituting for V/Af and normalizing against flux:
SADp = 3.6x106U / 4LJ x (4/ Φ – df) (8)
Where SADp = aeration demand with respect to permeate volume
Evidence suggests that J is a linear function of aeration intensity:
J = mU + c (9)
Where m and c are empirical constants
So: SADp = 3.6x106U / 4L (mU + c) x (4/ Φ – df) (10)
Aeration energy demand in kWh/m3 permeate is then given by
Page | 37
EA = 0.0303 SADp γ x [((10x + 101) / 101)(1 – 1/ γ) – 1] / (γ – 1) ζ (11)
Where
γ = aerator constant = 1.4
ζ = blower efficiency = 0.5
x = aerator depth = 3 m
So: EA = Uk / L (mU + c) x (4/ Φ – df) (12)
Where
K = 0.0303 x 3.6x106 / 4 x γ x [((10x + 101) / 101) (1 – 1/ γ) – 1] / (γ – 1) ζ and is thus

constant for a given system.
Now, commercial technical data for available membrane modules (Judd, 2006)
suggests that, for packing density and fiber diameter respectively in m-1 and m:
1 / Φ ≈ gdf + 0.001 f (13)
Where
f = 0.7-1.7 and g = 0.9-1.1
Thus
EA = Uk / L (mU + c) x [(4/g-1) df + 0.004f) (14)
For the four main MBR HF membrane suppliers, g = 0.89 (R2 = 0.97) and f = 1.7, and
thus:
EA = Uk / L (mU + c) x [3.5 df + 0.0068] (15)
Design calculation
A complete design for an immersed membrane bioreactor (iMBR) can be carried out
on the basis of the information presented, provided the nature of the interrelationship
can be determined between aeration and:
(a) Permeability and cleaning protocol for the membrane permeation component,
Page | 38
(b) Feed water quality, flows and bio kinetics for the biological component.
17Table 2.2: Feed in MBR
Parameter Value Units

Q 50,000 m3/day
Qp 203384 L/H
Qpeak 1000 L/H
BOD So 220 g/m3
COD 430 g/m3
BOD:COD ratio 1:2
TSS 250 g/m3
VSS 190 g/m3
N 40 g/m3
Non-biodegradable VSS 0.24 g/gTSS
TW 12 oC
TW,K 285 oK
Ta 15 oC
Ta,K 288 oK
Pa,I 101 kPa

ρa 1.23 Kg/m3
ρb 1003 Kg/m3
ρp 996 Kg/m3
18Table 2.4: Kinematic constants
BOD Ammonia
Parameter Values Unit Parameter Values Unit
T = 20 oC
Ks 60 g/m3 µm,n 0.41 g/(g/day)
Ke 0.06 Per day Kn 0.05 g/m3
Y 0.4 g/gBOD Kdn 0.07 g/(g/day)
Page | 39
µmax 4.7 g/(gVSS/day) Yn 0.13 g/(g/day)
fd 0.86 gnbSS/gfeed µn 0.040 g/(g/day)
Yobs 0.64 g/gBOD
According to Metcalfe and Eddy (2003), pp. 709.
19Table 2.5: Biological Operating Parameters
Parameter Values Unit

X 8000 g/m3
θx 25 day
Van/V 0.3
r 2
20Table 2.6: Membrane Operating Data

K 100 LMH/bar
J 25 LMH
tb 0.167 h
τb 0.013 h
Jb 35 LMH
n 938
∆Pm 0.25 bar
SADm 0.92 m3/(m2h)
tc 168 h
τc 2 h
cc 0.25 kg/m3
JCIP 45 LMH
21Table 2.7: Aeration Operating Data
Parameter Biology Membrane

Diffuser type Fine bubble Coarse bubble
Page | 40
OTE per m 0.05 0.02
α - 0.49
β - 0.95
Φ - 0.89
22Table 2.8: Biological Parameters

V 2980 m3
Van 894 m3
Se 0.81 g/m3
Ne 0.018 g/m3
Ro 1395 Kg/day
Aerobic HRT(average) 14.3 h
Aerobic HRT(peak) 3 h
Anoxic HRT(average) 4.3 h
Anoxic HRT(peak) 0.9 h
R’ o 1434 N kg/day
23Table 2.9: Sludge yield

NOx 40 g/m3
Px 654 kg/day
Xo 300 kg/day
Px + Xo 954 kg/day
QW 119 m3/day
QW/(J’netAm) 0.02 m3/m3
Page | 41
24Table 2.10: Membrane calculations

Am 9887 m2
Area per element 250 m2
Actual membrane area 10000 m2
Number of elements 40
K’ 120 N LMH/bar
Jnet 21 LMH
Jnet,actual 20 LMH
J’net,actual 25 N LMH
J’b 42 N LMH
J’actual 30 N LMH
25Table 2.11: Membrane Operation

Aeration Time 0.5 h/h
QA,m 4600 m3/h
Q’A,m 4729 Nm3/h
SADm 0.47 Nm3/(hm2)
SADp 19.2 Nm3/m3
MA,m 139110 kg/day
vc 225 kg
Mc 0.0065 kg/m3
26Table 2.12: Aeration Design

Tank depth 3 m
Pa,2 131 kPa
OTE membrane 0.06 %
Page | 42
OTE biological 0.14 %
Q’A,m 1.61 Nm3/s
O2 transferred by membrane aeration 24.87 kg/day
O2 required to maintain biology 1409 kg/day
Q’A,b 1.38 Nm3/s
27Table 2.13: Power Requirement
Air blower Value Unit Liquid pump Value Unit

parameter parameter
ξblower 0.50 ξpump 0.45
Power(biological) 80.70 kW Power(permeate) 3.44 kW
Wb 0.40 kWh/m3 Wh 0.02 kWh/m3
Power(membrane) 94.27 kW Power(recycle) 9.11 kW
Wb,v 0.46 kWh/m3 Wp 0.04 kWh/m3
A degree of caution is required in interpreting these data in that:
a) The calculation does not account for the impact either of membrane life, which
may possibly relate to permeability (which is generally higher for the FS
modules), or sludge dry solids concentration on sludge disposal costs.
b) There is considerable scatter in the data from which the Jnet:SADm correlations
were obtained. Over the range of SADm values applied in practice for the same
SADm value the operating cost of the HF module is _19% lower than that of the
FS module.
c) Many of the FS MBRs listed are operated without supplementary fine bubble
aeration, such that the membrane aeration also provides air for bio treatment.
This means that threes membranes may be over-aerated, which could also
explain the higher permeabilities recorded compared with those of the HF
MBRs. The one FS MBR operated with segregated membrane aeration yielded
the lowest SADm value, the second lowest being that recorded for the double-
deck FS MBR
Page | 43
28Figure 2.1: Specific cost vs. flux for HS and FS technologies, flux to be related to aeration demand
29Figure 2.3: Specific cost vs. aeration demand over the ranges of aeration demand observed in practice for HF and FS
technologies
Page | 44
2.3 Determination of Calculated Parameters
Pressure Calculations
The net operating pressure (Pnet) for the RO systems was calculated according to the
following equation:
Pnet = [Pi - Po]/2 - Pp – Δπ = 0.25 bar (1)
Where,
Pnet = net operating pressure (Pa)
Pi = pressure at the inlet of the pressure vessel (Pa)
Po = pressure at the outlet of the pressure vessel (Pa)
Pp = permeate pressure
Δπ= net osmotic pressure of the feed and permeate (Pa)
The integrated averaging factor (IAF) assuming 100 percent salt rejection can be used
to estimate the osmotic pressure as follows:
Δπ = IAF x πf
Where,
πf = osmotic pressure of the feed stream (psi)
IAF = 1.386 (for 50 percent recovery)
Flow Calculations
The net permeate rate for the MBR can be calculated using the equation:
QNET = (tON - tOFF / tON) x Qp = 23384 (2)

Where,
QNET = net permeate rate (L/min)
tON = the time the MBR membrane is in production (min)
tOFF = the time the MBR membrane is in relaxation (min)
Qp = Permeate flow rate (L/min)
Please note: this calculation assumes the loss of flow during cleaning in place and intermittent
maintenance cleans is negligible.
Page | 45
Flux Calculation
The flux of the MBR membranes can be calculated as follows:
J = (Qp x 1440) / A = 25 (3)
Where,
J = Membrane flux (L/day/m2)
A = Total membrane surface area (m2)
Temperature Correction
Low-pressure membrane fluxes are normally temperature corrected to 20ºC, and RO
membranes are corrected to 25ºC. The membrane fluxes for the MBR membranes can
be temperature corrected with the following formula:
J @ 20 ºC = J x e-0.0239(T-20) = 122 (4)
Where,
T = feed water temperature (ºC)
Specific Flux
The specific flux is the relationship between flux and the net operating pressure. The
relationship is defined by the formula:
JSP = J/PNET = 21 (5)
Where,
JSP = specific flux (LMD/Pa)
Salt Rejection
The salt rejection for the membranes was calculated using the following equation:
R = 100 x (1 – Cp/ Cf) = 1395 (6)
Where,
R = rejection (%)
Cp = permeate conductivity (µΩ)
Cf = feed conductivity (µΩ)
Hydraulic Retention Time
The hydraulic retention time (HRT) was calculated using the formula:
HRT = V / (QNET x 60) = 14.5 (7)
Where,
HRT = Hydraulic retention time (hours)
V = MBR volume (L)
Page | 46
Sludge Retention Time
The sludge retention time (SRT) is defined as the total mass of activated sludge in the
MBR divided by the mass flow rate of activated sludge being removed. In order to
calculate the SRT of the MBRs, the reactors are treated as an ideal continuously stirred
tank reactor (CSTR). Under this assumption, concentration of activated sludge in the
MBR will be the same as the concentration in the waste stream and the equation will
simplify as follows:
SRT = (VXR) / (QW XW) = V / QW = 25 (8)

Assuming that XR is equal to XW:
Where,
SRT = sludge retention time (days)
XR = volatile suspended solids in the reactor (mg/L)
XW = volatile suspended solids in the waste stream (mg/L)
QW = waste stream flow rate (m3/day)
Recycle Ratio
The recycle ratio (RR) for MBR systems operating with anoxic and aerobic tanks is
defined as the ratio of the flow of MLSS from the aerobic tank to the anoxic tank,
divided by the net permeate rate. The RR of MBR is calculated as follows:
RR = (QR-membrane - QNET) / QNET = (QR / QNET) – 1 (9)
Where,
RR = Recycle Ratio
2.4 Sizing of the MBR

Packing density given by ratio of fibre surface area to volume
Φ = Af / V (1)
Where
Af = surface area of fibres = Nπdf (2)
V = module volume
Av = volume occupied by fibres = Nπdf 2/4 (3)
So: Av/ Af = df / 4 (4)
Thus: Ax = (4V – df Af) / 4L (5)
Page | 47
Where Ax = free x-sectional area
So: QA = 3600U / 4L x (4V - – df Af) (6)

Where
QA = aeration rate in m3/hr
U = air flow velocity in channels (m/s)
SADm = 3600U / 4V x (4V/Af – df) (7)
Where SADm = aeration demand with respect to fibre area
Substituting for V/Af and normalizing against flux:
SADp = 3.6x106U / 4LJ x (4/ Φ – df) (8)
Where SADp = aeration demand with respect to permeate volume
Evidence suggests that J is a linear function of aeration intensity:
J = mU + c (9)
Where m and c are empirical constants
So: SADp = 3.6x106U / 4L (mU + c) x (4/ Φ – df) (10)
Aeration energy demand in kWh/m3 permeate is then given by
EA = 0.0303 SADp γ x [((10x + 101) / 101)(1 – 1/ γ) – 1] / (γ – 1) ζ (11)
Where
γ = aerator constant = 1.4
ζ = blower efficiency = 0.5
x = aerator depth = 3 m
So: EA = Uk / L (mU + c) x (4/ Φ – df) (12)
Where
K = 0.0303 x 3.6x106 / 4 x γ x [((10x + 101) / 101) (1 – 1/ γ) – 1] / (γ – 1) ζ and is thus
constant for a given system.
Now, commercial technical data for available membrane modules (Judd, 2006)
suggests that, for packing density and fiber diameter respectively in m-1 and m:
1 / Φ ≈ gdf + 0.001 f (13)
Where
f = 0.7-1.7 and g = 0.9-1.1
Thus
Page | 48
EA = Uk / L (mU + c) x [(4/g-1) df + 0.004f) (14)
For the four main MBR HF membrane suppliers, g = 0.89 (R2 = 0.97) and f = 1.7, and
thus:
EA = Uk / L (mU + c) x [3.5 df + 0.0068] (15)
2.5 Summary
The selection of appropriate design and operating parameter values for an iMBR
centers on:
 choice of membrane module;
 choice of membrane aerator, if the membrane module is not provided with an
integral aerator;
 Membrane aeration rate.
Many, if not all, of these facets are stipulated by the technology provider, and the
choice of technology itself (including that between iMBR and sMBR) will be strongly
influenced by the duty to which it is being put. However, broadly speaking the mean
permeability sustained in an iMBR is dependent on the aeration rate. Failure of
membrane surface fouling, which can be irrecoverable, and clogging of the membrane
channels. It is therefore essential that the maintenance schedule includes cleaning of
the aerators, normally achieved by flushing with a water or hypochlorite solution.
Design of iMBRs relies on accurate information regarding oxygen transfer to the

biomass and maintenance of permeability by membrane aeration. The design
proceeds via calculation of the oxygen demand of the biomass, which relates primarily
to the feed water composition, the solids retention time and the oxygen transfer
efficiency. This procedure applies to all bio treatment processes. However, for an MBR
complications arise when estimating the oxygen transfer and hydraulic performance
(flux and permeability) provided by the membrane aeration. The correlation of
membrane flux and permeability with membrane aeration rate and the applied
cleaning protocol relies entirely on heuristically-derived information.
Minor: Oil-Water Separator
Page | 49
2.6 Oil-Water separator design
Oil-water separation theory is based on the rise rate of the oil globules (vertical
velocity) and its relationship to the surface-loading rate of the separator. The rise rate
is the velocity at which oil particles move toward the separator surface as a result of
the differential density of the oil and the aqueous phase of the wastewater. The
surface-loading rate is ratio of the flow rate to the separator to the surface area of the
separator. The required surface-loading rate for removal of a specified size of oil
droplet can be determined from the equation for rise rate.
The following parameters are required for the design of an oil-water separator:
a) Design flow (Qm), the maximum wastewater flow. The design flow should
include allowance for plant expansion and storm water runoff, if applicable.
b) Wastewater temperature. Lower temperatures are used for conservative
design.
c) Wastewater specific gravity (Sw).
d) Wastewater absolute (dynamic) viscosity (µ). Note: Kinematic viscosity (v) of a
fluid of density (ρ) is v = µ /ρ.
e) Wastewater oil-fraction specific gravity (So). Higher values are used for
conservative design.
f) Globule size to be removed. The nominal size is 0.015 centimeters (150
micrometers), although other values can be used if indicated by specific data.
The design of conventional separators is subject to the following constraints:

a) Horizontal velocity (vH) through the separator should be less than or equal to
1.5 cm/s (0.015 m/s) or equal to 15 times the rise rate of the oil globules (Vt),
whichever is smaller.
b) Separator water depth (d) should not be less than 1 m, to minimise turbulence
caused by oil/sludge flight scrapers and high flows. Additional depth may be
necessary for installations equipped with flight scrapers. It is usually not
common practice to exceed a water depth of 2.4 m.
c) The ratio of separator depth to separator width (d/B) typically ranges from 0.3
to 0.5 in refinery services.
Page | 50
d) Separator width (B) is typically between 1.8 and 6 m in refinery services.
e) By providing two separator channels, one channel is available for use when it
becomes necessary to remove the other from service for repair or cleaning.
f) The amount of freeboard specified should be based on consideration of the type
of cover to be installed and the maximum hydraulic surge used for design.
g) A length-to-width ratio (L/B) of at least 5 is suggested to provide more uniform
flow distribution and to minimize the effects of inlet and outlet turbulence on
the main separator channel.
30Figure 2.4: Design variables for oil interceptors.
The oil-globule rise rate (Vt) can be calculated by Equation 1 or 2 shown below.
Equation (1) should be used when the target diameter of the oil globules to be
Page | 51
removed is known to be other than 0.015 cm and represents a typical design approach.
Equation (2) assumes an oil globule size of 0.015 cm.
Vt = g/18µ(ρw – ρo)D2
Vt = 0.0123[(Sw – So)/µ, (Where D = 0.015cm)
Where:
Vt = vertical velocity, or rise rate, of the designed oil globule, in cm/s.
g = acceleration due to gravity (981 cm/s2)
µ = absolute viscosity of wastewater at the design temperature, in poise
ρw = density of water at the design temperature, in g/cm3
ρo = density of oil at the design temperature, in g/cm3
D = diameter of oil globule to be removed, in cm
Sw = specific gravity of the wastewater at the design temperature (dimensionless)
So = specific gravity of the oil present in the wastewater (dimensionless)
Alternatively, if using kinematic viscosity equations 1 and 2 may be rearraged as
follows:
Vt = g/18v(1-So)D2
Vt = 0.0123(1-So/v)
Where, V = kinematic viscosity of the wastewater at the design tempearature,in stokes.
Horizontal Velocity (vH)

The design mean horizontal velocity is defined by the smaller of the values for vH in
cm/s obtained from the following two constraints:
Minimum Vertical Cross-Sectional Area (Ac)

Using the design flow to the separator (Qm) and the selected value for horizontal
velocity (vH), the minimum total cross-sectional area of the separator (Ac) can be
determined from the following equation:
Ac = Qm x 100/ VH
Where:
Ac = minimum vertical Cross- sectional area, in m2
Qm = design flow to the separator, in m3/s
VH = horizontal velocity, in cm/s
Page | 52
Channel Width and Depth
Given the total cross-sectional area of the channels (Ac) and the number of channels
desired
(n), the width and depth of each channel can be determined. A channel width (B),
generally between 1.8 - 6 m, should be substituted into the following equation, solving
for depth (d):
d = Ac/Bn
Where:
d = depth of channel, in m
B = width of channel, in m
Separator Length
Once the separator depth and width have been determined, the final dimension, the
channel length (L), is found using the following equation:
L = F(VH/Vt)d
Where:
L = length of channel, in m
F = turbulence and short-circulated factor (dimensionless)
VH = horizontal velocity, in cm/s
D = depth of channel, in m
If necessary, the separator’s length should be adjusted to be at least five times its
width, to minimize the disturbing effects of the inlet and outlet zones.
Equation is derived from several basic separator relations:
a) The equation for horizontal velocity (vH = Qm/Ac/), where Ac is the minimum
total cross-sectional area of the separator.
b) The equation for surface-loading rate (Vt = Qm/AH), where AH is the minimum
total surface area of the separator.
c) Two geometrical relations for separator surface and cross-section area (AH =
LBn and Ac= dBn), where n is the number of separator channels.
The turbulence and short-circuiting factor (F) is a composite of an experimentally
determined short-cutting factor of 1.21 and a turbulence factor whose value depends
on the ratio of mean horizontal velocity (vH) to the rise rate of the oil globules (Vt). A
Page | 53
graph of F versus the ratio vH/Vt is given in Figure1.5; the data used to generate the
graph are also given below.
31Figure 2.5: Recommended values of F for various values of Vh/Vt
Minimum Horizontal Area

In an ideal separator - one in which there is no short-circuiting, turbulence, or eddies
– the removal of a given suspension is a function of the overflow rate, that is, the flow
rate divided by the surface area. The overflow rate has the dimensions of velocity. In
an ideal separator, any oil globule whose rise rate is greater than or equal to the
overflow rate will be removed. This means that any particle whose rise rate is greater
than or equal to the water depth divided by the retention time will reach the surface,
even if it starts from the bottom of the chamber. When the rise rate is equal to the
overflow rate, this relationship is expressed as follows:
Page | 54
Vt = di/Ti = 100di/(LiBidi/Qm) = 100Qm/LiBi = Vo
Where:
di = depth of wastewater in an ideal separator, in cm
Ti = retention time in an separator, in s
Li = length of an ideal separator, in cm
Bi = width of an ideal separator, in cm
Vo = overflow rate, in cm/s
The equation establishes that the surface area required for an ideal separator is equal
to the flow of wastewater divided by the rise rate of the oil globules, regardless of any
given or assigned depth.
By taking into account the design factor (F), the minimum horizontal area (AH), is
obtained as follows:
AH = F(Qm x 100/Vt)
Where:
AH = minimum horizontal area, in m2
F = turbulence and short-circuit factor
Vt = vertical velocity, or rise rate, of the designed oil globule, in cm/s.
Qm/AH = 0.00196(Sw – So)/µ
Maintenance
Parallel-plate units may experience clogging problems if the plate inclination is too
shallow or the plate-to-plate spacing is too narrow. It has also been reported that sand
entering the plate system can collect at the entrance to the plate assembly and reduce
flow through the lower plate sections. Should blockages develop, they may be cleared
by removing the accumulated solids, flushing the plate pack with water or air, or
mechanical cleaning.
Operating and maintenance manuals and equipment suppliers should be consulted
with regard to approved procedures. Solids accumulation and clogging should be
considered before installation and designed for accordingly.
Page | 55
Parallel-plate packs do not generally clog if they are properly designed, installed, and
maintained. If significant solids levels are expected, the plate inclination should be
about
60o, which exceeds the angle of repose of practically all solids encountered in such
systems. A plate slope of 60o and periodic blowdown of accumulated solids should
help to avoid most parallel-plate separator plugging problems.
Construction Details
A variety of parallel-plate equipment configurations are commercially available. In
the case of conventional separators retrofitted with parallel plates few, if any,
additional fitments are required in addition to those already present. New parallel-
plate separators have a wide range of design features and may be purchased as
packaged units, with oil and sludge-draw off equipment provided. Consequently,
specific construction and fitment details are omitted from this subsection.
Two major types of parallel-plate separators are marketed: the cross-flow inclined
plate and the down-flow inclined plate. Cross-flow separators that employ parallel
plates oriented vertically and horizontally are also available, although there are few
applications for them in wastewater treatments.
In a cross-flow separator, shown in sketch bellow, flow enters the plate section from
the side and flows horizontally between the plates. Oil and sludge accumulate on the
plate surfaces above and below the wastewater flowing between the plates. As the oil
and sludge build up, the oil globules rise to the separator surface and sludge gravitates
toward the separator bottom.
In a down-flow separator, the wastewater flows down between the parallel plates,
sludge deposited on the lower plates flows to the bottom of the separator, and oil
accumulated beneath the upper plate flows counter-current to the waste flow to the
top of the separator.
Page | 56
32Figure 2.6: sketch of Parallel plate separator - cross-flow
[Courtesy of Sepa Waste Water Treatment Pty. Ltd., Australia]
Terminal Velocity of Oil Globules in Water

The basic principles of separation by gravity differential can be expressed
mathematically and applied quantitatively. When a particle is allowed to move freely
in a fluid and is subjected to gravitational force, its rising or settling velocity with
respect to the fluid becomes a constant when the resistance to motion equals the
weight of the particle in the fluid. In other words, the resistance to motion of a particle
in a liquid medium is equal to the effective weight of the particle when the terminal
velocity has been reached, namely, when the acceleration caused by gravity becomes
zero. The general equation for this resistance, first proposed by Newton, is as follows:
Df = CA(ρwV2/2)
Where:
Df = Particle’s resistance to motion in liquid medium, in dynes
C = Coefficient of drag
A = projected area of oil globules, in cm2
ρw = density of water, in g/cm3
V = terminal velocity of oil globule in water, in cm/s
The equation for the effective weight of the particle is as follows:
Page | 57
W = ( D3/6) x ( ρw – ρo)g
Where:
W = effective weight of the oil globule in water, in dynes
D = diameter of oil globule, in cm
ρo = density of the oil globule, in g/cm3
g = acceleration caused by the force of gravity (981 cm/s2)
Equating equations above:
CA(ρwV2/2) = (πD3/6) x ( ρw – ρo)g
Given that, for a sphere,
A = D2/4
Then the rate of rise is as follows:
The equation for the resistance to motion of a small spherical particle at its terminal
velocity is as follows:
Where:
µ = absolute viscosity of wastewater the design temperature, in poises
If W in Equation above is equated to Df in Equation 16, a new expression for V is
obtained. By the substitution of Vt, the oil globules’ velocity of rise (in cm/s) for the
general term V, the well-known form of Stokes’ law for the terminal velocity of
spheres in a liquid medium becomes applicable to the rate of rise of oil globules in
water.
Equations should theoretically include a deformation coefficient that depends on the
relative viscosities of the oil and the water; however, in practice, the coefficient is not
required to estimate the rate of rise of small oil globules in wastewater.
Page | 58
Where:
Cv = deformation coefficient theoretically applicable
µ1 = absolute viscosity of the particle, in poises
µ2 = absolute viscosity of the medium, in poises
If this correction for internal flow is applied to Equation 17, Stokes’ law for
determining the rate of rise of an oil particle in water would become the following:
Equations above are strictly correct only when the rising particle’s Reynolds number
(based on the particle diameter) is less than 0.5. For the range of Reynolds numbers
resulting from the computations in this chapter (all substantially less than unity),
however, the deviation from Stokes’ law is negligible for design purposes.
Size and Gravity of Oil Globules

From the results of experiments and from plant operating data, it has been determined
that the design of wastewater separators should be based on the rise rate of oil
globules with a diameter of 0.015 cm (150 micrometers).
To check the dimensions of this formula, it is necessary to note that the number 0.0123
was obtained from dimensional factors and therefore has the dimensions of its factors,
which are as follows:
If the globule diameter is 60 micrometers (i.e., D = 0.006), the factor is 0.0020, rather
than 0.0123.
Derivation of Equation for Separator Length

Separator length is calculated from the following equation:
L = F(vH/vt)d
Page | 59
The basis equations used to derive the equation for separator length are
AH = FQm/vt ; Ac = Qm/ vH; Ac = dBn
Therefore;
L = AH/Bn = AH/(Ac/d) = AHd/Ac = [(FQm/ vt) x d] / (Qm/ vH)
L = L = F(vH / vt)d
Where:
AH = total separator surface area
L = length of separator channel
B = widthof separator channel
N = number of separator channels
F = turbulence and short-circuiting factor
Qm = total design flow to separator
Ac = separator’s total cross sectional area
vH = separator’s horizontal velocity
vt = separators surface-loading rate
d = depth of separator channel
Calculation and results

Data Given:
 Sewage Flow = 70000 m3/day = 0.8102 m3/s
 Temperature = 29 °C
Assumptions taken:
 Specific gravity of water = 0.99
 Specific gravity of oil = 0.92
Page | 60
 Viscosity of wastewater = 0.0062 poise = 0.3871 cm2/s
 Oil globule size = 0.015 cm
Design constraints
• VH ≤ 1.5 cm/s or VH = 15 Vt, whichever the smaller
• 1.0 m ≤ d ≤ 2.5 m
• 0.3 ≤ d/B ≤ 0.5
• 1.8 m ≤ B ≤ 6.0 m
• n = 2 (minimum 2 channels)
• L/B ≥ 5
Calculating Vt using:
Vt = 0.0123[(Sw - So)/μ]
Vt = 0.0123[(990 – 920)/ (0.3871)]
Vt = 2.224 cm/s
Vertical Velocity = 2.224 cm/s
Horizontal flow velocity is taken as 1.5 cm/s
Ac = (0.8102 x 100)/1.5
Ac = 54 m2
Therefore the minimum vertical cross-sectional area is 54 m2
Similarly,
By assuming ‘B’ to be 8m and n = 2
d = 54/ (8 x 2)
d =3.38 m
Depth of channel = 3.38 m
Page | 61
Depth/width ratio = 3.38/8 = 0.4
Calculating L using:
Using the following graph:
F is found to be 1.46
Hence,
L = F x (VH/Vt) x d
L = 1.46 x (1.5/2.224) x 3.38
L = 1.46 x 0.67446 x 3.38
L = 3.33 m
Length of channel = 3.33 m
Page | 62
Design inputs:
Sewage Flow (in m3/s) 0.8102

Temperature (in °C) 29
Specific gravity of water 0.99
Specific gravity of oil 0.92
Viscosity of wastewater (in poise) 0.0062
Oil globule size (in cm) 0.015
Results:
Vertical Velocity (in cm/s) 0.18083

Horizontal flow velocity ( in cm/s) 1.5
minimum vertical cross-sectional area (in m2) 54
number of channels 2
Width of channel (in m) 8
Depth of channel (in m) 3.38
Length of channel (in m) 3.33
2.7 PIPE SELECTION AND PIPE SIZING FOR MBR TANKS OUTLETS AND
INLETS
Pipe Selection
When it comes to pipes for transportation of liquids, we are exposed to a variety of
the pipes which normally are made of plastic, concrete or metal (e.g. galvanized iron
or copper and stainless stain) to make our choices. However, if we consider the cost
of copper for the transportation of effluent of a treatment plant, it is definitely not
feasible. Similarly while opting for a particular pipe material for transportation of
liquids the key factors that need to be considered are: water characteristics and
chemistry and resistant against a specified internal and external pressure. Thus to start
with the primary factor is the water chemistry and characteristics which include pH,
salts that are dissolved in the water and among other. Likewise it is be noted that there
would be an alteration in the initial pH of the effluent since the latter has been
Page | 63
subjected to a coagulation and flocculation process with help of alum which has the
tendency to render the effluent to be slightly more acidic: pH changes from 6.5 to
approximately 4.7 (Tchobanoglous, et al., 2004). Subsequently we can expect the
corrosiveness of the effluent to material to increase; thus the prime requirement for
the pipe material would be higher corrosion resistance. Hereby the choice of metal as
pipe material can be crossed from the initial list; therefore the best suited pipe material
for the MBR is plastic.
The raw material needed to make most plastic comes from petroleum and natural gas.
Due to their relatively low costs, ease in manufacture, versatility and imperviousness
to water, plastics are used in an enormous and expanding range of products: from
paper clips to pipes intended for transporting drinking water. Plastic has replaced
many common materials such as cement and metals within drinking water networks
(WECF, 2012).
Plastics are often preferred than metals due to a number of intrinsic advantages:
plastic piping is lightweight and does not require an open flame for joining the
flexibility of plastic can simplify the installation. Plastics are typically lower in cost
and resist the corrosion and scaling that plague metals in some applications. However,
indication of the mitigation of synthetic chemical contaminants from plastic pipe
materials to water may exist. These contaminants likely occur at low “safe levels”, but
are sufficient to generate odor and taste concerns in some cases. Another disadvantage
of some types of plastic pipes is that they have lowered resistance to chlorinated water;
which will be not problematic in our case. Likewise the most common types of plastic
used in water and wastewater applications are PE
(Polyethylene) pipes and PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) pipes (WECF, 2012)...
PE (Polyethylene) pipes
There are basically three of PE (Polyethylene) pipes: high-density polyethylene
(HDPE), medium density (MDPE) and low density (LDPE) pipes. The level of density
expresses the pressure that the pipes can sustain. For locations enduring high pressure
or weight, like streets, HPPE pipes are used. Performances of PE pipes of different
manufactures show different possible temperature ranges in terms of application and
usually range between -20 and + 900C. PE pipes are widely used for water and
Page | 64
sanitation systems. High-quality PE pipes have a long lifetime (50 years) and are easy
to maintain. They have high impact strength and show resistance to cracking even at
low temperatures. PE pipes are also stable in water and do not tend to corrode (WECF,
2012).
PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) pipes

PVC is the third most widely produced plastic after PE and PP (polypropylene). PVC
is widely used in construction because it is cheap, durable and easily workable but
nevertheless the material tends to get brittle in the long- term. Simultaneously from
an environmental point of view the usage of PVC is controversial, particularly because
of the harmful chemicals (e.g. dioxins) which may be released in the environment
during its production and final disposal (burning) (WECF, 2012)..
Finally it can be concluded that a medium density polyethylene (MDPE) pipe is best
suitable for the Membrane biological reactor tank: due to the versatility of being
corrosion resistance and also sustain pressure to which it would be exposed to. In
addition its low cost relative to other pipe material like copper and extended lifetime
render it to be more attractive.
Pipe sizing
There are basically two methods reported by Sinnott, 2005 through which we can
proceed to evaluate the optimum diameter of a pipe: either using economic pipe
diameter formula or Simpson correlation (1968). However due to lack of information
related to economic pipe diameter for medium density polyethylene we will go by
Simpson correlation.
Simpson (1968) gives values for the optimum velocity in terms of the fluid density.
His values, converted to SI units and rounded, are:
Page | 65
33Table 2.14: Fluid density and Velocity
Similarly together with the Simpson correlation we shall abide by the following
assumptions for the evaluating of the optimum diameter.
a) The piping system should be designed for the maximum flow-rate output from
the MBR tank that is 50000 m3/hr. However to increase the reliability and not
to oversize the pump and piping system; we will assume that delivery of 3125
m3 of effluent will be performed by three pumps and we have one additional
stand by pump for any contingency.
b) Usually we can expect the temperature of the effluent to experience a drop.
likewise the temperature drop will somehow be dependent on the season
prevailing in the country, however since we lack data to evaluate any raise or
drop we will simply assume that the temperature of the effluent remain at 25℃.
c) The density of the effluent is similar to that water at 250C: 997.048kg/m3; the
ideology behind this assumption is that the effluent before entering the MBR is
subjected to several pre-treatment namely: oil and grease removal, grit removal
and coagulation and flocculation process which will enable the removal of
several contaminants which otherwise might influence its density at 250C.
d) The viscosity of effluent is again similar to that of water at 25 0C: 0.890 x 10-3
Ns/m2 and the same ideology as density applies for viscosity.
Calculations
If we consult the fluid density and optimum velocity table by Simpson is can be noted
that we do not have any specific optimum velocity value for a fluid density of
Page | 66
997.048kg/m3; thus by graphical interpolation of the data was performed to estimate
the optimum velocity of the fluid and found to be 2.7 m/s.
Consequently the internal diameter of the pipes for MBR is evaluated to be 40 cm.
2.8 Pump selection for MBR

Pumps are generally classified in two classes:
1. Dynamic pumps, such as centrifugal pumps.

2. Positive displacement pumps, such as reciprocating and diaphragm pumps.
Pump selection is made on the flow rate and head required, together with other
process considerations, such as corrosion or the presence of solids in the fluid. Table
2.15 provides a brief description and application of many types of pumps in these two
classes.
34Table 2.15: Pump Types and Major Applications in Wastewater treatment
Major Classification Pump Type Major Pumping Application

Raw water and wastewater,
secondary sludge return and
Centrifugal
wasting, settled primary and
Kinetic thickened sludge, effluent
Scum. grit, sludge and raw water
Peripheral
and wastewater
Rotary Lubricating oils, gas engines,
Page | 67
chemical solutions, small flows
of water and wastewater
Scum and primary, secondary,
Plunger and settled sludge; chemical
solution
Secondary sludge circulation
Airlift and
wasting, grit
Positive Displacement
Raw wastewater at small
Pneumatic ejector
installation (100 to 600 L/min)
Grit, settled primary and
Screw secondary sludge, thickened
sludge, raw wastewater
Diaphragm Chemical solution
Source: (Spellman, 2003)
Considering the data obtained from table above it can be said that the best suited
pump for pumping effluent from the MBR is the centrifugal pump. In addition the
centrifugal pump is by far the most widely used type in the chemical and petroleum
industries. Furthermore with its ability to pump liquids with very wide-ranging
properties and suspensions with a high solid content including, for example, cement
slurries, and clearly demonstrate the superiority among of the latter other pumps in
wastewater applications. Likewise it may be constructed from a very wide range of
corrosion resistant materials. The whole pump casing may be constructed from
plastics such as polypropylene or it may be fitted with a corrosion resistant lining.
Because it operates at high speed, it may be directly coupled to an electric motor and
it will also give a high flow-rate for its size (Sinnott, 2005).
2.9 Power requirements for pumps in MBR

To transport a liquid from one vessel to another through a pipeline energy has to be
supplied to:
1. Overcome the friction losses in the pipes;
Page | 68
2. Overcome the miscellaneous losses in the pipe fittings (e.g. bends), values,
instruments, etc.
3. Overcome the losses in process equipment (e.g. primary clarifier);
4. Overcome any difference in elevation from end to end of the pipe;
5. Overcome any difference in pressure between the vessels at each of the pipeline.
Hence the total energy required can be calculated from the equation:
g∆z + ∆P/ρ - ∆Pf/ρ – W = 0
Where:
W = work done, J/kg
∆z = difference in elevation (z1 – z2), m
∆P = difference in system pressure (P1 – P2), N/m2
∆Pf = pressure drop due to friction, including miscellaneous losses, N/m2
ρ = Liquid density, kg/m3
g =acceleration due to gravity, m/s2
Similarly the head required from the pump = ∆P/ρg - ∆Pf/ρg - ∆z
Total head required will be the sum of the dynamic head due to friction losses in the
piping, fittings, valves and process equipment, and any static head due to differences
in elevation.
Pressure drop in pipelines

The pressure drop in a pipe, due to friction, is a function of the fluid flow-rate, fluid
density and viscosity, pipe diameter, pipe surface roughness and the length of the
pipe. It can be calculated using the following equation:
∆Pf = 8f(L/di)ρu2/2
Where:
∆Pf = pressure drop, N/m2
Page | 69
F = friction factor
L = pipe length, m
di = pipe inside diameter, m
ρ = fluid density, kg/m3
u = fluid velocity, m/s
The friction factor is a dependent on the Reynolds number and pipe roughness. The
friction factor for use in equation 2.8.1 can be found from Figure 2.7
Where:
Relative roughness, e = absolute roughness/pipe inside diameter
Note: the friction factor used in equation 5.3 is related to the shear stress at the pipe
wall, R, by the equation:
Miscellaneous pressure losses

In addition to pressure loss in pipelines, any obstruction to flow will generate
turbulence and cause a pressure drop. So, pipe fittings, such as: bends, elbows,
reducing or enlargement sections, and tee junctions, will increase the pressure drop in
a pipeline. There will also be a pressure drop due to the valves used to isolate
equipment and control the fluid flow. The pressure drop due to these miscellaneous
losses can be estimated using either of two methods:
1. As the number of velocity heads, K, lost at each fitting or valve. A velocity head
is u2/2g, meters of the fluid, equivalent to (u2/2) ρ, N/m2. The total number of
Page | 70
velocity heads lost due to all the fittings and valves is added to the pressure
drop due to pipe friction (Sinnott, 2005).
2. As a length of pipe that would cause the same pressure loss as the fitting or
valve. As this will be a function of the pipe diameter, it is expressed as the
number of equivalent pipe diameters. The length of pipe to add to the actual
pipe length is found by multiplying the total number of equivalent pipe
diameters by the diameter of the pipe being used (Sinnott, 2005).
The number of velocity heads lost, or equivalent pipe diameter, is a characteristic of

the particular fitting or type of valve used. Values can be found in handbooks and
manufacturers’ literature.
Summary of results
With help of the literature review above the calculations were performed and the main
results have been tabulated below.
35Table 2.17: Summary of result involving the main pipeline connecting the MBR
Pipeline description Pipeline between primary Output pipeline of MBR

clarifier to MBR tank
Pipeline length 26 m 33 m
Optimum flow-rate of 5000 m3/hr 5000 m3/hr
effluent
Optimum Pipe Diameter 40 cm 40 cm
Reynolds number 1.03×106 1.3×106
Friction factor 0.0065 0.0065
Miscellaneous losses in 284 m 86 m
equivalent pipe diameter
Pressure drop in pipeline 95.52 kPa 108.12 kPa
Effective pressure drop in 280.52 kPa 108.12 kPa
pipeline
Power requirement 149.04 J/kg 137.81 J/kg
Head required 15.19 m 3.63 m
Page | 71
CHAPTER 3: Heat and material Balance
3.1 Material Balance for the MBR
I. Mass Balance on the MBR
Influent = Waste Sludge + Effluent
 Q = Influent Flowrate
 SE = BOD in Effluent, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
 S0 = BOD in influent, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Hence BOD efficiency can be calculated as follows:
Given: BOD in domestic wastewater entering Primary Settling Tank = 307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Assuming BOD removal efficiency in primary clarifier = 40 %
Primary effluent BOD = 307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 × (1 − 0.40) = 184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Therefore;
As assumed permissible limits, that is 40 mg/L = 2800 kg/day is in the effluent
184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 −40𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

BOD Removal Efficiency in MBR = × 100 = 78%
184𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Page | 72
307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 −40𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Hence; 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = ( )× 100 = 87%
307𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
The recycle ratio can be expressed as follows:
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Typical recycle ratio for conventional activated sludge process = 0.25 – 0.50
Average Recycle Ratio = 0.375
Therefore;
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑄𝑅 = 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 × 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑄0

= 0.375 × 70000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑄𝑅 = 26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Also by the methodology of Shu Dar lin (2005), 𝑄𝑅 can be expresses as follows:
𝑄0 (𝑥 − 𝑥0 )
𝑄𝑅 =
𝑥𝑤 − 𝑥
Whereby:
X = MLSS concentration, 2500 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
X0 = Primary Effluent TSS, 102.6 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
𝑄𝑅 = 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
70000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 (2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3 − 102.6 𝑔⁄𝑚3 )

26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 =
𝑥𝑤 − 2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
𝑥𝑤 = 3893.07 𝑔⁄𝑚3
Also;
𝑄𝑅 𝑋
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = =
𝑄0 𝑋𝑅 − 𝑋
Whereby:
𝑋𝑅 is the concentration in recycle sludge and as assumed R is 0.375.
Page | 73
2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
𝑋𝑅 − 2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
Inlet Flowrate:XO = Concentration of TSS in influent Primary Settling Tank
Outlet Flowrate:Xe = Concentration of Biomass in effluent
Return Sludge: QR = return flow pumping rate, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Xu = return microorganism concentration
Waste Activated Sludge: QW = Waste flow from recycle waste line, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
And µ = growth of solids (𝑑𝑎𝑦 −1 )
II. BOD Balance around MBR
𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 − 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 + 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝜇𝑋𝑉 𝑑𝑆
(𝑄0 𝑆0 + 𝑄𝑅 𝑆𝐸 ) − (𝑄0 + 𝑄𝑅 )𝑆𝐸 − = 𝑉
𝑌 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑆
𝑉=0
𝑑𝑡
Y = cell yield in kg MLSS/ kg BOD removed
At steady state
𝜇𝑋𝑉
= 𝑄0 𝑆0 − 𝑄0 𝑆𝐸
𝑌
𝜇 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
= 𝑓⁄𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝑌 𝑉𝑥
𝑆0 = 184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Assuming no chemical changes occur:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝐸 = 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Therefore:
Page | 74
𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑅 = 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
III. Flow Balance
Influent Flow Q0 = 70,000 m3/day
Initial BOD = BOD0 = 184 g/m3
As calculated:
BOD Efficiency = 78 %
BOD in Effluent = 40 g/m3
IV. Solid Balance on membrane
𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝐴𝑆 = 𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑅 = 𝑋𝑈 𝑔⁄𝑚3 × 𝑄𝑅 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑅 = 10.65 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚3 × 26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 279,562.5 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 𝑋𝑢 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚3 × 𝑄𝑊 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 2367.07 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Assume TSS Removal Efficiency = 81%
Therefore:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑂𝑓 𝑇𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.19 × 102.6 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 = 19.494 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

= 1364.6 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
V. Balance on VSS on membrane
The removal efficiency of VSS in an MBR system is 90%, therefore;
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑉𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 10% × 82.08 𝑔⁄𝑚3 = 8.208 𝑔⁄𝑚3 =

574.6𝑘𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Whereby VSS = 80% TSS = 82.08𝑔⁄𝑚3 = 5745.6𝑘𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Assuming:
𝑉𝑆𝑆𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 𝑉𝑆𝑆𝑅 = 5745.6 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 − 574.6 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 5171.04 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑑𝑟𝑦
VI. NH3-N Balance on the membrane skid
Overall Balance:
Page | 75
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑂𝑈𝑇 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝐸 + 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆
By the methodology of N.F.Gray, 2005, the removal efficiency of 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁 in an ASP

system is 90%
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 1400 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 90% × 1400 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 1260 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝐸 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑅 = 1400 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 − 1260 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 140 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
VII. NO3-N Balance on membrane skid
Overall Balance:
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡
Since nitrification occurs, let 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 be the amount of nitrates obtained by the
nitrification of ammonia.
Therefore:
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁1 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥
Assuming 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 = 5031.2 Kg⁄day
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝐸 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝐸 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆
According to N.F.Gray (2005), Removal Efficiency=90%
Since 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 1200 Kg⁄day 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 = 5031.2 Kg⁄day
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 6231.2 Kg⁄day
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 0.90 × 6231.2 Kg⁄day = 5608.08 Kg⁄day
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝐸 = 6231.2 Kg⁄day − 5608.08 Kg⁄day = 623.12 Kg⁄day
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 623.12 Kg⁄day
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑅 = 623.12 Kg⁄day
Page | 76
VIII. Phosphorus Balance on the membrane skid
Overall Balance:
[𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚]

= [𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚]
+ [𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑊𝐴𝑆]
𝑃𝑖𝑛 = 70 Kg⁄day = 1 g⁄m3
Assuming Efficiency of Phosphorus Removal is 65%
𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 65% × 70 Kg⁄day

= 45.5 Kg⁄day = 0.65 g⁄m3
𝑃𝐸 = 70 Kg⁄day − 45.5 Kg⁄day = 24.5 Kg⁄day
𝑃𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 24.5 Kg⁄day
𝑃𝑅 = 24.5 Kg⁄day
3.2 Energy Balance
Heat transfer during cooling

Biogas is a mixture of CO2, N2, O2, H2S and CH4, and with mole fraction of 0.258,
0.034, 0.005, 0.003 and 0.700 respectively. Assuming a steady flow process, the biogas
is cooled from 308 to 293 K at a constant pressure of 0.102 MPa. Hence the heat transfer
during the process will be evaluated as follows.
Page | 77
Additional assumptions
This is steady-flow process since there is no change with time at any point and thus
∆mcv; change in mass of control volume and ∆Ecv; change in energy is equal to zero.
The kinetic and potential energy changes are negligible.
∆mcv = ∆Ecv = 0
Analysis of system
 The cooler is considered as control volume since mass crosses the system
boundary during the process. We will note that heat is transferred out of the
system.
 Furthermore while analyzing the critical properties of the various gases, we can
notice that the O2, N2 and CH4 will remain above their critical temperature,
but they are all below their critical pressures, and thus we can assume that the
biogas behaves as an ideal gas and can be demonstrated using Kay’s rule (Boles
et al., 2011) (refer to appendix Energy Balance to demonstrate that biogas can
be considered as ideal gas via Kay’s rule).
36Table 3.1: Enthalpy of different gas components
The energy balance for this steady-flow system can be expressed on a unit mole basis
as:
Page | 78
eout - eout = ∆esystem = 0
ein = eout → h1 = h2 + qout
q”out = h1 – h2 (fore ideal gas)
Where:
ein= energy input, KJ
eout = energy output, KJ
∆esystem = energy change of system, KJ
h1 = enthalpy at initial temperature, KJ/Kmol
h2 = enthalpy at final tempearature, KJ/Kmol
q”out = heat transferred, KJ/Kmol
q”out = h1 – h2 = yN2(h1 – h2) + yCO2 (h1 – h2) + yO2(h1 – h2) + yH2S(h1 – h2) + yCH4(h1
– h2)
q”out = 0.034(8955.8-8520.88) + 0.258(9731.2-9175.88) + 0.005(8971-8532.63) +

0.003(8959.52-8468.63) + 0.7(6552.37-6363.84)
Total mole of biagas = 307.517 kmol
Total q”out = 91.7 GJ/day
Chapter 4: Mechanical sketches and schedules
Page | 79
3.33m
8m
A A
3.38 m 2.25
University of Mauritius Sketch of Top, Front & Side view of AIP oil-water
separator
Beng(Hons) Chemical & Environmental Engineering(Level 3) Design Project 2(CHE4101)
Project Coordinator: Mr.A.K Ragen & Mr A.Mudhoo Date: 01.04.15 Size: A3 Drawn By: SOOMAREE KESHAV
Project Supervisor: Mr A.Mudhoo Scale: Not to Scale Group: 3A ID: 1114132
Page | 80
88 m
42.5 m
Front View Side view
University of Mauritius The membrane bioreactor

Page | 81
University of Mauritius Sketch of Top, Front & Side view of AIP oil-water
separator
Page | 82
University of Mauritius Sketch of module membrane showing two distinct
membranes
Page | 83
Chapter 5: Material of Construction
5.1 Material of construction for the membrane Bio-reactor Tank

The two possible construction materials for the MBR was be either steel or concrete.
However the use of steel is deem to be more expensive and may require more frequent
maintenance that a concrete basin.
Furthermore while examining the volume of water to be handled by the tank and the
subsequent pressure that will be exerted by the fluid which would be relative high; it
is recommended to opt for a reinforced concrete structure. Reinforced concrete is ideal
for the construction of the basin since the latter is a composite material of steel bars
embedded in a hardened concrete matrix; concrete, assisted by steel carries the
compressive forces while steel resist tensile forces. In addition concrete is a composite
material. The dry mix consists of cement and coarse or fine aggregates. Water is added
and this reacts with the cement which hardens and binds the aggregates into the
concrete matrix; the concrete matrix sticks and binds on to the reinforcing bars (Choo
et al., 1990).
5.2 Material of construction for the module membrane

The specific membrane area (membrane area per unit module volume) refers to the
area based on the FS panel. The area per module (FS) or rack (HF) is given in
parenthesis, where provided by the supplier. Abbreviations for membrane polymeric
materials are:
PAN: polyacrylonitrile
PE: polyethylene
PES: polyethylsulphone
PS: polysulphone
PVDF: polyvinylidine difluoride
Page | 84
37Table 5.2.1: Membrane configuration definitions
Generic term FS HF or MT
Membrane Element Single sheet, or part there Single filament/fibre or
of Panel tube Module
Multiple element Module, cassette or stack Cassette, stack or rack
Multiple multi-element Train Train
38Table 5.2.2: Membrane module details of FS
Supplier Microdyne-Nadir
Membrane or module proprietary name (model) BioCel
Membrane material PES
Pore size (µm) or MWCO (kDa) 150 kDa
Panel dimensions, length x width x depth (mm) 1000 width x 5
Panel area (m2) 10
Membrane separation (mm) 8 (2 mm membrane thickness)
Module dimensions, length x width x depth 1200, 1340 x 650, 1140 x 1800,
(mm) 2880
Number of panels per module -
Total membrane area per module (m2/m3) 70 (90)
Clean water permeability (LMH/bar) 450–550
Supplier Novasep Orelis

Membrane or module proprietary name (model) Pleiade®
Membrane material PAN
Pore size (µm) or MWCO (kDa) 40 kDa
Panel dimensions, length x width x depth (mm) 2610 x 438
Panel area (m2) 2
Page | 85
Membrane separation (mm) 3
Module dimensions, length x width x depth (mm) 2610 x 438 x 1710
Number of panels per module -
Total membrane area per module (m2/m3) (36)
Clean water permeability (LMH/bar) 1250 ± 500
Supplier Toray Industries

Membrane or module proprietary name (model) Toray (TRM140-100S )
Membrane material PVDF
Pore size (µm) or MWCO (kDa) 0.08 µm
Panel dimensions, length x width x depth (mm) 1608 x 515 x 13.5 (inc. 6 mm
separation)
Panel area (m2) 1.4
Membrane separation (mm) 6
Module dimensions, length x width x depth (mm) 2100 x 810 x 1620
Number of panels per module 50 , 100 or 200
Total membrane area per module (m2/m3) 135
Clean water permeability (LMH/bar) -
39Table 5.2.3: Membrane module details of HF
Supplier Mitsubishi Rayon Engineering

Membrane or module proprietary name Sterapore SUR
(model)
Membrane material PE
Pore size (µm) or MWCO (kDa) 0.4 µm
Filament diameter 0.54 mm
Module dimensions, length x width x depth 1035 x 13 x 524 446
(mm)
Module area (m2) Up to 210
Page | 86
Number of filaments per element -
Cassette dimensions, length x width x depth 1442 x 1538 x 725
(mm)
Number of modules per cassette 70
Clean water permeability (LMH/bar) -
Supplier Polymem
Membrane or module proprietary name (model) Immem (WW120)
Membrane material PS
Pore size (µm) or MWCO (kDa) 300 kDa; 0.08 µm
Filament diameter 0.7 to 1.4mm
Module dimensions, length x width x depth 1000 to 1500 x 315
(mm)
Module area (m2) 60–100m2
Number of filaments per element a few tens of thousands
Number of modules per rack Na
Clean water permeability (LMH/bar) 500
For this design the Microdyne-Nadir is chosen made up of polyethylsulphone with

a total area of 10000 m2 and with 4 panels of area 10 m2 each having 40 panels per
module as per calculation in chapter 2.
5.3 Material of construction for the oil-water separator

The oil-water separator is designed with coalescer plates which operates by method
of physical alteration means. The material is of stainless steel. Most other designs
utilize a shop-fabricated stainless steel frame or no frame system at all. The standard
coalescer plates are typically polypropylene, pvc, or painted carbon steel. Plastic
coalescer plates are heat sealed to form the pack and are set in the coalescer frame.
Page | 87
Carbon steel plate coalescer plates are typically stitch welded into the carbon steel
coalescer frames and are not removable for cleaning. Coalescer materials that have
been used include: polypropylene, pvc, cpvc, acrylic, aluminum, marine aluminum,
304 & 304L stainless steel, 316 and 316L stainless steel. Other materials such as
phenolic epoxies composite materials show promise, as well.
The coalescer designed in this project is to last the lifetime of the separator unit. The
coalescer frame is built of sturdy structural stainless steel. The plate-holding strips are
304 stainless steel, as well. Marine aluminum and 316 stainless steel plate-holding
strips are available for particular applications. The Multi-Pack can accommodate any
flat plate material.
40Figure 5.3.1: Stainless steel oil-water separator
Page | 88
CHAPTER 6: Instrumentation and Control
6.1 Control Strategies for the Membrane Bio-reactor
Process control and software

1. Feedback control and alarm triggering relies on monitoring of key parameters
such as TMP (for indicating membrane fouling condition and triggering a
cleaning cycle), DO (for biological process control) and turbidity (for
membrane integrity).
2. Unless they are specifically designed to be free from clogging, it is essential that
the maintenance schedule includes cleaning of the aerators. This can be
achieved by flushing with a dilute hypochlorite solution. For some technologies
the aerator flush is scheduled at the same time as the maintenance clean.
3. The principle impact of added process complexity is on the software and
programmable logic controllers (PLCs), and on ancillary hardware such as
pumps, valves and actuators. For example, intermittent aeration at 10 s means
that each valve is actuated pneumatically over 3 million times per year.
4. Foaming control and abatement procedures are particularly important in an
MBR since aeration is more intense than for an ASP. Designs should include
surface wasting or spraying.
5. Sludge wasting for SRT control can be based on on-line MLSS measurement,
although instruments have only recently developed for this.
Pre-treatment and residuals management

1. The basic process can be modified in the same way as a conventional ASP to
achieve denitrification, chemical phosphorous removal (CPR) and biological
nutrient removal (BNR). Additional tanks (or tank volume) and sludge transfer
pumps must then be sized accordingly, based on similar bio kinetic principles
as those used for the design for the core aerobic process.
2. Pre-clarification can be used to reduce aeration demand (for agitation of
biomass) by reducing solids (“trash”) loading, but this significantly adds to

footprint. Upgrading screens is essential, especially for HF iMBRs Grit removal
is desirable for plants if no capacity is available to allow the grit to settle out
before the membrane tank.
Page | 89
3. MBR sludge is generally less settleable than ASP sludge, with floc sizes
generally being smaller and sludge volume index (SVI) values higher.
Conventional gravity thickening is therefore less effective for MBR sludge.
Membrane thickening can and has been used for this duty, albeit operating at
necessarily low fluxes.
Tank sizing and redundancy

1. DO levels are _0.5 mg/L in the anoxic zone, typically 1.0–2.5 mg/L in the
aerobic zone and relatively high in the membrane region (2–6 mg/L) where
aeration is intensive. If recycling for denitrification takes place from the
membrane aeration tank to the anoxic zone then the anoxic zone becomes
slightly aerobic at the sludge inlets, reducing denitrification efficiency. To
compensate for this the anoxic zone must be increased to extend the HRT in
this region. Alternatively, sludge can be recycled from the aerobic tank.
2. Retrofitting places additional constraints on design of iMBRs, since the tank
size determines the HRT and the shape and placement of immersed membrane
modules. Retrofitting of side stream modules, on the other hand, is not
constrained by the aeration tank dimensions.
3. Spare capacity is required for membrane cleaning, which either involves
draining of the tank and cleaning in air or CIP. In the former case the biomass
in the membrane train being cleaned has to be transferred either to a holding
tank or to adjacent membrane tanks. In either case sufficient installed capacity
is needed to contend with the total volume entering the works while the
membrane train is being cleaned. For large plants with a large number of trains
(membrane tanks) the cleaning can be sequenced to avoid large hydraulic
shocks on the remaining in-service modules. For small plants a buffer tank may
be required.
Page | 90
Pressure Sensor F
V0 V4
(0-4 bar absolute) Mass Flowmeter
Permeate
T P V7
Feed
Suction Pump (0-4 L/hr)
Membrane Module
F
Retenate
Massflowmeter V5 V8
V9
V1 P
BackWash F
Feed/Backwash Pump Pressure Sensor

V6 Flow Control Mass Flowmeter
(0-4 bar absolute)
V2
Chemical Cleaning 1
V3
Chemical Cleaning 2
University of Mauritius Sketch 1: Cleaning control of MBR

Page | 91
4x0.405 l/d
Concentrated Influent
Excess Sludge
P1 =
0.075 l/min
Air SV
V2 V4 4
V1
V3
Overflow PS
P 3
Over flow alarm

Tap Water
P2 =
P5 =
0.9 l/min
0.09 l/min (fil) – 0.3 l/min (BW)
PS
Degas vessel
4
P
Emergency
Overflow
pH pH DO ORP
UF V6 V7
Membrane
Cooler
Cooler Cooler
Effluent grab
Over flow
sample V8
alarm
Mixer
Aerobic/Anoxic SV 1
zone PS P
2
Mixer SV 3
Anaerobic
zone
P
Permeate Backwashing
PS Over Flow Tank (7L)
1
P3 = P4 =
Air
0.375 l/min 7.651 l/min
V5 7.651 l/min
SV 2 F2
University of Mauritius Sketch 2: PID of MBR

Page | 92
Sewer
O2 T Ph
P2 Computer
Sewer
P3
Peristaltic Pump
Membrane
Demi water Activated Sludge
NaOCl
Permeate
Air
Mass
Balance
Peristaltic Pump
Centrifugal Pump
Back Flush Pump
Damper
P1 F
University of Mauritius Sketch 3: PID of Module membrane

Page | 93
CHAPTER 7: Safety Considerations
7.1 The oil-water separator

Personal Safety:
1. Toxic substances present in wastewater
Deviation: High; Good State/ Bad state

Possible causes:
1. Contact with the Wastewater
2. Needle stick injury when removing screenings from a bar screen
Consequences:
1. Chemicals absorbed through skin when in contact with wastewater.
2. Disease can also enter the body through cuts and abrasion
Safeguard:
Provide hand gloves and stay away from the wastewater
Action:
Assistance should be provided and immediate actions should be taken in case of Skin
Contact
2. Cleaning and Maintenance
Deviation: Clean/ Unclean; Good State/ Bad state
Possible causes: Screen blockage or clogging
Consequences:
1. Efficiency of screens decreases
2. Wastewater unable to pass through causing overflow
Safeguard:
1. Two- stage screen in order to facilitate safe cleaning; to reduce the possibility of
blockage
2. To allow proper maintenance
Page | 94
Action:
1. Provide a sensor and an alarm to monitor the risks of blockage
2. Regular checkup and maintenance should be done
7.2 The Membrane Bioreactor

Safety Parameters:
Construction and maintenance
Deviation: High
Possible causes:
Safety rules and regulations not properly abided
Consequences:
1. Falling into the ponds causing injuries
2. Disease caused by infectious agents like protozoa, virus upon skin contact
3. Chronic poisoning by inhalation
Safeguard:
1. Hand railing provided at all places where there is potential of falling around all
tanks and other places where falling height is greater than 1.5m
2. Use of life buoys and Safety jackets to get the person out of water
Action:
Emergency measures should be provided; provide with protective clothing and other
personal protective equipment and chemical resistant clothing to avoid exposure of
skin
CHAPTER 8: Review of the final design

8.1 Summary of key Deviations
One of the key deviations for detailed design is that there is a change the initial
wastewater flow-rate from
200000 m3/day to 75000 m3/day. The additional deviations and amendments can be
noted for the equalization tank design and biogas upgrading system. Furthermore
errors were noted in the mass balance of the preliminary design for the biogas
upgrading system, the oil and grease separator and coarse screen which lead to several
Page | 95
key mistakes in the preliminary design and had a domino effect in the subsequent
calculations, thus it is obvious that while the comparing the mass balance of the
preliminary and detailed these variation can be easily noted. Hence to avoid
repetitions we shall review mostly the sizing of various equipment.
8.2 Review of API Separator

Preliminary Design Detailed Design Reason/Comments
Cross-sectional area = 54m2 Minimum vertical cross
sectional area = 60 m² The key variation is lies in
Depth of channel = 3.38 m Depth of channel = 3.6 m these
Length of separator = 3.33 m Length of separator = 3.33 m parameters
Width of channel = 8 m Width of channel = 8 m
Number of channels = 4 Number of channels = 4
Retention time = 30 min Retention time = 30 min
Construction Material : Steel Construction material:
Stainless steel
Not considered Rise rate of oil globules 0.263
Not considered Velocity = 3 ft/min
Not considered Area of single channel = 14.9
m²
Not considered Length of forebay= 14.2 m
8.3 Review of the membrane bioreactor

The Reactor
Number of tanks 1
Depth (m) 4.4
Length (m) 42.5
Width(m) 88
1565.40 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑂2⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Page | 96
Air pipe diameter (m) 0.32
Length of air pipe(m) 30
Power required (KPa) 2.28
Number of centrifugal blowers 1 (+1 as back up)
Inlet pipe 0.164
Effluent pipe 0.438
Effluent box(m) 4x3
Aeration period 5.12 Hr
Diffuser submergence(m) 7
Using a centrifugal blower
Air supply
feeding 7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
SRT 10 days
𝐾𝑔
F/M 0.3
The membrane Module
Am 9887 m2
Area per element 250 m2
Actual membrane area 10000 m2
Number of elements 40
K’ 120 N LMH/bar
Jnet 21 LMH
Jnet,actual 20 LMH
J’net,actual 25 N LMH
J’b 42 N LMH
J’actual 30 N LMH
Page | 97
CHAPTER 9: ECONOMICS OF THE PROJECT, AS DESIGNED
9.1 Total purchase equipment cost
This represents the basis for estimating the capital investment for a chemical plant.
The cost of all the main equipments in the treatment plant, namely, the UV reactors
,the biogas upgrading system, API Separator, and among other ; likewise some
equipment cost were estimated by scaling. The Marshall and Swift equipment cost
index was used to obtain the present time costs of the equipment.
Total purchase equipment cost = Rs. 159,268,246
9.2 Total capital investment (TCI)

This is a very large amount of money that is initially invested before the start of
operation of a plant and this is normally used to purchase land and purchase
installation of machinery and equipment. As soon as land has been purchased and
made available and services must be obtained, the plant is set-up with all the
necessary that pilings, controls and services. It should be noted that money will also
be needed to pay for expenses incurred for the operation of the plant. The money
needed for setting up the plant is known as the Capital Investment. Capital Investment
is the total amount of money needed to supply the necessary plant and manufacturing
facilities plus the amount of money required as working as working capital and
operation of the facilities.
Total Capital investment is calculated as:
TCI = FCI + WC
Where:
TCI - Total Capital Investment
FCI - Fixed Capital Investment
WC - Working Capital
This represents the sum of the fixed capital investment and the working capital.
Working capital = Rs. 19,582,968
Fixed capital investment is the sum of the direct and indirect costs. The direct cost
consists of expenses on the land, the purchased equipment, the instrumentation and
controls, the piping and electrical systems, among others while the indirect costs are
Page | 98
expenses which are not directly involved with material and labor of the installation of
the plant.
9.3 Total product cost

It represents the sum of the manufacturing cost and the total general expenses. The
manufacturing cost is given by the sum of the direct production costs, the fixed
charges and the plant overheads. The direct production costs include the costs of raw
materials; however for our treatment plant no raw material will be needed, operating
labor, laboratory charges and maintenance.
Total product cost = Rs. 160, 596,085
The fixed charges are expenses pertaining to depreciation, taxes and insurance.
Fixed charges = Rs. 34,812,057
Plant overheads = Rs. 16,059,608
Manufacturing cost = Rs. 138,112,633
The administrative costs, the distribution and selling costs, the research and
development costs and interests constitute the general expenses.
General expenses = Rs. 22,483,452
Total product cost = Rs. 160,596,085
9.4 Total revenue

For income for the treatment plant will shall consider the sales of treated water for
irrigation and the sludge cake for composing. Likewise the treated water and sludge
cake will be sold at Rs 0.5/m3 and Rs 25/kg respectively. On a yearly basis, the plant
produces 26.65×106 m3of water and 26.44×106 kg of sludge. Thus,
Total revenue = Rs. 277, 788,095
9.5 Gross earning cost

This represents the gross profit made by the power plant. It is calculated by the
difference of the total income and the total product cost.
Gross earning = Rs. 99,613,209
Page | 99
9.6 Pay-back period
Payback can be described as the period of time required for the return on an
investment, that is, the time required to recover the initial investment. The simple
payback period method is when time value of money is not considered while for the
discounted payback method, the time value of money is considered. The payback
period indicates whether to go for a specific project or not (Sinnott et al., 2003).
Pay-back period = 7.427 years
9.7 The rate of return

In the case of bank loan, the future return takes the form of interest plus repayment of
the principal.
This is known as the loan cash flow. While in the case of the fixed asset, the future
return takes the form of profits generated by productive use of the asset. This is called
project cash flow. Rate of return is also known as Internal Rate of Return, IRR and is
the rate at which one is recovering his investment.
This is the rate at which profit is made with respect to the initial investment. The latter
would include charges on labour resource. The power plant constitute of 32 personnel.
Taking into account all charges and the profit made,
Rate of return = 11.4%.
9.8 The Net Present Value (NPV) and Initial Rate of Return (IRR)
The net present value is the harmonization of net cash flows of different period of time
at a common time period. The common time period is usually the time the project
starts, that is the present time. It is the conversion of future cash flows into present
time at a given rate of return. Normally, the net present value of the project is then the
difference between the present value of the annual cash flows and the initial required
investment.
Page | 100
Present value of the expected cash flows is computed by discounting them at the
required rate of return. Net present value is a calculation that compares the amount
invested today to the present value of the future cash receipt from the investment.
The following parameters are important while calculating NPV:
- Rate of return (IRR)
- Service life of project or equipment
- Annual cash inflow over service life.
- Annual cash outflow over service life.
- Net cash flows (profits/savings) over service life
NPV is the present value of the future cash inflows.
NPV= Rs. 1,293,424,747
IRR represents the true interest rate on an investment over the course of its economic
life.
IRR = 30.45 %
41Table 9.0: Summary of the economics of the treatment power plant
Page | 101
CHAPTER 10: Environmental Concerns
Even wastewater treatment ensures that not much great demands are been made on
the environment and is a step forward towards safeguarding the ecological and
marine resources, in particular surf water and ground water and as well as improve
sanitation and protect public health. And similarly, the option for wastewater
treatment and reuse makes provision for long term water reliability within the
community by providing substitute for fresh water and also is a plus-point for water
demand and drought management in overall water resources planning; it is be noted
that a during the treatment there is a significant amount of waste which is cause for
concerns. The table below summaries the various type of waste generated and their
related mitigation measure for their resulting nuisance.
Waste generated Source Treatment of waste/ emissions

Screenings (consisting of Coarse screen Screenings will be disposed to
large the landfill without grinding or
debris, leaves, plastics, washing
floatable Since washing will generate more
materials amongst others) wastewater thus is not advisable.
Page | 102
Other alternatives such as
incineration may be considered if not
too costly.
Scum Activated sludge Scum from the final clarifier are
system scrapped by means of scrappers
Secondary before they are collected and
settling tank discharged to the landfill which
represents a safe, easy and cost
effective method of disposal.
Sludge in terms of Oil & API Oil/Water Since oil and grease from API
grease, Separator cannot sent to land field due to
COD high risk of soil contamination it
would trucked to a solid
treatment processing plant or
send to a processing factor for oil
recovery
Sludge Primary clarifier Since the sludge produced have
MBR considerable amount of BOD.
Secondary COD and TSS, they will be sent
clarifier to a digester for stabilization
Dry sludge Drying Bed Compost plant is the best and
most viable mean of disposal
Biogas Sludge Digester The biogas is the most valuable waste
Bioreactor generated, since it has a huge energy
potential it will be upgraded and use
as fuel of plant’s boilers.
CHAPTER 11: Conclusion

The aim of this project was to produce a detailed chemical engineering design of a
wastewater treatment plant. I was assigned to design the membrane biological reactor
Page | 103
and the Oil-Water separator which required an extensive knowledge of heat & Mass
transfer, thermodynamics, Unit operations, wastewater management, chemical
process design Chemical economics, Chemical process safety and fluid mechanics.
Most of these topics had already been covered during previous years of the
undergraduate course and the rest are still ongoing. Indeed, the design also required
important decisions to be taken in areas of uncertainty. All the reasoning behind any
assumption and decision taken were explained explicitly.
To conclude, we can eventually say that there are significant difference in between the
primary design and that of the detailed one, especially in terms of sizing and costing.
This design project has brought in me many practical skills and knowledge, giving a wider
view on the job functions of chemical and environmental engineers.
References
1. Adham, S., DeCarolis, J.F. and Pearce, W. (2004) Optimisation of various MBR
systems for water reclamation – phase III, Desalination and Water Purification
Research and Development Program Final Report, No. 103.
2. Babcock, R. (2005)
www.wrrc.hawaii.edu/research/project_babcock/Babcockmembrane. htm
(Accessed March 2015).
3. Benham, B.L., Brannan, K.M., Yagow, G., Zeckoski, R.W., Dillana, T.A.,
Mostaghimi, S. and Wynn, J.W. (2005) Development of bacteria and benthic
total maximum daily loads: a case study, Linville Creek, Virginia. J. Environ.
Qual., 34, 1860–1872.
4. Blatchley III, Ernest R., Bastian, K. Chad, Duggirala, Ravi K., Alleman, James
E., Moore, Mark, Schuerch, Peter.,1996. “Ultraviolet irradiation and
chlorination/dechlorination for municipal wastewater disinfection:
Assessment of performance limitations.” Water Environment Research, 68, 194-
204.
Page | 104
5. Botha, G.R., Sanderson, R.D. and Buckley, C.A. (1992) Brief historical review of
membrane development and membrane applications in wastewater treatment
in Southern Africa. Wat. Sci. Technol., 25(10), 1–4.
6. C.J. Geankoplis, 1993, Transport Processes and Unit operations, 3rd Edition,
India, Prentice Hall Inc
7. Cengel.Y.A , Boles.M.A, 2010, Thermodynamics An Engineering Approach, 7th
Edition, New York, Mc Graw Hill.
8. DAR LIN, S.D.L., 2007. Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual. 2nd. New
York: McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc.
9. Dieter Deublein and Angelika Steinhauser, 2008, Biogas from Waste and
Renewable Resources An introduction 1st edition WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH
& Co. KGaA
10. Digest of energy and water statistics 2011 available at:
http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/cso/report/natacc/DigestEnergy.pdf ,
accessed on 3 Jan 2013
11. DiGiano, F.A., Andreottola, G., Adham, S., Buckley, C., Cornel, P., Daigger,
G.T., Fane, A.G., Galil, N., Jacangelo, J., Alfieri, P., Rittmann, B.E., Rozzi, A.,
Stephenson, T. and Ujang, Z. (2004) Safe water for everyone: membrane
bioreactor technology. www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/june/membrane.htm
12. Frost and Sullivan (2003) MBR: A buoyant reaction in Europe, Report, June
2003, Frost and Sullivan.
13. Frost and Sullivan (2005) European report: introduction and executive
summary, Report, August 2005, Frost and Sullivan.
14. G.Tchobanoglous,F.L.Burton, H.David Stensel, 2004, Metcalf and Eddy
Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse, 4th Edition, New York,
McGraw Hill.
15. Göbel, A., Thomsen, A., McArdell, C.S., Joss, A. and Giger, W. (2005)
Occurrence and sorption behavior of sulfonamides, macrolides and
trimethoprim in conventional activated sludge treatment including sorption to
sewage sludge. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 3981–3989.
Page | 105
16. Hanzon, B.D and Vigilia, R. “Two Experts Offer Practical Guidance in
Designing and Operating Ultraviolet Disinfection Systems,” Water
Environment and Technology, November 1999, pp. 35- 42.
17. Ho, Chu-Fei H., Pitt, Paul, Mamais, Daniel, Chiu, Carolyn, and Jolisw,
Domenéc.,1998. “Evaluation of UV disinfection systems for large-scale
secondary effluent.” Water Environment Research, 70 (6), 11421150.
18. Huber, M.M., Goebel, A., Joss A., Hermann N., Kampmann M., Löffler D.,
McArdell, C.S., Ried A., Ternes, T.A. and von Gunten, U. (2005) Oxidation of
pharmaceuticals during ozonation of municipal wastewater effluents: a pilot
study. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 4290–4299.
19. J. F. Richardson, J. H. Harker, J. M. Coulson, 1977, “Coulson and Richardson’s
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING Fluid flow, Heat transfer and Mass transfer”,
Volume 1, 3rd Edition. UK, Pergamon Press
20. J. F. Richardson, J. H. Harker, J. R. Backhurst, 2002, “Coulson and Richardson’s
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING Particle, Technology and Separation Processes”,
Volume 2, 5th Edition. UK, Elsevier Jaime Benítez, 2009, Principle and Modern
Applications of Mass Transfer Operations, 2nd Edition, New Jersey, John Wiley
and Sons
21. Joss, A., Andersen, H., Ternes, T., Richle, P.R. and Siegrist, H. (2004) Removal
of estrogens in municipal wastewater treatment under aerobic and anaerobic
conditions: consequences for plant optimisation. Environ. Sci. Technol., 38(11),
3047–3055.
22. Joss, A., Keller, E., Alder, A., Göbel, A., McArdell, C.S., Ternes, T. and Siegrist,
H. (2005) Removal of pharmaceuticals and fragrances in biological wastewater
treatment. Water Res., 39(14), 3139–3152.
23. Joss, A., Zabczynski, S., Göbel, A., Hoffmann, B., Löffler, D., McArdell, C.S.,
Ternes, T.A., Thomsen, A. and Siegrist, H. (2006) Biological degradation of
pharmaceuticals in municipal wastewater treatment: proposing a classification
scheme. Water Res., 40(8), 1686–1696.
Page | 106
24. Kennedy, S. and Churchouse, S.J. (2005) Progress in membrane bioreactors:
new advances, Proceedings of Water and Wastewater Europe Conference,
Milan, June2005.
25. Lawrence, D., Ruiken, C., Piron, D., Kiestra, F. and Schemen, R. (2005) Dutch
MBR Development: Reminiscing the Past Five Years, H2O, 36–29. Metcalf, Eddy.
(2003) Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse (3rd edn). McGraw-Hill,
New York.
26. Maxwell, S. (2005) the state of the water industry 2005, a concise overview of
trends and opportunities in the water business, The Environmental
Benchmarker and Strategist Annual Water Issue.
27. Qin, J.-J., Kekre, K.A., Guihe, T., Ooa, M.-H., Wai, M.-N., Lee, T.C., Viswanath,
B. and Seah, H. (2005) New option of MBR-RO process for production of
NEWater from domestic sewage. J. Membrane Sci.
28. Schyns, P., Petri, C., van Bentem, A. and Kox, L. (2003) MBR Varsseveld, a
Demonstration of Progression, H2O, 10–12.
29. Tao, G., Kekre, K., Wei, Z., Lee, T.C., Viswanath, B. and Seah, H. (2005)
Membrane bioreactors for water reclamation. Water Sci. Technol., 51(6–7), 431–
440.
30. Ternes, T.A., Joss, A. and Siegrist, H. (2004) Scrutinizing pharmaceuticals and
personal care products in wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol., 38(20),
393A–399A.
31. Van der Roest, H.F., Lawrence, D.P. and van Bentem, A.G.N. (2002) Membrane
Bioreactors for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. IWA Publishing.
32. Voet Donald and Voet Judith G., 1995. Biochemistry. 2 Nd ed. New York:John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
33. WEF (2006) Membrane systems for wastewater treatment. Water Environment
Foundation, WEFPress/McGraw-Hill, New York.
34. Yang, W., Cicek, N. and Ilg, J. (2006) State-of-the-art of membrane bioreactors:
worldwide research and commercial applications in North America. J.
Membrane Sci., 270, 201–211.
Page | 107
Appendices
Appendices A: Mass Balance

Mass Balance for the MBR
Overall Balance around the MBR

Influent = Waste Sludge + Effluent
 Q = Influent Flowrate
 SE = BOD in Effluent, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
 S0 = BOD in influent, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Hence BOD efficiency can be calculated as follows:
Given: BOD in domestic wastewater entering Primary Settling Tank = 307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Assuming BOD removal efficiency in primary clarifier = 40 %
Primary effluent BOD = 307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 × (1 − 0.40) = 184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Therefore;
As assumed permissible limits, that is 40 mg/L = 2800 kg/day is in the effluent
Page | 108
184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 −40𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
BOD Removal Efficiency in MBR = × 100 = 78%
184𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Hence;
307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 − 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑟𝑦 = ( ) × 100 = 87%
307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
The recycle ratio can be expressed as follows:
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Typical recycle ratio for conventional activated sludge process = 0.25 – 0.50
Average Recycle Ratio = 0.375
Therefore;
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑄𝑅 = 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 × 𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑄0

= 0.375 × 70000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 𝑄𝑅 = 26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Also by the methodology of Shu Dar lin (2005), 𝑄𝑅 can be expresses as follows:
𝑄0 (𝑥 − 𝑥0 )
𝑄𝑅 =
𝑥𝑤 − 𝑥
Whereby:
X = MLSS concentration, 2500 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
X0 = Primary Effluent TSS, 102.6 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
𝑄𝑟 = 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒, 26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
70000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 (2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3 − 102.6 𝑔⁄𝑚3 )

26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 =
𝑥𝑤 − 2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
𝑥𝑤 = 3893.07 𝑔⁄𝑚3
Also;
𝑄𝑅 𝑋
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = =
𝑄0 𝑋𝑅 − 𝑋
Page | 109
Whereby:
𝑋𝑅 is the concentration in recycle sludge and as assumed R is 0.375.
2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
𝑋𝑅 − 2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
Inlet Flowrate:XO = Concentration of TSS in influent Primary Settling Tank
Outlet Flowrate:Xe = Concentration of Biomass in effluent
Return Sludge: QR = return flow pumping rate, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Xu = return microorganism concentration
Waste Activated Sludge: QW = Waste flow from recycle waste line, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
And µ = growth of solids (𝑑𝑎𝑦 −1 )
BOD Balance around MBR

𝐼𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡 − 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 + 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝜇𝑋𝑉 𝑑𝑆
(𝑄0 𝑆0 + 𝑄𝑅 𝑆𝐸 ) − (𝑄0 + 𝑄𝑅 )𝑆𝐸 − = 𝑉
𝑌 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑆
𝑉=0
𝑑𝑡
Y = cell yield in kg MLSS/ kg BOD removed
At steady state
𝜇𝑋𝑉
= 𝑄0 𝑆0 − 𝑄0 𝑆𝐸
𝑌
𝜇 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
= 𝑓⁄𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝑌 𝑉𝑥
𝑆0 = 184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Assuming no chemical changes occur:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝐸 = 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Page | 110
Therefore:
𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑅 = 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Flow Balance
Influent Flow Q0 = 70,000 m3/day
Initial BOD = BOD0 = 184 g/m3
As calculated:
BOD Efficiency = 78 %
BOD in Effluent = 40 g/m3
Solid Balance on membrane

𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝐴𝑆 = 𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑅 = 𝑋𝑈 𝑔⁄𝑚3 × 𝑄𝑅 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑇𝑆𝑆𝑅 = 10.65 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚3 × 26250 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 279,562.5 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑇𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 𝑋𝑢 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑚3 × 𝑄𝑊 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 2367.07 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Assume TSS Removal Efficiency = 81%
Therefore:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑂𝑓 𝑇𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.19 × 102.6 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 = 19.494 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿

= 1364.6 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Balance on VSS on membrane

The removal efficiency of VSS in an MBR system is 90%, therefore;
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑉𝑆𝑆 𝑖𝑛 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 10% × 82.08 𝑔⁄𝑚3 = 8.208 𝑔⁄𝑚3=

574.6𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Whereby VSS = 80% TSS = 82.08𝑔⁄𝑚3 =5745.6𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Assuming:
𝑉𝑆𝑆𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 𝑉𝑆𝑆𝑅 = 5745.6 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 − 574.6 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 5171.04 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
NH3-N Balance on the membrane skid

Overall Balance:
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡
Page | 111
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑂𝑈𝑇 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝐸 + 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆
By the methodology of N.F.Gray, 2005, the removal efficiency of 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁 in an ASP

system is 90%
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 1400 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 90% × 1400 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 1260 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝐸 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑅 = 1400 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 − 1260 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 =

140 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
NO3-N Balance on membrane skid

Overall Balance:
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡
Since nitrification occurs, let 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 be the amount of nitrates obtained by the
nitrification of ammonia.
Therefore:
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁1 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥
Assuming 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 = 5031.2 Kg⁄day
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝐸 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝐸 + 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆
According to N.F.Gray (2005), Removal Efficiency=90%
Since 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 1200 Kg⁄day 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 = 5031.2 Kg⁄day
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 6231.2 Kg⁄day
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 0.90 × 6231.2 Kg⁄day = 5608.08 Kg⁄day
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝐸 = 6231.2 Kg⁄day − 5608.08 Kg⁄day = 623.12 Kg⁄day
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 623.12 Kg⁄day
𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑅 = 623.12 Kg⁄day
Page | 112
Phosphorus Balance on the membrane skid
Overall Balance:
[𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝐸𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚]

= [𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚]
+ [𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑊𝐴𝑆]
𝑃𝑖𝑛 = 70 Kg⁄day = 1 g⁄m3
Assuming Efficiency of Phosphorus Removal is 65%
𝑃ℎ𝑜𝑠𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑢𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 65% × 70 Kg⁄day

= 45.5 Kg⁄day = 0.65 g⁄m3
𝑃𝐸 = 70 Kg⁄day − 45.5 Kg⁄day = 24.5 Kg⁄day
𝑃𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 24.5 Kg⁄day
𝑃𝑅 = 24.5 Kg⁄day
Appendix B: Energy Balances

Power requirement for the Membrane Bioreactor
In order to meet the oxygen demand in the aeration tanks, diffusers are placed and
these diffusers require energy.
Energy Balance on Aeration Tank

Normally the newer technology include centrifugal blowers or positive displacement
blowers, since positive displacement blowers is limited to only 425 m3/min
volumetric flow rate and centrifugal blowers can be used for volumetric flow rate
beyond 80 m3/min, a centrifugal pump is preferred in this case.
By the methodology of Frank R. Spellman (2013), the power requirement for aeration is
calculated as follows:
Average power required for aeration = Pav

QxRxT
= x [(Pdis /P) 0.283– 1]
3600 x 29.7 x 0.283 x η
Whereby:
Page | 113
P is the atmospheric pressure
Q is the air flow rate
T is the inlet temperature in Kelvin (280C = 301.15 K)
η is the efficiency of the blower which is normally within the range 70%-80%
R is the gas constant, 8.314kJmol-1K-1
Pdis = discharge pressure of blower which varies between 1.7 and 2.4 bar for fine
bubble diffusers. Therefore:
1,447.22 𝑚3 ⁄𝑚𝑖𝑛 x 8.314 x 301.15 K 2.05 𝑏𝑎𝑟 0.283

Pav = x [( ) – 1]
3600 x 29.7 x 0.283 x0.75 1.01325 𝑏𝑎𝑟
Pav = 35.24 x 24 = 845.76 kWh/d
Energy Balance on membrane bio filter

Using the equation:𝑇 = 𝑤𝑅 2
Whereby:
T is the torque in Kg.m
W is the work kg/m
R is the radius of the clarifier, m
Assuming W = 20 lb/ft, W = 20 x 1.49 = 29.8 kg/m
Since Diameter of clarifier = 26m
Radius of clarifier, R = 13 m
Hence;
kg
𝑇 = 29.8 m × 13.02 𝑚2 = 5036.2 𝐾𝑔. 𝑚 = 49,405.12 𝑁𝑚
𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 × 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑇 ×
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠
From N.F Gray (2005), the speed of rakes varies between 3-6m/min and taking an
average speed; Speed of rake = 4.5m/min = 0.075m/s
Page | 114
Speed of rake 0.075 𝑚⁄𝑠
𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = = 0.00577 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 13.0𝑚
Hence:
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 49,405.12 𝑁𝑚 × 0.00577 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠 = 285.07 𝑥 24 = 6841.68 𝑊ℎ/𝑑
Since 6 clarifiers are used, overall power requirements= 6841.68 x 6 = 41.05 kWh/d
Energy balance on the amount of pumps

As illustrated in the process flow diagram, 13 pumps are being used, therefore, the
energy required by the pumps are calculated as follows:
Number of pumps= 12 centrifugal pumps which operate 24 hours + 1 centrifugal

blower which operate only 5.12 hours /day
The wattage of the centrifugal pump = 25.1 kW
Energy required = (12 × 25.1 x 24hr) kW + (25.1 ×5hr) = 7354.3 kWh/day
Energy production from biogas

For biogas containing 67% of methane:
1 m3 of biogas 6.7 kWh (FNR, 2009)
Assumption:
 Density of biogas is 1.18 kg/m3
 Efficiency of CHP plant is 40%
Amount of biogas going in the CHP = 7566.7 kg/d
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 7566.7
Flowrate of biogas = = = 6412.46 m3/d
𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 1.18
1 m3 of biogas 6.7 kWh
6412.46 m3 of biogas (6412.46 x 6.7) = 42963.48 kWh
Efficiency of CHP plant is 40%

Energy obtained from CHP per day = (42963.48 x 0.4) = 17185.39 kWh/d
Page | 115
Appendix C: SIZING
Sizing of the MBR
Sludge age or sludge retention time

As per methodology, the SRT for a membrane bioreactor tank is typically 5 to15 days
so as to achieve efficient achieve BOD & nitrogen removal. Therefore, the average SRT
is assumed:
5 + 15
𝑆𝑅𝑇 = = 10 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
2
Feed to microorganism ratio

As the biomass is actively removing the organic substrate in the wastewater, it follows
that the BOD loading should be related to the volume of the biomass in the aeration
tank (i.e. Sludge Loading)
Assume F/M ratio for conventional process = 0.2-0.4
𝐹 0.2 + 0.4
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = = 0.3
𝑚 2
The lower the f/m ratio, the lower the rate of metabolism and the greater the BOD
removal and sludge settleability. However, as removal efficiency increases so does the
overall oxygen demand of the system and so the overall cost of BOD removal. F/m
ratio is also the rate of BOD or COD applied per unit volume of mixed liquor.
From Metcalf and Eddy, 2003; F/M ratio can be expressed as:
𝐹 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
=
𝑀 𝑉𝑥
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑏𝑦:
F/M = food to microorganism ratio, 𝐾𝑔𝐵𝑂𝐷⁄𝐾𝑑𝑀𝐿𝑆𝑆, 𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑄0 = Inlet Flowrate, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑆0 = Inlet 𝐵𝑂𝐷, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
𝑆𝐸 = 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡𝐵𝑂𝐷, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
X = Reactor solids, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Page | 116
V = Volume of Aeration tank, 𝑚3
Total aeration volume and dimensions of the MBR tank

From the equation of food to microorganism ratio
𝐹 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
=
𝑀 𝑉𝑥
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑏𝑦:
F/M =0.3 𝐾𝑔𝐵𝑂𝐷⁄𝐾𝑑𝑀𝐿𝑆𝑆, 𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑄0 = 70,000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑆0 = 200𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 = 14000 kg/day
𝑆𝐸 = Taking into consideration permissible limits, that is 40 mg/L = 2800 kg/day
X = Reactor solids, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Assuming that the bioreactor have a concentration varying in the range 2000 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿-
3000𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 Hence, an average MLSS concentration is calculated which equals to 2500
𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
V = Volume of Aeration tank, 𝑚3
(𝐾𝑔𝐵𝑂𝐷) 70,000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 (200 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 − 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿)

0.3 =
(𝐾𝑑𝑀𝐿𝑆𝑆, 𝑑𝑎𝑦) 𝑉 × 2500 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
𝑉 = 14934 𝑚3
From methodology, range of depth should vary from 4m to 7 m
Assuming depth 4 m and width 4.4 m typical length to width ratio for MBR
Therefore:
Width = 4.4 m
Length = 44 m
14934 𝑚3
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = = 3733.33 𝑚2
4𝑚
Page | 117
3733.33 𝑚2
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑠 = = 19.28 = 20 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑠
4.4 𝑚 × 44𝑚
Therefore:
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 3733.33

Actual Length = = = 42.42 𝑚
𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 4.4×20
Dimensions of one channel = 42.5 m × 4.4m ×4.5 m
Total surface area of the Aeration tank = 42.5m × (4.4m × 20) = 3740 𝑚2
Dimensions of the tank = 42.5m × 88 m
Aeration Period or Hydraulic Retention time

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

The volumetric BOD loading is defined as the ratio of BOD (Kg/day to the Volume
(m3).
𝐵𝑂𝐷, 𝐾𝑔/𝑑𝑎𝑦 13,968.5𝐾𝑔/𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝐾𝑔

𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝐵𝑂𝐷 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 3
= 3
= 0.938 3
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒, 𝑚 14934 𝑚 𝑚 . 𝑑𝑎𝑦
Oxygen Requirements
Air requirement = 0.8 Kg/ Kg BOD removed
Therefore:
𝐴𝑖𝑟 𝑅𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 = 0.8 Kg × 11200 Kg/ day = 8960 Kg / day
Also since density of air = 1.202 Kg/𝑚3
8960 Kg / day
Air Requirement = = 7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
1.202 Kg/𝑚3
Assuming 21% of oxygen in air;
Oxygen Requirement = 7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 × 0.21 = 1565.40 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑂2 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Air supplied per 𝑚3 of wastewater treated
Page | 118
𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 = 3
= 0.106 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑚3 𝑤𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
70000 𝑚 𝑑𝑎𝑦⁄
Oxygen supplied per 𝑚3 of wastewater treated
1565.40 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑂2⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑂𝑥𝑦𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 = = 0.022 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓𝑂2⁄𝑚3 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
70000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Membrane biological reactor
Shape Rectangular
Total volume 14934 m3
Dimensions (L x B x H) 42.5m × 88 m × 4.4 m
Number Of channels 20 channels
Material reinforced concrete
Water temperature 280C brought to 200C
Liquid depth 7m

1565.40 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑂2⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Aeration period 5.12 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
Diffuser submergence 7m
Using a centrifugal blower feeding

Air supply
SRT 10 days
Page | 119
𝐾𝑔
F/M 0.3
Appendix D: Costing
Purchased Equipment Table
Equipment Quantity Price US Price US $ Supplier
$/ unit
Screening
Shandong
Jinhaosanyang
mechanical bar Environmental
2 13943 27886
screens Protection
Equipment
Co.LTD
Oil and Grease trap (APl)
ORGANIC
Oil and grease
1 616552 616552 BIOTECH PVT
separator
LTD
Centrifugal grit Shijazhuang An
3 27.13 81.39
pump pump Co.LTD
Coagulation and Flocculation
Jiangyin Fine
Alum dosing Chemical
1 1500 1500
tank Machinery
Co.LTD
Jiangyin Fine
Mixer 1 150 150
Chemical
Page | 120
Machinery
Co.LTD
Rapid mixing tank
Flat-Blade
Shaghai Special
Radial Flow
6 120 720 Metal Co.
Turbine
LTD
Impeller
Shijazhuang An
Chemical feed
1 100.96 100.96 Pump
pump
CO.LTD
Flocculation Tank
Centrifugal Shijazhuang An
6 866.86 5201.16
pump pump Co.ltd
Shijazhuang An
6 48500 291000
pump Co.ltd
Shijazhuang An
6 903.89 5423.34
pump Co.ltd
Equalization tank
4 2000 8000
pumps pump Co.ltd
Primary 2 755721.67 1511443.34 Shijazhuang An
clarifier pump Co.ltd
Reciprocating 6 18266.67 109600 Shijazhuang An
pump pump Co.ltd
Centrifuge+ 1 617702.60 617702.60 Shijazhuang An
ancillaries pump Co.ltd
Heat exchanger
Shell and tube Hangzhou Sante
heat exchanger 3 200000 600000 Pharmaceutical
+ Chemical
Page | 121
baffles and Equipment Co.,
tubing + all Ltd.
inlet and
outlet piping
Hangzhou Sante
Pharmaceutical
Diesel boiler 1 700000 700000 Chemical
Equipment Co.,
Ltd.
Hangzhou Sante
Pharmaceutical
Gas boiler 1 90000 90000 Chemical
Equipment Co.,
Ltd.
Membrane Bio-reactor + Module Membrane
Shandong
Jinhaosanyang
Environmental
Bio reactor 1 150550 150550
Protection
Equipment Co.,
Ltd.
Shandong
Jinhaosanyang
Environmental
Bio digester 1 4000 4000
Protection
Equipment Co.,
Ltd.
Membrane
with
1 69750 69750 Microdyne-Nadir
membranes
incorporated
Page | 122
3 2000 6000
pump pump Co.ltd
Chlorination
1 104000 104000
system
4 2000 8000
pump pump Co.ltd
Biogas treatment
Dongtai
Dongjiang
Biogas cooler 1 7000 7000 Shipping
Assembly Co.,
Ltd.
Dongtai
Dongjiang
Reciprocal with
1 75000 75000 Shipping
inter-cooling
Assembly Co.,
Ltd.
Packed Tower 1 175000 175000 www.alibaba.com
Zhengzhou
Packing Macro Imp. &
- 9000 9000
materials Exp.
Co., Ltd.
Taian Luqiang
Flash Tank 1 450000 450000 Metal Vessel
CO LTD
Taian Luqiang
Stripping tower 1 300000 300000 Metal Vessel
CO LTD
Double
membrane gas 4 2000 8000
holder
Page | 123
Taian Luqiang
Absorber 3 100000 300000 Metal Vessel
CO LTD
Sand filter 1 155000 155000
Total valves
- 1000000 100000
and accessories
Total Purchase equipment cost Rs: 159268246
Bar screen
Price = $7340 – 20546
Taking an average price = $13943
API
For a cross sectional area of 20 m², price was $ 105 000 in 2007
For our design, cross sectional area = 60 m², hence price = (105000 × 60)/20 = $ 315000
The cost of the API separator in 2015 can be obtained by the use of the following
formula:
Cost of equipment A =
Cost of equipment B x [(Capacity of equipment A/Capacity of equipment B)]0.6
This equation is applicable for capacity that are increased by a maximum of 10 times
the capacity of the old equipment.
Hence cost in 2015 = 315000 × (60/20)0.6 = $ 608952
Cost of equipment a = Cost of equipment b × (Capacity of a ÷ Capacity of b)0.6
Rapid Mixing Tank

Flat-Blade Radial Flow Turbine Impeller (Ms Rochelle Colardo – Alibaba.com)
Price = US $ 120/unit
Chemical Feed Pump (Ms Bella Gao – Alibaba.com)
Page | 124
Capacity = 2 L/s
Cost of chemical feed pump for capacity 0.139 L/s = 500 × (0.139 ÷ 2)0.6
= US $ 100.96/unit
Flocculation Tank
Horizontal Paddle Wheels Flocculator (Ms Candice Zhu – Alibaba.com)
Price = US $ 150/ unit
Centrifugal Pump (Ms Tracy Hu – Alibaba.com)
Capacity = 792 m3/h
Cost of centrifugal pump for capacity 624.17 m3/h = 1000 × (624.17 ÷ 792)0.6
= US $ 866.86/unit
Costing
Primary clarifiers
Theory:
Calculating cost of equipment:

𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎
Cost of equipment a = cost of equipment b × (𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑏)0.6 where,
Equipment a: actual equipment
Equipment b: equipment used as reference
Calculating present cost of equipment:

𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
Present cost = original cost (𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 cost 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑏𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑)
Currency: 1 US Dollar = 36.50 MUR
Page | 125
Cost index values1:
Year Cost Index
2007 525.4
2015 767.2
Cost estimation of Primary Clarifiers and Pumps
Equipment and auxiliary Quantity

Primary circular clarifier 2
Reciprocating pump 6
Primary Clarifiers
The cost of the primary clarifier can be calculated using the formula2 below:
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎
Cost of equipment a = cost of equipment b × (𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑏)0.6
Capacity of equipments in this context will refer to surface area
Now,
From Rule Thumb in Engineering Practice3,
Cost of equipment b (R.Woods, 2007) = $ 130,000
Surface area of equipment b = 100 m2
Surface area of equipment a = 1000 m2
1000
Cost of equipment a = 130,000 × ( 100 )0.6 = $ 517,539.32
𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

Present cost = original cost (𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 cost 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑜𝑏𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑)
Original cost in 2007: $ 517,539.32
1
Information retrieved from a pdf online at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/mypp_nov_2011_appendix_c.pdf , p.C-11
2
Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, 4th Edition, Peters et al, p.169
3
Rule Thumb in Engineering, D. Woods, p.408
Page | 126
767.2
Present cost in 2015 = 517,539.32 (525.4) = $755,721.67
Therefore,
Present cost in MRU of primary circular clarifier in 2015 = 755,721.67 × 36.50 = Rs

27,583,840.96
Total cost of the 2 clarifiers = 2(27,583,840.96) = Rs 55,167,681.91
Pumps
The cost of a reciprocating pump in 2007 was $ 12,500
767.2
Present cost of one pump = 12,500(525.4) = $ 18,266.67
Total present cost of pumps = 6 × 18,266.67 = $ 109,600
Cost estimation of Centrifuge

The cost of a centrifuge of with an equivalent clarifying area, Ʃ1, of 2650 m2 had a cost
of $ 320,000 in 2007. Thus, the cost of our centrifuge with an equivalent area, Ʃ2, of
2909 m2 is calculated.
2909
Cost of centrifuge = 320,000 × (26500)0.6 = $ 338,416
767.2
Present cost of centrifuge = 338,416(525.4) = $494,162.08
Cost of Ancillaries
The cost of the centrifuge and its ancillaries represent a share of 60% and 15%
respectively in the capital cost (Directorate General Water Engineering Research and
Development Division, n.d.). Hence,
494,162.08
Present cost of ancillaries = 0.15×( ) = $123,540.52
0.6
Cost of centrifuge and ancillaries = 494,162.08 + 123,540.52 = $617,702.60
Summary:
Equipment Quantity Unit Cost of

Cost($) equipment($)
Primary clarifier 2 755,721.67 1,511,443.34
Page | 127
Reciprocating pump 6 18,266.67 109,600
Centrifuge+ 1 617,702.60 617,702.60
ancillaries
COMPUTING THE TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Total direct cost percentage= 325.5
Total indirect cost percentage = 136
Total direct cost = 0.3255 x PEC = 0.3255 X 159 268 246 = RS 523 196 190
Page | 128
Total indirect cost = 0.136 x PEC = 0.136x 159 268 246 = RS 216 604 815
Fixed capital investment (FCI) = direct cost + indirect cost
∴ FCI = 523 196 190 + 216 604 815 = RS 739 801 005
Working capital (WC) = 0.15 TCI
Total capital investment (TCI) = FCI + WC
TCI = 739 801 005 + 0.15 TCI
∴ TCI = RS 130 553 119
Calculating the total product cost

Total product cost = Manufacturing cost + general expenses
1. Manufacturing cost = Direct Product cost + Fixed charges + Plant overhead

Cost
A. Direct production costs
1. Raw materials
No raw materials are necessary hence the cost for raw materials will be zero.
2. Operating labor
Available data:
St Martin Treatment plant has an overall plant maximum capacity of 69 000 m3

wastewater/day which is approximately similar to the one designed for a max flow
of 75 000 m3/day. Hence the amount of personnel running the plant will be taken
similar to that of the St Martin treatment plant.
One employee will work 9 hours per day and there will be shift system.
Note: the salary of each personnel member is taken from PRB, 2003
Page | 129
Page | 130
Manufacturing cost = Direct production cost +Fixed charges + Plant overhead cost
Manufacturing cost = 0.33 TPC + 85115925
Computing the general expenses
TPC = Manufacturing cost + general expenses
TPC = 0.33 TPC + 85115925 +0.14 TPC
∴ TPC = Rs 160 596 085
Page | 131
Calculations for depreciation cost
The straight line method is used to calculate the overall depreciation of the equipment.
The fixed % factor is then evaluated by the double declining method. The depreciation
of the equipment over the whole service lifetime is calculated by using the declining
balance method.
Nevertheless, the yearly depreciation of building is assumed to be a % of the building

value.
1. Equipment depreciation
 Straight line method
Available data:
V = 159 268 246
Vs = 30 000 USD (taken reference from St Martin treatment plant)
n = 25 (taking in consideration all the equipment)
 Double declining balance method,
Page | 132
= 159 268 246
∴ For 1 year, Vs = 159 268 246 /20 = RS 7963412.32
2. Building depreciation
Available data:
Building cost from the table above= 1 351 011 USD
Depreciation on building = 0.025 x Building cost = 955609
∴ Total depreciation cost = 7963412.32+955609= RS 8919022
Computing the total income

Revenue from sale of treated effluent for irrigation purposes
The Wastewater Management Authority sells its treated effluent for irrigation at Rs
0.80/m3 and at the
Saint Martin Treatment work the treated water is sold at Rs 0.75/m3. In order to
compete with them, the treated water will be sold at Rs 0.50 /m3.
Total treated water 73012.95 m3/d
Revenue = 0.5x 73012.95x 365= Rs 13 324 863
Sale of sludge cake to composting plant
Page | 133
Typical price of compost on the Mauritian market is Rs 25/kg. Since the waste water
treatment plant is providing the compost plant with raw material, the dewatered
sludge will be sold at Rs 10/kg.
Sludge produced = 72 455 kg per day
Total revenue from sludge = 72455 x 10 x 365= Rs264 463 232
Total income = 13 324 863 + 264 463 232= Rs277 788 095
Total profit = Total income – Total product cost
∴ Total profit = 277 788 095 -160 596 085= Rs 117 192 010
Computing the gross profit

Gross profit = 117 192 010 – 15 % income tax
= 117 192 101 – (0.15x 117 192 101) = 99613209
Computing the payback period
Calculating Rate of Return
Calculating Net Present Value (NPV)

The net present value, NPV is defined as the difference between the present value of
cash inflows and the present value of cash outflows. The NPV is the most straight
Page | 134
forward way of analyzing the profitability of an investment and is sensitive to the
reliability of future cash inflows that an investment or project will yield.
The NPV is calculated from:
Where:
Page | 135
NPV = ΣV0 – TCI
= 2 163 778 870 – 870 354 123 = 1293424747
Calculating Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Page | 136
For V0 = 12%, the NPV = ΣV0*Annual cash Inflow - Initial Investment
= (7.843*264463232) - 870 354 123
= Rs1203867796
= (4.9475*264463232) - 870 354 123
= Rs438100730.9
= (3.9848*264463232) - 870 354 123
= Rs183502349.6
= (3.3286*264463232) - 870 354 123
= Rs9940702
= (2.499*264463232) - 870 354 123
= Rs -209342970.9
Using extrapolation to find the IRR
∴K= 30.45
IRR = 30.45 %
Page | 137
Discounted Payback Period
A capital budgeting procedure used to determine the profitability of a project. In
contrast to an NPV analysis, which provides the overall value of a project, a
discounted payback period gives the number of years it takes to break even from
undertaking the initial expenditure. Future cash flows are considered are discounted
to time "zero." This procedure is similar to a payback period; however, the payback
period only measure how long it take for the initial cash outflow to be paid back,
ignoring the time value of money.
Initial Investment = Total Capital Investment
= RS 870354123
Assumption: Rate, K = 9 %
Discounting Factor = (1+K)-n
Where; n = number of years
Discounted payback = 4.079 years
Page | 138
View publication stats

Detailed Design Project

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

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

Detailed Design Project

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Detail Design of Wastewater Treatment Plant

Research · October 2015

ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DESIGN PROJECT 2: DESIGN OF A

Ac total cross section, m2

ADUF Anaerobic digester ultrafiltration

AH total surface area, m2

Alum Aluminum [aluminium?] sulphate

anMBR Anaerobic membrane bioreactor

AOC Assimilable organic carbon

ASP Activated sludge process

B width of one channel, m

BAC Biologically activated carbon

BAF Biological aerated filter

BOD Biochemical oxygen demand

BPA Biological potential activity

CEB Chemically-enhanced backwash

CFV Crossflow velocity

CIL Cleaning in line

CIP Cleaning in place

COD Chemical oxygen demand

CPR Chemical phosphorous removal

CST Capillary suction time

d depth of water in channel, m

DE Dead-end (or full flow)

dMBR Diffusive membrane bioreactor

DOC Dissolved organic carbon

EBPR Enhanced biological phosphate removal

EGSB Expanded granular sludge bed

eMBR Extractive membrane bioreactor

FBDA Fine bubble diffusion aeration

Flocs Flocculated particles

FS Flat sheet (or plate-and-frame)

GAC Granular activated carbon

GLD Gigalitres per day

HPSEC High performance size exclusion chromatography

HRT Hydraulic retention time

iMBR Immersed membrane bioreactor

LMH Litres per m2 per hour

LMH/bar Litres per m2 per hour per bar

MABR Membrane aeration bioreactor

MHBR Membrane hydrogenation bioreactor

MLD Megalitres per day

MLSS Mixed liquor suspended solids

MPE Membrane performance enhancer

MWCO Molecular weight cut-off

NADH Nictotinamide adenine dinucleotide hydrogenase

NOM Natural organic matters

O&M Operation & Maintenance

OLR Organic loading rate

OTR Oxygen transfer rate

OUE Oxygen utilisation efficiency

p.e. Population equivalent

PAC Powdered activated carbon

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

RBC Rotating biological contactor

rMBR (Biomass) rejection membrane bioreactor

SAD Specific aeration demand

SADm Specific aeration demand – membrane area

SADp Specific aeration demand – permeate volume

SAE Standard aeration efficiency (kgO2/kWh)

SBR Sequencing batch reactor