ASIAWATER 2004

March 30 – 31, 2004 *The Mines Kuala Lumpur

Architecture of decision support system for WASDA: the module

F.M. Sairan et al.

for sequencing batch reactor
F.M. Sairan, Z. Ujang, M.R. Salim, M.F. Md Din
Institute of Environmental and Water Resource Management (IPASA), Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia 81310 Skudai, Johor, Malaysia. (Email: fadzlin@utm.my, zaini@fka.utm.my)

Abstract A decision support system for wastewater treatment plant (WASDA) was developed to make appropriate
decisions on plant design and process selection. WASDA mainly focused on municipal and industrial applications to produce
conceptual and process design for primary, secondary and advanced treatments. It consists of multiple modules such as
equalization tank, coagulation, neutralization, conventional activated sludge, extended aeration, sequencing batch reactor,
oxidation ditch, rotating biological contactor and membrane system. This paper presents the architecture of WASDA for
Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR), which includes the structural and developmental cycles of the SBR module that is
available within WASDA package. Expert knowledge in the information base was assembled from design textbooks, manuals
and other design requirements stipulated by the Malaysian Department of Environment (DOE) and Department of Sewerage
Services (DoSS) and converted into Artificial Intelligence (AI) rules. The study provides a user-friendly approach to access
essential knowledge about SBR and the procedures to design SBR, including design requirements, facilities selection and
analysis of selected process performance. The design conducted using WASDA was verified based on manual calculation
and a worksheet (Mathcad 11). The paper concludes that SBR could be designed using WASDA decision support system
comparable to other method such as spreadsheet calculation.
Keywords Decision support system (WASDA), secondary and advanced treatment, sequencing batch reactor.

Introduction
Decision support systems (DSSs) are interactive computer-based tools used by decision makers since
1960s to help answer questions, solve problems and support or refute conclusions (Hall, 2002). Over
the past 30 years, DSS development has been used various concepts such as spreadsheets, databases,
networks, hypermedia, expert systems (ES), visual programming, intelligent agents, neural networks,
etc. (Beynon et al., 2002). Architectural tool for classic DSS is comprised of components for (i)
sophisticated database management capabilities with access to internal and external data, information
and knowledge, (ii) powerful modeling functions accessed by a model management system, and (iii)
powerful, yet simple user interface designs that enable interactive queries, reporting, and graphing
functions (Shim et al., 2002). The need for rapid, logical, efficient and emergent decisions for many
problems resulted in an increasing trend towards the adoption of ES, which are considered to be among
the fasted growing branches of artificial intelligence (AI). ES technology has received renewed interest
within the scope of environmental management as applied for cost modeling and evaluation of
wastewater, biological treatment process control, hazardous waste incineration facilities, environmental
planning and impact assessment, textile wastewater treatment, membrane technology and disinfection
(Ahmed et al., 2002). DSS particularly ES can assist users to make prompt decision in wastewater
treatment plant design (Sairan and Ujang, 2003).
 Secondary treatment is commonly referred to as the biological process, used to remove the
soluble and colloidal organic matters, which remains after primary treatment. One of the systems that
has widely applied is the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) (Andreottola et al., 2001). The conventional
SBR technology consist of a batch process based on a single activated sludge treatment reactor. This
treatment method has been gaining considerable acceptability in recent years because of its high
efficiency and flexibility (Lin and Cheng, 2000). The SBR technology also has many advantages over
the conventional activated sludge process (Tasli et al., 1999), such as limited space requirement and

F.M. Sairan et al.

operational facilities (Dagot et al., 2001). SBRs are one of the mechanized systems that are proposed to
upgrade the existing low-technology systems such as waste stabilization ponds in Malaysia (Al-Shididi
et al., 2004). This paper presents a conceptual approach to SBR design using a decision support
system, called WASDA.

WASDA in perspective
WASDA (Wastewater Treatment Plant Design Advisor) has been developed using AI technique to be a
decision support tool for the wastewater treatment plants design approach. It contains two main parts,
which are (a) knowledge or information base and (b) design calculation spreadsheet. All information
for each module is constructed in “if-then” rules and contained in a frame-like structure, which will be
used by ‘form’ name in this paper. WASDA provides conceptual and process design recommendations
for secondary and advanced wastewater treatments as proposed by best practices manuals or public
authorities related to sewerage services or environmental control (Sairan and Ujang, 2004). WASDA
has an important role to support the selection of the right treatment system since the design process of
wastewater treatment plant is complex and has multiple approaches.
WASDA provides primary, secondary and advanced treatment modules. The primary treatment
modules consist of (a) equalization (b) coagulation and (c) neutralization unit operations. The
secondary treatment modules contain biological processes such as (a) biofilm systems (b) activated
sludge systems and (c) natural systems. WASDA provides multiple activated sludge options, i.e. (a)
conventional activated sludge (complete-mix flow) system (b) extended aeration system (c) oxidation
ditch system and (d) sequencing batch reactor.

Methods and materials

The development of WASDA for SBR module was divided into two parts, which are (a) the design
advisor forms (knowledge or information base) and (b) the computerized design worksheet written in
Visual Basic 6.0 and linked to MS Excel 2000. The design advisor or knowledge base forms, consist of
design considerations and parameters, process stages and flow chart, process description and general
calculation design. As for the computerized design worksheet, SBR is the only one of the first modules
that has computed calculation worksheet in WASDA package.
The rest of this paper focus on the architecture of SBR module and procedures to design the
reactor. The design calculation, as an example, was only for BOD removal, to determine the mass of
suspended solids in the reactor at the end of operating period and to identify the depth of clear liquid
measured from the top of the settled sludge to the lowest liquid level reached during the decant cycle.
The effluent targeted in this design was to have 20 mg/l of BOD5 or less.
Design Procedures
Step 1. The influent wastewater characterization data were obtained; effluent requirements and safety
factors were defined, as shown in Table 1. The BOD5 was assumed to be 0.68 times BODL while the
BODL of one mole of cells is equal to 1.42 times the concentration of cells. Wastewater was also
assumed to contain adequate nitrogen, phosphorus and other trace nutrients for biological growth.
The key design requirements for SBR plant was provided based on the Guidelines for
Developers, Sewage Treatment Plants by Sewerage Services Department, Ministry of Housing and

F.M. Sairan et al.

Local Government, Malaysia (1998).

Table 1 Wastewater characteristics, design criteria and constraints

Parameters Unit
Effluent BOD5 mg/l
Influent flowrate, Q Mgal/d
Influent suspended solids, SSin mg/l
Influent volatile suspended solids, VSSin mg/l
o
Wastewater temperature C
Influent BOD5 for each day mg/l
Hydraulic detention time, θ h
Food-to-microorganism ratio, F/M
MLVSS/MLSS
Kinetic coefficients: Biomass yield, Y lb/lb
Endogenous decay coefficient, kd d-1
Average concentration of settled sludge mg/l
Settled sludge specific gravity
Percent of the reactor volume which will be decanted each day %
Liquid depth of SBR ft
Sludge wasting per week
Biological solids in effluent mg/l
Percent of biodegradable in effluent %

Step 2. The concentration of soluble BOD5 in the effluent was estimated using the following
relationship (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991):
Effluent BOD5 = influent soluble BOD5 + effluent BOD5
….(1)
(escaping treatment ) (suspended solids )

Step 3. The mixed-liquor volatile and total suspended solids concentration and the mass of volatile
suspended solids in the reactor were computed using equations as stated below (Metcalf and Eddy,
1991):
(a) Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids, MLVSS concentration,
QSo
X (mg/ L) = ….(2)
V (F / M )
(b) Total SS concentration in the reactor,
VSS
SS T (mg/L) = Average inert influent SS + (3) ….(3)
0.8
(c) Mass of VSS in reactor (lb) = VX (8.34) ….(4)

(d) Total mass of SS in the reactor (lb) = V SST (8.34) ….(5)

Step 4. The volume occupied by the settled sludge at the end of seven days was estimated before
removing the waste sludge from the reactor. The method is shown in Figure 1.
(a) The value of Pxn based on VSS was computed for any day using the following expression
(Metcalf and Eddy, 1991):
Px n = Y ( S o − S )Q(8.34) − k d X n −1 ….(6)

F.M. Sairan et al.

For day n, obtain influent BOD5

Determine Pxn by equation in Step 4(a)

Calculate SSin = average inert influent SS(Q)8.34 n = n +1

Determine VSSTn = VSSn – 1 + Pxn

Evaluate SSTn by equation in Step 4(b)

Figure 1 Block diagram for the calculation mass of SS in the reactor at the end of operating days.

(b) The mass of SS in the reactor at the end of each day was determined as follows (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1991):
n =i
X n = X o + ∑ [( Px n ) / 0.8 + SS in ] ….(7)
n =1

Following the same suggestion from Metcalf and Eddy (1991), the total mass of VSS and SS in
the reactor at the end of each day was computed in spreadsheet and linked to MS Excel 2000.

Step 5. By using the average concentration of the settled sludge and the specific gravity, the volume
required for sludge storage was determined approximately as follows (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991):
SS T (at the end of operating day )
VS = ….(8)
Specific gravity × Settled sludge conc.

The required volume should be less than the available volume because in SBR the decant
volume is often limited to about 50 percent of the total volume.

Step 6. The depth of clear liquid above the top of the sludge layer was determined as shown below:

Clear liquid depth = total liquid depth after decanting - sludge depth (9)

The similar procedures have been performed using manual calculations and in a worksheet
(using Mathcad 11) to verify the design produced by WASDA.
Results and Discussion
The SBR module was programmed into frames or forms and objects. As shown in Figure 2, the main
form has selection menus, which provided essential knowledge about SBR process, design
requirements and process flow chart.
Figure 3 showed the design form, easily for users to key-in influent parameters, design criteria
and constraints in the input box. However, all default or typical values were already given to minimize

F.M. Sairan et al.

tendency of data entry errors. It also has button to access add-and-remove table for influent BOD5
values. The concentration of soluble BOD5 in the effluent, mixed-liquor volatile (MLVSS) and total
suspended solids (TSS) concentration, the mass of volatile suspended solids (VSS) and total mass of
SS in the reactor were automatically calculated after users clicked the ‘calculate’ button as shown in
Figure 4. Referring to Figure 5, Xn value was equal to the mass of SS in the reactor at the end of n day.
For calculating Pxn, the Xn-1 value was used. Metcalf and Eddy (1991) had suggested that to be more
precise, the value of X used in the above equation should be an average value for n day.

Figure 2 Main form of SBR module. Figure 3 Design form to key-in influent parameters.
 F.M. Sairan et al.
Figure 4 Computed form for soluble BOD5, MLVSS, Figure 5 Computed form for total mass of VSS and
SST and mass of VSS. SS at the end of each day.

However, the value of Pxn was over-estimated by a small amount when X value used at the
beginning of day n as shown in Figure 5. The volume occupied by the settled sludge at the end of
operating days before the waste sludge removed from the reactor was calculated in the table as shown
in Figure 6. Figure 7 showed the volume required for sludge storage and the depth of clear liquid above
the top of the sludge layer. If the required volume for sludge storage is less than the available volume,
the decant system can be acceptable. This is because the decant volume in SBRs is often limited around
50 percent of the total volume. At the lowest point in the decant cycle, the liquid level should be an
adequate distance above the top of the settled sludge to avoid the discharge of settled sludge (Metcalf
and Eddy, 1991).

Figure 6 Computed worksheet for mass of VSS Figure 7 Computed form for sludge storage volume
and SS values. and clear liquid depth.
 Finally, the result for SBR activated sludge design was summarized in the end result form as
shown in Figure 8. Based on example treatment system, it showed that this process had achieved 12.6
mg/l BOD5 of effluent in term of suspended solids. Furthermore the value of MLVSS concentration,
total SS concentration and the mass of VSS in the reactor was 1,497 mg/l, 1,921 mg/l and 20,850 lb
(9,458 kg), respectively. The total mass of SS in the reactor at the end of operating period (in this case
was seven days) showed 35,133 lb (15,810 kg). The volume for settled sludge was approximately

F.M. Sairan et al.

516,110 gal (1954 m3) and the depth of clear liquid above the top of the sludge layer was 2.02 ft (0.62
m).
If there is any doubtful result or users still not satisfy with the system, the calculation-process
could be performed back by clicking the ‘arrow’ button or the ‘home’ button (directly accessing to the
first design calculation form). In addition, the result output can be printed-out simply by clicking the
‘printer’ button. The result of the calculation using the Excel spreadsheet is shown in Figure 9. It shows
that the results are similar to the output of WASDA as shown in Figure 8.

End Results

Parameter Value Unit

BOD5 of effluent suspended solids 12.6 mg/L
Influent soluble BOD5 escaping treatment,S 7.4 mg/L
MLVSS concentration , X 1,497 mg/L
Total SS concentration in the reactor , SS t 1,921 mg/L
Mass of VSS in the reactor 20,850 mg/L
Total mass of SS in the reactor 26,755 mg/L
Total mass of SS in the reactor 35,133 lb
at the end of operating period, SS T
3
Approximate volume for settled sludge, Vs 516,110 ft
Clear liquid depth 2.02 ft

Figure 9 Result for SBR using worksheet in Mathcad11

Figure 8 Result form for SBR design.

Conclusion
In this paper, we present the architecture of WASDA decision support system for SBR module. It has
been shown to be an efficient tool to provide uniform information on SBR process design as verified
by program debugging, error analysis, data input and output analysis. Furthermore, it can assist users to
consider the SBR activated sludge system as one of the good alternatives to treat wastewater especially
for municipal wastewater. The design procedures for SBR system usually require careful and attention
to details. Nevertheless, by using WASDA users can optimize resources and time.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for partly financing this
study under Commercialization Fund (Vot 98255).
Nomenclature
BOD5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand for five days (mg/l).
BODL BOD remaining at time t = 0 (mg/l).
S Effluent BOD5 concentration (mg/l).
Pxn Net mass of solids produced in day n from the conversion of the organic matter in the wastewater (lb).
Xo Initial mass of SS after decanting (lb).

F.M. Sairan et al.

Xn-1 Mass of VSS in the SBR system at the beginning of day n (lb).

References
Al-Shididi, S., Henze, M., Ujang, Z. (2003). “Feasibility Study of Sequencing Batch Reactor System for Upgrading
Wastewater Treatment in Malaysia” Wat. Sci. Tech. 48(11-12) 327–344.
Al-Shididi, S., Henze, M., Ujang, Z. and Batstone, J. (2004). “Modelling of Sequencing Batch Reactors for Wastewater
Treatment in Malaysia Implementing ASM2 as a Model Structure and Using AQUASIM as Simulation Tool”
Environmental Biotechnology, Water and Environmental Management Series (ISBN 1843395037), IWA Publishing,
London.
Andreottola, G., Foladori, P. and Ragazzi, M. (2001). “On-line Control of a SBR System for Nitrogen Removal from
Industrail Wastewater” Wat. Sci. Tech. 43(3). 93–100.
Ahmed S.A, Tewfik S.R., Shadia Ragheb and Talaat H.A. (2002). “Development and verification of a decision support
system for the selection of optimum water reuse schemes” Desalination. 152. 339-352.
Basri H.B. and Stentiford E. I. (1995). “Expert Systems in Solid Waste Management” Waste Management and Research 13.
67 – 89.
Basri H.B. (2000). “An Expert System for Landfill Leachate Management” Environmental Technology. 21, 157-166.
Beynon, M., Rasmequan, S. and Russ, S. (2002). “A New Paradigm for Computer-Based Decision Support” Decision
Support Systems. 33. 127–142.
Coelho, M.A.Z., Russo, C. and Araujo, O. Q. F. (2000). “Optimization of a Sequencing Batch Reactor for Biological
Nitrogen Removal” Wat. Res. 34(10). 2809–2817.
Cortes, U., Sanchez-Marre, M., Ceccaroni, L., R-Roda, I. and Poch M. (2000). “Artificial Intelligence and Environmental
Decision Support Systems”. Applied Intelligence 13. 77–91.
Dagot, C., Pons, M.N., Casellas, M., Guibaud, G., Dollet, P. and Baudu M. (2001). “Use of Image Analysis and
Rheological Studies for the Control of Settleability of Filamentous Bacteria: Application in SBR reactor” Wat. Sci.
Tech. 43(3) 27–33.
Guidelines for Developers, Sewage Treatment Plants (1998). Second ed. Sewerage Services Department, Ministry of
Housing and Local Government, Malaysia.
Hall, M. (2002). “Decision-Support System” Computerworld (US). 2(11).
Lin, S.H. and Cheng, K.W. (2001). “A New Sequencing Batch Reactor for Treatment of Municipal
Sewage Wastewater for Agricultural Reuse” Desalination 133. 41-51.
Jayawardhana, L.C., Manipura A., Alwis A.D., Ranasinghe M., Pilapitiya S. and Abeygunawardena I. (2003).
“BESTCOMP: expert system for Sri Lankan solid waste composting” Expert Systems with Applications. 24. 281-286.
Metcalf and Eddy (1991). “Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal and Reuse”. Third Edition, Mc Graw Hill, New
York.
Metcalf and Eddy (2003). “Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse”. Fourth Edition, Mc Graw Hill, New York.
Sairan F.M and Ujang Z. (2004) “Wastewater treatment plant design advisor using WASDA” Environmental
Biotechnology, Water and Environmental Management Series, IWA Publishing, London. ISBN 1843395037(In press).
Shim, J. P., Warkentin, M., Courtney, J. F., Power, D. J., Sharda R and Carlsson, C. (2002) “Past, Present and Future of
Decision Support Technology”Decision Support Systems. 33. 111–126.
Tasli, R., Orhon, D. and Artan, N. (1999). “The Effect of Substrate Composition on the Nutrient Removal Potential of
Sequencing Batch Reactors.” Water SA 25(3). 337–344.