WEFTEC®.

06

PROCESS ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS ASSISTED WITH BIOWIN

MODELING

Li Lei*, Andre Gharagozian, Brent Start, Glen Roth, Rob Emmett

Damon S. Williams Associates, LLC

2355 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 700
Phoenix, AZ, 85016
ABSTRACT

Permitted at 6.4 mgd on an annual average day basis, the City of Avondale Wastewater
Treatment Plant currently employs Nitrification/Denitrification process to produce effluent with
maximum total nitrogen of 10 mg/L. The process consists of Aeration Basins followed by
Secondary Clarifiers to treat the screened influent after the grit removal. On the solids handling
side, the Wasted Activated Sludge is thickened with Dissolved Air Flotation, aerobically
digested, and dewatered with centrifuges. As a result of the rapid growth and the City’s desire to
utilize reclaimed water as a renewable water supply, the City selected Damon S. Williams
Associates, L.L.C. (DSWA) to prepare a master plan for the expansion of their wastewater
treatment and reclaimed water facilities to 15 mgd on an average daily maximum month
(ADMM) basis. The effluent will need to meet more strict turbidity requirements, for which
tertiary filtration will be added. Meanwhile, a noticeable increase in influent strength compared
with original ADMM design values had been observed in the years 2000 to 2004, namely 35%,
32%, and 44% increases to influent BOD, TSS, and TKN concentrations, respectively. This
makes redefining the wastewater characteristics inherent to the master planning.

During the master planning, various liquid stream process alternatives. The components
involved in the expansion include the addition of influent Equalization Basins and Primary
Clarifiers, expansion of Aeration Basins and Secondary Clarifiers, and converting the existing
conventional activated sludge process to membrane bioreactors. Anaerobic digestion was
selected as the future solids stabilization process for being most economical for the plant’s
buildout capacity. Both the liquid and solids processes were modeled using BioWin version
1.2.1, a commonly used process simulator in the consulting industry. Steady state and dynamic
modeling was conducted for each alternative. The modeling results were used to size the
secondary treatment units, and thus provide a basis for cost comparisons and the selection of
liquid stream process to be used in the expansion.

Plant historical records on the combined influent, which includes dewatering centrate, were
evaluated to project the buildout loadings, concentrations, and peaking factors of the combined
influent at various design conditions. Two weeks of intensive sampling were conducted to obtain
supplemental influent characteristics as well as plant operating and performance data, averages
of which were used to calibrate the Biowin model. The raw influent strength was determined by
subtracting the loadings contributed by dewatering centrate, which was predicted by the
calibrated Biowin models, from the projected combined influent loading.

Based on sizes required by achieve satisfactory model predictions of operating conditions and
treatment performance, Alternative 4, which adds new influent Equalization Basins and Primary

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3274
 WEFTEC®.06

Clarifiers, would be the most cost effective expansion option. Influent equalization minimizes
the size of the tertiary filters, chlorine contact tanks, and the effluent pump station and associated
equipments, which are primarily sized for hydraulic peaks. Primary clarification reduces the
organic loadings to Aeration Basins and thus the required expansion of aeration basins and
aeration system. Meanwhile, feeding combined primary and secondary sludge to anaerobic
digesters would improve the feasibility of the process and maximize the energy that could be
recovered.

KEYWORDS

Wastewater treatment, Biowin modeling, Nitrogen Removal

INTRODUCTION

With a population of approximately 55,000, the City of Avondale is one of the fastest growing
communities in the Phoenix metropolitan area. As a result of the rapid growth and the City’s
desire to utilize reclaimed water as a renewable water supply, the City selected Damon S.
Williams Associates, L.L.C. (DSWA) to prepare a master plan for their wastewater treatment
and reclaimed water facilities. The treatment plant is currently allowed for an annual average
daily (AAD) domestic wastewater flow of 6.4 mgd per the draft Arizona Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit (AZPDES), which was issued in February 2004. However, 35%,
32%, and 44% increases in average daily maximum month (ADMM) influent BOD, TSS, and
TKN concentrations have been observed in years 2000 to 2004, compared to original design
values. This reduces the rated capacity of the plant decreases to 4.5 mgd on ADMM basis. At the
end of the planning period in year 2030, the population is projected to grow to 161,400, requiring
plant’s capacity to increase to 15 mgd ADMM flow.

Currently the liquid stream process of the plant employs Nitrification/Denitrification, which
consists of Aeration Basins (ABs) followed by Secondary Clarifiers (SCs) to treat the screened
influent after the grit removal. On the solids handling side, the Wasted Activated Sludge (WAS)
is thickened with Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF), aerobically digested, and dewatered with
centrifuges. The treatment goals of the expansion is to produce effluent that meets Class A+
standards and has maximum reuse potentials, as defined in the Arizona Administrative Code
R18-11-303 and applicable BADCT requirements. Major effluent quality requirements include
the limits of 10 mg/L total nitrogen (TN) and an average daily turbidity of 2 NTU, which will be
achieved by adding tertiary filters. The plant also decided to change from aerobic digestion, the
existing sludge stabilization technique, to anaerobic digestion. The latter has shown to be more
economical at the plant’s buildout size, using significantly less energy compared to the aeration
demand of the aerobic digesters and producing methane gas which can be converted to energy.

During the master planning, various liquid stream process alternatives to meet the capacity
expansion and effluent quality improvement goals were evaluated. The components involved in
the expansion include the addition of influent Equalization Basins (EQ basins) and Primary
Clarifiers (PCs), expansion of Aeration Basins (ABs) and Secondary Clarifiers (SCs), and
converting the existing conventional Activated Sludge (AS) process to Membrane Bioreactors
(MBRs). Both the liquid and solids processes were modeled using BioWin version 1.2.1, one of

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3275
 WEFTEC®.06

the AS process simulator commonly used in the consulting industry. The model is based on the
industry standard for AS modeling, IWA (International Water Association) series of Activated
Sludge Models (ASMs). The modeling results were used to size the secondary treatment for
various alternatives, and thus provide bases for cost comparisons and the selection of liquid
stream process to be used in the expansion.

This paper presents the model calibration and simulation results of various process alternatives.

METHODOLOGY

Influent Loads and Characterization

Both the plant historical records and data obtained from a supplemental sampling program were
analyzed to determine influent loads, COD and nitrogen fractions, and diurnal influent patterns.
Historical plant records from 2000 to 2004 on BOD5 and TSS of the combined plant influent,
which includes the centrate from dewatering centrifuges, were evaluated. A two week intensive
sampling program was conducted to further define raw plant influent loads and characteristics,
and establish influent diurnal patterns to be used in dynamic modeling.

Historical data during the 4-year period has shown an increasing trend in BOD5 concentration of
the combined plant influent, but a relatively steady TSS concentration. Therefore, average BOD5
concentration of the latest year, April 1 2003 to March 31 2004, was used for developing the
AAD BOD5 loadings of the combined influent, while the average of the 4-year period TSS data
was used for AAD TSS loading. Peaking factors under ADMM, Maximum Daily (MD), and
Peak Hour (PH) conditions were determined based on the long-term historical data and
frequency analysis on them, together with diurnal patterns obtained during intensive sampling,
with considerations of typical peaking factors presented in the WEF Manual of Practice No. 8
(1998). The peaking factors used in the master planning are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 - Master Planning Peaking Factors

ADMM:AAD MD: AAD PH: AAD
Flow 1.15 1.40 2.14
BOD5 Loading 1.40 2.00 3.44
TSS Loading 1.50 2.00 4.00
TKN Loading 1.40 2.00 3.44

The design concentrations of various constituents at different design conditions were developed
by dividing the product of the AAD loading and the loading peaking factor by the corresponding
flow peaking factor.

The raw influent strength was determined by subtracting the loadings contributed by dewatering
centrate, which was predicted by the calibrated Biowin models, from the projected combined
influent loading.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3276
 WEFTEC®.06

Process Modeling Scenarios

The following scenarios were modeled:

• Model calibration: Calibrate the model to intensive plant sampling results. The
calibration was validated by matching steady state simulation predictions with averages
of sampling results over the entire sampling period.
• Steady state and dynamic simulations of various liquid process alternatives for expansion.
Steady state simulations at ADMM loadings were conducted to determine long-term
process performance parameters, which are typically used in design and regulatory
reporting. Dynamic simulations under diurnally varying MD loadings for two
consecutive days were used to evaluate the process performance responses, particularly
for aeration system and secondary clarifiers, under peak loadings.
o Alternative 1: baseline alternative that expands the existing process by
constructing new preliminary treatment facilities, additional aeration basins and
secondary clarifiers, new tertiary filtration, and additional disinfection and
effluent pumping capacity.
o Alternative 2: similar to Alternative 1, but includes the addition of new EQ Basins
to dampen the diurnal flows in order to reduce the size and cost of downstream
unit processes.
o Alternative 3: similar to Alternative 1, but includes the addition of new PCs to
reduce the waste loading on the ABs and SCs in order to reduce the size and cost
of these units.
o Alternative 4: similar to Alternative 1, but includes the addition of both new EQ
Basins and PCs to reduce the waste and hydraulic loading on the secondary
process and downstream units in order to reduce their size and cost.
o Alternative 5: convert the existing process into a MBR process. Due to the
excellent solids/liquid separation characteristics of the membranes, MBRs do not
require SCs or Filters. However, a microscreen will be added to Headworks,
because membranes require finer screens than the mechanical screens proposed
for Alternatives 1 to 4 in order to remove the hair and other fine materials
contained in raw wastewater.
For all alternatives, anaerobic digestion is used as the solids stabilization process. Wherever EQ
Basins are involved, they are sized to trim down the peak hourly flow during the peak day to
maximum daily average flow.

Model Calibration

The purpose of the calibration is to confirm the existing data for consistency, establish details of
wastewater characteristics, and confirm biological growth and decay parameters. Items that
warrant closer inspection were identified and iteratively adjusted until the modeling predictions
reasonably matched the measured data.

Figure 1 shows the existing plant treatment configuration used for model calibration.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3277
 WEFTEC®.06

Figure 1 - Schematic for Model Calibration

Influent Vortex
Anoxic1 Anoxic2 Anoxic3 Oxic1A Oxic1B Oxic2 Swing1 Swing2

Effluent

IMLR

Grit

SludgeHold

Dewatered Sludge

Main components of the process schematic include a grit removal process, 3 anoxic zones, 3
aerobic zones, and 2 swing zones, which were operated as anoxic to match the plant’s current
operation. WAS is removed from the return activated sludge (RAS) stream and sent to a
thickener. Thickened sludge is sent to the aerobic digester. Digested sludge is further dewatered
prior to disposal. Dewatering centrate is sent to the head of the plant, and thickener underflow is
sent downstream of the first aerobic zone.

The secondary clarifier is modeled using a one-dimensional flux model with 5 layers. This
approach allows observation of variations in effluent suspended solids content and storage of
solids in dynamic simulations. Underflow, or RAS rates and WAS rates were set at a constant
rate to simplify numerical convergence.

Model results for oxygen uptake rates (OUR) were used to calculate air requirements for the
aeration basins and aerobic digester. Air requirement calculations are sensitive to the alpha
value, an empirical constant used to convert oxygen transfer rates in clean water to wastewater.
Alpha was developed during the model calibration step, when actual air requirements and
operating DO concentrations were monitored. The number of diffusers was set according to
actual installations, as oxygen transfer efficiency varies as a function of air flows per diffuser.
Air demands for the aerobic digester were based on operating in a mixing limited condition.

It should be noted that the influent concentrations used in the model reflect the actual influent
concentrations, not the combined influent concentrations, which include the impact of the
centrate loads. The model calculates centrate loads and the subsequent combined influent loading
on the secondary process. Since loading projections developed in this report are based on
combined values, the actual influent concentrations were estimated by subtracting centrate loads
as calculated by the model. Influent concentrations are adjusted so that centrate loadings are not
counted twice since centrate loadings on the secondary process are already accounted for in the
model calculations. Centrate loads estimated based on simulation results are listed in Table 2 .

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3278
 WEFTEC®.06

Table 2 - Centrate Loading

Parameter BOD5 COD TSS TKN TP
Percentage of Combined
12.5 9.0 1.9 5.0 10.7
Influent Loading

The raw wastewater flow and strength, which was estimated from the projected combined
influent loadings and the modeled centrate loadings, are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 - Raw Wastewater Characteristics

ADMM Maximum Day Peak
Flow, mgd 15 18.3 27.9
COD, mg/l 742 830 1218
BOD5, mg/l 376 441 497
TSS, mg/l 434 476 623
TKN, mg/l-N 62 73 82
Phosphorus, mg/l-P 11.6 13.7 15.3

Models of Various Expansion Alternatives

Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the flow schematic for Alternatives 4 and 5, respectively. Schematics
of Alternatives 1 through 3 are similar to that of Alternative 4 with exceptions in the
configurations of EQ basins and PCs.

Figure 2 - Schematic of Alternative 4

EqTank
Influent Vortex
Anoxic1 Anoxic2 Anoxic3 Oxic1A/1B Oxic2 Oxic 3 Oxic4 Model clarifiers Effluent

Primary Settler

Thickener
Anaerobic Digester

Grit

Centrifuge

DwtrdSludge

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3279
 WEFTEC®.06

Figure 3 - Schematic of Alternative 5

EqTank
Influent Vortex
Anoxic1 Anoxic2 Anoxic3 Oxic1A/1B Oxic 2/3/4 MBR Tank Effluent

Primary Settler

Thickener
Anaerobic Digester

Grit

Centrifuge

DwtrdSludge

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Process Operating and Performance Limits

A set of limits, such as surface overflow rate and solids loading rate of clarifiers, volumetric
BOD5 loading rate and oxygen uptake rate (OUR) of aeration basins, and effluent TN, were
established to gauge acceptable plant operation and performance and, thus, the adequacy of
process unit sizing used in expansion. The limits were established based on literature values,
intended plant operations, and design experience, and are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 - Process Operating and Performance Limits

Parameter Value Source
Primary Clarifiers
Surface Overflow Rate, gpd/sf
Average 1,200 (1)
Peak 2,500 (1)
Aeration Basins
BOD5 Loading, lb BOD5/day/1,000 cu. ft Aerobic Volume 40 (1)
MLSS, mg/L
for Conventional Activated Sludge Process 3,500 (2)
for MBR 8,000
Minimum Aerobic Sludge Retention Time (SRT), days
Winter 6 (3)
Summer 5 (3)
Oxygen Utilization Rate (OUR) for Conventional Process, mg/l/hr 80 (4)
Secondary Clarifiers
Surface Overflow Rate, gpd/sf
Average 700 (1)
Peak 1,230 (5)
Solids Loading Rate, ppd/sf
Average 28.8 (1)
Peak 38.8 (1)

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3280
 WEFTEC®.06

Parameter Value Source

Filter Effluent
Maximum BOD5, mg/L 10 (2)
Maximum TSS, mg/L 10 (2)
Total N, mg/L
Alert Level 8 (6)
Maximum Level 10 (6)
(1) Metcalf & Eddy, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse (2003)
(2) Based on intended operation.
(3) Based on EPA’s Nitrogen Control Manual (1993) and plant operation.
(4) DSWA Experience
(5) WEF Manual of Practice No. 8 (1998)
(6) Class A+ effluent standards per Arizona Administrative Code R18-11-303

The minimum operating aerobic SRT recommended to achieve a complete nitrification is

estimated using the following equation, which is based on equations (3-14), (3-10), and (3-13) of
EPA’s Nitrogen Control Manual (1993), with considerations of TKN loading peaking factor,
SRTaerobic= (PF)/ {0.47*e 0.098*(T-15)*[N/(KN+N)]}
where T = Temperature, 19oC in winter and 32oC in summer,
N = NH4+-N concentration in secondary effluent, assumed 1 mg/L,
KN = half - saturation coefficient for Nitrosomonas, assumed 1 mg/L,
PF = peaking factor, 2.0, which equals MD to AAD TKN loading peaking factor

The above equation assumes that the endogenous decay coefficient for nitrifiers is negligible. As
a result, the aerobic SRT is calculated to be 5.8 days in winter and 1.6 days in summer. Winter
minimum aerobic SRT of 6 days was selected based on plant observations that at an aerobic SRT
of about 6 days a high level of nitrogen removal was able to be maintained in winter month,
while at aerobic SRT of 5 days or less nitrogen breakthrough tended to occur and nitrification
became unreliable. The selected summer minimum aerobic SRT of 5 days is based on
observations from many full-scale wastewater treatment facilities in the metropolitan area. This
SRT is much longer than the calculated value in order to cover sub-optimal operating conditions
such as an uneven flow split between multiple aeration basins.

Model Calibration

BioWin32 uses COD for characterization of carbonaceous material in the wastewater. It divides
COD into various fractions that feature different biological and physical behaviors, including
readily biodegradable COD, slowly biodegradable particulate COD, non-biodegradable COD
(soluble and inert), and COD associated with cellular mass, etc. Other characteristics, such as
BOD5, TSS and VSS, are calculated based on these fractions and modeled biological activity.
The fractioning of nitrogenous material is in terms of TKN and not as detailed as for COD.
Division of influent TKN into ammonia and biodegradable and unbiodegradable organically
bound nitrogen is found adequate for model nutrient removal. Given sufficient information
regarding a particular wastewater, BioWin32 default fractions may be calibrated to represent the
actual wastewater characteristics.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3281
 WEFTEC®.06

The calibration run and wastewater fractions were performed based on the 2-week intensive
sampling results, which were found to be consistent with the long-term historical records. Table
5 compares the calibrated wastewater COD and TKN fractions with Biowin 32 defaults as well
as values observed for typical municipal wastewater (Melcer et al., 2003). Parameters not listed
were left at default values.
Table 5 - Calibrated Wastewater Characteristics Fractions
Range for
BioWin32
Typical Calibrated Calibration
Parameter v. 1.2.1
Municipal Value Approach/Source
Defaults
Wastewater
Fraction of Total Influent 0.05 0.04-0.16 0.025 = Soluble effluent
COD COD
Which Is Soluble
Unbiodegradable (Fus)
Fraction of Total Influent 0.20 0.05-0.25 0.125 = Fraction of
COD flocculated and
Which Is Readily filtered influent
Biodegradable (Fbs) COD - Fus
Fraction of Total Influent 0.13 0.07-0.22 0.14 Iterate to match
COD VSS production
Which Is Particulate
Unbiodegradable (Fup)
Fraction of Slowly 0.75 0.40-0.80 0.80 Iterate to match
Biodegradable Influent COD measured COD and
Which Is Particulate (Fxsp) BOD5
Iterate to match
TSS production
Inert Suspended Solids (ISS),
15 25 - 45 70 (ISSAeration Basin =
mg/L
ISSinfluent *
SRT/HRT)
Fraction of Total TKN Which 0.75 0.50-0.75 0.783 = Influent
Is Ammonia Ammonia/ TKN
= soluble effluent
Soluble Unbiodegradable
0.00 0.00 – 0.07 0.0085 TKN – effluent
TKN Fraction (Fnus)
ammonia
Autotrophic Growth Rate Melcer et al., 2003
0.50 0.90 0.90
(μMax)
Autotrophic Decay Rate, Ba 0.04 0.17 0.17 Melcer et al., 2003

The particulate unbiodegradable fraction (Fup) was calibrated to match the VSS production
inside the aeration basins. It has been reported by Melcer et al. (2003) that VSS production and
air demand in aeration basins are very sensitive to Fup. The validity of Fup is confirmed by a
good match of the mixed liquor VSS and the air demand in aeration basins between modeling
predictions and plant sampling results, as shown in Table 6. As Fup increases, VSS
concentration in the aeration basins increases while the air demand decreases.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3282
 WEFTEC®.06

The slowly biodegradable particulate COD fraction (Fxsp) was adjusted in iteration to match the
measured influent COD, BOD5, and VSS. Fxsp and Fup turned out to be close to Biowin32
default values.

The calculated influent ISS fraction produces a good match between the aeration basin mixed
liquor VSS and TSS predicted by the modeling and measured by the plant.

The nitrification rate is determined by nitrifiers’ growth and decay rates. Configurations for these
parameters were based on studies reported by Melcer et al. (2003). The maximum specific
growth rate of 0.9 is used with a corresponding nitrifier decay rate of 0.17 d-1 and temperature
dependency coefficient of 1.029. It has been found that these values produce modeling results
that are consistent with observations from many full-scale plants located in the Metropolitan
Phoenix area.

Table 6 compares the predictions by the calibrated model and the actual 2-week plant sampling
results.
Table 6 - Comparison between Model Calibration Results and Plant Sampling Results

Parameter Calibration Run Plant Sampling Results

Combined Influent Flow (including
centrate), mgd 4.0 4.0
Combined Influent COD, mg/L 718 727
Combined Influent cBOD5, mg/L 357 336*
Combined Influent TSS, mg/L 330 361
Combined Influent TKN, mg/L 55 55
Temperature, deg C 27 27
Aerobic Volume, mgal 1.99 1.99
Anoxic Volume, mgal 1.31 1.31
Anoxic HRT, hrs 7.9 7.9
Oxic HRT, hrs 11.9 11.9
MCRT, aerobic 4.94 5 (estimated)
MCRT, anoxic 3.25
MCRT, total 8.18
MLVSS, mg/L 2,079 2,091
MLSS, mg/L 2,640 2,632
RAS TSS 7,844 6,801
WAS Production, ppd 8,877 9,000 (estimated)
MLSS Recycle Rate, mgd 9.5 9.5
Design Aerobic Zone DO, mg/L 0.5 0.3-0.5
DO/dt, mg/l/hr
Oxic 1A 42.3
Oxic 1B 36.2
Oxic 2 26.5
SOTR, pph
Oxic 1A 574

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3283
 WEFTEC®.06

Parameter Calibration Run Plant Sampling Results

Oxic 1B 491
Oxic 2 365
Air Requirement, scfm
Oxic 1A 1,617
Oxic 1B 1,392
Oxic 2 1,198
Total, scfm 4,207 4,250
Diffuser Loading, scfm/diffuser
Oxic 1A 1.13
Oxic 1B 1.21
Oxic 2 2.93
Secondary Clarifier OFR, gpd/sf 448 448
Secondary Clarifier OFR, gpd/sf (peak)
Secondary Clarifier SLR, ppd/sf 14.9 13.3
Secondary Clarifier SLR, ppd/sf (peak)
RAS Flow, mgd 2.00 2.0 (estimated)
WAS Flow, mgd 0.1357
Effluent NO3-, mg/L 2.36 1.36
Effluent TKN, mg/L 3.55
Effluent Ammonia, mg/L 1.32 2.90
Effluent Total N, mg/L 5.91
Effluent TSS 8.48 9.7
Effluent VSS 6.68
Effluent BOD5 2.97 3.0
Effluent COD 37.3 17
*: Equals to the measured cBOD5 divided by 0.85 to account for the inhibition of the
carbonaceous BOD by adding nitrification inhibitor.

Most of the model outputs are reasonably consistent with the measured values, including aeration
basin MLSS and MLVSS, air demands, and effluent BOD5 and TSS. It is believed that sludge
production is also well calibrated. However, sludge wasting data for this 2 week period was not
available for review. Operating data for preceding months show the wasting rate at
approximately 9,000 ppd, which is close to model predictions.

Models of Various Expansion Alternatives

Process units were sized in iterations until the satisfactory operation conditions and treatment
performance were predicted by both steady state and dynamic modeling. Dynamic modeling
results at the winter MD conditions for Alternative 4 are presented as an example.

Figure 4 shows the equalized flows to the ABs. Any excessive flows above a present point will
bypass the PCs and overflow to the EQ Basins. The influent accumulated inside the EQ basins
will be pumped at approximately a constant flow rate to downstream ABs and combined with the

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3284
 WEFTEC®.06

primary effluent, resulting in a constant flow feeding the ABs. The EQ Basins are sized to
contain the accumulated influent without being flooded.
Figure 4 – Aeration Basin Influent Flows – Alternative 4

AB Influent
2 30
29
28
1.8 27
26
25
1.6 24
23
22
1.4 21
20
19
1.2 18
Stored MG

Flow, mgd
17
16
1 15
14
13
0.8 12
11
10
0.6 9
8
7
0.4 6
5
4
0.2 3
2
1
0
6/1/2004 6/1/2004 6/1/2004 6/1/2004 6/2/2004 6/2/2004 6/2/2004 6/2/2004

DATE

EqTank Flow Prim ary Settler Flow TotalABInfl EqTank Liquid volum e Vortex Flow

Figure 5 shows the OURs inside three aerobic zones. The OURs increase with the increase in
flows and loadings, but the maximum OURs do not exceed the set limit of 80 mg/L/h.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3285
 WEFTEC®.06

Figure 5 – OURs in Aerobic Zones – Alternative 4

OUR Rate in Aerobic Zones

80

75

70

65

60

55

50
mg/l/hr

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10
6/1/2004 6/1/2004 6/1/2004 6/1/2004 6/2/2004 6/2/2004 6/2/2004 6/2/2004
TIME

Oxic1A/1B Total oxygen uptake rate Oxic2 Total oxygen uptake rate Oxic4 Total oxygen uptake rate

Figure 6 shows diurnally varying ammonia-N, nitrate-N, TN, and the average TN in the effluent
during two consecutive maximum loading days. The maximum effluent ammonia-N, nitrate-N,
and TN are up to 1.5 mg/L, 9.1 mg/L, and 10.8 mg/L, respectively. However, the TN averaged
during the two maximum loading days is less than 8 mg/L, making the effluent quality
acceptable.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3286
 WEFTEC®.06

Figure 6 – Effluent Nitrogen Concentrations – Alternative 4

Effluent Nitrogen Concentrations

10

8
CONCENTRATION (mg/L)

6/1/2004 6/1/2004 6/1/2004 6/1/2004 6/2/2004 6/2/2004 6/2/2004 6/2/2004

TIME

Effluent Ammonia N Effluent Nitrate N Effluent Total N Average Total N

The dimensions of EQ basins, PCs, ABs, and SCs, with which satisfactory operating conditions
and treatment performance were predicted by the modeling, are presented in Table 7 for all
alternatives.

Table 7 - Process Unit Dimensions for Various Expansion Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5
Description Baseline Case, Similar to Similar to Similar to Convert to
Expand ABs Alternative 1, Alternative 1, Alternative 1, MBRs without
and SCs with addition with addition with addition expanding
of EQ Basins of PCs of EQ Basins ABs and SCs
and PCs
Equalization Tanks
Volume MG n/a 1.5 n/a 1.5 1.5
Primary Clarifiers
Surface Area sf n/a n/a 22,000 12,000 15,169
SWD ft n/a n/a 13 13 13
Aeration Basins
Depth ft 16 16 16 16 16

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3287
 WEFTEC®.06

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Anoxic 1 MG 0.53 0.53 0.3 0.4 0.174
Anoxic 2 MG 0.53 0.53 0.3 0.4 0.174
Anoxic 3 MG 0.53 0.53 0.3 0.4 0.674
Oxic 1A/1B MG 6.7 5.95 3.34 3.34 2.44
Oxic 2 MG 3.9 3.05 1 1 1.37
(Anoxic) (Anoxic)
Oxic 3 MG 3.5 3.05 2.34 2.75 n/a
(Anoxic) (Anoxic) (Anoxic) (Anoxic)
Oxic 4 MG 1.8 1.144 1.00 0.69 n/a
MBR Tank MG n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.45
Total MG 17.5 14.8 8.6 9.0 3.9
Secondary Clarifiers
Surface Area sf 25,400 25,400 25,000 22,400 n/a
Depth ft 16 16 16 16 n/a

The above units, along with downstream tertiary filters (if any), chlorine contact tanks, and the
effluent pump station, which are sized primarily according to hydraulic loadings, and the
equipments associated were used for cost evaluation of each alternative. Alternative 4 turned out
to be the most cost-effective liquid stream process. In addition, Alternative 4 has the following
advantages when considering factors such as plant operational and maintenance cost and the
solids handling process:
• The use of EQ basins results in less and smaller process units than would otherwise be
required to treat peak hour flows and loads.
• Energy consumption is minimized by using PCs to reduce the organic loading to ABs.
• Anaerobic digestion is more feasible for combined primary and secondary sludges,
leaving more options for Class A biosolids technologies, if Class A biosolids are desired.
Also, anaerobic digestion produces more methane, which can be sold or used to produce
electricity.
• The process is well understood by existing operations personnel.

Therefore, Alternative 4 is recommended as the liquid process to be adopted for future

expansion.

CONCLUSIONS

The study proved that Biowin can be an effective tool for compare different secondary treatment
options, provided a careful calibration based on plant records is performed.

Both steady state and dynamic simulations by the calibrated model indicate that the liquid stream
expansion Alternative 4, which adds new influent EQ Basins and PCs, would be the most cost
effective option to expand the plant to the required capacity while achieving higher effluent
standards. The presence of the EQ basins minimizes the capacity of the tertiary filters, chlorine
contact tanks, and the effluent pump station and associated equipments, which are primarily

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3288
 WEFTEC®.06

sized for hydraulic peaks. Addition of PCs reduces the organic loadings to the ABs and
consequently the required aeration basin expansion and aeration demand. Meanwhile, the
organic loadings in the primary sludge stream would improve the feasibility of anaerobic
digestion and maximize the energy to be recovered by the process.

REFERENCES

Melcer, H.; Tam P.; Dold P.; Stensel H.D.; Wilson A.W.; Sun P.T.; Bury S. (2003) Methods for
Wastewater Characterization in Activated Sludge Modeling. Water Environment Research
Foundation report 99-WWF-3.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993). Nitrogen Control Manual; EPA/625/R-93/010;

Washington, D.C.

Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers (1998). Design of
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants; WEF Manual of Practice No. 8; Alexandria, Virginia.
(ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 76; New York, NY).

Metcalf & Eddy (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill.
New York, NY.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

3289