Of: Performance of Activated Sludge Processes and Reliability-Based Design

Author(s): Raymond J. Avendt

Source: Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), Vol. 53, No. 11 (Nov., 1981), pp. 1658-1659
Published by: Water Environment Federation
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25041176
Accessed: 30-01-2016 15:07 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Water Environment Federation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal (Water
Pollution Control Federation).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:07:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Discussion

Of: Performance of activated sludge It was the intent of this work to determine if present

processes and reliability-based design regulatory design and operational guidelines actually
affect performance or reliability. It has long been ar
S. Niku, E. D. Schroeder, F. J. Samaniego
Jour. Water Poll. Control gued by researchers and designers that the mandated
Fed., 51, 2841 (1979).
design criteria are too general and conservative for uni
J. Avendt versal application. Using this macroscopic method of
By Raymond
design/performance analysis, various wastewater treat
ment processes were evaluated. Significant in
changes
performance and reliability were noted in response to
different design or operating parameters.
Niku et al. reported on a proposed probability model
A summary of the design/performance analyses for
for predicting achievable activated sludge plant effluent
conventional wastewater and sludge treatment pro
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended sol cesses is presented in Table 1.
ids (SS) concentrations based on statistical analysis of
Although the design and operational parameters that
an extensive base of plant operating data. This proba
were able to be analyzed may be considered rudimen
bility method of analyzing treatment plant performance
tary, the results indicate that in many instances there
provides a theoretical basis for reliability analysis. The is no discernible or
relationship affecting performance
determination and analysis of the lognormal distribu
reliability.
tion of performance data was an extension of Dean and
The results of the design/performance analysis re
Forsythe,1 Wheatland,2 and Berthouex.35
quire prudent interpretation. The analyses of conven
It is the purpose of this discussion to present the re
tional and sludge treatment unit processes were con
sults of a similar analysis of treatment plant operating
ducted using design and operational data from
data to determine the effects of design and operating
wastewater treatment plants operating in statistical
parameters on the performance and reliability of var
control. This assumes that the variations in performance
ious treatment unit processes. Monthly operations rec
are the result of consistent causes, including the design
ords for a 2-year period were analyzed for 17 major and operational parameters. The normal random un
treatment facilities found to have adequate perfor controllable variations in performance are not signifi
mance, operational, and design data. The methods of cant enough to cause a facility to be out of statistical
statistical analysis included the SPSS package and K
control.
S 5% goodness-of-fit test used by Niku et al When the
The results must also be considered relevant to the
wastewater characteristics and BOD and SS removal
range of data base values. This must be considered be
performance data fit a lognormal distribution, it was cause the regulatory standards are intended to be con
assumed that the facility was in statistical control. The servative. Since the facilities contributing data to the
variations in performance were the result of consistent
data base were designed in conformance with regulatory
causes and the performance was in response to design
standards, the data may not represent levels that are
or operational parameters. critical to performance or reliability.
The lognormal frequency distribution plot was se Care was taken in establishing subsets of design or
lected to analyze the relationships between design, op
operational parameters for analysis not to isolate in
eration, and performance. This method allowed evalu
dividual treatment facilities. This would tend to bias
ation of performance on a probability basis with the
the data and limit its application. Extrapolation of the
geometric mean value approximated at the 50% prob
results beyond the range or subsets of data is not valid.
ability (or median) level. The spread factor, which is
The performance levels and reliability indicated on the
the antilog of the standard deviation of the logarithms are to
lognormal distribution plots be considered rep
of the original data in the frequency distribution plot, for other
resentative of the data base and only relative
was selected to analyze reliability. Since the spread fac
facilities.
tor represents the slope of the lognormal probability
plot, the performance and reliability can be determined Raymond J. Avendt is with PRC Consoer Townsend,
from the same graphical treatment. Inc., Chicago, III.

1658 Journal WPCF, Volume 53, Number 11

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:07:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Discussion

Table 1?Summary of design/performance analyses.

Design / performance Design

transfer function parameter range Effect on Effect on
Process evaluated analyzed performance reliability

Primary sedi SS removal versus over 750-1 200 gal/ Direct relationship Not apparent
mentation flow rate sq ft/day
Primary sedi SS removal versus depth 8-13 ft Not apparent Direct relationship
mentation

Primary sedi Underflow solids con 1-6 hours <3 hours not apparent
mentation centration versus de 3-6 hours in
tention time verse relation
ship
Activated sludge BOD removal versus F:M 0.2-0.6 Not apparent Not apparent
Activated sludge BOD removal versus hy 2-6 hours Not apparent Not apparent
draulic detection time
Activated sludge BOD removal versus volu 10-50 lb BOD5/ Not apparent Not apparent
metric loading 1000 cu ft/day
Activated sludge BOD removal versus 10-50 Direct relationship Direct relationship
sludge age safety fac <40
tor
Activated sludge SS removal versus 10-50 Direct relationship Not apparent
sludge age safety fac
tor
Activated sludge SS removal versus over 400-1 000 gal/ Not apparent Not apparent
?final clarifier flow rate sq ft/day
Activated sludge SS removal versus solids 20-35 psf/day Not apparent Direct relationship
?final clarifier loading
Trickling filters BOD removal versus or 20-60 lb/1000 Not apparent Not apparent
ganic loading cu ft/day
Trickling filters BOD removal versus hy 3-11 mgd/acre Not apparent Inverse relationship
draulic loading
Trickling filter SS removal versus over 400-1 400 gal/ Not apparent Not apparent
?final clarifier flow rate cuft/day
Trickling filter SS removal versus clari 6.75-20.5 ft Direct relationship Direct relationship
?final clarifier fier depth
Flotation thick Thickened sludge per 5-20 psf/day relatively con Not apparent
ening cent solids versus sol stant
ids loading
Flotation thick Thickened sludge per 0.1-1.0 gal/min/ Not apparent Relatively constant
ening cent solids versus hy sq ft
draulic loading
Anaerobic Percent volatile solids 20-50 days Direct relationship Direct relationship
digestion destroyed versus SRT
Anaerobic Percent volatile de 0.03-0.3 lb VSS/ Not apparent Not apparent
digestion stroyed versus or cu ft/day
ganic loading
Anaerobic Digest sludge concentra 10-50 days Relatively con Relatively constant
digestion tion versus separation stant
tank detention time
Vacuum filtration Percent dry solids ver 2.5-8.5% Direct relationship Not apparent, rela
sus feed solids con tively constant
centration
Nitrification acti NH3 removal versus 0.5-3.0 Direct relationship <1.0 direct relationship
vated sludge sludge age safety fac > 1.0 relatively
tor constant

Future Standards." Jour. Environ. Div. Amer. Soc.

REFERENCES Eng,
of Civil Engr., 100 (EE2), 423 (1974).
1. Dean, R. and S. L., the Reli 4. Berthouex, P. M., and Brown, L. C, "Monte Carlo Sim
B., Forsythe, "Estimating
of Advanced Waste Treatment." Water & Sew. ulation of Industrial Waste Discharges." Jour. San. Eng.,
ability
Works, 87 and 57 (two parts), (June and July, 1976). Div. Proc. Amer Soc. Civil Engr., 95, 887 (1969).
2. Wheatland, A. B., "Statistical Expression of Effluent 5. Berthouex, P. M., and Polkowski, L. B., "Optimal Waste

Quality Data." Water Res. (G. B.), 6, 339. Treatment Plant Design Under Uncertainty." Jour. Water
3. Berthouex, P. M., "Some Historical Statistics Related to Poll. Control Fed., 42, 1589 (1970).

November 1981 1659

This content downloaded from 192.236.36.29 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 15:07:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions