1 General..........................................................................................................................................

3
2 Plant Details..................................................................................................................................3
3 Structural Assessment Process.......................................................................................................4
3.1 Visual Screening....................................................................................................................4
3.2 Rebound Hammer Test..........................................................................................................4
3.3 Assessment results for 70 MLD WTP....................................................................................5
3.3.1 CLARIFLOCCULATOR...............................................................................................5
3.3.2 Filter House...................................................................................................................6
3.3.3 Filter..............................................................................................................................7
3.3.4 Aerator...........................................................................................................................7
3.3.5 Primary Flocclator.........................................................................................................8
3.3.6 Chlorination...................................................................................................................8
3.3.7 Waste Water Lagoon......................................................................................................8
3.3.8 NCW Pump room..........................................................................................................9
3.3.9 Sunction Well Cum Pump Room...................................................................................9
3.3.10 Offtake Well................................................................................................................10
3.3.11 Sump............................................................................................................................10
3.3.12 Clear Water Pump House(OLD)..................................................................................11
3.3.13 Clear Water Pump House(NEW).................................................................................12
3.4 Assessment results for 40 MLD STP...................................................................................12
3.4.1 Primary treatment Unit.................................................................................................13
3.4.2 UASB...........................................................................................................................15
3.4.3 MBBR tank..................................................................................................................15
4 Proposed Plant Modifications......................................................................................................15
5 Recommendations.......................................................................................................................16
5.1 Retrofit Plan for 40 MLD....................................................................................................16
5.2 Retrofit Plan for 70 MLD....................................................................................................16
6 Appendix 2 Images during Assessment......................................................................................18
1 GENERAL
Structural assessment was carried out on multiple structures located in Agar Takli STP Complex.
Theassessment included the evaluation of the 70 MLD STP and the 40 MLD STP. The Assessments
included
1. Visual Screening of major structures
2. Rebound Hammer test on major structures
3. Ultrasound Pulse Velocity (UPV) test on Specific structures
The structural assessment was performed to assess the current Structural health and evaluate retrofit
measures which might be used to render them effective and enhance their life time. The level of
corrosion of the concrete and steel, Structural deformations, cracks, spalling, construction faults and
other defects were identified in the process and the rectification measures are provided in the
conclusion.

2 PLANT DETAILS

The Surapet Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is a vital infrastructure component within the urban
landscape of Surapet, contributing significantly to the provision of clean and safe drinking water for
the local populace. Situated strategically to cater to the water needs of the region, the WTP employs a
sophisticated array of processes to ensure that the water supplied to households and businesses meets
stringent quality standards.

The plant's primary function is to treat raw water sourced from nearby rivers, reservoirs, or
groundwater aquifers. This untreated water often contains impurities such as sediments, bacteria,
viruses, dissolved minerals, and organic matter. The Surapet WTP employs a multi-step treatment
process to purify the water, making it suitable for consumption and domestic use.

The treatment process typically involves several stages:

1. Coagulation and Flocculation: Chemical coagulants are added to the raw water to
destabilize suspended particles. Then, through gentle mixing, these destabilized particles
combine to form larger particles called flocs.
2. Sedimentation: The floc-laden water is allowed to settle in large basins. Due to the increased
size and weight of the flocs, they settle at the bottom, leaving clearer water at the top.
3. Filtration: The settled water undergoes a filtration process where it passes through layers of
sand, gravel, and sometimes activated carbon. These materials trap remaining particles,
bacteria, and impurities, ensuring the water becomes clearer and safer.
4. Disinfection: To eliminate any remaining bacteria, viruses, and pathogens, disinfectants like
chlorine or ozone are added to the water. This step is crucial to ensure the water remains safe
during its journey through distribution pipelines to consumers.
5. pH Adjustment and Fluoridation: Depending on the local conditions, the pH of the water
might be adjusted to prevent corrosion in distribution pipes. Additionally, fluoride might be
added to promote dental health.

The Surapet WTP is likely to utilize advanced automation and monitoring systems to ensure the
efficiency of these processes. Regular testing and quality checks are performed to adhere to national
and international water quality standards. Additionally, the plant is expected to have measures in
place to handle emergencies, maintain equipment, and manage waste generated during the treatment
process.
In a region where water scarcity and pollution can be concerns, the Surapet WTP plays a pivotal role
in safeguarding public health, supporting economic activities, and contributing to the overall well-
being of the community. Its advanced technology, rigorous processes, and dedication to clean water
access position it as an essential component of modern urban infrastructure.

3 STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS

The structural assessment of sewage treatment plant (STP) structures is an important process to ensure
the safety and integrity of the plant. It involves a comprehensive evaluation of the condition and
performance of the various structural components of the STP, including buildings, tanks, pipelines,
and other infrastructure. The assessment typically begins with a visual inspection of the structures to
identify any visible signs of damage or deterioration, such as cracks, corrosion, or deformations. This
is followed by more detailed investigations, which may include non-destructive testing (NDT)
techniques such as ultrasonic testing, and Rebound hammer test.
The data gathered from the inspections is then analyzed to assess the structural integrity of the STP
structures and to identify any potential issues that may need to be addressed. Based on the results of
the assessment, recommendations can be made for any necessary repairs or maintenance to ensure the
continued safe and reliable operation of the STP.

3.1 VISUAL SCREENING

Visual screening of structures is an essential process that involves visually inspecting structures to
identify any signs of damage, deterioration, or potential hazards. This process is vital in maintaining
the safety and integrity of structures, such as bridges, buildings, and other infrastructure.
Visual screening typically involves a detailed examination of the exterior and interior of the structure.
We look for signs of cracks, corrosion, discoloration, or any other indicators of structural damage. In
addition, we check for proper functioning other mechanical systems, as well as evaluate the overall
cleanliness and maintenance of the structure.
Visual screening is an effective and efficient way to detect potential problems and address them
before they become more serious. It is also cost-effective, as it is generally less expensive than more
complex inspection techniques, such as x-ray or ultrasonic testing..
visual screening of structures is an essential part of maintaining the safety and integrity of
infrastructure. While it has its limitations, it is a valuable tool for detecting potential problems and
preventing more serious issues from developing.

3.2 REBOUND HAMMER TEST

The rebound hammer test is a non-destructive testing method used to assess the compressive strength
of concrete structures. It involves the use of a specialized tool, called a rebound hammer, to measure
the rebound of a steel hammer mass from the surface of the concrete. The test provides a quick and
easy way to evaluate the strength of concrete, as well as the uniformity and consistency of the
material.
The rebound hammer test works by measuring the velocity of the rebound of the hammer mass after it
impacts the surface of the concrete. The rebound velocity is then compared to a calibration curve to
determine the compressive strength of the concrete. The results of the test can be used to evaluate the
quality of the concrete and identify any areas of weakness that may require further investigation.
One of the primary advantages of the rebound hammer test is its non-destructive nature. Unlike other
testing methods, such as core sampling or compression testing, the rebound hammer test does not
require the removal of any material from the structure. This means that the test can be performed
quickly and easily, without causing any damage to the concrete.
However, it is important to note that the rebound hammer test has its limitations. The test is only
effective for assessing the compressive strength of concrete, and cannot provide information on other
properties, such as tensile strength or durability. Additionally, the test may not be effective for
evaluating the strength of certain types of concrete, such as lightweight or high-strength concrete.

Rebound Hammer Calibration Curve

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 1 Rebound hammer Calibration Curve

3.3 ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR 70 MLD WTP

Structural assessment of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) structures involves evaluating the structural
integrity of the various components of the plant, including buildings, tanks, and pipelines, to ensure
their safe and reliable operation. The following structures were subjected to assessment and the results
are presented below

3.3.1 CLARIFLOCCULATOR
The Clariflocculator units are supported by columns due to higher head requirements. The Structure
has very almost no corrosion. There are minor cracks in the grit chamber and the channels. However
these are not big and can be rectified using regular maintenance activities.
The structural assessment using rebound hammer indicate that the overall strength of the structure is
not deteriorated due to corrosion. the current strength is around 30~35 N/mm 2.
Corrosion level : High
Strength of Concrete : Low
Retrofit requirement : Major
 Figure 1 Clariflocculator

3.3.2 Filter House

Visual Inspection of the Filter House indicates that the structure has very low corrosion on the walls.
The structural assessment using rebound hammer indicates a strength of 30~35 N/mm 2 based on the
rebound hammer calibration and age of concrete. The current strength is in the range 30 N/mm 2.
Corrosion level : Low
Strength of Concrete : Good
Retrofit requirement : Minor

Figure 2 Filter House

3.3.3 Filter
Visual Inspection of the Filter Tank indicates that the structure has minor corrosion on the walls
indicated by minor leakages on the wall of Aearation tank. The structural assessment using rebound
hammer indicates a strength of 30~35 N/mm 2 based on the rebound hammer calibration and age of
concrete. The current strength is in the range 30~35 N/mm 2.
Corrosion level : Low to minor
Strength of Concrete : good
Retrofit requirement : Minor

Figure 3 Filter
3.3.4 Aerator
Visual Inspection of the Aerator indicates that the structure has minor corrosion on the walls indicated
by minor leakages on the wall of Aearation tank. The structural assessment using rebound hammer
indicates a strength of 30~35 N/mm 2 based on the rebound hammer calibration and age of concrete.
The current strength is in the range 30~35 N/mm2.
Corrosion level : Low to minor
Strength of Concrete : good
Retrofit requirement : Minor
 Figure 4 Aerator
3.3.5 NCW Pump room
Visual Inspection of the NCW Pump room indicates that the structure has minor corrosion on the
walls indicated by minor leakages on the wall of Aearation tank. The structural assessment using
rebound hammer indicates a strength of 30~35 N/mm 2 based on the rebound hammer calibration and
age of concrete. The current strength is in the range 30~35 N/mm 2.
Corrosion level : Low to minor
Strength of Concrete : good
Retrofit requirement : Minor

Figure 5 NCW Pump room

3.3.6 Sunction Well Cum Pump Room
Visual Inspection of the Sunction Well Cum Pump Room indicates that the structure has minor
corrosion on the walls indicated by minor leakages on the wall of Aearation tank. The structural
assessment using rebound hammer indicates a strength of 30~35 N/mm 2 based on the rebound
hammer calibration and age of concrete. The current strength is in the range 30~35 N/mm 2.
Corrosion level : Low to minor
Strength of Concrete : good
Retrofit requirement : Minor
 Figure 6 Sunction Well Cum Pump Room
3.3.7 Offtake Well
Visual Inspection of the Offtake Well indicates that the structure has minor corrosion on the walls
indicated by minor leakages on the wall of Aearation tank. The structural assessment using rebound
hammer indicates a strength of 30~35 N/mm 2 based on the rebound hammer calibration and age of
concrete. The current strength is in the range 30~35 N/mm 2.
Corrosion level : Low to minor
Strength of Concrete : good
Retrofit requirement : Minor

Figure 7 Offtake Well

3.3.8 Sump
Visual Inspection of the Sump indicates that the structure has minor corrosion on the walls indicated
by minor leakages on the wall of Aearation tank. The structural assessment using rebound hammer
indicates a strength of 30~35 N/mm 2 based on the rebound hammer calibration and age of concrete.
The current strength is in the range 30~35 N/mm2.
Corrosion level : High
Strength of Concrete : Bad
Retrofit requirement : Major

Figure 8 Sump

3.3.9 Clear Water Pump House(OLD)

Visual Inspection of the Clear Water Pump House(OLD) indicates that the structure has minor
corrosion on the walls indicated by minor leakages on the wall of Aearation tank. The structural
assessment using rebound hammer indicates a strength of 30~35 N/mm 2 based on the rebound
hammer calibration and age of concrete. The current strength is in the range 30~35 N/mm 2.
Corrosion level : Low to minor
Strength of Concrete : good
Retrofit requirement : Minor
 Figure 9 Clear Water Pump House(OLD)

3.4 ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR 40 MLD STP

The 40 MLD STP is at a lower level than the 70 mlD STP and is closer to the river. Hence the plant
suffers from frequent flooding. The new High flood level covers most of the structures and hence the
outside of the structures show visible deterioration and corrosion due to external water levels

Figure 10 Corrosion on walls of UASB

3.4.1 Primary treatment Unit

The Primary treatment units are supported by columns due to higher head requirements. The Structure
has spalling and cracks due to corrosion. There are minor cracks in the grit chamber and the channels.
However these are in the channel and can be rectified.
 Figure 11 Corrosion on channels of PTU

The structural assessment using rebound hammer indicate that the overall strength of the structure is
not deteriorated due to corrosion. The current strength of concrete is around 20~25 N/mm 2
Corrosion level : moderate
Strength of Concrete : moderate
Retrofit requirement : required
3.4.2 UASB
Visual Inspection of the UASB reactors indicates that the structure has moderate amount of
corrosion on the walls. The external walls have the aggregates visible due to corrosive effect of floods
on the location. The platforms show reinforcement protruding and the structure shows visible
leakages in some of the locations. The structural assessment using rebound hammer indicates a
strength of 20~28 N/mm2 based on the rebound hammer calibration and age of concrete. The current
strength is in the range 23 N/mm 2. The wide variance in strength indicates unequal corrosion due to
leakage in the concrete.
Corrosion level : Moderate
Strength of Concrete : moderate
Retrofit requirement : Required

3.4.3 MBBR tank

Visual Inspection of the MBBR Tank indicates that the structure has undergone corrosion corrosion
on the walls indicated by minor leakages and spalling on the wall of MBBR tank. The structural
assessment using rebound hammer indicates a strength of 20~25 N/mm 2 based on the rebound
hammer calibration and age of concrete. The current strength is in the range 20~25 N/mm 2.
Corrosion level : Moderate
Strength of Concrete : moderate
Retrofit requirement : Required

Figure 12 Exposed Rebars in MBBR tank in Akar Takli

4 PROPOSED PLANT MODIFICATIONS

The Structural modification is proposed primarily in the Aeration Tank. The Aerated tank is
remodelled as MBBR with internal walls. It has been proposed to retrofit the existing aeration tank
into Anoxic-MBBR/IFAS-Oxic unit by partition and adding necessary mechanical equipment’s for
biological nutrient removal (BNR) as existing plant has no arrangements around this.
The structural viability of this has been assessed and It is observed that it is plausible with Structural
Restoration and retrofit of the current walls of Aeration Tank. The Aeration tank would infact be
strengthened by such modification as the structure would be additionaly stiffened by the walls.
However, the location of the walls have to be planned to ensure the structure doesn’t have stress
reversals (due to reversal of bending moment. This is essential as to maintain the integrity of the
structure
 Additional Equalization tank and minor modification of MBBR are proposed for the 40 MLD plant
which is feasible with retrofitting procedures in place.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are the retrofit requirements of the different structures within Akar Takli STP complex

5.1 RETROFIT PLAN FOR 40 MLD

The Structure was not accessible to visual inspection and reporting from inside. Hence the assessment
is primarily to the external faces of the walls of the structure. The Interiors of UASB might have a
higher impact due to exposure to Sulphides and chlorides apart from Methane which are stongly
reactive and may corrode the concrete. The key recommendation is to jacket the walls from the
outside to increase the strength without impacting the volume and process ability of the tanks. The
inside of the UASB reactors can be provided protective coating like Epoxy for prevention of walls
from further corrosion.

5.2 RETROFIT PLAN FOR 70 MLD

The 70 MLD plant is currently in good shape. However It is recommended that the structural leakages
be fixed at regular intervals to avoid damage to rebar and extensive corrosion.

Table 1 Results of Rebound hammer test for the structures

Structure Current strength Level of corrosion

Primary treatment unit 28 Low
UASB reactors (78 28 Moderate
MLD)
UASB reactors (52 18~24 Moderate
MLD)
Aerated Lagoons 21 Moderate~high
Secondary Clarifier 22 Low
(52 MLD)

72 MLD Agar Takli STP(UASB)-2003

REBOUND HAMMER READING
Observer Ajay Date 4/26/2023

Average Current
1 2 3 4 5 6 reading Strength
INLET Chamber
Column no-1 44 42 32 42 30 34 37.33 32.26
Column no-2 38 38 28 40 40 32 36.00 31.32
Column no-3 32 28 44 38 32 40 35.67 31.08
Aeration Tank - 1 32 30 44 30 40 28 34.00 29.87
Aeration Tank - 2 32 30 36 42 36 38 35.67 31.08
Aeration Tank - 3 36 30 44 44 42 36 38.67 33.17
Aeration Tank - 4 40 34 30 32 34 32 33.67 29.62
Primary Sedimentation Tank -
1 30 36 40 32 36 34 34.67 30.36
Primary Sedimentation Tank-
2 30 36 42 38 40 30 36.00 31.32
Secondary Sedimentation
Tank 30 42 36 42 44 30 37.33 32.26
Secondary Sedimentation
Tank 40 40 40 40 34 30 37.33 32.26
Digestor-1 40 40 32 30 44 42 38.00 32.72
Digestor -2 40 28 42 36 44 44 39.00 33.39
CCT-1 24 20 24 24 18 18 21.33 19.43
CCT-2 22 22 24 18 18 22 21.00 19.13
6 APPENDIX 2 IMAGES DURING ASSESSMENT