MSPE - Process Model Descriptions PDF

Copyright  WRc plc
The contents of this manual and the accompanying software are the copyright of WRc plc and
all rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted, in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise, without the prior written consent of WRc plc. The information
contained in this manual is confidential and restricted to authorised users only.
This manual and the accompanying software are supplied in good faith. While WRc plc have
taken all reasonable care to ensure that the product is error-free, WRc plc accepts no liability
for any damage, consequential or otherwise, that may be caused by the use of either this
manual or the software.
WRc plc
Frankland Road
Blagrove
Swindon
Wiltshire SN5 8YF
Great Britain
Tel: + 44 (0) 1793 865185
E-Mail: STOAT@wrcplc.co.uk
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. STORM TANKS 3
2.1 STORM TANK MODEL 1 (BOD) 3
2.2 STORM TANK MODEL 2 (COD) 5
2.3 PARAMETER ESTIMATION 6
3. PRIMARY TANKS 8
3.1 PRIMARY TANK MODEL 1 (BOD) 8
3.2 PRIMARY TANK MODEL 2 (COD) 9
4. LAMELLA SEPARATOR 12
4.1 INTRODUCTION 12
4.2 LAMELLA SETUP 12
4.3 LAMELLA SEPARATOR MODEL 1 (BOD) 12
4.4 LAMELLA SEPARATOR MODEL 2 (COD) 12
5. CHEMICALLY ASSISTED SEDIMENTATION 13
5.1 INTRODUCTION 13
5.2 COAGULATION MODEL 13
5.2.1 Choice of coagulation chemicals 13
5.2.2 Dose control 14
5.2.3 Dissolved organics removal model 14
5.2.4 Chemical equilibria 16
5.2.5 Suspended solids after coagulation 17
5.2.6 Calibration of coagulation model 18
5.3 FLOC BLANKET CLARIFIER MODEL (FBC) 21
5.3.1 Description of model 22
5.3.2 Model calibration 23
5.3.3 Start-up conditions 24
5.4 MODEL CALIBRATION 25
6. DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION (DAF) 26
6.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION 26
6.1.1 Mass balance and hydraulics 26
6.1.2 Solids removal 27
7. CHEMICAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL 30
7.1 IAWQ 30
7.2 Equilibrium 30
8. ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION TANKS 32
8.1 ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL 1 (ASAL1) 32
8.6 MODEL VARIANTS 38
8.7 IAWQ ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL #1 39
9. TOWER REACTOR PROCESS 47
9.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL 47
9.1.1 Gas voidage 47
9.1.2 Frictional pressure drop 48
9.1.3 Mass transfer 50
9.1.4 Power 51
9.2 LINKING HYDRAULIC MODEL WITH REACTION KINETICS 51
10 DEGASSER 53
11 ACTIVATED SLUDGE SETTLING TANKS 54
11.1 FINAL TANK MODEL 54
12 SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR 57
12.1 COMMON FEATURES 57
12.2 WRc ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL 57
13 VARIABLE VOLUME ACTIVATED SLUDGE 58
14. COMPARTMENTED SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR 59
15. BIOLOGICAL FILTERS 60
15.1 BIOLOGICAL FILTER MODEL 1 60
15.3 BIOLOGICAL FILTER MODELS 2 (BOD) & 3 (COD) 66
15.3.1Biofilm processes 66
15.3.2Bulk processes 67
15.3.3Reaction kinetics 68
16. HUMUS TANKS 69
16.1 HUMUS TANK MODEL 1 69
17. BIOLOGICAL AERATED FILTERS 70
17.1 BIOFILM PROCESSES 70
17.2 REACTION KINETICS 70
18. BIOLOGICAL FLUIDISED BEDS 71
18.3 BED EXPANSION 71
19. OXYGENATOR 72
19.1 STEADY STATE MODEL 72
19.2 DYNAMIC MODEL 72
20. ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS 73
21. SUBMERGED BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS 74
22. CHEMICAL DISINFECTION 75
22.1 DISINFECTION MODEL #1 75
22.2 DISINFECTION MODEL #2 75
23. MESOPHILIC ANAEROBIC DIGESTION 76
23.1 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODEL 1 76
23.2 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODEL 2 77
24. THERMOPHILIC AEROBIC DIGESTION 82
24.1 TAD MODEL 1 82
25. DEWATERING 85
26. HEAT EXCHANGERS 86
26.1 Steady-state countercurrent 86
26.2 Steady-state cocurrent 86
26.3 Dynamic countercurrent 86
26.4 Dynamic cocurrent 87
27. DIRECT THERMAL SLUDGE DRYING 88
28. INDIRECT THERMAL SLUDGE DRYING 89
29 SLUDGE INCINERATION 90
30 PID CONTROLLER 91
30.1 PID MODEL 1 91
30.2 PID MODEL 2 92
30.3 PID MODEL 3 93
30.4 PID MODEL 4 93
31 LADDER LOGIC CONTROLLER 94
32 INSTRUMENT PROBE 95
32.1 FIRST-ORDER INSTRUMENT 95
32.2 SECOND-ORDER INSTRUMENT 95
33 SIMPOL 96
33.1 SEWER/CATCHMENT AREA 96
33.2 INLINE DETENTION TANK 99
33.3 OFF-LINE DETENTION TANK 99
33.4 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW 100
34 WET WELLS 101
34.1 WET WELL MODEL 1 101
35 BALANCING TANKS 102
35.1 BALANCING TANK MODEL 1 102
36 SEPARATOR 103
36.1 SEPARATOR MODEL 1 103
37 'BLACK BOX' 104
38 PIPE DELAY 105
39 MIXERS AND SPLITTERS 106
39.1 MIXERS 106
39.2 SPLITTERS 106
39.3 OVERFLOW 106
40 COST FUNCTIONS 107
40.1 INTRODUCTION 107
40.2 GENERIC COST FUNCTIONS 107
40.2.1Capital cost 107
40.2.2Operating cost 107
40.3 DIVISION OF COSTS 108
40.3.1Capital 108
40.3.2Operating 108
40.4 DEFLATION/INFLATION OF COSTS 109
40.5 NET PRESENT COST (NPC) 109
40.6 STOAT DATA FILES 110
40.6.1Contents of file COSTS.DAT 110
40.6.2Contents of file COSTS.XLS 115
40.7 REFERENCES 121
41. STREAM COMPONENTS 122
42 CONVERTING RESULTS TO 95%iles 124
APPENDIX A AERATION TANK LONGITUDINAL MIXING 128

APPENDIX B TRACER TESTS 129
APPENDIX C OXYGEN MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS 131
APPENDIX D CRITERIA FOR MODEL ASSESSMENT 133
APPENDIX E MONITORING DATA 135
APPENDIX F SLUDGE SETTLING PARAMETERS 137
APPENDIX G MEASUREMENT OF SLUDGE SETTLEABILITY USING
THE SSVI TEST 138
WRc Process Model Descriptions
PROCESS MODEL DESCRIPTIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
This manual describes the mathematical models used for the various processes within STOAT and provides
guidelines for calibrating the processes. The Tutorials Guide contains additional information. We have chosen
to use IAWQ-style1 nomenclature in most of the mathematical descriptions. In this approach all soluble
components are referred to as S, followed by a subscript to identify the particular species. Particulates are
referred to as X, followed by a subscript. As examples, dissolved oxygen becomes SO and phosphate SP, while
volatile solids have the symbol XV.
STOAT has been developed as part of the UK Water Industry's Urban Pollution Management programme.
During the UPM programme STOAT was extensively validated against sewage works' data. The result of this
validation exercise is available to the UPM programme members in a series of WRc reports2. The accuracy of
the process treatment models within STOAT was found to be comparable to the accuracy of the original data
measurements. It is therefore your responsibility to ensure that the conditions you simulate represent what is
happening on your sewage works. Should you obtain an unusual set of results from STOAT we suggest that
you then turn to this description of the mathematical models to investigate how you can explain the results.
Should you decide that the problem is internal to STOAT then please contact WRc with details of the
problem.
The sections that follow describe a range of models. For some processes there may be more than one model.
The policy within STOAT is that new process models will be added to either extend the range of conditions
that current models describe, or to provide improved models. In each case the older models will be retained for
several subsequent versions of STOAT to allow you to make the transition between the old and new models.
The range of models will also include 'subset' models, where features that are not of general interest may be
excluded to simplify data entry. An example of this is the provision of separate models in activated sludge for
BOD/ammonia removal and BOD/ammonia/phosphate removal.
1 M Henze, CPL Grady, W Gujer, GvR Marais and T Matsuo, 1986, Activated Sludge Model No. 1,
Scientific Technical Report No. 1, IAWQ
2 JM Burns and CM Dickson, 1989, Dynamic Modelling of Sewage Treatment Works: Progress
Report, WRc Report ER 374E
CM Dickson, 1990, Development and Evaluation of a Prototype Dynamic Model of Sewage
Treatment Works Pollution Loading, WRc Report UM 1054
CM Dickson and D Bryan, 1991, Dynamic Modelling of Sewage Treatment Works: Development
and Evaluation of Unit Process Models, WRc Report UM 1190
J Dudley and CM Dickson, 1992, Dynamic Sewage Treatment Works Modelling, WRc Report UM
1287
Note that these reports can only be supplied to contributors to the research programme.
1
STOAT is a modelling tool. If you want further background on the processes modelled, we suggest you look
at the following books. Note that these books are not the only ones available, and we do not recommend them
over any of the others on the market.
Metcalf and Eddy, 1991, Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, McGraw Hill, Third
Edition. This book describes US practice for wastewater treatment.
SR Qasim, 1994, Wastewater Treatment Plant: Planning, Design and Operation, Technomic Publishing Co.
Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
US Water Environment Foundation, 1992, Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Two volumes.
WEF Manual of Practice No. 8. Also published by the American Society of Civil Engineers as Manual and
Report on Engineering Practice No. 76.
Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM).
Preliminary Processes
Primary Sedimentation
Activated Sludge
Biological Filtration
Tertiary Treatment and Advanced Waste Water Treatment
Sewage Sludge I: Production, Preliminary Treatment and Digestion
Sewage Sludge II: Conditioning, Dewatering and Thermal Drying
An Introduction to Sewage Treatment
These books are available from CIWEM in the UK and describe UK practice for wastewater treatment.
2
2. STORM TANKS
2.1 STORM TANK MODEL 1 (BOD)
The storm tank model is based on the work of Lessard and Beck3. The storm tank is in one of the following
states:
empty;
filling;
dynamic settling, when the tank is full and overflowing;
quiescent settling, when the tank is full with no inflow or outflow; and
draw-down, where the tank contents are being returned to the works.
These five states are assumed to be mutually exclusive - it should therefore not be possible for the tank to be
filling up at the same time as the tank contents are being returned back to the works. Where this happens on a
works it is better avoided than modelled.
The components within the tank are:
SNH3: Nitrogen ammonia [mg/l]
SNO3: Oxidised nitrogen [mg/l]
S O: Dissolved oxygen [mg/l]
SP: Soluble phosphorus [mg/l]
SS: Soluble BOD [mg/l]
XNV,s: Settleable non-volatile solids4 [mg/l]
XNV,n: Nonsettleable non-volatile solids [mg/l]
XNV,sl: Non-volatile solids in the settled sludge [kg]
XS,s: Settleable particulate BOD [mg/l]
XS,n: Nonsettleable particulate BOD [mg/l]
XS,sl: Particulate BOD in the settled sludge [kg]
XV,s: Settleable volatile solids [mg/l]
XV,n: Nonsettleable volatile solids [mg/l]
XV,sl: Volatile solids in the settled sludge [kg]
[Sludge]: Any of XNV,sl, XS,sl, XV,sl
Particulate BOD, volatile and non-volatile solids are divided into settleable and non-settleable fractions. The
model assumes that the ratio between settleable and non-settleable in the incoming sewage for each
component is fixed. Normally, low inlet solids concentrations would have high fractions of non-settleable
material, with the settleable fraction increasing as the solid concentration increases. This assumption may
mean that your STOAT models will need recalibration for the settleable: non-settleable ratios between
'average' and 'storm' conditions.
For STOAT we have made one change to Lessard and Beck's approach. In quiescent settling Lessard and
Beck assumed that all settleable material settled out immediately. With the modelling approach we use this
would mean that if for one second there was no flow into or out of the tank then everything settles out. We
have therefore treated quiescent settling as a special case of dynamic settling.
3 P Lessard and MB Beck, 1991, "Dynamic simulation of storm tanks", Water Research 25(4)375-
391. In addition to this paper Beck has provided WRc with several unpublished manuscripts
describing developments to the model.
4 Nonvolatile solids are frequently treated as a surrogate for non-biodegradable solids, and volatile
solids as a surrogate for biodegradable solids.
3
The equations we have in STOAT are:

Filling:-
Tank volume as storm tank fills up:
dV
=Q
dt
Change in soluble and non-settleable particulate concentrations:
dS Q
= ( Si − S )
dt V
Change in settleable particulate concentrations:
dX Q
= ( Xi − X) − K R ⋅ X
dt V
Accumulation of sludge solids: (This equation is only used where the volume within the tank is less than a
fraction α multiplied by the total volume.)
d[ Sludge]
= KR ⋅ X ⋅V
dt
Q is the flowrate entering the tank, and subscript i refers to concentrations in the influent.
There is one explicit parameter, KR, the removal rate. The removal rate can be different for each particulate
component. There is also an implicit parameter, α, the fraction of volume above which settling will take place.
The rationale behind this parameter is that when the tank volume is low and sewage is splashing into the tank
there is a lot of turbulence - this prevents solids from settling out, keeping them in suspension. Eventually the
sewage volume within the tank becomes large enough so that the effect of the incoming sewage does not
inhibit solid settlement. α can range in value from 0 to 1. A value of 0 implies little turbulence during filling,
while a value of 1 would mean that turbulence affected all the tank, so that during filling there was no solids
settlement. A typical value would be 0.1, being closer to 0 if sewage enters the tank near the base, and
increasing where the feed point is high in the tank and the tank volume is small in comparison with the
entering flow.
Dynamic settling:-
In dynamic settling the tank is full, so that the volume V has reached Vmax. The equations to model the
process become:-
Soluble and non-settleable particulates:
dS Q
= ( Si − S )
dt V
Settleable particulates:
dX Q
= ( Xi − X ) − VS (1 − λ ) X
dt Vmax
Sludge accumulation:
d[ Sludge]
= VS (1 − λ ) X ⋅ V
dt
There are two parameters, the solids settling velocity VS and the scouring parameter λ. The solids settling
velocity can be different for each particulate component, but the scouring parameter is the same for all. The
settling velocity is assumed to be constant, independent of the solids' concentration in the tank. The scouring
parameter reflects solids being resuspended from the sludge blanket, caused by high-speed currents close to
the sludge blanket. During quiescent settling the scouring parameter is zero - if there is no bulk flow within
the tank, there are no scouring currents.
Looking at the particulate settling equation, the effect of the scouring parameter is closely associated with the
settling velocity. The 'standard' approach with calibrating the storm tank model has been to adjust the settling
velocity until model predictions match measurements. With this approach it is difficult to assign unique values
4
to the scouring parameter and the settling velocity, so the scouring parameter is given a value of 0. This is
reasonable because storm tanks are designed to be large, so that the velocities in the tank are low. When there
are data on the tank contents during dynamic and quiescent settling it may be possible to separate the settling
velocity from the scouring parameter.
Blind storm tanks are designed so that, when they are full, flow is diverted into other storm tanks, or to carry
on to an outfall.
Although in real life the storm tanks are intended never to return tank contents at the same time as sewage is
entering the tanks the model will permit this to happen.
Draw down:-
Draw-down is when the storm tank contents are being returned to the sewage works for further treatment. You
decide where to return the storm tank contents - common points are back into the inlet for primary settlement
or immediately after primary settlement.
The equations are:
Change in the tank volume:
dV
= −Q
dt
Soluble, settleable and non-settleable particulates:
dS
=0
dt
Sludge mass:
d[ Sludge] Q
= − [ Sludge]
dt V
Sludge removal is assumed to take place only when the volume in the tank falls below a fraction β of the
maximum volume. This assumes that sewage flows out of the tank first, and only at low volumes is the settled
sludge disturbed. β normally has a low value, around 0 - 0.1. A value for β of 1 would imply that all the
sludge was re-suspended in the storm tank prior to discharge. A value of 0 implies no removal of sludge: the
sludge mass will continue to build up, but is assumed to have zero volume. The model cannot currently
represent the removal of sludge before sewage, as may occur when scrapers push sludge into the discharge
hoppers at the start of draw-down. One of Beck's developments to the model has been to allow sludge to be
removed before the main sewage flow. This approach has not been implemented in STOAT as it does not
reflect operational practice at the sewage works where STOAT has been evaluated. Because the equations
assume that sludge is transferred directly to the outlet, rather than resuspended within the storm tank itself, if
further sewage enters the tank the effect will be as if the ‘suspended sludge’ had settled out instantaneously.
This is a feature of Beck’s model.
Although there is no change in the sewage concentration within the tank during draw-down, the effect of
sludge removal may lead to changes in the withdrawn sewage quality, as sludge is mixed into the sewage.
2.2 STORM TANK MODEL 2 (COD)

Storm tank model 2 is an extension of model 1, including the components volatile fatty acids, soluble organic
nitrogen and particulate organic nitrogen. This model allows you to track total nitrogen through the works, and
to include volatile fatty acids for use with biological P-removal and anaerobic digestion models.
5
2.3 PARAMETER ESTIMATION

The parameters required for the storm tank can be arranged in several groups:
(i) Physical arrangement: maximum volume, settling area, stream to be used to control storm tank returns,
flow in that stream below which the storm tank contents are pumped back, and the pumping rate. A
typical flow scheme is illustrated below.
Storm tank contents

only returned when
Overflow
the flow in the control
stream drops below
a specified value
Storm tank
Storm tank return flow
Overflow
Influent
Control stream
TYPICAL LAYOUT FOR STORM TANK

AND CONTROL STREAM
(ii) Settleable fraction of the particulate components.

The Settleable fraction of particulate BOD can be estimated by taking a sample of the sewage. Measure
the BOD. Filter. Measure the filtered BOD and take the particulate BOD as the difference. Take a
sample of sewage, leave it to settle for 24 hours, remove supernatant and measure its BOD, the
difference between the Total BOD and filtered BOD of the supernatant is the settleable particulate
BOD. Now you can calculate the settleable fraction.
The Settleable fraction of the volatile and non-volatile solids can be measured by taking a sample of
sewage and measuring the total volatile and nonvolatile solids. This includes the dissolved solids,
which is not a parameter that we include in STOAT. Filter a sample of the sewage. On the filtrate
measure the volatile and nonvolatile solids. This estimates the dissolved solids concentration.
Subtracting the dissolved solids from the total solids gives the filterable solids. The total solids test is
normally applied with sewage sludges, where the solids concentration is much greater than in sewage.
You may therefore need to use larger sample volumes to ensure that the accuracy of this test method
approaches that of the filterable solids test. Leave another sample to stand for 24 hours. The
recommended apparatus is an Imhoff cone, but any similar container should do. Repeat the volatile and
non-volatile solids measurements on the supernatant. The difference in suspended solids between the
fresh sewage and that left to stand for 24 hours is an estimate of the settleable fractions of these
components.
(iii) Removal rates during filling. These are difficult to measure, as it would require taking samples at the
same time as filling whatever vessel is being used to measure the removal rates. The standard method
has been to use the default values and to adjust these should the model predictions indicate that this is
necessary.
(iv) Settling velocities. Leave 24 samples of the sewage standing in 500 ml or larger settling cylinders. At
quarter-hourly intervals take any of the vessels and measure the suspended solids left in the
supernatant.
6
The settling equation for the storm tank can be written as:
C = C 0 e − VS ⋅t /δ
where C0 is the initial concentration of settleable solids, VS is the settling velocity, t the elapsed time
and δ the depth of the settling tank. This equation assumes that the settling container is a cylinder,
rather than a cone.
The equation can be written as Y = a + b X, where Y = ln C and X = t. The parameters a and b are
calculated by standard linear regression methods, such as are found in most modern spreadsheets. From
a and b, C0 and VS are calculated as C0 = exp(a) and VS = - b δ.
(v) Scouring parameter and mixing fractions. These are normally estimated by comparing the model
predictions with works data. Typical default values are given in the description of filling and emptying
the tank, along with an explanation of the physical significance of these parameters.
7
3. PRIMARY TANKS
3.1 PRIMARY TANK MODEL 1 (BOD)

The primary tank model, like the storm tank model, has also been developed from the work of Lessard and
Beck5. The primary tank is modelled as several well-mixed tanks in series, each tank having the same volume
and settling area, and is assumed to operate at constant volume.
The components within the primary tank are the same as for the storm tank. Particulate BOD, volatile and
non-volatile solids are divided into settleable and non-settleable fractions. The model assumes that the ratio
between settleable and non-settleable in the incoming sewage is fixed for each component. Normally, low
inlet total solids concentrations would have high fractions of non-settleable material, with the settleable
fraction increasing as the total solids concentration increases. This assumption may mean that your STOAT
models will need recalibration for the settleable: non-settleable ratios between 'average' and 'storm' conditions.
The equations describing the primary tank performance are:
Soluble and non-settleable particulates:
dS Q
= ( Si − S )
dt V
Settleable particulate components:
dX Q A
= ( Xi − X ) − VS (1 − λ ) X
dt V V
The sludge is specified as being produced at a fixed total solids percentage. The flowrate of sludge is
calculated from the solids settling out in the primary tank and the required sludge concentration.
The volume and area V and A are calculated as the total volume and area divided by the number of tanks-in-
series (stages) used to represent the primary tank. The concentrations Si and Xifor each component are those
for the sewage when calculating the first stage, and the concentration in the preceding stage for subsequent
stages. The number of stages required should be calculated from actual tracer tests carried out in the primary
tank. However, the value can be estimated using the output from STOAT by varying the number of stages and
using ammonia as a pseudo-tracer component. Starting with a single stage and increasing the number of stages
to 2, 3, ... there should be an increasing agreement between the predicted and measured ammonia
concentrations leaving the primary tank as the number of stages increases. This agreement will then get worse
as the number of stages increases above the 'correct' value. The best value for the number of stages is typically
in the range 2 - 5. As can be seen in the schematic diagram the 'tanks in series' are assumed to be horizontal
with crossflow rather than vertical with upflow.
5 P Lessard and MB Beck, 1988, "Dynamic modelling of primary sedimentation", Journal of

Environmental Engineering 114(4)753-769. In addition to this paper Beck has supplied WRc with
several unpublished manuscripts describing enhancements to the model.
8
Settled Sewage
Inflow
Sludge
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANK
The tank volume, and sometimes the tank area, required to model the primary tank performance may be less
than that actually installed. This represents short-circuiting within the primary tank. For many tanks the
difference in effluent quality between using the installed volume or a fine-tuned effective volume will not
affect the performance of further processes. We suggest that the installed volume and area be used and a
coarse agreement between STOAT predictions and measurements accepted. Unless there are large mismatches
between the final effluent quality predictions and any measurements we would not further fine-tune the
primary tanks. If the works is primary-treatment only then we advise you to ignore this suggestion.
Our experience with primary tanks is that under average flow conditions effluent quality is insensitive to the
values assigned to the settling velocity. This is because the overflow rates are typically low, so that
performance is affected more by the settleable fraction than the settling velocity. This is not the case during
storm flows or where there are large diurnal differences in flow. Under these conditions the settling velocity
becomes an important parameter to estimate.
The solids settling velocity is assumed to take the form:
VS = K ⋅ C h
where K and h are empirical constants and C is the total concentration of settleable solids. The parameters K
and h can be estimated by trying different values until the output from STOAT matches measured data.
Alternatively a settling column test can be carried out and values for K and h fitted to the results of the settling
test. The settling test will also provide information on the ratio of settleable to non-settleable solids.
The scouring parameter λ is normally assigned a value of 0. If the parameters K and h are estimated by
matching STOAT predictions to measured data then the scouring parameter can be taken as having been
subsumed into the value for K. Where K has been estimated from settling tests there may then be a need to
assign a value to the scouring parameter to match STOAT predictions to works data.
Sludge production is calculated from the rate at which solids settle. You specify the solids concentration in the
sludge, and this is then used to calculate the sludge flowrate. The sludge is assumed to be removed
continuously, and so there is no allowance for sludge build-up within the primary tank. This means that should
there be zero flow into the tank solids will continue to settle, but the produced sludge will vanish. Additional
primary settlement models are planned for STOAT that will correct this problem.
3.2 PRIMARY TANK MODEL 2 (COD)

The second primary tank model is a simple extension of model 1, including the components volatile fatty
acids, soluble organic nitrogen and particulate organic nitrogen. It is intended for use when the works is being
modelled using COD and for use with the anaerobic digestion model 2.

The parameters required for the primary tank are:
9
(i) The tank size - volume and settling area.

(ii) The mixing characteristics, specified as the number of completely mixed tanks in series. As suggested
above, we advise using ammonia as a 'tracer' and selecting the number of completely mixed tanks that
produces model predictions that best match the measured ammonia in the primary tank effluent.
(iii) The settleable fractions of solids and particulate BOD. A method for this has been given in the section
discussing storm tanks.
(iv) Settling velocity parameters K and h. The settling test method described above can use several designs
of settling column. Here we describe two. The first uses a 2 m column of 0.15 m internal diameter.
There are six sampling taps attached to the column at 0.3 m intervals from the top. The column is filled
with sewage and samples taken at quarter-hourly intervals for at least 4 hours. The suspended solids
concentrations of the samples are measured. The results can be used in fitting the settling model against
the data, producing values for K and h. This requires solving the following equation for each zone,
where A is the column cross-sectional area and ∆V is the volume between each sampling port.
∆C A ⋅ K h +1
= (Cupper zone − C h +1 )
∆t ∆V
This equation is the discrete form of the partial differential equation
∂C ∂VS ⋅ C
=
∂t ∂Z
A simpler method is to use the same settling column but take samples only from the top section. (A
series of settling cylinders could be used instead of the settling column, as described with the storm
tank calibration.) Samples are again taken and measured for suspended solids. Assuming that the solids
concentration within the sewage is uniform, then the equation relating settling velocity to suspended
solids is
1 −h K ⋅t
(C − C0− h ) =
N δ
This can be written as Y = a X, where Y is the entire left-hand side, a is K/δ and X is t. The time, t,
should be in hours, and the concentration of solids, C, in kg/m3.
Here C0 is the initial settleable solids concentration, t the sampling time and δ the depth of the settling
cylinder or the distance in the settling column between the top of the column and the sampling tap. The
settleable solids concentration, C, is given as the total solids concentration of the supernatant less the
nonsettleable solids concentration. The nonsettleable solids concentration is the solids concentration of
the supernatant after approximately 6 hours settlement.
This equation can be solved on a spreadsheet by adopting the following procedure:
Calculate numerical differences ∆C/∆t. (You could also plot C against t and from the plot draw
tangents to calculate dC/dt. The dC/dt values should then be used in the following procedure in place of
∆C/∆t.)
10
The equation above was developed from the differential equation

dC K
= − ⋅ C h +1
dt δ
Therefore linear regression can be used on the equation
ln(-∆C/∆t) = ln(K/δ) + (h+1) ln C
as Y = a + b X
where Y = ln(-∆C/∆t) and X = ln C
From the linear regression results the slope b and intercept a provide
h=b-1
K = δ exp(a)
h and K therefore depend on the assumed concentration of nonsettleable solids. This value can be taken
as the final value of solids left in suspension.
Alternatively, you could choose to solve the equation using numerical methods such as are available in the
NAG library6 or a variety of books7 on mathematical methods. This approach will allow you to automatically
calculate a value for the initial settleable solids concentration, C0.
Although we recommend a default value for the scouring parameter of zero there is a correlation available8 to
estimate its value. This correlation is:
λ = 1.17 exp( −29. 9 exp(58.5 g ⋅ H / U ))

where g is gravitational acceleration [m/s2]
H is the depth of the tank [m]
W is the width of the tank [m]
U is the velocity of flow through the tank [m/s]
U = Q / (W x H) ; rectangular tanks
U = Q / (π x R x H / 2) ; circular tanks
WRc has not used this correlation, and so does not guarantee its use. We propose it as a first estimate should
you choose to include a non-zero scouring parameter. Should the calculated value exceed 1, then the scouring
parameter should be set to 1. In most circumstances the scouring parameter calculated by this correlation will
be close to 0.
6 Numerical Algorithm Group, Oxford. NAG publish a FORTRAN Library that contains a wide range
of mathematical subroutines, including a selection for optimisation and regression. The NAG
library is available on a wide range of computers, including IBM-PC compatibles.
7 See WH Press, SA Tekolsky, WT Vetterling and BP Flannery, 1992, Numerical Recipes in
FORTRAN, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press. This book is also available as Numerical
Recipes in C, Second edition; Numerical Recipes in Pascal, First edition; and Numerical Recipes in
BASIC, First Edition. We recommend Press et al. as a good starting point, containing ready-to-use
subroutines covering a wide range of topics, of which optimisation and regression are just two.
There are many other books on the market containing programs to solve nonlinear regression
problems, and a wide range of computer programs.
8 T Takamatsu, M Naito, S Shiba and Y Ueda, 1974, "Effects of deposit resuspension on settling
basin", Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division of ASCE 100(EE4) 883-903
11
4. LAMELLA SEPARATOR
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The lamella separator is an extended version of the primary tank models which predicts the effect of using
lamella plates in a primary tank to aid settlement. The underlying settling equations are the same as the
primary tank models with a different setup to allow the extended surface area available to be modelled.
4.2 LAMELLA SETUP

If the settler is L meters long, W metres wide and has N plates each with a submergence of Ls and an angle of
θ, then the total settling area is:
LW +LsWN tan θ.
The number of plates can be approximately calculated if the plate spacing s is known as:
N = int(L cos θ / s).
The following figure shows how the submergence, plate angle and spacing are specified. If the lamella settler
uses tubes rather than plates then the supplier should be consulted for the projected settling area.
θ
LS
4.3 LAMELLA SEPARATOR MODEL 1 (BOD)

The mathematical description is identical to the primary tank model 1 as described in Section 3.1.
4.4 LAMELLA SEPARATOR MODEL 2 (COD)

The mathematical description is identical to the primary tank model 1 as described in Section 3.1.
12
5. CHEMICALLY ASSISTED SEDIMENTATION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The chemical treatment model incorporates two components: chemical coagulation and upflow (floc blanket)
clarification. The chemical coagulation component performs the following functions:
• Calculation of the degree of removal of dissolved organic components as a function of coagulant dose
and pH.
• Calculation of the effect on pH of the coagulant and any pH control agent dosed.
• Calculation of residual dissolved coagulant metal concentration.
• Calculation of the degree of precipitation of dissolved phosphorus.
• Calculation of the solids concentration after coagulation, which is passed to the clarification process.
The floc blanket clarification component calculates the degree of solids removal achieved in the floc blanket
clarifier (FBC) after coagulation.
5.2 COAGULATION MODEL

The coagulation model was originally developed by WRc for potable water treatment applications. The
version in STOAT uses the same correlation to determine removal of dissolved organics, but has been
modified to accept the different components of relevance to waste water treatment. The chemical equilibria
governing the residual coagulant have been extended to include phosphorus. The model is essentially steady
state, the only time-dependent function being associated with pH control as noted below.
5.2.1 Choice of coagulation chemicals

Five coagulants are supported in the current version:
• aluminium sulphate
• polyaluminium chloride
• ferric sulphate
• ferric chloride
• polymer ferric
Seven pH control agents are supported:

• lime
• sodium hydroxide
• sodium carbonate
• sodium bicarbonate
• carbon dioxide
• hydrochloric acid
• sulphuric acid
The impact of the coagulant dose on pH is calculated assuming an equivalent acid dose for a given coagulant
dose:
• for aluminium sulphate, 2 moles aluminium are equivalent to 3 moles sulphuric acid
• for polyaluminium chloride, 1 mole aluminium is equivalent to 1 mole hydrochloric acid
• for ferric sulphate and polymer ferric, 2 moles iron are equivalent to 3 moles sulphuric acid
• for ferric chloride, 1 mole iron is equivalent to 3 moles hydrochloric acid
13
Polyelectrolyte dosing can be specified and the dose is taken into account when calculating solids production.
However, apart from solids production, any influence a polyelectrolyte may have on the effectiveness of
treatment can only be accounted for by adjusting model calibration parameters. The model cannot be used to
predict the influence a polyelectrolyte may have, nor can it distinguish between different types of
polyelectrolyte.
5.2.2 Dose control
Coagulant
The applied coagulant dose must be set manually, but is flow proportional. Changes in dose at set times can be
programmed at the start of a run. The dose is the concentration of coagulant to be attained in sewage.
Polyelectrolyte
The applied polyelectrolyte dose must be set manually, but is flow proportional. Changes in dose at set times
can be programmed at the start of a run.
pH control
Control of pH can be either manual or automatic. For manual control, the applied dose of the pH control agent
is specified and the model calculates the resultant pH. Changes in dose at set times can be programmed at the
start of a run.
There are two forms of automatic control. For both, the target pH is specified and the model calculates the
dose of pH control agent required. Changes in target pH at set times can be programmed at the start of a run.
The controller can be either a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) type or ‘ideal’. The PID controller is the
more realistic in that it simulates the action of a real controller; however, care is required in the selection of
suitable values for the time constants to avoid instability. The PID controller is the only dynamic function
within the coagulation model. The ‘ideal’ controller works by simply adjusting the dose of the pH control
agent by fixed increments until the target pH is attained.
5.2.3 Dissolved organics removal model

An empirical correlation, developed from analysis of jar test data, is used to model the removal of dissolved
organic components. Calibration of the model requires jar test data for the waste water under consideration; a
methodology for calibration is given in section 2.6. The model accounts for the effects of dissolved organic
carbon (DOC) concentration, coagulant dose and pH, but in this version any effect of temperature is ignored.
The DOC removal model is described by the following equation:
Craw
Ccoag = 5.1
1 + k c ( D − Dmin )
where
Ccoag = concentration of DOC (mg/l) after coagulation
Craw = concentration of DOC (mg/l) in influent
D = coagulant dose (mg M3+/l) (M = Al or Fe)
Dmin = minimum coagulant dose required to achieve removal (mg M3+/l)
kc = coagulation factor (1/mg M3+)
14
The minimum dose required for removal is a function of pH and raw water concentration:
Dmin = [αpH − β ]Craw 5.2
where
α , β = constants
The coagulation factor is a function of both pH and the concentration of DOC in the raw water:
k c = − a1 Craw a2 + b1 Craw b2 pH − c1 Craw c2 pH 2 5.3
where
a, b, c = constants
The removal of soluble BOD and COD is assumed to be in proportion to that of DOC:
Ccoag BOD( aq ) coag COD( aq ) coag
= = 5.4
Craw BOD( aq ) raw COD( aq ) raw
 Ccoag 
∆DOC = Craw 1 −  5.5
 Craw 
 Ccoag 
∆BOD = BOD( aq ) raw 1 −  5.6
 Craw 
 Ccoag 
∆COD = COD( aq ) raw 1 −  5.7
 Craw 
where
BOD( aq) caog , COD( aq ) coag = concentration of soluble BOD, COD (mg/l) after coagulation
BOD( aq) raw , COD( aq ) raw = concentration of soluble BOD, COD (mg/l) in influent
∆DOC = reduction in DOC as a consequence of coagulation
∆BOD, ∆COD = reduction in soluble BOD, COD as a consequence of coagulation
The BOD and COD removed from the aqueous phase is transferred to the solid phase:
BOD( s) coag = BOD( s) raw + ∆BOD 5.8
COD( s) coag = COD(s) raw + ∆COD 5.9
where
BOD( s) caog , COD( s) coag = concentration of solid BOD, COD (mg/l) after coagulation
BOD( s) raw , COD( s) raw = concentration of solid BOD, COD (mg/l) in influent
15
5.2.4 Chemical equilibria
The following reactions are assumed9 in determining how the coagulant metal and phosphorus are divided
between the solid and aqueous phases after coagulation.
Mer H 2 PO4 (OH ) 3r −1( s ) = rMe 3+ + H 2 PO4− + (3r − 1)OH − 5.10

MeOOH ( s ) + 3 H + = Me 3+ + 2 H 2 O 5.11
Me 3+ + H 2 O = MeOH 2 + + H + 5.12
Me 3+ + 2 H 2 O = Me(OH ) 2+ + 2 H + 5.13
Me 3+ + 3 H 2 O = Me(OH ) 3( aq ) + 3H + 5.14
Me 3+ + 4 H 2 O = Me(OH ) −4 + 4 H + 5.15
Me 3+ + H 2 PO4− = MeH 2 PO42 + 5.16
Me 3+ + HPO42 − = MeHPO4+ 5.17
H 3 PO4 = H + + H 2 PO4− 5.18
− + 2−
H 2 PO = H + HPO
4 4 5.19
HPO = H + + PO43−
2−
4 5.20
where
Me = Al or Fe
r = 1.6 if Me = Fe
r = 0.8 if Me = Al
Equilibrium constants and heats of reaction for the above are shown below.
Reaction pK (25oC) ∆H
Al Fe Al Fe
5.10 25.8 67.2 - -26.4

5.11 -9.1 0.5 16.0 19.8
5.12 5.0 2.2 12.0 10.4
5.13 9.3 5.7 22.0 17.0
5.14 15.0 12.0 34.9 26.5
5.15 23.0 21.6 30.0 34.8
5.16 NA -21.8 - -
5.17 -12.1 -9 - -
5.18 2.1 1.9
5.19 7.2 -0.8
5.20 12.2 -3.5
NA: not applicable
- : not available
9 Jenkins D and Hermanowicz SW, (1993). ‘Principles of Chemical Phosphate Removal’, Two day
Workshop of Design and Operational Experience of Treatment Plants for Nutrient Removal from
Wastewater, 28-29 June, Centro ”Luigi Bazzucchi”, Ponte della Pietra, Perugia, Italy.
16
The relationship between equilibrium constant and temperature is:
∆H  1 1
pK T2 = pK T1 +  − 
2.303 R  T2 T1 
where
pK = equilibrium constant
∆H = heat of reaction (kcal/mol)
R = universal gas constant (1.987 x 10-3 kcal/mol K)
T1 = reference temperature (K)
T2 = temperature (K)
This temperature dependency is ignored where heats of reaction are not available.
The hydroxide concentration is determined from the pH10:
[ ][
K W = H + OH − ]
4470.99
log K W = 6.0875 − − 0.01706T
T
pH = − log H + [ ]
where:
K W = partition coefficient, water
[ H ] = molar concentration of hydrogen ions

+
[OH ] = molar concentration of hydroxide ions

−
T = temperature (K)
5.2.5 Suspended solids after coagulation
Total suspended solids is the sum of volatile and non-volatile solids. After coagulation, the non-volatile solids
concentration is increased by the addition of precipitated coagulant metal and phosphorus species as
determined by the equilibria. The volatile solids concentration is increased by an amount equivalent to the
DOC removed from the aqueous phase and, if polyelectrolyte is used, by the polyelectrolyte dose:
XVScoag = XVSraw + k DOC . ∆DOC + C poly 5.21
where
XVScoag = volatile solids (mg/l) after coagulation
XVSraw = volatile solids (mg/l) in influent
k DOC = (total mass / mass of carbon) in dissolved organics
C poly = dose of polyelectrolyte (mg/l)
A value for k DOC of 2 is assumed.
10 Stumm W and Morgan J, (1970). ‘Aquatic Chemistry’, Wiley-Intersience.
17
5.2.6 Calibration of coagulation model

To calibrate the coagulation model, jar test data are required for the waste water and coagulant of interest.
Ideally, results are required for the anticipated range of influent DOC concentrations, a range of different
coagulant doses and a range of pH values.
With suitable jar test data, the steps required to determine the model constants are:
• Determine the relationship between Dmin and pH
• For each Craw, determine kc for different pH values, and determine the polynomial constants for the
relationship between kc and pH
• Determine the relationship between Craw and the polynomial constants for calculating kc
Each of these steps are described, with examples, below.
Determination of Dmin
By re-arrangement of Equation 2.1 into a linear form, it is possible to find Dmin for a particular pair of values
of pH and Craw. The linear form is:
Craw
= (1 − k c Dmin ) + k c D
Ccoag
A plot of Craw/Ccoag versus D yields a straight line from which Dmin can be calculated:
Intercept − 1
Dmin =
− Slope
An example is shown in Figure 5.1.
9.0
Coagulation pH = 6.4
7.0 Raw water DOC = 13
mg/l
5.0 Dmin = 2.50 mg/l

DOCraw/DOCcoag
Slope = 1.61
3.0
1.0
-1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
-3.0 Intercept = -3.01
-5.0
Coagulant dose (mgAl/l)
Figure 5.1 Determination of the minimum coagulant dose required for colour removal
18
Determination of α and β
Once Dmin has been found for each Craw and pH, the relationship between Dmin and pH can be found. Equation
5.2 describes a linear relationship between Dmin and pH. By plotting Dmin/Craw against pH and performing a
linear regression, a and b can be found:
a = slope of regression line
b = intercept of regression line
An example is shown in Figure 5.2.
0.5
DOCraw
0.45 8 - 8.5
12.5 - 13
0.4
13.5 - 14
0.35 14.5 - 15.5
16.5 - 17
0.3
Dmin/DOCraw
Regression line
0.25
Dmin = DOCraw(0.136 pH -
0.606)
0.2
α = 0.136
β = -0 606
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8
pH
Figure 5.2 An example dataset showing the relationship between Dmin and pH for an upland water
with different raw water colours
Determination of polynomial constants a, b and c

Once the relationship for Dmin has been found the coagulation factor (kc) is determined for each pH and value
of Craw. This can be found by re-arrangement of Equation 5.1 into another linear form and performing a linear
regression. A plot of (Craw/Ccoag - 1) against (D - Dmin) yields a straight line for which:
kc = slope of regression line through the origin
An example dataset is shown by Figure 5.3.
19
12
DOCraw = 14 mg/l
pH = 6.4
10 Dmin = 3.68 mg/l
8
(DOCraw/DOCcoag)-1
Slope of regression
line = kc = 2.14
4
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
D-Dmin
Figure 5.3 Example of the determination of kc
For a given value of Craw, a plot of kc against pH should give a second order polynomial, as shown by Figure
5.4.
3.5
8 - 8.5
3 16.5 - 17
Poly. (16.5 - 17)
2.5 Poly. (8 - 8.5)
2
polynomial regression
kc
kc = -a + b pH - c pH2
1.5
0.5
0
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
pH
Figure 5.4 Example of the variation of coagulation factor with pH for an upland water at two
different raw water colours
Once the polynomial constants (a, b, c) have been found for a particular value of Craw, the relationships
between each polynomial constant and Craw, are evaluated. These relationships are all of the form:
a2
a = a1 C raw
The coefficients a 1, a 2 are found from a regression of ln( a ) against ln( Craw ); an example is shown in
Figure 5.5.
20
100
a = 2.2993 DOCraw0.8257
b = 0.6986 DOCraw0.8667
10
Polynomial constant
c = 0.037 DOCraw0.9975
1
10 100
0.1
DOCraw
Figure 5.5 Variation in the polynomial constants required for determining kc with raw water
colour for an upland water
5.3 FLOC BLANKET CLARIFIER MODEL (FBC)

The model included to simulate the dynamic performance of an FBC was developed by WRc. It assumes that
the flow is ideal (i.e. plug flow) and divides the blanket into a number of layers for which the mass balance
equations are solved using a finite difference approach.
The following assumptions are made:
• There are two types of particle within the FBC: primary particles, which are small particles formed by
coagulation and which are present in the influent; and secondary particles, which are the fully grown floc
particles which form the blanket.
• Desludging of the FBC, whether continuous or intermittent, is specified by the flow rate of the sludge
stream. The concentration of solids in the sludge stream is calculated by mass balance. There is no
facility to simulate desludging by gravimetric cone.
• All particles are equally well removed.
In the context of this model, blanket concentration is defined as the settled volume of sludge, expressed
as the percentage of the sample volume (%v/v), in a sample that has been allowed to stand for 30 minutes
in a measuring cylinder11.
11 Gregory R, (1979). ‘Floc Blanket Clarification’, WRc Technical Report TR111.
21
5.3.1 Description of model
The model is based on the solids flux theory12,13, which has been successfully used in wastewater treatment
to simulate the performance of secondary clarifiers. The fundamental continuity equation can be written as:
∂X ∂ ( D∂X ) ∂ ( vX )
= 2
− − Rx 5.22
∂t ∂z ∂z
where
X = mass concentration of solids (g/m3)
t = time (h)
D = dispersion coefficient (m2/h)
v = upflow velocity (m/h)
z = vertical distance (m)
Rx = the ‘reaction’ rate affecting solids concentration (g/m3/h)
A number of assumptions must be made to enable this equation to be solved. It is assumed that the FBC
exhibits no vertical dispersion, i.e. D = 0
It is also assumed that the concentration of solids is uniform within any horizontal layer of the FBC and that
the settling velocity of the suspension is a function of its concentration only.
The clarifier is divided into a number of horizontal layers, N (default = 50), with layer 1 being the bottom
layer.
The floc particles are assumed to have a bimodal size distribution, after Hudson14. The two types of particle
are the primary particles formed due to chemical coagulation, and the fully grown secondary particles which
make up the floc blanket. The influent water is assumed to contain only primary particles, which have very
little water entrained with them. A large proportion of a fully grown floc is entrained water, and the floc
density is therefore close to the density of water.
The solids flux is a balance of opposing velocities. Particles are carried upwards due to the bulk flow of water
through the FBC, but also have a tendency to settle due to gravity.
For each layer, a mass balance is written for each particle type. Flocculation due to collisions between primary
and secondary particles in the blanket is described using the reaction rate term in Equation 5.22.
The dependence of the settling velocity on the blanket concentration is due to the effect of hindered settling.
Due to the fact that there is a suspension of particles, the individual particle settling velocity is reduced.
12 Vitasovic Z, (1989). ‘Continuous Settler Operation: A Dynamic Model’, in ‘Dynamic Modelling

and Expert Systems in Wastewater Engineering’ (Ed: Patry, G G & Chapman, D), Lewis Publishers
Inc.
13 Takacs I, Patry G G, Nolasco D, (1991). ‘A Dynamic Model of the Clarification-Thickening
Process’, Water Research 25 (10), 1263-1271.
14 Hudson H E, (1972). ‘Density Considerations in Sedimentation’, JAWWA, 62 (6), 382-386.
22
A modified version of the Richardson-Zaki equation has been used to simulate this effect, relating the settling
velocity to the blanket concentration:
[
v h = v max 1 − s(C − Cmin ) ]
n
5.23
where
v h = hindered settling velocity (m/h)
v max = maximum settling velocity (m/h)
s = shape factor to account for the non-sphericity of floc particles
C = volumetric concentration of blanket (%v/v)
Cmin = minimum volumetric concentration of blanket (%v/v)
n = exponent
Patry and Takacs15 noted that below a certain concentration, the settling velocity of the suspension was
constant. Below this concentration hindered settling no longer applies and the blanket settles at the rate of
individual particles. This point is defined in Equation 5.23 by the minimum volumetric concentration
Cmin and the maximum settling velocity v max .
The reaction rate term in Equation 5.22 has been modelled as a proportion of the primary particles in the layer.
For the primary particles, this term will be negative, as they are enmeshed by fully-grown floc particles, but
for the secondary particles it will be positive. The rate at which collisions occur is dependent on the
concentration of secondary particles:
kX1 X 2
Rx =
ρ2
where
k = flocculation factor (h-1)
X1 = concentration of primary particles (g/m3)
X 2 = concentration of secondary particles (g/m3)
ρ 2 = density of secondary particles (g/m3)
There are three boundary conditions which must be examined: the influent water; the clarified water; and the
waste sludge stream. The influent water is assumed to comprise only primary particles. There can be no
settling from the bottom layer of the blanket, due to the physical boundary of the clarifier floor. Likewise,
there can be no settling into the top layer of the clarifier. Desludging, when it occurs, is assumed to be a
continuous process, sludge being wasted at a constant rate into a sludge cone. The flow in the upper layers of
the clarifier above the sludge take-off point is reduced to take into account the waste flow.
5.3.2 Model calibration

The hindered settling equation (5.23) has three constants which must be defined. To do this, a curve of the
settling velocity against the blanket concentration is plotted. Figure 5.6 shows an example of such a curve.
The blanket concentrations have been measured by taking samples from within the blanket using a suction
pump. The ‘30 minute settled volume’ is measured by leaving the sample to stand in a graduated measuring
cylinder for 30 minutes and measuring the volume the floc takes up after this time. This gives a good
approximation to the volumetric concentration of the blanket. The clarifier is assumed to operating in a steady
state, so that the settling velocity of the blanket is equal to the upflow rate in the clarifier. This upflow rate can
usually be calculated using plant data. Samples should be taken for a range of upflow rates, though with the
same, or at least very similar, raw water and chemical dosing conditions.
The constants can then be calculated by fitting a curve of the form of Equation 5.23 to the data.
15 Patry G G and Takacs I, (1992). ‘Settling of Flocculent Suspensions in Secondary Clarifiers’, Water
Research 26 (4), 473-479.
23
10
9
V h = V max [ 1 - s (C - C min) ]n
8
V max = 7 m/h
C min = 5 % v/v
Settling velocity v h (m/h)
7
s = 1.2
n = 5.5
6
v max
C min
3
2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Blanket concentration C (% v/v)
Figure 5.6 Curve fitting of settling parameters
The flocculation factor can be estimated by comparing real plant data with the data generated by running the
model.
5.3.3 Start-up conditions

For each set of steady state operating conditions, there is an initial blanket concentration which will give a
steady blanket within 5 hours of simulation time. However, this initial condition varies with changes in the
influent solids concentration and the flocculation factor. Figure 5.7 shows an example of such variations. Even
small changes in these variables can result in long run times to achieve steady state conditions.
14.00
Optimum Initial Blanke
Concentration (%)
13.50
13.00
12.50
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
F loc F actor
Figure 5.7 Initial Blanket Concentration
The optimum initial blanket concentration can be found by trial and error. Figure 5.8 illustrates the technique.
A chemical treatment model is set up in STOAT. All the variables should be given steady-state values for the
operating conditions which will be used. The works should be run for about 100 hours, with different initial
blanket concentrations. After the run is completed for each concentration, the average blanket concentration is
studied. If this concentration is increasing, then the initial blanket concentration needs to be increased. If it is
decreasing, then the initial concentration should be decreased. The optimum condition can usually be obtained
in 4 or 5 iterations.
24
13.80 C oncentration D ecreasing

Ave. Blanket Concentratio
InitialC onc.= 13.5%

13.70
13.60 C oncentration Steady
InitialC onc.= 13.35%
13.50
(%)
13.40 InitialC onc.= 13.25%

C oncentration Increasing
13.30
13.20 InitialC onc.= 13%
13.10
13.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
T im e (hrs)
Figure 5.8 Optimisation of Initial blanket concentration
5.4 MODEL CALIBRATION

The user specifies:
• The initial blanket concentration. The model requires there to be a blanket in the FBC at the start of a run
(2 to 20 %v/v).
• The flocculation factor (1 to 100 h-1).
• The maximum settling velocity (1 to 20 m/h).
• The minimum blanket concentration (0 to 15 %v/v).
• Reference temperature. This is the temperature at which the maximum settling velocity and minimum
blanket concentration were determined. The model takes into account any difference between the
reference and operating temperatures by calculating the respective viscosities (5 to 20oC).
• Shape factor. A coefficient in the hindered settling equation (0 to 3).
• Exponent factor. A coefficient in the hindered settling equation (1 to 15).
• Floc density. The density of secondary particles (fully grown flocs) (1000 to 1200 g/l).
• Ratio of wet to dry solids. The ratio of blanket concentration (%v/v) to the concentration of dry solids
(mg/l) in the blanket (1 to 1000).
25
6. DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION (DAF)
6.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION
6.1.1 Mass balance and hydraulics

The DAF tank is modelled as a series of CSTRs of equal volume. Solids removal by flotation is assumed to
follow a first-order relationship with respect to solids concentration.
In deriving the mass balance the solids concentration in the recycle stream is equal to that at the tank outlet.
The total waste stream flow rate is divided equally between stages, the solids concentration in the waste
stream from a stage being equal to the solids concentration in the stage. For the general case of a tank
modelled as n CSTR stages, the mass balance for a stage m becomes:
dX m  Qin + Qr − ( m − 1)(Qw n)   Qin + Qr − ( m − 1)(Qw n) 

=  X m −1 −  + k float  X m
dt  ( V n)   ( V n) 
where
k float = flotation constant (h-1)
Qin = inlet flow rate (m3/h)
t = time (h)
X in = inlet solids concentration (kg/m3)
X out = outlet solids concentration (= concentration in tank) (kg/m3)
n = number of CSTR stages
Qr = recycle flow rate (m3/h)
Qw = total waste flow rate (m3/h)
V = total tank volume (m3)
For n = 1 the equation simplifies to:
dX1  Qin X in + Qr X n   Qin + Qr 

=  − + k float  X1
dt  ( V n)   ( V n ) 
where
X n = X out = outlet solids concentration (kg/m3)
For convenience, in the above equations the liquid wasted is considered separately from the solids removed.
Having determined the solids removal across the tank, the solids concentration in the waste stream is
calculated from an overall mass balance.
The inlet solids concentration is the sum of volatile and non-volatile solids. All solid components are assumed
to be equally well removed.
For dissolved components, which are unaffected by DAF, the tank is assumed to behave as a single CSTR:
dCout  Qin 
=  (C − Cout )
dt  V  in
where
Cout = outlet concentration of a dissolved component (kg/m3)
Cin = inlet concentration of a dissolved component (kg/m3)
The hydraulic retention time in a DAF tank is short compared with other processes, so this simplification is
unlikely to result in any discernible error.
26
6.1.2 Solids removal

The DAF model applies the concept of the single-collector collision efficiency to determine the flotation
constant, as described by Malley and Edzwald16 . This concept had previously been applied to particle
removal by filtration, but was extended to flotation by Malley and Edzwald by considering individual air
bubbles as collectors rather than filter medium particles. In flotation, solids removal is effected by the
adherence of air bubbles to particles, which requires contact to be made between bubble and particle. The
collision efficiency is a measure of the extent to which collisions occur.
Collisions can arise from three mechanisms, for which the collision efficiency relationships are:
Brownian diffusion:
2
 k T  3
η b = 6.18 Boltz 3 
 gρ l d fp d b 
Interception:
2
3  d fp 
ηi =  
2  db 
Gravity settling:
2
 ρ fp − ρ l   d fp 
ηg =   
 ρ l   db 
The total single-collector collision efficiency is the sum of the three components:
ηt = ηb + ηi + ηg
where
d b = bubble diameter (m)
d fp = floc particle diameter (m)
g = gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
k Boltz = Boltzman constant, 1.3807x10-23 (J/K)
T = absolute temperature (K)
η b = single-collector collision efficiency, Brownian diffusion (-)
η i = single-collector collision efficiency, interception (-)
η g = single-collector collision efficiency, gravity settling (-)
η t = single-collector collision efficiency, total (-)
ρ fp = density of floc particle (kg/m3)
ρ l = density of liquid (kg/m3)
In practice, the interception term is dominant for particle diameters greater than 1 µm.
16 JP Malley and JK Edzwald, 1991, “Concepts for dissolved-air-flotation treatment of drinking

waters”, J Water SRT-Aqua 40(1)7-17.
27
The flotation constant is then defined:

3α pb η t φ b U b
k float =
2db
where
U b = bubble rise velocity (m/h)
α pb = attachment efficiency (-)
φ b = bubble volume concentration (-)
The attachment efficiency allows for the fact that not all collisions result in adhesion between bubble and
particle. The bubble volume concentration is dependent on the amount of air released into the tank, and thus
on the recycle flow rate and saturator characteristics:
Cr
φb =
ρ air
Cr =
( Cs − Ca ) R
1+ R
Psat (ε sat 100)
Cs =
H air
1
Ca =
H air
where
Ca = concentration of dissolved air remaining in DAF tank assuming it is at atmospheric
pressure (kg/m3)
Cr = concentration of air released into DAF tank (kg/m3)
Cs = concentration of air in saturated recycle stream (kg/m3)
H air = Henry’s constant for air (atm/(kg/m3))
Psat = Saturator pressure (atm abs)
R = Recycle ratio, Qr Qin , (-)
ε sat = Saturator efficiency (%)
ρ air = density of air, at mid-depth in tank (kg/m3)
The density of a floc particle is a function of size and is estimated using relationships reported by Lagvankar
and Gemmell17 :
( )
−0 .698
ρ fp = ρ l + 3.92 1000 d fp = ρ l + 0.03157d −fp0.698
diameter < 1.4 x 10-3 m
( )
−0 . 216
ρ fp = ρ l + 3.33 1000 d fp = ρ l + 0.7489d −fp0.216
diameter ≥ 1.4 x 10-3 m
17 AL Lagvankar and RS Gemmell, 1968,”A size-density relationship for flocs”, JAWWA 60(9)1040-
1046.
28
where
d fp = floc particle diameter (m)
ρ fp = density of floc particle (kg/m3)
ρ l = density of liquid (kg/m3)
29
7. CHEMICAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
There are two chemical phosphorus removal models, IAWQ and Equilibrium.
7.1 IAWQ
The IAWQ model implements the model published in the IAWQ Technical Report #318.
The model equations are
Process SPO4 SALK XMeOH XMeP XTSS Equation
Precipitation -1 v19,ALK -3.45 4.87 1.42 kPRE.SPO4.XMeOH
Redissolution 1 v20,ALK 3.45 -4.87 -1.42 KRED .XMeP
The numerical values in the table assume that FeCl3 is used to precipitate SPO4 in the form of FePO4 +
Fe(OH)3.
7.2 EQUILIBRIUM
The following reactions are assumed19 in determining how the coagulant metal and phosphorus are divided
between the solid and aqueous phases after coagulation.
Mer H 2 PO4 (OH ) 3r −1( s ) = rMe 3+ + H 2 PO4− + (3r − 1)OH − 7.1

MeOOH ( s ) + 3 H + = Me 3+ + 2 H 2 O 7.2
Me 3+ + H 2 O = MeOH 2 + + H + 7.3
Me 3+ + 2 H 2 O = Me(OH ) 2+ + 2 H + 7.4
Me 3+ + 3 H 2 O = Me(OH ) 3( aq ) + 3H + 7.5
Me 3+ + 4 H 2 O = Me(OH ) −4 + 4 H + 7.6
Me 3+ + H 2 PO4− = MeH 2 PO42 + 7.7
Me 3+ + HPO42 − = MeHPO4+ 7.8
H 3 PO4 = H + + H 2 PO4− 7.9
− + 2−
H 2 PO = H + HPO
4 4 7.10
HPO = H + + PO43−
2−
4 7.11
where
Me = Al or Fe
r = 1.6 if Me = Fe
r = 0.8 if Me = Al
18 Henze, M, W Gujer, T Mino, T Matsuo, MC Wentezel and GvR Marais, 1995, Activated Sludge
Model No. 2, IAWQ Scientific and Technical Report No. 3
19 Jenkins D and Hermanowicz SW, (1993). ‘Principles of Chemical Phosphate Removal’, Two day
Workshop of Design and Operational Experience of Treatment Plants for Nutrient Removal from
Wastewater, 28-29 June, Centro ”Luigi Bazzucchi”, Ponte della Pietra, Perugia, Italy.
30
Equilibrium constants and heats of reaction for the above are shown in Table 7.1.
Reaction pK (25oC) ∆H
Al Fe Al Fe
7.1 25.8 67.2 - -26.4
7.2 -9.1 0.5 16.0 19.8
7.3 5.0 2.2 12.0 10.4

7.4 9.3 5.7 22.0 17.0
7.5 15.0 12.0 34.9 26.5
7.6 23.0 21.6 30.0 34.8
7.7 NA -21.8 - -
7.8 -12.1 -9 - -
7.9 2.1 1.9
7.10 7.2 -0.8
7.11 12.2 -3.5
NA: not applicable
- : not available
Table 7.1 Equilibrium constants
The relationship between equilibrium constant and temperature is:
∆H  1 1
pK T2 = pK T1 +  − 
2.303 R  T2 T1 
where
pK = equilibrium constant
∆H = heat of reaction (kcal/mol)
R = universal gas constant (1.987 x 10-3 kcal/mol K)
T1 = reference temperature (K)
T2 = temperature (K)
This temperature dependency is ignored where heats of reaction are not available.
The hydroxide concentration is determined from the pH20:
[ ][
K W = H + OH − ]
4470.99
log K W = 6.0875 − − 0.01706T
T
pH = − log H + [ ]
where:
K W = partition coefficient, water
[ H ] = molar concentration of hydrogen ions
+
[OH ] = molar concentration of hydroxide ions

−
T = temperature (K)
20 Stumm W and Morgan J, (1970). ‘Aquatic Chemistry’, Wiley-Interscience.
31
8. ACTIVATED SLUDGE AERATION TANKS
The activated sludge models are based around WRc's Activated Sludge Model21 and the IAWQ COD models.
The basic model is described here as Model 1 and is intended for normal activated sludge modelling. This
model ignores the breakdown of particulate BOD to soluble BOD, and this simplification can affect the
predictions of detailed spatial oxygen demand within the aeration basin, and also the effluent BOD under
storm conditions. Model 2 therefore includes the effects of solids hydrolysis to soluble products. Although
Model 2 is therefore more accurate than Model 1 it does require that you have some data on solids breakdown;
where this is lacking Model 1 should be used. Model 3 gives the user full access to all the kinetic constants
within the model. Model 5 is a simple biological phosphorus removal model, based on an extension of Model
1.
8.1 ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL 1 (ASAL1)
This model was first published by Jones22. Work carried out at the Water Pollution Research Laboratories,
which later became WRc, had demonstrated the difficulty of reconciling the biochemical activity of activated
sludge with the numbers of viable bacteria present. In some cases the observable potential biochemical activity
was an order of magnitude greater than could be accounted for by the concentration of viable cells in the
sludge. Further, in considering the energetics of the process, calculation showed that for a typical settled
sewage the quantity of biologically available carbon could support no more than 20% of the sludge as viable
bacteria.
Downing23 had developed a model based on Monod kinetics that accurately described the nitrification
performance of the activated sludge process. In the years that followed several other models applied the same,
or similar, equations to protozoa and heterotrophic bacteria. While these models were often adequate when
applied to completely mixed aeration systems, problems arose with the degree of treatment predicted as
longitudinal mixing was decreased (i.e. as plug-flow behaviour was increased) and also as the predicted
bacteria concentration within the system increased. As an example, unrealistically large numbers, in the range
100-200 mg/l, were sometimes used for the value of the half-rate saturation constant, to overcome the
prediction of a vanishingly small concentration of substrate (BOD or ammonia) in the final effluent.
Monod developed his kinetic equations on the basis of bacterial growth in laboratory fermenters, in which the
viability of the population was almost 100%. The conditions in an activated sludge plant are markedly
different from most laboratory fermenters. First, the concentration of the feed stock entering the plant is much
lower and second, the object of the treatment process is to reduce the concentration of metabolisable substrate
to as low a level as possible. This makes the conditions in a treatment plant more akin to those in a spent batch
culture, where the viability of the culture is beginning to decline. Although a bacterium may be 'nonviable', in
that it is no longer capable of cell division, this does not necessarily mean that it is no longer capable of
biochemical activity. The activity may even be enhanced for specific compounds24, although this should not
be expected for most compounds.
21 GL Jones, 1977, "A mathematical model for bacterial growth and substrate utilisation in the
activated sludge process", in A James (ed.) Mathematical Models in Water Pollution Control, pp.
265-280, Wiley-Interscience, Chichester
22 GL Jones, 1973, "Bacterial growth kinetics: Measurement and significance in the activated sludge
process", Water Research 7, 1475-1492
23 AL Downing, HA Painter and G Knowles, 1964, "Nitrification in the activated sludge process",
Journal of the Institute of Sewage Purification, Part 2, 120-158
24 M Stephenson, 1928, "On lactic dehydrogenase. A cell-free enzyme preparation obtained from
bacteria", Biochemical Journal 22, 605-614
32
Wooldridge25 recognised that the majority of the bacterial population in activated sludge was nonviable. His
experiments showed that nonviable bacteria were quite capable of removing BOD from a reaction mixture in
the absence of viable cells. They concluded that because there was a large proportion of nonviable cells in
activated sludge that these cells would need to retain only a part of their original activity for them to be
responsible for the majority of the biochemical activity observed in the sludge. Results from more recent
chemostat studies have supported this.
The WRc model thus comprises a number of differential equations written as a mass balance around a
completely mixed reactor. Increasing the number of reactors in series increases the model's approach to plug-
flow. Twelve tanks in series provide an excellent approximation to a true plug-flow reactor.
Each tank contains an identical number of components with a differential equation for each. The components
are listed below. Autotrophs are ammonia users and heterotrophs BOD users.
SNH3: Ammonia [mg/l]
SNO3: Nitrate [mg/l]
SO : Dissolved oxygen [mg/l]
SP: Soluble phosphate [mg/l]
XA,V: Viable autotrophs [mg/l]
XA,NV: Nonviable autotrophs [mg/l]
XH,V: Viable heterotrophs [mg/l]
XH,NV: Nonviable heterotrophs [mg/l]
XT: Mixed liquor suspended solids [mg/l]
The model recognises that utilisation of substrate can occur without this consumption being coupled to
growth. Thus a more accurate description of the removal of substrate from a wastewater treatment system
would include in the mass balance equation a Monod term for the conversion of substrate to new biomass and
a Michaelis-Menten term for non-growth substrate removal. The equations below represent how this is done
within the WRc model:
Removal of BOD:
dSS µ
= Q ⋅ ( SS,in − S ) − H X H ,V ⋅ V − ψ ⋅ X H , NV ⋅ V
dt YH
The inlet term Q Ss,in includes the effects of sewage, return activated sludge, mixed liquor recycles and the
normal flow of mixed liquor through the activated sludge tank.
Viable heterotrophs:
dX H ,V
= Q ⋅ ( X H ,V ,in − X H ,V ) + µ H ⋅ X H ,V ⋅ V
dt
Nonviable heterotrophs:
dX H , NV
= Q ⋅ ( X H , NV ,in − X H , NV ) − K D ⋅ X H , NV ⋅ V
dt
The same equations are repeated for autotrophs, with ammonia and autotrophic bacteria replacing BOD and
heterotrophic bacteria.
The uptake of oxygen uses the following equation, allowing for oxygen uptake by both BOD and ammonia
oxidation and the transfer of oxygen into the sewage through aeration:
25 WR Wooldrige, 1933, "The 'stability test' of sewage and its relation to enzyme activity",
Biochemical Journal 27(1) 193-201
WR Wooldrige and AFB Standfast, 1936, "The role of enzymes in activated sludge and sewage
oxidation", Biochemical Journal 30(9) 1542-1543
33
dSO Q µ
= ⋅ ( SO,in − SO ) + K L a ⋅ ( SO∗ − SO ) − H ⋅ X H ,V − ψ H ⋅ X H , NV
dt V YH
µA So
−YO, NH 3 ⋅ ( ⋅ X A,V − ψ A ⋅ X A, NV ) − M o 2 ⋅ ⋅ XT
YA Ko + So
The growth and enzyme terms use similar equation forms:

Monod term - growth kinetics:
µ max ⋅ S SO
µ= ⋅
K S + S KO + SO
Michaelis-Menten term - enzyme kinetics:
ψ max ⋅ S SO
ψ= ⋅
K S + S KO + SO
The model allows the use of nitrate as an oxidising agent when this would favour bacterial growth. Only
heterotrophic bacteria are capable of utilising nitrate. The decision as to which to use is made by calculating
the growth rate on oxygen and nitrate and selecting whichever is the larger of the two.
An essential part of the model is the transition from viable to nonviable cells. Heterotrophic bacteria isolated
from sewage treatment plants have been found to have maximum specific growth rates of about 0.3 h-1 at 15-
20°C. This compares with specific growth rates of 0.008 h-1 or less for typical activated sludge plants. At
such low proportions of their maximum specific growth rate bacterial cultures are known to lose viability, and
the probability of cell division resulting in the production of nonviable cells increases26. Experiments at the
Water Pollution Research Laboratory showed that at 10% of the maximum specific growth rate of the culture
there was a marked decline in the viability of that culture. Because of this the WRc model assumes that the
bacteria remain fully viable while the growth rate exceeds 10% of the maximum, and then decreases at lower
growth rates. The conversion of viable to nonviable biomass is made within the final tank. The form of the
equation is:
∆ = max( Vmin , min(1, 10 ⋅ µ / µ max ))
where ∆ is the fractional change to be made in the viable: nonviable ratio and Vmin is the minimum permitted
viability ratio.
The parameters that you can alter with this model are:
(i) The nitrification rate, set as High, Average or Low. 'High' increases the nitrification rate by 20% from
the 'average' value, while low reduces the nitrification rate by 20%. For most domestic sewages the
average value is required. The low value corresponds to moderate inhibition of nitrification by
industrial effluent.
(ii) Oxygen transfer rate, KLa. Most users set the dissolved oxygen levels to the concentration that they
wish to use, and then set the KLa value in the range 10-20 per hour. The dissolved oxygen controller
will calculate the required KLa value to produce the dissolved oxygen concentration. Most aerator
suppliers specify their equipment on standard oxygen transfer rates (SOTR), defined as kg of oxygen
per hour when the dissolved oxygen concentration is zero27. The actual oxygen transfer rate is
calculated by STOAT and this can be compared with the aerator performance curves. KLa values are
being specified in recent activated sludge commissioning and acceptance trials. KLa values can be
estimated using the methods described in Appendix C.
26 DW Tempest, D Herbert and PKJ Phipps, 1967, "Studies on the growth of Aerobacter aerogenes at
low dilution rates in a chemostat", Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Microbial
Physiology and Continuous Culture, HMSO
27 SOTR = KLa x V x CS, with SOTR in kg/h, KLa in per hour, V in m3 and CS in kg/m3. CS is the
saturation oxygen concentration, and V is the aeration tank volume.
34

Activated sludge model 1 assumes that all particulate BOD is solubilised immediately. This approximation is
acceptable when the sewage retention time is long, greater than 4 hours. For shorter sewage retention times
hydrolysis is incomplete and Model 1 is likely to over-predict the effluent BOD. Under these circumstances
we recommend the use of model 2. Activated sludge model 2 includes the effect of solids hydrolysis and
makes the following changes and additions to the system of equations:
Increase in soluble BOD from hydrolysis of particulate BOD:
dSS Q µ RX ⋅ X S
= ( SS,in − SS ) − H ⋅ X H ,V − ψ H ⋅ X H , NV + ⋅ X H ,V
dt V YH K X ⋅ XT + X S
Reduction in particulate BOD from hydrolysis:
dX S Q RX ⋅ X S
= ( X S,in − X S ) − ⋅ X H ,V
dt V K X ⋅ XT + X S
Reduction in total solids from hydrolysis of particulate BOD:
dXT Q
= ( XT ,in − XT ) + µ H ⋅ X H ,V + µ A ⋅ X A,V
dt V
1 RX ⋅ X S
− ⋅ X H ,V
YS, X K X ⋅ XT + X S
One additional variable is added to the ten used in model 1. This additional variable is the particulate BOD,
XS. The hydrolysis model has been taken from the work of the IAWQ28. Note that although much of the
IAWQ modelling literature describes the hydrolysis half-rate constant KX as having the units of mg/l, this is
not so - it is 'dimensionless', with the units of mg/l (BOD) per mg/l (solids).
You must specify the degradation rate, RX, the half-rate constant KX and the BOD content of volatile solids
YS,X. The parameters can be evaluated by adjusting them to give a good fit between the STOAT predictions
and measured data. At long sewage retention times (greater than about two hours) hydrolysis is nearly
complete and it will be difficult to find a unique set of parameter values without extensive data on the BOD or
DO profile within the aeration tank. Calibration is therefore recommended with storm flows only, when the
sewage retention time is as low as possible. Alternatively laboratory-scale activated sludge units can be
operated to acquire this data. The IAWQ29 recommends the use of laboratory-scale units and optimisation
techniques to fit the hydrolysis parameters to the data.
This model has been evaluated at a UK sewage works on storm flows and found to predict the correct effluent
BOD. The activated sludge unit at this works had a hydraulic retention time during the storm of less than one
hour.

This model is equivalent to Model 2 but with all the kinetic and stoichiometric parameters accessible to you
and should be restricted to ‘expert’ use especially when treating industrial effluents.
The principal differences between this model and model 2 are
1. Viability changes are calculated using a differential equation, rather than a difference equation. This
change means that you should not use the settler models SSED1, SSED2 or SSED5, as these settler
models implement the difference equation required for loss of viability in the models ASAL1, ASAL2
and ASAL5.
2. The nitrogen mass balance has been adjusted to permit the uptake of nitrogen into growing biomass.
3. All kinetic and stoichiometric parameters used by the model are made available to the user.
28 Henze et al., op. cit.

29 Henze et al., op. cit., pp. 17-18
35
Removal of BOD:
dSS Q µ RX ⋅ X S
= ( SS,in − SS ) − H ⋅ X H ,V − ψ H ⋅ X H , NV + ⋅ X H ,V
dt V YH K X ⋅ XT + X S
The inlet term Q Ss,in includes the effects of sewage, return activated sludge, mixed liquor recycles and the
normal flow of mixed liquor through the activated sludge tank.
Reduction in particulate BOD from hydrolysis:
dX S Q RX ⋅ X S
= ( X S,in − X S ) − ⋅ X H ,V
dt V K X ⋅ XT + X S
where Xs is the particulate BOD
Viable heterotrophs:
dX H ,V Q ⋅ ( X H ,V ,in − X H ,V )
= + µ H ⋅ X H ,V − ϕ ⋅ X H ,V
dt V
Nonviable heterotrophs:
dX H , NV Q ⋅ ( X H , NV ,in − X H , NV )
= − K D ⋅ X H , NV + ϕ ⋅ X H ,V
dt V
The same equations are repeated for autotrophs, with ammonia and autotrophic bacteria replacing BOD and
heterotrophic bacteria.
Total solids:
dXT Q
= ( XT ,in − XT ) + µ H ⋅ X H ,V + µ A ⋅ X A,V
dt V
1 RX ⋅ X S
− ⋅ X H ,V
YS, X K X ⋅ XT + X S
The uptake of oxygen uses the following equation, allowing for oxygen uptake by both BOD and ammonia
oxidation and the transfer of oxygen into the sewage through aeration:
dSO Q µ
= ⋅ ( SO,in − SO ) + K L a ⋅ ( SO∗ − SO ) − H ⋅ X H ,V − ψ H ⋅ X H , NV
dt V YH
µA So
−YO, NH 3 ⋅ ( ⋅ X A,V − ψ A ⋅ X A, NV ) − M o ⋅ ⋅ XT
YA K o + So
The growth and enzyme terms use similar equation forms:

Monod term - growth kinetics:
µ max ⋅ S SO
µ= ⋅
K S + S KO + SO
Michaelis-Menten term - enzyme kinetics:
ψ max ⋅ S SO
ψ= ⋅
K S + S KO + SO
The model allows the use of nitrate as an oxidising agent when this would favour bacterial growth. Only
heterotrophic bacteria are capable of utilising nitrate. The decision as to which to use is made by calculating
the growth rate on oxygen and nitrate and selecting whichever is the larger of the two.
An essential part of the model is the transition from viable to nonviable cells. Heterotrophic bacteria isolated
from sewage treatment plants have been found to have maximum specific growth rates of about 0.3 h-1 at 15-
20°C. This compares with specific growth rates of 0.008 h-1 or less for typical activated sludge plants. At
such low proportions of their maximum specific growth rate bacterial cultures are known to lose viability, and
36
the probability of cell division resulting in the production of nonviable cells increases30. Experiments at the
Water Pollution Research Laboratory showed that at 10% of the maximum specific growth rate of the culture
there was a marked decline in the viability of that culture. Because of this the WRc model assumes that the
bacteria remain fully viable while the growth rate exceeds 10% of the maximum, and that the viability will
decrease at lower growth rates.
Loss of viability:
  µ 
ϕ = µ ⋅ max ϕ min , min 1 − 
  f ⋅ µ max  
where ϕmin is the minimum viability and
f is the fractional growth rate below which biomass begin to lose viability.
SYMBOLS USED
Symbol Definition Units
µ Bacterial growth rate [1/h]
ψ Enzyme removal rate of substrate [1/h]
KD Death rate [1/h]
KLa Oxygen mass transfer rate [1/h]
KO Monod half-rate constant for oxygen [mg/l]
KS Monod half-rate constant for BOD [mg/l]
KX 'Half-rate' constant for particulate BOD [-]
m Maintenance rate [1/h]
PX Phosphorus content of heterotrophic biomass [-]
Q Flowrate [m3/h]
RX Hydrolisation rate for particulate BOD [1/h]
V Volume [m3]
YA Yield of autotrophs on ammonia nitrogen [-]
YH Yield of heterotrophs on BOD [-]
YO,NH3 Oxygen required to oxidise unit mass of NH3-N [-]
YS,X BOD content of unit mass of volatile solids [-]

This model will be introduced in a later version of STOAT. It is equivalent to the IAWQ Activated Sludge
Model #2 for biological phosphorus removal, modified to work with BOD rather than COD and to include the
concept of nonviable bacteria having biological activity.

Activated sludge model 5 is the same as model 1 but includes a simple model of biological P-removal. The
equation for P-uptake is:
Removal of soluble phosphorus through biological uptake:
dSP Q
= ( SP,in − SP ) − µ H ⋅ X H ,V ⋅ PX
dt V
Increase in phosphorus stored in biomass:
dX P
= Q( X P,in − X P ) + µ H ⋅ X H ,V ⋅ PX
dt
One additional variable to the ten in model 1 is required. This is XP, the concentration of phosphorus within
the sludge biomass.
30 DW Tempest, D Herbert and PKJ Phipps, 1967, "Studies on the growth of Aerobacter aerogenes at
low dilution rates in a chemostat", Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Microbial
Physiology and Continuous Culture, HMSO
37
PX is the phosphorus content of the heterotrophic bacteria, typically in the range 1-5%. Phosphorus uptake is
only permitted if at least one zone within the aeration tank is anaerobic, taken to be dissolved oxygen less than
0.1 mg/l and nitrate less than 0.5 mg/l.
This model is a simplification of the biological processes taking place in P-removal. A more complete model
is being prepared as Model 4, and Model 4 will be similar to the IAWQ Activated Sludge Model No. 2. The
WRc version will differ from the IAWQ model in two areas. The first is using BOD rather than COD and the
second is the inclusion of biochemical activity in the nonviable biomass.
The simple model 5 is not redundant. WRc pilot-scale experience suggests that providing there are sufficient
volatile fatty acids then model 5 is as accurate as any of the more comprehensive models. Like these more
comprehensive models it requires a knowledge of the phosphorus content of the biomass; if this parameter is
over- or under-estimated then much of the sophistication of the IAWQ Model #2-type models is wasted.
8.6 MODEL VARIANTS

Each version of the activated sludge models described above comes in three variants. These are, for Model 1:
Model 1, Model 1A and Oxidation ditch model 1. These models are related in the following way:
Model 1 only examines the use of nitrate as an alternative to oxygen in tanks where there is no oxygen, that is,
where the value of KLa is zero. This approach speeds up the calculations by ignoring the competition between
denitrification and oxygen usage in aerated tanks where the dissolved oxygen value is low, typically less than
0.2 mg/l. Model 1A should be used if you wish to deliberately have regions of low DO (less than 0.5 mg/l), if
you have high nitrate concentrations (greater than 40 mg/l) or if you are creating 'special' forms of oxidation
ditches31. Model 1 is the default, chosen to maximise computing speed for typical activated sludge designs.
The oxidation ditch model is a special case of an activated sludge tank with mixed liquor recycles, where the
recycle is designed to encompass the entire tank. The oxidation ditch model is the same as Model 1A with the
mixed liquor recycle automatically set up for the user.
SYMBOLS USED
µ Bacterial growth rate [1/h]
ψ Enzyme removal rate of substrate [1/h]
KD Death rate [1/h]
KLa Oxygen mass transfer rate [1/h]
KO Monod half-rate constant for oxygen [mg/l]
KS Monod half-rate constant for BOD [mg/l]
KX 'Half-rate' constant for particulate BOD [-]
PX Phosphorus content of heterotrophic biomass [-]
Q Flowrate [m3/h]
RX Hydrolisation rate for particulate BOD [1/h]
V Volume [m3]
YA Yield of autotrophs on ammonia nitrogen [-]
YH Yield of heterotrophs on BOD [-]
YO,NH3 Oxygen required to oxidise unit mass of NH3-N [-]
YS,X BOD content of unit mass of volatile solids [-]
31 One such special form that WRc have investigated involved the effect of poor mixing within an
oxidation ditch, so that the entering sewage and RAS were effectively flowing in separate lanes
until the end of the straight leg of the oxidation ditch. For this we modelled the feed section of the
oxidation ditch as three Model 1 tanks in parallel, then had a mixer followed by a single Model 1
tank, and then a splitter to divide the sewage back to the three parallel Model 1 tanks.
38
8.7 IAWQ ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL #1

The definitive reference for the IAWQ Activated Sludge Model #1 is Activated Sludge Model No. 1,
International Association on Water Quality (IAWQ - formerly IAWPRC, International Association on Water
Pollution Research and Control) Scientific and Technical Reports No. 1, ISSN 1010-707X. The WRc
implementation of the model has two changes:
1. Alkalinity is ignored. In the IAWQ model a charge balance was carried out on alkalinity, but alkalinity
was not directly used in the model. The recommendation was that a warning message be issued should
the alkalinity drop below 50 mg/l as calcium carbonate, as below this level the pH in the system
becomes unstable.
2. The production of particulate COD from biomass decay has been lumped into the inert particulate
COD. This approach was taken because the biomass decay particulate COD is assumed to be
nondegradable within the local environment. It may be degradable by bacteria under different
conditions, but in modelling terms these bacteria would also have to assume that such COD was inert,
to prevent them from (incorrectly) consuming their own COD by-products as well as (correctly) those
from bacteria under different conditions.
The IAWQ model does not directly include nitrogen in inert organic forms, soluble or particulate, nor
nitrogen tied up in the biomass. Because of this within the aeration basin there will be appear to be a
loss of nitrogen (through biomass uptake) and the reported total nitrogen will be less than the true total
nitrogen, because of the omission of nondegradable nitrogen forms.
The IAWQ Activated Sludge Model uses the same hydraulics as all the other activated sludge models.
The distinguishing feature is the reaction kinetics. This is defined in the following table.
Kinetics and stoichiometry matrix for the STOAT implementation of the IAWQ Activated Sludge Model #1
39
Component i
j Process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Process rate, ρj
SI SS XI XS XB,H XB,A SO SNO SNH SND XND
1 Aerobic growth of -1/YH 1 YH-1 -iXB SS SO
heterotrophs YH µ$ H X B, H
K S + SS KO, H + SO
2 Anoxic growth of -1/YH 1 YH-1 -iXB SS SNO KO, H
heterotrophs 2.86 YH η g µ$ H X B, H
K S + SS K NO + SNO KO, H + SO
3 Aerobic growth of 1 YA-4.57 1 -iXB-1 SNH SO

autotrophs YA YA YA µ$ A X B, A
K NH + SNH KO, A + SO
4 ‘Decay’ of fp 1-fp -1 iXB-fpiXP bH X B, H
heterotrophs
5 ‘Decay’ of fp 1-fp -1 iXB-fpiXP bA X B, A
autotrophs
6 Ammonification of 1 -1 ka SND X B, H
soluble organic
nitrogen
7 ‘Hydrolysis’ of 1 -1
entrapped XS  SO KOH SNO 
 XBH,
,
kh +ηb
organics
KXXT + XS KOH
, +SO , +SO KNO +SNO
KOH
8 ‘Hydrolysis’ of 1 -1 X ND
entrapped organic ρ7
SS
nitrogen
Stoichiometric Kinetic parameters:
parameters: Heterotrophic growth and decay:
Heterotrophic yield YH µH, KS, KO,H, KNO, bH
Autotrophic yield: YA Autotrophic growth and decay:
Fraction of biomass µA, KNH, KO,A, bA
yielding particulate Correction factor for anoxic growth of
products: fp heterotrophs: ηg
Mass N/mass COD in Ammonification: ka
biomass: iXB Hydrolysis: kh, KX
Mass N/mass COD in Correction factor for anoxic hydrolysis: ηh
products from
biomass: iXP

The definitive reference to the IAWQ Activated Sludge Model #2 is Activated Sludge Model No. 2, IAWQ
Scientific and Technical Report No. 3, ISBN 1 900222 00 0.
The WRc implementation of this model has two main changes to the IAWQ model:
1. The production of nitrogen gas through denitrification is not explicitly modelled.
2. Alkalinity is not modelled. Unlike the IAWQ Model #1, where alkalinity conservation was modelled
but not otherwise used, Model #2 uses alkalinity as part of the switching functions. The WRc
implementation of this model therefore assumes that alkalinity will never be limiting.
This model comes with a ‘health warning’ from the IAWQ - because it has only recently been released they
are recommending that it only be used where there is ample data to calibrate the model. The default values for
the kinetics should be used to investigate trends, rather than absolute effluent values.
40
The following series of tables have been abstracted from the IAWQ technical report for the model. They
describe the kinetics of the model, as appropriate to the WRc implementation. Although nitrogen gas is not a
modelled component in STOAT we have left the table entries for this component.
Conversion factors to be applied in the continuity equations. Missing values are equal to 0.
COD N P Mass
Factor I Component c iCOD,I iN,i iP,i iTSS,i
1 SO2 -1
2 SF 1 iN1SF iPSF
3 SA 1
4 SNH4 1
5 SNO3 -64/14 1
6 SPO4 1
7 SI 1 iNSI iPSI
8 SN2 -24/14 1
9 XI 1 iNXI iPXI iTSSXI
10 XS 1 iNXS iPXS iTSSXS
11 XH 1 iNBM iPBM iTSSBM
12 XPAO 1 iNBM iPBM iTSSBM
13 XPP 1 3.23
14 XPHA 1 0.60
15 XAUT 1 iNBM iPBM iTSSBM
16 XTSS -1
17 XMeOH 1
18 XMeP 0.205 1
Stoichiometry of hydrolysis processes.
Process SF SPO4 SI XS XTSS
1 Aerobic hydrolysis 1-fSI ν1,NH4 fSI -1 ν1,TSS
2 Anoxic hydrolysis 1-fSI ν2,NH4 fSI -1 ν2,TSS
3 Anaerobic hydrolysis 1-fSI ν13,NH4 fSI -1 ν3,TSS
Stoichiometry of the growth and decay processes of facultative heterotrophic organisms XH.
Stoichiometry for oxygen (and nitrate in denitrification), ammonia, phosphate and total solids
may be computed from continuity
Process SO2 SF SA SNO3 SN2 XI XS XH

4 Aerobic growth on SF 1-1/YH -1/YH 1
5 Aerobic growth on SA 1-1/YH -1/YH 1
6 Anoxic growth on SF - denitrification -1/YH -1-YH -1-YH 1
2.86 YH 2.86 YH
7 Anoxic growth on SA - denitrification -1/YH -1-YH -1-YH 1
2.86 YH 2.86 YH
8 Fermentation -1 1 1
9 Lysis fXI 1-fXI -1
41
Stoichiometry of the processes of phosphorus-accumulating organisms, XPAO. Stoichiometry

for oxygen, ammonia, phosphate and total solids may be computed from continuity.
Process SO2 SA SPO4 XI XS XPAO XPP XPHA
10 Storage of XPHA -1 YPO4 -YPO4 1
11 Storage of XPP -YPHA -1 1 -YPHA
12 Aerobic growth of XPAO 1-1/YH -iPBM 1 -1/YH
13 Lysis of XPAO ν13,P fXI 1-fXI -1
14 Lysis of XPP 1 -1
15 Lysis of XPHA 1 -1
Stoichiometry of the growth and decay processes of nitrifying organisms Stoichiometry for
oxygen, ammonia, phosphate and total solids may be computed from continuity.
Processes SO2 SNH4 SNO3 SPO4 XI XS XAUT
16 Aerobic growth of XAUT 1-4.57/YA -iNBM/YA 1/YA -iPBM 1
17 Lysis ν17,NH4 ν17,P fXI 1-fXI -1
Stoichiometry and kinetics of the processes describing precipitation of phosphorus. The

absolute values for stoichiometry and kinetics are based on the assumption that FeCl3 is used
to precipitate SPO4 in the form of FePO4 + Fe(OH)3. Stoichiometry for total solids may be
computed from continuity.
Process SPO4 XMeOh XMeP XTSS
Stoichiometry
18 Precipitation -1 -3.45 4.87 1.42
19 Redissolution 1 3.45 -4.87 -1.42
Kinetics
18 Precipitation kPRE⋅SPO4⋅XMeOH kPRE = 1 m3/g Fe(OH)3 d
19 Redissolution kRED⋅ XMeP kRED = 0.6 /d
42
Process rate equations for Activated Sludge Model #2.

Process Rate equation
Hydrolysis processes
1 Aerobic hydrolysis Kh ⋅
SO 2
⋅
XS / X H
⋅ XH
KO 2 + SO 2 K X + XS / X H
2 Anoxic hydrolysis η NO3 ⋅ K h ⋅

KO 2
⋅
SNO3
⋅
XS / X H
⋅ XH
KO 2 + SO 2 K NO3 + SNO3 K X + XS / X H
3 Anaerobic hydrolysis η fe ⋅ K h ⋅
KO 2
⋅
K NO3
⋅
XS / X H
⋅ XH
KO 2 + SO 2 K NO3 + SNO3 K X + X S / X H
Heterotrophic organisms: XH
4 Growth on fermentable substrate SF µH ⋅
SO 2
⋅
SF
⋅
SF
⋅
SNH 4
⋅
SPO 4
⋅ XH
KO 2 + SO 2 K F + SF SF + SA K NH 4 + SNH 4 K P + SPO 4
5 Growth on fermentation products SA µH ⋅
SO 2
⋅
SA
⋅
SF
⋅
SNH 4
⋅
SPO 4
⋅ XH
KO 2 + SO 2 K A + SA SF + SA K NH 4 + SNH 4 K P + SPO 4
6 Denitrification on fermentable substrates SF η NO3 ⋅ µ H ⋅
KO 2
⋅
SF
⋅
SF
⋅
SNO3
⋅
SNH 4
⋅
SPO 4
⋅ XH
KO 2 + SO 2 K F + SF SF + SA K NO3 + SNO3 K NH 4 + SNH 4 K P + SPO 4
7 Denitrification on fermentation products SA η NO3 ⋅ µ H ⋅

KO 2
⋅
SA
⋅
SF
⋅
SNO3
⋅
SNH 4
⋅
SPO 4
⋅ XH
KO 2 + SO 2 K A + SA SF + SA K NO3 + SNO3 K NH 4 + SNH 4 K P + SPO 4
8 Fermentation q fe ⋅
KO2
⋅
K NO3
⋅
SF
⋅ XH
KO 2 + SO 2 K NO3 + SNO3 K fe + SF
9 Lysis bH ⋅ X H
Phosphorus-accumulating organisms (PAO): XPAO
10 Storage of XPHA qPHA ⋅
AA
⋅
X PP / X PAO
⋅ X PAO
K A + SA K PP + X PP / X PAO
11 Storage of XPP SO 2 SPO 4 X PHA / X PAO K MAX − X PP / X PAO
qPP ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ X PAO
KO 2 + SO 2 K PO 4 + SPO 4 K PHA + X PHA / X PAO K IPP + K MAX − X PP / X PAO
12 Aerobic growth on XPAH µ PAO ⋅

SO 2
⋅
SNH 4
⋅
SPO 4
⋅
X PHA / X PAO
⋅ X PAO
KO 2 + SO 2 K NH 4 + SNH 4 K PO 4 + SPO 4 K PHA + X PHA / X PAO
13 Lysis of XPAO bPAO ⋅ X PAO
14 Lysis of XPP bPP ⋅ X PP
15 Lysis of XPHA bPHA ⋅ X PHA
Nitrifying organisms (autotrophic organisms) XAUT
16 Growth µ ⋅
SO 2
⋅
SNH 4
⋅
SPO 4
⋅ X AUT
AUT
KO 2 + SO 2 K NH 4 + SNH 4 K PO 4 + SPO 4
17 Lysis bAUT ⋅ X AUT
Simultaneous precipitation of phosphorus with ferric hydroxide Fe(OH)3
18 Precipitation kPRE ⋅ SPO4 ⋅ XMeOH
19 Redissolution kRED⋅ XMeP
43
Nomenclature: Components
Symbol Definition
Dissolved components
SO2 Dissolved oxygen
SF Readily biodegradable substrate
SA Fermentation products (acetate)
SNH4 Ammonium
SNO3 Nitrate (plus nitrite)
SPO4 Phosphate
SI Inert, non-biodegradable organics
SN2 Dinitrogen (nitrogen gas)
Particulate components
XI Inert, nonbiodegradable organics
XS Slowly biodegradable substrate
XH Heterotrophic biomass
XPAO Phosphorus-accumulating organisms
XPP Stored poly-phosphate of PAO
XPHA Organic storage products of PAO
XAUT Autotrophic, nitrifying biomass
XMeOH ‘Ferric hydroxide’ (Fe(OH)3+)
XFeP ‘Ferric phosphate’ (FePO4)
XTSS Particulate material as a model component32
Nomenclature: Conversion factors

Symbol Definition
Nitrogen
Soluble material
iNSI N content of inert soluble COD SI
iNSF N content of soluble substrate SF
Particulate material
iNXI N content of inert particulate COD XI
iNXS N content of particulate substrate XS
iNBM N content of biomass XH, XPAO, XAUT
Phosphorus
Soluble material
iPSI P content of inert soluble COD SI
iPSF P content of soluble substrate SF
Particulate material
iPXI P content of inert particulate COD XI
iPXS P content of particulate substrate XS
iPBM P content of biomass XH, XPAO, XAUT
Total suspended solids
iTSSXI TSS to XI ratio
iTSSXS TSS to XS ratio
iTSSBM TSS to biomass ratio for XH, XPAO, XAUT
32 This value is larger than the TSS which may be measured analytically since it includes the fraction
of XS which would pass through the filter in the TSS analysis. XTSS may also include some inert
materials which are contained in the influent but not accounted for by other components. If this is
the case XTSS in the influent may be larger than predicted from the continuity equation.
44
Nomenclature: Stoichiometry
Symbol Definition
fSI Fraction of inert COD in particulate substrate
Heterotrophic organisms XH
YH Yield coefficient
fXI Fraction of inert COD generated in biomass lysis
Phosphorus-accumulating organisms XPAO
YPAO Yield coefficient (biomass/PHA)
YPO4 PP requirement (SPO4, release) for PHA storage
YPHA PHA requirement for PP storage
Nitrifying organisms XAUT
YAUT Yield coefficient (biomass/nitrate)
45
Nomenclature: Kinetics
Symbol Definition
Hydrolysis
Kh Hydrolysis rate constant
ηNO3 Anoxic hydrolysis reduction factor
ηfe Anaerobic hydrolysis reduction factor
KO2 Saturation/inhibition coefficient for oxygen
KNO3 Saturation/inhibition coefficient for nitrate
KX Saturation coefficient for particulate COD
Heterotrophic organisms
µH Maximum growth rate on substrate
qfe Maximum rate for fermentation
ηNO3 Reduction factor for denitrification
bH Rate constant for lysis
KO2 Saturation/inhibition coefficient for oxygen
KF Saturation coefficient for growth on SF
Kfe Saturation coefficient for fermentation of SF
KA Saturation coefficient for SA (acetate)
KNO3 Saturation/inhibition coefficient for nitrate
KNH4 Saturation coefficient for ammonium (nutrient)
KP Saturation coefficient for phosphorus (nutrient)
Phosphorus-accumulating organisms
qPHA Rate constant for storage of PHA (base: XPP)
qPP Rate constant for storage of PP
µPAO Maximum growth rate
bPAO Rate constant for lysis of XPAO
bPP Rate constant for lysis of XPP
bPHA Rate constant for lysis of XPHA
KO2 Saturation coefficient for SO2
KA Saturation coefficient for SA (acetate)
KNH4 Saturation coefficient for ammonium
KPS Saturation coefficient for phosphorus in PP
storage
KP Saturation coefficient for phosphorus in growth
KPP Saturation coefficient for poly-phosphate
KMAX Maximum ratio of XPP/XPAO
KIPP Inhibition coefficient for XPP storage
KPHA Saturation coefficient for PHA
Nitrifiers
µAUT Maximum growth rate
bAUT Decay rate
kO2 Saturation coefficient for oxygen
KNH4 Saturation coefficient for ammonium
KP Saturation coefficient for phosphorus
Precipitation
kPRE Rate constant for P precipitation
kRED Rate constant for redissolution
46
9. TOWER REACTOR PROCESS
The tower reactor process model33 has two elements: reaction kinetics and hydraulics. The reaction kinetic
models developed for activated sludge apply equally to the tower reactor. An hydraulic model is required to
predict the rate of circulation within the reactor. Strictly speaking the hydraulic model equations should be
solved simultaneously with the reaction kinetic equations, but it is mathematically convenient to handle the
two sets of equations separately, and the assumptions made which enable this simplification do not appear to
introduce any appreciable error in the predicted performance. This section concentrates on the hydraulic
model. The kinetic models implemented are the WRc BOD model and the IAWQ activated sludge models #1
and #2. Details of these models can be found in the section describing the activated sludge models. The WRc
model referred to is model ASAL3.
The procedure for the determination of liquid circulation rate is adapted from that of Joshi et al34. Circulation
in a tower reactor is induced by a difference in hydrostatic head between the two limbs. The difference in
hydrostatic head arises from the gas voidage being greater in one limb than in the other. Opposing this driving
force is a resisting force, the frictional pressure drop around the system. Joshi et al presented relationships for
gas voidage and two-phase pressure drop which together form the basis of an iterative procedure for
predicting circulation rate.
The iterative procedure commences with an initial estimate of the circulation rate. Each limb is divided into a
number of increments of uniform depth, and profiles of pressure, gas voidage and gas-phase composition are
generated. The boundary condition is that the calculated pressure at the top of the riser must equal the
atmospheric pressure. The estimate of the circulation rate is adjusted until this boundary condition is met.
The procedure outlined above is steady-state, which is consistent with the general approach to flow rates
within STOAT. Joshi et al noted that the hydraulics of this type of reactor respond quickly to changes in
operating conditions. In the context of the tower reactor model, the variable that most affects circulation rate
for a given reactor configuration is the rate at which air is sparged into the reactor. This provides the principal
means of control. Tower reactors are normally constructed with a number of sparge points, at different depths,
which provides a second, coarser control option.
9.1 HYDRAULIC MODEL

Joshi et al differentiated between the two-phase flow regimes likely to prevail in the two limbs of the reactor.
The flow regime determines which relationships are applicable for gas voidage and frictional pressure drop.
They concluded that for large diameter (that is, greater than laboratory scale) reactors, in the downcomer there
would be homogeneous bubbly flow, characterised by a narrow range of bubble size and a uniform radial
bubble distribution; and in the riser there would be heterogeneous bubbly flow, characterised by internal liquid
recirculation, a wider range of bubble size and a non-uniform radial bubble distribution.
9.1.1 Gas voidage

The downcomer gas voidage is found from the implicit correlation:
VG VL
= Vb∞ (1 − ε G ) (1 + 2.55ε 3G )
1.39
− +
ε G (1 − ε G )
where
VG , VL = superficial gas, liquid velocity (m/s)
ε G = fractional volumetric gas hold-up (voidage)
Vb∞ = single bubble terminal rise velocity (m/s)
The riser gas voidage is found from the explicit correlation:
33 The most common example of a tower reactor system is the Deep Shaft process available in the UK
from Kvaerner Ltd. Other tower reactors include the Bayer tower.
34 JB Joshi, VV Ranade, SD Gharat and SS Lele, 1990, “Sparged loop reactors”, The Canadian Journal
of Chemical Engineering 68, 705-741.
47
VG
= C0 (VG + VL ) + C1
εG
C0 = 2 − 1.263VL + 0.547VL2 − 0.073VL3 VL < 115
.
C0 = 116
. VL ≥ 115
.
C1 = 0.3
where
C0 , C1 = correlation parameters
9.1.2 Frictional pressure drop

The local frictional pressure drop is calculated from the equation:
2 fρ L VL2 L 2
∆Pf = ΦL
D
where
∆Pf = frictional pressure drop (N/m2)
L = distance (m)
f = friction factor
D = diameter of reactor limb (m)
Φ 2L = two-phase friction multiplier
0.0626
f = 2
  ( e D) 5.74  
 log 10  + 
  3.7 Re 0.9  
where
e = surface roughness (m)
Re = Reynolds number
The two-phase friction multiplier is dependent on the prevailing flow regime:
1 2k 2
Φ 2L = +
ε 2L fVL
where, in the downcomer
k = 1.5ε G Vb∞ (1 − ε G )
1.39
(1 + 2.55ε )
3
G
and in the riser

1
   ε  
3
k = 0.25 gD VG − VL  G  − ε G Vb∞ (1 − ε G ) (1 + 2.55ε 3G ) 

1.39
  1 − ε G  
where
g = gravitational acceleration (ms-2)
48
In addition there will be a pressure drop across the 180o bend at the base of the reactor. The bend is modelled
as being equivalent to a length of straight pipe equal to a number of pipe diameters. Additionally, Joshi et al
reported that a standing gas bubble forms on the inner radius of the bend, and included a contraction loss term
to account for the reduction in cross-sectional area. Total pressure drop at the base is therefore given by:
2 fρ L VL2 nDb A 
∆Pfb = + ρ L VL2  b − 1
Db  ab 
where
∆Pfb = pressure drop across base (N/m2)
n = number of diameters (equivalent length)
Db = diameter of base (m)
Ab = cross-sectional area of base (m2)
a b = cross-sectional area of base available for liquid flow (m2)
Joshi et al used the following values:
n = 75
ab
= 0.75
Ab
Notwithstanding the allowance for the standing bubble, it is assumed that, at the base of a tower reactor the
gas voidage is sufficiently small, because of the pressure, to treat the flow as single phase.
At steady state, the difference between the pressures at the base of each limb equals the pressure drop across
the base:
p db − p rb = ∆Pfb
where
p db = local pressure at bottom of downcomer (N/m2)
p rb = local pressure at bottom of riser (N/m2)
To determine values of p db and p rb the pressure profiles down each limb are calculated. The local pressure
at any depth z in the downcomer is given by:
 d∆Pf
z z

p dz = p atm + ∫ gρ L (1 − ε G )dz − ∫   dz
0 0
 dz 
and in the riser by:
 d∆Pf 
z z
p rz = p atm + ∫ gρ L (1 − ε G )dz + ∫   dz
0 0
 dz 
where
p dz , prz = local pressure at a depth z from the surface in downcomer, riser (N/m2)
p atm = pressure at surface of reactor (taken to be atmospheric pressure) (N/m2)
0 represents the surface of the reactor
49
9.1.3 Mass transfer

The dissolution of gas is one of the factors which determines the gas voidage at any point in the reactor and
hence the circulation rate. Joshi et al considered the gas to be a mixture of an insoluble carrier and a solute,
corresponding, in the given application, to nitrogen and oxygen respectively. However, nitrogen dissolution
appears to have an increasing effect on circulation in deeper reactors, and so has been incorporated in the
STOAT model.
It is assumed that the resistance to mass transfer is on the liquid side, and that Henry’s Law applies. Thus at
any point in the reactor, the liquid phase concentrations of oxygen and nitrogen at the gas/liquid interface in
equilibrium with the local partial pressures of the respective gases. In the case of nitrogen, it is assumed that
the liquid at the top of the downcomer is saturated at atmospheric pressure and that no nitrogen is produced by
biological activity within the reactor. For oxygen, it is assumed that the consumption of dissolved oxygen by
biological activity is immediate, so the bulk liquid dissolved oxygen concentration is zero.
Mass transfer of gas component i at any depth z is given by:
dGi = kli a( Czi∗ − Czi ) Adz

6ε
a= G
d bz
Vb∞ (1 + 2.55ε 3G )(1 − ε G )

1.39
DABi
kli = 113
.
d bz
Czi∗ = H ci yi p z
where
Gi = gas flow rate (mol/s)
kli = mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
a = gas-liquid interfacial area (m2/m3)
Czi∗ = equilibrium liquid phase concentration (mol/m3)
Czi = liquid phase concentration (mol/m3)
A = cross-sectional area of reactor limb (m2)
z = vertical distance (m)
d bz = local bubble diameter (m)
DABi = diffusivity of gas in liquid (water) (m2/s)
H ci = Henry’s law constant (mol/[m3.(N/m2)])
yi = gas phase mole fraction
p z = local pressure (N/m2)
The gas flow rate entering the next increment n + 1 is derived from that in the current increment n from the
equation
dGi
Gi n +1
= Gi n
− ∆z
dz n
where
∆z = depth of an increment (m)
The derivation of the liquid phase concentration depends on which component is considered. For oxygen, as
noted above,
CzO2 = 0
For nitrogen,
50
 dG N2 
 ∆z 
dz n 
CzN2 = CzN2 +
n +1 n  VL A 
 
 
The gas phase mole fractions follow from the revised gas flow rates:
Gi
yi n +1
=
G n +1
G = ∑ Gi
where
G = total gas flow rate (mol/s)
If air is injected into the riser as well as the downcomer, allowance is made for the additional gas by
performing a mass balance across the increment corresponding to point of injection into the riser.
To determine the local gas superficial velocity, ideal gas behaviour is assumed:
GRT
VGz =
Ap z
where
R = universal gas constant (J/[mol.K])
T = absolute temperature (K)
At any point in the reactor, bubble size is assumed to be uniform. To make allowance for the effect of local
pressure on bubble size, ideal gas behaviour is also assumed. The bubble diameter specified is that at the point
of injection into the downcomer (the sparge point). At any other point in the reactor,
d bz p
= 3 ds
d bds pz
where the subscript ds indicates the sparge point.
9.1.4 Power
Adiabatic compression is assumed. The power required to compress the air to the pressure at the sparge point
is therefore given by:
γ −1
 

γGRT  pds γ 
Pc =   − 1

γ − 1  patm  
 
where
Pc = adiabatic power of compression (W)
γ = 1.4
9.2 LINKING HYDRAULIC MODEL WITH REACTION KINETICS

Once the circulation rate has been calculated, the reaction kinetic model specified by the user is applied.
Whichever kinetic model is used, the tower reactor is treated as three parts: from the surface to the downcomer
sparge point; from the downcomer sparge point to the base; and the riser. Each part is divided into a number of
stages, each of which is treated as if it were an ideal continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR). Fewer stages are
required for the kinetic model then for the hydraulic model.
51
The local pressures and mass transfer coefficients derived in the hydraulic model are averaged for each of the
kinetic model stages. The solving of the kinetic model then proceeds in the same way as when applied to
conventional activated sludge or oxidation ditch processes.

(i) Bubble diameter. The bubble diameter at the downcomer sparge point must be specified. A uniform
bubble size is assumed. The default value of 5 mm is based on a review of bubble formation by
Heijnen and Van’t Riet35, who concluded that diameters in the range 4 to 6 mm could be expected
from both orifice and ejector-injector spargers.
(ii) Number of equivalent diameters. The pressure drop across the 180o bend at the reactor base is
considered to be the sum of a friction loss and a contraction loss. The friction loss is calculated for an
equivalent length of straight pipe, expressed in diameters. The default, applied by Joshi et al, is 75.
Whether or not a particular value is appropriate can only be investigated by trial and error.
(iii) Free area ratio, reactor base. This parameter is included in the calculation of the contraction loss
component of the pressure drop across the reactor base. Joshi et al1 reported that a standing bubble
tends to form on the upper radius of the 180o bend at the base of shaft reactors, and quoted a study
which found that such bubbles effectively reduced the cross-sectional area of the base by 25% under a
wide range of flow rates. This is equivalent to a free area ratio (the area available for flow divided by
the cross-sectional area) of 0.75. This is the default value. If no standing bubble were formed, the value
would be 1.0. In the absence of direct observation, whether or not a particular value is appropriate can
only be investigated by trial and error.
(iv) Surface roughness. This parameter is used in the calculation of the friction losses through the reactor.
The default is 0.3 mm, suggested by Perry36 as appropriate for smooth concrete. The build up of slime
on the reactor wall may increase friction. Whether or not a particular value is appropriate can only be
investigated by trial and error.
(v) Liquid diffusivity. The default values37 are 1.8 x 10-9 m2/s for oxygen and 1.64 x 10-9 m2/s for nitrogen.
35 JJ Heijnen and K Van’t Riet, 1984, “Mass transfer, mixing and heat transfer phenomena in low
viscosity bubble column reactors”, The Chemical Engineering Journal 28, B21-B42.
36 RH Perry and D Green (Eds), 1984, “Chemical Engineers’ Handbook”, 6th edition, McGraw Hill, New
York, USA.
37 JM Coulson and JF Richardson, 1977,”Chemical Engineering”, Volume 1, 3rd edition, Pergamon
Press, Oxford, UK.
52
10 DEGASSER
The degasser should be used with the tower reactor process. Sludge coming out of a tower reactor process is
normally supersaturated with oxygen. The degasser reduces the concentration of dissolved oxygen to the
concentration of dissolved oxygen at the pressure in the degasser (normally atmosphere pressure). It calculates
the saturated dissolved oxygen concentration at the given pressure and temperature, assuming that the liquid is
in contact with air. The dissolved oxygen concentration is set to the lesser of the saturated value and the
current value.
53
11 ACTIVATED SLUDGE SETTLING TANKS
The settling tank model is based on the work of Takacs38.
11.1 FINAL TANK MODEL

There are five settling models available and they should be used depending on which aeration tank model is
being used as follows:
• AERATION • SETTLING
MODEL • MODEL
• ASAL1 (1A) • SSED1
• ASAL3 (3A) • Generic
• IAWQ#1 • Generic
• IAWQ#2 • Generic
The fifth model (Version 3) will be used with later versions of the aeration models.
In this model the settling tank is divided into a number of zones to use in modelling the final tank, including
where the mixed liquor feed enters the final tank. Sewage flows either up into the top zone to leave as effluent
or down into the bottom two zones to be thickened and leave as Returned Activated Sludge (RAS).
The settling velocity equation uses the Takacs modification to the Vesilind equation
VS = min( Vmax , V0 [ e − b1 ⋅ X − e − b2 ⋅ X ])
where the solids are partitioned into two fractions, settleable and nonsettleable. Only the settleable fraction is
used in calculating the settling velocity
Limits are placed on the settling flux to mimic the effects of a minimum settling flux. For any zone within the
tank the settling flux is specified by the equation
( VS ⋅ X ) out = min([VS ⋅ X ]zone ,[ VS ⋅ X ]below )
providing the solids concentration is above a value specified by the user as marking the onset of hindered
settling (thickening threshold). As a first approximation this onset value can be set as the larger of the two
solutions calculated from
Vmax = V0 (exp( − b1 ⋅ X ) − exp( − b2 ⋅ X ))
The simplest way of solving this equation is to produce a graph of the V0 (exp[-b1X] - exp[-b2X]) term and
use the graph to locate the concentrations of X that give the Vmax values. Generally the solids concentration
marking the onset of hindered settling will be greater than
b2
ln
b1
X=
b2 − b1
38 I Takacs, GG Patry and D Nolasco, 1991, "A dynamic model of the clarification-thickening
process", Water Research 25(10) 1263-1271
54
For soluble material the mass balance equations are:
dS
= Q( Si − S )
dt
where Q has the value for the effluent flow above the feed point, the value of the total flow at the feed point,
and the value of the returned activated sludge plus wastage sludge below the feed point. Above the feed point
the inlet concentrations are those for the stage below, as the flow is upwards; below the feed point the inlet
concentrations are those for the stage above, as the flow is down; and at the feed point the inlet concentrations
are those for the entering mixed liquor. This can be seen in the following diagram.
Final tank effluent

Upflow
Mixed liquor
Feed stage
Downflow
Return activated sludge
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE FINAL TANK

For the solid components the equation is
dX Q A
= ( Xin − X ) + ( VS ⋅ X above
− VS ⋅ X )
dt V V
The same conditions on the flow and inlet concentrations apply as for the soluble components. At the top of
the settling tank there are no solids to enter from the air, so the value of VSXabove is zero. At the base of the
tank the tank floor prevents further settling, so that here the value of VSX is zero. The settling velocity VS is
calculated as a function of the solids concentration as given by the Vesilind equation.

This model has the parameters Vmax, V0, b1, b2, the thickening threshold and the nonsettleable solids
fraction. Values for these parameters can be calculated as follows:
the thickening threshold as described on previous page;
the non-settleable solids fraction by leaving a sample of the sludge to stand for 30 minutes to an hour and
measuring the solids left in suspension above the sludge blanket.
55
V0 and b1 from the correlations39

V0 = 9.32 - 0.039 SSVI3.5
b1 = (0.269 + 0.00122 SSVI3.5) x 10-3
where V0 is in m/h, b1 in l/mg and the SSVI3.5 is in ml/g40.
von Sperling41 suggests ranking sludges into 'good', 'fair' and 'poor' settleability, with the parameters
Settleability V0 (m/h) b1 (l/mg)

Good 7.57 0.36 x 10-3
Fair 6.85 0.52 x 10-3
Poor 5.63 0.81 x 10-3
Should you feel that these correlations do not represent the correct V0 and b1 values at your sewage works
then consult Appendix G for an alternative approach.
The maximum settling velocity is measured from a settling test. The activated sludge is diluted with final
effluent to a concentration around 500 mg/l and put into a settling cylinder. The settling velocity of large flocs
is measured and used as Vmax.
The final parameter, b2, should be much larger than b1, typically 50 times, and is normally in the range 10-
100 times b1. It is normally estimated by varying its value until the model predictions match those observed.
The lower the value of b2 the worse the sludge settles. A value of b2=b1 implies that the sludge does not
settle, while b2<b1 means that the sludge rises.
39 This correlation was developed by WRc using settling data from oxidation ditches reported by AJ
Rachwal, MJ Hanbury, DJ Critchard and DWM Johnstone, 1982, "The application of settleability
tests for the control of activated sludge plants", in B Chambers and E Tomlinson (eds), Bulking of
Activated Sludge, Ellis Horwood Publishers, Chichester. A similar correlation has been developed
from South African biological P-removal systems by PFC Catunda and AC van Haandel, 1992,
"Activated sludge settling Part I: Experimental determination of activated sludge settleability",
Water SA 18(3) 165-172. Their correlations are:
Vmax = (10.9 + 0.18 SSVI3.5) exp(-0.016 SSVI3.5)
b1 = (0.016 + 0.0027 SSVI3.5) x 10-3
40 SSVI3.5 is the Stirred Sludge Volume Index at a MLSS concentration of 3.5 g/l (3,500 mg/l). The
SSVI test is described in Appendix H. The SSVI is a replacement index for the SVI (Sludge
Volume Index) that is applicable to higher solids concentrations. It is a better test than SVI as the
results are more meaningful as a measure of the settleability of the sludge. By reporting the SSVI at
a standard value of 3.5 g/l we have a uniform index for comparing sludges. As a rule, SSVI3.5 less
than 80 is a rapid settling sludge; in the range 100-130 a 'typical' sludge; and greater than 150 a
bulking sludge. The numerical limits between 'good', 'average', and 'bulking' sludge may vary if
you consult a different source. The grey areas of SSVI 80-100 and 130-150 represent uncertainty as
to this sludge being good or bad. Note that you must use the SSVI3.5, not the SSVI at your
operational MLSS value.
41 M von Sperling, 1994, "A new unified solids flux-based approach for the design of final clarifiers.
Description and comparison with traditional criteria", paper submitted to Water Science and
Technology.
56
12 SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR
The sequencing batch reactor models classical batch reactors, where the fill and drawdown stages are
exclusive. This version of the SBR will not model processes such as CASSTM or IDEA where sewage flows
continuously into the tank, even during decant, and where sludge wastage is permitted to be continuous.
12.1 COMMON FEATURES

There are three variations of the SBR, distinguished by their kinetic models. These are the WRc model (BOD
based, carbon-nitrogen removal); IAWQ Model #1 (COD based, carbon-nitrogen removal); and IAWQ Model
#2 (COD based, carbon-nitrogen-phosphorus removal). We recommend the use of the WRc and IAWQ #1
models.
The SBR is assumed to be in one of the following phases:
idle;
filling, either anoxic or aerobic;
reaction;
settling;
emptying, either decanting effluent or wasting sludge.
The settling stage uses the equations for the activated sludge settler, and these equations have not been
repeated here.
The SBR is treated as a single well-mixed tank for all phases except settling and emptying, where a sludge
blanket is formed.
The equations take the form of
IF StartOfIdle THEN
ResuspendTankContents
ELSE IF NotSettling THEN
UseOneStage - equations are the activated sludge reaction kinetics
ELSE
UseNumberOfStages - equations are the activated sludge reaction kinetics
END IF
The hydraulic equations during fill account for the variable volume, while the decant stage allows for the
induction of an upflow caused by the removal of the tank contents.
12.2 WRC ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL

This model is the same as that described in Section 8.3 - ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL 3 (ASAL3)

This model is the same as that described in Section 8.7 - IAWQ ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL #1

57
13 VARIABLE VOLUME ACTIVATED SLUDGE

There are three models of the variable volume activated sludge tank, distinguished by their kinetic models.
These are the WRc model (BOD based, carbon-nitrogen removal); IAWQ Model #1 (COD based, carbon-
nitrogen removal); and IAWQ Model #2 (COD based, carbon-nitrogen-phosphorus removal). We recommend
the use of the WRc and IAWQ #1 models.
repeated here.
if not Settling or Decanting then
Standard mixing equations for activated sludge
else
Standard settling equations for settling tank
end if



58
14. COMPARTMENTED SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR42

There are three models of the CSBR process, distinguished by their kinetics. These are the WRc model (BOD
based, carbon-nitrogen removal); IAWQ Model #1 (COD based, carbon-nitrogen removal); and IAWQ Model
#2 (COD based, carbon-nitrogen-phosphorus removal). We recommend the use of the WRc and IAWQ #1
models.
repeated here.
The CSBR is treated as a series of well-mixed stages for all phases except settling and emptying, where a
sludge blanket is formed.
The equations take the form of
if not Settling or Decanting then
Standard mixing equations for activated sludge
else
Standard settling equations for settling tank
end if
The differences between this model and the variable volume activated sludge model are
1. There can be multiple operating cycles specified during a day. The total of these cycles must equal 24
hours. Each cycle can have up to 8 completely-mixed phases, specified as two mixed phases followed
by a settling phase.
2. If there are no permanently completely-mixed stages then the sewage and RAS feed are assumed to
enter the base of the tank, while the variable volume model assumes that the feed enters at the tank
surface.
3. There is support for a mixed liquor take-off from the tank, separate to the internal mixed liquor recycle.
4. The decant flowrate is calculated from the equations for flow over a weir, rather than being a flowrate
specified by the user.



42 The most common form of CSBR in the UK is Babcock Water Engineering’s CASS process.
59
15. BIOLOGICAL FILTERS
There are three biological filter models, two of which are BOD based and have been developed by WRc.
Much of the research that WRc drew upon has been presented by Salako43.
15.1 BIOLOGICAL FILTER MODEL 1

The biological filter model divides the filter into a series of N stages. The arrangement can be seen in the
following diagram.
Sewage
Liquid in a stage/pool
Biofilm
[Voidage part of biofilter]
Filter effluent
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE BIOLOGICAL FILTER
For each stage differential equations are solved, for the components:
SNH3:Ammoniacal Nitrogen [mg/l]
SNO3:Oxidised nitrogen [mg/l]
SO: Dissolved oxygen [mg/l]
XNV: Nonvolatile solids [mg/l]
XV: Volatile or degradable solids [mg/l]
XX: Biomass solids [mg/l]
In addition you need to specify, for each stage within the filter, the concentrations of the heterotrophic and
autotrophic bacteria, XH and XA. The concentrations of XH and XA relate to the biofilm, while XX (biomass
solids not attached to the biofilm) applies to the liquid covering the biofilm. The biomass solids XX are
regarded as separate from the other volatile solids as they are not considered to be biodegradable within the
filter. (On passing to another filter they can then be degraded.)
43 NO Salako, 1989, Performance of Biological Filters, MSc thesis, Imperial College of Science,
Technology and Medicine, University of London
60
Soluble substrates diffuse into the biofilm where they are converted by bacteria into more bacteria, carbon
dioxide and other reaction products. The suspended solids in the sewage is first adsorbed onto the surface of
the biofilm and then hydrolyses into soluble substrates. The soluble substrates can then diffuse into the biofilm
to be destroyed.
The differential equations used are:
Volatile solids in liquid film on biofilm:
∂XV Q X − XV K 2
= ⋅ V ,i − XV*
∂t A ⋅ a ⋅ ∆z d f + T f d f + Tf
Volatile solids adsorbed onto biofilm:

XV* = T f ⋅ XV
Soluble BOD in liquid film:

∂SS Q( SS,i − SS ) K ⋅ YS, X *2 DB ∂SS, f
= + XV +
∂t A ⋅ a ⋅ ∆z ⋅ d f df d f ∂y y=0
Ammonia:
∂SNH 3 Q( SNH 3,i − SNH 3 ) DNH 3 ∂SNH 3, f
= +
∂t A ⋅ a ⋅ ∆z ⋅ d f df ∂y y=0
Oxidised nitrogen:
∂SNO3 Q( SNO3,i − SNO3 ) DNO3 ∂SNO3, f
= +
∂t A ⋅ a ⋅ ∆z ⋅ d f df ∂y y=0
Dissolved oxygen:
∂SO Q( SO,i − SO ) K L D ∂SO, f
= + ⋅ ( SO* − SO ) + O
∂t A ⋅ a ⋅ ∆z ⋅ d f df d f ∂y y=0
*
S is the equilibrium dissolved oxygen concentration.
O
The mass transfer coefficient KL is calculated from the equation

K L = 0. 0051 ⋅ ( Q ⋅ g / A ) 0.33 Re 0.66 Sc −0.5 Mc 0.4
Biomass solids are produced inside the biofilm and an equivalent mass discharges into the liquor:
∂X X Q( X X ,i − X X ) D ∂SS, f DNH 3 ∂SNH 3, f
= − VH ⋅ YH , B S − VA ⋅ YA, N
∂t A ⋅ a ⋅ ∆z ⋅ d d d f ∂y y=0
df ∂y y=0
Nonvolatile solids:
∂X NV Q( X NV ,i − X NV )
=
∂t A ⋅ a ⋅ ∆z ⋅ d f
BOD within the biofilm:

∂ 2 SS , f XH SS, f SO, f
DS = ⋅µH ⋅ ⋅
∂y 2
YH , S K S + SS, f K O, S + SO
Ammonia within the biofilm:

∂ 2 SNH 3, f XA SNH 3, f SO
DNH 3 = ⋅µA ⋅ ⋅
∂y 2
YH , N K NH 3 + SNH 3, f K O, N + SO
Nitrate within the biofilm:

∂ 2 SNO3, f ∂ 2 SNH 3
DNO3 = − YNO3, NH 3 ⋅ DNH 3 ⋅
∂y ∂y 2
61
Dissolved oxygen within the biofilm:

∂ 2 SO, f ∂ 2 SS, f ∂ 2 SNH 3, f
DO2 = α O, S ⋅ DS ⋅ + α O, N ⋅ DN ⋅
∂y 2 ∂y 2 ∂y 2
The growth rates vary with temperature as given by the following equation:
b⋅( T − Tref )
µ = µ max ⋅ e
where µmax is the maximum growth rate at the reference temperature Tref, and b is the temperature
coefficient.
The boundary conditions for the biofilm equations are:
At the surface of the biofilm, the concentrations are the same as that of the sewage :
SS , f = SS
y=0
SNH 3, f = SNH 3
y=0
SNO3, f = SNO3
y=0
SO, f = SO
y=0
If there is sufficient BOD to remove the oxygen deep within the biofilm, so that the concentration of BOD is
still greater than zero, then the 'deep film' boundary equations are:
SO, f =0
y =∞
∂SS, f
=0
∂y y =∞
∂SNH 3, f
=0
∂y y =∞
∂SNO3, f
=0
∂y y =∞
Otherwise, given that BOD and ammonia are removed 'deep' within the biofilm, the boundary equations
become:
SS , f =0
y =∞
SNH 3, f =0
y =∞
∂SNO3, f
=0
∂y y =∞
∂SO, f
=0
∂y y =∞
62
The variables used are:

a Specific surface area of filter media [m2/m3]
A Surface area of filter [m2]
df Liquid thickness over biofilm [m]
DNH3 Diffusivity of ammonia [m2/h]
DNO3 Diffusivity of nitrate [m2/h]
DO Diffusivity of oxygen [m2/h]
dP Filter media size [m]
DS Diffusivity of soluble BOD [m2/h]
g Gravitational acceleration [m/s2]
K Solids degradation rate [l/m mg h]
KL Mass transfer coefficient [m/h]
KN,O Half rate constant: autotrophs on oxygen [mg/l]
KN Half rate constant: autotrophs on ammonia [mg/l]
KS,O Half rate constant: heterotrophs on oxygen [mg/l]
KS Half rate constant: heterotrophs on BOD [mg/l]
Mc Media characteristic number = a df [-]
N Number of stages [-]
Q Flowrate [m3/h]
Re Reynolds number = Q dP / A ν [-]
Sc Schmidt number = Q / A DO [-]
SNH3,f Ammonia concentration within the biofilm [mg/l]
SNO3,f Nitrate concentration within the biofilm [mg/l]
SO,f Oxygen concentration within the biofilm [mg/l]
SO * Saturation dissolved oxygen concentration [mg/l]
SS,f BOD concentration within biofilm [mg/l]
Tf Solids adsorption coefficient [m]
VA Viability of autotrophs [-]
VH Viability of heterotrophs [-]
XV* Solids adsorbed onto the biofilm [m mg/l]
YA,N Yield of autotrophs on ammonia [-]
YH,S Yield of heterotrophs on BOD [-]
YNO3,NH3 Yield of nitrate on ammonia [-]
YS,X Yield of BOD from volatile solids [-]
Z Filter bed depth [m]
Greek symbols:
ν Kinematic viscosity (m2/s)

µA Autotrophs growth rate ( /h)
µH Heterotrophs growth rate ( /h)
αO,S Ratio of oxygen consumed to BOD removed
αO,N Ratio of oxygen consumed to ammonia-N remove
∆z Depth of each stage, Z/N (m)
Solving the biofilm and stage equations

The solution of this set of equations starts by linearising the biofilm differential equations and solving
these analytically. The analytic solution then results in a series of ordinary differential equations for the
filter. These equations are solved numerically using Runge-Kutta or equivalent integration methods.
63
Implicit in this solution method are the following:

(i) The biofilm attains 'steady-state' values much faster than the bulk sewage. Because the biofilm is
normally microns thick this is a reasonable assumption.
(ii) The biofilm solids stay in 'steady-state'. There is no growth or loss of the biofilm. All solids produced
are lost directly to the sewage. Because of this, seasonal effects, such as sloughing, cannot be modelled.
It is up to the user to alter the biofilm biomass concentrations to represent seasonal effects.
Another result of this 'steady-state' biofilm solids assumption is that periods of low flow, BOD,
ammonia or oxygen starvation will have no long lasting effect on the biological activity - there is a
reduction in reaction rates caused by the shortage of these components, but the biofilm recovery is
instantaneous once the concentrations increase.
(iii) The constant production of biomass solids leads to high predictions of effluent solids. The humus tank
model removes these biomass solids, so that the effluent predictions from the humus tank are
reasonable representations of what would be achieved. The sludge predictions should be taken as an
average, rather than an instantaneous, value.
If the specific surface area is unknown then it can be estimated from the size of the media. The following
table44 gives specific surface area values for media up to 63 mm in diameter.
Specific surface area, m2/m3

Type of media
Granite Blast-furnace slag Crushed gravel
Nominal maximum Single Range for Single Range for Single Range for
size of media size graded size graded size graded
mm material material material
25 194 185-237 208 200-246 176 169-208
37.5 135 129-149 146 140-163 125 120-140
50 97 94-111 104 101-118 89 86-101
63 75.5 73-85 81 70-90 69 67-77
For larger diameter media you can assume that the specific surface area (SSA) is proportional to the reciprocal
of the media size. The surface area is therefore calculated from
d small media
SSAlarge media = SSA small media ⋅
d large media
d is the diameter or characteristic dimension of the packing.
44 Unit Processes: Biological Filtration, Manuals of Practice in Water Pollution Control, The
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
64
The effective specific surface area is the amount of the media surface on which there is active biofilm. Initially
this can be set to be 100% of the specific surface area. The WRc STOM Manual45 suggests that the effective
specific area be set to the superficial surface area if the wetting rate exceeds the following:
'Traditional' media: 25-35 mm, wetting rate in excess of 1 m3/m2.d
35-50 mm, wetting rate in excess of 1.5 m3/m2.d
50-100 mm, wetting rate in excess of 2 m3/m2.d
Random plastic packing: wetting rate in excess of 8-12 m3/m2.d
Structured plastic packing: wetting rate in excess of 10-30 m3/m2.d
The kinetic coefficients (growth rates, half-rate saturation coefficients, temperature coefficients) and
stoichiometry (ratio of BOD and ammonia to oxygen, and ratio of nitrate produced to ammonia removed)
should not normally be changed. When calibrating the biological filter we recommend that you initially adjust
the biofilm thickness and biomass concentration in the biofilm, before considering adjusting the kinetics or
stoichiometry.

(i) The depth of the pools within the model can be estimated using a tracer test. The tracer results are used
to calculate the retention time, and optionally the number of stages in series. The following equation is
then used to calculate the depth of the pools:
Q⋅τ
df =
V ⋅a
where Q = flowrate [m3/h]
τ = retention time [h]
V = volume of filter [m3]
a = specific surface area of filter media [m2/m3]
(ii) Alter the degradation rate of solids (K) until the overall solids removal is correct. It may also be
necessary to alter the upward velocity in the humus tank causing 95% removal of solids.
(iii) Alter the pool depth (df) and the constant determining the concentration of feed solids on the biofilm
(Tf) to change the height of effluent peaks and the timing of the model response. To keep the feed
solids degradation rate correct then changes to Tf must keep K Tf2 constant. Decreasing df+Tf
increases the peak values of the effluent solids and decreases the response time to changes in the
influent. Decreasing df has a similar effect on the BOD and ammonia effluent predictions.
(iv) The BOD and ammonia predictions can be altered by varying the heterotroph and nitrifier
concentrations. Because of the competition for oxygen between the heterotrophs and nitrifiers, altering
the heterotroph concentration can change the BOD and ammonia predictions. The concentrations are
normally set to be the same for each stage in the filter. This is an idealisation, as the heterotroph
concentration should be highest near the surface, reducing with depth, while the autotroph
concentration for most filters should increase with depth (low at the surface because of competition
with the heterotrophs) and then subsequently decrease (because of ammonia depletion). Tertiary
nitrifying filters have a low BOD influent, so that the autotroph concentration is highest at the filter
surface.
45 STOM - Sewage Treatment and Optimisation Model: User Manual and Description. 1987.
Previously published as WRc report TR 144. This manual describes a steady-state model with
correlations developed from several years of data from sewage works throughout the UK.
65
15.3 BIOLOGICAL FILTER MODELS 2 (BOD) & 3 (COD)

These biofilter models are divided into three areas:
• Biofilm processes, describing diffusion and growth-related movement within the biofilm
• Bulk processes, describing the behaviour of determinands outside the biofilm
• Reaction kinetics
The models assume that there are no reactions within the bulk liquid. The only reaction is within the biofilm.
15.3.1 Biofilm processes
The biofilm model is taken from that of Wanner and Gujer46, with some additional developments by Wanner
and Reichert47.
For soluble material the governing equation is
∂S ∂  ∂S 
= R − −D ⋅ 
∂t ∂z  ∂z 
where R is the reaction rate - production or consumption - and D is the diffusivity
The boundary conditions are
∂S
=0
∂z z= 0
(no mass transfer at the interface of the biofilm and the attachment surface)
∂S
−D ⋅ = K L ⋅ ( Sbulk − S L )
∂z z= L
(continuity of mass transfer at the interface)

KL is the mass transfer coefficient
For the particulate material the differential equation is:
∂X ∂X
∂t
(
= µ − µ ⋅ X − uz ⋅
∂z
)
where
Z
uz = ∫ µ ⋅ dξ
0
nX
µ= ∑µ
i =1
i ⋅ Xi
46 Wanner, O and W Gujer, 1986, “A multispecies biofilm model”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering
28(3) 314-328
47 Wanner, O and P Reichert, 1996, “Mathematical modelling of mixed-culture biofilms”,
Biotechnology and Bioengineering 49, 172-184
66
At the biofilm surface shear loss and attachment terms are added to the uz term, to give the equation
L
u L = ∫ µ ⋅ dξ − σ + λ
0
where σ and λ are terms reflecting solids loss and attachment.

The growth rate µ is the observed growth rate and includes all solids loss (biomass loss) terms.
The boundary conditions are
∂X
=0
∂z z= 0
∂X X 
−u L ⋅ = K L ⋅  bulk − X L 
∂z z= L ∑X 
Wanner and Gujer normalise the concentration of solids within the biofilm to be mass fractions, while the
concentrations within the bulk liquid remain in mass concentration units.
The equations as specified above pose a moving boundary problem, because of the growth and loss of the
biofilm. Gujer and Wanner transformed this problem into a stationary problem, solvable on a fixed
computational grid, by applying the transformations:
Define Q = z / L. Q is constant (the fixed grid), while z and L will vary with time because of film growth.
∂ 1 ∂

→ ⋅
∂z L ∂Q
∂ ∂ Q ∂

→ − u L ⋅ ⋅
∂t ∂t L ∂Q
The spatial partial derivatives are estimated by upstream finite difference derivatives, to produce a method-of-
lines approximation that is then solved with the standard integration methods.
15.3.2 Bulk processes

The bulk processes taking place are those of:
• mixing
• mass transfer of soluble material into or out from the biofilm
• detachment of solids
• attachment of solids (IAWQ implementation only)
• hydrolysis of particulate BOD (BOD implementation only)
The solid attachment term (IAWQ model only) is a first-order equation

ratt = k att ⋅ X
The solids hydrolysis term (BOD model only) is modelled as
X surface = k att ⋅ X BOD
n
rhyd = k hyd ⋅ X surface
67
The detachment term is modelled with the equation48
(
rdet = 0.5 k1 ⋅ µ L ⋅ L2 + k 2 ⋅ L2 )
The mass transfer of soluble material from the bulk liquid to the biofilm is calculated using the equation49
( )
k L = ξ ⋅ 0.765 ⋅ Re −0.82 + 0.365 ⋅ Re 0.386 ⋅ Sc −2 / 3 ⋅ U / ε
Re = U ⋅ d p ⋅ ρ / µ
Sc = µ / ( ρ ⋅ D)
where
Re Reynolds number
Sc Schmidt number
U Superficial velocity = Q/A
Q Liquid flowrate
A Cross-sectional area
dp Particle diameter
ρ Density
µ Viscosity
ε Voidage
ξ Mass transfer enhancement factor
The mass transfer enhancement factor is used because the correlation was developed for mass transfer to
smooth spheres, rather than to the irregular surface of biofilm support particles.
15.3.3 Reaction kinetics

The reaction kinetics used are those for the WRc BOD model, described as ASAL3 in the activated sludge
section, and the IAWQ COD model, also described in the activated sludge section.
48 Steward, PS, 1993, “A model of biofilm detachment”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 41, 111-
117
49 Dwivedi, PN and SN Upadhyay, 1977, “Particle-fluid mass transfer in fixed and fluidized beds”,
Industrial Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 16(2) 157 ff
68
16. HUMUS TANKS
16.1 HUMUS TANK MODEL 1

The humus tank is a simple steady-state model. Few real data are available on humus tank performance and
what there is, is mostly for steady-state models. These data were collected in a manner that only permitted a
steady-state model to be developed. This has forced STOAT to use a steady-state model. The basis of the
model is to calculate the removal of settleable solids from the equation:
Removal fraction = exp(-3 V95/V)
where V95 is the upflow velocity at which 95% of solids are removed, and V is the actual upflow velocity.
V95 is estimated by comparing the model predictions to measured data.
Settleable solids are the nonvolatile and biomass solids entering the humus tank. Volatile solids of non-
biomass origin are nonsettleable.

Solids removal is modelled as
Xe = XNS + XS exp(-3 V95/V)
where Xe is the effluent solids concentration, XS the settleable influent solids concentration and XNS the
nonsettleable influent solids concentration. The solids removal is given by
R = Xe / (XNS+XS) = a + b exp(-3 V95/V)
If the solids removal is plotted against the reciprocal of the overflow rate, 1/V, and a smooth curve fitted
through the points, it is then possible to draw tangents to the curve to calculate the derivative dR/d(1/V) for
various values of (1/V).
The removal equation can be differentiated to give
dR/d(1/V) = -3 V95 B exp(-3 V95/V)
or ln(-dR/d(1/V)) = a' - 3 V95 / V
or (taking Y = ln(-dR/d(1/V)) and X = 1/V)
Y = a' - b X.
If R is plotted against X the tangent data dR/dX can be taken from the graph. From this a table of Y against X
can be constructed, and the linear regression equation of Y against X can be calculated to estimate a’ and b.
From the slope, b, V95 is calculated as V95 = -b/3.
69
17. BIOLOGICAL AERATED FILTERS

The BAF model is divided into three areas:
• Bulk processes, describing the behaviour of determinands outside the biofilm (dilution).
The model assumes that there are no reactions within the bulk liquid. The only reaction is within the biofilm.
The differences between the BAF and biological filters are:
• The BAF is operated as a flooded system, the filter is not.

• The filter always assumes that there is excess oxygen, the BAF uses forced aeration so the user
specifies how much air is supplied and there is a possibility of being oxygen limited.
• The Biofilm density is greater in the BAF system than in the biological filter.
• The BAF model supports external solids loss (i.e. the flow of liquid can be high enough to strip
solids from the biofilm).
17.1 BIOFILM PROCESSES

The biofilm models the transport of substrate into the biofilm from the bulk liquid.
The biofilm model used is the same as that used to model the biological filter and is described fully in Section
15.3 - BIOLOGICAL FILTER MODELS 2 & 3
17.2 REACTION KINETICS

The reaction kinetics models the breakdown of substrate within the biofilm for growth purposes.
There are three models available to describe the reaction kinetics and these are the same as those described in
Section 8.3 - ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL 3 (ASAL3)
Section 8.7 - IAWQ ACTIVATED SLUDGE MODEL #1
70
18. BIOLOGICAL FLUIDISED BEDS

The fluidised bed model is divided into four areas:
• Bed expansion
The differences between the BFB and biological filters are:

• The BFB is operated as a flooded system, the filter is not.
• The filter always assumes that there is excess oxygen, the BFB uses external aeration so the user
specifies how much air is supplied (using the oxygenator - Section 19) and there is a possibility of
being oxygen limited.
• The BFB always behaves as a completely mixed tank.
• The Biofilm density is greater in the BFB system than the biological filter.
• The BFB model supports external solids loss (i.e. the flow of liquid can be high enough to strip
solids from the biofilm).
• The model assumes that there are reactions within the bulk liquid.


The reaction kinetics model the breakdown of substrate within the biofilm for growth purposes.
18.3 BED EXPANSION

The bed expansion is calculated from the equation
ψ 2 = ψ 0 + (1 − ψ 0 ) ⋅ ψ RZ exp( 2.1n[1 − ψ RZ ])
2.2 n + 8 d p / DT
1/ n
 u 
ψ RZ =  − d L/ D 

 Vt p T 
n = 4.7
where
Vt Stokes settling velocity
ug superficial gas velocity
uL superficial liquid velocity
dp particle diameter
DT column diameter
ρs particle density
ρL liquid density
ψ2 two-phase expanded bed voidage
ψ0 static bed voidage
71
19. OXYGENATOR
The oxygenator is commonly used with the Biological Fluidised Bed Model (Section 18) and its purpose is to
model the air input to the fluidised bed. it can also be used for any process that requires an external aeration
50
system to be modelled e.g. VITOXTM
The oxygenator is provided as two models, steady-state and dynamic.
19.1 STEADY STATE MODEL

The steady-state model solves the equation
Q( SO2,in − SO2 ) = K L a ⋅ V ⋅ ( SO2,saturation − SO2 )

to calculate the dissolved oxygen concentration.
19.2 DYNAMIC MODEL

The dynamic model solves the differential equation
dSO2
V⋅ = Q( SO2,in − SO2 ) + K L a ⋅ V ⋅ ( SO 2,saturation − SO2 )
dt
50 VITOX is a trademark of BOC plc.
72
20. ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS

The RBC model is divided into three areas:
The RBC model follows the approach used by Lumbers51 of dividing the RBC into two sections, one
immersed in the trough and the other the exposed surface. Instead of modelling the movement of the RBC disc
through the trough the apparent flow of fluid from the trough onto the exposed disc surface is calculated. The
model treats the soluble substrates as having different concentrations between the exposed and submerged
biofilms but treats the particulate substrates as having the same concentration whether exposed or submerged.
This averaging of the particulate material is required to approximate the movement of the biofilm through the
trough.
Volume of liquid film on

exposed rotor
Influent
Liquid volume in Effluent
trough
RBC 1 RBC 2


51 Lumbers, JP, 1987, Rotating Biological Contactors: Mechanisms, Modelling and Design, PhD
Thesis, Imperial College, University of London
73
21. SUBMERGED BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS

The SBC model is divided into three areas:
The SBC model follows the approach used by Lumbers52 of dividing the RBC into two sections, one
immersed in the trough and the other the exposed surface. Instead of modelling the movement of the RBC disc
through the trough the apparent flow of fluid from the trough onto the exposed disc surface is calculated. The
model treats the soluble substrates as having different concentrations between the exposed and submerged
biofilms but treats the particulate substrates as having the same concentration whether exposed or submerged.
This averaging of the particulate material is required to approximate the movement of the biofilm through the
trough.
Volume of liquid film on

exposed rotor
Influent
Liquid volume in Effluent
trough
SBC 1 SBC 2
The difference between the Submerged Biological Contactor model Rotating Biological Contactor
models are:
• The SBC has support for direct aeration of the trough whereas the RBC does not.


52 Lumbers, JP, 1987, Rotating Biological Contactors: Mechanisms, Modelling and Design, PhD
Thesis, Imperial College, University of London
74
22. CHEMICAL DISINFECTION

The disinfection model has been taken from H Zhou and DW Smith, 1994, “Kinetics of ozone disinfection in
completely mixed system” (sic), Journal of Environmental Engineering 120(4) 841ff. We have not assessed
the model, but the two models that we have abstracted from this paper were compared by the authors to other
models in the literature, and on the basis of their data these are the models that they recommended.
THIS MODEL IS NOT APPLICABLE TO UV DISINFECTION
Disinfection should produce a reduction in BOD/COD, as disinfectants are oxidising agents. We have
assumed that this reaction is described by the following equation
dC
= k ⋅C⋅ B
dt
where k is the reaction rate
C is the disinfectant concentration and
B is the concentration of BOD.
Because of the lack of data we have assigned the reaction rate a value of 0. Therefore by default STOAT
assumes that disinfection does not reduce BOD/COD, and also that there is no consumption of the disinfectant
- only removal by hydraulic flow. Although this is a limitation it is one that is found in many design programs,
for example the US EPA’s CAPDET.
22.1 DISINFECTION MODEL #1
Rate of disinfection = k ⋅ C n ⋅ S
where C = disinfectant concentration
S = bacterial concentration
k = reaction constant
n = reaction order.
22.2 DISINFECTION MODEL #2
k1 ⋅ C n ⋅ S
Rate of disinfection =
1 + k2 ⋅ C n ⋅ t
where C = disinfectant concentration
S = bacterial concentration
t = contact time
k1 = rate constant
k2 = resistance constant
n = reaction order
This model implies that increasing reaction times or increasing disinfectant concentrations does not
necessarily produce an improvement in disinfection performance. The contact time is taken to be the hydraulic
age (retention time of the liquid within the tank), and this is calculated as
dτ Q ⋅τ
= 1−
dt V
75
23. MESOPHILIC ANAEROBIC DIGESTION

In STOAT, there are two anaerobic digestion models. The first model is based on the first-order decay of
volatile solids. This is a simple model, readily calibrated from laboratory digestion tests but it does not fully
characterise the processes known to be happening within anaerobic digestion. There is therefore a second,
more complex, model, which includes the full set of anaerobic digestion processes. This second model is
based on the work of Mosey53.
23.1 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODEL 1

The first-order model has the following equations:
Biodegradable solids:
dXV Q
= ( XV ,i − XV ) − K ⋅ X V
dt V
Total BOD:
dS Q
= ( Si − S ) − YSX ⋅ K ⋅ X
dt V
K is the degradation rate and YSX is the BOD content of volatile solids.
This model does not predict gas production. It also assumes that BOD removal is directly proportional to
volatile solids removal. If the sludge has a high volatile solids content and a low BOD this model may predict
negative BOD. Should this happen there are two work-arounds. The first is to reduce the fraction of the
volatile solids that are biodegradable. The second is to reduce the BOD equivalent of the volatile solids (this
parameter can be changed from the main run menu in STOAT) – this will have a global effect on the sewage
works simulation.
A 30-day batch digestion test can provide the data needed to calculate the degradation rate and the
biodegradable fraction of volatile solids. The volatile solids left after a time T is given by
XV = XV,0 e-K t
This equation can be re-written as
ln XV = ln XV,0 - K t
or
Y = a + b X,
with Y = ln XV, and X = t.
53 F Mosey, 1990, Computer Modelling of Anaerobic Digestion, WRc Report UM 1117.

F Mosey, 1989, The Modelling of Carbohydrate Kinetics in Anaerobic Digestion, WRc Report UM
1008
F Mosey, 1983, "Mathematical modelling of the anaerobic digestion process: Regulatory
mechanisms for the formation of short-chain volatile acids from glucose", Water Science and
Technology 15, 209-232
F Mosey, 1983, "Kinetic descriptions of anaerobic digestion", Proceedings of the Third
International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion, Boston, Massachusetts, 37-52
76
Least-squares regression packages can be used to calculate the initial biodegradable solids concentration and
the degradation rate. Least-squares calculations are available in most spreadsheets, including Lotus 1-2-3,
Microsoft Excel, 2020, SuperCalc and AsEasyAs. From the results of the regression XV,0 and K are given by
K = -b
XV,0 = exp(a)
23.2 ANAEROBIC DIGESTION MODEL 2

This model is a detailed mechanistic model of anaerobic sludge digestion. Five bacterial populations are
modelled, interacting through their production and consumption of hydrogen, methane, carbon dioxide,
volatile fatty acids and complex carbohydrates. It has long been recognised, as discussed by Mosey, that
anaerobic sludge digestion takes place only through the 'co-operation' of several bacterial species, each
responsible for adjusting the digester environment to the benefit of all. The most commonly quoted aspect of
this ecosystem is that the bacteria that produce methane also produce hydrogen, yet their growth is inhibited
by high levels of hydrogen. It is the presence of hydrogen-scavenging bacteria working in consort with the
methanogens that produces a stable sludge digester. Digester performance can therefore be impaired by any
change in the bacterial balance.
This model was originally developed to analyse the performance of laboratory digesters operating with simple
carbohydrates, such as glucose; it has been extended with the addition of 'complex carbohydrates' ('volatile
solids' is an approximation to 'complex carbohydrates') as a component for full-scale sludge digesters. The
components involved are:
[H+] Hydrogen ions [M]
A: Acetic acid [mM]
B Butyric acid [mM]
C: Biodegradable volatile solids [mg/l]
CH4: Methane gas [mM]
CO2: Carbon dioxide [mM]
CO3: Fully dissociated hydrogen carbonate [mg/l]
G: Glucose [mM]
H: Hydrogen gas [mM]
H2CO3: Undissociated hydrogen carbonate [mg/l]
HCO3: Singly dissociated hydrogen carbonate [mg/l]
P: Propionic acid [mM]
PH2: Partial pressure of hydrogen [atm]
XA: Acetic acid-using biomass [mg/l]
XB: Butyric acid-using biomass [mg/l]
XG: Glucose-using biomass [mg/l]
XH: Hydrogen-using biomass [mg/l]
X P: Propionic acid-using biomass [mg/l]
Ammonia, nitrate, phosphate, nonvolatile solids and nonbiodegradable volatile solids are treated as
conservative components, taking part in no reactions. The hydrogen carbonate species are used, along with
other ionic species, to calculate the ionic status and pH of the digester.
The equations relating biological growth and the removal of volatile solids, fatty acids and the production of
carbon dioxide and methane are given below. A detailed explanation of the inter-relationship and derivation of
these equations can be found in the publications of Mosey referred to earlier.
Breakdown of complex carbohydrates to simple carbohydrates
77
Carbohydrates:
dC 40 ⋅ XG ⋅ C
= Qin ⋅ Cin − Qout ⋅ C − ⋅V
dt 5000 + C
Glucose formed from carbohydrate degradation:
dG1 1.11 40 ⋅ XG ⋅ C
= ⋅
dt 180 5000 + C
Breakdown of simple carbohydrates to volatile fatty acids and gases

Glucose degradation:
dG2 1. 5 ⋅ K p1 ⋅ XG ⋅ G
=
dt ( 0.128 + G ) ⋅ (1 + 1482 ⋅ PH 2 )
Acetate formed from glucose:
dA1 2 dG
= ⋅ 2
dt (1 + 1482 ⋅ PH 2 ) 2 dt
Propionate formed from glucose:
dP1 2 dG2
= ⋅
dt 1 + 1 dt
1482 ⋅ PH 2
Butyrate formed from glucose:
dB1 1 dG2
= ⋅
dt 1 dt
2 + 1482 ⋅ PH 2 +
1482 ⋅ PH 2
Gas production:
dCO21 dA1 dB
= +2 1
dt dt dt
dH 21 dA dB dP
= 2 1 +2 1 − 1
dt dt dt dt
Reactions associated with the acetate-removing bacteria
Acetate degradation:
dA2 0.16 ⋅ K p1 ⋅ X A ⋅ A
=
dt 2. 78 ⋅ 10 −7
+A
[H+ ]
Gas production:
dCH 41 dA2
=
dt dt
dCO 2 2 dA2
=
dt dt
Reactions associated with the propionate-removing bacteria
Propionate degradation:
dP2 0. 038 ⋅ K p1 ⋅ X P ⋅ P
=
dt 5 ⋅ 10 −8
( + A) ⋅ (1 + 1482 ⋅ PH 2 )
[H + ]
78
Acetate produced from propionate:

dA4 dP2
=
dt dt
Gas production:
dCO 2 3 dP
= 0. 0038 ⋅ (10 ⋅ 2 − K D ⋅ X P )
dt dt
dH 2 2 dP
=3 2
dt dt
dCO 2 7 dP2
=
dt dt
Reactions associated with the butyrate-removing bacteria
Butyrate degradation:
dB2 0. 035 ⋅ K p1 ⋅ X B ⋅ B
=
dt 8. 3 ⋅ 10 −9
( + B) ⋅ (1 + 1482 ⋅ PH 2 )
[H+ ]
Acetate formed from butyrate:
dA5 dB
= 2⋅ 2
dt dt
Secondary metabolite use of butyrate:
dB3 dB
= 0. 0076 ⋅ ( 20 2 − K D ⋅ X B )
dt dt
Gas production:
dH 2 3 dA5
=
dt dt
dCO 2 4 dB3
=
dt dt
Reactions associated with the hydrogen-scavenging bacteria
Hydrogen consumption:
dH 4 2 ⋅ K p1 ⋅ X H ⋅ PH 2
=
dt 0. 00133 + PH 2
Associated removal of carbon dioxide:
dCO 2 5 dH 2 4
= 0. 25
dt dt
Production of methane:
dCH 4 2 dCO 2 5
=
dt dt
Secondary metabolite consumption of hydrogen:
dH 2 5 dH 2 5
= 0. 08 ⋅ ( 2. 5 − KD ⋅ XH )
dt dt
Secondary metabolite consumption of carbon dioxide:
dCO 2 6 dH 2 5
= 0. 5
dt dt
79
Net growth of hydrogen users:

dX H Q dH
= − out ⋅ X H + 2. 5 ⋅ 4 − K D ⋅ X H
dt V dt
Net growth of butyrate users:
dX B Q dB
= − out ⋅ X B + 20 ⋅ 2 − K D ⋅ X B
dt V dt
Net growth of propionate users:
dX P Q dP
= − out ⋅ X P + 10 ⋅ 2 − K D ⋅ X P
dt V dt
Net growth of acetate users:
dX A Q dA
= − out X A + 2. 5 ⋅ 2 − K D ⋅ X A
dt V dt
Net growth of glucose users:
dXG Q dA dP dB
= − out ⋅ XG + 20 ⋅ 1 + 10 ⋅ 1 + 10 ⋅ 1 − K D ⋅ XG
dt V dt dt dt
Gas production rates:
dCO2 dCO21 dCO2 2 dCO2 3
= + −
dt dt dt dt
dCO2 4 dCO2 5 dCO2 6 dCO2 7
− − − +
dt dt dt dt
dCH 4 dCH 41 dCH 4 2
= +
dt dt dt
dH 2 dH 21 dH 2 2 dH 2 3 dH 2 4 dH 2 5
= + + − −
dt dt dt dt dt dt
This model has no adjustable kinetic or stoichiometric coefficients. Note that in the equations above the rates
are expressed in per day, not per hour.
The two parameters Kp1 and KD are a pH inhibition term on biomass growth and the death rate, also a
function of pH. The variation of these two coefficients with the pH value is shown in the following graph:
Inhibition and death rate coefficients
0.8
0.6
Kp1
0.4 Kd
0.2
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
pH value
80
The digester gas head-space and the concentrations of sodium, potassium and chloride ions within the sludge
are used to calculate the pH within the digester.
Under normal conditions and under neutral or alkaline conditions the pH value of the digester is controlled by
a natural bicarbonate/carbonate buffering system. Accumulation of acetic acid will displace bicarbonate ions,
converting them into gaseous carbon dioxide and replacing them with acetate ions to form an acetic
acid/acetate buffer. Other volatile fatty acids behave in a similar manner. At the other extreme the inadvertent
addition of excessive quantities of alkali will absorb most or all of the carbon dioxide from the headspace gas,
destroy the bicarbonate/carbonate buffering system and replace it with an ammonia/ammonium ion buffering
system derived from the high concentration of ammoniacal nitrogen normally present in sewage sludges.
81
24. THERMOPHILIC AEROBIC DIGESTION
24.1 TAD MODEL 1

The TAD model supports two forms of operation:
1. continuous inflow and
2. feeding to approximately conform to the DoE guide-lines on sewage sludge treatment for disposal to
agricultural land.
If the DoE guide-lines are followed sludge must be held within the digester for a minimum average retention
time of 7 days (this part of the DoE requirements is not enforced within STOAT) and the sludge must be held
for a minimum of 4 hours at 55°C. This 4-hour holding time at 55°C requires a holding tank between the
sludge feed line and the TAD tank, where cold sludge is kept while the digesting sludge attains the
temperature requirement.
A continuous feed of sludge would necessitate a continuous discharge, so that the minimum 4 hours at 55°C
could not be guaranteed. Because of this if you specify continuous flow you are required to enter information
only for the TAD tank whereas if you wish to operate with the DoE guide-lines then you must also specify
some information on the holding tank. This holding tank is created and associated with TAD and will not be
displayed on the screen. The holding tank is assumed to be infinite volume with you specifying the pumping
rate between the holding tank and the TAD tank. Note that the pumping rate is commonly chosen so that TAD
tanks are filled/emptied within half-an-hour, based on the discharge/feed volume. This may mean that a
simulation time step of (say) one hour may miss reporting the feed - but the feed will have taken place.
The equations for the holding tank are the same as for the balancing tank as described in Section 35 of this
manual.
For the TAD tank the components are:
SNH3: Ammonia [mg/l]
SNO3: Nitrate [mg/l]
SO : Oxygen [mg/l]
SPO4: Phosphate [mg/l]
T: Temperature [mg/l]
V: Volume [mg/l]
XNV: Nonvolatile solids [mg/l]
X S: BOD [mg/l]
XT: Thermophilic bacteria [mg/l]
XV: Volatile solids [mg/l]
The equations for these are:
Volume:
dV
= Qin − Qout − Qevap
dt
BOD - soluble BOD is assumed to be negligible:
dV ⋅ X S XS
= Qin ⋅ X S,in − Qout ⋅ X S − RS ⋅ XT ⋅ V − K D ⋅ XT ⋅ V
dt K S + XS
The dVX/dt = f(...) term is solved as:

dV ⋅ X dX dV
= f (...) = V +X
dt dt dt
dV
f (...) − X
dX dt
=
dt V
82
Biomass:
dV ⋅ XT XS
= −Qout ⋅ XT + YT ⋅ RS ⋅ ⋅ XT ⋅ V
dt K S + XS
Volatile solids:
dV ⋅ XV XS
= Qin ⋅ XV ,in − Qout ⋅ XV − YS , X ⋅ RS ⋅ ⋅ XT ⋅ V
dt KS + XS
Temperature:
dV ⋅ T
= Qin ⋅ C p,l ⋅ (Tin − Tref ) − Qout ⋅ Cp,l ⋅ (T − Tref )
dt
−Qevap ⋅ λ evap + Qgas,in ⋅ Hgas,in − Qgas,out ⋅ Hgas,out
XS
+ Ppump + ∆H ⋅ RS ⋅ ⋅ XT ⋅ V
K S + XS
The nonvolatile solids, ammonia, nitrate and phosphate are assumed to be conserved substances and only
simple dilution mass balances are written for them. Although oxygen takes part in the reactions the model
assumes that all the oxygen required is supplied from the gas stream; the dissolved oxygen is therefore treated
as another conserved substance. Because the transport of dissolved oxygen around the sewage works is
negligible compared to the oxygen requirements of bacteria this approximation does not affect the predictions
of the TAD model.
The rate of substrate degradation is modelled by
− B1 − B2
RS = A1 ⋅ e T + 273.15 − A2 ⋅ e T + 273.15
and the biomass death rate by
− B3
K D = A3 ⋅ e T + 273.15
The equation form for the rate of substrate degradation was taken from Sinclair et al54. This models the rapid
increase in substrate degradation as enzymes become more active, followed by the fall in the degradation rate
at higher temperatures as the enzymes break down.
The gas enthalpies are calculated by integrating the specific heats over the range (Tref,, Tin) for the inlet gas
and (Tref, T) for the outlet. The specific heat values were taken from Sinnott55.
54 CG Sinclair, B Kristiansen and JD Bu'lock, 1987, Fermentation Kinetics and Modeling, Open
University Press, Milton Keynes, UK, and Taylor and Francis, New York
55 RK Sinnott, 1983, Chemical Engineering Volume 6: Design, Pergamon Press
83
For the evaporative loss of water you specify the percent saturation of the inlet and outlet gas. Typical values
for the inlet gas are in the range 0-50%, and the outlet 80-100%. The saturated humidity of the gas is
calculated using the methods given in Coulson and Richardson56. The vapour pressure of water for this
method is calculated from the correlation in McGarry57. The heat of reaction has been taken from Cooney et
al.58
A pump is normally seen as a method of converting electrical energy into pressure and kinetic energy. In the
energy balance equation there is a mechanical heating power term, PPump. Many TAD systems are aerated
using a venturi aerator, where sludge is pumped through a venturi to entrain air, or pumped through the
venturi with air blown into the venturi. The aim in both cases is to efficiently mix the air into the sludge,
producing fine bubbles. Many sludge pumps are treated as having 40-60% pumping efficiency, from which
you would expect that perhaps 30-50% of the electrical power is transferred to the sludge as heat, the rest
being lost to the atmosphere. This is not the case. When the sludge enters the TAD tank its pressure and
kinetic energy are lost and also converted to heat. This means that the pump power ultimately converted to
heat seen by the digester is usually in the range 60-80%. Where a submersible pump, or a submersible mixer,
is used for aeration then 100% of the electrical energy will eventually be available as heat within the digester.
Oxygen mass transfer is represented by a simple method. You specify the maximum fraction of oxygen in the
air that can be dissolved. This is typically in the range 30-90%; we would suggest a value in the range 80-
90%. The oxygen uptake rate is calculated and set to the lesser of the calculated value and the transfer rate;
this is then used with the equations given above. There has been no work reported on oxygen mass transfer
rates in aerobic sludge digestion. Unpublished work at WRc has found that the high solids concentrations
leads to higher KLa values than would be predicted by methods such as those described in Appendix B. This
conclusion has been frequently found in the chemical engineering literature. For the most commonly studied
system - bubble-columns - the increase in KLa values caused by the solids has been found to be a function of
concentration, particle diameter and nature of solids. This means that simple correlations for TAD may be
difficult to find. WRc, in common with other designers of TAD systems, has found that the assumption of an
upper limit to oxygen transfer is a reasonable solution to this problem.
The symbols used are defined as:
λ: Specific latent heat @ Tref [kJ/kg]
∆H: Oxidation energy on BOD [kJ/kg]
Cp,l: Liquid specific heat capacity [kJ/t °C]
Hgas: Specific enthalpy of gas [kJ/kg]
KD: Bacterial death rate [1/h]
K S: Saturation coefficient on BOD [mg/l]
Ppump: Heat energy associated with pump [kW]
Q: Sludge flowrate [m3/h]
Qgas: Gas flowrate [kg/h]
RS: Removal rate of BOD [1/h]
Tref: Thermodynamic reference temperature [°C]
YT: Yield of biomass on BOD [-]
56 JM Coulson and JF Richardson, 1977, Chemical Engineering Volume 1, Third Edition, Pergamon
Press
57 J McGarry, 1983, "Correlation and prediction of the vapour pressures of liquids over large ranges",
IEC Process Design and Development 22, 313-322
58 CL Cooney, DIC Wang and RI Mateles, 1968, “Measurement of heat evolution and correlation with
oxygen consumption during microbial growth”, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 11, 268 ff.
84
25. DEWATERING
Dewatering is represented by a simple steady-state model. The model uses a mass balance where the
specifications are %TSS in the produced cake and the %recovery of solids. Note that STOAT uses suspended
solids, but that cake solids are normally measured as total solids - that is, suspended solids + dissolved solids.
This difference introduces a modelling error between STOAT and the true works. Because dissolved solids are
not commonly measured during sewage treatment we have chosen to ignore their contribution to the solids
balance.
The model also allows you to specify the dose of various conditioning chemicals that can be added to aid
dewatering.
The mass of solids out is calculated as
(%recovery) *( (mass of solids in) + (mass of conditioning solids added.))
The flowrate is then calculated as
Flow out = (Mass of solids out) / (Concentration of solids in dewatered cake).
This is sufficient to specify the mass balance on solids and solubles.
85
26. HEAT EXCHANGERS

Within STOAT, there are 4 heat exchanger models:
Steady-state countercurrent
Steady-state cocurrent
Dynamic countercurrent
Dynamic cocurrent
26.1 STEADY-STATE COUNTERCURRENT

The steady-state countercurrent model solves the following equation for heat transfer:
C P ⋅ Q ⋅ Tshell ,in − Tshell,out = U ⋅ A ⋅

(Tshell,in − Ttube,out ) − (Tshell,out − Ttube,in )
ln
(Tshell,in − Ttube,out )
(Tshell,out − Ttube,in )
26.2 STEADY-STATE COCURRENT
The steady-state cocurrent model solves the following equation for heat transfer:
C P ⋅ Q ⋅ Tshell ,in − Tshell ,out = U ⋅ A ⋅

(Tshell,in − Ttube,in ) − (Tshell,out − Ttube,out )
ln
(Tshell,in − Ttube,in )
(Tshell,out − Ttube,out )
26.3 DYNAMIC COUNTERCURRENT
The dynamic countercurrent model divides the heat exchanger into N stages for both the shell and tube side.
For each stage the heat transfer equation solved is
dTshell Q ⋅ C p
dt
=
V
(Tin − Tshell ) + U ⋅ A ⋅ (Tshell − Ttube )
dTtube Q ⋅ C p
= (Tin − Ttube ) − U ⋅ A ⋅ (Tshell − Ttube )
dt V
The flow path is
86
26.4 DYNAMIC COCURRENT
dTshell Q ⋅ C p
dt
=
V
dTtube Q ⋅ C p
dt V
The flow path is
87
27. DIRECT THERMAL SLUDGE DRYING

Direct thermal sludge drying is a process by which hot gases directly contact the wet sludge co-currently and
evaporate the water. The hot gas is vented separately from the sludge.
The flow path is
Gas
Sludge
The drying model divides the drier into N stages for both the sludge and gas phase side.
dTgas Q ⋅ Cp mevap ∆Hlatent
dt
=
V
(T
in ) (
− Tgas + U ⋅ A ⋅ Tgas − Tsludge + ) V
dTsludge Qsludge ⋅ C p,sludge mevap ∆H latent
dt
=
V
(T
in ) (
− Tsludge − U ⋅ A ⋅ Tgas − Tsludge +) V
When the temperature of the sludge exceeds the boiling point of water the sludge equations are changed to the
following
dTsludge
=0
dt
Qsludge ⋅ C p
V
(Tin ) (
− Tsludge + U ⋅ A ⋅ Tgas − Tsludge )
mevap =
∆H latent
where
mevap mass of water evaporated
Q mass of sludge or heating fluid through the stage
U heat transfer coefficient
A heat transfer area
T temperature
V volume of the stage
Cp specific heat capacity
∆hlatent latent heat of evaporation
88
28. INDIRECT THERMAL SLUDGE DRYING

The indirect drier dries the sludge by keeping the heating medium completely separate from the sludge. This is
done by passing the sludge through a heat exchanger and the hot drying gas carries out its duty through a tube
wall.
The flow path is
SLUDGE
GAS
The drying model divides the drier into N stages in each of the sludge and heating medium side.
dTshell Q ⋅ C p
dt
=
V
dTtube Q ⋅ C p
dt V
When the temperature on the tube side (where the sludge flows) exceeds the boiling point of water the
equations are changed to the following
dTtube
=0
dt
Q ⋅ Cp
V
(Tin − Ttube ) + U ⋅ A ⋅ (Tshell − Ttube )
mevap =
∆H latent
where
mevap mass of water evaporated
Q mass of sludge or heating fluid through the stage
U heat transfer coefficient
A heat transfer area
T temperature
V volume of the stage
Cp specific heat capacity
∆hlatent latent heat of evaporation
89
29 SLUDGE INCINERATION
The incinerator model is currently steady-state only. There are always 6 streams entering the incinerator:
• sludge in and ash out
• air in and exhaust gas out
• cooling air in and out
A fluidised bed system is distinguished, for the model, by setting the cooling gas flow to be zero. Multiple
hearth systems should have a cooling gas flow specified.
The oxygen demand is calculated from the COD. A BOD-based model will calculate the oxygen demand
from the BOD, but ignore the additional oxygen required for the nonbiodegradable COD. An additional
oxygen demand is created by the ammonia, organic nitrogen and sulphur content of the sludge, offset by the
nitrate.
All the volatile solids are assumed to be burnt, while the ash is assumed to be only the nonvolatile solids.
Supplementary fuel can be added, as either methane or oil. The default parameters for oil are for a No. 2
heating oil. The oxygen demand for the fuel is calculated as
O2 = 2.664 C + 7.937 H + 0.998 S - O
where C, H, S and O are the mass fractions of carbon, hydrogen, sulphur and oxygen in the fuel.
An excess oxygen requirement is specified and used to calculate the minimum amount of oxygen that must be
available for complete burnout. If this minimum is not supplied then the percentage burn is scaled back by the
ratio of the available oxygen to the minimum oxygen demand.
The exit temperature is then calculated from the energy balance:
273+ Tgas , in 273+ Tcool gas , in
Qsludge ⋅ C p, sludge ⋅ Tsludge + Qgas,in ⋅ ∫C

273
p, gas ⋅ dT + ∆H combustion ⋅ O2,consumed + Qcool gas ⋅ ∫C
273
p,cool gas ⋅ dT
+U ⋅ A ⋅ (T − Tambient ) + U cool ⋅ Acool ⋅ LMTD(T − Tcool )
=
273+ T 273+ Tcool gas , out
Qgas,out ⋅ ∫C
273
p, gas ⋅ dT + Qcool gas ⋅ ∫C
273
p,cool gas ⋅ dT + Qsludge ⋅ ∆H latent + Qash ⋅ C p, ash ⋅ T
If a cooling gas flow is specified then a second equation must be solved for the cooling gas temperature:
273+ Tcool gas ,in
Qcool gas ⋅ ∫C p,cool gas ⋅ dT + U cool ⋅ Acool ⋅ LMTD(T − Tcool )

273
273+ Tcool gas ,out
= Qcool gas ⋅ ∫ C p,cool gas ⋅ dT

273
where
Q Mass flow (kg/h)
T Temperature (°C)
Cp Specific heat (J/kg °C)
∆Hlatent Latent heat of evaporation (J/kg)
∆Hcombustion Heat of combustion (J/kg)
LMTD Log-mean temperature difference
90
30. PID CONTROLLER

The PID controller is available in discrete and continuous forms, with simple and fuller variants on the
parameters.
Models 1 and 2 are simulations of continuous (analogue) controllers and Models 3 and 4 are simulations of
discrete (digital) controllers. All the models use the equation form of model 1:
 1 dError 
Output = Gain ⋅  Error +
 Integral time ∫ Error dt + Derivative time ⋅
dt 

30.1 PID MODEL 1

PID stands for Proportional-Integral-Derivative, and is sometimes referred to as a three-term controller. In real
life, by switching off different parts of the P, I or D terms, it is possible to achieve 7 different modes of control
i.e. P, I, D, PI, PD, DI, or PID. Of these the most widely used modes are P, PI and PID and these are the only
modes available within STOAT.
The recommended mode is PI.
The equation describing the PID is
t
1 de
Y = K P (e +
τI ∫ e ⋅ dt + τ D
0 dt
)
where Y: calculated output,

e: error (calculated as e = set point - measured value)
KP: controller proportional gain.
τI: controller integral time and
τD: controller derivative time.
The model asks for several additional parameters: the maximum and minimum value for the calculated output
Y and the control sign. The action of the control sign is that if you wish the control output to increase as the
error increases in the positive direction, then you set a sign of +1. If you wish the control output to increase as
the error increases in the negative direction, then you set the sign to -1. As examples, if in activated sludge
plants, the dissolved oxygen level is below the set point value the required action is to increase the air
flowrate. But for controlling MLSS levels the required action for MLSS below the set point value is to
decrease the wastage rate. For these examples the first would operate with a sign of +1, the second with a sign
of -1.
The control algorithm is based on a model of a full output 'analogue' controller; that is, the integral term is a
function of time. There are other variants on this, where the controller is 'digital' and uses the equation
1 t
∆e
Y = KP (e +
τI
∑ e ⋅ ∆t + τ
0
D
∆t
)
or where the output is incremental, rather than full. The incremental controller uses the same set of equations
as given above, but the calculated Y value is treated as an increment to be added to the current output.
There can also be differences in how control algorithms choose to evaluate the integral or summation terms, or
the derivative or difference terms, in the PID equation. STOAT currently implements two of the various
'enhancements', wind-up protection and ‘bumpless’ derivative control. The changes made for wind-up
protection are:
If the controller output is at its maximum value, and the action of the new error would be to increase the
calculated output, then the integral term is not updated. If the controller output is at its minimum, and the
action of the new error would be to decrease the calculated output, then the integral term is not updated. The
rationale behind this approach is that if we did not make this change then the integral term would continue to
increase when the controller output could not further increase. When the error term begins to act to reduce the
controller output we will first have to lose the quantity that was integrated before the control output itself can
91
be reduced. The result is that the control action shows a marked lag behind the error term. Wind-up protection
increases the responsiveness of the PID controller.
‘Bumpless’ derivative control replaces the derivative term de/dt by dx/dt, where x is the current measured
value. This change means when the setpoint is altered there is not a corresponding large change in the error
derivative. There is no difference in performance between the standard and ‘bumpless’ derivative control for a
constant setpoint, but ‘bumpless’ control is more stable when the set point is changed.
Values for the control parameters KP, τI and τD are commonly estimated from experimental data. Methods for
this can be found in standard process control textbooks such as Luyben59, Coughanouer and Koppel60 or
Pollard61. As stated above, the recommended control method is PI. Proportional control normally produces an
offset: the control variable can never achieve the desired setpoint. You can reduce the offset by increasing the
controller gain, but this reduces the controller stability.
Stability is also a problem with the PI and PID controllers. The choice of large gains or derivative times, or
small integral times, can be expected to produce control output that moves rapidly from 'full on' to 'full off',
leading to unstable control. The PID controller is more likely to be unstable than the PI controller because the
derivative can cause large control changes when the setpoint value is changed or where there are sudden
discontinuities in the works, such as can be caused by wet wells or storm tank returns.
In the description of the wet well and balancing tank we stated that you could set the outlet flow by the inlet
flow using the PID controller. This can be achieved by the following method. Create two controllers. For the
first controller, use proportional control. The setpoint should always be set to zero and the action to negative.
If you wish the manipulated flowrate to be proportional to the measured flowrate set the controller gain to be
1.0. Should you want the manipulated flowrate to be 0.5 set the controller gain to 0.5. The controller output
should be setpoint to the second controller. The second controller can use proportional or PI control. We do
not recommend PID control as the derivative term may create large changes caused by the changing values of
the influent flowrate.
30.2 PID MODEL 2

Model 1 allows you to specify that the output is bounded as
Minimum < Output < Maximum
Whenever the output attempts to exceed the boundaries, integration of the error is stopped - this is called
windup protection in the control literature.
Model 2 adds the following features:
1. The input signal can also be bounded. This is equivalent to an input channel being scaled so that (say)
if the dissolved oxygen should be in the range 1-4 mg/l then any DO readings less than 1 are treated as
1, while DO readings greater than 4 are treated as 4.
2. The input signal can be assigned a positive and negative hysteresis. This means that if the old signal
was 2.0 mg/l, and a positive hysteresis of 0.2 and a negative hysteresis of 0.5 mg/l have been assigned,
then the signal that the control algorithm will use will be 2.0 until the true signal exceeds 2.2 or drops
below 1.5. Hysteresis is common in mechanical systems and can be also be built into control systems to
prevent noise from causing changes in control outputs.
3. The output value can be assigned a positive and negative hysteresis.
4. An offset can be assigned to the output. This is important for proportional control. Model 1 on
proportional control will always have an output of zero when the error is zero - therefore there must
always be an error offset. If an output offset can be assigned it is possible to reduce the error offset.
59 WL Luyben, Process Modelling, Simulation, and Control for Chemical Engineers, McGraw Hill
60 Coughanouer and Koppel, Process Systems Analysis and Control, McGraw Hill
61 A Pollard, Process Control, Heinemann
92
30.3 PID MODEL 3

This is identical to Model 1, but instead of integrating the error integral it uses a summation. Also, the input
and output values are only updated at the chosen sampling interval.
30.4 PID MODEL 4

This is identical to Model 2, but instead of integrating the error integral it uses a summation. Also, the input
and output values are only updated at the chosen sampling interval.
93
31. LADDER LOGIC CONTROLLER

The ladder logic controller is a series of IF ... THEN statements. The operation can be envisaged as
IF Condition1 THEN Output1
ELSEIF Condition2 THEN Output2
ELSEIF ...
If no conditions are satisfied then the output from the last successful control action is used.
The control conditions are all of the form
LowerLimit1 < ValueOfParameter1 < UpperLimit1
AND LowerLimit2 < ValueOfParameter2 < UpperLimit2
AND ...
94
32. INSTRUMENT PROBE

This is a simple model of an instrument and describes how the signal out from an instrument is affected by
fouling of the probe.
32.1 FIRST-ORDER INSTRUMENT

The signal out from the meter is controlled by the differential equation
dS α ⋅ R − S
=
dt τ
where S is the output(signal);
R is the true reading;
α is the instrument gain; and
τ is the time constant.
32.2 SECOND-ORDER INSTRUMENT

The signal out from the meter is controlled by the differential equation
d 2 S α ⋅ R − S ζ dS
= − ⋅
dt 2 τ2 τ dt
where the symbols are as defined above, with the addition of the damping parameter ζ.
95
33. SIMPOL
SIMPOL is a simplified sewer modelling system. A version of the SIMPOL model has been published as a
series of Microsoft EXCEL spreadsheets in the UPM Manual published by the Foundation for Water Research
(Marlow, UK). The EXCEL version includes Monte Carlo simulations for investigating the stochastic nature
of storms.
STOAT includes a version of SIMPOL. There is no support for Monte Carlo simulation, but the interface is
easier and the handling of quality parameters has been improved. SIMPOL was designed to require calibration
against more accurate sewer models, such as MOUSETRAP (Danish Hydraulics Institute) or HydroWorks-
QM/MOSQITO (Wallingford Software). SIMPOL would then be used to study a range of proposed
changes/improvements to the sewer system and the resulting shortlist would be run as full
MOUSETRAP/HydroWorks-QM models. The STOAT version of SIMPOL is also designed for this usage,
and to provide a simple sewer network model to feed a sewage works model.
Further information on SIMPOL can be found in the UPM Manual.
33.1 SEWER/CATCHMENT AREA

General description
Rainfall
Foul flow Flow out

Sewer (variable volume)
Solids sediment store #1
Solids sediment store #2
This tank
• Converts rain into runoff (QR)
• Combines runoff and foul flow (QF)
• Erodes or deposits sewer sediment
• Attenuates flows so that the outflow (QO) can be less than the inflow
The tank has an initial dry weather volume of VD.

When there is no runoff (QR = 0) the outflow QO = QF
When there is runoff the volume in the tank can build up. QO is then related to the extra volume in the tank.
This creates attenuation.
Store 1 is deposited from the foul flow when runoff is low or zero. It builds up linearly. It is eroded when
runoff exceeds a particular threshold. The quantity eroded is directly proportional to the runoff quantity.
Store 2 can have a different composition from Store 1 and is assumed to be automatically replenished. Erosion
occurs when Store 1 is empty and runoff exceeds a higher threshold. The quantity eroded is directly
proportional to the runoff quantity. Build-up of Store 2 is not modelled.
96
Calibration Parameters
RAINc1 = rainfall intensity below which deposition can occur (mm/h)
RAINc2 = rainfall intensity above which erosion from Store 1 can occur (mm/h)
RAINc3 = rainfall intensity above which erosion from Store 2 can occur (mm/h)
BOD1max = maximum quantity of BOD in Store 1 (kg/ha)
T1 = time factor for build-up of BOD in store 1 (s)
RV = ratio of volatile solids to BOD in store 1 by mass
RNV = ratio of non-volatile solids to BOD in store 1 by mass (-)
KB1 = erosion concentration for BOD from Store 1 (mg/l)
KB2 = erosion concentration for BOD from Store 2 (mg/l)
KV2 = erosion concentration for volatile solids from Store 2 (mg/l)
KNV2 = erosion concentration for non-volatile solids from Store 2 (mg/l)
A = attenuation multiplier
B = attenuation exponent
IAREA = impermeable area (ha)
PIMP = percentage of total area that is impermeable (%)
SOIL = soil factor (-) [between 0.15 and 0.5]
Runoff
This is calculated from the standard WALLRUS runoff equation
25 ⋅ SOIL + 0.078 ⋅ UCWI − 20.7 

RF = min1, 0.829 + 
 PIMP 
RF ⋅ IAREA ⋅ RAIN
QR =
360
m3 / s [ ]
Outflow
The outflow is calculated as
A ⋅ (V − VD )
B
QO = + QF
∆T
Volume
dV
= QF + QR − QO
dt
Change in soluble determinands
dS (QF + QR ) ⋅ ( Sin − S )
=
dt V
97
Deposition
When RAIN < RAINc1 deposition of particulate matter can occur, if Store 1 is not already full. The value for
RAINc1 will normally be 0.
BOD1 max
DB1 = if RAIN < RAINc1 and BOD1 < BOD1max
T1
DB1 = 0 if RAIN > RAINc1 or BOD1 = BOD1max
dBOD1
= DB1
dt
dX BOD (QF + QR ) ⋅ ( X in, BOD − X BOD ) 1000 ⋅ DB1
= −
dt V V
If at any stage BOD1 > BOD1max or XBOD < 0 then DB1 should be recalculated to prevent this.
Solids
Similar calculations are carried out for solids but there is no check to prevent negative sewage concentrations,
nor limits on the solids capacity of the sediment. It is assumed that these limits will be automatically satisfied
by the user’s chosen stoichiometry.
Erosion
When RAINc1 < RAIN < RAINc2 there will be no erosion or deposition, and therefore no change in the
sedimentation store.
When RAINc2 < RAIN < RAINc3 then erosion of Store 1 can occur, if there is material to be eroded.
The erosion rate is calculated as
QR ⋅ K B1
E B1 = if RAIN > RAINc2 and BOD1 > 0
1000
EB1 = 0 if these conditions are not met.
Change in BOD is Store 1:

dBOD1
= − E B1 if this gives BO1 < 0 then set BOD1 = 0 and recalculate EB1
dt
Change in BOD in the water:
dX BOD (QF + QR ) ⋅ ( X in, BOD − X BOD ) 1000 ⋅ E B1

= +
dt V V
Erosion of solids is assumed to be stoichiometrically in proportion to the erosion of BOD.
98
When RAINc3 < RAIN erosion of Stores 1 and 2 can occur, if there is material to be eroded. If there is
material in Store 1 this is eroded in preference to material in Store 2. If Store 1 is empty then erosion rates for
Store 2 are:
QR ⋅ K B 2
E B2 =
1000
Q ⋅K
EV 2 = R V 2
1000
Q ⋅K
E NV 2 = R NV 2
1000
Changes in BOD and solids in Store 2 do not need to be calculated as the store is assumed to be infinite.
The change in BOD in the water is
dX BOD (QF + QR ) ⋅ ( X in, BOD − X BOD ) 1000 ⋅ E B 2

= +
dt V V
33.2 INLINE DETENTION TANK

The inline detention tank is based on the storm tank model. The mathematical descriptions of the models are
presented in
Section 2.1 - STORM TANK MODEL 1
Section 2.1 - PARAMETER ESTIMATION
33.3 OFF-LINE DETENTION TANK

The offline detention tank is based on the storm tank model.
The mathematical descriptions of the models are presented in
Section 2.1 - PARAMETER ESTIMATION
Overflow
Detention tank
Detention tank
return flow
Overflow
Influent
Control stream
TYPICAL LAYOUT FOR DETENTION TANK

AND CONTROL STREAM
99
33.4 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW

The combined sewer overflow (CSO) is based on the balancing tank (Section 35). It ignores the effect of
solids settlement and is used to model small-volume, turbulent-flow devices such as an overflow, but
including some of the mixing effects that CSOs normally provide.
The differential equation for the CSO is
dC Qin ⋅ ( Sin − S )
=
dt V
The flow out is controlled by the maximum discharge rate. If the volume in tank reaches the minimum value
then the flow out is the lesser of the flow in and the maximum discharge rate.
100
34. WET WELLS

The wet well model is designed to support fixed flow pumps, primarily to provide intermittent supplies at a
higher flow rate from a low flow rate supply. This is the use of a wet well for sludge or sludge liquor returns,
or the inlet wet well at some small sewage works. The term wet well is also used where variable flow pumps
match the pumping rate to the inflow rate, and the purpose of the wet well is keep the pump inlets flooded.
The STOAT wet well is not designed for this usage, but the balancing tank model can achieve this behaviour.
34.1 WET WELL MODEL 1

The wet well supports two pumps, pumping at rates Q1 and Q2, cutting in at volumes V1,1 and V2,1. The
pumps cut out once the volume within the wet well falls below V1,2 and V2,2. There is no requirement for
pump 2 to start at a higher volume than pump 1, nor to cut off at a higher volume. The anticipated usage for
wet wells is as a control device for small flows, where the first pump is the duty pump and the second pump
treated as an emergency boost.
V2,1 = Pump 2 On
V1,1 = Pump 1 On
V2,2 = Pump 2 Off
V1,2 = Pump 1 Off
WET WELL SCHEMATIC

The equations modelling performance are:-
Tank volume:
dV
= Q − Q1 − Q2
dt
All components, soluble and particulate:
dS
= Q ⋅ Si − ( Q1 + Q2 ) S
dt
With wet wells there is a 'memory' problem: when the wet well volume is between V1,1 and V1,2 should
pump 1 be on or off? The answer is that if the volume had exceeded V1,1 then pump 1 is on: the volume is
coming down because the pump is on. Therefore you must specify the pump state at the start of a simulation.
This will be over-ridden if the pump must be on or off, that is the volume is greater than V1,1 or less than
V1,2. The default is to assume that the pumps are off, so that the wet well is filling up, and also that the wet
well is empty.
Although the pumping rates are 'fixed' they can be altered by attaching a PID controller to the wet well. The
pump is then switched on and off by the fixed levels, but the pumping rate can be controlled by the tank
volume or the inlet flow rate.
101
35. BALANCING TANKS
35.1 BALANCING TANK MODEL 1

Balancing tanks are similar to wet wells, and the equations used to model their performance are the same as
for wet wells. The difference between the two is that wet wells are assumed to take low flows and pump at a
higher rate, but discontinuously. Balancing tanks operate with higher flow and smooth out the flow and load
to the rest of the works.
The balancing tanks in STOAT can be set to operate in one of three modes: 'constant volume', 'infinite volume'
and 'overflow'. The constant volume option sets the outflow to be the same as the inflow; there is no hydraulic
smoothing but the tank acts to provide some load balancing. The infinite volume option assumes that there is a
constant outflow rate and that there will always be sufficient tank volume to store the excess of inflow over
outflow. This option can be useful in design as one of the outputs is the maximum volume that was reached.
The final option is the most realistic. This operates with a constant outflow rate. When the tank is full the
excess flow then goes to an overflow. It is up to you to decide what happens to the overflow - pass it on to
final effluent, mix it in with the pumped outflow, feed it to storm tanks or whatever else the works does with
the overflow.
Balancing tanks can be set to take the full flow to the works - inline balancing tanks - or only the flow above a
set maximum - off-line tanks. Inline balancing tanks provide the maximum flow and load smoothing but
require larger tank volumes than do off-line tanks. If you wish to include the effects of solids settling you can
replace the balancing tank with a storm tank (inline or off-line) or a primary tank (inline only).
The flow from the balancing tanks can be altered by attaching a PID controller to the tank. The output flow
can then be set by the volume within the tank or by the inlet flow.
102
36. SEPARATOR
36.1 SEPARATOR MODEL 1

The separator is a simple steady-state model. One stream is split into two streams, and you specify the split
ratio. As examples:
Split ratio of 0.5: The mass of the component in each stream is the same
Split ratio of 0.1: 10% of the mass of the component goes into the first stream, 90% into the second
By specifying the split ratio for the flow you can then define how you wish concentrations in the two split
streams to vary. A typical usage would be to provide simple models for membranes or dewatering presses. For
this you would specify:
Membrane: Stream 1 is produced liquor, stream 2 is retained liquor. Assume flow split is 90% produced,
10% retained. Then flow ratio is 0.9; solubles are 0.9; and particulates are 0. This specifies
zero concentration of soluble material and the complete retention of solids.
Dewatering: Stream 1 is dewatered sludge, stream 2 is filtrate. Assume flow split is 10% in cake, and that
there is 99% recovery of solids. Then the flow ratio is 0.1; solubles 0.1; and particulates
0.99.
103
37. 'BLACK BOX'

The black box model supports simple correlations to model the performance of treatment processes that are
not already covered by STOAT. This is a quick way of investigating the effect that new processes may have
within the total flowsheet. The supported correlations are:
[Component out] = A + B [Component in]
[Component out] = A + B [Flow]C [Component in]D
[Component out] = A + B [Total solids in]

[Component out] = A + B [Total BOD in]
[Component out] = A + B [Volatile solids in]
[Component out] = A + B [Phosphorus in]
[Component out] = A + B [Flow]C [Total solids in]D

[Component out] = A + B [Flow]C [Total BOD in]D
[Component out] = A + B [Flow]C [Volatile solids in]D
[Component out] = A + B [Flow]C [Phosphorus in]D
[Component out] = A + B [Component in] + C [Total solids in]

[Component out] = A + B [Component in] + C [Total BOD in]
[Component out] = A + B [Component in] + C [Volatile solids in]
[Component out] = A + B [Component in] + C [Phosphorus in]
Other correlations can be added by WRc if you have processes that require different equations.
104
38. PIPE DELAY

The pipe delay is intended to model only the hydraulic delays in concentration caused by pipelines. The pipe
is divided into N stages and each stage is treated as a completely-mixed tank.
The governing differential equation for each component in each stage is then
dC Q ⋅ (Cin − C )
=
dt V
where Q is the flowrate;
V the volume;
C the concentration in the stage; and
Cin the concentration in the fluid entering the stage.
105
39. MIXERS AND SPLITTERS

The mixers and splitters are simple steady-state models. They model all the flowstream components within
STOAT.
39.1 MIXERS
The mixer allows two or three streams to be mixed into one stream. Mixing is assumed to be instantaneous,
with no mixing volume involved. This approximates to mixing at pipe junctions. The equations are: (for the
two-stream mixer):
Q = Q 1 + Q2 ; flow
T = (Q1 T1 + Q2 T2) / Q ; temperature
C = (Q1 C1 + Q2 C2) / Q ; component concentrations
39.2 SPLITTERS
There are a range of flow splitters. The first is a simple splitter that divides a flowstream into either two or
three streams. You specify the split ratio, which must sum to 1.0.
The second splitter requires that you define a sludge solids concentration. Any flow entering the splitter with
solids below the sludge value is sent to the first output flowstream, as sewage. When the solids in the
flowstream exceed the sludge value flow is sent to the second output flowstream as sludge. This splitter is
expected to be used mainly with the storm tanks, allowing you to simulate drawing the tank down followed by
desludging.
There is one timed splitter. This splitter has two output streams, and the output split is defined for two time
periods. During the first time period the split ratio follows the first definition. During the second time period
the split ratio follows the second definition. For example, this splitter could be set up so for the first 6 hours of
each 12 hour period the split between the two outputs is 30:70, and then for the second 6 hours the split could
be 50:50.
39.3 OVERFLOW
The overflow requires that you specify an overflow rate. The equations for this flowsplitter are:
Q1 = min(Q, Qoverflow)
Q2 = max(0, Q - Qoverflow)
where Q1 is the main flow and Q2 is the overflow.
106
40. COST FUNCTIONS
40.1 INTRODUCTION
The cost functions incorporated in STOAT enable preliminary estimates to be made of capital and operating
costs for many of the unit processes. It has not been possible to provide cost functions for all the processes
included in STOAT because of a lack of published information, but there is provision for the modification of
the incorporated functions should additional information become available.
40.2 GENERIC COST FUNCTIONS
40.2.1 Capital cost

Capital cost functions are of the generic form:
CCap = a0 + a1 d1b1 + a 2 d 2b2

where:
CCap = capital cost (£’000)
a0 , a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 = cost parameters
d1 , d 2 = cost descriptors
Cost descriptors are physical dimensions of the process which can be related to cost: tank volume, surface area
and installed power of motors are examples. Cost parameters are the empirical constants which quantify the
relationship between the cost descriptors and the cost.
This generic function can, by appropriate assignment of unity or zero values to parameters and/or descriptors,
be simplified to such common forms of cost function as linear:
C = a0 + a1 d1
and power (logarithmic):
C = a1 d1 b1
An important assumption, made after consideration of capital cost functions proposed in a number of
references, is that a single function is applicable for all magnitudes of the cost descriptors.
40.2.2 Operating cost

Operating cost functions are of the generic form:
COp = a0 + a1 d1b1 + a 2 d 2b2

where:
COp = operating cost (£’000/y or kWh/y or man-hour/y)
a0 , a1 , a2 , b1 , b2 = cost parameters
d1 , d 2 = cost descriptors
The operating cost function may be expressed in various units; this is discussed further in section 29.3.2.
Like the capital cost function (section 40.2.1) the operating cost function can be simplified by assigning
appropriate values to the parameters and/or descriptors.
Unlike the capital cost function, the operating cost function can be specified for up to three ranges of
magnitude of a cost descriptor:
107
COp = φ 1 [ d ] 0 < [ d ] ≤ lim1
COp = φ 2 [ d ] lim1 < [ d ] ≤ lim2
COp = φ 3 [ d ] [ d ] > lim2

where:
φ[ d ] denotes a cost function.

lim1, lim2 = limiting values
By appropriate selection of limiting values one, two or three ranges can be specified.
This option has been included because operating cost relationships published in a graphical format cannot
always be described by a single equation of the generic form. For example, an operating cost is sometimes
shown to be constant at low magnitudes of a descriptor; to follow a power relationship at high values; and to
follow a relationship at intermediate values which can be approximated to a second order polynomial. Such a
polynomial is used only within the range over which it has been evaluated, to preclude nonsensical
extrapolation.
40.3 DIVISION OF COSTS
40.3.1 Capital
Capital costs are divided between civil works and mechanical and electrical equipment (M&E). This division
is convenient when evaluating net present cost (NPC) (the civil component may be assigned a longer life than
the M&E in NPC calculations) and for adjusting costs over time (different cost indices can be used). Two cost
functions are therefore used, one for civil and the other for M&E, which can be based on different descriptors.
The total capital cost is the sum of the two.
The cost functions are applied independently to each process icon that appears on the STOAT works
flowsheet. If there is more than one icon for a given process, each will be costed separately and a total
calculated. This could give a misleading result, because of the economy of scale explicit in most of the cost
functions. Thus a works model intended for costing purposes should normally be as simple as possible, with
each process type lumped into a single icon.
40.3.2 Operating
The operating cost for a process is divided into four components:
• power (kWh/y)
• labour (man-hour/y)
• materials (£’000/y)
• chemicals (tonne/y)
Cost functions are used for the first three components, while the fourth, where applicable, is derived from the
design flow rate and expected chemical dose. Of the three operating cost functions, only materials is expressed
directly in monetary units. For power and labour a unit power cost (£/kWh) and unit labour cost (£/man-hour),
respectively, have to be specified. Likewise a unit cost (£/tonne) has to be specified for each chemical used.
The cost functions are applied independently to each process icon that appears on the STOAT Works
flowsheet. If there is more than one icon for a given process, each will be costed separately and a total
calculated. This could give a misleading result, because of the economy of scale explicit in most of the cost
functions. Thus a works model intended for costing purposes should normally be as simple as possible, with
each process type lumped into a single icon.
108
40.4 DEFLATION/INFLATION OF COSTS

All cost functions expressed directly in monetary units (i.e. capital cost functions and the materials component
of operating costs) have been adjusted to a common base time, Q3 1992. It is important that any additions
or modifications to the existing cost functions by the user are deflated to Q3 1992. If a different base time
is required, all the monetary cost functions must be modified accordingly. It is the responsibility of the user to
ensure consistency.
Costs are inflated to any other specified time using cost indices:
 Index spec 
Cspec = Cbase  
 Index base 
where
Cspec = cost at specified time
Cbase = base cost (Q3 1992)
Index spec = cost index at specified time
Index base = base cost index (Q3 1992)

The materials component of the operating cost is adjusted using the same index applied to the M&E capital
cost. Power, labour and chemical costs are evaluated directly from the unit costs defined by the user, so these
unit costs must correspond to the specified time.
The suggested indices to use for UK applications are:
• for civils, the Construction Output Price Index (COPI) (Q3 1992 = 143.8)
• for M&E, the Metal Goods Engineering and Vehicle Industries Producers Price Output Index (MGI) (Q3
1992 = 185.4)
These indices are prepared by the Central Statistical Office and published in the Monthly Digest of Statistics,
and are also listed from time to time in Aqualine Abstracts, published monthly by WRc. The most recent
values at the time of writing are for Q2 1996: COPI = 164.0 (provisional), MGI = 205.0.
40.5 NET PRESENT COST (NPC)

A note on terminology. In STOAT, costs are assigned positive values. This is the opposite of the convention
(costs negative, income positive) usually adopted when evaluating the Net Present Value (NPV) of a project.
However, in the absence of any income, it is not uncommon to see NPV costs quoted as positive values. To
avoid any possible confusion, STOAT refers to NPC.
If a longer life is assumed for civil works than for M&E equipment, the NPC is calculated by:
 1  k = nCiv
1
NPC = CCiv + C ME 1 + nME 
+ COp ∑
 (1 + id )  k =1 (1 + id )
k
where:
NPC = Net Present Cost (£’000)
CCiv = Civils capital cost (£’000)
C ME = M&E capital cost (£’000)
id = Discount rate
n ME = Life of M&E equipment (y)
COp = Operating cost (£’000/y)
nCiv = Life of civil works (y)
It should be noted that the above equation makes no allowance for any residual or salvage value.
109
If civil works and M&E equipment are assumed to have an equal life, such that nCiv = n ME = n , the
equation simplifies to:
k =n
1
NPC = CCiv + C ME + COp ∑
k =1 (1 + id ) k
Values of nCiv and n ME are user-defined, but must meet the condition nCiv ≥ n ME .
Capital expenditure occurs in year 0, and operating costs are incurred in years 1 to n.
40.6 STOAT DATA FILES

The cost function data is stored in a data file, COSTS.DAT. This file is reproduced below. You can edit this
file to reflect your own data. The comments in the file provide sufficient information to guide you in making
your changes. An additional file, COSTS.XLS, contains a spreadsheet that details the cost functions. The
contents of this spreadsheet are also reproduced below.
40.6.1 Contents of file COSTS.DAT

;
; STOAT cost data file
;
primary tank = circular ; circular or rectangular
humus tank = circular ; circular or rectangular
secondary tank = circular ; circular or rectangular
storm tank = circular
blind tank = circular
inline tank = circular
offline tank = circular
aeration tank = fine bubble ; surface or fine bubble or coarse bubble
disinfectant = ozone ; ozone or chlorine
civil life = 50
mechanical life = 15
discount rate = 0.05
project life = 20
;
; Factors are calculated as the ratio of the cost indices in the

; reference year to those in the current year. The default costs are
; based on data for Q3 1992, with the civils index being the
; Construction Prices Output Index; the mechanical and electrical
; index is the Metal Goods Engineering and Vehicle Industries
; Producers Price Output Index. This index is also the default index
; for operating and materials costs. Updated values for these indices
; are published by Her Majesty's Government, and details can be found
; in WRc's TR 61 and subsequent TR 61 documents.
;
civil factor = 1
mechanical factor = 1
labour factor = 1
power factor = 1
material factor = 1
labour cost = 5 ;
£/h
power cost = 0.05 ;
£/kWh
aerator efficiency = 2 ; kg O2/kWh
aerator utilisation = 0.05 ; % O2 uptake
110
; Cost data -- Civil and mechanical

;
; Cost = a0 + a1 d1^b1 + a2 d2^b2
; where d1 and d2 are design parameters
; The file layout is:
; ProcessID, CostCode, a0, a1, b1, a2, b2
; The Cost code is 1: Civil and 2: Mechanical
;
; -- Civil --
;
1, 1, 0, 3.48, 0.569, 0, 1 ; Circular primary
2, 1, 0, 67.82, 0.53, 0, 1 ; Rectangular primary
3, 1, 23.32, 0.163, 1, 0, 1 ; Circular storm tank
4, 1, 0, 67.82, 0.53, 0, 1 ; Rectangular storm tank
5, 1, 17.72, 71.43, 1, 0, 1 ; Trickling filter
6, 1, 154.02, 42.14, 1, 0, 1 ; Surface activated
7, 1, 154.02, 42.14, 1, 0, 1 ; Fine bubble activated
8, 1, 154.02, 42.14, 1, 0, 1 ; Coarse bubble activated
9, 1, 0, 175.9, 0.63, 0, 1 ; Anaerobic digestion
10, 1, 0, 3.92, 0.561, 0, 1 ; Circular humus
11, 1, 0, 151, 0.633, 0, 1 ; Rectangular humus
12, 1, 0, 0.74, 0.841, 0, 1 ; Circular final
13, 1, 0, 67.82, 0.53, 0, 1 ; Rectangular final
14, 1, 0, 95.2, 0.51, 0, 1 ; Chemical sedimentation
15, 1, 0, 67.82, 0.53, 0, 1 ; Wet well
16, 1, 0, 67.82, 0.53, 0, 1 ; Balancing tank
17, 1, 0, 0.74, 0.841, 0, 1 ; Circular inline tank
18, 1, 0, 67.82, 0.53, 0, 1 ; Rectangular inline
19, 1, 0, 0.74, 0.841, 0, 1 ; Circular offline
20, 1, 0, 67.82, 0.53, 0, 1 ; Rectangular offline
21, 1, 0, 0.74, 0.841, 0, 1 ; Circular blind tank
22, 1, 0, 67.82, 0.53, 0, 1 ; Rectangular blind
23, 1, 0, 0.74, 0.841, 0, 1 ; SBR
24, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; CSBR
25, 1, 153, 3.02, 1, 0, 1 ; DAF
26, 1, 0, 134, 0.6, 0, 1 ; Chlorine disinfection
27, 1, 0, 51.8, 0.37, 0, 1 ; Ozone disinfection
28, 1, 0, 76.16, 0.43, 0, 1 ; Oxidation ditch
29, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; TAD
30, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Incineration
31, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Sludge drying
32, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Lamella settler
33, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; TOWER
34, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; BAF
35, 1, 0, 390, 0.9382, 0, 1 ; RBC
36, 1, 0, 390, 0.9382, 0, 1 ; SBC
37, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Fluidised bed
38, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Chemical P removal
39, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Heat exchanger
;
111
; -- M & E --
;
1, 2, 21.606, 1.696, 0.5, 0, 1 ; Circular primary
2, 2, 25.15, 0.05, 1, 0, 1 ; Rectangular primary
3, 2, 8.49, 3.922, 0.5, 1.104, 0.625 ; Circular storm tank
4, 2, 25.15, 0.05, 1, 1.104, 0.625 ; Rectangular storm tank
5, 2, 14.4, 0.012, 1, 30.36, 1 ; Trickling filter
6, 2, 24.05, 22, 1, 0, 1 ; Surface activated
7, 2, 0, 239.6, 0.919, 0, 1 ; Fine bubble activated
8, 2, 0, 127.41, 0.7926, 0, 1 ;Coarse bubble activated
9, 2, 0, 191.8, 0.53, 0, 1 ; Anaerobic digestion
10, 2, 21.606, 1.696, 0.5, 0, 1 ; Circular humus
11, 2, 25.15, 0.05, 1, 0, 1 ; Rectangular humus
12, 2, 21.606, 1.696, 0.5, 0, 1 ; Circular final
13, 2, 25.15, 0.05, 1, 0, 1 ; Rectangular final
14, 2, 46.9, 16.8, 0.51, 286.5, 0.715 ; Chemical sedimentation
15, 2, 0, 1.104, 0.625, 0, 1 ; Wet well
16, 2, 0, 1.104, 0.625, 0, 1 ; Balancing tank
17, 2, 0, 1.104, 0.625, 0, 1 ; Circular inline tank
18, 2, 0, 1.104, 0.625, 0, 1 ; Rectangular inline
19, 2, 0, 1.104, 0.625, 0, 1 ; Circular offline
20, 2, 0, 1.104, 0.625, 0, 1 ; Rectangular offline
21, 2, 0, 1.104, 0.625, 0, 1 ; Circular blind tank
22, 2, 0, 1.104, 0.625, 0, 1 ; Rectangular blind
23, 2, 0, 0.185, 0.841, 0, 1 ; SBR
24, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; CSBR
25, 2, 187, 3.7, 1, 0, 1 ; DAF
26, 2, 0, 138.2, 0.46, 0, 1 ; Chlorine disinfection
27, 2, 0, 183.4, 0.6, 0, 1 ; Ozone disinfection
28, 2, 24.05, 22, 1, 0, 1 ; Oxidation ditch
29, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; TAD
30, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Incineration
31, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Sludge drying
32, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Lamella settler
33, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; TOWER
34, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; BAF
35, 2, 0, 1170, 0.9382, 0, 1 ; RBC
36, 2, 0, 1170, 0.9382, 0, 1 ; SBC
37, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Fluidised bed
38, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Chemical P removal
39, 2, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 ; Heat exchanger
;
; Cost data - power, labour and materials
;
112
; Cost = a0 + a1 d1^b1 + a2 d2^b2

;
; The file layout is
; ProcessCode, CostCode, RangeItem, a0, a1, b1, a2, b2, Range
; Cost codes are 3: Power; 4: Labour; and 5: Materials
; Up to 3 ranges can be specified. A range value of -1 means that
; this cost function applies for all sizes.
;
; -- Power --
;
1, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, -1
2, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, -1
3, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
4, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
5, 3, 1, 0, 0.019075, 1, 0, 1, -1
6, 3, 1, 0, 7094.5, 1, 0, 1, -1
7, 3, 1, 0, 1021600, 0.9515, 0, 1, -1
8, 3, 1, 0, 1021600, 0.9515, 0, 1, -1
9, 3, 1, 2118, 21.446, 1, 6.39E-04, 2, 15789
9, 3, 2, 0, 0.252, 1.5, 0, 1, -1
10, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, -1
11, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, -1
12, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, -1
13, 3, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, -1
14, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
15, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
16, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
17, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
18, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
19, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
20, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
21, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
22, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
23, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
24, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
25, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
26, 3, 1, 0, 614.2, 1.0396, 0, 1, -1
27, 3, 1, 0, 25, 1, 0, 1, -1
28, 3, 1, 0, 7094.5, 1, 0, 1, -1
29, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
30, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
31, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
32, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
33, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
34, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
35, 3, 1, 0, 415000, 1.4956, 0, 1, -1
36, 3, 1, 0, 415000, 1.4956, 0, 1, -1
37, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
38, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
39, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
;
113
; -- Labour --
;
1, 4, 1, 525, 1.0455, 1, -3.79E-05, 2, 9110
1, 4, 2, 0, 9.5311, 0.7223, 0, 1, -1
2, 4, 1, 525, 1.0455, 1, -3.79E-05, 2, 9110
2, 4, 2, 0, 9.5311, 0.7223, 0, 1, -1
3, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
4, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
5, 4, 1, 148, 94.408, 1, -1.1503, 2, 28.26
5, 4, 2, 0, 176.87, 0.71, 0, 1, -1
6, 4, 1, 1238, 9.113, 1, -0.00044, 2, 3725
6, 4, 2, 0, 28.651, 0.8416, 0, 1, -1
7, 4, 1, 1280, 650.8, 1, 32.069, 2, 2.41
7, 4, 2, 0, 1867.4, 0.5522, 0, 1, -1
8, 4, 1, 1280, 650.8, 1, 32.069, 2, 2.41
8, 4, 2, 0, 1867.4, 0.5522, 0, 1, -1
9, 4, 1, 922, 0, 1, 0, 1, 15.79
9, 4, 2, 922, 0.78, 1, -8.17E-04, 2,15789
9, 4, 3, 0, 1.0228, 0.9621, 0, 1, -1
10, 4, 1, 525, 1.0455, 1, -3.79E-05, 2, 9110
10, 4, 2, 0, 9.5311, 0.7223, 0, 1, -1
11, 4, 1, 525, 1.0455, 1, -3.79E-05, 2, 9110
11, 4, 2, 0, 9.5311, 0.7223, 0, 1, -1
12, 4, 1, 525, 1.0455, 1, -3.79E-05, 2, 9110
12, 4, 2, 0, 9.5311, 0.7223, 0, 1, -1
13, 4, 1, 525, 1.0455, 1, -3.79E-05, 2, 9110
13, 4, 2, 0, 9.5311, 0.7223, 0, 1, -1
14, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
15, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
16, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
17, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
18, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
19, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
20, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
21, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
22, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
23, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
24, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
25, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
26, 4, 1, 578, 7.598, 1, -1.02E-03, 2, 1799
26, 4, 2, 0, 15.451, 0.8753, 0, 1, -1
27, 4, 1, 550, 0, 1, 0, 1, 32
27, 4, 2, 467, 2.6722, 1, -9.60E-04, 2, 909
27, 4, 3, 0, 9.597, 0.7909, 0, 1, -1
28, 4, 1, 1238, 9.113, 1, -4.44E-04, 2, 3725
28, 4, 2, 0, 28.651, 0.8416, 0, 1, -1
29, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
30, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
31, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
32, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
33, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
34, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
35, 4, 1, 0, 458.85, 1, 0, 1, -1
36, 4, 1, 0, 458.85, 1, 0, 1, -1
37, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
38, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
39, 4, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
;
114
; -- Materials --
;
1, 5, 1, 0, 0.0123, 0.8, 0, 1, -1
2, 5, 1, 0, 0.0123, 0.8, 0, 1, -1
3, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
4, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
5, 5, 1, 0, 0.228, 0.4853, 0, 1, -1
6, 5, 1, 0, 1.055, 0.4301, 0, 1, -1
7, 5, 1, 0, 5.851, 0.4706, 0, 1, -1
8, 5, 1, 0, 5.851, 0.4706, 0, 1, -1
9, 5, 1, 2.507, 0, 1, 0, 1, 15.79
9, 5, 2, 2.507, 0.00203, 1, -3.32E-08, 2, 15789
9, 5, 3, 0, 0.006, 0.8682, 0, 1, -1
10, 5, 1, 0, 0.0123, 0.8, 0, 1, -1
11, 5, 1, 0, 0.0123, 0.8, 0, 1, -1
13, 5, 1, 0, 0.0123, 0.8, 0, 1, -1
13, 5, 1, 0, 0.0123, 0.8, 0, 1, -1
14, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
15, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
16, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
17, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
18, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
19, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
20, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
21, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
22, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
23, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
24, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
25, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
26, 5, 1, 0, 1.054, 0.2886, 0, 1, -1
27, 5, 1, 1.237, 0.0399, 1, 3.92E-05, 2, 45.45
27, 5, 2, 0, 0.2656, 0.6467, 0, 1, -1
28, 5, 1, 0, 1.0548, 0.4301, 0, 1, -1
29, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
30, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
31, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
32, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
33, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
34, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
35, 5, 1, 0, 0.324, 1.0124, 0, 1, -1
36, 5, 1, 0, 0.324, 1.0124, 0, 1, -1
37, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
38, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
39, 5, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, -1
40.6.2 Contents of file COSTS.XLS

CAPITAL - CIVIL
Process a0 a1 b1 a2 b2 d1 d2
SURFACE_ACT 154.02 42.14 1 0 1 Volume 000 m3
FINE_ACT 154.02 42.14 1 0 1 Volume 000 m3
COARSE_ACT 154.02 42.14 1 0 1 Volume 000 m3
BALANCE 0 67.82 0.53 0 1 Volume 000 m3
CIRC_BLIND 0 0.74 0.841 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_BLIND 0 67.82 0.53 0 1 Volume 000 m3
CHEMSED 0 95.2 0.51 0 1 Volume 000 m3
HX 0 0 1 0 1
CHEMREM 0 0 1 0 1
DAF 153 3.02 1 0 1 Surface area m2
DIS_CHLOR 0 134 0.6 0 1 Volume 000 m3
DIS_OZONE 0 51.8 0.37 0 1 Volume m3
DRYER 0 0 1 0 1
INCIN 0 0 1 0 1
115
CIRC_HUMUS 0 3.92 0.561 0 1 Surface area m2

RECT_HUMUS 0 151 0.633 0 1 Surface area 000 m2
CIRC_INLINE 0 0.74 0.841 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_INLINE 0 67.82 0.53 0 1 Volume 000 m3
LAMELLA 0 0 1 0 1
TOWER 0 0 1 0 1
BAF 0 0 1 0 1
RBC 0 390 0.9382 0 1 Volume 000 m3
SBC 0 390 0.9382 0 1 Volume 000 m3
FLUIDISEDBED 0 0 1 0 1
MAD 0 175.9 0.63 0 1 Volume 000 m3
CIRC_OFFLINE 0 0.74 0.841 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_OFFLINE 0 67.82 0.53 0 1 Volume 000 m3
OXID 0 76.16 0.43 0 1 Volume 000 m3
CIRC_PRIM 0 3.48 0.569 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_PRIM 0 67.82 0.53 0 1 Volume 000 m3
SBR 0 0.74 0.841 0 1 Surface area m2
CSBR 0 0 1 0 1
CIRC_SEC 0 0.74 0.841 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_SEC 0 67.82 0.53 0 1 Volume 000 m3
CIRC_STORM 23.32 0.163 1 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_STORM 0 67.82 0.53 0 1 Volume 000 m3
TAD 0 0 1 0 1
BIOFILTER 17.72 71.43 1 0 1 Volume 000 m3
WETWELL 0 67.82 0.53 0 1 Volume 000 m3
CAPITAL - M&E
SURFACE_ACT 24.05 22 1 0 1 Volume 000 m3

FINE_ACT 0 239.6 0.919 0 1 Air capacity m3air/s
COARSE_ACT 0 127.41 0.7926 0 1 Air capacity m3air/s
BALANCE 0 1.104 0.625 0 1 Pump rate m3/h
CIRC_BLIND 0 1.104 0.625 0 1 Pump rate m3/h
RECT_BLIND 0 1.104 0.625 0 1 Pump rate m3/h
CHEMSED 46.9 16.8 0.51 286.5 0.715 Volume 000 m3 Surface area 000 m2
HX 0 0 1 0 1
CHEMREM 0 0 1 0 1
DAF 187 3.7 1 0 1 Surface area m2
DIS_CHLOR 0 138.2 0.46 0 1 Chlorine consumed tonne/d
DIS_OZONE 0 183.4 0.6 0 1 Ozone generated kg/h
DRYER 0 0 1 0 1
INCIN 0 0 1 0 1
CIRC_HUMUS 21.606 1.696 0.5 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_HUMUS 25.15 0.05 1 0 1 Surface area m2
CIRC_INLINE 0 1.104 0.625 0 1 Pump rate m3/h
116
CAPITAL - M&E
RECT_INLINE 0 1.104 0.625 0 1 Pump rate m3/h

LAMELLA 0 0 1 0 1
TOWER 0 0 1 0 1
BAF 0 0 1 0 1
RBC 0 1170 0.9382 0 1 Volume 000 m3
SBC 0 1170 0.9382 0 1 Volume 000 m3
MAD 0 191.8 0.53 0 1 Volume 000 m3
CIRC_OFFLINE 0 1.104 0.625 0 1 Pump rate m3/h
RECT_OFFLINE 0 1.104 0.625 0 1 Pump rate m3/h
OXID 24.05 22 1 0 1 Volume 000 m3
CIRC_PRIM 21.606 1.696 0.5 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_PRIM 25.15 0.05 1 0 1 Surface area m2
SBR 0 0.185 0.841 0 1 Surface area m2
CSBR 0 0 1 0 1
CIRC_SEC 21.606 1.696 0.5 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_SEC 25.15 0.05 1 0 1 Surface area m2
CIRC_STORM 8.49 3.922 0.5 1.104 0.625 Surface area m2
RECT_STORM 25.15 0.05 1 1.104 0.625 Surface area m2
TAD 0 0 1 0 1
BIOFILTER 14.4 0.012 1 30.36 1 Design DWF m3/d Volume 000 m3
WETWELL 0 1.104 0.625 0 1 Pump rate m3/h
OPS - POWER
Process a0 a1 b1 a2 b2 RANGE d1 d2
SURFACE_ACT 0 7094.5 1 0 1 Installed power kW

FINE_ACT 0 1021600 0.9515 0 1 Air applied m3air/s
COARSE_ACT 0 1021600 0.9515 0 1 Air applied m3air/s
BALANCE 0 0 1 0 1
CIRC_BLIND 0 0 1 0 1
RECT_BLIND 0 0 1 0 1
CHEMSED 0 0 1 0 1
HX 0 0 1 0 1
CHEMREM 0 0 1 0 1
DAF 0 0 1 0 1
DIS_CHLOR 0 614.2 1.0396 0 1 Chlorine consumed tonne/y
DIS_OZONE 0 25 1 0 1 Ozone generated kg/y
DRYER 0 0 1 0 1
INCIN 0 0 1 0 1
CIRC_HUMUS 0 1 1 0 1 No of tanks
RECT_HUMUS 0 1 1 0 1 No of tanks
CIRC_INLINE 0 0 1 0 1
RECT_INLINE 0 0 1 0 1
117
OPS - POWER
LAMELLA 0 0 1 0 1
TOWER 0 0 1 0 1
BAF 0 0 1 0 1
RBC 0 415000 1.4956 0 1 Volume 000 m3
SBC 0 415000 1.4956 0 1 Volume 000 m3
MAD 2118 21.446 1 6.39E-04 2 0<d1<15789 Throughput m3/h
0 0.252 1.5 0 1 d1>15789
CIRC_OFFLINE 0 0 1 0 1
RECT_OFFLINE 0 0 1 0 1
OXID 0 7094.5 1 0 1 Installed power kW
CIRC_PRIM 0 1 1 0 1 No of tanks
RECT_PRIM 0 1 1 0 1 No of tanks
SBR 0 0 1 0 1
CSBR 0 0 1 0 1
CIRC_SEC 0 1 1 0 1 No of tanks
RECT_SEC 0 1 1 0 1 No of tanks
CIRC_STORM 0 0 1 0 1
RECT_STORM 0 0 1 0 1
TAD 0 0 1 0 1
BIOFILTER 0 0.019075 1 0 1 Design DWF m3/d
WETWELL 0 0 1 0 1
OPS - LABOUR
SURFACE_ACT 1238 9.113 1 -0.00044 2 0<d1<=3725 Installed power kW

0 28.651 0.8416 0 1 d1>3725
FINE_ACT 1280 650.8 1 32.069 2 0<d1<=2.41 Air applied m3air/s
0 1867.4 0.5522 0 1 d1>2.41
COARSE_ACT 1280 650.8 1 32.069 2 0<d1<=2.41 Air applied m3air/s
0 1867.4 0.5522 0 1 d1>2.41
BALANCE 0 0 1 0 1
CHEMSED 0 0 1 0 1
HX 0 0 1 0 1
CHEMREM 0 0 1 0 1
DAF 0 0 1 0 1
DIS_CHLOR 578 7.598 1 -1.02E-03 2 0<d1<=1799 Chlorine consumed tonne/y
0 15.451 0.8753 0 1 d1>1799
DIS_OZONE 550 0 1 0 1 0<d1<=32 Ozone generated kg/d
467 2.6722 1 -9.60E-04 2 32<d1<=909
0 9.597 0.7909 0 1 d1>909
118
OPS - LABOUR
DRYER 0 0 1 0 1
INCIN 0 0 1 0 1
CIRC_HUMUS 525 1.0455 1 -3.79E-05 2 0<d1<=9110 Surface area m2
0 9.5311 0.7223 0 1 d1>9110
RECT_HUMUS 525 1.0455 1 -3.79E-05 2 0<d1<=9110 Surface area m2
0 9.5311 0.7223 0 1 d1>9110
LAMELLA 0 0 1 0 1
TOWER 0 0 1 0 1
BAF 0 0 1 0 1
RBC 0 458.85 1 0 1 Volume 000 m3
SBC 0 458.85 1 0 1 Volume 000 m3
MAD 922 0 1 0 1 0<d1<=15.79 Throughput m3/h
922 0.78 1 -8.17E-04 2 15.79<d1<=15789
0 1.0228 0.9621 0 1 d1>15789
OXID 1238 9.113 1 -4.44E-04 2 0<d1<=3725 Installed power kW
0 28.651 0.8416 0 1 d1>3725
CIRC_PRIM 525 1.0455 1 -3.79E-05 2 0<d1<=9110 Area m2
0 9.5311 0.7223 0 1 d1>9110
RECT_PRIM 525 1.0455 1 -3.79E-05 2 0<d1<=9110 Area m2
0 9.5311 0.7223 0 1 d1>9110
SBR 0 0 1 0 1
CSBR 0 0 1 0 1
CIRC_SEC 525 1.0455 1 -3.79E-05 2 0<d1<=9110 Surface area m2
0 9.5311 0.7223 0 1 d1>9110
RECT_SEC 525 1.0455 1 -3.79E-05 2 0<d1<=9110 Surface area m2
0 9.5311 0.7223 0 1 d1>9110
TAD 0 0 1 0 1
BIOFILTER 148 94.408 1 -1.1503 2 0<d1<=28.26 Volume 000 m3
0 176.87 0.71 0 1 d1>28.26
WETWELL 0 0 1 0 1
OPS - MATERIALS
SURFACE_ACT 0 1.055 0.4301 0 1 Installed power kW

FINE_ACT 0 5.851 0.4706 0 1 Air applied m3air/s
COARSE_ACT 0 5.851 0.4706 0 1 Air applied m3air/s
119
OPS - MATERIALS
BALANCE 0 0 1 0 1
CHEMSED 0 0 1 0 1
HX 0 0 1 0 1
CHEMREM 0 0 1 0 1
DAF 0 0 1 0 1
DIS_CHLOR 0 1.054 0.2886 0 1 Chlorine consumed tonne/y
DIS_OZONE 1.237 0.0399 1 3.92E-05 2 0<d1<45.45 Ozone generated kg/d
0 0.2656 0.6467 0 1 d1>45.45
DRYER 0 0 1 0 1
INCIN 0 0 1 0 1
CIRC_HUMUS 0 0.0123 0.8 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_HUMUS 0 0.0123 0.8 0 1 Surface area m3
LAMELLA 0 0 1 0 1
TOWER 0 0 1 0 1
BAF 0 0 1 0 1
RBC 0 0.324 1.0124 0 1 Volume 000 m3
SBC 0 0.324 1.0124 0 1 Volume 000 m3
MAD 2.507 0 1 0 1 0<d1<15.79 Throughput m3/h
2.507 0.00203 1 -3.32E-08 2 15.79<d1<15789
0 0.006 0.8682 0 1 d1>15789
OXID 0 1.0548 0.4301 0 1 Installed power kW
CIRC_PRIM 0 0.0123 0.8 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_PRIM 0 0.0123 0.8 0 1 Surface area m3
SBR 0 0 1 0 1
CSBR 0 0 1 0 1
CIRC_SEC 0 0.0123 0.8 0 1 Surface area m2
RECT_SEC 0 0.0123 0.8 0 1 Surface area m2
TAD 0 0 1 0 1
BIOFILTER 0 0.228 0.4853 0 1 Volume 000 m3
WETWELL 0 0 1 0 1
120
40.7 REFERENCES
Note that cost functions taken from the WRc report TR61 Fourth Revision can be made available only to
contributors to that report.
Benjes H H (1980). Handbook of Biological Wastewater Treatment. Garland STPM Press, New York, USA.
Gumerman R C, Culp R L and Hansen S P (1978). Estimating Costs for Water Treatment as a Function of
Size and Treatment Efficiency, EPA Report EPA-600/2-78-182. USEPA, Cincinnati, USA.
Kiefhaber K P, Neis U, Hanz T and Hahn H H (1980), Korrespondenz Abwasser, 27 (5) 309-313.
Langlais B, Reckhow D A and Brink D R (1991). Ozone in Water Treatment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
USA.
Longhurst S L and Graham N J D (1987). The Public Health Engineer, 14 (6) 71-76.
Qasim S R (1994). Wastewater Treatment Plants. Technomic Publishing Co Inc, Lancaster, USA.
WRc (1977). Cost Information for Water Supply and Sewage Disposal, Technical Report TR61. WRc,
Medmenham, UK.
WRc (1995). Water Industry Construction Cost Estimating Manual, TR61 Fourth Revision. WRc, Swindon,
UK.
121
41. STREAM COMPONENTS

The STOAT processes are linked together by flowstreams. The components of every stream are:
Flowrate [m3/h]
Temperature [°C]*
pH *
Volatile fatty acid concentration as a BOD equivalent [mg/l]*
Soluble BOD [mg/l]
Nonbiodegradable COD [mg/l]*
Particulate BOD [mg/l]
Nonbiodegradable particulate COD [mg/l]*
Volatile solids [mg/l]
Nonvolatile solids [mg/l]
Ammonia nitrogen [mg/l]
Oxidised nitrogen [mg/l]
Soluble organic nitrogen [mg/l]*
Particulate organic nitrogen [mg/l]*
Dissolved oxygen [mg/l]*
Soluble phosphorus [mg/l]*
PHB62 in viable P-removing bacteria [mg/l]*
PHB in nonviable P-removing bacteria [mg/l]*
Polyphosphate in viable P-removing bacteria [mg/l]*
Polyphosphate in nonviable P-removing bacteria [mg/l]*
Viable heterotrophs [mg/l]*
Nonviable heterotrophs [mg/l]*
Viable autotrophs [mg/l]*
Nonviable autotrophs [mg/l]*
Viable P-removing bacteria [mg/l]*
Nonviable P-removing bacteria [mg/l]*
Viable G-bacteria [mg/l]*
Nonviable G-bacteria [mg/l]*
PHA in viable G-bacteria [mg/l]*
PHA in nonviable G-bacteria [mg/l]*
Glycogen in viable G-bacteria [mg/l]*
Glycogen in nonviable G-bacteria [mg/l]*
Glycogen in viable PAO [mg/l]*
Glycogen in nonviable PAO [mg/l]*
Metal Hydroxide [mg/l]*
Metal Phosphate [mg/l]*
Metal ion [mg/l]*
Alkalinity [mg/l]*
Nitrite [mg/l]*
Soluble nondegradable organic nitrogen [mg/l]*
Particulate nondegradable organic nitrogen [mg/l]*
Soluble degradable organic phosphorus [mg/l]*
Soluble nondegradable organic phosphorus [mg/l]*
Particulate degradable organic phosphorus [mg/l]*
Particulate nondegradable organic phosphorus [mg/l]*
Dissolved Organic Carbon [mg/l]*
Total dissolved solids [mg/l]*
62 Poly-β-hydroxy butyric acid
122
The components marked with an asterisk do not need to be supplied by you; they can be given a value of zero.
If you do not specify bacterial concentrations within the sewage, or if you are using intermediate models that
do not include the bacteria63, then you must have bacteria as part of the initial conditions for your models.
This leaves us with an essential core of flowrate, soluble and particulate BOD, volatile and nonvolatile solids,
and ammonia. Where data are missing the following assumptions can be made:
No soluble BOD data: assume that 50-60% of the total BOD is particulate, and the rest soluble. If possible,
arrange for one or two total and filtered BOD tests and use the ratio of total to filtered BOD from these tests to
determine the split between soluble and particulate BOD. The diurnal variation of particulate BOD can be
assumed to follow that of total BOD. Soluble BOD can either be assumed to follow the total BOD diurnal
profile or the ammonia profile. If the ammonia profile is used you must adjust the soluble BOD values to
ensure that the total BOD at any time is correct.
No volatile/nonvolatile solids data: Assume that 75-80% of the total solids are volatile solids. Where possible
arrange for several samples to be analysed for volatile and nonvolatile solids and use this data to determine the
split between volatile and nonvolatile solids. If there is no information on the diurnal variation then assume
that the diurnal variation follows that of particulate BOD.
The standard tests for volatile and nonvolatile solids are based on total solids, while STOAT assumes that the
solids are suspended solids. This requires modifying the standard test by carrying out the volatile and
nonvolatile solids analyses on samples of both the sewage and the filtered sewage, to measure both the total
solids and the filterable (dissolved) solids. Subtraction will then produce values for the suspended solids.
If the only data available are daily samples then you have two options. The first is to begin a sampling
programme to measure the diurnal variations. The second is to assume self-similarity in the sewage profile.
Self-similarity means that the diurnal profile will look similar to the seasonal profile: therefore, given 12
months daily data you assume that each half-month corresponds to the equivalent variation of an hour. We
recommend setting up a sampling programme whenever this is feasible.
63 As an example, the primary tanks currently do not model bacteria. Therefore the settled sewage and
primary sludge leaving the primary tank are bacteria free. Further models are planned that will
transmit bacteria.
123
42. CONVERTING RESULTS TO 95%iles

When constructing a STOAT model the important parameters within the model are
(i) Physical dimensions
(ii) Sewage characteristics
(iii) Settling characteristics
For typical domestic sewages there should be no need to adjust the default biological reaction parameters. The
major variability between sewage works, aside from the 'obvious' items covered in points (i) and (ii), is the
settleability. The tests described in the descriptions of the storm, primary, humus and activated sludge settling
tanks will allow the model to be built without the need for 'tweaking' the parameters. You may find it
necessary to adjust the values - this adjustment reflects the need to model a wider range of sewage conditions
than used in the tests, and to compensate for the scale effects caused by testing in small-scale equipment and
then applying to larger tanks. Despite this warning you should find that for most models the adjustments
required are minimal, if any.
Where possible the output from STOAT should be compared against works data. This provides an estimate of
the modelling errors that you can expect and identifies weaknesses in the model or the data. You should not
expect that model output will exactly match works data - there is always a need to interpret and to use
engineering judgement in analysing the results.
The output from STOAT can be analysed in various ways. A common requirement is to estimate the 95%-ile
effluent quality. The correct way to do this with STOAT is to have a model that represents the statistical
variability of the influent sewage (both the average concentrations and the daily variation), and then to carry
out a large number of STOAT simulations to build up the expected distribution of effluent quality.
Few works will have the data needed for this; few people will have the time. There is a rule of thumb that a
95%-ile effluent quality corresponds to twice the average effluent quality. This approach allows one run of
STOAT with average conditions to estimate the 95%-ile effluent quality. You should check that the maximum
predicted effluent concentrations are below the 95%-ile values as well as the 'double the average' check.
An alternative approach to calculate 95%-ile statistics is given in the Water Services Association report The
Testing of Process Plant for the Water Industry, available from the Foundation for Water Research. The
following table has been extracted from this report. This table provides a ready reckoner, given the standard
deviation to mean ratio, for the required percentage compliance. As an example, if the average effluent BOD
is 12 mg/l, with a standard deviation of 10 mg/l, then the coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided
by average) is 10 / 12 = 0.8. From the table the standard-to-mean ratio for a 95%-ile effluent is 2.48. The
95%-ile effluent BOD concentration is therefore 2.48 x 12 = 30 mg/l. (The ‘special’ entry in the table for a
coefficient of variance of 0.528 is for the commonly assumed distribution of sewage effluent quality, where
the 95%-ile effluent is twice the average.)
124
Required Coefficient of variance

true
% 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.52 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
compliance 8
80 1.23 1.28 1.33 1.34 1.37 1.39 1.41 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.40 1.37
85 1.30 1.38 1.46 1.48 1.52 1.58 1.62 1.65 1.68 1.70 1.71 1.70
90 1.40 1.52 1.64 1.67 1.75 1.84 1.92 1.99 2.06 2.15 2.21 2.25
91 1.42 1.56 1.69 1.72 1.80 1.91 2.01 2.09 2.16 2.27 2.35 2.40
92 1.45 1.60 1.74 1.78 1.87 1.99 2.10 2.19 2.28 2.41 2.51 2.58
93 1.48 1.64 1.80 1.84 1.94 2.08 2.20 2.32 2.42 2.58 2.70 2.80
94 1.51 1.69 1.86 1.91 2.03 2.19 2.33 2.46 2.58 2.78 2.94 3.06
95 1.55 1.75 1.95 2.00 2.13 2.31 2.48 2.64 2.78 3.03 3.22 3.38
95.5 1.58 1.78 1.99 2.05 2.20 2.39 2.57 2.74 2.90 3.17 3.40 3.58
96 1.60 1.82 2.05 2.11 2.26 2.47 2.68 2.86 3.04 3.34 3.60 3.81
96.5 1.63 1.87 2.11 2.17 2.34 2.57 2.79 3.00 3.20 3.54 3.84 4.08
97 1.66 1.92 2.17 2.25 2.43 2.69 2.93 3.16 3.38 3.78 4.12 4.41
97.5 1.70 1.98 2.26 2.34 2.54 2.82 3.10 3.36 3.62 4.08 4.48 4.82
98 1.75 2.05 2.36 2.45 2.68 3.00 3.31 3.62 3.91 4.45 4.94 5.36
98.5 1.81 2.14 2.49 2.59 2.86 3.23 3.59 3.95 4.31 4.97 5.57 6.11
99 1.90 2.28 2.68 2.80 3.12 3.56 4.01 4.46 4.90 5.76 6.56 7.29
99.5 2.04 2.50 3.02 3.17 3.58 4.17 4.78 5.41 6.04 7.29 8.51 9.66
99.9 2.37 3.05 3.85 4.09 4.76 5.77 6.86 8.03 9.26 11.90 14.50 17.20
125
126
127
APPENDIX A AERATION TANK LONGITUDINAL MIXING

The degree of longitudinal mixing in an aeration tank can be determined by tracer tests. An obvious
difficulty with the use of tracer tests is that the process must exist before the test can be performed.
One measure of the degree of longitudinal mixing is the number of equivalent equal-sized completely
mixed tanks in series that will produce the same tracer test response. A correlation for this number of
tanks in series has been developed by WRc64.
This equation is
7. 4 ⋅ L ⋅ QS ⋅ (1 + R )
N=
W⋅H
where N = number of tanks in series
W = tank width
[m]
H = tank depth
[m]
L = tank length
[m]
QS = average sewage flowrate [m3/s]
R = recycle ratio.
[-]
This equation can be used to estimate the degree of longitudinal mixing in aeration tanks to ±15% for
diffused-air systems only provided that the variables are within the following ranges:
2 < W < 20 [m]
2.4 < H < 6 [m]
28 < L < 500 [m]
0.7 < R < 1.5 [-]
1.3 < t* < 8 [h]
V
t* =
3600 ⋅ QS ⋅ (1 + R )
where V is the aeration tank volume.
For surface aeration there is no equivalent correlation. As a first estimate the number of tanks in series
can be taken as the number of mechanical aerators, or the number of pocketed aeration zones, in series
within the aeration tank.
64 B Chambers and VK Thomas, 1985, Energy Saving by Optimisation of Activated Sludge

Aeration, WRc Interim Report 217-S
128
APPENDIX B TRACER TESTS

Tracer tests can use a variety of chemicals as the tracer. The most common has been lithium chloride,
followed by a range of fluorescent dyes. The test procedure for lithium is to add sufficient lithium
chloride to the inlet to the aeration tank to produce an average lithium (not lithium chloride)
concentration within the tank of 2 mg/l. The lithium chloride solution is added as rapidly as possible as
a single dose. The effluent from the tank is sampled every 15 minutes for the first two hours, every
half-hour for the next two hours, and hourly after that for a typical 8-hour retention tank, and the
sampling procedure continues for at least 2 sewage retention times. Where fluorescent dyes are used it
is possible to set up continuous monitoring. The fluorescent dye concentration used is chosen to be
readily detectable; this will depend on the dye chosen and the analytical technique (on-line instrument
or laboratory analysis).
The standard approach to using the results to calculate the number of tanks in series proceeds as
follows65:
Given a collection of N data points {ti, ci} the average retention time and standard deviation are
calculated from
Ci = 0.5 (ci + ci+1) ; average concentration
Ti = 0.5 (ti + ti+1) ; average time
∆Ti = (ti+1 - ti) ; time interval
N −1
∑ T C ∆T i i i
T= i =1
N −1 ; average retention time
∑ C ∆T
i =1
i i
N −1
∑ (T − T ) C ∆T i
2
i i
σ = 2 i =1
N −1 ; variance σ2;
∑ C ∆T
i =1
i i
The standard deviation is σ.

The number of tanks in series is calculated by
N tanks = T 2 / σ 2
STOAT comes with a program TRACER that will carry out these calculations for you.
This equation assumes
(i) That there is no backmixing in the influent or effluent of the tank.
(ii) There is no external recirculation. This makes this equation unsuitable for oxidation ditches or
where the tracer concentration in the RAS affects the measurements. The interference of the
RAS is frequently avoided by the heuristic of calculating the standard deviation and ignoring all
measurements taken after 4 standard deviations. The standard deviation can then be recalculated
and used to again remove any measurements taken after the new value of 4 standard deviations.
(iii) The tanks in series are all the same size.
(iv) The flowrate during the test was constant.
(v) There is none of the tracer component normally present in the sewage.
65 O Levenspiel, 1972, Chemical Reaction engineering, Chapter 9, Second Edition, Wiley

International Edition
129
The first assumption is unlikely to be a problem with activated sludge systems. Mixing in oxidation
ditches is difficult to calculate using this method: the high recirculation flows mean that for the sewage
the oxidation ditch behaves like a single tank, but the dissolved oxygen profile follows that for a plug-
flow system. The best approach to calculating the number of tanks in series for an oxidation ditch is to
stop the recirculation during the tracer experiment. If this is not possible then the correlation given in
Appendix A should be used.
If you wish to include the effect of the RAS recirculation it is possible to use the STOAT model itself
to estimate the number of tanks in series. For this we suggest using the correlation in Appendix A to
calculate the number of tanks in series N, and use N-1, N and N+1 tanks in the STOAT model. By
assigning the tracer values to phosphorus in any of the non-P-removal models the model will then
predict the tracer concentrations in the effluent. Compare the measured and predicted tracer
concentrations, and then use the best value of N-1, N or N+1.
Where the tracer is expected to be present in the sewage (this is the case when lithium is used) you
should have a duplicate tank, sampled for the tracer as well. Subtracting the tracer concentration in the
duplicate tank gives you the value for tracer added in the test tank. If there is no control then take the
samples in the influent sewage and subtract the average value from the measured tracer values in the
effluent.
The effect of dead volume in the tank can be estimated. The effective tank volume is given by
V = Q⋅T
Q = average flowrate during the tracer test
If the effective tank volume is much less that the actual volume then there is extensive dead volume in
the tank. The effective tank volume may be a little smaller or larger than the actual volume - this
reflects measuring errors, truncation errors in using the summation formulae to calculate the average
retention time and variations in the flowrate (the formulae given above have assumed that there is
negligible variation in Q during the test).
Although STOAT does not use other mixing models you can find details on other approaches in
Levenspiel. These mixing models may help in locating process problems such as short-circuiting and
dead volume.
130
APPENDIX C OXYGEN MASS TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS

The oxygen mass transfer coefficient, KLa, can be calculated for diffused air activated sludge systems
by;
0 . 25
D
0 .5
 V ⋅ g 6 ⋅ε G
K L a = 7200 ⋅  O 2  ⋅ G  ⋅
 π   µL  db
where KLa has the units of h-1.
The other parameters are
DO2: Oxygen diffusivity
g: Gravitational acceleration, 9.81 ms-2
db: Bubble diameter, m
VG: Superficial gas velocity = QG/A
QG: Gas flow rate, m3s-1
A: Tank cross-sectional area, m2
εG: Gas hold-up
µL: Liquid viscosity, 0.001 Pas
The bubble diameter can be calculated from
σ 0.6
db = 4.15 ε 0.5 + 9 ⋅ 10 −4
0.4 0.2 G
( PG / V ) ρ L
where V is the liquid volume, m3
PG is the gassed power, W
σ is the surface tension, Nm-1
ρL is the liquid density, 1000 kgm-3
This correlation is strictly valid only for sparged mixed tanks. We believe it is a reasonable estimate of
the bubble diameters coming from fine-bubble diffused air systems, based on visual observations.
The gassed power can be calculated from
PA
PG = QG ⋅ PA ⋅ ln
PS
where PA is the air pressure at the diffuser inlet, Pa
PS is the pressure at the surface of the tank, Pa. This is normally atmospheric pressure, 1.013 x 105 Pa.
This equation is for isothermal expansion, and is the gas power released within the aeration basin. The
power consumption within the blower should be calculated based on adiabatic compression, and
include the friction losses in the air delivery lines and across the diffuser domes, and should also
include the machine efficiency. The program KLACALC ignores all these terms and therefore always
calculates high aeration efficiencies. The calculated values can be corrected once you have calculated
the additional pressure drops and machine inefficiencies involved in the complete aeration system.
The gas hold-up is given by
VG V 3 ⋅ Vb ⋅ (1 − ε G ) / (1 − ε 5G/ 3 )
+ L =
ε G 1 − ε G 1 + 2(1 − 0.628 µ L / ρ L ⋅ Vb ⋅ db )
where VL is the superficial liquid velocity, m/s. This is positive if the liquid is flowing upwards,
negative if the liquid is flowing down, and zero if the liquid is flowing across the tank. For most
activated sludge units the value of VL will thus be zero; the principal exemption is TOWER.
131
Vb is the bubble free-rise velocity, m/s. This is given by
Vb = 2 ⋅ σ / ( ρ L ⋅ db ) + 0.5 ⋅ g ⋅ db
The equation for KLa will calculate the clean-water transfer value at any temperature providing that
the correct values for viscosity, diffusivity, density and surface tension have been used.
The calculation procedure is then:
Given the gas flowrate and aeration tank area and depth, calculate the gassed power PG and the
superficial gas velocity VS. Guess a value for the gas holdup, and use this to calculate the bubble
diameter db and the bubble free rise velocity Vb. Use Vb and db to calculate the gas holdup. Iterate
over the gas holdup, bubble size and bubble rise velocity calculations until the gas holdup value has
converged to a steady-state. Finally, calculate the mass transfer coefficient KLa. There is a program
supplied with STOAT, KLACALC, that will automate this procedure, and will also calculate the air
flowrate given a value for KLa.
The effect of surfactants can be estimated from the following correlation66 for the alpha-factor. The
alpha-factor is defined as the ratio between KLa in the activated sludge aeration tank and in clean
water.
α = 0.111 + 0.362 ⋅ e −6.54⋅ X + 0.527 ⋅ e −0.0726⋅ X

SAA ε G ⋅ h
X= ⋅
a VG
where
a is the specific bubble surface area
SAA is the concentration of surfactant as Manoxol OT
h is the depth of the aeration tank.
You should note
(i) the value calculated for KLa is accurate to ±20%
(ii) the value calculated for α has been obtained for a clean-water system to which detergent was
added. The error band of the result is not known.
For surface aeration systems KLa can be calculated from
1000 ⋅ EO 2 ⋅ P
KLa =
CO∗ ⋅ V
where EO2 is the oxygen transfer efficiency, kg O2/kWh
P is the power demand of the aerator, kW
CO* is the saturation oxygen concentration, mg/l
V is the aeration volume, m3
The factor 1000 is the conversion between mg/l and kg/m3
KLa from this equation has the units of h-1, which are the units used in STOAT.
This equation requires a knowledge of the power drawn by the surface aerator and the manufacturer's
declared oxygen transfer efficiency.
66 Unpublished research at WRc. A paper describing the work has been accepted by Water
Research, to be published in 1995.
132
APPENDIX D CRITERIA FOR MODEL ASSESSMENT

There are several ways of assessing how well a calibrated model matches the calibration data. The
choice as to which method depends on how much data is available and how it was used. The 'classical'
statistical methods are to calculate the sum-of-squares, the R2-value, standard deviations of residuals
and variability coefficients. These measures generally have three underlying assumptions. The first is
that the data is accurate, especially the times at which the data was collected. Where the data is known
to be inaccurate then the assumption is generally that the measurement error is independent of the
value - for example, that a BOD of 300 mg/l and a BOD of 30 mg/l are both accurate to ±3 mg/l. The
second assumption is that either the data can be represented by the Normal distribution, or that there is
enough data for the underlying distribution, through the Central Limit Theorem, to approach the
Normal distribution. The final assumption is that the data values are independent of each other. When
modelling dynamic events the data are usually collected at intervals short enough such that the data are
correlated - this is why sewage shows diurnal, weekly and seasonal patterns.
For sewage data these assumptions are usually not justified. Alternative criteria that can be used, and
that are less dependent on the statistical properties of the data, are known as nonparameteric statistical
tests67. These tests include such items as the sign test, where the test is to see if the predictions are
consistently under- or over-predicting compared to the data. WRc, in evaluating the performance of
STOAT, have used the following criteria:
(i) Over- or under-prediction of the effluent concentrations68;

(ii) Prediction of the peak effluent concentrations;
(iii) Predictions of the timing of the peak concentration values.
Because data were frequently limited, available only from one run, the data was divided into two
groups. The model was calibrated on the first half (for example, data from the morning), and then
evaluated on the second half (for example, data from the afternoon). This produces a statistically
weaker test. Where the data is available the preferred evaluation is to use separate data sets for
calibration and evaluation. Separate here means that the data should be collected on separate days.
In evaluating the goodness of fit of the three criteria above the preferred method was 'eye-balling' a
graph of the results. This is linked to the general paucity of data. As a rule of thumb at least 32 data
points are needed before the formal statistical tests become acceptable. With less than 32 the
probability of false positives and false negatives is higher than the standard tables would suggest.
67 One of the standard books in this field is S Siegel, 1956, Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioural Sciences, McGraw Hill. All the routines in Siegel are available in the computer
program SPSS - Statistical Program for the Social Sciences, and in a variety of other
dedicated statistical programs.
68 This should allow for the expected measuring error. Approaches to this have been to
normalise the calculated error by dividing by the measurement error and then calculating
acceptance statistics on these normalised values, or to set error bands and accept the model
provided the predictions lie within the upper and lower bounds.
133
The Student's t-test is a notable exception to this rule, as are the nonparameteric tests mentioned earlier.
The preference for graphical evaluation can be seen from the following comments on comparing peak
concentrations:
(i) Identification of peaks can be difficult;
(ii) Peaks in the measured data do not always have corresponding model peaks, and vice versa;
(iii) The number of peaks is generally very small (in typical data sets usually less than 10, and
sometimes less than 5).
134
APPENDIX E MONITORING DATA

This is a summary of the monitoring requirements for model calibration. For a particular works the
requirements may vary from those given here because of variations in plant layout and operation. The
suggested monitoring points are69:
(i) Works influent;
(ii) All outflows from the works;
(iii) All flows between each process stage in the treatment stream where the flows may change, e.g.
pumps, mixers or splitters;
(iv) Any recycle flows.
The frequency with which samples are taken will depend on the variability of the sewage and the
resources available. Typical sampling frequencies are 1, 2 or 3 hourly. The choice of frequency will
depend on the works, but if the model is required to follow variations that take place over an interval of
X hours the sampling frequency should be at least every X/2 hours. The sampling frequency does not
have to be the same for every parameter70. Activated sludge MLSS values change slowly so that daily
sampling may be sufficiently frequent (except under storm conditions), while dissolved oxygen may
require sampling at 12 minute intervals.
The duration of the sampling period, like the frequency of sampling, depends on the purpose of
sampling. The sampling period should be long enough to cover the expected phenomena to be studied;
if possible it should be long enough to collect sufficient data such that spurious errors can be detected.
This suggests that diurnal data should be collected over at least two days, and preferably longer.
Collecting data for storms cannot be as easily programmed, but if possible samples should be taken and
kept for 24-48 hours. When the storm event finally takes place the stored samples should also be
submitted for analysis, so that there is information on the state of the sewage and works prior to the
storm; sampling and analysis should continue for another 24 hours after the end of the storm. Where a
process like activated sludge is to be studied the monitoring period should cover at least one, and
preferably three, sludge ages: although it may not be necessary to take diurnal samples for the entire
period.
Composite samples should be used to average out some of the variation in the nature of sewage. The
number of samples taken for a composite is typically four or more. The compositing procedure can be
based on either a simple average or a flow-weighted average. Whichever method is used should be
taken into account when comparing model predictions with the data.
STOAT can be used to assess what parameters should be sampled. By running a simulation of the
study prior to planning data collection the STOAT results can be used to identify parameters that are
expected to vary and can be used to monitor performance or the acceptability of the model. Parameters
that are not expected to vary can be sampled less frequently to test the expectation that they should not
vary. Experimenting with the operating conditions in STOAT will identify when variations are
expected to be influenced by the operating conditions, the model parameters (such as settling velocities
or growth rates), and the variability assigned to the sewage profile.
69 This list is only a suggestion. The sampling points will depend on what you wish to do with
the model. As an example, if you wish to calibrate the model kinetics in activated sludge you
must measure the oxygen, BOD and ammonia profiles along the length of the tank.
Measuring only the influent and effluent will not allow you to correctly estimate the kinetic
parameters - you can estimate parameters, but they will have large error bands.
70 J Chen, 1993, Modelling and Control of the Activated Sludge Process: Towards a
Systematic Framework, PhD Thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and
Medicine, University of London.
135
The raw process data may not be suitable for direct use in evaluating the performance of STOAT.
Possible problems include:
(i) Observation errors - random or systematic errors, but not gross errors;
(ii) Outliers - errors so large that the data does not follow the trend; and
(iii) Missing data.
The data contain errors caused by sampling and analysis. Two samplers mounted side-by-side will not
normally produce identical results. The same sample analysed by different methods, different analysts
or different laboratories will also not produce identical results. Codes of practice such as Standard
Methods or the HMSO Blue Books define the expected best accuracy and reproducibility of the
analytical methods. You should not expect to normally achieve these best levels of reproducibility or
accuracy.
Outliers are difficult to detect, especially by automated software. Values that do not follow the trend
may indicate anomalous but correct conditions - low flow, high flow, the start of desludging - as well
as incorrect conditions - sampler failure, analysis problems, samples mixed up. The best approach to
identifying the quality of the data is to plot the data and to have the results vetted by people familiar
with the data collection exercises and the works.
Missing data can be ignored or interpolated. If data are missing on the sewage influent STOAT will
linearly interpolate, or if necessary linearly extrapolate, to generate the missing points. When
examining the results of a simulation the effects of interpolation and extrapolation must be included.
You may elect to use other smoothing procedures, such as plotting the data and fitting a smooth curve
through the existing data. Amongst the automatic methods the most common are cubic splines,
smoothing cubic splines and Fourier smoothing. Such methods are available in the NAG library or
Press et al71.
71 Press et al., op. cit.
136
APPENDIX F SLUDGE SETTLING PARAMETERS

The methods described in this appendix will enable you to calculate the parameters V0 and b1 in the
Vesilind settling equation VS = V0 exp(-b1 X), where VS is the settling velocity of sludge at a
concentration X mg/l.
If a column (an SSVI cylinder or larger) is filled with activated sludge and left to settle a graph of the
solids interface against time can be plotted as shown in the figure below. From this graph it is possible
to calculate ("Kynch analysis") the solids' settling velocity at any concentration. The solids
concentration must be high enough that zone settling takes place: the solids settle as a blanket, with a
sharp interface between the sludge blanket and the clarified liquid above the blanket. This is not a
suitable settling test for crude sewages.
Height above base
H0
Hi
Ha
0 Ta Ti
Elapsed time
EXAMPLE OF A KYNCH CONSTRUCTION

If a tangent is drawn to the settling curve at a time Ta this tangent will intersect the elapsed time axis at
Ti and the height axis at Hi. The solids concentration at the interface between the sludge blanket and
the clarified liquor at the time Ta is given by
Ca = C0 H0 / Hi
and the settling velocity by
Va = Hi / Ti
where C0 is the initial concentration of solids in the settling column; H0 the initial depth of the sludge
blanket; and Ca and Va the concentration and settling velocity of the interface at time Ta.
This procedure is only applicable when the sludge is settling, rather than compressing. If several tests
are done at different initial concentrations or initial heights and then plotted on reduced co-ordinates,
so that the Y-axis is H/H0C0 and the X-axis T/H0C0 the curves for the different tests will coincide
where compression is not affecting the results. If the tangent construction described above is carried
out using the reduced co-ordinates graph the intersections on the axes are VaCa on the X-axis and 1/Ca
on the Y-axis.
Completing the tangent constructions produces a collection of data points of {Ca, Va}. These points
should now follow the settling equation Va = V0 exp(-b1 Ca). Taking natural logarithms transforms
the equation to ln Va = ln V0 - b1 Ca. This equation has the form Y = a + b X, and this can be solved
using standard least-squares methods. The least-squares parameters a and b are then
used to calculate V0 and b1 as V0 = exp(a) and b1 = -b.
137
APPENDIX G MEASUREMENT OF SLUDGE SETTLEABILITY USING

THE SSVI TEST
1. Use the standard SSVI settling apparatus. This is a graduated cylinder, a slow-speed stirrer
(1 rpm) and a driving motor for the stirrer. The SSVI cylinder is available from Triton
Electronics, Bigods Hall, Dunmow, Essex, UK.
2. Two tests are required,. These can be carried out rapidly using two cylinders, one containing the
MLSS and the other RAS solids. The results of these two tests are used to interpolate the SSVI
results to a reference concentration of 3.5 kg/m3.
3. Obtain separate samples of the MLSS and RAS solids from the activated sludge plant. Ensure
that each sample is well mixed, so that no solids separation has taken place. Measure the MLSS
and RAS concentrations. Fill the SSVI cylinders with the two samples. The cylinders must be
filled to the top graduation mark (50 cm). Insert the stirrer and start the stirrer drive motor (zero
time).
4. Allow the sludge to settle for 30 minutes. At this time note the height of the sludge interface in
each column.
5. Calculate the SSVI3.5 as follows:
C1 = MLSS concentration, mg/l
C2 = RAS solids concentration, mg/l
H1 = height of MLSS interface after 30 minutes
H2 = height of RAS interface after 30 minutes
(i) Interpolate to obtain a settled height for solids concentration of 3.5 kg/m3:
3500 − C1
H3.5 = H1 + ⋅ ( H2 − H1 )
C2 − C1
(ii) Calculate SSVI3.5 from:
1000 ⋅ H3.5
SSVI3.5 =
3. 5 ⋅ H0
where H0 = original height of suspension in the cylinder (= 50 cm)
138

MSPE - Process Model Descriptions PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MSPE - Process Model Descriptions PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Copyright  WRc plc

APPENDIX A AERATION TANK LONGITUDINAL MIXING 128

PROCESS MODEL DESCRIPTIONS

2.1 STORM TANK MODEL 1 (BOD)

The equations we have in STOAT are:

2.2 STORM TANK MODEL 2 (COD)

2.3 PARAMETER ESTIMATION

Storm tank contents

TYPICAL LAYOUT FOR STORM TANK

(ii) Settleable fraction of the particulate components.

3.1 PRIMARY TANK MODEL 1 (BOD)

5 P Lessard and MB Beck, 1988, "Dynamic modelling of primary sedimentation", Journal of

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION TANK

3.2 PRIMARY TANK MODEL 2 (COD)

3.3 PARAMETER ESTIMATION

(i) The tank size - volume and settling area.

The equation above was developed from the differential equation

λ = 1.17 exp( −29. 9 exp(58.5 g ⋅ H / U ))

4.2 LAMELLA SETUP

4.3 LAMELLA SEPARATOR MODEL 1 (BOD)

4.4 LAMELLA SEPARATOR MODEL 2 (COD)

5. CHEMICALLY ASSISTED SEDIMENTATION

5.2 COAGULATION MODEL

5.2.1 Choice of coagulation chemicals

Seven pH control agents are supported:

5.2.2 Dose control

5.2.3 Dissolved organics removal model

Dmin = [αpH − β ]Craw 5.2

k c = − a1 Craw a2 + b1 Craw b2 pH − c1 Craw c2 pH 2 5.3

5.2.4 Chemical equilibria

Mer H 2 PO4 (OH ) 3r −1( s ) = rMe 3+ + H 2 PO4− + (3r − 1)OH − 5.10

5.10 25.8 67.2 - -26.4

The relationship between equilibrium constant and temperature is:

The hydroxide concentration is determined from the pH10:

[ H ] = molar concentration of hydrogen ions

[OH ] = molar concentration of hydroxide ions

10 Stumm W and Morgan J, (1970). ‘Aquatic Chemistry’, Wiley-Intersience.

5.2.6 Calibration of coagulation model

Each of these steps are described, with examples, below.

5.0 Dmin = 2.50 mg/l

-3.0 Intercept = -3.01

Determination of polynomial constants a, b and c

Figure 5.3 Example of the determination of kc

5.3 FLOC BLANKET CLARIFIER MODEL (FBC)

11 Gregory R, (1979). ‘Floc Blanket Clarification’, WRc Technical Report TR111.

5.3.1 Description of model

12 Vitasovic Z, (1989). ‘Continuous Settler Operation: A Dynamic Model’, in ‘Dynamic Modelling

5.3.2 Model calibration

Blanket concentration C (% v/v)

Figure 5.6 Curve fitting of settling parameters

5.3.3 Start-up conditions

Figure 5.7 Initial Blanket Concentration

13.80 C oncentration D ecreasing

InitialC onc.= 13.5%

13.40 InitialC onc.= 13.25%

Figure 5.8 Optimisation of Initial blanket concentration

5.4 MODEL CALIBRATION

6. DISSOLVED AIR FLOTATION (DAF)

6.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION

6.1.1 Mass balance and hydraulics

dX m  Qin + Qr − ( m − 1)(Qw n)   Qin + Qr − ( m − 1)(Qw n) 

dX1  Qin X in + Qr X n   Qin + Qr 

6.1.2 Solids removal