324 © IWA Publishing 2016 Water Science & Technology | 74.

2 | 2016

Characterizing shallow secondary clarifier performance

where conventional flux theory over-estimates allowable
solids loading rate
Glen T. Daigger, John S. Siczka, Thomas F. Smith, David A. Frank
and J. A. McCorquodale

ABSTRACT
Glen T. Daigger (corresponding author)
The performance characteristics of relatively shallow (3.3 and 3.7 m sidewater depth in 30.5 m
Department of Civil and Environmental
diameter) activated sludge secondary clarifiers were extensively evaluated during a 2-year testing Engineering,
University of Michigan,
program at the City of Akron Water Reclamation Facility (WRF), Ohio, USA. Testing included hydraulic Ann Arbor, MI,
USA
and solids loading stress tests, and measurement of sludge characteristics (zone settling velocity E-mail: glen.daigger@ch2m.com
(ZSV), dispersed and flocculated total suspended solids), and the results were used to calibrate John S. Siczka
computational fluid dynamic (CFD) models of the various clarifiers tested. The results demonstrated CH2M,
Milwaukee, WI,
that good performance could be sustained at surface overflow rates in excess of 3 m/h, as long as USA

the clarifier influent mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration was controlled to below Thomas F. Smith
City of Akron, OH,
critical values. The limiting solids loading rate (SLR) was significantly lower than the value predicted USA

by conventional solids flux analysis based on the measured ZSV/MLSS relationship. CFD analysis David A. Frank
ARCADIS,
suggested that this resulted because mixed liquor entering the clarifier was being directed into the Akron, OH,
settled sludge blanket, diluting it and also creating a ‘thin’ concentration sludge blanket that overlays USA

J. A. McCorquodale
the thicker concentration sludge blanket typically expected. These results indicate the need to
University of New Orleans,
determine the allowable SLR for shallow clarifiers using approaches other than traditional solids flux New Orleans, LA,
USA
analysis. A combination of actual testing and CFD analyses are demonstrated here to be effective in
doing so.
Key words | activated sludge, clarifiers, solids flux theory, step feed, wet weather

INTRODUCTION

Secondary clarifier design practices vary widely, as illus-
trated by Ekama et al. (). Although an older
publication, this consensus document still serves as an inter-
national reference and reflects the great diversity of
secondary clarifier design practice. North American practice
has been heavily influenced by experience with relatively
deep circular secondary clarifiers (Parker ; Parker &
Stenquist ; Parker et al. ; Ekama et al. ), leading
to use of sidewater depths in the 5–6 m or more range for cir-
cular secondary clarifiers of around 30 m diameter or
greater (WEF , ). The performance of such clari-
fiers has been demonstrated to conform to the predictions
of solids flux theory, as presented by Keinath (Keinath
et al. ; Keinath ), state point analysis where two sec-
ondary clarifier operating states are predicted to occur: (1)
when the clarifier solids loading rate (SLR) is less than the
maximum predicted based on the measured or predicted
zone settling velocity (ZSV)/suspended solids concentration
relationship for the sludge in question, no substantial sludge
blanket is predicted; and (2) when the SLR exceeds the
maximum predicted value, a sludge blanket at a uniform
concentration corresponding to the limiting solids flux pre-
dicted by solids flux theory develops. Use of relatively
deep circular secondary clarifiers, as described above,
coupled with design based on state point analysis, has
become the norm in North America (WEF , ).
While the use of deep secondary clarifiers, as defined
above, is common practice in North America for new clari-
fiers, numerous clarifiers constructed in the 1970s and
earlier have side water depths in the 3–4 m range and are

doi: 10.2166/wst.2016.177
 325 G. T. Daigger et al. | Flux theory inadequate for shallow secondary clarifiers
considered to have limited treatment capacity. It has been
conventional practice to simply de-rate the hydraulic and
solids loading capacity of such clarifiers based on field
measurements of capacity (typically via actual stress testing,
Daigger & Buttz ; Ontario MOE ; Wahlberg )
and experience. Experience by the authors suggested, how-
ever, that such hydraulic de-rating might not be required
in all cases if the hydrodynamic flow pattern within the clari-
fier could be better understood. Considerable experience
exists with the use of dye and solids profile testing to charac-
terize the flow pattern in clarifiers and to modify feed wells,
add peripheral baffles, and make other modest modifi-
cations to increase capacity. Moreover, use of two- and
three-dimensional computational fluid dynamic (CFD)
models, of the type illustrated by McCorquodale et al.
() and Xanthos et al. (), to further assist with flow
pattern visualization and to evaluate potential modifications
has proven useful in practice. It was hypothesized that de-
rating the hydraulic capacity of secondary clarifiers might
not be necessary, even if the allowable SLR is less than
that predicted by state point analysis.
The need for the City of Akron, Ohio, USA to modify its
Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) to increase its peak wet
weather treatment capacity provided the opportunity to
upgrade its shallow activated sludge secondary clarifiers
and characterize their performance. The City owns and
operates a WRF with a firm preliminary treatment capacity
of 795,000 m3/day, firm primary treatment capacity of
568,000 m3/day, and firm biological treatment capacity of
416,000 m3/day. Combined sewers form part of the City’s
wastewater collection system. As one component of an over-
all combined sewer overflow abatement program, the City is
being required to expand the peak wet weather secondary
treatment capacity of its WRF to 1,060,000 m3/day. Expan-
sion will be accomplished by upgrading its activated
sludge system and constructing a parallel process of suffi-
cient capacity to provide the total required peak wet
weather biological treatment capacity, if approved by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
and as required in a proposed consent decree. The existing
plant includes eighteen 30.5 m diameter circular secondary
clarifiers with side water depths ranging from 3.3 to 3.7 m,
which were considered to significantly limit secondary treat-
ment capacity. Preliminary process analysis suggested,
however, that peak wet weather capacity could be signifi-
cantly increased through modifications to the bioreactors
to provide step feed capabilities, which would allow inde-
pendent control of the clarifier SLR, and some physical
modifications to the clarifiers (CHM HILL ). Such
Water Science & Technology | 74.2 | 2016
modifications would significantly reduce, or eliminate, the
need to construct the parallel treatment facility and could
save significant capital cost. A consent order negotiated
with USEPA allowed one of the six activated sludge trains
present at the plant to be modified to provide for a 2-year
testing program to optimize the system, with subsequent
potential extension to the other five trains. This testing pro-
gram included minor modifications to and extensive testing
of the existing secondary clarifiers to maximize hydraulic
treatment capacity. This testing program also provided a
unique opportunity to test the hypothesis stated above.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Treatment facilities
The existing activated sludge system consists of six parallel
trains with quite similar configuration. Each consists of a
four-pass bioreactor, each pass with a length-to-width ratio
of 11.4:1, followed by three 30.5 m diameter secondary clari-
fiers. Unit 6 differs in that it was originally configured for
step feed operation (since removed), and all three secondary
clarifiers have a sidewall depth of 3.7 m. In contrast, two of
the three clarifiers in the other trains have a sidewall depth
of 3.3 m, with the third having a sidewall depth of 3.7 m. The
Unit 6 aeration basin was modified to provide step-feed
capabilities, while the Units 5 and 6 secondary clarifiers
(final settling tanks (FSTs)) were modified with density cur-
rent baffles, larger and deeper center wells, and energy
dissipating inlets (EDIs) in various combinations to investi-
gate the effectiveness of the improvements considered. All
of the subject clarifiers have full radius (tow-bro type)
sludge collection. The Unit 5 FSTs were modified because
the existing Units 1–4 FSTs have the same configuration
(side depth and weir elevations) as the Unit 5 FSTs. Thus,
Unit 5 FST test results would be directly applicable to
Units 1–4. Construction of the modifications to the Units 5
and 6 activated sludge trains was completed in August
2013. Table 1 lists the pertinent design data for all six modi-
fied clarifiers.
Mixed liquor characterization
ZSV measurements were conducted in a 1 m tall, 10 cm
diameter clear PVC column equipped with a 1 revolution
per minute (rpm) stirrer. The height of the sludge/water
interface was measured with time, and the slope of the
linear portion was determined by linear regression to
 326 G. T. Daigger et al. | Flux theory inadequate for shallow secondary clarifiers
Table 1 | Units 5 and 6 FST characteristics
Center well
FST Peripheral baffle EDI depth (m)
FST-5A X 1.80a
FST-5B X X 1.80b
FST-5C X 2.21
FST-6A X X 2.21
FST-6B X X 2.21
FST-6C X X 2.21
a
Later increased to 2.11 m.
b
Later increased to 2.26 m.
determine the ZSV. Various mixtures of return activated
sludge (RAS) and secondary effluent were prepared to pro-
duce a range of initial mixed liquor suspended solids
(MLSS) concentrations which were then added to the
column for ZSV measurement. The results were fitted to
the Vesilind equation (Vesilind ) via linear regression
to characterize the settling characteristics of the subject
sludge. Dispersed suspended solids (DSS) were determined
as the total suspended solids (TSS) concentration of the
supernatant of a sample placed in a 1,000 mL graduated
cylinder after 30 min of quiescent settling (Wahlberg ).
Flocculated suspended solids (FSS) were conducted by
placing samples in six 2,000 mL beakers in a conventional
jar test apparatus, stirring at 50 rpm (equivalent to a G
value of 30 sec 1) for periods of 0, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 min,
allowing the samples to settle for 30 min, and then taking
supernatant samples for TSS analysis (Wahlberg ).
Clarifier testing
Stress tests were conducted by sequentially altering the load-
ing conditions on the clarifiers while collecting effluent TSS
samples sequentially, and then analyzing the data to develop
performance versus loading curves (Ontario Ministry of the
Environment & Energy ; Daigger & Buttz ; Wahl-
berg ). The clarifier influent MLSS concentration was
adjusted by the step feed operation mode selected (for Unit
6), and by transferring mixed liquor into and out of the bio-
reactor to and from a parallel treatment unit (for Unit 5).
Influent flow was adjusted by taking parallel clarifiers out of
service and adjusting the flow to the subject treatment train.
Each loading condition was sustained for about 2 h on aver-
age (the clarifier calculated hydraulic residence time was
about 1 h at the maximum hydraulic loading rates applied).
Clarifier flow pattern dye tests were conducted during these
stress tests by injecting Rhodamine WT dye into the influent
Water Science & Technology | 74.2 | 2016
to the subject clarifier and then collecting samples in a five-
by-five mesh using a sampling apparatus which allowed
Side depth
(m [ft])
samples to be taken at five defined depths (Ontario Ministry
of the Environment & Energy ; Daigger & Buttz ).
3.3
The sampling apparatus was moved quickly from one
3.3
sampling station to the next along the clarifier bridge; the
3.7
time from the first to the last sample was generally less than
3.7 5 min. Samples were analyzed for dye concentration using a
3.7 Turner Designs 10-AU Field Fluorometer, and select samples
3.7 were analyzed for TSS. Water quality and other analyses were
conducted in accordance with Water Environment Federa-
tion (), either in the field (e.g. sludge settled volume) or
the City of Akron laboratory. Further details on the methods
used are provided elsewhere (Siczka et al. ; CHM ;
Siczka et al. ).
Extended high surface overflow rate (SOR) testing was
also conducted by increasing the hydraulic loading rate to
the clarifier to maximum achievable values (limited only
by hydraulic flow capacity) for a period of 6–8 h to deter-
mine whether acceptable performance could be sustained
over a longer period than during the previous stress tests.
One Unit 6 clarifier and each of the Unit 5 clarifiers were
tested four times at different times of the year (August
2014, November 2014, January 2015, and April 2015) to
assess whether seasonal variations might occur.
CFD modeling
CFD modeling was conducted using the software developed
by McCorquodale et al. (). The model solves the non-
hydrostatic momentum and continuity equations that are
coupled using a density state equation that includes the
effects of temperature and suspended solids. The model is
quasi-three dimensional, i.e. it solves the radial and vertical
motion completely but the solution of the tangential velocity
assumes axisymmetric conditions for all variables in the tan-
gential direction. The model solves solids transport for up to
five classes of discrete settling particles, as well as zone
settling and compression. The Parker flocculation equations
(Parker et al. ) are included to transfer mass from one
class to another. The model includes laminar and turbulent
flow, with Newtonian flow in the inlet and clarified zone
and non-Newtonian flow in the sludge blanket. Generic
tank modifications such as baffles and EDIs are available
in the software. The model was calibrated and validated
using operational and stress test data. The stress tests were
accompanied by Vesilind settling tests, used to determine
the zone settling parameters, as well as DSS and FSS tests.
 327 G. T. Daigger et al. | Flux theory inadequate for shallow secondary clarifiers
The calibrated model was applied to investigate several
modifications of the settling tanks.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Initial testing of modified clarifiers
With modifications to Units 5 and 6 completed in August
2013, a week-long series of clarifier tests were performed
on the Units 5 and 6 secondary clarifiers in September
2013. The testing was conducted to characterize their per-
formance, to define the capacity of the modified clarifiers
in Units 5 and 6, and to provide the data to further calibrate
the clarifier CFD and overall process models prepared
during the preliminary design. The calibrated CFD models
were further used to identify additional improvements to
the clarifiers and secondary treatment system to potentially
further increase wet weather treatment capacity.
Figure 1 presents the stress test results from this testing
period. All three clarifiers in Unit 5 were tested because of
the differences between them, while only clarifier FST-6A
was tested, as all three clarifiers in Unit 6 are of the same
configuration. The curves included in the figure are simply
polynomial fits to the data intended to assist visualization
of the trends. The results demonstrate that, with the excep-
tion of clarifier FST-5C, the clarifiers were able to sustain
good performance up to a SOR in excess of 3 m/h. The
maximum SOR tested for each clarifier generally represents
Figure 1 | September 2013 secondary clarifier stress test results.
Water Science & Technology | 74.2 | 2016
the maximum hydraulic flow that could be achieved, lim-
ited only by the hydraulic flow capacity of the treatment
trains (no more flow could be forced to the units). Clarifier
influent MLSS concentrations were relatively low, by
design, at around 1,000 mg/L. The result was a sufficiently
low SLR so that thickening failure did not occur (sludge
blankets did not rise to the effluent weirs). Sludge blanket
depths were generally low throughout, in contrast to the
further results to be presented below. The RAS flow rate
was generally maintained at 21% for clarifier FST-6A and
14% for FSTs-5A, 5B, and 5C, which is consistent with his-
torical plant operation. These results indicated that further
increases in SOR could be applied, while achieving accepta-
ble performance, if hydraulic bottlenecks were resolved.
CFD modeling was used to characterize and further
assess clarifier performance and capacity, and to investigate
whether some further minor modifications to the clarifiers
might be beneficial (Siczka et al. ; CHM ; Siczka
et al. ). The CFD model was first calibrated to the
stress test data using the measured ZSV/MLSS relationship
(Figure 2), and considering both effluent quality and the
measured FSS and DSS data. The sludge blanket depth
measured during the stress test, and the dye and TSS con-
centration profiles collected during the dye testing, were
also considered as the model was calibrated. Table 2 sum-
marizes the model calibration for the four clarifiers. The
parameters represent setting characteristics for the various
solids fractions considered in the model, and hydraulic cali-
bration. The parameters for zone settling are the Vesilind
 328 G. T. Daigger et al. | Flux theory inadequate for shallow secondary clarifiers Water Science & Technology | 74.2 | 2016

parameters determined by column testing, as described

above. Note that the compression parameters are the same
as the zone setting parameters, reflecting that compression
was relatively unimportant in these simulations as sus-
pended solid concentration throughout the clarifier, and in
the RAS, were generally within the zone settling range. All
data collected were used for calibration, with good corre-
spondence between model predictions and observations
achieved, and overall performance was evaluated by com-
paring predicted and measured effluent TSS
concentrations. As illustrated in Figure 3, which provides
an example calibration (this one for clarifier FST-5A), the
comparison between predicted and actual effluent TSS con-
centrations was generally quite good.
Figure 4 presents CFD modeling results for FST-6A at
Figure 2 | ZSV versus suspended solids concentration from column settling test the highest hydraulic loading rate tested in September
measurements for Akron ML samples collected September 2013. 2013. This clarifier is shown as it achieved the best perform-
ance at the highest SOR (Figure 1), and the flow pattern
exhibited in this clarifier illustrates why, as model results
Table 2 | CFD model parameters
suggest that the energy of influent flow is well dissipated
Parameter FST-5A FST-5B FTS-5C FST-6A and a distinct sludge blanket is formed. Note, however,
V0 (m/h) a
12.51 12.51 12.51 12.44 that influent flow is directed into the settled sludge blanket
in the inlet zone of the clarifier, which would appear to
Ka 0.276 0.276 0.276 0.268
a dilute it. In contrast, Figure 5 shows results from a similar
Vc (m/h) 12.51 12.51 12.51 12.44
high SOR for FST-5A, indicating opportunities for improve-
Kac 0.276 0.276 0.276 0.268
ments. This clarifier was not equipped with an EDI, as
V1 (m/h) 12.51 12.51 12.5 12.44
indicated in Table 1, resulting in less dissipation of the kin-
f1 0.523 0.523 0.380 0.52
etic energy of the influent flow and more flow directed into
V2 (m/h) 8.1 8.1 6.1 8.9 the sludge blanket. Further CFD analysis was conducted on
f2 0.472 0.472 0.642 0.472 the Unit 5 clarifiers, and it was determined that performance
V3 (m/h) 1 1 0.7 0.7 could be further improved by deepening the center well of
f3 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.008 clarifier FST-5A from 1.80 to 2.11 m and of clarifier FST-
Ev factor 0.20 0.20 0.35 0.5 5B from 1.80 to 2.26 m (Siczka et al. ; CHM ;
a
Siczka et al. ). These modifications were subsequently
Based on results from ZSV measurements in test columns.
implemented and completed by July 2014.

Figure 3 | Comparison of the time course of observed and modeled effluent suspended solids concentration for FST-5A for September 2013 stress test.
 329 G. T. Daigger et al. | Flux theory inadequate for shallow secondary clarifiers Water Science & Technology | 74.2 | 2016

Figure 4 | CFD modeling result for Clarifier FST-6A simulating conditions at the highest SOR tested during the September 2013 stress test.

Further clarifier testing
Stress and dye testing of the further modified clarifiers FST-5A
and FST-5B were conducted in July 2014 and generally indi-
cated modest improvements in performance, as predicted
(CHM ; Siczka et al. ). However, important differ-
ences in the distribution of suspended solids through the
clarifier were observed in the dye testing, as compared to
those observed in 2013. Importantly, the observed differences
were consistent with the CFD analyses. Consider Figure 6,
where CFD modeling results are presented for clarifier FST-
5A at the conclusion (highest SOR) of the July 2014 stress
test, in contrast to the September 2013 results (Figure 5).
The clarifier influent MLSS concentrations in the July 2014
testing averaged 2,150 mg/L, which was more than double
the value in the September 2013 testing. As a consequence,
a substantial sludge blanket was observed in the clarifier
during the July 2014 stress test. The sludge blanket was
stable, and effluent quality was excellent as the actual effluent
TSS at this overflow rate (3 m/h) ranged from 7 to 16 mg/L.
The sludge blanket height of 1.8 m predicted by the CFD
model agreed well with the measured value. Only modest
changes in the model parameters, reflecting small changes
in sludge settling characteristics, were required to calibrate
the model to these testing conditions, as the September 2013
model essentially captured the observed behavior, indicating
the robustness of the models used. The SLR for this operating
condition was 7.5 kg/(m2-h), which is well less than the limit-
ing SLR predicted based on the measured sludge zone settling
characteristics.

Figure 5 | CFD modeling result for Clarifier FST-5A simulating conditions at the highest SOR tested during the September 2013 stress tests.

Figure 6 | CFD modeling result for Clarifier FST-5A simulating conditions at the highest SOR tested during the July 2014 stress tests.
 330 G. T. Daigger et al. | Flux theory inadequate for shallow secondary clarifiers
The performance and operational characteristics of the
four clarifiers tested during the extended high SOR testing
conducted between August 2014 and April 2015 were con-
sistent with the behavior observed during the July 2014
stress testing. Sludge blankets often developed, although
the SLRs applied were significantly less than the limiting
values predicted, based on the measured zone settling
characteristics. The blanket would consist of a thicker
layer at the bottom of the clarifier, with a more diffuse
layer on top of it (easily observed in the sludge judge used
to measure the sludge blanket and consistent with the
CFD modeling results, see Figures 4–6 as examples). Good
performance was consistently observed, as long as the
sludge blanket stabilized and remained below the effluent
weirs during the progression of the test, but deteriorated if
the ‘lighter and fluffier’ blanket approached the effluent
weir. Figure 7 presents results from all of the extended
high SOR tests for all four clarifiers and demonstrates that
performance at these elevated hydraulic loading rates was
good, until the sludge blanket approached the effluent weirs.
A question that arises from these observations is what
the maximum allowable SLR might be. This was determined
for Unit 6 by increasing the hydraulic loading to clarifier
FST-6A to the maximum value tested (3.2 m/h) and then
progressively increasing the influent MLSS concentration
until a solids loading failure occurred, as evidenced by a
rising sludge blanket that approached the effluent weirs.
The clarifier influent MLSS concentration was increased
Figure 7 | Effluent TSS versus measured sludge blanket depth for extended high SOR tests.
Water Science & Technology | 74.2 | 2016
by manipulating the step feed pattern (feeding RAS rather
than wastewater into the downstream passes: a capability
that was uniquely available on this unit). The limiting con-
dition occurred when the SLR was increased to between
8.2 and 9 kg/(m2-h) and with an RAS concentration of
12,000 go 15,000 mg/L (more precise values were not poss-
ible as this was a highly dynamic situation). This limiting
operating condition is plotted on Figure 8, which is the
flux curve for the system developed, based on the zone
settling characteristics for the sludge at that time. A
second curve, based on a V0 value which is 80 percent of
the measured value, is also presented for comparison.
North American experience indicates that, for secondary
clarifiers with side water depths in the range of 5–6 m, the
limiting condition would correspond relatively well with
those predicted, based on the measured zone settling charac-
teristics (WEF , ).
Returning to the original hypothesis, results from
extensive testing at the Akron WRF generally confirms
that good performance can be achieved in relatively shal-
low secondary clarifiers (less than 4 m side water depth
for 30.5 m diameter circular clarifiers), even at relatively
high SORs, as long as the SLR is controlled. These results
demonstrate that the limiting SLR can be significantly
less than that predicted, simply based on the measured
sludge zone settling characteristics. Further insight into
the phenomena creating this result is gained by considering
the flow pattern in these clarifiers as determined by
 331 G. T. Daigger et al. | Flux theory inadequate for shallow secondary clarifiers
Figure 8 | Operating conditions producing a solids limiting condition for clarifier FST-6A
plotted on flux curve based on long-term measurements of Akron sludge
settling characteristics.
clarifier dye flow pattern testing and as further visualized
via CFD modeling. Consider the results presented in Figures 4–
6, and as supplemented by those presented in Figure 9,
where a CFD model for clarifier FST-6A loaded at hydraulic
and solids loadings corresponding to the limiting values
characterized in Figure 8 is presented. At the relatively
high hydraulic loading rates (2.5–3 m/h) applied to these
relatively shallow clarifiers (3.3–3.7 m sidewall depth), the
influent mixed liquor is observed to mix with the settled
sludge layer, resuspending these solids and creating the
more diffuse, overlying sludge blanket. The CFD results
are consistent with the results of the dye tests conducted
and observations of sludge blanket behavior during all clari-
fier testing. It should be noted that one-dimensional models
Figure 9 | CFD model results for clarifier FST-6A loaded to the hydraulic and solids loading limits corresponding to the limiting condition illustrated in Figure 8.
Water Science & Technology | 74.2 | 2016
are also capable of predicting sludge blankets of this type
(Torfs et al. ; Diehl et al.  for recent examples), but
they are not as useful for evaluating clarifier modifications
to improve performance. Relative to the conditions encoun-
tered in this research, it is also important to point out that
the extensive mixing of influent mixed liquor with settled
solids resulted in suspended solids concentrations through-
out the clarifier which remained in the zone settling range
and generally outside of the compression range for the
sludges encountered.
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, an extended series of field-scale tests were con-
ducted over a nearly 2-year period on full-scale secondary
clarifiers at the Akron WRF. Good performance was
achieved at quite high SORs (2.5–3.2 m/h) in these shallow
(3.3–3.7 m sidewater depth) secondary clarifiers, as long as
the clarifier sludge blanket was controlled to remain below
the effluent weirs. A substantial sludge blanket often devel-
oped in the clarifiers, even though the SLR was significantly
lower than the limiting value calculated based on the
measured sludge zone settling characteristics. CFD model-
ing was used to characterize the hydrodynamic behavior
of the clarifiers and suggests that the observed performance
occurs because influent mixed liquor mixes with the settled
sludge in these relatively highly loaded and shallow clari-
fiers, partially resuspending the settled solids and creating
a more diffuse sludge layer which overlays the thicker
sludge blanket. CFD model predictions are consistent
with the results from conventional dye testing and obser-
vations during actual clarifier testing. The results are
consistent with the hypothesis that relatively high hydraulic
 332 G. T. Daigger et al. | Flux theory inadequate for shallow secondary clarifiers
loading rates can be achieved in clarifiers which are rela-
tively shallow compared to current North American
practice, as long as the SLR is controlled to prevent
sludge blankets from rising to the level of the effluent weir.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the
personnel of the Akron Water Reclamation Facility. The
research presented here would not have been possible with-
out their invaluable assistance. In particular, the assistance
of the following individuals was especially valuable: Tom
Sanderson of the City of Akron, Kathy Richards of the
City of Akron, the City of Akron Water Reclamation Facility
Operations Staff, and the City of Akron Water Reclamation
Facility Laboratory Staff. The assistance of Jim Cooper of
ARCADIS with conducting the column settling tests and
the stress and dye tests is also gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
CH2M  Demonstration Testing Evaluation Report for WPCS
Step Feed Phase 1 Improvements. Akron Water Reclamation
Facility, Prepared for the City of Akron Department of Public
Services, Akron, OH, USA.
CH2M HILL  City of Akron WPCS Step Feed Phase 1 Basis of
Design Report. Prepared for the City of Akron Department of
Public Service, Akron, OH, USA.
Daigger, G. T. & Buttz, J. A.  Upgrading Wastewater Treatment
Plants. 2nd edn. Technomic Publishers, Lancaster, PA, USA.
Diehl, S., Zambrano, J. & Carlsson, B.,  Steady-state analysis
of activated sludge processes with a settler model including
sludge compression. Water Research 88C, 104–116.
Ekama, G. A., Barnard, J. L., Gunthert, F. W., Krebs, P.,
McCorquodale, J. A., Parker, D. S. & Wahlberg, E. J. 
Secondary Settling Tanks. IWA Publishing, London.
Keinath, T. M.  Operational dynamics of secondary clarifiers.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 57 (7),
770–776.
Keinath, T. M., Rychman, M. D., Dana, C. H. & Hofer, D. A. 
Activated sludge – unified system design and operation.
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE
103 (EE5, 10), 829–849.
McCorquodale, A., Griborio, A. & Georgiou, I.  A public
domain settling tank model. In: Proceedings of the 78th
Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition
and Conference (WEFTEC); WEFTEC 2005, Water
Environment Federation (WEF), Alexandria, VA, USA.
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy  Guidance
Manual for Sewage Treatment Plant Process Audits. Water
First received 25 January 2016; accepted in revised form 30 March 2016. Available online 20 April 2016
Water Science & Technology | 74.2 | 2016
Environment Association of Ontario, and Environment
Canada Great Lakes 2000 Cleanup Fund, Ontario, Canada.
Parker, D. S.  Assessment of secondary clarification design
concepts. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation
55 (1), 349–359.
Parker, D. S. & Stenquist, D. J.  Flocculation-clarifier
performance. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation 58 (3), 214–219.
Parker, D. S., Kaufman, W. J. & Jenkins, D.  Physical
conditioning of activated sludge floc. Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation 43 (9), 1817–1833.
Parker, D., Butler, R., Finger, R., Fisher, R., Fox, W., Kido, W.,
Merrill, S., Newman, G., Pope, R., Slapper, J. & Wahlberg, E.
 Design and operations experience with flocculator-
clarifiers in large plants. Water Science and Technology 33
(12), 163–170.
Siczka, J. S., Smith, T. F., Hanna, E. M., Daigger, G. T., Cooper,
J. P. & Frank, D. A.  Using existing facility to maximize
the wet weather treatment capacity of the Akron, OH water
reclamation facility: optimizing existing secondary clarifiers.
In: Proceedings of the 87th Annual Water Environment
Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference (WEFTEC),
WEF, New Orleans, LA, USA.
Siczka, J. S., Smith, T. F., Hanna, E. M., Daigger, G. T., Cooper,
J. P. & Frank, D. A.  Using existing facility to maximize
the wet weather treatment capacity of the Akron, OH water
reclamation facility: sludge settling theory and state point
analysis Do Not characterize ultimate capacity of shallow
clarifiers. In: Proceedings of the 88th Annual Water
Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and
Conference (WEFTEC), WEF, Chicago, IL, USA.
Torfs, E., Maere, T., Bürger, R., Diehl, S. & Nopens, I.  Impact on
sludge inventory and control strategies using the benchmark
simulation model No. 1 with the Bürger-Diehl Settler Model.
Water Science and Technology 71 (10), 1524–1535.
Vesilind, P. A.  Discussion of ‘evaluation of activated sludge
thickening theories’ by R. I. Dick and B. B. Ewing. Journal of
Sanitary Engineering Division, American Society of Civil
Engineering 94 (SA1), 185.
Wahlberg, E. J.  WERF/CRTC Protocols for Evaluating
Secondary Clarifier Performance, 00-CTS-1. Water
Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA, USA.
Water Environment Federation  Clarifier Design, Manual of
Practice No. FD-8. 2nd edn. Water Environment Federation,
Alexandria, VA, USA.
Water Environment Federation  Design of Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants, Manual of Practice No. 8.
Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA, USA.
Water Environment Federation  Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water & Wastewater. Water Environment
Federation, Alexandria, VA, USA.
Xanthos, S., Gong, M., Ramalingam, K., Fillos, J., Deur, A.,
Beckmann, K. & McCorquodale, J. A.  Performance
assessment of secondary settling tanks using CFD modeling.
Water Resources Management 25, 1169–1182.