TECHNICAL NOTES
Type II Settling Data Analysis
Thomas J. Overcamp1
Abstract: A method for Type II settling data analysis was modified for spreadsheet calculations. This method yields values comparable
to those given by the traditional manual method. It allows a rapid and objective analysis of experimental data.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9372共2006兲132:1共137兲
CE Database subject headings: Sedimentation tanks; Wastewater management; Water treatment; Data analysis; Flocculation.
Introduction
Type II settling is the settling of particles that flocculate as they
settle. Flocculation, which produces larger particles, causes the
settling velocity of the particles to change as they settle. Lacking
theory to satisfactorily explain these phenomena, experiments are
usually conducted in pilot-scale columns to determine the over-
flow rate required for a given removal.
The traditional method of data analysis was introduced by
O’Connor and Eckenfelder 共1958兲. In their method, concentration
data from a settling column experiment are converted to percent-
age removals at various times and depths. These percentage re-
moval data are plotted on a graph of depth, z, versus sampling
time, t. Isoremoval contour lines are constructed on this graph. At
any time, these data can be numerically integrated over the depth
of the column to determine the overall removal. These overall
removal values can be plotted versus overflow rate. Empirical
scaling factors are used to extrapolate these results for design.
A drawback to this method is that drawing the contour lines is
manual and subjective. Although some graphing programs can be
used to objectively produce the contour lines, the actual calcula-
tion still requires estimating values from this graph.
This method has been adopted and modified by many environ-
mental engineering textbooks including Crites and Tchobanoglous
共1998兲 Davis and Cornwell 共1998兲, Droste 共1997兲, Peavy et al.
共1985兲, Tchobanoglous et al. 共2003兲, and Viessman and Hammer
共1998兲.
Conway and Edwards 共1961兲 introduced another method
shortly after O’Connor and Eckenfelder 共1958兲. Their method
used a graphical integration of the experimental data to determine
overall removal versus overflow rate at various depths in the col-
umn. Although this method gives comparable answers to those of
1 near the surface is needed. Since experiments usually do not take
Professor, Dept. of Environmental Engineering & Science, Clemson
Univ., 342 Computer Ct., Anderson, SC 29625-6510. E-mail:
tjvrc@clemson.edu
Note. Discussion open until June 1, 2006. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this technical note was submitted for review and
possible publication on June 15, 2004; approved on April 19, 2005. This
technical note is part of the Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol.
132, No. 1, January 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9372/2006/1-137–139/
$25.00.
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006 / 137
the traditional method, it has not seen extensive use in water and
wastewater treatment.
This technical note updates the method of Conway and Ed-
wards using numerical integration to allow simple spreadsheet
calculations of overall removal versus overflow rate. Since
spreadsheet analyses can be easily presented in graphical form,
this can automate the calculations. If a given column is used for a
series of experiments, a spreadsheet incorporating its dimensions
can be developed to allow rapid data analysis.
Procedure
In a settling column experiment, samples of the suspension are
taken at various times, t, and depths, z. The solids concentration
of these samples can be divided by the initial solids concentration
to give the data in percentage form, p共z , t兲. These data can be
integrated to determine the average percentage of the solids re-
maining in the column at positions above that depth, h, at given
time, t
冕
h
1
p̄共h,t兲 = p共z,t兲dz 共1兲
h 0
This integral must be estimated from the data. Based on lim-
ited data taken in these experiments, the trapezoidal method is a
simple method for performing the the integration. For an interval
between two consecutive sampling depths h1 and h2, the contri-
bution to the integral can be estimated as
冋 册
冕
h2
p共h2,t兲 + p共h1,t兲
p共z,t兲dz ⬵ 共h2 − h1兲 共2兲
h1 2
To evaluate the integral in Eq. 共1兲, the percentage of solids
samples at the surface, the solids concentration near the surface is
unknown. In this technical note, a value is estimated by linearly
extrapolating the values at the first two depths measured in the
experiment. This should generally be a conservative assumption
for design.
At any depth and sampling time, the percentage of solids re-
moved, R, is 100% minus the average of the concentration of
solids above a depth
R共h,t兲 ⬵ 100%− p̄共h,t兲 共3兲
 Table 1. Solids Content and Average Solids Content above Depth on
Percentage Basis
Time
共min兲
Depth
共m兲 30 60 90 120
a
0.000 64 29 11.5 8
0.305 70 共67.0兲b 32 共30.5兲 12 共11.8兲 8 共8.0兲
0.915 82 共73.0兲 38 共33.5兲 13 共12.3兲 8 共8.0兲
1.525 83 共76.8兲 42 共36.1兲 18 共13.6兲 9 共8.2兲
2.135 94 共80.1兲 60 共40.4兲 20 共15.1兲 10 共8.6兲
a
Values at 0.0 m were estimated by linear extrapolation.
b
Values in parentheses are the calculated average solids content above a
given depth, p̄.

example. The proposed method had a relative difference of less

Fig. 1. Solids content and average solids content versus depth. Val-
ues at 0 m are estimated by linear extrapolation. Solid lines and
closed circles are measured values. Dashed lines and open symbols
are estimated values. Dash-dot curves are calculated average solids
contents above given depth.
The equivalent overflow rate for any sampling time and depth
is the velocity equal to the depth of sampling divided by the time
of sampling. For example, a depth of 1.525 m and time of 60 min
give an overflow rate of 36.6 m / day.
than 2% with the results given in each of these examples.
The analysis of each of these examples showed cases in which
the extrapolated surface concentrations first decreased and later
increased. Clearly the concentration at the surface does not in-
crease with increasing sampling times. These were artifacts
caused by a relatively large slope between the two data points at
the first two depths at early times decreasing to a relatively small
slope at later times. Whether or not the data given in these ex-
amples represents experimental data or if they are fictitious is not
known.
Lack of information on solids concentration near the surface is
a limitation of both the proposed method and the traditional
method. Any numerical integration can be only as accurate as

Discussion

The data given by Conway and Edwards 共1961兲 are used to

present an example. Conway and Edwards adjusted the sampling
depth of each sample to account for the removal of a given vol-
ume with each sampling. For simplicity in this technical note, the
sampling depths will be considered to be constant and equal to the
original depth. For their data, this approximation can be justified
because the slopes of these data at each sampling time are gener-
ally small. For a given column and sampling protocol, the actual
sampling depths could be calculated and incorporated in the
spreadsheet.
Fig. 1 shows the solids content data on a percentage basis, p,
and the calculated average solids content above a given depth on
a percentage basis, p̄. The closed circles are the nominal data
points of Conway and Edwards. The open points are the estimated
values at the surface. The dash-dot curves give the average solids
content above that depth. In addition, these results are given in
Table 1 to give the reader a sample case to verify their own
spreadsheet. The overall percentage removals versus overflow Fig. 2. Overall removal versus overflow rate
rate are given in Fig. 2 and Table 2. After applying the appropriate
scaling factors as in the traditional method, these results can be Table 2. Overall Removal versus Overflow Rate
used for design.
0.915 m 1.525 m 2.135 m
For further comparison of this method with the traditional
method, calculations were made for the examples given in Crites Overall Overall Overall
and Tchobanoglous 共1998兲, Davis and Cornwell 共1998兲, Droste Time Overflow removal Overflow removal Overflow removal
共1997兲, and Peavy et al. 共1985兲. Each textbook presents tabular 共min兲 共m / day兲 共%兲 共m / day兲 共%兲 共m / day兲 共%兲
data and a modification of the O’Connor and Eckenfelder method 30 43.9 27.0 73.2 23.2 102.5 19.9
for a given time and depth. Their data were analyzed using the
60 22.0 66.5 36.6 63.9 51.2 59.6
proposed method. Since the proposed method is used to compute
90 14.6 87.8 24.4 86..5 34.2 84.9
the overall removal at the actual sampling times, linear extrapo-
120 11.0 92.0 18.3 91.8 25.6 91.4
lation was used to determine the value for the time used in each

138 / JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006

allowed by the data points. If samples are not taken at the surface,
any method must make some assumptions for the removal above
the first sampling depth. In the proposed method, linear extrapo-
lation is used. In the textbook examples discussed, there is either
an assumption that the average removal above a certain depth is
small and can be ignored or that there is 100% removal at the
surface.
Conclusions
A method for Type II settling data analysis, originally proposed
by Conway and Edwards 共1961兲, was modified for spreadsheet
calculations. This method yields comparable values to those of
the traditional manual method proposed by O’Connor and Ecken-
felder 共1958兲. For a given experimental column and sampling
procedure, a spreadsheet can be developed to rapidly and objec-
tively analyze the experimental data.
Acknowledgments
The partial support of the Clemson University Research Founda-
tion is gratefully acknowledged.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this technical note:
h ⫽ given depth in column;
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2006 / 139
p ⫽ solids concentration as percentage of original
concentration;
p̄ ⫽ average value of p;
R ⫽ percentage removal;
t ⫽ time; and
z ⫽ depth.
References
Conway, R. A., and Edwards, V. H. 共1961兲. “How to design sedimenta-
tion systems from laboratory data.” Chem. Eng., 68共19兲, 167–170.
Crites, R. W., and Tchobanoglous, G. 共1998兲. Small and decentralized
wastewater management systems, WCB/McGraw–Hill, Boston,
281–282.
Davis, M. L., and Cornwell, D. A. 共1998兲. Introduction to environmental
engineering, 3rd Ed., WCB/McGraw–Hill, Boston, 224–225.
Droste, R. L. 共1997兲. Theory and practice of water and wastewater treat-
ment, Wiley, New York, 300–304.
O’Connor, D. J., and Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr. 共1958兲. “Evaluation of labo-
ratory settling data for process design.” Biological treatment of sew-
age and industrial waste: Anaerobic digestion and solids–liquid sepa-
ration, J. McCabe and W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr., eds., Reinhold, New
York, 171–181.
Peavy, H. S., Rowe, D. R., and Tchobanoglous, G. 共1985兲. Environmental
engineering, McGraw–Hill, New York, 121–123.
Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F. L., and Stensel, H. D., eds. 共2003兲. Waste-
water engineering: treatment and reuse, 4th Ed., McGraw–Hill, Bos-
ton, 372–374.
Viessman, W., Jr., and Hammer, M. J. 共1998兲. Water supply and pollution
control, Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, Calif., 370–371.