Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Detailed Design Project
Detailed Design Project
net/publication/283084418
CITATIONS READS
0 60,318
1 author:
Keshav Soomaree
University of Mauritius
4 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Keshav Soomaree on 23 October 2015.
University of Mauritius
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering
4/3/2015
keshav soomaree
1114132
Coordinator: Mr A.K Ragen
Project supervisor: Mr A Mudhoo
Student Group: 3A
Table of Contents
List of Tables & Figures: ...................................................................................................................... 6
Acknowledgment ................................................................................................................................. 8
List of abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 13
1.1 Aims and Objectives .......................................................................................................... 13
1.2 Summary of starting points for the detailed design ..................................................... 15
Summary of Preliminary mass balances ................................................................................. 15
Summary of preliminary Sizing of equipment ...................................................................... 16
1.3 Description of the wastewater treatment plant’s processes ......................................... 24
Screens ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Oil and Grease Removal............................................................................................................ 24
Equalization Tank ...................................................................................................................... 25
Circular Primary Settling Tank ................................................................................................ 25
The Membrane Bioreactor......................................................................................................... 25
Sand Filter ................................................................................................................................... 26
Chlorination ................................................................................................................................ 26
Thickener ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Sludge Digester .......................................................................................................................... 27
Dewatering Tank ........................................................................................................................ 27
1.4 Process Flow of Proposed Wastewater ........................................................................... 27
1.5 Key findings of the preliminary design .......................................................................... 29
1.6 Job allocation to other members ...................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 2: Detailed Design .......................................................................................................... 30
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 30
2.2 Design Calculations for the MBR ..................................................................................... 33
2.3 Determination of Calculated Parameters ....................................................................... 45
Pressure Calculations ................................................................................................................ 45
Flux Calculation ......................................................................................................................... 46
Temperature Correction ............................................................................................................ 46
Specific Flux ................................................................................................................................ 46
Salt Rejection ............................................................................................................................... 46
Sludge Retention Time .............................................................................................................. 47
Page | 1
Recycle Ratio ............................................................................................................................... 47
2.4 Sizing of the MBR............................................................................................................... 47
2.5 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 49
2.6 Oil-Water separator design............................................................................................... 50
Horizontal Velocity (vH) ............................................................................................................ 52
Minimum Vertical Cross-Sectional Area (Ac) ........................................................................ 52
Channel Width and Depth ........................................................................................................ 53
Separator Length ........................................................................................................................ 53
Minimum Horizontal Area ....................................................................................................... 54
Maintenance ................................................................................................................................ 55
Construction Details .................................................................................................................. 56
Terminal Velocity of Oil Globules in Water ........................................................................... 57
Size and Gravity of Oil Globules ............................................................................................. 59
Derivation of Equation for Separator Length ........................................................................ 59
Calculation and results .............................................................................................................. 60
2.7 PIPE SELECTION AND PIPE SIZING FOR MBR TANKS OUTLETS AND INLETS
63
Pipe Selection .............................................................................................................................. 63
PE (Polyethylene) pipes ............................................................................................................ 64
PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) pipes................................................................................................ 65
Pipe sizing ................................................................................................................................... 65
Calculations................................................................................................................................. 66
2.8 Pump selection for MBR ................................................................................................... 67
2.9 Power requirements for pumps in MBR ......................................................................... 68
Pressure drop in pipelines ........................................................................................................ 69
Miscellaneous pressure losses .................................................................................................. 70
Summary of results .................................................................................................................... 71
CHAPTER 3: Heat and material Balance ........................................................................................ 72
3.1 Material Balance for the MBR........................................................................................... 72
3.2 Energy Balance ................................................................................................................... 77
Heat transfer during cooling .................................................................................................... 77
Analysis of system ..................................................................................................................... 78
Chapter 4: Mechanical sketches and schedules......................................................................... 79
Chapter 5: Material of Construction .......................................................................................... 84
Page | 2
5.1 Material of construction for the membrane Bio-reactor Tank ..................................... 84
5.2 Material of construction for the module membrane ..................................................... 84
5.3 Material of construction for the oil-water separator ..................................................... 87
CHAPTER 6: Instrumentation and Control.................................................................................... 89
6.1 Control Strategies for the Membrane Bio-reactor.......................................................... 89
Process control and software .................................................................................................... 89
Pre-treatment and residuals management ............................................................................. 89
Tank sizing and redundancy .................................................................................................... 90
CHAPTER 7: Safety Considerations ................................................................................................ 94
7.1 The oil-water separator ..................................................................................................... 94
7.2 The Membrane Bioreactor................................................................................................. 95
CHAPTER 8: Review of the final design......................................................................................... 95
8.1 Summary of key Deviations ............................................................................................. 95
8.2 Review of API Separator ................................................................................................... 96
8.3 Review of the membrane bioreactor ............................................................................... 96
CHAPTER 9: ECONOMICS OF THE PROJECT, AS DESIGNED ............................................... 98
9.1 Total purchase equipment cost ........................................................................................ 98
9.2 Total capital investment (TCI) .......................................................................................... 98
9.3 Total product cost .............................................................................................................. 99
9.4 Total revenue ...................................................................................................................... 99
9.5 Gross earning cost .............................................................................................................. 99
9.6 Pay-back period ................................................................................................................ 100
9.7 The rate of return ............................................................................................................. 100
9.8 The Net Present Value (NPV) and Initial Rate of Return (IRR)................................. 100
CHAPTER 10: Environmental Concerns..................................................................................... 102
CHAPTER 11: Conclusion............................................................................................................. 103
References ......................................................................................................................................... 104
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................... 108
Appendices A: Mass Balance.......................................................................................................... 108
Mass Balance for the MBR .......................................................................................................... 108
Overall Balance around the MBR .......................................................................................... 108
BOD Balance around MBR ..................................................................................................... 110
Flow Balance ............................................................................................................................. 111
Solid Balance on membrane ................................................................................................... 111
Page | 3
Balance on VSS on membrane ................................................................................................ 111
NH3-N Balance on the membrane skid ................................................................................. 111
NO3-N Balance on membrane skid........................................................................................ 112
Phosphorus Balance on the membrane skid ........................................................................ 113
Appendix B: Energy Balances ...................................................................................................... 113
Power requirement for the Membrane Bioreactor .................................................................. 113
Energy Balance on Aeration Tank ......................................................................................... 113
Energy Balance on membrane bio filter ................................................................................ 114
Energy balance on the amount of pumps ............................................................................. 115
Energy production from biogas ............................................................................................. 115
Appendix C: SIZING ..................................................................................................................... 116
Sizing of the MBR......................................................................................................................... 116
Sludge age or sludge retention time ...................................................................................... 116
Feed to microorganism ratio................................................................................................... 116
Total aeration volume and dimensions of the MBR tank ................................................... 117
Aeration Period or Hydraulic Retention time...................................................................... 118
Appendix D: Costing ....................................................................................................................... 120
Purchased Equipment Table....................................................................................................... 120
Bar screen ...................................................................................................................................... 124
API.................................................................................................................................................. 124
Rapid Mixing Tank ...................................................................................................................... 124
Flocculation Tank ......................................................................................................................... 125
Primary clarifiers .......................................................................................................................... 125
Calculating cost of equipment:............................................................................................... 125
Calculating present cost of equipment:................................................................................. 125
Cost index values: .................................................................................................................... 126
Cost estimation of Primary Clarifiers and Pumps............................................................... 126
Primary Clarifiers..................................................................................................................... 126
Pumps ........................................................................................................................................ 127
Cost estimation of Centrifuge................................................................................................. 127
Cost of Ancillaries .................................................................................................................... 127
COMPUTING THE TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT ......................................................... 128
Calculating the total product cost .............................................................................................. 129
Computing the general expenses............................................................................................... 131
Page | 4
Calculations for depreciation cost ............................................................................................. 132
Computing the total income ....................................................................................................... 133
Computing the gross profit ........................................................................................................ 134
Computing the payback period ................................................................................................. 134
Calculating Rate of Return .......................................................................................................... 134
Calculating Net Present Value (NPV) ....................................................................................... 134
Calculating Internal Rate of Return (IRR) ................................................................................ 136
Discounted Payback Period ........................................................................................................ 138
Page | 5
List of Tables & Figures:
1TABLE 1.2.1: SUMMARY OF MASS BALANCE FOR SEWAGE FLOW OVER THE SYSTEM ........... 15
2TABLE 1.2.2.1: THE OIL-WATER SEPARATOR ........................................................................................ 16
3TABLE 1.2.2.2: BAR SCREEN ........................................................................................................................ 17
4TABLE 1.2.2.3: FINE SCREEN ....................................................................................................................... 18
5TABLE 1.2.2.4: EQUALIZATION TANK ..................................................................................................... 18
6TABLE 1.2.2.5: PRIMARY CLARIFIER ......................................................................................................... 19
7TABLE 1.2.2.6: THE MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR ..................................................................................... 20
8TABLE 1.2.2.7: SAND FILTER ....................................................................................................................... 21
9TABLE 1.2.2.8: CHLORINATION ................................................................................................................. 21
10TABLE 1.2.2.9: THICKENER ........................................................................................................................ 22
11TABLE 1.2.2.10: SLUDGE DIGESTER ......................................................................................................... 22
12TABLE 1.2.2.11: DEWATERING TANK ..................................................................................................... 23
13TABLE 1.5: KEY FINDINGS OF THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN ............................................................ 29
14TABLE 1.6: JOB ALLOCATION OF GROUP MEMBERS ........................................................................ 30
15FIGURE 2.1: EUROPEAN MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR MARKET ....................................................... 31
16TABLE 2.1: BIOLOGICAL OPERATING PARAMETERS ....................................................................... 33
17TABLE 2.2: FEED IN MBR ............................................................................................................................ 39
18TABLE 2.4: KINEMATIC CONSTANTS .................................................................................................... 39
19TABLE 2.5: BIOLOGICAL OPERATING PARAMETERS ....................................................................... 40
20TABLE 2.6: MEMBRANE OPERATING DATA ........................................................................................ 40
21TABLE 2.7: AERATION OPERATING DATA .......................................................................................... 40
22TABLE 2.8: BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ................................................................................................ 41
23TABLE 2.9: SLUDGE YIELD ........................................................................................................................ 41
24TABLE 2.10: MEMBRANE CALCULATIONS .......................................................................................... 42
25TABLE 2.11: MEMBRANE OPERATION................................................................................................... 42
26TABLE 2.12: AERATION DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 42
27TABLE 2.13: POWER REQUIREMENT ...................................................................................................... 43
28FIGURE 2.1: SPECIFIC COST VS. FLUX FOR HS AND FS TECHNOLOGIES, FLUX TO BE RELATED
TO AERATION DEMAND ...................................................................................................................... 44
29FIGURE 2.3: SPECIFIC COST VS. AERATION DEMAND OVER THE RANGES OF AERATION
DEMAND OBSERVED IN PRACTICE FOR HF AND FS TECHNOLOGIES .................................. 44
30FIGURE 2.4: DESIGN VARIABLES FOR OIL INTERCEPTORS. ............................................................ 51
31FIGURE 2.5: RECOMMENDED VALUES OF F FOR VARIOUS VALUES OF VH/VT ...................... 54
32FIGURE 2.6: SKETCH OF PARALLEL PLATE SEPARATOR - CROSS-FLOW ................................... 57
33TABLE 2.14: FLUID DENSITY AND VELOCITY ..................................................................................... 66
34TABLE 2.15: PUMP TYPES AND MAJOR APPLICATIONS IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT ..... 67
Page | 6
37TABLE 2.17: SUMMARY OF RESULT INVOLVING THE MAIN PIPELINE CONNECTING THE
MBR ............................................................................................................................................................ 71
38TABLE 3.1: ENTHALPY OF DIFFERENT GAS COMPONENTS ........................................................... 78
39TABLE 5.2.1: MEMBRANE CONFIGURATION DEFINITIONS ............................................................ 85
40TABLE 5.2.2: MEMBRANE MODULE DETAILS OF FS .......................................................................... 85
41TABLE 5.2.3: MEMBRANE MODULE DETAILS OF HF ......................................................................... 86
42FIGURE 5.3.1: STAINLESS STEEL OIL-WATER SEPARATOR.............................................................. 88
43TABLE 9.0: SUMMARY OF THE ECONOMICS OF THE TREATMENT POWER PLANT ............. 101
Page | 7
Acknowledgment
I wish to thank Mr. Ackmez Mudhoo, our design coordinator, for guiding us and
giving us all the possible help that he could. I am thankful to him since he was always
present when we needed him and was here to direct us to the right way.
I am also grateful to Mr. Arvinda Ragen, our program coordinator, who ensured that
we did not lack anything with regards to the project and he did his best to give us all
the facilities we needed.
I would also like to thank Dr. Dinesh Soorup, the head of department, who responded
positively to all the problems faced by us.
List of abbreviations
ABR Anaerobic baffled reactor
AD Anaerobic digestion
AN Anaerobic
AX Anoxic
Page | 8
BNR Biological nutrient removal
CF Crossflow
CP Concentration polarisation
CT Capillary tube
Da Dalton
DO Dissolved oxygen
DS Dry solids
Page | 9
F:M Ratio Food-to-micro-organism ratio
FC Filter cartridge
GT Gas transfer
HF Hollow fibre
ID Internal diameter
kDa kiloDalton
L length of channel, m
ME Membrane extraction
MF Microfiltration
Page | 10
MLVSS Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
MT Multitube
MW Molecular weight
n number of channel
NF Nanofiltration
OC Organic carbon
OD Outer diameter
ON Organic nitrogen
PAN Polyacrylonitrile
PE Polyethylene
PES Polyethylsulphone
PP Polypropylene
PV Pervaporation
Page | 11
PVDF Polyvinylidene difluoride
Rc Cake resistance
Redox Reduction-oxidation
RO Reverse osmosis
SW Spiral-wound
Page | 12
TDS Total dissolved solids
TF Trickling filter
UF Ultrafiltration
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Sewage is a major carrier of disease and toxins .The safe treatment of sewage is thus
crucial to the health of any community. This Project focuses on the complex physical
and biological treatments used to render sewage both biologically and chemically
harmless.
Page | 13
mechanical designs of the major equipment are prepared. In Mauritius, rapid
population growth and unplanned development are contributing to rapid depletion
of per capita water availability. Moreover, a limited amount of rainfalls accompanied
with a high rate of evaporation and redundant habit of wasting water of the
population; even though severe dry season prevailing are the breeding factors for
water shortage. Similarly, with an annual swell of 3% in the volume of water injected
into the distribution system during the past 20 years, has shot the daily water
consumption per capita from 152 liters in 1990 to 216 liters in 2013(Digest of Energy
and Water Statistics, 2013) and many are convinced that we are just a few drops away
from the “Water Scarce” status. Thus, there was an urgent need for a strategic plan that
tackle this issue.
On the other hand, one of the aims of this project is to study the feasibility of
implementing a wastewater treatment plant for an industrial wastewater possessing
certain specified characteristics and simultaneously device certain processing
strategies that will enable compliance of the treated water with the irrigation norms.
Page | 14
The objective of the detailed design project is intended to bring together the
knowledge and skills that have been assimilated through the B Eng. (Hons) Chemical
& Environmental Engineering undergraduate course and to demonstrate creative and
critical powers in making decisions in areas of uncertainty.
Page | 15
Table 1.2.1(continued)
number of channels 2
Page | 16
Width of channel 8m
Limitation: The system was designed assuming that only free oil is present in the
effluent, other types of oil may be present which may affect the efficiency of the
system.
Number of bars 12
Width of bar 10 mm
Thickness of bar 50 mm
Page | 17
1.2.1.3 Fine screen
4Table 1.2.2.3: Fine screen
Depth of chamber, d 2m
Number of bars 48
Width of bar 10 mm
Thickness of bar 50 mm
Page | 18
Length (m) 33.36 m
Limitations:
1. The effluent was assumed to have an overall constant mass loading which is
practically impossible in reality.
2. The tank was assumed to be constant volume basin, again since no interior slope
was provided it is impossible to be achieved.
3. The assumptions and calculations yield a large volume of equalization tank which
is may not be required.
Page | 19
1.2.1.6 The Membrane Bioreactor
7Table 1.2.2.6: The membrane Bioreactor
Shape Rectangular
Liquid depth 7m
Diffuser submergence 7m
SRT 10 days
𝐾𝑔
BOD vol. loading 0.938
𝑚3 . 𝑑𝑎𝑦
F/M 0.3
Page | 20
1.2.1.7 Sand Filter
8Table 1.2.2.7: Sand Filter
1.2.1.8 Chlorination
9Table 1.2.2.8: Chlorination
Number of tank 4
Depth 1.8 m
Breadth 2.2m
Length 91.6 m
Page | 21
Length of each channel 30.5 m
1.2.1.9 Thickener
10Table 1.2.2.9: Thickener
Number of thickeners 2
Number of digesters 2
Diameter (m) 15 m
Page | 22
Amount of VSS in thickened
13511.96 Kg/d
sludge (Kg /d)
FIRST TANK
Number of tank 1
MATURATION TANK
Number of tank 1
Page | 23
Fiber glass is used. Inox stainless steel is chosen the
Material for construction
stirrer
Screens
A screen is a device with openings, generally of uniform size, that is used to retain
solids found in effluent wastewater (Metcalf and Eddy, 2004) and often the first unit
operation in wastewater treatment plant. Basically screens can be classified by two
methods; firstly by their method of cleaning: hand cleaned or mechanically cleaned
and secondly by the size of their clear openings: coarse, medium and fine screens.
Likewise in our case, the wastewater will pass through a climber type mechanically
raked screen for the removal of coarse screens since the designed flow-rate is
considerably large.
Page | 24
rectangular basin with a detention time of about 30 minutes (Metcalf and Eddy, 2004)
with an efficiency of 92%. Most of these separators are divided into more than one bay
and are usually equipped with scrapers to move the oil downstream where it is
collected on a drum. The sludge produced can be dewatered, incinerated or disposed
of in hazardous waste landfills.
Equalization Tank
In the preliminary design, assuming that the wastewater has an overall constant mass
loading; and in line equalization tank was considered despite its constraints like larger
volume requirement and higher operational cost due to continuous pumping of
wastewater from the equalization since it offers a more uniform flow and strength of
wastewater. Since the tank was placed just after the PST and with a short detention
time so neither no mixing or aeration processes was provided as a control measure to
avoid deposit solids or odor formation.
1. Liquid pumping
2. Membrane maintenance
3. Aeration
Page | 25
Of these by far the most significant, especially for immersed technologies, is aeration.
As already discussed in the primary design, aeration is used both for scouring an
immersed membrane and for suspending and maintaining a viable biomass. Design
of an MBR therefore demands knowledge both of the feed water quality, which
principally determines the oxygen demand for bio-treatment, and the aeration
demand for fouling control, which relates to a number system characteristics.
Sand Filter
Slow sand filters proved to be uneconomical when compared to rapid sand filters and
micro screen where the efficiency reached were about 60 % for suspended solids (TSS)
and about 40 % for BOD. Operation of a rapid sand filter consists of regular
backwashing. The period between backwashes depends on the quality of the water
being filtered. The purpose of backwashing is to remove the suspended material that
has been deposited in the filter bed during the filtration cycle. Periodic repacking of
the filter bed may be required at infrequent intervals to ensure efficient operation
(Negulescu, 2011). Rapid sand filter are preferred compared to slow filter as back
washing occurs rapidly and it has a high filtration rate of about 150 to 200 million
gallons of water per acre per day.
Chlorination
The most frequent disinfectants are chlorine, ozone and UV rays UV rays, being highly
effective for pathogen sterilization, are also very expensive. Ozone is highly toxic but
not readily available. Considering the effects and inconveniences of UV rays and
ozone, Chlorination is chosen, even though it is somehow toxic as it increases the total
dissolved solids in the effluent, it is the less expensive one (Hung et al. 2012). It must
be noted that due to the selection of the membrane bioreactor in our system, which
has a very high initial cost, we need to minimize the cost for our other units.
Thickener
Gravity thickener is the most common type of thickener which can act as a thickener
and achieve blending, important to produce a uniform mixture for subsequent
processes at the same; thereby eliminating the need for a separate blend tank. This
type of thickener is chosen since the solids concentration of 4 – 6 % achieved by a
Page | 26
gravity thickener that is required by the high rate digester. It requires the minimum
power consumption compared to dissolved air flotation and centrifugal thickener. It
also has the least operation skill requirement and operating costs. Conditioning
chemicals and polymer are typically not needed as is the case for gravity belt thickener
and rotary drum thickener. The pH can also be adjusted in this type of thickener
which can provide space for storage (Metcalf and Eddy, 2003).
Sludge Digester
High rate digestion is deemed suitable for the process as it requires less space and
short detention time of 10 – 30 days compared to low rate digestion. Mesophilic
digestion is chosen since the operating temperature for these organisms is 30 – 38 0C;
thus reducing less energy requirement compared to the thermophilic digestion where
fluctuations in temperature can cause process instability and a risk of higher odor
potential. Thermophilic and 2 stage digestion process produce a poorer quality
supernatant which contains dissolved materials; requiring further special treatment.
As for the 2-stage digestion process, it is still under pilot studies and will be more
energy intensive; requiring 2 mixing devices for both tanks.
Dewatering Tank
The aim of the dewatering equipment is to achieve fifty percent by dry weight solids
content and centrifuge equipment can produce the required percent. In addition, its
capital cost is low when compared to other methods, there is minimization of odor as
it is an enclosed unit and requires little supervision; thus continuous solid bowl
centrifuge is chosen since it is more suited for high solid content and used for medium
and large plants compared to imperforated basket centrifuge. Filter press has many
inconveniences such as mechanical complexity; high chemical and labor costs and
limitation on filter cloth life while vacuum filtration has low operational costs but
higher initial costs and land requirements.
Page | 27
BS1:1st Bar Screen PC1: 1st Primary Clarifier CS: Clear Supernatant ET: Equalization Tank BT: Bioreactor Tank TT: Transportation Truck
BS2:2nd Bar Screen PC2: 2nd Primary Clarifier S: Screenings CD: Centrifuge Dewatering MS: Membrane Skid WAS: Waste Activated Sludge
RS: Raw Sewage GT: Gravity Thickener OGT: Oil & grease Trap SF: Sand Filter LT: Landfill Truck EI: Effluent to Irrigation
PS: Primary Sludge SD: Sludge Digester AB: Air Blower EP: Electricity to Plant CU: Chlorination Unit OG: Oil & Grease
AB
PC1
BS1 BT
MS
ET
SF
PC2
BS2
OGT
S PS
OG
WAS
CS
GT
LT
FLOWLINE ANNOTATIONS
Page | 28
1.5 Key findings of the preliminary design
13Table 1.5: Key findings of the preliminary design
116,991,785
Total Purchase Equipment Cost
Page | 29
1.6 Job allocation to other members
14Table 1.6: Job allocation of group members
2.1 Introduction
The progress of technological development and market penetration of membrane
bioreactors (MBRs) can be viewed in the context of key drivers, historical development
and future prospects. As a relatively new technology, MBRs have often been
disregarded in the past in favor of conventional bio treatment plants. However, a
number of indicators suggest that MBRs are now being accepted increasingly as the
technology of choice.
Market analyst reports indicate that the MBR market is currently experiencing
accelerated growth, and that this growth is expected to be sustained over the next
decade. The global market doubled over a 5-year period from 2000 to reach a market
value of $217 million in 2005, this from a value of around $10 million in 1995. It is
expected to reach $360 million in 2015 (Hanft, 2006). As such, this segment is growing
faster than the larger market for advanced wastewater treatment equipment and more
rapidly than the markets for other types of membrane systems.
In Europe, the total MBR market for industrial and municipal users was estimated to
have been worth €25.3 million in 1999 and €32.8 million in 2002 (Frost and Sullivan,
Page | 30
2003). In 2004, the European MBR market was valued at $57 million (Frost and
Sullivan, 2005). Market projections for the future indicate that the 2004 figure is
expected to rise annually by 6.7%; the European MBR market is set to more than
double its size over the next 7 years (Frost and Sullivan, 2005), and is currently roughly
evenly split between UK/Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, the Benelux nations and
The future for the MBR market is thus generally perceived to be optimistic with, it is
argued, substantial potential for growth. This level of optimism is reinforced by an
understanding of the key influences driving the MBR market today and those which
are expected to exert an even greater influence in the future. These key market drivers
include greater legislative requirements regarding water quality, increased funding
and incentives allied with decreasing costs and a growing confidence in the
performance of the technology.
MBR Market
16%
19% UK and Ireland
Germany
19%
France
18%
Italy
16% Iberia
12%
Benelux
In the past there have been an insufficient number of established reference sites to
convince decision-makers of the potential of MBRs and the fact that they can present
an attractively reliable and relatively cost effective option. This is less true today, since
there are a number of examples where MBRs have been successfully implemented
across a range of applications, including municipal and industrial duties. In many
cases the technology has demonstrated sustained performance over the course of
several years with reliable product water quality which can, in some cases, provide a
clear cost benefit.
Lastly, developing new water technology, from the initial laboratory research stage to
full implementation, is costly and time consuming (ECRD, 2006). This problem is
particularly relevant considering that the great majority of water technology
providers in Europe are small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that do not have
the financial resources to sustain the extended periods from conception at laboratory
scale to significant market penetration.
Whilst the most significant barrier to the more widespread installation of MBRs
remains cost, there are a number of drivers which mitigate this factor. Foremost of
these is increasingly stringent environmental legislation relating to freshwater
conservation and pollution abatement which has driven technological development
in the water sector over the last 30–40 years. This, along with various governmental,
Page | 32
institutional and organizational incentives, has encouraged problem holders to
appraise more sophisticated technologies such as MBRs in recent years. Moreover,
both capital (and particularly membrane) and operational costs of the MBR process
have decreased dramatically over the past 15 years, although further significant cost
reductions may be unattainable unless membrane modules become standardized in
the same way as has taken place for RO technologies.
Page | 33
Wastewater Sludge wastage flow
Tw V/ θx
temperature (°C) (Qw m3/day)
Observed yield, Yobs
[Y/(1+ ke θx)] + [fd Ke Y θx/(1+ ke
SRT (day) θx mg VSS/(mg BOD
θx)]
day)
Design mixed
Aerobic tank volume
liquor suspended MLSS Px θx/X
V m3
solids (mg/L)
Food to micro-
Anoxic tank as
organisms ratio, F:M
percentage of Va /Van SQ/VX
kg BOD/(kg
aerobic tank size
TSS/day)
Maximum specific
growth rate
Oxygen requirement, Q [(So-S) - 1.42Px/Q + 4.33 NOx-
(heterotrophic) µm
m0 kg/day 2.83NOx
(mg VSS/(mg
VSS/day))
Saturation Required airflow to
coefficient meet biological
Ks (RoXOTE)/(ρA0.21αβτ)
(heterotrophic) requirements, QA’,b
(mg/L BOD) kg/day
Endogenous decay
coefficient
(heterotrophic), Ke α factor e-0.084.X
(mg VSS/(mg
VSS/day)
Yield coefficient
Sludge wastage, Qw
(heterotrophic) Y V/ θx
m3/day
(mg VSS/(mg BOD
Page | 34
Maximum specific
growth rate Sludge waste per unit
(nitrification), (mg µm,n permeate QW/J’netAm
VSS/(mg (Qw,vm3/(m3day)
VSS/day))
Endogenous decay
coefficient Airflow per unit
(nitrification) (mg Ke,n permeate (Rb QA,B/ ρA J’netAm
VSS/(mg m3/(m3/day))
VSS/day))
Yield coefficient
(nitrification), mg Yn
VSS/(mg BOD)
Normalized or derived
Raw data
data
Temperature-corrected
Mean flux (LMH) J J/1.024 (T-20)
flux, J’, LMH
Mean Temperature-corrected
transmembrane ∆Pm mean permeability J’/∆Pm
pressure (bar) (LMH/bar)
Temperature, pressure-
QA,m(293/ Ta,K)*(
Aeration rate (m3/h) QA,m corrected aeration rate,
Pa.l/101.323)
Q’A,m (m3/h)
Temperature of Temperature-corrected net
TW,K N[(J’ tb – J’ τb)/( tc + τc)
wastewater (K) flux, J’net (LMH)
Page | 35
Membrane aeration
Inlet air temperature demand per unit
Ta,K Q’A.m/A’m
(K) membrane area, SADm
(Nm3/(hm2))
Membrane aeration
Inlet air pressure
Pa.l demand per unit permeate Q’A.m/J’Am
(kPa)
flow, SADp
Specific membrane aeration
Membrane area (m2) Am energy demand, Wb,V KQ’A.m/ ρaJ’Am
(kWh/m3)
Physical Specific hydraulic energy
cleaning(backflush) tb demand for membrane ∆P/ ρp
interval (h) permeation, Wh (kWh/m3)
Specific recirculation
Physical
energy demand per unit
cleaning(backflush) τb RρbgH/1000 ξ
permeate volume, Wp
duration (h)
(kWh/m3)
Mass of chemical reagent
Backflush flux (LMH) Jb per unit permeate volume, cc vc/ J’net Am( tc + τc)
Mc (kg/m3)
Cleaning interval (h) tc
Cleaning duration (h) τc
Cleaning reagent
cc
strength (kg/m3)
Cleaning reagent
vc
volume (m3)
Density (kg/m3) ρ
Pumping efficiency ξ
Conversion
Page | 36
Sizing of the MBR
Φ = Af / V Where (1)
V = module volume
Where
J = mU + c (9)
Page | 37
EA = 0.0303 SADp γ x [((10x + 101) / 101)(1 – 1/ γ) – 1] / (γ – 1) ζ (11)
Where
x = aerator depth = 3 m
Where
Now, commercial technical data for available membrane modules (Judd, 2006)
suggests that, for packing density and fiber diameter respectively in m-1 and m:
Where
Thus
For the four main MBR HF membrane suppliers, g = 0.89 (R2 = 0.97) and f = 1.7, and
thus:
Design calculation
A complete design for an immersed membrane bioreactor (iMBR) can be carried out
on the basis of the information presented, provided the nature of the interrelationship
can be determined between aeration and:
(a) Permeability and cleaning protocol for the membrane permeation component,
Page | 38
(b) Feed water quality, flows and bio kinetics for the biological component.
TW,K 285 oK
Ta 15 oC
Ta,K 288 oK
BOD Ammonia
Parameter Values Unit Parameter Values Unit
T = 20 oC
Ks 60 g/m3 µm,n 0.41 g/(g/day)
Ke 0.06 Per day Kn 0.05 g/m3
Y 0.4 g/gBOD Kdn 0.07 g/(g/day)
Page | 39
µmax 4.7 g/(gVSS/day) Yn 0.13 g/(g/day)
fd 0.86 gnbSS/gfeed µn 0.040 g/(g/day)
Yobs 0.64 g/gBOD
According to Metcalfe and Eddy (2003), pp. 709.
Page | 40
OTE per m 0.05 0.02
α - 0.49
β - 0.95
Φ - 0.89
Page | 41
24Table 2.10: Membrane calculations
Page | 42
OTE biological 0.14 %
Q’A,m 1.61 Nm3/s
O2 transferred by membrane aeration 24.87 kg/day
O2 required to maintain biology 1409 kg/day
Q’A,b 1.38 Nm3/s
27Table 2.13: Power Requirement
a) The calculation does not account for the impact either of membrane life, which
may possibly relate to permeability (which is generally higher for the FS
modules), or sludge dry solids concentration on sludge disposal costs.
b) There is considerable scatter in the data from which the Jnet:SADm correlations
were obtained. Over the range of SADm values applied in practice for the same
SADm value the operating cost of the HF module is _19% lower than that of the
FS module.
c) Many of the FS MBRs listed are operated without supplementary fine bubble
aeration, such that the membrane aeration also provides air for bio treatment.
This means that threes membranes may be over-aerated, which could also
explain the higher permeabilities recorded compared with those of the HF
MBRs. The one FS MBR operated with segregated membrane aeration yielded
the lowest SADm value, the second lowest being that recorded for the double-
deck FS MBR
Page | 43
28Figure 2.1: Specific cost vs. flux for HS and FS technologies, flux to be related to aeration demand
29Figure 2.3: Specific cost vs. aeration demand over the ranges of aeration demand observed in practice for HF and FS
technologies
Page | 44
2.3 Determination of Calculated Parameters
Pressure Calculations
The net operating pressure (Pnet) for the RO systems was calculated according to the
following equation:
Pnet = [Pi - Po]/2 - Pp – Δπ = 0.25 bar (1)
Where,
Pnet = net operating pressure (Pa)
Pi = pressure at the inlet of the pressure vessel (Pa)
Po = pressure at the outlet of the pressure vessel (Pa)
Pp = permeate pressure
Δπ= net osmotic pressure of the feed and permeate (Pa)
The integrated averaging factor (IAF) assuming 100 percent salt rejection can be used
to estimate the osmotic pressure as follows:
Δπ = IAF x πf
Where,
πf = osmotic pressure of the feed stream (psi)
IAF = 1.386 (for 50 percent recovery)
Flow Calculations
The net permeate rate for the MBR can be calculated using the equation:
Page | 45
Flux Calculation
The flux of the MBR membranes can be calculated as follows:
J = (Qp x 1440) / A = 25 (3)
Where,
J = Membrane flux (L/day/m2)
A = Total membrane surface area (m2)
Temperature Correction
Low-pressure membrane fluxes are normally temperature corrected to 20ºC, and RO
membranes are corrected to 25ºC. The membrane fluxes for the MBR membranes can
be temperature corrected with the following formula:
J @ 20 ºC = J x e-0.0239(T-20) = 122 (4)
Where,
T = feed water temperature (ºC)
Specific Flux
The specific flux is the relationship between flux and the net operating pressure. The
relationship is defined by the formula:
JSP = J/PNET = 21 (5)
Where,
JSP = specific flux (LMD/Pa)
Salt Rejection
The salt rejection for the membranes was calculated using the following equation:
R = 100 x (1 – Cp/ Cf) = 1395 (6)
Where,
R = rejection (%)
Cp = permeate conductivity (µΩ)
Cf = feed conductivity (µΩ)
Hydraulic Retention Time
The hydraulic retention time (HRT) was calculated using the formula:
HRT = V / (QNET x 60) = 14.5 (7)
Where,
HRT = Hydraulic retention time (hours)
V = MBR volume (L)
Page | 46
Sludge Retention Time
The sludge retention time (SRT) is defined as the total mass of activated sludge in the
MBR divided by the mass flow rate of activated sludge being removed. In order to
calculate the SRT of the MBRs, the reactors are treated as an ideal continuously stirred
tank reactor (CSTR). Under this assumption, concentration of activated sludge in the
MBR will be the same as the concentration in the waste stream and the equation will
simplify as follows:
Recycle Ratio
The recycle ratio (RR) for MBR systems operating with anoxic and aerobic tanks is
defined as the ratio of the flow of MLSS from the aerobic tank to the anoxic tank,
divided by the net permeate rate. The RR of MBR is calculated as follows:
RR = (QR-membrane - QNET) / QNET = (QR / QNET) – 1 (9)
Where,
RR = Recycle Ratio
Page | 47
Where Ax = free x-sectional area
Page | 48
EA = Uk / L (mU + c) x [(4/g-1) df + 0.004f) (14)
For the four main MBR HF membrane suppliers, g = 0.89 (R2 = 0.97) and f = 1.7, and
thus:
2.5 Summary
The selection of appropriate design and operating parameter values for an iMBR
centers on:
choice of membrane module;
choice of membrane aerator, if the membrane module is not provided with an
integral aerator;
Membrane aeration rate.
Many, if not all, of these facets are stipulated by the technology provider, and the
choice of technology itself (including that between iMBR and sMBR) will be strongly
influenced by the duty to which it is being put. However, broadly speaking the mean
permeability sustained in an iMBR is dependent on the aeration rate. Failure of
membrane surface fouling, which can be irrecoverable, and clogging of the membrane
channels. It is therefore essential that the maintenance schedule includes cleaning of
the aerators, normally achieved by flushing with a water or hypochlorite solution.
Page | 49
2.6 Oil-Water separator design
Oil-water separation theory is based on the rise rate of the oil globules (vertical
velocity) and its relationship to the surface-loading rate of the separator. The rise rate
is the velocity at which oil particles move toward the separator surface as a result of
the differential density of the oil and the aqueous phase of the wastewater. The
surface-loading rate is ratio of the flow rate to the separator to the surface area of the
separator. The required surface-loading rate for removal of a specified size of oil
droplet can be determined from the equation for rise rate.
The following parameters are required for the design of an oil-water separator:
a) Design flow (Qm), the maximum wastewater flow. The design flow should
include allowance for plant expansion and storm water runoff, if applicable.
b) Wastewater temperature. Lower temperatures are used for conservative
design.
c) Wastewater specific gravity (Sw).
d) Wastewater absolute (dynamic) viscosity (µ). Note: Kinematic viscosity (v) of a
fluid of density (ρ) is v = µ /ρ.
e) Wastewater oil-fraction specific gravity (So). Higher values are used for
conservative design.
f) Globule size to be removed. The nominal size is 0.015 centimeters (150
micrometers), although other values can be used if indicated by specific data.
Page | 50
d) Separator width (B) is typically between 1.8 and 6 m in refinery services.
e) By providing two separator channels, one channel is available for use when it
becomes necessary to remove the other from service for repair or cleaning.
f) The amount of freeboard specified should be based on consideration of the type
of cover to be installed and the maximum hydraulic surge used for design.
g) A length-to-width ratio (L/B) of at least 5 is suggested to provide more uniform
flow distribution and to minimize the effects of inlet and outlet turbulence on
the main separator channel.
The oil-globule rise rate (Vt) can be calculated by Equation 1 or 2 shown below.
Equation (1) should be used when the target diameter of the oil globules to be
Page | 51
removed is known to be other than 0.015 cm and represents a typical design approach.
Equation (2) assumes an oil globule size of 0.015 cm.
Vt = g/18µ(ρw – ρo)D2
Vt = 0.0123[(Sw – So)/µ, (Where D = 0.015cm)
Where:
Vt = vertical velocity, or rise rate, of the designed oil globule, in cm/s.
g = acceleration due to gravity (981 cm/s2)
µ = absolute viscosity of wastewater at the design temperature, in poise
ρw = density of water at the design temperature, in g/cm3
ρo = density of oil at the design temperature, in g/cm3
D = diameter of oil globule to be removed, in cm
Sw = specific gravity of the wastewater at the design temperature (dimensionless)
So = specific gravity of the oil present in the wastewater (dimensionless)
Alternatively, if using kinematic viscosity equations 1 and 2 may be rearraged as
follows:
Vt = g/18v(1-So)D2
Vt = 0.0123(1-So/v)
Where, V = kinematic viscosity of the wastewater at the design tempearature,in stokes.
Page | 52
Channel Width and Depth
Given the total cross-sectional area of the channels (Ac) and the number of channels
desired
(n), the width and depth of each channel can be determined. A channel width (B),
generally between 1.8 - 6 m, should be substituted into the following equation, solving
for depth (d):
d = Ac/Bn
Where:
d = depth of channel, in m
B = width of channel, in m
Separator Length
Once the separator depth and width have been determined, the final dimension, the
channel length (L), is found using the following equation:
L = F(VH/Vt)d
Where:
L = length of channel, in m
F = turbulence and short-circulated factor (dimensionless)
VH = horizontal velocity, in cm/s
D = depth of channel, in m
If necessary, the separator’s length should be adjusted to be at least five times its
width, to minimize the disturbing effects of the inlet and outlet zones.
Equation is derived from several basic separator relations:
a) The equation for horizontal velocity (vH = Qm/Ac/), where Ac is the minimum
total cross-sectional area of the separator.
b) The equation for surface-loading rate (Vt = Qm/AH), where AH is the minimum
total surface area of the separator.
c) Two geometrical relations for separator surface and cross-section area (AH =
LBn and Ac= dBn), where n is the number of separator channels.
The turbulence and short-circuiting factor (F) is a composite of an experimentally
determined short-cutting factor of 1.21 and a turbulence factor whose value depends
on the ratio of mean horizontal velocity (vH) to the rise rate of the oil globules (Vt). A
Page | 53
graph of F versus the ratio vH/Vt is given in Figure1.5; the data used to generate the
graph are also given below.
Page | 54
Vt = di/Ti = 100di/(LiBidi/Qm) = 100Qm/LiBi = Vo
Where:
di = depth of wastewater in an ideal separator, in cm
Ti = retention time in an separator, in s
Li = length of an ideal separator, in cm
Bi = width of an ideal separator, in cm
Qm = design flow to the separator, in m3/s
Vo = overflow rate, in cm/s
The equation establishes that the surface area required for an ideal separator is equal
to the flow of wastewater divided by the rise rate of the oil globules, regardless of any
given or assigned depth.
By taking into account the design factor (F), the minimum horizontal area (AH), is
obtained as follows:
AH = F(Qm x 100/Vt)
Where:
AH = minimum horizontal area, in m2
F = turbulence and short-circuit factor
Qm = design flow to the separator, in m3/s
Vt = vertical velocity, or rise rate, of the designed oil globule, in cm/s.
Qm/AH = 0.00196(Sw – So)/µ
Maintenance
Parallel-plate units may experience clogging problems if the plate inclination is too
shallow or the plate-to-plate spacing is too narrow. It has also been reported that sand
entering the plate system can collect at the entrance to the plate assembly and reduce
flow through the lower plate sections. Should blockages develop, they may be cleared
by removing the accumulated solids, flushing the plate pack with water or air, or
mechanical cleaning.
Operating and maintenance manuals and equipment suppliers should be consulted
with regard to approved procedures. Solids accumulation and clogging should be
considered before installation and designed for accordingly.
Page | 55
Parallel-plate packs do not generally clog if they are properly designed, installed, and
maintained. If significant solids levels are expected, the plate inclination should be
about
60o, which exceeds the angle of repose of practically all solids encountered in such
systems. A plate slope of 60o and periodic blowdown of accumulated solids should
help to avoid most parallel-plate separator plugging problems.
Construction Details
A variety of parallel-plate equipment configurations are commercially available. In
the case of conventional separators retrofitted with parallel plates few, if any,
additional fitments are required in addition to those already present. New parallel-
plate separators have a wide range of design features and may be purchased as
packaged units, with oil and sludge-draw off equipment provided. Consequently,
specific construction and fitment details are omitted from this subsection.
Two major types of parallel-plate separators are marketed: the cross-flow inclined
plate and the down-flow inclined plate. Cross-flow separators that employ parallel
plates oriented vertically and horizontally are also available, although there are few
applications for them in wastewater treatments.
In a cross-flow separator, shown in sketch bellow, flow enters the plate section from
the side and flows horizontally between the plates. Oil and sludge accumulate on the
plate surfaces above and below the wastewater flowing between the plates. As the oil
and sludge build up, the oil globules rise to the separator surface and sludge gravitates
toward the separator bottom.
In a down-flow separator, the wastewater flows down between the parallel plates,
sludge deposited on the lower plates flows to the bottom of the separator, and oil
accumulated beneath the upper plate flows counter-current to the waste flow to the
top of the separator.
Page | 56
32Figure 2.6: sketch of Parallel plate separator - cross-flow
Page | 57
W = ( D3/6) x ( ρw – ρo)g
Where:
W = effective weight of the oil globule in water, in dynes
D = diameter of oil globule, in cm
ρo = density of the oil globule, in g/cm3
g = acceleration caused by the force of gravity (981 cm/s2)
Equating equations above:
CA(ρwV2/2) = (πD3/6) x ( ρw – ρo)g
Given that, for a sphere,
A = D2/4
Then the rate of rise is as follows:
The equation for the resistance to motion of a small spherical particle at its terminal
velocity is as follows:
Where:
µ = absolute viscosity of wastewater the design temperature, in poises
If W in Equation above is equated to Df in Equation 16, a new expression for V is
obtained. By the substitution of Vt, the oil globules’ velocity of rise (in cm/s) for the
general term V, the well-known form of Stokes’ law for the terminal velocity of
spheres in a liquid medium becomes applicable to the rate of rise of oil globules in
water.
Equations should theoretically include a deformation coefficient that depends on the
relative viscosities of the oil and the water; however, in practice, the coefficient is not
required to estimate the rate of rise of small oil globules in wastewater.
Page | 58
Where:
Cv = deformation coefficient theoretically applicable
µ1 = absolute viscosity of the particle, in poises
µ2 = absolute viscosity of the medium, in poises
If this correction for internal flow is applied to Equation 17, Stokes’ law for
determining the rate of rise of an oil particle in water would become the following:
Equations above are strictly correct only when the rising particle’s Reynolds number
(based on the particle diameter) is less than 0.5. For the range of Reynolds numbers
resulting from the computations in this chapter (all substantially less than unity),
however, the deviation from Stokes’ law is negligible for design purposes.
If the globule diameter is 60 micrometers (i.e., D = 0.006), the factor is 0.0020, rather
than 0.0123.
L = F(vH/vt)d
Page | 59
The basis equations used to derive the equation for separator length are
Therefore;
L = L = F(vH / vt)d
Where:
Temperature = 29 °C
Assumptions taken:
Page | 60
Viscosity of wastewater = 0.0062 poise = 0.3871 cm2/s
Design constraints
• 1.0 m ≤ d ≤ 2.5 m
• 1.8 m ≤ B ≤ 6.0 m
• n = 2 (minimum 2 channels)
• L/B ≥ 5
Calculating Vt using:
Vt = 0.0123[(Sw - So)/μ]
Vt = 2.224 cm/s
Ac = (0.8102 x 100)/1.5
Ac = 54 m2
Similarly,
d = 54/ (8 x 2)
d =3.38 m
Page | 61
Depth/width ratio = 3.38/8 = 0.4
Calculating L using:
F is found to be 1.46
Hence,
L = F x (VH/Vt) x d
L = 3.33 m
Page | 62
Design inputs:
Results:
2.7 PIPE SELECTION AND PIPE SIZING FOR MBR TANKS OUTLETS AND
INLETS
Pipe Selection
When it comes to pipes for transportation of liquids, we are exposed to a variety of
the pipes which normally are made of plastic, concrete or metal (e.g. galvanized iron
or copper and stainless stain) to make our choices. However, if we consider the cost
of copper for the transportation of effluent of a treatment plant, it is definitely not
feasible. Similarly while opting for a particular pipe material for transportation of
liquids the key factors that need to be considered are: water characteristics and
chemistry and resistant against a specified internal and external pressure. Thus to start
with the primary factor is the water chemistry and characteristics which include pH,
salts that are dissolved in the water and among other. Likewise it is be noted that there
would be an alteration in the initial pH of the effluent since the latter has been
Page | 63
subjected to a coagulation and flocculation process with help of alum which has the
tendency to render the effluent to be slightly more acidic: pH changes from 6.5 to
approximately 4.7 (Tchobanoglous, et al., 2004). Subsequently we can expect the
corrosiveness of the effluent to material to increase; thus the prime requirement for
the pipe material would be higher corrosion resistance. Hereby the choice of metal as
pipe material can be crossed from the initial list; therefore the best suited pipe material
for the MBR is plastic.
The raw material needed to make most plastic comes from petroleum and natural gas.
Due to their relatively low costs, ease in manufacture, versatility and imperviousness
to water, plastics are used in an enormous and expanding range of products: from
paper clips to pipes intended for transporting drinking water. Plastic has replaced
many common materials such as cement and metals within drinking water networks
(WECF, 2012).
Plastics are often preferred than metals due to a number of intrinsic advantages:
plastic piping is lightweight and does not require an open flame for joining the
flexibility of plastic can simplify the installation. Plastics are typically lower in cost
and resist the corrosion and scaling that plague metals in some applications. However,
indication of the mitigation of synthetic chemical contaminants from plastic pipe
materials to water may exist. These contaminants likely occur at low “safe levels”, but
are sufficient to generate odor and taste concerns in some cases. Another disadvantage
of some types of plastic pipes is that they have lowered resistance to chlorinated water;
which will be not problematic in our case. Likewise the most common types of plastic
used in water and wastewater applications are PE
(Polyethylene) pipes and PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) pipes (WECF, 2012)...
PE (Polyethylene) pipes
There are basically three of PE (Polyethylene) pipes: high-density polyethylene
(HDPE), medium density (MDPE) and low density (LDPE) pipes. The level of density
expresses the pressure that the pipes can sustain. For locations enduring high pressure
or weight, like streets, HPPE pipes are used. Performances of PE pipes of different
manufactures show different possible temperature ranges in terms of application and
usually range between -20 and + 900C. PE pipes are widely used for water and
Page | 64
sanitation systems. High-quality PE pipes have a long lifetime (50 years) and are easy
to maintain. They have high impact strength and show resistance to cracking even at
low temperatures. PE pipes are also stable in water and do not tend to corrode (WECF,
2012).
Finally it can be concluded that a medium density polyethylene (MDPE) pipe is best
suitable for the Membrane biological reactor tank: due to the versatility of being
corrosion resistance and also sustain pressure to which it would be exposed to. In
addition its low cost relative to other pipe material like copper and extended lifetime
render it to be more attractive.
Pipe sizing
There are basically two methods reported by Sinnott, 2005 through which we can
proceed to evaluate the optimum diameter of a pipe: either using economic pipe
diameter formula or Simpson correlation (1968). However due to lack of information
related to economic pipe diameter for medium density polyethylene we will go by
Simpson correlation.
Simpson (1968) gives values for the optimum velocity in terms of the fluid density.
His values, converted to SI units and rounded, are:
Page | 65
33Table 2.14: Fluid density and Velocity
Similarly together with the Simpson correlation we shall abide by the following
assumptions for the evaluating of the optimum diameter.
a) The piping system should be designed for the maximum flow-rate output from
the MBR tank that is 50000 m3/hr. However to increase the reliability and not
to oversize the pump and piping system; we will assume that delivery of 3125
m3 of effluent will be performed by three pumps and we have one additional
stand by pump for any contingency.
b) Usually we can expect the temperature of the effluent to experience a drop.
likewise the temperature drop will somehow be dependent on the season
prevailing in the country, however since we lack data to evaluate any raise or
drop we will simply assume that the temperature of the effluent remain at 25℃.
c) The density of the effluent is similar to that water at 250C: 997.048kg/m3; the
ideology behind this assumption is that the effluent before entering the MBR is
subjected to several pre-treatment namely: oil and grease removal, grit removal
and coagulation and flocculation process which will enable the removal of
several contaminants which otherwise might influence its density at 250C.
d) The viscosity of effluent is again similar to that of water at 25 0C: 0.890 x 10-3
Ns/m2 and the same ideology as density applies for viscosity.
Calculations
If we consult the fluid density and optimum velocity table by Simpson is can be noted
that we do not have any specific optimum velocity value for a fluid density of
Page | 66
997.048kg/m3; thus by graphical interpolation of the data was performed to estimate
the optimum velocity of the fluid and found to be 2.7 m/s.
Consequently the internal diameter of the pipes for MBR is evaluated to be 40 cm.
Pump selection is made on the flow rate and head required, together with other
process considerations, such as corrosion or the presence of solids in the fluid. Table
2.15 provides a brief description and application of many types of pumps in these two
classes.
Page | 67
chemical solutions, small flows
of water and wastewater
Scum and primary, secondary,
Plunger and settled sludge; chemical
solution
Secondary sludge circulation
Airlift and
wasting, grit
Positive Displacement
Raw wastewater at small
Pneumatic ejector
installation (100 to 600 L/min)
Grit, settled primary and
Screw secondary sludge, thickened
sludge, raw wastewater
Diaphragm Chemical solution
Source: (Spellman, 2003)
Considering the data obtained from table above it can be said that the best suited
pump for pumping effluent from the MBR is the centrifugal pump. In addition the
centrifugal pump is by far the most widely used type in the chemical and petroleum
industries. Furthermore with its ability to pump liquids with very wide-ranging
properties and suspensions with a high solid content including, for example, cement
slurries, and clearly demonstrate the superiority among of the latter other pumps in
wastewater applications. Likewise it may be constructed from a very wide range of
corrosion resistant materials. The whole pump casing may be constructed from
plastics such as polypropylene or it may be fitted with a corrosion resistant lining.
Because it operates at high speed, it may be directly coupled to an electric motor and
it will also give a high flow-rate for its size (Sinnott, 2005).
Page | 68
2. Overcome the miscellaneous losses in the pipe fittings (e.g. bends), values,
instruments, etc.
5. Overcome any difference in pressure between the vessels at each of the pipeline.
Hence the total energy required can be calculated from the equation:
Where:
Total head required will be the sum of the dynamic head due to friction losses in the
piping, fittings, valves and process equipment, and any static head due to differences
in elevation.
∆Pf = 8f(L/di)ρu2/2
Where:
Page | 69
F = friction factor
L = pipe length, m
The friction factor is a dependent on the Reynolds number and pipe roughness. The
friction factor for use in equation 2.8.1 can be found from Figure 2.7
Where:
Note: the friction factor used in equation 5.3 is related to the shear stress at the pipe
wall, R, by the equation:
1. As the number of velocity heads, K, lost at each fitting or valve. A velocity head
is u2/2g, meters of the fluid, equivalent to (u2/2) ρ, N/m2. The total number of
Page | 70
velocity heads lost due to all the fittings and valves is added to the pressure
drop due to pipe friction (Sinnott, 2005).
2. As a length of pipe that would cause the same pressure loss as the fitting or
valve. As this will be a function of the pipe diameter, it is expressed as the
number of equivalent pipe diameters. The length of pipe to add to the actual
pipe length is found by multiplying the total number of equivalent pipe
diameters by the diameter of the pipe being used (Sinnott, 2005).
Summary of results
With help of the literature review above the calculations were performed and the main
results have been tabulated below.
35Table 2.17: Summary of result involving the main pipeline connecting the MBR
Page | 71
CHAPTER 3: Heat and material Balance
Q = Influent Flowrate
Given: BOD in domestic wastewater entering Primary Settling Tank = 307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Therefore;
Page | 72
307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 −40𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Hence; 𝑂𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = ( )× 100 = 87%
307𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Typical recycle ratio for conventional activated sludge process = 0.25 – 0.50
Therefore;
Also by the methodology of Shu Dar lin (2005), 𝑄𝑅 can be expresses as follows:
𝑄0 (𝑥 − 𝑥0 )
𝑄𝑅 =
𝑥𝑤 − 𝑥
Whereby:
𝑥𝑤 = 3893.07 𝑔⁄𝑚3
Also;
𝑄𝑅 𝑋
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = =
𝑄0 𝑋𝑅 − 𝑋
Whereby:
Page | 73
2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝑋𝑅 − 2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
Waste Activated Sludge: QW = Waste flow from recycle waste line, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝜇𝑋𝑉 𝑑𝑆
(𝑄0 𝑆0 + 𝑄𝑅 𝑆𝐸 ) − (𝑄0 + 𝑄𝑅 )𝑆𝐸 − = 𝑉
𝑌 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑆
𝑉=0
𝑑𝑡
At steady state
𝜇𝑋𝑉
= 𝑄0 𝑆0 − 𝑄0 𝑆𝐸
𝑌
𝜇 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
= 𝑓⁄𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝑌 𝑉𝑥
𝑆0 = 184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Therefore:
Page | 74
𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑅 = 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
As calculated:
BOD Efficiency = 78 %
Therefore:
Assuming:
Overall Balance:
Page | 75
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝐸 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑅 = 1400 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 − 1260 𝐾𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦 = 140 𝑘𝑔⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Overall Balance:
Since nitrification occurs, let 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 be the amount of nitrates obtained by the
nitrification of ammonia.
Therefore:
Since 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 1200 Kg⁄day 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 = 5031.2 Kg⁄day
Page | 76
VIII. Phosphorus Balance on the membrane skid
Overall Balance:
𝑃𝑅 = 24.5 Kg⁄day
Page | 77
Additional assumptions
This is steady-flow process since there is no change with time at any point and thus
∆mcv; change in mass of control volume and ∆Ecv; change in energy is equal to zero.
The kinetic and potential energy changes are negligible.
∆mcv = ∆Ecv = 0
Analysis of system
The cooler is considered as control volume since mass crosses the system
boundary during the process. We will note that heat is transferred out of the
system.
Furthermore while analyzing the critical properties of the various gases, we can
notice that the O2, N2 and CH4 will remain above their critical temperature,
but they are all below their critical pressures, and thus we can assume that the
biogas behaves as an ideal gas and can be demonstrated using Kay’s rule (Boles
et al., 2011) (refer to appendix Energy Balance to demonstrate that biogas can
be considered as ideal gas via Kay’s rule).
The energy balance for this steady-flow system can be expressed on a unit mole basis
as:
Page | 78
eout - eout = ∆esystem = 0
Where:
q”out = h1 – h2 = yN2(h1 – h2) + yCO2 (h1 – h2) + yO2(h1 – h2) + yH2S(h1 – h2) + yCH4(h1
– h2)
Page | 79
3.33m
8m
A A
3.38 m 2.25
University of Mauritius Sketch of Top, Front & Side view of AIP oil-water
separator
Beng(Hons) Chemical & Environmental Engineering(Level 3) Design Project 2(CHE4101)
Project Coordinator: Mr.A.K Ragen & Mr A.Mudhoo Date: 01.04.15 Size: A3 Drawn By: SOOMAREE KESHAV
Page | 80
88 m
42.5 m
Page | 81
University of Mauritius Sketch of Top, Front & Side view of AIP oil-water
separator
Beng(Hons) Chemical & Environmental Engineering(Level 3) Design Project 2(CHE4101)
Project Coordinator: Mr.A.K Ragen & Mr A.Mudhoo Date: 29.03.15 Size: A3 Drawn By: SOOMAREE KESHAV
Page | 82
University of Mauritius Sketch of module membrane showing two distinct
membranes
Beng(Hons) Chemical & Environmental Engineering(Level 3) Design Project 2(CHE4101)
Project Coordinator: Mr.A.K Ragen & Mr A.Mudhoo Date: 29.03.15 Size: A3 Drawn By: SOOMAREE KESHAV
Project Supervisor: Mr A.Mudhoo Scale: Not to Scale Group: 3A ID: 1114132
Page | 83
Chapter 5: Material of Construction
Furthermore while examining the volume of water to be handled by the tank and the
subsequent pressure that will be exerted by the fluid which would be relative high; it
is recommended to opt for a reinforced concrete structure. Reinforced concrete is ideal
for the construction of the basin since the latter is a composite material of steel bars
embedded in a hardened concrete matrix; concrete, assisted by steel carries the
compressive forces while steel resist tensile forces. In addition concrete is a composite
material. The dry mix consists of cement and coarse or fine aggregates. Water is added
and this reacts with the cement which hardens and binds the aggregates into the
concrete matrix; the concrete matrix sticks and binds on to the reinforcing bars (Choo
et al., 1990).
PAN: polyacrylonitrile
PE: polyethylene
PES: polyethylsulphone
PS: polysulphone
Page | 84
37Table 5.2.1: Membrane configuration definitions
Generic term FS HF or MT
Membrane Element Single sheet, or part there Single filament/fibre or
of Panel tube Module
Multiple element Module, cassette or stack Cassette, stack or rack
Multiple multi-element Train Train
Supplier Microdyne-Nadir
Membrane or module proprietary name (model) BioCel
Membrane material PES
Pore size (µm) or MWCO (kDa) 150 kDa
Panel dimensions, length x width x depth (mm) 1000 width x 5
Panel area (m2) 10
Membrane separation (mm) 8 (2 mm membrane thickness)
Module dimensions, length x width x depth 1200, 1340 x 650, 1140 x 1800,
(mm) 2880
Number of panels per module -
Total membrane area per module (m2/m3) 70 (90)
Clean water permeability (LMH/bar) 450–550
Page | 85
Membrane separation (mm) 3
Module dimensions, length x width x depth (mm) 2610 x 438 x 1710
Number of panels per module -
Total membrane area per module (m2/m3) (36)
Clean water permeability (LMH/bar) 1250 ± 500
Page | 86
Number of filaments per element -
Cassette dimensions, length x width x depth 1442 x 1538 x 725
(mm)
Number of modules per cassette 70
Total membrane area per module (m2/m3) 485
Clean water permeability (LMH/bar) -
Supplier Polymem
Membrane or module proprietary name (model) Immem (WW120)
Membrane material PS
Pore size (µm) or MWCO (kDa) 300 kDa; 0.08 µm
Filament diameter 0.7 to 1.4mm
Module dimensions, length x width x depth 1000 to 1500 x 315
(mm)
Module area (m2) 60–100m2
Number of filaments per element a few tens of thousands
Number of modules per rack Na
Total membrane area per module (m2/m3) 800
Clean water permeability (LMH/bar) 500
Page | 87
Carbon steel plate coalescer plates are typically stitch welded into the carbon steel
coalescer frames and are not removable for cleaning. Coalescer materials that have
been used include: polypropylene, pvc, cpvc, acrylic, aluminum, marine aluminum,
304 & 304L stainless steel, 316 and 316L stainless steel. Other materials such as
phenolic epoxies composite materials show promise, as well.
The coalescer designed in this project is to last the lifetime of the separator unit. The
coalescer frame is built of sturdy structural stainless steel. The plate-holding strips are
304 stainless steel, as well. Marine aluminum and 316 stainless steel plate-holding
strips are available for particular applications. The Multi-Pack can accommodate any
flat plate material.
Page | 88
CHAPTER 6: Instrumentation and Control
6.1 Control Strategies for the Membrane Bio-reactor
Page | 89
3. MBR sludge is generally less settleable than ASP sludge, with floc sizes
generally being smaller and sludge volume index (SVI) values higher.
Conventional gravity thickening is therefore less effective for MBR sludge.
Membrane thickening can and has been used for this duty, albeit operating at
necessarily low fluxes.
Page | 90
Pressure Sensor F
V0 V4
(0-4 bar absolute) Mass Flowmeter
Permeate
T P V7
Feed
Membrane Module
F
Retenate
Massflowmeter V5 V8
V9
V1 P
BackWash F
V2
Chemical Cleaning 1
V3
Chemical Cleaning 2
Page | 91
4x0.405 l/d
Concentrated Influent
Excess Sludge
P1 =
0.075 l/min
Air SV
V2 V4 4
V1
V3
Overflow PS
P 3
P
Emergency
Overflow
pH pH DO ORP
UF V6 V7
Membrane
Cooler
Cooler Cooler
Effluent grab
Over flow
sample V8
alarm
Mixer
Aerobic/Anoxic SV 1
zone PS P
2
Mixer SV 3
Anaerobic
zone
P
Permeate Backwashing
PS Over Flow Tank (7L)
1
P3 = P4 =
Air
0.375 l/min 7.651 l/min
V5 7.651 l/min
SV 2 F2
Page | 92
Sewer
O2 T Ph
P2 Computer
Sewer
P3
Peristaltic Pump
Membrane
Demi water Activated Sludge
NaOCl
Permeate
Air
Mass
Balance
Peristaltic Pump
Centrifugal Pump
Back Flush Pump
Damper
P1 F
Page | 93
CHAPTER 7: Safety Considerations
Consequences:
1. Chemicals absorbed through skin when in contact with wastewater.
2. Disease can also enter the body through cuts and abrasion
Safeguard:
Action:
Assistance should be provided and immediate actions should be taken in case of Skin
Contact
Consequences:
Safeguard:
1. Two- stage screen in order to facilitate safe cleaning; to reduce the possibility of
blockage
2. To allow proper maintenance
Page | 94
Action:
1. Provide a sensor and an alarm to monitor the risks of blockage
Action:
Emergency measures should be provided; provide with protective clothing and other
personal protective equipment and chemical resistant clothing to avoid exposure of
skin
Page | 95
key mistakes in the preliminary design and had a domino effect in the subsequent
calculations, thus it is obvious that while the comparing the mass balance of the
preliminary and detailed these variation can be easily noted. Hence to avoid
repetitions we shall review mostly the sizing of various equipment.
Page | 96
Air pipe diameter (m) 0.32
Length of air pipe(m) 30
Power required (KPa) 2.28
Number of centrifugal blowers 1 (+1 as back up)
Inlet pipe 0.164
Effluent pipe 0.438
Effluent box(m) 4x3
Aeration period 5.12 Hr
Diffuser submergence(m) 7
Oxygen transfer efficiency (OTE) 35%
Aeration configuration Covering the floor completely
Using a centrifugal blower
Air supply
feeding 7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
SRT 10 days
𝐾𝑔
BOD vol. loading 0.938
𝑚3 . 𝑑𝑎𝑦
F/M 0.3
The membrane Module
Am 9887 m2
Area per element 250 m2
Actual membrane area 10000 m2
Number of elements 40
K’ 120 N LMH/bar
Jnet 21 LMH
Jnet,actual 20 LMH
J’net,actual 25 N LMH
J’b 42 N LMH
J’actual 30 N LMH
Page | 97
CHAPTER 9: ECONOMICS OF THE PROJECT, AS DESIGNED
9.1 Total purchase equipment cost
This represents the basis for estimating the capital investment for a chemical plant.
The cost of all the main equipments in the treatment plant, namely, the UV reactors
,the biogas upgrading system, API Separator, and among other ; likewise some
equipment cost were estimated by scaling. The Marshall and Swift equipment cost
index was used to obtain the present time costs of the equipment.
Total purchase equipment cost = Rs. 159,268,246
Page | 98
expenses which are not directly involved with material and labor of the installation of
the plant.
The fixed charges are expenses pertaining to depreciation, taxes and insurance.
The administrative costs, the distribution and selling costs, the research and
development costs and interests constitute the general expenses.
Page | 99
9.6 Pay-back period
Payback can be described as the period of time required for the return on an
investment, that is, the time required to recover the initial investment. The simple
payback period method is when time value of money is not considered while for the
discounted payback method, the time value of money is considered. The payback
period indicates whether to go for a specific project or not (Sinnott et al., 2003).
This is the rate at which profit is made with respect to the initial investment. The latter
would include charges on labour resource. The power plant constitute of 32 personnel.
Taking into account all charges and the profit made,
Rate of return = 11.4%.
9.8 The Net Present Value (NPV) and Initial Rate of Return (IRR)
The net present value is the harmonization of net cash flows of different period of time
at a common time period. The common time period is usually the time the project
starts, that is the present time. It is the conversion of future cash flows into present
time at a given rate of return. Normally, the net present value of the project is then the
difference between the present value of the annual cash flows and the initial required
investment.
Page | 100
Present value of the expected cash flows is computed by discounting them at the
required rate of return. Net present value is a calculation that compares the amount
invested today to the present value of the future cash receipt from the investment.
The following parameters are important while calculating NPV:
- Rate of return (IRR)
- Service life of project or equipment
- Annual cash inflow over service life.
- Annual cash outflow over service life.
- Net cash flows (profits/savings) over service life
NPV is the present value of the future cash inflows.
NPV= Rs. 1,293,424,747
IRR represents the true interest rate on an investment over the course of its economic
life.
IRR = 30.45 %
Page | 101
CHAPTER 10: Environmental Concerns
Even wastewater treatment ensures that not much great demands are been made on
the environment and is a step forward towards safeguarding the ecological and
marine resources, in particular surf water and ground water and as well as improve
sanitation and protect public health. And similarly, the option for wastewater
treatment and reuse makes provision for long term water reliability within the
community by providing substitute for fresh water and also is a plus-point for water
demand and drought management in overall water resources planning; it is be noted
that a during the treatment there is a significant amount of waste which is cause for
concerns. The table below summaries the various type of waste generated and their
related mitigation measure for their resulting nuisance.
Page | 102
Other alternatives such as
incineration may be considered if not
too costly.
Scum Activated sludge Scum from the final clarifier are
system scrapped by means of scrappers
Secondary before they are collected and
settling tank discharged to the landfill which
represents a safe, easy and cost
effective method of disposal.
Sludge in terms of Oil & API Oil/Water Since oil and grease from API
grease, Separator cannot sent to land field due to
COD high risk of soil contamination it
would trucked to a solid
treatment processing plant or
send to a processing factor for oil
recovery
Sludge Primary clarifier Since the sludge produced have
MBR considerable amount of BOD.
Secondary COD and TSS, they will be sent
clarifier to a digester for stabilization
Dry sludge Drying Bed Compost plant is the best and
most viable mean of disposal
Biogas Sludge Digester The biogas is the most valuable waste
Bioreactor generated, since it has a huge energy
potential it will be upgraded and use
as fuel of plant’s boilers.
Page | 103
and the Oil-Water separator which required an extensive knowledge of heat & Mass
transfer, thermodynamics, Unit operations, wastewater management, chemical
process design Chemical economics, Chemical process safety and fluid mechanics.
Most of these topics had already been covered during previous years of the
undergraduate course and the rest are still ongoing. Indeed, the design also required
important decisions to be taken in areas of uncertainty. All the reasoning behind any
assumption and decision taken were explained explicitly.
To conclude, we can eventually say that there are significant difference in between the
primary design and that of the detailed one, especially in terms of sizing and costing.
This design project has brought in me many practical skills and knowledge, giving a wider
view on the job functions of chemical and environmental engineers.
References
1. Adham, S., DeCarolis, J.F. and Pearce, W. (2004) Optimisation of various MBR
systems for water reclamation – phase III, Desalination and Water Purification
Research and Development Program Final Report, No. 103.
2. Babcock, R. (2005)
www.wrrc.hawaii.edu/research/project_babcock/Babcockmembrane. htm
(Accessed March 2015).
3. Benham, B.L., Brannan, K.M., Yagow, G., Zeckoski, R.W., Dillana, T.A.,
Mostaghimi, S. and Wynn, J.W. (2005) Development of bacteria and benthic
total maximum daily loads: a case study, Linville Creek, Virginia. J. Environ.
Qual., 34, 1860–1872.
4. Blatchley III, Ernest R., Bastian, K. Chad, Duggirala, Ravi K., Alleman, James
E., Moore, Mark, Schuerch, Peter.,1996. “Ultraviolet irradiation and
chlorination/dechlorination for municipal wastewater disinfection:
Assessment of performance limitations.” Water Environment Research, 68, 194-
204.
Page | 104
5. Botha, G.R., Sanderson, R.D. and Buckley, C.A. (1992) Brief historical review of
membrane development and membrane applications in wastewater treatment
in Southern Africa. Wat. Sci. Technol., 25(10), 1–4.
6. C.J. Geankoplis, 1993, Transport Processes and Unit operations, 3rd Edition,
India, Prentice Hall Inc
7. Cengel.Y.A , Boles.M.A, 2010, Thermodynamics An Engineering Approach, 7th
Edition, New York, Mc Graw Hill.
8. DAR LIN, S.D.L., 2007. Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual. 2nd. New
York: McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc.
9. Dieter Deublein and Angelika Steinhauser, 2008, Biogas from Waste and
Renewable Resources An introduction 1st edition WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH
& Co. KGaA
10. Digest of energy and water statistics 2011 available at:
http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/cso/report/natacc/DigestEnergy.pdf ,
accessed on 3 Jan 2013
11. DiGiano, F.A., Andreottola, G., Adham, S., Buckley, C., Cornel, P., Daigger,
G.T., Fane, A.G., Galil, N., Jacangelo, J., Alfieri, P., Rittmann, B.E., Rozzi, A.,
Stephenson, T. and Ujang, Z. (2004) Safe water for everyone: membrane
bioreactor technology. www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2004/june/membrane.htm
12. Frost and Sullivan (2003) MBR: A buoyant reaction in Europe, Report, June
2003, Frost and Sullivan.
13. Frost and Sullivan (2005) European report: introduction and executive
summary, Report, August 2005, Frost and Sullivan.
14. G.Tchobanoglous,F.L.Burton, H.David Stensel, 2004, Metcalf and Eddy
Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse, 4th Edition, New York,
McGraw Hill.
15. Göbel, A., Thomsen, A., McArdell, C.S., Joss, A. and Giger, W. (2005)
Occurrence and sorption behavior of sulfonamides, macrolides and
trimethoprim in conventional activated sludge treatment including sorption to
sewage sludge. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 3981–3989.
Page | 105
16. Hanzon, B.D and Vigilia, R. “Two Experts Offer Practical Guidance in
Designing and Operating Ultraviolet Disinfection Systems,” Water
Environment and Technology, November 1999, pp. 35- 42.
17. Ho, Chu-Fei H., Pitt, Paul, Mamais, Daniel, Chiu, Carolyn, and Jolisw,
Domenéc.,1998. “Evaluation of UV disinfection systems for large-scale
secondary effluent.” Water Environment Research, 70 (6), 11421150.
18. Huber, M.M., Goebel, A., Joss A., Hermann N., Kampmann M., Löffler D.,
McArdell, C.S., Ried A., Ternes, T.A. and von Gunten, U. (2005) Oxidation of
pharmaceuticals during ozonation of municipal wastewater effluents: a pilot
study. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 4290–4299.
19. J. F. Richardson, J. H. Harker, J. M. Coulson, 1977, “Coulson and Richardson’s
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING Fluid flow, Heat transfer and Mass transfer”,
Volume 1, 3rd Edition. UK, Pergamon Press
20. J. F. Richardson, J. H. Harker, J. R. Backhurst, 2002, “Coulson and Richardson’s
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING Particle, Technology and Separation Processes”,
Volume 2, 5th Edition. UK, Elsevier Jaime Benítez, 2009, Principle and Modern
Applications of Mass Transfer Operations, 2nd Edition, New Jersey, John Wiley
and Sons
21. Joss, A., Andersen, H., Ternes, T., Richle, P.R. and Siegrist, H. (2004) Removal
of estrogens in municipal wastewater treatment under aerobic and anaerobic
conditions: consequences for plant optimisation. Environ. Sci. Technol., 38(11),
3047–3055.
22. Joss, A., Keller, E., Alder, A., Göbel, A., McArdell, C.S., Ternes, T. and Siegrist,
H. (2005) Removal of pharmaceuticals and fragrances in biological wastewater
treatment. Water Res., 39(14), 3139–3152.
23. Joss, A., Zabczynski, S., Göbel, A., Hoffmann, B., Löffler, D., McArdell, C.S.,
Ternes, T.A., Thomsen, A. and Siegrist, H. (2006) Biological degradation of
pharmaceuticals in municipal wastewater treatment: proposing a classification
scheme. Water Res., 40(8), 1686–1696.
Page | 106
24. Kennedy, S. and Churchouse, S.J. (2005) Progress in membrane bioreactors:
new advances, Proceedings of Water and Wastewater Europe Conference,
Milan, June2005.
25. Lawrence, D., Ruiken, C., Piron, D., Kiestra, F. and Schemen, R. (2005) Dutch
MBR Development: Reminiscing the Past Five Years, H2O, 36–29. Metcalf, Eddy.
(2003) Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse (3rd edn). McGraw-Hill,
New York.
26. Maxwell, S. (2005) the state of the water industry 2005, a concise overview of
trends and opportunities in the water business, The Environmental
Benchmarker and Strategist Annual Water Issue.
27. Qin, J.-J., Kekre, K.A., Guihe, T., Ooa, M.-H., Wai, M.-N., Lee, T.C., Viswanath,
B. and Seah, H. (2005) New option of MBR-RO process for production of
NEWater from domestic sewage. J. Membrane Sci.
28. Schyns, P., Petri, C., van Bentem, A. and Kox, L. (2003) MBR Varsseveld, a
Demonstration of Progression, H2O, 10–12.
29. Tao, G., Kekre, K., Wei, Z., Lee, T.C., Viswanath, B. and Seah, H. (2005)
Membrane bioreactors for water reclamation. Water Sci. Technol., 51(6–7), 431–
440.
30. Ternes, T.A., Joss, A. and Siegrist, H. (2004) Scrutinizing pharmaceuticals and
personal care products in wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol., 38(20),
393A–399A.
31. Van der Roest, H.F., Lawrence, D.P. and van Bentem, A.G.N. (2002) Membrane
Bioreactors for Municipal Wastewater Treatment. IWA Publishing.
32. Voet Donald and Voet Judith G., 1995. Biochemistry. 2 Nd ed. New York:John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
33. WEF (2006) Membrane systems for wastewater treatment. Water Environment
Foundation, WEFPress/McGraw-Hill, New York.
34. Yang, W., Cicek, N. and Ilg, J. (2006) State-of-the-art of membrane bioreactors:
worldwide research and commercial applications in North America. J.
Membrane Sci., 270, 201–211.
Page | 107
Appendices
Q = Influent Flowrate
Given: BOD in domestic wastewater entering Primary Settling Tank = 307 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Therefore;
Page | 108
184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 −40𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
BOD Removal Efficiency in MBR = × 100 = 78%
184𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Hence;
Typical recycle ratio for conventional activated sludge process = 0.25 – 0.50
Therefore;
Also by the methodology of Shu Dar lin (2005), 𝑄𝑅 can be expresses as follows:
𝑄0 (𝑥 − 𝑥0 )
𝑄𝑅 =
𝑥𝑤 − 𝑥
Whereby:
𝑥𝑤 = 3893.07 𝑔⁄𝑚3
Also;
𝑄𝑅 𝑋
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = =
𝑄0 𝑋𝑅 − 𝑋
Page | 109
Whereby:
2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝑋𝑅 − 2500 𝑔⁄𝑚3
Waste Activated Sludge: QW = Waste flow from recycle waste line, 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝜇𝑋𝑉 𝑑𝑆
(𝑄0 𝑆0 + 𝑄𝑅 𝑆𝐸 ) − (𝑄0 + 𝑄𝑅 )𝑆𝐸 − = 𝑉
𝑌 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑆
𝑉=0
𝑑𝑡
At steady state
𝜇𝑋𝑉
= 𝑄0 𝑆0 − 𝑄0 𝑆𝐸
𝑌
𝜇 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
= 𝑓⁄𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 =
𝑌 𝑉𝑥
𝑆0 = 184 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Page | 110
Therefore:
𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑅 = 𝐵𝑂𝐷𝑊𝐴𝑆 = 40 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Flow Balance
Influent Flow Q0 = 70,000 m3/day
As calculated:
BOD Efficiency = 78 %
Therefore:
Assuming:
Page | 111
𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑂𝑈𝑇 = 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝐸 + 𝑁𝐻3 − 𝑁𝑊𝐴𝑆
Since nitrification occurs, let 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 be the amount of nitrates obtained by the
nitrification of ammonia.
Therefore:
Since 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑖𝑛 = 1200 Kg⁄day 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑁𝑂3 − 𝑁𝑥 = 5031.2 Kg⁄day
Page | 112
Phosphorus Balance on the membrane skid
Overall Balance:
𝑃𝑅 = 24.5 Kg⁄day
By the methodology of Frank R. Spellman (2013), the power requirement for aeration is
calculated as follows:
Whereby:
Page | 113
P is the atmospheric pressure
η is the efficiency of the blower which is normally within the range 70%-80%
Pdis = discharge pressure of blower which varies between 1.7 and 2.4 bar for fine
bubble diffusers. Therefore:
Whereby:
Radius of clarifier, R = 13 m
Hence;
kg
𝑇 = 29.8 m × 13.02 𝑚2 = 5036.2 𝐾𝑔. 𝑚 = 49,405.12 𝑁𝑚
𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑒𝑑
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑞𝑢𝑒 × 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑇 ×
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠
From N.F Gray (2005), the speed of rakes varies between 3-6m/min and taking an
average speed; Speed of rake = 4.5m/min = 0.075m/s
Page | 114
Speed of rake 0.075 𝑚⁄𝑠
𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑉𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 = = = 0.00577 𝑟𝑎𝑑⁄𝑠
𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 13.0𝑚
Hence:
Since 6 clarifiers are used, overall power requirements= 6841.68 x 6 = 41.05 kWh/d
Assumption:
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 7566.7
Flowrate of biogas = = = 6412.46 m3/d
𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 1.18
Page | 115
Appendix C: SIZING
Sizing of the MBR
5 + 15
𝑆𝑅𝑇 = = 10 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠
2
𝐹 0.2 + 0.4
𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = = 0.3
𝑚 2
The lower the f/m ratio, the lower the rate of metabolism and the greater the BOD
removal and sludge settleability. However, as removal efficiency increases so does the
overall oxygen demand of the system and so the overall cost of BOD removal. F/m
ratio is also the rate of BOD or COD applied per unit volume of mixed liquor.
From Metcalf and Eddy, 2003; F/M ratio can be expressed as:
𝐹 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
=
𝑀 𝑉𝑥
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑏𝑦:
𝑆𝐸 = 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡𝐵𝑂𝐷, 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
Page | 116
V = Volume of Aeration tank, 𝑚3
𝐹 𝑄0 (𝑆0 − 𝑆𝐸 )
=
𝑀 𝑉𝑥
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑏𝑦:
𝑄0 = 70,000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Assuming that the bioreactor have a concentration varying in the range 2000 𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿-
3000𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿 Hence, an average MLSS concentration is calculated which equals to 2500
𝑚𝑔⁄𝐿
𝑉 = 14934 𝑚3
Assuming depth 4 m and width 4.4 m typical length to width ratio for MBR
Therefore:
Width = 4.4 m
Length = 44 m
14934 𝑚3
𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 = = 3733.33 𝑚2
4𝑚
Page | 117
3733.33 𝑚2
𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑠 = = 19.28 = 20 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑠
4.4 𝑚 × 44𝑚
Therefore:
Total surface area of the Aeration tank = 42.5m × (4.4m × 20) = 3740 𝑚2
Oxygen Requirements
Therefore:
8960 Kg / day
Air Requirement = = 7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
1.202 Kg/𝑚3
Page | 118
7454.24 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝐴𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 = 3
= 0.106 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑟⁄𝑚3 𝑤𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
70000 𝑚 𝑑𝑎𝑦⁄
1565.40 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓 𝑂2⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑂𝑥𝑦𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 = = 0.022 𝑚3 𝑜𝑓𝑂2⁄𝑚3 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
70000 𝑚3 ⁄𝑑𝑎𝑦
Shape Rectangular
Liquid depth 7m
Diffuser submergence 7m
SRT 10 days
Page | 119
𝐾𝑔
BOD vol. loading 0.938
𝑚3 . 𝑑𝑎𝑦
F/M 0.3
Appendix D: Costing
Purchased Equipment Table
Equipment Quantity Price US Price US $ Supplier
$/ unit
Screening
Shandong
Jinhaosanyang
mechanical bar Environmental
2 13943 27886
screens Protection
Equipment
Co.LTD
Oil and Grease trap (APl)
ORGANIC
Oil and grease
1 616552 616552 BIOTECH PVT
separator
LTD
Centrifugal grit Shijazhuang An
3 27.13 81.39
pump pump Co.LTD
Coagulation and Flocculation
Jiangyin Fine
Alum dosing Chemical
1 1500 1500
tank Machinery
Co.LTD
Jiangyin Fine
Mixer 1 150 150
Chemical
Page | 120
Machinery
Co.LTD
Rapid mixing tank
Flat-Blade
Shaghai Special
Radial Flow
6 120 720 Metal Co.
Turbine
LTD
Impeller
Shijazhuang An
Chemical feed
1 100.96 100.96 Pump
pump
CO.LTD
Flocculation Tank
Centrifugal Shijazhuang An
6 866.86 5201.16
pump pump Co.ltd
Shijazhuang An
6 48500 291000
pump Co.ltd
Shijazhuang An
6 903.89 5423.34
pump Co.ltd
Equalization tank
Centrifugal Shijazhuang An
4 2000 8000
pumps pump Co.ltd
Primary 2 755721.67 1511443.34 Shijazhuang An
clarifier pump Co.ltd
Reciprocating 6 18266.67 109600 Shijazhuang An
pump pump Co.ltd
Centrifuge+ 1 617702.60 617702.60 Shijazhuang An
ancillaries pump Co.ltd
Heat exchanger
Shell and tube Hangzhou Sante
heat exchanger 3 200000 600000 Pharmaceutical
+ Chemical
Page | 121
baffles and Equipment Co.,
tubing + all Ltd.
inlet and
outlet piping
Hangzhou Sante
Pharmaceutical
Diesel boiler 1 700000 700000 Chemical
Equipment Co.,
Ltd.
Hangzhou Sante
Pharmaceutical
Gas boiler 1 90000 90000 Chemical
Equipment Co.,
Ltd.
Membrane Bio-reactor + Module Membrane
Shandong
Jinhaosanyang
Environmental
Bio reactor 1 150550 150550
Protection
Equipment Co.,
Ltd.
Shandong
Jinhaosanyang
Environmental
Bio digester 1 4000 4000
Protection
Equipment Co.,
Ltd.
Membrane
with
1 69750 69750 Microdyne-Nadir
membranes
incorporated
Page | 122
Centrifugal Shijazhuang An
3 2000 6000
pump pump Co.ltd
Chlorination
1 104000 104000
system
Centrifugal Shijazhuang An
4 2000 8000
pump pump Co.ltd
Biogas treatment
Dongtai
Dongjiang
Biogas cooler 1 7000 7000 Shipping
Assembly Co.,
Ltd.
Dongtai
Dongjiang
Reciprocal with
1 75000 75000 Shipping
inter-cooling
Assembly Co.,
Ltd.
Packed Tower 1 175000 175000 www.alibaba.com
Zhengzhou
Packing Macro Imp. &
- 9000 9000
materials Exp.
Co., Ltd.
Taian Luqiang
Flash Tank 1 450000 450000 Metal Vessel
CO LTD
Taian Luqiang
Stripping tower 1 300000 300000 Metal Vessel
CO LTD
Double
membrane gas 4 2000 8000
holder
Page | 123
Taian Luqiang
Absorber 3 100000 300000 Metal Vessel
CO LTD
Sand filter 1 155000 155000
Total valves
- 1000000 100000
and accessories
Total Purchase equipment cost Rs: 159268246
Bar screen
Price = $7340 – 20546
API
For a cross sectional area of 20 m², price was $ 105 000 in 2007
For our design, cross sectional area = 60 m², hence price = (105000 × 60)/20 = $ 315000
The cost of the API separator in 2015 can be obtained by the use of the following
formula:
Cost of equipment A =
This equation is applicable for capacity that are increased by a maximum of 10 times
the capacity of the old equipment.
Price = US $ 120/unit
Page | 124
Capacity = 2 L/s
Price = US $ 500/unit
Cost of chemical feed pump for capacity 0.139 L/s = 500 × (0.139 ÷ 2)0.6
= US $ 100.96/unit
Flocculation Tank
Horizontal Paddle Wheels Flocculator (Ms Candice Zhu – Alibaba.com)
Price = US $ 1000/unit
Cost of centrifugal pump for capacity 624.17 m3/h = 1000 × (624.17 ÷ 792)0.6
= US $ 866.86/unit
Costing
Primary clarifiers
Theory:
Page | 125
Cost index values1:
Year Cost Index
2007 525.4
2015 767.2
Primary Clarifiers
The cost of the primary clarifier can be calculated using the formula2 below:
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎
Cost of equipment a = cost of equipment b × (𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑏)0.6
Now,
1000
Cost of equipment a = 130,000 × ( 100 )0.6 = $ 517,539.32
1
Information retrieved from a pdf online at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/mypp_nov_2011_appendix_c.pdf , p.C-11
2
Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers, 4th Edition, Peters et al, p.169
3
Rule Thumb in Engineering, D. Woods, p.408
Page | 126
767.2
Present cost in 2015 = 517,539.32 (525.4) = $755,721.67
Therefore,
Pumps
The cost of a reciprocating pump in 2007 was $ 12,500
767.2
Present cost of one pump = 12,500(525.4) = $ 18,266.67
2909
Cost of centrifuge = 320,000 × (26500)0.6 = $ 338,416
767.2
Present cost of centrifuge = 338,416(525.4) = $494,162.08
Cost of Ancillaries
The cost of the centrifuge and its ancillaries represent a share of 60% and 15%
respectively in the capital cost (Directorate General Water Engineering Research and
Development Division, n.d.). Hence,
494,162.08
Present cost of ancillaries = 0.15×( ) = $123,540.52
0.6
Summary:
Page | 127
Reciprocating pump 6 18,266.67 109,600
Centrifuge+ 1 617,702.60 617,702.60
ancillaries
Total direct cost = 0.3255 x PEC = 0.3255 X 159 268 246 = RS 523 196 190
Page | 128
Total indirect cost = 0.136 x PEC = 0.136x 159 268 246 = RS 216 604 815
∴ FCI = 523 196 190 + 216 604 815 = RS 739 801 005
1. Raw materials
No raw materials are necessary hence the cost for raw materials will be zero.
2. Operating labor
Available data:
One employee will work 9 hours per day and there will be shift system.
Note: the salary of each personnel member is taken from PRB, 2003
Page | 129
Page | 130
Manufacturing cost = Direct production cost +Fixed charges + Plant overhead cost
Page | 131
Calculations for depreciation cost
The straight line method is used to calculate the overall depreciation of the equipment.
The fixed % factor is then evaluated by the double declining method. The depreciation
of the equipment over the whole service lifetime is calculated by using the declining
balance method.
1. Equipment depreciation
Available data:
Page | 132
= 159 268 246
2. Building depreciation
Available data:
The Wastewater Management Authority sells its treated effluent for irrigation at Rs
0.80/m3 and at the
Saint Martin Treatment work the treated water is sold at Rs 0.75/m3. In order to
compete with them, the treated water will be sold at Rs 0.50 /m3.
Page | 133
Typical price of compost on the Mauritian market is Rs 25/kg. Since the waste water
treatment plant is providing the compost plant with raw material, the dewatered
sludge will be sold at Rs 10/kg.
Total income = 13 324 863 + 264 463 232= Rs277 788 095
∴ Total profit = 277 788 095 -160 596 085= Rs 117 192 010
Page | 134
forward way of analyzing the profitability of an investment and is sensitive to the
reliability of future cash inflows that an investment or project will yield.
Where:
Page | 135
NPV = ΣV0 – TCI
Page | 136
For V0 = 12%, the NPV = ΣV0*Annual cash Inflow - Initial Investment
= Rs1203867796
= Rs438100730.9
= Rs183502349.6
= Rs9940702
= Rs -209342970.9
∴K= 30.45
IRR = 30.45 %
Page | 137
Discounted Payback Period
A capital budgeting procedure used to determine the profitability of a project. In
contrast to an NPV analysis, which provides the overall value of a project, a
discounted payback period gives the number of years it takes to break even from
undertaking the initial expenditure. Future cash flows are considered are discounted
to time "zero." This procedure is similar to a payback period; however, the payback
period only measure how long it take for the initial cash outflow to be paid back,
ignoring the time value of money.
= RS 870354123
Assumption: Rate, K = 9 %
Page | 138