See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233602938

Model-Based Optimum Design of Sequencing Batch Reactors for COD and

Nitrogen Removal from a Slaughterhouse Wastewater

Article · January 2006

DOI: 10.2175/193864706783763020

CITATIONS READS

3 223

4 authors, including:

Zhi-rong Hu Spencer Snowling

Zhejiang Gongshang University Independent Researcher
28 PUBLICATIONS   525 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Oliver John Schraa

inCTRL Solutions Inc.
79 PUBLICATIONS   137 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Model Development View project

Mainstream Partial Nitritation Anammox View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Oliver John Schraa on 26 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WEFTEC®.06

MODEL-BASED OPTIMUM DESIGN OF SEQUENCING BATCH

REACTORS FOR COD AND NITROGEN REMOVAL FROM A
SLAUGHTERHOUSE WASTEWATER

Hank Andres, Zhi-rong Hu, Spencer Snowling, Oliver Schraa

Hydromantis, Inc. 1685 Main St. W., Suite 302, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S1G5

ABSTRACT

A dynamic model of the activated sludge process was used to analyze and optimize the operation
of an SBR treating slaughterhouse wastewater. The existing treatment cycle (duration of fill,
aeration, mix, decanting and wasting periods) was found to be inadequate for meeting effluent
requirements under a number of different loading scenarios. Modelling analysis indicated that
the aeration phase was too long and the settling phase too short. Simulation of a new SBR cycle
operation, in which the superfluous time in the aeration phase was distributed to the settling
phase and a new anoxic phase, confirmed that the unit could meet the stringent effluent
requirements. Using an iterative approach, optimal cycle settings were determined for each of
the loading and temperature scenarios investigated.

KEYWORDS

SBR, slaughterhouse, model, simulation, process optimization, nitrogen, COD

INTRODUCTION

The Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) is an activated sludge process designed to accommodate
both biological reactions and solid–liquid separation in a time sequence in the same tank.
Currently, sequencing batch reactor (SBR) technology is a well-promoted and tested alternative,
which has a relatively low cost and small footprint. The SBR process offers flexibility of
operation, where the sequence of successive phases can be adjusted to create the required
combination of the growth conditions for different groups of microorganisms to remove different
contaminants from wastewater, i.e.:

• aerobic for COD removal only,

• aerobic/anoxic for COD/nitrogen removal and
• aerobic/anoxic/anaerobic for COD/nitrogen/phosphorus removal.

The number of biological processes and components, together with the complexity of SBR
hydraulics, can make it very difficult to evaluate and optimize the performance solely based on
experience and steady state analysis.

A dynamic mathematical model is an extremely useful tool for analyzing complex processes.
Mathematical simulation models provide quantitative descriptions of the dynamic behavior of
the system, providing predictions of the system response and performance under various
operating conditions. From these predictions, design and operational parameters can be
identified and optimized to maximize system performance (Hu 2001).

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

5100
 WEFTEC®.06

For this purpose, a number of mathematical activated sludge models have been developed over
the last two decades. These models fall into two general categories:

1) those that model COD removal/nitrification/denitrification (e.g. UCTOLD, Dold et al.,

1991; ASM1, Henze et al., 1987), and

2) those that model COD removal/nitrification/denitrification/biological P removal (e.g.

UCTPHO, Wentzel et al., 1992; ASM2d, Henze et al., 1999).

These models have been used extensively over the past decade to analyze and optimize activated
sludge plants of various types. This paper will focus on the case study of one SBR plant where
model-based analysis was used to optimize process operation for optimal treatment.

MODELING METHODOLOGY

A case study is presented in this paper to demonstrate how a simulation model can be used to
evaluate and optimize the performance for COD and nitrogen removal of a SBR plant designed
using a conventional experience-based approach. For this purpose, a simulation model for a
specific SBR plant was first developed by using the IWA ASM1 model (Henze et al., 1987), and
implemented in GPS-X™ simulator (Hydromantis, 2003). The developed simulation model was
then used to evaluate and optimize the SBR plant by simulating the SBR performance under
various operating conditions against the design criteria.

SBR Plant

The SBR plant being studied was originally analyzed by the University of the Basque Country
(Unai Iriarte, 2003), and treats a wastewater stream from a commercial slaughterhouse operation.
The influent characteristics for the SBR plant are shown in Table 1. Table 2 summarizes the
physical design parameters of the treatment plant.

Table 1: SBR Influent Characteristics

Influent Parameter Value
BOD5 147 mg/L
TSS 98 mg/L
TKN 34 mgN/L
NO3 0 mgN/L
Total Average Influent Flow 30,000 m3/d (7.9 MGD)
Total Average Peak Flow 49,000 m3/d (12.9 MGD)

Table 2: SBR Physical Design Parameters

Design Parameter Value
Trains 4
Volume of Each Reactor 5,700 m3 (1.5 MGal)
Total Reactor Volume 22,800 m3 (6.0 MGal)
Water Level 5.13m – 6.5m (low/high water levels)

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

5101
 WEFTEC®.06

The original cycle settings are shown in the center of Table 3. The design objectives for effluent
and maximum MLSS in the reactor for the SBR plant are shown in Table 4.

Table 3: Cycle Settings for the Designed and Optimal SBR Process
SBR Phases Phase length (minutes)
filling and mixing 45
Filling
filling and aeration 45
Aeration only 135
Mix only (anoxic) -
Settling 55
Decant 60
Desludge 20
Total cycle length 360

Table 4: Desired Effluent Quality and MLSS

Parameter Design Objectives (mg/L)
Effluent CBOD5 15
Effluent TSS 20
Effluent NH4 3
Effluent NO3 15, 10, 5 *
Maximum MLSS 3000
*
Effluent standard under 100C (winter), 130C (average) and 200C (summer) conditions.

The SBR plant model was developed by using the SBR unit process object in the GPS-X
simulation platform. The hydraulic operation combines the CSTR and secondary clarifier
together. The SBR model is sectioned into a number of layers, each with its own volume, the
sum of which will produce the total volume.

The layout of the SBR plant model used in this project includes an influent object, a four-way
splitter (to direct the flow to each of the SBR trains), four SBR units in parallel, and a holding
tank to collect the decant effluent from the SBRs (see Figure 1). It operates under four 6-hour
cycles per day.

The ASM1 model was used for biological processes and the BOD-based influent model for
influent characterization. Default values for all kinetic and stoichiometric parameters in the
ASM1 model (Henze et al., 1987) were used for the simulations.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

5102
 WEFTEC®.06

Figure 1: The layout of the SBR plant model

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The model was used to evaluate whether the SBR plant would meet the effluent quality and the
reactor mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) requirement (less than 3000 mg/L) with the
original cycle settings. This evaluation was conducted at 3 different temperatures (10oC/50 oF,
13oC/55 oF, and 20oC/68 oF) for both the “average” (30,000 m3/d, 7.9 MGD), and “peak” (49,000
m3/d, 12.9 MGD) flow rates. In cases where the performance requirements were not met, the
model was used to adjust and optimize the cycle setting to meet the effluent and reactor MLSS
requirements.

Evaluation of Original SBR Design Cycles

Six different simulation scenarios were evaluated using the original SBR cycle settings. The
influent characteristics (TSS, TKN, BOD5, etc.) were kept the same for all simulations. The
simulation results are shown in Table 5, alongside the design objectives.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

5103
 WEFTEC®.06

Table 5: Predicted Effluent Quality and MLSS for the Original SBR Design
Max.
CBOD5 TSS NH4 NO3
Parameters MLSS
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L*
mg/L
Design objectives 15 20 3 15 10 5 3000
Scenario 1 T =10 0C; Average Flow 4.1 24.6 0.04 12.6 2400
Scenario 2 T =10 0C; Peak Flow 7.6 34.1 0.06 12.4 1800
Scenario 3 T =13 0C; Average Flow 3.8 23.9 0.04 12.7 2300
Scenario 4 T =13 0C; Peak Flow 7.2 33.6 0.05 12.4 1700
Scenario 5 T =20 0C; Average Flow 3.4 23.7 0.04 12.5 2100
Scenario 6 T =20 0C; Peak Flow 6.3 32.9 0.05 12.6 1600
*
Effluent standard under 100C/50 oF, (winter), 130C/55 oF (average) and 200C/68 oF (summer) conditions,
respectively.

The simulations based on the original SBR cycle settings showed that the maximum reactor
MLSS concentration (measured during the aeration phase) was below 3000 mg/L for all six
simulation scenarios, but that the effluent quality did not always meet the design objectives. At a
temperature of 10oC, the effluent requirements were met for BOD5, ammonia, and NO3, but the
effluent TSS concentrations exceeded the design objectives. At temperatures of 13oC and 20oC,
the effluent requirements were met for BOD5 and ammonia, but not for TSS or NO3.

SBR Cycle Optimization

An extensive simulation study was performed to optimize the SBR cycle settings, with the goal
of meeting all design objectives. This was carried out as a sensitivity analysis, by increasing and
decreasing the duration of each phase of the SBR cycle, and observing the resultant impact on
effluent quality. The sensitivity study indicated that the higher-than-desired effluent TSS
concentrations were due to insufficient settling time during one SBR operational cycle.

The sensitivity analysis also found that the total aeration time of 180 minutes was longer than
necessary, given the loading of COD and nitrogen to the reactor. To illustrate this, the oxygen
uptake rate (OUR) was plotted versus time for the duration of the aeration phase. Figure 2 shows
the results for the average influent flow and 20oC scenario. The graph indicates that the OUR
decreases substantially after the first 50 minutes of the total 180 minutes of aeration time. This
information was used to optimize the length of the aeration phase.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

5104
 WEFTEC®.06

Oxygen Uptake Rate During Aeration Phase (Scenario 3)

90
80
70
OUR (gO2/m /h)

60
3

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 25 50 75 100
Time (minutes)

Figure 2: Oxygen uptake rate during aeration Phase –Original cycle setting

Lastly, it was determined that an anoxic phase could be added following the aeration phase to
promote denitrification, thereby reducing the effluent NO3 concentration. By implementing
changes based on information from the sensitivity analysis, the cycle settings were adjusted to
meet the effluent requirements in all six scenarios. The optimized cycle settings are shown in
Table 6. The simulation results with the optimal cycle settings are shown in Table 7, alongside
the design objectives. All design objectives are met under all scenarios with the exception of the
effluent NO3 at peak loading and 20ºC/68 ºF.

Table 6: Cycle Settings for the Designed and Optimal SBR Process
Phase length (minutes)
SBR Phases Originally Designed cycle optimal cycle setting for each scenario
settings for all scenarios 1 2 3 4 5 6
Filling filling and mixing 45 30 30 30 30 30 0
filling and aeration 45 60 60 50 60 60 70
Aeration only 135 40 20 0 60 50 0
Mix only (anoxic) - 30 50 110 0 20 90
Settling 55 120 120 90 160 150 150
Decant 60 60 60 60 30 30 30
Desludge 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Total cycle length 360 360 360 360 360 360 360

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

5105
 WEFTEC®.06

Table 7: Predicted Effluent Quality and MLSS for the Optimized SBR Designs
Max
CBOD5 TSS NH4 NO3*
Parameters MLSS
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L
mg/L
Design objectives 15 20 3 15 10 5 3000
0
Scenario 1 T =10 C; Average Flow 3.0 15.1 0.7 7.2 2400
Scenario 2 T =10 0C; Peak Flow 4.9 17.7 1.7 10.9 1800
Scenario 3 T =13 0C; Average Flow 3.2 14.0 1.0 7.1 2300
Scenario 4 T =13 0C; Peak Flow 5.3 18.4 2.2 10.0 1700
Scenario 5 T =20 0C; Average Flow 3.4 17.0 2.8 3.8 2100
Scenario 6 T =20 0C; Peak Flow 5.1 18.1 3.0 5.9 1600
*
Effluent standard under 100C/50 oF, (winter), 130C/55 oF (average) and 200C/68 oF (summer) conditions,
respectively.

These results are based upon a detailed influent characterization, and use the default values of
stoichiometric/kinetic parameters in the ASM1 model (Henze et al., 1987). In the future,
additional simulation effort may be undertaken to further optimize the modified SBR cycle
settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study illustrates the benefits of simulation for evaluation and optimization of the
operation of an SBR treating a high strength industrial wastewater. The operational
improvements indicated by the simulations were as follows:
• high effluent TSS concentrations in the baseline operation were due to inadequate settling
time in the secondary clarifiers,
• the aeration stage in the baseline operation was far longer than necessary, consuming
excess energy with no additional benefit,
• a reduction in the time for the aeration stage could be used to provide an anoxic stage to
promote denitrification, and
• the SBR treatment cycle could be optimized to meet the stringent effluent criteria for
average and peak flow conditions, as well as winter, spring and summer wastewater
temperatures, with the exception of the effluent NO3 at peak loading and 20ºC/68 ºF.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the help and assistance of Unai Iriarte and the Chemical
Engineering Department of the University of the Basque Country, Spain.

REFERENCES

Dold P.L., Wentzel M.C., Billing A.E., Ekama G.A. and Marais G.v.R. (1991) Activated sludge
simulation programs: Version 1.0 Nitrification and nitrification/denitrification systems.
Pub. by Water Research Commission, P/Bag X03, Gezina 0031, South Africa.
Henze M., Grady C.P.L. (Jr), Gujer W., Marais G.v.R and Matsuo T. (1987) Activated Sludge
Model No.1. IAWQ Scientific and Technical Report No.1, IAWQ, London. 33pp.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

5106
 WEFTEC®.06

Henze M., Gujer W., Mino T., Matsuo T., Wentzel M.C., Marais G.v.R. and Van Loosdrecht
(1999) Activated sludge model No. 2d. Wat. Sci. Tech., 39 (1), 165-182.
Hydromantis Consulting Engineers, GPS-X Version 4.1.2 (June 2003)
Hu Zhi-rong (2001). External nitrification biological nutrient removal activated sludge systems –
development and modelling, Ph.D thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Cape
Town, South Africa.
Unai Iriarte, (2003) Personal communication
Wentzel M.C., Ekama G.A., Marais G.v.R (1992) Process and modelling of nitrification
denitrification biological excess phosphorus removal systems - a review. Wat. Sci. Tech.,
25 (6), 59 - 82.

Copyright ©2006 Water Environment Foundation. All Rights Reserved

5107
View publication stats