Research Progress on Corn Starch Wastewater
Treatment Process
ZHANG Chunyang1, ZHANG Congju1, LIU Jianguang2, HAN Lichao2
1. School of Thermal Energy Engineering; Shandong Jianzhu University; Jinan 250101 China
2. School of Municipal and Environmental Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan, 250101,China;
Abstract: The reclamation approaches and treatment
technology process of corn starch wastewater were re-
viewed. contamination Characteristic of corn starch
wastewater were concentration high and biodegradable,
and the reclamation potential was huge. Treatment tech-
nologies included biological treatment, physical chemistry
treatment, biological pond and photosynthetic bacteria
process. The optimized combine treatment process of re-
source reclamation from corn starch wastewater and treat-
ment technology was recommended.
Keywords: anaerobic, wastewater treatment, Corn Starch
Wastewater, reclamation
1 Introduction
Starch is a kind of important industrial raw materials and
widely used in the food, chemistry, textile, pharmaceutical
industry, etc. In the production and processing process of
starch, a large amount of high concentrated organic
wastewater is discharged, which mainly contains organic
matters such as starch, fiber, protein, etc. Once these or-
ganic matters are discharged into the water, it will lead to
severe water pollution and bring repercussion to the sur-
vival environment of human beings. Therefore, starch
wastewater should be processed to meet the standard be-
fore discharging. Further, the high concentration of organic
matter in the water has revealed significant resource poten-
tial.
2 Quality of the corn starch wastewater
The wastewater generated by the production of corn starch
can be divided into two parts, namely the pickling liquid
and process water. The former contains high content of
organic matters, mostly protein, but little water; and the
latter is generated by the whole production process of
broking corn, removing embryo and drying starch and
___________________________________
978-1-4244-9577-1/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE

contains a lot of water which is about 4-5 times of the for-
mer. The pickling liquid is high concentrated organic
wastewater with the characteristic of four high and one low,
namely high CODCr (8,000 ~ 15000mg/L), high suspended
solids (SS) (1000 ~ 3000mg/L), high total nitrogen value
(240 ~ 540mg/L), high concentration of phosphate (in P
plan, about 15 ~ 130mg/L), and low pH (4.2 -5). The proc-
ess water is medium concentrated organic wastewater with
CODCr value in 2000 ~ 3500mg/L, not high ammonia ni-
trogen and phosphate concentration, respectively 20mg/L
and more than 14 ~ 32mg/L.
From the analysis of the above data, it can be concluded
that: (1) Corn starch wastewater is rich in carbohydrates
and nitrogen, phosphorus nutrients, belonging to better
biochemical high concentrated organic wastewater, which
is suitable for high concentration organic wastewater
treatment by biochemical process. (2) Wastewater sus-
pended solids and the colloid protein content is relatively
high, which will produce adverse impact to the develop-
ment of the anaerobic activated sludge system. (3) Corn
immersion process will produce a small number SO32 -. In
anaerobic treatment process, these sulfur-containing com-
pounds are deoxidized to hydrogen sulphide by microor-
ganisms, which is likely to produce certain inhibition on
the anaerobic system.
3 Corn starch wastewater treatment technology situa-
tion
3.1 Biological treatment method
Biological treatment method is to use the effect of the mi-
crobial metabolism, which degrades and converts the dis-
solution and colloid organic pollutants into harmless mate-
rial. The method of purifying wastewater can generally be
divided into anaerobic biological treatment and aerobic
biological treatment. Due to the characteristics of high or-
ganic matter in starch wastewater and difficulty in the
 
process, single biological treatment method is rarely used
and is usually combined to other kinds of biological treat-
ments. By this way, it can make its advantages and disad-
vantages to supplement each other and improve the effi-
ciency.
3.1.1 Anaerobic-aerobic combination
Anaerobic biological treatment can decompose a large
amount of high concentration organic compounds and
produce methane, while aerobic biological treatment is
used as the follow-up process to further remove the resid-
ual organic matters. The combination of these two methods
has a higher efficiency thereby applying in the practical
production process as a whole subject.
Wang Rongmin etc used the three-phase anaerobic-aerobic
one-piece baffle plate bioreactor and added inorganic
polymer abandoned packing rubber as the adherent grow-
ing packing for the aerobic microbes. According to the
result, in temperature between 25 to 35 ć, pH 5.0 ~ 850
and the three-phase anaerobic-aerobic one-piece baffle
plate bioreactor effluent 200mg/L COD concentration be-
low, COD total removal rate topped 98.7%;Effluent am-
monia nitrogen in 10mg/L or so, ammonia nitrogen re-
moval topped 82.3%, which makes the effluent water
standard.
Yang Kaiming and Yang Xiaolin etc introduced a UBF -
CASS combination process to handle starch wastewater in
the northwestern starch company. CODCr tanking water is
reduced by 12000mg/L to 125mg/L, NH3 - N is reduced
by the original 160mg/L to 20mg/L, BOD5 and SS re-
moval rates reached 99.4% and 87% respectively, which
makes the effluent water to achieve the secondary standard.
The system has high impact resistance for strong capability
of load, stable operation effect in biochemical treatment
unit. Moreover, the generated biogas and protein feed all
can have certain economic benefits.
Shi Hui etc used EGSB - A/O combination process to han-
dle high concentration starch wastewater in a starch com-
pany in Si Ping City. The result indicates that the process-
ing high concentration starch wastewater by methods is
completely feasible. When COD for wastewater is
8000~10000mg/L, the COD for processed wastewater is
less than 100mg/L; the reactor COD is stable in 20kg /

(m3·d) or so; the combination process on COD, BOD5, SS
and NH3 - N can reach removal rates 99.1%, 99.6%,82%
and 96% respectively, which reaches the national sewage
comprehensive level 1 emission standard.
3.1.2 Anaerobic biological treatment method
The main processes in anaerobic biological treatment of
handling starch wastewater have ShengLiuShi anaerobic
sludge bed (UASB), anaerobic baffle plate reactor (ABR),
anaerobic fluidized bed (AFB), anaerobic contact method
(ACP), two-phase anaerobic digestion method (TPAD) and
anaerobic filter (AF), etc.
ShengLiuShi anaerobic sludge bed is a kind of anaerobic
reactor based on mature theory. It is developed success-
fully by Lettinga in Wageningen agricultural university in
the Netherlands in 1977. It has a lot of merits, such as high
volume load rate and high sludge load rate etc and it is
widely used in engineering. Li Yafeng etc introduced re-
actor UASB treatment effect used for starch wastewater
treatment in a Shandong company. This company adopted
2 UASB reactors whose diameter was 20m and height was
6.8m in starch wastewater anaerobic biological treatment.
Meanwhile, COD volume load was 8kg / (m3 · for d) with
stable treatment effect and effluent COD, BOD5, SS re-
moval rates were 83%, 90%, 62% respectively, which sat-
isfied the follow-up process requirements. Zhang Chunyan
analyzed the starch wastewater treatment process in Shan-
dong Qingyuan Food Company and proved that it was
economic and effective to use UASB to process high qual-
ity concentration corn starch wastewater, which operation
cost was low and the treatment effect was stable. It further
determined that the best temperature for the UASB treat-
ment was 35 ~ 40 ć; pH value of 6 ~ 7, CODCr reached
8kg / (d. m3) design load and the removal rate reached
above 90%.
Anaerobic baffle plate reactor used built-in vertical guide
plate to divide the reaction chambers into several relative
independent ShangLiuShi sludge bed systems. Several
small reaction chambers were installed in series, which
makes the processed wastewater flow up and down inter-
nally along its baffle plate. In the mixing effect of the flow
and the producing gases, organic matters in the wastewater
contacted with anaerobic sludge repeatedly and ware able
 
to be removed. Gong Qi adopted the anaerobic baffle plate
reactor in the test of high concentration organic emission
wastewater in a Shandong starch company. The result
showed that: ABR had high removal rate in the middle and
low concentration CODCr organic wastewater, up to 70%
~ 80%; In change of operating conditions, the system op-
eration effect was stable with strong impact load capability;
It has good social and environmental benefits.
Anaerobic fluidized bed adds carriers which are small and
larger than the surface in the reactor, which makes the
biofilm composed of the anaerobic microbes grow in its
surface. The carriers are in fluidized state so the microbes
are easily accessible to the wastewater and the bacteria
have high liveness. The equipment therefore has high
processing efficiency. Luan Jinyi etc combined the bio-
logical fluidized bed with the contact oxidation method,
which made the starch wastewater went through the fluid-
ized biological carriers before going to the packing layer.
This was used to handle the wastewater in a Beijing starch
company and the COD removal rate reached about 90%.
This method can complement the advantages of the bio-
logical fluidized bed technology and the contact oxidation
process, which greatly improved the processing efficiency.
Matsumoto also used anaerobic fluidized bed to handle
starch wastewater. When pH was 5.8, methanogenesis
process will be slightly suppressed, which also proved the
best system operation pH was 6.2. But the operation time
was only 15d and the long-term operation can not be guar-
anteed.
3.1.3 Aerobic biological treatment
Compared with anaerobic biological treatment method,
aerobic biological method has strong handling capability,
good effluent, little occupying space, etc. Currently, it is
applied in a lot of corn starch wastewater treatment, such
as SBR method, CASS method, contact oxidation method,
aerobic pond method, etc.
Jin etc used a set of aeration reactor whose effective vol-
ume was 45L and smallest working volume was 3.5L in
the laboratory. In an inoculation of 10% DAR2710 fungi, it
can translate above 95% of the starch material under 35ć
and initial pH = 4.0 for 14h reaction. COD removal rate
was 95% and per litre wastewater recycling protein was

2.07 ~ 2.39 g. The produced fungus protein was no toxic
and can be used for animal feed with good economic and
environmental benefits. According to the test result of Liao
Xinkai etc, SBR method can effectively deal with high
concentration starch wastewater. In normal temperature,
when the filling starch content was 6.0 g/L and the corre-
sponding CODCr value was 6690mg/L, starch removal rate
and CODCr were 97.0% 94.0% respectively with stable
treatment effect. The anoxia reaction and aeration reaction
of SBR are mutually influenced and restricted. In real ap-
plication, we shall determine a reasonable anoxia and aera-
tion time distribution, which makes the treatment effect to
reach the expectation and reduces the cost to low level.
Liang Jiajun applied A/O technique in handling high con-
centration nitrogen corn starch wastewater. Experiment
result showed that the best hydraulic retention time for
A/O technique was 36.5h~54.5h; the COD removal rates
were 95.3% and 95.5% respectively; the NH3-N removal
rates were 71.4%~81.4%. Extended HRT could further
reduce the content of NH3-N in wastewater but adequate
dosing carbon sources should be added. Compared with
conventional aerobic methods, A/O system runs stably,
consumes relatively low energy, has the same CODCr re-
moval rate, but its effect for removing nitrogen is 3 ~ 4
times of the conventional methods.
3.2 Physical and chemical processing method
3.2.1 Flocculation precipitation method
Flocculating precipitation is a physical and chemical
treatment method, which adds flocculant (sometimes also
need to add coagulant) to reduce the stability of the colloid
solution to condense precipitation. The separating and pu-
rifying method uses simple technique with high efficiency
and low cost. Liu Hui etc applied microbial flocculants
(MBF7) to deal with starch industrial wastewater, which
added 10% CaCl25mLǃMBF720mL to 1L wastewater.
Under the condition of the pH=9, turbidity removal rate
was as high as 96.4%. Poesponegoro separated two strains
cultured Ivk and Ivb in the active sludge of a food com-
pany in order to foster and domesticate them to handle the
starch wastewater as flocculant. They found that when Ivk
was in HRT for 8 ~ 16h, COD removal rate could reach
amount to 84% ~ 95%, and when Ivb was in HRT for 13 ~
 
25h, COD removal rate could reach amount to 77% ~ 96%.
Both of them have obvious treatment effect.
3.2.2 Floating processing method
Floating processing uses high pressure to dissolve a large
amount of vapor gas as working liquid. After sudden de-
compression, it will release countless small bubbles, which
makes the flocculate in the wastewater stick to their surface.
Thus, the proportion of the flocculate is far less than the
actual proportion. Along with the rising of the bubbles, the
flocculate will float to the liquid surface, thereby achieving
the purpose of liquid-solid separation. Mu Jianbo etc took
the wastewater in a Hubei starch company and adopted an
air floating device to conduct an experimental research.
The wastewater infusing drug went through the pump into
the integration device. The micro bubble produced by the
dissolved gas water contacted with the counter-current
wastewater. Floc properties were clinging to the micro
bubble and ejected along with the rising, the disposed wa-
ter below the column went out through the liquid level
control device. According to the experiment and the analy-
sis of the flocculant, floating agent and the operation pa-
rameters on the treatment effect, it is concluded that the
best operating conditions can be achieved in feeding posi-
tion 70cm, air inflow 120L/h, feeding amount 100ml/min
and liquid surface height 127cm.
3.3 Other processing methods
3.3.1 Biological pond method
Biological pond technology uses the natural purification
capacity of water to handle wastewater. This technology
was developed rapidly after 1950s and mostly adopted in
sewage and organic industrial wastewater. According to
the characteristics of high organic content and rich nutri-
tion in starch wastewater, the combination of anaerobic
pond, facultative pond and aerobic pond is applied. Yang
Fengjiang etc designed a method to handle starch waste-
water with ShuiHuLu and XiLuPing based on the water
characteristic of Xinmin Starch Company in Liaoning
military logistic department. The precipitated wastewater
was ejected into the natural oxidation pond to have natural
fermentation. Then, it was ejected into the ShuiHuLu pond
to be purified by 7d and was ejected into the XILuPing to
be purified by 7d again. All these procedures made the ef-

fluent water to achieve farm irrigation water quality. Prac-
tice has proved that through the metabolic process which
contained 4 degree of wastewater handling, 3 steps of
multi-function and multi-system, this method can achieve
all material energy conversion and recycle. Thus, it has
obvious popularized value.
3.3.2 Photosynthetic bacteria method
Photosynthetic bacteria (PSB) are mainly red pseudomonas
genera, which can conduct bad oxygen photosynthesis un-
der anaerobic condition. The organic matters are used as
the carbon sources and the hydrogen body for photosyn-
thesis, being decomposed and removed. Moreover, they are
able to withstand high concentration organic matters. Pho-
tosynthetic bacteria method is also good in removing con-
taminants, such as nitrogen and phosphorus which has
been widely applied to remove waste water in organic pol-
lutants. Wang Yuxin etc separated out a spherical red coli
L2 from the wastewater sludge in Shandong Wen Deng
Starch Company in order to handle the wastewater after
pretreatment. Under appropriate conditions, CODCr re-
moval rate could reach 95.7% which made the wastewater
to meet the effluent standard.
4 Corn starch wastewater recycling technology
There are a lot of researches at home and abroad using mi-
croorganism for starch wastewater resource disposal in-
cluding using starch wastewater to produce single cell pro-
tein, recycling protein for fodder, producing microbial
flocculants, producing polysaccharide, etc.
Li Suyu etc introduced research in a variety of microbial
purification corn starch wastewater synergy. The result
showed that per cubic meter of wastewater could be used
for producing feed additives SCP1.646 kg and could be
turn into resources of protein production. Meanwhile, mi-
crobial synergy still can make wastewater COD removal
rate more than 90% and the purified wastewater COD re-
moval under 300mg/L. Wang Yuanyuan etc used starch
wastewater to tame, and foster mixed microbial flocculants
to cultivate bacterium. Researching on the cultivated con-
dition, they found that in condition of COD concentration
was 4000mg/L; urea was the source of nitrogen; C: N: P =
100:5-2, training time was 42h, culture temperature was 30
ć, wave bed speed was 150r/min, the MBF - 17 floccula-
 
the UASB Reactor Treating Starch Wastewater[J]. Industrial Safety and
tion produced by the compound flocculating agent produce
Environmental Protection, 2010,36˄5˅ ˖1̚2.
bacteria flocculant M17 synthesis was in the best effect. ᴢѮዄˈ䰜⍯ˈ䮿ᯁ. UASB ডᑨ఼໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘᬜᵰঞᕅડ಴㋴[J].
ᎹϮᅝܼϢ⦃ֱˈ2010,36˄5˅ ˖1̚2.
When the flocculant was used in processing breeding [8] ZHANG Chunyan. Study on the UASB reactor treating starch wastewa-
wastewater, printing and dyeing money wastewater the ter[J]. municipal technology, 2008,26˄4˅ ˖334̚336.
ᓴ᯹㡇. UASB Ꮉ㡎໘⧚⥝㉇⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⷨお[J].Ꮦᬓᡔᴃˈ2008,26˄4˅ ˖
highest removal rates of COD, turbidity and chromaticity 334̚336.
are 54%, 88% and 75%. [9] GONG Qi. Study on the ABR reactor treating starch wastewater[J]. Envi-
ron. Sci. Manag. 2009,34˄4˅ ˖94̚97.
5 Conclusions 啮䍋. ABR ໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘⷨお[J].⦃๗⾥ᄺϢㅵ⧚ˈ2009,34˄4˅ ˖94̚
Domestic and international common starch wastewater 97.
[10] RUAN Jinyi, PENG Chengzhong. Starch wastewater treatment with
treatment in general can be divided into biochemical compound fluidized bed [J]. Oil Chemical Engineering, 1990,19˄8˅ ˖560̚
563.
method and chemical flocculation precipitation. COD in Ḓ䞥Нˈᕁ៤Ё.໡ড়⫳⠽⌕࣪ᑞ໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈[J].⷇⊍࣪Ꮉˈ1990,19
starch wastewater is high concentration, so anaerobic bio- ˄8˅ ˖560̚563.
[11] Matsumoto AˈSakamoto M NoiKE T. A new opration of the bohydrate
logical treatment method used as the main process has ad- containing wastewater treatment in a aeobic fludized bed sys-
vantages such as low energy consumption and recycling tem[J].Wat.Sci.Tech..1992,26(9-11):2453̚2456.
[12] Jin B,Van Leeuwen J,Patel B,et al.Production of fungal protein and glu-
resource, which draws increasingly attention. The high coamylase by Rhizopus oligosporus from starch processing wastewa-
ter[J].Process Biochem,1999(34):59̚65.
concentration of effluent in anaerobic treatment method
[13] LIAO Xinkai, LI Qingbiao, CHEN Wenmou et al. Study on Starch Syn-
must pass subsequent aerobic biology and also combine thetic Wastewater Treatment by SBR Process[J]. Journal of Xiamen Uni-
versity(Natural Science), 2004,43˄3˅ ˖376.
with flocculation precipitation and other various methods ᒪ䨿߃ˈᴢ⏙ᔾˈ䰜᭛䇟ˈㄝ.SBR ⊩໘⧚῵ᢳ⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘᎹ㡎ᴵӊⷨ
to achieve better treatment effect and standard effluent to お[J].ॺ䮼໻ᄺᄺ᡹˄㞾✊⾥ᄺ⠜˅ˈ2004,43˄3˅ ˖376.
[14] LIANG Jiajun, GAO Xinhong. model test of Starch wastewater treat-
discharge. Therefore, corn starch wastewater treatment ment with A/O process[J]. Science & Technology Information, 2007ˈ
ideas should put resources at first, recycling dry matter like ˄28˅ ˖317̚322.
ṕᆊ֞ˈ催ᖗ㑶. A/O Ꮉ㡎໘⧚⥝㉇⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘ῵ൟ䆩偠[J].⾥ᡔֵᙃˈ
protein and biomass energy. The treatment procedure 2007ˈ ˄28˅ ˖317̚322.
should be “resource recycling + anaerobic digestion (en- [15] LIU Gengyun, LI Yawei, SAI Yin. Flocculent and Biological Treament
of Starch Wastewater[J]. Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Nei-
ergy recovery) + aerobic biological treatment + physico- mongol, 2002,33˄2˅ ˖230̚235.
߬㗩㗬ˈᴢѮ࿕ˈ䌯䷇.⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘ㍂‫⎔≝ޱ‬ঞ⫳⠽໘⧚[J].‫ݙ‬㩭স໻ᄺ
chemical method deep treatment". ᄺ᡹˄㞾✊⾥ᄺ⠜˅ ˈ2002,33˄2˅ ˖230̚235.
[16] LIU Hui, ZHOU Kangqun, LIU Jieping, etal. Study on treament of
starch wastewater by microbial flocculant[J]. Journal of Zhongkai Agro-
References(খ㗗᭛⤂) technical College, 2004,17˄2˅ ˖47̚50.
߬ᰪˈ਼ᒋ㕸ˈ߬⋕㧡ˈㄝ.ᖂ⫳⠽㍂‫ࠖޱ‬໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈[J].ӆᙎ‫ݰ‬Ϯ
[1] LI Shanping, GAN Hainan. Operation and management of starch waste-
ᡔᴃᄺ䰶ᄺ᡹ˈ2004,17˄2˅ ˖47̚50.
water treatment[M]. China Environmental science press, 2000
[17] Poesponegoro,Milino.Microbial flocculation in relationship to wastewa-
ᴢ୘ᑇˈ⫬⍋फ.⎔㉝⫳ѻᑳ∈໘⧚ⱘ䖤㸠Ϣㅵ⧚[M].࣫Ҁ˖Ё೑⦃๗
ter treatment processes: isolation and screening of flo-producing microor-
⾥ᄺߎ⠜⼒ˈ2000. ganisms[J]. Biotechnol.Util.Biol. Resour. Trop.,1999,13:104̚114.
[2] Yokoyama S,Ogi T,Koguchi K.Direct liquefaction of activated sludge from [18] MU Jianbo, REN Hui, DI Yigang, et al. Research on Usage on
aerobic treatment of effluents from the cornstarch indus- Air-Floating Integral Unit Column in Treating the Waste Water of
try[J].Biomass,1990,23(3):215̚228. Starch[J]. Henan Chemical Industry, 2002,8:14̚15.
[3]
CAI Jing, CHAI Sheli, RUI Mingxian et al. Starch wastewater treatment
⠻ࠥ⊶ˈӏ᜻ˈϕϔ߮ˈㄝ.⇨⍂ϔԧ࣪㺙㕂໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘᑨ⫼ⷨお
technology[J]. Envin. Eng. 2007,25˄1˅ ˖72̚74.
[J].⊇फ࣪Ꮉˈ2002,8:14̚15.
㫵᱊ˈ᷈⼒ゟˈ㢂䫁‫ܜ‬ㄝ.⥝㉇⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘ໘⧚ᡔᴃ[J].⦃๗Ꮉ⿟ˈ [19] BELING U A,SEYFIELD C F.Anaerobix Aerobic Treatment of Po-
2007,25˄1˅ ˖72̚74. tato-Starch wastewater[J].Water Science and Technol-
[4] Wang R M,Wang Y,Ma G P,et al. Efficiency of porous burnt-coke carrier ogy,1993,28(2):165̚176.
on treatment of potato starch wastewater with an anaerobic-aerobic biore- [20] LV Rong. Zero discharge of starch wastewater in starch production
actor[J].Chem Eng J,2009(148):35̚40. [J].Starch and Starch Sugar,1999˄4˅ ˖26̚27.
[5]
YANG Kaiming, YANG Xiaolin, ZHANG Hua et al. UBF-CASS process
৩㤷. ⎔㉝⫳ѻЁᅲ⦄᳝ᴎᑳ∈䳊ᥦᬒ[J]. ⎔㉝Ϣ⎔㉝㊪ˈ1999˄4˅ ˖
for starch wastewater treatment[J]. Water & Wastewater Eng. 2009,35˄5˅ ˖
26̚27.
69̚70.
[21] YANG Fengjiang, LI Liming. Starch wastewater treatment with water
ᴼᓔᯢˈᴼᇣᵫˈᓴढㄝ.UBF-CASS Ꮉ㡎໘⧚⥝㉇⎔㉝ᑳ∈[J].㒭∈ᥦ plant[J]. Environ. Protect. Sci. 1996, 2˄2˅ ˖24̚26.
∈ˈ2009,35˄5˅ ˖69̚70. ᴼ޸∳ˈᴢゟᯢ.߽⫼∈⫳ỡ⠽⊏⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈[J].⦃๗ֱᡸ⾥ᄺˈ1996ˈ,2
[6] SHI Hui, XUE Jianliang, WANG Xiaodong. EGSB- A /O Process for
˄2˅ ˖24̚26.
Treatment of High Concentration Starch Wastewater[J]. Industrial Water
[22] WANG Yuxin, LIU Chunchao, QIAN Xinmin. Study on starch wastewa-
Treatment, 2009,29˄9˅ ˖81̚83.
ter treatment with photosynthetic bacteria[J]. Environ. Sci, 1995,16˄3˅ ˖
⷇᜻ˈ㭯ᓎ㡃ˈ⥟ュ‫ހ‬.EGSB—A/O Ꮉ㡎໘⧚催⌧ᑺ⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘᎹ⿟ᑨ
39̚40.
⫼[J].ᎹϮ∈໘⧚ˈ2009,29˄9˅ ˖81̚83.
⥟ᅛᮄˈ߬᯹ᳱˈ䪅ᮄ⇥.‫ܝ‬ড়㒚㦠໘⧚⎔㉝ᑳ∈ⱘЁ䆩ⷨお[J].⦃๗
[7] LI Yafeng, CHEN Tao, YAN Xu. The Effect and the Influential Factors of
⾥ᄺ 1995,16˄3˅ ˖39̚40.


 
[23] LI Suyu, LI Yu, REN Jun, et al. Cooperative Effect of Varied Microor- ˖19̚23.
Wastewater[J]. China Water & Wastewater, 2007,23˄5˅
ganism in Purifying Maize Starch Wastewater[J]. Environmental Protec- ⥟ುುˈ⥟৥ϰˈ䰜Ꮰ.߽⫼⎔㉝ᑳ∈෍‫ݏ‬໡ড়ൟ㍂‫ࠖޱ‬ѻ⫳㦠ⷨお[J].
˄1˅
tion, 2003ˈ ˖22̚23. Ё೑㒭∈
ᴢ㋴⥝ˈᴢ⥝ˈӏ࿳ˈㄝ.໮⾡ᖂ⫳⠽‫㉝⎔㉇⥝࣪ޔ‬ᎹϮᑳ∈ⱘणৠᬜ
ᑨⷨお[J].⦃๗ֱᡸˈ2003ˈ ˄1˅ ˖22̚23.
[24] WANG Yunyun, WANG Xiangdong, CHEN Xi. Study on Culture of
Compound Microbial Flocculant-producing Bacteria Using Starch
Introduction
Geostructural systems are inherently variable. There is variability in
load combinations and other actions, variability of material proper-
ties in space (heterogeneity) and with time (process), variability in
the behavioral mechanisms that need to be invoked to predict the
system response, and variability with respect to the consequences
for human safety or property damage of an error in predicting that
response. Furthermore, the exceptional nonlinearity of geostruc-
tural systems creates additional difficulties both for the definition
of appropriate material parameters and for the selection of appro-
priate behavior mechanisms.
The field of civil engineering as a whole is characterized by the
great uncertainties of the one-off construction of expensive and ex-
tensive infrastructure schemes that depend on unreliable materials,
weather, and human behavior for their success. Within civil engi-
neering, geotechnical engineering is arguably the most susceptible
to these factors and therefore the most difficult to deal with.
Perhaps for this reason, the cultures of decision making in geotech-
nical and structural design have diverged, creating additional
communication difficulties on the topic of risk and reliability.
Similar to other branches of civil engineering, geotechnical
engineering tends to focus on the prevention of any sort of failure.
Leonards (1982) describes failure as the “unacceptable difference
between expected and observed performance.” Expressing the task
1
Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ.
of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TR, U.K. (corresponding author). E-mail:
p.j.vardanega@bristol.ac.uk
2
Emeritus Professor of Soil Mechanics, Dept. of Engineering, Univ. of
Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, U.K. E-mail: mdb8@cam.ac.uk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 2, 2015; approved on
September 15, 2015; published online on December 16, 2015. Discussion
period open until May 16, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the ASCE-ASME Journal of
Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engi-
neering, © ASCE, ISSN 2376-7642.
positively, geotechnical structures must be designed so as to satisfy
their intended performance outcomes. Engineers try to achieve this
by using various mechanical checks, along with rules of thumb that
have proven useful in previously successful projects.
The aim of this paper is to review the evolution of methods
for the evaluation of geostructural systems for the purposes of
design, from simple safety factors through partial factors and the
development of reliability assessments, to practical performance
evaluations that shift the focus to serviceability. The topic will ul-
timately entail good decision making under uncertainty, accounting
for the inherent variability, and nonlinearity of the systems under
discussion. One key issue that must be faced is the balance between
the creation of design rules and their application in practice by
well-educated professionals using their own judgment.
Failure
Geotechnical engineers are generally taught about past examples of
failure early in their education (Morley 1996). The engineering stu-
dent will often be exposed to discussions on prominent failures
such as the Aberfan disaster in Wales (HMSO 1967) and the failure
of the Teton Dam (U.S. Department of the Interior Teton Dam
Failure Review Group 1977), each of which was so catastrophic
as to wipe out much of the evidence of their actual causes, leading
to continuing speculation concerning mechanisms of cracking,
fluid transmission, and soil liquefaction. The geostructural failures
by tilting of the Transcona Grain Elevator ultimate collapse (Peck
and Bryant 1953) and the Leaning Tower of Pisa, which repre-
sented a repairable serviceability failure (Terracina 1962), were
more amenable to the verification of mechanisms by back-analysis.
Designers must anticipate how their designs could fail (if built) so
that catastrophic events can be prevented; this is why case studies
are essential (Petroski 1994). Until recently, however, the focus was
placed on mechanisms of ultimate collapse, rather than unservice-
ability. Geotechnics is perhaps the only branch of engineering in
which the performance in service of manufactured goods is rarely
the keystone of the design process.
 The potentially damaging effects of settlement and differential
settlement, however, have been collated and discussed for over
60 years (Meyerhof 1953; Skempton and MacDonald 1956;
Polshin and Tokar 1957; Burland and Wroth 1975; Meyerhof 1982;
Boscardin and Cording 1989; Poulos et al. 2001). The various def-
initions that were found to be useful in categorizing the causes of
structural damage are (cf. Poulos et al. 2001):
• Overall settlement, w;
• Tilt (local and overall), θ;
• Angular distortion (or relative rotation), β; and
• Relative deflection, Δw=L.
In this paper, the authors follow Burland et al. (2004) in prefer-
ring relative deflection as the most practical definition of differen-
tial settlement for the purposes of estimating damage in structures
that are continuous over shallow foundations (e.g., storage tanks on
rafts, framed structures with pad foundations, buildings with load-
bearing walls on strip foundations, bridge decks continuous over
three or more supports).
Boscardin and Cording (1989) also studied the link between
building damage and the combination of horizontal strain and an-
gular distortion induced by ground movements caused by nearby
excavations or tunneling. However, Burland et al. (2004) demon-
strated from careful field records that integral foundations such
as rafts offered immunity to elongation, reducing the additional
consideration of horizontal ground strains to the estimation of sub-
sidence damage in buildings on separate footings.
Table 1 summarizes the various limits suggested by previous
authorities; these limits are linked with terms that might be found
in a risk analysis. In cases in which authorities have preferred to
quote limiting values of angular distortion β, this was halved in
Table 1 to derive an approximate value for the equivalent relative
deflection Δw=L, assuming a parabolic profile. Very severe crack-
ing accompanied by relative deflections of the order of 1/300 is
referred to in this paper as a hazard, on the grounds that segments
of masonry will have become isolated by wide cracks, and made
vulnerable to collapse out of plane under differential wind pres-
sures. Moderate to severe cracking is referred to as a violation
of serviceability requirements, because the owner would surely
regard the consequent lack of weatherproofing and the likely
jamming of doors and distortion of windows as intolerable. Loss
of the good appearance of the structure might, in comparison, be
Table 1. Suggested Limits for the Relative Deflection of Structures
Type of structure Limit state Sources
Framed buildings Hazard (dangerous cracking) P&
Bo
Bu&
Serviceability (severe cracking) P&
Bo
Bu&
Appearance (repairable cracking) Bo
Machinery (malfunction) P&
Load-bearing walls Hazard Bo
Bu&
Serviceability Bo
Bu&
Bu&
Appearance Bo
Bu& sag
P& sag
P& hog
Bridges Structural damage P&
Serviceability TRB
Note: Bo = Boscardin and Cording (1989); Bu& = Burland et al. (2004) and Burland et al. (1977); P& = Poulos et al. (2001); TRB = TRB (2015).
regarded simply as disappointing, as it could be rectified at a
cost, presumably by the constructors and their advisors. Burland
et al. (1977) described a category of damage that is described in
this paper as disappointing in that it spoils the appearance and pre-
cedes unserviceability, which describes the rain or wind getting
in or the doors or the machinery jamming, progressing to safety
hazard—beyond which the building should be put in quarantine
pending rebuilding.
There was ample evidence regarding the significance of foun-
dation displacements during the time when limit state design (LSD)
and load and resistance factor design (LRFD) codes were written,
and reliability-based design (RBD) was being developed. Simpson
et al. (1981) pointed out that structural engineers are often unsure
about the confidence that geotechnical engineers actually place on
their predictions of ground deformations. Hence, deformation
checks have been subjected to much less scrutiny than those relat-
ing to collapse. The reason may be that, until relatively recently,
engineers had no access to validated soil-structure deformation
mechanisms for the assessment of serviceability that were
equivalent to the failure wedges and slip circles that permit practical
assessments of collapse. This deficit will be addressed later in
the paper.
Geotechnical Uncertainty
Bolton (1981) reviewed system and parameter uncertainty in
geotechnical engineering. Essentially, system uncertainty arises
because existing behavioral models are a poor fit with reality.
For example, everyday geotechnical calculation models generally
ignore all but the most obvious stratification and anistotropy, the
pre-existing lateral earth pressures, and the process of excess pore
water-pressure generation and its partial drainage. In addition, as
noted previously, they usually address total soil failure, rather than
structural deformation leading to unserviceability, which is by far
the more common limit state encountered in practice.
Parameter uncertainty recognizes that engineers cannot know
the precise values of all of the engineering properties that should
ideally be available as inputs into their design models; judgment
and choice are required. Bolton (1981) pointed out that system
uncertainty should never be assessed by statistical means that
inevitably require just that class of uncertainty to be eliminated
Magnitude Δw=L ≡ 0.5β Guideline Δw=L
1/300 to 1/500 1/300
1/300
1/600
1/1,000 to 1/2,000 1/600 to 1/1,200
1/600
1/1,200
1/2,400 1/2,400
1/2,400 to 1/4,000 1/2,400
1/300 1/300
1/600 1/600 to 1/1,200
1/2,000 sag
1/2,000 hog
1/1,200 1/1,200 sag to 1/2,400 hog
1/2,000
1/1,250 to 1/2,500
1/2,500 to 1/5,000
1/500 1/500
1/250 to 1/500 1/500
Table 2. Types of Geotechnical Uncertainty (Adapted from McMahon 1985, with Permission from the Australian Geomechanics Society)
Type Description Cause of uncertainty
1 Risk of encountering an unknown geological condition Technical
2 Risk of using the wrong geotechnical criteria, e.g., designing to the wrong failure mechanism or failure to Technical
anticipate the eventual failure mechanism
3 The risk of bias and/or variation in the design parameters being greater than estimated Technical
4 Human error Social
5 Design changes Social
6 Over conservatism Social

(e.g., the biased penny in a tossing trial). He also opined that param-
eter uncertainty should generally be dealt with by the deterministic
analysis of validated limit mechanisms, employing carefully selected
worst-case values of parameters, rather than probability theory
(Bolton 1981). However, as will be explored, others have taken a
different view.
McMahon (1985) categorized six types of uncertainties that are
encountered in geotechnical engineering (Table 2). Practitioners
may attempt to deal with Type 3 uncertainties arithmetically, i.e., by
using statistical and probabilistic thinking. However, other sources
of uncertainty can only be reduced if researchers develop better
failure models for use in design, if practitioners maintain up-to-date
skills, if clients release sufficient money for adequate ground inves-
tigation and construction control, and if all project partners main-
tain open channels of communication.
Moreover, engineering judgment is essential even in purely tech-
nical aspects of the design process. In his Laurits Bjerrum memorial
lecture, Peck (1980) states that “judgment is required to set up
the right lines of scientific investigation, to select the appropriate
parameters for calculations, and to verify the reasonableness of
the results.” Petroski (1993) described engineering judgment as
“the quality factor among those countless quantities that have come
to dominate design in our postcomputer age : : : [it] prevents mis-
takes, catches errors, detects flaws, and anticipates failure.”
Codes of practice clearly cannot remove the need for good
judgement and skill in engineering practice, nor is exhaustive com-
putation in the absence of such judgement any panacea. Burland
(2008a, b) attributed the following sentiment to Hugh Golder:
“Any design that relies for its success on a precise calculation is
a bad design.”
One way of reducing uncertainty is to make the final design con-
tingent on the prediction and then observation of field performance
during the early stages of construction, called the observational
method (Peck 1969). Peck (1969) pointed out that the essential
requirement for use of the observational method is a design that
can be modified during construction, which has implications for
the drafting of construction contracts. Application of this approach
to decision making is made more feasible by recent advances in
smart sensor technologies that promise cheap and reliable means to
monitor the deformation of geotechnical structures such as tunnels
(Bennett et al. 2010; Cheung et al. 2010; Mohamad et al. 2010),
piled foundations (Klar et al. 2006), and deep excavation works
(Schwamb et al. 2014). The most salient advantage is that such de-
formation measurements directly address the degree to which per-
formance requirements, such as those in Table 1, are being met.
Geotechnical Factor of Safety
Factors and Codes
The factor of safety (FOS), also described as a factor of uncertainty
(or a factor of ignorance e.g., Petroski 1994, p. 31), is a commonly
used engineering term, but it is difficult for practitioners to define
and justify. To this end, codes of practice are written with the in-
tention to guide the engineer toward an appropriate factor of safety
and thus to a safe design; they do this using various methodologies
and philosophies.
Meyerhof (1970) defined the factor of safety as “the ratio of the
resistance of the structure to the applied loads in order to ensure
freedom from danger, loss or risks.” He then explained that “the
magnitude of the safety factor required depends mainly on the reli-
ability of the design data : : : ” as well as (amongst other things) the
probability of failure, and the consequences of failure, should it
occur (Meyerhof 1970). Terzaghi and Peck (1948) (in Article
53) stated: “First, the factor of safety of the foundation with respect
to the breaking into the ground should not be less than 3, which is the
minimum factor of safety customarily specified for the design of the
superstructure. Second, the deformation of the base of the structure
due to unequal settlement should not be great enough to damage
the structure. There is no definite relation between the factor of safety
with respect to breaking into the ground and the settlement.”
Terzaghi and Peck (1948) gave some classical values of safety
factors for geotechnical engineering design (Table 3). Meyerhof
(1995) referred to the factors from Terzaghi and Peck (1948) as
“customary total factors of safety.” Today the values in Table 3
can be thought of as reference values that practicing engineers con-
sider when performing design calculations and drafting codes of
practice. In many cases, even if a limit state design method is used,
engineers will still refer to an equivalent factor of safety.
When reviewing the use of a single factor of safety in geotech-
nical engineering, Simpson et al. (1981) concluded that it can
produce “sensible results when material strength is the greatest un-
certainty in the design,” or when it is applied as a load factor when
loads are significantly more uncertain than material strength. Sig-
nificant problems arise, however, when both strength and loads are
uncertain. Kulhawy (2010) described global factors of safety as
“misleading” because they are usually assigned without consider-
ing “(1) any other aspects of the design process, such as the loads
Table 3. Some Classical Factors of Safety for Geotechnical Practice (Data
from Terzaghi and Peck 1948)
Type of construction Quoted FOS value T&P article
Retaining structures 1.5 (against sliding) Art. 46
1.5 (base heave) Art. 32
2.0 (strut buckling) Art. 48
Slope stability 1.3–1.5 Art. 51
Embankments 1.5 Art. 52
1.1–1.2 with monitoring
Foundations
Footings and rafts 2–3 Art. 53–55
Single piles 2.5–3 (with load testing) Art. 56
6 (with Engineering News formula)
Floating pile groups 2–3 (with respect to base failure)
Schneider, H. R. (1999). “Panel discussion: Definition and determination of
characteristic soil properties.” Proc., 14th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 4, A. A. Balkema, Lisse,
Netherlands, 2271–2274.
Schwamb, T., et al. (2014). “Fibre optic monitoring of a deep circular
excavation.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 167(2), 144–154.
Schweiger, H. F., Thurner, R., and Pöttler, R. (2001). “Reliability analysis
in geotechnics with deterministic finite elements: Theoretical concepts
and practical application.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532
-3641(2001)1:4(389), 389–413.
Scott, B., Kim, B. J., and Salgado, R. (2003). “Assessment of current load
factors for use in geotechnical load and resistance factor design.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)
129:4(287), 287–295.
Simpson, B. (2000). “Partial factors: Where to apply them?” 〈http://www
.finzi-ceas.it/ceas/Docs/melbourne.pdf〉 (Sep. 10, 2015).
Simpson, B., Pappin, J. W., and Croft, D. D. (1981). “An approach to limit
state calculations in geotechnics.” Ground Eng., 14(6), 21–26, 28.
Skempton, A. W., and MacDonald, D. H. (1956). “Allowable settlement of
buildings.” ICE Proc. Eng. Div., 5(6), 727–768.
Stokoe, K. H., Zalachoris, G., Cox, B., and Park, K. (2011). “Field eval-
uations of the effects of stress state, strain amplitude and pore pressure
generation of shear moduli of geotechnical and MSW materials.” Proc.,
5th Int. Symp. on Deformation Characteristics of Geomaterials, C.-K.
Chung, Y.-H. Jung, H.-K. Kim, J.-S. Lee, and D.-S. Kim, eds., Vol. 1,
IOS Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 120–140.
Terracina, F. (1962). “Foundations of the tower of Pisa.” Géotechnique,
12(4), 336–339.
Terzaghi, K., and Peck, R. B. (1948). Soil mechanics in engineering prac-
tice, Wiley, New York.
TRB (Transportation Research Board). (2015). “Bridges for service life
beyond 100 years: Service limit design.” 〈http://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2prepubR19B.pdf〉 (Sep. 10, 2015).
U.S. Department of the Interior Teton Dam Failure Review Group. (1977).
“Failure of Teton dam: A report of findings.” U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Vanmarcke, E. H. (1977). “Probabilistic modelling of soil profiles.” J. Geo-
tech. Eng., 103(11), 1227–1246.
Vardanega, P. J., et al. (2013a). “Discussion: Laboratory measurement
of strength mobilisation in kaolin: Link to stress history.” Géotech. Lett.,
3(1), 16–17.
Vardanega, P. J., et al. (2014). “Discussion: Bored pile design in stiff clay. I:
codes of practice.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 167(1), 87–88.
Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2011). “Strength mobilization in clays
and silts.” Can. Geotech. J., 48(10), 1485–1503.
Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2012). “Corrigendum: Strength mo-
bilization in clays and silts.” Can. Geotech. J., 49(5), 631.
Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2013). “Stiffness of clays and silts:
Normalizing shear modulus and shear strain.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000887, 1575–1589.
Vardanega, P. J., and Bolton, M. D. (2014). “Stiffness of clays and silts:
Modeling considerations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001104, 06014004.
Vardanega, P. J., Kolody, E., Pennington, S. H., Morrison, P. R. J., and
Simpson, B. (2012a). “Bored pile design in stiff clay. I: codes of prac-
tice.” Proc., Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 165(4), 213–232.
Vardanega, P. J., Lau, B. H., Lam, S. Y., Haigh, S. K., Madabhushi, S. P. G.,
and Bolton, M. D. (2012b). “Laboratory measurement of strength mo-
bilization in kaolin: Link to stress history.” Géotech. Lett., 2(1), 9–15.
Vardanega, P. J., Williamson, M., and Bolton, M. D. (2012c). “Bored pile
design in stiff clay. II: Mechanisms and uncertainty.” Proc., Inst. Civ.
Eng. Geotech. Eng., 165(4), 233–246.
Vardanega, P. J., Williamson, M., and Bolton, M. D. (2013b). “Corrigen-
dum: Bored pile design in stiff clay. II: Mechanisms and uncertainty.”
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Geotech. Eng., 166(5), 518.
Whitman, R. V. (2000). “Organising and evaluating uncertainty in geotech-
nical engineering.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)
1090-0241(2000)126:7(583), 583–593.
Zhang, D. M., Phoon, K. K., Huang, H. W., and Fu, Q. F. (2015). “Char-
acteristation of model uncertainty for cantilever deflections in undrained
clay.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0001205, 04014088.
Zhang, J., Andrus, R. D., and Juang, C. H. (2005). “Normalised shear
modulus and material damping ratio relationships.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:4(453), 453–464.
Zhang, L., Tang, W. H., and Ng, C. W. W. (2001). “Reliability of axially
loaded driven piles groups.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/
(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:12(1051), 1051–1060.