School of Engineering

GPS-X Lab Report

Student Name Student ID Number:

Class and Year 4th Energy Systems Engineering.

Subject Code and Name CE464 Design of Sustainable Environmental Systems.
Lecturer Name Dr. Guangxue Wu
Assignment Number & Title: Water Waste Treatment Design
Submission Date: 24/11/2023

Academic Integrity and Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the act of copying, including or directly quoting from, the work of another without
adequate acknowledgement. All work submitted by students for assessment purposes is accepted
on the understanding that it is their own work and written in their own words except where
explicitly referenced using the correct format. For example, you must NOT copy information,
ideas, portions of text, figures, designs, CAD drawings, computer programs, etc. from anywhere
without giving a reference to the source. Sources include the internet, other students’ work, books,
journal articles, etc.

You must ensure that you have read the University Regulations relating to plagiarism.

I have read and understood the University Code of Practice on plagiarism and confirm
that the content of this document is my own work and has not been plagiarised.

Student’s signature (typed if

submission on blackboard)

1. Introduction.

1|Page
Wastewater treatment is a critical component of environmental engineering, playing a vital role in
safeguarding natural ecosystems and public health. This comprehensive report delves into the
intricate realm of wastewater treatment plant design and optimization, with the primary objective
of achieving effluent values that adhere to stringent environmental standards.
The challenge at hand is formidable yet compelling: the design of a system capable of efficiently
reducing pollutant concentrations to levels well within regulatory limits. Wastewater treatment
encompasses a complex interplay of scientific, engineering, and ecological principles, requiring
the careful orchestration of physical, chemical, and biological processes to transform
contaminated waters into environmentally safe effluents.
This endeavour underscores the collaboration of scientists, engineers, and environmentalists
united in the pursuit of safeguarding water bodies' integrity and preserving the balance of
ecosystems. It stands as a testament to the commitment to a healthier and more sustainable world
for generations to come.
In this report, the essential stages will be explored of wastewater treatment plant design, guided
by scientific principles and engineering expertise. It will examine influent characteristics, navigate
the intricacies of solids residence time, and analyse the impact of various parameters, all while
working towards an optimal design that not only meets regulatory limits but also reflects the
dedication to environmental stewardship.
The journey begins with the calculation of influent flow and characteristics, laying the groundwork
for the subsequent phases of design and optimization. The path leads through the realms of
biological treatment, where the impacts of solids' residence time and recirculation rates on the
removal of contaminants are assessed.
Throughout this intricate process, we remain aware of the challenge of achieving high-efficiency
wastewater treatment while minimizing the plant's environmental footprint. The quest for optimal
design seeks to balance treatment effectiveness with resource conservation, reflecting a
commitment to sustainability in environmental engineering.

2. Methodology.
It is utilized to craft a wastewater treatment plant design that aligns with stringent effluent
standards—COD below 75 mg/L, BOD5 below 10 mg/L, NH4-N below 1 mg N/L, SS below 20
mg/L, and TN below 5 mg/L—integrating both theoretical calculations and sophisticated
simulation techniques. Meticulous calculations of influent flow and characteristics, accounting for
population equivalents and composition proportions, lay the foundation. Guided by principles
outlined in Chapter 3, the primary design prioritizes key parameters like Solids Residence Time
(SRT) and Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT). Subsequent employment of GPS-X software allows
for an exhaustive simulation, investigating the nuanced impacts of varying SRT on COD, SS, and
ammonium removal. Optimization scenarios, involving alterations in SRT and aeration tank
parameters, undergo systematic assessment. The final design parameters, encompassing SRT,
HRT, and the Food-to-Microorganisms (F/M) ratio, emerge from simulation outcomes, aiming for
an optimal and efficient configuration within regulatory confines. This multifaceted approach
ensures a robust comprehension of system dynamics, environmental impact, and resource
conservation in the realm of wastewater treatment.

2|Page
 3. Results.
3.1. Calculation of influent wastewater:
Population Equivalent (PE) is designated as 101415.

Assuming the PE-based flow is 0.2 m3/PE/day and HRT (θ) = 5 h = 0.21 d.

𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 (𝑄) = 101415 × 0.2 = 20283 ≈ 20500 𝑚3 /𝑑

The influent flow rate (Q) can be calculated as follows:

𝑉
𝜃=𝑄 Equation 1

𝑉 = 𝜃 × 𝑄 = 0.21 × 20500 = 4305 𝑚3

For the influent wastewater characteristics, the Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) concentration
is calculated as: 𝐶𝑂𝐷 = 500 + (5 × 50) = 750 𝑔𝐶𝑂𝐷/𝑚3

Additionally, if the Biological Oxygen Demand Ultimate (BODu) is equal to the total
biodegradable COD. BOD ultimate = total biodegradable COD = 750 𝑔𝐶𝑂𝐷/𝑚3

The Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) concentration is determined as

𝑇𝐾𝑁 = 40 + (5 × 5) = 65 𝑔𝑁/𝑚3 and the Ammonium (NH4) concentration is:

𝑁𝐻4 = 30 + (5 × 5) = 55 𝑔𝑁/𝑚3

Furthermore, Nitrate (NO3) has a concentration of 3 g N/m3, with no detectable Nitrite (NO2)
present in the wastewater.

The specific proportions of Biodegradable and Inert components for the parameters are further
detailed as follows:

Parameters Biodegradable Inert Total

COD total 570 180 750

COD soluble 270 30 300

COD particulate 300 150 450

BOD5 376.2 None 376.2

VSS 66.5 21 87.5

TSS 88.7 28 116.7

Table 1: The specific proportions of Biodegradable and Inert components.

3|Page
 Model Object Parameter Unit Value

Wastewater Influent Influent Flow m3/d 20500

Modelling
Bioreactor Maximum Volume m3 30000
Mode
Secondary Clarifier Surface m2 100

Influent Ammonia mg N/L 25

Bioreactor Temperature C 20
Simulation
Mode
Bioreactor Hydraulic Residence Time hr 4.59

Secondary Clarifier TSS Removal Efficiency % 0.6171

Table 2: Results of Exercise 1 – Question 1 Lab1.

3.2. Primary design based on the lecture for COD removal:

The primary design considerations for COD removal are explored, and parameters are selected
based on lecture materials. The objective is to optimize the COD removal process.

One of the key factors in the design of a biological treatment process for COD removal is the
selection of an appropriate Solids Residence Time (SRT). The SRT is represented by the average
duration that microorganisms or activated sludge are retained within the bioreactor. An SRT of 5
days is chosen based on principles discussed in the course, considering the specific
characteristics of the wastewater to be treated. 𝜃𝑐 = 5 𝑑

Two essential concentrations are critical for the efficient operation of the bioreactor: the Mixed
Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) concentration within the bioreactor and the MLSS
concentration of the wasted sludge. For the primary design, the following concentrations are
selected:

The MLSS concentration within the bioreactor (Xu) is set at 3500 mg/L.

The MLSS concentration of the wasted sludge (Xw) is maintained at 9000 mg/L.

These concentrations are chosen to ensure that the biomass in the bioreactor is maintained at an
appropriate level for effective COD removal.

To facilitate the design process, certain key parameters are selected based on the lecture
materials. These parameters play a pivotal role in understanding and optimizing the biological
treatment for COD removal:

4|Page
Yield coefficient of Y = 0.63 g COD/g COD

Half-saturation constant of Ks = 20 mg COD/L

Maximum growth rate µmax = 6 d-1 at 20oC

Decay rate kd = 0.4 d-1 at 20oC

With the selected SRT and the provided parameters, the following crucial values are calculated:

S (Substrate Concentration): S represents the concentration of biodegradable organic matter. It

is calculated using the formula:
𝐾𝑠 (1+𝐾𝑑 𝜃𝑐 ) 20(1+0.4×5)
𝑆=𝜃 = = 2.2 𝑔 𝐵𝑂𝐷5 /𝑚3 Equation 2
𝑐 𝑚𝑎𝑥 −𝐾𝑑 )−1
(𝜇 5(6−0.4)−1

𝜃 𝑌 (𝑆 +𝑆) 5×0.63(376.2−2.2)
𝑋 = 𝜃𝑐(1+𝐾0 𝜃 ) = = 1870 𝑔/𝑚3 Equation 3
𝑑 𝑐 0.21(1+0.4×5)

To ensure effective biomass retention within the bioreactor, it's essential to calculate the flow
rate of wasted sludge. The formula for calculating Qw is:
𝑉𝑋 4305×1870
𝜃𝑐 = 𝑄 =𝑄 =5 Equation 4
𝑤 𝑋𝑤 +𝑄𝑒 𝑋𝑒 𝑤 ×9000+0

𝑄𝑤 = 460 𝑚3 /𝑑
With X representing the biomass concentration within the bioreactor, Xu representing the MLSS
concentration within the bioreactor, Xw representing the MLSS concentration of the wasted
sludge, Q representing the influent flow rate, and V representing the volume of the bioreactor.
The flow rate within the bioreactor (QR) is an important parameter to determine. It is calculated
using the formula:
𝑄 𝑋 − 𝑄𝑤 𝑋𝑢 20500×1870−460×3500
𝑄𝑅 = = = 22531 ≈ 20500 𝑚3 /𝑑 Equation 5
𝑋𝑢 − 𝑋 3500−1870

𝑄𝑅 22531
= = 1.099
𝑄 20500

The quantification of the food-to-microorganisms ratio (F/M) involves an exploration of its

pivotal role in evaluating the efficiency of the biological treatment process for COD removal.
To quantify the F/M ratio, it is applied as a tool for determining the relationship between influent
substrate (food) and biomass concentration (microorganisms) within the reactor. Its significance
is underscored by its direct impact on treatment efficiency and the elimination of organic
contaminants in biological treatment procedures.
The F/M ratio is ascertained using the following formula:
𝐹 𝑄(𝑆0 −𝑆) 20500(376.2−2.2)
= = = 0.95 𝑑 −1 Equation 6
𝑀 𝑉𝑋 4305×1870

5|Page
The F/M ratio delivers a numerical representation of the organic load imposed on the
microorganisms residing in the bioreactor. A higher F/M ratio signifies an increased availability
of substrate concerning microorganisms, potentially resulting in elevated biological activity and
an enhanced potential for COD removal.

The computation of the volumetric loading rate (VL) entails the assessment of the organic loading
applied to the bioreactor volume, serving as a key indicator of the treatment system's efficiency.
It quantifies the amount of organic material that is applied to each unit volume of the bioreactor.
This parameter is significant in the evaluation of the system's performance and its ability to
efficiently remove organic contaminants. A higher VL may indicate a greater organic load, which
can potentially influence the biological activity within the reactor.
To calculate, the following formula is utilized:
𝑄 𝑆0 20500×376.2 𝐵𝑂𝐷5
𝑉𝐿 = = = 1791.4 = 1.79 𝑘𝑔 Equation 7
𝑉 4305 𝑚3 .𝑑

Some other parameters are calculated here:

𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑆 6×2.2
𝜇= = 2.2+20 = 0.59 𝑑 −1Equation 8
𝑆+𝐾𝑠

𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑆 𝑋 6×2.2×1870
𝑟𝑔 = = = 1112 𝑔/𝑚3 𝑑 Equation 9
𝑆+ 𝐾𝑠 2.2+20

𝜇𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑆 𝑋 6×2.2×1870
𝑟𝑠𝑢 = = 0.63(2.2+20) = 1765 𝑔/𝑚3 𝑑 Equation 10
𝑌(𝑆+𝐾𝑠 )

𝑟𝑑 = 𝐾𝑑 𝑋 = 0.4 × 1870 = 748 𝑔/𝑚3 𝑑 Equation 11

𝑟𝑔(𝑛𝑒𝑡) = 𝑟𝑔 − 𝑟𝑑 = 1112 − 748 = 364 𝑔/𝑚3 𝑑 Equation 12

𝑟𝑔(𝑛𝑒𝑡) 364
𝑌𝑛𝑒𝑡 = = 1765 = 0.21 Equation 13
𝑟𝑠𝑢

3.3. System design based on the GPS-X simulation for COD removal:
3.3.1. Scenario 1 – XCOD/VSS Ratio:
a: b:

Figure 1: Scenario 1 (XCOD/VSS Ratio a) =1.8 and b) =1.4).

6|Page
 Influent Bioreactor Secondary Clarifier
TSS (mg/L) MLSS (mg/L) RAS TSS (mg/L)
XCOD/VSS 416.7 896.7 5124
Ratio = 1.8 VSS (mg/L) MLVSS (MG/L) Effluent TSS (mg/L)
312.5 703.8 475.2
TSS (mg/L) MLSS (mg/L) RAS TSS (mg/L)
XCOD/VSS 535.7 925.2 5140
Ratio = 1.4 VSS (mg/L) MLVSS (MG/L) Effluent TSS (mg/L)
401.8 684.1 505
Table 3:: Scenario 1 (XCOD/VSS Ratio) Results.

3.3.2. Scenario 2 – BOD5/BOD ultimate ratio:

Total Filtered Particulate
Location Carbonaceous Carbonaceous Carbonaceous
BOD5 (bod) BOD5 (sbod) BOD5 (xbod)
Influent
405.9 99 306.9
BOD5/BODultimate (wwinf)
ratio = 0.66 Bioreactor
667.3 99 568.3
Effluent (mlss)
Influent
246 60 186
BOD5/BODultimate (wwinf)
ratio = 0.4 Bioreactor
667.3 99 568.3
Effluent (mlss)
Table 4: Scenario 2 (BOD5/BOD ultimate ratio) Results.

3.3.3. Operational Performance:

Figure 2: The results of the operational performance (Complete mixed, no recycle).

7|Page
 Figure 3: Sankey Diagram (Complete mixed, no recycle).

Figure 4: The results of the operational performance (Complete mixed, biological solids recycle).

Figure 5: Sankey Diagram (Complete mixed, biological solids recycle).

Figure 6: The results of the Operational Performance of 4 Bioreactors (Plug flow, biological solids recycle).

8|Page
Figure 7: The results of the Operational Performance of 4 Bioreactors (Plug flow with step-feeding, biological solids recycle).

3.3.4. Clarifier Performance:

Figure 8: Clarifier Performance of lab4 (default value of SVI).

Figure 9: Clarifier Performance of lab4 (feed point=0.25).

9|Page
 Mixed Liquor Suspended
Sludge Volume Index Total Suspended Solids
Solids
(mL/g) (mg/L)
(mg/L)
50 3286 3.928
150 3274 4.53
250 3275 4.551
Table 5: The results of MLSS and TSS with different values of SVI.

Figure 10: Set Point Analysis of lab4 (default).

Figure 11: Set Point Analysis of lab4 (RAS=12500, WAS=2000, SVI is OFF).

10 | P a g e
 Figure 12: Set Point Analysis of lab4 (RAS=12500, WAS=2000, SVI is ON).

3.4. Simulation results for COD and N removal:

3.4.1. Effect of SRT and DO Control on Nitrification:
mixed liquor free and ionized
SRT set point nitrate and nitrite
suspended solids ammonia
(d) (mgN/L)
(mg/L) (mgN/L)
2 1202 12.5 28.55
6 3056 1.768 44.67
10 4688 2.604 46.33
14 6221 3.192 47.13
Table 6: Effect of SRT on MLSS, NH3, NO3-/NO2-

mixed liquor free and

DO Control nitrate and
suspended ionized
nitrite
Aeration Aeration Aeration solids ammonia
(mgN/L)
Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3 (mg/L) (mgN/L)
0.333 0.333 0.333 4683 2.606 46.33
0.15 0.25 0.6 4690 2.253 45.77
0.6 0.25 0.15 4689 2.643 46.38
Table 7: Effect of DO Control on MLSS, NH3, NO3-/NO2-

11 | P a g e
 3.4.2. Kinetic Parameters:
Heterotrophic
SRT set point SRT_CAS Autotrophic biomass
biomass
(d) (d) (mgCOD/L)
(mgCOD/L)
2 2 2529 46.09
3 3 3314 82.61
4 4 3908 106.7
5 5 4371 126.1
6 5.377 4519 132.5
7 5.377 4519 132.5
8 5.377 4519 132.5
14 5.376 4519 132.5
20 5.376 4519 132.5
Table 8: Effect of SRT on Heterotrophic and Autotrophic biomass.

Figure 13: a) Heterotrophic and b) Autotrophic biomass vs. SRT.

Heterotrophic Autotrophic
Underflow rates SRT_CAS
RAS ratio biomass biomass
(m3/d) (d)
(mgCOD/L) (mgCOD/L)
1000 0.3993 0.05 1.00E-06 1.00E-06
2000 0.5715 0.09 6.73E+02 1.00E-06
4000 0.8731 0.19 1232 1.00E-06
8000 1.348 0.39 1855 1.00E-06
12000 1.705 0.58 2243 20.73
15000 1.919 0.73 2456 41.32
20000 2.205 0.97 2710 56.1
25000 2.428 1.22 2895 64.76
30000 2.606 1.46 3032 70.71
Table 9: Effect of Underflow rate on Heterotrophic and Autotrophic biomass.

12 | P a g e
 Figure 14: a) Heterotrophic and b) Autotrophic biomass vs. RAS ratio.

heterotrophic maximum
Effluent cBOD5 Effluent ammonia
specific growth rates
(mg/L) (mgN/L)
(1/d)
1.2 136.6 4.152
1.7 129.8 4.005
2.2 128.5 3.98
2.5 128.3 3.973
3.2 127.8 3.965
4.8 127.5 3.956
5.6 127.4 3.956
6.4 127.4 3.956
7.2 127.3 3.952
Table 10: Effect of heterotrophic maximum specific growth rate on cBOD5 and ammonia in Effluent.

Figure 15: a) cBOD5 and b) ammonia in Effluent vs. heterotrophic maximum specific growth rate.

13 | P a g e
Autotrophic maximum
Effluent cBOD5 Effluent ammonia
specific growth rates
(mg/L) (mgN/L)
(1/d)
1.8 127.7 2.359
1.3 127.5 2.839
0.9 127.4 3.954
0.88 127.3 4.059
0.76 127.1 4.925
0.64 126.9 6.593
0.55 126.5 9.322
Table 11: Effect of Autotrophic maximum specific growth rate on cBOD5 and ammonia in Effluent.

Figure 16: a) cBOD5 and b) ammonia in Effluent vs. Autotrophic maximum specific growth rate.

3.4.3. Total Nitrogen Removal (Nitrification and Denitrification):

Figure 17: 2000 m3/d of internal recycle vs. Nitrogen Compound.

14 | P a g e
internal recycle Ammonia Nitrite/Nitrate TKN TN
(m3/d) (mgN/L) (mgN/L) (mgN/L) (mgN/L)
0 0.6497 8.058 1.304 9.362
10000 0.6569 6.599 1.324 7.923
20000 0.6634 5.593 1.343 6.936
30000 0.6703 4.855 1.36 6.215
40000 0.6763 4.295 1.373 5.67
50000 0.6832 3.849 1.39 5.239
60000 0.6889 3.491 1.4 4.894
70000 0.6945 3.194 1.415 4.608
Table 12: Effect of internal recycle on Nitrogen Compound in Bioreactors

Figure 18: a) Ammonia, b) Nitrite/Nitrate, c) TKN and d) TN vs. internal recycle.

Figure 19: Simulation results in Effluent at 0 internal recycle.

15 | P a g e
 4. Discussion:
4.1. Calculation of Influent Wastewater:
The designated Population Equivalent (PE) of 101415 was a fundamental parameter in wastewater
treatment design, representing the equivalent population contributing to the influent. This value
served as a key input for determining influent characteristics and flow rates.
The calculated influent flow rate (Q) of approximately 20500 m³/d was a critical parameter for
designing treatment processes. It reflected the volume of wastewater that the treatment system
needed to accommodate, influencing the sizing and capacity of various treatment units.
The Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT), calculated at 0.21 days, was a significant indicator of the
average time wastewater spent in the treatment system. This parameter played a crucial role in
shaping the overall hydraulic and biological dynamics within the treatment plant.
The determined concentrations of key parameters such as Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD),
Biological Oxygen Demand Ultimate (BODu), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Ammonium (NH₄),
and Nitrate (NO₃) provided a comprehensive insight into the influent composition. Additionally,
the specific proportions of Biodegradable and Inert components, as detailed in Table 1, laid the
groundwork for designing treatment processes tailored to the specific characteristics of the
wastewater.
The results presented in Table 2 provided crucial information about influent and bioreactor
parameters during Exercise 1 – Question 1 Lab1. These parameters, including influent ammonia,
bioreactor temperature, hydraulic residence time, and secondary clarifier efficiency, offered
insights into the conditions within the treatment system.
These simulation results were not only descriptive but also instrumental in guiding the subsequent
stages of design and optimization. The influent characteristics, as determined through simulation,
played a pivotal role in the selection of appropriate treatment processes. Simultaneously,
bioreactor parameters influenced the efficiency of biological treatment, impacting COD and
nutrient removal.
The primary design for COD removal was grounded in a thoughtful exploration of parameters and
principles derived from course lectures, with the overarching aim of optimizing the efficiency of
the biological treatment process. This design's core was selecting key parameters and their
subsequent calculations, ensuring a robust foundation for COD removal.
One critical consideration was the choice of a 5-day Solids Residence Time (SRT), denoted by θc.
This parameter represented the average duration that microorganisms or activated sludge were
retained within the bioreactor. The selection of θc resulted from meticulous analysis, aligning with
principles discussed in the course and tailored to the specific characteristics of the wastewater to
be treated.
4.2.Primary design based on the lecture for COD removal:
The efficient operation of the bioreactor hinged on the careful selection of two crucial
concentrations: the Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) within the bioreactor (Xu) and the
MLSS concentration of the wasted sludge (Xw). Xu was set at 3500 mg/L, ensuring an optimal
biomass level within the bioreactor for effective COD removal. Simultaneously, Xw was maintained
at 9000 mg/L, a strategic choice to support efficient sludge handling and disposal.
Several key parameters played a pivotal role in shaping the design and understanding of the
biological treatment process. The Yield Coefficient (Y), representing the efficiency of biomass
16 | P a g e
formation concerning the consumed COD, was chosen as 0.63 g COD/g COD. This parameter
guided the biomass yield from the available substrate. The Half-Saturation Constant (Ks), with a
value of 20 mg COD/L, represented the substrate concentration at which microorganisms operated
at half their maximum growth rate. Additionally, the Maximum Growth Rate (µmax) and Decay Rate
(kd) were set at 6 d⁻¹ and 0.4 d⁻¹, respectively, influencing microbial population dynamics.
Critical calculations provided insights into the system's biological dynamics. Formulas such as
Equation 2 for substrate concentration (S) and Equation 3 for biomass concentration (X) offered
essential information for system understanding. The flow rate of wasted sludge (Qw) and the flow
rate within the bioreactor (QR) were computed, offering key parameters for system sizing and
operational considerations.
The Food-to-Microorganisms Ratio (F/M) and Volumetric Loading Rate (VL) further characterized
the biological treatment process. The F/M ratio, quantified by Equation 6, provided insight into
the organic load on microorganisms, indicating their potential activity. Simultaneously, the VL,
calculated through Equation 7, offered a measure of the organic loading applied to the bioreactor
volume, influencing treatment system efficiency.
Additional parameters, including µ, rg, rsu, rd, and rg(net), were calculated, contributing to a
comprehensive understanding of microbial activity, substrate utilization, and overall system
dynamics. The Ynet, representing the net yield coefficient, emphasized the efficiency of biomass
production concerning substrate utilization.

4.3.System Design and Operational Performance:

4.3.1. Scenario 1 – XCOD/VSS Ratio:
The increase in the XCOD/VSS ratio from 1.4 to 1.8, as depicted in Figure 1, had discernible effects
on effluent characteristics. The higher XCOD/VSS ratio (1.8) correlated with reduced TSS and VSS
in the effluent, suggesting a potential enhancement in solids removal efficiency. Although the COD
values remained relatively consistent, indicating a minimal impact on organic content in the
effluent, the changes in TSS and VSS emphasized the sensitivity of these parameters to variations
in the XCOD/VSS ratio.
It is crucial to contextualize these findings within the specific objectives of the treatment process
and regulatory requirements. The observed alterations in TSS and VSS underscored the need for
careful consideration and optimization in wastewater treatment design. Further analysis and
experimentation could offer deeper insights into the implications of XCOD/VSS ratio adjustments
on overall treatment performance.
Table 4 provided additional insights, reinforcing the impact of XCOD/VSS ratio variations on the
wastewater treatment system. The decrease in TSS and VSS in the influent suggested modifications
in the solid content entering the system. This positively influenced bioreactor performance, as
indicated by higher MLSS and MLVSS concentrations, signifying improved microbial activity and
solids retention. The secondary clarifier's efficiency was evident in elevated RAS TSS values at the
increased XCOD/VSS ratio, coupled with lower effluent TSS, indicating enhanced solids removal.

17 | P a g e
 4.3.2. Scenario 2 – BOD5/BOD ultimate ratio:
The transition from a BOD5/BOD ultimate ratio of 0.4 to 0.66 presented discernible shifts in the
wastewater treatment system, as depicted in Table 4. At the higher ratio of 0.66, the influent (wwinf)
exhibited an increased Total Carbonaceous BOD5 (bod) of 405.9, reflecting a higher load of
biodegradable organic matter entering the system. This elevated influent composition correlated
with a significant rise in Filtered Carbonaceous BOD5 (sbod) to 99 and Particulate Carbonaceous
BOD5 (xbod) to 306.9, indicating a substantial presence of both particulate and soluble
carbonaceous components.
In the bioreactor effluent, the impact of the higher BOD5/BOD ultimate ratio was evident. While
the Total Carbonaceous BOD5 remained elevated at 667.3, the Filtered Carbonaceous BOD5
experienced a notable increase from 99 to 568.3, emphasizing enhanced removal of particulate
carbonaceous constituents. This shift implied a more effective conversion of biodegradable organic
matter within the bioreactor, resulting in a modified composition of the effluent.
Conversely, at the lower ratio of 0.4, the influent (wwinf) displayed reduced levels of Total
Carbonaceous BOD5 (246), Filtered Carbonaceous BOD5 (60), and Particulate Carbonaceous
BOD5 (186), indicating a lower biodegradable organic load entering the system. This decrease in
influent composition was mirrored in the bioreactor effluent, where, despite a consistent Total
Carbonaceous BOD5 of 667.3, the Filtered Carbonaceous BOD5 declined from 99 to 568.3. This
suggested a shift in the composition of carbonaceous components in the effluent, with potential
implications for the efficiency of particulate carbonaceous removal.
4.3.3. Operational Performance:
The operational performance of the wastewater treatment system was depicted in Figures 2, 4, 6,
and 7 under varying configurations. In Figure 2, a complete mixed setup with no recycling revealed
stable trends, emphasizing the importance of understanding baseline conditions. Figure 4
introduced biological solids recycling in a complete mixed configuration, with an increased Return
Activated Sludge (RAS) rate showing a nuanced impact on nitrogen components, Total Suspended
Solids (TSS), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), and Dissolved Oxygen (DO). Transitioning
to a plug flow configuration with biological solids recycling in Figure 6 illustrated improved
pollutant removal, with variations in different bioreactors showcasing the significance of flow
dynamics. Figure 7, implements a plug flow with step-feeding and adjusted internal flow
distribution, aimed to optimize influent distribution among bioreactors. These results collectively
underscored the system's sensitivity to operational changes and highlighted the need for tailored
adjustments to achieve optimal treatment outcomes, emphasizing ongoing analysis and monitoring.
4.3.4. Secondary Clarifier Performance:
The performance of the secondary clarifier was evaluated through the examination of Sludge
Volume Index (SVI) values at different levels (50, 150, and 250 mL/g), as outlined in Table 5. A
decrease in SVI values was observed to coincide with an increase in Mixed Liquor Suspended
Solids (MLSS) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Specifically, at an SVI of 50 mL/g, MLSS was
recorded at 3286 mg/L and TSS at 3.928 mg/L, indicating efficient settling and compaction of solids
in the clarifier. As SVI values increased to 150 and 250 mL/g, slight elevations in both MLSS and
TSS were noted, suggesting a moderate impact on settling characteristics.
In Figure 10 and 11, the effect of decreasing the Set Point by increasing Waste Activated Sludge
(WAS) was illustrated. Figure 10, representing the default set point, established a baseline for
18 | P a g e
analysis. Subsequently, Figure 11 demonstrated the impact of increased WAS, revealing a
noticeable reduction in the Set Point. This adjustment influenced the system's performance,
potentially enhancing solids removal efficiency. The decreased Set Point indicated improved
settling, with lower SVI values, highlighting the importance of operational adjustments in
optimizing clarifier performance. These findings underscored the significance of continual
monitoring and fine-tuning of operational parameters to achieve optimal treatment outcomes in
wastewater treatment systems.
4.3.5. Kinetic Parameters:
Table 8 provided valuable insights into the effect of Sludge Retention Time (SRT) on Heterotrophic
and Autotrophic biomass concentrations in the wastewater treatment system. As SRT increased
from 2 to 20 days, the Heterotrophic biomass demonstrated a substantial rise, reaching 4519
mgCOD/L. On the other hand, Autotrophic biomass also experienced an increase, reaching a
concentration of 132.5 mgCOD/L. Notably, the values stabilised after reaching an SRT of 5.377
days. The data suggested that an SRT of 5.377 days represents a pivotal point where both
Heterotrophic and Autotrophic biomass concentrations remain constant. This could indicate an
optimal balance for the biological treatment process, ensuring sufficient microbial activity for
organic matter degradation. The stable biomass concentrations at this SRT imply a consistent and
efficient treatment performance.
Table 9 presented the impact of the Underflow rate on Heterotrophic and Autotrophic biomass
concentrations in the wastewater treatment system. As the Underflow rate increased from 1000 to
30000 m³/d, both Heterotrophic and Autotrophic biomass concentrations exhibited notable
variations. In the initial stages, at lower Underflow rates (1000 to 4000 m³/d), the Heterotrophic
biomass remained minimal, suggesting limited microbial activity. Autotrophic biomass was
consistently maintained at very low levels (1.00E-06 mgCOD/L), indicating negligible
contributions from autotrophic organisms. However, as the Underflow rate escalated beyond 8000
m³/d, there was a substantial increase in Heterotrophic biomass concentrations. This signified
enhanced microbial activity, potentially leading to more effective organic matter degradation.
Autotrophic biomass also started to show measurable values, indicating the emergence of
autotrophic organisms in the system. At higher Underflow rates (20000 to 30000 m³/d), both
Heterotrophic and Autotrophic biomass concentrations continued to rise. This suggested that the
increased hydraulic loading enhanced the conditions for microbial growth and activity in the
treatment system. These findings highlighted the sensitivity of biomass concentrations to variations
in Underflow rates, emphasizing the need to carefully consider and optimize hydraulic parameters
to achieve desired treatment outcomes. It was crucial to strike a balance that promoted effective
pollutant removal while avoiding excessive biomass growth that might lead to operational
challenges.
In Table 10, the impact of heterotrophic maximum specific growth rates on effluent characteristics,
specifically cBOD5 and ammonia concentrations, was outlined. As the heterotrophic maximum
specific growth rate increased from 1.2 to 7.2 1/d, distinct changes were observed in the effluent
quality. At lower growth rates (1.2 to 2.5 1/d), there was a gradual decrease in both cBOD5 and
ammonia concentrations in the effluent. This suggested that a higher specific growth rate of
heterotrophic organisms correlated with more efficient organic matter removal and ammonia
oxidation in the treatment process. As the growth rate surpassed 2.5 1/d and continued to rise (3.2
19 | P a g e
to 7.2 1/d), the effluent cBOD5 and ammonia concentrations stabilized at lower values. This trend
indicated that a certain threshold of the growth rate was reached, beyond which further increases
did not significantly impact the effluent quality. These findings underscored the importance of
optimizing heterotrophic maximum specific growth rates to achieve desired effluent
characteristics. The observed reduction in cBOD5 and ammonia concentrations at higher growth
rates suggested enhanced biological activity and pollutant removal. However, it was essential to
consider the practical constraints and trade-offs associated with operating at higher growth rates,
such as potential increases in operational complexity and energy consumption. The results from
this analysis could inform decisions in wastewater treatment plant design and operation to meet
effluent quality standards effectively.
Table 11 delineated the effect of Autotrophic maximum specific growth rates on effluent
characteristics, specifically cBOD5 and ammonia concentrations. As the Autotrophic maximum
specific growth rate varied from 0.55 to 1.8 1/d, discernible shifts were observed in the quality of
the effluent. At higher Autotrophic growth rates (1.3 to 1.8 1/d), there was a consistent decrease in
both cBOD5 and ammonia concentrations in the effluent. This trend suggested that an elevated
specific growth rate of Autotrophic organisms was associated with enhanced ammonia oxidation
and organic matter removal in the treatment process. Conversely, as the growth rate decreased to
0.55 1/d, both cBOD5 and ammonia concentrations in the effluent exhibited an increase. This
indicated that a lower specific growth rate of Autotrophic organisms might result in reduced
efficiency in ammonia oxidation and organic matter removal. These findings underscored the
significance of optimizing Autotrophic maximum specific growth rates to achieve desired effluent
characteristics. The observed variations in cBOD5 and ammonia concentrations provided insights
into the biological processes governing nitrogen removal and organic matter degradation in the
wastewater treatment system. Careful consideration of Autotrophic growth rates is crucial for
tailoring treatment strategies and ensuring compliance with effluent quality standards.
4.3.6. Total Nitrogen Removal (Nitrification and Denitrification):
The analysis of Table 12 revealed a notable trend in the effect of internal recycling on nitrogen
compounds in bioreactors. Increasing the internal recycle from 0 to 70000 m³/d resulted in a
consistent reduction in ammonia, nitrite/nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and total nitrogen
(TN) concentrations within the bioreactors. Notably, the concentrations of these nitrogen
compounds exhibited a diminishing trend, indicating that higher internal recycle rates positively
influenced nitrogen removal processes. Interestingly, the findings suggested that an internal
recycle rate of approximately three times the influent flow rate led to optimal nitrogen compound
removal efficiency, As shown too in Figure 18. This observation underscores the importance of
identifying and implementing an optimal internal recycle rate to achieve the desired nitrogen
removal outcomes in wastewater treatment systems. The results offer valuable insights for
operational adjustments, emphasizing the potential for enhanced nitrogen removal by carefully
optimizing internal recycling practices.

5. Conclusions:
In the culmination of this comprehensive exploration into wastewater treatment plant design and
optimization, multifaceted aspects ranging from influent calculations to operational performance
evaluations have been delved into. The intricacies of wastewater treatment demand meticulous
20 | P a g e
orchestration of scientific, engineering, and ecological principles, as evidenced by the intricate
interplay of physical, chemical, and biological processes.
The groundwork for subsequent design phases was laid by the calculation of influent wastewater,
including population equivalents, flow rates, and composition proportions. Crucial insights were
provided by simulation results, guiding the selection of treatment processes and influencing the
efficiency of biological treatment. The primary design for COD removal, grounded in course
principles, aimed to optimize the biological treatment process, emphasizing key parameters and
their calculations.
The system's sensitivity to variations, impacting solids removal efficiency and altering effluent
compositions, was demonstrated through the exploration of scenarios such as XCOD/VSS and
BOD5/BOD ultimate ratios. Tailored adjustments were underscored as crucial through
operational performance analysis under different configurations, highlighting the system's
dynamic nature and the need for ongoing monitoring.
Further depth to our understanding was provided by the performance evaluation of the secondary
clarifier and the assessment of kinetic parameters. The potential for enhanced nitrogen removal
through optimal recycling practices was emphasized by the impact of internal recycling on
nitrogen compounds.
In essence, achieving high-efficiency wastewater treatment while minimizing environmental
footprints is a challenging yet imperative endeavour. Not only descriptive insights but also
practical implications for the design, operation, and optimization of wastewater treatment systems
are contributed by this study. As a healthier and more sustainable world is navigated, the
commitment to environmental stewardship remains paramount, driving continual advancements in
wastewater treatment practices. The intricate balance between treatment effectiveness and
resource conservation, as explored in this report, served as a testament to the dedication to a
sustainable and resilient future.

6. References:

Baruth, E.E. (1990) Wastewater Treatment Plant Design. 4th edn. Lancaster/Pa: McGRAW-
HILL.

Sperling, M. von (2007) Basic principles of wastewater treatment Vol 2. London: IWA
Publishing.

Tchobanoglous, G. et al. (2014) Wastewater engineering: Treatment and resource recovery. New
York: McGraw-Hill Education.

21 | P a g e