A Comprehensive Design of a

Wastewater Sedimentation
Tank Using Case Study
Analysis
by DDLSCorp

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 1

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................. 3
Background of the Study ............................................. 4
Design Approach ............................................. 6
Method of Solution ............................................. 11
Results and Analysis ............................................. 17
Conclusion ............................................. 18
References ............................................. 18
Appendix ............................................. 19

Acknowledgments
DDLSCorp would like to thank Association of Chemical Engineering Students (ACES), for
giving us the opportunity to be part of this competition through financial assistance and
moral support.

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 2

Executive Summary

Wastewater treatment systems tend to simulate natural, biological, physical and chemical
processes. Sedimentation is one of the common methods that municipalities use for preliminary
physical water treatment. It usually occurs in enormous tanks of various shapes whose primary
mechanism is gravitational settling. Settling Processes could be hindered, continuous or batch, with
the latter being proposed in designing the tank.

This study primarily aimed to design a cylindrical sedimentation tank with two hours’ detention
time that can efficiently remove the highest number of particles in a wastewater. The designing
process was done by first deriving an equation using the particles’ settling velocities that will
determine the optimum value of over flow rate. This study also utilized a case study analysis to
determine the most suitable height and diameter of the tank by having three different cases: (1)
constant height and varying diameter, (2) varying height and constant diameter, and (3) varying
height and diameter.

The authors also included a comprehensive review of literatures on the rule of thumb and design
considerations needed for the tank’s miscellaneous parts. To further visualize the final designed
tank, this study included a two-dimensional and three-dimensional prototype output using
AUTOCAD 2017 software. Lastly, this paper includes a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
using the PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations)
software to determine the design construction material appropriate for the sedimentation tank.

Table 1. Final Specifications of the Sedimentation Tank

Parameters Specifications
Treatment Primary
Geometry Circular
Diameter, Height 67 m, 3 m
Critical Overflow Rate 28.36 m3/m2-day
Removal Efficiency 96.23%
Construction Material Stainless Steel (SS304L)

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 3

Background of the Study

The growth of world population is associated with an increase in water demand. As it increases, it
endangers the ecosystem water balance while increasing the volume of the resultant wastewater.
Because of these, the authorities are obliged to monitor and improve wastewater treatment
processes to minimize existing negative environmental impacts and ensure the good ecological
status of water bodies (Hernández-Sancho et al., 2013). According to UNESCO (United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) (2015), healthy ecosystems and human health
cannot be sustained without proper sanitation methods and wastewater treatment.

Wastewater treatment has two main purposes: first and most common is the sanitation of towns
and cities, and the sensible need of safe disposal of the gathered wastewater into the environment
after treatment, complying at the same time with the regulations regarding disposal. In
environmental terms, in most arid and semiarid areas the main amount of water flowing in a river
could be treated wastewater, especially in the lower part of the basin (Folch and Salgot, 2018).

As technology develops through time, wastewater treatment systems tend to adapt natural
processes, chemical, physical and biological. The differences between facilities are based on the type
of technology used, as well as on the possible combinations of technologies. (Folch and Salgot,
2018).

One the processes used in wastewater treatment is sedimentation. According to Goula, Kostoglou,
Karapantsios, and Zouboulis (2008), it is perhaps the oldest and the most common process for water
purification. In sedimentation processes, the solid particles is isolated from the surrounding liquid
by virtue of density difference. Similarly, in a tank where the water flow velocity is low, the particles
tend to undergo settling due to gravity; resulting in clarification of the supernatant liquid and the
formation of sludge layer at the bottom, which then removed after (Sperling, 2007).

Statement of the Problem

According to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Environmental Management
Bureau (DENR-EMB) (2015), in the Philippines, the percentage of wastewater that is treated is only
10%, while percentage of the contaminated groundwater is 58%, and only 5% of the total
population is connected to a sewer network. The majority of flush toilets are connected to septic
tanks, since sludge treatment and disposal facilities are rare, domestic wastewater is not treated
when discharged.

According to the data from the DENR-EMB, Philippines showed that out of the 127 sampled
freshwater bodies, samples that were found to have good water quality is only 47%. However, 40%
of those sampled were found to have only fair water quality, while 13% showed poor water quality.

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 4

According also to the Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation of UNICEF (United
Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) and WHO (World Health Organization), about
4,200 people die each year due to intake of contaminated water. Here in the Philippines, waterborne
diseases are still a severe public health concern (Claudio, 2015).

According to the study of UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization), every year
in Metro Manila alone, approximately 2,000 cubic meters of solvent wastes, 22,000 tons of heavy
metals, infectious wastes, biological sludge, lubricants, and intractable wastes, as well as 25 million
cubic meters of acid/alkaline liquid wastes are not disposed properly (Claudio, 2015).

Significance of the Study

According to Section 2 of The Clean Water Act of 2004 (Republic Act 9275), “The State shall pursue
a policy of economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection, preservation and revival of
the quality of the country’s fresh, brackish and marine waters”, And according to Section 2c of the
same act, “One of the objectives of the Clean Water Act is to formulate a holistic national program
of water quality management that recognizes that water quality management issues cannot be
separated from concerns about water sources and ecological protection, water supply, public health
and quality of life.” (Claudio, 2015).

Objectives
This case study primarily aims to design a cylindrical sedimentation tank that is suitable for
removing the highest number of particles in the wastewater stated in the problem given. Upon the
completion of the study, the objectives mentioned in the succeeding sentences will be achieved.

1. To derive an equation from the settling velocities of the particles that will determine the
optimum value of overflow rate.
2. To perform a case study analysis that will determine the height and diameter of the tank
design, critical overflow rate, and optimum value of removal efficiency of the process
involved.
3. To have a comprehensive study of the rule of thumb and design construction of the
Wastewater Sedimentation Tank.
4. To incorporate all the design considerations established by constructing a 2D and 3D
prototype using AUTOCAD 2017
5. To conduct a MCDA for the design materials of construction.

Scopes and Limitations

This case study analysis includes the height and diameter of the designed tank to obtain the optimal
overflow rate. The design of the tank is considered using standard specifications and Chemical
Engineering principles, and the materials of construction is considered using the MCDA via
PROMETHEE. However, the design is limited for average dry condition; extreme weather conditions

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 5

and flooding are not considered. The designed sedimentation tank is only applicable for primary
wastewater sedimentation process, and no other chemical treatments are involved to address other
factors such biological oxygen demand (BOD), algae formations, etc. This study does not intend to
treat a specific type of pollutant due to the fact that only particle diameter is available. Lastly, this
study only focuses on the processes and mechanisms of the sedimentation tank itself.

Design Approach

Review of Related Literature

Wastewater Sedimentation
Settling of solids from a body of liquid that results to a clarified overflow and an underflow with a
thickened solid is known as clarification, thickening, or sedimentation. This method uses the concept
of gravity separation and has long been used in the wastewater treatment industry (Water
Environment Federation, 2005).

Types of settling processes.

Sedimentation also varies on the type of settling that occurs for the particle. There are basically four
types of settling in wastewater treatment, and there’s a probability that more than one type occurs
at a given time. First type is discrete settling or also called the Type I sedimentation (Davis, 2010),
wherein the particle maintains their identity and does not coalesce, therefore their physical
properties such as shape, size, and density remains unchanged, and it occurs mostly on grit
chambers (Sperling, 2007).

For discrete settling, the sedimentation is analyzed based on the laws of Newton and Stokes. These
laws states that the final velocity of a particle under sedimentation in a liquid is constant, and
therefore, the frictional force is equal to the gravitational force. In fractions of a second, the terminal
velocity in the liquid medium is obtained (Sperling, 2007). In accordance to Stokes law, the discrete
settling of a particle flow in laminar flow is represented by the equation:

1 𝑔 𝜌𝑠 −𝜌𝑙
vs = ∙𝑣∙ ∙ 𝑑2 (1)
18 𝜌𝑙

Where vs = settling velocity of the particle (m/s)

g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
v = kinematic viscosity of the liquid (m2/s)
ρs = particle density (kg/m3)
ρl = liquid density (kg/m3)
d = particle diameter (m)

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 6

Second type of settling is the flocculent settling, also defined as the Type II sedimentation, where in
it is characterized by flocculation of particles during sedimentation. In this type of sedimentation,
there is no known adequate mathematical equation yet that can be used to describe the process.
The Stokes law equation can’t be applied because the flocculating particles’ size and shape change
through time (Davis, 2010).

The third type is the Type III sedimentation (Davis, 2010) or also called the hindered or zone
settling. It occurs when there is a formation of sludge blanket due to the particles wherein it tends
to stay in a fixed position with relation to the neighboring particles, resulting in having high
concentration of solids in that position, then settles as a single mass. Due to this, a clear separation
interface can be observed between the solid phase and the liquid phase with the solids moving
downward due to the settling of the sludge blanket. For this type, the settling velocity of the
interface is the basis for the design of settling tanks and it occurs mostly on secondary
sedimentation tanks and sludge gravity thickeners (Sperling, 2007).

The last type is the compression settling or the Type IV sedimentation (Davis, 2010). It occurs due
to the weight of the particles that are constantly added because of continuous sedimentation of the
particles situated in the supernatant liquid resulting in the higher concentration of the solids, but
reduction in its volume. It normally occurs in the bottom of secondary sedimentation tanks and
sludge gravity thickeners (Sperling, 2007).

Types of Wastewater Sedimentation

In wastewater treatment, the main application of sedimentation is dependent on the type of method
that will be used. It could be preliminary treatment, which is commonly for removal of grit or
inorganic particles of large dimensions; primary treatment, which is for sedimentation of
suspended solids from the raw sewage; secondary treatment for removal of mainly biological solids;
sludge treatment, or the thickening and settling of primary sludge and/or excess biological sludge
(Environmental Protection Agency, 1998); or physical-chemical treatment, that involves either
precipitation or coagulation but mainly used for industrial wastewaters (Sperling, 2007).

Design and Mode of Operation Considerations of a Primary Clarifiers

Design considerations of a wastewater sedimentation tank is very challenging for almost all experts
in the said industry due to the fact that the process is a large-scale operation which has
uncontrollable factors like weather conditions and pollutants present in the wastewater – almost
all design considerations have an empirical rather than a rational result. Many factors affect the
performance of a sedimentation tank: surface and solid loading rates, tank type, solids removal
mechanism, inlet design, weir and baffle placement, and many more, thus, a careful design decision
must be made aside from calculating appropriate dimensions to maximize tank efficiency (Goula et
al., 2008).

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 7

 Figure 1. Common Parts of a Center Flow Primary Sedimentation Tank (Davis, 2010)

Types of Settling Tanks

Sedimentation or settling tanks also vary in the process depending on the type of settling that could
occur and the particle that needs to be settled. First type of settling tank is the rectangular
sedimentation basin, wherein it has been the most frequently used design and serves as the basis of
structure for high-rate settler modules (Davis, 2010). Second type would be the radial flow tank, a
circular kind of tank with an inlet for the water at the center and a peripheral outlet. The collected
sediment is scraped to the central hopper for discharge (Edzwald and Gregory, 2010).

Inlet design. The up-flow inlet velocity should be maintained less than 0.3 m/s at the peak to prevent
turbulent conditions. Additionally, the feed well must have a depth of 25-50% of the side water
depth. Inlet flow can easily be controlled using gates or valves with automated actuators and
accurate flow meters that provide feedback signals that modulate valves (Goula et al., 2008). The
pumping of the wastewater from outside sources should have a high velocity to ensure that the
pollutants will not settle in the inlet pipe and to avoid fouling, this velocity will then be sufficiently
reduced before entering the actual settling tank to avoid turbulence (Davis, 2010).

Types of inlet flow/configurations:

1. Center flow – it causes the flow to move radially outward and toward the weir
causing a doughnut-shaped roll pattern. Most center feed have four rectangular
ports submerged.
2. Peripheral flow/Rim flow – it is a rare design mostly patented by companies. This
configuration enters the side of tank (rim) at a more distributed input (around the
tank).

Sludge collection and withdrawal. The primary factor that should be considered in this process is
the sludge thickening. High sludge blankets can cause unwanted density currents because it hinders
pollutant settling of another incoming wastewater. Increase in sludge blanket can cause a less

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 8

efficient effluent, thus, a quick withdrawal of sludge must be ensured. Continuous sludge
withdrawal must be designed together with centrifugal sludge pumps for optimal performance

Scum collection and withdrawal. Scums consists of oils, grease, fats, and debris, these are at the
top/surface of the wastewater inside the clarifier. These have little impacts in the overall process
but it can affect mostly with the safety and hazards of the process. Circular tanks usually use a
localized skimmer connected in the rake arm that revolves periodically to remove sludge at the
bottom.

Effluent discharge. Circular primary clarifiers typically have effluent launders. It is on average,
placed inboard along the outside wall, outboard along the outside wall or at an intermediate
location. It also consists of v-notch single-perimeter weir

Circular clarifier diameter and height. Whether it be primary, secondary or tertiary, circular clarifier
tanks have diameters ranging from 3m – 100m. However, most tanks are kept at a diameter value
around 50m to avoid the adverse wind effects, density currents, and turbulence. Primary circular
clarifiers often have depths of 2.4m to 3.0m, with a sloped-bottoms because its construction cost is
cheaper than a flat bottom tank.

Table 2. Design and Mode of Operation Considerations

Parameters/Constraints Specifications
Up-flow velocity must range 0.3-1.4 m/s
Down-flow velocity must limit to 0.7 m/min
Feed well diameter of 15-20% tank diameter (not
Inlet Design
exceeding 10-15m)
Feed well depth of 25-50% of the side water depth
Center feed flow (slotted vertical pipe feed)
Continuous sludge removal using a centrifugal pump
Sludge Treatment Use of spiral plows (curved blades) with 15-45
degrees blade angles moving at 3-10 m/min
Scum Treatment Use of localized surface skimmer
Use of outboard launders
Effluent Design Use of single 90 degreed v-notch parameter weir
Use of interior trough baffle
Floor Slope 1/12 slope, v-shaped floor
Should have a standard size of 1.07 m according to
Hand Railings
OSHA

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 9

Non-Ideal Behavior of Settling Tanks
Aside from uncontrollable phenomena like weather conditions and flooding, unpredictable factors
such as turbulence, density currents, wind effects, outlet currents, and sludge equipment movement
are present. Although most of these conditions are uncontrollable, it can be minimized by
implementing process controls or improving design considerations (Davis, 2010).

Industrial design processes are usually assumed to have a uniform horizontal settling velocity. This
assumption is valid only if the Reynolds number is small in value where it is implied to depict a
laminar flow. The effectiveness of an Energy Dissipating Inlet (EDI) affects the performance of the
settling tank. Camp’s Theory assumes that there is a uniform flow across the cross-sectional area of
the tank, thus minimizing turbulence in the tank.

Density currents. These density currents are described as the short-circuiting where in wastewater
is drawn towards the effluent too early, resulting to unsettled particles; it is usually caused by
temperature gradient and changes in solid concentration. It frequently happens when a warmer
water is introduced to a colder water. Density currents can be minimized by a constant mixing ratio
between two or more sources and constant reservoir intake height.

Wind effects. Due to the design nature of the clarifiers, these tanks are susceptible to induced
currents, strong winds, and waves at the top. This factor primarily scours the settled particles at the
bottom towards the settling zone. This can be countered by limiting the height of the tank as low as
possible and by installing wave breakers.

The design equations were based from Reynolds and Richards (1996), where the detention time, t,
is equal to the height divided by the overflow rate.
H
t=𝑉 (2)
𝑜
Another definition of detention time, t, is available, which is equal to the length divided by the
horizontal velocity.
L
t=𝑉 (3)
ℎ
Based from the equation above, the definition of horizontal velocity, Vh, is equal to the influent
flowrate divided by the cross sectional area, A.
Q
𝑉ℎ = A (4)
The relationship between detention time and overflow rate is derived from equations 3 and 4,
where horizontal velocity, Vh, is substituted in the denominator of detention time in equation 3
where the cross sectional area for a rectangular sedimentation tank defined as the multiplication
between the width, W, and the height, H, of the sedimentation tank. The resulting equation can be
seen below where the product of length, width and height is the volume of the tank.
LWH
t= (5)
Q

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 10

The detention time shown in Equation 2 is equal to the detention time of the previous equation.
H LWH
= (6)
𝑉𝑜 Q
Rearrangement was done in Equation 6 yielding the formula for the overflow rate.
Q
𝑉𝑜 = LW (7)
The formula for the overflow rate is equal to the ratio of the influent flow rate, Q, over the plan area
of the basin, Ap.
Q
𝑉𝑜 = 𝐴 (8)
𝑝

Overflow rate is also called surface loading rate having proper units of gal/day-ft2 (m3/day-m2).
According to Reynolds and Richards (1996), the settling velocity and the overflow rate/ surface
loading rate are equal to one another. For circular basins, the formula for the overflow rate is also
equal to the ratio of influent flow rate over the plan area of the basin.
Q
𝑉𝑜 = 𝐴 (9)
𝑝
πD2
Where 𝐴𝑝 = 4
(10)

Method of Solution

Table 3.
n 𝐃𝐩,𝐚𝐯𝐞 , µm 𝐔𝐬, m/hr 𝐔𝐬 /𝐕𝐬 particles particles
removed remaining
1 11.5 0.439 0.301 9.031 20.969
2 19 1.198 0.822 41.087 8.913
3 24.5 1.993 1.000 90 0
4 29.5 2.889 1.000 110 0
5 32 3.837 1.000 100 0
6 37.5 4.668 1.000 70 0
7 40.5 5.445 1.000 30 0
8 43 6.138 1.000 20 0
Total 470.119 29.881

Settling velocity will be determined in relation to the Stokes’ Law. The percent removal will be
𝐦𝟑
calculated based on the initial critical overflow rate of 35.00𝐦𝟐 ∙𝐝𝐚𝐲 .
Condition: 𝑁𝑅𝐸 < 2

gD2 (ρp − ρm )
Us = (11)
18μ
Us −particle settling velocity, m/hr
D – particle diameter, m
ρp − particle density, kg/m3

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 11

 ρm − medium density, kg/m3
μ −viscosity, Pa ∙ s

Sample calculation for n=1:

(7 + 16)
Dp,ave = = 11.5 μm (12)
2
Assumptions:
kg
 An average value of 2,660 m3 particle density will be used and is treated as constant
 Wastewater has an average temperature of 70℉ (assumption made from Wastewater
Engineering Treatment and Reuse sample problems)

kg
medium density, ρm = 1010 m3

medium viscosity, μ = 9.752 × 10−4 Pa ∙ s

Medium properties obtained from ASPEN-HYSYS simulation

m kg
(9.81 ) (11.5 × 10−6 m) (2660 − 1010 3 )
s2 m
Us =
18(9.752 × 10−4 Pa ∙ s)
m 3600 s
Us = 1.2195 × 10−4 ×
hr 1 hr
m
Us = 0.439
hr
Fraction of particle removed:
Us
fraction of particle removed = (13)
Vs
m
Vs − critical settling velocity, hr
m
Us 0.439 hr
= = 0.301
Vs m3 1 day
35.00 2 ×
m ∙ day 24 hrs

The fraction obtained will be used to calculate the quantity of remaining particles in the
sedimentation tank. If a fraction above 1.0 is obtained, the fraction to be used will be 1.0

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 12

 Us
particles removed = × n of particles (14)
Vs

particles removed = 0.301 × 30

particles removed = 9.0312

For the calculation of particle remaining, initial number of particles from the table will be subtracted
by the particles removed.
Us
Remaining particles = (1 − ) × no. of particles initial (15)
Vs

Remaining particles = (1 − 0.301) × 30

Remaining particles = 20.969

Percent removal will be calculated based on the fraction of the remaining particles and initial
particles:
final no. of particles
%removal = × 100% (16)
initial no. of particles
29.881
%removal = × 100% = 94%
500
There were 3 case studies presented which are shown in Table 4. Each case study has an individual
calculation of the required parameters i.e. height, diameter and the new overflow rate.

Table 4. Case Study Conditions

Case Conditions
1 Constant Height Varying Diameter
2 Varying Height Constant Diameter
3 Varying Height Varying Diameter

The first parameter to be determined is the height of the sedimentation tank governed by the
equation shown in Equation 2. The given parameters were specified from the problem statement
which are the critical overflow rate of 35 m 3/ m2-day, detention time of 2 hours and the influent
flow rate of 100,000 m3 of wastewater/day.

H = (t)(𝑉𝑜 )

1 day 35 m3
H = (2 hours) ( )( )
24 hours m2 − day

H = 2.9167 m

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 13

The initial height of the tank was based from the critical overflow rate is 2.9167 m. The next
procedure was the calculation of the volume of the tank using the influent flow rate and equation 4.
V
t=
Q

1 day 100,000 m3
V = (2 hours) (24 hours) ( )
day

V = 8,333.3333 m3

For the initial volume of the tank, the value 8,333.333 m 3 was obtained from the given detention
time and influent flow rate. The calculation of tank diameter is the next procedure using the value
tank volume in the previous calculation. Using the formula for the volume of a cylinder, the diameter
of the tank was obtained having a value of 60.3141 m.
π
V= (D2 )(H) (17)
4

π 2
8,333.3333 m3 = (D )(2.9167 m)
4

D = 60.3141 m

After obtaining the diameter of the tank, the overflow rate was calculated using Equation 9. This
procedure is just to show that the calculated overflow rate is the same as the given overflow rate
which verifies the calculated diameter of the tank.
Q
𝑉𝑜 = 𝐴
𝑝

𝑚3
100,000 𝑑𝑎𝑦
𝑉𝑜 = 𝜋
( )2
4 60.3141 𝑚

Vo = 35.0004 m3/day-m2

After obtaining all the desired parameters for case 1, the values of height and diameter from the
base case calculation was approximated in such a way that the values used for the rest of the trials
are in whole numbers. The conditions are applied in which the height is constant while the diameter
is varying. A standard tank dimension of 1m increment for diameter is specified in the problem
statement. The full summary of all cases are shown in Table 5, located at Appendix A.

H = 2.9167 m ≈ 3m
D = 60.3141 m ≈ 60 m

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 14

Once the approximation was done, the calculation was carried out in the same manner in all other
cases with the height increasing in increments of 0.5m but not exceeding 5m, and the diameter with
increasing increments of 1m. The full summary of values per case are shown in Appendix A.

Results and Analysis

Figure 2. Graphical Representation of Sedimentation Efficiency

Shown in Figure 2 is the graphical representation of sedimentation efficiency from the resulted
values of detention time versus the percent removal of particles. The values of calculated height,
diameter and volume were the variables needed to obtain the value of detention time, while the
new overflow rate was used to compute for the percent removal. The complete list of values for
height, diameter, volume, detention time, new overflow rate and percent removal can be seen in
Appendix A. Based from Figure 2, the value that has the highest peak in the graph is considered to
be the optimum parameters needed for the sedimentation tank and is summarized in Table 6.

Table 6. Optimum Parameters of the Sedimentation Tank

Parameters Units Values
Height M 3.00
Diameter M 67.00
Volume m3 10,576.96
Detention Time H 2.54
New Overflow rate m /m2-day
3 28.36
Percent Removal % 96.23

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 15

Histogram Analysis
m3
For the initial design of 35.00 m2 ∙day , it can be seen in figure 3 (see Appendix A) that the resulting
amount of particles in the effluent is based on the settling velocity of the particle. Having various
particle diameters for each sample, settling velocity can be determined. The particle with higher
diameter equates to a higher particle settling velocity. For a lower particle settling velocity, a
fraction of particle removed will be low, resulting to a lower particle removal for a sample with a
smaller particle diameter. For the optimum design of the tank, a critical overflow rate of 28.3635
𝑚3
results in a higher fraction of particle removal because the new critical overflow rate has
𝑚 2 ∙𝑑𝑎𝑦
been reduced.

Material Selection
The criteria in Table 12 (See Appendix A) presented was used to evaluate the appropriate material
of construction to be used in the design of the sedimentation tank. Materials of construction
selection is done using Decision Support System (DSS) under MCDA. DSS are programs or
applications that analyzes data and applies mathematical modelling to determine the rankings of
the data being compared. PROMETHEE is used for such ranking. Four (4) materials were compared
(See Table 11 for specification of Materials):

• Coated Carbon Steel (A285)

• Galvanized Steel (A653-09 grade 33)
• Stainless Steel (304)
• Stainless Steel (304L)

By utilizing the analysis, Stainless Steel 304L (SS304L) is evaluated to be the most appropriate
material of construction to be used in the design. The results from PROMETHEE for the evaluation
are shown in figure 4-7 in Appendix A.

Conclusions

Through the derivation of an equation from the particles’ settling velocities that would satisfy the
given data, the obtained optimum overflow rate of the tank design is 28.36 m3/m2-day. By utilization
of case study analysis, the most suitable diameter and height calculated value of the designed
sedimentation tank are 67m and 3m, respectively; and through these resulting data, the tank is
designed to obtain a particle removal efficiency of 96.23%. In consideration for the design of
internal parts of the sedimentation tank through comprehensive review of literatures and the rule
of thumb, and material of construction selection via MCDA using the PROMETHEE software, a
circular tank made of stainless steel SS304L is concluded, and it will be utilized for primary
treatment for wastewater in Metro Manila.

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 16

References

Basic, M.M. & Moss, D.R. (2013). Pressure Vessel Design Manual.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-67103-3.

Burton, F. L., Stensel, H. D., & Tchobanoglous, G. (2003). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and
Reuse (4th ed.). Retrieved from https://www.mheducation.com/

Claudio, L. E. (2015). Wastewater Management in the Philippines [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ip_mnl_15/wipo_ip_mnl_15_t4.pdf

Drinan, J. E., & Whiting, N. E. (2001). Water & wastewater treatment: A guide for the nonengineering
professional. Lancaster, Pa.: Technomic Publishing Co. Inc.

Davis, M. L. (2010). Water and Wastewater Engineering: Design Principles and Practice (1st ed.).
Retrieved from https://www.mheducation.com/

Folch, M., & Salgot, M. (2018). Wastewater treatment and water reuse. Current Opinion in
Environmental Science & Health, 2, 64-74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.03.005

Goula, A. M., Kostoglou, M., Karapantsios, T. D., & Zouboulis, A. I. (2008). A CFD methodology for the
design of sedimentation tanks in potable water treatment Case study: The influence of a feed flow
control baffle. Chemical Engineering Journal, 140(1-3), 110-121.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2007.09.022

Gregory R. & Edzwald J. (2010). Sedimentation & Flotation, Water Quality & Treatment (6th ed.),
AWWA & McGrawHill.

Hernández-Sancho, F., Molinos-Senante, M., Sala-Garrido, R. (2013). Benchmarking in wastewater

treatment plants: a tool to save operational costs. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy, 16, 149–161.

Reynolds, T. D., & Richards, P. A. (1996). Unit operations and processes in environmental engineering.
Boston, MA: PWS Publishing Co.

Sperling, M. (2007). Basic Principles of Wastewater Treatment (Vol. 6) [1].

doi:https://doi.org/10.2166/9781780402093

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 17

Towler, G. P. (2013). Chemical engineering design: Principles, practice and economics of plant and
process design, second edition (2nd ed.). Kidlington, Oxford, U.K.; Waltham, Mass.: Butterworth-
Heinemann.

UNESCO (2015). Water Supply, Sanitation and Health. Retrieved November 13, 2018, from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/facts-and-
figures/water-supply-sanitation-and-health/

Voutchkov, N. (2009). Clarifier Design. doi:https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1230.8805.

Appendix A
Table for Particle Specifications, Case Study Conditions and Graphical Analyses

Table 7. Particle Specifications

n Particle diameter, µm Number of particles/L × 10-5
1 7-16 30
2 16-22 50
3 22-27 90
4 27-32 110
5 32-36 100
6 36-39 70
7 39-42 30
8 42-44 20
Total 500

Table 8. Summary of Values for Case 1 Condition

CASE 1: CONSTANT HEIGHT AND VARYING DIAMETER
Detention New Overflow Percent
Height Volume Diameter
Trial Time rate Removal
m m 3 m h m /m2 - day
3 %
1 2.9167 8333.3333 60.3141 2.0000 35.0000 94.0000
2 3.0000 8482.3002 60.0000 2.0358 35.3678 93.9000
3 3.0000 8767.3997 61.0000 2.1042 34.2177 94.2500
4 3.0000 9057.2116 62.0000 2.1737 33.1228 94.5900
5 3.0000 9351.7359 63.0000 2.2444 32.0796 94.9400
6 3.0000 9650.9726 64.0000 2.3162 31.0849 95.2900
7 3.0000 9954.9217 65.0000 2.3892 30.1358 95.6400
8 3.0000 10263.5832 66.0000 2.4633 29.2296 96.0026
9 3.0000 10576.9571 67.0000 2.5385 28.3635 96.2289

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 18

 10 3.0000 10895.0433 68.0000 2.6148 27.5355 96.2959
11 3.0000 11217.8420 69.0000 2.6923 26.7431 96.3639
12 3.0000 11545.3530 70.0000 2.7709 25.9845 96.4329
13 3.0000 11877.5764 71.0000 2.8506 25.2577 96.5030
14 3.0000 12214.5122 72.0000 2.9315 24.5609 96.5740
15 3.0000 12556.1604 73.0000 3.0135 23.8927 96.6460
16 3.0000 12902.5210 74.0000 3.0966 23.2513 96.7189
17 3.0000 13253.5940 75.0000 3.1809 22.6354 96.7929
18 3.0000 13609.3794 76.0000 3.2663 22.0436 96.8679
19 3.0000 13969.8771 77.0000 3.3528 21.4748 96.9439
20 3.0000 14335.0873 78.0000 3.4404 20.9277 97.0208
21 3.0000 14705.0098 79.0000 3.5292 20.4012 97.0988
22 3.0000 15079.6447 80.0000 3.6191 19.8944 97.1778
23 3.0000 15458.9921 81.0000 3.7102 19.4062 97.2577
24 3.0000 15843.0518 82.0000 3.8023 18.9357 97.3386
25 3.0000 16231.8238 83.0000 3.8956 18.4822 97.4205
26 3.0000 16625.3083 84.0000 3.9901 18.0448 97.5034
27 3.0000 17023.5052 85.0000 4.0856 17.6227 97.5874
28 3.0000 17426.4144 86.0000 4.1823 17.2152 97.6722
29 3.0000 17834.0361 87.0000 4.2802 16.8218 97.7582
30 3.0000 18246.3701 88.0000 4.3791 16.4416 97.8450
31 3.0000 18663.4166 89.0000 4.4792 16.0742 97.9330
32 3.0000 19085.1754 90.0000 4.5804 15.7190 98.0218
33 3.0000 19511.6466 91.0000 4.6828 15.3754 98.1117
34 3.0000 19942.8302 92.0000 4.7863 15.0430 98.2026
35 3.0000 20378.7261 93.0000 4.8909 14.7212 98.2944

Table 9. Summary of Values for Case 2 Condition

CASE 2: VARYING HEIGHT AND CONSTANT DIAMETER
Detention New Overflow Percent
Height Volume Diameter
Trial Time rate Removal
m m3 m h m3/m2 - day %
1 3.0000 8482.3002 60.0000 2.0358 35.3678 93.9000
2 3.5000 9896.0169 60.0000 2.3750 35.3700 93.9000
3 4.0000 11309.7336 60.0000 2.7143 35.3700 93.9000
4 4.5000 12723.4502 60.0000 3.0536 35.3700 93.9000
5 5.0000 14137.1669 60.0000 3.3929 35.3700 93.9000

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 19

 Table 10. Summary of Values for Case 3 Condition
CASE 3: VARYING HEIGHT AND DIAMETER
Detention New Overflow Percent
Height Volume Diameter
Trial Time rate Removal
m m3 m h m /m2 - day
3 %
1 3.0000 8482.3002 60.0000 2.0358 35.3678 93.9000
2 3.5000 10228.6330 61.0000 2.4549 34.2177 94.2500
3 4.0000 12076.2822 62.0000 2.8983 33.1228 94.5900
4 4.5000 14027.6039 63.0000 3.3666 32.0796 94.9400
5 5.0000 16084.9544 64.0000 3.8604 31.0849 95.2900

Table 11. Material Specifications

Material Relative Hardness, 𝜎𝑑 , ksi % Chromium % Carbon
cost rating HB content content
A285 1 105 12.90 17.50 0.16
A653 1.5 98 54.50 0.3 0.20
304 2.2 160 20.00 17.5 0.07
304L 2.2 160 20.00 0.3 0.03

Table 12. Criteria for Materials of Construction Selection

Criterion % Definition
This criterion used is based on the density, maximum
allowable stress, and cost per unit mass of a material.
Relative cost rating 40
The lower the cost rating, the better material to be
selected.
Hardness of the metal to be used will be based on its
approximate Brinell Hardness (HB). To minimize the
Hardness 10
deformation of metal due to indentation, a material
with higher HB is recommended.
The criterion to be used is the allowable stress that
can be applied to a structural material. Considering
Maximum allowable
10 that the sedimentation tank will hold a huge amount
stress
of wastewater, a higher value of σd should be optimal
for material selection.
Corrosion resistance can be applied if the chromium
Chromium content 20
content of the material is above 12% (Towler, 2013).
Low carbon content of a material equates to low
Carbon content 20
intergranular corrosion

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 20

 Final Sedimentation Histogram
120 critical overflow rate = 28.3635
m3/m2.day
100
number of particles

80
x 10-5 /L

60

40

20

0
0.44 1.20 1.99 2.89 3.84 4.67 5.45 6.14
particle settling velocity, m/hr

Influent Removed Effluent

Figure 3. Graphical Representation Sedimentation Histogram

Figure 4. PROMETHEE Interface

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 21

 Figure 5. PROMETHEE I Partial Ranking

Figure 6. PROMETHEE Complete Ranking

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 22

 Figure 7. PROMETHEE Rainbow

Appendix B
Figures of Sedimentation Layout

SNCEC 2018 Inter-U: Case Study - 23