WEFTEC 2013

Aeration system design in integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) and

moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR) using stainless steel pipe diffusers,
manifold, and down pipes
Chandler Johnson 1, Joshua P. Boltz 2
1
Chief Technology Officer, World Water Works, Inc., 4000 S.W. 113th St., Oklahoma City, OK 73173
2
Biofilm Technologies Practice Leader, CH2M HILL, Inc., 4350 W. Cypress St., Ste. 600, Tampa, FL 33605
([email protected])

ABSTRACT

Aerobic integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) and moving bed biofilm reactors
(MBBRs) use an engineered aeration system consisting of stainless-steel pipe diffusers, manifold
(or submerged air header), down pipes, and manually operated air-flow control valves. The so-
called medium-bubble diffuser has a large diameter (i.e., 4-mm) orifice that is situated along the
underside of the stainless steel pipe diffuser. Therefore, medium-bubble diffusers are not as
susceptible to scaling and fouling as fine-bubble diffusers, and operational experience has proven
that medium-bubble diffusers require significantly less maintenance than fine-bubble diffusers.
The oxygen transfer efficiency (OTE) of a medium-bubble diffuser is better than that of a typical
coarse-bubble diffuser. The presence of free moving plastic biofilm carriers in a bioreactor
improves OTE. Unfortunately, there is not a generally accepted design criteria for the aeration
systems that are used in aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs. This paper will describe a method for
designing a state-of-the-art aeration system for aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs. The
methodology presented in this paper may be used to design aeration systems typical of state-of-
the-art aerobic free moving plastic biofilm carrier-based reactors.

KEYWORDS: integrated fixed-film activated sludge; IFAS; moving bed biofilm reactor;
MBBR; medium bubble; diffuser; aeration; aerobic; manifold

INTRODUCTION

State-of-the-art integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) and moving bed biofilm reactors
(MBBRs) utilize free-moving plastic biofilm carriers, wedge wire or perforated plate carrier
retention screens, and a submerged mixer (in an anoxic zone) or stainless-steel pipe diffusers,
manifold (or submerged air header), down (or drop) pipes, and manually operated air-flow
control valves (in an aerobic zone). IFAS represents an evolution of the activated sludge process
that allows higher volumetric ammonia-nitrogen conversion rates by combining biofilm and
suspended growth compartments. Therefore, the establishment of generally accepted design
criteria for IFAS process and mechanical features is imperative for the application of this
environmental biotechnology. However, there is presently an imperfect understanding of IFAS
process and mechanical design which has hindered the widespread application of this
environmental biotechnology.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3781
 WEFTEC 2013

Without institutional design criteria (and supporting design tools) and knowledge about the
proper application of IFAS and MBBRs, the consulting engineer will rely on manufacturers (or
vendors) to develop and propose a process and mechanical design. Comparison of a
manufacturer contrived IFAS or MBBR process and mechanical design with process and
mechanical designs for alternative wastewater treatment technologies that were designed by a
consultant will not allow for a fair comparison based on equivalent standards despite the fact that
both designs were developed for the same wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) improvement or
expansion project. Due to unknowns by both parties, namely the manufacturer and consultant, it
is typical for consultancy designers to incorporate conservatism (in this case to the IFAS process
and mechanical designs) that can result in the technology (i.e., IFAS) being non-competitive with
other alternatives being evaluated (primarily from a cost perspective). Thus, IFAS may be
injudiciously eliminated from consideration although the technology may warrant the most
significant monetary and operational benefits had the technology been properly evaluated and
compared with competing environmental biotechnologies.

Boltz et al. (2009a; 2009b) and others have created process models that accurately simulate IFAS
and MBBR process performance, and McQuarrie et al. (2010) documented practical IFAS
process design guidelines. Boltz et al. (2010a) and McQuarrie and Boltz (2011) have (1)
presented design criteria for sizing free-moving plastic biofilm carrier retention screens, (2)
established practical limitations for the amount of free-moving plastic biofilm carriers that may
be placed in a bioreactor, and (3) defined system hydraulics with threshold parameters including
the basin approach velocity and carrier retention screen hydraulic loading rate. Therefore,
process model(s), free-moving plastic biofilm carrier retention screen sizing criteria, IFAS zone
or MBBR basin configuration standards, and criteria describing the amount of free-moving
plastic biofilm carriers (or biofilm surface area) that are required to meet a wastewater treatment
objective exist, have been documented and referenced in this manuscript, and have been
demonstrated accurate in multiple full-scale, operating aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs
(including secondary processes, post-denitrification, and tertiary nitrification). However, the
description of a comprehensive methodology for state-of-the-art aerobic IFAS zone and MBBR
aeration system design, to the knowledge of the authors, has not been presented. In this paper,
the aeration system includes stainless-steel pipe diffusers, manifold (or submerged air header),
down (or drop) pipes, and manually operated air-flow control valves. This manuscript will
present a method for the design of an aeration system in aerobic IFAS zones (that contain free-
moving plastic biofilm carriers) and MBBRs.

GENERAL PROCESS MECHANICAL DESIGN CRITERIA

Free-moving plastic biofilm carrier based aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs use a piping network
and air diffusers that (1) are capable of passing adequate air flow to meet process oxygen
requirements, (2) have characteristics that do not require excessive additional blower capacity
beyond that required to pass air through a fine-bubble diffuser-based aeration system, (3) has a
sufficient number of drop pipes equipped with manually operated flow control vales to promote a
rolling water circulation pattern (i.e., for the uniform distribution of free-moving plastic biofilm
carriers, (4) can structurally withstand the weight imparted by biofilm covered plastic carriers
when the tank is drained, (5) does not have a propensity for orifice clogging, and (6) requires
infrequent maintenance. These objectives have been met in aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3782
 WEFTEC 2013

with an engineered system that consists of stainless steel components including manually
controlled air-flow control valves, drop pipes, manifolds (or submerged air headers), and
perforated pipe distributors (or diffusers). Figure 1 is a photograph that depicts the aeration
system components from the stainless steel drop pipe to the manifold and diffusers.

Figure 1. (left) Photograph depicting the air flow control valve, stainless steel drop pipe,
manifold, and pipe diffusers. (right) Pictured on top (a) is the stainless steel diffuser with 4-mm
diameter orifices situated along the underside of the pipe, and (b) the butterfly valve that is
attached to each drop pipe.

The first aeration system of this kind was installed in 1992 at the MBBR-based Eidsfoss WWTP
(Eidsfoss is a village in Hof municipality, Vestfold County, Norway). The Lillehammer WWTP,
a larger MBBR, was installed in 1994 in Lillehammer, Norway, to handle municipal wastewater
generated by attendees of the 1994 Winter Olympic Games. These MBBRs included K1-type
free-moving plastic biofilm carriers (see McQuarrie and Boltz 2011 for a description of the
carrier characteristics) and aeration systems consisting of the components described in this
manuscript. Neither of these WWTPs experienced plastic biofilm carrier attrition or structural
deterioration requiring carrier replacement. In addition, aeration equipment installed in these
WWTPs has not experienced malfunction or performance deterioration, and aeration system
maintenance was not required during the 23 and 21 year existence at the Eidsfoss and
Lillehammer WWTPs, respectively (Ødegaard 2013). Construction of the Broomfield Water

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3783
 WEFTEC 2013

Reclamation Facility (WRF), Broomfield, Colorado, U.S.A., began in 2002 with an aeration
system that is consistent with the units described in this manuscript. The Broomfield WRF has
not required aeration system maintenance since it began operation in 2003.
The air diffusers used in aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs are known as medium-bubble
diffusers. Their oxygen transfer characteristics are in between conventional coarse-bubble and
fine-bubble diffusers. The medium-bubble diffusers are less affected by fouling or scaling
because the large discharge (4-mm diameter) orifices are difficult to clog (Stenstrom and Rosso
2008). However, a benefit inherent to medium-bubble diffusers is that they require less
maintenance than fine-bubble diffusers. In fact, operational experience with wastewater
treatment facilities such as the Eidsfoss WWTP, Lillehammer WWTP, and Broomfield WRF has
yet to establish precedence for maintenance of the aeration system described in this paper
because these aeration systems have not yet required maintenance during the 23, 21, and 10-
years of operation since start-up, respectively.

The medium-bubble diffusers are characterized by lower oxygen transfer efficiency than fine-
bubble diffusers because the larger bubbles they expel travel through the water column rapidly,
and have a lower surface-to-volume ratio. However, medium-bubble diffusers have more
efficient oxygen transfer efficiency than coarse-bubble diffusers. The presence of plastic biofilm
carriers has a positive impact on oxygen transfer efficiency in aerobic IFAS zones (Pham et al.
2008). It can be inferred that although the diffuser itself releases larger bubbles than fine-bubble
diffusers, the transit of bubbles through a water column containing evenly distributed free
moving plastic biofilm carriers that shear the bubbles into smaller bubbles burst at the tank
surface in the “medium” range (i.e., bubble size distribution is typically in the range 5 and 50
mm). Pham et al. (2008) demonstrated improved standard oxygen transfer efficiency (SOTE) in
a 2.1-meter (7-foot) deep test tank (1.2-meter x 1.2-meter, or 4-foot x 4-foot, plan) having a 2.0-
meter (6.5-foot) SWD and the coarse bubble diffuser mounted 0.15-meter (0.5-feet) above the
tank bottom. The SOTE was 2.35 percent per meter (0.72 percent per foot) of diffuser
submergence when the plastic biofilm carrier fill was zero. Alternatively, the SOTE was 3.20
percent per meter (0.98 percent per foot) of diffuser submergence when the plastic biofilm
carrier fill was 25 percent. A 50 percent plastic carrier fill resulted in a SOTE of 2.60 percent per
meter (0.79 percent per foot) of diffuser submergence. The reduced SOTE at 50 percent fill was
attributed to a poorly configured diffuser grid lay out and poor mixing of the plastic biofilm
carrier fill. Unfortunately, the impact of biofilm covered plastic carriers has not been
investigated; therefore, the impact of biofilm covered plastic carriers on oxygen transfer
efficiency in aerobic IFAS and MBBR zones is poorly understood. Operational experience has
proven that medium-bubble diffusers require less maintenance than fine-bubble diffusers - a trait
that is attractive to operation and maintenance staff.

DETAILED DESIGN METHODOLOGY

Process mechanical equipment included in aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs include: (1) free-
moving plastic biofilm carriers; (2) plastic biofilm carrier retention screens, wall mounting
devices, structural support assemblies (if needed), and auxiliary portal screens (e.g., screens to
cover floor drain openings, scum over flow, draining, and equalization portals); and (3) the
aeration system which includes stainless steel pipe diffusers, manifold, flexible couplings (which

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3784
 WEFTEC 2013

is an alternative fixture), drop pipes, and flow control valves. Design criteria for process
mechanical features listed as items (1) and (2) has been documented by Boltz et al. (2010a) and
McQuarrie and Boltz (2011). The detailed design method presented in this section is dedicated to
the aeration system.

Low-pressure air enters an aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR through one or more drop pipes that
connect to a manifold (or air header). The air then exits the aeration system through orifices
situated along the underside of stainless steel pipe diffusers that are attached to the basin bottom.
Multiple drop pipes are typically incorporated into the system. When the drop pipes are equipped
with flow control valves they aid in air flow reduction which helps to control dissolved oxygen
concentration, and promotes the rolling water circulation pattern that uniformly distributes free-
moving plastic biofilm carriers throughout the basin. Historically, process oxygen requirements
and the distribution of free-moving plastic biofilm carriers in aerobic IFAS zones have been
achieved with medium-bubble diffusers that are made of stainless-steel pipes having circular
orifices situated along the bottom of the pipe.

General Aeration System Design Criteria

Drop pipes are typically provided for every 1 to 3 manifold (or submerged air headers) and will
depend on the basin configuration. Drop pipes are typically equipped with manually modulated
air flow control valves. There may be 2 or more drop pipes per aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR.
The number of drop pipes is determined by the need to meet air flow rate turn down
requirements which are typically 50 percent of the maximum design air flow rate. Diffusers
typically used in IFAS and MBBRs are 25-mm (1 inch) diameter stainless-steel pipes with 4-mm
(5/32 inch) diameter orifices spaced (Lorifice spacing) 38 to 102-mm (1.5 to 4.0 inches) along the
underside of the diffuser pipe. Placing the orifices too close together will lead to uneven air flow
distribution inside the pipe diffuser, and placing the orifices too far apart leads to cost prohibitive
application. The air diffuser is generally anchored 0.30 meter (1.0 foot) above the tank bottom,
and is spaced 0.30, 0.45, 0.60, or 0.90 meters (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, or 3.0 feet) apart. The medium-
bubble diffuser orifice must be smaller than the plastic biofilm carrier to eliminate the potential
for air-pipe and orifice plugging. The maximum distance between grids should not exceed 1.83
meters (6 feet). The minimum distance of any grid from the basin wall is 0.90 m (although 0.45
m is preferred). Installed aeration grids must be leveled to within 6.5 mm (0.25 inches).

As derived later in this paper, the maximum air flow rate per orifice (Qorifice, maximum) is 1.75
m3/hr, with 50 percent turn down possible. The minimum air flow rate per orifice (Qorifice, minimum)
is 1.60 m3/hr, with 50 percent turn down possible. Design air velocity in the manifold is 13 m/s
in 0.1 to 0.2-meter diameter pipes, and 20 m/s in pipes with a diameter larger than 0.2 meters.
While designing the aeration system one must follow the steps listed in Table 1.

Calculating the Actual Oxygen Transfer Rate

The basis for designing aeration systems in aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs is the actual oxygen
transfer rate (AOTR), and air flow rate that is required to either meet demands imposed by the
biological wastewater treatment process or evenly distributed free moving plastic biofilm carriers
throughout the IFAS zone or MBBR. Depending on the design approach, this value may be
given as output from a whole-plant wastewater treatment plant model, or simulator. In any event,
this paper will offer the design engineer methodology for establishing the AOTR.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3785
 WEFTEC 2013

Table 1. Abbreviated aeration system design methodology and associated criteria for aerobic
IFAS zone(s) and MBBR(s) aeration systems

Step in Designing Aeration System Parameter values

A. Air Flow rate Use a process model (see Boltz et al. 2009a,b; 2010b) or
alternative method (see Grady et al. 2011)
Calculate required actual air flow rates in the
aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR (Qair, total, zone)

B. Orifices Maximum (Qorifice, maximum) - 1.75 m3/hr per orifice

Minimum (Qorifice, minimum) - 1.60 m3/hr per orifice
Calculate the total number of required orifices
Maximum diffuser density is 55 m3/hr/m2 of floor
(Norifices) per aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR

C. Laterals and Diffusers Ldiffuser spacing is in the range 0.30 to 102 mm apart (1.5 to
Calculate: 4.0 inches apart; on center of the diffuser pipe).
a. number of laterals/manifold (Nlaterals, manifold)
b. number of diffusers/manifold (Ndiffusers, manifold)
based on an assigned diffuser spacing (Ldiffuser spacing)
D. Manifold, Number of Wgrid which is generally 2.1 or 2.4 meters (7 to 8 feet)
Calculate: for grids with diffusers on both sides of the manifold .
a. number of manifold/basin length (Nmanifold, length)
Note: Wgrid is fixed at either 2.1 or 2.4 meters (7 or 8
b. number of manifold/basin width (Nmanifold, width) feet), but the diffuser length will vary depending on if
based on an assigned grid width (Wgrid) the manifold diameter (Dmanifold) is 76, 102, 152, 203,
254, or 305-mm (3, 4, 6, 8, 10, or 12-inch).

E. Orifices (Calculated) Lorifice spacing is in the range 38 to 102-mm (1.5 to 4.0 in)
Calculate:
Keep the orifice spacing as close together as possible to
a. number of orifices per lateral (Norifices per laterals)
reduce the number of diffusers and minimize the cost of
b. total number of orifices per zone (Norifices, total, zone) the aeration system. Lorifice spacing may be 38, 41, 44, 48,
c. total number of orifices (Norifices, total) 51, 54, 57, 60, or 102-mm apart.
based on an assigned orifice spacing (Lorifice spacing)
F. Air Flow Rate per Orifice (Calculated) Calculated air flow rate per orifice (Q’orifice) must be
Calculate: within tolerance:
a. air flow rate per orifice (Q’orifice)  Q 'orifices ≥ Qorifice, minimum= 1.60 m3/hr/orifice
b. ensure Q 'orifices is within tolerance  Q'orifices ≤ Qorifice, maximum= 1.75 m3/hr/orifice

G. Manifold Diameter (Dmanifold) Vmanifold must be less than 13 m/s when Dmanifold is 0.1 to
0.2-m, and less than 20 m/s when Dmanifold is greater than
Calculate:
0.2 m. If Vmanifold is greater than the maximum allowable
a. air flow velocity in manifold (Vmanifold) velocity, then the manifold diameter (Dmanifold) must be
b. ensure Vmanifold is within tolerance increased. Manifold are typically available as 0.076,
based on an assigned manifold diameter (Dmanifold) 0.102, 0.152, 0.203, and 0.254-m (3, 4, 6, 8, and 10-
inch) diameter stainless steel pipes.
Criteria for determining Dmanifold when Nmanifold, width is
greater than 1 is discussed in a later section.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3786
 WEFTEC 2013

The actual amount of oxygen required by an aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR must be obtained by
applying factors to a standard oxygen requirement that accounts for the effects of salinity-surface
tension (beta factor, ), temperature, elevation, diffuser depth, the desired dissolved oxygen
operating level, and the effects of mixing intensity and basin configuration. The interrelationship
of these factors is given by the following Eq. (1).

   C  C 
AOTR  SOTR   s ,T , H   1.024T  20    F (1)
 CS, 20 
 

Where,
AOTR = actual oxygen transfer rate under field conditions (kg O2/hr)
SOTR = standard oxygen transfer rate in tap water at 20°C, and zero D.O. (kg O2/hr)
 = salinity-surface tension correction factor (typically 0.95)
C = average DO sat. conc. in clean water at temperature T and altitude H (mg/L)
s ,T , H

1  P O 
C  Cs,T ,H    d  t 
s ,T , H 2  Patm,H 21 

When multiplied by 0.5 the term in brackets above represents the average
pressure at mid-depth and accounts for the loss of oxygen to biological uptake. If
the biological uptake rate is not considered, then the following expression can be
used:
P  Pw ,md 
C  Cs,T ,H   atm,H 

s ,T , H
 Patm,H 
Cs,T,H = oxygen sat. conc. in clean water at temperature T and altitude H (mg/L)
Pd = pressure at the depth of air release (kPa)
Patm,H = atmospheric pressure at altitude H (kPa)
Pw,md = pressure at mid-depth above point of air release due to water column (kPa)
Ot = percent oxygen concentration leaving tank, typically (18 to 20 percent)
C = dissolved oxygen concentration in the bulk of the water (g/m3)
Cs,20 = dissolved oxygen sat. conc. in clean water at 20°C and 1 atm (mg/L)
T = operating temperature (°C)
 = oxygen transfer correction factor for wastewater
F = fouling factor (typically 1.0 for medium-bubble diffusers)

If the diffuser’s characteristic SOTE is known, then the SOTR can be converted into an air flow
rate using Eq. (2).

SOTR
Q air   100 (2)
SOTE

Where,

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3787
 WEFTEC 2013

Qair = air flow rate (Nm3/hr)

SOTE = standard oxygen transfer efficiency;
(percent; typical value defined as side water depth x 3.45 percent per meter of
submergence)

Once an AOTR and the total air flow rate requirement has been established for the aerobic IFAS
zone or MBBR, the next step in this aeration system design is to determine the air flow rate that
will be distributed through each orifice that is distributed along that bottom of the stainless steel
pipe diffuser.

Diffusers: Air Distribution through a Perforated Pipe

Uniform air distribution is essential for efficient diffuser operation. To ensure optimum air
distribution proper consideration must be given to flow behavior in the distributor, flow
conditions upstream and downstream of the diffuser, and the aeration system distribution
requirements (Perry and Green 1997). Aeration systems in aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs
typically use 25-mm (1-inch) diameter stainless steel pipes with 4-mm diameter orifices. Figure
2 illustrates a conceptual stainless steel pipe diffuser with orifices situated along the underside of
the pipe.

Figure 2. Medium-bubble diffuser (also known as a perforated pipe distributer). The diffusers
typically have a 25-mm diameter and 4-mm diameter orifices situated along the underside of the
pipe.

Methodology for obtaining uniform air flow distribution in the stainless-steel pipe diffusers
typically used in aerobic free-moving plastic biofilm carrier-based IFAS zones and MBBR
aeration systems is to make the average pressure drop across the diffuser orifices (p0) large
when compared to the change in pressure (P) over the length of the pipe. Consequently, the
relative variation in pressure drop across the orifices that are evenly spaced along the underside
of the pipe diffuser will be small, and so will be the variation in air flow. When the area of an
individual orifice is small when compared to the cross-sectional area of the pipe (i.e., diffuser),
pressure drop through the orifice may be expressed in terms of the discharge coefficient (CDC,0)
and the air flow velocity across the orifice (Eq. 3).

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3788
 WEFTEC 2013

1   V02
p 0   (3)
C 2DC, 0 2

Where,
p 0 = average pressure drop across the diffuser orifices (mm H2O)
CDC, 0 = discharge coefficient (= 0.65, a typical value for this system)
 = density (kg/m3)
V0 = gas velocity (m/hr)

The application of Eq. (3) is illustrated in Figure 3 to determine various orifice pressure drops
(p0) as a function of air flow rate through an individual orifice. A grey band highlights the
minimum air flow rate per orifice (Qorifice, minimum) and maximum air flow rate per orifice (Qorifice,
3
maximum) of 1.60 to 1.75 m /hr/orifice, respectively, corresponding to a pressure drop of 180 to
230 mm H2O (7 to 9 inches). It is desirable to maintain a 4-mm diameter orifice with a maximum
spacing of 102 mm (or 4.0 inches) and minimum spacing of 38 mm (or 1.5 inches).

A flat pipe has a propensity for orifice clogging. Therefore, it is standard practice to bend the end
of the diffuser pipe downward as pictured in Figure 4. The height of each bend is determined by
the maximum acceptable air flow per orifice. For example, according to Figure 3 a maximum
allowable air flow rate per orifice (i.e., Qorifice, maximum) of 1.75 m3/hr/orifice would require a 230
mm H2O (or 9 inch) depth of bend at the pipe end.

If the bend at the pipe end has a length that is less than the flow correlated length value, the
majority of air flow will discharge through the end of the pipe (which is not completely sealed)
because it’s length is not long enough to maintain the pressure required to sustain a Qorifice,
3
maximum equal to 1.75 m /hr/orifice (as illustrated graphically in Figure 3). The end of the pipe
diffusers are not completely sealed to allow an outlet (in addition to the orifices) for any water
and solids that may have accumulated in the aeration pipes.

The maximum air flow rate per orifice (Qorifice, maximum) is assigned based on practical rational. As
mentioned, a bend at the pipe end must be 230 mm H2O (or 9 inch H2O) to maintain pressure
that is required to sustain Qorifice, maximum equal to 1.75 m3/hr/orifice. The diffuser grid is anchored
0.3 m (1 foot) above the basin floor. Allowing for a 76 mm (3-inch) freeboard to accommodate
fixtures and the pipe diffuser itself makes 230 mm (9-inches) for the pipe end bend the longest
practically constructible. The design engineer must recall that trying to push an air flow rate per
orifice (Qorifice, maximum) greater than that associated with the flow correlated length of the bend at
the end of the pipe will result in a majority of air flowing out of the (unsealed) end of the pipe,
not the orifices.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3789
 WEFTEC 2013

Figure 3. Pressure loss (p0) through individual orifice due to friction induced by air flow
through the 4-mm diameter orifices that are situated along the underside of the 25-mm diameter
stainless steel pipe diffusers.

Figure 4. Photos depicting stainless steel pipe diffusers and the downward bend at the pipe end.

Grid Sizing: Number and Spacing of Manifold, Diffusers, and Orifices

Prior to initiating what is an iterative design process, one must establish design parameters and
determine their values. The first design parameter is air flow (Qair, total, zone [=] m3/hr) and AOTR
([=] kg O2/hr) for each of the individual aerobic IFAS zones or MBBR basins. An array of total
design air flow rates may be developed using a wastewater treatment plant simulator that

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3790
 WEFTEC 2013

incorporates a mathematical model describing a one-dimensional biofilm (see Boltz et al. 2010b
for a list of models and simulators that are capable of describing IFAS and MBBR processes).
This information is coupled with the maximum allowable air flow rate per orifice (Qorifice, maximum)
as determined using Eq. (3). Second, the maximum site temperature (Tmax,site), site elevation
(Esite), and blower discharge temperature (Tblower discharge) must be established. These parameter
values are used to establish the parameters applied to Eq. (1) when defining the AOTR if it is not
provided by a simulator. Next, the diffuser depth is typically assigned as the SWD minus 0.3
meters (1 foot). Then, one must make an initial assignment of the diffuser grid width (Wgrid)
which is generally 2.1 or 2.4-meters (7 or 8-feet) wide. The manifold length (Lmanifold) may be as
long as practically allowable by constraints imposed by the physical dimensions of the basin and
velocity constraints in the manifold. Next, one must assign diffuser spacing (Ldiffuser spacing) which
is generally 0.30, 0.45, 0.60, 0.90-meters (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, or 3.0-feet) apart (on center of the
diffuser pipe).
The maximum air flow rate per orifice (Qorifice, maximum = 1.75 m3/hr/orifice) and the actual air
flow rate required for biological wastewater treatment or evenly distributing free moving plastic
biofilm carriers (Qair, total, zone [=] m3/hr) are applied as described by Eq. (4) to establish the total
number of orifices that are required in the aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR.

Qair , total , zone

N orifices  (4)
Qorifice, max imum

As a matter of terminology, a lateral is defined here as stainless steel pipe diffusers tip-to-tip, and
captures the entire width of the diffuser grid. The width of the grid (Wgrid) is fixed at either 2.1 or
2.4 meters (7 or 8 feet), but the diffuser length will vary depending on the manifold diameter
(Dmanifold) which may be 76, 102, 152, 203, or 254-mm (3, 4, 6, 8, or 10-inch). The number of
laterals per manifold (Nlaterals per manifold) can be calculated using Eq. (5):

 L manifold 
N laterals per manifold  ceiling   1 (5)
 Ldiffuser spacing 

It should be noted that one (1) additional lateral is added to the count because a diffuser grid will
always require one additional diffuser per length. For example, if the manifold length (Lmanifold)
is equal to 0.6-m, or 2-ft, and the diffuser spacing (Ldiffuser spacing) is equal to 0.3-meter, or 1-foot,
then dividing the grid length by the diffuser spacing (i.e., Lmanifold ÷ Ldiffuser spacing =) two (2), but
the manifold will in fact require three laterals: one at the beginning, middle, and end).

Once the number of laterals per manifold has been established, the design engineer must confirm
that the manifold length (Lmanifold) is adequate. Recall, diffuser spacing (Ldiffuser spacing) may be
0.30, 0.45, 0.60, or 0.90-meters (or 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, or 3.0-feet) apart (on center of the stainless steel
diffuser pipe). Therefore, diffuser spacing (Ldiffuser spacing) of 0.3, 0.6, and 0.9 meters (or 1.0, 2.0,
or 3.0-feet) will always results in the manifold length (Lmanifold) being an integer. Only the 0.45-
meter (or 1.5-foot) diffuser spacing (Ldiffuser spacing) will not result in an integer because of
manifold lengths potentially ending in 0.15-m (0.5-foot) increments.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3791
 WEFTEC 2013

In the event that Eq. (5) is not an integer then the function must be round up to the nearest
integer. Essentially, Eq. (5) is a ceiling function whereby ceiling(x) = [x] is the smallest integer
that is not less than x (e.g., Nlaterals per manifold = [(Lmanifold ÷ Ldiffuser spacing) + 1] = [(10 m ÷ 0.5 m) +
1] = 23.22; ceiling(23.22) = 24; Nlaterals per manifold = 24). Having defined a lateral here as the
stainless steel pipe diffusers tip-to-tip plus the manifold diameter - which captures the entire
width of two diffusers and the manifold diameter - the number of diffusers per manifold can be
calculated using Eq. (6).

N diffusers per manifold  N laterals per manifold  2 (6)

Given the aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR dimensions which include the SWD, basin length (Lbasin
length) and width (Lbasin width) the dimensionless number of manifold (Nmanifold, length) required across
the basin length can be calculated using Eq. (7).

 L ba sin length  L wall spacing , length 

N manifold , length  n int   (7)
 Wgrid  Lgrid spacing 

Here, Lwall spacing, length (= Lwall spacing, length 1 + Lwall spacing, length 2) is total desired distance between the
end of the diffuser grid and the basin wall. Typically, Lwall spacing, length = 1.8 meters and represents
the total space between the end of the grid and the wall on both ends of the manifold. The desired
space at each end of the diffuser grid is 0.9 meters (i.e., Lwall spacing, length 1 = Lwall spacing, length 2 = 0.9
meters). The grid spacing is the distance required between grids to allow for manifold
connections or reducers. A typical grid spacing is 0.9 meters (or 3.0 feet) (i.e., Lgrid spacing = 0.9
meters). Eq. (7) may not produce an integer. In the event that Eq. (7) is not an integer then the
function must be round to the nearest integer, or nint (i.e., round down or round up).
Again, given the aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR dimensions which include the SWD, basin length
(Lbasin length) and width (Lbasin width), the dimensionless number of manifold (Nmanifold, width) required
across the basin width can be calculated using Eq. (8).

 L ba sin width  L wall spacing , width 

N manifold , width  n int   (8)
 L manifold 

Similar to Eq. (7), the result produced by Eq. (8) may not be an integer. In the event that Eq. (8)
is not an integer then the function must be round to the nearest integer (i.e., round down or round
up). Should Nmanifold, width be greater than one (1) (i.e., more than one manifold is required across
the basin width) then the manifold (or submerged air header) will have a sequentially reducing
manifold diameter (Dmanifold) for each manifold across the basin width. Figure 5 depicts an
installation in which Nmanifold, width is equal to 2. The manifold is connected to the end of the
subsequent manifold. Each manifold has a different diameter (i.e., Dmanifold, 1 ≠ Dmanifold, 2).
Therefore, they are connected at each end with an eccentric reducer coupling. However, the
manifold length (Lmanifold) should be modified until Nmanifold, width is as close to 1 or 2 as possible.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3792
 WEFTEC 2013

Figure 5. (top) Picture of an aerobic IFAS zone at the Fields Point Wastewater Treatment
Facility, Providence, Rhode Island, and the diffuser grid layout. Nmanifold, width = 2; therefore,
extending from the drop pipe the first manifold (Nmanifold = 1) has a diameter (Dmanifold, 1) that is
greater than the second manifold (Nmanifold = 2) diameter (Dmanifold, 2) (i.e., Dmanifold, 1 > Dmanifold, 2).
(bottom) Schematic of aerobic IFAS zone depicted above.

Orifice spacing (Lorifice spacing) may be 38 and 102 mm (1.5 and 4.0 inches) apart. It is desirable to
keep the orifice spacing as close together as possible (i.e., 38 mm or 1.5 inches) to reduce the
number of diffusers (Ndiffusers) and minimize aeration system cost. Equipped with this
information, one may calculate the number of orifices per lateral (Norifices per lateral) using Eq. (9).

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3793
 WEFTEC 2013

 Wgrid  Lend spacing 

N orfices per lateral  n int   (9)
 Lorifice spacing 

The new parameter Lend spacing (= Lend spacing 1 + Lend spacing 2) is the total desired distance between
the last orifice and the end of the diffuser, which is 0.66 m (or 26 inches) (i.e., Lend spacing 1 = Lend
spacing 2 = 0.33 m). The final equation, Eq. (10), describes the total number of orifices provided in
the aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR. The total number of orifices can be calculated using Eq. (10).

N orfices, total , calculated  N orifices per lateral  N laterals per manifold  N manifold , width  N manifold , length (10)

The total number of orifices required in an aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR may be expanded to
account for the number of orifices in a system of multiple trains (Norifices, total, system) (or parallel
reactors with identical conditions) by applying Eq. (11) which multiplies Norifices, total, calculated (or
Eq. (10)) by the total number of trains (Ntrains).

N orfices,total, system  N orifices, total, calculated  N trains (11)

If there is only one train, then Ntrains = 1. If there are multiple reactors in series, then this design
procedure is repeated using the air flow rate that is required to sustain biological transformation
processes or evenly distribute free moving plastic biofilm carriers throughout the second aerobic
IFAS zone or MBBR in the series (typically, Qair, total, zone, 1 > Qair, total, zone, 2). The procedure is
repeated for n-reactors in series. Finally, the air flow rate (Qair, total, zone) is divided by the total
number of orifices (Norifices, total, system) to ensure that the calculated air flow rate per orifice
(Q’orifice) according to Eq. (12) is within the tolerable design values (i.e., Qorifice, maximum and
Qorifice, minimum).

Q air , total, zone

Q 'orifices  (12)
N orifices, total, system

The design orifice air flow rates (i.e., Qorifice, maximum and Qorifice, minimum) must be compared with
the calculated orifice air flow rate (Q’orifice). The calculated air flow rate per orifice (Q’orifice)
must be less than Qorifice, maximum and greater than Qorifice, minimum. A manual optimization procedure
is executed by modifying parameters until the percent error, or Eq. (13), is less than an
acceptable value, typically 5 percent.

absolute Qorifice  Q'orifice

Percent Error   100 (13)
Qorifice

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3794
 WEFTEC 2013

Manifold Sizing and Selecting the Number of Drop Pipes

Manifold, or submerged air headers, are typically available in 0.076, 0.102, 0.152, 0.203, and
0.254-m (3, 4, 6, 8, and 10-inch) diameter stainless steel pipes. Design air flow velocity in the
manifold (Vmanifold) must be less than 13 m/s in 0.1 to 0.2-m diameter manifold (Dmanifold) pipes,
and less than 20 m/s in manifold pipes with a diameter greater than 0.2 m. If Eq. (5) results in
Nmanifold, width being one (1) then the air flow velocity in the manifold (Vmanifold, 1) can be
calculated using Eq. (14).

Qair , total, zone

Vmanifold, 1  (14)
A manifold, 1  N drop pipes  N manifold per drop pipe

Here, Amanifold, 1 is the cross-sectional area of the first manifold (m2) across the basin width. The
calculated manifold velocity (Vmanifold, 1) can be compared with acceptable criteria. In the event
that Eq. (5) results in Nmanifold, width being greater than one (1) the second manifold will have a
smaller diameter than the upstream manifold (i.e., Dmanifold, 1 > Dmanifold, 2). The velocity in the
second manifold (Vmanifold, 2) may be calculated using Eq. (15).

 Q air , total , zone 

  Q air , total , grid , 1 
N 
drop pipes  N manifold per drop pipe
Vmanifold , 2   (15)
A manifold , 2

Here, Amanifold, 2 is the cross-sectional area of the second manifold (m2) across the basin width.

The aeration system will have maximum flexibility with an increased number of drop pipes.
Typically, there is 1 - 3 manifold (or air headers) per drop pipe. The incorporation of multiple
drop pipes allows the operator flexibility to ensure that there is a proper rolling water circulation
pattern. In addition, the greater number of drop pipes allow the operator some crude turn-down
control by isolating a section of the diffuser grid.

The next section will step the reader through an example application of this design methodology.

EXAMPLE: APPLICATION OF THE DETAILED DESIGN METHODOLOGY

This section will illustrate an example application of the aerobic IFAS zone and MBBR aeration
system design methodology presented in the previous section. The example aerobic system (with
free moving plastic biofilm carriers) has the following characteristics:

Known parameters and their values:

 Design air flow rate (Qair, total, zone) = 14,357 m3/hr (8,450 cfm)
 Min. design air flow rate/orifice (Qorifice,min.) = 1.60 m3/hr/orifice (0.942 cfm/orifice)

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3795
 WEFTEC 2013

 Max. design air flow rate/orifice (Qorifice,max.) = 1.75 m3/hr/orifice (1.030 cfm/orifice)
 Basin (or tank) length (Lbasin length) = 17.4 meters (57.0 feet)
 Basin (or tank) width (Lbasin width) = 11.9 meters (39.0 feet)
 Number of identical parallel trains =2

Initial estimates of key design parameter values:

 Manifold length (Lmanifold) = 10.0 meters (33.0 feet); see note Step 2
 Grid spacing (Lgrid spacing) = 1.5 meters (5.0 feet)
 Grid width (Wgrid) = 2.44 meters (8.0 feet)
 Diffuser spacing (Ldiffuser spacing) = 0.3 meters (1.0 foot)
 Wall spacing (Lwall spacing, length) = 1.8 meters (6.0 feet)
 Wall spacing (Lwall spacing, width) = 1.2 meters (4.0 feet)
 End spacing (Lend spacing) = 0.66 meters (26 inches)
 Manifold diameter (Dmanifold) = 0.3 meters (1.0 foot)
 Number of drop pipes per zone (Ndrop pipes) =2
 Orifice spacing (Lorifice spacing) = 0.060 meters (2.375 inches)

Step 1: Calculate the total number of required orifices (Norifices) using Eq. (4):

m3
Qair , total , zone 14,357
N orifices   hr  8,204 orifices
Qorifice, max imum m3
1.75
hr  orifice

Step 2: Calculate the number of required laterals per manifold (Nlaterals per manifold) using Eq. (5):

 L manifold   10 m 
N laterals per manifold  n int   1  n int   1  
 Ldiffuser spacing   0 .3 m 

 laterals  laterals
N laterals per manifold  n int 34.3   34
 manifold  manifold

 Objective is to reduce the number of diffusers as a cost saving measure.

 Ldiffuser spacing typically starts at the largest interval and is systematically reduced if needed.
 Lorifice spacing is typically minimized (i.e., 38 mm) and Ldiffuser spacing is adjusted as required
to meet the designated percent error, Eq. (13).
 Lmanifold must be confirmed adequate based on the calculated number of laterals per
manifold. Using Ldiffuser spacing equal to 0.3-m (or 1-ft), Lmanifold will be an integer. As
illustrated in Figure 6 below, a manifold length (Lmanifold) equal to 10 m (or 33 ft) is
required to accommodate Nlaterals equal to 34.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3796
 WEFTEC 2013

Figure 6. Illustration of method to confirm that the designated manifold length (Lmanifold) is
adequate.

Step 3: Calculate the number of required diffusers per manifold (Ndiffusers per manifold) using Eq.(6):

diffusers
N diffusers per manifold  N laterals per manifold  2  34  2  68
manifold

Step 4: Calculate number of manifold (Nmanifold, length) required across basin length via Eq. (7):

 L ba sin length  L wall spacing , length  17.4 m  1.8 m 

N manifold , length  n int 
Wgrid  Lgrid spacing
  n int    n int3.95  4
   2.44 m  1.5 m 

Step 5: Calculate number of manifold (Nmanifold, width) required across basin width via Eq. (8):

 L ba sin width  L wall spacing , width  11.9 m  1.2 m 

N manifold , width  n int 
L manifold
  n int 
10.0 m   n int1.1  1
   

 Nmanifold, width > 1 will result in having multiple manifold pipe diameters.
 The manifold pipe diameter (Dmanifold) will decrease as the distance from the drop pipe
increases (i.e., Dmanifold, 1 > Dmanifold, 2).
 Manifold with different diameters (i.e., Dmanifold, 1 ≠ Dmanifold, 2) placed in series will be
connected with eccentric stainless steel pipe reducers to maintain an equivalent distance
between the bottom of the manifold and the basin floor (or slab).

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3797
 WEFTEC 2013

Step 6: Calculate the number of orifices (Norifices per lateral) per lateral using Eq. (9):

 W  Lend spacing   2.44 m  0.66 m  orifices

N orfices per lateral  n int  grid   n int    30
 Lorifice spacing   0.06 m  lateral

Step 7: Calculate the total number of orifices (Norifices, total) per grid using Eq. (10):

N orfices, total, calculated  N orifices per lateral  N laterals per manifold  N manifold, width  N manifold, length

orifices laterals manifold orifices

N orfices,total , calculated  30  34  1 4   4,080
lateral manifold grid grid

Step 8: Calculate the total number of orifices (Norifices, total, system) per system using Eq. (11):

N orfices, total , system  N orifices, total , calculated  N trains

orifices grid orifices

N orfices, total , system  4,080 2  8,160
grid system system

Step 9: Determine the calculated air flow rate per orifice (Q’orifice) according to Eq. (12):

m3
14,357
Qair , total , zone hr  system m3
Q'orifices    1.75
N orifices, total , system orifices hr  orifice
8,160
system

 Q'orifices ≥ Qorifice, minimum= 1.60 m3/hr/orifice (0.942 cfm/orifice)

 Q'orifices ≤ Qorifice, maximum= 1.75 m3/hr/orifice (1.030 cfm/orifice)

Step 10: Access the calculated air flow rate per orifice (Q’orifice) according to Eq. (13):

absolute Qorifice, max imum  Q'orifice absolute 1.75  1.75

Percent Error   100   100  0.0 %
Qorifice, max imum 1.75
 Calculated percent error of 0.0% < 5% threshold previously determined to be acceptable

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3798
 WEFTEC 2013

Step 11: Access the calculated air flow velocity (Vmanifold) in the manifold according to Eq. (14):

m3
Q air flow 14,357
hr m
Vmanifold    50,777
A manifold  N grids, width  N grids, length   0.3  2  hr
      1 4
  2  

m min s m
Vmanifold  50,777  60  60  14.1
hr hr min s

Manifold, or submerged air headers, are typically available in 0.076, 0.102, 0.152, 0.203, 0.254,
and 0.305-m (3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12-inch) diameter stainless steel pipes. Design air velocity in the
manifold can be no greater than 13 m/s in 0.1 to 0.2-m diameter pipes, and no greater than 20
m/s in larger diameter pipes. The air velocity in the 0.3-m diameter manifold is 14.1 m/s, which
is less than the 20 m/s velocity limit for manifold diameters greater than 0.2 m.

Nmanifold, length is four (4); therefore, four (4) manifold pipes will [hypothetically] exist across the
tank length. Drop pipes are typically provided for every 1 to 3 manifold, and Ndrop pipes for this
example has been assigned as two (2) (i.e., Ndrop pipes = 2). Drop pipes are equipped with
manually modulated flow control valves. Figure 7 is a diagram that illustrates the example
aerobic IFAS zone aeration system. The aerobic zone with free-moving plastic biofilm carriers
has two drop pipes (i.e., example Ndrop pipes = 2), and each drop is equipped with two manifold
pipes. Each manifold has four, 2.44-m (8-foot) wide diffuser segments.

Figure 7. Configuration of the example aeration system.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3799
 WEFTEC 2013

This section has effectively demonstrated application of the aeration design methodology
presented in this manuscript. It should be noted that orifice spacing (Lorifice spacing) can be
manipulated to meet the previously determined acceptable percent error once a reasonable grid
layout has been established.

SYSTEM OXYGEN TRANSFER EFFICIENCY TEST METHODOLOGY

Typical SOTE values applied to the design of full-scale aeration systems in aerobic IFAS zones
and MBBRs with medium-bubble diffusers is typically 3.45 percent per meter of water
submergence. In addition, full-scale free moving plastic biofilm carrier based aerobic IFAS
zones and MBBRs with medium-bubble diffusers have been designed with 1.0 fouling (F) and
0.95 beta () factors. The minimum air flow rate that is required to uniformly distribute the free
moving plastic biofilm carriers throughout the basin is in the range 5 to 10 m3/hr/m2 of basin
floor, with a typical design value of 8 m3/hr/m2 of basin bottom (McQuarrie and Boltz 2011).

The design engineer must specify and over see the implementation of an essential component of
aeration systems using stainless steel pipe diffusers, manifold, and down pipes - testing the clean
water oxygen transfer rate (OTR) in a full-scale aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR. Methodology
exists to quantify the OTR in aeration systems used for wastewater treatment. A standard method
was developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE 2007) to measure oxygen
transfer in clean water. The test method is based upon removal of dissolved oxygen from the
water volume by sodium sulfite followed by reoxygenation to near saturation. The method
specifies a minimum number, distribution, and range of dissolved oxygen concentration
measurements at each determination point. Data obtained at each determination point are then
analyzed by a simplified mass transfer model to estimate that apparent mass transfer coefficient
under the test environmental conditions K L a T  (1/hr) and the steady-state dissolved oxygen
saturation concentration as time approaches infinity C*  (g/m3).

The methodology, namely ASCE Method 2-06, described by ASCE (2007) has been successfully
applied to evaluate aeration systems - such as those whose design is similar to what is described
in this manuscript - in full-scale wastewater treatment plants that were designed to incorporate
free-moving plastic biofilm carrier based reactors and associated aeration system. The success of
operating aeration systems like those described in this manuscript have been established
following strict adherence to performance testing guidelines documented in the respective
Projects’ Technical Specifications. Example projects with fully functional aeration systems (in
the free-moving plastic biofilm carrier zone) similar to those described in this manuscript (i.e.,
including stainless steel pipe diffusers, manifold, and down pipes) that perform as designed and
were successfully tested using ASCE Method 2-06 as reviewed in this section include:

 Fields Point Wastewater Treatment Facility aerobic IFAS zone(s),

 James River Wastewater Treatment Plant aerobic IFAS zone(s), and
 Grand Chute-Menasha West Wastewater Treatment Facility aerobic IFAS zone(s).

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3800
 WEFTEC 2013

Due to the importance of demonstrating the effectiveness of a well-designed aeration system for
any wastewater treatment plant owner, the authors review and discuss application of ASCE
Method 2-06 for the aforementioned parameter estimation, namely the apparent mass transfer
coefficient K L a T  and the steady-state dissolved oxygen saturation concentration as time
approaches infinity C*  (g/m3). Indeed, the OTR of an aeration system that has been designed
by the methodology presented in this paper may be tested using ASCE Method 2-06 as follows.

First, the design engineer must obtain K La T - the clean-water volumetric oxygen transfer
coefficient (1/hr) at temperature T (°C) - through a nonlinear regression analysis fitting Eq. (16)
to measured dissolved oxygen concentration profiles obtained in a full-scale aerobic IFAS zone
or MBBR (e.g., Figure 8). Eq. (16) is the simplified mass transfer model described in ASCE
Method 2-06.

C  C  C  C0  exp

K La T  t  t 0 
(16)

Here, C is the dissolved oxygen concentration in the bulk of the water (g/m3), C* is the steady-
state dissolved oxygen saturation concentration as time approaches infinity (g/m3), C0 is the
initial dissolved oxygen concentration at t = t0 (g/m3), and t is time (hr). A non-linear regression
analysis that fits Eq. (16) to the dissolved oxygen concentration profiles obtained by collecting
dissolved oxygen measurements at measured time intervals until the water is nearly saturated
(e.g., using data such as that listed in Table 2 and the measured dissolved oxygen concentration
profiles plotted in Figure 8) will result in K La T , C* , and C0 values for each measurement
location. Eq. (16) is derived from the “two-film” theory (Lewis and Whitman 1924) which states
that the transfer rate can be expressed in terms of an overall mass transfer coefficient and
resistances on either side of the interface. Sparingly soluble gases such as oxygen result in the
resistance primarily being in the liquid film; therefore, the gas film can be ignored (Stenstrom et
al. 2006). The general equation describing resistance to mass transfer is expressed as Eq. (17).

 K La T  C  C
dC
(17)
dt

The integrated and re-arranged form of Eq. (17) is presented as Eq. (18), which is also utilized in
the log-deficit parameter estimation method (Annex F of ASCE Method 2-06) whereby the
parameters K L a T and C* are estimated with a linear regression analysis.

 C  C0 
ln  
C  C
K La T     (18)
t 2  t 1 

Eq. (16) and Eq. (18) will facilitate estimation of the parameters C* and K L a T when the proper
statistical analyses (based on the average of measured dissolved oxygen concentration profiles)

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3801
 WEFTEC 2013

are applied. The K La T value for each test and at each dissolved oxygen sample location must be
adjusted to a standard temperature (i.e., 20C). The temperature corrected mass transfer
 
coefficient K L a 20C may be calculated using Eq. (19).

K La 20C  K L a T  T  20 C  (19)

Here, K L a 20C is the mass transfer coefficient corrected to temperature 20°C (1/hr), T is the water
temperature during dissolved oxygen concentration measurement (C), and  is an empirical
temperature correction factor commonly regarded as 1.024. The dissolved oxygen field
saturation concentration as time approaches infinity, C* , can be adjusted to standard
temperature (20°C) and the site specific elevation using Eq. (20).

 1 
C  C    (20)
20 C T
  

Here,
 CS 
    T  = sat. conc. temperature correction factor
 CS 
 20C 
CS = surface oxygen sat. conc. at system temperature T (g/m3)
T

C 
S 20 C = surface oxygen sat. conc. at the standard temperature 20°C (g/m3)
P 
   b  = pressure correction factor
 PS 
Pb = barometric pressure at site elevation (Esite) (mm Hg)
PS = standard pressure (760 mm Hg or 29.9 inches Hg)

The temperature corrected mass transfer coefficient determined using Eq. (19) is based on data
collected according to protocol outlined by ASCE Method 2-06. Then, the SOTR (kg O2/hr) may
be calculated using Eq. (21).

SOTR  VW  C  K La (21)

20 C

Here, VW is the tank water volume (m3). The average mass transfer coefficient may replace K L a 20C
if multiple measurements (i.e., n-measurements) were collected and statistical analyses (i.e., curve-
fitting) efforts executed. The average mass transfer coefficient may be calculated using Eq. (22).

K L a 20C, i
K L a 20C, average  i 1
(22)
n

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3802
 WEFTEC 2013

Here, K L a 20C, average is the average mass transfer coefficient (1/hr), and n is the number of
observations. Once the SOTR has been determined, Eq. (21) can be used to calculate the SOTE. Table
2 presents example raw data obtained (consistent with ASCE Method 2-06) from a clean water
oxygen transfer test conducted in a full-scale basin. The aeration system in this basin was designed for
an aerobic MBBR that contains an aeration system designed consistent with the methodology
described in this paper. The following example calculation (which uses data from Table 2 that is
affiliated with Test Number 2 and Probe 1) illustrates how the raw data listed in Table 2 may be used
in Eq. (21) to determine the SOTR.

SOTR  VW  C 20 C K L a 20C

g 1 kg 1 kg  lb 
SOTR  560 m 3  10.66 3
  20.78  124   273 
m 1,000 g hr hr  hr 

Table 2 does not list the air flow rate (Qair) that was applied when each test was performed. However,
if the air flow rate was available the design engineer could use Eq. (2) Q air  SOTR  SOTE  100 to
determine the system’s SOTE.

Table 2. Example clean water oxygen transfer test results obtained from an aerobic MBBR
having an aeration system designed by methodology consistent with that described in this paper.
Test No. Water Probe KLa C*∞ KLa20 C*∞20 SOTR Avg. Avg.
Temp (1/hr) (g/m3) (1/hr) (g/m3) (lb/hr) SOTR SOTE
(ºC) (lb/hr) (%)
1 13.1 1 19.57 10.65 23.05 10.76 305.5 273.88 20.97
13.1 2 18.57 10.29 21.87 10.44 281.4
13.1 3 17.20 10.05 20.25 10.24 255.6
13.1 4 17.73 10.30 20.88 10.46 269.0
13.1 5 16.93 10.35 19.94 10.50 257.9

2 13.1 1 17.64 10.53 20.78 10.66 272.9 278.82 21.34

13.2 2 18.19 10.20 21.37 10.39 273.6
13.2 3 19.32 9.92 22.70 10.14 283.8
13.2 4 17.90 10.27 21.03 10.45 270.9
13.2 5 19.43 10.22 22.83 10.41 292.9
3 13.2 1 18.25 10.38 21.44 10.55 278.7 275.04 21.14
13.2 2 18.28 10.19 21.48 10.38 274.9
13.2 3 19.36 9.93 22.75 10.16 284.7
13.2 4 17.70 10.26 20.79 10.44 267.6
13.2 5 17.67 10.36 20.76 10.53 269.3

Figure 8 illustrates example clean water dissolved oxygen profiles (affiliated with the data listed in
Table 2) established for oxygen transfer efficiency tests conducted on the aerobic free-moving plastic
biofilm carrier based reactor having an aeration system designed by methodology that is consistent
with the one described in this manuscript.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3803
 WEFTEC 2013

12

Probe 1
Probe 2
10
Probe 3
Probe 4
Probe 5

8
D.O. (mg/L)

0
5

.5
.3
.7
.2
.7
.2
.8
.2
10
0

9
0.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
Time (min)

Figure 8. Example dissolved oxygen concentration profiles obtained during clean water oxygen
transfer testing conducted on an aerobic free-moving plastic biofilm carrier based reactor whose
aeration system design is consistent with the methodology described in this paper.

CONCLUSIONS

State-of-the-art IFAS utilizes free-moving plastic biofilm carriers, and IFAS represents a future
evolution of the activated sludge process that allows for a greater degree of nitrification in
smaller systems (i.e., bioreactors and clarifiers). However, an imperfect understanding of IFAS
and MBBR process and mechanical design has hindered the widespread application of this
environmental biotechnology. Methodology for the design of aeration systems in aerobic IFAS
zones using free moving plastic biofilm carriers and MBBRs is the least documented process
mechanical design approach. Therefore, the average process engineer has a poor understanding
of the aeration system design methodology. Aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs use an engineered
aeration system consisting of stainless-steel pipe diffusers, manifold (or submerged air header),
down pipes, and air-flow control valves. The so-called medium-bubble diffusers have relatively
large circular orifices (i.e., when compared to membrane diffusers) situated along the underside
which are less susceptible to scaling and fouling. These diffusers have slightly more efficient
oxygen transfer efficiency than coarse-bubble diffusers, which is further enhanced by the
presence of free moving plastic biofilm carriers. Operational experience has proven that
medium-bubble diffusers require less maintenance than fine-bubble diffusers. In fact, correctly
designed modern aeration systems in MBBRs have boasted installations, for example, the

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3804
 WEFTEC 2013

Lillihammer WWTP, Lillihammer, Norway, that has been in operation since 1994 without
maintenance, breakage, or declining system performance. In addition, correctly designed
modern aeration systems in aerobic IFAS zones have boasted installations, for example, the
Broomfield WRF, Broomfield, Colorado, U.S.A., that has been in operation since 2003 without
maintenance, breakage, or declining system performance.

The absence of generally accepted design criteria and evaluation protocol for aerobic IFAS zone
and MBBR aerations systems has hindered engineers when designing, evaluating, and estimating
the cost of these systems. Full-scale WWTPs exist that have fully functional aeration systems (in
the free-moving plastic biofilm carrier zone) designed using a method similar to the
methodology described in this paper, and tested using ASCE Method 2-06 (reviewed in this
paper). Specifically, the design methodology that has been presented in this manuscript has
proven sufficient for (but not limited to) the following full-scale, operational wastewater
treatment plants:

 Fields Point Wastewater Treatment Facility aerobic IFAS zone(s),

 James River Wastewater Treatment Plant aerobic IFAS zone(s), and
 Grand Chute-Menasha West Wastewater Treatment Facility aerobic IFAS zone(s).

Criteria and methodology for the design of stainless steel circular pipe diffuser-based aeration
systems that are commonly used in aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs has been summarized,
theoretically justified where applicable, practical aspects fully vetted, and an example aeration
system has been fully developed in this manuscript. The presentation of a standard design
method for engineered aeration systems consisting of stainless-steel pipe diffusers, manifold (or
submerged air header), down pipes, and air-flow control valves typical of aerobic IFAS zones
and MBBRs will fill a significant gap in the information that is required to design and estimate
the cost of aerobic IFAS zones and MBBRs. The application of ASCE Method 2-06 has been
reviewed and selected examples were also presented and discussed in this manuscript. It can be
concluded then that an accurate methodology for the design of aeration systems in aerobic IFAS
zones using free moving plastic biofilm carriers and MBBRs has been presented in this
manuscript. Further, this paper has presented evidence that ASCE Method 2-06 may be applied
to demonstrate the adequacy of an aeration system designed according to the methodology
described in this manuscript.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3805
 WEFTEC 2013

NOMENCLATURE

Amanifold = manifold cross-sectional area (m2 or ft2)

C = dissolved oxygen concentration in the bulk of the water (g/m3)
Cs,20 = dissolved oxygen sat. conc. in clean water at 20°C and 1 atm (mg/L)
C* = clean-water (site-specific) dissolved oxygen concentration (g/m3)
C0 = initial dissolved oxygen concentration at t = t0 (g/m3)
CDC,0 = discharge coefficient (= 0.65, a typical value for this system)
Cs,T,H = oxygen sat. conc. in clean water at temperature T and altitude H (g/m3)
C = average oxygen sat. conc. in clean water at temp. T and alt. H (mg/L)
s ,T , H

CS = surface oxygen sat. conc. at system temperature T (g/m3)

T

Dmanifold = manifold diameter (meters or feet)

K La T = oxygen mass transfer coefficient under the test temperature, T (1/hr)
Lbasin length = basin (or tank) length (meters or feet)
Lbasin width = basin (or tank) width (meters or feet)
Lmanifold = manifold length (meters or feet)
Lgrid spacing = grid spacing (meters or feet)
Lorifice spacing = orifice spacing (meters or feet)
Ldiffuser spacing = diffuser spacing (meters or feet)
Lwall spacing, length = wall spacing from the end of the tank length (meters or feet)
Lwall spacing, width = wall spacing from the end of the tank width (meters or feet)
Lend spacing = end spacing (meters or feet)
Lorifice spacing = orifice spacing (meters or feet)
Norifices = total number of orifices required in aerobic IFAS or MBBR zone
Nlaterals per manifold = number of laterals that are dedicated to one manifold
Ndiffusers per grid = number of diffusers per lateral that is dedicated to one grid
Nmanifold, length = total number of manifold distributed over the basin length
Nmanifold, width = total number of manifold distributed over the basin width
Norifices, total, calculated = calculated total number of orifices per aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR
Ntrains = total number of identical trains if basins (or reactors) are in parallel
Norifices, total, system = calculated total number of orifices per parallel aerobic IFAS/MBBR
Ndrop pipes = total number of drop pipes per aerobic IFAS zone or MBBR
Nmanifold per drop pipe = total number of manifold per drop pipe, may be 1 - 3 but 2 is typical
Ot = percent oxygen concentration leaving tank, typically (18 to 20 percent)

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3806
 WEFTEC 2013

Pb = barometric pressure at site elevation (Esite) (kPa or mm Hg)

Pd = pressure at the depth of air release, or from the orifice in this case (kPa)
Patm,H = atmospheric pressure at altitude H (kPa)
Pw,md = pressure due to water column, mid-depth above point of air release (kPa)
PS = standard pressure (kPa or mm Hg; 760 mm Hg or 29.9 inches Hg)
p0 = average pressure drop across the diffuser orifices (mm H2O)
Qair, total, zone = design air flow rate (m3/hr or cfm)
Qair, total, grid = air flow rate directed to the designated manifold (m3/hr or cfm)
Qorifice, minimum = minimum design air flow rate/orifice (m3/hr/orifice or cfm/orifice)
Qorifice, maximum = maximum design air flow rate/orifice (m3/hr/orifice or cfm/orifice)
Q’orifice = calculated air flow rate/orifice (m3/hr/orifice or cfm/orifice)
T = temperature (°C)
t = time (hr)
Vmanifold = gas velocity in manifold (m/s or ft/s)
V0 = gas velocity (m/hr)
VW = volume of water in tank (m3)
Wgrid = grid width (meters or feet)
 = pressure correction factor
 = oxygen transfer correction factor for wastewater
 = salinity-surface tension correction factor (typically 0.95 for this system)
F = fouling factor (typically 1.0 for medium-bubble diffusers)
 = empirical temperature correction factor commonly regarded as 1.024
 = density (kg/m3)
 = calculated saturation concentration temperature correction factor

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3807
 WEFTEC 2013

REFERENCES

1. ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers (2007). Measurement of Oxygen Transfer in

Clean Water. Standard 2-06. Edited by: Michael Stenstrom. ISBN 13: 978-0-7844-0848-3.
2. Boltz, J.P., Johnson, B.R., Daigger, G.T., and Sandino, J. (2009a). Modeling integrated
fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) and moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) systems I:
mathematical treatment and model development. Water Environment Research. 81(6), 555-
575.
3. Boltz, J.P., Johnson, B.R., Daigger, G.T., Sandino, J., and Elenter, D. (2009b). Modeling
integrated fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) and moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
systems II: evaluation. Water Environment Research. 81(6), 576-586.
4. Boltz, J.P., Morgenroth, E., deBarbadillo, C., Dempsey, M., McQuarrie, J., Ghylin, T.,
Harrison, J., and Nerenberg, R. (2010a). Biofilm Reactor Technology and Design (Chapter
13). In: Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, Volume 2, Fifth Edition. WEF
Manual of Practice No. 8, ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No.
76. McGraw Hill. New York, USA. ISBN P/N 978-0-07-166360-1 of set 978-0-07-166358-
8 (MHID P/N 0-07-166360-6 of set 0-07-166358-4).
5. Boltz, J.P., Morgenroth, E., and Sen, D. (2010b). Mathematical modelling of biofilms and
biofilm reactors for engineering design. Water Science and Technology. 62(8). 1821-1836.
6. Grady, Jr., L., Daigger, G.T., Love, N.G., and Filipe, C.D.M. (2011). Biological Wastewater
Treatment, 3rd Ed. IWA Publishing, London.
7. Lewis, W.K., and Whitman, W.G. (1924). Principles of gas absorption. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry. 16. 1215-1220.
8. McQuarrie, J.P. and Boltz, J.P. (2011). Moving bed biofilm reactor technology: process
applications, design, and performance. Water Environment Research. 83(6). 560-575.
9. McQuarrie, J.P., Boltz, J.P., McQuarrie, J.P., and Daigger, G.T. (2010). Interactions
between suspended biomass and biofilm in the integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS)
process: implications on the practical design of IFAS systems. Proceedings of the WEF/IWA
Biofilm Reactor Technology Conference, Portland, Oregon.
10. Ødegaard, H. (2013). Personal correspondence. Email having Subject: Question regarding
your MBBR/IFAS media and aeration system. Message sent August 8, 2013 at 10:56 am
EDT.
11. Perry, R.H., and Green, D.W. (1997). Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, 7th Edition.
McGraw-Hill. New York.
12. Pham, H., Viswananthan, S., Kelly, R.F. (2008). Evaluation of plastic carrier media impact
on oxygen transfer efficiency with coarse and fine-bubble diffusers. Proceedings of the
Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference, Chicago, IL.
13. Stenstrom, M.K., Leu, S.-Y., and Jiang, J. (2006). Theory to practice: oxygen transfer and
the new ASCE standard. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation Technical
Exhibition and Conference, Washington, D.C.
14. Stenstrom, M., and Rosso, D. (2008). Aeration and Mixing. In: Biological Wastewater
Treatment: Principles, Modelling, and Design. pp. 245-272. IWA Publishing. London.

Copyright ©2013 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

3808