Activated Sludge Clarifier Design Improvements

Author(s): John R. Stukenberg, Leonard C. Rodman and James E. Touslee

Source: Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation) , Apr., 1983, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Apr.,
1983), pp. 341-348
Published by: Wiley

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25041873

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal (Water
Pollution Control Federation)

This content downloaded from

183.158.241.77 on Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:52:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Activated sludge clarifier
il
design improvements
John R. Stukenberg, Leonard C. Rodman, James E. Touslee

One of the principal factors affecting the efficiency of draulic sludge removal devices for plants designed for
activated sludge treatment is the performance of sec carbonaceous oxygen demand reduction.
ondary clarifiers. Failure of the final clarification step The effects of these and other criteria are widespread.
may affect the effluent suspended solids content as well Today, hydraulic sludge collection is used almost exclu
as reduce the suspended solids concentration of the re sively in activated sludge clarifiers to quickly remove
turn and waste sludge streams from the clarifier. To settled sludge and return it to the process. Inboard laun
minimize the possibility of clarifier failure and to im ders are widely used on activated sludge clarifiers to
prove the performance of secondary clarifiers, several maintain weir overflow rates within suggested guide
changes have been implemented in the design of sec lines. Difficulties with secondary clarifiers following ac
ondary clarifiers over a period of years. These changes tivated sludge processes have led to clarifiers being sized
include the use of conventional sludge scraping equip on the basis of conservative SOR and sludge loading
ment instead of hydraulic sludge collection systems, floc rates. Yet, even using conservative design parameters,
culating clarifiers for secondary clarification, baffled, sin secondary clarifier performance has not been entirely
gle peripheral weirs rather than inboard launders, and satisfactory.
the development of a positive scum removal device for
large diameter final clarifiers. The following paragraphs SECONDARY CLARIFIER
present the results of these changes as determined fromDEFICIENCIES
operating wastewater treatment plants.
The principal problem with secondary clarifiers is loss
CURRENT DESIGN PARAMETERS of solids to the effluent. Secondary clarifiers, to a large
extent, determine the quality of effluent from an acti
Clarifiers following the activated sludge process serve vated sludge plant. Today's stringent effluent quality
a dual purpose by providing a clarified effluent and a standards demand efficient and consistent solids re
source of concentrated return sludge for process control. moval by secondary clarifiers at variable hydraulic and
Design criteria for secondary clarifiers address both of solids loading rates. All too frequently, effluent quality
these functions, surface overflow rate (SOR) and weir deteriorates as a result of the sludge blanket within the
loading rate for solids removal, and solids loading and clarifier rising and carrying over the effluent launder, or
clarifier depth for sludge concentration. However, these sludge floating to the clarifier surface and flowing out
criteria are interrelated and each affects both functions
of the basin. Dilute return sludge and waste sludge
of the clarifier.
streams are another source of trouble. Dilute sludge re
Criteria for secondary clarifiers following activated quires a high sludge recycle rate to return solids to the
sludge processes, as given by the U. S. Environmental activated sludge process. In addition, dilute sludge has
Protection Agency (EPA) are shown in Table 1. Some an adverse effect on solids handling facilities because of
what different parameters were established by the Great the hydraulic loading on thickening and digestion pro
Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary cesses.
Engineers (GLUMRB), as shown in Table 2.2 The
GLUMRB also recommends that clarifier inlets be de
signed to dissipate the velocity of the incoming flow and
to distribute the flow, that wiers be located to optimize Despite the 70-year history of the activated
actual hydraulic detention and to minimize short cir sludge process, several misconceptions about
cuiting, and that sludge collection and withdrawal fa clarifier design need to be overcome.
cilities be designed to assure rapid removal of sludge.
The GLUMRB further states that hydraulic sludge with
drawal should be provided for activated sludge plants A third serious problem with activated sludge clari
designed for nitrification, and encourages the use of hy fiers is floating sludge solids. The sludge is generally

April 1983 341

This content downloaded from

183.158.241.77 on Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:52:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stukenberg et al.

Table 1?EPA final clarifier design parameters.

Hydraulic loading Solids loading

Sidewater
Avg. Peak Avg. Peak depth
Type of treatment (m'/nr-h) (m'/nr-h) (kg/m'-d) (kg/m'-d) (m)
Air activated sludge 0.68-1.36 1.70-2.04 98-146 244 3.66-4.57
Extended aeration 0.34-0.68 1.36 98-146 244 3.66-4.57
Oxygen activated sludge 0.68-1.36 1.70-2.04 122-171 244 3.66-4.57

floated as a result of denitrification in the clarifier. Thick centerwells to reduce costs. The result of cost cutting
blankets of sludge may form on the clarifier, causing has been poorer secondary clarifier performance, par
obnoxious odors and general unsightliness. This prob ticularly at peak hydraulic loading conditions.
lem is often accompanied by significant deterioration As a result of the findings of Anderson,3 designers
of the clarifier effluent. The problem of floating solids have attempted to reduce the velocity of the upward
has been particularly acute in recent years at a number flow at the wall by moving the effluent weirs from the
of new activated sludge plants that have been built in wall of the clarifier to an inboard position. Double-sided
response to PL 92-500. launders were placed inboard from the walls, which ef
fectively minimized the velocity of upward flow in
CAUSES OF CLARIFIER smaller clarifiers. Concurrently, maximum weir over
OPERATING PROBLEMS flow rates were established that often required double
sided launders, or even a double-sided launder plus a
Design philosophy for secondary clarifiers assumes an weir, to satisfy the criteria. However, as increasingly
ideal sedimentation basin, with ideal inlet and outlet larger final clarifiers were constructed, and efforts were
conditions. In actual practice, clarifiers are far from made to reduce construction costs, inboard launders
ideal. In the ideal circular basin, the flow is assumed to were moved closer to the walls and were no longer ef
follow the pattern indicated on Figure 1. Anderson3 fective. Robinson,5 studying a model of 34.1-m square
found that the actual flow patterns were somewhat dif final clarifier equipped with an inboard launder, ob
ferent in the 38.4-m diameter basin he studied, as in served the flow pattern in the model to be as indicated
dicated on Figure 2. Also shown on the figure are the on Figure 3. This design produces a relatively high ve
concentrations of solids in the basin at the time the locity up the wall, which is often manifested by solids
measurements were made. The clarifier was operated at carryover on the outer side of the launder, while rela
a SOR of 2.04 m3/m2 h and a solids loading rate of 112 tively clear effluent flows over the inner side. This prob
kg/m2 d. The velocity measurements clearly show the lem is aggravated by increased hydraulic loading on the
high velocity of flow across the top of the sludge blanket clarifier, particularly when there is a deep sludge blanket
from the centerwell to the wall and the return flow from in the unit.
the wall to the centerwell below the liquid surface. An Hydraulic sludge collection equipment to quickly
upward hydraulic current at the wall is indicated by the move activated sludge from the final clarifier to the aer
solids contours near the weir. The same flow pattern was ation basin was developed in the 1940s. With the in
reported more recently by Mazurczyk et al.A It is unlikely creasing use of the activated sludge process for secondary
that centerwell design will ever eliminate the circulation treatment, operating problems became evident with
flow pattern in clarifiers, but the design of the centerwell both rectangular and circular sedimentation basins
is critical to uniform distribution of flow along the clar equipped with conventional sludge scraping mecha
ifier floor, as well as minimizing the velocity of recir nisms. This was particularly true with high active, ni
culating flow. Unfortunately, the trend in recent years trifying activated sludge. In addition, it was believed that
has been to minimize the diameter and depth of clarifier hydraulic sludge collection mechanisms removed sludge

Table 2?GLUMRB final clarifier design parameters.

Hydraulic loading Solids loading Weir overflow rate

Avg. Pk. Hour Avg. Pk. Hour Avg. Pk. Hour
Type of treatment (m3/m2. h) (m3/m2 h) (kg/m2 d) (kg/m2 d)
Conventional, step aeration, & contact
stabilization activated sludge ? 2.04 ? 244 ? 186

342 Journal WPCF, Volume 55, Nu

This content downloaded from

183.158.241.77 on Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:52:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Process Design

Figure 1?Flow pattern in ideal sedimentation basin.

Figure 3?Currents in un baffled clarifier model.

from final basins more quickly, thereby assuring the happens, it is not uncommon to experience denitrifi
viability of the organisms in the sludge. cation somewhere in the plant, generally in the final
Experience indicates that although there were good clarifiers. Moreover, hydraulic sludge removal is not a
reasons for developing hydraulic sludge removal equip guarantee against this problem. In many instances de
ment, today's devices generally are no more effective nitrification occurs in the inlet well of the clarifier, mak
than the conventional scraper-collector mechanisms. In ing the method of sludge removal a moot point. Un
fact, as the clarifiers are often operated, hydraulic sludge fortunately, scum removal mechanisms on final clari
collection may be less effective than the conventional fiers cannot effectively deal with large quantities of
approach. Data presented in Table 3, as reported by floating solids due to short scum beaches and generally
Katz and Geinopolos,6 indicate that higher return sludge ineffective skimming blades. The key to control of this
concentrations are obtained with conventional sludge problem is effective removal of floating solids rather than
collection systems than with hydraulic systems. There the type of sludge removal mechanism.
is a tendency on the part of plant operators to return
a high percentage of flow with hydraulic sludge collectors CLARIFIER DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS
to lower the clarifier sludge blanket depth or minimize
floating solids caused by denitrification. The net effect Like the current design philosophy for secondary clar
is dilute sludge. An explanation of this phenomenon is ifiers, which has developed over a period of years, a
that the hydraulic return system creates a current in the departure from the traditional design philosophy also
clarifier, moving from the inlet well to the sludge col took place gradually. Over a period of approximately 7
lection arm, so that the sludge does not have time to years, one or two changes in final clarifier design were
concentrate greatly before it is removed from the basin. incorporated in the design of various wastewater treat
Because the sludge does not thicken appreciably, the ment plants (WWTP). Simultaneously, model studies
clarifier is usually full of sludge. Any increase in hy were conducted at the University of Kansas5 7 to inves
draulic loading generally results in a loss of solids to the tigate currents in secondary clarifiers and means to re
clarifier effluent. duce them. Findings from full-scale applications and the
The number of activated sludge plants brought into model studies were all applied to one clarifier design for
service in recent years has called attention to an old the first time at the Lincoln, Neb., Northeast WWTP.
problem?floating sludge on final clarifiers. Many of Conventional sludge removal equipment. The transi
these new plants are operating at a fraction of their de tion from conventional design theory began with the
sign flow, making the loading on the plant such that Lucas WWTP in Shreveport, La., where conventional
partial nitrification of the wastewater occurs. When this sludge removal equipment was used in the final clarifiers

INFLUENT THRU CENTER FEED 19.2M RADIUS

RADIAL FLOW DIFFUSER

TAIL OF ARROW INDICATES START OF VELOCITY READING.

VELOCITIES IN MM/S

Figure 2?Operating final clarifier.

April 1983 343

This content downloaded from

183.158.241.77 on Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:52:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stukenberg et al.

Table 3?Performance characteristics of final clarifiers in various activated sludge plants.

Basin description Solids characteristics

Test Collection armDiam. Depth Detention MLSS Return SS Settling velocity

no. velocity (rh) (m) (m) time (h) (mg/1) (mg/1) SVI (mm/s)

Center-feed circular?hydraulic removal

2.2 17.1 3.0 1.4 4000 11000 50 1.0
8.6 25.9 3.8 3.3 1560 3150 221 0.3
4.0 33.5 4.0 3.8 2 026 4 552 153 0.5
4.0 33.5 4.0 3.5 2 853 6 928 89 0.6
2.4 7.0 3.7 2.1 614 3 880 106 1.6
2.0 25.9 3.8 3.3 1560 3150 221 0.3
2.4 7.0 3.7 2.1 614 2 522 106 1.6
4.0 21.3 2.4 1.9 938 3 795 460 0.2

Center-feed circular?scraper
9 8.0 24.4 2.7 1.6 2 448 12 800 43 1.9
10 2.0 38.4 3.4 1.4 3 720 14 250 67 0.7
11 2.0 38.4 3.4 1.4 3 720 11 710 67 0.7
12 4.3 25.9 3.0 2.1 4 243 11 790 106 0.2

Peripheral feed circular?hydraulic removal

13 4.0 21.3 2.4 1.2 1043 2 665 652 0.1
14 4.0 29.0 3.0 2.5 2 280 4 280 395 0.02
15 4.0 29.0 3.0 2.5 2 280 4 280 395 0.02

Table 4?Clarifier performance?Shreveport, La.

Mixed liquor Return sludge

SOR SS Flow SS Sludge loading Effluent SS Effluent BOD

Date (m3/m2-h) (mg/1) SVI (%) (mg/1) <kg/m2d) (mg/1) (mg/1)

1979
Jan. 0.71 2 590 54 51 10120 67 10 21
Feb. 0.92 3 280 66 58 10000 114 22 21
Mar. 0.80 3 335 65 68 9 620 106 16 29
Apr. 0.92 2 620 56 60 8 870 92 20 26
May 0.80 2 945 59 8 445 14 22
June 0.75 2 705 67 38 7 515 67 13 18
July 0.73 3 160 102 86 8 680 104 25 21
Aug. 0.68 3 445 58 43 8 955 80 8 7
Sept. 0.63 2 940 80 44 7 430 64 10 10
Oct. 0.63 3 200 51 50 7 595 73 23 19
Nov. 0.66 3 820 47 41 9 450 85 22 20
Dec. 0.71 5 010 48 42 10 720 121 31 24

1980
Jan. 0.80 3 725 50 43 10 855 102 27 29
Feb. 0.81 3 885 67 61 11375 122 25 22
Mar. 0.85 3 960 56 33 10110 108 23 22
Apr. 0.87 4 075 44 35 8 990 113 20 19
May 0.83 2 880 39 32 8 715 77 21 23
June 0.66 2 995 42 46 7 555 69 16 20
July 0.58 2 970 48 49 6 740 61 17 16
Aug. 0.56 2 805 43 52 6 615 58 20 14
Sept. 0.59 2 990 45 50 7 215 63 17 15
Oct. 0.58 2 970 45 104 7 040 83 18 18
Nov. 0.58 3 390 46 97 7 880 93 25 23
Dec. 0.65 2 735 46 87 7 275 79 35 35

344 Journal WPCF, Volume 55, Number 4

This content downloaded from

183.158.241.77 on Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:52:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 _Process Design
Table 5?Clarifier performance?Ft. Collins, Colo.
SURFACE OVERFLOW RATE
Floccu
Surface lator
overflow status Effluent
SOLIDS LOADING RATE Flow rate MLSS SS
Date (m3/s) (m3/m2 h) (mg/1) On Off (mg/1)
CM 100
/X \
y\v ../
o? 50 1978
Jan. 0.18 0.86
RETURN SLUDGE SS Feb. 0.20 0.95
15.000 Mar. 0.19 0.90
~0110.000
? ^..^ '" \.-./ Apr. 0.20 0.93
E 5.000
0 1981
EFFLUENT SS
Jan. 0.18 0.87
Feb. 0.19 0.88
lv\7\ /" -'v.-/7
I I M M I M I I M M I I I _U
Mar.
Apr.
0.19
0.20
0.90
0.93
2 100
2 100
j FlAIJJASONDjFMAIJJASOIDJ FIAI May 0.24 1.14 2 100
1979 1980 1981

Figure 4?Shreveport, La., clarifier performance.

tions quite satisfactorily. The possible benefit of floc
culation of mixed liquor prior to sedimentation has been
instead of hydraulic sludge removal equipment.suggested
The 9.1 by several investigators, including Parker et
X 104 m3/d (24-mgd ) complete mix activated al} Results
sludge from Plant No. 1 after several months of
operation
plant was placed into service in 1975. The plant, which without chemicals are presented in Table 5.
In thisfour
does not have primary clarification, is divided into example, the mixed liquor was so well flocculated
that the
trains. Aeration is provided by nine 56-kW (75-hp) sur flocculators did not improve the plant perfor
face aerators in each of the four aeration basins. Per obviously the clarifier produced a satisfac
mance, but
formance of two 34.1-m square by 4.6-m sidewatertory effluent. Loadings on Plant No. 2 have not yet been
sufficient
depth (SWD) final clarifiers, since January 1979, is into demonstrate the effectiveness of the floc
culation well inlet design, but as a result of visual ob
dicated in Table 4. The solids loading on the clarifiers
servation of these clarifiers and the performance of Plant
was within the EPA recommended range of operation
No.
during many months. The SOR of the clarifiers, for 1 clarifier,
the this approach using four flocculators in
each
most part, was in the lower end of the recommended basin was incorporated into a design standard.
Positive
range of average operation. The data, plotted on Figure scum removal. Experience has shown that
4, indicate that secondary clarifiers equipped with con what type of sludge removal is used in a
regardless of
ventional sludge removal equipment are capable final
ofclarifier,
pro or how carefully an activated sludge plant
is operated,
ducing the desired effluent quality and a concentrated at some time a problem with floating sludge
will appear.
return sludge stream. In general the return sludge con For this reason, in cooperation with waste
water equipment
centration varied directly with the solids loading on the manufacturers, we developed a posi
tive full-surface
clarifier, as did the effluent suspended solids (SS) con skimmer for final clarifiers. The skim
centration. mer, shown on Figure 5, consists of a rotating pipe
Flocculating clarifiers. In anticipation of a possible
effluent nutrient limitation, the design of two wastewater ROTATING TROUGH
SKIMMER BOARD ^
SCUM BAFFLE
plants for Ft. Collins, Colo., incorporated flocculating .?
clarifiers as the final clarifiers to facilitate phosphorus
removal. Plant No. 1 has one 33.5-m diameter by 4.6
m SWD clarifier, with a 12.2-m diameter floe well. The
floe well is equipped with four up-pumping turbine floc
culators. Plant No. 2 has two 33.7-m square by 4.6-m
SWD clarifiers with 11.4-m diameter floe wells. Each
floe well is equipped with two up-pumping turbine floc
culators. Operation of these clarifiers without chemical
addition has indicated that settling of poorly flocculated SCRAPER Anil
mixed liquor may be enhanced by slow flocculation in
the inlet well, and that the flocculator-type inlet func

April 1983 345

This content downloaded from

183.158.241.77 on Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:52:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stukenberg et al._^_____

solids loss. The performance of the clarifiers at the Lin

coln WWTP is discussed in the next section.
Incorporation of all the clarifier modifications. All of
the modifications to conventional secondary clarifier
design were incorporated in the design of secondary clar
Figure 6?Currents in baffled clarifier model. ifiers for the Lincoln Northeast plant. Two 27.4-m di
ameter by 4.6-m SWD flocculating clarifiers were con
structed. The clarifiers were placed into operation in
trough and a surface skimmer. Fabricated from 356-mm November 1980. Each unit was equipped with an 11.6
diameter steel pipe, the rotary trough collects floating m diameter flocculation well having a 3-m skirt length,
scum the full distance between the scum baffle and the and four 1.5-kW up-pumping turbine flocculators ca
clarifier inlet well. The trough has regularly spaced slots pable of operating over an energy gradient range of 20
cut in the top and is suspended from the service walk to 80 per second. The basins have single peripheral weirs
way. The skimming blade is supported by the sludge with 610-mm wide baffles extending from the bottom
collection arm and also extends the full distance between of the weirs. Conventional sludge removal equipment
the scum baffle and inlet well. As the skimmer ap was provided, with return sludge and waste sludge with
proaches the trough, the trough rotates to receive scum drawn from a hopper in each basin floor. Full surface
and flushing water and then returns to the upright po skimming was provided, with scum return to the aera
sition as the skimmer passes. The skimmer supports are tion basins.
pivoted to allow the skimmer to pass under the trough Performance of the clarifiers for the first six months
without interfering with the trough operation. of 1981 is summarized in Table 6. In this period, both
Scum is discharged from the trough by gravity into clarifiers were in service until mid-May, when one was
a wetwell. Scum may be returned directly to the aeration taken out of service. Daily operating data from May 18
basin because it is predominantly mixed liquor solids, through June 30 are plotted on Figure 8. In this period,
but other means of disposal may be selected. Trough the average clarifier SOR was 1.77 m3/m2-h, with an
rotation may be activated manually or automatically. average MLSS of 1 640 mg/1 and an average influent
In the automatic mode, trough rotation is initiated each flow rate of 0.20 m3/s. The average sludge return rate
time the skimmer completes a predetermined number during this period was 62%. The maximum daily solids
of revolutions. The point at which the trough begins to loading rate was 102 kg/m2-d. The average weir over
rotate is adjustable over approximately a 1-m range flow rate was 214 m3/m. d.
measured at the scum baffle. An electric operator rotates The single Lincoln clarifier operated at an average
the trough from the upright position to the position of SOR value well above conventional design criteria. The
maximum submergence. The fully rotated position is average weir overflow rate was also above the recom
held until the skimmer passes under the trough, signal mended average loading rate. Although maximum hour
ing return of the trough to the upright position. flow rates were not recorded, it is reasonable to expect
The first skimmer was placed into service at the Grand that both the recommended maximum SOR and weir
Island, Nebr., WWTP in the summer of 1980. A new overflow rates were exceeded almost daily. Although the
30.5-m diameter by 3.8-m SWD flocculating clarifier solids loading rate was not excessive, it was close to the
was constructed and equipped with the positive skim recommended average loading. Yet the clarifier pro
ming device. Two existing 30.5-m diameter by 2.7-m duced an effluent with an average SS concentration of
SWD clarifiers were retrofitted with skimmers as well.
Operator reports on the skimmer have been quite fa
vorable. The positive scum skimmer has also been in
corporated into a design standard. WEIR PLATE
Peripheral weir and basin baffling. The studies by
Robinson5 and Mohart7 indicated that baffling the pilot fi^-SCUM BAFFLE
clarifier as shown in Figure 6 dissipated some of the re 4/\
610mm,
energy in the clarifier, and resulted in improved settling.
For this reason, baffling was included in the design of
the final clarifiers for the Lincoln Northeast WWTP.
The clarifiers were also designed with single peripheral
weirs to reduce solids carryover into the effluent. The
baffles are 610-mm ledges extending horizontally from
the weirs as shown on Figure 7. With this weir and baffle
configuration, the flow up the clarifier wall is turned
away from the effluent weir, reducing the likelihood of Figure 7?Clarifier baffle at weir trough.

346 Journal WPCF, Volume 55, Num

This content downloaded from

183.158.241.77 on Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:52:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Process Design

Table 6?Clarifier performance?Lincoln, Nebr.

Surface
Flow overflow rate MLSS Solids loading Return sludge SS Effluent SS
Date (m3/s) (m3/m2h) (mg/l) <kg/m2d) (mg/1) (mg/1)

1981
Jan. 0.18 0.66 1220 26 17
Feb. 0.20 0.73 2 950 70 6 200 16
Mar. 0.19 0.71 3140 77 6 840 8
Apr. 0.19 0.71 2 400 56 5 410 6
May 0.19 0.81 1890 42 4 060 8
May8 0.20 1.48 1 530 71 3 400
June8 0.20 1.46 1310 62 3130

8 One clarifier in service.

7 mg/1. The maximum day effluent SS concentration and flow distribution. In the clarification of activated
was only 18 mg/1. sludge, improved inlet conditions are reflected in better
Plant operating personnel reported that during effluent op quality, particularly during periods of peak flow
eration of the single clarifier, the sludge blanket was through
150 the clarifier. Moreover, operating experience at
to 230 mm deep at 0.13-m3/s influent flow and 300 several to wastewater treatment plants has indicated that
450 mm deep at a 0.26-m3/s flow rate. In the opinion settling of poorly flocculated mixed liquor is enhanced
by gentle flocculation, thereby improving the clarifier
of the operators, a clarifier of conventional design would
have been losing solids over the weir during the higher effluent quality.
daytime flows. Further, it was believed that the floe well The use of inboard launders to provide the weir length
inlet design improved the clarifier performance, as did required by current design standards has adversely af
operation of the flocculators at low speed. fected secondary clarifier performance. Solids loss is
commonly observed in the flow over the outboard weir
CONCLUSIONS between the launder and the clarifier wall. Model studies
have verified that there is a current established in sec
The commonly observed performance of secondary ondary clarifiers that moves across the basin floor, up
clarifiers indicates that some problems still exist with the
the wall, and into the launder. Experience and the model
current design philosophy, even though activated sludge studies have indicated that an improved clarifier design
plants have been in operation for over 70 years. Severalshould use a single peripheral effluent weir, baffled to
problems and myths related to secondary clarifier design
were successively addressed in the design of a number
2.0
of full-scale clarifiers. Operating experience to date has SURFACE OVERFLOW RATE
1.5
demonstrated the validity of the improvements in sec CM

ondary clarifier design.

I 1.0
E 0.5
Contrary to popular belief, secondary clarifiers will 0
operate satisfactorily when equipped with conventional
sludge scraping mechanisms. The 9.1 X 104 m3/d (24 300 WEIR OVERFLOW RATE

mgd) Shreveport WWTP placed into service in 1975 200

demonstrated that clarifiers equipped with conventional 100

sludge removal equipment perform as well as clarifiers 0

equipped with hydraulic sludge return systems. The use 200

100
of conventional sludge removal equipment eliminates SOLIDS LOADING
150
the hydraulic currents that might be caused by hydraulic W\~
-.' "-v
50 ^V*
sludge removal systems. Additionally, there is no indi
0
cation that denitrification and related floating sludge
problems are any less severe in a clarifier with hydraulic
EFFLUENT SS
sludge removal equipment than in a conventionally
equipped clarifier.
Flocculating clarifiers provide better inlet conditions
~"X
i-T-f M t i I r-fv,vi v/i
20 24 28 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
A,
MV.
than currently available from standard clarifier designs.
AT JUNE
Flocculating clarifier design provides a larger diameter
and deeper inlet well to allow better energy dissipation
Figure 8?Lincoln, Nebr., clarifier performance.

April 1983 347

This content downloaded from

183.158.241.77 on Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:52:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Stukenberg et al._

prevent the flow moving up the clarifier wall from pass and Veatch Consulting Engineers, Kansas City, Mo.
ing directly over the weir. Operating results from the Correspondence should be addressed to John R. Stu
first installation indicate that this design is superior to kenberg, Black & Veatch Cons. Engrs., Box 8405, Kan
the conventional inboard launder design, and that weir sas City, MO 64114.
length is not critical to performance. Excellent effluent
quality resulted, even though the average clarifier SOR
was approximately 25% greater than the conventional
REFERENCES
design value.
1. "Process Design Manual for Suspended Solids Removal."
Surface skimming of secondary clarifiers has been U. S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Office of Technol. Transfer,
virtually neglected through the years. Experience has Washington, D. C, EPA 625/l-75-003a (1975).
proven that hydraulic sludge removal does not prevent 2. "Recommended Standards for Sewage Works." Great
floating solids on secondary clarifiers, and that currently Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanit. Eng.
available scum removal equipment is woefully inade (1978).
quate. A positive scum removal device, developed in 3. Anderson, N. E., "Design of Final Settling Tanks for Ac
cooperation with equipment manufacturers, is currently tivated Sludge." Sew. Works J, 17, 50 (1945).
in service in two separate clarifier installations. The de 4. Mazurczyk, A. L., et al, "Methodology for assessing clar
ifier operation as demonstrated at Pruskow, Poland." Pa
vice, which has performed quite successfully, is suitable
per presented at the 53rd Annual Conf. of the Water Pol
for both small and large diameter circular clarifiers and
lut. Control Fed., Las Vegas, Nev. (1980).
has been retrofitted to existing clarifiers.
5. Robinson, John H., Jr., "A Study of Density Currents in
Final Sedimentation Basins." M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Kan
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS sas, Lawrence (1974).
6. Katz, W. J., and Geinopolos, A., "Discussion." Adv. in
Credits. The authors gratefully acknowledge the co
Water Poll. Res., 2, 366 (1964).
operation and assistance of E. Rawlins Collerain, 7. Mohart, James L., "Model Dye Tracer Studies of Currents
Shreveport, La.; Max M. Grimes, Fort Collins, Colo.; in Final Sedimentation Basins." Special Problem Report,
Earle W. Schweiger, Grand Island, Nebr.; and Steven Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence (Nov. 1978).
C. Lamborn, Lincoln, Nebr. 8. Parker, D. S., et al, "Physical conditioning of activated
Authors. John R. Stukenberg, Leonard C. Rodman, sludge floe." J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 43, 1817
and James E. Touslee are consulting engineers, Black (1971).

348 Journal WPCF, Volume 55, Number 4

This content downloaded from

183.158.241.77 on Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:52:58 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms