PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND

MODELLING
OF SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANTS

Prerna Sharma
Assistant Professor
School of Engineering
G D Goenka University
 CONTENTS
1. Introduction
a. Background of the study
b. Description of Sewerage Treatment Plants of
Chandigarh
c. Description of Sewerage Treatment Plants Managed by
Delhi Jal Board
2. Research Scope
a. Research Objectives/Scope of the study
b. Research Questions of the study
c. Motivation of the Study
d. Significance of the Study
3. Materials & Methodology
a. Phase –I : Composition Characterisation
1. Selection of Sites and Sampling Points
2. Collection of Samples
3. Parameters Analysed
b. Phase- II: Development of Model & Software Used
c. Phase -III: Reutilisation of Effluent and Cost Benefit Analysis
d. Phase- IV: Publication of Research Work
4. Expected Outcome
 1. INTRODUCTION
 Sewage carried through close pipes or lines called sewers to the
place away from the residential area under the force of gravity
to sewerage treatment plant (STP). Here sewage treated before
disposing in environment.

 As sewage includes dissolved and suspended organic solids,

number of living microorganism, which lead into bad condition,
odor and appearance. Microorganism may contain disease-
producing (pathogenic) bacteria and viruses that can be readily
transferred by sewage from sick individuals to well ones. So by
removing it properly environment can maintain in an acceptable
and safe condition.
TREATMENT METHODS GENERALLY FOLLOWED AT
AN STP
 Sewerage Treatment Plant is a facility designed to receive the
waste from domestic, commercial and industrial sources and to
remove materials that damage water quality and compromise
public health and safety when discharged into water receiving
systems.
 It works on the objective to allow human, domestic and
industrial effluents to be disposed of without danger to human
health or unacceptable damage to the natural environment.
 Conventional wastewater treatment consists of a combination of
physical, chemical, and biological processes and operations to
remove solids, organic matter and nutrients from wastewater
General diagram showing various parts of an Sewerage Treatment Plant
 MOHALI STP
RAIPUR KHURD
RAIPUR KALAN STP
S.NO PARAMETERS STP ( ASP ( FAB/MBBR
(UASB TECHNOLOGY)
TECHNOLOGY )
TECHNOLOGY)
1. Type of process Anaerobic Aerobic Aerobic, Attached growth

High. Higher loads can be

2. Expandability Very Limited Very Limited accepted
with extra media Filling.
Area required for
3. 3.825 2.925 0.5575
STP, in hectares

Total land cost,

4. 45.9 35.1 6.69
Rs. Lacs
Total power
5. cost/annum, Rs. 1.77 47.56 36.5
Lacs

Maintenance cost
per annum, Rs.

6. Lacs 72.47 156.03 47.71

( Including
manpower, power,
chemicals)

Capital Cost, Rs.

7. 600 922.5 585
Lacs
 SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IN
DELHI
S.No Name of STP Location Technology Used Capacity in MLD Year of Installation Discharge & Reuse

1. Coronation Coronation Pillar, Mukharji Activated sludge process (ASP), Najafgarh drain to
nagar, Delhi trickling
Pillar STP’s filter & 45.46 1957 Yamuna River
1) (10) ASP 45.46
2) (10 + 90.92
20)

2. Delhi Gate (2.2) Delhi Gate, Nalah, Delhi High rate bio-filters 10.00 1995 River Yamuna
Densadeg technology

3. Ghitorni (5) Ghitorni, Delhi Activated sludge process 22.73 River Yamuna

4. Keshopur Keshopur, outer ring road, 1) 1956 Najafgarh drain to

Delhi-18 All the three plants designed on
STPs 54.55 Yamuna river
activated sludge process 2) 1976
90.92
1) (12) 181.84 3) 1986
(20)
(40)

5. Kondli STP’s Kondli, Delhi Shahdara drain to Yamuna River

1) (10-Phase- All three activated sludge process 45.46
1) 1979
I) 113.65
2) (25 -Phase- 45.46 2) 1990
II)
1995
3) (10-Phase-
III)

6. Mehrauli STP Mehrauli, New Extended aeration 22.73 2003

(5) River Yamuna
Delhi

7 Najafgarh STP Najafgarh, New Delhi Activated sludge proc. 22.73 2000 Najafgarh Drain to Yamuna
(5) river

8 Nilothi STP Nilothi, Activated sludge process 181.84 2002 Najafgarh Drain to Yamuna river
(40)
New Delhi
9 Narela STP Narela, New Activated sludge process 45.46 2003 Najafgarh Drain to Yamuna river
(10)
Delhi
10 Okhla Okhla, New Agra
STP’s Mathura All the plants designed 54.55 Canal/Old Agra Canal near
on activated sludge 1937- Jasola
1) (12) Road, New 72.73 Village/Sarita
process 1990
2) (16) 136.38 Vihar Bridge
Delhi-20
3) (30) 168.20
(37) 204.57
(45)

11 Papankala Papankalan Activated sludge process 90.92 2002 Najafgarh Drain to Yamuna
n STP river
(20) , New
Delhi
12 Rithala Sec-11, Activated sludge process & Rohini/ Nangloi Drain
High rate Yamuna River
STP’s Rohini, aerobic ASP 181.84 1) 1990 Wazirabad Barrage
1) (40) Delhi 181.84
& 2) 2002
Old biofor/bio filter
2) (40)
New

13 Rohini Rohini, Activated sludge 68.19 - Supplementary drain to

Delhi process Najafgarh
STP (15) drain to Yamuna river
14 Sen N.H. Sen N.H. High rate Bio 10.0 1995 Yamuna River
STP (2.2)
Nalah, filter

Ring Road,

Delhi

15 Timarpur Timarpur, Oxidation ponds 27.27 1980 Najafgarh Drain to

O.P. (6) Delhi
Yamuna river
 2. RESEARCH SCOPE
2.1 Research Objectives / Scope of the Study

The objectives/ Scope of the study can be segregated into three main categories which are
as follows:
 Composition Characterization: One of the main objective of the study is to deal with the
components of various aspects of sewage/wastewater characterization. To do a
comparative study of various wastewater/ sewage treatment technologies whether
aerobic or anaerobic used in Chandigarh and Delhi. To perform analytical study regarding
the Influent of various Sewerage treatment plants (STP’s) used in Chandigarh and Delhi.
 Development of Multiple Regression Model: For the various treatment technologies in
combination of one another to get a lucrative tool for Sewage/ Wastewater treatment.
 Effluent Characterization and Reuse: The final objective of the study is to reutilise the
effluent for some agricultural or Irrigational purpose after meeting its full
characterization in terms of physical, biological and chemical parameters.
 2.2 Research Objectives give rise to the following

Research Questions (RQ)

R.Q 1. What sort of composition of Influent entering a STP affects its

performance of treating the sewage? Is it Necessary to study the
composition of Influent? Is it beneficial for an STP to have influent
with heavy organic loading or low organic loading for proving itself
more efficient, no matters what treatment technology they are using
whether aerobic treatment like MBBR, BIOFORE, Trickling Filter,
BIOFORE, Extended Aeration System, Oxidation Ditch , Oxidation
Pond and ASP or anaerobic treatment like UASB , etc.
Hypothesis Formulation (H1):

 Null Hypothesis (Ho): Composition of Influent entering the

STP affects the functional units of its treatment like the
primary, secondary and tertiary treatment units.

 Alternate Hypothesis (H1): Composition of Influent does

not make any difference in the Effective performance of the
STP rather its other factors like design, maintenance and
Environmental factors influencing the performance of STP.
R.Q 2. Can modelling of the different technologies be used in
combination with one another for example one Aerobic + one
Anaerobic Sewage Treatment Technology? What sort of
combined modelling of above mentioned technology can be
useful for domestic as well as industrial waste water
treatment?
Hypothesis Formulation (H2):
 Null Hypothesis (Ho): Modelling of Aerobic+ Anaerobic,
Anaerobic + Anaerobic or Aerobic + Aerobic treatment
technology gives more efficient results than one individual
treatment technology used either to treat sewage or to treat
waste water in industry.
 Alternate Hypothesis (H2): There is not much
requirement of modelling of treatment technologies in
combination with one another, individual treatment
technology is sufficient to treat sewage or waste water and
produce effluent of good quality.
R.Q 3. Can the effluent obtained after the result of above
mentioned research questions be utilised again for any
agricultural or irrigational purpose? What sort of impact it
would be putting on the agricultural practices as well as
environment? Can we have Life Cycle Assessment of Effluent.
Hypothesis Formulation (H3):
 Null Hypothesis (Ho): Effluent obtained after using the
combination of Aerobic+ Anaerobic, Anaerobic + Anaerobic or
Aerobic + Aerobic treatment technology can be reutilised to
agricultural or irrigational purposes after its complete Life
Cycle Assessment.
 Alternate Hypothesis (H3): Effluent obtained at the end of all

the treatment units of an STP is just useless and it should only

be disposed either on land or in Inland Surface Water.
 2.3 MOTIVATION OF THE STUDY

Sewerage Treatment Plants (STP’s) plays vital role in our society

in terms of environmental Management and protection. The
technologies used can be utilised to find out solutions for Many
industrial effluent problems arising in the industries. The
motivation for this research work are the above mentioned
research questions which force me to think and work in this
area for the betterment of society as well as efficient
management of industrial Effluent.
 2.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
 Proper treatment should be given to sewage in Sewerage Treatment
Plant before their disposal into inland surface water or for reuse of
sewage effluent for irrigation purposes.
 This study on the STP’s is done to check whether the effluent from the
these STP’s studied complies with the Central Pollution Control Board
(CPCB) General Standards for the discharge of environmental pollutants
Part –A: Effluents, into Inland Surface Water according to The
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 Schedule-VI.
 Also this study will help us to know that among ASP, MBBR, UASB,
Trickling Filter, Oxidation Ditch, oxidation Pond and Extended Aeration
System which technology is better for the treatment of sewage and
producing effluent of good quality.
 The biggest significance of the study will be development of integrated
model with all the above mentioned technologies or with combination of
one technology with the other for the domestic as well as industrial
waste water treatment.
 3. MATERIALS &
METHODOLOGY
Phase –I: Composition Characterisation

3.1 Selection of Sites and Sampling Points

 For getting wastewater/sewage composition characterisation from
various STP’s the sampling sites from Chandigarh & Delhi are as follows:
 STP’s in Chandigarh: The sampling will done from the STP’s located in
Raipur Kalan, Raipur Khurd, Mohali, 3 BRD, Kajheri and Maloya.
 STP’s in Delhi: Vasant Kunj I & II, Okhla Phase I, II, III & IV, Mehrauli,
Timarpur, Narela, Delhi Gate, Nazafgarh, Rohini, Rithala, Kondli and
Yamuna Vihar
 Sampling points: The sampling points will be sampling at functional
units of each of the above mentioned STP’s i.e. Primary Treatment,
Secondary Treatment and Tertiary Treatment.
For more appropriate composition characterisation the following steps
will be taken into account.

 Performance Analysis i.e. Analytical Analysis of the Effluent and Influent

from all the above mentioned STP’s
 Evolution of Matrices: Evaluating the performance of each STP in the
form of Matric.
 Life Cycle Assessment/ Risk Assessment: Assessing the life cycle of
various STP’s along with the health impact of these STP’s to the nearby
residents in the form of Risk Assessment.
 Historical Data Analysis: To get a better overview of the characteristics
of the Influent and Effluent the historical data will be studied regarding all
the STP’s under my research work.

3.2 Collection of Samples

Grab Samples were collected as per APHA- Standard Methods for
Examination of Water and Wastewater.
3.3 Parameters Analysed

 Physico-chemical parameters
The parameters analysed in this study were pH, Temp (Temperature),
TSS (Total Suspended Solids), TDS (Total Dissolved Solids), Oil and
Grease, chlorides and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD).

 Biological parameters
The biological parameters analysed in present study included
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Most Probable Number MPN.

 Nutrient Load and Emergent Contaminants

The Nutrients analysed in this study were Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3 –N),
Ammonical Nitrogen (NH3 –N) and Phosphate (PO4-). Emergent
Contaminants like heavy metals like Cadmium, Iron and Mercury.
 Phase- II: Development of Model & Software Used

Step 2. Developing Multiple Regression Model for output parameters

as function of input variables. This step again contain some sub parts
which are as follows:

a) Selection of process Control parameters and their ranges.

b) Selecting DOE ( Design of Experiments) for obtaining 1st order or 2nd
order equations for development of the model.
c) Analysis: This portion again will contain three sub parts that are as
follows:

1. Find percentage contribution

2. Main Effect Plot
3. Interaction between Variables
4. Obtaining Multiple regression Model
5. Validating the Model
Tools/Software will be used for the study:
 Statistical Approach: Mini Tab software and Artificial Neural
Networks will be used for developing Multiple Regression Model.
 Physical Analysis Approach: Comsol Software will be used for the
physical analysis of the Data Gathered.
 Phase-III: Reutilization and Cost Benefit Analysis

3.5: Reutilization of Effluent and Cost benefit analysis

obtained from the modelling of combined treatment
technology.
Cost Benefit Analysis: This analysis will help to figure out
the benefits of the treatment technologies and the final model
obtained after summing up one or more technologies i.e. the
integrated model obtained which will further help in getting
the desired output in various industries in terms of
wastewater treatment.
Process Optimization: This section will look into the
reutilization of the By-Product obtained from each of the
STP’s.
 Phase-IV: Research Publications

3.6: Publication of research work in journal: Publication of the

Research Work will be tried do in the following Journals
 1. Journal of Environment Monitoring Assessment- Springer
(For R.Q 2)
 2. Journal of Bio source Technology- Elsevier (For R.Q 3)

 3. Water Research –Elsevier, Science Direct (For R.Q 1)

 Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV

Modelling of Cost Benefit

Comparative Analysis Publication of
Sewage Analysis and
(Performance & Research Work
Treatment Development of
Analytical Analysis)
Technologies Waste Water Quality
Index (WWQI)

Sampling Sites Sampling Points

Delhi STP’s Influent (Inlet) and Effluent (Outlet) Channel of

Each STP
 4. EXPECTED OUTCOME

From this research work and the testing of hypothesis it is

expected that the Null hypothesis will be accepted which
implies that all the research questions will move in a positive
directions to find out solution for the research question.

The expected outcome can be summarised that Modelling of

Sewerage Treatment plants with different technologies is not
only useful in Sewage treatment but also proves to be a solution
to various industrial effluent problems
 REFERENCES

 APHA –AWWA-WPCF,2005. RStandard Methods for Examination of Water and

Wastewater, 21st edition. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC,USA.
 Madan Tandukara, A. Ohashib and H. Harada. (2007) Performance comparison of a
pilot-scale UASB and DHS system and activated sludge process for the treatment of
municipal wastewater, WAT ER RES E ARCH 41 2697 –, 2705
 Metcalf and Eddy Inc., (2003), “ Wastewater Engineering - Treatment, Disposal and
Reuse”, 4th Edition, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi.
 Priyanka Jamwal, Atul K. Mittal and Jean-Marie Mouchel (2009). Efficiency evaluation of
sewage treatment plants with different technologies in Delhi (India), Environ Monit
Assess 153:293–305
 Ravi Kumar, P., Liza Britta Pinto and Somashekar, R.k(2010)Assessment of the efficiency
of sewage treatment plants: A comparative study between Nagasandra and Mailasandra
sewage treatment plant, Kathmandu University Journal of Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol.6,No. II, Nov,,pp 115-125
 Swayer , Mc Carty and Parkin.Chemistry for environmental engineering and science, fifth
edition , Tata Mc Graw –Hill.
 S.K Garg. Sewage Disposal and Air Pollution Engineering, Environmental Engineering
(Vol.II)
 Colmenarejo, M. F., Rubio, A., Sanchez, E., Vicente, J., Gracia, M. G., & Bojra, R.
(2006).Evaluation of municipal wastewater treatment plants with different technologies
at Las-Rozas, Madrid (Spain). Journal of Environmental Management, 81, 399–404.
 D. Pokhrel, T. Viraraghavan. (2004) Treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater—a review,
Science of the Total Environment 333 37– 58
 Dilip M. Ghaitidak & Kunwar D. Yadav (2013). Characteristics and treatment of greywater—
a review, Environ Sci Pollut Res DOI 10.1007/s11356-013-1533-0
 E.Hosseini Koupaie, M.R Alavi Moghaddam and H. Hashemi, (2011), Comparison of overall
performance between “Moving Bed” and Conventional Sequencing Batch Reactor, Iranian
Journal of Environmental Health Science& Engineering, pp.235-244
 Madan Tandukara, A. Ohashib and H. Harada. (2007) Performance comparison of a pilot-
scale UASB and DHS system and activated sludge process for the treatment of municipal
wastewater, WATER RESEARCH 41 2697 – 2705
 Markus Boller, (1997), Small waste water treatment plants: A Challenge to waste water
engineers, Journal of Water Science and Technology,Vol.35, Issue 6, pp.1-2
 Metcalf and Eddy Inc., (2003), “Wastewater Engineering - Treatment, Disposal and
Reuse”, 4th Edition, Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi.
 M. Von Sperling, V.H Freire and C.A De Lemos Chernicharo, ,(2011) Performance
Evaluation of a UASB-Activated Sludge System treating Municipal wastewater, Journal of
Water Science and Technology, Vol.43), pp.323-328
 R.A Barbosa and G.L Sant Anna Jr, (1989)Treatment of raw domestic sewage in an UASB
reactor, Journal of Water Research, Vol.23, Issue 12, Dec, pp.1483-1490
 Ravi Kumar, P., Liza Britta Pinto and Somashekar, (2010) R.k. Assessment of the efficiency
of sewage treatment plants: A comparative study between Nagasandra and Mailasandra
sewage treatment plant, Kathmandu University Journal of Science, Engineering and
Technology, Vol.6, No. II, Nov, pp 115-125
 Ravichandran.M and Joshua Amarnath.D. (2012) Performance Evaluation of Moving Bed
Bio-Film Reactor Technology for Treatment of Domestic Waste Water in Industrial Area
at MEPZ (Madras Exports Processing Zone), Tambaram, Chennai, India, Elixir Pollution
53 11741-11744
 Siewhui Chong, Tushar kanti Sen, Ahmet kayadp and Ha Ming Ang, (2012), The
performance enhancement of UASB for domestic Sludge treatment- A state of the art
review, Journal of Water Research, Vol.46, Issue 11, July pp. 3434-3470
 Sheng Chen, Dezhi Sun, and Jong-Shik Chung. (2007) Treatment of pesticide wastewater
by moving-bed biofilm reactor combined with Fenton-coagulation pre-treatment,
Journal of Hazardous Materials 144 577–584
 Swayer, Mc Carty and Parkin.Chemistry for environmental engineering and science, fifth
edition, Tata Mc Graw –Hill.
 Wen K. Shieh and John D. Keenan, (1986), Fluidized Bed Biofilm reactor for wastewater
treatment, Journal of Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology, Vol.33, pp.
131-169
 Water and wastewater testing (A laboratory manual), R.P Mathur.
Websites Referred

APHA-AWWA-WPCF, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water

and Wastewater

American Public Health Association: www.apha.org

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) www.cpcb.nic.in

Science Direct: www.sciencedirect.com

Wikipedia www.wilipedia.org
Thank You