Professional Documents
Culture Documents
in Warm Climates:
Comparison with Traditional Design Methods
by
Chimwemwe Banda Gawasiri
The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit
has been given where reference has been made to the work of others.
Dissertation
submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science (Engineering)
in
Environmental Engineering and Project Management
August 2003
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Let me express my gratitu supported me during my
udy at the University of Leeds. I am very grateful to some individuals for their continuous
dvice and support that enabled this thesis to be completed successfully.
of the thesis. Thank
ou, Duncan, for the high standard you set for the thesis. Without your advice and guidance,
r program, which
as used as a basis for the development of the Monte Carlo simulation computer program for
to study at the University of Leeds. These are the Beit Trust, the University of Leeds
nd the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I am thankful to Brigadier Henshaw of the Beit
ersity of Leeds for their administration work. Let me thank my
lassmates who encouraged me to undertake this thesis, which looked difficult and
y studies to accomplish this
ostgraduate programme successfully.
de and appreciation to the individuals who
st
a
Firstly, let me thank my supervisor, Professor Duncan Mara, who has provided valuable
guidance, advice and encouragement during the preparation and progress
y
this thesis could not have been produced the way it is. Professor Mara deserves many thanks
for believing that I could accomplish the thesis successfully. This has been the source of
strength and encouragement in carrying out this substantial piece of work.
I am very grateful to Dr. Andrew Sleigh for his help in developing the Visual Basic computer
program. Thank you, Andrew, for providing the facultative pond compute
w
the modern design of WSP. You contributed substantially to the successful completion of this
thesis.
I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to my sponsors who provided me with
funding
a
Trust and to Dr. Duncan McCargo of the University of Leeds for awarding me the Beit Leeds-
Chevening scholarship.
I am very thankful to the postgraduate research administrative staff in the school of civil
engineering at the Univ
c
demanding. Special thanks go to Ademola, David, Noon, Femi, Pierre and Issa. These friends
supported me academically at the University of Leeds.
Finally, let me thank my family in Malawi who have been the source of comfort whenever I
felt homesick. You really encouraged me to focus on m
p
iii
ABSTRACT
This dissertation compares tradition s for designing waste stabilization
nds (WSP) whose final effluent is to be used for the unrestricted irrigation of crops in areas
ith warm climates in developing countries. Anaerobic and facultative ponds are currently
esigned based on deterministic average single values of the input design parameters. This
nds; and they use different values for faecal coliform
moval constant rates in each type of WSP.
e case with traditional design methods.
onte Carlo simulation is used in modern methods, which presents the design outputs across
ethods are shown to be more flexible than traditional methods and
re amenable to sensitivity analysis. Such analysis has found that the concentration of faecal
lth risks can be realistically assessed when modern methods for
esign of WSP are used. On the other hand traditional design methods of WSP can result in
ore realistic estimates of the faecal coliform removal constant rate
nd the management of the uncertainty of the input design parameters. If WSP designed by
al and modern method
po
w
d
design approach is considered as unrealistic and conservative because the input design
parameters are subject to uncertainty. Traditional design methods for maturation ponds
assume a regime in which the hydraulic flow is completely mixed, and a simple temperature-
dependent removal of faecal coliforms.
Modern design methods treat the input design parameters as a range, to take account of their
uncertainty; they assume a dispersed hydraulic flow regime when modelling faecal coliform
removal in facultative and maturation po
re
Modern methods design the subsequent maturation ponds based on a 95%-ile value of
effluent faecal coliform concentration (<1000 FC/100ml) rather than the mean value of
effluent faecal coliform concentration, which is th
M
a range of values, which are statistically analysed in percentile form. A Visual Basic
computer program has been developed based on Monte Carlo simulations to facilitate the
modern design of WSP.
The efficiency of modern and traditional methods of designing WSP are compared in terms of
the application of sensitivity analysis, faecal coliform removal, cost of procurement and
safety factors. Modern m
a
coliforms in effluent is significantly influenced by the per capita BOD, per capita wastewater
flow, net evaporation, temperature, faecal coliform removal constant rate in anaerobic ponds,
and the dispersion numbers in facultative ponds. Sensitivity analysis has further found that the
area of WSP is significantly influenced by the per capita BOD, per capita wastewater flow,
population and temperature.
Modern design methods are reliable and produce WSP that are more efficient in removing
influent faecal coliform than those designed using traditional methods. Because of this, any
exposure of the public to hea
d
systems that are inefficient in removing influent faecal coliform due to the underdesign of
maturation ponds. Traditional methods typically overestimate the faecal coliform removal
constant rate, thereby making it difficult to accurately predict any health risk to which the
public might be exposed.
The cost of procuring WSP designed by modern methods is relatively high compared to those
when traditional methods are used. The higher costs are attributed to the increased areas of
land needed, based upon m
a
traditional methods have a factor of safety of 1 due to the deterministic use of input design
parameters, WSP designed by modern methods have a factor of safety of 1.4 and 2.12, based
on 50%ile and 95%ile value of WSP area, respectively, assuming that the input design
parameters vary by 20% from their average single design values.
iv
In memory of my father,
Mr. Joseph Kaipa Banda
I know that he would have been truly pleased with this achievement.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...ii
ABSTRACT. .iii
A
1. Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope of research ...................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Research methodology.............................................................................................. 5
1.4 Thesis ........................................................................................................................ 5
WA
. General description of WSP...................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Anaerobic ponds ....................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2 Facultative ponds ...............
2.2.2.1 Algae ............................................
.......................................................................................................... 14
.................................................................................................... 15
................................................................................................................... 15
........................................................................................................................ 16
2.4.3 Parasites .................................................................................................................. 17
2.5 Nutrient removal ..................................................................................................... 17
2.5.1 Nitrogen .................................................................................................................. 17
2.5.1.1 Ammonia volatilisation........................................................................................... 18
2.5.1.2 Ammonia assimilation ............................................................................................ 19
2.5.2.3 Biological nitrification ............................................................................................ 19