Outline

Introduction 
Case Studies
 Anoxic Zone Mixing
 Channel Mixing
Theory and Criteria
 Mixing Theory
 Design Criteria
Recommendations
 Introduction

Where Do We Mix at WWTPs?

Flow Equalization Tanks
Headworks Wet Wells
Flow Distribution Boxes
Aeration Tanks & Channels
Anoxic and Anaerobic Reactors
Final Effluent (Re‐aeration)
Disinfection tanks
Sludge Digesters
Processes with Chemical Addition

Mixing is a typical process in wastewater 
treatment
 Introduction

Why Do We Mix?

Keep solids in suspension
Enhance mass transfer and microbial 
kinetics
Improve chemical reaction with pollutants
Provide aeration / odor control
Improve effective residence time, decrease 
short‐circuiting

Mixing is an important process in wastewater 
treatment.
 Introduction

How Do We Mix?

Draft Tubes

By Kocamemi

There are different solutions/equipment 
for mixing.
 Introduction

Why Talk About Mixing?

Mixing exists in most plants
Mixing consumes a lot of energy
Design criteria vary
There are a lot of over designed/operated 
mixers
Process performance requires adequate 
mixing

Sustainability depends on everybody’s effort.
 Introduction

Why after Primary Treatment?

Heavy/high density solids have been 
removed;
Following typical criteria might waste 
energy: opportunities to improve
Types of mixing:
 Rapid mixing
 Continuous mixing
 Outline

Introduction 
Case Studies
 Anoxic Zone Mixing
 Channel Mixing
Theory and Criteria
 Mixing Theory
 Design Criteria
Recommendations
 Case Study 1

Anoxic Zone Mixing - Background

Plant wet weather peak flow 63 MGD
Upstream grit removal and primary 
treatment with EDIs
Aeration tank volume: 5.4 MG with two 
trains
Four anoxic zones, volume is 44,800 ft3 for 
each zone, dimensions: 94 ft (L) X 30 ft (W) 
X 15.9 ft (D)
Expected MLSS concentrations: 2,000 to 
5,500 mg/L

How to provide best anoxic mixing design?
 Case Study 1

Anoxic Zone Mixing – Mixer Type

Coarse bubble diffusers were excluded 
due to concerns of oxygen introduction
Submersible mixers: ABS and Flygt

Pictures courtesy of ABS and Flygt/Xylem

 Case Study 1

Anoxic Zone Mixing – Mixer Type

Invent HYPERCLASSIC Mixer

Pictures courtesy of Invent Environmental Technologies Inc

Had higher cost to install at specific site.

 Case Study 1

Anoxic Zone Mixing – Mixer Type

Floating Mixers: Siemens and AquaDDM®

Picture from Aqua-Aerobic Systems website

Better vertical mixing to create the concentration gradient for

bioselectors.
 Case Study 1

Anoxic Zone Mixing – Design

Mixing Zone  Mixing Energy 
Design  Mixer Size  Total Power  Annual Energy 
Reference Volume (1,000  Input (Hp/1,000 
Iterations (Hp) Draw (Hp) Cost*
cubic feet) cubic feet)
MetCalf & Eddy 
1 20 (17 Hp) 22.4 0.75 136 $53,300 
Recommendation

2 WEF Recommendation 10 22.4 0.45 80 $31,400 

Manufacturer's Design 
3 5 22.4 0.22 40 $15,700 
Criteria
Similar Projects by 
4 3 22.4 0.13 24 $9,400 
Others
* Plant average electricity cost is $0.06/kwh; electricity price inflation is not considered. 

50-70% reduction in annual energy cost from step 2

 Case Study 1

Anoxic Zone Mixing – 3Hp or 5 Hp?

VFD was excluded from design
Two‐speed motor is not available
Easy change out of mixer impellers
Manufacturer physical lab and CFD 
modeling were not conclusive
Fort Collins Drake Facility in Colorado:      
15 Hp/MG, or 0.11 Hp/1,000 cubic feet
Big mixers could cause tank bottom 
concrete deterioration over time.

Decision:  To conduct full scale testing at one 
half of the anoxic zones during construction.
 Case Study 1

Anoxic Zone Mixing – Another Idea

Pulsed Large Bubble Mixing

EPA 832-R-10-005, 2010 – EnviroMix / BioMix

 Case Study 2

Channel Mixing– Background

Mixed liquor channel with MLSS = 
2,000‐5,500 mg/L
Channel volume: 33,480 ft3
Channel Dimensions: 944 ft (L) X 15 ft 
(W) X 6 ft (D)
 Case Study 2

Channel Mixing– Alternatives

1) Main aeration blowers with a throttling 
valve – pressure drop of 3 to 4 psi
2) Mechanical mixers – too many units
3) New dedicated blowers – capital cost
4) Existing PD blowers and coarse bubble 
diffusers
5) Existing PD blowers and retractable fine 
bubble diffusers
 Case Study 2

Channel Mixing – Air Requirement

Design  Channel 
Design  Air Demand  Blower Power  Annual Energy 
Reference Criteria  Bottom Area 
Options 2 2 (scfm) Draw (Hp) Cost*
(scfm/ft ) (ft )
Typical Manufacturer 
1 0.12                14,166 1700 60 $23,530 
Recommendations
Lower Limit of Mixing 
2 0.06                14,166 850 30 $11,760 
Requirements
* Plant average electricity cost is $0.06/kwh; electricity price inflation is not considered. 
 Outline

Introduction 
Case Studies
 Anoxic Zone Mixing
 Channel Mixing
Theory and Criteria
 Mixing Theory
 Design Criteria
Recommendations
 Theory and Criteria

Mixing Theory – Velocity Gradient

 A measurement of mixing effectiveness
 G is an average number – not homogeneous
 Mixing creates circulation (velocity) and shear
 Given V and µ, P needs to increase to increase G
 Theory and Criteria

Mixing Theory – Velocity Gradient

 Radial‐flow impeller in a baffled tank 
 Theory and Criteria

Mixing Theory – Velocity Gradient

 Axial‐flow impeller in a baffled tank
 Theory and Criteria
Mixing Theory – Velocity Gradient

Picture courtesy of Flow Science

CFD Modeling of a mixing tank  23
Mixing Theory – Velocity Gradient

Picture by Maxon, Fowler and Kehn, Water World

CFD Modeling of a mixing tank 
24
Mixing Theory – Power Number

Steffe, Rheological methods in food process engineering

Different mechanical 
impellers has 
different power 
draw and mixing 
effect.
25
 Theory and Criteria

Mixing Design Considerations

For mixing for solids suspension, consider 
the following factors:
 Tank Dimensions
 Baffles
 The  impeller: material, shape
 Settling velocity of  solids:  specific gravity, 
size, etc.
 Solids concentration
 Temperature

Difficult to quantity; a highly empirical process. 
 Theory and Criteria

Mixing Theory – Power Number

 Different 
mechanical 
impellers have 
different power 
draws and 
mixing effects.
 Theory and Criteria

Design Criteria

Anoxic Zone Mixing Requirements: 
 MetCalf & Eddy:   0.75 to 1.50 Hp / 1,000 ft3
 WEF MOP8:   0.45 to 0.75 Hp / 1,000 ft3
 Manufacturer's Criteria:  0.22 Hp / 1,000 ft3
 Theory and Criteria

Design Criteria

Summarized by Sam Jeyanayagam, 2007

Modeling Wastewater Aeration Systems to Discover Energy Savings Opportunities.

By Steven A. Bolles
 Theory and Criteria

Why Less Power Is Possible?

Better understanding and better design 
(e.g., big blade low speed mixers)
Lower density of solids to suspend/mix
Better tank/channel geometry
Baffle design
Bulk flow velocity to be considered!
 Why Less Power Is Possible?

For anoxic and anaerobic reactors, By Jared Wray, P.E., and Daniel Alper, KSB, 2012
 Outline

Introduction 
Case Studies
 Anoxic Zone Mixing
 Channel Mixing
Theory and Criteria
 Mixing Theory
 Design Criteria
Recommendations
 Recommendations

Design and operate beyond published 
design criteria
How to improve mixing efficiency:
 Low speed big diameter mixers
 Conduct physical models
 Conduct CFD Modeling
 Install Baffles
 Install VFD or two‐speed motors
 Recommendations

Improvement Process:
 Compare current mixing power  input with 
design criteria and other facilities
 Identify and analyze possible improvement 
alternatives
• Calculate Capital Improvement Costs
• Calculate Energy Savings
• Determine Payback Period
 Verify feasibility
 Design and implement the improvement
 Summary

Mixing is typical, important, and energy 
consuming
Mixing design needs careful analysis, 
rather than just following design criteria
Mixing energy saving opportunities 
might be available after primary 
treatment
Significant savings can be achieved by 
careful design and operation