DIFFUSED AERATION

DESIGN GUIDE
INTRODUCTION
Those involved in the design of diffused aeration equipment
for wastewater treatment should understand the impact that
process type, maintenance issues and economic
considerations can have on the selection of equipment. Like
many other engineering challenges, these factors are
frequently interrelated and trade-offs of one aspect versus
another are required for most application. This design guide
presents information that has been obtained and developed
from a variety of sources. Some of this information has
been developed from actual test data, some is condensed
from other published sources, some is based on good
engineering judgement and practical field experience. The
information, formulas, values and methods, etc. should be
viewed as a design aid and may not be applicable in all
situations. The designer should always use good
professional engineering judgement for every application.
The following sections of this design guide will briefly
discuss the activated sludge process and biological treatment
oxygen demands. The guide provides a rational step-by-step
procedure to convert actual oxygen requirements (AOR) to
standard oxygen requirements (SOR). It illustrates how to
perform many of the oxygen transfer calculations including
approximating aerator sizing and selection. Final equipment
sizing and configurations should be referred to the factory
for confirmation.
Oxygen must be provided in biological treatment systems to
satisfy several types of demands. These are referred to as
actual oxygen requirements or AOR. AOR is always
expressed as field conditions. Each wastewater treatment
plant has its own unique field conditions that include site
elevation, temperature, working DO level, diffuser
submergence and alpha and beta factors. The designer
must use these factors to convert AOR to standard oxygen
requirements (SOR) to properly apply the aeration
equipment and determine the amount of process air
required to satisfy the biological treatment oxygen demands.
Common units of expression for AOR and SOR are pounds of
oxygen per day per unit volume. SOR values will always be
larger than AOR values. Confusion and misunderstanding
can be minimized between designer and equipment supplier
if the designer expresses his desired oxygen demands in
terms of SOR values. If this is not possible, then clearly
identify the oxygen demand as an AOR value and provide as
much information as possible for the equipment supplier to
assist you in making the appropriate AOR/SOR conversion.
Experienced aeration equipment manufacturers can provide
information to engineers and designers on the oxygen
transfer capability of particular equipment and
configurations when the equipment is aerating clear tap
water. These tests, when corrected for temperature and
elevation to standard conditions, become the basis for
determining the equipments standard oxygen requirement
or SOR. Equipment manufacturers cannot guarantee the
oxygen transfer capability of aeration equipment in
wastewater. Each wastewater treatment plant has its own

unique field conditions and waste type that preclude this

type of guarantee.
Equipment manufacturers can show engineers and designers
a rational method to convert AOR to SOR and can offer
advice on the probable values used in the AOR to SOR
conversion. However, it is the engineers responsibility to
determine the AOR of a particular system or process and
select the appropriate conversion factors to relate AOR to
SOR. Specifying an SOR value is the best way to prevent
confusion and problems in the specifications.

ACTIVATED SLUDGE AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT

Activated sludge aeration tanks are the largest applications
for diffused aeration equipment. These tanks and the
associated air diffusion equipment are the heart of the
activated sludge process and typically are the single largest
energy user associated with plant operations. Energy costs
for aeration will typically be 50% to 90% of all energy
consumed at a wastewater treatment plant.
Oxygen must be provided in biological wastewater
treatment systems to satisfy several types of demands. One
demand is that associated with the oxidation of organic or
carbonaceous materials. Carbonaceous oxygen demand is
associated with two cellular functions: cell synthesis and
endogenous respiration. Cell synthesis carbonaceous oxygen
demand occurs when organic matter is first metabolized by
the microorganisms contained in the mixed liquor. It is
related to the oxygen required to oxidize a portion of the
organic matter to provide the energy necessary for cell
synthesis. Endogenous respiration carbonaceous oxygen
demand occurs as the synthesized organisms are retained in
the treatment system and it represents the essential life
processes. The net result is that increasing amounts of
oxygen are required as lower process organic loadings are
used. Lower process organic loadings are characterized by
operation at a longer solids retention time (SRT) and a lower
food-to-microorganism (F:M) loadings.
Oxygen is also required for biological oxidation of ammonia
nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen. If the process is designed and
operated in a nitrification mode, the oxygen demand due to
nitrification must be included in the calculation of oxygen
requirements for the system. However, nitrification may also
occur in systems where only carbonaceous BOD removal is
required. When the wastewater is warm, say 20 C (68 F)
or above, it may not be possible to operate the treatment
system at a high enough loading or short SRT to prevent
nitrification from occurring. Under these circumstances,
oxygen transfer capacity to meet this additional demand
must be provided, although not required by permit.
Oxygen is also required to oxidize inorganic materials in the
influent wastewater. A good example is hydrogen sulfide,
which is oxidized chemically when brought in contact with
dissolved oxygen in the biological reactor. Reactions of this

type can be quite rapid and can proceed to complete

oxidation according to well-established stoichiometry.
Process oxygen requirements will be reduced if
denitrification occurs in the biological treatment system.
Denitrification can occur under controlled conditions if the
system is specifically designed with an anoxic zone for
nitrogen removal. Designers seldom use the potential
oxygen requirement reduction of credit when calculating
all oxygen requirements, but rather assign this luxury oxygen
as an additional safety factor in the overall design.

CALCULATING ACTUAL OXYGEN REQUIREMENTS AOR

A number of approaches have been used to estimate the
oxygen requirements caused by the biochemical oxidation of
organic matter. Many regulatory agencies specify oxygen
design criteria for various unit processes and some
requirements are probably based on various empirical or
rule-of-thumb techniques. More sophisticated approaches
to estimating the oxygen demand in aeration systems may
be obtained from various computerized process models.
Unfortunately, most process models either require certain
values that need to be experimentally determined for the
particular waste or else must rely on past experience and
judgement in selecting the model values. One rational
approach to determine the oxygen requirements in the
biological process is to total the oxygen demand due to the
sources described below. The summation of all of these
contributions must be considered in the sizing of the
aeration system.

on the system and may result in process failure. Figure 2

from the WPCF MOP 8 shows the relationship between SRT
and nitrification efficiency.

3. SIDE STREAM LOADING

Good engineering design should analyze and account for
side stream loads that are eventually returned to the
aeration tanks. Generally, the most significant side stream
loads will come from sludge handling or processing
operations. Although the flows may be small, the BOD may
be very high and result in significant oxygen demand applied
to the aeration system. Some sources of side stream loading
are:

Septage receiving stations

Filter press or vacuum filter filtrate and spray wash
water
Centrifuge centrate
Effluent from dissolved air flotation thickeners
Effluent from gravity thickeners
Supernatant from aerobic or anaerobic digesters
Filtrate from sand drying bed underdrains
Wash water from grit dewatering screws
Water from venturi scrubbers or cyclones
Cooking liquors from thermal sludge processing
operations
Effluent from scum or grease processing equipment

FIGURE 1

1. BOD LOADING

2. AMMONIA LOADING
The oxidation of one pound of ammonia requires 4.3 to 4.6
pounds of oxygen. Typical domestic wastewater contains
25-30 mg/l of ammonia. Do not underestimate the oxygen
demand to oxidize the ammonia. Oxidizing 25 mg/l of
ammonia is equivalent to an additional 115 mg/l of BOD
loading. Be award that even if a plant is not specifically
designed to nitrify, that under favorable loading,
temperature and SRT conditions, nitrification can and will
occur. This may exert a large unanticipated oxygen demand

General Carbonaceous Oxidation Response of Domestic

Wastewater in an Activated Sludge System
2

30 deg.C
1.8

20 deg.C
1.6

Carbonaceous Oxidation
(O2 / CBOD5-load)

Figure 1 from the WPCF MOP 8 shows the relationship

between SRT and pounds of oxygen required per pound of
BOD removed at various temperatures for domestic
wastewater in an activated sludge system. For typical SRTs
of 5 to 10 days, the pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD
removed varies, from 0.92 to 1.07. A value of 1.0 pound of
oxygen per pound of BOD removed is commonly used. On
occasion, some designers use a more conservative value of
1.1 pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD removed. In
processes with long detention times (more than 18 hours)
and low organic loadings where excess sludge is also
oxidized in the aeration tanks, a higher value is justified.
Examples where higher values are justified are extended
aeration and oxidation ditches. In these cases, supplying
1.25 to 1.80 pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD removed
or higher is appropriate.

1.4

10 deg.C
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4
0

10

20

30

SRT (days)

40

50

COMMENTARY

Responsible engineering design of an aeration system should

include a rational determination of AOR taking into account
BOD loading, ammonia loading, possible nitrification
conditions and side stream loading. Further analysis of the
oxygen demand and how it occurs spatially in time may
result in minimum, average and peak values of AOR.
Additionally, summer and winter operating conditions can
also be different. Normal diurnal flow and loading patterns
may be altered by factors such as sludge processing
operations occurring in a single 8-hour work shift and
should be factored into the design.

Altitude and temperature affect the amount of oxygen that

can be dissolved or absorbed by the wastewater. More
importantly, oxygen transfer in wastewater is different than
in clear tap water. Wastewater also contains considerably
more solids than tap water.
The general accepted formula to convert AOR to SOR is:

Equation 1

Pf

Csat DO field

PMSL
T 20
AOR = SOR( )

Csat

FIGURE 2

20

Example Nitrification Response

Influent 0.27 MGD @ 200 mg/l CBOD5, 30 mg/l Total Nitrogen,
20 deg.C, 2 mg/l D.O., 300 mg/l Alkalinity,
in a single 100' x 20' x 15' Activated Sludge Reactor

The terms in the formula are:

AOR = actual oxygen requirement (field conditions)
SOR = standard oxygen requirement (standard conditions)

25

Standard conditions are zero elevation (29.92 barometric

pressure), 20 C and zero DO (dissolved oxygen in liquid).

20

Nitrogen (mg/l)

Total Nitrogen Nitrified

Alpha() =

15

KLa wastewater
KLa tap water

Beta()
Pf
PMSL
DO field

10

T
Csat20

Effluent NH3-N

CsatT

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

SRT (days)

CALCULATING CONVERSION FROM ACTUAL TO

STANDARD CONDITIONS: AOR/SOR RATIO
The preceding section described a rational method for
determining AOR and some of the factors affecting it. AOR
is a measure of the oxygen demand of the wastewater at
specific site conditions. Conversion of AOR to SOR is
affected by the following site conditions:

Alpha
Beta
Site Elevation
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
Saturation value for the device at the specified
submergence

= Saturation Factor
= Barometric pressure at jobsite
= Barometric pressure at mean sea level
= Working dissolved oxygen concentration in
wastewater
= Operating temperature of wastewater
= Surface DO saturation concentration at 20 C
and standard conditions for the particular
aeration equipment at the design submergence
= Surface DO saturation concentration at design
temperature T and 14.7 PSIA for the particular
aeration equipment at the design submergence

COMMENTARY

Alpha alpha is the ratio of the mass transfer coefficient in

wastewater to the mass transfer coefficient in tap water.
Alpha is the most variable factor in the formula and the
most difficult to accurately test. Unfortunately, there is less
known about alpha than any of the other terms in the
formula. With the preceding in mind, the following
generalizations can be made about factors that affect alpha
values.


BOD loading per unit volume


Process used, i.e. a process that nitrifies typically less
higher alpha values than a process that does not nitrify


Type of aeration device, i.e. coarse bubble or fine
bubble


Mixing regime, i.e. plug flow or complete mix


Location within aeration tank, influent end vs. effluent
end


Type of waste


Submergence of aeration device

Sanitaire has conducted many in-waste oxygen

transfer determinations on both coarse bubble and fine
bubble systems in municipal and industrial wastewaters
using off-gas methods. Off-gas testing can provide alpha
values for a particular waste at the location tested. In
complete mix tanks with fine bubble aeration, alpha values
typically vary from about 0.4 to a high of about 0.7.
Typically, alpha is in the range of 0.5 to 0.6 and these values
can be used with a fair degree of certainty for domestic
wastewater in the absence of testing. In plug flow type
tanks with fine bubble aeration, alpha is generally lower at
the inlet or influent and rises to the outlet or effluent end.
Very narrow and very long (or multiple pass) aeration tanks
seem to exhibit the greatest alpha gradient. Alpha values as
low as 0.25 have been measured at the inlet of tanks with a
large aspect ratio rising to approximately 0.9 at the outlet.
Designers should be aware of the possibility of a significant
alpha gradient in long narrow tanks.
In coarse bubble aeration tanks, alpha typically varies from
about 0.6 to a high of about 0.95. Typically, alpha is in the
range of 0.7 to 0.8 and these values can be used with a fair
degree of certainty for domestic wastewater in the absence
of testing. Coarse bubble alpha values as low as 0.5 have
been measured in highly loaded complete mix paper mill
waste. Alpha gradients can exist in coarse bubble aeration
tanks but may be less than with fine bubble aeration due to
the more turbulent mixing inherent with coarse bubble
systems.
Beta Beta is a saturation factor and is used to correct for
the dissolved solids in wastewater. The solubility of oxygen
in wastewater is approximately 95 to 99 percent of that of
pure water. Beta is commonly accepted to be in the range
of 0.95 to 0.99 unless dissolved solids are extremely high.
Theta Theta is the correction factor for the temperature of
the wastewater. Theta is commonly accepted to be 1.024
with the exponent T-20 power. Values of the expression T20
are listed for temperatures of T = 10 C to T = 30 C.
Note that at 20 C (68 F), the expression becomes to the
zero power or 1.000. See Figure 3.
Pf This is the barometric pressure at the jobsite in inches of
mercury. See Figure 4.
PMSL This is the barometric pressure at mean sea level
(standard conditions) and is 29.92 inches of mercury. The
ratio Pf over PMSL corrects for the reduced solubility of oxygen
in water at higher altitudes.
DO field This is the working dissolved oxygen concentration
in the wastewater desired to be maintained. Typically,
designers will pick a value of 2.0 mg/l at average conditions
and often allow it to drop to 1.0 mg/l at peak conditions.
The working dissolved oxygen concentration must be
accounted for because it reduces the driving force. The
rate of oxygen transfer is dependent on the oxygen deficit.
For example, if a particular device has the capability to

saturate water to 10 mg/l as measured at the surface and 1

mg/l DO is maintained in the water; the deficit or driving
force is 9 mg/l. If, on the other hand, 4 mg/l DO is
maintained in the water, the driving force is only 6 mg/l.
T T is the operating temperature of the wastewater in C.
This correction must be made to account for the reduced
solubility of oxygen in water at higher temperatures. Figure
5 shows the commonly accepted values for surface oxygen
solubility at sea level for temperatures ranging from 0 C to
30 C. Note that this in not the Csat value for the aeration
device. Most diffused aeration devices have the ability to
saturate the surface of the water and achieve higher values
than those listed in Figure 5. Figure 6 shows the values of
Csat measured for both fine bubble and coarse bubble
SANITAIRE diffusers at various submergences.

See the example problem at the bottom of Figure 5. Given

that the Csat20 measured value for a particular device at a
given submergence is 10.0 mg/l and the wastewater
temperature is 30 C, find Csat30 measured. First, determine
the ratio of surface Csa(s) at sea level for 30 C and 20 C.
From Figure 5, this ratio is 7.6 / 9.2. Multiply this ratio times
Csat20 measured of 10.0 in this example to obtain 8.3 mg/l.
This will be Csat30 measured for the particular device.

FIGURE 3
Temperature Correction Factor Theta
Temperature Correction Expression T-20 and = 1.024
T (C)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Value of T-20
.0789
.808
.827
.847
.867
.888
.909
.931
.953
.977
1.00
1.024
1.049
1.074
1.100
1.126
1.153
1.181
1.209
1.238
1.268

T (F)
50.0
51.8
53.6
55.4
57.2
59.0
60.8
62.6
64.4
66.2
68.0
69.8
71.6
73.4
75.2
77.0
78.8
80.6
82.4
84.2
86.0

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 6
12.5

Average Absolute Atmospheric Pressure

Inches of Mercury
31.00
30.50
29.92
29.39
28.87
28.33
27.82
26.81
25.85
24.90
23.98
23.10
22.22
21.39
20.58

11.5

CSAT20 Measured (mg/l)

Altitude (Feet)
-1000
-500
0
+500
1000
1500
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10,000

Fine Bubble
Coarse Bubble

12.0

11.0

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

10

15

20

25

30

Diffuser Submergence (ft.)

FIGURE 5
Temperature Correction for Csat
T (C)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Csatr = Csat20 x

Surface Csat @ Sea Level

14.62
13.83
13.11
12.45
11.84
11.29
10.78
10.31
9.87
9.47
9.09
8.74
8.42
8.11
7.83
7.56

Surface Csatr
Surface Csat20

Example: Given Csat20

Sanitaire has used a large aeration test tank facility

to run thousands of individual oxygen transfer tests
to determine the optimum performance of various aeration
devices in a variety of geometric configurations and different
water depths or submergences. This large database is used
to develop computer-generated designs and to provide
quick access for inquires on oxygen transfer. Due to the
proprietary nature of the information, the performance
curves are not made available to the general public.
However, we are organized to respond quickly to engineers
requests for information on specific applications of these
systems.
Engineers and designers often need quick, ballpark estimates
of oxygen transfer efficiency and air requirements to check
the viability of a proposed scheme or to approximate blower
size and estimate horsepower requirements. The following
are some quick Rules of Thumb:
1.
2.

= 10.0 mg/l
= 30 C

Find Csat30

Solution : Csat30 = 10.0

DETERMINING AIR REQUIREMENTS APPROXIMATE

ESTIMATES

3.
4.

(7.56) = 8.31 mg/l

(9.09)

5.
6.

The typical AOR/SOR ratio for a COARSE BUBBLE

aeration system is 0.50.
The typical AOR/SOR ratio for a FINE BUBBLE aeration
system is 0.33.
The typical COARSE BUBBLE oxygen transfer efficiency is
0.75% per foot of diffuser submergence, i.e. 10 foot
submergence equals 7.5% OTE in clear water.
The typical FINE BUBBLE oxygen transfer efficiency is
2.0% per foot of diffuser submergence, i.e. 10 foot
submergence equals 20% OTE in clear water.
1 SCFM of air weighs 0.075 pounds per cubic foot and
contains 23% oxygen by weight. Therefore, 1 SCFM of
air contains 0.0173 pounds of oxygen.
Approximate blower up = ___SCFM ___PSI at blower x
.006

35

Annual power costs = $325/yr/horsepower @ .05/kw

power cost, $520/yr/horsepower @ .08/kw power cost

Example:
Given an aeration tank with an AOR loading of 1500 pounds
of oxygen per day, find the air volume required for a coarse
bubble aeration system. Assume 15 foot deep tanks.
Solution:
1500 pounds per day O2 AOR divided by 0.5 equals 3000
pounds per day O2 SOR.
3000 pounds per day O2 SOR divided by 1440 minutes per
day equals 2.08 pounds per minute O2 required. Locate
diffusers 1 foot off tank floor or submergence equals 14
feet.
14 feet submergence times 0.75% OTE equals 10.5% OTE.
From Rules of Thumb #5, 1 SCFM contains 0.0173 pounds
of O2 and 10.5% is transferred to the waste, then 1 SCFM
will transfer 0.0018 pounds of O2 per minute.
Divide the demand of 2.08 pounds O2 per minute by 0.0018
pounds of O2 per minute transferred which equals 1156
SCFM required.

aeration system in a 15 foot deep tank with the diffusers at

13 feet submergence. Note that the static submergence of
13 feet (5.64 PSI) is not the blower discharge pressure. In
the example, filter and inlet losses plus air main piping losses
plus friction losses in the aeration equipment need to be
summed to equal a total of 6.47 PSIG blower discharge
pressure.

FIGURE 7
Power Required To Adiabatically Compress 1,000 SCFM
80.0

70.0

Blower Horesepower

7.

60% Blower Effficiency

60.0
70%
50.0

80%

40.0

30.0

20.0
4

10

11

12

13

Blower Discharge Pressure (Psig)

ESTIMATE BLOWER HORSEPOWER REQUIRED

The best source of specific information and horsepower
requirements is the blower manufacturer. The following is
provided as general information to enable the engineer or
designer to make quick estimates of power requirements to
check assumptions and compare alternative aeration
systems. The easiest way to do this is to use the adiabatic
compression formula and assume an overall mechanical
efficiency for the blower, motor and coupling. The adiabatic
compression formula is:

FIGURE 8

Equation 2
14.7 + P 0.283

BHP = SCFM(.23)
1.0

14.7

MECHANICAL EFFICIENCY
Where BHP (brake horsepower) = adiabatic horsepower
mechanical efficiency
P = Blower discharge pressure in PSIG
A good estimate of the blower, motor and coupling
mechanical efficiency is 70% when the blower is operating
at mid-range. Efficiency will increase somewhat when the
blower is operated at its maximum output and will decrease
when operated closer to the surge point.
Figure 7 is a graph of blower horsepower per 1000 SCFM at
various discharge pressures assuming 60%, 70% and 80%
mechanical efficiency. Figure 8 is a schematic diagram of an

TYPICAL 1 MGD AERATION TANK DESIGN EXAMPLE

The following example and calculations will present a
simplified approach to aeration tank design and present
several different coarse bubble and fine bubble equipment
configurations for illustrative purposes.
GIVEN:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Average daily flow is 1 MGD

Loading is domestic and industrial sewage containing
200 mg/l BOD, 250 mg/l SS and 30 mg/l NH3N
Plant will use primary clarifiers preceding aeration
Side stream loading to be returned to the aeration tanks
consists mainly of aerobic digester supernatant, sludge

14

5.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

filter press filtrate and wash water. Total side stream

contribution is expected to be 50,000 GPD containing
2000 mg/l BOD.
Review of past flow and loading characteristics reveal
the following:
The major industrial contributor to the wastewater
plant has periodic process shutdowns during weekends,
extended holidays and completely closes for two weeks
in the summer for employee vacations. During this
period, the organic loading to the plant drops to 75%
of the average day loading.
Winter wastewater temperature is anticipated to be 15
C and summer temperature is anticipated to be 20 C.
The plant is required to nitrify year-round to 0.1 mg/l
NH3N allowable in effluent. BOD and SS requirements
are 5.5 year-round.
Site elevation is 5000 feet above sea level
Desired aeration tank DO level is 2.0 mg/l at all
conditions
1.0 pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD applied and
4.6 pounds of oxygen per pound of ammonia applied
will be used for the calculations
A standard rate activated sludge process has been
selected and will be designed using 35 pounds of BOD
applied per 1000 cubic feet of aeration tank volume.
Aeration tank geometry is to be conventional, 1 pass,
30 feet wide and 15 feet liquid depth with diffuser
submergence of 14 feet.
Coarse bubble alpha is assumed to be 0.75 and fine
bubble alpha is assumed 0.50. Beta in both cases will
be assumed to be 0.95.

CALCULATE:
1. AOR
2. Aeration tank size
3. Air requirements
4. Actual coarse bubble and fine bubble AOR/SOR ratios
SOLUTION:
1. Calculate AOR:
From the list of givens, we will assume 30% BOD removal in
the primary clarifiers. The influent BOD loading to aeration
is then:
70% x 200 mg/l x 8.33 lbs. mg/l/MGD x 1 MGD
= 1166 lbs. BOD
The side stream BOD loading to aeration is then:
2000 mg/l x 8.33 lbs./mg/l/MGD x 0.05 MGD
= 833 lbs. BOD
Total lbs. BOD to aeration is 1999 or approximately 2000
lbs.
Ignore the BOD in the effluent and assume all 2000 lbs. BOD
must be oxidized in aeration tanks as an additional factor of
safety. We have previously determined that we will use 1.0
pounds of oxygen per pound of BOD applied. Therefore, the
average AOR for BOD is 2000 pounds of oxygen. In
addition, from the list of givens, we know that the minimum
loading will be 75% of the average and peak loading will be
150% of the average.

We now have:
Minimum day BOD AOR = 1500 lbs. O2
Average day BOD AOR = 2000 lbs. O2
Peak day BOD AOR
= 3000 lbs. O2
The influent ammonia loading to aeration is then:
30 mg/l x 8.33 lbs./mg/l/MGD x 1 MGD
= 250 lbs. ammonia
Ignore the ammonia in the effluent. We have previously
determined that 4.6 pounds of oxygen per pound of
ammonia applied is required or 1150 pounds of oxygen. In
addition, from our givens, the minimum loading will be 75%
of the average and there is no peak ammonia loading.
We now have:
Minimum day NH3N AOR = 863 lbs. O2
Average day NH3N AOR = 1150 lbs. O2
Peak day NH3N AOR
= 1150 lbs. O2
Combining the AOR numbers for BOD and NH3N yields the
following oxygen requirements:
Minimum day AOR
= 2363 lbs. O2
Average day AOR= 3150 lbs. O2
Peak day AOR
= 4150 lbs. O2
Remember that we have also defined a summer and winter
temperature range of 20 C and 15 C respectively.
2.

SIZE AERATION TANK

We have previously determined the process is the standard

rate activated sludge process loaded at 35 pounds of BOD
per 1000 cubic feet (KCF) of tank volume. Then 2000 lbs.
BOD/day divided by 35 lbs./KCF equals 57.14 KCF tank
volume (57,140 ft3).
The tank cross sectional area is 30 feet wide x 15 feet deep
or 450 ft3 area. Then 57,140 ft3 divided by 450 ft2 = 127
feet long.
The aeration tank dimensions are then 30 ft. x 15 ft. SWD by
127 feet long.
With the preceding information you are now in a position to
request product equipment information from an equipment
manufacturer or proceed on your own using the rules of
thumb for a ballpark estimate.
3.

CALCULATE AIR REQUIREMENTS

Rule of Thumb Method Coarse Bubble

Average day AOR
= 3150 lbs. O2
Typical coarse bubble AOR/SOR ratio = 0.50
Therefore, SOR
= 6300 lbs. O2/day
= 4.375 lbs.

geometry on oxygen transfer, initial equipment cost, annual

operating costs and amortized capital costs.

O2/min.
Submergence is 14 ft. OTE
= 14 ft.
14 ft. x 0.75% per ft.
= 10.5% OTE
1 SCFM contains 0.0173 lbs. O2
At 10.5% OTE, 1 SCFM will transfer 0.00182 lbs. O2/min.
4.375 lbs. O2/min. .00182 lbs. O2/min/SCFM
= 2404 SCFM required

COARSE BUBBLE
Example No. 1 uses a fixed header located at the side of the
tank. OTE is 9.17%, air required for summer average
conditions is 3058 SCFM and blower horsepower required is
126.77. The installed cost of the equipment is estimated to
be $27,000

Rule of Thumb Method Fine Bubble

Average day AOR
Typical fine bubble AOR/SOR ratio
Therefore, SOR

Example No. 2 moves the same header to the center of the

tank. OTE is 10.39%, air required is 2702 SCFM and blower
horsepower is 112.05. Installed cost of the equipment is the
same, $27,000.
Example No. 3 uses dual fixed headers located at the quarter
points. OTE is 12.22%, air required is 2297 SCFM and
blower horsepower is 94.96. Installed cost of the
equipment is $30,000.

= 3150 lbs. O2
= 0.33
= 9545 lbs. O2/day
= 6.628 lbs. O2/min

Submergence is 14.33 ft.

OTE =
= 14.33 ft.
14.33 ft. x 2.0% per ft.
= 28.66% OTE
1 SCFM contains 0.0173 pounds O2
At 28.66% OTE, 1 SCFM will transfer 0.00496 lbs. O2/min
6.628 lbs. O2/min 0.00496 lbs. O2/min/SCFM
= 1336 SCFM required
4.

Example No. 4 uses 3 fixed headers in the tank. OTE is

13.15 %, air required is 2134 SCFM and blower horsepower
is 88.37. Installed cost of the equipment is $39,500.
The pertinent information from the computer output is
summarized in Figure 12.

CALCULATE COARSE BUBBLE AND FINE BUBBLE

AOR/SOR RATIOS

COMMENTARY (COARSE BUBBLE)

The actual AOR/SOR ratios determined by using equation #1

for the given conditions are:
Equipment
Coarse Bubble

Temperature
15 C
20 C
15 C
20 C

Fine Bubble

The preceding examples show that a more uniform

distribution of air applied over the tank width increases OTE,
therefore reducing the process air volume required. The
reduction in airflow results in power savings. Moving the
fixed header from the sidewall to the center of the tank
results in a 11% savings in air volume at no increased cost.

AOR/SOR Ratio
0.460
0.448
0.310
0.303

Replacing the single center placed header with two smaller

headers results in a 15% savings in air volume at a very slight
increased cost.

COMPUTERIZED DESIGN EXAMPLES

As previously stated, Sanitaire has computerized
design capabilities to quickly generate product application
information. Six possible equipment configurations were
computed for the 1 MGD Design Example. Four of the
configurations are for coarse bubble aeration equipment
and two of the configurations are for fine bubble
equipment. The examples were selected to show the

Figure 9

Replacing the dual headers with 3 headers achieves another

2% savings in air volume, but the cost rises significantly.
The comparison is best shown in Figure 10, Coarse Bubble
Geometry Effect which plots cumulative owning and
operating costs versus operating years. This analysis

Coarse Bubble Design Summary

Data from Computer Printouts Based on Summer Average Conditions

Item
OTEcw%
OTEf%
SCFM
PSIG Top of Tank
PSIG of Blower
Blower HP
Annual Power Cost 1
Equip Cost 2
Installed Cost 2
Amortized Cost 3
Total Annual Cost 4
1234-

Example 1
Side Placement

Example 2
Center Placement

Example 3
2 Headers

Example 4
3 Headers

9.18
4.11
3149
6.3
6.6
127.4
$41,400
$27,000
$29,700
$3026
$44,426

10.3
4.61
2702
6.3
6.6
112.7
$36,700
$24,600
$27,000
$2,751
$39,451

12.2
5.47
2297
6. 3
6.6
95.8
$31,100
$30,000
$33,000
$3363
$34,463

12.5
5.6
2233
6.4
6.6
94.3
$30,650
$36,400
$40,000
$4,076
$34,726

Based on $0.05 per kWh

Based on 1999 costs
20 year life, 8% interest, Crf = 0.1019
Includes annual power cost and amortized cost

assumes $0.05 per kWh constant power cost and a capital

recovery factor (Crf) equal to 0.1019. This assumes a 20year payback at 8% interest on the installed equipment cost.
When viewed in this manner, clearly the two header system
is very cost effective, saving almost $200,000 in 20 years for
an additional $3000 first cost investment. The three header
system saves $450 in power costs over the two header
system in 20 years, but requires $6400 more first cost
investment. Based on 20-year life, the 2 header option
yields the lowest total annual cost. If the life cycle is reduced
or power costs change, this may not be the best option.

FIGURE 10

Example 1 - Side Placement

Item

Example 2 - Center Placement

Example 5
AT/AD = 20
5% Diffuser
Density

Example 6
AT/AD = 10
10% Diffuser
Density

23.7
7.17
1747
7.45
7.3
82.2
$26,715
$20,000
$25,000
$2,547
$29,262

28.5
8.60
1456
6.6
6.9
63.1
$20,508
$25,200
$31,500
$3,210
$23,718

Example 3 - 2 Headers

$900,000

1234-

Example 4 - 3 Headers

$800,000
$700,000
Accumulated
Expenses

FINE BUBBLE DESIGN SUMMARY

Data from Computer Printouts Based on Summer Average
Conditions

OTEcw%
OTEf%
SCFM
PSIG at Top of Drop
PSIG at Blower
Blower HP
Annual Power Cost 1
Equip Cost 2
Installed Cost
Amortized Cost 3
Total Annual Cost 4

The preceding analysis does not account for any savings in

first cost of smaller blower and motors required. A more
rigorous analysis may show greater savings.

$1,000,000

FIGURE 11

$600,000

Based on $0.05 kWh

Based on 1999 costs
20 year life, 8% interest, Crf = 0.1019
Includes annual power cost and amortized cost

COMMENTARY (FINE BUBBLE)

$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
0

10

12

14

16

18

Years of Operation

FINE BUBBLE EXAMPLES

EXAMPLE No. 5 uses a 5% density (AT/AD = 20) or porous
ceramic diffusers on the tank floor. This would be 460-9
inch units. OTE is 23.7%, air required is 1747 SCFM and
blower horsepower required is 82.2. The installed cost of
the equipment is estimated to be $25,000.
Example No. 6 uses a 10% density (AT/AD = 10) of porous
ceramic diffusers on the tank floor. This would be 928 9
inch units. OTE summer average is 28.5%, air required is
1456 SCFM and blower horsepower required is 63.1. The
installed cost of the equipment is $31,500. A summary
follows in Figure 11.

20

These examples show that an increased diffuser density and

lower air rates per diffuser increase. The increased OTE will
lower air and power requirements. This comparison is
shown in Figure 12, Fine Bubble Geometry Effect. This
analysis also assumes $0.05 per kWh constant power cost a
capital recovery factor (Crf) equal to 0.1019, which is 20
years at 8% interest. The 10% density option saves
$110,880 over 20 years for an additional $6500 first cost
investment.
Also, note, in comparing Figures 10 and 12, that least
effective fine bubble option shows a 20 year owning and
operating cost slightly better than the most efficient 3
header coarse bubble option.

Figure 12
Example 5 - 20 AtAd

$700,000

Example 6 - 10 AtAd

Accumulated
Expenses

$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
0

10

15

20

Years of Operation

The nomenclature AT/AD is an expression Sanitaire

uses to define the density of porous ceramic diffusers.
It means Area of Tank Floor divided by Area of Diffusers.
Both terms use square feet as units of measure and
the area is measured as horizontal projected area. The
area of the SANITAIRE 9 diameter ceramic diffuser is 0.41
ft2 and the area of the SANITAIRE 7 diameter diffuser is
0.28 ft2. A larger AT/AD number means less density. For
example:
AT/AD
20
16
12
10
8
6
4

% of Tank Floor Covered with Diffusers

5.00%
6.25
8.33
10.00
12.50
16.67
25.00

Increasing diffuser density may reach a point of diminishing

return. Loadings, power costs, tank configuration, etc affect
this.
The practical ranges of diffuser densities are from 4.5 to 20.
Densities below 4.5 are not practical due to space
considerations; it is physically not possible to have more
diffusers than this on the tank floor and still have room to
step between diffusers and distributors. To achieve an
AT/AD value of 4.5 with the 9 units requires spacing the
diffusers at 13 centers (minimum spacing) on the
distributors and spacing the 4 distributors at 18 centers.
This leaves only 8 clear between edges of diffusers in which
to step. On the other hand, densities greater than 20 may
not adequately mix the mixed liquor and keep it suspended.
To achieve an AT/AD value of 20 with the 9 units requires
spacing the diffusers at 30 centers on the distributors and
spacing the 4 distributors at 42 centers. This density
requires running the diffusers at 1SCFM per unit just to
achieve 0.12 SCFM per square foot of tank floor area which
is generally accepted to be the minimum desirable air rate to
keep mixed liquor solids suspended with fine bubble
aeration.

REFERENCES
1. Recommended Standards for Sewage Works, Great
Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary
Engineers, 1978.
2. Summary Report Fine Pore (Fine Bubble) Aeration
Systems, US EPA, EPA/625/8-85/010,1985.
3. Activated Sludge Manual of Practice No. OM-9,
Water Pollution Control Federation, 1987.
4. A Standard for the Measurement of Oxygen Transfer in
Clean Water, American Society of Civil Engineers,
1984.
5. Operation of Extended Aeration Package Plants
Manual of Practice No. OM-7, Water Pollution Control
Federation, 1988.
6. Aeration Manual of Practice No. FD-13, Water
Pollution Control Federation, 1988.
7. Design Manual Fine Pore Aeration Systems, US EPA,
EPA/625/1-89/023, 1989.