Optimisation of Sewage Sludge Logistics in Wastewater Treatment Plants

OPTIMISATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE LOGISTICS
IN
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
OYEDUN ADETOYESE OLAJIRE
25th September, 2009
Supervised by: Professor Nilay Shah
A thesis submitted to Imperial College London in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of Master of Science in Advanced Chemical Engineering with Process Systems Engineering and for
the Diploma of Imperial College
Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology

Imperial College London
London SW7 2AZ, UK
This piece of work is dedicated to the Almighty

God; the pillar that holds my life, the source of
my strength, the joy of my glory and the hope
of the future.
I also dedicate my thesis report to the memory
of my late Father Prince, Lawrence Ademola
Oyedun whose desire before his death had
always being for me to study abroad.
ii
ABSTRACT
In order to minimize the overall cost incurred in sludge management as well as environmental
impacts of transporting sewage sludge from the wastewater treatment plant to the final
disposal point, there is need for a dynamic multi-period optimisation model that considers the
adequate trade-offs between the treatment costs and transportation costs (distance) to
determine the cheapest final disposal route of sludge from each works.
This thesis presents a linear dynamic multi-period optimisation model that considers the
inventory management of sludge from wastewater treatment to disposal via a 3-echelon
network which includes an export, transfer and final treatment works. The feasibility of the
model was tested using three different scenarios of Yorkshire Water data statistics and the
results were analysed in the report.
Here, a multi-period mathematical model has been developed by discretising the planning
horizon into a number of time periods. The main objective function is to minimise the total
variable costs over all planning time periods consisting of treatment cost of sludge,
transportation cost and inventory costs subject to the capacity constraints, inventory
constraints, and conservation of sludge.
Overall, the multi-period planning problem has been formulated as a linear programming (LP)
model which can help in making strategic inventory management decisions. The cost of the
different optimised variables is given in monthly periods which make it appropriate for
effective sludge logistics planning.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I give all the glory to the Almighty God who brought me out of the miry clay and
set my feet upon the rock so as to sit among the princes of this world. He gave me the
courage even when my strength failed me, all honour to him.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Professor Nilay Shah for all his
support and for the great enthusiasm he has always shown for my work. His careful reading
of this thesis has improved its quality considerably.
I would also like to thank Dr Lazaros Papageorgiou (Centre for Process Systems Engineering,
University College London) who assisted in the supervision of this thesis and who helped
with the collection of data for this work.
Special appreciation to the management of Yorkshire Waters for the provision of data for this
thesis. The availability of data had greatly helps in determining the feasibility of the model
proposed in this work and all the assistance rendered are sincerely acknowledged. Special
thanks to Shell Centenary Scholarship Fund and Imperial College Scholarship Board for the
funding of my MSc programme at Imperial College London.
I also want to thank the following PhD students; Songsong Liu (University College London)
and Alexander Dunnett (Imperial College London) for their guidance on the running of the
model for this report and for providing me with valuable comments on the model. In addition
to this, I would like to thank the rest of the staff and my fellow MSc students at the
Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology for providing the creative
and friendly atmosphere which makes studying a pleasure.
I am greatly indebted to my mother and all members of my immediate family for the love,
support and trust that they have always shown towards me to get to this height. I pray that
you will live long to eat the fruit of your labour. I would like to thank Adedoja Adisa and
Adewale Ige for proof-reading the thesis and providing me with valuable comments.
I would also like to thank my friends, the likes of Popoola Yinka, Raji Adewale, Akinbola
Gbenga, fellow Shell Scholars and PTDF Scholars in Imperial. Who at various stages
contributed towards the successful completion of my programme. All members of the Divine
Grace Baptist Church are also appreciated for at one time or the other adding some virtues to
my life. Special thanks to my fiance Adekiitan for her love and being there throughout my
iv
programme at Imperial College London. Your inspirational and courageous words are greatly
appreciated.
Finally, for everyone who has contributed to my success in one way or the other, I pray that
the labour of your love will never be in vain. (Amen).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ iv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
1.0
Background .................................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Aim and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 2
CHAPTER TWO: WASTEWATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT .............................. 4

2.0
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1
Wastewater Treatment Overview ................................................................................... 4
2.1.1
Preliminary Treatment ............................................................................................. 5
2.1.1.1 Screening.............................................................................................................. 5
2.1.1.2 Grit Removal ........................................................................................................ 5
2.1.2
Primary Treatment (Sedimentation) ........................................................................ 5
2.1.3
Secondary (Biological) Treatment........................................................................... 6
2.1.4
Final Settlement ....................................................................................................... 6
2.1.5
Tertiary Treatment ................................................................................................... 7
2.2
Sewage Sludge Treatment and Disposal Options ........................................................... 7
2.2.1 Sewage Sludge Treatment ............................................................................................. 8

2.2.1.1 Sewage Sludge Thickening .................................................................................... 8
2.2.1.2 Sewage Sludge Dewatering .................................................................................... 8
2.2.1.3 Sewage Sludge Drying. ...................................................................................... 10
2.2.1.4 Sludge Storage ................................................................................................... 13
2.2.3
Sewage Sludge Disposal Options .......................................................................... 13
2.2.3.1 Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge ................................................................... 13

2.2.3.2 Land-Filling Method of Disposal....................................................................... 14
2.2.3.3 Dumping of Sewage Sludge into the Sea ........................................................... 14
2.2.3.4 Disposal of Sewage Sludge through Incineration .............................................. 15
2.3
Incineration .................................................................................................................. 16
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................. 19

3.0
Overview of Logistics .................................................................................................. 19
3.1
Existing Models on Waste Management Logistics ...................................................... 19
vi
3.2
Existing Models on Sewage Sludge Logistics ............................................................. 22
CHAPTER FOUR: MODEL FORMULATION ................................................................ 26

4.0
Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 26
4.1
Mathematical Formulation ........................................................................................... 27
CHAPTER FIVE: YORKSHIRE WATER CASE STUDIES ........................................... 39

5.0
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 39
5.1
Works at Yorkshire Water ........................................................................................... 40
5.2
Distances between Works ............................................................................................ 41
5.3
Monthly Variations in Production of Sludge at Export Works .................................... 42
5.4
Loss Fraction of Dry Solid Retained at Transfer Works.............................................. 43
5.5
Inventories of Sludge at Different Works .................................................................... 44
CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................... 45

6.0
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 45
6.1
Scenario One: Transfer Check. .................................................................................... 45
6.1.1
Transfer Check 1 ................................................................................................... 45
6.1.2
Transfer Check 2 ................................................................................................... 49
6.2
Scenario Two: Model Test. .......................................................................................... 51
6.2.1
Model Test 1 .......................................................................................................... 51
6.2.2
Model Test 2 .......................................................................................................... 55
6.3
6.3.1
6.3
Scenario Three: Final Cost Check. .............................................................................. 59

Final Cost Check ................................................................................................... 59
Model Summary ........................................................................................................... 63
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................. 64

7.0
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 64
7.1
Recommendations for Further Work ........................................................................... 65
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................... 66
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 71
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.0: Incineration Use in Some Advance Countries of the World ................................. 16
Table 5.0: Monthly variations of sludge production ................................................................ 43
Table 6.0: Results for Transfer Check 1 (Scenario one). ......................................................... 46
Table 6.1: Results for Transfer Check 2 (Scenario one). ......................................................... 49
Table 6.2: Results for Model Test 1 (Scenario two). ............................................................... 52
Table 6.3: Results for Model Test 2 (Scenario two). ............................................................... 55
Table 6.4: Results for Final Cost Check (Scenario three). ...................................................... 60
Table 6.5: Model Statistics for the Three Scenarios. ............................................................... 63
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.0: Typical stages in the conventional treatment of sewage ......................................... 4

Figure 2.1: Schematic representation of sludge transformation from wastewater
to disposal. .............................................................................................................. 7
Figure 2.2: Incineration Plant with an Energy Recovery Unit................................................. 18
Figure 4.0: System Structure at Yorkshire Water .................................................................... 27
Figure 5.0: Yorkshire Water Region showing Operational boundaries for water
and sewerage services ........................................................................................... 39
Figure 5.1: Schematic representation of possible links between works .................................. 41
Figure 6.0: Monthly Total Variable Costs for Transfer Check 1 (Scenario one). ................... 47
Figure 6.1: Monthly Treatment Costs for Transfer Check 1 (Scenario one). .......................... 47
Figure 6.2: Monthly Transportation Costs for Transfer Check 1 (Scenario one). ................... 48
Figure 6.3: Monthly Inventory Costs for Transfer Check 1 (Scenario one). ........................... 48
Figure 6.4: Monthly Total Variable Costs for Transfer Check 2 (Scenario one). ................... 50
Figure 6.5: Monthly Treatment Costs for Transfer Check 2 (Scenario one). .......................... 50
Figure 6.6: Monthly Transportation Costs for Transfer Check 2 (Scenario one). ................... 50
Figure 6.7: Schematic representation of Optimised path for Transfer Check
(Scenario one). ...................................................................................................... 51
Figure 6.8: Monthly Total Variable Costs for Model Test 1 (Scenario two). ......................... 53
Figure 6.9: Monthly Treatment Costs for Model Test 1 (Scenario two). ................................ 53
Figure 6.10: Monthly Transportation Costs of Cake Sludge for Model Test 1
(Scenario two). ...................................................................................................... 54
Figure 6.11: Monthly Transportation Costs of Wet Sludge for Model Test 1
(Scenario two). ...................................................................................................... 54
ix
Figure 6.12: Monthly Inventory for Model Test 1 (Scenario two). ......................................... 55
Figure 6.13: Monthly Total Variable Costs for Model Test 2 (Scenario two). ....................... 56
Figure 6.14: Monthly Treatment Costs for Model Test 2 (Scenario two). .............................. 57
(Scenario two). ...................................................................................................... 57
(Scenario two). ...................................................................................................... 58
Figure 6.17: Monthly Inventory for Model Test 2 (Scenario two). ......................................... 58
Figure 6.18: Schematic representation of Optimised path for Model test (Scenario two).......59
Figure 6.19: Monthly Total Variable Costs for Final Cost Check (Scenario three). ............... 61
Figure 6.20: Monthly Treatment Costs for Model Final Cost Check (Scenario three). .......... 61
Figure 6.21: Monthly Transportation Costs of Cake Sludge for Final Cost Check
(Scenario three). .................................................................................................... 62
Figure 6.22: Monthly Transportation Costs of Wet Sludge for Final Cost Check
(Scenario three). .................................................................................................... 62
Figure 6.23: Monthly Inventory for Final Cost Check (Scenario three).................................. 63
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0
Background
Sludge is inevitably generated during both the water and sewage treatment processes. An
estimated 0.7 billion tonnes (wet) of sewage sludge is generated annually in sewage sludge
treatment plants worldwide. The sewage sludge is buried in landfills, incinerated, applied to
agricultural land, or dumped into the ocean (Takada H. et al, 1994).
In 2007/2008, 250,000 tonnes dry solids of sludge was produced by Thames Water as
presented on their website, 150,000 tonnes dry solids of sludge by Yorkshire Water and BBC
reported in 2005 that more than 110,000 tonnes of sewage sludge were produced by Scottish
Water each year. This shows a significant increase in the amount of sludge generated in the
UK and the need for proper and acceptable disposal option remains a challenge for most
wastewater treatment companies.
The handling of sewage sludge is one of the most significant challenges in wastewater
management. Sewage sludge generation and disposal is increasingly becoming a global issue
not only due to the rate of production of the sludge as a result of regulations for proper
treatment of effluents before discharge to water bodies but also due to the need for cost
effective and environmental friendly methods of disposal.
Many studies had been carried out on the different methods of sludge disposal. The methods
of sewage sludge disposal ranges from sea disposal, land filling, use in agriculture and
incineration among others. The incineration method which was highly criticised in the past
due to the cost and environmental impacts is now gaining recognition around the globe due to
the possibility of energy recovery from the process and the possibility of producing refined
flue gas from the process which is not harmful to the environment. Thames Water in
2007/2008 sent 37% of the sludge generated to the incineration plant and it was used to
generate 56GWh of renewable energy at their two incinerator plants in East London (Thames
report, 2008). Incineration is also been preferred as a favourite method of sludge disposal to
landfill and agricultural use due to limited land mass area and its effect on the crop
production due to uptake and also lead to the transfer of heavy metals to human beings
through plants and animals (Korentajer, 1991).
Introduction
Sewage sludge transportation from the wastewater treatment plant to the final disposal site is
a major economic issue for the wastewater company. Depending on the distance,
transportation costs can be the largest decisive cost factor for an alternative final route for
treated sludge. Issues of logistics involved in the transportation of sewage sludge can pose a
great problem for the company.
The choice of disposal route for treated sludge can be greatly influenced by three main
factors which are: distances between works, treatment costs at each works and the types of
sludge intake at each works. The distances between the works will subsequently determine
the transportation costs.
Logistics involved in sewage sludge transportation therefore includes consideration of the
sludge processing capacity at all treatment sites, the treatment cost involved for each type of
sludge at each sites, environmental impacts, inventories, vehicle capacity at each sites,
distances between sites, rate of production of the sludge, the percentage of dry solid of sludge
and so on.
In order to minimize the overall cost incurred in sludge management as well as environmental
impacts of transporting sewage sludge from the wastewater treatment plant to the final
disposal point, there is need for a dynamic optimisation model that considers the adequate
trade-offs between the treatment costs and transportation costs (distance) to determine the
cheapest final disposal route of sludge from each works.
1.1
Aim and Objectives
The aim of this project is to develop a robust dynamic optimisation model for sewage sludge
logistics that will dictate how well the transportation can be run while considering the
production profile, sludge drying, environmental impacts, storage capacity, planned
shutdown, system stability and the inventories.
The objectives of this project include;
Detailed study of the Yorkshire Water static model
Development of a linear dynamic optimisation multi-period model that will consider the
inventory management of sludge at export, transfer and final treatment works
Introduction
Application of the dynamic model to three example problems of Yorkshire Water to

explore the feasibility of the model and generate route that produces the least optimised
cost.
CHAPTER TWO: WASTEWATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT

2.0
Introduction
Wastewater is not just sewage. From the standpoint of source of generation, wastewater may
be defined as a combination of liquid or water carried wastes removed from residences,
institutions, commercial and industrial establishment together with such groundwater, surface
water and storm water as may be present (Metcalf and Eddy Inc., 1991). Therefore all the
water used in the home or industries can be referred to as wastewater. Examples of these will
include water from showers, toilets, baths, washing machines and dishwashers.
2.1
Wastewater Treatment Overview
Raw sewage is treated in the wastewater treatment plant and the overview of the steps
involved is as treated below;
Raw Sewage
Screening
Large Solids for disposal
Preliminary
Grit Removal
Dense solids for disposal
Primary Sedimentation
Secondary
Sludge
Biological Oxidation
Treatment
Sludge
Secondary Sedimentation
Sludge
Tertiary Treatment
Liquid Effluents to discharge

To sludge Treatment
Figure 2.0: Typical stages in the conventional treatment of sewage. Source: Metcalf and
Eddy Inc. (1991)
Wastewater and Sewage Treatment
2.1.1 Preliminary Treatment

When sewage has been delivered, via the sewers, to the treatment plants, it is given
preliminary treatment to remove the larger floating and suspended solid matter, grit and also
much of oil and grease content if present in an appreciable amount.
2.1.1.1
Screening
It is important to remove the larger floating and suspended matter, which mainly consists of
large solids (plastics, rags, woody material, paper and faecal matter) in the early stages of
sewage treatment. If these materials are not removed, according to Bolton and Klein (1971)
they would cause damage to pumps and other mechanical equipment and might block pipes,
valves and channels. The method used in removing gross solids in sewage sludge is by
passing the sewage through screens.
In the past, screening was only used to remove large solid material so as to protect
downstream operations. Recently, much finer screens are commonly employed to remove
smaller inert solids. The retained material is usually washed to remove faecal matter and then
compressed for disposal to landfill or to an incinerator (EUWFD).
2.1.1.2
Grit Removal
Inorganic gritty matter, or detritus as it is often called, originating mainly from road runoff
must be removed from sewage in the early stages of treatment, as its abrasive action would
also cause damage to pumps and other mechanical equipment (Bolton and Klein, 1971).
These materials are removed by sedimentation in grits or detritus tanks. The retained solids
are therefore removed and then sent to landfill for disposal.
2.1.2 Primary Treatment (Sedimentation)

After gross solid matter, grit and excessive amounts of oil and grease have been removed
from the sewage, the next step is to eliminate as much as possible of the remaining suspended
solid matter, so as to reduce the strength of the sewage and to make it more amenable to
biological oxidation (Bolton and Klein, 1971).
Sedimentation is the most practical and economical method of removing suspended solid
matter from the sewage and efficient removal of the suspended solid matter by sedimentation
is one of the cheapest means of reducing the strength of the sewage (Bolton and Klein, 1971).
The sewage passes into large sedimentation tanks and is allowed to settle for a period of
time. Most of the solids settle to the bottom of the tanks and form a watery sludge, known as
primary sludge, which is removed for separate treatment. The sewage remaining after
settlement has taken place is known as settled sewage (EUWFD).
2.1.3 Secondary (Biological) Treatment

Settled sewage from the primary treatment tank then flows to an aerobic biological treatment
stage where it comes into contact with micro-organisms which remove and oxidise most of
the remaining organic pollutants (EUWFD).
At smaller works, the biological stage often takes the form of a packed bed of graded mineral
media through which the sewage trickles and on the surfaces of which the micro-organisms
grow. At larger plants, the sewage is mixed for several hours with an aerated suspension of
flocs of micro-organisms (known as the activated sludge process) (Bolton and Klein, 1971).
As well as removing most of the polluting organic matter, modern biological treatment can,
where necessary, remove much of the nitrogen and phosphorus in the sewage, thus reducing
the nutrient load on the receiving waters.
2.1.4 Final Settlement

Following secondary (biological) treatment, the flow passes to final settlement tanks where
most of the biological solids are deposited as sludge (secondary sludge) while the clarified
effluent passes to the outfall pipe for discharge to a watercourse. In the case of the activated
sludge process, some of the secondary sludge is returned to the aeration tanks for further
contact with the sewage. The secondary sludge from biological treatment also requires
separate treatment and disposal and may be combined with the primary sludge for this
purpose (EUWFD).
2.1.5 Tertiary Treatment

In circumstances where the highest quality of effluent is required, a third (tertiary) stage of
treatment can be used to remove most of the remaining suspended organic matter from the
effluent before it is discharged to a watercourse. Tertiary treatment is effected by sand filters,
mechanical filtration or by passing the effluent through a constructed wetland such as a reed
bed or grass plot (EUWFD).
Figure 2.1: Schematic representation of sludge transformation from wastewater to

disposal.
2.2
Sewage Sludge Treatment and Disposal Options
Sewage sludge can be referred to as any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste that settles to the
bottom of sedimentation tanks (in wastewater treatment plants or drinking water treatment
plants) or septic tanks. The treatment of wastewaters invariably produces a residual which
must be disposed of into the environment. Most often this residual is a semisolid, odoriferous,
unmanageable and dangerous material commonly termed sludge (Vesilind, 1979).
7
Sewage sludge is a by-product of wastewater treatment, which contains around 3% of solids

and 97% water (Larson, 1988).
Approximately 5.4 million metric tonnes of dry sewage sludge are generated annually from
about 12750 public owned treatment works (POTW) in the US (Outwater, 1994), while the
average sludge production in the Europe is 0.090kg dry sludge per person per day in
European countries (Brestal et al, 1998).
2.2.1 Sewage Sludge Treatment

There are many methods for treating sewage sludge to reduce the overall volume, but nearly
all are devoted either to reducing the carbon content or the water content (or possibly both).
Since the water content of the produced sewage sludge from the wastewater treatment is very
high, the treatment of the sludge will be based majorly on reducing the water content and the
methods of sludge dewatering and sludge drying will be effective in doing that.
2.2.1.1 Sewage Sludge Thickening

The solids content of primary, activated or mixed sludge varies considerably, depending on
the characteristics of the sludge, the sludge removal and pumping facilities, and the method
of operation (Metcalf and Eddy Inc., 1991). Sludge thickening produces a concentrated
product that retains the properties of a liquid. The product of sludge thickening often contains
5-6% solid material by weight.
Thickening is generally accomplished by physical means including gravity settling, floatation,
centrifugation and gravity belts.
2.2.1.2 Sewage Sludge Dewatering

The effect of moisture content on the sludge volume is enormous, and sludge handling
techniques are directed toward reducing the moisture content and hence the volume of the
sludge to be disposed. Dewatering as stated by Werther and Ogada (1999) is the prerequisite
for the further treatment of sludge, as well as handling, transporting and disposal. The higher
the dewaterability of the sludge, the larger the amount of water abstracted during mechanical
dewatering and a higher amount of dry solids (DS) will be achieved.
Dewatering of sludge is required for most methods of sewage sludge disposal. In composting,
it is required to improve airflow and texture, in incineration, it is required to reduce fuel
8
demand and in landfills, it is required to reduce leachate production at the landfill site
(Turovskiy and Mathai, 2006).
Stavropoulos (2004) stated that as far as incineration of sludge is concerned, a high level of
sludge dewaterability provides two benefits. The first benefit is that with a higher dry solid
content after mechanical dewaterability, thermal drying will require less energy (heat input)
to reach the desired autothermic DS content in the sludge. The second benefit is that overall,
a higher amount of water can be extracted by both mechanical dewatering and thermal drying,
which means that less energy will be demanded by the incineration process to burn the dried
sludge.
The moisture associated with flocs of sewage sludge is: 70 75% free water, 20 25% floc
water and 1% each capillary and bound water. The free water can be removed by thickening.
The floc water is trapped in the interstices of floc particles and is separable only by
mechanical dewatering. The capillary moisture can be removed mechanically only after
chemical conditioning, whereas the bound moisture is separable only through cell destruction
McGhee (1991).
Prior to sludge dewatering, the digested sludge is usually conditioned to generate flocs that
are easy to filtrate. Chemical conditioning using polyelectrolytes; Fe(III), Fe(II), lime, or
Al(III), is the most common method (Guohua et al, 2002). The chemicals act as either
coagulant by reducing the zeta potential of the solid particles or flocculants through the
bridging effect to form proper-sized flocs. Chemical conditioning results in coagulation of the
solids and the release of the water (Metcalf et al., 1991). The quantity of chemicals required
for this is small (8-10 mg/kg d.m) as stated by Werther and Ogada (1999) and therefore does
not affect the quantity of sludge produced. Sludge incineration ash, fine sludge particles or
coal can also be used as additives for sludge conditioning.
Metcalf et al. (1991) state the main properties of the sludge that determine the amount and
type of chemical to be used, these are: sludge source, solids concentration, age, pH and
alkalinity. Sludge sources include primary sludge, waste activated sludge and digested sludge.
The pH and alkalinity may affect the performance of the conditioning agents, in particular the
inorganic conditioners. The method of dewatering also affects the selection of the
conditioning chemical because of the differences in the mixing equipment used. For example,
9
polymers are used particularly in centrifuge and belt press dewatering systems and less
frequently in vacuum and pressure filters.
The most ideal case to determine the quantity and the type of conditioning agent to be used
prior to mechanical dewatering is to conduct laboratory or pilot scale tests, especially in cases
where the sludge is difficult to dewater (Metcalf et al., 1991).
There are many equipment and technologies used in the dewatering of sewage sludge. Some
of the equipment used include;
Vacuum Filters: These are the earliest mechanical devices employed for the sludge
dewatering. Their use has declined due to different improvements to alternative
mechanical dewatering equipment. The major disadvantages of this method of
dewatering as stated by Metcalf et al (2005) includes; system complexity, high operating
and maintenance costs.
Belt Filter Presses: These are continuous feed sludge dewatering devices that involve the
application of chemical conditioning, gravity drainage and mechanically applied pressure
to dewater sludge. These presses produced a continuous sludge cake at about 25 35%
DS (CIWEM, 1999). The belt filter press operates at a continuous mode and at low
pressures giving reasonable dewatering results.
Centrifugal Dewaterers: This operates at a continuous mode and use the centrifugal force
developed by spinning a bowl or basket to separate the sludge solids from the liquids.
There are three types of centrifugal devices: disc, basket and solid bowl centrifuges, with
the latter being the most common. As stated by Metcalf et al (1991) new designs of solid
bowl centrifuges can be used to achieve dry solid content of up to 35%. Solid bowl
centrifuges are also called decanter centrifuges and their main advantage to other
dewatering devices is that it requires a much smaller footprint and also it can be installed
in the open.
Other equipment includes: Plate and Frame filters presses and High pressure dewaterers
2.2.1.3
Sewage Sludge Drying.
After dewatering of sewage sludge, one may need to find out whether it is necessary to dry
the sludge since thermal drying of the sludge will add to the operating cost of the treatment
plant. The necessity of sludge drying is connected with the types of water in sludge.
According to Flaga (2005), water present in sludge may be of the following types:
10
Water between pores (unbound) that is subordinate to gravity force and can be easily
removed from sludge by gravity settling (thickening);
Free capillary water, held in sludge by adhesion and cohesion forces, that is readily
removed from sludge by mechanical dewatering without using chemicals; e.g in
centrifuges where centrifugal force (inversely directed) opposes capillary force and
helps to get rid of capillary water;
Physically half-bound water, that is bound inside flakes of sludge;
Bound water
-
biological intracellular form, it is a part of the cells of living organisms present

in sludge, bound by molecular forces to the constant phase of sludge;
chemically intercellular form, it is a part of the crystals lattice of molecules of

the constant phase of sludge;
physically in colloids, bound by the surface tension present on the border of

phases.
The essence of stating the state of water present in sludge is to show that the only means of
removing biologically bound water from sludge is drying (thermal) (Flaga, 2005) and this
also confirms that dewatering processes are no longer sufficient to cope with the still growing
amounts of sludge or to reach the required standards.
Irrespective of the method of disposal or reuse of sewage sludge, the main goals of thermal
drying as stated by Flaga (2005) are:
-
to eliminate water from sludge and diminish volume of sludge (approx. 4-5
times) in order to make the transportation cost lower and the sludge storage
easier;
to increase sludge calorific value, so that sludge could easily be incinerated

without additional fuel;
to make sludge hygienic (without pathogenic organisms);
to stabilize sludge (which is achieved by drying sludge to the sludge dry mass
above 90% of dry solids).
Therefore, if the water content in sludge has to be diminished to minimum (approximately

90% of dry solids) or if there is a need to get moisture removal higher than is guaranteed by
mechanical dewatering, then thermal drying is necessary because thermal drying of sludge
removes water from sludge to significantly higher degree than the best dewatering processes.
11
As stated by Flaga (2005), when taking into consideration a wide range of sludge thermal
utilization methods (e.g. incineration), sludge drying should be treated not only as a necessity
but also as an integral process.
The trend of drying dewatered sludge in sewage treatment plants is motivated by ascending
disposal cost and more stringent regulations. The product of the drying process generally
contains water content lower than 10% and with one-fourth of the original volume. This
significantly reduces the transportation cost to distant landfill and disposal fee. Besides, the
dried biosolids can be utilized as marketable fertilizer for soil conditioning or as alternative
fuel for co-generation (Viraj & Chan, 2005).
The different sludge drying process was explained extensively by Viraj De Silva and Chan,
Kwan Kin in their paper Overview of current sludge drying process (2005). They analysed
the three major types of sludge drying technology which include; thermal drying, solar
drying, and non-thermal drying.
Thermal dryer dries wet sludge by direct, indirect, or combined process. Direct thermal dryer
employs hot gas as the drying media. Hot gas is injected to the drying chamber and removes
moisture from sludge by convection. Indirect dryer dries sludge by conduction. The drying
media (e.g. hot gas or oil) is separated from sludge by heat conducting surfaces which dries
sludge through the agitation process. The combined type of thermal dryer utilized both
convection and conduction method. A thermal dryer is usually compact in size and it
provides consistent dried products. The high energy and maintenance cost are the major
disadvantages of thermal dryers (Viraj and Chan, 2005).
Solar dryer utilized solar energy as the exclusive energy provider in the drying process. A
greenhouse-like enclosure is used to contain the drying bed for odour reduction. An electric
mole is functioned as a tilling device to agitate the sludge layer to promote drying. The
environmental conditions including humidity and ventilation within the drying bed and the
motion of electric mole are controlled by microprocessors. The solar drying bed has the
advantages of low capital and operating cost. It has a limited amount of machinery and the
energy cost is insignificant compare to thermal dryers. However, the drying process is
heavily relied on the humidity difference between the environment and the sludge. The dried
12
product quality may vary even with the optimization of microprocessor. This technology may
not be practical in the area with lots of precipitation (Viraj and Chan, 2005).
Non-thermal dryers are a relatively new technology which removes moisture by accelerating
the wet sludge and injected to a series of cyclones and conditioning chambers. This design
has the advantages of space saving and the product is independent of environmental
conditions (Viraj and Chan, 2005).
2.2.1.4
Sludge Storage
In any sewage sludge treatment plant, there should be the inclusion of the sludge storage
compartment where dried sludge can be stored. This is necessary especially if the end-use of
the sewage sludge is for incineration in which it will be transported in batches to the
incineration plant.
The storage compartment conditions must prevent the dried sludge from absorbing moisture
from the environment so as not to get damped. Flaga (2005) stated that they can be stored in
silos under the cover of gaseous nitrogen that prevents it from self-ignition.
2.2.3 Sewage Sludge Disposal Options

There are many disposal options for sewage sludge and all the different options will be
briefly discussed, even though some are being phased out.
2.2.3.1
Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge
Sewage sludge can be applied to land to serve as a fertilizer and soil conditioner. Werther and
Ogada (1999) stated that communal sludge shows good fertilizer properties based on its
nitrogen and phosphorus content. They also stated further that sludge recycling as fertilizer
has several advantages which include the return of the organic materials into bio-cycle and it
also replaces the application of artificial fertilizers whose production requires a lot of energy
and CO2.
In the nineties (1990 -1994) as stated by Hall and Dalimier (1994) and McGhee (1991), the
application of sludge in agriculture used 60% of the sludge produced in France, 54% in
Denmark, 50% in Spain, 44% in UK and 26% in USA. This use of sewage sludge seems to
be the best method of disposal at first sight but a lot of setbacks had made it to be otherwise.
Analyses by Korentajer (1991) shows that the average content of heavy metals in municipal
13
sludge is higher than the average for most farming soils which implies that uncontrolled
addition to the agricultural land may increase the concentration of heavy metals in the
farmland. This could have an effect on the crop production due to uptake and could also lead
to the transfer of heavy metals to human beings through plants and animals.
Due to the issue of heavy metals present in sludge and other environmental factors, the
European Commission stated the conditions in which sewage sludge must meet in order to be
used as fertilizers (agricultural use) as stated in the Directive 86/278/EEC and in a way
regulates the indiscriminate use so as to prevent or reduce its deleterious effects on the
biosphere. The directives prohibit the use of untreated sludge on agricultural land unless it is
injected or incorporated into the soil. Treated sludge is defined as having undergone
"biological, chemical or heat treatment, long-term storage or any other appropriate process so
as significantly to reduce its fermentability and the health hazards resulting from its use". To
provide protection against potential health risks from residual pathogens, sludge must not be
applied to soil in which fruit and vegetable crops are growing or grown, or less than ten
months before fruit and vegetable crops are to be harvested. Grazing animals must not be
allowed access to grassland or forage land less than three weeks after the application of
sludge (Europa). The Directive also requires that sludge should be used in such a way that
account is taken of the nutrient requirements of plants and that the quality of the soil and of
the surface and groundwater is not impaired.
2.2.3.2
Land-Filling Method of Disposal
Disposal of sewage sludge through land-filling still takes the bulk of sludge in the developed
countries. According to Hall and Dalimier (1994), about 40% of the sludge produced in the
European Union is disposed of through land filling. McGhee (1991) showed that the amount
of sludge taken to landfills in Greece, Luxembourg and Italy were 90%, 88% and 85%
respectively and this makes landfilling there main method of sludge disposal, while in the
USA, 48% of the sludge produced in 1990 was deposited through land filling.
2.2.3.3
Dumping of Sewage Sludge into the Sea
The dumping of sewage sludge into the sea has been phased out in most countries in Europe
but practise of which was noticed in Ireland, UK and Spain in the early Nineties where
marine dispersal was controlled with certain requirements, e.g. the Oslo Convention for the
14
protection of the North Sea and the North East Atlantic, and in accordance to licences issued
under national legislation which take into account the quantity and quality of the sludge and
the nature of the receiving area. The dumping of sludge into the ocean was finally phased out
on 31 December 1998 when the North Sea Conference Agreement for the eradication of
dumping sludge into the Ocean came into force and sea disposal was banned (Werther and
Ogada, 1999).
In the USA ocean disposal by states having coastal lines has been practised but it was
phased out because of changes in water pollution regulations (McGhee, 1991).
2.2.3.4
Disposal of Sewage Sludge through Incineration
The limitation facing land filling, recycling and the ban on sea disposal leads to moves
towards incineration of sewage sludge and wastes in general. Though many have criticised
the method of incineration in disposing waste however, it was revisited due to some
advantages attached to it. The advantages as stated by Vesilind and Ramsey (1996) includes
among others: large reduction of sludge volume to a small stabilized ash, which accounts for
only 10% of the volume of mechanically dewatered sludge and thermal destruction of toxic
organic constituents. Likewise, Metcalf et al. (1991) stated the advantages and the
disadvantages of sludge incineration. The advantages include;
Maximum volume reduction, thus reducing the disposal of space and of transfer costs.
Destruction of pathogens and toxic compounds.
Energy recovery potential.
While the disadvantages include;
Higher capital and operational costs compared to landfill and use of sludge as soil
conditioner.
Highly skilled operating and maintenance staff is required.
The residuals produced (air emissions and ash) may have adverse environmental
effects.
Despite the disadvantages, Ronald J. et al (2008) stated that incineration of wastewater sludge
has become standard practice in large, densely populated areas of some technologically
advanced countries. Japan incinerates more than 70% of its wastewater sludge; in the
Netherlands and Germany, the rates are 58% and 34%, respectively. Slovenia dries much of
15
its wastewater sludge and then sends 50% out of the country for disposal in incinerators. In
Canada, about one-third of the sludge is incinerated.
The table below as analysed by Hester and Harrison (1994) describe the use of incineration in
treating waste in some of the advanced countries in the world.
Table 2.0: Incineration Use in Some Advance Countries of the World (Hester and
Harrison, 1994)
Country
Number of
% incinerated
% sewage
Municipal
Incinerator
municipal waste
sludge
waste
plants
including energy
incinerated
incinerated
recovery
Canada
17
N/A
USA
16
168
N/A
N/A
Japan
75
1900
Mostly plant recovery
N/A
energy
Sweden
55
23
86
Denmark
65
38
Mostly plant recovery
19
energy
2.3
France
42
170
67
20
Netherlands
40
12
72
10
Germany
35
47
N/A
10
Italy
18
94
21
11
Spain
22
61
N/A
UK
30
33
Incineration
Incineration, according to Salvato (1992) is a controlled combustion process for burning solid,
liquid, or gaseous combustible waste to gases and a residue containing little or no
combustible material when properly carried out. It is a volume reduction and usually an
16
energy recovery process suitable for about 70% of municipal solid wastes. Incineration of
sewage sludge is the firing of sludge at high temperature in an enclosed device called an
incinerator (furnace) (Turovskiy and Mathai, 2006).
Incineration plant according to the department of Environment, Foods and Rural affairs, UK
means any stationary or mobile technical unit and equipment dedicated to the thermal
treatment of waste with or without recovery of combustion heat generated. This includes the
incineration by oxidation of waste as well as other thermal treatment processes such as
pyrolysis, gasification or plasma processes in so far as the substances resulting from the
treatment are subsequently incinerated (Francois Audibert, 2006)
Incineration is still one of the best means of sewage sludge and waste disposal. For municipal
solid wastes (MSWs), incineration not only greatly reduces the pressure on landfills, but it
also provides energy, either thermal or electrical to local communities (Y. B Yang et al,
2004). Issues such as increasing competition for landfill space, higher taxes, more strict
environmental regulations set by authorities and the possibility of heavy metal soil
contamination have made sludge landfilling a non-sustainable disposal route. Currently
around 48% of the 949,000 tonnes of sewage sludge produced in the UK is applied to
agricultural land, 17% is incinerated mainly in single feed form and 11% is sent to landfill
(Diaper et al, 2001).
The most commonly used incinerators are multiple-hearth, fluidized-bed and electric infrared
furnaces. An incinerator system consists of an incinerator and one or more air pollution
control devices, which are used either to remove small particles and the adhering metals in
the exhaust gas from the incinerator or to further decompose organics (Turovskiy and Mathai,
2006).
Good performance by an incineration plant depends upon the provision of proper auxiliary
equipment and devices, which include receiving and storage systems, pre-treatment
equipment, feeding system, flue gas cleaning, heat recovery, ash handling, wastewater
disposal and process monitoring.
In their work, Zabaniotou and Theofilou (2008) stated the use of sewage sludge as a
conventional fuel substitute at cement kiln in Cyprus; the heat generated by the incineration
of sludge is recovered in a single pass vertical waste heat boiler and used for power
17
generation, sludge drying, air preheating and flue gas reheating. Power is generated in a back
pressure turbine using high pressure steam produced in the boiler. Zabaniotou and Theofilou
(2008) were able to present new technology in the use of sewage sludge as fuel substitute and
it involves mixing of sewage sludge with pet coke and then incinerating the mixture at high
temperatures. The new sewage sludge-based fuel does not emit dioxins harmful to human
health because cement plants burn fuel at 1400oC (Zabaniotou A. and Theofilou C., 2008).
The ash residue from the incineration plant is usually disposed of in landfill but recently due
to the call for energy and material recovery, ash is increasingly being put to use as fill
material in construction projects or as an ingredient in cement (Ronald J. et al, 2008). In
Japan for example, 110,000m3 of improved soil are produced each year using 7,000m3 of
wastewater sludge ash as one of the ingredients and several tests have shown that the end
products have essentially the same characteristics as pit sand designated by road works
administrators as backfill material (Ronald J. et al, 2008).
The diagram below gives a schematic diagram of an incineration plant with the energy
recovered used in the generation of electricity.
Figure 2.2: Incineration Plant with an Energy Recovery Unit. Source: Huber
Technology (Sludge to Energy website).
18
CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW

3.0
Overview of Logistics
Logistics can be seen from many areas but based on the dictionary definition, logistics can be
defined as the branch of military science having to do with procuring, maintaining,
transporting material, personnel and facilities (Websters New Encyclopaedic Dictionary).
The council of Logistics Management (CLM) gave a broader definition of logistics as; The
process of planning, implementing, and controlling the efficient, cost-effective flow and
storage of raw materials, in-process inventory, finished goods and related information from
point of origin to point of consumption for the purpose of conforming to customer
requirement.
Ratliff & Nulty (1996) defines logistics as the collection of activities associated with
acquiring, moving, storing and delivering supply chain commodities i.e. products in all stages
of manufacture, services and information.
All the definitions above show that logistics encompasses the business functions of
transportation, distribution, warehousing, material handling, and inventory management, and
interfaces closely with manufacturing and marketing.
A logistical analysis implies the assessment of ensuring that the right goods are conveyed
safely to the correct place at the right time at the lowest possible cost (Diaper et al, 2001).
3.1
Existing Models on Waste Management Logistics
In the past, many researchers have attempted to solve the problem of logistics in relation to
waste management with the aid of different mathematical models. Although the focus of this
thesis is the optimisation of sewage sludge logistics in wastewater treatment, very scanty
literature is available on the relevant subject and hence, the need to cover literature pertaining
to optimisation of logistics in waste management as well as waste water treatment.
Zografos and Davis (1989) developed a multi-objective decision making model for the
formulation of hazardous waste routing problem via a goal programming approach to address
the risk imposed on special population categories, travel time and property damages.
19
Literature Review
Their proposed model includes the following objectives; minimization of travel time,
minimization of risk, minimization of risk of special population categories and minimization
of property damages. They used the goal programming formulation based on its advantages
which includes;
Considerable flexibility to the decision maker
Allows the examination of different planning scenarios
It does not require converting all objectives to a single monetary value for the evaluation
of alternative planning scenarios
It requires a limited amount of information from the decision maker and it is

subsequently very easy to understand.
They concluded that the imposition of capacity constraints on the links of the network
distributes the risk in an equal manner and the decision maker can use the proposed multiobjective model as a decision making tool for routing hazardous materials.
Giannikos (1998) formulated a multi-objective model for locating treatment facilities and
transportation routes for hazardous waste shipments through an underlying transportation
networks. A goal programming model was introduced and the four objectives considered
were; (1) Minimization of total operating cost, (2) minimization of total perceived risk, (3)
equitable distribution of the disutility caused by the operation of the treatment facilities, and
(4) equitable distribution of risk among population centres.
The goal programming approach was used to show how monotonically increasing penalty
functions can be used to obtain more satisfactory solutions.
Nema and Gupta (1999) presented a model based on a multi-objective integer programming
approach to suggest the optimal configuration of facilities for transportation, treatment and
disposal with minimum cost and risk to the environment. Their formulation addressed
important practical issues like selection of treatment and disposal facilities, allocation of
hazardous waste residues from generator to the treatment and disposal sites as well as the
selection of the transportation routes.
20
Literature Review
Tung and Pinnoi (2000) formulated a mixed integer program and proposed an heuristic
procedure to solve a vehicle routing and scheduling problem (VRSP) of waste collection in
Hanoi. The proposed heuristics consist of two phases; the construction and improvement
phases. The objective function minimizes the total operating costs which include vehicle
deployment travelling cost.
Their proposed heuristic model showed a good performance in terms of the selection quality
and the computational time. It also achieved improvement in both total cost and the number
of vehicles utilized.
Hu et al (2002) presented a cost minimization model for multi-time step, multiple-type
hazardous waste reverse logistics system. The model considered four critical activities which
include collection of waste, storage, treatment and distribution of waste. The objective was to
minimize the total reverse logistics cost for a given multi-time-step period.
The model addressed the classical hazardous waste treatment problem and can be used to
strategically determine the time varying waste collection amounts and treated amounts in
response to the variety of waste demand from multiple waste resources but its majorly
streamlined towards hazardous waste component.
Kumar Pati et al (2004) formulated a linear analytical model that minimizes the total reverse
logistics costs for multi variety Recycled Waste Reverse Logistics System (RWRLS). The
model was subjected to two major constraints which are internal and external factors. The
internal factors include initial inventories, inventory carrying costs, inventory capacities and
units manufacturing costs while the external factors include distance, demands and unit
travelling costs.
Their analytical model compared costs in different scenarios of demand and it helped in
deciding about the transaction of goods and material taking place in the long term. It can also
help in making strategic inventory management decisions.
Sahoo et al (2005) presented a GIS-based Multi-Objective mathematical programming model
called waste VRPTW model for the routing problem in waste management. The objective
of the model includes minimization of the number of vehicles travelled, minimization of the
travel time and minimization of visual attractiveness. They concluded that the GIS-based
route-management application reduces waste management operational costs by;
21
Literature Review
-
Organising routes to minimize overlap and thereby reduce the number of vehicles waste
management needed to serve its customers and
Sequencing stops along a route to make the best use of fuel, driver schedule and disposal
trips.
3.2
Existing Models on Sewage Sludge Logistics
Logistics is a collection of functional activities that are repeated many times throughout the
channel through which raw materials are converted to finished products and value is added in
the eyes of consumers.
Sewage sludge logistics can be likened to this in which sewage sludge is seen as raw
materials to be transported to the treatment plants where they are treated and subsequently
taken for disposal preferably in incineration plants where they are converted to energy and
ash residue which can be used in the generation of electricity and in the cement industries
respectively (products). Therefore logistics of sewage sludge is meant to serve many
purposes which includes; effective treatment of sludge, the storage of the processed sludge,
environmental impacts and effective transportation of sludge from the wastewater treatment
plant to the final disposal site as well as proper disposal of sewage sludge.
The cost of transportation is often a large proportion of processing costs and the rheological
properties of the sludge as well as the location of the plant are also important in selecting the
best equipment to be used for transport (Diaper et al, 2003). Sludge can be transported by
pipeline, barge, rail or truck and despite its highest environmental pollution load; the truck
option or rail option is often used due to the flexibility of the operation (Diaper et al, 2003). It
must be noted that for the rail option, the cost of construction of a rail network might exceed
the investment and operating cost of the plant and based on that, trucks usage might be
considered the best way of transporting the sludge from the treatment plant to the incineration
plant.
For the past two decades, many studies have focussed on the network flows, modelling
logistics and transportation problems; however as earlier stated there is little information on
models for sewage sludge logistics.
Larson Richard (1988) developed a model for the transportation of sludge to the 106-Mile
site for the New York department of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). He
22
Literature Review
characterizes the plants as source nodes and the transhipment point as the destination or
sink node in a network paradigm. In the formulation, the source node is the inner-harbour
transhipment point while the destination node is the 106 mile site. The source node has
the usual attributes: mean and variance of daily sludge inflows and storage capacity. In
developing the model, they assumed that; there exists a fleet of identical inner-harbour vessel
whose sole purpose is to pick up sludge from each of the plants and to deliver it to a single
transhipment point and also that there exists a fleet of ongoing vessels whose sole purpose is
to pick up sludge from the transhipment point and to deliver it to the 106-mile site. In the
final modelling analysis, they included the effects of breakdowns of various system
components, abnormal weather conditions, draft restrictions and others.
The model developed by Larson Richard (1988) was highly useful for meeting the problem of
logistics for waste disposal in the 106-mile site in New York and the key decision outcome of
the model is least cost fleet sizing and fleet mix, using a simple periodic routing optimisation
model as a mechanism for integrating system components. Other outcomes are number and
location of transhipment points, appropriate technologies for product transfer and inventory
holding capacity.
In the model developed by Larson Richard (1988), the major concern was the disposal of the
sewage sludge in the ocean which is more or less not globally acceptable and has been phased
out in most developed countries, implying the need for more robust model for acceptable
method of disposal.
De mol et al (1997) used the simulation model Biologics and dynamic optimisation (DP) in
simulation and optimisation of the logistics of biomass fuel collection. They were able to use
the simulation model as well as the optimisation model to get insight into the logistics
involved in biomass fuel collection for an energy plant in Netherlands. The degrees of
freedom they considered include:
-
biomass types;
transport means: road, rail or water transport;
pre-treatment of biomass;
location of the energy plant.

23
Literature Review
De mol et al (1997) also developed a mixed integer linear programming (MIP) model that
gives the minimal costs of the annual flows of biomass. The MIP model was divided into
three sub-models each restricted to biomass types with certain pre-treatment options.
The first sub-model was a case where the biomass flows without pre-treatment for example
pruning or waste wood, the second sub-model looks into biomass flows with pre-treatment in
a separate pre-treatment site e.g. waste paper with pelletion in a pelleting factory as pretreatment and the last sub-model was the case where biomass flows with pre-treatment in
every node.
The binary variables were the decision variables that show whether or not a site for an energy
plant is chosen in the optimal solution. The objective function is built up from the costs of
biomass flows and fixed costs of pre-treatment.
They concluded that the costs of the biomass collections depends on the logistics which
includes the pre-treatments from source locations to the energy plant which can be modelled
by means of a network structure. In their network structure, nodes correspond with source
locations, collection sites, transhipment sites, pre-treatment sites or the energy plant and arcs
correspond with transport (De mol et al, 1997).
Hara K. and Mino T. (2008) evaluate the flow of treated sewage sludge in the treatment
processes starting from each wastewater treatment plant to the final destination in Tokyos 23
wards. The flow and amount of sludge originating from each treatment process at all the
sludge treatment plants were precisely analysed based on primary and actual data obtained
from individual treatment plants. The study is mostly environmentally and energy efficiency
driven and the environmental loads include total energy consumption and gas emissions
(green house and acidification gases).
The sludge flow analysis identified that the raw sewage sludge from the twelve wastewater
treatment plants located within Tokyos 23 wards was transported to and treated at five
wastewater treatment plants that were equipped with sludge treatment facilities such as
dewatering and incineration processes. The way in which the treated sludge was conveyed
from one plant to another varies considerably depending on the properties of the treated
sludge. The sludge transportation methods considered include; Trucking, underground piping
and Shipping.
24
Literature Review
Their work only considered improvements for the future prospects of sewage sludge
management in Tokyo and not much was said as regards optimising the transportation
between the plants and the associated costs involved in the running of the sludge flow.
It can be seen from the above reviews that there had been significant research work on waste
management, wastewater treatment, sludge management and disposal options as well as
literature on logistics in general but there is little information about dynamic models of
sludge transportation logistics.
The logistics involved in the sludge transportation can pose a big problem for the wastewater
treatment company considering the large inventories involved, vehicle capacity, storage
capacity at sludge treatment plant while reducing operational costs, environmental impacts
and maximizing the energy recovery of the whole process.
As discussed in the literature, the use of incineration as a method of sewage sludge disposal
might be expensive in terms of capital/investment cost but if the logistics involved is well
optimised and there is maximum energy recovery, the method can be an added advantage to
the wastewater treatment company and definitely dominate the other methods of sewage
disposal especially in areas where there is scarcity of land.
Yorkshire Water in 2008 in conjunction with ATKINS developed a static model for the
optimisation of sewage sludge transport. In the model, conservation of sludge at the export
works, capacities at both transfer and final works, conservation at transfer works and the
adhoc constraints were considered. The adhoc constraints specified the sludge type produced
restriction and the sludge destination restriction.
The model developed was a static model and lacks multi-periodicity since it only shows the
flow path of sewage sludge from one work to another for just one period. Also, the model did
not consider the possibility of having inventories at the end of each time period and
subsequently ignored the inventory cost at each works.
This project will look into solving the problem of the logistics involved in the transportation
of the sewage sludge in the wastewater treatment plant by developing a more robust linear
dynamic multi-period model that will look into the production profile, inventories, storage
capacities, treatment costs, transport costs and system stability.
25
CHAPTER FOUR: MODEL FORMULATION

4.0
Problem Statement
Yorkshire Water has a number of exports sites which produce sludge; this sludge may be
transported either to a final processing works or an intermediate works known as transfer site
as shown in Figure 4.0. One of the principal objectives of treatment is to reduce the moisture
content of sludge and the transfer sites serve this purpose. Sludge is taken from the transfer
sites to the final sites for final treatment and subsequent disposal (landfill, incineration, e.t.c).
Costs arise principally from running the works and transporting the sludge. The objective is
to minimise the cost of the whole system. Typically this consists of a large number of export
sites generating sludge and a relatively small number of both transfer and final works, all of
which are connected by a road network.
Transport between the sites is either by trucks (tanker) for wet sludges or by skip for cakes.
Costs associated with transport are based on mileage and tonnage for wet sludges and
numbers of loads for cakes.
Treatment costs are based on annual sludge throughput and fixed operating costs at each
works. The treatment cost also depends on the type of sludge being produced at each of the
treatment works (transfer and final) and the reason for the restrictions on the types of sludge
accepted by each works.
The cost function therefore consists of;
-
Fixed treatment costs
Variable treatment costs
Transport costs
Since the fixed costs are indeed fixed i.e. they are going to be incurred, they represent just a
single monetary sum that can be added into the cost structure of the model, therefore they are
not considered in the optimisation problem.
26
4.1
Model Formulation
Mathematical Formulation
Yijst
Export works
i
Xikst
Transfer
treatment works
j
Zjkst
Final treatment
works, k
(Disposal)
Figure 4.0: System Structure at Yorkshire Water
The following comprise the key variables and parameters in the model.
Indices
i
Export works
Transfer treatment works
Final treatment works (Incineration plants)
s, s`
sludge types
period of operation (months)
Sets
I
Export works
Transfer treatment works
Final treatment works (Incineration plants)
sludge types
period of operation (months)

27
Model Formulation
Produced sludge types and works

Is
Set of all export works i that produces sludge type s
Si
Set of sludge type s that can be produced by export works i
Jsout
Set of all transfer works j that can produce sludge of type s
Sjout
Set of sludge type s that can be produced by transfer works j
Entering sludge types and works

Jsin
Set of all transfer works j that can take-in (accept) sludge of type s
Sjin
Set of sludge type s that can be accepted by transfer works j
Ks
Set of all final treatment works k that can take-in (accept) sludge of type s
Sk
Set of sludge type s that can be accepted by final treatment works k
Sludge types produced

IW
Set of all export works i that produce wet sludge.
IC
Set of all export works i that produce cake sludge.
JW
Set of all transfer works j that produce wet sludge.
IC
Set of all transfer works j that produce cake sludge.
Possible links between works

IJ (i, j) possible links between works i and j.
IK (i, k) possible links between works i and k.
JK (j, k) possible links between works j and k.
28
Model Formulation
Parameters
Pis
The indigenous sludge production at export work i of type s in tds/annum
monthly variation (seasonality) of sludge production
Pist
The indigenous production of sludge of type s produced at export work i during
period t in tds
Pist =
Pis
t
12
i, s, t
Ci
Capacity of trucks based at export works i in m3
Cj
Capacity of trucks based at transfer treatment works j in m3
ej
cost () of processing one tonne of dry solids at transfer works j
Ek
cost () of processing one tonne of dry solids at final treatment works k
Hi
inventory cost () at export works per tonnes of dry solids
Hj
inventory cost () at transfer works per tonnes of dry solids
Hk
inventory cost () at final treatment works per tonnes of dry solids
Dij
The distance travelled between work i and work j in kilometres
Djk
The distance travelled between work j and work k in kilometres
Dik
The distance travelled between work i and work k in kilometres
Nj
Processing capacity at the transfer work j in tds/a (where this capacity is expressed in
terms of the incoming, not outgoing, flow of sludge)
Nk
Processing capacity for sludge at the final treatment work k in tds/a (where this
capacity is expressed in terms of the incoming, not outgoing, flow of sludge)
Aj
The monthly processing capacity for transfer works j at time t

Aj =
Nj
12
29
j, t

Ak
Model Formulation
The monthly processing capacity for final treatment works k at time t
Ak =
Nk
12
k,t
Qi
The monthly inventory capacity for export works i at time t
Qj
The monthly inventory capacity for transfer works j at time t
Qk
The monthly processing capacity for final treatment works k at time t
LFij
Loss fraction of dry solid retained for sludge of type s at transfer works j coming from
works i
Wi
Dry solid fraction for flow out of export works i
Wj
Dry solid fraction for flow out of transfer treatment works j
variation of inventory capacities
Variables
Xikst
Wet volume of sludge (m3) transported from i to k over period t.
Yijst
Wet volume of sludge (m3) transported from i to j over period t.
Zjkst
Wet volume of sludge (m3) transported from j to k over period t.
Bkst
Dry sludge of type s disposed off from final treatment works k over period t.
Iist
The inventory of sludge of type s at export works i at period t in tds.
Ijst
The inventory of sludge of type s at transfer treatment plant j at period t in tds.
Ikst
The inventory of sludge of type s at final treatment plant k at period t in tds.
30
Model Formulation
Equations
The main objective is to minimise the total variable costs over period t.
Min
TC (t) + FTC1 (t) + FTC2 (t) + IC (t) .. (4.1)
Subject to the following constraints:

Variable Treatment cost of sludge (TC)
The variable treatment costs are based on a cost per tonnes of dry solid treated at each of
transfer and final treatment works. Export works have zero treatment costs since they only
produce the sludge and do not treat it.
Hence let:
ej be the cost () of processing one tonnes of dry solids at transfer works j
Ek be the cost () of processing one tonnes of dry solids at final treatment works k
Strictly the dry solid fractions when used numerically gives an answer in m3 and for the
purpose of translating the wet volume into mass, a common density D is used, it can be
assumed that 1 cubic metre of dry solid weighs 1 tonne = 1000kg.
Therefore mass in dry solid tonnes is equal to the wet volume multiplied by the dry solids
fraction and the common density D.
The variable treatment cost at the transfer works j over time period t is;
j:( i , j )IJ sSi S in

j
e j Wi DYijst
The inner summation represents the incoming wet volume flow of sludge of all types from
export works i, the summation over all export works i and transfer works j gives the total dry
solids content being processed at transfer works j and over all possible links between i and j.
The term Wi D converts that into dry solid equivalent tonnes and the term ej converts them all
into a monetary value.
31
Model Formulation
In a similar way, the variable treatment cost at the final treatment works k over time period t
is;
k :( i , k )IK sSi Sk
Ek Wi D X ikst +
j k :( j , k )JK sS out
j Sk
Ek W j D Z jkst
Likewise, the inner summation terms represents the incoming wet volume flow of sludge of
all types from export works i and transfer works k respectively, the summation over all export
works i, transfer works j and final treatment works k gives the total dry solids content being
processed at final treatment works k and over all possible links between i and k as well as
links between j and k. The terms Wi D and Wj D converts those into dry solid equivalent
tonnes and the terms Ek converts them all into a monetary value.
Hence the total treatment cost over time period t is derived by taking the two expressions
above and adding them together over all transfer and treatment works respectively:
TC (t) =
i
j:(i , j )IJ
sSi Sinj
ej Wi DYijst +
i k:(i,k )IK sSi Sk
Ek Wi D Xikst +
j k:( j ,k )JK
t T
sSout
j Sk
Ek Wj DZ jkst
....................(4.2)
Transport costs of sludge

The transport costs depend greatly on the different types of sludge.
The cost coefficients given are;
r1 - Rate based on volume of wet sludge [/m3]
r2 - Rate based on distance travelled for each load [/MileLoad]
r3 - Rate based on journey time of vehicle travel based on distance divided by average speed
[ /Hour]
r4 - Cost of transporting one load [] for sludge types 3 and 5.
Transport Costs Cake Sludge (FTC1).

For sludge types IC (cakes) the cost incurred is simply a constant amount (r4) per load
transported, where the number of loads is:
32
Model Formulation
Number of loads = total volume to be transported/vehicle capacity.
The volume of sludge of types IC flowing from export works i at time period t is given by;
Pist
iIC sSi
Since this is the total volume of sludge of these types and this must flow away from export
works i, the transport cost here is
Pist r4
iIC sSi
i Ci
For transfer works j, the volume of sludge of types JC (cakes) flowing from it at time period t
is given by;
jJ C kJK sS out
j Sk
Z jkst
Where the summation terms add over all possible transfer works that produces sludge of
types JC as well as receiving final treatment works k. Hence the transport cost here is
jJ C kJK sS out
j Sk
r4 Z jkst
Cj
Therefore the total transport cost for sludge of types 3 and 5 at time period t is given by;
Pist r4
+
W
C
iIC sSi
i
i
FTC1(t) =
jJC kJK
sSout
j Sk
r4 Z jkst
Cj
t T
...........................(4.3)
Transport Costs Wet Sludge (FTC2).

The total transport cost for wet sludge (IC and JC) is a linear function (per load) of the wet
volume transported, the distance travelled and the time taken. The constant Gij, Gjk and Gik
are define to be a constant value for transport of wet sludge between works ij, jk and ik
respectively where:
Gij = Dij (r2 + r3)
Gjk = Djk (r2 + r3)
Gik = Dik (r2 + r3)
33
Model Formulation
The cost of transport for each load of wet sludge is:

r1 Vehicle capacity + G.
The assumption here is that all loads are full capacity loads.
The transport costs for wet sludge from export works i is calculated thus;
The wet volume of wet sludge of type 1, 2 and 4 flowing from export works i to final
treatment works k at time period t is given by;
iIW k :( i , k )IK sSi Sk
X ikst
The number of loads required is hence;
X ikst
Ci
The cost involved is therefore the cost per load multiplied by the number of loads given by
rC
1 i + Gik
X ikst
Ci
The wet volume of wet sludge flowing from export works i to transfer works j over time
period t is given by
iIW j:( i , j )IJ SSi S inj
Yijst
The number of loads required is
Yijst
Ci
The cost involved is therefore;
iIW j:( i , j )IJ SSi S in

j
r1Ci + Gij
Ci
Yijst
34
Model Formulation
Hence the total transport cost for export works i involved in transporting wet sludge over
time period t is:
r1Ci + Gik
X ikst +
Ci
r1Ci + Gij
Ci
Yijst
The above equation can be simplified based on;
kIK
ikst
Y
jIJ
ijst
Pist
Wi
This therefore gives;
r1 Pist
+
Wi
r1 Pist
Wi
iIW sSi
Gik X ikst
+
Ci
iIW
j:( i , j )IJ S Si S inj
Gij Yijst
Ci
Where the first term
iIW sSi
is simply a constant term (since it does not involve any of the variables) and so could be
neglected (including or excluding it would make no difference to the flow pattern decided).
The explanation for this is that there is a constant cost per load (equal to r1 multiplied by the
vehicle capacity) and there will be movement of a certain loads away from export works i
irrespective of the flow pattern involved and hence that has no effect on the flow pattern
adopted.
Likewise the transport costs for wet sludge from the transfer works k over time period t is
calculated thus;
The wet volume of wet sludge of types flowing from transfer works j to final treatment works
k over time period t is given by;
jJW k :( j , k )JK sS out

j Sk
Z jkst
35
Model Formulation
The number of loads required is hence
Z jkst
(r1C j + Gik ) Z jkst
Cj

j Sk
The cost involved is therefore:
Cj

j Sk
In conclusion, the total transport costs associated with transporting sludge of types 1, 2 and 4
at time period t is given by;
FTC2(t) =
G Y
Gik Xikst
+ ij ijst
Ci
Ci
iIW k:(i,k )IK sSi Sk
iIW j:(i, j )IJ SSi Sinj
r1 Pist
iIW sSi
(rC
1 j + Gik ) Z jkst
jJW k:( j ,k )JK sSout

j Sk
Cj
t T ..................................(4.4)
Inventory cost
The total inventory cost of dry sludge over each time period is the summation of the
inventory cost of tonnes of dry solids at each works.
i.e.
IC(t) =Iist Hi +
i sSi
I
j
sout
j
jst
Hj +Ikst Hk
t T ..................(4.5)
k sSk
Capacity constraints
At the further treatment works, the processing capacity of the works must not be exceeded.
The capacity constraints of both the transfer and final works are expressed in terms of the dry
solids, therefore the need to convert the wet volume to solid in both constraints.
i:(i , j )IJ sSi S inj
Wi Yijst Aj
j J , t T ...........................(4.6)
36
Model Formulation
At the final treatment works, the storage capacity of sludge must not be exceeded.
WX
i:(i,k )IK sSi Sk
ikst
j:( j ,k )JK
sSout
j Sk
Wj Z jkst Ak
k K, t T ...........................(4.7)
Inventories at the export works

The inventory of dry sludge of type s at the export works at the beginning of each time
interval is equal to the value from the last time period plus dry sludge produced at the
beginning of the time interval minus total amount of dry sludge discharge from it at the
beginning of that time interval.
I ist = I is , t 1 + Pist Wi
X ikst +
k :( i ,k )IK K s
I ist Qi
Yijst
j:( i , j )IJ J s
for any i , s, t
i I , s Si , t T ...........................( 4.8)
...........................( 4.9)
Inventories at the transfer works

The inventory of dry sludge at the transfer works at the beginning of each time interval is
equal to the value from the last time period plus any sludge charged to it at the beginning of
the time interval minus any sludge discharge from it at the beginning of that time interval.
The inventory at the transfer works also takes into account possible conversion of sludge at
the transfer works i.e. whatever the incoming mix of sludge, a transfer works j produces only
one type of outgoing sludge Jsout.
In general, the total dry solids content remains unchanged after transfer works processing.
The only exception is that at a transfer works where the incoming sludge is not digested but
outgoing is, then the total solids exiting is some percentage of that entering due to a loss
factor during the digestion.
37
Model Formulation
Therefore, the inventory of sludge of type s at time period t for transfer work j is given as;
I jst = I js , t 1 +
i:( i , j )IJ s 'I s J sin
Wi Yijs 't LFij
I jst Q j
k :( j , k )JK K s
W j Z jkst
for any j , s, t
j J , s S j , t T ......................(4.10)
.......................(4.11)
Inventories at the final works
The inventory of dry sludge at the final treatment works (incineration plant) at the beginning
of each time interval is equal to the value from the last time period plus total amount of dry
sludge charged to it at the beginning of the time interval minus any sludge used for
incineration at the time interval.
I kst = I k , s , t 1 + Wi
i:( i , k )IK I s
I kst Qk
X ikst + W j
Z jskt Bkst
k K , s Sk , t T .......................(4.12)
j:( j , k )JK J sout
for any k , s, t
38
.......................(4.13)
CHAPTER FIVE: YORKSHIRE WATER CASE STUDIES

5.0
Introduction
Yorkshire Water manages the collection, treatment and distribution of water in the Yorkshire
region. They supply around 1.3 billion litres of drinking water each day and subsequently
collect, treat and return about 1 billion litres of wastewater safely back into the environment.
The Figure below shows the Yorkshire Water region.
Figure 5.0: Yorkshire Water Region showing Operational boundaries for water and
sewerage services
39
Yorkshire Water Case Studies
In order to ensure adequate treatment of wastewater and meeting demanding environmental

standards, Yorkshire Water collects wastewater via 30,300km of sewers and are treated in
over 631 wastewater treatment works referred to as export works.
In this write up, three different scenarios or case studies of Yorkshire Water will be
considered to evaluate the feasibility of the optimisation model and the cost associated with
each scenario.
5.1
Works at Yorkshire Water
There are three different types of works at Yorkshire Water. They are:
9 Export works sludge producers
9 Transfer works these works reduce moisture contest and export the treated sludge to
final works
9 Final works these works process sludge further for disposal.
As earlier noted, export works are generally small and numerous compared to transfer and
final works. There are six different types of sludges produced at both export and transfer
works and they fall into two groups, wet sludges and cakes.
Wet sludges include raw, thickened, digested and contaminated sludge while cake sludges are
undigested and digested cakes. The sludge produced by the final treatment works is for
disposal and therefore not considered in the optimisation process. In general, only one type of
sludge is produced at an export or transfer work and a transfer or final treatment works can
actually receive and process a limited range of sludge types.
All works are connected by road network and therefore there are many possibilities of
movement between the works. The potentially very large number of connections is limited by
the types of sludge that are produced by export and transfer sites and the types of sludge that
can be processed by both transfer and final works. The optimisation process gives the lowest
possible cost after examining all the possible paths as well as the constraints and sludge
restrictions.
Figure 5.1 shows a representation of the possible connections between works where there are
seven export works, two transfer and three final treatment works.
40
Figure 5.1: Schematic representation of possible links between works
5.2
Distances between Works
In the data from Yorkshire Water, the OSGB coordinates (Northings and Eastings) were
given for all works and this can be used to generate the distances between the works in the
optimisation model.
The distance between the works is very important since the transport cost is a function of
distance travelled between the works where there are possible links.
There are four ways of developing the distance data between the works.
Straight Line: Based on the straight line distance between works given their positions in
OSGB coordinates. The distances can be factored. It has been found for example that a factor
of 1.5 times the straight line distance gives a reasonably good initial estimate of the actual
distance between two points along the road network.
Dijkstra: This algorithm is based on a network [graph in computer science parlance] which
for SPLAT is based on the road network.
41
Modified Dijkstra: As the normal Dijkstra algorithm is not based on any georeferenced data
SPLAT provides an improved version of the algorithm which makes use of the
georeferencing. This is known as the alpha algorithm and is the preferred algorithm to be
used when generating a distance table from road network data.
User Defined: Real data from, for example, GPS tracking of sludge transport vehicles can be
used if available. This is almost certain to be more accurate than any of the other three
sources of distance data. The user defined table can be based on any of other data as the user
is able to edit individual links, cut and paste and import and export data.
The straight line method is used for the purpose of the optimisation process since the other
three methods were not available. Also the distances were given in miles and for consistency
purpose; the distances were multiplied by a factor of 1.60934 to convert to kilometres.
5.3
Monthly Variations in Production of Sludge at Export Works
In the data provided there is no monthly production therefore arbitrary values were used to
suggest variation of monthly production.
There are some months of the year that the production of sludge is expected to be high
especially during the autumn and winter seasons when the population of the Yorkshire region
is on the high side while the other seasons like spring and summer when most of the
population travels for summer holidays, the production is expected to be on the low side.
Table 5.0 shows the arbitrary monthly variations for the production of sludge at the Yorkshire
Water based on the explanations above.
42
Table 5.0: Monthly variations of sludge production
5.4
Months
Fractional variations
January
1.2
February
0.9
March
1.1
April
0.95
May
1.0
June
0.9
July
0.9
August
0.8
September
0.9
October
1.0
November
1.15
December
1.2
Loss Fraction of Dry Solid Retained at Transfer Works
The moisture removed by transfer works j must be accounted for and whatever the incoming
mix of sludge, a transfer works can only produces only one type of outgoing sludge.
In general the total dry solids content remains unchanged after transfer works processing. The
exception is that at a transfer works where incoming sludge is not digested but outgoing
sludge is, then the total dry solid leaving is some percentage of that entering, due to a loss to
gas during the digestion process. The exact value of the fraction of dry solids depends upon
the works being considered.
In general, the loss fraction retained is only other than unity for works where the incoming
sludge is not digested but the outgoing sludge is digested. For the purpose of this
optimisation, the loss to digestion of 30% is used and therefore the loss fraction retained is
0.7 (70%) for all works where the outgoing sludge is digested.
43
5.5
Inventories of Sludge at Different Works
The inventories of sludge at the different works are considered at the end of each time period
(monthly in this case). The data for the inventory cost is not given in Yorkshire water data but
arbitrary values were set for the inventory costs at the export, transfer and the final treatment
works. The reason for consideration of the inventories at different works is based on many
issues ranging from ensuring constant supply of sludge and also based on the capacity
constraints in both transfer and final treatment works. If the inventory cost at a transfer works
A is low and the nearest final treatment works B is full due to capacity constraint then A
can hold back some of the sludge till the next time period rather than transporting the sludge
to a final treatment works C which is very far to A. Therefore due to the introduction of
the inventory costs, the optimisation model then trade-offs between the transportation costs,
treatment costs and the inventory costs of sludge.
For the purpose of this optimisation model, to avoid backlog of sludge at the export works, it
is assumed that there is enough vehicle to transport sludge from the export works. Therefore,
the inventory of sludge at the export works at time period t is less than or equal to zero.
44
CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

6.0
Introduction
Three different case studies of Yorkshire Water were considered to check the feasibility of
the proposed model. The data were supplied by Yorkshire Water and the necessary
modifications were applied to the data to suit the model. The General Algebraic Modelling
System (GAMS) was used coupled with the Simplex linear programming algorithm (CPLEX
solver) to find the optimised costs for each of the scenario considered and as earlier explained,
since no inventory cost was available in the data provided by Yorkshire Water, arbitrary
values were used for the inventory cost of sludge per dry tonnes at export, transfer and final
treatment works and these costs were varied to evaluate the effect on the flow of sludge and
also on optimised costs of running the system. The planning horizon of interest is 1 year split
into 12 monthly time periods.
6.1
Scenario One: Transfer Check.
The first scenario considered is termed TRANSFER CHECK. It consists of seven export
works, three transfer works and two final treatment works. The data for the TRANSFER
CHECK is shown in APPENDIX 1A.
In order for the model to be feasible, some of the parameters were modified as follows:Vehicle Capacity for A/STW and B/STW are zero, these were corrected by allocating a
vehicle capacity of 14.51m3 to both works.
The logistics problem was solved as a multiperiod linear programming problem (LP) using
General Algebraic Modelling System (GAMS) and the result is as discussed below.
6.1.1 Transfer Check 1

The result of the first scenario (Transfer Check 1) when the inventory cost at export works,
transfer works and final works were 1.15, 2.50 and 1.50 per tonnes of dry solids
respectively is as shown in Table 6.0.
45
Results and Discussion
Table 6.0: Results for Transfer Check 1 (Scenario one).

Optimised Variables
Optimised Costs ()
Final Total variable cost
964,532
Total Treatment cost
281,297
Total Final transport costs for cake sludge
97,289
Total Final transport costs for wet sludge
583,962
Total Inventory cost
1,983
The detailed result for this case is given in APPENDIX 1B which shows the flow pattern of
sludge from the different export works to both the transfer works and final treatment works.
The results produced thirteen optimised flows in all as represented in Figure 6.7. The flows
includes three flows from export works to final treatment works (Xikst), seven flows from
export works to transfer treatment works (Yijst) and three flows from transfer works to final
treatment works (Zjkst).
The flows though as expected are between works with shortest distance but there were some
exceptions. D/STW which is an export works is closer to transfer works T1/STF (22.870
miles) and T2/STF (22.123miles) but the result shows a connection between T3/STF (70.207
miles) which is more than three times farther than the distance between the two other transfer
works. This can be attributed to the capacity constraints at both T1/STF and T2/STF.
The results also shows that there was flow of sludge between G/STW and two different
transfer works - T1/STF and T2/STF. This was also due to the capacity constraints at the
transfer works and the level of production at G/STW is more than what can be received by
just one transfer or final treatment works.
Figures 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2 below shows the monthly total variable cost, monthly treatment cost
and monthly transportation cost respectively for this case.
The result shows that the monthly total variable costs, monthly treatment cost and monthly
transport costs follows the production monthly variations with peak of the graph at January
when the sludge production is expected to be at the peak based on the explanation in the
preceding chapter.
46
Figure 6.0: Monthly Total Variable Costs for Transfer Check 1 (Scenario one).
Figure 6.1: Monthly Treatment Costs for Transfer Check 1 (Scenario one).
The monthly transportation cost for cake sludge was low when compared with the monthly
transportation cost for the wet sludge as shown in figure 6.2 below. This can be attributed to
the large volume of wet sludge being produced at the export works.
47
Figure 6.2: Monthly Transportation Costs for Transfer Check 1 (Scenario one).
Figure 6.3 below shows the inventory costs. There were increasing amount of inventories of
sludge for some transfer works from August to December; this is due to the trade-offs
between the inventory cost and the transportation cost in this months, though there is
adequate capacity for flow of sludge from this works. There are no inventories of sludge from
January to July at the transfer works and no inventories of sludge at all at final treatment
works and this can be attributed to adequate capacity of sludge and adequate capacity for
disposal respectively.
Figure 6.3: Monthly Inventory Costs for Transfer Check 1 (Scenario one).
In real life situations, there will be possibilities of inventories of sludge at every month
though the volume can be very small and therefore can be ignored.
48
6.1.2 Transfer Check 2

The result of the first scenario (Transfer Check) when the inventory costs at export works,
transfer works and final works were 100, 200 and 150 per tonnes of dry solids
respectively is as shown in the table below.
Table 6.1: Results for Transfer Check 2 (Scenario one).
Optimised Variables
Optimised Costs ()
1,011,730
307,776
101,406
602,548
The detailed result for this case is given in APPENDIX 1C which shows the flow pattern of
The same thirteen optimised flows were produced as is the case for Transfer Check 1 as
represented in Fig 6.6. The flows includes three flows from export works to final treatment
works (Xikst), seven flows from export works to transfer treatment works (Yijst) and three
flows from transfer works to final treatment works (Zjkst).
There was slight difference between the results obtained for the Transfer Check 1 and
Transfer Check 2. There was an increase in the final total variable cost from 964,532 to
1,011,730 and therefore affected the treatment costs and transportation costs. There was no
inventories of sludge at all at any works due to the increase in inventory costs per tonnes of
dry solid. This shows that there was a trade-off between the transportation costs and the
inventory costs of sludge.
The trade-offs between the transportation costs and the inventory costs also result in an
increase in volume of sludge transported from transfer works to final treatment works though
the pattern of flow remains the same as in the previous example.
The monthly total variable costs, treatment costs and transportation costs are shown in
Figures 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6 respectively.
49
Figure 6.4: Monthly Total Variable Costs for Transfer Check 2 (Scenario one).
Figure 6.5: Monthly Treatment Costs for Transfer Check 2 (Scenario one).
Figure 6.6: Monthly Transportation Costs for Transfer Check 2 (Scenario one).
50
The optimised flow of sludge for the two cases of scenario one (Transfer Check 1 and
Transfer Check 2) are shown in figure 6.7 below.
Figure 6.7: Schematic representation of Optimised path for Transfer Check (Scenario
one).
6.2
Scenario Two: Model Test.
The second scenario considered is termed MODEL TEST. It consists of twenty export works,
seven transfer works and seven final treatment works. The data for the MODEL TEST is
shown in APPENDIX 2A.
Some of the parameters were modified for the optimisation model to be feasible. These are
analysed below:Vehicle Capacity at export works E_C, E_D, E_E, E_K, E_L, E_O, E_P, E_R and E_S are
zero, these were corrected by allocating a vehicle capacity of 14.51m3.
The optimisation problem was solved as an linear programming problem (LP) using the
General Algebraic Modelling System (GAMS) and the results are discuss below.
6.2.1 Model Test 1

The result of the second scenario (Model Test 1) when the inventory costs at export works,
respectively is as shown in the Table 6.3.
51
Table 6.2: Results for Model Test 1 (Scenario two).

Optimised Variables
Optimised Costs ()
7,411,842
1,844,096

51,032
5,513,373
3,341
The detailed result for this case is shown in APPENDIX 2B which shows the flow pattern of
There were twenty-eight (28) different flows in the optimised network which include thirteen
(13) flows from export works to final treatment works (Xikst), eight (8) flows from export
works to transfer works (Yijst) and seven (7) flows from transfer works to final treatment
works (Zjkst) as shown in figure 6.18.
In the result obtained for this case, export works E_G transfers sludge to both transfer works
T_G and final treatment works F_B. This can be attributed to sludge capacity at both the
transfer work (T_G) and final treatment work (F_B). Also, T_E being a transfer works
transfer sludge to F_F, a final treatment works which is farther to it (103 miles). This is due
to the trade-off between the treatment costs and the transportation costs from T_E. All the
final treatment works closer to T_E have a higher treatment cost per dry tonnes of solid and
the only one that is lower than F_F is F_G which has a lower sludge capacity and therefore
the need to transfer sludge to a further distance from the transfer works so as to optimise the
running cost.
Figures 6.8, 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11 shows the monthly total variable costs, monthly treatment
costs, monthly transportation costs for cake sludge and monthly transportation costs for wet
sludge respectively.
52
Figure 6.8: Monthly Total Variable Costs for Model Test 1 (Scenario two).
Figure 6.9: Monthly Treatment Costs for Model Test 1 (Scenario two).
53
(Scenario two).
(Scenario two).
Figure 6.12 shows the inventory costs for this case. There were fluctuations in the inventory
costs as shown in the figure and this can be due to the trade-offs between the inventory cost
and the transportation cost in the affected months, though there is adequate capacity for flow
of sludge from this works. There are no inventories of sludge in February, July and August at
54
both the transfer works and the final treatment works and this can as well be attributed to
adequate capacity of sludge and adequate capacity for disposal respectively.
Figure 6.12: Monthly Inventory for Model Test 1 (Scenario two).

All the seven transfer works have inventories of sludge while just three of the final treatment
works have inventories of sludge at each time period.
6.2.2 Model Test 2

The result of the first scenario (Transfer Check) when the inventory costs at export works,
transfer works and final works were 100, 200 and 150 per tonnes of dry solids
respectively is as shown in the table below.
Table 6.3: Results for Model Test 2 (Scenario two).
Optimised Variables
Optimised Costs ()
7,578,914
1,860,349

58,520
5,560,771
99,273
55
The detailed result for this case is given in APPENDIX 2C which shows the flow pattern of
The same twenty-eight (28) different flows were obtained in the optimised network which
include thirteen (13) flows from export works to final treatment works (Xikst), eight (8) flows
from export works to transfer works (Yijst) and seven (7) flows from transfer works to final
treatment works (Zjkst) as shown in figure 6.18.
There was slight difference between the results obtained for the Model Test 1 and Model Test
2. There was an increase in the final total variable cost from 7,411,842 to 7,578,914 and
therefore affected the treatment costs and transportation costs as well as the inventory costs.
Only one of the final treatment works have inventories of sludge compared to three in the
first case and just four of the transfer works too have inventories of sludge at the end of the
time period. This shows that there was a trade-offs between the transportation costs,
treatments costs and the inventory costs of sludge.
The trade-off between the transportation costs and the inventory costs also result in an
increase in volume of sludge transported from transfer works to final treatment works though
the pattern of flow remains the same as earlier stated.
The monthly total variable costs, monthly treatment costs, monthly transportation costs for
cake sludge and monthly transportation costs for wet sludge types are shown in figures 6.13,
6.14, 6.15 and 6.16 respectively.
Figure 6.13: Monthly Total Variable Costs for Model Test 2 (Scenario two).
56
Figure 6.14: Monthly Treatment Costs for Model Test 2 (Scenario two).
(Scenario two).
57
(Scenario two).
In addition to the differences noted above between the two cases, the inventory cost of sludge
in December was high compared to the remaining months but there was increase in inventory
costs though the tonnes of dry solid of sludge at the different works is lower than the first
case.
Figure 6.17: Monthly Inventory for Model Test 2 (Scenario two).

Figure 6.18 gives the schematic representation of the optimised path for the scenario. This
shows the possible connections between the different works.
58
Figure 6.18: Schematic representation of Optimised path for Model test (Scenario two).
6.3
Scenario Three: Final Cost Check.
The third scenario considered is termed FINAL COST CHECK. It consists of ninety three
(93) export works, fourteen (14) transfer works and twenty four (24) final treatment works.
The data for the FINAL COST CHECK is shown in APPENDIX 3A.
In order for the model to be feasible, some of the parameters were modified as follows:All export and transfer works with vehicle capacity of zero were modified and given a value
of 14.51m3 for the model to be feasible.
Only one case of inventory cost was considered for this scenario due to the large number of
works involved in this scenario.
The logistics problem was solved as a multiperiod linear programming problem (LP) using
General Algebraic Modelling System (GAMS) and the result is as discussed below.
6.3.1 Final Cost Check

The result of the third scenario (Final Cost Check) when the inventory costs at export works,
respectively is as shown in table 6.5.
59
Table 6.4: Results for Final Cost Check (Scenario three).

Optimised Variables
Optimised Costs ()
13,123,819
5,574,344

208,420
7,330,166
10,888
The detailed result for this case is shown in APPENDIX 3B which shows the flow pattern of
There were one hundred and fourteen (114) different flows in the optimised network which
include eighty three (83) flows from export works to final treatment works (Xikst), seveenteen
(17) flows from export works to transfer works (Yijst) and fourteen (14) flows from transfer
works to final treatment works (Zjkst).
In the result obtained for this case, export works E22/STW transfers sludge to both F10/STF
and F16/STF which are the closest in distance to it but the transfer to F10/STF is only in
March and December and this can be due to the capacity constraints at works F16/STF in
those two months.
Export work E55/STW also transfers sludge to both F3/STF and F1/STF but despite the fact
that F1/STF is the closest in distance to E55/STW (5.199 miles) when compared to F3/STF
(10.52 miles), there was only transfer of sludge to F1/STF in November only and there was
transfer to F3/STF throughout the time period. This can be due to the trade-offs between the
treatment costs and the transportation costs to these works. The treatment costs at F3/STF is
low (48.27) compared to that of F1/STF (56.45). This shows the treatment costs can also
determine to a greater extent which pattern the flow of sludge will follow at every time period.
Figure 6.19, 6.20, 6.21 and 6.22 shows the monthly total variable costs, monthly treatment
costs, monthly transportation costs for cake sludge and monthly transportation costs for wet
sludge respectively.
60
Figure 6.19: Monthly Total Variable Costs for Final Cost Check (Scenario three).
Figure 6.20: Monthly Treatment Costs for Model Final Cost Check (Scenario three).
61
Figure 6.21: Monthly Transportation Costs of Cake Sludge for Final Cost Check
(Scenario three).
Figure 6.22: Monthly Transportation Costs of Wet Sludge for Final Cost Check
(Scenario three).
Figure 6.23 shows the monthly inventory costs for this case. There were fluctuations in the
inventory costs as shown in the figure and this can be due to the trade-offs between the
inventory cost and the transportation cost in the affected months, though there is adequate
capacity for flow of sludge from this works. There no inventories of sludge in February at
both the transfer works and the final treatment works and this can as well be attributed to
adequate capacity of sludge and adequate capacity for disposal respectively.
62
Figure 6.23: Monthly Inventory for Final Cost Check (Scenario three).
6.3
Model Summary
The three scenarios considered above express the ability of the model to easily solve the
logistics problem involved in sewage sludge treatment. Table 6.6 below shows the model
statistics for the three scenarios.
Table 6.5: Model Statistics for the Three Scenarios.
Scenario Name
Number of
Number of
Generation
Execution
RAM
Variables
Single Equations
Time
Time
Size
Transfer Check 1
817
577
0.450s
0.452s
3.7Mb
Transfer Check 2
817
577
0.428s
0.430s
3.7Mb
Model Test 1
2,869
1,357
0.254s
0.257s
4.2Mb
Model Test 2
2,869
1,357
0.521s
0.524s
4.2Mb
Final Cost Check
27,469
4,597
1.632s
1.652s
9.5Mb
63
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.0
Conclusion
The multi-period dynamic optimisation model had been developed with the main objective to
investigate the inventory management of sludge at the transfer and final treatment works.
This can greatly help in making strategic inventory management decisions and logistics
planning. The model was developed as three echelons comprising the exports, transfer and
the final treatment works.
Three different scenarios of the Yorkshire Water case study have been considered in this
thesis and the results have shown that the model is feasible for all the scenarios. Each works
produce just one type of sludge as proposed and the cost of the different optimised variables
(Treatment costs, transportation costs and inventory costs) are given in monthly periods
which make it appropriate for effective sludge logistics planning.
The volume of sludge flowing from one work to the other is also given in monthly periods as
shown in the flow pattern of sludge in the Appendix 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C and 3B. For the first two
scenarios i.e. TRANSFER CHECK and MODEL TEST, two separate cases were considered
to explore the response of the model to different inventory costs of sludge. The results
showed that the pattern of flow remains the same irrespective of the inventory cost but the
volume of sludge transported from one work to the other increased while the inventories of
sludge at both transfer and final treatment works decreased.
The availability of data had greatly helps in determining the feasibility of the model and it
can be concluded that the major parameters that determine the value of the objective function
includes the distance between each works, the treatment cost of sludge at each works and the
inventory cost of sludge. The capacity constraints also play a major role in determining the
pattern of flow of sludge from one work to another.
The schematic representations of the optimised path for the first two scenarios were also
presented in this report to visualise the movement between each works. This was sketched
using the OSGB codes and a Google map of the Yorkshire region.
64
Conclusion and Recommendations
7.1
Recommendations for Further Work
The model was developed under time constraints and additional research work is required in
the following areas discussed below.
Disposal of Sludge: The model should be extended further from the final treatment work
to the logistics involved in the disposal of the sludge via the adequate disposal options
such as incineration, agricultural use and landfill.
Truck Types: In the model presented, each export and transfer work has just one type of
truck for the movement of sludge from one work to the other. The model can be made
more flexible by proposing the option of more than one type of trucks at each work.
Inventory of Sludge: The inventories of sludge at the transfer and final treatment works
at the end of the time period (December) were slightly high and necessary constraints are
needed to force the inventories to a bare minimum or probably to zero. Necessary
modifications are also needed on the bounds of the inventories that each works can
accommodate at every time period.
65
REFERENCES
1.
Bolton R. L. and Klein L. (1971); Sewage Treatment: Basic Principles and Trends.
London, Butterworth & co Publishers Limited.
2.
Brester, A.R.; Coulomb, I.; Deak, B.; Matter, B.; Saabye, A.; Spinosa, L.; Utvik,
A.O. (1998); Sludge Treatment and Disposal, Management Approaches and Experiences.
Environmental Issues Series, No. 7. European Environmental Agency, 1998.
3.
Chen, Guohua, Yue, Po Lock and Mujumdar, Arun S. (2002); Sludge Dewatering
and Drying. [online] 20 (4 &5), 883 916 Available from DOI: 10.1081/DRT120003768 [Accessed on 24th January, 2009].
4.
CIWEM, (1999); Sewage Sludge: Conditioning, Dewatering, Thermal Drying and

Incineration. Handbooks of UK Wastewater Practice, CIWEM, London.
5.
Dang Tung Vu and Pinnoi Anulark (2000); Vehicle Routing Scheduling for Waste
Collection in Hanoi. European Journal of Operational Research 125: 449 468.
6.
De Mol R. M., Jogems M.A.H., Van Beek P., and Gigler J. K., (1997); Simulation and
Optimisation of the logistics of Biomass Fuel Collection. Netherlands Journal of
Agricultural Science 45: 219 228. Available from:
http://library.wur.nl/ojs/index.php/njas/article/view/535/249 [Accessed
on 24th January, 2009]
7.
De Silva, Viraj and Chan, Kwan Kin (2005): An Overview of Current Sludge Drying
Practices. In; Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation Technology pp 740-749
Published
by
Water
Environment
Federation.
Available
from
DOI:10.2175/193864705783977790 [Accessed on 16th January, 2009]

8.
Diaper C., Cartmell E., Judd S. J., Kilgallon P. and Oakey J. (2001): Sewage Sludge
Disposal: A Logistical Analysis. In Ravindra K. Dhir, Mukesh E. Limbachiya, and
Michael J. McCarthy (eds): Recycling and Reuse of Sewage Sludge: Proceedings of the
66
References
International Symphosium organised by the Concrete Technology Unit and Held at the
University of Dundee, Scotland, UK on March 19 20, 2001. Thomas Telford
Publishers.
9.
Flaga A. (2005): Sludge drying; In Plaza E. and Levlin E. (eds): Integration and
optimisation of urban sanitation systems. Proceedings of Polish-Swedish seminars,
Cracow March 17-18, 2005.
10. Francois Audibert (2006): Waste Engine Oils; Rerefininng and Energy Recovery.
Elsevier Publishers.
11. Giannikos Ioannis (1998) A Multi-Objective Model for Locating Treatment Sites and
Routing Hazardous Wastes. European Journal of Operational Research 1998 104 page
333 342.
Available from doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00188-4 [Accessed 19th
August, 2009]
12. Hall J.E. and Dalimier F. (1994): Waste managementsewage sludge: survey of
sludge production, treatment, quality and disposal in the EC. EC Reference No: B43040/014156/92, Report No: 3646, 1994.
13. Hara K. and Mino T. (2008) Environmental Assessment of Sewage Sludge Recycling
Options and Treatment Processes in Tokyo. Waste Management 2008 28 (12) page 2645
2652. Available from doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.020 [Accessed 19th August,
2009]
14. Hester R. E. and Harrison R. M. (1994): Waste incineration and the Environment.
Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. Royal Society of Chemistry.
15.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/sludge/index.htm
16.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4564432.stm
67

17.
References
http://.thameswater.co.uk/cps/rde/xchg/SID-B8EFD863A3EB7AED/corp/hs.xsl/6881.htm
18.
http://www.euwfd.com/html/sewage_treatment.html - European Union

Water Framework Directives. (EUFWD)
19. http://www.sludge2energy.de/docs/sludge2energy_decentralised_sewage_
sludge_utilisation.pdf
20.
Hu Tang-Lai, Sheu Jiuh-Biing and Huang Kuan-Hsiung (2002) A Reverse

Logistics Cost Minimization Model for the Treatment of Hazardous Waste.
Transportation Research Part E 38 (2002) 457 473.
21.
Korentajer J. (1991): A review of the agricultural use of sewage sludge, benefits and
potential hazards. Water SA 1991; 17(3):189196.
22. Kumar Pati Rupesh, Prem Vrat and Kumar Pradeep (2004) Cost optimisation
model in recycled waste reverse logistics system. Journal of Business Performance
Management Vol 6 (3-4) page 245261.
23.
Larson Richard C. (1988); Transporting Sludge to the 106 Mile Site: An

Inventory/Routing Model for Fleet Sizing and Logistics System Design. [online] 22 (3)
186-198. Available from DOI: 10.1287/trsc.22.3.186 [Accessed on 4th February,
2009].
24.
McGhee T. J. (1991); Water supply and sewerage. New York: McGraw-Hill

Publishers.
25.
Metcalf and Eddy Inc (1991): Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, disposal and reuse. McGraw Hill Inc. International, New York
26.
Nema Arvind K. and Gupta S.K. (1999) Optimization of Regional Hazardous Waste
Management Systems: an Improved Formulation. Waste Management 1999 Vol 19 (7-8)
page 441451. Available from doi:10.1016/S0956-053X(99)00241-X [Accessed 19th
August, 2009]
68
References
27. Outwater, A.B. (1994): Reuse of Sludge and Minor Wastewater Residuals. Boca Raton:
Lewis Publishers.
28. Ratliff H. D. and Nulty W. G. (1996): Logistics Composite Modelling. In Technical
White paper series. The Logistics Institute at Georgia Technology.
29. Ronald J. Leblanc, Peter Matthews and Ronald P. Richard (2008); Global Atlas of
Excreta, Wastewater Sludge and Biosolids Management: Moving Forward the
Sustainable and Welcome Uses of a Global Resource. United Nations Human
Settlements Programme (UN HABITAT)
30. Sahoo S, Kim S, Kim B-I, Krass B and Popov Jr. A. (2005): Routing Optimisation
for Waste Management. Interfaces 2005 [online] 35 (1), 24 36. Available from doi
10.1287/inte.1040.0109 [Accessed 19th August, 2009].
31. Salvato Joseph A. (1992); Environmental Engineering and Sanitation. 4th Edition. New
York, John Wiley & Sons. Inc
32. Stravropoulos P. (2004) Energy Recovery and Sustainability of sewage sludge
incineration. MSc Thesis; Imperial College London.
33. Takada Hldeshige, John W. Farrington, Michael H. Bothner, Carl G. Johnson and
Bruce W. Tripp (1994): Transport of Sludge-Derived Organic Pollutants to Deep-sea
Sediments at Deep Water Dump Site 106. Environmental Science Technology 1994
Available from http://pubs.acs.org doi:10.102/es00055a015 [Accessed 19th
August, 2009]
34. Turovskiy I. S. and Mathai P. K. (2006): Wastewater Sludge Processing, New Jersey,
U.S.A. John Wiley & Sons.
35. Vesilind P. A. and Ramsey T. B. (1996): Effect of drying temperature on the fuel
value of wastewater sludge. Wastewater Management and Research 1996; 14:189196.
36. Werther J. and Ogada T. (1999): Sewage Sludge Combustion. Progress in Energy
and Combustion Science. [online] 25 (1), 55 116. Available from doi:10.1016/S03601285(98)00020-3 [Accessed 28th January, 2009]
69
References
37.
www.yorkshirewater.com/our-environment/carbon-management/reducing-waste.aspx
38.
Zabaniotou A, and Theofilou C. (2006); Green energy at cement kiln in Cyprus Use
of sewage sludge as a conventional fuel substitute. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews.
[online]
12
(2008)
531
541.
Available
from
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2006.07.017 [Accessed 2nd February, 2009]

39.
Zografus Konstantinos G. and Davis Christian F. (1989); Multi-Objective

Programming Approach for Routing Hazardous Materials. Journal of Transportation
Engineering.
[online]
15
(6)
661
673.
Available
from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1989)115:6(661). [Accessed 28 August,

2009]
70
APPENDIX 1A: Data for Transfer Check (Scenario One)

Sludge Intake
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/an
num]
Dry Solids
[%age]
Works
Name
Site
Type
Destination
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Tanker
Size [m3]
A/STW
Export
F_1/STF
500
B/STW
Export
F_2/STF
250
C/STW
Export
T1/STF
500
D/STW
Export
T3/STF
300
E/STW
Export
T2/STF
500
T1/STF
Transfer
Any Final
F_1/STF
Final
F_2/STF
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
20
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
15
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
15
Undigested
Cake
No
No
No
No
No
No
1600
20
30
50000
12.63
Digested
Cake
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Disposal
8100
56.45
220311.39
Disposal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Final
Disposal
7800
76.35
99163.05
Disposal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
T2/STF
Transfer
Any Final
2000
20
50000
12.64
Digested
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
T3/STF
Transfer
Any Final
1500
25
50000
12
Thickened
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
F/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
500
10
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
G/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
500
10
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
H/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
500
10
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
I/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
500
10
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
71
72
APPENDIX 1B
SCENARIO ONE: TRANSFER CHECK RESULT 1
Total Variable Costs for each time period (monthly)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
101,173.023
75,879.767
92,741.937
80,095.310
84,310.852
75,879.767
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
75,879.767
65,540.193
73,636.455
75,613.167
85,580.082
78,201.346
Treatment Costs for each time period (monthly)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
30,777.600
23,083.200
28,212.800
24,365.600
25,648.000
23,083.200
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
23,083.200
19,086.837
21,365.325
21,295.435
23,891.969
17,404.083
Transportation Costs for sludge type 3 and 5 for each time period (monthly)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
10,140.618
7,605.463
9,295.566
8,027.989
8,450.515
7,605.463
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
7,605.463
6,760.412
7,605.463
8,450.515
9,718.092
6,023.436
Transportation Costs for sludge type 1, 2 and 4 for each time period (monthly)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
60,254.805
45,191.104
55,233.571
47,701.721
50,212.338
45,191.104
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
45,191.104
39,646.069
44,562.542
45,593.363
51,473.355
53,711.327
Inventory Costs of sludge for each time period

Month
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
46.875
103.125
273.854
496.667
1,062.500
72
THE FLOW PATTERN OF SLUDGE.

Xikst Wet volume of sludge transported from export works i to final treatment works k
over period t.
1. A/STW to F_1/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
5000.000
3750.000
4583.333
3958.333
4166.667
3750.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
3750.000
3333.333
3750.000
4166.667
4791.667
5000.000
2. B/STW to F_2/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1250.000
937.500
1145.833
989.583
1041.667
937.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
937.500
833.333
937.500
1041.667
1197.917
1250.000
3. F/STW to F_2/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2500.000
1875.000
2291.667
1979.167
2083.333
1875.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1875.000
1666.667
1875.000
2083.333
2395.833
2500.000
Yijst Wet volume of sludge transported from export works i to transfer treatment
works j over period t.
1. C/STW to T_1/STF (Thickened Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1666.667
1250.000
1527.778
1319.444
1388.889
1250.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1250.000
1111.111
1250.000
1388.889
1597.222
1666.667
73
2. D/STW to T_3/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
750.000
562.500
687.500
593.750
625.000
562.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
562.500
500.000
562.500
625.000
718.750
750.000
3. E/STW to T_2/STF (Undigested Cake Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m )
1000.000
750.000
916.667
791.667
833.333
750.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
750.000
666.667
750.000
833.333
958.333
1000.000
4. G/STW to T_1/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
500.000
375.000
458.333
395.833
416.667
375.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
375.000
333.333
375.000
416.667
479.167
500.000
5. G/STW to T_2/STF (Raw Sludge))

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2000.000
1500.000
1833.333
1583.333
1666.667
1500.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1500.000
1333.333
1500.000
1666.667
1916.667
2000.000
6. H/STW to T_1/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2500.000
1875.000
2291.667
1979.167
2083.333
1875.000
74
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1875.000
1666.667
1875.000
2083.333
2395.833
2500.000
7. I/STW to T_1/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2500.000
1875.000
2291.667
1979.167
2083.333
1875.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1875.000
1666.667
1875.000
2083.333
2395.833
2500.000
Zjkst Wet volume of sludge transported from transfer treatment works j to final
treatment works k over period t.
1. T_1/STF to F_1/STF (Digested Cake Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
800.000
600.000
733.333
633.333
666.667
600.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
600.000
533.333
600.000
666.667
766.667
133.333
2. T_2/STF to F_1/STF (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1050.000
787.500
962.500
831.250
875.000
787.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
787.500
700.000
787.500
153.472
3. T_3/STF to F_2/STF (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
375.000
281.250
343.750
296.875
312.250
281.250
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
281.250
15.625
75
THE INVENTORIES OF SLUDGE.

Iist - The inventory of sludge at export work i at period t.
(ALL
0.000)
Ijst - The inventory of sludge at transfer treatment works j at period t in tonnes of dry
solid.
Transfer Works j
Sludge type
Month
Aug
T_1/STF
Digested Cake
T_2/STF
Digested
T_3/STF
Thickened
Sep
Oct
Nov
133.333
18.750
41.250
43.292
103.667
166.667
66.250
95.000
125.000
Ikst - The inventory of sludge at final treatment works k at period t in tonnes of dry
solid.
(ALL
Dec
0.000)
76
APPENDIX 1C
SCENARIO ONE: TRANSFER CHECK RESULT 2
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
101,173.023
75,879.767
92,741.937
80,095.310
84,310.852
75,879.767
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
75,879.767
67,448.682
75,879.767
84,310.852
96,957.480
101,173.023

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
30,777.600
23,083.200
28,212.800
24,365.600
25,648.000
23,083.200
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
23,083.200
20,518.400
23,083.200
25,648.000
29,495.200
30,777.600
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
10,140.618
7,605.463
9,295.566
8,027.989
8,450.515
7,605.463
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
7,605.463
6,760.412
7,605.463
8,450.515
9,718.092
10,140.618
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
60,254.805
45,191.104
55,233.571
47,701.721
50,212.338
45,191.104
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
45,191.104
40,169.870
45,191.104
50,212.338
57,744.188
60,254.805

(ALL
0.000)
77

over period t.
1. A/STW to F_1/STF (Raw Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
5000.000
3750.000
4583.333
3958.333
4166.667
3750.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
3750.000
3333.333
3750.000
4166.667
4791.667
5000.000
2. B/STW to F_2/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1250.000
937.500
1145.833
989.583
1041.667
937.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
937.500
833.333
937.500
1041.667
1197.917
1250.000
3. F/STW to F_2/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2500.000
1875.000
2291.667
1979.167
2083.333
1875.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1875.000
1666.667
1875.000
2083.333
2395.833
2500.000
1. C/STW to T_1/STF (Thickened Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1666.667
1250.000
1527.778
1319.444
1388.889
1250.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1250.000
1111.111
1250.000
1388.889
1597.222
1666.667
78
2. D/STW to T_3/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
750.000
562.500
687.500
593.750
625.000
562.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
562.500
500.000
562.500
625.000
718.750
750.000
3. E/STW to T_2/STF (Undigested Cake Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1000.000
750.000
916.667
791.667
833.333
750.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
750.000
666.667
750.000
833.333
958.333
1000.000
4. G/STW to T_1/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
500.000
375.000
458.333
395.833
416.667
375.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
375.000
333.333
375.000
416.667
479.167
500.000
5. G/STW to T_2/STF (Raw Sludge))

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2000.000
1500.000
1833.333
1583.333
1666.667
1500.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1500.000
1333.333
1500.000
1666.667
1916.667
2000.000
6. H/STW to T_1/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2500.000
1875.000
2291.667
1979.167
2083.333
1875.000
79
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1875.000
1666.667
1875.000
2083.333
2395.833
2500.000
7. I/STW to T_1/STF (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2500.000
1875.000
2291.667
1979.167
2083.333
1875.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1875.000
1666.667
1875.000
2083.333
2395.833
2500.000
1. T_1/STF to F_1/STF (Digested Cake Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
800.000
600.000
733.333
633.333
666.667
600.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
600.000
533.333
600.000
666.667
766.667
133.333
Volume (m )
2. T_2/STF to F_1/STF (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1050.000
787.500
962.500
831.250
875.000
787.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
787.500
700.000
787.500
875.000
1006.250
1050.000
3. T_3/STF to F_2/STF (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
375.000
281.250
343.750
296.875
312.250
281.250
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
281.250
250.000
281.250
312.500
359.375
375.000
80

(ALL
0.000)
solid.
(ALL
0.000)
solid.
(ALL
0.000)
81
APPENDIX 2A: Data for Model Test (Scenario Two)

Works
Name
Site Type
E_A
Export
E_B
Export
Destination
Any Non
Export
Any Non
Export
E_C
Export
E_D
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/an
num]
Sludge Intake
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Tanker
Size [m3]
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
11451.24
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
9815.46
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
F_G
7707.04
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
F_A
5148.78
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_E
Export
1925
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_F
Export
3465.07
14.51
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_G
Export
3317.75
12
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_H
Export
2582.04
14.51
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_I
Export
1886.31
25
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_J
Export
F_D
Any Non
Export
Any Non
Export
Any Non
Export
Any Non
Export
Any Non
Export
1832.66
14.51
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_K
Export
T_G
1455.47
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_L
Export
726.85
3.35
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_M
Export
700.61
14.51
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_N
Export
T_A
Any Non
Export
Any Non
Export
544.24
5.94
25
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_O
Export
T_E
536.76
17.17
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_P
Export
F_E
462.05
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_Q
Export
T_C
445.03
3.45
22
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_R
Export
T_F
382.6
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_S
Export
T_D
358.75
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E_T
Export
T_B
220
6.84
27
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
82
Q Cap
[tds/an
num]
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Sludge Intake
Works
Name
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Site Type
Destination
F_A
Final
Disposal
18000
20
1418747
F_B
Final
Disposal
1800
53.97
F_C
Final
Disposal
3996
F_D
Final
Disposal
1925
F_E
Final
Disposal
F_F
Final
Disposal
F_G
Final
T_A
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
221179.62
Disposal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
67.24
139039.17
Disposal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
50.66
91992.97
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
960
194.75
91315.34
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
21864
33.11
1091016.21
Disposal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Disposal
26400
29.26
2932435.94
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Transfer
F_C
1600
25.71
30
50000
12.63
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
T_B
Transfer
F_B
250
30
50000
12.63
Disposal
Undigested
Cake
Undigested
Cake
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
T_C
Transfer
Any Final
490
20
50000
27
Digested
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
T_D
Transfer
Any Final
996
2.56
73.1
72695.93
27
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
T_E
Transfer
Any Final
749
18
30
50000
12.63
Digested
Undigested
Cake
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
T_F
Transfer
Any Final
504
2.5
61.4
89123.89
14.51
Digested
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
T_G
Transfer
F_F
4500
4.88
10
501313.19
12.63
Digested
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
83
Tanker
Size [m3]
APPENDIX 2B
SCENARIO TWO: MODEL TEST RESULT 1
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
693,206.713
567,131.032
756,267.835
598,708.156
630,215.435
567,154.314
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
567,131.032
504,116.473
564,279.840
625,550.413
667,478.612
670,602.060

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
171,889.638
140,636.977
187,515.969
148,450.142
156,263.307
140,636.977
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
140,636.977
125,010.646
140,210.047
155,570.412
167,696.594
169,578.415
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
5,364.355
4,389.018
5,852.024
4,632.852
4,876.686
4,389.018
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
4,389.018
3,901.349
4,389.018
4,876.686
3,851.471
120.084
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
515,906.158
422,105.038
562,806.717
445,555.318
469,005.598
422,105.038
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
422,105.038
375,204.478
419,648.540
465,018.761
495,065.119
498,847.050

Month
Jan
Cost ()
46.562
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
93.125
69.844
69.844
23.281
84
Month
Jul
Aug
Cost ()
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
32.236
84.553
865.428
2,056.510

over period t.
1. E_A to F_G (Raw Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
34989.900
28628.100
38170.800
30218.550
31809.000
28628.100
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
28628.100
25447.200
28628.100
31809.000
36580.350
38170.800
2. E_B to F_F (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
29991.683
24538.650
32718.200
25901.908
27265.167
24538.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
24538.650
21812.133
24538.650
27265.167
31354.942
32718.200
3. E_C to F_G (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
14129.573
11560.560
15414.080
12202.813
12845.067
11560.560
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
11560.560
10276.053
11560.560
12845.067
14771.827
15414.080
4. E_D to F_A (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
15732.383
12871.950
17162.600
13587.058
14302.167
12871.950
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
12871.950
11441.733
12871.950
14302.167
16447.492
85
17162.600
5. E_E to F_D (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
5881.944
4812.500
6416.667
5079.861
5347.222
4812.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
4812.500
4277.778
4812.500
5347.222
6149.306
6416.667
6. E_F to F_A (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
10587.714
8662.675
11550.233
9143.935
9625.194
8662.675
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
8662.675
7700.156
8662.675
9625.194
11068.974
11550.233
7. E_G to F_B (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
4827.778
3950.000
5266.667
4169.444
4388.889
3950.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
3950.000
3511.111
3950.000
4388.889
5047.222
5961.111
8. E_H to F_F (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m )
7889.567
6455.100
8606.800
6813.717
7172.333
6455.100
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
6455.100
5737.867
6455.100
7172.333
8248.183
8606.800
9. E_I to F_A (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
3458.235
2829.465
3772.620
2986.657
3143.850
2829.465
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
2829.465
2515.080
2829.465
3143.850
3615.427
86
3772.620
10. E_J to F_F (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
5599.794
4581.650
6108.867
4836.186
5090.722
4581.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
4581.650
4072.578
4581.650
5090.722
5854.331
6108.867
11. E_M to F_G (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2140.753
1751.525
2335.367
1848.832
1946.139
1751.525
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1751.525
1556.911
1751.525
1946.139
2238.060
2335.367
12. E_N to F_G (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
839.877
687.172
916.229
725.348
763.524
687.172
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
687.172
610.819
687.172
763.524
878.053
916.229
13. E_P to F_E (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1411.819
1155.125
1540.167
1219.299
1283.472
1155.125
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1155.125
1026.778
1283.472
1475.993
Volume (m )
1155.125
1540.167
1. E_G to T_G (Raw Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
5309.792
4344.375
5792.500
4585.729
4827.083
4344.375
87
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Volume (m3)
4344.375
3861.667
4344.375
4827.083
5551.146
Dec
5098.056
2. E_K to T_G (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
4447.269
3638.675
4851.567
3840.824
4042.972
3638.675
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
3638.675
3234.378
3638.675
4042.972
4649.418
4851.567
3. E_L to T_A (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1988.893
1627.276
2169.701
1717.680
1808.085
1627.276
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1627.276
1446.468
1627.276
1808.085
2079.297
2169.701
4. E_O to T_E (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
286.564
234.461
312.615
247.487
260.513
234.461
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
234.461
208.410
234.461
260.513
299.589
312.615
5. E_Q to T_C (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1182.447
967.457
1289.942
1021.204
1074.952
967.457
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
967.457
859.961
967.457
1074.952
1236.194
88
1289.942
6. E_R to T_F (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1169.056
956.500
1275.333
1009.639
1062.778
956.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
956.500
850.222
956.500
1062.778
1222.194
1275.333
7. E_S to T_D (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1096.181
896.875
1195.833
946.701
996.528
896.875
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
896.875
797.222
896.875
996.528
1146.007
1195.833
8. E_T to T_B (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
294.834
241.228
321.637
254.630
268.031
241.228
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
241.228
214.425
241.228
268.031
308.236
321.637
1. T_A to F_C (Undigested Cake Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
259.152
212.033
282.711
223.813
235.593
212.033
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
212.033
188.474
212.033
235.593
35.037
2. T_B to F_B (Undigested Cake Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
336.111
275.000
366.667
290.278
305.556
275.000
89
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
275.000
244.444
275.000
305.556
351.389
19.444
3. T_C to F_F (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1427.805
1168.204
1557.605
1233.104
1298.004
1168.204
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1168.204
1038.403
1168.204
1298.004
1008.643
4. T_D to F_F (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
899.211
735.718
980.957
776.591
817.464
735.718
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
735.718
653.971
232.035
5. T_E to F_F (Undigested Cake Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
273.350
223.650
298.200
236.075
248.500
223.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
223.650
198.800
223.650
248.500
237.216
6. T_F to F_C (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
982.007
803.460
1071.280
848.097
892.733
803.460
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
803.460
714.187
803.460
892.733
417.923
90
7. T_G to F_F (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
4198.735
3435.329
4580.439
3626.180
3817.032
3435.329
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
3435.329
3053.626
3435.329
3817.032
986.760

(ALL
0.000)
solid.
Transfer Works j
Sludge type
Month
Sep
T_A
Undigested Cake
T_B
Undigested Cake
T_C
Digested
T_D
Digested
T_E
Oct
Nov
Dec
60.648
133.333
20.833
9.681
40.833
57.887
83.000
Undigested Cake
8.741
62.417
T_F
Digested
15.218
42.000
T_G
Digested
166.058
375.000
12.894
33.821
solid.
Final treatment
Sludge type
Month
Works k
Jan
F_B
Raw
F_B
Undigested Cake
15.000
F_D
Raw
16.042
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Nov
Dec
30.000
22.500
22.500
7.500
22.500
52.500
32.083
24.062
24.062
8.021
24.062
56.146
91
APPENDIX 2C
SCENARIO TWO: MODEL TEST RESULT 2
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
696,396.960
567,131.032
762,648.328
602,247.687
633,754.966
568,334.157
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
567,131.032
504,116.473
567,131.032
630,145.591
725,981.358
753,895.231

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
171,577.743
140,636.977
186,892.179
148,450.142
156,263.307
140,636.977
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
140,636.977
125,010.646
140,636.977
156,263.307
178,211.703
175,132.200
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
5,364.355
4,389.018
5,852.024
4,632.852
4,876.686
4,389.018
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
4,389.018
3,901.349
4,389.018
4,876.686
5,608.189
5,852.024
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
517,048.612
422,105.038
565,091.625
445,555.318
469,005.598
422,105.038
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
422,105.038
375,204.478
422,105.038
469,005.598
535,508.491
495,931.132
92

Month
Jan
Cost ()
2,406.250
Month
Feb
Jul
Mar
Apr
May
4,812.500
3,609.375
3,609.375
Aug
Sep
Oct
Cost ()
Jun
1,203.125
Nov
Dec
6,652.975
76,979.875

over period t.
1. E_A to F_G (Raw Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
34989.900
28628.100
38170.800
30218.550
31809.000
28628.100
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
28628.100
25447.200
28628.100
31809.000
36580.350
38170.800
2. E_B to F_F (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
29991.683
24538.650
32718.200
25901.908
27265.167
24538.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
24538.650
21812.133
24538.650
27265.167
31354.942
32718.200
3. E_C to F_G (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
14129.573
11560.560
15414.080
12202.813
12845.067
11560.560
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
11560.560
10276.053
11560.560
12845.067
14771.827
15414.080
93
4. E_D to F_A (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
15732.383
12871.950
17162.600
13587.058
14302.167
12871.950
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
12871.950
11441.733
12871.950
14302.167
16447.492
17162.600
5. E_E to F_D (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
5881.944
4812.500
6416.667
5079.861
5347.222
4812.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
4812.500
4277.778
4812.500
5347.222
6149.306
6416.667
6. E_F to F_A (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
10587.714
8662.675
11550.233
9143.935
9625.194
8662.675
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
8662.675
7700.156
8662.675
9625.194
11068.974
11550.233
7. E_G to F_B (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
4327.778
3950.000
4266.667
4169.444
4388.889
3950.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
3950.000
3511.111
3950.000
4388.889
4297.222
4266.667
8. E_H to F_F (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
7889.567
6455.100
8606.800
6813.717
7172.333
6455.100
94
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Volume (m3)
6455.100
5737.867
6455.100
7172.333
8248.183
Dec
8606.800
9. E_I to F_A (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
3458.235
2829.465
3772.620
2986.657
3143.850
2829.465
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2829.465
2515.080
2829.465
3143.850
3615.427
Volume (m )
3772.620

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
5599.794
4581.650
6108.867
4836.186
5090.722
4581.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
4581.650
4072.578
4581.650
5090.722
5854.331
6108.867
11. E_M to F_G (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2140.753
1751.525
2335.367
1848.832
1946.139
1751.525
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1751.525
1556.911
1751.525
1946.139
2238.060
2335.367
12. E_N to F_G (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
839.877
687.172
916.229
725.348
763.524
687.172
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
687.172
610.819
687.172
763.524
878.053
95
916.229
13. E_P to F_E (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1411.819
1155.125
1540.167
1219.299
1283.472
1155.125
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1155.125
1026.778
1283.472
1475.993
1155.125
1540.167
1. E_G to T_G (Raw Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
5809.792
4344.375
6792.500
4585.729
4827.083
4344.375
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
4344.375
3861.667
4344.375
4827.083
6301.146
6792.500
2. E_K to T_G (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
4447.269
3638.675
4851.567
3840.824
4042.972
3638.675
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
3638.675
3234.378
3638.675
4042.972
4649.418
4851.567
3. E_L to T_A (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1988.893
1627.276
2169.701
1717.680
1808.085
1627.276
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1627.276
1446.468
1627.276
1808.085
2079.297
96
2169.701
4. E_O to T_E (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
286.564
234.461
312.615
247.487
260.513
234.461
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
234.461
208.410
234.461
260.513
299.589
312.615
5. E_Q to T_C (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1182.447
967.457
1289.942
1021.204
1074.952
967.457
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
967.457
859.961
967.457
1074.952
1236.194
1289.942
6. E_R to T_F (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1169.056
956.500
1275.333
1009.639
1062.778
956.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
956.500
850.222
956.500
1062.778
1222.194
1275.333
7. E_S to T_D (Raw Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1096.181
896.875
1195.833
946.701
996.528
896.875
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
896.875
797.222
896.875
996.528
1146.007
Volume (m )
1195.833
8. E_T to T_B (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
294.834
241.228
321.637
254.630
268.031
241.228
97
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Volume (m3)
241.228
214.425
241.228
268.031
308.236
Dec
321.637
1. T_A to F_C (Undigested Cake Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
259.152
212.033
282.711
223.813
235.593
212.033
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
212.033
188.474
212.033
235.593
270.931
282.711
2. T_B to F_B (Undigested Cake Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
336.111
275.000
366.667
290.278
305.556
275.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
275.000
244.444
275.000
305.556
351.389
366.667
3. T_C to F_F (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1427.805
1168.204
1557.605
1233.104
1298.004
1168.204
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1168.204
1038.403
1168.204
1298.004
1492.705
4. T_D to F_F (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
899.211
735.718
980.957
776.591
817.464
735.718
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
735.718
653.971
735.718
817.464
940.084
98
5. T_E to F_F (Undigested Cake Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
273.350
223.650
298.200
236.075
248.500
223.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
223.650
198.800
223.650
248.500
285.775
298.200
6. T_F to F_C (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
982.007
803.460
1071.280
848.097
892.733
803.460
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
803.460
714.187
803.460
892.733
417.923
7. T_G to F_F (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
4413.899
3435.329
5010.766
3626.180
3817.032
3435.329
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
3435.329
3053.626
3435.329
3817.032
4712.333

(ALL
0.000)
solid.
Transfer Works j
Sludge type
Month
Nov
Dec
T_C
Digested
31.152
T_D
Digested
25.112
T_F
Digested
T_G
Digested
99
15.218
42.000
244.525
solid.
Final treatment
Sludge type
Month
Works k
F_D
Raw
Jan
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Nov
Dec
16.042
32.083
24.062
24.062
8.021
24.062
56.146
100
APPENDIX 3A: Data for Final Cost Check (Scenario Three)

Sludge Intake
Works
Name
Site
Type
Destination
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/annum]
E1/STW
Export
E2/STW
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Tanker
Size [m3]
F3/STF
11451.24
Export
F11/STF
9815.46
E3/STW
Export
F12/STF
7707.04
E4/STW
Export
F12/STF
7401.85
E5/STW
Export
F8/STF
5195.66
E6/STW
Export
F4/STF
E7/STW
Export
E8/STW
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
14.51
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
5148.78
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
F9/STF
4459.36
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
F5/STF
4384.75
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E9/STW
Export
T13/STF
3845.65
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E10/STW
Export
T5/STF
3465.07
14.51
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E11/STW
Export
F22/STF
3317.75
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E12/STW
Export
F15/STF
2731.36
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E13/STW
Export
F7/STF
2642.83
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E14/STW
Export
F1/STF
2582.04
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E15/STW
Export
F16/STF
2257.09
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
101
Sludge Intake
Works
Name
Site
Type
Destination
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/annum]
E16/STW
Export
E17/STW
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Tanker
Size [m3]
Any Non
Export
1927.63
25
Export
F14/STF
1832.66
E18/STW
Export
T11/STF
1455.47
E19/STW
Export
1142.08
E20/STW
Export
F6/STF
Any Non
Export
1137.06
E21/STW
Export
1127.44
E22/STW
Export
F20/STF
Any Non
Export
E23/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
E24/STW
Export
E25/STW
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
5.14
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
979.52
4.45
25
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
918.18
14.51
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Any Non
Export
900.86
4.04
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
Any Non
Export
869.04
5.4
25
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
E26/STW
Export
F21/STF
860.47
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E27/STW
Export
856.73
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E28/STW
Export
F2/STF
Any Non
Export
855.21
3.19
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E29/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
788.61
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E30/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
785.67
5.17
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
102
Sludge Intake
Works
Name
Site
Type
Destination
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/annum]
E31/STW
Export
E32/STW
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Tanker
Size [m3]
T1/STF
726.85
3.35
Export
T12/STF
700.61
E33/STW
Export
T9/STF
675.04
E34/STW
Export
635.6
E35/STW
Export
F19/STF
Any Non
Export
550.69
E36/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
E37/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
E38/STW
Export
E39/STW
Export
E40/STW
Export
E41/STW
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
3.55
27
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
544.24
5.94
25
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
537.09
2.75
27
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
T7/STF
Any Non
Export
536.76
17.17
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
530.22
5.24
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
519.46
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
F17/STF
Any Non
Export
500.95
14.5
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
E42/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
494.66
5.05
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E43/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
483.05
2.54
14.5
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
E44/STW
Export
T14/STF
478.26
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
Any Non
Export
477.36
4.05
27
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E45/STW
103
Sludge Intake
Works
Name
Site
Type
Destination
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/annum]
E46/STW
Export
E47/STW
Export
E48/STW
Export
E49/STW
Export
F10/STF
Any Non
Export
E50/STW
Export
E51/STW
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Tanker
Size [m3]
Any Non
Export
471.94
2.55
Any Non
Export
469.61
6.61
462.05
455.62
Any Non
Export
448.62
Export
T10/STF
E52/STW
Export
E53/STW
Export
T6/STF
Any Non
Export
E54/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
E55/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
E56/STW
Export
E57/STW
Export
F18/STF
Any Non
Export
E58/STW
Export
E59/STW
E60/STW
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
22
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
27
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
5.84
27
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
445.5
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
445.03
3.45
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
423.32
4.14
27
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
408.16
5.36
18
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
407.15
4.89
27
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
400.88
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
398.2
3.44
25
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
Any Non
Export
392.54
14.51
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
T8/STF
382.6
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
F24/STF
358.75
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
104
Sludge Intake
Works
Name
Site
Type
Destination
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/annum]
E61/STW
Export
E62/STW
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Tanker
Size [m3]
Any Non
Export
345.47
4.67
Export
Any Non
Export
342.67
2.33
E63/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
335.91
E64/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
330.36
E65/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
326.04
E66/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
E67/STW
Export
E68/STW
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
18
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
18
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
3.85
27
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
307.41
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Any Non
Export
296.46
14.51
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
Any Non
Export
295.36
3.96
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E69/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
275
18
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E70/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
266.22
14.51
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
E71/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
258.31
14.5
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E73/STW
Export
E72/STW
E74/STW
E75/STW
254.57
6.84
27
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
T4/STF
Any Non
Export
245.34
18
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
Any Non
Export
245.06
4.02
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
Any Non
Export
240.13
3.05
14.5
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
105
Sludge Intake
Works
Name
Site
Type
Destination
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/annum]
E76/STW
Export
E77/STW
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Tanker
Size [m3]
Any Non
Export
235.09
14.51
Export
Any Non
Export
230.24
3.73
E78/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
222.37
E79/STW
Export
221.59
E80/STW
Export
T2/STF
Any Non
Export
220.96
E81/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
220.11
E82/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
E83/STW
Export
E84/STW
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
18
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
14.5
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
14.51
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
4.91
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
218.27
5.21
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Any Non
Export
209.22
3.5
14.5
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
Any Non
Export
207.41
5.94
18
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E85/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
207
14.51
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
E86/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
207
5.06
20
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E87/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
200.59
2.83
27
Thickened
No
No
No
No
No
No
E88/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
194.19
4.44
25
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E89/STW
Export
Any Non
Export
191.04
14.51
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
Export
Any Non
Export
190.29
18
Raw
No
No
No
No
No
No
E90/STW
106
Sludge Intake
Works
Name
Site
Type
Destination
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/annum]
E92/STW
Export
E93/STW
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Tanker
Size [m3]
F13/STF
0.01
Export
F23/STF
0.01
F1/STF
Final
Disposal
7545
F2/STF
Final
Disposal
2268.24
F3/STF
Final
Disposal
F4/STF
Final
Disposal
F5/STF
Final
F6/STF
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
Digested Cake
No
No
No
No
No
No
Digested
No
No
No
No
No
No
56.45
220311.39
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
65
99163.05
Disposal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
14650
48.27
1619179.24
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
15081.5
54.92
1418747.01
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Disposal
5400
63.59
246493.87
Disposal
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Final
Disposal
2642.38
53.97
221179.62
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
F7/STF
Final
Disposal
4242.45
65
139039.17
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
F8/STF
Final
Disposal
18815.77
30.86
1785521.33
Disposal
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
F9/STF
Final
Disposal
9871.05
65
91992.97
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
F10/STF
Final
Disposal
890
65
91315.34
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
F11/STF
Final
Disposal
16008.38
33.11
1091016.21
Disposal
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
F12/STF
Final
Disposal
25853.66
29.26
2932435.94
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
F13/STF
Final
Disposal
750
42.84
1614.96
Disposal
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
107
Sludge Intake
Works
Name
Site
Type
Destination
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/annum]
F14/STF
Final
F15/STF
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Disposal
3932
65
278142.7
Final
Disposal
5140.45
65
F16/STF
Final
Disposal
4750
F17/STF
Final
Disposal
660
F18/STF
Final
Disposal
F19/STF
Final
Disposal
F20/STF
Final
F21/STF
Tanker
Size [m3]
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
225496.63
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
65
240881.44
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
97.56
43054.27
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
583.7
8.62
39961.67
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
2300
50.94
140460.85
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Disposal
1545.28
65
140320.94
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Final
Disposal
3117.38
65
118342.59
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
F22/STF
Final
Disposal
5037
54.14
212653.21
Disposal
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
F23/STF
Final
Disposal
5995.16
30
50000
Disposal
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
F24/STF
Final
Disposal
1455.12
65
72695.93
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
T1/STF
Transfer
Any Final
1596
25.71
30
50000
12.63
Disposal
Undigested
Cake
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
T2/STF
Transfer
Any Final
1404
75.81
246758.58
14.51
Digested
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
T3/STF
Transfer
F13/STF
1356
20
30
50000
Digested Cake
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
T4/STF
Transfer
F11/STF
260
30
50000
14.51
Thickened
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
108
Sludge Intake
Works
Name
Site
Type
Destination
Q Ind
[tds/annum]
Q Cap
[tds/annum]
T5/STF
Transfer
T6/STF
Dry Solids
[%age]
Treatment
Cost [/tds]
Fixed Cost
[/annum]
Tanker
Size [m3]
Any Final
6600
21.95
30
50000
12.63
Transfer
Any Final
490.01
30
50000
27
T7/STF
Transfer
Any Final
748.8
18
30
50000
T8/STF
Transfer
Any Final
504
2.5
61.4
T9/STF
Transfer
Any Final
1113.51
3.44
T10/STF
Transfer
Any Final
1482.2
T11/STF
Transfer
F11/STF
T12/STF
Transfer
Any Final
T13/STF
Transfer
T14/STF
Transfer
Sludge
Produced
Raw
Th
UC
DC
Undigested
Cake
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
12.63
Digested
Undigested
Cake
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
89123.89
14.51
Digested
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
163.88
89629.33
27
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
22.03
29.89
102693.34
12.63
Digested
Undigested
Cake
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
3000
20
111.09
501313.19
12.63
Undigested
Cake
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
1479.8
22.5
47.35
44814.61
12.63
Undigested
Cake
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Any Final
7495.16
30
606673.56
14.51
Digested
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Any Final
480
19.58
30
50000
12.63
Undigested
Cake
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
109
APPENDIX 3B
SCENARIO THREE: FINAL COST CHECK RESULT
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
1,223,797.012
1,001,113.578
1,334,323.719
1,051,249.815
1,106,601.972
995,971.174
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
995,997.211
885,371.78
996,052.151
1,095,363.214
1,207,740.377
1,230,236.625

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
517,112.510
423,092.053
564,611.178
446,186.928
469,714.499
422,743.049
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
422,743.049
375,771.599
422,743.049
466,784.164
517,512.063
525,330.162
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
22,463.764
18,379.444
24,505.925
19,400.524
20,421.604
18,379.444
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
18,379.444
16,337.283
18,379.444
20,421.604
11,104.691
247.021
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
684,006.982
559,642.076
744,477.130
585,612.584
616,383.773
554,745.396
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
554,745.396
493,107.019
554,745.396
607,696.674
676,541.013
698,462.691

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Cost ()
213.756
0.004
729.486
49.779
82.096
103.885
110
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cost ()
129.323
155.177
184.262
460.774
2,582.610
6,196.751

over period t.
1. E1/STW to F3/STF (Raw Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
34989.900
28628.100
38170.800
30218.550
31809.000
28628.100
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
28628.100
25447.200
28628.100
31809.000
36580.350
38170.800

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
29991.683
24538.650
32718.200
25901.908
27265.167
24538.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
24538.650
21812.133
24538.650
27265.167
31354.942
32718.200
3. E3/STW to F12/STF (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
14129.573
11560.560
15414.080
12202.813
12845.067
11560.560
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
11560.560
10276.053
11560.560
12845.067
14771.827
15414.080

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
22616.764
18504.625
24672.833
19532.660
20560.694
18504.625
111
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
18504.625
16448.556
18504.625
20560.694
23644.799
24672.833

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
15875.628
12989.150
17318.867
13710.769
14432.389
12989.150
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
12989.150
11545.911
12989.150
14432.389
16597.247
17318.867
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
15732.383
12871.950
17162.600
13587.058
14302.167
12871.950
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
12871.950
11441.733
12871.950
14302.167
13447.492
17162.600
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
13625.822
11148.400
14864.533
11767.756
12387.111
11148.400
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
11148.400
9909.689
11148.400
12387.111
14245.178
14864.533
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
13397.847
10961.875
14615.833
11570.868
12179.861
10961.875
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
10961.875
9743.889
10961.875
12179.861
14006.840
14615.833
112

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
10137.569
8294.375
11059.167
8755.174
9215.972
8294.375
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
8294.375
7372.778
8294.375
9215.972
10598.368
11059.167

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
8345.822
6828.400
9104.533
7207.756
7587.111
6828.400
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
6828.400
6069.689
6828.400
7587.111
8725.178
9104.533

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
8075.314
6607.075
8809.433
6974.135
7341.194
6607.075
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
6607.075
5872.956
6607.075
7341.194
8442.374
8809.433

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
7889.567
6455.100
8606.800
6813.717
7172.333
6455.100
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
6455.100
5737.867
6455.100
7172.333
8248.183
8606.800
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
6896.664
5642.725
7523.633
5956.210
6269.694
5642.725
113
Month
Jul
Aug
Volume (m3)
5642.725
5015.756
Sep
5642.725
Oct
Nov
Dec
6269.694
7210.149
7523.633

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
3533.988
2891.445
3855.260
3052.081
3212.717
2819.445
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2819.445
2570.173
2891.445
3212.717
2694.624
3855.260
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
5599.794
4581.650
6108.867
4836.186
5090.722
4581.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
4581.650
4072.578
4581.650
5090.722
5854.331
6108.867
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
3489.689
2855.200
3806.933
3013.822
3172.444
2855.200
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2855.200
2537.956
2855.200
3172.444
3648.311
3806.933
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2027.831
1659.134
2212.179
1751.308
1843.482
1659.134
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1659.134
1474.786
1659.134
1843.482
2120.005
2212.179
114

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
3444.956
2818.600
3758.133
2975.189
3131.778
2818.600
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
2818.600
2505.422
2818.600
3131.778
3601.544
3758.133
Apr
May
Jun
Oct
Nov
Dec

Month
Jan
Feb
Volume (m3)
Month
Mar
384.577
Jul
Aug
Sep
Volume (m3)
384.577

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2017.738
1650.876
1816.592
1742.592
1834.307
1650.876
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1650.876
1467.446
1650.876
1834.307
2109.453
1816.592

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2805.550
2295.450
3060.600
2422.975
2550.500
2295.450
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
2295.450
2040.400
2295.450
2550.500
2933.075
3060.600

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2044.031
1672.389
2229.851
1765.299
1858.210
1672.389
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1672.389
1486.568
1672.389
1858.210
2136.941
2229.851
115

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1475.222
1207.000
1609.333
1274.056
1341.111
1207.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1207.000
1072.889
1341.111
1542.278
1609.333
1207.000

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2629.214
2151.175
2868.233
2270.685
2390.194
2151.175
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
2151.175
1912.156
2151.175
2390.194
2748.724
2868.233

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2617.786
2141.825
2855.767
2260.815
2379.806
2141.825
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
2141.825
1903.844
2141.825
2379.806
2736.776
2855.767

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2457.500
2010.682
2680.909
2122.386
2234.091
2010.682
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
2010.682
1787.273
2010.682
2234.091
2569.205
2680.909

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2409.642
1971.525
2628.700
2081.054
2190.583
1971.525
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1971.525
1752.467
1971.525
2190.583
2519.171
2628.700
Volume (m )
116

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1393.032
1139.753
1519.671
1203.073
1266.393
1139.753
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1139.753
1013.114
1139.753
1266.393
1456.352
1519.671

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1942.111
1589.000
2118.667
1677.278
1765.556
1589.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1589.000
1412.444
1589.000
1765.556
2030.389
2118.667

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1421.969
1163.430
1551.239
1228.065
1292.700
1163.430
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1163.430
1034.160
1163.430
1292.700
1486.604
1551.239

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
839.877
687.172
916.229
725.348
763.524
687.172
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
687.172
610.819
687.172
763.524
878.053
916.229

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1790.300
1464.791
1953.055
1546.168
1627.545
1464.791
117
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1464.791
1302.036
1464.791
1627.545
1871.677
1953.055

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
927.548
758.903
1011.870
801.064
843.225
758.903
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
758.903
674.580
758.903
843.225
969.709
1011.870
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1587.239
1298.650
1731.533
1370.797
1442.944
1298.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1298.650
1154.356
1298.650
1442.944
1659.386
1731.533
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
918.408
751.425
1001.900
793.171
834.917
751.425
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
751.425
667.933
751.425
834.917
960.154
1001.900
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m )
897.898
734.644
979.525
775.457
816.271
734.644
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
734.644
653.017
734.644
816.271
938.711
979.525
118

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1743.291
1426.329
1901.772
1505.569
1584.810
1426.329
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1426.329
1267.848
1426.329
1584.810
1822.531
1901.772

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
5599.794
4581.650
6108.867
4836.186
5090.722
4581.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
4581.650
4072.578
4581.650
5090.722
5854.331
6108.867

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1080.444
884.000
1178.667
933.111
982.222
884.000
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
884.000
785.778
884.000
982.222
1129.556
1178.667

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1696.516
1388.059
1850.745
1465.173
1542.288
1388.059
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1388.059
1233.830
1388.059
1542.288
1773.631
1850.745

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
651.249
532.840
710.454
562.443
592.045
532.840
119
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
532.840
473.636
532.840
592.045
680.852
710.454

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1411.819
1155.125
1540.167
1219.299
1283.472
1155.125
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1155.125
1026.778
1155.125
1283.472
1475.993
1540.167
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
715.157
585.128
780.171
617.636
650.143
585.128
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
585.128
520.114
585.128
650.143
747.664
780.171
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1028.087
841.162
1121.550
887.894
934.625
841.162
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
841.162
747.700
841.162
934.625
1074.819
1121.550
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m )
937.303
766.884
1022.512
809.489
852.093
766.884
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
766.884
681.675
766.884
852.093
979.907
1022.512
120

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
698.035
571.119
761.493
602.848
634.577
571.119
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
571.119
507.662
571.119
634.577
729.764
761.493

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
Month
Volume (m3)
575.313

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
763.233
624.463
832.618
659.156
693.848
624.463
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
624.463
555.078
624.463
693.848
222.612
832.618

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1224.911
1002.200
1336.267
1057.878
1113.556
1002.200
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1002.200
890.844
1002.200
1113.556
1280.589
1336.267

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1061.095
868.169
1157.558
916.400
964.632
868.169
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
121
Volume (m3)
868.169
771.705
868.169
964.632
1109.327
1157.558

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
719.657
588.510
785.080
621.522
654.233
588.810
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
588.810
523.387
588.810
654.233
752.368
785.080

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1096.181
896.875
1195.833
946.701
996.528
896.875
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
896.875
797.222
896.875
996.528
1146.007
1195.833
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
678.117
554.823
739.764
585.647
616.470
554.823
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
554.823
493.176
554.823
616.470
708.941
739.764
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1348.129
1103.015
1470.687
1164.294
1225.572
1103.015
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1103.015
980.458
1103.015
1225.572
1409.408
1470.687

Month
3
Volume (m )
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
1026.392
839.775
1119.700
886.429
933.083
839.775
122
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
839.775
746.467
839.775
933.083
1073.046
1119.700
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
715.065
643.558

Month
Jan
Feb
Volume (m3)
786.571
643.558
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
643.558
572.052
643.558
715.065
822.325
858.078
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
858.078
679.312
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Volume (m3)
Month
Jul
Aug
Volume (m3)
Month
Jan
Feb
Volume (m3)
Month
76.267
Jul
Aug
Sep
Volume (m3)
76.267

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
996.233
815.100
1010.533
860.383
905.667
815.100
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
815.100
724.533
815.100
905.667
1041.517
1010.533

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
380.692
311.475
415.300
328.779
346.083
311.475
123
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
311.475
276.867
311.475
346.083
397.996
415.300

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
558.617
457.050
609.400
482.442
507.833
457.050
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
457.050
406.297
457.050
507.833
584.008
609.400

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
905.850
741.150
988.200
782.325
823.500
741.150
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
741.150
658.800
741.150
823.500
947.025
988.200

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
683.704
559.394
745.859
590.471
621.549
559.394
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
559.394
497.239
621.549
714.781
745.859
559.394

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
488.070
399.330
532.440
421.515
443.700
399.330
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
399.330
354.960
399.330
443.700
510.255
532.440
Mar
Apr
May
Jun

Month
Jan
Feb
124
Volume (m3)
789.281
645.775
861.033
681.651
717.528
645.775
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
645.775
574.022
645.775
717.528
825.157
861.033

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
558.802
457.201
609.602
482.602
508.002
457.201
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
457.201
406.401
457.201
508.002
584.202
609.602
Volume (m )

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
721.702
590.484
787.311
623.288
656.093
590.484
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
590.484
524.874
590.484
656.093
754.507
787.311

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
718.331
587.725
783.633
620.376
653.028
587.725
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
587.825
522.422
587.725
653.028
750.982
783.633

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
565.827
462.949
617.265
488.668
514.388
462.949
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
462.949
411.510
462.949
514.388
591.546
617.265
Mar
Apr
May
Jun

Month
Jan
Feb
125
Volume (m3)
679.464
555.925
741.233
586.810
617.694
555.925
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
555.925
494.156
555.925
617.694
710.349
741.233

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
675.156
552.400
736.533
583.089
613.778
552.400
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
552.400
491.022
552.400
613.778
705.844
736.533

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
410.932
336.217
448.289
354.896
373.574
336.217
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
336.217
298.859
336.217
373.574
429.610
448.289

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
384.032
314.208
418.944
331.664
349.120
314.208
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
314.208
279.296
314.208
349.120
401.488
418.944

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
547.957
448.329
597.771
473.236
498.143
448.329
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
448.329
398.514
448.329
498.143
572.864
597.771
126

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
320.077
261.881
349.175
276.430
290.979
261.881
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
261.881
232.783
261.881
290.979
334.626
349.175

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
474.375
388.125
517.500
409.687
431.250
388.125
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
388.125
345.000
388.125
431.250
495.937
517.500

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
375.000
306.818
164.653
323.864
340.909
306.818
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
306.818
272.727
306.818
340.909
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Oct
Nov
Dec
409.091

Month
Jan
Feb
Volume (m3)
Month
244.438
Jul
Aug
Sep
Volume (m3)
392.045

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
649.732
531.599
708.799
561.132
590.665
531.599
127
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
531.599
472.532
531.599
590.665
679.265
708.799

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
400.918
328.024
437.365
364.247
364.471
328.024
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
328.024
291.577
328.024
364.471
419.141
437.365

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
581.442
475.725
634.300
502.154
528.583
475.725
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
475.725
422.867
475.725
528.583
607.871
634.300
82. E92/STW to F13/STF (Digested Cake Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
0.031
0.025
0.033
0.026
0.028
0.025
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
0.025
0.022
0.025
0.028
0.032
0.033
83. E93/STW to F23/STF (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
0.031
0.025
0.033
0.026
0.028
0.025
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
0.025
0.022
0.025
0.028
0.032
0.033
128
1. E9/STW to T13/STF (Raw Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
11750.597
9614.125
12878.833
10148.243
10682.361
9614.125
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
9614.125
8545.889
9614.125
10682.361
12284.715
12818.833

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
10587.714
8662.675
11550.233
9143.935
9625.194
8662.675
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
8662.675
770.156
8662.675
9625.194
11068.974
11550.233

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
4447.269
3638.675
4851.567
3840.824
4042.972
3638.675
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
3638.675
3234.378
3638.675
4042.972
4649.418
4851.567

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1988.893
1627.276
2169.701
1717.680
1808.085
1627.276
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1627.276
1446.468
1627.276
1808.085
2079.297
2169.701

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2140.753
1751.525
2335.367
1848.832
1946.139
1751.525
129
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Volume (m3)
1751.525
1556.911
1751.525
1946.139
2238.060
Dec
2335.367

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
2062.622
1687.600
2250.133
1781.356
1875.111
1687.600
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
1687.600
1500.089
1687.600
1875.111
2156.378
Volume (m )
2250.133

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
286.564
234.461
312.615
247.487
260.513
234.461
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
234.461
208.410
234.461
260.513
299.589
312.615

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1461.350
1195.650
1594.200
1262.075
1328.500
1195.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1195.650
1062.800
1195.650
1328.500
1527.775
1594.200

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1361.250
1113.750
1485.000
1175.625
1237.500
1113.750
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1113.750
990.000
1113.750
1237.500
1423.125
1485.000

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1182.447
967.457
1289.942
1021.204
1074.952
967.457
130
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
967.457
859.961
967.457
1074.952
1236.194
1289.942

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1169.056
956.500
1275.333
1009.639
1062.778
956.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
956.500
850.222
956.500
1062.778
1222.194
1275.333

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
840.278
687.500
916.667
725.694
763.889
687.500
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
687.500
611.111
687.500
763.889
878.472
916.667

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
749.650
613.350
817.800
647.425
681.500
613.350
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
613.350
545.200
613.350
681.500
783.725
817.800
14. E73/STW to T4/STF (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
341.163
279.134
372.178
294.641
310.149
279.134
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
279.134
248.119
279.134
310.149
356.671
372.178
Mar
Apr
May
Jun

Month
Jan
Feb
131
Volume (m3)
677.081
553.975
738.633
584.751
615.528
553.975
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
553.975
492.422
553.975
615.528
707.857
738.633

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
583.733
477.600
636.800
504.133
530.667
477.600
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
477.600
424.533
477.600
530.667
610.267
636.800
Volume (m )
17. E91/STW to T10/STF (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
0.031
0.025
0.033
0.026
0.028
0.025
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
0.025
0.022
0.025
0.028
0.032
0.033
1. T1/STF to F8/STF (Undigested Cake Sludge)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
259.152
212.033
282.711
223.813
235.593
212.033
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
212.033
188.474
212.033
235.593
36.334
Apr
May
Jun
Oct
Nov
Dec
2. T2/STF to F23/STF (Digested Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Volume (m3)
710.935
581.674
613.042
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Volume (m3)
132
3. T4/STF to F11/STF (Thickened Sludge)

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
388.926
318.212
424.283
335.891
353.569
318.212
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
318.212
282.586
318.212
353.569
406.605
63.172

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1447.068
1183.965
1180.218
1249.741
1315.516
1183.965
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1183.965
1052.413
1183.965
1315.516
585.769
Apr
May
Jun
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec

Month
Jan
Feb
Volume (m3)
Month
Mar
398.401
Jul
Aug
Volume (m3)
Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1427.805
1168.204
1557.605
1233.104
1298.004
1168.204
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1168.204
1038.403
1168.204
1298.004
1008.601

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
273.350
223.650
298.200
236.075
248.500
223.650
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
223.650
198.800
223.650
248.500
237.308
133

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
982.007
803.460
1071.280
848.097
892.733
803.460
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
803.460
714.187
803.460
892.733
417.923

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
1259.159
1030.221
1373.628
1087.455
1144.690
1030.221
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
1030.221
915.752
1030.221
1137.255

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
481.377
393.854
525.138
415.735
437.615
393.854
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
393.854
350.092
393.854
437.615
467.721

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
667.090
545.801
727.735
576.124
606.446
545.801
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
545.801
485.157
545.801
606.446
175.148

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
285.434
233.537
311.382
246.511
259.485
233.537
134
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Volume (m3)
233.537
207.588
233.537
259.485
61.716
Dec

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
12338.127
10094.831
13459.775
10655.655
11216.479
10094.831
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
10094.831
8973.183
10094.831
6345.372

Month
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Volume (m3)
223.904
183.195
244.259
193.372
203.550
183.195
Month
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Volume (m3)
183.195
162.840
183.195
203.550
234.082
39.969

(ALL
0.000)
solid.
Transfer
Sludge type
Month
Works j
Jan
T2/STF
Digested
T3/STF
Digested Cake
Transfer
Sludge type
0.00092
Feb
0.002
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
3.250
15.530
28.456
40.090
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.005
Month
Works j
Jul
T1/STF
Undigested Cake
T2/STF
Digested
51.723
Aug
62.064
135
Sep
73.698
Oct
86.624
Nov
Dec
60.315
133.000
101.489
117.000
T3/STF
Digested Cake
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.010
T4/STF
Thickened
T5/STF
Undigested Cake
203.493
550.000
T6/STF
Digested
9.682
40.834
T7/STF
Undigested Cake
8.724
62.400
T8/STF
Digested
15.218
42.000
T9/STF
Digested
45.540
92.792
T10/STF
Undigested Cake
7.829
123.517
T11/STF
Undigested Cake
104.453
250.000
T12/STF
Undigested Cake
53.256
123.317
T13/STF
Digested
355.401
624.597
T14/STF
Undigested Cake
21.667
0.256
97.422
40.000
solid.
Final
Sludge type
Month
treatment
Works k
Jan
Mar
F3/STF
Thickened
82.436
F8/STF
Raw
143.683
F8/STF
Thickened
111.489
F12/STF
Raw
26.149
F12/STF
Thickened
F18/STF
Raw
Apr
May
Jun
Nov
82.436
105.431
245.055
4.484
Dec
9.728
136
329.818
7.296
7.296
2.432
7.296
17.025

Optimisation of Sewage Sludge Logistics in Wastewater Treatment Plants

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Optimisation of Sewage Sludge Logistics in Wastewater Treatment Plants

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

OPTIMISATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE LOGISTICS

OYEDUN ADETOYESE OLAJIRE

25th September, 2009

Supervised by: Professor Nilay Shah

Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology

This piece of work is dedicated to the Almighty

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii

Aim and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 2

CHAPTER TWO: WASTEWATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT .............................. 4

Wastewater Treatment Overview ................................................................................... 4

Preliminary Treatment ............................................................................................. 5

Primary Treatment (Sedimentation) ........................................................................ 5

Secondary (Biological) Treatment........................................................................... 6

Final Settlement ....................................................................................................... 6

Tertiary Treatment ................................................................................................... 7

Sewage Sludge Treatment and Disposal Options ........................................................... 7

2.2.1 Sewage Sludge Treatment ............................................................................................. 8

Sewage Sludge Disposal Options .......................................................................... 13

2.2.3.1 Agricultural Use of Sewage Sludge ................................................................... 13

CHAPTER THREE: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................. 19

Overview of Logistics .................................................................................................. 19

Existing Models on Waste Management Logistics ...................................................... 19

Existing Models on Sewage Sludge Logistics ............................................................. 22

CHAPTER FOUR: MODEL FORMULATION ................................................................ 26

Problem Statement ....................................................................................................... 26

Mathematical Formulation ........................................................................................... 27

CHAPTER FIVE: YORKSHIRE WATER CASE STUDIES ........................................... 39

Works at Yorkshire Water ........................................................................................... 40

Distances between Works ............................................................................................ 41

Monthly Variations in Production of Sludge at Export Works .................................... 42

Loss Fraction of Dry Solid Retained at Transfer Works.............................................. 43

Inventories of Sludge at Different Works .................................................................... 44

CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................... 45

Scenario One: Transfer Check. .................................................................................... 45

Transfer Check 1 ................................................................................................... 45

Transfer Check 2 ................................................................................................... 49

Scenario Two: Model Test. .......................................................................................... 51

Model Test 1 .......................................................................................................... 51

Model Test 2 .......................................................................................................... 55

Scenario Three: Final Cost Check. .............................................................................. 59

CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................. 64

Recommendations for Further Work ........................................................................... 65

Figure 2.0: Typical stages in the conventional treatment of sewage ......................................... 4

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Aim and Objectives

Detailed study of the Yorkshire Water static model

Application of the dynamic model to three example problems of Yorkshire Water to

CHAPTER TWO: WASTEWATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT

Wastewater Treatment Overview

Dense solids for disposal

Liquid Effluents to discharge

Wastewater and Sewage Treatment

2.1.1 Preliminary Treatment

2.1.2 Primary Treatment (Sedimentation)

Wastewater and Sewage Treatment

2.1.3 Secondary (Biological) Treatment

2.1.4 Final Settlement

Wastewater and Sewage Treatment

2.1.5 Tertiary Treatment

Figure 2.1: Schematic representation of sludge transformation from wastewater to

Sewage Sludge Treatment and Disposal Options

Wastewater and Sewage Treatment

Sewage sludge is a by-product of wastewater treatment, which contains around 3% of solids

2.2.1 Sewage Sludge Treatment