Improvements to an Expert System for

Water Treatment Plant Design

By

Samantha Jonquil van Staden

A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Engineering

as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

Magister Philosophiae

in

Civil Engineering

at the

RAND AFRIKAANS UNIVERSITY

Supervisor: Prof. J. Haarhoff

September 2001
 i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following people:

o Professor Johannes Haarhoff, my thesis supervisor, for all his time, advice, and
assistance, as well as his good conversation.

o The Water Research Commission for commissioning this project and their financial
assistance.

o Mr Tony Ceronio and Mr Azgar Amod for their help with data collection and their
willingness to share both their data and interpretations with me.

o My wonderful family and mother-in-law for their constant encouragement and for
helping me keep a clear head and to see the positive side of things.

o The many people that contributed data and time to help me towards the end-point of
this project.

o To my Lord, no words can express.

o Last, but by no means least, to my husband, Andries 'Muggie' van Staden: Half of this
belongs to you for your help, support and encouragement throughout this project, as
well as the good advice and constant prayers. You truly live up to the words of Linda
Dillow:

"We are to have a willing attitude

and do everything in our home with pleasure
because we are doing it for the people
God has given us to love."
 ii

ABSTRACT

WATREX is an expert system used to aid in potable water treatment plant

design and was developed several years ago by the Water Research
Commission. More recently, this system was tested and a number of
deficiencies identified. Amongst these deficiencies were the list of possible
chemicals that should be additionally included in the system, as well as the
prediction of turbidity removal. The objectives of this project were to
investigate and improve these deficiencies. This was achieved in two ways.
The chemical addition deficiency was improved through the introduction of
new chemicals as separate processes and via improved formulation to
model the effects of these chemicals using a spreadsheet with automated
calculation abilities. Turbidity removal prediction was improved by the
mathematical modelling using data obtained from existing water treatment
plants throughout South Africa. The results obtained from the chemical
addition improvements were compared to those obtained from other models
and found to be correct. The modelling of the turbidity removal data resulted
in a series of equations that predict turbidity removal based on plant
performance and incoming turbidity values, a first of its kind. Though
complete, these models have yet to be incorporated into the existing
WATREX system.
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................i
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vii
List of Symbols ........................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Existing Expert Systems in the Water Industry................................................................ 1
1.2 WATREX.......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objectives of this Thesis .................................................................................................. 3
1.3.1 Deficiencies Addressed By this Thesis ..................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Deficiencies Not Addressed By This Thesis ............................................................. 3
Chapter 2: Literature and Resource Study ............................................................................ 5
2.1 Expert Systems ................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 The Knowledge Base ................................................................................................ 6
2.1.2 The Inference Mechanism......................................................................................... 7
2.2 The Current State of WATREX ........................................................................................ 8
2.2.1 Water Quality Parameters Considered by WATREX .............................................. 10
2.2.2 Water Treatment Processes Considered by WATREX........................................... 12
2.2.3 How WATREX Weighs Different Process Options ................................................. 13
2.3 Deficiencies of WATREX ............................................................................................... 15
2.3.1 Previously Identified Deficiencies............................................................................ 15
2.3.1.1 Process Ordering.............................................................................................. 15
2.3.1.2 Turbidity Removal Predictions.......................................................................... 16
2.3.2 Deficiencies Identified During This Review ............................................................. 16
2.3.2.1 Chemical Additions ........................................................................................... 16
Chapter 3: Chemical Dosing and its Water Quality Effects ................................................. 17
3.1 What WATREX Currently Does ..................................................................................... 17
3.2 Suggestions to Improve WATREX................................................................................. 17
3.3 Equilibrium Chemistry .................................................................................................... 23
3.4 Carbonate Chemistry ..................................................................................................... 28
3.5 Chlorine Chemistry......................................................................................................... 30
3.6 Effects of Chemical Dosing............................................................................................ 31
3.6.1 Raw Water Example................................................................................................ 34
3.6.2 Example of CaCO 3 Addition ................................................................................... 41
3.6.3 Example of NaOCl Addition .................................................................................... 46
3.6.4 Example of FeCl 3 Addition...................................................................................... 51
3.7 Computer implementation.............................................................................................. 57
 iv

Chapter 4: Modelling Turbidity Removal ............................................................................. 59

4.1 What WATREX Currently Does ..................................................................................... 59
4.2 Suggested Alternative Procedure .................................................................................. 61
4.3 Data Collection............................................................................................................... 62
4.3.1 Balkfontein Water Treatment Plant ......................................................................... 63
4.3.2 Churchill Water Treatment Plant ............................................................................. 63
4.3.3 Cullinan Water Treatment Plant .............................................................................. 63
4.3.4 Durban Heights Water Treatment Plant .................................................................. 63
4.3.5 Faure Water Treatment Plant.................................................................................. 64
4.3.6 Hazelmere Water Treatment Plant.......................................................................... 64
4.3.7 Klipdrift Water Treatment Plant ............................................................................... 64
4.3.8 Loerie Water Treatment Plant ................................................................................. 65
4.3.9 Maselspoort Water Treatment Plant ....................................................................... 65
4.3.10 Midvaal Water Treatment Plant............................................................................. 65
4.3.11 Nooitgedagt Water Treatment Plant...................................................................... 65
4.3.12 Rietvlei Water Treatment Plant ............................................................................. 66
4.3.13 Rustfontein Water Treatment Plant....................................................................... 66
4.3.14 Steenbras Water Treatment Plant......................................................................... 66
4.3.15 Vaalkop Water Treatment Plant (# 2 and # 3) ...................................................... 67
4.3.16 Volvlei Water Treatment Plant ............................................................................ 67
4.3.17 Wallmannsthal Water Treatment Plant ................................................................. 67
4.3.18 Welbedacht Water Treatment Plant ...................................................................... 67
4.3.19 Wiggins Water Treatment Plant ............................................................................ 68
4.3.20 Zuikerbosch Water Treatment Plant ..................................................................... 68
4.4 Selecting the Processes for Modelling........................................................................... 68
4.5 Example of Model Calibration ........................................................................................ 72
4.6 Results ........................................................................................................................... 82
4.6.1 NTU in versus NTU FR Graphs ................................................................................. 86
4.6.2 NTU in versus NTU out Graphs ................................................................................. 89
Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................ 95
References .............................................................................................................................. 97
Appendices ................................................................................................................................. I
Appendix 1: Chemical Spreadsheet........................................................................................ I
Appendix 2: Turbidity Data Spreadsheets .............................................................................. I
Appendix 3: Process Trains ................................................................................................... II
 v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1.1: The Components of an Expert System. ............................................................... 6

Figure 2.2.1 Screen shot of the WATREX Raw Water Entry table.......................................... 8
Figure 2.2.2 Screen shot of the WATREX Product Water Limit Selection table. .................... 9
Figure 2.2.3 Screen shot of the WATREX Select Unit Process Subset table. ...................... 12
Figure 2.2.4 Screen shot of the WATREX Define Resource Availability table. ..................... 14
Figure 2.2.5 Screen shot of a typical WATREX Process Subset short-list table................... 14
Figure 2.2.6 Screen shot of a typical WATREX water parameter output table. ...................... 15
Figure 4.4.1 Plot of NTU in versus NTU out for preoxidation data. ............................................ 70
Figure 4.4.2 Plot of NTU in versus NTU out for coagulation data. ............................................. 70
Figure 4.4.3 Plot of NTU in versus NTU out for combined coagulation / flocculation data......... 71
Figure 4.4.4 Plot of NTU in versus NTU out for separate flocculation data................................ 71
Figure 4.5.1 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for horizontal settling data............................ 72
Figure 4.5.2 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for vertical settling data. ............................... 73
Figure 4.5.3 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for clariflocculation data. .............................. 73
Figure 4.5.4 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for flotation data. .......................................... 74
Figure 4.5.5 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for combined flotation / filtration data. .......... 74
Figure 4.5.6 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for filtration data. .......................................... 75
Figure 4.5.7 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for horizontal settling data. ..................................... 76
Figure 4.5.8 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for vertical settling data. ......................................... 76
Figure 4.5.9 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for clariflocculation data. ........................................ 77
Figure 4.5.10 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for flotation data.................................................... 77
Figure 4.5.11 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for combined flotation and filtration data. ............. 78
Figure 4.5.12 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for filtration data.................................................... 78
Figure 4.6.1 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled horizontal settling data................................. 86
Figure 4.6.2 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled vertical settling data..................................... 87
Figure 4.6.3 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled clariflocculation data. ................................... 87
Figure 4.6.4 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled flotation data. ............................................... 88
Figure 4.6.5 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled combined flotation and filtration data........... 88
Figure 4.6.6 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled filtration data. ............................................... 89
Figure 4.6.7 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled horizontal settling data. ............................... 90
Figure 4.6.8 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled vertical settling data..................................... 90
Figure 4.6.9 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled clariflocculation data.................................... 91
Figure 4.6.10 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled flotation data.............................................. 91
Figure 4.6.11 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled combined flotation and filtration data. ....... 92
Figure 4.6.12 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled filtration data.............................................. 92
Figure 4.6.13 Comparison of settling data ( NTU in versus NTU out ). ...................................... 93
Figure 4.6.14 Comparison of settling data ( NTU in versus NTU out ). ...................................... 94
Figure A3.1 Balkfontein water treatment plant process train. ................................................... II
 vi

Figure A3.2 Churchill water treatment plant process train. ...................................................... III
Figure A3.3 Cullinan water treatment plant process train. ....................................................... III
Figure A3.4 Durban Heights water treatment plant process train. ........................................... IV
Figure A3.5 Faure water treatment plant process train. ............................................................ V
Figure A3.6 Hazelmere water treatment plant process train. ................................................... VI
Figure A3.7 Klipdrift water treatment plant process train. ........................................................ VI
Figure A3.8 Loerie water treatment plant process train. ......................................................... VII
Figure A3.9 Maselspoort water treatment plant process train................................................. VII
Figure A3.10 Midvaal water treatment plant process train..................................................... VIII
Figure A3.11 Nooitgedagt water treatment plant process train................................................ IX
Figure A3.12 Rietvlei water treatment plant process train........................................................ IX
Figure A3.13 Rustfontein water treatment plant process train. ................................................. X
Figure A3.14 Steenbras water treatment plant process train.................................................... X
Figure A3.15 Vaalkop #2 water treatment plant process train. ................................................ XI
Figure A3.16 Vaalkop #3 water treatment plant process train. ............................................... XII
Figure A3.17 Volvlei water treatment plant process train..................................................... XIII
Figure A3.18 Wallmannsthal water treatment plant process train.......................................... XIII
Figure A3.19 Welbedacht water treatment plant process train. .............................................XIV
Figure A3.20 Wiggins water treatment plant process train. ....................................................XV
Figure A3.21 Zuikerbosch water treatment plant process train...............................................XV
 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2.1 Table of WATREX parameters and the importance of their measurement.......... 11
Table 3.2.1 Names of chemicals to be included in the WATREX system and their chemical
formulae................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 3.2.2a Suggested parameters to be used to define water quality and their units of
measurement........................................................................................................................... 19
Table 3.2.3 Additional parameters to be used for computational purposes and their units of
measurement........................................................................................................................... 20
Table 3.2.3b Additional parameters to be used for computational purposes and their units of
measurement (cont.)................................................................................................................ 21
Table 3.2.4a SABS water quality guidelines. .......................................................................... 22
Table 3.2.4b SABS water quality guidelines (cont.). ............................................................... 23
Table 3.6.1 Summary of effects of each chemical on each water quality parameter.............. 33
Table 3.6.2 Parameters used to define a raw water................................................................ 34
Table 4.2.1 Description of terminology of turbidity prediction variables and associated
calculations. ............................................................................................................................. 61
Table 4.4.1 Table of comparison of processes selected for this project with processes
currently used by WATREX..................................................................................................... 69
Table 4.5.1a Typical data set with X and k x values (example: Filtration). .............................. 79
Table 4.5.1b Typical data set with X and k x values (example: Filtration) (cont.) .................... 80
Table 4.5.1c Typical data set with X and k x values (example: Filtration) (cont.) .................... 81
Table 4.6.1a X and k x values, and equations for each process modelled. ............................. 83
Table 4.6.1b X and k x values, and equations for each process modelled (cont.)................... 84
Table 4.6.1c X and k x values, and equations for each process modelled (cont.)................... 85
Table 4.6.2 Key code for turbidity modelling graphs. .............................................................. 86
 viii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

l Litres

d Activity coefficient for divalent ions

m Activity coefficient for monovalent ions
0 Ionisation fraction of H 2CO 3*
1 Ionisation fraction of HCO 3-
2 Ionisation fraction of CO 32-
A Ionisation fraction of HOCl
B Ionisation fraction of OCl-
[H+]eq Equilibrium [H+] concentration
[H+]i Initial [H+] concentration
Acyi Initial acidity (eq/l)
Alk Alkalinity (eq/l)
Alkeq Alkalinity at equilibrium (eq/l)
Alki Initial/incoming alkalinity (eq/l)
CCPP Calcium carbonate precipitation potential (mg/l)
CT Total dissolved carbonate species (mol/l)
CT* Total dissolved chlorine species (mol/l)
D Dielectric constant for water, generally taken to have a value of 78.3
DAFF Dissolved air flotation and filtration
DOC Dissolved organic carbon
EC Electrical conductivity (mS/m)
eq/l equivalents per litre
GAC Granular activated carbon
I Ionic strength of the solution with respect to all ionised solutes (moles/l)
K1 First equilibrium constant corrected for ionic strength (mol/l)
K2 Second equilibrium constant corrected for ionic strength (mol/l)
Ks Solubility product for calcium carbonate corrected for ionic strength (mol/l)
2
Kw Ionic product for water corrected for ionic strength (mol/l)
K1 First equilibrium constant (mol/l)
k10 10th percentile
K2 Second equilibrium constant (mol/l)
k20 20th percentile
k25 25th percentile
k5 5th percentile
k50 50th percentile
k75 75th percentile
 ix

k80 80th percentile

k90 90th percentile
k95 95th percentile
Kc Ionisation constant for hypochlorous acid (mol/l)
Ks Solubility product for calcium carbonate (mol/l)
Kw Ionic product for water (mol/l) 2
LI Langelier index
NTU Nephelometric turbidity units
NTU% Percentage turbidity removed (NTU)
NTUFR Fraction turbidity remaining (NTU)
NTUin Initial/incoming turbidity (NTU)
NTUout Final/outgoing turbidity (NTU)
PAC Powdered activated carbon
2+
pCa p-notation for calcium concentration
peq Equilibrium p value for CCPP determination
pHeq pH at equilibrium
pHs pH at saturation
pi Initial p value for CCPP determination
pK1 p-notation for first equilibrium constant
pK2 p-notation for second equilibrium constant
pKs p-notation for solubility product
pKw p-notation for ionic product
req Equilibrium r value for CCPP determination
RI Ryznar index
seq Equilibrium s value for CCPP determination
si Initial s value for CCPP determination
Tc Temperature (C)
TDS Total dissolved solids (mg/l)
TON Threshold odour number
teq Equilibrium t value for CCPP determination
TH Total hardness (mg/l of CaCO3)
THM Trihalomethanes (g/l)
ti Initial t value for CCPP determination
Tk Temperature (Kelvin)
 x

X The incoming parameter value, below which the process has a negligible effect
Xnegative Total negative charge equivalents (eq/l)
Xpositive Total positive charge equivalents (eq/l)
Xtotal Total charge equivalents (eq/l)
Ynegative Nett negative charge equivalents - excluding [OH-], [HCO3-], [CO32-] and [OCl-] (eq/l)
Ypositive Nett positive charge equivalents - excluding [H+] (eq/l)
Ytotal Nett charge equivalents - excluding [H+], [OH-], [HCO3-], [CO32-] and [OCl-] (eq/l)
Z Oxidation number of the chemical species of interest (monovalent ions = 1; divalent
ions = 2; trivalent ions = 3)
 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Existing Expert Systems in the Water Industry

The water utility industry has been exploring ways in which it can make use of computer
technology to enhance water operations and management. One possibility is that of the
expert system. Expert systems are an emerging technology and, therefore, there are few
examples of such systems, especially in the water industry. However, those systems that
have been developed show much promise for their eventual success.

The earliest expert systems in the water industry date back to 1986, when WATER MAID
(Water Micro-computer Assisted Interactive Design) was developed by the United States
Environmental Protection Agencys (EPAs) Water Engineering Research Laboratory to
estimate the performance and costs of existing and proposed drinking water treatment
systems (Smith, 1986).

In 1987, an expert system for upgrading small water supplies in the UK was developed by
Thames Polytechnic, in collaboration with the Water Research Centre (WRc). This expert
system was the realisation of a project that spanned a two-year period and included the
construction of a rule-base, as well as testing by the WRc (Knight, 1987).

In 1994, Clarkson University developed a computer program known as WALTER 1.0

(AWWARF Learning, Tutorial and Educational Resource), which was a follow-up project to
the American Water Works Research Foundation (AWWARF) project entitled Knowledge-
Based Expert systems In Water Utility Operations and Management. The objective of this
system was to train operations personnel and to help diagnose treatment plant problems
(Haarhoff, 2000).

Following this, in 1998, was the development of CHLOROS (an expert-hypertext system for
water chlorination and chloramination operations). The development of this system was
proposed by the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, and was finally undertaken by
the University of Torontos Department of Civil Engineering. The primary objective of this
system was to assist treatment plant operations personnel in the choice of control parameters
(Bather et al., 1998; Haarhoff, 2000).

Even more recently, the Water Research Commission (WRC) of South Africa has funded the
development of ALGEPAK, an algal identification and problem solving system. This system
was developed by the Potchefstroom Universitys Department of Botany, in collaboration with
Rand Water, and is geared towards treatment plant operation during times when algae are
present in the raw water (Haarhoff, 2000).
 2

1.2 WATREX

WATREX (an acronym for Water Treatment Expert System) is a project that began several
years ago. WATREX is an expert system developed by the Water Research Commission to
aid in potable water treatment plant design, with a focus on process selection, although it may
also be used for sensitivity analyses, options testing and plant modelling (WRC, 1996). It has
been developed in various phases and by various groups of people. The first phase placed
emphasis on the development of the knowledge base and was undertaken by a consulting
engineering company. The second phase improved on the inference engine behind the
expert system and was undertaken by a software company with a strong engineering
background. The completion of this project will see the fulfilment of the third phase,
considered necessary after preliminary testing of the system. This system is being developed
to aid the designer towards optimal water treatment plant process selection and preliminary
design (Haarhoff, 2000).

The WATREX expert system consists of a knowledge base, which is used to store information
about processes and process selection; an inference engine, which performs the decision
support function, making use of the knowledge and rule bases; and a user interface, which
allows the user to view logic traces, reasoning behind the decisions taken by the system, as
well as acting as a platform for user inputs and system outputs (WRC, 1996).

This expert system calls for two basic requirements from the user, namely a raw water
definition and a desired final water definition. The definitions for these two water types are
achieved by the selection of water quality values, referred to by the system as parameters.
The system then proceeds to suggest a suitable treatment train, made up of a number of
processes, which will yield the desired final water quality. The selection criteria for these
processes are based on both the defined raw water quality values and some non-technical
criteria as stipulated by the user, known as the resource ranking. The system also requires
the user to confirm each process selection step that it takes, in order to ensure that processes
that may not be appropriate for the specified raw water source are not selected. After the last
phase of development, the WATREX system was tested and assessed by a steering
committee and it was found to have a number of deficiencies, which are listed in section 1.3
below.
 3

1.3 Objectives of this Thesis

The primary objective of this thesis was to study WATREX as it currently stands, identify
specific deficiencies in the system and work towards the improvement of some of these
deficiencies. The deficiencies identified are listed in sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 below. Section
1.3.1 explains those deficiencies addressed by this project, whilst section 1.3.2 explains those
deficiencies not addressed by this project.

1.3.1 Deficiencies Addressed By this Thesis

1. The first deficiency identified and addressed was that of the list of chemicals that
could be added. It was found that this list was insufficient and excluded some
chemicals commonly used in water treatment, as well as some that will be introduced
due to new legislation.
2. The second deficiency identified was closely linked to the first, in that each chemical
addition step was not treated as a separate process but, instead, incorporated into
other unit processes or chemical addition steps.
3. The third deficiency addressed was that of phase removal results. It was found that
the current system yielded unrealistic phase removal results, the majority of which
were based on various estimates from international studies.
4. A fourth deficiency identified during this study was that of the user interface. It was
found that certain parts of the user interface were not as "user-friendly" as they could
be. However, this deficiency can be easily rectified with a few 'aesthetic' changes
and was, therefore, not considered in depth by this thesis, though it does warrant a
mention.

It was proposed that the first two deficiencies could be improved by addressing the
chemical equations and, thereby, the chemistry of the current system, as well as the
establishment of a prediction model that would allow each chemical addition to be viewed
as a separate process. Furthermore, it was suggested that the third deficiency could be
improved by mathematic modelling using phase removal data from South African water
treatment plants.

1.3.2 Deficiencies Not Addressed By This Thesis

1. One of the deficiencies identified was that of water quality parameters. WATREX
was found to use a list of nineteen parameters used to define water quality.
However, this list was found to be excessive. The inclusion of a parameter implies
that the effect of all processes on it can be predicted or modelled, which was clearly
not the case for all the parameters included in the current system. However, it was
decided not to exclude any of these parameters at this stage.
 4

2. Another deficiency identified involved the processes considered by the current

system. The current list of twenty-one was found to be excessive. However, this
could be attributed to the inclusion of a number of processes with the same basic
function, such as various sedimentation and filtration processes. However, it was
decided that this list should not be decreased at this stage.
3. The last deficiency identified was that of the process ordering. It was found that the
logic of the process ordering was flawed. This was evident when certain processes,
necessary to precede others for their correct functioning, were instead placed after
such processes or were excluded entirely from the resultant treatment train.
 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE AND RESOURCE STUDY

2.1 Expert Systems

An expert system, at its simplest level, can be considered to be a complex model, where a
model is defined as any knowledge or technique that can be represented or implemented
on a computer, and generally implies either a mathematical or conceptual model (Haarhoff,
2000).

A conceptual model is used to explain entities (objects in the real or imaginary world), about
which information is wanted (Haarhoff, 2000). Such models are concerned with capturing the
meaning of data and usually use some form of diagrammatic representation to do this (Fiorini,
2001). Examples of such models would include flow diagrams of water treatment plants or
hierarchical maps of employees within a company.

A mathematical model is a mathematical expression, graph, chart, diagram, etc. that is used
to represent specific characteristics of an actual situation that occurs in the world (Fiorini,
2001). It is used to judge how well a conceptual model fits with observed data (Haarhoff,
2000). Examples of mathematical models include plots of lines generated by mathematical
formulae versus those generated by captured data.

According to Haarhoff (2000) a model must fulfil certain requirements:

o The model must be as simple as possible.
o The model must follow a clear or rational process.
o The model must be unbiased.
o The model must be manageable.
o The model should, to a certain degree, be able to assess hypothetical situations.

Whilst an expert system is a manifestation of artificial intelligence (Hefley, 2001), it is not able
to replicate true human reasoning at this point (Collins et al., 1990). In its basic form, it is a
system that captures or mimics the thought process used by a human expert for a specific
field or domain of knowledge, in order to solve complex problems (Muscarello, 2001). An
expert system makes use of heuristics to provide knowledge about and insight into various
tasks. These heuristics include judgement, experience, rule-of-thumb, intuition and other
expertise. Due to the increase of expert knowledge as a result of the introduction of new
technologies and techniques, no true expert system is ever finished, but needs to be
continually updated and refined (Collins et al., 1990). An expert system has various
components, which add to the functioning of the system in various ways (refer Figure 2.1.1).
These components are defined and described below.
 6

USER EXPERT

User Interface Explanation Facility Knowledge Acquisition

Context Knowledge Base

Inference Mechanism

Figure 2.1.1: The Components of an Expert System.

(adapted from Collins et al., 1990).

Figure 2.1.1 represents how knowledge from an expert is fed into the knowledge base using a
knowledge acquisition facility (see section 2.1.1 below). This knowledge is then used in the
inference mechanism as the basis of decision-making by the system, as well as in the
explanation facility to explain these decisions to the user via the user interface. The user also
supplies certain basic information required by the system via this user interface (see section
2.2.2 below). This information is used by both the inference mechanism and the explanation
facility as a definition of the context of the problem presented to the system.

2.1.1 The Knowledge Base

Knowledge is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995) as ones range of information,
understanding or familiarity gained by experience (albeit theoretical or practical) with respect
to a specific subject. Such knowledge is contained in the knowledge base of an expert
system, and constitutes the information used by experts to solve a problem in a particular
domain (Nix and Collins, 1991). This knowledge is represented in a form that is
comprehensible and accessible to both the computer and the user, and is typically captured
and structured with a series of If-Then rules (Patrick, 1993). These rules describe the
domain of knowledge as well as the line of reasoning behind the decisions made by the
system. Certainty factors can be applied to better simulate confidence in the rules (Collins et
al., 1990).

The knowledge base is usually a separate entity from the main software of an expert system
(WRC, 1996) and is designed and built by a knowledge engineer (Patrick, 1993). This can be
done using a knowledge acquisition facility, which is a tool that provides a convenient way to
edit, modify, and add rules and may also aid in the development of those rules. However, the
task of acquiring the knowledge is time-consuming, involving the study of the domain in
question, interviews with experts in the field, and then the analysis and interpretation of the
 7

collected expertise to yield information as to how the human expert goes about solving a
particular problem (Collins et al., 1990).

According to Collins et al. (1990) such expertise needs to include the following:
o Possible solutions and components of solutions to the problem;
o Relevant information or data needed to solve the problem;
o Goals required to achieve intermediate, as well as final solutions;
o Ways of moving between intermediate solutions, including the processing of data to
allow for such transitions;
o The abilities required for the transition between potential solutions.

As a result of all these requirements, it is important that, apart from having some
understanding of the domain of the expert system, the knowledge engineer must also be
skilled in the knowledge acquisition process (Nix and Collins, 1991).

2.1.2 The Inference Mechanism

Inference, in the Oxford Concise Dictionary (1995), is defined as the act of deducing or
concluding from facts and reasoning. The inference mechanism, or engine, is that part of the
expert system which contains the programmed code required for the problem-solving strategy
or reasoning process. The knowledge base is translated into a suitable form for the chosen
software and integrated with other portions of the system during the implementation step of
the expert system development. It is used by the inference mechanism to analyse
information known about the problem, i.e. the context. This is done using predetermined
rules, certainty factors and ranking values (Collins et al., 1990). The context is continuously
updated as the system is operated and as more information regarding the problem is
generated via calculations (Collins et al., 1990). The information gathered is also used by the
explanation facility to provide the user with information about reasoning processes via the
user interface. Such reasons include why certain inputs are required and how the system
comes to certain conclusions (Collins et al., 1990).

Collins et al. (1990) defines the reasoning process to be one of two types:
1. Forward chaining, whereby all the information known about the problem is studied
to obtain a solution. In this process, all the rule premises are reviewed in a forward
chain (with some rules determining the outcome of other rules) until a final solution is
reached (known as the goal-state). However, this process type poses the problem
that all initial information is analysed, regardless of its relevance. Such a reasoning
process would be used in a situation where there is an unknown solution.
2. Backward chaining, whereby a goal-state is determined at the start and, in turn,
determines whether information about the problem is consistent with this state. A
hypothesis is tested and, if it proves to be invalid, another is tested until the correct
 8

hypothesis is identified. Therefore, only relevant information is used to reach a

solution. An example of this would be the current WATREX system, where the
desired outcome is predetermined but the steps required to reach this outcome are
unknown.

2.2 The Current State of WATREX

WATREX, the water treatment expert system, functions as a tool for the selection and design
of an optimal water treatment plant (as described in the previous chapter). Each separate
process of selection and design for a specific treatment plant is saved as a separate file,
referred to by the system as a consultation.

As shown in figures 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 below, the raw water and desired final water inputs
consist of a list of nineteen parameters. For each parameter the user is required to estimate
a value from three given options. The selection of a value for each parameter and its
inclusion (in the raw water definition) is indicated by a crossed checkbox ([). These values
will determine the course of the consultation.

Figure 2.2.1 Screen shot of the WATREX Raw Water Entry table.
 9

Figure 2.2.2 Screen shot of the WATREX Product Water Limit Selection table.

In the case of raw water values the user must select from three possible input values
(minimum, mean or maximum), and specify whether to include a parameter in the
consultation. In the case of product water values, the user must select from three possible
output risks (Risk I, II or III).

In addition, the user must rank five non-technical resources (see Chapter 2.2.3), according to
their availability, which will also act as criteria in the process selection phase of the
consultation. The user may also stipulate which processes may not be suitable for a specific
consultation before entering the process selection phase. Once the process selection phase
has been entered, the user may stipulate which processes are suitable by confirming or
rejecting selections made by the system, as well as determining the ranking criteria used by
the system for each process selection step. When the process selection phase is complete
the user may alter the treatment train selected by the system by adding or replacing certain
processes, as well as having the option to re-run the process selection phase from the
beginning.

Upon completion of the process selection phase, the consultation is considered complete,
provided the user is satisfied with the suggested process treatment train and design. The
user then has the options of viewing the final water outcome (parameters, costing and design
outputs), as well as various errors encountered during the consultation. The user may also
choose to print these outputs in various combinations. Each consultation may have a matrix
of up to 378 water quality outputs based on 18 water quality parameters by 21 possible
 10

treatment processes. However, additional outputs, in the form of logic traces, errors and
schematic representations for each selected process, are possible.

2.2.1 Water Quality Parameters Considered by WATREX

The nineteen parameters used in WATREX are generally grouped in categories, as shown in
Table 2.2.1 below. These categories are based on those set out in the SABS drinking water
guidelines (see Chapter 3, Tables 3.2.3a b). The significance of each parameter, in terms
of water quality, is indicated in the table as well.
 11

Table 2.2.1 Table of WATREX parameters and the importance of their measurement.

PARAMETER UNITS IMPORTANCE OF PARAMETER

Plant requirements
Ml/day 1)
Plant flow rate Necessary for the calculations of other plant parameters; such as dosage,
loading rates, number of sedimentation/filtration tanks etc.

Physical and organoleptic requirements

1)
Water temperature C Affects the chemical equilibria
1)
Turbidity NTU A measure of colloidal and suspended matter
2)
Indicator of microbiological water quality and inefficient water treatment
3)
Affects the appearance, and thus the aesthetic acceptibility, of the water
4)
Affects the risk of infectious disease transmission
5)
May affects the taste and colour of the water
1)
Colour Pt Hazen Affects the appearance, and thus the aesthetic acceptibility, of the water
2)
An indicator of possible taste and odour problems
1)
pH pH units Affects the taste of the water (low pH = sour taste; high pH = soapy taste )
2)
An indicator of possible corrosion problems
3)
An indicator of potential copper, zinc and cadmium problems
4)
May affect the performance and functioning of other processes
1)
Hardness as CaCO3 mg/l CaCO3 A combination of calcium and magnesium
2)
Affects the scaling and foaming quality of the water at high levels
3)
Affects the taste of the water at high levels
4)
Associated with corrosion problems at low levels
Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/l CaCO3 1) The sum of carbonate and bicarbonate ions
2)
The capacity of a solution to neutralize acid down to a specific value
3)
Makes water brackish or unpalatable at high concentrations
mg/l 1)
Dissolved solids Affects the taste and "freshness" of the water

Chemical requirements: Macro-determinands

2+ 1)
Dissolved Calcium: as Ca mg/l Affects the scaling and foaming quality of the water at high levels
2)
Affects corrosion of the water at low levels
3)
Affects the taste of the water
4)
May indicate toxicity of heavy metals
2+ 1)
Dissolved Magnesium: as Mg mg/l Affects the taste of the water (high levels = bitter taste )
2)
May cause diarrhoea at high levels
3)
Affects scaling at high levels
4)
May cause suppression of the central nervous system at excessive levels
mg/l 1)
Ammonia: as N May affect chlorine disinfection
2)
May indicate toxicity and/or pollution of the water

Chemical requirements: Micro-determinands

2+
Dissolved Iron: as Fe g/l 1)
Affects the taste and colour of the water
2)
Affects growth of iron reducing bacteria, which appear as black specks in the water
3)
Excessive amounts may be toxic
Dissolved Manganese: as Mn g/l 1)
Affects the colour of the water and can cause stains in laundry
2)
Excessive amounts may be toxic
3)
May affect the taste of the water

Chemical requirements: Organic Determinands

mg/l 1)
Dissolved organic carbon A measure of organic materials in the water
2)
An indicator of possible taste and odour problems
Trihalomethanes g/l 1)
An indicator of possible carcinogenic compounds in the water
2)
A measure of volatile compounds in the water

Microbiological requirements
1)
Total coliforms MPN/100ml An indicator of disease-causing organisms in the water (general hygienic quality )
2)
An indicator of the effectiveness of disinfection
Chlorophyll a g/l 1)
An estimation of algal growth
2)
An indicator of possible taste and odour problems

Derived parameters
1)
Langelier Index pH units An indicator of the water's tendency to precipitate
mg/l 1)
Calcium carbonate precipitation potential A measure of precipitation or corrosion potential of the water
 12

2.2.2 Water Treatment Processes Considered by WATREX

The WATREX system requires certain user inputs for decision-making steps. The user is
required to stipulate which processes the system should exclude from the consultation in the
Select Unit Process Subset table (Figure 2.2.3), by crossing the relevant check boxes ([).

Figure 2.2.3 Screen shot of the WATREX Select Unit Process Subset table.

The twenty-one possible unit treatment processes incorporated into WATREX can be
grouped into eight treatment categories, as listed below:
1. Pre-treatment
o Circular Sedimentation (CSTOR)
o Rectangular Sedimentation (RSTOR)
o Horizontal Roughening Filtration (HRF)
o Pre-Ozonation (PreOz)
o Peroxone (Perox)
o Pre-dose Algae control Copper Sulphate (PreAlg)
2. Coagulation/Flocculation
o Rapid Mix Aluminium Sulphate (Alum) (RMIX)
o Mechanical Horizontal-shaft Flocculation (MFLOC)
o Hydraulic Rectangular Flocculation (HFLOC)
 13

3. Sedimentation/Flotation
o Rectangular Flow Sedimentation (RHSED)
o Circular Upflow Sedimentation (CUSED)
o Inclined Plate Sedimentation (PlateSED)
o Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)
4. Filtration
o Slow Sand Filtration (SSF)
o Monomedia Rapid Sand Filtration (1mRSF)
5. Adsorption
o Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)
6. Disinfection
o Chlorine and Chloramination (Cl2)
7. pH Modification
o Lower pH with Sulphuric Acid (LpHA)
o Raise pH with Quick Lime (RpHL)
o Raise pH with Soda Ash (RpHS)
8. Sludge Handling
o Circular Gravity Sludge Thickening (CGST)

2.2.3 How WATREX Weighs Different Process Options

Treatment processes in WATREX are chosen, firstly, according to their collective ability to
obtain the desired product water quality from the stipulated raw water quality and, secondly,
according to the resources required from its environment, such as cost or expertise.

As each process is selected, calculations for each water quality parameter are performed.
The values obtained for these parameters are then used by the system to provide a short-list
of appropriate processes that will achieve the desired product water quality from the
stipulated raw water, with the most appropriate process at the top of the list. This short-list is
then further ranked according to how appropriate each process will be to the environment in
terms of resource availability and requirements, such as cost and expertise, as well as to
which processes are included in the consultation. The ranking of the resources can be
defined by the user, at the beginning of the consultation, as one of five choices described
below (see Figure 2.2.4):

o Low (representing a resource that is scarcely available and is in high demand)

o Medium Low (representing a resource that is scarcely available and there is a
medium high demand for it)
o Medium (representing a resource that is available and there is an average demand
for it)
 14

o Medium High (representing a resource that is readily available resource and there
is a medium low demand for it)
o High (representing a resource that is readily available and in low demand)
NOTE: A crossed checkbox ([) indicates whether the system should consider a resource in
the ranking process.

Figure 2.2.4 Screen shot of the WATREX Define Resource Availability table.

However, the user still has the freedom to override the process selection suggested by the
system, based on various weighting or ranking options, as shown in figure 2.2.5 below, which
indicates:
o How each process can be weighted out of a value of 100 (see 'Weighting Options'
and the 'Wt' column)
o What the feed and product waters for the specific process is expected to be (see
'Water Data')
o And which process the user has chosen and which parameters are used by the
system (the '[' symbol under the 'Use' columns).

Figure 2.2.5 Screen shot of a typical WATREX Process Subset short-list table.
 15

Once the user has viewed all the options and selected a process, the system can continue
with the next process (WRC, 1996).

As each process selection is made, the associated water quality data is added to a water
quality trace table at the bottom of the user interface (Figure 2.2.6), with an indication of how
the parameter value rates in terms of the desired product water quality. There is also the
option of viewing the cost calculations that the system has performed, both for each process
and the entire treatment train, i.e. the cumulative cost. Once the treatment train is complete,
the user has the option of printing various types of information. These include the feed limits
and ranking values for each process, the design and calculations for each process, the water
quality and cost trace throughout the resultant treatment train (a hard-copy of Figure 2.2.6),
as well as the logic trace used by the system for the consultation and the errors encountered
by the system.

Figure 2.2.6 Screen shot of a typical WATREX water parameter output table.

2.3 Deficiencies of WATREX

2.3.1 Previously Identified Deficiencies

A steering committee set up to monitor and implement the WATREX system found two
deficiencies during the last testing phase of the project. These deficiencies are outlined in
sections 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2 below.

2.3.1.1 Process Ordering

The steering committee found whilst the system is able to determine a complete treatment
process train with the help of user inputs, it was found to produce unusual or incorrect
process orderings during some consultations, such as flocculation being placed after
sedimentation instead of before it. This is a deficiency at a basic level and, therefore, needs
to be addressed before the system can be considered to work properly.
 16

2.3.1.2 Turbidity Removal Predictions

The removal predictions for turbidity were found to be inaccurate and at times completely
unrealistic. Since turbidity is a measure of all suspended and colloidal matter in water, it
plays a vital role in the determination of appropriate processes for a treatment train. As a
result, removal predictions for this parameter need to be as accurate as possible and,
therefore, this deficiency needs to be addressed for accurate decision-making by the system.

2.3.2 Deficiencies Identified During This Review

2.3.2.1 Chemical Additions

A deficiency was defined during this review in the chemical addition steps included in the
current WATREX system. The current system only incorporates eight chemical addition
steps, which account for only twelve chemicals, whereas there are many more currently used
in water treatment. Furthermore, these steps are mostly coupled with other processes or
chemical additions, rather than being considered as independent processes. It was also
found that some of the chemicals are not commonly used in the water industry and are
outdated, with more cost-effective chemicals having been tested and approved more recently.
In order for the system to be up-to-date and accurate, this deficiency needs to be addressed.

Stasoft is an existing and accepted water quality program. The possibility of linking Stasoft to
WATREX to address the chemical addition deficiency in WATREX was explored during
previous phases of development. However, this proved to be too difficult and, therefore, a
more complex solution to this deficiency was considered necessary.
 17

CHAPTER 3: CHEMICAL DOSING AND ITS WATER QUALITY EFFECTS

3.1 What WATREX Currently Does

It was shown in the literature review how WATREX reduces treatment plant performance to a
matrix of 18 water quality parameters (excluding flow rate) by 21 different processes. With a
known mathematical relationship in each of the 378 cells, the water quality can then be
estimated as the water moves through successive treatment processes.

With regard to chemical dosing, a few problems exist within the current version of WATREX.
The first problem lies with the selection of available processes. Some of these processes
only involve the addition of a chemical (for example change of pH with sulphuric acid, quick
lime or soda ash) whereas other processes deal with one or more chemicals at the same time
(for example chlorine/chloramination). Others still are processes, in which chemical addition
only forms a part of the process (for example the addition and mixing of aluminium sulphate).
Furthermore certain chemicals, which are commonly used in the water industry, are not
included in the system (for example ferric chloride). There will also be new chemicals
introduced in South Africa in the near future, which the system does not allow for (such as
sodium fluoride or fluorosilicic acid for water fluoridation).

The second deficiency within WATREX with regard to chemical dosing is that the chemical
equilibrium is not explicitly checked as a control on the water quality parameters entered by
the user.

A third difficulty lies with the fact that primary measured parameters are not clearly
distinguished from "check parameters" (such as a cation/anion balance) or "derived
parameters" (such as the Langelier Index, which is calculated from the primary parameters).
Moreover, the parameters are not grouped in the conventional way, as reflected in most water
quality guidelines or report sheets.

3.2 Suggestions to Improve WATREX

Table 3.2.1 suggests a list of chemicals proposed by this project to be included in the
WATREX system. These chemicals were chosen to represent those currently used for water
treatment, as well as some that will be introduced in the future. The addition of each of these
chemicals should be considered as a "process" in its own right, on the same footing as
processes like settling (or sedimentation) and filtration.

As a result of the suggestions in Table 3.2.1, lists of parameters to be used for definition and
computational purposes are proposed in Tables 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 respectively. The parameters
are grouped to be in line with SABS categories (see Table 3.2.4) and according to the
classification of primary, check and derived parameters, with some additional parameters.
 18

Table 3.2.1 Names of chemicals to be included in the WATREX system and their
chemical formulae.

NAME OF CHEMICAL CHEMICAL FORMULA

Hydrochloric acid HCl

Sulphuric acid H 2SO 4
Sodium hydroxide NaOH
Sodium carbonate Na 2CO 3
Calcium hydroxide Ca (OH )2
Magnesium hydroxide Mg (OH )2
Calcium carbonate CaCO 3
Ammonia NH 3
Sodium hypochlorite NaOCl
Ferric chloride FeCl 3
Ferric sulphate Fe 2(SO 4)3
Aluminium sulphate lump Al 2(SO 4)3
Aluminium sulphate liquid Al 2(SO 4)3
Chlorine Cl 2
Calcium hypochlorite Ca (OCl )2
Ammonium hydroxide NH 4OH
Sodium fluoride NaF
Fluorosilicic acid H 2SiF 6
 19

Table 3.2.2a Suggested parameters to be used to define water quality and their units of
measurement.

PARAMETERS UNITS IN WATREX

Physical and organoleptic parameters

Colour Hazen Y
Dissolved solids (TDS ) mg/l Y
Electrical conductivity (EC ) mS/m N
Alkalinity (Alk ) mg/l of CaCO3 Y
Total hardness (TH ) mg/l of CaCO3 Y
Temperature (T c ) C Y
Temperature (T k ) K Y
pH pH units Y
Turbidity NTU Y

Chemical parameters: Macro-determinands

Ammonia as NH 3 mg/l Y
Calcium as Ca mg/l Y
Chloride as Cl mg/l N
Fluoride as F mg/l N
Magnesium as Mg mg/l Y
Nitrate as NO 3 mg/l N
Nitrite as NO 2 mg/l N
Potassium as K mg/l N
Sodium as Na mg/l N
Sulphate as SO 4 mg/l N
Zinc as Zn mg/l N

Chemical parameters: Micro-determinands

Aluminium as Al g/l N
Iron as Fe g/l Y
Manganese as Mn g/l Y

Chemical parameters: Organic Determinands

Dissolved organic carbon as C mg/l Y
Total trihalomethanes (THM ) g/l Y
 20

Table 3.2.3 Additional parameters to be used for computational purposes and their
units of measurement.

PARAMETERS UNITS IN WATREX

Check parameters
Calcium as Ca mol/l N
Magnesium as Mg mol/l N
Potassium as K mol/l N
Sodium as Na mol/l N
Zinc as Zn mol/l N
Aluminium as Al mol/l N
Iron as Fe mol/l N
Manganese as Mn mol/l N
Chloride as Cl mol/l N
Fluoride as F mol/l N
Nitrate as NO 3 mol/l N
Nitrite as NO 2 mol/l N
Sulphate as SO 4 mol/l N
+
Nett Positive Charge Equivalents (excl. H ) (Y positive ) eq/l N
-
Nett Negative Charge Equivalents (excl. OH , carbonate, chlorine) (Y negative ) eq/l N
Nett Charge Equivalents (Y total ) eq/l N
Hydrogen as H mol/l Y
Hydroxide as OH mol/l Y
Carbonic acid as H 2CO 3* mol/l Y
Bicarbonate as HCO 3 mol/l Y
Carbonate as CO 3 mol/l Y
Hypochlorous acid as HOCl mol/l N
Hypochlorite as OCl mol/l N
Ammonia as NH 3 mol/l N
Percentage Difference Total Charge Equivalents (X positive - X negative ) % eq/l N
Theoretical TDS mg/l Y
 21

Table 3.2.3b Additional parameters to be used for computational purposes and their
units of measurement (cont.).

PARAMETERS UNITS IN WATREX

Derived parameters
First equilibrium constant - p-notation (pK 1) N/S Y
Second equilibrium constant - p-notation (pK 2) N/S Y
Ionic product of water - p-notation (pK w ) N/S Y
Solubility product of calcium carbonate - p-notation (pK s ) N/S Y
First equilibrium constant (K 1) mol/l Y
Second equilibrium constant (K 2) mol/l Y
2
Ionic product for water (K w ) (mol/l) Y
Solubility product for calcium carbonate (K s ) mol/l Y
Ionisation product for hypochlorous acid (K c ) mol/l N
Ionisation fraction of H2CO3* ( 0) N/S Y
Ionisation fraction of HCO3 ( 1) N/S Y
Ionisation fraction of CO3 ( 2) N/S Y
Ionisation fraction of HOCl ( A ) N/S N
Ionisation fraction of OCl ( B ) N/S N
Total dissolved carbonate species (C T ) mol/l Y
Total dissoved chlorine species (C T *) mol/l N
A N/S Y
Ionic strength (I ) moles/l Y
Monovalent activity coefficient ( m ) N/S Y
Divalent activity coefficient ( d ) N/S Y
2+
pCa (p-notation for calcium concentration) N/S Y
First equilibrium constant - corrected for ionic strength (K '1) mol/l Y
Second equilibrium constant - corrected for ionic strength (K '2) mol/l Y
2
Ionic product for water - corrected for ionic strength (K 'w ) (mol/l) Y
Solubility product for calcium carbonate - corrected for ionic strength (K 's ) mol/l Y
pH at saturation (pH s ) pH units Y
Initial p value (p i ) N/S Y
Initial s value (s i ) N/S Y
Initial t value (t i ) N/S Y
Initial Acidity (Acy i ) N/S Y
Hydrogen at equilibrium (H eq ) mol/l Y
Equilibrium p value (p eq ) N/S Y
Equilibrium s value (s eq ) N/S Y
Equilibrium t value (t eq ) N/S Y
Equilibrium r value (r eq ) N/S Y
Equilibrium sum (should be = 0 ) N/S Y
Equilibrium alkalinity (Alk eq ) eq/l Y
Langelier Index (LI ) pH units Y
Ryznar Index (RI ) pH units N
Calcium carbonat precipitation potential (CCPP ) Hazen Y
NOTE - N/S represents a parameter that has no specific units (not specified)
 22

Table 3.2.4a SABS water quality guidelines.

1 2 3 4 5
Upper limits and ranges
Determinants Units
Class 0 (Ideal) Class I (Acceptable) Class II (Max. allowable)
Physical and organoleptic requirements
Colour mg/ PT 15 20 50
Conductivity at 25 Celsius mS/m 70 150 370
Dissolved solids mg/ 450 1000 2 400
Odour TON 1 5 10
pH at 25 Celsius pH units 6.0 - 9.0 5.0 - 9.5 4.0 - 10.0
Taste FTN 1 5 10
Turbidity NTU 0.1 1 10

Chemical requirements: Macro-determinands

Ammonia as N mg/ 0.2 1 2
Calcium as Ca mg/ 80 150 300
Chloride as Cl mg/ 100 200 600
Fluoride as F mg/ 0.7 1 1.5
Magnesium as Mg mg/ 30 70 100
Nitrate and nitrite as N mg/ 6 10 20
Potassium as K mg/ 25 50 100
Sodium as Na mg/ 100 200 400
Sulphate as SO4 mg/ 200 400 600
Zinc as Zn mg/ 3 5 10

Chemical requirements: Micro-determinands

Aluminium as Al g/ 150 300 500
Antimony as Sb g/ 5 10 50
Arsenic as As g/ 10 50 200
Cadmium as Cd g/ 3 5 20
Chromium as Cr g/ 50 100 500
Cobalt as Co g/ 250 500 1 000
Copper as Cu g/ 500 1 000 2 000
Cyanide (free) as CN g/ 70 70 70
Cyanide (recoverable) as CN g/ 70 200 300
Iron as Fe g/ 10 200 2 000
Lead as Pb g/ 10 50 100
Manganese as Mn g/ 50 100 1 000
Mercury as Hg g/ 1 2 5
Nickel as Ni g/ 50 150 350
Selenium as Se g/ 10 20 50
Vanadium as V g/ 100 200 500

Chemical requirements: Organic Determinands

Dissolved organic carbon as C mg/ 5 10 20
Total trihalomethanes g/ 100 200 300
Phenols g/ 5 10 70
NOTE - The limits for iron are based on aesthetic aspects.
 23

Table 3.2.4b SABS water quality guidelines (cont.).

1 2 3 4 5
1)
Allowable compliance contribution
Determinants Units 95 % min. 4 % max. 1 % max.
Upper limits
Heterotrophic plate count count/m 100 1 000 10 000

Total coliform count/100 m Not detected 10 100

Faecal coliform count/100 m Not detected 1 10

Somatic coliphages count/10 m Not detected 1 10

Enteric viruses count/100 Not detected 1 10

Protozoan parasites (Giardia/Cryptosporidium) count/100 Not detected 1 10

1)
the allowable compliance contribution shall be at least 95 % to the limits indicated in column 3, with a
maximum of 4% and 1%, respectively, to the limits indicated in colums 4 and 5. The objective of disinfection
should, nevertheless, be to attain 100 % compliance to the limits indicated in column 3.

In order to improve WATREX chemical addition deficiency, a number of calculations for each
chemical added were performed. These calculations were grouped into three categories,
namely equilibrium calculations, carbonate calculations, and chlorine calculations (see
sections 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5 respectively).

3.3 Equilibrium Chemistry

The sum of the concentrations (mg/l) of all ions present in the water should represent an
approximation of the total dissolved solids (TDS) in the water, which can also be used to
approximate the electrical conductivity (EC) of the water (Drinking Water Standards, 2000):

TDS = ionic concentrations equation 1

TDS
EC = equation 2
6 .5
where: 6.5 is an average conversion constant accepted for surface water

The sum of the concentrations (mg/l) of calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) can be used to
determine the total hardness (TH) of the water, as follows (Drinking Water Standards, 2000):

TH = [2.497 calcium (mg/l)] + [4.118 magnesium (mg/l)] equation 3

According to Sawyer and McCarty (1978), all positively charged species in solution (cationic
equivalents) must be balanced by equivalent numbers of negatively charged species (anionic
equivalents), known as electroneutrality:

[X] positive = [X] negative equation 4

 24

OR
0 = [X] positive [X] negative equation 5
where: [X] positive = 2[Ca] + 2[Mg] + [K] + [Na] + 2[Zn] + 3[Al] + 3[Fe] + 2[Mn] + [H]
equation 6
and: [X] negative = [Cl] + [F] + [NO 3] + [NO 2] + 2[SO 4] + [OH] + [HCO 3] + 2[CO 3] + [OCl]
equation 7

However, in order to determine the molar concentration of each species (needed for
equations 4 7), the following equation is required as adapted from Benefield et al. (1982):

concentrat ion of substance (mg/l )

Molar concentrat ion (mol/l ) =
molecular weight of substance (g/mol ) 1000 (mg / g )
equation 8

+
However, chemical addition may lead to a change in pH and, therefore, the [H ] value. This
would in turn affect the molar concentrations of OH, the carbonate and the chlorine species
(see sections 3.4 and 3.5 below). This would mean that the molar concentrations of these
ionic species are unknown. However, they can be solved by using the electroneutrality
equation in a different form:

[Y] positive = 2[Ca] + 2[Mg] + [K] + [Na] + 2[Zn] + 3[Al] + 3[Fe] + 2[Mn]
i.e. Y positive is X positive excluding [H] equation 9

[Y] negative = [Cl] + [F] + [NO 3] + [NO 2] + 2[SO 4] equation 10

i.e. Y negative is X negative excluding [OH], [HCO 3], [CO 3] and [OCl]

[Y] total = [Y] positive [Y] negative equation 11

Some ionic species are more difficult to determine, requiring the use of equilibrium constants
(K values), such as hydrogen and carbonate species. These equilibrium constants are, in
turn, dependent on temperature as shown below (Benefield et al., 1982; Loewenthal and
Marais, 1976):

17052
pK 1 = + 215.21(logT k ) 0.12675(T k ) 545.56 equation 12
Tk

2902.39
pK 2 = + 0.02379 (T k ) 6.498 equation 13
Tk
 25

4787.3
pK w = + 7.1321(log T k ) + 0.010365 (T k ) 22.801 equation 14
Tk

pK s = 0.01183 Tc + 8.03 equation 15

where: Tk = Tc + 273.15 equation 16

In order to convert the pK values above into K values (equilibrium constants), pX notation is
used (Loewenthal and Marais, 1976):
pX = log [X]
equation 17
pX
or: [X] = 10

These equilibrium constants can be further used to determine the calcium carbonate
precipitation potential (CCPP), as well as the distribution of carbonate species in the water
(see section 3.4 below). However, each equilibrium constant first needs to be corrected for
ionic strength using activity coefficients (), which are determined using the Davies
relationship as follows (Benefield et al., 1982):

I
log = AZ 2 0.2I equation 18
1+ I

where: A = 1.82 10 6 (DTk )

3
2 equation 19
Z = oxidation number of the chemical species of interest
I = (2.5 10-5) TDS equation 20

NOTE: D = 78.3 (dielectric constant for water)

and: Z = 1 (for monovalent species)
= 2 (for divalent species)
= 3 (for trivalent species)

To make the calculations simpler, one can determine the activity coefficient for monovalent
species first ( m) using above equation 18 and then determine those for divalent ( d) and
trivalent species ( t) as follows:

log d = 4 log m equation 21

log t = 9 log m equation 22

 26

To correct the equilibrium constants for ionic strength, the following equations are used
(Benefield et al., 1982):
K1
K 1' = equation 23
( m )2

K2
K 2' = equation 24
d

Kw
K w' = equation 25
( m )2

Ks
K s' = equation 26
( d )2

These equilibrium constants (corrected for ionic strength) are later used to determine CCPP,
using the procedure outlined in Schock (1990), and described below (also see Benefield et
al., 1982 for equations 28 and 29):

CCPP = 50000 (Alk i Alk eq) equation 27

where: Alk i = equivalent concentration of alkalinity in the current water state (eq/l)
and: Alk eq = equilibrium alkalinity (eq/l)

molecular weight (g/mol )

Equivalent weight (g/eq ) = equation 28
no. of available protons (eq/mol )

concentrat ion of substance (mg/l )

Equivalent concentrat ion (eq/l ) =
equivalent weight of substance (g/eq ) 1000 (mg / g )
equation 29

However, the determination of Alk eq is a complex one, requiring the determination of its own
set of variables first, as shown below:

t eq
Alk eq = (Acy i s eq ) s eq equation 30
p eq

Alk i + s i
where: Acy i = p i + s i equation 31
ti

p eq =
[ ]
2H+ eq + K 1'
equation 32
K 1'
 27

[ ]
s eq = H +
[H ]
eq
K w'
+
equation 33
eq

2K + [H ]
'
2
+

=
eq
t eq
[H ] +
eq
equation 34

NOTE when calculating Acy i: p i =

[ ] +K
2H+ i
'
1
equation 35
K 1'

[ ] [HK ]
'
si = H + i
w
+
equation 36
i

2K + [H ]
'
2
+
=
[H ]
i
ti +
equation 37
i

[H+]i = [H+] concentration in the current state of the water (see section 3.4)

Whilst the determination of Acy i and its component values p i, s i and t i is relatively simple, the
determination of p eq, s eq and t eq is complicated by the need to determine the value for [H+]eq.
This value can only be determined through an iterative trial-and-error approach where the
correct value for this variable is reached when the following equation is solved:

2K s' r eq p eq t eq (Acy i s eq )
[
2 Ca 2 + ]
i Alk i =
t eq (Acy i s eq )

p eq
+ s eq equation 38

where: r eq =
[H ] +
eq + 2K 2'
equation 39
K 2'

CCPP, along with two saturation indices (LI and RI), is an indicator of the corrosion or scaling
potential of the water. The two saturation indices are determined as follows (Benefield et al.,
1982; Schock, 1990):

LI = pH pH s equation 40
RI = 2 pH s pH equation 41

where: pH = log[H+] equation 42

2+
pH s = pK'2 + pCa pKs log (2[Alk]) log m equation 43

NOTE: use pX notation to obtain values for pK'2, pCa2+, and pK's
[Alk] = [CO32] + [HCO3] + [OH] [H+] (see section 3.4 below)
equation 44
 28

CCPP values should ideally fall between 4 and 4 (WRC, 1996). A CCPP value above zero
indicates the mg/l of CaCO 3 that will precipitate and, therefore, scaling will occur. A CCPP
value below zero indicates the mg/l of CaCO 3 that will dissolve and, therefore, corrosion will
occur.

In the case of the Langelier index, an LI value of zero indicates that no scaling or corrosion
will occur. An LI value less than zero indicates the tendency for the precipitation of CaCO 3
and, therefore, scaling. An LI value above zero indicates the tendency for CaCO 3 to dissolve
and, therefore, for corrosion to occur.

In the case of the Ryznar index an RI value above 7.0 indicates the tendency for CaCO 3 to
dissolve and, therefore, for corrosion to occur. An RI value below 6.5 indicates the tendency
of CaCO 3 to precipitate and, therefore, scaling is more likely to occur.

3.4 Carbonate Chemistry

The carbonate system in water consists of three basic species, namely carbonic acid [H 2CO
* 2
3 ], bicarbonate [HCO 3 ], and carbonate [CO 3 ]. The respective amounts of these three
+
species in water depends on the pH and, therefore, on the amounts of [H ] and [OH ] present.
As mentioned in section 3.3 above, equilibrium constants can be used to determine the
+
distribution of the carbonate species in water, as well as for [H ] and [OH ]. However, in order
to determine carbonate species distribution other values are required. These values are
either the alkalinity (Alk) or the total carbonate species (CT) and specific ionisation fractions (
values). Possibilities for each species' determination are outlined below (Loewenthal and
Marais, 1976; Benefield et al., 1982):

[H ] = 10
+ pH
equation 45

[OH ] = [KH ]
w
+ equation 46

[H CO ] = 2[Alk2K] K[OH ]K+ [H ]

+
*
2 3 equation 47
' ' '
2 1 1

[H ] [H ]
+ +
+ 2

OR
[H 2CO 3*] = 0CT equation 48
1
where: 0 = equation 49
K 1' K 1' K 2'
1+ +
[H ] [H ]
+ + 2
 29

[HCO ] = 2[Alk ] 2K[OH ] + [H ]

+

3 equation 50
'
2
[H ] + 1 +

OR
[HCO 3] = 1CT equation 51
1
where: 1 =
[H ] + 1 +
+
K 2'
equation 52

K 1' [H ] +

[CO ] = 2[Alk ] [OH[H ]]+ [H ]

+
2
3 equation 53
+
2+
K 2'

OR
2
[CO 3 ] = 2CT equation 54
1
where: 2 =
[H ] + [H ] + 1
+ 2 +
equation 55

K 1' K 2' K 2'

NOTE: The alkalinity value used in the above equations and equation 58 below is the molar
concentration of alkalinity, i.e. using equation 8 with the molecular weight of CaCO 3 to
determine this value.

+
The determination of [H ] proves more difficult if the value for pH is unknown. However, by
manipulation of equation 4b, [H+] can be solved for by substitution and iteration as follows:

0 = [OH] + [HCO 3] + 2[CO 3] + [OCl] [Y] total [H] equation 56

+ +
NOTE: The value for [H ] obtained from this iterative approach is used as the value for [H ] i in
the CCPP determination.

The total dissolved carbonate species (CT) can either be determined from the above values
* 2-
for [H 2CO 3 ], [HCO 3 ], and [CO 3 ] in a mass balance equation, or directly from alkalinity and
values as follows (Benefield et al., 1982):

CT = [H 2CO 3*] + [HCO 3] + [CO 32] equation 57

OR
 30

[ ] [ ]
K'
2[Alk ] w + H +
1 H+
CT = equation 58
0 2K 1' K 2' K 1'

[ ]
H+
2
+
H+ [ ]

3.5 Chlorine Chemistry

The chlorine system in water consists of two species, namely hypochlorous acid [HOCl] and
hypochlorite [OCl]. The respective amounts of these two species in the water are, like the
carbonate system, dependent on pH and, therefore on the amount of [H+] present. An
ionisation constant (Kc) can be used to determine the distribution of the chlorine species in
water. This constant is dependent on temperature, as shown below (Haas, 1990):

6908
ln(K c ) = 23.184 0.0583T k equation 59
Tk

OR

Kc =
[H ][OCl ]
+

[HOCl ] equation 60

If the molar concentration of each chlorine species is known total dissolved chlorine species
(CT*) can be calculated. However, sometimes CT* is known and not the molar concentrations
of the chlorine species. In this case, CT* and ionisation fractions are used to determine the
distribution of each species, much like the carbonate species, as shown below (Benefield et
al., 1982):

[HOCl] = ACT* equation 61

1
where: A = equation 62
Kc
1+
[H ]+

[OCl] = BCT* equation 63

1
where: B =
1+
H+[ ] equation 64

Kc

NOTE: CT* = [HOCl] + [OCl] equation 65

As for the carbonate system, [H+] may be solved for by substitution into the electroneutrality
equation if the pH is unknown.
 31

3.6 Effects of Chemical Dosing

For each chemical addition to the system, the amount of chemical added (mg/l) and the
percentage purity of the chemical are required. From these two values, a number of changes
in the system can be calculated. Typical changes are listed below:
1. The amount of chemical added (mg/l) is multiplied by the percentage purity to obtain
a value in mg/l for the amount of active ingredient added to the system.
2. The value for the amount of active ingredient added is then used to determine the
moles of active ingredient added (using equation 8).
3. The molar value of active ingredient added is then added to the respective charge
equivalent values, i.e. [X] positive or [X] negative (using equations 5 and 6). For example if
FeCl 3 is added this value will be added to [X] positive once as 3[Fe] and to [X] negative
three times as [Cl].
4. The concentration of each component chemical (mg/l) is determined and added to
the TDS sum, e.g. iron (Fe) and chlorine (Cl) in the case of FeCl 3 (using equation 1).
5. The value of EC is determined from the changed value for TDS (using equation 2).
6. The ionic strength is then recalculated due to the change in TDS (using equation 20).
7. The change in ionic strength will, in turn, change the values for the activity
coefficients (using equations 18, 21 and 22).
8. The change in activity coefficient values will result in a change in equilibrium
constants (corrected for ionic strength) (using equations 23 26).
9. The new equilibrium constant values are then substituted into the equations for
determining values (using equations 49, 52 and 55).
10. The new and CT values are then substituted into the electroneutrality equation to
solve for [H+] (using equation 7).
11. The changed [H+] value is then used to determine pH and the new values for [OH],
[H 2CO 3*], [HCO 3], [CO 32-], [HOCl] and [OCl] (using equations 42, 46, 48, 51, 54, 61
and 63).
12. The concentrations of the water and carbonate species are then used to determine
the alkalinity of the water (using equations 8 and 44).
13. The alkalinity and new values for the equilibrium constants (corrected for ionic
strength) are then used to determine pH s (using equations 17 and 43).
14. The value for pH s is then used to determine the new values for the two saturation
indices (LI and RI) (using equations 40 and 41).
15. The changed equilibrium constant values (corrected for ionic strength), alkalinity (in
eq/l) and [H+] values are then all used to determine a new value for CCPP (using
equations 27 39).
 32

16. NOTE:
a. If Ca or Mg is added to the system, as in the case of adding Ca(OH) 2 or
Mg(OH) 2, the total hardness (TH) of the water will change accordingly (using
equation 3).
b. If a carbonate chemical such as CaCO 3 is added, the value of CT will change
by the molar concentration of the carbonate species added (using equation
57). This change in CT will effect the values of [H2CO 3*], [HCO 3] and [CO32-]
(using equations 48, 51 and 54).
c. If a chlorine chemical such as Ca(OCl) 2 is added, the value of CT* will
change by the molar concentration of the chlorine species added (using
equation 65). This change in CT* will effect the values for [HOCl] and [OCl]
(using equations 61 and 63).
d. If Ca is added to the system as a component of the chemical added, as in the
case of Ca(OH) 2, the values for pH s and, therefore, the two saturation
indices (LI and RI) will change due to a change in the pCa2+ value (using
equations 40, 41 and 43).
e. In the case of ammonia being added to the water, the amounts of ammonia in
the water will be negligible and, for the purposes of this thesis, considered to
have no effect on the chemistry of the water.

Table 3.6.1 summarises how each parameter is affected as specific chemicals are added to
the water. Symbols were used to explain these effects. The symbols are listed and explained
below:
This symbol indicates that the specific chemical has no effect on the value of the
parameter.

This symbol indicates that the value of the parameter will increase with the addition of
the specific chemical.

This symbol indicates that the value of the parameter will decrease with the addition
of the specific chemical.

This symbol indicates that the addition of the specific chemical will cause a small
increase in the parameter value.

This symbol indicates that the addition of the specific chemical will cause a small
decrease in the parameter value.

Where a chemical symbol appears alongside one of the above symbols, this indicates
Ca
that this chemical species will cause the change of the value.
 33

Table 3.6.1 Summary of effects of each chemical on each water quality parameter.
 34

In order to better demonstrate the calculations involved in a chemical addition, a dummy raw
water is defined and the calculations of three chemical additions shown in detail below:

3.6.1 Raw Water Example

The basic values used to define the raw water quality are listed in Table 3.6.2 below. These
values are then used to calculate other parameters needed to further define the water. The
units used for each value are the same as those shown in Tables 3.2.2a c.

Table 3.6.2 Parameters used to define a raw water

PARAMETER VALUE
Dissolved solids (TDS ) 212
Alkalinity (Alk ) 54
Temperature (T c ) 21
pH 7
Ammonia as NH 3 2
Calcium as Ca 50
Chloride as Cl 34
Fluoride as F 24
Magnesium as Mg 20
Nitrate as NO 3 23
Nitrite as NO 2 24
Potassium as K 4
Sodium as Na 5
Sulphate as SO 4 21
Zinc as Zn 5
Aluminium as Al 125
Iron as Fe 60
Manganese as Mn 25

The first three parameters that were worked out from this defined raw water were those of T k,
EC and TH:

T k = 21 + 273.15
o
= 294.15

212.21
EC =
o 6 .5
= 32.65

TH = (2.497 50 ) + (4.118 20 )
o
= 207.21
 35

Following this, the charge equivalent for each chemical species was determined, using
calcium as an example:

o
[Ca ] = 40.0850 1000
2+

= 1.248 10 -3

Similarly, the following charge equivalent values were obtained for each chemical species:

o [Mg 2+] = 8.229 10-4

o [K +] = 1.023 10-4
o [Na +] = 2.175 10-4
o [Zn 2+] = 7.648 10-5
3+
[Al ] = 4.633 10
-6
o
o [Fe 3+] = 1.074 10-6
o [Mn 2+] = 4.551 10-7
o [Cl ] = 9.59 10-4
o [F ] = 1.263 10-3
o [NO 3 ] = 3.709 10-4
o [NO 2 ] = 5.217 10-4
o [SO 4 2] = 2.186 10-4
o [NH 3] = 3.226 10-5

By adding like charge equivalents together, nett equivalent values for Y positive, Y negative and
Ytotal, were obtained:

( ) ( ) (
Y positive = 2 1.248 10 3 + 2 8.229 10 4 + 1.023 10 4 + 2.175 10 4 + 2 7.648 10 5 + )
o (
3 4.633 10 6 ) + 3(1.074 10 ) + 2(4.551 10 )
6 7

= 4.632 10 3

o
(
Ynegative = 9.59 10 4 + 1.263 10 3 + 3.709 10 4 + 5.217 10 4 + 2 2.186 10 4 )
3
= 3.552 10

Ytotal = 4.632 10 3 3.552 10 3

o
= 1.079 10 3
 36

The equilibrium and ionisation constants were then determined, using T k and T c:

17052
pK 1 = + 215.21(log 294.15 ) 0.12675 (294.15 ) 545.56
294.15
o = 6.388
K 1 = 4.096 10 7

2902.39
pK 2 = + 0.02379 (294.15 ) 6.498
294.15
o = 10.367
K 2 = 4.297 10 11

4787.3
pK w = + 7.1321(log 294.15 ) + 0.010365 (294.15 ) 22.801
294.15
o = 14.129
K w = 7.431 10 15

pK s = 0.01183 (21) + 8.03

o = 8.278
K s = 5.267 10 9

6908
ln(K c ) = 23.184 0.0583(294.15 )
294.15
o = 17.45
K c = 2.641 10 8

In order to calculate the equilibrium constants (corrected for ionic strength), the activity
coefficients were first calculated as follows:

A = 1.82 10 6 (78.3 294.15 )

3
2
o
= 0.522

I = 2.5 10 5 (212.21)
o
= 5.305 10 3

log m = 0.522

5.305 10 3
3
(
0.2 5.305 10 3 )
1 + 5.305 10
2
o = 3.489 10
m = 0.923
 37

(
log d = 4 3.489 10 2 )
1
o = 1.396 10
d = 0.725

The equilibrium constants (corrected for ionic strength) were then calculated using the above
activity coefficient values:

4.096 10 7
K 1' =
o (0.923 )2
= 4.81 10 7

4.297 10 11
K 2' =
0.725
o = 5.925 10 11
pK 2' = 10.227

7.431 10 15
K w' =
o (0.923 )2
= 8.726 10 15

5.267 10 9
K s' =
(0.725 )2
o = 1.002 10 8
pK s' = 7.999

In the same way that pK'2 and pK's were worked out, pCa2+ was calculated:

o
(
pCa 2+ = log 1.248 10 3 )
= 2.904

The values for pK'2, pK's and pCa2+ were then used with [Alk] (as calculated below) to
calculate pH s and the saturation indices:

54
[Alk ] =
o 100.09 1000
= 5.395 10 4

o
[( )]
pH s = 10.227 + 2.904 7.999 log 2 5.395 10 4 log 0.923
= 8.134
 38

LI = 7 8.134
o
= -1.133

RI = 2(8.134 ) 7
o
= 9.266

From the values for the corrected equilibrium constants and [H+], the ionisation constants for
carbonate and chlorine species were determined:

o
[H ] = 10
+ 7

= 1 10 7

1
0 =
1+
4.81 10 7
+
(4.81 10 )(5.925 10 )
7 11

(1 10 )
o
1 10 7 7 2

= 0.172

1
1 = 7
1 10 5.925 10 11
o
7
+ 1+
4.81 10 1 10 7
= 0.828

1
2 =
(1 10 ) +
7 2
1 10 7
+1
(4.81 10 )(5.925 10 ) 5.925 10
o
7 11 11

= 4.903 10 4

1
A =
2.641 10 8
o 1+
1 10 7
= 0.791

1
B =
1 10 7
o 1+
2.641 10 8
= 0.209

With these values determined, the molar concentration of each chemical species was
determined, as well as the total carbonate species value. It should be noted that, the C T*
value in any raw water is expected to be negligible and was, therefore, assigned a value of
110-9:
 39

( )
15
2 5.395 10 4 8.726 10 + 1 10 7
1 1 10 7
=
o
CT
(
0.172 2 4.81 10 7 5.925 10 11)( +
4.81 10 7 )


1 10 7
2
( )
1 10 7

3
= 1.302 10

o
[H CO ] = (0.172)(1.302 10 )
2
*
3
3

= 2.241 10 4

o
[HCO ] = (0.828)(1.302 10 )

3
3

= 1.078 10 3

o
[CO ] = (4.903 10 )(1.302 10 )
2
3
4 3

= 6.386 10 7

o
[HOCl ] = (0.791)(1 10 9 )
= 7.911 10 10

o
[OCl ] = (0.209)(1 10 )
9

= 2.089 10 10

[OH ] = 7.431
15
10
7
o 1 10
= 8.726 10 8

Once these values were determined, the electroneutrality equation was checked to ensure
that the difference between X positive and X negative was approximately zero:

o
(4.632 10 ) + (1 10 ) = (3.552 10 ) + (8.726 10 ) + (1.078 10 ) + 2(6.386 10 ) + (2.089 10 )
3 7 3 8 3 7 10

4.632 10 3 = 4.631 10 3

The last values calculated were those pertaining to CCPP:

pi =
( )
2 1 10 7 + 4.81 10 7
o 4.81 10 7
= 1.416
 40

8.726 10 15
s i = 1 10 7
o 1 10 7
8
= 1.274 10

ti =
( )
2 5.925 10 11 + 1 10 7
o 7
1 10
= 1.001

100.09
Eq. wt. =
o 2
= 50.05

54
Eq. conc. =
o 50 1000
= 1.08 10 3

1.08 10 3 + 1.274 10 8
Acy i = 1.416 + 1.274 10 8
o 1.001

= 1.527 10 3

By solving for [H+] eq, the following equilibrium values were found, as well as the following
result for CCPP:

o [H+] eq = 1.239 10-8

p eq =
( )
2 1.239 10 8 + 4.81 10 7
o 4.81 10 7
= 1.052

8.726 10 15
s eq = 1.239 10 8
o 1.239 10 8
7
= 6.919 10

t eq =
( )
2 5.925 10 11 + 1.239 10 8
o 1.239 10 8
= 1.01

r eq =
(
1.239 10 8 + 2 5.925 10 11 )
o 5.925 10 11
= 211.096
 41

o
1.01
Alk eq =
1 . 052
[ ( )] (
1.527 10 3 6.919 10 7 6.919 10 7 )
= 1.468 10 3

(
CCPP = 50000 1.08 10 3 1.468 10 3 )
o = 19.4
Corrosion is more likely to occur

3.6.2 Example of CaCO 3 Addition

Using the raw water defined in section 3.6.1 above, an amount of 10 mg/l CaCO 3 was added
and the following changes in parameter values observed:

First the amount of active ingredient added was calculated (this is dependent on the purity of
the chemical, as stipulated by the user), as well as the moles of active ingredient added:

mg/l active ingredient = 10 96%

o
= 9.6

9 .6
moles active ingredient =
o 100.09 1000
= 9.591 10 5

The molar concentration of calcium changes and was used to calculate new Ypositive and Ytotal
values, and then converted back into mg/l as follows:

o
[Ca ]
2+
new = 1.248 10 3 + 9.591 10 5
= 1.343 10 3

( ) ( ) ( )
Y positive = 2 1.343 10 3 + 2 8.229 10 4 + 1.023 10 4 + 2.175 10 4 + 2 7.648 10 5 +
o (
3 4.633 10 6 ) + 3(1.074 10 ) + 2(4.551 10 )
6 7

= 4.823 10 3

Ytotal = 4.823 10 3 3.552 10 3

o
= 1.271 10 3

o
( )
Ca new = 1.343 10 3 40.08 1000
= 53.844
 42

The change in the molar concentration of calcium translated into a change in the pCa2+ value
as follows:

o
(
pCa 2+ = log 1.343 10 3 )
= 2.872

The new value for calcium was then used to determine the new TDS value, as well as the
new EC and TH values:

125 60 25
TDS = 2 + 53.844 + 34 + 24 + 20 + 23 + 24 + 4 + 5 + 21 + 5 + + +
o 1000 1000 1000
= 216.054

216.054
EC =
o 6 .5
= 33.239

TH = (2.497 53.844 ) + (4.118 20 )

o
= 216.809

The new TDS value was then used to determine I, which in turn affected the activity
coefficients and the equilibrium constants (corrected for ionic strength) as follows:

I = 2.5 10 5 (216.054 )
o
= 5.401 10 3

log m = 0.522

5.401 10 3
3
(
0.2 5.401 10 3 )
1 + 5.401 10
o = 3.518 10 2
m = 0.922

(
log d = 4 3.518 10 2 )
1
o = 1.407 10
d = 0.723
 43

4.096 10 7
K 1' =
o (0.922)2
= 4.817 10 7

4.297 10 11
K 2' =
0.723
o = 5.941 10 11
pK 2' = 10.226

7.431 10 15
K w' =
o (0.922)2
= 8.738 10 15

5.267 10 9
K s' =
(0.723 )2
o = 1.007 10 8
pK s' = 7.997

These new corrected equilibrium constants were substituted into the equations for the
calculations of each water, carbonate and chlorine species (using ionisation constants and C T
values), allowing for the solving of the [H+] value. However, the value of C T changed due to
the addition of carbonate and was calculated as follows:

CT = 1.302 10 3 + 9.591 10 5
o
= 1.398 10 3

7.43 10
0=
15
+ 1 . 4 10 3
2 1 .(4 10 3
)

H+ [ ]
H [ ]
+ 11
5.94 10
+
+
[ ]
2
[ ]
+


[ ]
+ 1 + H H
4.82 10 7
H +
( 7
)(
4.82 10 5.94 10 11
)+
5.94 10 11
+ 1

o

+
1 10 9
[ ]
H+
([ ]
H + + 1.27 10 3
)
1 +
2.64 10 8

[ ]
H + = 4.893 10 8

[OH ] = 74..431
15
10
8
o 893 10
= 1.519 10 7
 44

1
0 =
1+
4.817 10 7
+
(4.817 10 )(5.941 10 )
7 11

(4.893 10 )
o 8
4.893 10 8 2

= 9.211 10 -2

o
[H CO ] = 9.211 10 (1.398 10 )
2
*
3
2 3

= 1.288 10 4

1
1 =
4.893 10 8 5.941 10 11
o + 1+
4.817 10 7 4.893 10 8
= 0.907

o
[HCO ] = 0.907(1.398 10 )

3
3

= 1.268 10 3

1
2 =
(4.893 10 ) 8 2
+
4.893 10 8
+1
(4.817 10 )(5.941 10 ) 5.941 10
o
7 11 11

= 1.213 10 3

o
[CO ] = (1.213 10 )(1.398 10 )
2
3
3 3

= 1.696 10 6

1
A =
2.641 10 8
o 1+
4.893 10 8
= 0.649

o
[HOCl ] = 0.649(1 10 9 )
= 6.495 10 10

1
B =
4.893 10 8
o 1+
2.641 10 8
= 0.351

o
[OCl ] = 0.351(1 10 )
9

= 3.505 10 10
 45

From the values for each chemical species, alkalinity was determined as follows:

[Alk ] = 1.696 10 6 + 12 (1.268 10 3 ) + 12 (1.519 10 7 ) 12 (4.893 10 8 )

= 6.358 10 4
o
Alk = 63.333
Alk i = 1.273 10 3

The value of alkalinity, in its various forms was then used to determine pH s and the saturation
indices, as well as CCPP. However, the value for pH needed to be determined first:

o
(
pH = log 4.893 10 8 )
= 7.31

o
[( )]
pH s = 10.226 + 2.872 7.997 log 2 6.358 10 4 log 0.922
= 8.032

LI = 7.31 8.032
o
= -0.721

RI = 2(8.032 ) 7.31
o
= 8.753

pi =
( )
2 4.893 10 8 + 4.817 10 7
o 4.817 10 7
= 1.203

8.738 10 15
s i = 4.893 10 8
o 4.893 10 8
7
= 1.297 10

ti =
( )
2 5.941 10 11 + 4.893 10 8
o 4.893 10 8
= 1.002

1.273 10 3 + 1.297 10 7
Acy i = 1.203 + 1.297 10 7
o 1.002

= 1.527 10 3

Solving for [H+] eq, the following equilibrium and CCPP values were obtained:
 46

o [H+] eq = 1.236 10-8

p eq =
( )
2 1.236 10 8 + 4.817 10 7
o 4.817 10 7
= 1.051

8.738 10 15
s eq = 1.236 10 8
o 1.236 10 8
7
= 6.948 10

t eq =
( )
2 5.941 10 11 + 1.236 10 8
o 1.236 10 8
= 1.01

r eq =
(
1.236 10 8 + 2 5.941 10 11 )
o 5.941 10 11
= 209.991

o
1.01
Alk eq =
1 . 051
[ ( )] (
1.527 10 3 6.947 10 7 6.947 10 7 )
= 1.468 10 3

(
CCPP = 50000 1.273 10 3 1.468 10 3 )
o = 9.8
Corrosion is more likely to occur

3.6.3 Example of NaOCl Addition

The initial water used for this chemical addition was the end water of the previous chemical
addition, of CaCO 3 (see section 3.6.2 above).

An amount of 10 mg/l NaOCl was added, resulting in the following changes to the water
quality:

The amount of active ingredient and the moles of active ingredient added were determined,
which in turn resulted in a change in Ypositive, Ytotal and TDS:

mg/l active ingredient = 10 70%

o
=7
 47

7
moles active ingredient =
o 74.44 1000
= 9.403 10 5

o
[Na ]
+
new = 2.175 10 4 + 9.403 10 5
= 3.115 10 4

( ) ( ) ( )
Y positive = 2 1.343 10 3 + 2 8.229 10 4 + 1.023 10 4 + 3.115 10 4 + 2 7.648 10 5 +
o (
3 4.633 10 6
) + 3(1.074 10 ) + 2(4.551 10 )
6 7

= 4.917 10 3

Ytotal = 4.917 10 3 3.552 10 3

o
= 1.365 10 3

o
( )
Na new = 3.115 10 4 22.99 1000
= 7.162

125 60 25
TDS = 2 + 53.844 + 34 + 24 + 20 + 23 + 24 + 4 + 7.162 + 21 + 5 + + +
o 1000 1000 1000
= 218.216

The change in TDS caused a change in EC, I, the activity coefficients and the equilibrium
constants (corrected for ionic strength):

218.216
EC =
o 6 .5
= 33.572

I = 2.5 10 5 (218.216 )
o
= 5.455 10 3

log m = 0.522

5.455 10 3
3
0.2 5.455 10 3 ( )
1 + 5.455 10
2
o = 3.534 10
m = 0.922

(
log d = 4 3.534 10 2 )
1
o = 1.414 10
d = 0.722
 48

4.096 10 7
K 1' =
o (0.922)2
= 4.82 10 7

4.297 10 11
K 2' =
0.722
o = 5.95 10 11
pK 2' = 10.226

7.431 10 15
K w' =
o (0.922)2
= 8.744 10 15

5.267 10 9
K s' =
(0.722)2
o = 1.01 10 8
pK s' = 7.996

The new corrected equilibrium constants were then substituted into the electronegativity
equation, allowing for the solving of the [H+] value. However, the value of C T* changed due to
the addition of hypochlorite. The iteration was calculated as follows:

CT* = 1 10 9 + 9.403 10 5
o
= 9.403 10 5

7.43 10
0=
15
+ 1 . 4 10 3
2 1 .(4 10 3
)

H+ [ ]
H +
[ ] 11
5.95 10
+
+
[ ]
2
[ ]
+


[ ]
+ 1 + H H
4.82 10 7
H +
( 7
)(
4.82 10 5.95 10 11
)+
5.95 10 11
+ 1

o

+
9.4 10 5
[ ]
H+
([ ]
H + + 1.37 10 3
)
1 +
2.64 10 8

[ ]
H + = 2.949 10 8

[OH ] = 72..431
15
10
8
o 949 10
= 2.52 10 7
 49

1
0 =
1+
4.82 10 7
+
(4.82 10 )(5.95 10 )
7 11

(2.949 10 )
o 8
2.949 10 8 2

= 5.754 10 -2

o
[H CO ] = 5.754 10 (1.398 10 )
2
*
3
2 3

= 8.046 10 5

1
1 =
2.949 10 8 5.95 10 11
o + 1+
4.82 10 7 2.949 10 8
= 0.941

o
[HCO ] = 0.941(1.398 10 )

3
3

= 1.315 10 3

1
2 =
(2.949 10 ) 8 2
+
2.949 10 8
+1
(4.82 10 )(5.95 10 ) 5.95 10
o
7 11 11

= 2.014 10 3

o
[CO ] = (2.014 10 )(1.398 10 )
2
3
3 3

= 2.816 10 6

1
A =
2.641 10 8
o 1+
2.949 10 8
= 0.528

o
[HOCl ] = 0.528(9.403 10 5 )
= 4.961 10 5

1
B =
2.949 10 8
o 1+
2.641 10 8
= 0.472

o
[OCl ] = 0.473(9.403 10 )
5

= 4.443 10 5
 50

The above values for each chemical species were then used to determine alkalinity values, as
shown below:

[Alk ] = 2.816 10 6 + 12 (1.315 10 3 ) + 12 (2.52 10 7 ) 12 (2.949 10 8 )

= 6.606 10 4
o
Alk = 66.115
Alk i = 1.322 10 3

These varying alkalinity values were then used to calculate pH s and the saturation indices, as
well as all the values for CCPP. However, a value for pH was required for the calculation of
the saturation indices:

o
(
pH = log 2.949 10 8 )
= 7.53

o
[( )]
pH s = 10.226 + 2.872 7.996 log 2 6.606 10 4 log 0.922
= 8.016

LI = 7.53 8.016
o
= -0.486

RI = 2(8.016 ) 7.53
o
= 8.502

pi =
( )
2 2.949 10 8 + 4.82 10 7
o 4.82 10 7
= 1.122

8.744 10 15
s i = 2.949 10 8
o 2.949 10 8
7
= 2.671 10

ti =
( )
2 5.95 10 11 + 2.949 10 8
o 2.949 10 8
= 1.004

1.322 10 3 2.671 10 7
Acy i = 1.122 2.671 10 7
o 1.004

= 1.478 10 3
 51

[H+] eq was solved for by iteration and the following equilibrium and CCPP values obtained:

o [H+] eq = 1.159 10-8

p eq =
( )
2 1.159 10 8 + 4.82 10 7
o 4.82 10 7
= 1.048

8.744 10 15
s eq = 1.159 10 8
o 1.159 10 8
7
= 7.427 10

t eq =
( )
2 5.95 10 11 + 1.159 10 8
o 1.159 10 8
= 1.01

r eq =
(
1.159 10 8 + 2 5.95 10 11 )
o 5.95 10 11
= 196.832

o
1.01
Alk eq =
1 . 048
[ ( )] (
1.478 10 3 7.427 10 7 7.427 10 7 )
= 1.426 10 3

(
CCPP = 50000 1.322 10 3 1.426 10 3 )
o = 5.2
Corrosion is more likely to occur

3.6.4 Example of FeCl 3 Addition

The input water for this chemical addition was the end water of the previous chemical
addition, of NaOCl (see section 3.6.3 above).

An amount of 10 mg/l FeCl 3 was added, which resulted in the following changes to the input
water quality:

The amount of active ingredient and the moles of active ingredient added were determined,
resulting in a change in the Ypositive, Ynegative, Ytotal and TDS values:

mg/l active ingredient = 10 20%

o
=2
 52

2
moles active ingredient =
o 162.206 1000
= 1.233 10 5

o
[Fe ]
3+
new = 1.074 10 6 + 1.233 10 5
= 1.34 10 5

o
[Cl ]

new (
= 9.59 10 4 + 3 1.233 10 5 )
4
= 9.96 10

( ) ( ) (
Y positive = 2 1.343 10 3 + 2 8.229 10 4 + 1.023 10 4 + 3.115 10 4 + 2 7.648 10 5 +)
o (
3 4.633 10 6 ) + 3(1.34 10 ) + 2(4.551 10 )
5 7

= 4.954 10 3

o
(
Ynegative = 9.96 10 4 + 1.263 10 3 + 3.709 10 4 + 5.217 10 4 + 2 2.186 10 4 )
= 3.589 10 3

Ytotal = 4.954 10 3 3.589 10 3

o
= 1.365 10 3

o
( )
Fe new = 1.34 10 5 55.847 1000000
= 748.594

o
( )
Cl new = 9.96 10 4 35.453 1000
= 35.311

125 748.594 25
TDS = 2 + 53.844 + 35.311 + 24 + 20 + 23 + 24 + 4 + 7.162 + 21 + 5 + + +
o 1000 1000 1000
= 220.216

The change in TDS caused changes in the values of EC, I, activity coefficients, and
equilibrium constants (corrected for ionic strength):

220.216
EC =
o 6 .5
= 33.879

I = 2.5 10 5 (220.216 )
o
= 5.505 10 3
 53

log m = 0.522

5.505 10 3
3
(
0.2 5.505 10 3 )
1 + 5 . 505 10
2
o = 3.549 10
m = 0.922

(
log d = 4 3.549 10 2 )
1
o = 1.42 10
d = 0.721

4.096 10 7
K 1' =
o (0.922)2
= 4.824 10 7

4.297 10 11
K 2' =
0.721
o = 5.958 10 11
pK 2' = 10.225

7.431 10 15
K w' =
o (0.922)2
= 8.75 10 15

5.267 10 9
K s' =
(0.721)2
o = 1.013 10 8
pK s' = 7.995

The new values for the corrected equilibrium constants were then substituted into the
electronegativity equation, allowing for the determination of [H+] as follows:
 54

7.43 10
0=
15
+ 1.4 10 3
2 1.4 10 3
( )

H+ [ ]
H +
[ ] 11
5.96 10
+
+ 2
[ ]+

[ ]
[ ]
+ 1 + H H
4.82 10 7
H+
( +
)(
4.82 10 7 5.96 10 11 5.96 10 11 )
+ 1

o

+
9.4 10 5
H+ [ ] ([ ]
H + + 1.37 10 3
)
1 +
2.64 10 8

[ ]
H + = 2.95 10 8

[OH ] = 72.431
15
10
8
o .95 10
= 2.519 10 7

1
0 =
1+
4.824 10 7
+
(4.824 10 )(5.958 10 )
7 11

(2.95 10 )
o
2.95 10 8 8 2

= 5.753 10 -2

o
[H CO ] = 5.753 10 (1.398 10 )
2
*
3
2 3

= 8.045 10 5

1
1 = 8
2.95 10 5.958 10 11
o
7
+ 1+
4.824 10 2.95 10 8
= 0.941

o
[HCO ] = 0.941(1.398 10 )

3
3

= 1.315 10 3

1
2 =
(2.95 10 ) +
8 2
2.95 10 8
+1
(4.824 10 )(5.958 10 ) 5.958 10
o
7 11 11

= 2.015 10 3

o
[CO ] = (2.015 10 )(1.398 10 )
2
3
3 3

= 2.818 10 6
 55

1
A =
2.641 10 8
o 1+
2.95 10 8
= 0.528

o
[HOCl ] = 0.528(9.403 10 5 )
= 4.962 10 5

1
B =
2.95 10 8
o 1+
2.641 10 8
= 0.472

o
[OCl ] = 0.472(9.403 10 )
5

= 4.442 10 5

The molar value for each chemical species was then used to determine various alkalinity
values, as shown below:

[Alk ] = 2.818 10 6 + 12 (1.315 10 3 ) + 12 (2.519 10 7 ) 12 (2.95 10 8 )

= 6.606 10 4
o
Alk = 66.116
Alk i = 1.322 10 3

The alkalinity values were then used to calculate pH s, the two saturation indices, and CCPP.
However, pH needed to be determined first:

o
(
pH = log 2.95 10 8 )
= 7.53

o
[( )]
pH s = 10.225 + 2.872 7.995 log 2 6.606 10 4 log 0.922
= 8.017

LI = 7.53 8.017
o
= -0.487

RI = 2(8.017 ) 7.53
o
= 8.503
 56

pi =
( )
2 2.95 10 8 + 4.824 10 7
o 4.824 10 7
= 1.122

8.75 10 15
s i = 2.95 10 8
o 2.95 10 8
= 2.671 10 7

ti =
( )
2 5.958 10 11 + 2.95 10 8
o 2.95 10 8
= 1.004

1.322 10 3 2.671 10 7
Acy i = 1.122 2.671 10 7
o 1.004

= 1.478 10 3

[H+] eq was solved for by iteration and the following equilibrium and CCPP values were
obtained:

o [H+] eq = 1.158 10-8

p eq =
( )
2 1.158 10 8 + 4.824 10 7
o 4.824 10 7
= 1.048

8.75 10 15
s eq = 1.158 10 8
o 1.158 10 8
7
= 7.442 10

t eq =
( )
2 5.958 10 11 + 1.158 10 8
o 1.158 10 8
= 1.01

r eq =
(
1.158 10 8 + 2 5.958 10 11 )
o 5.958 10 11
= 196.328

o
1.01
Alk eq =
1 . 048
[ ( )] (
1.478 10 3 7.442 10 7 7.442 10 7 )
= 1.426 10 3
 57

(
CCPP = 50000 1.322 10 3 1.426 10 3 )
o = 5.2
Corrosion is more likely to occur

If the same raw water definitions and chemical additions were used in Stasoft4 1.0, the pH
and CCPP values obtained from the Stasoft system would be comparable to those obtained
using the above mentioned calculations. Since Stasoft is considered to be accurate in its
prediction of these two water quality parameters, the above calculations and the answers they
yield can likewise be considered accurate.

3.7 Computer implementation

In order to implement the extensive calculations involved in each chemical addition and to
track water quality, an Excel spreadsheet was designed. The spreadsheet contains a
separate worksheet for each chemical and four general worksheets. One of the four general
worksheets represents a simple spreadsheet, which allows the user to enter the amounts (in
mg/l) of chemicals added and their percentage purity, as well as to view the effects of each
chemical addition on pH and CCPP ('Effects'). The second worksheet is used to enter the
raw water definition ('Inputs'), followed by the third worksheet that performs the calculations to
complete the raw water definition ('Raw water'). The fourth worksheet is the one following the
'Inputs' worksheet and is used as a reference worksheet for molecular weights of chemicals,
as well as masses and charges of chemical elements ('Constants'). The spreadsheet system
can be viewed in Appendix 1.

Each chemical worksheet in the spreadsheet is divided into three sections:

1. The physical and chemical parameters (with input, output and change values).
2. Check, derived and CCPP parameters (with input, output and change values).
3. Calculations (consisting of selected check and derived parameters).

Each value represented on each worksheet is distinguished by appearing in a coloured block,

which describes how it was calculated on a basic level:

Blue : Input or initial data (data provided by the user).

Green : Derived input data (derived from input or initial data).
Orange : Primary calculations (calculated from input and derived input data).
Yellow : Derived primary output (derived from primary calculations).
Pink : Final output calculations (calculated from primary and other final outputs).
Purple : Change data.

By entering values for all the blue cells, the user will be able to view water quality changes for
each chemical as it is added. However, the order in which the chemicals can be entered is
 58

fixed and the prediction ability of the spreadsheet is accurate but limited to adding chemicals
either in the order presented in the spreadsheet or one chemical at a time with a new input
water definition each time.

Each chemical worksheet has three buttons that the user can click to perform various
functions, according to the macro that is assigned to it.

o 'X pH': This button allows the user to solve for the [H+] value and, therefore, the pH of
the water after the addition of the chemical (X) assigned to the worksheet.
o 'Calculate': This button allows the user to solve for the [H+] value of all the
worksheets. This function is also assigned to the button on the first worksheet (the
'Effects' worksheet).
o 'X CCPP': This button allows the user to solve for the [H+]eq value and, therefore, the
CCPP value of the water after the addition of the chemical (X) assigned to the
worksheet.
 59

CHAPTER 4: MODELLING TURBIDITY REMOVAL

4.1 What WATREX Currently Does

Turbidity is a measure of colloidal and suspended matter in water. A relationship exists

between total suspended solids and turbidity, and is dependent on various factors, such as
water type, coagulants, pH etc. Due to the all-encompassing nature of this measurement,
turbidity values have been included in the WATREX system (WRC, 1996). The turbidity
values for the system are mostly determined via equations derived from other projects,
although expert estimates are included where no other data is available:

1. Presedimentation: Removal is determined using the equation below, obtained from

work done by Kincaid on two circular clarifiers over a 19 month period (Smith, 1986):

50
NTU% = 98 0.00069 NTU in
e

2. Horizontal Roughing Filtration: Removal is determined using the equation below,

obtained from data presented by Wegelin et al. (1991):

NTU% = 82.7 0.0535 NTUin

3. Ozonation: An expert estimate of 0% removal is used (Chang and Singer, 1991).

4. Rectangular Horizontalflow Sedimentation: Removal is determined using the set of
equations below, based on data from Hudson for several plants, where good
performance of the sedimentation tanks as well as good coagulation and flocculation
is assumed (Smith, 1986):

NTU% = 100 (1 1.82867 e -2.2355 Area)

where: Area =
(mean log(q ))

q = the desired surface loading
mean = 2.7285 NTUin0.2414
= 2.24908 NTUin0.10174

5. Circular Upflow Sedimentation: Removal is determined using the equation below,

based on 198 observations over 11 months of operation (AlAni and AlBaldawi,
1988):
 60

NTUin0.106d 0.133
NTU% = 47.65
q 0.18
where: d = tank depth (m)
q = hydraulic loading rate (m/h)

6. Inclined Plate Sedimentation: Removal is determined using the equation below,

obtained by least squares regression of data presented by Yao (Yao, 1973):

70 NTU in0.0525
NTU % =
q 0.0512
where: q = hydraulic loading rate (m/h)

7. Dissolved Air Flotation: An expert estimate of 40% removal is used (WRC, 1996).
8. Rapid Sand Filtration: Removal is determined using the set of equations below.
However, the filter design needs to be determined first using the same set of
equations, where NTU is assumed and th is substituted for t to solve for unknown bed
out
NTU in

depth L. For turbidity removal estimation, the bed depth L is substituted back into the
equation (WRC, 1996):

t
o q NTU in
e
fo
NTU out
=
NTU in t
o q NTU in

e (o L ) + e
fo
1
where: o = initial filter coefficient (mm-1)
= bulking factor (dimensionless)
q = filtration rate (m/h)
t = run time of the filter (h)
fo = initial porosity of the filter media (dimensionless)
L = bed depth
hlim ho
th =
K v NTU in

where: hlim = maximum head loss (m)

ho = head loss through a clean medium (m)
K = 50 (estimated head loss coefficient)
v = velocity of the water at the filter face (m/s)

9. Slow Sand Filtration: Removal is determined using the set of equations below, based
on the geometric average of three relationships pertaining to the straining ability of
three spheres (Seelaus et al., 1986):
 61

NTU % = (NTU %1 NTU %2 NTU %3 )

1
3

where: NTU%1 = 100 7.11 d10

NTU%2 = Z1 29.29 q
NTU%3 = Z2 + 2.427 NTUin
where: Z1 = calibration constant = 38 (default value)
Z2 = calibration constant = 29 (default value)
d10 = filter sand effective size (mm)
q = filtration rate (m/h)

10. Granular Activated Carbon: An expert interview estimate of 40% removal is used.

4.2 Suggested Alternative Procedure

It is intuitively understood that it is much easier to remove 90% of a high turbidity, for example
100 NTU, than 90% of a low turbidity, for example 1 NTU. Turbidity removal, therefore,
cannot be adequately described by fixed removal percentages. The approach of this project
was to start out with the premise that turbidity removal starts out at 0% when incoming
turbidity is 0 NTU, but approaches 100% at very high turbidity.

The terminology used in the next section is shown in Table 4.2.1 below:

Table 4.2.1 Description of terminology of turbidity prediction variables and associated

calculations.

TERM DESRIPTION CALCULATION

NTU in Turbidity of the water entering a process From data points
NTU out Turbidity of the water leaving a process From data points
NTU out
NTU FR The fraction of turbidity remaining in the water NTU FR =
NTU in
NTU in NTU out
NTU % The percentage of turbidity removed by a process NTU % =
NTU in
A Boundary condition Taken to be = 1
ln(NTU in X ) ln(NTU out X )
Slope of the data plot k =
k
(NTU in X )
X Threshold point for process Estimated from the data plot
The slope of the corresponding percentile plot
kx Example 1 : x = 25 = the lower 25th percentile plot Determined from the set of k values for the data points
Example 2 : x = 75 = the upper 25th percentile plot
1)
Hypothetical NTU in values
NTU FR (x ) Estimated fraction turbidity remaining for the corresponding percentile Determined from: 2)
The k x value and X value
1)
Hypothetical NTU in values
NTU out (x ) Estimated remaining turbidity of the corresponding percentile Determined from: 2)
The k x value and X value

We can use a general exponential function to determine the fraction of NTU removed from the
system by a process:
 62

NTU out
NTU FR = = A.e kNTU in equation 66
NTU in

However, there exists a residual turbidity (X), which the process is unable to remove from the
water. Therefore, the k value for the process has to be calculated after X has been
accounted for, i.e. subtracted from both NTU in and NTU out. In addition, the constant A can be
evaluated by considering the boundary condition of NTU FR = 1 if NTU in = X. From this, the
constant A is found to be 1, so the final equation is:

NTU out X
NTU FR = = e k (NTU in X ) equation 67
NTU in X

This equation can be altered to solve for the k value as follows:

ln(NTU in X) k(NTU in X) = ln(NTU out - X) equation 68

ln(NTU in X ) ln(NTU out X )
k =
(NTU in X ) equation 69

Therefore, for every data point a k value can be calculated and, from this set of k values k x
values can be determined. With k x values chosen, the estimated NTU out can now be written
in terms of NTU in as follows:

(
NTUout = X + (NTUin X ) e k x (NTU in X ) ) equation 70

The turbidity removal ability of each process can thus be described by the two parameters kx
and X, or a practical range for each. A significant part of the project time and budget was
thus directed at finding values for kx and X that were representative of typical South African
water treatment performance.

4.3 Data Collection

The turbidity values used in this project were obtained from field data of a concurrent
sampling and monitoring project. Water samples were measured by using nephelometry.
The units used to express turbidity in this project are nephelometric turbidity units (NTU).

Sampling and monitoring was done at twentyone South African water treatment plants
during 2000 and 2001 (over a period of fifteen months). A total of 115 plant visits were made
during this period and, due to plant extensions at various times, a monitoring programme of a
total of twentyeight full or partial treatment trains was possible. This yielded a data set of
approximately 1300 turbidity records.
 63

Each plant's treatment train was unique, with different types of pretreatments, chemical
addition, sedimentation and filtration processes being employed. It was therefore necessary
to record the specifics of each treatment train, as well as the location and water source of
each plant. The general information for each plant is captured below (see sections 4.3.1
4.3.20), whilst the process specifics are recorded in flow diagrams (Appendix 3).

4.3.1 Balkfontein Water Treatment Plant

The Balkfontein Water Treatment Plant (Plant 1), situated close to the town of Bothaville in
the Free State Province, abstracts water directly from a small impoundment on the Vaal
River. The plant has a treatment train consisting of eight different treatment steps, with an
additional sampling point in the canal between secondary settling and filtration. However, the
pH correction and coagulation processes are combined before flocculation, as well as those
of pH correction and oxidation between primary and secondary settling.

The Balkfontein plant was visited on seven occasions during the period beginning August
2000 and ending April 2001. During these visits a total of eleven full treatment samples were
collected. However, due to temporary changes in plant operations, only eight or nine
individual samples, instead of the possible ten, were obtained at each visit.

4.3.2 Churchill Water Treatment Plant

The Churchill Water Treatment Plant (Plants 2A and 2B) is situated in the Eastern Cape in the
Port Elizabeth area. Its abstraction point is situated on the Churchill Dam, which is fed by the
Krom River. This plant has a treatment train consisting of nine different treatment steps. The
water is treated in two parallel treatment trains, which combine at the final water point.

This plant was visited on three different occasions during the period beginning and ending
February 2001 and a total of five full treatment samples were obtained during these visits.

4.3.3 Cullinan Water Treatment Plant

The Cullinan Water Treatment Plant (Plant 3) is situated in the town of Cullinan in the
Mpumalanga Province. It is fed with water that is transported approximately 60km from the
Wilgerivier. The treatment train of the Cullinan plant consists of six treatment steps, where
flocculation and settling are combined in the clariflocculation process.

This plant was visited on six separate occasions during the period beginning July 2000 and
ending December 2001 and on each occasion two full treatment samples were obtained, i.e.
a total of twelve full treatment samples, for the whole period.

4.3.4 Durban Heights Water Treatment Plant

The Durban Heights Water Treatment Plant (Plant 4) is situated near the Durban town of
Reservoir Hills in the KwaZulu-Natal Province. It abstracts water from the Nagle Dam, which
 64

is fed by the Umgeni River. It has a treatment train that consists of seven treatment steps.
However, the process of vertical settling combines the two processes of flocculation and
settling.

This plant was visited on seven separate occasions during the period beginning August 2000
and ending November 2000. During these visits a total of fourteen full treatment samples
were obtained.

4.3.5 Faure Water Treatment Plant

The Faure Water Treatment Plant (Plants 5, 5A and 5B) is situated close to the town of
Firgrove in the Western Cape Province. This plants abstraction point is situated on the Rivier
Sonder Ent. The treatment train of this plant consists of fifteen treatment steps, which are
divided into three partial treatment trains due to plant extensions. However, the two
processes of coagulation could not be sampled separately and therefore the sample points
after flocculation represent the combined processes of coagulation and flocculation.

The Faure plant was visited on two different occasions during the period beginning and
ending February 2001 and a total of three full treatment samples were obtained during these
visits.

4.3.6 Hazelmere Water Treatment Plant

The Hazelmere Water Treatment Plant (Plant 6) is situated near the Tongaat/Verulem area
near Durban in the KwaZulu-Natal Province. It abstracts water from the Hazelmere Dam,
which is fed by the Umdloti River. It has a treatment train that consists of seven treatment
steps, with the single process of clariflocculation accounting for both flocculation and settling.

This plant was visited on six different occasions during the period beginning July 2000 and
ending December 2000. During these visits a total of twelve full treatment samples were
obtained.

4.3.7 Klipdrift Water Treatment Plant

The Klipdrift Water Treatment Plant (Plant 7) is situated close to the town of Rust de Winter in
the Gauteng Province. It obtains its raw water from the nearby Roodeplaat Dam. The
Klipdrift treatment train consists of six treatment steps, with the CocoDAFF process
combining flotation and filtration. The process of prechlorination could not be sampled.

Klipdrift was visited on seven different occasions during the period beginning July 2000 and
ending December 2000, with a total of thirteen full treatment samples obtained during these
visits.
 65

4.3.8 Loerie Water Treatment Plant

The Loerie Treatment Plant (Plant 8) is situated in the town of Loerie in the Eastern Cape
Province. It abstracts water from the Gamtoos Dam on the Loerie River. The plant has a
treatment train that consists of five treatment steps, with the clariflocculation process
combining flocculation and settling.

The Loerie plant was visited on three separate occasions during the period beginning and
ending February 2001 and a total of six full treatment sampled were obtained during these
visits.

4.3.9 Maselspoort Water Treatment Plant

The Maselspoort Water Treatment Plant (Plant 9) is situated near Bloemfontein in the Free
State Province. Its raw water is pumped to the station from the Modder River. The plants
treatment train consists of eight treatment steps with an additional sampling point between the
secondary settlers and filters. Flocculation and settling are combined in a single
clariflocculation process. The process of coagulation could not be sampled separately and
samples taken after the flocculation step thus represented both coagulation and flocculation.

Maselspoort was visited on three separate occasions during the period beginning January
2001 and ending February 2001. During these visits a total of four full treatment samples
were obtained.

4.3.10 Midvaal Water Treatment Plant

The Midvaal Water Treatment Plant (Plants 10, 10A and 10B) is situated in the town of
Stilfontein in the Gauteng Province. It abstracts water from the nearby Vaal River. The
Midvaal treatment train consists of ten treatment steps, which divide into two parallel
treatment trains after the ozone process and combine again before the filtration process. One
treatment train has a single settler, which combines flocculation and settling in a
clariflocculation process, whilst the other treatment train has three horizontal settlers.

This plant was visited on four separate occasions during the period beginning March 2001
and ending May 2001. During these visits a total of ten full treatment samples were obtained.

4.3.11 Nooitgedagt Water Treatment Plant

The Nooitgedagt Water Treatment Plant (Plant 11) is situated in the Eastern Cape Province
and supplies water to Port Elizabeth. The raw water for this plant is abstracted from the
Orange River Transfer Scheme. The treatment train for this plant consists of six treatment
steps, including the process of vertical settling, which combines flocculation and settling.
 66

The Nooitgedagt plant was visited on three different occasions, during the period beginning
and ending February 2001, and a total of three full treatment samples and one partial
treatment sample (as coagulation could not be sampled) were obtained.

4.3.12 Rietvlei Water Treatment Plant

The Rietvlei Water Treatment Plant (Plant 12) is situated next to the Rietvlei Nature Reserve
near Irene in the Gauteng Province. It abstracts raw water from the Rietvlei Dam, as well as
incorporating spring water from a nearby fountain. This plant has a treatment train that
consists of eight treatment steps. The point at which fountain water was added to the
treatment train, was not sampled. Combined samples were obtained for coagulation and pH
correction as well as for the DAFF process (combined flotation and filtration) since these
processes could not be sampled separately.

This plant was visited on five separate occasions during the period beginning June 2000 and
ending December 2000. During these visits a total of eleven full treatment samples were
obtained.

4.3.13 Rustfontein Water Treatment Plant

The Rustfontein Water Treatment Plant (Plant 13) is situated near the Lesotho Border in the
Free State Province. It abstracts water from the Modder River and occasionally from a dam
fed by the Caledon River. Its treatment train consists of seven treatment steps with combined
flocculation and settling occurring twice, namely in the vertical settling and clariflocculation
processes. NOTE: The clariflocculation process did not have flocculant added to the water
before the settling part of the process occurred, but after. Therefore, this process was
excluded from the data analysis, as it cannot be considered to function as a proper
clariflocculation process.

This plant was visited on three different occasions during the period beginning January 2001
and ending February 2001. During these visits a total of four full treatment samples and one
partial treatment sample (as coagulation could not be sampled) were taken.

4.3.14 Steenbras Water Treatment Plant

The Steenbras Water Treatment Plant (Plant 14) is situated next to Sir Lowrys Pass in the
Western Cape Province. It abstracts water from the Theewaterskloof River and has a
treatment train that consists of seven separate treatment steps.

This plant was visited on three separate occasions during the period beginning and ending
February 2001 and a total of six full treatment samples were obtained during these visits.
 67

4.3.15 Vaalkop Water Treatment Plant (# 2 and # 3)

The Vaalkop Water Treatment Plant is situated near the town of Beestekraal in the Northwest
Province and consists of two modules. The plant abstracts water from the Vaalkop Dam side
of a transfer canal that connects Roodekoppies Dam to the Vaalkop Dam. Vaalkop # 2 (Plant
15) has a treatment train that consists of eight treatment steps, whilst Vaalkop # 3 (Plant 16)
has a treatment train that consists of nine treatment steps. Flotation and filtration are
combined in a single CocoDAFF process in the Vaalkop #3 plant. For both modules, the
coagulation and pH correction steps could not be sampled separately and are therefore
represented in a single sample point after pH correction for each module. In addition, both
plants have the capacity for either a prechlorination or a PACfiltration pretreatment
process.

The Vaalkop plant was visited on seven different occasions during the period beginning July
2000 and ending January 2001, and a total of thirteen full treatment samples were obtained
for each module during these visits.

4.3.16 Volvlei Water Treatment Plant

The Volvlei Water Treatment Plant (Plant 17) is situated at the Volvlei Station in the
Western Cape Province. This plant abstracts water from the Volvlei Dam, which is fed by
the Vierentwintig River. The Volvlei treatment train consists of five separate treatment
steps, with flocculation and settling being combined in a single vertical settling process.

This plant was visited on three separate occasions during the period beginning and ending
February 2001. During these visits a total of five full treatment samples were obtained.

4.3.17 Wallmannsthal Water Treatment Plant

The Wallmannsthal Water Treatment Plant (Plant 18) is situated close to Hammanskraal in
the Gauteng Province. It abstracts water from a river just downstream of the Roodeplaat
Dam. The Wallmannsthal treatment train consists of nine treatment steps. The process of
coagulation could not be taken separately and the sample taken after the pH correction
process thus represented the coagulation and pH correction step.

The Wallmannsthal plant was visited on seven separate occasions during the period
beginning July 2000 and ending December 2000. During these visits a total of fourteen full
treatment samples were obtained.

4.3.18 Welbedacht Water Treatment Plant

The Welbedacht Water Treatment Plant (Plants 19, 19A and 19B) is situated in the Caledon
Nature Reserve in the Free State Province. It abstracts water from the Caledon River. Its
treatment train consists of nine treatment steps, which are divided into two parallel treatment
trains after coagulation and then rejoin just prior to pH correction. One of the parallel
 68

treatment trains has separate flocculation and settling processes (Plant 19A), whilst the other
has a clariflocculation process, which combines flocculation and settling (Plant 19B). Another
combined flocculation/settling process (secondary vertical settling process), takes place after
the parallel treatment trains have been rejoined. NOTE: The settling processes are not
included in the data analysis, since the turbidity values were so large (up to ten-times larger)
that these processes cannot be considered to function as normal settling processes.

This plant was visited on three separate occasions during the period beginning January 2001
and ending February 2001, during which time a total of five full treatment samples were
obtained.

4.3.19 Wiggins Water Treatment Plant

The Wiggins Water Treatment Plant (Plant 20) is situated in the Durban town of Cato Manor
in the KwaZulu-Natal Province. It abstracts water from the Inanda Dam, which is fed by the
Umgeni River. Its treatment train consists of seven treatment steps, with flocculation and
settling combined in a single vertical settling process.

The Wiggins plant was visited on eight different occasions during the period beginning August
2000 and ending November 2000. A total of fifteen full treatment samples were obtained
during these visits.

4.3.20 Zuikerbosch Water Treatment Plant

The Zuikerbosch Water Treatment Plant (Plant 21) is situated near the town of Vereeniging in
the Gauteng Province. It obtains water from the Vaal River at an abstraction point in the Vaal
Dam wall and is supplemented with water from the Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme. This
plant has a treatment train that consists of seven treatment steps. The process of coagulation
was difficult to sample at first and was therefore initially only represented in a combined
sample of coagulation and flocculation.

This plant was visited on four separate occasions during the period beginning March 2001
and ending April 2001 and a total of nine full treatment samples and two partial treatment
samples were obtained during these visits.

4.4 Selecting the Processes for Modelling

There are a number of possible water treatment processes that can be used for any one
water treatment plant. This project did not deal with all the processes listed by the original
WATREX system separately, but combined some processes in a single category, based on
the basic functioning of each process, i.e. similar functioning processes were included as a
single process type. The processes used in this project for turbidity analysis and their
groupings are listed and compared with those currently used in WATREX in Table 4.4.1
below:
 69

Table 4.4.1 Table of comparison of processes selected for this project with processes
currently used by WATREX.

PROCESSES SELECTED FOR THIS PROJECT PROCESSES USED BY WATREX

1) 1)
Pre-oxidation Pre-chlorination Pre-treatment Circular sedimentation
2) 2)
Pre-ozonation Rectangular sedimentation
3)
Horizontal roughing filtration
4)
Pre-ozonation
5)
Peroxone
6)
Pre-dose algae control copper sulphate
1)
Coagulation Coagulation Coagulation/Flocculation 1) Rapid mix aluminium sulphate (alum)
2) 2)
Combined pH correction and coagulation Mechanical horizontal-shaft flocculation
1) 3)
Flocculation Separate flocculation Hydraulic rectangular flocculation
2)
Combined coagulation and flocculation Sedimentation/Flotation 1) Rectangular flow sedimentation
1) 2)
Horizontal Settling Settling (excluding flocculation) Circular upflow sedimentation
2) 3)
Secondary settling (excluding flocculation) Inclined plate sedimentation
1) 4)
Vertical Settling Candy tanks (combined flocculation and settling) Dissolved air flotation
2) 1)
Pulsators (combined flocculation and settling) Filtration Slow sand filtration
3) 2)
Sludge Blankets (combined flocculation and settling) Monomedia rapid sand filtration
1) 1)
Clariflocculation Clariflocculators (combined flocculation and settling) Adsorption GAC
1) 1)
Flotation DAF Disinfection Chlorine and chloramination
Flotation and Filtration 1) CocoDAFF pH Modification 1)
Lower pH with sulphuric acid
2) 2)
DAFF Raise pH with quick lime
1) 3)
Filtration All types excluding GAC and PAC Raise pH is soda ash
1)
Sludge Handling Circular gravity sludge thickening

Of these processes, some were found to have no effect on turbidity removal ("no change"
processes). These processes were identified by a simple plot of incoming NTU (NTU in)
versus outgoing NTU (NTU out) for each process. A trend line was then plotted to establish
the general slope of each graph. If the slope was approximately equal to one, it was
concluded that the process had no effect on the turbidity removal. The following processes
were identified as "no change" processes:
o Preoxidation (Figure 4.4.1).
o Coagulation (Figure 4.4.2).
o Flocculation both combined and separate (Figures 4.4.3 and 4.4.4 respectively).

The terminology used in the headings of the graphs in sections 4.4 4.6 (most of which is
outlined in the list above) give an explanation of which data points were used to produce each
plot. However, it is necessary for the remaining terminology to be explained:
o Raw : raw water NTU values.
o : to [NTU in values to () NTU out values].
 70

NTU in vs NTU out : Raw - [Preoxidation]

110

100

y = 1.0489x
90
R2 = 0.9662
80

70
NTUout

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

NTU in

Figure 4.4.1 Plot of NTU in versus NTU out for preoxidation data.

NTU in vs NTU out : [Preoxidation] - [Coagulation]

110

100

y = 0.934x
90
R2 = 0.937
80

70
NTUout

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

NTU in

Figure 4.4.2 Plot of NTU in versus NTU out for coagulation data.
 71

NTU in vs NTU out : Raw - [Flocculation]

12000

11000

10000

y = 0.9291x
9000
2
R = 0.9595
8000

7000
NTUout

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000

NTU in

Figure 4.4.3 Plot of NTU in versus NTU out for combined coagulation / flocculation data.

NTU in vs NTU out : [Coagulation] - [Flocculation]

12000

11000

y = 1.115x
10000
2
R = 0.9339
9000

8000

7000
NTUout

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000

NTU in

Figure 4.4.4 Plot of NTU in versus NTU out for separate flocculation data.
 72

4.5 Example of Model Calibration

The remaining processes, i.e. settling, flotation and filtration processes, had specific loading
rates in terms of the water flowing through them. These loading rates were plotted against
the turbidity value leaving each process (NTU out) to determine if they had an effect on
turbidity removal (Figures 4.5.1 4.5.6). These plots showed that loading rates had very little
effect on turbidity removal.

Loading Rate vs NTU out : Flocculation + [Settling]

11

10

7
NTUout

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5

Loading Rate (m/h)

Figure 4.5.1 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for horizontal settling data.
 73

Loading Rate vs NTU out : [Flocculation + Settling]

11

10

7
NTUout

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75

Loading Rate (m/h)

Figure 4.5.2 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for vertical settling data.

Loading Rate vs NTU out : [Clariflocculation]

40

35

30

25
NTUout

20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Loading Rate (m/h)

Figure 4.5.3 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for clariflocculation data.
 74

Loading Rate vs NTU out : [Flotation]

11

10

7
NTUout

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Loading Rate (m/h)

Figure 4.5.4 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for flotation data.

Loading Rate vs NTU out : [Flotation + Filtration]

11

10

7
NTUout

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

Loading Rate (m/h)

Figure 4.5.5 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for combined flotation / filtration data.
 75

Loading Rate vs NTU out : [Filtration]

11

10

7
NTUout

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Loading Rate (m/h)

Figure 4.5.6 Plot of loading rate versus NTU out for filtration data.

The next step in calibrating the mathematical model was to determine the X value for each
process. This value was obtained from a turbidity data plot of NTU in versus NTU % for each
process. The X value was read off the xaxis (NTU in) of each graph as that point, where
NTU % is approximately zero. These graphs are presented in Figures 4.5.7 4.5.12 below.

NOTE: NTU % is expressed as a percentage value rather than a fraction. This translates into
the NTU % value (as it would be calculated in Table 4.2.1) being multiplied by 100.
 76

NTU in vs NTU %: Raw - Flocculation + [Settling]

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
NTU %

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

NTU in

Figure 4.5.7 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for horizontal settling data.

NTU in vs NTU % : Raw - [Flocculation + Settling]

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
NTU%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

NTU in

Figure 4.5.8 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for vertical settling data.
 77

NTU in vs NTU % : Raw - [Clariflocculation]

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
NTU%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

NTU in

Figure 4.5.9 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for clariflocculation data.

NTU in vs NTU % : Raw - [Flotation]

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
NTU%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

NTU in

Figure 4.5.10 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for flotation data.

 78

NTU in vs NTU % : Raw - [Flotation + Filtration]

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
NTU%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25

NTU in

Figure 4.5.11 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for combined flotation and filtration data.

NTU in vs NTU % : Flotation + Settling - Filtration

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
NTU%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25

NTU in

Figure 4.5.12 Plot of NTU in versus NTU % for filtration data.

 79

Once the X values were determined for each process, they were substituted into equation 34b
to solve for the k value for each data point. These k values were then used to determine the
kx values for each process, i.e. the percentile values. Using filtration as a typical data set,
Tables 4.5.1a c below illustrate how the raw data and equation 67 were used to obtain a
range of k x values. The raw data used for the other five processes is shown in Appendix 2.

Table 4.5.1a Typical data set with X and k x values (example: Filtration).
Name of plant Plant # Date of measurement Time of measurement NTU in NTU out NTU % X NTU in - X NTU out - X NTU FR k values k x values
Wiggins 20 November 27, 2000 11:00:00 AM 0.43 0.21 51.2% 0 0.43 0.21 0.488 1.667 k 5 = 0.159
Wiggins 20 November 27, 2000 12:39:00 PM 0.43 0.32 25.6% 0 0.43 0.32 0.744 0.687 k 10 = 0.191
Wiggins 20 August 29, 2000 03:30:00 PM 0.49 0.14 71.4% 0 0.49 0.14 0.286 2.557 k 20 = 0.319
Wiggins 20 November 29, 2000 02:53:00 PM 0.59 0.15 74.6% 0 0.59 0.15 0.254 2.321 k 25 = 0.429
Wiggins 20 September 7, 2000 05:41:00 PM 0.62 0.14 77.4% 0 0.62 0.14 0.226 2.400 k 50 = 0.602
Wiggins 20 September 6, 2000 02:46:00 PM 0.7 0.23 67.1% 0 0.7 0.23 0.329 1.590 k 75 = 1.303
Wiggins 20 September 6, 2000 03:56:00 PM 0.72 0.2 72.2% 0 0.72 0.2 0.278 1.779 k 80 = 1.583
Wiggins 20 August 28, 2000 04:10:00 PM 0.77 0.22 71.4% 0 0.77 0.22 0.286 1.627 k 90 = 1.817
Wiggins 20 August 28, 2000 03:02:00 PM 0.77 0.23 70.1% 0 0.77 0.23 0.299 1.569 k 95 = 2.166
Volvlei 17 February 6, 2001 10:29:00 AM 0.8 0.13 83.8% 0 0.8 0.13 0.163 2.271
Wiggins 20 August 29, 2000 02:32:00 PM 0.81 0.16 80.2% 0 0.81 0.16 0.198 2.002
Wiggins 20 November 29, 2000 02:13:00 PM 0.82 0.19 76.8% 0 0.82 0.19 0.232 1.783
Wiggins 20 September 7, 2000 04:47:00 PM 0.86 0.19 77.9% 0 0.86 0.19 0.221 1.756
Durban Heights 4 September 4, 2000 03:05:00 PM 0.88 0.13 85.2% 0 0.88 0.13 0.148 2.173
Wallmannsthall 18 July 10, 2000 10:09:00 AM 0.88 0.29 67.0% 0 0.88 0.29 0.330 1.261
Volvlei 17 February 7, 2001 09:11:00 AM 0.89 0.19 78.7% 0 0.89 0.19 0.213 1.735
Volvlei 17 February 7, 2001 08:39:00 AM 0.9 0.18 80.0% 0 0.9 0.18 0.200 1.788
Churchill 1 2A February 22, 2001 01:46:00 PM 0.9 0.31 65.6% 0 0.9 0.31 0.344 1.184
Wallmannsthall 18 July 10, 2000 11:33:00 AM 0.96 0.21 78.1% 0 0.96 0.21 0.219 1.583
Wallmannsthall 18 July 21, 2000 04:12:00 PM 0.97 0.32 67.0% 0 0.97 0.32 0.330 1.143
Welbedacht 19 January 30, 2001 02:33:00 PM 0.98 3.9 -298.0% 0 0.98 3.9 3.980 -1.409
Durban Heights 4 August 29, 2000 11:08:00 AM 1 0.1 90.0% 0 1 0.1 0.100 2.303
Loerie 8 February 22, 2001 11:11:00 AM 1 0.3 70.0% 0 1 0.3 0.300 1.204
Durban Heights 4 September 7, 2000 11:46:00 AM 1.1 0.09 91.8% 0 1.1 0.09 0.082 2.276
Durban Heights 4 September 7, 2000 10:58:00 AM 1.1 0.1 90.9% 0 1.1 0.1 0.091 2.180
Durban Heights 4 August 29, 2000 12:03:00 PM 1.1 0.13 88.2% 0 1.1 0.13 0.118 1.941
Durban Heights 4 September 1, 2000 12:02:00 PM 1.1 0.14 87.3% 0 1.1 0.14 0.127 1.874
Durban Heights 4 September 1, 2000 01:49:00 PM 1.15 0.09 92.2% 0 1.15 0.09 0.078 2.215
Durban Heights 4 November 29, 2000 12:13:00 PM 1.2 0.09 92.5% 0 1.2 0.09 0.075 2.159
Loerie 8 February 20, 2001 01:30:00 PM 1.2 0.1 91.7% 0 1.2 0.1 0.083 2.071
Loerie 8 February 22, 2001 11:46:00 AM 1.2 0.1 91.7% 0 1.2 0.1 0.083 2.071
Durban Heights 4 November 28, 2000 12:28:00 PM 1.2 0.13 89.2% 0 1.2 0.13 0.108 1.852
Durban Heights 4 September 4, 2000 03:49:00 PM 1.2 0.16 86.7% 0 1.2 0.16 0.133 1.679
Durban Heights 4 November 28, 2000 11:47:00 AM 1.2 0.16 86.7% 0 1.2 0.16 0.133 1.679
Wallmannsthall 18 July 20, 2000 02:25:00 PM 1.2 0.25 79.2% 0 1.2 0.25 0.208 1.307
Loerie 8 February 21, 2001 12:12:00 PM 1.2 0.3 75.0% 0 1.2 0.3 0.250 1.155
Loerie 8 February 21, 2001 12:58:00 PM 1.2 0.88 26.7% 0 1.2 0.88 0.733 0.258
Wallmannsthall 18 July 20, 2000 03:29:00 PM 1.26 0.31 75.4% 0 1.26 0.31 0.246 1.113
Durban Heights 4 November 30, 2000 08:58:00 AM 1.3 0.15 88.5% 0 1.3 0.15 0.115 1.661
Balkfontein 1 April 3, 2001 02:40:00 PM 1.3 0.7 46.2% 0 1.3 0.7 0.538 0.476
Durban Heights 4 November 29, 2000 11:35:00 AM 1.4 0.11 92.1% 0 1.4 0.11 0.079 1.817
Wallmannsthall 18 July 5, 2000 02:20:00 PM 1.4 0.33 76.4% 0 1.4 0.33 0.236 1.032
Midvaal 10 May 2, 2001 01:13:00 PM 1.4 0.63 55.0% 0 1.4 0.63 0.450 0.570
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 July 26, 2000 07:44:00 AM 1.46 0.1 93.2% 0 1.46 0.1 0.068 1.836
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 July 25, 2000 10:42:00 AM 1.5 0.1 93.3% 0 1.5 0.1 0.067 1.805
Volvlei 17 February 8, 2001 09:29:00 AM 1.5 0.12 92.0% 0 1.5 0.12 0.080 1.684
Durban Heights 4 November 30, 2000 09:35:00 AM 1.5 0.14 90.7% 0 1.5 0.14 0.093 1.581
Wallmannsthall 18 July 21, 2000 03:22:00 PM 1.5 0.27 82.0% 0 1.5 0.27 0.180 1.143
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 December 14, 2000 10:20:00 AM 1.5 0.36 76.0% 0 1.5 0.36 0.240 0.951
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 June 15, 2000 02:55:00 PM 1.5 0.5 66.7% 0 1.5 0.5 0.333 0.732
Midvaal 10 May 2, 2001 12:04:00 PM 1.5 0.58 61.3% 0 1.5 0.58 0.387 0.633
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 July 26, 2000 10:10:00 AM 1.53 0.12 92.2% 0 1.53 0.12 0.078 1.664
Volvlei 17 February 8, 2001 08:57:00 AM 1.6 0.11 93.1% 0 1.6 0.11 0.069 1.673
Midvaal 10 April 2, 2001 11:14:00 AM 1.6 0.2 87.5% 0 1.6 0.2 0.125 1.300
Faure 5 February 7, 2001 12:23:00 PM 1.6 0.81 49.4% 0 1.6 0.81 0.506 0.425
Wiggins 20 November 30, 2000 12:42:00 PM 1.62 0.18 88.9% 0 1.62 0.18 0.111 1.356
 80

Table 4.5.1b Typical data set with X and k x values (example: Filtration) (cont.)

Name of plant Plant # Date of measurement Time of measurement NTU in NTU out NTU % X NTU in - X NTU out - X NTU FR k values k x values
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 July 25, 2000 07:47:00 AM 1.65 0.11 93.3% 0 1.65 0.11 0.067 1.641
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 July 27, 2000 01:39:00 PM 1.65 0.15 90.9% 0 1.65 0.15 0.091 1.453
Wiggins 20 September 1, 2000 09:45:00 AM 1.67 0.16 90.4% 0 1.67 0.16 0.096 1.404
Wiggins 20 November 30, 2000 11:50:00 AM 1.67 0.2 88.0% 0 1.67 0.2 0.120 1.271
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 June 15, 2000 11:50:00 AM 1.7 0.8 52.9% 0 1.7 0.8 0.471 0.443
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 July 24, 2000 03:11:00 PM 1.73 0.14 91.9% 0 1.73 0.14 0.081 1.453
Midvaal 10 April 2, 2001 12:30:00 PM 1.8 0.27 85.0% 0 1.8 0.27 0.150 1.054
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 June 8, 2000 03:00:00 PM 1.8 0.44 75.6% 0 1.8 0.44 0.244 0.783
Welbedacht 19 January 31, 2001 08:45:00 AM 1.8 0.45 75.0% 0 1.8 0.45 0.250 0.770
Churchill 1 2A February 20, 2001 10:05:00 AM 1.8 0.55 69.4% 0 1.8 0.55 0.306 0.659
Balkfontein 1 April 26, 2001 10:39:00 AM 1.8 0.75 58.3% 0 1.8 0.75 0.417 0.486
Balkfontein 1 August 4, 2000 01:14:00 AM 1.88 0.51 72.9% 0 1.88 0.51 0.271 0.694
Loerie 8 February 20, 2001 01:00:00 PM 1.9 0.2 89.5% 0 1.9 0.2 0.105 1.185
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 December 14, 2000 10:56:00 AM 1.9 0.41 78.4% 0 1.9 0.41 0.216 0.807
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 July 27, 2000 07:03:00 AM 2 0.1 95.0% 0 2 0.1 0.050 1.498
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 June 8, 2000 01:15:00 PM 2 0.27 86.5% 0 2 0.27 0.135 1.001
Churchill 1 2A February 22, 2001 03:00:00 PM 2 0.44 78.0% 0 2 0.44 0.220 0.757
Nooitgedagt 11 February 21, 2001 03:22:00 PM 2 0.45 77.5% 0 2 0.45 0.225 0.746
Balkfontein 1 April 10, 2001 12:34:00 PM 2 0.77 61.5% 0 2 0.77 0.385 0.477
Balkfontein 1 August 1, 2000 02:54:00 AM 2.01 0.92 54.2% 0 2.01 0.92 0.458 0.389
Midvaal 10 April 9, 2001 10:40:00 AM 2.1 0.5 76.2% 0 2.1 0.5 0.238 0.683
Churchill 1 2A February 21, 2001 09:05:00 AM 2.1 0.6 71.4% 0 2.1 0.6 0.286 0.597
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 July 28, 2000 01:30:00 PM 2.2 0.14 93.6% 0 2.2 0.14 0.064 1.252
Welbedacht 19 January 31, 2001 10:27:00 AM 2.2 0.28 87.3% 0 2.2 0.28 0.127 0.937
Churchill 1 2A February 21, 2001 09:44:00 AM 2.2 0.8 63.6% 0 2.2 0.8 0.364 0.460
Faure 5 February 7, 2001 01:41:00 PM 2.2 0.8 63.6% 0 2.2 0.8 0.364 0.460
Steenbras 14 February 6, 2001 06:27:00 PM 2.2 1.09 50.5% 0 2.2 1.09 0.495 0.319
Steenbras 14 February 6, 2001 07:15:00 PM 2.2 1.09 50.5% 0 2.2 1.09 0.495 0.319
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 July 28, 2000 07:49:00 AM 2.3 0.21 90.9% 0 2.3 0.21 0.091 1.041
Churchill 2 2B February 22, 2001 01:51:00 PM 2.3 0.38 83.5% 0 2.3 0.38 0.165 0.783
Midvaal 10 April 9, 2001 11:33:00 AM 2.3 0.5 78.3% 0 2.3 0.5 0.217 0.664
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 December 12, 2000 10:08:00 AM 2.3 0.71 69.1% 0 2.3 0.71 0.309 0.511
Balkfontein 1 August 3, 2000 02:26:00 AM 2.31 0.53 77.1% 0 2.31 0.53 0.229 0.637
Balkfontein 1 August 2, 2000 03:04:00 AM 2.37 0.8 66.2% 0 2.37 0.8 0.338 0.458
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 December 12, 2000 10:35:00 AM 2.4 0.82 65.8% 0 2.4 0.82 0.342 0.447
Wallmannsthall 18 July 5, 2000 04:16:00 PM 2.41 0.23 90.5% 0 2.41 0.23 0.095 0.975
Churchill 2 2B February 20, 2001 09:57:00 AM 2.5 0.61 75.6% 0 2.5 0.61 0.244 0.564
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 December 7, 2000 03:12:00 PM 2.5 0.63 74.8% 0 2.5 0.63 0.252 0.551
Midvaal 10 April 9, 2001 01:01:00 PM 2.6 0.3 88.5% 0 2.6 0.3 0.115 0.831
Midvaal 10 May 2, 2001 01:54:00 PM 2.6 0.3 88.5% 0 2.6 0.3 0.115 0.831
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 December 7, 2000 02:10:00 PM 2.7 0.22 91.9% 0 2.7 0.22 0.081 0.929
Zuikerbosch 21 April 25, 2001 11:59:00 AM 2.7 0.33 87.8% 0 2.7 0.33 0.122 0.778
Steenbras 14 February 7, 2001 04:26:00 PM 2.7 2.1 22.2% 0 2.7 2.1 0.778 0.093
Steenbras 14 February 7, 2001 05:04:00 PM 2.7 2.1 22.2% 0 2.7 2.1 0.778 0.093
Rietvlei, Pretoria 12 June 15, 2000 10:05:00 AM 2.8 0.2 92.9% 0 2.8 0.2 0.071 0.943
Zuikerbosch 21 April 25, 2001 12:31:00 PM 2.8 0.38 86.4% 0 2.8 0.38 0.136 0.713
Rustfontein 13 January 31, 2001 02:33:00 PM 2.86 0.51 82.2% 0 2.86 0.51 0.178 0.603
Rustfontein 13 January 31, 2001 01:49:00 PM 2.89 1.2 58.5% 0 2.89 1.2 0.415 0.304
Zuikerbosch 21 April 25, 2001 10:53:00 AM 2.9 0.29 90.0% 0 2.9 0.29 0.100 0.794
Maselspoort 9 January 31, 2001 05:42:00 PM 2.9 0.9 69.0% 0 2.9 0.9 0.310 0.403
Steenbras 14 February 8, 2001 03:39:00 PM 2.9 1.8 37.9% 0 2.9 1.8 0.621 0.164
Steenbras 14 February 8, 2001 04:26:00 PM 2.9 1.8 37.9% 0 2.9 1.8 0.621 0.164
Churchill 2 2B February 21, 2001 09:38:00 AM 3.1 0.7 77.4% 0 3.1 0.7 0.226 0.480
Cullinan 3 July 19, 2000 11:53:00 AM 3.2 0.35 89.1% 0 3.2 0.35 0.109 0.692
Maselspoort 9 February 1, 2001 05:47:00 AM 3.2 1.53 52.2% 0 3.2 1.53 0.478 0.231
Churchill 2 2B February 22, 2001 02:55:00 PM 3.4 0.44 87.1% 0 3.4 0.44 0.129 0.601
Churchill 2 2B February 21, 2001 09:12:00 AM 3.4 0.5 85.3% 0 3.4 0.5 0.147 0.564
Cullinan 3 July 19, 2000 12:52:00 PM 3.5 0.35 90.0% 0 3.5 0.35 0.100 0.658
Welbedacht 19 February 1, 2001 09:17:00 AM 3.5 1.2 65.7% 0 3.5 1.2 0.343 0.306
 81

Table 4.5.1c Typical data set with X and k x values (example: Filtration) (cont.)

Name of plant Plant # Date of measurement Time of measurement NTU in NTU out NTU % X NTU in - X NTU out - X NTU FR k values k x values
Zuikerbosch 21 April 11, 2001 10:07:00 AM 3.6 0.63 82.5% 0 3.6 0.63 0.175 0.484
Zuikerbosch 21 April 4, 2001 12:26:00 PM 3.8 0.4 89.5% 0 3.8 0.4 0.105 0.592
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 January 9, 2001 04:01:00 PM 3.8 0.55 85.5% 0 3.8 0.55 0.145 0.509
Maselspoort 9 January 30, 2001 11:10:00 PM 3.9 1.03 73.6% 0 3.9 1.03 0.264 0.341
Maselspoort 9 January 31, 2001 07:04:00 PM 3.9 1.2 69.2% 0 3.9 1.2 0.308 0.302
Zuikerbosch 21 March 28, 2001 11:32:00 AM 4 0.54 86.5% 0 4 0.54 0.135 0.501
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 January 9, 2001 03:25:00 PM 4 0.67 83.3% 0 4 0.67 0.168 0.447
Faure 5 February 8, 2001 12:35:00 PM 4 0.7 82.5% 0 4 0.7 0.175 0.436
Rustfontein 13 February 1, 2001 01:58:00 PM 4.08 0.55 86.5% 0 4.08 0.55 0.135 0.491
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 January 11, 2001 01:47:00 PM 4.1 0.55 86.6% 0 4.1 0.55 0.134 0.490
Midvaal 10 March 26, 2001 01:32:00 PM 4.1 1.2 70.7% 0 4.1 1.2 0.293 0.300
Nooitgedagt 11 February 21, 2001 04:06:00 PM 4.2 0.41 90.2% 0 4.2 0.41 0.098 0.554
Zuikerbosch 21 April 4, 2001 11:52:00 AM 4.2 0.5 88.1% 0 4.2 0.5 0.119 0.507
Midvaal 10 March 26, 2001 03:08:00 PM 4.2 1.3 69.0% 0 4.2 1.3 0.310 0.279
Rustfontein 13 February 1, 2001 01:25:00 PM 4.21 0.52 87.6% 0 4.21 0.52 0.124 0.497
Wallmannsthall 18 December 6, 2000 09:46:00 AM 4.4 1.7 61.4% 0 4.4 1.7 0.386 0.216
Zuikerbosch 21 April 4, 2001 10:25:00 AM 4.5 0.3 93.3% 0 4.5 0.3 0.067 0.602
Vaalkop, Plant 2 15 January 11, 2001 01:17:00 PM 4.5 0.58 87.1% 0 4.5 0.58 0.129 0.455
Hazelmere 6 September 6, 2000 12:46:00 PM 4.7 0.34 92.8% 0 4.7 0.34 0.072 0.559
Hazelmere 6 September 6, 2000 11:35:00 AM 5 0.58 88.4% 0 5 0.58 0.116 0.431
Wallmannsthall 18 December 6, 2000 11:03:00 AM 5.2 2.07 60.2% 0 5.2 2.07 0.398 0.177
Hazelmere 6 September 5, 2000 01:50:00 PM 5.4 0.26 95.2% 0 5.4 0.26 0.048 0.562
Nooitgedagt 11 February 22, 2001 07:55:00 AM 5.47 2.71 50.5% 0 5.47 2.71 0.495 0.128
Hazelmere 6 September 5, 2000 02:50:00 PM 5.7 0.25 95.6% 0 5.7 0.25 0.044 0.549
Wallmannsthall 18 December 13, 2000 09:43:00 AM 5.7 1.92 66.3% 0 5.7 1.92 0.337 0.191
Hazelmere 6 September 7, 2000 02:01:00 PM 6.01 0.42 93.0% 0 6.01 0.42 0.070 0.443
Cullinan 3 July 6, 2000 10:20:00 AM 6.1 0.45 92.6% 0 6.1 0.45 0.074 0.427
Wallmannsthall 18 December 13, 2000 08:57:00 AM 6.1 1.87 69.3% 0 6.1 1.87 0.307 0.194
Hazelmere 6 August 31, 2000 02:44:00 PM 6.2 0.26 95.8% 0 6.2 0.26 0.042 0.512
Hazelmere 6 November 28, 2000 09:34:00 AM 6.3 0.16 97.5% 0 6.3 0.16 0.025 0.583
Hazelmere 6 September 7, 2000 02:52:00 PM 6.3 0.28 95.6% 0 6.3 0.28 0.044 0.494
Cullinan 3 July 6, 2000 11:35:00 AM 6.5 0.42 93.5% 0 6.5 0.42 0.065 0.421
Hazelmere 6 November 28, 2000 08:38:00 AM 6.6 0.15 97.7% 0 6.6 0.15 0.023 0.573
Hazelmere 6 August 31, 2000 03:22:00 PM 6.6 0.18 97.3% 0 6.6 0.18 0.027 0.546
Zuikerbosch 21 March 28, 2001 12:58:00 PM 6.6 0.64 90.3% 0 6.6 0.64 0.097 0.354
Rustfontein 13 January 30, 2001 06:57:00 PM 7.12 0.68 90.4% 0 7.12 0.68 0.096 0.330
Cullinan 3 July 21, 2000 10:27:00 AM 7.5 1.8 76.0% 0 7.5 1.8 0.240 0.190
Cullinan 3 July 21, 2000 11:19:00 AM 7.5 2 73.3% 0 7.5 2 0.267 0.176
Hazelmere 6 September 4, 2000 11:40:00 AM 7.6 0.22 97.1% 0 7.6 0.22 0.029 0.466
Welbedacht 19 February 1, 2001 10:35:00 AM 7.7 10.1 -31.2% 0 7.7 10.1 1.312 -0.035
Hazelmere 6 November 29, 2000 09:00:00 AM 7.9 0.13 98.4% 0 7.9 0.13 0.016 0.520
Hazelmere 6 September 4, 2000 12:35:00 PM 7.9 0.23 97.1% 0 7.9 0.23 0.029 0.448
Hazelmere 6 November 29, 2000 09:36:00 AM 8.1 0.16 98.0% 0 8.1 0.16 0.020 0.484
Wallmannsthall 18 December 11, 2000 03:50:00 PM 8.1 1.72 78.8% 0 8.1 1.72 0.212 0.191
Wallmannsthall 18 December 11, 2000 02:53:00 PM 8.4 1.87 77.7% 0 8.4 1.87 0.223 0.179
Zuikerbosch 21 April 11, 2001 12:20:00 PM 9.8 2.1 78.6% 0 9.8 2.1 0.214 0.157
Zuikerbosch 21 April 11, 2001 11:45:00 AM 10.5 2 81.0% 0 10.5 2 0.190 0.158
Nooitgedagt 11 February 20, 2001 03:58:00 PM 10.7 1.16 89.2% 0 10.7 1.16 0.108 0.208
Hazelmere 6 November 27, 2000 04:59:00 PM 11.6 0.56 95.2% 0 11.6 0.56 0.048 0.261
Cullinan 3 December 12, 2000 01:57:00 PM 12 0.9 92.5% 0 12 0.9 0.075 0.216
Cullinan 3 December 7, 2000 10:40:00 AM 12 1.2 90.0% 0 12 1.2 0.100 0.192
Cullinan 3 December 12, 2000 01:24:00 PM 13 0.9 93.1% 0 13 0.9 0.069 0.205
Cullinan 3 December 7, 2000 11:30:00 AM 14 1.5 89.3% 0 14 1.5 0.107 0.160
Hazelmere 6 November 27, 2000 04:10:00 PM 14.1 0.77 94.5% 0 14.1 0.77 0.055 0.206
Cullinan 3 December 14, 2000 01:39:00 PM 22 2 90.9% 0 22 2 0.091 0.109
Cullinan 3 December 14, 2000 01:03:00 PM 24 2 91.7% 0 24 2 0.083 0.104
 82

4.6 Results

The X and k x values obtained for each process by the above mentioned modelling procedure
are listed in Tables 4.6.1a c below. In these tables, five of the sets of k x values are
highlighted. These values were used in five separate equations for each process, allowing
the user to stipulate the type of treatment plant the system is dealing with. The equations
used to predict NTU FR and NTU out for each process are also listed in Tables 4.6.1a c, whilst
the corresponding graphs for each process can be found under subheadings 4.6.1 and 4.6.2
(Figures 4.6.1 4.6.12).

The k x value in each equation determines the performance of the proposed plant. The user
stipulates the type of plant he/she expects to have in terms of performance and the
corresponding equation will be used to determine the outgoing turbidity value, as explained
below:

o k 10; NTU FR (10); NTU out (10) : very poor performance

o k 25; NTU FR (25); NTU out (25) : below average performance

o k 50; NTU FR (50); NTU out (50) : average performance

o k 75; NTU FR (75); NTU out (75) : above average performance

o k 90; NTU FR (90); NTU out (90) : very good performance

 83

Table 4.6.1a X and k x values, and equations for each process modelled.

Value Description of value Horizontal Settling Vertical Settling

X Threshold value 1.00 1.00

k5 Lower 5
th
percentile slope 0.036 0.022

th
k 10 Lower 10 percentile slope 0.044 0.033

k 20 Lower 20
th
percentile slope 0.061 0.069

th
k 25 Lower 25 percentile slope 0.066 0.083

th
k 50 50 percentile slope 0.161 0.310

th
k 75 Upper 25 percentile slope 0.253 0.465

k 80 Upper 20
th
percentile slope 0.273 0.601

th
k 90 Upper 10 percentile slope 0.367 1.081

k 95 Upper 5
th
percentile slope 0.759 1.272

NTU FR = e 0 . 044 (NTU in 1) NTU FR = e 0 . 033 (NTU in 1)

th
NTU FR(10) Lower 10 NTU FR equation
equation 71a.1 equation 72a.1

th
(
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.044 (NTU in 1) ) (
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.033 (NTU in 1) )
NTU out(10) Lower 10 NTU out equation
equation 71a.2 equation 72a.2
NTU FR = e 0 . 066 (NTU in 1) NTU =e 0 . 083 (NTU in 1)
th FR
NTU FR(25) Lower 25 NTU FR equation
equation 71b.1 equation 72b.1

th
(
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.066 (NTU in 1) ) (
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.083(NTUin 1) )
NTU out(25) Lower 25 NTU out equation
equation 71b.2 equation 72b.2
0 . 161 (NTU 1)
NTU = e in 0.31(NTUin 1)
th FR NTU FR = e
NTU FR(50) 50 NTU FR equation
equation 71c.1 equation 72c.1

th
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e ( 0.161(NTU in 1)
) (
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.31(NTUin 1) )
NTU out(50) 50 NTU out equation
equation 71c.2 equation 72c.2
NTU FR = e 0 .253 (NTU in 1) NTU FR = e 0 . 465 (NTU in 1)
th
NTU FR(75) Upper 25 NTU FR equation
equation 71d.1 equation 72d.1

th
(
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.253 (NTU in 1) ) (
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.465(NTUin 1) )
NTU out(75) Upper 25 NTU out equation
equation 71d.2 equation 72d.2
NTU FR = e 0 . 367 (NTU in 1) NTU FR =e 1 . 081 (NTU in 1)
th
NTU FR(90) Upper 10 NTU FR equation
equation 71e.1 equation 72e.1

th
(
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.367 (NTU in 1) ) (
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 1.081(NTU in 1) )
NTU out(90) Upper 10 NTU out equation
equation 71e.2 equation 72e.2
 84

Table 4.6.1b X and k x values, and equations for each process modelled (cont.).

Value Description of value Clariflocculation Flotation

X Threshold value 1.00 1.00

k5 Lower 5 th percentile slope 0.017 0.167

k 10 Lower 10 th percentile slope 0.023 0.224

k 20 Lower 20 th percentile slope 0.028 0.254

th
k 25 Lower 25 percentile slope 0.030 0.269

k 50 50 th percentile slope 0.073 0.388

k 75 Upper 25 th percentile slope 0.147 0.896

k 80 Upper 20 th percentile slope 0.169 1.037

k 90 Upper 10 th percentile slope 0.299 1.556

k 95 Upper 5 th percentile slope 0.387 1.763

NTU FR = e 0 . 023 (NTU in 1)

NTU FR = e 0 . 224 (NTU in 1)
NTU FR(10) Lower 10 th NTU FR equation
equation 73a.1 equation 74a.1
(
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.023 (NTU in 1) ) (
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.224 (NTU in 1) )
NTU out(10) Lower 10 th NTU out equation
equation 73a.2 equation 74a.2
NTU FR = e 0 . 030 (NTU in 1)
NTU FR = e 0 . 269 (NTU in 1)
NTU FR(25) Lower 25 th NTU FR equation
equation 73b.1 equation 74b.1
(
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.030 (NTU in 1) ) (
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.269 (NTU in 1) )
NTU out(25) Lower 25 th NTU out equation
equation 73b.2 equation 74b.2
NTU FR = e 0 . 073 (NTU in 1) NTU FR = e 0 . 388 (NTU in 1)
NTU FR(50) 50 th NTU FR equation
equation 73c.1 equation 74c.1
(
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.073 (NTU in 1) ) (
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.388 (NTU in 1) )
NTU out(50) 50 th NTU out equation
equation 73c.2 equation 74c.2
NTU FR = e 0 . 147 (NTU in 1)
NTU FR = e 0 . 896 (NTU in 1)
NTU FR(75) Upper 25 th NTU FR equation
equation 73d.1 equation 74d.1

th
(
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.147 (NTU in 1) ) (
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.896(NTUin 1) )
NTU out(75) Upper 25 NTU out equation
equation 73d.2 equation 74d.2
NTU FR = e 0 . 299 (NTU in 1)
NTU FR = e 1 . 556 (NTU in 1)
th
NTU FR(90) Upper 10 NTU FR equation
equation 73e.1 equation 74e.1
(
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 0.299 (NTU in 1) ) (
NTU out = 1 + (NTU in 1) e 1.556 (NTU in 1) )
NTU out(90) Upper 10 th NTU out equation
equation 73e.2 equation 74e.2
 85

Table 4.6.1c X and k x values, and equations for each process modelled (cont.).

Value Description of value Combined Flotation and Filtration Filtration

X Threshold value 0.00 0.00

k5 Lower 5
th
percentile slope 0.159 0.159

k 10 Lower 10 th percentile slope 0.274 0.191

k 20 Lower 20 th percentile slope 0.441 0.319

k 25 Lower 25 th percentile slope 0.462 0.429

k 50 50 th percentile slope 0.538 0.602

k 75 Upper 25 th percentile slope 0.708 1.303

k 80 Upper 20 th percentile slope 0.730 1.583

k 90 Upper 10 th percentile slope 1.115 1.817

k 95 Upper 5 th percentile slope 1.766 2.166

NTU FR = e 0 . 274 (NTU in ) NTU FR = e 0 . 191 (NTU in )

NTU FR(10) Lower 10 th NTU FR equation
equation 75a.1 equation 76a.1
(
NTU out = (NTU in ) e 0 .274 (NTU in ) ) (
NTU out = (NTU in ) e 0 .191(NTU in ) )
NTU out(10) Lower 10 th NTU out equation
equation 75a.2 equation 76a.2
NTU FR = e 0 . 462 (NTU in ) NTU FR = e 0 . 429 (NTU in )
NTU FR(25) Lower 25 th NTU FR equation
equation 75b.1 equation 76b.1
(
NTU out = (NTU in ) e 0.462 (NTU in ) ) (
NTU out = (NTU in ) e 0.429 (NTU in ) )
NTU out(25) Lower 25 th NTU out equation
equation 75b.2 equation 76b.2
NTU FR = e 0 . 538 (NTU in ) NTU FR = e 0 . 602 (NTU in )
NTU FR(50) 50 th NTU FR equation
equation 75c.1 equation 76c.1
(
NTU out = (NTU in ) e 0.538 (NTU in ) ) (
NTU out = (NTU in ) e 0.602 (NTU in ) )
NTU out(50) 50 th NTU out equation
equation 75c.2 equation 76c.2
NTU FR = e 0 . 708 (NTU in ) NTU FR = e 1 . 303 (NTU in )
NTU FR(75) Upper 25 th NTU FR equation
equation 75d.1 equation 76d.1
NTU out = (NTU in )(e 0.708 (NTUin )
) ( )
NTU out = NTU in e (
1 .303 (NTU in )
)
th
NTU out(75) Upper 25 NTU out equation
equation 75d.2 equation 76d.2
1 . 115 (NTUin ) 1 . 817 (NTUin )
NTU FR = e NTU FR = e
NTU FR(90) Upper 10 th NTU FR equation
equation 75e.1 equation 76e.1
NTU out = (NTU in ) e ( 1 .115 (NTU in )
) NTU out = (NTU in ) e ( 1 .817 (NTU in )
)
NTU out(90) Upper 10 th NTU out equation
equation 75e.2 equation 76e.2
 86

The charts for equations 71a.1 to 76e.2 above contain have graphs, pertaining to plant
performance, as well as the originally measured data points for reference purposes. The key
codes used to distinguish between predicted performance and actual plant performance can
be viewed in Table 4.6.2 below:

Table 4.6.2 Key code for turbidity modelling graphs.

Plant Name Plant No. Key Plant Name Plant No. Key Plant Name Plant No. Key

Balkfontein Plant 1 Maselspoort Plant 9 Wallmannsthal Plant 18

Churchill 1 Plant 2A Midvaal Plant 10 Welbedacht Plant 19

Churchill 2 Plant 2B Midvaal 1 Plant 10A Welbedacht 1 Plant 19A

Cullinan Plant 3 Midvaal 2 Plant10B Welbedacht 2 Plant 19B

Durban Heights Plant 4 Nooitgedagt Plant 11 Wiggins Plant 20

Faure Plant 5 Rietvlei Plant 12 Zuikerbosch Plant 21

Faure 1 Plant 5A Rustfontein Plant 13 NTU10

Faure 2 Plant 5B Steenbras Plant14 NTU25

Hazelmere Plant 6 Vaalkop 2 Plant 15 NTU50

Klipdrift Plant 7 Vaalkop 3 Plant 16 NTU75

Loerie Plant 8 Volvlei Plant 17 NTU90

4.6.1 NTU in versus NTU FR Graphs

NTU in vs NTU FR (Percentile): Raw - Flocculation + [Settling]

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
NTUFR

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

NTU in

Figure 4.6.1 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled horizontal settling data.
 87

NTU in vs NTU FR (Percentile): Raw - [Flocculation + Settling]

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
NTUFR

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

NTU in

Figure 4.6.2 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled vertical settling data.

NTU in vs NTU FR (Percentile): Raw - [Clariflocculation]

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
NTUFR

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

NTU in

Figure 4.6.3 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled clariflocculation data.

 88

NTU in vs NTU FR (Percentile): Raw - [Flotation]

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
NTUFR

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

NTU in

Figure 4.6.4 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled flotation data.

NTU in vs NTU FR (Percentile): Raw - [Flotation + Filtration]

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
NTUFR

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25

NTU in

Figure 4.6.5 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled combined flotation and filtration data.
 89

NTU in vs NTU FR (Percentile): Flotation + Settling - [Filtration]

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6
NTUFR

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25

NTU in

Figure 4.6.6 NTU in versus NTU FR for modelled filtration data.

The above graphs show how well the prediction models fit to the measured data. The
envelope of the prediction models incorporates the majority of the data points as expected
and the number of data points found above and below each modelled line agrees with those
expected.

4.6.2 NTU in versus NTU out Graphs

The shape of the following graphs was an unexpected one, but clearly illustrates the difficulty
of removing turbidity at low incoming turbidity (NTUin) values, and the ease of turbidity
removal at high incoming values, apparent in the bell-like shape of each curve.

NOTE: The key code used for these graphs is the same as for figures 4.6.1 4.6.6.
 90

NTU in vs NTU out (Percentile): Raw - Flocculation + [Settling]

13

12

11

10

8
NTUout

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

NTU in

Figure 4.6.7 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled horizontal settling data.

NTU in vs NTU out (Percentile): Raw - [Flocculation + Settling]

14

12

10

8
NTUout

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

NTU in

Figure 4.6.8 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled vertical settling data.
 91

NTU in vs NTU out (Percentile): Raw - [Clariflocculation]

24

22

20

18

16

14
NTUout

12

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

NTU in

Figure 4.6.9 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled clariflocculation data.

NTU in vs NTU out (Percentile): Raw - [Flotation]

7.5

6.5

5.5

4.5
NTU out

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

NTU in

Figure 4.6.10 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled flotation data.
 92

NTU in vs NTU out (Percentile): Raw - [Flotation + Filtration]

2.5

2
NTUout

1.5

0.5

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25

NTU in

Figure 4.6.11 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled combined flotation and filtration data.

NTU in vs NTU out (Percentile): Flotation + Settling - [Filtration]

2.75

2.5

2.25

1.75
NTUout

1.5

1.25

0.75

0.5

0.25

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25

NTU in

Figure 4.6.12 NTU in versus NTU out for modelled filtration data.
 93

As in the case of the graphs in section 4.6.1, the graphs in section 4.6.2 illustrate how well the
prediction models fit to the measured data.

In the cases of the flotation and combined flotation and filtration plots, the accuracy would
have been improved if more data had been available. However, there are not many water
treatment plants in South Africa that include these processes as part of their treatment trains.

If the settling and flotation / filtration process graphs (figures 4.6.7 4.6.9 and figures 4.6.10
4.6.12 respectively) are plotted on two sets of axes, it can be seen that the clariflocculation
process is not as efficient as popularly thought in removing turbidity. In fact, vertical settling
appears to perform consistently better than the other two types of settling (see figure 4.6.13).
It is also interesting to note that a combined flotation and filtration process is more effective in
turbidity removal than a single flotation process. However, when flotation is followed by
filtration, the turbidity removal efficiency can be expected to be slightly greater than for the
combined process (see figure 4.6.14). From a process point of view this difference is
insignificant. However, this difference becomes more significant when considering the
operating and cost effects as it will require more of these resources for two separate
processes than for a single combined process.

NTU in vs NTU out (Percentile): Settling Comparison

4
NTUout

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

NTU in

Vertical Settling Horizontal Settling Clariflocculation

Figure 4.6.13 Comparison of settling data ( NTU in versus NTU out ).

 94

NTU in vs NTU out (Percentile): Flotation / Filtration Comparison

1.75

1.5

1.25
NTUout

0.75

0.5

0.25

0
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5 25

NTU in

Filtration Combined Flotation

Figure 4.6.14 Comparison of settling data ( NTU in versus NTU out ).

 95

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The in-depth study of the current WATREX system resulted in the identification of two
significant deficiencies that could be improved upon by this study:
1. There was an insufficient list of possible chemicals that could be added to improve
the quality of the water. This resulted in an identification of 18 chemicals that are
either commonly used in the water treatment industry or are soon to be introduced
into the industry with emerging treatment technologies. The chemicals that are
included in the current system were not treated as separate processes. This project,
therefore, dealt with each chemical addition step as a separate process, with its own
effects on the quality of the water. This was implemented via a complex spreadsheet
that assigned a separate worksheet to each chemical, allowing the calculation of
each water quality parameter that is affected by chemical addition. This process was
automated via macros allowing the user to see the effects of a chemical addition with
the click of a button.

2. The current system was also found to yield unrealistic turbidity removal results. A
new approach was taken to this deficiency, whereby existing turbidity data from
various South African water treatment plants was mathematically modelled. This
resulted in the development of a series of equations that can predict turbidity removal
for six different treatment processes, based on the proposed performance of the plant
and the turbidity entering each process.

The results of the chemical addition study were compared to an accepted water quality
prediction programme (Stasoft4 1.0) and found to be comparable to the results obtained from
this programme, given the same water quality definition. Hence, the chemical water quality
prediction is considered to be accurate.

The mathematical models generated for turbidity removal prediction could not be compared
with another reliable prediction tool, as none exists at this time. However, the graphs
obtained from the series of equations for each process were consistent in shape and tended
to fall within the range of measured data points.

From this study a number of recommendations can be made:

1. Though this project does work towards the improvement of the current WATREX
system, these improvements have yet to be incorporated into the WATREX system.
However, this would simply require editing the knowledge base and minimal
programming to ensure the system uses the new information correctly.
 96

2. Though this project did not originally set out to do so, the exclusion of processes and
the grouping together of others for the turbidity removal prediction study, may be
considered as a basis with which to decrease the number of processes in the current
WATREX system from the current list of 21 to a list of nine, i.e. the three "no change"
processes and the six modelled processes. Including chemical addition processes
would increase this list to 27. However, not all chemicals are considered in a single
consultation. This may also apply to the list of phase removal parameters used by
the system, since only turbidity has been accurately modelled by this project.

3. Similar data collection and mathematical modelling studies, like the turbidity study
done in this project, could be carried out for other water quality parameters such as
DOC, chlorophyll a and dissolved solids. This would enable the production of similar
removal prediction equations for these parameters and, thereby, more accurate
prediction tools.

4. There are data sets and models available that predict water quality changes after
activated carbon processes. It would be advisable for WATREX to include these
models, as the use of activated carbon in the water treatment industry is becoming a
more common and acceptable practice.

5. The possibility exists for the inclusion of a spreadsheet system for water quality
prediction with regards to chemical additions. The spreadsheet system presented in
this project could be used, though extensive background programming would be
required to allow the user to enter chemicals in any order. The current spreadsheet
only allows the user to enter chemicals in the order in which the worksheets appear.
This would allow the user to view chemical effects with the mere click of a button.
This may be done by incorporating the spreadsheet as a background program to the
system, i.e. linking the two programs.

6. The ordering of processes still needs to be addressed. If the processes that the
system uses are changed, the problem may be fixed automatically. However, any
implementation of new processes should be closely observed and tested to ensure
that the problem does not occur anymore.

7. Small changes to the user interface of the current WATREX system can be
recommended. These changes would basically include giving the system a more
aesthetically pleasing interface, which would in turn make the user feel more
comfortable with using the system.
 97

REFERENCES

ALANI MY and ALBALDAWI MF (1988) Turbidity removal efficiency of circular secondary

sedimentation tank for treating Tigris River water. Aqua no 6 306 312.
BATHER A, ANDREWS RC and HUNSINGER R (1998) An expert-hypertext system for water
chlorination and chloramination operations. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 25 653
661.
BENEFIELD LD, JUDKINS JF and WEAND BL (1982) Process Chemistry for Water and
Wastewater Treatment. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, USA.
CHANG SD and SINGER PC (1991) The impact of Ozonation on Particle Stability and the
Removal of TOC and THM Precursors. Journal AWWA.
COLLINS AG, NIX SJ, TSAY TK, GERA A and HOPKINS MA (1990) The Potential for
Expert Systems in water Utility Operation and Management. AWWA Journal Sept 1990 44
51.
HAARHOFF J (2000) State of the Art of Modelling in Water Treatment. Unpublished.
HAAS CN (1990) Disinfection. In: FW Pontius (ed.) Water Quality and Treatment: A
Handbook of Community Water Supplies. American Water Works Association, McGrawHill,
Inc., USA. 877932.
KNIGHT B (1987) An expert system for upgrading small water supplies. Civil Engineering
Systems 4 2730.
LOEWENTHAL RE and MARAIS GvR (1976) Carbonate Chemistry of Aquatic Systems:
Theory and Application. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Michigan, USA.
NIX SJ and COLLINS AG (1991) Expert systems in Water Treatment Plant Operation.
AWWA Journal Feb 1991 4351.
PATRICK NA (1993) An Expert System For Water Treatment Pant Design. Ph.D. Thesis,
Univ. of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. Unpublished.
SABS 241:1999 (ISBN 0626120217).
SAWYER CN and MCCARTY PL (1978) Chemistry for Environmental Engineering (3rd edn.).
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, USA.
SCHOCK MR (1990) Internal Corrosion and Deposition Control. In: FW Pontius (ed.) Water
Quality and Treatment: A Handbook of Community Water Supplies. American Water Works
Association, McGrawHill, Inc., USA. 9971111.
SEELAUS TJ, HENDRICKS DW and JANONIS BA (1986) Design and operation of a slow
sand filter. Journal of American Water Works Association vol 78 no 12 35 41.
SMITH R (1986) Computer Assisted Preliminary Design for Drinking Water Treatment
Process Systems. Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA/600/S2-86/007,
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
STUMM W and MORGAN JJ (1981) Aquatic Chemistry: An Introduction Emphasizing
Chemical Equilibria in Natural Waters (2nd edn.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.
 98

WATER RESEARCH COMMISSION (WRC) (1996) An Expert System for Water Treatment
Plant Design Technical Support Document. Report No 2763/1289/2/W. Unpublished.
WEGELIN M, SCHERTENLEIB R and BOLLER M (1991) The decade of roughing filters
development of a rural water treatment process for developing countries. Aqua vol 40 no 5
304 316.
YAO KM (1973) Design of HighRate Settlers. Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division.
 I

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Chemical Spreadsheet

Contained on accompanying compact disc.

Appendix 2: Turbidity Data Spreadsheets

Contained on accompanying compact disc.

 II

Appendix 3: Process Trains

Please note that in each process train diagram, the circled numbers represent a sampling
point, the text in each block indicates what process(es) occurred prior to the sampling point
and the arrows indicate the direction of water flow.

Raw Water

Pre-Oxidation
(Chlorine)

pH Correction and Coagulation

(Lime and Ferric+Polyelectrolyte)

Flocculation

Settling
(Horizontal)

pH Correction and Oxidation

(CO2 and Chlorine)

Secondary Settling
(Horizontal)

Canal

Filtration

Chlorine

10

Figure A3.1 Balkfontein water treatment plant process train.

 III

Raw Water (1) Raw Water (2)

1 5

Coagulation (1) Coagulation (2)

2 6

Flocculation and Flocculation

Settling (Vertical - and Settling
Candy Tanks) (Clariflocculation)

3 7

Filtration (1) Filtration (2)

4 8

Chlorine and Lime

Figure A3.2 Churchill water treatment plant process train.

Please note that the Churchill treatment plant (Figure A3.2) has two partial treatment trains.
Data points for Plant 2A represent the train on the left hand side , whilst data points for Plant
2B represent the train on the right hand side. Sampling point no. 9 represents both Plant 2A
and 2B.

Raw Water

Coagulation

pH Correction
(Lime)

Flocculation and Settling

(Clariflocculation)

Filtration

Chlorine

Figure A3.3 Cullinan water treatment plant process train.

 IV

Raw Water

Pre-Oxidation
(Chlorine)

Coagulation

pH Correction
(Lime)

Flocculation and Settling

(Vertical - Pulsators)

Filtration

Chlorine

Figure A3.4 Durban Heights water treatment plant process train.

 V

Figure A3.5 below shows how the Faure water treatment plant is divided into three partial
treatment trains. The train on the right hand side represents Plant 5A, whilst the train on the
left hand side represents Plant 5B. The Plant 5 treatment train is represented by the centre
processes (pre- and post-settled wash water) and the last four processes (combined settled
waters chlorine + CO2).

Raw Water (1A) Raw Water (2A)

1 Raw and
Recycled (2B)

Coagulation (1) Coagulation (2)

Flocculation (1) Flocculation (2)

2 6

Settling (1) Settling (2)

(Horizontal) (Horizontal)

Pre-settled
Wash Water

3 8 7

Postsettled Wash
(Horizontal)

Combination of Settled Waters

10

Chlorine and Lime

11

Filtration

12

Chlorine and CO2

13

Figure A3.5 Faure water treatment plant process train.

 VI

Raw Water

Pre-Oxidation
(Chlorine)

Coagulation

Flocculation and Settling

(Clariflocculation)

pH Correction
(Lime)

Filtration

Chlorine and NH3

Figure A3.6 Hazelmere water treatment plant process train.

Raw Water

pH correction and Pre-Oxidation

(Lime and Chlorine)

Coagulation

Flocculation

Flotation and Filtration

(CocoDAFF)

Chlorine

Figure A3.7 Klipdrift water treatment plant process train.

 VII
Raw Water

Coagulation

Flocculation and Settling

(Clariflocculation)

Filtration

Chlorine and Lime

Figure A3.8 Loerie water treatment plant process train.

Raw Water

pH Correction and Coagulation

(Lime and Polyelectrolyte)

Flocculation and Settling

(Clariflocculation)

Coagulation

Flocculation

Secondary Settling
(Horizontal)

Transport to Filters

Filtration

Chlorine

Figure A3.9 Maselspoort water treatment plant process train.

 VIII

Raw Water

Raw and Recycled

Coagulation

Flocculation

Flotation

Ozone

Flocculation Settling
and Settling (Horizontal)
(Clariflocculation )
8
7

Filtration

Chlorine

10

Figure A3.10 Midvaal water treatment plant process train.

Figure A3.10 above illustrates the treatment train of Midvaal water treatment plant. The main
partial treatment train (Plant 10) represents the common processes, i.e. raw water ozone
and filtration chlorine. Plant 10A represents the clariflocculation process, whilst Plant 10B
represents the horizontal settling process.
 IX

Raw Water

Coagulation

Flocculation and Settling

(Vertical - Pulsators)

Filtration

Chlorine

Figure A3.11 Nooitgedagt water treatment plant process train.

Raw Water

pH Correction and Coagulation

(Lime and Ferric)

Flocculation

Flotation
(DAF)

Flotation and Filtration

(DAFF)

GAC

Additon of Fountain Water

Chlorine

Figure A3.12 Rietvlei water treatment plant process train.

 X

Raw Water

pH Correction
(Lime)

Flocculation and Settling

(Clariflocculation)

Coagulation

Flocculation and Settling

(Vertical - Pulsators)

Filtration

Chlorine

Figure A3.13 Rustfontein water treatment plant process train.

Raw Water

Coagulation

Flocculation

Settling
(Horizontal)

Chlorine

Filtration

Lime and Chlorine and CO2

Figure A3.14 Steenbras water treatment plant process train.

 XI

The following two process train diagrams (Figures A2.15 and A2.16) represent the two
modules at the Vaalkop plant. Both modules have the ability to pretreat the water by either
prechlorination or PAC (powdered activated carbon). However, these two types of pre
treatment cannot be run simultaneously in one module. As a result some of these data points
in Appendix 2 will be for prechlorination, whilst others will be for PAC.

Raw Water

Pre-Oxidation or PAC
(Chlorine or PAC)

pH Correction and Coagulation

(Lime and Ferric)

Flocculation

Settling
(Horizontal)

Filtration

Chlorine and Lime

Figure A3.15 Vaalkop #2 water treatment plant process train.

 XII

Raw Water

Pre-Oxidation or PAC
(Chlorine or PAC)

pH Correction and Coagulation

(Lime and Ferric)

Flocculation

Settling
(Horizontal)

Secondary Coagulation

Secondary Flocculation
(Ultrafloc)

Flotation and Filtration

(CocoDAFF)

Chlorine and Lime

Figure A3.16 Vaalkop #3 water treatment plant process train.

 XIII

Raw Water

Coagulation

Flocculation and Settling

(Vertical - Sludge Blanket)

Filtration

Chlorine

Figure A3.17 Volvlei water treatment plant process train.

Raw Water

Pre-Oxidation
(Chlorine)

pH Correction and Coagulation

(Lime and Ferric)

Flocculation

Flotation

Settling
(Horizontal)

Filtration

Chlorine

Figure A3.18 Wallmannsthal water treatment plant process train.

 XIV

The Welbedacht water treatment plant (Figure A3.19 below) has three partial treatment trains.
The main treatment train (Plant 19) represents the common processes; i.e. raw water
coagulation, and pH correction and coagulation chlorine. Plant 19A represents the
flocculation and horizontal settling processes, whilst Plant 19B represents the clariflocculation
process.

Raw Water

Coagulation

2
Flocculation
Flocculation
3
and Settling
Settling (Clariflocculation)
(Horizontal)
5
4

pH Correction and Coagulation

(Lime and Polyelectrolyte)

Secondary Flocculation and Settling

(Vertical - Pulsators)

Filtration

Chlorine

Figure A3.19 Welbedacht water treatment plant process train.

 XV

Raw Water

Pre-Oxidation
(Ozone)

pH Correction and Coagulation

(Lime and PAC)

Coagulation

Flocculation and Settling

(Vertical - Pulsators)

Filtration

Chlorine

Figure A3.20 Wiggins water treatment plant process train.

Raw Water

Coagulation

Flocculation

Settling
(Horizontal)

CO2

Filtration

Chlorine and NH3

Figure A3.21 Zuikerbosch water treatment plant process train.