Three platforms for intensified solid–liquid separation. They solve the same problem — making floc settle faster in less space — by three different routes, and the right one depends on your effluent limit, your sludge, and how much tankage you already have.
Floc density built from recirculated thickened sludge. Lamella settling and integrated thickening in one structure — no ballast medium to buy, store or recover, and sludge concentrated enough to feed a dewatering unit directly.
Process, parameters and diagram →
Microsand injected into flocculation gives every floc a heavy core. Settling 30 to 60 times faster, ten to fifteen minutes total residence time, and full effluent quality within minutes of start-up.
Process, parameters and diagram →
Magnetite ballast at twice the density of sand, recovered by permanent magnets rather than by a cyclone. The strongest option for ultra-low phosphorus and for uprating clarifiers you already own.
Process, parameters and diagram →Typical engineering ranges for each process type. Read them as orientation for platform selection, not as guaranteed performance — guarantees are set from your water and your design basis.
| Design attribute | High-Rate ClarificationKWS-HRC | Ballasted FlocculationKWS-BF | Magnetic SeparationKWS-MAG |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source of floc density | Recirculated thickened sludge | Silica microsand | Magnetite |
| Ballast specific gravity | — (no ballast) | 2.65 | 5.0–5.2 |
| Ballast particle size | — | 100–150 µm | 20–40 µm |
| Ballast recovery method | Not applicable | Hydrocyclone, > 99 % | Permanent-magnet drum, > 99 % |
| Typical rise / overflow rate | 15–60 m/h (to 100 m/h peak) | 40–120 m/h (to 200 m/h peak) | 25–50 m/h |
| Total hydraulic residence time | 20–35 min | 10–15 min | 12–20 min |
| Start-up to full quality | 20–40 min | 5–15 min | < 15 min |
| Footprint vs conventional clarifier | 1/8 to 1/10 | 1/5 to 1/20 | 1/5 to 1/10 |
| Sludge concentration | 2–4 % DS — direct to dewatering | 0.3–1.5 % DS (to ~2 % thickened) | 0.5–2 % DS |
| Separate thickener required | No | Usually yes | Often yes |
| Typical effluent TSS | < 10 mg/L | < 5–10 mg/L | < 2 mg/L |
| Typical effluent total phosphorus | < 0.5 mg/L (0.1 with two-stage dosing) | < 0.1–0.3 mg/L | < 0.05 mg/L |
| Abrasive duty on equipment | None | Significant — designed for | Low |
| Suits intermittent operation | Moderate | Excellent | Excellent |
| Retrofit into existing tankage | Good, needs depth | Good | Excellent — clarifier can be conventional |
| Best suited to | Sludge-driven economics; softening; combined clarification and thickening | Highest hydraulic rate; storm and peak duty; large drinking water plants | Ultra-low phosphorus; tertiary polishing without filters; clarifier uprating |
Comparative values describe the process types generically. Performance on a given water is confirmed by jar testing or pilot trial before any guarantee is offered.
Four questions usually decide it before any modelling is needed.
Total phosphorus below 0.1 mg/L, or suspended solids below 5 mg/L without a downstream filter, points firmly to magnetite ballasting. Ordinary primary or tertiary consents are comfortably met by any of the three.
If sludge transport, thickening and dewatering dominate, high-rate clarification wins on sludge concentration alone. If land, civil works or peak hydraulic capacity dominate, a ballasted process usually wins.
Storm, combined sewer overflow and seasonal duty favour a ballasted process, which reaches full quality in minutes and can be left idle between events. Continuous base-load duty removes that advantage.
An existing clarifier that has to carry several times its design flow is the classic case for magnetite ballasting, since the clarifier itself needs no modification. Empty rectangular tanks of sufficient depth suit either lamella platform.
Selection narrows the field; jar testing settles it. Coagulant type and dose, polymer selection, achievable rise rate and sludge behaviour all depend on the specific water and are inexpensive to establish before a design is fixed.
Design and peak flow, a raw water analysis, the effluent consent and any site constraint are usually enough for us to recommend a platform and an indicative footprint at no cost.
Send us the duty and the constraints. We will tell you which of the three we would propose, and why we would rule out the other two.