Skip to content
TS_Logo_Circle-02
Wastewater Treatment Design | Technical Whitepaper
Chem-P or Bio-P: Know the Cost Before You Commit
New phosphorus limits are forcing a design decision with 20+ years of OPEX consequences. This whitepaper models both strategies side-by-side so you can defend your choice with data.

CONFIDENT CONCEPTUAL PLANNING

A structured, defensible record across every consultant you work with

Australian water corporations are governing more consultant work than ever, often without a consistent way to see what was delivered, why, or how it holds up against state-based standards.

See what a conceptual design output looks like when it's built for that reality using generative design.

Trusted by water utilities in more than 120 countries

Planning conditions shift. Your planning record doesn't have to.
Drought <> Floods
 
Storages can swing from drought to flood risk in the same year
NEMP 3.1 Pressures
 
PFAS and biosolids rules are tightening under NEMP 3.1
Variance by State
The ADWG isn't mandatory, so what counts as defensible planning shifts state to state

Most of that work still runs through consultants, and that's fine. But someone has to govern it: review what was delivered, know why a call was made, hold it to the same bar every time.

Without a structured way to do that, planning history lives in scattered spreadsheets and handoffs. Decisions get lost. Comparing one consultant's output to another gets hard.

What You'll Walk Away With

A side-by-side CAPEX and OPEX comparison of Chem-P vs. Bio-P for a 56,000 m³/day municipal WWTP

Full process schemes, 3D site renders, and equipment lists generated by TDG for both scenarios

A decision framework covering process conditions, site constraints, economic factors, and long-term risk — built to support internal sign-off

An understanding of where each strategy wins, and where the hybrid approach is the most resilient path

A structured record, built for how Australian utilities actually work

Transcend Design Generator gives your team a structured, consistent record of planning work as it happens, built with jurisdiction-aware logic so outputs look like something a local engineer would produce, not a generic template you have to translate.

This isn't about reducing reliance on consultants. It's about giving you a clearer way to see, compare, and stand behind the planning decisions made on your infrastructure, no matter who's doing the work.

In this generative design sample:

A standardized output package complete with CAPEX and OPEX planning impact per design

A conceptual design output shaped around Australian design standards and terminology

How a structured output supports consistent review and comparison across multiple consultant engagements

How TDG supports early-stage option evaluation across drought and flood planning scenarios

Where PFAS and biosolids considerations show up in the design logic

Innovation is the key to anticipating the targets set by the Legal Framework for Sanitation. With new technologies like this one (TDG), we gain agility in planning — a crucial factor for achieving universal access to services by 2029.

- Roberval Tavares de Souza, Executive Director of Engineering and Innovation

SABESP

Download the Australia sample output

Get a conceptual design example governed by structured inputs and Australian water planning conditions, from an ADWG-aware, state-by-state perspective.