Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 210 60, 100 31 Stockholm, Sweden
Department of Information Technology, Uppsala University, P.O. Box 337, 751 05, Uppsala, Sweden
article info
abstract
Article history:
control the aeration system. Aeration is a costly process and the dissolved oxygen level will
determine the efficiency of the operation as well as the treatment results. What aeration
18 January 2012
control should achieve is closely linked to how the effluent criteria are defined. This paper
explores how the aeration process should be controlled to meet the effluent discharge
limits in an energy efficient manner in countries where the effluent nitrogen criterion is
defined as average values over long time frames, such as months or years. Simulations have
Keywords:
been performed using a simplified Benchmark Simulation Model No. 1 to investigate the
effect of different levels of suppressing the variations of the effluent ammonium concen-
Aeration control
tration. Optimisation is performed where the manipulated variable for aeration (the oxygen
Optimisation
transfer coefficient, KLa) is minimised with the constraint that the average daily flow-
proportional ammonium concentration in the effluent should reach a desired level. The
optimisation results are compared with constant dissolved oxygen concentrations and
supervisory ammonium control with different controller settings. The results demonstrate
and explain how and why energy consumption can be optimised by tolerating the
ammonium concentration to vary around a given average value. In these simulations, the
optimal oxygen peak-to-peak amplitude range between 0.7 and 1.8 mg/l depending on the
influent variation and ammonium level in the effluent. These variations can be achieved
with a slow ammonium feedback controller. The air flow requirements can be reduced by
1e4% compared to constant dissolved oxygen set-points. Optimal control of aeration
requires up to 14% less energy than needed for fast feedback control of effluent ammonium.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1.
Introduction
* Corresponding author: IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, P.O. Box 210 60, 100 31 Stockholm, Sweden. Tel.: 46 8 598 564 19;
fax: 46 8 598 563 90.
mand).
E-mail address: linda.amand@ivl.se (L. A
0043-1354/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2012.01.023
2102
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 1 0 1 e2 1 1 0
2.
Non-linear aeration and growth rate
dynamics
The manipulated variable in a diffused aeration system is the
valve opening, affecting the air flow rate to the basin. There
are several steps taking place from the point of deciding the
air flow rate until the growth of aerobic bacteria takes place
with resulting nitrogen removal and removal of carbonaceous
material. The dynamics of the process is non-linear due to the
following reasons:
1. The air flow rate causes oxygen to transfer from gas phase
to liquid phase. The transfer efficiency is decided by the
oxygen transfer efficiency (OTE). The OTE is decreasing at
increasing air flow rates.
2. The oxygen transfer will affect the dissolved oxygen
concentration in the liquid. When the dissolved oxygen
concentration increase the oxygen transfer rate is reduced
since diffusion is slower closer to saturation.
3. The growth rate of aerobic bacteria is non-linear with
respect to dissolved oxygen concentration and ammonium
concentration.
In the list above, the last two non-linearities are covered in
the benchmark models. The first non-linear relationship arises
from the reduced increase of the oxygen transfer coefficient
(KLa) at high air flow rates. This is caused by higher rise times
and lower surface areas of the bubbles when they are more
prone to aggregate at higher air flow rates. In the benchmark
models, the KLa is used to model air flow rate directly.
The second relationship can be described by the standard
model for oxygen transfer under process conditions (eq. (1)).
dC
KL aCS Ct rM
dt
(1)
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 1 0 1 e2 1 1 0
mmax;A
SNH
SO
KNH SNH KO;A SO
bA XB;A
(2)
3.
2103
3.1.
Simulation model
2104
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 1 0 1 e2 1 1 0
Fig. 2 e Benchmark plant layout. Simplification of BSM1 in MATLAB, including supervisory ammonium feedback control.
3.2.
Table 1 e Influents used in the simulations, compared with the standard BSM1 dry influent. Amplitude refers to the peakto-peak amplitude.
State variable
Abr.
3
SI
SS
XI
XS
XBH
SNH
SND
XND
Alkalinity (mol/m3)
SALK
Qi
Influent
BSM1 dry
Mean
Amplitude
Mean
Amplitude
Mean
Amplitude
Mean
Amplitude
Mean
Amplitude
Mean
Amplitude
Mean
Amplitude
Mean
Amplitude
Mean
Amplitude
Mean
Amplitude
30
0
65
80
51
89
201
156
28
26
30
30
7
8
11
10
7
0
19 764
20 647
30
0
68
21
53
16
215
65
30
9
32
10
7
2
11
3
7
0
11 592
3 477
30
0
68
41
53
32
215
129
30
18
32
19
7
4
11
7
7
0
11 592
6 955
30
0
86
21
67
16
269
65
37
9
40
10
9
2
14
3
7
0
14 489
3 477
30
0
86
41
67
32
269
129
37
18
40
19
9
4
14
7
7
0
14 489
6 955
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 1 0 1 e2 1 1 0
3.3.
min
(3)
t1
subject to
1
t2 t1
Zt2
t1
NH4 tQt
dt a 0
Qmean
(4)
4.
2105
Results
The results from the test of the different feedback controllers yielded data over what combination of controller setting
that achieved the lowest energy consumption (expressed in
KLa) for the same average effluent ammonium concentration
(expressed as a flow-proportional average). The results from
simulations with different ammonium controllers with
2106
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 1 0 1 e2 1 1 0
5.
Discussion
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 1 0 1 e2 1 1 0
2107
Fig. 5 e Average daily KLa as a function of the variance of dissolved oxygen for (a) Influent 1 (a [ 1.29 mg/l) and 2
(a [ 1.71 mg/l) (b) Influent 1 (a [ 1.06 mg/l) and 2 (a [ 1.36 mg/l), (c) Influent 3 (a [ 1.52 mg/l) and 4 (a [ 2.01 mg/l)
and (d) Influent 3 (a [ 1.23 mg/l) and 4 (a [ 1.55 mg/l). Ti [ 3 d.
2108
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 1 0 1 e2 1 1 0
Table 2 e Data from different runs with Influent 1e4 and for two different levels of ammonium reduction comparable to
a DO of 1.5 mg/l and 2.5 mg/l. Symbols are for comparison with Fig. 5.
a-level (mg/l)
1.29 B,
Fig. 5a
Influent
Constant DO
Optimal solution
flow prop. mean
Optimal solution
arithmetic mean
Change in average
KLa compared to
constant DO
1.06 B,
Fig. 5b
1.71 ,,
Fig. 5a
1.36 ,,
Fig. 5b
1.52 V,
Fig. 5c
1.23 V,
Fig. 5d
2.01 D,
Fig. 5c
1.55 D,
Fig. 5d
4
141.7
1.5
1.25
0.72
1.94
140.4
0.75
165.3
1.89
0.53
4.01
1.29
1.09
1.44
140.3
1.41
1.04
1.79
1.26
0.83
1.80
140.7
1.43
1.0
171.6
2.5
1.03
0.61
1.56
169.6
1.0
194.6
2.70
0.86
4.03
1.04
0.76
1.40
169.7
2.38
1.88
2.90
1.03
0.66
1.50
170.6
2.42
1.1
145.7
1.5
1.51
0.46
3.24
141.8
0.50
165.3
1.58
0.48
4.02
1.61
0.81
2.37
141.3
1.23
0.60
1.92
1.55
0.69
2.91
142.8
1.29
3.1
176.7
2.50
1.21
0.40
2.53
170.8
0.75
198.3
2.38
0.49
4.06
1.26
0.73
2.24
170.2
2.09
1.23
3.06
1.22
0.47
2.40
172.6
2.21
3.8
217.2
1.50
1.48
0.88
2.27
215.2
0.75
246.9
1.84
0.60
4.01
1.52
1.35
1.65
215.2
1.42
1.07
1.80
1.49
1.03
2.08
215.8
1.44
1.0
263.0
2.50
1.20
0.75
1.79
260.3
1.0
295.3
2.69
0.95
4.03
1.21
0.93
1.58
260.1
2.39
1.92
2.88
1.20
0.80
1.71
261.2
2.42
1.1
220.9
1.50
1.82
0.59
3.87
214.5
0.50
248.1
1.61
0.48
4.02
1.93
1.10
2.69
213.9
1.24
0.64
1.93
1.86
0.89
3.41
215.8
1.29
3.2
267.8
2.5
1.42
0.50
2.92
257.9
0.75
298.5
2.43
0.50
4.07
1.47
0.89
2.53
257.6
2.12
1.29
3.07
1.43
0.61
2.73
260.6
2.21
4.0
0.7
0.6
2.0
2.4
0.7
0.7
2.3
2.8
14.3
11.8
11.9
10.9
12.0
10.9
11.0
10.3
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 1 0 1 e2 1 1 0
2109
6.
Conclusions
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided
by Stockholm Vatten, Kappalaforbundet and Syvab which all
operate wastewater treatment plants in the Stockholm region.
Co-funding is provided from the Swedish Water and Wastewater Association (SWWA) (project number 29-116) and the
Foundation for IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute
(SIVL) via grants from the Swedish Environmental Protection
Agency and the Swedish Research Council for Environment,
Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (Formas). The
second author also acknowledges financial support from Formas (project number 211-2010-141) and SWWA (project
number 10-106). The MATLAB implementation of the BSM1
model has been provided by Lund University, courtesy of Dr.
Ulf Jeppsson.
references
2110
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 2 1 0 1 e2 1 1 0
Ayesa, E., De la Sota, A., Grau, P., Sagarna, J.M., Salterain, A.,
Suescun, J., 2006. Supervisory control strategies for the new
WWTP of Galindo-Bilbao: the long run from the conceptual
design to the full-scale experimental validation. Water
Science and Technology 53 (4e5), 193e201.
Balku, S., Berber, R., 2006. Dynamics of an activated sludge
process with nitrification and denitrification: start-up
simulation and optimisation using evolutionary algorithm.
Computer and Chemical Engineering 30 (3), 490e499.
Beraud, B., Lemoine, C., Steyer, J.P., 2009. Multiobjective genetic
algorithms for the optimisation of wastewater treatment
processes. In: Kacprzyk, Janusz (Ed.), Studies in
Computational Intelligence. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 163e195.
Brdys, M.A., Grochowski, M., Gminski, T., Konarczak, K.,
Drewa, M., 2008. Hierarchical predictive control of integrated
wastewater treatment systems. Control Engineering Practice
16 (6), 751e767.
Copp, J., 2001. The COST Simulation Benchmark: Description and
Simulator Manual. Office for Official Publications of the
European Community, Luxembourg.
de Arau`jo, A.C.B., Gallani, S., Mulas, M., Olsson, G., 2011.
A systematic approach to the design of operation and control
policies in activated sludge systems. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 50, 8542e8557.
Fikar, M., Chachuat, B., Latifi, M.A., 2005. Optimal operation of
alternating activated sludge processes. Control Engineering
Practice 7 (13), 853e861.
Henze, M., Gujer, W., Mino, T., van Loosdrech, M.C.M., 2000.
Activated Sludge Models ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d and ASM3. IWA
Publishing, London, UK.
Holenda, B., Domokos, E., Redey, A., Fazakas, J., 2007. Aeration
optimisation of a wastewater treatment plant using genetic
algorithm. Optimal Control Applications and Methods 28 (3),
191e208.
Ingildsen, P., 2002. Realising full-scale control in wastewater
treatment systems using in situ nutrient sensors. PhD Thesis.
Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Ingildsen, P., Jeppsson, U., Olsson, G., 2002. Dissolved oxygen
controller based on on-line measurements of ammonium
combining feed-forward and feedback. Water Science and
Technology 45 (4e5), 453e460.
Jeppsson, U., 1996. Modelling aspects of wastewater treatment
processes. PhD Thesis. Lund Institute of Technology, Lund,
Sweden.
Koops, H.-P., Pommerening-Roser, A., 2001. Distribution and
ecophysiology of the nitrifying bacteria emphasizing cultured
species. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 37 (1), 1e9.
Lindberg, C.F., Carlsson, B., 1996. Nonlinear and set-point control
of the dissolved oxygen concentration in an activated sludge
process. Water Science and Technology 34 (3e4), 135e142.
Machado, V.C., Gabriel, D., Lafuente, J., Baeza, J.A., 2009. Cost and
effluent quality controllers design based on the relative gain
array for a nutrient removal WWTP. Water Research 43 (20),
5129e5141.
Monod, J., 1942. Recherches sur la croissance des cultures
bacteriennes. Hermann, Paris.
., Thunberg, A., Carlsson, B., 2011. Constant is
Nordenborg, A
optimal e a simple approach for aeration control in an