Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 21 (2010) 521–530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/flowmeasinst

An EKF based estimation scheme for sedimentation processes in vessels using

EIT-type measurement data
Ahmar Rashid a , Anil Kumar Khambampati a , Bong Seok Kim b , Sin Kim c , Min Jae Kang a ,
Kyung Youn Kim a,∗
a
Department of Electronic Engineering, Jeju National University, Jeju, South Korea
b
Applied Radiological Science Research Institute, Jeju National University, Jeju, South Korea
c
Department of Nuclear and Energy Engineering, Jeju National University, Jeju, South Korea

article info abstract

Article history: Sedimentation is usually parameterized by settling curves, settling velocities and the concentration
Received 31 March 2009 of the constituent layers. The estimation of sedimentation parameters leads to useful information in
Received in revised form the fields of environmental and industrial engineering. This paper presents an extended Kalman filter
25 August 2010
(EKF) based dynamic estimation scheme to extract sedimentation parameters from electrical impedance
Accepted 16 September 2010
tomography (EIT) measurements obtained across the electrodes attached to the walls of a process vessel.
A state evolution model has been developed for three-layer sedimentation based on the solids flux theory
Keywords:
Sedimentation
for batch sedimentation. The performance of the proposed method has been verified by carrying out
Solids flux theory numerical experiments.
State estimation © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Electrical impedance tomography

1. Introduction
Sedimentation is defined as the separation of a suspension
of solid particles into a concentrated slurry and a supernatant
liquid, either to concentrate the solid or to clarify the liquid.
There has been considerable research on sedimentation in the
last century as summarized in the literature surveys [1,2]. Several
studies describing the settling phenomenon have been published
[3–12]. The sedimentation can be characterized either as batch
sedimentation or continuous sedimentation. If there is no influent
flow into and effluent flow out of the system and the settling
velocity of the particles at any point depends only on the local
concentration of the particles and the acceleration due to gravity,
the sedimentation is usually referred to as batch sedimentation
[6,7]. The sedimentation becomes continuous when it is performed
under the influence of external forces, such as a continuous influx
of particles into the system [9–11]. Batch sedimentation is used
in the classification of solids, washing, particle size measurement
or mass transfer, solvent extraction, and etc. Its applications are
in the fields of waste water treatment and mineral processing,
in chemical, food, pharmaceutical, nuclear and the petroleum
industry, and in the monitoring of sediment transport in the coastal
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 64 7543664; fax: +82 64 7561745.
E-mail address: kyungyk@cheju.ac.kr (K.Y. Kim).
0955-5986/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2010.09.002
zone [7,12]. The results obtained from batch settling tests have
been effectively used for the design of continuous settlers [10,11].
Although the concentration of the particles varies throughout
the sediment, most commonly applied mathematical models to
the sedimentation process discretize the settler volume into
completely stirred, horizontal layers, having sharp interfacial
boundaries [13–17]. The number of layers proposed in these
models ranges from three to as many as 50. This paper considers
the application of solids flux theory to examine three-layer
sedimentation [6,17].
The time evolution of the location of the interface boundaries
between the sedimentation layers is referred to as settling curves,
whereas the settling velocities are obtained as derivative esti-
mates of the settling curves. Settling curves and settling veloci-
ties are thus often used to parameterize the sedimentation process
and the correct determination of these parameters is key to the
design and modelling of industrial processes [12,18,19]. The tra-
ditional methods to determine the settling parameters require
manual handling of the sedimentation tanks leading to large mea-
surement errors, thus limiting their use to laboratory experiments.
Optical measurements and image processing techniques provide
an automatic monitoring of the phenomenon [19,20]. However,
these techniques necessitate the use of a transparent tank and can-
not be used to monitor the sedimentation of a species in the back-
ground of other opaque species. Measurement techniques such as
X-ray radiation, ultrasound, microwave and magnetic resonance
imaging can be used under these circumstances. However, these
522 A. Rashid et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 21 (2010) 521–530
Electrode
Fig. 1. A schematic diagram of 2D EIT setup to monitor three-layer sedimentation.
techniques are complex, invasive in nature and often too ex-
pensive, making it impracticable to use them online. Electrical
impedance tomography (EIT) is a fast and non-invasive measure-
ment technique in which an internal image can be reconstructed
by imposing an electrical current and measuring voltages across
the electrodes attached to the walls of the sedimentation tank
[21–23]. This approach is suitable for the online estimation of set-
tling parameters (such as settling curves and settling velocities)
without the need to use a transparent settling tank.
A major challenge while applying EIT to extract the sedimenta-
tion parameters is its time-varying nature. A dynamic image re-
construction algorithm is needed to examine the sedimentation
process effectively. For dynamic reconstruction, a state evolution-
based estimation technique is required. The evolution model, along
with the observation model, constitutes the state-space represen-
tation of the system. In the state-space model, the evolution of
state parameters is modelled as a stochastic process. The knowl-
edge of the stochastic nature of the state evolution is instrumental
in order to apply EIT for dynamic image reconstruction. A num-
ber of state evolution models has been proposed to monitor dy-
namic processes using EIT [21–31]. The simplest of these models
is the so-called random-walk model in which the state param-
eters evolve by a predetermined covariance of the added white
noise [25–28]. However, application of this model is based on the
fact that no prior knowledge of the process is available therefore
it is not considered as an accurate evolution model. For processes
which evolve with constant velocity or constant acceleration, the
kinematic models offer a better solution [21–24]. The kinematic
models have originated from target tracking problems [32,33]. In a
comparative study, Tossavainen et al. [21] showed that the kine-
matic models had better estimation of the settling curves, set-
tling velocities and the conductivities of the phase layers than the
random-walk model. Another evolution model which is commonly
used to monitor the flow of a fluid in a pipeline is based on the con-
vection diffusion equation [29–31]. Since our final objective is the
real-time monitoring of sedimentation, a model which is simple,
computationally inexpensive and incorporates the dynamics of ac-
tual sedimentation phenomenon is needed. A concrete state evolu-
tion model based upon the physical aspects of the settling process
would certainly improve the estimation performance of the algo-
rithm for a wide range of scenarios. Almost all of the mathemat-
ical models that describe layered settling are based on the Kynch
theory of sedimentation, commonly known as the solids flux the-
ory for batch sedimentation [6]. It is essentially a kinematical the-
ory of sedimentation based on the propagation of sedimentation
waves in the suspension and assumes that the settling velocity of
the particles is a function of the concentration alone.
This paper presents a dynamic state estimation scheme to
examine the sedimentation process using two-dimensional elec-
trical impedance tomography (2D EIT). The main focus of this paper
is to incorporate a priori information into the state evolution equa-
tion based on solids flux theory for batch sedimentation by consid-
ering the relationship between the concentration and conductivity
of the constituent layers. The sedimentation model assumes three
layers, i.e., a top liquid layer, a middle slurry layer, and the bottom
compression layer. Since only batch sedimentation is considered,
the concentration of the middle layer is assumed to stay constant
during the course of sedimentation. Extended Kalman filter (EKF)
is employed as the dynamic reconstruction algorithm to estimate
the settling curves, settling velocities and conductivities of the con-
stituent layers. Two different scenarios are considered to verify the
performance of the proposed model. The results demonstrate that
the proposed method has been able to monitor the sedimentation
parameters quite effectively.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: The three-layer
sedimentation modelling using solids flux theory is presented in
Section 2. Section 3 gives a brief overview of the EIT forward
problem. Section 4 presents the state estimation formulation of the
inverse solution to the sedimentation monitoring problem using
2D EIT. Section 5 evaluates the performance of the state estimation
model using extended Kalman filter, and the conclusions are
presented in Section 6.
2. Sedimentation: the layered model
In this section, the model equations for the evolution of the
state parameters are developed. The model assumes three-layer
sedimentation, while a two-layer sedimentation model is derived
as a special case of the three-layer model.
2.1. The three-layers sedimentation model
In the three-layer sedimentation model, the fluids are assumed
to settle into the following layers: the top liquid layer, the middle
dilute slurry layer and the bottom compression layer [15] as shown
in Fig. 1.
The EIT setup in Fig. 1 consists of 16 measurement electrodes at-
tached to the walls of the of the sedimentation tank. σ1 , X1 , σ2 , X2
and σ3 , X3 are conductivity and concentration of the top, middle,
and bottom phase layers, respectively. h1 and h2 are heights of the
interfacial boundaries with respect to the base of the sedimenta-
tion tank.
Among the two interfacial boundaries between these layers,
the interface between the liquid layer and the dilute slurry is
usually referred to as sludge blanket. Considering that there is no
influent or effluent flow, the middle layer, along with the sludge
blanket, descends continuously with constant concentration, and
the settling zone is continuously merged into the compression
layer. Due to the transfer of flux between these two layers, the
compression layer goes through a simultaneous increase in volume
and concentration. A certain fraction of the flux entering the
compression layer makes up for the difference in concentration
between the two layers, while the other fraction results in
increased concentration for the compression layer [17].
 A. Rashid et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 21 (2010) 521–530 523

Fig. 2. Evolution of the interfacial boundaries and the concentrations of the

Fig. 3. A schematic description of the evolution of the interfacial boundaries and
constituent layers.
the concentrations of the constituent layers in a two-layer sedimentation model.

In general, the concentration X1 of the liquid layer is assumed to The next step is to calculate the evolution of concentration
be zero. The concentration X2 of the dilute slurry is assumed to stay profiles of the sedimentation layers. The concentrations X1 and X2
constant during the course of sedimentation. However, the con- stay constant, therefore, X1′ − X1 = 0 and X2′ − X2 = 0. Since there
centration of the bottom layer shows a gradual increase towards is no influent or effluent flow, the total flux entering the bottom
the bottom. Therefore, an average concentration X3 is calculated layer should be equal to the total flux leaving the middle layer, i.e.,
to avoid an unlimited number of compression layers and a correc-
tion factor 0 < fc ≤ 1 known as the flux distribution coefficient, X3′ h′2 − X3 h2 = X2 (h1 − h2 ) − X2′ (h′1 − h′2 ). (8)
is introduced to adapt the approach either to measurement or to ′ ′
Inserting the values of h1 and h2 from (6) and (7) into (8) and
the analytical solution [17]. setting X2′ = X2 we get
The two concentration steps between the three particle con-  
centrations propagate like wavefronts during the sedimentation X3 h2 + X2
fc X2
X3 −X2
+ 1 vH 1t
process considering the principle of mass conservation. The prop- X3′ = (9)
h2 + fc X −2X vH 1t
X
agation velocities v(X1 , X2 ) and v(X2 , X3 ) for the two interfaces are 3 2
calculated as follows
which is the evolution equation for the concentration of the
v(X1 , X2 ) = −vH (X2 ) (1) compression layer.
X2 vH (X2 )
v(X2 , X3 ) = fc (2) 2.2. The two-layer sedimentation model
X3 − X2
where vH (X ) is the settling velocity of the particles due to their The three-layer model description holds before the two interfa-
concentration X and has been described by Vesilind [34] as cial boundaries meet. At that point the three-layer sedimentation
model transforms into a two-layer model: the top layer is assumed
vH (X ) = vH0 e−mX (3) to be clear water and the bottom layer is the compression layer
where the consolidation takes place. (Here we retain our parame-
where vH0 is the initial settling velocity and m is an empirical
terization of the problem, assuming that the middle layer has dis-
settling parameter. The empirical parameters vH0 and m have been
appeared.) Fig. 3 gives the schematic description of the two-layer
estimated by many researchers [35–38]. The expression developed
model.
by Daigger and Roper [35] appears more frequently in the literature
The propagation velocity v(X1 , X3 ) of the boundary interface
vH (X ) = 187e(−0.148−0.0021SVI)X (4) will be calculated as
f (X3 ) − f (X1 )
where SVI is known as the sludge volume index, and is often used v(X1 , X3 ) = (10)
to quantify the sludge settleability and compaction. SVI is defined X3 − X1
as the volume in millilitres occupied by 1 g of a suspension after where f (X ) is the particle flux due to concentration X , calculated
30 min of settling. as f (X ) = X vH (X ).
The most popular equation to describe the settling velocity The concentration of X1 is assumed to be zero, therefore, (10)
of particles in solid-liquid homogeneous suspensions, using becomes
only two empirical parameters, is the so-called Richardson–Zaki v(X1 , X3 ) = vH (X3 ). (11)
equation [1,2,8,12]
Now, the evolution of the phase boundary interface and the
vH = vH0 (1 − εL )z (5) concentration profiles can be expressed as follows
where εL is the liquid fraction and 1 − εL = εs is the solid fraction h′1 = h1 − vH (X3 )1t . (12)
in the mixture. z is an experimentally determined exponent, is
Since the middle layer has vanished and there is no exchange of
constant for a particle, and depends upon its Reynolds number Rt ,
flux between the liquid and the compression layers, the change in
at vH0 .
the flux of the compression layer should be zero, i.e.,
Let 1t be the unit time during which the top interface changes
its height from h1 to h′1 calculated as 1h1 = v(X1 , X2 )1t, while X3′ h′1 − X3 h1 = 0. (13)
the interface between the bottom two layers changes its height Inserting (12) into (13), we get
from h2 to h′2 calculated as 1h2 = v(X2 , X3 )1t. Similarly, the
concentrations of the three layers change by X1′ − X1 , X2′ − X2 and X3′ =
h1
X3 (14)
X3′ − X3 , respectively. This is shown in Fig. 2. The evolution of the h1 + 1h1
two phase boundary interfaces can be expressed as follows h1
X3′ = X3 (15)
h1 = h1 − vH (X2 )1t
′
(6) h1 − vH (X3 )1t
X2 which is the concentration evolution model for the compression
h′2 = h2 + fc vH (X2 )1t . (7) layer in the case of two-layer sedimentation.
X3 − X2
524 A. Rashid et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 21 (2010) 521–530

3. Electrical impedance tomography: the forward solver 4. Sedimentation monitoring: the inverse problem

EIT consists of the forward and inverse problems. The forward This section will describe a state estimation formulation of
problem calculates the boundary voltages from the assumed the inverse solution to the sedimentation monitoring problem us-
conductivity distribution. In the inverse problem, the internal ing electrical impedance tomography (EIT). The state evolution
electrical conductivity distribution is reconstructed based on the model is developed by the application of the Maxwell–Hewitt rela-
imposed currents and the measured voltages at the electrodes tion [39], which establishes a relationship between the conductiv-
placed across the body of the domain. A schematic diagram of the ity and concentration of the solid particles in a solid-liquid mixture
EIT measurement setup has been shown in Fig. 1. The physical to the sedimentation model presented in Section 2. This relation-
relationship between the internal conductivity σ (x, y) and the ship was used to estimate the concentration distribution of a given
electrical potential u (x, y) on the object Ω ⊂ ℜ2 is governed by a substance in a fluid moving in a pipeline using EIT [40].
partial differential equation with appropriate boundary conditions The sedimentation is parameterized using the locations of in-
(the so-called complete electrode model which considers the terfacial boundaries, their velocities and the concentration of its
shunting effects as well as the contact impedance between the constituent layers. Using EIT measurements, EKF provides the
electrodes and the medium) estimation of interface locations, interface velocities, and con-
∇ · (σ ∇ u) = 0, (x, y) ⊂ Ω (16) ductivities of the sedimentation layers. The concentration of the
sedimentation layers can then be determined from the respective
∂u
u + zℓ σ = Uℓ , (x, y) ⊂ eℓ , ℓ = 1, 2, . . . , L (17) conductivity estimates.
∂ν
∂u
∫
σ dS = Iℓ , (x, y) ⊂ eℓ , ℓ = 1, 2, . . . , L (18) 4.1. The state evolution model
eℓ ∂ν
When the only conducting phase in a solid-liquid mixture is
∂u L
σ = 0, (x, y) ⊂ ∂ Ω \ the liquid then the two-dimensional version of Maxwell–Hewitt

eℓ (19)
∂ν ℓ=1 relation [39] can be used to relate the liquid fraction εL to the
where Iℓ is the electrical current injected into the object Ω through conductivity of liquid σL and that of the mixture σ
the ℓ-th electrode eℓ , L is the number of electrodes, ν is the outward
1 − σ /σL
normal unit vector, zℓ is the contact impedance, and Uℓ is the 1 − εL = . (26)
measured boundary potential. In order to ensure the existence 1 + σ /σL
and uniqueness of the solution, following two constraints are also If Xs is the concentration of the solid in the mixture then the
imposed solid fraction εs = 1 − εL can be expressed in terms of Xs , i.e.,
L
− L
− εs = ρsX+sXs , where ρs is the density of the solid. Solving the above
Il = 0 and Uℓ = 0. (20) relations for Xs , we get
ℓ=1 ℓ=1 ρs  σL 
The forward problem is solved using the finite element method Xs = −1 . (27)
2 σ
(FEM) [25,28]. In FEM, the domain is divided into a number of
small triangular elements. The conductivity value inside each finite In the proposed sedimentation model the conductivity of liquid
element is assumed to be constant. Let N be the number of nodes in layer is σ1 and the conductivities of the two mixture layers are
the finite element mesh. The finite element formulation gives the σ2 and σ3 respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. So, inserting σ1 = σL
following system of linear equations [25] and replacing Xs and σ , first with X2 and σ2 and then with X3 and
σ3 , respectively, results in the following relationships between the
Ab = Ĩ (21) concentration and conductivities of sedimentation layers
where ρsσ1
 
X2 = −1 (28)
α 2 σ2
     
B C 0
A= , b= and Ĩ = . (22)
CT D β Ī
ρs σ1
 
X3 = −1 . (29)
Here, α = (α1 , α2 , . . . , αN )T ∈ ℜN ×1 and β = (β1 , β2 , . . . , 2 σ3
βL−1 )T ∈ ℜ(L−1)×1 . Ī = (I1 − I2 , I1 − I3 , . . . , I1 − IL )T ∈ ℜ(L−1)×1
is the reduced current matrix and 0 = (0, . . . , 0)T ∈ ℜN ×1 . The Inserting the values of X2 and X3 from (28) and (29),
system matrix A ∈ ℜ(N +L−1)×(N +L−1) is of the form respectively, into (7) and simplifying

L σ3 (σ1 − σ2 )
h′2 = h2 + fc vH (X2 )1t .
∫ ∫
− 1 (30)
B (i, j) = σ ∇φi · ∇φj dΩ + φi φj dS , σ1 (σ2 − σ3 )
Ω z
ℓ=1 ℓ eℓ
Now we are ready to formulate our state estimation model to
i, j = 1, 2, . . . , N (23)
∫ ∫ monitor sedimentation using EIT. Let us use x to denote the set
1 1 of state parameters required to be estimated. Within the discrete
C (i, j) = − φi dS + φi dS ,
z1 e1 z j +1 ej+1
time state estimation framework, the parameter x is treated as a
i = 1, 2, . . . , N , j = 1, 2, . . . , L − 1 (24) stochastic nonlinear state estimation problem. The corresponding
state evolution and measurement equations for x will be defined
| |
e1 as


 z i ̸= j
C (i, j) =
1
  i, j = 1, 2, . . . , L − 1 (25) xk+1 = fk (xk ) + wk (31)
 |e1 | ej+1  Vk+1 = Uk+1 (xk+1 ) + vk+1

 + i = j, (32)
z1 zj+1
where the subscript k is the state index, fk is the non-linear state
where φi is the two-dimensional first-order basis function and ej 
 
transition model and Uk is the non-linear observation model. wk
is the area of the electrode j. and vk denote the process and measurement noise, respectively
 A. Rashid et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 21 (2010) 521–530 525

and are assumed to be zero-mean Gaussian-distributed noise. The

parameter vector xk can be defined as

xk = (h1k , h2k , vHk , σ1k , σ2k , σ3k )T ∈ ℜM ×1 , for M = 6 (33)

where h1k and h2k are the heights of the phase boundary
interfaces, vHk is the settling velocity, and σ1k , σ2k and σ3k are the
conductivities of the sedimentation layers, respectively, at state
index k. Using the Eqs. (6) and (30), the component-wise state
evolution equations for h1k and h2k can be written as

h1k+1 = h1k − vHk 1t (34) Fig. 4. A schematic diagram of the change in the area of the upper triangular region
of an FEM element Ωm , with respect to the change in the p-th interface location,
σ3k (σ1k − σ2k ) 1hp = h′p − hp .
h2k+1 = h2k + fc vH 1t . (35)
σ1k (σ2k − σ3k ) k
The random-walk evolution model is used for the rest of the Measurement Update:
parameters (vHk , σ1k , σ2k , σ3k ). Notice that since the concentration
of the middle layer is constant, vHk is constant, hence the evolution Kk+1 = Ck+1|k JkT+1 [ Jk+1 Ck+1|k JkT+1 + R]−1 (45)
model for the top interface is essentially a kinematic model.
Ck+1|k+1 = (IN − Kk+1 Jk+1 )Ck+1|k (46)
Finally, as the two interface boundaries meet each other, the
three-layer model transforms into a two-layer model. From that xk+1|k+1 = xk+1|k + Kk+1 [yk+1 − Jk+1 xk+1|k ] (47)
point onwards, it becomes a four-parameter estimation problem,
i.e., where, Ck|k ∈ ℜM ×M is the error covariance matrix, Q ∈ ℜM ×M and
R ∈ ℜL×L are process noise and measurement noise covariances
xk = (h1k , vHk , σ1k , σ3k )T ∈ ℜM ×1 , for M = 4. (36) respectively, Kk ∈ ℜM ×L is the Kalman gain and IN ∈ ℜM ×M is an
Once again, the parameterization of the inverse problem is identity matrix.
retained, only subtracting the parameters related to the middle
layer from the state vector. 4.3. Calculation of Jacobian

4.2. Extended Kalman filter formulation

The calculation of the Jacobian is paramount to the correct
application of EKF to solve this problem. The complete description
Recursive Kalman filter is a widely used estimation algorithm
of the Jacobian formulation can be found in the Refs. [22,28]. This
when the state evolution and observation equations are linear.
section only presents a brief description of the Jacobian. In EIT,
Since the sedimentation state parameters evolve nonlinearly and
the observation equation is also nonlinear, suboptimal estimates the voltages are usually measured only at some of the electrodes
can be obtained by using linear approximations. The most common (specific to the applied current pattern). For P injected current
approach for this purpose is the extended Kalman filtering in patterns, the voltages Û ∈ ℜE ×P at E measurement electrodes can
which linearization is obtained with respect to the previous state thus be obtained as [28]
estimate. The linearized state evolution is obtained as
Û = R̃T Ĩ = M̃A−1 Ĩ (48)
∂ fk 

φk = (37)
∂ x x=xk|k where R̃ = A−1 M̃T ∈ ℜ(N +L−1)×E is a pseudo-resistance matrix and
M̃ ∈ ℜE ×(N +L−1) is an extended measurement matrix. The Jacobian
such that we have Eq. (38) given in Box I. with respect to the i-th parameter of the state vector x can then be
Similarly, the linearized observation model is obtained as
calculated as follows
Vk+1 = Vk+1|k + Jk+1 xk+1 − xk+1|k + vk+1
 
∂ Û ∂A ∂A ∂B
+ higher order terms (39) = −M̃A−1 A−1 Ĩ = −R̃T b = −R̃T1 α (49)
∂ xi ∂ xi ∂ xi ∂ xi
where Vk+1|k = Uk+1 (xk+1|k ) is the previous measurement esti-
mate and the Jacobian Jk+1 ∈ ℜL×M is defined as where R̃1 = R̃(1 : N , :) ∈ ℜN ×E . In the proposed sedimentation
monitoring model, the Jacobian has to be calculated with respect to
∂ Uk+1  the phase interfaces and the conductivities. It means only ∂∂hB (p =

Jk+1 = . (40) p
∂x  x=xk+1|k
∂B
1, 2) and ∂σ (q = 1, 2, 3) has to be calculated
q

If we define the pseudo-measurement yk+1 ∈ ℜL×1

∂B (σu − σl ) ∂ Ãu
∫
yk+1 ≡ Vk+1 − Uk+1 (xk+1|k ) + Jk+1 xk+1|k
−
= ∇φi .∇φj dΩ (50)
∂ hp m|Ωm ⊂supp(φi φj )
|Ωm | ∂ hp Ωm
= Jk+1 (xk+1|k )xk+1 + ṽk+1 (41)
∂B
∫
where ṽk ∈ ℜ L×1
is the pseudo-measurement noise = ∇φi .∇φj dΩ (51)
∂σq supp(ϕi ϕj )∩Ãq
ṽk+1 = vk+1 + higher order terms (42)
then, the complete set of equation for the extended Kalman filter where supp(φi φj ) expresses the part of the domain Ω , with both
is as follows the basis functions φi and φj to be non-zero. Near the phase
Time Update: interfaces, the integrals of ∇φi ·∇φj are calculated as area-weighted
averages of the phase conductivities σu and σl of the upper and
xk+1|k = fk (xk|k ) (43) lower parts, respectively, of the triangular elements Ωm split by
|∂ Ã |
Ck+1|k = φk Ck|k φ + Q .
T
k (44) the p-th phase interface crossing through them. ∂ hu corresponds
p
526 A. Rashid et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 21 (2010) 521–530

1 0 −1 t 0 0 0 
σ3 (σ1 − σ2 ) σ3 σ2 σ3 (σ3 − σ1 ) σ2 (σ1 − σ2 ) 
fc 1t fc vH 1t fc vH 1t fc vH 1 t

0 1
σ1 (σ2 − σ3 ) σ12 (σ2 − σ3 ) σ1 (σ2 − σ3 )2 σ1 (σ2 − σ3 )2 

∂ fk 
= 0 (38)
 
∂x  0 1 0 0 0 

0 0 0 1 0 0 
 
0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1

Box I.

a a

b
b

Fig. 6. Estimated conductivity and concentration for scenario 1 with 1% zero-mean

Fig. 5. Estimated interface heights and settling velocity for scenario 1 with 1%
zero-mean Gaussian-distributed noise. (a) Evolution of true and estimated mean
interface height. (b) Evolution of true and estimated mean settling velocity. The
error bars show the standard deviation s of the estimated parameters at each
measurement instance.
Gaussian-distributed noise. (a) Evolution of true and mean estimated conductivity
of the top, middle and bottom layers, respectively. (b) Evolution of true and mean
estimated concentration of the bottom and middle layers, shown as top and bottom
curves, respectively. The error bars show the standard deviation s of the estimated
parameters at each measurement instance.
5. Results and discussion

to the change in the area of the upper regions of the split triangles
The performance of the state estimation model has been
with respect to a fractional change in the interface location 1hp =
verified by performing a set of numerical experiments. For the
|∂ Ã |
h′p − hp . Considering a simple scenario, as shown in Fig. 4, ∂ hu can numerical experiments a sedimentation tank with a 4 m of height
p
be calculated as and 3 m of width was considered. The EIT setup consisted of a
total of 16 electrodes, with eight of them attached to both sides
|∂ Ãu | (xR − xL + xR + 1xR − xL − 1xL ) of the walls of the sedimentation tank. In order to measure the
= lim
∂ hp 1hp →0 21hp voltage across the electrodes, the so-called complete electrode
× 1 hp = x R − x L (52) model with an effective contact impedance of the electrodes set
to 0.01 m2 was used [25]. The trigonometric current injection
since 1xR → 0 and 1xL → 0 as 1hp → 0. protocol was used such that the current was applied to all the
For the implementation of the Jacobian with respect to the 16 electrodes simultaneously and the resulting voltages were
conductivities, it is only required to compute the integral of the measured from all the electrodes. With 16 electrodes, eight cosine
basis functions of the triangular elements in the area of interest, and seven sine current patterns are possible. Out of all the possible
i.e., the elements lying between the interfaces, and the elements trigonometric current patterns, only the first two modes of cosine
through which the interfaces are crossing. and sine current patterns were used alternatively considering
 A. Rashid et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 21 (2010) 521–530
a a
b
Fig. 7. Estimated interface heights and settling velocity for scenario 1 with 2%
zero-mean Gaussian-distributed noise. (a) Evolution of true and estimated mean
interface height. (b) Evolution of true and estimated mean settling velocity. The
error bars show the standard deviation s of the estimated parameters at each
measurement instance.
that they are more sensitive compared to the other modes [28].
This resulted in reasonable performance even with an incomplete
set of current patterns. The time between two measurements
was two minutes. The settling curves, settling velocities and
conductivities of the constituent layers were obtained by repeating
the current injections and voltage measurements several times
during sedimentation.
The mesh used to solve the forward problem consisted of
7472 triangular elements with 3865 nodes. The mesh used for the
inverse problem was composed of 1868 triangular elements with
999 nodes. The different mesh structure for the forward and the
inverse solvers was used to avoid the so called inverse crime [41].
In EIT, the voltage measurements are often noisy in nature.
Therefore, zero-mean Gaussian noise with standard deviation
of 0.01% of the maximum computed voltage and zero-mean
Gaussian noise with 1% and 2% standard deviations, respectively,
relative to the corresponding measured voltage was added to the
simulated voltage data. Similarly, zero-mean Gaussian noise with
0.2% standard deviation relative to the simulated conductivities
and the heights of the phase interfaces was added. The latter
(process) noise was added to give random spatial variation to the
simulated parameters.
Two test scenarios were considered and EKF was used to verify
the performance of the proposed model. The first scenario focused
on the three-layer model in which the sedimentation parameters
were estimated before the two interfaces met each other. The
second scenario considered the case where the three-layer model
transformed into the two-layer model.
527
b
Fig. 8. Estimated conductivity and concentration for scenario 1 with 2% zero-mean
Gaussian-distributed noise. (a) Evolution of true and mean estimated conductivity
of the top, middle and bottom layers, respectively. (b) Evolution of true and mean
estimated concentration of the bottom and middle layers, shown as top and bottom
curves, respectively. The error bars show the standard deviation s of the estimated
parameters at each measurement instance.
In order to verify the stability of the proposed algorithm Monte
Carlo type simulations of n = 25 runs (each run with a different
noise seed) was performed for the two scenarios. A quantitative
analysis of the algorithm has been carried out by
 plotting the mean
x =
∑ n  xi 
and standard deviation s = 1
∑n
(xi − x)2
i=1 n n −1 i =1
of the estimated parameters in the graphical format.
5.1. Test scenario 1
This test scenario was generated by assuming the initial con-
centrations for the middle sedimentation and bottom compression
layers to be X2 = 400 g/l and X3 = 800 g/l. The heights of the
phase interfaces were initialized to h1 = 3.7 m and h2 = 0.5 m,
respectively. The sedimentation parameters, just discussed, were
evolved over a period of 60 min, using the evolution model pre-
sented in Section 2. The true conductivity of the liquid layer was
assumed to be 0.5 mS/m. The true conductivities of the remaining
two layers at each measurement step were generated by solving
(28) and (29) for σ2 and σ3 , respectively. The liquid is assumed to
be water while the solid is assumed to be wet sand with density
ρs = 1900 g/l. The simulated scenario corresponds to the settling
of natural beach sediments at high concentrations [12].
In order to solve the inverse problem, an initial guess for all the
state parameters was required. The initial estimates for the state
parameters were
x0|0 = (3.8, 0.4, 0, σbest , σbest , 1.01σbest )T .
The best homogenous conductivity σbest was used as a common
initial guess for the conductivities by estimating the best fitting
528 A. Rashid et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 21 (2010) 521–530
a a
b
Fig. 9. Estimated interface heights and settling velocity for scenario 2 with 1%
zero-mean Gaussian-distributed noise. (a) Evolution of true and estimated mean
interface height. (b) Evolution of true and estimated mean settling velocity. The
error bars show the standard deviation s of the estimated parameters at each
measurement instance.
global conductivity value to the voltage measurements at state
index k = 1. This estimate can be obtained by using the method
of least squares [21]. However, the initial conductivity of the
bottom layer is chosen as 1.01σbest to avoid an undefined value
while using (32). Since no prior knowledge of the flux distribution
coefficient fc value was available, fc = 0.7 was arbitrarily selected
for the inverse solver throughout the simulations. The state noise
covariance and the error covariance were initialized as
Q = diag[2 × 10−4 , 2 × 10−4 , 2 × 10−4 , 8 × 10−4 ,
10−5 , 3 × 10−4 ]
C0|0 = diag[10−4 , 10−4 , 10−5 , 10−4 , 10−4 , 10−4 ]
while the measurement noise covariance matrix was chosen as
R = 5 × 10−1 IL and R = 6 × 10−1 IL for 1% and 2% measurement
noise cases respectively.
Figs. 5 and 6 show the estimated sedimentation parameters
for the first scenario with 1% zero-mean Gaussian-distributed
measurement noise added relative to the true voltage data, while
Figs. 7 and 8 show the estimated results for this scenario with 2%
zero-mean Gaussian-distributed measurement noise. The plotted
results show the mean and standard deviation of the estimated
parameters at each measurement instance. The mean is plotted
with a solid line whereas the standard deviation is plotted using
the error bars.
The estimated results, both for 1% and 2% noise cases, show
that EKF is successful in estimating the state parameters with
reasonable accuracy. However, there is a transition period before
the estimated parameters converge to their respective true values.
b
Fig. 10. Estimated conductivity and concentration for scenario 2 with 1% zero-
mean Gaussian-distributed noise. (a) Evolution of true and mean estimated
conductivity of the top, middle and bottom layers, respectively. (b) Evolution of true
and mean estimated concentration of the bottom and middle layers, shown as top
and bottom curves, respectively. The error bars show the standard deviation s of the
estimated parameters at each measurement instance.
The convergence time varies for different parameters. For example,
the conductivity of the middle layer shows very quick convergence,
whereas a stable estimate of the top and bottom layer conductivity
is obtained shortly before half of the simulation time. This is
because the best homogeneous value of the conductivity, which
is chosen as the initial guess, is incidentally closer to the true value
of the middle layer’s conductivity and far from the true upper
and bottom layer’s conductivity. This variation in the transition
period is quite predictable since EKF is very sensitive to the initial
guess. The settling velocity estimate is poorer compared to other
estimated parameters. This is also expected as the random walk
model is used to estimate the settling velocity and also Jacobian
with respect to the velocity is not available. The estimation curves
for the phase interfaces and the concentration show reasonable
convergence as well.
The results for the 2% noise case show a relatively slower
convergence for some of the sedimentation parameters. The
standard deviation of all the estimated parameters is higher for the
2% noise. This is quite expected since the higher EIT measurement
noise often leads to deteriorated performance of the reconstruction
algorithm. Also note that the performance of EKF is dependent on
the choice of coefficients of noise covariance matrices, C0|0 , Q and
R, respectively. The values of the aforementioned coefficients have
been chosen using a trial and error approach.
5.2. Test scenario 2
This test scenario was generated to verify the performance
of the method when the two phase boundaries meet each other
marking the transition of the three-layer sedimentation model
into a two-layer model. The initial concentrations for the middle
 A. Rashid et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 21 (2010) 521–530
a a
b
Fig. 11. Estimated interface heights and settling velocity for scenario 2 with 2%
zero-mean Gaussian-distributed noise. (a) Evolution of true and estimated mean
interface height. (b) Evolution of true and estimated mean settling velocity. The
error bars show the standard deviation s of the estimated parameters at each
measurement instance.
sedimentation and bottom compression layers were assumed to be
X2 = 250 g/l and X3 = 1000 g/l, respectively. The initial heights
of the phase boundaries were chosen as h1 = 2.5 m and h2 =
1 m, respectively. The total time for this scenario was also 60 min;
however, the interfaces meet each other earlier as compared to
the previous scenario. The initial guess for the estimated state
parameters was chosen as follows
x0|0 = (2.6, 0.9, 0, σbest , σbest , 1.01σbest )T .
A common initial guess for the upper two conductivities was
calculated using the least squares method, with a slightly different
value for the third conductivity as already explained. The state
noise covariance and the error covariance were initialized as
Q = diag[2 × 10−3 , 10−3 , 10−3 , 5 × 10−4 , 10−4 , 4 × 10−4 ]
C0|0 = diag[10−4 , 10−4 , 10−4 , 10−4 , 10−4 , 10−4 ].
The measurement noise covariance matrix for this scenario was
chosen as R = 6 × 10−1 IL and R = 7 × 10−1 IL for the simulations
with 1% and 2% measurement noise cases, respectively.
Figs. 9 and 10 show the reconstructed results for the second
scenario with 1% measurement noise while Figs. 11 and 12 show
the reconstructed results for this scenario with 2% measurement
noise.
The effect of 1% and 2% measurement noise on the performance
of the algorithm, in terms of the deviation of the estimated param-
eters from the respective true values as well as from the mean es-
timated values, has been explained in the previous scenario. The
estimated results for the interface, after the sedimentation layers
529
b
Fig. 12. Estimated conductivity and concentration for scenario 2 with 2% zero-
mean Gaussian-distributed noise. (a) Evolution of true and mean estimated
conductivity of the top, middle and bottom layers, respectively. (b) Evolution of true
and mean estimated concentration of the bottom and middle layers, shown as top
and bottom curves, respectively. The error bars show the standard deviation s of the
estimated parameters at each measurement instance.
merge into the compression layer, show good convergence besides
a transition period in the beginning. This transition period is evi-
dent in the form of a deviation of the estimated parameters from
their respective true values. The transition period is due to the fact
that the state parameter x transforms from a six parameter vec-
tor to a four parameter vector. The concentration curves show a
reasonable reconstruction. The fluctuations in the concentration
curves are due to the deviations in the estimated conductivities.
Also, notice that as the three-layer model transforms into the two-
layer model, conductivity and concentration curves for the middle
layer cease to exist. The settling velocity also drops down suddenly,
as the sedimentation is dominated by the compression afterwards.
The later process is generally slower than the former.
In general, the small difference between the true and estimated
values of sedimentation parameters can be due to various reasons.
One reason is that the EKF uses the Taylor series expansion for the
linearization of measurement equation and the higher order terms
of the Taylor series are neglected while calculating the Jacobian.
Other possible reasons include the use of random-walk evolution
model for some of the parameters, measurement errors (included
as zero-mean Gaussian-distributed noise added to the simulated
measured voltages), modelling errors (included as process noise
while generating the true data), and suboptimal tuning of the EKF
parameters.
6. Conclusions
A dynamic estimation scheme to analyze the sedimentation
process using simulated EIT voltage measurements across the
530 A. Rashid et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 21 (2010) 521–530
electrodes attached to the side walls of a vessel is presented. A
state evolution model is formulated based on the solids flux theory
for batch sedimentation. Extended Kalman filter is employed as an
inverse solver and the state vector is composed of settling curves,
settling velocities and conductivities of the constituent layers. The
robustness of the proposed algorithm has been verified by carrying
out Monte Carlo type simulations for two different scenarios
by adding variable zero-mean Gaussian-distributed measurement
noise. The results show a promising performance of the method.
The proposed state evolution model has currently been for-
mulated for a three layer batch sedimentation scenario which
assumes a constant concentration for the middle layer. Introduc-
tion of model equations related to the continuous sedimentation
and adapting them to cater for an unlimited number of compres-
sion layers can be considered for future work.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the research grant of Jeju National
University in 2009.
References
[1] Bürger R, Wendland WL. Sedimentation and suspension flows: historical
perspective and some recent developments. J Eng Math 2001;41:101–16.
[2] Concha F, Bürger R. A century of research in sedimentation and thickening.
KONA 2002;20:38–70.
[3] Hazen A. On sedimentation. Trans ASCE 1904;53:45–88.
[4] Coe HS, Clevenger GH. Methods for determining the capabilities of slime
settling tanks. Trans Am Inst Min Eng 1916;55:356–85.
[5] Camp TR. A study of the rational design of settling tanks. Sewage Works J 1936;
8:742–58.
[6] Kynch GJ. A theory of sedimentation. Trans Faraday Soc 1952;48:166–76.
[7] Nocon W. Practical aspects of batch sedimentation control based on fractional
density changes. Powder Technol 2010;198:167–74.
[8] Richardson JF, Zaki WN. Sedimentation and fluidisation: part 1. Trans Inst
Chem Eng 1954;32:35–53.
[9] Cordoba-Molina JF, Hudgins RR, Silverston PL. Settling in continuous
sedimentation tanks. J Environ Eng 1978;104:1261–73.
[10] Font R, Ruiz F. Simulation of batch and continuous thickeners. Chem Eng Sci
1993;48:2039–47.
[11] Font R, Laveda L. Design method of continuous thickeners from semi-batch
tests of sedimentation. Chem Eng Sci 1996;51:5007–15.
[12] Baldock TE, Tomkins MR, Nielsen P, Hughes MG. Settling velocity of sediments
at high concentrations. Coast Eng 2004;51:91–100.
[13] Vitasovic ZZ. An integrated control system for the activated sludge process.
Ph.D. thesis. Houston: Rice University; 1986.
[14] Grijspeerdt K, Vanrolleghem P, Verstraete W. Selection of one-dimensional
sedimentation: models for on-line use. Water Sci Technol 1995;31:193–204.
[15] Krebs P. Success and shortcoming of clarifier modeling. Water Sci Technol
1995;31:181–91.
[16] Vanrolleghem PA, Van der Schueren D, Krikilion G, Grijspeerdt K, Willems
P, Verstraete W. On-line quantification of settling properties with in-sensor-
experiments in an automated settlometer. In: IAWQ spec. conference on
sensors in WWT. 1995.
[17] Wett B. A straight interpretation of the solids flux theory for a three-layer
sedimentation model. Water Res 2002;36:2949–58.
[18] Garrido P, Concha F, Bürger R. Settling velocities of particulate systems: 14.
Unified model of sedimentation, centrifugation and filtration of flocculated
suspensions. Int J Miner Process 2003;72:57–74.
[19] Pinelli D, Montante G, Magelli F. Dispersion coefficients and settling velocities
of solids in slurry vessels stirred with different types of multiple impellers.
Chem Eng Sci 2004;59:3081–9.
[20] Zhu Y, Wu J, Shepherd IS, Coghill M, Vagias N, Elkin K. An automated
measurement technique for slurry settling tests. Miner Eng 2000;13:765–72.
[21] Tossavainen OP, Vauhkonen M, Kolehmainen V, Kim KY. Tracking of moving
interfaces in sedimentation processes using electrical impedance tomography.
Chem Eng Sci 2006;61:7717–29.
[22] Tossavainen OP, Vauhkonen M, Kolehmainen V. A three-dimensional shape
estimation approach for tracking of phase interfaces in sedimentation
processes using electrical impedance tomography. Meas Sci Technol 2007;18:
1413–24.
[23] Khambampati AK, Rashid A, Kim S, Soleimani M, Kim KY. Unscented Kalman
filter approach to track moving interfacial boundary in sedimentation process
using three-dimensional electrical impedance tomography. Philos Trans R Soc
Lond Ser A 2009;367:3095–120.
[24] Kim KY, Kim BS, Kim MC, Kim S. Dynamic inverse obstacle problems
with electrical impedance tomography. Math Comput Simulation 2004;66:
399–408.
[25] Vauhkonen M. Electrical impedance tomography and prior information. Ph.D.
thesis. Finland: University of Kuopio; 1997. Online at: http://venda.uku.fi/
∼mvauhkon.
[26] Vauhkonen M, Karjalainen PA, Kaipio JP. A Kalman filter approach to track fast
impedance changes in electrical impedance tomography. IEEE Trans Biomed
Eng 1998;45:486–93.
[27] Kim KY, Kang SI, Kim MC, Kim S, Lee YJ, Vauhkonen M. Dynamic imaging
in electrical impedance tomography with known internal structures. Inverse
Probl Eng 2003;11:1–19.
[28] Kim S, Ijaz UZ, Khambampati AK, Kim KY, Kim MC, Chung SI. Moving
interfacial boundary estimation in stratified flow of two immiscible liquids
using electrical resistance tomography. Meas Sci Technol 2007;18:1257–69.
[29] Seppanen A, Vauhkonen M, Vauhkonen PJ, Somersalo E, Kaipio JP. State
estimation with fluid dynamical evolution models in process tomography—an
application to impedance tomography. Inverse Probl 2001;17:467–84.
[30] Seppanen A, Vauhkonen M, Somersalo E, Kaipio JP. State space models in
process tomography—approximation of state noise covariance. Inverse Probl
Eng 2001;9:561–85.
[31] Pikkarainen HK. A mathematical model for electrical impedance process
tomography. Ph.D. thesis. Espoo (Finland): Helsinki University of Technology;
2005. Online at: http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2005/isbn9512276720.
[32] Li XR. Canonical transform for tracking with kinematic models. IEEE Trans
Aerosp Electron Syst 1997;33:1212–24.
[33] Bar-Shalom Y, Li XR. Estimation and tracking: principles, techniques, and
softwares. Artech House; 1993.
[34] Vesilind PA. Design of prototype thickeners from batch settling tests. Water
Sewage Works 1968;302–7.
[35] Daigger GT, Roper RE. The relationship between SVI and activated sludge
settling characteristics. J Water Pollut Control Fed 1985;57:859–66.
[36] Ekama GA, Barnard JL, Günthert FW, Krebs P, McCorquodale JA, Parker DS. et
al., Secondary settling tanks: theory, modelling design and operation. IWAQ
scientific and technical report no. 6. London: IAWQ; 1997.
[37] Ozinsky AE, Ekama GA. Secondary settling tank modelling and design part 1:
review of theoretical and practical developments. Water SA 1995;21:325–32.
[38] Pitman AR. Settling of nutrient removal activated sludges. Water Sci Technol
1984;17:493–503.
[39] Maxwell JC. A treatise on electricity and magnetism. Oxford (England):
Clarendon Press; 1881.
[40] Ijaz UZ, Kim JH, Khambampati AK, Kim MC, Kim S, Kim KY. Concentration
distribution estimation of fluid through electrical impedance tomography. J
Flow Meas Inst 2007;18:47–56.
[41] Wirgin . The inverse crime. Math Phys 2004. ArXiv e-prints: arXiv:math-ph/
0401050.