2010 International Conference on Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation

Research on Modeling and Simulation of Activated Sludge Process

Wei Yao, Wu Li, Qiao Junfei
Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China weiyao9713@yahoo.com.cn
AbstractDue to the complexity of wastewater treatment process, it is difficult to apply the existing mathematical models in practice. A new model is presented for the wastewater treatment process in this paper. This model is based on Benchmark Simulation Model no.1 (BSM1) modeling method, and then simplifies Activated Sludge Model No. 1 (ASM1) which was set up to connect the secondary settler model dynamically. Meanwhile, the parameters of the model are adjusted by the experiment data. Finally, the practical data was used to predict the COD values of the water quality. The results demonstrate that this proposed model is useful. Keywords-Dynamic model; Benchmark Simulation Model no.1 (BSM1); Simulation; Activated Sludge Process

I.

INTRODUCTION

Generally speaking, wastewater treatment process is a biological process. However, due to the instability of the influent quantity and quality, the complexity of biochemical reactions, as well as various factors such as regional differences, it is difficult to choose an appropriate modeling method for the whole wastewater treatment. Therefore, how to simulate the wastewater treatment process accurately is still an open problem. Activated sludge wastewater treatment process, which is the major approach of treating industrial organic wastewater and urban sewage in the current, has been widely used as the object of mathematical modeling for a long time. With a view to guide the practical wastewater treatment plant operation and design process, a well-known wastewater treatment process model, named Activated Sludge Model No. 1 (ASM1) [1] was issued by the International Water Association. In ASM1, Matrix form was used to describe the various biochemical reaction processes. In order to facilitate the computer simulation, the factors in the matrix can precisely and intuitively reflects the changes of each component in wastewater treatment process. However, this model is difficult for practical application due to various parameters and reaction processes. Based on ASM1, many domestic and foreign scholars have proposed some methods to establish simple and effective models. Eveline et al [2] proposed a parallel ASM1 model, which performance better when the parameters and microbial biomass is not fully given in ASM1. However, a large quantity of calculation is still necessary in this model. And the forward the assumption did not distinguish soluble COD and particulate COD. In order to save the

computational time, Jeppsson [3] carried out ROM model based on ASM1; Llse Y. Smets et al [4] selected typical input and output data for reasonable linear approximation, which greatly simplifies the ASM1 parameters identification and model calibration process. Ji et al [5] implemented ASM-CN, a simplified ASM1 model of carbon oxidation which is suitable for common plug-flow reactor, and Yu et al [6] introduced a corrected and simplified model ASP-CR for carbon removal. However, the above models only consider the effect of aeration reactor without conducting a comprehensive simulation of the overall wastewater treatment process. In order to obtain a universally applicable model of the wastewater treatment process for countries around the world, the Europe Scientific and Technological Co-operation launched the Benchmark Simulation Model no.1 (BSM1) [7]. It provides a set of rigorous criteria to improve the application of control strategy, including simulation models, engineering indicators, controllers, and performance indicators and testing processes. Yuan et al [8] combined Matlab and C++ to simulate the overall processes of BSM1, and verified the stability and consistency of software calculating process. In recent years, the intelligent modeling methods [9-10] are also used a certain degree of development and become a research hotspot. Compared with the classical method of mathematical modeling, the most serious problem of intelligent modeling is that a universal model of the wastewater treatment process can not be given. Therefore, how to obtain an exact mathematical model is still an open problem for the wastewater treatment process simulation. In this paper, a new model of the whole wastewater treatment process is proposed based on the modeling idea of BSM1. This new simplified model not only reduces the parameters and computation, but it also shows the validity through simulation results. The rest paper is organized as follows: In the next section, the whole architecture of the new model is described. This modeling shows the whole wastewater treatment process. In Section , the proposed model is used to predict the key parameters in the wastewater treatment. The simulation results show that the new model has a high accuracy with compact structure. Finally, the paper is concluded in Section . II. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS MODELING The main process of BSM1 is shown in Fig. 1. Using A/O process, the benchmark plant is composed of a five
22

978-0-7695-4077-1/10 $26.00 2010 IEEE DOI 10.1109/ICICTA.2010.482

compartment activated sludge reactor consisting of two anoxic tanks followed by three aerobic tanks. ASM1 model is used to express the reaction mechanism in aeration reactor, and then the water flow into the secondary settler after reaction, the secondary settler was expressed by solid flux theory and Takcs double-exponential settling equation [11]. Qe, Ze Biological Reactor

r1 =

dS S = H dt kh

SS K S + SS

SO K O , H + SO

X BH +

Q0, Z0 Qa, Za

Clarifier

Qf, Zf Qu, Zu Qr, Zr

Qw, Zw

Figure 1. The flowchart of BSM1

A. Aeration Reactor Modeling ASM1 Consists of three major processes: carbon oxidation process, nitrification process and denitrification process. Then, the treatments are promoted the presentation of eight biochemical reaction processes via a matrix format of wastewater in aerobic and anoxic conditions, including hydrolysis, microbial growth, decay, etc. The model includes thirteen components, five stoichiometric parameters and 14 kinetic parameters. Due to the complexity of ASM1 itself, a certain degree of simplification can be simulated according to different treatment target. The model in this article only considers the carbon oxidation process, without regard to nitrification process and denitrification process, so the biochemical reactions part of BSM1 model can be reduced to aerobic reactor, only consider the removal of carbon; and ASM1 biochemical reaction processes has been simplified for three reactions. The total influent COD of aerobic reactor consists of the following five components, while XBA , XP are negligible due to the low concentration in the influent wastewater.

The mass balance in aerobic reactor can be described as follows:

X S X BH SO X BH K X + ( X S X BH ) K O , H + SO dX S r2 = = (1 f p )bH X BH dt X S X BH SO kh X BH K X + ( X S X BH ) K O , H + SO SS SO dX BH r3 = = H X BH dt K S + S S K O , H + SO bH X BH
dZ k 1 = (Qr Z r + Q0 Z 0 + rkV Q f Z f ) dt V

CODTO = S S + X S + X I + S I + X BH
where SS is the readily biodegradable substrate, XS is slowly biodegradable substrate, both of them flow into the secondary settler along with effluent water after being degraded in the aerobic reactor. XI is the particulate nonbiodegradable material which is settled in the secondary settler without precipitating biochemical reactions in aerobic reactor. XBH is the heterotrophic biomass which is in the secondary settler for settlement as well after reacted in the aerobic reactor. SI is the soluble non-biodegradable material and can not be degraded or settled in the whole process. Accordingly, the observed conversion rate of each component in the activated sludge process can be established as follows:

where V is the volume of the aerobic reactor, rk is the reaction rate of the kth component Zk , Qr is the quantity of reflux in secondary settler, Q0 is the influent flow rate, Qf is the effluent flow rate from the aerobic reactor, Zf is the effluent component concentration from the aerobic reactor, Zr represents the reflux concentration of the secondary settler. Based on the above analysis, the modeling conditions and basis are: This model primarily for inspection of, nitrogen and phosphorus removal is not considered; This model only considered carbon oxidation process of heterotrophic bacteria under aerobic conditions and particulate organic material in the hydrolysis process; the corresponding parameters of other processes take zero value; According to the Benchmark data provided by IWA, the components which account for small proportion of effluent COD indicators are negligible; The dissolved oxygen concentration in the aerobic reactor is assumed to be constant, based on experience set SO = 2mg/l; Assuming heterotrophic microbial species is unitary and stability. B. Secondary Settler Modeling As an important part of a wastewater treatment system, secondary settler can be divided into two regions according to different functions: clarification zone and thickening zone. In secondary settler, soluble components can be considered uniformly distributed, namely, the concentration of soluble components do not change through sedimentation. And for

23

particulate components, the sedimentation process can be described by the following differential equation:

where X is the total sludge concentration at any height, is the solids flux at corresponding height, D is the diffusion coefficient, rx is the biochemical reaction rate. That is, the changing rate with time of the mass concentration of solid particles is tantamount to the change along the height of solid flux concentration which caused by the transfer and diffusion effect and the conversion rate of activated sludge components. Equation (4) can be transformed and simplified as the following format: The secondary settler only consider the physical sedimentation while ignore biochemical reactions, rx = 0; Without regard to the impact of diffusion, let the diffusion coefficient D = 0; According to solid flux theory, the solid flux in secondary settler consists of gravitational sedimentation of solid particles and the flux generated by the flow of sludge water. Then equation (4) was transformed into:

X X = (D ) + rx t z z z

dX 3 Q f X f (Qe Qu ) X 3 = + dt V clar ,4 min(s ,3 , s ,2 ) h

For the clarification layers above the feed layer:

dX 4 Vup ( X 3 X 4 ) clar ,5 clar ,4 = + dt h h

For the top layer:

while

clar , j

dX 5 Vup ( X 4 X 5 ) clar ,5 = dt h min(Vs , j X j , Vs , j 1 X j 1 ) X j 1 > X t = Vs , j X j X j 1 X t

where V is the volume of the secondary settler, h is the height of each layer, Xi is the sludge concentration of each layer, s,i is sedimentation flux in each layer. The threshold concentration Xt is equal to 3000g/m3. C. Dynamic Coupling The coupling of aeration reactor and secondary settler lies in the unit conversion of the particulate components. The sludge concentration Xf which flow into the secondary settler can be expressed as:

Equation (5) and (6) are respectively the expressions of Thickening zone and Clarification zone. Where Vup = Qe / A

X (Vs X ) (Vup X ) = + t z z X (Vs X ) (Vdn X ) = + t z z

X f = k ( X S , f + X I , f + X BH , f + X BA, f )
where k=0.75. In order to simplify the wastewater treatment model, the secondary settler is considered as the ideal condition. This process main refers to the sedimentation. The recycle parameters are given as: X S, f X S ,u = Xf Xu where Xu is the underflow concentration. In the same way, the parameters XP,u XI,u XBH,u XBA,u can be calculated by (12). D. Some Common Mistakes In order to obtain satisfying simulation results, the parameters of simplified model must be calibrated. ASM1 includes more than a dozen parameters, most of which are not constant. These parameters may change its value according to the change of environmental conditions. However, if each one was calibrated under specific practical wastewater quality conditions and process characteristics, it would result in model application difficulties. The first step of parameter calibration is to analyze each parameters impact on effluent indicators. Synthesizing literature [12, 13] about parameter sensitivity analysis, the heterotrophic yield coefficient YH has the greatest sensitivity, followed by the heterotrophic maximum specific growth rate H , half-saturation coefficient for heterotrophy Ks and maximum specific hydrolysis rate constant Kh. The calibration of YH can be expressed by following formula:

and Vdn = Qu / A are cross-sectional velocity respectively generated by effluent water and effluent sludge, gravity sedimentation rate Vs is represented by Takcs doubleexponential settling equation. X is the total sludge concentration, and the standard values in the original model are used as the value of other parameters. In this model, the secondary settler is divided into five layers from the bottom to top, the bottom is the 1st layer while the top is the 5th layer, and feed layer is the 3rd layer. Sludge concentrations in each layer are written as: For the bottom layer:

For the layers below the feed layer:

dX 1 Vdn ( X 2 X 1 ) + min(s ,2 , s ,1 ) = dt h

dX 2 Vdn ( X m +1 X m ) = + dt h min(s ,3 , s ,2 ) min(s ,2 , s ,1 )

For the feed layer:

24

Concentration(mgCOD/l)

CODXO = CODTO + CODSO CODXO YH = CODSO

where CODSO and CODXO respectively represents the COD concentration of soluble and particulate components. Due to the small impact of other parameters, their values can be directly using the recommended ones at 20 for calculating. III. SIMULATION AND RESULTS ANALYSIS The processing model was built according to the treatment process of some small-scale wastewater treatment plant, the treating capacity of which is 60,000 tons/day. The plant is designed for meeting the target in accordance with national second level effluent standards. Since the model is mainly considered for COD removal of the plant, in which the effluent COD concentration should be less than 100 mg/l. Simulation steps are given as: First of all, obtain steadystate effluent data of both aeration reactor and secondary settler through steady-state simulation, then implement the entire wastewater treatment process through dynamic simulation, which used to observe the fitting results by comparing actual data and experimental data. A. Steady-state Simulation In the actual operation of wastewater treatment plants, the system's steady-state is only relative, the water quantity and quality constantly keep changing every day even every moment, it just stay relatively stable in the absence of exceptional circumstances (for example, heavy rainfall and temperature impact). Thus, the average running data of the wastewater treatment plant was selected as steady-state operation data. In this case, flow rate is 50, 000m3/d, and influent COD concentration is 338.5mg/l. Based on the experience, the analysis was carried out to measure the flow components. Therefore, the influent COD can be decomposed by he ratio of 54%, 12.8%, 16.8%, 11.5%, 4.9%, corresponding to the components respectively which required in the model: XS, XI , SS , SI , XBH. Thus, through calculation, the concentrations of the above components are listed in order: 182.9mgCOD/l, 43.23mgCOD/l, 56.53mgCOD/l, 39.25mgCOD/l and 16.625mgCOD/l. Finally, the concentration of effluent component will be superimposed to be the effluent COD concentration by modeling principles. The results of the steady-state simulation are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 below.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.1 0.2 t(day) 0.3 0.4 0.5 Xs Ss

Figure 2. Steady-state simulation in aeration reactor

In Fig. 2: Under steady-state condition, aeration reactor effluent XS , SS concentrations are 38.93mgCOD/l, 2.08mgCOD/l respectively, which shows that aeration reactor model can effectively degrade the organic material of wastewater. In Fig. 3: When the secondary settler reaches steady state, the concentration of the 1st layer to the 5th layer is respectively: 6765.6mgCOD/l, 182.91mgCOD/l, 182.91 mgCOD/l, 25.91mgCOD/l and 8.36mgCOD/l, which shows a good settlement performance as well.
10000 The 1st Layer 8000 Concentration gSS/m3

6000

4000

2000

0.1

0.2 t(day)

0.3

0.4

0.5

(a) Sludge concentration of the 1st layer

2500 The 2nd layer The 3rd layer

2000 Concentration gSS/m3

1500

1000

500

0.1

0.2 t(day)

0.3

0.4

0.5

(b) Sludge concentration of the 2nd and the 3rd layer

25

60 The 4th layer The 5th layer

50 Concentration mgSS/l

40

30

20

10

0.1

0.2 t(day)

0.3

0.4

0.5

(c) Sludge concentration of the 4th and the 5th layer

Figure 3. Steady-state simulation in secondary settler

The daily simulated and measured values are shown in Table 1, in which CODIN represents the concentration of COD in influent wastewater, and CODM and CODP respectively represents the measured and the simulated COD concentration in effluent water. As the results shown in Table 1, the model is relatively weak in anti-interference ability, when the influent concentration changed greatly compared to the last day, the difference between effluent COD of the simulated and measured values is comparatively large, therefore, the model should be further improved robustness . For example, on April 9th and April 11th, the errors were 15.4% and 12.48% respectively. At other time, the simulated values can be fitted well with the measured values.
TABLE I. DATE 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11

SIMULATION RESULTS OF THE EFFLUENT COD

CODIN (mg/l) 323 312 339 335 306 323 277 242 326 224 310 320 275 350 331 372 354 347 CODM (mg/l) 51.3 53 53 58.6 56.4 62 56.3 56 57 52 62.5 62 55.5 61 55.1 56 60 57 CODP (mg/l) 46.6 47.4 53.6 57.7 53.6 61.4 56 49.4 65.8 49.4 54.7 65.5 52.5 56.2 53.3 57.1 53.6 51.4 ERROR (%) 9.16 10.57 1.13 1.54 4.96 0.97 0.53 11.79 15.44 5 12.48 5.65 5.41 7.87 3.27 1.96 10.67 9.82

Under the steady-state conditions, the effluent COD concentration was degraded to 52.6mg/l after calculation, which is close to the first emission standards at the national level, so the model is valid. B. Dynamic Simulation To verify the performance of model capability of simulating practical operation, using the 18-day data of wastewater treatment plant from April 1st to April 18th for dynamic simulation. According to the literature, the influent of a specific wastewater treatment plant is constant and not subject to flow rate fluctuations for relative content of each component for urban wastewater, in dynamic simulation, components determination still follows the experience value in steady-state, and then obtains effluent data through model calculation. The simulation results are shown in Fig. 4:
100 90 80 COD(mg/l) 70 60 50 40 30 Measured Effluent COD Simulating Effluent COD

4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18

8 10 t(day)

12

14

16

18

Figure 4. Comparison of effluent COD

IV.

CONCLUSION

From Figure 4, we can see a similar trend in the two curves and the average value from April 1st to April 18th of simulated effluent COD can be calculated from the result, of which is 54.78mg/l, while the average value of measured effluent COD is 56.93mg/l, the error is 3.78%. Therefore, the model has capability of predictability on the actual operation of wastewater treatment plants.

This paper proposed a mathematical model for wastewater treatment plants which was established through reasonable simplification on the aeration reactor and the secondary settler. Not only the model's components, process and the number of model parameters are greatly reduced, but also achieved the dynamic connection of aeration reactor and the secondary settler. At the same time, by simulating the practical wastewater treatment plants of COD removal, the ability of prediction on urban wastewater treatment process is improved. Through the effluent COD simulation of actual

26

process using this model, the obtained simulation results can follow the trend in measured values, and the error is within a certain range, which indicates the validity of the model and calculation process. REFERENCES
[1] M. Henze, C G Jr, W. Gujer, G. v. R. Marais, and T. Matsuo, Activated sludge model No.1, [R]//IAWQ. IAWQ Scientific and Technical Report No.1. London: IAWQ, 1986. Eveline I. P, Mark C. M, and Peter A, Continuity-based model interfacing for plant-wide simulation: A general approach, Water Research, vol. 40, Aug. 2006, pp. 28172828. Marsili Libelli S, Ratini P, Spagni A, and Bortone G, Implementation, study and calibration of a modified ASM2d for the simulation of SBR processes, Water Science & Technology, vol. 43, 2001, pp. 6976. Llse Y Smets, Jeoren V. Haegebaert, Ronald Carrette, and Jan F, Van Impe. Linearization of the activated sludge model ASM1 for fast and reliable predictions, Water Research, vol. 37, April. 2003, pp. 18311851. M. Ji, J. S. Huo, Z. L. Hu, W. J. Ma, W. Y. Liu, and B. X. Zhang, Study and Application of Mathematical Model for Activated Sludge Process, China Water & Wastewater, vol. 17, Aug. 2001, pp. 1822.

[6]

[7]

[8]

[2]

[9]

[3]

[10]

[11]

[4]

[12]

[5]

[13]

G. P. Yu, M. Z. Yuan, and H. Wang, Research on Simulation of Wastewater Treatment Based on Simplified Mathematical Model for Activated Sludge Process, Journal of System Simulation, vol. 19, Dec. 2007, pp. 53665369. M. T. Sorour and L. M. F. Bahgat, Simulation Analysis of ASM/Takcs Models in the BSM1 Configuration, Environmental Technology, vol. 27, 2006, 11631170. D. C. Yuan, L. P. Fan, and H. B. Yu, Software Development for Simulating Biological Wastewater Treatment Processes, Journal of System Simulation, vol. 15, Nov. 2003, pp. 15091513 Q. H. Cong, T. Y. Chai, and W. Yu, Modeling wastewater treatment plant via hierarchical neural networks, Control Theory & Applications, vol. 26, Jan. 2009, 814. Scott A. Dellana and David West, Predictive modeling for wastewater applications: Linear and nonlinear approaches, Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 24, Jan. 2009, pp. 96106. I Takcs, G Patry, and D Nolasco, A dynamic model of the clarification thickening process, Water Research, vol. 25, 1991, pp. 12631271. W. Q. Song and H. Z. Yang, Measurement of yield coefficient of heterotrophic biomass in activated sludge models, Evironmental Pollution & Control, vol. 26, 2004, pp. 253255. H. Satoh, E. Okuda, T. Mino, and T. Matsuo, Calibration of kinetic parameters in the IAWQ Activated Sludge Model: a pilot scale experience, Water Science & Technology, vol. 42, 2000, pp. 2934.

27