Multicriteria evaluation tools to support the conceptual design of activated sludge systems.

During the past decade the pressure of the whole spectrum of stakeholders has increased considerably leading the consideration of different types of objectives, i.e. economical, technical, legal and environmental, into the process design efforts. Thus, the traditional design approaches should turn into more complex assessment methods including different types of objectives in order to conduct integrated assessments. The objective of this paper is to present and discuss the usefulness of three evaluation tools, based on multicriteria decision analysis, to support the conceptual design of activated sludge systems These support tools consist of: i) preliminary multiobjective optimization, where the most promising options (those located near to the optimum) are compared based on the results of dynamic simulation, ii) identification of strong and weak points for each option by means of classification trees and the subsequent extraction of knowledge-based rules, and iii) evaluation of the trade-offs between a certain evaluation criteria and the overall process performance through the integrated application of mathematical modelling and qualitative knowledge extracted during the design process.

[1]  T. Saaty How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .

[2]  Philippe Vincke,et al.  Multicriteria Decision-Aid , 1992 .

[3]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[4]  A G Sadowski,et al.  Activated sludge wastewater treatment plants optimisation to face pollution overloads during grape harvest periods. , 2005, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[5]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning , 1992 .

[6]  Warren D. Seider,et al.  Process design principles : synthesis, analysis, and evaluation , 1999 .

[7]  Mogens Henze,et al.  Activated sludge models ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d and ASM3 , 2015 .

[8]  U Jeppsson,et al.  Extension of the IWA/COST simulation benchmark to include expert reasoning for system performance evaluation. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[9]  Ignasi Rodríguez-Roda,et al.  Design of Wastewater Treatment Plants Using a Conceptual Design Methodology , 2002 .

[10]  Sylvie Gillot,et al.  The COST Simulation Benchmark: Description and Simulator Manual , 2001 .

[11]  S Salem,et al.  Model-based evaluation of a new upgrading concept for N-removal. , 2002, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[12]  P A Vanrolleghem,et al.  Development of a risk assessment based technique for design/retrofitting of WWTPs. , 2001, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[13]  Michael F. Doherty,et al.  Evaluating significant economic trade‐offs for process design and steady‐state control optimization problems , 1985 .

[14]  P A Vanrolleghem,et al.  Robustness and economic measures as control benchmark performance criteria. , 2002, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[15]  K. Jones,et al.  Maximizing the potential of process engineering databases , 1989 .

[16]  Ignasi Rodríguez-Roda,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization Procedure for Control Strategies in Environmental Systems , 2006 .

[17]  I. Takács A dynamic model of the clarification-thickening process , 1991 .