Dynamic Optimal Ground Water Remediation by Granular Activated Carbon

Objective functions to describe the operating and capital costs of granular activated carbon (GAC) treatment are incorporated into a management model for dynamic optimal pump-and-treat groundwater remediation design. The optimization approach, quasi-Newton differential dynamic programming including a constant shift in the Hessian matrix, could not reliably handle the nonconvex objective functions for GAC system. To avoid the nonconvexity, linearized iterative approximations of operating costs were used to solve the multiple management period problem, although this approach does not guarantee global optimality for the original nonconvex objective function. Repeated optimizations assuming different size absorbers were required to consider the fixed costs of the GAC system. Basing the cost function on concentrations at the beginning of each management period provided reasonable conservative cost estimates. Dynamic policies were found to be superior to steady-state policies even when capital costs of treatment were included. This work suggests that improvements in the differential dynamic programming algorithm may be needed for it to be robust technique for realistic nonconvex objective functions.

[1]  David P. Ahlfeld,et al.  Two‐Stage Ground‐Water Remediation Design , 1990 .

[2]  L. Liao,et al.  Convergence in unconstrained discrete-time differential dynamic programming , 1991 .

[3]  G. Pinder,et al.  Groundwater management using numerical simulation and the outer approximation method for global optimization , 1993 .

[4]  Christine A. Shoemaker,et al.  Dynamic Optimal Ground-Water Reclamation with Treatment Capital Costs , 1998 .

[5]  Christine A. Shoemaker,et al.  OPTIMAL CONTROL FOR GROUNDWATER REMEDIATION BY DIFFERENTIAL DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING WITH QUASI-NEWTON APPROXIMATIONS , 1993 .

[6]  D. McKinney,et al.  Genetic algorithm solution of groundwater management models , 1994 .

[7]  C. Shoemaker,et al.  Dynamic optimal control for groundwater remediation with flexible management periods , 1992 .

[8]  David E. Dougherty,et al.  Optimal groundwater management: 2. Application of simulated annealing to a field-scale contamination site , 1993 .

[9]  S. Ranjithan,et al.  Using genetic algorithms to solve a multiple objective groundwater pollution containment problem , 1994 .

[10]  David E. Dougherty,et al.  Design Optimization for Multiple Management Period Groundwater Remediation , 1996 .

[11]  W. Merz,et al.  Use of carbon adsorption processes in groundwater treatment , 1989 .

[12]  Christine A. Shoemaker,et al.  Optimization of Groundwater Remediation with DES , 1996 .

[13]  C. Shoemaker,et al.  Optimal time-varying pumping rates for groundwater remediation: Application of a constrained optimal control algorithm , 1992 .

[14]  D. McKinney,et al.  Approximate Mixed‐Integer Nonlinear Programming Methods for Optimal Aquifer Remediation Design , 1995 .