Benchmark simulation model no 2: general protocol and exploratory case studies.

Over a decade ago, the concept of objectively evaluating the performance of control strategies by simulating them using a standard model implementation was introduced for activated sludge wastewater treatment plants. The resulting Benchmark Simulation Model No 1 (BSM1) has been the basis for a significant new development that is reported on here: Rather than only evaluating control strategies at the level of the activated sludge unit (bioreactors and secondary clarifier) the new BSM2 now allows the evaluation of control strategies at the level of the whole plant, including primary clarifier and sludge treatment with anaerobic sludge digestion. In this contribution, the decisions that have been made over the past three years regarding the models used within the BSM2 are presented and argued, with particular emphasis on the ADM1 description of the digester, the interfaces between activated sludge and digester models, the included temperature dependencies and the reject water storage. BSM2-implementations are now available in a wide range of simulation platforms and a ring test has verified their proper implementation, consistent with the BSM2 definition. This guarantees that users can focus on the control strategy evaluation rather than on modelling issues. Finally, for illustration, twelve simple operational strategies have been implemented in BSM2 and their performance evaluated. Results show that it is an interesting control engineering challenge to further improve the performance of the BSM2 plant (which is the whole idea behind benchmarking) and that integrated control (i.e. acting at different places in the whole plant) is certainly worthwhile to achieve overall improvement.

[1]  W. Gujer,et al.  Activated sludge model No. 3 , 1995 .

[2]  Ulf Jeppsson,et al.  Plant-wide (BSM2) evaluation of the effect of reject water treatment with a SHARON-Anammox process , 2006 .

[3]  P A Vanrolleghem,et al.  Towards a benchmark simulation model for plant-wide control strategy performance evaluation of WWTPs. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[4]  L Benedetti,et al.  Benchmarking of WWTP design by assessing costs, effluent quality and process variability. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[5]  R. Otterpohl,et al.  Dynamic Models for Clarifiers of Activated Sludge Plants with Dry and Wet Weather Flows , 1992 .

[6]  P A Vanrolleghem,et al.  Plant-wide (BSM2) evaluation of reject water treatment with a SHARON-Anammox process. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[7]  P A Vanrolleghem,et al.  Towards a common benchmark for long-term process control and monitoring performance evaluation. , 2004, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

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

[9]  Irini Angelidaki,et al.  Anaerobic digestion model No. 1 (ADM1) , 2002 .

[10]  K V Gernaey,et al.  Application of multivariable statistical techniques in plant-wide WWTP control strategies analysis. , 2007, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[11]  Ulf Jeppsson,et al.  Towards an ASM1 – ADM1 state variable interface for plant-wide wastewater treatment modeling , 2003 .

[12]  Ulf Jeppsson,et al.  Implementing ADM1 for benchmark simulations in Matlab/Simulink , 2005 .

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

[14]  S Winkler,et al.  Progress in sensor technology--progress in process control? Part 1: sensor property investigation and classification. , 2003, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[15]  Ulf Jeppsson,et al.  The COST benchmark simulation model—current state and future perspective , 2004 .

[16]  R. C. Weast CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics , 1973 .

[17]  Ulf Jeppsson,et al.  Aspects on ADM1 Implementation within the BSM2 Framework , 2005 .

[18]  U Jeppsson,et al.  Benchmark simulation Model no 2 in Matlab-simulink: towards plant-wide WWTP control strategy evaluation. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[19]  W. M. Haynes CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics , 1990 .

[20]  U Jeppsson,et al.  WWTP dynamic disturbance modelling--an essential module for long-term benchmarking development. , 2006, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[21]  Peter A. Vanrolleghem,et al.  Towards a simulation-benchmark for evaluating respirometry-based control strategies , 1997 .

[22]  Ulf Jeppsson,et al.  BSM1 versus BSM1_LT: Is the Control Strategy Performance Ranking Maintained? , 2007 .

[23]  Ulf Jeppsson,et al.  Phenomenological modelling of wastewater treatment plant influent disturbance scenarios , 2005 .