Data Reconciliation for Wastewater Treatment Plant Simulation Studies—Planning for High‐Quality Data and Typical Sources of Errors

Model results are only as good as the data fed as input or used for calibration. Data reconciliation for wastewater treatment modeling is a demanding task, and standardized approaches are lacking. This paper suggests a procedure to obtain high-quality data sets for model-based studies. The proposed approach starts with the collection of existing historical data, followed by the planning of additional measurements for reliability checks, a data reconciliation step, and it ends with an intensive measuring campaign. With the suggested method, it should be possible to detect, isolate, and finally identify systematic measurement errors leading to verified and qualitative data sets. To allow mass balances to be calculated or other reliability checks to be applied, few additional measurements must be introduced in addition to routine measurements. The intensive measurement campaign should be started only after all mass balances applied to the historical data are closed or the faults have been detected, isolated, and identified. In addition to the procedure itself, an overview of typical sources of errors is given.

[1]  L Rieger,et al.  An efficient monitoring concept with control charts for on-line sensors. , 2002, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[2]  M C M van Loosdrecht,et al.  Error diagnostics and data reconciliation for activated sludge modelling using mass balances. , 2002, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[3]  Lukasz A. Kurgan,et al.  A survey of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining process models , 2006, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[4]  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.

[5]  Peter A. Vanrolleghem,et al.  Wastewater treatment modelling: Quo vadis? , 2010 .

[6]  J.-L. Bertrand-Krajewski,et al.  Benefits, limitations and uncertainty of in situ spectrometry. , 2008, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[7]  Douglas C. Montgomery,et al.  Introduction to Statistical Quality Control , 1986 .

[8]  H Kroiss,et al.  Benchmarking of municipal waste water treatment plants (an Austrian project). , 2004, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[9]  Karl Svardal,et al.  Parameter estimation for activated sludge models with the help of mass balances , 1999 .

[10]  R. Haider,et al.  Overestimated COD values for raw wastewaters extracted by vacuum sampling devices due to sedimentation effects , 1998 .

[11]  H. D. Stensel,et al.  Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse , 2002 .

[12]  Rolf Isermann,et al.  Trends in the Application of Model Based Fault Detection and Diagnosis of Technical Processes , 1996 .

[13]  S Winkler,et al.  Activated sludge modelling in practice: an international survey. , 2009, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[14]  Peter A. Vanrolleghem,et al.  Experience and organisation of automated measuring stations for river water quality monitoring , 2000 .

[15]  J Colprim,et al.  Data evaluation of full-scale wastewater treatment plants by mass balance. , 2008, Water research.

[16]  M Thomann Quality evaluation methods for wastewater treatment plant data. , 2008, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[17]  Leiv Rieger,et al.  Quantifying the uncertainty of on-line sensors at WWTPs during field operation. , 2005, Water research.

[18]  Peter Dold,et al.  COD and nitrogen mass balances in activated sludge systems , 1995 .