No abstract

This work critically reviews modeling concepts for standard activated sludge wastewater treatment processes (e.g., hydrolysis, growth and decay of organisms, etc.) for some of the most commonly used models. Based on a short overview on the theoretical biochemistry knowledge this review should help model users to better understand (i) the model concepts used; (ii) the differences between models, and (iii) the limits of the models. The seven analyzed models are: (1) ASM1; (2) ASM2d; (3) ASM3; (4) ASM3 + BioP; (5) ASM2d + TUD; (6) Barker & Dold model; and (7) UCTPHO+. Nine standard processes are distinguished and discussed in the present work: hydrolysis; fermentation; ordinary heterotrophic organisms (OHO) growth; autotrophic nitrifying organisms (ANO) growth; OHO & ANO decay; poly-hydroxyalkanoates (PHA) storage; polyphosphate (polyP) storage; phosphorus accumulating organisms PAO) growth; and PAO decay. For a structured comparison, a new schematic representation of these processes is proposed. Each process is represented as a reaction with consumed components on the left of the figure and produced components on the right. Standardized icons, based on shapes and color codes, enable the representation of the stoichiometric modeling concepts and kinetics. This representation allows highlighting the conceptual differences of the models, and the level of simplification between the concepts and the theoretical knowledge. The model selection depending on their theoretical limitations and the main research needs to increase the model quality are finally discussed.

The quality of simulation results can be significantly affected by errors in the published model (typing, inconsistencies, gaps or conceptual errors) and/or in the underlying numerical model description. Seven of the most commonly used activated sludge models have been investigated to point out the typing errors, inconsistencies and gaps in the model publications: ASM1; ASM2d; ASM3; ASM3 + Bio-P; ASM2d + TUD; New General; UCTPHO+. A systematic approach to verify models by tracking typing errors and inconsistencies in model development and software implementation is proposed. Then, stoichiometry and kinetic rate expressions are checked for each model and the errors found are reported in detail. An attached spreadsheet (see http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/06104/0898.pdf) provides corrected matrices with the calculations of all stoichiometric coefficients for the discussed biokinetic models and gives an example of proper continuity checks.

This study aims at synthesizing experiences in the practical application of ASM type models. The information is made easily accessible to model users by creating a database of modelling projects.This database includes answers to a questionnaire that was sent out to model users in 2008 to provide inputs for a Scientific and Technical Report of the IWA Task Group on Good Modelling Practice -Guidelines for use of activated sludge models, and a literature review on published modelling projects. The database is analysed to determine which biokinetic model parameters are usually changed by modellers, in which ranges, and what values are typically used for seven selected activated sludge models. These results should help model users in the calibration step, by providing typical parameter values as a starting point and ranges as a guide. However, the proposed values should be used with great care since they are the result of averaging practical experience and not taking into account specific parameter correlations.

No abstract

The Good Modelling Practice Task Group (GMP-TG) of the International Water Association (IWA) is developing guidelines for the use of Activated Sludge Models (ASM). As part of this work the group created and sent out a questionnaire to current and potential activated sludge model users in 2007. The objectives of the questionnaire were (i) to better define the profile of ASM users, (ii) to identify the tools and procedures that are actually used and (iii) to highlight the main limitations while building and using ASM-type models. Ninety-six answers were received from all over the world, from several types of organisation. The results were analysed to identify the modellers' perceptions of models depending on their profile. The results also highlighted the main topics of interest for improving modelling procedures which are standardisation of the available modelling guidelines and better experience and knowledge transfer.

Many unit process models are available in the field of wastewater treatment. All of these models use their own notation, causing problems for documentation, implementation and connection of different models (using different sets of state variables). The main goal of this paper is to propose a new notational framework which allows unique and systematic naming of state variables and parameters of biokinetic models in the wastewater treatment field. The symbols are based on one main letter that gives a general description of the state variable or parameter and several subscript levels that provide greater specification. Only those levels that make the name unique within the model context are needed in creating the symbol. The paper describes specific problems encountered with the currently used notation, presents the proposed framework and provides additional practical examples. The overall result is a framework that can be used in whole plant modelling, which consists of different fields such as activated sludge, anaerobic digestion, sidestream treatment, membrane bioreactors, metabolic approaches, fate of micropollutants and biofilm processes. The main objective of this consensus building paper is to establish a consistent set of rules that can be applied to existing and most importantly, future models. Applying the proposed notation should make it easier for everyone active in the wastewater treatment field to read, write and review documents describing modelling projects.

No abstract