Benchmark Simulation Model No 2 in Matlab-Simulink: towards plant-wide WWTP control strategy evaluation

Abstract

In this paper, implementation of the Benchmark Simulation Model No 2 (BSM2) within Matlab-Simulink is presented. The BSM2 is developed for plant-wide WWTP control strategy evaluation on a long-term basis. It consists of a pre-treatment process, an activated sludge process and sludge treatment processes. Extended evaluation criteria are proposed for plant-wide control strategy assessment. Default open-loop and closed-loop strategies are also proposed to be used as references with which to compare other control strategies. Simulations indicate that the BM2 is an appropriate tool for plant-wide control strategy evaluation.

Dual-Control of Autothermal Thermophilic Aerobic Digestion Using Aeration and Solid Retention Time

“…The ability to change SRT involves the existence of a pre-holding tank [13] to regulate the influent flow and to absorb fluctuations of the outlet flow. The influent definition consists of: (i) a constant composition given by simulations of the benchmark simulation model No.2 (BSM2) evaluated by Vrecko et al [28]; and (ii) a significant variability of the biodegradable content. Departing from an exhaustive analysis of the raw sludge in the BSM2, 2/3 parts of the mixed raw sludge were due to the slowly biodegradable substrate (X s,in ) [13].…”

Multiple-objective evaluation of wastewater treatment plant control alternatives

“…X 1-7 : eutrophication k g P O 4 eq. X 2-1 : sludge production (SP) (Vrecko et al, 2006) Tg TSS X 2-2 : aeration energy (AE) (Vrecko et al, 2006) M w . h X 2-3 : pumping energy (PE) (Vrecko et al, 2006) M w .…”

“…h X 2-3 : pumping energy (PE) (Vrecko et al, 2006) M w . h X 2-4 : carbon source (CS) (Vrecko et al, 2006) T g X 2-5 : mixing energy (ME) (Vrecko et al, 2006) M w . h X 2-6 : heating energy (HE) (Vrecko et al, 2006) M w .…”

“…h X 2-4 : carbon source (CS) (Vrecko et al, 2006) T g X 2-5 : mixing energy (ME) (Vrecko et al, 2006) M w . h X 2-6 : heating energy (HE) (Vrecko et al, 2006) M w . h X 2-7 : methane production (MP) (Vrecko et al, 2006) T g X 2-8 : net energy consumption (E) (Vrecko et al, 2006) M w .…”

“…h X 2-7 : methane production (MP) (Vrecko et al, 2006) T g X 2-8 : net energy consumption (E) (Vrecko et al, 2006) M w . h X 2-9 : operating cost (Vrecko et al, 2006) -X 3-1 : overall bulking risk (Comas et al, 2008) days X 3-1,1 : low C/N bulking risk (Comas et al, 2008) days X 3-1,2 : low DO bulking risk (Comas et al, 2008) days X 3-1,3 : low F/M bulking risk (Comas et al, 2008) days X 3-2 : overall foaming risk (Comas et al, 2008) days X 3-2,1 : low FM foaming risk (Comas et al, 2008) days X 3-2,2 : high S s /X s foaming risk (Comas et al, 2008) days X 3-3 : rising sludge risk (Comas et al, 2008) days X 4-1 : TIV COD (Copp, 2002) days X 4-2 : TIV TSS (Copp, 2002) days X 4-3 : TIV BOD (Copp, 2002) days X 4-4 : TIV TN (Copp, 2002) days additional objectives are taken into account, specifically economical, technical and legal issues. Thus, the degree of satisfaction of the economical objectives was quantified by the following criteria: sludge production (X 2-1 ), aeration energy (X 2-2 ), pumping energy (X 2-3 ), carbon source (X 2-4 ), mixing energy (X 2-5 ), heating energy (X 2-6 ), methane production (X 2-7 ) and net energy consumption (X 2-8 ).…”