2015
DOI: 10.2166/9781780403045
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamical Modelling & Estimation in Wastewater Treatment Processes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
148
0
2

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 167 publications
(164 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
148
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…All measurements were carried out according to standard methods (APHA, 2005) within one week after the sample collecting. The measured data were evaluated by Student's t-test paired with the F-test to determine the statistical significance of the observed differences between the measured data for DO, ammonia, nitrate and nitrite at the 95% confidence level (Dochain and Vanrolleghem, 2001). After that, the average values were used for model calibration and validation.…”
Section: Sampling and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All measurements were carried out according to standard methods (APHA, 2005) within one week after the sample collecting. The measured data were evaluated by Student's t-test paired with the F-test to determine the statistical significance of the observed differences between the measured data for DO, ammonia, nitrate and nitrite at the 95% confidence level (Dochain and Vanrolleghem, 2001). After that, the average values were used for model calibration and validation.…”
Section: Sampling and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, the Good Modeling Practice (GMP) task group from IWA have emphasized that a standardized modeling procedure is needed to distinguish parameter subset that is identifiable with the available data for experience-based approaches 28 . Systematical analysis approaches have attracted much more attention 15,18,[29][30][31][32] , which mainly consist of parameter identification, sensitivity analysis, and error propagation 32 . Conventional parameter subset identifiability analyzing methods are mainly based on the local sensitivity analysis 21,22 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, such manual parameter fitting can be technically tedious and time-consuming, does not provide a unique optimal set of parameters, is not scientifically robust, and does not quantify parameter uncertainty (Dochain et al 2001, Donoso-Bravo et al 2011. The selection of minerals to include in a model is typically based on prior experience (Musvoto et al 2000a), and/or on equilibrium predictors (e.g.…”
Section: Minerals Precipitation Modelling Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, chemical equilibrium predictors do not capture kinetic effects (Wiechers et al 1975). An alternative method is based on statistical model analysis, whereby a precipitating mineral is included in a model if its kinetic parameter value is significantly different from zero , Dochain et al 2001, Donoso-Bravo et al 2011. A combination of prior knowledge, equilibrium predictors and robust statistical approaches could then provide improved estimates of mineral formation.…”
Section: Minerals Precipitation Modelling Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation