Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2007, 46, 7497-7512 7497

Wastewater Treatment Plant Synthesis and Design

Noelia Alasino, Miguel C. Mussati, and Nicolás Scenna*
INGAR Instituto de Desarrollo y Diseño (CONICET-UTN), AVellaneda 3657, (S3002GJC) Santa Fe, Argentina

The most used process for biological nitrogen removal from municipal and industrial wastewaters is the
activated sludge process. Because of the importance of this process, as well as the large number of existing
facilities, a lot of research effort has been focused on optimizing the operation strategies or improving the
individual plant design. However, the systematic optimization of the process structure (process synthesis)
and operation conditions based on rigorous process models has not been presented in the literature. The
objective of this work is to address the simultaneous optimization of the process configuration and equipment
dimensionssi.e., process synthesis and designsand the operation conditions of activated sludge wastewater
treatment plants for nitrogen removal based on a superstructure model. The model embeds up to five reactors
and a secondary settler, and allows flow distribution of the main process streams, i.e., nitrate and sludge
recycle streams and fresh feed, along the reaction zone. The objective function is to minimize the net present
value formed by investment and operating costs, while verifying compliance with the effluent permitted limits.
The investment cost computes the reaction tanks, aeration systems, secondary settler, influent pumping station,
and sludge pump costs. The operation cost computes the cost for pumping, aeration, dosage of an external
carbon source, excess sludge treatment for disposal, and fines according to pollution units discharged. Influent
wastewater flowrate and composition are assumed to be known. The activated sludge model no. 3 and the
Takács model are selected to describe the biochemical processes and the secondary settler, respectively. This
results in a highly nonlinear system with nonsmooth functions. Because of the problem complexity, in this
first approach, a nonlinear programming (NLP) problem (specifically a nonlinear programming with
discontinuous derivatives (DNLP) problem) is proposed and solved to obtain some insights for future models.
It was implemented and solved using general algebraic modeling system (GAMS). Results for case studies
are presented and discussed.

1. Introduction process configuration and the operation conditions of WWTPs

The most used process for biological nitrogen (N) re-
moval from municipal and industrial wastewaters is the activated
sludge process (ASP). Because of the importance of the ASPs
and the large number of existing facilities, a lot of research
effort has been focused on optimizing the operation strategies
or improving the individual plant design but not on the
systematic optimization of the process structure based on the
process model. According to Rigopoulos and Linke,1 this lack
of effort can be attributed mainly to the fact that general-purpose
and comprehensive mechanistic models of these processes
involve a large number of biochemical reactions with highly
nonlinear kinetics, thus posing a computational barrier to the
most widely used deterministic optimization algorithms. In
addition, biochemical systems are quite difficult to control,
resulting in research focused on how to control existing systems
rather than on optimizing basic flowsheet structures.
Recent advances in modeling biochemical reactions in
activated sludge systems, as well as the fact that process systems
engineering is now a mature area, have opened up the possibility
of investigating ASP design and operation based on models.
However, in the wastewater treatment field, few papers ad-
dressed the process synthesis. Rigopoulos and Linke1 and Linke
and Kokossis2 presented a systematic design of optimal activated
sludge wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), based on the
activated sludge model no. 1 (ASM1).3 They proposed a
superstructure and used stochastic search techniques in the form
of simulated annealing for optimization.
Mussati et al.4 presented a mixed-integer nonlinear program-
ming (MINLP) model for the simultaneous optimization of the
* Corresponding author. E-mail: nscenna@ceride.gov.ar. Tel.: +54-
342-4534451. Fax: +54-342-4553439.
10.1021/ie0704905 CCC: $37.00 © 2007 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 10/16/2007
for nitrogen removal, introducing a superstructure that embeds
the three most used ASP configurations, i.e., predenitrification
(PreDN), postdenitrification (PostDN), and pre-postdenitrifica-
tion (PrePostDN) systems, but without allowing streamflow
distribution patterns. In the studies by Alasino et al.,5,6 that
model was extended to account for flow distribution of the main
process streams (nitrate and sludge recycle streams and fresh
feed stream) along the reaction zone. However, reactor volumes
were fixed and investment costs were not included in the model.
Other published works on activated sludge systems using
ASM-type models and the double-exponential model for settling
tanks have focused on the achievement of the best combination
of operation variables by means of simulating two or three
alternative designs and choosing the one with the lowest
cost.7-11 Gillot et al.7 used the net present value (NPV),
integrating investments and operating costs of a wastewater
treatment plant to standardize a cost-calculation procedure, and
used these cost models for comparison of different treatment
scenarios by simulation. A software tool for economic evaluation
of a WWTP over its life cycle was also developed.8 Espı́rito
Santo et al.9 optimized the design and operation variables of
four WWTPs consisting of one aeration tank (described by the
ASM1 model) and one secondary settler (described by the model
proposed by the Abwassertechnische Vereinigung e.V. -ATV
model-) using four different optimizers, but they did not deal
with process synthesis.
In summary, the rigorous modeling for optimal process
synthesis, design, and operation of WWTPs by mathematical
programming contemplating all structural possibilities; embed-
ding reaction compartments, secondary settler, and stream
interconnections; and aiming at minimizing NPV is a difficult
task and has not been addressed in the literature. The biochemi-
7498 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007
Figure 1. Conventional activated sludge wastewater treatment plants.
cal process rates and settler model include highly nonlinear
functions. Moreover, the settler model includes nonsmooth
functions such as min/max that lead to special models called
nonlinear programming with discontinuous derivatives problems
(DNLPs), which, in general, may cause numerical problems.
To avoid this, a possibility is the introduction of binary variables
to model the nonsmooth functions. As mentioned, to contem-
plate all structural possibilities, a superstructure must be
introduced. The natural approach to handle superstructure
models is the MINLP methodology. Moreover, rigorous invest-
ment cost functions usually consider fixed costs, which are
related to the existence or not of a process unit. Those functions
are discontinuous, having different parameter values for different
ranges of the equipment characteristic dimension. Finally, in a
design problem, the secondary settler dimensions (depth and
transversal area) and feed allocation point might be optimization
variables. To consider all these aspects, additional binary
variables must be introduced into the model.
The objective of this work is to address the simultaneous
optimization of the process configuration and equipment
dimensionssi.e., process synthesis and designsand the opera-
tion conditions of activated sludge wastewater treatment plants
for nitrogen removal based on a superstructure model. In this
first approach, a DNLP problem is proposed to overcome most
of the above-mentioned difficulties and to obtain some insights
for the construction of more rigorous models in the future. The
model embeds up to five reaction compartments and a secondary
settler and allows for flow distribution of the main process
streams, i.e., nitrate and sludge recycle and fresh feed streams
and external carbon source dosage along the reaction zone. The
objective function is to minimize the NPV considering invest-
ment and operating costs. In all case studies, a chain of reaction
compartments in series followed by a decanter are the available
pieces of process equipment, whose dimensions (continuous
design variables) are to be optimized. The selection of a com-
partment type, i.e., an aerated or anoxic unit, is to be chosen
with a continuous variable: the aeration flowrate. When contin-
uous variables (reaction compartment volume, decanter area,
and flowrate of aeration, fresh wastewater, recycles, and external
carbon source dosage to each reaction compartment) take a zero
value at a solution point, the corresponding unit and/or stream
is removed from the superstructure. In future works, new
mathematical models based on MINLP or general disjunctive
programming (GDP) methodologies will be presented.
2. Process Description
In general, activated sludge systems employ aerated, tubular,
well-mixed reactors or a series of well-mixed reactors to
accommodate the biological reactions. Feeding strategies includ-
ing stream distribution to any point of the reaction zone and
water recycles from one zone to another are a common feature
of combined stabilization-denitrification systems. The stream
leaving the reaction zone is generally fed into a sedimentation
basin to separate the stream into the cleaned effluent and the
sludge, a fraction of which is recycled back to the reaction zone.
A fraction of sludge, called waste sludge, is purged from the
recycle line to compensate for the increase in biomass concen-
tration due to biomass growth during the biodegradation
processes.
According to Van Haandel et al.,1,12 the most used activated
sludge wastewater treatment plant (ASWWTP) configurations
providing the different environmental conditions for biological
nitrogen removal and organic matter oxidation are presented in
Figure 1. The reduction of carbonaceous matter and the
nitrification process (ammonium is converted to nitrate by
autotrophic bacteria) are favored by aerobic conditions, while
the denitrification process (nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas
by heterotrophic bacteria) is favored by anoxic conditions if
readily biodegradable organic matter is available. Anoxic zones
can be placed either at the beginning (predenitrification con-
figuration) or at the end of the reaction zone (postdenitrification).
In a predenitrifying system, an internal recirculation flow is
usually introduced to transport the nitrate-rich liquid back to
the anoxic zone. The anoxic zone may require an external carbon
dosage to facilitate denitrification if the influent readily
biodegradable matter is consumed by aerobic microorganisms
in the nitrification zone. This is even worse when the fresh
wastewater stream has a low carbon/nitrogen ratio.
Two basic process design classes can be identified, depending
on the type of energy source that is utilized by the heterotrophic
organisms to accomplish denitrification: internal or self-
generated. In processes that use an internal energy source, the
organisms make use of the influent biodegradable material to
extract the energy they need. This requires that the anoxic
reaction compartment has to be placed first in the network. Since
nitrate is not present in the influent, it has to be brought into
the anoxic reactor by recycling part of the effluent of an aerobic
reactor. A process known as Ludzack Ettinger (Figure 1a)
utilizes two reactors with partial communication, with the sludge
being recycled to the aerobic part. Recirculation of nitrified
liquor takes place in a rather indeterminate fashion by the mixing
action in the two reactors. As a consequence, the performance
of this process with respect to the reduction in total nitrogen
content is very poor. Another process, the modified Ludzack
Ettinger (MLE) (Figure 1b), uses separate anoxic and aerobic
reactors and recycles both sludge and nitrified liquor to the
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007 7499

Figure 2. (a) WWTP superstructure; (b) representation of the WWTP superstructure.

Table 1. ASM3 Model Compounds (3) a process superstructure model with a maximum of five
symbol component unit reaction compartments and one secondary settler, and (4) a
SI soluble inert organics (g of COD) m-3
defined cost model computing operation and investment costs.
SS readily biodeg. substrates (g of COD) m-3 In this first approach, a NLP (DNLP) problem is proposed and
XI inert particulate organics (g of COD) m-3 solved for different case studies.
XS slowly biodeg. substrates (g of COD) m-3
XH heterotrophic biomass (g of COD) m-3
XA autotrophic biomass (g of COD) m-3 4. Process Model
XSTO internal storage product (g of COD) m-3
XSS suspended solids (g of SS) m-3 The considered process superstructure is shown in Figure 2a.
SO dissolved oxygen (g of O2) m-3 In order to facilitate the model description, a more detailed
SNOX nitrate and nitrite N (g of N) m-3
SN2 dinitrogen (g of N) m-3
superstructure is given in Figure 2b.
SNH ammonia and ammonium N (g of N) m-3 Basically, the plant superstructure model consists of a
SALK alkalinity (g of COD) m-3 maximum of five reaction compartments, a secondary settler,
pumps and stream mixers, and splitters. The design variables
anoxic reactor in order to achieve a better performance. By (the volume of each compartment (Vi) and the secondary settler
default, the processes using an internal energy source cannot cross-area (Asett)) are to be optimized together with the oper-
produce nitrate-free effluents. This is because both recycle and ation variables (flowrate of aeration and process streams). The
effluent flows come from the aerated reactor and contain a T
fresh feed (Qfresh ), the recycle streams, and the external carbon
concentration of nitrate. Figure 1 depicts other process con- source dosage (uECSD) can be distributed into one or more of
figurations attempting to obtain low nitrate concentrations in the five reaction compartments. The superstructure has two
the effluent by using different recycle strategies and by possible internal (nitrate) recycle streams and one external
alternating aerobic and anoxic zones. T
(sludge) recycle stream. The external recycle stream (Qr,ext )
Here, a model for optimal synthesis and design that considers pumps a fraction of sludge from the secondary settler under-
a superstructure that embeds a vast number of activated sludge flow back to the reaction zone. The two possible internal (nitrate)
process configurations, given specified design criteria and cost recycle flowrates are QTr,int,1 and QTr,int,2. The first recycles a
data, is presented. fraction of the mixed liquor from the last to the rest of the
reaction compartments, and QTr,int,2 recycles from the fourth to
3. Problem Definition the preceding compartments, as is shown in Figure 2b.
The problem addressed in this paper is the simultaneous The reaction compartment volumes can range from zero to a
optimization of the system structure (process configuration), the given arbitrary maximum value. A zero reaction compartment
design (equipment dimensions, i.e., reaction compartments volume indicates that it is eliminated from the superstructure.
volume and secondary settler transversal area), and the operating Finally, reaction compartments can operate under anoxic or
conditions (flowrates of aeration, recycles, and fresh feed aerobic conditions, depending on the optimal value computed
wastewater to each reaction compartment and external carbon for the oxygen transfer coefficient kLa. If the kLa value for a
source dosage) of activated sludge WWTPs for nitrogen given compartment is zero, an anoxic reactor is selected.
removal, aimed at minimizing the net present value (NPV), The preference for a given plant configuration over the others
given the following: (1) defined influent wastewater specifica- depends on the influent wastewater flowrate and composition
tions (composition and flowrate), (2) effluent permitted limits, and the used cost functions, as well as on several economical
7500 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007

Table 2. ASM3 Processes

Fk process process rate

[ ]
F1 hydrolysis XS/XH
F 1 ) kH X
KX + XS/XH H

[ ][ ]
F2 aerobic storage of SS SS SO
F2 ) kSTO X
KS + S S KO 2 + S O H

[ ][ ][ ]
F3 aerobic storage of SS KO 2 SNO SS
F3 ) kSTO‚ηNOX X
KO2 + SO KNOX + SNO KS + SS H

[ ][ ][ ][ ]
F4 aerobic growth SO SNH SALK XSTO/XH
F 4 ) µH X
KO2 + SO KNH + SNH KALK + SALK KSTO + XSTO/XH H

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
F5 anoxic growth (denitrification) SO SNO SNH SALK XSTO/XH
F 5 ) µH X
KO2 + SO KNOX + SNO KNH + SNH KALK + SALK KSTO + XSTO/XH H

[ ]
F6 aerobic endogenous respiration SO
F6 ) bH,O2 X
KO 2 + S O H

[ ][ ]
F7 anoxic endogenous respiration KO2 SNO
F7 ) bH,NOX X
KO2 + SO KNOX + SNO H

[ ]
F8 aerobic respiration of XSTO SO
F8 ) bSTO,O2 X
KO2 + SO STO

[ ][ ]
F9 anoxic respiration of XSTO KO 2 SNO
F9 ) bSTO,NOX X
KO2 + SO KNOX + SNO STO

[ ][ ][ ]
F10 anoxic growth of XA (nitrification) SO SNH SALK
F10 ) µA X
KA,O2 + SO KA,NH + SNH KA,ALK + SALK A

[ ]
F11 aerobic endogenous respiration SO
F11 ) bA,O2 X
KA,O2 + SO A

[ ][ ]
F12 anoxic endogenous respiration KA,O2 SNO
F12 ) bA,NOX X
KA,O2 + SO KA,NOX + SNO A

and technological aspects and trade-offs. It is clear that
conventional processes described in Section 2 are embedded in
the superstructure and, hence, are candidates for the optimal
flowsheet resulting from the assumed hypotheses.
4.1. Reactor Model. For the aeration tanks, steady-state
continuous stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) are considered, and it
is assumed that no biological reactions take place in the
secondary settler. The activated sludge model no. 3 (ASM3)12
is chosen as the biological process model. This model considers
both the elimination of the carbonaceous matter and the removal
of the nitrogen compounds. The ASM3 is presently the most
widely accepted model for description of biological nitrogen
removal in activated sludge systems. For each model component
x and reactor i,
Qi
(C - Cx,i) + rx,i ) 0, ∀i,x * O2
Vi x,i,in
where Qi is the volumetric flowrate that enters and leaves
reaction compartment i, Vi is the volume of reaction compart-
ment i, Cx,i and Cx,i,in are the concentrations of component x
inside and at the inlet of the reactor i, respectively. The reaction
term rx,i, for each compound x and reactor i is computed as
follows,
rx,i ) ∑K υk,c .Fk,i,
x
∀i,x
where Fk,i is the kth process rate in reactor i and υk,c are the
stoichiometric coefficients.
The ASM3 model considers 13 compounds (Cx), which are
divided into soluble compounds and particulate compounds, for
which concentrations are indicated by S and X, respectively
(Table 1), i.e., in eq 1, C can be S or X. The ASM3 involves 12
transformation processes, which are listed in Table 2 together
with their process rate equations.
For dissolved oxygen, eq 1 is modified to account for gas-
liquid mass transfer,
Qi
(S - SO,i) + kLai(SO,sat - SO,i) + rSO,i ) 0, ∀i
Vi O,i,in
where SO,sat is the oxygen saturation constant at 15 °C (SO,sat )
8 (g of O2)‚m-3).
Finally, the volume of reaction compartment i is defined as
a positive variable. The following constraint is introduced,
(1)
Vi e Vmax, ∀i (3)
where Vmax is a sufficiently large upper bound for reactor
volumes. To avoid numerical problems (e.g., division by zero),
very small lower bounds for reaction compartment volumes are
set (Vi,min ) 0.01 m3); however, when an optimal reaction
volume Vi reaches the lower bound, it is considered as a zero
volume reaction compartment and is consequently “deleted”
(2) from the superstructure. Finally, the following constraints are
considered for the mass transfer coefficient kLai in each
compartment i, which is defined as a positive variable,
kLai e kLai,max, ∀i (4)

Figure 3. Settler model scheme.
where kLai,max is a maximum operating limit (kLai,max ) 360
d-1). Analogously, to avoid numerical problems, very small
lower bounds for oxygen mass transfer coefficients are chosen
(kLai,min ) 0.0001 d-1); however, when an optimal kLai value
reaches the lower bound, it is considered zero, and consequently,
the corresponding reaction compartment is assumed to be
anoxic.
4.2. Secondary Settler Model. The secondary settler is
modeled as a nonreactive settling tank subdivided into 10 layers
of equal thickness, using the double-exponential settling velocity
model of Takács et al.14 According to a comparative study of
several sedimentation models,15 this settler model provides the
most reliable results. Here, both a fixed settler depth of 4 m
and a feed point allocation at the sixth layer from the bottom
are adopted.11 However, its cross-area (Asett) results from
optimization.
In order to shorten the notation, the total suspended solids
concentration XSS is renamed to X in the settler model equations.
Figure 3 schematizes the settler model, which consists of five
different groups of layers depending on their relative position
to the feed point. It also shows the streams due to the bulk
movement of the liquid and to gravity settling involved in the
mass balance around each layer. This balance depends on
whether the component is particulate or soluble. The movement
of soluble compounds across the settler is only due to the bulk
movement of the liquid, whereas the movement of particulate
compounds is due to the bulk liquid movement and to gravity
settling.
The particulate component flux depends on the solid con-
centration but not on the solid composition. For any particulate
compound concentration Xx, the following holds
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007 7501
Xx,sett,in Xx,m
) , ∀x,m (5)
Xsett,in Xm
where Xx,sett,in and Xx,m are the x particulate compound concen-
trations in the feed layer and layer m, respectively, and Xsett,in
and Xm are the corresponding total suspended solids concentra-
tions.
The particulate and soluble compound flux due to the bulk
movement of the liquid is straightforward to assess, being equal
to the product of the concentration Cx,m and the bulk velocity
of the liquid, which can be up or down (νup or νdn) depending
on the position of the layer with respect to the feed point,
νdn ) Qbottom/Asett (6)
νup ) Qef/Asett (7)
where Qbottom and Qef are the volumetric flowrates in sedimenta-
tion and clarification zones, respectively.
Takács double-exponential settling velocity function is ex-
pressed by eq 8, whose parameters are listed in Table 3,
νs,m(X) ) max{0,min[νo′,νo(e-rh(Xm-Xmin) -
e-rp(Xm-Xmin))]}, ∀m (8)
Xmin ) fnsXsett,in (9)
where νs,m is the settling velocity in layer m, Xm is the suspended
solids concentration in layer m, Xmin is the minimum attainable
suspended solids concentration, Xsett,in is the mixed-liquor
suspended solids concentration entering the settling tank, and
fns is the nonsettleable fraction.
The particulate compound flux due to gravity settling, J,
depends on the position relative to the feed point. For the layers
under the feed layer (m ) 2-6), the sedimentation flux, Jsed,m,
is given by
Jsed,m ) min(νs,mXm,νs,m-1Xm-1), m ) 2, ..., 6 (10)
and for the layers above the feed point (m ) 7-10), the
clarification flux, Jclar,m, is given by
Jclar,m )
{ }
νs,mXm if Xm-1 e Xt
, m ) 7, ..., 10 (11)
min (νs,mXm,νs,m-1Xm-1) otherwise
The threshold concentration Xt is adopted in such a form to
limit the solids downward flux to that which can be handled by
the layer below. For example, above the feed layer, the flux
leaving layer m is restricted, if the concentration in layer m -
1 is greater to or equal than some threshold value (Xt), in which
case the flux leaving layer m is set equal to the min
(νs,mXm,νs,m-1Xm-1). According to Takács model,14 Xt is equal
to 3000 g m-3.
The resulting steady-state compound balances around each
layer are the following:
Mass balances for the sludge (particulate components)
For the feed layer
(Qsett,inXsett,in/Asett) + Jclar,m+1 -
(νup + νdn)Xm - Jsed,m
0) , m)6 (12)
hm
where Qsett,in and Xsett,in are the volumetric flowrate and the
7502 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007

Table 3. Settler Model Parameters and Default Values

description parameter symbol units value
T
Qr,int,1 ) ∑I Qr,int,1,i (22)

maximum settling velocity ν0′ m d-1 250 4

m d-1
∑
maximum Vesilind settling velocity ν0 474
hindered zone settling parameter rh m3 (g of SS)-1 0.000 576
T
Qr,int,2 ) Qr,int,2,i (23)
flocculant zone settling parameter rp m3 (g of SS)-1 0.002 86 i)1
nonsettleable fraction fns 0.002 28
The volumetric flowrates Qr,int,1,i and Qr,int,2,i are defined as
particulate compound concentration fed to the settler, respec- positive variables.
tively. Asett and hm (0.4 m) are the settler cross-area and the For the external recycle,
layer height, respectively.

For the intermediate layers below the feed layer

T
Qr,ext ) ∑I Qr,ext,i (24)

νdn(Xm+1 -Xm) + Jsed,m+1 - Jsed,m

0) , m ) 2, ..., 5 (13) For the stream leaving the fourth reaction compartment,
hm
Q4 ) Qr,int,2,5 + Qr,int,2
T
(25)
For the bottom layer
νdn(Xm+1 - Xm) + Jsed,m+1 where Q4 is the stream flowrate leaving the fourth reaction
0) , m)1 (14) compartment, QTr,int,2 is the stream flowrate to be recycled to
hm
the previous four compartments, and Qr,int,2,5 is the stream
flowrate directed from the fourth compartment to the last one.
For the intermediate clarification layers above the feed layer For the stream leaving the fifth reaction compartment,
νup(Xm-1 - Xm) + Jclar,m+1 - Jclar,m
0) , m ) 7, ..., 9 (15) Q5 ) Qsett,in + Qr,int,1
T
(26)
hm
where Q5 is the stream flowrate that leaves the fifth compart-
For the top layer
ment, QTr,int,1 is the stream flowrate to be recycled to the
νup(Xm-1 - Xm) - Jclar,m previous five compartments, and Qsett,in is the stream flowrate
0) , m ) 10 (16) directed to the decanter.
hm
Finally, the stream leaving the decanter sedimentation zone
can be divided according to
Mass balances for the soluble components Sx
(including dissolved oxygen) Qbottom ) Qwaste + QTr,ext (27)
For the feed layer
where Qbottom is the stream flowrate that leaves the sedimentation
(Qsett,inSx,sett,in/Asett) - (νup + νdn)Sx,m
0) , m)6 (17) zone of the decanter; QTr,ext is the external recycle stream; and
hm Qwaste is the sludge stream flowrate to be wasted.
T
For the external carbon source dosage rate (uECSD ),
For the layers m ) 1-5
νdn(Sx,m+1 - Sx,m)
T
uECSD ) ∑I uECSD,i (28)
0) , m ) 1, ..., 5 (18)
hm
where uECSD,i is the external carbon source rate (in (g of
For the layers m ) 7-10 CODSs)‚d-1) dosed to reactor i. uECSD,i is defined as a positive
variable.
νup(Sx,m-1 - Sx,m)
0) , m ) 7, ..., 10 (19) 4.4. Mixer Mass Balances. Before each reaction compart-
hm ment, a nonreactive mixer is modeled,

The following constraint is introduced for the secondary settler

cross-area,
∑
G
Qi,in,g ) Qi, ∀i (29)

Asett e Asett,max (20) where Qi,in,g is the gth entering stream flowrate and Qi is the
stream flowrate leaving mixer i.
where Asett,max is a maximum design limit, which is here set at The following are the component mass balances,
1500 m2.
4.3. Splitter Mass Balances. For the feed stream, ∑
G
Qi,in,gCx,i,in,g + ux,i,in ) QiCx,i,in, ∀i,x (30)

QTfresh ) ∑I Qfresh,i (21)

T
where Qfresh is the total volumetric feed flowrate and Qfresh,i is
the feed flowrate directed to reactor i.
For the internal recycle flowrates QTr,int,1 and QTr,int,2, the
following constraints must be verified:
where Cx,i,in,g is the concentration of component x (Xx or Sx) in
the gth stream entering mixer i, ux,i,in is the x mass flowrate to
mixer i, and Cx,i,in is the concentration of component x in the
stream Qi leaving mixer i and entering tank i.
4.5. Specification Constraints. Other model constraints to
be fulfilled:
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007 7503

Effluent threshold values ICsett ) bsett,1Asettδsett,1 + bsett,2Asettδsett,2 (40)

Cy e Cy,lim, ∀y (31)
ICips ) bips,1QTfreshδips,1 + bips,2QTfreshδips,2 + bips,3QTfreshδips,3 (41)
where Cy is the concentration of the contaminant y and Cy,lim is
its threshold value. ICsr ) bsrQTr,extδsr (42)
Maximum values for operation variables The operation cost is computed as follows,16,4
OVl e OVl,lim, ∀l (32)
OCT ) OCTa + OCTpump + OCTEQ + OCTSLDGD + OCTECSD (43)
where OVl are the operation variables and OVl,lim are their
maximum values. where OCTp is the operating cost of unit p over the WWTP life
4.6. Objective Function. In previous works on WWT process span, being equal to (ΓOCannual
p ).
optimization, the total plant cost was evaluated using the present
worth method.7-10 Here, the net present value (NPV) is also OCTa ) Γ(REEa) (44)
adopted as the objective function to be minimized. The total
cost can be calculated as the sum of the investment (ICT) and OCTpump ) Γ(REEpump) (45)
operation (OCT) costs,
OCTEQ ) Γ(REQEQ) (46)
NPV ) IC + OC T T
(33)
T
) Γ(RSLDGDuSLDGD (kg 1000-1 g-1))
∑P ICp
OCSLDGD (47)
ICT ) (34)
T
OCECSD ) Γ(RECSDuECSD (kg 1000-1 g-1)) (48)
OC ) ΓOC
T T,annual
)Γ ∑P OCp annual
(35)
where EQ, Ea, Epump, uSLDGD, and uECSD are the effluent quality
index, the aeration energy demand, the pumping energy demand,
where ICp represents the investment cost and OCpannual represents the waste sludge production rate, and the external carbon source
the operating annual cost of a unit p. OCT,annual is the total dosage rate, respectively, which are expressed as follows4,11,17
operating annual cost of the plant. P is the set of units taken (coefficients R are the corresponding unitary annual operation
into account, and Γ is the updating term used to compute costs costs):
to the present value. The updating term Γ is
Pumping energy Epump (kWh d-1)
n
1 1 - (1 + id)-n
∑ Epump ) γ(Qr,int,1 + Qr,int,2 + QTr,ext + Qwaste)
T T
Γ) ) (36) (49)
j)1 (1 + id)j id
where γ is 0.04 (kWh m-3).11 Only the internal and external
where id is the interest rate (discount rate) and n is the life span recycles streams and waste sludge stream are considered. Flows
of the WWTP. among reactors are assumed to be drawn by gravity.
The investment cost functions ICp have the basic structure
ICp ) bpZpδp, where bp and δp are cost parameters and Zp is the Aeration energy Ea (kWh d-1)

[ ( )
equipment characteristic dimension; for instance, for the reaction
kLaiVi 2
system investment cost, the volume Vi of each compartment i
is considered, and for the aeration system, the oxygen capacities
Ea ) 24 ∑I (2267 × 10-7)
24
+

( )]
OxCai(OxCai ) BkLaiVi) are used as characteristic dimensions. kLaiVi
For the secondary settler, the cross-area Asett is considered, (5.612 × 10-3) (50)
computing two different investment costs, namely, the decanter 24
tank construction cost and the corresponding electromechanical
system cost. For the influent pumping station investment cost, The effluent quality index EQ, which is related to the fines
which computes costs related to concrete, screws, and screening, to be paid due to contaminant discharge, is computed by
the characteristic dimension is the influent wastewater flowrate weighting the compounds loads having an influence on the water
T T quality that are usually included in the legislation. It is defined
(Qfresh ). Finally, the influent wastewater flowrate (Qfresh ) is
used as the characteristic dimension for the sludge pump cost. as
The investment cost of the plant is computed as follows,7
Effluent quality index ((kg of contaminating unit) d-1)
ICT ) ICt + ICa + ICsett + ICips + ICsr (37) 1
EQ ) (1000 )(β SSXSS,ef + βCODCODef + βBODBODef +
where βTKNTKNef + βNOSNO,ef)Qef (51)
5

∑
where XSS,ef, SNO,ef, CODef, BODef, and TKNef are the concen-
ICt ) ( btViδ ) t
(38)
tration of suspended solids, the concentration of nitrate and
i)1
nitrite nitrogen, CODef, BODef, and the total Kjendal nitrogen
5 in the clarified effluent; Qef is the flowrate of the clarified liquid;
ICa ) ( ∑ baOxCaiδ ) a
(39) and βy are the weighting factors to convert the contaminant y
i)1 into contaminating units. In addition,
7504 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007

CODef ) SS,ef + SI,ef + XS,ef + XI,ef + XH,ef + Table 4. Effluent Threshold Values
XA,ef + XSTO,ef (52) contaminant, Cy threshold value, Cy,lim
SNH,ef ((g of N) m-3) 4
BODef ) 0.25(SS,ef + XS,ef + 0.8(XH,ef + XA,ef + XSTO,ef)) (53) NTOT,efa ((g of N) m-3) 18
BODef ((g of COD) m-3) 10
TKNef ) (0.01SI,ef + 0.03SS,ef + SNH,ef + 0.0426XS,ef + CODef ((g of COD) m-3) 100
XSS,ef ((g of SS) m-3) 30
0.02XI,ef + 0.7(XH,ef + XA,ef)) (54) a NTOT,ef is the total nitrogen: NTOT,ef ) TKNef + SNO,ef ((g of N) m-3).

Production rate of sludge for disposal uSLDGD((g of SS)d-1)

Table 5. Maximum Values for Operation Variables
uSLDGD ) (XSS,wasteQwaste) (55) operation variable, OVl maximum value, OVl,lim
QTr,ext, m3 d-1 T
36 892 ()2Qfresh)
4.7. Model Parameters. The numerical values for the model QTr,int,1 and QTr,int,2, m3 d-1 T
92 230 ()5Qfresh)
parameters used are listed in the following tables. The used Qwaste, m3 d-1 T
1 844.6 ()0.1Qfresh )
ASM3 stoichiometric coefficients and kinetic constants are uECSD, (g of COD) d-1 2 000 000
interpolated to 15 °C based on the default parameter values at kLai, d-1 360
10 and 20 °C and the temperature interpolation function given Table 6. Parameters b and δ for the Investment Cost Functions
by Gujer et al.13
bt 10 304 δt 0.477
The effluent threshold values (eq 31) used as specification ba 8 590 δa 0.433
constraints are listed in Table 4.11 bsett,1 2 630 δsett,1 0.678
bsett,2 6 338 δsett,2 0.325
The adopted maximum values for the operation variables (eq bips,1 2 334 δips,1 0.637
32) are listed in Table 5.11 bips,2 2 123 δips,2 0.540
A discount rate id of 0.05 and a life span n of 20 years are bips,3 3 090 δips,3 0.349
used (eq 36). Table 6 lists parameters b and δ for the investment bsr 5 038 δsr 0.304
cost functions (eqs 38-42) given by Gillot et al.8 The authors Table 7. Unitary Annual Operation Costs
also report the application ranges for these cost functions. In
unitary annual cost value
the present work, these functions are considered valid in the
whole search space defined. REQ (euro day (kg of PU year)-1) 50
RE (euro day (kWh year)-1) 25
Annual unitary operation costs used in eqs 44-48 (coef- RSLDGD (euro day (kg of SS year)-1) 75
ficients R) are those proposed by Vanrolleghem and Gillot16 RECSD (euro day (kg of COD year)-1) 109.5
and Mussati et al.4 and are listed in Table 7.
Table 8. Weighting Factors for Contaminants ((g of contaminating
Weighting factors βy for the contaminating components used unit) g-1)
in eq 51 are those proposed by Vanrolleghem et al.18 and listed
factor βSS βCOD βTKN βNO βBOD
in Table 8.
value 2 1 20 20 2

5. Case Studies Table 9. Influent Wastewater Specifications

value
The resulting DNLP model is used for optimal synthesis and
component A B C
design and optimization of the operation variables of wastewater
treatment plants for given influent wastewater specifications SI ((g of COD) m-3) 30 30 30
SS ((g of COD) m-3) 69.5 34.75 139
(composition and flowrate). Two different scenarios are selected XI ((g of COD) m-3) 51.2 51.2 51.2
as case studies. In case study I, the reaction compartment XS ((g of COD) m-3) 202.32 134.88 303.48
volumes and settler cross-area are optimization variables. In case XH ((g of COD) m-3) 28.17 28.17 28.17
study II, the reaction compartment volumes are fixed at 1333 XA ((g of COD) m-3) 0 0 0
XSTO ((g of COD) m-3) 0 0 0
m3, and the secondary settler cross-area is fixed at 1500 m2. As
XSS ((g of SS) m-3) 215.493 164.913 291.96
mentioned, the settler depth is fixed at 4 m in both cases. Three SO ((g of COD) m-3) 0 0 0
different influent wastewater compositions (Table 9) were used SNOX ((g of N) m-3) 0 0 0
to show the model capabilities, mainly its robustness and SN2 ((g of N) m-3) 0 0 0
flexibility. One of them consists of the original COST (European SNH ((g of N) m-3) 36.425 36.425 36.425
SALK ((g of COD) m-3) 7 7 7
Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research) BOD/TKN 3.79 2.69 5.33
wastewater specifications11 for ASM1 model modified as by
Mussati et al.19 in order to make it compatible with the ASM3 analyzed, referred to as solutions I.A, I.B, I.C, II.A, II.B, and
model. The other two influent wastewaters are characterized II.C, respectively.
by lower and higher carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratios compared to
the former one. The C/N ratio is measured as the biochemical After a lot of simulation runs, it was found that, in the
oxygen demand (BOD) to the total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) of clarification zone as well as in the feed layer (m ) 6-10), the
the influent wastewater. The different C/N ratios were obtained suspended solid concentration XSS is less than the threshold
by varying the influent XS and SS content. These wastewater concentration Xt defined in the Takács model. This behavior
specifications are indicated in Table 9 as A, B, and C, can, of course, be related to the adopted fixed secondary settler
respectively. On the basis of the COST benchmark treatment depth and feed allocation, as well as influent wastewater
plant, the influent wastewater flowrate is set at 18 446 m3 d-1 characteristics here considered. For simplicity and to avoid the
for all cases. Optimal solutions resulting from each scenario complex treatment of eqs 11, they were implemented consider-
for wastewater specifications A, B, and C are compared and ing only one clause of the conditional equations Jclar,m )
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007 7505

Table 10. Main Variables Optimal Values for Cases (a) I.A, (b) I.B,
and (c) I.C
contaminant effluent values costs
(a) Solution I.A
SNH,ef, (g of N) m-3 0.69 OCT,annual 386 148.53
NTOT,ef, (g of N) m-3 2.18 ICT 2 662 505.98
BODef, (g of O2) m-3 1.41 NPV 7 473 916.66
CODef, (g of O2) m-3 48.18
XSS,ef, (g of SS) m-3 14.36
(b) Solution I.B
SNH,ef, (g of N) m-3 1.94 OCT,annual 345 130.02
NTOT,ef, (g of N) m-3 3.82 ICT 2 717 580.57
BODef, (g of O2) m-3 0.90 NPV 7 017 900.62
CODef, (g of O2) m-3 49.58
XSS,ef, (g of SS) m-3 15.15
(c) Solution I.C
SNH,ef, (g of N) m-3 0.38 OCT,annual 501 878.11
NTOT,ef, (g of N) m-3 1.82 ICT 2 864 144.88
BODef, (g of O2) m-3 1.92 NPV 9 117 546.13
CODef, (g of O2) m-3 47.77
XSS,ef, (g of SS) m-3 14.31

in the figure. This WWTP consists of a first small moderated

Figure 4. (a) Solution I.A: optimal configuration and main process variable
values for case I.A; (b) solution I.B: optimal configuration and main process
variable values for case I.B; (c) solution I.C: optimal configuration and
main process variable values for case I.C.
νs,mXSS,m, which is valid when XSS < Xt. The fulfillment of the
aforementioned constraint has been verified for each achieved
solution.
6. Results and Discussion
6.1. Case I. The DNLP model presented in Section 4 is used
for optimal synthesis and design and optimization of the
operation variables of a WWTP for an influent wastewater
flowrate of 18 446 m3/d and influent wastewater specifications
listed in Table 9, i.e., cases I.A, I.B, and I.C. A multiple starting
point strategy was adopted, and as expected, several locally
optimal solutions were found for each case. The WWTP
configurations that result from the proposed superstructure
model showing the minimal NPV values for cases I.A, I.B, and
I.C are represented in parts a, b, and c of Figure 4, respectively,
named for simplicity solutions I.A, I.B, and I.C. Parts a, b, and
c of Table 10 show the contaminant effluent values, main
variables optimal values, and costs. A detailed list showing costs
for the optimal solution for each case can be found in Table
14.
aerated compartment and two larger slightly aerated ones. As a
result of the large total volume used, a good effluent quality is
reached. It should be noted that a lower EQ value indicates
discharge of a lower contaminant load in the receiving water
bodies (OCTEQ in Table 14). The optimal solution considers
feed distribution: ∼56% of the influent wastewater flowrate
(10 360 m3) is fed to the first compartment, and the rest is fed
to the second one. No external recycle distribution is necessary,
and no external carbon source is dosed. As can be appreciated
in Table 10a, none of the effluent component concentrations
achieves the effluent threshold value.
The C/N ratio decreases from 3.79 for influent A to 2.69 for
B, decreasing Xs and Ss levels. The optimization of case I.B
resulted in the solution represented in Figure 4b. Table 10b
shows the main variables optimal values. This solution resulted
in three reaction compartments with volumes of 946, 1 247, and
22 672 m3, respectively. As in the previous case, the last two
compartments have zero volume. In this configuration, the first
two compartments operate moderately aerated while the last one
is practically anoxic. Around 67% of the influent wastewater
flowrate (12 427 m3) is fed to the first compartment, and the
rest is fed to the second one. As shown in a previous work, the
fresh feed distribution improves the process efficiency.6 No
external recycle stream distribution is present, and no external
carbon source is dosed to the process. As shown in Table 10b,
none of the effluent component concentrations is at the effluent
threshold value, not even SNH,ef, despite the fact that the BOD
concentration is lower than in case I.A. Here, it is convenient
to choose a large plant with higher ICT, lower fines, and,
consequently, lower OCT rather than a small plant and SNH,ef at
the effluent threshold value (increasing OCT). The influent BOD
content for this case is reduced compared to that for case I.A
and NPV decreases 6% (see Table 14 for comparison). While
the ICT increases (2%), mainly because of an increased total
reactor volume and, hence, investment tank cost (4%), the OCT
decreases significantly (11%). The cost for aeration energy
demand OCTa and for treating the sludge for disposal OCSLDGDT

As shown in Figure 4a, the optimization of case I.A resulted
in three reaction compartments with volumes of 1083, 9096,
and 6099 m3, respectively. That is, the optimal configuration
includes three of the five available reaction compartments. The
last two compartments resulted to have zero volume (in fact,
the lower bound 0.01 m3 was achieved) and are not represented
decreases 26 and 33%, respectively, while fines paid OCTEQ
increase 28%. The increment in fines, as a consequence of
effluent quality deterioration compared to case I.A (higher SNH,ef
and NTOT,ef), is probably due to an unfavorable C/N ratio from
a treatment efficiency point of view. The other cost variations
are less relevant.
7506 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007
Figure 5. Costs distribution for solutions I.
Figure 4c and Table 10c show the WWTP configuration and
operation conditions with the minimum NPV for case I.C
computed by optimization of the proposed superstructure.
Solution I.C consists of four reaction compartments with
volumes of 1 315, 1 527, 5 569, and 4 956 m3, respectively.
Here, the last compartment resulted to have zero volume and is
not represented in the figure. In this configuration, the four
compartments are aerated. Around 39% of the influent waste-
water flowrate (7 232 m3) is fed to the first compartment, 35%
is fed to the second, and 26% is fed to the third compartment.
No external recycle stream distribution is present, and no
external carbon source is dosed to the process. None of the
effluent component concentrations is at the effluent threshold
value. Because the influent BOD concentration is higher with
respect to Solution I.A, the NPV increased 22%, as expected.
The increments on ICT and OCT are 8 and 30%, respectively
(see Table 14 for comparison). The main difference is on the
operation costs, especially on the aeration demand (39%) and
costs for treating the sludge (58%). However, the achieved
effluent EQ is better than that for solution I.A (OCTEQ decreases
6%). The main increment in the investment costs ICT is
produced by the reaction compartments (8%), because four
compartments are needed instead of three as before. Neverthe-
less, the total reaction volume decreases because the treatment
efficiency is better for this influent C/N ratio than for the
previous case.
6.1.1. Costs Distribution for Solutions I. The average costs
distribution for solutions I.A, I.B, and I.C is illustrated in Figure
5. Around 65 ( 4% of the NPV corresponds to OCT and 35 (
4% corresponds to ICT. In order of relevance, each cost
contributes to the NPV as follows: fines paid represents 20 (
6%, aeration energy demand cost 24 ( 4%, tanks investment
cost 23 ( 3%, sludge treatment cost 19( 5%, settler investment
cost 6 ( 1%, influent pumping station investment cost 3 (
0.5%, aeration systems investment cost 2 ( 0.2%, pumping
energy demand cost 2 ( 0.5%, and, finally, sludge recirculation
pump cost 0.5 ( 0.1%.
Since solvers for DNLP problems cannot guarantee a globally
optimal solution and existing software for global optimization
cannot cope with problems of this size, several locally optimal
solutions could be found depending on the initial point used
for optimization. To verify this behavior, a multiple starting
point strategy was adopted. The initial points were generated
combining several initial values for critical variables, such as
Vinitial
i ranging from 1000 to 5000 m3, and using different
aeration patterns along the reaction compartments (e.g., increas-
ing or decreasing aeration profiles or alternating aerated zones
with anoxic ones). Other initial points were generated by solving
first different “secondary” objective functions such as minimiz-
ing only the operation costs or the investment costs and then
the objective function as formulated.
As expected, several locally optimal mathematical solutions
to each case study were found with the aforementioned strategy.
Here, a “mathematical solution” refers to a given (unique)
solution vector, whose components are the variable values that
result from optimization. As a consequence of the superstructure
representation and the mathematical model formulation, different
mathematical solutions showing the same objective function
value may represent the same “real or physical solution”, after
deleting the zero variables. A real or physical solution is here
defined as a given (unique) WWTP configuration (flowsheet)
with given operation conditions, i.e., a set of variable values
after deleting the zero-valued variables. As a result, these
different “mathematical solutions” representing the same real
or physical solution with the same objective function value are
here considered equiValent among them, and constitute the same
solution to the synthesis, design, and optimization problem. As
an example, three equivalent mathematical solutions for case
study I.A (Seq(1), Seq(2), and Seq(3)) are shown in Table 11.
They represent the real or physical solution I.A, which has been
shown before in this section. From Table 11, it can be seen
that they represent the same final flowsheet and lead to the same
plant sizing and design, but some model variable values are
interchanged. The effluent contaminant concentrations and costs
are also the same (Table 10a, Table 14, and Figure 4a).
Specifically, the reaction compartments with zero volume
correspond to the last two compartments for Seq(1), to the first
and second for Seq(2), and to the first and fourth ones for Seq-
(3). It should be noted that the resulting nonzero volume
compartments are placed in the same sequence after suppressing
the zero-volume ones, having identical kLa values and feed
distribution pattern. All these solutions represent a plant
consisting of three reaction compartments of 1 083, 9 096, and
6 099 m3, with kLa values of 218, 36, and 27 d-1, respectively.
The influent wastewater flowrate is fed to the first and second
reactors (59 and 41%, respectively). For example, as in Seq(2),
the first two reaction compartments resulted to have zero
volumes, the sum of the influent wastewater flowrate (Qfresh,i)
to the first, second, and third reactors is fed to the first nonzero
reactor (i.e., the third reaction compartment), which is the first
one in the “real” WWTP configuration.
By the other hand, several real or physical solutions were
found for each case study. These solutions are alternatiVe
configurations for the problem, i.e., different solutions to the
synthesis, design, and optimization problem. The final flowsheet,
equipment size, and operation variable value are different among
these solutions, and they can show the same, similar, or quite
different NPVs. So far, all the solutions shown in this section
were those with the lowest NPV for each case study. As an
example, two of the alternative configurations found for case
study I.A are shown in Figure 6 and Table 12 and are referred
to as solutions I.Aalt(1) and I.Aalt(2). Summarizing, for case study
I.A, three different alternative configurations were presented:
solutions I.A (Figure 4 and Table 10), I.Aalt(1), and I.Aalt(2)
(Figure 6 and Table 12). It is worth mentioned that these
configurations present very similar NPVs (in a range of 1%).
Table 14 also shows detailed costs for Solutions I.Aalt(1) and
I.Aalt(2).
Figure 6a shows solution I.Aalt(1), which resembles very much
solution I.A (Figure 4a), having similar characteristics. Both
have a first moderately aerated reactor with a volume of 1 085
m3, followed by two less aerated reactors summing around
16 000 m3. The NPV is almost the same due to a trade-off
between the OCTswhich increases 2%sand the ICTswhich
decreases 3.5%. The OCT increases due to fines to be paid
(OCTEQ increases 6.3%) and the ICT decreases due to tanks
investment cost (ICt decreases 5.5%). Other alternative solutions
having the same characteristics, i.e., a first moderately aerated
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007 7507

Figure 6. Two alternative configurations for case I.A: solutions I.Aalt(1) and I.Aalt(2).

Table 11. Three Equivalent Solutions for the “Real or Physical Solution”, Solution I.A
Seq(1) Seq(2) Seq(3)
Ri Vi, m3 kLai, d-1 Qfresh,i, m3 d-1 Vi, m3 kLai, d-1 Qfresh,i, m3 d-1 Vi, m3 kLai, d-1 Qfresh,i, m3 d-1
1 1 083 218 10 360 0 0 5 690 0 0 10 360
2 9 096 36 8 086 0 0 4 009 1 083 218 0
3 6 099 27 0 1 083 218 661 9 096 36 8 086
4 0 0 0 9 096 36 8 086 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 6 099 27 0 6 099 27 0

Table 12. Main Variables Optimal Values for Solutions I.Aalt(1) and I.Aalt(2)
I.Aalt(1) I.Aalt(2)
contaminant effluent values costs contaminant effluent values costs
SNH,ef, (g of N) m-3 0.87 OCT,annual 394016.37 SNH,ef, (g of N) m-3 1.11 OCT,annual 407977.51
NTOT,ef, (g of N) m-3 2.53 ICT 2570061.6 NTOT,ef, (g of N) m-3 2.69 ICT 2455421.69
BODef, (g of O2) m-3 1.45 NPV 7479505.62 BODef, (g of O2) m-3 1.33 NPV 7538821.52
CODef, (g of O2) m-3 48.44 CODef, (g of O2) m-3 48.11
XSS,ef, (g of SS) m-3 14.56 XSS,ef, (g of SS) m-3 14.24

compartment of 1 085 m3 followed by two less aerated ones
summing around 16 000 m3 were also found for this case.
Solution I.Aalt(2) is a plant with two aerated reactors and feed
distribution. The NPV increases only 0.86%, OCT increases 6%,
and ICT decreases 8%, with respect to solution I.A. The OCT
increases mainly due to an increment on the aeration energy
demand cost (OCTAE increases 11%), and the decrease of the
ICT is mainly attributed to the reaction tanks (ICt decreases
10%).
It is interesting to note that, from the 41 initial points
considered in case study I.A, 34 trials rendered feasible (7 initial
points that were tried resulted infeasible). From the 34 successful
trials, 29 different “mathematical solutions” were computed.
After solution analysis, 6 different real or physical solutions
(WWTP configurations) were found. Twelve from the 29
different mathematical solutions represent the real or physical
solution I.A, which shows the lowest NPV.
The solution of the problem using different initial points
allows one to ensure a good locally optimal solution and to
find alternative configurations and their characteristics. It is
convenient for the designer to gain insight on locally optimal
properties and to know when different structures or operating
conditions have similar costs. It also allows the further selection
among these alternatives according to several aspects that are
difficult to introduce simultaneously into this DNLP model, such
as flexibility (considering trends and predictions of future
requirements), reliability (minimum risk of failure due to a
complex treatment systems), and controllability, among others.
6.2. Case Study II. Here, the DNLP model is solved for
operation variables optimization assuming given reaction com-
partment volumes and secondary settler cross-area for the three
wastewater specifications listed in Table 9. Compartment
volumes are fixed at 1 333 m3, and the influent wastewater
flowrate is kept at 18 446 m3/d as in case I. The secondary settler
cross-area is also fixed at 1 500 m2. Thus, three cases are
optimized, named cases II.A, II.B, and II.C. Despite the fact
that the reaction compartment volumes and the secondary settler
cross-area are fixed, the rest of the design and operation
variables result from optimization.
As in previous cases, a multiple starting point strategy for
optimizing each case was used, leading to different solutions.
The WWTP configurations that result from the proposed model
showing the minimal NPV values for cases II.A, II.B, and II.C
are represented in parts a, b, and c of Figure 7, respectively,
named for simplicity solutions II.A, II.B, and II.C. Parts a, b,
and c of Table 13 show the contaminant effluent values, main
variables optimal values, and costs. A detailed list showing costs
for the optimal solution for each case can be found in Table
14. As expected, as the reaction compartment volumes and the
secondary settler cross-area are fixed, the feasible solution
regions are reduced with respect to cases I.A, I.B, and I.C, and
consequently, the NPV values are comparatively higher than
in previous cases.
Figure 7a shows that, for case II.A, a feed distribution with
decreasing flowrate along the first three reactors (around 44%
of the flowrate is fed to the first compartment, 36% is fed to
the second, and 20% is fed to the third one) is optimal. The
first, second, and fourth compartments resulted aerobic, while
the third and fifth ones are anoxic. That is, this solution presents
aerated zones followed by anoxic zones. No external recycle
distribution is present, and no external carbon source is dosed
to the process. As can be appreciated in Table 13a, none of the
effluent component concentrations achieve the effluent threshold
value. As mentioned, the NPV increases 15% compared to that
7508 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007

decreasing order of relevance is as follows: 22% increment in

the treatment of sludge for disposal, 12% decrease for aeration
energy, 9% decrease for investment in reaction tanks, and 93%
increment for pumping energy. The cost variations for the other
items are irrelevant.
The optimization of case II.B leads to solution II.B repre-
sented in Figure 7b. The optimal solution considers feed
distribution: around 55% of the influent wastewater is fed to
the first compartment, and the rest is fed to the third one. The
first and fourth reaction compartments operate as aerated reactors
and the other three operate as anoxic; showing, as in the previous
solution, aerated zones followed by anoxic zones. No external
recycle stream distribution is present, and no external carbon
source is dosed to the process. As shown in Table 13b, the
effluent SNH,ef concentration is at the effluent threshold value.
As the influent C/N ratio decreases, with respect to wastewater
specification A, by lower XS and SS levels, the denitrification
process is limited.
Comparing solution II.B with solution I.B, the NPV increases
26%, OCT increases 49%, and ICT decreases 9%. The main
increment is on effluent fines OCTEQ (93%), while the cost
increment for treating the sludge for disposal is 27%, and the
decrement on tank investment is 12%; finally, the increment
on pumping energy is 76% and that on aeration energy is 2%
(in order of relevance).
In spite of the reduction in the influent XS and SS content for
case II.B compared to case II.A, the NPV increases 4%, OCT
increases 6%, and ICT decreases 2% with respect to solution
II.A. This fact can be explained by the unfavorable C/N ratio
from a treatment efficiency point of view. The main increment
is on effluent fines OCTEQ (44%), but the costs for treating the
sludge for disposal, for aeration energy demand, and for tank
investments decrease 30, 15, and 27%, respectively.
From other optimization cases (not shown), it was observed
that, by varying XS and SS content in the influent wastewater
Figure 7. (a) Solution II.A: optimal configuration and main process
(and consequently the C/N ratio) and keeping constant the rest
variable values for case II.A; (b) solution II.B: optimal configuration and of the compound levels, for case II in which the reaction
main process variable values for case II.B; and (c) solution II.C: optimal volumes and sedimentation cross-area are fixed, the NPV
configuration and main process variable values for case II.C. exhibits a minimum between the C/N ratio of wastewater A
Table 13. Main Variables Optimal Values for Cases II.A, II.B, and and B.
II.C As shown in Figure 7c and Table 13c, solution II.C has feed
contaminant effluent values costs distribution into the first four aerated compartments: around
41, 26, 30, and 3% of the influent stream flowrate is fed to the
(a) Solution II.A
SNH,ef, (g of N) m-3 3.59 OCT,annual 485 265.65 first, second, third, and fourth compartments, respectively. No
NTOT,ef, (g of N) m-3 6.22 ICT 2 512 861.77 external recycle distribution is presented, and no external carbon
BODef, g m-3 2.18 NPV 8 559 271.77 source is dosed to the process. None of the effluent component
CODef, (g of COD) m-3 50.55 concentrations achieves the effluent threshold value. As ex-
XSS,ef, (g of SS) m-3 16.37
pected, the NPV increases 9% compared to solution I.C,
(b) Solution II.B
operation costs increase 17%, and investment cost decreases
SNH,ef, (g of N) m-3 4 OCT,annual 513 409.46
NTOT,ef, (g of N) m-3 10.85 ICT 2 469 361.72 10%. The main increment is on fines paid due to effluent quality
BODef, g m-3 1.71 NPV 8 866 443.59 deterioration (58%). The sludge disposal cost also increments
CODef, (g of COD) m-3 51.51 (20%), but aeration energy cost decreases (11%) when compared
XSS,ef, (g of SS) m-3 16.71 to solution I.C. The tank investment cost decreases 15%, and
(c) Solution II.C the other cost variations are less relevant over NPV. With respect
SNH,ef, (g of N) m-3 2.61 OCT,annual 588 803.57
to solution II.A, NPV, OCT, and ICT increase 16, 21, and 2%,
NTOT,ef, (g of N) m-3 4.87 ICT 2 572 254.88
BODef, g m-3 2.68 NPV 9 908 747.36 respectively. The main increments in OCT are on the cost for
CODef, (g of COD) m-3 50.29 treating the sludge for disposal (56%) and for aeration energy
XSS,ef, (g of SS) m-3 16.27 demand (40%). However, fines decrease (13%) despite the fact
that the influent BOD level is higher than that in case I.A, as a
in case I.A, while OCT increases 26% and ICT decreases 6% consequence of a more convenient C/N ratio from a treatment
(see Table 14). The main increment is on cost for fines paid efficiency point of view. The main increment on ICT is due to
OCTEQ (71%), since the achieved effluent quality is worse than the increment on the aeration system investments (36%). The
that in case I.A. The cost variation for the remaining items in remaining cost variations have poor impact on NPV.
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007 7509

Table 14. Detailed Solution Costs

OCTEQ OCTpump OCTa T
OCSLDGD OCTECSD OCT ICt ICa ICset ICips ICsr ICT NPV
I.A 1 407 398 149 247 1 843 952 1 410 813 0 4 811 410 1 746 404 171 258 442 671 268 985 33 188 2 662 506 7 473 917
I.B 1 806 487 188 809 1 359 139 945 885 0 4 300 320 1 813 635 156 587 442 671 268 985 35 703 2 717 581 7 017 901
I.C 1 324 757 147 767 2 556 543 2 224 335 0 6 253 401 1 885 135 234 335 442 671 268 985 33 019 2 864 145 9 117 546
II.A 2 412 190 287 928 1 631 151 1 715 142 0 6 046 410 1 594 116 166 524 442 671 268 985 40 566 2 512 862 8 559 272
II.B 3 478 411 331 551 1 386 819 1 200 302 0 6 397 081 1 594 116 121 207 442 671 268 985 42 383 2 469 362 8 866 444
II.C 2 098 800 278 685 2 285 708 2 673 300 0 7 336 492 1 594 116 226 379 442 671 268 985 40 104 2 572 255 9 908 747
I.Aalt(1) 1 495 701 158 308 1 838 564 1 416 870 0 4 909 444 1 650 699 173 913 442 671 268 985 33 793 2 570 062 7 479 506
I.Aalt(2) 1 519 135 144 431 2 055 377 1 364 457 0 5 083 399 1 573 881 137 025 442 671 268 985 32 860 2 455 422 7 538 821

6.2.1. Costs Distribution for Solutions II. The average costs
distributions for solutions II.A, II.B, and II.C are illustrated in
Figure 8. Around 72 ( 2% of NPV corresponds to OCT and 28
( 2% corresponds to ICT. In order of relevance, each cost
contributes to NPV as follows (average from solutions II.A,
II.B, and II.C): fines 30 ( 9%, sludge treatment 20 ( 7%,
aeration energy demand 19 ( 4%, tanks investment 18 ( 1%,
settler investment 5 ( 0.5%, influent pumping station investment
3 ( 0.5%, pumping energy demand 3 ( 0.5%, aeration system
investment 2 ( 0.5%, and, finally, sludge recirculation pump
investment 0.5 ( 0.1%.
Summarizing, for the assumptions made and the parameter
values used in the model, it was shown that:
• For case I, the lowest NPV value achieved corresponds to
solution I.B, followed by solutions I.A and I.C.
• For case II, the lowest NPV value corresponds to solution
II.A (despite wastewater A not being the less contaminated one),
followed by solutions II.B and II.C.
• It is convenient to choose a large plant with lower fines
and, consequently, lower OCT than a small plant with SNH,ef at
the effluent threshold value (increasing OCT through fines).
• As in previous works,5,6 it was observed that treatment
performance benefits from operational features such as the use
of different aeration and stream distributions patterns, mainly
in cases where the reaction volumes are constrained.
• The average costs distributions for solutions I.A, I.B, and
I.C show that around 65 ( 4% of NPV corresponds to OCT
and 35 ( 4% corresponds to ICT. On the basis of average values
from solutions I.A, I.B, and I.C, the main contributors to NPV
in order of relevance are as follows: fines (20 ( 6%), aeration
energy demand (24 ( 4%), tanks investment (23 ( 3%), sludge
treatment (19 ( 5%), settler investment (6 ( 1%), influent
pumping station investment (3 ( 0.5%), aeration systems
investment (2 ( 0.2%), pumping energy demand (2 ( 0.5%),
and, finally, sludge recirculation pump (0.5 ( 0.1%).
• The average costs distributions for solutions II.A, II.B, and
II.C show that around 72 ( 2% of NPV corresponds to OCT
and 28 ( 2% corresponds to ICT. Each cost item contributes to
NPV as follows: fines 30 ( 9%, sludge treatment 20 ( 7%,
aeration energy demand 19 ( 4%, tanks investment 18 ( 1%,
settler investment 5 ( 0.5%, influent pumping station investment
3 ( 0.5%, pumping energy demand 3 ( 0.5%, aeration system
investment 2 ( 0.5%, and sludge recirculation pump investment
0.5 ( 0.1%.
• The NPV for solutions II with respect to solutions I increases
17 ( 9%. This fact is a consequence of a reduction of the
feasible solution regions, because the reaction compartment
volumes and the secondary settler cross-area are fixed. Invest-
ment cost decreases 8 ( 2% while operation cost increases 31
( 16%. The main increment in OCT is in fines to be paid (74
( 17%), and the main decrease in ICT is on the reaction
compartments investment cost (12 ( 3%). The remaining
investment costs have low impact on NPV variation. The other
two operation costs that vary significantly from solution I to
solution II are the sludge treatment cost, which increases 23 (
4%, and the aeration energy demand cost, which increases or
decreases depending on the wastewater characteristics. The two
last cost variations are particularly significant in the case of
wastewater C. Finally, the sludge recirculation pump investment
cost increases 86 ( 9% but has a low impact on the NPV
variation.
The model resulted in being flexible and robust and able to
be used for process synthesis, for process optimization (fixing
the structural variables), and also for simulation of a given plant
and operating conditions. For example, the optimal configura-
tion, design, and operating conditions obtained for influent A
in case I [see Figure 4a, main optimal values: Vi ) (1083, 9096,
6099, 0, 0); Asett ) 1500; KLai ) (218, 36, 27, 0, 0); Qfresh,i )
(10360, 8086, 0, 0, 0); QTr,int,1 ) 0; QTr,int,2 ) 0; Qr,ext,i ) (11841,
T
0, 0, 0, 0); uECSD ) 0] were simulated by feeding influents B
and C, without imposing effluent threshold values, since
simulation runs were performed instead of optimization. Effluent
quality conditions were not met (effluent contaminant concen-
trations are higher than the effluent permitted limits), and the
NPV increased 71 and 83%, with respect to the optimal
configurations for those case studies (solutions I.B and I.C,
respectively).
On the other hand, if reaction compartments and decanter
are given, the model can be used for optimization. For example,
by setting volumes and decanter area to the optimal values
achieved for case I.A [Vi ) (1083, 9096, 6099, 0, 0); Asett )
1500] and optimizing the other variables, the following optimal
values feeding influent B were obtained: [KLai ) (238, 19, 20,
0, 0); Qfresh,i ) (12565, 5173, 708, 0, 0); QTr,int,1 ) 0; QTr,int,2 )
0; Qr,ext,i ) (18042, 0, 0, 0, 0); uECSD
T
) 0]. Here, the effluent
quality conditions were met and the NPV increased only 5%
with respect to the optimal configuration for this case study
(solution I.B). Finally, feeding influent C, the main optimal
values were as follows: [KLai ) (256, 53, 45, 0, 0); Qfresh,i )
(9228, 9218, 0, 0); QTr,int,1 ) 0; QTr,int,2 ) 0; Qr,ext,i ) (10426, 0,
T
0, 0, 0); uECSD ) 0]. Again, the effluent quality conditions
were met and the NPV increased only 1% with respect to the
optimal configuration for this case study (solution I.C).
It is clear that convenient aeration and recycle stream patterns
and a suitable influent feed distribution can significantly improve
the system performance in the face of an influent composition
variation. This also shows that it is important to optimize
operation modes of the process under variable influent condi-
tions. Design under uncertainty or flexible design will be
addressed in a future work.
The models were implemented and solved using general
algebraic modeling systems GAMS.20 The model results in 536
single variables and 509 single equations. The code CONOPT21
was employed for solving the DNLP problem. The total CPU
time needed to solve the models was among 8.7 and 16.3 s.
The average total CPU time needed to solve the models was
12.9 s. An Intel Pentium IV 2.40GHz CPU with 248 MB of
RAM was used.
7510 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007

Acknowledgment
The financial support from Consejo Nacional de Investiga-
ciones Cientı́ficas y Técnicas (CONICET) and Agencia Nacional
de Promoción Cientı́fica y Tecnológica (ANPCyT) of Argentina
are gratefully acknowledged.

Notation
A ) area (m2)
Figure 8. Costs distribution for solutions II. b ) cost parameter
B ) constant (3000-1 (kg of O2) d (h m3)-1)
BOD ) biochemical oxygen demand ((g of O2) m-3)
7. Conclusions and Future Works C ) component concentration (C ) S or X)
COD ) chemical oxygen demand ((g of O2) m-3)
In the present work, a DNLP model was developed
E ) energy (kWh d-1)
for optimal synthesis and design as well as optimization
EQ ) effluent quality index ((kg of contaminating unit) d-1)
of the operation variables of wastewater treatment plants for
h ) height (m)
given influent wastewater specifications (composition and
I ) set of reactors/set of mixers
flowrate). Two different scenarios are selected as case studies.
IC ) investment cost (euro)
In case study I, the reaction compartment volumes and settler id ) interest rate (discount rate)
cross-area are optimization variables. In case study II, J ) solids flux due to gravity settling
the reaction compartment volumes are fixed at 1 333 m3, and K ) set of process rates
the secondary settler cross-areas are fixed at 1 500 m2. As kLa ) oxygen transfer coefficient (d-1)
mentioned, the settler depth is fixed at 4 m in both cases. Three n ) life span of the WWTP (year)
different influent wastewater compositions characterized N ) nitrogen
by different carbon/nitrogen ratios were used to show the model NPV ) net present value (euro)
capabilities, mainly its robustness and flexibility. The dif- OC ) operation cost (euro)
ferent C/N ratios were obtained by varying the influent XS and OV ) operation variable
SS content. Optimal solutions resulting from increasing C/N OxCa ) oxygen capacity ((kg of O2)/h)
ratios (B < A < C) were compared and analyzed for both P ) set of equipment units
cases. Q ) volumetric flowrate (m3 d-1)
The models were implemented in GAMS. The code CONOPT r ) reaction rate (g m-3)
was employed for solving the DNLP problems. As a S ) soluble component concentration (g m-3)
consequence of the problem nature and the solver characteristics, TKN ) total Kjendal nitrogen
in order to verify the expected presence of local optimal u ) mass flowrate (g d-1)
solutions, a multiple starting point strategy was adopted. Indeed, V ) volume (m3)
different locally optimal solutions to the problem were found X ) particulate component concentration (g m-3)
for each case study. Because of the model flexibility and Z ) characteristic dimension
robustness, it is a useful tool to help the designer to make a
Subscripts
further selection among the solutions found considering other
design aspects such as flexibility, reliability, and controllability, a ) aeration system
among others. BOD ) biochemical oxygen demand
bottom ) settler bottom effluent
As mentioned, a DNLP model was developed as a first step
c ) component
of the modeling task. Although the existence of nonsmooth
clar ) clarification zone
functions, CONOPT solved the model quite well, providing
COD ) chemical oxygen demand
solutions for >80% of the different initial points tried. Also,
ECSD ) external carbon source dosage
the existence and type of reaction compartments and process
ef ) clarified effluent
streams were satisfactorily handled by the use of very small
EQ ) effluent quality index
lower bounds (practically zero), which introduce only a small
ext ) external
error in the objective function calculation if the associated fresh ) influent wastewater
equipment is eliminated to achieve a practical flowsheet. g ) generic flowrate
However, it is interesting to note that, in some cases, solutions i ) reactor/mixer prior to reactor
with small kLa values (but not the lower bound value) were in ) inlet
computed, which may be nonsensical from an engineering point int ) internal
of view. This limitation will be overcome with the implementa- ips ) influent pumping station
tion of MINLP models. k ) process
In future works, new mathematical models based on MINLP l ) operation variable
or GDP programming will be presented. This will also allow lim ) limit
the incorporation of the settler depth and the feed allocation m ) settler layer
point as optimization variables, as well as the use of a more max ) maximum
rigorous economic objective function. All the expertise gained min ) minimum concentration
and results obtained from the proposed model will be used as p ) unit
a starting point. Finally, design under uncertainty or flexible pump ) pump
design will also be addressed. r ) recycle
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007 7511

sat ) saturation bA,O2 ) aerobic endogenous respiration rate of XA ) 0.087 (1/

sed ) sedimentation zone d)
sett ) settler bA,NOX ) anoxic endogenous respiration rate of XA ) 0.032
SLDG ) sludge (1/d)
sr ) sludge recirculation pump fsI ) production of SI in hydrolysis ) 0 ((g of CODSI)/(g of
SS ) suspended solids CODXs))
t ) tank YSTO,O2 ) aerobic yield of stored product per SS ) 0.85 ((g of
TKN ) total Kjendal nitrogen CODXSTO)/(g of CODSs))
TOT ) total YSTO,NOX ) anoxic yield of stored product per SS ) 0.80 ((g of
tresh ) threshold concentration CODXSTO)/(g of CODSs))
waste ) waste sludge YH,O2 ) aerobic yield of heterotrophic biomass ) 0.625 ((g of
x ) component CODXh)/(g of CODXSTO))
y ) contaminant YH,NOX ) anoxic yield of heterotrophic biomass ) 0.54 ((g of
CODXh)/(g of CODXSTO))
Superscripts YA ) yield of autotrophic biomass per NO3-N ) 0.24 ((g of
annual ) annual CODXa)/(g of NSNOX)
T ) total fXI ) production of XI in endog. respiration ) 0.20 ((g of
initial ) initial CODXI)/(g of CODXbm))
iN,SI ) N content of SI ) 0.01 ((g of N)/(g of CODSI))
Greek Letters iN,Ss ) N content of SS ) 0.03 ((g of N)/(g of CODSs))
iN,XI ) N content of XI ) 0.02 ((g of N)/(g of CODXI))
R ) unitary annual operation cost (euro day(year)-1)
iN,XS ) N content of XS ) 0.04 ((g of N)/(g of CODXs)
β ) weighting factors for contaminant r ((g of cont. unit) g-1)
iN,BM ) N content of biomass XH, XA ) 0.07 ((g of N)/(g of
δ ) cost parameter
CODbm))
νdn ) bulk velocity of the liquid below the feed layer (m d-1)
νs ) settling velocity (m day-1) iSS,XI ) SS-to-COD ratio for XI ) 0.75 ((g of SS)/(g of CODXI))
νup ) bulk velocity of the liquid above the feed layer (m d-1) iSS,XS ) SS-to-COD ratio for XS ) 0.75 ((g of SS)/(g of CODXs))
F ) process rate (g(d m3)-1) iSS,BM ) SS-to-COD ratio for biomass XH, XA ) 0.90 ((g of
υ ) stoichiometric coefficient SS)/(g of CODXbm))
Γ ) updating term (year)
Literature Cited
Kinetic, Stoichiometric, and Composition Parameters for ASM3 (1) Rigopoulos, S.; Linke, P. Systematic Development of Optimal
(Values at 15 °C) Activated Sludge Process Designs. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2002, 26 (4-5),
585.
kH ) hydrolysis rate constant ) 2.45 ((g of CODXs)/((g of (2) Linke, P.; Kokossis, A. Advanced Process Systems Design Technol-
CODXh) d)) ogy for Pollution Prevention and Waste Treatment. AdV. EnViron. Res. 2004,
KX ) hydrolysis saturation constant ) 1 ((g of CODXs)/(g of 8 (2), 229.
CODXh)) (3) Henze, M.; Grady, C., Jr; Gujer, W.; Marais, G.; Matsuo, T. ActiVated
Sludge Model No. 1; IAWQ Scientific and Technical Report No. 1;
kSTO ) storage rate constant ) 3.54 ((g of CODSs)/((g of CODXh)
IAWQ: London, 1987.
d)) (4) Mussati, M. C.; Mussati, S. F.; Alasino, N., Aguirre, P.; Scenna,
ηNOX ) anoxic reduction factor ) 0.6 N. Optimal Synthesis of Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment
KO2 ) saturation constant for SO ) 0.2 ((g of O2)/m3) Plants for Nitrogen Removal. Presented at 2nd Mercosur Congress on Chem-
KNOX ) saturation constant for SNOX ) 0.5 (((g of NO3) ical Engineering and 4th Mercosur Congress on Process Systems
EngineeringsENPROMER 2005, Rı́o de Janeiro, Brazil, Aug 2005; pp 14-
N)/m3) 18.
KS ) saturation constant for substrate SS ) 2 ((g of CODSS)/ (5) Alasino, N.; Musatti M.; Scenna N. Synthesis of Activated Sludge
m3) Wastewater Treatment Plants for Nitrogen Removal. Presented at XXII
KSTO ) saturation constant for XSTO ) 1 ((g of CODXSTO)/(g of Interamerican Chemical Engineering Congress (V CAIQ), Buenos Aires,
CODXh)) Argentina, Oct 1-4, 2006; Paper 06C(505).
(6) Alasino, N.; Musatti M.; Scenna N. Optimization of the Operation
µH ) heterotrophic maximum growth rate of XH ) 1.4 Conditions for Denitrifying Wastewater Treatment Plants. Presented at
(1/d) International Mediterranean Modeling Multiconference (EMSS06), Barce-
KNH ) saturation constant for ammonium SNH ) 0.01 ((g of lona, Spain, Oct 4-6, 2006; pp 427-434.
N)/m3) (7) Gillot, S.; De Clercq, B.; Defour, D.; Simoens, F.; Gernaey,
KALK ) saturation constant for alkalinity for XH ) 0.1 ((mol of K.; Vanrolleghem, P. A. Optimization of wastewater treatment
plant design and operation using simulation and cost analysis. Presented
HCO3)/m3) at 72nd Annual WEF Conference and Exposition, New Orleans, LA,
bH,O2 ) aerobic endogenous respiration rate of XH ) 0.14 (1/d) 1999.
bH,NOX ) anoxic endogenous respiration rate of XH ) 0.07 (8) Gillot, S.; Vermeire, P.; Jacquet, P.; Grootaerd, H.; Derycke, D.;
(1/d) Simoens, F.; Vanrolleghem, P. A. Integration of wastewater treatment plant
investment and operating costs for scenario analysis using simulation. In
bSTO,O2 ) aerobic respiration rate for XSTO ) 0.14 (1/d) Proceedings 13th Forum Applied Biotechnology; Med. Fac. Landbouww.
bSTO,NOX ) anoxic respiration rate for XSTO ) 0.07 (1/d) Univ. Gent: Gent, Belgium, 1999; 64/5a, 13.
µA ) autotrophic maximum growth rate of XA ) 0.59 (1/d) (9) Espı́rito Santo, I. A. C. P.; Fernandes, E. M. G. P.; Araújo, M. M.;
KA,NH ) ammonium substrate saturation for XA ) 1 ((g of N)/ Ferreira, E. C. NEOS Server Usage in Wastewater Treatment Cost
m3) Minimization. In Lecture Notes in Computer SciencesComputational
Science and Its Applications; Springer-Verlag: New York, 2005; Vol. 3483,
KA,O2 ) oxygen saturation for nitrifiers ) 0.5 ((g of O2)/m3) p 632.
KA,ALK ) bicarbonate saturation for nitrifiers ) 0.5 ((mol of (10) Espı́rito Santo, I. A. C. P.; Fernandes, E. M. G. P.; Araújo, M. M.;
HCO3)/m3) Ferreira, E. C. Biological Process Optimal Design in a Wastewater
7512 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 46, No. 23, 2007
Treatment Plant. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 30-June 3,
2005.
(11) Copp, J. The COST Simulation Benchmark: Description and
Simulator Manual; Office for Official Publications of the European
Community: Luxembourg, 2002.
(12) Van Haandel, A. C.; Ekama, G. A.; Marais, G. V. R. The Activated
Sludge Processs3. Single Sludge Denitrification. Water Res. 1981, 15 (10),
1135.
(13) Gujer, W.; Henze, M.; Mino, T.; van Loosdrecht, M. Activated
Sludge Model No. 3. Water Sci. Technol. 1999, 39, 183.
(14) Takács, I.; Patry, G.; Nolasco, D. A Dynamic Model of the
Clarification-Thickening Process. Water Res. 1991, 25, 1263.
(15) Grijspeerdt, K.; Vanrollegham, P.; Verstraete, W. Selection of one-
dimentional sedimentation: Models for on-line use. Water Sci. Technol.
1995, 31 (2), 193.
(16) Vanrolleghem, P. A.; Gillot, S. Robustness and economic measures
as control benchmark performance criteria. Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 45
(4-5), 117.
(17) Alex, J.; Beteau, J. F.; Copp, J. B.; Hellinga, C.; Jeppsson, U.;
Marsili-Libelli, S., Pons, M. N.; Spanjers, H.; Vanhooren, H. Benchmark
for evaluating control strategies in wastewater treatment plants. Presented
at European Conference Control (ECC’99), Karlsruhe, Germany, Aug 31-
Sept 3, 1999.
(18) Vanrolleghem, P. A.; Jeppsson, U.; Carstensen, J.; Carlsson, B.;
Olsson G. Integration of WWT plant design and operationsA systematic
approach using cost functions. Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 34 (3-4), 159.
(19) Mussati, M; Gernaey, K; Gani, R.; Bay Jørgensen, S. Performance
analysis of a denitrifying wastewater treatment plant. Clean Technol.
EnViron. Policies 2002, 4, 171.
(20) Brooke, A.; Kendrick, D.; Meeraus, A. GAMSsA User’s Guide
(Release 2.25); The Scientific Press: San Francisco, CA, 1992.
(21) Drud, A. S. CONOPT: A system for large scale non-linear
optimization, reference manual for CONOPT subroutine library; ARKI
Consulting and Development A/S: Bagsvaerd, Denmark, 1996.
ReceiVed for reView April 4, 2007
ReVised manuscript receiVed August 7, 2007
Accepted August 8, 2007
IE0704905