Professional Documents
Culture Documents
19%
obtained for completely observable processes Here the biomass growth and substrate oxidation
and for the general linear operator case processes are considered as the coordinate-
(Benssousan, 1982; Rozovskii, 1983). They have dependent processes, unlike the situation in a
been applied for analysis of the filtration completely mixed aeration basin.
equation (Rozovskii, 1983) and for modelling The following notation is used in the model:
some random field processes, such as population
X biomass (activated sludge
genetics (Fleming, 1975). The process is much
concentration);
simpler in the pollution control application. To
S growth substrate (organic
some extent it is close to the fixed and fluid bed
matter concentration in
reactor model (Dochain et al., 1992). Similarly to
the aeration basin):
that case, the process here is considered in its
simplest form using a system of first-order partial sr wastewater organic matter
concentration;
differential equations, but it is stochastic and not
completely observable in this case. Thus, it can x, return sludge concentration;
(dxh, biological growth (versus
be considered more like a random transport
the mechanical growth);
process (Funaki, 1979) or a wave formation
/A(S) = /dI(Kj + S) specific growth rate;
process in a random medium (Sobczyk, 1985).
maximum growth rate;
Unfortunately, analysis of these processes is not
applicable in the partially observable case. :I Michaelis-Menten
tion constant;
satura-
The state estimation problem has been solved
Y biomass yield;
by Glonti (1985) in the general linear operator
case. These results are not used in this paper, {X, = Xg(t, l)}, {X = X(t, f)} and {S = S(t, e)}
because the treatment process is simpler than the are stochastic processes with values in a
general case, and therefore the estimation and separable Hilbert space, {X, = X,(t)} and {S, =
control algorithm can be developed more easily. $(t)} are stochastic processes in a Euclidean
It is natural to use a system of ordinary space, and {W = W(t, f)}, {W = W(t, f?)} and
differential equations for approximation of the {Wj = Wj(t, e)} are Wiener processes with values
state and observation processes and for solution in a Hilbert space* and with smooth covariance
of the estimation and control problems. This operators CT,(T;, and oj respectively;
approach is used in this paper. u, u;, a, standard deviations of errors
caused by model inadequacy,
2. MODEL e moving coordinate;
2 length of the aeration basin;
2.1. Treatment process Qr = Qf(t, e) wastewater feeding rate,
Removal of organic substances in a full-scale (distribution);
aeration basin with distributed water feeding, Qr = Qrk f> sludge recycling rate:
sludge recycling and removal can be described Qe = Q& 4 excess sludge removal rate.
by the following system of stochastic functional
The latter three flow rates are local. Total
differential equations (for the basic ideas of
feeding Qf(t), recycling Qr(t) and removal QJt)
stochastic partial differential equations, see
rates for the whole system can be calculated as
Rozovskii, 1983).
sums of local flows by integration over the length
(dX), = /_@)X dt + dW, (1) of basin, e.g.
This is the simplest description of the large-scale *For any orthogonal basis e E H the scalar product
aeration basin. It can be obtained (Appendix B) {(W(t, j), e(C))} = {W(r)} is a standard Wiener process,
with covariance M{(W(C 4, e(e))(W(s. 4, e(R))} =
in this form by extension of the lumped min (t, s)(cr’(e, R)e(e), e(R)), where u*(e, R) is the positive
parameter model (Tenno and Uronen, 1995a). self-adjoint nuclear operator.
308 R. Tenno and P. Uronen
Fig. 3. Decomposition of a large-scale treatment system into a sequence of small treatment units.
1
+ b, dW, + bz dW,, (9)
dm = U, + u,m + i u:(mimmf+ rfj) dt + u dw,
(11)
[ I=1
d,$ = [A” + A,X, + & A:S(t, lS)X(t, [s)] dt
system (9), (lo), D = [do d, . . . dL] is a block sludge and water feeding was concentrated at
matrix composed of estimation-dependent the beginning of the aeration basin and the
elements sludge removal at the end.
2. In distributed feeding the sludge and water
d,, = ^J/, d, = mfy!, + mjy!,, I= 1, , L.
feeding was distributed uniformly along the
With the proposed algorithm, one can aeration basin as well as the sludge removal.
estimate the current distribution of the state in 3. In rotated feeding the location of the feeding
any area of the aeration basin using commer- point was changed every hour: rotated to the
cially available equipment: a dissolved oxygen end and started again from the beginning of
analyser (multielectrode modification), the outlet the aeration basin. Location of the recycling
gas flow rate, O2 and CO2 analysers, and valves flow was changed similarly, but with sift back
for gas probe collection over the aeration basin. from the location of feeding point in a
The derivation of the algorithm can be found one-hour period. The removal flow was
in Appendix D, and its testing in the simulation concentrated at the end of the aeration basin.
experiment in Section 4.
The following was observed in the simulation
Remark. The dimension of the filter can be experiment. Variation of the profile is rather
reduced if it is used on the conventional aeration drastic for organic matter (Figs 4-6) and nearly
basin, because the sludge concentration there is constant for biomass. Both these characteristics
nearly constant along the basin. In this case the are strongly affected if the feeding or recycling
estimation accuracy is higher, since the number distribution is rotated (Figs 6 and 7). The sludge
of observations per unknown states is nearly two and water distribution has a strong effect on
times higher. treated water quality (Figs 4-6). The distribution
is an important parameter for process control.
4. SIMULATION
4.2. Estimation accuracy
A special simulation experiment was used for
The simulated and estimated processes are
testing the model and the state estimation
relatively close to each other. To see a small
quality.
difference, compare these processes in Figs 8 and
9. The estimation error characteristics are
4.1. Model quality
summarised in Table 1. The estimation error
The profiles of biomass and organic matter are
depends on the feeding mode. It is smallest in
shown in Figs. 4-7. They are shown along the
the case of uniform feeding, because the
aeration basin for a three-day period for three
variation of sludge is minimal and the model
different feeding modes.
inadequacy errors are strongly correlated with
1. In the conventional point-feeding mode the nearest neighbours in this case. Variation of the
1350-400
I
moo-350
8250-300
mzoo-250
~150-200
E9100-150
mo-100
m-50
mgth, m
1 6 I’, l6 *’ 26 3, & ’ I q
_. 4’ 46
Ime,n . 51 56 6; 7 l6
71
Fig. 4. Organic matter profile along the aeration basin when the conventional point-feeding mode was used.
Estimation for Iarge-scale system 311
Fig. 5. Organic matter profilewhen the distributed feeding mode was used.
sludge is drastic in the case of rotated feeding. obtained here and by Tennu and Uronen,
The estimation errors are largest in this case. (199Sa). A similar simulation experiment was
They are moderate in the case of the tested there. Xnlocal area the aeration tank was
conventional point-feeding mode. loaded s~m~lar~iy in both cases, The geometry of
The estimated state is about 1% biased for the the large-scale treatment system was chosen
conventional and distributed feeding modes and eight times larger in volume and length than the
l-10% biased for the rotated feeding mode. The geometry of tank considered earlier. For more
bias is arises from errors due to approximation details of the simulation experiment, see Tenno
of the original model with a suite-dimensionai and Uronen, (1995a).
bilinear model and the exact ~~tratjo~ d~str~bu”
tion with the normal dist~but~on.
The estimation quality is much better for the
large-scale aeration basin than for the compl- Sludge and water distribution is an important
etely mixed aeration tank. This can be concluded parameter for process control. ~~furtunate~y, it
from comparison of the estimation accuracy is not clear froqn the model (l)-(8) or from the
Fig. 6. Organic matter profile when tie rotated feeding mode was used.
312 R. Tenno and P. Uronen
16
4
1 6 1776 2, & m
3’ 36 4, &--
5’ 56 ;,
Time, h
Fig. 7. Biomass profile when the rotated feeding mode was used.
system (9), (10) how the treatment process and b2 are state-dependent vectors, b3 is a
depends on the controls. Therefore it is shown in state-dependent matrix, uK is the recycling
Appendices B and C that the only controllable distribution, with normalised values uR = QR/Q,,
elements of the system (9) (10) are the vector a,, Qx is the (unnormalised) recycling distribution,
and the matrix a,. a,, depends on the distribution Q,: is the wastewater feeding distribution, QE is
in the following linear manner: the excess sludge removal distribution, and U,,
and QE are vectors, e.g. U=
i;:;. o)Q:. . u(t, L6 - S)]‘.
The system is linear in the control variables. It
al has the following quasi-linear dependence is bilinear in the state variables and also
(strictly, the matrix a, depends nonlinearly on mutually in the state and control variables.
the controls): The observation process depends on the water
distribution through the washout effect of
a, 0 = a, + b,QF- + &QK + &Q,...
oxygen. This dependence is rather weak. It can
Here 8 is the state, a,) is a state independent be ignored as an optimisable parameter in a
vector, b0 is a state-independent matrix, a,, b, control problem statement.
a0
60
501
0 1 2 3 4
'0
Time, days
Fig. 8. Estimation quality for organic matter when the distributed feeding mode was used.
Estimation for large-scale system 313
7.2 ,
1=16m
5.6
5.2 m
0 2 4 6 6 10 12 14 16 16 20 22 2
Time, h
Fig. 9. Estimation quality for biomass when the distributed feeding mode was used.
Distributed feeding
I=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Biomass Mean -0.062 -0.079 -0.087 -0.073 -0.072 -0.058 -0.057 -0.054
Stand. 0.312 0.314 0.296 0.286 0.266 0.262 0.251 0.249
Treated Mean 0.096 0.068 0.054 0.096 0.109 0.119 0.121 0.108
water Stand. 1.527 1.668 1.527 1.504 1.488 1.485 1.4% 1.515
Wastewater Mean 2.21 Stand. 14.8
Conventional feeding
I=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Biomass Mean 0.010 0.000 -0.011 -0.011 -0.015 -0.001 0.009 -0.020
Stand. 0.149 0.169 0.191 0.206 0.212 0.221 0.231 0.232
Treated Means -1.142 -1.026 -0.889 -0.706 -0.526 -0.362 -0.247 -0.169
water Stand. 8.672 6.870 5.197 3.728 2.578 1.747 1.173 0.804
Wastewater Mean 6.51 Stand. 17.8
Rotated feeding
I=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Biomass Mean -0.402 -0.020 -0.153 -0.055 0.002 0.078 0.011 0.006
Stand. 0.922 0.539 0.507 0.494 0.434 0.474 0.427 0.431
Treated Mean -2.305 -1.166 -0.093 0.469 0.827 0.516 -0.559 -0.730
water Stand. 15.67 14.21 14.06 14.42 16.06 17.38 18.00 16.58
Wastewater Means 9.41 Stand. 24.2
314 R. Tenno and P. LJronen
trcafmcnf process
Return sludge flux
The return sludge concentration can be eliminated from
(dX); - p(S(f, l ))X(t. 0 dt + (7’ dW(r, 0.
the model (2) using the following relationship between the
sludge concentrations in the aeration and settling basins dX(f> f ) ~ (dX):. + [Q,(r. ( ~ 6)X,(t) ~ Q&r, ( ~ 6) AX(r, l)
(Tenno and Uronen, 199Sb):
(Q, + Q, + Q,.,(r. 4 ~ s)X(t. C)] dt
Q,(t, P) X,(t) = Q,(t, i) X(f. Y) + {pa,cu + larQ,(f) pa,<
Here (Y is the specific settling velocity and c the reduction 01 d.Y(i. 0 = _~Y ‘(dX);+ [Q,(r, ( 6)&(r)
the velocity due to thickening, p is the volumetric ratio:
settling per aeration basin, k,, is the decay rate and 174, the ~~Q,,,,,(r. / 6)AS(t. 0 t Q,(r, & S)S(f. L6)
washout rate, n is the mass ratio of nonseparable per
~~(Q, + Q,)(f. C fi)S(r, t’,] dr
separable part of the total biomass, 2 is the stock per settling
basin capacity, v(t) is the recycling efficiency. (,, and ~2~arc + v; dW,(t. 0: (B.2)
linear approximation coefficients.
The biomass concentration in the aeration basin is affected rhwrurit~orr pr0ces.r
by the total recycling rate through the recycling efficiency
(dam,):, = Y,, ‘(dX),; t rrr,,X(r. f) dt + tr:,dW,,(r, /).
Q,(r)
dt,,,,(l, 0 = {RQ,(f. ( ~ S)[P ~~f<,,,(t. l)]
(W
0! .. .. .. 0i. 0
0.
7
0
(l)-(S) using the following replacements and renominations o = Qoutk 6) -Qout(t, 6)
out
of the specific flows:
b .
(2,,Jm3 h-9, C?outb3h-‘l~ Q lh-,l
Qdh-‘I = ,, out 7
K 0
0
zQ,,h-, m-,l = @Wh-‘l+ @.b*h-‘I ~ b,Ih-,l
V K
Qou-dt. L6 - 6)
Here the natural (m” hh’, m2 h-‘) and specific (hh’) units are
used, depending on the model, as shown in square brackets. 6 and 6’+ are diagonal matrices with elements {Q(t, e)} and
The specific flows are calculated on the basis of whole {J$rs ~,‘~~(;~x4] respectively, Qk e) = Qdt, e) + Q,k 4,
aeration basin volume V (distributed parameter model) and
small aeration tank volume V’,(finite-element model).
OQ=
Remark. Since the total feeding rate Q,(t) is defined on the
basis of the whole aeration basin volume and the local 0
Q,(t, h) feeding rate on the basis of the small aeration tank 0
volume, the sum over the feeding distribution is equal to L: ..
6 Q(t, L6-6) -Q,(t, t8-8)
5 u,(t, h) = L.
h=l and rDo, ro and r, are diagonal matrices, e.g. r,o = r,,l,
with r,, a scalar and I the identity matrix.
Here u,(t, h)
is the feeding distribution: u,(t, h) =
Qf(t, h)/Qf(t). A similar sum (equal to L) is valid for the
recycling and removal flows. Control-dependent elements
The return sludge flux can be eliminated from the model
Vector presentation
(B.6) using the relationship (Al) between sludge concentra-
The state and observation processes can be expressed in a tion in the aeration and settling basins. It can be expressed as
vector form very similar to the scalar case: a linear function either in terms of sludge concentration,
dX = (dX), + [QRX, + (0our - 0+)X] dt + a, dW,, (B.6) or in terms of distributed controls uR = QR/Q,,
and W, are Wiener processes, and a,,, al,. ,& are vector
and matrix functions!
.oi; and !“A, are defined similarly to &, and &, but for S,
X(t. t8) is replaced with s(t. 16).
Proof: Obviously,
1I
C* := C + i Q,(r. 16 - 6)E,,, ,
where
I- I
A, = IL Y,, ‘4 -
Y,;‘Mo+m,
Y, ‘M,+w
wl
, A:=
Here (I - F)- ’ is a triangular matrix: all of its elements are I 4 =i d,G is a diagonal matrix,
on or under the diagonal, with zeros above the diagonal. IL,
For both Z = X or Z = S the following relationship is valid:
M’, = p(E, is a vector,
%orfTZ= f: Z(t, WE,,, I - E,)Qo,, I. E, is an elementary matrix whose Ith diagonal element is 1,
I-2
with all the rest zeros, and /.L{, and CL{ are constant
parameters (see the piecewise-linear approximation (A.3) of
Obviously. the growth rate function.
+ 2 A:(m'$n; +y:,),
I=,
bBT = M[(b, dW, + bZ dW,)(B, dW, + & dW,)T] = bBT.
AUTO
32:3-B