Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

Benchmark simulation model no 2: general protocol and exploratory case studies

U Jeppsson, MN Pons, Ingmar Nopens UGent, J Alex, JB Copp, KV Gernaey, C Rosen, JP Steyer and PA Vanrolleghem (2007) WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. 56(8). p.67-78
abstract
Over a decade ago, the concept of objectively evaluating the performance of control strategies by simulating them using a standard model implementation was introduced for activated sludge wastewater treatment plants. The resulting Benchmark Simulation Model No 1 (BSM1) has been the basis for a significant new development that is reported on here: Rather than only evaluating control strategies at the level of the activated sludge unit ( bioreactors and secondary clarifier) the new BSM2 now allows the evaluation of control strategies at the level of the whole plant, including primary clarifier and sludge treatment with anaerobic sludge digestion. In this contribution, the decisions that have been made over the past three years regarding the models used within the BSM2 are presented and argued, with particular emphasis on the ADM1 description of the digester, the interfaces between activated sludge and digester models, the included temperature dependencies and the reject water storage. BSM2-implementations are now available in a wide range of simulation platforms and a ring test has verified their proper implementation, consistent with the BSM2 definition. This guarantees that users can focus on the control strategy evaluation rather than on modelling issues. Finally, for illustration, twelve simple operational strategies have been implemented in BSM2 and their performance evaluated. Results show that it is an interesting control engineering challenge to further improve the performance of the BSM2 plant ( which is the whole idea behind benchmarking) and that integrated control (i.e. acting at different places in the whole plant) is certainly worthwhile to achieve overall improvement.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
BSM2, benchmarking, control, evaluation criteria, simulation, wastewater treatment, whole plant modelling, PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
journal title
WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Water Sci. Technol.
volume
56
issue
8
pages
67-78 pages
publisher
IWA Publishing
place of publication
London, UK
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000253383200008
JCR category
WATER RESOURCES
JCR impact factor
1.24 (2007)
JCR rank
19/58 (2007)
JCR quartile
2 (2007)
ISSN
0273-1223
DOI
10.2166/wst.2007.604
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
id
393700
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-393700
date created
2008-03-13 15:03:00
date last changed
2009-07-01 10:03:50
@article{393700,
  abstract     = {Over a decade ago, the concept of objectively evaluating the performance of control strategies by simulating them using a standard model implementation was introduced for activated sludge wastewater treatment plants. The resulting Benchmark Simulation Model No 1 (BSM1) has been the basis for a significant new development that is reported on here: Rather than only evaluating control strategies at the level of the activated sludge unit ( bioreactors and secondary clarifier) the new BSM2 now allows the evaluation of control strategies at the level of the whole plant, including primary clarifier and sludge treatment with anaerobic sludge digestion.
In this contribution, the decisions that have been made over the past three years regarding the models used within the BSM2 are presented and argued, with particular emphasis on the ADM1 description of the digester, the interfaces between activated sludge and digester models, the included temperature dependencies and the reject water storage. BSM2-implementations are now available in a wide range of simulation platforms and a ring test has verified their proper implementation, consistent with the BSM2 definition. This guarantees that users can focus on the control strategy evaluation rather than on modelling issues. Finally, for illustration, twelve simple operational strategies have been implemented in BSM2 and their performance evaluated. Results show that it is an interesting control engineering challenge to further improve the performance of the BSM2 plant ( which is the whole idea behind benchmarking) and that integrated control (i.e. acting at different places in the whole plant) is certainly worthwhile to achieve overall improvement.},
  author       = {Jeppsson, U and Pons, MN and Nopens, Ingmar and Alex, J and Copp, JB and Gernaey, KV and Rosen, C and Steyer, JP and Vanrolleghem, PA},
  issn         = {0273-1223},
  journal      = {WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY},
  keyword      = {BSM2,benchmarking,control,evaluation criteria,simulation,wastewater treatment,whole plant modelling,PERFORMANCE EVALUATION},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {8},
  pages        = {67--78},
  publisher    = {IWA Publishing},
  title        = {Benchmark simulation model no 2: general protocol and exploratory case studies},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.604},
  volume       = {56},
  year         = {2007},
}

Chicago
Jeppsson, U, MN Pons, Ingmar Nopens, J Alex, JB Copp, KV Gernaey, C Rosen, JP Steyer, and PA Vanrolleghem. 2007. “Benchmark Simulation Model No 2: General Protocol and Exploratory Case Studies.” Water Science and Technology 56 (8): 67–78.
APA
Jeppsson, U., Pons, M., Nopens, I., Alex, J., Copp, J., Gernaey, K., Rosen, C., et al. (2007). Benchmark simulation model no 2: general protocol and exploratory case studies. WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 56(8), 67–78.
Vancouver
1.
Jeppsson U, Pons M, Nopens I, Alex J, Copp J, Gernaey K, et al. Benchmark simulation model no 2: general protocol and exploratory case studies. WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. London, UK: IWA Publishing; 2007;56(8):67–78.
MLA
Jeppsson, U, MN Pons, Ingmar Nopens, et al. “Benchmark Simulation Model No 2: General Protocol and Exploratory Case Studies.” WATER SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 56.8 (2007): 67–78. Print.