4.8 Article

Uncertainty analysis in WWTP model applications: A critical discussion using an example from design

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 11, 页码 2894-2906

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2009.03.048

关键词

Activated sludge models (ASM); BSM1; Design; Influent; Biokinetic; Hydraulics; Uncertainty; WWTP

资金

  1. Danish Research Council for Technology and Production Sciences (FTP) [274-07-0339]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on uncertainty analysis of WWTP models and analyzes the issue of framing and how it affects the interpretation of uncertainty analysis results. As a case study, the prediction of uncertainty involved in model-based design of a wastewater treatment plant is studied. The Monte Carlo procedure is used for uncertainty estimation, for which the input uncertainty is quantified through expert elicitation and the sampling is performed using the Latin hypercube method. Three scenarios from engineering practice are selected to examine the issue of framing: (1) uncertainty due to stoichiometric, biokinetic and influent parameters; (2) uncertainty due to hydraulic behaviour of the plant and mass transfer parameters; (3) uncertainty due to the combination of (1) and (2). The results demonstrate that depending on the way the uncertainty analysis is framed, the estimated uncertainty of design performance criteria differs significantly. The implication for the practical applications of uncertainty analysis in the wastewater industry is profound: (i) as the uncertainty analysis results are specific to the framing used, the results must be interpreted within the context of that framing; and (ii) the framing must be crafted according to the particular purpose of uncertainty analysis/model application. Finally, it needs to be emphasised that uncertainty analysis is no doubt a powerful tool for model-based design among others, however clear guidelines for good uncertainty analysis in wastewater engineering practice are needed. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据