4.7 Article

Integrated supervisory and override control strategies for effective biological phosphorus removal and reduced operational costs in wastewater treatment processes

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 287, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.132346

关键词

Dissolved oxygen; Fuzzy rules; Organic matter; Override control; Supervisory layer; Wastewater treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By using the Supervisory and Override Control Approach in a wastewater treatment plant, better removal of organic matter and phosphorus can be achieved with a slight increase in operating costs. The application of fuzzy and PI control schemes can further improve removal efficiency, especially when So control loops are in place.
A novel control strategy is developed for a municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) consisting of anaerobic-anoxic-aerobic reactors. The idea is to generate more organic matter with a reduction of nitrate concentration in the anoxic section so that more biological phosphorus (P) removal happens. For this, the Supervisory and Override Control Approach (SOPCA) is designed based on the benchmark simulation model (BSM1-P) and is evaluated by considering dynamic influent. In the supervisory layer, proportional integral (PI) and fuzzy controllers are designed. Additionally, dissolved oxygen (So) control loops in the aerobic reactors are designed. PI controller is designed for control of nitrate levels in the anoxic reactors and is integrated with override control and supervisory layer. It is found that the novel SOPCA approach gave better nutrient removal with slightly higher operating costs when So control is not put in place. With three So control loops in place, the WWTP showed better effluent quality and lower cost. Here, the improved removal efficiency of 28.5% and 20.5% are obtained when Fuzzy and PI control schemes respectively are used in the supervisory layer. Therefore, the application of SOPCA is recommended for a better P removal rate.

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

4.7
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