Monte Carlo Analysis for Aeration Design

Similar documents
CSR Process Simulations Can Help Municipalities Meet Stringent Nutrient Removal Requirements

Energy Reduction and Nutrient Removal in WWTPs Using Feed- Forward Process Control

Review of WEFTEC 2016 Challenge & Overview of 2017 Event. Malcolm Fabiyi, PhD, MBA Spencer Snowling, PhD. P.Eng

Bioprocess Intelligent Operating System -Beyond Ammonia Control-

Aeration Blower Requirements. Tom Jenkins 06/15/2016

Optimization of an Aeration System at an Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant

Integrated real-time SRT and aeration control in the city of Grand Rapids

Implementation and Results of a Feed-Forward Process Controller

Dundalk Wastewater Treatment Plant

2015 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

Liquid Stream Fundamentals: Whole Plant Modeling

Keeping track of ph sensors in biological wastewater treatment systems

A practical and sound model calibration procedure applied to the WWTP of Eindhoven

Dundalk Wastewater Treatment Plant

COLD WEATHER NITRIFICATION OF LAGOON EFFLUENT USING A MOVING BED BIOFILM REACTOR (MBBR) TREATMENT PROCESS

Aeration Basics the Bug s Eye View

Activated sludge modeling of Vale Faro Waste Water Treatment Plant

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPTIMIZATION USING A DYNAMIC MODEL APPROACH

Assuming 100 gallons per capita per day, and 3 people per REU, design flows for the development are proposed to be:

AERATION BLOWERS THEY ARE NOT ALL EQUAL Ken Brischke MWH 1801 California Street, Suite 2900, Denver CO, 80202

SECTION 6.0 NEWPCC CENTRATE TREATMENT

COMPARISON STUDY BETWEEN INTEGRATED FIXED FILM ACTIVATED SLUDGE (IFAS), MEMBRANE BIOREACTOR (MBR) AND CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE (AS) PROCESSES

PLANNING FOR NUTRIENT REMOVAL: WHAT STEPS CAN WE BE TAKING NOW?

IWA Publishing 2012 Water Practice & Technology Vol 7 No 3 doi: /wpt

Advanced Control in Water and Wastewater Systems

2014 Watershed Overview of Wastewater Treatment Plant Performance

Dundalk Wastewater Treatment Plant

Calculating Aeration Flow and Pressure Requirements

Evaluation Of Aeration Control

SIMULATING THE EFFECTS OF INTRODUCTION OF MEMBRANE FILTRATION AT A MUNICIPAL BNR PLANT

CITY OF OXFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2018

Aeration System Improvements with a 5-Year Payback. Scott Phipps

2015 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

Planning for the Future Battle Creek s Approach to Upgrading its Secondary Treatment Processes

Modelling of Wastewater Treatment Plants

Refinery Wastewater Process Modeling with GPS-X

Oxygen Transfer in a Biological Aerated Filter

Risk modelling of pharmaceuticals in the environment

An Efficient Aeration Strategy Sits on a Three-Legged Stool

Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) System for Additional Nitrification at the Coldwater WWTP

MODELING OF AN IFAS PROCESS WITH FUNGAL BIOMASS TREATING PHARMACEUTICAL WASTEWATER Main Street West Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 1G5

AUTOMATIC SRT CONTROL

The multiple scales of uncertainty: an engineer's perspective E. Belia, Ph.D., P.Eng. Primodal Inc.

CITY OF OXFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2012

RE: Annual Report 2016 Wardsville Wastewater Treatment Plant and Collection System

Probabilistic Modeling of Two-Stage Biological Nitrogen Removal Process: Formulation of Control Strategy for Enhanced Process Certainty

MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN RODNEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

Utilization of Dynamic Modeling to Evaluate and Design Secondary Clarifiers for the Muddy Creek WWTP

BRACEBRIDGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Removal of High Ammonia Levels from Municipal Wastewater Using Humic Acid and Selective Bio-Augmentation

Increasing Denitrification in Sequencing Batch Reactors with Continuous Influent Feed

ISAM SBR with Blower Assisted Jet Aeration Design Calculations For Lyons, CO WWTP Upgrade

CITY OF OXFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR OF 2014

Watershed Overview of Wastewater Treatment Plant Performance

Energy Neutral Opportunities

BRACEBRIDGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT 2016 SUMMARY REPORT

Energy Reduction and Biological Process Performance Improvements with Right-Sized Equipment and Next-Generation Process and Aeration Controls

The following biological nutrient removal processes were evaluated in detail in the 2016 Liquid Processing Facilities Plan:

Global Leaders in Biological Wastewater Treatment

2017 Annual Performance Report

SECTION 8.0 NEWPCC SECOND PRIORITY CONTROL ALTERNATIVES

GPS-X Lite Exercises

Simultaneous Nutrient Removal: Quantification, Design, and Operation. Leon Downing, Ph.D., PE Donohue & Associates

Stonecrest Estates Sewage Treatment Plant 2017 Annual Report

OPTIMIZATION OF AN AERATION SYSTEM AT AN INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. Water Environment Federation WEFTEC Conference 2001

Upgrading Lagoons to Remove Ammonia, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus *nutrient removal in cold-climate lagoon systems

Aeration System Optimization Can Offer the Greatest Long-term Savings

A COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE STUDY OF TWO TYPES OF CLOTH FILTER MEDIA APPLIED IN MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT

PILOT SCALE TESTS OF A UNIQUE APPROACH FOR BNR UPGRADE OF A SHORT SRT HIGH PURITY OXYGEN SYSTEM AT PIMA COUNTY, AZ

MUNICIPALITY OF WEST ELGIN WEST LORNE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

Analysis of rising sludge risk in Activated Sludge Systems: from operational strategies to clarifier design

BOD Performance Correlation at Georgia s WWTPs

40 years experience in fine bubble aeration. 20 years innovation in IFAS textile fixed bed technology

Evaluation of Different Nitrogen Control Strategies for a Combined Pre- and Post-Denitrification Plant

North Side WRP Master Plan Research and Development Department 2006 Seminar Series October 27, 2006 Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of

75 th STREET WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADES PROJECT

Altoona Westerly Wastewater Treatment Facility BNR Conversion with Wet Weather Accommodation

City of Loveland Nutrient Removal Evaluation Final Report

USING NUMERICAL SIMULATION SOFTWARE FOR IMPROVING WASTEWATER TREATMENT EFFICIENCY

Technical Bulletin 169. Design of Diffused Aeration System. by:

Appendix C: TM T-49 Nampa WWTP Capacity Assessment

Contents General Information Abbreviations and Acronyms Chapter 1 Wastewater Treatment and the Development of Activated Sludge

WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT. Bentonville Wastewater Treatment Plant Facts:

Optimizing Nutrient Removal. PNCWA - Southeast Idaho Operators Section Pocatello, ID February 11, 2016 Jim Goodley, P.E.

Demonstration of IFAS Technology for Cold Temperature Nitrification in Lagoon WWTFs at Clare and Ludington, Michigan

Watertown Wastewater Facility Plan. August 11, 2015

Modelling the WWTP of Nîmes and Validating the Ammonair Control Algorithm to Ensure Low Energy Consumption and N 2 O Emissions

Estimation of Carbon dioxide and Methane Emissions Generated from industrial (WWT) plants

2017 Performance Report for Bobcaygeon Waste Water Treatment Facility

Wastewater Tools: Activated Sludge and Energy Use Analysis

ANNEX C INFRASTRUCTURE & OPERATION

Bracebridge Wastewater Treatment 2017 Summary Report

ECO-ANT21 Process ECO-ANT21 Corporation

Clif Bar Pretreatment

WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM

EHS SMART-Treat Onsite Moving Media Treatment System

Compact Waste Water Treatment MBR /MBBR Technology

Full Scale Testing to Demonstrate Anaerobic Selector Effect for Low Strength Wastewater

Energy Efficiency Projects for Aeration Systems:

Transcription:

Monte Carlo Analysis for Aeration Design Matthew Gray 1, Steven Kestel 1, Spencer Snowling 2 1 BioChem Technology, King of Prussia, PA 2 Hydromantis ESS Inc, Hamilton, Ontario ABSTRACT Email: mgray@biochemtech.com To minimize the risk of the uncertainties of the influent conditions at a wastewater treatment facility, engineers perform steady state simulations using conservative design loadings to design the aeration system for the activated sludge process. A conservative aeration design can be detrimental to process operation and energy efficiency, especially to biological nutrient removal processes, due to blower oversizing. The use of a probabilistic modeling approach will include the influent uncertainties with the process simulations, and the results can be used to quantify the risk of the design. This paper will go into the details of using a common probability approach called, Monte Carlo analysis, for designing aeration systems. KEYWORDS: Aeration Design, Monte Carlo Analysis, Risk Analysis, Process Modeling INTRODUCTION With the recent increases of energy costs and the requirements of Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR), the design of an aeration system has become one of the most important parts of the design of the activated sludge process. The problem that engineers have is they often lack plant influent and operational data with actual influent variability suitable to perform the dynamic simulations for aeration design. To overcome the uncertainties and minimize risk of the unknown influent data variability, engineers perform steady state simulations using conservative maximum month, week, or day loadings with a diurnal peaking factor multiplier (Belia et al., 2009). The use of conservative steady state models can lead to oversized equipment and operational problems. The use of a probabilistic modeling approach will include the influent uncertainties with the simulation, and the results can be used to quantify the uncertainty of the design (McCormick et al. 2007). Monte Carlo analysis is a probabilistic approach that allows a small sample size of data to be expanded by using probability distribution and correlation data to generate inputs for the simulation. METHODOLOGY The method of Monte Carlo analysis is to take a random sampling from multiple input probability distributions to generate a random discrete input set. The input set is then simulated with a deterministic model to generate a discrete result set. The sampling and simulating is

repeated several times until the group of the individual results generates a probability distribution. Figure 1 depicts the method of Monte Carlo analysis. Input Distributions Generate Random Discrete Input Sets GPS-X 6.1 Result Distributions Discrete Result Sets Figure 1: Monte Carlo analysis A wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was upgrading the activated sludge aeration system to increase the capacity of the facility from 15,142 to 18,927 m 3 /d (4 to 5 million gallons a day). The amount of influent data was limited creating uncertainty on which values to use to design the new aeration system. The following is the methodology used to size the blowers using a Monte Carlo analysis. Data Collection The WWTP was only required to report a composite sample of influent BOD and TSS once a week. A basic statistical analysis (mean and standard deviation) of the plant s historical data was able to construct the normal distribution needed for the Monte Carlo analysis. Additional grab sample testing was performed to get influent parameter ratios to help with the influent characterization. Nutrient analyzers were used to obtain diurnal loading peaking factors of influent parameters. Table 1 is a summary of the influent data of the facility. Table 1: Influent Data Peaking Flow CBOD TSS Factor TSS/BOD TKN/BOD m 3 /d mg/l kg/day mg/l kg/day - - - Average 12,150 229 2742 226 2694 1 1.00 0.193 Minimum 7797 134 1307 86 1008 1.35 0.49 0.179 Maximum 16,465 374 4486 440 4389 0.6 1.50 0.226 Standard Deviation 1741 36 611 43 574-0.19 0.015 Monte Carlo Analysis and Process Simulation The commercial available software GPS-X by Hydromantis ESS, Inc. was used in the evaluation to perform the process simulation and Monte Carlo analysis. A Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis tool is implemented in GPS-X Version 6.1 to allow users to investigate the behavior of a model with uncertain input. Users identify one or more input parameters for analysis, and choose a probability distribution for the parameter (uniform, normal, or log-normal). Each parameter probability distribution is then defined via appropriate statistical measure (e.g. mean, standard deviation), along with a maximum and minimum bound value.

The user chooses the number of simulations to carry out, and whether the simulation is steadystate only, or a dynamic run. At the beginning of each simulation, GPS-X selects a value for each input parameter from its associated distribution, and sets that value for the current run. The model is solved, and the resulting model outputs collected for analysis. At the conclusion of all of the simulations, GPS-X plots a histogram of each output variable, displaying the distribution of output variable values. In addition, a cumulative probably can be calculated for any point on the output graph, showing the percentage of output values lying below any specified threshold. Figure 2 shows sampling results of the input probability distributions. Figure 2: Screenshot of the Monte Carlo analysis input distributions The initial calibration of the model was conducted using the yearly average raw influent data (NH4, COD, etc.), and running the model as steady state. The steady state results were then compared to yearly average MLSS, %VSS and effluent parameters (NH4, TSS, NO3, etc.) data to confirm if the steady state model was calibrated. The input probability distributions for the Monte Carlo analysis were: influent flow, diurnal peaking factor, cbod load, TSS/BOD ration, and TKN/BOD Ratio. The TSS and ammonia loadings were calculated by multiplying BOD loading by the corresponding ratio to insure realistic correlation. Each simulation was setup to run to steady-state using the randomly selected input sampled from the probability distributions mentioned above. The influent fractions were considered to be constant, and the diffuser parameters were preliminarily chosen based upon the steady state simulation results. Two sets of three analyses were completed, one set at current flow and another at design flow and at temperatures of 20, 24 and 28C o. Each analysis was run for 1,000 simulations for a total of 6,000 simulations.

0 7 14 21 28 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 93 100 107 114 121 128 135 142 150 157 164 171 178 185 192 199 207 214 221 228 235 242 249 256 264 271 278 285 RESULTS The results from the simulations will provide the complete range of oxygen requirements and airflows needed for sizing the aeration system. The results can be analyzed by creating histograms and cumulative percentile graphs of the data. Figure 3 is a histogram chart of total airflow required for current and design flow conditions. 14% Current Conditions 10 9 12% Design Conditions 8 1 7 8% Current Conditions Design Conditions 6 5 6% 4 4% 3 2 2% 1 Air Flow (m 3 /min) Figure 3: Histogram and cumulative percentile function of the total airflow required at current and design conditions The histogram depicts the distribution of the data set and makes it easy to see where the majority of the result values fall, and how much variation there is. The cumulative percentile function depicts the probability that a result will be found at a value less than or equal of the result value. Blower Sizing To meet the broad range of airflow requirements, adequate blower turndown is needed. The use of the airflow histogram can help determine the number of blowers and the required turndown. A blower range overlaid on the airflow histogram is shown in Figure 4. It may not be viable to cover the complete range of the airflows, so the cumulative percentile graph can be used to show the airflow required to meet a percent of the airflow range. It was determined that blowers with a total airflow range of 57 to 185 m 3 /min (2,000 to 6,500 scfm) are required for the facility to achieve 9 of the current and future airflow requirements.

0 7 14 21 28 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 93 100 107 114 121 128 135 142 150 157 164 171 178 185 192 199 207 214 221 228 235 242 249 256 264 271 278 285 5% @ Current Conditions 95% @ Design Conditions The calculated airflow using maximum design conditions is 235 m 3 /min (8,250 scfm), 27% higher then calculated using a Monte Carlo analysis. 14% 10 Airflow Range for Blower Design 12% 9 8 1 7 8% 6 5 6% 4 4% 2% Airflow @ Max. Design Conditions 3 2 1 Figure 4: Selected blower range overlaid on the calculated airflow Histogram DISCUSSION Air Flow (m 3 /min) Risk Analysis By sizing the blowers to only achieve 9 of the required airflow range a certain amount of risk is introduced to the design. The Monte Carlo analysis can be used to quantify that amount of risk by running the analysis again with the limited airflow range incorporated into the model and compare it to the original analysis. Figure 5 is the results from the risk analysis. With the limited airflow range the facility will still be under the ammonia design limit of 1 mg/l for 98.5% of the time, compared to 99.6% of the time with the complete airflow range.

Individual Cumulative 60. 10 50. 40. Cumulative 10 Airflow Range 9 Airflow Range Individual 10 Airflow Range 9 Airflow Range 8 30. 20. Ammonia Design Limit 6 4 10. 2 0. 0 0.125 0.25 0.375 0.5 0.625 0.75 0.875 1 1.125 1.25 1.375 1.5 1.625 1.75 1.875 2 Effluent Ammonia (mg/l) Figure 5: Histogram of the ammonia effluent risk analysis CONCLUSION The combined use of the process simulation software and Monte Carlo analysis allows the process engineer to see the full range of airflow requirements need for the aeration design with limited initial data. The conventional method of using maximum loadings would result in oversizing the blowers by 27%, compared to using a Monte Carlo Analysis. The analysis also quantified the risk of the effluent ammonia being above the design limit, a 0.9% increased risk associated with using only 9 simulated airflow range. Results from the analysis were also used to calculate the amount fine bubble diffusers and size the air distribution piping and air control valves. The Monte Carlo analysis allows the engineer to quantify the probability of a result or risk based on the uncertainty of the influent loadings. REFERENCES McCormick, J.F., Johnson, B. & Turner, A. (2007) Analyzing risk in wastewater process design: using Monte Carlo simulation to move beyond conventional design methods. Proceedings of WEFTEC 2007, San Diego, CA, CD-ROM. Belia, E., Amerlinck, Y., Benedetti, L., Johnson, B., Sin, G., Vanrolleghem, P.A., Gernaey, K.V., Gillot, S., Neumann, M.B., Rieger, L., Shaw, A. and Villez, K. (2009) Wastewater treatment modeling: dealing with uncertainties. Water Science & Technology, 60(8), 1929-1941.