Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CAPEC-PROCESS Research Center, Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Building 229, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark
Department of Biotechnology, Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 67, Delft, The Netherlands
h i g h l i g h t s
A superstructure optimization framework is presented for WWTP process selection.
The framework is applied to a retrofitting study of 2 full-scale plants.
Emerging wastewater treatment technologies are compared at their optimality.
High-rate oxic reactor and anammox are selected as the optimal concept.
Selection of optimal side stream treatment technology depends on local preferences.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 11 June 2015
Received in revised form 7 October 2015
Accepted 27 October 2015
Available online 9 November 2015
Keywords:
Anammox
MILP
Retrofitting
Side-stream nitrogen removal
Superstructure optimization
Wastewater treatment
a b s t r a c t
Retrofitting existing wastewater treatment plants has become a major challenge in the wastewater engineering area, in particular due to the increasing number of competing technologies and concepts (treatment versus resource problem). In order to support the expert-based approach and provide a rational
design for WWTPs, we proposed the use of a mathematical programming based framework to manage
the complexity and solve the multi-criteria retrofitting problem. The treatment alternatives were represented in a superstructure coupled with a database containing information on performance and economics of treatment units. The optimization problem was solved for different objective functions and
constraints corresponding to different retrofitting scenarios. The framework was evaluated on two fullscale domestic wastewater treatment plants (265,000 PE and 750,000 PE respectively). To this end, the
design space included 9 side-stream treatment technologies and 9 main line technologies resulting in
more than 200 retrofitting alternatives. The retrofitting problem resulted in the selection of a high-rate
oxic reactor coupled with anammox technology in the main line as the optimal solution, due to the
low utility consumption and high biogas production associated with this network. On the other hand,
most of the side stream treatment alternatives have similar technicaleconomic benefits in terms of
the whole plant retrofitting cost function. Therefore the selection of the optimal alternative is more based
on local conditions and preferences in that case.
2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The wastewater treatment industry faces many challenges such
as increasing energy costs, the presence of trace organics which has
become more critically investigated, the depletion of resources, the
increasing demand for water conservation as well as more stringent regulations [20]. As a result, domestic wastewater is now
being considered more as a resource than as a waste with the
recovery possibilities for clean water, energy and various materials
Corresponding author. Tel.: +45 45 25 28 06.
E-mail address: gsi@kt.dtu.dk (G. Sin).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.10.088
1385-8947/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
448
2. Methodology
The superstructure optimization framework developed in our
earlier study [4] for the optimization based design of WWTPs is
used. The framework is illustrated in Fig. 1 and individual steps
449
Table 1
Avedre WWTP influent and effluent composition (2012 yearly average values).
Flow rate
COD
BOD
NH4-N
NOx-N
Total-N
Total-P
SS
Unit
Influent
Effluent
m3/d
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g N/m3
g N/m3
g N/m3
g P/m3
g/m3
72,037
476
180
33
43
6.5
209
67,113
23
2
1.2
3
4.8
0.6
4.6
Table 2
Avedre WWTP influent characterization in terms of ASM1 components (2012 yearly average values).
Component
Unit
Value
Description
Equation
SI
SS
XI
XS
XBH
XBA
XP
SO
SNO
SNH
SND
XND
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g N/m3
g N/m3
g N/m3
g N/m3
23.48
107.85
93.22
251.65
0
0
0
0
0
32.85
0
9.8
SI CODout
SS CODbiodegradable 0:3
XI COD SI CODbiodegradable
XS CODbiodegradable 0:7
1
2
3
4
SNH NH4 N
450
line. The objective function was defined such that it covers the
operational and capital cost (only for the new treatment units)
i.e. total annualized cost (TAC) which was to be minimized. The
operational cost covers utility cost (i.e. aeration, electricity consumption, chemical addition etc.), sludge production via landfill
price, biogas price, mixing and pumping.
2.2. Design space formulation superstructure definition
A superstructure can be defined as the representation of different treatment alternatives and their interconnections in a systematic and compact way. The superstructure developed for this
specific retrofitting problem is illustrated in Fig. 3; Table 3 summarizes and describes the treatment units selected in the design space
within the context of this problem.
The process intervals (i.e. individual treatment units) shown in
gray in Fig. 3 are the existing treatment units in the Avedre
WWTP. The wastewater source was defined in the source column
WW, the water line is composed of a primary clarifier PC and
a biological treatment unit AS. The sludge treatment line, on
the other hand, is composed of a sludge thickener, anaerobic digestion unit and a dewatering unit (i.e. Thick, AD and Dewat in the
superstructure). The sink intervals for water and sludge effluents
were represented as Water and Sludge, respectively.
In this specific retrofitting problem, the alternative technologies
were located under three different treatment tasks: Primary Treatment, Secondary Treatment and Reject Water Treatment. Together
with the primary clarifier of the base case, a high-rate oxic reactor
(A-stage) and an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket reactor (UASB)
were placed under Primary Treatment as alternative treatment
units. Several different biological nutrient removal (BNR) type of
systems with different SRTs (i.e. BNR10, BNR14 and BNR28), a
low-rate oxic system in a pre-denitrification mode (B-stage), an
Anaerobic Ammonium Oxidation reactor operating at low temperatures (i.e. main stream wastewater temperature) Anammox, an
activated sludge type of reactor with granular sludge (Granular
AS) and a membrane bioreactor (MBR) were selected among the
secondary treatment technologies and placed in the superstructure. Finally, within the context of the sludge reject water treatment task, several different treatment units were included in the
Wastewater
source
WW
Primary
Treatment
PC
A-stage
Secondary
Treatment
database and shown in the superstructure. These units are responsible for treating the nitrogen rich water stream resulting from
thickener and dewatering units. Finally, three by-pass units are
added under these three tasks having treatment alternatives; this
allows the optimizer to by-pass this task when it is not needed.
After defining the treatment tasks and alternative treatment
processes, the superstructure definition is finalized by identifying
the interconnections between the process intervals.
2.3. Data collection and design of treatment units
Treatment technologies in the superstructure, including the
base case treatment units, were designed by following the steps
of the previously developed systematic data collection and design
procedure [4]. While designing the technologies, the engineering
standards were used with the reported parameters that included
also safety factors [2,23,29,12]. For the side stream processes and
the innovative main stream processes, the reported efficiencies at
their optimality in the literature were taken into account. Therefore, all the technologies were evaluated at their reported optimality by its developers. Hence, the idea of this study is to cover the
concept screening step, where the decision makers are supported
to quickly generate and evaluate different technological alternatives. In the further steps, the short-listed concepts need to go
through a more rigorous evaluation (see the framework in Fig. 1).
In other words, the intention is to short-list a limited number of
promising candidates for further detailed analysis using more rigorous models, where detailed modeling, simulation and optimization can be done.
In this section, the design specifications of separate treatment
units are given in three different groups: base case treatment units,
main wastewater treatment line alternatives and sludge reject
water stream treatment technologies.
2.3.1. Base case treatment units
The base case units (i.e. the existing treatment technologies)
were designed based on the design data obtained from Avedre
WWTP according to the design models used in this study [4]. The
base case design is summarized in Table 4 in terms of the compositions of the influent, the effluent both sludge and water and
Reject water
Treatment
Sludge
Thickening
Sludge
Stabilization
Sludge
Dewatering
Sinks
Water
AS
BNR10
Thick
AD
Dewat
Sludge
Sharon
BNR14
UASB
BNR28
Shar/An-2st
Shar/An-SBR
Canon
By-pass1
B-stage
Anammox
Anitamox
Deammon
Demon
Granular AS
Canr
Panammox
MBR
By-Pass3
By-pass2
Fig. 3. Superstructure developed for the Avedre WWTP retrofitting study representing the design space considering novel primary, secondary and reject water treatment
technologies.
451
Table 3
Treatment technologies represented in the superstructure.
Unit
Description
Unit
Description
WW
Wastewater source
Sharon
PC
A-stage
Shar/An-2st
Shar/An-SBR
Thick
AD
Dewat
Water
Sludge
By-pass
Water effluent
Sludge effluent
By-pass intervals
UASB
AS
BNR10
BNR14
BNR28
B-stage
Anammox
Granular AS
MBR
Table 4
Base case design summary.
Parameter
Flow rate
COD
BOD
NH4-N
NOx-N
Total-N
Total-P
SS
CH4
Unit
m3/d
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g N/m3
g N/m3
g N/m3
g P/m3
g/m3
g COD/m3
Influent
72,037
476
180
33
43
6.5
209
Effluent
Water
Sludge
71,950
36.3
1.78
4.95
8.1
0.45
13
46.2
3.1 105
2 104
328
1.1 104
114
3.2 105
9.2 103
2,489
302
3.8
116
3.2
136
40
280
Canon
Anitamox
Deammon
Demon
Canr
Panammox
the sludge reject water streams. The details of the design procedure can be found in Appendix 2.
10
452
Table 5
Design data for AS type of treatment technologies.
Technology
Mechanism
SRT (d)
HRT (h)
Reactor type
Performance
A-stage
COD oxidation
0.5
B-stage
COD oxidation
Nitrification
Denitrification
Chemical P removal
COD oxidation
Nitrification
Denitrification
Chemical P removal
COD oxidation
Nitrification
Denitrification
Chemical P removal
COD oxidation
Nitrification
Denitrification
Biological and chemical P removal
13
4 (aerobic)
3 (anoxic)
7.2 (aerobic)
2.4 (anoxic)
9 (aerobic)
3 (anoxic)
15 (aerobic)
5 (anoxic)
0.5 (anaerobic)
78% COD
67% total
90% total
Removal
88% COD
84% total
90% total
Removal
87% COD
85% total
90% total
Removal
87% COD
86% total
90% total
Removal
BNR10
BNR14
BNR28
10
14
28
N
P
N
P
N
P
N
P
Table 6
Design data for sludge reject water treatment alternatives.
# of
reactors
Reactor type
Sharon
CSTR
Shar/An2st
Shar/AnSBR
Canon
CSTRgranular
sludge
SBR
Anitamox
Deammon
1
1
Demon
Canr
Panammox
1
1
2
Granular
sludge
MBBR
MBBR
SBR
SBR
SBR-granular
sludge
Volumetric N removal
rate (kg N/m3 d)
Volumetric N loading
rate (kg N/m3 d)
10
0.55
Comments
References
1 d HRT for
Sharon reactor
0.420.5
90% overall N
conversion to N2
95% for ammonium
81% for total N
85% for ammonium
70% for total N
0.61
0.75
1.8 PN
0.46 Anammox
90%
89%
89%
86%
1.5
0.8
0.30.4
Efficiency
Min OBJ
for
for
for
for
ammonium
total N
ammonium
total N
X
CAPEX kk
OPEX kk
t
kk
11
subject to;
12
13
X
ykk 6 1 where y 2 f0; 1gn
14
structural constraints
kk
453
Table 7
Summary of results for the deterministic solution of scenario 1 (all the cost parameters are given in unit cost and the concentrations of the nitrogen components are reported in
g N/m3).
Base case
Selected alternative
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Process interval
Utility cost
Landfill cost
Capital cost
OBJ
Eff SNO
Eff SNH
By-pass3
Canon
Anitamox
Canr
Shar/An-SBR
Demon
Deammon
Panammox
Shar/An-2st
Sharon
891
883
884
882
883
883
884
882
883
926
1763
1762
1762
1762
1762
1762
1762
1762
1762
1762
8.08
12.89
16.17
19.85
19.87
24.25
33.09
36.72
35.74
1471
1470
1477
1478
1482
1483
1488
1495
1500
1542
4.79
4.54
4.58
4.53
4.54
4.56
4.58
4.54
4.56
4.61
1.01
0.95
0.96
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.96
0.95
0.95
0.96
454
Table 8
Summary of results for the deterministic solution of scenario 2 (all the cost parameters are given in unit cost).
Base case
Selected alternative
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
Network
Utility cost
Landfill cost
Biogas price
Pumping cost
Mixing cost
Capital costa
OBJ
PC-AS By-Pass3-Thick-AD-Dewat
A-stage Anammox Canon Thick-AD-Dewat
PCGranularAS Canon Thick-AD-Dewat
PC-BNR10 Canon Thick-AD- Dewat
A-stage B-stage Canon Thick-AD-Dewat
PC-BNR14 Canon Thick-AD-Dewat
PC-MBR Canon Thick-AD-Dewat
PC-BNR28 Canon Thick-AD-Dewat
891
761
1128
965
949
992
3083
827
1763
871
1145
1387
1165
1383
1060
1377
1914
2354
1830
2355
2584
2185
1832
1929
491
188
191
500
484
496
188
491
240
58
127
156
148
53
219
1630
745
2243
2736
2614
940
3849
1471
1154
1380
2868
2906
3450
3492
4834
The capital cost is calculated based on the volume of the units; no other equipment or supporting materials (i.e. membrane, carriers, filters etc.) are included.
Table 9
Summary of the uncertainty characterization.
Scenario
Parameter
Unit
Mean
Min.
Max.
Probability distribution
SS
SI
XI
SNH
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g COD/m3
g N/m3
107.85
23.48
93.22
32.85
75.50
16.44
65.25
23.00
140.21
30.52
121.19
42.71
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Electricity price
O2 transfer efficiency
Total N limit
Euro/kW h
kg O2/kW h
g N/m3
0.08
4.12
10
0.12
5.58
15
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
0.098
4.85
12.5
Table 10
Summary of results for 50 different future cases.
Scenario
Network
60
20
3
4
5
6
8
8
2
2
100
Probability of
realization (%)
Selected intervals
A-stage Anammox
Canon
PC Granular AS ByPass3
PC AS Canon
PC AS By-Pass3
PC Granular AS Canon
A-stage Anammox ByPass3
A-stage Anammox
Canon
455
Fig. 4. Cumulative distribution of the objective function for scenario 1 (left) and scenario 2 (right).
Table 11
Summary of results for solution under uncertainty.
Network
Utility cost
Landfill cost
Capital cost
Biogas price
Mixing cost
Pumping cost
OBJ
Scenario 1: uncertainties
in influent characteristics
Deterministic solution
A-stage-Anammox-Canon
764
877
1630
2376
58
188
1141
A-stage-Anammox-Canon
765
871
1630
2354
58
188
1157
A-stage-Anammox-Canon
761
871
1630
2354
58
188
1154
pling) and the results are presented in Table 10 together with the
cumulative distribution of the objective function value in Fig. 4.
It is indicated by the results of scenario 1 that the uncertainty on
the influent composition had a significant effect on the network
selection as well as on the value of the objective function. 60% of
the future realizations resulted in the selection of the same network as found for the deterministic solution; however, 5 alternative network selections seem to be possible, despite their low
chance of occurrence. When the distribution of the value of the
objective function is considered, it ranges from 513 to 1938 unit
cost. In other words, 40% of the future realizations have higher
TAC as compared to the deterministic problem solution.
When the results of scenario 2 are analyzed, which takes into
account cost related uncertainty as well as possible changes in
effluent nitrogen limitation, the network selection seems to be
more stable. For all of the future realizations, the deterministic network selection has not changed. Similarly, the variation in the
objective function value is not as significant as for scenario 1; it
changes from 978 to 1333 unit cost, which indicates that 56% of
the future realizations have higher TAC than the deterministic
problem solution.
In a second step, the optimization problem is formulated as a
stochastic programming problem and solved by using the
sample average approximation (SAA) technique [3] in order to calculate the expected value of the objective function within the
whole uncertain domain, i.e. 50 future realizations.
The results of this step are summarized in Table 11. Both
scenarios for the uncertainty domain resulted in the same
network selection as the deterministic solution. Although different
future realizations result in a significant variation, especially for
the objective function value, as previously shown in Fig. 4, when
456
Table 12
Comparison of Lynetten WWTP and Avedre WWTP under deterministic conditions for the full-scale retrofitting case.
Network
Utility cost
Landfill cost
Biogas price
Pumping cost
Mixing cost
Capital cost
OBJ
Avedre WWTP
761
871
2354
188
58
1630
1154
Lynetten WWTP
2459
1928
7562
424
130
3668
1047
cost but also a higher gain in the biogas production (and associated
increase in biogas price) that offsets the increase in the utility cost.
The net result is then a decrease in the objective function. On the
other hand, a possible increase in the influent particulate inert
COD (Fig. 5b), causes an increase in the objective function value.
This is mainly resulting from the increase in the sludge production
and related disposal cost. When the third plot (Fig. 5c) is considered, there is no systematic/strong pattern observed between the
range of variations in the influent ammonium nitrogen and the
overall objective function value. This suggests that the side stream
treatment constitutes a buffering effect against stochastic variation
in the influent ammonium nitrogen concentration, which in turn
treats the nitrogen to the desired levels without significantly
affecting the total economic objective function of the plant.
3.5. Critical summary
A design space covering novel treatment technologies was
defined and the superstructure was formulated accordingly. The
problem formulation was done so that the comprehensive design
space covers not only alternative technologies and network definitions for the already existing primary and secondary treatment
tasks, but also introduces a new task responsible for sludge reject
water treatment and several alternative technologies responsible
for it. Overall, the superstructure includes 18 new technologies
resulting in approximately 240 different possible network designs.
The optimization problem was formulated as a MILP problem and
solved for different scenario definitions under both deterministic
conditions and uncertainty. The main conclusions of the study
can be summarized as:
The addition of innovative side stream treatment alternatives is
intended to contribute to the discussion about the need for retrofitting the existing treatment line in order to overcome the
defined nitrogen removal problem. On the other hand, the main
line has been extended to cover not only innovative technologies such as granular activated sludge, cold-anammox and
MBR but also well-known, traditional BNR technologies in order
to let the user compare several concepts/technologies. The
application of a high rate oxic reactor (A-stage) coupled with
anammox technology in the main wastewater treatment line
and an anaerobic digester in the sludge treatment is ranked as
the best design concept by the optimizer with its low utility
consumption, high biogas production and relatively low area
requirement.
By solving the problem under uncertainty, the effect of the variations in influent wastewater composition, cost and effluent
limitation parameters on retrofitting solutions are investigated.
Among the sludge reject water treatment alternatives, the commercial one stage partial nitritationanammox technologies
considered in the design space is found to be better with respect
to economic criteria as compared to two stage partial nitritationanammox as well as nitritation/denitritation concepts as
a result of the plant-wide optimization. However it should be
noted that operational aspects such as stability, robustness,
maintenance etc., are crucial factors while selecting the appropriate technology for a defined facility, and they should be
taken into account in further steps of the decision making
process.
Finally, the defined uncertain parameters with their selected
domain did not show a significant impact on the problem solution; however, it was also observed that the future scenarios
could result in a high variation in terms of their TAC values,
which indicates the importance of considering uncertainty in
the early stage design/retrofitting studies.
457
458