Topic / Session: Innovative waste solutions

Operations management for solid waste treatment

Development of a system for modelling complex facilities W. Kuilman1, P.C. Rem1, and R.B. Leeftink2 1 Delft University of Technology Department of Civil Engineering Stevinweg 1; 2628 CN Delft; the Netherlands 2 Decistor BV; Bilderdijkstraat 4 2013 EJ Haarlem; the Netherlands Corresponding author: R.Leeftink@Decistor.com +31(0)23-5348148 Keywords: operations management, industrial engineering, materials flow analysis, physical treatment, waste economics, simulation

Abstract
The most recent targets of the European Union - to increase the recovery of bulk materials from post-consumer waste and start up the recycling of the specialty elements [1] - are likely to result in more complex and more capital-intensive material recovery plants than are operated today. Even today, recycling facilities are difficult plants to manage, for almost every aspect of recycling is strongly dynamic. The technology itself is innovative, which means that selecting, testing and installing new equipment is a regular, time-consuming process. Investing in new technology is also risky, with typical mal-investment levels of 15-25%. While the plant is running, the composition of the input waste varies according to supplier and season, and, at the same time, fluctuating product prices require changes of the operation to switch from one outlet specification to the other. As recycling processes are difficult to model, such changes are often done by trial and error. One of the challenges in recycling is therefore to design an operation management tool for solid waste treatment that combines theoretical knowledge in the fields of modelling, physical properties and materials handling, with practical knowledge of machine-suppliers and experience of specialist users. Analysis of these requirements resulted in a first working system named Decistor SPS.

1. Introduction
Consider a plant with an economic lifetime of just a few years, which has to be continuously upgraded with new technology to cope with new product specifications and regulations, and which is fed with materials with daily varying and incompletely specified compositions. Such are the characteristics of recycling plants. Optimizing the design and operation of such plants in terms of technical performance and economic benefit is a formidable task, that would greatly benefit from a tool that could take away the administrative burden of keeping performance records and documenting design changes, predict the effect of changes of input waste and machine settings on product quality and relate this directly to economic result. Tools of this kind (e.g. Aspen HYSYS, JKSimMet, Usim Pac) have become standard in many raw material operations, from refineries to mineral processing plants [2-4]. Remarkably, no such specialist tools have been developed

for the field of solid waste treatment. Perhaps the main reason why such tools do not exist is that it is not obvious how to describe and characterize a solid waste stream in quantitative terms. In oil refinery software, for example, material streams are defined in terms of pressure, temperature and composition. From these data, flash algorithms automatically calculate the distribution of chemical components over the gas and liquid phases. In mineral processing applications, the key parameters of material flows are composition and particle size distribution. In this paper, we propose a quantitative description of solid waste streams that is based on the requirements of monitoring and simulating waste treatment plants and determining the quality and value of their products. We also present the main outlines of a management tool for solid waste treatment.

2. What should a management tool be able to?

The starting point of this study was to build a tool that helps the crew of a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) to improve the technical and economical performance of their plant by promoting good monitoring practices and making decisions in an efficient way. It was decided to focus on a number of specific operation management activities: Selecting and testing new technology for future implementation in the plant (aiming to avoid mal-investments). The tool should help to formulate warranties that hold, as most equipment is tested on one particular kind of waste. After sales, changes of the input often lead to discussions between user and supplier when equipment shows inadequate performance. Prediction of the operating costs for a particular type of waste. Assessing the value of input waste by predicting the amounts, quality and value of the products that the plant would produce from it. Predicting the consequences of changes in machine-settings of the plant, avoiding trial and error in optimizing the performance of the plant. In order to assist the crew in these activities, the operation management tool should: combine theoretical knowledge in the fields of modelling, physical properties and materials handling with practical knowledge and experience of machine-suppliers and specialist users; include a flexible and easy to access library containing Unit Operation Models (UOMs) of a variety of recycling equipment/processes; include a flexible and easy to access library with fully characterized waste streams, including the material properties of its components (density, magnetism, tensile strength, etc.); have the possibility for economic optimization, based on supply- and purchase contracts and operating costs; be user friendly, not only for a theoretical approach, but also for practical use in day-to-day operations management. For this, the core of the tool should be a dynamic process modelling environment, in which the user can design, simulate and inspect flow sheets of unit operations in an interactive way. Evidently, the challenge of building such an environment is to model the material streams and processes of a recycling plant in a realistic and quantitative way. Existing

models for primary raw material processing are usually not able to capture the physics involved in waste processing because materials such as wood, metals and plastics have a vastly different behaviour than minerals in liberation and separation processes. A further major complicating factor in modelling recycling processes is the wide variation in particle morphology in waste and the problem of compound particles (particles consisting of more than one component material). Also, minerals are processed either dry or wet, whereas waste is often treated in a moist condition. Moist wastes often create problems in processing. A management tool for waste treatment should be able to predict such problems. Evidently, none of these issues can be solved without an adequate system for defining the details of a waste stream.

3. Characterization of solid waste streams

Waste streams are considerably more complex in terms of homogeneity, particle size distribution, material composition, degree of liberation and morphology than material streams found in chemical processing or mineral processing. Therefore, the amount of information needed to describe a waste stream is very large compared to what is considered normal for process modelling tools. The ore passing per unit time through some point of a mineral processing plant can be described in terms of a number of consecutive size fractions and a composition for each size fraction. The number of relevant component materials in ores (gangue, primary valuable product, secondary valuable product) is usually very small. Therefore the total amount of information needed to characterize the stream is very small too, even if the component materials of the ore are not fully liberated and some particles in the stream are made up from more than one component material. As a result, mineral flows allow for a full matrix representation, in which every entry of the matrix specifies the mass fraction of the stream consisting of particles within given ranges of size and composition (cf. the example in Table 1). Table 1: Example of a matrix representation of a material flow, in which each entry defines the mass fraction of the stream with a particular composition and size range. Composition 1 Composition 2 ... 0-50 micron 8.6% 1.2% 50-80 micron 36.2% 5.4% ... Wastes, like ores, are also basically collections of particles, each particle having a size and composition. However, waste particles come in very different shapes, and therefore they cannot be properly characterized by a single size dimension. Also, the number of different material components in wastes (plastics, metals, wood, glass, etc.) is usually much larger, so the amount of information defining a single particle (for example a printed circuit board!) may be staggering. A simple computation shows that a matrix with entries for any combination of particle dimensions and material composition in a typical waste stream could not be stored on a computer, even if the shape of a particle would be represented relatively crudely, for example by the three dimensions of the smallest rectangular box envelope. On the other hand, most of the entries of such a matrix would be zero, since

waste results from products, which have only specific combinations of sizes and material compositions. It is clear that another representation must be found that is more efficient for waste streams. Table 2: Example of a representation of a waste stream as a set of test particles, in which each particle represents part of the mass flow of the original waste stream. Stream: Wood product Size fraction: 5-10 mm Material Part mass[g] Wood Wood Plastics Stone Stone Iron H N-F 0.05 0.40 0.20 0.31 0.73 2.30 1.10

Mass flow [dry t/h] 0.46 3.44 0.04 0.024 0.016 0.0 0.008

Mat. shape R R

s [mm] 25 61

t [mm] 6 9

Env. shape R R

S [mm] 25 61

T [mm] 6 9

S G G S S

8 6 8 8 7

2 3 2

S G G S S

8 6 8 8 7

2 3 2

A completely different approach to waste characterization is illustrated by a conceptual experiment. Suppose a thousand particles are picked at random from a waste stream and this sample is passed through a separator or shredder, or its quality or value is assessed, separately from the rest of the stream. Somehow, one expects that the separation results, the degree of particle size reduction, and the quality or value of this random sample will be representative for the waste stream as a whole. In other words, a simulation of the process on the random sample or test set would simulate the process acting on the waste stream itself. Of course, the simple strategy of randomly selecting a thousand particles from a stream may not be statistically optimal for extreme cases, for example if the waste contains many small particles or very few particles of some relevant contaminant. The representativeness of the test set can therefore be improved by screening the waste into a number of size fractions and randomly picking a smaller number of particles from each size fraction, so to avoid large numbers of relatively small particles in the test set. In the same way, the size fractions of the original waste stream can be separated into classes of particles with a similar composition. Such procedures reduce the error of representation, so that a smaller test set with, say, 100-300 particles - one or a few particles per size-composition fraction - is more representative for the waste stream as a whole than a randomly picked set of a thousand particles. The problem of characterizing a waste stream then reduces to selecting a representative test set of particles and describing these particles in sufficient detail for the purpose of simulation and quality/value assessment. In simulations, test particles represent the mass of the size-composition fraction from which they are selected, not their own mass (cf. the example in Table 2). 3.1 Definition of mono-material particles

The simplest types of waste particles consist of a single material. The parameters of such particles are their mass, size and shape and the material of which they are composed. Since the shape and size of waste particles cannot be defined precisely, the mass cannot usually be computed from the particle volume and the material density, so it is an independent parameter. The shapes of mono-material particles often reflect the original parts from which they resulted by shredding. It was therefore decided to define mono-material particles by two sets of shape/size parameters: one set relating to the original shape of the material (s), and another relating to the envelope shape of the particle (S) (see Table 3). Table 3: Shape and size parameters for mono-material particles. L is the minimum size, M is the middle size and H is the maximum size of the smallest rectangular envelope. Partical shape Simple granular Simple rod Simple sheet Folded wire Folded sheet Tube Material shape granular rod sheet rod sheet sheet Envelope shape granular rod sheet granular granular rod Size parameters S=s=M S=s=H, T=t=M S=s=M, T=t=L t=wire diameter s=wire length S=M t=sheet thickness s= (sheet area) S=M t=wall thickness s= (surface area) S=H, T=M Passing size square mesh S T S S S T

The last particle parameter, the material of the particle, defines its physical properties, such as its density, electrical conductivity and mechanical properties, which are read from the material database. The Decistor SPS database has three hierarchical levels of materials. The highest level defines 13 global categories: 1. Vegetal Organic Matter (VOM) Wood 2. Vegetal Organic Matter (VOM) - NOT wood 3. Animal Organic Matter 4. Fabricated Organic Matter (FOM) 5. Composites OM Resins 6. Thermoplastic Polymers 7. Thermosetting Polymers 8. Composites Polymers - Carbons or Minerals 9. Minerals, Glass and Ceramics 10. Composites Minerals - Minerals or metals

11. Light Non Ferrous Alloys 12. Ferrous Alloys 13. Heavy Non ferrous Alloys

3.2 Compound particles

One of the issues that is not solved by the characterization procedure outlined above is the problem of describing compound particles, i.e., particles consisting of more than one kind of material. No fully realistic solutions seem to exist that are also easy to implement. Table 4: Example of defining a compound particle. Stream: Waste wood Material Part Mass flow Mat. shape mass[g] [dry t/h] ... R 13 Wood 52 1.6 ... 56 Iron 5 0 R ... 89 Joint 13,56 57 0.12 R ...
s [mm] 315 t [mm] 48 Env. shape R S [mm] 315 T [mm] 48

80 315

3 48

R R

80 315

3 48

Therefore the pragmatic option was chosen to define compound particles in an indirect way. Instead of defining all details of the compound particle itself, it was decided to define its mono-material parts as separate particles. The compound particle is then defined as the collection of these parts (see Table 4). This procedure has some practical advantages. Particles that appear joint with other particles in some part of the process may turn up later in the process as distinct particles, as a result of size reduction steps in between. In this case, work is saved in defining particles. Second, automatic procedures can be used to estimate the properties of the compound particle from the properties of the individual parts. Third, the characterization fits well with the way products designs are documented by manufacturers, allowing for an automatic translation of the design into a characterization of the post-consumer product as part of a waste stream. When the different materials are so intertwined that they will not be separated in the course of the recycling process, they can be seen as one composite material. An example is chipwood (wood and polymers).

3.3 Representation of waste streams at the plant level

If all streams in a plant are sampled (feeds, products, and intermediate streams) and each stream is analysed and characterised by a set of test particles, then the combined set of all test particles can be used for documenting or simulating the plant performance. In practice, it is sufficient to characterise only product streams and all streams immediately before or after a size reduction step to get a complete set of test particles. In other cases it may be sufficient to sample only the product streams. The reason is that the input stream of a separation process with only physical treatment is essentially the sum of the output streams.

For documenting the plant performance, it may be necessary to analyse also the streams prior to a mixing point. In many cases, a set of test particles relating to a certain type of input waste can be used for different waste treatment plants, so far as similar technologies are used for size reduction of the waste.

4. Flow sheets
Flow sheets of solid waste treatment plants consist of feed and product points, unit operations like size reduction, separation, mixing, splitting, and transport, and streams connecting these elements (see Figure 1). In order to carry out flow sheet simulations of new and existing equipment on various kinds of feed with variable equipment settings, a large number of unit operation models should be available. Depending on the amount and type of information that is available on a particular unit operation, a user may wish to specify it in different ways. Three basically different types of models have therefore been implemented in Decistor SPS: Functional models Black box models White box models

Figure 1: Example of a Decistor SPS flow sheet.

4.1 Functional models

Functional models are used to simulate the desired or observed performance of unit operations on a particular waste stream. These models are useful for simulating new or

existing equipment of which the performance is fully known. The purpose of simulating such processes is not so much to generate new insights into the workings of the unit operation itself, but more to reproduce the observed or required behaviour (within the physically possible for this type of unit operation) and help to make a mass balance for the entire plant. Functional units for separation processes use simple sigmoid curves to represent the recovery of materials into either of the two product streams. They show the correct trends with respect to properties of the feed particles, provide a realistic mass balance and have parameters to fit the model to the observed/required behaviour of real equipment. Functional models do not (generally) predict the effects of changes in feed rate and moisture content, provide warnings on bottlenecks or abnormal operation, or have design and operating parameters related to specific equipment

4.2 Black box models

Black box models are based on experimental test data of equipment for separation or size reduction. The experimental data are fed into a multi-purpose model that can then be used to document and simulate the performance of the tested equipment on waste streams. Black box models are useful to quickly incorporate innovative technology into a flow sheet, without the need to understand the theory and develop detailed white box models. However, they should not be used outside the range of machine settings, feed rates, waste materials and particle sizes for which experimental data are available.

4. White box models

White box models are fully predictive models based on the physics of the process. They can be used to find the optimal settings of equipment for a given waste stream and provide a warning when the equipment is overloaded or when the properties of the waste stream are not suited for the equipment.

5. Economic optimization
Economic optimization is one of the main purposes of the software. Calculating costs and revenues of the separation processes is a daily activity of the management of a Material Recovery Facility (MRF). Typical expenditures of a MRF are the constant and variable costs of the facility itself and the costs of waste streams leaving the plant. The revenues are the gate fees paid for waste streams entering the facility and products sold. The use of a simulation model enables the plant management to compare the outcomes of waste streams with different settings of the facilitys unit operations. Whereas nowadays requirements can only be met when the boundaries of the outgoing products are rather wide, a more sophisticated material management system will facilitate a sharper definition of the product requirements, thus leading to lower production costs or higher product revenues. The dynamic character of the model enables parallel or sequenced combinations of feed heaps at different positions in the plant, so that the user can compose the required products. The software produces output in Excel, thus enabling the user to do more sophisticated optimizations over alternative production options.

6. Further development

The main software engine of the process modelling environment has been built during the last three years. Various recycling processes, equipment and material streams are now being put into the systems library by a combined effort of Delft University of Technology and Decistor. After this initial phase, other universities as well as equipment suppliers and users will be able to add their specialist know-how to the system.

7. References
1. European Union, The raw materials initiative meeting our critical needs for growth

and jobs in Europe, SEC(2008) 2741 (2008) p. 6 2. Bhutani, N., Tarafder, A., Rangaiah, G.P. and Ray, A.K., A multi-platform, multilanguage environment for process modelling, simulation and optimization, Int. J. Comp. Appl. in Tech. 30 (2007) 197-214 3. JKSimMet User Guide, Steady state mineral processing simulation, Indooroopilly Australia (2003) 4. Brochot, S., Durance, M.-V., Guillaneau, J.-C., Villeneuve, J., USIM PAC 3.0: New Features For A Global Approach In Mineral Processing Design, in: APCOM 2002 Application Of Computers And Operations Research In The Minerals Industry, SME (2002)