Effect of sensor location on controller performance in a wastewater treatment plant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complete mixing is hard to achieve in large bioreactors in wastewater treatment plants. This often leads to a non-uniform distribution of components such as dissolved oxygen and, hence, the process rates depend on them. Furthermore, when these components are used as input for a controller, the location of the sensor can potentially affect the control action. In this contribution, the effect of sensor location and the choice of setpoint on the controller performance were examined for a non-homogeneously mixed pilot bioreactor described by a compartmental model. The impacts on effluent quality and aeration cost were evaluated. It was shown that a dissolved oxygen controller with a fixed setpoint performs differently as a function of the location of the sensor. When placed in a poorly mixed location, the controller increases the aeration intensity to its maximum capacity leading to higher aeration costs. When placed just above the aerated zone, the controller decreases the aeration rate resulting in lower dissolved oxygen concentrations in the remainder of the system, compromising effluent quality. In addition to the location of the sensor, the selection of an appropriate setpoint also impacts controller behavior. This suggests that mixing behavior of bioreactors should be better quantified for proper sensor location and controller design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".