MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109730789 · doi:10.2166/wqrjc.2011.005

Optimization of A2O BNR processes using ASM and EAWAG Bio-P models: model formulation

2011· article· en· W2109730789 on OpenAlexaff
Walid El Shorbagy, Nawras Nabil, Ronald L. Droste

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen Removal
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClarifierActivated sludge modelActivated sludgeSizingOperating costInflowEffluentProcess (computing)WastewaterSensitivity (control systems)SolverEngineeringProcess engineeringBiochemical engineeringMathematical optimizationEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceWaste managementMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is an extended and comprehensive analysis to accomplish optimal sizing for a biological nutrient removal (BNR) system with an A2O BNR activated sludge process using activated sludge models (ASM) kinetic models. A highly nonlinear activated sludge model combined with the EAWAG Bio-P module is formulated and optimized using a generalized reduced gradient solver. Primary and final clarifications are included with the A2O biotreatment scheme along with oxygen-supplying units. This paper includes a detailed description of model formulation, problem definition and discussion of optimal design in terms of capital (CAPEX) and operating (OPEX) cost estimates. The optimization problem is formulated and solved using typical cost factors and operating/design constraints applied to a typical illustrative system treating medium-strength wastewater. Results indicated that maintenance and sludge disposal expenditures represent more than 50% of the total annual cost and 80% of the annual running operating cost. Another major finding was that a primary clarifier is found to be cost ineffective in the A2O BNR process. Sensitivity of the optimal solutions and model performance to varying inflow conditions and to other effluent limits and model parameters will be discussed in another paper.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.326
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.050 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicWastewater Treatment and Nitrogen RemovalFrench-language works237,207