A Model Predictive Control using a data-driven ASM model for online optimization of WRRFs under different performance objectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRFs) need to fulfil new or stricter environmental targets that are continuously updated to cope with global challenges. This requires investment into new processes, or a modification of the current plant operation. In this context, automatic control operations play an important role in ensuring good plant performance. Existing control strategies, however, were developed according to past/current performance criteria, and resources (time for simulating and assessing the impact of new controls, skilled workforce) are thus needed to adapt them to future or new performance indicators. Stentoft et al. (2019) proposed a new approach based on Model Predictive Control (MPC), where a simplified version of ASM1 model is actively used to control the aeration and thus the nitrification/denitrification processes. In this work we tested a general MPC setup using stochastic differential equations allowing WRRF operators to balance between different management objectives: • Optimal nitrogen removal (Obj. A), where MPC operates solely to comply with effluent requirements for NH4+ and NO3-; • Minimal electricity consumption (Obj. B), where the MPC focuses on using as little electricity for aeration as possible; • Reduction of operational costs (Obj. C), calculated as the sum of aeration electricity consumption (with variable electricity prices) and the effluent taxes (defined according to the Danish legislation); • Reduction of global warming potential (Obj. D), considering both the GWP from electricity production and the N2O emission from N removal (assumed to be directly proportional to NH4+ oxidation). The performance of the MPC in fulfilling these four objectives were simulated by using data from a small alternating WRRF (cf. Isaacs and Thornberg, 1998) in Denmark (Nørre Snede). Also, we illustrated the flexibility of the MPC in operating in a multiobjective perspective, where WRRF operators can quickly change the control priorities, choosing how to prioritize e.g. cost reduction or reduction of climate change impacts. Our results open new possibilities for a flexible operation of WRRFs by combining information provided by online sensors with the process knowledge incorporated in the ASM models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".