Hector Jose Gosalbez Ingeniero Químico

Many thanks Chris for the response.

Thanks Enrico for your response. Yes, I have a PI controller, as you well guessed.

However, despite I have manipulate the value of the “Integ_e” to zero, the result in the effluent is the same. In the attached plot named “Integ_e” you can see how its value starts in zero, but the result is the same…. Maybe have I not applied correctly your suggestion?

Thanks again.

Héctor

Hi guys,

I am using a MBBR blocks (I know they are “delicate”), and my question is that I need to loose around 1 day of simulation information to reach constant results, despite I am using a constant influent and operational parameters, and I have started the simulation after using the option “From dynamic to dynamic simulation” and having previously reached a constant behaviour in the efluent. Please, see the attached plot of the effluent.

This fact is something without importance in case of using stational simulations, but my next step is using dynamical data, and loosing around 1 day of results matters…..Is there any recommendation to smooth the results of the first day of simulation?

Thanks in advance!

Héctor

Thank you very much, Enrico.

Hi WEST team,

I just wonder if the "Height of the clarifier" is the cilindrical height (3.0 m in the attached image) or the total height (3.0 m + 0.5 m in the attached image).

Thanks a lot!

Héctor Rey

I can see it now. Thank you very much, Enrico.

Almost…..sorry!! Regarding to the ASM1, I have simulated a simple influent that passes through a grit chamber. Using the default values I have tried to check, for the XI component, the mass balance, so the Underflow[X_I] is calculated by WEST and its value is 150.672 g/d (48.3846 g/d due to inorganic mass and 101.825 due to the organic mass (see “Export” file attached, where everything will be understood more clear)). However, if I try to calculate it though the different conversion factors and removal efficiency, I obtain the same value of the 48.3846 g/d due to inorganic mass (as WEST), but for the organic mass, my value is different to WEST (75.148 instead of 101.825). Could you please tell me where I am wrong?

Thank you very much.

Héctor

Thank very much for your answer, Enrico.

I understand it better, but I still have a doubt. Does the parameter “e_org” reduces the value of the COD after the grit chamber? The “e_inorg” factor obviously does not affect the COD, but the “e_org” I think that should do it, but I do not see in the exposed equations of your screenshot the relations to reduce the COD from “1-xi”…..

Thank you very much for your time.

Héctor

Hi Enrico and Fabio,

Please, let me ask a question about the new “grit chamber” block in Modelica. Using the ASM1 model (as the simplest one), in Parameters/Group Settling, it is said that the factors “e_inorg” and “e_org” affect the settleable fraction of [b]inorganic [/b]and [b]organic [/b]components respectively.

• In the mentioned case of the ASM1 (or even in the ASM2dMod), where there are not inorganic components, I understand that the “e_inorg” parameter does not affect the influent characteristics, does it?

• In the mentioned case of the ASM1 (or even in the ASM2dMod), does the “e_org” parameter affect all the particulate components (XS, XBH, XI and XP)? Which makes me doubt is why, in that case, the description is not something like: "affects the seattleable fraction of [b]particulate [/b]components", as it is written in the "Screen" block...maybe I am wrong somewhere.

• Maybe the grit chamber block does not work with the ASM1/ASM2d models and only with the new ASM2dISS….that would be my main question

Thanks a lot!

Héctor

Thanks Enrico for the fantastic support!. That provisional solution is what I had finally decided to do.