Luís Roque Silva Lopes

It is normal using a comparison value difference at the end, the values of the parameters YH and muH, are approximately equal for the modeling intervals (a temperature of 16 and 19 ° C) ????

Thank you,
Luís

Good Morning
My project is about an activated sludge system in WEST.

A) I adjust the effluent fractionation so that COD and TSS values ??can be found in the treated effluent close to the observed values, using the WEST standard kinetic and stoichiometric parameters.

However, when I do the calibration of the model (with the fractionation established in a) used comparison by Mean difference, or Maximum difference or thel's inequality coeficient, I find results quite far from reality (higher values).

But when using the comparison by end value difference, I find quite satisfactory results. (I noticed that this function succeeds in having unsatisfactory results of the kinetic and stoichiometric parameters but can reproduce very good treated effluent results)

There is no problem using the end value difference in my project, however I have to ensure that the kinetic and stoichiometric parameters have correct values ???????

Thank you,
Luís

Thanks for the information

Parameters of secondary decanters,

Good afternoon, I'm using the standard parameters of the secondary decanters that exist in the WEST, however my affluent has the high particulate fraction (75% - 79% of XCOD), and I find very low TSS values in the treated effluent.

Is there any paper / article that I can find information about sedimentation conditions due to the fractionation of the effluent, or other similar situations?

Thank you,
Luís

Thank you,

We already perceive the scheme of reasoning that we have to do;

Just one more thing, do you know which is the affluent X_BH fraction in the residual domestic water?

Thank you,
Luís

Yes, the calibration I am doing, the objective function is by mean difference (TSS and COD parameters of the treated effluent);

The effluent input data are: COD, BCOD, TKN and water, and I am using the standard WEST fractionation;

I considered the BCOD = 0.85 * COD input, what do you think? (That may be what is influencing the results.

Questions / Doubts:
A) The COD / BOD ratio you are talking about, the BOD is the total, or the first five days, or the first few days?

For the BOD data I have in hand, they are BOD for the first five days;

B) I saw a work in which the input fractionation scheme is similar to the standard fractionation scheme of the WEST, however, it had a connection of TSS and X_TSS with a ratio of 1. This has some difference with the fractionation scheme WEST standard?

Thank you
Luís

Good afternoon,
I am doing the parameter calibration experiment for heterotrophic biomass (muH, KS and YH), considering two fracture schemes of the effluent.

The quality results of the treated effluent are satisfied.

However, the calibrated muH and YH parameters are not close to the standard values of the bibliography (the calibrated temperature);

In case of admitting, for example (TSS / XCOD = 0.75), I am having a result of parameter YH calibrated near zero, and muH a value of 11 (which is far from the default value 6, at = 20 ° C );

By admitting the fractionation TSS / XCOD = 0.53. The calibrated YH parameters assume a value close to 1 (YH = 0.98);

Do you find normal, these results of the calibrated parameters?

Thank you,
Luís

Thank you,
I'll see what happens.

Hello,

Could you please explain why Temp_Ref changes during parameter estimation experiment even if it is not chosen for calibration?

My idea would be not to "estimate" Temp_Ref but only the kinetic parameters (e.g., mu_H) for the Temp_Ref that I would define [i]apriori[/i]. Or I do not have the correct definition of what is Temp_Ref?

Thank you,
Kind regards,
Luís

Thank you very much.
Solve the problem by placing the PI controller, and indicating the DO set-point.