Comparison of the results of calculating aeration tanks according to the method of Danilovich–Epov and ASM2d model (part 1)

Summary

The analysis of the method proposed by D. A. Danilovich and A. N. Epov for calculating aeration tanks that implement nitrogen and phosphorus removal technologies is carried out. A comparison of the results of calculations by this method and ASM2d method is given. It is shown that, in contrast to the ASM2d method that refers to theoretical models and describes the processes of biological wastewater treatment using the formulas of enzyme kinetics, the method under consideration is, in essence, an empirical calculation that contains constants that are invariable and, for the most part, not having the physical meaning. Since empirical models make a connection between the parameters obtained on the basis of the experimental data of a particular object under strictly limited conditions, these models can only be applied if all the parameters of another object exactly match the data of the object the proposed model was compiled for. Accordingly, using any empiric models, including the method under consideration, at the facilities that were not the objects for the compilation of these empiric models, leads to the risk of obtaining incorrect calculation results. Based on the performed calculations, the risks and constraints of using the method proposed by Danilovich and Epov for the calculation of biological treatment facilities are shown. In the first part of the paper, a design analysis was carried out to determine the values of the aerobic age of activated sludge that were the basic values for calculating the volume of aerobic zones of aeration tanks.

Key words

wastewater , biological treatment , nitrification , denitrification , activated sludge , kinetic constants , theoretical and empirical mathematical models , comparative calculation of the biological treatment facilities , ASM2d

Comparison of the results of calculating aeration tanks according to the method of Danilovich–Epov and ASM2d model
(рart 2)

Summary

The analysis of the method for calculating aeration tanks proposed by D. A. Danilovich and A. N. Epov, based on the German ATV method, is continued. Due to certain limitations of the empirical ATV methodology developed on the basis of the data on the wastewater the authors were able to study, the ATV methodology cannot be applied anywhere except the treatment facilities where those studies were carried out. The Methodology has been compared with ASM2d model (a matrix of enzyme kinetics equations describing the growth rates of microorganisms and the rates of the corresponding biochemical processes), as well as with the NII VODGEO/SamGTU method that is a completely theoretical model, and the calculation formulas being enzyme kinetics equations. Calculations of aeration tanks according to the formulas of enzyme kinetics were laid down in SNiP «Sewerage. External Networks and Structures» in 1974; whereas in SNiP 1984, the calculation was given in the form of a proven methodology for biological treatment facilities for the oxidation of organic compounds. The empirical approach proposed in the Methodology opens not only a technological question about the scope of its application, but also the question of its expediency in general. The use of empirical approaches, to which the Methodology belongs, formally connects the inherent parameters in the form of invariable coefficients and empirical dependencies obtained experimentally in a narrow range of parameters and conditions of a particular object bringing the risks of significant errors. It is shown that the Methodology for municipal wastewater provides for underestimated volumes of aeration tanks by tens of percent compared with the results of calculations using the theoretical methods ASM2d and VODGEO/SamGTU developed by V. N. Shvetsov, S. V. Stepanov, K. M. Morozova that describe wastewater treatment processes using enzyme kinetics formulas. Herewith, it is shown that ASM2d and the VODGEO/SamGTU methodology give a high convergence of the results within differences of less than 10% which allows to speak about the robustness of the ASM2d model and the VODGEO/SamGTU methodology, and the limitations of the Method that can be used only for rough estimates.

Key words

wastewater , biological treatment , nitrification , denitrification , activated sludge , kinetic constants , theoretical and empirical mathematical models , ASM2d , NII VODGEO/SamGTU methodology , enzyme kinetics equations , comparative calculation