Optimisation of Stability and Efficiency of

Wastewater Treatment

Ken Black, Optimisation Manager, Northumbrian Water Limited

Simon Mazier, Business Development Manager, Perceptive Engineering

Water: Process Control and Automation

IET Conference 21-22 May 2013, Nottingham, UK
 Laurie Reynolds
Use of the word “data”
in the Water Sector

AMP5 – AMP6
Background
Process Overview – Bran Sands

O Main site for Teesside

O Train C is wholly municipal waste, approx 900,000 PE
O Mainly carbonaceous removal
z Site quality judged on BOD, ammonia and total solids
z Two lanes, fine bubble diffusers (approx £300K aeration energy)
O 8 FSTs, sludge blanket detection

DO Control RAS Control

Final
Activated Sludge Plant FSTs
Effluent

RAS process SAS process

Background
Project Wish List

O Energy Reduction
z Maintain or improve final treated quality while saving energy

O Storm Events
z Solids carryover with high or surging hydraulic load
z Increased risk of compliance failure

O Foaming
z controlled with hypo dosing
z Is it possible to get a ‘heads-up’ for operators to prepare HOCl?
Background
Project Wish List (continued)

O No ‘black box’ - operators and users MUST BE ABLE to

z understand the new control scheme
z configure the new control scheme
z switch off the new control scheme and revert to PLC if needed

O Maintenance
z New scheme must cope with ‘normal’ maintenance activities
z FSTs, RAS pumps,

O Robust Operation
z New scheme must not need constant supervision, tweaking or TLC
z Must be reliable, or must hand back to PLC with no process upset
Background
Project Methodology

O NWL R&D agree to fund Perceptive’s ‘audit’ of Train C

z Offline analysis of process and quality data

O Twin aims of the audit:

z Determine the potential for improved control
z Define the project scope, cost, resources and timescale
Background
Project Methodology (continued)

O Audit report highlights areas of opportunity

z Predictive control of DO setpoints to reduce over-aeration
z Early detection of process faults / issues
z Automation of ASP sludge inventory
z Sludge age control (SAS)
z Sludge blanket height
z Optimised RAS pumping
z Supplementary data using ‘soft’ sensors

O Projects is approved by site technical and ops teams, R&D, optimisation

O Funded by R&D, integrated by ICA, develop closely with Operations
Implementation
Project Challenges

O Interfacing
z Must adhere to NWL’s protocols (SQL not OPC)

O Sensors fail (no different to any other WwTW)

z System must either fail safe, or be intelligent enough to cope

O Multiple data sources

z Real time: instrumentation and process metrics
z Off-line: lab quality data
z Off-site: remote pumping stations (Eston, Portrack Cargofleet)

O Operator interface and reporting

Implementation
Project Challenges (continued)

O Process Understanding
z ‘brain dump’ from key personnel, tied to what the data was telling us

O Model Development
z Limited available data for foaming events, storm events
O BUT
z This is the beauty of model-based controllers
z Previously ‘unseen’ events can be simulated in the model
z Future process behaviour can be predicted, control strategy defined
Implementation
Project Delivery

O Interfacing
z SQL interface developed with full watchdog
z Fail-safe fallback to PLC, ‘bumpless’ transfer
z Modifications to Serck SCADA screens (additional operator information)

O Data Quality
z Real-time monitoring of critical data’s ‘usefulness’
z Real-time inferential ‘soft’ sensors
z Take over automatically when the hardware fails
z Supplementary soft sensors
z Provide ‘measurement’ of non-measured parameters
z eg SSVI, biomass health, real-time risk of non-compliance
Implementation
Project Delivery (continued)

O Data Sources
z WaterMV handles on-line, continuous and aperiodic data

O Intelligence-based Control and Optimisation

z Predictive control schemes developed for:
z ASP dissolved oxygen levels
z Sludge age optimisation (within storage constraints)
z FST sludge blanket level (including soft sensor fallback)
z Sludge health and settleability
z Storm event management
Project Outcomes
Data Quality (Sludge Blanket Detectors)

DQM (July) DQM August

FST 8 FST 8
FST 7 FST 1 FST 7
FST 1
FST 6 FST 2 FST 6
FST 2
FST 5 FST 3 FST 5
FST 4
FST 4 FST 4 FST 4
FST 5
FST 3 FST 5 FST 3
FST 6
FST 2 FST 6 FST 2
FST 8
FST 1 FST 8 FST 1

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Maintenance was performed on several probes, and some malfunctioning probes were replaced.
A clear improvement in “%Time Good” for the FST sludge blanket detectors has been seen.

FST 3 was out of service during few weeks of July/August for repairs.
FST 7 was out of service throughout the July/August period for repairs.
Project Outcomes
Soft Sensors

O Developed from existing data and on-site testing

O Validated off-line with ‘unseen’ data, before deployment

O Two types:
z Support existing hardware sensors in case of failure
z Provide unmeasured values for improved control
Project Outcomes
Soft Sensors – DO

Prediction continues, but the

confidence limits are now wider,
reflecting a deterioration of the
quality of the model

DQM Detects Failure of

‘Cause’ Signal..
Project Outcomes
Soft Sensors – DO Signal Reconstruction

DO probe was
being inspected
by site staff, so
‘froze’ at last
value read.

Value (in blue),

was detected as Frozen, Bad
bad

‘soft sensor’
value (in gold)
was used instead
for control.
Project Outcomes Statistically robust confidence
Soft Sensors – Sludge limits mean that the operating
envelope of the process is
Each sludge blanket always ‘safe’
signal is augmented
with a model based
soft sensor

Soft sensor usually agrees

DQM Detects instrument
with operator ‘dip’
failure, and switches
samples much better than
control to the soft
hardware sensor does.
sensor as necessary
Project Outcomes
Soft Sensors – SSVI
Project Outcomes
Process Monitoring
Clearly there are two
different types of ‘excursion’
from normal operation..

1st and 2nd Score signals plotted on Adding more types of ‘raw’ signal
an X-Y Chart. The ellipses represent allows you to characterise more
95% and 99% of ‘normal’ operation unique events.
Project Outcomes
Process Monitoring
Project Outcomes
Controller Design (ASP)

Sludge age
Sludge health
Project Outcomes
Controller Design (FSTs)

APC control of RAS flow

Co-ordinate multiple bellmouth positions to meet
target flow
Project Outcomes
Controller Design (GUI)

Normal, Suspect, Bad

DO Sensor Operation
Project Outcomes
Controller Design (GUI)

‘Sludge Health’
Looks at MLSS, SAS Solids,
Flow, SSVI, Sludge Blankets
Red line indicates alarm limit
Summary of
APC modes

Settleability
Estimate of FST performance
Red line indicates alarm limit
Project Outcomes
Controller Design (Configuration – ICA)

Mostly used just by Perceptive Engineering, or by the ICA team.

Project Outcomes
Predictive DO Control

PLC Control APC Control

Lane 2
Zone 12 DO

Lane 2
Zone 12 Air Valve

Lane 2
Zone 11 DO

Lane 2
Zone 11 Air Valve

Flow into Train C

Aeration
Project Outcomes
Treated Water Quality – COD

“Old” APC
Control Control

O Lower variability
z ‘Old’ real-time PLC control has deviation of 52mg/l
z Standard deviation with APC is 18mg/l
O Reduced risk of consent failure
z ‘Old’ control had 23% probability of COD failure
z APC Control probability <1% on COD
Project Outcomes
Treated Water Quality – TSS

“Old” APC
Control Control

O Lower variability
z ‘Old’ real-time PLC control has deviation of 58mg/l
z Standard deviation with APC is 18mg/l
O Reduced risk of consent failure
z ‘Old’ control had 35% probability of TSS failure
z APC Control probability <3% on TSS (including storm events)
Project Outcomes
Heads-Up – Abnormal Events

O Foam Events
z Data analysis identified causes
z high load, low DO, long sludge age, poor sludge settleability
z Control scheme manages sludge age AND appropriate aeration
z No early warning needed for hypo – no dosing since start of APC

O Storm Flow
Project Outcomes
Heads-Up – Abnormal Events

O Foam Events
z Data analysis identified causes
z high load, low DO, long sludge age, poor sludge settleability
z Control scheme manages sludge age AND appropriate aeration
z No early warning needed for hypo – no dosing since start of APC

O Storm Flow
z Multivariable control of sludge blankets, aeration, settleability
z Identification of first flush behaviour and storm flow behaviour
z Automated adjustment of SAS / RAS / DO targets
z Soft sensors to supplement sludge blanket detectors, DO sensors
z No early warning needed – no TSS excursion since start of APC
Project Outcomes
Heads-Up – Abnormal Events

O Foam Events
z Data analysis identified causes
z high load, low DO, long sludge age, poor sludge settleability
z Control scheme manages sludge age AND appropriate aeration
z No early warning needed for hypo – no dosing since start of APC

O Storm Flow
z Multivariable control of sludge blankets, aeration, settleability
z Identification of first flush behaviour and storm flow behaviour
z Automated adjustment of SAS / RAS / DO targets
z Soft sensors to supplement sludge blanket detectors, DO sensors
z No early warning needed – no TSS excursion since start of APC
Control, Monitoring, Reporting:
Tying it All Together

Flow to Full Treatment 1

Sludge Blanket Level FST 6

2
Sludge Blanket Level FST 8

WaterMV SSVI
WaterMV Alarm Limit for SSVI 3

WaterMV Sludge Health Metric

WaterMV Alarm Limit for SHM 4

2.
3.
1. Soft
4. Sludge
FFT sensor
increases
Health blanket
for –
Monitor SSVI
rises
nothing
in
shows
alarms, FST
unusual
sudden
6corrective
takes but falls
increase
inaction
8; nothing
intovalue
unusual
avoid–quality
sludgefailure
is not going to settle
on solids, alerts
supervisor via SCADA or software email
Bran Sands
Summary

O Process Capability
z New scheme coped perfectly with storm events 2011/12
z Soft sensors ensured robust operation during maintenance
z Compliance maintained / improved under all conditions
z Aeration energy reduced

O Operator buy-in:
z “We don’t even think about Train C any more”
Questions