Comparison of MPC and PI Control Strategies for Activated Sludge Process

JASEM Front Page

This paper deals with comparison of PI Controller with model predictive control (MPC) applied to benchmark simulation model no.1 (BSM1) of an activated sludge process in order to maintain the effluent quality within the limits. The objective is to compare the control strategies based on better performance with respect to effluent concentration under specified limits and operating costs. In this study, the control strategies such as PI and model predictive control (MPC) are compared and applied to control the dissolve oxygen concentration in the last aerobic reactor of the activated sludge process. Also, the nitrate concentration is controlled in the second anoxic reactor using PI control strategy. Simulations are performed using sewage treatment plant influent data. The influent fractionation is carried out using activated sludge model no.1 (ASM1). The results of the dynamic simulation indicate that model predictive control is more effective than PI control in meeting the effluent limits especially when ammonia concentration is considered significant. By comparing performance evaluation criteria, dissolved oxygen MPC and nitrate PI (MPC-PI) control strategies have achieved almost the same operating costs as with dissolved oxygen PI and nitrate PI (PI-PI) control strategies.
Keywords:Activated sludge process, Benchmark Simulation Model No.1, MPC, Operating cost, PI control


  1. M. O’Brien, J. Mack, B. Lennox, D. Lovett, and A. Wall, Model predictive control of an activated sludge process: A case study, Control Eng. Pract., 19, 2011, 54-61.
  2. B. Carlsson, and A. Rehnstrom, Control of an activated sludge process with nitrogen removal – a benchmark study, Water Sci. Technol., 45(4-5), 2002, 135-142.
  3. J.B. Copp, The COST Simulation Benchmark (Description and Simulator Manual, Office for Official Publication of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002).
  4. M. Yong, P. Yongzhen, and U. Jeppsson, Dynamic evaluation of integrated control strategies for enhanced nitrogen removal in activated sludge processes, Control Engineering Practice, 14, 2006, 1269-1278.
  5. K.V. Gernaey, U. Jeppsson, P.A. Vanrolleghem, and J.B. Copp, Benchmarking of control strategies for wastewater treatment plants (Scientific and Technical Report Series No.23, IWA Publishing, London, 2014).
  6. Z. Yuan, and J. Keller, Integrated control of nitrate recirculation and external carbon addition in a predenitrification system, Water Sci. Technol., 48(11-12), 2003, 345-354.
  7. P. Ingildsen, G. Olsson, and Z. Yuan, A hedging point strategy – balancing effluent quality, economy and robustness in the control of wastewater treatment plants, Water Sci. Technol., 45(4-5), 2002, 317-324.
  8. W. Shen, X. Chen, and J.P. Corriou, Application of model predictive control to the BSM1 benchmark of wastewater treatment process, Comp. Chem. Eng., 32, 2008, 2849-2856.
  9. S.J. Qin, and T.A. Badgwell, A survey of industrial model predictive control technology, Control Eng. Pract., 11(7), 2003, 733-764.
  10. D.E. Seborg, T.F. Edgar, and D.A. Mellichamp, Process dynamics and control (John Wiley & Sons Asia Pte. Ltd., Singapore, 2004).
  11. G. Insel, Effects of design and aeration control parameters on simultaneous nitrification and denitrification (SNdN) performance for activated sludge process, Env. Eng. Sci., 24(5), 2007, 675-686.
  12. J.B. Copp, H. Spanjers, and P.A. Vanrolleghem, Respirometry in control of the activated sludge process: Benchmarking control strategies (IWA Scientific and Technical Report No: 11, London, 2002).
  13. G. Sin, G. Insel, D.S. Lee, and P.A. Vanrolleghem, Optimal but robust N and P removal in SBRs: A systematic study of operating scenarios, Water Sci. Technol., 50(10), 2004, 97-105.
  14. G. Insel, G. Sin, D.S. Lee, I. Nopens, and P.A. Vanrolleghem, A calibration methodology and model-based system analysis for nutrient removing SBRs under reduced aeration, J. Chem. Tech. Biot., 81(4), 2006, 679-687.
  15. M.A. Steffens, and P.A. Lant, Multivariable control of nutrient-removing activated sludge systems, Water Res., 33(12), 1999, 2864-2878.
  16. B. Holenda, E. Domokos, A. Redey, and J. Fazakas, Dissolved oxygen control of the activated sludge wastewater treatment process using model predictive control, Computers and Chemical Engineering, 32, 2008, 1270-1278.
  17. M. Henze, W. Gujer, T. Mino, and M. Van Loosdrecht, Activated Sludge Models ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d, and ASM3 (IWA Publishing, London, 2000).
  18. I. Takacs, G.G. Patry, and D. Nolasco, A dynamic model of the clarification thickening process, Water Res., 25, 1991, 1263-1271.
  19. J. Alex, L. Benedetti, J. Copp, K.V. Gernaey, U. Jeppsson, I. Nopens, M.N. Pons, L. Rieger, C. Rosen, J.P. Steyer, P. Vanrolleghem, and S. Winkler, Benchmark Simulation Model no.1 (BSM1) (Technical report, Dept. of Industrial Electrical Engineering and Automation, Lund University, Sweden, 2008).
  20. A.C.B. Araujo, S. Gallani, M. Mulas, and G. Olsson, Systematic approach to the design of operation and control policies in activated sludge systems, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 50, 2011, 8542-8557.
  21. J.M. Maciejowski, Predictive control with constraints (Prentice-Hall, Harlow, 2002).