Journal of Water Process Engineering 31 (2019) 100819

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Water Process Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jwpe

Plant-wide modeling and optimization of a large-scale WWTP using T

BioWin’s ASDM model
⁎
Abdelsalam Elawwad , Minerva Matta, Mohamed Abo-Zaid, Hisham Abdel-Halim
Environmental Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University El-Gamaa St., 12613, Giza, Egypt

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, a plant-wide model has been created for an Egyptian WWTP located in Cairo, namely the Gabal El-
Mathematical modeling Asfar, using BioWin 5.3 software. The model has been created according to the Good Modeling Practice protocol
Wastewater treatment where design reports, effluent analysis, and historical data have been collected - along with various site visits and
Plant-wide simulation a detailed sampling campaign. The collected data was used to acquire the necessary analysis for wastewater
BioWin
characterization and model calibration. The wastewater has been characterized and the model has been cali-
Optimization
brated according to STOWA protocol for calibration. Then, the model has been dynamically validated using the
analysis acquired over an entire year. The model’s accuracy was acceptable and therefore was created to perform
optimization studies. Multiple operational scenarios were simulated to achieve the highest effluent quality with
nitrogen removal, as the plant currently is not able to perform nitrification-denitrification. Different DO con-
centrations, RAS flows, SRTs and consequently WAS flows were varied to optimize the nitrogen removal. It was
found that nitrification and denitrification percentages of 94 and 62.4%, respectively, could be achieved easily
without modifying the WWTP’s configuration or unit capacities. This was achieved by increasing the SRT from
2.7 to 7 days, while converting some compartments of the aeration tank from aerobic to anoxic. Sludge and
water lines were both included in to assess the effect of any change in the operating conditions on all components
of the plant including sludge units.

1. Introduction BioWin© software (Envirosim, Canada) is a powerful simulator that has

Wastewater contains many water pollutants and must be treated
prior to being discharged into the environment. Biological treatment is
the most common method for treating wastewater and among the dif-
ferent types of biological treatments, the activated sludge process is the
method most often applied as it removes organic matter and nutrients
from the wastewater [1]. Anaerobic digestion is the most widely-used
biological process for sludge stabilization and energy recovery in was-
tewater treatment plants [2].
The various biological treatment processes used to treat wastewater
can be described by using mathematical equations and models [3].
Different mathematical models for biological wastewater treatment
have evolved in recent decades. Among them, activated sludge models
(ASMs) are those used most often in optimization studies for municipal
and industrial WWTPs [4]. ASM is a representation of microbial growth
and substrate utilization within an activated sludge system through a
dynamic mathematical expression. ASMs are incorporated at different
recent simulation platforms such as Simba, GPS-X, BioWin, etc.
plant-wide, built-in IWA models such as ASM1, ASM2d, and ASM3.
However, BioWin has its own general activated sludge-digestion model
(ASDM) which allows users to model different aerobic and anaerobic
biological processes without the coupling of more than one model [5].
The ASDM model has several processes which are divided into six
main models: an activated sludge model, an anaerobic digestion model,
settling models, a chemical precipitation model, a pH model, and an
aeration and gas transfer model. ASDM has a special anaerobic sludge
model that is characterised by different processes. These processes can
be classified into three major categories: heterotrophic growth through
fermentation, the growth and decay of propionic acid degrading
acetogenic bacteria, and the growth and decay of methanogenic bac-
teria. BioWin is used frequently in the literature for optimizing muni-
cipal WWTPs [6,7] and industrial WWTPs [8,9].
Few researches applied full-scale plant-wide modeling including
anaerobic digesters because of its complexity [10]. In plant-wide
modeling, the WWTP is treated as a system that is completely in-
tegrated, where primary settlers and final clarification units, biological

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: elawwad@cu.edu.eg (A. Elawwad), minervaav@cu.edu.eg (M. Matta), eng2abozaid@gmail.com (M. Abo-Zaid),
hishama.halim2011@gmail.com (H. Abdel-Halim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.100819
Received 8 December 2018; Received in revised form 2 March 2019; Accepted 29 March 2019
Available online 08 April 2019
2214-7144/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Elawwad, et al.
reactors, sludge digester units, sludge thickening units, sludge dewa-
tering systems, and any other related processes are linked together
[11]. Regardless of its complexity, plant-wide modeling of WWTPs can
be used as a base for any future applications, optimization studies, or
for developing a process for achieving the highest effluent quality levels
and energy savings. Use of the BioWin general model is expected to
reduce the time and complexity of plant-wide modeling, especially
huge and multi-process modeling. So, in this study, BioWin’s ASDM
model was used to optimize the case study of Gabal El-Asfar WWTP
(operated by Degrémont) which is a mega WWTP and the largest in
Middle East. It treats wastewater with an activated sludge process and
has anaerobic sludge digesters for sludge treatment. The effluent is
discharged into a nearby agricultural canal, yet the effluent eventually
reaches El-Manzala Lake through the Bahr El-Baqar agricultural drain -
which is already suffering from environmental problems. Operational
decisions for such huge plants should not be taken lightly since they
directly impact the receiving bodies of water. To the best of our
knowledge, plant-wide modelling studies for Mega WWTPs WWTP are
rare. In this paper, different operational routines were investigated, and
multiple optimization alternatives were proposed with the purpose of
achieving better effluent quality for Gabal El-Asfar WWTP.
2. Material and methods
For the purposes of Gabal El-Asfar modeling, Good Modeling
Practice (GMP) protocol is followed to show clear and organized steps.
Historical data and design reports have been collected and 11 site visits
have been made, in addition to a sampling campaign for performing
important analyses that are not included in the plant’s routine analyses
for proper wastewater characterization, and a successful model cali-
bration according to GMP protocol requirements.
2.1. WWTP process description
Gabal El-Asfar has different stages, where Gabal El-Asfar Contract
19, the case study of this paper, has a design capacity of 500,000 m3/
day. Gabal El-Asfar Contract 19 has six circular primary settling tanks
(PST), each with a diameter of 53 m and a water depth of 3.2 m, and
eight biological aeration tanks (AT) with a total volume 109,840 m3. As
shown in Fig. 1, AT has a special configuration where its three-zoned
circular aeration tanks include a central circular zone divided into two
subzones (Zone #1 and #2), and an external plug-flow ring zone (Zone
#3). Zone #1 and #2 represent one-third of the AT’s volume, receive
half of the aeration capacity, and are constantly aerated to eliminate
Fig. 1. Schematic of the Aeration Tanks in Gabal El-Asfar Contract 19.
2
Journal of Water Process Engineering 31 (2019) 100819
between 70 and 80% of the biodegradable organic pollutants. After
that, the flow is directed to Zone #3 which represents the remaining
two-thirds of the AT’s total volume and receives the other half of the
aeration capacity to biodegrade the rest of organic pollutants and sti-
mulate the nitrification process. Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the AT and
its current aeration routine. Moreover, it has six secondary clarifiers
(FST) that each has a diameter of 52 m and water depth of 3.9 m. Gabal
El-Asfar Contract 19 is equipped with a sludge thickening system
composed of gravity thickeners (STT) and dissolved air floatation (DAF)
for thickening of primary and secondary sludge, respectively. Then the
thickened sludge is digested in eight primary anaerobic digesters (PD),
each with a volume of 9760 m3, plus two secondary digesters (SD) each
having a volume of 8753 m3. Finally, the digested sludge is dewatered
in a mechanical dewatering house (MDH) using a belt press system.
2.2. Historical analysis and sampling campaign
In Gabal El-Asfar Contract 19 WWTP, the flow, oxygen concentra-
tion, and pH are measured online, while most of the other parameters
are measured in the lab. These are composite samples that are collected
daily from different sampling points throughout the treatment process.
As per the calibration protocol, a sampling campaign was performed to
verify the historical data; to complete the plant’s routine data; to
measure the mass balance requirements such as flow data, sludge
production, and SRT; to calculate the key conversions of N and COD; to
measure the influent characterization, including raw and settled in-
fluent; to measure the effluent characterization; and to set up a good
base for model calibration.
The sampling program was executed in five days: 24-hour compo-
site samples were used for raw water influent, PST effluent and FST
treated effluent, while the rest of the measurements were performed
using four grab samples, due to insufficient tools and resources. Sludge
analysis was also performed for the thickeners influent, effluent, DAF
influent, DAF effluent, primary, and secondary digesters, and finally at
the mechanical dewatering houses. During the sampling program, the
weather was favourable. There was no rainfall and the plant operated
through dry weather conditions at an average air temperature of 24 °C.
Wastewater measurements were performed following the Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater [12].
The influent and effluent wastewater characteristics obtained from
the sampling campaign are summarized in Table 1. Generally, Gabal El-
Asfar has a high effluent quality in terms of BOD, COD, and TSS re-
moval, and the influent wastewater is very stable in terms of flow and
pollutants. Also, the PST and FST are operated with high solids removal
A. Elawwad, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 31 (2019) 100819

Table 1 shown in Table 2.

Raw Influent and Effluent Sampling Campaign Analysis Average Results.
Parameter Unit Influent Effluent 2.5. Model calibration and validation
3
Flow m /d 502,380 ± 930 532,055 ± 1948
The stoichiometric and kinetic parameters were mainly calibrated
COD mg/l 274.7 26.9 ± 5.5
Filtered COD mg/l 109.9 23 ± 3.6 according to STOWA protocol for calibration [13]. The model was
Acetate mg/l 8.3 – dynamically validated using the data acquired for a whole year, from
cBOD5 mg/l 146.7 11 ± 0.8 May to June of the following year. The calibrated model was used to
Filtered cBOD5 mg/l 60.0 –
perform optimization studies to achieve complete nitrogen removal in
TSS mg/l 202.7 8.1 ± 0.5
VSS mg/l 127.3 5.9 ± 0.3
the effluent and to reduce the operational costs. Optimization was
TKN mg/l 32.7 16 ± 1.3 completed by running multiple simulations on different operational
NH4-N mg/l 21.0 12.4 ± 1.1 routines, such as changing the waste sludge (WAS) and the return
NO3+NO2-N mg/l 2.8 7.5 ± 2.3 sludge (RAS) flow rates and trying different aeration routines in the
PO4-P mg/l 4.8 3.6
aeration tanks, including creating anoxic zones to perform nitrification-
pH – 7.09 7.07
Temp. °C 24 – denitrification, etc.

3. Results and discussion

efficiency.
2.3. BioWin plant-wide model
Biowin 5.3 software is used to create a plant-wide model for the
WWTP. The plant-wide model simulates the primary settlers, biological
aeration tanks, final clarifiers, gravity thickener, dissolved air floata-
tion, anaerobic digesters, and the mechanical de-watering of Gabal El-
Asfar Contract 19. Fig. 2 shows the BioWin 5.3 platform layout for the
plant-wide model.
To model the aeration tank shown in Fig. 1 in BioWin, seven bior-
eactors were used. For the two compartments (Zone #1 and #2) in the
central part of the aeration tank, each one is half-circle in shape and a
completely mixed tank. So, two in-series complete-mix reactors were
used to simulate these two compartments, as shown in Fig. 2. The ex-
ternal plug flow zone of the aeration tanks (Zone #3) is similar to
oxidation ditches in shape. So, five complete-mix reactors in series
(subzones) with flow recirculation were used to simulate this external
zone as recommended by [8] for oxidation ditches. Recirculation of
water inside Zone #3 was modelled by assuming that 1:15 of the flow of
the aeration tank goes to the final clarifiers, whereas the other flow was
recirculated. This ratio has been assessed by measuring water velocity
inside Zone #3, which founds to be 0.3 m/sec.
2.4. Wastewater characterization
The resulting sampling campaign data was used in wastewater
characterization. Raw wastewater characterization was performed ac-
cording to the STOWA protocol for wastewater characterization [13].
The calibrated parameters used in the BioWin plant-wide model are
3.1. Model calibration
The default values of stoichiometric and kinetic parameters in
BioWin were used for the first run of the model. Then, organic nitrogen
factors were adjusted to match the measured influent TKN and NH4-N
values. The inert particulate COD was then adjusted to match the
model-predicted sludge production (VSS & TSS) of the aeration tanks
and the effluent soluble inert COD. Finally, the parameters shown in
Table 2 were adjusted with the aid of the sensitivity analysis study
performed by [6]. The model calibration was performed according to
the sequence advised by STOWA protocol for calibration: the ni-
trification process was calibrated to match the measured effluent am-
monia by increasing the decay of autotrophic bacteria from its default
value of 0.17 to 0.33 d−1 for ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. This is in
agreement with [14] who increased it to 0.3 d−1 and also [5] who
increased it to 0.23 d−1. The substrate (NH4) half-saturation parameter
was increased from its default value of 0.7–1.20 mg N/L, which is in
agreement with [14] who increased it to 1.3 mg N/L. The maximum
specific growth rate of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria was reduced from
its default value of 0.9 to be 0.8 d−1. Different researchers modified this
parameter in their simulation studies as [10] who reduced it from 1.0 to
0.46 d−1 in ASM/ADM integrated model. The denitrification process
was calibrated to match the measured effluent nitrate by adjusting the
anoxic growth factor from the Biowin default of 0.5 to 0.4. SRT was
calculated based on the model predicted values.
The COD effluent was calibrated by adjusting the maximum specific
growth rate, aerobic decay rate and substrate (COD) half saturation
(Table 2). The maximum specific growth rate was adjusted from 3.2 to
2.5 d−1. This also accords with [15] who reduced this parameter to 2

Fig. 2. Plant-wide BioWin Model Layout for Gabal El-Asfar Contract 19 WWTP (adapted from BioWin 5.3).

3
A. Elawwad, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 31 (2019) 100819

Table 2
Wastewater Characterization and Calibrated Stoichiometric and Kinetic Parameters in BioWin 5.3.
Parameter BioWin Default Value Calculated/ Adjusted Value

Characterization of Raw Wastewater

Fbs – Readily biodegradable including Acetate [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.16 0.105
Fac – Acetate [gCOD/g of readily biodegradable COD] 0.15 0.288
Fxsp – non-colloidal slowly biodegradable [gCOD/g of slowly degradable COD] 0.75 0.57
Fus – non-biodegradable soluble [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.05 0.051
Fup – non-biodegradable particulate [gCOD/g of total COD] 0.13 0.08
Fna – Ammonia [gNH3-N/gTKN] 0.66 0.64
Fnox – Particulate organic nitrogen [gN/g Organic N] 0.5 0.5
Fnus – Soluble non-biodegradable TKN [gN/gTKN] 0.02 0.02
FupN – N: COD ratio for non-biodegradable part. COD [gN/gCOD] 0.035 0.035
Fpo4 – Phosphate [gPO4-P/gTP] 0.5 0.5
FupP – P: COD ratio for influent non-biodegradable part. COD [gP/gCOD] 0.011 0.011
Calibrated Stoichiometric and Kinetic Parameters
Heterotrophic Bacteria Max. spec. growth rate [1/d] 3.2 2.5
Aerobic decay rate [1/d] 0.62 0.9
Substrate half sat. [mgCOD/L] 5 10
Anoxic growth factor 0.5 0.45
Nitrifying Bacteria Aerobic decay rate [1/d] 0.17 0.33
Substrate (NH4) half sat. [mgN/L] 0.7 1.2
Max. spec. growth rate [1/d] 0.9 0.75
Stoichiometric parameters Particulate substrate COD:VSS ratio [mgCOD/mgVSS] 1.6 1.41
Particulate inert COD:VSS ratio [mgCOD/mgVSS] 1.6 1.41

d−1. Also according to [9], this parameter ranged widely from 1 to 8 in
the literature. Moreover [16], estimated this parameter using respiro-
metric tests to be between 0.25 and 0.52 d−1 in different WWTPs. The
aerobic decay rate was increased from 0.62 to 0.9 d−1 as suggested by
[7]. According to [13], it can be ranged widely from 0.05 to 1.6 d−1.
The substrate (COD) half saturation was adjusted from 5 to 10 mgCOD/
L. This is in agreement with those obtained by [7] who increased this
parameter to be 15 mgCOD/L, and [13] who showed that the range of
this parameter was from 3 to 13 mgCOD/L. In another study by [16],
the substrate (COD) half saturation was estimated using respirometric
tests to be between 0.23 and 10.7 mgCOD/L in different WWTPs.
The model predictions of MLVSS were achieved in BioWin by
modifying the ratio of COD to VSS. The particulate substrate and inert
COD: VSS ratios was adjusted from their default values of 1.6 to 1.41
(mgCOD/mgVSS), whereas they were adjusted by [3] to 1.48, and by
[8] to 1.42.
3.2. Model validation
The calibrated model was dynamically validated using the historical
data for one year. As the temperature in Cairo is always warm, inlet
wastewater temperature varied between a minimum value of 19 °C in
winter to a maximum value of 32 °C in the summer. During the vali-
dation period, the operator ran the WWTP at SRTs between two during
summer and four days during winter, to sustain the MLSS in the aera-
tion tank in the range between 1000 and 1500 mg/l. The daily values of
temperature and SRT over the whole year were entered into the soft-
ware. Fig. 3 shows the comparison between the measured and simu-
lated values of effluent COD, BOD, NH4, and TKN. The measured and
simulated values of effluent characteristics were compared and the
average relative deviation (ARD) was calculated for the whole year by
using the simulated data and the measured data as a simple check for
the accuracy of the model as described by [7].
The model showed a good representation of the measured data for
COD, BOD, TSS, NH4, and TKN. The average relative deviation between
the simulated data and the measured data for the whole year was cal-
culated where ARD values were 19.1, 18.3, 16.7, 18.7, and 17.8% for
BOD, COD, TSS, and TKN and NH4, respectively. ARD values were less
than 20% and were considered acceptable according to [7]. ARD in the
range of 20% was considered good as the values for effluent measure-
ments are usually low considering the error in analytical measurements.
Moreover, the operational conditions vary throughout the year in terms
of incoming wastewater characterization - primary sludge flow varia-
tions were not taken into consideration during the study. Also, the re-
moval efficiency of PST and FST in the model was considered constant
over the year, but in reality it was variable and dependent on the in-
coming flow’s variation. The model also showed a good prediction for
MLSS and MLVSS (Fig. 4) and biogas production (Fig. 5) with ARD
values of 8.5, 10.4 and 20.8%, respectively.
3.3. Optimization of nitrification and denitrification process
Generally, Gabal El-Asfar had a high effluent quality in terms of
BOD, COD, and TSS removal, yet it was not operated for nitrification
and denitrification, even though the plant had the potential to perform
nitrification and denitrification without the deterioration of the quality
in terms of BOD, COD, and TSS. Thus, a step-wise optimization was
conducted on the validated model to maximize the utilization of the
WWTP with minimal changes in operating costs. The optimization
study was carried for the WWTP’ situation on November where the
detailed sampling campaign was conducted in this month. The RAS and
WAS flow rates were 77% of the influent flow and 17,000 m3/day, re-
spectively, and temperature was 24 °C. The aeration regime that all
compartments in the aeration tank (Fig. 1) were aerated at constant
dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the various aeration tank’s
compartments which are 1.6, 1.2, and 0.8 mg/l in Zones #1, #2, and
#3 of the aeration tanks, respectively. Table 3 shows multiple opera-
tional scenarios and the results of these routines which are discussed
below.
3.3.1. Optimization of nitrification process
The first aim of the optimization study was to reach values near to
95% of nitrification. The current nitrification is 56.8% (Table 3). The
ammonia uptake occurred due to first the nitrogen required for bac-
terial growth which represents about 12% of bacterial cell mass, and
second due to the conversion of ammonia to nitrate through nitrifica-
tion process by the action of nitrifying bacteria (nitrifiers). Different
important factors affect the growth of nitrifiers such as temperature,
available DO, RAS ratio of influent flow, and sludge age [1]. Although
the temperature of 24 °C in the current situation is preferable for ni-
trification, it seems that nitrifiers growth is not enough.
It was noticed that MLSS and MLVSS in the aeration tanks are a bit
low which could be increased by increasing the RAS rate. The capacity
of the installed RAS pumps is 100% of the average flow (500 000 m3/d).

4
A. Elawwad, et al.
Fig. 3. Validated Model Simulation Results Over a Year for A) Effluent BOD, B) Effluent COD, C) Effluent Ammonia, D) Effluent TKN, and E) Effluent Nitrates.
So, for scenario no. 1 of optimization (Table 3), final clarifiers’ under-
flow rate was increased from the 424,062 m3/d (RAS = 77% of influent
flow) to 500,000 m3/d (RAS = 91% of current influent flow). This step
was successful in increasing the MLSS, the SRT was increased a bit to
2.9 days and consequently, nitrification was increased from
56.8–75.6%.
For scenario no.2, the aeration was increased to study its effect on
the nitrification process, where DO was increased in Zone#3 from 0.8
5
Journal of Water Process Engineering 31 (2019) 100819
to 2 mg/l (Table 3). The maximum aeration capacity of the plant
(141,000 m3/hr) was considered so that large changes in the blowers’
capacity could be avoided as this would mean a need for new blowers
and consequently additional costs. No significant enhancement was
noticed thus we considered that DO in the aeration tank was not the
limiting factor for the nitrification process.
For scenarios 3 and 4, the SRT was gradually increased by reducing
the WAS flow rate which was successful in achieving high ammonia
A. Elawwad, et al.
Fig. 4. Validated Model Simulation Results Over a Year A) Effluent TSS, B) MLSS in aeration tanks, and C) MLVSS in aeration tanks.
removal. The required 95% nitrification was achieved at SRT of 5 days.
The required air-flow was 92,201 m3/hr which was below the max-
imum blowers' capacity. The MLSS and MLVSS increased from its cur-
rent values of 1.34 and 0.94 g/l to 1.85 and 1.27 g/l, respectively
(Table 3). Sludge age is an important factor for nitrifiers growth as at
low sludge ages, nitrifiers are washed out of the system. As in low
sludge ages, the nitrifiers’ growth rate is slower than the disposal rate of
the nitrifiers through the waste sludge [1].
3.3.2. Optimization of denitrification process
The second aim of the optimization was to reduce nitrate in the
effluent by converting it to nitrogen gas through the biological deni-
trification process. The results of this step are summarized in Table 3 for
operational Scenarios 5 through 18. For the current situation, it was
noted that nitrates with a value of 7.5 mg N/l were disposed of with the
effluent water. This value was increased to 18.3 mg N/l after per-
forming the optimization of nitrification process in scenario 5 and the
denitrification efficiency was 32.9%. The nitrates in the effluent were
the result of the conversion of ammonia by nitrifiers.
For scenarios 5–11, different DO concentrations were simulated in
the different aeration tank zones while keeping WAS flow rates con-
stant. Some of this nitrate was disposed with effluent water and the rest
was recirculated with RAS to Zone #1 of the aeration tank. This nitrate
can be removed by improving the denitrification process in the system.
Moreover, improving the denitrification process will help reduce the
Fig. 5. Measured and Simulated Biogas flow rates Over a Year.
6
Journal of Water Process Engineering 31 (2019) 100819
aeration costs (as in the denitrification process), nitrate can be the
electron acceptor for denitrifying bacteria. Subsequently, COD is re-
moved as one gram of nitrate-nitrogen is equivalent to 2.86 g of oxygen
in removing COD [2]. In Scenario 5, the DO concentrations were re-
duced to 0.8 mg/l in all compartments of Zone #3 which improved the
denitrification to 48.3%. More improvement can be done by removing
the recirculated nitrate with RAS which has been done in Scenarios 6
through 11 (Table 3), where the first part of Zone #3 was converted to
anoxic zone by turning the aeration off. Meanwhile, different DO con-
centrations were simulated in the different aeration tank zones in these
scenarios. Denitrification of 53.4% was obtained in Scenario 11, how-
ever, nitrification was reduced to 83.8%.
In Scenarios 12 through 18, SRT was increased gradually in order to
improve the nitrification process and therefore convert more ammonia
to nitrate to be available for denitrification. Meanwhile, different DO
concentrations were experienced in the different zones of the aeration
tanks. In Scenarios 13 and 14, a different approach was tried where
Zone #1 was kept aerated to convert more slowly biodegradable to
readily biodegradable COD while converting Zone #2 to anoxic zone to
remove this COD portion and available nitrate by denitrifying bacteria.
The best performance was obtained in Scenario 18 where ammonia
decreased to 2 mg N/l with nitrification and denitrification efficiencies
of 94 and 62.4%, respectively. The required air-flow was 94,284 m3/hr
which was below the maximum blowers' capacity. A small increase in
the effluent COD was noticed, while BOD was decreased a bit which is
A. Elawwad, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 31 (2019) 100819

Table 3
Multiple Operational Scenarios and Results.
Scenario SRT days Aeration Scheme (DO in mg/l) Effluent Quality (mg/l) Removal % Aeration Tank

Zone#1 Zone#2 Zone#3 COD BOD NH4-N NOx-N TN Nit. De-nit. MLSS g/l MLVSS g/l Air-flow m3/hr

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Current 2.7 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 27.7 10.9 14.1 7.4 23.4 56.8 28.4 1.3 0.9 53,320
1 2.9 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 28.2 10.7 8.0 13.6 23.6 75.6 28.0 1.4 1.0 69,834
2 2.9 1.6 1.2 2 2 2 2 2 27.1 10.0 8.0 11.9 21.9 75.7 33.1 1.4 1.0 68,079
3 4 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 27.9 9.4 2.5 17.8 22.4 92.3 31.6 1.8 1.3 87,139
4 5 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 29.1 9.2 1.6 18.2 22.0 95.1 32.9 2.2 1.5 92,201
5 5 0 1.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 29.7 9.7 3.5 11.3 16.9 89.4 48.3 2.2 10.2 78,233
6 5 0 1.2 0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 30.2 10.0 7.7 6.3 16.2 76.3 50.6 2.2 1.5 79,310
7 5 2 1.6 0 1.2 0 1.2 0 29.6 9.4 13.1 2.2 17.3 59.9 47.2 2.3 1.5 103,624
8 5 1.6 0 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 29.5 9.6 5.0 9.1 16.3 84.6 50.2 2.2 1.5 100,570
9 5 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 29.4 9.6 3.7 11.6 17.5 88.6 46.6 2.2 1.5 135,266
10 5 0 1.2 0 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 30.2 10.0 7.7 6.3 16.2 76.3 50.6 2.2 1.5 79,310
11 5 0 1.2 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 29.8 9.9 5.3 7.8 15.2 83.8 53.4 2.2 1.5 95,664
12 6 0 1.2 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 31.0 9.7 3.3 9.0 14.5 89.9 55.7 2.6 1.7 102,473
13 6 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 30.3 9.3 4.1 5.5 11.8 87.3 63.9 2.6 1.7 114,100
14 6 1.2 0 0 0 2 2 2 30.4 9.4 4.6 4.6 11.4 85.8 65.0 2.6 1.7 106,915
15 6 0 1.2 0 0 2 2 2 30.9 9.7 4.7 6.2 13.1 85.8 60.0 2.6 1.7 109,133
16 7 0 1.6 0 0 2 2 2 32.1 9.5 1.5 9.9 13.7 95.6 58.1 3.0 1.9 117,922
17 7 0 1.2 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.8 32.1 9.5 2.0 8.0 12.3 94.0 62.3 2.9 1.9 92,934
18 7 0 1.6 0 1.2 1.2 0.8 0.8 32.0 9.4 2.0 8.0 12.3 94.0 62.4 2.9 1.9 94,284

attributed to the increase in soluble unbiodegradable products from the Acknowledgements

endogenous respiration of bacteria.
Although a considerable amount of nitrogen still exists in the ef-
fluent, however, this was the best denitrification efficiency that can be
achieved considering the existing plant’s configuration and reactors’
volumes. Further improvement for TN removal could be achieved by
increasing the volume of pre-anoxic reactor (Zone #1) which is not
applicable and at the same time recycling the effluent flow which
contains nitrate to Zone #1. The other option will be adding a post-
denitrification step and inject methanol as a carbon source. Both op-
tions will require modification the reactors’ configuration and adding
new equipment which was not the objective of this study.
4. Conclusion
In this study, successful plant-wide modelling was performed for the
largest WWTP in Egypt, Gabal El-Asfar WWTP. STOWA protocol was
used for characterization of wastewater, and BioWin’s ASDM model was
used and calibrated according to STOWA protocol, with some adjust-
ment of the model’s stoichiometric and kinetic parameters. The model
was dynamically validated using the data acquired for a whole year.
ARD values from throughout the whole year, between the simulated
data and the measured data, were less than 20%. This confirms the
good calibration of the model. A step-wise optimization was conducted
on the validated model to maximize the utilization of the WWTP with
minimal changes in operating costs. Different DO concentrations, RAS
flows, SRTs and consequently WAS flows were varied to optimize the
nitrogen removal. It was found that nitrification and denitrification
percentages of 94 and 62.4%, respectively, could be achieved easily
with the same WWTP’s configuration. This was achieved by increasing
the SRT from 2.7 to 7 days, while converting some compartments of the
aeration tank from aerobic to anoxic. Bio-Win’s ASDM model was ef-
fective and was able to predict the dynamic behaviour of WWTP. Plant
wide modelling was a useful tool that allowed us to predict the per-
formance of the plant under different operating conditions without the
need to apply the suggested changes to the full-scale WWTP thus af-
fecting the normal operation of the plant. This case study can be used in
the future as a guide for performing plant-wide modelling and opti-
mization for similar WWTPs. This study was limited by the absence of
historical measurements for phosphorus. Further work needs to be done
to validate the model in phosphorus removal.
The authors want to thank the technicians and operation manager at
Gabal Al-Asfar wastewater treatment plant and the technicians at Cairo
University’s Faculty of Engineering Laboratory for their help with the
analyses. This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
[1] M. Henze, M.C.M. Loosdrecht, G.A. Ekama, D. Brdjanovic, Biological Wastewater
Treatment Principles, Modeling and Design, IWA Publishing, London, 2008.
[2] G. Tchobanoglous, H. Stensel, R. Tsuchihashi, F. Burton, Wastewater Engineering:
Treatment and Resource Recovery, Metcalf & Eddy, fifth ed., McGraw-Hill
Education, New York, 2013.
[3] D. Brdjanovic, S.C.F. Meijer, C.M. Lopez-Vazquez, C.M. Hooijmans, M.C.M. van
Loosdrecht, Applications of Activated Sludge Models, first ed., IWA Publishing,
London, 2015.
[4] M. Henze, W. Gujer, T. Mino, M. van Loosdrecht, Activated Sludge Models ASM1,
ASM2, ASM2d and ASM3, IWA Scientific and Technical Report no. 9, IWA
Publishing, London, 2006, https://doi.org/10.2166/9781780402369.
[5] A. Elawwad, Optimized biological nitrogen removal of high-strength ammonium
wastewater by activated sludge modelling, J. Water Reuse Desal. 8 (3) (2018)
393–403, https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2017.200.
[6] E. Liwarska-Bizukojc, R. Biernacki, Identification of the most sensitive parameters
in the activated sludge model implemented in BioWin software, Bioresour. Technol.
101 (19) (2010) 7278–7285, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.04.065.
[7] E. Liwarska-Bizukojc, D. Olejnik, R. Biernacki, S. Ledakowicz, Calibration of a
complex activated sludge model for the full-scale wastewater treatment plant,
Bioproc. Biosyst. Eng. 34 (2011) 659–670, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00449-011-
0515-1.
[8] A. Elawwad, A. Naguib, H. Abdel-halim, Modeling of phenol and cyanide removal
in a full-scale coke-oven wastewater treatment plant, Desalin. Water Treat. 57 (52)
(2016) 25181–25193, https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2016.1148637.
[9] A. Elawwad, M.S. Zaghloul, H. Abdel-Halim, Simulation of municipal-industrial full
scale WWTP in an arid climate by application of ASM3, J. Water Reuse Desal. 7 (1)
(2017) 37–44, https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd.2016.154.
[10] C.M. Lopez-Vazquez, M. Mithaiwala, M.S. Moussa, M.C.M. van Loosdrecht,
D. Brdjanovic, Coupling ASM3 and ADM1 for wastewater treatment process opti-
misation and biogas production in a developing country: case-study Surat, India, J.
Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 3 (1) (2013) 12–25, https://doi.org/10.2166/washdev.
2013.017.
[11] C. Rosen, D. Vrecko, K. Gernaey, M.N. Pons, U. Jeppsson, Implementing ADM1 for
plant-wide benchmark simulations in Matlab/Simulink, water sci, Technol. 54 (4)
(2006) 11–19, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.521.
[12] E.W. Rice, R.B. Baird, A.D. Eaton, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, Twenty, third ed., WEF, New York, 2017.
[13] J.J. Hulsbeek, J. Kruit, P. Roeleveld, M. van Loosdrecht, A practical protocol for
dynamic modelling of activated sludge systems, Water Sci. Technol. 45 (6) (2002)
127–136, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2002.0100.

7
A. Elawwad, et al. Journal of Water Process Engineering 31 (2019) 100819

[14] A. Eidroos, Optimization of Wastewater Treatment Plant Using Plant-wide j.watres.2007.03.029.

Modeling Tool, Raysut WWTP Salalah-oman, Msc thesis Unesco-IHE, Delft, 2014. [16] R. Vitanza, I. Colussi, A. Cortesi, V. Gallo, Implementing a respirometry-based
[15] G. Sin, P. Vanrolleghem, Extensions to modeling aerobic carbon degradation using model into BioWin software to simulate wastewater treatment plant operations, J.
combined respirometric–titrimetric measurements in view of activated sludge Water Process Eng. 9 (2016) 267–275, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2015.02.
model calibration, Water Res. 41 (15) (2007) 3345–3358, https://doi.org/10.1016/ 007.