Model-based measurement error detection of a coagulant dosage control system

  • W. LiuEmail author
  • H. Ratnaweera
  • K. Kvaal
Original Paper


Online instruments are widely used in wastewater treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants for process monitor and control. Although maintenances of online sensors are important routine works, potential measurement errors of online sensors are challenging not only monitoring of coagulation process but also the coagulant dosage control system, what this paper is focusing on. In order to estimate and detect the potential measurement errors, this paper proposes a concept of model-based measurement error detection. Relying on the model of the outlet software senor, the differences between simulations and measurements of outlet turbidity can be used as indicator of inlet measurement errors. Based on the concept, this paper enables to quantify the measurement errors and build up a novel detection method. In addition, the paper compares the proposed detection method with a traditional method—the normal variation range. The results show that the proposed method has a better efficiency to detect the measurement error.


Error detection Model Coagulation Online sensors Normal distribution 



The authors appreciate the assistance provided by NRA WWTP and DOSCON Co Ltd. ( for providing access to the multi-parameter-based dosing control system.


  1. Edward N, Charles F (2014) Essentials of testing and assessment: a practical guide to counselors, social workers and psychologists, 3rd edn. Brooks Cole, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  2. Huang MZ, Ma YW, Wan JQ, Wang Y (2009) Simulation of a paper mill wastewater treatment using a fuzzy neural network. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):5064–5070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Liu W, Ratnaweera H (2016) Improvement of multi-parameter based feed-forward coagulant dosing control systems with Feed-back functionalities. Water Sci Technol 56:67–78Google Scholar
  4. Liu W, Ratnaweera H (2017) Feed-forward based software sensor for outlet turbidity of coagulation process considering plug flow condition. Int J Environ Sci Technol 14(8):1689–1696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Liu W, Ratnaweera, H, Song HP (2013) Better treatment efficiencies and process economies with real-time coagulant dosing control. In: 11th IWA conference on instrumentation control and automation, Narbonne, FranceGoogle Scholar
  6. Lo C, Lynch P, Liu M (2016) Distributed model-based nonlinear sensor fault diagnosis in wireless sensor networks. Mech Syst Signal Process 66–67:470–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. MacGregor JF, Jaeckle C, Kiparissides C, Koutoudi M (1994) Process monitoring and diagnosis by multi block PLS methods. AIChE J 40:826–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Maier HR, Morgan B, Chow C (2004) Use of artificial neural networks for predicting optimal alum doses and treated water quality parameters. Environ Model Softw 19:485–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Maier HR, Jain A, Dandy GC, Sudheer K (2010) Method used for the development of neural networks for the prediction of water resource variables in river system: current status and future direction. Environ Model Softw 25:891–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Misra M, Kumar S, Qin SJ, Seemann D (2000) Recursive on-line data compression and error analysis using wavelet technology. AIChE J 46:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Rathnaweera S (2010) Modelling and optimization of wastewater coagulation process. PhD thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  12. Ratnaweera H, Fettig J (2015) State of the art of online monitoring and control of the coagulation process. Water 7:6574–6597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rieger L, Vanrolleghem PA (2008) MonEAU: a platform for water quality monitoring. Water Sci Technol 57:1079–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rieger L, Thomann M, Gujer W, Siegrist H (2005) Quantifying the uncertainty of on-line sensors at WWTPs during field operation. Water Res 39:5162–5174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robinson RB, Chris D, Odom K (2005) Identifying outliers in correlated water quality data. Environ Eng Sci 131:651–657Google Scholar
  16. Taylor JR (1999) An introduction to error analysis: the study of uncertainties in physical measurements. University Science Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Thomann M, Rieger L, Frommhold S, Siegrist H, Gujer W (2002) An efficient monitoring concept with control charts for on-line sensors. Water Sci Technol 46:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Venkat V, Raghunathan R, Kewen Y, Surya NK (2003) A review of process fault detection and diagnosis part I: quantitative model-based methods. Comput Chem Eng 27:293–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Winkler S, Rieger L, Saracevic E, Pressl A, Gruber G (2004) Application of ion-sensitive sensors in water quality monitoring. Water Sci Technol 50:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wu GD, Lo SL (2008) Predicting real-time coagulant dosage in water treatment by artificial neural networks and adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system. Eng Appl Artif Intell 21:1189–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yates DS, David SM, Daren SS (2008) The practice of statistics, 3rd edn. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Resources and Environmental EconomicsInner Mongolia University of Finance and EconomicsHohhotChina
  2. 2.Norwegian University of Life SciencesAasNorway

Personalised recommendations