Upload
pooja-patel
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
1/14
Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft
Computer-based interface for an integrated solid waste managementoptimization model
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, American University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236,Bliss Street, Beirut, Lebanon
Received 22 August 2002; received in revised form 5 September 2003; accepted 24 December 2003
Abstract
Planning a regional waste management strategy is a critical step that, if not properly addressed, will lead to an inefficient inte-grated solid waste management (ISWM) system. Regional planning affects the design, implementation, and efficiency of the over-all ISWM scheme. Consequently, decision-makers must look for optimized regional waste management planning to achieve asuccessful strategy. The optimization of an ISWM strategy for an area requires the knowledge of available solid waste manage-ment alternatives and technologies, economic and environmental costs associated with these alternatives, and their applicability tothe specific area. Decision-makers often have to rely on optimization models to examine the impacts of mass balance, capacitylimitations, operation, and site availability as well as to analyze different alternative options in the selection of a cost effective,environmentally sound waste management alternative. In this context, the complexity associated with the formulation of optimi-zation models may hinder its use, and consequently, user friendliness is a major concern. This paper presents an interface thatwas developed to address this concern, that is to formulate the matrices associated with an integrated waste management optimi-zation model.# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Optimization; Linear programming; Modeling; Solid waste management
1. Introduction
In the absence of a single optimal waste managementalternative that can handle municipal solid waste(MSW), the concept of integrated solid waste manage-ment (ISWM)1 has evolved with the philosophy of inte-grating all available waste management options withexisting geographic, environmental, and socio-economic
conditions, in an attempt to better manage our waste.Decision-makers and waste management planners are
currently faced with the increase in complexity, uncer-tainty, multi-objectivity, and subjectivity of ISWM. Thedecision process of MSW management has developedfrom simple comparison between few single-waste-management alternatives, to a larger number of combi-nations through ISWM. Accordingly, the decisionprocess of ISWM must follow a more scientific and sys-tematic approach to improve the quality of the resulting
decisions.At this stage, decision-makers must be able to dis-
tinguish between an optimum decision, a gooddecision, and a lucky outcome. The first provides theoptimum feasible solution that satisfies all the pre-determined constraints, and optimizes the requiredobjective function using operations research (OR) tech-niques. The second is based on experience, trial anderror techniques, sensitivity analysis, and/or compari-son of various ISWM combinations. It might lead tonear optimal decisions, however, with the increase inthe number of combinations in the decision process,
Corresponding author. Tel.: +961-3-228-338; fax: +961-1-744-462.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. El-Fadel).1 An ISWM is reached when the use, effectiveness, and economics
of its functional elements (collection, transport/transfer, processing,treatment, and disposal) have been assessed with corresponding inter-faces and connections. It can thus be defined as the selection andapplication of suitable techniques, technologies and managementoptions to achieve specific waste management objectives and goals(Tchobanoglous et al., 1993).
1364-8152/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.12.005
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
2/14
these techniques can no longer be used with the same
efficiency. The third follows a non-scientific approach,
and outcomes, whether lucky or unlucky, are not
dependent on the decision quality.Various issues of ISWM have been addressed
through OR methods (Table 1). A linear programming
(LP) waste management and planning optimizationtool was developed to assist decision-makers in provid-
ing an optimum waste management policy given the
available data (Abou Najm et al., 2002a,b). It presents
the information required for making a factual, analyti-
cal decision about the optimum waste management
alternative taking into consideration the economic and
environmental costs, along with various constraints
adopted to account for implemented or suggested poli-
cies, mass balance, capacity limitations, operation,
finance, and site availability. The interface developed in
this paper allows the use of this model by decision-
makers without the need of acquiring the knowledge ofLP optimization. The interface will automatically buildthe essential matrices by just entering the requireddata. Once the matrices are ready, specialized solvers(Excel, Matlab, Lindo, etc.) can obtain the optimumsolution with no further complication.
2. Why optimization?
It is essential at the onset that decision-makers andwaste management planners differentiate between therelatively new concept of optimization, in comparisonto the more commonly used life cycle assessment(LCA) computer modeling. Technically, the two con-cepts are completely different. Optimization tools pro-vide decision-makers with optimum ISWM policies forany region based on economic and environmentalcosts, mass balance, capacity limitations, operations,
Table 1A literature review on the use of OR in MSW management
Reference Description
Nema and Modak (1998) An integer linear programming model was developed as a strategic design approach for the optimization of regionalhazardous waste management systems. The objective was to minimize total costs and risks
Haith (1998) An Excel spreadsheet, MSWFLOW, was developed as an accounting procedure for the exploration of MSWmanagement decisions
Daskalopoulos et al. (1998) A simple LP model that accounts for both the economic and environmental impacts of an IMSW system was used.The model optimizes the waste management process for a single generation source. Environmental costs are thoseassociated with emissions of greenhouse gases, expressed in terms of equivalent global warming potential (GWP)
Huang et al. (1997) A solid waste decision support system (SWDSS) was developed based on an inexact mixed integer linearprogramming (IMILP) to incorporate different types of uncertainties within its optimization process
Sundberg and Ljunggren(1997)
A methodology was suggested for the integrated analysis of cost and environmental impacts by linking two modelingapproaches for the strategic ISWM planning: the MIMES/waste model and the LCA model
Rubenstien (1997) A multiple attribute decision system (MADS) was developed. The MADS model is a simulation-planning model thatis composed of two modules: screening and evaluation. The screening module assists in selecting feasible MSWmanagement alternatives based on constraints set by decision-makers. The evaluation module builds on the previousmodule and economic and environmental impacts of MSW management and policy. The model accounts for onlyenvironmental transportation costs in terms of vehicle emissions
Charnpratheep et al. (1997) The fuzzy set theory and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) were coupled into a raster-based geographicinformation system (GIS) for the preliminary screening of landfill sites
Kao et al. (1997) A prototype network GIS was developed for landfill siting. Improving the prototype is currently underway throughintroducing expert systems. That include a fuzzy expert system and a mixed-integer liner optimization subsystems toimplement multi-objective analysis
Ljunggren and Sundberg(1997)
A one-period nonlinear programming model (MWS) was developed. This model analyzes SWM systems for a singletime period and optimizes the system for a defined objective function. The objective is to minimize the total cost ofMSW management systems. Environmental considerations are addressed through integrating emission constraintsand fees
Chang et al. (1996) MIP model was applied with the framework of dynamic optimization considering economic and environmentalfactors
Barlishen and Baetz (1996) A mixed integer linear programming (MILP) was used in the optimization study with dynamic, multi-period modelformulation for facility location, timing, and sizing
Powell (1996) A multi criteria model was developed to evaluate six waste disposal options in a two dimensional matrix. Assessingdata was conducted in two ways: numerical or cardinal valuation when numerical data are present, and ordinalranking method when data are absent or unreliable
Bhat (1996) A simulation-optimization model was developed to obtain the optimal allocation of trucks for MSW management byreducing traveling and waiting time costs. The simulation model estimates the waiting time of trucks and theoptimization model uses heuristic approach to find the optimal allocation of trucks
Gottinger (1991) A fixed charge mixed integer programming model which views regional waste management systems as network flowswas suggested. The mathematical formulation of the long range planning of locations and expansion of facilities forregional waste management was also explored
1152 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
3/14
location, and site availability. On the other hand, LCAmodels are not inherently structured to advise decision-makers on what they must do with their waste. Theyare assessment tools that present the environmentaland economic impacts of various ISWM policies sothat decision-makers can make more informed deci-
sions. In other words, the output of an optimizationtool is an ISWM policy, whereas that of an LCAmodel is impact and total life cycle burden resultedfrom an ISWM policy (which is part of the input to theLCA model). This means that decision-makers usingonly LCA models can only obtain the optimum ISWMpolicy among the ISWM policies that they were able tothink of, by simply selecting the option with the leastimpact (since LCA models only assess predeterminedpolicies). However, the optimum ISWM policy mightbe a combination that was not thought of, and thuswas not assessed and analyzed by the LCA model.
Optimization tools comprise the approach to obtainthe optimum waste management policy whether pre-determined or not.
3. The model
This section briefly describes the mathematical for-mulation of the LP model to be used in the systematicanalysis of the ISWM problem. In the model, the flownetwork of the waste stream is divided into three mainsets (Fig. 1). The first set consists of the generationsources. The second is the intermediate facilities includ-ing the processing facilities, the biological treatmentfacilities, and the thermal treatment facilities. The lastset is the landfills.
Let I, J, K, R, U, and T be the total number of gen-
eration nodes, processing facilities, biological treatment
facilities, thermal treatment facilities, landfills, and time
intervals, respectively. The decision variables in the
model are the waste amounts transported from one
node, or location, to another (Table 2). They cover the
transport of waste in the eight possible paths (Fig. 1).
For simplicity, the term x was introduced to account
for all waste generation nodes and management facili-
ties. Similarly, the term y represents all waste manage-
ment facilities. Consequently, the term Wdxyt includes
any of the following terms: W1ijt, W2irt, W
3iut, W
4jkt, W
5jrt,
W6jut, W7kut, and W
8rut. All the remaining symbols rep-
resent predetermined parameters that can be changed
only once for every run.
3.1. Objective functionThe general form of the objective function considers
the minimization of the amortized difference between
Fig. 1. Waste stream flow network.
Table 2Models decision variables
Decision variable Waste transported
From To At
W1ijta Generation node, i Processing facility, j Time interval, t
W2irtb Generation node, i Thermal treatment facility, r Time interval, t
W3iutc Generation node, i Landfill, u Time interval, t
W4jktd Processing facility, j Biological treatment facility, k Time interval, t
W5jrte Processing facility, j Thermal treatment facility, r Time interval, t
W6jutf Processing facility, j Landfill, u Time interval, t
W7kutg Biological treatment facility, k Landfill, u Time interval, t
W8ruth Thermal treatment facility, r Landfill, u Time interval, t
a i 1; . . . ; I, j 1; . . . ; J, t 1; . . . ; T.b i 1; . . . ; I, r 1; . . . ; R, t 1; . . . ; T.c i 1; . . . ; I, u 1; . . . ; U, t 1; . . . ; T.d j 1; . . . ; J, k 1; . . . ; K, t 1; . . . ; T.e j 1; . . . ; J, r 1; . . . ; R, t 1; . . . ; T.f j 1; . . . ; J, u 1; . . . ; U, t 1; . . . ; T.g k 1; . . . ; K, u 1; . . . ; U, t 1; . . . ; T.h r 1; . . . ; R, u 1; . . . ; U, t 1; . . . ; T.
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1153
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
4/14
costs and benefits of the whole ISWM system:
MinimizeXTt1
btCt Bt 1
where Ct is the costs associated with ISWM stream attime t($); Bt is the benefit associated with ISWMstream at time t($); bt is the discount factor, accountsfor the inflation rate, f, and the nominal interest rate, ras expressed in Eq. (2).
bt 1f
1 r
t12
The cost component of the objective function consists
of two major cost categories: conventional andenvironmental (Tables 3 and 4).
4. Model constraints
The basic model constraint set consists of mass bal-ance, capacity and material limitations, and policyimplementation constraints (Table 5).
Note that the last three sets of equations can be tes-ted through the sensitivity analysis by simulating theoptimized solution with the targeted composting quan-
tities, material recycling percentages, and householdrecycling material percentages, respectively.
4.1. Number of variables and equations in the model
The number of constraints and number of non-zeroterms for every constraint-equation is summarized inTable 6. Let p and q denote the total number ofdecision variables and constraints, respectively. Theywill have the following values:
p T IJ IR IU JK JR JU KU RU
q T 2I 5J 3R 3K 2U 1
5. The need for an interface
The objective is to prepare and solve the followinggeneral linear programming problem:
Objective function : minATxSubject to : Bx C
where A is a vector that constitutes the set of coeffi-cients of the linear objective function. The matrix B
Table 3Summary of the conventional and environmental cost component
Total cost of Mathematical representation (equation)
Transportation X8d1
TCxyt Wdxyt
3
OperationX8d1
OCdy Wdxyt
4
RemediationX8d1
RCdyt Wdxyt
5
Fixed constructionXTt1
CCxt 6
Fixed expansion XTt1
ECxt 7
TCxyt, unit cost of waste transported from x to y at time t ($/ton);
Wdxyt, amount of waste transported from x to y at time t (tons); OCd
y ,
unit operating cost at facility y ($/ton); RCdyt, unit remediation cost
of pollution at facility y at time t ($/ton); CCxt, construction cost ofa new facility x at time t ($); ECxt, fixed expansion cost of facility xat time t ($).Note: The fixed construction and expansion costs are not decisionvariables. They are numbers that should be added to the objectivefunction. To consider them as decision variables, integer linear pro-gramming (ILP) should be introduced.
Table 4Summary of the conventional and environmental benefit component
Total income from Mathematical representation (equation)
Resource recovery(recyclable) am PCm W
1ijt
UCm 8
Biological treatmentrevenues
W4jkt1VRkC 9
Thermal treatmentrevenues
W2irt Thir
or W5jrt Thjr
10
Household recyclingincome
XTt1
nm PCm RIm XIi1
Git 11
am, percent of material m in waste, sold as recyclable raw material attime t (% ratio) (model parameter not variable); PCm, percent ofmaterial m in SW (% ratio); UCm, unit selling price of material m ($);VRk, volume reduction ratio at compost facility k; C, revenues frombiological treatment facilities, for composting, it is the compost unit
price ($/ton of waste); Thir, revenues from thermal treatment facili-ties with waste received directly from generation sources (withoutseparation or treatment), for incineration, it is the energy recoveryrevenues from one ton of waste ($/ton of waste); Thjr, revenues fromthermal treatment facilities with waste received from processing facili-ties (i.e. with higher energy content than Thir) ($/ton of waste); nm,percent material m sold as recyclable raw material from household(% ratio) (model parameter not variable); RIm, recycling income formaterial m ($/ton of waste); Git, generation amount at source i attime t (ton).Note: The household recycling income is not a decision variable. It isa number that should be added to the objective function. To considerit as a decision variable, ILP should be introduced.
1154 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
5/14
Table 5Models constraints
Constraint (equation)
Mass balance constraints
XJ
j1
W1ijt XR
r1
W2irt XU
u1
W3iut GIT 1 XM
m1
nm PCm
!with i 1; . . . ;I; and t 1; . . . ;T 12
XIi1
W1ijt 1 XMm1
am PCm
!" #XRr1
W5jrt XKk1
W4jkt XUu1
W6jut with j 1; . . . ;J; and t 1; . . . ;T 13
XIi1
XMm1
am;maxGit XIi1
XJj1
W1ijt with t 1; . . . ;T 14
am,max, maximum percent of material m in waste, sold as recyclable raw material at time t (% ratio).
Capacity limitation constraint
Capmin;t;j XIi1
W1ijt Capmax;t;j with j 1; . . . ;J and t 1; . . . ;T 15
Capmin;t;k XJj1
W4jkt Capmax;t;k with k 1; . . . ;K and t 1; . . . ;T 16
Capmin;t;r XJj1
W5jrt XIi1
W2irt Capmax;t;r with r 1; . . . ;R and t 1; . . . ;T 17
Capmin;t;u XIi1
W3
iut XJj1
W6
jut XRr1
W8
rut XKk1
W7
kut Capmax;t;u with u 1;
. . .
;
U and t 1;
. . .
;
T 18
Capmin,t,x, minimum capacity for facility x at time interval t; Capmax,t,x, maximum capacity for facility x at time interval t.
Material limitation constraints
XKk1
W4jkt PCcompXIi1
W1ijt with j 1; . . . ;J and t 1; . . . ;T 19
XRr1
W2irt PCinc:GIT with i 1; . . . ;I and t 1; . . . ;T 20
XRr1
W5jrt PCinc:XIi1
W5ijt with j 1;::::::;J and t 1;::::::;T 21
XUu1
W7kut ! PCret;bXJj1
W4jkt with k 1; . . . ;K and t 1; . . . ;T 22
(continued on next page)
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1155
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
6/14
and vector C comprise the coefficients of the linearconstraints, accounting for both equality andinequality constraints. Table 7 summarizes the sizes ofthe optimization problem components: A, B, and C.
As Table 7 indicates, the preparation of the optimi-
zation components is a complex task that requires time
and professional expertise. An interface was developedto assemble these components given the user inputs.Input to the interface includes detailed informationabout the specific region of interest.
6. The interface
The interface was developed using an ExcelVisualBasic environment. It is completely generic and
designed to request the required data input from theuser. It is composed of a set of Excel worksheets. TheMain Menu worksheet, which starts the interface, looksfor the major model parameters: I, J, K, R, U, and T(Fig. 2). The call for data is generated by the model asthe user shifts between the worksheets (using the com-mand buttons in the Main Menu). Worksheets respon-sible for generation quantities, distances, and capacitiesare: Generation Nodes (Fig. 3), Processing Facilities(Fig. 4), Biological Treatment Facilities (Fig. 5), Ther-mal Treatment Facilities (Fig. 6), and Landfills (Fig. 7).The main input information required by these work-
sheets is described in Table 8.Operational costs, benefits, and waste management
alternatives properties are required by Cost and PolicyData worksheet (Fig. 8). Costs include the operatingcost of every waste management facility in $/tondepending on its capacity, policies, and technologyused. Consequently, the model accounts for differentoperating costs for the same waste management alter-native. Ratios of compostable (PCcomp) and combust-ible (PCinc.) materials, as well as ratio of returnablematerial from biological (PCret,b) and thermal (PCret,t)treatment facilities are also expressed in this worksheet.
Table 5 (continued)
Constraint (equation)
XUu1
W8rut ! PCret;tXIi1
W2irt XJj1
W5jrt
!with r 1; . . . ;R and t 1; . . . ;T 23
PCcomp and PCinc., percentages of compostable or combustible waste (% ratio); PCret,b and PCret,t, percentages for returnable materials to landfillsfrom biological and thermal facilities, respectively (% ratio).
Policy implementation constraints
nmin;m nm nmax;m 24
amin;m am amax;m 25
W4jkt;min W4
jkt W4
jkt;max 26
nmin,m and nmax,m, minimum and maximum percent material m sold as recyclable raw material from household (% ratio).
Table 6Number of equations and non-zero terms for constraints
Equation number Number ofequations
Number ofnon-zero terms
(12) IT JRU(13) JT IRKU(14) T IJ(15) 2JT I(16) 2KT J(17) 2RT IJ
(18) 2UT IJRK(19) JT IK(20) IT I(21) JT IJ(22) KT UJ(23) RT IUJ
Table 7Sizes of the optimization problem components
Component Number ofrows
Number ofcolumns
Comments
A p 1 VectorB q p MatrixC q 1 Vector
p TIJIRIUJKJRJUKURU;q T2I5J3R3K2U1.
1156 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
7/14
Environmental costs of prevention, treatment, health,
land depreciation, ecosystem and others in $/ton are
placed for every waste management facility in the
Detailed Environmental Costs worksheet (Fig. 9). Waste
composition, recycling and household separation poli-
cies and costs are pointed out in the Recycling and
Household Data worksheet (Fig. 10).
7. Main Menu worksheet
The Main Menu in the interface (Fig. 2) calls for the
main parameters in the model. The user needs to input
the following:
. The number of generation nodes, I
. The number of processing facilities, J
. The number of biological treatment facilities, K
. The number of thermal treatment facilities, R
. The number of landfills, U
. The number of time periods, T
The user will directly see the number of decision vari-
ables and number of constraints for the specified prob-
lem. Command buttons designed in the Main Menu
worksheet are to direct the user for data entry. A set of
generic worksheets will open to instruct the user of
what data needs to be input. Data required includes
the following:
Fig. 2. Main Menu worksheet.
Fig. 3. Generation Nodes Data worksheet.
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1157
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
8/14
. Generation quantities
. Distances from generation nodes to waste treatmentand disposal facilities
. Distances from intermediate facilities to intermedi-ate and ultimate disposal facilities
. Capacities of waste treatment and disposal facilities
. Conventional and environmental costs
. Waste management policies
The data-entry worksheets are generated in a format
that looks for data given the users input for the mainparameters.
8. Input worksheets
Data input worksheets will appear as the user pressesthe corresponding command button in the Main Menu
worksheet. The naming of generation nodes, time inter-
vals, processing facilities, thermal treatment facilities,
composting plants, and landfills is generic using the
major inputs of the Main Menu. The representation of
a node or facility in all the interface worksheets is sim-
ply the index of that node or facility (I, T, J, R, K, or
U) and its number. It is completely generic using theinputs of the Main Menu worksheet.
Fig. 4. Processing Facilities Data worksheet.
Fig. 5. Biological Treatment Facilities Data worksheet.
1158 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
9/14
8.1. Generation Nodes Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 3), the user enters the gener-
ation quantities for each time interval and generation
node. The user needs also to input the distances from
every generation node, I, to each processing facility, J,
thermal treatment facility, R, and landfill, U.
8.2. Processing Facilities Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 4), the user enters the mini-
mum and maximum capacities for each processing
facility, J, at every time interval T. The user needs alsoto input the distances from every processing facility, J,to each biological treatment facility, K, thermal treat-ment facility, R, and landfill, U.
8.3. Biological Treatment Facilities Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 5), the user enters the mini-mum and maximum capacities for each biological
treatment facility, K, at every time interval T. The userneeds also to input the distances from every biologicaltreatment facility, K, to each landfill, U.
Fig. 6. Thermal Treatment Facilities Data worksheet.
Fig. 7. Landfilling Data worksheet.
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1159
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
10/14
Table 8Required input data for the model by the interface worksheets
Worksheet Required input (unit)
Main Menu (Fig. 2) Models main parameter: I, J, K, R, U, and TGeneration Nodes (Fig. 3) Waste generation quantities, Git, for every generation node, i (ton/day).
Distance between every generation node, i, and all other facilities: j, r, and u (km).Multiply distances by unit transportation cost ($/ ton km) to get TCijt, TCirt, TCiut.
Input-worksheetsProcessing Facilities (Fig. 4) Minimum and maximum capacities (Capmin,t,j and Capmax,t,j) for all processing facilities, j(ton/day).
Distance between every processing facility, j, and all other facilities: k, r, and u (km).Multiply by unit transportation cost ($/ ton km) to get TCjkt, TCjrt, TCjut.
Biological Treatment Facilities (Fig. 5) Minimum and maximum capacities (Capmin,t,k and Capmax,t,k) for all biological treatment facilities,k (ton/day).Distance between every biological treatment facility, k, and all other landfills, u (km).Multiply by unit transportation cost ($/ ton km) to get TCjkt, TCjrt, TCjut.
Thermal Treatment Facilities (Fig. 6) Minimum and maximum capacities (Capmin,t,r and Capmax,t,r) for all thermal treatment facilities, r(ton/day).Distance between every thermal treatment facility, r, and all other landfills, u (km).Multiply by unit transportation cost ($/ton km) to get TCrut.
Landfills (Fig. 7) Minimum and maximum capacities (Capmin,t,u and Capmax,t,u) for all landfills, u (ton/day).Cost and Policy Data (Fig. 8) Unit transportation cost ($/ton km).
Operational costs (OCj, OCk, OCr, OCu) for all waste management alternatives ($/ton).Benefits from biological treatment facilities (C) ($/ton).Benefits from thermal treatment facilities (Thir, Thjr) for waste coming directly from generationsources and waste coming from processing facilities ($/ton).Ratio of returnable material (PCret,t, PCret,b) from thermal and biological treatment facilities (%ratio).Ratio of compostable and combustible material (PCcomp, PC inc.) (% ratio).
Detailed Environmental Costs (Fig. 9) Looks for all possible environmental costs: prevention, treatment, health, land depreciation,ecosystem and others ($/ton) for:Processing facilities, j (sum of all environmental costs gives RCj).Biological treatment facilities, k (sum of all environmental costs gives RCk).Thermal treatment facilities, r (sum of all environmental costs gives RCr).Landfills, u (sum of all environmental costs gives RCu).
Recycling and Household Data (Fig. 10) Percent of material m in solid waste (% ratio) (PCm).Percent of material m sold as recyclable raw material (% ratio) (am,max).Policy of recycling for material m sold as recyclable raw material (% ratio) (a
m).
Policy of household recycling for material m sold as recyclable raw material (% ratio) (nm).Recycling income from material m ($/ton of waste) (RIm).
Note: If unit other that ton/day was used, consistency should be considered in all other terms.
Fig. 8. Cost and Policy Data worksheet.
1160 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
11/14
8.4. Thermal Treatment Facilities Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 6), the user enters the mini-mum and maximum capacities for each thermal treat-ment facility, R, at every time interval T. The userneeds also to input the distances from every thermaltreatment facility, R, to each landfill, U.
8.5. Landfilling Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 7), the user enters the mini-mum and maximum capacities for each landfill, U, atevery time interval T.
8.6. Cost and Policy Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 8), the user enters the trans-portation cost in $/km, as well as the operational costsin $/ton for every processing facility, J, biologicaltreatment facility, K, thermal treatment facility, R, andlandfill, U. Benefits from the biological and thermaltreatment alternative are also required in $/ton. Theinterface allows for two benefit values for the thermal
treatment alternative since waste that is thermallytreated without any pretreatment (in a processingfacility) is usually characterized by a lower BTU con-tent than that of a processed waste. Other important
Fig. 9. Detailed Environmental Costs worksheet.
Fig. 10. Recycling and HouseholdData worksheet.
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1161
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
12/14
policy parameters for biological and thermal treatment
alternatives as well as household separation and recy-
cling are introduced.
8.7. Detailed Environmental Costs worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 9), the user enters thedetailed environmental costs for every processing
facility, J, biological treatment facility, K, thermal
treatment facility, R, and landfill, U. The detailed
environmental costs include the cost of prevention,
treatment, health impacts, land depreciation, and eco-
system degradation. Any additional factor that the user
wants to add can be entered in the others row for every
facility.
8.8. Recycling and Household Data worksheet
In this worksheet (Fig. 10), the user needs to provide
the percent material composition of waste. For every
waste material (or component), the user must input the
maximum allowable recycling range depending on the
material and waste properties as well as the recycling
and processing available technologies. Recovery bene-
fits from recycling and household separation must also
be supplied. Finally, recycling and household separ-
ation policies are entered by the decision-maker. Note
that for every waste component material, the sum-
mation of waste to be recycled and household-separatedmust be greater than or equal to the maximum allow-
able recycling range.
9. Output sheets
As the user inputs all the required data in the pre-viously described sheets, the Run button in the MainMenu sheet will generate three sheets that provides theobjective function A, the matrix B, and the right handside matrix C. Fig. 11 shows a sample output of thematrix B of a typical simulation.
10. Interface limitations
The interface design was completely generic. Thecoding encountered is supposed to generate therequired matrices for a problem of any size. However,given the fact that it was built using the ExcelVisualBasic environment, the limitations of the interface areconsequently those of Excel and Visual Basic. Since themost recent version of Excel allows the use of only 256
columns, the interface will be limited to a total numberof 256 decision variables.
11. Model application
The region of Northern Lebanon (Fig. 12) was con-sidered as a case study in an attempt to demonstratethe capability of the model (Abou Najm et al., 2002b).Data were collected for the regions six counties, withestimated population of 893,000, and daily waste gen-eration of about 624 tons. The model provided as an
output, the optimum waste management policy for sixwaste generation centers, six processing facilities, twocomposting plants, one incinerator, and six landfills
Fig. 11. Sample output of the matrix B.
1162 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
13/14
Fig. 12. Layout of case study application.
Fig. 13. Typical model output.
M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164 1163
8/3/2019 Computer-Based Interface for an Integrated Solid Waste Management
14/14
(Fig. 13). In other words, one simulation provided the
optimum solution for a problem of 150 decision vari-
ables, and a large number of possible waste manage-
ment combinations.
12. Conclusion
This tool was developed for the generation of the
optimization models three main matrices. This is con-
sidered a very time-effective tool as it saves decision-
makers, adopting this or similar model, all the time
required for building the model matrices. One step fur-
ther is to link this tool to an optimization solver thatwill take the matrices from this tool and solve the opti-
mization problem. The output from the solver is an
array with a number of elements equal to the number
of the decision variables. The output from the solver
provides the optimum value for every decision variable.One solver that can work perfectly well with this tool is
Matlab optimization toolbox, which is an excellent sol-
ver for LP problems.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks are extended to the United States
Agency for International Development for its continu-
ous support to the Water Resources Center and
Environmental Engineering and Sciences Programs at
the American University of Beirut.
References
Abou Najm, M., El-Fadel, M., El-Taha, M., Ayoub, G., El-Awar, F.,2002a. An optimization model for regional integrated solid wastemanagement: I. Model formulation. Waste Management andResearch 20, 3745.
Abou Najm, M., El-Fadel, M., Ayoub, G., El-Taha, M., El-Awar, F.,2002b. An optimization model for regional integrated solid wastemanagement: II. Model application and sensitivity analysis. WasteManagement and Research 20, 4654.
Barlishen, K., Baetz, B., 1996. Development of a decision supportsystem for municipal solid waste management systems planning.Waste Management and Research 14(1), 7186.
Bhat, V., 1996. A model for the optimal allocation of trucks for solidwaste management. Waste Management and Research 14(1),8796.
Chang, N., Shoemaker, C., Schuler, R., 1996. Solid waste manage-ment analysis with air pollution and leachate impact limitations.
Waste Management and Research 14(5), 463481.Charnpratheep, K., Zhou, Q., Garner, B., 1997. Preliminary landfill
site screening using fuzzy geographic information systems. WasteManagement and Research 15, 197215.
Daskalopoulos, E., Badr, O., Probert, D., 1998. An integratedapproach to municipal solid waste management. Resource, Con-servation and Recycling 24, 3350.
Gottinger, H., 1991. Economic Models and Applications of SolidWaste Management. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, NewYork.
Haith, D., 1998. Material balance for municipal solid waste manage-ment. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 6775.
Huang, G., Baetz, B., Patry, G., 1997. SWDSS: a decision supportsystem based on inexact optimization for regional waste manage-ment and planning application to the region of Hamilton
Wentworth. In: Air and Waste Management Association, 90thAnnual Meeting and Exhibition, 97-RA134A.03, Toronto,Ontario, Canada.
Kao, J., Lin, H., Chen, W., 1997. Network geographic informationsystem for landfill siting. Waste Management and Research 15,239253.
Ljunggren, M., Sundberg, J., 1997. A method for strategic planningof national solid waste management systemsmodel and casestudy. In: Air and Waste Management Association, 90th AnnualMeeting and Exhibition, 97-RA134A.04, Toronto, Ontario,Canada.
Nema, A., Modak, P., 1998. A strategic design approach for optimi-zation of hazardous waste management systems. Waste Manage-ment and Research 16, 210224.
Powell, J., 1996. The evaluation of waste management option. Waste
Management and Research 14(6), 515526.Rubenstien, B., 1997. Multiple attribute decision system (MADS): a
system approach to solid waste management planning. In: Airand Waste Management Association, 90th Annual Meeting andExhibition, 97-RA134A.02, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sundberg, J., Ljunggren, M., 1997. Linking two modeling approachesfor the strategic municipal waste management planning. TheMIMES/waste model and LCA. In: Air and Waste ManagementAssociation, 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition, 97-RA134A.06, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., Vigil, S., 1993. Integrated SolidWaste Management Engineering Principles and ManagementIssues. McGraw-Hill Inc, Singapore.
1164 M. Abou Najm, M. El-Fadel / Environmental Modelling & Software 19 (2004) 11511164