04 Deshpande Reverse Osmosis Application

ARAB School for Science and Technology
(4) Max move size. These parameters ensure that the manipulated variable movements will not exceed
specified values from one control interval to the next.
(5) Control horizon. This parameter indicates the number of moves calculated by the CMPC controller; the
choice of this parameter influences stability in some cases.
(6) High low limits on the controlled variables. The CMPC will attempt to optimize the objective function subject
to all constraints. If it is able to find an optimal solution such that the outputs are within their bounds, then
and only then it will focus on the allocation of the manipulated variables via the costs mentioned in (2).
Constraints on the controlled variables are treated as soft constraints meaning that they can be violated.
Violations may reduced by adjusting the output weighting parameters.
(7) High low limits on the manipulated variables. These constraints are considered as hard constraints. They
are never violated.

Application of CMPC to a Reverse Osmosis Desalination Unit. The schematic of a reverse osmosis
(RO) unit is shown in Figure 13. The unit houses four two-inch spiral-wound cellulose acetate membranes to
desalinate water that is 0.5% by weight sodium chloride. The unit has the capacity to treat 39.17 gallons per hour
of feed. The unit can achieve a maximum pressure of 250 psig, a salt rejection of 95.2%, and a water recovery of
21.5%. A 1% by volume sulfuric acid solution is used to adjust the pH of the feed stream entering the RO unit.
The feed tanks have the capacity for one run. After each run, they are drained of excess feed and filled with tap
water. The unit is then flushed with tap water to remove the brine from the membrane chambers. After flushing,
all lines are closed until the next run so that water remains in the unit and the membranes do not dry up.

The system has four outputs and two manipulate variables. The outputs are (1) permeate flow, (2) permeate
conductivity, (3) trans-membrane pressure, and (4) inlet pH. The two manipulated variables are (1) acid flow and
(2) reject flow. The RO unit is controlled with a personal computer. The PC contains 32 MB of RAM and an Intel
486-DX2 processor operating at 66 MHz. The A/D and D/A conversions are performed using an OPTOMUX unit.
The OPTOMUX unit contains five analog input modules and two analog output modules.

The data acquisition and control software employed is FIXDMACS (Fully Integrated Distributed Manufacturing
Automation Control Systems) from Intellution Company. FIXDMACS provides the drivers that allow
communication with the OPTOMUX modules as well as a facility for fill-in-the-table programming for data
acquisition and PID-type control. The constrained model predictive controller (CMPC) communicates with the
FIXDMACS database through a windows interface program. The CMPC software provides the various features
described earlier for implementing constraint control.

The start-up procedure followed for each run is as follows. First, the NaCl solution is prepared by mixing a known
quantity of NaCl with tap water. Next, the control valves are opened to predetermined positions to set the
permeate flow rate and the pH of the feed. Next, the feed pump is started and the control valve positions are
adjusted to obtain the desired inlet pH and permeate flow rate. It takes about 25 minutes for the permeate
conductivity to reach steady-state. The unit is maintained at these steady-state conditions for at least ten
minutes, and then the various tests reported in the paper are made.

Experimental results and discussion. As the first step in control system design, step tests were
conducted. For this purpose the process was brought to steady-state, a step change was introduced into the
acid inlet valve, and the responses of the four outputs were recorded. Then, the step test was repeated this time
utilizing the pressure control valve. The resulting step responses were fitted to low order transfer functions with
dead time and the results are shown in Table 1. Note that the time constants and dead-times in Table I are in
seconds. These transfer functions were used to determine the tuning constants of the two PI controllers and in
the implementation of constrained model predictive control.

Proceedings 2000 16

Figure 13. Process Schematic
Concentrate
Permeate
CT
AT
AT
PT
AT

Feed
Tank

Feed
Tank
Acid Feed Tank

The PI control strategy was implemented using the standard PID blocks provided by FIXDMACS. A sampling
interval of 0.25 seconds was used for the flow loop and 10 seconds for the conductivity loop. The constrained
model predictive controller communicates with the FIXDMACS database via an interface program.

Results with PI control. In this strategy, the permeate conductivity is controlled by manipulating the acid inlet
valve position and the permeate flow is controlled by manipulating the pressure control valve position on the
reject line. The pairing is obvious from the data in Table I. The conductivity controller was tuned by Fertiks
method and the permeate flow controller was tuned by trial and error. The performance of PI control was
evaluated by introducing a step change in the set point of permeate flow in one run and a step change in the
permeate conductivity set point in the second run. The closed- loop responses are shown in Figure 14(a) and
14(b). In Figure 14(a) the permeate conductivity deviates from the set point during the transient since the
strategy does not provide for any form of interaction compensation. Furthermore, under this strategy, inlet pH
and trans-membrane pressure cannot be regulated although the close-loop servo responses of the two loops
under control are adequate. Finally, both controllers have a gap action feature; their output changes only when
the error exceeds the gap.

Results with CMPC. The results with [ONLINE]
R
are shown in Figures 15-19. In all of these runs, the CMPC
algorithm is asked to maintain the inlet pH and the trans-membrane pressure within specified bounds. Before
each test was conducted, the process was brought to nearly identical steady-state operating conditions. Each
run demonstrates a unique feature of CMPC.

Test 1 and 2 are meant to demonstrate the effect of move suppressions. Figure 15 shows the closed loop
responses to a step change in the set point of permeate flow with both move suppressions set equal to zero.
Figure 16 shows the same results with the move suppression of 6 for the pressure control valve and 1.5 for the
acid inlet valve. As is evident, the use of move suppressions results in smoother manipulated variable
movements but the responses become sluggish. The idea is to select move suppressions that give good speed
of response without excessive manipulated variable movements. Figure 16 also shows that the controller
violates the permeate flow set point in order to obey the constraints on inlet pH. Figure 16 reveals interaction
compensation although complete decoupling is not feasible with CMPC.
Proceedings 2000 17
Table I. Process transfer functions

Pressure control valve position,
%
Acid inlet valve
position, %

Permeate flow rate (gph)

+
+ +
0155 0 375 1
0 22 1 2 51 1
. ( . )
( . )( . )
s
s s

0

Permeate conductivity (S/cm)

2 48
114 1 113 1
120
.
( )( )
e
s s
s
+ +

0 45
104 1 100 1
120
.
( )(
e
s s
s
+ + )

Trans-membrane Pressure (psia)

+
4 74
145 1
.
. s

0

Inlet pH

0

+
0 077
212 1
.
. s

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-10 10 30 50
Time (min)
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

1
,

4
190
213
236
259
282
305
328
351
374
397
420
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

2
,

3
1
3
2
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-10 10 30 50
Time (min)
I
n
p
u
t
s
1
2

Controlled/Associates Variables Starting
Values
Ending
Values
Set
Point
PI Tuning
K
c
(%/%)
Constants
i
(sec)
1. Flow Rate (gph) 7.99 6.95 7.00 0.02 0.03
2. Conductivity (S/cm) 405.2 405.2 405.2 10.01 256.9
3. Trans-membrane Pressure (psia) 218.4 194.5 ---- ---- ----
4. Inlet pH 4.23 5.81 ---- ---- ----

Manipulated Variables
1. Press. Cntl. Valve 46.0 54.4 ---- ---- ----
2. Acid Inlet Valve 53.6 27.3 ---- ---- ----

Figure 14(a) Set point change in permeate flow rate under PI control

Proceedings 2000 18
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Time (min)
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

1
,

4
190
220
250
280
310
340
370
400
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

2
,

3
1
2
3
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Time (min)
I
n
p
u
t
s
1
2

Values
Ending
Values
Set
Point
PI Tuning
K
c
(%/%)
Constants
i
(sec)
1. Flow Rate (gph) 7.31 7.30 7.30 0.02 0.03
3. Trans-membrane Pressure (psia) 203.4 208.5 ---- ---- ----
4. Inlet pH 4.23 6.10 ---- ---- ----

1. Press. Cntl. Valve 51.0 52.4 ---- ---- ----
2. Acid Inlet Valve 53.6 24.2 ---- ---- ----

Figure 14(b) Set point change in permeate conductivity under PI control

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-10 10 30 50
Time (min)
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

1
,

4
180
220
260
300
340
380
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

2
,

3
1
2
3
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-10 10 30 5
Time (min)
I
n
p
u
t
s
1
2
0

Values
Ending
Values
Weight/
Cost
High
Limit
Low
Limit
1. Flow Rate (gph) 7.92 6.96 14.9 7.05 6.95
3. Trans-membrane Pressure (psia) 216.95 196.69 1.00 250.0 160.0
4. Inlet pH 4.23 5.92 12.0 6.0 4.0

1. Press. Cntl. Valve 44.6 52.4 0.0 70.0 30.0
2. Acid Inlet Valve 43.8 23.2 0.0 80.0 0.0

Figure 15. Set point change in the permeate flow rate under CMPC
(Prediction horizon: 88, Control horizon: 8, Move suppression: 0, 0)
Proceedings 2000 19
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-10 10 30 50
Time (min)
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

1
,

4
190
230
270
310
350
390
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

2
,

3 1
3
4
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-10 10 30 5
Time (min)
I
n
p
u
t
s
1
2
0

Values
Ending
Values
Weight/
Cost
High
Limit
Low
Limit
1. Flow Rate (gph) 7.97 7.08 14.9 7.05 6.95
4. Inlet pH 4.23 5.92 12.0 6.0 4.0

1. Press. Cntl. Valve 46.6 52.4 0.0 70.0 30.0
2. Acid Inlet Valve 45.8 24.9 0.0 80.0 0.0

Figure 16. Set Point Change in the Permeate Flow Rate, under CMPC
(Prediction horizon: 88, Control horizon: 8, Move suppression: 6, 1.5)
Proceedings 2000 20
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Time (min)
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

1
,

4
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

2
,

3
1
2
3
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Time (min)
I
n
p
u
t
s
1
2

Values
Ending
Values
Weight/
Cost
High
Limit
Low
Limit
1. Flow Rate (gph) 7.28 7.30 14.9 7.30 7.20
4. Inlet pH 4.23 5.42 12.0 6.0 4.0

1. Press. Cntl. Valve 51.5 50.4 0.0 70.0 30.0
2. Acid Inlet Valve 55.8 30.9 0.0 80.0 0.0

Figure 17. Set point change in the permeate conductivity under CMPC
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-10 10 30 50
Time (min)
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

1
,

4
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

2
,

3
1
3
4
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-10 10 30 50
Time (min)
I
n
p
u
t
s
1
2

Values
Ending
Values
Weight/
Cost
High
Limit
Low
Limit
1. Flow Rate (gph) 7.95 7.08 14.9 7.05 6.95
4. Inlet pH 4.17 5.94 3.00 6.0 4.0

1. Press. Cntl. Valve 43.5 52.4 0.0 70.0 30.0
2. Acid Inlet Valve 42.5 22.5 0.0 80.0 0.0

Figure 18. Set Point Change in the Permeate Flow Rate, under CMPC
Proceedings 2000 21
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (min)
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

1
,

4
180
220
260
300
340
380
420
O
u
t
p
u
t
s

2
,

3
1
2
3
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (min)
I
n
p
u
t
s
1
2

Values
Ending
Values
Weight/
Cost
High
Limit
Low
Limit
1. Flow Rate (gph) 7.20 7.43 14.9 9.00 6.00
4. Inlet pH 5.51 4.00 12.0 6.0 4.0

1. Press. Cntl. Valve 46.5 52.4 0.155 70.0 30.0
2. Acid Inlet Valve 26.5 52.5 0.0 80.0 0.0

Figure 19. Throughput maximization under CMPC

Test 3 is concerned with a step change in the conductivity set point. The results of this test are shown in Figure
17. To demonstrate the role of output weighting, test 2 was repeated, only this time, a lower weight on the inlet
pH was specified indicating the desire to control inlet pH less tightly. The results in Figure 18 show that the
controller sacrifices its efforts to contain the inlet pH within its bound in order to reach its objectives on permeate
flow.

To demonstrate the throughput maximization capabilities of CMPC, the costs on manipulated variable were
appropriately changed. The results on Figure 19 show that CMPC gracefully takes the plant to a new level where
a higher quantity of permeate (3.5%) is produced while obeying the constraints on the other three outputs.

A comparison of the results with PI control and CMPC shows the excellent potential for CMPC in RO plant
operations. The features that CMPC offers are unique and could lead to much improved plant operations, extend
membrane life, and result in less down time. Small plants can be controlled with 486-PCs while CMPC
implementation in large RO units would benefit from distributed control systems.

The first author and his associates have also investigated the choice of CMPC for multistage flash desalination
plants with excellent results. The MSF system too is a non-square system where the brine levels serve as
constraint variables. The optimization objective is either to maximize distillate production or to minimize steam
consumption subject to all constraints. The paper cited at the end of the paper may be consulted for details.

Proceedings 2000 22
Conclusions.

Several traditional advanced control concepts are reviewed. It is shown how combining them into a single
software strategy leads to a powerful multivariable constraint controller that is capable of maximizing throughput,
minimizing energy consumption, and improving the yield of more valuable products. The concepts are reinforced
with an experimental application.

Nomenclature.

b = bias
B = fictitious signal
C = cost penalties
d = unmeasured disturbances and modeling errors
D = unmeasured disturbances
D = matrix of decoupler elements
E = error (R Y)
F = filter transfer function
G = process transfer function containing no dead-time
G
C
= feedback controller transfer function
G
F
= feedforward controller transfer function
G
I
= IMC controller transfer function
G
L
= load transfer function
G
P
= matrix of process transfer functions
G
+
= matrix of process transfer function that accommodates
non-minimum phase elements
G
-
= matrix of process transfer functions containing the remaining terms
H = diagonal matrix
J = optimization index or objective function
K = proportional steady-state gain
K = matrix of proportional steady-state gains
K
L
= load proportional steady-state gain
K
P
= process proportional steady-state gain
L = loads or measured disturbances
M = manipulated variable value
M = vector of manipulated variables
R = set point value
R = vector of set points
s = Laplace domain
S = slack/surplus variable
U = vector of new manipulated variables
V = violation variables
Y = output or controlled variable value
Y = vector of process outputs
P
= process time constant
L
= load time constant
d
= dead-time
L
= load dead-time
P
= process dead-time
^ = symbol denoting model
Proceedings 2000 23

Bibliography.

Assef, J. Z., Watters, J. C., Deshpande, P. B., and Alatiqi, I. M., Advanced Control of a Reverse Osmosis
Desalination Unit, Journal of Process Control, 7, 4, 1997.

Box, G. E. P. and Jenkins, G. M., Time Series Analysis, Forecasting, and Control, Holden-Day, Oakland, CA.,
1970.

Curler, C. R. and Yocum, F. H., Experience with the DMC Inverse for Identification, Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Chemical Process Control, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1991. P. 297-
317.

Cutler, C. R. and Ramaker, B. L., Dynamic Matrix Control A computer Control Algorithm, Paper No. 51b,
AIChE 86
th
national Meeting, April 1979.

Deshpande, P. B., Ash, R. H., Computer Process Control with Advanced Control Applications, Instrument
Society of America (I.S.A.), Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1983; 2nd Ed., 1988.

Deshpande, P. B., Distillation Dynamics and Control, (I.S.A.), 1985; Arnold Press, London, England, 1985.

Deshpande, P.B., Ed., Multivariable Process Control, Instrument Society of America, 1989.

Deshpande, P. B., Bhalodia, M. A., Caldwell, J. A., and Yerrapragada, S. S., Should You Use Constrained Model
Predictive Control?, Chemical Engineering Progress, 91, 3, 1995. pp. 65-72.

Garcia, C. E. and Morari, M., Internal Model Control 3 Multivariable Control law and Tuning Guidelines, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev., 24, 1985. P. 484-494

Maniar, V. M. and Deshpande, P. B., Advanced Controls for Multistage Flash (MSF) Plant Optimization, Journal
of Process Control, 6, 1, 1996. pp. 49-66.

Meziou, A.M., Deshpande, P.B., and Alatiqi, I.M., Dynamic Matrix Control of an Industrial Gas Reformer,
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 20, 3, 1995. pp. 187-192.

Meziou, A.M., Deshpande, P.B., Cozewith, C., Silverman, N.I., and Morrison, W., Dynamic Matrix Control of an
Industrial Ethylene-Propylene-Diene Polymerization Reactor, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 35,
1, 1996. pp. 164-168.
Assef, J. Z., Watters, J. C., Deshpande, P. B., and Alatiqi, I. M., Advanced Control of a Reverse Osmosis
Desalination Unit, Journal of Process Control, 7, 4, 1997.

[ONLINE] Users Manual, Simulation and Advanced Controls, Inc., Louisville, KY, 1997.
Richalet, J., Rault, A., Testud, J. L., Papon, J., Model Predictive Heuristic Control, Automatica, 14, 1978, p. 413-
428.

Schork, F.J., Deshpande, P. B., and Leffew , K.W., Control of Polymerization Reactors, Marcel-Dekker, Inc.,
New York, 1993.

Proceedings 2000 24

04 Deshpande Reverse Osmosis Application

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

04 Deshpande Reverse Osmosis Application

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ARAB School for Science and Technology

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi