th

12 International Conference on
Environmental Science and Technology
CEST2011 Rhodes, Greece
8-10 September 2011

A ROBUST CONTROL APPROACH FOR A REVERSE OSMOSIS

DESALINATION PLANT, POWERED BY RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
A. GAMBIER, and E. BADREDDIN

Process Control Group, Automation Laboratory, Heidelberg University

B6, 26, EG., 68131 Mannheim, Germany
e-mail: agambier@ieee.org

EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Normally, Reverse Osmosis desalination plants (RO plants) include one or two PID
controllers. A particular control problem with such plants consists in the fact that plant
parameters change fast because of fouling and therefore, membrane cleaning has to
carried out often (e.g. once a week). Thus, process parameters obtained after cleaning
are very different from the parameters obtained one week later before a new cleaning
task. Hence, the control performance deteriorates very quickly in the course of the week,
when the controller was optimal adjusted by using one particular model. Moreover, the power
supply based on renewable energies is affected by fluctuations due to weather conditions.
These fluctuations are also reflected in operating point changes and consequently yield
parameter uncertainties.
One way of dealing with parameter uncertainties is to apply a robust control approach.
However, plant manufacturers do not like to use other control strategy than PID (Proportional-Integral-Derivative). In the current work, the PID controllers for permeate flow rate
of a RO plant powered by renewable energies are designed by means of a multi-objective
parametric optimization approach so that the control loops are less sensitive to parameter
changes of the plant.
The multi-loop control system is designed by using dynamic input-output models whose
parameters are obtained before and after cleaning the membranes. As performance indices,
ISE (Integral Square Error) for each model and controller are used. All performance
indices are optimized simultaneously with the aid of NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting
Genetic Algorithm, version two). The final outcome is obtained from the Pareto front
according to the Nash solution of a bargaining game.
Simulation results show that the proposed method has a better performance in a wide range
of operation conditions than controllers designed for one particular model. Next research
steps are the design of an adaptive control system in order to compare its performance
with the robust control approach and the real-time implementation, which will allow testing
the control system design in the real laboratory plant.
Keywords: reverse osmosis, robust control, multi-objective optimization

Please do not use page numbers

1.

INTRODUCTION

Reverse osmosis desalination plants use sensible components, which are also prone to
parameter changes because membranes are sensitive to temperature of feed water,
fouling, scaling, pressure variations and changes in the power supply because of
variations in the weather conditions. RO plants are normally controlled by using PID
control laws, which are tuned but not optimized.
A particular control problem with RO small plants consists in the fact that plant parameters
change very fast because of fouling and membrane cleaning has to carried out often (e.g.
once a week). Thus, process parameters obtained after cleaning are very different from
the parameters obtained one week later before a new cleaning. Therefore, the control performance deteriorates very fast in the course of the week, when the controller was optimal
adjusted by using one of these models. Hence, a robust control approach should be used but
plant manufacturers do not like to use other control strategy than PID control.
In the present work, an optimal PID control system for a reverse osmosis desalination laboratory plant is presented. The methodology consists in obtaining a unique set of controller
parameters for a family of models of the plant by means of multiobjective optimization
(MOO). In Section 2, the RO plant and its dynamic characteristic are described. Section 3
is devoted to present the methodology for the controller design. In Section 4, the MOO
method and the decision making procedure are described, so that simulation results are
shown and analyzed is Section 5. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section 6.

2.

REVERSE OSMOSIS DESALINATION SYSTEM

2.1. General description of the plant

The reverse osmosis plant consists essentially of a vertical centrifugal high pressure pump,
an active carbon filter, a security cartridge filter and three membranes assemblies. The plant
supplies in nominal operation 250 l/s permeate with a conductivity value of 7 S/cm for 500
l/s feed water at 800 S/cm. The schematic diagram of Figure 1 shows the placement of
sensors and actuators as well as the serial/parallel configuration of the pressure vessels.
Feed
water
LP
Pump

C F T

T P

Filter

Permeate

HP
Pump

P
F

Brine

Figure 1: Schematic representation of the RO plant

2.2. Dynamic characteristics of the plant
Normally, two inputs and two outputs are defined for RO desalination plants, namely flow
rate and conductivity of permeate as outputs and the transmembrane pressure and pH
inlet (see Alatiqi et al., 1999). However, the described plant does not have a pretreatment
unit and hence no pH control is possible. Consequently, the plant topology is defined here as
shown in Figure 2.

Control
signal 1
Control
signal 2

Valve 1

Valve 2

Permeate
flow rate

Brine
flow rate
Bypass
flow rate

RO
Plant

Permeate
conductivity

Figure 2: Input/output block-diagram of the RO plant

For this study, the plant was simplified to a SISO system, where the input is the brine flow
rate and the output the permeate flow rate. The brine flow rate is manipulated by the valve
at the end of the brine pipeline. The valve on the bypass pipeline is maintained closed all
the time. The operating point was set at 250 l/h permeate flow rate for a 50% of valve opening.
2.3. Parametric model
As it was mentioned in the introduction, it is very difficult to obtain a unique constant model
of the plant because of several reasons. The system identification several times afterbefore cleaning using the N4SID algorithm (Van Overschee and De Moor, 1994) yields
different models, which can be summarized as interval polynomials denoted by
(1)
A# ( s ) y ( s ) = B # ( s )u ( s )
where A#(s) and B#(s) are given by

=
B # ( s ) [-139.26, -1.77] s + [-56.51,-2.3875]

(2)

and

A# ( s ) =
s 3 + [0.71, 0.96]s 2 + [0.112, 0.635]s + [0.003, 0.071] .

(3)

The nominal model is randomly obtained and presented for information but later it is not used
for the controller design. This nominal model is

B( s) =
29.791 s 39.172]

(4)

A( s ) =
s 3 + 0.776s 2 + 0.287s + 0.0492 .

(5)

and
Dynamic properties obtained from the models are shown in Figure 3.
200

Bode Diagram

Amplitude

20

Imaginary Axis

Root Locus

100
0

10

-100
-200

Phase (deg)
Magnitude (dB)

180

-10

0
-180

1000

-1

-2

10

10

Imaginary Axis

10
Frequency (rad/sec)

10

10

Nyquist Diagram

-20

-200

-100

0
Real Axis

100

200

Step Response

160
140

500

120
100

80
60
40

-500

20

Step: -0.1 (10% valve open)

-1000
-1500

-1000

-500
Real Axis

Lower model

500

Upper model

50

100

Nominal model

150

200

250

Time (sec)

Figure 3: Process characteristics for the minimum, maximum and nominal models

3.

ROBUST OPTIMAL PID CONTROLLER DESIGN

3.1. The control law

In strm and Hagglund (2005), it is pointed out that a convenient description for the PID
control law is given by

sTD
1
( s ) K b r ( s ) y ( s ) +
[r ( s) y ( s )]
u=
y(s) .
1 + sTD / N
sTI

(6)

where normally 0 b 1 and 8 N 20. Eq. (6) leads to a polynomial description given
by

P=
( s )u ( s )

T ( s)r ( s) Q( s) y ( s) ,

(7)

where
P ( s ) = p0 s 2 + p1 s + p2 ,

(8)

T ( s ) = t0 s + t1 s + t2 and

(9)

Q ( s ) = q0 s 2 + q1 s + q2 .

(10)

=
p0 1,=
p1 N / Td ,=
p2 0 ,

(11)

t0 ==
b K , t1 K / Ti + b K N / Td , t2 =
K N / (Ti Td ) ,

(12)

q0 = K ( N + 1), q1 = K / Ti + K N / Td and q2 = K N / (Ti Td )

(13)

The coefficients are now

Finally, parameters of the PID controller can be calculated back by using the following
formulas

(q1 p1 q2 ) / p12 , b =
K=
t0 / K , Ti =
K p1 / q2

(14)

N =q0 / K 1 and Td =N / p1

(15)

3.2. Closed loop transfer functions

If the process is now modeled by

A( s ) y ( s ) = B ( s ) u ( s )

(16)

and the control error is defined as e(s) = r(s) y(s), then the closed loop transfer function
from r(s) to e(s) and to u(s) are

e( s ) [ A( s ) P( s ) + [Q( s ) T ( s )]B( s ) ]
=
r (s)
A( s ) P( s ) + B( s )Q( s )

(17)

u (s)
A( s )T ( s )
,
=
r ( s ) A( s ) P ( s ) + B ( s )Q( s )

(18)

and

respectively.
3.3. Controller design
The controller design follows the steps proposed in Gambier (2009) for the Integral of the
Square Error (ISE) as performance index, which is defined by

J= J e + J u ,
where

(19)

2 j

Ju =

e (t ) dt
=

=
Je

u 2 (t ) dt =

e( s )e( s ) ds ,

(20)

s 2u ( s )u ( s ) ds

(21)

2 j

and is a free weighting parameter. The model of the process be now defined as interval
polynomials denoted by

A# ( s ) y ( s ) = B # ( s ) u ( s )

(22)

where the polynomials A#(s) and B#(s) are given by

B # ( s ) = s m + [b1,lo , b1,up ]s m 1 + + [bm ,lo , bm ,up ]

(23)

A# ( s ) = s n + [a1,lo , a1,up ]s n 1 + + [an ,lo , an ,up ] .

(24)

and

with m < n, then the PID controller is obtained by using the lower and upper polynomials
defined by

Bin ( s ) = s nb + b1,in s nb 1 + + bm ,in and

(25)

Ain ( s ) = s na + a1,in s na 1 + + an ,in .

(26)

and the joint optimization of the performances indices

J in J e ,in + J u ,in .
=

(27)

For Jin, one has

=
J e,in

2 j j

ein ( s )ein ( s ) ds

(28)

with

ein ( s ) =

[ Ain ( s) P( s) + [Q( s) T ( s)]Bin ( s)] r ( s)

Ain ( s ) P( s ) + Bin ( s )Q( s )

uin ( s ) =

and

Ain ( s )T ( s )
r ( s) .
Ain ( s ) P( s ) + Bin ( s )Q( s )

(29)

(30)

Subindex in has to be replaced by either lo (lower) or up (upper) according to the

corresponding case. Coefficients of polynomials P(s), T(s), and Q(s) are obtained solving
the multi-objective optimization problem defined by (Jlo, Jup) taking into account the four
Kharitonov polynomials as constraints in order to guarantee the stability of the closed loop.
4.

MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION AND DECISION MAKING

Evolutionary optimization algorithms simulate the survival of the fittest in biological

evolution by means of algorithms. The renewal of a population (entire set of variables that
represent a group of potential solution points) is based on the so called genetic
operators: recombination (out of two points of the population picked out so that a new
point is generated, e.g. by averaging), mutation (single, randomly selected digits of a
newly generated point are substituted by a realization of a random variable) and selection
(out of the union of the original population and the newly generated points, which are taken
over into the new population with the best fitness). There are many algorithms to implement
these functions (see Kunkle (2005) and Zitzler et al. (2000) for comparative reviews).

Evolutionary algorithms can be applied to solve SOO problems as well as MOO problems.
The MOO case was first studied in Goldberg (1989). Today, there are many MOEAs
distinguished mainly by the algorithms for the population ranking in the fitness
assignment. The most important are: MOGA (Multiple Objective Genetic Algorithm,
Fonseca, 1995), NSGA-II (Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm, Deb et al., 2000),
SPEA2 (Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm, Zitzler et al).
A very important advantage of the MOEAs is that they do not need information about the
objective-functions derivatives and they can solve non-convex problems. Moreover, the
algorithms are relatively robust and they do not require solving a sequence of singleobjective problems and it is a parallel search technique. However, Pareto optimality is not
a concept embedded in the fundaments of evolutionary algorithms. Consequently, it could be
that a Pareto optimal solution born and then, by chance, also it dies out. An additional
drawback is the intensive computational burden required until the solution is obtained. NSGAII is a very efficient evolutionary algorithm that can be used for solving off-line problems land
therefore it is chosen for the present study.

The decision making can be done by using bargaining games (Thomson, 1994).
For example (see Thomson, 1994), the Nash solution of the game (NS) corresponds
to a point of the Pareto set which yields the largest rectangle (c, B, NS, A), (Figure
4), the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution (KS) is situated at the intersection of the Pareto
front and the straight line, which connects the threat point and the utopia point,
and the egalitarian solution (ES) yields the point given by the intersection of the
Pareto front and a 45-line through the threat point. The controllers parameters
obtained by means of NSGA II and NS selector are summarized in Table 1.
Ju
Threat

0.53

0.529

0.528

0.527

0.526

CS

NS KS

ES

0.525

0.524

Utopia

0.646

0.647

0.648

0.649

0.65

0.651

0.652

0.653

Jl

Figure 4: Pareto front obtained by using NSGA II

Table 1: Optimal Controller Parameters

t0
t1
p1
q0
q1
q2

CS
6e-3
-0.4
6.64
-0.13
-0.22
-4e-3

NSGA-II
KS
NS
6e-3
6e-3
-0.4
-0.4
6.71
6.66
-0.13
0.13
-0.22
-0.22
-4e-3
-4e-3

ES
6e-3
-0.4
6.66
-0.13
-0.22
-4e-3

5.

SIMULATION RESULTS

The approach described above has been studied in a simulation environment. The
operating point was set to 250 l/h for a valve opening of 60%. At this point, the flow rate
and the valve opening are assumed to be zero. Hence the reference is changed to 385
l/h (i.e. 35 l/h over the set point) and after 20 second the set point is changed again to the
value of 270 l/h (20 l/h regarding the operating point). This experiment is carried out first
considering first the optimal controller obtained by the NBI algorithm and the lower and upper
models. Moreover, an additional model is obtained randomly from the parameter intervals.
Simulation results are shown in Figure 5. As it is possible to observe the controller performs
satisfactory for all three models.

40
30
20
10
0
-10
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

y1 Permeate flow rate in l/h

0
5 10 15
u1 valve opening

20

25

20

25

Lower model

10

15

Upper model

30

35 t0 [s]

30 35 t0 [s]
Random model

Figure 5: Permeate flow rate and control signals for the optimal PID
controller and several models of the plant
The second study consists in analysing the behaviour of the controllers obtained for the
absolute minimums, i.e. Jlo,min and Jup,min. In order to simplify Figure 6, the model obtained
in the random way is not considered in this case.

40
30
20
10
0
-10
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6

y1 Permeate flow rate in l/h

0
5
10 15
u1 valve opening

20

25

30

35 t0 [s]

0
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 t0 [s]
PID for Jup,min with lower model
PID for Jlo,min with upper model
PID for Jup,min with upper model
PID for Jlo,min with lower model
MOO-PID
Figure 6. Example of mismatch between controller and model used for the design

Figure 6 shows that controllers, which are optimized for a particular model, do not perform
correctly in the case of model mismatch. Thus, RO plants present some control
difficulties, which can be solved by using multi-objective optimization.

6. CONCLUSIONS
In this work, the control problem of a reverse osmosis desalination plant, which parameters
are uncertain is solved by using the multi-objective NSGA II algorithm, when the plant can
be modelled by means of interval polynomials.
Due to the fact that plant manufacturer wish to use PID controllers, this algorithm was
used for the design. The controller requires a MOO in order to obtain a unique set of
coefficient for the polynomials Q, T and P.
Simulation results shown the good performance of the controller for several models,
which are randomly chosen in the region defined by the intervals polynomials.
REFERENCES
1.
2.

3.

4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

strm, K. J., and T. Hagglund, Advanced PID Control. ISA - The Instrumentation, Systems, and
Automation Society, 2005.
Gambier, A., Optimal PID controller design using multiobjective Normal Boundary Intersection
th
technique. Proc. of the 7 Asian Control Conference 2009, 1369-1374, Hong Kong, August 27-29,
2009.
Deb, K., S. Agrawal, A. Pratab and T. Meyarivan. A fast elitist non- dominated sorting genetic
algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
(M. Schoenauer, K. Deb, G. Rudolph, X. Yao, E. Lutton, J. J. Merelo, and H-P. Schwefel,
Eds.), Springer, No. 1917, 849-858, 2000.
Fonseca, C. M., Multiobjective genetic algorithms with application to control engineering problems. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, U.K., 1995.
Goldberg, D. E. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. AddisonWesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1989.
Kunkle, D., A summary and comparison of MOEA algorithms. Internal Report, College of Computer
and Information Science Northeastern University, 2005.
Thomson, W., Cooperative models of bargaining. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic App.,
in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), 2, 1237-1284, Elsevier.
Zitzler E., M. Laumanns and L. Thiele. SPEA2: Improving the Strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm.
Tech. Report 103, CH-892 Zurich, Switzerland, 2001.
Zitzler, E., K. Deb and L.Thiele, Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Empirical results.
Evolutionary Comp. Journal, 8, 125148, 2000.