Z Proc. Cont. Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.

283-289, 1997
1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain.
0959-1524/97 $17.00 + 0.00

eLsevieR

PII: S0959-1524(97)00004-8

Advanced control of a reverse osmosis

desalination unit
James Z. Assef*, James C. Watters*, Pradeep B. Deshpande** and
Imad M. Alatiqi*
*Center for Desalination, Chemical Engineering Department, University of Louisville,
Louisville, KY 40292, USA
~Chemical Engineering Department, Kuwait University, Safat - 73060, Kuwait
Received 37 July 1996; revised 77 December 7996
An experimental investigation of constrained model predictive control (CMPC) for a reverse osmosis
(RO) desalination unit has been conducted. For comparison purposes, results with traditional PID-type
control have also been obtained. The experimental unit consists of a series of four cellulose acetate membranes. A 486-PC is used as the data acquisition and control computer. It is interfaced to the experimental unit via analogue-to-digital and digital-to-analogue converter boards. The models required for CMPC
and PID-type controls are obtained by step testing. The RO system has four outputs and two inputs. The
outputs are (1) permeate flow rate, (2) permeate conductivity, indicative of the salt content in the product, (3) trans-membrane pressure, and (4) inlet pH. The inputs are (1) flow rate of reject water and (2)
inlet acid flow rate. The production objectives are to produce the specified flow rate of permeate, having
the desired salt content, subject to the constraints that the inlet pH and the trans-membrane pressure are
within specified bounds. It is shown that CMPC can achieve these goals. It is also demonstrated that
CMPC can maximize the throughput subject to the constraints on the other three outputs. A comparison
of the results with CMPC and PI control reveals the excellent capability of CMPC for RO desalination
plant operations. 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd
Keywords: MPC, RO desalination, advanced control

Overview of constrained model predictive

control ~

Although significant advances in RO technology have

occurred in recent years, little consideration appears to
have been given in the literature to the application of
process control techniques to this technology. Among
the few papers in the literature is one by Alatiqi et al. ]
who conducted a simulation study to assess the benefits
of PI control applied to an RO desalination unit. In
another study, Mindler and Epstein 2 identified the controlled and manipulated variables in RO desalination
and commented on why certain systems variables must
be contained within bounds. In this paper we present an
experimental application of constrained model predictive control (CMPC) applied to an RO desalination
unit. The performance of C M P C is compared against
that with PI control. The organization of the paper is as
follows. We begin with an overview of constrained
model predictive control. It is followed by a description
of the apparatus and the computer control system,
Next, experimental results with C M P C and PI control
are presented and discussed. Finally, some concluding
remarks are offered.

C M P C is a model-based multivariable control strategy

which combines feedback/feedforward control with
optimization. This combination gives CMPC strategies
their constraint handling capabilities. Since the economic plant operation is often located in the neighbourhood of operating constraints, CMPC has become
increasingly popular in the process industries in recent
years.
There are a number of manifestations of model predictive control possible. We consider a simpler manifesration here to illustrate the concepts. Consider a linear
multivariable system schematically shown in Figure 1.
The process outputs Y are related to the manipulated
variables M, measured disturbances L, and the unmeasured disturbances D, according to:
Y = KpM + KLL + D

*Author to whom all correspondenceon this paper should be directed

283
47

(1)

where Y, M, L, and D are in deviation form and K represents a matrix of steady-state gains. Note that Equa-

Advanced control o f a reverse osmosis desalination unit: James Z. Assef et a l.

284

M~a
Disturbances,
L ~
~r~at~d
vmabl~M
Figure

u,,,,~v.a
r~mi~ l'-----1 Dt~r~ba.~,~D
_]1
+
'
~
~
~
-1 rW~i~ [ r ~/~.-~.,/

o.~.~v

1 Schematicof open-loop process

tion (1) is free of dynamic terms. For an illustrative

two-output, three-output, and one-measured load variable problem, Equation (1) may be expanded to give:
Yl = bl + K n m l + K12m2 + K13ms + K L l l + D ~

Y2

b2

K2]ml

K22m2 + g23m3 + KL21 + D 2

(2A)

(2B)

with
bl = Yts - Knm~s

K12m2s

K~3m3s

KLlls

(3A)

bz = Y2s - K2~ml~

K22m2s

g23m3s

gL2/s

(3B)

where y, m, l, and D are in absolute form and the subscript s denotes steady-state. With this background, an
optimization problem may be formulated. If linear programming (LP) is selected, the optimization index may
be written as:

Min J = [MEGA{~(VI U +vIL)+ C2(V2tJ +v2L)} (4)

+ Cama + C4rn2 + C5m3]

In these equations S refers to slack/surplus variables,

V refers to violation variables, and C refers to cost
penalties. The term M E G A represents a large number,
say 106, and d i is the effect of the unmeasured disturbances and modelling errors upon the output i. The
superscripts U and L refer to an upper bound and a
lower bound, respectively. Owing to the presence of
slack/surplus and violation variables, the bounds on the
controlled variables are treated as soft constraints that
may be violated but the bounds on the manipulated
variables are hard constraints and are never violated.
An examination of Equations (5A)-(5L) reveals that
the terms on the right-hand side involve upper and lower
bounds on the controlled and manipulated variables, the
biases b i , and the terms d ~. The bounds are user specifications and since the mathematical model of the process
is known, the biases can be calculated. The terms d t are
feedback signals as shown in Figure 2 and they can be
calculated at each control interval by sampling the
process outputs and subtracting from them the effect of
the manipulated variables and the measured load variables on the controlled variables calculated from a mathematical model of the process. It should be noted that
the feedback signals d ~ account for the unmeasured disturbances D ~as well as modelling errors. A Linear Program may then be invoked to solve Equations (5A)-(5L)
giving the manipulated variables to apply to the process.
Some comments on how Equation (4) carries out the
optimization are in order. It may be noted that as written, LP will minimize the objective function; maximization of the objective function may be achieved by
making it negative.
1.

subject to:
Kl~m~ + K n m 2 + K~3ms - y~ = - b~ - an - K L J

(5A)

K21ml + K22m2 + K23m3 - Y2 ----- b2 - d2 - KL2I

(5B)

Yl + S1u - VIU = Y~

(5C)

S1L + VlL = yL

(5D)

Yl -

Y2 + $2U - V2U = Y~

(5E)

Y2 - SL + ~2L "~ y L

(5F)

--- mlU

2.

The magnitude of M E G A is very large. Thus, the

principal aim of the optimizer will be to minimize
the violation variables. In other words, the optimizer will try its best to maintain the outputs within
their respective upper and lower bounds. If the optimizer is unable to find a solution where the violation variables are zero, then, it will minimize the
violation variables.
By assigning different costs to the outputs, the user
may declare the desire to achieve tighter control of
some outputs relative to others.
Uameasmed Distmbnees
D
Distmba~esMe~red

(5G)

~
~

Manipulated

< mzU

(5I)

_>

(s J)

<

(SK)

m3 - m3L

(5L)

_ _ [ ~ ~ . 1

- ~
C,p ~.~

~ Outputs,
Y

---~Y-~---~
'
, -Unme.asm'edD i s t u ~

,~u~r~
Figure 2

Recovering feedback signal for model predictive control

48

Advanced control of a reverse osmosis desalination unit: James Z. Assef e t a l.

3.

If a solution can be found where all the violation

variables are zero (i.e., all the outputs are within
their respective upper and lower bounds), then the
term MEGA drops out of the picture and the optireal solution can be driven by the costs on the
manipulated variables,

The foregoing approach can be made more attractive

by predicting the process outputs for a number of sampiing instants into the future, correcting the predicted
outputs for the presence of disturbances, and requiring
the corrected future outputs to obey the specified upper
and lower bounds. However, for the purpose of bringing out the salient features of constrained model predictive control, the simpler procedure outlined here is
deemed to be adequate.
The predictions are made with the help of step- or
impulse-response coefficients that are determined from
process reaction curves. As an illustration, an output
for a single-loop system may be predicted by the equation:
N

= ~ hiMk+]_l
~,]
where:

i=l

(6)

= predicted output, deviation form

h = impulse response coefficient
M = manipulated variable, deviation form
k = sampling interval
The use of step- or impulse-response coefficients is
what gives CMPC the power to anticipate the detrimental effect of 'problemsome situations' and take corrective action.

Several forms of CMPC

It may be pointed out that the arrangement in Figure 2
essentially depicts the IMC (internal model control)
structure4. What is missing of course is the controller. In
traditional IMC, the controller represents the invertible
part of the process model and a filter is added to the
feedback path to achieve robustness. In constrained
model predictive control the deterministic controller is
replaced by an optimization program. The many
CMPC products in the market differ in the way the
optimization is carried out. Several possible scenarios
are listed below.
(i)

Perhaps the simplest approach would be to take

the manipulated variables from the solution of the
LP program described in the previous section and
apply them to the process. This approach will
ensure steady-state decoupling but since it does
not look into the future, constraint violations may
occur. We call this approach LPIMC.

49

285

(ii)

LPIMC can be made more powerful by predicting

the process outputs a number of control intervals
into the future, called the prediction horizon, and
requiring that all the predicted outputs, that have
been corrected for the presence of disturbances, be
contained within their respective upper and lower
bounds. A Linear Program can then be invoked to
calculate a set of future moves, called the control
horizon, such that a suitable optimization index is
minimized (or maximized). The first move may be
applied to the process and the entire procedure
repeated at the next control interval to achieve
constrained model predictive control of the
process under scrutiny. We call this approach
PREDICTIVE LP 5,6.
(iii) If the procedure is similar to that in (ii) above but
the optimization index is quadratic in nature, then
a Quadratic Program may be employed for
optimization 7. This approach is known as QDMC.
(iv) A variant of the approach in (ii) above is IdCom
(for Identification and Command) 8. In this
approach the outputs are predicted as in (ii) but
rather than calculating a set of successive moves,
several intermediate moves are blocked (i.e., held
constant) and a gradient searching optimization
procedure is employed.
Several of the foregoing approaches have been successfully applied in industrial applications. While the
proprietary aspects of the commercial CMPC software
package, [ONLINE] R, used in this investigation cannot
be revealed9, it is a variant of these four approaches.
Description o f e q u i p m e n t and c o n t r o l s y s t e m
A schematic of the R/O unit is shown in Figure 3. The
unit uses 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 95.3%,
and a water recovery of 21.7%. A 1% by volume sul-

~ _ ~

~,=,~;

" ~

i(~)
(~
~"

Figure3 Processschematic

t-g~

~..~,~,.

>

286

Advanced control of a reverse osmosis desalination unit: James Z. Assef et al.

phuric 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 r u n t h e y a r e d r a i n e d o f e x c e s s f e e d a n d f i l l e d w i t h
tap water. Then the unit is 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 R/O unit is controlled with a personal computer.
It contains 8 MB of RAM and uses an Intel 486-DX2
processor with a 32-bit VESA local bus IDE operating
at 66 MHz. The A/D and D/A conversions are performed using an OPTOMUX unit. The O P T O M U X
unit contains five analogue input modules and two analogue output modules. The data acquisition and control
software employed is F I X D M A C S (Fully Integrated
Distributed Manufacturing Automation Control Systern) 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 cornmunicates with the FIXDMACS data base through a
windows interface program. The CMPC software provides the various features previously described for
implementing constraint control.
The start-up procedure followed for each run is as follows. First, the NaCI solution is prepared by mixing a
known quantity of NaC1 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. 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,
then the various tests reported in the paper are made.

Experimental results and

AcidlnletValve
P~m~t~ *'t"
'l
raowP,~t~ ~ t - ~ .... =--i=-'i--]
Oh)
,
. . . . . .
~
,,
.
P-" ~ I
~'ty
0~)
* = " '~ '* '~
~
~
tr~ia)

FeedpH

.
"

"

~['
*'
,~*~"
. . . . . . .
,
!
~

I'

~* '* "* " '=

~

~
=-~==~- _ ._ _~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,~
*~l
1
~k.
[
~ "

-"
4~

* . . . . . .

~ ~* ~*

*Note: Time has the units of seconds.

Figure 4 Open loop step responses

discussion

As the first step in control systems design, step tests

were conducted. For this purpose the process was

Table

Prg~a~Con~lValw

brought to steady-state and 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 (see Figure 4) were fitted to
low order transfer functions with dead-time and the
results are shown in Table 1. Note that the time constants and deadtimes in Table 1 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.
The PI control strategy was implemented using the
standard PID blocks provided by FIXDMACS. A sampiing 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 F1XDMACS data base via an interface program.

1 Process transfer functions

Pressure control valve position, %

Permeate flow, gph

-0.155 (0.375s + 1)
(0.22s +1)(2.51s + 1)

Conductivity,/.tS/cm

2.48
(114s + 1)(113s + 1)

Trans-membrane pressure,
psia

--4.74
(1.45s + 1)

Inlet pH

Acid inlet valve position, %

0
0.45
(104s + l)000s +1)
0

--0.077
(21.2s +1)

50

Advanced control o f a reverse osmosis desalination unit: J a m e s Z. Assef e t a l.

91

-------------

~;~.~
e
o
aT-~,
-8 -4

! ~

. j 4o0

Results with P I control

._1i. . . . .
t35~
"~a
a0o !
4
2s0 ~
F--.
,
-- ,
~20o
0 4 8 12 16 ao 24
~m(,,m)

~ : 3o
t
2

li
"
_=
~=

~ 2
10

.8

l o

a n +6 2o 24
~m(,,i,)
c,~.~_~
s~
~
s~p.~
na',~s
v~
v~,~ v ~
~
Ln * - ~ , ~ )
8.m
7.02
7.0O 0.02 0 . 0 3
2. ~
0,tS/cm)
381.55
381.75
381.5
10.01
256.9
3. Tnm~mm~Pm~(.mia) 233.74 208.99 ~
4. ~ p a
4~0
6.~
~
~L v~,~
, ~ e,tt
, , - .w ~ , ~
49.0
54.4
2. /u:id Inlet Valve

53.6

22.3

4oo
.am
.aa0

~ ~ ~ i

"''ia~ ]
i~ ~

~'
4

'
- -,

3
-8

-2

10

16

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 1. The
conductivity controller was tuned by Fertik's chart ~
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 Figures 5 ( a ) and 5 ( b ) . In
Figure 5 ( 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 transmembrane pressure cannot be regulated although the
closed-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.

--

Figure 5(a) Set point change in permeate flow rate under PI control
t

-~

22

28

.24o

220

Results with C M P C

The results with [ONLINE] R are shown in Figures 6-10.

In all of these r u n s , 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.

200

34

Tlrae (rain)

i,o

-2

10

16

22

28

~.....___~

~ 420

,o o

20
.8

287

-I0

10
20
Tlme (mln)

34

30

1"Into (mln)

1.
2.
3.
4.

Flow l~tte (,j~a)

Ceadm~vity (ltS/~)
Tnm~mem. Past. ( i n . )
lalctl~I

7.26
38321
215.08
5.78

7.25
389.37
217.42
4.56

53.3
36.8

51.6
51.8

7.25
389.0
---

r , (*x,~) t , ( ~ )
0.02
0,03
10.01
2.'6..9

N
c=

lo t
---

Figure 5(b) Set point change in permeate conductivityunder PI control

0
-10

CMPC reads the process variables from the data base

every 20 seconds and writes the controller outputs to
the data base through the interface program. To implement CMPC, the process was brought to steady-state
under the command of FIXDMACS and then the interface program and CMPC were executed,

--

lO
I
0

0
10

20

30

Tlm.lmin)
com~ll~lVtri~Un
1.
2.
3.
4.

51

3o
20

~.~,~.~v.~
1. ]hre~ O=tl. Vtlve
2. Aeld lalet Valve

P,m Rale 0 1 ~ )
Cam~'livity (l~S/cm)
Tnm~mem. Pre~. (mia)
l a l ~ l~'l

1. r,=,.c,ttv,~

2. A.~I lalet Valve

Sttrti~ ~
Value
7.98
405.41
216.95
4.20

Vtlne
7.07
407,58
196,69
6.02

~o.o
39,5

~.4
16.2

W~ht/ m#a Low

Colt
14.9
1.75
1.0O
12.0

o.o
O.O

Limit
7.05
407.0
250.0
6.0

Limit
6,95
405.0
160.0
4.0

70.o
~o.o
80.O
0.0

Figure 6 Set point change in permeate flow rate under CMPC (prediction horizon: 88, control horizon: 8, move suppression,0,0)

A d v a n c e d control o f a reverse osmosis desalination unit: James Z. Assef et al.

288

0'

-,~0

8 "---.r--,.r-~
" ~,

-35O'35O

9~ = 81

....

4.

- 240
-22o

', ~
-10

20

__
4 ~ ....

200

10

-10

20

30

40

190
50

Time (mln)

--1

..+

236

10

Time (lain)

5O

420
.374

3 I

30

5O

+.+

++

to

10

10

0 I

-10

10

20

30

: 0

-10

10

20
30
Time (mln)

40

50

Time (rain)

CemmlledVmSab~
Crm~r~ v ~ - -

~
V~l~

Val~

I. FlowIrate (gph)
2. Coadaclivity(FS/cm)
3. 'IYmss-asan.Press. (psia)
4. pH

7.97
386.44
220.08
4.3.1

7.30
388.18
203.87
5.98

47.5
44.5

53.1
24.9

r~

Wdd~

o':f
3

-10

,
0

14,9

1. l ~ w R ~ (m~)

6.95
386.0
160.0
4.0

2. Ceod=cfivity(j~S/cm)
3. Tram-"w,,, Press. (paia)
4. IuletpH
I. ~ O ~ V ~

47.5

.54.0

0.0
0.0

70.0

30.0
0.0

2. Acid Ialet Valve

39.0

10.7

";
~
10
20
Time (rain)

7.08

7.05
388.0
250.0
6.0

80.0

,,~
_

7.95

Limit

14.9
1.75
1.00
12.0

'~= 67

wci~j~
Cost

Cost

F i g u r e 7 Set p o i n t c h a n g e in p e r m e a t e flow r a t e u n d e r C M P C ( p r e d i c t i o n h o r i z o n : 88, c o n t r o l h o r i z o n : 8, m o v e s u p p r e s s i o n 6, 1.5)

,r 8

~,,,~+
va~

Low

vmi~t-,

L Press.CmLValve
2. Acid lalet V&lve

Stmi~
value

H~

,
30

~,~

l++

1.75
1.00
3.00

Low

7.05
6.95
4 0 5 . 0 403.0
250.0 160.0
6.0
4.0

Z~ntpu~:d V m s b ~
0.0
0,0

70.0

30.0

80.0

0.0

F i g u r e 9 Set p o i n t c h a n g e in t h e p e r m e a t e flow r a t e u n d e r C M P C
c o n t r o l - effect o f o u t p u t w e i g h t i n g ( p r e d i c t i o n h o r i z o n : 88, c o n t r o l
h o r i z o n : 8, m o v e s u p p r e s s i o n o f 6, 1.5)

,~" 7 - - - - - - , ~ - - - - - - - r

244

~ 5

200

4
3

40

404.15 405.6'7
218.69 196.19
4.17
6.25

nigh
~

-'~-

-385
~

'

~-~--'~["

-345 -

-265

-10

*
-5

~
0

:
5

10

15

.225
185
20

Time (rain)
60 --.

60

4 0 2050 ~

~ 5 O 2 0 _

12o
10

-10

t
10

[
20

40 N~

8050

5o

4o

30

40

1. Row P,m (gph)

2. ~
(p,.q/cm)
3. Tnms-mzgu.Press. (psis)

4. lal~pH

Mzai/~L_,,,~__Vmisbks
1. Pre~ Cad. Valve
2. Acid Inlet Valve

409.9
204.69
4.98

51.5
30.0

~
Ylllue
7.3O

Weight/
Cost
14.9

6,01

12.0

52.7
15.8

0.0
0.0

401..54
204.21

1.7';
L00

~
~
7.3O
402.0

250.0
6.0

70.0
80.0

3O ~.
2O 10

0
-10

, S ~
Value
7.7.8

10

Time (rain)
Coanu11~ Vadablcs

60

,to

3O
20

I0
0

1 %~ " - -

Low
l,msit
7.20

400.0
160.0
4.0

30.0
0.0

F i g u r e 8 Set p o i n t c h a n g e in p e r m e a t e c o n d u c t i v i t y u n d e r C M P C
c o n t r o l ( p r e d i c t i o n h o r i z o n : 88, c o n t r o l h o r i z o n : 8, m o v e s u p p r e s s i o n ,
6, 1.5)

Each run demonstrates a unique feature of CMPC.

The tuning constants o f this software package are (1)
output weighting - to achieve tighter control of some
outputs relative to the others, (2) costs on the manipulated variables - when there are more manipulated vari-

-5

5
Tlme (rain)

10

15

Cmuollat Vss'isbl~
1. Flow PJt~ (sph)
2. ~
0~q/c~)

~
Value
6.99
411.78

~
W~
Vah~,- Cost
7.25

3. Trims-',',,*,,,Press. (1~)
4. Inletl:~I

411.04
191..96 195.22
5.21
4.00

Mmmds=d Vmables
L Ptms. Cad. Valve
2. +~:~txuk-tv,~

5G.0
21.5

52.3
44.v

0
20

I-ligh
Limit

14.9

9.00
414.0

0.155
0.0

70.0
80.0

1.75
1.00
12.0

law
Limit
6.00

412.0
2 5 0 . 0 160.0
6.0
4.0
30.0
0.0

F i g u r e 10 T h r o u g h p u t m a x i m i z a t i o n u n d e r C M P C ( p r e d i c t i o n h o r i z o n : 88, c o n t r o l h o r i z o n : 8, m o v e s u p p r e s s i o n o f 6, 1.5)

ables than controlled variables, these may be used to

allocate the manipulated variables based on economic
considerations, (3) move suppressions - which control
the speed o f response and the manipulated variable

52

Advanced control o f a reverse osmosis desalination unit: James Z. Assef et al.

289

movements, (4) control horizon - which indicates the

number of moves calculated by the C M P C controller;
the choice of this parameter influences stability in some
cases Ii.
Tests 1 and 2 are meant to demonstrate the effect of
move suppressions. Figure 6 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 7 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 7 also shows that the controller violates the permeate flow set point in order to obey the constraints on
inlet pH. Figure 7 reveals interaction compensation
although complete decoupling is not feasible with
CMPC.

from distributed control systems. Engineers with training in advanced control and specially trained operators
would also be required for successful installations.

Test 3 is concerned with a step change in the conductivity set point. The results of this test are shown in Figure 8. T o demonstrate the role o f output weighting, test

75, 119-140.
2. Mindler, A. B. and Epstein, A. C., System identification and
control of reverse osmosis desalination. Desalination, 1986, 59,

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 9 show that

3. Deshpande, P. B., Bhalodia, M. A., Caldwell, J. A. and Srinivas,

Y.s., Should you use constrained model predictive control.
Chem. Eng, Process, 1995, 91, 65-72.

the c o n t r o l l e r sacrifices its efforts to c o n t a i n the inlet

4. Garcia, C. E. and Morari, M. Internal Model Control: A unifying review and some new results. Ind. Eng. Chem. Proc. Des.

pH within its bounds in order to reach its objectives on

p e r m e a t e flow.

To demonstrate the throughput maximization capabilities of CMPC, the costs on the manipulated variables were a p p r o p r i a t e l y c h a n g e d . T h e results in Figure

10 show that C M P C 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 R O units would benefit

53

Conclusions
A successful experimental application of constrained
model predictive control on a RO unit has been presented. The results o f several tests are presented to bring
out the salient features of CMPC. For comparison purposes, the process was operated under traditional PI
control. A comparison of the results with PI control
and C M P C confirms the excellent potential of C M P C
for ROdesalination plants.

References
1. Alatiqi, I. M., Ghabris, A, H. and Ebrahim, S., Measurement
and control in reverse osmosis desalination. Desalination, 1989,

343-379.

Dev. 1982, 21,308-323.

5. Morshedi, A. M., Cutler, C. R. and Skrovanek, T. A., Optimal
solution of dynamic matrix control with linear programming
techniques (LDMC). In Proceedings of the Am. Cont. Conf.,

Boston, MA, June 1985, pp. 199-208.

6. Cutler, C. R. and Ramaker, B. L., Dynamic matrix control - a
computer control algorithm. In Proceedings of the American

Control Conference, WP5-B, 1980.

7. Garcia, G. E. and Morshedi, A. M., A quadratic programming
solution of dynamic matrix control (QDMC). Chem. Eng. Com-

mun., 1986, 46, 73.

8. Richalet, J., Rault, A., Testud, J. L. and Papon, J., Model predictive heuristic control: applications to industrial processes.
Automatica, 1978, 14, 413.
9. [ONLINE] User's Manual, Simulation and Advanced Controls,

Inc., Louisville, KY.

10. Fertik, H. A., Tuning controllers for noisy processes. ISA Trans.
1975, 14, 4.
11. Garcia, C. E. and Morari, M. Internal Model Control 3 - multivariable control law computation and tuning guidelines. Ind.

Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Dev., 1985, 24, 484--494.