Desalination 121 (1999) 65-85

Model Reduction and Robust Control of Multi-Stage Flash (MSF) Desalination Plants

Emad Ali, Khalid Alhumaizi and Abdelhamid Ajbar*

Department of Chemical Engineering King Saud University P.O. Box 800, Riyadh 11421, Saudi Arabia Fax: (9661) 467-8770 Email: aajbar@ksu.edu.sa

Abstract
An orthogonal collocation method is used for the reduction of a large nonlinear model of a multi-stage flash (MSF) desalination plant. The real plant located in Saudi Arabia consists of nineteen stages in the heat recovery section and three in the heat rejection section. It is shown that three collocation points. i.e. two for the heat recovery section and one for the heat rejection section are sufficient for a good representation of the full order model for both steady state and dynamic behavior. The reduced model is then used for a robust controller design of the plant using a constrained non-linear model predictive control (NLMPC) strategy. Numerical simulations show that the controlled system obtained when the reduced model is used for output prediction yield the same performances as with the full order model but with a considerable reduction in the computational time and a much easier tuning of the controller. Keywords: desalination; MSF; control; model reduction

* Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed.

1.

Introduction
Multi-stage flash (MSF) desalination plants are the most pre-dominantly used seawater desalting system in Saudi Arabia, constituting about sixty percent of the total desalination processes. A paramount goal in the proper design and operation of any MSF plant is the reduction of its operating costs in order to minimize the cost of the produced fresh water. One potential area for cost reduction is the minimization of the energy consumed by the plant. An MSF plant consumes a substantial amount of thermal energy in the form of low pressure steam provided by the boilers. One potential tool for the optimization task is the use of adequate control strategies that can stabilize the operation of the plant at high thermal efficiency operating points while handling efficiently the different constraints on the process variables. Recently Maniar and Deshpande[1] have studied in depth the MSF control problem. The authors analyzed the interactions that exist within the plant and showed that the use of a constrained model predictive controller (CMPC) instead of the existing conventional PID controllers can stabilize the operation of the plant at higher performance ratio (distillate per steam consumed), and can consequently result in substantial energy savings. MSF plants (Figure 1) are particularly suited for CMPC for a number of reasons. Limits on temperature of the brine heater must be observed based on the scale control method used. Constraints on the circulating brine must be also observed to avoid fluctuations in stage levels. Too low levels lead to blow-through and loss of efficiency while too high level lead to flooding. These constraints and others can be easily incorporated within the framework of a constraints handling type control strategy such as the CMPC in its different forms. Because of its multistage nature, full modeling of MSF plants leads to a large system of stiff nonlinear differential and algebraic equations. Each stage of the MSF plant (Figure 2) is described by nine variables. Another ten variables are needed to describe the dynamics of the brine heater, the splitter and the mixer (Figure 1). Consequently for a medium size MSF plant like the one studied in this paper, i.e., 19 stages in the heat recovery section and 3 stages in the reject section, the resulting dynamic model consists of more than 200 equations [1]. This large model has traditionally caused problems for both steady state and dynamic simulations of the plant. A number of methods are available in the literature [2,3] for the simulation of these models. However the main problem caused by the large model size arises when it is used with a modelbased control strategy for the control of the plant. As it can be expected, even for the nominal case the computational effort is large and the tuning of the controller can be a tedious task. Another important issue in the control problem of MSF plants, which was not addressed before, is the issue of robustness. Uncertainties in MSF models arise from different sources. Some parameters in the model are either poorly known or they are variable due to changes in the operating conditions. The heat transfer coefficients in heating tubes, for instance, are ever decreasing due to scaling. The temperature losses due to pressure drops through the tubes and due to the non-equilibrium temperature losses are also variable. Furthermore the different information on the system properties such as brine densities, heat liquid and vapor enthalpies can differ significantly from the actual operating values due to the presence of non-condensable gases. These changes in the plant condition affect directly its performance ratio. These considerations point out to the need to address the issue of robust control design of the plant. But as we have experienced, the tuning of MPC controller for robust performance is a difficult task for this process because of the large model size.

In this paper we investigate the MSF control problem from a different perspective. The orthogonal collocation method [4] is used to obtain a reduced model for the plant. This method is well documented and has been used successfully, for example, for the simulations of distillation columns [4]. The states of the full order model are approximated compactly by polynomials of order equal to the number of chosen collocation points. This results in models of significantly lower order than the original full order model. It worth mentioning that there are a number of model reduction techniques in the literature [5] that deal with linear time invariant systems. However linearizing the model around would add more modeling errors and would complicate the robust design problem. For this reason we have opted for the collocation technique that maintains at least the non-linear aspect of the model. The obtained reduced model is used for output prediction in a robust control design of the plant. The objectives of this work is to show that the use of the reduced model for output prediction can provide the same performances as with the full order model but with a considerable reduction in the computational effort. Moreover, the tuning of the controller is made much easier for both the nominal case and for the case of model-plant mismatch.

2. Reduced model and simulations procedure

The notation adopted for a stage j (expect the last stage) of the plant is shown in Figure 2. The stage is described by nine variables, i.e., brine pool height, Lj, brine flow rate Bj, salt mass fraction CBj, brine temperature TBj, distillate flow rate Dj, distillate temperature TDj, coolant temperature TCj, vaporization rate Vj and stage operating pressure Pj. The full order dynamic model and its assumptions are adopted from the original model [6,7]. For the sake of simplicity both the mass and energy balance equations of distillate trays are not included in the current model. In the reduced model each state in the different sections of the plant, i.e., heat recovery and heat rejection section is approximated by polynomials using a number n of interior grid points s1, s2, sn plus the entries s0 = 0, sn+1 = S+1 where S is the number of stages of each section. This yields the following expression for any state x(s,t) at position s and time t,

x( s, t ) = w j x ( s j , t )
i =0

0sS

(1)

where the W-functions are the Lagrange polynomials,

w j ( s) =

s sk , k =0,k j s j s k

j = 0 ,L ,n

(2)

The selection of the 'best' collocation points, sj, have been discussed in detail in the reference paper [4]. In this work the collocation points are chosen to be the zeros of the Hahn polynomials of different orders [4]. A list of some these points are given in Table 1. It should be noted that because of the generally low number of stages in the heat rejection section (3 in this case) one collocation point is enough for the approximation of this section. Therefore the reduced model adopted for the plant consists of an n > 1 collocation points model

for the heat recovery section and one collocation point model for the heat rejection section. Figure 3 shows for example a schematic diagram of the reduced scheme of the MSF plant with two and one collocation points respectively in the heat recovery and rejection sections. The detailed equations for this model are provided in the appendix. Reduced models with lower or higher collocation points can be obtained similarly using the appropriate collocation points shown in Table 1 and the interpolation polynomials given by Eqns. (1,2).

3. Results and discussion

The full order model and the reduced models of different order are tested against real plant data obtained from the MSF plant, Khubar II, located in Saudi Arabia. The plant consists of 19 recovery and 3 reject stages with a capacity of 1184 tons/hr. The plant operating parameters are shown in Table 2. Figures 4(a,b) and Table 3 summarize the results of steady state simulations of the full order model and the plant data. These results show reasonably good agreement between the model and the actual plant data both in temperature profile and in performance ratio. The results of steady state simulations of the full order model and the reduced models of different order are shown in Figures 5(a,b) and Table 4. It can be seen that the two-collocation points model yields the best approximation for the full order model. The two points collocation model yields results significantly better than the one point collocation model, both in the performance ratio ( Table 4) and in the temperature profiles (Figures 5(a,b)). On the other hand both three and four collocation points models lead only to insignificant improvement in the temperature profile (not seen in Figures 5(a,b) but identical to two point collocation results) or in the performance ratio (Table 4). Steady state simulations show therefore that a reduced model with two collocation points in the heat recovery section and one collocation point in the heat reject section is enough to approximate the full order model. These results are tested for open loop dynamic simulations. Figures 6(a,b) show the open loop response of top brine temperature (TB0) and distillate flow rate Wd to a decrease of magnitude 3oC in the steam temperature, while Figures 7(a,b) shows the system responses to a decrease of 10% in the Re-circulating brine flow rate. The open loop responses show the ability of the reduced model to match reasonably well the dynamic behavior of the full order model. The resulting reduced model, i.e., 2 collection points in heat recovery section and 1 in heat reject section is described by 17 state variables only, which represents a considerable reduction in size. In the next section we compare the closed loop performances of the MPC strategy when used with the full and the reduced model respectively.
3.1 Control strategy The structure of the MPC version developed by Ali and Zafiriou [8] that utilizes directly the nonlinear model for state prediction is implemented for the control of the MSF plant. A usual MPC formulation solves the following on-line optimization problem:

u( t k

min ),....,u( t

k + M 1

) i=1

( y( t k + i ) r ( t k + i )

i=1

u( t k + i 1 )

Subject to

F T U (t k ) b

For nonlinear MPC the predicted output y over the prediction horizon P is obtained by the numerical integration of the state equations & = f ( x, u ) x y = g ( x)

from time tk up to tk+P. The symbol ||.|| denotes the Euclidean vector norm and k denotes the current sampling point. and are diagonal weight matrices, r is the desired output trajectories and U(tk)=[ u(tk),, u(tk+M-1)]T is a vector of M future changes of the manipulated variable vector (u) that are to be determined by the on-line optimization. A disturbance estimate should also be added to y or alternatively it can be absorbed in r(tk+1). The latter is assumed for simplicity. In this work, the disturbance is assumed constant over the prediction horizon, and set equal to the difference between the plant and model outputs at present time k. Traditionally the function of the 'additive' constant disturbance in the model prediction is to introduce integral actions and thus remove steady state offset in the face of model uncertainty or unmeasured disturbances. Numerical solutions of the set of differential and algebraic equations are carried out using the Dassl software package[9].
3.2 Closed loop simulation results Besides the basic inventory loops such as the level control loops, the two main control loops in the MSF plant were discussed earlier [1]. The top brine temperature (TB0) is to be controlled by the recycle brine flow rate (B0) while the distillate flow rate (Wd) is to be controlled by the steam flow rate (Ws). The obtained control system is tested for the following two objectives:

Maximize the distillate product. To achieve this objective the top brine temperature has to be increased to expand the flash range. His objective can be formulated as a positive setpoint change in both the top brine temperature TB0 and in the distillate flow rate Wd. Maximize the performance ratio. This is the most appealing objective form an economic point of view. This can be achieved by maintaining the same nominal distillate production but at minimum steam consumption. This can be translated into a zero set point change in Wd and a positive set point change in TB0. The different constraints on the process variables are shown in Table 5.
3.3 Control with the full order model: nominal case For this case we assume that the full order model describes the plant dynamic behavior faithfully. The closed loop simulations are depicted in Figures 8(a,b) and Figures 9(a,b) for the first control objective. Specifically the NLMPC algorithm was tested for a set point change of 4oC in the top brine temperature and a step change of 1.8 tons/min in the distillate flow rate. The results of the closed-loop control as well as the selected tuning parameters for the NLMPC are listed respectively in Tables 6 and 8.

This control algorithm was relatively easy to achieve since the two set points are in the same direction having in mind that both manipulated variables (the recycle brine flow rate B0 and the steam flow rate Ws have the same directional effect on the controller outputs (Top brine temperature TB0 and distillate flow rate Wd. The controller succeeded in increasing the distillate by 10 percent yet with a 12.5 percent increase in the steam consumption. The results for the second control objective are shown in Figures 10(a,b), Figures 11(a,b) and Table 7. This control objective is more difficult to achieve due to the strong interactions between the two control loops and given the fact that the set points are in opposite direction. As expected, controlling the process for this case is a quite difficult task requiring careful tuning of the weights on the moves on the manipulative variables. The new value of is diag[0.2,0.017]. The rest of the tuning parameters are listed in Table 8. Any attempt to speed up the response via reducing will result in an aggressive or even unstable behavior. With these tuning parameters, the controller was able to operate the plant at a more profitable operating condition ( Table 7) with an increase of 2.8 percent in the performance ratio. This translates to about 35250 tons of steam that can be saved per year. It should be noted that while the MPC worked well for the full model in the nominal case, the computational time was quite large and the tuning difficult. With this in mind, tackling the issue of robustness can be expected to be even a more tedious task.
3.4 Control with the reduced model: nominal case We turn our attention to controlling the plant using the obtained reduced model. We assume that the real plant is represented faithfully by the full order model. Table 9 shows the initial steady states for both the full order model, i.e., plant and the reduced model. It can be seen that for the same values of the input variables (B0,Ws) the reduced model predict a slightly different steady state than the plant. The top brine temperature and the distillate flow rate differ respectively by values of 1.7oC and 0.61 tons/min respectively, resulting in a discrepancy of 3.4 percent in the performance ratio. In the next section we test whether the NLMPC strategy utilizing the reduced model for output prediction is still capable of achieving the two control objectives stated before.

Figures 12(a,b) and Figures 13(a,b) show the closed loop simulations for set point changes of 4oC in the top brine temperature (TB0) and 1.8 tons/min in the distillate flow rate Wd. The controller was able to drive the process to its desired steady state. Figures 14(a,b) and Figures 15(a,b) show on the other hand the closed loop simulations for the second control objective i.e. an step change of 4oC in TB0 while Wd is maintained constant. Again the controller was able to drive the plant to the desired steady state and the process still managed to achieve, like in the case of the full order, an increase of 2.8 percent in the performance ratio. The corresponding tuning parameters are listed in Table 10. In both cases, then, and despite the initial mismatch between the plant and the model the controller managed to achieve the same performances as with the full order model. However, as expected the computational time was reduced dramatically, i.e., around six times the computational time corresponding to the full order model.
3.5 Control with the reduced model: plant-model mismatch In this section, the NLMPC controller utilizing the reduced model for output prediction is tested for the rejection of plant internal disturbances. The closed loop simulations are carried

out for three cases shown in Table 11 with different percent change in the heat transfer coefficient and in the boiling point rise. These changes reflect a realistic case where fouling decrease the heat transfer coefficients and where the percent increase in the temperature reflect the changes in non-equilibrium losses in the flashing brine. The objective is to see whether the NLMPC controller utilizing the reduced model can still maintain the performance ratio of the plant in face of these internal disturbances. Figures 16(a,b) and Figures 17(a,b) show the simulations for tests 1,2 and 3.It can be seen that the controller is able to maintain the plant at its steady state within the constrained imposed on the system process variables. Despite the large propagated internal disturbance in test 3 (20 percent decrease in the overall transfer coefficient and a 20 percent increase in the boiling point rise) the controller was still capable of keeping the system at its steady state. However the presence of internal disturbances degrades the controller performance indicated by slower transient responses. The controller was detuned in each case for better performance. The tuning parameters for these cases are listed in Table 12.

4. Conclusions
The paper has investigated the robust control of an MSF plant through a non-linear model predictive control strategy utilizing a reduced model for output prediction. The reduced model was obtained through an orthogonal collocation method. Two collocation points in the heat recovery section and one in the heat rejection section were chosen to form a reduced-order model that captured reasonably well both steady state and dynamic behavior of the full order model. Closed loop simulations for the nominal and model-plant mismatch cases show the ability of the controller to achieve the same levels of performance as when the full order model is used for output prediction. Both the computational time and the tuning efforts were considerably reduced.

Nomenclature
AB AHB AHC AHR B BD Bj B0 CBj CBD CF CP Dj F HBj HCj HS hV HV Lj M MCj MCs NJ NR P Pj t TBj TB0 TCj TDj TF TIj Tk TOj TS u US UHC UHR Vj Wd WF Wmk Ws y cross section area of the flash chamber (m2) heat transfer area in the brine heater (m2) heat transfer area in condenser tubes in heat recovery section (m2) heat transfer area in condenser tubes in heat rejection section (m2) vector of lower and upper bounds of the linear constraints Blow down flow rate (ton/min) Flashing brine flow rate leaving stage j (ton/min) recycle brine flow rate (ton/min) salt mass fraction at stage j salt mass fraction of the blow down salt mass fraction of seawater feed brine heat capacity ( kj /kg oC) distillate flow rate leaving stage j (ton/min) Linear constraints matrix enthalpy of the brine leaving stage j (kj/kg) enthalpy of the recycle flow leaving the condenser tubes of stage j (kj/kg) enthalpy of the condensing steam in brine heater (kj/kg) liquid enthalpy of the saturated vapor at condensate temperature (kj/kg) enthalpy of the saturated vapor at flashing brine temperature (kj/kg) brine level in stage j (m) control horizon mass of the recycled brine in the condenser tubes of stage j (kg) mass of the brine in the brine heater tubes (kg) number of stages in heat rejection section number of stages in heat recovery section output prediction horizon pressure in the flash chamber (bar) time (min) brine temperature leaving stage j (oC) top brine temperature (oC) coolant temperature leaving condenser tubs of stage j (oC) distillate temperature at stage j (oC) sea water feed temperature (oC) coolant temperature of stage j in reduced MSF scheme (Figure 3) (oC) time at sampling instant k brine temperature of stage j in reduced MSF scheme (Figure 3) (oC) temperature of the steam entering the brine heater (oC) manipulated variable vector overall heat transfer coefficient in brine heater (kj/min oC m2 ) overall heat transfer coefficient in condenser tubes in heat recovery section (kj/min oC m2) overall heat transfer coefficient in condenser tubes in heat rejection section(kj/min oC m2 ) Evaporation rate at stage j, (ton/min) distillate flow rate (ton/min) feed seawater flow rate (ton/min) make-up flow rate (ton/min) steam flow rate (kg/min) model output vector diagonal weight matrix on the predictive error

TBPR TE U B

boiling point rise (oC) equilibrium losses (oC) vector of M future manipulative variables change diagonal weight matrix on the manipulated variable brine density (kg/m3 )

References
1. 2. V.M. Maniar and P. B. Deshpande, J. Proc. Cont., 6 (1996) 49. A. M. Helal, M.S. Medani, M.A. Soliman, and J.R. Flower, Comput. Chem. Engng., 10(4) (1986) 327. I.S. Al-Mutaz, and M.A. Soliman, Desalination, 74 (1989) 317. W.E. Stewart, K. L. Levien and M. Morari, Chem. Engng. Sci, 40(3) (1985) 409. J. Pal, Proceeding of IDA world congress on Desalination and Water Sciences, 4 (1995), 297. A. Husain, A. Hassan, D.M. Al-Gobaisi, A. Al-Radif, A. Woldai, and C. Sommariva, Arabian Gulf Regional Water Desalination Symposium, 2 (1992) 819. A. Husain, A. Woldai, A. Al-Radif, A. Kesou, R. Borsani, H. Sultan, and P.B. Deshpande, Proceedings of the IDA and WRPC World Conference on Desalination and Water Treatment, 3 (1993) 119. E. Ali, and E. Zafiriou, J. Proc. Cont., 3 (1993) 97. L.R. Petzold, in: Scientific Computing, R. S. Stepleman, Ed.North-Holland, 1983.

3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

Appendix
In this section we present the detailed equations for the reduced model of the plant with a two point collocations in the heat recovery section and one in the heat rejection section (Figure 2).
Heat recovery section The corresponding collocation points for the heat recovery section are:
2 2 NR +1 NR 1 N +1 NR 1 , s2 = R + 2 12 2 12 where NR denoted the number of stages in this section. The brine temperature TB, brine pool height L, brine flow rate B and brine concentration CB profiles are given for any stage (s), by the following relations:

s1 =

Brine temperature TB ( s ) = WoB ( s )TBo + W1B ( s )TB1 + W2 B ( s )TB 2 With To1 = TB ( s1 1), To 2 = TB ( s2 1), To 3 = TB ( N R )

Brine flow rate B( s) = WoB ( s ) Bo + W1B ( s ) B1 + W2 B ( s ) B2 With

B1 = B ( s1 1), B3 = B ( s2 1), B5 = B ( N R )

Salt concentration

CB ( s ) = WoB ( s )CBo + W1B ( s)CB1 + W2 B ( s)CB 2

With

CB1 = CB ( s1 1), CB 3 = CB ( s2 1), CB 5 = CB ( N R ) Cooling temperature TC ( s ) = WoC ( s )TC1 + W1C ( s )TC 2 + W2C ( s)TC 3
With

TI 3 = TC ( s2 1), TI 4 = TC ( s1 1), TI 5 = TC (1)

The different weights are given by: WoB ( s ) = ( s s2 )( s s3 ) ( s s0 )( s s2 ) ( s s0 )( s s1 ) , W1B ( s ) = , W2 B ( s ) = ( s1 s2 )( s1 s3 ) ( s1 s0 )( s1 s3 ) ( s2 s0 )( s2 s1 )

With s0 = 0, and

WoC (s) =

(s s2 )(s s3 ) (s s1 )(s s3 ) (s s1 )(s s2 ) , W1C (s) = , W2C (s) = (s1 s2 )(s1 s3 ) (s2 s1 )(s2 s3 ) (s3 s1 )(s3 s2 )

With s3 = NR +1

Heat rejection section Only one collocation point (s1 = (Nj+1)/2) is chosen for the heat rejection section, where NJ is the number of stages in this section of the plant. The different profiles are given by:

Brine temperature TB ( s ) = W0 B ( s)T03 + W1B ( s)TB 3 With T04 = TB ( s1 1), T05 = TB ( N J 1)

Brine flow rate B( s) = W0 B ( s) B5 + W1B ( s) B7 With B6 = B ( s1 1), B8 = B ( N J 1)

Salt concentration C B ( s ) = WoB ( s )C B 5 + W1B ( s )C B 7

With C B 6 = C B ( s1 1), C B8 = C B ( N J 1) Cooling temperature TC ( s ) = WoC ( s )TC 4 + W1C ( s)TF

With TI 1 = TC ( s1 1), TI 2 = TC (1) The different weights are given by:

(s s0 ) ( s s1 ) , W1B ( s ) = ( s 0 s1 ) ( s1 s 0 )

WoB ( s) =

With s0 = 0, and

WoC (s) =

(s s1 ) (s s2 ) , W1C (s) = (s2 s1 ) (s1 s2 )

With s2 = NJ +1 With these relations, the reduced model of the plant is given by the following equations:
Mass Balance of the Flash Chambers

Stage s1
B (TB1 ) AB dL1 = B1 B2 V1 dt

Stage s2
B (TB 2 ) AB dL2 = B3 B4 V2 dt

Stage s3
B (TB 3 ) AB dL3 = B6 B7 V3 dt

Last stage
B (TB 4 ) AB dL4 = B8 + Wmk B D B0 V4 dt

Component Balance on the Flash Chambers

Stage s1

 B (TB1 ) AB L1

dC B 2 = B1 (C B1 C B 2 ) V1C B 2 dt

Stage s2
B (TB 2 ) AB L2 dC B 4 = B3 (C B 3 C B 4 ) V2 C B 4 dt

Stage s3
B (TB 3 ) AB L3 dC B 7 = B6 (C B 6 C B 7 ) V3 C B 7 dt

Last stage
B (TB 4 ) AB L4 dC BD = B8 (C B 8 C B 7 ) + Wmk (C F C BD ) V4 C BD dt

Energy Balance on the Flash Chambers

Stage s1
d ( B (TB1 ) AB L1 hB (TB1 )) = B1 hB (T01 ) B2 hB (TB1 ) V1 H V 1 dt

Stage s2
d ( B (TB 2 ) AB L2 hB (TB 2 )) = B3 hB (T02 ) B4 hB (TB 2 ) V2 H V 2 dt

Stage s3
d ( B (TB 3 ) AB L3 hB (TB 3 )) = B6 hB (T04 ) B7 hB (TB 3 ) V3 H V 3 dt

Last stage
d ( B (TB 4 ) AB L4 hB (TB 4 )) = B8 hB (T05 ) + Wmk hc (TI 2 ) ( B D + B0 )hB (TB 4 ) V4 H V 4 dt

Temperature of Distillate tray For each stage s1, s2, s3 and the last stage we have:

TDI = TBj TBPR TE

Energy Balance on the tubes

Stage s1
T + TI 4 dhC (TC1 ) = B0 (hC (TI 4 ) hC (TC1 )) U HC AHC (TD1 C1 ) dt 2 T + TI 4 U HC AHC (TD1 C1 ) = V1 ( H V 1 hV 1 ) 2 M C1

Stage s2
T + TI 3 dhC (TC 2 ) = B0 (hC (TI 3 ) hC (TC 2 )) U HC AHC (TD 2 C 2 ) dt 2 T + TI 3 U HC AHC (TD 2 C 2 ) = V2 ( H V 2 hV 2 ) 2 M C2

Stage s3
T + TI 1 dhC (TC 4 ) = WF (hC (TI 1 ) hC (TC 4 )) U HR AHR (TD 4 C 4 ) dt 2 T + TI 1 U HR AHR (TD 4 C 4 ) = V4 ( H V 4 hV 4 ) 2 M C3

Last stage
T + TF dhC (TC 5 ) = WF (hC (TF ) hC (TC 5 )) U HR AHR (TD 5 C 5 ) dt 2 T + TF U HR AHR (TD 5 C 5 ) = V5 ( H V 5 hV 5 ) 2 M C4
Energy balance for brine heater

T + TB 0 dhC (Ts ) = B0 (hC (TI 5 ) hB (TB 0 )) U s As (TS I 5 ) 2 dt T + TB 0 ) = Ws H s U S AS (Ts I 5 2 M Cs

The physical properties in the above model such as brine density, liquid and vapor enthalpies, boiling point rise, BPR, non-equilibrium losses, TE, and heat transfer coefficients are estimated through empirical correlation as reported by Helal2.

Table 1: Collocation points (Roots of Hahn polynomial [4])

order

Collocation points

S +1 2 M +1 S 2 1 2 12 S +1 S + 2 3S 2 13 , 2 2 20
S +1 3S 2 13 6 S 4 45S 2 + 64 2 28 980

Table 2: Plant operating parameters Seawater reject (tons/min) Recycle brine(tons/min) Make-up (tons/min) Seawater temperature (oC) Steam temperature (oC)

95.35 217.20 48.47 35 98.10

Table 3: Steady state simulation results for the full order model (top brine temperature controlled at 90.6 oC) variable Simulated results Plant data Distillate product (tons/min) 16.18 16.32 Blow down flow rate (tons/min) 32.17 32.01 Performance ratio (kg product/1000kj) 3.47 3.44

Table 4: Steady state simulation results for the full order model and the reduced models (top brine temperature controlled at 90.6 oC) Full Collocation points Model 1 2 3 4 15.95 16.11 16.10 16.09 Distillate product (tons/min) 16.18 32.52 32.36 32.37 32.36 Blow down flow rate (tons/min) 32.17 3.45 3.43 3.43 3.44 Performance ratio (kg 3.47 product/1000kj)

Table 5: Constraints on process variables

Recycle brine flow rate (tons/min) Top brine temp. (oC) Steam flow rate (kg/min)

Lower bound 192 83 2100

Upper bound 242 95 2900

Table 6: Results of closed loop control for maximum production; control objective 1. (full order model, nominal case) Variable Initial steady state Final steady state o Top brine temp. ( C) 88.0 92.0 Distillate product (tons/min) 17.8 19.6 Rec. brine (tons/min) 217.4 221.3 Steam flow rate (kg/min) 2453 2760.

Table 7: Results of closed loop control for maximum performance ratio; control objective 2. (full order model, nominal case) Final steady state Variable Initial steady state Top brine temp. (oC) 88.0 92.0 Distillate product (tons/min) 17.8 17.8 Rec. brine (tons/min) 217.4 198.8 Steam flow rate (kg/min) 2453 2385 Performance ratio 3.21 3.30

Table 8: Tuning parameters for MPC controller with full model Parameter Objective 1 Objective 2 Control interval 1min 1min Control horizon 1min 1min Prediction horizon 1min 1min Weights on outputs 1, 2 1, 2 Weights on changes in manipulated variables 0.25, 0.02 0.20, 0.017

Table 9: Initial steady states for full order model and reduced model Variable Full order model Top brine temp. (oC) 88.10 Distillate product (tons/min) 17.81 Rec. brine (tons/min) 217.4 Steam flow rate (kg/min) 2453 Performance ratio 3.21

Reduced model 89.80 17.20 217.40 2453 3.10

Table 10: Tuning parameters for MPC controller with reduced model (nominal case) Objective 1 Objective 2 Parameter Control interval 1min 1min Control horizon 1min 1min Prediction horizon 1min 1min Weights on outputs 1, 2 1, 2 Weights on changes in manipulated variables 0.2, 0.02 0.2, 0.02

Table 11: Plant internal disturbances

U (Overall heat transfer coefficeint (kj/ min oC m2} BPR Boiling point rise (oC)

Test 1 -20% 0

Test 2 0 +20%

Test 3 -20% +20%

Table 12: Tuning parameters for MPC controller with reduced model (case of plant-model mismatch) Parameter Objective 1 Objective 2 Control interval 1min 1min Control horizon 1min 1min Prediction horizon 1min 1min Weights on outputs 1, 2 1, 2 Weights on changes in manipulated variables 0.1, 0.01 0.1, 0.01

Figure 1: MSF desalination plant

Reject Flow

Condenser tubes

Sea water feed Steam Condensate Flashing Brine Blowdown Recycle Brine Brine Heater Recovery section Rejection Section Distillate trays Distillate Makeup

Figure 2: A general stage in MSF plant

Stage j T Cj Dj-1 T Dj-1 Pj Bj-1 T Bj-1 Xj-1 Lj Vj Bj T Bj Xj T Cj-1 Dj T Dj

Figure 3: A Schematic scheme for model of an MSF plant with 2 collocation points in the heat recovery section and 1 point in the heat rejection section

Ws Ts

TI5

TC1

TI4

TC2

TI3

TC3

TI2

TC4

TI1

TC5

TF

TB0 B0 CB0

T01 B1 CB1

TB1 B2 CB2

T02 B3 CB3

TB2 B4 CB4

T03 B5 CB5

T04 B6 CB6

TB3 B7 CB7

T05 B8 CB8

TB4 BD CBD

B0 Wmk

Figure 4: Temperature profile: full order model Vs. plant data

90
Plant data

80

Simulated data

TB (oC )

70 60 50 40 90
Plant data Simulated data

70

Tc(oC )
50 30 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22

Stage

Figure 5: Temperature profile: Reduced models Vs. full order model. Lines for 3 and 4 collocation points are identical to the 2-collocation points line.
90 80
full model 1 pt colloc. 2 pt colloc.

TB(oC)

70 60 50 40 90
full model 1 pt colloc.

TC (oC)

70

2 pt colloc.

50

30 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22

Stage

Figure 6: Open-loop simulations: a decrease of 3oC in the steam temperature. solid - full order model; dashed -- reduced model.
89 88

TB0 (oC) Wd (tone/min)

87 86 85 18

17

16 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 7: Open-loop simulations: a decrease of 10% in the steam temperature; solid - full order model; dashed -- reduced model.
90

TB0 (oC) Wd (tons/min)

89

88 18

17

16 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 8: Closed-loop simulation for maximum production (full order model)

94

TB0 (oC)

92

90

set point

88 20

Wd (tons/min)

19
set point

18

17 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 9: Manipulated variables profile for maximum production (full order model)
230.0

B0 (tons/min)

220.0

210.0 2800

Ws (Kg/min)

2600

2400 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 10: Closed-loop simulation for maximum performance ratio (full order model)
94

TB0 (oC)

92

90

set point

88 20

wd (tons/min)

19

set point

18

17 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 11: Manipulated variables profile for maximum performance ratio (full order model)
215.0

B0 (tons/min)

210.0 205.0 200.0 195.0 2600

Ws (Kg/min)

2500

2400

2300 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 12: Closed-loop simulation for maximum production (reduced model, nominal case)
94

TB0 (oC)

92

90

set point

88 20

Wd (tons/min)

19
set point

18

17 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 13: Manipulated variable for maximum production (reduced model, nominal case

230.0

B0 (tons/min)

220.0

210.0 2800

Ws (Kg/min)

2600

2400 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 14: Closed-loop simulation for maximum performance ratio (reduced model, nominal case)
94

TB0 (oC)

92

90

set point

88 20

wd (tons/min)

19

set point

18

17 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 15: Manipulated variables profile for maximum performance ratio (reduced model, nominal case)
215.0

B0 (tons/min)

210.0 205.0 200.0 195.0 2600

Ws (Kg/min)

2500

2400

2300 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 16: Closed-loop simulation for maximum performance ratio (reduced model, nonnominal case, tests 1-3)
89.0 88.0

TB0 (oC)

87.0 86.0 85.0 18.5

-20% error in U & +20% error in BPR -20% error in U +20% error in BPR set point

Wd (tons/min)

17.5

16.5 0 50 100 150

Time (min)

Figure 17: Manipulated variables profile for maximum performance ratio (reduced model, nonnominal case, tests 1-3)
236.0
-20% error in U & +20% error in BPR

B0 (tons/min)

231.0 226.0 221.0 216.0 2900

-20% error in U +20% error in BPR

ws (Kg/min)

2800 2700 2600 2500 0 50 100 150

Time (min)