Regulation of methane gas output from an anaerobic reactor system using moving horizon $H_{\infty }$ control

In this study, the moving horizon $\mathcal{H}_{\infty }$\textbf{ }control used for tracking a desired methane gas output from an anaerobic wastewater treatment reactor is compared with classical $\mathcal{H}_{\infty }$ control and a proportional-integral-derivative controller. The nonlinear system is first linearized around the set of equilibrium and operating points selected, and then the linear matrix inequalities required to comply with the constraints and guarantee the stability are constructed. Finally, the experimental results are obtained by implementing the control method in a MATLAB environment. It is concluded that moving horizon $\mathcal{H}_{\infty }$ control yields satisfactory results.

Regulation of methane gas output from an anaerobic reactor system using moving horizon $H_{\infty }$ control

In this study, the moving horizon $\mathcal{H}_{\infty }$\textbf{ }control used for tracking a desired methane gas output from an anaerobic wastewater treatment reactor is compared with classical $\mathcal{H}_{\infty }$ control and a proportional-integral-derivative controller. The nonlinear system is first linearized around the set of equilibrium and operating points selected, and then the linear matrix inequalities required to comply with the constraints and guarantee the stability are constructed. Finally, the experimental results are obtained by implementing the control method in a MATLAB environment. It is concluded that moving horizon $\mathcal{H}_{\infty }$ control yields satisfactory results.

___

Figure 5. Moving horizonH∞control (−−) vs. H∞control (—) on: a) state variables of the first reactor; b) state variables of the second reactor; c) energy of inputs∥u(k)∥; d) controlled outputs, z(k).

themselves as more versatile methods, whereas if worked with a PID controller, the coefficients have to be recalculated offline for each case, which brings a computational workload and is difficult to implement.

Mayne DQ, Rawlings JB, Rao CV, Scokaert POM. Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality. Automatica 2000; 36: 789–814.

Qin SJ, Badgwell TA. A survey of industrial model predictive control technology. Control Eng Pract 2003; 11: 733–764. [3] Camacho E, Bordons C. Model Predictive Control. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2004.

Michalska H, Mayne DQ. Robust receding horizon control of constrained nonlinear systems. IEEE T Automat Contr 1993; 38: 1623–1633.

Kwon WH, Han S. Receding Horizon Control. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 2005.

Kothare MV, Balakrishnan V, Morari M. Robust constrained model predictive control using linear matrix inequal- ities. Automatica 1996; 32: 1361–1379.

Chen H, Scherer C. Moving horizon control with performance adaptation for constrained linear systems. Automatica 2006; 42: 1033–1040.

Chen H, Scherer C. Disturbance attenuation with actuator constraints by moving horizon control. In: 2003 Interna- tional Federation of Automatic Control Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical Processes; Hong Kong. pp. 447–452. [9] Chen H, Gao XQ, Wang H. On disturbance attenuation of nonlinear moving horizon control. Lect Notes Contr Inf 2007; 358: 283–294.

Holenda B, Domokos E, Redey A, Fazakas J. Dissolved oxygen control of the activated sludge wastewater treatment process using model predictive control. Comput Chem Eng 2008; 32: 1270–1278.

Shen W, Chen X, Pons MN, Corriou JP. Model predictive control for wastewater treatment process with feedforward compensation. Chem Eng J 2009; 155: 161–174.

Ta¸s¸cıkaraoglu, F. Y., Ucun, L., & K¨u¸c¨ukdemiral, I. B. Receding horizonH∞control of time-delay systems. Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control 2014; DOI: 10.1177/0142331214538089.

Simeonov I, Queinnec I. Linearizing control of the anaerobic digestion with addition of acetate (control of the anaerobic digestion). Control Eng Pract 2006; 14: 799–810.