Article

pubs.acs.org/IECR

H Control of Anaerobic Digester for Winery Industry Wastewater

Treatment
R. Flores-Estrella, G. Quiroz, H. O. Mendez-Acosta, and R. Femat*,

Division de Matematicas Aplicadas, IPICyT, Camino a la Presa de San Jose Apartado Postal 2055, Colonia Lomas 4a Seccion, San
Luis Potos, S.L.P., Mexico

Facultad de Ingeniera Mecanica (FIME), Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, UANL, FIME. Av.Universidad S/N Ciudad
Universitaria, C.P. 66451, San Nicolas de los Garza Nuevo Leon, Mexico

Departamento de Ingeniera Qumica, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenieras (CUCEI), U.D.G., Boulevard
Marcelino Garca Barragan s/n, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico

ABSTRACT: A robust H controller has been developed to regulate the chemical oxygen demand in an anaerobic digester from
the winery industry. A sensitivity analysis was performed, and the parameter set having the most signicant eect on the process
behavior was identied. The parameters inducing the most sensitivity in the solutions were selected as uncertain; in addition,
they were related to kinetic terms and he hydrodynamic regime. Then, a control problem was formulated as robust regulation,
and a controller was designed using H theory to ensure robust stability. The actions of the H controller are illustrated through
numerical simulations. The controller was found to execute robust regulation facing parametric uncertainties and load
disturbances.

INTRODUCTION
Anaerobic digestion (AD) is a process that converts organic
matter into a gaseous mixture, composed of methane and
carbon dioxide, through the action of a series of complex
biological and enzymatic reactions. Although AD has distinct
applications, it has mainly been used for wastewater treatment.
Operating and controlling an AD process is not a simple task
for the following reasons:1,2 (i) wastewater varies continuously
in quantity and composition, (ii) biomass activity changes
under the inuence of internal and external factors, (iii)
adequate sensors for online measurements are often lacking,
and (iv) there is uncertainty in kinetic parameters.
Several control methods have been proposed in recent years
for AD processes. Steyer et al.3 and Mendez-Acosta et al.4
pointed out that classical control methods have not been able
to face the inherent diculties presented in AD. Moreover,
classical control methods have been shown to yield
unsatisfactory performance when AD is subjected to
disturbances or signicant set-point changes. Mendez-Acosta
et al.5 proposed a linear reference-feedforward/output-feedback
control that is robust in the face of parameter uncertainties and
piecewise time disturbances. Another feature is that, to diminish
the peaking phenomenon induced by a high-gain observer, an
antireset windup scheme can be taken into account to handle
saturation constraints by actuator restrictions. However, such a
controller was not designed to handle disturbances with
frequency components in the same interval as the AD
responses, which can occur under specic operating conditions.
Alcaraz et al.6 proposed an interval-based scheme to lead the
AD trajectories into a desired operating interval. However, the
performance of the control scheme depends on the denition
of the uncertainty interval, which is heuristically dened.
Adaptive schemes have also been proposed.7,8 For example,
Monroy et al.7 showed robustness against load changes using an
adaptive control scheme by taking into account the non-
linearities and nonstationary features of AD. However,
complete knowledge of the system parameter structure is
required. Moreno et al.9 developed optimal control strategies
for a biological sequencing batch reactor. The objective was the
maximization of the product output against varying inlet
substrate concentrations. Nevertheless, the eciency per cycle
was found to depend strongly on the initial conditions, which
are often uncertain under continuous operating conditions.
Guwy et al.10 showed that a neural-network-based controller
was capable of maintaining stable bicarbonate alkalinity levels
without overshoot during process overload. However, to apply
fuzzy-based and neural network strategies, either a great deal of
information or expertise in the process is required.
To date, few results can be found in the open literature
regarding the proposal of robust H control schemes for
biological processes. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, H
robust control has been explored only for a second-order
anaerobic digestion process.11 It should be noted that, although
AD processes are not eective enough for organic treatment for
specic operating conditions (for instance, in the presence of
suspended particles or phosphorus compounds), the AD
process is essential for treatment of modern wastewater.
Actually, in an overall perspective, a wastewater treatment plant
consists of primary treatment, in which suspended particles are
removed from the wastewater by mechanical operations such as
screening and sedimentation, and secondary treatment, in
which, in general, dissolved carbon- and nitrogen-containing
wastewater components are removed by microbial activity. In
Received: August 20, 2012
Revised: December 17, 2012
Accepted: January 26, 2013
Published: January 27, 2013

2013 American Chemical Society 2625 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302233t | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 26252632
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
some plants, a tertiary treatment step is added to achieve better
purication results.12 This means that bioprocesses are often
used as the secondary or tertiary step. Hence, control of
chemical oxygen demand (COD) is fundamental in the overall
rationale of watewater treatment. In this article, an H
controller is proposed to ensure robust stability in the
regulation of the COD concentration for continuous AD
processes.
This article is organized as follows: A brief description of the
mathematical model related to the AD process used in this
work is presented in the next section. The control problem is
formulated in the section Robust H COD Regulation. The
section Robust Synthesis describes the controller synthesis
using H theory. Numerical evaluations are presented to
illustrate the implementation of the controller in the AD
process. Finally, some concluding remarks are made.
MODEL DESCRIPTION
Bernard and co-workers13 proposed a sixth-order model that
has been successfully used in the design and validation of
several control schemes.5 The model describes the dynamics of
acidogenic and methanogenic biomass, organic, and volatile
fatty acids substrates, alkalinity, and total inorganic carbon (xi, i
= 1, ..., 6). According to Mendez-Acosta et al.,5 the sixth-order
model has equilibrium (x* R6+) such that the AD operation
with active biomass can be found for dierent parameter values.
That is, there exist operating conditions implying x1, x2 0, xj,in
> xj > 0, j = 3, 4, 5, 6, for all t 0 and any initial state in a
physically realizable domain, which means that AD wastewater
operates under normal operating conditions (NOC). The
following propositions summarize relevant results.
Proposition 1.5 Consider the anaerobic digestion model
proposed by Bernard et al.13 Assuming that the inlet
composition, xj,in, is piecewise constant, it can be shown that
there exists a unique equilibrium point x* R6+ for any
constant pair (, D*) under NOC. In addition, such an
equilibrium point is contained in the closed set R6+ = {x
R6+ = {x R6+|xmin x xmax ; xmin > 0 and xmax < } R6+,
which contains all NOC. In this expression, xmax is the
concentration vector obtained when D is used, whereas xmin is
obtained for D .
Proposition 2.5 Let x* be the equilibrium point of the
anaerobic digestion model proposed by Bernard et al.13 for any
constant pair (, D*) such that D* [D , D ]. Then, under
NOC, such an equilibrium point is locally stable.
A reduced-order model for AD wastewater treatment has
been used and implemented as well.2 According to this
approach, in this contribution, the reduced Bernard et al.s
model is taken up again for control purpose. The fourth-order
model is described by the dynamical system of equations
x1 = [1(x3) D]x1
x 2 = [2 (x4) D]x 2
x3 = (x3,in x3)D k11(x3)x1
x4 = (x4,in x4)D + k 21(x3)x1 k 32 (x4)x 2 (1)
where the state variables are as follows: x1 represents the
acidogenic bacteria concentration (g/L); x2 is the methano-
genic bacteria concentration (g/L); and x3 and x4 denote the
chemical oxygen demand (COD, g/L) and volatile fatty acids
concentration (VFA, mmol/L), respectively. The positive real
2626
Article
scalars x3,in and x4,in (g/L) represent the inlet concentrations.
The dilution rate D (h1) is dened as the ratio of the inlet ow
rate Qin (L h1) to the reactor volume V (L). The fraction of
biomass in the liquid phase is given by the constant parameter
belonging to the interval [0, 1], where = 0 corresponds to
an ideal xed-bed reactor whereas = 1 corresponds to ideal
continuous-ow stirred-tank reactor. The AD system of eqs 1
includes the growth rates of acidogenic and methanogenic
bacteria, denoted by 1(x3) and 2(x4), respectively. Such
growth rates are described by the Monod and Haldane kinetics
such that14
x3
1(x3) = 1max
x3 + KS1
x4
2 (x4) = 2max
x4 + KS2 + (x4 /KI2)2 (2)
where the nominal parameter values 0 = {, 1max, 2max,
KS1, KS2, KI2, k1, k2, k3} are real constants whoses value are
uncertain.
The results in the same sense as established in propositions 1
and 2 have to be derived before using system of eqs 1 to design
a feedback control. This is because two states, related to biogas
production and alkalinity, are not being considered in the
reduced-order model in eqs 1. If this is proved, the problem of
controlling AD allows one to ensure that the sixth-order model
and system of eqs 1 have some correspondence at equilibrium.
This is relevant to a discussion of whether the two models are
indistinguishable in designing robust control. That is, if
propositions 1 and 2 are applicable to system of eqs 1, then
the equilibrium of eqs 1 is a projection of the equilibrium of the
sixth-order model onto a four-dimensional subspace, and such a
projection captures the dynamical features of the Bernard et
al.13 model. Results in this direction are summarized in the
following section.
Proposition 3. Consider the model in eqs 1 with kinetics
given by eqs 2. Assume that the inlet composition xj,in for j = 3
and 4 is piecewise constant. Then, there exist constants [0,
1] and D* [D , D ] R+ involving NOC, such that model in
eqs 1 has a unique equilibrium point x* r = {x R4+: x3 <
x3,in, x4 < x4,in}, which is locally stable.
Actually, the components x* r R4+ of the equilibrium-
point coordinates for system of eqs 1 obey the expressions
(x3,in x3*)D
x1* =
k1 (x3*)
1
(x4,in x4*)D + k 21(x3*)x1*
x 2* =
k 3 (x4*)
2
DKS1
x3* =
(1max D) (3)
and the solution of the equation
Dx4*2 + x4*(DKI2 2 2max KI2 2) + DKS2KI2 2 = 0 (4)
* and x4
where the scalars x4+ * denote solutions of the last
second-order equation. Note that, if the functions 1 and 2
stand for the Monod and Haldane kinetics, respectively, the
equilibrium x* r R4+ for system of eqs 1 lies in a
projection of the subspace R6+, that is, r .5,13 Note
that the properties of kinetic functions 1 and 2 dene the
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302233t | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 26252632
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

existence and dynamical features of the equilibrium x*. Another

issue to be noticed is the interpretation of equilibrium. As
mentioned before, for the case of vinasse wastewater treatment,
1 and 2 denote Monod and Haldane kinetics, respectively, in
eqs 2, but for other wastewaters with distinct organic matter
sources, 1 and 2 can include dierent substrate inhibition
eects. Equations 3 and 4 are general expressions for the
equilibrium of any AD processes governed by the fourth-order
model in eqs 1. Next, an H control problem is formulated for
the vinasse wastewater treatment considering the AD nonlinear
model dened in eqs 1.

ROBUST H COD REGULATION

The main AD objective in vinasse treatment is to decompose
the dissolved organic matter present in wastewater from vinery
Figure 3. Frequency domain of Urel() and max {Urel}.
[,]

Figure 1. Block diagram for the control synthesis. We,Wu, and Wn are
weighting functions for the control design. Wp represents an
unstructured multiplicative uncertainty (|||| 1) whose maximum
frequency response is captured by the weighting function Wp. The
nominal plant Pnom is derived from linearization of system of eqs 1 at
the equilibrium point described by eqs 3 and 4.

Figure 4. Frequency responses for K8th (solid line) and K4th (dashed
line) controllers.

Figure 2. Frequency domain of nominal plant Pnom() (solid line)

and the set of perturbed models P() (dashed lines).

fermentation (red wine, tequila, etc.). The outlet concentration

of organic compounds must comply with environmental and
safety regulations. The pollutants are usually measured in terms
of soluble COD concentrations. Therefore, one of the key
issues in wastewater treatment by means of AD is COD
regulation through feedback control. The existence, uniqueness,
and stability of solutions (including equilibrium points) are
important properties that must be studied prior to the design of
a feedback control scheme. Proposition 3 states fundamental
mathematical issues toward robust control synthesis such that
the dilution rate, D = F/V, is specied and the output is
regulated in the face of inlet concentration disturbances and
model uncertainties. In this work, the COD regulation problem
was addressed by taking into account the following aspects: (i)
the presence of uctuations, called disturbances, such as the fact
2627
Figure 5. Frequency response for nominal plant Pnom (solid line),
controller K4th (dashed line), and closed-loop sensibility function S
(dash-dotted line).
that the concentration of organic compounds in the inlet
stream is unmeasured and unknown and (ii) the complexity of
the digester and the uncertainty of its kinetic model in relation
to AD operating conditions. A desirable specication for the
control design is to attenuate the eect of noisy measurements,
which are unavoidable in a wastewater plant. We explore H
theory as a suitable framework for solving the control problem
of regulating COD as an alternative to previously proposed
control schemes. As demonstrated later in this article, H
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302233t | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 26252632
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

Figure 8. Parameter percentage variations around the nominal values

Figure 6. Simulation of the regulation problem in AD using H
controller K4th: (A) outlet COD concentration in AD (solid line) and
reference COD concentration (dashed line), (B) load disturbance
induced in x3,in (dashed line), and (C) dilution rate D (solid line).
used in numerical implementation for set-point regulation in AD
nonlinear model using H controller K4th: arbitrary percentage
variation (8%) in parameters (A) , (B) 1max, and (C) 2max. For
case studies iii-a and iii-b, the arbitrary percentage variations are given
by the continuous lines and open circles, respectively.

Figure 9. Simulation of the regulation problem with parameter

variation in the AD nonlinear model using H controller K4th
(reference COD = 2 g/L): (A) outlet COD concentration and (B)
dilution rate D. For case studies iii-a and iii-b, the results are given by
the continuous lines and open circles, respectively. The inlet
disturbance signal in x3,in is presented in Figure 7B as well.
Figure 7. Simulation of the set-point tracking problem in AD using
H controller K4th: (A) outlet COD concentration in AD (solid line)
and reference COD concentration (dashed line), (B) inlet disturbance
signal in x3,in (dashed line), (C) dilution rate D (solid line), and (D)
peak dilution rate D (solid line) for the [674.5, 676.5] time period in
panel C.

theory allow for the parameterization of a stabilizing controller

such that internal stability of the closed-loop system is ensured;
the achievement of output regulation; and the attenuation of
the eects of unknown disturbances, noisy measurements, and
model uncertainties.
Problem Statement. Roughly speaking, the design
procedure consists of the following steps: (i) linearization of
the nonlinear process model at an operating point, (ii)
derivation of a state-space representation of the uncertain Figure 10. Frequency responses for nominal plant Pnom (solid line),
model, (iii) description of performance specications for the H controller (dashed line), and RFOF control designed by Mendez-
control using the frequency response of weighting function at Acosta et al.5 (dash-dotted line). Note that, if a disturbance has
the response frequency, and (iv) control design through H frequency components lower than 101, then (i) the nominal plant
synthesis. As usual in process control, Figure 1 shows the block responses and (ii) the control response are expected to be larger in
diagram of the feedback control system. Because the AD system RFOF control than in the K4th controller. As a consequence, the
of eqs 1 has a locally stable (unique) equilibrium point x* (with tradeo between robust COD regulation and control-action
coordinates given by eqs 3 and 4), we search for a suboptimal magnitude is expected to be superseded by H control.
control input u = D D*, under NOC, at x* r R4+. Such
a control is synthesized under nominal parameter values 0
2628 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302233t | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 26252632
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
Figure 11. Simulation of the regulation problem with a component in frequency (101 rad/h) in AD nonlinear model using H controller K4th and
the linear feedforward/feedback control of Mendez-Acosta et al.:5 (A) error signal of the H controller, (B) error signal of linear feedforward/
feedback control, (C) dilution rate of the H controller, and (D) dilution rate of linear feedforward/feedback control.
to derive a nominal plant Pnom(s). Then, Pnom is excited through
kinetic and inlet concentrations parameters to stimulate its
frequency response and to identify a family of plants P = [I +
Wp(s) (s)]Pnom(s) toward control design in the face of
disturbances and uncertainties.
Note that the inputs u, n, and x3,in denote the dilution rate D
D*, noisy measurements, and inlet COD, respectively. The
measured output y represents the COD concentration, x3 x*3 ,
measured at the outlet stream, and z1 and z2 are auxiliary output
signals used to specify control requirements on control (u) and
error (e) signals, respectively. The generalized plant G is
derived from the input/output relations such that z = Gd,
where the output vector is z = [z1 z2|e]T and the input vector is
d = [n|u]T valued at s = j for [ , ]. Then, G is given by
the equation
where Wu, We, and Wn are dened above. The designed
controller is denoted as K. Formally, the described problem can
be addressed by a classical H controller.15 Thus, if it exists, K
can be parametrized such that the closed-loop transfer function
is minimized
|| Tzd || = max [P1,1 + P1,2K (I P2,2K )1P2,1]
z1
z P1,1 P1,2 n
2 =
P2,1 P2,2 u
e (6)
Nominal and Uncertain Plants. Proposition 3 states the
existence of a unique equilibrium point x* 0 for any real
parameter vector. This fact allows one to nd a nominal plant
at the point x*. Now, by considering u = D D* and the COD
concentration as the measured variable, i.e, (y = x3 x*3 ), the
following nominal representation of model in eqs 1 is derived
x = Ax + Bux(t0) = x0
y = Cx (7)
where A = (f i/xk)|x* and B = (f i/u)|D*, for i, k = 1, 2, 3, 4,
and C = [0, 0, 1, 0]. We take the following as nominal values of
parameters 0 :5,14 D* = 0.02 h1, = 0.5, k1 = 42.14, k2 =
116.5 mmol/g, k3 = 268 mmol/g, 1,max = 0.05 h1 , 2,max =
Article
0.031 h1, KS1 = 7.1 g/L, KS2 = 9.28 mmol/L, KI2 = 16 mmol/L,
and the nominal inlet concentrations xin = [0, 0, 16, 68.78].
From eqs 7, the nominal state-space realization becomes
A sensitivity analysis was performed on the nonlinear model
in eqs 1 to nd a rst-order estimation of the parameter
changes that can provoke signicant variations in solutions (see
Appendix I).16 The parameters with signicant eects were
found to be , 1,max, and 2,max, which agrees with the physical
interpretations in AD.13
Arbitrary values within 10% of the nominal parameter
values of , 1,max, and 2,max are representative for designing
robust COD regulation through H control. The entries of the
matrices in eq 8 were changed within such an interval to derive
a family of uncertain plants. That is, the uncertainty in AD was
shown through changes in parameter values and compared with
respect to the frequency response of the nominal plant Pnom on
[ , ] = [1 104, 1 102]. This can be represented as
a relative uncertainty, Urel, with the mathematical description
P() Pnom()
Urel() =
Pnom() (9)
where P() represents the corresponding plant for each
specic value of parameters , 1,max, and 2,max. It should be
noted that Urel can be approximated as Wp, where |||| 1.
Figure 2 shows the frequency response of both nominal plant
Pnom() and family of plants = (I + Urel)Pnom containing the
set of plants P(). Figure 3 shows the frequency response from
eq 10 and the upper bound of the relative uncertainty Urel
computed from the expression
P() Pnom()
max {Urel} = max
[,] Pnom()
(10)
Weighting Functions for Control Design. In what
follows, details on the weighting functions are described to
discuss, in turn, the solution proposed for the robust control
problem formulated in the preceding section. In addition, a
physical interpretation is made of each weighting function in
Figure 1.
The upper bound of the relative uncertainty Urel, given by
max {Urel}, can be approximated by a weighting function
[,]
Wp(), which can be identied as a rational function.15 Wp is
2629 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302233t | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 26252632
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
derived by nding a stable, minimum-phase, nth-order transfer
function. An iterative least-squares tting method was used for
the search of a system matrix to capture the frequency response
of eq 10. Thus, we have Wp() = Wp,N()/Wp,D(), where
Wp,N() = 1.193 105s3 + 4.695 104s2 + 4.298 103s +
5.971 105 and Wp,D(s) = s3 + 0.237s2 + 0.015s + 1.593
104.
Because the control input should be implemented by a servo
mechanism, which allows the manipulation of the inlet ow rate
in AD, a frequency constraint is taken into account through the
weighting function Wu() with [ , ]. Thus, a
performance weighting restriction is included as ||WuK(1 +
PK)1|| 1 ||1/Wu|| ||K(1 + PK)1, from which Wu = [s +
(b/Mu)]/(us + b) with u = 0.05, b = 100, and Mu = 0.1.
The weighting function Wu involves the following interpreta-
tion: Wu is bounded by Mu = 0.1 for low frequencies, Mu is
related to the maximum dilution rate D D* = 0.1 h1, and u
= 0.05 is a bound at high frequency that is related to the high-
frequency gain.
Now, ||We(1 + PK)1|| 1 ||1/We|| (1 + PK), from
which We = [(s/Me) + b]/(s + be) with Me = 10 and e =
0.005. Note that the sensitivity function (1 + PK)1 is a
criterion for robust performance to the disturbance attenuation
problem. Finally, the weighting function for noise is derived to
have Wn = (s + nn)/[(s/Mn) + n] with n = 103, n = 0.01,
and Mn = 0.1. The weighting function Wn is physically
interpreted as follows: A disturbance in measurements can be
caused by both resolution and response of sensors. That is, the
available technology for COD measurements has typical
responses from 1.5 to 15 min (equivalently, from 0.069 to
0.0069 rad/s) with a resolution of COD (g/L) from 10 to 0.2.
Without loss of generality, n is arbitrarily chosen to be 0.01
rad/s, whose value can be adjusted for specic equipment.
Robust Synthesis. The suboptimal control problem was
numerically solved by means of the robust Control Toolbox of
Matlab using the standard Riccati solution (linear matrix
inequalities method).17 The approximated stabilizing controller
K(s) was derived after an iterative numerical process (hinfsyn
command), ensuring nominal internal stability with = 0.1517.
We assume that the system model is described by the set of
multiplicative perturbations = {(I + Wp)Pnom: RH}.
Then, the condition for robust stability is accomplished with ||
WpPnomK(1 + PnomK)1|| = 0.3452 1 (see theorem 8.5 in ref
17). The stabilizing full-order controller is eighth-order and is
given by K8th(s) = K8th,N(s)/K8th,D(s), such that K8th,N(s) =
13.33s7 + 2.8 104s6 + 2.677 105s5 + 1.03 106s4 + 1.38
103s3 + 7328s2 + 115.6s + 0.544 and K8th,D(s) = s8 + 1266s7 +
2.722 105s6 + 6.366 105s5 + 4.645 104s4 + 8.745 105s3 +
5.677 104s2 + 975.5s + 4.907. The Hankels values from the
full-order controller are given by 8th = [0.1946, 0.1530, 0.0211,
0.0041, 0.0032, 2.459 107, 1.636 108, 4.409 1010]. To
seek a low-order controller, a balanced model truncation by the
square-root method was applied to the full-order controller
and, as a result, the following controller was obtained: K4th(s) =
KN(s)/KD(s), such that KN(s) = 20.57s3 + 1232s2 + 1233s +
138.6 and KD(s) = s4 + 147.6s3 + 2947s2 + 3977s + 1180. The
Hankels values from the reduced-order controller are 4th =
[0.1946, 0.1530, 0.0211, 0.0041]. Figure 4 shows quite similar
frequency responses for both controllers K8th and K4th. Figure 5
shows the frequency response for the nominal plant Pnom,
controller K4th, and closed-loop sensibility function S. The
proposed control scheme was evaluated under the following
cases: (i) set-point regulation with nominal parameter values 0
Article
; (ii) set-point tracking with nominal parameter values 0
; and (iii) set-point regulation with two set parameter
variation = {(1 ), 1max(1 ), 2max(1 )},
where , 1max, and 2max are nominal values and 0 > > 0.1.
The numerical evaluations of the controller execution for cases i
and ii are shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. The parameter
changes induced in the third case are shown in Figure 8. Figure
9 shows the results under parameter changes depicted in Figure
8. Disturbances around the nominal inlet COD concentration
(x3,in = 16 g/L) were attenuated in both cases with nominal
parameter values 0 . Figure 8 shows the percentage
variations of two set parameters around nominal values in ,
1max, and 2max in the AD model. Note that the arbitrary
percentage parameter variation intervals were 8%. Figure 9
shows that, despite disturbances around the nominal inlet COD
concentration (x3,in = 16 g/L) (the disturbance is described in
Figure 6B) and arbitrary parameter variations around nominal
values (8%), controller K4th is capable of achieving good
performance in the face of set-point regulation.
Because AD is an essential step in overall wastewater
treatment, COD control is very important. Consequently, linear
approaches have been developed to handle robust regulation of
COD. Because linear controllers are desired for implementation
at the industrial scale, a scheme has been derived from the
linear approach to nonlinear (geometrical) control.5 The
proposal by Mendez-Acosta et al.5 has the structure of
reference-feedforward/output-feedback (RFOF) control,
whose robustness allows for the handling of modeling errors,
load disturbances, and even saturation constraints in the control
input. Actually, as an eect of RFOF control, COD is robustly
regulated in a very precise manner. However, because RFOF
control is designed as an approach to the exact inversion of an
AD plant, the control actions can have a high magnitude under
disturbances with certain frequency components. This implies
that the tradeo of regulating robustly and having low-
magnitude control actions cannot satisfactorily be addressed.
This fact is depicted in Figure 10. Note that, if disturbance
enters AD with frequency components lower than 101 rad/h,
the nominal plant has a frequency response. Then, comparing
the control responses, K4th control has a lower response than
RFOF control. This is derived from the weighting functions
included during H synthesis. Hence, even if RFOF control
induces better COD regulation, a lower magnitude can be
induced in control actions through H synthesis. As a direct
consequence, the tradeo between robust COD regulation and
control action requirements is superseded with H synthesis. It
should be noted that, for frequencies larger than 101 rad/h, the
response of the nominal plant decays. This fact led us to
complementary criteria on the selection between RFOF- and
H-based controllers. Figure 11 shows the time evolution of
both RFOF and K4th controllers. A disturbance of 101 rad/h
was entered into the AD process with the nonlinear model in
eqs 1. Although the RFOF control permits less error signal, the
control action is degraded in the presence of components of a
certain frequency. Contrarily, H control allows one to address
the tradeo between robust regulation and control constraint
by weighting functions.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
A robust H control design of AD is proposed for controlling
COD in vinasse wastewater. Uncertainty from parameter
variation within the AD nonlinear model representation was
characterized using relative uncertainty. The robust controller
2630 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302233t | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 26252632
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
was evaluated for robust regulation acting on the nonlinear AD
plant. In addition to robust regulation, the robust controller was
evaluated for set-point tracking (servo control) as well.
A sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the system
parameters aecting AD solutions. Identied parameters were
assumed to be the source of parametric uncertainty. Then,
weighting functions were designed to capture the eect of the
parametric uncertainty, through a relative multiplicative
uncertainty. The parameters are related to kinetics and
hydrodynamic regime. That is, robust stability was assessed
using weight functions such that the eects of both uncertain
kinetics and hydrodynamic regime can be compensated,
achieving regulation of euent COD. For a clearer exposition
of the results, a discussion is motivated in comparative context.
We show that, although the previous RFOF control permits
less error signal, its control action is degraded in the presence
of components of certain frequency. Contrarily, the H control
allows one to address the tradeo between robust regulation
and control constraint through weighting functions. Numerical
simulations show that the robust H controller is capable of
addressing robust COD regulation and the tradeo between
COD regulation and control actions. Because the robust
controller is linear, experimental implementation is possible;
hence, results in this direction will be reported elsewhere.
APPENDIX I. SENSIBILITY ANALYSIS
For a set of parameters: = {, 1max, 2max, KS1, KS2, KI2, k1, k2,
k3}, the sensitivity function for solutions is Sf = ASfSf + BSf
where Sf = [x/]0, ASf = [f(x)/x]x*, BSf = [f(x)/]0
R99, and the nominal parameter 0 .
Figures 12 and 13 show the solutions of the sensitivity
equation for states x1, x2, x3, and x4 with respect to parameter
Figure 12. Solution of sensitive equation Sf for x1 and x2. The gure
shows that state x1 is sensitive to variations in parameters and 1,max,
whereas state x2 is sensitive to variations in parameters , 1,max, and
2,max. From these results, the sensitive parameter set is dened as {,
1,max, 2,max}. The eects of the remaining parameters on solutions are
negligible.
set . The parameters having the most signicant eects on
dynamic behavior of a nonlinear model are , 1max, and 2max.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: rfemat@ipicyt.edu.mx. Tel.: +52 (444)8342000. Fax:
+52 (444)8342010.
Article
Figure 13. Solution of sensitive equation Sf for x3 and x4. The gure
shows that state x3 is sensitive to variations in parameters and 1,max,
whereas state x4 is sensitive to variations in parameters , 1,max, and
2,max. As in the case of x1 and x2, the eects of the remaining
parameters on x3 and x4 are negligible.
Notes
The authors declare no competing nancial interest.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
R.A.F.-E. thanks CONACyT for nancial support under
Scholarship Grant 160117 and FONCICYT for nancial
support under BITA consortium (S-3146). G.Q. thanks
PAICYT-UANL for nancial support under Grant IT546-10.
REFERENCES
(1) Mendez Acosta, H. O.; Femat, R.; Gonzalez-A lvarez, V. Selected
Topics in Dynamics and Control of Chemical and Biological Processes.
Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences; Springer: Berlin,
Germany, 2007.
(2) Mendez-Acosta, H. O.; Palacios-Ruiz, B.; Alcaraz-Gonzalez, V.;
Steyer, J. P.; Gonzalez-A lvarez, V.; Latrille, E. Robust Control of
Volatile Fatty Acids in Anaerobic Digestion Processes. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Res. 2008, 47, 77157720.
(3) Steyer, J. P.; Bernard, O.; Batstone, D. J.; Angelidaki, I. Lessons
learnt from 15 years of ICA in anaerobic digesters. Water Sci. Technol.
2006, 53, 2533.
(4) Mendez-Acosta, H. O.; Palacios-Ruiz, B.; Alcaraz-Gonzalez, V.;
Gonzalez-A lvarez, V.; Garcia-Sandoval, J. P. A robust control scheme
to improve the stability of anaerobic digestion processes. Comput.
Chem. Eng. 2010, 20, 375383.
(5) Mendez-Acosta, H. O.; Campos-Delgado, D. U.; Femat, R.;
Gonzalez-A lvarez, V. A robust feedforward/feedback control for an
anaerobic digester. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2005, 29, 16131623.
(6) Alcaraz-Gonzalez, V.; Harmand, J.; Rapaport, A.; Steyer, J. P.;
Gonzalez-A lvarez, V.; Pelayo-Ortiz, Q. Robust interval-based regu-
lation for anaerobic digestion processes. Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 51,
449456.
(7) Monroy, O.; Alvarez-Ramrez, J.; Cuervo, F.; Femat, R. An
adaptive strategy to control anaerobic digesters for wastewater
treatment. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35, 34423446.
(8) Jadot, F.; Bastin, G.; Van Impe, J. F. Optimal adaptive control of a
bioprocess with yield-productivity conflict. J. Biotechnol. 1998, 65, 61
68.
(9) Moreno, J. Optimal time control of bioreactors for the
wastewater treatment. Optim. Control Appl. Methods 1999, 20, 145
164.
(10) Guwy, A. J.; Hawkes, F. R.; Wilcox, S. J; Hawkes, D. L. Neural
network and on-off control of bicarbonate alkalinity in a fluidised-bed
anaerobic digester. Water Res. 1997, 31, 20192025.
2631 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302233t | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 26252632
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Article

(11) Kalchev, B.; Christov, N.; Simeonov, I. Output-feedback H

control for a second-order nonlinear model of a biotechnological
process. C. R. Acad. Bulg. Sci. 2011, 64, 125132.
(12) Benthack, C.; Srinivasan, B.; Bonvin, D. An optimal operating
strategy for fixed-bed bioreactors used in wastewater treatment.
Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2000, 72, 3440.
(13) Bernard, O.; Hadj-Sadok, Z.; Dochain, D.; Genovesi, A.; Steyer,
J. P. Dynamical model development and parameter identification for
an anaerobic wastewater treatment process. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2001,
75, 424438.
(14) Rodriguez, J.; Roca, E.; Lema, J. M.; Bernard, O. Determination
of the adequate minimum model complexity required in anaerobic
bioprocesses using experimental data. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol.
2008, 83, 16941702.
(15) Glover, K.; Doyle, J. C.; Khargonekar, P.; Francis, B. A. State-
Space Solutions to Standard H2 and H Control Problems. IEEE
Trans. Autom. Control 1989, 34, 831847.
(16) Khalil, H. K. Nonlinear Systems; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ, 2002.
(17) Zhou, K. Essentials of Robust Control; Prentice Hall: Upper
Saddle River, NJ, 1997.

2632 dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302233t | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 26252632