of 64/64
Filling Pond Control Filling Pond Control Minimizing Water loss Minimizing Water loss on Scipio River on Scipio River (Comparison between PI Controller and Fractional Order Controllers) By Nicolas MONEGIER DU SORBIER
• date post

16-Dec-2015
• Category

## Documents

• view

212

0

Embed Size (px)

### Transcript of Filling Pond Control Minimizing Water loss on Scipio River (Comparison between PI Controller and...

• Slide 1
• Filling Pond Control Minimizing Water loss on Scipio River (Comparison between PI Controller and Fractional Order Controllers) By Nicolas MONEGIER DU SORBIER
• Slide 2
• Outline 1.Introduction 2.System Specifications 3.System Modeling and Parameters Calculation 4.System Control & Simulations (PI, Pi , PII ) 5.Comparison : PI vs Pi vs PII Controllers 6.Conclusion
• Slide 3
• 1. Introduction The aim of this project was to control the filling of each pond of the Scipio Open Channel in the right time, minimizing the water loss at the end of the canal. The most difficult was that only a positive action was available on the system. Many controllers were tested in this project to find the best one.
• Slide 4
• 2. System Specification Sensors and actuators can be used just one time each hour. Gate height, Diversion water level and Pond water Level are available for each Pond. Gate height, Water level and Outflow are available for the Reservoir.
• Slide 5
• 3.System Modeling and Parameters Calculation
• Slide 6
• Diversion Flow Calculation For each diversion gate, the flow was calculated using the derivative of the pond volume variations. Thus, the points related to the gate height, the diversion pond height and the flow were plotted. Seeing these plots, so many points had very low flows for many values of gate heights and diversion pond heights. That is why a Look-up Table, based on 5 values of diversion pond heights and 5 values of gate heights, was made for the model. So for each cell of the Look-up Table, the average was taken in the neighborhood of the point.
• Slide 7
• Reservoir Flow Calculation Height (feet) / Gate(feet) -23-7-23 00000 0.10.1480.1720.1920.215 0.30.3010.3260.3470.397 0.50.5260.5470.5830.614 0.70.7440.7460.7830.824 0.90.9220.9360.9580.994 1.11.1681.1841.2161.237 1.31.311.3241.3331.348
• Slide 8
• Johnnies Diversion Flow Calculation Height (feet) / Gate(feet) 23456 000000 0.40.0360.050.0630.0730.09 0.80.0990.1120.1280.1470.162 1.20.1750.1970.2290.2520.283 1.60.2780.3270.4030.4430.473
• Slide 9
• Toms Diversion Flow Calculation Height (feet) / Gate(feet) 0.523.55 000000 0.40.0460.0660.0760.0990.102 0.80.0920.1140.1390.1410.179 1.20.1480.1760.1930.2110.242 1.50.2570.3260.3990.4140.482
• Slide 10
• Citys Diversion Flow Calculation Height (feet) / Gate(feet) 13579 000000 0.250.030.0440.0670.0920.115 0.50.0540.0630.0920.1280.202 0.750.0780.0910.1460.1890.254 10.1180.1740.2830.3830.514
• Slide 11
• Cemetarys Diversion Flow Calculation Height (feet) / Gate(feet) 0.523.55 000000 0.40.030.0310.0340.0380.041 0.80.0540.0760.1010.1360.159 1.20.0750.1240.1570.2840.331 1.50.0990.1760.2940.3920.469
• Slide 12
• Diversion Flow Modeling
• Slide 13
• Time Delay Calculation To Calculate the Time Delay between the reservoir and each diversion, the Rootcanal software was used: http://www.neng.usu.edu/bie/faculty/merkley/BIE6300.htm http://www.neng.usu.edu/bie/faculty/merkley/BIE6300.htm Through Google Earth the topographic datas of the Scipio channel were obtained to model it on this software (elevations, distances) Thus, 3 Look-Up Tables were made to calculate the delay relative to the Reservoir outflow for each part of the canal. So each part of the canal was represented by a delay : y (t)= u (t- )
• Slide 14
• Time Delay Calculation Flow (in m^3/s) Johnnie Diversion (in min) Tom Diversion (in min) City/Cemetary Diversion (in min) 0.045465592621 0.095304398419 0.15246322341 0.21210279295 0.25195260274 0.3182242255 0.4164220230 0.5150200212 0.6141190200 0.7133180191 0.8130174184 0.9123168178 1120162178 1.5106145154 299135144
• Slide 15
• Delay Modeling For each part of the canal, Delays were modeled like this : But for parts between diversions and Ponds, Delays were modeled by constant delays. Johnnies Pond Delay=0.2 hours, Toms Pond Delay=0.2 hours Citys Pond Delay=0.1 hours and Cemetarys Pond Delay=0.5 hours
• Slide 16
• Pond Volume Calculation Where q (t) is the flow and C the initial Pond Volume
• Slide 17
• Model Overview
• Slide 18
• 4. System Control & Simulations (PI, Pi , PII )
• Slide 19
• Pond PI Controller
• Slide 20
• Reservoir PI Controller
• Slide 21
• Johnnies Pond (PI)
• Slide 22
• Toms Pond (PI)
• Slide 23
• Citys Pond (PI)
• Slide 24
• Cemetarys Pond (PI)
• Slide 25
• Reservoir (PI) For PI Global error=156830 m 3 and Water loss = 8158 m 3
• Slide 26
• Johnnies Pond in Use (PI)
• Slide 27
• Toms Pond in Use (PI)
• Slide 28
• Citys Pond in Use (PI)
• Slide 29
• Cemetarys Pond in Use (PI)
• Slide 30
• Reservoir in Use (PI) For PI Global error=168450 m 3 and Water loss =7868 m 3
• Slide 31
• Pond PI Controller
• Slide 32
• Reservoir PI Controller
• Slide 33
• Johnnies Pond (PI )
• Slide 34
• Toms Pond (PI )
• Slide 35
• Citys Pond (PI )
• Slide 36
• Cemetarys Pond (PI )
• Slide 37
• Reservoir (PI ) For = 0.6 Global error=157320 m 3 and Water loss = 8026 m 3 For = 0.8 Global error=164330 m 3 and Water loss = 7447 m 3 For = 0.3 Global error=156950 m 3 and Water loss = 8066 m 3
• Slide 38
• Johnnies Pond in Use (PI )
• Slide 39
• Toms Pond in Use (PI )
• Slide 40
• Citys Pond in Use (PI )
• Slide 41
• Cemetarys Pond in Use (PI )
• Slide 42
• Reservoir in Use (PI ) For = 0.6 Global error=163620 m 3 and Water loss = 7176 m 3 For = 0.8 Global error=168010 m 3 and Water loss = 7745 m 3 For = 0.3 Global error=161750 m 3 and Water loss = 7912 m 3
• Slide 43
• Pond PII Controller
• Slide 44
• Reservoir PII Controller
• Slide 45
• Johnnies Pond (PII )
• Slide 46
• Toms Pond (PII )
• Slide 47
• Citys Pond (PII )
• Slide 48
• Cemetarys Pond (PII )
• Slide 49
• Reservoir (PII ) For = 0.3 Global error=155680 m 3 and Water loss = 7369 m 3 For = 0.7 Global error=158170 m 3 and Water loss = 8118 m 3
• Slide 50
• Johnnies Pond in Use (PII )
• Slide 51
• Toms Pond in Use (PII )
• Slide 52
• Citys Pond in Use (PII )
• Slide 53
• Cemetarys Pond in Use (PII )
• Slide 54
• Reservoir in Use (PII ) For = 0.3 Global error=158320 m 3 and Water loss = 6979 m 3 For = 0.7 Global error=161820 m 3 and Water loss = 7891 m 3
• Slide 55
• 5. Comparison : PI vs Pi vs PII
• Slide 56
• Johnnies Pond in Use (PI vs Pi vs PII )
• Slide 57
• Toms Pond in Use (PI vs Pi vs PII )
• Slide 58
• Citys Pond in Use (PI vs Pi vs PII )
• Slide 59
• Cemetarys Pond in Use (PI vs Pi vs PII )
• Slide 60
• Reservoir in Use (PI vs Pi vs PII ) For PI = 0.6 Global error=163620 m 3 and Water loss = 7176 m 3 For PII = 0.3 Global error=158320 m 3 and Water loss = 6979 m 3 For PI Global error=168450 m 3 and Water loss = 7868 m 3
• Slide 61
• Comparison NormalConditionUsingCondition Value (m^3)PI relativeValue (m^3)PI relative PI Global Error1568300.00%1684500,00% PI Water Loss81580.00%78680,00% PI Global Error157320+0.31%163620-2.87% Pi Water Loss8026-1.62%7176-8.79% PII Global Error155680-0.73%158320-6.01% PII Water Loss7369-9.67%6979-11.29%
• Slide 62
• 6. Conclusion The efficiency, for this system, of the PII controller compared to others controllers was shown in this study. Also an other strategy based on cooperative control could be applied but this one is hard to control due to the system complexity.
• Slide 63
• References www.sevierriver.org Rootcanal software by Dr. MERKLEY Biological & Irrigation Engineering Department (USU,Logan) Open-Channel flows by Subhash C. JAIN Introduction to Hydrology by Warren VIESSMAN and Gary L. LEWIS
• Slide 64
• Thanks Thanks to all for listening to my presentation Particular thanks to Dr. Chen for making me come to Logan and to Christophe for his help during this project