**Page description appears here**

“Model based control for run-of-river system. Part 2: Comparison of control structures”

Authors: Liubomyr Vytvytskyi, Roshan Sharma and Bernt Lie,
Affiliation: Telemark University College
Reference: 2015, Vol 36, No 4, pp. 251-263.

     Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

Keywords: Run-of-river hydropower, Saint Venant Equations, Modeling, Simulation

Abstract: Optimal operation and control of a run-of-river hydro power plant depend on good knowledge of the elements of the plant in the form of models. Both the control architecture of the system, i.e. the choice of inputs and outputs, and to what degree a model is used, will affect the achievable control performance. Here, a model of a river reach based on the Saint Venant equations for open channel flow illustrates the dynamics of the run-of-river system. The hyperbolic partial differential equations are discretized using the Kurganov-Petrova central upwind scheme - see Part I for details. A comparison is given of achievable control performance using two alternative control signals: the inlet or the outlet volumetric flow rates to the system, in combination with a number of different control structures such as PI control, PI control with Smith predictor, and predictive control. The control objective is to keep the level just in front of the dam as high as possible, and with little variation in the level to avoid overflow over the dam. With a step change in the volumetric inflow to the river reach (disturbance) and using the volumetric outflow as the control signal, PI control gives quite good performance. Model predictive control (MPC) gives superior control in the sense of constraining the variation in the water level, at a cost of longer computational time and thus constraints on possible sample time. Details on controller tuning are given. With volumetric inflow to the river reach as control signal and outflow (production) as disturbance, this introduces a considerable time delay in the control signal. Because of nonlinearity in the system (varying time delay, etc.), it is difficult to achieve stable closed loop performance using a simple PI controller. However, by combining a PI controller with a Smith predictor based on a simple integrator + fixed time delay model, stable closed loop operation is possible with decent control performance. Still, an MPC gives superior performance over the PI controller + Smith predictor, both because the MPC uses a more accurate prediction model and because constraints in the operation are more directly included in the MPC structure. Most theoretical studies do not take into account the resulting time delay caused by the computationally demanding MPC algorithm. Simulation studies indicate that the inherent time delay in injecting the control signal does not seriously degrade the performance of the MPC controller.

PDF PDF (826 Kb)        DOI: 10.4173/mic.2015.4.5

DOI forward links to this article:
  [1] Prodromos Daoutidis, Michael Zachar and Sujit S. Jogwar (2016), doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2016.06.002

[1] Haugen, F. (2009). Model-based PID tuning with skogestad’s method, TechTeach. http://www.mic-journal.no/PDF/ref/Haugen2009.pdf.
[2] Haugen, F. (2010). Discretization of simulator, filter, and PID controller, TechTeach. http://www.mic-journal.no/PDF/ref/Haugen2010.pdf.
[3] Kurganov, A. and Petrova, G. (2007). A second order well-balanced positivity preserving central-upwind scheme for the saint-venant system, Communications in Mathematical Science. 5(1):133--160. doi:10.4310/CMS.2007.v5.n1.a6
[4] Ruscio, D.D. (1992). Adjustment of pid control parameters, Modeling Identification and Conrol. 13(4):189--197. doi:10.4173/mic.1992.4.1
[5] Schutter, B.D. and Scattolini, R. (2011). Introduction to the special issue on hierarchical and distributed model predictive control, Journal of Process Control. 21(5):683--684. doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2011.03.007
[6] Sharma, R. (2015). Second order scheme for open channel flow, Technical report, Telemark Open Research Archive (TEORA), Telemark University College, Porsgrunn, Norway. http://hdl.handle.net/2282/2575.
[7] Skogestad, S. and Grimholt, C. (2012). The SIMC Method for Smooth PID Controller Tuning, chapter 5, PID Control in the Third Millennium, Advances in Industrial Control, Springer-Verlag London Limited. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-2425-2_5
[8] Vytvytskyi, L. (2015). Model based control of run-of-river power plant Grønvollfoss, Master's thesis, Telemark University College, Porsgrunn, Norway, 2015.
[9] Vytvytskyi, L., Sharma, R., and Lie, B. (2015). Model based control for run-of-river system, part 1: Model implementation and tuning, 2015. 36(4):237--249. doi:10.4173/mic.2015.4.4

  title={{Model based control for run-of-river system. Part 2: Comparison of control structures}},
  author={Vytvytskyi, Liubomyr and Sharma, Roshan and Lie, Bernt},
  journal={Modeling, Identification and Control},
  publisher={Norwegian Society of Automatic Control}


May 2016: MIC reaches 2000 DOI Forward Links. The first 1000 took 34 years, the next 1000 took 2.5 years.

July 2015: MIC's new impact factor is now 0.778. The number of papers published in 2014 was 21 compared to 15 in 2013, which partially explains the small decrease in impact factor.

Aug 2014: For the 3rd year in a row MIC's impact factor increases. It is now 0.826.

Dec 2013: New database-driven web-design enabling extended statistics. Article number 500 is published and MIC reaches 1000 DOI Forward Links.

Jan 2012: Follow MIC on your smartphone by using the RSS feed.


July 2011: MIC passes 1000 ISI Web of Science citations.

Mar 2010: MIC is now indexed by DOAJ and has received the Sparc Seal seal for open access journals.

Dec 2009: A MIC group is created at LinkedIn and Twitter.

Oct 2009: MIC is now fully updated in ISI Web of Knowledge.