Comparison of Flow-Dependent Controllers for Remote Real-Time Pressure Control in a Water Distribution System with Stochastic Consumption

Abstract

The control of pressure at a remote critical node using a pressure control valve is a highly effective way to attain pressure management. To perform real-time control, various kinds of controllers can be used, including flow-dependent controllers. These controllers calculate valve setting adjustment based both on the deviation of the pressure from the set-point and on the flow rate at the valve site. After putting all the flow-dependent controllers present in the scientific literature within the same framework, this paper presents a numerical comparison of their performance under realistic conditions of stochastic demand. Two controllers were selected for the comparison, namely the simple LCF (parameter-less proportional controller with known constant pressure control valve flow); and LVF (parameter-less controller with known variable pressure control valve flow), which uses a flow rate forecast. Indeed, this study considered an upgrade of LVF, in which the flow rate forecast was tailored to the conditions of stochastic demand. The application in a specific example network proved the performance of these controllers to be quite similar, although LCF was preferable due to its simple structure. For LCF, the average pressure at the critical node had a clear relationship to the consumption pattern. LVF outperformed when the hourly variation dominates the fluctuations in the flow. The conditions under which this out-performance occurred are comprehensively discussed.

Effects of Sampling on Stability and Performance of Electronically Controlled Pressure-Reducing Valves

“…The authors tested the dynamic response of their remotely-controlled valve to activation of a hydrant but, due to a long control time step and small gain warranting stability at that particular case, the system was unable to maintain adequate pressure levels and pressure variations up to 10m were observed. Similar conclusions were reiterated in Page and Creaco (2019) who reported instability at Δ ≤ 1min and found optimal behavior of their system at Δ = 3min. Galuppini et al (2019) used a sampling time of 1s but then concluded that longer sampling intervals might be preferable.…”

“…The literature on RTC of WDNs is abundant and has recently been reviewed and summarized by Creaco et al (2019). The bulk of the publications on the subject are often based on static network models (Campisano et al 2010;Campisano et al 2012;Creaco and Franchini 2013;Campisano et al 2016;Giustolisi et al 2017;Page et al 2017b;Page et al 2017a;Creaco 2017;Page et al 2018;Berardi et al 2018;Page and Creaco 2019). The authors investigated reduction of leakage using different control strategies and controllers within an extended period simulation (EPS) environment where the implemented control algorithms would adjust the valve setting in between successive steady-state solutions.…”

Smart Urban Water Networks: Solutions, Trends and Challenges

“…In the work of [14], the authors presented an interesting application on real-time pressure control by analyzing different stochastic consumptions. As known, pressure management in water distribution systems is important to supply water in sufficient quantity and quality in a cost efficient and reliable way.…”

Perspectives of Water Distribution Networks with the GreenValve System

“…Table A1 is shown as a function of the flow coefficient CV. Data are from references [23,24,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] or supplied by water utilities. Dotted lines are the average flow coefficient (vertical line) and the average dissipated power (horizontal line).…”