Skip to main content
ARS Home » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #127276
Title: PERFORMANCE OF HISTORIC DOWNSTREAM CANAL CONTROL ALGORITHMS ON ASCE TEST CANAL I

Author
item Wahlin, Brian
item Clemmens, Albert

Submitted to: Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 9/20/2002
Publication Date: 8/1/2003
Citation: Wahlin, B.T., Clemmens, A.J. 2003. Performance of historic downstream canal control algorithms on asce test canal I. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. 128(6):365-375.

Interpretive Summary: Water is becoming a scarce resource and irrigation districts are under pressure to use water more effectively. Computerized automatic control of irrigation canals has the potential capability of improving the operation efficiency of irrigation districts. Many canal control algorithms have been developed; however, direct comparisons between them has been difficult. Recently, a set of standardized tests for control algorithms was developed to make better comparisons between these algorithms. Several historic control algorithms were run using these standardized tests, and their performance relative to each other was examined. These results will be of use to irrigation districts and consultants.

Technical Abstract: Several algorithms have been developed to automatically control water levels in irrigation canals. Proportional-integral (PI) control logic has been used for downstream water level control, but its performance has not always been satisfactory. Heuristic downstream water level controllers (e.g., Canal Automation for Rapid Demand Deliveries, or CARDD) have also been proposed but not rigorously tested. The ASCE Task Committee on Canal Automation Algorithms developed a series of test cases to evaluate the performance of canal control algorithms. In this paper, simulation tests were performed on the ASCE test canal 1 using three downstream control algorithms: 1) the standard PI control logic, 2) the PI control logic with hydraulic decouplers, and 3) the heuristic CARDD control logic. These controllers were tuned manually using trial-and-error techniques. Performance of the PI control logic improved with the addition of hydraulic cdecouplers. CARDD did not perform as well under the conditions imposed on ASCE test canal 1 as the PI controllers. Robustness of these controllers depends upon the aggressiveness of the controller, as well as the initial flow rate.