Simplified Modeling of Irrigation Canals for Controller

Design
X. Litrico1 and V. Fromion2

Abstract: The integrator delay zero (IDZ) model presented by Litrico and Fromion is a simple way to model a canal for control purposes
that extends the classical integrator delay model. This analytical model gives a very good frequency domain approximation of the
Saint-Venant transfer matrix for a pool possibly in backwater conditions. The present paper shows how this model can be used to model
an irrigation canal for control design. The IDZ model is analyzed and its accuracy evaluated in the frequency and time domain on two
ASCE test canals for high and low flow conditions.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2004)130:5(373)
CE Database subject headings: Open channel flow; Hydraulic models; Analytical models; Laplace transform; Frequency response;
Canals; Irrigation.

Introduction mion (2004a), which is parameterized by the downstream water

A classical way to control irrigation canals is to design controllers
based only on linear models, even if the open-channel dynamics
described by Saint-Venant equations are nonlinear. This heuristic
approach is widespread for control of nonlinear systems, e.g.,
airplanes, nuclear power plants, etc. It has also been used (implic-
itly or explicitly) in many cases for canal controller design (e.g.,
Shand 1971; Balogun 1985; Malaterre 1998; Schuurmans et al.
1999b) and has shown its efficiency in real applications (Rogier et
al. 1987; Deltour 1995; Litrico et al. 2003). This motivates a
detailed study of linear models for Saint-Venant equations, ob-
tained by considering small deviations of hydraulic variables
around a given constant steady state. These linearized Saint-
Venant equations are still partial derivative equations, which are
not easy to deal with directly for control.
It is therefore important to obtain simplified models of irriga-
tion canals for control design. It would be even more interesting
to have linear models that explicitly depend on physical param-
eters. Such models would allow one to
• Handle the dynamics of the system with few parameters,
• Understand the impact of physical parameters on the dynam-
ics, and
• Facilitate the development of a systematic design method.
The main goal of this paper is to present and demonstrate the
accuracy of a new analytical model derived by Litrico and Fro-
1
Research Hydraulic Engineer, Cemagref, UR Irrigation 361,
Rue J.F. Breton, B.P. 5095, 34033 Montpellier Cedex 1, France.
E-mail: xavier.litrico@cemagref.fr
2
Research Control Engineer, INRA, LASB, 2 Place Viala, 34060
Montpellier, France. E-mail: fromion@ensam.inra.fr
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2005. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on April 8, 2003; approved on February 2, 2004. This paper is
part of the Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, Vol. 130,
No. 5, October 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9437/2004/5-373–383/
$18.00.
elevation and the reference discharge.
This problem has already been considered in the literature.
Simple models have been obtained for the Saint-Venant equations
linearized around a uniform regime (Shand 1971; Corriga et al.
1979; Ermolin 1992; Hancu and Dan 1992). In that case, analyti-
cal expressions are available that allow one to make simple ap-
proximations, leading to approximate rational models (possibly
including a time delay).
Unfortunately, the uniform regime is seldom observed in prac-
tical situations, because it requires constant discharges and water
depths along the pool. Moreover, hydraulic structures are gener-
ally used in irrigation canals to raise the water level at some
control points, which influences the flow upstream (i.e., there is a
backwater curve). This is why it is necessary to develop simple
models for realistic cases, i.e., for canal pools under backwater. A
possible way to take into account the nonuniform regime is to
derive linear models from numerical schemes used to solve the
Saint-Venant equations (Balogun 1985; Malaterre 1998). Unfor-
tunately, it seems difficult and questionable to use this approach
to derive a simple model. Indeed, this numerical approach leads
to complex models with a large number of parameters. More
theoretically, from the robust control point of view, it is better to
approximate the frequency response of a system than its time
response, because thus allows one to quantify the model error in a
rigorous way (Zhou and Doyel 1998).
From this perspective, the approximate model proposed by
Schuurmans et al. (1999a) is a notable step towards the solution
of the considered problem. They proposed an integrator delay
(ID) model that applies to a canal under backwater flow condi-
tions, which captures with two parameters the low frequency be-
havior of the system, i.e., a delayed integrator for the transfer
between upstream discharge and downstream level. However, the
validity of their approximation is not clearly demonstrated. In-
deed, a first question that arises is the following: Is it valid to
approximate linearized Saint-Venant equations by a delayed inte-
grator under backwater flow conditions?
Recent works allow one to obtain a very accurate frequency
domain representation of Saint-Venant equations in any flow con-
figuration (Litrico and Fromion 2004b) and show that the struc-

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 373


Fig. 1. Backwater profile (—) and its approximation (– –)
ture of the transfer matrix is the same in uniform and backwater
flow conditions: the low frequency behavior is dominated by a
delay and an integrator. It is therefore valid to approximate Saint-
Venant equations by a delayed integrator in low frequencies.
Once this is stated, the second question is how to obtain the
approximate model parameters Schuurmans et al. (1999a) pro-
pose a method to compute the ID model parameters in a general
case. The approximations they propose are, however, rather crude
and can be improved. Indeed, for a pool in uniform regime, they
assume that the system is a pure delay and that there is no inte-
grator. But the integrator is always present in the uniform case, as
can be shown by direct manipulations on the Saint-Venant trans-
fer matrix. For a pool completely affected by backwater, they
assume that the delay is zero, while the system is a pure integra-
tor. But the delay obtained by integrating the characteristics is
never equal to zero. Their model gives approximate values that
can be far from the theoretical ones in some cases. When the
entire pool is under backwater, their ID model is obtained with a
different method, but the validity of their approximation is not
clearly demonstrated.
Our objective is to get a model valid for any regime that gives
accurate approximate values for the delay and the integrator gain,
which are essential for control design. To do this, the method
proposed by the writers to obtain the frequency domain represen-
tation of the Saint-Venant transfer matrix (Litrico and Fromion
2004b) has been simplified, leading to a simple approximate
model, called the integrator delay zero (IDZ) model (Litrico and
Fromion 2004a). This model is able to represent the canal behav-
ior in low and high frequencies; the integrator delay accounts for
low frequencies, while the zero represents the direct influence of
the discharge on the water level in high frequencies. The pro-
posed model is obtained from mathematical approximations of
the exact transfer matrix. It aims at reproducing the behavior of
the system in any flow condition (including backwater flow con-
figurations).
The new IDZ model contributions can therefore be summa-
rized as follows:
• It provides accurate approximate values of the delay and the
integrator gain for a classical ID model.
• It extends the ID model by adding a zero in high frequencies,
therefore leading to a better fit in high frequencies. This im-
proves the accuracy of the time-domain simulations.
• All parameters can be computed analytically, leading to a
simple implementation.
The approximate model presented in Litrico and Fromion
(2004a) is evaluated here on test cases proposed by ASCE (Clem-
mens et al. 1998) for low and high flow conditions by: (1) com-
paring the IDZ model parameters to the theoretical ones obtained
following Litrico and Fromion (2004a); (2) comparing the fre-
quency response of two specific pools with the theoretical one;
and (3) comparing the time response of the considered models. A
374 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004
section is devoted to the method of application of the model to
real canals, with possible fixed intermediate hydraulic structures
and a complex geometry.
Simplified Model of a Canal Pool
Inputs/Outputs Representation of a Canal Pool
In the following, a canal pool is modeled using a linear inputs/
ouputs approach. The model considers small deviations of hy-
draulic variables from stationary values, given by
关Q0 , Y 0共x兲兴—respectively, the discharge and the water depth
along the canal. The deviations from these values are denoted
with small letters:
• The considered inputs are the upstream and downstream dis-
charges q共0 , t兲 and q共X , t兲 (deviations from Q0), with X the
length of the pool; and
• The outputs are the upstream and downstream water depths
y共0 , t兲 and y共X , t兲 [deviations from Y 0共0兲 and Y 0共X兲].
In the Laplace domain, P共s兲 denotes the 2 ⫻ 2 transfer matrix
relating the inputs to the outputs and pij共s兲 = its elements (s is the
Laplace variable). On this basis, the transfer matrix is then given
by
共1兲
Backwater Profile
The backwater curve is obtained in an exact manner by solving
the ordinary differential Eq. (32) in Appendix I, which is rather
complicated. Following Schuurmans et al. (1999a), the backwater
curve is here approximated by a stepwise linear function: a line
parallel to the bed in the upstream part (corresponding to the
uniform part) and a line tangent to the real curve at the down-
stream end in the downstream part [instead of a horizontal line, as
chosen by Schuurmans et al. (1999a)].
Let x1 denote the abscissa of the intersection of the two lines.
Formulas for x1 and the backwater profile approximation are
given in Appendix III. The corresponding approximation of the
backwater profile is schematized in Fig. 1.
Integrator Delay Zero Model of a Pool
The equations given in Appendix IV deal with the complete
model with two outputs, but for simplicity of presentation, only
the part corresponding to the downstream output will be presented
here.
The model describes how the downstream water level y共X , s兲
is related to the upstream discharge q共0 , s兲 and the downstream
discharge q共X , s兲. Selecting the last line of Eq. (1) leads to
y共X,s兲 = p̂21共s兲q共0,s兲 + p̂22共s兲q共X,s兲 共2兲
The approximate transfer functions are denoted by p̂ij to distin-
guish them from the theoretical ones, pij.
The IDZ model provides an integrator delay zero approxima-
tion of transfer function p21 and an integrator zero approximation
of transfer function p22, leading to the frequency domain model
 y共X,s兲 = 冉 1
Âds
冊
+ p̂21⬁ e−␶ˆ dsq共0,s兲 − 冉 1
Âds
冊
+ p̂22⬁ q共X,s兲 共3兲
where s = is the Laplace variable; Âd=approximate downstream
equivalent backwater area (or integrator gain); ␶ˆ d=approximate
delay for downstream propagation; and p̂21⬁ and p̂22⬁= high fre-
quency gain of transfer function p̂21 and p̂22, respectively.
This frequency domain model can be written as an ordinary
differential equation with input delay, given by
冦
dh共t兲
Âd = q共0,t − ␶ˆ d兲 − q共X,t兲
dt
y共X,t兲 = h共t兲 + p̂21⬁q共0,t − ␶ˆ d兲 − p̂22⬁q共X,t兲
where h共t兲 is an intermediate variable (initialized by h共0兲
= 0 ; y共X , t兲=output, and q共0 , t兲 and q共X , t兲=inputs. The delay ␶ˆ d
only occurs on the upstream discharge q共0 , t兲, while the down-
stream discharge has a direct impact on the downstream water
level.
The procedure to follow in order to obtain the model param-
eters is described subsequently; before frequency domain inter-
pretations of the model are given. The model is obtained by first
computing parameters for each part of the pool (the upstream part
in uniform flow, and the downstream part under backwater), then
using the adequate formulas for interconnection. This is summa-
rized as follows, with references to the complete equations given
in the appendices.
To obtain the parameters of this approximate model, one needs
to
1. Compute the hydraulic exponent N (exponent for convey-
ance as a function of depth) to obtain an analytical approxi-
mation for uniform depth computation, using Eqs. (37) and
(38) in Appendix II;
2. Compute x1, delimitating uniform and backwater flow parts,
using Eqs. (39)–(42) in Appendix III;
3. Compute Ad , ␶d , Au , ␶u, and pij⬁, parameters for uniform
flow, using Eqs. (49), (50), (53), (54), and (61)–(65) in Ap-
pendix IV;
4. Compute Ād , ¯␶d , Āu , ¯␶u, and p̄ij⬁, parameters for backwater
flow, using Eqs. (49), (50), (55), (56), (61)–(64), and (66) in
Appendix IV; and
5. Compute the interconnection, leading to Âd , ␶ˆ d , Âu , ␶ˆ u, and
p̂ij⬁, using Eqs. (47), (48), (51), (52), and (57)–(60), in Ap-
pendix IV.
The whole approximate model is given by explicit analytical
expressions that enable its coding in any computer language. The
model is interpreted in the frequency domain, before being evalu-
ated.
Frequency Domain Interpretations
Low Frequencies Approximation
For low frequencies, the behavior of the transfer matrix is domi-
nated by the integrator and the delays. In this case, the approxi-
mation of the elements of transfer matrix P共s兲 reads
1 Ad =
p11共s兲 =
A us
e−␶us
p12共s兲 = −
A us
JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 375
p21共s兲 =
e−␶ds
A ds
共7兲
1
p22共s兲 = − 共8兲
A ds
where Ad and Au=respectively, the downstream and upstream
backwater areas; and ␶d and ␶u=the upstream and downstream
propagation time delays.
This low frequency approximation corresponds to a simple
integrator delay model. However, its parameters are obtained in a
different way from Schuurmans et al. (1999a). The physical in-
共4兲
terpretation of each term is examined in the following.
Time Delay. A classical approach followed by many authors
(Corriga et al. 1988; Ermolin 1992; Litrico and Georges 1999;
Schuurmans et al. 1999a) is to approximate the frequency re-
sponse of the system by its Taylor development in s = 0. This leads
to a model that fits the low frequency response of the system. If
the approximations proposed by Schuurmans et al. (1999a) seem
to be efficient for time-domain simulations, they may not be
suited for control design. From a control point of view, it is very
important to evaluate precisely the delay of a system, since it
limits the achievable closed loop bandwidth, which is directly
linked to the real-time performance (Astrom 2000). For a canal in
uniform flow, we have shown that the time delay ␶ (in terms of
automatic control) is equal to X / 共V0 + C0兲, where X=length of the
pool; V0=water velocity; and C0=celerity (Litrico and Fromion
2002). The time delay T obtained by Schuurmans et al. (1999a) is
equal to 2X / 共1 + ␬0兲V0, where ␬0 is a geometric coefficient linked
to the form of the section (␬0 = 7 / 3 in a large rectangular canal).
This time delay T can be much larger than ␶. Such a mismatch
may lead to poorly tuned controllers, which will not have suffi-
cient performance when applied on the real system.
In the following, the theoretical value of the time delay ␶d is
evaluated by computing the integral:
冕
X
dx
␶d = 共9兲
V0共x兲 + C0共x兲
0
This corresponds to the minimum time required for a perturbation
to travel from upstream to downstream of the pool. This is the
minimum time delay of the system.
The time delay ␶u can be evaluated in a similar way:
冕
X
dx
␶u = 共10兲
0 C0共x兲 − V0共x兲
It corresponds to the minimum time required for a perturbation to
travel from downstream to upstream. In both cases, we recover
the classical value in the uniform case when V0 and C0 are con-
stant: ␶d = X / 共V0 + C0兲 and ␶u = X / 共C0 − V0兲.
Integrator Gain. In the uniform case, analytical expressions are
available for the transfer matrix P共s兲. Then, the integrator gain
1 / Ad is obtained as the value of sp21共s兲 for s = 0, which leads to
T20共C20 − V20兲 2 2
关1 − e−␥0X/T0共C0−V0兲兴 共11兲
共5兲 ␥0
where T0=top width, ␥0 = gT0共1 + ␬0兲Sb; and Sb= bed slope (gen-
eral expressions for the backwater case are given in Appendix I).
This result is well known, as it has been obtained by many
共6兲
authors previously (Corriga et al. 1979; Ermolin 1992). When
␥0X / T0共C20 − V20兲 is small (typically for small pools), Ad is close to Table 1. Pool Parameters for ASCE Test Canal 1
T0X, the surface area of the pool (Schuurmans et al. 1999a). X B YX
When ␥0X / T0共C20 − V20兲 becomes larger than 1, this approximation Pool (m) (m) (m)
is no longer accurate. In fact, the coefficient Ad reflects the way
1 100 1.0 0.9
the downstream water level varies when the upstream or down-
2 1,200 1.0 0.9
stream discharge varies. It can be evaluated by computing the
variation of the volume of the pool V pool with respect to the down- 3 400 1.0 0.8
stream water elevation: 4 800 0.8 0.9
5 2,000 0.8 0.9
⳵ Vpool 6 1,700 0.8 0.8
Ad = 共12兲
⳵ YX 7 1,600 0.6 0.8
8 1,700 0.6 0.8
It is clear, then, that this coefficient depends on the way the vol-
ume changes when the downstream elevation changes (Strelkoff
f i关Zi共Xi,t兲,Zi+1共0,t兲,Wi共t兲兴 = CdiWi共t兲Lvi冑2g关Zi共Xi,t兲 − Zi+1共0,t兲兴
et al. 1998), which is difficult to account for in a simple way. A
complete solution of the backwater curve must be computed in
order to obtain the so-called theoretical equivalent backwater 共18兲
area, given by Eq. (12).
where Cdi is a discharge coefficient (close to 0.6); and Lvi=gate
width.
High Frequencies Approximation
Linearizing Eq. (17), the gate can be modeled as a local feed-
For high frequencies, the delay and the gravity waves are pre-
back between the discharge and the water depth
dominant in the transfer matrix elements. For simplicity, the grav-
ity waves are approximated by a constant gain in high frequen- qi共Xi,t兲 = kiy i共Xi,t兲 + ki+1y i+1共0,t兲 + kwiwi共t兲 共19兲
cies. This leads to the approximation:
where ki = df i共Zi , Zi+1 , Wi兲 / dZi and ki+1 = df i共Zi , Zi+1 , Wi兲 / dZi+1 are
p11共s兲 = p11⬁ 共13兲 the “feedback” gains of the gate; and kwi = df i共Zi , Zi+1 , Wi兲 / dWi is
the gain of the gate opening.
Finally, a canal is represented by a series of pools intercon-
p12共s兲 = − p12⬁e−␶us 共14兲
nected with hydraulic structures.

p21共s兲 = p21⬁e−␶ds 共15兲

p22共s兲 = − p22⬁ 共16兲
where pij⬁=positive constants obtained as the mean value of
兩pij共s兲兩 when s → ⬁, given in Eqs. (61)–(64).
Such a static approximation implies that the oscillating modes
are not modeled. Indeed, these modes are usually filtered, in order
not to destabilize the controller. It is not possible to actively con-
trol such oscillating modes with a PI controller (one should use a
more complex controller, with a higher order). Because this
model will be used for simple controllers design (typically filtered
PI), it is not necessary to accurately model the modes. The static
approximation is, however, necessary to correctly take into ac-
count the flow behavior at the hydraulic structures. It describes
the direct impact of the gate opening on the water levels.
The complete IDZ model is obtained by adding the approxi-
mations for low and high frequencies.
Hydraulic Structures Modeling
The hydraulic structures are modeled as local linear relations be-
tween the discharge q and the water depth y at a given point.
These relations are obtained by linearizing the discharge equa-
tions around a given functioning point.
Let f i denote the equation for the gate number i, involving
Zi共Xi , t兲, the water elevation at the downstream end of pool i;
Zi+1共0 , t兲, the water elevation at the upstream end of pool i + 1; the
discharge Qi共Xi , t兲 = Qi+1共0 , t兲; and the gate opening Wi共t兲
Qi共Xi,t兲 = f i关Zi共Xi,t兲,Zi+1共0,t兲,Wi共t兲兴 共17兲
The water elevation Z is the addition of the water depth Y plus the
bed elevation.
A classical equation for a submerged gate (orifice) is
Model Validation
The IDZ model accuracy is evaluated on the ASCE test canals.
These hypothetical canals were introduced by Clemmens et al.
(1998), in order to test and compare canal controllers. Because
the proposed analytical model can be used to design simple con-
trollers (e.g., PI controllers), it is important to see whether the
model parameters values are close to the theoretical ones.
Only transfer functions p21共s兲 and p22共s兲 are considered, be-
cause they are the most useful to design distant downstream or
local upstream controllers, which is expected to be the main use
of the IDZ model. The proposed approximate values, i.e., param-
eters ␶ˆ d , Âd , p̂21⬁, and p̂22⬁, are compared with the theoretical
ones.
ASCE Test Cases
Both ASCE test canals present a trapezoidal geometry, with a side
slope 1.5 and Manning coefficients n = 0.014 for canal one and
0.02 for canal two. The bed slope Sb is 0.002 for test canal one
(steep) and 0.0001 for test canal two (flat). Each canal has eight
pools, whose parameters are given in Tables 1 and 2, where
X=length of the poo; B=bed width; and Y X=downstream water
depth.
Hydraulic Exponents
The hydraulic exponents N are computed for each pool of both
canals using Eq. (37) in Appendix II, where Q1 = Qmax (corre-
sponding to high flow conditions) and Q2 = Qmin (corresponding to
low flow conditions). This leads to the values given in Table 3.
The hydraulic exponent enables one to compute the uniform
depth with Eq. (38) for any discharge Q0, once the uniform depth

376 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

Table 2. Pool Parameters for ASCE Test Canal 2
X B
Pool (m)
1 7,000
2 3,000
3 3,000
4 4,000
5 4,000
6 3,000
7 2,000
8 2,000
Table 3. Hydraulic Exponents N for Both Test Canals
Pool Canal 1
1 3.90
2 3.87
3 3.83
4 3.95
5 3.90
6 3.84
7 3.95
8 3.83
is computed for a given discharge Q1. As compared with the exact
YX uniform depth, this method leads to a maximum relative error of
(m) (m) 1.33% for canal one and of 0.60% for canal two (comparison
7 2.1 done for discharges between Qmin and Qmax). The uniform depth
7 2.1 is therefore very well approximated by the hydraulic exponent
7 2.1 method.
6 1.9
6 1.9
IDZ Model Parameters Comparison
5 1.7
5 1.7 The IDZ model parameters (time delay ␶ˆ d, the equivalent back-
5 1.7 water area Âd , p̂21⬁, and p̂22⬁) are computed for the two flow con-
ditions for each canal and compared with the theoretical values
obtained following Litrico and Fromion (2002). Results are dis-
played in Tables 4 and 5 for test canal 1 at low and high flows,
Canal 2 respectively, and in Tables 6 and 7 for test canal 2 at low and high
3.52 flows, respectively.
3.51 The tables give for each pool the discharge Q 共m3 / s兲, the the-
3.50 oretical time delay ␶d 共s兲, the approximated tune delay ␶ˆ d 共s兲, the
3.54 theoretical equivalent backwater area Ad 共m2兲, the approximated
3.51 one Âd 共m2兲, minimum and maximum values of the gain of trans-
3.57 fer functions p21 and p22 at infinity, and the approximate values
3.53 p̂21⬁ 共sm−2兲 and p̂22⬁ 共sm−2兲.
3.51

Table 4. IDZ Model Parameters for ASCE Test Canal 1, Low Flow

Pool Q ␶d ␶ˆ d Ad Âd p21⬁ p̂21⬁ p22⬁ p̂22⬁

1 0.8 36.9 36.9 341.6 339.2 0.1300– 1.4069 0.1913 0.0295– 1.2644 0.1391
2 0.7 426.4 427.6 821.0 824.9 0.0054– 0.0087 0.0070 0.0880– 0.2039 0.2368
3 0.6 151.9 152.9 668.7 671.2 0.1092– 0.1737 0.1440 0.1014– 0.2253 0.2719
4 0.5 305.9 307.6 788.5 790.8 0.0219– 0.0343 0.0274 0.0993– 0.2214 0.2561
5 0.4 792.9 794.9 817.2 817.8 共4.2– 6.2兲 ⫻ 10−5 5.3⫻ 10−5 0.0948– 0.1967 0.2565
6 0.3 723.0 724.8 679.5 678.3 共6.1– 9.9兲 ⫻ 10−5 7.6⫻ 10−5 0.1014– 0.2631 0.2951
7 0.2 732.1 734.2 635.5 632.7 共2.5– 4.0兲 ⫻ 10−5 3.3⫻ 10−5 0.1033– 0.2534 0.3289
8 0.1 912.3 913.4 673.9 667.1 共2.5– 4.4兲 ⫻ 10−7 3.5⫻ 10−7 0.0862– 0.2691 0.3394

Table 5. IDZ Model Parameters for ASCE Test Canal 1, High Flow

Pool Q ␶d ␶ˆ d Ad Âd p21⬁ p̂21⬁ p22⬁ p̂22⬁

1 2.0 29.5 29.6 328.2 331.2 0.1598– 0.6165 0.2454 0.0880– 0.5698 0.1974
2 1.8 337.6 337.4 574.5 575.9 0.0168– 0.0251 0.0208 0.1311– 0.2373 0.2854
3 1.6 117.2 117.0 438.3 436.3 0.1188– 0.1760 0.1477 0.1572– 0.2793 0.3451
4 1.4 238.4 238.2 572.6 575.8 0.0387– 0.0602 0.0490 0.1281– 0.2522 0.2916
5 1.2 610.8 610.8 616.4 620.8 0.0011– 0.0016 0.0013 0.1229– 0.2479 0.2791
6 1.0 541.3 541.3 494.3 496.2 0.0018– 0.0028 0.0022 0.1502– 0.2879 0.3260
7 0.8 531.0 531.0 465.3 467.6 0.0015– 0.0024 0.0020 0.1478– 0.2868 0.3492
8 0.6 603.0 603.5 516.0 518.8 共5.6– 7.7兲 ⫻ 10−4 6.9⫻ 10−4 0.1452– 0.2501 0.3337

Table 6. IDZ Model Parameters for ASCE Test Canal 2, Low Flow

Pool Q ␶d ␶ˆ d Ad Âd p21⬁ p̂21⬁ p22⬁ p̂22⬁

1 2.7 1,822.6 1,821.4 82,799 83,746 0.0164– 0.0230 0.0246 0.0142– 0.0273 0.0225
2 2.5 754.6 754.4 38,199 38,247 0.0198– 0.0785 0.0260 0.0054– 0.0757 0.0204
3 2.2 757.7 757.5 38,278 38,315 0.0199– 0.0884 0.0263 0.0048– 0.0852 0.0203
4 2.0 1,073.4 1,073.0 43,607 43,767 0.0230– 0.0518 0.0302 0.0108– 0.0521 0.0254
5 1.7 1,080.0 1,079.5 43,822 43,941 0.0235– 0.0613 0.0310 0.0093– 0.0596 0.0253
6 1.5 848.8 848.7 28,481 28,560 0.0285– 0.0725 0.0370 0.0119– 0.0722 0.0308
7 1.2 564.1 564.0 19,476 19,490 0.0291– 0.1457 0.0387 0.0063– 0.1408 0.0298
8 1.0 566.9 566.8 19,514 19,523 0.0293– 0.1751 0.0392 0.0053– 0.1686 0.0297

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 377

Table 7. IDZ Model Parameters for ASCE Test Canal 2, High Flow

Pool Q ␶d ␶ˆ d Ad Âd p21⬁ p̂21⬁ p22⬁ p̂22⬁

1 11.0 1,577.9 1,582.8 59,703 61,245 0.0052– 0.0053 0.0061 0.0216– 0.0221 0.0240
2 10.0 681.5 682.0 33,868 34,113 0.0158– 0.0215 0.0185 0.0164– 0.0285 0.0216
3 9.0 690.4 690.9 34,630 34,891 0.0163– 0.0235 0.0195 0.0154– 0.0296 0.0214
4 8.0 952.4 953.7 35,441 35,885 0.0127– 0.0139 0.0154 0.0241– 0.0282 0.0270
5 7.0 970.3 971.9 37,029 37,598 0.0139– 0.0156 0.0177 0.0231– 0.0284 0.0268
6 6.0 753.7 754.3 23,458 23,634 0.0176– 0.0198 0.0200 0.0291– 0.0360 0.0328
7 5.0 513.6 513.8 17,718 17,809 0.0249– 0.0378 0.0291 0.0218– 0.0462 0.0314
8 4.0 526.0 526.3 18,335 18,425 0.0262– 0.0458 0.0316 0.0186– 0.0519 0.0309

Discussion Frequency domain comparison

The proposed approximation is very good at estimating the time
delay of the pools; the maximum relative error e␶d = 兩␶d − ␶ˆ d兩 / ␶d is
equal to 0.61% for all the cases (Table 8). The approximation of
the backwater area Ad is also good, since the maximum relative
error eAd = 兩Ad − Âd兩 / Ad is equal to 4.03% for test canal one in high
flow conditions. The backwater areas are very well estimated for
test canal two, because the maximum relative error is equal to
2.56. The approximate model is able to accurately reproduce large
variations of parameters under varying flow conditions.
These results confirm the results already obtained on two other
example canals for different flow configurations (Litrico and Fro-
mion 2004a); the proposed IDZ model is very accurate at estimat-
ing time delay and equivalent backwater area. This provides a
very good fit of the frequency response of the pool at low fre-
quencies. The backwater area Ad gives the magnitude of the fre-
quency response of the system for low frequencies, and the time
delay ␶d is essential to identify the limits of performance of the
system, i.e., the maximum achievable frequency ␻c where pertur-
bations can be rejected. This frequency can be estimated by ␻c
⬇ 1 / ␶d (Aström 2000; Litrico and Fromion 2001). This is the best
achievable real-time performance of the controlled system; it is
not possible to reject perturbations of frequency higher than ␻c
with distant downstream feedback control. This is a structural
limitation, because it applies for any linear controller.
The model fit in high frequencies is not as accurate as for low
frequencies. The parameter p̂21⬁ is mostly in the range
关min兩 p21 兩 , max兩 p21兩兴, which adequately captures the high fre-
quency behavior of the system. The parameter p̂22⬁ is well esti-
mated for canal two in both flow conditions, but it is slightly
overestimated for canal one. This error may be due to the fact that
test canal one is a canal where the static approximation is not very
accurate for each part of the approximated backwater curve. In
that case, the errors may accumulate with the interconnection.
The mismatch is, however, acceptable and has a limited effect on
the overall result (Tables 4 and 5).
The proposed IDZ model of the first pool of canals one and two is
compared in the frequency domain to the complete model ob-
tained following Litrico and Fromion (2004b) for both flow con-
ditions. This is presented in Figs. 2 and 3 for test canal one and in
Figs. 4 and 5 for test canal two. The Bode diagrams give the
magnitude of transfer functions p21共j␻兲 and p22共j␻兲 in dB (i.e.,
20 log10兩 · 兩) and their phase in degrees as functions of the fre-
quency ␻ in rad/s. Such a diagram enables one to evaluate the
response of the system to a sinusoidal input.
These Bode diagrams confirm the parameters comparison done
previously, the frequency fit is accurate enough for controller de-
sign, and the approximate model is able to reproduce the fre-
quency behavior of the system for large variations of the refer-
ence discharge.
This IDZ model demonstrates a good fit, but one may wonder
if the zero is necessary and if a simple ID model would be accu-
rate enough. This is explored in the next section, by showing the
impact of the zero on the time domain response of two canal
pools interconnected with a gate.
Time domain comparison
The model for canal dynamics is linked to the hydraulic structure
as described previously, and the system response to a gate open-

Table 8. Maximum Relative Errors on ID Model Parameters for ASCE

Test Canals (%)
Canal Flow e ␶d e Ad
1 Low 0.61 3.26
1 High 0.26 4.03
2 Low 0.06 1.13 Fig. 2. Bode diagram for pool 1 of test canal one, low flow condi-
2 High 0.31 2.56 tions: complete model (—) and IDZ model (– –)

378 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

Fig. 3. Bode diagram for pool 1 of test canal one, high flow condi-
tions: complete model (—) and IDZ model (– –)
ing is simulated. Three different models for canal dynamics are
considered: (1) the proposed approximate IDZ model; (2) an ID
model, obtained from the IDZ model by keeping only the integra-
tor and the delay (to see the impact of the zero on the time
response); and (3) a complete linear model obtained from an ac-
curate frequency modeling of linearized Saint-Venant equations
(Litrico and Fromion 2002).
The gate coefficients are obtained by differentiating Eq. (17).
Fig. 6 depicts q共X1 , t兲, the downstream discharge of pool one and
water level variations for a sudden opening of gate one of test
canal two, in high flow conditions; y 1共X1 , t兲=water level upstream
from the gate and y 2共0 , t兲=water level downstream of the gate.
The figure clearly shows that the IDZ model reproduces more
accurately the time response of the system, because of the instan-
taneous impact of the gate opening on the water levels (and on the
discharge), which is not taken into account by the ID model. In
this case, the ID model leads to a 25% overestimation of the
instantaneous discharge flowing through the gate, whereas the
Fig. 4. Bode diagram for pool 1 of test canal one, low flow condi-
tions: complete model (—) and IDZ model (– –)
JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 379
Fig. 5. Bode diagram for pool 1 of test canal one, high flow condi-
tions: complete model (—) and IDZ model (– –)
IDZ model estimates much better the discharge over time. This
shows the use of the IDZ model for time-domain simulation and
for possible use as an internal model in an advanced controller
using the gate opening as the control variable.
Model for a Real Canal
We briefly describe the method to obtain the simplified model for
a real canal (i.e., with complex geometry, intermediate hydraulic
structures, etc.). The method applies directly to parts of the canal
pool with uniform geometry and bed slope. We assume that the
canal can be decomposed into such parts that may be separated by
fixed hydraulic structures (not used for control). If this is not the
Fig. 6. Time domain response for first two pools of test canal two,
high flow conditions: reaction of local discharge and water levels to
gate opening [q共X1 , t兲 = discharge at gate; y 1共X1 , t兲 = water level up-
stream of gate; and y 2共0 , t兲 = water level downstream of gate.]; com-
parison between complete model (SV —), IDZ model (– –), and ID
model 共. . .兲
case, the modeler needs to define homogeneous parts, with an
average slope and geometry that approximates the volume of the
considered part of the pool.
y 共1兲 冋
共1兲
0 = p̂11 +
1−
k1 p̂共1兲
k1 p̂共1兲
22
共1兲
12 p̂21
− k2 p̂共2兲
11
册 q共1兲
0 +
k2 p̂共1兲
1 − k1 p̂共1兲
共2兲
12 p̂12
共2兲
22 − k2 p̂11
q共2兲
X

共24兲
Obtaining IDZ Model Parameters
The following steps can be followed to obtain the model param-
eters for a real canal:
y 共2兲
X =
k1 p̂共1兲
1 − k1 p̂共1兲
共2兲
21 p̂21

22 − k2 p̂11
共1兲 共2兲
共2兲 q0 + p̂22 + 冋 k2 p̂共2兲
1 − k1 p̂共1兲
共2兲
21 p̂12
共2兲
22 − k2 p̂11
册 q共2兲
X

1. Decompose the canal pool into k parts with uniform geom- 共25兲
etry and bed slope, with a discharge Q共k兲 0 for each part. This is the general equations giving the simplified model for a
2. Given the downstream water elevation of the pool Y 共k兲 X , com- canal pool separated into two parts interconnected by a fixed hy-
pute the IDZ model parameters for the kth part. This leads to draulic structure. As can be deduced from Eqs. (24) and (25), the
␶ˆ 共k兲 ˆ 共k兲 共k兲 共k兲 共k兲
u , ␶d , Âu , Âd , and p̂ij⬁ If k = 1, this is the upstream end
total delays can be computed directly as the sum of the partial
of the pool, and all the parameters have been obtained; else, delays, but this is not the case for the integrator gains (the equiva-
go to step 3. lent backwater areas). Indeed, the interconnected model is no
3. If there is no hydraulic structure, Y 共k−1兲 = Y 共k兲
0 ; else, use the
longer an IDZ model, because the interconnection leads to a se-
X
ries of an IDZ model and a first-order model (the transfer function
upstream water level of part k denoted by Y 共k兲 0 , the discharge is the multiplication of an IDZ model and a first-order model).
Q共k兲 , and the hydraulic structure equation to compute the
0 This is due to the fact that the hydraulic structure imposes a local
downstream water level of part k − 1; i.e., Y 共k−1兲 X . feedback between the water level and the discharge.
4. Do k : = k − 1 and go to step 2.
The overall linear dynamic system is obtained by computing Case of a Simple Interconnection
the interconnection of all IDZ models with the linearized hydrau- The same procedure can be applied in the case of two parts with
lic structures equations. We describe in the following the inter- a simple connection. Eq. (22) is here replaced by the equation
connection of two IDZ models. The interconnection can be gen-
eralized to any number of intermediate models. y 共1兲 共2兲
X = y0 共26兲
This leads to the following equation for the discharge at the in-
Computing the Interconnection terconnection:
Consider a canal pool separated into two parts with uniform ge- p̂共1兲 p̂共2兲
q共1兲 共2兲 共1兲
q共2兲
21 12
ometry and bed slope. The preceding algorithm gives IDZ model X = q0 = 共1兲 q0 − 共27兲
p̂共2兲 p̂共2兲 共1兲 X
11 − p̂22 11 − p̂22
parameters denoted by ␶ˆ 共k兲 ˆ 共k兲 共k兲 共k兲 共k兲
u , ␶d , Âu , Âd , and p̂ij⬁, with k = 1 for
the first upstream part and k = 2 for the downstream part. The IDZ In that case, the overall model of the complete pool is given by
model equations lead to

y 共k兲
0 = p̂共k兲 共k兲
11 共s兲q0 + p̂共k兲 共k兲
12 共s兲qX 共20兲
y 共1兲 冋
共1兲
0 = p̂11 +
p̂共1兲
p̂共2兲
11 −
共1兲
12 p̂21
p̂共1兲
22
册 q共1兲
0 −
p̂共1兲
p̂共2兲
共2兲
12 p̂12
共1兲
11 − p̂22
q共2兲
X 共28兲

y 共k兲 共k兲 共k兲 共k兲 共k兲

X = p̂21 共s兲q0 + p̂22 共s兲qX 共21兲 y 共2兲
X =
p̂共1兲
p̂共2兲
11 −
共2兲
21 p̂21
p̂共1兲
22
q共1兲
0 冋22
+ p̂共2兲 −
p̂共2兲
p̂共2兲
共2兲
21 p̂12
共1兲
11 − p̂22
册 q共2兲
X 共29兲

where k = 1 for the first upstream part and k = 2 for the second In this case, the obtained model is close to an IDZ model: the
downstream part. total delays can also be computed directly as the sum of the
partial delays, and the equivalent backwater areas are obtained
Case of a Fixed Hydraulic Structure with equations similar to Eqs. (47) and (48). Indeed, there is no
The parts are interconnected with a fixed hydraulic structure, local feedback between the water level and the discharge in this
whose linearized equation is written as case.
In both cases, the interconnection can be easily written in a
q共1兲 共2兲 共1兲 共2兲
X = q0 = k1y X + k2y 0 共22兲 computer program, leading to an automatic computation of the
model.
where y 共1兲 共2兲
X =downstream water level of part 1; and y 0 =upstream
water level of part 2. k1 ⬎ 0 and k2 ⬍ 0 are the coefficients of the
linearized structure equation (k2 = 0 for free flow). Conclusion
Interconnecting Eqs. (20) and (21) with Eq. (22) leads to the
following expression for the discharge at the interconnection (the The paper has evaluated the accuracy of a new simple model for
dependence in s is omitted for readability): an open-channel pool subject to backwater, presented by Litrico
and Fromion (2004a). This integrator-delay-zero (IDZ) model is
k1 p̂共1兲 k2 p̂共2兲 simple and models the complete transfer matrix (i.e., the down-
q共1兲 共2兲 共1兲
q共2兲
21 12
X = q0 = 共2兲 q0 +
stream influence is also taken into account). The inputs are the
1 − k1 p̂共1兲 1 − k1 p̂共1兲 共2兲 X
22 − k2 p̂11 22 − k2 p̂11 upstream and downstream discharges, and its outputs are the up-
共23兲 stream and downstream water levels.
The model has been validated in the frequency and time do-
The overall model of the complete pool (interconnection of the mains using the exact transfer matrix obtained following Litrico
two parts) is then given by and Fromion (2002) on the ASCE tests canals for both flow con-

380 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

figurations. The parameters comparison has shown that the IDZ dY 0共x兲 Sb − S f0共x兲
model is able to reproduce large parameter variations due to flow = 共32兲
dx 1 − F0共x兲2
changes. The model can therefore be used in a systematic way to
design controllers for open channels. It could be included in an T0 = mirror width for the equilibrium regime (m); A0共x兲 = wetted
adaptive controller whose parameters vary with the flow. More- area 共m2兲; Q0 = reference discharge 共m3 / s兲 across section A0;
over, the frequency domain comparison has shown that the ap- V0共x兲 = average velocity 共m / s兲 in section A0 Y 0共x兲 = water depth
proximate model is accurate in a large frequency bandwidth. This (m); S f0共x兲 = friction slope; Sb = bed slope; g= gravitational ac-
has been confirmed by time-domain simulations which showed celeration 共m / s2兲; and C0 = 冑gA0 / T0 is the wave celerity 共m / s兲.
that the IDZ model provided an accurate model for the local F0 is the Froude number F0 = V0 / C0. The flow is assumed to be
behavior of the canal pool when it is operated via hydraulic struc- subcritical, i.e. F0 ⬍ 1.
tures. Finally, a procedure is given to compute the model in real- The friction slope S f0 is modeled with the Manning-Strickler
istic cases where the pools have varying geometry and bed slope, formula (Chow 1988):
or incorporate intermediate hydraulic structures.
The obtained model can be used for controller design, such as Q20n2
S f0共x兲 = 共33兲
distant downstream PI controllers, or even for advanced controller A0共x兲2R0共x兲4/3
design, such as multivariable controllers.
Where n = the roughness coefficient 共sm−1/3兲; and R0共x兲 = hydrau-
lic radius (m), defined by R0 = A0 / P0, where P0 is the wetted
perimeter (m).
Acknowledgments Taking into account Eq. (32), parameters ␥0 and ␤0 are ex-
pressed as

再 冎
This work was partially supported by the joint research program
INRA/Cemagref ASS AQUAE No. 02, on the control of delayed ⳵ T0 ⳵ Y0
hydraulic systems. ␥0 = V20 + gT0 共1 + ␬0兲Sb − 关1 + ␬0 − 共␬0 − 2兲F20兴
⳵x ⳵x
共34兲

冉 冊
Notation
2g ⳵ Y0
␤0 = − Sb − 共35兲
The following symbols are used in this paper: V0 ⳵x
Ad ⫽ downstream backwater area in m2; where ␬0 = 7 / 3 − 4A0 / 共3T0 P0兲 ⳵ P0 / ⳵Y.
Au ⫽ upstream backwater area in m2; The boundary conditions are then given by q共0 , t兲 = q0共t兲 and
j ⫽ complex number j2 = −1; q共X , t兲 = qX共t兲.
pij共s兲 ⫽ Saint-Venant transfer functions;
pij⬁ ⫽ gains for high frequencies;
p̂ij共s兲 ⫽ approximated Saint-Venant transfer functions;
Appendix II. Computation of the Uniform Depth Yn
Q0 ⫽ steady-state discharge in m3s−1;
q ⫽ relative discharge in m3s−1;
To obtain an analytical model, it is necessary to have an analytical
s ⫽ Laplace variable in s−1;
expression for the uniform depth Y n. The uniform depth is com-
x ⫽ longitudinal abscissa in m;
puted from the solution of the algebraic equation J0 = I, with J0 the
Y 0 ⫽ steady-state water depth in m;
friction slope given by the Manning-Strickler formula, Eq. (33).
y ⫽ relative water elevation in m;
In the general case, J0 is not a simple function of Y 0; therefore,
␶d ⫽ time delay for downstream propagation in s;
there is no analytical solution of this equation. The hydraulic
␶u ⫽ time delay for upstream propagation in s; and
exponent method (Chow 1988) enables one to obtain a good ana-
␻ ⫽ frequency in rad/s.
lytical approximation of the uniform depth in prismatic channels.
In this method, the conveyance K0 = Q0 / 冑J0 is assumed to be a
power function of the depth of flow Y 0:
Appendix I. Linearized Saint-Venant Model
K20 = CY N0 共36兲
For a prismatic channel, linearized Saint-Venant equations around
a given steady flow regime (including backwater curves) are where C is a coefficient; and N=hydraulic exponent for uniform
given by the following equations (Litrico and Fromion 2004b), flow computation.
where the values of parameters for the steady-state regime are A good approximation of N is obtained by computing the uni-
denoted with an underscored zero: form depth for two different discharges Q1 and Q2. N is then
given by
⳵y ⳵q
T0共x兲 + =0 共30兲 log共Q1/Q2兲
⳵t ⳵x N=2 共37兲
log关Y n共Q1兲/Y n共Q2兲兴
⳵q ⳵q ⳵y Given the uniform flow depth Y n共Q1兲 corresponding to a dis-
+ 2V0共x兲 − ␤0共x兲q + 关C0共x兲2 − V0共x兲2兴T0共x兲 − ␥0共x兲y = 0
⳵t ⳵x ⳵x charge Q1 (e.g., the maximum discharge for the considered pool),
共31兲 the value of the uniform flow depth Y n共Q0兲 for another discharge
Q0 can be approximated by

冉 冊
where y = Y − Y 0 is the variation of water depth (m); and q = Q 2/N
− Q0 is the variation of flow rate 共m3 / s兲 from the steady-state Q0
Y n共Q0兲 ⬇ Y n共Q1兲 共38兲
regime, defined by Q1

JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 381

Appendix III. Backwater Curve Approximation
Au =
␥0
关
T20共C20 − V20兲 ␥ T 共C2−V2兲x
e 0Ⲑ 0 0 0 − 1 兴 共50兲
Using the backwater curve definition given by Eq. (32), let SX
denote the deviation from bed slope of the line tangent to the and the variables are evaluated at 0, and where x = x1. For the
backwater curve at the downstream end of the pool downstream backwater part, Āu and Ād are given by the same
equations [Eqs. (49) and (50)], where the variables are evaluated
Sb − S f0共X兲 at x2 = 共x1 + X兲 / 2 and where x = X − x1.
SX = 共39兲
1 − F20共X兲 The equivalent delays are given by
Then, the intersection between the two lines occurs at abscissa x1 ␶ˆ u = ␶u + ¯␶u 共51兲

冦 再 冎
YX − Yn ␶ˆ d = ␶d + ¯␶d 共52兲
max X − ,0 if SX ⫽ 0
x1 = SX 共40兲 with
X if SX = 0
x1
Then, the approximate backwater curve satisfies the equation ␶d = 共53兲
C0共0兲 + V0共0兲

Ỹ共x兲 = 再 Y1 for x 苸 关0,x1兴

Y 1 + 共x − x1兲Sb for x 苸 关x1,X兴
共41兲
␶u =
x1
C0共0兲 − V0共0兲
共54兲
with
and

Y1 = 再 Yn if x1 ⫽ 0
Y X − XSX if x1 = 0
共42兲 ¯␶d =
X − x1
V0共x2兲 + C0共x2兲
共55兲

Here, Y 1 = Y n when part of the pool is in uniform flow, and when

the whole pool is affected by backwater, Y 1 = Y X − XSX; i.e., the X − x1
¯␶u = 共56兲
water level is a straight line of slope SX. C0共x2兲 − V0共x2兲
The gains in high frequencies are given by
p12⬁ p21⬁
Appendix IV. Approximate Model p̂11⬁ = p11⬁ + 共57兲
p̄11⬁ + p22⬁
The global model is, therefore, given by (Litrico and Fromion
2004a) p12⬁ p̄12⬁
p̂12⬁ = 共58兲
1 p̄11⬁ + p22⬁
p̂11共s兲 = + p̂11⬁ 共43兲
Âus
p21⬁ p̄21⬁
共59兲

冉 冊
p̂21⬁ =
1 p̄11⬁ + p22⬁
p̂12共s兲 = − + p̂12⬁ e −␶ˆ us
共44兲
Âus p̄12⬁ p̄21⬁
p̂22⬁ = p̄22⬁ + 共60兲

冉 冊
p̄11⬁ + p22⬁
1
p̂21共s兲 = + p̂21⬁ e−␶ˆ ds 共45兲 The parameters pij⬁ are obtained by the following equations:

冑
Âds

p̂22共s兲 = −
1
− p̂22⬁ 共46兲 p11⬁ =
1
1+ 冉 冊
1 − F0 2 ␣x
1 + F0
e
共61兲
Âds T0C0共1 − F0兲 1 + e␣x

with the equivalent areas ␥0

e− 2T0共C20−V20兲 x

冉 冊
2
p12⬁ = 共62兲
Āu T0C0共1 − F20兲 冑1 + e␣x
Âu = Au 1 + 共47兲
Ad
e␥0 Ⲑ 2T0共C0−V0兲x
2 2
2

冉 冊
p21⬁ = 共63兲
Ad T0C0共1 − F20兲 冑1 + e␣x
Âd = Ād 1 + 共48兲

冑 冉 冊
Āu
1 + F0 2 ␣x
where, for the upstream uniform flow part 1+ e
1 1 − F0
p22⬁ = 共64兲
T0C0共1 + F0兲 1 + e␣x
Ad =
T20共C20
␥0
− V20兲
关1 − Ⲑ 2
e−␥0 T0共C0−V0兲x
2
兴 共49兲
where, in the upstream uniform part:

382 / JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004

 T0关2 + 共␬0 − 1兲F20兴Sb
␣= 共65兲
A0F0共1 − F20兲
and x = x1. In the downstream backwater part, the same expres-
sions are valid, replacing x with x̄ = X − x1 , ␣ with
再 冋
T0
¯␣ = 关2 + 共␬0 − 1兲F20兴Sb − 2 + 共␬0 − 1兲F20
A0F0共1 − F20兲
− 冉 A0 dT0
T20 dY
冊册
+ ␬0 − 2 F40 SX 冎 共66兲
and all the variables with their values taken at x2 = 共x1 + X兲 / 2.
References
Aström, K. (2000). “Limitations on control system performance.” Eur. J.
Control, 6, 1–19.
Balogun, O. (1985). “Design of real-time feedback control for canal sys-
tems using linear quadratic regulator theory.” PhD thesis, Dept. of
Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of California, Davis., Calif.
Chow, V. (1988). Open-channel hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Clemmens, A. J., Kacerek, T. F., Grawitz, B., and Schuurmans, W.
(1998). “Test cases for canal control algorithms.” J. Irrig. Drain.
Eng., 124 (1), 23–30.
Corriga, G., Patta, F., Sanna, S., and Usai, G. (1979). “A mathematical
model for open-channel networks.” Appl. Math. Model., 3, 51–54.
Corriga, G., Salembeni, D., Sanna, S., and Usai, G. (1988). “A control
method for speeding up response of hydroelectric stations power ca-
nals.” Appl. Math. Model., 12, 627–633.
Deltour, J.-L. (1995). “The Canal de Provence dynamic regulation sys-
tem: a safe and suitable process for operating water conveyance struc-
tures.” Proc., 1st Int. Conf. on Water Resources Engineering, ASCE,
New York, 56–60.
Ermolin, Y. (1992). “Study of open-channel dynamics as controlled pro-
cess.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 118(1), 59–72.
JOURNAL OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2004 / 383
Hancu, S., and Dan, P. (1992). “Wave-motion stability in canals with
automatic controllers.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 118(12), 1621–1638.
Litrico, X., and Fromion, V. (2001). “About optimal performance and
approximation of open-channel hydraulic systems.” Proc., 40th Conf.
on Decision and Control, 4511–4516, IEEE, Piscataway, N.J.
Litrico, X., and Fromion, V. (2002). “Infinite dimensional modelling of
open-channel hydraulic systems for control purposes.” Proc. 41st
Conf. on Decision and Control, 1681–1686.
Litrico, X., and Fromion, V. (2004). “Analytical approximation of open-
channel flow for controller design.” Appl. Math. Model., 28(7), 677-
395.
Litrico, X., and Fromion, V. (2004). “Frequency modeling of open chan-
nel flow.” J. Hydraul. Eng., 130(8), 806–815.
Litrico, X., Fromion, V., Baume, J.-P., and Rijo, M. (2003). “Modelling
and PI controller design for an irrigation canal.” Proc., European
Control Conf., Cambridge, IEE, London.
Litrico, X., and Georges, D. (1999). “Robust continuous-time and
discrete-time flow control of a dam-river system. I: Modelling.” Appl.
Math. Model., 23(11), 809–827.
Malaterre, P.-O. (1998). “PILOTE: linear quadratic optimal controller for
irrigation canals.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 124(4), 187–194.
Rogier, D., Coeuret, C., and Brémond, J. (1987). “Dynamic regulation on
the Canal de Provence.” Proc. ASCE Symposium, ASCE, New York,
180–200.
Schuurmans, J., Clemmens, A. J., Dijkstra, S., Hof, A., and Brouwer, R.
(1999a). “Modeling of irrigation and drainage canals for controller
design.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 125 (6), 338–344.
Schuurmans, J., Hof, A., Dijkstra, S., Bosgra, O. H., and Brouwer, R.
(1999b). “Simple water level controller for irrigation and drainage
canals.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 125(4), 189–195.
Shand, M. (1971). “Automatic downstream control systems for irrigation
canals.” PhD thesis, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Strelkoff, T. S., Deltour, J. L., Burt, C. M., Clemmens, A. J., and Baume,
J. P. (1998). “Influence of canal geometry and dynamics on control-
lability.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 124(1), 16–22.
Zhou, K., and Doyle, J. (1998). Essentials of robust control, Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.