By Marios M.

Polycarpou,
James G. Uber,
Zhong Wang, Feng Shang,
and Mietek Brdys
rinking water distribution net-
works (DWDNs) are com-
plex, large-scale systems
designed to supply clean
water to industrial and do-
mestic users. To reduce the
risk of human exposure to pathogens, drink-
ing water is required to contain a small disin-
f ectant resi dual . The most common
disinfectant used in DWDNs is chlorine be-
cause it is inexpensive and effectively controls
a number of disease-causing organisms. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
enforces regulations regarding the minimum
chlorine residual that must be present in a DWDN.
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and its amendments in
1986 state that a measurable disinfectant residual (typically
assumed to be 0.2 mg/l) must be present at points of water
consumption. On the other hand, chlorine residuals should
not be needlessly large as they may not appreciably reduce
the health risk of pathogen exposure (compared to small re-
siduals in the 0.2 mg/l range); at the same time, reactions of
chlorine with certain naturally occurring organic com-
pounds produce by-products, some of which are suspected
carcinogens [1], [2]. Again, the U.S. EPA regulates maximum
levels of disinfection by-products (DBPs) at points of con-
sumption (currently 0.1 mg/l for total trihalomethanes, but
future targets will be lower) [3]. Distribution network water
quality control is therefore an important problem, and the
regulation of chlorine residual concentration within a pre-
68 IEEE Control Systems Magazine June 2002
0272-1708/02/$17.002002IEEE
Polycarpou (polycarpou@uc.edu) and Wang are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science, Uni-
versity of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH45221-0030, U.S.A. Uber and Shang are with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0071, U.S.A. Brdys is with the School of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, University
of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K.

1
9
9
8
A
R
T
V
I
L
L
E
,
L
L
C
&
C
O
R
E
L
scribedset of bounds is part of the solution: a lower limit for
pathogen control and an upper limit to minimize potential
health effects and reduce taste and odor complaints. In
brief, the goal is tomaintaina consistent detectable residual
without using excess disinfectant. This goal rules out the
crude overapplication of disinfectant as a potential solution
and instead emphasizes more precise control approaches.
The objective of this article is to formulate the water
quality control problem and introduce it to the controls
community, and to propose a design approach based on pa-
rameter estimation and adaptive control techniques.
The accurate and reliable control of chlorine residuals
within a DWDNis a newand complex problem. Chlorine can
be added to the systemfroma number of sources and trans-
ported to multiple points of consumption through several
different pipe paths, so the systemis inherently multiple-in-
put, multiple-output (MIMO). Furthermore, there normally
exist significant and variable time delays associated with
the transport time of water fromone point toanother and, in
particular, from a point of chlorine input to a point of water
use. These time delays increase the difficulty of meeting
control objectives because chlorine levels decay with time
as a result of reactions with organic and inorganic com-
pounds originating in the source water and also with pipe
wall materials. Calculating the time delays is complicated
not only due to the topology of the DWDN, but also because
consumer water use rates are varying and unknown. There-
fore, nominal values of aggregate water demandare oftenas-
sumed; any variations fromthese values are, froma controls
perspective, treated as disturbances.
To summarize the problemfroma feedback control view-
point:
The control inputs are chlorine concentrations (or
dose rates) at chlorination stations.
The performance outputs are chlorine residual con-
centrations at points of consumption.
The plant is the DWDN, a MIMO system containing
multiple time delays subject to consumer-generated
demand disturbances.
In current practice, water utilities attempt to maintain
chlorine residuals using an open-loop and usually manual
control configuration involving chlorine application only at a
single supply source. While in-line sensors for measuring
chlorine concentration in the distribution network may be
available in some large water utilities, even there the re-
sults are used mostly for monitoring purposes. With a single
chlorine injection point, the source chlorine concentration
must be selected to maintain pathogen control everywhere
in the distribution network, even in the presence of varia-
tions inwater use patterns. Since chlorine reacts withnatural
organic matter present in all waters (as well as pipe materi-
als), longresidencetimes of water inthedistributionnetwork
can deplete the disinfectant residual at the edges of the net-
work and in storage reservoirs. Therefore, the source con-
centration must be sufficiently large to maintain adequate
disinfectant residuals throughout the distribution network,
which may cause taste and odor complaints by consumers
receiving the higher chlorine concentrations if they are lo-
cated close to the supply node. Water utilities must effect a
balance between excessive disinfectant concentrations near
the source and loss of pathogen control at the network pe-
riphery. This balance is further complicated by the desire to
minimize disinfectant dosage and contact time to reduce the
formation of DBPs. Booster chlorinationthe addition of
chlorineat distinct locations throughout thedistributionsys-
temmay produce a more uniform disinfectant residual (in
space and time) while lowering the required total chlorine
dose [4], yet the aggressive implementation of booster chlo-
rination awaits the development and evaluation of
closed-loop control approaches to replace open-loop, man-
ual controls. Closed-loopapproaches will beparticularlyuse-
ful in small and remote water utilities that lack the funds to
employ expert personnel for monitoring and controlling the
quality of water in distribution networks.
Extensive literature exists on the dynamics of water hy-
draulics and water quality in DWDNs, mainly within the civil
and environmental engineering field. More recently, there
have beenseveral studies of modeling andcontrolling water
systems within the framework of a systems approach. Spe-
cifically, Brdys and Ulanicki [5] and de Moyer and Horowitz
[6] have written excellent reference books formulating a
systems approach for modeling and control of water distri-
bution networks. So far, most of the studies have dealt with
control of hydraulics; i.e., controlling the pressures at differ-
ent nodes of the network. The issue of modeling andcontrol-
ling water quality is also starting to attract significant
attention. The modeling of water quality and the develop-
ment of simulation software have been investigated in sev-
eral studies, including [3] and [7]-[10]. Some studies on
feedback control approaches for regulating chlorine residu-
als have also been published [11]-[16].
In this article, the input/output relationship between
chlorine concentrations at an injection node and at a moni-
tored node is modeled as a linear discrete-time system with
unknown parameters. The discrete-time formulation is suit-
able for handling the transport delay, whichis inherently as-
sociated with the delivery of water, while the adaptation is
able tomake online adjustments tooptimize the control per-
formance inthe presence of time variations anduncertainty.
Recursive parameter estimation algorithms are usedto gen-
erate parameter estimates that can be used in the feedback
control algorithm in place of the unknown linear model pa-
rameters. By combining simultaneous online identification
and feedback control, we construct an indirect adaptive
control scheme [17], [18]. Furthermore, we develop a peri-
odic adaptive control scheme where the unknown periodic
time variations in the transport delay and model coeffi-
cients are approximated by a Fourier series with coeffi-
cients that are updatedonline. Generally, eachdiscrete-time
sample corresponds to a sensor sample of chlorine concen-
June 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 69
tration. The proposed approach provides a method for han-
dling multiple, time-varying transport delays and uncertain
decay constants without a priori knowledge of consumer
demands. Although both the parameter estimation and
feedback control algorithms are typically updated at each
sample, in the presence of significant noise the parameter
estimation and feedback control algorithm may be updated
at different rates.
Although the infrastructure for real-time feedback con-
trol of water systems is available (online sensors, actuators,
and telemetry), its practical use is limited by the lack of safe
and reliable feedback control algorithms. Enhancing the
quality of drinking water in distribution networks through
feedback control approaches is becoming a priority of wa-
ter utilities and government organizations such as the EPA.
This article contributes to this goal by:
1) formulating the problem in a feedback control frame-
work;
2) developing an input/output modeling approach for
chlorine concentration dynamics that is suitable for
the design of feedback control algorithms;
3) developing an adaptive control approach for regulat-
ing the chlorine residual in DWDNs and exploiting the
periodic nature of water consumption to design a pe-
riodic adaptive control algorithm;
4) presenting simulation examples based on a real water
distribution network to illustrate the proposed feed-
back control methodology and to provide insight into
the challenges associated with the problem.
Although the objective of this research is to investigate the
regulation problemfor DWDNs and to bring it into the main-
stream of control applications, the techniques developed
here are relevant to other applications that involve the con-
trol of variables ina spatially distributednetwork configura-
tion. Examples of such systems include power distribution
networks, communication networks, and cooperative con-
trol of distributed autonomous agents.
Feedback Control Design Formulation
From a feedback control perspective, two sets of intercon-
necteddynamics determine the water quality model: the hy-
draulic and quality dynamics. The hydraulic dynamics of a
water distribution network describe the water flows in the
network, whereas the quality dynamics model the spatio-
temporal distribution of chlorine concentration in the net-
work. In general, the hydraulic dynamics are driven by
water demands, as well as by controlled pumps and valves.
On the other hand, quality dynamics are driven by water
flows (the hydraulic dynamics) and by the injection of chlo-
rine at specifiednodes in the network. Therefore, the under-
lying hydraulic dynamics affect the quality dynamics, but
not vice versa. This cause and effect of hydraulic and water
quality modeling is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Feedback Control Approaches
There are three possible approaches for feedback control of
water quality in distribution networks:
Use a nominal, offline schedule for pump and valve
control and adjust the chlorine injection rate such
that the chlorine concentration at the monitored out-
put nodes follows a desired level (see Fig. 2(a)). We
will refer tothis approachas chlorine injection control.
Use a nominal, offline schedule for chlorine injection
and adjust the controlled pumps and valves such that
the achieved water flows cause the chlorine concen-
tration at the monitored nodes to follow the desired
level (see Fig. 2(b)). This approach will be referred to
as pump/valve control.
Combine both the feedback control of chlorine injec-
tion and of pumps and valves (Fig. 2(c)).
These three approaches address the problem of regulat-
ing chlorine concentration in DWDNs, but in practice, water
quality is not the only control problemthat needs to be con-
sidered. The other control problem, which traditionally has
received most of the attention, is control of the hydraulics.
This involves regulating the water pressures at some de-
siredlevel bycontrolling the pumps andvalves (i.e., tomake
sure that there is enough pressure for water to reach con-
sumers at all locations in the distribution network). This
control problem has other objectives as well, such as mini-
mizing the costs of energy usage.
According tothe chlorine injectioncontrol approach, the
pump/valve control can be designed independently of wa-
ter quality control. In other words, one could develop a
pump/valve strategy for water pressure control and inde-
pendently design a chlorine injection algorithm for regulat-
ing the spatiotemporal concentration of chlorine in the
network. However, as we will discuss later, if the hydraulic
dynamics are such that the water flows change significantly
over time, then it becomes more difficult to design an accu-
rate chlorine injectioncontrol lawdue todifficulties inkeep-
ing up with large time variations, especially in the presence
of unknown time delays.
The pump/valve control approach requires the control
designer to develop an algorithm that regulates the water
flows inthe distributionnetwork suchthat the chlorine con-
centration at the output nodes remains at some desired
level. One way to approach this problem is to attempt to
keep the variation in water flows that influences the chlo-
rine concentration within the DWDN as small as possible
such that a precomputed level of constant chlorine injec-
tion at the boosting nodes is able to achieve reasonable re-
70 IEEE Control Systems Magazine June 2002
Consumer
Demand
Pump/
Valve
Control
Water
Hydraulic
Dynamics
Water
Quality
Dynamics
Water
Flows
Chlorine
Injection
Chlorine
Concentration
Figure 1. Block diagram representation of the input-output
dynamics of water quality and water hydraulics.
sults. In practice, controlling chlorine concentration via
online adjustment of hydraulic dynamics is complicated by
the difficulty of achieving small flow variation in the face of
large water demand variation, the complex relationship be-
tween water flow dynamics and chlorine concentration at
various nodes, and the need to satisfy other criteria such as
retaining water pressures in the network at desired levels.
Even if pump/valve control were feasible, the chlorine injec-
tion level would still require periodic analysis and adjust-
ment to compensate for variations in source water quality
that affect the rates of chlorine residual decay.
Ultimately, the problem of feedback control of water
quality will be based on the combined chlorine injection
control and pump/valve control. However, the problem is
extremely complex due to the interdependencies between
hydraulic and water quality dynamics. A hierarchical
two-level structure for the integrated quantity-quality con-
trol has been recently proposed in [14]. At the upper level,
the pump/valve and chlorine injection schedules are gener-
ated online using a repetitive control technique [19]. A sim-
plified, aggregated-in-time quality model is used to reduce
the upper-level optimization problem dimension. The
pump/valve schedules are directly applied to the DWDN.
Adjustments to the chlorine injection trajectories are pro-
ducedby a fast output feedback controller at the lower level
to maintain the chlorine concentration at the monitored
nodes within the prescribed limits. The latter is not guaran-
teed due to the time aggregation of the quality model and in-
accuracies in demand prediction at the upper level. Using
the combined approach to controlling the quantity and
quality at the upper level avoids pump/valve schedules
which produce flow dynamics that prevent the quality con-
straints from being met.
Feedback Control Objectives
In this article, we focus on the chlorine injection approach.
The control inputs are given by the chlorine concentrations
at network locations where chlorine boosting can influence
the concentration level. (Another related approach that is
not described in this article, but can be formulated in a simi-
lar framework, is the so-called flow-paced control. In this
case, the mass rate of chlorine injected is in proportion to
the water flow rate at the booster location, and the control
input is the proportionality factor.) The measured outputs
June 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 71
Consumer
Demand
Consumer
Demand
Consumer
Demand
Pump/Valve
Control
Pump/Valve
Control
Pump/Valve
Control
Water
Flows
Water
Flows
Water
Flows
Chlorine
Injection
Chlorine
Injection
Chlorine
Injection
Chlorine
Concentration
Chlorine
Concentration
Chlorine
Concentration
Desired Chlorine
Concentration
Desired Chlorine
Concentration
Desired Chlorine
Concentration
Water Quality
Feedback Control
Water Quality
Feedback Control
Water Quality
Feedback Control
Water
Hydraulic
Dynamics
Water
Hydraulic
Dynamics
Water
Hydraulic
Dynamics
Water Quality
Dynamics
Water Quality
Dynamics
Water Quality
Dynamics
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2. Three feedback control approaches for water quality control: (a) chlorine injection control, (b) pump/valve control, and (c)
combined chlorine injection and pump/valve control.
are obtained by chlorine concentration sensors at various
locations in the network. The main control objective is:
Keeping the chlorine concentration level at the moni-
tored nodes as close as possible to the desired value
in the presence of unknown and time-varying con-
sumer demands.
Secondary control objectives include:
Regulating the chlorine concentration not only at the
monitored output locations but also at a much larger
set of network nodes where there is consumption of
water.
Minimizing the total amount of injected chlorine,
which may be a surrogate for reducing disinfection
by-product formation.
Selection of Actuator
and Sensor Locations
The chlorine-boosting locations (actuators) and monitored
output locations (sensors) are assumed to be selected a pri-
ori. Note, however, that a wise selection of actuator and
sensor locations is crucial to achieving the control objec-
tives. In a controls framework, the issue of selecting sen-
sor/actuator locations is related to the controllability and
observability of the resulting network. For example, if the
network topology is such that a monitored node cannot be
affected by at least one of the boosting locations, then that
node becomes uncontrollable. More often, the designer
needs to be concerned about weakly controllable situations
where the monitored node is weakly influenced by chlorine
boosting. Typically, weakly controllable situations are char-
acterized by long transport delays between the input and
output nodes, which deplete the chlorine concentration in
the water as a result of the chlorine decay over time. How-
ever, avoiding such input/output pairs can be complicated
by hydraulic dynamics and transport delays that vary con-
siderably over a daily cycle; a single input/output pair could
be highly controllable one moment and weakly controllable
the next.
Experienced water engineers may be able to select rea-
sonable locations for placing the actuators and sensors.
Generally, the sensors need to be placed at locations that
well represent the chlorine concentrations at points of wa-
ter consumption. Since it is impractical to place chlorine
concentration sensors at every node where water is con-
sumed, sensors should be placed on various network paths
that cover as many of the water consumption points as pos-
sible. Actuators need to be placed at locations that guaran-
tee maximum coverage (i.e., each monitored node of
interest is influenced by at least one boosting location). An-
other factor that can be important in selecting boosting sta-
tion (actuator) locations is to make the network as
decoupled as possible, since in that case it becomes eas-
ier to design a feedback controller. Therefore, the objective
is to have each node of interest be influenced by at least one
actuator (for maximum coverage) and, if possible, by no
more than one actuator (to maximize decoupling between
control inputs).
Local Control of Chlorine Concentration
In the control formulation described earlier, the control in-
put and measured output represent chlorine concentra-
tions at the input and output nodes, respectively. To force
the chlorine concentrationat the control input node tobe at
a certain desired level, a local (inner-loop) controller is re-
quired. The objective of the local controller is to adjust the
amount of injected chlorine at the control input node such
that the chlorine concentration at that node reaches the de-
sired level. Such a local controller does not need to be very
sophisticated; a simple proportional-integral-derivative
(PID) controller should be sufficient to achieve the control
objective within a reasonable time period. As in classical
control designproblems, it is important tohave good tran-
sient response in terms of fast rise and settling times and
small overshoot. Furthermore, it is important for the
steady-state error to be as small as possible. Such local con-
trollers are starting to become available from environmen-
tal engineering companies. It is anticipated that, in the near
future, complete local controllers will be readily available
off the shelf. The objective of our research is not to design
these local control algorithms, but instead to use the infra-
structure provided by local controllers to design feedback
control algorithms where the control input and monitored
output are a significant distance apart and, typically, water
flowing fromthe input to the output may followa number of
different paths (thus leading to different time delays).
A typical local control architecture is shown in Fig. 3. As
seen fromthe figure, the chlorine concentration of water en-
tering the input node at sample time k is denoted by u k
in
( ),
while the chlorine concentration of water leaving the input
node is denoted by u k
out
( ). The objective of the local con-
troller is to make the difference betweenu k
out
( ) and the de-
sired chlorine concentration, denoted byu k *( ), as small as
possible by adjusting the amount of chlorine injected into
the water. The sensor measuring the chlorine concentration
u k
out
( ) is placed sufficiently downstream from the injec-
tion point to allow for complete mixing of chlorine with the
flow. The desiredchlorine concentrationu k *( )is generated
bythe control algorithms developedinthis article, basedon
measurements of chlorine concentration at the monitored
output nodes.
The local control architecture imposes some constraints
on the level of chlorine concentration leaving the control in-
put node:
u k u k
out in
( ) ( ) 0: The chlorine concentration of wa-
ter leaving the node cannot be less than the chlorine
concentration of water entering the node (i.e., chlo-
rine cannot be extracted from the water).
| ( ) ( )| u k u k
out out
1 : It may be physically impossi-
ble for the chlorine concentration of water leaving the
node to change faster than a certain rate . The value
72 IEEE Control Systems Magazine June 2002
offline analysis and design of actuator and sensor locations.
The described dynamics, however, are still too complex for
designing feedback control algorithms. What is needed is a
simple analogy to the input/output simulation model that
reflects the important physical andchemical processes, but
without requiring a complex algorithm and a priori knowl-
edge of the network hydraulics. Here, we describe such a
simplified approximation of the input/output model, which
characterizes the chlorine residual in a water distribution
network as a discrete-time auto-regressive moving-average
(ARMA) model with time-varying coefficients. We will refer
to this approach as control-oriented input/output water
quality modeling.
First, we describe the control-oriented input/output wa-
ter qualitymodeling approachfor chlorine residual inpipes.
Then we consider chlorine residual modeling between wa-
ter entering and exiting a storage tank. Water quality model-
ing in pipes and tanks is then combined for multiple pipes
and multiple tanks to describe the chlorine residual dynam-
ics in water distribution networks of any arbitrary topology.
Finally, we discuss possible sources of modeling errors.
Chlorine Residual Modeling in Pipes
First, consider the modeling of chlorine residual in water
througha single pipe. In this case, the input/output relation-
ship is given by [9], [10]
y k k u k d k ( ) ( ) ( ( )) = , (1)
where u k ( ) is the chlorine concentration of water entering
the pipe, y k ( ) is the chlorine concentration of water exiting
the pipe, d k ( ) is the detention sampled time from the input
to the output node (the actual detention time is d k T ( ) ),

( )
( ( ) )
k e
d k T
=

is the decay factor for the pipe, 0is the re-
action rate coefficient, and T is the sampling interval time.
The coefficientcharacterizes howquickly chlorine decays
in the water. Typically, different types of pipes and water
characteristics result in different rates of decay.
Strictly speaking, the detention sampled time d k ( ) is a
real number that varies over time. For simplicity, the deten-
tion time is discretizedso as to eliminate this time variation.
The chlorine concentration of water exiting the pipe is thus
approximated by
74 IEEE Control Systems Magazine June 2002
Desired Cl
Concentration
at Injection
Node 1
Cl Concentration
at Injection Node 1
Desired Cl
Concentration
at Injection
Node 1
Cl Concentration
at Injection Node 1
Cl Concentration
at Monitored
Node 1
Cl Concentration
at Monitored
Node q
Cl Concentration
at Injection Node m
Desired Cl
Concentration
at Injection
Node m
Desired Cl
Concentration
at Each Monitored
Node 1,2,,q
Control
Constraints
Command
Input for
Node 1
Cl Injected
at Node 1
Local Control
Algorithm
Local Chlorine
Injection
Dynamics
Water Quality
Controller
Water Quality
Controller
Water Quality
Controller
Node 1 Node 1
Node 2 Node 2
Node m Node m
Local
Controller
Local
Controller
Local
Controller
Tank 1
Drinking Water
Distribution Network
Figure 4. Overall control architecture for water quality control.
of typically depends on the sampling rate. If the
sampling rate is high, there may not be enough time
for the local controller to achieve a desired chlorine
concentration that is significantly different from the
previous value.
u k M
out
( ) : In general, regulatory andsafety consider-
ations impose a threshold M on the maximum allow-
ablechlorine concentrationof water leaving thenode.
The above constraints need to be taken into consider-
ation when a chlorine injection control algorithm is being
implemented. If the desired chlorine concentration gener-
ated by the feedback control algorithm (which we will de-
note byu k ( )) violates one or more of the above constraints,
then it needs to be modified. For example, if the true de-
sired chlorine concentrationu k ( ) is such that u k u k ( ) ( ) <
in
,
then the reference commandu k *( ) fed to the local control-
ler is set tou k u k *( ) ( ) =
in
(i.e., nochlorine is addedtothe in-
coming water).
Fig. 4 shows the overall chlorine injection control archi-
tecture. It consists of a number of outer-loop(water quality)
controllers andinner-loop(local) controllers. The local con-
troller has an adjustment mechanism to account for possi-
ble violations of the control constraints. In this article, we
investigate the design of the outer-loop controllers, which
process information fromvarious monitored locations (and
possibly fromother control input locations) to compute the
desired chlorine concentration u k ( ) at each of the con-
trolled input nodes. If u k ( ) violates any of the control con-
straints, then a new desired chlorine level u k *( ) is
computed, which serves as the command input to the local
control algorithm.
Water Quality Modeling
for Feedback Control
The water quality dynamics in DWDNs mainly depend on the
transport of chlorine throughmultiple pipes andone or more
storage tanks. A key characteristic of chlorine is that it de-
cays over time, soif noadditional chlorine is injectedintothe
network, the chlorine concentration decreases with an in-
crease in residence time. Moreover, the chlorine concentra-
tion at a particular location depends not only on the decay
rate, but also on time-varying water flow rates (determined
by the time-varying water usage rate); a higher flow rate im-
plies a small transport time, resulting in less decay.
In this section, we present an input/output water quality
modeling approach that is suitable for designing feedback
control algorithms. As discussed earlier, the input/output
dynamics describe the response between a set of chlorine
injection nodes (inputs) and a set of monitored sensor
nodes (outputs), where the physical distance between the
input and output nodes may be measured in kilometers. We
assume that an input u k
i
( ) represents the chlorine concen-
tration at the indexed injection nodei m { , , , } 12 K and at the
sampled time t kT = , whereT is the sampling frequency. For
simplicity, we do not consider the local feedback control dy-
namics that are designed to make adjustments to the
chlorine concentration at indexed injection node i. An out-
put y k
j
( ) represents the chlorine concentration at the in-
dexed monitored node j q { , , , } 12 K and at the sampled time
t kT = .
Several other studies have considered the development
of models for chlorine transport (also referred to as water
quality models) in a water distribution network [7], [9],
[20]-[24]. According to Rossman and Boulos [8], who com-
posed a thorough reviewof existing techniques, water qual-
ity modeling can be divided into two general categories:
Eulerian and Lagrangian. Eulerian techniques divide the
network into equally sized segments or volumes and track
chlorine residuals at the boundaries and within each seg-
ment. Lagrangian methods record and track each mass of
chlorine (i.e., a slug of chlorine) that enters the system by
tracking parcels of water as they travel through the net-
work. These simulation-oriented water quality modeling
techniques, although numerically accurate and sufficient
for predicting chlorine residuals within a DWDN, are based
on approximating the chlorine concentration at numerous
points within each pipe length. This leads to a distributed
model of the DWDN, and the explicit relationship between
input and output chlorine concentration is lost (i.e., the
paths and associated travel times). Because these distrib-
uted models provide only an implicit input/output relation-
ship, they are not convenient for controller design.
An explicit input/output model for chlorine transport in
networks without tanks was developed by Zierolf et al. [10].
This algorithmtracks the travel of water parcels innetworks
in reverse time by tracking water parcels reaching the out-
put node as they propagate upstream, breaking them into
subparcels at junctions, until all subparcels arrive at the in-
jection node. This model can find all the paths from the in-
put to the output and the corresponding delays. This
modeling approach was also used in [10] for offline calibra-
tionof pipe chlorine reactionrates andwas later made more
efficient and extended in [25] to consider the presence of
storage tanks.
The above input/output modeling approach provides a
unique method for simulating and characterizing the dy-
namic response in water quality between a controlled input
and monitored output if the hydraulic dynamics are known
or assumed. The informationit provides is thus essential for
June 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 73
Local
Controller
u k
in
( ) u k
out
( )
u k *( )
C1
Figure 3. Block diagram representation of a local controller.
y k k u k i
i
i d
d
( ) ( ) ( ) =
=

,
(2)
where d and d are the minimum and maximum time delays,
respectively, associated with the transport of water.
As water demand changes, the flow rate of water in the
pipe will also vary, which will cause the detention time to
change. In the above formulation, variations in the deten-
tion time imply only variations in the coef-
ficients
i
k ( ). In general, it is significantly
easier for the parameter estimation and
control design to deal with time-varying
coefficients that appear linearly, instead of
(1), which includes nonlinearly para-
metrized transport delays. Approximating
(1) by (2) will not introduce significant
modeling error if the sampling rate is rea-
sonably high (relative to variations in hy-
draul i c dynami cs). I n general , the
detention sampled time d k ( ) (and conse-
quently the decay rate( ) k ) are time vary-
ing due to changes in hydraulic dynamics, mainly caused by
variationinconsumer water demands andby control sched-
uling of pumps and valves.
In the case of two pipes interconnected in series, the in-
put/output relationshipis givenbythe same equationas (1),
where the total detention timeTd k ( ) is the sumof the deten-
tion times in each pipe and the decay factor( ) k is the prod-
uct of the factors in each pipe. Similarly, in the case of two
pipes interconnected in parallel, the input/output chlorine
concentration relationship is described by
y k w k k u k d k w k k u k d k ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( )) ( ( )) ( ) ( ( )), = +
1 1 2 2
1
(3)
where
i
k ( ), d k
i
( ) are the decay factor and detention sam-
pled time, respectively, in each pipe. The weight factorw k ( )
is determined by the relative water flow rates in each pipe
(denoted by q k
1
( ), q k
2
( )). If we assume instantaneous and
complete mixing at the output junction where the two pipes
join, then w k ( ) is given by
w k
q k
q k q k
( )
( )
( ) ( )
=
+
1
1 2
.
For an arbitrary network with any number of pipes in se-
ries and parallel, a similar approach can be employed to re-
cursively derive the functional relationship between u k ( )
and y k ( ):
y k k u k d k
p
p k
p
( ) ( ) ( ( ))
( )
=

P
,
(4)
whereP( ) k is the set of all paths from the input node to the
output node,
p
t ( ) is a path impact factor (reflecting both
the decayfactors andthe weight factorw k ( )associatedwith
the water flowrates), and d k
p
( )is the transport sampled de-
lay associated with path p. The set of paths P( ) k is time
varying because the number of paths from an input node to
an output node may change withtime due to variation in the
hydraulics. By analogy to the single-pipe case above, each
detention sampled time d k
p
( ) is discretized to obtain
y k k u k i
i
i d
d
( ) ( ) ( ) =
=

,
(5)
where the
i
k ( ) now reflect the sum of all path impact fac-
tors associated with each integer time delay and d and d re-
flect the minimum and maximum transport delays over all
possible paths between input and output. Note that (5) is
functionallyidentical to(2) sothat extensionfromthe single
pipe to the network has been accomplished without in-
creasing the model complexity (other than the values of
minimum and maximum transport delays).
In summary, the transport of chlorine in each individual
path is incorporated into an overall moving average (MA)
model, and the time variations in both the detention sam-
pled times d
p
and decay factors
p
appear now only as time
variations in the linearly parametrized coefficients
i
. As we
will see next, the presence of storage tanks will necessitate
the use of auto-regressive (AR) model terms, suchthat mod-
eling of general water distribution networks can be charac-
terized by ARMA models with time-varying coefficients.
Chlorine Residual Modeling
in Storage Tanks
Next, consider the modeling of a single storage tank. Let
q k
1
( ), q k
2
( ) denote the water flow rates into and out of the
tank, respectively, and v k ( ) be the total volume of water in
the tank. If we assume that chlorine entering the tank is
mixed with chlorine in the tank instantaneously and com-
pletely, then the chlorine concentration in the tank at time k
is equal to the mass of chlorine in the tank divided by the to-
tal water in the tank. (Instantaneous and complete mixing of
chlorine entering a tank is a reasonable and commonly used
assumption in water quality modeling.) Furthermore, the
mass of chlorine in the storage tank at the current sampled
time is equal to the mass of chlorine in the tank during the
previous sampled time, multiplied by some decay coeffi-
June 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 75
Water utilities attempt to maintain
chlorine residuals using an
open-loop and usually manual
control configuration involving
chlorine application only at a single
supply source.
cient, plus the difference between the mass of chlorine en-
tering the tank and that leaving the tank in a sample period
T. Therefore,
y k
v k y k q k Tu k q k Ty k
v k q
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) (
=
+
+
1 1
1
1 2
1

k T q k T ) ( )
2
,
(6)
whereis the reaction rate coefficient in the tank, u k ( )is the
chlorine concentration of water entering the tank, and y k ( )
is the chlorine concentration of water leaving the tank
(which is equal to the chlorine concentration in the tank).
From (6) we obtain:
y k k y k k u k ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) = + 1 , (7)
where

( )
( )
( ) ( )
,
( )
( )
( ) ( )
k
v k
v k q k T
k
q k T
v k q k T
=

+
=
+
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
Since the total volume of water in the tank v k ( ) at any
time is typicallymuchlarger thanthe amount of water enter-
ing the tank ina single time sample (givenbyq k T
1
( ) ), the co-
efficient ( ) k is approximately equal to , whereas ( ) k is
small, making the system weakly controllable at time kT if
the only path between input and output includes the tank.
Thus, the effect of the controlled input (chlorine concentra-
tionat the injectionnode) onthe measuredoutput (chlorine
concentration at the sensor node) is small. In such cases
(where all the water at the output node has to come through
a storage tank), it becomes more difficultand typically re-
quires a large control efforttoregulate the output variable
at the desired level.
Two types of tanks are currently being used in practical
water systems. The first type (which we will refer to as con-
tinuous flow) allows water to enter and leave simulta-
neously. The second type, which we refer to as switching
flow, has distinct cycles of draining and filling, where the
storage tank first fills (usually during low demand times)
and then switches to draining during high demand periods.
The above formulation, described by (7), describes the dy-
namics of both types; for switching flowstorage tanks, how-
ever, the coefficient( ) k changes tozeroduring the draining
cycle. Thus, for switching flow tanks the output is uncon-
trollable during the drain cycle if the only path between in-
put and output is through the tank.
Chlorine Residual Modeling
in Water Distribution Networks
Typical water distribution networks are composed of rela-
tively few tanks and possibly thousands of pipes. By com-
bining the dynamics for chlorine concentration in transport
through pipes and storage tanks, a relationship between
any chlorine injection point u k ( ) and a monitored sensor
node y k ( )canbe derived. Using the same approximations as
in the previous two sections, the dynamical relationship be-
tween u k ( ) and y k ( ) is given by
y k k y k i k u k i
i
i
n
i
i d
d
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) = +
= =


1
,
(8)
where n is the number of tanks in the network, d, d are the
lower and upper limits, respectively, of transport delay be-
tween the input and the output, and
i
k ( ),
i
k ( ) are the coef-
ficients with respect to y k i ( ) and u k i ( ) , respectively. In
(8), the transport delays associated with different water
flow paths between input and output have been converted
to integer values of the sampling time, such that parameter
estimation methods need not estimate multiple unknown
and varying transport delays. This formulation transforms
the time-varying nature of time delays into time-varying co-
efficients, which can be treated in a linear framework as an
ARMA model [18].
Simple Chlorine Modeling Example
To illustrate the derivation of the water quality model, we
consider a simple network withone tank andtwopaths from
input to output, as in Fig. 5. Let u k ( ), y k ( ) be the chlorine
concentrations at the input and output nodes, respectively,
and z
1
, z
2
be intermediate variables that represent the chlo-
rine concentration of the water flowing into and out of the
tank, respectively. Using the equations for single pipes and
for a tank, we obtain
z k k u k i
i
i d
d
1
1
1
1
( ) ( ) ( ) =
=

(9)
z k k z k k z k
t t
2 2 1
1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) = + (10)
y k w k k z k i w k k
i
i d
d
i
i d
d
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( )) ( = +
= =


2
2
3
2
2
3
3
1 ) ( ) u k i
(11)
where d
j
andd
j
(for j =123 , , ) are the minimumandmaximum
time delays, respectively, associated with the transport of
water in the jth pipe;
i
j
k ( ) are the decay factors for the cor-
responding jth pipe;
t
k ( ),
t
k ( ) are the tank ARMA coeffi-
cients; andw k ( )is a factor determinedby the relative flowof
water in pipes 2 and 3. By substituting (10) and then (9) in
(11), we obtain the following equation after rearranging the
delay terms:
y k k z k i k u k i
i
i d
d
i
i d
d
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) =

+


=
=

2
2
2
1 ,
(12)
76 IEEE Control Systems Magazine June 2002
where

i
k ( ),

i
k ( ) are new coefficients. After
some straightforward algebra, it can be
shown that the newmaximumand minimum
delays are given by

= + d d d d max{ , }
3 1 2
and
d d d d

= + min{ , }
3 1 2
, respectively. By recur-
sively using (10) to replace z k d
2 2
1 ( ) ...
z k d
2 2
1 ( ) , and then using (9) to replace
the z k i
1
( ) terms, we obtain
( )
y k k z k d k u k i
i
i d
d
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) =

+


=

2 2
,
(13)
where

( ) k ,

i
k ( )are newcoefficients of the model. By defi-
nition, it can be readily shown that

> ( ) k 0 for all k. There-
fore, using (13)
y k k z k d k u k i
i
i d
d
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) =

+


=

1 1 1 1 1
2 2
,
(14)
whichimplies (using (10)) that the termz k d
2 2
( ) in(13) can
be replaced as follows:
y k
k k
k
y k k u k
t
i
i d
d
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) =

+
=

1
1 1 ,
(15)
which is of the form described by (8). Note that to obtain
(15), we use the fact that

( ) k 1 0. A similar procedure
can be applied to more general networks with any number
of pipes and tanks. From a control design viewpoint, these
equations need not be derived for the overall networkthe
important parameters needed are the number of tanks and
the maximum/minimumtransport delays betweenthe input
node and the output node.
Although the water quality model described by (8) is lin-
ear, the design of feedback control systems presents some
important challenges. First, the coefficients of the ARMA
model are time varying. As discussed earlier, the time varia-
tion is caused by changing water demands and changes in
pump/valve control. Although the daily patterns of aggre-
gate water demand are known accurately, the spatially dis-
tributed patterns at individual nodes are not (and thus
neither are their effects on travel paths and time delays be-
tween particular inputs and outputs). Second, the presence
of transport delays makes the control design more difficult.
This is exacerbated by the varying nature of the transport
delay, which causes the minimum and maximum limits on
the transport delay (denoted by d and d, respectively) to
also change over time [26]. For example, in practice, the
minimumtransport delay dcanchange from20 hto25 hdur-
ing a 24-h period.
The third challenge is associated with designing a rea-
sonably sized identification model for estimating the un-
known parameters
i
k ( ),
i
k ( ). In practice, the difference
between the minimum and maximum transport delay can
be many hours, especially in cases where the input/output
node pairs have multiple possible paths and/or the water
flow changes significantly. Therefore, to cover the time in-
terval t d d [ ] might require a large number of
i
coeffi-
cients, making the estimation problemextremely complex.
For example, if d = 20 h and d = 50 h, and the sampling time
isT =10 min, then one would need 180 coefficients to cover
the whole time period (this problem is more severe in the
case of multiple inputs and outputs). Fortunately, in prac-
tice, there is no need to use so many coefficients. From a
feedback control design perspective, one is interested in
the dominant coefficientsnamely, those that have a sig-
nificant effect onthe concentrationat the output node. The
chemical decay of chlorine over time means that long
paths lead to large chlorine decay, so the effect of such
paths on the chlorine concentration of the output node is
less significant. (Long paths are not necessarily paths that
are long in physical distance; the important factor is how
long the water takes to get from one point to another. This
is influenced by the pipe diameter and length and water
flow rate.) From a control design viewpoint, the coeffi-
cients associated with long transport delays might be ig-
nored. Moreover, to reduce the complexity of the
estimation problem, it is useful to employ fewer coeffi-
cients by eliminating in-between transport delay terms
and aggregating the chlorine concentration effect to a pe-
riod larger than the sampling time. For example, witha sam-
pling time of 10 min, the control designer can choose one
coefficient for every six samples, corresponding to aggregat-
ing the concentration effect to the nearest hour. These com-
ments are based on extensive experience with computer
June 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 77
u k ( ) y k ( )
Storage
Tank
Pipe 1 Pipe 2
Pipe 3
z k
1
( ) z k
2
( )
Figure 5. A simple network with one tank and two paths.
Although the infrastructure for
real-time feedback control of water
systems is available, its practical use
is limited by the lack of safe and
reliable feedback control algorithms.
simulations of water qualityfeedback control and seemto us
a reasonable approach for practical application. An ap-
proach based on a set-membership modeling of uncer-
tainty that develops a piecewise constant-parameter linear
model is presented in [15].
Finally, it is important to note that the linear model de-
scribed by (8) may be subject to other modeling errors or
disturbance-type uncertainties. Examples of such modeling
errors and disturbances include:
Nonstandard abrupt changes in water flowrate. This
may be caused by pipe breaks, which can cause sig-
nificant disruption to the hydraulic dynamics. An-
other source of abrupt changes in water flow rates is
anunusual change inwater use, as occurs whenfight-
ing fires.
Slow variations in the chlorine decay rate. These are
caused by seasonal temperature and source water
quality variations.
Higher order decay dynamics. In this article, we have
assumed that the chlorine decay dynamics satisfy a
first-order differential equation. Although this is a
standard assumption in water quality modeling and
supported by several experimental studies, in prac-
tice, there may be some discrepancy between the ac-
tual decay dynamics and the first-order model.
Therefore, in addition to its practical significance, the
water quality control problem offers some key challenges
for theoretical and applied research. It is worth noting that
most difficulties arise due to the spatiotemporal distrib-
uted nature of water distribution networks. Some of these
same issues arise in other problems involving the control
of variables in network structures, such as communica-
tion networks.
Adaptive Control of Chlorine
Concentration in DWDN
Basedon the derivedmodel (8), we developan adaptive dis-
crete-time modeling formulation and an indirect adaptive
control scheme using standard adaptive control methods.
The chlorine concentration at one or more input nodes is
adjusted to regulate the chlorine concentration at one or
more points in the distribution network. Since the coeffi-
cients that characterize the dynamics of chlorine transport
in DWDNs are time varying, we propose an adaptive control
framework for designing feedback control systems. First, we
consider the single-input, single-output (SISO) case, and
thenlater we briefly outline the adaptive control designpro-
cedure for the MIMO case.
Although for reasonably sized distribution networks it is
difficult to achieve good tracking at several nodes in the
DWDN with only one chlorine injection node, the case of a
single chlorine injection is the current state of practice of
most water utility companies. Often, chlorine is added at
only a single point inthe network: at the treatment plant. Un-
fortunately, with a single chlorine injection point, it be-
comes almost impossible to achieve good tracking at both
nodes close to the injection point and nodes at the periph-
ery of the network. Indeed, a key objective of this researchis
to develop reliable feedback control algorithms that would
allowwater utility companies to pursue withconfidence the
design of distributed chlorine injection systems at different
boosting locations. However, as is typical in the systems
and control literature, the study of SISO systems is a good
starting point because it provides valuable intuition on se-
lecting the design parameters andunderstanding the limita-
tions of a feedback control approach.
The water quality model we will consider is a linear dis-
crete-time model of the form
y k k y k i k u k i
i
i
n
i
i d
d
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) = +
= =


1
1 1 ,
(16)
where the positive integers d and d represent the lower and
upper bounds on the transport delays, respectively,
counted in terms of the number of samples. Although at this
stage it is assumed that these bounds are known a priori,
one may also consider adjusting them based on the ob-
served data. In practice, it is usually possible to run com-
puter simulations of the water hydraulics that indicate (at
least conservatively) the lower/upper bounds on the trans-
port delays. Moreover, recall that long transport delays typ-
ically have little effect on the water quality because the
decaycoefficient associatedwiththembecomes quite small
due to the inherent decay over time of chlorine in water;
therefore, from a feedback controls perspective, the impor-
tant decay coefficients are those associated with smaller
transport delays. The parameters
i
and
i
will be unknown
parameters and typically time varying.
Discrete-Time Adaptive
Parameter Estimation
Based on (16), we consider an identification model of the
form
$
( ) (
$
( ) ( ))
$
( ) ( ) y k y k i y k i k y k i
i
n
i i
i
n
= +
= =

1 1
1
+
=

$
( ) ( ),
i
i d
d
k u k i 1
(17)
where
i
are design coefficients chosen such that the
roots of the polynomial z z z
n n
i
n i
n
+ + + + + =


1
1
0 L L are
all within the complex unit circle, and
$

i
,
$

i
are online pa-
rameter estimates of the unknown coefficients
i
and
i
,
respectively. The identification error, defined as
e k y k y k ( ) ( )
$
( ) = , is used as an error measure in the adap-
tive algorithm for updating the parameter estimates
$

i
and
$

i
. From(16) and(17), we obtainthe following dynamics for
the identification error:
78 IEEE Control Systems Magazine June 2002
e k e k i k k y k i
i
n
i
i
n
i
( ) ( ) (
$
( ) ( )) ( )
(
=

= =

1 1
1 1
i d
d
i
k k u k i
=

$
( ) ( )) ( ). 1 1
(18)
For notational convenience, we define the vectors

( ) [ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )]
$
(
k k k k k k k
k
n d
d d
T
=
+
1 2
1
[ ]
)
$
( )
$
( )
$
( )
$
( )
$
( )
$
( )
(
=
+

1 2
1
k k k k k k
k
n d
d d
T
) [ ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )]
= + +
+
y k y k y k n u k d u k d
u k d
1 1 1
1
T
,
where each vector is of dimension n d d + +1. The vector
( ) t is often called the regressor vector in the parameter esti-
mation literature. Using this representation, the filtered
identification error, e k ( ), can be expressed as
e k e k e k i
y k k k
k
i
i
n
T
( ): ( ) ( )
( )
$
( ) ( )
(
= +
=
=
=

1
1 1
1
( )
)
$
( ) ( ). k k
T
1 1
(19)
The next step is to derive an adaptive algorithm for gen-
erating the parameter estimates
$
( ) k , a standard problem
that has beenstudiedextensively inthe adaptive parameter
estimation literature. For tutorial purposes and for com-
pleteness, we describe two of the most commonly used re-
cursive optimization methods: i) the gradient method and
ii) the recursive least-squares method.
Gradient Method
Oneof themost straightforwardandwidelyusedapproaches
for parameter estimation involves the use of the gradient (or
steepest descent) method[17], [18]. Byapplyingthegradient
method to the cost function J e k (
$
) ( / ) ( ) = 1 2
2
, we obtain the
following gradient estimation algorithm:
$
( )
$
( ) ( ) ( ) k k k e k + = + + 1 1 ,
(20)
whereis a positive-definite symmetric matrix representing
the step size, or learning rate. In the special case where the
same learning rate is used for each parameter estimate,
then= I , where I is the identity matrix. To guarantee con-
vergence, the learning rate needs to be sufficiently small,
which results in an inherent tradeoff between the rate of
convergence and the stability properties. The convergence
analysis shows that a suitable value for depends on the
regressor( ) k . Toavoidthis dependence of the learning rate
on the regressor, a variation of the gradient algorithm is
most often used. This algorithmis referred to as the normal-
ized gradient algorithm, or normalized LMS algorithm, and
is described by
$
( )
$
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )



k k
P k e k
c k P k
T
+ = +
+
+
1
1
0
0
,
(21)
where
0
, c
0
are positive design constants and P is a posi-
tive-definite symmetric matrix. The constant c
0
is used to
avoid the possibility of division by zero, and therefore it is
usually selected to be a small positive value. The parameter

0
corresponds tothe stepsize, andfor stability purposes, it
is chosen to satisfy 0 2
0
< < .
Recursive Least-Squares Method
Least-squares methods have beenwidely usedinparameter
estimation, both in batch (nonrecursive) and in recursive
form[17], [27], [28]. The basic idea behindthe least-squares
method is to fit a mathematical model to a sequence of ob-
served data by minimizing the sumof the squares of the dif-
ference between the observed and computed data. The
recursive versionof theleast-squares algorithmis givenby
$
( )
$
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )



k k
P k k e k
k P k k
T
+ = +
+
+
1
1
(22)
P k P k
P k k k P k
k P k k
T
T
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
+ =
+

1
1

,
(23)
where0 1 < andP k ( )is a square matrix of the same dimen-
sion as the parameter estimate
$
. The initial condition P( ) 0
of the P matrix is chosen to be positive-definite. Due to the
similarity of the recursive least-squares algorithm to the
Kalman filter [29], the matrix P is usually called the
covariance matrix.
The case =1 corresponds to equally weighting all data
fromi =1toi k = inthe least-squares cost functiontobe mini-
mized. If <1, then the cost function emphasizes more re-
cent estimation errors relative to past data, which are
forgotten exponentially fast. The algorithm described by
(22) and (23) with <1 is usually referred to as a recursive
weighted least-squares algorithm, or recursive least-
squares with forgetting factor. By emphasizing the current
data, the recursive weighted least-squares algorithm is par-
ticularly suitable for tracking time-varying parameters, as is
the case in water distribution networks due to variation in
water flowrates. Typical values for used in parameter esti-
mation problems vary between 0.9 and 1.0.
Indirect Adaptive Control
of Water Quality
The control design is based on the linear model described
by (16), with the unknown parameters
i
k ( ) and
i
k ( ) being
replaced by their parameter estimates
$
( )
i
k and
$
( )
i
k , re-
spectively. The control objective can be stated as follows:
Design a control law that selects the chlorine concen-
tration u k ( ) at the injection node such that the con-
June 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 79
centration y k ( ) at the monitored node is able to track
the output y k
m
( ) of a desired reference model for
bounded command inputs r k ( ).
From a practical perspective, r k ( ) can be viewed as the
desired concentration at the output monitored location, as
selected by the user. Instead of tracking r k ( ) directly, it is
sometimes suitable to allow some damping (through the
use of the reference model) to avoid overreaction by the
controller to command inputs. The reference model is se-
lected a priori based on the desired response to changes in
the command input. In this article, we consider a reference
model of the form
y k a y k i b r k d
m
i
n
i
m
m
m
( ) ( ) ( ) = +
=

1
,
where the parameters a
i
m
are chosensuchthat the reference
model is asymptotically stable.
An indirect adaptive control design consists of two sepa-
rate tasks: i) the online parameter estimation of the un-
known parameters and ii) the feedback control design. In
principle, anyonline parameter estimationalgorithmcanbe
combined with any feedback control law in constructing an
indirect adaptive control scheme.
The controls literature describes several techniques for
designing controllers for linear systems similar to the one
described in (16) without any time variation. We consider
the following indirect adaptive control law
( ) u k
k
a k y k i d
d
i
n
i
m
i
i
i d
d
( )
$
( )
$
( ) ( )
$
(
= +

=
= +

1
1
1

k u k i d b r k
m
) ( ) ( ) , + +

(24)
where the look-ahead value of y k i d ( ) + is obtained using
thepredictedvalueof theidentificationmodel givenby(17).
It canbe seenthat if
$
( )
d
k approaches zero, u k ( )becomes
unbounded. Therefore, some modification is required to
guarantee that
$
( )
d
k 0. Froma practical perspective, water
qualitymodelinginDWDNs reveals that
$
( )
d
k is relatedtothe
chlorinedecaycoefficient of thepipe, whichis always greater
than zero. Hence, one approach for restricting
$
( )
d
k frombe-
coming close to zero is to set a positive lower bound
0
in the
control law(24) if
$
( )
d
k drops below
0
. This is a standard is-
sue in indirect adaptive control design since, in combining
parameter estimation and feedback control laws, special
care needs to be taken that the controllabil-
ity properties of the system are retained
even as the estimated parameters replace
the actual parameters.
Periodic Adaptive Control
of Water Quality
One of the key difficulties in water quality
control is the existence of significant time
variation in water demands. A direct con-
sequence of this is that the water flowrates
vary over time, causing time-varying chlo-
rine transport delays. A further, indirect
consequence of unpredictable water demand variation is
the need to use storage tanks (often with switching drain-
ing/filling cycles) that introduce additional complexity (and
time variation) into the water quality dynamics.
One approach for handling time-varying transport de-
lays, which follows the modeling approach developed
earlier, is to discretize the varying transport delay and then
employ a standardparameter adaptive control scheme as in
the previous section. Typically, as illustratedlater insimula-
tion examples, an adaptive control scheme is able to deal
with slowly varying, small parametric variations. However,
in the presence of significant (and unknown) time-varying
transport delays between the controlled input and the mon-
itored output, the adaptive controller encounters difficul-
ties in handling time-varying parameters. More specifically,
the response toa particular actionby the controller reaches
back to the controller (via the measured concentration at
the output) with a significant time delay. Since the length of
the time delay also varies, the adjustment to the feedback
controller in response to parametric variation may be out
of sync.
In this section, we develop an approach for handling
large time variations that exploits the pronounced periodic
patterndisplayedby the parametric time variations. This al-
lows us to approximate the unknown parametric variation
by a Fourier series. The unknown coefficients of the Fourier
series are estimated online using adaptive techniques. Gen-
erally, the use of the first few terms of the Fourier series is
sufficient for approximating reasonably well the unknown
parametric variation. Intuitively, this technique has the ef-
fect of allowing the feedback controller to learn over time
a rough approximation of the periodic nature of the hydrau-
lics, thereby making it easier for the controller to adapt ac-
curately to periodic parametric uncertainty.
Next, we formulate an indirect adaptive control scheme
for periodically time-varying parameters. We assume that
the period is known but the periodic pattern is unknown.
80 IEEE Control Systems Magazine June 2002
The main control objective is to keep
the chlorine concentration level at
the monitored nodes as close as
possible to the desired value in the
presence of unknown and
time-varying consumer demands.
The assumption of a known period is quite realistic since,
from studies in water hydraulics and water quality, it is
widely accepted that water demand in a certain area is usu-
ally highduring the day andlowduring the night, the pumps
are on and tanks are draining when water demand is high,
and tanks switch to the filling cycle when water demand is
low. Therefore, the parametric time variations have a peri-
odic pattern with a typical period of 24 h [30]. Since
i
k ( )
and
l
k ( ) are periodic parameters, they are approximated
by a Fourier series with a finite number of terms:
( )

i i
j
N
ij
s
ij
c
l
k j k j k k
i
( ) sin( ) cos( ) ( ) + + +

0
1

( )
( ) sin( ) cos( ) ( ), k j k j k k
l
j
N
lj
s
lj
c
l
+ + +

0
1

where 2 / T
p
(T
p
is the period) and
i 0
,
ij
s
,
ij
c
,
l 0
,
lj
s
,
lj
c
for
i n 1, , K , j N 1, , K , and l d d , , K are unknown con-
stant parameters based on the Fourier coefficients. The
terms

j
k ( ) and

j
k ( ) represent the higher order terms
of the Fourier series, which will be treated as modeling un-
certainty.
Using the Fourier series approximation, the identifica-
tion model to be used for indirect adaptive control is se-
lected as follows:
( ) $
( )
$
( ) ( )
$ $
y k a y k i y k i
i
n
m
i
n
i
j
N
ij
s
i

+ +

1
1
0
1

( )
sin( )
$
cos( ) ( )
$ $
j k j k y k i
ij
c
l
j
N
l


+
j
(
,
,
\
,
(
(

+ +

0
1
( )
j
s
lj
c
l d
d
j k j k u k i sin( )
$
cos( ) ( ), +
j
(
,
,
\
,
(
(

(25)
where
$

ij
and
$

lj
are the online parameter estimates of
ij
and

lj
, respectively. Based on the identification model (25), we
can derive adaptive laws for updating the parameter esti-
mates
$
( )
ij
k and
$
( )
lj
k . For example, using the normalized
gradient methoddescribedby (21), withP equal to the iden-
tity matrix, we obtain the following adaptive laws:
$
( )
$
( )
( ) ( )
( ) (

i i
i
n
k k
y k i e k
c N y k
0 0
0
0
1
1
1 1
1
+

+ +
+ +

+ +
,

]
]

1
2 2
i u k l
l d
d
) ( ) )
(26)
$
( )
$
( )
sin( ) ( ) ( )
(


ij
s
ij
s
k k
j k y k i e k
c N
+

+ +
+ +
1
1 1
0
0
1 1
1
2 2
) ( ) ( ) )
i
n
l d
d
y k i u k l


+ +
,

]
]
(27)
$
( )
$
( )
cos( ) ( ) ( )
(


ij
c
ij
c
k k
j k y k i e k
c N
+

+ +
+ +
1
1 1
0
0
1 1
1
2 2
) ( ) ( ) )
i
n
l d
d
y k i u k l


+ +
,

]
]
(28)
$
( )
$
( )
( ) ( )
( ) (

l l
i
n
k k
u k l e k
c N y k
0 0
0
0
1
1
1
1 1
+

+
+ + +

+
,

]
]

i u k l
l d
d
) ( ) )
2 2
(29)
$
( )
$
( )
sin( ) ( ) ( )
( )


lj
s
lj
s
k k
j k u k l e k
c N
+

+
+ +
1
1
1
0
0
i
n
l d
d
y k i u k l


+ +
,

]
] 1
2 2
1 ( ) ( ) )
(30)
$
( )
$
( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( )


lj
c
lj
c
k k
cos j k u k l e k
c N
+

+
+ +
1
1
1
0
0
i
n
l d
d
y k i u k l


+ +
,

]
] 1
2 2
1 ( ) ( ) )
,
(31)
where the filtered identification error e k ( ) is given by (19).
Using the same procedure as inthe previous section, we can
now derive an indirect adaptive control law:
u k
k
a k y k i d
d
i
n
i
m
i
l
l d
d
( )
$
( )
(
$
( )) ( )
$
+
,

1
1
1

+ +
]
]
] ( ) ( ) ( ) , k u k l d b r k
m
(32)
where in this case
$
( )
i
k ,
$
( )
l
k are described by
$
( )
$
( )
$
( )sin( )
$
( )cos(
i i
j
N
ij
s
ij
c
k k k j k k j + +

0
1
( )

k
k k k j k k
l l
j
N
lj
s
lj
c
)
$
( )
$
( )
$
( )sin( )
$
( )co + +

0
1
( )
s( ) . j k
As previously discussed,
$
( )
d
k is required to stay away
from zero; therefore, it needs to be set to a lower bound if it
becomes too small.
The significance of the periodic adaptive control
method arises from the time-varying parameters being re-
placed by sinusoid terms, whose unknown coefficients are
constant, assuming that the time variation is periodic with
a known periodicity and the Fourier series has sufficient
terms to capture the periodic time variation. The price
paid for the ability to approximate periodic time variations
is the need to estimate a larger number of adjustable pa-
rameters; however, limited simulation studies of real dis-
tribution networks reveal that it may be sufficient to use
just the first few terms of the Fourier series. This is proba-
June 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 81
bly a consequence of the water demand variation exhibit-
ing a somewhat sinusoidal pattern. A more extensive
treatment of the periodic adaptive control approach for
DWDNs is currently under way.
Multiple Chlorine Boosting
So far, we have been discussing the control of water quality
for the case of a single injection node and a single moni-
tored node. In this section, we describe a corresponding
adaptive control approach for the multivariable case and
briefly discuss some of the issues that arise in this more
general case. Consider the situation of injecting chlorine
from multiple injection nodes (referred to as chlorine
boosting) andthe monitoring of multiple output nodes. Un-
der this scenario, a control designer needs toconsider con-
trol algorithms located at different locations in the
network. Typically, a monitored output node will be influ-
enced by more than one controlled source of chlorine.
Therefore, some cooperation between controllers is re-
quired to achieve the control objective.
Consider a network with m control inputs and m moni-
tored outputs. Using the modeling methodology described
earlier, the input/outout behavior of the system in terms of
water quality can be described in vector form as
y k A k y k i B k u k i
i
n
i i
i d
d
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) +


1
1 1 ,
(33)
where y k y k y k
m
T
( ) [ ( ) ( )]
1
is the output vector repre-
senting chlorine concentration at the monitored nodes,
u k u k u k
m
T
( ) [ ( ) ( )]
1
is the input vector representing
chlorine concentration at the controlled injection nodes,
and the m m matrices A k
i
( ) and B k
i
( ) are given by
A k
k
k
B k
k k
i
i
mi
i
i m i
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )

,
,
,
]
]
]
]
]

1
11 1
O
L
M O M
L
1mi mmi
k k ( ) ( )
.
,

,
,
,
]
]
]
]
]
The integers n, d, d are defined as


n n j m
d d j m l m
d
j
jl

max | , , ,
min | , , , ; , , ,
max
12
12 12
K
K K
d j m l m
jl
| , , , ; , , , , 12 12 K K
where n
j
is equal to the number of tanks that provide water
to the jth output node and d
jl
, d
jl
are the lower and upper
limits of transport delay, respectively, between thelth input
and the jth output.
The control objective is toforce the output vector y k ( )to
follow the output y k
m
( ) of the reference model
y k A y k i G r k d
m
i
n
i
m
( ) ( ) ( )
* *
+

1 (34)
for all bounded and piecewise continuous command inputs
r k ( ), where A
j
*
andG
*
are known diagonal matrices of dimen-
sion m m , given by
A G
g
g
i
i
mi m
*
*
*
*
*
*

,
,
,
]
]
]
]
]

,
,
,
]
]
]
]
]

1 1
O O .
The reference model represents the desiredclosed-loopwa-
ter quality dynamics between each command input and
monitoredoutput. Since the matrices A
i
*
andG
*
are diagonal,
the reference models for eachinput/output pair are decoup-
led from each other.
If we let
$
( ) A k
i
and
$
( ) B k
i
be the parameter estimates of
A k
i
( )and B k
i
( ), respectively, at sample time k, and if
$
( ) B k
d
is
assumed to be nonsingular, then the certainty equivalence
control lawfor achieving the model reference tracking objec-
tive can be computed as
( )
u k B k A A k y k i d
B
d
i
n
i i
i
i d
d
( )
$
( )
$
( ) ( )
$
*
+
j
(
,

1
1
1
( ) ( ) ( ) ,
*
k u k i d G r k + +
\
,
(
(
(35)
where the look-ahead value of y k i d ( ) + is obtained using
the predictedvalue of the identificationmodel. The parame-
ter estimates
$
( ) A k
i
and
$
( ) B k
i
canbe obtainedusing standard
parameter estimation methods. Due to the structure of wa-
ter distribution networks, each matrix A k
i
( ) is diagonal,
thus leading to a diagonal parameter estimate matrix
$
( ) A k
i
.
Onthe other hand, B k
i
( )is not diagonal, whichleads toa full
matrix for the parameter estimate matrix
$
( ) B k
i
.
The control scheme described by (35) is a centralized
indirect adaptive control strategy in the sense that, to im-
plement it, each controlleru k
j
( ) requires data knowledge of
all the outputs, all the other control inputs, and all the esti-
mated parameters
$
( ) A k
i
,
$
( ) B k
i
. Since each controller is
physically located at a different location (i.e., at each chlo-
rineboosting location), thecomputational, communication,
and synchronization demands of such a scheme are high.
From a practical perspective, due to the large-scale nature
and inherent modeling uncertainty of chlorine residual in
DWDNs, it is difficult to design and implement a central-
ized multivariable control scheme. An attractive alterna-
tive is decentralizedcontrol, where eachcontroller receives
and processes only some small part of the overall sensor in-
formation, resulting in reduced communication, computa-
tion, and synchronization requirements.
Several researchers have investigated the problem of de-
centralizedcontrol of large-scale interconnectedsystems dur-
ing the last fewyears [31], [32]. For example, in [33] and[34] a
82 IEEE Control Systems Magazine June 2002
partially decentralized indirect adaptive control scheme for
continuous-time systems is developedwhere eachlocal adap-
tive law utilizes a normalizing signal generated using local in-
put and the outputs of all the subsystems. Despite the
advances in decentralized control
methods, most of the currently avail-
able methods are based on the as-
sumption that the coupling between
input/output pairs is sufficiently
weak. Typically, the coupling is
treated as a disturbance, and a robust
controller (or an adaptive robust con-
troller) is usedtocounteract the effect
of the weak coupling.
In water distribution networks en-
counteredinpractice, the topology of
the network is usually such that the
chlorine concentration at nodes in
the periphery (monitoring nodes) is
influenced by multiple chlorine injec-
tionnodes; therefore, the control cou-
pling in the interconnected network
systemis typically not weak or, at the
very least, may not be weak depend-
ing on the actuator andsensor config-
uration. In some special cases of
networks withtree structure, the con-
trol configuration leads to weak cou-
pling or totally decoupled systems;
however, in many water distribution
networks such a configuration is not
practical. Some preliminary work on
the design of a partially decentralized adaptive control
scheme for water distribution networks is presented in [35].
In general, this is an important research direction that re-
quires further investigation.
June 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 83
Reservoir
Tank 2
Tank 1
Tank 1
(a) (b)
4305
4035
4315
4025
4
0
3
0
Figure 6. Network configuration of a water distribution network in the western United States.
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
Chlorine Concentration at Node 4025
C
l

[
m
g
/
l
]
C
l

[
m
g
/
l
]
Adaptive Parameter for Tank a
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
40
40
40
40
60
60
60
60
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
100
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
Time [h]
Time [h]
Time [h]
Time [h]
Control Input at Node 4035 Adaptive Parameters b
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
(a) (b)
Figure 7. Simulation results for a SISO system with small variation in water demands. (a)
shows the chlorine concentration at the output node 4025 and input node 4035; (b) shows the
parameter estimates for the tank and pipes.
Simulation Examples
During the last two years, we have employed the proposed
adaptive control methodology for water distribution net-
works in several simulation studies. Some of these studies,
based on simple distribution networks, were used to obtain
intuition about the overall intricacies of the problem, while
others, based on real water distribution networks and real-
istic operating conditions, were used to evaluate the feed-
back control performance in practical situations. In this
section, we present some typical simulation results for a
real drinking water distribution network.
The network under consideration is part of a water dis-
tributionnetwork inthe westernUnitedStates. InFig. 6, the
network configuration is shown in (a), and (b) shows part
of the network containing input and output nodes in more
detail. There are two storage tanks in the network, and the
flow velocity in the pipes and the draining/filling of the
tanks are completely controlled by the water demands.
The water supply from the reservoir is the only water
source. The periodicity of the water demand is 24 h, and
most junctions share the same demand pattern, with de-
mands changing every half hour. The water supply rate
fromthe reservoir is set to be constant and equal to the av-
erage of total demands. When water supply is higher than
water demand, the tanks are in the filling cycle; otherwise
they are in the draining cycle.
In implementing the adaptive control methodology under
different hydraulicdynamics, weusethedynamiclinklibrary
of EPANET, an integrated computer program environment
(available at http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/wswrd/
epanet.html) developed by the Water Supply and Water Re-
sources Division of the U.S. EPAs National Risk Management
Research Laboratory. EPANET performs extended period
simulation of hydraulic and water quality behavior within
pressurizedpipenetworks, whichcanconsist of pipes, nodes
(pipe junctions), pumps, valves, and storage tanks or reser-
voirs. EPANET tracks the flowof water in each pipe, the pres-
sure at each node, the height of water in each tank, and the
concentration of a chemical species throughout the network
duringasimulationperiodcomposedof multipletimesteps.
EPANET allows a number of different schemes for chlo-
rine injection at any node in the network. In the following
simulations, we used the SETPOINT type. According to this
injection type, the chlorine booster fixes the chlorine con-
centration of water leaving the node (as long as the chlorine
concentration of the inflow water is below the selected set
point). Therefore, chlorine concentration at the controlled
input node can be set to any desired value higher than the
inflow concentration. In the following simulations, we as-
sume that the chlorine concentration in the water resource
(reservoir) is zero. The water quality and hydraulic sam-
pling time intervals are 6 min.
In the first simulation, we investigate the SISO case of a
single chlorine injection station (ac-
tuator) and a single sensor location
under a relatively small variation in
water demand. In the second simula-
tion, we consider a larger variation in
water demand and study the effect of
using the periodic adaptive control
approach with the Fourier series ap-
proximation. In the last simulation,
we investigate the MIMO case with
two chlorine booster stations and
two sensor monitoring locations.
SISO with Small Variation
in Water Demand
In this example, the controlled input
is at node 4035 and the monitored
output is at node 4025 (see Fig.
6(b)). As can be seen fromthe figure,
water from the reservoir passes by
the controlled input node 4035 and
flows into the left and right branch
at node 4030. Inthe right branch, wa-
ter flows into Tank 1 during the
tanks filling cycle and flows back to
node 4030 during its draining cycle
(the water in Tank 2 has no effect on
the chosen input/output node pair).
84 IEEE Control Systems Magazine June 2002
1 1
0.8 0.8
1.5 1.5
0.6 0.6
1 1
0.4 0.4
0.5 0.5
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0
C
l

[
m
g
/
l
]
C
l

[
m
g
/
l
]
C
l

[
m
g
/
l
]
C
l

[
m
g
/
l
]
0 0
0 0
20 20
20 20
40 40
40 40
60 60
60 60
80 80
80 80
100 100
100 100
Time [h] Time [h]
Time [h] Time [h]
(c)
(a)
(d)
(b)
Figure 8. Simulation results for a SISO system with large variation in water demands. The
two plots on the left show the (a) chlorine concentrations at output node 4025 and (c) input
node 4035 for the case where no periodic terms are used. The two plots on the right show the
corresponding input/output concentrations for the case where periodic terms are used: (b)
shows the concentration at node 4025 and (d) shows the concentration at node 4035.
Water going into the left branch of
node 4030 mixes with water in the
main pipe at the monitored output
node 4025. The minimum transport
delay fromnode 4035 to node 4025 is
approximately 1.5 h. As can be seen
from Fig. 6, there are multiple paths
(each with its own transport delay)
between node 4035 and node 4025.
The average system flow is 1500 gal-
lons per minute (gal/min). Within
the 24-hperiod, the flowranges from
a low of 800 gal/min to a high of 2600
gal/min. From a feedback control
perspective, this variation in water
demand is considered small.
The desired chlorine concentra-
tion for node 4025 is set to 0.4 mg/l
for t 60 h and to 0.2 mg/l for t > 60 h.
In this example, we used the normal-
ized gradient method with a learning
rate set to
0
02 = . andthe designvari-
able c
0
02 = . . The results of this simu-
lation are shown in Fig. 7. The
chlorine concentration at the moni-
tored output node and at the con-
trolled input node are shown in (a),
whereas (b) shows the tank parameter estimate associated
with the auto-regression term (
$
) and the moving-average
parameter estimates associated with the transport of water
in the pipes (
$
). The identification model employed here
uses one auto-regressive adjustable parameter and five
moving-average adjustable parameters. The five moving-av-
erage adjustable parameters start at a minimumdelayof 108
min (sample 18) and progress every 30 min (five samples);
in other words, the five moving-average coefficients corre-
spond to samples 18, 23, 28, 33, and 38. As can be seen from
Fig. 7, the output chlorine concentration at node 4025 fol-
lows the desired value well. Furthermore, the adjustable pa-
rameters converge after some initial transient behavior and
do not change significantly during the change of the desired
set point, indicating that the water quality dynamics have
been learned. The small oscillation in the plots is due to the
variation in water demand.
SISO with Large Variation
in Water Demand
In this experiment, we use the same input and output as be-
fore, but now the variation in water demand is significantly
larger, causing the time variation in the parameters to also
be larger. Specifically, in this simulation, the average system
flow is 1520 gal/min, with a low limit of 400 gal/min and a
high limit of 3400 gal/min in a 24-h period. The desired chlo-
rine concentration for node 4025 is set to 0.4 mg/l. Fig. 8
shows a comparison between the case where the standard
adaptive control algorithm is used (a) and the case where a
periodic adaptive control is used (b), with a Fourier series
approximating the unknown time variation in water de-
mand. As seen from the figure, with the standard indirect
adaptive control scheme, the large variation in water de-
mand causes a significant regulation error at output node
4025. The periodic reduction in chlorine concentration at
output node 4025 is due to the periodic switching in the fill-
ing/draining cycle of the tank. The adaptive controller ad-
justs its parameters according to the instantaneous
tracking error; therefore, it does not learn the sudden
change of the systemanddoes not remember the periodic
time variation of the system. In Fig. 8(b), we use the formu-
lated periodic adaptive controller with eight Fourier terms
for each time-varying ARMA coefficient (thus, in this case, a
total of 6 8 48 = parameters are estimated). As can be seen,
with the Fourier series approximation, the magnitude of the
tracking error is reduced. In this case, the controller is able
to reduce the tracking error by learning the periodic nature
of tank switching.
Simulation with
Two Inputs, Two Outputs
In this simulation, the control inputs are nodes 4035 and
4305 and the monitored outputs are nodes 4025 and 4315.
From a hydraulic perspective, both inputs affect both out-
puts; however, chlorine concentration at the output node
4025 is mainly influenced by input node 4035, whereas the
June 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 85
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
C
l

[
m
g
/
l
]
C
l

[
m
g
/
l
]
C
l

[
m
g
/
l
]
C
l

[
m
g
/
l
]
0
0
0
0
20
20
20
20
40
40
40
40
60
60
60
60
80
80
80
80
100
100
100
100
Time [h]
Time [h]
Time [h]
Time [h]
(c)
(a)
(d)
(b)
Figure 9. Adaptive MIMO control. (a) Chlorine concentration at node 4025, (b) chlorine
concentration at node 4315, (c) control input at node 4035, and (d) control input at node 4305.
chlorine concentration at node 4315 is mainly influenced by
node 4305. The water demandvariation is the same as in the
first simulation, and the desired chlorine concentration at
both output nodes is set to 0.2 mg/l. Fig. 9 shows the chlo-
rine concentration at the two outputs nodes (a), (b) and the
chlorine concentration at the two input nodes (c), (d). A
standard indirect adaptive control scheme was used with-
out any Fourier terms. As can be seen, the overall tracking
performance at both monitored nodes is reasonably good.
Concluding Remarks
Althoughthe current practice for regulating chlorine residu-
als in drinking water distribution systems is based on
open-loop, manual control, the practical components of a
distributed, closed-loop control systemare already in place
at many water utilities. Automatic online sensors to detect
chlorine residual are available and in use within treatment
plants and distribution systems for manual control of chlo-
rine dose or for regulatory compliance. Booster chlorina-
tion units can be designed and constructed using standard
metering pumps [36], and prepackaged systems are avail-
able from specialized vendors [37], [38]. Furthermore, the
communications infrastructure that would allow feedback
between noncollocated sensors and booster stations is be-
coming widely available in the form of supervisory control
and data acquisition (SCADA) systems; these systems are
currently being used by many utilities for online monitoring
of stored water elevations, flow rates, chlorine concentra-
tions, and other water quality parameters [39]-[41]. Clearly,
the necessary infrastructure is either in place or readily
available. Thus, the proposed adaptive control formulation
for automated closed-loop algorithms for distributed con-
trol of chlorine residuals could have an almost immediate
impact on enhancing water supply practice by improving
water quality.
Acknowledgment
This researchhas beenpartially supportedby the American
Water Works Association Research Foundation under Pro-
ject 2567.
References
[1] G. Tchobanoglous and E. Schroeder, Water Quality. Reading, MA: Addi-
son-Wesley, 1987.
[2] R. Bull and R. Kopfler, Health Effects of Disinfectants and Disinfection
By-Products. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association Research Foun-
dation, 1991.
[3] R. Clark, L. Rossman, and L. Wymer, Modeling distribution system water
quality: Regulatory implications, ASCE J. Water Resources Planning Manage.,
vol. 121, pp. 423-428, Nov.-Dec. 1995.
[4] D. Boccelli, M. Tryby, J. Uber, L. Rossman, M. Zierolf, and M. Polycarpou,
Optimal scheduling of booster disinfection in water distribution systems,
ASCEJ. Water Resources Planning Manage., vol. 124, pp. 99-111, Mar./Apr. 1998.
[5] M. Brdys and B. Ulanicki, Operational Control of Water Systems: Structures,
Algorithms and Applications. London: Prentice Hall, 1994.
[6] R. de Moyer and L. Horowitz, A System Approach to Water Distribution
Modeling and Control. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1975.
[7] P. Boulos, T. Altman, P. Jarrige, and F. Collevati, Discrete simulation ap-
proach for network-water-quality models, ASCE J. Water Resources Planning
Manage., vol. 121, pp. 49-60, Jan-.Feb. 1995.
[8] L. RossmanandP. Boulos, Numerical methods for modeling water quality
in distribution systems: A comparison, ASCE J. Water Resources Planning
Manage., vol. 122, pp. 137-146, Mar.-Apr. 1996.
[9] L. Rossman, R. Clark, and W. Grayman, Modeling chlorine residuals in
drinking-water distribution systems, ASCE J. Environ. Eng., vol. 120, pp.
803-820, July-Aug. 1994.
[10] M. Zierolf, M. Polycarpou, and J. Uber, Development and
auto-calibration of an input-output model of chlorine transport in drinking
water distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 6, pp.
543-553, July 1998.
[11] M. Polycarpou, J. Uber, and U. Desai, Design of a feedback controller for
water distribution systems residual maintenance, in Proc. 1999 ASCE Joint
Conf. Water Resources Engineering [CD-ROM], Phoenix, AZ, 1999.
[12] S. Constans, B. Bremond, and P. Morel, Chlorine levels in water distribu-
tion networks: From a new simulation method to a control formulation, in
Proc. 1999 ASCE Joint Conf. Water Resources Engineering [CD-ROM], Phoenix,
AZ, 1999.
[13] M. Brdys, T. Creemers, H. Goossens, A. Heinsbroek, Z. Lisiak, andJ. Riera,
CLOCWiSeConstraint logic for operational control of water systems, in
Proc. 1999 ASCE Joint Conf. Water Resources Engineering [CD-ROM], Phoenix,
AZ, 1999.
[14] M. Brdys, T. Chang, K. Duzinkiewicz, and W. Chotkowski, Hierarchical
control of integrated quality and quantity in water distribution systems, in
Proc. ASCE 2000 Joint Conf. Water Resources Engineering and Water Resources
Planning and Management [CD-ROM], Minneapolis, MN, 2000.
[15] M. Brdys, T. Chang, and K. Duzinkiewicz, Intelligent model predictive
control of chlorine residuals in water distribution systems, in Proc. 4th ASCE
Annu. Water Distribution Systems Analysis, 2001 World Water and Environmen-
tal Resources Cong. [CD-ROM], Orlando, FL, 2001.
[16] L. Mays, Optimal Control of Hydrosystems. NewYork: Marcel Dekker, 1997.
[17] P. Ioannou and J. Sun, Robust Adaptive Control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[18] G. Goodwin and K. Sin, Adaptive Filtering Prediction and Control.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1984.
[19] M. Brdys, H. Puta, E. Arnold, K. Chen, and S. Hopfgarten, Operational
control of integrated quality and quantity in water systems, in Proc.
IFAC/IFORS/IMACS Symp. Large Scale Systems, vol. 2, London, 1995, pp.
715-719.
[20] C. Liou and J. Kroon, Modeling the propagation of waterborne sub-
stances in distribution networks, J. Amer. Water Works Assn., vol. 79, no. 11,
pp. 54-58, 1987.
[21] W. Grayman, R. Clark, and R. Males, Modeling distribution systemwater
quality: Dynamic approach, ASCE J. Water Resources Planning Manage., vol.
114, no. 3, pp. 295-312, 1988.
[22] R. Clark, W. Grayman, R. Males, and A. Hess, Modeling contaminant
propagation in drinking water distribution systems, ASCE J. Environ. Eng.,
vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 349-364, 1993.
[23] L. Rossman, P. Boulos, and T. Altman, Discrete volume-element method
for network water-quality models, ASCE J. Water Resources Planning Man-
age., vol. 119, pp. 505-517, Sept.-Oct. 1993.
[24] M. Islam and M. Chaudhry, Modeling of constituent transport in un-
steady flows in pipe networks, ASCE J. Hydraulic Eng., vol. 124, no. 11, pp.
1115-1124, 1998.
[25] F. Shang, J. Uber, and M. Polycarpou, Input-output model of water qual-
ity in water distribution systems, in Proc. 2000 ASCE Joint Conf. Water Re-
sources Engineering [CD-ROM], Minneapolis, MN, 2000.
[26] G. Dumont, A. Naggar, and A. Shafei, Adaptive predictive control of sys-
tems withtime-varying delays, Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process., vol. 7, pp.
91-101, 1993.
[27] K. strmand B. Wittenmark, Adaptive Control, 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Ad-
dison Wesley, 1995.
[28] L. Ljung, System Identification: Theory for the User. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1987.
86 IEEE Control Systems Magazine June 2002
[29] S. Haykin, Adaptive Filter Theory, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[30] L. Shvartser, U. Shamir, and M. Feldman, Forecasting hourly water de-
mands by pattern recognition approach, ASCE J. Water Resources Planning
Manage., vol. 116, no. 6, pp. 611-627, 1993.
[31] M. Jamshidi, Large-Scale Systems: Modeling, Control and Fuzzy Logic.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997.
[32] C. WenandY. Soh, Decentralizedmodel reference adaptive control with-
out restriction on subsystem relative degrees, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
vol. 44, pp. 1464-1469, July 1999.
[33] A. Datta andP. Ioannou, Decentralizedindirect adaptive control of inter-
connected systems, Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process., vol. 5, pp. 259-281,
1991.
[34] A. Datta, Partially decentralizedadaptive control of interconnectedsys-
tems with improved performance, Int. J. Contr., vol. 64, pp. 529-561, June
1996.
[35] Z. Wang, M. Polycarpou, and J. Uber, Decentralized model reference
adaptive control of water quality in water distribution networks, in Proc.
2000 IEEE Int. Symp. Intelligent Control, 2000, pp. 127-132.
[36] K. Raman and D. Logie, A low-cost method to improve standpipe water
quality, Public Works, vol. 126, no. 4, pp. 58-60, Apr. 1995.
[37] Dosing products and technologies, Alldos, Inc., Marietta, GA, Tech.
Rep., 1997.
[38] Reducing THMs through demand-based Cl
2
control, Stranco, Inc.,
Bradley, IL, Tech. Rep., 1997.
[39] J. Schillgalies and G. Kreiling, Multi-stage control system supports Ger-
man regions water need, Water Engineering and Management, vol. 142, no. 3,
pp. 40-43, Mar. 1995.
[40] H. Card, B. Carroll, and R. Jamieson, Optimizing distribution system
pumping, Public Works, vol. 127, no. 10, pp. 38-40, Sept. 1996.
[41] B. Nguyen and A. Montiel, On line quality control in distribution net-
works, Water Supply, vol. 12, no. 3/4, pp. 289-299, 1994.
Marios M. Polycarpou received the B.A. (cum laude) de-
gree in computer science and the B.Sc. (cum laude) degree
in electrical engineering from Rice University, Houston, TX,
in1987 andthe M.S. andPh.D. degrees inelectrical engineer-
ing from the University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
in 1989 and 1992, respectively. In 1992, he joined the Depart-
ment of Electrical andComputer Engineering andComputer
Science, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, where he
is currently an Associate Professor. He teaches and con-
ducts researchin the areas of systems andcontrol, adaptive
and intelligent control, neural network learning, coopera-
tive systems and control, and fault diagnosis. He is an Asso-
ciate Editor of the IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
and the IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks. He is the Vice
President for Conferences of the IEEENeural Networks Soci-
ety and served as the Program Chair of the 15th IEEE Inter-
national Symposium on Intelligent Control (ISIC 2000). He is
a Senior Member of the IEEE.
James G. Uber earneda Ph.D. degree inenvironmental engi-
neering fromthe University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
in 1988. He is an Associate Professor in the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of
Cincinnati. His research and teaching interests include
mathematical modeling and operations research ap-
proaches for design and control of environmental engineer-
ing systems, with a focus on urban water distribution
networks. He is an Associate Editor of the ASCE Journal of
Water Research Planning and Management.
Zhong Wang received the B.Sc. degree from the Depart-
ment of SystemEngineering, Beijing University of Aeronau-
tics and Astronautics, Beijing, China, in 1990 and the M.S.
degree in automatic control from Beijing Institute of Con-
trol Engineering, Chinese Academy of Space Technology,
Beijing, in 1993. At present, he is completing his Ph.D. de-
gree in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engi-
neering and Computer Science at the University of
Cincinnati. He is currently working on water quality con-
trol in water distribution networks. His research interests
are in control applications, adaptive control, intelligent
control, and fault diagnosis.
Feng Shang received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in environ-
mental engineering from Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China, in 1995 and 1998, respectively. He is currently a
Ph.D student in the Department of Civil and Environmen-
tal Engineering at the University of Cincinnati. His re-
search interests include mathematical modeling, system
analysis, and water quality control in drinking water dis-
tribution systems.
Mietek A. Brdys received the M.Sc. degree in electronic
engineering and the Ph.D. and the D.Sc. degrees in control
systems from the Institute of Automatic Control at the
Warsaw University of Technology in 1970, 1974, and 1980,
respectively. From 1974 to 1983, he was Assistant Profes-
sor and Associate Professor at the Warsaw University of
Technology. In 1992, he became Full Professor of Control
Systems in Poland. Between 1978 and 1995, he held vari-
ous visiting faculty positions at the University of Minne-
sota, City University, De Montfort University, and
University Polytechnic of Catalunya. Since January 1989,
he has been Senior Lecturer in the School of Electronic,
Electrical and Computer Engineering at The University of
Birmingham. Since February 2001, he has also held the
post of Full Professor of Control Systems in the Depart-
ment of Automatic Control at Technical University of
Gdansk. He is Head of the Interdisciplinary Research Net-
work on Decision Support and Control Systems at the Uni-
versity of Birmingham and Head of the Intelligent
Decision Support and Control System Group at Technical
University of Gdansk. He is the author or co-author of
more than 140 papers andfive books. His current research
includes intelligent decision support, and control of com-
plex uncertain systems, and robust monitoring and con-
trol. He is a Chartered Engineer, a member of the IEE, a
Senior Member of IEEE, a Fellow of IMA, and a member of
the IFAC Technical Committee on Large Scale Systems.
June 2002 IEEE Control Systems Magazine 87