The real time modeling of water resources systems using Petri-nets

Jiri Zezulak
Dept. of water resources, Forestry Faculty, Czech Agricultural University, Prague, CR
Jakub Krejci
AquaLogic Consulting, Prague, CR

ABSTRACT: In non-stationary topological coding of individual units of water resources system, Petri-net
algorithm offers a powerful tool for decomposition of a system and for subsequent user-independent
numerical simulation. The case system, consisting of several reservoir control-units and having hydrologic
processes related, could be represented by a bipartite graph. Non-stationary graph coding results from gaps in
real-time data and from time-dependent operation of the scheme. When integrating hydrological and
hydraulic processes into a single-entity distributed system, computation control mechanism should take into
account the changes in the data structures in time. The paper reviews principles of the ordinary Petri-net
techniques and shows its potential in real-time reservoir control.

1 INTRODUCTION While electronic regulators react instantly, the time

factor and related transportation delay become
Man-controlled hydrological system usually consists important in hydrological systems (this is why we
of several mathematically incompatible processes. usually speak in dimension of quasi-real time rather
Integration of its sub-systems, where it has been than of the real-time systems).
practiced at all, has generally been based on various
concepts of topological decomposition. It becomes
apparent that lack of available tools necessary for
such schematizing depreciates model applicability.
The Petri-nets (the PN's hereafter) invented by
Petri in his 'Kommunikation mit Automaten' of
1962, have opened a new generation of instruments
by inventing an immediate causative relation of
event-firing-up condition. Since that, PN's have been
recognized as powerful formal discrete engines for
description of distributed asynchronous processes,
deterministic and stochastic. Originated from
autonomous independently operating finite
automata, their application dominates in parallel
architecture of computer systems like networking, Figure 1. Definition sketch of the reservoir and adjacent
databases, compilers (e.g. semantics of SmallTalk) hydrological sub systems
and elsewhere in telecommunications, machinery
and economy. The purpose of the paper is to address problems of
An analogy between the electronic, technologic an event driven computation-control over parallel
and economic control at one side and water processes in hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. It
resources control at the other is obvious. It is an aims at development of an algorithmic tool for
important detail about the PN's used in man- modeling of concurrent, semi-distributed and
controlled water resources systems worth to deterministic processes under conditions of
mention: the role of time and hence incompatibility uncertainty.
in information fluxes through various subsystems.
 Construction of a multi-unit, multipurpose
reservoir model, that covers contributing
hydrological systems in addition, is a typical case in
semi-distributed water resources systems analysis,
see Figure 1.
2 COUPLING OF PROJECT ELEMENTS
Solution of semi-distributed system will always raise
a question of decomposition, simplification, and
schematizing.
2.1An undivided system
The sketch in Figure 1 displays chunks of the
problem as recognized by utilities of the AquaLog
modeling system: the reservoir, two oblong-shaped
river reaches and five 'opened envelopes' of
catchment inflows. Seventeen hydrological stations
(full black arrows) operate to monitor boundary
conditions of hydrologic systems: precipitation,
temperature, and hydrometric data. As the real-time
monitoring systems frequently fail in data transfer
from observation sites, flexibility in response to
immediate changes in configuration of the model
boundary conditions becomes an essential feature of
the modeling tools.
2.2System decomposition, CASE A
While leaving out (not necessarily) domain of
hydrological processes, we limit our concern to the
topology of the reservoir. As shown in the upper part
of Figure 2 the reservoir model consists of four basic
subsystems, of the water balance equation, the AA-
RES associated with two flow-control units (CC-
MB3 and DD-MB3, the spillway and water release
control) and with the power house unit, EE-ELN.
Figure 2. Three-unit reservoir. Definition sketch.
Simplified depiction of the problem in the top of
the Figure 2 becomes more peculiar once the outputs
of the data collection system come into
consideration. The lower part of the Figure 2 shows
topological representation of the construction. The
graph is a first approximation to the PN portrait of
the four above subsystems, completed by a 'dummy',
or more precisely, 'no-action' procedure BB-DMY
that solely provides an interface with the
downstream located systems. Each arc of the graph
symbolizes a single deterministic process possible to
be numerically evaluated. The nodes represent mass
and energy compatibility conditions. The full black
arrows provide the time dependent information on
selected state variables. They appear either as the
outputs of monitoring system (the observed
quantities) or as regulator-demanded output
(objective function of the reservoir control). For
example the reservoir pool level, inflow, outflow,
gate positioning, turbine through flow, head, power
production fall in both data categories. In the PN it is
possible to activate directly an arc-wise calculations
for various mathematical alternatives. This is
organized by mapping of the arcs (we will replace
them by PN Transitions later on) into four or more
user-invisible computational points. In such an
approach, an explicit specification of trends in an
objective function is possible and the long-term
strategy can be investigated in parallel with the real-
time control. With such dual-support philosophy, the
model opens an extensive field of applications and it
eliminates much of programming.
3 HYDRAULIC FORMULATION
In the modeling system AquaLog, the most
important thing about communication between the
hydraulic and hydrological processes is that each of
them is analyzed using common program
environment, disregarding internal computational
structures. Anything specific at stage of
decomposition in the Figure 2 does apply to all
remaining processes. Uncertainties in data
accessibility to individual subsystems, as result of
malfunctioning of data collection and transmission
systems, culminate into shortcomings in
mathematical formulation. Process-determination
under- and over-determination becomes an important
issue. In an algorithmic sense, the two latter ends up
in abnormal program status, and the two-way dialog
mode takes over. We will now briefly review two
typical modeling techniques of the AquaLog-MAN,
the RES and the MS3.
3.1 RES, the reservoir water balance
The 1D reservoir continuity condition is separated
from hydraulic definition of its flow-control
structures. This is what makes integration of its arcs
(the PN Transitions) with the other techniques easy.
The RES technique may be written in common no-
wedge-storage differential form, involving four state
variables: the pool level H1 reservoir inflow I, alternative computational structures of the RES
outflow O and flooded area S, see the Table 1 for modeling technique.
Table 1. Truth table and computational alternatives of RES modeling technique
State variables Formal computational schemes Iters
alt. H1N+1 H4N+1 IN+1 ON+1 Phase 1 Phase 2
1 1 1 0 0 ON+1=F1(H1N+1, H4 N+1) IN+1=FI(H1N+1, ON+1) 0
2 0 1 1 0 ON+1=F1(H1N, H4 N+1) H1N+1=FII(H1N+1, ON+1) 1
3 0 0 1 1 H1N+1=FII(H1N+1, ON+1) H4 N+1=F3(H1N+1, ON+1) 1
4 1 0 0 1 H4 N+1=F3(H1N+1, ON+1) IN+1=FI(H1N+1, ON+1) 0
5 1 0 1 0 ON+1=FIII(H1N+1, PN+1) H4N+1=F3(H1N+1, ON+1) 0
6 0 1 0 1 H1N+1=F2(H4N+1, ON+1) IN+1=FI(H1N+1, ON+1) 0
7 0 U 1 1 H1N+1=FII(H1N+1, ON+1) n.a. 1
8 1 U 0 1 IN+1=FI( H1N+1, ON+1) n.a. 0
9 1 U 1 0 ON+1=FIII(H1N+1, PN+1) n.a. 0

Figure 3. Kinematic reservoir state variables. Definition sketch of RES

Table 2. Truth table and computational alternatives of MS3 modeling technique

State variables Type of the spillway
alt. H1 H4 H3 Q Sharp crested Broad crested
1 1 1 0 0 H1-H4+k1=(Q/M1)2/3 H1+k1=H2+k2+hz2=H3+k3+hz2+hz3; M2=2 .2gB2
M1 = f (z,m,H1,H4,H3) H1=H2+Q2/(M2(H-H4);
for H3H5H=H3;
for H3H5H=H2Hs
2 1 0 1 0 H1-H4+k1=(Q/M1)2/3 H1+k1=H2+Q2/(M2(H2-H4)2)
M1=f(z,m,H1,H4,H3) H42(H1-H2)+H4(2H22-2H1.H2)+H1.H22-H23-Q2 /M=0
3 1 1 0 1 n.a. for H3H2H1+k1=H2+Q2/(M2(H2-H4)2 )
H23+H22(-H1-2H4)+H2(2H1H4+H42 )-H1H42-Q2/M2=0
3/2
4 1 1 1 0 Q=M1(H1-H4+k1) H1+k1=H2+Q2/(M2(H2-H4)2)
M1=f(z,m,H1,H4,H3) Q=(M2)(H2-H4)(H1-H2+k1)

H1 Q
H4

H 3
H2

HB1 H B2

The technique is a simple difference scheme of the

Figure 4. Sharp-crested weir state variables. 1st order ordinary differential equation. The
Definition sketch of the MS3 superscripts N and N+1 indicate the current and the
unknown time-levels respectively. The values of the
last column indicate the use of an iterative
algorithm, if necessary. Scenarios 1 through 6
(where the crest of a single-unit spillway H4
appears) are only complementary, used in case of
single purpose single-unit reservoir. So, for the PN
model solely the alternatives 7, 8 and 9 apply.

3.2MS3, the spillway modeling technique

The second example shows computation
alternatives of controlled spillway. State variables of
the MS3 technique (Tab. 2) are: the U/S water level
H1 (pool), current crest position H4, D/S water level
H3 and overflow Q, all in Figure 4. The spillway
gate simulator MS3 calculates four alternatives of
the sharp/broad crested weir formulas. Switching in
truth table options can easily be automated.
In theory, the downstream level H3 of the 3rd
alternative can be related to remaining variables H1,
H4 and Q by means of the coefficients z and m.
Such an assumption is weak indeed as it uses the
D/S rating curve as substitute. As a result of the
inflow velocity head, all remaining alternatives are
virtually iterative.

3.3Remaining modeling techniques

Once topological coding of the case is finished, the
master program browses in the list of modeling Before the action
techniques in AquaLog-MAN system library. Four
additional techniques endorse the above mentioned
ones:
MB3 Bottom outlet simulator
ELN Power house unit After the action
DMY Water transfer unit
Q_H Rating curve

Distributed into 4 computational points, they work

similarly to the MS3 technique.

4 MODEL DESIGN PROPERTIES

In the first stage of model design, the hydraulic

formulation is certainly straightforward. Generic
hindrance of feedback within the looped systems in
Figure 2 is, in the real-time 'world', augmented by
additional factors:
 an access to hydraulic state variables, depends
on model design and on functioning of the data-
collection system,
 time dependent changes of hydraulic regime of
reservoir control units are both possible and
likely to appear,
 demand for an immediate reaction of the real-
time flow control (objective function) to the
results of the program of the long-term strategy.
Solution of such situations by traditional
programming would be very intricate, even for
systems of simple structure like that of Figure 2.

4.1Briefly towards the Petri-net philosophy

Principles of the PN technology are originated
from theory of bipartite graphs. The nodes of the
graphs consist of a finite set of Places and of finite
set of Transitions. Finite set of arcs interconnects the
Places with Transitions and vice versa. A set of
Tokens is placed inside Places, thus defining Initial Table 3 Scenarios of the spillway equations
Marking. The set of arcs works as input/output MS3 H1 H2 Q
Hpool Hcrest
generator. It arranges for flow of Tokens from Places
to Transitions and from Transitions to Places. T1 ms31 0 1 1
Formulation of such asynchronous processes is T2 ms32 1 0 1
given by a definition T3 ms33 1 1 0

PN = < P, T, F, B, M0 > They represent Transitions T1 through T3 shown

where in the Figure 6 (three upper oblongs). Similarly, the
P Set of Places reservoir balance procedures are listed in the Table 4
T Set of Transitions (see the alternatives 7, 8, and 9) and represented by
F Forward incidence matrix Transitions res1, res2 and res3 of Figure 6. From the
B Backward incidence matrix truth Tables 3 and 4, it is possible to analyze all the
M0 Initial Marking
Table 4 Scenarios of the reservoir equations
RES Hpool I Q
Petri's idea was both simple and ingenious, see the
PN elementary operation shown in Figure 5. It does T4 res1 0 1 1
not need any further explanation. T5 res2 1 0 1
Figure 5. An elementary action in the PN: T6 res3 1 1 0

An overlap of TP vanishes, Transitions and computation alternatives.

Places do not have any common elements. In
ordinary PN's, both categories of the nodes are
simply connected. No multiple arcs appear. This is
also the case here discussed.
4.2Interconnection of RES and MS3 techniques
We will now couple the two listed 'easy'
techniques, the reservoir RES with the spillway MS3,
into a single-unit reservoir model, Figure 6.
Figure 6. The PN of interconnected processes,
the MS3 and the RES
The two modeling procedures, residing in the
system library, are triggers that fire up computation
of the PN Transitions. The MS3 applies for the first
group of processes, the RES for the second. On
contrast to the Table 2, the effect of the D/S water
level is disregarded. The general solution falls into
three scenarios as shown in the truth Table 3, the
ms31, ms32 and ms33.
In both cases, solely the determined solutions are
considered. Under-determined cases (a single unity
in a line of a truth table) and overdetermined cases
(three unities in a line) are considered as an
abnormal and, for a moment, left out of
consideration. Separation of an 'algorithmic' case
from 'non-algorithmic', make them, in effect,
different procedures with possibly different fields of
application.
The (hydraulically) 'well defined' class of the
problems can be detected by the reachebility tree of
the PN analysis, its most significant preference.
Once the tree has been developed, essential
properties, such as conservativeness, liveness,
safeness, and boundedness of the net can be
clarified. Using the reachebility tree, one can review
behavior and features of the project. As seen from
the Figure 6, we have formulated the only one of the
JJA alternative solutions. To what extent JJA could
go, can be computed from
 JJA=2JJJJ(JJ-1)=2332=36
where JJ=3 is a number of state variables in a truth
table (the number of program scenarios). Out of the
36, only 24 are realistic, as no arc emanates from the
Place H2 towards the Place I, variables are
independent. In traditional programming, 24
procedures would be used to solve this simple
problem.
5 PETRI-NET TOOLS
The number of alternatives JJA would increase
drastically if just few more units were added to the
system of Figure 6. Some of the PN features,
accessible by means of the PN processors including
graphical editors, will be shown as an option.
In this case the PN is bounded, safe and
conservative.
5.2 Some PN definitions
Reachebility tree: represents all of the obtainable
Markings for a PN. It begins with the Initial
Marking, with a line from the Initial Marking to a
new marking for each enabled Transition. The
process is repeated for each new Marking that is
neither a terminal node nor a duplicate node until all
possible markings are found, e.g. Brink (1996).
Safe: If a place is safe, then the number of Tokens
in that Place is guaranteed to be either 0 or 1. The
PN is declared safe if all of the Places in the net are
safe. In the CASE B, as an example, this provides a

5.1A second problem, CASE B

We refer to a sketch similar to that of Figure 2,
now enhanced by more flow-control units: by three
independently operating segment weirs MS3, two
Johnson type outlets MB3 and by a powerhouse
ELN. The Table 5 accounts for the following
components of MAN model:

Table 5 List of Orlik reservoir components

MAN Transition U/S Place D/S Place
DMY T1 P1 P2
RES T2 P2 P3
ELN T3 P3 P4
DMY T4 P4 P5
MS3 T5 P6 P7
MS3 T6 P6 P7
MS3 T7 P6 P7
MB3 T8 P8 P9
MB3 T9 P8 P9
DMY T10 P3 P8
DMY T11 P4 P9
DMY T12 P3 P6
DMY T13 P4 P7

The Ceska (1994) graphical PN editor PeSim was

used to construct the PN shown in Figure 7. The
graph consists of a set of 9 Places, labeled P1
through P9 and of 13 Transitions labeled T1 through
T13. The Initial Marking of the net depends on data
structure produced by the data-collection system.
Generally, the net is non-stationary as the Marking
changes with the flux of data.
The Marking is kept zero in all Places until all the
techniques become determined. Afterwards it is set
by unity. As stated, an analysis is based on properties
of the PN reachebility tree. An example of its
portion, both in numerical form and in graphics
shows the Figure 7.
The window 'Net properties' proofs applicability
of the method for the CASE B, the Orlik reservoir.
 res eln dmy

P2 T2 P3 T3 P4
dmy dmy
dmy mb3 T4
T10 T11
T1
T8
P8 P9
dmy dmy P5
P1 T9
T12 T13

T5

P6 P7
T6
ms3

T7

Figure 7. The PeSim generated PN, including a part of

reachebility tree, please refer to the Table 5

Figure 8. AquaLog Builder interactive facility:

the model of the PN in Figure 7 under construction

a necessary but not sufficient condition for solution
to be either undetermined or determined at a current
time level. No further investigations of over-
determination conditions are therefore necessary.
Bounded: a PN is called j-bounded if all places in
the net are bounded and j represents the maximum
bound value of all Places. This is a more general
property than the safeness. Practically it means that
the formulation might become over-determined at
certain time-levels.
Conservative: A PN is said to be strictly
conservative if, for all possible Markings, the total
number of Tokens in the PN always remains
constant. This is an important property for nets that
model resources. In particular case of Figure 7,
computation status of flow control structures falls
into determined solution.
Live: A PN is live when no terminal nodes in the
reachebility tree exist. For each Marking in the tree,
at least one Transition is enabled.
In our case, the live net applies to standard, 'well
defined' mode of calculation. No computation
deadlocks appear, and thus no need for the dialog
control. The live nets are typical for projects where
historical data are being used, e.g. in simulation
analysis.

Figure 9. The user-machine dialog of AquaLog MAN
5.3A third problem, CASE C
To show the other, less 'enjoyable' aspect of the PN
features, let analyze topology of the bypass
reservoir, see Figure 10. Here, the use of the two-
way dialogue option became as necessary option.
The PN analysis of the CASE C failed in
construction of the reachebility tree, abnormalities in
the net development appeared and, in turn, the
program has been abnormally terminated. Standard
computation mode halted and dialog window has
been opened (in the Figure 9 the window is
captioned as 'MAN dialog control'). The ListBox in
the upper Panel 1 'Select yet incomplete object and
press button 1' reviews all the subsystems (their
serial number, the ID, description, technique used
and computation status) and it offers a list of not yet
computed objects. After any tolerated choice has
been made, the ListBox of Panel 2 has displayed
data of the selected object (e.g. the flow control
unit), both in the old- and in the new time levels.
The undefined control data were notified as UN-
DEF and prompted for completion (the TextBox of
the Panel 3). The buttons CONFIRM, CONTINUE,
DISPLAY and RETRY are controls of the dialogue.
In such a manner, operator's scrabble could continue
until his satisfaction'.
6 THE ALGORITHM
AquaLog MAN associates three distinct program
environments: the standard computational status, the
uncertainty conditions and the conflicting situations.
The two latter are recognized as abnormal:
standard computation: this is a simplest option;
all Transitions are well defined, the PN is safe
and strictly conservative
uncertainty: some of the Transitions have no data
(e.g. more than 1 zero in a line of truth Table 3
or 4 and hence undetermined solution in the
Transition). The PN is safe but no more
conservative.
in conflict: the mass balance is not preserved in
some Place (e.g. in case of over-determined
solution where three unities appear in a line of
truth Table 3 or 4). The PN is no more live, it
is in deadlock
The last two situations require the two-way dialog
while the first does not. Obviously, one has often to
make a compromise in several respects:
all Transitions were computed to required extent
of time domain,
 (1996) thirty-four PN tools were located. An
examination of these tools was performed and data
collected in four major areas: Operating
Environment, Graphical Editor, Simulation, and
Analysis…' (unquote).
Hydraulic engineers confront problems of on-line
digital control of flow regulators, where the PN's
would perfectly suit this purpose. Moreover, they
may bridge still existing gap between the real-time
reservoir control and the long term water resources
strategy, simply by replacing the 'observed' boundary
value by the 'demanded' value of the objective
function generated by external software.
Secondly, what are the cons? Hydroinformatics'
conditio sine qua non clearly states that the
algorithm should be proven and robust before it goes
into the hands of, possibly inexperienced, engineer.
P11
The situation in use of PN's in this field is far from
P1
being so. It is rather in stage of an 'academic
T14
T1
P2
exercise'. As we have shown, the PN's in water
T2
P3
T15
P12
resources may become unsafe and prone to
T10 T11
deadlocks. Consequently, they require delicate
P6 T3 handling, what depreciates an implementation value.
Integration of the PN technology with hydraulics
P4
T12
P9
culminates in intricate programming, complex and
T13 costly.
T9 T4 T5 T6 T16 The use of PN's as a tool of Hydroinformatics
remains a challenge to professional programmers,
P5
P10
hydraulic engineers and hydrologists.
T7

P7
T8
P8
Figure 10. Definition sketch of the reservoir Vihorlat and its
PN (note the T13/T14 as 'hydrological' contribution of direct
rain/evaporation to the pool)
values of boundary conditions came either from
data collection system or as user entries,
the mass and energy balance in all Places
satisfies predetermined criteria.
It is worth to underline again, that computation
sequence of individual modeling techniques in a
project depends on immediate access to the data,
The algorithm generally varies with the time. The
model uses nested iterative procedures for
computation of individual flow-control units. The
PN algorithm supervises the higher iteration level;
the accelerated Newton-Raphson procedure is used
for the lower.
7 CONCLUSIONS AND CRITIQUES
Firstly, what are the pros of using the PN technique
in water resources modeling? Browsing through
libraries and Internet proved no reference of using
the PN's in Hydroinformatics. At the same time,
Brink claims that '…at the time of this document,
REFERENCES
Abel, Dirk 1990. Petri-Netze für Ingenieure. Modellbildung
und Analyse Diskret Gesteuerter Systeme. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag
Babovic, V. 1991. Applied Hydroinformatics. A Control and
Advisory System for Real-Time Operations. Reports
series 26 Delft: IHE Delft
Baldassari, P. 1997. Einführung in high-level Petri-Netze.
Vienna: TU
Brink, R.S. 1996. A Petri-net Design, Simulation, and
Verification Tool. New York: Dept. of Computer
Engineering, College of Engineering Rochester Institute
of Technology, Rochester
Ceska, M. 1994. Petriho site. Akademicke nakladatelstvi
CERM: Brno (in Czech)
Zezulak, J. 1985. Modeling of Complex River Systems in
Service of Operational Hydrology. DrSci dissertation.
Prague: Technical University (in Czech)
Zezulak, J. & Straka, V. 1987. Real-time Control of
Irrigation Schemes. Rabat: XIII th Congress of ICID
Zezulak, J. 1992. Information System for Automated Data
Collection and Processing for Energy Power
Development on River Drin. Geneva: WMO/UNDP
Project ALB/86/003
Zezulak, J. & Krejci, J. & Smolik, M. 1991. AquaLog, the
Decision Support System in Field of Water Management,
Water Pollution and Hydrology. Como, Italy: Proceedings
of 3rd Intl. Software Exhibition for Environmental
Sciences and Engineering.