Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CH4510:Process Control Lab: Dynamics of U-Tube Manometer
CH4510:Process Control Lab: Dynamics of U-Tube Manometer
Submitted by: Shubham Jhanwar Simple Kumar J Vijay Prasad V Avinash CH10B092 CH10B093 CH10B094 CH10B095
DYNAMICS OF U-TUBE MANOMETER Objective: (a) To study the dynamic response of an U-Tube manometer following a step change (b) To study the characteristics of an under-damped second order response like overshoot, rise time, decay ratio, response time etc. Theory:
Fig 1. A U-tube manometer Systems with inherent second order dynamics can exhibit oscillatory behavior (under-damped).Examples of these physical systems are simple manometers, externally mounted level indicators, pneumatic control valve, variable capacitance differential pressure transducer. U-tube manometer is a classic example of a second order system. The basic equation is the force balance ( where A P R = = = = ) cross-sectional area liquid density (density of gas above fluid is negligible) applied pressure fractional resistance (1)
Define
, 2 =
and Kp =
(4)
(5)
(6)
Equation (4) and (5) represents the inherent second order dynamics of the manometer. Equation (3) may be written in a standard form (7) Where n = = natural frequency, rad/sec damping coefficient
For a step change in input pressure, when damping coefficient less than 1, the output overshoots the final value and oscillates before coming to equilibrium. The system is said to be under damped. For < 1.0,
(
Where
With a damping coefficient of zero, the response is an under damped sine wave of frequency and amplitude 2hi.
Experimental values of
response curve. The damping coefficient can be found either from the decay ratio which is the ratio of successive peak heights or from maximum overshoot.
Decay ratio=
(11)
(12) (13)
Period of oscillation T=
= t2-t1
Fig1: An under damped response Procedure: 1. Before starting the experiment note down the level of liquid column in the U-tube manometer. This is the base level. 2. Give a pressure input by blowing air into one of the limbs of the manometer and close the corresponding limb air tight with your thumb. 3. Note the level in the other limb. 4. Release the pressure by loosening your thumb. 5. When the level reaches the first lower position start the stop watch and note the time at which it reaches the second lower position. Also note the first peak, first valley (first lower position), second peak height and second valley. 6. Repeat the experiment for two different waves. 7. By using equ. (11), (12) and (13) the value of and can be calculated experimentally. 8. Using equ. (4), for the given value of L and D the value of and can be obtained theoretically. 9. The values of and obtained experimentally and theoretically are to be compared.
Observations:
Sl.No.
1 2 3
Sl.No.
1 2
380 380
280 270
660 650
180 190
500 500
290 290
Calculations: 1. Experiment:
Sl. No.
A (cm)
B (cm)
C (cm)
Overshoot A/B
(sec)
1 2 3
70 65 60
Sl. No.
A (cm)
B (cm)
C (cm)
Overshoot A/B
(sec)
1 2
200 190
280 270
90 90
0.714 0.704
0.45 0.474
0.633 0.649
0.1065 0.1112
2. Theoretically: L = 980 cm D = 1.2 cm = 1000 kg/m3 g = 9.8 m/(sec) 2 = 10-3 kg/m.(sec) 2 = 0.5 ;
= 0.707 2 = =0.111
= 0.0786
Now,
( ) ) ( ( ) )
( (
) )
2. Calculation of :
500
4, 500
300
2, 240 200
100
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
500
4, 500
200
2, 180
100
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
=0.635 = 0.148
Are the values of and from experimental and theoretical calculation matching? If not explain why? No, the values of and from experimental and theoretical calculation are not matching. This is because theoretical calculations consider pipe to be straight and does not account for the extra pressure developed due to coiling of pipe. This is quite evident from the fact that uncoiled pipe has lesser value in comparison to the coiled one.
References: 1. 2. Process Control - Peter Harriot. Chemical Process Control - George Stephanopoulos
-------------------X----------------------X-----------------------------X-------------------X------------------------