Laboratory

No. 1 G9

1 Process Instrumentation and Control 328

Process Instrumentation and Control 328

Student Number: 15485634 Name: Nicholas Ang Group: Group 9 Friday 8am Laboratory: Experiment 4: Pressure Control Laboratory Supervisor: Anteneh Date Performed: 27th September Date Submitted: 11th October

15485634 NICHOLAS ANG

Laboratory No. 1 G9

2 Process Instrumentation and Control 328

Objectives To demonstrate the characteristic of PB (Proportional Band) + I (Integral Action) + D (Derivative Action) on a pressure process control loop. Results: Experiment 1 PB = 200 % I = 3 sec D=0 With 5 second change to 40 L/min
Figure 1: Start of Experiment 1

Figure 2: Same settings but with set point change to 75%

15485634 NICHOLAS ANG

Laboratory No. 1 G9

3 Process Instrumentation and Control 328

Figure 3: Change D = 5 and apply 40 L/min disturbance

Figure 4: Set point change to 75% followed by change D to 20

15485634 NICHOLAS ANG

Laboratory No. 1 G9

4 Process Instrumentation and Control 328

Figure 5: 40 L/min disturbance followed by set point change

Results: Experiment 2 PB = 100 I = 200 s

Figure 6: Start of Experiment 2

15485634 NICHOLAS ANG

Laboratory No. 1 G9
Figure 7: PB Changed to 10

5 Process Instrumentation and Control 328

Figure 8: PB Changed to 6 and then 5.5

Discussion To make it easier, each figure will be discussed in order, rather than in one bunch. Experiment 1: Figure 1: Figure 1 shows the settings at which the experiment started which were PB = 200%, I = 3 sec and D = 0. The 200% PB setting is rather high, causing higher controller output and hence a larger error when correcting the disturbance of changing the valve to 40L/min. There would be an even larger error if not for the I = 3 sec setting which corrects the error and produces the sine wave like shape shown in the graph. Figure 2: In figure 2, the same settings are kept but an additional disturbance is added and a step change to 75% is added. The presence of the disturbance yields the same results as that of figure 1 except that it is in opposite direction (goes upward first then goes downward). This is due to coincidence that the graph was oscillating in the upward direction when the disturbance was applied. When the step change was applied, the system was slow to adapt to the change but corrected itself quickly in two major oscillations.
15485634 NICHOLAS ANG

Laboratory No. 1 G9

6 Process Instrumentation and Control 328

Figure 3: In figure 3, the derivative time setting is changed from 0 to 5, the system is brought back to a set point of 75% and a disturbance is introduced as before. The system takes the same time to recover from the set point change but corrects the disturbance in a quicker time than in the two previous figures. This is likely due to the derivative effect correcting the lag caused by the integral time function. Figure 4: In figure 4, the set point is changed and the derivative time is changed to 20. The systems response to the step change is starting to get worse which suggests that the derivative time change is affecting the systems response to step changes in a negative way. Figure 5: In figure 5, a disturbance and step change occurs with a derivative setting of 20. As before similar results occur for the step change but the reaction time and magnitude correction for the disturbance is much quicker and smaller than before. This indicates that a higher derivative time setting allows quicker and better responses to disturbances. Experiment 2 Figure 6: In figure 6 a PB setting of 100 and a large I setting of 200 s is used. Although the PB setting is lower than before, there is still a large error and since the I value is exceedingly large, there is nothing to correct the PB error and keep it oscillating so it just decreases linearly at a slow rate. Figure 7: In this figure, PB is changed to 10, which allows the error to decrease, as there is lower controller output and higher gain. However, gain should not be too high as the response may become exceedingly oscillatory and unstable. Again the system is correcting itself closer and closer to the set point rather than using a sine wave approach as the I value is very high. Figure 8: In this figure, PB is changed to 6 and 5.5 which results in the system getting closer to the setpoint. However, as mentioned before, the system now has higher gain and the curve starts to become more oscillatory and unstable. Hence, the system should have a good compromise between proportional band and gain such that the value chosen is of low error and stable, with as little oscillation as possible. Conclusion Based on the results, a larger proportional band will result in a larger error from the set point due to high controller output. This causes the system to be further from the setpoint and responds slower to disturbances such as set point and flow rate changes. The PB value should also not be too small as this results in high gain, causing unstable oscillatory behaviour. The integral time is also critical to increase the response time of the system and to correct the error using a sine curve and sum of error approach rather than letting the system slowly approach the set point as seen at high I values. Lastly, the derivative time has a small effect in allowing the system to respond to disturbances faster as it smooths out the lag caused by the integral time function.

15485634 NICHOLAS ANG