Assessment Brief

Introduction:

A mechatronic system is a physical system, which possesses a control interface. This

control interface often has a feedback loop which attempts to restore the system to a
stable condition, in the presence of a disturbance. Therefore, it is important for the
engineer to develop skills in the conception, design, implementation and operation of the
physical system in conjunction with its attendant control system and instrumentation.
This course work focuses on the control of an automated dynamic system.

Completion of this assignment will address the following learning outcomes:

1 Apply and distinguish the principles of open loop and closed-loop control, while
using transfer functions and mathematical techniques.
2 Identify and examine the differences between linear and non-linear control,
their uses and applications in various industry fields.
3 Demonstrate programming proficiency in the development and design of
control systems and microcontrollers.

Task:

Students are required to complete the simulation activity involving modelling a dynamic
system and determining the parameters for its control interface using LABVIEW or MATLAB
Simulink. A technical report of 2500 words on the task carried out is to be submitted. The
report must present the following general structure:

● Summary (5 marks)
o Overview of the report and main findings/ results from Analysis/Simulation
● Introduction (10 Marks)
o Background information (relevance and application) of the topic.
o Aim and objectives of the Analysis/Simulation.
 ● Theory (20 Marks)
o Technical description of the theoretical background.
● Materials and Methods (10 Marks)
o Simulation software and methodology.
● Results (10 Marks)
o Results obtained from simulation (i.e., tables and corresponding graphs)
● Discussions (20 Marks)
o This section describes what your results show and mean.
o This should include relevant underlying scientific principles that explain the
simulation outcomes.
● Conclusion and recommendations (10 Marks)
o Emphasis on the findings and brief suggestions on possible improvements
● References (5 Marks)

● Overall Structure (10 marks)

Two storage tanks with a tapering circular cross-sectional area are used to intermittently
supply a water-soluble binder fluid to a mixer, in an ibuprofen tablet manufacturing process.
The non-interacting tanks are arranged in series, as shown in Figure Q1. The effluent
volumetric flowrates (m 3 h r−1) are related to the fluid height in each tank by the following
linear relationships:

f 1 ( t )=C v 1 × h1

f 2 ( t )=C v 2 × h2

Where C v 1and C v 2 are the valve discharge coefficients of the first and second valves
respectively. The inlet volumetric flowrate is f i.
 Figure Q1: Non-interacting tanks in series

The relevant parameters of the system are as follows:

D1=¿ Top diameter of the first tank ¿ 0.915 m

x 1=¿ Base diameter of the first tank ¿ 0.305 m

y 1=¿ Vertical height of the first tank ¿ 10 x1

D2=¿ Top diameter of the second tank = 0.725 D1

x 2=¿ Base diameter of the second tank = 0.725 x 1

y 2=¿ Vertical height of the second tank ¿ 10 x2

C v 1=¿ Valve discharge coefficient ¿ 0.366 m3 . m−1 . hr −1

C v 2=¿ Valve discharge coefficient ¿ 0.183 m 3 . m−1 .h r −1

1.) Develop a linearised dynamic model for the system.

2.) Obtain the transfer function (in deviation variable form) between the liquid level in the
second tank and the volumetric flowrate into the first tank.

3.) If the initial steady state height in tank 1 is h1 =1.83 m and that in tank 2 is and
h2 =1.11 m. Plot the open loop time response of the process for a unit step change in
the inlet flowrate for the following valve discharge coefficients values:
C v 2 ∈ { 0.01, 0.10 , 1.00 }. Assume all other parameters remain as originally defined.
Explain the plots you obtained.

4.) If the initial steady state height in tank 1 is h1 =1.83 m and that in tank 2 is and
h2 =1.11 m, fit a proportional controller to the system and plot the closed loop time
response of the process for a unit step change in the inlet flowrate. Vary the value of
the controller proportional gain, K C three times. Assume that all other parameters
remain as originally defined. Explain the plots you obtained.

5.) Using the same steady state conditions as in (4) and the original valve discharge
coefficients, replace the proportional controller in (4) with a proportional-integral
controller. Fix the controller proportional gain, K C and vary the integral gain, K I three
times. Plot all three responses and discuss the significance of your results.

6.) A sensor-transmitter modelled by the following first order transfer function:

 0.4
G m ( s )=
5 s +1

is fitted to a closed loop. Replace the proportional integral controller with a

proportional integral derivative (PID) controller and tune it using the continuous cycling
Ziegler-Nichols method.

You are required to produce a technical report based on the foregoing analyses.
Banding Knowledge and Analysis, Interpretation
Understanding and Application of Theory
(30%) (30%)
90-100% Exceptional Makes exceptional use of a
knowledge base range of relevant techniques
exploring and of interpretation, application
analysing the and/or analysis, where
discipline and its relevant to the module
theory with learning outcomes.
extraordinary Demonstrates an exceptional
originality and theoretical understanding,
autonomy. where relevant, with
appropriately selected
theoretical knowledge
integrated into the overall
assignment tasks and all
learning outcomes.
80-89% Outstanding Makes outstanding use of a
knowledge base range of relevant techniques
exploring and of interpretation, application
analysing the and/or analysis, where
discipline and its relevant to the module
theory with clear learning outcomes. Shows a
originality and well-developed ability to
autonomy. compare alternative theories
and apply them within the
context of the assignment
task and all learning
outcomes, where relevant.
70-79% Excellent Makes excellent use of
knowledge base established techniques of
that supports interpretation, application
analysis and/or and/or analysis, where
interpretation and relevant to the module
problem-solving in learning outcomes. Shows a
theory and/or systematic and accurate
practice within the understanding of key
discipline, with theories, which are
considerable consistently and
originality. appropriately applied within
the context of the assignment
task and all learning
outcomes, where relevant.
60-69% Very good Makes very good use of
knowledge base established techniques of
Quality of Research Academic Writing
(20%) (20%)
Exceptional exploration Exceptional answer with
of wider academic coherent and logical
sources with a high presentation of ideas. The
degree of independent answer is clearly expressed
learning which exceeds with flair and originality.
the assignment brief. No language errors present
Sources have been and academic writing style
accurately interpreted and was adhered to throughout.
integrated with flawless Referencing in the CU
synthesis and evaluation version of Harvard has
leading to innovative and been employed in an
interesting ideas. accurate manner.
Outstanding exploration Outstanding answer with
of wider academic coherent and logical
sources with a high presentation of ideas. The
degree of independent answer is clearly expressed
learning which exceeds with originality. No
the assignment brief. language errors present
Sources have been and academic writing style
accurately interpreted and was adhered to.
integrated with a high Referencing in the CU
degree of analysis and version of Harvard has
application, leading to been employed in an
innovative and interesting accurate manner.
ideas.
Excellent exploration of Excellent answer with
wider academic sources coherent and logical
with evidence of presentation of ideas. The
independent learning answer is entirely relevant
which may exceed the and focused. Minimal
assignment brief. Sources language errors which
have been accurately have no impact on clarity
interpreted, integrated of expression. Academic
and analysed, with an writing style was adhered
attempt made at synthesis to. Referencing in the CU
leading to interesting version of Harvard has
ideas. been employed in an
accurate manner.
Very good evidence of Very good answer with
wider academic reading coherent and logical
 that supports interpretation, application which indicates an presentation of ideas. The
analysis and/or and/or analysis, where approach to independent answer is largely relevant
interpretation and relevant to the module learning. Sources have and focused. Some
problem-solving in learning outcomes. Shows an been accurately language errors may be
theory and/or accurate understanding of interpreted and integrated present but do not impact
practice within the key theories, where relevant, with some attempt at on the clarity of
discipline, with which are appropriately analysis. expression. Academic
some originality applied within the context of writing style was
displayed. the assignment task and the inconsistently adhered to.
module learning outcomes. Referencing in the CU
version of Harvard is
mostly accurate with some
minor errors.
50-59% Good knowledge Makes good use of Good evidence of Good answer with some
base that supports established techniques of academic reading, with attempt at coherent and
some analysis interpretation, application some attempt at moving logical presentation. The
and/or and/or analysis, where beyond the recommended answer contains some
interpretation and relevant to the module texts. Interpretation of irrelevant material and
problem-solving in learning outcomes. Sound sources has been largely lacks focus at points. Some
theory and/or descriptive knowledge of key accurate, but there may language errors are present
practice within the theories, where relevant, with be some instances of which impacts on clarity at
discipline. some appropriate application. misunderstanding. times. Academic writing
Limited evidence of style is not adhered to at
integration and analysis. all times. Referencing in
the CU version of Harvard
is present, however may
not be entirely accurate at
times.
40-49% Satisfactory Makes satisfactory but Satisfactory evidence of Satisfactory answer,
knowledge base limited use of established academic reading, with however, issues with
demonstrating techniques of interpretation, no obvious attempt to coherence and logical
comprehension and application and/or analysis, move beyond the presentation are likely to
formulation of where relevant to the module recommended texts. be present. The answer
basic knowledge learning outcomes. Interpretation of sources contains irrelevant material
with some may be inaccurate and and lacks focus. Language
Selection of theory, where
omissions at the poorly integrated. errors are frequent which
relevant, is satisfactory but
level of theoretical Analysis is unlikely to impacts on clarity and
application and/or
understanding. have been attempted. academic writing style is
understanding is limited.
not present. Referencing in
Limited ability to
the CU version of Harvard
discuss theory and
may be incomplete and is
solve problems
inaccurate.
within the
discipline.
35-39% Outcomes not or Attempts at analysis, where Limited evidence of Answer is attempted but
only partially met. relevant, and interpretation reading at an academic limited. Poor coherence
(Marginal
Restricted are ineffective and/or level. Sources used may and illogical presentation.
Fail)
knowledge base uninformed by the discipline. be inappropriate and The answer contains
demonstrated. Knowledge of theory, where interpreted poorly. No irrelevant material and
 Limited relevant, is inaccurate and/or evidence of integration, lacks focus throughout.
understanding of incomplete. Choice of theory analysis or interpretation. Language errors are
discipline. inappropriate. Application Poor academic practice consistent and impact on
Difficulty with and/or understanding may have resulted in the clarity of expression.
linking theory and demonstrated is very limited. sections of plagiarised Academic writing style is
problem solving material. not present. Referencing in
within the the CU version of Harvard
discipline. is incomplete and
inaccurate.
0 – 34% Little or no Absence of relevant Inadequate evidence of Serious and fundamental
evidence of theoretical content and/or use reading at an academic flaws leading to an unclear
knowledge base. of theory, where relevant. level with poor answer. Very weak
Little evidence of Lacks any analysis and application of sources academic skills and writing
understanding of interpretation. and ideas. Answer is ability. Poorly structured
discipline. likely to include with multiple language
Significant inappropriate references errors. Inadequate
difficulty with which are misunderstood application of CU version
theory and problem and not integrated. of Harvard referencing
solving within the Possibility of plagiarism style.
discipline. OR no evidence of
academic research.
Answer may not be
research based.