1

CLL 361 Report : Instrumentation & Automation Lab

Experiment Name Time Constant of a Manometer

Group Name Feedback​ - Group B (Subgroup 6)

Name of Group members Abhishek Shringi, Franklin Gari, Sehaj Virk

Group Day Tuesday

Date and Day of submission 14th Feb, Sunday

Date and Day for common doubt
session of the experiment

Name of Lab instructor Prof S.K Gupta

Marks (to be filled by the evaluator)

Objective of the Experiment

- To study the characteristics (Decay Ratio & Overshoot of the second order
underdamped system) of U-Tube Manometer by estimating the Time
constant and damping coefficient
- To plot graphs of Liquid level change (Manometer reading) versus time

Theoretical Background of the Experiment

- Unsteady state flows under suitable assumptions are known to follow
second order dynamics. Systems with such second order dynamics are
described using a second order governing differential equations.
- In this experiment, for the manometer system, we develop the transfer
function to study the dependence of Applied pressure difference (ΔP) on
the Manometer reading (h).
- On imposing a step change in the (ΔP) what follows is an underdamped
response of the manometer (under suitable conditions) with respect to the
height of the fluid in the legs of the manometer.
 2

Where,
● H(s) = Laplace transform of deviation height ‘h’
● ΔP(s) = Laplace transform of applied pressure difference across the legs of
the manometer
● τ = Time constant of the manometer
● ζ​ = Damping coefficient of the control system

The damping coefficient and time constant depend on the physical dimensions of
the manometer tube, properties of the fluid and length of the fluid column in the
manometer tube. The following relations describe the dependence :

A typical plot of deviation variable versus the input variable for a second order
system is as follows:
 3

Derivation
Considering our system to be the fluid inside the tube, we apply the force
balance across it.

From the above figure,

(Force due to P1) - (Force due to P2) - (Force due to gravity) - (Drag force
due to friction) = (Mass of the fluid column) x (Acceleration)

Here "v" is the average velocity of the fluid in the manometer tube.

The skin frictional drag experienced by the fluid (our system) due to the presence
of walls is given by the product of shear stress at the wall and the Area of contact
with the wall. So,​ ​drag = (Shear Stress) x (Area of contact)​.
 4

Here we can express the average velocity in terms of the rate of change of
manometer reading(h) with respect to its static equilibrium position.

Now, we substitute this drag back into our force balance, to get

On dividing both sides by the product of density, Area and length of fluid in the
column, we get

Now, we simplify it further into the following form

 5

On taking the laplace transform of the above equation, we get:

Comparing this with the standard form of second order transfer function, we can
clearly see that :

Experimental Setup & Procedure

Apparatus:
● A U-TubeManometer
● Pressure Regulator
● Valves(V1, V2) to control air supply

Procedure:
● Ensure that both valves V1 and V2 are closed

● Use the compressor to supply pressure to the setup through valve V1.
 6

● Now, keeping the valve V2 closed, we can control the air pressure applied
on the right column of the manometer through the pressure regulator.

● Adjust the pressure regulator to obtain the desired change in liquid level
within the manometer
➢ Record the height of the manometric fluid.

● Open the valve V2 to release the air pressure exerted on the right column.
➢ The sudden decrease in pressure applied to the right column acts as
a step change
➢ On opening valve V2, you will observe an oscillatory response as the
liquid tries to obtain its equilibrium position

● Record the height of the manometric fluid at several different times. Also
make a note of the final steady state height of the manometric fluid.
➢ Use the readings obtained to make a plot of height of the fluid V/S
time.

● Repeat the experiment for multiple step changes

Closing procedure (After experiment is complete):

● Stop the supply of air
● Release all air by opening valve V2.
● Close both valves V1 and V2

Schematic Diagram
 7

Theoretical Calculations:

Now on rearranging the relation that we obtained from the Transfer function:

On substituting the values of all the parameters, we get,

Sample Calculations​:

We are already well acquainted with the following equations:

 8

Rearranging the above equations so as to obtain the values of ​damping

coefficient​ from the graph, we get

And the values of the ​time constant​ can be calculated from

From plot for Run-1

Note: Plots have been obtained in terms of deviation variables
 9

Hence we get,

Damping coefficient​ for the above values

Time constant​ calculation

From plot for RUN-2

From the graph we can observe,

 10

Damping coefficient​ for the above values:

Time constant​ calculation

 11

From plot for RUN-3

From the graph we can observe,

Damping coefficient​ for the above values

 12

Time constant​ Calculation

Error Analysis:

a b c Decay Ratio Overshoot

Run-1 4.04 14.5 0.61 0.15099 0.27862
Run-2 5.6 28.5 1.28 0.22857 0.19649
Run-3 5.814 41.2 0.743 0.12779 0.141116

With respect to Decay Ratio

Damping Time Error in Damping Error in Time
Coefficient Constant Coefficient constant
0.28642 0.25465 471.6966068 0.2559055118
0.23128 0.26323 361.6367265 3.633858268
0.30968 0.24818 518.1237525 2.291338583
Avg. Error 450.485 2.06

With respect to Overshoot

Damping Time Error in Damping Error in Time
Coefficient constant Coefficient constant
0.37566 0.24632 649.8203593 3.023622047
0.44171 0.24274 781.6566866 4.433070866
0.52487 0.22217 947.6447106 12.53149606
Avg. Error 793.04 6.6627
 13

Sources of Error:
● One of the plausible reasons for the error may be due to the fact that the
oscillations do not occur exactly around steady state height.
○ The unevenness or roughness of the surface of the tube leads to an
additional frictional force as a result of which the oscillations may be
slightly below steady state height of the mercury column.

● Instrumental Error: ​There may be certain errors associated with each

instrument due to the least count associated with it. In our case this may
arise due to the radius of the manometer tube and height of the liquid
column inside it.

The magnitude of this error is likely to be significantly less when compared

to other sources of error mentioned here such as human error and model
error described below

● Human Error:​ Some part of the error can be attributed to mistakes made in
performing the experiment/recording the readings by the experimenter.
There may be error due to parallax.Such an error may result in a number
of invalid readings

● Model Error​: ​Throughout the experiment we have assumed the flow

throughout the manometer to be laminar. However, due the large error
observed we must consider that our underlying assumption may not be
true.The large deviation of theoretical values from those obtained
experimentally could be because the manometric fluid follows a different
flow model.

Findings/Inferences:

❖ Through the oscillatory behaviour shown by the height V/S time plots we
were able to verify that the U-tube manometer behaves as a second order
underdamped system.
 14

❖ Working Principle of Manometers:

➢ They work on the principle of hydrodynamic equilibrium and allows

us to measure the difference in pressure in the two arms. Hence, on
introducing a step change we are able to observe the changes within
the system, make a note of the liquid levels at different times and
study the second order response.

➢ It is also important to note that we consider the liquid in the

manometer to be an incompressible, newtonian fluid as a result of
which we can also say that the flow is laminar.

❖ Physical Significance of Damping coefficient, Decay Ratio, Overshoot

➢ Overshoot: ​Overshoot denotes the margin by which the response

exceeds the ultimate value after a step change and is expressed as
the ratio A/B where A and B are denoted in the image below.

■ It is important for us to study the overshoot of a response so

as to get a clear idea of the values we can expect. In many
real world applications such as in a chemical reactor, an
increase in temperature above a certain value may cause
damage to the reactor or may lead to the deactivation of the
catalyst being used.
■ Knowing the physical limitations, by studying the overshoot we
can choose system parameters to ensure an efficient and safe
process

➢ Decay ratio:​ It is defined as the ratio of the heights of two

consecutive peaks and is given by C/A where C and A are denoted
in the image below.
■ Due to various energy losses, the oscillations of a second
order system gradually attenuate
■ The decay ratio gives us a good measure of how rapidly the
oscillations of a second order system decrease in amplitude.
 15

Fig: Image taken from Process systems and analysis control by Donald Coughanowar

❖ Effects of change in density/viscosity of the manometric fluid on decay

ration and time constant​:
➢ Another important aspect of this experiment which needs to be
talked about is the density and viscosity of the manometric fluid.

➢ Although due to restrictions of the online semester we were not able

to verify results for different fluids, through various online videos and
resources it is clear that a change in the density/viscosity of the
liquid being used can have a significant impact on the decay ratio
obtained.

➢ However, the time constant seems to remain unchanged.

➢ This can be understood by having a closer look at the theoretical

equations
 16

➢ From the given equation of time constant, it is clear that the time
constant has no dependence on the density/viscosity of the liquid as
a result of which the period of oscillation for the liquid remains the
same.

➢ Having established that the time constant is independent of

density/viscosity, the second equation further tells us due to the
dependence of the equation on the coefficient of viscosity and
density, an increase in viscosity (or decrease in density) will lead to
an increase in the damping coefficient.

➢ The change in damping coefficient will further help us understand

and explain the change in decay ratio/overshoot through the formula
given below

➢ This can also be understood physically as an increase in damping

coefficient indicates an increase in damping. The increased damping
results in a greater difference between successive peaks (value of C
in DR is small) as a result of which decay ratio decreases

❖ Effect of ΔP on H V/S t plots

➢ Similar to various factors discussed above, another factor which
could potentially have an impact on our observations was the
pressure applied on the right column of the manometer

➢ Through 3 different runs of the experiment (each at different ΔP), we

expected the experimentally observed values for the decay ratio and
time constant to be the same in each case.

➢ We also observed that on changing the pressure applied, although

the H V/S t plot remained the same qualitatively, quantitatively a
change was seen and the amplitude of oscillations was different in
each case.
 17

➢ This can be attributed to the fact the momentum balance(and hence

the maximum/minimum height reached in each oscillation) depends
upon the pressure difference exerted.

❖ Effect of length of the liquid and diameter of the manometer

Similar to factors already studied, we used a number of online
videos/journals/manuals to understand the kind of effect the physical
parameter of the apparatus may have.

Through our studies, we were able to arrive at the following conclusions

➢ Length of fluid in the column:

■ On increasing the length of the column we observe an
increase in the time constant as well as an increase in the
damping coefficient
■ This can be attributed to the greater inertia of the fluid as a
result of which its oscillations will take longer
■ From the theoretically obtained expressions, it is also easy for
us to establish the time constant is directly proportional to the
square root of the length of the fluid in the column
■ Similarly, we also find that the damping coefficient is directly
proportional to the square root of the length of the fluid in the
column

➢ Diameter of the manometer U-tube:

○ A change in the diameter of the manometer U-tube does not
affect the time constant observed for the experiment.
○ As the inertia of the liquid remains the same, it can be said the
period of oscillations also remains unaffected. Hence no
change will be observed in the time constant as well
○ However, an increase in the diameter will result in a decrease
in the frictional forces acting upon the liquid. Hence it is
observed that the damping coefficient decreases with an
increase in diameter. (Less damping as diameter increases)
○ This can also be observed theoretically from the following
expression (where tau is constant, explained above):
 18

❖ Effects of Capillarity (in case of thinner tubes)

➢ Capillarity refers to the tendency of a liquid to rise or fall within a
capillary tube as a result of the surface tension of the liquid
➢ However, in the case of a U-tube manometer, the effects produced
by surface tension will be the same in both arms of the manometer.
Hence no net effect can be observed.
➢ It should be noted that capillarity will produce a net effect and may
play a role in the overall force balance if the the two arms of the
manometer used differ in radius.

Precautions:

❖ Ensure that the pressure in the manometer does not go above pressure
0.4 kg/cm2 in case of mercury and 0.1 kg/cm2 in case of water and CCl4

❖ While adjusting pressure using the pressure regulator, ensure that the
change is gradual and not abrupt.
➢ Incase of an abrupt change, manometric fluid may escape from the
top of the left arm of the manometer

❖ Accidentally if the manometer fluid comes in the catch pot, fill it again into
that and note down the time and height one by one.

Scope of Improvement:

With every passing day equations become more and more sophisticated
requiring more detailed and accurate experimental verifications. Many
applications today require extremely accurate measurements of low pressure
and low differentials.
 19

In order to improve the resolution and accuracy of our manometer U-tube

experiment and reduce error, we suggest conducting the experiment with an
indicating tube inclined as shown below.

Figure taken from Meriam Measurement Manual

Using this arrangement we can observe 1” of the vertical liquid height on 12” of
the scale thus improving our least count significantly and reducing the parallax
error.

In this case, we would have to be careful to use the effective acceleration due to
gravity (g sin θ) in our calculations in place of g.