1.

0 OBJECTIVE

There are several objectives of this experiment which are:

 To identify the important components of the level and flow control system.
 To carry out the start-up procedures systematically.
 To study level control system using PID controller.
 To study Level-Flow cascade control.
2.0 SUMMARY

The level flow plant control was conducted to identify the important components of the
level and flow control system also to carry out the start up procedures systematically. It
necessary to know each part of the plant and how the plant operate and functioning. The
principle of level flow plant control also should be studied before conducting the plant. Other
than that, the purpose of this experiment was to study the level control system using PID
controller and level flow cascade control. It must run with a good observation. The level and
flow must be control very carefully so that it can give good result. By the results that were
getting, shown at table 1 a discussion was done to compare all the data was obtained. It can be
concluded that the objectives stated have been related to the experiment with some
recommendations to improve the performance and error occur during experiments which had
been stated in conclusion.
3.0 INTRODUCTION & THEORY

This experiment uses water to simulate liquid phase physical processes by identified
the importance of level and flow control system by follow the procedure systematically. Level
and flow can be controlled with PID controllers. When the system suffers from fluctuating
inflow and a more precise control of level is required, the single-loop PID controllers are not
sufficient. PID controllers are used in most automated process control applications. The
parameter used in this process is able to regulate temperature, flow, pressure, and level. P&ID
algorithm consists of three basic coefficients which is proportional, integral and derivative
which are varied to get optimal response. Each coefficients reacts differently to the error. The
amount of response produces by each control mode with adjustable by changing the controller’s
tuning settings. (National instrument, 2011).

The proportional component depends only on the difference between the set point and the
process variable. This difference is referred to as the Error term. The proportional
gain (Kc) determines the ratio of output response to the error signal. The integral response will
continually increase over time unless the error is zero, so the effect is to drive the Steady-State
error to zero. Steady-State error is the final difference between the process variable and set
point. The derivative response is proportional to the rate of change of the process variable.
Increasing the derivative time (Td) parameter will cause the control system to react more
strongly to changes in the error term and will increase the speed of the overall control system
response.

Figure 1: Proportional Figure 2: Integral Figure 3: Derivation

control action control action control action

Cascade Response

Figure 4: Cascade control action

Cascade control is to minimize the disturbances that affect the secondary variable before them
because pronounced changes in the primary controlled variable. Another advantage is the
improvement in the speed of response of the secondary variable. Cascade control utilizes two
control loops: a master loop and a slave loop. The master loop contains the primary, or master
controller and monitors the primary variable. The slave loop contains a secondary, or slave
controller which monitors a second variable. The output of the master controller is connected
to the set-point input of the slave controller, causing the two controllers to be cascaded.
Cascade control should always be used with relatively slow dynamics (like level, temperature,
composition, humidity) and a liquid or gas flow, or some other relatively-fast process, has to
be manipulated to control the slow process. (Jacques F. Smuts, 2017)

Open loop system

Figure 5: Open loop control system

In process control device are usually containing Open loop and closed loop system, but in this
report will discuss more for open loop system. The principal drawback of open-loop control is
a loss of accuracy. Without feedback, there is no guarantee that the control efforts applied to
the process will actually have the desired effect.. A feed forward controller uses a mathematical
model of the process to make its initial control moves like an experienced operator would. It
then measures the results of its open-loop efforts and makes additional corrections as necessary
like a traditional feedback controller. Feed forward is particularly useful when sensors are
available to measure an impending disturbance before it hits the process. If its future effects on
the process can be accurately predicted with the process model, the controller can take
preemptive actions to counteract the disturbance as it occurs (Vance VanDoren, 2014)
4.0 RESULTS
5.0 DISCUSSIONS

In this experiment, there were three sub-experiments that have been conducted in order to
achieve the objectives. Three of sub-experiments are Open Tank operation (Self Regulated
Process), Closed Tank Operation (Self Regulated Process) and Level Flow Cascade of Open
Tank, Self Regulating Control. The experiment was started with the start-up procedures where
it needs to be conducted for PID trial value and the set point variable (SV) in always in Manual
(M) mode.

LIC31, PID1, LOOP 1 FIC31, PID2, LOOP 2

FIRST (I) SECOND (II) FIRST (I) SECOND (II)

TRIAL PID TRIAL PID TRIAL PID TRIAL PID

Set Point SV1 200-600 mm 200-600 mm Set Point SV2 0.9-2.4 m3/Hr 0.9-2.4 m3/Hr

PB1 30% 10% PB1 250% 100%

TI1 25 sec 15 sec TI1 10 sec 6 sec

TD1 0 sec 0 sec TD1 0 sec 0 sec

PH1 600 mm PL2 0.5 m3/Hr

Table2: PID Trial Values

Based on the table above shows that the data of PID trials value for two loop LIC31, PID1
and LIC31, PID2 where consist of two trials. Besides, from the figure above show the result
from PID trials in manual (M) mode. The green pen shows the flow of water while red pen
shows the level of water during the process. Meanwhile, in this PID trials also adjusted the
manipulated variable, MV to 25% where the LCV31 was 25% opened. It obviously showed
that the flow response was higher than level. It can be proved where green pen approximately
at 76% while the red pen is decreasing smoothly to achieve 46%.
 There were response of flow and level in the open tank operation where self regulating
process. At this process, the manipulated variable is 60% and in manual, M mode. As for the
Open-Tank Operation, the pump P31 needs to be closed and not operated. Then, the selector
need to be switched to position 1 for LIC31. After adjusting the MV values, pump 32 was
started and manual by-pass valve B32 was shut. When the pump 32 was started, the red pen
and the green pen started to give a reading. Not to forget, the rising of the water level in the
sight glass and the overflow drain valve (D) was fully opened as for the water to overflow back
into T32. Next, the tank level had been observed as to wait the level reached a steady state
(SV=MV). As the level reached, the steady state it could be proven that the experiment, were
in self regulating operation. The result showed that the flow response is more fast than level.
The observation of self regulating are the level process can control itself to reach a steady state.
The out flow rate depending on the tank level where it is driven by gravity flow. Therefore, the
higher the level, higher the out flow rate dependently.

Next, will be the discussion of close tank self regulating process. As LIC31 in manual (M)
mode, the MV was adjusted to 25%. Then, checked the level sight glass at Tank T31, to make
sure it was about 400mm (50%) or more. Then, for this experiment, the Top vent (V), overflow
drain valve (D) and discharge valves were closed as to pressurize the T31. From the result on
the chart, there were fluctuation happened when the process was set into Auto (A) mode. It
showed the peak occurred. As the process in auto (A) mode, the flow pen peak was 36% and
decreasing to 34% for the second peak and third peak thus immediately decrease to 0% at 3
m3/Hr. meanwhile, level pen showed the increasing from 48% to 52% then increase again to
56% at 3 m3/Hr. after that, when the tank T31 closed, the pump p32 started, the flow damping
to 0% while the level increase to 56%.

The experiment was continued to level – flow cascade. As for starters, T31 was restored
as open tank. Switched the Selector to position 1 and display LIC31. As in the manual (M)
mode, set (SV1) =400mm and MV= 50%. Then, put the controller Selector switch to position
2 and display FIC31. Next, set (SV2) =1.8m3/Hr. The PID values was set for the second trial
in Manual (M) mode.
LIC31 (PID1, LOOP1): PB1=10%, TI1=15 secs, TD1=0sec

FIC31 (PID2, LOOP2): PB2=100%, TI2=6 secs. TD2=0sec

It could be shown that, the pens started to give respond as it changes to Auto mode. Then,
as the pump 32 stop, the flow pen started to drop to 0% and waited for the tank T31 to be
empty. Next, by displaying LIC31, in manual mode change MV=50% and changed back to
auto mode. Globe valve were closed as the pump P32 start to operate again. Then, the level
(red pen) and inflow (green pen) were observed. From the theory, the inflow should increase
at faster rate than the level but both will eventually reach at their steady state values. Therefore,
it could be shown that, the green pen (inflow) already at near to steady state while the red pen
(level) had long way to reach a steady state. So, it could be shown that, the level has much
larger lag time constant than flow rate. Therefore, the level rise is slower and more gradual.

Next, SV2 was set at 1.5 m3/hr (FIC31) in manual mode and changed back to auto but then,
the green pen (flow) could be seen that in the chart paper there was too much oscillatory.
Therefore, for the second loop, (FIC31) (PID2, LOOP2): PB2=150%, TI2=6secs, TD2=0secs.
Then, after observed the oscillatory decreasing, then proceed to 2nd PID trials.

LIC31 (PID1, LOOP1): PB1=10%, TI1=15 secs, TD1=0sec

FIC31 (PID2, LOOP2): PB2=100%, TI2=6 secs TD2=0sec

Then, in position 2, FIC31, switched to Cascade (C) mode. From the figure, it could be
shown that, there was more oscillations happened after changed to cascade. Based from what
could be observed, the red pen (Level) was the master and the green pen (Inflow) was the slave.
It could be shown as the green pen moved a lot compared to the red pen. The inflow (green
pen) was unimportant as long as the Level was controlled at its set point and for the secondary
loop (Flow) must be faster than the primary loop (Level). As the experiment was shown and
need to follow the cascade concept which was the Secondary (Flow) must be faster than
Primary (Level).
 There some error that will affected the data been recorded such as the experimenter
misunderstanding the manual which that wrongly open and close the valve, second there no
labelled on the valve where the experimenter did not know what the valve and lastly, the
experimenter wrongly set the data that had been set on the manual.
6.0 CONCLUSION

As a conclusion, the aims of experiment was to identify the important components of

the level and flow control system, carry out the start-up procedures systemically, study level
control system using the PID controller and study level-flow cascade control. During this
experiment, there data must been observe at LIC31 and FIC31 when setting the MV during the
open tank operation. First, experiment where by setting the MV by manual mode where try to
find the best range where the flowrate in the tank will steady 400±mm. The graph back to
steady state when the water in tank start out from the tank based from MV in 30 seconds
assumption and the objective one positively done. From that, this can undergoes to second and
third objectives single loop experiment where the MV will rise to 50% with same level of water
or SV. This will view on FIC31 on auto mode where the SV 2 will set in 1.8 m3/hr with PID 1
and 2 setting for look the graph and to achieve the third objective on how will responded in
auto mode. This setting will see how fast the responded from manual mode to auto mode. And
the responded during changed the mode was 15 seconds or in other words less of oscillations
where the graph back to set point, from there to see more responded of PID a disturbance was
input to the instrument at range 10% to 20% and the graph positively back to set point or been
greater back to set point without any oscillations in time assumptions 10 seconds. From there,
to check how great the graph been taken or recorded when change the auto mode to cascade
the SV2 that must change from 1.8 to 1.5 m3/hr. In cascade mode, the green pen was important
to see because during cascade mode the red pen was the most important to see. LIC31 was
recorded the graph where it smoothly back to set point where both pen reach steady state at
assumption of time 15 seconds. This showed that the graph less oscillation during change to
cascade and it fast response even added some 10% to 20% of disturbances. From there the
objective no 4 positively achieved.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There some recommendation to eliminate the error that perform during then
experiment, such as the experimenter must understand the manual at first before starting the
experiment or the equipment, the maintenance must be held twice a week to make sure there
name labelled each valve to avoid wrongly open or close the valve and lastly experimenter
must read and focus during the experiment to avoid wrongly graph been recorded.
7.0 REFERENCES

Azura baharudin. (n.d.). INTRO THEORY LEVEL FLOW.docx | Control System | Systems
Science. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from
https://www.scribd.com/document/356841850/INTRO-THEORY-LEVEL-FLOW-
docx

Control notes. (n.d.). A Tutorial on Cascade Control | Control Notes. Retrieved February 25,
2018, from http://blog.opticontrols.com/archives/105

Dataforth. (n.d.). Introduction to PID Control - Dataforth. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from
https://www.dataforth.com/introduction-to-pid-control.aspx

Dale E. Seborg, Thomas F. Edgar, Duncan A. Mellichamp, Process Dynamics and Control,
John Wiley & Sons Inc, Third Edition, New York, 2011

Douglas J. Cooper, Practical Process Control e-Textbook, The Cascade Control Architecture,
2007, University of Connecticut [Online]. [Accessed 21st February 2018]. Available
from World Wide Web: http://www.controlguru.com/2007/070607.html

Integrating-non-self-regulating-processes, 2007. [Online]. [Accessed 23rd February 2018].

Available from World Wide Web http://www.controlstation.com/page/179-14

Jacques F. Smuts. (n.d.). PID Controllers Explained | Control Notes. [Online]. [Accessed 23rd
February 2018]. Available from World Wide Web from
http://blog.opticontrols.com/archives/344

National instruments. (n.d.). PID Theory Explained - National Instruments. . [Online].

[Accessed 23rd February 2018]. Available from World Wide Web from
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3782/en/

Omirou, S. (n.d.). Automation and Control systems – AMEM 326 Title: Open and Closed-
Loop Control Systems -(Motor speed). [Online]. [Accessed 23rd February 2018].
Available from World Wide Web
http://staff.fit.ac.cy/eng.os/Lab_control_AMEM326.pdf

Recognizing integrating (non-self regulating) process behaviour, 2007. [Online]. [Accessed

23rd February 2018]. Available from World Wide Web
http://www.controlguru.com/2007/070607.html/