ChE 4198 Semester Project

Blending Process Simulation & Control

Final Report

Group 9

John Frick

Mae Anne Mangaoil

Sonja Nguyen

Amirali Rafiei
Problem Diagram:

Operating & Design Conditions:

Process Description:

Two components are fed separately into a tank and blended to create a product with a desired composition. Both

feed streams are specified with the conditions listed above. The system does not have a control system and may

operate outside of desired operating conditions.

1
Stage 1:

A.​ ​Nonlinear Process Model ​(simulate the time behavior of the state variables with time)

​Mass & Component Balances:

Figure 1: State Variables vs. Time

Description:​ The graph above displays the state variables vs. time. Both concentration and height are
dependent on the input variables which are unchanged (no disturbances) for the specified time, which
results in the state variables remaining constant.

2
B.​ ​Model in Simulink ​(incorporate a delay and measurement noise in each of the output process variables)

Figure 2: Non-linear Model

3
Figure 3: Non-linear Model Subsystem

Figure 4: Tank Level Subsystem

4
Figure 5: Input Composition Subsystem

Figure 6: Output Composition Subsystem

5
C.​ ​Analyze the Process Behavior (​for changes in the process parameters and for a range of input perturbations)

Figure 7: Level vs Input (Manipulated)

Figure 8: Level vs Input (Disturbance)

Description:​ ​Figure 7​ displays the change in level inside the tank vs. the input, with the parameters
specified in the project document. In this case, no variable was manipulated and the graph represents the
change in height only with respect to the uncontrollable disturbances. Moreover, the oscillations result
from the system constantly attempting to stabilize the process. The response to a disturbance in an input
variable is shown in ​Figure 8.​ Feed flow of A (FA) was increased from 1m​3​ to 1.2m​3​. As expected, the
level in the tank is increased in response to the increased feed flow.

6
Figure 9: Outlet Concentration B vs. Input (Manipulated)

Figure 10: Outlet Concentration B vs. Input (Disturbance)

Description:​ ​Figure 9​ displays the change in level inside the tank vs. the input, with specified
parameters. In this case, no variable was manipulated and the graph represents the change in height only
with respect to the uncontrollable disturbances. Moreover, the oscillations result from the system
constantly attempting to stabilize the process.​ ​While ​Figure 10​ displays the change in the concentration
of component B in the feed, with increased concentration of component B (XB) in the feed from 0.8 to
1.

7
Stage 2:

Figure 11: Linear Model

Figure 12: Linear Subsystem 1

8
Figure 13: Linear Tank Height

Figure 14: Linear Tank Height Transfer Functions

Figure 15: Linear Concentration

9
Figure 16: Linear Concentration Transfer Functions

A.​ ​Identification of Transfer Function Models

Figure 17: Design Parameters for FA Height Transfer Function Values

Description:​ ​Figure 17 ​ displays the model parameters for the PI controller for change in feed flow of A
vs. height.

10
Figure 18: FA Step Changes vs. Height

Figure 19: FB Height Transfer Function Values

Description:​ ​Figures 18 and 19 ​ displays the change in level inside the tank vs. step change inputs of
feed flow of A and B. Separately, both FA and FB was increased and decreased to test the response of
the height level inside the tank. As expected, an increased step change of 0.5 resulted in an increased

11
 height and a decreased step change of 0.5 resulted in a decreased height. When feed flow rates were
returned to original values, the height also returned to original levels.

Figure 20: Design Parameters for FB Concentration Transfer Function Values

Figure 21: FB Concentration Transfer Function Values

12
 Description:​ ​Figure 21​ shows that when FB was increased or decreased by a step change of 0.5, the
concentration of B increased or decreased, respectively. Also, the concentration of B remained the same
when FB was left unchanged.

Figure 22: FA Step Changes vs. Concentration

Description: ​Figure 22 ​ shows that when FA is increased or decreased by a step change of 0.5, the
concentration of B changes inversely. An increase of FA results in a decrease in the concentration of B,
while a decrease in FA increases the concentration of B. The concentration of B also reverts to the initial
value when no changes were made.

13
Figure 23: XA Step Changes vs. New Concentration

Figure 24: XB Step Changes vs. New Concentration

14
Description: ​Figures 23 & 24 ​ display the change in concentration versus a step change input of every inlet
concentration of every component. The graph shows that the new concentration only oscillates by 0.05 when
there’s a step change of 0.1 and the process approaches steady state after 96 minutes. The transfer functions that
were used are resulting in an overdamped process which has a slow change and it takes a long time to reach the
steady state.After using the concentration controller, this is the best graph we could come up with.

Stage 3:
A. Design and Implementation of Controllers using Linear Model
Figure 25: New Linear Level and Concentration Controllers

15
Figure 26: New Linear Level Controller (Red circle located above the green subgroup)

Figure 27: New Linear Concentration Controller (Red circle located below the green subgroup)

Description: ​These feedback loop controllers will look at what the height and concentrations are at the end of
the process and then send a signal to the beginning of the process. According to that signal, the flows of
components A and B will be adjusted. The graphs below will show how the process is changed after the
controllers were implemented.

B. Linear vs. Non-Linear Comparisons

Figure 28: Outlet Concentration vs. Input Response Curve before Controller Implementation

16
Figure 29: Outlet Concentration vs. Input Step Change

Description: ​Figure 28​ shows a comparison of the change in the outlet concentration of B in the Linear
and Non-Linear Model with a step change of 0.2 for the inlet concentration of B. ​Figure 29​ displays the
change in concentration of B in the inlet. After 5 minutes, the concentration increased and remained
constant (step change).

Figure 30: Height vs. Input Response Curve

Figure 31: Height vs. Input Step Change

17
Description: ​Figure 30 s​ hows a comparison of the change in the level in the tank in the Linear and Non-Linear
Model with a step change of 0.5 for the feed flow of A. ​Figure 31 d​ isplays the change feed flow of A. After 10
minutes, the level increased and stabilized at about 30 mins. (step change).

C. Analysis of Process Response

Disturbance Changes
Figure 32: FA vs. Outlet Concentration

18
Figure 33: FA Step Change

Description: ​Figure 32 ​ shows the outlet concentration response to a step change of 0.5 m3/min in FA. At 10
minutes, the step change is introduced and the outlet concentration dips from ~0.6 to ~0.58, and is observed to
return to the ~0.6 range again at 15 minutes. This is the result of the concentration controller working to
maintain the outlet concentration at 0.6. ​Figure 33​ displays the magnitude of the step change in FA with respect
to time. At 10 minutes, a step change with the magnitude of 0.5 m3/min is introduced.

19
Figure 34: FB vs. Height

Figure 35: FB Step Change

Description: ​Figure 34​ shows the tank level response to a step change of 0.5 m3/min in FB. At 10 minutes, the
step change is introduced and the outlet concentration increases from ~1 to ~1.1, and is observed to return to the
~1 range again at 15 minutes-40 minutes. This is the result of the height controller working to maintain the tank
level at 1. ​Figure 35 ​displays the magnitude of the step change in FB with respect to time. At 10 minutes, a step
change with the magnitude of 0.5 m3/min is introduced.

20
Figure 36: XA vs. Outlet Concentration

Figure 37: XA Step Change

Description: ​Figure 36​ shows the outlet concentration response to a step change of 0.1 in XA. At 5 minutes,
the step change is introduced and the outlet concentration dips from ~0.62 to ~0.59, and is observed to return to
the ~0.6 range again at 15 minutes. This is the result of the concentration controller working to maintain the
outlet concentration at 0.6. ​Figure 37 ​ displays the magnitude of the step change in XA with respect to time. At
5 minutes, a step change with the magnitude of 0.5 m3/min is introduced.

21
Figure 38: XB vs. Height

Figure 39: XB Step Change

Description: ​Figure 38 s​ hows the tank level response to a step change of 0.1 XB. At 10 minutes, the step
change is introduced and the tank level dips from ~1 to ~0.88, and is observed to return to the ~1 range again at
25 minutes. This is the result of the height controller working to maintain the tank level at 1m. ​Figure 39
displays the magnitude of the step change in XB with respect to time. At 10 minutes, a step change with the
magnitude of 0.1 is introduced.

22
Set Point Changes

Figure 40: Height Set Point Change

Description: ​ The height set point was changed from 1m to 2m. The graph shows that initially, the
height overshoots just a little bit, but the controller brings it back down and keeps the height at 2.

Figure 41: Concentration Set Point Change

Description: ​ The concentration set point was changed from 0.6 to 0.7. Just like the change in the height
set point, the system overshoots just a little and then it goes down immediately to 0.7.

23
Discussion

The project problem involves two components with specified feed streams that are being fed into a tank

and blended to produce a product with desired compositions. The system does not have a control system and

may operate outside of desired operating conditions. Initially, a nonlinear process model was developed, which

simulated the time behavior of the state variables with time. Then the Linear and Non-linear Models were

implemented in Simulink and the process behavior of the system was analyzed. On the Non-Linear Model,

when no variable was manipulated, the graph of the level vs. input showed the system constantly attempting to

stabilize the process. However, when a disturbance was introduced (FA was increased from 1m​3​ to 1.2m​3)​, the

level in the tank increased. Then the outlet concentration of B vs. Input was analyzed. When no variable was

manipulated, the graph shows the change in height and the oscillations resulted from the system constantly

stabilizing the process. Then when the feed concentration of B was changed from 0.8 to 1, the outlet

concentration of B increased and then stabilized.

After analyzing the process behavior of the Non-Linear Model, the Linear Model was implemented in

Simulink. Then the design parameters for FA height transfer function values were identified. The model

parameters were Gain (K) =1.00, Time constant= 5.10 mins, Dead time= 0.105 mins, and goodness of fit (R^2)

= 0.990. Then Kc=0.961 and time constant= 5.10 when a PI controller was used. Then the design parameters for

the FB concentration transfer values were identified. The model parameters were Gain (K) =0.106, Time

constant= 2.45 mins, Dead time= 0.126 mins, and goodness of fit (R^2) = 0.944. Then Kc=8.72 and time

constant= 2.45 when a PI controller was used. After the design parameters were identified, the process behavior

was analyzed. The feed flow of A and B were manipulated separately. When the feed flow of A and B were

decreased and increased by a step change of 0.5, the height decreased and increased respectively. Additionally,

when the feed flow rates were returned to the original values, the heights also returned to the original levels.

Moreover, FA vs. concentration and FB vs. concentration were analyzed. When FB was increased or decreased

by a step change of 0.5, the concentration of B increased or decreased, respectively. Also, the concentration of

24
B remained the same when FB was left unchanged. Then when FA is increased or decreased by a step change of

0.5, the concentration of B changes inversely. The concentration of B also reverted to the initial value when no

changes were made. Then XA & XB vs. new concentration were analyzed. When there was a step change of

0.1, the new concentration only oscillated by 0.05 and the process approached steady state after 96 minutes.

Then controllers were added in the Linear Model, which responds to input disturbances to maintain the

desired height and concentration of the process (output variables). Then depending on the signal, the flows of

components A and B will be adjusted accordingly. Input variable step changes were introduced to the process to

test the response of the controllers implemented. In all cases, the response would increase/decrease rapidly after

the introduction of the step change and then attempt to stabilize at the desired set point. Insignificant oscillations

were observed in the process responses that show that the controller continuously attempts to correct operation

conditions until satisfied. Tests changing set points were also conducted. In one case, the set point of height was

increased from 1m to 2m while keeping the concentration set point constant. As expected, the height increased

from 1m to 2m with time and remained constant. The same result was observed with an increased set point of

outlet concentration from 0.6 to 0.7. In conclusion, the height and concentration controllers that were

implemented are successful at maintaining the process at the desired set points.

25