Sei sulla pagina 1di 12

Caso de estudio 5: Dynamic Models Design

Control Dynamics Laboratory

María Adelaida Landazabal, María José Matamoros, Wendy
Gómez, Nicolás Muriel Cepeda
October 19, 2018

The behavior of the dynamic system which consist on a stirred tank was
characterized by transfer functions and experimental datas, finding parameters as
the steady-state gain (k) and the time constant (T) . The output variable was the
outlet temperature of the stirred tank, while the two manipulate variables were the
cold flow (first disturbance) and the temperature of the hot stream ( second
disturbance) of the system. In the case of the theoretical method, the two
transfer functions were found and the k values for the first and second
disturbance were -0,13 and 0,49 respectively. While for the time constant tao, the
both transfer function had the same value 1,7 minutes. The initial outlet
temperature of the reactor was 22,5°c ,for the first disturbance should increase
to 23,1°C and for the second one should increase 29,1°C according to the data
obtained on simulink. In the case of the experimental data, a graphic method was
developed to evaluate the two disturbance. The values the gain k were -1,52 and
1,17 respectively. And for the constant time tao the values were 4,7 and 3,7
respectively. The temperature of the reactor increased for the first disturbance to
26,9°C and for the second one 38,6°C.
Key words: dynamic system, disturbance, transfer function, steady-state gain,
constant time
1. Introduction:
A process can be considered a dynamic system by having a change over time.
The analysis of these systems allows to know the behavior of the system and the
evolution with time, even when there are disturbances to the system. When
characterizing the dynamic model of a system it is possible to obtain a set of
equations that relate the variables of interest of the process and allow the
recognition of the same.
Systems can have linearity or non-linearity behavior, the non-linearity of the
system implies that the application of the same signal at two different points of the
process generates different responses.
The non-linearity of the systems is not desired because it affects the control
system in the processes and fail to achieve a configuration between the
interacting components that provides a desired behavior in the output variable of
the system. In general, the control systems are based on the feedback method,
modifying the input variable according to the results in the output variable. All this
could not be possible without the ability to linearize a system to characterize it
and determine its parameters.
To linearize a system, it is necessary to consider the input variables of the system
and the output variables for each equation and, additionally, take into account the
stationary state point of the system as a point of linearization to partially derive
the aforementioned variables and then evaluate them in the stationary point. In
this way, a linear differential equation will be obtained, which will be expressed in
terms of the deviation variables.

2. Methodology:
2.1 General assembly of the system:
For the execution and development of the practice the CSTR reactor was used
with water as fluid, where two input variables were set to perform the steps and
in this way to be able to determine the theoretical and experimental differences in
the dynamic operation of the equipment. The assembly of the system consisted
of: the stirred tank of the CSTR reactor, all its electrical and software system. For
the movement and control of the hot and cold fluids the pumps of the system
were not used, some pumps were used coupled to the equipment. For the cold
fluid, the pump of the laboratory distillation equipment was coupled and for the
hot fluid a laboratory pump was used which moves the fluid at a constant speed
and in which it is not possible to change the pump speeds. In order to determine
the flow that would be worked during the practice when handling the distiller's
pump, the calibration curve was performed.
2.2 First Step Change :
To observe and be able to analyze the dynamic characteristics of the equipment,
firstly, the steps that were to be taken to observe the behavior of the system were
determined, it was determined that the flow of the hot current would remain
constant and what would be varied from this would be the temperature, on the
other hand, for the cold current the flow was varied and the temperature remained
2.3 Second Step Change:
The second manipulate variable to evaluate the dynamic behaviour of the system
was the temperature of the hot stream (T2). Therefore, the system was returned
to the stationary-state and the disturbance to the hot temperature was applied.
This step change was from 40,7°C to 54,18°C. This change on the temperature
could be reached thanks to the use of the laboratory furnace, which allows to
increase the temperature on the supplied tank of the hot stream.

3. Results:
Calibration curve for the cold stream pump is presented below in graphic 1. Flow
of cold water was corrected with the obtained results.

Graphic 1. Calibration curve for cold water pump. Obtained results y (real fow mL) = 0,8054 x(% valve
opening) + 1,1172.

3.1 Transfer function:

3.1.1 Mass balance
In first place, the mass balance of the system was developed, where the stream
1 is the cold and the 2 is the hot. The stream 3 is the outlet flux of the reactor.
˙ m˙ 2−m˙ 3
Defining the mass flow in terms of the volumetric flux
= ρ∗f 1+ ρ∗f 2−ρ∗f 3
The reactor volume was constant, with a value of 1200 mL. Additionally, the
densities were considered constant due to the type of fluid managed (water) and
the range of the temperatures defined, which were too almost near to the
ambience. Therefore , these terms in the equation were simplified.
f 3=f 1+ f 2 [equation 1]
3.1.2. Energy balance
Eacumula=Ein−Eout + Egen+ Econsume

There was not reaction in the system, then the terms which involve the kinetic of
the system were deleted. The kinetic and potential energy could be despised,
therefore only the intern energy of the system is taken into account with the
impulse work of the inlet and outlet streams.
dUacumlada ˙
= m1∗u̇ 1+ m˙ 2∗u˙2− m3∗
˙ u̇ 3t + m1∗p∗v
˙ + m2∗p∗v−
˙ m˙ 3∗p∗v
d (U ) ˙
=m1∗u̇1+ m2∗
˙ u˙2−m3∗
˙ u̇ 3+ m1∗p∗v
˙ + m2∗p∗v−
˙ m˙ 3∗p∗v
d (U ) ˙
= m1∗(u̇ 1+ p∗v ) + m˙ 2∗( u˙2+ p∗v )−m˙ 3∗(u̇ 3+ p∗v )
d ( H −pv )
=m˙ 1∗( h 1 ) + m˙ 2∗( h 2 )− m3∗
˙ (h 3)
d (T 3 ) ˙
macum∗cp =m1∗cp∗( T 1−Tref ) + m˙ 2∗cp∗( T 2−Tref )−( m1+
˙ m˙ 2)∗cp∗( T 3−Tref )
ρ∗V ∗d ( T 3 )
=ρ∗f 1∗( T 1 )+ ρ∗f 2∗( T 2 )− ρ(f 1+ f 2) ( T 3 )
d ( T 3) f 1 f2 f1 f2
dt ( )
V ( )
∗( T 1 ) +
∗( T 2 ) −
V( )
∗( T 3 ) − ( )
∗(T 3) [equation 2]

Linearization for the first transfer function where the flux 1 (cold) was varied to
observe the change in the outlet variable T3
d ( T 3) f 1 T1 f2 f1 f1
dt ( )
V ( )
∗( T 1 ) +
V ( ) ( ) ( )
∗( f 1−f 1 ) +
∗( T 2 ) −
∗( T 3 ) −

T3 f2 f2
¿ ( T 3−T 3 )−( )∗( f 1−f 1 )−( )∗(T 3¿)−( )∗¿ ¿)

d ( T 3) T 1 T 3 f1 f2

V )
∗F 1 ( t )−( + )∗T 3(t)

LaPlace domain
T 3 ( s )∗( s+ a )=b∗F 1(s )

T 3 ( s )∗ ( as +1)=b /a∗F 1 ¿)
First transfer function is obtained

T 3 ( s )=b/a ¿ ¿ F ( s)
s [equation 3]
( )

For the second transfer function, where the T2 was varied to evaluate the change
the outlet variable T3, the energy balance was taken for the equation 2, which
corresponds to the general energy balance of the system. Then , the linearization
was done in function of T2 and T3
d ( T 3) f 2 f1 f2
dt ( )
∗( T 2−T 2 )−
V ( )
∗( T 3−T 3 )−
∗(T 3−T 3)( )
d ( T 3) f 2 f1 f2
V( )
∗T 2(t )−( + )∗T 3(t)

T 3 ( s )∗( s+ a )=b∗T 2(s )

T 3 ( s )∗( as +1)=b /a∗T 2(s)

Second transfer function is obtained
b /a
T 3 ( s )= T 2( s)
s [equation 4]
( )

3.2. Theoretical results

With the steady state values from experimental data, a dynamic simulation was
made in Simulink for a step change in cold water inlet flow and temperature
change in hot water stream. Data for steady state values, step changes are
presented in table 1 and table 2. Dynamic response of the system is presented in
graphic 2.

Steady state Values

Change in Cold Flow Change in Hot T (ºC) Inlet

V reactor (mL) 1200 V reactor (mL) 1200

T1 (cold) [ºC] 21 f1 (cold) [mL/s] 5,9496

T3 (reactor) [ºC] 22,5 f2 (hot) [mL/s] 5,79

f1 (cold) [mL/s] 5,9496 T2 (hot) [ºC] 40,703125

f2 (hot) [mL/s] 5,79 Step change [ºC] 13,48

Step change [mL/s] -3,22

Table 1. Steady state values for the 2 step changes made.

a) b)
Graphic 2. Dynamic response of the reactor outlet temperature due to: a) Step change in cold water flow, b)
Temperature of hot water inlet stream.
Theoretical results

Parameters Var. cold flow Var. hot T (ºC)

k -0,1277 0,4932

tao (min) 1,7036 1,7036

Table 2. Theoretical parameters of transfer functions for a first order system.

3.2. Graphic method results

with the experimental results obtained in the laboratory, it is possible to represent
the relation between input variables and the output variable through time in the
system. where Tout represents T3 and hot temperature represents T2.

Graphic 3. Output variable behavior after step changes.

To determine the experimental parameters of the transfer function it is possible to

use the graphical method presented in chapter 7 of the book on Dynamics and
process control, SeBorg, where a relation between and the time of the
process is established in order to determine the constant of time in the transfer
function, Tao.
Graphic 4. Response of the output variable to a step type modification in a first-order transfer function.

Graphic 6. y/KM method for the cold flow variation.

Graphic 5. y/KM method for the hot temperature variation.

As can be seen in the graphics 5 and 6, the time constant (τ ) was determined
from the graphical construction, in which a line was drawn from the point y (t) t = 0
to the value of the time in which the system it stabilizes. On the other hand, the
gain of the transfer function was determined as follows:

Var. cold flow Var. Hot T. (T2)

M 3.222 13.477

K -1.516 1.167
tao (min) 4.600 3.200
Table 3. Transfer equations parameter.

The followed transfer equation are determined due to the graphic method and the
obtained parameters
T 3 ( s )= F(s) [equation 5]
4.6 s+ 1
T 3 ( s )= T 2(s) [equation 6]
3.2 s +1
4. Analysis.
Theoretical results were in accordance to a first order transfer function in the two
worked cases, for the steps changes made (table 1), the system should have
stabilized in a temperature change of 0,41 ºC and 6,7 ºC for the flow and
temperature changes respectively.
According to the analysis carried out through the transfer function and the data
obtained experimentally from the system, the data obtained in tables 2 and 3
were obtained, which presented a large margin of error compared to the
experimental and the theoretical. These significant variations between the
experimental and theoretical data are related to the ideality of the system, very
few systems with a Step / Step type disturbance present an exactly first order
behavior. Likewise the noise in the experimental data, the systematic errors that
the equipment may have and the use of devices external to the equipment such
as the pumps could also cause variations in the results obtained, the noise may
arise from normal operations of the process, such as inadequate mixing or non-
constant pumping in one or both of the two working fluids caused variations in the
temperature of the reactor outlet, or even, the noise could result from the
electronic instrumentation (Seborg,2003).

In the experimentally obtained data, the behavior of the output variable can be
clearly seen by responding to a first-order transfer function. As for the disturbance
made in the variation of the hot water temperature, a clear behavior is observed
with little deviation. However, to the disturbance made in the variation of the cold
water flow, a little noise is observed in the system that causes a dispersion in the
behavior of the output variable, also responding to a first-order transfer function.
This difference between the two steps can be justified by comparing the gain of
the system in both cases, as can be observed in this parameter obtained
experimentally, for the first case it is -1,516 ° C / (mL / min) and for the second
case is 1,167. The cold flow variation, in this case its reduction, has more
influence in the output variable than the hot temperature variation, for this reason
the first experimental data can suffer a bigger deviation and cause a bigger error,
as we can see in the graphics 5 and 6.
Tao’s differences in theoretical and experimental results, show the response
efficiency of the system, theoretical taos for both changes were found as 1,7 and
experimental taos were found as 4,6 and 3,2 for flow and temperature change
respectively, these results basically show that experimentally the system reply
much slower than expected mainly because of noise and variables that were not
taken into account in theoretical analysis such as pump disturbances, delays,
leaks in the pumping system and agitation of the tank, such as electronic errors in
the measurement equipment. Theoretical results showed a relation with the
experimental data in the time that takes the system to achieve a new steady
state, after 8 minutes of step change the system showed stability, so the main
difference is how faster the system reacts to a change and trend to a new steady
Taos founded experimentally should have been equal according to theoretical
analysis, tao for the flow step chang was 4,6 and tao for the temperature step
change was founded to be 3,2. The differences could be because the system did
not achieve exactly the same steady state before step 1 and step 2 even when
the worked variables were the same that presented in table 1. Another possible
effect would be the no-constant temperature of inlet stream in step 2 experiment,
even when the hot water source was initially at 52ºC, there were several changes
when it was around 54 and even 60ºC that could make the system to rapidly raise
the outlet temperature, and consequently a tao decrease.
5. Laboratory drawbacks
The experimental practice presented difficulties at the time of the execution. First
of all, the assembly of the system was not in a correct position, it means that
there was not an stable base to support the stirred tank and the hot fluid tank
supplied, then the hoses of the pumps could not supplied the hot flow efficiently,
which was a big problem in order to warm the fluid contained in the stirred tank.
Additionally, the thermocouples presented a great deviation; in the case of the
stirred tank the temperature deviation was of 8°C less than the value reported,
and for the case of the hot supplied tank was of 5°c minor. Also, a substantial
problem was the control of the hot stream temperature, because the heating
plates presented incoherence when it reported the actual temperature of the fluid,
then it was necessary to appeal to the use of the thermometer and correct the
temperature manually. Furthermore, the power of the hot fluid pump was to high,
therefore the quantity of the water in the tank decreased quickly, whereby the
temperature of the tank fluctuated when more water was added.
6. Conclusions.
● Overall, the experimental and theoretical results presented inconsistencies
when the values of the steady-state gain and the constant time are
compared. In the first case, where the disturbance was applied to the cold
flow , the gain presented an error of 90% and the time constant an error of
62,8% .
● In the second case, the disturbance was applied to the temperature of the
hot stream the gain presented an error of 58,1% and for the time
constant 46,5%.
● It could be observed that the values of the theoretical calculations for the
constant time were significantly minor than the experimental, which could
be explained through the experimental deviations occurred during the
experimental practice, what hindered the stabilization of the system after a
● The experimental deviation during the practice also can be caused by the
difference in the gain between the two input variables, showing that the
cold flow variation has more influence in the output variable.
● For the final reactor temperature , in the case of the experimental datas
they had a higher value than the final temperatures calculated by the
software simulink, reaching temperatures of 26,9 and 38,3 °c in the
laboratory for each disturbance and theoretical just increase to 23,1°c and
29,1°C respectively, which corresponds to an error of 14,1% for the first
disturbance and 23,75% for the second one.
● Experimentally, the system replied much slower than expected, showing
Tao’s that were three times and two times greater than those obtained in
theoretical analysis.
7. References.
De la Fuente, M. Ingeniería de Sistemas y Automática. Universidad de Valladolid.
ISA, UVA. Modelos de los procesos y linealización.
Días, I. (2012). Escuela politécnica de Ingeniería de Gijón. Linealización de