RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The purpose of this experiment is to identify the major components of the flow ratio
process control system, to start up the system systematically, to compare flow measurements by
using three different types of flow meter, and also to study single loop flow control by using a
PID controller and to study ratio flow control using linear PID controller. The first objective
consists of flow ratio control (FIC21), with remote set point from the Wild Flow (WF) multiplied
by the instrument ratio factor R. the flow is controlled by the single loop PID controller at
different set points. A ratio flow control is also carried out where a wild stream flow rate is
measured and the other stream is controller so as to maintain a constant ratio of their flow rates.
Control valve sizing coefficient will also be checked.

The process plant consists of a stainless steel tank (T21), four centrifugal pump,
(P20,P21,P22 A/B) and the associated piping, valves and fittings. Water is recirculated by pumps
P21 and P22 A/B around tank T21. Pump P20 uses the same pipeline as P21. This process plant
uses 3 flow meters. They are the vortex flow meter (FT22), rotameter (FI22), and an orifice plant
(FE21/FT21). Two pressure gauges are installed at the inlet and outlet of the flow control valve
FCV21 to measure pressure drop which is related to flow rate. This process plant can be used to
study flow PID control as well as flow ratio control. It is possible to select FT21 at its pipeline to
be either controlled flow CF or the wild flow WF. Hence it is the possible to study the results
produced.

The results obtained while conducting this experiment can be divided into two parts
which were PID single loop flow control and flow ratio control, linear PID. For the first part, the
manual (M) mode of manipulated variable (MV) was set to 106.3%. This shows that the
controller which is in the manual mode is assumed to be in open loop. During the open loop, the
process required attention of the operator since it undergoes the disturbance. The open loop
process function as disturbance where the output moves out directly while in the close loop
process the output moves indirectly. So, in startup manual mode, the chart shows a sudden
increase which is known as step change. This shows the process is being disturbed by the
disturbance.
 Next,
for the first
trial, with
MV=100%
the trial PID
value is set
to the value
of proportional band (PB1) was 100%, the time integral (TI1) was 5 seconds and the time
derivative (TD1) was 0 seconds. The set value (SV) was 1.8m3/hr. Hence, the green line
indicated the temperature of the flow rate while the red line indicated wall of the heater
temperature.

Figure 1: First (1) trial PID values with different step increase in the set point which is
at 1.8 m3/hr, 2.4 m3/hr, 2.6 m3/hr, 2.8 m3/hr, 3.2 m3/hr, 3.8 m3/hr and 4.2 m3/hr

In figure 1, the green line does not show any changes because the temperature is kept
constant throughout the experiment while, the red line shows a sinusoid change when it has
changed into auto (A) mode. The process is called closed loop. In auto mode the chart shows a
ramp1.8m
change
3 until3/hrit reaches
/hr 2.4m a steady state.
2.6m3/hr 2.8m3/hr
m3/hr m3/hr m3/hr m3/hr
3.2m3/hr
The response from 1.8 m3/hr shows a step input, mwhere
3
/hr
at begining the red line was stable
3.8m3/hr
because of the process was in steady state. At 2.4 m 3/hr, 2.6 m3/hr andm2.8
3
3
/hr m /hr 4.2m
it shows
3
/hr an
3
m /hr
impulse input which might be due to any external changes or disturbance might have occurred.
At 3.2 m3/hr shows a sinusoidal input. After that, at 3.8m3/hr and 4.2 m3/hr it shows a steady state
response.

During the SV=2.6m3/hr the graph shows a sinusoidal change, SV=2.8m3/hr shows a step
and sinusoidal change, SV=3.2m3/hr shows a pulse change, SV=3.8m3/hr shows a ramp change
and finally at SV=4.2m3/hr the chart shows a steady state. Therefore, it can be concluded that, as
the SV increases, the chart responds imbalanced. This is because at the higher flow there are
many disturbances occur during the process in the closed loop.

For the second (II) trial PID values, the MV is set to 150% in manual mode. The trial values are
set to

PB1 150%
T11 10 sec
TD1 0 sec
Table 1: Second (II) trial PID values

4.2m3/hr
m3/hr

3.8m3/hr
m3/hr

3.2m3/hr
m3/hr

2.8m3/hr
m3/hr

2.6m3/hr
m3/hr
Duration changing PID
values

Figure 2: Second (II) trial PID values with different step increase in the set
point which is at 2.6 m3/hr, 2.8 m3/hr, 3.2 m3/hr, 3.8 m3/hr and 4.2 m3/hr

At SV=2.6m3/hr to SV=4.2m3/hr the chart shows a steady state after small oscilation. It
show that distrubance occurred in the process. SV=2.6m3/hr until SV=4.2m3/hr shows a ramp
change in the process. Besides, it is also known as when the percentage of PB increases it shows
a less sensitive responds from the controller while low percentage values results in a more
sensitive responds. Thus, it can clearly seen that during the PB=100% it shows more disturbance
occurred in the close loop process than the second trial.

Comparing the first (I) trial PID values and second (II) trial PID, for the first (I) trial PID
values for the lower flow which is from 1.8 m 3/hr to 2.4 m3/hr shows a controlled flow whereas
for higher flow which is from 2.6 m 3/hr to 3.8 m3/hr the flow response becomes oscillatory.
When second (II) trial PID is applied to the higher flow it could be seen that damping occurs
where the oscillatory response is damp out with a larger PB% and T1.

For the PID control tuning under normal operation the PID controller FIC21 will become
the flow ratio controller by switching it to cascade mode this is to allow the system to be more
responsive to the disturbance and to achieve a good ratio the process ratio, PR ( controlled
flow,FT21/wild flow,FT22) should be equal to the instrument ratio. The uncontrolled flow is
known as wild flow and the controlled flow is controlled by the loop with a set point. In manual
mode setting the MV to 100%, first (I) trial PID values which is set to the value of proportional
band (PB1) was 100%, the time integral (TI1) was 5 seconds and the time derivative (TD1) was
0 seconds.
 Tuning Trial 1 CF WF Off all pump
m3/hr m3/hr m3/hr

Figure 3:
PID controller tuning for first (I) trial PID values.

For controlled flow, CF the pump P21 is started the response was in a steady state and the
maximum value flow rate observed was 4.15 m 3/hr whereas for the wild flow, WF the pumps
P22A and P22B are on and it shows an impulse response where disturbance would have occurred
and also it can change freely. The maximum flow rate observed was 4.26 m 3/hr. The maximum
flow rate for the wild flow is higher than the controlled flow. The process flow ratio value is
0.97.

controlled flow , FT 21
Process flow ratio, PR = wild flow , FT 22

4.15
= =0.97
4.26

This is because the wild flow response to any small changes in the process where it is
very sensitive towards its process environment, water flow, and air flow. Whereas the controlled
flow will function only as the final control element (FCE) and response to the impulse it obtains.
 For the flow ratio control, linear PID under normal operation there were four tests
conducted which is Test 1: Using one pump, WF with instrument ratio, R=1, Test 2: Using two
WF pump with instrument ratio, R=1, Test 3: Using one pump, WF with instrument ratio, R=1.8
and Test 4: Using two WF pump with instrument ratio, R=1.8. By applying the Second (II) trial
PID values as Table 1: Second (II) trial PID values.

Test 2 Test 3
Test 1
Test 4
Second Trial

Figure 4: Flow ratio control using second (II) trial PID values for Test 1, Test 2, Test
3 and Test 4

For the Test 1: Using one pump, WF with instrument ratio, R=1 the controlled flow
shows a step input, whereas the wild flow shows a steady state response. Both this response
when it attains a steady state together, but the PV is 2.15m3/hr and MV is 2.18 m3/hr. Thus, the
process flow ratio, the instrument ratio of PR is 0.987 which is near to 1.

controlled flow , FT 21
Process flow ratio, PR = wild flow , FT 22
 2.15
= 2.18 =0.986

For the Test 2: Using two WF pump with instrument ratio, R=1, the controlled flow and
the wild flow shows a step input that reduces before attaining a steady state and it could be seen
that they took a shorter time to obtain a steady state. The PV observed was 4.18 m3/hr whereas
the SV observed was 4.20 m3/hr. Thus, the process flow ratio, PR is not equal to the the
instrument ratio but almost 1. Thus the two inputs are not maintained in the same proportion.
This might due to the disturbance occurred when the second pump is on disturbing

controlled flow , FT 21
Process flow ratio, PR = wild flow , FT 22

4.18
= 4.20 =0.995

For Test 3: Using one pump, WF with instrument ratio, R=1.8 the controlled flow shows
an impulse input, whereas the wild flow shows a step input. Both this response when it attains a
steady state together, the PV is 3.93 m3/hr, where the wild flow shows a flow rate of 2.16 m 3/hr .
Thus, the process flow ratio, PR is almost equal to the the instrument ratio which is 1.8.

controlled flow , FT 21
Process flow ratio, PR = wild flow , FT 22

3.93
= 2.16 =1.81

For Test 4: Using two WF pump with instrument ratio, R=1.8 the controlled flow and the
wild flow shows a steady state input. The PV observed was 4.84 m3/hr whereas the SV observed
was 6.38 m3/hr. The controlled flow show a flow rate of 4.83 m 3/hr and the wild flow shows a
flow rate of 4.20 m3/hr .Thus, the process flow ratio, PR is not equal to the instrument ratio
which is 1.8. Thus the two inputs are not maintained in the same proportion. This might also be
due to the disturbance occurred when the second pump is on that affects the proportion of input
flow.

controlled flow , FT 21
Process flow ratio, PR = wild flow , FT 22

4.83
= 4.20 =1.15

The response times for the inputs are also faster as the instrument ratio increases from the
ratio of 1.0 to 1.8. The PI control is for the PID single loop flow control, set point step test, PID
controller tuning and flow ratio control because integral action eliminates steady-state error and
has the ability to maintain the PV closest to its SV.
CONCLUSION

The experiment were run by doing two operation, which are step point set test (PID
single flow control) and the second one is flow ratio controller (linear PID). This experiment
used two trials to differentiate and comparing which different of proportional band (PB) and
tuning parameter (TI). Throughout the experiment, it was found that the flow control using single
loop PID controller, the increasing in PB value and the increasing in TI1 would reduce the error
in the graph by decreasing the offset and increasing the response time. Also, to get the steady
state condition in a process that is fast response like air flow, it is a crucial need that, in the
process, it must be balanced between the WF and CF pumps.

RECOMMENDATION

The flow and gauge sensor should be fixed and maintained a good condition to become
more accurate reading, beside that it is the best if there addition of pressure reading in chart
paper to get accurate pressure reading. Then, to get a better response and results, the open loop
test such as Ziegler Nichols should be introduced to get a right tuning for PB and TI in PID value
so that PI controlled can give a good response.