IIT MADRAS

CH4510:Process Control Lab

DYNAMICS OF U-TUBE MANOMETER
Batch - I 10/30/2013

Submitted by: Shubham Jhanwar Simple Kumar J Vijay Prasad V Avinash CH10B092 CH10B093 CH10B094 CH10B095

DYNAMICS OF U-TUBE MANOMETER Objective: (a) To study the dynamic response of an U-Tube manometer following a step change (b) To study the characteristics of an under-damped second order response like overshoot, rise time, decay ratio, response time etc. Theory:

Fig 1. A U-tube manometer Systems with inherent second order dynamics can exhibit oscillatory behavior (under-damped).Examples of these physical systems are simple manometers, externally mounted level indicators, pneumatic control valve, variable capacitance differential pressure transducer. U-tube manometer is a classic example of a second order system. The basic equation is the force balance ( where A P R = = = = ) cross-sectional area liquid density (density of gas above fluid is negligible) applied pressure fractional resistance (1)

With laminar flow, the resistance is given by Hagen-Poiseuille equation. or R (2)

Substituting in Equ (1) and rearranging gives (3)

Define

, 2 =

and Kp =

(4)

Now equ.(3) becomes

pP

(5)

Thus the transfer function between h and P is

(6)

Equation (4) and (5) represents the inherent second order dynamics of the manometer. Equation (3) may be written in a standard form (7) Where n = = natural frequency, rad/sec damping coefficient

For a step change in input pressure, when damping coefficient less than 1, the output overshoots the final value and oscillates before coming to equilibrium. The system is said to be under damped. For < 1.0,
(

Where

With a damping coefficient of zero, the response is an under damped sine wave of frequency and amplitude 2hi.

For = 1.0, (critically damped)

For > 1.0, (over damped)

(
( ) ( )

Experimental values of

and can be easily obtained from the under damped

response curve. The damping coefficient can be found either from the decay ratio which is the ratio of successive peak heights or from maximum overshoot.

Decay ratio=

(11)

(12) (13)

Period of oscillation T=

= t2-t1

Fig1: An under damped response Procedure: 1. Before starting the experiment note down the level of liquid column in the U-tube manometer. This is the base level. 2. Give a pressure input by blowing air into one of the limbs of the manometer and close the corresponding limb air tight with your thumb. 3. Note the level in the other limb. 4. Release the pressure by loosening your thumb. 5. When the level reaches the first lower position start the stop watch and note the time at which it reaches the second lower position. Also note the first peak, first valley (first lower position), second peak height and second valley. 6. Repeat the experiment for two different waves. 7. By using equ. (11), (12) and (13) the value of and can be calculated experimentally. 8. Using equ. (4), for the given value of L and D the value of and can be obtained theoretically. 9. The values of and obtained experimentally and theoretically are to be compared.

Observations:

(a) Tube in coiled position

Sl.No.

Base level (cm)

Raised level (cm)

First peak (cm)

First valley (cm)

Second peak (cm)

Second valley (cm)

Time between two valleys (cm)

1 2 3

400 400 380

260 240 235

660 640 615

240 250 230

500 490 480

330 335 320

4 seconds 4.1 seconds 4 seconds

(b) Tube in uncoiled position

Sl.No.

Base level (cm)

Raised level (cm)

First peak (cm)

First valley (cm)

Second peak (cm)

Second valley (cm)

Time between two valleys (cm)

1 2

380 380

280 270

660 650

180 190

500 500

290 290

4 seconds 4.1 seconds

Calculations: 1. Experiment:

(a) For coiled tube

Sl. No.

A (cm)

B (cm)

C (cm)

Overshoot A/B

Decay ratio C/A

Period of oscillation T (sec) 4 seconds 4.1 seconds 4 seconds

(sec)

1 2 3

160 150 150

260 240 235

70 65 60

0.615 0.625 0.638

0.44 0.43 0.4

0.629 0.645 0.630

0.153 0.148 0.143

(b) For uncoiled tube

Sl. No.

A (cm)

B (cm)

C (cm)

Overshoot A/B

Decay ratio C/A

Period of oscillation T (sec) 4 seconds 4.1 seconds

(sec)

1 2

200 190

280 270

90 90

0.714 0.704

0.45 0.474

0.633 0.649

0.1065 0.1112

2. Theoretically: L = 980 cm D = 1.2 cm = 1000 kg/m3 g = 9.8 m/(sec) 2 = 10-3 kg/m.(sec) 2 = 0.5 ;

= 0.707 2 = =0.111

= 0.0786

Sample Calculation : For 1st reading (without coil) :

1. Calculation of

Now,

( ) ) ( ( ) )

( (

) )

2. Calculation of :

Substituting T = 4 sec, We get = 0.633 sec-1

Graphs (a) For coiled tube

height (cm) vs time (sec) for coiled

700 0, 660 600

500

4, 500

400 6, 330 height (cm)

300
2, 240 200

100

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(b) For uncoiled tube

height (cm) vs time (sec) for uncoiled

700 0, 660 600

500

4, 500

400 height (cm) 300 6, 290

200

2, 180

100

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Result: 1. From experiment (a) For coiled

=0.635 = 0.148

(b) For uncoiled =0.641 = 0.1088

2. From theoretical calculation = 0.707 = 0.0786

Are the values of and from experimental and theoretical calculation matching? If not explain why? No, the values of and from experimental and theoretical calculation are not matching. This is because theoretical calculations consider pipe to be straight and does not account for the extra pressure developed due to coiling of pipe. This is quite evident from the fact that uncoiled pipe has lesser value in comparison to the coiled one.

References: 1. 2. Process Control - Peter Harriot. Chemical Process Control - George Stephanopoulos

-------------------X----------------------X-----------------------------X-------------------X------------------------