1. 1.

THEORY Process Control

Control in process industries refers to the regulation of all aspects of the process. Precise control of level, temperature, pressure and flow is important in many process applications. This module introduces you to control in process industries, explains why control in important, and identifies different ways in which precise control is ensured. Refining, combining, handling, and otherwise manipulating fluids to profitably produce end products can be a precise, demanding, and potentially hazardous process. Small changes in a process can have a large impact on the end result. Variations in proportions, temperature, flow, turbulence, and many other factors must be carefully and consistently controlled to produce the desired end product with a minimum of raw materials and energy. Process control technology is the tool that enables manufacturers to keep their operations running within specified limits and to set more precise limits to maximize profitability, ensure quality and safety.[1]

Figure 1.1 An example of process control[2]

1.2 Transfer Functions The transfer function of a linear dynamical system is the ratio of the Laplace transform of its output to the Laplace transform of its input. In systems theory, the Laplace transform is called the frequency domain representation of the system.[3]

Transfer function G(s) is ratio of output x to input f, in s-domain (via Laplace trans.): G(s)=X(s)/F(s)[4] Transfer functions are; Describes dynamics in operational sense Dynamics encoded in G(s) Ignore initial conditions (I.C. terms are transient & decay quickly) Transfer function, for input-output operation, deals with steady state terms

(1)

Figure 2. Block diagram of transfer functions[4]

1.2.1 Step Functions Before proceeding into solving differential equations we should take a look at one more function. Without Laplace transforms it would be much more difficult to solve differential equations that involve this function in g(t).

The function is the Heaviside function and is defined as,

(2)

Heaviside functions are often called step functions. Here is some alternate notation for Heaviside functions.[5]

1.2.2 Impulse Functons In some applications, it is necessary to deal with phenomena of an impulsive nature. For example, an electrical circuit or mechanical system subject to a sudden voltage or force g(t) of large magnitude that acts over a short time interval about t0. The differential equation will then have the form;

(3)

Measuring Impulse

In a mechanical system, where g(t) is a force, the total impulse of this force is measured by the integral;

(4) Note that if g(t) has the form

(5) Then

(6)

Suppose the forcing function d(t) has the form

(7)
3

Then as we have seen, I() = 1. We are interested d(t) acting over shorter and shorter time intervals (i.e., 0). See graph on right.Note that d(t) gets taller and narrower as 0. Thus for t 0, we have

(8)

1.3 Dynamic Behavior of First-order and Second-order Systems 1.3.1. Analysis of first-order systems Consider the system shown in Figure 1 which consists of a tank of uniform cross sectional area A to which is attached a flow resistance R. Assume that qo is related to the head by linear relationship qo=h/R

In a general form, Equation (4.8) can be written in a general form:

(9)

Response of a first-order system to a step change in the input.The term (time constant) and K (steady state gain) characterize the first-order system. Note that the both parameters depend on operating conditions of the process and that the transfer function does not contain the initial conditions explicitly. 1.3.2. Analysis of second-order systems A second-order system is one whose output, y(t), is described by a second-order differential equation. For example, the following equation describes a second-order linear system:

(10) If ao 0, then Equation (4.24) yields

(11) Equation (4.25) is in the standard form of a second-order system, where;

The very large majority of the second- or higher-order systems encountered in a chemical plant come from multicapacity processes, i.e. processes that consist of two or more first-order systems in series, or the effect of process control systems. Laplace transformation of Equation (4.25) yields;

(12) Dynamic response For a step change of magnitude M, U(s) = M/s, Equation (4.26) yields

The two poles of the second-order transfer function are given by the roots of the characteristic polynomial,

(12,13,14) The form of the response of y(t) will depend on the location of the two poles in the complex plane. Thus, we can distinguish three cases: Case A: (over-damped response), when > 1, we have two distinct and real poles. In this case the inversion of Equation (4.30) by partial fraction expansion yields

(15) Where cosh(.) and sinh(.) are the hyperbolic trigonometric functions defined by

Case B: (critically damped response), when = 1, we have two equal poles (multiple pole). In this case, the inversion of Equation (4.30) gives the result

(16) Case C: (Under-damped response), when < 1, we have two complex conjugate poles. The inversion of Equation (4.30) in this case yields;

(17)

Figure 3 : Characteristics of Underdamped Systems

- Overshoot: Is the ratio of a/b, where b is the ultimate value of the response and a is the maximum amount by which the response exceeds its steady state value. It can be shown that it is given by the following expression:

(18) Rise time: tr is the the process output takes to first reach the new steady state value. - Time to first peak: tp is the time required for the output to reach its first maximum value. - Settling time: ts is defined as the time required for the process output to reach and

remain inside a band whose width is equal to 5 % of the total change in the output. - Period: Equation (4.34) defines the radian frequency, to find the period of oscillation P (i.e. the time elapsed between two successive peaks), use the well-known relationship = 2/P; thus:

(19)

Comparison between first-order and second-order responses.

2. EXPERIMANTAL METHOD The experimental set-up consists of the various U-manometers in different diameters and length that contains everalk inds of liquids with the different physicochemicapl ropertiess uch as water, glycerol and their mixtures.The pressure difference in the U-manometer is created by a vacuum pump. 2.1.DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS The experimental set-up consists of the various U-manometers in different diameters that contain several kinds of liquids with different physical properties such as water, glycerol and their miztures. The pressure difference in the U-manometer is created by a vacuum pump.

Figure 4. U tube manometer[8] 2.2. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Apply a pressure difference on the U-manometer by vacuum .pump and determine the variation of the liquid level with time until the steady state is reached. Stop the vacuum pump when the constant liquid level is observedi n U-manometer, and determine again the variation

of the liquid level with time. After the constant liquid level is reached in the U-manometer, compress the silicone tube between the connection points of U-manometer and give up the silicone tube suddenly and then record the variation of the liquid level with time. Determine the variation of oscillation amplitude according to initial liquid level with time, if oscillation is observed on the Umanometer liquid.Repeat these steps at least twice for each U-manometer.

10

3. RESULTS & DISCUSSION 3.1 U-TUBE MANOMETERS Table 3.1.1 Properties of U-Manometers
Properties Manometer 1 Manometer 2 Manometer 3 Manometer 4 Manometer 5 Manometer 6

(g/cm3) (cP) D(cm) L(cm) (s)

0,885 137,6 0,600 88,00 0.212 14,64

0,997 0,894 1,100 95,00 0.220 0,026

1,261 902,9 0.600 102,0 0.228 72,52

0,885 137,6 1,100 98,00 0.224 4,600

1,058 1,362 1,100 85,00 0.208 0,035

1,261 902,9 1,100 116,0 0.243 23,03

As it can seen from Table 3.1.1. the damping factors ( ) of 1st, 3rd, 4th and 6th manometers are bigger than 1; and 2nd and 5th manometers are smaller than 1. Because of this we can say these first four manometers gives overdamped responses and the last two

manometers gives underdamped responses, as we expected.In addition to these;when damping factor is less then 1 (as it seen 2. and 5.) ,then root is complex and response have oscillation.When damping factor is greater than 1,then root is real (as it seen 1,3,4,6) and response having no oscillation. If we analyze the time constants of four manometers (M-1, M-3, M-4, M-6) we can say that M-1 named manometer gives the fastest response and M-6 named manometer gives the slowest response between this group, because response rate of any process depends on the time constant (). Also when we analyze the time constants of second group manometers between each other (M-2, M-5) we can say that the response of M5 is faster than M-2. Finally if we analyze the time constants of M-1, M-4 and M-3, M-6 which contains same fluids, we saw that 1< 4 and 3< 6.That means time constants, so responses of U-tube manometers depens on its dimensions.When M-3 and M-6 compared,it is obviously seen that even if they are same fluid (also same density,viscosity) time constants are different.As a result, small diameter has fastest response time.When M-2 and M-4 are compared(different fluid same diameter),it is seen that viscose one(M-4:engine oil) is slower than M-2.

11

3.2. RESULTS for OVERDAMPED U-MANOMETERS Table 3.2.1 Experimental Responses of Overdamped U-manometers to step change

t (s) 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 t/

Manometer 1 hr/Kp hf/Kp t/

Manometer 3 hr/Kp hf/Kp t/

Manometer 4 hr/Kp hf/Kp t/

Manometer 6 hr/Kp hf/Kp

0,0000 14,1509 28,3019 42,4528 56,6038 70,7547 84,9057 99,0566

0,0000 1,0000 0,3959 0,6143 0,6348 0,3413 0,7918 0,2184 0,8771 0,0853 0,9283 0,0614 0,9556 0,0205 0,9795 0,0068

0,0000 13,1579 26,3158 39,4737 52,6316 65,7895 78,9474 92,1053

0,0000 1,0000 0,0300 0,6818 0,5455 0,3818 0,6818 0,2273 0,7455 0,1455 0,8636 0,0773 0,9091 0,0182 0,9455 -

0,0000 13,3929 26,7857 40,1786 53,5714 66,9643 80,3571 93,7500

0,0000 1,0000

0,0000

0,0000 1,0000

0,2714 0,5929 12,3457 0,5263 0,5263 0,5571 0,3714 24,6914 0,7368 0,2368 0,6929 0,2143 37,0370 0,8947 0,1316 0,8143 0,1214 49,3827 0,9474 0,0658 0,8857 0,0571 61,7284 1,0000 0,0000 0,9286 0,0143 0,9571 -

113,2075 1,0000 0,0000 105,2632 0,9636 118,4211 1,0000 -

107,1429 0,9714 120,5357 0,9857 133,9286 1,0000

When M-1 and M-4 are compared it is seen that hr/Kp values are different eventhough they are both same fluid(engine oil).This is because diameter differences.M-1 which has smaller diamer than M-4 falls more much than M-4.Also the height values of the liquids in the manometers can be seen. It is seen that when the diameter and the length values of tubes are changed, the height values will change, for the same liquid. The M3 and M6 manometers were filled with the same liquid, glycerol. However, it is seen that the diameter of the pipe value changes the Kp value, and so the ratio of the hr/Kp value. Also it is seen that t/ values of the different U-manometers are nearly equal to each other.

12

1,2

0,8

0,6 hr/Kp

M1 M3

0,4

M4 M6

0,2

0 0 -0,2 20 40 60 80 t/ 100 120 140 160

Figure 3.2.1. Experimental hr/kp versus t/ values In this graph a comparison of the hr/Kp and t/ values of different manometers can be seen. hr values are the height of the manometers , and the Kp values are the height value that the maximum one the liquids reached. It is seen that the experimental results are nearly equal to each other except M-6. M6 manometer has shorter response time than other

manometers. In addition M-6 rising faster than others.Reason of these differences can be intrinsic properties of fluid(glycerol) in M-6.In addition it is seen from graph height values in the manometers are firstly increasing rapidly, and then this slope is decreasing and finally they reach Kp value. In the graph, it is seen that, this stationary point for both manometers are not so different than each other.

13

1,2

0,8 M1 M3 M4 0,4 M6

hf/kp

0,6

0,2

0 0 20 40 60 t/ 80 100 120

Figure 3.2.2. Experimental hf/Kp versus t/ values There is a falling when we compare figure 3.2.2 and 3.2.1; same approach is valid in this graph the hf/Kp and the t/ values of different manometers are seen. hf value is the value that the raising height reached at least when the pump is not working. It is seen from the graph that the curves belonged to other manometers are very close to each other except M-6 because its intrinsic properties cause this differences.

Table 3.2.2 Theoretical responses of Overdampded U-manometers to step change t (s) 0 3 6 9 Manometer 1 t/
0,0000 14,150 28,301 42,452

Manometer 3 t/
0,0000 13,157 26,315 39,473

Manometer 4 t/
0,0000 13,3929 26,7857 40,1786

Manometer 6 t/
0,00 12,4 24,7 37,0

hr/Kp hf/Kp
0,0000 0,3840 0,6200 0,8110 1,0000 0,6160 0,3800 0,1890

hr/Kp hf/Kp
0,0000 0,0867 0,1659 0,2383 1,0000 0,9133 0,8341 0,7617

hr/K p
0,0000 0,7710 0,9476 0,9880

hf/Kp
1,0000 0,2290 0,0524 0,0120

hr/Kp
0,0000 0,2380 0,4193 0,5575

hf/Kp
1,000 0,762 0,581 0,443

14

12 15 18 21

56,603 70,754 84,905 99,056

0,8912 0,9380 0,9640 0,9790 0,9880 -

0,1088 0,0620 0,0360 0,0210 0,0120 -

52,631 65,789 78,947 92,105 105,263 118,421 -

0,3043 0,3646 0,4197 0,4701 0,5160 0,5580 -

0,6957 0,6354 0,5803 0,5299 0,4840 0,4420 -

53,5714 66,9643 80,3571 93,7500 107,143 120,536 133,929

0,9973 0,9994 0,9999 1,0000 1,0000 1,0000 1,0000

0,0027 0,0006 0,0001 3,30E-05 7,56E-06 1,73E-06 3,97E-07

49,4 61,7 -

0,6628 0,7431 -

0,337 0,257 -

24 113,207 27 30
-

In this table the theoretical results can be seen. It is seen that t/ values are equal to the experimental values. However the hr/Kp values and the hf/Kp values are different than the experimental ones. Although there is a difference in the values, they are not so different than each other. These hr/Kp values and hf/Kp values were calculated by using some formulas.

1,2 1 0,8 hr/kp 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0 50 t/ 100 150 M1 M3 M4 M6

Figure 3.2.3. Theoretical hr/Kp versus t/ values

In Figure 3.2.3, it is seen that the curves are not closer like the experimental ones. However, again all the values are behaving similar with the experimental ones.

15

1,2

0,8 hf/Kp M1 M3 M4 M6

0,6

0,4

0,2

0 0 50 t/to 100 150

Figure 3.2.4. Theoretical hf/Kp versus t/ values This figure, like Figure 3.2.3, this graph which gives a comparison of hf/Kp versus t/ values of all manometers results are different from experimental one. It is seen that the curves are far from each other than the experimental ones.

3.3 RESULTS FOR UNDERDAMPED U-MANOMETERS (TO STEP CHANGE)

Table 3.3.1 Period of Oscillation and Radian Frequency of Underdamped U-Manometers

Manometer-2 Period of Oscillation T(s) 1,383

Manometer-5 1,33

Radian Frequency W(s-1)

4,544

4,802

In this table the period of oscillation and the radian frequency values can be seen. These values were calculated for only M2 and M5 U-manometers. Because their damping factor
16

values were smaller than 1 so the system behaves as underdamped and oscillated. The period values are nearly equal to each other. However, M2 manometer has higher period value than M5. Reason of these difference may be that the density and viscosity values arent so close to each other although the diameter of the pipes are equal. Alsothe heights are not equal. The difference may be caused from there. The frequency value is conversely proportional to period value. Therefore, it is seen that the frequency value of M2 manometer is smaller than M5 manometer.

Table 3.3.2 Experimental Responses of Underdamped U-manometers to Step Change Manometer 2 Oscillation Texp (s) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0,0000 0,9900 1,6300 2,3500 3,3000 3,8400 4,6000 5,2300 5,9500 6,7600 7,3500

Manometer 5 Texp (s)

0,0000 0,9000 1,5700 2,2500 3,1500 3,9100 4,6300 5,4000 6,2500 6,9000 -

t/
0,0000 4,5000 7,4091 10,6818 15,0000 17,4545 20,9091 23,7727 27,0455 30,7273 33,4091

h/Kp
0,0000 1,0000 0,6099 0,8936 0,6667 0,8298 0,7092 0,7943 0,7376 0,7730 0,7518

t/
0,0000 4,3269 7,5481 10,8173 15,1442 18,7981 22,2596 25,9615 30,0481 33,1731 -

h/Kp
0,0000 1,0000 0,5778 0,8778 0,6333 0,8111 0,7000 0,7667 0,7222 0,7444 -

As it is seen from Table 3.3.2. with increasing time t/ values increase both for M-2 and M-5. Since 2 and 5 manometers are underdamped the oscillating responses are expected and h/Kp values show both decreasing and increasing that it is the proof of oscillation. Experimental responses are close to each other for M-2 and M-5.In addition to these ,experimental set up is based on step change means that pump is worked along the experiment.

17

Table 3.3.3 Theoretical Responses of Underdamped U-manometers to Step Change Manometer 2 Oscillation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Texp (s)
0,3270 1,0180 1,7080 2,3980 3,0880 3,7780 4,4680 5,1580 5,8480 6,5380 7,2280

Manometer 5 h/Kp
0,1379 1,7952 0,2648 1,6796 0,3717 1,5808 0,4632 1,4962 0,5414 1,4238 0,6083

t/
1,4864 4,6273 7,7636 10,9000 14,0364 17,1727 20,3091 23,4455 26,5818 29,7182 32,8545

Texp (s)
0,4170 1,0810 1,7450 2,4090 3,0730 3,7370 4,4010 5,0650 5,7290 6,3930 -

t/
2,0048 5,1971 8,3894 11,5817 14,7740 17,9663 21,1587 24,3510 27,5433 30,7356 -

h/Kp
0,1540 1,7403 0,3540 1,5621 0,5125 1,4214 0,6370 1,3114 0,7340 1,2262 -

In Table 3.3.3. as in Table 3.3.2. t/ values increase with increasing time. Again decreasing and increasing h/Kp values show there is an oscillation for M-2 and M-5 since they are underdamped. The close values of ttheo. , t/ and h/Kp are obtained for M-2 and M-5.

18

2 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 h/kp 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0 5 10 15 t/to 20 25 30 35 M2-exp M2-theo

Figure 3.3.1. Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Responses for M-2

In Figure 3.3.1. it is shown that experimental values differ from the theoretical values. Since M-2 is an underdamped manometer it is common to see oscillation for both experimental and theoretical values. The main reason of this big difference between the experimental and theoretical values may be the wrong readings of the data.

19

2 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 h/kp 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 0 5 10 15 t/to 20 25 30 35 M5-exp M5-theo

Figure 3.3.2. Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Responses for M-5 Since M-5 is an underdamped manometer again the oscillation is observed in Figure 3.3.2. The big difference between the experimental and theoretical values are seen. The main reason of big difference between the experimental and theoretical values may be the wrong readings of the data.

Table 3.3.4 Comparison of Theoretical and Experiment Overshoot, Decay Ratio and Response Time to Step Change Manometer-2 Experimental Overshoot Decay Ratio Response time
0,186 1,77 7,350

Manometer-5 Experimental
0,179 2 6,900

Theoretical
0,922 0,850 7,228

Theoretical
0,897 0,805 6,393

20

In Table 3.3.4. there is a comparison between M-2 and M-5 and according to this comparison it can be said that the overshoot values of M-2 both experimentally and theoretically is higher than that of M-5 while response time of M-2 is higher than that of M-5 by experimentally. When experimental and theoretical values are compared it is seen that overshoot and decay ratio values are close to each other(exception of experimentally decay ratio and reason of this may be about personal mistakes)while response times are differ from each other. Reason of differences between M-2 and M-5 can be intrinsic properties of water (M-2)and glycerol solution(M-5).

3.4. RESULTS FOR UNDERDAMPED U-MANOMETERS (TO IMPULSE CHANGE) Table 3.4.1 Experimental Responses of Underdamped U-manometers to Impulse Change Manometer 2 Oscillation 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 texp (s)
0,0000 0,1400 1,5800 2,1600 2,7900 3,5100 4,2800 4,9500 5,7600 6,4800 7,2500 7,8800 8,9400 9,6600 10,3800

Manometer 5 h/Kp texp (s)

0,0000 1,0000 -0,7091 0,4909 -0,4364 0,2909 -0,2636 0,2364 -0,1727 0,1455 -0,1091 0,0818 -0,0727 0,0545 -0,0364 0,5400 1,4800 2,3400 3,1500 4,0000 4,7700 5,4700 6,4100 7,0400 7,9000 8,6500 -

t/
0,0000 0,6364 7,1818 9,8182 12,6818 15,9545 19,4545 22,5000 26,1818 29,4545 32,9545 35,8182 40,6364 43,9091 47,1818

t/
0,0000 2,5962 7,1154 11,2500 15,1442 19,2308 22,9327 26,2981 30,8173 33,8462 37,9808 41,5865 -

h/Kp
0,0000 1,0000 -0,7209 0,5349 -0,4651 0,3256 -0,1395 0,1628 -0,0698 0,0930 -0,0465 0,0465 -

21

15 16 17

11,1900 11,9900 12,8000

50,8636 54,5000 58,1818

0,0364 -0,0273 0,0091

In this table, experimental responses are seen for M-2 and M-5. Time (t) and height (h) values have been normalized by obtaining t/ and h/Kp. Here, Kp is the highest value of oscillations. h/Kp values exhibit successive positive-negative results because experimental set up based on impulse change means that pump is worked then shut down. Two manometers give nearly the same responses. This may be related to the fluids that is water for M-2 and 15% glycerol solution for M-5. Since the densities of these fluids are not so different from each other, the results are close.

Table 3.4.2 Theoretical Responses of Underdamped U-manometers to Impulse Change Manometer 2 Oscillation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Texp (s) -0,3460 0,3460 1,0380 1,7300 2,4220 3,1140 3,8060 4,4980 5,1900 5,8820 6,5740 7,2660 7,9580 t/ -1,5727 1,5727 4,7182 7,8636 11,0091 14,1545 17,3000 20,4455 23,5909 26,7364 29,8818 33,0273 36,1727 h/Kp -1,0421 0,9602 -0,8848 0,8152 -0,7512 0,6921 -0,6377 0,5876 -0,5414 0,4988 -0,4596 0,4234 -0,3901 Texp (s) -0,3325 0,3325 0,9975 1,6625 2,3275 2,9925 3,6575 4,3225 4,9875 5,6525 6,3175 6,9825 Manometer 5 t/ -1,5986 1,5986 4,7957 7,9928 11,1899 14,3870 17,5841 20,7813 23,9784 27,1755 30,3726 33,5697 h/Kp -1,0570 0,9466 -0,8453 0,7526 -0,6682 0,5915 -0,5220 0,4592 -0,4026 0,3518 -0,3064 0,2658 -

22

14 15 16 17

8,6500 9,3420 10,0340 10,7260

39,3182 42,4636 45,6091 48,7545

0,3594 -0,3311 0,3051 -0,2811

In Table 3.4.2., theoretical responses are seen for M-2 and M-5. Again, time (t) and height (h) values have been normalized by obtaining t/ and h/Kp. These values have been gained by formulas that consist of , and T (period). Since these manometers give underdamped responses, oscillation is observed on h/Kp values. Again, two manometers give nearly the same responses as the densities of these fluids are not so different from each other.

1,5

0,5 h/kp

0 0 -0,5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

M2 exp M2-theo

-10

-1

-1,5

t/to

Figure 3.4.1. Theoretical and experimental values for M-2

In this figure, experimental and theoretical responses of M-2 are seen for comparison. Since M-2 gives underdamped responses, oscilllation is observed. Theoretical curve exhibit oscillation with high peaks that are taller than the ones for experimental. This result may be related to the wrong reading of data and also usage of formula.

23

1,5

0,5

h/kp

0 0 -0,5 10 20 30 40 50

M5-exp M5-theo

-10

-1

-1,5

t/to

Figure 3.4.2. Theoretical and experimental values for M-5 In this figure, experimental and theoretical responses of M-5 are seen for comparison. Because M-5 gives underdamped responses, oscillation is observed in the curves. Again, it is seen that theoretical values are so different from experimental ones. This result may be related to the wrong reading of data and also usage of formula.

Table 3.4.3 Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental Overshoot, Decay Ratio and Response time to Impulse change Manometer-2 Experimental Overshoot Decay Ratio Response time 0,461 0,6 12,80 Theoretical 0,922 0,850 11,42 Manometer-5 Experimental 0,535 0,607 8,650 Theoretical 0,897 0,805 6,980

24

In this table, comparison of theoretical and experimental overshoot, decay ratio and response time values are seen for both M-2 and M-5. For M-2 and M-5 theoretical and experimental overshoot value is far from each other.Reason of this may be mistake of measurement. In both manometers, experimental response times differ from the theoretical ones. Observing the experimental response times different from the theoretical ones can be related to the wrong reading or recording.These different values(decay

ratio,overshoot,response time)are related to fluids properties(viscosity vs.).

25

4. CONCLUSIONS The dynamic behaviour of U-Manometer systems, which are Manometer-1 with engine oil, Manometer-2 with water, Manometer-3 with glycerol, Manometer-4 with engine oil, Manometer-5 with 15% glycerol solution and Manometer-6 with glycerol,are investigated for step and and impulse input a overdamped or underdamped. Firstly;Overdamped systems(M-1:Engine oil,M-3:Glycerol,M-4:Engine oil,M-6:Glycerol) have damping factor higher than 1 and diverge from the steady state value at higher damping factors. Secondly;Underdamped systems(M-2:Water,M-5:%15 glycerol solution)have damping factor smaller than 1 and the response is observed as oscillating around the steady state value. Thirdly;For overdamped systems, systems with high damping factors require more to reach the ultimate value when it is compared with underdamped systems. Fourtly;For overdamped systems, Manometer-6 is the first system reaching its steady state value for both experimentally and theoretically . Also, Manometer-3 is the system reaching last to its utimate value for experimental result and theoretical observations shows that M1,M-3 and M-4 is reaching almost same time to their steady state value . Fiftly;For underdamped systems, the response of manometers are more stable to step change in comparison with an impulse change. Because, the response of the systems to impulse change is diverging and converging around the ultimate value with both positive and negative values. Finally;For underdamped systems, the variation between the experimental overshoot, decay ratio and response time is greater for impulse change than step change due to the variations in responses.In theoretical step change greater than impuse change.

26

5. NOMENCULATURE A, B At g Kp L m r t tr T Q p Constants in the transfer function Surface area of bulb for heat transfer (m2) Acceleration of gravity (m/s2) Static gain or gain (m) Total length of the liquid in U-manometer (m) Mass of liquid in the monometer (kg) Liquid lever difference at any time in U-manometer (m) Time (s) Rise time (s) period of oscillation (s/cycle) Volumetric flow rate of the liquid (m3/s) Time constant (s) Viscosity of the liquid (Pa.s) Density of the liquid (kg/m3) Radian frequency (radian/s) Damping factor

27

5.REFERENCES 1. http://www.pacontrol.com/download/Process%20Control%20Fundamentals.pdf 2. http://bin95.com/training_software/fluid_process_systems.htm 3. http://planetmath.org/transferfunction 4. http://www.me.utexas.edu/~bryant/courses/me344/DownloadFiles/LectureNotes/L aplace+TransferFunctions.pdf 5. http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/DE/StepFunctions.aspx 6. http://www.math.ust.hk/~mamu/courses/151/Lectures/Mu/ch06_5.ppt 7. http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/alhajali/Publications/Dynamic%20Behavior%20of%20Fir st_Second%20Order%20Systems.pdf 8. http://www.3bscientific.com/U-Tube-Manometer-S U8410450,p_83_110_856_14309.html 9. "Viscosity of Glycerol and its Aqueous Solutions". Retrieved 2011-04-19. 10. http://edge.rit.edu/edge/P13051/public/Research%20Notes/Viscosity%20of%20Aq ueous%20Glycerol%20Solutions.pdf

28