PROCESS CONTROL & INSTRUMENTATION LAB

BKF 4791
Title of Experiment : MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL AIR FLOW SYSTEM
Lecturers Name :
Group of Member :
Name ID
1. LEE HON KIT KC11182
2. TAN YONG CHAI KA11206
3. BIAUNIL HIDAYAH BT HJ MANJA KC10058
4. MOHD EDDY HERMAN BIN FAUZI KC10063

Group No. : 03
Section : 03
Marks
:








Part A 55
Part B 45
TOTAL 100
FACULTY OF CHEMICAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PAHANG Please keep for student reference.
Received by;


( )
Submitted by;


( )
Subject Code : BKF4791 Date Submitted: 2
nd
October 2014
Title of Experiment: Measurement and control of air flow system



CONTENTS














TITLE PAGE
ABSTRACT 1
METHODOLOGY 2
RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS 3-4
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION 5
REFERENCES 6
APPENDICES 7


iv | P a g e

Rubric for LAB REPORT
Item Assessed
Unacceptable
(0)
Poor
(1)
Average
(2)
Good
(3)
Score
Abstract
(x 5)
No abstract No highlight of the
significant results
and/or
methodology.

Missing objective
and/or conclusion.
Objective
Summary of the
methodology
Summary of the
results
Conclusion

Methodology
flowchart
(x 5)
No flowchart Methodology flow is
incorrect.
Methodology flow is
correct, but not
concise.
Methodology flow is
correct and concise.



Data Tabulation
(x 3)
No table Tables provided but
no captions given
OR
Tables provided but
captions not in
sequence and not
mentioned in the
text
Tables provided,
captions given and
numbered in
sequence but no
units
Tables numbered
with the Arabic
numerals and have
captions in
sequence. The
units in which
results are
expressed are
given at the top of
each column (in
parentheses)

Graph
(x 3)
No Graph OR
All graphs wrongly
plotted
Graphs provided but
no captions given
OR
Graphs provided but
captions not in
sequence and not
mentioned in the
text
Properly captioned,
numbered and
graphs mentioned
in the text.
However, conditions
of experiment (P, T)
not mentioned in
the caption
Properly captioned,
numbered and
graphs mentioned
in the text.
Conditions of
experiment (P, T)
mentioned in the
caption

v | P a g e

Item Assessed
Unacceptable
(0)
Poor
(1)
Average
(2)
Good
(3)
Score
Calculations
(x 5)
Calculations not
shown OR
Calculations totally
wrong
Skip a few important
calculation steps
All calculation steps
are clearly written
and correct but
wrong unit
All calculation steps
are clearly written
and correct and
with correct unit

Results
(x 10)
Data sheet with
stamp not provided
with the report OR
Results not
compatible with
scopes
Results given but
significant amount
not tally with the
requirement/ scopes
Results given but a
few not tally with the
requirements of
experiment
Results shown for
all the scopes of
experiments

Discussion
(x 20)
Only mention the
results without
meaningful
discussion
Attempt to discuss
but failed miserably
Elucidation of result
but contains some
flaws
Elucidation and
supported by proper
references or
logical
explanations.

Conclusions
(x 5)
No conclusion
sections OR
Conclusions totally
not reflecting the
scopes
Conclusion missing
the important points
OR
No recommendation
given to improve the
experiment.
Conclusions
regarding major
points are drawn,
but many are
misstated, indicating
a lack of
understanding OR
Conclusion is too
general. Several
recommendations
have been given but
they are too general
and not contributing
to the experiments
improvement.
Important/
significant results
are highlighted
which also meets
the scopes of
experiments AND
Several
recommendations
have been stated.


vi | P a g e

Item Assessed
Unacceptable
(0)
Poor
(1)
Average
(2)
Good
(3)
Score
References
(x 5)
Copy & paste
references OR
Ununiformed
referencing system
OR
80% references
from internet OR
Use of Wikipedia
Most of citations in
text are not
available in list of
reference although
use same
referencing system
OR
Internet sources >
60%
A few citations in
text are not
available in list of
reference AND
Use same
referencing system
All citations in text
are available in list
of reference and
use the same
referencing system
AND
All references from
reliable resources

Grammar and
Spelling
(x 5)
Unreadable and not
written in scientific
way
Numerous spelling
and/or grammar
errors. Direct
translation using
Google Translate.
Occasional spelling
and/or grammar
errors.
Correct use of
words.


Total Assessment Marks (198)


1



ABSTRACT

The objectives of this experiment was to study gas volumetric flow rate measurement
using the orifice plate-pressure drop method, assuming the gas pressure/temperature
remain unchanged and at the values used in the sizing of the orifice and gas mass flow
rate measurement using the orifice plate-pressure drop method, using the Perfect Gas
Law to compute the gas density from the flowing pressure and temperature as well as
control using PID control mode.

The experiment was started by switching on the panel and makes sure all the valve
is open or closes accordingly. The controller FIC-91 was set to manual mode and SV
was set to 15kg/hr. PID value was set according to parameter trial 1. MV was
regulated and allows the process to stabilize. The chart recorder was switch on and
FIC-91 set to auto mode. MV8 was open for 5s and the result was observed until PV
stabilizes at set point. The result was tabulated and the procedure was repeated with
different PID setting. For trial 4, TIC-92 was set to auto mode and heater was turned
on. The procedure earlier mentioned was then repeated. In conclusion, the PI
controller most effective result is at trial 2 and by using PID controller, the effective
result will be obtain easily by the help from SV and PV.










2

METHODOLOGY



















3


RESULT :

Table 1: Result on volumetric flow rate measurement
Controller, Main
Faceplate Parameter Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4
PV1, kg/h Fm, FT-91 17 15 16 15
Controller, I/O Data Parameter

X1, % of 0-50 kg/h Fm, FT-91 34.5 30 32.5 30
X2, % of 0-200 c T, TT911 12.9 13.1 13 19.3
X3, % of 0-70 psia P, PT911 51 54.3 50 53.8
X4, % of 0-10000
mmH
2
O h, DPT911 12.4 5.7 8.5 5.8
Controller, PT Register Parameter

P15, m
3
/h F
v
7.85 5.6 7.5 5.7
P16, m
3
/h F
v
f 6.5 4.7 6 4.9
P17, Nm
3
/h F
v
b 15 11 13 11.2
P18, kg/m
3
Pf 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9
Recorder Parameter

Channel 2, c Fm, FT-91 25 15.2 18.1 14.9
Channel4,% of 0-
6.165kg/h Pf 2.635 3.021 3.046 2.898
Plant, Local Indicator Parameter

FI911, Nm
3
/h F
v
10 10 10.5 10.25
PG911A, psig P 20 23.75 20 23.25









4


DISCUSSION

1. What is your observation based on data trail 1,2,3 and 4? What is the
relationship between these 3 data?
For trial one the setting parameter did not minimize the error. For trial two, the
settings automatically adjust the error to minimum when there was an error detected.
The same result obtained for trial three. The last trial however was ran under 100c
and it gave the same result obtained from trial one.
2. What is the significant the introduction a sharp pulse load disturbance?
To see how different tuning parameter will affect the response of the controller
whether it is in P, PI or PID mode.

3. Why PI controller is used instead of PID controller in this process? From your
own understanding, how far the performance of the process if PID controller is
applies on the process?
PI controller is used in this process is because PI controller is able to eliminate the
error when it appear. PID controller on its other hand was not recommended to this
process because it only amplify the error that appear but not minimize it.











5

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, from this experiment, it can be conclude that the volumetric flow
rate measurement using the orifice plate-pressure drop method at trial 2 and trial 4 is
the lowest and give a stable graph compare to the other trials. Trial 2 give 5.6m
3
/h of
volumetric flow rate while trial 4 shows 5.7m
3
/h. Trial 1 and trial 4 states 7.9m
3
/h and
7.5m
3
/h each. These values considering the gas and temperature remain unchanged.
Volumetric flow rate at actual flow condition also shows the lowest value at trial 2
and trial 4. Each trial gives 4.7m
3
/h and 4.9m
3
/h while trial 1 and trial 4 shows
6.5m
3
/h and 6m
3
/h each. Volumetric flow rate at normal condition shows same trend
as the two parameters state before. Each trial gives value as 15m
3
/h, 11m
3
/h, 13m
3
/h
and 11.2m
3
/h in each trial.
Mass flow rate at trial 1 is 17kg/h, 15kg/h at trial 2, 16kg/h at trial 3 and 15kg/h at
trial 4. Graph for trial 2 shows that line fastly constant before and after introduce
pulse load disturbance. Trial 4 is a bit different with other trial. SV has to set to
100oC and need to wait for PV reach 100oC. This method has make the graph is
constant for a longer time before introduce a pulse load disturbance. Trial 1,2 and 3
are refer to PI controller while trial 4 refer to PID controller. Wrapping up, the PI
controller most effective result is at trial 2 and by using PID controller, the effective
result will be obtain easily by the help from SV and PV.

RECOMMENDATION

From the experiment, there are three recommendations on understanding the
controller. Firstly, the gain and reset parameter should be test in order. For example,
test with constant gain and different reset value or constant reset and different gain.
This will make sure that the study will become more effective by knowing the change
in graph. So, it can have a better observation on the changes. Lastly, the pulse load
disturbance should be open only for 5 seconds before take the reading to avoid the
error. Also, in trial 4, the PV has to reach 100
o
C before introduce the pulse load
disturbance to make sure the value is not interrupted.















6

REFERENCE