3.

0 RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Results

Figure 1: First (I) PID trial values

Figure 2: second (II) PID trial values

 Figure 3: Maximum CF and WF

Figure 4: Flow Ratio Control, Linear PID

3.2 Discussions
 In this experiment, there are two PID controller need to be examine which it is single
loop flow control and flow ratio control using linear. It has to be start with examining single
loop flow control first. For single loop flow control (figure 1 and 2) there are two trials that
had been done with two different PID controllers. As for the first trials, the PID controllers
are set as below,

PB 1 = 100%, TI 1 = 5 sec, TD 1 = 0 sec

For the first trial of the experiment, the MV is set to be 100% and the set point (SV) is 1.8

m3
.
hr

MV is adjusted manually so that MV = PV, then the set point is tested with difference

m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3
increasing value which are 2.4 hr ,2.6 , ,3.2 , 3.8 hr , and 4.2 hr . At
hr 2.8 hr hr

the beginning set point of 2.8, it showed that there is an early disturbance in the system and
when it reached the set point of 3.2 the graph showed obvious oscillation while the other have
steady and normal response. The oscillation is due to poor and unsatisfactory PID controller
which was not able to control higher PB% and TI% that can improve damping. The second
trials was tested with different PID value,

PB 1 = 150%, TI 1 = 10 sec, TD 1 = 0 sec

m3
Set point is remained with 1.8 hr and the early set point was set at the lower value of 2.4

3
m
hr and then set to different value as was tested in the first trial. In this trial, the damping

of oscillation is more controllable and steadier than to compare with first trial. This is because
larger PB% and TI% was used in second trial, it damped out the oscillatory that prevent it
from getting good response of the PID.
As for the figure 3, PID controller tuning is experimented, the PID controller becomes flow
ratio controller by switching to cascade mode. The SV is no longer operational, but is
remotely cascaded. So, there would not be any changes from SV manually. PID controller is
change again back to first trial (I) PID values with MV set as 100%.

PB1 = 100%, TI1 = 5 sec, TD1 = 0 sec

In the chart paper, shows that the maximum Controller Flow, CF and Wild Flow, WF flow

m3 m3
rates and the value are 4.17 hr and 4.27 hr respectively.

Whats more, in the next test which is Flow Ratio Control linear PID used the second (II) PID
trial values which is,

PB1 = 150%, TI1 = 10 sec, TD1 = 0 sec

Four tests observed to obtained performance of flow ratio control system. Disturbance
applied by switching on and off WF pumps. As for test 1, one WF pump needed with
instrument ratio, R=1. In this test, cascade mode was used and is proven by the chart paper
response (figure 4) showed that the response for the PV and SV is at steady state where CF
and WF is almost resembled each lines and the line is steady and does not oscillate.
As for the test 2, two WF pumps needed with using the same ratio, but WF is disturbed by
switching on its second pump. Char paper showed that CF and WF is still at its steady state
but slight oscillate occur but can be consider SV is equal to PV because it is quietly
staggered.
Next for the test 3, one WF pump is needed and ratio is set at 1.8 at the CGN1 parameter
panel. In this test, the pump need to be switch on is P22A. The response showed at the chart
paper for figure 4 was the flow rates for CF is higher to compare with WF which is lower.
This is because of only one WF pump is used and the bigger tested ratio. At this rate, the SV
is not equal to PV and this leading to non-steady steady line even its not highly fluctuated.

m3 m3
The CF and WF value at this test are 4.04 hr and 2.13 hr respectively. The enormous

ratio lead the response of the line to be unsteady.

As for the final test, two WF pump needed with the same ratio (set at CGN1 control panel)
that is 1.8. At this test, both pump P22A and P22B is switched on to disturbed WF. The
response on the chart paper of figure 4 was observed. At this test, it showed that the flow
rates of CF and WF is appease with both line, lining up in order. It is because of two pump
were on. Hence, the SV and PV for this test is not a steady state because WF shows
oscillatory movement on the chart to compare with CF and besides WF from previous test
shows a decreasing mobility. To compare one WF and two WF pump is to subtract the WF so
that we can obtained the ratio that has been held during the test was on going. The R is 1.81
which is slightly a little over to compare with ratio that has been set up to the CGN1. May be
this is because WF are not able to control the flow with the ratio given.