You are on page 1of 15

1

Samran Khalid

EXPERIMENT NUMBER 01
Objective:
To determine the stroke checking of control valve also record the
pneumatic and electric signal to verify the controlling range of
control valve.

Control Valves
Introduction:
The control action in any control loop
system, is executed by the final control element. The most
common type of final control element used in chemical and
other process control is the control valve. A control valve is
normally driven by a diaphragm type pneumatic actuator
that throttles the flow of the manipulating variable for
obtaining the desired control action.

Construction:
A control valve essentially consists of a plug and a stem. The
stem can be raised or lowered by air pressure and the plug
changes the effective area of an orifice in the flow path. A
typical control valve action can be explained using following
figure when the air pressure increases, the downward force of
the diaphragm moves the stem downward against the spring.

2
Samran Khalid

Classification:
Control valves are available in different
types and shapes. They can be classified in different ways;
based on:
Action.
Number of plugs.
Flow characteristics.

Action:
Control valves operated through pneumatic actuators can be
either (i) air to open, or (ii) air to close. They are designed
such that if the air supply fails, the control valve will be either
fully open, or fully closed, depending upon the safety
requirement of the process. For example, if the valve is used
to control steam or fuel flow, the valve should be shut off
completely in case of air failure. On the other hand, if the
valve is handling cooling water to a reactor, the flow should
be maximum in case of emergency. The schematic
arrangements of these two actions are shown in Fig. 2. Valve
A are air to close type, indicating, if the air fails, the valve will
be fully open. Opposite is the case for valve B.

3
Samran Khalid

No. of Plugs:
Control valves can also be
characterized in terms of the number of plugs present, as
single-seated valve and double-seated valve. The difference
in construction between a single seated and double-seated
valve are illustrated in figure below.

Flow Characteristics:
It describes how the flow rate
changes with the movement or lift of the stem. The shape of
the plug primarily decides the flow characteristics. However,
the design of the shape of a control valve and its shape
requires further discussions. The flow characteristic of a valve
is normally defined in terms of (a) inherent characteristics
and (b) effective characteristics. An inherent characteristic is
the ideal flow characteristics of a control valve and is decided
by the shape and size of the plug. On the other hand, when

4
Samran Khalid

the valve is connected to a pipeline, its overall performance


is decided by its effective characteristic.

Range ability:
Rangeability of a control valve is defined as the
ratio of the maximum controllable flow and the minimum
controllable flow. Thus
Rangeability Maximum
controllable flow
Minimum
Rangeability of a controllable flow
normally in between 20 and 70.

Characteristic curves:

=
control

valve

is

5
Samran Khalid

Apparatus:
Trainer level control

Procedure:

First of all I checked that instrument air supply is off.


Then I switched on the apparatus.
I set valve opening at 0%.
I checked the value of pneumatic signal.
Then I checked the value of electrical signal.
Then I increased the valve opening say 25%.
Then I checked the values of both electrical and pneumatic
signal.
At the end I fully opened the valve say 100%.
Then I checked the values of both electrical and pneumatic
signals
Then I plotted valve opening versus pneumatic signal and
valve opening versus electrical signal.
I observed that a straight line was obtained.
Then I made calculations.

Conclusion:
From this experiment I concluded that
When the value of % valve opening is increased then the
value of pneumatic signal is also increased.
o % valve opening pneumatic signal.
When the value of % valve opening is increased then the
value of electrical signal is also increased.
o % valve opening electrical signal.

6
Samran Khalid

OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS

Valve opening
0.00

Pneumatic signal
(Psi)
3

Electrical signal
(mA)
4.1

0.25

8.1

0.50

12.1

0.75

12

16.1

1.00

15

19.9

Valve opening versus Pneumatic signal:

Valve opening versus pneumatic signal


16

15

14
12

12

10

Pneumatic signal (psi)

8
6

2
0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1.2

% Valve opening

7
Samran Khalid

Empirical relation
Slope=

63
0.250.00

Slope =12 psi


y=mx +c

at (0.25 , 6)
6=12 ( 0.25 ) + c
6=3+c
c=3

So
Intercept=3
y=mx +c

y=12 x+ 3

Valve opening versus Electrical signal:

8
Samran Khalid

Valve opening versus electrical signal


25
20

Electrical signal (mA)

15
10
5
0

0.5

1.5

% Valve opening

Empirical relation

Slope=

8.14.1
0.250.00

Slope=15.84 mA
at (0.25 , 8.1)

8.1=15.84 ( 0.25 )+ c
8.1=3.96+ c

c=4.14

So
Intercept=4.14

y=mx +c
y=15.84 x +4.14

9
Samran Khalid
Intercept=4.14
y=mx +c

y=15.84 x +4.14

10
Samran Khalid

EXPERIMENT NUMBER 02
Objective:
Record the system parameters of level controller apparatus,
standardize the pressure transducer and report its accuracy.

Apparatus:
Level control trainer RT-512

Procedure:

First of all I closed the outlet valve of tank.


Then I start the pump to fill the tank at certain level.
Then I closed the pump.
I opened the outlet valve.
Water started to flow from tank.
After some time I closed the valve.
I checked the value of level shown by column (Standard
value).
I checked the value of level shown by control system
(Indicated value).
I calculated difference of both.
I calculated % error.
I calculated accuracy.
I plotted standard versus indicated level.

Conclusion:
From the experiment I concluded that
Difference of standard and indicated value increases with
decrease in flow rate.
% error increases with decrease in flow rate.
Accuracy decreases with decrease in flow rate.

11
Samran Khalid

Observations and calculations


Seri
al
#
Unit
s

Standar Indicate Differen


d
d
ce
value
value
cm
cm
cm

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

60.6
55.6
51
45.5
40.8
35.6
30.6
25.8
21.6
18
14.8
9.9

Error
(Difference/St
value)*100
%

Accuracy
(100Error)
%

1
1.09
2
1.11
2
1.71
2
3.2
8
20
48
98

99
98.91
98
98.89
98
98.29
98
96.8
92
80
52
2

0.6
0.6
1
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.6
3
4.8
4.9

Standard verses indicated values


70
60
50
40

Indicated values (cm)

30
20
10
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Standard value (cm)

70

12
Samran Khalid

Experiment number 03
Objective:
To study the behavior of the closed loop control system on the
level controller apparatus. Control level of the measuring tank by
changing the set point also collect the data for the response of
disturbance on the closed loop system.

Apparatus:
Level trainer RT-512

Procedure:
First of all I run the apparatus.
I standardized the apparatus.
Then I set the apparatus on automatic mode by control
panel.
Then I gave set point to the system.
I noted process point and valve opening at that set point
using control system.
Then I changed the set point.
And I noted the process point and valve opening at that set
point using control system.
Similarly I noted process point and valve opening at different
set points.
At the end I plotted set point versus process point.

Conclusion:
From the experiment I concluded that
As valve opening increases the variation between set
point and process point decreases.
As valve opening decreases the variation between set
point and process point increases.
We can say that
Set point is directly proportional to valve opening.

13
Samran Khalid

14
Samran Khalid

Serial
#

Set
Point

Process
Point

Valve
opening

Units

cm

cm

10

8.2

22

20

22.2

29

30

29.8

36

40

39.7

38

50

49.8

41

60

60

41

Observations and calculations

15
Samran Khalid

Set point versus Process point


70
60

60

50

Process point (cm)

49.8

40

39.7

30
20

29.8
22.2

10 8.2
0
0 10

20

30

40

50

60

Set point (cm)

70