You are on page 1of 15

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the experiment Flow Ratio Plant Control was:

To identify the major components of the flow ratio process control

system
To perform start up procedures systematically
To study single loop flow control using PID controller
To study flow ratio control using linear PID controller

SUMMARY
The purpose of the experiment Flow Ratio Plant Control was to identify the major
components of the flow ratio process control system, to start up the process systematically, to
compare flow measurements by three different flow meters, to study single loop flow control
using a PID controller and to study ratio flow control using linear PID controller. The
experiment was start with the involved valves were opened and closed beforehand. Then, the
main switch on the control panel was switched on. Next, the PID Single Loop Flow Control
(Normal Operation) was tested on, followed by the Set Point Step Test (Normal Operation).
In addition to that, the PID Controller Tuning (Normal Operation) and the Flow Ratio
Control, Linear PID (Normal Operation) were then carried out. Throughout the experiment,
when two set point trials conducted which were the first trial set point was set with (PB =
100% and TI1 = 5 secs) while the second trial set point with (PB = 150% and TI1 = 10 secs),
it can deduce that the larger the proportional band, the more stable the control, less oscillation
but the greater the offset and vice versa. Therefore, the second trials have satisfactory
response than the first trial second because of the increases of PB and TI percentage value in
the second trial. Meanwhile, when in the cascade mode, the flow was maintained at a specific
value .Next, for PID Controller tuning test, the Plant ratio of the system when the instrument
ratio was equal to 1 was 0.9626 m3 where the plant ratio was equivalent to the equipment
ratio. The test which was involved with one WF pump and two WF pump showed that the
system was successful in controlling the both one and two WF pump as the plant ratio was
equivalent to the equipment ratio so the PV variable was equal to SV variable for both one
and two WF pump . Lastly, when the instrument ratio, R=1.8 were conducted for one WF
pump, the plant ratio was equivalent to the equipment ratio while when involving two WF
pump, the plant ratio was 1.0165 which was lower than the equipment ratio. The PV variable
was equal to SV at one WF pump while for two WF pump, the PV was not equal to SV. There
were few possible errors that can occur during the experiment. Firstly, the instrument might
have a leakage at the pipelines which affect the readings of the flow ratio. Besides, the
configuration of the valves has been wrong that leads to error results. The valve also might
have error that leads to different results recorded. Next, the parameters was not stabilized
when the readings were recorded which could lead to an abnormal trend of results. Other than

that, the instrument was not at the optimum performances. Thus, the ideal expected results
could not be achieved.
INTRODUCTION
Basically, this experiment was about the flow ratio plant control by
using equipment model of WF922. For this type of model, it uses water to
stimulate a liquid phase flow process. In terms of flow measuring
principles, it uses three different types which are differential pressure
measurement across by an orifice, measurement by variable area flow
meter and measurement by von Karman vortex shedding principles. Next,
the flow control then controlled by single loop PID controller at different
set points. A flow ratio then is applied where the wild stream flow rate is
measured and the other stream is controlled so as to maintain a constant
ratio of their flow rates.
This experiment also had been divided into some parts which were
first, the experiment that used PID single loop flow control in normal
operation, secondly was the set point step test also in normal operation,
PID controller tuning (normal operation) and flow ratio control, linear PID
(normal operation). For flow ratio control, linear PID, there were four tests
had been investigated which were for test 1, which was by using one WF
pump with instrument ratio, R=1, test 2 which was by using two pumps
with instrument ratio, R=1, test 3 which was by using one WF pump with
instrument ratio, R= 1.8 and lastly test 4 which was by using two WF
pumps with instrument ratio, R=1.8[5].

THEORY
The theory involved the experiment was Ratio Plant Control and Cascade Mode. The
simplest cascade control scheme involves two control loops that use two measurement signals
to control one primary variable. In such a control system, the output of the primary controller
determines the set point for the secondary controller. The output of the secondary controller is
used to adjust the control variable. Generally, the secondary controller changes quickly while
the primary controller changes slowly. Once cascade control is implemented, disturbances
from rapid changes of the secondary controller will not affect the primary controller. Cascade
control gives a much better performance because the disturbance in the flow is quickly
corrected. [4]
Usually, the process design and operations often were done by
keeping a certain ratio two or more flow rates. One of the flows in a ratiocontrol scenario, sometimes called the master flow or wild flow, is set
according to an external objective like production rate. The ratio controller
manipulates the other flow to maintain the desired ratio between the two
flows [1]. Upon this experiment, PID controller had been used to study the
single loop flow control as well as flow ratio control. The flow controlled by
the ratio controller then is called the controlled flow [2]. When ratio
control is applied, one process input, the dependent input, is proportioned
to the other process input, known as the independent input. The
independent input may be a process measurement or its set point. The
proportion that is to be maintained between the inputs is known as the
ratio. For example, a ratio of 1:1 would specify that the two inputs are to
be maintained in the same proportion. As the value of the independent
input changes, through ratio control the other process input is changed to
maintain the proportion of the inputs specified by the ratio set point. In
nearly all ratio control applications, the ratio controller sets the set points
of the flow controllers rather than the valve positions, as illustrated below,

Figure 1
Generally, this process plant had been ran by using some equipment
such as stainless steel tank (T21), centrifugal pumps (P20, P21,
P22A/P22B), vortex flow meter (FT22), variable area flow meter, rotameter
(F122), orifice plate (FE21), flow transmitter (FT21), panel mount PID
controller (FIC21), flow control valve (FCV21), pressure gauges ( PG21,
PG22), temperature gauge (TG21), and recorder (FR21). Each of the
equipment actually had applying their role in conducting this experiment.
Firstly, the main input which is water is recirculated by pumps P21 and
P22AB around tank T21 and the pump P20 also uses same pipeline as P21.
Next, the process plant uses three flow meters, which were vortex flow
meter (FT22), rotameter (F122), and an orifice plate (FE21). Apart from
that, two pressure gauges were installed at the inlet and outlet of the flow
control valve FCV21 to measure pressure drop, which is related to flow
rate. FT21 and its pipeline also had been selected to be either the
controlled flow (CF) or the wild flow (WF). Hence, it is then possible to
study any effect of different flow meters on the PID tuning of a flow loop
[3].
In current industries, the flow ratio control is used to ensure that two
or more process variables such as material flows are kept at the same
ratio even if they are changing in value. In industrial control, examples of
ratio control that come to mind are burner air/fuel ratio, mixing and
blending two liquids, injecting modifiers and pigments into resins before

molding or extrusion, and adjusting heat input in proportion to material


flow.

RESULTS
Table 1: The PID Single loop flow control (Normal operation)
Parameter
Set point (SV)
PID Values PB
PID Values TI
PID Values TD

Observation
1.8 m3 /hr
100%
5 secs
0 secs

Table 2: Set point step test when PB was 100%, TI1 was 5 secs and TD1 was 0 secs.
Parameter
PV
SV
MV

2.6 m3
2.4
2.4
64.4

2.8 m3
2.8
2.8
70.4

3.2 m3
3.2
3.2
79.4

3.8 m3
3.8
3.8
88.4

4.2 m3
4.18
4.20
99.7

Table 3: Dynamic Response Test for Set point step test when PB was 100%, TI1 was 5 secs
and TD1 was 0 secs observation
SV (m /hr )
1.8
2.4
2.8

Observation
The flow rate is stable
The flow rate is increases than 1.8 m3 and the reading is stable
The flow rate is increases than 2.4 m3 and showed minor oscillatory

3.2

response
The flow rate is increases than 2.8 m3 and showed unstable and

3.8

response sinusoidal
The flow rate is increases than 3.2 m3 and showed unstable, minor

4.2

oscillatory response
The flow rate is increases than 3.8 m3 and become stable

Table 4: Set point step test when PB was 150%, TI1 was 10 secs and TD1 was 0 secs.
Parameter
PV

2.6 m3
2.60

2.8 m3
2.80

3.2 m3
3.20

3.8 m3
3.80

4.2 m3
4.10

SV
MV

2.60
64.4

2.80
68.4

3.20
70.4

3.80
74.9

4.20
89.4

Table 5: Dynamic Response Test for Set point step test when PB was 150%, TI1 was 10 secs
and TD1 was 0 secs observation
SV (m /hr )
1.8
2.4

Observation
The flow rate is stable
The flow rate is increases than 1.8 m3 and the reading showed good

2.8

response
The flow rate is increases than 2.4 m3 and the reading showed good

3.2

response
The flow rate is increases than 2.8 m3 and the reading showed

3.8

unstable at beginning but stable afterwards


The flow rate is increases than 3.2 m3 and the reading showed

4.2

minor oscillation
The flow rates is stable

Table 6: PID Controller tuning test for maximum flow rate of Controlled Flow and Wild Flow
Maximum Flow rate
PR

4.12 m3 /4.28 m3

0.9626 m3

Controlled Flow (CF)


4.12 m3

Wild Flow (WF)


4.28 m3

Table 7: Test 1 and 2 by using one WF pump and two WF pump with instrument ratio, R=1.
Parameter / Pump
Instrument Ratio, R
Red (FT21)
Green (FT22)
PV
SV
Plant Ratio = ( FT21/FT22)
Is PV = SV?

One WF pump
1
2.24
2.24
2.26
2.26
1
Yes

Two WF pump
1
4.10
4.25
4.28
4.28
0.9647
Yes

Table 8: Test 3 and 4 by using one WF pump and two WF pump with instrument ratio R=1.8.
Parameter / Pump
Ratio
Red (FT21)
Green (FT22)
PV
SV
PR ( FT21/FT22)
Is PV = SV?

One WF pump
1.8
4.11
2.26
4.03
4.03
1.8186
Yes

Two WF pump
1.8
4.30
4.23
4.26
6.38
1.0165
No

P&I Diagram for WF922 Flow Ratio Plant Control

DISCUSSIONS
The purpose of the experiment was to identify the major components of the flow ratio
process control system, to start up the process systematically, to compare flow measurements
by three different flow meters, to study single loop flow control using a PID controller and to
study ratio flow control using linear PID controller.
The theory of simplest cascade control scheme involves two control loops that use
two measurement signals to control one primary variable. The output of the primary
controller determines the set point for the secondary controller. The output of the secondary
controller is used to adjust the control variable. Generally, the secondary controller changes
quickly while the primary controller changes slowly. Once cascade control is implemented,
disturbances will not affect the primary controller.
The experiment was began with the involved valves were opened and closed
beforehand. Then, the main switch on the control panel was switched on. Next, the PID
Single Loop Flow Control (Normal Operation) was tested on, followed by the Set Point Step
Test (Normal Operation). In addition to that, the PID Controller Tuning (Normal Operation)
and the Flow Ratio Control, Linear PID (Normal Operation) were then carried out.
Based on figure 2, table 2 and table 4, the results recorded when PB was 100%, TI1
was 5 secs and TD1 was 0 secs and when PB was 150%, TI1 was 10 secs and TD1 was 0 secs
showed in increasing in MV as the SV increases and PV increases. Meanwhile, based on
table 3, the dynamic response test for set point test when PB was 100%, TI1 was 5 secs and
TD1 was 0 secs showed that at first the flow rate was stable, however it becomes more
oscillatory and unstable as the set point increases. But when the set point reached 4.2 m /hr,
the manipulated valve was 100%, the flow rate become more stable. Besides that, the flow
rate from set point 1.8 m /hr increases when set point increases to 4.2 m /hr. Next, based on
table 5, the dynamic response test for set point test when PB was 150%, TI1 was 10 secs and
TD1 was 0 secs showed that at first the flow rate was stable, however it becomes unstable as
the set point increases. But when the set point reached 4.2 m /hr, the manipulated valve was
100%, the flow rate become more stable. Besides that, the flow rate from set point 1.8 m /hr
increases when set point increases to 4.2 m /hr. However when it was compared based on the
PID setting, the oscillatory of the dynamic response of each graph of table 3 (when PB was
100%, TI1 was 5 secs and TD1 was 0 secs) was much more oscillatory and unstable then the
dynamic response of each graph of table 5.

Two trials conducted with different value of proportional band showed different
observation. The first trial was set with PB = 100% while the second trial set point with PB =
150%. From the graph obtained, it can concluded that the larger the proportional band, the
more stable the control, less oscillation but the greater the offset. In fact, the narrower the
proportional band, the less stable the process but the smaller the offset. As the proportional
band is reduced, the controller response to any change in measurement becomes greater and
greater. At some point depending upon the characteristic of each particular process, the
response in the controller will be large enough to drive the measurement back in the opposite
direction so far as to cause constant cycling the measurement. This proportional band valued
is a limit on the adjustment of the controller in that loop. On the other hand, if too wide a
proportional band is used, the controller response to any change in measurement is too small
and the measurement is not controlled as tightly as possible. However, as the set point
increases, the MV increases and there were deviation of response in each changes of set
point. In both of the set point trial, it can observed that the second (PB = 150% and TI1 = 10
secs) trial have satisfactory response than the first trial second (PB = 100% and TI1 = 5 secs).
This is because of the increases of PB and TI percentage value in the second trial. Based on
the theory, it was stated that increases in PB improved the damping and the response will be
more stable. For first trial, it may control the lower flow rate and for higher flow rate, the
response may be too oscillatory. To damp out the oscillatory, the PB and TI1 should be
increases. Furthermore, by using the PID controller, it eliminates the offset remaining error.
Integral actions give a steadily increase of the corrective action as long as an error will
continue to exist. It can compared when the TD was remains constant and the value of TI was
changed from 5s to 10s, the adjustable parameter for the integral is termed repeats per
minute which the number of times per minute that the integral action output changes by the
proportional output.
The mode of the equipment was changed to the cascade mode caused the flow to be
maintained at a specific value. The cascade control accounts for the disturbances in the
primary variable more quickly. By the definition, ratio control used to maintain the
relationship between two variables to control a third variable. In contrast it is to maintain the
flow rate of one stream in a process. In the ratio control, the output changed was the ratio
factor. The CF and WF value was manipulated by disturbing the process using the whether
one WF pump or two WF pump.

For PID Controller tuning test (table 6 and figure 3), the maximum flow rate of
Controlled Flow (CF) and Wild Flow (WF) were 4.12 m3 and 4.28 m3. Thus, the Plant ratio of
the system when the instrument ratio was equal to 1 was 0.9626 m 3. This showed that the
plant ratio was equivalent to the equipment ratio hence the system was successful in
controlling the whole process. Based on table 7, there were 2 test was conducted which
involved with instrument ratio, R=1. Both test which was involved with one WF pump and
two WF pump showed that the plant ratio was equivalent to the equipment ratio hence the
system was successful in controlling the both one and two WF pump. The PV variable was
equal to SV variable for both one and two WF pump. For test 1, the PV was equal to SV
showed that there were no error and the process was successfully controlled by using the PID
controller. For test 2, the PV was equal to SV proved that the system managed to eliminate
the error when the disturbance was applied by successfully change the MV to cause the
changes in PV to have the same value as SV. Meanwhile based on table 8, there were 2 test
was conducted which involved with instrument ratio, R=1.8. Test 3 which was involved with
one WF pump showed that the plant ratio was equivalent to the equipment ratio. However,
for test 4 which involved with two WF pump, the plant ratio was 1.0165 which was lower
than the equipment ratio. The PV variable for test 3 was equal to SV but the PV for test 4 was
not equal to SV. This is because for test 3, the PV was equal to SV showed that there were no
error and the process was successfully controlled by using the PID controller. Meanwhile for
test 4, the PV was not equal to SV because the system did not manage to eliminate the error
when the disturbance was applied. This was because of unsuccessful changes of the MV that
cause the changes in PV did not achieve the value as SV. Hence, it can be concluded that
Cascade control gives a much better performance because the disturbance in the flow is
quickly corrected as three out of four test was successful in manage the PV to be equal to SV
[6].
There were few possible errors that can occur during the experiment. Firstly, the
instrument might have a leakage at the pipelines which affect the readings of the flow ratio.
Besides, the configuration of the valves has been wrong that leads to error results. The valve
also might have error that leads to different results recorded. Next, the parameters was not
stabilized when the readings were recorded which could lead to an abnormal trend of results.
Other than that, the instrument was not at the optimum performances. Thus, the ideal
expected results could not be achieved.

CONCLUSION
As the conclusion, all the objectives of the experiment were successfully achieved.
Based on the results obtained when two set point trials conducted, it can deduce that the
larger the proportional band, the more stable the control, less oscillation but the greater the
offset and vice versa. This is because when the proportional band is reduced, the controller
response to any change in measurement becomes greater. Therefore, it can conclude that the
second trial have satisfactory response than the first trial second because of the increases of
PB and TI percentage value in the second trial. Meanwhile, when the experiment was
changed into cascade mode, the flow was maintained at a specific value as the cascade
control accounts for the disturbances in the primary variable more quickly. Next, for PID
Controller tuning test, the Plant ratio of the system when the instrument ratio was equal to 1
was 0.9626 m3 where the plant ratio was equivalent to the equipment ratio as the system was
successful controlling the whole process. The test which was involved with one WF pump
and two WF pump showed that the system was successful in controlling the both one and two
WF pump as the plant ratio was equivalent to the equipment ratio so the PV variable was
equal to SV variable for both one and two WF pump as there was no error and the system
managed to eliminate the error when the disturbance was applied respectively. Lastly, when
the instrument ratio, R=1.8 were conducted for one WF pump, the plant ratio was equivalent
to the equipment ratio but when involving two WF pump, the plant ratio was lower than the
equipment ratio. The PV was not equal to SV as the system did not manage to eliminate the
error when the disturbance was applied when involving two WF pump. Overall, it can deduce
that Cascade control gives a much better performance because the disturbance in the flow is
quickly corrected. There were few possible errors that can occur during the experiment.
Firstly, the instrument might have a leakage at the pipelines which affect the readings of the
flow ratio. Besides, the configuration of the valves has been wrong that leads to error results.
The valve also might have error that leads to different results recorded. Next, the parameters
was not stabilized when the readings were recorded which could lead to an abnormal trend of
results. Other than that, the instrument was not at the optimum performances. Thus, the ideal
expected results could not be achieved.

RECOMMENDATIONS
There was recommendation to overcome the possible errors. Firstly, the instrument
should be maintained and checked before the experiment begins as there might have a
leakage at the pipelines which affect the readings of the flow ratio. Besides, the configuration
of the valves should be checked so that there would nothing has been wrong that leads to
error results. The valve opening should be also checked in order to overcome error that leads
to different results recorded. Next, the parameters should be wait until it was stabilized when
the readings were recorded which could prevent the abnormal trend of results. Other than
that, the instrument should be monitor whether it was at the optimum performances. Thus, the
ideal expected results could be achieved.

REFERENCES

[1] Ratio Control. (2015) Modeling and Control. [Online].[Accessed 24 March, 2015].
Available

from

World

Wide

Web:

http://modelingandcontrol.com/2011/02/ratio_control/
[2] Process Control Fundamentals. (2015) Pa Control. [Online].[Accessed 24 March, 2015].
Available from World Wide Web:
http://www.pacontrol.com/download/ProcessControlFundamentals.pdf
[3] Tutorial Ratio Control. (2015). [Online].[Accessed 24 March, 2015]. Available from
World Wide Web: http://www.dcnz.com/resources/tutorials/ratio_control.pdf
[4] Cascade Control. (2015). [Online] [Accessed 24 March, 2015]. Available from World
Wide Web: https://controls.engin.umich.edu/wiki/index.php/CascadeControl
[5] Lab Manual Process Dynamic and Control Lab, Experiment 4 Flow Ratio

Plant Control
[6] I.J. Nagrath, Control System Engineering, Ashan Ltd, 2008, p477