Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Process Control PDF

    Uploaded by

    Aubrenica Lopez
    50 views11 pages

    Original Title

    process control.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    50 views11 pages

    Process Control PDF

    Uploaded by

    Aubrenica Lopez

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    Abnormal Situation Management (ASM) Consortium, http! ‘emeansortum.com, 2015, Babji §, U. Nallaivam, and R, Rengaswamy, Root Cause Analysis (of Linear Closed-Loop Oscillatory Chemical Process Systems, Ind Eng. Chem. Res, 5113712 (2012) Banerjee. 8. Industrial Hazards and Plant Safty, Taylor and Francis ‘New York, 2008, Chiang. LHL, E. L. Russell and RD. Bratz, Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Industrial Systems, Springer-Verlag, London, UK 2001 Choudhury, M.A. A. $,.M& Jain, and, L. Shab, Stetion— Definition, Modelling, Detection and Quantification, Process Cont 1B, 232 (2008) Connell. B. Process Instrumentation Applications Manual, MeGraw- ll, New York, 1996, (Ceow, D. A., and JE Louvar, Chemical Process Safes: Fundamen tale with Applicauons, 2nd ed, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cli NI 2002. Dash, S, and V. Venkatasubramanian, Integrated Framework for ‘Abnormal Event Management and Process Hazard Analysis ‘AICHE 49, 124 (2003). Deshotels, Rand M. Dejmek, Choosing the Level of Detail for Hazard ldeniiation, Process Saf Prog, 44 218 (1995). Engineering Equipment & Materials Uses’ Assocation (EEMUA). ‘Alarm Systems~A Guideto Design, Management and Procurement, 2nd ed, Publication 191, London, 2007 Hollfeld, BR, and E, Habibi, Alarm Management: Seven Effective Methods for Optimum Performance, ISA, Research Triangle Pak Ne, 2007, Hollifeld,B.R.,andE, Habib, Alanm Managements A Comprehensive Guide, ISA, Research Tangle Park, NC. 2011 Intemational Society of Automation (ISA), ANSUISA-84.00.01 2006 “Application of Safety Intrumented Stems forthe Process Indus ines, Rescarch Tangle Park, NC (200, Jofriet, P, arm Management, Chem En. 112 (2), 36 (2005). EXERCISES 10.1 Air samples from a process area are continuously drawn through a Yin diameter tube to an analytical instrument that is located 60 m away. The tubing has an outside diameter fof 635 mm and a wall thickness of 0.762 mm, The flow rate through the transfer line is 10 em"/s for ambient conditions of 20°C and 1 atm. The pressure drop in the transfer line is negligible. Because chlorine gas is used in the process, a leak can poison workers in the area. It takes the analyzer 10 8 to respond after chlorine first reaches it, Determine the amount of time that is required to detect a chlorine leak in the processing area. State any assumptions that you make, Would this amount of time be acceptable ifthe hazardous gas were carbon monoxide, instead of chlorine? (Adapted from: Student Problems for Safety, Health, and Loss Prevention in Chemical Processes, AICHE Center for Chetni- cal Process Safety, NY, 1990), 102 A cylindrical storage tank is 2 m tall and 1 m in diameter. A low-level alarm is activated when the liquid level decreases {00.25 m, Suppose that the tank is initially half full when a slow leak develops near the bottom of the tank due to corrosion The relationship between the liquid level h and the leakage flow rate qis q=cvh Exercises 173 Ket, A, HAZOP and HAZAN: Identfying and Assersing Process Industry Hazards, thea, IChemE, Rughy. Warwickshire, Englan, 2001 Kletz, T.A., What Went Wrong? Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters and How They Could Have Been Avoided, Sth ed, Bleewier, New York. 2009 Leveson N.G., and 6. Stephanopoulos A System Theoretic, Conte! Inspired View and Approach to Process Safty, AICHE 1, 0, 2 2014, Mannan, S. (Ed), Leve’ Lose Prevention inthe Process Industries: Hazard Hentfiction, Assesment, and Control, Vl. 1, Mb, Butterworth-Heinemann Elsevier, New York, 2012. Mannan, M.S, 8 Sachdeva, H. Chen, O. Reyes Valdes, Y. Liu, and D. M. Labourcur, Trends and Challenger in. Process Safty AICHE J, 64, 3558 (2015) MoGuite, C, 1 Lo, and E. Mathiason, Selecting Sensors for Safety TInstrumented Systems, Chem. Eng. Progr, 114 (7), 19 (2015) Montgomery, D. C., and G.C. Runger. Applied Statics and Prob abil for Engineers, 6ts ed, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NI 2013, Nucleat Regulatory Commission, Backprounder on the Thiee Mile Island Accident hpsiwwware govreading-rmidoe-collectionstact sheet ile hem, 2015, ‘Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Process Sefery Management, Publication 3132, OSHA, US. Dept. of Labor, ‘Washington D.C. 2000. Perey, R-H. and D.W.Green (Rds), Chemical Engineer’ Handbook, ‘th ed, Section 28, Process Safety, McGraw-Hill New York, 2008 [Rinatd Discussion, Chem. Eng. Educ, 24, Spring lssue, 76 (1990) Turton, RR. C. Baie, W.B, Whiting, and A. Saaciite, Analysis Shnthests and Design of Chemical Proceses, ath ed, Prentice-Hall PIR, Upper Saidle River, NJ.2012, ‘Venkatasubramanian, V, Sjstemic Failures: Challenges and Opporty nities in Risk Management in Complex Systems, AICHE J. 87, 2 ait) ‘where g has units of m'/min, his in m and C= 0.065 m?°imin. () Ifthe leak begins at SAM, when will the alarm sound? () How much liquid has leaked out when the alarm sounds? 110.3 The two-phase feed stream for the gat-liquid separator (or ash drum) shown in Fig. ELO.3 consists of a hydrocar: ‘bon mixture. Because the pressure inthe vessel is significantly a, pe > » L@ Fees A a Figure E10.3 ATA Chapter 10 Process Safety and Process Control Heating Figure E104 lower than the feed pressure, part of the liquid feed flashes to {orm a gas phase. The hydrocarbons are ammable and some- ‘what hazardous Discuss the process safety issues and propose an alarm/SIS strategy 10.4 The loss of the coolant to a process vessel ean produce an ‘unacceptably high pressure in the vessel, As a result, a pres: sure relief valve is used to reduce the pressure by releasing the vapor mixture to the atmosphere. But il the mixture is toxic or flammable, the release can be hazardous. For the distilla- tion column in Fig. E10.4, which operates at above ambient temperature, propose an alarnvSIS system that will reduce the ‘number of releases to the environment, even though the occa sional loss of coolant flow to the condenser is unavoidable. (Wore: The pressure relief valve atthe top of the column is not shown in Fig. E104.) 105 The probability ofa particular type of sensor functioning properly is 0.95, Consequently, a triply redundant sensor sys tem has been proposed for a critical measurement. Thus, three independent sensors will be installed, and the median of the thice measurements will be used for the alarms and control calculations. What is the probability that at least two of the sensors will be working at any time? 10.6 Consider the liquid storage tank with « low-level inter lock, as shown in Fig, 10.4. Suppose that an independent low-level alarm is added, with its set-point value above the Bottoms 2 8 value forthe low level switch. Ifboth the low-level alarm and the low-level interlock system fail simultaneously, the pump could be seriously damaged, What isthe probability that this ‘occurs? What is the mean time between failures? Failure rates (faults per year): Solenoid switch: yy =0.01 Level switch: yyy = 0.85 Level alarm: = 44, =03 10.7 For the reliability analysis of the flow control loop in Example 10.4, the DP flowmeter is the least reliable compo- nent. Suppose that a second, identical flowmeter is used in @ backup mode so that it could be automatically and immedi ately employed ifthe first flowmeter failed, How much would the overall system reliability improve by adding the second 108 Repeat Exercise 10.7 for the case where the flowmeters are triply redundant; that is, there are three identical flowme- ters with twoin the backup mode, How much would the overall system reliability improve? 109 Using the failure rate data in Table 10.1, evaluate the reli- ability and mean time between failures for the high-pressure interlock in Fig, 10.4. Assume that the failure rate for the solenoid switch and valve is « = 0.42 faults per year Chapter 11 Dynamic Behavior and Stability of Closed-Loop Control Systems CHAPTER CONTENTS, 1L1 Block Diagram Representation LLL Process 1112 Composition Sensor-Transmitter (Analyzer) 1113 Controller 1114 Current-to-Pressure (UP) Transducer LLLS Control Valve 112. Closed-Loop Transfer Functions 112.1 Block Diagram Reduction 1122. Set-Point Changes 1123 Disturbance Changes 1124 General Expression for Feedback Control Systems 113 Closed-Loop Responses of Simple Control Systems 134 1132 Proportional Control and Set-Point Changes Proportional Control and Disturbance Changes 1133 134 PI Control and Disturbance Changes PI Control of an Integrating Process 114. Stability of Closed-Loop Control Systems 114.1 General Stability Criterion 114.2 Routh Stability Criterion 1143 Direct Substitution Method 115 Root Locus Diagrams Summary In this chapter, we consider the dynamic behavior of processes that are operated using feedback control. This combination of the process, the feedback controller, and the instrumentation is referred to as a feedback control loop ot a closed-loop system. Thus, the term closed-loop system is used to denote the controlled pro- cess. We begin by demonstrating that block diagrams and transfer functions provide a useful description of closed-loop systems, We then use block diagrams to ana- lyze the dynamic behavior of several simple closed-loop systems, Although feedback control yields many desirable characteristics, it also has one undesirable characteris- tic, If the controller is poorly designed or the process 175 176 Chapter 11 dynamic characteristics change after the controller is implemented, the resulting closed-loop system can be unstable. This means that the controller can produce a growing oscillation in the controlled variable rather than Keeping it at the sct point. Understanding the source of this unstable behavior, and how to prevent it, are important issues. In this chapter, several mathematical stability criteria are introduced, and practical methods for analyzing closed-loop stability are considered, 11.1 BLOCK DIAGRAM REPRESENTATION In Chapters 1 and 8, we have shown that a block dia- gram provides a convenient representation of the flow of information around a feedback control loop. The previous discussion of block diagrams was qualita- live rather than quantitative, because the blocks were labeled but did not indicate the relationships between process variables. However, quantitative information can also be included by showing the transfer function for each block. To illustrate the development of a block diagram, we roturn to a provious example, the stirred-tank blending process considered in earlier chapters. The schematic diagram in Fig. 111 shows the blending tank with the flow rate of pure component A, w.as the manipulated variable. The control objective is to regulate the tank composition, x, by adjusting the mass flow rate w,. The primary disturbance variable is assumed to be inlet composition x,. The tank composition is measured by a sensoritransmitter witose output signal x, is sent to an electronic controller. Because a pneumatic control valve is used, the controller output (an electrical sig- nal in the range of 4 to 20 mA) must be converted to an equivalent pneumatic signal p, (3 to 15 psig) by a current-to-pressure transducer, The transducer output signal is then used to adjust the valve. we m ie IP fie) Vp Figure 11.1 Composition conttol system for a stirred-tank blending process Dynamic Behavior and Stability of Closed-Loop Control Systems Next, we develop a transfer function for each of the five elements in the feedback control loop. For the sake of simplicity, flow rate w, is assumed to be constant, and the system is initially operating at the nominal steady rate. Later, we extend this analysis to more general situations. ILL1 Process In Example 49, the approximate dynamic model of @ stirred-tank blending system was developed: X= (4) Xo + ( 4.) Wye) (kl) whee Yo y= B, and Ko 1S + (12) Figure 112 provides a block diagram representation of the information in Eqs. 11-1 and 112 and indicates the units for each variable. In the diagram, the deviation variable, X/(s), denotes the change in exit composition due to a change in inlet composition X{is) (the dis- turbance). Similarly, X1(s) is a deviation variable that denotes the change in X'(s) due to a change in the manipulated variable (the flow rate of pure A, W5()). The effects of these changes are additive because X'() = X4(0) +X4G) as a direct consequence of the Superposition Principle for linear systems discussed in ‘Chapter 3. Recall that this transfer function represen- tation is valid only for linear systems and for nonlinear systems that have been linearized, as is the case for the blending process model 11.1.2 Composition Sensor-Transmitter (Analyzer) We assume that the dynamic behavior of the compo- sition sensor-transmitter can be approximated by a first-order transfer function: Xnl9) Ku XO as+1 This instrument has negligible dynamics when +>, For a change in one of the inputs, the measured com position .x,(0) rapidly follows the true composition (a3) Xi0 [ration wel Wyte) iheimind Figure 11.2 Block diagram of the blending process, x6 K, =, Kale 111 Block Diagram Representation 177 Xiph Pie) Zip) > Bi) irvass action! | Fnot Tal Figure 11.3 Block diagram for the composition sensor-transmitter (analyzes) (9, even while x'() is slowly changing with time constant +. Hence, the dynamic error associated with the measurement can be neglected (cf. Section 9.4). A useful approximation is to set ,=0 in Eg, 113. The steady-state gain K,, depends on the input and output ranges of the composition sensor-transmitter combination, as indicated in Section 9.13. The block diagram for the sensor-transmitter is shown in Fig. 113 11.1.3 Controller Suppose that an electronic proportional plus integral controller is used. From Chapter 8, the controller transfer function is Pe) a ar (155) where P"(3) and B(s) are the Laplace transforms of the controller output p(t) and the error signal e(1). Note that pi and e are electrical signals that have units of mA, while K, is dimensionless. The error signal is expressed as (aay (0) = Fp) — x9u(0) ars) or after taking Laplace transforms, Eqs) =Xip(9) - Xp(8) (116) The symbol Z/(¢) denotes the intemal setpoint composi- tion expressed as an equivalent electrical current signal. This signal is used internally by the controller. ¥',(t) is related to the actual composition set point x/(¢) by the sensor-transmitter gain K,, (Which is the slope of the calibration curve): Fpl) = Kytip(O ayy Thus - ie wn The block diagram representing the controller in Eqs. 11-4 through 118 is shown in Fig. 11.4. The symbol for the subtraction operation is called a comparator. In general, if a reported controller gain is not dimen: sionless, it includes the gain of at least one other device (such as an actuator) in addition to the dimensionless controller gain. Ky mass fraction] Teal OS mar Taal Kalo) Tal Figure 11.4 Block diagram for the controller. 11.1.4 Current-to-Pressure (I/P) Transducer Because transducers are usally designed to have linear haractorstesand negligible ast) dynamics we sume thatthe wamudcertanwr ncton merely conte of xeniyate gun Rp Pi P\(s) In Fg, 189, Pf) denotes the ouput signal om the 1P ttanaiver in deviation form. The eonfesponding block Sinpram shown nF 11 Kip (ars) 11.1.5 Control Valve As discussed in Section 9.2, control valves are usually esigned so that the flow rate through the valve is a nearly linear function ofthe signal to the valve actuator. Therefore, a first-order transfer function usually pro: vides an adequate model for operation of an installed valve in the vicinity of a nominal steady state. Thus, we assume that the control valve can be modeled as Wye) Ke Ie = at10) ‘The block diagram for an /P transducer plus pneumatic control valve is shown in Fig. 11.6. Now that transfer functions and block diagrams in Figs. 112-116 have been developed for the individual components of the feedback control system, we can combine this information to obtain the composite block diagram of the controlled system shown in Fig. 117. ts) Pils) pio fg, [Pe im to Figure 115 Block diagram for the UP transducer. Pits) K W5t0 ipsid a kg Figure 11.6 Block diagram for the control valve. 478 Chapter 11 Dynamic Behavior and Stability of Closed Loop Control Systems Xinld Fat 6 suf ze Pio [Re Lwien [Re xo (es Tmal mal elma |? Pips | +1 mgm] +1 [xr mass acto | (eel Xnt Tal Figure 11.7 Block diagram for the entire blending process compo: 11.2 CLOSED-LOOP TRANSFER FUNCTIONS ‘The block diagrams considered so far have been specit- ically developed for the stirred-tank blending system The more general block diagram in Fig. 118 contains the standard notation ¥ = controlled variable U = manipulated variable D = disturbance variable {also referred to a the foad variable P= controller output E=ertor signal Y,, = measured value of Y ¥,, =#et point ¥,, =internal set point (used by the controller) Y, =change in ¥ due to U Y= change in ¥ due to D G, = controller transfer function G, = transfer function for the final control element y, y, z P sition contro system, G, = process transfer function G, = disturbance transfer function G,, = transfer function for sensor-transmitter K,, = steady-state gain for Gy, In Fig. 118, each variable is the Laplace transform of a deviation variable. To simplify the notation, the primes and s dependence have been omitted: thus, Y is used rather than ¥"(s). Because the final control element is often a control valve, its transfer function is denoted by G,. Note that the process transfer function G, indicates the effect of the manipulated variable on the controlled variable. The disturbance transfer function G, represents the effect of the disturbance variable on the controlled variable, For the stirred-tank blending system, G, and G, are given in Bg. 1-1 ‘The standard block diagram in Fig. 11.8 can be used to represent a wide variety of practical control problems. Other blocks can be added to the standard diagram to represent additional elements in the feedback con- trol loop such as the current-to-pressure transducer in Fig. 115. In Fig. 118, the signal path from Eto Y through blocks G., G,, and G, is referred to as the forward path. Figure 11.8 Standard block diagram of a feedbac control system. 112 Closed-Loop Transfer Functions 179 Yop Fy r x x Peg! a “6 | 4 Yn Gy Figure 119 Alternative form of the standard block diagram of a Leedback control system. The path from ¥ to the comparator through G,,iscalled 4 x x x the feedback path « & ae Figure 11.9 shows an alternative representation of the standard block diagram that is also used in the control literature. Because the disturbance transfer functions appear in different locations in Figs. 118 and 1139, dif- ferent symbols are used. For these two block diagrams to be equivalent, the relation between Y and D must be preserved. Thus, G, and Gj must be related by the expression Gy = G, Gi}. Note that ¥,, and D are the independent input sig- nals for the controlled process because they are not affected by operation of the control loop. By contrast, U and D are the independent inputs for the uncontrolled process, To evaluate the performance of the control system, we need to know how the controlled process responds to changes in D and Y,,, In the next section, we derive expressions for the closed-loop transfer func tions, Y(s)¥ p(s) and Y(s)/D(s). But first, we review some block diagram algebra 11.2.1 Block Diagram Reduction In deriving closed-loop transfer functions, it is often convenient to combine several blocks into a single block. For example, consider the three blocks in series in Fig. 11.10, The block diagram indicates the following relations. X,=G,0 X,=G,X, (un) X= GX, By successive substitution, X,=6,6,G,U cu) “ Xy=6U (14s) Figure 11.10 Taree blocks in series. , % efelL* Figure 11.11 Equivalent block diagram. where G # G,G,G;, Equation 11-13 indicates that the block diagram in Fig. 11.10 can be reduced to the equiv- alent block diagram in Fig, L111 11.2.2. Set-Point Changes Next we derive the closed-loop transfer function for set-point changes. The closed-loop system behavior for set-point changes is also referred to as the servomecha- nism (servo) problem in the control literature, because carly applications were concerned with positioning devices called servomechanisms. We assume for this case that no disturbance change occurs and thus D = 0. From Fig. 118, it follows that =¥+Y, (its) ¥, = GD =0 (because D = 0) (avis) ¥,=G,U (1116) ‘Combining gives ¥=G,U aus7 Figure 118 also indicates the following input/output relations for the individual blocks: U=GP (aris) PaGE (nis) 480 Chapter 11 E=¥y-Yq (1120) Vg = KnYig x21) n= Gy 12) Combining the above equations gives G,G,P = G,G,G.E (1123) = GGG Pay — Vy) (ai24y G,G,GKyVp - Gp¥) (1125) Rearranging gives the desired closed-loop transfer function, Y __ KnG.G,G, 26) ¥, 156.G,G,6, In both the numerator and denominator of Eq. 11-26, the transfer functions have been rearranged to follow the order in which they are encountered in the feedback control loop. This convention makes it easy to determine which transfer functions are present or missing in analyz- ing subsequent problems. 11.2.3. Disturbance Changes ‘Now consider the case of disturbance changes, which, is also referred to as the regulator problem since the process is to be regulated at a constant set point, From Fig. 118, ¥=¥,+¥,-G,D+6,U «127 Substituting Eq. 1118 through Eq. 1122 gives ¥-G,D+G,U0 = GD +G,6,6.\Ky¥p=Gy¥) (1128) Because Y,,=0 we can rearrange Eq, 11-28 to give the closed'loop transfer function for disturbance changes: (1129) A comparison of Eqs. 1126 and 1129 indicates that both closed-loop transfer functions have the same denomina- tor, 1+G.G,G,G,,. The denominator is often written a8 1+ Goz, where Go, is the open-loop transfer func tion, Goy, # G.G,G, Gy. The term open-loop transfer function (or open-loop system) is used because Goy, relates Yq, to Y.p if the feedback loop is opened just before the comparator. ‘At diferent’ points in the above derivations, we assumed that D=0 or Yip =0, that is, one of the two inputs was constant, But suppose that D #0 and ¥,, #0, a8 would be the cate if a disturbance occurs dllrng a set-point change. To analyze ths situation, we Dynamic Behavior and Stability of Closed-Loop Control Systems rearrange Eq, 1128 and substitute the definition of Gop, to obtain Gy, KnG.G,G, “tee tase, e118) Thus, the response to simultaneous disturbance vari able and set-point changes is merely the sum of the individual responses, as can be seen by comparing Eqs. 1126, 1129, and 1130, This result is a con- sequence of the Superposition Principle for linear systems. 11.2.4 General Expression for Feedback Control Systems Closed-loop transfer functions for more complicated block diagrams can be written in the general form z_ ty Zz (ast) where Z is the output variable or any internal variable within the control loop Z, is an input variable (e.g., Yip or D) Tl, = product of the transfer functions in ‘the forward path trom Z; to Z Il, = product of every transfer function in ‘the feedback loop Thus, for the previous servo problem, we have Z, = Yyp 2=V.Ih~ KyG.G,G, and, = Gor For the regula. tor problem, Z, = D, Z'= ¥, T= G,, and I, = Goy,. It is important to note that Eq. 1131 is applicable only to portions of a block diagram that include a feedback loop ‘with a negative sign in the comparator. EXAMPLE 11.1 Find the closed-loop transfer function Y/Y,» for the com- plex control system in Fig. 1112. Notice that thie block ‘diagram has (wo feedback loops and two disturbance vari- ables. This configuration arises when the cascade control scheme of Chapter 16 is employed, SOLUTION Using the general rule in Eq. 1131, we first reduce the inner loop to a single block as shown in Fig. 11.13. To solve the servo problem, set D, =D, =0. Because Hig. 1113, contains a single feedback loop, use Eq. 1131 to obtain Fig. 1114a. The final block diagram is shown in Fig. 1.145 with Y/Y, = K,,Gy. Substitution for G, and G, gives the desired closed-loop transfer function: x KuG.G.6,6,6, Yep THO AG,G ps + 8,6, 0, 0500; 113 Closed-Loop Responses of Simple Control Systems 11 Dy Pal Yop Vp Ey Ep ¥y “al a FQ an ex bel a a, a mz Gm Figure 1112 Complex contro system Dy Dl Yep Yn gp Bt y Km Ga oy a Gy Ge2Gy TSG 2G na Gm Figure L143 Block diagram for reduced system Ye ip Le og - aus me ° 14 GAGG2G3G,,1 e) Figure 11.14 Final block diagrams for Example LL. 11.3 CLOSED-LOOP RESPONSES OF SIMPLE CONTROL SYSTEMS In this section, we consider the dynamic behavior of several elementary control problems for disturbance variable and set-point changes. The transient responses can be determined in a straightforward manner if the closed-loop transfer functions are available. Consider the liquid-level control system shown in Fig. 11.15. The liquid level is measured and the level transmitter (LT) output is sent to a feedback controller (LC) that controls liquid level h by adjusting volumetric flow rate q)- A second inlet flow rate, q,, is the distur ance variable, Assume that 1. The liquid density p and the cross-sectional area A of the tank are constant. 2. The flow-head relation is linear, q, = WR. 3. The level transmitter, I/P transducer, and pneu- ‘matic control valve have negligible dynamics. 4, An electronic controller with input and output in % is used (full scale = 100% 482 Chapter 11 Dynamic Behavior and Stability of Closed-Loop Control Systems Sa Figure 11.15 Liquid-level control system, Derivation of the process and disturbance transfer functions directly follows Example 4.7. Consider the unsteady-state mass balance for the tank contents; dh 1 + P42 — PIs (1132) dt Substituting the flow-head relation, q, = IVR, and intro- ducing deviation variables gives eA! dh! oy ht 3" AD ah + aR (1133) “Thus, we obtain the transfer functions HG on Gi = (1134) 4) K, ae Ga) = EL (1135) where K, = R and += RA, Note that G(s) and G(s) ae identical, Because 4; and g, are both inlet flow rates aiid thus have the same effect on h Because the level transmitter, UP transducer, and control valve have negligible dynamics, the correspond- ing tansfer functions can be written a G(s) = Ky, Gipl(s) = Kp, and G,(3) = K,. The block diagram for the level control system is shown in Fig. 11.16, where the units of the steady-state gains are apparent. The symbol, Hy, denotes the desired value of liquid level (in meters), and fif, denotes the corresponding value (in %) that is used internally by the computer. Note that these two set-points are related by the level transmitter gain Ky, ‘The block diagram in Fig. 1.16 is in the alternative form of Fig. 11.9 with Gy(s) = 1 113.1 Proportional Control and Set-Point Changes If a proportional controller is used, G.(s) = K,. From Fig. 11.16 and the material in the previous section, it follows that the closed-loop transfer function for set-point changes is given by HO) __KKieK KyKn/ (0s +1) HG) T+ R-KpR,K,K,/ cs +1) This relation can be rearranged in the standard form for a first-order transfer function, (1136) Ho __K 3 -ait a137) where Kon : vere (1138) sake (1139) and the open-loop gain Koy, is given by Kon =K.KpK,K,Ky (140) Equations 11-37 to 11-40 indicate that the closed-loop process has first-order dynamics with a time constant +r, that is smaller than the process time constant r. We assume here that Kg, > 0; otherwise, the control system would not function properly, as will be apparent from the stability analysis later in this chapter. Because 1, <7, the feedback controller enables the controlled process to respond more quickly than the uncontrolled process. From Eq. 1137, it follows that the closed-loop response to a unit step change of magnitude M in set point is given by Wey = KM =e!) (ny This response is shown in Fig. 11.17. Note that a steady-state error or offset exists, because the new steady-state value is K,M rather than the desired value M(K, <1). The offset is defined as as was discussed in Section 11.1. offset 4 hi, (co) — h'(e0) (142) @ mB Hy Pi, 5 Kw “2 Eo) oi) Pe kp io x, | BOG 2 im Te Ta si Tain rl Dim Hs r x, el! Hr im Figure 11.16 Block diagram for level control system, Time Figure 1.17 Step response for proportional control (setpoint change), For a step change of magnitude M in the set point (oo) = M, From Eq, 1141. tisclear that W (oo) = Ky.M Ststtuting these values and Eq. 1138 into Bq, 1142 fires (1143) EXAMPLE 11.2 Consider the level control system shown in Fig. 11.15, imple mented with a compuler whose inputs and oulpuls are calibrated in terms of full range (100%). The tank is 1m in diameter, while the valve on the exit line acts as a linear resistance with R = 637 min'm’. The level transmitter has ‘2 span of 2.0m and an output range of 0 to 100%. The valve characteristic fof the equal percentage control valve isrelated to the fraction of lift ¢ by the relation f= (30)! ‘The airto-open control valve receives a 3 to 15 psi signal from an UP transducer, which, in turn, receives a 0-100% signal from the computer-implemented proportional-only controller. When the control valve is fully open (¢ = 1), the flow rate through the valve is 0.2 m'/min. At the nominal ‘operating condition, the control valve is hall-open (¢ = 0.5) ‘Using the dynamic model in the block diagram of Fig. 11.16, caleulate the closed-loop responses to a step change in the set point of 0.3 m for three values of the controller gain: K,=4,8, and 20 SOLUTION From the given information, we can calculate the cross- sectional area of the tank A, the process gain K,, and the time constant: A= (0.5 mj? =0785 m* K, <= RA=Smin ‘The sensor-transmitter gain K,, can be calculated from Eq. 9-1 K, 37 min/m? (144) 100-08 Tm ‘output range put Tange Sos/m (11-45) Closed-Loop Responses of Simple Control Systems 183 “The gain for the IP transducers given by 3 pai _ Kp = 92308

    You might also like