Exp 66

Chemical Engineering Department
Process Control Lab
Continuous control of level, flow, and pressure process

&
Test the flow control Process
Supervised by
Eng-Eman Bani Hani
Students:
1- Yahya Anwar
2- Yahya Al-Salaymah
3- Abdallah Al-Dghem
4- Ahmad Al-Atilli
5- Sanad Hashesh
ABSTRACT:
In numerous industrial operations, maintaining precise control over liquid levels

and flow rates is essential for ensuring product quality, process efficiency, and
overall system stability. Continuous control systems, utilizing feedback loops and
control algorithms, are commonly used to achieve this objective.
This study focuses on continuous level and flow control using a proportional
controller with Closed-loop Control - a continuous window. The primary aim is to
vary the Kpr values and observe their impact on the process response. Adjusting
Kpr can reduce the rise time and minimize but not completely eliminate steady-
state errors. Thus, while proportional control is straightforward and user-friendly,
it may not always achieve perfect control due to inherent limitations like steady-
state offset errors.
Introduction:
This experiment focuses on implementing continuous control for both level and
flow using a proportional controller. A new feature from the software called
"Closed-loop Control – continuous" has been utilized for this purpose. Proportional
controllers are a type of control system technology where the response is directly
proportional to the difference between a set point value and the current value of a
process variable. They find extensive use in industries for tasks such as
temperature, flow, pressure, and motor speed control. Proportional control is often
used as a fundamental control algorithm and can be combined with other control
modes like integral and derivative control to create more advanced strategies like
PID control.
The advantages of using a proportional controller include its simplicity and ease
of implementation, its effectiveness in controlling processes with minimal lags or
delays, and its ability to maintain a steady-state error proportional to load
disturbances. However, proportional control cannot completely eliminate steady-
state errors, and the choice of proportional gain can influence its performance.
The experiment is divided into two parts: continuous level control and continuous
flow control. Detailed procedures for each part will be discussed in the subsequent
sections.
Discussion:
Before starting the computer, we powered on the device and conducted a valve
check. In the initial phase of the "continuous level controller" segment, we adjusted
valve 101 to open, valve 104 to close, and valve 112 to a 2/3 ratio to mitigate
disturbances. Next, we set the manipulated value to A_OUT1, representing the
analog activation of the pump, and set the actual value to 0. Subsequently, we
activated the pump analog by switching digital output 2 to 1. Additionally, we pre-
set the analog value of the level sensor to 2V = 0.2, equivalent to a 60 mm level.
We then selected controller P and initially set the kpr parameter to 2. The
subsequent step involved varying the kpr values and observing their impact on the
process response. We specifically compared the response differences using valves
2, 4, 6, 8, and 10, as depicted in Figure 1.
In the second part, the "continuous flow controller," we proceeded by closing
valves 101 and 112 while opening valve 104. Following a similar setup as in the
previous part, we selected the manipulated value as A_OUT1 and adjusted the
actual value to 1 By switching digital output 2 = 1, we activated the pump analog.
Additionally, we pre-set the analog value of the flow sensor to 4V = 0.4. We then
opted for the P-controller and set the initial kpr parameter to 1.0.
To enhance clarity, we adjusted the time on the x-axis to 120 seconds.
Subsequently, we varied the kpr values and observed their impact on the response
of the proportional controller. The differences in response were analyzed using
specific valves, as detailed in Figure 2.
Conclusions:
1. The proportional controller successfully regulated the level and flow to
meet specified setpoints. Through proportional gain adjustments, the
controller adapted to system changes, ensuring stability and reliability.
2. Using a proportional controller (Kp) decreases the rise time and minimizes
but cannot completely remove the steady-state error.
3. An insufficient gain caused slow responses, whereas an excessive gain

resulted in oscillations and instability.
4. This experiment highlights the practical utility of proportional control in

industries requiring continuous level and flow management, like chemical
processing, water treatment, and oil refining.

Exp 66

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exp 66

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exp 66

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chemical Engineering Department

Process Control Lab

Continuous control of level, flow, and pressure process

In numerous industrial operations, maintaining precise control over liquid levels

3. An insufficient gain caused slow responses, whereas an excessive gain

4. This experiment highlights the practical utility of proportional control in

You might also like