Scribd
Upload
81 views

Process Design and Control Lab: Experiment-1

The document describes an experiment to study the dynamic response of a U-tube manometer following a step change in pressure. It explains that a U-tube manometer exhibits under-damped second order behavior when the damping coefficient is less than 1, causing oscillations. The experiment involves applying a pressure step to the manometer and measuring the oscillatory response. Observations of the response for both coiled and uncoiled tube configurations are recorded. Calculations of the theoretical and experimental time constants and damping coefficients are presented, showing moderate agreement between the values. Differences are attributed to pressure drop variations between the theoretical model and experiment.

Uploaded by

Himanshu Jat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81 views

Process Design and Control Lab: Experiment-1

The document describes an experiment to study the dynamic response of a U-tube manometer following a step change in pressure. It explains that a U-tube manometer exhibits under-damped second order behavior when the damping coefficient is less than 1, causing oscillations. The experiment involves applying a pressure step to the manometer and measuring the oscillatory response. Observations of the response for both coiled and uncoiled tube configurations are recorded. Calculations of the theoretical and experimental time constants and damping coefficients are presented, showing moderate agreement between the values. Differences are attributed to pressure drop variations between the theoretical model and experiment.

Uploaded by

Himanshu Jat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

PROCESS DESIGN AND

CONTROL LAB

EXPERIMENT-1

DYNAMICS OF U-TUBE
MANOMETER

NAVEEN CH11B080
NEERAJ CH11B081
SAHITHI CH11B089

DYNAMICS OF U-TUBE MANOMETER


Objective:
(a) To study the dynamic response of an U-Tube manometer following a step change
(b) To study the characteristics of an under-damped second order response like overshoot,
rise time, decay ratio, response time etc.
Theory:

Fig 1. A U-tube manometer


Systems with inherent second order dynamics can exhibit oscillatory behavior (under
damped).Examples of these physical systems are simple manometers, externally
mounted level indicators, pneumatic control valve, variable capacitance differential
pressure transducer.
U-tube manometer is a classic example of a second order system. The basic equation is
the force balance
(
where
A

P
R

=
=
=
=

(1)

cross-sectional area
liquid density (density of gas above fluid is negligible)
applied pressure
fractional resistance

With laminar flow, the resistance is given by Hagen-Poiseuille equation.


or

Substituting in Equ (1) and rearranging gives

(2)

(3)
2

Define

, 2 =

and Kp =

(4)

Now eqn.(3) becomes


pP

(5)

Thus the transfer function between h and P is

(6)

Equation (4) and (5) represents the inherent second order dynamics of the manometer.
Equation (3) may be written in a standard form
(7)
Where
n

natural frequency, rad/sec

damping coefficient

For a step change in input pressure, when damping coefficient less than 1, the output
overshoots the final value and oscillates before coming to equilibrium. The system is
said to be under damped.
For < 1.0,
(

Where

With a damping coefficient of zero, the response is an under damped sine wave of
frequency
and amplitude 2hi.
For = 1.0, (critically damped)

For > 1.0, (over damped)

Experimental values of
and can be easily obtained from the under damped
response curve. The damping coefficient can be found either from the decay ratio which
is the ratio of successive peak heights or from maximum over-shoot.

Decay ratio=

Period of oscillation T=

(11)

= t2-t1

(12)
(13)

Fig 2: An under damped response


Procedure:
1. Before starting the experiment note down the level of liquid column in the U-tube
manometer. This is the base level.
2. Give a pressure input by blowing air into one of the limbs of the manometer and
close the corresponding limb air tight with your thumb.
3. Note the level in the other limb.
4. Release the pressure by loosening your thumb.
5. When the level reaches the first lower position start the stop watch and note the
time at which it reaches the second lower position. Also note the first peak, first
valley (first lower position), second peak height and second valley.
6. Repeat the experiment for two different waves.
7. By using equ. (11), (12) and (13) the value of and can be calculated
experimentally.
8. Using equ. (4), for the given value of L and D the value of and can be obtained
theoretically.
9. The values of and obtained experimentally and theoretically are to be compared.

Observations:
(a) Tube in coiled position:

Base
level

Sl.No.

(cm)
300
300
300

1
2
3

Raised
level
(cm)
620
600
575

First
valley
(cm)

First
peak
(cm)
410
450
405

140
145
160

Time
Second between
peak
two
(cm)
valleys
(cm)
340
360
340

4.2
4.3
4.2

(b) Tube in uncoiled position:

Base
level

Sl.No.

(cm)
315
315
315

1
2
3

Raised
level
(cm)
565
610
580

First
valley
(cm)

First
peak
(cm)
400
390
480

180
165
170

Time
Second between
peak
two
(cm)
valleys
(cm)
330
320
410

4.2
4.4
4.3

Coiled tube: Water level vs time


700

Water level (cm)

600
500
400

300
200

100
0

time (sec)

Uncoiled tube: Water level vs time


600

Water level (cm)

500
400
300

200
100
0

time (sec)

Calculations:
(a) Experiment:
Sl.
No.

Position
of tube

Overshoot
A/B

(sec)

0.5085

Period of
oscillation T
(sec)
4.2

Uncoiled

0.6813

0.100

Coiled

0.531

4.3

0.6702

0.107

Values of A and B have not been included since they are different for different
trials. But the overshoot value remains the same throughout all the trials.
(b) Theoretically:
L = 9m
D = 12 mm
= 1000 kg/m3
g = 9.8 m/(sec)2
= 0.001 kg/m.(sec)
2

= 0.459

= 0.6776 ; = 0.0753

Results:
(a) From experiment

Coiled:

= 0.6702
= 0.1071

Uncoiled:

= 0.6813
= 0.1001
(b) From theoretical calculation
= 0.6776
= 0.0753
Type
Theoretical
Uncoiled
Coiled

Tau
0.6776
0.68126
0.6702

Eta
0.0753
0.1001
0.1071

Are the values of and from experimental and theoretical calculation matching? If not
explain why?
The experimental values and the theoretical values for are not matching very
well because of the difference in the theoretical and the experimental pressure
drop, which plays a very important role in determining the values of . We can
observe that the values of the parameter in the uncoiled case match better than
in the coiled case, this is because an excess pressure drop considered in the
coiled case is greater than in the uncoiled case.
The value of remains almost constant in all the three cases.
References:
1.
2.

Process Control - Peter Harriot.


Chemical Process Control - George Stephanopoulos

You might also like