OBJECTIVES

The pressure in single capacity and double capacity process was being controlled in this
experiment
The important components of air pressure control system was identified
The start-up procedure was carried out systematically

SUMMARY

The objectives of this experiment where the pressure in single capacity and double
capacity was being controlled, the important components of air pressure system was identified
and the start-up procedure was carried out systematically. First part of this experiment is
dealing with PID control pressure in single capacity while for the second part is for the double
capacity. Both part are being experimented for three set trial. For the first part, small oscillation
is occurred from the first set trial to the third set trial, while in second part it is shown that the
controller reach their steady state at second set trial and no future oscillation after that. In can
be conclude that, two capacity is better and have a sufficient storage than one capacity which
is it behaviour that reach steady state faster and produce less oscillation.
INTRODUCTION AND THEORY

When setting up PID loop control, achieving proper operation can be difficult because
of the complex setup parameters and the need to understand the sequence of implementing
them. Proper operating control may be defined as “the ability to control a variable at a given
set point within an acceptable degree of accuracy.” This is not an easy feat, because of the
dynamics of a control system. If not properly set up, abrupt changes in set point or system
loading can cause system controls to oscillate or control with excessive error between set point
and actual control point.
The period of the loop (oscillation) is the time from peak to peak. All control loops
have a tendency to oscillate because of the built-in timing constants of the control system
components and the dynamically changing variables such as set point shifts or load changes.
Typical period values encountered in control system loops would be in the range of 30 seconds
to twenty minutes. All loops can be made to oscillate by setting the throttling range too low
(loop gain too high). Loop oscillation is undesirable in control systems and is easily eliminated
by increasing the proportional band of the loop.
Proportional Band
Proportional Band is the band of Controller Output over which the Final Control
Element (a Control Valve, for instance) will move from one extreme to another. In practice,
the controller output is limited, either by its own limitations or by the limitations of the
corresponding actuator. Let umax and umin denote the minimum and maximum output of the
controller. The proportional band of the controller is then defined as:
𝑼𝒎𝒂𝒙−𝑼𝒎𝒊𝒏
PB = 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎%
𝑲

In the ideal case, a controller can have an unlimited output. The proportional band (PB)
is then defined as:
𝟏
PB = 𝑲 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎%

This definition of proportional band is often used instead of the controller gain. The
value is expressed in percent (%).
Integral Control
With integral action, the controller output is proportional to the amount of time the error
is present. Integral action eliminates offset that remains when proportional control is used.
controller output = (1/Ti)*int(error)

where the parameter Ti is called the integral time. Integral action is also know as reset and the
parameter Ti as reset time.
Integral action gives the controller a large gain at low frequencies that results in
eliminating offset. Integrals give information concerning the past. That is why integrals are
always late. Integrals provide stability but have a tendency to get stuck in the past. In most
controllers the proportional and integral action are combined. The output of the combined
proportional and integral action (in s-domain) is then:
𝟏
𝑼 = 𝑲 . (𝟏 + ).𝑬
𝒔 . 𝑻𝒊
with E equal to SP - PV.
Derivative Control
With derivative action, the controller output is proportional to the rate of change of the
measurement or error. Some manufacturers use the term rate or pre-act instead of derivative.
Derivative, rate and pre-act are the same thing. The controller output is calculated by the rate
of change of the error with time.
controller output = Td*d(error)/dt = Td*d(SP - PV)/dt
where the parameter Td is called derivative time. Derivative control is mathematically the
opposite of integral action, but while we might have an integral-only controller, we would
never have a derivative-only controller. The reason for this is that derivative control only knows
the error is changing. It does not know what the set point actually is.
Derivative action has the potential to improve performance when sudden changes in
measured variable occur, but is should be used with care. It is mostly a matter of using enough,
not too much.
Derivative Gain Limitation
In most commercial processes sudden changes in process output may appear. In most
cases a sudden change in the slope of such a process output cannot be avoided at all times.
Using such a process output in controllers with pure derivative action, would lead to unwanted
steps in the controller output. Moreover, high frequency noise in the measured signals may lead
to unwanted large outputs of the controller.
 To prevent this unwanted effect, the derivative action can be filtered by a first-order
system with time constant Td/N.
𝒔 . 𝑲 . 𝑻𝒅
𝒔 . 𝑲 . 𝑻𝒅 →
𝑻𝒅
𝟏+𝒔. 𝑵

This approximation acts as a derivative for low-frequency signal components. The gain,
however, is limited to K*N. This means that high-frequency measurement noise is amplified
at most by a factor KN. This is why the parameter N is called the derivative gain limitation.
Typical values of N are 8 to 20. Sometimes the reciprocal value of N is used, mostly with the
name beta (beta = 1/N).
DISCUSSION

A pressure vessel is defined as a container with a pressure differential between inside

and outside. The inside pressure is usually higher than the outside. It is usually found in
spherical or cylindrical with dome end. The cylindrical vessels are generally preferred because
of the simple manufacturing problem and make better use of the available space. This
experiment was conducted to identify the important components of air pressure control system,
to carry out start-up procedure systematically and to control the pressure in single capacity and
double capacity process using PID controller. The main purpose of this experiment is to control
the pressure in single capacity and double capacity process. This experiment has two parts. The
first part is PID control of pressure in single capacity process (T91) and the second part is PID
control of pressure in two capacity process (T91 & T92). Start-up procedure is done before
recording any data. The air pressure process plan model AP 922 has two air vessel which are
T91 and T92 that are associated with valve, fitting and piping. For a single capacity process
operation air vessel T91 is used while air vessel T92 is by-passed and for two capacity process
operation both of the air vessels is used.

The first part of the experiment using air vessel T91 and by-passed air vessel T92 as it
is a single capacity process. The set point of air pressure was set at PIC 91 at SV = 15 psig and
contain three sets of trials with different values.

Table 1: One Capacity Process Trials

Trials PB1 T11 TD1 Pressure
First 70% 40 s 0s 24.9 psig
Second 45% 30 s 0s 15.0 psig
Third 20 % 10 s 2s 15.0 psig

Between each set of trial MV is reduced by 5% to 10%. The behaviour of the process is observe
for three cycle. From figure 1, there is a very small oscillation occur from the first trial to the
third trial. Thus, it is assume that the controller have reach a steady state. Plus, the controller
was able to reach the set value pressure at the second and third trials. This show that the
response gain is steady because of efficiency on the single flow capacity to handle the constant
change of pressure.
 Figure 1: PID Control of Pressure in One Capacity Process Graph.
Moreover, for the second part of the experiment, both air vessel T91 and T92 is used
for two capacity process. The set point air pressure for this process was set at 18 psig. Similar
to the first part, this sub experiment also have three sets of trials and MV is reduce by 5% to
10% between each trial

Table 1: Two Capacity Process Trials

Trials PB1 T11 TD1 Pressure
First 70% 40 s 0s 18.2 psig
Second 45% 30 s 0s 18.0 psig
Third 20 % 10 s 2s

Figure 2: PID Control of Pressure in Two Capacity Process Graph.

The second test was also executed of 3 cycles for each trial. Unfortunately, the third trial is not
tested due to miscommunication. From figure 2, the controller is able to reach a steady state at
the second trial and there is no oscillation after the second trial.

In theory, fluctuation of pressure can occur due to insufficient storage space or the
system pressure is at the lowest level of the compressor pressure control band. Pressure
controller will respond rapidly to demand fluctuations and maintain system pressure within a
narrow band. For peak demand events, sufficient storage is necessary to release the stored air
quickly into the system to maintain required downstream pressures within an acceptable
tolerance. With a correct design and system controls, storage can be used to meet air demand
and reduce compressor run time if that is the case. Also, an intermittent air demands can cause
severe, dynamic pressure fluctuations in the whole system, with some essential points of use
experiencing inadequate pressure. Such demand also required a proper system design and
proper storage capacity. The time interval between the demand events is adequate to restore
the storage receiver pressure without adding compressor capacity1.

In a nut shell, based on the result of the experiment two capacity process is better at
handling the pressure as it reach steady state faster and produce less oscillation. This is due to
sufficient storage that allow the controller to respond immediately to changes that have been
made between the trials.

1. Design & Analysis of Pressure Vessel. (n.d). International Journal of Innovative Research
in Technology & Science (IJIRTS).Retrieved on 5 October 2017, from
http;//ijirts.org/volume2issue3/IJIRTSV213036.pdf.