Central Chemical Engineering & Process Techniques

Review Article *Corresponding author

Feedback Control for Liquid

Larry K. Jang, Department of Chemical Engineering,
California State University, Long Beach, CA 90815, USA,
Email:

Level in a Gravity-Drained
Submitted: 03 May 2017
Accepted: 17 July 2017
Published: 20 July 2017

Multi-Tank System ISSN: 2333-6633

Copyright
Larry K. Jang* © 2017 Jang

Department of Chemical Engineering, California State University, USA OPEN ACCESS

Abstract Keywords
• Liquid level
Dynamic models for liquid level in a four-tank system are derived in this work by • Gravity-drained tank
applying the principle of analogy to a single-tank case. In this system, there are two • Decoupling
top tanks and two bottom tanks. Each of the two top tanks receives liquid from a feed • MIMO
stream, while discharging liquid to the two bottom tanks by gravity. Each of the two • IMC
bottom tanks receives liquid from the two top tanks and discharges liquid by gravity
from the bottom of the tank. The process models and the disturbance models for the
levels of the two bottom tanks showing the effects of both feed streams are derived.
Relative gain array (RGA) based on the results of simulation from Loop-Pro’s multi-tank
process is used to predict the extent of loop interaction (or coupling). Feedback PID
control parameters are obtained by using internal model control (IMC) tuning rule. The
performance of the multiple-input/multiple-output (MIMO) feedback control system
with and without decoupling strategy is compared and analyzed.

INTRODUCTION liquid levels of the two bottom tanks, it is important to identify the
Liquid level control of all aspects remains one of the extent of loop interactions (i.e., coupling effect) and implement
most important case studies due to its widespread industrial proper strategies to eliminate potential loop interactions (i.e.,
applications. Mathematical models for the dynamic responses decoupling). This paper will outline the procedure of tuning
of liquid level are more easily perceived due to its simplicity individual feedback controllers as well as improving the
in physical setup. In the literature, open-loop and closed-loop controller performance by implementing decoupling strategy.
dynamic models as well as tuning rules are well developed for
single-tank systems [1,2][3(a)]. In this paper, the process model
for an open tank with liquid fed to the top and drained by gravity
from the bottom via a hole or valve of fixed opening is reviewed
(Figure 1). The transfer functions showing the effects of feed
rate on the liquid level and the draining rate are derived. This
system is then expanded to one that contains two top tanks and
two bottom tanks. Each of the two top tanks receives liquid from
one feed stream and discharges liquid to the two bottom tanks
by gravity via two valves with fixed openings. Each of the two
bottom tanks has two feed streams, one directly from the tank
above, and the other from the other top tank. The liquid is then
discharged from each of the two bottom tanks via one valve with
fixed opening (Figure 2). It is of interest to find the effects of the
two feed streams on the liquid levels in all four tanks as well as
the draining rates of the six streams leaving the four tanks. In this
work, dynamic models for the liquid levels in all four tanks are
derived based on the principle of analogy to the single-tank case.
Simulation data from a case study in Loop Pro (Control Station,
Inc.) are used to generate process models and disturbance Figure 1 Schematic diagram for a single open-tank, gravity-drained
models for the system. When a multiple-input/multiple-output system. The tank has a cross-sectional area of A and a valve with fixed
(MIMO) feedback control system is established to control the opening at the bottom.

Cite this article: Jang LK (2017) Feedback Control for Liquid Level in a Gravity-Drained Multi-Tank System. Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037.
 Jang (2017)
Email:

Central

Figure 2 Schematic diagram of the feedback control loops for a four-tank system.

DYNAMIC MODELS When Eq. 2 is subtracted from Eq. 3, a non-linear term is

encountered and it can be linearized as
Transfer functions for an open tank with single inlet
stream and single outlet stream fin − f out = C h − C h
The analysis below is for a vertical open tank with constant dC h c
cross-sectional area A (m2). Liquid is fed at a rate of fin (m3/s) to ≈
dh h
(
|− h − h ) = (h − h) (4)
the top of the tank and drained by gravity at a rate of fout (m3/s) 2 h
via a valve or a hole located at the bottom of the tank. The liquid
A first-order transient-state equation in terms of deviation
draining rate is governed by liquid level [1][3(a)]
quantities can be obtained:
f out = C h (1) dH
Where C is discharge coefficient, a lumped parameter that
τ + H = RFin (5)
dt
includes the effects of gravitational acceleration, size and type of
where
the valve, and valve stem position; and h is liquid level measured
from the bottom of the tank. At the initial steady-state (s.s.) H = h−h (6)
condition (denoted by overbar “ – “ ), the rate of accumulation
of liquid hold-up in the tank can be described by the equation Fin = fin − fin (7)
below:
dh 22 hh
A = 0 = fin − f out (2) RR≡≡Re
Re sistan
sis tance
Resistance ce== (8)
dt CC
Assuming that at t = 0, the feed rate fin starts to deviate from τ = first – order time constant = A R (9)
the initial s.s. value of f in , transient-state volumetric balance of Equation 4 also yields the relationship between Fout and H:
liquid gives
dh H
A = fin − f out (3) Fout = f out − f out = (10)
dt R

Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037 (2017)

2/10
 Jang (2017)
Email:

Central

Laplace transform of Eq. 5 with the initial condition H(t) = 0

at t = 0 yields the transfer function relating the liquid level H(s) to 2 h1,top
R11 = (19)
the liquid feed rate Fin(s) in the Laplace domain: C11
R 2 h 2,top
H (s) = F ( s ) (11) R12 = (20)
τ s + 1 in C12
Substituting Eq. 11 into Eq. 10 yields

H (s) 1 2 h1,top
Fout ( s ) = = F ( s) (12) R21 = (21)
R τ s + 1 in C21
Transfer functions for a four-tank system
2 h 2,top
With the transfer functions derived for the single-tank case R22 = (22)
above, we may expand the system into one that contains four C22
open tanks. In Figure 2, liquid is fed to the two top tanks via
control valves at flow rates f1, in and f2, in, respectively. Liquid is 2 h1,bot
discharged via two outlet streams from each of the two top tanks R1,bot = (23)
and then fed to the two bottom tanks as shown in Figure 2. The
C1
flow rate of liquid discharged from top tank j to bottom tank i is
fij, where i = 1,2 and , j = 1,2. Finally, each of the two bottom tanks 2 h 2,bot
R2,bot = (24)
has one outlet stream with flow rates fi, bot(i = 1,2). The valves in C2
all six outlet streams have fixed openings. The liquid level of the
bottom left tank is monitored by level indicator and controller The two valves with resistances R11 and R21 in the two
(LIC)#1. The feedback signal is sent to the top-left control valve streams leaving top tank no. 1 on the left side is analogous to the
in order to regulate the liquid feed rate to the top left tank, f1,in. two resistors in parallel in an electric circuit. We may define their
Likewise, the liquid level of the bottom right tank is monitored by overall resistance R1, top by Eq. 25:
level indicator and controller (LIC)#2. The feedback signal is sent
1 1 1
to the top-right control valve in order to regulate the liquid feed = + (25)
rate to the top right tank, f2,in. R1,top R11 R21
Assuming that the gravity-drained rates fij from the two top Likewise, the overall resistance R2, top of the two valves in the
tanks (index j) to the two bottom tanks (index i) are governed by two streams leaving the top tank no. 2 on the right side can be
the liquid levels of the two top tanks like the single tank case (Eq. defined by Eq. 26:
1), we may express fij as 1 1 1
= + (26)
f11 = C11 h1,top (13) R2,top R12 R22
By analogy to Eq. 9, we may define the first-order time
constants of the four tanks in the system:
f12 = C12 h2,top (14)
τ 1,top = A1,top R1,top (27)
f 21 = C21 h1,top (15)
τ 2,top = A2,top R2,top (28)

f 22 = C22 h2,top (16) τ 1,bot = A1,bot R1,bot (29)

Where Cij ‘s (i = 1,2; j = 1,2) are the discharge coefficients of τ 2,bot = A2,bot R2,bot (30)
the four valves below the two top tanks. Likewise, the gravity- where A’s are the cross-sectional areas of the four tanks. By
drained rates from the two bottom tanks are governed by their analogy to Eq. 11, we my write the transfer functions relating
liquid levels: liquid levels for the two top tanks to the two feed streams. For
simplicity, the symbol “(s)” for the Laplace domain is omitted
f1,out = C1 h1,bot (17) hereafter:
R1,top
f 2,out = C2 h2,bot (18) H1,top = F1,in (31)
τ 1,top s + 1
where Ci’s (i = 1,2) are the discharge coefficients of the two
valves below the two bottom tanks. If the linearization procedure R2,top
similar to Eq. 4 is employed, one may easily define the resistances H 2,top = F2,in (32)
of the six valves, four of which located below the two top tanks
τ 2,top s + 1
(Rij’s ) and the other two below the two bottom tanks (Ri,bot’s ): where

Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037 (2017)

3/10
 Jang (2017)
Email:

Central

Figure 3 Screen shot of simulation for response of liquid level to a doublet input by using Loop Pro algorithm.

Model: Second Order Overdamped Loop-Pro: Design Tools File Name: Multi Tank G11 G21.txt
Manipulated Variable Process Variable

4.1

4.0

3.9

3.8

63.0

62.1

61.2

60.3

0.0 32.3 64.6 96.9 129.2 161.5 193.8 226.1

Time (min)

Gain (K) = 0.07867, 1st Time Constant (min) = 10.41, 2nd Time Constant (min) = 11.41
Goodness of Fit: R-Squared = 0.9972, SSE = 0.03101

Figure 4 Result of data fitting to the exact second-order model for the process model G11.

F1,in = f1,in − f 1,in (33)

 R1,top 
 
=  11  F1,in
H1,top R
F2,in = f 2,in − f 2,in (34) F11 = (37)
R11 τ 1,top s + 1
H1,top = h1,top − h1,top (35)

H 2,top = h2,top − h 2,top (36)  R1,top 

 
Since the flow rates fij leaving the bottom of the two top tanks
F21 =
H1,top
=  R21 
F (38)
are governed by the liquid level in the top tank j and resistance Rij, R21 τ 1,top s + 1 1,in
one may derive Fij analogous to Eq. 12:

Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037 (2017)

4/10
 Jang (2017)
Email:

Central

 R2,top   R2,top 
   
H 2,top  R12 
G22 =
R2,bot  R22 
F12 = = F (39) (50)
R12 τ 2,top s + 1 2,in (τ 2,botS + 1) (τ 2,topS + 1)
The resultant transfer functions can be expressed as linear
 R2,top 
combinations showing the effects of the liquid feed rates to
 
F22 =
H 2,top
=  R22 
F (40)
the two top tanks on the liquid levels in the two bottom tanks.
According to the control schematic diagram (Figure 2), the liquid
R22 τ 2,top s + 1 2,in levels of the two bottom tanks h1,bot and h2,bot would be controlled
where by regulating f1,in and f2,in, respectively. The transfer functions
G11 and G22 are then considered the process models showing
F11 = f11 − f 11 (41) effects of F1,in on H1,bot and F2,in on and H2,bot, respectively. On the
other hand, the transfer function G12 and G21 are considered the
F12 = f12 − f 12 (42) disturbance models showing the effects of F2,in on H1,bot and F1,in on
H2,bot, respectively. Again, by analogy to Eq. 12,
F21 = f 21 − f 21 (43)
H1,bot
F1,out = (51)
F22 = f 22 − f 22 (44) R1,bot
For the two bottom tanks, each tank receives two inlet
H 2,bot
streams. The combined flow rate of the two inlet streams F2,out = (52)
to bottom tank no. 1 on the left side is (f11 + f12). Likewise, the R2,bot
combined flow rate of the two inlet streams to bottom tank no. 2 Where
on the right side is (f21 + f22). By analogy to Eq. 11, one can derive
the following transfer functions for the liquid levels of the two F1,out = f1,out − f 1,out (53)
bottom tanks by substituting Eqs. 37-44 into Eqs. 45 and 46:
F2,out = f 2,out − f 2,out (54)
H1,bot = h1,bot − h1,bot
Effect of initial steady state on model parameters
R1,bot
= ( F11 + F12 ) (45) The initial steady-state condition of the four-tank system
τ 1,bot s + 1
depends on the feed rates f 1,in and f 2,in and the discharge
= G11 F1,in + G12 F2,in coefficients of the six valves below the four tanks. Since the sum

of the two outlet flow rates equals to the inlet flow rate for each
H 2,bot = h2,bot − h 2,bot
of the two top tanks at steady state, one may calculate the steady-
R2,bot
= ( F21 + F22 ) (46) state liquid levels h1,top and h 2,top by Eqs. 13-16 and Eqs.55-58:
τ 2,bot s + 1
= G21 F1,in + G22 F2,in f 1,in = f 11 + f 21
(55)
where =C
11 h1,top + C21 h1,top
 R1,top 
  f 2,in = f 12 + f 22
(56)
G11 =
R1,bot  R11  (47)
(τ 1,botS + 1) (τ 1,topS + 1)
=C h 2,top + C22 h 2,top
12
Or,
2
 f 1,in 
 R2,top  h1,top = 
 C11 + C21 
(57)
   
G12 =
R1,bot  R12  2
(48)  f 2,in 
(τ 1,botS + 1) (τ 2,topS + 1) h 2,top =  (58)
 C12 + C22 
 
 R1,top  Once h1,top andh 2,top are calculated, one may calculate the
  four discharge flow rates f ij ( i = 1, 2; j = 1, 2 ) from the two
G21 =
R2,bot  R21 
(49)
(τ 2,botS + 1) (τ 1,topS + 1)
top tanks at steady state according to Eqs. 13-16. In turn, one may
further calculate the steady-state liquid levels of the two bottom

Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037 (2017)

5/10
 Jang (2017)
Email:
Since the model developed in this work suggests that there
tanks due toCentral
the fact that the sum of the two inlet flow rates may be four distinct time constants, the time constants obtained in
equals to the outlet flow rate for each of the two bottom tanks: the initial fit are artificially fine-tuned while ensuring reasonably
good fit (with goodness of fit at R2 greater than 0.996). The final
f 11 + f 12 = f 1,out results are presented in Figures 4-7 and the refined G matrix for
(59)
the transfer functions are
= C1 h1,bot
 0.07867 0.04585 
f 21 + f 22 = f 2,out  (11.41s + 1) (10.41s + 1) (10.41s + 1) (11.61s + 1) 
(60) G=
 0.04007 0.08452  (64)
= C2 h 2,bot  
( 11.41s + 1) (12.41s + 1) (11.61s + 1) (12.41s + 1) 
Or The fine-tuned best-fit time constants are listed in Table 1.
2
 C h1,top + C h 2,top  In this simulation, it is assumed that the controller output
h1,bot =  11 12
 (61) to the control valves is proportional to the flow rate, which is
 C1  a reasonable assumption if one uses control valves with linear
 
trims and the feed streams have constant source pressures.
2
 C h1,top + C h 2,top  PREDICTION OF THE EXTENT OF LOOP
h 2,bot =  21 22
 (62)
 C2  INTERACTION
 
The transfer functions Gij (i, j = 1, 2) in Equation 64 have very
It is evident that the initial steady-state condition is affected close time constants in the denominators. Therefore, one may
by the flow rates of the two feed streams. In turn, the resistances simply use the gains to analyze the extent of loop interaction:
of all six valves below the four tanks and the gains and time
constants of the process and disturbance models in Eqs. 47-50
K K12 
are affected as well. This is typical of any process units whose K =  11
K 22 
(65)
dynamic models contain non-linear terms.  K 21
SIMULATION FOR OPEN LOOP RESPONSES where K11 = 0.07867, K12 = 0.04585, K21 = 0.04007, and K22 =
Simulation is done by using the multi-tank case of Loop Pro 0.08452. One may then calculate the parameter λ in the relative
(Control Station, Inc.). A snapshot of the simulation procedure is gain array (RGA) [3(c)][4(a)]:
shown in Figure 3. The two constant pumping rates D1 and D2
from the two bottom tanks are set at zero. While the controller λ λ12   λ 1 − λ 
RGA =  11 = (66)
output to the inlet control valve on the right side is maintained
λ21 λ22  1 − λ λ 
at 61.5% in the manual mode, the controller output to the inlet
control valve on the left side is changed from 61.5% to 63.0% and where
maintained at 63.0% until both liquid levels reach new plateaus,
then dropped to 60.0% and maintained at 60.0% until both liquid 1
levels reach other new plateaus. Finally, the controller output is λ= = 1.382 (67)
increased to 61.5% until the initial steady state is reached. This K12 K 21
1−
pattern of input is called doublet input, a revised step or pulse K11 K 22
input. Similar procedure is done by changing the controller
Note that the parameter λ means the ratio of the process gain
output to the control valve on the right side while maintaining
for the bottom tank on the left side when both loops are open to
the controller output to the control valve on the left side at 61.5%.
that when the first loop is open while the second loop is closed.
The response data is collected and the overdamped second The fact that the parameter λ being greater than unity indicates
order model without dead time is selected when using Design that the controller output to the second loop (in order to maintain
Tools of Loop Pro to find the best-fit transfer functions. Loop the level in the bottom tank on the right side) acts to reduce the
Pro gives the initial results for the critically-damped case (with response of the level in the bottom tank on the left side. Therefore,
identical time constants for each second-order fit): the parameter λ is a useful indicator for the extent of loop
 0.07867 0.04585  interaction. In this example, the extent of loop interaction is not
 (10.91s + 1) 2 severe because the value of λ is just somewhat above 1.0. If loop
(10.91s + 1) 2  interaction were absent, we would expect the λ value to be exactly
G initial =  (63)
 0.04007 0.08452  1.0. If the second controller output were to increase the response
 (11.91s + 1) 2 (11.91s + 1) 2 
of the process variable in the first loop, we would expect 0 <λ<
 1.0. On the other hand, if λ value is very large or even negative, we

Table 1: Summary of the time constants for the simulation results of the four-tank system from Loop-Pro.
τ1,top (min) τ1,bot (min) τ2,top (min) τ2,bot (min)
11.41 10.41 11.61 12.41

Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037 (2017)

6/10
 Jang (2017)
Email:

Central

Model: Second Order Overdamped

Loop-Pro: Design Tools
File Name: Multi Tank G12 G22.txt
Manipulated Variable Process Variable 4.1

4.0

3.9

3.8
63.0

62.1

61.2

60.3

0.0 31.7 63.4 95.1 126.8 158.5 190.2 221.9 253.6

Time (min)

Gain (K) = 0.04585, 1st Time Constant (min) = 11.41, 2nd Time Constant (min) = 11.11
Goodness of Fit: R-Squared = 0.9967, SSE = 0.01273

Figure 5 Result of data fitting to the exact second-order model for the disturbance model G21.

Loop-Pro: Design Tools

Model: Second Order Overdamped File Name: Multi Tank G11 G21.txt
Manipulated Variable Process Variable

4.0

3.9

3.8

63.0

62.1

61.2

60.3

0.0 32.3 64.6 96.9 129.2 161.5 193.8 226.1

Time (min)

Gain (K) = 0.04007, 1st Time Constant (min) = 11.41, 2nd Time Constant (min) = 12.61
Goodness of Fit: R-Squared = 0.9965, SSE = 0.009501

Figure 6 Result of data fitting to the exact second-order model for the disturbance
tuning model
methodG12for
. single-input-single-output (SISO) [3(b)][5]:

1 τ1 + τ 2
may conclude that the extent of loop interaction to be severe and/ K c ≡ Proportional Gain = (69)
or the process variables and the manipulated variables may be Kp τc
paired incorrectly [4(a)]. When severe loop interaction exists, we τ I ≡ Integral Time = τ 1 + τ 2 (70)
may need to implement strategies such as decoupling or revising
manipulated variable/process variable pairs [3(d)][4(b)]. ττ
τ D ≡ Derivative Time = 1 2 (71)
IMC TUNING PARAMETERS τ1 + τ 2
Therefore, by using the model parameters from Eq. 64,
If the internal model control (IMC) tuning method is used, PID tuning parameters may be calculated by Eqs. 69-71with
the PID (proportional-integral-derivative) tuning parameters for the expected closed-loop time constant for both loops chosen
both loops can be calculated by using process model parameters arbitrarily at τc = 12.0 min.
(from G11 and G22) with the expected closed-loop time constant
τc as the adjustable parameter. For a general exact second-order Loop 1
process model Kc = 23.11 % /m
Kp τ I = 21.82 min.
Gp = (68)
(τ 1 + 1)(τ 2 + 1) τD = 5.44 min.
PID tuning parameters can be determined by using the IMC Loop 2

Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037 (2017)

7/10

Central
Kc = 23.689 %/m
τ I = 24.02 min.
τD = 6.00 min.
Since the extent of loop interaction is mild in this case, tuning
rule based on SISO may yield satisfactory tuning parameters for
multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) systems. However, in the
presence of significant loop interactions, the tuning parameters
based on the SISO must be detuned to suit MIMO cases. The
procedures of detuning control parameters are recommended in
the literature [6][7][3(e)][4(c)][8].
FEEDBACK CONTROL WITH AND WITHOUT
DECOUPLING
The control block diagram for the feedback control of single
loops showing the effect of loop interactions in a MIMO system is
given in Figure 8. With the above PID tuning parameters entered
to the PID controllers for both loops and the data sample time
chosen at 6.0 seconds, the performance of the control system in
tracking level setpoints in both loops are shown in Figure 9. Level
setpoint for the bottom tank on the left side (h1,bot,sp) is changed
from 3.96 meters to 4.5 meters and back to 3.96 meters, while
maintaining the level setpoint of the bottom tank on the right side
(h2, bot, sp) at 3.92 meters. Similar simulation is done by changing
h2, bot, sp from 3.92 meters to 4.5 meters and back to 3.92 meters
while maintaining h1,bot,sp at 3.96 meters (Figure 9). It appears
that the PID controller implemented according to the procedure
developed in this work provides satisfactory performance of
setpoint tracking for both liquid levels. However, while the level
for the left bottom tank (h1) is responding to a change in h1, setpoint,
the level for the right bottom tank (h2) deviates from h2, setpoint due
to the interference from Loop 1. The reverse is also true. The
simulation results suggest that the loop interactions cannot be
eliminated effectively by two individual PID feedback loops.
The control block diagram for the feedback control of
single loops using two-way decoupling strategy to eliminate or
minimize loop interactions is shown in Figure 10. By choosing
Model: Second Order Overdamped
Process Variable
4.1
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
Manipulated Variable
63.0
62.1
61.2
60.3
0.0 31.7
Gain (K) = 0.08452, 1st Time Constant (min) = 11.11, 2nd Time Constant (min) = 12.61
Goodness of Fit: R-Squared = 0.9966, SSE = 0.04246
Figure 7 Result of data fitting to the exact second-order model for process model G22.
Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037 (2017)
Jang (2017)
Email:
“PID with Decoupler” for both loops in the Loop Pro’s multi-tank
case study, the same PID control parameters above are entered
and data sample time is maintained at 6.0 seconds. The decoupler
D1 in Figure 10 is essentially a feed forward controller that would
reject the disturbance (or interference) from the controller of
Loop 2 on process variable of Loop 1 (i.e., h1,bot). Likewise, the
decoupler D2 in Figure 10 is a feed forward controller that would
reject the disturbance (or interference) from the controller of
Loop 1 on process variable of Loop 2 (i.e., h2,bot). The decouplers
used in this simulation are
−0.04585
−G12 (10.41s + 1) (11.61s + 1)
D1 = = (72)
G11 0.07867
(11.41s + 1) (10.41s + 1)
−0.04007
−G21 (11.41s + 1) (12.41s + 1)
D2 = = (73)
G22 0.08452
(11.61s + 1) (12.41s + 1)
Similar setpoint-tracking simulations are done as in the
case without decoupling; the results are shown in Figure 11. By
comparing (Figure 9 and 11), it appears that the controllers move
more aggressively if the decoupling strategy is implemented.
This is obvious due to the additional feedforward action from
the decouplers. One may observe a striking contrast in the
response of both liquid levels. In the case without decoupling
(Figure 9), when h1,bot and h2,bot are responding to their respective
setpoint changes, the level of h2,bot and h1,bot , respectively, are
disturbed somewhat from their original setpoints. However, such
disturbances are almost fully eliminated when the decoupling
strategy is implemented (Figure 11). When h1,bot is responding
to step changes in its setpoint, h2,bot pretty much stays very near
its setpoint value. The reverse is also true. Evidently, the control
strategy developed in this work not only successfully identifies
model and model parameters, but also develops an effective
Loop-Pro: Design Tools
File Name: Multi Tank G12 G22.txt
63.4 95.1 126.8 158.5 190.2 221.9 253.6
Time (min)
8/10

Central
Figure 8 Block diagram for 2x2 MIMO feedback control scheme without using the decoupling strategy.
Figure 9 Setpoint tracking for the two bottom tanks using PID settings for both feedback controllers without using decoupling strategy.
decoupling strategy to eliminate loop interactions.
If one examines Eqs. 72 and 73, it is evident that the time
constants involved in this system are very close to each other.
Therefore, one may ignore the dynamic part of the decouplers
and simply use static decouplers D1 ~ -0.04585/0.07867 and
D2 ~ -0.04007/0.08452. The results are very similar to those in
Figure 11 and not demonstrated here.
CONCLUSION
The transfer functions for a four-tank system illustrated
in this work can be derived by using the principle of analogy
to the single-tank case, with resistances of the six valves
below the four tanks and first-order time constants of the four
tanks clearly defined. The final results show that the transfer
functions of the liquid levels of the two bottom tanks are linear
Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037 (2017)
Jang (2017)
Email:
combinations of the effects of the two feed streams to the system.
Simulation results for the four-tank system in Loop Pro show
that the dynamic responses of process variables to the changes
in controller outputs fit the expected overdamped second-order
behaviors. With the process models and disturbance models
clearly developed and model parameters obtained, one may
identify the extent of loop interactions using relative gain array.
Model-based controller tuning method such as IMC provides
adequate PID tuning parameters for the two feedback controllers.
However, the system encountered in this work exhibits certain
degree of loop interaction by using two individual PID feedback
controllers. With decoupling strategy applied to both loops, loop
interactions are almost eliminated entirely.
REFERENCES
1. Jang LK. “Level Control by Regulating Control Valve at the Bottom of A
9/10
 Jang (2017)
Email:

Central

Figure 10 Block diagram for 2x2 MIMO feedback control scheme with decoupling strategy.

Figure 11 Setpoint tracking for the two bottom tanks using PID settings for both feedback controllers with decoupling strategy implemented. The
legends are the same as those of Figure 9.

Gravity-drained Tank”. Chem Eng Educ. 2016; 50: 245-250.
2. Lee M, Shin J. “Constrained Optimal Control of Liquid Level Loop
Using a Conventional Proportional-Integral Controller,” Chem. Eng.
Commun. 2009; 196: 729–745.
3. Riggs JB, Karim MN. Chemical and Bio-Process Control, 4th edition.
2016; 182–183.
4. Smith CA, Corripio AB. Principles and Practices of Automatic Process
Control, 3 edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 2005; 441-442.
5. Luyben WL. “Simple method for tuning SISO controllers in
multivariable systems.” Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev. 1986; 654–
660.
6. 6. Malwatkar GM, Khandekar AA, Asutkar VG, Waghmare LM. “Design
of Centralized PI/PID Controller: Interaction Measure Approach,”
in 2008 IEEE Region 10 and the Third international Conference on
Industrial and Information Systems. 2008; 1–6.
7. Lengare MJ, Chile RH, Waghmare LM. “Design of decentralized
controllers for MIMO processes,” Comput Electr Eng. 2012; 140–147.
8. Gatzke EP, Meadows ES, Wang C, Doyle FJ. “Model based control of a
four-tank system.” Comput Chem Eng. 2000; 1503–1509.

Cite this article

Jang LK (2017) Feedback Control for Liquid Level in a Gravity-Drained Multi-Tank System. Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037.

Chem Eng Process Tech 3(1): 1037 (2017)

10/10