EEP301: Process control trainer II
0 likes1,267 views
This lab report summarizes experiments conducted on a Process Control Trainer-II by seven students. The objectives were to observe the system response to noise and disturbances, obtain the frequency response, and tune a compound controller. Key results include: 1) increased throttle control decreased measured temperature but the controller compensated; 2) decreased proportional band decreased steady state temperature. Frequency response graphs show open and closed loop responses. Tuning a compound controller reduced oscillations and improved response time. The optimal tuning used increased proportional control to obtain a non-oscillatory response.
EEP301: Process control trainer II
- 1. EEP301 LAB REPORT Process Control Trainer-II SUBMITTED BY: AasthaDua (2009EE50052) AkshayGupta (2009EE50275) IndraBhushan (2010EE50548) Kumar Saurav (2009EE50796) Mehul Mittal (2010EE50553) Umang Gupta (2010EE50564) VivekMangal (2010EE50566)
- 2. PROCESS CONTROL TRAINER-II Objective: To see the change in system response due to noise and disturbance. To obtain the frequency response of the system Tune a compound controller for the system. Introduction: A process control trainer simulates the industrial plant, and control of temperature in the plant. It hasa blower and heater, which acts as kiln, the blower is used to communicate the information to the thermistor which is used to measure temperature. The measured temperature can be fed back to the system input the error in the heater. Also the feedback can be stepped or continuous. This emulates a industrial plant where temperature control is a crucial part of operation management. Observations and Results: Disturbance and System Response: 1. If throttle control is increased, the measured value decreases but the controller compensates for it. 2. If proportional band is decreased, the measured value decreases, i.e steady state decreases. for reading refer last pages:
- 3. Frequency Response: For open loop: Vin=4V Vout T delay phase freq gain 3.12 9 5.74 229.6 0.111111 -2.15811 3.2 6.08 3.28 194.2105 0.164474 -1.9382 3.04 4 2.38 214.2 0.25 -2.38373 2.4 1.92 1.16 217.5 0.520833 -4.43697 1.84 1.38 0.8 208.6957 0.724638 -6.74484 1.28 1.08 0.564 188 0.925926 -9.897 1.12 0.98 0.44 161.6327 1.020408 -11.0568
- 4. For closed loop: Vout T(s) delay phase Freq(Hz) gain 3.04 9 4.5 180 0.111111 -2.38373 2.56 2.4 1.4 210 0.416667 -3.8764 2.32 1.92 1.2 225 0.520833 -4.73144 1.36 1.22 0.9 265 0.819672 -9.37042 1.12 0.98 0.78 286 1.020408 -11.0568 Proportional band for closed loop = 1.08/4*100=30 (app) Note: Nyquist plots are attached at the end.
- 5. Compound controller Action: Untuned output: When connected simply with the controller unit the output is oscillatory and as follows: After tweaking with controller we observe following 1. Increasing integrator control causes less oscillation but more transience. 2. Increasing derivative control causes more oscillation, but output settles fast. 3. Increasing proportional control, without applying derivative or integral control causes decrease in steady state error. 4. However non oscillatory response is obtained by increasing proportional control. Tuned output: