YEAR: 2008 / 2009

LAB: LC 2 LEVEL CONTROL

CONDUCTED: 05 – 11 – 08
SUBMITTED: 19 – 11 – 08
 ABSTRACT
The main objectives of this experiment were to develop an open-loop dynamic model
between the tank water levels and the pump speed from input step response data and to
study the transient or momentary behaviour of proportional-only level control loops.
Firstly the system was run as an open-loop system with no controller. The pump speed
was varied and the tank level changed accordingly. Secondly, the system was run as
closed-loop with a direct acting controller. The set point and proportional band was varied
while the inlet flow was kept constant, then the inlet flow rate was varied.
The results obtained agree with theory and the following results obtained.
1. For open-loop changes in pump speed gave a linear change in tank level until steady
state was re-established.
For closed loop
1. The average velocity gain, K, was found to be -0.4745/min
2. For K = -0.4745/min and a time constant of 0.632min the controller gain Kc was
calculated as 3.3346 giving a PB of 30% and for a time constant 1.475min, Kc was
1.4288 giving PB of 70%.
3. The actual time constant, θ was greater than the theoretical time constant meaning
that the changes occurred faster than expected.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... I
Objectives...................................................................................................................................... 1
Apparatus...................................................................................................................................... 1
Procedure...................................................................................................................................... 1
Theory............................................................................................................................................ 1
OPEN AND CLOSE LOOP RESPONSE........................................................................................1
LEVEL CONTROL.....................................................................................................................1
PROPORTIONAL CONTROL.......................................................................................................2
Results & Calculations................................................................................................................. 4
I. LIQUID INVENTORIES IN A PLANT.................................................................................4
II. VELOCITY GAIN.............................................................................................................5
A. GRAPHICAL APPROACH.................................................................................................5
B. EMPIRICAL APPROACH...................................................................................................5
III. USE OF DIRECT ACTING LEVEL CONTROLLER..............................................................5
IV. LEVEL EQUATION..........................................................................................................6
V. CLOSED LOOP TIME CONSTANT....................................................................................7
VI. IMPACT OF INCREASING Θ UPON CLOSED LOOP RESPONSE.........................................7
VII. OFFSET SHOWN BY PROPORTIONAL LEVEL CONTROLLER.......................................8
A. STEP CHANGES IN SET POINT........................................................................................8
B. PULSE DISTURBANCES IN INLET FLOW RATE...............................................................8
C. STEP DISTURBANCES IN INLET FLOW RATE..................................................................8
Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 9
USE OF PROPORTIONAL-ONLY CONTROLLER.........................................................................9
BUMPING.................................................................................................................................9
CONTROLLER GAIN, KC...........................................................................................................9
PROPORTIONAL BAND.............................................................................................................9
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS...........................................................................................................9
SAFETY ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................9
SOURCES OF ERRORS..............................................................................................................9
Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 9
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 9
References.................................................................................................................................... 9
Appendix – A............................................................................................................................... IX
Appendix – B............................................................................................................................... IX
AVERAGE VELOCITY GAIN, K............................................................................................... IX
CONTROLLER GAIN KC...........................................................................................................IX
PROPORTIONAL BAND, PB..................................................................................................... IX

LIST OF FIGURES, DIAGRAMS & GRAPHS

Figure 1 PFD of Experiment System............................................................................3

Graph 1 Open-Loop Data – Changes in Tank Level with Changes in Pump Speed....ix
Graph 2 Closed-Loop Data – Changes in Tank Level with Changes in Pump Speed. ix
OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of this experiment were as follows:
1. To develop an open-loop dynamic model between the tank water
levels and the pump speed from input step response data.
2. To study the transient or momentary behaviour of proportional-only
level control loops

APPARATUS

‫ ؛‬Arm field Limited Process Plant Trainer (PCT23-MkII).

‫ ؛‬PCT23-MkII Control Console. It incorporates an industrial PID
controller together with electrical sockets for connection of relevant
control signals to/from the PCT23 console.
‫ ؛‬Arm field PCT20H SCADA software
‫ ؛‬Beaker (2 L )
‫ ؛‬Water supply

PROCEDURE
i. Prior to turning on the console, the following switches were set as
indicated below:
ʚ All function switches were set to “MANUAL”
ʚ All control potentiometers were set to minimum (fully
counterclockwise)
ʚ Valve control switch for SOL1 was set to “Divert”
ʚ Valve control switch for SOL2 was set to “FEED A”
ʚ Valve control switch for SOL3 was set to “STOP”
ʚ Valve control switch for SOL4 was set to “FILL A”
ʚ Valve control switch for SOL5 was set to “STOP”

ii. The PCT23 console was then switched on and the three
circuit breakers checked to ensure that they were all in the UP position.
The computer was subsequently turned on.
iii. The flow control valve V1 and the pressure reducing valve
PVR1 were fully opened, the former by turning it fully counter-clockwise
 and the latter, by turning it fully clockwise. Valves V2, V3, V4 and V5 were
checked to ensure that they were closed.
iv. The water supply valve, mounted on the wall, was then
gradually opened and the makeup water was allowed to flow into feed tank
A until it was approximately half-full (about 150mm). The supply valve was
then closed.
v. The PCT23 icon on the Windows desktop was double-
clicked and experiment B – “1 loop (level L1 to pump N1)” was loaded.
vi. The flexible tubing was loaded into the peristaltic pump N1
and the pump head was clamped onto the tubing. The feed pump was then
switched on and the pump function switch was turned to “USB I/O”.
vii. The mimic diagram was opened and a value of 40 was
entered in the “N1” box.
viii. Following this, the water supply valve was gradually
opened until a slow stream of makeup water started flowing into the feed
tank. The valve, V1 was then adjusted until the inflow balanced the effluent
flow rate, resulting in the vessel level being constant at approximately 50%
of the scale
ix. “View”, “Graph” followed by “Configure the graph data”
was selected from thee toolbar.
x. The graph was then configured as follows:
xi. Variables “Run 1 Tank A level L1 (mm)” and “Run 1 Set-point Term
(Loop 1) (mm)” were placed on the primary axis, and the range set to 0 to
250mm
xii. Variable “Run 1 Feed pump Speed (N1) (%)” was placed on the
secondary axis and the range set to 0- 100%.
xiii. The data sampling was configured for a sample intervals of two(2)
seconds
xiv. The green “GO” icon was clicked to commence the data
collection.
xv. The controller output was increased from 40 to 50 % in the
N1 box and the water level was allowed to fall by 25mm (10% of scale).
xvi. The controller output was returned to 40% and adjusted
until a steady-state was re-established.
 xvii. The controller output was decreased to 10 % and the water
level was allowed to rise by 25 mm.
xviii. The controller output was then increased back to 40% and
the controller output was adjusted until steady state was re-established.
xix. The PID box on the mimic diagram was left-clicked and the
current value of L1 was entered in the “Set Point” field to prevent the
controller from ‘bumping’ the process when it is switched from manual to
automatic.
xx. The proportional-only controller was configured by entering
a proportional band of 50%, an integral time of zero (0) seconds and a
derivative time of zero (0) seconds. The controller was then switched to
automatic by pressing “Apply”.
xxi. The system was allowed to run at this operating point for a
few minutes, following which the set point was increased by 25mm.
xxii. The “OK” icon was then clicked and the process was
allowed to move to a new steady-state.
xxiii. The results of steps 12 and 14 were used to derive and
estimate the overall velocity gain, K. A new value of the controller gain, K C

1
was then calculated by use of the IMC tuning rule: KC = θ|K|
xxiv. The PID 1 box was reopened and the corresponding
proportional band was entered. The level set point was decreased by
25mm and the process variables were allowed to line out.
xxv. Step 20 was repeated for a different value of .
xxvi. Approximately 1 Liter of water was dumped into the tank
and the system was allowed to return to steady state operation.
xxvii. Valve V1 was then closed by a few turns so that the inlet
flow was not shut off completely, and when steady-state was achieved,
data collection was stopped.
xxviii. The results were saved in Formula One and Excel formats
and copied onto a diskette. The makeup water valve was closed and the
controller was switched to manual. The controller output was set to 0% and
the software was exited.
xxix. All controls were set to minimum/OFF and all function
switches were set to MANUAL. The computer and console were turned off
and the clamps on the peristaltic pump head were released to prevent
permanent distortion of the flexible tubing.
THEORY
A process has an input which under goes some change to produce an
output. In the manufacturing industries, the aim is to obtain outputs at
specific dimensions, set point of the process. The aim of process control is
to maintain the required dimensions of the output, called the process
variable, by varying the inputs when/if the process experience any
disturbances.
Process control considers two types of control loops – open-loop and
closed-loop. Open-loop systems can be considered as systems in which
the output has no effect on the input, i.e., if any change is made to the
input, a decision has to be made to change it. On the other hand, in
closed-loop systems, the process variable is continuously monitored by a
controller. The function of the controller is to measure the output and
check for deviations from the set point, if there is any it sends a signal for
the input to be change so as to correct the deviation.

Open and Close Loop Response

Open-loop response can be defined as the way in which a system
behaves with respect to time, in the absence of controllers.
Closed-loop response is the dynamic behaviour of a system with a
controller included in the process.
Level Control
Level control usually deals liquid levels in tanks, inventory tanks, or
vessels. It can be required that the level not go pass a certain value,
Sensors are placed in the tanks at the specified levels and if the liquid
rises above or drops below the sensors alarm trip alerting operators.
These are commonly referred to as high or low level alarms. For
monitoring the actual level within the tank, there are many different ways.
Probably the simplest is a liquid leg on the outside of the tank or as in this
experiment a pressure sensor at the base of the tank which operates on
the equation P=hρg.
THEORY

Proportional Control

As mentioned before in closed-loop systems, a controller calculates the

deviation of process variable from set point and takes action to correct it.
Usually it is some combination of the Proportional-plus-Integral-plus-
Derivative (PID) algorithm, either P – Only, PI or the full PID is used. This
experiment used proportional only. With proportional control, the corrective
action is proportional to the size of the deviation from the set point. The P-
only controller takes an input, applies a gain to it, and generates an output.
The curve for the simplest P-only controller looks like a straight line,
Output = Gain × Input.

PV = m*(CO) + b

where PV is the process variable, m represents gain,Kc, and CO is the

controller output measurement and b is zero. When there is no deviation in
the system the bias term is included and the equation becomes

PV = Kc × (Meas – SP) + bias

In short, the bias of a P-only controller, is the output of the controller when
the measurement equals set-point, i.e. there is no error. The output bias b
of the controller is also known as manual reset.

In a proportional controller, steady state error tends to depend inversely

upon the proportional gain (not the same as the controller gain) so if the
gain is made larger the error goes down. In some controllers, controller
gain Kc is expressed as a pure number; in others, it is set as 100/P, where
P is the proportional band in percent.

A proportional controller reduces error but does not eliminate it i.e. an

offset between the actual and desired value will normally exist. To
minimize the resulting offset, the bias should be set at the best estimate of
the load and the proportional band set as low as possible.
THEORY

FIGURE 1 PFD OF EXPERIMENT SYSTEM

RESULTS & CALCULATIONS
i. Liquid Inventories in a Plant
Advantages of having liquid inventories on a plant include:
‫ ؛‬Always have a constant supply to process, prevents damage of
equipment like pumps that would be damaged by a lack of flow.
Damage equipment would not only require money to fix but could lead
to tripping of the plant or plant shut down which lead to loss of revenue.
‫ ؛‬Allows for process feed rates to be varied, plant flexibility. Varying feed
rates would be required depending on process itself or plant conditions
may require increases or decreases in flow rates.
‫ ؛‬Allows for recycling of off-spec products. Off-spec products can be
stored and added back at appropriate points along the process;
otherwise it may have had to be sold at a reduced cost or discarded.
‫ ؛‬Liquid product inventories allow for quicker filling of vessels used to
transport product, makes overall process more effective therefore more
profitable.
Disadvantages of having liquid inventories on a plant include:
‫ ؛‬Increases the working capital cost of plant as the raw-materials
inventory included in working capital usually amounts to a one month
supply of the raw materials valued at delivered prices, thereby
decreasing the initial potential plant profit.
‫ ؛‬Storage tanks require land space. This is generally limited in industrial
estates so increased costs again.
‫ ؛‬Other equipment, pumps, piping and fittings, would be required to
move the feed from storage to actual process equipment, increased
cost again.
‫ ؛‬Increased safety risks on plant if a hazardous material is being stored.
Also if an accident, like a fire or explosion were to occur, the magnitude
of the accident in significantly increased by the quantity of inventory.
 RESULTS & CALCULATIONS

ii. Velocity Gain

a. Graphical Approach
Consider the following
∂ PV ' (t ) '
=kC { O (t )¿
∂t EQ 0
Integrating equation 1 gives

' ''' ' '

∫∂PV(t)=∫KC{O(t)d¿PV(t)=KC{O(t)+c¿Recal¿PV(t)=PV(t)−PVS¿CO=CO(t)−COS¿ EQ 0

EQ 0

EQ 0

Substituting equations 3 and 4 into equation 2 gives

PV (t )−PV SS=K (CO (t )−CO SS )+c
Initially at time t = 0, COSS = 0 and c = 0
⇒ PV (t )−PV SS =K (CO(t )−0)+0
PV (t )−PV SS=K (CO(t )) ¿ SS ¿ ¿ ¿¿
PV (t )=K .CO(t )+PV
¿
K can be found using this equation.

b. Empirical Approach
See Appendix B

iii. Use of Direct Acting Level Controller

If for a process, the gain, K, and controller gain, K c, is positive, and an
increase in the CO gives an increase in the PV, then process is direct
acting but the controller is reverse acting. Conversely, for a reverse acting
process, the control is direct acting. This means if the gain, K, and
controller gain, Kc, is negative, then an increase in the CO gives a
decrease in the PV. For this experiment, K was negative meaning reverse
acting process so the controller had to be configured as direct acting.
Note that Kc would always be positive as it was defined as a function of the
modulus of K, so we just look at the sign of K
 RESULTS & CALCULATIONS

iv. Level Equation

 RESULTS & CALCULATIONS

v. Closed Loop time Constant

Basically, the time constant, θ, describes how quickly the process variable,
tank level in this case, takes to respond when the controller output, pump
speed, is changed. Technically θ is the time that passes from when the PV
shows its first response to the CO change, until when the PV reaches 63%
of the total change in PV that is going to occur.
For this experiment, the following is the graphical approach to find θ. Refer
to Appendix A for the Graph used.
Considering when the pump speed changes from 74% to 40%, from graph
When N1 = 74% N1 = 41%
L1i = 174mm L1f = 149mm
t1 = 44.8833 min
i.e. ΔPV = 25mm → ΔPV63% = 25mm * 0.63 = 15.75mm
Therefore L163% = 174 – 15.75mm = 159.25mm
At L1 = 159.25mm, t2 = 46.2167min
→ θ1 = t2 – t1 = 1.3334 min
Theoretical value θ1 of was given 0.632 min. This indicates that the tank
level dropped much quicker than expected.

vi. Impact of Increasing θ upon Closed Loop Response

The internal model control tuning rule gives us the relationship that
controller gain is inversely proportional to process gain, velocity gain
here. The proportionality constant for this experiment is the closed loop
time constant θ. Since θ is the time taken for the controlled level to reach
63% of its final value, increasing θ would mean that the controlled level
takes a longer time is required for to reach its final value. As the water
level drops slower this means that the pump speed decreased as well.
 RESULTS & CALCULATIONS

vii. Offset shown by Proportional Level Controller

Offset is the difference between a system’s set point and the actual value
of the system’s process variable. Offset is related to the sensitivity of the
controller. The more sensitive a controller is to system changes the
smaller the offset value.
a. Step Changes in Set point
Step changes in set point occurred when the pump speed was increased.
This happened when the proportional band was changed to 30% and then
70%. Observing Graph 1, at initial pump speeds of 74% and 54%, the
water level drop when the changes are made but both return to steady
state at the respective set points of 149mm and 124mm. since there is no
error between set point and steady state after both changes, it is not
expected that this proportional level controller would have offset following
step changes in set point.
b. Pulse Disturbances in Inlet Flow rate
Pulse disturbances in the inlet flow rate occurred when the litre of water
was added to the tank. As with the step change in set point, the water level
drop when the water was added but it returned to steady state at the set
point. Therefore offset is not expected for pulse disturbance in linlet flow
rates with this proportional level controller.
c. Step Disturbances in Inlet Flow rate
Step disturbances in the inlet flow rate occurred when the supply valve
was partially closed. When the change was made, the pump speed and
the water level both started to decrease from steady state conditions.
From the data collected, steady state was not achieved again, but if/when
steady state was achieved again it would not have been possible for the
water level to be return to the set point value of 149mm again unless
another change was made to the system. Hence for a step change in inlet
flow rate, this proportional level controller would exhibit an offset error.
RESULTS & CALCULATIONS

DISCUSSION
Use of Proportional-Only Controller
For controlling flow rates in closed-loop systems, it is recommended that
proportional-only controllers are the simplest way to reduce changes in
flow rate changes. The disadvantage of this though is that offset is an
inherent characteristic of P-only control throughout a process.
Configuring the controller to a PI control would help eliminate the offset
error. Derivative control is generally not recommended for processes that
respond quickly to change, like flow, since it causes instability and causes
the process to oscillate about its set point. However, for this experiment
that was not necessary to eliminate the offset as part of the experiment
looked at when exactly it occurs.

Bumping
When the set point of a closed-loop system is changed, depending on the
new set point, the system may no longer be at steady state. The controller
will have to send out correct signals so meet the new set point and return
to steady state. If the changes required are significant and sudden, the
system is bumped. The equipment in the process, pumps and motors for
example, can be damaged if sudden and significant changes are made to
their operating conditions.

Controller Gain, Kc
Generally controller gain is defined as the ratio of change of output to
change of input. For this experiment it is mathematically defined as
Kc = 1
θ*│K│

where K is the process velocity gain and θ is the time constant.

In a P-only control system, increasing the controller gain will cause the
offset to decrease, but depending on the process, increasing the gain
beyond a certain limit results in instability in the process.
RESULTS & CALCULATIONS

Proportional Band
Proportional band is the percent of the process variable range that causes
100% change in the controller output. The actual significance of the
proportional band can be understood in relation to the range of the
measurement sensor and the range of operation of the control valve. A
proportional band of 100 indicates that the control valve will move over
100% of its range for a 100% measurement sensing range.
Mathematically proportional band is given as
100 %
K=
KC
The effects of proportional band are that
ʚ At low proportional bands, process are prone to oscillating before
returning to a steady state.
ʚ At very high proportional bands, process quickly returns to a steady
state and with very little oscillation but at a offset.

Analysis of Results
The first part of the experiment was carried out under open-loop conditions
while the second part was under closed-loop conditions. The open-loop
data is represented graphically in Graph 1 of the Appendix and closed-
loop data is in Graph 2.
It was noted that throughout the experiment, at steady state conditions, the
pump speed was always 40%. Now in a steady state system there is no
loss or accumulation. At a pump speed of 40%, the inlet flow rate is equal
to the outlet flow rate giving no loss or accumulation.
Consider Graph 1. We see that when the pump speed increases, the tank
level decreases with a linear change until steady state is re-established.
Conversely, when the pump speed is decreased, the tank level increased,
once again linearly, until steady state has been re-established. This is
expected as the system has a direct acting level controller.
RESULTS & CALCULATIONS

Analysis of Results
Consider Graph 2. In the closed-loop system only the set point was
changes. The pump controlled the outlet flow rate while the inlet flow rate
remained constant. When the set point was increased, the pump speed
had to decrease for the tank level to rise and it had to increase when the
set point was lowered for there to be a loss in the water level.
When the litre of water was added to the tank, i.e. the inlet flow rate was
increased, the pump speed increased as the set point was lower than the
level after the addition of the water and a lost had to occur for the water
level to return to the set point.
When the proportional band was changed, to 30% and then to70%,
it was noted that steady state was re-established quicker with the lower
proportional band of 30%. Now the controller gain is inversely proportional
to the time constant, but proportional band is inversely proportional to
controller gain, so this implies that proportional band is directly
proportional to the time constant. Therefore results agree with theory,
decrease in proportional band, decreases time constant

Safety Analysis
ʚ The opening and closing of valves were done as specified to prevent
water flowing into the wrong places.
ʚ The wires were insulated and located behind equipment to prevent the
risk of electrical shocks in the event that spills occur.
ʚ The main valve controlling the water supply was opened slowly to
reduce turbulence which would have lead to instability and also to
prevent the water ‘pounding on’ the pressure sensor L1 at the bottom
of the tank else it would have been damaged.
ʚ The flexible tubing was loaded into the peristaltic pump and the pump
head clamped so as to prevent yanking of the tubing or the tubing
getting caught and damaged on any moving equipment.
ʚ The clamps on the peristaltic pump head were released at the end of
the experiment to prevent permanent distortion of the flexible tubing.
RESULTS & CALCULATIONS

Sources of Errors
ʚ The water flow rate from the main supply would have varied. This
would have caused fluctuations in the inlet flow rate to the tank
preventing complete steady state conditions from being established.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Include a high and low level alarm in tank A, just as tank B had, to
prevent overflow from the tank and to prevent damage to the pump in
case of water level dropping to low
2. Connect another tank to the system with a flow control valve, fill this
tank and use it as the water supply. This would ensure a constant
flow rate into Tank A, reducing errors caused by fluctuations in the
inlet flow rate caused by water supplied from water mains.
3. Allow a longer time for steady state to be achieved after changes are
made to the system.

CONCLUSION
The results obtained agree with theory.
For open-loop
2. Changes in pump speed gave a linear change in tank level until
steady state was re-established.
For closed loop
4. The average velocity gain, K, was found to be -0.4745/min
5. For K = -0.4745/min and a time constant of 0.632min the controller
gain Kc was calculated as 3.3346 giving a PB of 30% and for a time
constant 1.475min, Kc was 1.4288 giving PB of 70%.
6. Changes in set point resulted in automatic changes in pump speed
until the tank level reached the set point and steady state could be
achieved.
7. Proportional band is directly proportional to time constant, as
proportional band increases, the time constant increases and the time
taken for the system to achieve steady state increases
8. The actual time constant, θ2 was greater than the theoretical time
constant meaning that the changes occurred faster than expected.
REFERENCES
1. http://www.controlguru.com/wp/p62.html
2. Laboratory Manual CHNG 2009/2010 Chemical Engineering
Laboratory (2007-2008)
3. Lubyen, M.L., W.L. Luyben (1997) “Essentials of Process Control”.
Mc Graw Hill, New York

Level Control Experiment

www.Level Control Experiment.hmt/

Pnueumatic Controllers II – Proportional Control

The Feed Back Control Loop
Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT) Course Notes

ISA Mind Your Ps.mht

APPENDIX – A

Open Loop Data

250 100

225 90

200 80

Feed Pum p Speed, N1 %

175 70
Tank A Level, L1 m m

150 60

125 50

100 40

75 30

50 20

25 10

0 0
0:00:00 0:02:53 0:05:46 0:08:38 0:11:31 0:14:24 0:17:17
Elapsed Time, min:s

L1 N1

GRAPH 1 OPEN-LOOP DATA – CHANGES IN TANK LEVEL WITH CHANGES IN PUMP SPEED.

i
ii
 Tank A Level, L1 mm

0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250

L1
0:00:00
0:01:26
0:02:53
0:04:19

N1
0:05:46
0:07:12
0:08:38
0:10:05
0:11:31
0:12:58
0:14:24
0:15:50
0:17:17
0:18:43
0:20:10
0:21:36
0:23:02
0:24:29
0:25:55
0:27:22
0:28:48
0:30:14
0:31:41
0:33:07
0:34:34
0:36:00
0:37:26
0:38:53
0:40:19
0:41:46
0:43:12
Closed Loop Data

0:44:38
Elapsed Time, min:sec

0:46:05
0:47:31
0:48:58
0:50:24
0:51:50
0:53:17
0:54:43
0:56:10
0:57:36
0:59:02
1:00:29
1:01:55
1:03:22
1:04:48
1:06:14
1:07:41
1:09:07
1:10:34
1:12:00
1:13:26
1:14:53
1:16:19
GRAPH 2 CLOSED-LOOP DATA – CHANGES IN TANK LEVEL WITH CHANGES IN PUMP SPEED.

1:17:46
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

iii
APPENDIX – B
Average Velocity Gain, K
K = % Increase in PV per Min
% Increase in Controller Output
ʚ For step (x)
L11 = 150mm L12 = 125mm
t1 = (31*2) = 62s t2 = (152*2) = 304s
N1 = 40% N2 = 50%

% Increase in PV/min = [{(125 – 150) ÷ 150}*100]

[(304 – 62) ÷ 60]
= – 4.1322% / min
% Increase in Controller Output = 50 – 40 = 10%
K(x) = – 4.1322% /min
10%
→ K(x) = – 0.4132/min
ʚ For step (xii)
L11 = 125mm L12 = 150mm
t1 = (203*2) = 406s t2 = (315*2) = 630s
N1 = 40% N2 = 30%

% Increase in PV/min = [{(150 – 125) ÷ 125}*100]

[(630 – 406) ÷ 60]
= – 5.3571% / min
% Increase in Controller Output = 30 – 40 = – 10%
K (xii) = – 5.3571% /min
–10%
→ K (xii) = – 0.5357/min
Average K = (- 0.4132 + - 0.5357) ÷ 2 = – 0.4745 / min
→ Kavg = – 0.4745 / min
APPENDIX – B
Controller Gain Kc
Kc = 1
θ│K │

Given θ1 = 0.632min
Kc = 1
0.632min*│- 0.4745/min│
→ Kc1 = 3.3346

Given θ2 = 1.475min
Kc = 1
1.475min*│- 0.4745/min│
→ Kc2 = 1.4288

Proportional Band, PB
PB = 100
Kc
For Kc1 = 3.3346
PB1 = 100 %
3.3346
→ PB1 = 30%
For Kc2 = 1.4288
PB1 = 100 %
1.4288
→ PB1 = 70%