Mutah University

Faculty of Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering

Process Dynamics & Control Lab 0404542

A Report About Level Control (Open Loop)

Experiment no. 1

Instructors: Dr. Saja T. Al-Bdairat

Eng. Rima A. Al-Jaradat

Date of submission: 24th of March 2025

Student Name Student Number
Arwa Musallam Lassassmeh 120210414019
Rayan Othman Al Masri 120210414078
Ro’a Baker Al Btoush 120210414050
Sarah Muneer Abu Alkhair 120210414081
Aryam Aljnnh Sultan Aljbour 120210414058
• Abstract
This experiment investigates the dynamic behaviour of a pure capacitive level
control system in an open-loop configuration by analysing its response to step
changes in inlet flow rate. The results revealed a linear relationship between
fluid height and time during both the filling and emptying phases, confirming
the system’s purely integrating nature. Significant deviations between
theoretical and experimental values for the cross-sectional area were observed,
attributed to factors such as flow resistance, pressure fluctuations, cavitation,
and air bubble interference. Due to the system’s lack of self-regulation, it
exhibited an unbounded response, making conventional tuning methods
ineffective and requiring manual adjustments for stability. These findings
emphasize the sensitivity of open-loop systems to external disturbances and
highlight the necessity of precise flow control and feedback strategies for
improved system stability and measurement reliability.

• Objectives
1. Study the dynamic behavior of a level control system subject to a step
change in inflow.
2. Analyze the system’s response without feedback control (open-loop
behavior).
3. Identify the characteristics of a pure capacitive system, particularly how
the liquid level changes over time.
4. Evaluate the impact of inlet flow rate adjustments on the system’s
stability.
5. Calculate the results of the experiment such as gain constant (Kp) and
tank cross-sectional area (A).
• Introduction
The study of process control plays a crucial role in industrial automation and
fluid dynamics. One fundamental experiment in this domain is level control in
an open-loop system, which focuses on understanding the dynamics of liquid
level variations in a tank without the influence of a feedback control system.
Open-loop systems operate without automatic corrections, meaning that any
change in input directly affects the system’s behaviour.
In this experiment, a capacitive process is examined, where the tank behaves as
a pure integrator due to its inability to self-regulate. The dynamic response of
the system is analysed under different conditions, including sudden variations in
inflow rate. Since the response does not exhibit a first-order behaviour but
rather a pure integration, traditional tuning methods like Cohen-Coon cannot be
applied. Instead, manual adjustments are required to maintain the desired water
level.
This experiment provides valuable insights into process dynamics, system
response characteristics, and manual tuning approaches for non-self-regulating
processes.
• Theory

A level control system is a dynamic mechanism used to regulate the liquid level
in a tank to a predetermined setpoint. In an open-loop system, the liquid level is
managed by manually adjusting the inflow rate without real-time monitoring of
the actual level. Conversely, a closed-loop system utilizes sensors to
continuously measure the liquid level and provide feedback to an automatic
controller, which adjusts the inflow or outflow as needed to maintain the desired
level.

In control system analysis, the distinction between a First-Order Lag System

and a Pure Capacitive System is fundamental for understanding system
dynamics and stability. Each system exhibits unique behaviour, influencing the
selection of controllers and tuning methods.

First-Order Lag System

A first-order lag system is a dynamic system whose response to an input
change (disturbance) follows an exponential behaviour. This system exhibits
a gradual approach to its final steady-state value and is widely observed in
engineering applications such as electrical circuits, thermal processes, and
fluid flow systems.
A first-order lag system is mathematically represented by the following first-
order linear differential equation:
dy(t)
τ + y(t) = Kp u(t)
dt
where:
• y(t) system output
• u(t) system input
• τ time constant (determines the speed of response)
• Kp system gain (steady-state change in output per unit input change)

This system is self-regulating, meaning that it naturally settles to a new

steady-state value after a disturbance without requiring external intervention.
The response of a first-order lag system exhibits an exponential approach to
its final value, with a time constant governing the speed of response.
Pure Capacitive System
A pure capacitive system, also known as an integrating system, accumulates
input over time, leading to continuous growth or decay in the output. Its
defining equation is:
dy(t)
= Kp u(t)
dt
where:
• y(t) system output
• u(t) system input
• τ time constant (determines the speed of response)
• Kp system gain (steady-state change in output per unit input change)

Unlike the first-order lag system, a pure capacitive system is non-self-

regulating, meaning that it does not naturally settle to a steady state. Instead,
the output continues to change indefinitely in response to a sustained input.
This characteristic makes such systems more challenging to control,
requiring external feedback for stability.

Differences Between First-Order Lag and Pure Capacitive Systems

1. Steady-State Behaviour: First-order systems stabilize at a new steady-
state value, whereas pure capacitive systems exhibit continuous output
changes over time without external control.
2. Transfer Functions: First-order lag systems have a transfer function of,
indicating a stable pole at. Pure capacitive systems have a transfer
function of, indicating an unstable pole at the origin.
Controller Tuning Methods
- First-Order Lag Systems:
Common tuning methods include Ziegler-Nichols and Cohen-Coon,
which use process reaction curves or frequency response analysis to
determine optimal controller parameters.
- Pure Capacitive Systems:
Lambda tuning is often applied, which selects a closed-loop response
time to maintain stability and achieve the desired performance.

Controller Selection
- First-Order Lag Systems:
These systems typically respond well to Proportional-Integral-
Derivative (PID) controllers, as they are self-regulating and naturally
settle to a steady-state.
- Pure Capacitive Systems:
Due to their integrating nature, these systems require PI or PID
controllers specifically tuned to prevent drift and ensure system
stability.
• Study example: Water Tanks
The following two examples demonstrate the difference between both types of
control systems.

- Example 1: Liquid level with a valve resistance.

Considering the system shown which consists of:
a. a tank of uniform cross-sectional area A.
b. Valve attached to the output flow which resistance constant=R.
qo : The output volumetric flowrate (volume/time) through the resistance,
is related to the head h by the linear relationship.
h
q0 =
R

Where: R is related as a linear resistance

q(t): is a time varying volumetric flowrate with constant density ρ.
- To Find the T.F. that relates the head to the input flowrate q(t).
dVρ
qρ − q0 ρ = V = Ah
dt
dAhρ
qρ − q0 ρ =
dt
dh
q − q0 = A
dt
h dh
q− =A
R dt
hs dhs
qs − =A =0
R dt
(h − hs ) d(h − hs )
(q − qs ) − =A
R dt
let Q = q − qs , H = h − hs
dH H
A + =Q
dt R
dH
AR + H = RQ
dt
(τs + 1)H(s) = RQ(s) where τ = AR
R
H(s) = Q(s)
(τs + 1)

−t
h(t) = Kp (1 − e τ )
- Example 2: Liquid level with constant flow outlet

In this example the resistance R is replaced by a constant flow pump q0 .

- To Find the T.F. that relates the head to the input flowrate q(t).
dh
qi − qo = A
dt
dhs
qis − qos = A =0
dt
d(h − hs )
(qi − qis ) − (qo − qos ) = A
dt
dh
Qi − Qo = A
dt
Q i (s) − Q o (s) = AsH(s)
Q i (s) Q o (s)
H(s) = −
As As

h(t) = Kp × t
• Apparatus

The experiment utilizes a level control apparatus, consisting of:

1. Storage Tank (C1): A borosilicate glass tank with a capacity of 10L, which
serves as the primary system for observing liquid level variations.

2. Feeding tank (D1): Provides a continuous and stable flow of fluid to the
pump and then to the rest of the system and helps control the fluid level
within the system, contributing to stable operations.

3. Centrifugal Pumps (G1 & G2) with case and rotor of AISI 304 stainless
steel, Qmax = 4m3/h, Hmax = 30 m:

• G1: Transfers water from the feeding tank into the control tank.
• G2: Recirculates water back to the feeding tank.

4. Rotameter (FI1): Stainless steel and glass instrument with a range of 100 to
1000 L/h, used to monitor inflow rates.
5. Differential-Pressure Transmitter: Measures level variations and provides
data for system analysis, AISI 316 stainless steel with 4 to 20 mA output
signal.

6. Pneumatic Control Valve (LV1): Adjusts water flow rates based on manual
control settings.

7. Control Panel: Used to switch between manual and automatic modes for
flow regulation.

8. Compressed Air Supply Unit: Required at 0.3 Nm³/h, 6 bar max for
pneumatic valve operation.

9. Piping and Valves: Stainless steel components facilitating water transfer.

• Procedure

2. Connect the electrical control board to the single-phase electrical line.

3. Connect the electrical board to the compressed air line using the
provided pipe, complete with quick connections; the air pressure must be
at max. 1.4 bar and not less than 1.2 bar.
4. Connect the plant to the serial port COM1 of the P.C. with the serial
cable.
5. The control system in this experiment has been opened by disconnecting
the controller from the final control element.
6. Switch the control instrument to manual mode with pushbutton M/A/C
green one on the control panel or by the software on PC.
7. Turn on the centrifugal pump G1 at the inlet of the storage tank and G2
at the outlet of the storage tank to circulate the water to the supplied tank.
8. Open the valve of inlet water manually to fix the flow rate of the inlet
water at 250 L/h 8-Click on Automatic mood(A), fix the set point for the
level in the storage tank at 30% by the software on the PC.
9. Wait until the operation reaches the stability.

10.Return the mode of the control instrument to Manual.

11.After that make a step change in the flowrate of the inlet water using the
manual valve by increasing the flowrate from 250 to 350 L/h.
12. Observe the change in height of the water with time by follow up the
shown figure on the PC.
13.After that return to Automatic mood, choice the set point to be 30% as it
was, and wait until the operation reaches the steady state.
14.After that change the mood from Aut. To Manual mood.
15.Now, make a step change in the inlet flow rate by decreasing it to 150
L/h.
16.Observe the behaviour of the process and record the obtained data (Time
vs height).
• Data
- Storage tank volume:
1 m3
VT = 10 L × = 0.01 m3
1000 L

- Storage tank outer diameter:

Do = 168.27 mm × 10−3 = 0.168 m

- Storage tank cross-sectional area theoretical value:

π(Do )²
Ac =
4

π ( 0.168)²
Ac = = 0.022 m2
4

- Static gain Kp experimental value:

slope
Kp =
step change

- Storage tank cross-sectional area experimental value:

1
Ac =
Kp

- The fluid height is given as a percent of the total height of the tank then it
is required to convert the fluid height into meters.

Total tank height:

VT 0.01 m3
hT = = = 0.45 m
Ac 0.022 m2

Using the following formula:

hF = fluid height% × Total tank height (m)

Calculation sample:

hF = 30% × 0.45 m = 0.135 m.

- Experimental Data of Part A (Filling the Storage Tank):

Filling Data Sheet.xlsx

- Experimental Data of Part B (Emptying the Storage Tank):

Emptying Data
Sheet.xlsx
• Calculations

- Part A: Filling the storage tank

Steady-state inlet flowrate: 250 L⁄h

Inlet flowrate after the step change disturbance 350 L⁄h

HEIGHT VS. TIME

0.5
0.45
0.4 y = 0.0004x + 0.1489
0.35
HEIGHT (M)

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

TIME (SEC)

- Step change value:

∆ flowrate = 350 L⁄h − 250 L⁄h = 100 L⁄h

L 1 m3 1h
100 × × = 2.77 × 10−5 m3 ⁄s
h 1000 L 3600 s

- Filling slope:
0.0004 m⁄s

- Static gain:
slope
Kp =
step change

m 1 m3
Kp = 0.0004 × = 14.44 m−2
s 2.77 × 10−5 s

- Storage tank experimental cross-sectional area:

1 1
Ac = = = 0.069 m2
Kp 14.44 m−2
- Part B: Emptying the storage tank

Steady-state inlet flowrate: 250 L⁄h

Inlet flowrate after the step change disturbance 150 L⁄h

HEIGHT VS. TIME

0.16
0.14
0.12
y = -0.0003x + 0.1369
0.1
HEIGHT (M)

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
-0.02
TIME (SEC)

- Step change value:

∆ flowrate = 150 L⁄h − 250 L⁄h = −100 L⁄h

L 1 m3 1h
−100 × × = −2.77 × 10−5 m3 ⁄s
h 1000 L 3600 s

- Filling slope:
− 0.0003 m⁄s

- Static gain:
slope
Kp =
step change

m 1 m3
Kp = − 0.0003 × = 10.83 m−2
s − 2.77 × 10−5 s

- Storage tank experimental cross-sectional area:

1 1
Ac = = = 0.092 m2
Kp 10.83 m−2
• Results

- The theoretical cross-sectional area of the storage tank was determined to

be 0.022. However, experimental measurements yielded different values
under varying flow rate conditions.

In Part A of the experiment, where the flow rate increased, the cross-
sectional area was found to be 0.069, resulting in a deviation of 0.047
from the theoretical value.

In Part B, where the flow rate decreased, the cross-sectional area was
measured as 0.092, leading to a deviation of 0.070 from the theoretical
value.

- Relative absolute error calculations:

experimental value − theoritical value

ϵ%= | | × 100%
theoritical value

Part A:
0.069 m2 − 0.022 m2
ϵ%= | | × 100% = 213.63 %
0.022 m2

Part B:

0.092 m2 − 0.022 m2
ϵ%= | | × 100% = 318.18 %
0.022 m2

- The data representation demonstrated a linear relationship between fluid

height and response time in both scenarios—when increasing and
decreasing the flow rate. In the filling phase, the positive slope indicated
a rise in fluid height over time, reflecting an increased flow rate.
Conversely, during the emptying phase, the negative slope signified a
decline in height, illustrating the reduction in fluid flowrate. These trends
confirm the system’s predictable response to flow rate changes.
• Discussion
The experiment analysed the behaviour of an open-loop system and its
response to disturbances caused by changes in flow rate. Two trials were
conducted: one where the flow rate was increased and another where it was
decreased. The system’s reaction was observed and documented to assess
how these variations affected its performance.

The results showed that altering the flow rate significantly influenced the
measured cross-sectional area, deviating from theoretical predictions. When
the flow rate increased, the cross-sectional area was larger than expected,
and a further increase was observed when the flow rate was reduced. These
discrepancies suggest that factors such as pressure fluctuations, flow
resistance, and unaccounted energy losses played a role in modifying the
system’s behaviour.

Several potential sources of error contributed to these variations. Cavitation

in the pump could have caused minor fluctuations in the incoming or
outgoing flow rate, impacting the pump’s performance and introducing
experimental errors. Additionally, air bubbles entering the system may have
affected measurement accuracy, leading to inconsistencies in flow rate and
height readings. Other influencing factors include turbulence and frictional
losses, which add complexity to working with open-loop fluid systems.

A defining characteristic of this system is its purely capacitive, non-self-

regulating nature. Unlike self-regulating systems that stabilize at
equilibrium, this system requires external intervention to maintain stability.
Increasing the flow rate leads to continuous filling, eventually causing
flooding, while a reduced flow rate results in water loss until the system
drains completely. As a result, selecting an appropriate controller and fine-
tuning its settings involve trial and error to prevent excessive fluctuations or
instabilities.

The experiment highlights the sensitivity of open-loop systems to external

disturbances due to their lack of self-correcting mechanisms. To enhance
accuracy, future experiments should incorporate precise flow control
methods, reduce cavitation effects, and eliminate air bubbles to improve
measurement reliability.
• Conclusion

This experiment examined the response of an open-loop, non-self-regulating

system to flow rate disturbances, revealing a linear relationship between
height and time in both increasing and decreasing flow conditions. The
results showed significant deviations from theoretical values, highlighting
the system's tendency to either overflow or drain completely. Errors such as
cavitation and air bubble interference contributed to measurement
inaccuracies. The findings emphasize the need for trial-and-error tuning in
controller selection and suggest that feedback control strategies could
improve system stability in future studies.

• References
- Laboratory Manual
- Ogata, K. (2010). Modern Control Engineering (5th Edition).
- Dorf, R. C., & Bishop, R. H. (2017). Modern Control Systems (13th
Edition)
- Stephanopoulos, G. (1984). Chemical Process Control: An Introduction to
Theory and Practice. Prentice Hall.
- Roffel, B., & Betlem, B. (2007). Process Dynamics and Control:
Modeling for Control and Prediction. John Wiley & Sons.