ABSTRACT

CASCADE CONTROL FOR A STEAM-HEATED DOUBLE-PIPE HEAT

EXCHANGER

By

Khalid A. Bakhurji

August, 2015

The goal of this thesis is to create the experimental setup and the necessary

instrumentation for the temperature control of a double-pipe heat exchanger. The heat

exchanger, located at the Chemical Engineering Control Laboratory at the California

State University, Long Beach, has been used in the past for temperature control

experiments, in which the manipulated variable was the incoming water flow. In the

control experiments performed for the current work, the manipulated variable is the

incoming steam pressure. For this purpose cascade control has been used, with an inner

loop controlling the steam pressure setpoint, and an outer loop controlling the water

outlet temperature. Despite major fluctuations in the steam pressure supply and

inappropriate sizing of a control valve, the experimental results show that the designed

cascade control can track the temperature setpoint and reject load-induced disturbances

satisfactorily. System parameters are obtained via experimental modeling through open-

loop experiments. A LabView-based data acquisition and control program has been

1
written and implemented for acquiring and processing sensors outputs, and for providing

control commands to the final control elements. Several controller parameter tuning

methods, such as IMC, ITAE, Cohen-Coon, and Ziegler-Nichols, were implemented and

evaluated experimentally through a set of performance indices.

2
CASCADE CONTROL FOR A STEAM-HEATED DOUBLE-PIPE HEAT

EXCHANGER

A THESIS

Presented to the Department of Electrical Engineering

California State University, Long Beach

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Electrical Engineering

Committee Members:

Anastasios Chassiakos, Ph.D. (Chair)

Larry Jang, Ph.D.
Mohammad Mozumdar, Ph.D.

College Designee:

Antonella Sciortino, Ph.D.

By Khalid A. Bakhurji

B.S., 2007, University of Manchester, United Kingdom

August, 2015
 ProQuest Number: 1596967

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 1596967

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Copyright 2015

Khalid A. Bakhurji

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As a believer, I start these lines by thanking God. Who gave me the mind,

strength, patience and guided me to complete this work.

Special thanks go to Dr. Jang and Dr. Chassiakos for supervising and correcting

this thesis. Dr. Jang provided me with the needed knowledge and skills in LabView and

inspired me during the tuning stage. Dr. Chassiakos participated with his ideas during the

analysis stage and was there during the whole work progress for support whenever it is

needed. Thanks also to Abdullah Al Qahtani for providing me with needed documents

during the research stage.

When sense of accomplishment is achieved, we tend to remember close friends

and loved ones who contributed either directly or indirectly to our achievement. I would

like to dedicate this work to my parents who were and still are my biggest supporter.

They have always encouraged me and pushed me to climb the highest academic ladder

since I was little. I would also like to pass my gratefulness to my great friend Berenice

Morales for assisting me during the writing and reviewing stage of this work.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this work to Ana Flores, a special person and a

friend for her support and encouragement during the development of this paper.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER

1. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1

1.2 Previous Work ...................................................................................................1
1.3 Present Work: Objectives and Challenges .........................................................3

2. HEAT EXCHANGERS: AN INTRODUCTION ....................................................5

2.1 History and Applications ...................................................................................5

2.2 Control of Heat Exchangers ...............................................................................6

3. AUTOMATIC CONTROL......................................................................................8

3.1 Background ........................................................................................................8

3.2 Components of Digital Control Systems in Chemical Process ..........................8
3.3 Single-Loop Feedback Control ........................................................................10
3.4 PID Controllers ................................................................................................11
3.5 Tuning Methods ...............................................................................................14
3.5.1 General .................................................................................................14
3.5.2 IMC ......................................................................................................15
3.5.3 Cohen-Coon (C-C) ...............................................................................16
3.5.4 Ziegler-Nichols (Z-N) ..........................................................................17
3.5.5 Integral Time-Weighted Absolute Error (ITAE) .................................17

4. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION ..........................................19

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................19

iv
CHAPTER Page

4.2 System Components and Specifications ..........................................................20

4.2.1 Data Acquisition Hardware and Software ...........................................20
4.2.2 Process .................................................................................................22
4.2.3 Temperature Sensors ............................................................................23
4.2.4 Flow Meter ...........................................................................................23
4.2.5 Cold Water Flow Control Valve ..........................................................24
4.2.6 Steam Pressure Control Valve .............................................................25
4.2.7 Pressure Transmitter ............................................................................26

5. IDENTIFYING A PROCESS MODEL.................................................................29

5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................29

5.2 Process Disturbances .......................................................................................30
5.2.1 Cold Water Flowrate and Temperature................................................30
5.2.2 Saturated Steam Quality ......................................................................31
5.2.3 Steam Control Valve Sizing Calculations............................................34
5.3 Process Operating Limits .................................................................................36
5.4 Process Model ..................................................................................................37

6 APPLYING SINGLE-LOOP FEEDBACK CONTROL .......................................40

6.1 Control Logic .............................................................................................40

6.2 Open-Loop Experiments for Identification of Process Parameters ...........41
6.3 Closed-Loop Control Experiment ..............................................................44

7 CASCADE CONTROL .........................................................................................47

7.1 Control Logic .............................................................................................47

7.2 Open-Loop Test .........................................................................................48
7.2.1 Open-Loop Test for Slave Controller ......................................49
7.2.2 Open-Loop Test for Master Controller ....................................52
7.3 Closed-Loop Test .......................................................................................55
7.3.1 General .....................................................................................55
7.3.2 Temperature Setpoint Tracking Test .......................................57
7.3.3 Load Disturbance Rejection Test .............................................58

8 ANALYSIS AND PERFORMANCE INDICES ...................................................60

8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................60

8.2 Error Indices...............................................................................................60
8.2.1 Indices Based on Control Error................................................60
8.2.2 Index Based on Steam Condensate Volume ............................62
8.3 System Response to Different Tuning Methods ........................................64

v
CHAPTER Page

8.4 Data Reliability ..........................................................................................69

9 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................72

APPENDICIES ..................................................................................................................73

A. STEAM CONDENSATE FLOWRATE TEST ...............................................74

B. PRO II SIMULATION TEST ..........................................................................79

C. SINGLE LOOP FEEDBACK CONTROL LABVIEW VI FILE ....................83

D. SINGLE LOOP FEEDBACK CONTROL LABVIEW VI FILE ....................85

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................87

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLES Page

1. IMC Closed-Loop Time Constant Calculations ...........................................................16

2. Cohen-Coon Tuning Rule for PI and PID.....................................................................16

3. Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Rule for PI and PID ................................................................17

4. ITAE Tuning Rule for PI and PID Setpoint Tracking ..................................................18

5. Double-Pipe Heat Exchanger Specification..................................................................22

6. Flow Meter Specification ..............................................................................................24

7. Cold Water Control Valve Specification ......................................................................25

8. Steam Pressure Control Valve Specifications...............................................................27

9. Pressure Transmitter Specifications ..............................................................................27

10. Double-Pipe Heat Exchanger Operating Limits ..........................................................37

11. Single-loop Feedback Open-loop Tests Summary ......................................................44

12. PID IMC Tuning Parameters for the Slave Controller ................................................51

13. IMC Tuning Parameters for the Master Controller (4 GPM Load). ............................54

14. PI Tuning Values for the Cascade Control Master Loop .............................................64

15. Different Tuning Methods Performance Indices .........................................................67

16. Repeated Cohen-Coon test Performance Indices .........................................................70

17. PRO II Simulation Results ...........................................................................................81

vii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES Page

1. Control function block for the heat exchanger using combined cascade and
feedforward control .........................................................................................................2

2. Previous system response to the combined control in terms of setpoint and

disturbance rejection ........................................................................................................3

3. Components of a flow control system ............................................................................9

4. Typical single-loop feedback control function block ...................................................11

5. The double-pipe heat exchanger under test ..................................................................20

6. Model 9052 Double-pipe heat exchanger process flow diagram (PFD).......................21

7. National Instrument FP-1601 data acquisition and communication unit......................22

8. Electromagnetic OPTIFLUX 1010 flow meter.............................................................24

9. Cold water flow control valve.......................................................................................26

10. Steam Pressure control valve and the pressure transmitter ..........................................28

11. The fluctuation of the cold water flowrate ..................................................................30

12. Fluctuation of source water temperature over a period of time ...................................31

13. Steam pressure cycling under fully open bypass valve ..............................................32

14. Steam pressure cycling for valve openings between 5%-30% ...................................33

15. Input and output of a general process model ..............................................................38

16. Overall Heat exchanger model function block ...........................................................39

17. Heat exchanger PID feedback control function block ................................................40

viii
FIGURES Page

18. Open-loop function block test for the double-pipe heat exchanger ............................41

19. Loop-Pro open-loop FOPTD best fit result .................................................................43

20. Open-loop disturbance reaction curve .........................................................................44

21. Water Temperature setpoint tracking using PI controller under different tuning
values ..........................................................................................................................46

22. Water load disturbance rejection using PI controllers .................................................46

23. Cascade control function block for the double-pipe heat exchanger ...........................48

24. Cascade slave open-loop test function block ...............................................................49

25. Open-loop process reaction curve for the cascade slave loop .....................................50

26. Slave controller closed loop test result for setpoint tracking .......................................52

27. Open-loop control function block for the cascade master loop ...................................52

28. Open-loop process reaction curve for the cascade master loop (4GPM load) .............54

29. Open-loop process reaction curve for the cascade master loop (2.5 GPM load) .........55

30. Heat exchanger cascade control setpoint tracking using IMC tuning..........................58

31. Heat Exchanger cascade control setpoint tracking for optimum tuning ......................58

32. Heat Exchanger cascade control disturbance rejection test to load variation ..............59

33. Calculation of the Performance index from setpoint step............................................61

34. Steam condensate flowrate test graph result ................................................................63

35. Cascade Control using Cohen-Coon tuning method....................................................65

36. Cascade Control using ITAE tuning method ...............................................................66

37. Cascade Control using Ziegler-Nichols tuning method ...............................................66

38. Graph representation of the performance indices for the tuning methods ...................68

ix
FIGURES Page

39. Summery graph of the average indices for the tuning methods...................................69

40. Original and repeated Cohen-Coon cascade tuning tests .............................................71

41. Model 9052 Double-Pipe heat exchanger process flow diagram (PFD)
[Duplicate of figure 6] ................................................................................................75

42. Scale and flask filled with steam condensate during the test. ......................................77

43. Steam condensate flowrate test [Duplicate of figure 34]. ............................................78

44. PRO II simulation test components .............................................................................80

45. PRO II streams specifications ......................................................................................81

x
 CHAPTER 1

LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Introduction

Heat exchangers have been the focus of studies for many years, in both the

control theory and mechanical design fields. In the control theory field, they are the main

examples in many text books in terms of chemical process models and control strategies.

Thus in this work, applying process model approximation and applying control strategies

to a double-pipe heat exchanger will be the main focus rather than test simulation.

1.2 Previous Work

The double-pipe heat exchanger used in this thesis and previous work is located at

the California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) Chemical Engineering department

laboratory. Originally, the heat exchanger was operated using a simple PID feedback

control where the manipulated variable is the opening of the cold water flow control

valve, and the process variable is the water outlet temperature. The heat exchanger

control strategy was further studied and enhanced later in 2014. Basic PID control,

cascade control and feedforward control were tested. It was found that a combination of

cascade control and feedforward control is the best control strategy for the double-pipe

heat exchanger in terms of good setpoint tracking and disturbance rejection

performances. Figure 1 shows the control function block of the combined control

strategies applied to the heat exchanger. Figure 2 shows the system response to

1
combined control strategies. The control algorithm was tested for system response to

setpoints tracking and disturbance rejections [1].

FIGURE 1. Control function block for the heat exchanger using combined cascade and
feedforward control [1].

The objective of the double-pipe heat exchanger control in the previous study was

to control the cold water outlet temperature by manipulating the cold water flowrate

through the cold water incoming line control valve. However in industrial applications,

heat exchangers are controlled through tight controlling of the hot stream, being the

saturated steam pressure in the double-pipe heat exchanger under study. The cold water,

being the heat exchanger load, would vary throughout the operation of the exchanger

depending on plant requirement. In addition, controlling the hot stream in heat

exchangers normally results in reducing energy losses and economic advantages.

2
FIGURE 2. Previous system response to the combined control in terms of setpoint and
disturbance rejection [1].

1.3 Present Work: Objectives and Challenges

Different from the previous study, the objective of this work is to control the cold

water outlet temperature of the double-pipe heat exchanger through manipulating the

saturated steam pressure control valve. The system should have good setpoint tracking

and disturbance rejection characteristics. In addition, different well-known tuning

methods will be applied to a suitable control strategy to investigate best performances

indices defined for the purposes of this thesis. The indices can be understood as a robust

performance measure as well as minimum energy consumption by the double-pipe heat

exchanger.

3
 The major challenge in this double-pipe heat exchanger is identified as the

saturated steam pressure fluctuation (disturbance). The steam pressure goes into cycles

of an average of 3.5 minutes per cycle, and varying amplitude between 4 PSIG and 12

PSIG with fully open control valve. Since we do not have control over the boiler

generating steam in this system, the disturbance acting on the steam pressure has to be

rejected through control. Varying back pressure of the steam pressure network is also a

concern. In some cases with a fully closed steam pressure valve, the pressure can reach

up to 6 PSIG.

The second major challenge in controlling this heat exchanger is the oversized

steam pressure control valve. Compared to the maximum saturated steam flow required

by the heat exchanger, a valve with a Cv of 2 is needed, in order to obtain good

controlling rangeability. However, a steam pressure control valve with Cv = 4 has

actually been installed which is double the required flow size.

Drawings related to the heat exchanger (Technovate, model 9052) internals and

materials details were not found at the search stage of this thesis. This was also a

challenge. Without an internal look to the piping internal design, it is hard to distinguish

potential disturbances that appears intermittently during the operation of the heat

exchanger. Only a Process Flow Diagram (PFD) were found related to the heat

exchanger.

4
 CHAPTER 2

HEAT EXCHANGERS: AN INTRODUCTION

2.1 History and Applications

Heat exchangers are equipment used to transfer thermal energy from one medium

to another. The main purpose of this process is to conserve energy by efficiently

assisting the flow of heat from one medium and transfer it to another. Since their

invention in 1855, modern heat radiators used in automobile engines are an essential

application of heat exchangers [2]. In this process, the heat is transferred from the engine

hot water to air passing through the radiator [3].

Further, heat exchangers are involved in daily life applications such as

refrigerators and air conditioning. On a wide industrial scale, heat exchangers are used in

chemical processing plants, petroleum refineries, food processing and power plants.

Heat exchangers are manufactured in different shapes, sizes and mechanical

design philosophies. Based on their construction, heat exchangers can be categorized

into Recuperative and Regenerative heat exchangers. In Recuperative heat exchangers,

both mediums, hot and cold, are flowing through separate channels while exchanging

thermal energy across the wall separating the flow paths. In comparison, Regenerative

heat exchangers have single flow channels where both mediums alternately pass through

the loop [4].

5
 Over 50% of all installed heat exchangers are of recuperative type, specifically

shell-and-tube exchanger. Shell-and-tube heat exchangers are a sub category of

recuperative heat exchangers and widely used in small scale and large scale industries

[5]. In contrast, double-pipe heat exchanger, which is a tubular type exchanger, is the

simplest exchanger form used in the industry. They are known for their cheap

construction and maintenance, yet, known for their low efficiency and large foot print.

Thus, they are often used for educational purposes [5], [6].

2.2 Control of Heat Exchangers

A chemical process, according to Ogunnaike and Harmon, is defined as Any

single processing unit, or combinations of processing units, used for the conversion of

raw materials into finished products. Maintaining this process or processes commonly

involve control. The control of chemical process can be either manual in which human

interference is required all the time, or automatic in which a set of control algorithms,

centralized processing unit, field instrumentation and final control elements are all

integrated to form what we call these days Process Control Systems (PCS).

Industrial chemical processes in recent years have grown globally. The industry

have developed sophisticated processes, some have set high product quality index, many

have energy consumption obligations laws and others have strict safety standards. Most

organizations try to improve productivity, improve quality and reduce cost. All these

factors are challenges raised in the past two decades and demand advance control

algorithms in complex constrained chemical process plants.

Heat exchangers, as a single processing unit, exist almost in every chemical

processing plant. Being an energy processing unit, many industries economically rely on

6
reliable control of heat and energy. In addition, heat exchangers play a role in larger

process to supply quality stream temperature, mass flow or pressure. Therefore, heat

exchangers control has been the center of many control system studies and examples [8].

There are many algorithms contributing to the control of a simple heat exchanger

depending on the cold and hot streams used. In general, there are four main control

algorithms typically used in the industry to control heat exchangers: feedback,

feedforward, cascade control and computation of process variables. Combining these

control solutions with good modeling, estimation and disturbance identification can result

in excellent control [8]. However in some cases, modeling a heat exchanger for the

purpose of control can be a difficult task because of noise and instabilities present in the

heat exchanger environment.

In recent years, many studies have been concentrating on the mechanical design

of heat exchangers. Automatic control of a heat exchanger is one major consideration in

improving efficiency. Other factors such as heat transfer and material heat capacity are

also important consideration when designing heat exchangers.

In this thesis, a double-pipe heat exchanger is put under test to apply one of the

known control algorithms to achieve dynamic robust control. The heat exchanger uses

saturated steam (hot stream) generated from a boiler to heat up flowing cold water (load).

By manipulating the steam pressure control valve under different loads, the objective of

the control algorithm is to maintain the cold water at a desired set point temperature

within the operating limits of the system.

7
 CHAPTER 3

AUTOMATIC CONTROL

3.1 Background

Probably the simplest form of automatic control is On/Off control switching.

However, feedback control throughout history is considered the backbone of the

automation growth. To a certain degree, it can be said that the first feedback application

was invented during the ancient Greek and Arab worlds. The feedback control at that

time was in the form of float valve regulator to control water clocks, oil lamps and water

tanks level. In the third century BC, Ktesibios and Philon were known names in the

application of feedback control. Heron of Alexandria was also active in the control field

in the first century AD. The Arabs also contributed to the development of feedback

control. Names such as Al-Jazari and Ibn al-Sa-ati continued the development of the

water clock during 1203-1206 [9]. In modern days, almost all machines used by humans

employ the concept of feedback control. Operating these machines accurately and

reliably would not be possible without feedback control. Since the ancient Greek times

and up to current days, control schemes have been represented using block diagram

containing all control system elements.

3.2 Components of Digital Control System in Chemical Process

Modern digital control systems in the chemical industry typically consist of a

sensing element, a transducer, a controller, the process, and a final control element or

8
actuator. Figure 3 shows the arrangement of flow control architecture including typical

control elements.

FIGURE 3. Components of a flow control system [10].

Sensors are a core element of any control system. A sensor measures the status of

the variable to be controlled such as pressure, flow, temperature or level. This process

can either be continuous or sampled, such as in the case with analyzers. Depending on

the variable to be measured, sensors have different characteristics. Sensors usually

produce a raw signal that needs to be converted to a standardized electrical signal such as

4-20mA analogue signal.

The job of a transducer in any control scheme is either to convert physical

measurements to an electrical signal or convert an electrical signal into physical data.

For example, traditional pressure sensors sense the spring movement caused by an

inflated diaphragm. These mechanical data are converted to a standardized analogue

electrical single by the pressure transducer. In the modern digital world, sensors and

transducers are combined together in one unit to form what we call now transmitter.
9
 The measured state of the variable to be controlled is sent to a controller or what

we called logic solver. A controller works as the brain or the decision maker in any

control scheme. The controller receives the status of the process variable to be controlled

and makes a decision to be sent in the form of an electrical signal to the final control

element.

Final control elements in the chemical process industry are typically a control

valve or an actuator. In a simple traditional control loop, the logic solver sends a decision

command to either open or close a control valve. Control valves are an important

element in any control scheme, and come in different shapes, sizes and design purposes.

Sizing of control valves for the purpose of this thesis will be discussed in chapter 5.2.3.

3.3 Single-Loop Feedback Control

In simple words, a feedback control system measures the state of the controlled

variable output (process variable) and feeds it back to the input. It compares the fed back

signal to a reference signal (set point) to calculate the error. The objective of the control

in this scenario is to minimize the error and match the reference signal. Figure 4 shows a

block diagram of a single-loop feedback arrangement.

In figure 4, the sensor measures the process variable or control variable (CV) and

feeds it back to the input. The CV is compared to the setpoint to produce the error (e).

The control block contains the control algorithm i.e. PID, PI or simple gain. An action

signal (c) is produced based on the control algorithm to the final control element or

actuator. The actuator changes the status of the manipulated variable (u). The process at

this point is adjusted based on the manipulated variable while typically disturbances are

10
acting on the process. The objective of the feedback control is to maintain the (CV) at

the setpoint, despite unwanted disturbances to the system.

FIGURE 4. Typical single-loop feedback control function block.

3.4 PID Controllers

Since its first commercial appearance in the 1930s, PID or (Proportional, Integral,

Derivative) control algorithm has remained the first choice for process control designers

and manufacturers. Because of their simplicity in hardware and software

implementations, many control software developers and DCS manufacturers offer PID

feedback control modes. Features of those PID packages vary between developers. Yet,

the control function is the same [11].

With reference to figure 4, the objective of the control is to reduce the error (e) to

zero defined by:

(1)

11
 The aim of the proportional gain is to keep the error (e) in proportion to the

controller output (c) such that:

( ) ( )+ (2)

Where,

: is the controller gain (dimensionless).

: is the error.

: is the steady-state bias value (It can be adjusted based on process operating

range).

Based on the above definition the term direct action mode of the controller

means that the controller output increases as the CV increases. Similarly, the term

reverse action mode of the controller means that the controller action will decrease as

the CV value increases [12].

The purpose of the integral action in a PID controller is to make the rate of change

of the controller output proportional to the error to eliminate offset. This can be

represented by (3) [12].

( ) ( ). (3)

Where,

: is the integral time or reset time (it is measured typically in minutes or

seconds).

12
 Integral control action to eliminate error offset is rarely used by itself since the

control action does not respond immediately until the error persists for sometime, unlike

proportional control where the control action responds immediately to error. Therefore,

integral control action is usually combined with proportional control action in the form of

PI control represented by combining (2) and (3) to produce (4):

1
( ) + ( ( ) + ( ) )
!

(4)

The integral part in a PI controller may cause oscillations of the controlled

variable, which can be avoided by adding a derivative action.

The anticipatory action or derivative action refers to the situation where changes

in error, typically small, can propagate through the system and eventually becomes big.

In this situation, the control action is proportional to the rate of changes of error [12].

The derivative action is never used as standalone controller. It is often combined

with proportional gain controller to form (5)

( )
( ) + ( ( ) + " )

(5)

Where,

": is the derivative time or rate time (measured usually in minutes or seconds).

The three control modes can be combined together to form the PID controller.

Still a lot of chemical processes are using PI only, which is common and sufficient.

13
 There are many features associated with modern PID controllers developed by

different manufacturer. Indeed, industrial PID controllers found inside DCSs and PLCs

are governed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC 61131). Part of the

IEC 61131 mandates safety and minimum feature design requirements for programming

PID function blocks.

As a general rule in this thesis, PI control is used for temperature control and PID

for fast response steam pressure control as will be seen in chapter 7.

3.5 Tuning Methods

3.5.1 General

Tuning of PID controllers refers to the methodology of generating , and "

values. This methodology is based on how the process model is obtained. In this thesis,

and in a lot of chemical processes, the empirical model approximation method is used.

This method involves disturbing the operation of the process for a period of time to

collect data. Thus, this method is hardly used in larger facilities or complicated processes

where production disturbance is not preferred by process managers.

Tuning of an approximate process model according to [5] includes, but not

limited, to Internal Model control (IMC), Cohen-Coon (C-C), Integral Time Absolute

Error (ITAE) and Ziegler-Nichols (Z-N) method. Generally, these are well-known tuning

methods used in a variety of control applications. These tuning rules are calculated from

the process model. As will be seen in Chapter 8.3, the approximate process model is

based on fitting a first order system plus time-delay (FOPTD) to generate the process

reaction curve. Each tuning method has its own characteristics and it is applied in the

14
field. The theory behind each tuning method will not be discussed in this introduction,

however, practical calculations will be presented.

3.5.2 IMC

Tuning PID controllers based on IMC was developed initially by Rivera and

Morari [7]. In this work, Loop-Pro tuning software package is used to develop PID

tuning values based on IMC method. The IMC in Loop-Pro relies on the system closed

loop time constant deduced from the model. Loop-Pro uses equation (6) to calculate PI

controller values [13].

1

#

# $%# + &

(6)

Where,

%# : is the process time delay.

#: is the process gain

: is the process closed-loop time constant.

#: is the process time constant.

The closed loop time constant is calculated by Loop-Pro based on the controlling

sensitivity required. According to Loop-Pro white paper [13], is calculated based on

table 1.

15
TABLE 1. IMC Closed-Loop Time Constant Calculations

Control Sensitivity '(

Aggressive Larger of 0.1 # and 0.8%#

Moderate Larger of 1.0 # and 8.0%#

Conservative Larger of 10 # and 80%#

3.5.3 Cohen-Coon (C-C)

A desirable process response for some chemical processes is the quarter decay

ratio. Cohen-Coon developed a PID tuning rule in which the process response is

somewhat oscillatory. This tuning rule is more suitable for processes models with 0.1 <

+- . < 1.0. Table 2 shows the C-C tuning rule for PI and PID controllers.
,
,

TABLE 2. Cohen-Coon Tuning Rule for PI and PID [7]

Controller /( '0 '1

%
1 1 30 + 3( )
2 3 40.9 + ( )7 % 8 :
% 2 % %
# 9 + 20( )
PI --

%
1 4 1 % 32 + 6( ) 4
2 3 4 + ( )7 % 8 : % 8 :
% 3 4 % %
# 13 + 8( ) 11 + 2( )
PID

16
3.5.4 Ziegler-Nichols (Z-N)

Similar to C-C tuning method, Ziegler and Nichols developed a tuning rule to

achieve a quarter decay ratio process response. In addition, the tuning rule works well

with processes that have 0.1 < + . < 1.0 . Table 3 shows the Z-N tuning rule for PI
,
- ,

and PID controllers [7].

TABLE 3. Ziegler-Nichols Tuning Rule for PI and PID [7]

Controller /( '0 '1

0.9
( ) 3.33 %
%
PI
#
--

1.2
( ) 2.0 % 0.5 %
# %
PID

3.5.5 Integral Time-Weighted Absolute Error (ITAE)

ITAE tuning rule is based on optimizing absolute error that appears for long time

where the purpose is to decrease integral-time. Again, the ratio 0.1 < + . < 1.0 is
,
-,

important when implementing this tuning rule. Table 4 shows the ITAE tuning rule for

PI and PID controllers. The developers of this tuning rule distinguished tuning for

setpoint tracking and tuning for disturbance rejection. The table shows the tuning rule for

setpoint tracking [7].

17
TABLE 4. ITAE Tuning Rule for PI and PID Setpoint Tracking

Controller /( '0 '1

0.586
( )!.?@A %
% B1.03 0.165 ( )C
PI --
#

0.965 %
( )!.DEE % 0.308 ( )!.?G?
% B0.796 0.147 ( )C
PID
#

18
 CHAPTER 4

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION

4.1 Introduction

The double-pipe heat exchanger under test in this thesis is the simplest form of

heat exchangers. It contains a set of two concentric tubes, in which one stream flows in

the outer pipe and the other stream flows inside the inner pipe. In this system, the cold

water flows in the outer pipe and the hot steam flows in the inner pipe. The cold water is

supplied from a utility source, however, the steam is supplied from a campus boiler,

where no control over the steam quality is possible. The objective of this heat exchanger

is to raise or lower the cold water temperature by manipulating the steam pressure valve.

Figure 5 shows the actual double-pipe heat exchanger. The exchanger contains 6

loops. Each loop is made of different materials for the purpose of testing. Only the

stainless steel loop is used (Tube-3), and the rest were isolated during all tests in this

thesis.

There are two flow scenarios in this heat exchanger, either co-current flow or

countercurrent flow. In this thesis, a countercurrent flow scenario is used since it is

usually the best heat transfer efficiency achievable. In the countercurrent flow scenario,

the cold water flows from one end of the exchanger and the saturated steam flows from

the opposite end. Hence, the flow direction of water and steam are opposite to each other

in the heat exchanger.

19
FIGURE 5. The double-pipe heat exchanger under test.

4.2 System Components and Specifications

The overall system consists of the data acquisition unit, software, the process,

temperature sensors, flow meter, cold water flow control valve, saturated steam pressure

control valve and pressure transmitter. Figure 6 shows the process flow diagram of the

heat exchanger which contains most of the system components apart from the controller

and software.

With reference to figure 6, the following are the main components of the system.

4.2.1 Data Acquisition Hardware and Software

The system is equipped with National Instrument FP-1601 FieldPoint network

module, which can be seen in Figure 7. The FP-1601 data acquisition unit consists of the

network module which utilizes 10/100 Ethernet connection to connect with the

input/output (I/O) modules. Alongside the network module, the date acquisition unit

consists of one (1) thermocouple module, one (1) analogue output module and one (1)

20
analogue input module. All I/O modules contain 8 channels. Each FP-1601 network

module can support up to nine (9) modules. The FP-1601 network module connects

directly to a 10 Mbps or 100 Mbps Ethernet bus to a host computer [14].

CV-1

V-18

CV-2

FIGURE 6. Model 9052 double-pipe heat exchanger process flow diagram (PFD) [1].

A desktop computer, running Windows 7 service pack 1 platform, hosts the

control logic and control interface/monitoring developed using LabView software.

National Instruments LabView is an abbreviation for Laboratory Virtual Instrument

Engineering Workbench. The software is a design tool and virtual programming

interface used in many automation industries. LabView version 8.2 is used in this

system.

21
FIGURE 7. National Instrument FP-1601 data acquisition and communication unit.

4.2.2 Process

The double pipe heat exchanger contains 6 tubes. Each acts as a double-pipe heat

exchanger by itself. However, only tube-3 and tube-1 is used in this study with reference

to figure 6. Table 5 shows the specification of the double-pip heat exchanger.

TABLE 5. Double-Pipe Heat Exchanger Specification

Manufacturer Technovate
Model 9052
Material Stainless Steel

Tube length 40.25 inch

Outside diameter of the inner pipe 0.597 inch

Inner Pipe Fluid Saturated Steam

Inside diameter of the outer pipe 1.0275 inch

Outer Pipe Fluid Utility Water

Under normal operating conditions, the following are the valve arrangements:

Manual isolation valves v-1, v-5, v-11, v-12, v-15 and v-16 should be open.
22
 Manual isolation valves v-2, v-3, v-4, v-6, v-7, v-8, v-9, v-10, v-13 and v-14

should be closed.

v-17 and v-18 are 3-way valves. The flow direction indication on the physical

valves should be (\) for valve v-17 and (/) for valve v-18. In this arrangement, the cold

water will go to the drain through the gauge flow meter and the steam will go directly to

the recycle line.

CV-1 and CV-2 are the saturated steam pressure control valve and cold water

flow control valve, respectively.

The above valve arrangement is for countercurrent flow scenario which is the

focus in this study. In this arrangement, the objective of the heat exchanger control is to

maintain the cold water at some setpoint temperature by manipulating the steam pressure

valve CV-1 position at either constant or varying cold water loads. The load can be

manually controlled through CV-2.

4.2.3 Temperature Sensors

With reference to figure 6, the system is equipped with thermocouple sensing

elements to measure temperature at both streams at different points. In this study only

OT-1 is used to measure the cold water outlet temperature.

4.2.4 Flow Meter

FT in figure 6 is the cold water flow meter or transmitter. The flow transmitter

measures the cold water flowrate entering the heat exchanger. It sends a 4-20mA signal

to the data acquisition unit. Table 6 shows the specifications of the flow meter.

23
TABLE 6. Flow Meter Specification [15]

Manufactured by Krohne
Model OPTIFLUX 1010
Type Electromagnetic sensing element
Temperature range (-25) 120 C
Analogue signal 4 20 mA
Calibration range 0 10 gallon/min

FIGURE 8. Electromagnetic OPTIFLUX 1010 flow meter.

4.2.5 Cold Water Flow Control Valve

CV-2 in figure 6 represents the cold water flow control valve. Table 7 lists the

specifications of the control valve. The control valve is equipped with a hydraulic

24
actuator that receives a 4-20mA signal from the output analogue module calibrated to 0-

100% valve opening. The actuator driving the valve body has a slow action time i.e. 60s

to open and 30s to close. This presents a control challenge if the disturbance is high or if

the valve is not sized properly.

TABLE 7. Cold Water Control Valve Specification [16]

Manufacturer Eurotherm
Model VB-7223-268-4-2
Type Globe valve
Characteristics Equal %
Pipe size 0.5 inch
Flow size (Cv) 1.3
Maximum inlet pressure 35 psig
Fluids max. temperature -6 to 138 Co
Actuator Hydraulic EA81-11006
Safe Position Normally Closed. Increase signal to open
No load stroke at 21 Co 60 second extend. 30 second retract

4.2.6 Steam Pressure Control Valve

CV-1 in figure 6 represents the cold water flow control valve. Table 8 lists the

specifications of the control valve. The control valve is equipped with a hydraulic

actuator that receives a 4-20mA signal from the output analogue module calibrated to 0-

100% valve opening. The actuator driving the valve body has a slow action time i.e. 60s

25
to open and 30s to close. This will affect control strategy if the disturbance is high or if

the valve is not sized properly.

FIGURE 9. Cold water flow control valve.

4.2.7 Pressure Transmitter

In order to control the steam pressure valve, the heat exchanger is equipped with

pressure sensor located downstream the control valve. The sensor measures the steam

pressure to the inlet of the heat exchanger. Table 9 lists the specification of the pressure

sensor.

26
TABLE 8. Steam Pressure Control Valve Specifications [16]

Manufacturer Eurotherm
Model VB-7263-000-4-4
Type Globe valve
Characteristics Modified linear
Pipe size 0.5 inch
Flow size (Cv) 4.4
Maximum inlet pressure 100 psig
Fluids max. temperature -6 to 171 Co

Actuator Hydraulic EA81-11006

Normally Closed. Increase signal to
Safe Position
open
No load stroke at 21 Co 60 second extend. 30 second retract

TABLE 9. Pressure Transmitter Specifications

Manufactured by WIKA
Model IS-20
Calibration range 0 30 psig
Analogue signal 4 20 mA
Manufactured by WIKA

27
FIGURE 10. Steam Pressure control valve and the pressure transmitter.

28
 CHAPTER 5

IDENTIFYING A PROCESS MODEL

5.1 Introduction

There are several methods used to identify a chemical process. Heat exchangers,

because of their importance in many industries, have been studied in the past and are used

as examples of process modeling in many control textbooks. Heat exchanger process is

considered a thermal dynamic problem. These types of problems usually involve thermal

lag. A thermal lag, (often called time-delay, dead-time or transport delay), is a delay

which occurs in the energy distribution between the hot medium and cold medium.

Resistance to heat flow is the primary cause of this delay in such systems. Thus, the

double-pipe heat exchanger is a system with time-delay [17].

To categorize or develop any process model, it is important to understand the

process and inspect the main elements in the system. Disturbances such as steam

pressure variation or water flowrate variation could be potential factors for instability

under certain control strategies. In addition, the system reaction curve to step change in

the open-loop mode plays a major role in studying the process behavior. In order to

identify the process parameters, experimental data will be fit to a first order model using

step test.

29
 5.2 Process Disturbances

5.2.1 Cold Water Flowrate and Temperature

Previous work on this system provided experimental data of the water pressure

and temperature behavior. Figure 11 shows the change in source water flowrate. In this

test, the cold water flow control valve was left fully open for around 8 minutes and the

flowrate was recorded. The flowrate fluctuation varies between 2.8-2.9 GPM with 0.1%

deviation [1].

Considering that the heat exchanger is a time-delay problem because it is a

thermal process, the flow variation is a small disturbance to the overall all problem. In

addition, a simple aggressive PI control if applied to the water flow valve can eliminate

or further reduce this small disturbance.

FIGURE 11. The fluctuation of the cold water flowrate [1].

Further, the cold water in this heat exchanger is considered the heat exchanger

load and the control strategy of the overall heat exchanger should be able to handle an

30
induced water load disturbance. In this thesis, the heat exchanger water load will be

manually varied to create an induced disturbance.

The previous work has also determined the variation of source water temperature.

Figure 12 shows the test results of the variation of source water temperature over a period

of 8 min. Under no control and fully open control valve, the temperature fluctuates

between a peak value of 26.75 oC and a low value of 26.62 oC. This is not enough

fluctuation to be considered a disturbance factor. Especially when dealing with thermal

process problems where the system is expected to have high thermal capacity. In fact,

the water temperature disturbance is negligible when comparing it to the source water

flowrate disturbance.

FIGURE 12. Fluctuation of source water temperature over a period of time [1].

5.2.2 Saturated Steam Quality

The biggest disturbance in this system is due to the steam pressure cycling. The

pressure in the steam supply, instead of having a constant value, can vary by as much as

50% within 2 minutes. A test was performed to investigate the behavior of the steam

31
pressure and steam control valve. While the steam control valve is fully closed and the

bypass valve is fully open for a period of time, figure 13 shows the cycling of the steam

pressure. The data were taken for a duration of around 15 min and recorded a peak

pressure of 12 psig and a low pressure of 8 psig. Operating the bypass valve is not

typically part of the procedure, however, it gives an indication of the severity of the

pressure variation. In fact, this test confirms data that were obtained in previous work.

Steam Pressure Cycling under Fully Open bypass Valve

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
4341
4367
4393
4419
4445
4471
4497
4523
4549
4575
4601
4627
4653
4679
4705
4731
4757
4783
4809
4835
4861
4887
4913
4939
4965
4991
5017
5043
5069
5095
5121
5147
5173
5199
FIGURE 13. Steam pressure cycling under fully open bypass valve.

A series of tests were conducted on the steam pressure control valve to measure

the pressure cycling. Each test was conducted by leaving the control valve open at a

certain percentage and recording the steam pressure. For each test, the steam pressure

was recorded for the same amount of time i.e. 10min. Figure 14 shows a combined tests

results for valve opening between 5%-30%. The results show that the steam pressure is

always cycling under different control valve opening, yet, reaching different amplitudes

for each opening. It is not clear why the pressure is received in this condition at the heat

32
exchanger, yet, we have no control over the exchanger upstream part. This acts as a

major disturbance to the heat exchanger process.

Steam Pressure under different valve openings

14
12 5%
Pressure (PSIG)

10 8%
8 10%
6 15%
4 20%
2 25%
0 30%
1
22
43
64
85
106
127
148
169
190
211
232
253
274
295
316
337
358
379
400
421
442
463
484
505
526
547
568
589
FIGURE 14. Steam pressure cycling for valve openings between 5%-30%.

Looking closely to the results, two observations were made. The first is that the

average cycle period T for each valve opening is almost the same, around 3.5 min. This

is a very important observation which helps when deciding on the tuning parameters. In

addition, cycling process in this magnitude and period suggests that the steam pressure

process can be modeled as a second order system.

The second thing to observe from figure 14, is that the control valve is oversized.

Increasing the valve opening beyond 25% results in no change to the steam pressure. In

fact, the graph shows that at 20%, 25% and 30% valve opening, the pressure is cycling

with same amplitude, but it is phase shifted. This important result leads us to calculate

the size required for the steam control valve versus the actual size.

It is worth to mention here that during many runs of different tests, the steam loop

back pressure always varies. At some runs, the back pressure will go as low as 0.2 PSIG
33
with fully closed valve. However, at other runs, the back pressure is as high as 6-7 PSIG.

This means that the control valve shut-off pressure P ranges between 11 PSIG to 6

PSIG. The latter is usually more common.

5.2.3 Steam Control Valve Sizing Calculations

There is a strong relation between saturated steam pressure and temperature,

therefore, controlling the steam pressure guarantees quality of the steam provided to the

heat exchanger. In this section, we calculate the control valve sizing required for steam

control valve.

A simple model simulation using PRO II simulation package is used to identify

maximum saturated steam flowrate required by the heat exchanger. This is a tricky

process since the quality of steam received from the boiler and the system back pressure

is dynamic. However, the simulation should give a good approximation. The simulation

is based on the following operating conditions:

3 GPM of water entering the exchanger at 20 oC.

The heat exchanger is required to heat up the water to 50 oC.

Steam quality is 100% entering the heat exchanger at 8 PSIG and 80 oC.

Details of the simulation and results can be found in appendix B. The simulation

shows that for the above conditions, a steam flowrate of 2.0 kg-mol/h = 36 kg/h = 79.4

lb/h is needed to heat up the water.

ANSI/ISA 75.1 is the international standard for sizing control valves. ISA sizing

equations take into account detailed factors, such as the piping geometry correction factor

for accurate results. In comparison, many control valve manufacturers approximate these

equations or rewrite them to suit a particular stream. Indeed, these calculations lead to

34
almost the same results. Equation (7) is used by Atkomatic control valve company

manufacturer to size steam control valves [18].

I
H

3J G
L
(7)

Where,

H is the valve flow coefficient or capacity. It has a dimensionless unit.

I is the maximum steam flowrate in lbs/hr. This is the simulation result = 79.4

lbs/hr.

G is the control valve maximum downstream pressure in PSIA. This operating

condition is = 22.7 PSIA.

is the maximum differential pressure across the control valve. Assuming

maximum supplied pressure from boiler which was found in 6.2.2 and equal to 4 PSIA.

L is the steam quality, represented as percentage. This is part of the simulation

operating condition = 1 assuming 100% steam quality.

The result of equation (xx) indicates a required valve Cv = 2.7. However, the

installed steam valve Cv is 4.4 which is double the needed flow capacity. This explains

why the steam pressure does not increase by increasing the control valve opening beyond

25%.

In addition, the valve actuator data sheet shows that the valve open stroke time is

60s, and 30s for close stroke travel time. In the industry, this is a slow action valve.

Adding this to the fact that the steam pressure is not stable all the time, the controllability

range for the control valve is typically between 5-15%. Thus in LabView, any steam

35
control valve action is limited to maximum 30% output. This will allow less unnecessary

travel time action and reduce the valve oversizing effect. The controller output will go

into saturation beyond 30%.

At this point, we have identified three major challenges in controlling the double-

pipe heat exchanger:

1. Cycling of the supplied steam pressure.

2. Oversized control valve.

3. Slow action actuator.

5.3 Process Operating Limits

A simple test is conducted to detect the temperature operating limits of the heat

exchanger under different loads. This test is important for determining the operating

envelop of the heat exchanger, and for determining the limitations when testing any

control strategy under different setpoints. In this test, the water flowrate is set manually

at certain flowrate and the steam valve is left fully open. Since the steam pressure is

cycling, we expect the water temperature to be cycling as well. Thus, once the steam

valve is fully open, the water temperature is left to reach a steady state cycling.

Subsequently, the maximum water temperature was recorded manually by observation.

The same is done again, at the same water flow, with the steam valve fully closed. When

the water temperature reaches to a steady-state cycling, the minimum achieved

temperature is recorded.

Table 10 summarizes the results of the test under different water flowrates. This

table will be used as the basis for the heat exchanger operating envelope and when

deciding on a setpoint during control testing.

36
Table 10. Double-Pipe Heat Exchanger Operating Limits

Water Flowrate Max. Pressure Min Pressure

Max. Temp. (Co) Min. Temp. (Co)
(GPM) (PSIG) (PSIG)
4.0 41 11 27 5
3.5 40 11 26 5

2.5 48 9 30 5

1.5 58 11 38 5

5.4 Process Model

One of the many methods to develop a process model is the empirical method

using process data. It is one of the simplest methods to identify a process system. The

main advantage of this method is the development of dynamic process model in real time

rather than theoretical methods that involve many equations and variables to quantify the

system. In addition, the empirical method can characterize the process and catches small

disturbances acting continuously on the heat exchanger.

Figure 15 shows the input and output of a process model. In the identification

method using a real time dynamic process, the input u(t), output y(t) are known. If

Disturbance d(t) can be measured/identified, as it was done in section 5.2, the process

model M can be identified. This is usually done by generating the system reaction curve

from an open-loop and step change test [11].

Previous studies and experimental data have shown that heat exchangers can be

approximated by a linear first-order system model which is part of the process

37
identification method. However, real systems almost never experience a first-order

performance for multiple reasons.

FIGURE 15. Input and output of a general process model.

Thus, adding a time-delay to the first-order model can result in a better match

between experimental data and the first-order model [19]. This empirical method is

called fitting of a first-order plus time-delay (FOPTD). The model transfer function can

be represented by (8).

O-P
M(N)
N+1
(8)
Where,

is the process gain.

is the time from where the process starts reacting to step change and reaches

63% of its final steady-state. It is also called the process time constant.

% is the time delay term of the process model. It represents the time it takes for the

process variable to start changing after a step change is applied.

38
 Since the steam pressure cycling and the steam control valve oversizing

contribute to creating disturbances on the heat exchanger, it is convenient to treat it as a

separate process and divide the heat exchanger into two process models. As mentioned,

the heat exchanger can be represented by a first-order plus time-delay model.

Figure 16 shows the two processes function blocks and the overall heat exchanger

model, where u(t) is the input to the system, i.e. the steam valve position. The steam loop

process QRS adjusts the steam pressure and the output will be the new state of stream

pressure p(t). This will be the input to what it is called now heat loop process QRT . The

new pressure state alters the water temperature and hence that is the output of the system

y(t). The combined processes QRS and QRT represent the overall heat exchanger model.

Each model is approximated by a FOPTD linear system. Each system reaction curve is

produced in the next chapter to find the FOPTD model parameters.

FIGURE 16. Overall heat exchanger model function block

39
 CHAPTER 6

APPLYING SINGLE-LOOP FEEDBACK CONTROL

6.1 Control Logic

In this chapter, a single loop feedback PID control is tested. The objective of this

control logic is to test a basic control strategy and observe the outcome. The goal is to

control the water temperature exiting the heat exchanger by manipulating the steam valve

actuator. Figure 17 shows the control logic of system loop PID control. The controller

should be able to minimize the error and track the desired temperature setpoint regardless

of disturbances mentioned earlier. A load-induced disturbances ca be created by

changing the water flowrate control valve opening manually.

FIGURE 17. Heat exchanger PID feedback control function block.

40
 The PID controller increases or decreases the signal to the steam valve actuator.

The steam control valve is configured to be direct acting, i.e. the valve will open on

increasing controller signal and close on decreasing controller signal. The control valve

action will alter the steam pressure and as a result it will change the water outlet

temperature. The thermocouple measures the water outlet temperature and feeds it back

to the input.

In order to tune the PID controller to accommodate the heat exchanger dynamics,

a process reaction curve should be produced. This is done by an open-loop test and

fitting a FOPTD model to get the model parameters.

6.2 Open-Loop Experiments for Identification of Process Parameters

The double pipe heat exchanger is a self-regulated process. Changing the

manipulated input variable will result in a change in the process state and in a new steady

state. The process parameters are determined by an open-loop configuration. Figure 18

shows the block diagram of the open-loop set-up.

FIGURE 18. Open-loop function block test for the double-pipe heat exchanger [1].

A LabView function block code is written, can be seen in appendix C, to

implement the PID feedback loop algorithm. The test starts by having the heat exchanger

valve configuration as mentioned in 4.2.2. In this test, the load or water flowrate is set at

41
4GPM. This can be achieved either through the water flowrate valve controlled manually

or automatically. Since the steam pressure fluctuates, the water outlet temperature will

also fluctuate within a small range. When the water outlet temperature reaches its steady-

state i.e. fluctuations of the water temperature stay within 5% of its average value, then

a step change to the steam pressure control valve is applied. An increase in the steam

control valve will result in an increase in the water outlet temperature and vice versa.

In this test, three step changes are applied to the control valve i.e. (1) from 5% to

8%, (2) from 8% to 10% and (3) from 15% to 10%. During the test, valve position, steam

pressure and cold water outlet temperature are recorded. These data, for the three step

changes, were loaded to Loop-Pro, the software tool for tuning and model optimization.

Typically with this tool, the process model is chosen and the software calculates the

model parameters from experimental data. In this case, a FOPTD is chosen as discussed

before. Each step change test is loaded individually and a best-fit graph is produced.

Figure 19 shows the best test result which corresponds to 0.64 R-Square goodness of fit.

The goodness of fit refers to the error magnitude between the data and best fit. In the

graph, the steam valve position trend is at the bottom and the water outlet temperature

fluctuating is at the top. From the graph, Loop-Pro calculates the FOPTD model

parameters. Transfer function (9) shows the heat exchanger over all model using FOPTD

best fit.

0.681 OG?.AP
M(N)
11.1N + 1

(9)

42
 Loop-Pro: Te mp Ope n Lopp te st (5-8%)
M o d e l: F irs t O r d e r P lu s D e a d T im e (F O P D T ) F ile N a m e : o p e n lo o p 5 -8 % . t x t

Manipulated Variable Process Variable

41.6

40.3

39.0

37.7

8.1

7.2

6.3

5.4

1465.2 1546.6 1628.0 1709.4 1790.8 1872.2 1953.6 2035.0

Time (sec)

G a in (K ) = 0 . 6 8 1 , T im e C o n s t a n t (s e c ) = 1 1 . 0 9 , D e a d T im e (s e c ) = 2 9 . 6
G o o d n e s s o f F it : R - S q u a re d = 0 . 6 4 4 6 , S S E = 4 4 7 . 4

FIGURE 19. Loop-Pro open-loop FOPTD best fit result.

In addition, a disturbance open-loop test was performed. Under fixed steam valve

opening at 10% and steady-state water temperature around 41-43 oC, the water flowrate

were decreased from 2.7 GPM to 2.2 GPM. The water outlet temperature increased to

46-47 oC. These test data were loaded in Loop-Pro and the reaction curve shown in

figure 20 is produced. In the figure, the lower trend is the water flowrate (manipulated

variable) and the top trend is the water temperature (process variable). FOPTD is also

used to represent the water flow disturbance model, transfer function (10).

11.14 OU.EAP
M(N)
27.1N + 1

(10)

Further, Loop-Pro calculates PID tuning parameters based on Internal Model

Control (IMC). Table 11 summarizes the open-loop tests for step change and

disturbance.

43
 Loop-Pro: Disturba nc e te st a t 10% ope ning
M o d e l: F irs t O r d e r P lu s D e a d T im e (F O P D T ) F ile N a m e : d is t u rb a n c e 1 . t x t

Manipulated Variable Process Variable

51.8

48.1

44.4

40.7
3.0

2.4

1.8

1.2

4387.2 4524.3 4661.4 4798.5 4935.6 5072.7 5209.8 5346.9

Time (sec)

G a in (K ) = - 1 1 . 1 4 , T im e C o n s t a n t ( s e c ) = 2 7 . 0 8 , D e a d T im e (s e c ) = 7 . 5 6
G o o d n e s s o f F it : R - S q u a re d = 0 . 9 1 9 1 , S S E = 3 6 6 . 8

FIGURE 20. Open-loop disturbance reaction curve.

TABLE 11. Simple Open-Loop Tests Summary

Process
Process Process Proportional Integral action
gain /( for '0 (VW() for PI
Reaction Time Control
gain constant
/R 'R (VW()
type Delay Sensitivity
XR (VW()
PI controller controller

0.32 11.1 Aggressive

Step change
0.68 11.1 29.6 0.06 11.1 Moderate
5-8%
0.006 11.1 Conservative
Disturbance
-11.14 27.1 7.56 -
2.7-2.2 GPM

6.3 Closed-Loop Control Experiment

At this stage, the process model is identified and IMC tuning parameter is

calculated from the process model. Next, the Proportional-Integral control logic is

applied as mentioned in figure 17. There are few things to consider when conducting the

closed-loop test:

44
 Since the steam control valve is oversized, it was decided to limit the controller

action to 30% of full opening. This will allow less travel time for the control actuator and

decrease the delay. Increasing the valve opening beyond 25% will not have any effects

on the steam pressure.

The water flowrate can be under manual or under controlled operation. In this

test, the flow control valve was operated manually. This will introduce a very small

disturbance that can not be noticed in the overall system. In fact, this disturbance has

already been taken into account when identifying the process model during the open-loop

test.

The test was conducted under 4 GPM water flowrate. Thus, system limitations

introduced in table 10 were considered in this test when varying temperature setpoint.

It is noted that in LabView, the integral and derivative values are in minutes NOT

seconds.

The objective of the closed loop PI control test is to study the performance of the

controller in terms of setpoint tracking and disturbance rejection. Figure 21 shows the

result of the PI control setpoint tracking. During the test, different tuning PI values were

used including the IMC tuning parameters obtained from the process model. The result

shows that a simple PI control manages to keep the water temperature in track with

setpoint, however, the control is not optimum, and unacceptable water temperature

variations can be seen. This is a result of severe steam pressure disturbance which can

not be controlled using simple PI control.

45
 PI Temp Control under 4 GPM water flow
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1

109
136
163
190
217
244
271
298
325
352
379
406
433
460
487
514
541
568
595
622
649
676
703
730
757
784
811
838
865
892
919
946
973
1000
1027
1054
1081
1108
1135
1162
1189
1216
1243
1270
1297
1324
1351
1378
1405
28
55
82

Temp SetPoint (oC) CW Temp out (oC) Steam Pressure (PSIG)

FIGURE 21. Water Temperature setpoint tracking using PI controller under different
tuning values.

Figure 22 shows the same PI closed-loop test responding to water flowrate

disturbance. In this test, the water temperature is kept at steady state at 40 oC. Then, the

water flow control valve was manually decreased from 100% open (corresponding to 4

GPM) to 50% open (corresponding to 2.5 GPM). In terms of thermal problem, this is not

a big disturbance, however, the temperature started fluctuating and did not recover. In

this test = 4 and = 0.25 are used to tune the PI controller.

PI Temp Control (disturbance rejection)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
1
16
31
46
61
76
91
106
121
136
151
166
181
196
211
226
241
256
271
286
301
316
331
346
361
376
391
406
421
436
451
466
481
496
511
526
541
556
571
586

Temp SetPoint (oC) CW Temp out (oC) Water flow valve CW Flow rate (GPM)

FIGURE 22. Water load disturbance rejection using PI controllers.

46
 CHAPTER 7

CASCADE CONTROL

7.1 Control Logic

The steam pressure cycling mentioned earlier in addition to the control valve over

sizing makes tight control of the heat exchanger very difficult to achieve using traditional

PID control. The response to a disturbance using feedback control does not begin until

the process variable diverges from the setpoint. Minimizing energy losses by tight

controlling the water temperature in terms of setpoint tracking and disturbance rejection

is the objective of the heat exchanger control.

Since the major disturbance acting on the heat exchanger is the steam pressure

cycling, it makes sense to separate the steam pressure control loop from the rest of the

heat exchanger model and treat them individually. That is the main purpose of

introducing cascade control. In cascade control, an additional feedback loop is

introduced such that the disturbance is measured and controlled before it is sensed by the

controlled variable primary feedback loop. Cascade control offers disturbance rejection

acting on the system without the need to precisely measure that disturbance. In addition,

it enhances the system response to a setpoint tracking [11].

Figure 23 shows the control logic function block of cascade control for the

double-pipe heat exchanger. An intermediate measurement and two feedback controllers

are added to the system. QRS and QRT are the steam pressure loop model and the heat loop

47
model respectively as mentioned in chapter 5.4. The overall control strategy contains

master and slave control loops. The master controller PID 2 establishes the pressure

setpoint for the slave controller PID 1. The slave controller output is received at the

steam pressure control valve actuator for open/close action. Based on the valve action,

the steam pressure either decreases or increases. This pressure is measured using the

pressure sensor and fed back to the slave control loop input. The master loop acts to

respond to the water temperature setpoint. The objective of this control strategy is to

eliminate or sharply decrease the effect of the steam pressure disturbance.

FIGURE 23. Cascade control function block for the double-pipe heat exchanger.

7.2 Open-Loop Test

In order to implement the cascade control strategy, controller tuning parameters

must be obtained from the process model. Similar to the PI feedback control, a process

reaction curve must be obtained from an open-loop test and approximate it by FOPTD

model. However, two open-loop tests must be conducted in order to catch QRS and QRT

48
slave and master loop, respectively. A LabView function block code was written to

implement the cascade control strategy. This can be seen in appendix D.

7.2.1 Open-Loop Test for Slave Controller

The slave loop open-loop test can be summarized by the control function block in

figure 24. In the slave loop, the process variable is the steam pressure and the

manipulated variable is steam control valve opening.

FIGURE 24. Cascade slave open-loop test function block.

The following are considerations when conducting the test:

In LabView, both master and slave controllers are in manual mode.

In LabView, the water temperature manual output indicator should be always

set to zero.

Although the steam pressure is fluctuating at any valve opening percentage, a

steady-state fluctuation must be achieved before applying a step change.

When recording data, at least two cycles must be recorded before and after a step

change.

The test does not involve water flowrate or water temperature.

The open-loop test was conducted for four step changes i.e. (1) from 5% to 8% of

full opening, (2) from 8% to 10% of full opening, (3) from 10% to 15% of full opening

49
and (4) from 15% to 20% of full opening. However when loading the data to Loop-Pro

for process model and tuning parameters, poor best fit to FOPTD is achieved. This is

because Loop-Pro relies on the initial steady-state condition of the process variable which

is in this case the fluctuating steam pressure. For that reason, manual interpolation must

be applied to the initial steam pressure steady-state.

Initial steady-state
interpolation

FIGURE 25. Open-loop process reaction curve for the cascade slave loop.

This is done by taking the average pressure of the first two cycles before the step

change and replacing the recorded steam pressure values with the average. This should

produce a steady or constant initial stead-state. LabView captures these data and

produced best fit FOPTD model. Among the tests, the 8%-10% step change test is

considered since it provides a balanced result between a reasonable R-squared goodness

of fit = 0.4, process gain and process time delay.

50
 Figure 25 shows the reaction curve result of the open-loop test for the master

loop. Transfer function (11) represents the slave loop FOPTD model. Table 12 lists the

IMC tuning values in the aggressive mode, since the cascade slave loop must be always

tighter control than the master loop.

M#@
!.EY Z [\.]^
E.DP_@
(11)

TABLE 12. PID IMC Tuning Parameters for the Slave Controller

Proportional Integral action Derivative action

gain /( for PID '0 (VW() for PID '` (VW() for PID
Control
Reaction type
Sensitivity
controller controller controller

Step change
4.72 6.97 (0.12min) 0.96 (0.02min) Aggressive
8-10%

Although the derivative action is not always recommended for fast loops such as

pressure, yet the derivative action proved during testing that it can significantly eliminate

the steam pressure cycling effect. Thus, PID controller has to be used for the inner loop

rather than PI controller.

Figure 26 shows the result of the closed loop test for the slave loop. In this closed

loop test, a modified version of the IMC tuning was used i.e. 10, 12 N , a

0.6 N . IMC tuning values in table 12 will also give satisfactory results, however, these

tuning values are optimum. The figure shows excellent result for tracking steam pressure

setpoints between 7-10 psig. Generally, as the setpoint increases beyond 10 psig, the

51
steam pressure starts cycling again. However under normal operating conditions of the

heat exchanger, the required steam pressure is usually between 8-10 psig.

FIGURE 26. Slave controller closed loop test result for setpoint tracking.

7.2.2 Open-Loop Test for Master Controller

The master loop open-loop test can be summarized by the control function block

in figure 27. In the master loop, the process variable is the steam pressure and the

manipulated variable is the water temperature.

FIGURE 27. Open-loop control function block for the cascade master loop.

The same LavView code in appendix D is used in this test. The test starts by

having the steam pressure at a particular steady-state setpoint and steady-state water

temperature. Subsequently, the pressure setpoint is altered and the new water
52
temperature at steady-state is recorded. The master controller open-loop test depends on

two important factors: the flowrate of the water and tight control of the slave loop. The

following are considerations when conducting the master loop open-loop test:

In LabView code, the slave controllers must be in Auto mode and the master

controller must be in manual mode. Tuning parameters 10, 12 N , a

0.6 N are used for the slave PID controller.

In LabView code, the water temperature manual output indicator should be

always set to zero.

In LabView, the slave controller must be set to reverse action.

In LabView, the slave controller maximum output must be set to 30%. This is to

reduce the steam valve travelling time since it is oversized.

The test has to be done under fixed water flowrate.

Note that in LabView, the controller tuning parameters are in minutes NOT

seconds.

The test was conducted for three step changes i.e. (1) from 7 PSIG to 9 PSIG, (2)

from 9 PSIG to 10 PSIG and (3) from 10 PSIG to 7 PSIG. All step changes were

conducted under fixed water flowrate of 4 GPM. The data from the three tests were

loaded to LoopPro to obtain the FOPTD best fit graphs. The first step change test (7-9

PSIG) produced the best goodness of fit within R2 = 0.99. Figure 28 shows the reaction

curve of the master controller open-loop test. The lower trend represents the manipulated

variable (steam pressure) and the top trend represent the process variable (water

temperature).

53
FIGURE 28. Open-loop process reaction curve for the cascade master loop (4GPM load).

Transfer function (12) represents the master loop FOPTD model. Table 13 lists

the IMC tuning values in the aggressive and moderate modes.

M#G
b.YA Z [c.d^
GE.!P_@
(12)

TABLE 13. IMC Tuning Parameters for the Master Controller (4 GPM Load)

Proportional gain Integral action Derivative action

/( for PID '0 (VW() for PID '` (VW() for PID
Reaction Control
type Sensitivity
controller controller controller

Step change 1.92 25.0 (0.4 min) 0.812 (0.01 min) Aggressive
7-9 PSIG 0.23 25.0 (0.4 min) 0.812 (0.01 min) Moderate

Another open-loop test is conducted for a different water flowrate. The same

procedure is followed under 2.5 GPM. The objective of this test is to generate different

process reaction curves under different loads for the heat exchanger. Figure 29 shows the
54
open-loop test process reaction curve under 2.5 GPM load. Transfer function (13)

represent the master loop FOPTD model when it is under 2.5 GPM load.

M#G
e G.D Z [fg.h^
@?.EP_@
(13)

FIGURE 29. Open-loop process reaction curve for the cascade master loop (2.5 GPM
load).

Despite the variation in the time-delay between the two process loads, the process

gain and the time constant is approximately matching. Further, the objective of the

cascade loop is to eliminate the internal loop disturbance (steam pressure cycling) in

addition to reject outer loop disturbance (heat exchanger load) disregarding the difference

in process characteristics within reasonable limits.

7.3 Closed Loop Test

7.3.1 General

The objective of the cascade control strategy is to eliminate the steam pressure

disturbance and contain it in the slave loop before it effects the water temperature outer
55
loop. In addition, it should control the heat exchanger water temperature in terms of

setpoint tracking and load disturbance rejection.

At this this stage we obtained both the master and slave controller tuning

parameters and process models for QRS and QRT . To conduct the cascade closed-loop

test, the same LabView code in appendix D is used. The control function block in section

7.1 is used to implement the cascade configuration. The following are general

considerations when conducting the closed-loop test:

In LabView code, the initial pressure setpoint must be set as low as possible e.g.

0.2

In LabView code, both controllers must be set as reverse acting controller. This

does not mean the controllers should be acting in reverse practically, however, it is only

used to meet the code development convention.

In LabView, the slave controller maximum output must be set to 30%. This is to

reduce the steam valve travelling time since it is oversized.

In LabView, the master controller maximum output must be set to 11. This is

approximately the maximum supply pressure which will be fed to the slave controller.

In LabView, the slave controller must be switched to automatic mode first. Leave

the process to stabilize for a period of time. Enter a water temperature setpoint within the

heat exchanger operating limit i.e. table 10. Then switch the master controller to

automatic mode.

In LabView code, IMC tuning parameters for the salve and master controllers can

be used or any modified tuning values. Yet, it is important to have the slave controller

under much tighter control than the master controller.

56
 In LabView code, the water temperature manual output indicator should be

always set to zero.

Note that in LabView, the controller tuning parameters are in minutes NOT

seconds.

7.3.2 Temperature Setpoint Tracking Test

Figures 30 shows the results of the heat exchanger under cascade control in terms

of water temperature setpoint tracking. In the graph, the top trend is the temperature

setpoint along with the water outlet temperature. The lower part represents the slave loop

with the steam pressure setpoint and process variable. In this test, IMC tuning parameters

were used for both master and slave loops obtained from table 13 and 12, respectively.

The cascade control strategy with aggressive IMC tuning managed to keep the water

temperature in track with the setpoint with excellent performance. However, as the

temperature setpoint is increased (near to the heat exchanger operating limits i.e. 40 oC),

the control becomes harder. The test was conducted under 4 GPM water flowrate. In this

test PID controllers were used for the master and slave controller.

The same closed-loop test was repeated with modified tuning parameters. Figure

31 shows the result of cascade control for different setpoints. The test was also

conducted under 4 GPM water flowrate. The result shows excellent temperature tracking

between 30 oC-38 oC for considerable amount of time. Optimum aggressive control was

used for the slave controller and IMC aggressive mode tuning for the master controller.

By visually inspecting result in figure 30 and figure 31, it can be inferred that the

response is somehow better when using tighter control for the slave loop and IMC

aggressive tuning for the master loop as in figure 31.

57
 Cascade Control IMC aggressive tuning
Master Loop Kc=1.92, I=0.4min, D=0.01min
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Slave Loop Kc=4.72, I=0.12min, D=0.02min

10
5
0
17
33
49
65
81
97
1

113
129
145
161
177
193
209
225
241
257
273
289
305
321
337
353
369
385
401
417
433
449
465
481
497
513
529
545
561
577
593
609
625
641
657
673
689
705
721
737
753
769
785
Temp Set Point (oC) C.W Temp Out (oC) Steam Pressure (PSIG) Cascade Steam Setpoint (PSIG)

FIGURE 30. Heat exchanger cascade control setpoint tracking using IMC tuning.

FIGURE 31. Heat Exchanger cascade control setpoint tracking test for optimum tuning.

7.3.3 Load Disturbance Rejection Test

The other measure in evaluating the performance of the cascade control strategy is

the load disturbance rejection. The control strategy should be able to handle water

flowrate variations and maintain the water temperature in track with the setpoint. The

test was conducted while maintaining the temperature setpoint constant during the test at
58
38 oC and altering the water rate through manually manipulating the control valve

opening. Figure 32 shows the load disturbance test result.

The graph can be divided into four regions. In the first region, the control valve

opening was decreased from 100% to 80% of full opening. This did not cause enough

disturbance to the process and the flowrate was still at 4 GPM. This was followed by

another valve opening step down at 50%. In this region, the water flowrate decreased

from 4 GPM to 2.5 GPM. This was enough to cause a noticeable disturbance to the water

temperature, however, the water temperature recovered. In the third region, the water

flowrate was further decreased to 1 GPM while the temperature setpoint is still fixed at

38 oC. This caused another disturbance that the system could not recover from since the

heat exchanger is operating beyond its limits according to table 10. Finally, another

disturbance was created by increasing the water flowrate from 1 GPM to 4 GPM and the

system recovered to setpoint 38 oC in an excellent fast response manner. Indeed, the

system shows excellent load variation rejection with good performance.

FIGURE 32. Heat Exchanger Cascade control Disturbance rejection test to load variation.

59
 CHAPTER 8

ANALYSIS AND PERFORMANCE INDICES

8.1 Introduction

Despite approximations made during the process model development and the

interpolation made to the experimental data, the empirical method and fitting of a first-

order plus time-delay works reliably to estimate the heat exchanger models. In addition,

cascade control managed to suppress high steam pressure cycling disturbance in the

internal loop and also successfully managed to reject water load variations acting on the

heat exchanger. With the use of appropriate aggressive controllers for both master and

slave loops, the water temperature was controlled at the desired setpoint all the time. In

terms of tuning performance, a three indices were developed for the double-pipe heat

exchanger.

8.2 Error Indices

8.2.1 Indices Based on Control Error

The deviation of the process value from the setpoint is the error signal in the

feedback loop. Further, the area between the setpoint curve and the process variable

curve is related to the energy wasted as a result of this error. Thus, measuring this area

would provide a performance index for the tuning parameters used for the cascade

control of the double-pipe heat exchanger. Figure 33 shows a response of a process

variable to a setpoint step change denoted as i in figure 33. Assuming the sampling

60
rate of the data shown in the graph is 1 second, the area of the absolute error between the

desired value and the actual value in the range between [a,b] for a step change i can be

approximated by the trapezoidal formula (14) .

FIGURE 33. Calculation of the Performance index from setpoint step.

t
u
(ps+1 ps )
j jk l m k n mkH | (p)| p q r (| kk ks+1 | + | kk ks |)
v 2
s 1
(14)
Where,
t: is the number of sampled data.

| kk k|: is the absolute difference between the measured process variable and

setpoint.

A second index based on the square of the error is also used in this study

represented by formula (15).

x
u
(ps+1 ps )
j jk l m k n mkH (p) p q r
G
( kk kw_@
G
+ kk kwG )
v 2
wy@

(15)

61
An index z is defined as the area j per unit time per unit step change, based on either square or

absolute error, i.e Thus,

j
z |kk k k N k N nl } m
({ l) (i)

Taking the square root of the area j when calculating the square error index was

considered, to bring down the square error indices down to a comparable values to the

other indices. Yet, this will not change the results and it can be implemented in the

future.

8.2.2 Index Based on Steam Condensate Volume

The other performance index will be the steam volume. The main energy

consumption in the double-pipe heat exchanger comes from the boiler in the form of

steam. Ideally, each steam valve opening percentage would allow a specific steam

flowrate. This flowrate can be measured in terms of volumetric flowrate of condensate

which in turn can be converted to mass flowrate of steam from the boiler. The less steam

volume used to control the water temperature, the less energy dissipated in the system.

Hence, the control system strategy and controller tuning values should enhance the

efficiency of the overall system including energy consumption.

However, the heat exchanger does not have the required sensors to measure the

steam flowrate. Thus, an experiment was conducted to redirect the steam recycle line to

an open drain and measure the volume of the received steam in the form of condensate.

The test details can be seen in appendix A. By varying the control valve opening and

measuring the corresponding steam condensate volume, figure 34 was produced.

62
 The figure shows the condensate volume in GPM at the corresponding steam

valve opening. Valve openings at 3%, 5%, 8%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30% of full

opening were tested. Because of the variations of the steam quality received in terms of

pressure and temperature, multiple data were recorded for each valve opening and a best

least squares fit linear approximation was obtained. The equation of the line can be

shown in the graph in figure 34. The test data can be further enhanced in the future by

recording more data for each valve opening. This equation will be used to estimate the

steam flowrate used during control tests. In figure 34, 1 gallon per minutes of steam

condensate is equivalent to 0.063 kg steam per second.

Steam Condensate Flowrate at Different Valve Opening

0.3

0.25
Flow Rate (GPM)

0.2

0.15
y = 0.0051x + 0.0968
0.1

0.05

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Flow Rate (GPM) Steam Valve Opening (%)

Linear (Flow Rate (GPM))

FIGURE 34. Steam condensate flowrate test graph result.

The slave controller output in the cascade loop, which represents the valve

opening, is used to calculate the steam flowrate per sampled data (1 sample/sec). The

index is calculated by adding all volumes for the duration of the step change test and

63
dividing them over the duration of the test. With reference to figure 33, the steam

average volumetric rate index is calculated as follow:

H ~m k Nl ~ l l
i~ kl p lH kl} H ~ml k kl
({ l)

8.3 System Response to Different Tuning Methods

In this study, four well known tuning methods were considered; Internal Model

Control (IMC), Cohen-Coon, Integral Time Absolute Error Criterion (ITAE) and Ziegler-

Nichols method. The test conducted for each tuning method is not identical, however, it

can produce a proper index of performances. Table 14 shows the controller values for

each tuning method. It is important to note that the controller tuning parameters ,

and a for the slave loop were fixed under optimum PID aggressive control. PI

controllers were used for the master loop since addition of derivative action did not

improve the overall performance as indicated in chapter 7.3. All tests were done under 4

GPM water load.

TABLE 14. PI Tuning Values for the Cascade Control Master Loop

Tuning Method Proportional gain /( Integral action '0 VW( ()

IMC 1.92 25 (0.42 min)
Cohen-Coon 3.09 4.9 (0.08 min)
ITAE 1.54 24.54 (0.41 min)
Ziegler-Nichols 2.83 5.59 (0.09 min)

Figure 35, 36 and 37 show results for setpoint tracking runs using three different

tuning methods: Cohen-Coon, ITAE and Ziegler-Nichols respectively. The IMC is

64
 described in chapter 7.3.2. Generally for the double-pipe heat exchanger, decreasing the

integral time of the controller causes the process variable to oscillate more vigorously.

According to the IMC tuning rule, integral time of the controller is normally set at the

time constant of the process unit. According to the valve manufacturers manual, the

steam control valve takes around 1 min for full stroke. This indicates that the time

constant of the control valve is around 1/4 min, and that appropriate integral time for the

controller would be around min (IMC tuning rule). Therefore, if lower values of

integral time are adopted in Cohen-Coon and Ziegler-Nichols tuning tests, the response

would be more oscillatory than that in IMC tuning tests.

Cascade Control Cohen-Coon Tuning

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
141
161
181
201
221
241
261
281
301
321
341
361
381
401
421
441
461
481
501
521
541
561
581
601
621
641
661
681
701
721
741
761
781
801
821
841
861
881
901
921
941
961
981

Temp SetPoint (oC) C.W temp out (oC) Steam Pressure (PSIG) Cascade SetPoint (PSIG)

FIGURE 35. Cascade control using Cohen-Coon tuning method.

Table 15 shows a summary of the calculated indices for different tuning methods.

All indices were multiplied by 100 to make the data representable and easier to read since

65
 all indices are < 1. Figure 38 shows the table results in graph representation. The

average indices for each tuning method are also calculated by adding the corresponding

index for each test and dividing by the number of tests. A graph representation of the

averages can be seen in figure 39.

Cascade Control ITAE Tuning

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1
12
23
34
45
56
67
78
89
100
111
122
133
144
155
166
177
188
199
210
221
232
243
254
265
276
287
298
309
320
331
342
353
364
375
386
397
408
419
430
441
452
463
474
485
496
507
518
Temp SetPoint (oC) C.W. Temp out (oC) Steam Pressure (PSIG) Cascade Setpoint (PSIG)

FIGURE 36. Cascade control using ITAE tuning method.

Cascade Control Ziegler-Nichols Tuning

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
141
161
181
201
221
241
261
281
301
321
341
361
381
401
421
441
461
481
501
521
541
561
581
601
621
641
661
681
701
721
741
761
781
801
821
841
861
881
901
921
941
961
981

Temp SetPoint (oC) C.W out Temp (oC) Steam Pressure (PSIG) Cascade Setpoint (PSIG)

FIGURE 37. Cascade control using Ziegler-Nichols tuning method.

66
TABLE 15. Different Tuning Methods Performance Indices

Average
Step Step Time Performance
Index zPvZ
Performance volumetric
zvuP Z
Tuning Test Magnitud Period Index
Index
Method (oC) e (s)
(GPM)
35-40 5 313 18.2 46.1 23.7
IMC 40-32 8 196 17.8 95.4 9.5
32-38 6 246 14.9 51.5 19.4
Average
17.0 64.3 17.5
(%)
35-38 3 201 23.2 29.4 22.6
Cohen- 38-30 8 338 13.4 58.5 5.2
Coon 30-35 5 252 21.1 38 15.3
35-38 3 164 27.8 59.2 22.4
Average
21.4 46.3 16.4
(%)
31-37 6 241 15.3 54.5 17.9
ITAE
37-35 2 210 16.5 16.1 13.7
Average
15.9 35.3 15.8
(%)
30-38 8 231 18.2 93.5 22.4
Ziegler-
38-30 8 438 12.7 54.5 4.9
Nichols
30-35 5 256 22 41.1 15.8
Average
17.6 63.0 14.4
(%)

Although test duration is different between tuning methods, the indices based on

errors can still represent the performance since they have a unit of error per second per

step change. By looking at the graph in figure 38, the square error index is high when

using the IMC and Z-N methods with a step magnitude of 8. In general as the step

magnitude is increased, the square error increases and vice versa. The ITAE method

recorded the lowest indices when the step magnitude is only 2. Comparison of the C-C

and Z-N methods when the step magnitude is 5 shows that they are similar in

67
performance. However, same step change for same method such as the C-C when the

step magnitude is 3 results in different indices, yet, the steam flowrate index is similar.

In general, the absolute error index is similar between the tuning methods, but, the square

error index and the steam flowrate index can be distinguished.

Summary of the Test's Indices Sorted by Tuning Methods

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 8 6 3 8 5 3 6 2 8 8 5
35-40 40-32 32-38 35-38 38-30 30-35 35-38 31-37 37-35 30-38 38-30 30-35
IMC COHEN-COON ITAE ZIEGLER-NICHOLS

Absolute Error Index Square Error Index Steam Volume Index

FIGURE 38. Graph representation of the performance indices for the tuning methods.

By observation, it can be said that to achieve system response with less square

and absolute errors indices, IMC and ITAE methods can be used, however, more steam

flowrate is required by these tuning methods. In comparison, average steam flowrates

generally less when using C-C and Z-N methods.

Figure 39 shows a summary average of the tests indices. The absolute error

index and average steam flowrate index are similar between the tuning methods,

however, the square error is high in the IMC and Z-N methods. Indeed, the ITAE

68
recorded the lowest indices based on minimum error and considerably low steam flowrate

index.

Average Indices Results

70.0
64.3 63.0

60.0
46.3
50.0
35.3
40.0

30.0 21.4
17.0 17.5 16.4 15.9 15.8 17.6 14.4
20.0

10.0

0.0
IMC Cohen-Coon ITAE Ziegler-Nichols

Absolute Error Index Square Error Index Steam Volume Index

FIGURE 39. Summery graph of the average indices for the tuning methods.

8.4 Data Reliability

In any experimental work, the data reliability is usually questionable. For that, a

cascade closed-loop test was selected and to be regenerated. The Cohen-Coon tuning test

was selected since it has the maximum number of step changes i.e. 4 setpoints changes.

The test was regenerated with approximately exact conditions in terms of step changes

setpoints and duration of steady-state for each setpoint. Further, the indices were re-

calculated for the new test. The indices were not expected to exactly match the original

Cohen-Coon test, yet, it should be similar.

69
 The result of the test can be seen in figure 40. The top graph is the original test

shown previously in figure 35. The bottom graph is the repeated C-C tuning test. By

visually inspecting both graphs, it can be concluded that both systems responses in terms

of water temperature setpoint tracking are similar. However, the first step change in the

test seems to be oscillating in the repeated test.

The indices for the repeated test were also calculated and shown in table 16.

Comparing the average indices for the 4 tests conducted for the C-C method, the indices

are almost identical with small mismatch. This leads to the conclusion that experiments

conducted in this thesis can be said to be reliable.

TABLE 16. Repeated Cohen-Coon Test Performance Indices

Average
Step Time Performance
Index zPvZ
Tuning Step Performance Volumetric
zvuP Z
Test Period Index
Method Magnitude Steam Flow
(oC) (s)
rate GPM
35-38 3 196 22.4 22.6 19.6
Cohen- 38-30 8 340 12.7 51.4 5.4
Coon 30-35 5 251 23.3 50.5 15.2
35-38 3 167 32.2 84.8 21.7
Average
22.7 52.3 15.5
(%)

70
 Cascade Control Cohen-Coon Tuning
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
22
43
64
85
106
127
148
169
190
211
232
253
274
295
316
337
358
379
400
421
442
463
484
505
526
547
568
589
610
631
652
673
694
715
736
757
778
799
820
841
862
883
904
925
946
967
988
Temp SetPoint (oC) C.W temp out (oC) Steam Pressure (PSIG) Cascade SetPoint (PSIG)

Repeated Cascade Control Cohen-Coon Tuning

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
22
43
64
85
106
127
148
169
190
211
232
253
274
295
316
337
358
379
400
421
442
463
484
505
526
547
568
589
610
631
652
673
694
715
736
757
778
799
820
841
862
883
904
925
946
967
988
Temp SetPoint (oC) C.W. Temp out (oC) Steam Pressure (PSIG) Cascade SePoint (PSIG)

FIGURE 40. Original and repeated Cohen-Coon cascade tuning tests.

71
 CHAPTER 9

CONCLUSION

A cascade control algorithm was successful in control the double-pipe heat

exchanger under test. By using a steam pressure controller as slave loop and a

temperature controller as master loop, the cascade control was able to maintain the cold

water temperature in tack with the setpoint. In addition, the algorithm was able to

operate the heat exchanger under induced load disturbance.

Despite using FOPTD model approximations, which is an empirical method, the

IMC tuning obtained was successful in maintain a good performance response to step

changes and disturbance rejection. Further, Cohen-Coon, ITAE and Ziegler-Nichols

tuning methods were applied. Based on error indices defined in this thesis, it is found

that the ITAE method has the highest performance in tracking a setpoint change. Steam

flowrate index was also defined in this thesis and it is found that to maintain aggressive

fast response system IMC and ITAE should be used, however, more flowrate is required.

Thus, if the objective is to use the heat exchanger such to optimize the use of steam with

tolerance to control offsets, Ziegler-Nichols and Cohen-Coon tuning methods should be

used.

72
APPENDICES

73
 APPENDIX A

STEAM CONDENSATE FLOWRATE TEST

74
FIGURE 41. Model 9052 Double-Pipe heat exchanger process flow diagram (PFD)
[Duplicate of figure 6].

With reference to the heat exchanger figure 41 above, the following is the test

valves arrangement steps:

Manual isolation valves v-1, v-5, v-11, v-12, v-15 and v-16 should be open.

Manual isolation valves v-2, v-3, v-4, v-6, v-7, v-8, v-9, v-10, v-13 and v-14

should be closed.

v-17 and v-18 are 3-ways valves. The flow direction indication on the physical

valves should (\) for valve v-17 and (/) for valve v-18. In this arrangement, the cold water

will go to the drain through the gauge flow meter and the steam will go directly to the

recycle line.

75
 Once the above valves arrangement are sat and the heat exchanger is operating,

open the steam control valve CV-1 using the manual controller to the desired opening i.e.

3%, %5, 8%,.. 30%.

Close v-16 and switch the direction of the two 3-ways valves i.e. v-17 should be

(/) and v-18 should be (\). This will allow the steam to flow through the gauge flow meter

to the drain sink. The cold water will also flow to the drain sink through the other drain.

The steam will arrive to the drain in the form of condensate. Using a measuring

flask and a stop watch start filling up the flask with steam condensate. The start of this

operation and starting the stop should be synched as close as possible. The time depends

on how fast the flask is filled. For example, at 15% valve opening, the flask will be filled

quicker than at 3% opening. Typical time duration should be in seconds.

Once the time is over, measure the filled flask using a scale. Also, the flask

should be measured when it is empty. The net weight of the condensate is the filled flask

weight minus the empty flask weight.

Repeat the test for different valve openings. Since the steam pressure is

fluctuating, the test should be repeated multiple times at the same valve openings.

CAUTION: at valve opening => 15%, the steam pressure can go up 13 PSIG.

The received condensate at the sink drain will be extremely hot with bursts of pressure.

This should be treated with care.

76
FIGURE 42. Scale and flask filled with steam condensate during the test.

The measured condensate volume is usually in grams. This needs to be converted

to Gallons and then divided by the time used in that test and finally convert it to GPM.

Multiple data has to be recorded in order to improve accuracy of the test. Once the data

is available, plot the valve opening percentage on the x-axis against the flowrate in GPM

on the y-axis. Ad a linear best fit trend line to the graph in excel and hence, obtain the

line equation. Figure 43 is the result of the test.

77
FIGURE 43. Steam condensate flowrate test [Duplicate of figure 34].

78
 APPENDIX B

PRO II SIMULATION TEST

79
 PRO II is a process design simulation and observation analysis tool. It is widely

used in the chemical process industry. The objective of the test is to determine the

maximum required saturated steam flowrate for the double-pipe heat exchanger. Figure

44 shows the components of the simulation. It consists of 4 streams heat exchanger and a

controller CN1. Figure 45 lists each stream specifications.

FIGURE 44. PRO II simulation test components.

In summary, the simulation were carried out under the following conditions:

3 GPM of water entering the exchanger at 20 oC.

The heat exchanger is required to heat up the water to 50 oC.

Steam quality is 100% entering the heat exchanger at 8 PSIG and 80 oC.

After running the simulation, table 17 results were obtained by the simulator.

80
 FIGURE 45. PRO II streams specifications.

TABLE 17. PRO II Simulation Results

Stream Name S1 S2 S3 S4
Description
Phase Water Water Vapor Water
Total Stream Properties
KG-
Rate MOL/HR 37.785 37.785 2.007 2.007
KG/HR 680.703 680.703 36.165 36.165
Std. Liquid Rate M3/HR 0.681 0.681 0.036 0.036
Total Adj.Liq.Vol.Rate M3/HR 0.672 0.672 0.036 0.036
Total Adj.Vap.Vol. Rate M3/HR 830.908 830.908 44.145 44.145
Temperature K 293.150 323.150 385.775 353.147
Pressure KPA 275.790 275.790 156.483 122.009
Molecular Weight 18.015 18.015 18.015 18.015
Enthalpy M*KJ/HR 0.057 0.143 0.097 0.012
KJ/KG 84.177 209.562 2695.018 334.992
Total Liquid Fraction 1.0000 1.0000 0.0000 1.0000
Reduced Temp. 0.4530 0.4994 0.5961 0.5457
Pres. 0.0125 0.0125 0.0071 0.0055
Acentric Factor 0.3449 0.3449 0.3449 0.3449
Watson K (UOPK) 8.758 8.758 8.758 8.758
Standard Liquid Density KG/M3 999.014 999.014 999.014 999.014

81
 Specific Gravity 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
API Gravity 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000
Total Adj. Liq. Density KG/M3 1012.423 1012.423 1012.423 1012.423
Latent Heat KJ/KG n/a n/a n/a n/a
Vapor Phase Properties
KG-
Rate MOL/HR n/a n/a 2.007 n/a
KG/HR n/a n/a 36.165 n/a
M3/HR n/a n/a 40.301 n/a
Std. Vapor Rate M3/HR n/a n/a 44.995 n/a
Adj.Vap.Vol. Rate M3/HR n/a n/a 44.145 n/a
Specific Gravity
(Air=1.0) n/a n/a 0.622 n/a
Molecular Weight n/a n/a 18.015 n/a
Enthalpy KJ/KG n/a n/a 2695.018 n/a
CP KJ/KG-K n/a n/a 2.134 n/a
Density KG/M3 n/a n/a 0.897 n/a
Adj.Vap.Density KG/M3 n/a n/a 0.819 n/a
Thermal Conductivity W/M-K n/a n/a 0.02575 n/a
Viscosity PAS n/a n/a 0.00001 n/a
Liquid Phase Properties
KG-
Rate MOL/HR 37.785 37.785 n/a 2.007
KG/HR 680.703 680.703 n/a 36.165
M3/HR 0.682 0.689 n/a 0.037
Std. Liquid Rate M3/HR 0.681 0.681 n/a 0.036
Adj.Liq.Vol.Rate M3/HR 0.672 0.672 n/a 0.036
Specific Gravity (H2O @ 60 F) 1.0000 1.0000 n/a 1.0000
Molecular Weight 18.015 18.015 n/a 18.015
Enthalpy KJ/KG 84.177 209.562 n/a 334.992
CP KJ/KG-K 4.184 4.179 n/a 4.195
Density KG/M3 998.292 988.129 n/a 971.820
Adj.Liq.Density KG/M3 1012.423 1012.423 n/a 1012.423
Surface Tension N/M 0.0724 0.0681 n/a 0.0630
Thermal Conductivity W/M-K 0.60365 0.64069 n/a 0.66713
Viscosity PAS 0.00100 0.00054 n/a 0.00035

82
 APPENDIX C

SINGLE LOOP FEEDBACK CONTROL LABVIEW VI FILE

83
84
 APPENDIX D

SINGLE LOOP FEEDBACK CONTROL LABVIEW VI FILE

85
86
REFERENCES

87
 REFERENCES

[1] A. Al Qahtani, Advance control for bench-scale double-pipe heat exchanger, M.S.
thesis, California State University, Long Beach, 2014.

[2] J. Acton, T. Adams, and M. Packer, Origin of Everyday Things. New York: Sterling
Publishing Co. 2006.

[3] S. T. Branson, Heat Exchangers: Types, Design, and Applications. Hauppauge, New
York: Nova Science Publishers, 2011.

[4] G. Walker, Industrial Heat Exchangers: A Basic Guide. New York: Hemisphere Pub.
Corp, 1990.

[5] E. A. D. Saunders, Heat Exchangers: Selection, Design & Construction. Harlow,

England: Longman Scientific & Technical; Willey, 1988.

[6] R. W. Serth, Heat Transfer: Principles and Applications. Amsterdam: Elsevier

Academic Press, 2007.

[7] B. A. Ogunnaike and W. Harmon, Process Dynamics, Modeling, and Control. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

[8] J. G. Balchen and K. I. Mumme, Process Control: Structures and Applications. New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988.

[9] O. Mayr, The Origins of Feedback Control. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1970.

[10] Spirax Sarco, Level and flow control applications, [Online]. Available from:
http://www.spiraxsarco.com/Resources/Pages/Steam-Engineering-
Tutorials/control-applications/level-and-flow-control-applications.aspx

[11] D. E. Seborg, T. F. Edgar, and D. A. Mellichamp, Process Dynamics and Control.

2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2004.

[12] M. King, Process Control: A Practical Approach. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2011.

[13] National Instruments, PID control, Oct, 2012. White Paper. [Online]. Available
from: http://www.ni.com/white-paper/6440/en/#toc1

88
[14] National Instruments, FP-1601 user manual, April, 2003. [Online]. Available
from: http://www.ni.com/pdf/manuals/370707a.pdf

[15] Krohne, OPTIFLUX 1000 technical data sheet, Oct, 2004. [Online]. Available
from: https://www.instrumart.com/assets/OPTIFLUX_1000.pdf

[16] Eurotherm, Control valve data sheet, [Online]. Available from: http://www.
eurotherm.com/products/valves-actuators/v-series/two-way-valve-bodies/

[17] D. R. Patrick and S. W. Fardo, Industrial Process Control Systems. Atlanta, GA:
Fairmont Press, Inc, 2009.

[18] Atkomatic. Cv flow coefficients & valve sizing. [Online]. Available from: http://
fluidprocess.com/Atkomatic/pdf/Sizing.pdf

[19] K. M. Mousa, Dynamic and control of double-pipe heat exchanger, Nahrain

University, College of Engineering Journal (NUCEJ), vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 129-
140, 2010.

89