CENG 471 - Process Control Lab

Spring 2000

FORMAT OF FINAL REPORT

Each student should submit her/his own final report. The report must be written in prose style with complete sentences.

REPORT CONTENTS:

• TITLE PAGE - Contains CENG 471, project title, student's name, date you performed the field test, due date, & date turned in.
  
  
• ABSTRACT - One-paragraph synopsis of design project, including objectives, design approaches, results, and conclusions.
  
  
• INTRODUCTION - One or two paragraphs (no more than a typed age) describing the significance of the design project.
  
  
• METHODS - Describe the design approaches used and the controller test experiments. Include here all information about the experimental system (diagrams, sizes etc.), open-loop test data (PRC), the block diagrams obtained for the two approaches (with numerical values), the flow diagrams of your SIMULINK controllers, the controller test procedures and other pertinent information. Deviations from recommended procedures should be mentioned.
  
  
• RESULTS - Present the controller designs and the experimental results. Most results should be in the form of graphs (for tested controllers) and tables (for untested designs or integral performance criteria values). Be sure to put titles/headings on all graphs & tables.
  
  The minimum requirements for this section are as follows:
  
  • Present all the controller designs from Parts I and II and identify the ones chosen for the field tests. Explain why these designs were chosen.
  • For each tested controller, present a graph comparing the closed-loop response obtained by SIMULINK to the actual response observed during the field test (total of four graphs).
  • For each tested controller, present a graph comparing the changes of the manipulated variable (salt solution flow rate) predicted by SIMULINK to the actual experimental data observed during the field test (total of four graphs).
  • Summarize in a table the performance values predicted by SIMULINK and measured experimentally for the four tested controllers (make sure that the time units are the same!).
  • Present tables giving the other controller designs obtained with the various methods and the corresponding performance values predicted by SIMULINK.
    
    Include any other figures and tables that you feel are important.
    
    
• DISCUSSION - Provide detailed answers to the following questions:
  
  • Which design gave you the best control of the 3 CSTR system?
  • Which controller designs failed (if any) and why?
  • Were the experimental results consistent with SIMULINK predictions?
  • Did PID controllers behave better than PI controllers? Why?
  • Which approach seems better for designing PID controllers?
    
    Also discuss difficulties encountered, sources of error, reliability of the data, comparison with (and deviation from) expected values, etc. Recommendations could be included here.
    
    
• REFERENCES - Texts, Handbooks, Literature citations, etc.
  
  
• APPENDIX A - Derivation of the mathematical model for the 3-CSTR process and algebraic computations for all your controller designs.
  
  
• APPENDIX B - Derivation of the first order plus time delay model for the 3-CSTR process and algebraic computations for all your controller designs.
  
  
• APPENDIX C - Derivation of the pulse test model for the 3-CSTR process and algebraic computations for all your controller designs.
  
  
  

Reminder on Honor Code Policy: "The students may talk to each other, the labbies or the instructor about any assignment in the course that is not specifically designated as pledged. This assistance is limited to the discussion of the problem. Consulting another student's solution (even from a previous class on the same subject) is prohibited, and submitted solutions may not be copied from any source."