Manipal University Jaipur

Department of Biotechnology & Chemical Engineering

CE 3231 – PROCESS DYNAMICS & CONTROL LAB

III YEAR, 6TH SEMESTER, 2024-25

EXPERIMENT #5
EXPERIMENT TITLE – TWO TANKS INTERACTING SYSTEM

INSTRUCTOR:
Instructor Name – Prof. (Dr.) Anees Y. Khan
Made By – Mragank Rastogi (229101003)

Experiment Carried On: - February 13, 2025

Report Submitted On: - February 20, 2025

PRELAB REPORT (10) ______

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (10) ______
OBJECTIVES/INTRODUCTION/SCOPE/PROCEDURE (30) ______
RESULTS & DISCUSSION (30) ______
CONCLUSIONS (5) ______
REFERENCES (5) ______
APPENDIX
a) Original data, sample calculations, other information (5) ______
GENERAL COMPLETENESS
a) Conciseness and neatness (5) ______
TOTAL (100) ______
 Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY …………………………………………………… 3

1. OBJECTIVE ………………………………………………………………... 4
2. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………….. 4
3. THEORY AND EXPERIMENTAL SETUP ……………………………... 4
4. DISCUSSION ……………………………………………………………… 8
5. PRECAUTION ……………………………………………………………. 12
6. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………. 12
7. REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………. 13
APPENDIX AND RESULT …………………………………………………. 13
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report analyzes the two-tank interacting system subjected to step and impulse changes to
study its dynamic response and determine key parameters such as time constant (τ) and damping
factor (ζ). The experimental setup consists of two interconnected tanks, where the outflow from
Tank 3 directly influences Tank 2, making the system interacting rather than independent. The
experiment was performed under controlled conditions, monitoring water level variations over
time.
For a step change, the system exhibited first-order responses in individual tanks, while the
overall system behaved as a second-order system. The experimental time constant (τ₁) for Tank
3 was found to be 208 seconds, whereas theoretical calculations estimated it at 87.073 seconds.
The discrepancy was minimized using Error Analysis, refining the adjusted τ₁ to 196.73
seconds. Similarly, Tank 2 had a time constant τ₂ = 62.514 seconds, leading to an overall system
time constant τ = 110.899 seconds.
For an impulse change, the system's response showed a rapid rise followed by a gradual decay,
characteristic of first-order behavior in individual tanks and second-order dynamics overall. Tank
3 responded instantly, while Tank 2 exhibited a delayed response, confirming the interacting
nature of the system.
Despite minor experimental errors such as sensor inaccuracies and flow inconsistencies, the
experimental results closely matched theoretical predictions. The transfer function derived
mathematically validated the system’s classification as a second-order system, with a damping
factor (ζ) of 1.452
1. OBJECTIVE
To study the dynamic response of two tank interacting system subjected to a step and impulse
change.

2. INTRODUCTION
The objective of this experiment is to gain a deeper understanding of how a two-tank interacting
system responds to step and impulse changes. In this system, multiple first-order processes are
arranged in series, where the outlet flow from the first tank directly enters the second tank
without discharging into the atmosphere.
In an interacting configuration, the flow through resistance R1 depends on both the liquid level
in the first tank (h1) and the liquid level in the second tank (h2). This means that any fluctuation
in Tank 2 affects the transient response of Tank 1, making the tanks interdependent.
By analyzing the system’s response to variations in inlet flow (step change) and sudden
disturbances (impulse change), valuable insights can be gained into system dynamics, process
control strategies, and key parameters such as time constant and system resistance.
Assumptions:
1. The liquid density remains constant throughout the experiment.
2. The tanks have a uniform cross-sectional area for consistent flow behavior.
3. The flow resistance is linear, ensuring predictable pressure-flow relationships.

3. THEORY AND EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

FIG 1: - TWO TANK INTERACTING SYSTEM

Balance on Tank 1 gives;
d h1
q−q 1= A1 ….. ….. (1)
dt
Balance on Tank 2 gives;
d h2
q−q 2= A2 ….. ….. (2)
dt
Now, the flow-head relationships for the two linear resistances are given by the expression
h1−h2
q 1= ….. ….. (3)
R1
h2
q 2= ….. ….. (4)
R2

Where, R1 = R3 (Linear resistance offered by tank 3), R2 = linear resistance offered by tank 2.
Now, at steady state Eqn. 1 and 2 are given as:
q s−q1 s=0 ….. ….. (5)
q 1 s−q 2 s=0 ….. ….. (6)
On subtracting Eqn. (5) from Eqn. (1) and Eqn. (6) from Eqn. (2); and introducing deviation
variables we get;
d H1
Q−Q 1=¿ A1 ….. ….. (7)
dt
d H2
Q1−Q2=¿ A2 ….. ….. (8)
dt
H 2 (s)
Finally, we obtain the overall Transfer function for :
Q(s)

H (s ) R2
=
Q(s ) τ 1 τ 2 s + ( τ 1 + τ 2+ A 1 R2 ) s+1
2

Now, for a step change of magnitude A,

Q ( t ) =A∗u ( t ) ….. ….. (9)
Therefore, the overall transfer function for a step change from equation (9) becomes:
A∗R2
H ( s )= 2 ….. ….. (10)
s (τ 1 τ 2 s + ( τ 1+ τ 2+ A 1 R 2) s+1)
Taking Inverse Laplace Transform of equation 10:

( √ 1−ζ 2 tτ + tan−1 √1−ζ )

−ζt 2
1
H ( t ) =1− eτ
sin ζ <1
√1−ζ 2 ζ
−t
t
( )
H ( t ) =1− 1+ e τ ζ=1
τ

( )
−ζt
t ζ t
H ( t ) =1−e τ
cosh √ ζ 2−1 + 2 sinh √ ζ 2 −1 ζ > 1
τ √ ζ −1 τ

Now,
For an impulse change of magnitude V (volume added to the system):
Q ( t ) =V∗δ(t ) ….. ….. (11)
Similarly, the overall transfer function for an impulse change is given as:
V ∗R2
H ( s )= 2 ….. ….. (12)
(τ 1 τ 2 s + ( τ 1+ τ 2 + A 1 R 2 ) s+ 1)

Taking Inverse Laplace Transform of equation 12:

−ζt
1 1 t
H (t)= e τ
sin √ 1−ζ 2 ζ <1
τ √ 1−ζ 2 τ
−ζt
1 τ
H (t)= te ζ =1
τ2
−ζt
1 1 t
H (t)= e τ
sinh √ ζ 2−1 ζ >1
τ √ ζ 2−1 τ

We know; Two Tank Interacting System is second order system;

Y (s) kp
∴ = 2 2 ….. ….. (13)
X ( s) τ s +2 ζτs+ 1

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP: -
This setup is designed to analyze liquid flow dynamics between tanks and how the system
responds to input changes. It comprises three tanks, valves, a pump, and a rotameter for flow
measurement. Tank 3 stores the liquid and releases it through valve R3, allowing it to flow into
Tank 2. Since the liquid is directly discharged to Tank 2, the liquid level in Tank 2 influences the
flow from Tank 3, classifying it as a interacting system. The liquid in Tank 2 is then drained
through valve R2. A pump recirculates the liquid back into Tank 3, ensuring a continuous flow
cycle. The rotameter is used to monitor the flow rate throughout the system.

FIG 2: - PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR TWO TANK INTERACTING SYSTEM

Procedure: -
Starting: -
1. Switch on the main power supply.
2. Ensure all pipe fittings and connections between Tank 3, Tank 2 and the rotameter are secure.
3. Adjust the outlet valves: partially close R3, fully open R2, and keep R1 completely closed.
4. Start the pump and set the desired flow rate.
5. Allow the liquid level in Tank 1 and Tank 2 to stabilize at a steady state.

For a Step Change: -

1. Once the system reaches a steady state, introduce a step change by increasing the inlet flow
rate to the tank.
2. Record the water level of both tanks at fixed time intervals until the new steady state is
achieved.
3. After stabilization, note the final water level in the tank.
4. Repeat the experiment for another set of readings.

For an Impulse Change: -

1. After reaching steady state, introduce an impulse change by adding 200 mL of water directly
into the tank 3.
2. Immediately record the water level.
3. Continue recording the water level of both tanks at fixed time intervals until the system
stabilizes again.
4. Note the final water level once the steady state is reached.
5. Repeat the process for another set of readings.

Closing: -
1. After completing all measurements, turn off the pump and main power supply.
2. Drain the tanks and clean the apparatus thoroughly.

4. DISCUSSION

For Step Change (Step Up): -

Ti me vs De vi ati on
Theoretical Data Tank 3 Experimental Data
45
40
35
Deviation H1 (mm)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (sec)

FIG 3: - STEP CHANGE RESPONSE CURVE OF H (DEVIATION) VS TIME OF TANK 3

When the water flow rate was increased from 20 LPH to 31 LPH, the water level in the tank
began to rise. Initially, the increase was rapid, but over time, the rate of change slowed down
until the water level stabilized at approximately 115 mm. This behavior aligns with the
characteristics of a first-order system, where changes occur quickly at the beginning and then
gradually settle into a steady state. From Figure 3, at t = τ, we determine τ = 208 seconds.
Observing the data, it took around 600–700 seconds for the system to fully stabilize. This closely
aligns with the theoretical model, confirming that the system responds in a predictable manner to
sudden changes in inflow.
Comparing with theoretical data for tank 3, reveals that both exhibit a first-order system
response, characterized by a rapid initial increase followed by gradual stabilization within 600–
700 seconds. The theoretical curve is smooth, with a time constant (τ) of 87.073 seconds, which
is very different from the experimental value of (τ), i.e., 208 seconds. Therefore, using value of
τ ∧ζ , we minimize the RMSE in Error Analysis and get the value of time constant (τ) of
196.7347 seconds.
While the experimental data shows slight deviations due to noise, disturbances, or sensor
inaccuracies, resulting in a time constant of 208 seconds. Despite these minor differences, the
overall response patterns closely match, confirming the validity of the model in accurately
predicting the system’s behavior under a step change.

Time vs Deviati on
Tank 2 Experimental Data
30

25
Deviation H2 (mm)

20

15

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (sec)

FIG 4: - STEP CHANGE RESPONSE CURVE OF H (DEVIATION) VS TIME OF TANK 2

The "Time vs. Deviation" graph for Tank 2 presents the experimental response of the system to a
step change in flow rate. The deviation in water level (H₂) follows a typical first-order system
behavior, initially rising sharply before gradually stabilizing over time. The trend indicates that
Tank 2 responds more slowly than Tank 3 due to the cascading effect, where the outflow from
Tank 3 acts as the inflow for Tank 2.
From the graph, the deviation in H₂ reaches approximately 25–30 mm at steady state, with
noticeable leveling off after 600–700 seconds. The time constant (τ₂) is 62.514 seconds and
Tank 2 takes longer time to reach its steady-state condition. This is due to the inherent delay
introduced by the sequential process, where Tank 2 receives a regulated inflow rather than a
direct step input.
Compared to Tank 3, the response curve of Tank 2 is smoother, with fewer fluctuations,
suggesting a dampening effect as the system progresses through multiple stages. The
experimental data aligns with the expected behavior of a series first-order system, where each
subsequent stage exhibits a slower response than the previous one. Minor deviations in data
points could be due to external disturbances, flow inconsistencies, or sensor variations.
Overall, the results confirm that Tank 2 behaves as a dependent first-order system, responding
predictably but with a delayed and smoother transition compared to Tank 3. But, combined Tank
2 and Tank 3 acts as a second order system.
After, performing the calculations for both Tank 3 and Tank 2 we get the value of τ , i.e. 196.735
for Tank 3 and 62.514 for Tank 2, which gives us a RMSE of 14.982. With the help of these
values of τ , we are able to calculate the overall value of τ for the complete system to be 110.899
sec. Then, using the transfer function eqn. we get ζ nearly about 1.452.

For Impulse Change: -

Ti me vs De vi ati on
30

25
Deviation H1 (mm)

20

15

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (sec)

FIG 5: - IMPULSE CHANGE RESPONSE CURVE OF H (DEVIATION) VS TIME OF TANK 3

For the impulse test, we added 200 mL of water to the tank all at once. This caused a sudden rise
in water level to 127 mm. After that, the level started to slowly decrease as the extra water
drained out. The decrease was fast at first and then slowed down over time, following the
expected pattern of a first-order system.

By looking at the figure 5, the water level returned to its original state, we can estimate how the
system naturally stabilizes. The results showed that the system does not oscillate or overshoot,
meaning it behaves smoothly without sudden jumps.
 Ti me vs De vi ati on
10
9
8
7
Deviation H2 (mm)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (sec)

FIG 6: - IMPULSE CHANGE RESPONSE CURVE OF H (DEVIATION) VS TIME OF TANK 2

The graph illustrates the response of Tank 2 to an impulse change applied to Tank 3. Since Tank
2 receives inflow from Tank 3, there is an initial delay before its water level begins to rise. The
water level in Tank 2 starts at 70 mm, reaching a peak of approximately 9 mm before gradually
declining. This behavior is consistent with the delayed response expected in a cascading system,
where changes in Tank 3 influence Tank 2 with a time lag.
The decline in water level follows a similar trend to Tank 3 but occurs at a slower rate, as the
liquid transfer between tanks introduces a delay in the system’s dynamics. Over time, the water
level in Tank 2 stabilizes at 112.1 mm, indicating that the system has returned to equilibrium.
This confirms that the tanks are interacting, meaning that while changes in Tank 3 impact Tank
2, once steady-state conditions are achieved, neither tank significantly influences the other.
Both tanks exhibit a rapid initial increase followed by a gradual decrease, a characteristic
response of a first-order system, but together as a second order system subjected to an impulse
input. Since Tank 3 experiences the impulse directly, its peak occurs earlier than that of Tank 2.
This sequential response further supports the nature of liquid transfer in a interacting system,
where Tank 2’s behavior depends on the overflow from Tank 3, leading to a delayed peak and
extended settling time.

Possible Errors: -

Error that may have influenced the results include:

 Measurement inaccuracies: Manually recording water levels could introduce minor
errors.
 Flow inconsistencies: The pump may not always deliver a perfectly consistent flow rate.
  Environmental factors: External influences such as slight vibrations or temperature
fluctuations may have had a small impact on the results.

5. PRECAUTION
1. Ensure Proper Equipment Setup – Before starting the experiment, check that all pipes,
valves, and connections are securely fastened to prevent any leaks.
2. Maintain a Steady Flow Rate – Carefully adjust the rotameter to establish a stable inlet
flow before applying step or impulse changes.
3. Remove Air Bubbles – Ensure the system is completely free from air bubbles, as their
presence can affect measurement accuracy.
4. Record Data Accurately – Take precise water level readings at the designated time
intervals to maintain measurement reliability.
5. Prevent Overflow – Monitor water levels to keep them within the tank’s capacity,
avoiding spillage and ensuring consistent results.

6. CONCLUSION
The experiment on the two-tank interacting system demonstrated a clear second-order response,
with each tank individually exhibiting first-order behavior. The system's reaction to both step
and impulse inputs revealed key dynamic characteristics, such as a delayed response in Tank 2
due to its dependence on Tank 3.
The step response confirmed a rapid initial rise followed by gradual stabilization, while the
impulse response showed a sharp peak followed by a smooth decline, indicating the cascading
effect of liquid transfer. The derived time constants (τ 1 = 196.73 sec, τ2 = 62.51 sec) and overall
system time constant (τ = 110.899 sec) closely matched theoretical predictions, validating the
experimental model. Minor deviations were observed due to sensor inaccuracies and flow
fluctuations, but the overall response confirmed the expected second-order system dynamics.
These findings highlight the importance of understanding interacting system behavior for
practical applications in process control and industrial fluid management.
7. REFERENCES

1. Coughanowr, D. R., & LeBlanc, S. (2017). Process Systems Analysis and Control (3rd ed.).
McGraw-Hill.

2. Seborg, D. E., Edgar, T. F., & Mellichamp, D. A. (2016). Process Dynamics and Control
(4th ed.). Wiley.

3. Lab Manual, Process Dynamics & Control Lab.

Process Control Lab CHC211_16thMay.pdf

APPENDIX AND RESULT

For Step Change: -

Initial Flow Rate = 20 LPH

Final Flow Rate = 31 LPH

TABLE 1: STEP UP (FOR TANK 3)

S.No. Time (sec) h (mm) H (mm)
1 0 76 0
2 20 79 3
3 40 83 7
4 60 86 10
5 80 88 12
6 100 91 15
7 120 93 17
8 140 94.7 18.7
9 160 97 21
10 180 98.9 22.9
11 200 100 24
12 220 101.5 25.5
13 240 103 27
14 260 104 28
15 280 105 29
16 300 106 30
17 320 107 31
18 340 108 32
19 360 109 33
20 380 110 34
 21 400 110.5 34.5
22 420 111 35
23 440 111.5 35.5
24 460 112 36
25 480 112.2 36.2
26 500 112.6 36.6
27 520 113.2 37.2
28 540 113.8 37.8
29 560 114.3 38.3
30 580 114.7 38.7
31 600 115 39
32 620 115 39
33 640 115 39
34 660 115 39
35 680 115 39
36 700 115 39

TABLE 2: STEP UP (FOR TANK 2)

S.No. Time (sec) h (mm) H (mm)
1 0 46 0
2 20 46.7 0.7
3 40 48 2
4 60 50 4
5 80 51.7 5.7
6 100 53.8 7.8
7 120 55 9
8 140 56.5 10.5
9 160 58 12
10 180 59 13
11 200 60.4 14.4
12 220 62 16
13 240 63 17
14 260 64 18
15 280 65.4 19.4
16 300 66 20
17 320 66.8 20.8
18 340 67.5 21.5
19 360 68.2 22.2
20 380 68.5 22.5
21 400 69.6 23.6
22 420 70 24
23 440 70 24
24 460 70.2 24.2
25 480 71 25
 26 500 71.7 25.7
27 520 72 26
28 540 72.3 26.3
29 560 72.6 26.6
30 580 73 27
31 600 73.1 27.1
32 620 73.7 27.7
33 640 74 28
34 660 74 28
35 680 74 28
36 700 74 28
37 720 74 28

For Impulse Change: -

Volume of water added = 200 mL

TABLE 3: FOR IMPLUSE (FOR TANK 3)

S.No. Time (sec) h (mm) H (mm)
1 0 108 0
2 10 132 24
3 20 130 22
4 30 128 20
5 40 127 19
6 50 126 18
7 60 125 17
8 70 124 16
9 80 123 15
10 90 122 14
11 100 121.5 13.5
12 110 121 13
13 120 120.7 12.7
14 130 120.3 12.3
15 140 120 12
16 150 119.8 11.8
17 160 119.5 11.5
18 170 119 11
19 180 118.7 10.7
20 190 118.3 10.3
21 200 117.9 9.9
22 210 117.7 9.7
23 220 117.4 9.4
24 230 117 9
25 240 116.7 8.7
 26 250 116.2 8.2
27 260 116 8
28 270 115.8 7.8
29 280 115.4 7.4
30 290 115 7
31 300 114.6 6.6
32 310 114.3 6.3
33 320 114 6
34 330 114 6
35 340 113.7 5.7
36 350 113.5 5.5
37 360 113.2 5.2
38 370 113 5
39 380 112.8 4.8
40 390 112.4 4.4
41 400 112.1 4.1
42 410 112.1 4.1
43 420 112.1 4.1
44 430 112.1 4.1
45 440 112.1 4.1

TABLE 4: FOR IMPLUSE (FOR TANK 2)

S.No. Time (sec) h (mm) H (mm)
1 0 70 0
2 10 72.8 2.8
3 20 74 4
4 30 76 6
5 40 78 8
6 50 78.4 8.4
7 60 78.7 8.7
8 70 79 9
9 80 79.2 9.2
10 90 79.4 9.4
11 100 79.5 9.5
12 110 79.3 9.3
13 120 79.2 9.2
14 130 79 9
15 140 78.8 8.8
16 150 78.5 8.5
17 160 78.4 8.4
18 170 78.2 8.2
19 180 78 8
20 190 77.9 7.9
21 200 77.8 7.8
22 210 77.6 7.6
23 220 77.4 7.4
24 230 77.3 7.3
25 240 77.1 7.1
26 250 77 7
27 260 76.8 6.8
28 270 76.7 6.7
29 280 76.7 6.7
30 290 76.6 6.6
31 300 76.4 6.4
32 310 76.3 6.3
33 320 76.1 6.1
34 330 76 6
35 340 75.9 5.9
36 350 75.8 5.8
37 360 75.7 5.7
38 370 75.5 5.5
39 380 75.4 5.4
40 390 75.3 5.3
41 400 75.1 5.1
42 410 74.9 4.9
43 420 74.8 4.8
44 430 74.6 4.6
45 440 74.5 4.5
46 450 74.3 4.3
47 460 74.2 4.2
48 470 74.1 4.1
49 480 74 4
50 490 73.8 3.8
51 500 73.7 3.7
52 510 73.6 3.6
53 520 73.4 3.4
54 530 73.2 3.2
55 540 73.1 3.1
56 550 73 3
57 560 72.8 2.8
58 570 72.6 2.6
59 580 72.5 2.5
60 590 72.4 2.4
61 600 72.3 2.3
62 610 72.1 2.1
63 620 71.9 1.9
64 630 71.7 1.7
65 640 71.6 1.6
66 650 71.5 1.5
 67 660 71.3 1.3
68 670 71.1 1.1
69 680 71 1

SAMPLE CALCULATION: - (FOR STEP CHANGE)

Initial Height of Tank 1 = 76mm

Final Height of Tank 1 = 115mm

Value of 63.2% of step (t = τ ¿ = 0.632 * (115 – 76) = 24.648

At 24.648, from the graph we got the value of τ =208 sec

From experimental data: - (Tank 3)

Area of Tank 1 = 68.22 cm2=6822 mm 2

H = 115 – 76 = 39 mm

Q = 31 – 20 = 11 LPH = 3055.56 mm3 /sec

H 39 mm 2
R= = =0.0127 sec /mm
Q 3055.56 mm3 / sec

τ =A∗R=¿ 6822 * 0.0127 = 87.073 sec

∴ τ 1=87.073 sec

The theoretical value of τ is very small from experimental value, because of which we calculate
the theoretical value by minimizing the RMSE, i.e., by changing the value of τ = 196.7347 secs

∴ τ 1=196.7347 sec

From experimental data: - (Tank 2)

Area of Tank 1 = 68.22 cm2=6822 mm 2

H = 74 – 46 = 28mm

Q = 31 – 20 = 11 LPH = 3055.56 mm3 /sec

H 28 mm 2
R= = =0.0092 sec/mm
Q 3055.56 mm / sec
3
τ =A∗R=¿ 6822 * 0.0092 = 62.514 sec

∴ τ 2=62.514 sec

For calculating (ζ );

R2 0.0092
=
2
τ 1 τ 2 s + ( τ 1 +τ 2 + A1 R2 ) s +1 ( 196.7347 )( 62.514 ) s + ( 196.7347+62.514+ ( 6822∗0.0092 ) ) s+1
2

….. ….. (14)

On, comparing Eqn. (13) and (14);

We get;
2
τ =196.7347∗62.514=12298.673
∴ τ =110.899sec
2 ζτ =196.7347+62.514 +62.514=322.011
∴ ζ =1.452