Response of First and Second Order Systems

Cycle 2 - Experiment 2
Post-Laboratory Report
Seannekate Amilbahar, Julia Adeline Gimenez, Joshua Emmanuel Pagulong

I. INTRODUCTION
Control systems are those used to sustain process conditions at their desired values by
manipulating certain process variables to adjust the variables of interest (Coughanowr &
LeBlanc, 2009).

Figure 1. Generalized process control system.

A common example of control systems is the home hot water heater. The control system
of the hot water heater manipulates the fuel flow to the burner (for a gas heater) or the electrical
input to the heater in the face of disturbances such as the varying demand on the heater early
in the morning to maintain the temperature in the tank at the desired value. Another example
is the home thermostat. This control system uses the fuel flow or electrical input to the furnace
to maintain the temperature in the home at a comfortable value.
We are given two main methods to analyze the way a control system functions. These
two methods are the time domain analysis and the control domain analysis (“Introduction to
First-Order System”, 2014). When using the time domain analysis, the response of a system is
a function of time. This specific method of analysis may be used when the nature of the input
plus the mathematical model of the control system is given.
Engineers also find different ways to minimize the technique of solving equations for
abrupt output and work efficiency. The total response of the system is given by the sum of
forced response and natural response (Electrical4U, 2018).

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑦𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 = 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 + 𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒 (Eq.1)

The forced response is also called the steady state response or particular equation. The
natural response is also called the homogeneous equation.
 A first order system is given when the system’s input-output equation is a first order
differential equation. The order of the differential equation may be known as the highest degree
of derivative found in a specific equation. This type of system has only a single energy storing
element which cannot be attached or connected to an external energy storage element. A system
is also considered as a first order system when it has a dominant first order mode. Majority of
practical models are also known to be first order systems (“Introduction to First-Order System”,
2014).
The dynamics of several systems of that are taken into consideration may be represented
by a simple model that can be approximated by a differential equation written in the form (MIT,
n.d.):
9:
𝜏 + 𝑦(𝑡) = 𝑓(𝑡) (Eq.2)
9;

where system is defined by a single parameter τ (system time constant), y(t) that the
response function (output) and f(t) that is the driving function (input).

Working with the previously mentioned equation to describe first-order systems, the
following customary form of first-order transfer function can be obtained (Coughanowr &
LeBlanc, 2009):
>(?) AB
= (Eq.3)
@(?) C?DE

where Y(s) is the Laplace transform output, X(s) is the Laplace transform input, 𝐾G is
the steady-state gain and τ is the time constant.

When first order systems have a single energy storage element, we have those of two
energy elements which are known to be second order systems. The addition of an energy
storage elements gives an opportunity for greater variation in the different types of responses.
The main difference of these systems is that a second order system can now display oscillations
in time in their natural response (MIT, n.d.).

The equation below is the standard form for second-order systems (MIT, n.d.):
9I> 9>
𝜏H + 2𝜁𝜏 + 𝑌 = 𝑋(𝑡) (Eq.4)
9; I 9;

where τ is the time constant and ζ is the damping coefficient (magnitude of this
parameter determines the nature of the response).

The response of the second order system to a step input in u (t) depends whether the
system is overdamped (ζ > 1), critically damped (ζ = 1) , or underdamped (0 ≤ ζ < 1). (Bringham
Young University, 2017)
II. OBJECTIVES
The goal of the experiment was to study the dynamic response of the 1st and 2nd order
systems in interacting tanks to a step input. Specifically, the experiment aims to:

1. Plot the graph of the response of both systems to reach equilibrium;

2. Compare the actual and theoretical response exhibited by the two order
systems; and
3. Compare the differences between the response of 1st and 2nd order systems.

III. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

This experiment was conducted inside the Analytical Laboratory of School of

Technology under the supervision of the adviser and the lab technician. The equipment used in
the experiment was the hydraulic bench with cylindrical tank provided by the school.
For this experiment, water was used in the observation of the response of the first and
the second order systems. In each system, 2 flow rates were used. Temperature was assumed
constant in the duration of the experiment; thus, no temperature effects affected the results of
the experiment.

IV. MATERIALS & METHODOLOGY

Materials:
Personal Protective Equipment
2 Cylindrical tanks with inlet & outlet control valves
Measuring Tape
Hydraulic Bench with tap water as fluid sample
Stopwatch & Datasheet
1 L Graduated Cylinder
Pipe Couplings

(a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) 1st Order & (b) 2nd Order Interacting System Configuration
Source: (Coughanowr & Leblanc, 2009)
 Methodology

Prior to the experiment, the hydraulic bench was checked for any malfunctions
and the cylindrical tanks were checked to ensure that there were no leaks especially
near the fittings.

Part 1: 1st Order System

To begin the first part of the experiment, the hydraulic bench was filled with sufficient
amount of water enough to fill the 2 cylindrical tanks. One cylindrical tank was then placed on
top of the hydraulic bench following the configuration of the 1st order system illustrated in
Figure 2.a. The measuring tape was then attached vertically inside the cylindrical tank from
base to top. Following this, the hydraulic bench pipe water outflow was connected towards the
inlet pipe of the cylindrical tank. The exit valve of the cylindrical tank was ensured to be
initially closed.

The hydraulic bench was then switched on and set to the desired flow through
adjustment of the control valve and the tank was filled with water. When the tank was almost
full, the valve was opened to a certain extent and the water was allowed to stabilize. At this
junction, the flowrate was measured using a graduated cylinder and a stopwatch. A step change
was applied by increasing the flowrate of the water source. Height of water was then recorded
in 10-second interval interval until the height became stable. The procedure was then repeated
for a 2nd trial.

Part 2: 2nd Order Interacting System

The 2nd cylindrical tank was placed on top of the hydraulic bench in series with the 1st
tank and the outlet of the first tank was connected to the inlet of the 2nd tank using pipe
couplings which followed the configuration illustrated in Figure 2.b. The pipes and fittings
were tightly sealed to ensure and to avoid leakage. The outflow of the 2nd cylindrical tank was
then directed towards the catch basin of the hydraulic bench. The valve was then opened in
between the two tanks and the outlet valve of the 2nd cylindrical tank closed.

The hydraulic bench was then switched on and the control valve adjusted to achieve the
desired flowrate. The tank was filled till it was almost full then, f valve was opened to a certain
extent and the water was allowed to stabilize. At this junction, the flowrate was measured using
a graduated cylinder and a stopwatch. A step change was applied by increasing the flowrate of
the water source. Height of water was then recorded in 10-second interval interval until the
height became stable. The procedure was then repeated for a 2nd trial. At the end of the
experiment the hydraulic bench was turned off and the area used and occupied was cleaned.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For the 1st Order System, initial flowrate of a tank was subjected to a step change of the
inlet flowrate. The response on the change in height of the system was recorded and evaluated
to obtain the step response graph below.
 1st Order System Step Response
18

16

14
Change in height (cm)

12

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
time (s)
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 1 (Theoretical) Trial 2 (Theoretical)

Figure 3. Graph of the change in height of the water with an introduced step change.
From an initial water height inside the cylindrical tank, the change in height of the
system evidently increases upon the introduction of step change on the inlet flowrate of the
tank. Basing from the average result of the two trials, the experimental damping coefficient
for the 1st order system was found to be at 1.0042 wherein it can then be classified as a critically
damped system according to Coughanowr et al. (2009). With the obtained trend in the graph,
trial 1 gave a smother curve than trial 2. In order to confirm these experimental results, the the
obtained time constant value (τ) was manipulated in order to derive the theoretical values of
our response to the introduced step change. According to Coughanowr et al. (2009), the
Laplace transform of the response of liquid level inside the tank when subjected to a step
AB
change on the inlet flowrate is 𝑌(𝑡) = . Where H(s)= Laplace function of the change in
?(C?DE)
the liquid level inside the tank, Kp = steady-state gain, and 𝜏 = as the time constant.
Manipulating this equation, it can be simplified that the formula for a step change in a 1st order
system is given below,
;
𝑌 𝑡 = 𝐴(1 − 𝑒 QC )

Comparing the obtained theoretical values and experimental results, it is consistent with
the expected trend of the graph, only that the experimental values appears to be damper than
the theoretical values.

For the 2nd Order response experiment, the inlet is at the first tank then the outlet of the
first tank in the bottom is connected to the inlet of the second tank at the bottom. With this
setup, an interacting system was demonstrated. Graphing the responses of the two tanks
individually, we can obtain the following graphs:
 25
2nd Order System Step Response (Tank 1)

20
Change in height (cm)

15

10

0
0 50 Trial 1 (Tank 1) 100 150
time (s) Trial 2 (Tank 1) 200 250

Trial 1 (Tank 1 - Theoretical) Trial 2 (Tank 1 - Theoretical)

Figure 4. Graph of the change in height of the water of Tank 1with an introduced step change.

For the first tank, the experimental results are consistent with an increasing slightly
curve trend. With this, the theoretical values were obtained to confirm these experimental
results. According from Coughanowr et al. (2009), the Laplace transform of the response of
AB
liquid level inside a single tank to a step change the inlet flowrate is, 𝑌(𝑡) = I I
.
?(C ? DHRCSDE)
Transformation of the equation into the time domain gives,

18
2nd Order System Step Response (Tank 2)
16
14
Change in height (cm)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 time (s) 150 200 250

Trial 1 (Tank 2) Trial 2 (Tank 2)

Figure 5. Graph of the change in height of the water of Tank 2 with an introduced step change.
Since the experimentally obtained damping coefficient of the 2nd order system was found to be
approximately equal to 1. The equation above can be further simplified to as (Coughanowr et
al. 2009),
𝑡 Q;
𝑌 𝑡 = 𝐾G − 𝐾G + 𝑒 C
𝜏
Graphing the theoretical values, it can be observed that the experimental results yielded
a close and consistent trend with the theoretical data. For the first tank, the graph is a bit curved
but for the second tank was a bit close to a linear increasing trend, this may because of other
variables that could have affected the results of the experiment such as imperfect fabrication of
tanks and non-standard fittings and valves used throughout the experiment. Though the
experimental results are a bit lower than the expected theoretical results, nonetheless, the trend
obeys the theoretical relevance of the response systems.

TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2
3
F (m /s) 0.00024185 0.000202466
h(m) 0.164 0.110
2
R(s/m ) 678.10626 543.3010975
τ(s) 47.92855 38.40052157
Table 1. Solved data such as Flow Resistance, Time Constant, and Damping Coefficient for
the 1st Order System.
TRIAL1 TRIAL 2
Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 1 Tank 2
3
F(m /s) 0.00024875 0.00024875 0.00016227 0.00016227
h(m) 0.15 0.12 0.138 0.121
R 603.015075 482.41206 850.434461 745.6707956
τn 42.6211055 34.0968844 60.1087077 52.7040118
τ 38.12147567 56.28472297
ζ 1.006230525 1.002161098
ζ (Average) 1.0042
Table 2. Solved data such as Flow Resistance, Time Constant, and Damping Coefficient for
the 2nd Order System.

VI. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From the data inferred we can see that for the First Order System, the experimental
damping coefficient was found to be at 1.0042 wherein it can then be classified as a critically
damped system. When we also compare the obtained theoretical values and experimental
results, we can see that the experimental values appear to be damper than the theoretical values.
For the Second Order System, we can observe that the experimental results yielded a close and
consistent trend with the theoretical data. Although the experimental results are lower than the
expected theoretical results the trend shown still obeys and exhibits the theoretical relevance
of the response systems.
 It is recommended that the enough water inside the hydraulic bench so that there is no
disturbance in the inflow and outflow of the system when the experiment has started. Also, it
is advised to attach grid lines or measurements on the tanks to avoid errors in readings and in
the displacement of measuring devices. Lastly, it is recommended to explore different step
reactions aside from the increase of flow rate.

VII. REFERENCES

Bringham Young University. (2017, November 3). Dynamics and Control. Retrieved April
29, 2019, from https://apmonitor.com/pdc/index.php/Main/SecondOrderSystems
Coughanowr, D. R. & LeBlanc, S. E. (2009). Process systems analysis and control. Boston:
McGraw-Hill Higher Education
Electrical4U. (2018, August 09). First Order Control System. Retrieved April 29, 2019, from
https://www.electrical4u.com/first-order-control-system/
Introduction to First-Order Systems. (2014). Retrieved from http://engineering.electrical-
equipment.org/panel-building/introduction-to-first-order-systems.html
MIT. (n.d.). SECOND-ORDER SYSTEMS[Pdf]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
 Appendix A
Sample Calculations

First Order System

To solve for ∆H:
∆𝐻 = ℎ − ℎV
∆𝐻 = 16.4 − 11
∆𝐻 = 5.4𝑐𝑚

Cross-sectional Area of Tank 1 (the same area with Tank 2)

𝐴 = 𝜋𝑟 H
𝐴 = 𝜋(0.15𝑚)H
𝑨 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟕𝟎𝟔𝟖𝟔𝒎𝟐

To solve for Flow Resistance (R):

At steady state, there is no accumulation thus output flow rate is:
ℎ
𝐹=
𝑅
ℎ
𝑅=
𝐹
0.164𝑚
𝑅=
0.00024185𝑚e /𝑠
𝑹 = 𝟔𝟕𝟖. 𝟏𝟎𝟔𝟐𝟔 𝒔/𝒎𝟐
To solve for Time Constant (𝜏):
𝜏 = 𝑅𝐴
𝜏 = 678.10626 0.070686
𝝉 = 𝟒𝟕. 𝟗𝟐𝟖𝟓𝟓 𝒔

To solve for the Output Response:

𝐴 = ℎo − ℎV

𝐴 = 28.5 − 16.4
𝑨 = 𝟏𝟐. 𝟏
 At 𝑡 = 10𝑠
;
𝑌 𝑡 = 𝐴(1 − 𝑒 QC )
Ep
𝑌 𝑡 = (12.1) 1 − 𝑒 Q qr.sHtuu

𝒀 𝒕 = 𝟐. 𝟐𝟕𝟖𝟔𝟐𝟏

Second Order System

To solve for Flow Resistance (R):
ℎE
𝐹E =
𝑅E
ℎE
𝑅E =
𝐹E
0.150𝑚
𝑅E =
0.00028475𝑚e /
𝑹𝟏 = 𝟔𝟎𝟑. 𝟎𝟏𝟓𝟎𝟕𝟓𝟒𝒔/𝒎𝟐
ℎH
𝑅H =
𝐹H
0.120𝑚
𝑅H =
0.00028475𝑚e /𝑠
𝑹𝟐 = 𝟒𝟖𝟐. 𝟒𝟏𝟐𝟎𝟔𝟎𝟑 𝒔/𝒎𝟐

To solve for Time Constant (𝜏):

𝜏E = 𝑅E 𝐴
𝜏E = 603.0150754 0.070686
𝝉𝟏 = 𝟒𝟐. 𝟔𝟐𝟒𝟕𝟐𝟑𝟔𝟐 𝒔
𝜏H = 𝑅H 𝐴
𝜏H = 482.4120603 0.070686
𝝉𝟐 = 𝟑𝟒. 𝟎𝟗𝟗𝟕𝟕𝟖𝟖𝟗 𝒔
𝜏 = 𝜏E 𝜏H

𝜏= 42.62472362 34.09977889
𝝉 = 𝟑𝟖. 𝟏𝟐𝟒𝟕𝟏𝟏𝟖𝟏 𝒔
To solve for Damping Coefficient (𝜉):
 𝜏E + 𝜏H
( )
𝜉= 2
𝜏
42.62472362 + 34.09977889
( )
𝜉= 2
38.12471181

𝝃 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝟎𝟔𝟐𝟑
To solve for the Output Response:
𝐴 = ℎo − ℎV

𝐴 = 36.9 − 16
𝑨 = 𝟐𝟎. 𝟗
At 𝑡 = 10𝑠
𝑡 ;
𝑌 𝑡 = 𝐴( 𝐴 + ∗ 𝑒 QC )
𝜏
10 Ep
𝑌 𝑡 = 20.9( 20.9 + ∗ 𝑒 Qet.EHqr )
38.1247
𝒀 𝒕 = 𝟒. 𝟖𝟓𝟎𝟗

Raw Data
Table A.1 First Order System
Trial 1 Trial 2
3
Flow rate (m /sec) 0.00024185 0.000202466
t (sec) H (cm) H (cm)
0 16.4 11
10 17.4 13.2
20 18.6 15.3
30 20 16.8
40 21.1 18.2
50 22 19.3
60 23 20.7
70 23.8 21.3
80 24.4 22.3
90 25 23
100 25.5 23.4
110 26.1 24
120 26.6 24.5
 130 27 25.1
140 27.3 25.6
150 27.5 26
160 27.7 26.4
170 27.9 26.7
180 28.1 26.9
190 28.3 27.1
200 28.4 27.3
210 28.4 27.4
220 28.5 27.4
230 28.5 27.5
240 28.5 27.5
250 28.5 27.5

Table A.2. Second Order System

Trial 1 Trial 2
3
Flow rate (m /s) 0.24875 0.000249 0.16227 0.000162
t (sec) H1 (cm) H2 (cm) H1 (cm) H2 (cm)
0 15 12 13.8 12.1
10 17.4 12.3 16.6 12.6
20 19 13.2 17 13.4
30 20.3 14.2 18.1 14.3
40 21.5 15.1 19.2 15.3
50 23 16.2 20.3 16.2
60 24 17 21.1 17.1
70 25 18.1 22 17.85
80 26.3 19 23.1 18.7
90 27.1 19.9 24 19.4
100 28.1 20.9 24.6 20.2
110 29 21.6 25.4 21
120 30 22.4 26 21.6
130 30.8 23 26.8 22.3
140 31.6 23.6 27.3 23
150 32.1 24.2 28.2 23.5
160 32.8 24.8 28.8 24.1
170 33.4 25.5 29.4 24.6
180 34.8 26 30.2 25.1
190 35.4 26.6 30.6 25.6
200 36 27.1 31.1 26.1
210 36.5 27.5 31.8 26.5
220 36.8 27.7 32.1 26.7
230 36.9 27.8 32.2 26.7
240 36.9 27.8 32.2 26.8
250 36.9 27.9 32.3 26.8