IMC Based Robust PID Controller Tuning for Disturbance Rejection

Mohammad Shamsuzzoha
Department of Chemical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals,
Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

Abstract: It is well-known that the IMC-PID controller tuning gives fast and improved
setpoint response but slow disturbance rejection. A modification has been proposed in
IMC-PID tuning rule for the improved disturbance rejection. For the modified IMC-PID
tuning rule, a method has been developed to obtain the IMC-PID setting in closed-loop
mode without acquiring detailed information of the process. The proposed method is
based on the closed-loop step setpoint experiment using a proportional only controller
with gain Kc0. It is the direct approach to find the PID controller setting similar to
classical Ziegler-Nichols closed-loop method. Based on simulations of a wide range of
first-order with delay processes, a simple correlation has been derived to obtain the
modified IMC-PID controller settings from closed-loop experiment. In this method,
controller gain is a function of the overshoot obtained in the closed loop setpoint
experiment. The integral and derivative time is mainly a function of the time to reach the
first peak (overshoot). Simulation study has been conducted for the broad class of
processes and the controllers were tuned to have the same degree of robustness by
measuring the maximum sensitivity, Ms, in order to obtain a reasonable comparison. The
PID controller settings obtained in the proposed tuning method show better performance
and robustness with other two-step tuning methods for the broad class of processes. It
has been also applied to temperature control loop in distillation column model. The
result has been compared to the open loop tuning method where it gives robust and fast
response.
Keywords: PI/PID controller, step test, closed-loop response, IMC-PID, overshoot

Corresponding author. Tel.:+ 966-13-860-7360; E-mail address: mshams@kfupm.edu.sa, smzoha@gmail.com

1. Introduction
The proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers are the most widely accepted in
industrial applications at the regulatory level. The main reason for this is their
comparatively simple structure, which can be readily understood and which allows them
to be easily implemented in the real world. However, it has been noticed that many
PI/PID controllers are not properly tuned and a lot of effort has been made to
systematically resolve this problem. Therefore, the goal of this research is to develop a
direct approach method of controller tuning from closed loop setpoint data.
There are varieties of PI/PID controller tuning approaches presented in the open
literature and out of that two are extensively used for controller tuning, based either on
open-loop or closed-loop plant tests; the majority of them being of the former type,
employing the process gain (k), time constant () and time delay (). The PID controller
design for the different types of processes based on direct synthesis [1] and Internal
model control (IMC) are among such popular tuning methods [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The output
response based on both the approaches has satisfactory performance and robustness.
Recently, Vu and Lee [7], Rao and Chidambaram [8] and Shamsuzzoha et al. [9] have
developed analytical methods for the design of a PID controller cascaded with a secondorder lead-lag filter for various types of time-delay processes for enhanced disturbance
rejection.
Although the PI/PID tuning rule on the basis of IMC and direct synthesis methods gives
excellent performance for setpoint changes, it shows slow output responses to input
(load) disturbances for lag-dominant as well as integrating processes [5, 10, 3].
Skogestad [5] has modified the integral time in SIMC method which is an excellent
remedy for processes with a large time constant to improve load disturbance rejection.
The above two-step approach is based on the open-loop test. It requires first to obtain
process parameters and then calculate PI/PID tuning setting with any other existing
tuning methods. There are two problems associated with this approach. First, to find out
the process model with an open-loop experiment, usually a step test is desirable to get
the process parameters. Sometimes it could be very tedious and may also disturb the
process. The second problem associated with this is the approximation error in getting
the parameters (for example, k, and ) from the open loop step test data.

It is important to mention at this point that sometimes it is not easy to conduct openloop test for the process model identification. There are always chances of the control
variable drifting away from the specified value and eventually leading to products
qualities off-specification. On the other hand, in the closed-loop test, it is easy to control
the process during experiment and thus reduce the effect of disturbances.

The alternative of the open-loop approach is a two-step tuning procedure based on

closed-loop setpoint experiment with a P-controller. It was originally proposed by
Yuwana and Seborg [11], the method is applicable to most of the open-loop stable
systems with dead time. Subsequently, the above method was modified by Jutan and
Rodriguez [12], Lee [13], and Chen [14]. They identified a first-order with delay model
by matching the closed-loop setpoint response with a standard oscillating second-order
step response. Later, for the controller parameters calculation, they mainly utilized the
Ziegler-Nichols [15] tuning rules, which could give tight controller setting but other
tuning rules e.g., IMC-PID by Shamsuzzoha and Lee [3] could also be used. Lee et al.
[16] further reinvestigated the Yuwana and Seborg [11] method by identifying the
processes with a second-order plus dead-time model under closed-loop conditions. They
utilized the Taylor series expansion of the dead-time term with the combination of the
ultimate data matching technique of Chen [14] for second-order plus dead-time model.
However, the resulting Lee et al. [16] method gives relatively better performance and
robustness over the other closed-loop methods [11, 12, 13, 14], albeit at the expense of
increased degree of complexity and computation.
In most of the above mentioned tuning methods based on the closed-loop two-step
technique, at least five measurable quantities were required in the identification test to
obtain the process model. For example, the methods by Yuwana and Seborg [11], Lee
[13], Chen [14] and Lee et al. [16] need to identify first peak of the output response
(cp1), second peak of the output response (cp2), first minimum of the output response
(cm1), half-period of oscillation (t) and the steady-state value (c).
There are few problems associated with the above closed-loop experiment. (i) The
required number of measurable quantities are high i.e., at least five. (ii) For the low
value of overshoot, it is difficult to find the accurate value of the first minimum of the
output response (cm1) and second peak of the output response (cp2) from the step test
experiment. (iii) To obtain the precise value of cm1 and cp2, one has to generate the
3

output response of large overshoot with considerable oscillation. Furthermore, there are
several problems associated with the large overshoots. It gives a long settling time and
needs large input changes that are undesirable in chemical process industries.
The other alternative approach to both the above mentioned two step procedures is to
use the one step closed-loop experiments, that directly obtain controller setting without
finding process parameters. A very popular and old method is that of Ziegler-Nichols
(Z-N) [15]. It needs only the ultimate controller gain (Ku) and the period of oscillations
(Pu), which one can obtain directly from an experiment. For a PI-controller the
recommended settings are Kc=0.45, Ku and I=0.83Pu. Ziegler-Nichols [15] closed-loop
tuning method is still very widely used for controller tuning in industrial processes.
However, there are several disadvantages of this method.
The most significant is that in the Z-N method we actually push the process to the limit
of instability as we search for the Ku. Creeping up on the ultimate gain can be very time
consuming, but if we try to save time by making large adjustments in the search for the
Ku, it is very likely that the process will actually become unstable, at least for a brief
period.
The remedy for the above problem is to introduce the relay method of strm and
Hgglund, [17] which requires the feature of switching on/off-control in the system.
One more drawback is that the Z-N [15] tuning setting does not work satisfactorily on
all processes. The prescribed controller settings are somewhat aggressive for lagdominant (integrating) processes (Tyreus and Luyben, [18]) and sluggish for dead time
dominant process (Skogestad, [5]). The third disadvantage, of the Ziegler-Nichols [15]
method is that it is not applicable to a simple second-order process.
Haugen [19] has developed the Good Gain Method which is entirely on the basis of the
trial and error approach to find the suitable controller gain and finally the tuning
parameters. Hu and Xiao [20] have developed an analytical PI tuning method which is
similar to the setpoint overshoot method [10]. Skogestad and Grimholt [21, 22] have
claimed that it is hard to obtain a better performance than SIMC, at least for PI control
based on a first order with time delay model. Seki and Shigemasa [23] have proposed
the method to retune the existing controller based on comparing the closed-loop
responses. Veronesi and Visioli [24] have also claimed for retuning of an existing PI
controller for better performance and robustness.

Recently, Alcantara et al. [25] have addressed the model-based tuning of PI/PID
controller based on the robustness/performance and servo/regulator trade-offs. The
interesting feature of the study has been to show how to shift each compromise based
upon constraint. They have extended the preliminary design concept of balanced
autotuning which was published earlier [26]. K-SIMC method, a modification of SIMC
rule has been proposed recently by Lee et al. [27]. Torrico et al [28] proposed a new and
simple design for the filtered Smith predictor (FSP), which belongs to a class of deadtime compensators (DTCs) and allows the handling of stable, unstable, and integrating
processes. Recently, several authors [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36] have proposed the
modified approach for the enhanced PID controller design based on the open loop
method.
In view of the above discussion about the different types of controller tuning approaches,
it is clear that there is a need for a simple and effective controller tuning method in
closed-loop.
Therefore, the goal of the proposed study is to find a simple and direct controller tuning
technique in closed-loop for the broad class of the processes. No detailed prior
information of the plant process parameters (k, and ) is required to get the modified
IMC-PID controller [4] settings from the closed-loop setpoint experiment. It removes
the shortcomings of the Ziegler-Nichols continuous cycling method and can be an able
substitute for the same. Although the original IMC-PID controller tuning method is
applicable only for the low order processes, the proposed closed loop method is used
even in high order processes without any modification.
To achieve the above mentioned goal the outline of remaining part of this paper is
organized as follows: Section 2 is focused on the modification of the existing IMC-PID
tuning method for the improved disturbance rejection for lag dominant process. In
section 3, the development of the closed-loop setpoint experiment with P-controller for
key information namely overshoot, time tp to reach the (first) overshoot and steady state
value is discussed. Section 4 is dedicated to the development of the correlation between
setpoint response data with modified IMC-PID settings. In section 5, the guidelines for
the selection of P-controller gain (Kc0) are enunciated. Section 6, discusses a simulation
study for the broad class of processes and finally in section 7, the conclusion of the
present study is there.

2. Modified IMC-PID Controller Tuning Rule

2.1. IMC-PID controller design for first-order with dead time process
The motivation of this section is to review IMC-PID controller tuning proposed by
Rivera et al. [4] for first order process with time delay. In next section, this tuning
method has been utilized as a basis for the development of the proposed closed-loop
method. The first-order time delay process is commonly used as a representation of the
process dynamics for several equipment in chemical industries as:
g ( s)

ke- s
s 1

(1)

where k, and are the process gain, time constant and time delay, respectively. It is
important to note that the PID controller gives reasonable response in the chemical
industries and the same is given as:

1
1
c s Kc 1
D s

I s
F s 1

(2)

Kc, I, D and F are the proportional gain, integral time constant, derivative time
constant and lag filter of the PID controller, respectively. The other form of the PID
structure (e.g., series form) can be easily transformed from the ideal form in Eq. (2) by
using a simple calculation [1].

Figure 1 (a) and (b) show the block diagram of the IMC control and equivalent classical
feedback control structures, respectively. In this block diagram, g(s) is the process, g s
process model, q(s) IMC controller and c(s) the classical feedback controller. The
remaining variables are the manipulated variable u, process output variable y, the
setpoint ys, and the input disturbance d at the plant. The relationships in closed-loop
from the setpoint and load disturbance to the output are:

d
ys

q(s)

g(s)

g(s)

-+

(a) The IMC structure

d
ys +

C(s)

g(s)

(b) Feedback control structure

Figure 1. Block diagram of the IMC and classical feedback control systems.

y=

cs g s

1+c s g s

ys +

g s

1+c s g s

(3)

The conventional feedback controller which is equivalent to the IMC controller can be
expressed by the following relationship.
c s

q s

(4)

1 g s q s

where g s indicates the process model transfer function, c(s) is conventional and q(s)
is the IMC controller. The standard IMC controller design is divided into two steps as:
Step I: The process model g is decomposed into two parts:

g s pM s pA s

(5)

where pM(s) and pA(s) are the portions of the model inverted and not inverted,
respectively, by the controller, pA(s) is typically a non-minimum phase which includes
time delay and right half plane zeros); where pA(0)=1.
Step II: The typical IMC controller is given by

q s pM -1 s f s

(6)

r
where f(s) is the IMC filter and given as f s 1 ( c s 1) , c is closed loop time constant

which controls the tradeoff between the performance and robustness. The parameter r is
chosen to be a sufficiently big value to form the IMC controller semi-proper. Consider a
first order process with time delay, the IMC controller is given as:
q s

s 1
k c s 1

(7)

Therefore, the feedback controller c(s) which is equivalent to the IMC controller is
c s

s 1
k c s 1 e s

(8)

Consider approximation of the time delay expression in Eq. (8) using first-order Pade
approximation i.e., e- s 1- s 2 1 s 2 . The resulting controller can be easily
obtained by simple calculation in the form of PID with first order filter (Rivera et al. [4])
as:
Kc

2
2k c

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

2 c

The main reason of using 1/1 Pade approximation is to obtain both simple PID control
structure with enhanced performance. It has been found that high order approximation
of the dead time has not any significant advantage in terms of the performance and
stability of the control system. The above PID controller offers fast and smooth setpoint tracking, but has a sluggish disturbance rejection, especially for processes with a
small time-delay/time-constant ratio [3, 1, 10, 5]. To enhance the load disturbance
response, Skogestad [5] suggested the modification in integral time (I) for lag dominant
and integrating process as:
I =4(c +)

(13)

Incorporating the above recommended setting for the lag dominant (integrating) process,
the integral time in Eq. (10) has been modified for the improved disturbance rejection
for the small time-delay/time-constant ratio (integrating process) and given as

I =min , c(c +)
2

(14)

where c is an arbitrary constant and c=4 has been suggested by Skogestad [5], as we can
see in Eq. (10). This modification of the I has significant advantage for both the lag and
delay dominant processes. The closed loop response has been shown for different value
of c in Figure 2. It is well known that in the majority of process control loops, the
disturbance rejection is the most important task for the controller. To check the faster
disturbance rejection, different values of c (c=4, 3 and 2) have been tested and it was
found that c=3 is the most suitable choice for the modified tuning rule [19, 22]. The
choice of c=3 has impact on the robustness of the system and it will be somewhat lower
than c=4. The other impact should be on the overshoot in the setpoint response and it
will be slightly higher for c=3. In Figure 2, c=4 gives quite sluggish disturbance
9

rejection response. In the modified tuning rules, selection of c=0.6 has been the
recommended choice as it gives maximum sensitivity (Ms); approximately 1.73 for the
integrating process, and Ms=1.75 for the delay dominant process. Therefore, the above
tuning method can be simplified for the c= 0.6 and given as:
Kc

2
3.2k

(15)

I min , 4.8
2

(16)

(17)

F 0.188

(18)

2.2. Analysis of the effect of integral action

The original IMC-PID rule (Eq. 9-12) gives fast and smooth set-point tracking.
However, it has a slow disturbance rejection for processes with a small / ratio. The
modified tuning formula given in Eq. (15)-(18) is for the enhanced disturbance rejection.
To show the effect of the integral action, a first-order process with time delay

g (s) e-s 10s 1 has been considered. Figure 2 shows the comparison of the closedloop response of the modified IMC-PID controller for four different values of the I
while other tuning parameters (Kc, D and F) are kept constant. The different values of
I obtained by changing the value of c, i.e, c=4, 3 and 2. To test the performance of the
control system, both the load disturbance and setpoint have been added a step change of
magnitude 1 (ys=1 and d=1). The robustness measure, Ms-value is almost the same for
all four closed-loop responses. Although the closed-loop response for the disturbance
rejection of c=2 is better, it gives an unacceptable overshoot in setpoint response. The
output response of the original IMC-PID (I=+/2) gives slow disturbance rejection
while satisfactory setpoint change as shown in figure. The goal of the proposed
10

modification in the IMC-PID controller is to obtain fast disturbance rejection while

maintaining the sepoint response.
Therefore, c=3 is a better choice of the integral time and resulting integral time equation
is given as I=3(c+), which is tradeoff between load performance and setpint change.
2.3. Effect of setpoint filter on servo response
The integral action has been increased in the modified IMC-PID tuning rule for the
enhanced disturbance rejection. This modification is applicable to the lag-dominant and
integrating process with time delay. It provides satisfactory improvement in the
disturbance rejection performance while deteriorate setpoint response with large
overshoot. Therefore, leadlag setpoint filter which is the usual practice in industries to
improve the servo response, is recommended to remove the overshoot in setpoint
response. The recommended choice to lead-lag filter is f r 0.75 I s 1 I s 1 . To
show the performance improvement a first order process with time delay

g (s) e-s 10s 1 has been considered. The resulting setpoint filter for this case
should be f r 3.6s 1 4.8s 1 . Figure 3 shows the closed-loop response of the
modified IMC-PID tuning rule for both with and without setpoint filter. The integral of
the absolute value of the error (IAE)-value is reduced from 3.11 to 2.44 and total
variation (TV) from 14.73 to 11.47, after using the setpoint filter. As expected, the
output response with setpoint filter is fast without any overshoot.

11

1.25

Process Variable (y)

0.75

0.5

=3( +)=4.8, M =1.74

I

=4( +)=6.4, M =1.75

0.25

=(+/2)=10.5, M =1.76
I

=2( +)=3.2, M =1.74

I

0
0

16

24

32

40

Time

Figure 2. Closed-loop responses of g s

e s
for different value of I (i.e, c=4,
10s 1

3, 2 and +/2) while other tuning parameters (Kc, D and F) are same for c=0.6.
Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=20, (ys=1 and d=1).

12

1.25

Process Variable (y)

0.75

0.5

=3( +)=4.8, M =1.74

0.25

I=(+/2)=10.5, Ms=1.76
=3( +)=4.8, M =1.74 with setpoint lead-lag filter
I

0
0

16

24

32

40

Time

Figure 3. Effect of setpoint filter to remove the overshoot from setpoint response:
Setpoint responses of first-order stable process with time delay g s

e s
.
10s 1

Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=20.

2.4. Effect of the low order lag filter in closed-loop response

The modified IMC-PID tuning has first order lag filter F=0.188. These days most of
the DCS systems usually provide the PID controllers with various equations, lead lag
blocks, filter blocks and pure dead time blocks. Some, however, may allow you to select
a more sophisticated filter. It is straightforward to implement the modified IMC-PID
with lag filter control scheme under the modern DCS system environment. As an
example, a standard block of first-order lag in a well-known DCS system is:

The selection of the right filter parameter always ensures the overall performance
improvement of the control loop. Especially, in the PID controller when the derivative
action is active, if the lag-filter is not used, or if its magnitude is very small, then the
13

controller will be responding to noise. This may cause the control valve to move
unnecessarily and eventually lead to process upset. On the other hand, if a filter
parameter is large, then it may slow the performance of the controller. Therefore, it is
important to select a proper value of the lag-filter so that the controller responds quickly
to any upsets in the process.
The recommended setting of the filter parameters should not be more than 1/3 of the
process dead time (Buckbee [37]). In the modified IMC-PID, F=0.188 for c=0.6,
which is within the recommended value.
In this paper, the simulation study is based on the ideal form of controller which is
given in Eq. (2). In real practice one has to modify derivative action with the derivative
filter D s D s 1 in the PID control.
A simulation is carried out to show the effect of the lag-filter in the system that
possesses noise in the measurement. A first order process with time delay

g (s) e-s 10s 1 has been considered for the simulation and controller setting is
calculated based on c=0.6. In this comparison, the derivative-filter is used in both the
controllers, with and without lag-filter, with =0.1. Figure 4 shows the comparison of
the closed-loop process response and control variable of the modified IMC-PID
controller. The resulting process variables and the control variables are plotted for the
controller with and without first order lag filter with noise measurement of white noise
of power 2.0E-005.
The derivative filter, which is also included in both the cases, plays an important role in
reducing the measurement noise. It is clear from Figure 4 that the control output is less
noisy for the modified IMC-PID with output-filtered structures. This is because the
proportional action is partially responsible for the amplification of the measurement
noise [38]. Therefore, the control structure with lag-filter which is applied to the whole
control variable is more efficient than that applied to the derivative action only.

14

0.15

Process Variable (y)

Modified IMC-PID with derivative filter and first order lag

Modified IMC-PID with only derivative filter

0.1

0.05

0
0

10

15
Time

20

25

30

3
Modified IMC-PID with derivative filter and first order lag
Modified IMC-PID with only derivative filter

control variable (u)

1.5

-1.5

-3
0

10

15
Time

20

25

30

Figure 4. Load disturbance response (with noise measurement) of first-order with time
delay process g s
c=0.6

and

the

e s
10s 1

The controller tuning parameters are selected for

resulting

PID setting of the proposed method is

with white noise of power 2.0E-005. For the

1
0.48s
1

c s 6.56 1

0.188s 1
4.8
s
0.1*0.48
s

modified IMC-PID without lag-filter c s 6.56 1

1
0.48s ,

4.8s 0.1*0.48s

load disturbance of

magnitude 1 at t=0.

3. Closed-Loop Setpoint Step Test Experiment

This section describes the procedure to find the closed-loop data for the proposed IMCPID controller tuning method. The easy and classical approach for closed-loop
experiment is a setpoint step response given in Figure 5. In this experiment one can
keep full control of the process, including the change in the output variable. The time tp
to reach the first overshoot and its magnitude is the simplest to observe in this
experiment.
The closed-loop data extraction procedure is as follows (Shamsuzoha [39]):

15

1. Switch the controller to P-only mode (for example, increase the integral time I to its
maximum value or set the integral gain KI to zero). This kind of controller mode switch
does not upset the industrial process.
2. Make a setpoint change that gives an overshoot between 0.10 (10%) and 0.60 (60%);
about 0.30 (30%) is a good value. Record the controller gain Kc0 used in the experiment.
Most likely, unless the original controller is quite tightly tuned, one will need to
increase the controller gain to get a sufficiently large overshoot.
It is important to note that most of the time it is difficult to extract the required
information accurately from small overshoots (overshoots < 0.10). Therefore, this
experiment does not consider the overshoot less than 0.1. On the other hand, large
overshoots (overshoots > 0.6) give severe oscillations and long settling time and also
require more excessive input changes. For these reasons, it is recommended to use an
intermediate overshoot of about 0.3 (30%) for the closed-loop setpoint experiment.

yp

ys
y

y p

y u

y s

y0

tp

t0

Figure 5. Step test output response in closed-loop with P-only control.

16

3. From the closed-loop setpoint response experiment, obtain the following values (see
Figure 5):

Controller gain used in step test, Kc0

Overshoot = (yp - y) /y

Time from setpoint change to reach first peak output (overshoot), tp

Relative steady state output change, b = y/ys.

The resulting output variables are given as:

Setpoint change

: ys = ys y0

Peak output change (at time tp)

: y p = yp y0

Steady-state output change after setpoint step test: y = y - y0

It is important to note that one can speed up the experiment and there is no need to wait
for the response to settle. The waiting time could be more if the overshoot in the
experiment is somewhat large (overshoot > 0.4). In such circumstances, it is
recommended to finish the experiment once the output process response reaches its first
minimum. In the next step, record the corresponding output, yu and calculate y with
following relationship.
y = 0.45(yp + yu)

(19)

The detailed derivation of the relationship in Eq. (19) is available in Shamsuzzoha and
Skogestad [10].
4. Mathematical Correlation between Closed-loop Data and IMC-PID
The main purpose of this research is to find a simple technique to obtain IMC-PID
controller setting in closed-loop mode. Therefore, the aim is to develop a mathematical
correlation between the setpoint response data (Figure 5) and the modified IMC-PID
settings (Eq. (15)-18) with c=0.6. For this reason, 15 first-order with time delay
models g(s)=ke-s/(s+1) that cover a wide range of processes have been considered.
They cover a broad range of processes from dead time dominant to lag-dominant
(integrating) as:
17

/=0.10, 0.20, 0.40, 0.80, 1.0, 1.50, 2.0, 2.50, 3.0, 5.0, 7.50, 10.0, 20.0, 50.0, 100.0
It is possible to scale time with respect to the time delay () and since the closed-loop
response depends on the product of the process and controller gains (kKc) we have
without loss of generality used in all simulations k=1 and =1.
For each of the 15 process models (values of /), we have obtained the modified IMCPID settings using Eq. (15)-18) with the choice c=0.6. Furthermore, for each of the 15
processes, we have generated 6 closed-loop step setpoint responses using P-controllers
that give a wide range of fractional overshoots as:
Overshoot= 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.40, 0.50 and 0.60
In total, we have 90 setpoint responses, and for each of these we have recorded data for
four variables as:
The P-controller gain Kc0 used in the experiment, the fractional overshoot, the time to
reach the overshoot (tp), and the relative steady-state change, b = y/ys.
4.1.

Selection of Controller Gain (Kc)

The first goal is to find a correlation between the above four data and the corresponding
IMC-PID controller gain Kc. Figure 6 shows the plot between kKc verses kKc0 for 90
setpoint experiments for different values of / ratio. As one can see from the said figure
that the ratio Kc/Kc0 is approximately constant for a fixed value of the overshoot. It is
independent of the value of / ratio and therefore it is given as:
Kc
=A
K c0

(20)

where, the ratio A is a function of the overshoot only. In Figure 7, we plot the value of
A, which is obtained as the best fit of the slopes of the lines in Figure 6, as a function of
the overshoot. The equation below (solid line in Figure 7) fits the data in Figure 6,
nicely and it is given as:
A= [1.45(overshoot)2 -2.02 (overshoot)+1.27]

(21)

Therefore, the final relationship for the controller gain is given as:
2
Kc Kc0 1.45 overshoot 2.02 overshoot 1.27

18

(22)

70

60

50
0.10 overshoot
kKc=1.0895kKc0

kKc

40

0.20 overshoot
kKc=0.9094kKc0

30

0.30 overshoot
kKc=0.7884kKc0
0.40 overshoot
kKc=0.6987kKc0

20

0.50 overshoot
kKc=0.6282kKc0

10

0.60 overshoot
kKc=0.5703kKc0
0
0

20

40

60
kKc0

80

100

120

Figure 6. Plot between experimental P-controller gain kKc0 and corresponding PID
controller gain kKc in Eq. (15).

1.2

1.1

1
A = 1.45*(overshoot)2 - 2.02*(overshoot) + 1.27

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
0.1

0.2

0.3
0.4
Overshoot(fractional)

0.5

0.6

Figure 7. Plot of variation of A with fractional overshoot using slopes data from Figure
6.

4.2. Selection of Integral Time (I)

19

The purpose of this section is to find a simple correlation for the I. The modified IMCPID tuning rule in Eq. (16) uses the minimum of two I values. It would be interesting to
search a similar correlation for both the large and small delay in closed-loop method as
well.
(i) Comparatively large time delay process (I1 =+ /2): It is the case of relatively
large delay and the integral time in the IMC-PID tuning rule is I = (+ /2). After
rearrangement of Eq. (15)

I 1.6kKc

(23)

In Eq. (23), there is a requirement of process gain k, and to this effect it may be written
as:
kKc= kKc0.Kc/ Kc0

(24)

The closed loop gain kKc0 for the P-control setpoint experiment can be calculated from
the value of b as:
kK c0 =

b
(1-b)

(25)

The I relationship can be obtained by substituting kKc from Eq. (24) and Kc/ Kc0=A
into Eq. (23), as:
I 1.6A

(1-b)

(26)

To show the steps in brief, the closed-loop setpoint response is y/ys =

g(s)c(s)/(1+g(s)c(s)). With a P-controller (gain Kc0), the steady-state value is y/ys =
kKc0/(1+kKc0)=b and we derive Eq.(25). The absolute value is included to avoid
problems if b>1, as they may occur sometimes because of imprecise data.
It is feasible to get the value of time delay directly from the closed-loop setpoint
response. Moreover, this is not always straightforward. Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad [10]
have developed a reasonable correlation for the dead time and the setpoint peak time tp
which is direct and easier to observe.
For processes with a relatively large time delay, the ratio /tp varies between 0.27 (for
/= 8 with overshoot=0.1) and 0.5 (for /=0.1 with all overshoots), as evident from
20

Figure 8 for the intermediate overshoot of 0.3, the ratio /tp varies between 0.32 and
0.50. A conservative choice would be to use =0.5tp because a large value increases the
integral time. However, to improve the performance for processes with smaller time
delays, we propose to use =0.43tp, which is only 14% lower than 0.50 (the worst case).
In summary, we have for a process with a relatively large time delay:
I 0.69 A

b
tp
(1- b)

(27)

(ii) Comparatively small time delay process (I2 =4.8). The integral time for a lagdominant (integrating) process is given as:
I2=4.8

(28)

For />4.8, it can be seen from Figure 8 that the ratio /tp varies between 0.25 (for
/=100 with overshoot=0.1) and 0.37 (for /=8 with overshoot 0.6). We select the
average value = 0.305tp which is approximately 17% lower than 0.37 (the worst case).
Also note that for the intermediate overshoot of 0.3, the ratio /tp varies between 0.30
and 0.32. In summary, we have for a lag-dominant process:

I2 =1.46t p

(29)

Conclusion: The integral time I is obtained in a similar way as in Eq. (16) and it is the
minimum of the above two values as:

b
I =min 0.69 A
t p , 1.46t p
(1- b)

(30)

21

/=0.1

0.5

/=1

0.43 (I1)
0.4

/tp

/=8

0.3

0.305 (I2)

/=100

0.2

0.1

0
0.1

0.3

0.5

0.6

Overshoot

Figure 8. Ratio of process time delay () and setpoint overshoot time (tp) as a function
of overshoot for four first-order with delay processes (solid lines). Dotted lines: Values
of /tp used in final correlations.
4.3. Derivative action (D):
In this section, a method has been proposed to obtain the D from the closed-loop step
test data with P-only controller.
Mode I: The process which is close to integrating i.e., >> , integral time is I =4.8 in
IMC-PID tuning formula, and = 0.305tp in the closed-loop. D1 in Eq.(17) can be
approximated as

D1

0.305t p

0.15t p
2 2 2
2

(31)

Mode II: For the processes which have , integral time is I=(+0.5) in IMC-PID,
and equivalent to this information in closed-loop, =0.43tp. Assuming =, D2 is
calculated from Eq.(17) as
D2

2
2 0.43t p

0.1433t p
2 2 3
3
3

22

(32)

Summary: It is clear from the above analysis that D1 and D2 are very close to each
other and the conservative pick of D should be:
D 0.14t p

(33)

4.4. Low order controller filter from step test data

The modified IMC-PID method has low order lag filter F c 2 c , and it
simplifies to F =0.188 for c= 0.6.
The objective of this section is to find the equivalent lag filter F from closed-loop data.
The analytical equation of the first order filter (F=0.188) for the integrating process is
F=0.188=0.1880.305tp=0.057tp.
The lag filter for the relatively large delay is F=0.188=0.1880.435tp= 0.082tp. The
lag filter has significant impact on the processes with relatively small delay (integrating
process). Therefore, the final recommended value for the lag-filter in the modified
tuning method is given as
F=0.057tp

(34)

5. Guidelines for the selection of initial controller gain Kc0

Although the proposed method is valid for the overshoot between 0.10 to 0.60, the
recommended value of overshoot around 0.3 gives almost similar response to IMC-PID.
Therefore, it is important to have guidelines for it.
Initial controller setting Kc01 is applied and resulting overshoot OS1 is achieved, which
is somewhere between 0.1 to 0.60 but not around 0.30. The desired overshoot and Pcontroller gain are OS and Kc0 respectively. In this method, the aim is to get the same
performance of the PID tuning rule regardless of the overshoot that resulted in closedloop experiment. In theory, calculated Kc for any overshoots from different closed-loop
setpoint tests should be the same and one can write a mathematical relationship as:
1.45 OS 2 2.02 OS 1.27 K 1.45 OS2 2.02 OS 1.27 K
1
1

c01
c0

(35)

Eq. (35) provides a guideline for the P-controller gain for the subsequent closed-loop
setpoint test. The resulting equation can give initial controller setting for overshoot
around 0.3 as:
23

Kc0 1.26 1.45 OS1 2.02 OS1 1.27 Kc01

2

(36)

It is important to note that we are not keen to obtain the exact fractional overshoot of
0.30, so in a few trials one can achieve the desired overshoot (around 0.3) from Eq.(36).
6. Simulation Study
In this section, results of the simulation study have been discussed for the different
types of processes. The investigated models have been studied by other researchers
(Shamsuzzoha and Lee [2, 3, 9]; Skogestad [5]; Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad [10];
Chien and Fruehauf [40]; Luyben [41]; Wang and Cluett [42] and Chen and Seborg
[43]).
In the simulation study, several performance and robustness matrices have been
calculated and compared with other methods. The simulation results of 13 different
processes are listed in Table 1 which clearly shows that the proposed method provides
acceptable controller settings in all the cases. The performance and robustness of the
control system are evaluated by the following indices:
Output performance (y) is quantified by computing the integrated absolute error,

IAE= y ys dt . Manipulated variable usage is quantified by calculating the total

0

variation (TV) of the input (u), which is the sum of all its moves up and down. If we

discretize the input signal as a sequence [u1,u2,u3.,ui] then TV= u i+1 -u i . TV is a

i=1

good measure of the smoothness of the signal. To estimate the robustness, we calculate
the maximum closed-loop sensitivity, defined as Ms =max 1/[1+g c(j)] . Since Ms is
the inverse of the shortest distance from the Nyquist curve of the loop transfer function
to the critical point (-1, 0), a small Ms-value indicates that the control system has a large
stability margin. The optimistic approach is to have a small value of IAE, TV and Ms at
the same time, but for a well-tuned controller there is a trade-off, which means that a
reduction in IAE implies an increase in TV and Ms and vice versa.
Three different overshoots (approximately 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6) have been considered and
the PI/PID settings obtained, based on step response experiments. The same is
compared with the recently published methods [10] for all process models. Although
24

comparison has been done for three different overshoots, the results have been listed
only for the case of overshoot around 0.3 in Table 1. The closed-loop performance
evaluation has been done by introducing a unit step change in both the set-point and
load disturbance i.e, (ys=1 and d=1).
The results of three methods has been compared and shown in Figure 9-13 for cases 3, 5,
9 and 11. For both the proposed and setpoint overshoot method [10], overshoot around
0.3 is compared with the modified IMC-PID method. The proposed controller setting
response shows smaller overshoot and faster disturbance rejection than the setpoint
overshoot method [10]. The closedloop response for both the setpoint tracking and
disturbance rejection confirms that the proposed method gives better response.
The above presented closed-loop method is on the basis of modified IMC-PID tuning
method. The comparison has been also performed to check the agreement of the
proposed method with the modified IMC-PID tuning method. In all the above cases
(Figure 9-13) response of the modified IMC-PID is also shown which clearly indicates
that the proposed method is perfectly matched with the modified IMC-PID method.
The lower overshoot of around 0.10 usually gives sluggish and more robust PID
controller settings in the proposed method, while a large overshoot, close to 0.6, gives
more aggressive and fast PID-settings.
1.25

Process Variable (y)

0.75

0.5

0.25

Proposed method (overshoot=0.292)

Modified IMC-PID (c=0.0888)
Shamsuzzoha &Skogestad (overshoot=0.292)

0
0

2.5

5
Time

7.5

Figure 9. Closed loop response of g s

10

1
(case 3),
s 1 0.2s 1 0.04s 1 0.008s 1

Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=5.

25

Process Variable (y)

Proposed method (overshoot=0.31)

Modified IMC-PID (c=0.90)
Shamsuzzoha &Skogestad (overshoot=0.31)
0
0

15

30
Time

45

60

Figure 10. Closed loop responses of g s

1
s s 1

(case 5), Setpoint change at t=0;

load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=30.

1.25

Process Variable (y)

0.75

0.5

0.25
Proposed method (overshoot=0.298)
Modified IMC-PID (c=0.60)
Shamsuzzoha &Skogestad (overshoot=0.298)
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time

Figure 11. Closed loop responses of g s

load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=25.

26

e s
(case 9), Setpoint change at t=0;
5s 1

Process Variable (y)

1.5

0.5
Proposed method (overshoot=0.30)
Modified IMC-PID (c=0.615)
Modified IMC-PI (c=0.615)
Shamsuzzoha &Skogestad (overshoot=0.30)
0
0

8
Time

Figure 12. Closed loop responses of g s

12

16

e s

(case 10), Setpoint change at t=0;

0.05s 12

load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=8.

3

Process Variable (y)

Proposed method (overshoot=0.30)

Modified IMC-PID (c=0.60)
Shamsuzzoha &Skogestad (overshoot=0.30)
0
0

10

20
Time

30

Figure 13. Closed loop responses of g s

load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=20.

27

40

e s
s

(case 11), Setpoint change at t=0;

Table 1: Comparison of proposed PID controller setting with the setpoint overshoot method (hereafter, SOM method [10]).
Case

Process model

Methods

P-control setpoint experiment

Kc0

0.322

0.393

0.937

9.031

0.958

1.74

0.30

23.72

Proposed

15.0

0.322

0.393

0.937

11.47

0.54

0.052

0.021

1.56

0.32

27.44

0.047

1.79

1.5

0.302

4.45

0.60

0.929

3.56

1.56

3.83

1.76

3.83

1.1

Proposed

1.5

0.302

4.45

0.60

1.187

3.67

0.623

0.254

1.48

3.22

2.08

3.10

1.04

1
s 10.2s 10.04s 10.008s 1

SOM

6.50

0.292

0.615

0.867

4.093

1.50

1.59

0.46

9.13

0.37

1.42

Proposed

6.50

0.292

0.615

0.867

5.228

0.91

0.087

0.035

1.48

0.476

10.89

0.173

1.39

0.17s 12
2
s s 1 0.028s 1

SOM

0.80

0.301

4.987

1.0

0.496

12.17

1.77

4.74

1.29

24.51

1.81

Proposed

0.80

0.301

4.987

1.0

0.635

7.30

0.70

1.59

1.59

4.71

1.49

11.50

1.75

SOM

0.58

0.307

6.19

1.0

0.357

15.10

1.75

6.21

0.90

42.33

1.72

Proposed

0.58

0.307

6.19

1.0

0.456

9.067

0.869

0.354

1.62

6.17

1.07

19.89

1.70

e s
20s 1 2s 1

SOM

8.0

0.301

8.425

0.889

4.966

20.56

1.62

5.92

10.99

4.14

1.34

Proposed

8.0

0.301

8.425

0.889

6.348

12.32

1.182

0.481

1.55

7.35

13.67

1.94

1.39

s 1 e s
6s 1 2s 12

SOM

1.40

0.344

13.67

0.583

0.817

9.602

1.59

11.72

1.60

11.78

1.09

Proposed

1.40

0.344

13.67

0.583

1.046

9.954

1.914

0.779

1.51

10.31

1.88

9.55

1.04

s s 1

Kc

15.0

SOM

0.3s 1 0.08s 1
SOM
3
2s 1 s 1 0.4s 1 0.2s 1 0.05s 1

tp

Load
disturbance
IAE
TV(u)
(y)
0.11
1.81

1
s

1
0.2s 1

overshoot

Resulting PID-controller settings

Corresponding author. Tel.:+ 966-13-860-7360; E-mail address: mshams@kfupm.edu.sa, smzoha@gmail.com

28

Ms

Setpoint
IAE (y)

TV(u)

Case

Process model

Methods

P-control setpoint experiment

Kc0
overshoot
tp
b

Kc

Resulting PID-controller settings

Ms
Setpoint

15.0
15.0

0.308
0.308

0.836
0.836

0.94
0.94

9.22
11.75

2.04
1.23

0.118

0.048

1.75
1.92

IAE(y)
0.92
0.97

TV(u)
21.54
28.69

Load
disturbance
IAE(y) TV(u)
0.23
1.26
0.11
1.37

6s 1 3s 1 e
10s 18s 1 s 1

SOM
Proposed

e s
5s 1

SOM
Proposed

4.0
4.0

0.298
0.298

3.049
3.049

0.80
0.80

2.494
3.187

6.538
4.409

0.423

0.172

1.56
1.66

2.62
2.57

4.96
6.61

2.62
1.38

1.04
1.08

SOM
Proposed

0.30
0.30

0.30
0.30

2.0
2.0

0.23
0.23

0.187
0.2384

0.321
0.331

0.114

1.61
2.0

1.74
1.93

1.02
1.44

1.74
1.92

1.01
1.44

0.3s

e s

10

0.05s 1

11

e s
s

SOM
Proposed

0.80
0.80

0.302
0.302

3.282
3.282

1.0
1.0

0.496
0.634

8.008
4.789

0.459

0.187

1.70
1.75

3.94
3.84

1.21
1.63

16.15
7.68

1.55
1.60

12

s 6 2
2
s s 1 s 36

SOM
Proposed

0.80
0.80

0.304
0.304

4.989
4.989

1.0
1.0

0.495
0.632

12.17
7.315

0.701

0.286

1.77
1.59

4.76
4.73

1.29
1.49

24.61
11.57

1.81
1.75

SOM
Proposed

1.25
1.25

0.322
0.322

1.40
1.40

0.56
0.56

0.752
0.961

0.905
0.943

0.197

0.080

1.72
1.70

1.26
1.12

1.57
1.94

1.23
1.0

1.21
1.27

13

s 1 s

9
2

2s 9

Note: only PI controller gives satisfactory response for Case 10 (almost delay process)

29

Table 2: Comparison of performance and robustness of the proposed method with other well-known methods
Case
(Process model)

Example 1 g s

Methods

0.2e7.4 s
s

Example 2
g s

0.547 0.418s 1 e0.1s

1.06s 1 s

Example 3
g s

0.005 300s 1 e5 s
s 20s 1

Example 4

g s

3 s

2s 11s 1

P-control setpoint experiment

Kc0
overshoot
tp
b

Kc

PID-controller settings
Ms
Setpoint

Load disturbance

IAE(y)

TV(u)

IAE(y)

TV(u)

SOM

0.74

0.595

21.56 1.0

0.334

52.61 -

1.71

29.03

0.83

157.37

1.61

Proposed

0.74

0.595

21.56 1.0

0.430

31.48 3.02

1.23

1.76

28.13

1.16

75.82

1.72

Chien & Fruehauf

0.470

42.60 3.38

1.74

25.0

1.27

90.74

1.66

SOM

2.1

0.61

3.62

1.0

0.783

11.57 -

1.75

5.06

2.0

14.80

1.73

Proposed

2.1

0.61

3.62

1.0

1.214

5.27

0.206 2.01

4.56

3.66

4.43

2.27

Luyben

1.69

11.50 1.15

1.90

3.82

5.40

6.85

2.29

Shamsuzzoha &Lee

1.867

4.23

1.63

3.24

5.86

2.30

2.38

Proposed

3.0

0.31

13.53 1.0

2.348

19.77 1.90

15.04

6.33

8.57

1.53

Shamsuzzoha &Lee

33.87

62.11 14.84 300

1.93

27.04

1.16

14.30

1.60

Rivera et al.

24.80

58.30 13.10 300

1.55

39.0

1.84

21.44

1.54

Proposed

1.0

0.60

9.54

0.50

0.58

3.894 1.34

0.54

1.62

8.71

1.40

7.28

1.09

Yuwana and Seborg

1.0

0.60

1.21

7.04

1.76

3.70

8.734

5.71

6.17

3.45

Chen

1.0

0.60

1.08

6.45

1.61

2.70

7.60

3.69

5.99

2.18

Lee et al.

1.0

0.60

0.855

4.33

1.43

1.94

7.41

2.18

5.15

1.28

0.51
0.72

0.772 2.11

30

Comparison with Two-Step Open-Loop Method

6.1.1. Example 1: Distillation column model
Distillation is a widely used separation method in the process industries. Its operation is
extremely critical, because of the purity demand of the products. The process model for the
level control in distillation is given by the delay integrating process. The distillation column
model (Shamsuzzoha and Lee [3], Chien and Fruehauf [40] and Chen and Seborg [43] ) was
considered as follows:
g s

0.2e7.4 s
s

(37)

The IMC based two-step method of Chien and Fruehauf [40], closed-loop method by
Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad [10] and the proposed method of the present study were used to
design the PID controller. The performance indices are listed in Table 2, and output response
in Figure 14 for both the unit step change in setpoint and disturbance rejection. It is clear from
Table 2 and Figure 14 that the proposed tuning rule results in the least settling time for
disturbance rejection, followed by that of Chien and Fruehauf [40]. It is important to note that
both the proposed and setpoint overshoot methods [10] are based on the closed-loop test and
they do not require the process model to design PID controller like in the Chien and Fruehauf
[40] method. The above discussion indicates that the suggested method has clear benefit over
the other methods.
4

Process Variable (y)

Proposed method (overshoot=0.595)

Chien &Fruehauf
Shamsuzzoha &Skogestad (overshoot=0.595)
0
0

50

100

150

200

Time

31

250

Figure 14. Closed loop responses of distillation column model g s

0.2e7.4 s
(Example 1),
s

Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=100.

6.1.2. Example 2: Boiler steam drum
The process of boiler steam drum is an example of an integrating process with inverse
response which has the following process transfer function (Luyben [41]).

g s

0.547 0.418s 1 e0.1s

(38)

1.06s 1 s

The PID controllers were designed using the proposed method and the setpoint overshoot
method [10] based on the closed-loop test for an overshoot of around 0.61. The other two
well-known model based methods [2, 41], are also tested and compared with the proposed
method. Figure 15 shows the closed-loop output responses for a unit step change introduced
in both the setpoint and load disturbance. The controller setting parameters including the
performance indices are listed in Table 2. Figure 15 shows that the proposed method gives
better response than that obtained from the method of Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad [10].
Although Luyben's [41] method gives a smaller peak, it has slow response and takes long time
to settle. It is important to note that the process model is required to obtain the controller
settings for both the model based methods [2, 41].
2.5

Process Variable (y)

1.5

0.5
Proposed method (overshoot=0.61)
Shamsuzzoha &Skogestad (overshoot=0.61)
Shamsuzzoha &Lee
Luyben

0
0

10

20
Time

30

40

Figure 15. Closed loop responses of boiler steam drum model g s 0.547 0.418s 1 e

1.06s 1 s

(Example 2), Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=20.

32

0.1s

6.1.3. Example 3: Paper machine dryer cans model

Consider the following process of paper machine dryer cans [2, 42].
g s

0.005 300s 1 e5 s

(39)

s 20s 1

The PID controller parameter settings for the proposed method based on the closed-loop test
for overshoot 0.31 and those of Shamsuzzoha & Lee [2] and Rivera et al. [4] are presented in
Table 2. The PID controller settings for the latter two methods were taken from Shamsuzzoha
& Lee [2]. Figure 16 shows the closed-loop output responses for a unit step change introduced
in both the setpoint and load disturbance for these three design methods.
Shamsuzzoha & Lee [2] previously demonstrated the superiority of their method over that of
Rivera et al. [4] and Wang and Cluetts [42]. Figure 16 clearly shows that Rivera et al.s
method has a large overshoot and long settling time. The proposed method shows a clear
advantage over the others and exhibits a lower IAE value and fast settling time with small
overshoot in disturbance rejection.
On the basis of the above discussion it is clear that the controller settings of the proposed
method provide satisfactory performance and robustness for regulatory problems for a broad
class of processes.

Process Variable (y)

1.5

0.5

Proposed method (overshoot=0.31)

Shamsuzzoha &Lee
Rivera et al.
0
0

100

200

300

Time

33

Figure
g s

16.

Closed

0.005 300s 1 e
s 20s 1

loop

responses

of

Paper

Machine

Dryer

Cans

model

5 s

(Example 3), Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude

1 at t=150.
6.2. Comparison with two-step closed-loop method
The proposed method is also compared with the two-step procedure based on closed-loop
setpoint experiment with a proportional controller (Kc0). In most of the two-step tuning
procedures, first they identify a first-order with time delay model by equating the closed-loop
setpoint response with a standard oscillating second-order step response. Once the model
parameters are obtained, one can use any well-known tuning method e.g., IMC-PID tuning
rule [2]. The proposed method is a direct approach for the controller setting parameters and
identification of few parameters is required. Probably the simplest to observe in the closedloop experiment are the time tp to reach the (first) overshoot and its magnitude.
To compare the results of both the direct proposed method and the two-step method based on
closed-loop test, a high order process with significant time delay has been considered below
as:
Example 4: g s

e3s

2s 11s 1

(40)

The PID controller setting data of the Yuwana and Seborg [11], Chen [14] and Lee et al. [16]
were taken from Lee et al. [16] for the initial controller setting Kc0=1. In the proposed method
Kc0=1 is also selected to obtain the PID setting. The performance and robustness matrix is
listed in Table 2. The performance of the all four methods is compared and shown in Figure
17. The figure shows that the proposed tuning method gives acceptable performance with
high robustness. For the same value of Kc0, the proposed method gives significantly robust
(Ms=1.62) closed-loop response with very low value of TV compared to the other methods.
The same observations have been found for the several other processes, though they are not
shown.
Figure 18 shows the manipulated variable (MV) response for example 4 as the representative
case. The response shows that the proposed method has smooth controller output with less
effort in comparison with the other methods. The value of TV is significantly less for the
proposed method among all the others.
On the basis of the above discussion it is again clear that the proposed method scores over the
other two-step closed-loop tuning methods for a broad class of the processes.
34

Process Variable (y)

1.5

Proposed method Kc0=1, Ms=1.62

0.5

Lee, Cho and Edgar Kc0=1, Ms=1.94

Chen Kc0=1, Ms=2.70
Yuwana and Seborg Kc0=1, Ms=3.70

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Time

Figure 17. Closed loop responses of g s

e3s

2s 11s 1

(Example 4), Setpoint change at

t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=50.

1.75
Proposed method Kc0=1, setpoint TV=1.40, disturbance TV=1.0
Lee, Cho and Edgar Kc0=1, TV=2.18, disturbance TV=1.28

1.5

Chen Kc0=1, TV=3.69, disturbance TV=2.18

Yuwana and Seborg Kc0=1, TV=5.70, disturbance TV=3.45

1.25

MV(u)

0.75

0.5

0.25

-0.25
0

20

40

60

80

100

Time

Figure 18. MV plots of g s

e3s

2s 11s 1

disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=50.

6.3. Robustness Test
35

(Example 4), Setpoint change at t=0; load

It is important to perform a comparison on fair basis for all the tuning methods. It can be
achieved only if the performance comparison is done for the same level of robustness, e.g.
same Ms-value. The other approaches for the investigation of the robustness of all compared
methods are to check the closed-loop response with uncertainty in different process
parameters. Therefore, the robustness of the different controllers are evaluated by inserting a
perturbation uncertainty in all the three parameters (k, and ). To show the closed-loop
response of the model mismatch, a high order process with time delay (example 4) has been
considered. A case has been selected for 50% in the dead time uncertainty and 25% in both
the gain and time constant simultaneously towards the worst case model mismatch, as follows
g s 1.25e4.5s 1.5s 1 0.75s 1 . The simulation results for the plant-model mismatch
2

are given in Figure 19 for both the servo and regulatory problems. It should be mentioned that
the controller settings used in simulation are those calculated for the process with nominal
process parameters. It is clear from Figure 19 that the proposed controller tuning method has
an excellent setpoint and load response for model mismatch. Although the closed-loop
response for both the Yuwana and Seborg [11] and Chen [14] two-step methods is not shown
in the said figure, it give an unstable oscillatory response. The better closed-loop response for
the nominal case by Lee et al. [16] two-step controller tuning method is achieved by
sacrificing the robustness of the closed-loop system.

Process Variable (y)

1.5

0.5
Proposed method Kc0=1
Lee, Cho and Edgar Kc0=1
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Time

Figure 19. Effect of parameters uncertainties in both the proposed and Lee et al. method.
Modified process with 50% high , 25% high k and 25% low from original value of

36

Example 4, g s 1.25e4.5s 1.5s 1 0.75s 1 : Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of

2

magnitude 1 at t=50.

6.4. Application to the Distillation column

The case study demonstrates the application of the proposed tuning method in the distillation
column temperature control loop. The dynamic model of the distillation column in AspenHysys is selected from Luyben [44] to show the simplicity and effectiveness of the
proposed method.
The depropanizer column considered in this case study produces a distillate product that is 98
mole% propane. At 110F, the vapor pressure of propane is slightly higher than 200psia.
Therefore, an operating pressure of 200 psia is kept in the condenser. The boiler pressure is
estimated by assuming a pressure drop over each tray of 5 inches of liquid in this highpressure column. The liquid density of this hydrocarbon system is about 30 lb/ft3. The column
has 30 trays and is fed on tray 15, and the pressure in the reboiler is 202.6 psia.
The column feed is 100 lb-mol/hr of a mixture of propane (30 mol%), isobutene (40 mol%)
and n-butane (30 mol%) at 90F. The specified purity of distillate is 98 mol% propane. The
specified impurity of propane in the bottoms is 1.0 mol%. The design reflux ratio is 3.22 and
the design reboiler heat input is 1.02106 Btu/hr.
Luyben [44] suggested Reflux-Vapor Boilup (RV) control structure of the depropanizer and is
shown in Figure 20. The suggested tuning parameters of the different loops are kept
unchanged except the temperature loop. The flow controller has Kc=0.5, I=0.3 minutes, and
two level controllers Kc=2.0 each. The pressure controller is tuned using normal slow setting
with Kc=1.0 and the integral time is I=20.0 minutes. For the temperature loop, Luyben [44]
applied relay-feedback test and found ultimate gain (Ku=32) and the ultimate period (Pu=7.3
minutes). Finally he obtained the PI setting using the TL [18] method as Kc=10.0 and I=16.0
minutes.
In the proposed method, overshoot around 0.30 gives satisfactory performance and
robustness. Start the test in closed-loop using a P-controller with gain Kc0. The magnitude of
the gain Kc0 should be selected such that it gives overshoot around 0.30 for a setpoint change
of magnitude ysp. From the setpoint experiment, read off the maximum response, yp, the
steady state response y, and the time to reach the first peak (tp). It is assumed that the process
output has value y0 before the setpoint change occurs. Step test in temperature loop is shown
in Figure 21.
37

Figure 20. Depropanizer column flowsheet with controllers installed, pressure controller is
not shown in main flowsheet, and it is installed in sub-flowsheet.

Figure 21. The closed-loop responses with a P-controller (controller gain Kc0 = 8.0) of a
depropanizer temperature loop.

38

Figure 22. The closed-loop setpoint responses of the depropanizer temperature loop with a
PID-controller, setpoint change of magnitude +5F at t=100 minutes; reverse setpoint change
of magnitude -5F at t=150 minutes.
126.7

Main-Stage Temperature (25_Main TS)F

126.4

126.1

125.8

125.5

Modified IMC-PID open-loop method

Proposed closed-loop method
125.2
0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (Minutes)

Figure 23. Closed-loop response for step changes in feed flow rate as a disturbance at t=15
minutes from 100 to 120 lb-mol/hr, at 120 minutes from 120 to 80 lb-mol/hr.

39

Process output before the setpoint change (y0) = 125.7F, and manipulated variable (OP) =
50.60%, a step test is conducted for setpoint change ( ys )= ys y0=130.7-125.7=5.0, with the
P-controller of Kc0= 8.
Note: It is important to eliminate the impact of the integral action in the step test and for that
substitute I =1000 (sufficiently large value).
Based on the closed-loop setpoint response to a step change of amplitude ys =5oF as shown
in Figure 21, the overshoot and other parameters are calculated as:
Overshoot OS

(yp y )
y

y p y
y y0

132.37 130.7
0.334
130.7 125.7

The relative steady-state change of the process output is:

y y y0 130.7 125.7

1.0
ys ys y0 130.7 125.7

It shows that the process is almost integrating and the value of peak time tp=107.83100.0=7.83 minutes. The PID parameter settings can be calculated as
A=1.45(OS)2 2.02(OS)+1.27= 1.45(0.334)2 -2.02(0.334)+ 1.27=0.757

Kc =Kc0 A=8.0*0.757=6.056
For the integral time, I

b
I =min 0.69A
t p , 1.46t p

1-b

1.0
I =min 0.69*0.757*
*7.83, 1.46*7.83

1.0 1.0

I=11.43 minutes
D=0.14*tp=0.14*7.83=1.10 minutes
The effectiveness of the proposed method has been checked for the setpoint change in the
temperature loop and closed-loop response is shown in Figure 22. The response is
significantly fast and smooth without any oscillation.
The proposed closed-loop method has been compared with the modified IMC-PID controller
for disturbance rejection. The results for the two disturbances in feed flowrate are shown in
Figure 23. At 15 minutes the feed is increased from 100 to 120 lb-mol/hr and at 120 minutes a
large change in the feed flow rate is made, and is finally dropped to 80 lb-mol/hr. Figure 23
clearly shows the advantage of the proposed method in disturbance rejection. Although the
40

proposed method is based on the modified IMC-PID tuning rule, it gives better and more
robust closed-loop response. It seems that the proposed method is less sensitive with
approximation error in different parameters during step test, whereas modified IMC-PID is
very sensitive with the time delay measurement.

7. Conclusion

This study presented a unified PID controller with lag filter design based on the closed loop
approach for several types of processes and thereby key points are summarized below:

1.

The integral time has been modified for the classical IMC-PID controller design and it is

recommended to use I min , 4.8 for Ms=1.74.

2.

A closed-loop tuning method has been developed for the IMC-PID controller setting
using step test in setpoint change. The experiment is conducted in closed-loop using a Pcontroller with gain Kc0. The PID-controller settings are then obtained directly from the
following data from the setpoint experiment:
a. Overshoot, (yp - y) /y
b. Time to reach first peak, tp
c. Relative steady state output change, (b) = y/ys.
d. The steady state value can be calculated by y = 0.45(yp + yu) for fast
completion of the experiment.

3.

The proposed PID tuning with lag filter is:

a. Kc =Kc0 A

b.

b
I =min 0.69 A
t p , 1.46t p
(1- b)

0.14t p
c. D
d. F=0.057tp

where A=[1.45(overshoot)2 -2.02 (overshoot)+1.27]

4.

The method is valid with satisfactory results for overshoot around 0.1 to 0.6, an
overshoot of around 0.3 is recommended for the best performance and robustness.

41

5.

The initial controller gain which provides overshoot around 0.3 in closed-loop test can
be calculated from the following equation as:

Kc0 1.26 1.45 OS1 2.02 OS1 1.27 Kc01

6.

The simulation results illustrate the better performance and robustness of the proposed
method for different classes of processes. A simple closed-loop step test is required to
obtain the IMC-PID controller setting which gives the appropriate controller settings for
acceptable performance and robustness for a broad range of process models.

Acknowledgement: The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by King
Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) through the Science & Technology
Unit at King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM) for funding this work
through project No. 11-ENE1643-04 as part of the National Science Technology and
Innovation Plan.

References
[1] D. Seborg, T. Edgar and D. Mellichamp, Process Dynamics and Control, New York:
Wiley, 2004.
[2] M. Shamsuzzoha and M. Lee, "PID controller design for integrating process with time
delay," Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 25, pp. 637-645, 2008.
[3] M. Shamsuzzoha and M. Lee, "IMCPID controller design for improved disturbance
rejection of timedelayed processes," Ind Eng Chem Res, vol. 46, p. 20772091, 2007.
[4] D. Rivera, M. Morari and S. Skogestad, "Internal model control. 4. PID controller
design," Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev, vol. 25, p. 252265, 1986.
[5] S. Skogestad, "Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller tuning,"
journal of Process Control, vol. 13, p. 291309, 2003.
[6] M. Shamsuzzoha and M. Lee, "Design of advanced PID controller for enhanced
disturbance rejection of second order process with time delay," AIChE, vol. 54, pp. 15261536, 2008.
[7] T. Vu and M. Lee, "A unified approach to the design of advanced proportional-integralderivative controllers for time-delay processes," Korean Journal of Chemical
42

Engineering , vol. 30, pp. 546-558, 2013.

[8] A. Rao and M. Chidambaram, "Enhanced twodegreesoffreedom control strategy for
secondorder unstable processes with time delay," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
Research , vol. 46, p. 36043614, 2006.
[9] M. Shamsuzzoha, S. Lee and M. Lee, "Analytical design of PID controller cascaded with
a lead-lag filter for time-delay processes," Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol.
26, pp. 622-630, 2009.
[10] M. Shamsuzzoha and S. Skogestad, "The setpoint overshoot method: A simple and fast
closed-loop approach for PID tuning," Journal of Process Control, vol. 20, p. 1220
1234, 2010.
[11] M. Yuwana and D. E. Seborg, "A new method for on-line controller tuning," AIChE, vol.
28, pp. 434-440, 1982.
[12] A. Jutan and E. Rodriguez, "Extensions of a new method for on-line controller tuning,"
Can. J. Chem. Eng, vol. 62, p. 802, 1984.
[13] J. Lee, "On-line PID controller tuning from a single closed-loop test," AIChE J., vol. 35,
pp. 329-331 , 1989.
[14] C.-L. Chen, "a simple method for on-line identification and controller tuning," AIChE J.,
vol. 35, pp. 2037-2039, 1989.
[15] J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols, "Optimum settings for automatic controllers," Trans.
ASME, vol. 64, pp. 759-768, 1942.
[16] J. Lee, W. Cho and T. Edgar, "An improved technique for PID controller tuning from
closed-loop tests," AIChE J., vol. 36, pp. 1891-1895, 1990.
[17] K. J. strm and T. Hgglund, "Automatic tuning of simple regulators with
specifications on phase and amplitude margins," Automatica, vol. 20, p. 645651, 1984.
[18] B. Tyreus and W. Luyben, "Tuning PI controllers for integrator/dead time processes,"
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, p. 26252628, 1992.
[19] F. Haugen, "Comparing PI tuning methods in a real benchmark temperature control
system," Modeling, Identification and Control, vol. 31, pp. 79-91, 2010.
[20] W. Hu and G. Xiao, "Analytical proportional-integral (PI) controller tuning using closedloop setpoint response," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, vol. 2011, pp. 2461-2466, 2011.
[21] C. Grimholt and S. Skogestad, "Optimal PI control and verification of the SIMC tuning
43

rule," in Proceedings of the IFAC Conference on Advances in PID Control PID12,

Brescia (Italy), 2012.
[22] S. Skogestad and C. Grimholt, "The SIMC Method for Smooth PID Controller," in PID
Control in the Third Millennium, Advances in Industrial Control, Springer, 2012, pp.
147-175.
[23] H. Seki and T. Shigemasa, "Retuning oscillatory PID control loops based on plant
operation data," Journal of Process Control, vol. 20, pp. 217-227, 2010.
[24] M. Veronesi and A. Visioli, "Performance assessment and retuning of PID controllers for
integral processes," Journal of Process Control, vol. 20, pp. 261-269, 2010.
[25] S.

Alcantara,

R.

Vilanova

and

C.

Pedret,

"PID

control

in

terms

of

robustness/performance and servo/regulator trade-offs: A unifying approach to balanced

autotuning," Journal of Process Control , vol. 23, pp. 527-542, 2013.
[26] S.

Alcantara,

R.

Vilanova,

C.

Pedret

and

S.

Skogestad,

"A

look

into

robustness/performance and servo/regulation issues in PI tuning," in Proceedings of the

IFAC Conference on Advances in PID Control PID12, Brescia(Italy), 2012.
[27] J. Lee, W. Cho and T. F. Edgar, "Simple analytic PID controller tuning rules revisited,"
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 52, pp. 12973-12992, 2013.
[28] B. C. Torrico, M. U. Cavalcante, A. P. Braga, J. E. Normey-Rico and A. A.
Albuquerque, "Simple Tuning Rules for Dead-Time Compensation of Stable, Integrative,
and Unstable First-Order Dead-Time Processes," Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, vol. 52, pp. 11646-11654, 2013.
[29] M. Shamsuzzoha, "A unified approach for proportional-integral-derivative controller
design for time delay processes," Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 32, no.
4, pp. 583-596, 2015.
[30] M. Shamsuzzoha, "Robust PID controller design for time delay processes with peak of
maximum sensitivity criteria," Journal of Central South University, vol. 21, no. 10, pp.
3777-3786, 2014.
[31] M. Anwar, M. Shamsuzzoha and S. Pan, "A frequency domain PID controller design
method using direct synthesis approach," Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering,
vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 995-1004, 2015.
[32] M. Shamsuzzoha, M. Skliar and M. Lee, "PID control strategy for open-loop unstable
processes with positive and negative zeros and time delay," Asia-Pacific Journal of
44

Chemical Engineering, vol. 7, p. 93, 2012.

[33] Q. B. Jin and Q. Liu, "Analytical IMC-PID design in terms of performance/robustness
trade-off for integrating processes: From 2-Dof to 1-Dof," Journal of Process Control,
vol. 24, no. 3, p. 2232, 2014.
[34] J.-C. Jeng, W.-L. Tseng and M.-S. Chiu, "A one-step tuning method for PID controllers
with robustness specification using plant step-response data," Chemical Engineering
Research and Design, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 545-558, 2014.
[35] C. Anil and R. P. Sree, "PID control of integrating systems using Multiple Dominant
Poleplacement method," Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng.,, vol. doi: 10.1002/apj.1911, 2015.
[36] E.-P. Fu and J.-C. Jeng, "Closed-Loop Tuning of Set-Point-Weighted Proportional
IntegralDerivative Controllers for Stable, Integrating, and Unstable Processes: A
Unified Data-Based Method," Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 54, no.
3, pp. 1041-1058, 2015.
[37] G. Buckbee, "http://www.expertune.com/," ExperTune Inc. , 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://www.expertune.com.
[38] A. Visioli, Practical PID Control, Springer, 2006.
[39] M. Shamsuzzoha, "Closed-loop PI/PID controller tuning for stable and integrating
process with time delay," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 52, pp. 12973-12992, 2013.
[40] I.-L. Chien and P. Fruehauf, "Consider IMC tuning to improve controller performance,"
Chemical Engineering Progress , vol. 86, pp. 33-41, 1990.
[41] W. Luyben, "Identification and Tuning of Integrating Processes with Deadtime and
Inverse Response," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 42, pp. 3030-3035, 2003.
[42] L. Wang and W. Cluett, "Tuning PID controllers for integrating processes," IEEE
Proceedings- CTA, vol. 144, pp. 385-388, 1997.
[43] D. Chen and D. Seborg, "PI/PID controller design based on direct synthesis and
disturbance rejection," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research , vol. 41, pp.
4807-4822, 2002.
[44] W. L. Luyben, Plantwide Dynamic Simulators in Chemical Processing and Control, New
York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.,, 2002.

45