J. Cent. South Univ.

(2016) 23:
DOI:

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
Central South University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Abstract: It is well-known that the IMC-PID controller tuning gives fast and improved set point 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 set point 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 set point experiment. The integral and derivative time is mainly a function of the time to reach the first
peak (overshoot). Simulation 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 also been 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.
Key words: PI/PID controller; step test; closed-loop response; IMC-PID; overshoot

1 Introduction
The proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers
are the most widely accepted one 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 work is
to develop a direct approach method of controller tuning
from closed loop set point 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 designed for the different types of
processes based on direct synthesis [1] and Internal
model control (IMC) are among such popular tuning
methods [26]. 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 second-order 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 [3, 5, 10]. 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 openloop 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 open-loop test for the

Received date: 20150310; Accepted date: 20150724

Corresponding author: Mohammad Shamsuzzoha; Tel: +966138607360; E-mail: mshams@kfupm.edu.sa, smzoha@gmail.com

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 tuning rules [15],
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 method [11] 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 result of LEE et al
[16] method gives relatively better performance and
robustness over the other closed-loop methods [1114],
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, such
methods [11, 1314, 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. 1) The required number of
measurable quantities are high, i.e. at least five. 2) 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. 3) To obtain the
precise value of cm1 and cp2, one has to generate the
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

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

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 one 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 lag-dominant (integrating)
processes [18] and sluggish for dead time dominant
process [5]. The third disadvantage of the
Ziegler-Nichols method [15] 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 [2122] 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]

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

proposed a new and simple design for the filtered Smith

predictor (FSP), which belongs to a class of dead-time
compensators (DTCs) and allows the handling of stable,
unstable, and integrating processes. Recently, several
authors [2936] 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 this work 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.

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) K c 1
Ds

Is
Fs 1

(2)

where 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].
Figures 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
y=

c( s ) g ( s)
g ( s)
ys +
d
1+c(s )g ( s )
1+c (s )g (s )

(3)

Fig. 1 Block diagram of IMC and classical feedback control

systems: (a) IMC structure; (b) Feedback control structure

The conventional feedback controller which is

equivalent to the IMC controller can be expressed by
c( s)

q(s)

1 g ( s )q( s)

(4)

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 1: 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 2: The typical IMC controller is given by
1
q( s ) pM
(s) f (s)

(6)

where f(s) is the IMC filter and given as

f ( s ) 1/( c s 1) r , 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

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

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 [4] as
Kc

2
2k ( c )

I
D

(9)
(10)

(11)

c
F
2( c )

(12)

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 set-point tracking, but has a sluggish
disturbance rejection, especially for processes with a
small time-delay/time-constant ratio [3, 1, 5, 10]. 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 + )

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 Fig. 2,
c=4 gives quite sluggish disturbance 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

(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/timeconstant ratio (integrating process) and given as

I =min

Fig. 2 Closed-loop responses of g(s)=es/(10s+1) for different

value of I(i.e, c=4, 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)

, c( c + )

(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 Fig. 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

2
3.2k

I min

(15)

, 4.8

(16)

(17)

F 0.188

(18)

2.2 Analysis of effect of integral action

The original IMC-PID rule (Eqs. 912) 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 Eqs. (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)=es/(10s+1) has been considered.
Figure 2 shows the comparison of the closed-loop
response of the modified IMC-PID controller for four

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

different values of the I while other tuning parameters

(Kc, D and F) are kept constants. 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 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 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 fr=(0.75Is+1)/(Is+1). To show the
performance improvement a first order process with time
delay g(s)=es/(10s+1) has been considered. The
resulting setpoint filter for this case should be
fr=(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.
2.4 Effect of 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

Fig. 3 Effect of setpoint filter to remove overshoot from

setpoint response (Setpoint responses of first-order stable
process with time delay g(s)=es/(10s+1) Setpoint change at t=0;
load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=20)

an example, a standard block of first-order lag in a

well-known DCS system is:

CCPV

GGAIN
RV
1 Ti s

(19)

where Ti: First-order log time (Ti=1-Scan period); I:

First-order log time setpoint; s: Laplace transform
operator.
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 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
[37]. In the modified IMC-PID, F=0.188 for c=0.6,
which is within the recommended value.
In this work, 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 Ds/(Ds+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)=es/(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 2.0105.

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

3 Closed-loop setpoint step test experiment

This section describes the procedure to find the
closed-loop data for the proposed IMC-PID controller
tuning method. The easy and classical approach for
closed-loop experiment is a setpoint step response given
in Fig. 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.

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

control

Fig. 4 Load disturbance response (with noise measurement) of

first-order with time delay process g(s)=es/(10s+1). The
controller tuning parameters are selected for c=0.6 and the
resulting PID setting of the proposed method is

c( s ) 6.56[1 (1/ 4.8s) (0.48s /(0.1 0.48s))][1/(0.188s 1)]

with white noise of power 2.0105. For the modified IMC-PID
without
lag-filter
c ( s ) 6.56[1 (1/ 4.8 s ) (0.48 s /(0.1
0.48s ))], load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=0.

The derivative filter, which is also included in both

the cases, plays an important role in reducing the
measurement noise. It is clear from Fig. 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.

The closed-loop data extraction procedure is as

follows [39]: 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 (novershoot<0.10). Therefore, this
experiment does not consider the overshoot less than 0.1.
On the other hand, large overshoots (novershoot>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.
3) From the closed-loop setpoint response
experiment, obtain the following values (see Fig. 5):
Controller gain used in step test, Kc0
Overshoot=(ypy) /y
Time from setpoint change to reach first peak

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

output (overshoot), tp
Relative steady state output change, b=y/ys.
The resulting output variables are given as:
Setpoint change: ys=ysy0
Peak output change (at time tp): yp=ypy0
Steady-state output change after setpoint step test:
y=yy0
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 (novershoot>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)

(20)

The detailed derivation of the relationship in Eq. (20)

is available in Ref. [10].

4 Mathematical correlation between closedloop data and IMC-PID

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

(21)

where, the ratio A is a function of the overshoot only. In

Fig. 7, we plot the value of A, which is obtained as the
best fit of the slopes of the lines in Fig. 6, as a function
of the overshoot. The equation below (solid line in Fig. 7)
fits the data in Fig. 6, nicely and it is given as:

A=[1.45(novershoot)22.02novershoot+1.27]

(22)

Therefore, the final relationship for the controller

gain is given as
K c K c0 [1.45(novershoot ) 2 2.02novershoot 1.27]

(23)

The main purpose of this research is to find a simple

technique to obtain IMC-PID controller setting in closedloop mode. Therefore, the aim is to develop a
mathematical correlation between the setpoint response
data (Fig. 5) and the modified IMC-PID settings
(Eq. (15)(18) with c=0.6. For this reason, 15 firstorder with time delay models g(s)=kes/(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

/=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 IMC-PID settings using
Eq. (15)(18) with the choice c=0.6. Furthermore, for
each of the 15 processes, we have generated 6 closedloop step setpoint responses using P-controllers that give
a wide range of fractional overshoots as:

Fig. 6 Plot between experimental P-controller gain kKc0 and

corresponding PID controller gain kKc in Eq. (15)

novershoot=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.

Fig. 7 Plot of variation of A with fractional overshoot using

slopes data from Fig. 6

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

4.2 Selection of integral time (I)

The purpose of this section is to find a simple
correlation for the I. The modified IMC-PID 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.
1) 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 1.6kK c

(24)

In Eq. (23), there is a requirement of process gain k,

and to this effect it may be written as:

kKc=kKc0Kc/Kc0

(25)

The closed loop gain kKc0 for the P-control setpoint

experiment can be calculated from the value of b as:
b
kK c0 =
(1 b)

(26)

(I2=4.8). The integral time for a lag-dominant

(integrating) process is given as

I2=4.8

(29)

For />4.8, it can be seen from Fig. 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 lagdominant process:

I2 =1.46tp

(30)

Thus, it comes the 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

I =min 0.69 A

b
tp , 1.46tp
(1 b)

(31)

The I relationship can be obtained by substituting

kKc from Eq. (24) and Kc/Kc0=A into Eq. (23), as

I 1.6 A

(1 b)

(27)

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. (26). 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 Fig. 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
2)

b
tp
(1 b)

Comparatively

(28)
small

time

delay

process

Fig. 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

0.305tp

0.15tp
2 2 2
2

(32)

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

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

D2

2
2 0.43tp

0.1433tp
2 2 3 3
3
(33)

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 0.14tp

(34)

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

(35)

5 Guidelines for 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 nSO1 is achieved, which is somewhere
between 0.1 to 0.60 but not around 0.30. The desired
overshoot and P-controller 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 closed-loop 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(nOS1 ) 2 2.02(nOS1 ) 1.27]?K c 01
[1.45(nOS )2 2.02(nOS ) 1.27]?K c 0

(36)

Equation (36) 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:
K c 0 1.26(1.45(nOS1 ) 2 2.02(nOS1 ) 1.27) K c 01

(37)

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. (37).

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 many
reseachers [2, 3, 5, 910, 4043].
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, EIAE = | y ys |dt.

0

Manipulated variable usage is quantified by calculating

the total variation (VT) of the input (u), which is the sum
of all its moves up and down. If we discretize the input
signal
as a sequence [ u 1 , u 2 , u 3 , u i ] then
VT = ui +1 ui . V T i s a g o o d me a s u r e o f th e
i =1
smoothness
of the signal. To estimate the robustness, we
calculate the maximum closed-loop sensitivity, defined
as Ms=max|1/[1+gc(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 EIAE, VT and Ms at the same time, but for a
well-tuned controller there is a trade-off, which means
that a reduction in EIAE implies an increase in VT 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 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 Fig. 913 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

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

10

Table 1 Comparison of proposed PID controller setting with the setpoint overshoot method
P-control setpoint experiment
Case

Process model

Methods

Kc0

novershoot

tp

Resulting PID-controller settings

Kc

Ms

Setpoint

Load
disturbance

EIAE(y) VT(u) EIAE(y) VT(u)

1

SOM

15.0

0.322

0.393 0.937 9.031 0.958

Proposed

15.0

0.322

0.393 0.937 11.47 0.54

[(0.3s+1)(0.08s+1)]/ SOM [10]

[(2s+1)(s+1)(0.4s+1)
(0.2s+1)(0.05s+1)]3 Proposed

1.5

0.302

4.45

0.60

0.929 3.56

1.5

0.302

4.45

0.60

1.187 3.67

1/[(s+1)(0.2s+1)(0.04s+ SOM [10] 6.50

1)(0.008s+1)
Proposed 6.50

0.292

0.615 0.867 4.093 1.50

0.292

0.615 0.867 5.228 0.91

SOM [10] 0.80

0.301

4.987

1.0

0.496 12.17

Proposed

0.80

0.301

4.987

1.0

0.635 7.30

0.70

SOM [10] 0.58

0.307

6.19

1.0

0.357 15.10

Proposed

0.58

0.307

6.19

1.0

SOM [10]

8.0

0.301

8.425 0.889 4.966 20.56

Proposed

8.0

1/[(s+1)(0.2s+1)]

(0.17s+1) /[s(s+1)
(0.028s+1)

1/[s(s+1)2]

es/[(20s+1)(2s+1)]

(s+1)es/[(6s+1)
(2s+1)]2

[(6s+1)(3s+1)e0.3s]/
[(10s+1)(8s+1)(s+1)]

es/(5s+1)

10

es/(0.05s+1)2

11

es/s

12

(s+6)2/[s(s+1)2(s+36)]

13

9/[(s+1)(s2+2s+9)]

1.74

0.30

23.72

0.11

0.052 0.021 1.56

0.32

27.44

0.047 1.79

1.56

3.83

1.76

3.83

1.1

0.623 0.254 1.48

3.22

2.08

3.10

1.04

0.46

9.13

0.37

1.42

1.59

0.087 0.035 1.48 0.476 10.89

0.173 1.39

1.77

4.74

1.29

24.51 1.81

1.59 1.59

4.71

1.49

11.50 1.75

1.75

6.21

0.90

42.33 1.72

0.456 9.067 0.869 0.354 1.62

6.17

1.07

19.89 1.70

1.62

5.92

10.99

4.14

1.34

0.301

8.425 0.889 6.348 12.32 1.182 0.481 1.55

7.35

13.67

1.94

1.39

SOM [10] 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

SOM

15.0

0.308

0.836 0.94

9.22

Proposed

15.0

0.308

0.836 0.94

11.75 1.23

SOM

4.0

0.298

3.049 0.80

2.494 6.538

Proposed

4.0

0.298

3.049 0.80

2.04

1.81

1.75

0.92

21.54

0.23

1.26

0.118 0.048 1.92

0.97

28.69

0.11

1.37

1.56

2.62

4.96

2.62

1.04

3.187 4.409 0.423 0.172 1.66

2.57

6.61

1.38

1.08

SOM

0.30

0.30

2.0

0.23

0.187 0.321

Proposed

0.30

0.30

2.0

0.23 0.2384 0.331

SOM

0.80

0.302

3.282

1.0

0.496 8.008

Proposed

0.80

0.302

3.282

SOM

0.80

0.304

Proposed

0.80

SOM
Proposed

1.61

1.74

1.02

1.74

1.01

0.114 2.0

1.93

1.44

1.92

1.44

1.70

3.94

1.21

16.15 1.55

1.0

0.634 4.789 0.459 0.187 1.75

3.84

1.63

7.68

4.989

1.0

0.495 12.17

1.77

4.76

1.29

24.61 1.81

0.304

4.989

1.0

0.632 7.315 0.701 0.286 1.59

4.73

1.49

11.57 1.75

1.25

0.322

1.40

0.56

0.752 0.905

1.72

1.26

1.57

1.23

1.21

1.25

0.322

1.40

0.56

0.961 0.943 0.197 0.080 1.70

1.12

1.94

1.0

1.27

1.60

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

Fig. 9 Closed loop response of g(s)=1/[(s+1)(0.2s+1)(0.04s+1)

(0.008s+1)] (case 3), Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance
of magnitude 1 at t=5

Fig. 10 Closed loop responses of g(s)=1/s(s+1)2 (case 5),

setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=30

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

11

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
(Fig. 913) 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.

Fig. 10 Closed loop responses of g(s)=e /(5s+1) (case 9),

setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=25

6.1 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 [3, 40, 43] was considered as

g ( s)

Fig. 11 Closed loop responses of g(s)=es/(0.05s+1)2 (case 10),

setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=8

Fig. 12 Closed loop responses of g(s)=e /s (case 11), setpoint

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

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

(38)

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 Fig. 14 for both
the unit step change in setpoint and disturbance rejection.
It is clear from Table 2 and Fig. 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 Ref. [40].
The above discussion indicates that the suggested
method has clear benefit over the other methods.
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 [41].
g (s)

0.2e7.4 s
s

0.547(0.418s 1)e 0.1s

(1.06 s 1) s

(39)

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

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

12

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

Methods

Kc0

novershoot

tp

PID-controller settings
Kc

Ms

Setpoint

Load
disturbance

EIAE(y) VT(u) EIAE(y) VT(u)

Example 1
g(s)=0.2e7.4s/s

Example 2
g(s)=0.547
(0.418s+1)
e0.1s/(1.06s+1)s

SOM

0.74

0.595 21.56 1.0

0.334 52.61

Proposed

0.74

0.595 21.56 1.0

Chien & Fruehauf

SOM

2.1

0.61

Proposed

2.1

0.61

Luyben

Shamsuzzoha &Lee

3.0

0.31

Proposed

1.0

0.60

Yuwana and Seborg

1.0

0.60

Chen

1.0

0.60

Lee et al

1.0

0.60

Proposed
Example 3
g(s)=0.005
Shamsuzzoha &Lee
(300s+1)e5s/
s(20s+1)s
Rivera et al.
Example 4
g(s)=
e5s/s(20s+1)

1.71 29.03

0.83

157.37 1.61

0.430 31.48

3.02 1.23 1.76 28.13

1.16

75.82 1.72

0.470 42.60

3.38

1.74

25.0

1.27

90.74 1.66

3.62 1.0

0.783 11.57

1.75

5.06

2.0

14.80 1.73

3.62 1.0

1.214 5.27

0.51 0.206 2.01

4.56

3.66

4.43

2.27

1.69 11.50

1.15

1.90

3.82

5.40

6.85

2.29

1.867 4.23

0.72

1.63

3.24

5.86

2.30

2.38

2.348 19.77

1.90 0.772 2.11 15.04

6.33

8.57

1.53

33.87 62.11 14.84 300 1.93 27.04

1.16

14.30 1.60

24.80 58.30 13.10 300 1.55

39.0

1.84

21.44 1.54

0.58 3.894

1.34 0.54 1.62

8.71

1.40

7.28

1.09

1.21

7.04

1.76

3.70 8.734

5.71

6.17

3.45

1.08

6.45

1.61

2.70

7.60

3.69

5.99

2.18

0.855 4.33

1.43

1.94

7.41

2.18

5.15

1.28

13.53 1.0

9.54 0.50

Fig. 13 Closed loop responses of distillation column model

g(s)=0.2e7.4s/s (Example 1), Setpoint change at t=0; load
disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=100

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 Ref. [10]. Although Luybens [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].
6.1.3 Example 3: Paper machine dryer cans model
Consider the following process of paper machine
dryer cans [2, 42].

Fig. 14 Closed loop responses of boiler steam drum model

g(s)=0.547(0.418s+1)e0.1s/(1.06s+1)s (Example 2), Setpoint
change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=20

g ( s)

0.005(300 s 1)e 5 s
s (20 s 1)

(40)

The PID controller parameter settings for the

proposed method based on the closed-loop test for
overshoot 0.31 and those of Refs. [2] and [4] are
presented in Table 2. The PID controller settings for the
latter two methods were taken from Ref. [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 and LEE [2] previously
demonstrated the superiority of their method over those

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

13

of RIVERA et al [4] and [42]. Figure 16 clearly shows

that Rivera et al.s method of Ref. [4] 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.

four methods is compared and shown in Fig. 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 VT 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 VT 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.

Fig. 15 Closed loop responses of paper machine dryer cans

model g(s)=0.005(300s+1)e5s/s(20s+1) (Example 3), Setpoint
change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=150

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.
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 closedloop 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 closed-loop 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 )

e 3s
(2 s 1)(1s 1) 2

Fig. 16 Closed loop responses of g(s)=e3s/(2s+1)(1s+1)2

(Example 4), Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of
magnitude 1 at t=50

(41)

The PID controller setting data of Refs. [11, 14, 16]

were taken from Ref. [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

Fig. 17 MV plots of g(s)=e3s/(2s+1)(1s+1)2 (Example 4),

Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=50

6.3 Robustness test

It is important to perform a comparison on fair basis
for all the tuning methods. It can be achieved only if the

14

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 ) 1.25e 4.5 s [(1.5s 1)(0.75s 1) 2 ]. The
simulation results for the plant-model mismatch are
given in Fig. 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

Fig. 18 Effect of parameters uncertainties in both proposed and

LEE et al methods. Modified process with 50% high , 25%
high k and 25% low from original value of Example 4,
g(s)=1.25e4.5s/(1.5s+1)(0.75s+1)2: Setpoint change at t=0; load
disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=50

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

Fig. 19 that the proposed controller tuning method has an

excellent setpoint and load response for model mismatch.
Although the closed-loop response for both Refs. [11, 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.
6.4 Application to 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 Aspen-Hysys is selected from
Ref. [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% (molar
fraction) propane. At 110F, the vapor pressure of
propane is slightly higher than 200 psia. 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
(molar fraction) of propane (30%), isobutene (40%) and
n-butane (30%) at 90F. The specified purity of distillate
is 98% propane. The specified impurity of propane in the
bottoms is 1.0%. 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
Fig. 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 min, and two level

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

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

15

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
min). Finally he obtained the PI setting using the TL [18]
method as Kc=10.0 and I=16.0 min.
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
Fig. 21.

It shows that the process is almost integrating and

the value of peak time tp=107.83100.0=7.83 min. The
PID parameter settings can be calculated as

A=1.45(nOS)22.02nOS+1.27=1.45(0.334)22.02(0.334)+
1.27=0.757
K c =K c0 A=8.0 0.757=6.056
For the integral time

I =min 0.69A

b
tp , 1.46tp
(1 b)

I =min 0.69 0.757

1.0
7.83, 1.46 7.83
(1.0 1.0)

I=11.43 min
D=0.14tp=0.147.83=1.10 min

The effectiveness of the proposed method has been

checked for the setpoint change in the temperature loop
and closed-loop response is shown in Fig. 22. The
response is significantly fast and smooth without any
oscillation.

Fig. 21 Closed-loop responses with P-controller (controller

gain Kc0=8.0) of a depropanizer temperature loop

Process output before the setpoint change

(y0)=125.7F, and manipulated variable (OP)=50.60%, a
step test is conducted for setpoint change
(ys)=ysy0=130.7125.7=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=5F as shown in Fig. 21, the
overshoot and other parameters are calculated as
nOS

(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:
b

y y y0 130.7 125.7

1.0
ys
ys y0 130.7 125.7

Fig. 19 Closed-loop setpoint responses of depropanizer

temperature loop with a PID-controller, setpoint change of
magnitude +5F at t=100 min; reverse setpoint change of
magnitude 5F at t=150 min

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 Fig. 23. At
15 min the feed is increased from 100 to 120 lb-mol/hr
and at 120 min 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 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.

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

16

Acknowledgement:
The author would like to acknowledge the support
provided by King Abdulaziz City for Science and
Technology (KACST) through the KACST Annual
Program at King Fahd University of Petroleum &
Minerals (KFUPM) for funding this work through
project number AT-32-41.

References
[1]
[2]

Fig. 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 min from 120 to 80 lb-mol/hr

[3]

[4]

7 Conclusions
[5]

1) The integral time has been modified for the

classical IMC-PID controller design and it is
recommended to use I min{( ( / 2)), 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 P-controller with gain Kc0. The
PID-controller settings are then obtained directly from
the following data from the setpoint experiment:
Overshoot, (ypy) /y; Time to reach first peak, tp;
Relative steady state output change, b=y/ys. 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:
Kc=Kc0A, I =min[0.69 A | b /(1 b) | tp , 1.46tp ], D=0.14tp,
F=0.057tp, A=[1.45(novershoot)22.02novershoot+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.
5) The initial controller gain which provides
overshoot around 0.3 in closed-loop test can be
calculated from the following equation as

[10]

K c0 1.26(1.45(nOS1 ) 2 2.02nOS1 +1.27) Kc01.

[17]

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.

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]

[18]
[19]

[20]

SEBORG D, EDGAR T, MELLICHAMP D. Process dynamics and

control [M]. New York: Wiley, 2004.
SHAMSUZZOHA M, LEE M. PID controller design for integrating
process with time delay [J]. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
2008, 25: 637645.
SHAMSUZZOHA M, LEE M. IMCPID controller design for
improved disturbance rejection of timedelayed processes [J]. Ind
Eng Chem Res, 2007, 46: 20772091.
RIVERA D, MORARI M, SKOGESTAD S. Internal model control. 4.
PID controller design [J]. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev, 1986, 25:
252265.
Skogestad S. Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID
controller tuning [J]. Journal of Process Control, 2003, 13: 291309.
SHAMSUZZOHA M, LEE M. Design of advanced PID controller
for enhanced disturbance rejection of second order process with time
delay [J]. AIChE, 2008, 54: 15261536.
VU T, LEE M. A unified approach to the design of advanced
proportional-integral-derivative controllers for time-delay processes
[J] Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2013, 30: 546558.
RAO A, CHIDAMBARAM M. Enhanced twodegreesoffreedom
control strategy for secondorder unstable processes with time delay
[J]. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 2006, 46:
36043614.
SHAMSUZZOHA M, LEE S, LEE M. Analytical design of PID
controller cascaded with a lead-lag filter for time-delay processes [J]
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2009, 26: 622630.
SHAMSUZZOHA M, SKOGESTAD S. The setpoint overshoot
method: A simple and fast closed-loop approach for PID tuning [J].
Journal of Process Control, 2010, 20: 12201234.
YUWANA M, SEBORG D E. A new method for on-line controller
tuning [J]. AIChE, 1982, 28: 434440.
JUTAN A, RODRIGUEZ E. Extensions of a new method for on-line
controller tuning [J]. Can J Chem Eng, 1984 62: 802.
LEE J. On-line PID controller tuning from a single closed-loop test
[J]. AIChE J, 1989, 35: 329331.
CHEN C L. A simple method for on-line identification and controller
tuning [J]. AIChE J, 1989, 35: 20372039.
ZIEGLER J G, NICHOLS N B. Optimum settings for automatic
controllers [J]. Trans ASME, 1942, 64: 759768.
LEE J, CHO W, EDGAR T. An improved technique for PID
controller tuning from closed-loop tests [J]. AIChE J, 1990, 36:
18911895.
STRM K J, HGGLUND T. Automatic tuning of simple
regulators with specifications on phase and amplitude margins [J].
Automatica, 1984, 20: 645651.
TYREUS B, LUYBEN W. Tuning PI controllers for integrator/dead
time processes [J]. Ind Eng Chem Res, 1992: 26252628.
HAUGEN F. Comparing PI tuning methods in a real benchmark
temperature control system [J]. Modeling, Identification and Control,
2010, 31: 7991.
HU W, XIAO G. Analytical proportional-integral (PI) controller
tuning using closed-loop setpoint response [J]. Ind Eng Chem Res,

J. Cent. South Univ. (2016) 23:

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

2011: 24612466.
GRIMHOLT C, SKOGESTAD S. Optimal PI control and verification
of the SIMC tuning rule [C]// in Proceedings of the IFAC Conference
on Advances in PID Control PID12, Brescia (Italy: IFAC), 2012.
SKOGESTAD S, GRIMHOLT C. The SIMC Method for Smooth
PID Controller [C]// in PID Control in the Third Millennium,
Advances in Industrial Control, Springer, 2012: 147175.
SEKI H, SHIGEMASA T. Retuning oscillatory PID control loops
based on plant operation data [J]. Journal of Process Control, 2010,
20: 217227.
VERONESI M, VISIOLI A. Performance assessment and retuning of
PID controllers for integral processes [J]. Journal of Process Control,
2010, 20: 261269.
Alcantara S, VILANOVA R, PEDRET C. PID control in terms of
robustness/performance and servo/regulator trade-offs: A unifying
approach to balanced autotuning [J]. Journal of Process Control,
2013, 23: 527542.
ALCANTARA S, VILANOVA R, PEDRET C, SKOGESTAD S. A
look into robustness/performance and servo/regulation issues in PI
tuning [C]// in Proceedings of the IFAC Conference on Advances in
PID Control PID12, Brescia(Italy: IFAC), 2012.
LEE J, CHO W, EDGAR T F. Simple analytic PID controller tuning
rules revisited [J]. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research,
2013, 52: 1297312992.
TORRICO B C, CAVALCANTE M U, BRAGA A P,
NORMEY-RICO J E, ALBUQUERQUE A A. Simple Tuning Rules
for Dead-Time Compensation of Stable, Integrative, and Unstable
First-Order Dead-Time Processes [J]. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research, 2013, 52: 1164611654.
SHAMSUZZOHA
M.
A
unified
approach
for
proportional-integral-derivative controller design for time delay
processes [J]. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2015, 32((4):
583596.
SHAMSUZZOHA M. Robust PID controller design for time delay
processes with peak of maximum sensitivity criteria [J]. Journal of
Central South University, 2014, 21(10): 37773786.
ANWAR M, SHAMSUZZOHA M, PAN S. A frequency domain PID
controller design method using direct synthesis approach [J]. Arabian
Journal for Science and Engineering, 2015, 40(4): 9951004.

17
[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]
[38]
[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]
[43]

[44]

SHAMSUZZOHA M, SKLIAR M, LEE M. PID control strategy for

open-loop unstable processes with positive and negative zeros and
time delay [J]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2012,
7: 93.
JIN Q B, LIU Q. Analytical IMC-PID design in terms of
performance/robustness trade-off for integrating processes: From
2-Dof to 1-Dof [J]. Journal of Process Control, 2014, 24(3): 2232.
JENG J C, TSENG W L, CHIU M S. A one-step tuning method for
PID controllers with robustness specification using plant
step-response data [J]. Chemical Engineering Research and Design,
2014, 92(3): 545558.
ANIL C, SREE R P. PID control of integrating systems using
Multiple Dominant Poleplacement method [J]. Asia-Pac J Chem Eng,
2015, doi: 10.1002/apj.1911.
FU E P, JENG J C. Closed-Loop Tuning of Set-Point-Weighted
ProportionalIntegralDerivative Controllers for Stable, Integrating,
and Unstable Processes: A Unified Data-Based Method [J]. Industrial
& Engineering Chemistry Research, 2015, 54(3): 10411058.
BUCKBEE G. ExperTune Inc, 2009. [EB/OL]. Available:
http://www.expertune.com.
VISIOLI A. Practical PID Control [M]. New York: Springer, 2006.
SHAMSUZZOHA M. Closed-loop PI/PID controller tuning for
stable and integrating process with time delay [J]. Ind Eng Chem Res,
2013, 52: 1297312992.
CHIEN I L, FRUEHAUF P. Consider IMC tuning to improve
controller performance [J]. Chemical Engineering Progress, 1990, 86:
3341.
LUYBEN W. Identification and Tuning of Integrating Processes with
Deadtime and Inverse Response [J]. Ind Eng Chem Res, 2003, 42:
30303035.
WANG L, CLUETT W. Tuning PID controllers for integrating
processes [J]. IEEE Proceedings-CTA, 1997, 144: 385388.
CHEN D, SEBORG D. PI/PID controller design based on direct
synthesis and disturbance rejection [J]. Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research , 2002, 41: 48074822.
LUYBEN W L. Plantwide dynamic simulators in chemical
processing and control [M]. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc, 2002.
(Edited by DENG L-xiang)