Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/jprocont
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present analytic rules for PID controller tuning that are simple and still result in good closed-loop behavior.
The starting point has been the IMC-PID tuning rules that have achieved widespread industrial acceptance. The rule for the integral
term has been modied to improve disturbance rejection for integrating processes. Furthermore, rather than deriving separate rules for
each transfer function model, there is a just a single tuning rule for a rst-order or second-order time delay model. Simple analytic rules
for model reduction are presented to obtain a model in this form, including the half rule for obtaining the eective time delay.
# 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Process control; Feedback control; IMC; PI-control; Integrating process; Time delay
1. Introduction
Although the proportional-integral-derivative (PID)
controller has only three parameters, it is not easy,
without a systematic procedure, to nd good values
(settings) for them. In fact, a visit to a process plant will
usually show that a large number of the PID controllers
are poorly tuned. The tuning rules presented in this
paper have developed mainly as a result of teaching this
material, where there are several objectives:
1. The tuning rules should be well motivated, and
preferably model-based and analytically derived.
2. They should be simple and easy to memorize.
3. They should work well on a wide range of
processes.
In this paper a simple two-step procedure that satises
these objectives is presented:
Step 1. Obtain a rst- or second-order plus delay
model. The eective delay in this model may be
obtained using the proposed half-rule.
Step 2. Derive model-based controller settings. PI-settings result if we start from a rst-order model, whereas
PID-settings result from a second-order model.
There has been previous work along these lines,
including the classical paper by Ziegler amd Nichols [1],
the IMC PID-tuning paper by Rivera et al. [2], and the
closely related direct synthesis tuning rules in the book
by Smith and Corripio [3]. The ZieglerNichols settings
result in a very good disturbance response for integrating processes, but are otherwise known to result in
rather aggressive settings [4,5], and also give poor performance for processes with a dominant delay. On the
other hand, the analytically derived IMC-settings in [2]
are known to result in a poor disturbance response for
integrating processes (e.g., [6,7]), but are robust and
generally give very good responses for setpoint changes.
The single tuning rule presented in this paper works well
for both integrating and pure time delay processes, and
for both setpoints and load disturbances.
1.1. Notation
The notation is summarized in Fig. 1. where u is the
manipulated input (controller output), d the disturbance, y the controlled output, and ys the setpoint
(reference) for the controlled output. gs y
u denotes
the process transfer function and c(s) is the feedback
part of the controller. The used to indicate deviation
0959-1524/03/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0959-1524(02)00062-8
292
variables is deleted in the following. The Laplace variable s is often omitted to simplify notation. The settings
given in this paper are for the series (cascade, interacting) form PID controller:
I s 1
Series PID : cs Kc
D s 1
I s
Kc
I D s2 I D s 1
I s
k
es
1 s 12 s 1
k0
es
s 1= 1 2 s 1
g s
Thus, we need to estimate the following model information (see Fig. 2):
Plant gain, k
Dominant lag time constant, 1
(Eective) time delay (dead time),
Optional: Second-order lag time constant, 2 (for
dominant second-order process for which 2 > ,
approximately)
1 s 1 1 s
s
1
bys t yt
I
t
ys y d
0
293
Slope, k0 k=1
The problem of obtaining the eective delay (as well
as the other model parameters) can be set up as a parameter estimation problem, for example, by making a
least squares approximation of the open-loop step
response. However, our goal is to use the resulting
eective delay to obtain controller settings, so a better
approach would be to nd the approximation which for
a given tuning method results in the best closed-loop
response [here best could, for example, bye to minimize the integrated absolute error (IAE) with a specied
value for the sensitivity peak, Ms]. However, our main
objective is not optimality but simplicity, so we
propose a much simpler approach as outlined next.
2.1. Approximation of eective delay using the half rule
We rst consider the control-relevant approximation
of the fast dynamic modes (high-frequency plant
dynamics) by use of an eective delay. To derive these
approximations, consider the following two rstorder Taylor approximations of a time delay transfer
function:
es 1 s and es
1
1
es 1 s
where the lags i0 are ordered according to their magnitude, and Tj0inv > 0 denote the inverse response (negative
numerator) time constants. Then, according to the halfrule, to obtain a rst-order model es =1 s 1, we use
6
1 10
20
;
2
0
X
20 X
h
i0
Tj0inv
2
2
j
i53
From (6) we see that an inverse response time constant T0inv (negative numerator time constant) may be
approximated as a time delay:
inv
T0inv s 1 eT0 s
10
30
;
2
X
30 X
h
0
i0
Tj0inv
2
2
j
i54
1 10 ;
2 20
11
Furthermore, since
T0inv s 1 s
inv
e e0 s eT0 s e0 s
0 s 1
inv
e0 T0 0 s es
it follows that the eective delay can be taken as the
sum of the original delay 0, and the contribution from
1
s 10:2s 1
294
T 0 5 0 5
Rule T1
T 0 5 5 0
Rule T1a
5 T0 5 0
Rule T1b
0 5 T0 5 5
Rule T2
def
~ 0 min0 ; 5 T0 Rule T3
12
215s 1
20s 1s 10:1s 12
13
k 20:75 1:5;
1 1
0:1
0:1 0:15;
2
0:1
1:05
2
ys gscs 1
14
1
gs
1
1
15
y=ys desired 1
We here consider the second-order time delay model
g(s) in (4), and specify that we, following the delay,
desire a simple rst-order response with time constant
c [2,3]:
y
1
es
16
ys desired c s 1
We have kept the delay in the desired response
because it is unavoidable. Substituting (16) and (4) into
(15) gives a Smith Predictor controller [10]:
c s
1 s 12 s 1
1
k
c s 1 es
17
15s 1 15s
0:75
20s 1 20s
(Rule T2 applies since T0=15 is larger than 5, where
is computed below). Using the half rule, the process
may then be approximated as a rst-order time delay
model with
1 s 12 s 1
1
k
c s
18
Kc
1 1
1
1
;
k c k0 c
295
I 1 ;
19
D 2
es
1
k
k0
k
1 s 1 1 s
1 s 1
s
k0 Kc I
20
0
2
k Kc
Oscillations occur for
< 1. Of course, some oscillations may be tolerated, but a robust choice is to have
21
22
1
From (20) and (22) we get 0= I/2, so !0 1= 10 1 2 1I . Here
15 I, and it follows that !0 1
1.
2
Here SIMC means Simple control or Skogestad IMC.
3
The derivative time in (25) is for the series form PID-controller in
(1).
296
Kc
1 1
1 1
k c k0 c
23
I min 1 ; 4c
24
D 2
25
I 4c
1
1
;
00
k 4c 2
D 4c
27
26
28
Table 1
SIMC PID-settings (23)(25) for some special cases of (4) (with tc as a tuning parameter)
Kc
I
Dd
es
1 s 1
1 1
k c
min 1 ; 4c
es
1 s 12 s 1
1 1
k c
min 1 ; 4c
2
0e
es
s
1
1
k0 c
4c
k0
es
s2 s 1
1
1
k0 c
4c
2
k00
es
s2
1
1
k0 4c 2
4c
4c
Process
g(s)
First-order
kes
Integratingb
k0
The pure time delay process is a special case of a rst-order process with 1=0.
The integrating process is a special case of a rst-order process with 1!1.
For the double integrating process, integral action has been added according to Eq. (27).
The derivative time is for the series form PID controller in Eq. (1).
def
Pure integral controller cs KsI with KI KIc kc1.
second-order time delay process in (4) results in the following SIMC-PID settings which may be easily memorized ( c=):
Kc
0:5 1 0:5 1
0
k
k
29
I minf1 ; 8g
30
D 2
31
297
1
X
ui1 ui
i1
Table 2
Robustness margins for rst-order and integrating time delay process
using the SIMC-settings in (29) and (30) (tc=y)
k0
Process g(s)
k
s
1 s1 e
Controller gain, Kc
Integral time, I
Gain margin (GM)
Phase margin (PM)
Sensitivity peak, Ms
Complementary sensitivity peak, Mt
Phase crossover frequency, !180.
Gain crossover frequency, !c.
Allowed time delay error, /
0:5 1
k
0:5 1
k0
1
3.14
61.4
1.59
1.00
1.57
0.50
2.14
8
2.96
46.9
1.70
1.30
1.49
0.51
1.59
es
298
Table 3
SIMC settings and performance summary for ve dierent time delay processes (tc=y)
Case
g(s)
kes
es
s
k00 es:2
0:0625 1
k00 2
es
k 4s1
0:5 1
k
a
b
c
d
s
es
s4s1
tDc
tI
Kc
0d
0
0:5 1
k0
8y
0:5 1
k0
8y
8y
2
k
1=4y
Ms
2=4y
8y
1.59
1.70
1.70
1.96
1.59
Setpointa
Load disturbance
IAE(y)
TV(u)
2.17
1.08
1
k
1.22
1
k0
1.23
1
k0
3.92
5.28
7.92
2.17
0.205
4.11
1
k
TV(u)
IAE
IAEmin
2.17 k
1.08
1.59
0 2
1.55
3.27
0 2
1.59
5.41
k00 3
2.34
5.49
2 k
1.08
2.41
IAE(y)
1
k00 2
16 k
16 k
128
The IAE and TV-values for PID control are without derivative action on the setpoint.
IAEmin is for the IAE-optimal PI/PID-controller of the same kind
The derivative time is for the series form PID controller in Eq. (1).
Pure integral controller cs KsI with KI KIc 0:5
k .
process in case 4 where we, from (27), have added integral action, and robustness is somewhat poorer.
4.1.2.3. Setpoint change. The simulated time responses
for the ve cases are shown in Fig. 4. The setpoint
responses are nice and smooth. For a unit setpoint
change, the minimum achievable IAE-value for these
time delay processes is IAE= [e.g. using a Smith Predictor controller (17) with c=0]. From Table 3 we see
that with the proposed settings the actual IAE-setpointvalue varies between 2.17 (for the rst-order process) to
7.92 (for the more dicult double integrating process).
To avoid derivative kick on the input, we have
chosen to follow industry practice and not dierentiate
the setpoint, see (2). This is the reason for the dierence
in the setpoint responses between cases 2 and 3, and also
the reason for the somewhat sluggish setpoint response
Fig. 4. Responses using SIMC settings for the ve time delay processes in Table 3 (c =y). Unit setpoint change at t=0; Unit load disturbance at t=20. Simulations are without derivative action on the
setpoint. Parameter values: 1; k 1; k0 1; k00 1.
299
tings are given. For some processes (El, E12, E13, E14,
E15) only rst-order approximations are derived, and
only PI-settings are given. The model approximations
for cases E2, E3, E6 and E13 are studied separately; see
(41), (13), (42) and (43). Processes El and E3E8 have
been studied by Astrom and coworkers [9,13], and in all
cases the SIMC PI-settings and IAE-load-values in
Table 4 are very similar to those obtained by Astrom
and coworkers for similar values of Ms. Process E11 has
been studied by [14].
The peak sensitivity (Ms) for the 25 cases ranges from
1.23 to 2, with an average value of 1.64. This conrms
Table 4
s
Approximation gs k 1 s1e 2 s1, SIMC PI/PID-settings (tc=y) and performance summary for 15 processes
Case
Approximation, g(s)
k
1
SIMC settings
2
Kc
I
Performance
tD
Ms
Setpointa
Load disturbanceb
IAE(y)
TV(u)
IAE(y)
TV(u)
IAE
IAEmin
E1 (PI)
1
s10:2s1
0.1
1.1
5.5
0.8
1.56
0.36
12.7
0.15
1.55
E2 (PI)
0:3s10:08s1
2s11s10:4s10:2s10:05s13
1.47
2.5
0.85
2.5
1.66
3.56
1.90
2.97
1.26
1.39
0.77
1.2
1.30
1.2
1.73
2.73
2.84
1.54
1.33
1.99
1.5
0.15
1.05
2.33
1.05
1.55
0.46
4.97
0.45
1.30
3.82
1.5
0.05
0.15
6.67
0.4
0.15
1.47
0.25
15.0
0.068
1.45
64
2.5
1.5
0.3
1.5
1.46
5.59
1.15
5.40
1.10
1.93
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.43
4.31
1.27
3.13
1.12
3.49
0.148
1.1
3.72
1.1
1.59
0.45
8.17
0.30
1.41
4.1
1
1
0.028
1.69
1.0
0.22
17.9
0.296
0.224
13.5
0.22
1.58
1.48
0.27
6.50
43.3
0.67
0.056
45.7
1.49
1.55
27
10.1
0.358
1.33
1.40
2.86
1.33
1.23
1.95
3.19
2.04
1.55
E7 (PI)
E7 (PID)
2s1
s13
1
1
3.5
2.5
1.5
1.5
0.214
0.3
1.5
1.5
1.66
1.85
7.28
5.99
1.06
1.02
8.34
6.23
1.28
1.57
1.23
1.22
E8 (PI)
1
ss12
1.5
0.33
12
1.76
6.47
0.84
36.4
1.78
3.2
0.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.79
2.02
4.21
2.67
1.99
40
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
1.61
3.38
1.31
3.14
1.15
1.34
0.5
1.59
3.03
1.29
1.10
1.60
21
5.25
16
1.72
6.34
12.3
3.05
1.49
2.9
20
10
1.65
4.32
22.8
0.80
1.37
4.9
0.7
1.63
11.5
1.59
10.1
1.20
1.37
E2 (PID)
E3 (PI)
215s1
20s1s10:1s12
E3 (PID)
E4 (PI)
1
s14
E4 (PID)
E5 (PI)
E5 (PID)
E6 (PI)
1
s10:2s10:04s10:0008s1
0:17s12
ss12 0:028s1
E6 (PID)
E8 (PID)
E9 (PI)
es
s12
E9 (PID)
E10 (PI)
es
20s12s1
E10 (PID)
E11 (PI)
s1
es
6s12s12
E11 (PID)
1.66
9.09
2.11
6.03
1.24
1.86
E12 (PI)
6s13s1e0:3s
10s18s1s1
0.225
0.3
7.41
1.66
1.07
18.3
0.15
1.39
2.1
E13 (PI)
2s1
s
10s10:5s1 e
0.625
1.25
4.5
2.88
4.50
1.74
2.86
6.56
1.61
1.20
3.39
E14 (PI)
s1
s
0.5
3.59
2.04
17.3
3.40
3.75
E15 (PI)
s1
s1
0.5
1.02
2.85
3.00
1.23
a
b
c
d
The IAE- and TV-values for PID control are without derivative action on the setpoint.
IAEmin is for the IAE-optimal PI- or PID-controller.
The derivative time is for the series form PID controller in Eq. (1).
s
Integrating process, gs k0 se2 s1.
300
1 1
1
;
k c c
I 4c ;
D 2 0:1
32
2
Kc
0:769 1
;
k
I 1 ;
34
301
I 2:2Pu
Kc 0:5Ku
Kc 0:45Ku ;
PID-controlseries :
I Pu =1:2
Kc 0:3Ku ;
I Pu =4;
D Pu =4:
Table 5
Tunings and performance for integrating process, g(s)=k0 eys/s
Setpointb
Method
Kc.k y
I/
D/
SIMC ( c=)
IMC (e=1.7y)
Astrom/Schei (Ms=1.7)
ZN-PI
TyreusLuyben
ZN-PID
0.5
0.59
0.404
0.71
0.49
0.471
8
1
7.0
3.33
7.32
1
a
b
Load disturbance
Ms
IAE(y)
TV(u)
IAE(y)
TV(u)
1.70
1.75
1.70
2.83
1.70
2.29
3.92
2.14
4.56
3.92
3.95
2.88
1.22
1.32
1.16
2.83
1.21
2.45
16.0
1
13.0
5.61
14.9
3.32
1.55
1.24
1.88
2.87
1.59
3.00
The derivative time is for the series form PID controller in Eq. (1).
The IAE- and TV-values for PID control are withput derivative action on the setpoint.
302
Table 6
Tunings and performance for pure time delay process, g(s)=kes
Setpointb
Load disturbance
Method
Kc.k0
KI. I/c
D/a
Ms
IAE(y)
TV(u)
IAE(y)
TV(u)
SIMC ( c=)
IMC-PI (E=1.7)
Astrom/Schei (Ms=1.6)
Pessen
ZN-PI
TyreusLuyben
IMC-PID (E=0.8)
ZN-PID
0
0.294
0.200
0.25
0.45
0.313
0
0.3
0.5
0.588
0.629
0.751
0.27
0.071
0.769
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.59
1.62
1.60
1.80
1.85
1.46
2.01
2.17
1.71
1.59
1.45
3.70
14.1
1.90
1.08
1.22
1.08
1.30
1.53
1.22
1.06
Unstable
2.17
1.71
1.59
1.45
3.70
14.1
1.38
1.08
1.22
1.08
1.30
1.53
1.22
1.67
a
b
c
IAE=3.70, and the TyreusLuyben controller is extremely sluggish with IAE=14.1. This is due to a low value
of the integral gain KI.
Because the process gain remains constant at high frequency, any real PID controller (with both proportional and derivative action), yields instability for this
process, including the ZN PID-controller [2]. (However,
the IMC PID-controller is actually an ID-controller, and
it yields a stable response with IAE=1.38.)
The poor response with the ZN PI-controller and the
instability with PID control, may partly explain the
myth in the process industry that time delay processes
cannot be adequately controlled using PID controllers.
However, as seen from Table 6 and Fig. 6, excellent
performance can be achieved even with PI-control.
303
Load disturbance
Method
Kc
I
D a
Ms
IAE(y)
TV(u)
IAE(y)
TV(u)
SIMC-PI c
Astrom/Schei (Ms=1.6)
ZN-PI
TyreusLuyben
SIMC-PID c
ZN-PID
3.72
2.74
13.6
9.46
17.9
9.1
1.1
0.67
0.47
1.24
1.0
0.14
0.22
0.14
1.59
1.60
11.3
2.72
1.58
2.39
0.45
0.58
1.87
0.50
0.27
0.24
8.2
6.2
207
35.8
43.3
39.2
0.296
0.246
0.137
0.131
0.056
0.025
1.41
1.52
13.9
2.91
1.49
3.09
a
b
The derivative time is for the series form PID controller in Eq. (1)
The IAE- and TV-vaules for PID control are without dervative action on the setpoint.
6. Discussion
304
35
D
0
Kc Kc 1
;
I
D
0
D
D
1
I
I I
D
1
;
I
36
The SIMC-PID series settings in (29)(31) then correspond to the following SIMC ideal-PID settings ( c=):
1 4 8 :
0
D
0:5 1 2
;
k
I0 1 2 ;
37
2
2
1
1
1 5 8 :
D
K0c
0:5 1
2
0
1
Kc
;
k
8
2
I 8 2 ;
38
2
1
8
305
1
39
1
22 0
k
2
I0
P0
To avoid oscillations
5 1 with the new settings we
must from (21) require Kc I54/k0 , that is, we must
require that
Kc I
1 P0 2
5 2
i0
Kc0 I0
40
1
=
0:5 2 s 1 . This is as an additional derivative
2
term with D=/2, eective over only a small range,
which increases the controller gain by a factor of two at
high frequencies. However, with the robust SIMC settings used in this paper ( c=), the addition of derivative action (without changing Kc or I) has in most cases
no eect on IAE for load disturbances, since the integral
gain KI Kc =I is unchanged and there are no oscillations [5]. Although the robustness margins are somewhat improved (for example, for an integrating with
delay process, k0 es =s, the value of Ms is reduced from
1.70 (PI) to 1.50 (PID) by adding derivative action with
D=/2), this probably does not justify the increased
complexity of the controller and the increased sensitivity
to measurement noise. This conclusion is further conrmed by Table 6 and Fig. 6, where we found that a PIcontroller (and even a pure I-controller) gave very good
performance for a pure time delay process. In conclu-
306
1 1
;
k c
I min 1 ; 4c
D 2
Acknowledgements
Discussions with Professors David E. Clough, Dale
Seborg and Karl J. Astrom are gratefully acknowledged.
Approximation 1 :
T0 s 1
T0 = 0 5 1
0 s 1
Approximation 2 :
T0 s 1
T0 = 0 4 1
0 s 1
Approximation 3 :
T0 s 1
1
0 s 1 0 T0 s 1
7. Conclusion
A two-step procedure is proposed for deriving PIDsettings for typical process control applications.
Ts1
Fig. 9. Comparison of g0 s a s1
b s1 with a 5 T 5 b (solid
line), with four approximations (dashed and dotted lines):
b
a
g1 s T=
, g2 s= T=
, g3 s 3 s11b s1 with 3 a T, and
a s1
b s1
a b
1
g4 s 4 s1
with 4 T .
T 0 s 1
0a s 1 0b s 1
1
0a 0b
s1
T0
Approximation 4 :
307
The introduction of e
0 instead of 0 in Rule
T3, gives a smooth transition between Rules
T2 and T3, and also improves the accuracy of
308
1 0:17 0:17s 1 0:66s 1
s 1
Using the half rule we may then approximate (42) as
an integrating process, gs k0es =s; with
k0 1; 1 0:66 0:028 1:69
or as an integrating process with lag, gs kes =
s2 s 1, with
0:3s 10:08s 1
2s 11s 10:4s 10:2s 10:05s 13
41
2 1 0:66=2 1:33
2s 1
es
10s 10:5s 1
43
1 2 1=2 2:5
k 0:625;
1 2;
1 0:5=2 1:25;
2 1 0:4=2 1:2
Remark. We here used 0 0a 0:2 (the closest larger
time constant) for the approximation of the zero at
T0=0.08. Actually, this is a borderline case with
T0 =0b 1:6, and we could instead have used 0 0b
0:05 (the closest smaller time constant). Approximation
using Rule T1b would then give 0:08s1
0:05s1 1, but the
eect on the resulting models would be marginal: the
resulting eective time delay would change from 1.47
to 1.50 (rst-order process) and from 0.77 to 0.80 (second-order process), whereas the time constants (1 and
2 ) and gain (k) would be unchanged.
Example E6. For the process (Example 6 in [9]),
g0 s
0:17s 1
ss 12 0:028s 1
42
References
[1] J.G. Ziegler, N.B. Nichols, Optimum settings for automatic controllers, Trans. A.S.M.E. 64 (1942) 759768.
[2] D.E. Rivera, M. Morari, S. Skogestad, Internal model control. 4.
PID controller design, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 25 (1) (1986) 252265.
[3] C.A. Smith, A.B. Corripio, Principles and Practice of Automatic
Process Control, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1985.
[4] B.D. Tyreus, W.L. Luyben, Tuning PI controllers for integrator/
dead time processes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. (1992) 26282631.
[5] K.J. Astrom, T. Hagglund, PID Controllers: Theory, Design and
Tuning, 2nd Edition, Instrument Society of America, Research
Triangle Park, 1995.
[6] I.L. Chien, P.S. Fruehauf, Consider IMC tuning to improve
controller performance, Chemical Engineering Progress (1990)
3341.
[7] I.G. Horn, J.R. Arulandu, J. Gombas, J.G. VanAntwerp,
R.D. Braatz, Improved lter design in internal model control,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 35 (10) (1996) 34373441.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
309