Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ARROW@DIT
Conference papers
2000-01-01
This Conference Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at ARROW@DIT. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Conference papers by an authorized
administrator of ARROW@DIT. For more information, please contact
yvonne.desmond@dit.ie, arrow.admin@dit.ie.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNoncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License
Preprints of Proceedings of PID 00: IFAC Workshop on Digital Control, Terrassa, Spain, April 2000, pp. 175180.
Aidan ODwyer
School of Control Systems and Electrical Engineering, Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin
St., Dublin 8, Ireland.
Abstract: The ability of proportional integral (PI) and proportional integral derivative (PID)
controllers to compensate many practical industrial processes has led to their wide acceptance
in industrial applications. The requirement to choose either two or three controller parameters
is perhaps most easily done using tuning rules. A summary of tuning rules for the PI control
of single input, single output (SISO) processes with time delay is provided in this paper.
Copyright 2000 IFAC
Keywords: PI controllers, rules, time delay.
1. INTRODUCTION
The ability of PI and PID controllers to compensate
most practical industrial processes has led to their
wide acceptance in industrial applications. It has been
suggested, for example, that just 5 to 10% of control
loops cannot be controlled by SISO PI or PID
controllers (Koivo and Tanttu, 1991); in particular,
these controllers perform well for processes with
benign dynamics and modest performance
requirements (Astrom and Hagglund, 1995). It has
been stated that 98% of control loops in the pulp and
paper industries are controlled by SISO PI controllers
(Bialkowski, 1996) and that, in process control
applications, more than 95% of the controllers are of
PID type (Astrom and Hagglund, 1995). The PI or
PID
controller
implementation
has
been
recommended for the control of processes of low to
medium order, with small time delays, when
parameter setting must be done using tuning rules
and when controller synthesis is performed either
once or more often (Isermann, 1989).
Number of rules
PI 81; PID - 117
K m e s
1 sTm
PI 6; PID - 6
PI 22; PID - 15
K me
s m
K m e s
K me
s m
s(1 + sTm )
PI 6; PID - 15
(1 + 2 m Tm s + Tm s )
2 2
PI 15; PID - 48
s m
K me
(1 sTm1 )(1 + sTm 2 ) PI 2; PID - 6
Other delayed models
PI 1; PID - 12
Delayed or undelayed model PI 21; PID - 39
Total
Preprints of Proceedings of PID 00: IFAC Workshop on Digital Control, Terrassa, Spain, April 2000, pp. 175180.
2. TUNING RULES -
Rule
Controller
Ziegler and
Nichols
(1942)
Kc
Ti
Comment
1
G c (s) = K c 1 +
is
Process reaction
0.9Tm
3.33 m
Km m
m
1
Tm
Astrom and
Hagglund
(1995)
Rule
0.63Tm
Km m
3.2 m
Kc
Ti
Chien, et al.
(1952) regulator
Astrom and
Hagglund
(1995)
regulator
Chien, et al.
(1952)
servo
Chien et al.
(1952)
servo
Murrill
(1967) 2
constraints
criterion
0.6Tm
Km m
4 m
0.7Tm
Km m
2.3 m
Comment
011
. <
m
< 10
.
Tm
0% o.s.
0.35Tm
Km m
117
. Tm
0.6Tm
Km m
Tm
20% o.s.
011
. <
m
Tm
< 10
.
0% o.s.
011
. <
m
< 10
.
Tm
20% o.s.
0.946
0.928 Tm
Km m
Tm m
1078
.
Tm
0.583
St. Clair
(1997)
0.333Tm
Km m
Murrill
(1967)
min. IAE
0.984 Tm
Km m
Shinskey
(1988)
min. IAE
100
. Tm
104
. Tm
111
. Tm
139
. Tm
Murrill
(1967)
min. ISE
Tm
1305
.
Km m
0.959
Tm m
0.492 Tm
0.739
Tm
1279
.
Km m
0.945
Tm m
0.535 Tm
0.586
Tm
1346
.
Km m
0.675
Tm m
0.552 Tm
0.438
0.859 Tm
Km m
0.977
Tm m
0.674 Tm
0.680
Tm
1015
.
Km m
0.957
Tm m
0.667 Tm
0.552
Tm
1065
.
Km m
0.673
Tm m
0.687 Tm
0.427
Tm
1021
.
Km m
0.953
Tm m
0.629 Tm
0.546
Tm
01
.
m
10
.
Tm
Tm
3.0
m
Regulator tuning
Zhuang and
Atherton
(1993)
min. ISE
Murrill
(1967)
min. ITAE
Zhuang and
Atherton
(1993)
min. ISTSE
Zhuang and
Atherton
0.986
Km m
Km m
K m m
Km m
Tm m
0.608 Tm
0.707
01
.
m
10
.
Tm
m Tm = 0.2
30
. m
2.25 m
145
. m
m
m Tm = 0.5
m Tm = 1
m Tm = 2
01
.
m
10
.
Tm
01
.
m
10
.
Tm
11
.
m
2.0
Tm
01
.
m
10
.
Tm
01
.
m
10
.
Tm
11
.
m
2.0
Tm
01
.
m
10
.
Tm
Preprints of Proceedings of PID 00: IFAC Workshop on Digital Control, Terrassa, Spain, April 2000, pp. 175180.
(1993) - min.
ISTES
Tm
1076
.
Km m
0.648
Tm m
0.650 Tm
0.442
11
.
m
2.0
Tm
Preprints of Proceedings of PID 00: IFAC Workshop on Digital Control, Terrassa, Spain, April 2000, pp. 175180.
Rule
Kc
Ti
Comment
Rule
Kc
Ti
Comment
Hang, et al.
(1993a, b) continued
0.393Tm
Km m
Tm
Am = 4 ,
01
. m 10
.
Tm
0.314Tm
Km m
Tm
Servo tuning
Rovira, et al.
(1969) - min.
IAE
Zhuang and
Atherton
(1993)
min. ISE
Rovira, et al.
(1969)
min. ITAE
Zhuang and
Atherton
(1993)
min. ISTSE
Zhuang and
Atherton
(1993)
min. ISTES
Haalman
(1965)
Pemberton
(1972) min.
IAE
regulator
Smith and
Corripio
(1985)
min. IAE
servo
Smith and
Corripio
(1985) 5%
o.s. servo
0.758 Tm
Km m
0.861
0.980 Tm
Km m
0.892
Tm
1072
.
Km m
0.560
0.586 Tm
Km m
0.916
Tm
m
Tm
1020
.
0.323
Tm
m
0.690 0155
.
Tm
Tm
m
Tm
0.648 0114
.
Tm
1030
.
0165
.
0.921
0.712 Tm
Km m
m
Tm
Tm
0.968 0.247
0.786 Tm
Km m
0.559
0.569 Tm
Km m
0.951
0.628 Tm
Km m
0.583
Tm
0.883 0158
.
Tm
1023
.
0179
.
Tm
1007
.
0167
.
Direct synthesis
2Tm
Tm
3K m m
Tm
Km m
3Tm
5K m m
Tm
2K m m
m
Tm
m
Tm
m
Tm
m
Tm
01
.
m
10
.
Tm
11
. m 2.0
Tm
01
.
m
2.0
Tm
01
. m 10
.
Tm
11
.
m
2.0
Tm
Closed loop
sensitivity =
19
.
01
.
m
0.5
Tm
Tm
Tm
01
. m 0.5
Tm
05064
.
Tm
Kmm
Am = 5 ,
m = 72 0
m = 600
Tm
0.25
m
1
Tm
Tm
Robust
Rivera, et al.
(1986)
Chien
(1988)
Fruehauf, et
al. (1993)
Lee, et al.
(1998)
Shinskey
(1988)
min. IAE
Tm
K m
Tm
2Tm + m
2K m
Tm + 0.5 m
17
. m ,
> 0.1Tm .
17
. m ,
> 0.1Tm .
Tm
K m ( m + )
Tm
= Tm
5Tm
9 m K m
5 m
m
< 0.33
Tm
Tm
2 m K m
Tm
m
0.33
Tm
Ti
m2
Tm +
2( + m ) = 0.333 m
Km ( + m )
Ultimate cycle
0.5848K u
0.81Tu
m Tm = 0.2
0.5405K u
0.66Tu
m Tm = 0.5
0.4762 K u
0.47Tu
0.4608K u
0.37Tu
m Tm = 1
m Tm = 2
1
G c (s) = K c b +
Controller
Ti s
0.4Tm
Km m
0.7Tm
b = 0.5;
01
. m 2
Tm
Figu
- =
* =
Tm
Tm
CL response
=1
Tm
Kmm
Tm
CL response
= 0.6
Hang, et al.
(1993a, b)
Bi, et al.
(1999)
Astrom and
Hagglund
(1995)
Tm
Schneider 0.368 K
m m
(1988)
0.403
Tm
2Km m
m
10
.
Tm
01
. m 10
.
Tm
11
.
Voda and
Landau
(1995)
m = 67.50
0.7854Tm
Km m
Tm
0.524Tm
Km m
Tm
Am = 2 ,
m = 450
Am = 3 ,
m = 600
3. PI TUNING RULES
Rule
Ziegler and
Nichols
(1942)
Tyreus and
Luyben
(1992)
Kc
K m e s m
MODEL
s
Ti
Comment
Process reaction
0.9
3.33 m
Km m
Quarter
decay ratio
0.487
Km m
Max. CL
loop log
mod. = 2dB
8.75 m
Preprints of Proceedings of PID 00: IFAC Workshop on Digital Control, Terrassa, Spain, April 2000, pp. 175180.
Rule
Kc
Ti
Astrom and
Hagglund
(1995)
0.63
Km m
3.2 m
Comment
Regulator
Shinskey
(1994)
min. IAE
regulator
0.9259
K m m
Fruehauf, et
al. (1993)
0.5
Km m
4 m
Robust
Cluett and
Wang (1997)
- designed
closed loop
time
constant in
comment
column
Rotach
(1995)
- = Z-N
+ = ITAE reg
* = IAE reg o = ISE reg
5 m
Direct synthesis
0.9588
3.0425 m
Km m
0.6232
Km m
5.2586 m
2 m
0.4668
K m m
7.2291 m
3 m
0.3752
Km m
9.1925 m
4 m
0.3144
Km m
111637
.
m
5 m
0.2709
Km m
131416
.
m
6 m
0.75
Km m
2.41 m
= 0.75.
0.58
Km m
10 m
Max. CL
gain = 1.26
0.8
Km m
5.9 m
Max. CL
gain = 2.0
0.67075
Km m
3.6547 m
Ratio of m to Tm
Other
Penner
(1988)
Srividya and
Chidambaram
(1997)
4. SIMULATION RESULTS
- = Z-N
+ = ITAE reg
* = IAE reg o = ISE reg
Ratio of m to Tm
Figure 2: Phase margin
- = Z-N
+ = ITAE ser
* = IAE ser o = ISE ser
Ratio of m to Tm
Ratio of m to Tm
Figure 3: Gain margin
Preprints of Proceedings of PID 00: IFAC Workshop on Digital Control, Terrassa, Spain, April 2000, pp. 175180.
5. CONCLUSIONS
- = Z-N
+ = ITAE ser
* = IAE ser o = ISE ser
Ratio of m to Tm
Figure 4: Phase margin
REFERENCES
+ = A m = 3, m = 60o
- = Z-N
* = A m = 2 , m = 45o o = A m = 4, m = 67.5o
Ratio of m to Tm
of m to Tm
Figure 5: GainRatio
margin
- = Z-N
+ = A m = 3, m = 60o
* = A m = 2 , m = 45o o = A m = 4, m = 67.5o
Ratio of m to Tm
Figure 6: Phase margin
It is interesting that, over a wide range of time delay
to time constant ratios, the ISE based tuning rules
have the smallest gain margin and have also a small
phase margin, suggesting that this is a less robust
tuning strategy. This is compatible with application
experience. The direct synthesis tuning rules
simulated provide a constant gain and phase margin
at all ratios of time delay to time constant; it may be
shown analytically that, for a FOLPD process, a gain
margin of 157
. a and a phase margin of ( 157
. a)
radians is achieved with the use of a PI controller
with K c = aTm K m m and Ti = Tm .
Preprints of Proceedings of PID 00: IFAC Workshop on Digital Control, Terrassa, Spain, April 2000, pp. 175180.