Pergamon
ooos1098(95)001050
Development
ERIC POULIN,?
ANDRE
Auromatica,Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 7182, 1996
Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. AU rights reserved
ooo5m&3/%$15.00 + 0.00
and Evaluation of an Autotuning
Adaptive PID Controller*
POMERLEAU,?
ANDRE
DESBIENSt
and DANIEL
and
HODOUINS
An autotuning and adaptive PID controller based on the identification of a
secondorder discretetime model with time delay is developed and compared with three commercial adaptive controllers.
Kev WordsPID
control; automatic tunina: adantive control; identification;
filt&ng; industrial control.
AbstractThis
paper describes the design of a practical
autotuning and adaptive singleinputsingleoutput
(SISO)
PID controller (AAC). The AAC can control processes with
stable and unstable zeros, processes with an integrator,
unstable processes and standard aperiodic processes. It uses
an explicit identification
with a recursive parameter
estimation of a secondorder
with delay model. The
regulator tuning methods are based on an approximate
minimization of the ITAE criterion by applying polezero
cancellation, phase margin and maximum peak resonance
specitications, with special considerations for delays, unstable
zeros and poles. The data filtering, the identification, the
tuning mechanism and the supervisory shell are described.
Useful guidelines for PI and PID tuning for SISO processes
are given. The AAC performances are compared using a
benchmark test with commercial adaptive PID controllers:
Foxboro 76OC, Fisher DPR 910 and Leeds & Northrup
Electromax V.
1. INTRODUCIION
Unpredictable
changes in processes dynamics
lead to poor control performances if controller
parameters are not properly adapted. Some of
these changes arise from nonlinearities, process
aging, production strategy changes, raw material
property modifications and changes over equipment maintenance cycles. Adaptive control is
widely discussed in the literature, and reviews of
the evolution of adaptive control algorithms and
products have been given by Astrom (1987),
Keyes and Kaya (1989), Chan (1991) and
Astrom et al. (1993). Comparative studies of
commercial and academic controllers have been
presented
by Nachtigal (1986), Minter and
*Received 26 August 1994; revised 17 March 1995;
received in final form 20 June 1995. This paper was not
presented at any IFAC meeting. This paper was recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor
P. J. Gawthrop under the direction of Editor C. C. Hang.
Corresponding author Dr %ic Poulin. Tel. +l 418 656 2131
Email
Fax
+l
3159;
4785;
418
656
ext.
Eric.Poulin@gel.ulaval.ca.
t Departement
de Genie filectrique, Universite Laval,
SainteFoy, Quebec, Canada GlK 7P4.
$ Departement de Mines et Metallurgic, Universite Laval,
SainteFoy, Quebec, Canada GlK 7P4.
parameter
estimation;
Fisher (1988), Dumont et al. (1989), Sorrells
(1989), Cao and McAvoy (1990), Hang and Sin
(1991) and Isermann et al. (1991).
In spite of the increasing number of successful
industrial applications of adaptive control, there
is room for improvement.
Adaptive control
compromises
with adaptation
performances,
stability and robustness in order to cope with
industrial environment
(De Larminat,
1989;
Matko,
1993). In many cases, adaptation
performances are reduced to ensure stability and
robustness in practical applications (Song et al.,
1984; Bartlomiej and Andrzej, 1988). Supervisory shells including safety nets and special
tricks must be used to overcome violations of
theoretical
developments
of the controller
(Albertos et al., 1989; McIntosh et al., 1992).
Finally, the types of processes that adaptive PID
controllers can control are sometimes limited to
standard aperiodic minimumphase processes.
This paper describes the development of a
practical autotuning and adaptive PID controller (AAC). The PID controller structure has
been retained, since it is the most widely used in
industry, and it is able to control a wide range of
processes if properly tuned. The AAC is based
on an explicit identification of a secondorder
model with delay and a design step to tune the
controller. Model identification and controller
tuning are under a supervisory shell that ensures
good performances in real conditions. The AAC
controls processes with stable and unstable
zeros, processes with an integrator, overdamped
and unstable processes.
The paper is organized as follows. The data
filtering procedures are presented first. Afterwards, the identification method and its supervision system are described. The rules and the
design procedures
for the PID tuning are
explained, and, finally, comparisons with com
I?. Poulin et al.
72
mercial adaptive PID controllers are presented.
The main contribution to the paper is to present
an adaptive and autotuning PID controller that
can handle most types of industrial processes.
The paper describes the explicit design of the
data
acquisition
and filtering
system
for
recursive
identification.
It also summarizes
efficient PID tuning methods based on frequency
responses.
2. DATA
FILTERING
Data filtering is necessary to obtain satisfactory estimation
results. Noise and external
disturbance effects must be attenuated as much
as possible in order to use reliable data for
identification and model updating. Even when
noises and disturbances are not present, filtering
is required to mask the effect of unmodeled
dynamics, since one is attempting to model
highorder
systems with a loworder model
(Mohtadi, 1988). Filtering the input and output
data acts on the bias distribution
of the
estimated
transfer
function
(Wahlberg
and
Ljung, 1986; Ljung, 1987). It is thus possible to
emphasize and depress different frequency bands
by a proper choice of filters.
Figure 1 presents the data filtering system for
identification.
First, an antialiasing
analog
lowpass filter is used and is considered as a part
of the process. Afterwards, a fast sampling is
performed (w,& and both input and output data
are bandpassfiltered. Identical digital filters are
applied in order to avoid modifications of the
identified transfer function. The bandpass filter is
realized by combining digital lowpass and
highpass filters. The digital lowpass filter
attenuates highfrequency noise and reduces the
effect of unmodeled
dynamics. The digital
highpass filter allows identification of a process
around a set point and attenuates the effect of
nonzero mean disturbances. Finally, following
the digital filtering, some samples can be
IDENTIFICATION
DIGITAL HP
DIGITAL LP
dropped to go down to a lower sampling
frequency ( w,~) appropriate
for identification
purposes.
A detailed procedure for the design of the
data acquisition system for recursive identification is given by Poulin et al. (1994). The analog
lowpass filter is chosen according to the desired
attenuation at the sampling frequency osl, the
allowable phase margin reduction for control
applications and the acceptable system modification by addition
of supplementary
poles
(Pomerleau and Hodouin, 1994). The digital
lowpass filter is selected to match the desired
closedloop bandwidth o,, (Shook et al., 1991)
and the choice of the digital highpass filter is a
compromise between the elimination time of the
effect of nonzero mean disturbances and the
allowable information
attenuation
that slows
estimation convergence
(Astrbm and Wittenmark, 1989).
In the AAC the analog lowpass filter and the
fast sampling frequency w,, are not managed by
the autotuning
and adaptation
mechanisms.
This part of the data acquisition system does not
need to be adapted, since the controlled systems
are oversampled at this step. A secondorder
analog lowpass filter with a cutoff frequency
1s
.
used. This gives a 40 dB
%3 = +)Q
attenuation at w,~.
The digital filter parameters and the second
sampling frequency ws2 are determined automatically at the autotuning (Section 5). The
controller
roughly
evaluates
the openloop
dynamics of the system. This information is used
to determine the initial closedloop bandwidth
w,,. The cutoff frequencies of the firstorder
lowpass filter w,~, and the firstorder highpass
filter ucdh are set to o,~, = w,~,, = w,,. The second
sampling frequency
w,~ (identification
and
control frequency) is chosen according to the
relation w,* = (1020)~~ (Isermann, 1980). After
autotuning, the digital filters and w,~ are not
modified.
The data acquisition
system is
sufficiently flexible to cope with process dynamics variations. It is worth noting that the initial
closedloop bandwidth o,, is only used for the
data acquisition system setting. The information
about the process dynamics required for the PID
tuning is continuously
extracted
from the
identified model and recalculated.
3. IDENTIFICATION
A secondorder
model with delay is identified:
b,z
 + bzzm2 d
z
+ a,Z2
Gil(Z)= 1 +a,z
Fig. 1. Data filtering
for identification.
where
d is the delay in number
(1)
of sampling
Autotuning
and adaptive PID
periods
estimated
at the autotuning
step
(Section 5). The identification is based on the
damped leastsquares (DLS) algorithm, which is
an extended version of the recursive simple
leastsquares (RLS) algorithm. The DLS algorithm is more appropriate for adaptive control,
since it weights increments of the estimated
parameter vector. This gives more control on the
adaptation rate. The DLS criterion is
J(6)= i
rk[y(k)
CpT(k)ii(t)]2
k=rN
II&(0@(0
 &t  1))11.
(2)
The weighting matrix Ad(t) is diagonal and
weights the parameters
variations.
For an
nparameter model,
A,(t) = diag [al(t)
a&)
. . . %(f)l*
(3)
A standard form of the DLS algorithm is given
by Lambert (1987):
6(t) = @(t  1) + K(t)[y(t)  ii=@  l)cp(t)]
+ P(t  l)h(t)A,(t)[@t
 1)  i&  2)],
(4)
K(t) =
P(t) = $j
P(t  l)cp(t)
A(?) + cp(t  l)P(t  l)cp(t  1)
P(t) 
P(t)cp(t  1)&t
 l)P(t)
(5)
h(t) + cp(t  l)P(t)cp(t  1)
(6)
P(t) = P(t  1)
_ 2 P[_&  l)r$:P;_*(t  l)(Y@)
1 + rTPi_,(t  l)ricYi(t)
i=l
(7)
PJ(t  1) = P[_l(f  1)
_ Pi_,(t  l)rirFP:_I(t  l)al(t)
1 + rTPfI(t  l)riaI
PA(t 1) = P(t  l),
(8)
(9)
where ri are the successive basis vectors, e.g.
rl = [l
...
O]=,
(10)
and
a:(t) =
a&)  A(+#
A(t)
normalization
constant
factor;
trace through
a variable
information measurement
tation on and off;
stability/instability
parameter
forgetting
for turning adap
check;
variations and maximum limits.
The parameter setting for these modifications
and the supervisory shell is performed at the
autotuning step (Section 5)
Normalization of inputoutput
data is useful
to prevent the effect of unbounded modelling
errors and to keep values in the same magnitude
range. The output y(t) and the regressor vector
q(t) are divided by
n(t) = p~(t  1) + (1  p) max [max IcpWL77d1
(12)
where
Os/J.l,
To>O.
(13)
The trace of the covariance matrix P(t) is a
measure of the magnitude of P(t) and hence of
the magnitude of the adaptation gain K(t).
Setting the trace of P(t) constant ensures a
constant adaptation gain and prevents covariante blowup. The algorithm is then able, by a
proper choice of the trace, to track process
parameter variations.
A measurement of information is given by
mi(t) = cp(t  l)P(t  l)cp(t  1).
(14)
It gives the possibility to switch the estimation
off when the excitation is poor and on when the
excitation is rich. This prevents model degradation during good control periods.
Some verifications are made on the new
model before it is transferred to the tuning
module. A stability check ensures that a stable
model is used to control a stable openloop
process, and vice versa. Gain limits constrain the
gain of the model between certain limits.
Maximum values of the parameters and the
parameter variations can be added to ensure a
smoother adaptation.
 1)
(11)
When the weighting matrix Ad(t) is taken as
diag [0 0 . . . 01, the DLS algorithm is equivalent to the RLS algorithm.
Some modifications that improve the algorithm performances in practical situations have
been implemented (Sripada and Fisher, 1987;
Shah and Cluett, 1991; Desbiens et al., 1994).
They are the same as in the RLS case:
l
73
of the regression vector;
4. CONTROLLER
TUNING
The PID has an interacting structure. This
structure is equivalent, with proper parameter
conversions
(Besharati
Rad and Gawthrop,
1991) to the noninteracting one, but it has the
advantage
that the poles can be directly
cancelled. Its equation in the s domain is given
by
U(s)
G&)==E(s)
K, (1 + 7$)(l+
TTi
1+&s
Tds)
(15)
E. Poulin et al.
74
where
E(s) = R,(s)  Y(s),
R,(s) = $$)
(16)
f
and, in its discrete form,
G,(z) =
1 p
Ipz
Po+p,Z'p*Z2
lz
(17)
in the controller to avoid discretetocontinuous
and continuoustodiscrete
conversions. Limited
calculations in the s domain are used for
nomininmumphase
and unstable processes to
overcome problems due to poles and zeros
outside the unit circle.
Case I
with
Kpeeas
= (1 + T,s)(l + T2s) J
q4s)
T 55%
(22)
(18)
PI =K,
(19)
p2= K$
p
(20)
e7;7;.
The process is stable, and has two significant
time constants. A PID with filter compensation
is used.
Speci,fications.
The desired closedloop
transfer function
G,,(s) should behave as a firstorder system
with delay, (23), in the ideal case (Seborg et
al., 1989). The specification can be achieved
when no derivative filter is used:
(21)
It should be noted that the setpoint changes
R(s) are filtered (R,(s)) to avoid the derivative
kick. This gives the possibility of having a
twodegreeoffreedom
controller. By a proper
choice of the gain of the controller and a proper
setpoint filtering, it is possible to have different
dynamics for load disturbances and setpoint
response.
The tuning rules used by AAC are classified
into seven different cases that include all types of
process controlled by the AAC. The rules are
gathered in Table 1. The user has first to specify
the class of the process, i.e. if it is stable,
unstable or has an integrator. Afterwards, the
characterization
is perfromed automatically by
the controller at the autotuning level. The
process is allowed to change from one case to an
other during adaptation while staying in the
same process class. A complete discussion of the
tuning rules is given in Pomerleau (1994) and
Poulin and Pomerleau (1995).
According to the certainly equivalent principle, the model transfer function G,(s) is
assumed to be identical to the process transfer
function G,,(s) for the tuning step. A sufficient
phase margin A@ is preserved for modelling
errors. The tuning methods are presented in the
s domain, but are implemented in the z domain
G,,(s) =
&.
c
In order to obtain similar dynamics to the
openloop response, the desired closedloop
time constant T, is set to T, = T,.
For real applications, a derivative filter must
be used to prevent highfrequency
noise
amplification. The time constant of this filter is
chosen as Tf = 0.2T,.
The phase margin for overdamped
.
given by
AQ,
180
180
?r
It is minimum (A~)mi) when T1= T2, and
decreases with increasing delay 8. For processes
without delay, the minimum phase margin is
AR,,, = 78, and for processes with delay 6 = T,,
it decreases to Audi, = 55.
Case 2
KpemS
G,(s) = t1 + T,sjtl + T2s) J
Table
1. AAC
PID tuning
for the 7 different
cases
CCW
7;
1
2
3
4
T,lK,(T + 6)
r,
0.2Tz
T,,IK,V, + 6)
T,IK,(T, + 6)
T,IK,(T, + 27;,+ 6)
T,
TI
T,
T?
r,
T, 21(0.27, + 8)
7;
5
6
s,T,lK,
3.53/K,
2.5 wm..lKp
7;,
?;~T,l(r, +2U
4m+
6)
l.?T,4(T,+8)
0.27,
processes is
i? 5Tz.
(25)
The process is stable, and has one significant
time constant Tl. A PI compensation is used.
Switching the derivative Td off when T,/ T2 > 5 is
quasioptimal
for a secondorder
process
(Pomerleau,
1994) according to the ITAE
criterion (integral time average error):
ITAE =
,E(T), z dr.
I0
(26)
Autotuning
Specifications.
l
The desired closedloop
response
should
behave as a firstorder system with delay (see
(23)), with similar dynamics to the openloop
response
T, = Tl in the ideal case. The
specification
can be achieved for purely
firstorder processes Tz = 0.
The phase margin for overdamped
is given by
processes
and adaptive PID
75
open loop response
T, = Tl (Morari
and
Zahriou, 1989) is used. The IMC specification
is
GIMc(s)G,,,(s) =
( Tos)e
+ T,s)
(31)
(1 + T$)(l
The phase margin for overdamped
given by
processes is
180
A@ = 180  7r
AQ,= 180  y[;+tani(T,+;+T,)
X{E+tanl[
s
T,+a+T,
+tar
(27)
It is minimum (A@mi) when T2 = f T,, and
decreases with increasing delay 6. For processes
without delay, the minimum phase margin is
Alvin = 80, and decreases to A@,i = 58 for
processes with delay S = &.
(& + 2T,)(T, + 2To + 6)
To
(t,+2To+S)
1
(32)
For processes with To = & and no delay the
minimum
phase margin is A<P,i = 65. It
decreases to A@min= 56 for processes with
T,=T,andS=T,.
Case 3
K,(l + Td)e&
G,(s) = (1 + T,s)(l + T,s)
Case 5
To > O.
t2*)
The process is stable, with a stable zero. A PID
with filter compensation is used.
Specijications.
l
The desired closedloop
response
should
behave as a firstorder system with delay (see
(23)), and with similar dynamics to the
openloop response, T, = Tl.
The phase margin for overdamped
given by
60 = 180  F
processes is
(;+&).
(29)
It decreases
with increasing delay S. For
processes without delay, the minimum phase
margin is A@i = 90, and decreases to A@min=
60 for processes with delay S = Tl.
 lK,epS
G(s) = (1 + T,s)(l + T2s)
O.l6T,i(T,+
S)10.3T,.
(33)
The process is unstable, with a dominant
unstable time constant. A PI compensation is
used. The tuning method is based on the
calculation of the frequency where the phase of
G,(s)G,,,(s) is maximum and on a phasemargin
specification AQ, = 25 (Poulin and Pomerleau,
1995). The frequency
where the phase of
is
maximum
is chosen to be
G&)G&),
Q(w),
the openloop crossover frequency w,. Knowing
the expressions for (P(o), o,, and the phase
margin specification, K can be calculated. K, is
then adjusted to have the desired w,. It should
be noted that if T2 + 6 > 0.3Tl, the phasemargin
specification cannot be respected,
since the
phase of G,(s) is always smaller than 155. A
PID must then be used, and this case is not
discussed here. The expression for w,, is
Case 4
K,(l  Tos)ewSs
GP(s) = (1 + T,s)(l + T2s)
(34)
To *
(30)
The process is stable, with an unstable zero. A
PID with filter compensation is used.
Case 6
Specifications.
l
The adaptation of the internal model controller (IMC) design with dynamics similar to
The process is unstable with a largely dominant
time constant & and a delay small compared
E. Poulin et al.
76
with T,. In order to limit the controller gain K,,
which reaches, very large values when T2 + 6 <<
T,, the specification A@ = 25 is dropped when
Tz + 6 10*16T,.
The values of T = T, and
KcKp = 3.53
calculated from Case 5 when
Tz + S = 0.16T, are fixed. The phase margin
increases from 25 to 90 as T, + 6 decreases.
Case 7
K,e
G,(s)= ~(1
+ T,s)
(36)
The process has an integrator, a dominant time
constant and a delay. A PID with filter
compensation
is used. The tuning method is
similar to that used for unstable processes. The
derivative time constant Td is used to cancel T,
and the filter time constant is set to 7; = 0.2T,.
The frequency
w,,,
where the phase of
G,(s)G,,(s) is maximum is calculated, and 7; is
adjusted to give a phase margin of 65. The gain
K, is then adjusted to give a maximum peak
resonance Mp of 1 dB (Poulin and Pomerleau,
1995). The expression for wmilXis
%l,X =
7;(6 + 0.2T,)
initial closedloop bandwidth wb (used at the
autotuning step only). The sampling frequency
wS2, the digital filter cutoff frequencies and the
step length (in the case of openloop autotuning) are selected according to wb. The delay
is provided to the identification
algorithm.
During the second step of the autotuning, the
process is excited by step changes (in both types
of autotuning). The identification algorithm is
initialized with a high trace value and no
constraint. As the autotuning progresses, the
trace is slowly decreased to facilitate convergence. In the last step of autotuning,
the
parameters of the supervisory shell are adjusted
according to the identified model, the process
dynamics and the noise level.
6. TESTS
AND
COMPARISONS
The AAC autotuning and adaptive control
performances are evaluated and compared with
three commercial
adaptive PID controllers:
Fisher DPR 910, Foxboro 760C (Exact) and
Leeds & Northrup Electromax V. The adaptive
control and autotuning
principles of these
controllers are described briefly.
Fisher DPR 910
5. AAC AUTOTUNING
The AAC software offers two types of
autotuning. The first is performed in open loop
for stable processes, and the second in closed
loop for processes with an integrator
and
unstable processes. In open loop, the process is
excited by manipulated variable steps around the
operating point. In closed loop, the process
output is kept in a narrow band around the
operating point by the controller (the controller
does not need initial values of PID parameters).
The user has to preclassify the process in one
of the three classes: stable, unstable, or with an
integrator.
Whether
the process is stable
(openloop autotuning), unstable or with an
integrator (closedloop autotuning), the magnitude of the step changes or the width of the
narrow band within which the process must be
kept must be specified. The other parameters are
adjusted by the controller. It should be noted
that the user has the possibility to modify these
parameters.
The first step of the autotuning consists in
measurement of the noise band and estimation
of the delay and the openloop dynamics. The
noise band is used to detect the effective delay
and to adjust some parameters of the supervisory
shell in the last step of the autotuning. The
openloop dynamics is used to determine the
In the adaptive mode, the controller tracks the
point on the Nyquist curve where the phase of
the process is  180 by bandpassfiltering the
process inputoutput.
A combination of phase
and gain margin is used to tune the controller
(Hagglund and Astrbm, 1991). The autotuning
function is based on the relay feedback principle
that can be seen as ultimate cycle with limited
amplitude.
The ultimate gain K, and the
ultimate frequency w, are used to tune the
controller according to modified ZieglerNichols
rules.
Foxboro 760C
The controller adaptation mechanism is based
on the analysis of the transient response of the
closedloop system to set point changes or load
disturbances (Kraus and Myron, 1984). Parameters are tuned by an expert system according
to overshoot specifications and damping of the
transient response. The autotuning evaluates
the effective dead time, the process gain and
sensitivity from a step response, and initially
tunes the controller.
Leeds & Northrup Electromax
The controller
recursively
identifies
the
parameters of a secondorder model with the
instrumental variable algorithm. The PID para
Autotuning
77
and adaptive PID
.(
I.
::
70 
..
:
ti5
t
:
..
_ . .._
. .._.______..~~
____._. . . . . ?
__,___,_____
,._. _...~.,..~,,::
20
40
60
SO
TIME
100
120
140
MO
20
40
M)
80
TTME
CW3JNDS)
,@I
,u)
140
,a
180
(SECONDS)
Fig. 2. Setpoint change response for Process A: AAC ();
Fisher (..); Foxboro (); Leeds & Northrup (.).
Fig. 3. Setpoint response for Process B: AAC (); Fisher
(..); Foxboro (); Leeds & Northrup (.).
meters are adjusted to produce the desired
closed loop set point change response (Hoopes et
al., 1983). The user provides the desired 90%
time response of the closedloop system. The
autotuning is performed in closed loop (the
controller needs initial PID parameters),
and
consists in a series of setpoint changes to excite
the process.
Process D:
Test 1: evaluation of the autotuning functions
An autotuning phase is performed,
followed by a setpoint change (4060%)
analog processes:
and is
for five
2s
+ 4s) ;
(38)
Process B:
(1 + 20s)eW2
Gr(s) = (1 + lOs)(l + 4s) ;
(39)
(1  lOs)ea
Gp(s) = (1 + lOs)(l + 4s) ;
(40)
Process C:
Table 2. PID settings and ITAE criterion
Test 1
(41)
Process E:
G,(s) =
(42)
s(1 + 4s).
To compare the PID tunings on the same basis,
the PID parameters from the different structures
are converted to the noninteracting PID form
(43)
Process A:
Gp(s) = (1+ l&l
1
Gp(s) = (1  lOs)(l + 2s) ;
for Process A,
and the ITAE, criterion (26) is calculated for
each response.
Figure 2 presents the set point change
response for Process A. The PID parameters for
each controller
and the ITAE criteria are
presented in Table 2. The AAC response is
nearly optimum according to the ITAE criterion
(57% overshoot). The responses of the other
controllers are also satisfactory.
Setpoint change responses for Process B are
shown in Fig. 3, and the PID parameters and
ITAE criterion are given in Table 3. The AAC
has a good response, since it uses a filter to
cancel the zero. Fisher and Foxboro have to
reduce their gain to cope with the zero, because
they do not have a filter. The result is a sluggish
Table 3. PID settings and ITAE criterion
Test 1
Controller
K,
7;
Td
Tf
ITAE
Controller
K,
?;
AAC
Fisher
Foxboro
L&N
1.12
1.67
1.47
0.89
11.23
18.8
12.0
9.2
1.90
3.03
1.8
3.6
0.49
1.00
1063
2571
1459
1560
AAC
Fisher
Foxboro
L&N
1.07
0.31
0.10
0.51
11.95
8.20
5.4
5.53
Td
2.21
1.29
0.53
12.6
for Process B,
Tf
ITAE
28.03
20.00
1853
8 763
24 275
5 531
6.. Poulin et al.
78
:./
30
15
0
50
loo
TIME
Fig. 4. Setpoint
Table
4. PID
150
200
(SECONDS)
change response for Process
Fisher (..): Foxboro ().
settings
and
iI
ITAE
Test 1
criterion
C: AAC
for
():
Process
C.
Controller
K,
7;
Td
7;
ITAE
AAC
Fisher
Foxboro
L&N
0.23
0.30
0.70
0.95
10.61
42.40
30.60
13.90
2.2 I
6.74
3.62
6.00
2.88
3.00
8 403
89517
23 954
392 150
Figure 4 and Table 4 give the results for
Process C. The AAC response is satisfactory.
The Fisher and Foxboro controllers are not able
to cope with the zero. The Leeds & Northrup
response is not presented, since it is unstable.
For process D, only the AAC and Fisher
controllers have been able to succeed in the
autotuning phase. The results are presented in
Fig. 5 and Table 5. The response has a large
overshoot.
It is typical of unstable process
response (Poulin and Pomerleau, 1995), but a
phase margin A@ = 25 (AAC) does not lead to
an oscillatory response.
Figure 6 and Table 6 gives the results of the
AAC and Fisher controllers for Process E. The
other controllers failed the autotuning phase.
The AAC and Fisher controllers have approximately the same time responses (&5% of the final
value), but the Fisher response is much more
oscillatory. The AAC response has a small
overshoot that is typical of this type of process
(Poulin and Pomerleau, 1995).
Test 2: dominant time delay and highorder
system
response. The Leeds & Northrup controller has
a filter, but it is not managed by the controller.
In spite of the good initial tuning (K, = 1.
T= 14s Td= 3s and T,= 20s) provided to
initiate the autotuning, the final settings gives an
unsatisfactory response.
This test shows the results of the AAC
autotuning for a process with a dominant time
delay, (44), and a highorder process, (45).
Figure 7 presents the response for the dominant
timedelay process. Even if PID control is not
suitable for a process with large time delay, it is
70
65
20
40
&ONDS)
80
100
120
TIME
TIME
Fig. 5. Setpoint
Table
5. PID
change
settings
(SECONDS)
response for Process
Fisher (.).
and
D: AAC
ITAE
Test 1
criterion
7;
~

Controller
K,
7;
AAC
Fisher
Foxboro
L&N
3.17
3.37
16.20
8.80
for Process
();
D.
Fig. 6. Setpoint
Table
6. PID
change
settings
response for Process
Fisher (..).
and
ITAE
Test 1
criterion
E: AAC
for Process
ITAE
Controller
K,
7;
Td
Tr
ITAE
1591
2147
AAC
Fisher
Foxboro
0.45
0.49
14.74
8.70
3.51
2.2
0.7

2484
3544

L&N
():
E.
Autotuning
and adaptive PID
79
lOs+l]
Fig. 9. Benchmark for Tests 3 and 4.
I
0
20
40
a0
TIME
80
:&OF& 140
I
160
180
200
Fig. 7. AAC setpoint change response for the process with a
dominant time delay: process output (); controller output
(..).
possible to have a satisfactory response. In the
present case the delay is equal to the dominant
time constant, and the phase margin A@ = 45.
The response for the fourthorder
process is
shown in Fig. 8. It is satisfactory, even if the
model structure does not match the system. The
effect of the small time constants is approximated by a time delay by the controller:
10s
Gp(S) = (1+ &I
(4.4)
+ 4s)
Gp(S) = (1+ lOS)(l + %)(l + 4s)(l+
2s).
(45)
Test 3: evaluation of the adaptation performances
Test 3 combines disturbance rejections, parametric variations (gain) and setpoint tracking to
accelerate
controller
returning.
The analog
process is presented in Fig. 9. There are step
disturbances
acting
at different
locations.
Disturbance
A is completely filtered by the
process dynamics, and Disturbance B is only
filtered by the 4s lag. The gain variations are
also filtered by the 4 s lag. Table 7 summarizes
the events of Test 3. It should be noted that
disturbance A is amplified by the process gain.
The test is first done with a PID with fixed
parameters to show that if the controller is not
adaptive, the system will progressively be less
stable, producing an unsatisfactory
response.
The response is presented
in Fig. 10. An
adaptive controller has to be used to improve
performances. Figure 11 shows the results of the
AAC. The system is stable, and the responses to
the different events are quite constant, even with
increasing gain. At each of the second setpoint
changes (t = 200 s, 440 s and 680 s), the controller is completely adapted and accurately
tuned. The loaddisturbance response is a little
slow compared with the setpointchange
response. This can be improved by the twodegreeoffreedom possibility of the AAC. But decreasing the phase margin to produce
faster
loaddisturbance
response reduces the robustness and stability of the system. This also leads
to large actions of the manipulated variable. The
response to slow disturbances would be satisfactory, but the response to fast disturbances would
be oscillatory.
Figure 12 presents the Fisher results. The
controller had some problems during the gain
changes, notably at t = 80 s. The first setpointchange response (t = 140 s) is unsatisfactory,
since the controller is not yet adapted. Foxboro
results are given in Fig. 13. Foxboro performed
well, but has an oscillatory response that is
Table 7. Events for Test 3
Time (s)
20
80
140
200
0I
20
&ONDS)
80
40
100
I
120
TIME
Fig. 8. AAC setpoint change response for the fourthorder
process: process output () controller output (..).
z
380
440
500
560
620
680
740
Event
Autotuning phase
Disturbance B: 10%
Gain variation: l2
Setpoint change: 4050%
Setpoint change: 5040%
Disturbance B: +lO%
Gain variation: 23
Setpoint change: 4050%
Setpoint change: 504096
Disturbance A: 10%
Gain variation: 3 to 4
Setpoint change: 4050%
Setpoint change: 5040%
Disturbance A: +lO%
l2. Poulin et al.
80
,,.
0
TIME
Fig.
10. Fixedmode
output
I
loo
200
(SECONDS)
ml
400
TIME
controller
responseTest
(): controller
output (..).
3: process
Fig.
12. Fisher
Fig.
13. Foxhoro
500
600
700
800
(SECONDS)
responseTest
3: process
controller
output (..).
output
():
output
():
required by its adaptation
mechanism. The
controller gain often reaches high values. This
gives large and noisy actions of the manipulated
variable,
but fast response
to slow load
disturbances. Figure 14 presents the Leeds &
Northrup results. The controller has satisfactory
responses in the first part of the test (t = O300 s), but the controller
slowly becomes
mistuned, and the system is unstable at the end
of the test.
Test 4: adaptation during a sequence of load
disturbances
The adaptation mechanism is much slower
than the autotuning mechanism. In fact, during
the autotuning phase, the process is submitted
to a deterministic excitation. It is thus easy for
the tuner to extract the required characteristics
of the process. In the process industry many
controllers are used in regulation. The closed
loop is mostly excited by noise, load disturbances
and parametric variations. The adaptation must
take place only when good information is
present, i.e. during parametric variation and
80,
0'
0
I
100
ZM)
300
TIME
Fig.
Il.
AAC
400
500
._
Mx)
700
after the transients of load disturbances. Without
deterministic excitation (dither signal, setpoint
changes etc.), the adaptation must be slow to
prevent model degradation.
Test 4 shows the adaptation performances of
the AAC during a loaddisturbance
sequence.
Sensor noise is also present. The same analog
,._.
800
I
100
(SECONDS)
responseTest
3: process
controller
output (..).
responseTest
3: process
controller
output (.).
200
1W
():
Fig. 14. Leeds
5W
703
8Cnl
& Northrup
responseTest
3: process
(); controller
output (..).
output
TIME
output
400
60l
(SECONDS)
Autotuning
and adaptive PID
Table 8. Events for Test 4
Time (s)
iz
120
180
240
300
360
440
500
580
640
01
0
Fig.
100
15. AAC
200
81
REFERENCES
Event
Autotuning phase
Disturbance B: 10%
Gain variation: 12
Disturbance B: +lO%
Disturbance B: 10%
Gain variation: 23
Disturbance B: +lO%
Disturbance A: 10%
Gain variation: 34
Disturbance A: +lO%
Disturbance B: 10%
Disturbance B: +10%
TIE(SECo%)
so0
responseTest
4: process
controller output (..).
600
output
I
700
();
process as that used in Test 3 is used (see Fig. 9).
Table 8 summarizes the events of Test 4, and
Fig. 15 presents the result of the AAC. The
response is quite constant, and the action is
smooth and clean. It is important to note that
Disturbance A (360s and 500s) is amplified by
the process gain (3 and 4).
7. CONCLUSIONS
The development
and evaluation
of an
autotuning and adaptive controller (AAC) has
been presented. The performance of the AAC
relies heavily on three elements: efficient data
filtering, supervision of the identification procedure and proper tuning rules. The data filtering
is the basis for good identification.
The
supervisory shell for the identification procedure
is essential to provide a suitable model to the
tuning system. Proper
tuning rules permit
control of a wide range of processes with a PID
controller. The AAC autotuning function and
adaptive performances have been compared with
commercial PID controllers (Fisher DPR 910,
Foxboro 760C and Leeds & Northrup Electromax V), and have generally given better results.
Albertos, P., F. Morant, J. Salt and M. Martinez (1989).
Practical Issues in the Implementation
of Adaptive
Controllers. In Proc. ZFAC workshop on Eualuatio~ of
AdarNive Control Strateaies. Tbilisi. DD. 6974.
Astrom, K. J. (1987). Adaptive Feedback Control. Proc.
IEEE, 75,185217.
Astrom, K. J. and B. Wittenmark (1989). Adaptive Control.
AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
Astrom, K. J., T. IRQglund, C. C. Hang and W. K. Ho
(1993). Automatic
tuning and adaptation
for PID
controllersa
survey. Control Engng Practice, 1,699714.
Bartlomiej, B. and L. Andrzej (1988). The adaptive robust
PID controller. In Proc. 8th IFAC Symp. on Identijcation
and System Parameter Estimhtion, Beijing, Vol. 1, pp.
227232.
Besharati Rad, A. and P. J. Gawthrop (1991). Explicit self
tuning control for systems with unknown time delay. In
Proc. IFAC Symp. on Intelligent Tuning and Adaptive
Control, Singapore, pp. 251257.
Cao. R. and T. McAvov (1990). Evaluation of a oattern
recognition adaptive PID controller. Automatiia, 26,
797801.
Chan, C. W. (1991). Selftuning controllersa
review. Hong
Kong Engng. 19,2629.
Ph. (1989). Adaptive
PID regulators.
De Larminat,
Ambitions and limitations. In Proc. IFAC Workshop on
Robust Adaptive Control, Newcastle, pp. 105110.
Desbiens, A., D. Hodouin, K. Najim and F. Flament (1994).
Longrange predictive control of a rougher flotation unit.
Minerals Engng, 7, 2137.
Dumont, G. A., J. M. MartinSanchez and C. C. Zervos
(1989). Comparison of an autotuned PID regulator and an
adaptive predictive control system on an industrial bleach
plant. Automatica, 25, 3340.
IB&hind, T. and K. J. Astrom (1991). Industrial adaptive
controllers
based on frequency response techniques.
Automatica, 27, 599609.
Hang, C. C. and K. K. Sin (1991). A comparative
performance study of PID autotuners. IEEE Control
Syst. Msg., 11,4147.
Hoopes, H. S., W. M. Hawk and R. C. Lewis (1983). A
selftuning controller. ISA Trans., 22,4958.
Isermann, R. (1980). Practical aspects of process identification. Automatica, 16, 575587.
Isermann, R., Th. Knapp and K.H. Peter (1991). Adaptive
control with continuous
and discrete time process
modelsa
comparison. In Proc. 9th IFAC Symp. on
Identification and System Parameter Estimation, Budapest,
Vol. 1, pp. 423428.
Keyes, M. A. and A. Kaya (1989). Evolution of adaptive
control algorithms and products: a critical review and
evaluation. In Proc. IFAC Workshop on Evaluation of
Adaptive Control Strategies in Industrial Applications,
Tbilisi, pp. l8.
Kraus, T. W. and T. J. Myron (1984). Selftuning controller
uses pattern recognition approach. Control Engng, June,
pp. 106111.
Lambert, E. P. (1987). Process control applications of
longrange prediction.
DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.
_
Ljung, L. (1987). System IdentificationTheoryfor the User.
PrenticeHall. Englewood Cliffs. NJ.
McIntosh, A. R., b. G. Fisher and S. L. Shah (1992).
Performance adaptive controlgeneral
structure and a
case study. J. Proc. Cont., 2,213221.
Matko, D. (1993). Adaptive or robust control? Robust
adaptive control! Elekt&tehnirki Vesmik, 60,158165.
Minter. B. J. and D. G. Fisher (1988). A comoarison of
adaptive controllers: academic . vs industrial.  In Proc.
American Control Conf, Atlanta, GA, Vol. 2, pp.
16531658.
Mohtadi, C. (1988). On the role of prefiltering in parameter
estimation and control. In Proc. _Workshop on Adaptive
Control Strategies for Industrial Use, Lodge Kananaskis,
Alberta, Canada, pp. 261282.
82
fi. Poulin et al.
Morari, M. and E. Zatiriou (1989). Robust Process Control.
PrenticeHall. Enelewood Cliffs. NJ.
Nachtigal, C. L. $986). Adaptive controller performance
evaluation: Foxboro EXACT and ASEA Novatune. In
Proc.
American
Control
Conj,
Seattle, WA, pp.
14281433.
Pomerleau, A. (1994). Reglage des regulateurs PID par une
mtthode MquentiellePartie
1: rtgles get&ales; Partie
2: applications. Report GRAIIM 9431, prepared for
Mineral Research Center, Quebec Government, pp. l64.
Pomerleau, A. and D. Hodouin (1994). Analog I/O design
for computer applications.
Report GRAIIM
9406.
prepared for Mineral Research Center, Quebec Government, pp. l22.
Poulin, E. and A. Pomerleau (1995). PID tuning for
integrating and unstable processes. Int. J. Control,
submitted.
Poulin, I?., A. Pomerleau, A. Desbiens and D. Hodouin
(1994). Analog and digital filtering for recursive identification. Report GRAIIM 9408, prepared for Mineral
Research Center, Quebec Government, pp. l43.
Sebore. D. E.. T. F. Edear and D. A. Mellichamo
Pro&s Dyrkmics and ?ontrol. Wiley, New York:
Shah, S. I. and W. R. Cluett (1991). Recursive least
based estimation schemes for selftuning control.
0989).
squares
Can. J.
Chem. Engng, 69,8996.
Shook. D. S., C. Mohtadi and S. L. Shah (1991).
Identification for longrange predictive control. IEE Proc.
Pt D,
138,7484.
Song, H. K., D. G. Fisher and S. L. Shah (1984).
Experimental evaluation of a robust selftuning PID
controller. Gun. J. Chem. Engng, 62,755763.
Sorrels, J. (1989). Comparison of contemporary adaptive
control design techniques. In Proc. 21st Southeastern
Symp. on System Theory, Tallahassee, FI, pp. 636640.
Sripada, N. R. and D. G. Fisher (1987). Improved least
squares identification. Int. J. Control, 46, 18891913.
Wahlberg, B. and L. Ljung (1986). Design variables for bias
distribution in transfer function estimation. IEEE Trans.
Aurom. Conrrol, AC31, 134144.