PI/PID controller tuning method for the industrial practitioner

111Equation Chapter 1 Section 1

SHAMS Closed-Loop Tuning Method: A Fast Approach for

PI/PID Controller Tuning in Closed-Loop
Mohammad Shamsuzzoha
Department of Chemical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum
and Minerals,
Dhahran, 31261, Saudi Arabia (email: mshams@kfupm.edu.sa)
AbstractThe objective of this study is to develop a new online controller tuning
method in closed-loop mode. The proposed closed-loop tuning method overcomes
the shortcoming of the well-known Ziegler-Nichols (1942) continuous cycling
method and it can be an alternative for the same. This is a simple method to
obtain the PI/PID setting which gives the acceptable performance and robustness
for a broad range of the processes. The method requires closed-loop step setpoint
experiment using a proportional only controller with gain K c0. The controller
integral and derivative time (I and D) is mainly a function of the time to reach
the first peak (tp). The proposed tuning method gives consistently better
performance and robustness for broad class of processes.
1. Introduction
The proportional, integral and derivative (PID) controller is widely used in the
process industries due to its simplicity, robustness and wide ranges of
applicability in the regulatory control layer. A recent survey of Desborough and
Miller [1] reported that more than 97% of the regulatory controllers utilize the
PI/PID algorithm. Although the PI/PID controller has only few adjustable
parameters, they are difficult to be tuned properly in real processes. One reason
is that tedious plant tests are required to obtain improved controller setting. Due
to this reason, finding a simple PI/PID tuning approach with a significant
performance improvement has been an important research issue for process
engineers. Therefore, the objective of this brief paper is to develop a method that
should be simpler with enhanced performance in closed-loop mode.
There are varieties of controller tuning approach and among those two are widely
used for the controller tuning. It can be based on either open-loop or closed-loop
plant tests. Most tuning approaches are based on open-loop plant information;
typically the plants gain (k), time constant () and time delay (). The direct
synthesis (Seborg et al. [2];) and IMC based PID (Shamsuzzoha and Lee [3, 4])
tuning method are very popular among them.
However, these approaches require that one first obtains an open-loop model of
the process and then tuning of the control-loop. There are two problems here.
First, an open-loop experiment, for example a step-test, is normally needed to
get the required process data. This may be time consuming and may upset the
process and even lead to process runaway. Second, approximations are involved
in obtaining the process parameters (e.g., k, and ) from the data.

1
Shams closed-loop tuning method could be replacement of the well-known ZieglerNichols (1942) continuous cycling method (if you have any comments please write to
me @: mshams@kfupm.edu.sa)

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 [5]. They identified a first-order with delay model by
matching the closed-loop setpoint response with a standard oscillating secondorder step response. In next step for the controller setting they used the ZieglerNichols [6] tuning rules, which may give aggressive setting but one can use other
tuning rule.
It is important to note that often it is difficult to carryout open-loop test, and there
are always possibility that control variable may drift away and operator needs to
intervene in order to prevent products qualities from off-specification. In case of
closed-loop test, one can easily keep control on the process during experiment
and reduces the effect of disturbance to process operation.
The other alternative approach of the above two-steps procedure is to use closedloop experiments. One very popular approach is the classical method of ZieglerNichols [6] which requires very little information about the process; namely, the
ultimate controller gain (Ku) and the period of oscillations (P u) which are obtained
from a single experiment. However, there are several disadvantages.
First, the system needs to be brought to its limit of instability and a number of
trials may be needed to bring the system to this point. Not that if we try to save
time by making large adjustments in the search for the K u, it becomes much more
likely that we will actually go unstable, at least for a brief period.
Second disadvantage is that the Ziegler-Nichols [6] tunings do not work well on
all processes. It is well known that the recommended settings are quite
aggressive for lag-dominant (integrating) processes (Tyreus and Luyben [7]) and
quite slow for delay-dominant process (Skogestad [8]). To get better robustness
for the lag-dominant (integrating) processes, Tyreus and Luyben [7] proposed to
use less aggressive settings (K c=0.313Ku and I=2.2Pu), but this makes the
response even slower for delay-dominant processes (Skogestad [8]).
A third disadvantage of the Ziegler-Nichols method is that it can only be used on
processes for which the phase lag exceeds -180 degrees at high frequencies. For
example, it does not work on a simple second-order process.
Recently Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad [9, 10] have developed a new online
controller tuning method in closed-loop mode. This closed-loop tuning method
overcomes the shortcoming of the well-known Ziegler-Nichols continuous cycling
method and gives consistently better performance and robustness for broad class
of processes.
The PI/PID controller design method has been discussed extensively in the
literature and it shows that most of the tuning method is based on the two steps
procedure. First step is to find the process parameters (e.g., k, and ) by using
an open-loop or closed-loop test. Second step is to use suitable tuning method to
obtain the PI/PID controller setting.
Therefore, the goal of the present study is to find simple and direct controller
tuning method in closed-loop for the broad class of the processes. No detail prior
information of the plant (process parameters k, and ) is required to obtain the
robust controller setting from the closed-loop setpoint experiment.

2. Objectives

Method should be in closed-loop mode.

The PI/PID tuning rule should be simple, analytically derived and applicable to
different types of process with a wide range of process parameters in a unified
framework.
Remove the shortcoming of the Ziegler-Nichols continuous cycling method.
It should be applicable to the wide range of the overshoot (approximately 1060%) with the initial controller gain Kc0.

3. Shams Closed-Loop Tuning Method

The proposed procedure is as follows:
1. Switch the controller to P-only mode (for example, increase the integral time I
to its maximum value or set the integral gain K I to zero). In an industrial system,
with bumpless transfer, the switch should not upset the 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 K c0 used in
the experiment. Most likely, unless the original controller was quite tightly tuned,
one will need to increase the controller gain to get a sufficiently large overshoot.
Note that small overshoots (less than 0.10) are not considered because it is
difficult in practice to obtain from experimental data accurate values of the
overshoot and peak time if the overshoot is too small. Also, large overshoots
(larger than about 0.6) give a long settling time and require more excessive input
changes. For these reasons we recommend using 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 Figure 1):
Controller gain, Kc0
Overshoot = (yp - y) /y
Time from setpoint change to reach peak output (overshoot), t p
Relative steady state output change, b = y/ys.
The output variable changes are given as:
Setpoint change

ys

y p

Peak output change (at time tp)

Steady-state output change after setpoint step test :

= y s y0

= yp y 0

= y - y0

To find y one needs to wait for the response to settle, which may take some
time if the overshoot is relatively large (typically larger than 0.4). In such cases,
one may stop the experiment when the setpoint response reaches its first
minimum and record the corresponding output, y u.

y = 0.45(yp + yu)

(1)

4. Selection of Proportional Controller Gain (Kc0)

It is mentioned earlier that the proposed method is valid for the overshoot
between 0.1 to 0.6. However, an overshoot of around 0.3 is recommended for a
better response. Sometimes achieving the P-controller gain (Kc0) via trial and error
that gives the overshoot around 0.3 can be time consuming. Therefore, one can
use direct equation for the gain of the next closed-loop test

K c 0 1.19 1.55 OS1 2.159 OS1 1.35 K c 01

2

(2)

Note: It is not so important to achieve the precise fractional overshoot of 0.3, so

few trial is sufficient to get the desire overshoot around 0.3 from above Eq.(2).

Figure 1. Closed-loop step setpoint response with P-only control

5. Summary of the Shams Closed-Loop Tuning Method

A simple approach has been developed for PI/PID controller tuning by the closedloop setpoint step experiment using a P-controller with gain K c0. The PI/PIDcontroller settings are obtained directly from following three data from the
setpoint experiment (see Figure 1):
Controller gain, Kc0
Overshoot = (yp - y) /y
Time from setpoint change to reach peak output (overshoot), t p
Relative steady state output change, b = y/ys.
If one does not want to wait for the system to reach steady state and speed-up
the closed-loop experiment, it is recommended to use the estimate y =
0.45(yp + yu).
In conclusion, the final tuning formula for the proposed Shams closed-loop
tuning method is summarized as:

K c = K c0 A F

b
I min 0.645 A
t p F , 2.44t p F

(1- b)

D 0.14t p

if A

b
1
1- b

where, A=[1.55(overshoot)2 -2.159 (overshoot)+1.35]

F is a detuning parameter. F=1 gives the fast and robust PI/PID settings
corresponding to c=. To detune the response and get more robustness one can
selects F>1, but in special cases one may select F<1 to speed up the closed-loop
response.
An overshoot of around 0.3 is recommended for the better response in the Shams
method. The initial controller gain (Kc01) which gives overshoot around 0.3 in the
closed-loop test can be obtained from equation below:

K c 0 1.19 1.55 OS1 2.159 OS1 1.35 K c 01

2

The Shams method works well for a wide variety of the processes typical for
process control applications, including the standard first-order plus delay
processes as well as integrating, high-order, inverse response, unstable and
oscillating process.
6. Simulation Study
To show the effectiveness of the Shams method three different cases of the
simulation are shown below, which covers wide range of the processes. The
simulations illustrated in figures are for the overshoot around 0.3 is compared
with the setpoint overshoot method.
Examples:

E5:

1
s 1 0.2s 1 0.04 s 1 0.008s 1

E8:

s s 1

e s
E24: s
Figure 2-4 present a comparison of the proposed method by introducing a
unit step change in the set-point and an unit step change of load
disturbance at plant input. It is clear from these three figures that the
proposed method constantly gives better closed-loop response for several
type of processes. The Shams method has been compared with setpint
overshoot method and results show that it has significant performance
improvements in all the cases for the disturbance rejection while
maintaining setpoint performance.
1.25

OUTPUT y

0.75

0.5

0.25
Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method (overshoot=0.292)
Proposed method (overshoot=0.292)
0
0

TIME

10

15

1 s 1 0.2 s 1 0.04s 1 0.008s 1

Figure 2. Responses of high-order process
,
Setpoint change at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=10.

OUTPUT y

Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method (overshoot=0.307)

Proposed method (overshoot=0.307)
0
0

40

80
TIME

120

160

2
1 s s 1

, Setpoint
Figure 3. Responses of third-order integrating process

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

3

2.5

OUTPUT y

1.5

0.5
Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method (overshoot=0.302)
Proposed method (overshoot=0.302)
0
0

20

40

TIME

60

80

Figure 4. Responses of integrating process with time delay

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

e s s , Setpoint

7. Application to the Distillation column

The case study demonstrates the application of the Shams tuning method in the
distillation column temperature control loop. The dynamic model of the

distillation column in Aspen-Hysys is selected from Luyben [11] to show the

simplicity and effectiveness of the proposed method.
The depropanizer column considered in this case study produces a distillate
product that is 98 mole% propane. At 110F the vapor pressure of propane is
slightly higher than 200psia. Therefore, an operating pressure of 200 psia is kept
in the condenser. The boiler pressure is estimated by assuming a pressure drop
over each tray of 5 inches of liquid in this high-pressure column. The liquid
density of this hydrocarbon system is about 30lb/ft 3. The column has 30 trays and
is fed on tray 15, and the pressure in the reboiler is 202.6 psia.
The column is feed 100 lb-mol/hr of a mixture of propane (30 mol%), isobutene
(40 mol%) and n-butane (30 mol%) at 90F. The specified purity of distillate is 98
mol% propane. The specified impurity of propane in the bottoms is 1.0 mol%. The
design reflux ratio is 3.22 and the design reboiler heat input is 1.0210 6 Btu/hr.
Luyben [11] suggested Reflux-Vapor Boilup (RV) control structure of the
depropanizer and is shown in
. The suggested tuning parameters of the different loops are kept unchanged
except temperature loop. The flow controller has K c=0.5, I=0.3 minutes, and two
level controllers Kc=2.0. 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 [11] applied relay-feedback test and found ultimate gain (K u=32)
and the ultimate period (Pu=7.3 minutes). Finally he obtained the PI setting using
the TL [7] method as Kc=10.0 and I=16.0 minutes.
In the proposed method, overshoot around 0.30 gives satisfactory performance
and robustness. Start the test in closed-loop using a P-controller with gain K c0. The
magnitude of the gain Kc0 should be selected such that it gives overshoot around
0.30 for a setpoint change of magnitude y sp. 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 assume that the process output has value y 0 before
the setpoint change occur. Step test in temperature loop is shown in Figure 6.
Process output before the setpoint change (y 0) = 125.7F, and manipulated
variable (OP) = 50.60%, A step test is conducted for setpoint change (ys)= ys
y0=130.7-125.7=5.0, with the P-controller of Kc0= 8.
Note: It is important to eliminated 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 changes of amplitude y s
=5oF as shown in Figure 6, the overshoot and other parameters are calculated as
Overshoot OS

(y p y )
y

y p y
y y0

132.37 130.7
0.334
130.7 125.7

The relative steady-state change of the process output is

y y0 130.7 125.7
y
b

1.0
ys ys y0 130.7 125.7
It shows that process is almost integrating and the value of peak time t p=107.83100.0=7.83 minutes. The PID parameter settings can be calculated as
A=1.55(OS)2 2.159(OS)+1.35= 1.55(0.334)2 -2.159(0.334)+ 1.35=0.801
K c =K c0 A=8.0*0.801=6.41

For the integral time, I

b
I =min 0.645A
t p , 2.44t p

1-b

1.0
I =min 0.645*0.801*
*7.83, 2.44*7.83 19.115 minutes

1.0

1.0

D=0.14*tp=0.14*7.83=1.10 minutes
The effectiveness of the proposed method has been checked for the setpoint
change in the temperature loop and closed-response is shown in Figure 7. The
response is significantly fast and smooth without any oscillation.
The proposed closed-loop method has been also tested for the disturbance
rejection. The results for two disturbances in feed flowrate are shown in Figure 8.
At 15 minutes the feed is increase from 100 to 120lb-mol/hr and at 120 minutes a
large change in the feed flowrate is made, and is finally dropped to 80 lb-mol/hr.
Figure 8 clearly shows the advantage of the proposed method for the disturbance
rejection. It gives smooth and fast disturbance rejection with sufficiently less
control effort.

Figure 5. Depropanizer column flowsheet with controllers installed, pressure

controller is not shown in main flowsheet, and it is installed in sub-flowsheet.

Figure 6. The closed-loop responses with a P-controller (controller gain K c0 = 8.0)

of a depropanizer temperature loop.

10

Figure 7. The closed-loop setpoint responses of the depropanizer temperature

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

Figure 8. Closed-loop response for step changes in feed flow rate as a disturbance
at t=100 minutes from 100 to 120 lb-mol/hr, at 200 minutes from 120 to 80 lbmol/hr.
8. Conclusions
Shams closed-loop method works well for a wide variety of the processes
typical for process control, including the standard first-order plus delay processes
as well as integrating, high-order, inverse response, unstable and oscillating
process.
References

[1] L. D. Desborough and R. M. Miller, "Increasing customer value of industrial

control performance monitoringHoneywells experience," in Chemical
Process Control VI AIChE Symposium Series , Tuscon, Arizona, Jan. 2001,
2002.

[2] D. Seborg, T. Edgar and D. Mellichamp, Process Dynamics and Control, New
York: Wiley, 2004.

[3] M. Shamsuzzoha and M. Lee, "IMCPID controller design for improved

disturbance rejection of timedelayed processes," Ind Eng Chem Res, vol. 46,

11

p. 20772091, 2007.

[4] M. Shamsuzzoha and M. Lee, "Design of advanced PID controller for

enhanced disturbance rejection of second order process with time delay,"
AIChE, vol. 54, pp. 1526-1536, 2008.

[5] M. Yuwana and D. E. Seborg, "A new method for on-line controller tuning,"
AIChE, vol. 28, pp. 434-440, 1982.

[6] J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols, "Optimum settings for automatic controllers,"

Trans. ASME, vol. 64, pp. 759-768, 1942.

[7] B. Tyreus and W. Luyben, "Tuning PI controllers for integrator/dead time

processes," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, p. 26252628, 1992.

[8] S. Skogestad, "Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller
tuning," journal of Process Control, vol. 13, p. 291309, 2003.

[9] M. Shamsuzzoha and S. Skogestad, "The setpoint overshoot method: A

simple and fast closed-loop approach for PID tuning," Journal of Process
Control, vol. 20, p. 12201234, 2010.

[10] M. Shamsuzzoha, "Closed-loop PI/PID controller tuning for stable and

integrating process with time delay," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, , vol. 52, pp.
12973-12992, 2013.

[11] W. L. Luyben, Plantwide Dynamic Simulators in Chemical Processing and

Control, New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.,, 2002.

12