Dublin Institute of Technology

ARROW@DIT
Conference papers School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

1999-01-01

PI and PID controller tuning rules for time delay

processes: a summary. Part 2: PID controller tuning
rules
Aidan O'Dwyer
Dublin Institute of Technology, aidan.odwyer@dit.ie

Follow this and additional works at: http://arrow.dit.ie/engscheleart

Part of the Controls and Control Theory Commons

Recommended Citation
O'Dwyer, Aidan :PI and PID controller tuning rules for time delay processes: a summary. Part 2: PID controller tuning rules.
Proceedings of the Irish Signals and Systems Conference, pp. 339-346, National University of Ireland, Galway, June, 1999.

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, brian.widdis@dit.ie.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-

Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License
PI and PID controller tuning rules for time delay processes: a
summary. Part 2: PID controller tuning rules

A. O’Dwyer

School of Control Systems and Electrical Engineering, Dublin Institute of Technology, Kevin St.,
Dublin 8.

Abstract

A summary of tuning rules for the PID control of single input, single output (SISO) processes with
time delay, modeled in stable first order lag plus time delay (FOLPD) form, is provided in this part
of the paper.

Keywords: PID, tuning rules, time delay.

1. Introduction
This part of the paper summarises the most directly applicable tuning rules for PID
controllers that have been developed to compensate stable SISO processes with time delay,
modeled in FOLPD form. The structure of this part of the paper is similar to that of Part 1.
The ideal continuous time domain PID controller for a SISO process is expressed in the
Laplace domain as follows:
U(s) = G c (s) E(s) (1)
1
with G c (s) = Kc (1 + + Td s) (2)
Ts
i

and with K c = proportional gain, Ti = integral time constant and Td = derivative time constant. A
number of other PID controller structures may be described. One typical example of such a
structure is the classical form of the PID controller:
 
 1   1 + Td s 
G c (s) = K c 1 +   (3)
 Ti s   1 + Td s 
 
 N 
Tuning rules for these and other such PID controller structures are explicitly indicated in the table.
A list of symbols used in the paper is provided in Appendix 1.

2. PID tuning rules - FOLPD model

Rule Kc Ti Td Comment
 1 
Ideal controller G c (s) = K c 1 + + Td s
 Ti s 
Process reaction
Ziegler and Nichols 12
. Tm 2Tm Quarter decay ratio
[1] [ , ]
0.5τ m
K m τ m Km τ m 2τ m
Astrom and 0.94Tm ultimate cycle
Hagglund [2] Kmτm 2τ m 0.5τ m Ziegler-Nichols
equivalent
 Parr [3] 1.25Tm
K mτ m 2.5τ m 0.4τ m
Rule Kc Ti Td Comment
Chien et al. [4] - 0.95Tm 0% overshoot;
regulator Kmτ m 2.38τ m 0.42τ m τ
. < m <1
011
Tm
Chien et al. [4] - 12
. Tm 20% overshoot;
regulator K mτ m 2τ m 0.42τ m τ
. < m <1
011
Tm
Chien et al. [4] - 0.6Tm 0% overshoot;
servo Km τ m Tm 0.5τ m τ
. < m <1
011
Tm
Chien et al. [4] - 0.95Tm 20% overshoot;
servo Kmτ m 1.36Tm 0.47τ m τ
. < m <1
011
Tm
Three constraints Quarter decay ratio;
method - Murrill [5] 1370
.  Tm 
0.950
Tm  τ m 
0.738
τ 
0.950 minimum integral
τ     0.365Tm  m  error (servo mode);
. ≤ m ≤1
01 Km  τ m  1351
.  Tm   Tm 
Tm K c K m Td
= 05
.
Tm
  
2

 2.5 τ m + 0.46 τ m  
Cohen and Coon [6] 1  Tm   Tm  Tm   0.37 τ m Quarter decay ratio
135
. + 0.25 Tm  
τ
 τ   τm 
Km m

1 + 0.61

1 + 0.2 m
Tm Tm
 

1  T  0.8647 Tm + 0.226τ m 0.0565Tm

 0.6939 m + 0.1814 Tm T
Sain and Ozgen [7] Km  τm  + 0.8647 0.8647 m + 0.226
τm τm

Regulator
Minimum IAE -  Tm 
0.921
Tm  Tm 
0.749
τ 
1.137
τm
Murrill [5]
1435
.
    0.482Tm  m  . <
01 ≤1
Km  τ m  0.878  τ m   Tm  Tm

Modified minimum 3  Tm 
0.921
Tm  Tm 
0.749
τ 
1.137

IAE - Cheng and     0.482Tm  m 

Hung [8] Km  τ m  0.878  τ m   Tm 
Minimum ISE -  Tm 
0.945
Tm  Tm 
0.771
τ 
1.006
τm
Murrill [5]
1495
.
    0.56Tm  m  . <
01 ≤1
Km  τ m  1101
.  τm   Tm  Tm

Minimum ISE -  Tm 
0.970
Tm  Tm 
0.753
τ 
0.948
τm
Zhuang and
1473
.
    0.55Tm  m  . ≤
01 ≤ 10
.
Km  τ m  1115
.  τm   Tm  Tm
Atherton [9]
 Tm 
0.735
Tm  Tm 
0. 641
τ 
0.851
τm
1524
.
    0.552Tm  m  . ≤
11 ≤ 2.0
Km  τm  1130
.  τm   Tm  Tm

Minimum ITAE -  Tm 
0. 947
Tm  Tm 
0.738
τ 
0.995
τm
Murrill [5]
1357
.
    0.381Tm  m  . <
01 ≤1
Km  τ m  0.842  τ m   Tm  Tm

Minimum ISTSE -  Tm 
0.970
Tm  Tm 
0.725
τ 
0.939
τm
Zhuang and
1468
.
    0.443Tm  m  . ≤
01 ≤ 10
.
Km  τm  0.942  τ m   Tm  Tm
Atherton [9]
 Tm 
0.730
Tm  Tm 
0.598
τ 
0.847
τm
1515
.
    0.444Tm  m  . ≤
11 ≤ 2.0
Km  τ m  0.957  τ m   Tm  Tm
Minimum ISTES -  Tm 
0.960
Tm  Tm 
0. 746
τ 
0.933
τm
Zhuang and
1531
.
    0.413Tm  m  . ≤
01 ≤ 10
.
Km  τ m  0.971  τ m   Tm  Tm
Atherton [9]

Rule Kc Ti Td Comment
Minimum ISTES -  Tm 
0.705
Tm  Tm 
0.597
τ 
0.850
τm
Zhuang and
1592
.
    0.414Tm  m  . ≤
11 ≤ 2.0
Km  τm  0.957  τ m   Tm  Tm
Atherton [9]
(continued)
Servo
Minimum IAE -  Tm 
0.869
Tm τ 
0. 914
τm
1086
.
  0.348Tm  m  . <
01 ≤1
Rovira et al. [10] τm Tm
Km  τm  0.740 − 013
.  Tm 
Tm
Minimum IAE -  0.6032 
 (Tm + 05
. τm)
. Tm τ m
05 τm
 0.7645 +
0.05 < <6
Wang et al. [11]  τ m Tm  Tm + 05
. τm Tm + 05. τm Tm
K m (Tm + τ m )

Minimum ISE - 
 0.9155 +
0.7524 
 (Tm + 05
. τm) . Tm τ m
05 τm
Wang et al. [11]  τ m Tm 
Tm + 05
. τm 0.05 < <6
K m (Tm + τ m )
Tm + 05. τm Tm
Minimum ISE -  Tm 
0.897
Tm τ 
0.888
τm
1048
.
  0.489Tm  m  . ≤
01 ≤ 10
.
Zhuang and τ Tm
Atherton [9] Km  τm  1195
. − 0.368 m  Tm 
Tm
 Tm 
0.567
Tm τ 
0. 708
τm
1154
.
  0.490Tm  m  . ≤
11 ≤ 2.0
τ Tm
Km  τm  1047
. − 0.220 m  Tm 
Tm
Minimum ITAE - 0.965  Tm 
0.85
Tm τ 
0. 929
τm
  0.308Tm  m  . ≤
01 ≤1
Rovira et al. [10] τm Tm
Km  τ m  0.796 − 01465
.  Tm 
Tm
Modified minimum 12
.  Tm 
0.855
Tm τ 
0. 929 Damping factor of
ITAE - Cheng and   τm 0.308Tm  m  closed loop system =
Hung [8] Km  τm  0.796 − 0147
.  Tm  0.707.
Tm
Minimum ITAE - 
 0.7303 +
05307
. 
 (Tm + 05
. τm) . Tm τ m
05 τm
Wang et al. [11]  τ m Tm 
Tm + 05
. τm 0.05 < <6
K m (Tm + τ m )
Tm + 05. τm Tm
Minimum ISTSE -  Tm 
0.897
Tm τ 
0.906
τm
1042
.
  0.385Tm  m  . ≤
01 ≤ 10
.
Zhuang and τ Tm
Atherton [9] Km  τ m  0.987 − 0.238 m  Tm 
Tm
 Tm 
0.579
Tm τ 
0.839
τm
1142
.
  0.384Tm  m  . ≤
11 ≤ 2.0
τm Tm
Km  τ m  0.919 − 0172
.  Tm 
Tm
Minimum ISTES - 0.968  Tm 
0.904
Tm τ 
0.892
τm
  0.316Tm  m  . ≤
01 ≤ 10
.
Zhuang and τ Tm
Atherton [9] Km  τm  0.977 − 0.253 m  Tm 
Tm
 Tm 
0.583
Tm τ 
0.832
τm
1061
.
  0.315Tm  m  . ≤
11 ≤ 2.0
τm Tm
Km  τ m  0.892 − 0165
.  Tm 
Tm
Direct synthesis
Regulator - min. Tm τm
IAE - Smith and 0.5τ m . ≤
01 ≤ 15
.
Kmτm Tm Tm
Corripio [12]
 Servo - min. IAE - 5Tm τm
Smith and Corripio 0.5τ m . ≤
01 ≤ 15
.
6K m τ m Tm Tm
[12]
Servo - 5% Tm
overshoot - Smith 2K m τ m Tm 0.5τ m
and Corripio [12]

Rule Kc Ti Td Comment
1  Tm 
+ 0.2236
2.236Tm τ m
0.7236
Suyama [13] K m  τm  Tm + 0.309τ m 7.236Tm + 2.236τ m
Gain and phase mK u cos( φ m ) , tan (φ m ) +
4
+ tan 2 (φ m ) tan( φ m ) +
4
+ tan 2 ( φ m )
Gain margin = 2,
α α
margin - Zhuang m = 0.614(1 − 0.233e −0.347 K m K u
) α
2ω u
, 2ω u
phase margin = 600
and Atherton [9]
(
. 0 1 − 0.97 e −0.45K m K u
φ m = 338 ) τ
α = 0.413(3.302 K m K u + 1) . ≤ m ≤ 2.0
01
Tm
−1. 002
τ  V=fractional
Abbas [14] 0.177 + 0.348 m  Tm + 0.5τ m Tm τ m overshoot
 Tm 
0.531 − 0.359 V 0.713 2Tm + τ m 0 ≤ V ≤ 0.2
τ
0.1 ≤ m ≤ 5.0
Tm
Servo - min. ISE - A m ∈[ 2 ,5] ,
Ti ( 1) 1
−0.9471

[ ]
1.0264
Ho et al. [15] .
18578 φ m 0.0821  τ m  0.4899Tm φ m 0.1457  τ m 

K m A m 0.9087  Tm 
   φ m ∈ 300 ,600 ,
A m 0.0845  Tm 
τm
. ≤
01 ≤ 10
.
Tm
A m ∈[ 2 ,5] ,
−0.908

[ ]
0.3678 1.0317
Regulator - min. ISE .
10722 φ m −0.116  τ m  12497
. Tm φ m1.0082  τ m  0.4763Tm φ m −0.328  τ m 
- Ho et al. [15]

K m A m 0.8432  Tm 
     φ m ∈ 300 ,600 ,
A m 0.2099  Tm  A m 0.0961  Tm 
τm
. ≤
01 ≤ 10
.
Tm
Robust
τm
Tm + 0.5τ m Tm τ m . ≤
01 ≤ 10 ;
Brambilla et al. [16] 1  Tm + 0.5τ m  Tm
  2Tm + τ m
Km  λτ m  λ ≈ 0.35

1  Tm + 0.5τ m  Tm τ m λ > 01
. Tm ,
  Tm + 0.5τ m
Rivera et al. [17]
Km  λ + 05
. τm  2Tm + τ m λ ≥ 0.8τ m .
5Tm τm
Fruehauf et al. [18] ≤ 0.5τ m < 0.33
9τmK m 5τ m Tm
Tm τm
Tm ≤ 0.5τ m ≥ 0.33
2τ m K m Tm
Ti τm2 τm
2
 τ  τm
Tm + 1 − m  λ=
Lee et al. [19] Km ( λ + τ m ) 2( λ + τ m ) 2( λ + τ m )  3Ti  3
Ultimate cycle
Regulator - 0.7K u 0.4Tu 0149
. Tu τm
minimum IAE - . ≤
01 ≤ 10
.
Tm
Pessen [20]
Servo - minimum τm
ISTSE - Zhuang and 0.509 K u 0.051(3.302 K m K u + 1)Tu 0125
. Tu . ≤
01 ≤ 2.0
Tm

1
Ti (1) =
[
0.0211Tm 1 + 0.3289A m + 6.4572φ m + 251914
. ( τ m Tm ) ]
1 + 0.0625A m − 08079
. φ m + 0.347( τ m Tm )
 Atherton [9]
Regulator - τm
minimum ISTSE - 4.434 K m K u − 0.966 . K m K u − 0.612
1751 0.144Tu . ≤
01 ≤ 2.0
Ku Tu Tm
Zhuang and . K m K u + 1.734
512 3.776 K m K u + 1388
.
Atherton [9]

Rule Kc Ti Td Comment
Servo - nearly   
Kc    τm
2
2 
 c + c τ m + c  τ m   K u
c + c τ m + c  τ m  K  9  ω K . ≤
01 ≤ 2.0 -
τ    7
2 8
τ Tm  m  u c
T
minimum IAE,  1 2
Tm
3
 Tm  
u
K u ω u c 4 + c 5 m + c 6  m  
 
Tm
   Tm  Tm  
ITAE - Hwang and  
c 1 = 0.537 , c 2 = −0.0165 decay ratio = 0.03
Fang [21] c 4 = 0.0503, c 5 = 0163
. c 7 = 0.350, c 8 = −0.0344
c 3 = 0.00173
c 6 = −0.0389 c 9 = 0.00644
Regulator - nearly   
   τm
2
2 Kc 
 c + c τ m + c  τ m   K u
c + c τ m + c  τ m   K   7 9 
 Tm   ω u K c . ≤
01 ≤ 2.0 -
 τm  
8
3  2 Tm
minimum IAE,  1 2
 Tm  
u τm  

Tm
 K u ω u c 4 + c 5 + c 6    Tm
 T T  
ITAE - Hwang and c 1 = 0.802, c 2 = −0.154
 m m 
c 7 = 0.421, c 8 = 0.00915 decay ratio = 0.12
Fang [21] c 4 = 0190
. , c5 = 0.0532
c 3 = 0.0460
c 6 = −0.00509 c 9 = −0.00152
 2 Kc   
Simultaneous  
c + c τ m + c  τ m   K

9
2
c + c τ m + c  τ m   K u
 τ    7 Tm   ω u K c
2 8
Servo/regulator -  1 2
Tm
3
 Tm  
u τ
K u ω u c 4 + c 5 m + c 6  m  

Tm   τm
nearly minimum
   T
 T  
m m 
. ≤
01 ≤ 2.0
c 1 = 0.713, c 2 = −0.176 Tm
IAE, ITAE - Hwang c 4 = 0149
. , c5 = 0.0556 c 7 = 0.371, c 8 = −0.0274
c 3 = 0.0513
and Fang [21] c 6 = −0.00566 c 9 = 0.00557
 
 
    T     T   Tuning rules
0. 65 0.65
1415
. Tm  1   
 0.65  τ m 1 +  m
  0.25τ m 1 +  m
 
McMillan [22] Km τm   Tm   developed from
 1 +      Tm + τ m     Tm + τ m  
  Tm + τ m   K u , Tu
Ku tan φ m +
4
+ tan 2 φ m
A m = 2 , φ m = 450 ;
cosφ m
Tan et al. [23] Am αTd Tu
α
α chosen arbitrarily
4π
Kφ (
rK φ ω u 2 − ω φ 2 ) 1 Arbitrary A m , φ m at
Am ω φ Ti
2
ωφ ;
ω uω φ 2 Ku 2 − r 2 Kφ 2
r = 01
. + 0.9( K u K φ )
Ideal controller with  1 
set-point weighting G c (s) = K c  b + + Td s
 Ti s 
Maximum sensitivity
. e −8.4 τ + 7.3τ Tm 0.89τ m e −0.37 τ − 4.1τ or
2
Astrom and . τ m e −2.5τ − 1.4 τ or b = 0.40e 0.18τ + 2 .8 τ
2 2 2
38 52
Hagglund [2] - ,
Kmτm τ
0.46Tme 2.8 τ − 2.1τ 0.077Tm e5.0 τ − 4.8 τ
2 2

maximum sensitivity . ≤ m ≤ 55
014 .
= 1.4 τ = τ m ( τ m + Tm ) Tm

8.4e −9 .6 τ + 9 .8 τ Tm
2
Astrom and 3.2τ m e −1.5τ − 0.93τ or 0.86τ m e −1.9 τ − 0.44 τ or b = 0.22e 0.65τ + 0.051τ
2 2 2

Hagglund [2] - τ
Km τ m 0.28Tme 3.8 τ − 1.6τ
2
0.076Tm e 3.4 τ − 1.1τ
2

maximum sensitivity . ≤ m ≤ 55
014 .
Tm
= 2.0
 
Classical controller  1   1 + Td s 
G c (s) = K c 1 +  
 Ti s  
1+
Td s 

 N 
Process reaction
0.83Tm Foxboro EXACT
Hang et al. [24] Kmτm . τm
15 0.25τ m controller ‘pretune’;
N=10
Witt and Waggoner 0.6Tm T Equivalent to
[25] [ , m ] τm τm Ziegler and Nichols
Km τ m Km τ m
[1]; N = [10,20]
Tm
St. Clair [26] Km τ m 5τ m 0.5τ m ‘aggressive’ tuning
0.5Tm
Km τ m 5τ m 0.5τ m ‘conservative’
tuning

Rule Kc Ti Td Comment
Regulator
Minimum IAE - 0.98089  Tm 
0.76167
Tm  Tm 
1.05221
τ 
0.89819 τm
Kaya and Scheib     0.59974Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τ m  0.91032  τ m   Tm  Tm
[27]
Minimum ISE -  Tm 
0.89711
Tm  Tm 
0.9548
τ 
0.87798 τm
Kaya and Scheib
111907
.
    0.54766Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τm  0.7987  τ m   Tm  Tm
[27]
Minimum ITAE - 0.77902  Tm 
1.06401
Tm  Tm 
0.70949
τ 
1.03826 τm
Kaya and Scheib     0.57137Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τ m  114311
.  τm   Tm  Tm
[27]
Servo
Minimum IAE - 0.65  Tm 
1.04432 Tm τ 
1.08433 τm
Kaya and Scheib   τ 0.50814Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τm  0.9895 + 0.09539 m  Tm  Tm
[27] Tm
Minimum ISE - 0.71959  Tm 
1.03092 Tm τ 
0.86411 τm
Kaya and Scheib   τ 0.54568Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τ m  112666
. − 0.18145 m  Tm  Tm
[27] Tm
Minimum ITAE -  Tm 
0.80368 Tm τ 
1.0081 τm
Kaya and Scheib
112762
.
  τ 0.42844Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τm  0.99783 + 0.02860 m  Tm  Tm
[27] Tm
Direct synthesis
0.809 Tm Tm 0.
Tsang and Rad [28] Km τ m N=5

Tsang . [29] Km τ m m 0 25τ m N = 2.5

a ξ ξ a ξ a ξ
1.682 0.0 1.161 0.2 0.859 0.4 0.669 0.6 0.543 0.8 0.457 1.0
1.383 0.1 0.992 0.3 0.754 0.5 0.600 0.7 0.496 0.9
Robust
1  Tm 
Chien [30]  
K m  λ + 0.5τ m  Tm 0.5τ m λ = [τ m , Tm ] ; N=10

1  0.5τ m 
Chien [30]  
K m  λ + 0.5τ m  0.5τ m Tm λ = [τ m , Tm ] ; N=10

Ultimate cycle
Minimum IAE Kmτ m  Tu 
regulator - Shinskey Tu  015
. − 0.05
0.3τ m − 0.32Tu  τm 
014
. Tu
[31]
0.95Tm Km τ m 1.43τ m 0.52τ m τ m Tm = 0.2
Minimum IAE 0.95Tm Km τ m . τm
117 0.48τ m τ m Tm = 0.5
regulator - Shinskey τ m Tm = 1
114
. Tm Km τ m 1.03τ m 0.40τ m
[32] τ m Tm = 2
139
. Tm K mτ m 0.77τ m 0.35τ m
  
Industrial controller  1  1 + Td s 
U(s) = K c 1 +   R(s) − Y(s)
 Ti s  
 1+ d
Ts 
 N 
Regulator
Minimum IAE - 0.91  Tm 
0.7938
Tm  Tm 
1.00403
τ 
0.7848 τm
Kaya and Scheib     0.5414Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τ m  101495
.  τm   Tm  Tm
[27]
 Rule Kc Ti Td Comment
Minimum ISE -  Tm 
0.8992
Tm  Tm 
0.8753
τ 
0.91107 τm
Kaya and Scheib
11147
.
    0.56508Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τ m  0.9324  τ m   Tm  Tm
[27]
Minimum ITAE - 0.7058  Tm 
0.8872
Tm  Tm 
0.99138
τ 
0.971 τm
Kaya and Scheib     0.60006Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τ m  103326
.  τm   Tm  Tm
[27]
Servo
Minimum IAE - 0.81699  Tm 
1.004 Tm τ 
0.97186 τm
Kaya and Scheib   τ 0.44278Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τm  109112
. − 0.22387 m  Tm  Tm
[27] Tm
Minimum ISE -  Tm 
0.9365 Tm  τm 
0.78088 τm
Kaya and Scheib
11427
.
  τ m 0.35308Tm   0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τ m  0.99223 − 0.35269  Tm  Tm
[27] Tm
Minimum ITAE - 0.8326  Tm 
0.7607 Tm τ 
1.11499 τm
Kaya and Scheib   τ 0.44243Tm  m  0< ≤ 1 ; N=10
Km  τm  100268
. + 0.00854 m  Tm  Tm
[27] Tm

3. Conclusions
This part of the paper has presented a useable summary of the tuning rules for PID
controllers that have been developed to compensate SISO processes with time delay, modeled in
FOLPD form.

4. References
1. ZIEGLER, J.G. and NICHOLS, N.B.: ‘Optimum settings for automatic controllers’, Transactions of the ASME, 1942, November,
pp. 759-768.
2. ASTROM, K.J. and HAGGLUND, T.: ‘PID Controllers: Theory, Design and Tuning’, (Instrument Society of America, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, 2nd Edition, 1995).
3. PARR, E.A.: ‘Industrial Control Handbook’, Vol. 3 (BSP Professional Books, 1989).
4. CHIEN, K.-L., HRONES, J.A. and RESWICK, J.B.: ‘On the automatic control of generalised passive systems’, Transactions of the
ASME, 1952, February, pp. 175-185.
5. MURRILL, P.W.: ‘Automatic control of processes’, (International Textbook Co., 1967).
6. COHEN, G.H. and COON, G.A.: ‘Theoretical considerations of retarded control’, Transactions of the ASME, 1953, May, pp. 827-
834.
7. SAIN, S.G. and OZGEN, C.: ‘Identification and tuning of processes with large deadtime’, Control and Computers, 1992, 20(3), pp.
73-78.
8. CHENG, G.S. and HUNG, J.C.: ‘A Least-Squares Based Self-Tuning of PID Controller’, Proceedings of the IEEE South East
Conference, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 1985, pp. 325-332.
9. ZHUANG, M. and ATHERTON, D.P.: ‘Automatic tuning of optimum PID controllers’, IEE Proceedings, Part D, 1993, 140(3),
pp. 216-224.
10. ROVIRA, A.A., MURRILL, P.W. and SMITH, C.L.: ‘Tuning controllers for setpoint changes’, Instruments and Control Systems,
1969, 42, December, pp. 67-69.
11. WANG, F.-S., JUANG, W.-S. and CHAN, C.-T.: ‘Optimal tuning of PID controllers for single and cascade control loops’,
Chemical Engineering Communications, 1995, 132, pp. 15-34.
12. SMITH, C.A. and CORRIPIO, A.B.: ‘Principles and practice of automatic process control’, (John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1985).
13. SUYAMA, K.: ‘A simple design method for sampled-data PID control systems with adequate step responses’, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Industrial Electronics, Control, Instrumentation and Automation, 1992, pp. 1117-1122.
14. ABBAS, A.: ‘A new set of controller tuning relations’, ISA Transactions, 1997, 36(3), pp. 183-187.
15. HO, W.K., LIM, K.W. and XU, W.: ‘Optimal gain and phase margin tuning for PID controllers’, Automatica, 1998, 34(8), pp.
1009-1014.
16. BRAMBILLA, A., CHEN, S. and SCALI, C.: ‘Robust tuning of conventional controllers’, Hydrocarbon Processing, 1990,
November, pp. 53-58.
17. RIVERA, D.E., MORARI, M. and SKOGESTAD, S.: ‘Internal Model Control. 4. PID controller design’, Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development, 1986, 25(1), pp. 252-265.
18. FRUEHAUF, P.S., CHIEN, I.-L. and LAURITSEN, M.D.: ‘Simplified IMC-PID tuning rules’, Proceedings of the ISA/93 Advances
in Instrumentation and Control Conference, McCormick Place, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 1993, pp. 1745-1766.
19. LEE, Y., PARK, S., LEE, M. and BROSILOW, C.: ‘PID controller tuning for desired closed-loop responses for SI/SO systems’,
AIChE Journal, 1998, 44(1), pp. 106-115.
20. PESSEN, D.W.: ‘A new look at PID-controller tuning’, Transactions of the ASME. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement
and Control, 1994, 116, pp. 553-557.
21. HWANG, S.-H. and FANG, S.-M.: ‘Closed-loop tuning method based on dominant pole placement’, Chemical Engineering
Communications, 1995, 136, pp. 45-66.
22. McMILLAN, G.K.: ‘Control loop performance’. Proceedings of the ISA/84 International Conference and Exhibition. Advances in
Instrumentation, Houston, Texas, USA, 1984, 1, pp. 589-603.
23. TAN, K.K., LEE, T.H. and WANG, Q.G.: ‘Enhanced automatic tuning procedure for process control of PI/PID controllers’, AIChE
Journal, 1996, 42(9), pp. 2555-2562.
24. HANG, C.C., LEE, T.H. and HO, W.K.: ‘Adaptive Control’, (Instrument Society of America, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1993).
25. WITT, S.D. and WAGGONER, R.C.: ‘Tuning parameters for non-PID three-mode controllers’, Hydrocarbon Processing, 1990,
June, pp. 74-78.
26. ST. CLAIR, D.W.: ‘Controller tuning and control loop performance’. (Straight Line Control Co., Inc., 2nd Edition, 1997).
27. KAYA, A. and SCHEIB, T.J.: ‘Tuning of PID controls of different structures’, Control Engineering, 1988, July, pp. 62-65.
28. TSANG, K.M. and RAD, A. B.: ‘A new approach to auto-tuning of PID controllers’, International Journal of Systems Science,
1995, 26(3), pp. 639-658.
29. TSANG, K.M., RAD, A.B. and TO, F.W.: ‘Online tuning of PID controllers using delayed state variable filters’, Proceedings of the
IEEE Region 10 Conference on Computer, Communication, Control and Power Engineering, 1993, 4, pp. 415-419.
30. CHIEN, I.-L.: ‘IMC-PID controller design - an extension’, Proceedings of the IFAC Adaptive Control of Chemical Processes
Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1988, pp. 147-152.
31. SHINSKEY, F.G.: ‘Feedback controllers for the process industries’, (McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, 1994).
32. SHINSKEY, F.G.: ‘Process Control Systems - Application, Design and Tuning’, (McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, 3rd Edition, 1988).

Appendix 1: List of symbols used (more than once) in the paper.

A m = gain margin
b = setpoint weighting factor
E(s) = Desired variable, R(s), minus controlled variable, Y(s)
G c (s) = PID controller transfer function
G p ( jω) = process transfer function at frequency ω , G p ( jω) = magnitude of G p ( jω)
IAE = integral of absolute error
ISE = integral of squared error
ISTES = integral of squared time multiplied by error, all to be squared
ISTSE = integral of squared time multiplied by squared error
ITAE = integral of time multiplied by absolute error
K c = Proportional gain of the controller
K m = Gain of the FOLPD process model
K φ = Magnitude of the FOLPD process model at a phase lag of φ
K u = Ultimate gain
M s = Closed loop sensitivity
N = Indication of the amount of filtering on the derivative term
R(s) = Desired variable
Td = Derivative time of the controller
Ti = Integral time of the controller
Tm = Time constant of the FOLPD process model
Tu = Ultimate time constant
U(s) = manipulated variable
Y(s) = controlled variable
λ = Parameter that determines robustness of compensated system.
ξ = damping factor of the compensated system
φ m = phase margin
τ m = time delay of the FOLPD process model, τ = τ m ( τ m + Tm )
ω u = ultimate (angular) frequency, ω φ = angular frequency at a phase lag of φ