3.

Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 1

2. CONTROLLER DESIGN FOR PROCESSES

WITH DIFFICULT DYNAMICS

1. Difficult Process Dynamics

For normal system, if the input variable were increased from an initial steady-state value of u1 to
a new value u1 + ∆u, the dynamic behavior is considered normal if the output variable responds
qualitatively as one of the responses depicted in following Figures

These response satisfy:

1. It begins to respond quickly without significant delay.
2. It heads directly for a new steady-state value without first taking an excursion in the
opposite direction.
3. It finally settles to a new steady-state value.
The control system structures studied before can control normal processes reasonably well.
However, these conventional control systems often do a poor job for the following three classes
of processes with difficult dynamics. Thus, we need to analyze the key features of these difficult
processes and provide new control system designs for improved closed loop performance of
these processes.

Characteristics of Difficult Process Dynamics

The presence of any of difficult characteristics in the dynamic behavior of a process can be
identified below:
• Time delay
• Inverse response
• Open loop instability
A process with time delay violates the first condition noted above normal dynamic behavior: it
does not respond instantaneously to input change. A substantial number of chemical processes
exhibit time-delay behavior.
Processes with time delays have a significant delay before they respond to control action, so that
controller with aggressive action (high controller gain) will tend to overcompensate and process

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 2

become unstable. Thus there is a limit on the controller gain that can be used for a process with
time delay.
A process with inverse response violates the second condition for normal dynamic behavior.
The response, even though its step response eventually ends up heading in the direction of the
new steady state, it starts out initially heading in the opposite direction, away from the new
steady state, changing direction somewhere during the course of time.
Processes with inverse response will initially move in the wrong direction as they respond to
control action. Thus if the controller is tuned too tightly (high controller gain) it will attempt to
correct for the movement in the wrong direction and overcompensate. Again there is a limit on
the controller gain that can be used for a process having inverse response.
A process for which the step response is unbounded, i.e., the output increases (or decreases)
indefinitely with time, is said to be open loop unstable. An open loop unstable process violates
the third condition noted above; its output fails to settle to a new steady-state value in response
to a step change in the input.
Processes that are open-loop unstable will "run away" without control, so most of the controller
tuning procedures cannot be applied. In addition, open loop unstable processes can be unstable
for various reasons so that simple PI control may not be enough to stabilize them.

These difficult dynamics translate into unusual phase behavior as non-minimum-phase system.

Non-minimum Phase (NMP) systems

Minimum Phase systems: A normal process with n poles and m zeros, its phase angle
approaches (n - m) x (-90) asymptotically at high frequencies.
For a given system
g ( s ) s = jω = g ( jω ) = Re(ω ) + j Im(ω )

with
AR =| g ( jω ) |= Re(ω ) 2 + Im(ω ) 2

and
⎡ Im(ω ) ⎤
φ = arg[ g ( jω )] = tan −1 ⎢ ⎥
⎣ Re(ω ) ⎦
For a class of processes (g1(s), g2(s), ..., gn(s)) having same amplitude ratio characteristics (i.e.,

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 3

AR1 = AR2 = ... = ARn), and phase angles (φ1, φ2, … φn) of which the minimum is designated
φmin. if φi ≠ φmin then the systems are referred to as non-minimum phase systems.
• Time delay system: For a normal system g1(s):
g 2 ( s ) = g 1 ( s ) e −α s
We have
AR1 = AR2
but
φ2=φ1-αω
• Inverse response system: the two processes having transfer functions:
g1(s) = g0(s)(l + ηs)
and
g2(s) = g0(s)(1- ηs)
We have
AR1 = AR2
but
φ2=φ1-1800
• Open loop unstable system: Consider the first order process
K
g1 ( s ) =
τs + 1
and
K
g 2 (s) =
τs − 1
We have
AR1 = AR2
but
φ2=-1800+φ1
In general, a system which contains any non-minimum phase element: a RHP pole, a RHP zero,
or a time delay, is a NMP system.

2. Control of Time-delay Systems

Control problems with time-delay elements are:
1. Measuring device delay: control action is based on delayed, obsolete, process information
that is not representative of the current situation.
2. Process input delay: the process will not feel the control action immediately.
Delay cause system instability: consider the system

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 4

a)
K
g1 ( s ) =
τs + 1

A normal first-order system, the phase angle asymptotically approaches a limiting value of -900
Thus, the normal system can never be unstable under proportional feedback control since the
phase angle can never attain the critical value of -1800.
b)
K −αs
g1 ( s ) = e
τs + 1

A first-order system with time delay: the phase angle decreases monotonically with frequency, a
limiting value of proportional controller gain (phase angle crosses 1800) at which the system
becomes unstable. It is proportional to the value of the time delay.

Conventional Feedback Controller Design

Consider the general model for a process with time delay:
g ( s ) = g * ( s )e −αs
where g*(s) has normal dynamics.

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 5

Under conventional feedback, the closed-loop system has

1 + g c ( s) g * ( s)e −αs = 0
The increased phase lag of the delay term requires a reduction in the allowable value of the
controller gain. The closed-loop system will have to be more sluggish than the corresponding
system without delay.
Conventional controllers can be used for time-delay systems, but have to sacrifice speed of
response in order to have closed loop stability.
Example: Three Water Tank System

A linear model for the liquid level hi of each tank is

dh1
A1 = F0 − c1h1
dt
dh2
A2 = c1h1 − c2 h2
dt
dh3
A3 = c2 h2 − c3h3
dt
where Aj, Cj, j=1,2,3, are the cross section area and the outlet valve discharge constant for each

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 6

tank. In terms of deviation variables

yi = hi − his , u = F0 − F0 s
It becomes
dy1
τ1 = − y1 + K1u
dt
dy2
τ2 = K 2 y1 − y2
dt
dy3
τ3 = k 3 y 2 − y3
dt
Aj 1 c c
τj = , k1 = , k 2 = 1 , k3 = 2 ,
cj c1 c2 c3
The transfer function,
K
y3 =
(τ 1s + 1)(τ 2 s + 1)(τ 2 s + 1)

Assume τ 1 = 2 , τ 2 = 4 , τ 3 = 6 , K = k1k 2 k3 . Then

6
g ( s) =
(2s + 1)(4s + 1)(6 s + 1)
Approximated Model:
6
g1 ( s ) = e −3 s
15 s + 1

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 7

PI Control

PID Control

Smith Predictor
Introduce a minor feedback loop around the conventional controller and a model with subscript
m
ym ( s) = g m* ( s)e −α ms u ( s)

Define:
y * ( s ) = g * ( s )u ( s )

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 8

and
y m* ( s ) = g m* ( s )u ( s )
Since
y ( s ) = g * ( s ) e −α s u ( s )
y*(s) is the output of un-delayed process output y(s).
Assuming that there are no model errors g*m(s) = g*(s) and αm = α, the signal reaching the
controller is a "corrected" error signal.
Then:
εc = yd − y(s) − ( y*(s) − y(s))
or
ε c = yd − y * (s)
The equivalent block diagram for the closed loop system is shown as:

The net result of the introduction of the minor loop is therefore to eliminate the time-delay factor
from the feedback loop - where it causes stability problems - and "move" it outside of the loop,
where it has no effect on closed loop system stability.
The characteristic equation of the equivalent system is
1 + g c ( s) g * ( s) = 0
which no longer contains the time-delay element and therefore allows the use of higher
controller gains without placing the closed-loop stability in jeopardy.

To establish the characteristic equation directly, assuming that there are no model errors.
Considering

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 9

u = g c*ε
where
gc
g c* =
1 + g c g (1 − e −αs )
*

The overall closed loop transfer function is

g * ( s )e −αs g c*
y= yd
1 + g * ( s )e −αs g c*
Using g c* , we obtain:

g * g c e − αs
g * ( s )e −αs g c* =
1 + g c g * − g c g *e −αs
and

−αs 1 + g * gc
1 + g ( s )e
*
g =
*

1 + g c g * − g c g *e −αs
c

Substitute both equations into the closed loop transfer function

⎛ g * gc ⎞ −αs
y = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟e yd
⎝ 1 + g gc
*
⎠
The specialized control scheme is known as time-delay compensation because, the minor loop
was introduced to compensate for the presence of the time delay. It is referred to as a
compensator.
Note:
1. The effective action of the compensator is to feed the signal y* to the controller instead
of the actual process output y.
2. By
y * ( s ) = g * ( s )u ( s )
and
y ( s ) = g * ( s )e −αs u ( s )
we have
y * ( s ) = eαs y ( s )
and
y * (t ) = y (t + α )
It is clear that y*(t) is a prediction of y(t) exactly α time units ahead, the name "Smith
predictor" generally associated with the scheme.
3. The scheme will work perfectly if process model is perfectly known, modeling errors
will affect its performance. The most significant criticism of the Smith predictor

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 10

technique is its sensitivity to modeling errors.

4. In those processes where the time delays are due to transport of material and/or energy
through long pipes, the time delays will vary with the fluid flowrate; an increase in
flowrate giving rise to lower time delays, and vice-versa. The Smith predictor scheme is
designed for constant time delays and may therefore not perform as well for systems
with time delays which vary significantly over time.

Design Procedure
1. Design the Smith Predictor (the minor loop)
The design of the minor loop involves setting up a means by which y* and y are
produced from the process model, y is obtained directly from the process model, and
y* is obtained from the undelayed version of the process model.
2. Design gc
According to the Smith predictor scheme, the controller is designed for the undelayed
system. This permits the use of much higher controller gains than would otherwise be
allowable.
However, the Smith predictor requires a perfect model, and real models are never perfect, we
must be cautious in choosing the controller parameters. In practice, one would choose controller
parameters large enough to achieve much better performance than feedback control alone, but
not so large as to cause serious deterioration in performance resulting from inevitable
plant/model mismatch.
Assuming there is a variation in dead-time, td can only be approximated. The Smith predictor
cannot fully compensate the dead-time effects; there is dead-time residual in the system. The
uncompensated dead-time give rise to additional phase lag and leads eventually the reduction of
crossover frequency and ultimate gain margin. In this case, too big gain will lead unstable
system.
Another problem is the disturbance, Smith predictor has no real effect to disturbance rejection
improvement.
• Stability
• Disturbance rejection
• Transient characteristic
• Robustness

Improved Smith Predictor-1

Adding a transfer function Gf(s) in feedback loop, input disturbance can be rejected. From the
block diagram, we can write the closed loop transfer function from D(s) to Y(s) as:

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 11

y(s) g *e −αs
=
d (s) g * g c e −αs
1+
1 + g * g f + g * g c (1 − e −αs )
[1 + g * g f + g * g c (1 − e −αs )]g *e −αs
=
1 + g * g f + g * gc
To reject disturbance, it should have
1 + g * g f + g * g c (1 − e −αs ) = 0
we obtain:
1 + g * g c (1 − e −αs )
gf =−
g*
Writing the closed loop transfer function

y ( s) g * g c e −αs
=
yd (s) 1 + g * g f + g * g c
Substitute gf(s) into above equation, we obtain
* −αs
y(s) g g c e
= =1
y d ( s ) g * g c e −αs
It means that the system can exactly following the reference signal and disturbance has been
totally rejected.

3. Inverse Response System Control

Inverse Response System
Definition: When the initial direction of a process systems step response is opposite to the
direction of the final steady state, it exhibits inverse response.

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 12

Consider a system
g(s) = g1(s)-g2(s)
g1(s): representing the "main mode";
g2(s): as the "opposition mode";
The second model g2(s) has negative sign, opposite to the first model g1(s).

Example: a system composed of two opposing first-order modes,

K1 K2
g ( s) = −
1 + τ 1s 1 + τ 2 s
Assume K1 > K2, the dynamic behavior by transfer function model:
y(s) = g(s) u(s)
is given by:
y(s) = g1(s)u(s) - g2(s)u(s)
or
y(s) = Y1(s)-Y2(s)
The overall unit step response will be the difference between system 1 and 2.
Steady-State Considerations
The overall steady-state value of the system for unit step response is:
y(∞) = K1-K2
and since K1 > K2 this quantity is positive.

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 13

Initial Slope For all t > 0:

dy dy1 dy2
= −
dt dt dt
The net initial slope of the composite system response is the difference between the initial slope
of the "main" and "opposition" system. For first-order step responses it is:
dy K1 K2
t =0 = −
dt τ1 τ2
suppose
K1 K2
≤
τ1 τ2
The net initial slope of the overall system response will be negative, if the initial slope of the
opposing system response is greater than the initial slope of the "main" system response.
Summary
Inverse response is possible only when the "opposition" mode
1. Has a lower steady-state gain than the "main" mode (K2 <K1), and
2. Responds with a faster initial slope than that of the "main" mode,
To illustrate the characteristics of linear systems that show inverse response, consider the
transfer functions of the two processes.
K1 K2
g (s) = −
1 + τ 1s 1 + τ 2 s
( K1τ 2 − K 2τ 1 ) s + ( K1 − K 2 )
=
(1 + τ 1s )(1 + τ 2 s )
Note that this is the form of a (2,1)-order system
K ( −ηs + 1)
g (s) =
(1 + τ 1s )(1 + τ 2 s )
With
K = K1-K2
And
( K1τ 2 − K 2τ 1 ) ⎛ K1 K 2 ⎞ τ 1τ 2
−η = = ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟
( K1 − K 2 ) ⎝ τ 1 τ 2 ⎠ ( K1 − K 2 )
To obtain the inverse response, it required both K1, K2 are positive, K1 > K2, and also K2/ τ2>
K1/τ1, Which means K>0, -η<0.
For reverse response system, having taken the proper action, it will eventually yield the desired
result. However, the controller is first took the wrong action and is liable to compound the
problem further that may affect such a system’s closed-loop stability.

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 14

Inverse Response System Control

Consider a system, the Bode diagram for the process whose open-loop transfer function is:
(−3s + 1)
g (s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
1. Without the RHP zero in the numerator, the transfer function will be second order, the
phase angle will asymptotically approach a limiting value of 1800 implying that the
closed loop system will always be stable.
2. With the RHP zero, the limiting value for the phase angle has been altered to 2700 and
there is now a finite (crossover) frequency at which φ = 1800, and there is a limiting
value of Kc for system to be stable.

Conventional Feedback Controller Design

Logic of PID controller:
Because the derivative mode of the PID controller, it can anticipate the "wrong way behavior"
and appropriately accommodating it by:
1. At the initial stage of the process response, it increases error because of the inversion.
However, the derivative of the response is negative during this period, and when this
information is incorporated into the controller equation, the result is a net reduction in
the magnitude of the control action.
2. After the inversion is over, and the response begins heading in the right direction, the
derivative is positive and usually quite large; with the PID controller, this translates to a
net increase in control action.
Approximate Time-delay Model for the Inverse-Response System:
By reversing the Pade approximation, a RHP zero can also be approximated by a time-delay

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 15

element and a mirror image LHP zero

α
1− s
e −αs = 2
α
1+ s
2
then, by the same token:
1 − ηs = (1 + ηs)e−2ηs
Example: Obtain an approximate time-delay model for the inverse-response system using the
reverse Pade approximation and compare the unit step responses.
( −3s + 1)
g (s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
Solution: Since the model has a RHP zero η=3, using reverse Pade' approximation requires
replacing it with (1+ 3s) e-6s. The approximate time-delay model is given by:
(1 + 3s )
g ( s) = e −6 s
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
Following Figure shows the unit step response of the two systems, indicating quite reasonable
agreement

Classical Techniques: Ziegler-Nichols Designs

Example: Design a PID controller for the following inverse-response system using the
frequency-response Ziegler-Nichols technique.
( −3s + 1)
g (s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
Solution: Figure shows the Bode diagram for the system under proportional-only control: i.e.,
the open loop transfer function is given by:

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 16

K c (−3s + 1)
g (s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
From this diagram, we obtain the following critical information required for the Ziegler-Nichols
design:
The crossover frequency: ωco= 0.55 radians/time
The magnitude ratio at this point: MR = AR/KKc = 0.5
The ultimate gain and period are given as: Ku =2
and

2π
Pu = = 11.42
ω co
By the following table

Controller K τi τD
P 0.5Ku
PI 0.4Ku 0.8Pu
PID 0.6Ku 0.5Pu 0.125Pu

The Ziegler-Nichols recommended values for the PID controller parameters are obtained as:
Kc=1.2; τI=5.7 τD=1.4

Inverse-Response Compensation

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 17

Consider the block diagram shown below:

Written conventional feedback control of an inverse-response system as g(s) = g0(s)(1 - ηs);

where g0(s) represents the transfer function factoring out the problematic RHP zero element. For
example
( −3s + 1)
g (s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
than
1
g 0 (s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
Introducing a minor loop as shown in following Figure with the transfer function g' given by:
g'(s) = g0(s)λs

Objective: choose the quantity λ such that the signal reaching the controller appears to be from a
"normal" system.
Define the variable y'
y'(s) = g'(s)u(s)
generated by the minor loop. As a result of this minor loop, the signal reaching the controller is
given by:
εc = yd − y(s) − y'(s)
or
ε c = yd − [g ( s ) + g ' ( s )]u ( s )

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 18

Now, let:
g * ( s) = g ( s) + g ' ( s)
and
y * ( s ) = g * ( s )u ( s )
then it becomes:
εc = yd − y*(s)
Introducing g and g' into g*, we obtain:
g*(s) = g0(s)(I - ηs) + g0(s)λs
or
g*(s) = g0(s)[l + (λ-η)s]
choose λ such that:
λ>η
y* no longer contains a RHP zero. Thus the minor loop provides a corrective signal that
eliminates the inverse response from the feedback loop.
In case of plant-model mismatch, choosing λ>η (as opposed to λ=η). Usually select
λ=2η
Example: Design an inverse-response compensator for the inverse-response system
(−3s + 1)
g ( s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
Solution: For the process
1
g 0 (s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
and
λs
g ' ( s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
For this system η = 3, a good value of A to be used is λ =6 so that:
6s
g ' (s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
is the transfer function to use in the inverse-response compensator loop. The apparent process
transfer function is given by:
1 + 3s
g * (s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
with no RHP zero.
Example: Investigate the closed loop stability properties of the following system under

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 19

proportional-only feedback control, first without any compensation, and then with the inverse
response compensator
( −3s + 1)
g (s) =
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
Solution: Under conventional, proportional feedback control, the characteristic equation for the
closed loop system is:
K c (−3s + 1)
1+ =0
(1 + 2 s )(1 + 5s )
which rearranges to:
10s 2 + (7 − 3K c ) s + (1 + K c ) = 0
The condition for stability is:
Kc < 7 / 3
With the inverse-response compensator, using the minor loop
u = g c*ε
where
gc
g c* =
1 + gc g '
The overall closed loop transfer function is

gg c*
y= yd
1+ gg c*
and the characteristic equation is:
1 + gg c* = 0
the characteristic equation becomes:
10 s 2 + (7 + 3K c ) s + (1 + K c ) = 0
which is stable for all positive values of Kc
The inverse response compensation compared to conventional PID control, the response to a
unit set-point change with the inverse-response compensator combined with a PI controller (Kc
=10, τI=0.167) is shown in the Figure. Note that the inverse-response compensator produces the
smallest negative deviation and a rapid response without overshoot.

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 20

Design Procedure:
1. Design the inverse-response compensator loop, this involves obtaining the appropriate
transfer function g'(s) and find λ to use in the minor feedback loop.
2. Design gc: Once the compensator has been designed, it is simply design the controller for
g*(s) with absence of the RHP zero permits the use of higher controller.
However, because of process/model mismatch, one must be careful not to increase the controller
gains too much.

4. Open-loop Unstable Systems

Characteristic
The system transfer function has at least one RHP pole.
K
g (s) =
τs − 1
Dynamic Behavior
Any upset in any direction will result in unstable response.

Difficulties for Control System Design

Open loop model identification procedures are impossible, the process must keep under control

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 21

while carrying out the modeling experiments.

Determine open-loop model parameters: under feedback control with known controller
parameters using a sequence of set-point changes and disturbances.
A process is unstable in the open loop can usually be stabilized by carefully designed
conventional feedback control.

Example: Obtain the range of Kc values required to ensure that the closed-loop system
involving:
K
g (s) =
τs − 1
and a proportional controller is stable.
Solution: The characteristic equation for the closed loop system is:
1 + KKc/(τs-1) = 0
which is
τs - 1 + KKc = 0
the one root is located at
s = (1-KKc)/τ
The root will be negative, if
Kc > 1/K
which will stabilize the open-loop unstable system.
Place the closed loop system poles in pre-specified locations in the LHP.
Example: Design a PI controller for above Example with K=1/6 and τ =0.25 that will
stabilize the dosed-loop system with the closed-loop system poles located at s = -2 and at s = -
4.
Solution: PI Controller is given by
⎛ 1 ⎞
g c ( s ) = K c ⎜⎜ 1 + ⎟
⎝ τ I s ⎟⎠
The closed-loop characteristic equation
1+gc(s)g(s)=0
becomes:
ττIs2 + (KKc-1)τIs + KKc = 0
solving this equation, gives the required controller parameter values:
6τ + 1
Kc = Kc = 15.5
K
And

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 22

8τ
τI = τI = 0.775
KK c
However, not all open loop unstable processes can be stabilized by P or PI control.

Example: For open-loop transfer function

2
g (s) =
( 2 s − 1)(5s + 1)
It not difficult to check that it is impossible to stabilize the process using P or PI control. The
characteristic equation of closed loop transfer function is
1 + gc g = 0
2(kcτs + kc )
1+ =0
τs(2s − 1)(5s + 1)
results
10τs 3 − 3τs 2 + (2kc − 1)τs + kc = 0
which is unstable. In this case, either a PD or a PID controller is required for stabilization. It
means that open loop unstable systems may require special types of controllers to stabilize
them.
Open-loop unstable systems can also have conditional closed-loop stability, Kcl < Kc < Kcu
which stabilize the process.
Example: Consider the open loop unstable process:
2(− s + 1)
g ( s) =
(4s − 1)(2s + 1)
under proportional feedback control. Determine the range of controller gains for which the
closed-loop system is stable.
Solution: The characteristic equation for the closed-loop system is given by:
8s2+2(1-Kc)s+(2Kc-1) = 0
the stable range of controller gain is 0.5 < Kc <1.
Two step design
For controller design purpose, many of the unstable processes are adequately described by a
first-order plus dead-time transfer function:

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 23

K
G p (s) = e − Ls
Ts − 1

With P controller in the inner feedback loop, the internal closed-loop transfer function Gl (s)
can be obtained as
G p (s) Ke − Ls
Gl ( s ) = =
1 + K l G p (s) Ts − 1 + KK l e − Ls
Using Taylor series expansion

e − Ls ≅ 1 − Ls + 0.5L2 s 2
we obtain
Ke − Ls
G l ( s ) ≅ G 'p ( s ) =
0.5 KK l L2 s 2 + (T − KK l L) s + KK l − 1
'
Since the characteristic equation of G p ( s ) should have negative poles to be stable, the
following condition must be satisfied from the Routh-Hurwitz stability criterion
1 T
K min = < Kl < = K max
K LK
The above expression indicates that a condition T/L>1 for unstable processes should be
satisfied. That means that the proposed method is suitable for unstable processes with small time
delays.
For the optimum gain margin

1 T
K l = K min K max =
K L
which results
e − Ls
G 'p ( s) =
L 1 1 T
(0.5 TL ) s 2 + (T − TL ) s + ( − 1)
K K K L
As the integrating and unstable processes are stabilized with the P controller in the inner
feedback loop, we can design a PID controller for the stabilized processes which have second
order plus dead time process structure.

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu

 3. Controller Design for processes with Difficult Dynamics 24

e − Ls
G 'p ( s ) =
as 2 + bs + c
Writing PID controller transfer function as
⎛ As 2 + Bs + C ⎞
Gc (s ) = k ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ s ⎠
Kd K K
where A = , B = p and C = i . Let controller zeros to be equal to the poles of model
k k k
G′p (s ) , i.e. A = a , B = b , C = c . Hence

ke− sL
G′p (s )Gc (s ) =
s
where k is determined based on gain and phase-margin specifications. Typical values of gain
margin and phase margin range from 2 to 5, and 30o to 60o , respectively. If assign Am = 3 , then
Φ m = 60 o and

π π
k= =
2 Am L 6L
Hence PID settings for unstable processes are given as
π T T
Kp = ( − )
6K L L

π T
Ki = ( − 1)
6 KL L
π
Kd = TL
12 K
Once the model is obtained, we can ignore the inner feedback loop and directly design PID
controllers for the unstable time delay processes. The tuning formulae are very simple and
straightforward.

KNU/EECS/ELEC835001 Dr. Kalyana Veluvolu