Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784

www.elsevier.com/locate/jprocont

Effective transfer function method for decentralized control

system design of multi-input multi-output processes
Qiang Xiong a, Wen-Jian Cai a,b,*

a
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore
b
School of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250061, PR China

Received 21 January 2006; received in revised form 17 April 2006; accepted 24 April 2006

Abstract

In terms of relative gain and relative frequency, the effective transfer function for independent controller design for multi-input multi-
output processes is provided in this paper. Differing from existing equivalent transfer functions, the proposed effective transfer function
provides both gain and phase information for decentralized controller design in a simple and straightforward manner. The interaction
effects for a particular loop from all other closed loops are directly incorporated into the effective transfer functions in four ways. Con-
sequently, the decentralized controllers can be independently designed by employing the single loop tuning techniques. This design
method is simple, straightforward, easy to understand and implement by field engineers. Several multivariable industrial processes with
different interaction modes are employed to demonstrate the effectiveness and simplicity of the method.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Decentralized control; Independent design; PID; Effective relative gain array; Relative frequency array; Effective transfer function; Gain and
phase margins

1. Introduction processes [2]. However, compared with single-input single

In process control industry, more than 95% of the con-
trol loops are of PI/PID type [1]. This is mainly attributed
to its effectiveness and relatively simple structure, which
can be easily understood and implemented in practice.
Consequently, the research on PID control algorithm
development and their applications is still a very active
area; many formulas have been derived to tune the PID
controllers over the years.
Due to the high product quality and energy integration
requirements, most of modern industry processes, however,
are multi-input multi-output (MIMO) processes. For easier
field implementation, it is desirable to apply well estab-
lished single loop PID tuning principles to these MIMO
*
Corresponding author. Address: School of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798,
Singapore. Tel.: +65 6790 6862; fax: +65 6793 3318.
E-mail address: ewjcai@ntu.edu.sg (W.-J. Cai).
multi-output (SISO) counterparts, MIMO systems are
more difficult to control due to the existence of interactions
between input and output variables. Adjusting controller
parameters of one loop affects the performance of the oth-
ers, sometimes to the extent of destabilizing the entire sys-
tem. To ensure stability, many industrial decentralized
controllers are tuned loosely, which causes inefficient oper-
ation and higher energy costs.
Although considerable effort has been dedicated to this
problem and many design techniques, such as sequential
loop closing methods [3–5], detuning factor methods
[6,7], and independent design methods [8,9], have been pro-
posed, decentralized control system design and implemen-
tation is still difficult to deal with for control engineers
due to the lack of simple and practical approach. Since
controllers interact with each other in a decentralized con-
trol system, the performance of one loop cannot be evalu-
ated without the information of the controllers of other
loops.

0959-1524/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jprocont.2006.04.001
774 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784

In recent years, Wang et al. [10] used a modified Ziegler– outputs, G(s) and Gc(s) are process transfer function matrix
Nichols method to formulate a set of equations to solve for and decentralized controller matrix with compatible
the parameters of individual controllers, in which the loop dimensions, expressed by
interactions are taken into account. However, the existence 2 3
of the solutions is not guaranteed. In addition, the exten- g11 ðsÞ g12 ðsÞ    g1n ðsÞ
sion for higher dimensional systems seems difficult because 6 g ðsÞ g ðsÞ    g2n ðsÞ 7
6 21 22 7
of the complicated and nonlinear computation. Another GðsÞ ¼ 6 7
4     5
more direct approach to deal with this problem is to build
the equivalent processes for each loop [11]. However, the gn1 ðsÞ gn2 ðsÞ    gnn ðsÞ
knowledge of other controllers is still required. One possi-
and
ble solution is based on the assumption of ideal or infinite
bandwidth control [12]. Nevertheless, the ideal control does 2 3
gc1 ðsÞ 0  0
not exist in reality. This may result in unsatisfactory con- 6 7
trol system performance. Huang et al. [13] proposed a 6 0 gc2 ðsÞ  0 7
Gc ðsÞ ¼ 6
6 
7;
new independent design approach by deriving controller 4    7
5
independent equivalent open-loop transfer functions. If
0 0    gcn ðsÞ
the open loop transfer functions have integration modes,
a simplified complementary sensitive function for each loop
respectively.
is attained by IAE optimal index. Based on these approxi-
Let
mated transfer functions, the decentralized controller is
tuned by a model-based method. The results show that this gij ðjxÞ ¼ k ij g0ij ðjxÞ;
approach is simple and effective for low dimensional multi-
variable processes. For high dimensional processes this where kij and g0ij ðjxÞ are steady state gain and normalized
design has to be more conservative due to the inevitable transfer function of gij(jx), i.e., g0ij ð0Þ ¼ 1, respectively. The
modeling errors encountered in formulation. interaction among individual loop is described by ERGA,
In this paper, a novel equivalent transfer function in the main result of ERGA is summarized as follows [14].
terms of effective relative gain array (ERGA) for multivar- Define eij of a particular transfer function as
Z xc;ij
iable processes is proposed. By considering four combina-
tion modes of gain and phase changes for a particular eij ¼ k ij jg0ij ðjxÞj dx;
0
loop when other loops are closed, this equivalent transfer
function can effectively approximate the dynamic interac- where xc,ij for i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n are the critical frequency of
tions among loops. Consequently, the design of decentral- the transfer function gij(jx) and j•j is the absolute value
ized controller for MIMO processes can be converted to of •. In order to calculate eij, the critical frequency can
the design of single loop controllers. The method is simple, be defined in two ways:
straightforward, easy to understand and implement. Sev-
eral multivariable industrial processes with different inter- 1. xc,ij = xB,ij, where xB,ij for i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n is the band-
action characteristics are employed to demonstrate the width of the transfer function g0ij ðjxÞ and determined
effectiveness and simplicity of the design method compared by the frequency where the magnitude plot of frequency
with the existing methods. response reduced to 0.707 time, i.e.,
jgij ðjxB;ij Þj ¼ 0:707jgij ð0Þj:
2. Preliminaries
2. xc,ij = xu,ij, where xu,ij for i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n is the ultimate
Consider an open loop stable multivariable system with frequency of the transfer function g0ij ðjxÞ and deter-
n inputs and n outputs as shown in Fig. 1, where ri, i = mined by the frequency where the phase plot of fre-
1, 2, . . . , n, are the reference inputs; ui, i = 1, 2, . . . , n, are quency response across p, i.e.,
the manipulated variables; yi, i = 1, 2, . . . , n, are the system arg½gij ðjxu;ij Þ ¼ p:

For transfer function matrices with some elements without

Fig. 1. Closed-loop multivariable control system.
phase crossover frequencies, such as first order or second
order without time delay, it is necessary to use correspond-
ing bandwidths as critical frequencies to calculate eij. How-
ever, it is worth to point out that the phase crossover
frequency information, i.e., ultimate frequency (xu,ij) is rec-
ommended if applicable for calculation of eij, since it is clo-
sely linked to system dynamic performance and control
system design. Without loss of generality, we will use xu,ij
as the bases for the following development.
 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784 775

For the frequency response of gij(jx) as shown in Fig. 2, mission ratio for loop yi  uj, the bigger the eij value is, the
eij is the area covered by gij(jx) up to xu,ij. Since jg0ij ðjxÞj more dominant of the loop will be.
represents the magnitude of the transfer function at various Similar to the definition of relative gain [15], the effective
frequencies, eij is considered to be the energy transmission relative gain, /ij, between output variable yi and input var-
ratio from the manipulated variable uj to the controlled iable uj is define as the ratio of two effective energy trans-
variable yi. mission ratio:
Express the energy transmission ratio array as eij
2 3 /ij ¼ ð1Þ
e11 e12    e1n ^eij
6e 7 where ^eij is the effective energy transmission ratio between
6 21 e22    e2n 7
E¼6 7: output variable yi and input variable uj when all other
4   5
loops are closed. When the effective relative gains are calcu-
en1 en2  enn
lated for all the input/output combinations of a multivari-
To simplify the calculation, we approximate the integration able process, it results in an array, ERGA, which can be
of eij by a rectangle area, i.e., calculated by
2 3
eij  k ij xu;ij i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n: /11 /12    /1n
6 7
Then, the effective energy transmission ratio array is given 6 /21 /22    /2n 7
U ¼ E  ET ¼ 6 7
6             7:
as: 4 5
E ¼ Gð0Þ  X; /n1 /n2    /nn
where the operator  is the Hadamard product, and
2 3
k 11 k 12    k 1n
6k Remark 1. The introduction of energy transmission ratio is
6 21 k 22    k 2n 7
7
Gð0Þ ¼ 6 7 to mathematically represent the effectiveness of a control
4   5 loop which is affected by two key factors, i.e., the steady
k n1 k n2    k nn state gain of the transfer function reflecting the effect of the
and manipulated variable uj to the controlled variable yi, and
2 3 the response speed reflecting the sensitivity of the con-
xu;11 xu;12    xu;1n trolled variable yi to the manipulated variable uj and,
6x xu;22    xu;2n 7 consequently, the ability to reject the interactions from
6 u;21 7
X¼6 7 other loops. Since ERGA is a relative measure, using the
4     5
multiplication of the two parameters to approximate the
xu;n1 xu;n2    xu;nn
energy transmission ratio in /ij can simplify the calculation
are the steady state gain array and the critical frequency while captures the key elements in a multivariable control
array, respectively. Since eij is an indication of energy trans- system.

Fig. 2. Frequency response curve and effective energy of gij(jx).

776 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784
The ERGA is used to determine the best variable paring
in [14]. In the following sections, we will employ this inter-
action measure to develop effective transfer functions
(ETFs) under decentralized control structure.
3. Effective transfer function
Suppose that the best loop configuration has been deter-
mined and the best pair is diagonally placed in the transfer
function matrix as shown in Fig. 1. Similar to the open
loop gain, we let the effective energy transmission ratio,
^eij , when all other loops are closed be ^eij ¼ g^ij ð0Þx ^ u;ij
i; j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n, where g^ij ð0Þ and x
^ u;ij are the steady state
gain and ultimate frequency between output variable yi
and input variable uj when all other loops are closed,
respectively. Then, from Eq. (1)
gij ð0Þxu;ij
g^ij ð0Þx
^ u;ij ¼ : ð2Þ
/ij
By the definition of RGA, we have
gij ð0Þ
g^ij ð0Þ ¼ ; ð3Þ
kij
where kij is the relative gain.
Substitute Eq. (3) into (2) and rearrange to result
/ij xu;ij
¼  cij ; ð4Þ
kij x^ u;ij
where cij represents the critical frequency change of loop
i–j when other loops are closed, defined as relative critical
frequency. When the relative frequencies are calculated for
all the input/output combinations of a multivariable pro-
cess, it results in an array, i.e., relative frequency array
(RFA).
Since control loop transfer functions when other loops
closed will have similar frequency properties with when
other loops open if it is well paired [16], we can let the
ETFs have the same structures as the corresponding open
loop transfer functions but with different parameters
^
g^ii ðsÞ ¼ g^ii ð0Þgrii ðsÞed ii s ; ð5Þ
where grii ðsÞ is defined by
grii ðsÞ ¼ g0ii ðsÞed ii s
and d^ii is the time delay of the ETF.
As the change in ultimate frequency of a control loop is
generally affected by changes in both time constant and
time delay when other loops are closed, and they are
exchangeable by linear approximation, it is reasonable to
change only time delay to reflect the phase changes.
In Eq. (5), g^ij ð0Þ can be determined by using Eq. (3),
while by the definition of the ultimate frequency,
d^ii x
^ u;ii þ \grii ðjx
^ u;ii Þ ¼ d ii xu;ii þ \grii ðxu;ii Þ ¼ p:
d^ii can be easily determined by
p þ \grii ðjx
^ u;ii Þ p þ \grii ðjx
^ u;ii Þ
d^ii ¼ ¼ cij  : ð6Þ
^ u;ij
x xu;ij
Notice that
1. grii ðsÞ is usually low order transfer functions, their contri-
bution to the phase change at low frequency range are
small and can be equivalently represented by the addi-
tional time delay term.
2. In many decentralized control system designs, such as
gain and phase margin method, an individual loop is
tuned around the critical frequency region of each con-
trol loop. Accurate estimation of overall variation is
required around the critical frequency, not who contrib-
ute to the change.
By letting \grii ðjx
^ u;ii Þ  \grii ðxu;ii Þ, we can make further
simplification to Eq. (6) as
d^ii x
^ u;ii  d ii xu;ii ;
which results by considering Eq. (4)
xu;ii
d^ii  d ii ¼ cii d ii : ð7Þ
^ u;ii
x
This is the practical formula which will be used to derive
the ETFs. Even though Eq. (7) is less accurate than Eq.
(6), several simulation results have showed that the control
system performances are comparable by the two approxi-
mations, but Eq. (7) is much more straightforward and eas-
ier explainable and understandable than Eq. (6).
Since it is necessary that the controlled system possesses
integrity property; that is, the overall control system
remained to be stable regardless put in and/or taken out
of other control loops, g^ii ð0Þ and d^ii in ETF must take differ-
ent values for different combination of kii and cii. For the
four different combinations of kii and cii, g^ii ðsÞ may take dif-
ferent modes shown in Figs. 3–6, and are discussed below:
Case 1: kii 6 1,
 cii 6 1
In this case, k1ii  1 P 0 and (cii  1) 6 0. According
to Eqs. (3) and (7), we have g^ii ð0Þ P gii ð0Þ, and d^ii 6 d ii .
• g^ii ð0Þ P gii ð0Þ, this means that the magnitude of the fre-
quency response when the other loops closed is not less
than that of when the other loops open. Since the retalia-
tory effect from the other loops magnifies the main effect
of ui on yi, we need to reduce the controller gain to assure
system stability. In this case, the gain is by Eq. (3)
g^ii ð0Þ ¼ gii ð0Þ=kii :
• d^ii 6 d ii , this means that the time delay when the other
loops closed is not bigger than that of when other loops
open. The reduced time delay will increase the phase
margin. However, by considering the control system
integrity, the time delay needs to be kept as before, i.e.,
d^ii ¼ d ii :
 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784 777

Fig. 3. Interaction mode with kii 6 1, cii 6 1.

Fig. 4. Interaction mode with kii 6 1, cii > 1.

Case 2: kii 6 1, cii > 1 Case 3: kii > 1, cii 6 1

   
In this case, k1ii  1 P 0 and (cii  1) > 0. According to In this case, k1ii  1 < 0 and (cii  1) 6 0. According to
Eqs. (3) and (7), we have g^ii ð0Þ P gii ð0Þ, and d^ii > d ii . Eqs. (3) and (7), we have g^ii ð0Þ < gii ð0Þ, and d^ii 6 d ii .

• g^ii ð0Þ P gii ð0Þ, same as in Case 1, • g^ii ð0Þ < gii ð0Þ, this means that the magnitude of the fre-
g^ii ð0Þ ¼ gii ð0Þ=kii : quency response when the other loops closed is smaller
^ than that of when the other loops open. Even if the
• d ii > d ii , this means that the time delay when the other retaliatory effect from other loops acts in opposition to
loops closed is bigger than that of when the other loops the main effect of ui on yi, we cannot enlarge the control-
open. The enlarged time delay will reduce the phase ler gain for better performance due to the system integ-
margin. In this case, the time delay is determined by rity consideration. Hence, the gain should be
Eq. (7) unchanged, i.e.,
d^ii ¼ cii d ii : g^ii ð0Þ ¼ gii ð0Þ:
778 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784

Fig. 5. Interaction mode with kii > 1, cii 6 1.

Fig. 6. Interaction mode with kii > 1, cii > 1.

Remark 2. A unique problem for decentralized control of

• d^ii 6 d ii , same as in Case 1
MIMO processes is the zero crossing [17]: stable or
unstable zeros might be introduced into a particular
d^ii ¼ d ii :
control loop when other loops are closed. If an unstable
zero is introduced, it will result phase shift to the left in the
Case 4: kii > 1, cii > 1 frequency domain. In order to guarantee the entire system
 
stability, the controllers are normally conservatively
In this case, k1ii  1 < 0 and (cii  1) > 0. According to
designed by conventional detuning approaches [17]. By
Eqs. (3) and (7), we have g^ii ð0Þ < gii ð0Þ, and d^ii > d ii . introducing the relative critical frequency, cii, to indicate
phase changes after the other loops closed, the effects of
• g^ii ð0Þ < gii ð0Þ, same as in Case 3, unstable zeros can be accurately estimated in each control
loop. Consequently, the resultant control systems will be
g^ii ð0Þ ¼ gii ð0Þ: much less conservative.
• d^ii > d ii , same as in Case 2,
Remark 3. Mathematically, the equivalent transfer func-
d^ii ¼ cii d ii : tion should incorporate the controllers of all other loops.
 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784 779

To solve such a complex problem, recursive solution is By selecting A = a2, B = a1 and C = 1, the open loop
required by first assigning initial controllers, then finding transfer function becomes
the equivalent loop transfer functions and designing g^ii ð0Þ d^ii s
controllers again. This process is continuous until a stable gc;i ðsÞ^
gii ðsÞ ¼ k e :
s
solution is obtained. To simplify the problem, both
detuning and independent methods proposed so far assume Denoting the gain and phase margin specifications as Am,i
that all other closed loops are under perfect control when and Wm,i, and their crossover frequencies as xg,i and xp,i,
designing the controller for a particular loop and consider respectively, we have
only the gain change. In the proposed method, the changes
are considered for both gain and frequency. Especially, Eq. arg½gc;i ðjxg;i Þ^
gii ðjxg;i Þ ¼ p;
(3) focuses on the gain impact while Eq. (7) contributes to Am;i jgc;i ðjxg;i Þ^
gii ðjxg;i Þj ¼ 1;
time delay portion, i.e., frequency impact. As will be shown jgc;i ðjxp;i Þ^
gii ðjxp;i Þj ¼ 1;
later, it is far more accurate than those existing methods.
Wm;i ¼ p þ arg½gc;i ðjxp;i Þ^
gii ðjxp;i Þ:

4. Decentralized control system design By substitution and simplification to above equations, we

obtain
Without loss of generality, we assume that each main
p xg;i
loop, i.e., diagonal element in the transfer function matrix xg;i d^ii ¼ Am;i ¼ ;
is represented by a second order plus dead time (SOPDT) 2 gii ð0Þ
k^
model, which can be used to describe most of the industrial p
gii ð0Þ ¼ xp;i
k^ Wm;i ¼  xp;i d^ii ;
processes: 2
b0;ii which results
gii ðsÞ ¼ ed ii s :  
a2;ii s2 þ a1;ii s þ 1 p 1 p
Wm;i ¼ 1 ; k¼ :
Similarly, ETF is represented as 2 Am;i ^
2Am;i d ii g^ii ð0Þ
g^ii ð0Þ ^
g^ii ðsÞ ¼ ed ii s : By this formulation, the gain and phase margins are inter-
a2;ii s2 þ a1;ii s þ 1 related to each other, some possible gain and phase margin
The decentralized controllers can then be independently selections are given in Table 1.
designed by single loop approaches based on the corre- The PID parameters are given by [18]
sponding ETFs. Here we employ the gain and phase mar- 2 3 2 3
k p;i a1;ii
gins approach. This is primary because the frequency 6 7 p 6 7
response method provides good performance in the face 4 k i;i 5 ¼ 4 1 5: ð8Þ
^
2Am;i d ii gii ð0Þ
^
of uncertainty in both plant model and disturbances. k d;i a2;ii
The PID controller of each loop is supposed of the fol-
lowing standard form: Applying Eq. (8) for each case discussed in Section 3, we
can easily obtain both ETFs and the PID parameters which
k i;i
gc;i ðsÞ ¼ k p;i þ þ k d;i s: are summarized in Table 2.
s
The controller can be rewritten as
Table 1
k d;i s2 þ k p;i s þ k i;i As2 þ Bs þ C Typical gain and phase margin values
gc;i ðsÞ ¼ ¼k ;
s s Wm,i p/4 p/3 3p/8 2p/5
Am,i 2 3 4 5
where A = kd,i/k, B = kp,i/k and C = ki,i/k.

Table 2
Decentralized PID controller design
Mode g^ii ðsÞ kp,ii ki,ii kd,ii
kii 6 1, cii 6 1 gii ð0Þ=kii pkii a1;ii pkii pkii a2;ii
ed ii s
a2;ii s2 þ a1;ii s þ 1 2Am;i d ii gii ð0Þ 2Am;i d ii gii ð0Þ 2Am;i d ii gii ð0Þ
gii ð0Þ=kii pkii a1;ii pkii pkii a2;ii
kii 6 1, cii > 1 ecii d ii s
a2;ii s2 þ a1;ii s þ 1 2Am;i cii d ii gii ð0Þ 2Am;i cii d ii gii ð0Þ 2Am;i cii d ii gii ð0Þ
gii ð0Þ pa1;ii p pa2;ii
kii > 1, cii 6 1 ed ii s
a2;ii s2 þ a1;ii s þ 1 2Am;i d ii gii ð0Þ 2Am;i d ii gii ð0Þ 2Am;i d ii gii ð0Þ
gii ð0Þ pa1;ii p pa2;ii
kii > 1, cii > 1 ecii d ii s
a2;ii s2 þ a1;ii s þ 1 2Am;i cii d ii gii ð0Þ 2Am;i cii d ii gii ð0Þ 2Am;i cii d ii gii ð0Þ
780 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784

5. Case studies Table 3

Controllers for Example 1
In this section, we apply the proposed design method to Controller Proposed McAvoy
variety of industrial processes. The gain and phase margins kp,ii si,ii kp,ii si,ii
for all examples except Example 2 are specified to be 3 db Loop 1 0.0233 4.0000 0.3333 18.0000
and p/3 rad, respectively. Those margins are generally Loop 2 0.1094 5.0000 0.4800 15.0000
regarded as making the best compromise between perfor-
mance and robustness in process control. The proposed
design method is compared with the following popular
decentralized control design approaches to show its
effectiveness:

(1) The Ziegler–Nichols with detuning factor approach

proposed by McAvoy [19];
(2) The biggest log modulus (BLT) tuning approach pro-
posed by Luyben [6];
(3) The RGA based tuning approach proposed by Chien
et al. [16];
(4) The sequential loop tuning approach proposed by
Shen and Yu [5];
(5) The relay based auto-tuning approach proposed by
Loh et al. [4]; and
(6) The describing function matrix approach proposed
by Loh and Vasnani [20].

Example 1. Consider a process given by

2 3
5e3s 2:5e5s
6 4s þ 1 15s þ 1 7
6 7
GðsÞ ¼ 6 7:
4 4e6s e 4s 5
20s þ 1 5s þ 1
This process seems easy to control. However, as can be
seen below, both variable pairing and control design are
difficult with conventional approaches.
The RGA, critical frequency array, ERGA and RFA Fig. 7. Closed loop responses for Example 1.
are given respectively by
   
0:3333 0:6667 0:6308 0:2732 cii > 1, the equivalent process for two loop are calculated
K¼ ; X¼ ;
0:6667 0:3333 0:2856 0:4909 by proposed method as
   
0:6649 0:3351 1:9948 0:5026
U¼ ; C¼ : 15:0000e5:9844s 3:0000e7:9792s
0:3351 0:6649 0:5026 1:9948 and ;
4s þ 1 5s þ 1
It can be seen that the best pairing according to RGA respectively. The resultant PI controllers and the closed-
(0.6667) and NI (= 1.5000 > 0) is off-diagonal, i.e., 1–2/2– loop responses are also listed in Table 3 and shown in
1. Using ptheffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
method (1), we ffi obtain the detuning factor Fig. 7, respectively, where the unit set-points change in r1
j0:6667 þ 0:66672  0:6667j ¼ 0:8165, and correspond- at t = 0 and r2 at t = 1250.
ing PI controller parameters which results an unstable sys- It can be seen that the proposed method results in better
tem. By keep detuning the original PI controller using the loop pairing and control system performance while the
same detuning factor four times, we obtain the PI control- conventional detuning method (1) results in unsatisfactory
ler parameters as listed in Table 3. Both loop are stabilized performance even detuned by four times.
but with very oscillatory response as shown in Fig. 7.
Following ERGA (0.6649) and NI (=0.6152 > 0), the Example 2. Consider an industrial-scale polymerization
best pairing is diagonal, i.e., 1–1/2–2. As kii < 1 and reactor given by [16]
 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784 781
2 3
22:89 0:2s 11:64 0:4s
6 4:572s þ 1 e 1:807s þ 1
e 7
GðsÞ ¼ 6
4 4:689
7:
5
5:80
e0:2s e0:4s
2:174s þ 1 1:801s þ 1
The time scales are in hours, so it is a quite slow process. In
addition, it is easy to verify that it is not diagonally domi-
nate. The two controlled variables are two measurements
representing the reactor condition, and two manipulated
variables are the set-points of two reactor feed flow loops
with load disturbance as the purge flow of the reactor.
The RGA, critical frequency array, ERGA and RFA
are given respectively by
   
0:7087 0:2913 8:0554 4:1888
K¼ ; X¼ ;
0:2913 0:7087 7:8540 4:3036
   
0:7193 0:2807 1:0151 0:9633
U¼ ; C¼ :
0:2807 0:7193 0:9633 1:0151
Both ERGA and RGA indicate diagonal pairing
(NI = 1.4111 > 0). In this example, we have kii < 1 and
cii > 1 for i = 1, 2. According to proposed method the
equivalent process for two loop are calculated as
32:3003 0:2030s 8:1844 0:4060s
e and e ;
4:572s þ 1 1:801s þ 1
respectively. For the gain and phase margins of 5 and 2p/5,
respectively, the resultant PI controllers determined by the
proposed method together with those determined by meth-
Fig. 8. Closed loop responses for Example 2.
ods (2), (3) and (5) are listed in Table 4.
Fig. 8 shows the closed-loop responses for different con-
2 3
trollers, where the unit set-points change in r1 at t = 0 and 2:1896 1:1446 0:0449
r2 at t = 20. 6 7
K ¼ 4 1:3147 2:0677 0:2470 5;
It can be seen that for this process which is not diago-
nally dominant, the proposed design method gives the best 0:1252 0:0769 0:7979
performance. 2 3
0:3290 0:3222 0:3611
Example 3. Consider a 3 · 3 process given by [20] 6 7
X ¼ 4 0:3142 0:3307 0:3696 5;
2 3
119e5s 153e5s 2:1e5s 0:3142 0:3142 0:3491
6 21:7s þ 1 337s þ 1 10s þ 1 7 2 3
6 7 2:0095 0:9693 0:0402
6 7
6 37:0e5s 76:7e5s 5:0e5s 7 6 7
GðsÞ ¼ 6 7: U ¼ 4 1:1226 1:8976 0:2250 5;
6 500s þ 1 28s þ 1 10s þ 1 7
6 7
4 93:0e5s 66:7e5s 103:3e5s 5 0:1131 0:0717 0:8153
2 3
500s þ 1 166s þ 1 23s þ 1 0:9178 0:8468 0:8948
Loh and Vasnani used this process to verify their design for 6 7
C ¼ 4 0:8539 0:9177 0:9108 5:
high dimensional systems. It is also not a diagonally dom-
0:9034 0:9322 1:0217
inant process.
The best pairing according to both RGA and ERGA and
The RGA, critical frequency array, ERGA and RFA NI (=0.4759 > 0) is 1–1/2–2/3–3. For i = 1, 2, kii > 1 and
are given respectively by cii < 1. Hence, the original transfer functions are selected
Table 4
as corresponding ETFs. For i = 3, kii < 1 and cii > 1. The
Controllers for Example 2 equivalent process is calculated as
Controller Proposed Luyben Chien et al. Loh et al. 129:4574e5:1084s
:
kp,ii si,ii kp,ii si,ii kp,ii si,ii kp,ii si,ii 23s þ 1
Loop 1 0.2190 4.5720 0.210 2.26 0.263 1.42 0.620 0.60 The resultant PI controllers by proposed method are listed
Loop 2 0.1703 1.8010 0.175 4.25 0.163 1.77 0.247 1.78 in Table 5 together with those of method (6).
782 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784

Table 5 As can be seen, the proposed method results in better

Controllers for Example 3 performance with the integral times much different from
Controller Proposed Loh and Vasnani those of Loh and Vasnani.
kp,ii si,ii kp,ii si,ii
Example 4. Consider a 4 · 4 process given by [21]
Loop 1 0.0191 21.7000 0.0181 14.4936 2 3
Loop 2 0.0382 28.0000 0.0335 14.4936 9:811e1:59s 0:374e7:75s 2:368e27:33s 11:3e3:79s
Loop 3 0.0182 23.0000 0.0260 14.4936 6 11:36s þ 1 22:22s þ 1 33:3s þ 1 27
ð21:74s þ 1Þ 7
6
6 7
6 5:984e2:24s 1:986e0:71s 0:422e 8:72s
5:24e60s 7
6 7
6 14:29s þ 1 400s þ 1 7
6 66:67s þ 1 ð250s þ 1Þ2 7
GðsÞ ¼ 6
6
7:
0:68s 7
6 2:38e0:42s 0:0204e0:59s 0:513e s
0:33e 7
6 7
6 ð1:43s þ 1Þ2 ð7:14s þ 1Þ2 sþ1 ð2:38s þ 1Þ2 7
6 7
6 7
4 11:3e3:79s 0:176e0:48s 15:54es 4:48e0:52s 5
2
ð21:74s þ 1Þ ð6:9s þ 1Þ2 sþ1 11:11s þ 1

This is a real process with complicated delay and interac-

tion modes. The possible problems of some of the unrealis-
tic pathological cases would be avoided using such kind of
processes to verify design.
The RGA, critical frequency array, ERGA and RFA
are given by
2 3
0:1264 0:1013 0:0314 1:0063
6 0:0107 1:0935 0:0003 0:1045 7
6 7
K¼6 7;
4 0:7264 0:0025 0:1630 0:1081 5
0:1366 0:0054 0:8680 0:0099
2 3
1:0134 0:2285 0:0757 0:1571
6 0:7306 7
2:2440 0:0306 0:0279 7
6
X¼6 7;
4 1:7952 0:6830 1:9635 1:0833 5
0:1551 0:7854 2:0268 3:1416
2 3
0:5237 0:0052 0:0222 0:5036
6 0:0024 1:0035 0:0000 0:0012 7
6 7
U¼6 7
4 0:4719 0:0012 0:2965 0:2303 5
0:0067 0:0004 0:7256 0:2673
and
2 3
4:1448 0:0511 0:7066 0:5004
6 0:2239 0:9177 0:0978 0:0113 7
6 7
C¼6 7;
4 0:6497 0:4888 1:8192 2:1309 5
0:0492 0:0793 0:8359 26:9057
respectively. The best pairing according to ERGA and NI
(= 1.1814 > 0, ideal pairing) is 1–4/2–2/3–1/4–3. This
example has complicated interaction modes. For i = 1, 2,

Table 6
Controllers for Example 4
Fig. 9. Closed loop responses for Example 3. Controller Proposed Luyben
kp,ii si,ii sd,ii kp,ii si,ii
Loop 1 1.4981 2.8600 0.7150 0.084 33
Fig. 9 shows the closed-loop responses, where the unit Loop 2 24.7566 66.6700 0 5.16 15.5
set-points change in r1 at t = 0, r2 at t = 100 and r3 at Loop 3 0.0292 1 0 0.305 17.0
Loop 4 0.5349 43.4800 10.8700 0.529 11.2
t = 200.
 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784
Fig. 10. Closed loop responses for Example 4.
kii > 1 and cii < 1, the main process is selected as corre-
sponding equivalent process. For i = 3, 4, kii < 1 and
cii < 1, the equivalent process is calculated as
17:9031es 11:2289e3:79s
and 2
; results for variety of industrial 2 · 2, 3 · 3 and 4 · 4
sþ1 ð21:74s þ 1Þ
respectively. The resultant PI/PID controllers by proposed
method are listed in Table 6 together with method (2)
based on the diagonal pairing. It should be noticed that dif-
ferent designs have much different controller parameters
due to different pairing schemes.
Fig. 10 shows the closed-loop responses, where the unit
set-points change in r1 at t = 0, r2 at t = 400, r3 at t = 800
and r4 at t = 1200.
Although there are larger overshoots in some loops, the
system has better overall performance. This example illus-
trates that the proposed method can be easily applied to high
dimensional processes with complicated interaction modes.
In fact, the dimension does not increase the design difficulty.
6. Conclusions
This paper presented a novel method to construct effec-
tive transfer function models for decentralized control sys-
tem design of multivariable interactive processes. The
simplicity and effectiveness of the model is based on the
energy transmission ratio of each individual transfer
783
function which provides necessary information of gain
and frequency changes when all other loops are closed.
Consequently, the decentralized controllers can be obtained
by simply using single loop design approaches. Simulation
processes show that the proposed method provide overall
better performance compared to other reported design
approaches. The advantage of the proposed method is even
more significant when applied to higher dimensional
processes with complicated interaction modes. The method
can be easily integrated into an auto-tuning control struc-
ture combined with some on line parameter identification
module and implemented for industrial control systems.
Another interesting extension is the block decentralized
control. This topic is currently under investigation and will
be reported later.
References
[1] K.J. Astrom, T. Hagglund, PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and
Tuning, second ed., Instrument Society of America, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1995.
[2] P. Grosdidier, M. Morari, A computer aided methodology for the
design of decentralized controllers, Computers and Chemical Engi-
neering 11 (1987) 423–433.
[3] J. Lee, W. Cho, T.F. Edgar, Multiloop PI controller tuning for
interacting multivariable processes, Computers and Chemical Engi-
neering 22 (1998) 1711–1723.
784 Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai / Journal of Process Control 16 (2006) 773–784
[4] A.P. Loh, C.C. Hang, C.K. Quek, V.U. Vasnani, Autotuning of
multiloop proportional-integral controllers using relay feedback,
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 32 (1993) 1102–
1107.
[5] S.H. Shen, C.C. Yu, Use of relay-feedback test for autotuning of
multivariable systems, American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Journal 40 (1994) 627–646.
[6] W.L. Luyben, Simple method for tuning SISO controllers in
multivariable systems, Industrial Engineering and Chemical Process
Design Development 25 (1986) 654–660.
[7] D. Chen, D.E. Seborg, Design of decentralized PI control systems
based on Nyquist stability analysis, Journal of Process Control 13
(2003) 27–39.
[8] P. Grosdidier, M. Morari, Interaction measures under decentralized
control, Automatica 22 (1986) 309–319.
[9] S. Skogestad, M. Morari, Robust performance of decentralized
control systems by independent design, Automatica 25 (1989) 119–
125.
[10] Q.-G. Wang, T.H. Lee, Y. Zhang, Multi-loop version of the modified
Ziegler–Nichols method for two input two output process, Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry Research 37 (1998) 4725–4733.
[11] H.-P. Huang, J.-C. Jeng, Monitoring and assessment of control
performance for single loop systems, Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Research 41 (2002) 1297–1309.
[12] D. Pomerleau, A. Pomerleau, Guide lines for the tuning and
evaluation of decentralized and decoupling controllers for processes
with recirculation, ISA Transactions 40 (2001) 341–351.
[13] H.-P. Huang, J.-C. Jeng, C.-H. Chiang, W. Pan, A direct method for
multi-loop PI/PID controller design, Journal of Process Control 13
(2003) 769–786.
[14] Q. Xiong, W.-J. Cai, M.-J. He, A practical loop pairing criterion for
multivariable processes, Journal of Process Control 15 (2005) 741–
747.
[15] E.H. Bristol, On a new measure of interactions for multivariable
process control, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 11 (1966)
133–134.
[16] I.L. Chien, H.-P. Huang, J.C. Yang, A simple multiloop tuning
method for PID controllers with no proportional kick, Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Research 38 (1999) 1456–1468.
[17] H. Cui, E.W. Jacobsen, Performance limitations in decentralized
control, Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 485–494.
[18] Y.-G. Wang, W.-J. Cai, Advanced proportional–integral–derivative
tuning for integrating and unstable processes with gain and phase
margin specifications, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research
41 (2002) 2910–2914.
[19] T. McAvoy, Interaction Analysis: Principles and Applications,
Instrument Society of America, 1985.
[20] A.P. Loh, V.U. Vasnani, Describing function matrix for multivari-
able systems and its use in multiloop PI design, Journal of Process
Control 4 (1994) 115–120.
[21] N. Doukas, W.L. Luyben, Control of sidestream columns separating
ternary mixtures, Instrumentation Technology 25 (1978) 43.