Automatica 40 (2004) 1455 – 1458

www.elsevier.com/locate/automatica

Technical Communique
ISE tuning rule revisited

Jietae Leea , Thomas F. Edgarb;∗
a Department of Chemical Engineering, Kyungpook National University, Taegu 702-701, South Korea
b Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-1062, USA
Received 28 April 2003; received in revised form 19 January 2004; accepted 10 March 2004

Abstract
The integral square error (ISE) method is applied to approximate the internal model control (IMC) system by the PID control system.
Simulations show that the proposed method to design PID controllers can relieve some disadvantages of the original ISE method and
IMC-based PID controller design methods.
? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Proportional-integral-derivative control; Integral square error; Internal model control; Frequency domain design

1. Introduction
By applying single-input single-output (SISO) tun-
ing methods sequentially, multiloop control systems for
multi-input multi-output (MIMO) processes can be de-
signed (Mayne, 1973). This requires designing PID con-
trollers for processes not represented by standard 8rst or
second order plus time delay models. Optimization-based
methods such as the integral square error (ISE) method
can be applied to such processes without needing model
reduction. Here an ISE method with reduced computational
complexity is proposed.
Compared to the integral time absolute error (ITAE) tun-
ing method, the ISE tuning method for the step set point
change shows oscillatory responses and hence it is not pre-
ferred generally (Seborg, Edgar, & Mellichamp, 2003). That
is partly because the ISE method forces the process output
to follow the abrupt set point change (Astrom & Hagglund,
1995). This abrupt error cannot be eliminated e<ectively
by a feedback controller. To avoid this disadvantage, the
ITAE method introduces the weight of time which puts less
weight on the initial large error. Alternatively, we force the
process output to follow the output of the internal model

This paper was not presented at any IFAC meeting. This paper was
recommended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor Jay H.
Lee under the direction of Editor Paul Van den Hof.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-512-371-3080; fax: +1-512-
471-7060.
E-mail addresses: jtlee@knu.ac.kr (J. Lee), tfedgar@che.utexas.edu
(T.F. Edgar).
control system instead of the set point. A new cost functional
to be minimized is de8ned and the disadvantage of oscilla-
tory responses of the ISE method is somewhat relieved. The
ISE tuning method is a nonlinear problem and requires an
iterative solution. To reduce the computational complexity,
we convert the ISE tuning problem to solving a weighted
least-squares problem.
2. ISE tuning method
Many formulas for the design of PID controllers have
been published (Seborg et al., 2003; Astrom & Hagglund,
1995). Here, optimization-based methods which can be ap-
plied to general process models are considered. Among
them, the ISE method based on the criterion

∞
J1 = (ysp (t) − y(t))2 dt (1)
0
has some advantages such as simple computation in the fre-
quency domain (Chen, 1978). Here y(t) and ysp (t) are the
output and its set point, respectively. The ISE tuning rule
often provides oscillatory results because of initial large er-
rors that cannot be eliminated e<ectively by the feedback
controller (Astrom & Hagglund, 1995). Hence, we modify
the criterion slightly as follows:

∞
J2 = (yd (t) − y(t))2 dt; (2)
0
where yd (t) is the desired output variable which can be
obtained by a physically realizable feedback controller.

0005-1098/$ - see front matter ? 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.automatica.2004.03.008
1456 J. Lee, T.F. Edgar / Automatica 40 (2004) 1455 – 1458

3. IMC–ISE tuning method dynamics are not activated, PID controllers can approximate
CIMC (s) and small HC(j!) makes Eq. (4) e<ective. Dis-
For the desired output of yd (t), the output of the con- cretizing Eq. (4), we have a cost function
trol system designed by the internal model control (IMC)  
  H (j!)(1 − H (j!)) 2
method (Morari and Za8riou, 1989) or equivalently by the J3 =   I I 2
 !1:5 CIMC (j!)  C IMC (j!) − C(j!) ;
direct synthesis method (Seborg et al., 2003) is used here. !∈
Applying Parseval’s theorem to Eq. (2) (5)

∞ where  is a set of frequencies with equal logarithmic
1 spacing.
J2 = Yd (j!) − Y (j!)2 d!
2 −∞ I
For a PID controller, C(s) = sC(s) = k1 + kP s + kD s2 ,

 minimization of Eq. (5) is a weighted linear least-squares
1 ∞  G(j!)CIMC (j!)
= problem and can be solved easily without iteration. For a
 0  j!(1 + G(j!)CIMC (j!)) I
PID controller with a 8lter, C(s) = sC(s) = (kI + kP s +
 2 2
kD s )=(1 + F s), J3 becomes a nonlinear least-squares prob-
G(j!)C(j!) 
−  d!; (3) lem but eJcient methods to solve it are available (for ex-
j!(1 + G(j!)C(j!)) 
ample, the routine “invfreqs” in the Signal Processing Tool-
box for MATLAB (Math Works, 1997)). As in the IMC
where method,  is used as a design parameter. The frequency set
of  is chosen as 101 frequencies which have equal spacing
1 H (s) logarithmically between 0:01= and 10=.
CIMC (s) = ;
G(s) 1 − H (s) This IMC–ISE method can be extended to discrete-time
control systems. Consider a discrete-time cost function
G + (s)
H (s) = : ∞

(s + 1)r J˜ 2 = (yd (kT ) − y(kT ))2 ; (6)
k=0
G + (s)=non-minimum phase part of G(s) and G + (j!)=1 where T is a sampling time. Applying the discrete-time
for any real ! Parseval’s theorem (Ogata, 1987)
r=relative order between the numerator and denominator
2=T
in G(s)=G + (s). ˜ T
J2 = Ỹ d (ej!T ) − Ỹ (ej!T )2 d!; (7)
The cost function of Eq. (3) is nonlinear for the unknown 2 0
C(s), and requires an iterative minimization method. To where Ỹ (z) and Ỹ d (z) are the z transformation of y(kT )
simplify the computations, we rewrite Eq. (3) using C(s) = and yd (kT ), respectively. A least-squares problem similar
CIMC (s) + HC(s) to Eq. (5) can be obtained by applying the above technique

  2 to Eq. (7).
1 1  GCIMC
∞
G(CIMC + HC)  d!
J2 = −
0 !  1 + GCIMC 1 + G(CIMC + HC)  !

 2 4. Examples
1 ∞ 1  G 
 HC2 d!
≈  
 0 ! (1 + GCIMC )  2 ! The IMC–PID method (Morari & Za8riou, 1989) and the

 2 desired closed-loop response (DCLR) method (Lee, Park,
1 ∞  H (j!)(1 − H (j!))  Lee, & Brosilow, 1998) are both based on the internal
=
 0  !1:5 CIMC (j!)  model controller and used to design PID controllers. The
IMC–PID method requires model reduction when applied to
d!
×CI IMC (j!) − C(j!)
I 2
; (4) higher-order processes and hence is not considered here. The
! proposed method (IMC–ISE) is compared with the DCLR
method and ISE optimal method with a cost of Eq. (2). The
I
where CI IMC (s) = sCIMC (s) and C(s) = sC(s). The approx- DCLR method uses Maclaurin series expansion of CIMC (s),
imation in Eq. (4) is based on GC=(1 + GC) = G(CIMC + resulting in an accurate approximation at low frequency.
HC)=(1 + G(CIMC + HC)) = GCIMC =(1 + GCIMC ) + However, for some processes shown in examples below, the
G=(1 + GCIMC )2 HC + G 2 =(1 + GCIMC )3 HC 2 + · · · CIMC (s) DCLR method fails to provide PID parameters with positive
is PID-type for second-order processes and, for processes values.
whose dominant dynamics are of the second order, the
magnitude of HC(j!) will be small and the above approx- Example 1. First a 8rst-order plus time delay model,
imation will work well. Hence, when the IMC 8lter time G(s) = exp(−s)=(s + 1), is considered. Table 1 shows
constant  is not too small so that higher order process ISE values for the unit step change. We can see that the
 J. Lee, T.F. Edgar / Automatica 40 (2004) 1455 – 1458 1457

Table 1
Integral of square errors

Process DCLR method IMC–ISE method ISE optimal

(Eq. (5)) (Eq. (3))

Example 1  = 0:1 8.1E-4 6.1E-4 6.0E-4

(PID,  = =3) (7.78, 1.038, 0.0363, 0)a (7.65, 1.001, 0.0406, 0) (7.64, 0.976, 0.0417, 0)
 = 0:5 3.8E-3 2.8E-3 2.8E-3
(1.781, 1.188, 0.1612, 0) (1.758, 1.156, 0.1806, 0) (1.759, 1.145, 0.1806, 0)
 = 1:0 7.0E-3 5.5E-3 5.3E-3
(1.031, 1.375, 0.284, 0) (1.028, 1.358, 0.315, 0) (1.028, 1.343, 0.329, 0)
 = 2:0 1.3E-2 1.1E-2 1.1E-2
(0.656, 1.750, 0.464, 0) (0.668, 1.784, 0.490, 0) (0.669, 1.759, 0.528, 0)

Example 2 PID Negative gain 2.4E-2 1.6E-2

( = 0:2) (9.14, 0.594, 0.1591, 0) (9.81, 0.479, 0.225, 0)
PIDF 5.0E-2 7.0E-3 6.7E-3
(114.8, 2.87, 0.644, 7.47) (33.7, 1.245, 0.899, 2.53) (41.9, 1.363, 0.938, 3.25)

Example 3 Negative gain 7.6E-1 7.4E-1

(PI,  = 2) (2.69, 4.48, 0, 0) (2.56, 4.19, 0, 0)

Tuning parameters are shown in parentheses.

a (k = k ,  = k =k ,  = k =k ,  ).
c P I P I D D P F

1.5 1.5

1
1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 5 10 0 20 40
time time

Fig. 1. Step set point responses for the Example 1 with  = 0:5. (Dotted Fig. 2. Step set point responses for the Example 2. (Dotted line: desired
line: desired output, dashed line: DCLR controller, solid line: IMC–ISE output, dashed line: DCLR controller, solid line: IMC–ISE controller).
controller).

IMC–ISE method provides controllers with slightly better and the proposed method can also be applied to obtain con-
ISE values than the DCLR method and, as the time delay troller parameters for load changes.
increases, the IMC parameter becomes larger (==3) com-
pared to the process time constant, resulting low e<ective
frequencies and smaller di<erence in ISE values between the
DCLR and proposed methods. Fig. 1 shows step set point
responses and load responses for the unit step disturbance
entering at the process input. Compared to the set point re-
sponses, both load responses are somewhat poor. The IMC
control is based on the pole/zero cancellation and its poor
load response is well-known (Astrom & Hagglund, 1995).
A two-degree-of-freedom controller can be used for both
set point and load changes. The DCLR method (Lee et al.,
1998) provides di<erent tuning rules for load disturbances
Example 2. Consider a process with dominant lead time
constant (Lee et al., 1998)
s2 + 2s + 0:25
G(s) = : (8)
s4 + 6:5s3 + 15s2 + 14s + 4
Due to the dominant zero, the DCLR method provides
PID controllers with negative gains. By introducing a 8lter
to cancel the zero, a positive controller gain can be obtained.
The IMC–ISE method yields positive parameters regardless
of 8lters. Table 1 shows ISE values for the unit step change
and Fig. 2 shows step set point responses and load responses
1458 J. Lee, T.F. Edgar / Automatica 40 (2004) 1455 – 1458

for the unit step disturbance entering at the process input for 1.5
control systems of PID with 8lter designed by the IMC–ISE
method and the DCLR method. Far better control systems
with lower ISE values can be obtained by the proposed
method. 1

Example 3. Consider a 2 × 2 subsystem of the column in

Tyreus (1979)
 
  1:986 exp(−0:71s) −5:24 exp(−60s) 0.5
y1 (s)  66:67s + 1 400s + 1 
=


y2 (s) −0:0204 exp(−0:59s) 0:33 exp(−0:68s) 
(7:14s + 1)2 (2:38s + 1)2
0
  0 100 200
u1 (s)
× : (9) time
u2 (s)
Fig. 3. Step set point responses for the Example 3. (Dotted line: desired
output, dashed line: DCLR controller designed for the modi8ed model,
We design a multiloop control system by the sequential solid line: IMC–ISE controller).
loop closing method (Mayne, 1973). A PI controller is de-
signed for the 8rst loop as c1 (s) = 24:9(1 + 1=(5:66s)). Then
a transfer function for the second loop becomes

y2 (s) 0:33 exp(−0:68s) 0:1069(66:67s + 1)(4:40 + 24:9s) exp(−60:59s)

= − : (10)
u2 (s) (2:38s + 1)2 (400s + 1)(7:14s + 1)2 (66:67s2 + s + 1:986(4:40 + 24:9s) exp(−0:71s))

From this transfer function we design a PI controller

for the second loop. The DCLR method fails to pro-
vide a PI controller with positive controller gain. This
is because large time constant and dead time in the last
term of Eq. (10). The last term in Eq. (10) does not af-
fect the dynamics much because the steady state gain of
0.0538 is small. Hence, a PI controller designed by ig-
noring the last term in Eq. (10) may be used. Model
modi8cation like this is required for the DCLR method
and it can be diJcult in some cases. The proposed IMC
–ISE method does not su<er from such diJculties. Ta-
ble 1 shows ISE values for the unit step change and
Fig. 3 shows step set point responses and load responses
for the unit step disturbance entering at the process in-
put. The DCLR method used the reduced model without
the last term in Eq. (10) to design a PI controller and it
is applied to the full process model for the responses in
Fig. 3.
5. Conclusion
A tuning method based on the ISE method and IMC
method is proposed. Tuning parameters can be easily
calculated using a weighted least-squares or nonlinear
least-squares method. Simulations show that the proposed
IMC–ISE method can be used for complex processes where
other methods require modi8cations.
Acknowledgements
The work was supported by Grant no. R05-2003-
000-11208-0 from the Korea Science and Engineering
Foundation.
References
Astrom, K. J., & Hagglund, T. (1995). PID controllers (2nd ed.).
Research Triangle Park, NC: Instrument Society of America.
Chen, C. T. (1978). Analysis and synthesis of linear control systems.
New York: Pond Wood Press.
Lee, Y., Park, S., Lee, M., & Brosilow, C. (1998). PID controller tuning
for desired closed-loop responses for SI/SO systems. AIChE Journal,
44, 106–115.
Math Works (1997). The student edition of MATLAB 5. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Mayne, D. Q. (1973). The design of linear multivariable systems.
Automatica, 9, 201–207.
Morari, M., & Za8riou, E. (1989). Robust process control. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Ogata, K. (1987). Discrete-time control systems. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Seborg, D. E., Edgar, T. F., & Mellichamp, D. A. (2003). Process
dynamics and control (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Tyreus, B. D. (1979). Multivariable control system design for an industrial
distillation column. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Process
Design and Development, 18, 177.