Robust PID Controller Design of Time
Delay Processes with/without Zero
M. Shamsuzzoha**, Moonyong Lee* Junho Park
School of Chem. Eng. and Tech., Yeungnam University, Kyongsan, 712-749, Korea
(smzoha2002@hotmail.com**, mynlee@yu.ac.kr*)
Abstract- The PID control system design has been proposed based
on the IMC principle for integrating, first order and second order
systems with an integrator, and with/without zero. The proposed
method of PID controller design is based on the disturbance
rejection, which causes the overshoot in the setpoint response. The
two-degree-of-freedom (2DOF) control structure has been
suggested to eliminate the overshoot in setpoint response. The
simulation results show the superiority of the proposed tuning
rule over other existing methods, when the controller is tuned to
have the same robustness level by evaluating the peak of the
maximum sensitivity ( M s ) . The multiplicative uncertainty bound
has been proposed based on norm-bound uncertainty principle
( )
for the selection of closed-loop time constant λ .
I. INTRODUCTION
In the process control, more than 95% of the control loops are
of the proportional-integral-derivative (PID) type. The main
reason is its relatively simple structure, which can be easily
understood and implemented in practice. Finding design
methods that lead to the optimal operation of PID controllers is
therefore of significant interest. The integrating processes, first
order and second order systems with an integrator and
with/without zero are frequently encountered in the process
industries. For the first order systems with an integrator and
with/without zero, if the zero is a positive, the system exhibits
inverse response and if the zero is negative, then the system
shows large overshoot in the response.
A recent trends show that the tuning of the controllers for a
time-delay integrating process with/without zero has been an
active area of research in the literature [1-11]. Integrating
processes are frequently encountered in the process industries
and is very convenient for process identification because it
contains also two parameters. The design of the integrating
process is suggested in [1-11].
Zhang et al. [6] have proposed a PID tuning method for first
order plus dead time (FOPDT) system with an integrator. An
optimization method shows the performance of their method is
better than that of Poulin and Pomerleau [5]. Wang and Cai [7]
have proposed simple tuning formulae for PID controller for
integrating and unstable processes with time delay.
Chien et al. [9] have proposed a design method for the PID
controller for the second order plus dead time (SOPDT)
systems with a positive zero/negative zero respectively. Their
method is based on direct synthesis for getting the tuning
parameters. Recently, Anil and Padma Sree [10] extended the
1-4244-0726-5/06/$20.00 '2006 IEEE 2256
Chien et al. [9] method for the FOPDT system with an
integrator and with/without a zero.
Due to the simplicity and better performance of internal model
control (IMC) based tuning rule, the analytically derived IMC-
PID tuning [12-14] methods attracted the attention of industrial
users recently. The IMC-PID tuning rule has only one user-
defined tuning parameter, which is directly related to the
closed-loop time constant. The IMC-PID controller provides
good set-point tracking but sluggish disturbance response
especially for the process with a small time-delay/time-
constant ratio. However, for many process control applications,
disturbance rejection is much more important than set-point
tracking. Therefore, controller design that emphasizes
disturbance rejection rather than set-point tracking is an
important design problem that has received renewed interest
recently.
However, the methods of PID controllers designing for the
FOPDT system with an integrator and with/without a zero are
not discussed extensively. Form the literature it is clear that
there is a need of unified framework for the IMC-PID tuning
rule based on disturbance rejection. Therefore, the present
work is directed to design the PID controllers for such systems
by extending the IMC method for the integrating and first and
second order system with an integrator, and with/ without zero
for the disturbance rejection. The concept of 2DOF control
structure is used to cope with setpoint performance. The
performance of the proposed tuning rule has been compared
with other tuning methods, when the controller is tuned to the
same robustness level by evaluating the peak of the maximum
sensitivity ( M s ) . The multiplicative uncertainty bound has
been proposed based on norm-bound uncertainty principle for
the selection of λ .
II. CONTROLLER DESIGN ALGORITHM
Figures (1-a&b) show the block diagram of IMC control and
equivalent classical feedback control structures, where GP is
the process, G P is the process model, and q is the IMC
controller. The controlled variables are related as
G q  1 − G q  (1)
C= P
R+ P
 GD d
(
1 + q GP − G P ) ( )
1 + q GP − G P 
 
For the nominal case (i.e., GP = G P ), the set-point and
disturbance responses are simplified as
C
= G P q (2) 1 f '' ( 0 ) 2  (9)
Gc =  f ( 0 ) + f ' ( 0 ) s + s + ... 
R s 2 
C (3)
= 1 − G P q  GD The first three terms of the above expansion can be interpreted
d  as the standard PID controller given by
 1  (10)
Gc = Kc  +
1 +τ Ds + 
...
 τIs 
where
K c = f ' (0 ) (11a)
τ I = f (0 ) f (0 )
' (11b)
τ D = f '' (0 ) 2 f ' (0 ) (11c)
III. PROPOSED TUNING RULE
A. First Order Plus Dead Time (FOPDT) Process
The most commonly used approximate process model for
chemical processes is the FOPDT
G =G =
Ke −θ s (12)
P D
τ s +1
The optimum IMC filter structure is found as
f = ( β s + 1) ( λ 2 s 2 + 2λξ s + 1) . Then, the IMC controller
becomes q( s) = (τ s +1)( βs +1) K( λ2s2 + 2λξs +1) . Thus, the ideal
feedback controller equivalent to the IMC controller is
A. IMC controller design steps (13)
(τ s + 1)( β s + 1)
The IMC controller design involves two steps: GC =
( )
K  λ 2 s 2 + 2λξ s + 1 − e−θ s ( β s + 1) 
Step 1: A process model G P is factored into invertible and non
Expanding Gc (s) in a Maclaurin series in s, and from the Eq.
invertible parts
(11 a~c) the PID parameters can be obtained as:
G P = PM PA (4)
kC =
τI
τI = (τ + β ) −
(λ − θ 2 + βθ )
2 2

where PM is the portion of the model inverted by the controller; K (θ − β + 2λξ ) (θ − β + 2λξ )
PA is the portion of the model not inverted by the controller (it θ 3
 6 −
βθ 2 
2 

is usually a non-minimum phase and contains dead times τD =

(τβ ) − 
(θ − β + 2 λ ξ ) −
(λ 2
−θ
2

2
+ βθ )
τI (θ − β + 2λ ξ )
and/or right half plane zeros); PA ( 0 ) = 1 .
The value of β is calculated by solving
Step 2: The idealized IMC controller is the inverse of the  ( )
1−( βs +1) e−θs λ2s2 +2λξs +1  s=−1τ =0


invertible portion of the process model. to cancel the slow pole of the process and β value is given as
q = PM −1 (5) β = τ 1− ( λ 2 − 2λξτ +τ 2 ) e−θ τ τ 2 
.
 
To make the IMC controller proper, it is mandatory to add the
filter. Thus, the IMC controller is designed as B. Delay Integrating Process (DIP)
(6) The commonly used delay integrating process model for
 = PM-1 f
q = qf
chemical industries is given below
The ideal feedback controller equivalent to the IMC controller
Ke−θ s (14)
can be expressed in terms of the internal model, G P , and the G p = GD =
s
IMC controller, q : The DIP process can be modeled as the FOPDT by
q (7) approximating as:
Gc =
1 − G P q G = G =
K e −θ s
=
K e −θ s
=
ψ K e −θ s (15)
p D
Since the resulting controller has not a standard PID controller s s + 1 /ψ ψ s +1
form, the remaining issue is to design the PID controller that where ψ is an arbitrary constant with a sufficiently large value
resemble the equivalent feedback controller most closely. Lee i.e., ψ >> 1 . The proposed filter is f = ( β s + 1) ( λ 2 s 2 + 2λξ s + 1)
et al. [13] proposed an efficient method for converting the ideal
for the DIP model.
feedback controller Gc to a standard PID controller. Since Gc Therefore, the resulting IMC controller
has an integral term, it can be expressed become, q = (ψ s +1)( βs +1) Kψ ( λ2s2 + 2λξs +1) and the ideal
f (s) (8)
G =
c feedback controller equivalent to the IMC controller is
s
Expanding Gc in Maclaurin series in s gives GC =
(ψ s +1)( β s +1) (16)
( )
Kψ  λ2 s2 + 2λξ s +1 − e−θ s ( β s +1) 

2257
Analogous to the FOPDT model, from the Eq. (11a~c) the PID ( K + ∆K ) e −(θ +∆θ )s (22)
GP ( s ) =
parameters can be obtained as: (τ s + 1)( ∆τ s + 1)
kC =
τI
τ I = (ψ + β ) −
(λ 2
2
−θ
+ βθ
2
) ( K + ∆K ) e−(θ +∆θ )s − Ke−θ s ( K + ∆K ) e −∆θ s − K (23)
ψ K (θ − β + 2λξ ) (θ − β + 2λξ ) ∆m ( s) =
(τ s + 1)( ∆τ s + 1) τ s + 1 = ( ∆τ s + 1)
θ 3 βθ 2  Ke−θ s K
 6 − 2  τ s +1
τD =
(ψ β ) − 
(θ − β + 2 λξ ) −
(
λ 2 −θ 2 + βθ
2
) (
 λ − 2λξψ +ψ e
β =ψ 1−
2 2
) −θ ψ

 Therefore,
τI (θ − β + 2 λξ )  ψ2  ∆K 
 − ∆θ s
1 + e (24)
Based on the IMC design principle, PID tuning rules for ∆ ( s ) =  K  −1
( ∆ τ s + 1) m

several processes has been obtained and is presented in Table 1.

These tuning rules are based on the disturbance rejection. The Substituting the Eq. (24) in Eq. (20), we obtained
β is designs such a way that slow pole of the process can be (25)
canceled. In the IMC filter, the denominator has been selected τ {1 − ( λ − 2λξτ + τ ) e θ τ τ } ω + 1 2 2 2 − 2
2
2
1
a general second order form in the proposed study. The ξ = 1.0 <
 ∆K  θ ω
, ∀ω > 0
(1 − λ ω ) + ( 2λξω )  1 + e
2 2 2 2
−∆ j

is generally recommended. However, the process has an  K  −1

integrator and with a negative zero, the overdamped ξ can be ( ∆τ jω + 1)
selected to avoid the undershoot in the disturbance rejection
Equation (25) is useful to adjust the λ while there are
response.
uncertainty in process parameters.
IV. ROBUST STABILITY
V. SIMULATION STUDY
A. Norm-Bound Uncertainty Regions
Example 1: DIP Process
Theorem (Robust Stability): Morari and Zafirou [12]. Assume
The following DIP model has been considered for the
that all plants p in the family ∏
demonstration of the superiority of the proposed method which
 p ( iω ) − p ( iω )  (17) was studied earlier [2-4].
∏ = p: < Am (ω ) 
 p ( iω )  0.0506e −6 s
GP = (26)
have the same number of RHP poles and that a particular s
controller Gc stabilizes the nominal plant p . Then the system Luyben [2], Visioli [3], Chidambaram & Sree [4], and
proposed methods were used to design the PID controller. For
is robustly stable with the controller Gc if and only if the
the proposed method, a value of λ = 3.437 was selected so
complementary sensitivity function η for the nominal
that Ms = 3.82 . The λ has been adjusted to get the similar
plant p  satisfies the following bound value of the Ms with the Chidambaram & Sree [4] to obtain
η ( s ) ∆ m ( s ) ∞ < 1 (18) the fair comparison. It is not possible to equalize the Ms value
for the Luyben’s [2] and Visioli’s [3] methods, because these
where ∆ m ( s ) defines the process multiplicative uncertainty
methods have no adjustable parameter.
bound. i.e., ∆ ( s ) = (G − G ) G . This uncertainty bound can be Figure 2 shows the closed-loop output response for a unit-step
m p p p
setpoint change occurring at t=0, and a unit-step disturbance
utilized to represent the model reduction error, process input
occurring at t=50. Figure 2 and the IAE values in Table 2
actuator uncertainty, and the process output sensor uncertainty
reveal that the disturbance rejection and set-point response for
etc, which is very common in real process plant. Let’s consider
the proposed controller is superior over the other tuning
FOPDT model. The complementary sensitivity function η ( s ) is
methods. The 2DOF controller is used in the present study for
given for the proposed filter the setpoint response by selecting b = 0.2 . The proposed
η ( s ) = ( β s + 1) e−θ s ( λ 2 s 2 + 2λξ s + 1) (19) method shows the smooth response whereas Visioli [3] has
Substituting Eq. (19) and β for the FOPDT into Eq. (18) yields oscillation both in setpoint and disturbance rejection. Visioli [3]
method has Ms = 7.26 , which is not desirable. Luyben [2]
the robust stability constraint for tuning the adjustable
method has slow response which has Ms = 2.24 . The proposed
parameters λ . and the Chidambaram & Padma Sree [4] method have same
τ {1 − ( λ 2 − 2λξτ + τ 2 ) e −θ τ τ 2 } s + 1 (20)
  < 1 Ms value where the proposed method has clear advantage in
( λ s + 2λτ s + 1)
2 2
∆m (s) ∞ terms of IAE over other methods.
∞

Putting s = jω in above equation we obtained as Example 2: Stable FOPDT System with an Integrator
(21) Consider the integrating process transfer function used by [5-
 2
{ (
 τ 1 − λ − 2λξτ + τ e
2 2 −θ τ
τ2) }ω
2
2 
+ 1 8,10]
  1
<
(1 − λ ω ) + ( 2λξω )
2 2 2 ∆m ( s ) 1e −0.2 s (27)
GP =
2
∞

∞ s ( s + 1)
Suppose we have uncertainty in all the three process
parameters, i.e., θ , τ , K The control performance of the proposed method is compared

2258
 TABLE 1 PID controller tuning rules

G = GD =
Ke − θ s kC =
τI
τI = (ψ + τ + β ) −
( −θ 2

2
+ θβ1 − β 2 + 2λ 2 + 4λ 2ξ 2 )
s (τ s + 1) ψ K ( 4λξ + θ − β1 ) 1
( 4λξ + θ − β1 )
θ 3 β1θ 2 + θβ + 4λ 3ξ 
 6− 2 2 
 
τD =
( β2 + (τ +ψ ) β1 +ψτ ) − ( 4λξ + θ − β1 ) −
( −θ 2

2
+ θβ1 − β 2 + 2λ 2 + 4λ 2ξ 2 )
τI ( 4λξ + θ − β1 )
2 2
 λ2 2λξ   λ 2 2λξ  −θ ψ
τ2 − + 1 e−θ τ −ψ 2  2 − + 1 e + ψ 2 −τ 2 ( )  λ 2 2λξ 
2

τ τ ψ ψ
2
β1 =   β 2 = τ 2  − + 1 e−θ τ −1 + β1τ
(ψ − τ )  τ
2
τ  

G = GD =
Ke −θ s
kC =
τI
τ I = (τ 1 + τ 2 + β1 ) −
( −θ
2

2
+ θβ1 − β 2 + 2 λ 2 + 4λ 2ξ 2 )
(τ 1 s + 1)(τ 2 s + 1) K ( 4λξ + θ − β1 ) ( 4λξ + θ − β1 )
θ 3 β1θ 2 
 6− + θβ 2 + 4λ 3ξ 
 2 
τD =
( β2 + (τ 1 + τ 2 ) β1 + τ 1τ 2 ) − ( 4λξ + θ − β1 ) −
( −θ 2

2 + θβ1 − β 2 + 2λ + 4λ ξ
2 2 2
)
τI ( 4λξ + θ − β1 )
2 2
 λ2 2λξ   λ 2 2λξ  −θ τ 2
τ 12  − + 1 e −θ τ1 − τ 2 2  2 − + 1 e + τ 22 − τ12 ( )  λ 2 2

τ τ1  τ2 τ2 
2
  2λξ
β1 = β 2 = τ 12   + 1 e −θ τ 1 − 1 + β1τ1
1
−
(τ 2 −τ1 )  τ 1
2
τ1  

G = GD =
K (τ a s + 1) e −θ s kC =
τI
τ I = (ψ + τ + β1 ) −
( − θ 2 + θβ1 − β 2 + 2λ 2 + 4 λ 2ξ 2
2
)
s (τ s + 1 ) ψ K ( 4λξ + θ − β1 ) ( 4λξ + θ − β1 )
θ 3 β1θ 2 + θβ + 4λ 3ξ 
 6− 2 2 
 
( β 2 + (τ +ψ ) β1 +ψτ ) − ( 4λξ + θ − β1 ) ( −θ 2

2
+ θβ1 − β2 + 2λ 2 + 4 λ 2ξ 2 ) Lag filter , t F =
1
τD =
τI
−
( 4λξ + θ − β1 ) (τ a s + 1)
2 2
 λ2 2λξ   λ 2 2λξ  −θ ψ
τ2 − + 1 e −θ τ −ψ 2  2 − + 1 e + ψ 2 −τ 2 ( )  λ 2 2λξ 
2

τ τ ψ ψ
2
β1 =   β 2 = τ 2  − + 1 e−θ τ − 1 + β1τ
(ψ − τ )  τ
2
τ  

For the fair comparison, Ms = 1.924 of the proposed method is

with Wang and Cai’s [7] and Anil and Sree’s [10] PID tuning
methods. Figure 3 shows the closed-loop output responses for
these three design methods with a unit-step setpoint change
occurring at t=0, and a unit-step disturbance at t=10. For the
fair comparison the λ has been adjusted in the present study
to get the same value of the Ms = 1.925 with the Anil and Sree
[10]. The Wang and Cai’s [7] method have Ms = 1.653 . In the
proposed study the setpoint response has been adjusted by
2DOF controller b = 0.3 . Figure 3 and Table 3 shows that the
proposed method has a better control performance for both
setpoint change and load disturbance.
Example 3: FOPDT System with an Integrator and with a
Negative Zero
Consider the following process of paper drum dryer cans
[10,11].
0.005 ( 300 s + 1) e −5 s (28)
G =
s ( 20 s + 1)
P
equalized with Anil and Sree [10] by adjusting the λ value.
The Ms has been equalized with Anil and Sree [10] because
they had already demonstrated its superiority over Wang and
Cluett [11] method, which has Ms = 1.536 . The response of
controller designed by Wang and Cluett [11] shows less
overshoot and less settling time but it has been observed that
there is a steady state offset of 0.02 in the setpoint response.
The proposed method shows clear advantage over others
because it exhibits less IAE value and smooth response. The
sharp undershoot in the disturbance rejection response of Anil
and Padma Sree [10] can be minimized in the proposed method
by choosing the overdamped IMC filter, and for the above
process ξ = 2.0 gives the minimum IAE value. The b = 0.6 has
been used in the 2DOF controller for the setpoint response in
the proposed method.
Processes with Both Inverse Response and Dead Time

It is interesting to note that very few researchers have explored

The PID controller designed by the proposed method, Wang processes in which both dead time and inverse responses occur.
and Cluett [11], and Anil and Padma Sree [10] are given in This type of response is observed in adiabatic tubular reactors
Table 4. Figure 4 shows the closed-loop output responses for when reactor outlet temperature is the controlled variable and
these three designs method with a unit-step setpoint change reactor inlet temperature is the manipulated variable. Typically
occurring at t=0, and a unit-step disturbance occurring at t=200. the control structure uses a cascade arrangement in which the
secondary loop uses furnace heat input or heat-exchanger
bypassing to control inlet temperature. This section addresses

2259
the problem of controlling processes that exhibit both inverse TABLE 3 PID controllers setting for Example 2
response and dead time.
Example 4: Biochemical Reactor Tuning Kc τI τD set- disturbance
methods point
A biochemical reactor with several components has the
IAE IAE
following linearized model Bequette [15], which relates the
biomass concentration to the dilution rate: Proposed 5.45 1.60 0.46 1.12 0.29
1 . 7 5 ( − 3 s + 1 ) ( − 5 s + 1 ) e − 1 .2 5 s (29) λ = 0.353
G =
(1 0 s + 1 )( 4 s + 1 )
p 2
Anil & P. Sree 5.48 1.88 0.47 1.3 0.35
For high-order processes, the IMC design methods do not yield Wang & Cai 3.09 1.18 0.86 2.23 0.64
PID controllers directly. Thus the model order must be reduced,
or the resulting controller must be approximated by a PID
controller. Skogestad [14] has proposed a simple method of
approximating the high-order models with low-order models. It TABLE 4 PID controllers setting for Example 3
is clear that an ‘‘inverse response time constant’’ T0inv
(negative numerator time constant) may be approximated as a Tuning Kc τI τD tF set- disturbance
methods point
time delay ( −T0inv +1 ) ≈ e−T s .This is reasonable since an inverse
0
inv

IAE IAE
response has a deteriorating effect on the control, similar to
that of a time delay. For the model reduction of the above Proposed 33.8 62.10 14.84 300 27.91 14.3
λ = 7.47
biochemical reactor, we have used “Half rule”. The half rule is
discussed in detail Skogestad [14]. The above model can be Anil & 39.2 42.12 10.50 300 31.29 15.34
reduced in the SOPDT form using Half rule as P. Sree
Wang & 1.6 26.0 2.0 0.2 14.87 16.63
G p = 1.75 e −11.25 s (1 2 s + 1 )( 4 s + 1 ) . Cluett
The PID controller has been designed by proposed method for
Ms = 2.0 . Figure 5 shows the closed-loop output response for TABLE 5 PID controllers setting for Example 4
biochemical reactor model with a unit-step setpoint change
occurring at t = 0 , and a unit-step disturbance occurring at t = 100 . Tuning Kc τI τD set- disturbance
The closed loop response of controller shows the smooth and methods point
fast setpoint and disturbance rejection. b = 0.6 has been used in IAE IAE
the 2DOF controller for the setpoint response. The robustness
of the controller is evaluated by perturbing the 100% Proposed 0.477 17.094 3.536 26.67 38.69
λ = 6.214
uncertainty in dead time (θ = 2.5 ) . The perturbed response is
also shown in Fig. 5 and performance index is listed in Table 5. Proposed 0.477 17.094 3.536 29.19 41.14
It is clear that the proposed controller design method of the (100% θ
uncertainty)
biochemical reactor is simple and robust.

TABLE 2 PID controllers setting for Example 1

Tuning Kc τI τD set- disturbance

methods point
IAE IAE
Proposed 4.28 14.90 2.34 12.52 3.75
λ = 3.437
Chidambaram 4.07 27 2.7 16.6 6.64
& P. Sree
Luyben. 2.56 56.32 3.56 19.69 21.05
(tf=0.382)

Visioli 4.51 8.94 3.54 23.1 4.12

Fig. 2. Simulation results for Example 1

2260
 VI. CONCLUSIONS
The IMC filter has been modified for several representative
processes to improve disturbance rejection performance of the
PID controller. Based on the proposed filter, tuning rules for
the PID controller was derived by using the generalized IMC-
PID method by Lee et al. [13]. Undershoot in the disturbance
rejection can be eliminated by the overdamped IMC filter for
the system with an integrator and a negative zero. The
processes which have inverse response can be treated by
reducing them into FOPDT/SOPDT model. The model
reduction techniques can be utilized to design the PID
controller for the inverse response process maintaining the
performance and robustness level. The simulation results
demonstrated superiority of the proposed method.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank and express their appreciation to
2006 Energy Resource and Technology Project and second-
phase of BK (Brain Korea) 21 program for providing the
Fig. 3. Simulation results for Example 2 financial support.
REFERENCE
[1] I. L. Chien, and P. S. Fruehauf, “Consider IMC tuning to improve
performance,” Chem. Eng. Prog. Vol. 10, 33, 1990.
[2] W. L. Luyben, “Design of proportional integral and derivative
controllers for integrating dead-time processes,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
vol. 35, 3480, 1996.
[3] A. Visioli, “Optimal tuning of PID controllers for integral and unstable
processes,” IEE Proc. Control Theory, 148, 180, Appl 2001.
[4] M. Chidambaram, and R. Padma Sree, “A simple method of tuning PID
controller for integrator/dead-time processes, Computer and Chemical
Engineering, 27, 211-215, 2003.
[5] E. Poulin, and A. Pomerlaeu, “A PID tuning for integrating and unstable
processes, IEEE Proceedings – CTA, vol.143, 429-435, 1996.
[6] W. Zhang, X. Xu, and Y. Sun, “Quantitative performance design for
integrating processes with time delay, Automatica, vol. 35, pp. 719-723,
1999.
[7] Y. G. Wang, and W. J. Cai, “Advanced proportional integral derivative
tuning for integrating and unstable processes with gain and phase
margin specifications, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 41, pp. 2910-2914,
2002.
[8] W. Tan, J. Liu, P. K. S. Tam, PID tuning based on loop shaping H∞
control. IEEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl. Vol. 145, 485, 1998.
Fig. 4. Simulation results for Example 3
[9] I. L. Chien, Y. C. Chung, B. S. Chen, and C. Y. Chuang, Simple PID
controller tuning method for processes with inverse response plus dead
time or large overshoot response plus dead time, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.,
2.5
vol. 42, pp. 4461-4477, 2003.
[10] C. Anil, and R. Padma Sree, “Design of PID controllers for FOPTD
2 systems with an integrator and with/without a zero, Indian chem. Engr.,
Section A. vol. 47, 4, pp. 235-242, 2005.
[11] L. Wang, and W. R. Cluett, “Tuning PID controllers for integrating
1.5 processes” IEEE Proceedings- CTA., vol. 144, 385, 1997.
Process R esponse

[12] M. Morari, and E. Zafiriou, “Robust Process Control,” Prentice Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989.
1 [13] Y. Lee, S. Park, M. Lee, and C. Brosilow, “PID controller tuning for
desired closed-loop responses for SI/SO systems,” AIChE Journal, vol.
44, pp. 106-115, 1998.
0.5 [14] S. Skogestad, “Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID
controller tuning,” J. Process Control, vol. 13, pp. 291-309, 2003.
[15] Bequette W., Process Control Modeling, Design and Simulation,
0
Prentice Hall, International Series, 2003.
Nominal Model
100% dead time uncertainty
-0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time

Fig. 5. Simulation results for Example 4

2261