Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Control and Optimization

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rico

Improved PID controller design for an unstable second order plus

time delay non-minimum phase systems
Purushottam Patil, Sanjith S. Anchan, Chinta Sankar Rao ∗
Department of Chemical Engineering, National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal, India

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Principally the fundamental limitations for achieving better control performance is caused due
Unstable systems to the existence of positive zeros. This study proposes a method to stabilize the unstable non-
Non-minimum phase system minimum phase Second Order Plus Time Delay (SOPTD) process. It adopts the Taylor series
Robustness
expansion to produce the equal order of numerator and denominator for the closed loop transfer
PID controller
function. The coefficient of corresponding powers of 𝑠, 𝑠2 and 𝑠3 in numerators are equated to
𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾 times of the denominator and solved for PID controller setting using multi-objective
optimization problems. The stability of the controller is then analysed by minimizing the
Integral Time weighted Absolute Error (ITAE) and maximum sensitivity function using MATLAB
solvers. The observations from various simulation studies clearly suggests that the proposed
method provides significant superior responses when compared with the methods reported.

1. Introduction

The system is said to be non-minimum phase (NMP) system when zeros of the transfer function is on the right half of the S-plane.
Initially the step response of the NMP system progress in the exactly opposite direction to that of the initial steady state route. Such
kind of responses is called as inverse response in time domain. The modulus of NMP system always exceeds the minimum phase
system during the same amplitude. While phase angle of the non-minimum phase system will always be greater than 90◦ . Some
systems like drum boiler, bio-chemical reactions in CSTR etc. are instance of particular systems with positive zero that exhibit the
second order plus time delay [1]. The undershoot behaviour at the beginning can causes the non-minimal phase systems to provide
a slower response. Eventually, the performance of the system dynamics tend to complicate process with the presence of positive
zero. Internal stability of the system has been recorded as one of the prominent problem in the corresponding investigation [2].
There exists a limitation with the presence of positive zero on maximum bandwidth since, the bandwidth of the system cannot be
more than absolute value of zero. Several methods has been reported on designing PI/PID controllers for stable non-minimum phase
systems such as IMC method [3,4], phase margin and gain margin method [5], optimization method [6,7] etc. But there prevails
the limitations for the design methods for Unstable SOPTD (USOPTD). In recent years, tuning of UNSOPTD has gained significant
attraction and interest.
Many studies have been documented on Non-Minimum Phase Systems as summarized by [8,9]. A notable controller that has
been extensively adopted in this study is Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller. While PID controller is the combination of
proportional, integral and derivative control modes. Where the proportional gain (𝐾𝑐 ) is determined by the ratio of output response
to the error signal. However, the integral component sums the error term over time and, the derivative component causes the output
to decrease if the process variable is increasing rapidly. Various tuning methods documented in literature’s include Ziegler–Nichols
method [10], Modified Ziegler–Nichols [9], Tyreus–Luyben [11], Damped oscillation method [12], Open loop Ziegler–Nichols [9],

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: csrao@nitk.edu.in (C.S. Rao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rico.2022.100117
Received 27 May 2021; Received in revised form 1 December 2021; Accepted 24 March 2022
Available online 31 March 2022
2666-7207/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

C-H-R [13], Cohen and Coon method [14], Fertik method [9], Ciancone–Marline method [9], IMC method [15], Minimum error
criteria (IAE, ISE, ITAE) method [12], Phase Margin and Margin [16]. Stable systems are relatively simple to control, as their output
can retain acceptable values throughout a wide range of input fluctuations. The input values may need to be carefully chosen and
regulated to get the desired output in an unstable system. It is widely used in industrial and chemical practices to stabilize unstable
processes, which is extremely popular. Batch chemical reactors and Continuous stirred tank reactors are two general example that
are difficult to control especially with pure time delay [17]. Various studies are reported on developing effective control strategies
for unstable processes [7,13,17,18].
Generally the PID settings are tuned to get the required response from the control system. The PID controller can be designed
for unstable SOPTD by employing several available methods in literature. However, available methods for non-minimum phase
UNSOPTD system is precisely limited. The multiple dominant pole placement method that deals with placing two dominant complex
conjugate has been reported to tune a PID controller for the unstable systems [19,20]. Nevertheless this method does not approximate
time delay for the design of PID settings. It is observed that the method indicated noticeable improvement in terms of error for both
the linear and nonlinear systems. A study by [21] presented a simple method of modified Smith predictor with two PID controllers;
one for set point tracking and the other for disturbance rejection for NMP integrating system [21]. The controller design for stable
second order system was formulated with two distinct methodology by [7]. In the first case the authors considered two tuning
parameters while in the second case only one tuning parameter for the design mode.
Similarly, few studies documented equating coefficient method to derive integrator dead time process [7], and for an unstable
First Order Plus Time Delay (FOPTD) it is further extended by [3]. Accordingly an IMC and stability analysis methods were adopted
on unstable SOPTD model to carryout Van de Vusse reaction to control isothermal constant volume CSTR [22]. In addition, IMC
method was adopted to design a PID controller for stable FOPTD system with positive zero and unstable FOPTD system with negative
zero by [23]. A study by [24], adopted internal model control technique for set point and load disturbance rejection by overcoming
its inherent problem of internal instability [24]. [17] presented the two degree freedom control scheme for the time delayed open
loop unstable process, with both set point responses and load disturbance response, are tuned separately by the set point tracking
controller and disturbance rejection [17]. A predictor filter was introduced in original structure of smith predictor in order to develop
a simple robust dead time compensator with different structures for stable, integrating and unstable processes [25]. A remarkable
level of improvement in load rejection performance were recorded in an enhanced design of the Smith predictor for USOPTD non-
minimum phase system [26]. A study was undertaken to enhance the form of IMC based PID controller for non-minimum integrating
system with time delays by [27]. It was observed that the design strategy followed among all the discussed methods were relatively
complicated.
The present study aimed to develop a straightforward method for solving three linear equations in order to determine the PID
parameters. The sole objective of a controller is to track the change in set-point of control variable as soon as possible with zero
or minimum overshoot, undershoot and error. The degrees of numerator and denominator are made equal by adopting Taylor’s
expansion for closed loop transfer function of servo problems. Further, the equations are derived by equating the powers of 𝑠, 𝑠2
and 𝑠3 of numerator to 𝛼, 𝛽 and 𝛾 times that of the denominator respectively. The optimal tuning parameters 𝛼, 𝛽 and 𝛾 are estimated
through 𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ in MATLAB solver. This is achieved by minimizing the Integral Time weighted Absolute Error (ITAE) for servo
problem. Hence, keeping in check with stability it is expected to provide lower maximum sensitivity function. The performance and
effectiveness of the proposed method are compared with reported work by executing various simulation studies.

2. Proposed method

Let us consider a NMP USOPTDZ system

𝑘𝑝 (1 − 𝑝𝑠)𝑒−𝐿𝑠
𝐺= (1)
𝑎𝑠2 ± 𝑏𝑠 ± 1
Based on the presence of one or two unstable poles, the unstable non-minimum phase SOPTD systems can be given by any of
the following types
Case 1: The NMP USOPTD process with one unstable pole (𝜏1 > 𝜏2 ).
𝑘𝑝 (1 − 𝑝𝑠)𝑒−𝐿𝑠
𝐺= (2)
(𝜏1 𝑠 − 1)(𝜏2 𝑠 + 1)
𝑘𝑝 (1 − 𝑝𝑠)𝑒−𝐿𝑠
𝐺= (3)
(𝑎𝑠2 + 𝑏𝑠 + 1)
Case 2: The NMP USOPTD process with one unstable pole (𝜏1 < 𝜏2 ).
𝑘𝑝 (1 − 𝑝𝑠)𝑒−𝐿𝑠
𝐺= (4)
(𝑎𝑠2 − 𝑏𝑠 − 1)
Case 3: The NMP USOPTD with two unstable poles
𝑘𝑝 (1 − 𝑝𝑠)𝑒−𝐿𝑠
𝐺= (5)
(𝜏1 𝑠 − 1)(𝜏2 𝑠 − 1)
𝑘𝑝 (1 − 𝑝𝑠)𝑒−𝐿𝑠
𝐺= (6)
(𝑎𝑠2 − 𝑏𝑠 − 1)

2
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

where, 𝐿 = dead time.

Let us consider a PID controller. The PID control law is given by
( )
𝑢(𝑠) 1
𝐺𝑐 (𝑠) = = 𝑘𝑐 1 + + 𝜏𝐷 𝑠 (7)
𝑒(𝑠) 𝜏1 𝑠
Here, error is represented by 𝑒 (i.e., 𝑦 − 𝑦𝑟 ) and, 𝑢 is manipulated variable. As previously stated, the closed loop transfer function
must be expressed in terms of a polynomial in both the numerator and denominator. The delay term in the numerator of the closed
loop transfer function is also ignored for this purpose, as it simply shifts the time axis. A servo control loop is a control loop that
needs to respond to a change in the setpoint. A controlled variable must follow a setpoint when the setpoint is changing as a
function of time. In servo problem, the system input can be manipulated to keep the output close to a specific reference trajectory,
for example, minimize the difference between the output and the reference trajectory. The closed loop transfer function (CLTF) for
a servo problem is given by the following relation
𝑦(𝑠) 𝐺𝐺𝑐
= (8)
𝑦𝑟 (𝑠) 1 + 𝐺𝐺𝑐
Case 1: The NMP USOPTD process with one unstable pole (𝜏1 > 𝜏2 )
Substituting the Eqs. (3) and (7) in Eq. (8), we get
𝑦(𝑠) (𝑘1 𝑠 + 𝑘2 + 𝑘3 𝑠2 )(1 − 𝑝𝑠)𝑒−𝐿𝑠
= (9)
𝑦𝑟 (𝑠) 𝑠(𝑎𝑠2 + 𝑏𝑠 + 1) + (1 − 𝑝𝑠)(𝑘1 𝑠 + 𝑘2 + 𝑘3 𝑠2 )(1 − 𝑝𝑠)𝑒−𝐿𝑠
where,

𝑘1 = 𝑘𝑐 𝑘𝑝 (10)
𝑘
𝑘2 = 1 (11)
𝜏1
𝑘3 = 𝑘1 𝜏𝐷 (12)

For further analysis, the term 𝑒𝐿𝑆 is removed from numerator, since it only shifts the corresponding time axis. Hence, the
denominator exponential term (𝑒−𝐿𝑠 ) can be expressed as follows
𝑒−0.5𝐿𝑠
𝑒−𝐿𝑠 = (13)
𝑒0.5𝐿𝑠
So, Eq. (9) can be rewritten as
𝑦(𝑠) (𝑘1 𝑠 + 𝑘2 + 𝑘3 𝑠2 )(1 − 𝑝𝑠)𝑒0.5𝐿𝑠
= (14)
𝑦𝑟 (𝑠) 𝑠(𝑎𝑠 + 𝑏𝑠 − 1)𝑒0.5𝐿𝑠 + (1 − 𝑝𝑠)(𝑘1 𝑠 + 𝑘2 + 𝑘3 𝑠2 )𝑒−0.5𝐿𝑠
2

By using Taylor series, the exponential terms 𝑒0.5𝐿𝑠 and 𝑒−0.5𝐿𝑠 are expanded, and then substituted in Eq. (14), the following
expression is obtained
𝑦(𝑠) (𝑎 𝑠3 + 𝑎2 𝑠2 + 𝑎1 + 𝑘2 )
= 3 (15)
𝑦𝑟 (𝑠) (𝑏3 𝑠3 + 𝑏2 𝑠2 + 𝑏1 𝑠 + 𝑘2 )
where,

𝑎3 = −𝑝𝑘3 + 0.5𝑘3 𝐿 − 0.5𝑝𝑘1 𝐿 + 0.125𝑘1 𝐿2 − 0.125𝑝𝑘2 𝐿2 + 0.0208𝑘2 𝐿3 (16)

2 2 3 2
𝑏3 = −𝑝𝑘3 − 0.5𝑘3 𝐿 + 0.5𝑝𝑘1 𝐿 + 0.125𝑘1 𝐿 − 0.125𝑝𝑘2 𝐿 + 0.0208𝑘2 𝐿 + 𝑎 + 0.5𝑏𝐿 − 0.125𝐿 (17)
𝑎2 = 𝑘3 − 𝑝𝑘1 + 0.5𝑘1 𝐿 − 0.5𝑝𝐾2 𝐿 + 0.125𝑝𝐾2 𝐿2 (18)
𝑏2 = 𝑘3 − 𝑝𝑘1 − 0.5𝑘1 𝐿 + 0.5𝑝𝐾2 𝐿 + 0.125𝑝𝐾2 𝐿2 + 𝑏 − 0.5𝐿 (19)
𝑎1 = 𝑘1 − 𝑝𝑘2 + 0.5𝑘2 𝐿 (20)
𝑏1 = 𝑘1 − 𝑝𝑘2 − 0.5𝑘2 𝐿 − 1 (21)

Eq. (15) shows that the polynomial order of the numerator and denominator is the same, and the presence of an integral part of
the PID controller makes the constant terms equal. To satisfy the controller objective 𝑦∕𝑦𝑟 = 1, the coefficients of the corresponding
powers of s of numerator and denominator are equated. The control objective is to make the corresponding powers on 𝑠 of numerator
and denominator equal by equating the ratio of output to the set point. It is evident that the performance specifications of unstable
systems differ significantly from those of stable systems. The overshoot and settling time are larger for unstable systems. Hence, we
cannot force 𝑦∕𝑦𝑟 as 1. If we equate 𝑦∕𝑦𝑟 to 1, the settings obtained make the closed loop system unstable even for a small change
in the system parameters. To overcome this problem, each of the numerator term of Eq. (15) needs to be equated to 𝛼, 𝛽 and 𝛾
times that of the corresponding denominator terms. On equating the powers of 𝑠3 of numerator 𝛼 times the denominator of Eq. (15),
i.e., 𝑎3 = 𝛼𝑏3

𝐴1 (1 − 𝛼) + 𝐵1 (1 + 𝛼) − (𝑎 + 0.5𝑏𝐿 − 0.125𝐿2 )𝛼 = 0 (22)

3
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

where,

𝐴1 = (−𝑝𝑘3 + 0.125𝑘1 𝐿2 − 0.125𝑝𝑘2 𝐿2 ) (23)

𝐵1 = (0.5𝑘3 𝐿 − 0.5𝑝𝑘1 𝐿 + 0.0208𝑘2 𝐿3 ) (24)

This is followed by equating powers of 𝑠2 to the numerator 𝛽 times the denominator of Eq. (15), i.e., (𝑎2 = 𝛽𝑏2 ), we get

𝐴2 (1 − 𝛽) + 𝐵2 (1 + 𝛽) − 𝛽(𝑏 − 0.5𝐿) = 0 (25)

where,

𝐴2 = (𝑘3 − 𝑝𝑘1 + 0.125𝑘2 𝐿2 ) (26)

𝐵2 = (0.5𝑘1 𝐿 − 0.5𝑝𝑘2 𝐿) (27)

By utilizing Eq. (15) for equating the power of 𝑠 of numerator 𝛾 times the denominator, that is 𝑎1 = 𝛾 𝑏1 , we obtain

(𝑘1 − 𝑝𝑘2 )(1 − 𝛾) + 0.5𝑘2 𝐿(1 + 𝛾) + 𝛾 = 0 (28)

Similar procedure has been followed for the next two cases.
Case 2: The NMP USOPTD process with one unstable pole (𝜏1 < 𝜏2 )

𝐴1 (1 − 𝛼) + 𝐵1 (1 + 𝛼) − (𝑎 − 0.5𝑏𝐿 + 0.125𝐿2 )𝛼 = 0 (29)

𝐴2 (1 − 𝛽) + 𝐵2 (1 + 𝛽) − 𝛽(𝑏 − 0.5𝐿) = 0 (30)

(𝑘1 − 𝑝𝑘2 )(1 − 𝛾) + 0.5𝑘2 𝐿(1 + 𝛾) − 𝛾 = 0 (31)

Case 3: The NMP USOPTD with two unstable poles

𝑘𝑝 (1 − 𝑝𝑠)𝑒−𝐿𝑠
𝐺= (32)
(𝑎𝑠2 − 𝑏𝑠 − 1)

𝐴1 (1 − 𝛼) + 𝐵1 (1 + 𝛼) − (𝑎 − 0.5𝑏𝐿 + 0.125𝐿2 )𝛼 = 0 (33)

𝐴2 (1 − 𝛽) + 𝐵2 (1 + 𝛽) − 𝛽(−𝑏 − 0.5𝐿) = 0 (34)

(𝑘1 − 𝑝𝑘2 )(1 − 𝛾) + 0.5𝑘2 𝐿(1 + 𝛾) + 𝛾 = 0 (35)

Thus, accordingly 𝑘𝑐 , 𝜏𝐼 , 𝜏𝐷 are calculated from the derived equations (Eqs. (22)–(35)) for variables 𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾 respectively. The
mathematical formulation of the objective function 𝑓 is formulated to minimize the Integral of the time weighted absolute error
(ITAE) is given by

Minimize ∑
∞
𝑓= 𝑡|𝑒(𝑡)| (36)
(𝑘𝑐 , 𝜏𝐼 , 𝜏𝐷 )
𝑡=0

here, 𝑓 is the objective function which is considered as a integral of time weighted error. To stabilize a system, the values of 𝛼,
𝛽, 𝛾 needs to be estimated which will help to provides a improved system performances. Generally in the case of NMP USOPTD
model there exists structured guidelines to estimate the values of 𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾. By employing MATLAB 𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ solver, these fine tuning
parameters such as 𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾 are determined by minimizing the Integral Time weighted Absolute Error (ITAE) for servo problem. The
stability of the system is continuously monitored during the stage of execution. Small changes in a non-minimum phase system can
have a significant impact on controller settings and tuning parameters. It is noted that by performing various simulation studies on
the following case studies, it contributes to improved performance, system stabilization, and robustness (based on a lower MS value
for the studied control settings) for the variance of 𝛼 and the ratios of 𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾. Hence, for all the three requirements the selection of
tuning parameters are trade off.

2.1. Robustness analysis

In order to take care of model uncertainties, it is very much essential to undertake robustness study. For a controller to attain
a good load rejection, it is always better to have low frequency sensitivity function. The sensitivity function formulated by [18] is
illustrated as below
1
𝑆(𝑠) = (37)
1 + 𝐺(𝑠)𝐺𝑐 (𝑠)
The complementary sensitivity function is given as

𝑇 (𝑠) = 1 − 𝑆(𝑠) (38)

4
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Fig. 1. Closed loop block diagram with controller and system.

𝐺(𝑠)𝐺𝑐 (𝑠)
𝑇 (𝑠) = (39)
1 + 𝐺(𝑠)𝐺𝑐 (𝑠)
The set point tracking information can be obtained from the complimentary sensitive function analysis. It is always recommended
to obtain a complementary sensitivity function 𝑇 (𝑠) close to unity. The performance of the manipulated variable or the controller
output are governed by the maximum sensitivity function (𝑀𝑠 ). It is given by
| 1 |
𝑀𝑠 = max |𝑆(𝜔𝑗)| = max || |
| (40)
| 1 + 𝐺(𝑗𝜔)𝐺𝑐 (𝑗𝜔) |
To achieve a good robust controller for any system, it is always recommended to secure a smaller value of 𝑀𝑠 .

3. Simulation studies

The closed loop system also referred to feedback control system where in the forward path has one or more feedback loops
between its output and input. Usually it is adopted where an automatic desired output is required. The error signal which is the
difference of input and feedback signal is fed to the controller to reduce the system error and obtain desired controlled output. Such
system substantially reduces the system sensitivity to external disturbances. (See Fig. 1). Various simulation studies are implemented
by considering the unstable pole examples. In this study the performances of the proposed method over recently reported methods
are compared on four different NMP process. The optimal tuning parameters are obtained by performing a rigorous simulation
studies. Performance efficiency of the controller are observed by analysing the errors, total variance in manipulated variable and
𝑀𝑠 values. The closed loop regulatory and servo responses from recently reported methods and for all the case studies are obtained
and compared. Further these values are quantified in terms of time integral errors such as Integral of Square Error (ISE), Integral of
Absolute Error (IAE) and Integral of Time weighted Absolute Error (ITAE). Additionally the Total Variance (TV) are also estimated
to understand the controller functioning.
TV can be defined as
∑
𝑁
𝑇𝑉 = 𝑢𝑖+1 − 𝑢𝑖 (41)
𝑖=0

Here, 𝑢 represents manipulated variable, and 𝑁 illustrates number of data points over the response

3.1. Simulation example 1 (the NMP USOPTD with two unstable poles)

The system studied by [27] is considered in this example

100(1 − 0.2𝑠)𝑒−0.2𝑠
𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) = (42)
(100𝑠 − 1)(𝑠 − 1)
The following input variables are considered on above mentioned process: 𝑎 = 100, 𝑏 = 101, 𝑘𝑝 = 100, 𝑝 = 0.2, 𝐿 = 0.2. While
the proposed method is compared with the method reported by [27], the PID controller parameters obtained by this method are:
𝐾𝑐 = 0.4451, 𝜏𝐼 = 5.218, 𝜏𝑑 = 4.33. The set point filter (𝐹𝑅 (𝑠)) for 𝜆 = 1.3 is given by
(1.3𝑠 + 1)
𝐹𝑅 (𝑠) = (43)
(21.9𝑠2 + 5.0833𝑠 + 1)
The controller settings and tuning parameters for servo problem from the proposed method are 𝐾𝑐 = 2.341, 𝜏𝐼 = 4.4759 𝜏𝑑 =
0.9234 and 𝛼 = −0.4583, 𝛽 = −5.8559 𝛼, 𝛾 = −2.1952𝛼 respectively.
The closed loop responses are analysed in order to investigate the superior performance of the proposed method over [27]
method. Accordingly several performance indices such as Integral Square Error (ISE), Integral Absolute Error (IAE), Total variation
in manipulated variable (TV) and Maximum Sensitivity function (𝑀𝑠 ) were considered for the study. The processes are simulated by
providing a step change of magnitude 1 at time, 𝑡 = 0. The closed loop servo response and the corresponding control action obtained
are presented in Figs. 2 and 3 respectively. The Fig. 2 describes less oscillation, lower overshoot and undershoot by proposed method
when compared to [27] method. The simulation results shown in Fig. 2 indicates a significant difference in the performance of these

5
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Fig. 2. Response of closed loop servo by considering PID settings from proposed method and [27] (case study-1).

Fig. 3. Control action for servo response using controller settings from the proposed and [27] method.

controllers. Fig. 4 presents the performance of the closed loop regulatory problem where it is clearly exhibit lower overshoot and
settling time for the proposed method.
The results for quantitative analysis and comparison of IAE & ISE for the two adopted controllers are tabulated in Table 1. A
significant difference in IAE, ISE values are clearly evident from these results. The proposed method has proven more efficient for
the set point tracking problem because of its relatively lower ISE and IAE indices. The IAE indices of the proposed method reduced
from 7.4258 to 5.6099, a 24% reduction, than that obtained by [27] method. Similarly the ISE indices for the proposed method
experienced 22% reduction from 7.0560 to 5.5171, than that obtained by [27] method.
Additionally the total variation in manipulated variable (TV), and Maximum sensitivity (𝑀𝑠 ) are tabulated in Table 1. The
comparative view suggested a lesser value of TV index for the proposed method. Hence, it can be inferred that the present method
has better control action when compared with reported method. The proposed controller is proved to be more robust by securing
lowest estimation for maximum value of sensitivity function. Fig. 5 describes the complementary sensitivity function curve and
uncertainty curve for the two methods. These findings satisfies the robust stability criteria since uncertainty curve is above the
sensitivity function curve. From the simulation studies, it is apparent that the proposed method achieves enhanced closed loop
responses when compared with reported methods.

6
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Fig. 4. Response of closed loop Regulatory by considering PID settings from proposed method and [27] (case study-1).

Fig. 5. Complimentary sensitivity function plot for case study-1 representing robustness for +10% uncertainty in time delay.

Table 1
Quantitative analysis of the closed loop performances.
Ex. Methods Servo problem Regulatory problem TV Ms
IAE ISE IAE ISE
Proposed 5.6099 5.5171 0.0835 0.0009 19860 3.7881
Ex.1
Ghousiya et al. 7.4258 7.0560 0.1185 0.0015 25180 4.7513

Ex: Example

3.2. Simulation example 2 (the NMP USOPTD process with one unstable pole (𝜏> 𝜏2 ))

Consider the transfer function given by [27]

51.83(−0.4699𝑠 + 1)𝑒−0.81𝑠
𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) = (44)
116.09𝑠2 + 98.8391𝑠 − 1
The proposed method adopts the above process with 𝑎 = 116.09, 𝑏 = 98.8391, 𝑘𝑝 = 51.83, 𝑝 = 0.4699, 𝑙 = 0.81. Here, method
proposed by [27] is considered for the purpose of comparison. Accordingly the PID settings obtained by [27] method are: 𝐾𝑐 =
0.9947, 𝜏𝐼 = 8.306, 𝜏𝐷 = 1.238 by considering 𝜆 = 1.984 for set point filter (𝐹𝑅 (𝑠)), which is given by
(1.984𝑠 + 1)
𝐹𝑅 (𝑠) = (45)
(8.3863𝑠2 + 8.0915𝑠 + 1)

7
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Table 2
PID controller settings of NMP USOPTD.
Example Methods 𝐾𝑐 𝜏𝐼 𝜏𝐷
Proposed method 0.6643 5.066 5.8022
1
[27] 0.4451 5.218 4.33
Proposed method 0.7659 8.836 1.176
2
[27] 0.9947 8.306 1.238
Proposed method 2.341 4.4759 0.9234
3
[27] 2.2296 4.3417 0.8394
Proposed method 0.7378 −37.165 5.0765
4
[18] 0.868 −41.439 −41.439

Fig. 6. Response of closed loop servo by considering PID settings from proposed method and [27] (case study-2).

The controller setting obtained for proposed method are 𝐾𝑐 = 0.7659, 𝜏𝐼 = 8.836, 𝜏𝐷 = 1.176 with tuning parameters like 𝛼 =
−0.0592, 𝛽 = −6.601𝛼, 𝛾 = −19.145 𝛼. Table 2 presents the considered PID controller settings for NMP USOPTD.
To verify the effectiveness of the proposed method, the closed loop performance is compared with [27] method by considering
a unit set change at time 𝑡 = 0. The closed loop servo response and variation in manipulated variables are presented in Figs. 6 and 7
respectively. It can be observed that the proposed method produce lower overshoot and undershoot when compared to [27] method.
The conclusive outcome from Figs. 6 and 7 indicates that there is a significant difference in the performance of these controllers.
The total variation in the manipulated variable determined by the proposed method is much lesser compared to [27]. Hence it
can attain a better control action from the proposed method. The performance of the closed loop regulatory problem is presented
in Fig. 8. It clearly suggest that the closed loop regulatory response experience the lower undershoot by proposed method when
compared with reported method.
The results for quantitative analysis and comparison of IAE & ISE for the two adopted controllers are tabulated in Table 3.
The proposed method is found to increase efficient due to decrease in ISE and IAE indices. The IAE value reduced from 5.3601 to
4.626, a 13% reduction for the proposed method when compared with [27] method. Identically, the ISE indices for the proposed
method reduced from 2.8307 to 2.5606, a 9% reduction, than that obtained by [27] method. This findings clearly indicates that
the set-point changes are more efficiently handled by proposed controller. For the disturbance rejection problem, it is worth noting
that the proposed method is more efficient than the method reported in the literature and proven by its relatively lower ISE and
IAE indices. Meanwhile IAE indices for proposed method reduced 38%, from 0.1622 to 0.1007 than that exhibited by [27] method.
Similarly ISE indices for the proposed method is observed to reduce from 0.0022 to 0.0012, a 45% reduction, than that obtained
by [27] method. The conclusive outcome from the analysis suggest that the proposed controller adapts the disturbance rejection
more efficiently. The IAE indices for the proposed method is observed to reduce from 0.1622 to 0.1007, a 38% reduction, than that
exhibited by [27] method. Meanwhile, ISE indices for the proposed method reduced from 0.0022 to 0.0012, a 45% reduction, when
compared with [27] method. It is obvious from the analysis that the proposed controller adapts the disturbance rejection better
efficiently.
Table 3 presents the estimated values of Maximum sensitivity (𝑀𝑠 ) and total variation (TV) in manipulated variable. On
observation it is noticed that the TV index value is less for the proposed method when compared with reported method. Hence, it
can be inferred that the proposed method has better control action. It is also examined from Table 3 that, the maximum value of
sensitivity function is lowest for the proposed method which signifies that the proposed controller is more robust. Fig. 9 describes
the complementary sensitivity function curve and uncertainty curve for the two methods. It is evident that the uncertainty curve

8
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Fig. 7. Control action for servo response using controller settings from the proposed and [27] method.

Fig. 8. Response of closed loop regulatory by considering PID settings from proposed method and [27] (case study-2).

Table 3
Quantitative analysis of the closed loop performances.
Servo problem Regulatory problem
Ex. Methods TV Ms
IAE ISE IAE ISE
Proposed 4.624 2.5606 0.1007 0.0012 4855 1.6604
Ex.2
Ghousiya et al. 5.3601 2.8307 0.1622 0.0022 6650 2.0235

Ex: Example

drop below the function curve thereby satisfying the stability criteria. From the various simulation studies, it is apparent that the
proposed method achieves enhanced closed loop responses.

3.3. Simulation example 3 (the NMP USOPTD process with one unstable pole (𝜏1 > 𝜏2 )

A process of an industrial boiler steam drum is considered for this study. This involves varying the boiler feed water to control
the level in the boiler steam drum. The process transfer function of the boiler steam drum is given as [28]
54.7(−0.418𝑠 + 1)𝑒−0.1𝑠
𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) = (46)
106.09𝑠2 + 98.94𝑠 − 1
The considered model parameters for generalized Eq. (3) are, 𝑎 = 106, 𝑏 = 98.94, 𝐾𝑝 = 54.7, 𝑝 = 0.418 and 𝐿 = 0.1. Accordingly,
the proposed method will be compared with the method documented by [27]. Wherein the PID controller parameters given by [27]

9
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Fig. 9. Complimentary sensitivity function plot for case study-2 representing robustness for +10% uncertainty in time delay.

Fig. 10. Response of closed loop servo by considering PID settings from proposed method and [27] (case study-3).

are 𝐾𝑐 = 3.2306, 𝜏𝐼 = 3.5055, 𝜏𝐷 = 0.7981 while considering 𝜆 = 0.85 when set point filter is
(0.85𝑠 + 1)
𝐹𝑅 (𝑠) = (47)
(2.5018𝑠2 + 3.4186𝑠 + 1)
The PID settings obtained from the proposed method are 𝐾𝑐 = 2.341, 𝜏𝐼 = 4.4759, 𝜏𝐷 = 0.9234 with tuning parameters as 𝛼 =
−0.788, 𝛽 = −0.567𝛼, 𝛾 = −1.312𝛼 values respectively. Based on the proposed and reported method a comparative plot for closed
loop servo performance of the control system is represented in Fig. 10. It is evident from Fig. 10 that the proposed method produces
superior closed loop servo response with lower overshoot than that of the reported method. The variation of manipulated variable
obtained from both the controllers is presented in Fig. 11. Meanwhile the performance of the closed loop regulatory problem is
shown in Fig. 12. The proposed method is found to be have lower overshoot for closed loop regulatory response when compared
with reported method. Table 4 provides the results of quantitative analysis of the closed loop responses in terms of integral errors
and maximum sensitivity value.
However the closed loop servo response suggest that the proposed method is more efficient because of its relatively lower ISE
and IAE values. A significant lower values of ISE and IAE indicates that the proposed method is more efficient for the disturbance
rejection problem. The IAE for the proposed method is visually perceived to be reduced from 0.0364 to 0.0183, a 49% reduction,
than that obtained by [27] method. The ISE for the proposed method is noticed to be lowered from 0.0002 to 0.0001, a 50%
reduction when compared with [27] method. It is obvious from the analysis that the proposed controller adapts the disturbance
rejection efficiently.
Table 4 presents the estimated values of Maximum sensitivity (𝑀𝑠 ) and total variation (TV) in manipulated variable. On
observation it is evident that the TV index is significantly lesser for the proposed method when compared with existing methods.
Hence it may be inferred that, a better control operation could be achieved from the present method. It is also observed from Table 4

10
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Fig. 11. Control action through servo response by considering controller settings from proposed method and [27].

Fig. 12. Response of closed loop regulatory by considering PID settings from proposed method and [27] (case study-3).

Table 4
Quantitative analysis of the closed loop performances.
Servo problem Regulatory problem
Ex. Methods TV Ms
IAE ISE IAE ISE
Proposed 1.8646 1.1301 0.0183 0.0001 12320 2.1543
Ex.3
Ghousiya et al. 1.9998 1.1854 0.0364 0.0002 10680 2.8493

Ex: Example

that, the maximum value of sensitivity function is lowest for the proposed method. Accordingly the proposed controller is more
robust when compared with existing controller. Fig. 13 describes the complementary sensitivity function curve and uncertainty curve
for the two considered methods. The findings satisfies the robust stability criteria since uncertainty curve is above the sensitivity
function curve. From the simulation studies, it is apparent that the proposed method achieves enhanced closed loop responses when
compared with existing methods.

3.4. Simulation example 4 (the NMP USOPTD with two unstable poles)

Consider an autocatalytic reaction taking place in unstable isothermal CSTR, given as follows
𝐾1
A + 2B ←←←←←→
← 3B

11
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Fig. 13. Complimentary sensitivity function plot for case study-3 representing robustness for +10% uncertainty in time delay.

Table 5
Quantitative analysis of the closed loop performances.
Servo problem Regulatory problem
Ex. Methods TV Ms
IAE ISE IAE ISE
Proposed 188 193 260 445 221.23 2.1566
Ex.4
SC2016a 196 203 296 488 163.196 3.271

Ex: Example,
a
SC2016: [18]

The deactivation reaction is given as

𝐾2
B ←←←←←→
← C
The dynamic model equations for the catalytic reactor are formulated as follows
𝑑𝐶𝐴 𝐹
= (𝐶𝐴𝑓 − 𝐶𝐴 ) − 𝑘1 𝐶𝐴 𝐶𝐵2 (48)
𝑑𝑡 𝑉
𝑑𝐶𝐵 𝐹
= 𝑘1 𝐶𝐴 𝐶𝐵2 − 𝑘2 𝐶𝐵 + (𝐶𝐵𝑓 − 𝐶𝐵 ) (49)
𝑑𝑡 𝑉
The parameters of the CSTR are given as 𝑘1 = 1 𝐿2 /(mol2 s), 𝑘2 = 1/50 s−1 , (F/V) = 1/250 s, CA, f = 1 gmol/L, and CB, f =
0. The nonlinear model of an auto catalytic reactor is linearized around an unstable operating point (CA = 0.1744 mol/l, CB =
0.1376 mol/l). 𝐹 is considered as a manipulated variable. The locally linearized transfer function which relates concentration of A
(CA) to the flow rate is given by [18]
−0.2679(−41.66675𝑠 + 1)𝑒−20𝑠
𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) = (50)
279.03𝑠2 + 2.9781𝑠 − 1
Here, 𝐾𝑝 = −0.2679, 𝑝 = 41.6667, 𝑎 = 279.03, and 𝑏 = −2.9781. A measurement time delay of 𝐿 = 20 s is considered. The
proposed method is compared with the method stated by [18]. The controller parameters proposed by [18] were 𝐾𝑐 = 0.868, 𝜏𝐼 = -
41.439, 𝜏𝐷 = 1.846 for the two tuning parameters 𝛼 = 10 and 𝛽 = 3.78. The controller parameters obtained from proposed method
are 𝐾𝑐 = 0.7378, 𝜏𝐼 = −37.165, 𝜏𝐷 = 5.0765 with tuning parameters as 𝛼 = 0.3810, 𝛽 = 0.464 𝛼, 𝛾 = −1.821 𝛼. For such high time
delay, stability of the given reactor was prioritized.
A unit step change in set point is introduced to evaluate the servo and regulatory responses with load disturbance variable at
time 𝑡 = 0 respectively as represented in Figs. 14 and 16. It can be clearly understood that, proposed method gives much better
response with minimum oscillation as well as reduced overshoot. Thus, the settling time is also reduced for the proposed method.
The change in manipulated variable is shown in Fig. 15, there is no significant change observed from the plot. The IAE and ISE
obtained are lowest for the proposed method. It can be noticed from the data in Table 5 that the maximum value of sensitivity
function is lowest for the proposed method which signifies that the proposed controller is more robust.
Fig. 17 describes the complementary sensitivity function curve for the two methods, which is observed to be below the uncertainty
curve. Thereby it is satisfying the robust stability criteria. From the simulation studies, it is apparent that the proposed method
achieves enhanced closed loop responses.

4. Conclusions

This article presents a method to design a PID controller for an unstable non-minimum phase SOPTD process. The designed
PID controller was implemented on linear and nonlinear processes to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The

12
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Fig. 14. Closed loop Servo response from case study-4 for PI settings identified from proposed method and [18].

Fig. 15. Control action obtained from servo response for case study-4 using controller settings of proposed method and [18].

Fig. 16. Closed loop regulatory response for case study-4 using the PID settings obtained from proposed method and [18].

13
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

Fig. 17. Complimentary sensitivity function plot showing the bound of robustness for +10% uncertainty in time delay for case study 4.

significant findings recorded the lowest value of maximum magnitudes for the sensitivity indices. This credential recommended that
the proposed method was more robust than the compared method reported in the literature. The four simulation studies demonstrate
that the proposed method outperformed previously reported methods in terms of overshoot, undershoot, settling time, and TV index.
Moreover, a significant improvement of closed-loop performances in time integral errors such as IAE and ISE was observed. The
smoother control performance obtained by the proposed method established better responses when compared with [18,27] methods.

5. Nomenclature

BIBO Bounded Input Bounded Output

FOPTD First Order Plus Time Delay
SOPTD Second Order Plus Time Delay
NMP Non Minimal Phase
ITAE Integral Time Arithmetic Error
IAE Integral Absolute Error
ISE Integral Square Error
TV Total Variation
𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾 Optimal tuning Parameters
CSTR Continuous Stir Tank Reactor
PID Proportional–Integral–Derivative
𝐾𝑐 Proportional Gain
L Dead Time
𝑢, 𝐹 Manipulated Variable
𝑒 Error
CLTF Closed Loop Transfer Function
𝑇 (𝑠) Complementary Sensitive Function
𝑀𝑠 Maximum Sensitivity Function
N Number of Data points
𝐹𝑟 (𝑠) Set point Filter
CA Concentration of A
⊗ Hadamard Product

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Padma Sree R, Chidambaram M. Control of unstable systems. Navrosa Publishing House; 2005.
[2] Sankar Rao C, Chidambaram M. Subspace identification of dynamical systems. New Delhi: Narosa Publishing House; 2017.

14
P. Patil, S.S. Anchan and C.S. Rao Results in Control and Optimization 7 (2022) 100117

[3] Sree RP, Srinivas MN, Chidambaram M. A simple method of tuning PID controllers for stable and unstable FOPTD systems. Comput Chem Eng
2004;28:2201–18.
[4] Kumar DBS, Sree RP. Tuning of IMC based PID controllers for integrating systems with time delay. ISA Trans 2016;63:242–55.
[5] Seborg DE, Edgar TF, Mellichamp DA. Process dynamics and control. U.S.A: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2004.
[6] Skogestad S. Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller tuning. J Process Control 2003;13(4):291–309.
[7] Sree RP, Chidambaram M. Simple method of tuning PI controllers for stable inverse response systems. J Indian Inst Sci 2003;83:73–85.
[8] Goodwin GC, Graebe SF, Salgado ME, et al. Control system design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2001.
[9] Shahrokhi M, Zomorrodi A. Comparison of PID controller tuning methods. Department of Chemical & Petroleum Engineering Sharif University of Technology;
2013, p. 1–2.
[10] Åström KJ, Hägglund T. Revisiting the Ziegler–Nichols step response method for PID control. J Process Control 2004;14(6):635–50.
[11] Giwa A, Karacan S. Decoupling control of a reactive distillation process using Tyreus-Luyben technique. ARPN J Eng Appl Sci 2012;7(10):1–10.
[12] Hussain KM, Zepherin RAR, Kumar MS. Comparison of tuning methods of PID controllers for FOPTD system. Int J Innov Res Electr Electron Instrum
Control Eng 2014;2(3):1177–80.
[13] Arora A, Hote YV, Rastogi M. Design of PID controller for unstable system. In: International conference on logic, information, control and computation.
Springer; 2011, p. 19–26.
[14] Tavakoli S, Tavakoli M. Optimal tuning of PID controllers for first order plus time delay models using dimensional analysis. In: 2003 4th I nternational
conference on control and automation proceedings. IEEE; 2003, p. 942–6.
[15] Kaya I. IMC based automatic tuning method for PID controllers in a smith predictor configuration. Comput Chem Eng 2004;28(3):281 – 290.
[16] Ho WK, Hang CC, Cao LS. Tuning of PID controllers based on gain and phase margin specifications. Automatica 1995;31(3):497–502.
[17] Liu T, Zhang W, Gu D. Analytical design of two-degree-of-freedom control scheme for open-loop unstable processes with time delay. J Process Control
2005;15(5):559–72.
[18] Seshagiri Rao A, Chidambaram M. Enhanced two-degrees-of-freedom control strategy for second-order unstable processes with time delay. Ind Eng Chem
Res 2006;45:3604–14.
[19] Anil C, Sree RP. PID control of integrating systems using multiple dominant poleplacement method. Asia Pac J Chem Eng 2015;10(5):734–42.
[20] Hauksdottir AS, Sigurosson SP. The matching coefficients PID controller. In: American control conference. IEEE; 2011.
[21] Uma S, Chidambaram M, Rao AS. Set point weighted modified smith predictor with PID filter controllers for non-minimum-phase (NMP) integrating
processes. Chem Eng Res Des 2010;88(5):592–601.
[22] Krishna D. Tuning of PID controllers for isothermal continuous stirred tank reactor. Elixir Int J 2012;44:7218–22.
[23] Varun AS, Sree RP. Tuning of PID controllers for first order stable/unstable time delay systems with a zero. Int J Comput Technol Appl 2015;8:985–94.
[24] Kaya I. Two-degree-of-freedom IMC structure and controller design for integrating processes based on gain and phase-margin specifications. IEEE Proc D
2004;151(4):481–7.
[25] Normey-Rico JE, Camacho EF. Simple robust dead-time compensator for first-order plus dead-time unstable processes. Ind Eng Chem Res
2008;47(14):4784–90.
[26] Uma S, Rao AS. Enhanced modified smith predictor for second-order non-minimum phase unstable processes. Internat J Systems Sci 2016;47(4):966–81.
[27] Ghousiya B, Rao AS, Radhakrishnan TK. Enhanced IMC based PID controller design for non-minimum phase (NMP) integrating processes with time delays.
ISA Trans 2017;68:223–34.
[28] Shamsuzzoha M, Lee M. PID controller design for integrating processes with time delay. Korean J Chem Eng 2008;25(4):637–45.

15