ooos1098(95)001050
Auromatica, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 7182, 1996
Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. AU rights reserved
ooo5m&3/% $15.00 + 0.00
Development and Evaluation of an Autotuning and
Adaptive PID Controller*
ERIC POULIN,? ANDRE POMERLEAU,? ANDRE DESBIENSt and DANIEL HODOUINS
An autotuning and adaptive PI D controller based on the identification of a
secondorder discretetime model with time delay is developed and com
pared with three commercial adaptive controllers.
Kev WordsPID control; automatic tunina: adantive control; identification; parameter estimation;
filt&ng; industrial control.
AbstractThis paper describes the design of a practical
autotuning and adaptive singleinputsingleoutput (SISO)
PID controller (AAC). The AAC can control processes with
stable and unstable zeros, processes with an integrator,
unstable processes and standard aperiodic processes. It uses
an explicit identification with a recursive parameter
estimation of a secondorder with delay model. The
regulator tuning methods are based on an approximate
minimization of the ITAE criterion by applying polezero
cancellation, phase margin and maximum peak resonance
specitications, with special considerations for delays, unstable
zeros and poles. The data filtering, the identification, the
tuning mechanism and the supervisory shell are described.
Useful guidelines for PI and PID tuning for SISO processes
are given. The AAC performances are compared using a
benchmark test with commercial adaptive PID controllers:
Foxboro 76OC, Fisher DPR 910 and Leeds & Northrup
Electromax V.
1. INTRODUCIION
Unpredictable changes in processes dynamics
lead to poor control performances if controller
parameters are not properly adapted. Some of
these changes arise from nonlinearities, process
aging, production strategy changes, raw material
property modifications and changes over equip
ment maintenance cycles. Adaptive control is
widely discussed in the literature, and reviews of
the evolution of adaptive control algorithms and
products have been given by Astrom (1987),
Keyes and Kaya (1989), Chan (1991) and
Astrom et al. (1993). Comparative studies of
commercial and academic controllers have been
presented by Nachtigal (1986), Minter and
*Received 26 August 1994; revised 17 March 1995;
received in final form 20 June 1995. This paper was not
presented at any IFAC meeting. This paper was recom
mended for publication in revised form by Associate Editor
P. J. Gawthrop under the direction of Editor C. C. Hang.
Corresponding author Dr %ic Poulin. Tel. +l 418 656 2131
ext. 4785; Fax +l 418 656 3159; Email
Eric.Poulin@gel.ulaval.ca.
t Departement de Genie filectrique, Universite Laval,
SainteFoy, Quebec, Canada GlK 7P4.
$ Departement de Mines et Metallurgic, Universite Laval,
SainteFoy, Quebec, Canada GlK 7P4.
Fisher (1988), Dumont et al. (1989), Sorrells
(1989), Cao and McAvoy (1990), Hang and Sin
(1991) and Isermann et al. (1991).
In spite of the increasing number of successful
industrial applications of adaptive control, there
is room for improvement. Adaptive control
compromises with adaptation performances,
stability and robustness in order to cope with
industrial environment (De Larminat, 1989;
Matko, 1993). In many cases, adaptation
performances are reduced to ensure stability and
robustness in practical applications (Song et al.,
1984; Bartlomiej and Andrzej, 1988). Superv
isory shells including safety nets and special
tricks must be used to overcome violations of
theoretical developments of the controller
(Albertos et al ., 1989; McIntosh et al., 1992).
Finally, the types of processes that adaptive PID
controllers can control are sometimes limited to
standard aperiodic minimumphase processes.
This paper describes the development of a
practical autotuning and adaptive PID con
troller (AAC). The PID controller structure has
been retained, since it is the most widely used in
industry, and it is able to control a wide range of
processes if properly tuned. The AAC is based
on an explicit identification of a secondorder
model with delay and a design step to tune the
controller. Model identification and controller
tuning are under a supervisory shell that ensures
good performances in real conditions. The AAC
controls processes with stable and unstable
zeros, processes with an integrator, overdamped
and unstable processes.
The paper is organized as follows. The data
filtering procedures are presented first. After
wards, the identification method and its supervi
sion system are described. The rules and the
design procedures for the PID tuning are
explained, and, finally, comparisons with com
72 I?. Poulin et al.
mercial adaptive PID controllers are presented.
The main contribution to the paper is to present
an adaptive and autotuning PID controller that
can handle most types of industrial processes.
The paper describes the explicit design of the
data acquisition and filtering system for
recursive identification. It also summarizes
efficient PID tuning methods based on frequency
responses.
2. DATA FILTERING
Data filtering is necessary to obtain satisfac
tory estimation results. Noise and external
disturbance effects must be attenuated as much
as possible in order to use reliable data for
identification and model updating. Even when
noises and disturbances are not present, filtering
is required to mask the effect of unmodeled
dynamics, since one is attempting to model
highorder systems with a loworder model
(Mohtadi, 1988). Filtering the input and output
data acts on the bias distribution of the
estimated transfer function (Wahlberg and
Ljung, 1986; Ljung, 1987). It is thus possible to
emphasize and depress different frequency bands
by a proper choice of filters.
Figure 1 presents the data filtering system for
identification. First, an antialiasing analog
lowpass filter is used and is considered as a part
of the process. Afterwards, a fast sampling is
performed (w,& and both input and output data
are bandpassfiltered. Identical digital filters are
applied in order to avoid modifications of the
identified transfer function. The bandpass filter is
realized by combining digital lowpass and
highpass filters. The digital lowpass filter
attenuates highfrequency noise and reduces the
effect of unmodeled dynamics. The digital
highpass filter allows identification of a process
around a set point and attenuates the effect of
nonzero mean disturbances. Finally, following
the digital filtering, some samples can be
IDENTIFICATION
DIGITAL HP
DIGITAL LP
Fig. 1. Data filtering for identification.
dropped to go down to a lower sampling
frequency ( w,~) appropriate for identification
purposes.
A detailed procedure for the design of the
data acquisition system for recursive identifica
tion is given by Poulin et al. (1994). The analog
lowpass filter is chosen according to the desired
attenuation at the sampling frequency osl, the
allowable phase margin reduction for control
applications and the acceptable system modifica
tion by addition of supplementary poles
(Pomerleau and Hodouin, 1994). The digital
lowpass filter is selected to match the desired
closedloop bandwidth o,, (Shook et al., 1991)
and the choice of the digital highpass filter is a
compromise between the elimination time of the
effect of nonzero mean disturbances and the
allowable information attenuation that slows
estimation convergence (Astrbm and Witten
mark, 1989).
In the AAC the analog lowpass filter and the
fast sampling frequency w,, are not managed by
the autotuning and adaptation mechanisms.
This part of the data acquisition system does not
need to be adapted, since the controlled systems
are oversampled at this step. A secondorder
analog lowpass filter with a cutoff frequency
%3
= +)Q 1s . used. This gives a 40 dB
attenuation at w,~.
The digital filter parameters and the second
sampling frequency ws2 are determined auto
matically at the autotuning (Section 5). The
controller roughly evaluates the openloop
dynamics of the system. This information is used
to determine the initial closedloop bandwidth
w,,. The cutoff frequencies of the firstorder
lowpass filter w,~, and the firstorder highpass
filter ucdh are set to o,~, = w,~,, = w,,. The second
sampling frequency w,~ (identification and
control frequency) is chosen according to the
relation w,* = (1020)~~ (Isermann, 1980). After
autotuning, the digital filters and w,~ are not
modified. The data acquisition system is
sufficiently flexible to cope with process dynam
ics variations. It is worth noting that the initial
closedloop bandwidth o,, is only used for the
data acquisition system setting. The information
about the process dynamics required for the PID
tuning is continuously extracted from the
identified model and recalculated.
3. IDENTIFICATION
A secondorder model with delay is identified:
Gil(Z) =
b,z  + bzzm2
d
1 +a,z + a,Z2
z 7
(1)
where d is the delay in number of sampling
Autotuning and adaptive PID 73
periods estimated at the autotuning step
(Section 5). The identification is based on the
damped leastsquares (DLS) algorithm, which is
an extended version of the recursive simple
leastsquares (RLS) algorithm. The DLS algo
rithm is more appropriate for adaptive control,
since it weights increments of the estimated
parameter vector. This gives more control on the
adaptation rate. The DLS criterion is
J(6) = i rk[y(k)  CpT(k)ii(t)]2
k=rN
+ II&(0@(0  &t  1))11. (2)
The weighting matrix Ad(t) is diagonal and
weights the parameters variations. For an
nparameter model,
A,(t) = diag [al(t) a&) . . .
%(f)l* (3)
A standard form of the DLS algorithm is given
by Lambert (1987):
6(t) = @(t  1) + K(t)[y(t)  ii=@ l)cp(t)]
+ P(t  l)h(t)A,(t)[@t  1)  i&  2)],
(4)
K(t) =
P(t  l)cp(t)
A(?) + cp(t  l)P(t  l)cp(t  1)
(5)
P(t) = $j
P(t) 
P(t)cp(t  1)&t  l)P(t)
h(t) + cp(t  l)P(t)cp(t  1) 1
(6)
P(t) = P(t  1)
_ 2 P[_&  l)r$:P;_*(t  l)(Y@)
1 + rTPi_,(t  l)ricYi(t)
(7)
i=l
PJ(t  1) = P[_l(f  1)
_ Pi_,(t  l)rirFP:_I(t  l)al(t)
1 + rTPfI(t  l)riaI
(8)
PA(t  1) = P(t  l),
(9)
where ri are the successive basis vectors, e.g.
rl =[l 0 . . . O]=,
(10)
and
a:(t) =
a&)  A(+#  1)
A(t)
(11)
When the weighting matrix Ad(t) is taken as
diag [0 0 . . . 01, the DLS algorithm is equiv
alent to the RLS algorithm.
Some modifications that improve the algo
rithm performances in practical situations have
been implemented (Sripada and Fisher, 1987;
Shah and Cluett, 1991; Desbiens et al., 1994).
They are the same as in the RLS case:
l normalization of the regression vector;
l constant trace through a variable forgetting
factor;
l information measurement for turning adap
tation on and off;
l stability/instability check;
l parameter variations and maximum limits.
The parameter setting for these modifications
and the supervisory shell is performed at the
autotuning step (Section 5)
Normalization of inputoutput data is useful
to prevent the effect of unbounded modelling
errors and to keep values in the same magnitude
range. The output y(t) and the regressor vector
q(t) are divided by
n(t) = p~(t  1) + (1  p) max [max IcpWL 77d1
where
(12)
Os/J.l, To>O.
(13)
The trace of the covariance matrix P(t) is a
measure of the magnitude of P(t) and hence of
the magnitude of the adaptation gain K(t).
Setting the trace of P(t) constant ensures a
constant adaptation gain and prevents covari
ante blowup. The algorithm is then able, by a
proper choice of the trace, to track process
parameter variations.
A measurement of information is given by
mi(t) = cp(t  l)P(t  l)cp(t  1).
(14)
It gives the possibility to switch the estimation
off when the excitation is poor and on when the
excitation is rich. This prevents model degrada
tion during good control periods.
Some verifications are made on the new
model before it is transferred to the tuning
module. A stability check ensures that a stable
model is used to control a stable openloop
process, and vice versa. Gain limits constrain the
gain of the model between certain limits.
Maximum values of the parameters and the
parameter variations can be added to ensure a
smoother adaptation.
4. CONTROLLER TUNING
The PID has an interacting structure. This
structure is equivalent, with proper parameter
conversions (Besharati Rad and Gawthrop,
1991) to the noninteracting one, but it has the
advantage that the poles can be directly
cancelled. Its equation in the s domain is given
by
U(s) K, (1 + 7$)(l+ Tds)
G&)==
E(s) TTi 1+&s
(15)
74 E. Poulin et al.
where
E(s) = R,(s)  Y(s), R,(s) = $$)
(16)
f
and, in its discrete form,
G,(z) =
Po+p,Z'p*Z2 1 p
lz Ipz
with
PI =K,
p2= K$
5
p = e7;7;.
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
It should be noted that the setpoint changes
R(s) are filtered (R,(s)) to avoid the derivative
kick. This gives the possibility of having a
twodegreeoffreedom controller. By a proper
choice of the gain of the controller and a proper
setpoint filtering, it is possible to have different
dynamics for load disturbances and setpoint
response.
The tuning rules used by AAC are classified
into seven different cases that include all types of
process controlled by the AAC. The rules are
gathered in Table 1. The user has first to specify
the class of the process, i.e. if it is stable,
unstable or has an integrator. Afterwards, the
characterization is perfromed automatically by
the controller at the autotuning level. The
process is allowed to change from one case to an
other during adaptation while staying in the
same process class. A complete discussion of the
tuning rules is given in Pomerleau (1994) and
Poulin and Pomerleau (1995).
According to the certainly equivalent prin
ciple, the model transfer function G,(s) is
assumed to be identical to the process transfer
function G,,(s) for the tuning step. A sufficient
phase margin A@ is preserved for modelling
errors. The tuning methods are presented in the
s domain, but are implemented in the z domain
Table 1. AAC PID tuning for the 7 different cases
CCW
K 7; G T
1
T,lK,(T + 6) C r,
0.2Tz
2
T,,I K,V, +6) T,
3
T,I K,(T, +6) TI T? 7;,
4
T,I K,(T, +27;,+ 6) T, r, ?;~T,l(r, +2U
5
s,T,lK,
4m+ 6)
l.?T,4(T,+8)
 6 3.53/K, T,
7 2.5 w m..lKp 21(0.27, +8) 7; 0.27,
in the controller to avoid discretetocontinuous
and continuoustodiscrete conversions. Limited
calculations in the s domain are used for
nomininmumphase and unstable processes to
overcome problems due to poles and zeros
outside the unit circle.
Case I
Kpeeas
q4s) =(1 + T,s)(l + T2s) J T 55% (22)
The process is stable, and has two significant
time constants. A PID with filter compensation
is used.
Speci,fications.
The desired closedloop transfer function
G,,(s) should behave as a firstorder system
with delay, (23), in the ideal case (Seborg et
al., 1989). The specification can be achieved
when no derivative filter is used:
G,,(s) = &.
c
In order to obtain similar dynamics to the
openloop response, the desired closedloop
time constant T, is set to T, = T,.
For real applications, a derivative filter must
be used to prevent highfrequency noise
amplification. The time constant of this filter is
chosen as Tf =0.2T,.
The phase margin for overdamped processes is
.
given by
AQ, = 180 _ 180
?r
It is minimum (A~)mi) when T1 = T2, and
decreases with increasing delay 8. For processes
without delay, the minimum phase margin is
AR,,, =
78, and for processes with delay 6 = T,,
it decreases to Audi, = 55.
Case 2
KpemS
G,(s) =t1 + T,sjtl + T2s) J
i? 5Tz. (25)
The process is stable, and has one significant
time constant Tl. A PI compensation is used.
Switching the derivative Td off when T,/ T2 >5 is
quasioptimal for a secondorder process
(Pomerleau, 1994) according to the ITAE
criterion (integral time average error):
ITAE =
I
,E(T), z dr.
(26)
0
Autotuning and adaptive PID 75
Specifications.
l The desired closedloop response should
behave as a firstorder system with delay (see
(23)), with similar dynamics to the openloop
response T, = Tl in the ideal case. The
specification can be achieved for purely
firstorder processes Tz =0.
The phase margin for overdamped processes
is given by
AQ, = 180  y[;+tani(T,+;+T,)
s
+
T,+a+T, 1
(27)
It is minimum (A@mi) when T2 = f T,, and
decreases with increasing delay 6. For processes
without delay, the minimum phase margin is
Alvin = 80, and decreases to A@,i = 58 for
processes with delay S = &.
Case 3
K,(l + Td)e&
G,(s) =(1 + T,s)(l + T,s) To > O. t2*)
The process is stable, with a stable zero. A PID
with filter compensation is used.
Specijications.
l The desired closedloop response should
behave as a firstorder system with delay (see
(23)), and with similar dynamics to the
openloop response, T, = Tl.
The phase margin for overdamped processes is
given by
60 = 180  F (;+&). (29)
It decreases with increasing delay S. For
processes without delay, the minimum phase
margin is A@i = 90, and decreases to A@min =
60 for processes with delay S = Tl.
Case 4
K,(l  Tos)ewSs
GP(s) =(1 + T,s)(l + T2s) To * (30)
The process is stable, with an unstable zero. A
PID with filter compensation is used.
Specifications.
l The adaptation of the internal model con The process is unstable with a largely dominant
troller (IMC) design with dynamics similar to time constant & and a delay small compared
open loop response T, = Tl (Morari and
Zahriou, 1989) is used. The IMC specification
is
GIMc(s)G,,,(s) = (  Tos)e
(1 + T$)(l + T,s) (31)
The phase margin for overdamped processes is
given by
180
A@ = 180  
7r
X{E+tanl[
(& + 2T,)(T, + 2To + 6)
+tar
To
(t,+2To+S) 1
(32)
For processes with To = & and no delay the
minimum phase margin is A<P,i = 65. It
decreases to A@min = 56 for processes with
T,=T,andS=T,.
Case 5
 lK,epS
G(s) = (1 + T,s)(l + T2s)
O.l6T,i(T,+ S)10.3T,. (33)
The process is unstable, with a dominant
unstable time constant. A PI compensation is
used. The tuning method is based on the
calculation of the frequency where the phase of
G,(s)G,,,(s) is maximum and on a phasemargin
specification AQ, = 25 (Poulin and Pomerleau,
1995). The frequency where the phase of
G&)G&), Q(w),
is maximum is chosen to be
the openloop crossover frequency w,. Knowing
the expressions for (P(o), o,, and the phase
margin specification, K can be calculated. K, is
then adjusted to have the desired w,. It should
be noted that if T2 +6 >0.3Tl, the phasemargin
specification cannot be respected, since the
phase of G,(s) is always smaller than 155. A
PID must then be used, and this case is not
discussed here. The expression for w,, is
(34)
Case 6
76 E. Poulin et al.
with T,. In order to limit the controller gain K,,
which reaches, very large values when T2 +6 <<
T,, the specification A@ = 25 is dropped when
Tz + 6 10*16T,. The values of T = T, and
KcKp = 3.53 calculated from Case 5 when
Tz +S =0.16T, are fixed. The phase margin
increases from 25 to 90 as T, +6 decreases.
Case 7
G,(s) =
K,e
~(1 + T,s)
(36)
The process has an integrator, a dominant time
constant and a delay. A PID with filter
compensation is used. The tuning method is
similar to that used for unstable processes. The
derivative time constant Td is used to cancel T,
and the filter time constant is set to 7; = 0.2T,.
The frequency w,,, where the phase of
G,(s)G,,(s) is maximum is calculated, and 7; is
adjusted to give a phase margin of 65. The gain
K, is then adjusted to give a maximum peak
resonance Mp of 1 dB (Poulin and Pomerleau,
1995). The expression for wmilX is
J
1
%l,X =
7;(6 + 0.2T,)
5. AAC AUTOTUNING
The AAC software offers two types of
autotuning. The first is performed in open loop
for stable processes, and the second in closed
loop for processes with an integrator and
unstable processes. In open loop, the process is
excited by manipulated variable steps around the
operating point. In closed loop, the process
output is kept in a narrow band around the
operating point by the controller (the controller
does not need initial values of PID parameters).
The user has to preclassify the process in one
of the three classes: stable, unstable, or with an
integrator. Whether the process is stable
(openloop autotuning), unstable or with an
integrator (closedloop autotuning), the mag
nitude of the step changes or the width of the
narrow band within which the process must be
kept must be specified. The other parameters are
adjusted by the controller. It should be noted
that the user has the possibility to modify these
parameters.
The first step of the autotuning consists in
measurement of the noise band and estimation
of the delay and the openloop dynamics. The
noise band is used to detect the effective delay
and to adjust some parameters of the supervisory
shell in the last step of the autotuning. The
openloop dynamics is used to determine the
initial closedloop bandwidth wb (used at the
autotuning step only). The sampling frequency
wS2, the digital filter cutoff frequencies and the
step length (in the case of openloop auto
tuning) are selected according to wb. The delay
is provided to the identification algorithm.
During the second step of the autotuning, the
process is excited by step changes (in both types
of autotuning). The identification algorithm is
initialized with a high trace value and no
constraint. As the autotuning progresses, the
trace is slowly decreased to facilitate conver
gence. In the last step of autotuning, the
parameters of the supervisory shell are adjusted
according to the identified model, the process
dynamics and the noise level.
6. TESTS AND COMPARISONS
The AAC autotuning and adaptive control
performances are evaluated and compared with
three commercial adaptive PID controllers:
Fisher DPR 910, Foxboro 760C (Exact) and
Leeds & Northrup Electromax V. The adaptive
control and autotuning principles of these
controllers are described briefly.
Fisher DPR 910
In the adaptive mode, the controller tracks the
point on the Nyquist curve where the phase of
the process is  180 by bandpassfiltering the
process inputoutput. A combination of phase
and gain margin is used to tune the controller
(Hagglund and Astrbm, 1991). The autotuning
function is based on the relay feedback principle
that can be seen as ultimate cycle with limited
amplitude. The ultimate gain K, and the
ultimate frequency w, are used to tune the
controller according to modified ZieglerNichols
rules.
Foxboro 760C
The controller adaptation mechanism is based
on the analysis of the transient response of the
closedloop system to set point changes or load
disturbances (Kraus and Myron, 1984). Para
meters are tuned by an expert system according
to overshoot specifications and damping of the
transient response. The autotuning evaluates
the effective dead time, the process gain and
sensitivity from a step response, and initially
tunes the controller.
Leeds & Northrup Electromax V
The controller recursively identifies the
parameters of a secondorder model with the
instrumental variable algorithm. The PID para
Autotuning and adaptive PID 77
0 20 40 60 SO 100 120 140 MO
TIME CW3JNDS)
Fig. 2. Setpoint change response for Process A: AAC ();
Fisher (..); Foxboro (); Leeds & Northrup (.).
meters are adjusted to produce the desired
closed loop set point change response (Hoopes et
al., 1983). The user provides the desired 90%
time response of the closedloop system. The
autotuning is performed in closed loop (the
controller needs initial PID parameters), and
consists in a series of setpoint changes to excite
the process.
Test 1: evaluation of the autotuning functions
An autotuning phase is performed, and is
followed by a setpoint change (4060%) for five
analog processes:
Process A:
2s
Gp(s) = (1+ l&l + 4s) ;
(38)
Process B:
(1 + 20s)eW2
Gr(s) = (1 + lOs)(l + 4s) ;
(39)
Process C:
(1  lOs)ea
Gp(s) = (1 + lOs)(l + 4s) ;
(40)
Table 2. PID settings and ITAE criterion for Process A,
Test 1
Controller K,
7; Td Tf
ITAE
AAC 1.12 11.23 1.90 0.49 1063
Fisher 1.67 18.8 3.03  2571
Foxboro 1.47 12.0 1.8  1459
L&N 0.89 9.2 3.6 1.00 1560
I. .(
: : , I
70  ..
: t
ti5 :
:
. .
_ . .._
. .._
.______..~~ ____._ . . . . . 
__,___,_____ ,._. _...~.,..~,,::
?
0 20 40 M) 80 ,@I ,u) 140 ,a 180
TTME (SECONDS)
Fig. 3. Setpoint response for Process B: AAC (); Fisher
(..); Foxboro (); Leeds & Northrup (.).
Process D:
1
Gp(s) = (1  lOs)(l + 2s) ;
(41)
Process E:
G,(s) =
s(1 + 4s).
(42)
To compare the PID tunings on the same basis,
the PID parameters from the different structures
are converted to the noninteracting PID form
(43)
and the ITAE, criterion (26) is calculated for
each response.
Figure 2 presents the set point change
response for Process A. The PID parameters for
each controller and the ITAE criteria are
presented in Table 2. The AAC response is
nearly optimum according to the ITAE criterion
(57% overshoot). The responses of the other
controllers are also satisfactory.
Setpoint change responses for Process B are
shown in Fig. 3, and the PID parameters and
ITAE criterion are given in Table 3. The AAC
has a good response, since it uses a filter to
cancel the zero. Fisher and Foxboro have to
reduce their gain to cope with the zero, because
they do not have a filter. The result is a sluggish
Table 3. PID settings and ITAE criterion for Process B,
Test 1
Controller K, ?; Td Tf ITAE
AAC 1.07 11.95 2.21 28.03 1853
Fisher 0.31 8.20 1.29  8 763
Foxboro 0.10 5.4 0.53  24 275
L&N 0.51 5.53 12.6 20.00 5 531
78 6.. Poulin et al.
30
:. /
I
15 i
0 50 loo 150 200
TIME (SECONDS)
Fig. 4. Setpoint change response for Process C: AAC ():
Fisher (..): Foxboro ().
Table 4. PID settings and ITAE criterion for Process C.
Test 1
Controller K,
7; Td 7;
ITAE
AAC 0.23 10.61 2.2 I 2.88 8 403
Fisher 0.30 42.40 6.74  89517
Foxboro 0.70 30.60 3.62  23 954
L&N 0.95 13.90 6.00 3.00 392 150
response. The Leeds & Northrup controller has
a filter, but it is not managed by the controller.
In spite of the good initial tuning (K, = 1.
T= 14s Td= 3s and T,= 20s) provided to
initiate the autotuning, the final settings gives an
unsatisfactory response.
70
65
TIME (SECONDS)
Fig. 5. Setpoint change response for Process D: AAC ();
Fisher (.).
Table 5. PID settings and ITAE criterion for Process D.
Test 1
Controller K,
7; G 7;
ITAE
AAC
Fisher
Foxboro
L&N
3.17 16.20  ~ 1591
3.37 8.80   2147
Figure 4 and Table 4 give the results for
Process C. The AAC response is satisfactory.
The Fisher and Foxboro controllers are not able
to cope with the zero. The Leeds & Northrup
response is not presented, since it is unstable.
For process D, only the AAC and Fisher
controllers have been able to succeed in the
autotuning phase. The results are presented in
Fig. 5 and Table 5. The response has a large
overshoot. It is typical of unstable process
response (Poulin and Pomerleau, 1995), but a
phase margin A@ = 25 (AAC) does not lead to
an oscillatory response.
Figure 6 and Table 6 gives the results of the
AAC and Fisher controllers for Process E. The
other controllers failed the autotuning phase.
The AAC and Fisher controllers have approxim
ately the same time responses (&5% of the final
value), but the Fisher response is much more
oscillatory. The AAC response has a small
overshoot that is typical of this type of process
(Poulin and Pomerleau, 1995).
Test 2: dominant time delay and highorder
system
This test shows the results of the AAC
autotuning for a process with a dominant time
delay, (44), and a highorder process, (45).
Figure 7 presents the response for the dominant
timedelay process. Even if PID control is not
suitable for a process with large time delay, it is
I I
0 20 40
TIME
&ONDS) 80 100 120
Fig. 6. Setpoint change response for Process E: AAC ():
Fisher (..).
Table 6. PID settings and ITAE criterion for Process E.
Test 1
Controller K,
7; Td Tr
ITAE
AAC 0.45 14.74 3.51 0.7 2484
Fisher 0.49 8.70 2.2  3544
Foxboro 
L&N
Autotuning and adaptive PID 79
I
I
0 20 40 80 a0
TIME
:&OF& 140 160 180 200
Fig. 7. AAC setpoint change response for the process with a
dominant time delay: process output (); controller output
(..).
possible to have a satisfactory response. In the
present case the delay is equal to the dominant
time constant, and the phase margin A@ = 45.
The response for the fourthorder process is
shown in Fig. 8. It is satisfactory, even if the
model structure does not match the system. The
effect of the small time constants is approxim
ated by a time delay by the controller:
10s
Gp(S) = (1+ &I + 4s)
(4.4)
1
Gp(S) = (1+ lOS)(l + %)(l + 4s)(l+ 2s). (45)
Test 3: evaluation of the adaptation performances
Test 3 combines disturbance rejections, para
metric variations (gain) and setpoint tracking to
accelerate controller returning. The analog
process is presented in Fig. 9. There are step
disturbances acting at different locations.
Disturbance A is completely filtered by the
I
I
0 20 40 80 100 120
TIME
&ONDS)
Fig. 8. AAC setpoint change response for the fourthorder
process: process output () controller output (..).
1 lOs+l]
Fig. 9. Benchmark for Tests 3 and 4.
process dynamics, and Disturbance B is only
filtered by the 4s lag. The gain variations are
also filtered by the 4 s lag. Table 7 summarizes
the events of Test 3. It should be noted that
disturbance A is amplified by the process gain.
The test is first done with a PID with fixed
parameters to show that if the controller is not
adaptive, the system will progressively be less
stable, producing an unsatisfactory response.
The response is presented in Fig. 10. An
adaptive controller has to be used to improve
performances. Figure 11 shows the results of the
AAC. The system is stable, and the responses to
the different events are quite constant, even with
increasing gain. At each of the second setpoint
changes (t = 200 s, 440 s and 680 s), the con
troller is completely adapted and accurately
tuned. The loaddisturbance response is a little
slow compared with the setpointchange res
ponse. This can be improved by the twodegree
offreedom possibility of the AAC. But decreas
ing the phase margin to produce faster
loaddisturbance response reduces the robust
ness and stability of the system. This also leads
to large actions of the manipulated variable. The
response to slow disturbances would be satisfac
tory, but the response to fast disturbances would
be oscillatory.
Figure 12 presents the Fisher results. The
controller had some problems during the gain
changes, notably at t = 80 s. The first setpoint
change response (t = 140 s) is unsatisfactory,
since the controller is not yet adapted. Foxboro
results are given in Fig. 13. Foxboro performed
well, but has an oscillatory response that is
Table 7. Events for Test 3
Time (s) Event

Autotuning phase
20 Disturbance B: 10%
80 Gain variation: l2
140 Setpoint change: 4050%
200 Setpoint change: 5040%
z
Disturbance B: +lO%
Gain variation: 23
380 Setpoint change: 4050%
440 Setpoint change: 504096
500 Disturbance A: 10%
560 Gain variation: 3 to 4
620 Setpoint change: 4050%
680 Setpoint change: 5040%
740 Disturbance A: +lO%
80 l2. Poulin et al.
TIME (SECONDS)
Fig. 10. Fixedmode controller responseTest 3: process
output (): controller output (..).
required by its adaptation mechanism. The
controller gain often reaches high values. This
gives large and noisy actions of the manipulated
variable, but fast response to slow load
disturbances. Figure 14 presents the Leeds &
Northrup results. The controller has satisfactory
responses in the first part of the test (t =O
300 s), but the controller slowly becomes
mistuned, and the system is unstable at the end
of the test.
Test 4: adaptation during a sequence of load
disturbances
The adaptation mechanism is much slower
than the autotuning mechanism. In fact, during
the autotuning phase, the process is submitted
to a deterministic excitation. It is thus easy for
the tuner to extract the required characteristics
of the process. In the process industry many
controllers are used in regulation. The closed
loop is mostly excited by noise, load disturbances
and parametric variations. The adaptation must
take place only when good information is
present, i.e. during parametric variation and
80, I ._  ,._.
0'
0 100 ZM) 300 400 500 Mx) 700 800
TIME (SECONDS)
Fig. Il. AAC responseTest 3: process output ():
controller output (..).
,,. I
0 loo 200 ml 400 500 600 700 800
TIME (SECONDS)
Fig. 12. Fisher responseTest 3: process output ():
controller output (..).
Fig. 13. Foxhoro responseTest 3: process output ():
controller output (.).
after the transients of load disturbances. Without
deterministic excitation (dither signal, setpoint
changes etc.), the adaptation must be slow to
prevent model degradation.
Test 4 shows the adaptation performances of
the AAC during a loaddisturbance sequence.
Sensor noise is also present. The same analog
u
I
u 100 200 1W 400 5W 60l 703 8Cnl
TIME (SECONDS)
Fi g. 14. Leeds & Northrup responseTest 3: process output
(); controller output (..).
Autotuning and adaptive PID 81
Table 8. Events for Test 4
Time (s) Event
REFERENCES

iz
120
180
240
300
360
440
500
580
640
Autotuning phase
Disturbance B: 10%
Gain variation: 12
Disturbance B: +lO%
Disturbance B: 10%
Gain variation: 23
Disturbance B: +lO%
Disturbance A: 10%
Gain variation: 34
Disturbance A: +lO%
Disturbance B: 10%
Disturbance B: +10%
01 I
0 100 200 TIE (SECo%) so0 600 700
Fig. 15. AAC responseTest 4: process output ();
controller output (..).
process as that used in Test 3 is used (see Fig. 9).
Table 8 summarizes the events of Test 4, and
Fig. 15 presents the result of the AAC. The
response is quite constant, and the action is
smooth and clean. It is important to note that
Disturbance A (360s and 500s) is amplified by
the process gain (3 and 4).
7. CONCLUSIONS
The development and evaluation of an
autotuning and adaptive controller (AAC) has
been presented. The performance of the AAC
relies heavily on three elements: efficient data
filtering, supervision of the identification proce
dure and proper tuning rules. The data filtering
is the basis for good identification. The
supervisory shell for the identification procedure
is essential to provide a suitable model to the
tuning system. Proper tuning rules permit
control of a wide range of processes with a PID
controller. The AAC autotuning function and
adaptive performances have been compared with
commercial PID controllers (Fisher DPR 910,
Foxboro 760C and Leeds & Northrup Electro
max V), and have generally given better results.
Albertos, P., F. Morant, J. Salt and M. Martinez (1989).
Practical Issues in the Implementation of Adaptive
Controllers. In Proc. ZFAC workshop on Eualuatio~ of
AdarNive Control Strateaies. Tbilisi. DD. 6974.
Astrom, K. J. (1987). Adaptive Feedback Control. Proc.
I EEE, 75,185217.
Astrom, K. J. and B. Wittenmark (1989). Adaptive Control.
AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
Astrom, K. J., T. IRQglund, C. C. Hang and W. K. Ho
(1993). Automatic tuning and adaptation for PID
controllersa survey. Control Engng Practice, 1,699714.
Bartlomiej, B. and L. Andrzej (1988). The adaptive robust
PID controller. In Proc. 8th IFAC Symp. on I dentijcation
and System Parameter Estimhtion, Beijing, Vol. 1, pp.
227232.
Besharati Rad, A. and P. J. Gawthrop (1991). Explicit self
tuning control for systems with unknown time delay. In
Proc. IFAC Symp. on I ntelligent Tuning and Adaptive
Control, Singapore, pp. 251257. 
Cao. R. and T. McAvov (1990). Evaluation of a oattern
recognition adaptive PID controller. Automatiia, 26,
797801.
Chan, C. W. (1991). Selftuning controllersa review. Hong
Kong Engng. 19,2629.
De Larminat, Ph. (1989). Adaptive PID regulators.
Ambitions and limitations. In Proc. IFAC Workshop on
Robust Adaptive Control, Newcastle, pp. 105110.
Desbiens, A., D. Hodouin, K. Najim and F. Flament (1994).
Longrange predictive control of a rougher flotation unit.
Minerals Engng, 7, 2137.
Dumont, G. A., J. M. MartinSanchez and C. C. Zervos
(1989). Comparison of an autotuned PID regulator and an
adaptive predictive control system on an industrial bleach
plant. Automatica, 25, 3340.
IB&hind, T. and K. J. Astrom (1991). Industrial adaptive
controllers based on frequency response techniques.
Automatica, 27, 599609.
Hang, C. C. and K. K. Sin (1991). A comparative
performance study of PID autotuners. I EEE Control
Syst. Msg., 11,4147.
Hoopes, H. S., W. M. Hawk and R. C. Lewis (1983). A
selftuning controller. I SA Trans., 22,4958.
Isermann, R. (1980). Practical aspects of process identifica
tion. Automatica, 16, 575587.
Isermann, R., Th. Knapp and K.H. Peter (1991). Adaptive
control with continuous and discrete time process
modelsa comparison. In Proc. 9th IFAC Symp. on
I dentification and System Parameter Estimation, Budapest,
Vol. 1, pp. 423428.
Keyes, M. A. and A. Kaya (1989). Evolution of adaptive
control algorithms and products: a critical review and
evaluation. In Proc. IFAC Workshop on Evaluation of
Adaptive Control Strategies in I ndustrial Applications,
Tbilisi, pp. l8.
Kraus, T. W. and T. J. Myron (1984). Selftuning controller
uses pattern recognition approach. Control Engng, June,
pp. 106111.
Lambert, E. P. (1987). Process control applications of
longrange prediction. DPhil thesis, University of Oxford.
 _
Ljung, L. (1987). System I dentificationTheoryfor the User.
PrenticeHall. Englewood Cliffs. NJ.
McIntosh, A. R., b. G. Fisher and S. L. Shah (1992).
Performance adaptive controlgeneral structure and a
case study. J . Proc. Cont., 2,213221.
Matko, D. (1993). Adaptive or robust control? Robust
adaptive control! Elekt&tehnirki Vesmik, 60,158165.
Minter. B. J. and D. G. Fisher (1988). A comoarison of
adaptive controllers: academic . vs industrial.  In Proc.
American Control Conf, Atlanta, GA, Vol. 2, pp.
16531658.
Mohtadi, C. (1988). On the role of prefiltering in parameter
estimation and control. In Proc. _ Workshop on Adaptive
Control Strategies for I ndustrial Use, Lodge Kananaskis,
Alberta, Canada, pp. 261282.
82 fi. Poulin et al.
Morari, M. and E. Zatiriou (1989). Robust Process Control. Research Center, Quebec Government, pp. l43.
PrenticeHall. Enelewood Cliffs. NJ. Sebore. D. E.. T. F. Edear and D. A. Mellichamo 0989).
Nachtigal, C. L. $986). Adaptive controller performance
evaluation: Foxboro EXACT and ASEA Novatune. In
Proc. American Control Conj, Seattle, WA, pp.
14281433.
Pomerleau, A. (1994). Reglage des regulateurs PID par une
mtthode MquentiellePartie 1: rtgles get&ales; Partie
2: applications. Report GRAIIM 9431, prepared for
Mineral Research Center, Quebec Government, pp. l64.
Pomerleau, A. and D. Hodouin (1994). Analog I/O design
for computer applications. Report GRAIIM 9406.
prepared for Mineral Research Center, Quebec Govern
ment, pp. l22.
Poulin, E. and A. Pomerleau (1995). PID tuning for
integrating and unstable processes. Int. J. Control,
submitted.
Poulin, I?., A. Pomerleau, A. Desbiens and D. Hodouin
(1994). Analog and digital filtering for recursive identifica
tion. Report GRAIIM 9408, prepared for Mineral
Pro&s Dyrkmics and ?ontrol. Wiley, New York:
Shah, S. I. and W. R. Cluett (1991). Recursive least squares
based estimation schemes for selftuning control. Can. J.
Chem. Engng, 69,8996.
Shook. D. S., C. Mohtadi and S. L. Shah (1991).
Identification for longrange predictive control. I EE Proc.
Pt D, 138,7484.
Song, H. K., D. G. Fisher and S. L. Shah (1984).
Experimental evaluation of a robust selftuning PID
controller. Gun. J. Chem. Engng, 62,755763.
Sorrels, J. (1989). Comparison of contemporary adaptive
control design techniques. In Proc. 21st Southeastern
Symp. on System Theory, Tallahassee, FI, pp. 636640.
Sripada, N. R. and D. G. Fisher (1987). Improved least
squares identification. Int. J. Control, 46, 18891913.
Wahlberg, B. and L. Ljung (1986). Design variables for bias
distribution in transfer function estimation. I EEE Trans.
Aurom. Conrrol, AC31, 134144.