PDC7

Process
Control
Laboratory
7. PID Controllers
7.0 Overview
7.1 PID controller variants
7.2 Choice of controller type
7.3 Specifications and performance criteria
7.4 Controller tuning based on frequency response
7.5 Controller tuning based on step response
7.6 Model-based controller tuning
7.7 Controller design by direct synthesis
7.8 Internal model control
7.9 Model simplification
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–1

7. PID Controllers
Process
Control
7.0 Overview
Laboratory
PID controller (”pee-i-dee”) is a generic name for a controller containing a
linear combination of
 proportional (P)
 integral (I)
 derivative (D)
terms acting on a control error (or sometimes the process output).
All parts need not be present. Frequently I and/or D action is missing,
giving a controller like
 P, PI, or PD controller
It has been estimated that of all controllers in the world
 95 % are PID controllers

7. PID Controllers
Process
Control
7.1 PID controller variants
Laboratory
7.1.1 Ideal PID controller
An ideal PID controller is described by the control law
1 𝑡𝑡 d𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.1)
𝑇𝑇i 0 d𝑡𝑡
 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) is the controller output
 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑟𝑟 𝑡𝑡 − 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) is the control error, which is the difference
between the setpoint 𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡) and the measured process output 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡)
 𝐾𝐾c is the proportional gain
 𝑇𝑇i is the integral time
 𝑇𝑇d is the derivative time
 𝑢𝑢0 is the “normal” value of the controller output
The transfer function of the PID controller is
𝑈𝑈(𝑠𝑠) 1 𝐾𝐾c
𝐺𝐺PID = = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 = 1 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 2 (7.2)
𝐸𝐸(𝑠𝑠) 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠
 𝑈𝑈(𝑠𝑠) is the Laplace transform of 𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 − 𝑢𝑢0

 𝐸𝐸(𝑠𝑠) is the Laplace transform of the control error
7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.1 Ideal PID controller
Depending on the values of 𝑇𝑇i and 𝑇𝑇d , the transfer function of the PID
Process
Control controller can have
Laboratory
 real or complex valued zeros

Complex zeros might be useful for control of underdamped systems with
complex poles.
A PI controller is obtained from a PID controller by letting 𝑇𝑇d = 0. Its

transfer function is
1 𝐾𝐾c
𝐺𝐺PI = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + = 1 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 (7.3)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠
A PD controller is obtained from a PID controller by letting 𝑇𝑇i = ∞. Its

transfer function is
𝐺𝐺PD = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 (7.4)
The ideal PID controller is sometimes referred to as

 the parallel form of a PID controller
 the (ISA) standard form

7. PID Controllers 7.1 PID controller variants
Process 7.1.2 The series form of a PID controller

Control
Laboratory
In the pre-digital era it was convenient to implement an analog PID
controller as a PI controller and a PD controller in series. This form of a
PID controller is called the series form. Occasionally, the terms interactive
form or classical form are used. The controller has the transfer function
1 𝐾𝐾c′
𝐺𝐺PIPD = 𝐾𝐾c′ 1+ 1+ 𝑇𝑇d′ 𝑠𝑠 = 1 + 𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠 1 + 𝑇𝑇d′ 𝑠𝑠 (7.5)
𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠
where ′ is used to distinguish the parameters from the parameters of

the parallel form.
 The series form of a PID controller can only have real valued zeros.
This means that the series form is less general than the parallel form.
 It is easy to find the controller parameters of the series form by
frequency analytic methods by so-called lead-lag design.
Exercise 7.1
Which is the control law in the time domain for a series form PID
controller?

Process 7.1.3 A PID controller with derivative filter

Control
Laboratory
A drawback with the ideal PID controller (7.1) is that the derivative part
cannot be realized exactly in a real controller. For example, if the control
error 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) changes as a step, the derivate in (7.1) becomes infinitely
large. This problem can be remedied by
 filtering the signal to be differentiated.
This also has the practical advantage that (high-frequency) noise is
filtered before differentiation.
The transfer function of a parallel form PID controller with a derivative
filter is
1 𝑇𝑇 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺PIDf = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + d (7.6)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1
The transfer function of a series form PID controller with a derivative

filter is
1 𝑇𝑇d′ 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺PIPDf = 𝐾𝐾c′ 1+ 1+ (7.7)
𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f′ 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇f and 𝑇𝑇f′ are filter constants, usually 10-30 % of corresp. derivative time.
7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.3 A PID controller with derivative filter
Relationships between parallel and series form

Process
Control
Laboratory If the parameters of the series form are known, the corresponding
parameters of the parallel form can be calculated according to
′ ′
𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇
𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇i′ + 𝑇𝑇d′ − 𝑇𝑇f′ , 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇d′ i − 𝑇𝑇f′ , 𝑇𝑇f = 𝑇𝑇f′ , 𝐾𝐾c = 𝐾𝐾c′ i (7.8)
𝑇𝑇 i 𝑇𝑇 i
For calculation of the parameters of the series form from the parameters
of the parallel form, we define the parameter
4𝑇𝑇i (𝑇𝑇d +𝑇𝑇f )
𝛿𝛿 = 1 − (7.9)
(𝑇𝑇i +𝑇𝑇f )2
If 𝛿𝛿 ≥ 0, the zeros of the parallel PID are real. Then, there exists a series
form PID controller which is equivalent to the parallel form according to
(𝑇𝑇i +𝑇𝑇f ) 𝑇𝑇i′
𝑇𝑇i′ = 1 + 𝛿𝛿 , 𝑇𝑇d′ = 𝑇𝑇i + 𝑇𝑇f − 𝑇𝑇i′ , 𝑇𝑇f′ = 𝑇𝑇f , 𝐾𝐾c′ = 𝐾𝐾c (7.10)
2 𝑇𝑇i
The condition for 𝛿𝛿 ≥ 0 in terms of the controller parameters is

(𝑇𝑇i −𝑇𝑇f )2
𝑇𝑇d ≤ (7.11)
4𝑇𝑇i
i.e., the derivative time has to be “small enough”.
Process 7.1.4 Differentiation of the measured output

Control
Laboratory
Even if we have a derivative filter, a step change in the setpoint 𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡)
tends to affect the derivative part much more strongly than a disturbance
in the output 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡). A remedy to this is to
 differentiate the (filtered) output instead of the control error 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡).
The ideal control law (7.1) then becomes
1 𝑡𝑡 d𝑦𝑦f (𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 − 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.12a)
d𝑦𝑦 (𝑡𝑡)
𝑇𝑇f f + 𝑦𝑦f 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) (7.12b)
d𝑡𝑡
In the Laplace domain we get
1 1 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠
𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 1 + + 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.13)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1
which is a combination of a PI controller and a PID controller

𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺PI 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺PIDf 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.14)
This kind of 2-degrees-of-freedom (2DOF) controller can be tuned
separately for setpoint tracking and disturbance rejection.
7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.4 Differentiation of the measured output
Exercise 7.2
Process
Control
Laboratory Which is the control law, both in the time domain and the Laplace
domain, for the series form of a PID controller with differentiation of the
filtered output measurement?
7.1.5 Setpoint weighting

A simple way of obtaining 2DOF PID controller is to use setpoint
weighting. With the definitions
𝑒𝑒p = 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝑦𝑦 , 𝑒𝑒 = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦 , 𝑒𝑒d = 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝑦𝑦f (7.15)
where 𝑏𝑏 and 𝑐𝑐 are setpoint weights, the control law becomes
1 𝑡𝑡 d𝑒𝑒d (𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒p 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.16a)
d𝑦𝑦f (𝑡𝑡)
𝑇𝑇f + 𝑦𝑦f 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) (7.16b)
d𝑡𝑡

7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.5 Setpoint weighting
In the Laplace domain the control law with setpoint weighting is

Process
Control
Laboratory 𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺vPID 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺PIDf 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.17)
where
1
𝐺𝐺vPID = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑏𝑏 + + 𝑐𝑐𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 (7.18)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠
and 𝐺𝐺PIDf is as in (7.6).
 With suitable choices of 𝑏𝑏 and 𝑐𝑐, all previously treated PID
controllers on parallel form can be obtained.
 𝑏𝑏 and 𝑐𝑐 do not affect the controller’s ability to reject disturbances in
the output, only the ability to track setpoint changes.
 𝐺𝐺vPID can be tuned for setpoint tracking and 𝐺𝐺PIDf for disturbance
rejection (i.e., 𝐾𝐾c , 𝑇𝑇i and 𝑇𝑇d need not have the same values in 𝐺𝐺vPID
and 𝐺𝐺PIDf ).
Exercise 7.3
Include setpoint weighting in the series form of a PID controller.

Process 7.1.6 Non-interactive form of a PID controller

Control
Laboratory
 In the control laws treated so far, the proportional part alone cannot
be disconnected by letting 𝐾𝐾c = 0 because that would disconnect all
parts; it would put the controller on “manual” with 𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑢𝑢0 .
 Tuning the proportional part by adjusting 𝐾𝐾c will affect all controller
parts (however, this is often a desired feature); hence, it is an
interactive controller form.
The non-interactive form
𝑡𝑡 d𝑒𝑒d (𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡 + 𝐾𝐾i ∫0 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝐾𝐾d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.19)
d𝑡𝑡
is a more flexible control law. In the Laplace domain it can be written
𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺vP+I+D 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺P+I+Df 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.20)
where
𝐺𝐺vP+I+D = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑏𝑏 + 𝐾𝐾i 𝑠𝑠 −1 + 𝑐𝑐𝐾𝐾d 𝑠𝑠 (7.21a)
𝐺𝐺P+I+Df = 𝐾𝐾c + 𝐾𝐾i 𝑠𝑠 −1 + 𝐾𝐾d 𝑠𝑠(𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠 + 1)−1 (7.21b)
Note: It is essential to know which form is used when tuning a controller!
7. PID Controllers
Process
Control
7.2 Choice of controller type
Laboratory
The choice between controller types such as P, PI, PD, PID is considered.
In principle, the simplest controller that can do the job should be chosen.
7.2.1 On-off controller

An on-off controller is the simplest type of controller, where the control
signal has only two levels. If the variables are defined such that a positive
control error 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) should be corrected by an increase of the control
signal 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡), the control law is
𝑢𝑢max if 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 > 𝑒𝑒hi
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = �𝑢𝑢0 or unchanged if 𝑒𝑒lo ≤ 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 ≤ 𝑒𝑒hi (7.23)
𝑢𝑢min if 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 < 𝑒𝑒lo
where 𝑢𝑢max , 𝑢𝑢0 , 𝑢𝑢min is the high, normal, low value of the control signal.
The interval (𝑒𝑒lo , 𝑒𝑒hi ) is a dead zone. In the simplest case, 𝑒𝑒lo = 𝑒𝑒hi = 0.
The on-off controller is inexpensive, but it causes oscillations in the pro-
cess. It is often used for temperature control in simple appliances such as
ovens, irons, refrigerators and freezers, where oscillations are tolerated.

7. PID Controllers 7.2 Choice of controller type
Process 7.2.2 P controller

Control
Laboratory
A P controller implements the simple control law
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.24)
where 𝐾𝐾c is the adjustable controller gain and 𝑢𝑢0 is the normal value of
the control signal, which is also be adjustable. In principle, 𝑢𝑢0 is selected
to make the control error 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 = 0 at the nominal operating point.
If the output is changed by a disturbance or a setpoint change, the P
controller is unable to bring the control error to zero, i.e., there will be a
remaining control error.
The higher the controller gain, the smaller the control error. Thus, P
control is used when a (small) control error is allowed and a high
controller gain can be used without risk of instability.
A typical application for P control is level control in liquid tank. Another
situation when P control is often sufficient is as an inner loop (a secon-
dary loop) in so-called cascade control.

Process 7.2.3 PI controller

Control
Laboratory
A PI controller is by far the most common type of controller. The ideal PI
controller implements the control law
1 𝑡𝑡
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.25)
𝑇𝑇i 0
where the gain 𝐾𝐾c and the integral time 𝑇𝑇i are adjustable parameters;
𝑢𝑢0 is less important due to the integral.
The main advantage of the PI controller is that there will be no remaining
control error after a setpoint change or a process disturbance. A dis-
advantage is that there is a tendency for oscillations.
PI control is used when no steady-state error is desired and there is no
reason to use derivative action. Measurement noise is often a reason for
not using derivative action.
PI control is suitable for noisy processes, integrating processes and
processes resembling first-order systems. The most typical application is
flow control. PI control might also be preferable for processes with large
time delays.
Process 7.2.4 PD controller

Control
Laboratory
The ideal form of a PD controller implements the control law
d𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.26)
d𝑡𝑡
where the gain 𝐾𝐾c and the derivative time 𝑇𝑇d are adjustable para-
meters; 𝑢𝑢0 is chosen as for a P controller.
A PD controller is preferred when integral action is not needed, but the
dynamics of the process are so slow that the predictive nature of
derivative action is useful.
Many thermal processes, where energy is stored with small heat losses
(e.g., ovens), usually have slow dynamics, almost as integrating systems.
A PD controller might then be suitable for temperature control.
Another typical application for PD control is in servo mechanisms such as
electrical motors, which usually behave as second-order integrating
systems.

Process 7.2.5 PID controller

Control
Laboratory
As has been shown in Section 7.1, there are many variants of PID
controllers.
 The ideal form and the classical series form have 3 adjustable
parameters in addition to 𝑢𝑢0 : the proportional gain, the integral time,
and the derivative time.
 If a derivative filter is included, there are 4 adjustable parameters, but
the filter time constant is usually selected as a given fraction (e.g.,
10 %) of the derivative time.
 In addition, the setpoint can be weighted in the proportional part and
the derivative part.
If there is no reason to exclude integral action or derivative action, a PID
controller is the natural choice. Typically PID control is used for under-
damped processes, processes with slow dynamics and not very large time
delays, and systems of second and higher order.
Typical applications are control of temperature and chemical composition
when the process is not close to an integrating system.
7. PID Controllers
Process
Control
7.3 Specifications and performance criteria
Laboratory
7.3.1 General performance criteria
The task of a controller is to control a system to behave in a desired way
despite unknown disturbances and an inaccurately known system.
The controlled system should satisfy performance criteria such as:
 The controlled system must be stable; this is absolutely necessary.
 The effect of disturbances on the controlled output is minimized; this
is especially important for regulatory control.
 The controlled output should follow setpoint changes fast and
smoothly; this is especially important for setpoint tracking.
 The control error is minimized or kept within certain limits,
 The control signal variations should be moderate or at least not be
excessively large; more variations wear out control equipment faster.
 The control system should be robust (insensitive) against moderate
changes in system properties, which introduce model uncertainty.
The importance of these criteria varies from case to case. Since many cri-
teria are conflicting, compromises have to be made in the control design.
7. PID Controllers 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria
Process 7.3.2 Fundamental limitations

Control
Laboratory
One reason to the fact that there are usually good solutions to the
conflicting control criteria is that feedback control is used.
 However, feedback also introduces limitations because a control error
is required for the controller to take action.
 The fact that the available resources for control are always limited,
also limit the achievable performance.
In addition to the general limitations above, there are also limitations
that depend on the process to be controlled, e.g.,
 the dynamics of the process
 nonlinearities
 model and process uncertainty
 disturbances
 control signal limitations

7.3 Specifications and performance criteria 7.3.2 Fundamental limitations
The process dynamics is often the performance limiting factor. Such

Process
Control factors are
Laboratory
 time delays as well as RHP (right-half plane) poles and zeros
 high-order dynamics
In practice, all processes are nonlinear. Such a process
 cannot be described accurately at different operating points by a
linear model with constant parameters; thus there is model/process
uncertainty.
Disturbances such as load disturbances and measurement noise limit how
well a variable can be controlled.
 Efficient control of load disturbances often require derivative action,
but measurement noise is bad for the derivative.
 Large load disturbances can cause the control variable to reach its
(physical) maximum or minimum value. This is especially troublesome
if the controller contains an integrator. Proportional band and
integrator windup are two concepts that deal with this limitation.

Process 7.3.3 Proportional band and integrator windup

Control
Laboratory
Proportional band
A controller’s proportional band (PB) denotes the maximum control error
the controller can handle with the available control signal. The PB is
defined for a P controller, but it can be extended to a full PID controller.
If the control signal is limited by 𝑢𝑢min ≤ 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) ≤ 𝑢𝑢max , a P controller can
according to (7.24) handle a control error that satisfies
𝑢𝑢min −𝑢𝑢0 𝑢𝑢max −𝑢𝑢0
≡ 𝑒𝑒min ≤ 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) ≤ 𝑒𝑒max ≡ (7.27)
𝐾𝐾c 𝐾𝐾c
The PB is equal to 𝑒𝑒max − 𝑒𝑒min = 𝑦𝑦hi − 𝑦𝑦lo , where 𝑦𝑦hi is the highest
output (𝑒𝑒min = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦hi ) and 𝑦𝑦lo is the lowest output (𝑒𝑒max = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦lo )
the controller can handle. Usually, the PB is defined in percent of the
total measurable output interval 𝑦𝑦min , 𝑦𝑦max . Then, the PB is
𝑦𝑦hi −𝑦𝑦lo 𝑢𝑢max −𝑢𝑢min 100%
𝑃𝑃b = 100% = ⋅ (7.28)
𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝐾𝐾c

7.3.3 Proportional band and integrator windup Proportional band
If the proportional band is known, the controller gain is given by

Process
Control 𝑦𝑦hi −𝑦𝑦lo 𝑢𝑢max −𝑢𝑢min 100%
Laboratory 𝐾𝐾c = 100% = ⋅ (7.29)
𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝑃𝑃b
In (old) automation systems, the signals are often expressed as a fraction

or percentage of the total signal interval (0-1 or 0-100%). The PB is then
𝑃𝑃b = 100%/𝐾𝐾c (7.30)
Note that the controller gain here has to be expressed in terms of the
normalized signals, which means that the controller gain is dimensionless.
The practical usefulness of the PB is that it tells something about the size
of control errors that can be handled without reaching an input signal
constraint. If 𝑢𝑢0 is in the middle of the interval 𝑢𝑢min , 𝑢𝑢max , a P
controller with 𝑃𝑃b = 50 % can handle an instantaneous control error
equal to ±25 % (i.e., 50 % in total) of the total output signal range.
Note that the PB is an adjustable controller parameter — if it is to small, it
can be increased (corresponding to a decrease of 𝐾𝐾c ).

7.3 Specifications and performance criteria 7.3.3 PB and integrator windup
Integrator windup
Process
Control
Laboratory
Usually controllers are tuned for stability and performance, not for signal
limits. Therefore, it is not uncommon that a control signal reaches a
constraint. If the controller contains integral action, this can be very
damaging to the control performance unless the situation is handled
properly.
Consider the figure, where the PI control law (7.25) has been used. A
strong disturbance causes the process output to fall well below the set-
point. The controller is not able to elimi-
nate the control error (A) because the
control signal has reached a constraint.
During this time, the positive control error
will increase the integral in the controller.
If the disturbance later disappears, the
controller will still keep the control signal
at the constraint due to the large value of
the integral, even if the control error goes
below zero. This will cause the output (B),
which is entirely due to the controller. Illustration of integral windup.
7.3.3 Proportional band and integrator windup Integral windup
The described phenomenon is called integral windup (also reset windup).

Process
Control
Laboratory There are sophisticated as well as simple methods for handling the
problem. The term anti-windup is used for such arrangements.
A simple solution is to stop integrating when a control signal reaches a
constraint. This requires that
 it is known when the control signal reaches a constraint (e.g., through
measurement)
 there is some built-in logic to interrupt the integration
In the case of digital control, which nowadays is customary, automatic
anti-windup can be built into the control law.

Process 7.3.4 Design specifications

Control
Laboratory
Above, some general performance criteria and fundamental limitations to
achievable control performance have been considered.
 Here, some ways of making more specific design specifications will
introduced.
 If a process model is available, the specifications make it possible to
calculate controller parameters.
Step-response specifications
It is of often desired that the closed-loop response to a step change in
the setpoint resembles an underdamped second-order system.
Therefore, parameters familiar from the step-response of such a system
can be used to specify the desired behaviour. Such parameters are
 the maximum relative overshoot 𝑀𝑀
 the rise time 𝑡𝑡r
 the settling time 𝑡𝑡𝛿𝛿
 the relative damping 𝜁𝜁
 the ratio between successive relative overshoots (or undershoots) 𝑀𝑀R
7.3.4 Design specifications Step-response specifications
According to the relationships in Section 5.3.3:

Process
Control
Laboratory
 The two parameters 𝑀𝑀 and 𝑡𝑡r are sufficient to determine the transfer
function of an underdamped second-order system with a given gain.
 The settling time 𝑡𝑡𝛿𝛿 can be used instead of 𝑀𝑀 or 𝑡𝑡r , but the
relationships are then only approximate.
 The relative damping 𝜁𝜁 or the overshoot ratio 𝑀𝑀R can be specified
instead of 𝑀𝑀.
Some classical tuning recommendations are based on the specification
𝑀𝑀R = 1/4.
 This may be acceptable for regulatory control, but not for setpoint
tracking. 𝑀𝑀R = 1/4 corresponds to 𝑀𝑀 = 0.5 (i.e., a 50 % overshoot)
and 𝜁𝜁 = 0.22 .
 For setpoint tracking, 𝑀𝑀 ≈ 0.1 (𝜁𝜁 ≈ 0.6) is usually more appropriate.
If an overdamped closed-loop response is desired, this cannot be
achieved with a specification 𝜁𝜁 > 1 , because the other parameters
require an underdamped system. Instead, the closed-loop transfer
function can be directly specified and controller parameters calculated by
direct synthesis (Section 7.7), for example.
7.3 Specifications and performance criteria 7.3.4 Design specifications
Error integrals
Process
Control
Laboratory In principle, a small overshoot, rise time and settling time are desired. In
practice, the overshoot and settling time will increase with decreasing
rise time, and vice versa. Therefore, compromises have to be made.
One way of solving this problem in an optimal way is to specify some
error integral to be minimized. Examples of such error integrals are
𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡
𝐽𝐽IAE = ∫0 s 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) d𝑡𝑡 , 𝐽𝐽ISE = ∫0 s 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)2 d𝑡𝑡
𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡 (7.31)
𝐽𝐽ITAE = ∫0 s 𝑡𝑡 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) d𝑡𝑡 , 𝐽𝐽ITSE = ∫0 s 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)2 d𝑡𝑡
where the acronyms are
– IAE = “integrated absolute error”
– ISE = “integrated square error”
– ITAE = “integrated time-weighted absolute error”
– ITSE = “integrated time-weighted square error”
The weighting with time forces the control error towards zero as time in-
creases. In principle, the integration time should be infinite, but because
the minimization has to be done numerically, a finite 𝑡𝑡s has to be used.

7.3.4 Design specifications Error integrals
It is of interest to consider how the error integrals relate to step-response

Process
Control specifications when the controlled system is of second order, i.e.,
Laboratory
2
𝜔𝜔n
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 2 (7.32)
𝑠𝑠 2 +2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔n
In the figure, IAE and ISE are normalized with 𝜔𝜔n , ITAE and ITSE with 𝜔𝜔n2 .
As can be seen, every normalized error integral has a minimum for a
given relative damping 𝜁𝜁 .
This damping as well as the
corresponding relative over-
shoot 𝑀𝑀 are shown below.
Table 7.1 Optimal relative
damping for 2nd order system.
Error integral ζ M (%)
ISE 0.50 16.3

ITSE 0.59 10.1
IAE 0.66 6.3
ITAE 0.75 2.8 Error integrals as function of 𝜁𝜁.
7. PID Controllers
Process
Control
7.4 Tuning based on frequency response
Laboratory
7.4.1 Experimental tuning
An ideal PID controller of interactive
form can be tuned experimentally G
by making closed-loop control experi-
ments with the real process. The
standard feedback structure is used.
1. A P controller (𝐺𝐺c = 𝐾𝐾c ) is used for the first experiment. A low value is
chosen for the gain 𝐾𝐾c . Note that 𝐾𝐾c must have the same sign as 𝐾𝐾p .
2. A change in the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 is introduced. (Some other disturbance
could also be used.) The controller gain 𝐾𝐾c is increased until the
output 𝑌𝑌 starts to oscillate with a constant amplitude (see next slide).
3. The value of the controller gain yielding constant oscillations is
denoted 𝐾𝐾c,max . The period of the oscillations is denoted 𝑃𝑃c .
4. The controller gain is changed to 𝐾𝐾c = 0.5𝐾𝐾c,max . If the intention was
to tune a P controller, this is the final tuning.

7.4 Tuning based on frequency response 7.4.1 Experimental tuning
5. To tune a controller with integral

Process
Control action (PI or PID), an experiment
Laboratory
is done with a PI controller using
𝐾𝐾c = 0.5𝐾𝐾c,max . A large value is
initially used for the integral time 𝑇𝑇i .
6. A change in the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 (or some
other disturbance) is introduced. The
integral time 𝑇𝑇i is reduced until 𝑌𝑌
starts to oscillate with a constant
amplitude. This occurs at 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇i,min .
7. The integral time for a PI or PID controller is chosen as 𝑇𝑇i = 3𝑇𝑇i,min .
8. To tune the derivative part of a PID (or PD) controller, an experiment
is done with such a controller using 𝐾𝐾c = 0.5𝐾𝐾c,max , 𝑇𝑇i = 3𝑇𝑇i,min (if a
PID controller). The derivative time is initially set at 𝑇𝑇d = 0 .
9. A change in the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 (or some other disturbance) is introduced.
The derivative time 𝑇𝑇d is increased until the output 𝑌𝑌 starts to
oscillate with a constant amplitude. This occurs when 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇d,max .
10. The derivative time for a PD or PID controller is set at 𝑇𝑇d = 13𝑇𝑇d,max .
7.4 Tuning based on frequency response 7.4.1 Experimental tuning
If the control performance obtained by the above tunings turns out to be

Process
Control unsatisfactory, the controller parameters can be adjusted by “trial and
Laboratory
error”.
The next figure shows how changes of the controller gain 𝐾𝐾c and the
integral time 𝑇𝑇i typically affect the control performance. The optimal
performance is in this case obtained by 𝐾𝐾c = 3 and 𝑇𝑇i = 11 .
𝑇𝑇i = 5 𝑇𝑇i = 11 𝑇𝑇i = 20
𝐾𝐾c = 5
𝐾𝐾c = 3
𝐾𝐾c = 1

7. PID Controllers 7.4 Tuning based on frequency response
Process 7.4.2 Ziegler-Nichols’s recommendations

Control
Laboratory
In 1942, Ziegler and Nichols suggested tunings for P, PI and PID
controllers based on 𝐾𝐾c,max and 𝑃𝑃c only. To obtain this information, it is
sufficient to do steps 1–3 in the experimental procedure.
The tunings are primarily intended for regulatory control (i.e.,
disturbance rejection). For setpoint tracking, setpoint weighting is
suggested, e.g. 𝑏𝑏 = 0.5.
The controller tuning should Table 7.2. Ziegler-Nichols’s controller
preferably not be used out- tuning recommendations based on
side the range 0.1 < 𝜅𝜅 < 0.5, frequency response.
where
−1 Controller K c / K c,max Ti / Pc Td / Pc
𝜅𝜅 = 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c,max .
Here, 𝐾𝐾 is the process gain. P 0.5 – –
The critical frequency 𝜔𝜔c is PI 0.45 0.8 –
often used instead of 𝑃𝑃c : PID 0.6 0.5 0.125
𝜔𝜔c = 2𝜋𝜋/𝑃𝑃c .

7. PID Controllers 7.4 Tuning based on frequency response
Process 7.4.3 Åström’s and Hägglund’s correlations

Control
Laboratory
In 2006, Åström and Hägglund showed that, in general, 𝐾𝐾c,max and 𝑃𝑃c
alone do not provide sufficient information for good controller tuning.
In addition to 𝐾𝐾c,max and 𝑃𝑃c , Åström and Hägglund also use the
−1
parameter 𝜅𝜅 = 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c,max in their controller tuning correlations.
The tuning correlations are primarily intended for regulatory control; for
setpoint tracking, setpoint weighting is suggested.
The correlations should Table 7.3. Åström-Hägglund’s controller
not be used below the tuning correlations based on frequency
range 𝜅𝜅 > 0.1 . response.
Large time delays are
Controller K c / K c,max
allowed, but clearly Ti / Pc Td / Pc
underdamped systems PI 0.16 (1 + 4.5κ ) −1 –
are less suitable.
0.6 0.15(1 − κ )
PID 0.3 − 0.1κ 4
1 + 2κ 1 − 0.95κ

7. PID Controllers
Process
Control
7.5 Tuning based on step response
Laboratory
A drawback with generating the frequency response is that it is quite
cumbersome and time-consuming to generate oscillations with constant
amplitude by adjusting a controller parameter.
An alternative is to use a step response for the process.
The figure illustrates how the
needed parameters are obtained
from a unit-step response, i.e., a
step with size 𝑢𝑢step = 1 expressed
in the units used for the control
variable. yi
The method is based on the

(modified) tangent method, but L ti
here it is not necessary to wait
for the new steady state; only
the parameters 𝑎𝑎 and 𝐿𝐿 need Characteristic parameters from a
to be determined. monotonous unit-step response.
TaK
id //cTL
7. PID Controllers 7.5 Tuning based on step response
Instead of taking the 𝑎𝑎 parameter from the point, where the tangent
Process
Control
Laboratory
through the inflexion point (i.e., the point where the slope is highest) of
the step response crosses the vertical axis, it can be calculated when the
coordinates (𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ) of the inflexion point are known. The calculation is
valid for any size of 𝑢𝑢step . The formula for 𝑎𝑎 is
𝐿𝐿𝑦𝑦i
𝑎𝑎 = (7.34)
𝑢𝑢step (𝑡𝑡i −𝐿𝐿)
Another useful parameter is

𝜃𝜃 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇ekv , 𝑇𝑇ekv = 𝑡𝑡63 − 𝐿𝐿 (7.35)
where 𝑇𝑇ekv is the equivalent time constant of the system and 𝑡𝑡63 is the
time it takes to reach 63% of the total output change.
The step response of a purely integrating system is a ramp that changes
linearly with time, i.e., it has a constant slope. Any point on the ramp
can then be used as a pair of coordinates (𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ) for calculation of 𝑎𝑎
according to (7.34).

Process 7.5.1 Ziegler-Nichols’s recommendations

Control
Laboratory
In 1942, Ziegler and Nichols also suggested tunings for P, PI and PID
controllers based on the information that can be obtained from a step
test. Their recommendations for an ideal controller are given in Table 7.4.
The method requires 𝐿𝐿 > 0 and preferably 0.1 ≤ 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1.
Table 7.4. Ziegler-Nichols’s controller tuning

recommendations based on step response.
Controller aK c Ti / L Td / L
P 1.0 – –
PI 0.9 3 –
PID 1.2 2 0.5
Note that Ziegler-Nichols’s recommendations based on frequency

response and step response do not necessarily give the same controller
tuning for the same process.
Process 7.5.2 The CHR method

Control
Laboratory
In 1952, Chien, Hrones and Reswick suggested improvements to Ziegler’s
and Nichols’s recommendations based on a step response. The CHR-
method gives
 different tunings for regulatory control and setpoint tracking
 tunings for aggressive control (with ~20 % overshoot) and cautious
control (no overshoot)
The method requires 𝐿𝐿 > 0 and preferably 0.1 ≤ 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1.
The CHR tunings (even the aggressive one) are less aggressive than the ZN
tuning.
Note that the different tunings for regulatory control and setpoint
tracking can directly be used in a 2DOF controller.

7.5 Tuning based on step response 7.5.2 The CHR method
Table 7.5. Controller tuning for regulatory control by the CHR method.
Process
Control
Laboratory
No overshoot 20 % overshoot
Controller
aK c Ti / L Td / L aK c Ti / L Td / L
P 0.3 – – 0.7 – –
PI 0.6 4.0 – 0.7 2.3 –
PID 0.95 2.4 0.42 1.2 2.0 0.42
Table 7.6. Controller tuning for setpoint tracking by the CHR method.
No overshoot 20 % overshoot
Controller
aK c Ti / T Td / L aK c Ti / T Td / L
P 0,3 – – 0,7 – –
PI 0,35 1,2 – 0,6 1,0 –
PID 0,6 1,0 0,5 0,95 1,4 0,47

Process 7.5.3 Åström’s and Hägglund’s correlations

Control
Laboratory
In 2006, Åström and Hägglund presented improved controller tunings
based on a step response. In addition to 𝑎𝑎 and 𝐿𝐿 , they use 𝜃𝜃 in their
correlations, which can be used for all 𝜃𝜃 ≥ 0. However, for 𝜃𝜃 < 0.4 ,
they tend to be conservative. For an integrating process, 𝜃𝜃 = 0 is used.
The tunings are primarily intended for regulatory control. For setpoint
tracking, setpoint weighting can be used as follows:
 PI control: 𝑏𝑏 = 1 if 𝜃𝜃 > 0.4 , 𝑏𝑏 < 1 if 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 0.4 (optimal 𝑏𝑏 is unclear)
 PID control: 𝑏𝑏 = 1 if 𝜃𝜃 > 1 , 𝑏𝑏 = 0 if 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1
Table 7.7. Åström’s and Hägglund’s controller tuning correlations
Controller aK c Ti / L Td / L
θ 13
PI 0.35 + 0.15θ − 0.35 + –
(1 + θ ) 2 1 + 12 θ + 7θ 2
8 + 4θ 0.5
PID 0.45 + 0.2 θ
1 + 10 θ 1 + 0.3θ

7. PID Controllers
Process
Control
7.6 Model-based controller tuning
Laboratory
The controller tuning methods in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 employ parameters
that can be determined from an experiment with an existing process.
If a process model is known, the same parameters can be determined
 through a simulation experiment
 possibly by direct calculation from the process model
For example, a first-order system with a time delay has the transfer
function
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.36)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1
from which the parameters 𝑎𝑎 and 𝜃𝜃 can be calculated according to
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 𝐿𝐿
𝑎𝑎 = , 𝜃𝜃 = (7.37)
𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇
The same tuning methods as in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 can then be used.
However, the methods in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 are “general purpose”
methods that are not optimized for any specific model type.
For a given model, better controller tunings probably exist.
7. PID Controllers 7.6 Model-based controller tuning
Process 7.6.1 First-order system with a time delay

Control
Laboratory
The transfer function is defined in (7.36) and the parameter 𝜃𝜃 in (7.37).
Minimization of error integrals
Controller tunings that minimize IAE and ITAE when 0.1 ≤ 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1.
Table 7.8. IAE and ITAE minimizing controller tunings for regulatory control.
Error P controller PI controller PID controller

integral KK c KK c Ti / T KK c Ti / T Td / T
IAE 0.902 θ −0.985 0.984 θ −0.986 1.645 θ 0.707 1.435 θ −0.921 1.139 θ 0.749 0.482 θ 1.137
ITAE 0.490 θ −1.084 0.859 θ −0.977 1.484 θ 0.680 1.357 θ −0.947 1.188 θ 0.738 0.381 θ 0.995
Table 7.9. IAE and ITAE minimizing controller tunings for setpoint tracking.
Error PI controller PID controller

integral KK c Ti / T KK c Ti / T Td / T
IAE 0.758 θ −0.861 (1.020 − 0.323θ ) −1 1.086 θ −0.869 (0.740 − 0.130 θ ) −1 0.348 θ 0.914
ITAE 0.586 θ −0.916 (1.030 − 0.165θ ) −1 0.965 θ −0.855 (0.796 − 0.147 θ ) −1 0.308 θ 0.929

7.6 Model-based controller tuning 7.6.1 First-order system with time delay
Other optimality criteria
Process
Control
Laboratory The controller tunings for minimizing the error integrals IAE and ITAE in
Tables 7.8 and 7.9 do not give any robustness guarantees. Thus, the
control performance can be bad if the model contains errors.
Cvejn (2009) has derived controller tunings that have a certain robustness
even for systems with large time delays, i.e., for large 𝜃𝜃 values.
Table 7.10. Cvejn’s tunings for regulatory control and setpoint tracking.
PI controller PID controller
Control
KK c Ti / T KK c Ti / T Td / T
1 5.92 θ 3.26 + θ 3.91θ θ θ

Regulatory +
2θ 1 + 5.92 θ 4θ 1 + 3.91θ 3 3.26 + θ
1 3 +θ θ θ
Tracking 1 1+
2θ 4θ 3 3 +θ
The PI controller tunings tend to give better robustness than the PID
controller tunings, which tend to give better performance.

7. PID Controllers 7.6 Model-based controller tuning
Process 7.6.2 Second-order no-zero system with a time delay

Control
Laboratory
We shall consider second-order systems with a time delay but no zeros.
Such a system has the transfer function
2
𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 2 2 e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.40)
𝑠𝑠 +2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔n
In Cvejn’s method for tracking control, the controller 𝐺𝐺c (𝑠𝑠) is tuned to
give the loop transfer 𝐺𝐺k (𝑠𝑠) = 𝐺𝐺(𝑠𝑠)𝐺𝐺c (𝑠𝑠) such that
1 −𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝐺𝐺k 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.38)
2𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
or
1 3
𝐺𝐺k 𝑠𝑠 = 1+ e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.39)
4 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
Tuning by (7.38) gives better stability, (7.39) gives better performance.
Exercise 7.3
Use Cvejn’s method for tracking control to tune a PID controller for the
system (7.40).

7.6 Model-based controller tuning 7.6.2 Second-order system with delay
Overdamped system
Process
Control
Laboratory For an overdamped (or critically damped) second-order system, 𝜁𝜁 ≥ 1.
In this case, (7.40) is more conveniently written as
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 , 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇2 (7.41)
(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)
Cvejn’s method can be used also in this case, but Åström and Hägglund
(2006) suggest the following tuning when the system is overdamped:
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c = 0.19 + 0.37𝜃𝜃1−1 + 0.18𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.02𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇i = 0.48 + 0.03𝜃𝜃1−1 − 0.0007𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.0012𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1 (7.42)
𝜃𝜃1 +𝜃𝜃2
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d /𝐿𝐿 = 0.29 + 0.16𝜃𝜃1−1 − 0.2𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.28𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1
𝜃𝜃1 +𝜃𝜃2 +𝜃𝜃1 𝜃𝜃2
where
𝜃𝜃1 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇1 , 𝜃𝜃2 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇2 (7.43)

7.6.2 Second-order system with delay Overdamped system
Second-order system including integration

Process
Control
Laboratory A second-order no-zero system including an integrator has the transfer
function
𝐾𝐾
𝑠𝑠 (𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)
For this kind of system, Åström and Hägglund (2006) suggest the tuning:
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿 = 0.37 + 0.02𝜃𝜃2−1
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿2 /𝑇𝑇i = 0.03 + 0.0012𝜃𝜃2−1 (7.45)
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d = 0.16 + 0.28𝜃𝜃2−1
If the system is a double integrator with the transfer function

𝐾𝐾 −𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.46)
𝑠𝑠 2
the suggested tuning is
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿2 = 0.02
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿3 /𝑇𝑇i = 0.0012
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d 𝐿𝐿 = 0.28

7. PID Controllers
Process
Control
7.7 Controller design by direct synthesis
Laboratory
In the previous sections, equations for controller tuning have been given
for first- and second-order no-zero systems.
 The equations are usually the result of optimization of some criterion
that is considered to imply “good control”.
 However, what is “good control” varies from case to case depending
on the compromise between stability and performance.
 A drawback of the tuning equations is that the user cannot influence
the tuning according to his/her opinion of “good control”.
In this section, a method is introduced whereby
 the user can influence the controller tuning in a systematic way
according to his/her opinion of “good control”
 more model types than in previous sections can be handled, e.g.,
systems with a zero

7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis
Process 7.7.1 Closed-loop transfer functions

Control
Laboratory
Consider the closed-loop V (s)
Gd ( s )
system in the figure with the
+
following transfer functions: R( s)
Gc ( s ) G (s)
+ Y (s)
– 𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 process being controlled +
−
– 𝐺𝐺c 𝑠𝑠 controller
– 𝐺𝐺d 𝑠𝑠 disturbance system Block diagram of closed-loop system
Standard block diagram algebra gives
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 𝐺𝐺d
𝑌𝑌 = 𝑅𝑅 + 𝑉𝑉 (7.49)
1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c
where
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 𝐺𝐺d
𝐺𝐺r = , 𝐺𝐺v = (7.50,51)
1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c
are the closed-loop transfer functions from the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 and the
disturbance 𝑉𝑉 to the output 𝑌𝑌.
The user can specify the desired 𝐺𝐺r for setpoint tracking or 𝐺𝐺v for regu-
latory control. For setpoint tracking, the required controller is given by
1 𝐺𝐺r
𝐺𝐺c = (7.52)
𝐺𝐺 (1−𝐺𝐺r )

Process 7.7.2 Low-order minimum-phase systems

Control
Laboratory
First-order system
A strictly proper first-order system without a time delay has the transfer
function
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺 = (7.53)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1
Assume that we want the controlled system to behave as a first-order
system with the time constant 𝑇𝑇r . Then,
1 𝐺𝐺r 1
𝐺𝐺r = , which gives = (7.54)
𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠
Substitution of (7.53) and (7.54) into (7.52) gives
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1 1 𝑇𝑇 1
𝐺𝐺c = = 1+ (7.55)
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
which is a PI controller with the parameters
𝑇𝑇
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇 (7.56)
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r
Here, 𝑇𝑇r is a design parameter, by which the performance of the control
system can be affected.
7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.2 Low-order min-phase systems
Second-order system with no zero
Process
Control
Laboratory A second-order system with no zero and no time delay has the transfer
function
2
𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 2 (7.57)
Even if the uncontrolled system is of second order, we can specify the

controlled system to be of first order. Substitution of (7.54) and (7.57)
into (7.52) then gives
2 1 2𝜁𝜁 𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺c = 2 = 1+ + (7.58)
𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n 𝑇𝑇r 2𝜁𝜁𝑠𝑠 2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n
which is an ideal PID controller with the parameters

2𝜁𝜁 2𝜁𝜁 1
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = , 𝑇𝑇d = (7.59)
𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n 𝑇𝑇r 𝜔𝜔n 2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n
Also here, 𝑇𝑇r is a design parameter which only affects the controller gain.

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.2 Low-order min-phase systems
Overdamped second-order system with a LHP zero
Process
Control
Laboratory An overdamped second-order system with a zero in the left half of the
complex plane (LHP) has the transfer function
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = , 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0 (7.60)
We can specify the controlled system to be of first order. Substitution of

(7.54) and (7.60) into (7.52) gives
(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1) 1 1 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠 2 + 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1
𝐺𝐺c = =
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1) 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1
1 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇3 𝑇𝑇3 2
= 1 + 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠 + 𝑠𝑠
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1
or
1 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺c = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + (7.61)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1
where
𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇3 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇3 , 𝑇𝑇d = − 𝑇𝑇3 , 𝑇𝑇f = 𝑇𝑇3 (7.62)
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇3
This is a PID controller with a derivative filter.

Process 7.7.3 High-order minimum-phase systems

Control
Laboratory
A high-order minimum-phase system with real poles and zeros, but with
no time delay, has the transfer function
∑𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚
𝑗𝑗=𝑛𝑛+1(𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 = 𝐾𝐾 ∑𝑛𝑛
, 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 > 0 , 𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 > 0 , 𝑛𝑛 > 2 (7.63)
𝑖𝑖=1(𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠+1)
 If 𝑛𝑛 = 3 and 𝑚𝑚 = 0 or 1 , a closed-loop system of second order can

be obtained by a full PID controller.
 If 𝑛𝑛 > 3, it is not possible to obtain a closed-loop system of lower
order than 3 by a PID controller and an exact design by specifying 𝐺𝐺r
is thus not practical.
In the case of 𝑛𝑛 > 3 , two possibilities are to specify a closed-loop
system of first or second order and then to
 first calculate a 𝐺𝐺c according to (7.52), then to approximate 𝐺𝐺c by a
PID controller;
 first approximate 𝐺𝐺 by a model of at most third order, then to
calculate the PID controller according to (7.52).
In Section 7.9, the latter approach will be described.
Process 7.7.4 Second-order system with RHP zero

Control
Laboratory
A second-order system with real poles and a right half plane (RHP) zero
has the transfer function
𝐾𝐾(−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = , 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0 (7.71)
Now division by 𝐺𝐺 in (7.52) will result in an unstable controller with a

RHP pole if 𝐺𝐺r is chosen as in the previous sections.
 One possible solution is to approximate the unstable controller by a
stable controller. This tends to result in too aggressive control because
the controller is then designed as if there were no RHP zero in 𝐺𝐺 .
 Another solution is to include the same RHP zero in 𝐺𝐺r as in 𝐺𝐺 ; it will
then be cancelled out in (7.52) and the controller will automatically be
stable. This means that the choice of 𝐺𝐺r is restricted, but otherwise
the control performance tends to be as expected.
In this section, the latter approach is used.

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.4 System with RHP zero
Closed-loop system of first order

Process
Control
Laboratory The closed-loop transfer function is chosen as
−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1 𝐺𝐺r −𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 1−𝐺𝐺r (𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 )𝑠𝑠

(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1) 1 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 1 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺c = = 1+ + (7.73)
𝐾𝐾 (𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 )𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 ) 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2
which is a PID controller with the parameters

𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 , 𝑇𝑇d = (7.74)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 ) 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.4 System with RHP zero
Closed-loop system of second order

Process
Control
Laboratory A first-order system with a zero is proper, but not strictly proper. If a zero
is present, a strictly proper system has to be at least second order.
Hence, a more natural choice for 𝐺𝐺r is
(−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)𝜔𝜔r2 𝐺𝐺r (−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)𝜔𝜔r2
𝑠𝑠 2 +2𝜁𝜁r 𝜔𝜔r 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔r2 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑠𝑠(𝑠𝑠+2𝜁𝜁r 𝜔𝜔r +𝑇𝑇3 𝜔𝜔r2 )
To simplify the derivation of controller parameters, we define

𝑇𝑇f = 1/(2𝜁𝜁r 𝜔𝜔r + 𝑇𝑇3 𝜔𝜔r2 ) (7.76)
Substitution of (7.71) and (7.75) into (7.52), gives with (7.76)
(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)𝑇𝑇f 𝜔𝜔r2 𝑇𝑇f 𝜔𝜔r2 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠 2 + 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1
𝐺𝐺c = = (7.77)
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1
Analogously with the derivation of (7.62), this gives the PID controller
parameters (7.76) and
𝑇𝑇f 𝜔𝜔r2 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2
𝐾𝐾c = (𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇f ), 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇f , 𝑇𝑇d = − 𝑇𝑇f (7.78)
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇f
where 𝑇𝑇f is the derivative filter time constant in a PID controller (7.61).
7.7.4 Second-order system with RHP zero Closed-loop system of 2nd order
Choice of closed-loop system parameters

Process
Control
Laboratory In (7.75), there are two design parameters, the relative damping 𝜁𝜁r , and
the undamped natural frequency 𝜔𝜔r . The meanings of these parameters
are discussed in Section 5.3, especially Subsection 5.3.3.
The choice of design parameters can be simplified in the following two
ways.
 Let 𝐺𝐺r have two equally large real poles at −1/𝑇𝑇r . This corresponds
to 𝜁𝜁r = 1 and 𝜔𝜔r = 1/𝑇𝑇r , which for (7.76) gives
𝑇𝑇r2
𝑇𝑇f =
2𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3
 Let 𝐺𝐺r have real poles at −1/𝑇𝑇r and −1/𝑇𝑇3 . This corresponds to
𝜁𝜁r = 0.5(𝑇𝑇r + 𝑇𝑇3 )𝜔𝜔r and 𝜔𝜔r = 1/ 𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇3 , which for (7.76) gives
𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇3
𝑇𝑇f =
𝑇𝑇r +2𝑇𝑇3

Process 7.7.5 First-order system with a time delay

Control
Laboratory
To illustrate how systems with a time delay can be handled by direct
synthesis, a first-order system with a time delay will be studied. Such a
system has the transfer function
𝐾𝐾
𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠+1
Calculation of a controller by (7.52) will then result in a controller

containing a time delay — there is no practical way to avoid this by the
choice of 𝐺𝐺r .
 There are methods to implement a controller resulting from (7.52)
(see Section 7.8), but not by a regular PID controller.
 If a PID controller is desired, the time delay has to be approximated in
some way.

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.5 1st order system with a delay
Time-delay approximation in the model

Process
Control
Laboratory A standard way of approximating a time delay is to use a Padé approxi-
mation. I first-order Padé approximation
1−0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 ≈ (7.80)
1+0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
gives the model
𝐾𝐾(−0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1)
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = (7.81)
(𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠+1)(0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1)
A natural choice for 𝐺𝐺r is then

−0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1 𝐺𝐺r −0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1
(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1)(0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1) 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑠𝑠(0.5𝑇𝑇r 𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠+𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿)
Substitution of (7.81) and (7.82) into (7.52) gives a PID controller with the
parameters
𝑇𝑇+0.5𝐿𝐿−𝑇𝑇f 0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 0.5𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇r
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇 + 0.5𝐿𝐿 − 𝑇𝑇f , 𝑇𝑇d = , 𝑇𝑇f = (7.83)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿) 𝑇𝑇+0.5𝐿𝐿−𝑇𝑇f 𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿
Here, 𝑇𝑇f is the time constant of a derivative filter in the PID controller
(7.61).

7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.5 1st order system with a delay
Time-delay approximation in the controller

Process
Control
Laboratory If e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 is retained in the model, it also has to be part of 𝐺𝐺r , because it is
impossible for the closed-loop system to have a shorter time-delay than
the uncontrolled system.
If 𝐺𝐺r is chosen to be first order with a time delay
1 𝐺𝐺r e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝐺𝐺r = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 , which gives = (7.84)
𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1−e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1
𝐺𝐺c = (7.85)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1−e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 )
Unfortunately, this controller cannot be implemented by a PID controller
in a regular feedback loop. In order to do that, the time delay in (7.85)
has to be approximated by a rational expression.
 If the approximation (7.80) is used, the controller parameters will be
as in (7.83).
 The simpler approximation e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 ≈ 1 − 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 gives a PI controller with
𝑇𝑇
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇 (7.86)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿)

7. PID Controllers
Process
Control
7.8 Internal model control
Laboratory
“Internal model control” (IMC) is closely related to “direct synthesis” (DS).
As in DS, a model of the system to be controlled is explicitly built into the
controller, but in a different way.
 An advantage with IMC is that it is easier to implement more complex
control laws than regular PID controllers. For example, the controller
transfer function (7.85) can easily be implemented exactly with IMC.
 Even if the controller design is based on IMC, it is often desirable to
implement the controller as a regular PID controller. In such cases, the
IMC approach offers better possibilities to deal with robustness issues
than DS.

7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control
Process 7.8.1 The IMC structure

Control
Laboratory
Consider the closed-loop
system in the figure with the
following transfer functions: E (s)
– 𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 true process G (s)
– 𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 process model

Gˆ ( s )
– 𝐺𝐺IMC 𝑠𝑠 a controller
– 𝐺𝐺d 𝑠𝑠 disturbance system
Standard block diagram algebra The IMC structure.
gives 𝑈𝑈 = 𝐺𝐺IMC (𝐸𝐸 + 𝐺𝐺� 𝑈𝑈) from which
𝑈𝑈 −1 −1 𝐺𝐺IMC
= 𝐺𝐺c = 𝐼𝐼 − 𝐺𝐺IMC 𝐺𝐺� 𝐺𝐺IMC = 𝐺𝐺IMC 𝐼𝐼 − 𝐺𝐺� 𝐺𝐺IMC = (7.87)
𝐸𝐸 1−𝐺𝐺� 𝐺𝐺IMC
Assume that
𝐺𝐺IMC = 𝐺𝐺� −1 𝐺𝐺f (7.88)
where 𝐺𝐺f is a “filter”. Substitution of (7.88) into (7.87) gives
1 𝐺𝐺f
𝐺𝐺c = 𝐺𝐺� −1 𝐺𝐺f 𝐼𝐼 − 𝐺𝐺f −1 = (7.89)
𝐺𝐺� (1−𝐺𝐺f )
If the filter is chosen as 𝐺𝐺f = 𝐺𝐺r (and 𝐺𝐺� = 𝐺𝐺), this is the same as (7.52) !
Process 7.8.2 Handling of time delays without approximation

Control
Laboratory
Consider a system modelled as a first-order system with a time delay, i.e.,
𝐺𝐺� = 𝐾𝐾e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 /(𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 1). Choose the IMC filter as 𝐺𝐺f = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 /(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 + 1) .
Substitution into (7.88) now gives
1 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1 1 𝑇𝑇−𝑇𝑇r
𝐺𝐺IMC = = 1+ 𝑠𝑠 (7.90)
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1
which is a PD controller with a derivative filter having the parameters
𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 = 1/𝐾𝐾 , 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇 − 𝑇𝑇r , 𝑇𝑇f = 𝑇𝑇r . Substitution of (7.90) and the model
𝐺𝐺� into (7.87) gives
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1
𝐺𝐺c = −𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.91)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1−e )
which identical with (7.85). The difference is that (7.91) can be implemen-
ted exactly with the IMC structure without time-delay approximation.
Note that there is no integration in 𝐺𝐺IMC , but the feedback of 𝐺𝐺� in the
IMC structure introduces integration if 𝐺𝐺IMC has been calculated using
the same 𝐺𝐺� in (7.88); integration is achieved even if 𝐺𝐺� ≠ 𝐺𝐺 .
Exercise. Calculate the closed-loop transfer function 𝐺𝐺r when 𝐺𝐺� ≠ 𝐺𝐺 .
Show that there will be no steady-state error, i.e., that 𝐺𝐺r 0 = 1 .
Process 7.8.3 The predictive character of the IMC structure

Control
Laboratory
 The previous block diagram of the IMC structure is drawn to empha-
size how 𝐺𝐺IMC combined with the feedback of 𝐺𝐺� is equivalent to 𝐺𝐺c .
 The block diagram can also be drawn to emphasize the predictive
character of the IMC structure, as shown below. (Note that the two
diagrams are completely equivalent.)
– The control signal is an input to the real system 𝐺𝐺 and the model 𝐺𝐺� .
– 𝐺𝐺� predicts the output 𝑌𝑌�, which is compared with the true output 𝑌𝑌.
– Only the prediction error 𝐸𝐸 = 𝑌𝑌 − 𝑌𝑌� is fed back, not the entire 𝑌𝑌.
The latter property is a clear
advantage in controller design.
If 𝐺𝐺� = 𝐺𝐺 (i.e., 𝐸𝐸 = 0)
𝐺𝐺r = 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺IMC (7.93) G (s)
which means that the closed-

loop transfer function depends Gˆ ( s )
linearly on 𝐺𝐺IMC making design

of 𝐺𝐺IMC easier than design of 𝐺𝐺c . Predictive nature of IMC structure.
Process 7.8.4 Controller design

Control
Laboratory
The following conclusions can be drawn from (7.93):
 A stable closed-loop system 𝐺𝐺r requires a stable IMC controller 𝐺𝐺IMC ;
in particular, the IMC controller may not contain integral action.
 Non-minimum phase properties (i.e., RHP zeros and time delays) in 𝐺𝐺
will also be present in 𝐺𝐺r because they cannot be cancelled out by a
stable and realizable 𝐺𝐺IMC .
From (7.88) it follows that
 the filter 𝐺𝐺f has to be chosen to cancel out non-minimum phase prop-
erties of 𝐺𝐺 — this is equivalent to the choice of 𝐺𝐺r in direct synthesis.
In practice, the IMC design is done differently. Instead of guaranteeing
the stability and realizability of 𝐺𝐺IMC by the choice of 𝐺𝐺f , it is handled
by the choice of 𝐺𝐺� to be inverted: non-minimum phase parts of 𝐺𝐺� are
not inverted.

7.8 Internal model control 7.8.4 Controller design
The process model 𝐺𝐺� can always be factorized as

Process
Control
Laboratory 𝐺𝐺� = 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ (7.94)
where 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ contains all non-minimum-phase elements of 𝐺𝐺� , but no
minimum-phase elements, and normalized so that 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ 0 = 1 (i.e., it
has the static gain 1). This means that 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ contains all RHP zeros and
time delays of 𝐺𝐺� ; if there are no such elements, 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ = 1.
When 𝐺𝐺IMC is calculated according to (7.88), only 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ is inverted. Thus,
−1
𝐺𝐺IMC = 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ 𝐺𝐺f (7.95)
Note that the full 𝐺𝐺� should be used as internal model as illustrated by
the IMC block diagrams — the use of 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ is only a technical aid for the
calculation of 𝐺𝐺IMC .
The IMC filter 𝐺𝐺f could be chosen as the desired closed-loop transfer
function without any non-minimum phase elements (not even a time
delay), but in practice a low-pass filter
1
𝐺𝐺f = (7.96)
(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1)𝑛𝑛
is chosen. Here, 𝑛𝑛 is an integer, usually 𝑛𝑛 = 1, sometimes 𝑛𝑛 > 1.
Process 7.8.5 Implementation with a regular PID controller

Control
Laboratory
An advantage of the IMC structure is that time delays can be handled
exactly, but often a regular PID controller is preferred, because it is
standard software in all automation systems.
If an IMC controller 𝐺𝐺IMC has been designed, the corresponding
“regular” controller 𝐺𝐺c can be calculated according to (7.87).
 If 𝐺𝐺� contains a time delay, it will also be present in 𝐺𝐺c .
 In such cases, the time delay has to be approximated in a suitable way.
Table 7.12 shows IMC-based tunings of regular PID controllers for some
typical model structures.
 The tunings can also be used for models of lower degree or no time
delay as long as
𝑇𝑇1 > 0 , 𝑇𝑇2 ≥ 0 , 𝑇𝑇3 ≥ 0 , 𝐿𝐿 ≥ 0 (7.101)
 The tunings can be used for (underdamped) models expressed by the
relative damping an the natural frequency by the substitutions
𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 = 2𝜁𝜁/𝜔𝜔n , 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 = 1/𝜔𝜔n2 (7.103)
 Usually 𝑇𝑇r is chosen such that 𝐿𝐿 ≤ 𝑇𝑇r < 𝑇𝑇 (but no clear consensus).
7.8 Internal model control 7.8.5 Implementation with a PID controller
Table 7.12. IMC-based tuning of ideal PID controller.

Process
Control
Laboratory G (s) Kc K Ti Td λ
K e− Ls
Ti / λ T1 + 12 L 1 LT1 / Ti Tr + 12 L
T1s + 1 2
K (T3 s + 1) e− Ls
Ti / λ T1 + T2 − T3 (T1T2 / Ti ) − T3 Tr + L
(T1s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
K (−T3 s + 1) e− Ls
Ti / λ T1 + T2 + (T3 L / λ ) (T1T2 / Ti ) − (T3 L / λ ) Tr + T3 + L
(T1s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
K e− Ls L(1 − 12 L / Ti ) Tr + 12 L
Ti / λ 2 2λ 1
2
s
K e− Ls
Ti / λ 2 2λ + T2 − L T2 (1 − T2 / Ti ) Tr + L
s (T2 s + 1)
The desired time constant of the close-loop system is 𝑇𝑇r . 𝜆𝜆 , which is

used in the calculations, is closely related to 𝑇𝑇r . Note that the calculated
integral time 𝑇𝑇i is used in several expressions.
7. PID Controllers
Process
Control
7.9 Model simplification
Laboratory
Many controller tuning methods have been presented in the previous
sections.
 Section 7.4: Controller tuning based on frequency-response para-
meters 𝐾𝐾c,max , 𝑃𝑃c (or 𝜔𝜔c ) and 𝜅𝜅. These methods are “general-
purpose methods” not optimized for any specific model type.
 Section 7.5: Controller tuning based on step-response parameters
𝑎𝑎 (or 𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ), 𝐿𝐿 and 𝜃𝜃. These methods are also general-purpose
methods not optimized for any specific model type.
 Section 7.6: Model-based tuning optimized for given model structures
and control criteria with no user interaction.
 Section 7.7: Direct synthesis for low-order models according to desired
closed-loop response.
 Section 7.8: Internal model control mainly for low-order models
according to desired closed-loop response.
In this section, methods to reduce high-order models to first- or second-
order models are presented. Any controller tuning method can be used.
7. PID Controllers 7.9 Model simplification
Process 7.9.1 Skogestad’s method

Control
Laboratory
Skogestad and Grimholt (2012) have presented a method to simplify a
high-order model with real poles and zeros to a first- or second-order
model with a time delay but with no zeros.
The transfer function to be simplified is factorized into a minimum-phase
part 𝐺𝐺 ⊖ and a non-minimum-phase part 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ , i.e.,
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ (𝑠𝑠)𝐺𝐺 ⊖ (s) (7.106)
Any left-half plane (LHP) zeros of 𝐺𝐺 ⊖ (s) and RHP zeros of 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ (𝑠𝑠) are
eliminated by suitable approximations.
Elimination of LHP zeros
If the poles and zeros are real, the minimum-phase part has the form
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 = (7.107)
𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠+1)
where 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 > 0, 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 > 0 , 𝑛𝑛 > 𝑚𝑚.
The simplification procedure now goes as follows.
 The numerator time constants 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 , 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 , …, 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 are considered in
that order. Assume that 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is the one currently being considered.
7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Elimination of LHP zeros
 Next, the smallest remaining denominator time constant 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 such that
Process
Control
Laboratory
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is selected. If there is no such time constant, or if
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≫ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 , the smaller 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 closest to 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is chosen. It is considered
2
that 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≫ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 > 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖+1 and 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖+1 < 1.6 .
 The ratio (𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠 + 1)/(𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠 + 1) is now approximated as
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 5𝑇𝑇r a
5𝑇𝑇r /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖
if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 5𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 b
5𝑇𝑇r −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1 1
≈ if 5𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 c (7.108)
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 if 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇r (d)
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇r if 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (e)
1 if 𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (f)
Here, 𝑇𝑇r is the desired closed-loop time constant. If this is not known,
the suggested value is 𝑇𝑇r = 𝐿𝐿� , which is the time delay in the
simplified model. Since this is not initially known, one may have to
iterate (i.e., first guessing 𝐿𝐿�, then possibly correcting with the new 𝐿𝐿�).

7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Elimination of LHP zeros
The above procedure gives an approximate minimum-phase part 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ of

Process
Control
Laboratory
the form
�
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺� ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 = � � �
(7.109)
𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛
� 𝑠𝑠+1)
Note that the gain as well as the values and number of denominator time
constants may have changed from the original 𝐺𝐺 ⊖ .
Elimination of RHP zeros and the half rule

The transfer function 𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ (𝑠𝑠)𝐺𝐺� ⊖ (s) now has the form
� −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+1 𝑠𝑠+1 −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(−𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑝𝑝 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.110)
𝑇𝑇�1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇�2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛
� 𝑠𝑠+1)
where 𝑇𝑇�1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇�2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛� > 0, 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑝𝑝 > 0 .

Skogestad’s half rule
If an approximate model of order 𝑛𝑛� is desired, the 𝑛𝑛� largest denomi-
nator time constants are retained in the model with the modification that
half of 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛�+1 is added to 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛� . Half of 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛�+1 is also added to the time delay as
well as all remaining smaller denominator time constants. In addition, all
negative numerator time constants are subtracted from the time delay.
7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Elimination of RHP zeros and the half rule
Approximation by first-order system

Process
Control
Laboratory If a first-order model is desired, the half rule gives
�
𝐾𝐾 −𝐿𝐿�𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.111a)
𝑇𝑇� 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑝𝑝
𝑇𝑇� = 𝑇𝑇�1 + 12𝑇𝑇�2 , 𝐿𝐿� = 𝐿𝐿 + 12𝑇𝑇�2 + ∑𝑖𝑖=3
𝑛𝑛�
𝑇𝑇�𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑗𝑗=𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+1 𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 (7.111b)
Approximation by second-order system

If a second-order model is desired, the half rule gives
�
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.112a)
(𝑇𝑇�1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇�2 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑝𝑝
𝑇𝑇�2 = 𝑇𝑇�2 + 12𝑇𝑇�3 , 𝐿𝐿� = 𝐿𝐿 + 12𝑇𝑇�3 + ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=4
�
𝑇𝑇�𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑗𝑗=𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+1 𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 (7.112b)

7.9 Model simplification 7.9.1 Skogestad’s method
Example 7.2. IMC via model reduction by Skogestad’s method.

Process
Control
Laboratory Simplify the model
(16𝑠𝑠+1)(4𝑠𝑠+1)(−8𝑠𝑠+1)e−2𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 =
(50𝑠𝑠+1)(20𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)
to a second-order model by Skogestad’s method and determine the
parameters of a PID controller by IMC-based tuning for this model. Use a
first-order filter time constant 𝑇𝑇r = 10.
Here
(16𝑠𝑠+1)(4𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 = .
(50𝑠𝑠+1)(20𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)
16𝑠𝑠+1 1
According to (7.108c), ≈ . The numerator factor (4𝑠𝑠 + 1) can
20𝑠𝑠+1 4𝑠𝑠+1
now be cancelled out against the new denominator factor, which gives
1
𝐺𝐺� ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 =
(50𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)
and
(−8𝑠𝑠+1)e−2𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = .
(50𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)

7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Example 7.2
The resulting second-order model is

Process
Control �
Laboratory
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e
(𝑇𝑇�1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇�2 𝑠𝑠+1)
with 𝑇𝑇�1 = 50 , 𝑇𝑇�2 = 12 + 12 ⋅ 6 = 15 , 𝐿𝐿� = 2 + 12 ⋅ 6 + 3 + 1 + 8 = 17.

Thus
1
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e−17𝑠𝑠 .
(50𝑠𝑠+1)(15𝑠𝑠+1)
According to Table 7.12 for IMC-based tuning of second-order model:

– 𝜆𝜆 = 𝑇𝑇r + 𝐿𝐿� = 10 + 17 = 27
– 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇�1 + 𝑇𝑇�2 = 50 + 12 = 62
– 𝐾𝐾c = 𝑇𝑇i /(𝐾𝐾 � 𝜆𝜆) = 62/(1 ⋅ 27) = 2.3
– 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇�1 𝑇𝑇�2 /𝑇𝑇i = 50 ⋅ 15/62 = 12.1

7. PID Controllers 7.9 Model simplification
Process 7.9.2 Isaksson’s and Graebe’s method

Control
Laboratory
Isaksson and Graebe (1999) have presented a method to simplify a high-
order model, where the fast and slow dynamics are combined to yield a
model with a desired number of poles and zeros. If the original model
contains a time delay, it is either left intact or substituted by a Padé
approximation.
To describe the method, both factorized and polynomial forms of the
original transfer function are employed. If the numerator order is 𝑚𝑚 and
the denominator order is 𝑛𝑛 , the transfer function is
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾𝐾 (7.113a)
𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝑏𝑏0 𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚 +⋯+𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−2 𝑠𝑠 2 +𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 𝑠𝑠+1
= 𝐾𝐾 (7.113b)
𝑎𝑎0 𝑠𝑠 𝑛𝑛 +⋯+𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 𝑠𝑠 2 +𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1
where 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 > 0 (i.e., a stable system) and |𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 | ≥
|𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 | ≥ ⋯ ≥ |𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 | . The numerator time constants can be positive or
negative.

7.9 Model simplification 7.9.2 Isakssons’s and Graebe’s method
If a model with the numerator order 𝑚𝑚
� and the denominator order 𝑛𝑛� is
Process
Control desired, the simplified model is
Laboratory
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 �

𝑚𝑚
� 𝑠𝑠+1) + 𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−𝑚𝑚� 𝑠𝑠 +⋯+𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 𝑠𝑠+1
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾𝐾 �
𝑛𝑛 (7.114)
𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛
� 𝑠𝑠+1) + 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−𝑛𝑛
� 𝑠𝑠 +⋯+𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1
Complex-conjugated poles or zeros is no problem, except if they occur as

poles number 𝑛𝑛� and 𝑛𝑛� + 1 or zeros number 𝑛𝑛 + 𝑚𝑚� and 𝑛𝑛 + 𝑚𝑚
� + 1.
One solution is then to use the real part of the complex conjugate as 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛�
� .
or 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚
If the model is to be used for controller tuning, a strictly proper first- or

second-order model, possibly with a time delay, is usually desired. Then
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 1 (1st order) (7.115a)
𝑇𝑇 +𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1
2 1
1
𝐾𝐾 2 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 +𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 𝑠𝑠+1
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 1 2 +1 𝑇𝑇 +𝑇𝑇 +𝑎𝑎
(2nd order) (7.115b)
2
𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 +𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 𝑠𝑠 2 1 2 𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1
where
𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 = ∑𝑚𝑚 𝑛𝑛 1
𝑗𝑗=1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 , 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 = ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 , 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 = 2 ∑𝑛𝑛
2 𝑛𝑛 2
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 −∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (7.116)

7.9 Model simplification 7.9.2 Isakssons’s and Graebe’s method
Example 7.3. IMC via model reduction by Isaksson–Graebe’s method.
Process
Control
Laboratory Solve the same problem as in Example 7.2 by Isaksson’s and Graebe’s
model reduction method.
The model gives
𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 = 16 + 4 − 8 = 12 , 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 = 50 + 20 + 12 + 6 + 3 + 1 = 92
𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 = 12 922−(502+202+122+62+32+12) = 2687
from which
1
16+12 𝑠𝑠+1 (14𝑠𝑠+1)e−2𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 1 2
2 +1 70+92 𝑠𝑠+1
e−2𝑠𝑠 =
1000+2687 𝑠𝑠 1843.5𝑠𝑠 2 +81𝑠𝑠+1
2 2
This model has complex-conjugated poles, but according to (7.103),

𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 = 81 and 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 = 1843.5 can be used in the controller calcula-
tions. Table 7.12 for IMC-based tuning of second-order model then gives
– 𝜆𝜆 = 𝑇𝑇r + 𝐿𝐿 = 10 + 2 = 12
– 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇�1 + 𝑇𝑇�2 − 𝑇𝑇�3 = 81 − 14 = 67
– 𝐾𝐾c = 𝑇𝑇i /(𝐾𝐾𝜆𝜆) = 67/(1 ⋅ 12) = 5.6 (much bigger than in Ex. 7.2!)
– 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇�1 𝑇𝑇�2 /𝑇𝑇i − 𝑇𝑇�3 = 1843.5/67 −14 = 13.5

PDC7

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PDC7

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Process

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–1

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–2

 𝑈𝑈(𝑠𝑠) is the Laplace transform of 𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 − 𝑢𝑢0

 real or complex valued zeros

A PI controller is obtained from a PID controller by letting 𝑇𝑇d = 0. Its

A PD controller is obtained from a PID controller by letting 𝑇𝑇i = ∞. Its

The ideal PID controller is sometimes referred to as

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–4

Process 7.1.2 The series form of a PID controller

where ′ is used to distinguish the parameters from the parameters of

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–5

Process 7.1.3 A PID controller with derivative filter

The transfer function of a series form PID controller with a derivative

Relationships between parallel and series form

The condition for 𝛿𝛿 ≥ 0 in terms of the controller parameters is

Process 7.1.4 Differentiation of the measured output

which is a combination of a PI controller and a PID controller

7.1.5 Setpoint weighting

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–9

In the Laplace domain the control law with setpoint weighting is

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–10

Process 7.1.6 Non-interactive form of a PID controller

7.2.1 On-off controller

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–12

Process 7.2.2 P controller

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–13

Process 7.2.3 PI controller

Process 7.2.4 PD controller

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–15

Process 7.2.5 PID controller

Process 7.3.2 Fundamental limitations

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–18

The process dynamics is often the performance limiting factor. Such

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–19

Process 7.3.3 Proportional band and integrator windup

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–20

If the proportional band is known, the controller gain is given by

In (old) automation systems, the signals are often expressed as a fraction

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–21

The described phenomenon is called integral windup (also reset windup).

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–23

Process 7.3.4 Design specifications

According to the relationships in Section 5.3.3:

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–26

It is of interest to consider how the error integrals relate to step-response

ISE 0.50 16.3

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–28

5. To tune a controller with integral

If the control performance obtained by the above tunings turns out to be

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–30

Process 7.4.2 Ziegler-Nichols’s recommendations

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–31

Process 7.4.3 Åström’s and Hägglund’s correlations

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–32

The method is based on the

7. PID Controllers 7.5 Tuning based on step response

Another useful parameter is

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 4–34

Process 7.5.1 Ziegler-Nichols’s recommendations

Table 7.4. Ziegler-Nichols’s controller tuning

Note that Ziegler-Nichols’s recommendations based on frequency

Process 7.5.2 The CHR method

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–36