ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

ISA Transactions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans

Research article

Robust PI/PID controllers for load disturbance based on direct synthesis T

a,∗ b,c d
R. Vilanova , O. Arrieta , P. Ponsa
a
Departament de Telecomunicació i d’Enginyeria de Sistemes, Escola d’Enginyeria, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
b
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ingeniería, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Costa Rica, 11501-2060 San José, Costa Rica
c
Departamento de Automática, Escuela de Ingeniería Eléctrica, Universidad de Costa Rica, 11501-2060 San José, Costa Rica
d
Departament de Enginyeria de Sistemes, Automàtica i Informàtica Industrial, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 08800 Vilanova i la Geltrú, Barcelona, Spain

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: It is recognized that disturbance rejection is much more important than set-point tracking for many process
PI control applications, leading set-point tracking to a secondary level of interest. In this paper a proposal for robust
PID tuning of PI/PID controllers designed under the direct synthesis for load disturbance (DS-d) approach is pre-
Regulation sented. As with the IMC-like approaches, the resulting DS-d tunings are expressed in terms of a unique parameter
Robust
that determines the desired speed of response of the regulatory behavior. Even at first sight it may seem quite
simple, there is no known guide on how to select such parameter in order to achieve some desired robustness. As
it will be shown, for some process dynamics, this selection is not as simple as it may seem. Tuning expressions for
the most common types of process models are provided such that the closed loop time constant is the fastest one
that allows to reach the desired robustness. Simulation examples show the application of the suggested tuning.

1. Introduction
At the core of process control we find an indispensable tool: the
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller. Although advanced
control techniques such as model predictive control can provide sig-
nificant improvements, a PID controller that is properly designed and
tuned has proven to be satisfactory for the vast majority of industrial
control loops. In fact, as confirmed by a recent survey published in
Control System Magazine, [1], PID controllers are confirmed at the top
of control technologies that do have more industry impact. It is there-
fore to be expected that results aligned with the improvement of the
performance of PID based control loops are to find their way in in-
dustry.
Among the wide and large literature on PID controllers one can find
a great variety of design and tuning methods based on different per-
formance criteria [2]. A common factor that all approaches face is the
frequently referred topic of set-point vs. disturbance rejection perfor-
mance. It is well known [3] that there is an inherent tradeoff between
both, in addition to the also well known performance/robustness tra-
deoff. This inherent tradeoff has motivated the search for intermediate,
suboptimal, designs that attempt to relax the performance in both as-
pects [3–5], therefore obtaining suggestions for PID tuning that behave
“not too bad” in both operation modes. However, it has also been re-
cognized [6] that disturbance rejection is much more important than
set-point tracking for many process control applications, leading set-
point tracking to a secondary level of interest. Therefore a controller
design that emphasizes disturbance rejection rather than set-point
tracking is an important design problem that, even if it has been the
focus of research it may have not received the appropriate attention.
Indeed much of the design approaches as well as application and/or
simulation examples provided in academic works concentrate on set-
point experiments for controller evaluation. In fact set-point response
can be further adjusted by the use of set-point filters [7]. A set-point
filter can be used to separate the design for set-point responses from the
design of responses to load disturbances and to reduce the high-fre-
quency variations in controller output introduced by the set-point.
Therefore there is the need to focus attention on disturbance attenua-
tion properties. This scenario motivated the appearance of PI/PID de-
sign proposals that emphasise load disturbance attenuation instead of
set-point tracking.
Among the different design strategies that are based on the use of an
open-loop process model the IMC-PID tuning method of [8] is probably
the most popular. The main drawback of the original direct synthesis
approaches, like that of [8–11] and [12]; is that they give very good
performance for set-point changes, but show slow responses to input
(load) disturbances. However, as disturbance rejection is often more
important than set-point tracking, designing a controller with improved
disturbance rejection rather than set-point tracking is an important

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Ramon.Vilanova@uab.cat (R. Vilanova), Orlando.Arrieta@ucr.ac.cr (O. Arrieta), Pedro.Ponsa@upc.edu (P. Ponsa).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2018.07.040
Received 26 July 2017; Received in revised form 19 June 2018; Accepted 27 July 2018
Available online 11 August 2018
0019-0578/ © 2018 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Vilanova et al.
problem that, design approaches should directly address. The im-
provement of the disturbance rejection capabilities by IMC controllers
has been addressed by proposing alternative IMC filters. For example,
[10] proposed a new type of IMC filter that includes a lead term to
cancel process-dominant poles, and in Refs. [13–15] a modified IMC-
PID tuning methods for different types of processes is proposed. In this
situation, the resulting controller is often more complicated than a PID
controller, its form can be reduced to that of either a PID controller (by
means of a McLaurin series expansion) or a PID controller cascaded
with a first- or second order lag.
As an alternative, Direct Synthesis (DS) methods emerge as a
counterpart to the IMC approach that are based on achieving a desired
closed-loop response. These methods obtain the PID controller para-
meters by computing the controller which gives the desired closed-loop
response. The obvious advantage of this approach is that performance
requirements can be incorporated directly through specification of the
closed-loop transfer function. Original formulations of the DS approach
dates back to [16–18]but the first approach that has a recognized
success in the process control industries is the λ-tuning of Dahlin [19].
It is based on a first-order plus time delay model being the resulting
controller a PI controller with time delay compensation. DS design
methods are usually based on specification of the desired closed-loop
transfer function for set-point changes. Consequently, the resulting DS
controllers tend to perform well for set-point changes, but the dis-
turbance response might not be satisfactory. The development of DS
design methods for disturbance rejection received relatively little at-
tention. However, already in the early design methods for sampled-data
systems in Ref. [17] there were specifications of the z transform of the
desired closed-loop response to a particular disturbance. Later on, [20]
proposed a more generic approach with the specification of the desired
disturbance rejection characteristics in terms of a closed-loop transfer
function for disturbances. However the resulting controller was of high
order and was not resulting in a PI nor PID structure.
On this specific setting is developed the Direct Synthesis Design for
Disturbance Rejection (DS-d) in Ref. [21], where attention is focused to
the specification of a desired regulatory relation. The desired load-
disturbance dynamics is expressed in terms of a single parameter: the
desired time constant for disturbance rejection. Closed form solutions
are obtained for the most usual process dynamics. The DS-s design
specifies the desired regulatory closed-loop transfer function in such a
way that the resulting controller is of PI/PID type. Also, the desired
closed-loop is specified in such a way that the controller parameters just
depend on the process model parameters and a free design parameter.
The only available degree-of-freedom.
There is however, no suggestion for the selection of the free para-
meter. As robustness has become a more and more usual specification in
modern approaches to PID tuning, the main contribution of this paper is
aligned on this direction: to guide the selection of the free DS-d para-
meter in order to obtain a robust controller. As presented in Ref. [21]
the tuning rules derived on the basis of the DS-d method for disturbance
attenuation are all made dependent on the absolute desired closed loop
time constant. It is however desired to have the tuning formulae in
normalized form. As presented in Ref. [22], in this way we get the
tuning relations independent of the process time constant and expressed
according to the time scaling property. In addition, the normalized
expression will make easier the analysis and presentation of the sug-
gestion for the selection of the tuning parameter in order to get a robust
closed loop system.
For the benefit of paper structure, each process dynamics will be
fully considered in a separate section. This will allow, when needed, to
concentrate on particular discussions about the robustness of DS-d
tuning, introduce particular examples, compare the use of PI and PID
controllers, etc. Therefore, the present work will provide, for each one
of the eight considered pairings system dynamics-controller:
(a) The normalized versions of the process dynamics and controller
178
ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196
tuning equations will be provided;
(b) An analysis of the robustness dependence of the tuning parameter
be analyzed. Establish what is the limit value for the robustness that
can be achieved for each one of the particular cases;
(c) Suggestions for selection of the tuning parameter for the usual ro-
bustness specifications provided in simple closed-form; and
(d) Simulation example to show the application of the suggested
choices as well as compare (when it does apply) the performance of
a PI against PID.
Notice that it is not the purpose of the paper to enter into a com-
parative with other tunings in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of
the DS-d tuning. This was already shown in the original DS-d work [21].
Instead, the major contribution of this work is to introduce the ro-
bustness analysis of the DS-d tuning rules and provide simple sugges-
tions for the design of robust DS-d PI/PID controllers. Surprisingly, this
information has not been posted in the PI/PID literature and will de-
finitively make much more direct and easier the application of the DS-d
tuning as well as filling the gap with the provision of robust tuning rules
that are specific for load disturbance rejection. On that respect, as it will
be made clear in the robustness analysis, for some of the considered
process dynamics it is not always clear that by slowing down the closed-
loop system we move towards a more robust design and viceversa. This
will prevent the use of the natural reasoning for the adjustment of the
DS-d free parameter. On this respect, the contribution of the paper will
avoid such misunderstanding. This free parameter selection for the best
tradeoff between speed of response and robustness is provided for a
total of eight different kinds of process models, therefore covering the
different dynamics that can be found in the process industry.
2. Direct synthesis design
Within the direct synthesis (DS) approach for controller design, the
design is based on the specification of a desired closed-loop transfer
function. Then, the controller is solved analytically so that the closed-
loop response matches the desired one. This approach allows perfor-
mance requirements to be incorporated through specification of the
desired closed-loop transfer function. As interested in the regulation
problem, the specified closed-loop transfer function will be the one
from the disturbance to the output. Whereas the reference enter into the
control system at a well defined point, this does not need to be the same
for a disturbance. The main problem with such analytical approaches is
that they are sensitive to the assumed disturbance (load disturbance,
output disturbance, etc) and, more important, the result does not ne-
cessarily conduct to a PID controller.
These approaches goes back to the well known book by Ref. [17] or
more recent approaches proposed recently by Ref. [20]. They specify
the desired disturbance rejection characteristics in terms of a closed-
loop transfer function for disturbances. The resulting controller usually
is not a PI or PID controller and might be of high order. Inspired on
these formulations, the direct synthesis method presented in Ref. [21] is
perhaps the most generic one (it applies to a wide selection of process
dynamics) for tuning of PI/PID controllers for input load disturbance
attenuation.
Consider the feedback control system depicted in Fig. 1, where a
generic two-degrees-of-freedom (2DoF) control system is shown. There
Cy(s) is the feedback aspect of the controller and the disturbance affects
the process output through a dynamics represented by Pd(s).
The direct synthesis method is based on the specification of a de-
sired y∕d relation, denoted as (y∕d)d, and impose this relation for the
regulatory closed-loop transfer function as:
y Pd (s )
⎛ ⎞ =
⎝ d ⎠d 1 + Cy (s ) Pu (s ) (1)
by rearranging terms the following expression for the feedback
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 1. 2DoF Feedback control system considering generic disturbance path.

controller is got selection.

Pd (s ) 1
Cy (s ) = − 3. Suggestions for robust tuning
( ) P (s)
y
d d u
Pu (s )
(2)
Robustness is an important attribute for control systems, because
that simplifies to
the design procedures are usually based on the use of low-order linear
1 1 models identified at the closed-loop operation point. Due to the non-
Cy (s ) = −
()
y
d d
Pu (s )
(3)
linearity found in most of the industrial processes, it is necessary to
consider the expected changes in the process characteristics assuming
when Pd(s) = Pu(s). It is under this assumption and for a set of concrete certain relative stability margins, or robustness requirements, for the
dynamics for the process model transfer function Pu(s) that, in Ref. [21], control system.
tunings for the PI/PID controller parameters are suggested. For such As an indication of the system robustness (relative stability), the
cases where the disturbance enter at a different point and Pd(s) ≠ Pu(s), sensitivity function peak value will be used. The control system max-
in order the provided tuning to be valid, the user has to change the imum sensitivity is defined as:
desired target for the regulatory transfer function from (y∕d) to (y∕d)∗
where: 1
MS ≐ S (jw ) = maxw
1 + Cy (jw ) P (jw ) (8)
y ∗ y P (s )
⎛ ⎞ =⎛ ⎞ d
⎝d⎠ ⎝ d ⎠ Pu (s ) (4) and recommended values for MS are typically within the range 1.4–2.0
[23]. The use of the maximum sensitivity as a robustness measure has
The solution of the analytical design leads to a PI/PID problem
the advantage that lower bounds to the gain, Am, and phase, Φm,
thanks to the way the desired closed-loop regulatory transfer function is
margins [23] can be assured according to:
specified. This means it should be appropriately chosen on the basis of
the process dynamics and the desired controller structure. As an ex- MS 1 ⎞
Am ≥ ; Φm ≥ 2 sin−1 ⎛⎜ ⎟

ample, for a PI controller MS − 1 ⎝ 2MS ⎠ (9)

1 ⎞ Therefore, ensuring MS = 2.0 provides what is commonly con-
Cy (s ) = K c ⎛1 +
⎜ ⎟

⎝ Tis ⎠ (5) sidered minimum robustness requirement (that translates to Am > 2

and Φm > 29°), instead, for MS = 1.4, we have Am > 3.5 and
applied to a first order plus time delay process:
Φm > 41°. In many cases, robustness is specified as a target value of
Ke−Ls MS; however the accomplishment of the resulting value is never
P (s ) =
Ts + 1 (6) checked [24].
In the sections that follow we will provide direct expressions for the
the following desired regulatory transfer function is specified:
selection of the DS-d free design parameter in order to accomplish with
y (T / K )se−Ls a certain robustness specification. For all the different process dynamics
⎛ ⎞ = i c
⎝ d ⎠d (Tc s + 1)2 (7) the analysis to be presented follows de same structure: first, an analysis
of the behavior of MS as MS(τc) is conducted to see if there are any
where Tc is the desired time constant for the closed-loop response. This
constraints on the search range for the free design parameter τc and to
is the unique free design parameter that is left to the user. The ad-
know in advance if the possible robustness specifications (in fact, de-
vantage here is that with such free parameter all the controller para-
sired values for MS) can be accomplished. From this point on, suitable
meters are completely assigned. On the other hand, the user should
values for the design parameter have to be selected. As τc is specified as
tradeoff all the tuning knobs into its selection. Apart form the direct
the desired closed loop time constant, the criteria will be to look for the
implication on the speed of response, the choice of Tc will also de-
smallest one that achieves the desired robustness. For some specific
termine other feedback properties such as the robustness. In fact, model
cases, however, this will not be as straightforward as it may seem be-
mismatch is introduced in all analytical derivations where a time delay
cause of the behavior MS exhibits with respect to changes in τc.
appears. As most of the considered process dynamics include a time
Note here the change in notation. Here we denote the design
delay (even apparent), as long as we are interested in a PI/PID con-
parameter as τc instead of Tc. Whereas Tc denotes the absolute time
troller, some approximation for the e−Ls term is needed. Therefore, the
constant of the desired closed-loop regulatory transfer function, τc is
resulting controller should include a minimum of robustness con-
non dimensional, normalized parameter, that expresses the relation
siderations, apart from the needed robustness because of other sources
between the open-loop and closed-loop time constants. Therefore
of uncertainty. In the next section, we will concentrate on the mea-
surement of the robustness effects of the desired time constant Tc = τc T (10)

179
R. Vilanova et al.
Fig. 2. Two candidate values for τc achieving Ms = 2.0.
As an example, consider the following process.
Ke−Ls e−0.5s
P (s ) = =
s (Ts + 1) s (s + 1) (11)
that is an integral second order plus time delay process with gain K,
time constant T and time delay L, and the feedback controller, Cy(s), as
the DS-d PID controller. If we compute the MS of the resulting closed
loop control system for different values of the τc parameter, the situa-
tion found in Fig. 2 is found. The figure reflects the crossing of the MS as
a function of τc with the specification MS = 2.0.
As it can be seen, there are two possible choices for τc. The rationale
behind the adjustment of τc should be such that an increase of τc slows
down the closed loop system, therefore increasing its robustness.
Otherwise, if we reduce τc we increase the closed loop bandwidth and
the system will be more sensitive to unmodeled dynamics. Notice that
around τc = τc1 the situation is the opposite. Therefore, in such situa-
tion, one would tend to decrease τc in order to make the system more
robust and at the same time faster. This will suggest τc → 0. From a
practical point of view, even before arriving to this point, the values of
the controller parameters (specifically the proportional and derivative
gain) would reach completely out of range values. Therefore, the design
should be selected at τc = τc2.
This kind of analysis is easy for some situations such as, for example,
first order plus dead time process models. However, becomes a little bit
more cumbersome for some other cases such as those models with
second order dynamics or including a zero. This is why each dynamics
is presented separately.
In the next sections, the following tuning situations are considered:
1. PI controller for a First order plus time delay (FOPTD) process
2. PID controller for a First order plus time delay (FOPTD) process
3. PI controller for an integral plus time delay (IPTD) process
4. PID controller for an integral plus time delay (IPTD) process
5. PID controller for an integral second order plus time delay (ISOPTD)
process
6. PID controller for an integral second order plus unstable zero
(ISOPUZ) process
7. PID controller for a second order (overdamped) plus time delay
(SOPTD) process
8. PID controller for a second order (underdamped) plus time delay
(SOPTD) process
FOPTD dynamics are probably the most usual models used in the
process industry for modeling self-regulating behaviors. For example
when modeling dynamics that involve balances of temperature, matter,
and energy in general. Also in a reactor where a reaction takes place,
180
ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196
the components balance generates a dynamics that can be usually
modeled as a FOPTD. When different reactors are connected in series,
higher order systems arise that can be described by SOPTD models. On
the other hand integral behavior arises, for example, when dealing with
level problems. Also when dealing with distillation columns control
problems, integrative behavior arises. The suitability of such process
models is often highlighted in different papers but just concentrating on
the specific dynamics the work deals with. A complete and illustrative
source of modeling for process control, illustrating how the previously
commented dynamics arise is the extensive book [25], whereas in-
dustrial applications can be sourced, for example, in Refs. [26–28].
For each one of the considered situations, the process dynamics
under consideration as well as the controller to be designed are ex-
pressed in normalized form, followed by an analysis of the MS behavior.
It is important to know how MS depends on the varying design para-
meter τc and the achievable robustness. On the basis of such analysis, τc
is characterized in order to achieve each one of the four considered
robustness specifications: MS = {1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0}. Straightforward
formulae is provided for τc in terms of the desired robustness level and
the process model parameters. Simulation examples are also provided
to show the application of the suggested choices as well as to compare
(when it does apply) the performance of a PI against PID.
4. First order processes
In this case we assume the process can be described by a first order
plus time delay (FOPTD) model of the form:
Ke−Ls
P (s ) =
Ts + 1 (12)
For a first order process, we have the option of controlling with a PI
or a PID controller. By using the transformation ŝ = Ts we get the fol-
lowing normalized process model and controller parameters:
e−τo ŝ
P (ŝ ) = κp = KKp, τI = Ti / T , τD = Td/ T
ŝ+1 (13)
The DS-d controller tuning relations obtained in Ref. [21] and ex-
pressed here in normalized form are:
∙ PI controller for a FOPTD process model
τo + τc (2 − τc )
κp =
(τc + τo)2 (14)
τo + τc (2 − τc )
τI =
(τc + τo) (15)
∙ PID controller for a FOPTD process model
τo (2 + τo / 2)(3τc + τo / 2) − 2τc3 − 3τc τo
κp =
2(τc + τo / 2)3
τo (2 + τo / 2)(3τc + τo / 2) − 2τc3 − 3τc τo
τI =
2τo (1 + τo)
3τc3 τo + (τo2 / 2)(3τc + τo / 2) − 2(1 + τo) τc3
τD =
τo (2 + τo / 2)(3τc + τo / 2) − 2τc3 − 3τc τo (16)
where τo = L∕T and τc = Tc∕T is the design parameter that expresses the
ratio between the open loop and closed loop time constant. If we ana-
lyze the variation of the robustness measure MS on τc for the different
values of τo ∈ [0.1, 2.0], we get the figures displayed in Fig. 3.
As we can see, as the τc parameter increases, the robustness also
increases. However this behavior is observed just up to a certain value
where robustness starts to decrease. This is more clear for the PID
controller, therefore delimiting the search range for the τc. For large
values of the τc, the controlled system will experience the opposite ef-
fect. Will loose robustness by making the system slower. Therefore
contrary to intuition.
With the PID controller it is found that the specification MS = 1.4
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 3. MS behavior depending on τc; for every τo; for a FOPTD process controlled by a PI and a PID.

can be achieved just within the range τo ∈ [0.5, 1.6]. The rest of the disturbance. However, this situation is not particular from this example.
robustness specifications can be achieved within all the normalized It is well known [26] that for a FOPTD process, a well tuned PI is quite
dead time range τo ∈ [0.1, 2.0]. Analyzing the values for τc where the MS close to the optimal. At this point it is worth to remember that the
gets the desired values, for a FOPTD, the recommended value for the τc purpose of the DS-d design is not to optimize for any particular index
parameter can be expressed as a double exponential term of the form: but to achieve a desired target for the load disturbance relation.
τc = p1 e p2 τo + p3 e p4 τo (17)
5. Integrator plus time delay processes
Table 1 resumes the specifications for the τc design parameter for
both PI and PID as well as for the four robustness specifications. In this case we assume the process can be described by a pure in-
As we think it is illustrative to see how the controller parameters do tegration plus time delay (IPTD) model of the form:
behave with respect to the normalized time constant τo, and as de-
pendent on the robustness specification, Fig. 4 shows the controller Ke−Ls
P (s ) =
parameters evolution for a PI and a PID. As it can be verified, for all the s (19)
process dynamic range, the controller parameters generated by using τc For this process model we have, as with the FOPTD case, the option
from (17) accomplish with the desired robustness. For PI as well as for of controlling with a PI or a PID controller. By using the transformation
PID the variation of the controller parameters is quite similar except for ŝ = Ls we get the following normalized process model and controller
the high robustness specification, MS = 1.4. In addition, we have to parameters:
notice the discontinuity in the PID case where it is impossible to get
such robustness for τo < 0.5. eŝ
P (ŝ ) = κp = KKp L, τI = Ti / L, τD = Td/ L
ŝ (20)
4.1. Simulation example Notice in this case, the process model does not depend on any
parameter. Therefore the resulting expression for the robust tuning will
In order to exemplify the application of the suggested tuning in the just be a constant. The DS-d controller tuning relations obtained in Ref.
time domain, the following process is considered [21] and expressed here in normalized form are:
e−s
P1 (s ) = τo = 1 ∙ PI controller for an IPTD process model
s+1 (18)
This example is also considered in Ref. [21] but with an unjustified 2τc + 1
κp = τI = 2τc + 1
choice for τc. Whereas the goal in Ref. [21] was to compare the reg- (τc + 1)2 (21)
ulation performance of the DS-d approach vs. other known designs, here
our purpose is to reflect the effectiveness of the proposed τc selection in
∙ PID controller for an IPTD process model
achieving the different robustness specifications and the corresponding
effect in the time domain. Also this will allow for a comparison of the PI 3τc + 1/2 (τc + 1/2)3 − 2τc3
κp = τI = 3τc + 1/2 τD =
and PID controller applied to a FOPTD. As it can be seen from Table 2 (τc + 1/2)3 (3τc + 1/2) (22)
the DS-d PI is superior to the DS-d PID both in terms of achieving
smaller IAE and with similar control effort. Fig. 5 provides the time
responses for both the PI and the PID controller when facing a step load
where in this case τc = Tc∕L is the design parameter that expresses the
Table 1 closed loop time constant in terms of the open loop process time delay.
τc selection for robust tuning of DS-d PI/PID controllers for FOPTD processes. For analysis purposes, in order to get consistency of notation with the
other process dynamic models considered, the τo parameter is defined
Robustness PI PID
in this case as τo = L. If we analyze the variation of the robustness
p1 p2 p3 p4 p1 p2 p3 p4 measure MS on τc for the different values of τo ∈ [0.1, 2.0], we get the
figures displayed in Fig. 6.
MS = 2.0 0.55 0.27 −0.53 −2.72 0.73 0.26 −0.72 −1.24 For IPTD process models controlled by a PI controller, the MS be-
MS = 1.8 0.61 0.31 −0.60 −2.86 0.75 0.28 −0.73 −1.30
havior is as expected: robustness increases with τc. Also, as commented,
MS = 1.6 0.71 0.37 −0.67 −3.1 0.76 0.30 −0.73 −1.40
MS = 1.4 0.70 0.60 −0.70 −5.10 0.67 1.0 – – because the normalized plant models do not have any parameter, we
just have one curve. No family of MS curves. However, notice that for a

181
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 4. Achieved robustness and PI (a) and PID (b) controller parameter evolution for a FOPTD process.

PID controller the specifications MS = 1.4 and MS = 1.6 can not be second order process with time delay (ISOPTD) model of the form:
achieved. The rest of the robustness specifications can be achieved
Ke−Ls
within all the normalized dead time range τo ∈ [0.1, 2.0]. For an IPTD, P (s ) = τo = L/ T
s (Ts + 1) (24)
the recommended values for the τc parameter are just constant values.
These values are collected in Table 3. Here, for the PID the robustness For this process model we have the analytical derivation of a PID
specification MS = 1.65 has been considered as there is no possibility to controller. By using the transformation ŝ = Ts we get the following
reach MS = 1.4 nor MS = 1.6. Fig. 7 show the controller parameters normalized process model and controller parameters:
evolution for a PI and a PID. As it can be verified, for all the process
dynamic range, the controller parameters generated by using the τc e−τo ŝ
P (ŝ ) = κp = KKp T , τI = Ti / T , τD = Td/ T
values from Table 3 accomplish with the desired robustness. For PI as ŝ (ŝ + 1) (25)
well as for PID the evolution of the controller parameters is quite si-
The DS-d controller tuning relations obtained in Ref. [21] and ex-
milar in all cases and very smooth. As a consequence of the τc values
pressed here in normalized form are:
being constant, the range of applicability goes beyond the considered
range τo ∈ [0.1, 2.0]. The simulation example that follows will present a κp = (3τc + τo)(1 + τo)
(τc + τo)3
particular case with a much large time delay.
τI = 3τc + τo
3τc2 + 3τc τo − τc3 + τo2
5.1. Simulation example τD =
(3τc + τo)(1 + τo) (26)

In order to exemplify the application of the suggested tuning in the
time domain, the following process is considered
0.2e−7.4s
P2 (s ) = τo = L = 7.4
s (23)
This example is proposed in Ref. [21] for the application of a PI
controller. Here we extend the example and in addition consider also
the application of the PID controller with the robust choices suggested
for the τc. As it can be seen from Table 4 even for a PID we can not
achieve all the desired robustness specifications, the PID is superior in a
clear way, offering better performance and with less control effort.
Fig. 8 provides the time responses for both the PI and the PID controller
when facing a step load disturbance.
6. Integrator second order plus time delay processes
In this case we assume the process can be described by an integrator
where τo = L∕T and τc = Tc∕T is the design parameter that expresses the
ratio between the open loop and closed loop time constant. If we ana-
lyze the variation of the robustness measure MS on τc for the different
values of τo ∈ [0.1, 2.0], we get the behavior displayed in Fig. 9.
As we can see, in this case the generic behavior is like the one for a
FOPTD process. However, because of the integrator, we see for the very
low values of τc that the behavior of MS is the opposite to the one would
expect: we loose robustness as we increase τc. Therefore, on such part of
the design range, one would tend to select τc as small as possible.
Therefore, for such processes, the recommended search interval for τc is
from τc ≈ 0.3 onwards. Based on this analysis, for a ISOPTD, the re-
commended value for the τc parameter can be expressed as a double
exponential term of the form:
τc = p1 e p2 τo + p3 e p4 τo (27)
Table 5 resumes the specifications for the τc design parameter for a
PID controller for the four robustness specifications. Fig. 10 shows the

Table 2
PI and PID controller settings applied to process P1(s).
Robustness PI PID

Kp Ti IAE emax TV Kp Ti Td IAE emax TV

MS = 2.0 0.67 0.95 1.22 0.62 1.54 1.14 1.45 0.32 1.27 0.64 1.59
MS = 1.8 0.60 0.98 1.27 0.63 1.32 0.99 1.43 0.31 1.44 0.64 1.26
MS = 1.6 0.50 1.00 1.50 0.64 1.09 0.97 1.41 0.29 1.62 0.65 1.20
MS = 1.4 0.36 0.96 1.92 0.66 1.00 0.61 1.29 0.22 2.11 0.68 1.32

182
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 5. Time responses for a PI and a PID applied to process P1(s).

Fig. 6. MS behavior depending on τc for every τo for an IPTD process.

Table 3 considerable loss of performance when we step towards a high ro-

τc selection for robust tuning of DS-d PI/PID controllers for IPTD processes bustness selection MS = 1.4. For the rest of the situations, the exchange
(for the PID, the MS = 1.6 is, in fact computed to achieve MS = 1.65. performance/robustness is quite gradual. Even this particular fact, we
Robustness PI PID see that the suggested selections for τc provide more than acceptable
responses for the different robustness levels.
τc τc

MS = 2.0 1.92 1.18

MS = 1.8 2.35 1.32 7. Integrator second order plus unstable zero processes
MS = 1.6 3.08 1.6
MS = 1.4 4.53 – In this case we assume the process is described by an integrator
second order process with an unstable zero (ISOZ) model of the form:

parameter evolution for a PID controller. As it can be verified, for all the K (−Ta s + 1)
process dynamic range, the controller parameters generated by using P (s ) = Ta = aT (a > 0)
s (Ts + 1) (29)
the τc values from Table 5 accomplish with the desired robustness.
For this process model we have the analytical derivation of a PID
6.1. Simulation example controller. By using the transformation ŝ = Ts we get the following
normalized process model and controller parameters:
In order to exemplify the application of the suggested tuning in the
time domain, the following process is considered (aŝ + 1)
P (ŝ ) = κp = KKp T , τI = Ti / T , τD = Td/ T
ŝ (ŝ + 1) (30)
0.2e−s
P3 (s ) =
s (s + 1) (28) The DS-d controller tuning relation obtained in Ref. [21] and ex-
As it can be seen both from the time responses in Fig. 11 and the pressed here in normalized form are:
numerical performance indexes shown in Table 6, there is a

183
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 7. Achieved robustness and PI (a) and PID (b) controller parameter evolution for a IPTD process.

Table 4
PI and PID controller settings applied to process P2(s).
Robustness PI PID

Kp Ti IAE emax TV Kp Ti Td IAE emax TV

MS = 2.0 0.38 35.81 46.65 1.34 0.96 0.57 29.87 2.66 25.92 0.94 0.91
MS = 1.8 0.34 42.18 61.25 1.42 0.87 0.50 33.03 2.37 33.07 1.02 0.82
MS = 1.6 0.29 52.98 89.86 1.57 0.78 0.39 39.13 1.50 50.41 0.94 0.81
MS = 1.4 0.22 74.44 155.04 1.90 0.69 – – – – – –

Fig. 8. Time responses for a PI and a PID applied to process P2(s).

(3τc − a)(1 − a) As it can be seen, the zero is maintained in the closed-loop relation
κp =
(τc − a)3
in the same way the time delay for time delayed processes. Therefore,
τI = 3τc − a
its cancellation is not imposed as it would mean an unstable pole/zero
3τc2 − 3τc a − τc3 + a2
τD = cancellation. In the case the zero was stable, its cancellation could be
(3τc − a)(1 − a) (31)
imposed in the desired closed-loop relation. Bearing this in mind, the
It is worth to mention that in the original [21] paper, there is no first thing is to analyze the behavior of Ms for different choices of the
explicit mention to the fact that the transfer function zero is, in fact, a unstable zero location and how the variation of τc affects it. This is
right-half plane zero. However, this can be deduced from the imposed shown in Fig. 12. In the figure, the MS plots versus τc are shown for
desired closed-loop regulatory transfer function: values of the relative locations of the unstable zero up to a = 1.1. It is
for this range that we can achieve robustness specifications up to
y K s (T s + 1) MS = 1.6. If we are to work on higher robustness, values MS = 1.4 or
⎛ ⎞ = d a K d = Ti / Kp
⎝ d ⎠d (τc Ts + 1)3 (32) lower, this can be achieved just for very lower values for the a relation.

184
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 9. MS behavior depending on τc for every τo for an ISOPTD process.

Table 5 −1.6(−0.5s + 1)
P4 (s ) = a = 0.1667
τc selection for robust tuning of DS-d PID controller for an ISOPTD process. s (3s + 1) (34)
Robustness PID As it can be seen both from the time responses in Fig. 14 and the
numerical performance indexes shown in Table 8, there is a consider-
p1 p2 p3 p4
able loss of performance when we step towards a high robustness se-
MS = 2.0 1.15 0.36 −1.05 −1.90 lection MS = 1.6. For the rest of the situations, the exchange perfor-
MS = 1.8 1.31 0.36 −1.20 −1.90 mance/robustness is quite gradual. Even this particular fact, we see that
MS = 1.6 1.60 0.35 −1.50 −1.90
the suggested selections for τc provide more than acceptable responses
MS = 1.4 2.30 0.30 −2.10 −1.80
for the different robustness levels. Therefore, confirming the difficulty
on load disturbance attenuation for processes with inverse response.
Therefore, in order not to constraint too much the possible values for
the unstable zero, here we will work with values of the robustness 8. Second order plus time delay processes
specifications with MS = 1.6 or larger.
It can be observed on Fig. 12, as for FOPTD, the robustness increases In this case we assume the process can be described by second order
up to a certain value of τc from where MS starts to increase. Therefore plus time delay (SOPTD) model of the form:
starting to loose robustness. Keeping the search interval for τc from the Ke−Ls
one that ensures the minimum achievable value of MS and descending P (s ) = a ∈ [0, 1]
(Ts + 1)(aTs + 1) (35)
towards cero, and constraining the robustness to MS ∈{1.6, 1.8, 2.0},
the recommended value for the τc parameter can be expressed as a For this process model we have the analytical derivation of a PID
double exponential term of the form: controller. By using the transformation ŝ = Ts we get the following
normalized process model and controller parameters:
τc = p1 e p2 τo + p3 e p4 τo (33)
Ke−τo ŝ
P (ŝ ) = κp = KKp, τI = Ti / T , τD = Td/ T
(ŝ + 1)(aŝ + 1) (36)
Table 7 resumes the specifications for the τc design parameter for a
PID controller. In addition, Fig. 13 shows the parameter evolution for a The DS-d controller tuning relations obtained in Ref. [21] and ex-
PID controller. As it can be verified, for all the process dynamic range, pressed here in normalized form are:
the controller parameters generated by using the τc values from Table 7
[(1 + a) τo + a](3τc + τo) − τc3 − 3τo τc2
accomplish with the desired robustness (see Fig. 14). κp =
8(τc + τo)3
[(1 + a) τo + a](3τc + τo) − τc3 − 3τo τc2
τI =
a + (1 + a + τo) τo
7.1. Simulation example 3aτc2 + aτo (3τc + τo) − (1 + a + τo) τc3
τD =
[(1 + a) τo + a](3τc + τo) − τc3 − 3τo τc2 (37)
In order to exemplify the application of the suggested tuning in the
where τo = L∕T and τc = Tc∕T is the design parameter that expresses the
time domain, the level control problem from Ref. [21] is considered.
ratio between the open loop and closed loop time constant. The first
This is the liquid level control in a reboiler of a steam-heated distillation
thing is to analyze the behavior of MS for different choices of the time
column. The level is to be controlled by adjusting the control valve on
constants ratio, a, and τo. Two important aspects are to be noticed in
the steam line. The process model transfer function is given by
this case: the shape of MS and, secondly, how the ratio between the

185
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 10. Achieved robustness and PID controller parameters evolution for an ISOPTD process.

Fig. 11. Time responses for a PID applied to process P4(s).

Table 6 process model time constants, a, constraint the achievable robustness.

PI and PID controller settings applied to process P3(s). Fig. 15 shows the behavior of MS for two representative values of a and
Robustness PID
τo ∈ [0.1, 1.5]. We can see that as lower the time constant ratio a, the
constraint imposed on the achievable robustness is higher, so we are
Kp Ti Td IAE emax TV constrained to work with higher values for MS. Even for a ≈ 1 we can
achieve MS = 1.4 just for values of τo up to 1.5. Therefore, there is a
MS = 2.0 3.54 5.47 0.90 0.78 0.15 1.00
MS = 1.8 3.10 6.10 0.97 1.00 0.16 0.89
relation between the value of a and the imposed limiting value for MS. A
MS = 1.6 2.52 7.14 1.09 1.45 0.18 0.75 more detailed analysis shows that if we decide to work with the ro-
MS = 1.4 1.75 9.27 1.32 2.78 0.23 0.71 bustness values MS = {1.65, 1.8, 2.0}, then these value can be achieved

186
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 12. MS behavior depending on τc for different values of the unstable zero location (a) for an ISOZ process.

Table 7 that basis, the derivation of the values for the selection of τo that are to
τc selection for robust tuning of DS-d PID controller for an ISOZ process. follow, will be for the just mentioned values for MS.
Robustness PID
Before proceeding the search for the minimum value of τc that, for a
specific combination of the process model parameters; a and τo; pro-
p1 p2 p3 p4 vides the desired value for MS, it is worth to notice from Fig. 15 the
behavior of MS for very small values of τc: it increases rapidly as τc
MS = 2.0 1.18 0.40 −1.15 −2.40
MS = 1.8 1.24 0.43 −1.20 −2.77
increases. Therefore, showing a behavior that is contrary to the ex-
MS = 1.6 1.07 0.71 −1.10 −4.57 pected one. When increasing τc we are making the system slower,
therefore it is expected that the less bandwidth usage provides more
robustness to the closed-loop system. This is not the case when working
for all the allowed values for a and τo. Note that we are using te value on the extreme of small τc values. On that basis, the search is stated
1.65 instead of 1.6 but from a practical point of view it can be used, for avoiding this first crossing of the desired robustness value.
comparison purposes, as the robustness level corresponding to 1.6. On The normalized process model is dependent on two parameters, and

Fig. 13. Achieved robustness and PID controller parameters evolution for an ISOZ process.

187
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 14. Time responses for a PID applied to process P4(s).

Table 8 values corresponding to the two nearest a values.

PID controller settings applied to process P4(s). As in this case the process model is dependent on two parameters, to
Robustness PID
show the evolution of the controller parameters depending on τo for
every one of the considered values for a would represent too many
Kp Ti Td IAE emax TV figures. Just two representative cases are shown in Fig. 16 for the cases
a = 0.35 and a = 0.75. Notice these values does not correspond to the
MS = 2.0 −1.40 4.91 1.37 1.77 0.26 0.63
MS = 1.8 −1.12 5.68 1.52 2.55 0.33 0.62
values provided in Table 9. They are obtained by interpolating the
MS = 1.6 −0.86 6.72 1.70 3.91 0.44 0.62 controller values for a = {0.3, 0.4} and a = {0.7, 0.8} respectively.
Therefore, they show (even this is just a particular case) how even in
the case we need to interpolate, the tuning provides the required ro-
the recommended value for the τc parameter can be expressed in terms bustness. For small values of the delay to time constant ratio τo a little
of τo with an expression of the form: bit of precision is lost but in any case the values achieved for the MS can
be considered appropriately closer to the specified values. It can also be
τc = α (a) τoβ (a) (38) appreciated that as the value of a gets smaller, the behavior of the
controller parameters experiences considerable major changes de-
Where α(a) and β(a) are dependent on the value of a. In Table 9 pending on the robustness level we are working.
these values are obtained for some specific values of a. In case that the With the aim of reducing the number of parameters needed to tune
value of a in our process model does not coincide with one of the values the controller, the variation of the α and β parameters on a has been
of the table, then it is necessary to interpolate the controller parameter

Fig. 15. MS behavior depending on τc for process time constant ratios, a = 0.5 and a = 0.95 and τo ∈ [0.1, 1.5] for a SOPTD process.

188
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Table 9
α and β values in (38) depending on the a parameter for robust tuning of DS-d PID controllers for SOPTD processes.
Robustness a

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

MS = 2.0 α 0.4815 0.5116 0.5469 0.5812 0.6158 0.6488 0.6804 0.7106 0.7388 0.7654
β 0.4641 0.4275 0.3833 0.3628 0.3459 0.3368 0.3327 0.3324 0.3352 0.3392
MS = 1.8 α 0.5836 0.6029 0.6327 0.6662 0.7006 0.7344 0.7673 0.7991 0.8292 0.8581
β 0.5017 0.4738 0.4326 0.3982 0.3749 0.3597 0.3509 0.3473 0.3466 0.3480
MS = 1.6 α 0.7467 0.7236 0.7382 0.7646 0.7956 0.8282 0.8612 0.8937 0.9252 0.9557
β 0.5911 0.5528 0.4972 0.4503 0.4157 0.3916 0.3761 0.3666 0.3620 0.3600

Fig. 16. Achieved robustness and PID controller parameter evolution for a SOPTD process with (a) a = 0.35 and (b) a = 0.75.

Table 10 analyzed and it is observed that they can be fitted to the following
Parameters for the simplified τc parameterization (42) for robust tuning of DS-d shapes:
PID controllers for SOPTD processes.
α (a) = p1 a + p0 (39)
Robustness p1 p2 q1 q2 q3 q4
β (a) = q1 e q2 a + q3 e q4 a (40)
MS = 2.0 0.30 0.46 0.30 −2.00 0.20 0.50
MS = 1.8 0.35 0.52 0.34 −2.27 0.21 0.50
For each one of the three considered robustness specifications, say
MS = 1.6 0.28 0.67 0.39 −1.62 0.20 0.35
MSd ∈ {1.6, 1.8, 2.0} , an optimization with respect to the fitting para-
meters {pi} and {qi} has been carried out such that the maximum

Fig. 17. MS robustness achievement with the two proposed τc parameter recommendations: (a) detailed expressions for sample values of a parameter (38) and (b) the
simplified expression (42). In all cases, robustness is shown depending on the τo parameter for 0 < a < 1.

189
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 18. Time responses for a PID controller applied to process P5(s) by using (38), solid line, and (42), dashed line.

Table 11 Fig. 18 shows the corresponding time responses for the PID con-
PID controller settings applied to process P5(s). trollers got by using the two formulations for the selection of τc. In order
Robustness Kp Ti Td IAE emax TV
to easy refer to the two methods for the computation of τc, the one given
by (38) is referred as the full method whereas the one given by (42) is
MS = 2.0 full 0.33 6.66 1.31 10.06 0.48 0.50 referred as the simplified method. As it can be seen both cases, for the
simplified 0.33 6.67 1.32 10.10 0.49 0.50 three robustness levels, provide very similar time responses. In Table 11
MS = 1.8 full 0.28 6.60 1.24 11.66 0.52 0.50
simplified 0.28 6.62 1.25 11.52 0.51 0.50
this similarity is confirmed by the practically equivalent PID para-
MS = 1.6 full 0.22 6.30 1.04 13.84 0.56 0.50 meters. Just slight variation up to the second decimal can be appre-
simplified 0.22 6.24 1.00 14.14 0.57 0.50 ciated. This suggests that the simplified (42) and more compact ex-
pression for the selection of τc can be used to tune the Robust DS-d PID
controller.
deviation of MS is minimized.

min pi , qi max 0 < a < 1,0.1 ≤ τo≤ 2.0 MS − MSd (41)

The results are shown in Table 10 and provide a unique set of
parameters for each one of the desired robustness that allow to generate
the recommended value for τc according to:
q1 e q2 a + q3 e q4 a)
τc = (p1 a + p0 ) τo(
In addition, Fig. 17 compares the achievement of the specified ro-
bustness by using either the detailed expression (38) that depends on
specific a values and do need interpolation of the controller parameters,
and the simplified expression (10). Robustness is shown depending on
the τo parameter for 0 < a < 1. In the example that follows it will also
be shown how the use of those two τc recommendations repercutes on
the time responses.
8.1. Simulation example
In order to exemplify the application of the suggested tuning in the
time domain, two process models are considered corresponding to
different a and τo values. The examples are deliberately taken so the
corresponding a values does not exactly match those listed in Table 9.
2e−7s
P5 (s ) = τo = 1.4 a = 0.38
(5s + 1)(1.9s + 1)
8.2. Simulation example
In this case, another simulation example is provided, with a larger
value for a and smaller τo. As before, the exact value of a does not match
those listed in Table 9. Therefore there will be the need for inter-
(42) polating the controller parameters when applying the full method.
e−2s
P6 (s ) = τo = 0.25 a = 0.73
(8s + 1)(5.84s + 1) (44)
In this case, as the value of τo is smaller, as predicted by the ob-
served MS behavior in Fig. 17, the variation of the MS values is larger for
the simplified case. Therefore, more differences are to be expected. This
is confirmed in Fig. 19 and Table 12. Even the difficulty for fitting the
parameters in the low range for τo, the difference in the final parameters
is not so large and the time responses as well as performance indexes
provided are similar to the full ones. Specially as far as we are con-
cerned with a more robust design.
9. Second order (underdamped) plus time delay processes
In this case we assume the process can be described by second order
(43)
(underdamped) plus time delay (SOPTDu) model of the form:

190
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 19. Time responses for a PID controller applied to process P6(s) by using (38), solid line, and (42), dashed line.

Table 12 normalized process model and controller parameters:

PID controller settings applied to process P6(s).
Ke−τo ŝ
Robustness Kp Ti Td IAE emax TV P (ŝ ) = κp = KKp, τI = Ti / T , τD = Td/ T
(ŝ 2 + 2δŝ + 1) (46)
MS = 2.0 full 2.46 10.33 2.70 2.10 0.14 0.55
The DS-d controller tuning relation obtained in Ref. [21] and ex-
simplified 2.62 10.01 2.64 1.91 0.13 0.56
MS = 1.8 full 2.17 10.95 2.82 2.52 0.15 0.53 pressed here in normalized form are:
simplified 2.24 10.79 2.79 2.40 0.15 0.54
(2δτo + 1)(3τc + τo) − τc3 − 3τc2 τo
MS = 1.6 full 1.93 11.49 2.92 2.85 0.17 0.52 κp =
(τc + τo)3
simplified 1.99 11.35 2.90 2.97 0.16 0.53
(2δτo + 1)(3τc + τo) − τc3 − 3τc2 τo
τI =
1 + (2δ + τo) τo
3τc2 + τo (3τc + τo) − (2δ + τo) τc3
Ke−Ls τD =
P (s ) = δ ∈ (0, 1) (2δτo + 1)(3τc + τo) − τc3 − 3τc2 τo (47)
(T 2s 2 + 2δTs + 1) (45)
where τo = L∕T and τc = Tc∕T is the design parameter that expresses the
For this process model we have the analytical derivation of a PID ratio between the open loop and closed loop underdamped frequencies.
controller. By using the transformation ŝ = Ts we get the following The first thing is to analyze the behavior of MS for different choices of

Fig. 20. MS behavior depending on τc for process damping ratios, δ = 0.2 and δ = 0.8 and τo ∈ [0.1, 2.0] for a SOPTDu process.

191
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Table 13
pi values in (48) depending on the δ parameter for robust tuning of DS-d PID controllers for SOPTDu processes.
Robustness δ

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

MS = 2.0 p1 1.003 1.12 1.268 1.433 1.581 1.676 1.723 1.721 1.644
p2 0.2956 0.0909 −0.07841 −0.2105 −0.3017 −0.3538 −0.3808 −0.384 −0.3683
p3 −1.442 −1.064 −1.085 −1.21 −1.347 −1.436 −1.486 −1.481 −1.409
p4 −5.163 −3.157 −2.303 −1.869 −1.637 −1.496 −1.409 −1.332 −1.307
MS = 1.8 p1 1.081 1.181 1.284 1.351 1.383 1.355 1.314 1.263 1.21
p2 0.2965 0.1041 −0.041 −0.1355 −0.1912 −0.2087 −0.2086 −0.1962 −0.1764
p3 −1.953 −1.145 −1.069 −1.093 −1.111 −1.083 −1.041 −0.9946 −0.9467
p4 −6.474 −3.674 −2.653 −2.242 −2.012 −1.92 −1.836 −1.78 −1.731
MS = 1.6 p1 – 1.278 1.343 1.357 1.336 1.287 1.226 1.184 1.149
p2 – 0.1191 −0.0078 −0.077 −0.1096 −0.1137 −0.099 −0.0845 −0.0657
p3 – −1.341 −1.085 −1.038 −1.0 −0.9523 −0.8985 −0.858 −0.8289
p4 – −4.64 −3.186 −2.703 −2.461 −2.338 −2.272 −2.154 −2.046

Fig. 21. Achieved robustness and PID controller parameter evolution for a SOPTDu process with (a) δ = 0.32 and (b) δ = 0.77.

the damping ratio, δ, and τo. In Fig. 20 as δ is reduced towards zero, the
minimum achievable values for MS gets constrained. We can see, for
example, that for δ = 0.2 there are quite a few values of τo the speci-
fication MS = 1.4 can not be achieved. Even more than this, for the
value MS = 1.6, the robustness can not be achieved for δ ≤ 0.1 On that
basis, the derivation of the values for the selection of τc that are to
follow, will be for MS = {1.6, 1.8, 2.0}.
From Fig. 20 it is noticed that, effectively, if the δ takes very low
values, then another possibility, much smaller, for τc appears. However,
notice that for these values for τc the behavior of the robustness as we
make the system slower is contrary to what is expected. Therefore, the
search should be conducted on the appropriate τc interval. The nor-
malized process model is dependent on two parameters, and the re-
commended value for the τc parameter can be expressed in terms of τo
with an expression of the form:
representative cases are shown in Fig. 21 for the cases δ = 0.32 and
δ = 0.77. Notice these values do not correspond to the values provided
in Table 13. They are obtained by interpolating the controller values for
δ = {0.3, 0.4} and δ = {0.7, 0.8} respectively. Therefore, they show
(even this is just a particular case) how even in the case we need to
interpolate, the tuning provides the required robustness. It is also im-
portant to take notice of the difference in behavior that the derivative
time parameter experiences as δ is reduced, for MS = 1.6. The depen-
dence of τD on τo goes from a monotonic smooth variation, to a more
abrupt change from lower to higher τo values. This suggests the diffi-
culty in tuning the derivative time parameter for system with higher
natural oscillations (lower damping ratio).
9.1. Simulation example

τc = p1 e p2 τo + p3 e p4 τo In order to exemplify the application of the suggested tuning in the

(48)
time domain, the following process models is considered. The example
Where the pi are dependent on δ. In Table 13 these values are ob- is deliberately taken so the corresponding δ values does not exactly
tained for some specific values of δ. In case that the value of δ in our match those listed in Table 13.
process model does not coincide with one of the values of the table,
e−2.6s
then it is necessary to interpolate the controller parameter values cor- P7 (s ) = τo = 1.3 δ = 0.55
s2 + 0.55s + 0.25 (49)
responding to the two nearest δ values.
As with the SOPTD overdamped case, in this case the process model Fig. 22 shows the corresponding time responses for the PID con-
is also dependent on two parameters. Therefore, to show the evolution trollers got by using interpolated controllers from the table above. As it
of the controller parameters depending on τo for every one of the can be seen both cases, the shape of the time responses is quite similar,
considered values for δ would represent too many figures. Just two except for the fact that as we increase the robustness the speed of the

192
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 22. Time responses for a PID controller applied to process P7(s) by using (48).

Table 14 closed-loop system gets slower. Table 14 provides the controller para-
PID controller settings applied to process P7(s). meters as well as the performance indexes corresponding to the three
Robustness Kp Ti Td IAE emax TV
robustness levels. As it can be observed, the main difference in the
controller parameters comes from the derivative time constant.
MS = 2.0 0.28 1.89 1.75 4.22 0.75 0.51
MS = 1.8 0.23 1.87 1.93 4.87 0.82 0.51
MS = 1.6 0.18 1.78 2.23 5.89 0.93 0.51 10. Case of study example

In order to add completeness to the proposal, a case-study example

is provided. We consider the isothermal Continuous Stirred Tank
Reactor (CSTR), as the one in Fig. 23, where the isothermal series/
parallel Van de Vusse reaction [29,30] takes place. The reaction can be
described by the following scheme
k1 k2
A ⟶ B ⟶ C
k3
2A ⟶ D (50)

Doing a mass balance, the system can be described by the following

model
dCA (t ) Fr (t )
= V
[CAi − CA (t )] − k1 CA (t ) − k3 CA2 (t )
dt
dCB (t ) Fr (t )
= − V
CB (t ) + k1 CA (t ) − k2 CB (t ) (51)
dt

where Fr is the feed flow rate of product A, V is the reactor volume

which is kept constant during the operation, CA and CB are the reactant
concentrations in the reactor, and ki (i = 1, 2, 3) are the reaction rate
constants for the three reactions.
In this case, the variables of interest are: the concentration of B in
the reactor (CB as the controlled variable), the flow through the reactor
(Fr as the manipulated variable), and the concentration CAi of A in the
feed flow (whose variation can be considered as the disturbance). The
kinetic parameters are chosen to be k1 = 5∕6 min−1, k2 = 5∕3 min−1,
and k3 = 1∕6 l mol−1 min−1. Also, is assumed that the nominal con-
centration of A in the feed (CAi) is 10 mol l−1 and the volume V = 700 l.
Fig. 23. CSTR system.
Using (51) and the parameter values, the characterization of the
steady-state for the process can be obtained as shown in Fig. 24, for
three concentrations of CAi, where the non-linearity of the system is

193
R. Vilanova et al. ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196

Fig. 24. Steady-State characterization for the reactor.

Fig. 25. Steady-State characterization for the set actuator-process-sensor. Fig. 26. Reaction curve for the process and the FOPDT model.

easy to see. Table 15

Initially, the system is at the steady-state (therefore, the operational PID controller parameters applied to the Case of Study.
point) with CAo = 2.9175 mol l−1 and CBo = 1.10 mol l−1. From this,
Robustness τc PID Evaluation
the measurement range for CB from 0 to 1.5714 mol∕l and the capacity
for the control valve with a maximum flow of 634.1719 l∕ min (varia- Kp Ti Td Msr IAE emax TV
tion range of the flow from 0 to 634.1719 l∕ min) can be selected [31].
The signals (y, u, r) will be in the percentage (0–100%). MS = 2.0 0.66 4.02 0.84 0.17 2.07 2.91 2.86 19.30
The sensor-transmitter element takes the form MS = 1.8 0.71 3.50 0.84 0.17 1.81 3.33 3.14 18.89
MS = 1.6 0.76 3.05 0.83 0.16 1.64 3.78 3.44 18.78
100 MS = 1.4 0.81 2.62 0.81 0.15 1.51 4.30 3.78 18.91
y (t )% = ⎛ ⎞ CB (t )
⎝ 1.5714 ⎠ (52)

and the control valve with a linear flow characteristic, process-sensor, and from this it is clear that for the selected steady-state,
634.1719 ro = 70% and uo = 60%.
Fr (t ) = ⎛ ⎞ u (t )% It is assumed that changes in the set-point would be not bigger than
⎝ 100 ⎠ (53)
10% and the possible disturbance in CAi, can vary around ± 20%. In
Fig. 25 shows the steady-state characterization, taking into account Fig. 26 the process output (including the sensor and the control valve)
elements represented by (52) and (53). This is called set actuator-

194
R. Vilanova et al.
Fig. 27. Process output for the non-linear control system operating in both servo and regulation modes.
and also the FOPDT model for a step change in the process input (yu(t))
can be seen.
Using the identification method [32], the determined FOPDT model
is
0.3199e−0.5289s
P8 (s ) ≈
0.6238s + 1
From (54), using (17) to get the value of τc for each choice of ro-
bustness level (MS), and then the tuning relations (16), it is possible to
achieve the corresponding PID parameters, as shown in Table 15.
The process outputs of the closed-loop system are shown in Fig. 27,
first for a set-point step change of −5%, followed by a disturbance of
+20% and finally a new change in the disturbance of −20%, all these
situations using the tuning parameters of Table 15. Also, the control
signal (u(t)) can be seen. It appears that, as expected, the control signal
is smoother for higher robustness levels. It is important to emphasise
that the disturbance changes are bigger than the set-point because the
tuning method is for regulation mode and the servo-control operation is
shown just for illustrative purposes.
Table 15 also shows the evaluation indexes for each one of the ro-
bustness tunings. As it can be seen, as we increase the robustness, the
performance decreases (IAE and emax both increases). Also the obtained
value Msr as the resulting MS and measured by using the identified
process model is quite adjusted to the designed one. It is important to
highlight that the evaluation indices shown correspond to the dis-
turbance of +20% as it is more aggressive than the change of −20%.
11. Conclusions
In this work, the robustness analysis of PI/PID controllers tuned
specifically for load disturbance attenuation has been considered. The
considered base design is the direct synthesis design for load dis-
turbance. In this design the desired regulatory behavior is specified in
terms of a single free parameter that determined the regulatory closed-
loop time constant. An appropriate selection of this design parameter
has been worked out in order to guarantee that the resulting closed-
loop system provides some desired robustness guarantees.
ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196
Even the design is driven by a single parameter, it is seen that for
every one of the eight considered cases of process dynamics and con-
troller structure, some desired robustness are not granted. Even more,
the behavior of MS, as a measure of robustness, may not be as expected,
suggesting the selection of very low closed-loop time constants as a way
of achieving a more robust closed-loop. As part of the analysis, the
(54)
controlled process and controller parameters are expressed first in
normalized form. This allows to rewrite the tuning parameter as τc, the
ratio between the open and closed-loop time constants, that is much
better than just the closed-loop time constant in absolute terms.
The pursued analysis allowed to generate expressions for the com-
putation of the τc design parameter depending on the desired robust-
ness. This way, the design of the closed loop will become more
straightforward. The provided τc will be the fastest one that allows to
achieve the specified robustness.
Acknowledgment
This work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministry of
Economy and Competitiveness program and FEDER funds under grant
DPI2016-77271-R and Consolidated Research Group SGR 1202 Also,
the financial support from the University of Costa Rica, under the grant
731-B4-213, is greatly appreciated.
References
[1] Samad T. A survey on industry impact and challenges thereof [technical activities].
IEEE Contr Syst Mag 2017;37(1):17–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCS.2016.
2621438.
[2] O'Dwyer A. Handbook of PI and PID controller tuning rules. third ed. London, UK:
Imperial College Press; 2009.
[3] Alcantara S, Vilanova R, Pedret C. PID control in terms of robustness/performance
and servo/regulator trade-offs: a unifying approach to balanced autotuning. J
Process Contr 2013;23(4):527–42.
[4] Arrieta O, Vilanova R. Simple servo/regulation proportional-integral-derivative
(PID) tuning rules for arbitrary Ms-based robustness achievement. Ind Eng Chem
Res 2012;51(6):2666–74. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie201655c.
[5] Arrieta O, Vilanova R, Rojas JD, Meneses M. Improved PID controller tuning rules
for performance degradation/robustness increase trade-off. Electr Eng
2016;98(3):233–43.
195
R. Vilanova et al.
[6] Shinskey FG. Process control: as taught vs as practiced. Ind Eng Chem Res
2002;41:3745–50.
[7] Hagglund T. A unified discussion on signal filtering in PID control. Contr Eng Pract
2013;21(8):994–1006.
[8] Rivera DE, Morari M, Skogestad S. Internal model control. 4. PID controller desing.
Ind Eng Chem Des Dev 1986;25:252–65.
[9] Chien I-L, Fruehauf PS. Consider IMC tuning to improve controller performance.
Chem Eng Prog 1990;86:33–41.
[10] Horn IG, Arulandu JR, Gombas CJ, VanAntwerp JG, Braatz RD. Improved filter
design in internal model control. Ind Eng Chem Res 1996;35(10):3437–41.
[11] Lee Y, Park S, Lee M, Brosilow C. Pid controller tuning for desired closed-loop re-
sponses for si/so systems. AIChE J 1998;44(1):106–15.
[12] Lee Y, Lee J, Park S. PID controller tuning for integrating and unstable processes
with time delay. Chem Eng Sci 2000;55:3481–93.
[13] Shamsuzzoha M, Lee M. Imc-pid controller design for improved disturbance re-
jection of time-delayed processes. Ind Eng Chem Res 2007;46:1077–2091.
[14] Shamsuzzoha M, Lee M. Analytical design of enhanced PID filter controller for in-
tegrating and first order unstable processes with time delay. Chem Eng Sci
2008;63:2717–31.
[15] Shamsuzzoha M, Lee M. An enhanced performance pid filter controller for first
order time delay processes. J Chem Eng Jpn 2007;40(6):501–10. https://doi.org/
10.1252/jcej.40.501.
[16] Truxal JG. Automatic feedback control system synthesis. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1955.
[17] Ragazzini J, Franklin G. Sampled-data control systems. New York: SMcGraw-Hill;
1958.
[18] Seborg DE, Edgar TF, Mellichamp DA. Process dynamics and control. second ed.
Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2004.
[19] D. E. B., Designing and tuning digital controllers, Instrum Contr Syst (42 (6), 77.).
[20] Szita G, Sanathanan C. Model matching controller design for disturbance rejection.
J Franklin Inst 1996;333B:747.
196
ISA Transactions 81 (2018) 177–196
[21] Chen D, Seborg D. PI/PID controller desing based on direct synthesis and dis-
turbance rejection. Ind Eng Chem Res 2002;41:4807–22.
[22] Atherton D, Boz A. Time scaling in PID controller tuning. Trans Inst Meas Contr
2009;31(5):425–33.
[23] Åström K, Hägglund T. Advanced PID control. Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
USA: ISA - The Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society; 2006.
[24] Vilanova R, Alfaro VM, Arrieta O, Pedret C. Analysis of the claimed robustness for
PI/PID robust tuning rules. 18th IEEE mediterranean conference on control and
automation (MED2010), June 23-25, Marrakech, Morocco. 2010.
[25] Marlin TE. Process control designing processes and control systems for dynamic
performance. McGraw-Hill Science/Engineering/Math; 2015.
[26] Vilanova R, Visioli A. PID control in the third millenium. Springer Verlag London
Limited; 2012. p. 207–34.
[27] Huerta H, Osorio R, Vzquez N. Nonlinear robust control of a machine to make thin
films. Revista Iberoamericana de Automtica e Informtica Industrial RIAI
2017;14(3):246–55https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riai.2017.04.002.
[28] Vilanova R, Santn I, Pedret C. Control and operation of wastewater treatment plants
(i). Revista Iberoamericana de Automtica e Informtica Industrial RIAI
2017;14(4):329–45https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riai.2017.09.001.
[29] Van de Vusse JG. Plug-flow type reactor versus tank reactor. Chem Eng Sci
1964;19:964.
[30] Kravaris C, Daoutidis P. Nonlinear state feedback control of second order non-
minimum-phase nonlinear systems. Comput Chem Eng 1990;14(4–5):439–49.
[31] Arrieta O, Vilanova R, Alfaro VM, Moreno R. Considerations on PID controller
operation: application to a continuous stirred tank reactor. 13th IEEE international
conference on emerging technologies and factory automation (ETFA08), September
15-18, Hamburg-Germany. 2008.
[32] Alfaro VM. Low-order models identification from the process reaction curve.
Ciencia Tecnolog 2006;24(2):197–216 (in Spanish) Available at:. http://revista-
ciencia-tecnologia.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/ciencia-tecnologia/article/view/35.