Thesis
Analytical Design of PID Controller for
Enhanced Disturbance Rejection of
Processes without Time Delay
Graduate School of Yeungnam University
Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology
Major in Chemical Engineering and Technology
MUHAMMAD MASUM JUJULY
Advisor Prof. Moonyong Lee
2010 June
M.S. Thesis
Analytical Design of PID Controller for
Enhanced Disturbance Rejection of
Processes without Time Delay
Advisor Prof. Moonyong Lee
Presented as M.S. Thesis
2010 June
Graduate School of Yeungnam University
Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology
Major in Chemical Engineering and Technology
MUHAMMAD MASUM JUJULY
Muhammad Masum Jujulys M.S. Thesis is
approved:
Committee member Professor Jae Jin Shim _____________
Committee member Professor Moonyong Lee _____________
Committee member Professor Jae Hak Jung _____________
2010 June
Graduate School of Yeungnam University
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all by the grace of Almighty, I would like to thank my honorable advisor, Professor
Moonyong Lee, for providing me the opportunity to work in this exciting field. His keen
supervisions and proper guidance made me enthusiastic to carry out this research. Professor
Moonyong Lee is one of the most wonderful persons, I have ever known. He is not only
our supervisor but also like our parents in South Korea. He provides us inspiration upon
not only technical, as well as nontechnical, matters. My special gratitude goes to Professor
Jae Jin Shim for his kind help and constructive suggestion during my Masters degree. I
would also like to thank my oral examination committee, who also provides me his
valuable suggestions Professors Jae Hak Jung.
I wish to record my sincere thanks and grateful to all teachers and personnel of School of
Chemical Engineering and Technology, Yeungnam University, for their kind and excellent
teaching, helpful suggestion and kind cooperation during my Masters course and I also
wish to thank the staffs from the graduate school as well as the office of international
supports for their kind support during my student life in Yeungnam University.
I express my special thanks to all Process System Design and Control (PSDC) members
(former and present), especially, M. Shamsuzzoha, Choa Moon Yun, Seunghyun Lee,
MunKyu Yoon, Truong Vu, Seungtaek Hong, Nguyen Viet Ha, Nguyen Van Duc Long,
Pham Duong, Anna Kim, Suraya Hanim, Mohd. Shariq Khan, Yong Soo Kwon, Min Ki
Kim, Le Minh and my friends from my country for their friendship and support which
sustained me through many challenging occasions, and helped me to move forward during
stay in Korea.
Finally, I express my indebtedness to my parents and relatives for their constant inspiration,
understanding and unlimited forbearance during the entire period of work.
2010 June
Muhammad Masum Jujuly
i
ABSTRACT
In process control area, it is a typical practice to use proportionalintegral (PI) or
proportionalintegralderivative (PID) type controller for their relatively simple structures
which can be comprehend easily as well as implemented in practice. Finding a simple
design technique of the PI/PID type controller with a significant performance has become a
very important research issue for engineers. The internal model control (IMC) based tuning
rule is simple, easy to utilize, and to derive the analytical design method which is very
attractive to practitioners in the real practice. The analytical PI/PID controller design is very
significant for a stable process because majority of the process in process industries are
design as a stable. The most important fact is IMCPI/PID tuning rule has only one user
defined tuning parameter, which is directly related to the closedloop time constant. The
PI/PID tuning methods proposed by Rivera et al. (1986), Morari and Zafiriou (1989), Horn
et al. (1996), Lee et al. (1998) and Shamsuzzoha et al. (2008) are some typical examples of
the IMCPID tuning method.
Therefore, the present study is devoted to develop a unified framework for IMC based
PI/PID controller design and analysis which is divided into several sections.
Although the IMCPI/PID controllers provide satisfactory setpoint tracking but in case of
disturbance response its response is rather sluggish. However, for many cases, disturbance
rejection is much more important than setpoint tracking. It is reported that the suppression
for load disturbance is poor when the process dynamics are considerably slower than the
desired closedloop dynamics. Consequently, a controller design emphasizing both
disturbance rejection and setpoint tracking are very important and essential in design
problem.
This study emphasizes to develop a generalized two degree of freedom IMCPI/PID
controller design methods for various types of integrating, first order, second order and
some other processes without time delay. The proposed method was compared with the
several representative existing methods. The results demonstrate the proposed method
provides superior performance over the other existing methods.
ii
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................ I
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ II
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................... IV
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................ V
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1
1.1 MOTIVATIONS ...................................................................................... 1
1.2 REVIEW OF PID CONTROLLER ..................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Analytical techniques ................................................................... 5
1.2.2 Direct synthesis method ............................................................... 6
1.2.3 IMC control strategy .................................................................... 7
1.3 REFERENCES ........................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 2 IMCPID CONTROLLER DESIGN FOR SERVO AND REGULATORY
SYSTEM FOR THE PROCESS WITHOUT TIME DELAY ...................................... 13
2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 13
2.2 IMCPID APPROACH FOR PID CONTROLLER DESIGN .......................................... 15
2.3. IMCPID TUNING RULES FOR TYPICAL PROCESS MODELS ...................................... 18
2.3.1 First order process ..................................................................... 18
2.3.2 Integrating process .................................................................... 19
2.3.3 Second order process ................................................................. 19
2.3.4 First order with right half plane zero process ................................. 21
2.3.5 First order unstable process ........................................................ 22
2.3.6 First order integrating process ..................................................... 23
2.3.7 Second order with right half plane zero process ............................. 23
2.3.8 First order integrating with right half plane zero process ................. 24
2.3.9 Second order process with one unstable pole ................................ 25
2.4 PERFORMANCE AND ROBUSTNESS MEASURE ................................................... 29
iii
2.4.1 Integral error criteria ................................................................. 29
2.4.2 Maximum sensitivity to modeling error ........................................ 29
2.4.3 Total variation ........................................................................... 29
2.4.4 SetPoint and Derivative Weighting .............................................. 30
2.5 SIMULATION RESULTS ............................................................................ 31
2.5.1 Simulation study for first order process ........................................ 31
2. 5.2 Simulation study for second order process ................................... 33
2.5.3 Simulation study for first order with RHP zero ............................... 35
2.5.4 Simulation study for second order with RHP zero ........................... 37
2.5.5 Simulation study integrating process ............................................ 38
2.5.6 Simulation study first order integrating process ............................. 40
2. 5.7 Simulation study for first order unstable process ........................... 42
2.5.8 Simulation study for SOP with one unstable pole ........................... 44
2.6. DISCUSSIONS ..................................................................................... 47
2.6.1 Effect of on the tuning parameters of a stable process ................. 47
2.6.2 Effect of on the tuning parameters of an unstable process ............ 49
2.6.3 Optimum filter structure for IMCPID design.................................. 51
CHAPTER 3 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 54
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................ 55
CURRICULUMN VITAE .............................................................................. 57
ABSTRACT (KOREAN) ............................................................................... 59
iv
List of Figures
Fig.1. 1 PID controller representations ................................................................... 2
Fig.2. 1 Block diagram of IMC and classical feedback control ............................ 16
Fig.2. 2 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance ............... 31
Fig.2. 3 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step setpoint change ....... 32
Fig.2. 4 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance ............... 33
Fig.2. 5 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step setpoint change ....... 34
Fig.2. 6 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance ............... 35
Fig.2. 7 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step setpoint change ....... 36
Fig.2. 8 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance ............... 37
Fig.2. 9 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step setpoint change ....... 37
Fig.2.10 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance .............. 39
Fig.2.11 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step setpoint change ...... 39
Fig.2.12 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance .............. 41
Fig.2.13 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step setpoint change ...... 41
Fig.2.14 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step change ................... 43
Fig.2.15 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance .............. 44
Fig.2.16 Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step setpoint change ...... 45
Fig.2.17 Proportional gain
c
K setting for different / .................................. 47
Fig.2.18 Integral time constant
I
setting for different / values ................. 48
Fig.2.19 Derivative time constant
D
setting for different values .............. 48
Fig.2.20 Proportional gain
c
K setting for different / .................................. 49
Fig.2.21 Integral
I
and Derivative (
D
) time constant setting for different
/ values .................................................................................................. 50
Fig.2.22 Plot of vs. IAE for different tuning rules for FOP.............................. 52
Fig.2.23 Ms and Mp value for the FOP model for different value of ................ 53
v
List of Tables
Table 2.1 IMC Based PI/PID controller parameters ........................................ 2728
Table 2.2 PID controller setting for the first order process .................................. 32
Table 2.3 PID controller setting for the second order process .............................. 34
Table 2.4 PID controller setting for the first order with RHP zero process.......... 36
Table 2.5 PID controller setting for the Second order with RHP zero
process ........................................................................................................... 38
Table 2.6 PID controller setting for the Integrating process ................................. 40
Table 2.7 PID controller setting for the first order integrating process ................ 42
Table 2.8 PID controller setting for the first order unstable process .................... 43
Table 2.9 PID controller setting for the SOP with one unstable pole.. 45
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivations
PID control is a name commonly given to threeterm control. The mnemonic PID refers to the first letters of the
names of the individual terms that make up the standard threeterm controller. These are P for the proportional term,
I for the integral term and D for the derivative term in the controller.
Threeterm or PID controllers are probably the most widely used industrial controller. Even complex industrial
control systems may comprise a control network whose main control building block is a PID control module. The
threeterm PID controller has had a long history of use and has survived the changes of technology from the
analogue era into the digital computer control system age quite satisfactorily.
The introduction of the Laplace transform to study the performance of feedback control systems supported its
technological success in the engineering community. The theoretical basis for analyzing the performance of PID
control is considerably aided by the simple representation of an Integrator by the Laplace transform,   1 s and a
Differentiator using [s]. Conceptually, the PID controller is quite sophisticated and three different representations
can be given. First, there is a symbolic representation, Figure 1.1(a), where each of the three terms can be selected to
achieve different control actions. Secondly, there is a time domain operator form, Figure 1.1(b), and finally, there is
a Laplace transform version of the PID controller Figure 1.1(c). This gives the controller an sdomain operator
interpretation and allows the link between the time domain and the frequency domain to enter the discussion of PID
controller performance.
2
e
P
I
D
u
c
(a)
e(t)
k
P
k
I
t
u
c
(t)
(b)
e(s)
k
P
k
I
s
k
D
s
uc(s)
(c)
k
D
d dt
Figure. 1.1 PID controller representations
PID control remains an important control tool for three reasons: past record of success, wide availability and
simplicity in use. These reasons reinforce one another, thereby ensuring that the more general framework of digital
control with higher order controllers has not really been able to displace PID control. It is really only when the
process situation demands a more sophisticated controller or a more involved controller solution to control a
complex process that the control engineer uses more advanced techniques. Even in the case where the complexity of
the process demands a multiloop or multivariable control solution, a network based on PID control building blocks
is often used.
3
A time delay may be defined as the time interval between the start of an event at one point in a system and its
resulting action at another point in the system. Delays are also known as transport lags or dead times; they arise in
physical, chemical, biological and economic systems, as well as in the process of measurement and computation.
Methods for the compensation of time delayed processes may be broadly divided into parameter optimized (or PID
based) controllers, in which the controller parameters are adapted to the controller structure, and structurally
optimized controllers, in which the controller structure and parameters are adapted optimally to the structure and
parameters of the process model
1, 2
.
The PID controller and its variations (P, PI or PD) is the most commonly used controller in process control
applications, for the compensation of both delayed and nondelayed processes. Koivo and Tanttu
3
, for example,
suggest that there are perhaps 510% of control loops that cannot be controlled by single input, single output (SISO)
PI or PID controllers; in particular, these controllers perform well for processes with benign dynamics and modest
performance requirements
4, 5
.
PID controllers have some robustness to incorrect process model order assumptions and limited process parameter
changes. The controller is also easy to understand, with tuning rules that have been validated in a wide variety of
practical cases. It has been stated that 98% of control loops in the pulp and paper industries are controlled by SISO
PI controllers
6
and that, in process control applications, more than 95% of the controllers are of PID type
5
. However,
Ender
7
states that, in his testing of thousands of control loops in hundreds of plants, it has been found that more than
30% of installed controllers are operating in manual mode and 65% of loops operating in automatic mode produce
less variance in manual than in automatic (i.e. the automatic controllers are poorly tuned). A details review of the
PID controller work is available in
8
. Other reviews based on the details elements of the topics treated are in [3, 9
16].The PID controller may be implemented in continuous or discrete time, in a number of controller structures
17
.
The ideal continuous time PID controller is expressed in Laplace form as follows:
1
1
PID c D
I
G K s
s
t
t
 
= + +

\ .
c
K = proportional gain,
I
t = integral time constant and
D
t = derivative time constant. If
I
t = and 0
D
t = (i.e.
P control), then the closed loop measured value will always be less than the desired value for processes without an
integrator term, as a positive error is necessary to keep the measured value constant, and less than the desired value.
The introduction of integral action facilitates the achievement of equality between the measured value and the
desired value, as a constant error produces an increasing controller output. The introduction of derivative action
means that changes in the desired value may be anticipated, and thus an appropriate correction may be added prior
to the actual change. Thus, in simplified terms, the PID controller allows contributions from present, past and future
controller inputs.
4
In many cases, the designs of PID controllers for delayed processes are based on methods that were originally used
for the controller design of delayfree processes. However, PID controllers are not well suited for the control of
dominant delay processes
18
. It has been suggested that the PID implementation is recommended for the control of
processes of low to medium order, with small delays, when controller parameter setting must be done using tuning
rules and when controller synthesis may be performed a number of times
1
.
5
1.2 Review of PID controller
In typical control applications, it is not possible to achieve all of the properties of an ideal feedback controller
because they involve inherent conflicts and tradeoffs. The tradeoffs must balance two important objectives,
performance and robustness. A control system exhibits a high degree of performance if it provides rapid and smooth
responses to disturbances and setpoint changes with little, if any, oscillation. A control system is robust if it
provides satisfactory performance for a wide range of process conditions and for a reasonable degree of model
inaccuracy. Robustness can be achieved by choosing conservative controller settings (typically, small value of K
c
and large value of
I
), but this choice tends to result in poor performance. Thus, conservative controller settings
sacrifice performance in order to achieve robustness.
A second type of tradeoff occurs because PID controller settings that provide excellent disturbance rejection can
produce large overshoots for setpoint changes. On the other hand, if the controller settings are specified to provide
excellent setpoint tracking, the disturbance responses can be sluggish. Thus, a tradeoff between setpoint tracking
and disturbance rejection occurs for standard PID controllers. Fortunately, this tradeoff can be avoided by using a
controller with two degree of freedom (2DOF).
PID controller settings can be determined by a number of alternative techniques:
a. Direct Synthesis (DS) method
b. Internal Model Control (IMC) method
c. Controller tuning relations
d. Frequency response techniques
e. Computer simulation
f. Online tuning after the control system is installed.
Because methods (a) to (e) are based upon process models, they can be used o specify controller settings before the
control system is installed. However, for important control loops, these initial controller settings are typically
adjusted after the control system is installed.
1.2.1 Analytical techniques
Controller parameters may be determined using analytical techniques. Some methods minimize an appropriate
performance index; Harris and Mellicham1
9
, for instance, outline a methodology to tune a PI or PID controller to
met multiple closed loop criteria. These criteria are subsumed into a single performance index that is an arbitrary
function of relevant frequency domain parameters; the method reflects the important point that there is no one set of
6
tuning values that provide the optimum response in all respects. Other such methods to determine compensators for
delayed SISO processes have also been described, both in continuous time
2037
and discrete time
3844
. Compensators
for delayed MIMO processes have also been proposed in continuous time
4547
and discrete time
48
. Alternatively, a
direct synthesis strategy may be used to determine the controller parameters. Such strategies may be defined in the
time domain, possibly by using pole placement
4959
or in the frequency domain, possibly by specifying a desired
gain and/or phase margin
6066
.
Robust methods, based on the IMC design procedure, may be used to design analytically an appropriate PID
controller for a FOP process model both with delay uncertainty and with general parameter uncertainty
6768
.
1.2.2 Direct synthesis method
In principle, a feedback controller can be designed by using a process model and specifying the desired closeloop
response. The latter is usually specified for setpoint changes, disturbance transfer functions can also be utilized
(Chen and Seborg, 2002). The direct synthesis approaches is valuable because it provides insight about the relation
between the process and resulting controller. A disadvantage of this approach is that the resulting controller may not
have a PID structure. Although these feedback controllers do not always have
a PID structure, DS method does produce PI or PID controllers for common process models. In the direct synthesis
(DS) approach, however, the controller design is based on a desired closedloop transfer function. Then, the
controller is calculated analytically so that the closedloop setpoint response matches the desired response. The
obvious advantage of the direct synthesis approach is that performance requirements are incorporated directly
through specification of the closedloop transfer function. One way to specify the closedloop transfer function is to
choose the closedloop poles. This pole placement method can be interpreted as a special type of direct synthesis. In
general, controllers designed using the DS method do not necessarily have a PID control structure.
However, a PI or PID controller can be derived for simple process models such as first or second order models by
choosing appropriate closedloop transfer functions. The tuning method is widely used in the process industries.
However, IMC design method is closely related to the DS method and produces identical PID controllers for a wide
range of problems. For higher order systems, a model reduction technique and IMC can be used to synthesize PID
controllers. DS design methods are usually based on specification of the desired closedloop transfer function for
setpoint changes. Consequently, the resulting DS controllers tend to perform well for setpoint changes, but the
disturbance response might not be satisfactory. For example, the IMC PID controller provides good setpoint
tracking but very sluggish disturbance responses. However, for many process control applications, disturbance
rejection is much more important than setpoint tracking. Therefore, controller design that emphasizes disturbance
rejection, rather than setpoint tracking, is an important design problem that has received renewed interest recently
and the main concern of this paper is on this issue.
7
1.2.3 IMC control strategy
The PID controllers are probably the most widely used industrial controller in the process industries. It remains an
important control tool for three reasons: past record of success, wide availability and simplicity in use. It is well
known that the IMC is a powerful framework for control system design and implementation, and it has sound
theoretical foundation. Its stability analysis is extremely easy to carry out and the design tradeoff between
performance and robustness is clearly understood. It has attracted the attention of industrial users because there is
only one userdefined tuning parameter, which is directly related to the closedloop time constant or equivalently.
The motivation behind present study is the lack of unified framework in the literature for the IMCPID controller
design which gives the enhanced and robust control performance.
The idea inherent in IMC has been around in one form or another for several decades. The Smith predictor
69
contains the reference model idea of the IMC. The IMC structure was formally introduced by
70
. It is a powerful
control design strategy for linear system
7173
. It uses the process model as the internal model to predict the process
output. When the model is perfect, the IMC system becomes an openloop system and controller design and stability
analysis issue become trivial. When a model mismatch exists, by appropriately modifying the difference, robustness
can be obtained. The IMC enables the transient response and robustness to be addressed independently. Singleloop
control and most of the existing advanced controller such as the linear quadratic optimal controller and Smith
predictor can equivalently be put into the general IMC form
70, 15
. The advantages of IMC are exploited in many
industrial applications.
It is well known that the IMC is a powerful framework for control system design and implementation
67
, and it has
sound theoretical foundation. Its stability analysis is extremely easy to carry out and the design tradeoff between
performance and robustness is clearly understood. It has attracted the attention of industrial users because there is
only one userdefined tuning parameter, which is directly related to the closedloop time constant or equivalently,
the closed loop bandwidth. On the other hand, the vast majority of controllers being used in industry are of the PID
type due to its simplicity and popularity
5
.
Due to their efficient and robust performance with a simple algorithm, proportionalintegralderivative (PID)
controllers have gained wide acceptance in most industrial applications. Furthermore, recent developments of
modern control systems have enabled the PID controller to be combined with various simple control algorithms in a
quick and easy manner to enhance the control performance.
To cascade a PID controller with a leadlag filter is a typical example of taking advantage of the facility by using the
modern control systems. However, in spite of its significant potential to improve control performance, the PIDfilter
8
structure has not entered wide use in the process industries. The only popular trial so far is to add a first or second
order lag filter in series with the PID controller for filtering high frequency noises. This limited application is mainly
due to the lack of systematic design methods for the PIDfilter control system. Many previous studies have
investigated the conventional PID controller design since Ziegler and Nichols (1942) published their classical
method. The internal model control (IMC)based approach has gained widespread acceptance for the design of the
PID controller in process industries because of its simplicity, robustness, and successful practical applications
(Rivera et al., 1986; Morari and Zafiriou, 1989; Chien and Fruehauf, 1990; Horn et al., 1996; Lee et al., 1998; Lee et
al., 2006). It also has a practical advantage in that a clear tradeoff between closedloop performance and robustness
is achieved with a single tuning parameter. In the IMCPID methods, the PID controller parameters are obtained by
first computing the ideal feedback controller that gives a desired closedloop response.
It is, however, noted that by far the most widely used controllers in the process industries are PID controllers, so it is
worth exploring the relationship between IMC and PID in order to gain insight into the tuning of this simpler
controller, its performance and limitations. It is essential to emphasize that there is lack of unified framework of
the IMCPID controller designed for the several class of the process model which gives the enhanced and robust
control performance.
Therefore, this study mainly focused to develop a unified framework for IMC based PID controller design method
for several class of process model. In this study, the proposed PID filter controller is designed based on the IMC
PID principle and gives a better response than the conventional PID controllers reported in earlier studies for
obtaining the desired, closedloop response. Several examples are provided for comparing the results with the
conventional PID controllers. In the proposed PID filter structure, the resulting control system becomes equivalent
to controlling a fast dynamic process by integral control, which dramatically improves the performance. Some
discussions with the guideline for particular robustness levels are also provided.
9
1.3 References
(1) Isermann, R., Digital control systems Volume 1. Fundamentals, deterministic control, SpringerVerlag, 1989.
(2) Isermann, R., Digital control systems Volume 2. Stochastic control, multivariable control, adaptive control,
applications, SpringerVerlag, 1991.
(3) Koivo, H.N. and Tanttu, J.T. (1991). Proc. IFAC Intelligent Tuning and Adaptive Control Symposium,
Singapore, 75.
(4) Hwang, S.H. (1993). Chemical Engineering Communications, 124, 131.
(5) Astrom, K.J. and Hagglund, T. (1995). PID controllers: theory, design and tuning, Instrument Society of
America.
(6) Bialkowski, W.L. (1996). The Control Handbook. Editor: W.S. Levine, CRC/IEEE Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, 1219.
(7) Ender, D.B. (1993). Control Engineering, September, 180.
(8) ODwyer (2000). Technical Report 200002, http://www.docsee.kst.dit.ie/aodweb, April.
(9) Bueno, S.S., De Keyser, R.M.C. and Favier, G. (1991). Journal A, 32(1), 28.
(10) Astrom, K.J., Hagglund, T., Hang, C.C. and Ho, W.K. (1993). Control Engineering Practice, 1, 699.
(11) Astrom, K.J., (1996). Proc. 13th World Congress of IFAC, San Franscisco, CA, USA, Plenary Volume, 1.
(12) Chen, G. (1996). International Journal of Intelligent Control and Systems, 1(2), 235.
(13) Gorez, R. (1997). Journal A, 38, 3.
(14) Seborg, D.E., Edgar, T.F. and Shah, S.L. (1986). AIChE Journal, 32, 881.
(15) Fisher, D.G. (1991). The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 69, 5.
(16) Lelic, M. and Gajic, Z. (2000). Preprints, Proc. PID 00: IFAC Workshop on digital control, Terrassa, Spain,
73.
(17) Astrom, K.J. and Wittenmark, B. (1984). Computer controlled systems: theory and design, PrenticeHall
International Inc..
(18) Hagglund, T. and Astrom, K.J. (1991). Automatica, 27, 599.
(19) Harris, S.L. and Mellichamp, D.A. (1985). AIChE Journal, 31, 484.
(20) Lee, J., Cho, W. and Edgar, T.F. (1990). AIChE Journal, 36, 1891.
10
(21) Nishikawa, Y., Sannomiya, N., Ohta, T. and Tanaka, H. (1984). Automatica, 20, 321.
(22) Patwardhan, A.A., Karim, M.N. and Shah, R. (1987). AIChE Journal, 33, 1735.
(23) Zevros, C., Belanger, P.R. and Dumont, G.A. (1988). Automatica, 24, 165.
(24) Schei, T.S. (1994). Automatica, 30, 1983.
(25) Di Ruscio, D. (1992). Modeling, Identification and Control, 13, 189.
(26) Nakano, E. and Jutan, A. (1994). ISA Transactions, 33, 353.
(27) Abbas, A. and Sawyer, P.E. (1995). Computers and Chemical Engineering, 19, 241.
(28) Wang, L., Barnes, T.J.D. and Cluett, W.R. (1995). IEE Proceedings  Control Theory and Applications, 142,
265.
(29) Wang, F.S., Yeh, C.L. and Wu, Y.C. (1996). Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 18,
183.
(30) Ham, T.W. and Kim, Y.H. (1998). Industrial Engineering Chemistry Research, 37, 482.
(31) Hizal, N.A. (1997). Turkish Journal of Engineering and Environmental Sciences, 21, 83.
(32) Astrom, K.J., Panagopoulos, H. and Hagglund, T. (1998). Automatica, 34, 585.
(33) Ruano, A.E.B., Fleming, P.J. and Jones, D.I. (1992). IEE Proceedings, Part D, 139, 279.
(34) Ruano, A.E.B., Lima, J.M.G., Mamat, R. and Fleming, P.J. (1996). Journal of Systems Engineering, 6, 166.
(35) Wu, C.J. and Huang, C.H. (1997). Journal of the Franklin Institute, 334B, 547.
(36) Leva, A. and Colombo, A.M. (1999). IEE Proceedings Control Theory and Applications, 146(2), 137.
(37) Liu, G.P. and Daley, S. (1999). Control Engineering Practice, 7, 821.
(38) Cameron, F. and Seborg, D.E. (1983). International Journal of Control, 38, 401.
(39) Ralston, P.A.S., Watson, K.R., Patwardhan, A.A. and Deshpande, P.B. (1985). Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Process Design and Development, 24, 1132.
(40) Bortolotto, G., Desages, A. and Romagnoli, J.A. (1989). Chemical Engineering Communications, 86, 17.
(41) Vega, P., Prada, C. and Aleixandre, V. (1991). IEE Proceedings  Part D, 138, 303.
(42) Yang, Y., Jia, C., Chen, J. and Lu, Y. (1991). Computers in Industry, 16, 81.
(43) Miura, N., Imaeda, M., Hashimoto, K., Wood, R.K., Hattori, H. and Onishi, M. (1998). Journal of Chemical
Engineering of Japan, 31, 626.
(44) Kelly, J.D. (1998). The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 76, 967.
11
(45) Wang, F.S. and Wu, T.Y. (1995). Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, 17, 27.
(46) Puleston, P.F. and Mantz, R.J. (1995). Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, 34, 2993.
(47) Ham, T.W. and Kim, Y.H. (1998). Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 31(6), 941.
(48) Woldai, A., AlGobaisi, D.M.K., Dunn, R.W., Kurdali, A. and Rao, G.P. (1996). Control Engineering
Practice, 4(5), 721.
(49) Schuster, T. (1989). Periodica Polytechnica Series  Electrical Engineering, 33, 263.
(50) Aguirre, L.A. (1992). Electronics Letters, 28, 2269.
(51) Zhao, Z.Y., Tomikuza, M. and Iskra, S. (1993). IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 23,
1392.
(52) Hwang, S.H. and Shiu, S.J. (1994). International Journal of Control, 60, 265.
(53) Sung, S.W., Lee, I.B. and Lee, J. (1995). Industrial Engineering Chemistry Research, 34, 4127.
(54) Prokop, R. and Meszaros, A. (1996). Journal of Electrical Engineering, 42(1112), 287.
(55) Daley, S. and Liu, G.P. (1999). IEE Computing and Control Engineering Journal, April, 51.
(56) Jung, C.L., Song, H.K. and Hyun, J.C. (1999). The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 77, 180.
(57) Jung, C.L., Song, H.K. and Hyun, J.C. (1999). Journal of Process Control, 9(3), 265.
(58) Atherton, D.P. (1999). IEE Computing and Control Engineering Journal, April, 44.
(59) Majhi, S. and Atherton, D.P. (1999). IEE Proceedings Control Theory and Applications, 146(5), 415.
(60) Edgar, T.F., Heeb, R. and Hougen, J.O. (1981). Computers and Chemical Engineering, 5, 225.
(61) Kim, Y.H. (1995). Journal of Chemical Engineering of Japan, 28, 118.
(62) Shafiei, Z. and Shenton, A.F. (1997). Automatica, 33, 2223.
(63) Natarajan, K. and Gilbert, A.F. (1997). The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 75, 765.
(64) Wang, Q.G., Hang, C.C. and Bi, Q. (1997). Transactions of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, 75(A), 64.
(65) Wang, Q.G., Hang, C.C., Zhu, S.A. and Bi, Q. (1999). Journal of Process Control, 9(4), 291.
(66) Fung, H.W., Wang, Q.G. and Lee, T.H. (1998). Automatica, 34, 1145.
(67) Morari, M. and Zafiriou, E. (1989). Robust process control, PrenticeHall Inc..
(68) Horn, I.G., Arulandu, J.R., Gombas, C.J., VanAntwerp, J.G. and Braatz, R.D. (1996). Industrial Engineering
ChemistryResearch, 35, 3437.
(69) Smith, C.L., Corripio, A.B. and Martin, J. (1975). Instrumentation Technology, December, 39.
12
(70) Garcia, C.E and M. Morari (1982). Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Process Design and Development
21, 208323.
(71) Rivera, D.E., Morari, M. and Skogestad, S. (1986). Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design
and Development, 25, 252.
(72) Fruehauf, P.S., Chien, I.L. and Lauritsen, M.D. (1993). ISA Transactions, 33, 43.
(73) Lee, Y., Park, S., Lee, M. and Brosilow, C. (1998). AIChE Journal, 44, 106.
13
2. IMCPID CONTROLLER DESIGN FOR SERVO AND
REGULATORY SYSTEM FOR THE PROCESSES
WITHOUT TIME DELAY
2.1. Introduction
The proportional integral derivative (PID) control algorithm is extensively used in
industrial control systems for over fifty years because of its simplicity, robustness criteria
and varied practical application. It is a robust easily understood algorithm that can provide
excellent control performance despite the varied dynamic characteristics of process plant.
Although advanced control techniques can provide significant improvements of the
conventional PID controller but still a well designed PID controller is proven satisfactory
performance for a large number of industrial control loops. The most vantage point of the
internal model control IMCPID tuning rule is of only using a single tuning parameter to
achieve a distinguish tradeoff between closedloop performance and robustness to model
inaccuracies. The IMCPID controller provides good setpoint tracking but has a sluggish
disturbance response; however, as disturbance rejection is much more important than set
point tracking for many process control applications, a controller design that emphasizes
disturbance rejection rather than setpoint tracking is an important design problem that has
been the focus of renewed research recently.
The IMCPID tuning methods by Rivera et al.
1
, Morari and Zafiriou
6
, Horn et al.
3
, and Lee
et al.
4
are examples of two typical tuning methods based on achieving a desired closedloop
response. These methods obtain the PID controller parameters by computing the controller
which gives the desired closedloop response. Although this controller is often more
complicated than a PID controller, the controller form can be reduced to that of either a PID
controller or a PID controller cascaded with a first or secondorder lag filter.
Regarding the disturbance rejection for lag time dominant processes, the wellknown old
design method by Ziegler and Nichols
11
(ZN) shows better performance than the IMCPID
design methods based on the IMC filter
( ) 1 1
r
f s = + . Horn et al.
3
proposed a new type of
IMC filter which includes a lead term to cancel out the process dominant poles. Based on
this filter, they developed an IMCPID tuning rule which leads to the structure of a PID
14
controller with a secondorder leadlag filter. The performance of the resulting controller
showed a clear advantage over those based on the conventional IMC filter. Chen and
Seborg
5
proposed a direct synthesis design method to improve disturbance rejection for
several popular process models. To avoid excessive overshoot in the setpoint response,
they utilized a setpoint weighting factor. In order to improve the setpoint performance by
including a setpoint filter, Lee et al.
4
proposed an IMCPID controller based on both the
filter suggested by Horn et al.
3
and a twodegreeoffreedom (2DOF) control structure. Lee
et al.
9
extended the tuning method to unstable processes such as first and secondorder
delayed unstable process (FODUP and SODUP) models and for the setpoint performance
2DOF control structure proposed. Skogestad
8
proposed a model reduction technique to
reduce the higher order process model to a lower order model and also developed the
SIMCPID rule for improved disturbance rejection in several lag time dominant processes.
It is clear that in the IMCPID approach, the performance of the PID controller is mainly
determined by the IMC filter structure. In most previous works of IMCPID design, the
IMC filter structure has been designed just as simple as to satisfy a necessary performance
of the IMC controller. For example, the order of the lead term in the IMC filter is designed
small enough to cancel out the dominant process poles and the lag term is simply set to
make the IMC controller proper. However, the performance of the resulting PID controller
is not only based on the IMC controller performance but also based on how closely the PID
controller approximates the ideal controller equivalent to the IMC controller, which mainly
depends on the structure of the IMC filter. Therefore, for the IMCPID design, the optimum
IMC filter structure has to be selected considering the performance of the resulting PID
controller rather than that of the IMC controller.
However, in the present study we have determined the optimum filter structure which gives
best performance of the resulting PID controller and the common IMCPID controller
structure with a lag filter is defined as:
1
(1 )(1/( 1)) c D
c
I
G K s bs
s
t
t
= + + +
The guideline for selection of closedloop time constant for several process models are
also provided in this study.
15
2.2. IMCPID Approach for PID Controller Design
The closedloop block diagram of IMC control and the equivalent classical feedback
control structures is shown in Figure (2.1). In the Figure (2.1a) the IMC control structure is
shown where
P
G is the process,
P
G the process model, q the IMC controller. In the IMC
control structure, the controlled variable is related as:
( ) ( )
1
1 1
P P
R D
P P P P
G q G q
C f R G d
q G G q G G
(
(
= +
+ + (
(2.1)
For the nominal case (i.e.,
P P
G G =
), the setpoint and disturbance responses are simplified
to:
P R
C
G qf
R
= (2.2)
1
P D
C
G q G
d
(
=
(2.3)
In the classical feedback control structure shown in Figure (2.1b), the setpoint and
disturbance responses are represented by:
1
c P R
c P
G G f C
R G G
=
+
(2.4)
1
D
c P
G C
d G G
=
+
(2.5)
Where,
c
G denotes the equivalent feedback controller.
According to the IMC parameterization (Morari and Zafiriou
6
), the process model
P
G is
decomposed into two parts:
P M A
G P P = (2.6)
16
Where,
M
P and
A
P are the portions of the model inverted and not inverted, respectively, by
the controller (
A
P is usually a nonminimum phase and contains dead times and/or right
half plane zeros);
( ) 0 = 1
A
P .
q G
p
G
D IMC
controller
Process

+
+
+
G
p
~
+

Process model
C
R
f
R
d
setpoint
filter
G
c
G
p
G
D
C
d

+
+
+ f
R
setpoint
filter
Controller Process
R
The idealized IMC controller is the inverse of the invertible portion of the process model.
To make the IMC controller proper, it is mandatory to add the filter. Thus the IMC
controller is designed by:
1
M
q P f = (2.7)
To obtain a good response for processes with negative poles or poles near zero, the IMC
controller q should be designed to satisfy the following conditions.
1. If the process
p
G
has poles near zero at
1 2
, , ,
m
z z z , then q should have zeros
at
1 2
, , ,
m
z z z and also 1
p
G q should have zeros at
1 2
, , ,
m
z z z .
2. If the process
D
G has poles near zero,
d1 d2 dm
, , , , z z z
then
P
1 G q should have
zeros at
d1 d2 dm
, , , . z z z
Since the IMC controller q is designed as
1
m
q p f
is the inverse of the model portion with the poles near zero.
The second condition can be fulfilled by designing the IMC filter as:
Fig. 2.1 (a) The IMC structure Fig. 2.1 (b) Classical feedback control structure
Figure 2.1. Block diagram of IMC and classical feedback control
17
( )
( )
1
1
1
m i
i i
r
s
f
s
o
=
+
=
+
(2.8)
Where, is an adjustable parameter which control the tradeoff between the performance
and robustness, r is selected to be large enough to make the IMC controller (semi) proper
and
i
o is determined to cancel the unstable poles or poles near in
p
G
.
( )
1
1
1
,
, ,
( 1)
1 1 0
1
m
m
m i
A i i
p r
s z z
s z z
p s
G q
s
o
=
=
=
+
= =
+
(2.9)
Then the IMC controller described as:
( )
1 1
( 1)
1
m i
i i
m r
s
q p
s
o
=
+
=
+
(2.10)
The numerator
1
( 1)
m i
i i
s o
=
+
causes an excessive overshoot in the servo response, which
can be eliminated by introducing a set point filter to compensate the overshoot in the servo
response.
Thus the close loop response is:
( ) ( )
1 1
( 1) ( 1)
1
1 1
m i m i
i i i i
A R A D r r
s s
C p f r p G d
s s
o o
= =
(
+ +
= + (
+ + (
(2.11)
From the above design procedure, a stable, closed loop response can be achieved by using
the IMC controller.
18
2.3. IMCPID Tuning Rules for Typical Process Models
This section proposes the tuning rules for several typical process models with no time delay.
2.3.1. FirstOrder Process (FOP)
The most commonly used approximate model for chemical processes is the FOP model as
given below:
1
P D
K
G G
s t
= =
+
(2.12)
Where K is the gain and t the time constant. The optimum IMC filter structure in this
case is chosen as ( )
( )
2
1
1
s
f
s
o
+
=
+
. Hence, the ideal feedback controller is obtained as:
( )
2
( 1)( 1)
[ 1 ( 1)]
c
s s
G
K s s
t o
o
+ +
=
+ +
(2.13)
The value of o is selected to cancel out the poles at 1/t and this criterion requires
1/ [1 ] 0 s
P
G q t = = and this leads to:
( )
( )
1/
2
1
1 0
1
s
s
s
t
o
=
=
+
+
(2.14)
The value of o is evaluated as:
2
2t
o
t
=
(2.15)
Substituting this value to Eq.( 2.13):
2
( 1)
c
s
G
K s
t o
+
=
(2.16)
Comparing with the Eq. (2.15) to the general PID structure
1
(1 ) c D
c
I
G K s
s
t
t
= + +
we
obtain,
2
c
K
K
to
=
(2.17 a)
2
2
I
t
t
t
=
(2.17 b)
19
2.3.2. Integrating Process (IP)
P D
K
G G
s
= =
(2.18)
The optimum IMC filter structure in this case is chosen as ( )
( )
2
2 1
1
s
f
s
+
=
+
. Hence, the ideal
feedback controller is obtained as:
( )
2
(2 1)
[ 1 (2 1)]
c
s s
G
K s s
+
=
+ +
Or,
2
1
(1 )
2
2
c
s
G
K
+ =
(2.19)
Comparing with the Eq. (2.19) to the general PID structure
1
(1 ) c D
c
I
G K s
s
t
t
= + +
we
obtain,
2
c
K
K
=
(2.20 a)
2 I t = (2.20 b)
The resulting PID tuning rules are listed in Table 2.1.
2.3.3. SecondOrder Process (SOP)
Consider a stable SOP system:
( )( )
1 2
1 1
P D
K
G G
s s t t
= =
+ +
(2.21)
A higher order IMC filter structure has been chosen for secondorder process and the
performance would be compared with other existing methods. The IMC filter structure in
this case is chosen as
( )
( )
2
2 1
5
1
1
s s
f
s
o o
+ +
=
+
The consequential IMC controller becomes
( )
( )
2
1 2
2 1
5
( 1)( 1) 1
1
s s s s
q
K s
t t o o
+ + + +
=
+
(2.22)
20
Hence, the ideal feedback controller is obtained as
( )
( ) ( )
2
1 2
2 1
5
2
2 1
( 1)( 1) 1
[ 1 1 ]
c
s s s s
G
K s s s
t t o o
o o
+ + + +
=
+ + +
(2.23)
The values of 1 o and 2 o are selected to cancel out the poles at 1 1/t and 2 1/t , this
criteria requires
1 2
1/ , 1/
1 0
P
s
G q
t t =
=
and this leads to
( )
( )
1 2
2
2 1
5
1/ , 1/
1
1 0
1
s
s s
s
t t
o o
=
+ +
=
+
. The values of 1 o and 2 o are evaluated and after
proper arrangement it given as:
2 1
2 5 2 5
1 2
1 2
1
2 1
( )
[(1 ) 1] [(1 ) 1]
( )
t t
t t
t t
o
t t
+ +
=
(2.24)
5 2
2 1
2 2
2
[(1 ) 1]
o t o t
t
= +
(2.25)
Comparing Eq. (2.23) with a generalized PID structure
2
1 1
(1 )
( 1)
c D
c
I
G K s
s cs bs
t
t +
= + +
+
gives,
2
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 2
1 1 1 1
1 2
10 10 5
1
5 5 5 5
( 1)
( 1)( 1)
s s s s
cs bs
s s
o
o o o o
t t
+
+
+ + +
+ =
+ +
, taking
first derivative and substituting s = 0 the value of is evaluated as:
2
2
1 2
1
10
( )
5
b
o
t t
o
+
Since the high order cs
2
term has little impact on the overall control performance in the
control relevant frequency range, this part could be reduced as a simple first order lag filter
as 1/(bs+1).
A set point filter is suggested to enhance the servo response, which is comprised of the lag
term (
2
2 1
1 s s o o + + ), by eradicating the excessive overshoot and f
R
is given as:
( )
( )
1
2
2 1
1
1
R
s
f
s s
o
o o
+
=
+ +
Where 0 1
21
The extreme case with = 0 has no lead term in the setpoint filter, which would cause a
slow servo response.
In simulation study, a widely accepted weighting type setpoint filter is used for all methods,
except for the proposed method, to eliminate the overshoot in the setpoint response.
( )
( )
2
1
1
I
R
I D I
s
f
s s
t
t t t
+
=
+ +
The controller parameters are given as:
1
1
(5 )
c
K
K
o
o
=
(2.26a)
1
I t o = (2.26b)
2
1
D
o
t
o
= (2.26c)
2
2
1 2
1
10
( )
5
b
o
t t
o
+
(2.26d)
The resulting PID tuning rules are listed in Table 2.1.
2.3.4 First Order with Right Half Plane Zero Process:
( )
1
P D
K s z
G G
s t
+
= =
+
(2.27)
Where K is the gain and t the time constant and z is the right half plane zero. The
optimum IMC filter structure in this case is chosen as
( )
( )
2
1
1
s
f
s
o
+
=
+
(2.28)
Hence (s+z) portion is noninvertible, so the both numerator and denominator was divided
by (s+z). So the ideal feedback controller obtained as:
( )
( ) ( )
2
( 1) 1
[( ) 1 ( ) 1 ]
c
s s
G
K s z s s z s
t o
o
+ +
=
+ + + +
(2.29)
22
The value of o is evaluated as:
2
1
) 2( ) (
( 1)
z z
z
t
t t
o
t
+ +
=
+
(2.30)
Other values are also calculated by comparing with the general PID structure:
(2 (2 ))
c
K
K z
o t
o
+
=
+
(2.31a)
I t t o + = (2.31b)
D
ot
t
o t
=
+
(2.31c)
(2 )
(2 (2 ))
z
b
K z
o
o
+ +
=
+
(2.31d)
The resulting PID tuning rules are listed in Table 2.1.
2.3.5. FirstOrder Unstable Process (FOUP)
One of the most popular unstable processes is the FOUP:
1
P D
K
G G
s t
= =
(2.32)
The optimum IMC filter is found to be ( ) ( )
2
1 1 f s s o = + + . Therefore, the IMC
controller becomes ( )( ) ( )
2
1 1 1 q s s K s t o = + + and the ideal feedback controller is
( )( )
( ) ( )
2
1 1
1 1
C
s s
G
K s s
t o
o
+
=
(
+ +
. The resulting PID tuning rules are given in Table 2.1.
23
2.3.6. FirstOrder Integrating Process (FOIP)
( 1)
P D
K
G G
s s t
= =
+
(2.33)
The above process could be considered as a secondorder process model by approximating
it as
( 1) ( 1)( 1/ ) ( 1)( 1)
P
K K K
G
s s s s s s

t t   t
= = =
+ + + + +
Where, is an arbitrary constant with a sufficiently large value, i.e. >> 1.
The optimum IMC filter is found to be
( ) ( )
4
2
1 2
1 1 f s s s o o = + + + . Therefore, the
IMC controller becomes ( )( ) ( )
4
2
1 2
1 1 1 q s s s s K s t o o = + + + + and the ideal feedback
controller is
( )( )
( ) ( )
2
2 1
4
2
2 1
( 1) 1 1
1 1
C
s s s s
G
K s s s
 t o o
o o
+ + + +
=
(
+ + +
The resulting PID tuning rules are listed in Table 2.1.
2.3.7. SecondOrder with Right Half Plane Zero Process:
1 2
( )
( 1)( 1)
P D
K s z
G G
s s t t
+
= =
+ +
Where K is the gain and t the time constant and z is the right half plane zero. The
optimum IMC filter structure in this case is chosen as
( )
( )
2
2 1
4
1
1
s s
f
s
o o
+ +
=
+
(2.34)
Hence (s+z) portion is non invertible, so the both numerator and denominator was divided
by (s+z). So the ideal feedback controller obtained as:
( )
( ) ( )
2
1 2
2 1
4
2
2 1
( 1)( 1) 1
[( ) 1 ( ) 1 ]
c
s s s s
G
K s z s s z s s
t t o o
o o
+ + + +
=
+ + + + +
(2.35)
The calculated values are:
24
1 2
1 2
2 1
2 4 2 4
1 2
1 2
1
2 1
1 1
( ) ( )
1 1
( )
[(1 ) 1] [(1 ) 1]
( )
z z
z z
t t
t t
t t
t t
t t
o
t t
+ +
+ +
=
(2.36a)
2
2
4 2
2 1
2 2
2
1
( )
1
[ (1 ) 1]
z
z
t
t
o t o t
t
+
= +
(2.36b)
1
1
(2 4 )
c
z
K
K z
o
o
=
+
(2.36c)
1
I t o = (2.36d)
2
1
D
o
t
o
= (2.36e)
2
2 1
1 2
1
4 6
( )
2 4
z z
z
b
z
o o
t t
o
+
+ +
=
+
(2.36f)
The resulting PID tuning rules are listed in Table 2.1.
2.3.8. First Order Integrating with Right Half Plane Zero Process:
(2.37)
Where K is the gain and t the time constant and z is the right half plane zero. The
optimum IMC filter structure in this case is chosen as
( )
( )
2
2 1
4
1
1
s s
f
s
o o
+ +
=
+
(2.38)
The calculated values are:
(2.39a)
( ) ( )
, 1
( 1) ( 1)( 1)
p D
K s z K s z
G G
s s s s
t t
+ +
= = = >>
+ + +
4 4
2 2
2 2
1 2 2
2 2 2
[(1 ) 1] [(1 ) 1]
( 1) ( 1)
 ( )
( 1) ( ) ( 1) ( )
z z
z z
t t
o t t
t t t
= + +
+ +
25
(2.39b)
(2.39c)
(2.39d)
(2.39e)
(2.39f)
The resulting PID tuning rules are listed in Table 2.1.
2.3.9. SOP with One Unstable Pole:
(2.40)
Where K is the gain and t the time constant. The optimum IMC filter structure in this
case is chosen as:
( )
( )
2
2 1
4
1
1
s s
f
s
o o
+ +
=
+
(2.41)
( )
( ) ( )
2
1 2
2 1
4
2
2 1
( 1)( 1) 1
[ 1 1 ]
c
s s s s
G
K s s s
t t o o
o o
+ + + +
=
+ + +
(2.42)
The calculated values are:
2 2 2 4 2 4
2 1 1 2
2 1
1
2 1
) [(1 ) ] [(1 ) ] (
( )
t t t t
t t
o
t t
+ +
=
+
(2.43a)
1
1
(4 2)
c
K
K z z
o
o
=
+
1 I
t o =
2
1
D
o
t
o
=
2
2 1
2
1
4 6
( ) ( )
4 2
z z
b
z z
o o
t
o
+
+ +
=
+
2 4
2
2 2 1 2
2 2
( 1)
[ (1 ) 1]
( 1)
z
z
t
o t o t
t t
= +
+
1 2
( 1)( 1)
P D
K
G G
s s t t
= =
+
26
4 2
2 1
1 1
1
[(1 ) 1]
o t o t
t
= +
(2.43b)
1
1
(4 )
c
K
K
o
o
=
(2.43c)
1
I t o = (2.43d)
2
1
D
o
t
o
= (2.43e)
2 1
2
2
1
6
( )
4
b
o
t t
o
= +
(2.43f)
The resulting PID tuning rules are listed in Table 2.1.
27
Model Filter
c
K
I t
D t b
1
o
2
o
1
K
s t
( )
( )
2
1
1
s
s
o
+
+
2
K
ot
o
2
2 t
t
+
0
0
0
( 1)
K
s s t +
( )
( )
2
2 1
4
1
1
s s
s
o o
+ +
+
1
1
(4 ) K
o
o
1 2
( )
( 1)( 1)
K s z
s s t t
+
+ +
( )
2
1
2 1
4
1
s s
s
o o
+ +
+
1
(4 2)
1
K z z
o
o +
1
o 2
1
o
o
1 2
2
4 6
2 1
( )
4 2
1
( )
z z
z z
o o
o
t t
+ +
+
+
4 4
[(1 ) 1] [(1 ) 1]
( 1) ( 1)
2 2 1 1 2 2

1 2
( 1) ( ) ( 1) ( )
1 2 1 2 2 1
( )
1 2
z z
z z
t t t t
t t
t t t t t t
t t
+ +
+ +
( 1)
2 4 2
[ (1 ) 1]
2 1 2
( 1)
2 2
z
z
t
t o t
t t
+
+
( 1)( 1)
1 2
K
s s t t + +
( )
2
2 1
5
1
1
s s
s
o o
+ +
+
1
(5 )
1
K
o
o 1
o
2
1
o
o
2
2
1 2
1
10
( )
5
o
t t
o
+
2 5 2 5
[(1 ) 1] [(1 ) 1]
1 2
1 2
( )
2 1
( )
2 1
t t
t t
t t
t t
+ +
1
5 2
[(1 ) 1]
2 2
2
t o t
t
+
( )
1
K s z
s t
+
+
( )
( )
1
2
1
s
s
o
+
+
( )
( ) 2 (2 ) K z
o t
o
+
+
o t +
( )
(2 )
2 (2 )
z
z
o
o
+ +
+
2
1
2( ) ( )
1
z z
z
t t
t
t
+ +
+
0
1
K
s t +
( )
( )
2
1
1
s
s
o
+
+
2
K
to
2
2t
t
o
0
0 0
ot
o t +
1
o
2
1
o
o
2
2
1
6
( )
4
o
 t
o
+
2 4 2 4
[(1 ) 1] [(1 ) 1]
( )
( )
t 
t 
 t
 t
+ +
1
4 2
[(1 ) 1]
 o 

+
28
Model Filter
1 2
( 1)( 1)
K
s s t t
1
1
(4 ) K
o
o
2 1
2
2
1
6
( )
4
o
t t
o
+
2 2 2 4 2 4
2 1 2 1
2 1
2 1
) [(1 ) ] [(1 ) ] (
( )
t t t t
t t
t t
+ + +
4 2
1
1 1
1
[(1 ) 1]
t o t
t
+
1 2
( 1)( 1)
K
s s t t +
1
1
(4 ) K
o
o
2 1
2
2
1
6
( )
4
o
t t
o
2 2 2 4 2 4
2 1 1 2
2 1
2 1
) [(1 ) ] [(1 ) ] (
( )
t t t t
t t
t t
+ +
+
4 2
1
1 1
1
[(1 ) 1]
t o t
t
+
( 1)
K
s s t
2
4
(6 ) K
o
4
4
o
3
2
4
(6 )
t
o
+
1
(1 1/ )
1
c c I D
G K s
bs
t t = + +
+
Table 2.1. IMC Based PI/PID Controller Parameters
2
1
o
o ( )
2
2 1
4
1
1
s s
s
o o
+ +
+
1
o
( )
2
2 1
4
1
1
s s
s
o o
+ +
+
2 5 2
(1 ) 4
t t t
t
+
( )
( 1)
K s z
s s t
+
+ ( )
2
2 1
4
1
1
s s
s
o o
+ +
+
1
1
(4 2) K z z
o
o +
1
o
2
1
o
o
2
2 1
1
2
4 6
( )
4 2
( )
z z
z z
o o
o
t +
+ +
+
K
s
2
K
2 0
( )
( )
2
2 1
1
s
s
+
+
0 0 0
( )
2
2 1
4
1
1
s s
s
o o
+ +
+
1
o 2
1
o
o
2
o
1
o b
D t I t
c
K
0
4 4
2 2 2 2
2
2 2 2
2
[(1 ) 1] [(1 ) 1]
( 1) ( 1)

( 1) ( ) ( 1) ( )
( )
z z
z z
t t
t
t t t
t
+ +
+ +
2 4 2
2 1 2
2 2
( 1)
[ (1 ) 1]
( 1)
z
z
t
t o t
t t
+
+
29
2.4. Performance and Robustness Measure
In this study, the performance and robustness of the control system are evaluated by the following indices.
2.4.1. Integral Error Criteria
Three popular performance indices based on integral error are used to evaluate the performance: Integral of the
Absolute Error (IAE), Integral of the Squared Error (ISE), Integral of the Timeweighted Absolute Error (ITAE).
( )
0
IAE e t dt
=
}
(2.44)
( )
2
0
ISE e t dt
=
}
(2.45)
( )
0
ITAE t e t dt
=
}
(2.46)
where the error signal ( ) e t is the difference between the setpoint and the measurement. The ISE criterion
penalizes larger errors, whereas the ITAE criterion penalizes longterm errors. The IAE criterion tends to produce
controller settings that are between those for the ITAE and ISE criteria.
2.4.2. Maximum Sensitivity
( ) Ms
to Modeling Error
To evaluate the robustness of a control system, the maximum sensitivity, Ms , which is defined by
max 1/[1 ( )]
p c
Ms G G iw = + , is used. Since Ms is the inverse of the shortest distance from the Nyquist curve of
the loop transfer function to the critical point ( ) 1, 0 , a small value indicates that the stability margin of the control
system is large. Typical values of Ms are in the range of 1.2 ~ 2.0 (strm et al.
12
). For fair comparison,
throughout all our simulation examples all the controllers compared were designed to have the same robustness level
in terms of the maximum sensitivity, Ms .
2.4.3. Total Variation (TV)
To evaluate the manipulated input usage we compute TV of the input ( ) u t , which is sum of all its moves up and
down. If we discretize the input signal as a sequence
1 2 3
[ , , ...., ...],
i
u u u u then
1
1
i i
i
TV u u
+
=
=
should be as
small as possible. TV is a good measure of the smoothness of a signal (Skogestad
8
).
30
2.4.4. SetPoint and Derivative Weighting
The conventional form of the PID controller that is used for the simulation in this study is given as:
1
1
PID c D
I
G K s
s
t
t
 
= + +

\ .
(2.47)
A more widely accepted control structure that includes setpoint weighting and derivative weighting is given by
strm and Hgglund
13
. The PID controller after setpoint and derivative weighting becomes:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
0
1
t
c D
I
d cr t y t
u t K br t y t r t y t d
dt
t t
t
  (
( ( = + + 

\ .
}
(2.48)
where b and c are additional parameters. The integral term must be based on error feedback to ensure the desired
steady state. The controller given by eq 2.48 has a structure with two degrees of freedom. The setpoint weighting
coefficient b is bounded by 0 1 b s s and the derivative weighting coefficient c is also bounded by 0 1 c s s .
The overshoot for setpoint changes decreases with decreasing b .
The controllers obtained for different values of b and c respond to disturbance and measurement noise in the same
way as a conventional PID controller, i.e., different values of b and c do not change the closedloop response for
disturbances (Chen and Seborg
5
). Therefore, the same PID tuning rules developed for this study are also applicable
for the modified PID controller in eq 2.41. However, the setpoint response does depend on the values of b and c .
In this study, the coefficient c was fixed as 1 c = for all simulation examples while the setpoint filter
( ) ( )
2
1 1
R I I D I
f s s s t t t t = + + + was used with 0 1 s s .
31
2.5. Simulation Results
This section demonstrates the simulation study for the several different kinds of process models, which are widely
used in process industries and have also been studied by other researchers. In every simulation study, different
performance and robustness matrices have been calculated and compared with other existing methods.
2.5.1. Simulation Study for First Order Process
The following first order process is considered:
(2.49)
The proposed PID filter controller is compared with other controllers based on existing methods, such as Rivera et al.
(1986) and Horn et al. (1996) by using a convenient filter. The proposed method and Horn et al. used the same lead
lag filter structure, whereas, Rivera et al. used only lag filter. A unit step disturbance is introduced as the plant input
at t=0 and the corresponding simulation result is shown in Figure 2.2. The performance matrices contain IAE, ISE
and ITAE show that the proposed method performs better than other existing methods.
Figure 2.2. Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance
The resulting output response when the unit step changes are introduced into the setpoint is shown in Figure 2.3. It
is clear that under the 1DOF control structure, any controller with good disturbance rejection essentially
accompanies an excessive overshoot in the setpoint response. To avoid this waterbed effect, a 2DOF control
structure is used. The overshoot for the proposed controller can be eliminated without affecting the disturbance
response by setting =0.45 in the 2DOF controller, as suggested by strm and Hgglund
13
and Chen and Seborg
5
.
4
6 1
p D
G G
s
= =
+
32
Based on the comparison of the output response and the value of the performance matrices listed in Table 2.2, it can
be concluded that the proposed controller shows the best performance.
Tuning
methods
c
K
I
t
D
t
Ms
setpoint disturbance
TV IAE
ISE
ITAE
TV IAE
ISE
ITAE
Proposed
0.5 5.73 5.97 0 0.99 4.9 0.56 0.28 0.31 1.22 0.16 0.013 0.16
Horn et
al.
0.8 17.5 2.33 20.9 0.99 1.7 2.08 0.885 7.9 1.21 0.422 0.05 0.80
Rivera et
al.
1.8 3.33 0.555 0 0.99 6.4 0.45 0.225 0.2 1.05 1.53 0.245 6.87
Table 2.2. PID controller setting for the first order process
Controller parameters for the proposed methods are shown in Table 2.2. The value of is selected as 0.5 to obtain
the same robust value Ms=0.9998 for the proposed controller along with Horn et al. (1996) and Rivera et al. (1986).
The TV values have been also calculated as TV=1.22 for the regulatory and 4.9 for the servo problem.
Figure 2.3. Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step setpoint change
33
2.5.2. Simulation Study for Second Order Process
The following second order process is considered:
(2.50)
In this simulation study, the proposed PID filter controller is compared with other controllers based on existing
methods, such as Rivera et al. (1986), Horn et al. (1996) and Lee et al. (2008)
21
by using a convenient filter.
However, in case of Lee et al (2008), the tuning rule was carried out for SOPDT process model, but it was reduced
to only second order model with notime delay model for comparison. A higher order lag dominant leadlag filter is
used in proposed method. A unit step disturbance is acting at the plant input and the corresponding simulation result
is shown in Figure 2.4. The performance matrices containing IAE, ISE and ITAE show that the proposed method
performs better than other existing methods.
The resulting output response when the unit step changes are introduced into the setpoint is shown in Figure 2.5.
However, it is clear that under the 1DOF control structure, any controller with good disturbance rejection essentially
accompanies an excessive overshoot in the setpoint response. To avoid this effect, a 2DOF control structure is used.
The overshoot for the proposed controller can be eliminated without affecting the disturbance response by setting
=0.35 in the 2DOF controller, as suggested by strm and Hgglund
13
and Chen and Seborg
5
. Based on the
comparison of the output response and the value of the performance matrices listed in Table 2.3, it can be concluded
that the proposed controller shows the best performance.
1.5
(3 1)(9 1)
p
G
s s
=
+ +
Figure 2. 4. Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance
34
Tuning
methods
K
c
I
t
D
t
Ms
setpoint disturbance
TV IAE ISE ITAE TV IAE
ISE
ITAE
Proposed
1.10 8.92 1.75 12.7 1.4 5.9 3.8 2.79 8.89 1.6 0.57 0.04 2.76
Horn et
al.
1 8.9 0.75 20.2 1 9.6 4.5 2.18 31.38 1.15 1.33 0.08 15
Rivera et
al.
2 5.99 0.49 13.4 1 17.2 4.18 1.87 29.88 1.0 1.19 0.16 25.8
Lee et al. 1.6 7.87 1.33 12.2 1.4 5.9 3.81 2.68 9.48 1.4 0.75 0.056 4.46
Proposed method, =0.35,
, b = 0.641
Lee et al., =0.45,
, b = 0. 48
Horn et al.,
K
c
I
t
D
t
Ms
setpoint disturbance
TV IAE
ISE ITAE TV IAE ISE
ITAE
Propose
d
0.7 3.63 0.47 4.88 1.66 13 1.8 1.56 2.38 1.1 2.28 0.669 9.8
Horn et
al.
5.5 1.64 0.14 4.57 1.66 16 4.7 2.34 32 1.0 6.39 2.605 46
Rivera et
al.
7 0.6 0.1 0 1.66 2 1.02 1.04 0.937 2.33 9.9 7.81 61.68
Proposed method, =0.77,
, b = 6.07
Horn et al.,
K
c
I
t
D
t
Ms
setpoint disturbance
TV IAE ISE ITAE TV IAE ISE
ITAE
Proposed
1.6 4.2 0.613 5.96 1.66 3.9 4.7 3.6 13.5 1.7 1.64 0.262 11.1
Horn et
al.
1 2.106 0.095 3.83 1.66 3.5 7.83 4.97 59.3 1.5 9.46 2.68 172.3
Proposed method, =0.45,
,b = 0.5963
Horn et al.,
K
c
I
t
D
t
Ms
setpoint disturbance
TV IAE
ISE ITAE TV IAE ISE
ITAE
Proposed
0.5 2.67 2.66 0 0.99 2.4 0.55 0.27 0.29 1.2 0.37 0.07 0.377
Rivera et
al.
0.9 0.6 0.1 0 0.99 4.3 0.48 0.15 0.634 1.2 0.81 0.184 1.46
Lee et al. 0.6 2.21 1.85 0 0.99 1.4 0.74 0.4 0.5
1.2
7
0.54 0.122 0.65
Proposed method, =0.45,
, b = 0
Lee et al., =0.3,
,
Table 2.6. PID controller setting for the integrating process
The IP process was modeled as a FOP model in case of Lee et al.(2008) as follows:
However, in the simulation, the value of is considered large enough (=100). In order to ensure a fair comparison,
all of the controllers compared are tuned to have Ms=0.99 by adjusting . Based on the process response as well as
the performance matrices of the proposed method in Table 2.6, the proposed method provides the best performance.
2.5.6. Simulation Study for First Order Integrating Process
The following first order integrating process is considered: (2.54)
The proposed PID filter controller is compared with other controllers based on existing methods, such as
Rivera et al. (1986) and Horn et al. (1996) by using a convenient filter. A unit step disturbance is acting
at the plant input and the corresponding simulation result is shown in Figure 2.12. The performance
matrices containing IAE, ISE and ITAE show that the proposed method performs better than other
existing methods.
1.5
( 2)
p D
G G
s s
= =
+
, 1
1
K K
G
p
s s



= =
+
41
The resulting output response when the unit step changes are introduced into the setpoint is shown in Figure 2.13.
However, it is clear that under the 1DOF control structure, any controller with good disturbance rejection essentially
accompanies an excessive overshoot in the setpoint response. To avoid this effect, a 2DOF control structure is used.
It is observed that 0.3 0 gives smooth and robust control performances. In the proposed controller, in the set
point filter is selected as = 0.3 to eliminate the overshoot for the proposed controller without affecting the
disturbance response in the 2DOF controller, as suggested by strm and Hgglund
13
and Chen and Seborg
5
.
Figure 2.13. Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step setpoint change
Figure 2. 12. Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance
42
Tuning
methods
c
K
I
t
D
t
Ms
setpoint disturbance
TV IAE
ISE ITAE TV IAE ISE
ITAE
Proposed
0.95 1.67 0.44 1.71 1.33 2 1.97 1.28 3.3 1.57 2.27 0.86 8
Horn et
al.
1 0.759 0.38 0 1.33 12.4 1.4 0.65 2.613 1.58 2.63 1.101 9.776
Rivera et
al.
2.5 1.12 0.16 1.6 1.33 0.84 3.34 1.42 17.28 1.22 6.22 3.045 42.87
Proposed method, =0.3,
,b = 0.27
Horn et al.,
43
(a) (b)
The proposed filter was designed for the FOUP model with notime delay but in case of Lee et al. (2007) the filter
was designed for the FOUP model with time delay. However, the controller algorithm of Lee et al. (2007) is
modified to make a fair comparison with the proposed method but in order to keep maintain Ms=0.96, the value of
is carried significantly small. As a result the simulation times as well as the performance matrices listed in Table 2.8
also show very small values. However, the modified controller parameters ( = 0) in the case of Lee et al. (2007) is
showed at the Table 2.8. Based on the comparison of the output response and the value of the performance matrices
listed in Table 2.8, it can be concluded that the proposed controller shows the best performance.
Tuning
methods
c
K
I
t
D
t
Ms
setpoint disturbance
TV
IAE
ISE ITAE TV IAE
ISE
ITAE
Proposed
0.055 53.82 478 0 0.96 57 0.05 0.026 0.0026 1.27 0.002 1.9E5 0.0002
Lee et al.
(2007)
0.15 23 88 0.06 0.96 47 0.10 0.034 0.022 1.27 0.011 0.0002 0.002
Proposed method, =0.45,
, b = 0
Lee et al,
Table 2.8. PID controller setting for the first order unstable process
Figure 2.14. Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step change (a)
disturbance, (b) setpoint.
44
2.5.8. Simulation Study for SOP with One Unstable Pole:
The following First order unstable process is considered:
(2.56)
Proposed method of the second order process with one unstable pole is compared with the available literature Lee et
al. (2007)
22
. In the proposed method a first order lag filter is cascaded with the PID structure and the comparison of
these methods were adjusted to have the same robustness level as Ms=1.38 where as the value of set for the
proposed method and the Lee et al. (2007) is 1.5 and 5.0 correspondently to make comparison at same robustness
level. However, it is clear from the above Figure 2.15 the performance of the proposed controller is superior than the
existing method.
1.5
(3 1)(9 1)
p D
G G
s s
= =
+
Figure 2.15. Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step disturbance
45
The resulting output response when the unit step changes are introduced into the setpoint is shown in Figure 2.16.
The TV value of the proposed method is larger but the overshoot is nominal than Lee et al. (2007). From Table 2.9
the IAE, ISE and ITAE value show the superior performance of the proposed method.
Tuning
Method
K
c
I
t
D
t Ms
setpoint disturbance
TV IAE
ISE ITAE TV IAE
ISE
ITAE
Proposed 1.5 9.38 1.45 15.9 1.38 8 3.34 2.3 7.9 1.7 0.68 0.05 3.85
Lee et
al.(2007)
5.1 2.02 0.115 3.77 1.38 8.8 4.8 83.8 2.8 2.3 9.6 3.98 140
Proposed method, =0.45,
, b = 0.409
Lee et al, =0.45,
Table 2.9. PID controller setting for the SOP with one unstable pole
Figure 2.16. Simulation results of PID controllers for unit step change
46
The proposed filter was designed for the model with notime delay but in case of Lee et al. (2007) the filter was
designed for the model with time delay. However, the controller algorithm of Lee et al. (2007) was modified to
make a fair comparison with the proposed method. The modified tuning parameters are given in Table 2.9.
The bold continuous line shows the process response of the proposed method in Figure 2.15 and 2.16. Based on the
performance matrices of the proposed method in Table 2.9 and the closedloop response for both the setpoint
tracking and disturbance rejection signifies that the proposed method provides a superior response for the same
robustness value.
47
2.6. Discussions
2.6.1. Effect of on the Tuning Parameters on a Stable Process
The proposed IMC based PID tuning method has a single tuning parameter, , that is related to the closedloop
performance as well as the robustness of the control system. It is important to analyze the effect of on the PID
parameters, ,
c I
K t and
D
t .
Considering a first order model given by:
1
1
P D
G G
s
= =
+
PID parameters were calculated using the proposed method for different closed loop time constant value for each
case of / t =0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.
Figure 2.17 shows the value of K
c
varied with different / t values. As the ratio of / t increase sufficiently, K
c
variation significantly reduced.
Figure 2. 17. Proportional gain ( )
c
K setting for different / t values
48
Figure 2.18 shows the variation of
I
t with / t . The trend of
I
t increasing with / t reverses after a specific
value, after that
I
t starts decreasing with increasing / t after some significantly bigger value of . It is
important to note that even for large values of ,
I
t has positive value.
Figure 2.18. Integral time constant ( )
I
t setting for different / t values
Figure 2. 19. Derivative time constant ( )
D
t setting for different values
49
Since for a first order model, PID parameters have no derivative term, consider a second order model given by
1
( 1)( 2)
P D
G G
s s
= =
+ +
Figure 2.19 shows the variation of
D
t with . The value of
D
t increased at first for a certain value of but after
that
D
t decreases with increasing maintaining to a positive value.
2.6.1. Effect of on the Tuning Parameters on an Unstable Process
The proposed IMC based PID tuning method with a single tuning parameter is related to the closedloop
performance as well as the robustness of the control system. It is important to analyze the effect of on the PID
parameters, ,
c I
K t and
D
t for an unstable process too.
Considering a second order model given by:
1
( 1)( 2)
P D
G G
s s
= =
Figure 2. 20. Proportional gain ( )
c
K setting for different / t values
50
As like the stable process, Figure 2.20 shows, the values of K
c
varied with different / t values. As the ratio of
/ t increase sufficiently, K
c
variation significantly reduced.
Figure 2.21 shows the variation of
I
t with / t . The trend of
I
t increasing with / t reverses after a specific
value, after that
I
t starts decreasing with increasing / t after some significantly bigger value of . It is
important to note that even for large values of ,
I
t has positive value. The value of
D
t increase steadily by the
increment of
.
2.6.3. Optimum Filter Structure for IMCPID Design
Figure 2.21. Integral ( )
I
t and derivative (
D
)time constant setting for different / t values
51
One common problem with the conventional IMCPID approaches is that the IMC filter is usually selected based on
the resulting IMC performance while the ultimate goal of the IMC filter design is to obtain the best PID controller.
In the conventional approach for the filter design, it is assumed that the best IMC controller results in the best PID
controller. However, since all the IMCPID approaches utilize some kind of model reduction techniques to convert
the IMC controller to the PID controller, an approximation error necessarily occurs.
Therefore, if the IMC filter structure causes a significant error in conversion to the PID controller, although it gives
the best IMC performance, the resulting PID controller could have poor control performance. Therefore, there exists
an optimum filter structure for each specific process model that gives the best PID performance. For a given filter
structure, as decreases the discrepancy between the ideal and the PID controller increases while the nominal IMC
performance improves. This indicates that an optimum value also exists which balances these two effects to give
the best performance. Therefore, the best filter structure as defined in this paper is that which gives the best PID
performance for the optimum
value.
To find the optimum filter structure, we evaluate the IMC filters with the structure of
( ) ( ) 1 1
r r n
s s 
+
+ + for the
first order models and
( ) ( )
2
2
2 1
1 1
r
r n
s s s  
+
+ + + for the second order models, where r and n are varied from 0
to 2, respectively. Our investigation shows that a high order filter structure generally gives a better PID performance
than a low order filter structure. For example, for a FOP model, it is found that the high order filter,
( ) ( ) ( )
2
1 1 f s s s o = + + , provides the best disturbance rejection in terms of IAE. Based on the optimum filter
structures, we derived the PID controller tuning rules for several representative process models, which are listed in
Table 2.1.
52
Figure 2.22 shows the variation of IAE with for several tuning methods for the FOPDT model studied in the
earlier sections. The tuning rules proposed by Horn et al.
3
based on the same filter structure as like proposed method,
but in case of proposed method, the model is reduced and Rivera et al. used the filter as
( ) ( ) 1 1 f s s = +
.
It is clear from this figure that down to some optimum value, the ideal (or IMC) and the PID controllers have no
significant difference in performance, and after some minimum IAE point the gap rises sharply towards unstable
limits. The smallest IAE value can be achieved by the proposed tuning method as well as Horn et al. while the
Rivera et al. tuning method shows the worst performance. It is also apparent that for the case of model mismatch
where a large value is required, the proposed method provides the best performance.
Figure 2.22. Plot of vs. IAE for different tuning rules for FOP
53
Figure 2.23 shows the variation of the sensitivity and the complimentary sensitivity function for different the
different values of .
Figure 2.23. M
s
and M
p
value for the FOP model for the different value of
54
3. CONCLUSIONS
The PID controller is most popular and widely used industrial controller in the process industries. The wellknown
IMCPID tuning rules have the advantage of only using a single tuning parameter to achieve a clear tradeoff
between closedloop performance and robustness to model inaccuracies. Stability analysis of the IMCPID
controller is extremely easy to carry out the design, and tradeoff between performance and robustness is clearly
understood.
Optimum IMC filter structures were proposed for several representative notime delay process models to improve
the disturbance rejection performance as well as setpoint tracking of the twodegree of freedom PID controller.
Based on the proposed filter structures, tuning rules for the PID controller were derived using the generalized IMC
PID method. The simulation results demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method when the various controllers
are all tuned to have the same degree of robustness in terms of maximum sensitivity. The closeloop time constant
guidelines were also proposed for several process models.
55
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) Rivera, D. E.; Morari, M.; Skogestad, S. Internal Model Control. 4. PID Controller Design. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Process Des. Dev. 1986, 25, 252.
(2) Chien, I.L.; Fruehauf, P. S. Consider IMC Tuning to Improve Controller Performance. Chem. Eng. Prog. 1990,
86, 33.
(3) Horn, I. G.; Arulandu, J. R.; Christopher, J. G.; VanAntwerp, J. G.; Braatz, R. D. Improved Filter Design in
Internal Model Control. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1996, 35, 3437.
(4) Lee, Y.; Park, S.; Lee, M; Brosilow, C. PID Controller Tuning for Desired ClosedLoop Responses for SI/SO
Systems. AIChE J. 1998, 44, 106115.
(5) Chen, D.; Seborg, D. E. PI/PID Controller Design Based on Direct Synthesis and Disturbance Rejection. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41, 48074822.
(6) Morari, M.; Zafiriou, E. Robust Process Control; PrenticeHall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1989
(7) Seborg, D. E.; Edgar, T. F.; Mellichamp, D. A. Process Dynamics and Control; John Wiley & Sons; Second
Edition, New York, 2004.
(8) Skogestad, S. Simple Analytic Rules for Model Reduction and PID Controller Tuning. J. Process Control. 2003,
13, 291309.
(9) Lee, Y.; Lee, J.; Park, S. PID Controller Tuning for Integrating and Unstable Processes with Time Delay.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 2000, 55, 34813493.
(10) Smith, C. L.; Corripio, A. B.; Martin, J. Controller Tuning from Simple Process Models. Instrum. Technol.
1975, 22 (12), 39.
(11) Ziegler, J. G.; Nichols, N. B. Optimum Settings for Automatic Controllers. Trans. ASME 1942, 64, 759768.
(12) strm, K. J.; Panagopoulos, H.; Hgglund, T. Design of PI Controllers Based on NonConvex Optimization.
Automatica 1998, 34, 585601.
(13) strm, K. J.; Hgglund, T. PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and Tuning, 2
nd
ed,; Instrument Society of
America: Research Triangle Park, NC, 1995.
(14) Huang, H. P.; Chen, C. C. ControlSystem Synthesis for Openloop Unstable Process with Time Delay. IEE
ProcessControl Theory and Application 1997, 144, 334.
(15) Huang, C. T.; Lin, Y. S. Tuning PID Controller for Openloop Unstable Processes with Time Delay. Chem.
Eng. Communications 1995, 133, 11.
(16) De Paor, A. M. Controllers of Ziegler Nichols Type for Unstable Process with Time Delay. International
Journal of Control 1989, 49, 1273.
(17) Rotstein, G. E.; Lewin, D. R. Control of an Unstable Batch Chemical Reactor. Computers in Chem. Eng. 1992,
16 (1), 27.
(18) Poulin, ED.; Pomerleau, A. PID Tuning for Integrating and Unstable Processes. IEE Process Control Theory
and Application 1996. 143(5), 429.
56
(19) M.Masum Jujuly, M. Shamsuzzoha, Moonyong Lee, Analytical PI/PID Controller Design for Stable
Processes, Theories and Applications of Chemical Engineering, 15 (1), p.126 (2009)
(20) M. Shamsuzzoha, Moonyong Lee, "PID Controller Design for Integrating Processes with Time Delay", Korean
J. Chem. Eng., 25(4), 637645(2008)
(21) M. Shamsuzzoha, Moonyong Lee, "Design of Advanced PID Controller for Enhanced Disturbance Rejection of
SecondOrder Processes with Time Delay", AIChE J., 54(6), 15261536(2008)
(22) M. Shamsuzzoha, Moonyong Lee, "IMCPID Controller Design for Improved Disturbance Rejection of Time
Delayed process", Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, 46, 20772091(2007)
(23) M. Shamsuzzoha, Moonyong Lee, "Analytical Design of Enhanced PID filter Controller for Integrating and
First Order Unstable Processes with Time Delay", Chemical Engineering Science, 63, 27172731(2008)
57
CURRICULUM VITAE
Muhammad Masum Jujuly
Education and Academic Experience
M.S Chemical Engineering Chemical Engineering (Process System Design & Control), Yeungnam University,
Korea
B.S Chemical Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, Bangladesh (January 2008)
Address for correspondence:
Process System Design & Control Lab, Room No401, School of Chemical Engineering & Technology, Yeungnam
University, 2141 DaeDong, Kyongsanbukdo 712749, South Korea
Cell Phone: +821058341099
Email: mj.nuvan@yahoo.com
Phone: 82538103241 (office)
Fax: 82538113262 (office)
Industrial Experience
Jan 2008Aug 2008: Trainee Engineer, Samuda Chemical Complex Ltd., Chittagong, Bangladesh.
Personal:
Place of Birth: Dhaka, Bangladesh
Date of Birth: 9
th
October 1985
Citizenship: Bangladeshi
58
PUBLICATIONS
Thesis:
1. Analytical Design of PID Controller for Enhanced Disturbance Rejection of Process without Time Delay,
M.S. thesis (Advisor: Professor Moonyong Lee)
2. Dynamic Behavior of a Distillation Column, B.Sc. thesis (Advisor: Professor Shoukat Choudhury)
Technical Papers:
Journal Paper:
1. M.Masum Jujuly, Moonyong Lee
*
, Analytical Design of PID Controller for Enhanced Disturbance
Rejection of Process without Time Delay, (Preparing for ICROS journal paper)
2. Munkyu Yoon, M. Masum Jujuly, W.H. Kim, C.M. Yun, Moonyong Lee
*
, Minimizing VOC emission
during transport of crude oil to cargo tanker (Preparing for Korean journal of Chemical Engineering)
Conference Presentation:
1. M.Masum Jujuly, M.Shamsuzzoha, Moonyong Lee
*
, Analytical PI/PID controller design for stable
processes, Theories and Applications of Chemical Engineering, 15 (1), p.126 (2009).
2. M.Masum Jujuly, Nguyen Viet Ha. Moonyong Lee
*
,Industrial PI controller in optimization based
approach for constrained optimal control of first order process, (Accepted in PSEAsia conference 2010,
Singapore.)
3. M.Masum Jujuly, Nguyen Viet Ha. Moonyong Lee
*
, Optimization based approach for PI controller tuning
for optimal control of first order processes with constraints, ICROS Annual Conference 2010.
4. M. Masum Jujuly, Munkyu Yoon, W.H. Kim, C.M. Yun, Moonyong Lee
*
, An experimental study for
minimizing VOC emission during transport of crude oil to cargo tanker, Korean Society of Clean
Technology Conference, 2009.
59
PID
MUHAMMAD MASUM JUJULY
( : )
(PI) (PID)
. PI/PID
.
. IMCPI/PID
.
Rivera et al. (1986), Morari Zafiriou (1989), Horn et al. (1996), Lee et al. (1998), Shamsuzzoha et al.
(2008) PI/PID IMCPI/PID .
IMC PI/PID . IMCPI/PID
.
, .
.
. , ,
2 IMCPI/PID
IMC PID .
, .
60