2012 12th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems

Oct. 17-21, 2012 in ICC, Jeju Island, Korea

IMC-PID controller tuning from closed-loop setpoint response

Mudassir Hasan1, M. Shamsuzzoha2* and Moonyong Lee1
1

School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Yeungnam University,

Kyongsan 712-749, Korea
(Tel : +82-53-810-3241; E-mail: mynlee@yu.ac.kr)
2
Department of Chemical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals,
Daharan, 31261,Saudi Arabia
(Tel : +966-3-860-7360; E-mail: mshams@kfupm.edu.sa)
Abstract: The proposed IMC-PID tuning method is extension of the recently published setpoint overshoot method
(2010). It is one step procedure to obtain the PI/PID setting which gives the better performance and robustness. The
method requires one closed-loop step setpoint response experiment using a proportional only controller with gain Kc0.
Based on simulations for a range of first-order with delay processes, simple correlations have been derived to give
PI/PID.filter controller settings. The controller gain (Kc/Kc0) is only a function of the overshoot observed in the setpoint
experiment. The controller integral and derivative time (I and D) is mainly a function of the time to reach the first peak
(tp). The proposed tuning method shows better performance than the setpoint overshoot method (2010) for broad range
of processes.
Keywords: PI controller, step test, closed-loop response, IMC-PID, overshoot
may be time consuming and may upset the process and
even lead to process runaway. Second, approximations
are involved in obtaining the process parameters (e.g., k,
 and ) from the data.

1. INTRODUCTION
The proportional, integral, and derivative (PID)
controller is widely used in the process industries due to
its simplicity, robustness and wide ranges of
applicability in the regulatory control layer. One survey
of Desborough and Miller (2002) indicates that more
than 97% of regulatory controllers utilize the PID
algorithm. A recent survey of Kano and Ogawa (2010)
shows that the ratio of applications of different type of
controller e.g., PID control, conventional advanced
control and model predictive control is about 100:10:1.
Although the PID controller has only three adjustable
parameters, they are difficult to be tuned properly. One
reason is that tedious plant tests are required to obtain
controller setting.

The main alternative is to use closed-loop experiments.

One approach is the classical method of Ziegler-Nichols
(1942) which requires very little information about the
process. However, there are several disadvantages. First,
the system needs to be brought its limit of instability
and a number of trials may be needed to bring the
system to this point. Another disadvantage is that the
Ziegler-Nichols (1942) tunings do not work well on all
processes. It is well known that the recommended
settings are quite aggressive for lag-dominant
(integrating) processes (Tyreus and Luyben, 1992) and
quite slow for delay-dominant process (Skogestad,
2003). A third disadvantage of the Ziegler-Nichols
(1942) method is that it can only be used on processes
for which the phase lag exceeds -180 degrees at high
frequencies. For example, it does not work on a simple
second-order process. Recently, Shamsuzzoha and
Skogestad (2010) have developed new procedure for
PI/PID tuning method in closed-loop mode. Their
method is based on the SIMC tuning rule and provides
satisfactory result for both the performance and
robustness. Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad (2010) method
require only one step closed-loop test to obtain PI
controller setting. For the PID tuning parameter they
need to repeat the experiment with PD controller on the
basis of the prior information obtain from P controller
test. They have recommended to include the derivative
action for dominant second-order process only.

There are two approaches for the controller tuning and

one may use open-loop or closed-loop plant tests. Most
tuning approaches are based on open-loop plant
information; typically the plants gain (k), time constant
() and time delay (). One popular approach is direct
synthesis (Seborg et al., 2004) and other is the IMC-PID
tuning method of Rivera et al. (1986). Both the methods
give very good performance for setpoint changes but
sluggish responses to input (load) disturbances for
lag-dominant (including integrating) processes with /
larger than about 10. To improve load disturbance
rejection, Skogestad (2003) proposed the modified
SIMC method where the integral time is reduced for
processes with a large value of the time constant .
Shamsuzzoha and Lee (2007) have proposed IMC filter
for different types of processes to obtain PID controller
for enhanced disturbance rejection. However, these
approaches require that one first obtains an open-loop
model of the process. There are two problems here. First,
an open-loop experiment, for example a step test, is
normally needed to get the required process data. This

978-89-93215-04-5 95560/12/$15 ICROS

The proposed PID tuning method has similar approach

to the recently published paper of Shamsuzzoha and
Skogestad (2010). It is one step procedure to obtain the
PID setting which gives the better performance and



robustness. The method requires one closed-loop step

setpoint response experiment using a proportional only
controller with gain Kc0. Based on simulations for a
range of first-order with delay processes, simple
correlations have been derived to give PID controller
settings. The controller gain (Kc/Kc0) is only a function
of the overshoot observed in the setpoint experiment.
The controller integral and derivative time (I and D) is
mainly a function of the time to reach the first peak (tp).
The proposed tuning method shows better performance
than Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad (2010) for broad
range of processes.

most suitable choice for the proposed tuning rule. The

choice of c=3 has impact on the robustness of the
system and it will be somewhat lower than c=4. The
other impact should be on the overshoot in the setpoint
step response and it will be little bit more for c=3. In the
proposed tuning rules selection of c=0.6 has been
recommend which gives maximum sensitivity (Ms)
approximately 1.73 for the integrating process, and
Ms=1.75 for the delay process. The above tuning
method can be simplified for the c= 0.6 and given as:
2W  T
(6a)
Kc
3.2 kT

WI

2. IMC-PID CONTROLLER TUNING RULE

The motivation of this section is to find suitable
IMC-PID controller tuning for first order process with
delay. In process control, a first-order process with time
delay is a common representation of the process
dynamics:
ke-T s
(1)
g (s)
W s 1
Here k is the process gain,  lag time constant and  the
time delay. Most processes in the chemical industries
can be satisfactorily controlled using a PID controller:
c s

1
1
WDs
K c 1 

W
s
I

W F s 1

WD

WF

WI
WD

WF

(2)

(3b)

WT

(3c)

2W  T

W cT

(3d)

2 W c  T 

The tuning parameters in Eq. (3) gives fast and smooth

set-point tracking, but has a sluggish disturbance
response, especially for processes with a small
time-delay/time-constant ratio (Seborg et al., 2004;
Skogestad, 2003; Shamsuzzoha and Lee, 2007). To
improve the load disturbance response Skogestad (2003)
recommended to modifying the integral time as
(4)
I =4(c +)
Therefore, the integral time in Eq.(3b) is modified for
the improved disturbance rejection for the small
time-delay/time-constant ratio (integrating process) and
given as

T
(5)
 I =min W  , c( c +)

(6c)

2W  T

0.188T

(6d)

This section is devoted for the development of the PID

controller based on the closed-loop data which
resembles the proposed tuning method in Eq.(6). The
simplest closed-loop experiment is probably a setpoint
step response (Fig. 1) where one maintains full control
of the process, including the change in the output
variable. The simplest to observe is the time tp to reach
the (first) overshoot and its magnitude, and this
information is therefore the basis for the proposed
method.
A simple approach has been developed for
IMC-PID.filter controller tuning by the closed-loop
setpoint step using a P-controller with gain Kc0. The
PID-controller settings are then obtained directly from
following three data from the setpoint experiment:
x Overshoot, (yp - y) /y
x Time to reach overshoot (first peak), tp
x Relative steady state output change, b = y/ys.
If one does not want to wait for the system to reach
steady state, one can use the estimate y = 0.45(yp +
yu).
The proposed tuning PID tuning method is:
K c =K c0 A ;

2k W c  T 

W

WT

(6b)

3. CLOSED-LOOP EXPERIMENT

The IMC-PID controller which is equivalent to the IMC

controller for first order plus time delay can be obtained
by utilizing the IMC design principle (Rivera et al.
1986; Shamsuzzoha and Lee, 2007) and given as:
2W  T
(3a)
K
c

T
min W  , 4.8T
2

b
 I =min 0.69 A
t p , 1.46t p
(1- b)

WD

0.14t p

if

1- b 

t 0.94

F=0.057tp
where, A=[1.45(overshoot)2 -2.02 (overshoot)+1.27]

The proposed method works well for a wide variety of

the processes typical for process control, including the
standard first-order plus delay processes as well as
integrating, high-order, inverse response, unstable and
oscillating process.

Skogestad, (2003) proposed c=4 which gives quite

sluggish disturbance rejection. It is well known that in
majority process control loops the disturbance rejection
is the most important task for the controller. To obtain
the faster disturbance rejection we have tested different
value of c (c=4, 3 and 2) and found that the c=3 is the



It is important to note that we are not keen to achieve

the precise fractional overshoot of 0.3, so few trial is
sufficient to achieve the desire overshoot around 0.3
from above equation.

4. SELECTION OF PROPORTIONAL
CONTROLLER GAIN (KC0)
An overshoot of around 0.3 is recommended for the
proposed study. Sometimes achieving the P-controller
gain (Kc0) via trial and error which gives the overshoot
around 0.3 can be time consuming.
Therefore, an effective approach to get the value of Kc0
which gives the overshoot around 0.3 is very significant
for the proposed method. It is important to note that this
procedure requires initial information of the first
closed-loop experiment. Lets assume for the first
closed-loop test P-controller gain of Kc01 is applied and
resulting overshoot OS1 is achieved that is between 0.1
to 0.60 but not around 0.30.

5. SIMULATION
The proposed closed-loop tuning method has been
tested on broad class of the process model. It provides
the acceptable controller setting for all cases with
respect to both the performance and robustness. To
show the effectiveness of the proposed method two
cases have been shown as a representative example i.e.,
integrating with time delay and higher order process.
The simulation has been conducted for three different
overshoot (around 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6) and are compared
with the recently reported method of Shamsuzzoha and
Skogestad (2010).
T s
Example 1: e

Example 2:

1


s
1
0.2
s
1
0.04
 
 s  1 0.008s  1

2.5

OUTPUT y

Fig. 1. Closed-loop step setpoint response with P-only

control.

Let the target overshoot be OS and the target

P-controller gain be Kc0. In the proposed closed-loop
tuning method the goal is to match the performance
with IMC-PID tuning rule and for this only maintains a
constant P gain Kc, regardless of the overshoot that
resulted from the closed-loop setpoint test. Ideally, Kc
should be the same as that determined with different
overshoots from various closed-loop setpoint test and
the resulting correlation is given as:
(7)
1.45  OS 2  2.02  OS   1.27 K
1.45  OS2  2.02  OS  1.27 K
c 01
c0
1
1

0
0

10

20

30

40

50
time

60

70

80

90

Fig. 2. Responses of the PID.filter-control of the

integrating processes e T s s , Setpoint change at t=0;
load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=50.
Figure 2 and 3 presents a comparison of the proposed
method with Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad (2010) by
introducing a unit step change in the set-point at t = 0
and an unit step change of load disturbance (at t = 50 for
example 1 and t=10 for example 2) at plant input. It is
clear from Figure 2 and 3 that the proposed method
gives better closed-loop response for both the processes.
There are significant performance improvements in both
the cases for the disturbance rejection while maintaining
setpoint performance.

1.26 1.45  OS1   2.02  OS1   1.27 K c 01

Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method (overshoot=0.108)

Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method (overshoot=0.302)
Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method (overshoot=0.60)
Proposed method (overshoot=0.108)
Proposed method (overshoot=0.302)
Proposed method (overshoot=0.60)

0.5

The above Eq.(7) gives a general guideline for choosing

the P-controller gain for the next closed-loop setpoint
test. As it is mentioned earlier the proposed method is
good agreement with the IMC-PID for the overshoot
around 0.3. Therefore the overshoot in Eq.(7) is set as
0.3 and after simplification the gain for the next
closed-loop test is recommended as:
Kc0

1.5

(8)

The overshoot around 0.1 typically gives slower and

more robust PID-settings, whereas a large overshoot
around 0.6 gives more aggressive PID-settings. It is
good because a more careful step response results in



100

more careful tunings settings.

8. Tyreus, B.D., Luyben, W.L. (1992). Tuning PI

controllers for integrator/dead time processes, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res. 26282631.
9. Ziegler, J. G., Nichols, N. B. (1942). Optimum
settings for automatic controllers. Trans. ASME, 64,
759-768.

1.25

OUTPUT y

0.75

0.5

Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method (overshoot=0.104)

Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method (overshoot=0.292)
Shamsuzzoha and Skogestad method (overshoot=0.598)
Proposed method (overshoot=0.104)
Proposed method (overshoot=0.2928)
Proposed method (overshoot=0.598)

0.25

0
0

10
time

15

20

Fig. 3. Responses for PID.filter-control of the high order

1
process
, Setpoint change
 s  1 0.2s  1 0.04 s  1 0.008s  1
at t=0; load disturbance of magnitude 1 at t=10.
Acknowledgement: The authors would like to
acknowledge the support (Project Number: IN101012)
provided by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King
Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM).

REFERENCES
1. Desborough, L. D., Miller, R. M., (2002). Increasing
customer value of industrial control performance
monitoringHoneywells experience. Chemical
Process ControlVI (Tuscon, Arizona, Jan. 2001),
AIChE Symposium Series No. 326. Volume 98,
USA.
2. Kano, M., Ogawa, M., (2010). The state of art in
chemical process control in Japan: Good practice
and questionnaire survey, Journal of Process
Control, (20), pp.969-982, (2010).
3. Rivera, D. E., Morari, M., Skogestad, S., (1986).
Internal model control. 4. PID controller design,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 25 (1) 252265.
4. Seborg, D. E., Edgar, T. F., Mellichamp, D. A.,
(2004). Process Dynamics and Control, 2nd ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, U.S.A.
5. Shamsuzzoha M., Lee M., (2007). IMC-PID
Controller Design for Improved Disturbance
Rejection Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, Vol. 46, No. 7,
2077-2091.
6. Shamsuzzoha M., Skogestad S., (2010). The setpoint
overshoot method: A simple and fast closed-loop
approach for PID tuning, Journal of Process
Control 20 12201234.
7. Skogestad, S., (2003). Simple analytic rules for
model reduction and PID controller tuning, Journal
of Process Control, 13, 291309.



10. 17 (WED)

10. 19 (FRI)

09:00-10:30

Oral Session
(TA)

Oral Session
(FA)

10:30-10:45

Coffee Break

Coffee Break

10:45-12:15

Plenary Lecture
(10:45~11:45)

Oral Session
(FB)

12:15-13:30

Lunch

Lunch

10.20 (SAT)

Workshop
13:30-15:00

Oral Session
(WC)

Interactive Session
(TCI)

Oral Session
(FC)

&
Tutorial
-

15:00-15:15

Coffee Break

Coffee Break

Coffee Break

Social Tour
-

15:15-16:15

Opening Ceremony
Plenary Lecture Plenary Lecture
& Plenary Lecture I

16:15-16:30

Coffee Break

Coffee Break

Coffee Break

16:30-18:00

Oral Session
(WD)

Oral Session
(TD)

Interactive Session
(FDI)

Banquet
(18:00-20:00)

18:00-19:30 Welcome Reception

October 17-21, 2012

Bucheon Techno Park 401-1505, Pyeongcheon-ro 655,

Wonmi-gu, Bucheon, Gyeonggi-do 420-734, Korea
Tel : 82-32-234-5801
Fax : 82-32-234-5807
E-mail : conference@icros.org

Technical Tour

2012 12th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems

10. 18 (THU)

Final Program & Digest

ICCAS 2012 Technical Program

Final Program & Digest

2012 12th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems

October 17(Wed) ~ 21(Sun), 2012

ICC Jeju, Korea