Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18


35 Tuning PID Controllers

P. W. MURRILL (1970) P. D. SCHNELLE, JR. (1985) B. G. LIPTÁK (1995)


In order for the reader to fully understand the content and as regulators, having a set point that remains unchanged for
concepts of this section, it is advisable to first become familiar days and even months at a time.
with some basic topics. These include gains, time lags and reac- Examples of variables held at constant set points are
tion curves (Section 2.22), the PID control modes (Section 2.3), drum-level and steam temperature of a boiler, most pressure
feedback and feedforward control (Section 2.9), and relative and level variables, pH of process and effluent streams, most
gain calculations (Section 2.25). product-quality variables, and most temperature loops. Set-
Controllers are designed to eliminate the need for con- point response is of no importance to these loops, but they
tinuous operator attention when controlling a process. In the must contend with load upsets minute by minute. In fact, the
automatic mode, the goal is to keep the controlled variable only loops in a continuous plant that must follow set-point
(or process variable) on set point. The controller tuning changes are flow loops.
parameters determine how well the controller achieves this Batch plants have frequent transitions between steady
goal when in automatic mode. states, some of which require rapid response to set-point
changes with minimal overshoot. However, some of these
changes are large enough to saturate the controller, particu-
larly at startup. This can cause integral windup, which
DISTURBANCES requires special means of prevention to overcome.

The purpose of a controller is to keep the controlled variable The Load Only pure-batch processes — where no flow into
as close as possible to its set point at all times. How well it or out of the process takes place — operate at constant load,
achieves this objective depends on the responsiveness of the and that load is zero. All other processes can expect to encoun-
process, its control modes and their tuning, and the size of ter variations in load, which are principally changing flow rates
the disturbances and their frequency distribution. entering and leaving vessels. A liquid-level controller, for
example, manipulates the flow of one liquid stream, while
Sources other streams represent the load. Feedwater flow to a boiler is
manipulated to control drum level and must balance the com-
Disturbances arise from three different sources: set point, bined flows of steam and blowdown leaving to keep level at
load, and noise. Noise is defined as a random disturbance set point. The load changes frequently and often unpredictably,
whose frequency distribution exceeds the bandwidth of the but the set point may never change.
control loop. As such, the controller has no impact on it, In a typical temperature control loop, the load is the flow
other than possibly amplifying it and passing it on to the of heat required to keep temperature constant. Liquid entering
final actuator, which can cause excessive wear and ultimate a heat exchanger will require a certain flow of steam to reach
failure. a controlled exit temperature. Variations in liquid flow and
Set point and load changes affect the behavior of the inlet temperature will change the demand for steam flow
control loop quite differently, owing to the dynamics in their manipulated to keep exit temperature at set point.
path. A controller tuned to follow set point changes tends to
respond sluggishly to load variations, and conversely a con-
troller tuned to correct disturbances tends to overshoot when Dynamics
its set point is changed.
The term process dynamics can refer to capacitance, inertia,
resistance, time constant, dead time or their combinations.
Set Point The set point is the desired value of the controlled There is no dynamics involved with changing the set point,
variable and is subject to adjustment by the operator. In a unless intentionally placed there for the purpose of filtering
continuous process plant, most of the control loops operate the set point.


© 2006 by Béla Lipták

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 415

Set point Load Noise

Steps are also quite common in industry, representing
conditions caused by sudden startup and shutdown of equip-
ment; starting and stopping of multiple burners, pumps and
SP filler dynamics compressors; and capacity changes of reciprocating compres-
sors. If a control loop can respond adequately to a step dis-
Process Controlled turbance, then a ramp or exponential disturbance will have
Loop variable
Controller less of an impact on it.
The step is also the easiest test to apply, requiring only
a size estimate, and can be administered manually. Pulses
require duration estimates, and doublet pulses require bal-
ancing. Step changes in set point are the usual disturbance
FIG. 2.35a applied to test or tune a loop, even for loops that operate at
Load variables always pass through the dominant dynamic elements. constant set point. Figure 2.35b illustrates a step response
with 1/4 decay ratio.
The usual result of tuning a controller for set point
However, there is always dynamics in the load path. Load response is to reduce its performance to variations in load.
variables are principally the flow rates of streams similar to Therefore, the effectiveness of a controller and its tuning as
those manipulated by the controller. Therefore the dynamics a load regulator need to be determined by simulating a step
in their path to the controlled variable are similar — and in load change.
most cases identical — to the dynamics in the loop itself.
Figure 2.35a presents all the essential elements of a con-
trol loop, showing its disturbance sources and dynamics. Simulating a Load Change
Most frequently, the dynamics are common to both the load
Some controllers have an adjustable output bias. An acceptable
disturbance and the controller output, meaning that the load
simulation of load change, when the controller is in automatic
and manipulated streams enter the process at the same point.
and at steady state, is a step change in the value of this bias.
An example would be the control of composition of a liquid
The value of the controller output prior to the step is an indi-
at the exit of a blender, where both the manipulated and load
cation of the current plant load because the loop was in a steady
streams making up that blend are introduced at a common
state. The step in bias in that case moves the controller output
entry point.
to another value, which disturbs the controlled variable and
Less often encountered is the process where the dynam-
causes the controller to integrate back to its previous steady-
ics in these two paths differ. An example of this is a shell-
state output.
and-tube heat exchanger, wherein the temperature of a liquid
leaving the tube bundle is controlled by manipulating the Alternatively, controllers that can be transferred “bump-
flow of steam to the shell. The shell may have more heat lessly” between manual and automatic modes (most do — all
capacity than the tubes, causing the temperature to respond
more slowly to a change in steam flow than to a change in
liquid flow. Nonetheless, these two dominant lags will typ-
ically not differ greatly.

Step Responses

Step testing is recommended for all control loops where the

frequency content of the disturbance variables is not speci-
fied. There are cases of periodic disturbances, and they can
pose special problems for control loops that themselves are b
capable of resonating at a particular period. They are found a
principally in cascade loops and in process interactions where
controllers manipulate valves in series or in parallel. These
are considered in other sections of this work. Another period P
disturbance is the cyclic operation of such cleaning devices
as soot-blowers. a/b = 1/4
For the general case, the step disturbance is the most
difficult test for the controller in that it contains all frequen- 0 Time
cies, including zero. In fact, the frequency content of the step 0
is identical to that of integrated white noise — therefore, it is FIG. 2.35b
an excellent test for loops subject to random disturbances. Step response curve of a control loop tuned for 1/4 decay ratio.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

416 Control Theory

should) allow simulating a load change by using that feature.

This is done by waiting until the loop is at steady state and filter SP tuning
on set point (zero deviation). At that point switching to the Set

Controlled variable
manual mode and stepping the output by the desired amount Load
in the desired direction, and immediately (before a deviation SP filter tuning
develops) transferring back to the automatic mode.
This procedure can be followed for all but the fastest
loops, such as flow loops. For them, a step in set point is
acceptable, both because flow loops must follow set-point
changes, and because for them, set-point tuning gives accept-
able load response. 0 1 2 3 4
Time, t/St
Comparing Set-Point and Load Responses
FIG. 2.35c
The steady-state process gain of a flow loop is typically Set-point tuning slows load recovery for lag-dominant processes.
between 1 and 2, as indicated by the controller output being
between 50 and 100% when the flow measurement is at full
scale. The proportional gain of a typical flow controller is in
and longer integral time than is optimum for load regulation,
the range of 0.3 to 1.0, with the higher number associated
or a filter must be applied to the set point.
with the process that has the lower steady-state gain. There-
Figure 2.35c compares responses to steps in set point and
fore, the proportional loop gain for a typical flow loop is in
load for a process with distributed lag such as a dashed
range of 0.6 to 1.0. As a result, a step change in set point
exchanger, distillation column, or stirred tank. The time scale
will move the controller output approximately the correct
is normalized to Στ , which is the time required for the dis-
amount to produce the same change in flow, by proportional
tributed lag to reach 63.2% of the full response to a step input
action alone, that gives excellent set-point response.
in the open loop. It is also the residence time of liquid in a
This is not the case for other loops. Level has the opposite
stirred tank.
behavior. To maintain a constant level, the controller must
If the PID settings are adjusted to minimize the Integrated
match the vessel’s inflow and outflow precisely. Changing
Absolute Error (IAE) to the set point change, the dashed
the set point will cause the controller to change the manip-
response curve is produced (SP tuning). Note that following
ulated flow, but only temporarily — when the level reaches
a step change in load, the return to set point is sluggish. This
the new set point, the manipulated flow must return to its
is commonly observed with lag-dominant processes. The PID
original steady-state value.
settings that produce the minimum-IAE load response, shown
Therefore, no steady-state change in output is required
in black (no filter), result in a large set-point overshoot,
for a level controller to respond to a set-point change. The
Integrated Error (IE) sustained by a controller following a
disturbance varies directly with the change in output between
Set-Point Filtering
its initial and final steady states. In response to a set-point
change, the level controller has the same initial and final If optimum load rejection is desired, without the large set-
steady-state output values and hence sustains zero integrated point overshoot that it produces on lag-dominant processes,
error. the proportional response to set-point changes needs to be
As a result, the error that is integrated while the level is reduced.
approaching the new set point will be matched exactly by an Some PID controllers have the option to eliminate pro-
equal area of overshoot. In other words, set-point overshoot portional action on the set point altogether. This tends to
is unavoidable in a level loop unless set-point filtering is produce a set-point undershoot, which can significantly dashed
provided. the controller response, and it should never be used in the
Most other processes, such as temperature, pressure, and secondary controller of a cascade system. (Incidentally,
composition, have steady-state gains higher than those of a derivative action should never be applied to the set point, as
flow process. But more importantly, they are also dominated this always produces overshoot.)
by lags, which allows the use of a higher controller propor- Some controllers can reduce the controller’s proportional
tional gain for tight load regulation. When this high propor- gain when it acts on set point changes, either through the use
tional gain is multiplied by the process steady-state gain, the of a lead-lag filter, or by the use of a specially structured
resulting loop gain can be as high as 5 to 10 or more. algorithm. This adjustment allows separate optimization of
A set-point step then moves the controller output far more set-point response, after the PID settings have been tuned to
than required to drive the controlled variable to the new set optimize the controller’s load response. The filter used for
point, producing a large overshoot. To minimize set-point the loop whose response is shown in Figure 2.35c has applied
overshoot, the controller must be detuned, with lower gain only half the controller’s proportional gain to the set point.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 417


process variable
Applying a step to the process is simple and can be used to (% of full scale)
tune the loop and to obtain a simple model for the process.
Two methods are widely used. The first is the “process reac-
tion curve,” which is not used to calculate the process model
but is used to obtain the tuning parameters for rejecting the 70
upsets caused by load changes. K
The second method uses the “process model” by obtain- 60
ing a simple process model; the tuning parameters are cal- Lr
culated from this model based on either a load rejection or 50
a set point change criterion. Lr Rr
40 Time (minutes)
Process Reaction Curve 0 2 4 6 8

When a process is at steady state and it is upset by a step

FIG. 2.35d
change, it usually starts to react after a period of time called Reaction curve of a self-regulating process, caused by a step change
the dead time (Figure 2.35d). After the dead time, most pro- of one unit in the controller output. L r = td is dead time, Rr is reaction
cesses will reach a maximum speed (reaction rate), then the rate, and K is process gain.
speed will drop (self-regulating process) or the speed will
remain constant (integrating process).
When tuning a loop to remove disturbances caused by ences between the recommended settings arrived at by using
load changes, the controller must react at its maximum rate the various tuning techniques.
of reaction, and the strength of the reaction will correspond From this curve, it is not possible to determine the pro-
to the maximum speed. Hence, to tune the loop, it is not cess model since the curve is too short to tell whether the
necessary to know the process model. It is sufficient to know reaction rate remains constant (integrating process) or goes
the dead time and the maximum speed to calculate the tuning down (self-regulating process). From such a test, the model
parameters. cannot be found but the tuning parameters for load rejection
Figure 2.35e illustrates the response of a temperature can be estimated.
loop after a step change in the controller output. This example As can be seen from Figure 2.35e, a 10% change in CO
will be used throughout this section to illustrate the differ- was applied at 10 s and the temperature started to increase

Process Variable

Slope = (132 – 123) deg C

(70 – 40) s

23 s

40 80

Controller Output




40 80
Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35e
Process reaction curve in response of a change in controller output (CO). The process variable (PV) range is 0 to 300 degC and the CO
range is 0 to 100%.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

418 Control Theory

Yet another advantage is that this test can be performed prior

TABLE 2.35f to the installation of the control system.
Equations for Calculating the Ziegler–Nichols Tuning Parameters
The disadvantages are also multiple. The open-loop test
for an Interacting Controller
is not as accurate as the closed-loop one because it disregards
Type of Controller P (gain) I (minutes/repeat) D (minutes) the dynamics of the controller. Another disadvantage is that
the S-shaped reaction curve and its inflection point are diffi-
P ∆CO — — cult to identify when the measurement is noisy and/or if a
Rr ∗ td
small step change was used.
∆CO Because of the above considerations, a good approach is
PI 0.9 * 3.33 td —
Rr ∗ td to use the open-loop method of tuning in order to obtain the
first set of initial tuning constants for a loop during startup.
PID ∆CO 2 td 0.5 td Then, refine these settings once the system is operating by
Rr ∗ td retuning the loop using the closed-loop method.

23 s seconds later at 33 s. Hence the dead time (td) is 23 s Process Model

and the reaction rate (speed) is
There are many ways to use and interpret the dead time (td)
∆PV and reaction rate (Rr) values obtained from the open-loop
Rr = 2.35(1) tuning method. Most open-loop methods are based on
approximating the process reaction curve by a simpler sys-
The slope is: tem. Several techniques are available to obtain a model.
The most common approximation by far is a pure time
9 deeg C
∗ 100 delay (dead time) plus a first-order lag. One reason for the
∆PV 132 deg C − 123 deg C 9 deg C 300 deg C
= = = popularity of this approximation is that a real-time delay of
∆t 70 s − 40 s 30 s 30 s any duration can only be represented by a pure time delay
= = 0.1%/s = 6.0%/min because there is yet no other simple and adequate approxi-
30 s mation. Theoretically, it is possible to use higher-than-first-
After the dead time (td) and the reaction rate (Rr ) have order lags plus dead time, but accurate approximations are
been determined, the controller settings are calculated by difficult to obtain. Thus the real process lag is usually approx-
using the equations in Table 2.35f. imated by a pure time delay plus a first-order lag. This
If a PI controller is to be used for the process that was approximation is easy to obtain, and it is sufficiently accurate
tested in Figure 2.35e, the values are: for most purposes.
The process’s dead time is the time period following an
P = 0.9*10%/(0.1%/s X 23 s) = 3.9
upset during which the controlled variable is not yet respond-
I = 3.33 * 23 s = 76.6 s = 1.28 minutes. ing. The time constant is a period between the time when a
Ziegler and Nichols recommend using the ratio of the response is first detected and the time when the response has
controller output divided by the product of the slope and the reached 63.2 % of its final (new steady-state) value. The time
dead time to calculate the proportional gain. The ideal process constant is also the time it would take for the controlled
has a small dead time and a small slope, so that the controller variable to reach its final value if the initial speed were
can aggressively manipulate the controller output to bring the maintained.
process back to set point.
The integral and derivative are calculated using the dead Bump Tests Figure 2.35g shows the Ziegler–Nichols pro-
time. The proportional is calculated using the slope and the cedure to approximate that process reaction curve with a first-
dead time. If the slope is high, then the controller gain must order lag plus a time delay. The first step is to draw a straight-
be small because the process is sensitive; it reacts quickly. If line tangent to the process reaction curve at its point of
the dead time is long, the controller gain must be small maximum rate of ascent (point of infection).
because the process response is delayed and therefore the Although this is easy to visualize, it is quite difficult to
controller cannot be aggressive. If one can reduce the slope do in practice. This is one of the main difficulties in this
and the dead time of any process, it will be easier to control. procedure, and a considerable number of errors can be intro-
One of the advantages of open-loop tuning over the duced at this point. The slope of this line is termed the
closed-loop tuning technique is its speed because one does reaction rate R r . The time between the instant when the bump
not need to wait for several periods of oscillation during was applied and the time at which this line intersects the
several trial-and-error attempts. The other advantage is that initial value of the controlled variable prior to the test is the
one does not introduce oscillations into the process with dead time, or transport time delay td.
unpredictable amplitudes. In open-loop tuning, the user Figure 2.35g illustrates the determination of these values
selects the upset that is introduced, and it can be small. for a one-unit step change (∆CO) in the controller output

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 419

170 τ = 183 − 33 s

Process variable



400 800
Controller output

400 800
Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35g
Maximum slope curve, Fit 1.

(manipulated variable) to a process. If a different-size step The first-order lag time constants are given by:
change in controller output was applied, the value of τd would
not change significantly.
Fit1: τ F1 = K / Rr = 1.5/0.1%/s = 150 s
However, the value of Rr is essentially directly propor-
tional to the magnitude of the change in controller output. (same slope as previous section) 2.35(3)
Therefore, if a two-unit change in output was used instead Fit 2: τ F1 = t63.2% − t0 = 155 s – 33 s = 122 s 2.35(4)
of a one-unit change, the value of Rr would be approximately
twice as large. For this reason the value of Rr used in Equation
In Equation 2.35(4), t63.2% is the time necessary to reach
2.35(2) or any other must be the value that would be obtained
63.2 % of the final value, and t0 is the time elapsed between
for a one-unit change in controller output.
the CO change and the beginning of the PV change. Note that
In addition to the dead time and reaction rate, the value
the parameters for Fit 1 are based on a single point on the
of the process gain K must also be determined as follows:
response curve, which is the point of maximum rate of ascent.
However, the parameters obtained with Fit 2 are based on two
final steady-state change in controlled vaariable (%) separate points.
K= 3
change in controller ouput (control unit) Studies indicate that the open-loop response based on
2.35(2) Fit 2 always provides an approximation that is as good or
better than the Fit 1 approximation. A typical curve resulting
There is a second method to determine the pure time delay from the above procedure is shown in Figure 2.35i.
plus the first-order lag approximation. In order to distinguish The response shown in Figure 2.35i resulted from a ten-
between these two methods, they will be called Fit 1 (described unit change in controller output. For different step changes,
in Figure 2.35g) and Fit 2 (described in Figure 2.35h). K and Rr must be adjusted accordingly. From a curve such
The only difference between these two is in how the first- as in Figure 2.35i, a number of parameters can be determined.
order time constant is obtained. In case of Fit 2, the time The controller settings are calculated from the equations in
constant of the process is determined as the difference Table 2.23j:
between the time when the dead time ends and the time when Table 2.35k compares the results obtained in terms of pro-
the controlled variable has covered 63.2% of the distance cess gain (K), time constant (τ (s)), dead time (td (s)), and the
between the pre-test steady state and the new one. The dead resulting controller gain (Kc) and integral time setting (Ti (min))
time determination by both fits is the same and was already of a PI controller.
described. In the following discussion, the process model deter-
Another method to determine the dead time is to measure mined by the second fit will be used to compare against a
the time when the PV moves by 2% of the total change. variety of tuning criteria.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

420 Control Theory


160 Process gain = (165 − 120) degC

Process variable
(50− 40)%
150 120 degC + 0.632 * = 4.5 degC = 100*(4.5/300)%
45 degC = 148 degC % %
= 1.5

120 155 s
33 s
400 800

Controller output

400 800
Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35h
Bump test, Fit 2 curve.

Comparing the Tuning Methods One of the earliest methods empirical equations to be used to predict controller settings to
for using the process reaction curve was proposed by Ziegler obtain a decay ratio of 1/4 are given in Table 2.35j in terms of
and Nichols. When using their process reaction curve method, K, td, and τ.
which was described in connection with Figure 2.35e, only Rr In developing their equations, Ziegler and Nichols con-
and td or t0 must be determined. Using these parameters, the sidered processes that were not “self-regulating.” To illustrate,


Process variable





400 800


Controller output




400 800
Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35i
A typical reaction curve using the dead time and time constant obtained by a bump test.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 421

the level in the tank will rise to some new position but will
TABLE 2.35j not increase indefinitely, and therefore system will be self-
Ziegler–Nichols’ Recommendations to Obtain the Tuning 4
regulating. To account for self-regulation, Cohen and Coon
Parameters for an Interacting Controller Based on the Readings
introduced an index of self-regulation µ defined as:
Calculated from a Model
Type of Controller P (gain) I (minutes/repeat) D (minutes) µ = Rr Lr /K 2.35(5)

τ Note that this term can also be determined from the process
P — —
K ∗ td reaction curve. For processes originally considered by Ziegler
and Nichols, µ equals zero and therefore there is no self-
τ regulation. To account for variations in µ, Cohen and Coon
PI 3.33 td —
0.9 *
K ∗ td suggested the equations given in Table 2.35l in terms of td and τ.
In case of a proportional control, the requirement that the
decay ratio be 1/4 is sufficient to ensure a unique solution, but
PID τ 2 td 0.5 td
1.2 for the case of proportional-plus-reset control, this restraint is
K ∗ td
not sufficient.
Another constraint in addition to the 1/4 decay ratio can
consider the level control of a tank with a constant rate of be placed on the response to determine the unique values of
liquid outflow. Assume that the tank is initially operating at Kc and Ti . This second constraint can be to require that the
constant level. If a step change is made in the inlet liquid flow, control area of the response be at its minimum, meaning that
the level in the tank will rise until it overflows. This process the area between the response curve and the set point be the
is not “self-regulating.” smallest. This area is called the error integral or the integral
On the other hand, if the outlet valve opening and outlet of the error with respect to time.
backpressure are constant, the rate of liquid removal With the proportional-plus-reset-plus-rate controller
increases as the liquid level increases. Hence, in this case, (PID), the same problem of not having a unique solution
exists even when the 1/4 decay ratio and the minimum error
TABLE 2.35k integral constraints are applied. Therefore, a third constraint
The Tuning Setting Recommendations for a PI Controller must be chosen to obtain a unique solution. Based on the
Resulting from the Three Methods of Testing Described work of Cohen and Coon, it has been suggested that this new
constraint could have a value of 0.5 for the dimensionless
τ (s) td (s) Kc Ti (min)
Testing Method Used K
group Kc Ktd /τ. The tuning relations that will result from
Reaction curve 3.91 1.28 applying these three constraints are given in Table 2.35l. This
Process model Fit1, ZN 1.5 150 23 3.91 1.28 method has been referred to as the 3C method.
Greg Shinskey suggested a variation to the above, where
Process model Fit 2, ZN 1.5 122 23 3.18 1.28
the proportional gain and the integral time are increased.

TABLE 2.35l
Comparison of Equations Recommended by Ziegler–Nichols, Shinskey, Cohen–Coon, and
3C for the Determination of the Tuning Settings for PID Controllers
Ziegler–Nichols Shinskey Cohen–Coon 3C

P KKc = (td /τ ) −1.0 (td /τ ) −1.0 (td /τ ) −1.0 + 0.333 1.208(td /τ ) −0.956

P KKc = 0.9(td /τ ) −1.0 0.95(td /τ ) −1.0 0.9(td /τ ) −1.0 + 0.082 0.928(td /τ ) −0.946

= 3.33(td /τ ) 4.0(td /τ ) 3.33(td /τ )[1 + (td /τ )/11] 0.928(td /τ )−0.583
τ 1 + 2.2 + (td /τ )

P KKc = 1.2(td /τ ) −1.0 0.855(td /τ ) −1.0 1.35(td /τ ) −1.0 + 0.270 1.370(td /τ ) −0.950

I Ti 1.6(td /τ ) 2.50(td /τ )[1 + (td /τ )/5] 0.740(td /τ )0.738

= 2.0(td /τ )
τ 1 + 0.6(td /τ )

Td 0.37(td /τ )
D = 0.5(td /τ ) 0.6(td /τ ) 0.365(td /τ )0.950
τ 1 + 0.2(td /τ )

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

422 Control Theory

Integral Criteria Tuning
TABLE 2.35m
Table 2.35m provides the controller settings that minimize Tuning Settings for Load and Set Point Disturbances
the respective integral criteria to the ratio td/τ. The settings Load Change Set Point Change
differ if tuning is based on load (disturbance) changes as
opposed to set point changes. Settings based on load changes
IAE P 0.902 –0.985
will generally be much tighter than those based on set point
changes. When loops tuned to load changes are subjected to P 0.984 –0.986 0.758 –0.861
a set point change, a more oscillatory response is observed. I 0.608 –0.707 1.020 –0.323
P 1.435 –0.921 1.086 –0.869
I 0.878 –0.749 0.740 –0.130
Which Disturbance to Tune for D 0.482 1.137 0.348 0.914

With tuning parameters calculated for load rejection, the ITAE P 0.490 –1.084
integral time (Ti) and derivative time (Td) will depend mostly P 0.859 –0.977 0.586 –0.916
on the dead time (td) of the process. I 0.674 –0.680 1.030 –0.165
In contrast, if the tuning parameters are calculated for a P 1.357 –0.947 0.965 –0.855
set-point change, the integral time will be longer and the I 0.842 –0.738 0.796 –0.147
derivative time will be shorter, and they will depend mostly D 0.381 0.995 0.308 0.929
on the time constant of the process. ISE P 1.411 –0.917
The relationship between the controller settings based on P 1.305 –0.959
integral criteria and the ratio t0 /τ is expressed by the tuning I 0.492 –0.739
relationship given in Equation 2.35(6).
P 1.495 –0.945
I 1.101 –0.771
t  D 0.560 1.006
Y = A 0 2.35(6)
τ ZN P 1.000 –1.000
P 0.900 –1.000
I 0.333 –1.000
where Y = KKc for proportional mode, τ /Ti for reset mode,
P 1.200 –1.000
Td/τ for rate mode; A, B = constant for given controller and
mode; t0, τ = pure delay time and first-order lag time constant. I 0.500 –1.000
Hence, using these equations, D 0.500 1.000
CCC P 1.208 –0.956
B P 0.928 –0.946
A  t0 
Kc = 2.35(7) I 1.078 –0.583
K  τ  P 1.370 –0.950
B I 1.351 –0.738
1 A  t0 
= 2.35(8) D 0.365 0.950
Ti τ  τ  Shinskey P 1.000 –1.000
B P 0.952 –1.000
t 
Td = τ ∗ A  0  2.35(9) I 0.250 –1.000
τ P 0.855 –1.000
I 0.625 –1.000
Lambda Tuning D 0.600 1.000
4 to 1 decay P 1.235 –0.924
Lambda tuning originated from Dahlin in 1968; it is based Critical damping P 0.300 –1.000 0.300 –1.000
on the same IMC theory as MPC, is model-based, and uses (no overshoot, P 0.600 –1.000 0.350 –1.000
a model inverse and pole-zero cancellation to achieve the maximum speed) I 0.250 –1.000 Ti =1.16τ
desired closed-loop performance.
P 0.950 –1.000 0.600 –1.000
Lambda tuning is a method to tune loops based on pole
I 0.420 –1.000 Ti = τ
placement. This method ensures a defined response after a
set-point change but is generally too sluggish to properly D 0.420 1.000 0.500 1.000
reject disturbances. Promoters for this method often claim
that all loops should be tuned on the basis of Lambda tuning.
Doing so, the controllers are almost in “idling mode” and

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 423

when the process load changes or other disturbance occurs,

the time to eliminate this disturbance is quite long for most TABLE 2.35n
The Tuning Setting Recommendations for a PI Controller
processes, because the integral time selected equals the pro-
Resulting from the Criteria Listed
cess time constant.
The promoters also suggest the use of a closed-loop time Criteria Tuning Kc Ti (min)
constant, which is three times the process time constant.
Load change criteria Ziegler–Nichols 3.18 1.28
Doing so, the response time in the automatic mode will be
CCC 3.00 0.71
three times longer than in manual. Therefore, the response
time will be slower in automatic. This is adequate if no Shinskey 3.37 1.53
disturbance occurs but if no disturbance occurs, the control IAE 3.40 1.03
loop is not needed. SP change criteria IAE 2.13 1.16
“Lambda tuning” refers to all tuning methods where the Lambda 0.21 2.03
control loop speed of response is a selectable tuning param-
eter. The closed loop time constant is referred to as “Lambda”
(λ). Therefore, following a set-point change, the PV will reach
set point as a first-order system (same type of response as in The performance of lambda tuning is unacceptable for
the manual mode when the CO is changed). correcting upsets caused by load changes if the process time
Lambda tuning has been widely used in the pulp and constant is larger than the dead time. This is the case with
paper industry, but control specialists are starting to realize pressure, level, and temperature control applications. With
that it is often too sluggish to handle disturbances. For a first- flow loops, the results are similar to other methods since the
order plus dead time model time constant is in the same order of magnitude as the dead
Ti = τ 2.35(10) In Table 2.35n, Fit 2 (Figure 2.35h) will be used as the
reference to compare the process models found using the
1 T
Kc = ∗ i 2.35(11) different tuning criteria. For load and set-point responses of
K λ + td the different tuning techniques, see Figures 2.35o, p, and q.

where λ = closed loop time constant; it is recommended to Adjusting Robustness To remove oscillations in a control
use λ = 3τ. loop, hence to increase the robustness, it is necessary to give

IAE = 1449.67 SSE=16731.6

175 Lambda
Process variable

145 ExperTune SP
ExperTune Load
125 IAE
115 CCC Shinskey
200 400 600 800 1000
Controller output




200 400 600 800 1000
Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35o
Load responses of the different tuning techniques (example).

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

424 Control Theory

IAE = 2286.29 SSE = 37317

170 CCC
ZN Shinskey

Process variable
ExperTune Load
140 )
IAE (SPLoad Lambda
xp er Tu ne
130 E

200 400 600 800 1000

Controller output

200 400 600 800 1000
Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35p
Set-point responses of the different tuning techniques (example).

up some performance. By reducing the proportional gain in Digital Control Loops

a control loop, the robustness will be increased and the oscil-
lations will be reduced or removed. Digital control loops differ from continuous control loops by
As a rule of thumb, dividing the proportional gain by a having the continuous controller replaced by a sampler, a
factor of two will eliminate the oscillations; dividing again discrete control algorithm calculated by the computer, and a
the proportional gain by a factor of two will remove most of hold device (usually a zero-order hold). In such cases Moore
the overshoot. (For more on robustness, see Section 2.26.) et al. have shown that the open-loop tuning methods presented

Process variable

130 Lambda


200 400 600 800 1000

Controller output

200 400 600 800 1000
Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35q
Set-point responses of the different tuning techniques (example) with a controller where the P is applied only on PV changes.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 425

previously may be used, considering that the dead time used Output
is the sum of the true process dead time and one-half of the
sampling time, as expressed by Equation 2.35(12):

t0′ = t0 + T /2 2.35(12)
Curve A

where T is the sampling time. t′0 is used in the tuning rela- Curve B
tionships instead of t0. (Section 2.38 deals with the subject Curve C
of controller tuning by computer.)


As has been discussed previously, in the open-loop method of Pu

tuning, the controller does not even have to be installed in order
for the controller settings to be determined. When the closed-
loop method is used, the controller is in automatic. Described
below are the two most common closed-loop methods of tuning,
the ultimate method and the damped oscillation method.
Curve A: unstable, runaway oscillation
Ultimate Method Curve B: continuous cycling, marginal stability
Curve C: stable, damped oscillation
One of the first methods proposed for tuning controllers was
the ultimate method, reported by Ziegler and Nichols in FIG. 2.35r
1942. This method is called “the ultimate method” because Ultimate gain is the gain that causes continuous cycling (Curve B)
its use requires the determination of the ultimate gain (sen- and ultimate period (Pu) is the period of that cycling.
sitivity) and the ultimate period. The ultimate gain Ku is the
maximum allowable value of gain (for a controller with only
a proportional mode) for which the system is stable. The
ultimate period is the response’s period with the gain set at basis of the distance where the loop will operate from insta-
its ultimate value (Figure 2.35r). bility. Settings for load rejection are not too far from instabil-
In order for a closed loop to display a quarter of the ity, but tuning parameters for set-point change are different,
amplitude damping (Figure 2.35b), its loop gain must be at and the process model is needed for their determination.
0.5. This means that the product of the gains of all the com- The optimum integral and derivative settings of control-
ponents in the loop — composed by the process gain (Gp), the lers vary with the number of modes in the controller (P = 1,
sensor gain (Ks), the transmitter gain (Kt), the controller gain PI = 2 mode, PID = 3 mode) and with the amount of dead
(Kc = 100/PB), and the control valve gain (Kv) — must be at times in the loop. For noninteracting PI controllers with no
0.5. When the loop is in sustained, undampened oscillation, noticeable dead time, one would set the integral (Ti ) for about
the gain product of the loop is 1.0 and the amplitude of cycling 75% of the period of oscillation.
is constant (Curve B in Figure 2.35r). As the dead time-to-time constant ratio rises, the integral
The period when the closed loops oscillate depends setting becomes a smaller percentage of the oscillation
mostly on the amount of dead time in the loop. The period of period — around 60% when the dead time equals 20% of the
oscillation in flow loops is 1 to 3 seconds; for level loops, it time constant, about 50% when their ratio is at 50%, about
is 3 to 30 seconds (sometimes minutes); for pressure loops, 33% when they are equal, and about 25% when the dead time
5 to 100 seconds, for temperature loops; 0.5 to 20 minutes; exceeds the time constant.
and for analytical loops, from 2 minutes to several hours. For noninteracting PID loops with no dead time, one
When controlled by analog controllers (no dead time would set the integral minutes/repeat (I) to a value equal to
added by sampling), plain proportional loops oscillate at peri- 50 % of the period of oscillation and the derivative time (D)
ods ranging from two to five dead times, PI loops oscillate to about 18% of the period. As dead time rises to 20% of the
at periods of three to five dead times, and PID loops at around time constant, (I ) drops to 45% and (D) to 17% of the period.
three dead time periods. At 50% dead time, (I) = 40% and (D) = 16%. When the dead
The settings determined by this method will be based on time equals the time constant, (I ) = 33% and (D) = 13%;
load disturbance rejection and will not be suitable for set-point finally, if dead time is twice the time constant, (I ) = 25% and
changes. The tuning parameters are in fact calculated on the (D) = 12%.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

426 Control Theory

Tuning Example The same example as was used earlier will

Process variable
be used to illustrate the “ultimate” closed-loop tuning 145
method. The aim of this tuning process is to determine the
controller gain or proportional band that would cause sus-
tained, undampened oscillation (Ku) and to measure the cor-
responding period of oscillation, called the ultimate period 300 600
(Pu). The steps in this tuning sequence are as follows:

Controller output
1. Set all controller dynamics to zero. In other words, set
the integral to infinite (or maximum) minutes per
repeat or zero (or minimum) repeats per minute and
set derivative to zero (or minimum) minutes. 300 600
2. Set the gain or proportional band to some arbitrary Time (sec)
value near the expected setting (if known) or at Kc = 1
(PB = 100%) if no better information is available. FIG. 2.35t
3. Let the process stabilize. Once the PV is stable, intro- Ultimate cycling response of the same process that was tested in
duce an upset. The simplest way to do that is to move Figure 2.35e.
the set point up or down by a safe amount (for exam-
ple, move it by 2% for half a minute) and then return In order to use the ultimate gain and the ultimate period
it to its original value. to obtain the controller settings for proportional controllers,
Ziegler and Nichols correlated the decay ratio vs. gain
The result will be an upset in the PV resembling the expressed as a fraction of the ultimate gain for several sys-
characteristics of curve A, B, or C in Figure 2.35r. If the tems. From the results they concluded that if the controller
response is undampened (curve A), the gain (or proportional) gain is set to equal one-half of the ultimate gain, it will often
setting is too high (proportional narrow); inversely, if the give a decay ratio of 1/4, i.e.,
response is damped (curve C), the gain (or proportional)
Kc = 0.5Ku (PB = 2PBu) 2.35(13)
setting is too low (proportional wide). Therefore, if the
response resembles curve A, the controller gain is increased; By analogous reasoning and testing, the equations in
if it resembles curve C, the gain is reduced, and the test is Table 2.35s were found to also give reasonably good settings
repeated until curve B is obtained. for noninteracting two- and three-mode controllers. Again it
After one or more trials, the state of sustained, undamp- should be noted that these equations are empirical and excep-
ened oscillation will be obtained (curve B), and at that point tions abound. For the same example as before, Figure 2.35t
the test is finished. (Make sure that the oscillation is a sinu- illustrates the ultimate cycling response.
soidal and not a limit cycle.) Next, read the proportional gain The ultimate gain and period obtained from Figure 2.35t
that caused the sustained oscillation. This is called the “ulti- are: Ku = 7.75 and Pu = 87 s.
mate gain” (Ku), and the corresponding period is the ultimate
Hence the recommended tuning settings for the process
period of oscillation (Pu).
that was used in the example are: Kp = 3.49 and Ti = 1.21
Once the values of Ku and Pu are known, one might use minutes.
the recommendations of Ziegler–Nichols (Table 2.35s) or the
There are a few exceptions to the tuning procedure
recommendations that were described earlier, which also con-
described here because in some cases, decreasing the gain
sider the dead time-to-time constant ratio. No one tuning is
makes the process more unstable. In these cases, the “ultimate”
perfect, and experienced process control engineers do come
method will not give good settings. Usually in cases of this
up with their own “fudge factors” based on experience.
type, the system is stable at high and low values of gain but
unstable at intermediate values. Thus, the ultimate gain for
systems of this type has a different meaning. To use the ulti-
mate method for these cases, the lower value of the ultimate
TABLE 2.35s gain is sought.
Tuning Parameters Based on the Measurement of Ku and Pu
Recommended by Ziegler–Nichols for a Noninteracting
Advantages and Disadvantages The main advantage of the
closed-loop tuning method is that it considers the dynamics
Type of Controller P (gain) I (minutes/repeat) D (minutes) of all system components and therefore gives accurate results
P 0.5 Ku — —
at the load where the test is performed. Another advantage
is that the readings of Ku and Pu are easy to read and the
PI 0.45 Ku Pu /1.2 —
period of oscillation can be accurately read even if the mea-
PID 0.6 Ku Pu /2 Pu /8 surement is noisy.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 427

This method usually requires about the same amount of work

TABLE 2.35u as the ultimate method since it is often necessary to experi-
Harriott Tuning Parameters for a Noninteracting Controller
mentally adjust the value of the gain to obtain a decay ratio
Calculated from Kc1/4 Obtained to Reach a Quarter-
of 1/4. It is also possible to use this method to use a different
of-Amplitude Decay
decay ratio criterion.
Type of Controller P (gain) I (minutes/repeat) D (minutes)

P Kc1/4 — —
Advantages and Disadvantages In general, there are two
major disadvantages to the ultimate and damped oscillation
PID adjusted P/1.5 P/6
methods. First, both are essentially trial-and-error methods,
since several values of gain must be tested before the ultimate
The disadvantages of the closed-loop tuning method are gain or the gain to give a 1/4 decay ratio are to be determined.
that when tuning unknown processes, the amplitudes of To make one test, especially at values near the desired gain,
undampened oscillations can become excessive (unsafe) and it is often necessary to wait for the completion of several
the test can take a long time to perform. One can see that when oscillations before it can be determined whether the trial
tuning a slow process (period of oscillation of over an hour), value of gain is the desired one.
it can take a long time before a state of sustained, undampened Second, while one loop is being tested in this manner, its
oscillation is achieved through this trial-and-error technique. output may affect several other loops, thus possibly upsetting
For these reasons, other tuning techniques have also been an entire unit. While all tuning methods require that some
developed and some of them are described below. changes be made in the control loop, other techniques require
only one and not several tests, unlike the closed-loop methods.
Damped Oscillation Method Also, if the tuning parameters are too aggressive, the
expected response can be obtained by increasing the propor-
Harriott has proposed a slight modification of the previous tional band (or decreasing the proportional gain). The integral
procedure. For some processes, it is not feasible to allow and derivative settings probably need to be modified. The
sustained oscillations and therefore, the ultimate method can- proportional gain has to be reduced to 3.5 to have a quarter-
not be used. In this modification of the ultimate method, the of-amplitude decay.
gain (proportional control only) is adjusted, using steps anal-
ogous to those used in the ultimate method, until a response
curve with 1/4 of the decay ratio is obtained. However, with
this tuning method, it is necessary to note only the period P
of the response.
Table 2.35w provides a comparison of open-loop and closed-
Again it should be noted that the equations in Table 2.35u
loop results for the process example used in Figure 2.35e.
are empirical and exceptions abound.

Example for Damped Cycling From Figure 2.35v the gain

and period are found to be Kc1/4 = 7.75 and P = 87 s. Hence the FREQUENCY RESPONSE METHODS
recommended tuning settings for the PI controller are Kp = 3.49
and Ti = 1.21 minutes. Frequency response methods for tuning controllers involve
After these modes are set, the sensitivity is again adjusted first determining the frequency response of the process,
until a response curve with 1/4 of a decay ratio is obtained. which is a process characteristic. From this, tuning can be
developed. Frequency response methods (FRM) may have
several advantages over other methods: These are:
Process variable

1. FRM require only one process bump to identify the pro-
cess. The bump can be a change in automatic or manual,
300 600
TABLE 2.35w
Controller output

Comparison of Closed and Open Loop Test Results

60 Type of Tuning Test Kc Ti (min)
40 Open loop Reaction curve 3.91 1.28
30 Model Fit 2 3.18 1.28
Closed loop Closed loop, ultimate cycling 3.49 1.21
FIG. 2.35v
Damped cycling for the example. Closed loop, damped cycling 3.5 1.20

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

428 Control Theory

and be either a pulse, step, or other type of bump. A set- of the output when aligned with the crest of the input is
point change provides excellent data from FRM. generally thought to be 180 degrees out of phase or 180
2. FRM do not require any prior knowledge of the pro- degrees of phase lag.
cess dead time or time constant. With the other time By applying a variety of sine wave inputs to a process,
response methods, one often needs a dead time esti- one can obtain a table of amplitude ratios and phase lags
mate and a time constant estimate. dependent on the sine wave frequency. If one plots these, the
3. FRM do not require any prior knowledge of the pro- result will be the frequency response of the process.
cess structure. Time response methods often require Using Fourier analysis computer software programs one
the user to have such model structure knowledge, i.e., can calculate the process frequency response from a bump,
whether it is first or second order or whether it is an pulse, or any other signal that applies sufficient excitation to
integrator. For FRM-based tuning none of this is the controller output. In the evaluation both the CO and PV
required; only the process data are needed. trends are used. The data provided for these programs should
start from a settled state, experience a quick change, and end
Obtaining the Frequency Response settled.
Any one of the responses in Figures 2.35e, g, h, i, o, p, q,
The process frequency response is a graph of amplitude ratio
and v would provide adequate data for frequency response–
and phase vs. oscillation or sine wave frequency. If one injects
based testing. Figure 2.35x shows the typical frequency
a sine wave into a linear process at the controller output, the
response arrived at by the use of computer software.
PV will also display a sine wave. The output (PV) sine wave
will probably be of smaller height relative to the input and
will be shifted in time. PID Tuning Based on Frequency Response
The ratio of the heights is the amplitude ratio at the
frequency of the input sine wave. The shift in time is the In most processes, both the amplitude ratio and the phase
phase shift or phase lag. A time shift resulting in the trough angle will decrease with increasing frequencies. Assuming
Amplitude ratio (dB)



10−1 100 101

Phase angle (deg)



10−1 100 101

Frequency (radians/sec)

FIG. 2.35x
Typical model (solid line) and actual (dash line) process frequency response.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 429

that the combined phase and amplitude ratio decreases with

frequency when the process and the controller frequency
responses are combined, the following general stability rule
applies: A control system will be unstable if the open-loop
lopt × 3

frequency response has an amplitude ratio that is larger than
one when the phase lag is 180 degrees. lopt × 1.5
To provide proper tuning, a margin of safety in the gain 0
and phase is desired. Tuning constants are therefore adjusted lopt
to result in the highest gain at all frequencies and yet achieve lopt ÷ 1.5
a certain margin of safety or stability. This is best accom-
plished using computer software. 0 1 2 3 4
Time, t/St

FIG. 2.35z
FINE TUNING The integral setting primarily affects the location of the second peak.

The performance of a controller can be tested by simulating

a load change in the closed loop as described at the beginning
of this section. This can be especially useful if the initial In Figure 2.35y, the proportional band of the controller
tuning is not satisfactory or if the process characteristics have is the parameter being adjusted. Note that increasing the
changed. It is simply a trial-and-error method of recognizing proportional band increases the height of the first peak and
and approaching an optimum — or otherwise desirable — also its damping; but along with the increased damping
load response. comes a loss of symmetry. In Figure 2.35z, it is the integral
time of the controller that is being adjusted. Note that it has
Optimum Load Response no effect at all on the first peak but determines the location
of the second, i.e., the overshoot or undershoot of the process
As described earlier, the optimum load response is generally variable’s deviation.
considered to be that which has a minimum IAE, in that it The integrated error IE of a standard PID controller varies
combines minimum peak deviation with low integrated error directly with the product of its proportional band and integral
and short settling time. The second curve from the bottom in time. While increasing either of these settings improves
each of Figures 2.35y and z represents a minimum-IAE load damping, it also increases IE in direct proportion, and there-
response for a distributed lag under PI control. fore it costs performance. Increasing both settings above their
This second curve from the bottom has a symmetrical optimum compounds this effect.
first peak, low overshoot, and effective damping. The time
scale of these curves is normalized to the 63.2% open-loop Effect of Load Dynamics
step response of the distributed lag, identified as Στ. On either
side of the optimum curve in both figures are other response All of the tuning rules described in this section to optimize
curves, which were produced by changing one of the con- load regulation will apply only to loops in which the dynam-
troller settings. ics in the load path are identical to those in the path of the
controller output. Yet Figure 2.35a shows the possibility that
the dynamics are different in the two paths, for example in
the case of heat exchangers.
Any dead time in the load path, or variation thereof, will
Popt × 3
have no effect on the load response curve, simply delaying
it by more or less time. The dominant lag in the load path is
Popt × 1.5

what determines the shape of the leading edge of the response

Popt As a demonstration, a distributed lag in a PI control loop
was simulated to assess the effects of variations in load
dynamics. Three different load-response curves appear in
Popt ÷ 1.5
Figure. 2.35aa representing ratios of Στq /Στm varying from
0.5 to 2, where subscripts q and m identify the load and
0 1 2 3 4
Time, t/St
manipulated-variable paths, respectively.
In all three cases, the PI controller has been tuned to min-
FIG. 2.35y imize IAE following a simulated load change, simulated by
The proportional setting affects the height of the first peak and its stepping the controller output, which produces the center curve
symmetry. represented by Στq /Στm = 1. However, when a true load step

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

430 Control Theory

To use these factors, one should first tune the controller to

Σtq/Σtm = 0.5 minimize IAE following a load change simulated by stepping
the controller output. After that the appropriate correction factors
should be found for the expected ratio of load-to-manipulated
lag Στq/Στm.

The integral time will need correcting regardless of the
2 controller used—it must be multiplied by a factor repre-
0 sented by the top curve for a PID controller and the middle
curve for a PI controller. If the controller is a noninteracting
(ideal, parallel) PID, then its proportional band should be
0 1 2 3 4 multiplied by the correction factor, which is indicated by the
Time, t/Σt dashed line. PI and interacting (series) PID controllers do not
require a correction to the proportional setting, and no cor-
FIG. 2.35aa rection to the derivative setting is required for any controller.
Load dynamics affect the shape of the response curve.

Symbols, Abbreviations
passes through different dynamics than in the controller-output
path, the resulting response curve is no longer minimum-IAE. CO Controller output
As might be expected, faster dynamics in the load path FRM Frequency response method
produce a faster rising deviation, which therefore peaks at a Gp Process gain
higher value before the controller can overcome it. The larger IAE Integral of absolute error
peak is then followed by a large overshoot. By contrast, IE Integral error
slower dynamics in the load path reduce the peak deviation, ISE Integral of squared error
followed by an undershoot. The IAE for the curve where ITAE Integral of absolute error × time
Στq /Στm = 0.5 is actually only 6% higher than the minimum, ITSE Integral of squared error × time
but for the case where Στq /Στ m = 2, the IAE is actually 53% Kp Proportional gain for a PID controller
above the minimum, indicating substantial need for correc- Ku Ultimate controller gain
tion. The appearance of the exaggerated overshoot and the PV Process variable or measurement
undershoot indicate that those responses are no longer min- Rr Reaction rate, slope
imum-IAE, and that the integral time needs adjusting. Retun- RRT Relative response time, the time to remove most
ing the controllers for minimum-IAE response in the pres- of a disturbance
ence of different load dynamics resulted in the development SP Set point
of the correction factors plotted in Figure 2.3bb.  (Tau) Process time constant (seconds)



Integral corr.

1 Prop. corr.
Nonint. PID

0.1 1 10
Σtq /Σtm

FIG. 2.35bb
To obtain minimum-IAE response, integral time and possibly the proportional band may require correction for load dynamics.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 431

t0(td) Process dead time (seconds) Rovira, A.A., Murrill, P.W., and Smith, C.L., Tuning Controllers for Set-Point
Ti Integral time (s) -for a PID controller Changes, Instruments and Control Systems, December 1969.
Ruel, M., Loop Optimization: before You Tune, Control Magazine, Vol. 12,
Td Derivative time (s) for a PID controller No. 03 (March 1999), pp. 63–67.
F PV filter time constant Ruel, M., Loop Optimization: Troubleshooting, Control Magazine, Vol. 12,
tu Ultimate period No. 04, (April 1999), pp. 64–69.
Ruel, M., Loop Optimization: How to Tune a Loop, Control Magazine, Vol. 12,
No. 05 (May 1999), pp. 83–86.
Ruel, M., Instrument Engineers' Handbook, chap. 5.9, Plantwide Control
Bibliography Loop Optimization, 3rd ed., Bela G. Liptak, Ed., Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, 2002, 40 pp.
Astrom, K.J., and Hagglund, T., Automatic Tuning of PID Controllers,
Shinskey, F.G., Process Control Systems, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill,
Research Triangle Park, NC: ISA Press, 1988.
Bjornsen, B.G., A Fluid Amplifier Pneumatic Controller, Control Engineering,
Shinskey, F.G., Process Control Systems, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill,
June 1965.
Box, G.E.P., and Jenkins, G.M., Time Series Forecasting and Control, San
Shinskey, F.G., Interaction between Control Loops, Instruments and Control
Francisco: Holden-Day, 1970.
Systems, May and June 1976.
Caldwell, W.I., Coon, G.A., and Zoss, L.M., Frequency Response for Process
Salmon, D.M., and Kokotovic, P.V., Design of Feedback Controllers for Non-
Control, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
linear Plants, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. AC 14, No. 3,
Campbell, D.P., Process Dynamics, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958. 1969,
Chen, C.T., Introduction to Linear System Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart Sastry, S., and Bodson, M., Adaptive Control: Stability, Convergence and
and Winston, 1970. Robustness, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Corripio, A.B., Tuning of Industrial Control Systems, Research Triangle Seborg, D., Edgar, E., and Mellichamp, D., Process Control, New York:
Park, NC: ISA Press, 1990. Wiley, 1990.
Gerry, J.P., How to Control Processes with Large Dead Times, Control Seborg, D.E., Edgar, T.F., and Shah, S.L., Adaptive Control Strategies for
Engineering, March 1998. Process Control, AI Chem. E. Journal, 32, 1986, pp. 881–913.
Gerry, J.P., PID settings sometimes fail to make the leap, Intech, November Smith, C.A., and Corripio, A.B., Principles and Practice of Automatic Process
1999. Control, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985.
Gerry, J.P., Tune Loops for Load Upsets VS Setpoint Changes, CONTROL Smith, C.L., Controller Tuning That Works, Instruments and Control Systems,
Magazine, September 1991. September 1976.
Higham, J.D., Single-Term Control of First- and Second-Order Processes with Smith, C.L., and Murrill, P.W., A More Precise Method for the Tuning of
Dead Time, Control, February 1968. Controllers, ISA Journal, May 1996.
Hougen, J.O., Experiences and Experiments with Process Dynamics, Chemical Smith, C.L., Controllers—Set Them Right, Hydrocarbon Processing and
Engineering Process Monograph Series, Vol. 60, No. 4, 1964. Petroleum Refiner, February 1966.
Howell, J., Rost, D., and Gerry, J.P., PC Software Tunes Plant Startup, InTech, Smith, O.J.M., Close Centrol of Loops with Dead Time, Chemical Engineering
June 1988. Progress, May 1957.
Kraus, T.W., and Myron, T.J., Self-Tuning PID Controller Uses Pattern Sood, M., Tuning Proportional-Integral Controllers for Random Load
Recognition Approach, Control Engineering, June 1984. Changes, M.S. thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, University
Larson, R.E., et al., State Estimation in Power Systems, Part I and Part II, of Mississippi, University, MS, 1972.
IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS 89, No. 3, Sood, M., and Huddleston, H.T., Optimal Control Settings for Random Dis-
March 1970. turbances, Instrumentation Technology, March 1973.
Lelic, M.A., and Zarrop, M.B., Generalized Pole-Placement Self-Tuning Stephanopoulos, G., Chemical Process Control: An Introduction to Theory
Controller, Int. J. Control, 46, 1987, pp. 569–607. and Practice, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.
Lipták, B.G., How to Set Process Controllers, Chemical Engineering, Suchanti, N., Tuning Controllers for Interacting Processes, Instruments and
November 1964. Control Systems, April 1973.
Lopez, A.M., et al., Controller Tuning Relationships Based on Instrumentation Wade, H.L., High-Capability Single-Station Controllers: A Survey, InTech,
Technology, Control Engineering, November 1967. September 1988.
Luyben, W.L., Process Modeling, Simulation and Control for Chemical Wells, C.H., Application of Modern Estimation and Identification Techniques
Engineers, 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990. to Chemical Processes, AIChE Journal, 1971.
Mehra, R.K., Identification of Stochastic Linear Dynamic Systems Using Wells, C.H., and Mehra, R.K., Dynamic Modeling and Estimation of Carbon
Kalman Filter Representation, AIAA Journal, January 1971. in a Basic Oxygen Furnace, paper presented at 3rd Int. IFAC/IFIPS
Mehra, R.K., On-Line Identification of Linear Dynamic Systems with Applica- Conf. on the Use of Digital Computers in Process Control, Helsinki,
tions to Kalman Filtering, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. AC 16, Finland, June 1971.
No. 1, February 1971. Wellstead, P.E., and Zarrop, M.B., Self-Tuning Systems, New York: Wiley,
Miller, J.A., et al., A Comparison of Open-Loop Techniques for Tuning Con- 1991.
trollers, Control Engineering, December 1967. Widrow, B., and Stearns, S.D., Adaptive Signal Processing, Englewood
Murrill, P.W., Automatic Control of Processes, Scranton, PA: International Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985.
Textbook Co., 1967. Ziegler, J.G., and Nichols, N.B., Optimal Settings for Automatic Controllers,
Raven, F., Automatic Control Engineering, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. ASME Trans., November 1942.
Rovira, A.A., Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Ziegler, J.G., and Nichols, N.B., Optimal Settings for Controllers, ISA Journal,
LA, 1969. August 1964.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták