Chemical Product and Process

Modeling
Volume 4, Issue 1 2009 Article 29

Design of a PID Controller from a Predictive

Control Algorithm

Rames Chandra Panda∗ Sobana Subramaniam†

∗
CLRI (CSIR), panda@clri.res.in
†
Easwari Engg College, sobana subramani@yahoo.co.in

Copyright 2009
c The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved.
 Design of a PID Controller from a Predictive
Control Algorithm∗
Rames Chandra Panda and Sobana Subramaniam

Abstract

Over decades, dynamic matrix control (DMC) was used as an advanced control strategy in
processing industries that yields good performance, especially in the presence of uncertainties and
undesirable noises. As the implementation of PID algorithm in digital platform is easier, an equiv-
alent PID controller is synthesized where proportional gain (KC ) of a controller is obtained by
approximating a dynamic matrix control algorithm. Integral time (τ i ) and derivative time (τ d )
are obtained from process model and step response coefficients. The performances of the equiv-
alent PID controller are tested on different process models (dynamics) and closed loop responses
are analyzed. This performance is compared with the DMC-SISO response. The designed PID
controller is robust and stable. Results obtained from a computer simulation are presented.

KEYWORDS: DMC, PID controller, prediction horizon, control horizon, model based control

∗
Please send correspondence to panda@clri.res.in. Scientist, Dept Chem Engg, CLRI, Chennai-
20, India. Fax: +91(44)24911589.
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

1. Introduction
Model based controllers (MBC) provide accurate and precise control around the
operating point and thus, internal model control (IMC) schemes got huge
popularity, and are widely used in industries and in research. Among salient
advantages, IMC offers, (i) easy controller design (inverse of the process
model),(ii) incorporation of process model inside control algorithm, (iii) robust
closed-loop stability etc. Easy implementation of this control strategy (Figure 1)
has been possible by synthesizing equivalent PID structure (namely, IMC-PID).
But, in presence of model uncertainties and undesirable noise, a special case of
IMC, dynamic matrix control (DMC) (Cutler and Ramaker,1979), has proved to
be successful and widely used technique in many continuous process industries
over last few decades. The process model is used to create a prediction horizon
over which an objective function is optimized inside the algorithm. It is highly
efficient and its performance is very satisfactory even in the presence of model
uncertainties. DMC is successfully implemented in many process industries
(Panda1 and Rao, 1994). The main features of DMC algorithm can be accounted
for as mentioned by QinSY and Badgwell (1996) as
- Uses linear step response mode to predict the process behavior.
- A quadratic objective function over a finite prediction horizon is employed
to find performance.
- Future plant outputs are specified to follow the set point as close as
possible.
- Optimal output is calculated to track set point using least square method.
As a model predictive controller (MPC), DMC has shown good
performance in the control of long time-delayed processes (Lundstrom et.al,
1995). MPC controllers are designed under the consideration that the prediction
horizon is larger than the maximum amount of dead time. Since uncertainty is
associated with the estimation of dead-time of a process model which is directly
used in MPC, the performance of MPC depends on the accuracy of the process
model. Moreover, implementation of predictive controls on discrete platform is
costly as it involves computation & solution of an objective function. These
problems can be avoided and performance can be improved by approximating an
MPC and DMC by PID control structure by different methods. Moreover, as PID
controllers are easy to implement and maintain and are robust in nature, a PID
equivalent of predictive controller is sought. Most of the process industries use
PID loops till today. Thus the objective of this paper is to synthesize PID
controller parameters from DMC strategy.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 1

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

Saeki (2006) synthesized a PID structure for a H∞ controller. PID controller has
found wide application in industries because of their simple structures, ease in
implementation and relatively good robustness against process uncertainties.
There are several methods to tune parameters of this controller. Haeri (2005)
proposed a PID controller approximating a dynamic matrix control in such a way
that both of manipulated and controlled outputs satisfy some criterion. The
accuracy of the approximation depends on derived PID as well as sourced DMC
parameters. The method involves complex computations.

L  L 
E  E  y 
R  R
G C  GP  y G C  GP 
‐  U
U ‐
Gm 
‐
 
(a) (b)

Figure 1. Schematic diagrams of (a) model based control scheme and (b)
equivalent PID strategy.

Though some researchers have tried to relate DMC algorithm to a PID

structure using approximations and assumptions, literature tells us that there is a
lack in straight forward analytical expressions of PID parameters derived from
basics of DMC algorithm. In the present work, analytical methods have been
derived to determine PID parameter, in order to control linear and nonlinear
processes. Moreover, the present control structure is easily implementable and is
robust in nature.
Thus, the entire paper is organized as follows. In section 2, the objective,
problem behind the present work and DMC algorithm are defined. In section 3,
the proposed & derived tuning parameters for a PID are presented. Simulation
results are obtained and explained in section 4. Stability and robustness issues are
discussed in section 5. At the end, conclusion of the present research work is drawn and
is presented in section 6.

2 Problem Definitions

Dynamic matrix control uses a time domain step response model of the process to
calculate the future changes of the manipulated variables that will minimize some
objective cost function or performance index. In this approach one would like to
have NP future output response (step response coefficients) match some optimum

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 2
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

trajectory by finding the best manipulated variable out of NC future control

moves. But, most of the control loops in the process industries work on PID
mode. The objective of the current work is to relate DMC algorithm to a PID
controller algorithm and thereby to derive equivalent tuning parameters. This is
done by approximating and describing the DMC controller in time domain
representations.

2.1 Formulation of DMC in the time domain

Let’s consider a process having transfer function (GP) and load transfer function
(GL) in the following form

q1s + q2 s 2 + q3 s 3 + ... + qm s m − DP s
GP ( s ) = e (1)
1 + p1s + p2 s 2 + p3 s 3 + ... + pn s n

qL1s + qL 2 s 2 + qL 3 s 3 + ... + qLm s m − DL s

GL ( s ) = e (2)
1 + pL1s + pL 2 s 2 + pL 3 s 3 + ... + pLn s n

with DP as process time delay, DL as load transfer function-time delay and n>m.
The openloop step response for set-point change case of DMC can be given by

∞
yk +1,OL = ∑ ai Δuk +1−i + d k +1 (3)
i =1

Where ai s are step response coefficients, u is input and d is response due to load
change. The closed-loop response can be modeled over a prediction horizon,
h=1,2,...,p, as

h
yk + h ,CL = yk + h ,OL + ∑ ai Δuk + h−i (4)
i =1

If we try to understand the difference between changes in the manipulated

variable in the past and in the future, then we see that there have been NP changes
in the manipulated variable during the previous NP steps and if no other changes
were made, the output will change in the future due to old changes in the input.
Thus one needs to find the best value of future changes in the manipulated
variable such that an objective (or cost) function is minimized. This is basically an
optimization problem to calculate future moves of controller. Out of the newly

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 3

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

calculated values of manipulated variable, the value that gives the smallest sum of
squares error between the set point and the predicted value of the controlled
variable is implemented. Thus, future control moves in DMC controller are given
as (Luyben, 1992)

Δu = K DMC E (5)

where KDMC is the feedback controller gain matrix and is given by

K DMC = ( AT A + WI ) AT
−1
(6)

E is the prediction error vector (differences between desired & model output and
output due to disturbances) defined as

E = Yd − Ym − ε (7)

Thus
Δu = ( AT A + WI ) −1 AT E (8)

where A(P×M) is a Toeplitz matrix constructed from step response coefficients, ai

of the process.

⎡ a1 0 0 ...0 ⎤
⎢a a1 0 ...0 ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎡ a11 a12 ...a1M ⎤
⎢. . . ...0 ⎥ ⎢a a22 ... ⎥
A=⎢ ⎥ B = ⎢ 21 ⎥ (9)
⎢a j a j −1 a j −2 ...a j −M +1 ⎥ ⎢. . ... ⎥
⎢. ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢
. . ...
⎥ ⎣ aP1 aP 2 ...aPM ⎦
⎢⎣ aP aP −1 aP −2 ...aP − M +1 ⎥⎦ PXM

The predicted output for set-point case becomes

j L +1
Yk + j = ∑ ai Δuk −i + j + ∑ a Δu i k −i + j + aiuk − L−2+ j (10)
i =1 i = j +1

with

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 4
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

⎡ Δuk −1 ⎤
⎢ Δu ⎥
⎢ k −2 ⎥
Δ u = ⎢. ⎥ (11)
k
⎢ ⎥
⎢ Δuk − L+1 ⎥
⎢ Δuk − L ⎥
⎣ ⎦ LXN

In Eqn.(7), the term ε is disturbance and the control moves are penalized
by coefficient W. Here M is control horizon, P is prediction horizon and N is
model horizon. A small value should be chosen for W if faster response is
required (Sridhar and Cooper, 1997). Eqn.(8) will be helpful to calculate control
moves.
In case of load disturbances, the step response model can be given by:

d k = aL1ΔLk −1 + aL 2 ΔLk −2 + ... + aLn ΔLk −n + d 0 (12)

n
Or d k = ∑a
i =1
Li ΔLk −i + d 0 (13)

Where aLi s are load-step response coefficients and ΔLk-i are load changes at ith
instant. At instant h, of prediction horizon, p, the output prediction will be

p
d k + h = ∑ aLi + h ΔLk −i + d 0 where h=1,2,…,p (14)
i =1

These load-step response coefficients are related through an, average factor,
generally called, μL such that

aLi = μ L aLi + (1 − μ L )aLn (15)

where μL is a tuning factor. Based on the cases of setpoint change or load change,
Eqn. (4) & (14) are used to calculate predicted outputs using Eqn. (10) that
requires Eqn. (3) & (15) to find out step response coefficients (ah or aL). These
coefficients are needed to calculate control moves using Eqn(8).
Guidelines for choosing design parameters P(prediction horizon),
M(control horizon), N (model horizon)could be found in (Luyben, 1992). W

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 5

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

(control move weighting coefficient) and α (pole of the reference input filter)
could be found in (Shridhar and Cooper,1997).

3.Tuning Parameter Of PID Controller

3.1 Design of proportional gain (Kc) of PID controller using DMC

Using equation (2), the proportional gain value of PID controller is given by

K P K c = ( AT A + WI ) AT = first row of KDMC matrix (16)

From which the first element is implemented. The step response coefficients for
2nd order overdamped system

K P e− Ds
GP ( s ) = (16.1)
(τ P1s + 1)(τ P 2 s + 1)

have been calculated using following formula

⎡ τ P1 τ P2 ⎤
y (t ) = K P ⎢1 − e − (t − D )/τ P1 + e − ( t − D )/τ P 2 ⎥
⎣ τ P1 − τ P 2 τ P1 − τ P 2 ⎦

The values of the DMC parameters (as per guidelines of Luyben, 1992) used in
simulation to find the linear and nonlinear process response are given in Table-1.

Table 1. Dynamic matrix control parameters used in the simulation

S. No Item / Variable Value

1 Prediction Horizon value, (P) 90 % of 5τ

2 Control Horizon value, (M) ½ *Prediction horizon value

3 Pole of the reference input filter (α) 0.2

3.2 Relation between coefficients of step response and discrete transfer

function

The step response of the discrete form of process transfer function (Eqn. 1) is
given by

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 6
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

q0 q q p p p
yk = uk + 1 uk −1 + ... + n uk −n − 1 yk −1 − 2 yk −2 − ... − m yk −m (17)
p0 p0 p0 p0 p0 p0

yk = c1 yk −1 + c2 yk −2 + ... + cm yk −m + c 0/ uk + c1/ uk −1 + c 2/ uk −2 + ... + c n/ uk −n (17.1)

Assuming that the input and outputs are scaled equally, the sum of coefficients
(ci) for unit step change will be:

c1 + c2 + ... + cm + c0/ + c1/ + ... + cn/ = 1 (17.2)

Using ramp change, these coefficients (ci) can be found out using following
equations (Eqs. 17.3 & 17.4) in Eqn (17.1)

uk = 0 , uk −1 = 1 , uk −2 = 2 , ..., uk −n = n (17.3)

yk −1 = yk −1 , yk −2 = yk −1 + 1 , ..., yk −m = yk −1 + (m − 1) (17.4)

As the rate of change of ramp is one unit per iterations, the lag for a second order
system can be found out as

2 − c2 − c1' − 2c2'
τP = .T (17.5)
1 − c1 − c2
b2 s 2 + b1s + b0
Thus for a system of GP = (17.5.1)
p2 s 2 + p1s + p0
it is possible to find the numerator and denominator coefficients using recurrence
formula as
T2 −T ln(−c1 ) c2 ± c22 − 4c1
p2 = , p1 = , σ1, 2 = (17.6)
ln(σ1 ) ln(σ 2 ) ln(σ1 ) ln(σ 2 ) 2

b2 = p2 − α T 2 − p1β T , b1 = p1 − β T (17.7)

4(1 + c1 )(c1 + c0/ ) + (1 + 3c1 + c2 )(c2 + c1/ ) 2c1 + c2 + 2c0/ + c1/

with α = − and β =
2(1 − c1 − c2 ) 2 1 − c1 − c2
(17.8)

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 7

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

d2y dy
for a typical second order system, p2 2
+ p1 + y = u or
dt dt
1 1 p1
GP = = we write τ P = p2 and ξ =
2
p2 s + p1s + 1 τ 2p s 2 + 2ξτ P s + 1 2τ P

From which we see that coefficients of discrete inputs in RHS are functions of pi
and qi which are the denominator and numerator coefficients of process transfer
function. Comparing step responses given by Eq. (4 or 14) and Eq. (17.1), one
can easily develop the relation between step response coefficients (ai) and ( ci/ ).
Thus

ai = f (ci/ ) for i = 0,1…n (17.9)

for a first order plus dead time system,

b1 −T
KP = , τP = , DP = n * T (17.10)
1 + p1 log( p1 )

Hence, for a given transfer function, one can find coefficients ( ci/ ) for step inputs
using Eqns. (17.6) to (17.8). Eqn (17.9) can be used to find step response
coefficients of Eqn. (4) to find open-loop (predicted) response.

3.3 Development of analytical expressions for PID parameters

In order to develop analytical expressions for integral and derivative time

constants, we proceed as follows:
e − Ds
Let the desired closed loop response becomes YCL = where λ is closed-
λs + 1
loop time constant. The performance of the closed-loop control becomes

GPGC e − Ds
= (18)
1 + GPGC λ s + 1

e − Ds
Or GC ( s ) = = f ( s) (19)
GP [λ s + 1 − e − Ds ]

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 8
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

According to Maclaurin series, a PID controller, Gc (s) can be expanded around

the vicinity of zero, thus,

1⎡ s 2 // ⎤ 1
GC ( s ) = ⎢ f (0) + sf (0) + f (0) ⎥ = K C [1 +
/
+ τ D s] (20)
s⎣ 2! ⎦ τ I s

Where from controller parameters are found (Panda, 2004 & Lee et. al., 1998) as,

f / (0) f // (0)
τI = and τ D = (21)
f (0) 2 f / (0)

Thus, with different structures of GP(s) the analytical expressions of integral and
derivative times are obtained. It is found that the expressions are functions of step
response coefficients (pi and bi) of process transfer functions [Eqn.(17.5.1) or
Eqn.(16.1)]

D2
τ i = p1 − b1 + (22)
2(λ + D)
 
b1D 2 D3
p2 − b2 + −
2(λ + D) 6(λ + D)
τd = (22.1)
τi
 
It can be noted that integral and derivative time constants, given by eqns.(22) and
(22.1) have similar forms that obtained from IMC-Maclaurin (Panda et. al, 2004)
as

Process Transfer function Controller parameters

Type

FOPDT K P e − Ds τI
G= KC = , 
τ Ps +1 K P (λ + D )
D2 D2 ⎡ D ⎤
τI =τ + ,τ D = ⎢1 − ⎥ …(23)
2(λ + D ) 2(λ + D) ⎣ 3τ I ⎦

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 9

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

SOPDT K e − Ds τI 2λ 2 − D 2
G= 2 2 P KC = ,  τ I = 2ξτ − , 
τ P s + 2ξτ s + 1 K P (2λ + D) 2(2λ + D )
D3
τ2 −
6(2λ + D)
τ D = τ I − 2ξτ +          …(23.1)
τI

The closed-loop time constant (λ) is selected as (Luyben, 1990)

λ = max(0.2τ P ,1.7 D) for FOPDT process (24)

λ = max(0.2τ P ,0.25 D) for SOPDT process (24.1)

where τ P =time constant of the process and D = delay of the process

3.4 Steps for calculation of PID parameters

The following steps are followed to calculate PID parameters

Step 1: for a given transfer function, find out discrete coefficients (ci) using Eqn
(17.1) to (17.8)
Step 2: find step response coefficients (ai) using Eqn. (17.9)
Step 3: find step response coefficient matrix (A) using Eqn. (9)
Step 4: calculate proportional gain (Kc) using Eqn. (16) and integral (τi) and
derivative time (τD) constants using Eqn. (22) to Eqn.(24)

4. Simulation Results and Discussion

To evaluate the closed loop performance of the new PID controller parameters
using presently developed DMC algorithm, seven different process model (Table-
2) responses are considered from practical examples from literature and are
analyzed. Equations 16, 21 and 22 are used to calculate PID parameters. It can be
noted from equation (15) that with KL=1, the model becomes a step response
model whereas with KL=0, the model reduces to set-point DMC. In case of PID-
DMC, the closed-loop characteristic equation becomes I + GC GF (GP − Gm ) = 0
where Gm is the process model. In case of process model mismatch, this algorithm
is supposed to work satisfactorily. Table 2 gives the transfer function of the
process and their prediction horizon (P), control horizon(M), control weight (W)
and the λ values.

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 10
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

Example1: A first order plus dead time system (Chen & Seborg, 2002) is
considered. An equivalent PID control is synthesized for the dynamic matrix
control using parameters (prediction horizon, P=6, control horizon, M=3, and
weighing factor, W=0.01) as mentioned in Table 2. With the parameters given in
Table 3, the designed controller parameters obtained are: KC=1.672, τi=1.0026

Table 2. Results and Performances of PID-DMC for different processes

Ex Process Transfer function P M W λ
1 e
−0.25 6 3 0.01 0.212
FOPDT: 5
s +1
2 2e − s 76 38 0.1 3.4
OVER DAMPED:
(10 s + 1)(5s + 1)
3 0.0092 48 24 1e-7 1
CRITICAL DAMPED: (5s + 1) 2

4 e −5 s 50 26 40 1.25
UNDER DAMPED:
9s 2 + 2.4s + 1
5 Higher Order System: 26 13 1 0.001
−14 −9 −5
2.035*10 s + 3.628*10 s + 9.979 *10 s + 4.8
3 2

1.161*10−16 s 4 + 2.654 *10 −12 s 3 + 1.988*10−7 s 2 + 0.00046 s + 4.8

6 NON LINEAR: 46 23 10 1.44

1.5e − s v
(1 + e −0.25 ) v 3
( s + s + 1)(4s + 2s + 1)
2 2

7 ⎡ 12.8e − s − 18.9e −3s ⎤ 90 45 1 1e-7

⎢ ⎥
16.7 s + 1 21s + 1 ⎥ 12 1e-7
MIMO: ⎢ 90 45
⎢ 6.6e −7 s − 19.4e −3 s ⎥
⎢⎣10.9 s + 1 14.4 s + 1 ⎥⎦

and τd =0.0025. The closed-loop simulation was done for 100 sampling time
from which the performance was noted to be IAE (Setpoint)=0.52,
IAE(Load)=9.6 for unity step changes in setpoint and load-disturbances
respectively. The response (Fig. 2, Ex-1) settled after time of 2 and 60 samples
respectively for set-point and load-disturbance cases. An overshoot of 10% was
observed in set-point tracking.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 11

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

Example2: An overdamped, 2nd order plus dead time system (Chen & Seborg,
2002) is used for study. The prediction and control horizons are taken to be 76
and 38 sampling units. The calculated PID controller parameters are found to be:
KC=0.287, τi=19.2 and τd =2.16. After simulation the performance of the present
scheme is noted to be IAE (setpoint) = 60.2, IAE (Load) =73.2. The load response
(Fig. 2, Ex-2) takes little more time to settle than set-point case where a 60%
overshoot is observed.

Ex Setpoint Response Load response

1

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 12
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 13

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

Figure 2. Closed-loop responses of examples with proposed controller and

examples

Example3: The approximate transfer function of a distillation column (Luyben,

1992) between top overhead product composition and reflux flow rate, can be
represented as a critically damped system. The designed controller parameters
are: KC=559, τi=10.0 and τd =2.5. The closed-loop simulation was done for 100
sampling time from which the performance was noted to be IAE (setpoint)=2.77,
IAE(Load)=99.8. The response (Fig. 2, Ex-3) settled at 40 sampling instant (set-
point) and 50 sampling instant (load ) respectively.

Example4: An second order underdamped system with dead time from Lee
et.al(1998) is considered. The designed controller parameters are found to be:
KC=0.0363/KP, τi=4.4 and τd =50.57. The closed-loop performance is noted to be
IAE (setpoint)=80.53 and IAE(Load)=85.36. The response settled at 150
sampling time and at 400 samples respectively.

Example5: A higher order system (Lavanya, 2007) representing a buck converter

operating in continuous conduction mode with capacitor voltage and inductor current as
state variables. This is a real time model. The tuned controller parameters are:
KC=0.1743 and τi=0.36e-3 . The closed-loop simulation was done for 500
sampling time from which the performance was noted to be IAE (setpoint)=1.002,
IAE(Load)=0.002. The response (Fig. 2, Ex-5) showed a settling time of 150 (set-
point) and 0.015(load ) respectively.

Example6: This example of Jyh-cheng Jeng et.al (2005) considers a Non linear
process. The calculated controller parameters based on step response (when
approximated as FOPDT) model are: KC=0.06/KP, τi=16.1 and τD=9.09. The
closed-loop performance showed an IAE (setpoint)=119.6, IAE(Load)=262.6.
The response (Fig. 2, Ex-6) showed longer settling time.

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 14
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

Example7: This example considers a MIMO process representing Wood and

Berry (1973) column. The proposed tuning rule is used to control the MIMO
process. In multivariable systems, due to presence of input-output interactions,
ultimate properties change.  The designed decentralized controller parameters are:
KC1=0.229/KP1, τi=17.2 and KC2=-0.081/KP2, τi=27.9. The responses (set point
change in y1 and y2 in the 1st column; Load change in these variables in the 2nd
column) are shown in Fig. 2, Ex-7. Please see that under column 1 of this figure,
set point change results are plotted, and under column 2 of the figure, load
disturbance graphs are plotted. In column 1 of Ex-7, y1 is the desired response for
a set point change in that variable while y2 is undesirable response observed
during that period. Similarly, in column 2 of Ex-7, y1 is the desired response for a
load change in that variable while y2 is undesirable response observed during that
period. After the closed-loop simulation, the performance was noted to be IAE
(setpoint)=3.68 and 35.2, IAE(Load)=22.04 and 21.28 .
Figure 3 shows the comparison of the proposed control scheme with that
of existing single input/ single output DMC controller for Ex-1 process. The
FOPDT process is used to generate step response coefficients from which PID-
DMC controller is synthesized using (a) present scheme (b) Haier (2002) scheme
and (c) single input single output DMC strategy. Present scheme yields a smooth
response with a performance of IAE value 1.6. With the 2nd scheme, the obtained
PID controller parameters are KC=4.158, τi=1.818 and τD=0.1643, with which
oscillatory closed-loop response (overshoot = 47%) is observed (IAE=1.48). With
the 3rd scheme, the closed-loop response is seen to be faster at early stage but
becomes smoother and more sluggish latter. As the present scheme includes a
tuning parameter (λ), it is possible to make the response faster. It can be observed
from the figure that PID-DMC gives faster and stable response compared to the
other one. Figure 4 compares closed-loop responses of different processes with
PID-DMC scheme and conventional DMC scheme. In the first case (PID-DMC),
a PID controller is synthesized using IMC-PID (MacLaurin) tuning rule while in
the later case, the controller is a conventional DMC. The weighing coefficient in
DMC control law is considered as 0.7 in each case. It can be observed from the
figure that, with the present PID controller, closed-loop response is smoother.
With second order plus dead time (SOPDT) process, the DMC scheme yields an
overshoot with fast response.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 15

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

1
.

(a) (b)

Figure 3. Comparison of the closed-loop responses with (a) PID-DMC (Present,

solid line) and the DMC-SISO (dash-dot line) scheme (b) PID-DMC (Present,
solid-line), PID-DMC (Haier, 2002, dashed line, oscillatory) and DMC-SISO
(dash-dot line, sluggish) scheme with Ex-1.

Ex-1 Ex-2

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 16
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

Ex-3 Ex-4

Ex-5 Ex-7

Figure 4. Comparison of closed-loop performances with PID-DMC (Present,

solid line) and the DMC (dash-line) scheme for different examples under study.

5. Stability & Robustness

The stability of the designed controller can be tested by finding out gain and
phase margins. Generally, PI settings that give larger phase margins are more
stable. With this knowledge, present PID controller is tested for closed-loop
control of a FOPDT process. The forward loop transfer function becomes

K C (τ Dτ I s 2 + τ I s + 1) K P e− DP s
GC ( s )GP ( s ) = . . (25)
τIs τ Ps +1

Using Nyquist stability frame, the point (-1+ j.0) can be solved for gain
margin as

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 17

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

ωcpτ I (1 + ωcp2 τ P2 )(1 + α 2ωcp2 τ D2 )

Am =            (26)
K P KC (1 + τ I 2ωcp2 )(1 + ωcp2 τ D2 )
 
where phase cross over frequency, ωcp is obtained by solving

0.5π + tan −1 (ωcpτ D ) + tan −1 (ωcpτ I ) − tan −1 (ωcpτ P ) − tan −1 (αωcpτ D ) − ωcp DP = 0 (27)
 
If Nyquist curve produces a phase of -π, then the phase margin becomes

φm = 0.5π + tan −1 (ωcgτ I ) + tan −1 (ωcgτ D ) − tan −1 (ωcgτ P ) − tan −1 (αωcgτ D ) − ωcg DP (28)

where gain cross over frequency, ωcg is obtained by solving

K P KC (1 + ωcg2 τ I 2 )(1 + ωcg2 τ D2 )

=1               (29)
ωcgτ I (1 + ωcg2 τ P2 )(1 + α 2ωcg2 τ D2 )

In the present work, equations (25-29) can be solved for example-1(Ex-1)

with controller parameters as mentioned in Table 3. Calculated values are: ωcp =
6.344, ωcg =1.6709, Am =3.7943 and Pm=66.3570 for Ex-1. Thus the gain and
phase margins are satisfied to provide stability to the closed-loop system.
Robustness of PID controllers is verified by evaluating sensitivity function over a
frequency region from ω=10-2 to ω=10 which is given by

1
S ( jω ) = (30)
1 + GC ( jω )GP ( jω )

A perturbation of ±500% on process gain (KP) of Ex-1 was given to find

the robustness of present controller and it was found that the controller is able to
provide 2 db margin with +500% perturbation (as seen in Figure 5). Robustness
analysis on process time constant revealed that the present controller is able to
tolerate ±1000 % perturbation from its (the plant's) nominal value and it (the
controller) is also robust on the change of time delay parameter.

6. Conclusion

Most of the process industries still use conventional PID loops as their tuning,
implementation and maintenance are easier. In this paper a new method of tuning

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 18
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

PID controller parameters has been proposed. PID control law is equated to DMC
control algorithm and then parameters of PID controller are related to that of
DMC. After obtaining the openloop step response of the system, closed-loop
feedback gain matrix is calculated from which PID controller gain is synthesized.
Integral and derivative times are extracted from desired closed-loop response
which is a function of step response coefficients and tuning parameter (λ), often
called as closed-loop time constant. Due to the presence of tuning parameter, in
the present control algorithm, user can make the response faster or sluggish. The
robust controller designed in this way is used to simulate setpoint and load
changes for several practical examples.

Figure 5. Change in sensitivity against frequency due to perturbation on process

gain (solid line is for nominal, dashed line is for +500% and dotted line represents -
500% change) of Ex-1 under the present controller.

Table 3. Closed-loop performance with the present PID-DMC scheme on

different processes
Ex PID Parameters Performance
KpKc Ti Td Setpoint Load
IAE Settling Overs IAE Settlin Overs
Time hoot Time hoot
1 2.3645 1.0026 0.0025 0.523 3 10% 9.675 70 0.32
2 0.575Kp 19.2 2.161 60.205 100 - 73.275 150 0.83
3 559.45 Kp 10 2.5 2.7753 40 - 99.982 50 0.0012
4 0.0363 4.4 50.57 80.53 150 - 85.36 400 1.1l
5 0.1743 0.36e-3 0 1.002 150 - 0.002 0.015 1.5
6 0.060 Kp 16.1 9.09 119.6 450 - 262.6 800 3.0
7 0.229Kp11 17.2 0 3.68 20 20% 22.04 60 1.2
-
0.081Kp22 27.9 0 35.2 200 - 21.28 200 -6

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 19

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

The simulation study shows that the new method has got good
performance in term of time constant, settling time and IAE for various process
model. This idea could be used for auto-tuning scheme for the controller.
Implementation of the present PID scheme is easy and its performance is robust.

Notation

A step response coefficient matrix

CL closed loop
d0 initial output due to load disturbance
D time delay
E prediction error vector
h sampling intervals
m,n integer
i, k,L integers & subscript
KDMC loop gain of DMC
KC proportional controller gain
KP process gain
M control horizon (integer)
N model horizon (integer)
OL open loop, subscript
pi denominator coefficients of transfer function
P prediction horizon (integer)
qi numerator coefficients of transfer function
T sampling time
W weighing coefficient
y response output
yd desired output
ym measured output
ε error in output due to disturbance
λ tuning coefficient
τPi process time constant
τI integral time constant
τD derivative time constant

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 20
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362
 Panda and Subramaniam: PID Equivalent of DMC

References

Chen, D., Seborg, D.E., “PI/PID controller design based on direct synthesis and
disturbance rejection,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res, (2002), 41, 19, pp.4807-22.

Cutler, C. and Ramarker, B. “Dynamic matrix control – A computer control

algorithm, Proceedings of the 1986 National meeting of AIChE, Houston,
Tx, USA, WP5-B, 1979.

Haeri Mohammad,“Tuning rules for the PID controller using a DMC strategy”
Asian journal of control, (2002), 4 (4), pp. 410-417.

Haeri Mohammad, “PI design based on DMC strategy,” Transaction of the

Institute of Measurement and Control, (2005), 27, pp. 21.

Jyh-Cheng Jeng., Ming-Wei Lee., Hsai-Ping Huang, “Identification of block

oriented nonlinear processes using designed relay feedback tests,”
Ind.Eng.Chem.Res., (2005), 44, pp. 2145-2155

Lavanya, K., “Estimator based multirate control of dynamic systems,” PhD thesis,
submitted to Anna University, Chennai – 25., 2007.

Lee, Y., Park, S., Lee, M., and Brosilow, C.,“PID controller tuning for desired
closed-loop responses for SI/SO systems,” AIChE J., (1998), 44, pp.106–
115.

Lundstrom, P., Lee, J.H., Morari, M. and Skogestad, S., “Limitations of dynamic
matrix control,” Comp. Chem. Eng., (1995), 19, pp. 409-21.

Luyben,W. L., Process modeling simulation and control for chemical engineers,
2nd edition, McGraw Hill, NY, p. 656, 1992.

Panda, R.C. and C.C. Yu and H.P. Huang, “PID tuning rules for SOPDT systems:
Review and some new results,” ISA Transaction, (2004), 43, pp.283-295.

Panda, R.C. and Ramachandra Rao, V.S., “Model based control of a continuous
fluidized bed dryer”, 3rd IEEE conference on Control Applications,
Glassgow, U.K., 1994.

Qin S.J. & Badgwell. T., “An overview of model predictive control technology”,
Proceeding of fifth International conference in chemical process control,
Tohoe, California, 1996, pp.232-256.

Published by The Berkeley Electronic Press, 2009 21

 Chemical Product and Process Modeling, Vol. 4 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 29

Shridhar and Cooper D. J., “A tuning strategy for unconstrained SISO model
predictivecontrol,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., (1997), 36, pp. 729-746.

Saeki Masami, “Fixed structure PID controller design for standard H∞ control
problem”, Automatica, (2006), 42, pp. 93-100.

Wood, R.K. and Berry, M.W., “Terminal composition control of a binary

distillation column,” Chem. Eng. Sci., (1973), 28, pp.1707-17.
 
 

http://www.bepress.com/cppm/vol4/iss1/29 22
DOI: 10.2202/1934-2659.1362