ARTICLE IN PRESS

Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

Design and tuning of a ratio controller$

Antonio Visioli*
Dipartimento di Elettronica per lAutomazione, University of Brescia, Via Branze 38, 25123 Brescia, Italy
Received 16 July 2003; accepted 12 April 2004
Available online 25 May 2004

Abstract
In this paper a design and tuning procedure for a ratio control architecture is proposed. The overall control scheme is based on the
use of the Blend station proposed in (Control Eng. Pract. 9 (11) (2001) 1215) and standard PI controllers. Since all the control
parameters can be automatically selected based on a simple model of the process under control, the proposed methodology is easy to
implement and therefore suitable to be applied in the industrial context. Simulation and experimental results show the effectiveness
of the methodology for a wide range of processes.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ratio control; Auto-tuning; PID controllers; Blending

1. Introduction
Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers are
the controllers most adopted in industry due to the good
cost/benet ratio they are able to provide for a wide
range of processes. Often, they are employed as basis of
more complex control schemes where couplings between
simple control systems are exploited. An example is
ratio control, which consists of keeping a constant ratio
between two process variables. This is actually required
in many applications, such as chemical dosing, water
treatment, chlorination, mixing vessels, waste incinerators. For example, in combustion systems the air-to-fuel
ratio has to be controlled to obtain an high efciency,
and in blending processes a selected ratio of different
ows has to be maintained to keep a constant product
composition.
In the last 60 years, a major effort has been provided
by researchers to develop useful techniques for the
implementation of the basic PID algorithm (tuning and
automatic tuning methods) and of additional functionalities such as anti-windup, gain scheduling, adaptive
( om
.
control and so on (Astr
& H.agglund, 1995).
$
This work was supported in part by MIUR scientic research
funds.
*Tel.: +39-030-371-5460; fax: +39-030-380-014.
E-mail address: visioli@ing.unibs.it (A. Visioli).

0967-0661/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2004.04.010

Recently, this effort has been further motivated by the

increase of the computational capability which is
available in modern single-station industrial controllers
and distributed control systems (DCS). Conversely, the
design of methodologies for the implementation of the
above mentioned basic couplings has been much overlooked. Obviously, to be suitable for industrial settings,
in addition to the achievement of high performances, the
ease of understanding and of use of new techniques is a
major requirement.
A relevant recent work in this context is the one of
H.agglund (2001) in which a new ratio control structure
is proposed. Based on this control scheme, in this
paper a design methodology for a ratio controller is
proposed. A salient feature of the proposed method is
that all the control parameters are selected based on
simple models obtained by accomplishing standard
identication experiment, and therefore the overall
method can be easily performed automatically. The
paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, a short
introduction of ratio control is provided and H.agglunds
Blend station is briey reviewed. In Section 3, the new
ratio control architecture is proposed. The tuning
procedure is revealed in Section 4. Simulation results
are presented and discussed in Section 5, whilst
experimental results obtained with a laboratory equipment are shown in Section 6. Finally, conclusions are
drawn in Section 7.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

486

2. Ratio control and the Blend station

The aim of a ratio control system is to keep the ratio
between the values of two process variables y1 and y2
equal to a constant value a; in order to meet some
higher-level requirements. For this purpose, the control
scheme shown in Fig. 1 is usually implemented. Each
variable is controlled by two separate controllers C1 and
C2 (typically of PI type) and the output y1 of the rst
process is multiplied by a and adopted as the set-point of
the closed-loop control system of the second process, i.e.
it is r2 t ay1 t (Shinskey, 1996). In this way, at the
steady state, provided that the gain of the second loop is
equal to unity (note that this condition is normally
veried by the presence of the integral part in the
controller) the requirement
y2 t
a
y1 t
is satised.
The main disadvantage of this scheme is related to the
transient response to a change in the set-point r1 ; as the
output y2 is necessarily delayed with respect to y1 ; due to
the closed-loop dynamics of the second loop. To
overcome this drawback, H.agglund proposed an alternative architecture, named the Blend station (H.agglund,
2001). This is shown in Fig. 2. The main feature of the
scheme is that the value of the set-point r2 depends both
on the value of the process output y1 and on the value of
the set-point r1 ; according to the expression
r2 t agr1 t 1  gy1 t:

Note that g is a constant parameter that weights the

relative inuence of the set-point r1 on r2 with respect to
y1 (for g 0 the classical scheme of Fig. 1 is obtained).

r1

u1

C1

P1

P2

a
r2

u2

C2

Fig. 1. The typical ratio control scheme.

r1

C1

P1

y1

P2

y2

BS
r2

C2

Fig. 2. The ratio control scheme using the Blend station.

The value of g can be selected as the ratio of the time

constants of the two closed-loop systems (or, if they are
not available, as the ratio of the integral time constants
of the two controllers) or, alternatively, by applying a
suitable adaptive procedure, i.e. by applying the
following formula (H.agglund, 2001):
dg
S

ay1  y2 ;
2
dt Ta
where SAf1; 0; 1g is a sign parameter that takes into
account if the set-point step is positive or negative. In
(H.agglund, 2001) it is suggested to select the value of the
adaptation rate Ta as a factor times the longest integral
time of the two loops. Note that, for the two PI
controllers, explicit tuning rules to be adopted in this
context are not given.

3. The new ratio control architecture

The ratio control architecture proposed in this paper
is based on the Blend station but aims at achieving
better transient responses by adopting a time-varying
parameter gt: Assume that a transition from the initial
value yi1 to the nal value yf1 is required to be performed
at time t t0 from the process variable y1 (i.e. a step setpoint signal of amplitude yf1  yi1 is applied to the setpoint signal r1 t at time t t0 ). Without loss of
generality, in the following it will be assumed that a
positive step signal is applied, i.e. yf1 > yi1 : First, the
second loop, has to be selected as the one with the fastest
dynamics, i.e. the dynamics of process P2 is faster than
the one of P1 : This is actually the obvious choice in the
typical ratio control scheme of Fig. 1, as the output of
process P2 (appropriately scaled) can follow easier the
one of process P1 as requested.
Processes P1 and P2 are modelled with rst order plus
dead time (FOPDT) transfer functions:
K1
P1 s
eL1 s ;
3
T1 s 1
P2 s

K2
eL2 s :
T2 s 1

This choice is motivated by the fact that the dynamics of

many industrial processes can be well-captured by a
FOPDT model and that in any case, the knowledge of a
higher-order model cannot be signicantly exploited in
( om
.
the synthesis of a simple PI controller (Astr
&
H.agglund, 1995). Actually, obtaining a high-order
model of a plant and adopting it in the design of a
controller might prevent the good cost/benet ratio that
is the main reason of the extensive use of PI(D)
controllers in industrial settings. However, it should be
stressed that whereas a second-order plus dead time
(SOPDT) model is available, the controller can be
selected of PID type, where a zero of the controller is

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

employed to cancel the fastest pole of the process (see

e.g. Skogestad, 2003). This yields again to the tuning of
a PI controller based on a FOPDT model of the plant.
Thus, based on FOPDT models (3)(4) of the two
processes, the two single-loop controllers C1 and C2 are
therefore selected as PI controllers with set-point
weighting, i.e. the manipulated variables u1 and u2 (see
Fig. 2) can be expressed as


Z t
1
u1 t Kp1 b1 r1 t  y1 t
r1 t  y1 t dt ;
Ti1 0

4. Tuning
The classical approach adopted for the tuning of a
ratio controller (see Fig. 1) is to try to obtain a value of
the dominant time constant of the second closed-loop
system much smaller than that of the rst closed-loop
system. This might also lead to a detuning of the
controller C1 ; which is obviously detrimental for the
overall performance.
The tuning procedure for the new ratio controller
proposed in Section 3 is as follows. First, a FOPDT
transfer function for the two processes P1 and P2 (see
(3)(4)) has to be estimated. This can be easily
accomplished with standard methodologies based on
the open-loop step response, such as the well-known
( om
. & H.agglund, 1995). Then, the two
area method (Astr
PI controllers C1 and C2 (see (5)(6)) are tuned
( om
. &
according to the ZieglerNichols formula (Astr
H.agglund, 1995) and the set-point weights b1 and b2 are
set to zero in order to avoid signicant overshoots, as it
( om
.
is implemented in many industrial controllers (Astr

& H.agglund, 1995, p. 110). Finally, g is chosen as
Ti2 =Ti1 and the gains of the PI controller that provides
the current value of g (see (7)) are selected according to
the following formula:
L2 T1
T1
Kp 0:5
; Ti :
9
T2 L1
L1

5


Z t
1
r2 t  y2 t dt :
u2 t Kp2 b2 r2 t  y2 t
Ti2 0
6
Then, the value of g is chosen as the output of a PI
controller as well, whose input is the current ratio error,
summed to a constant value g : An additional condition
has to be set to account for the case in which L1 > L2 ; in
order to avoid that at the beginning of the transient
response the condition y2 t > ay1 t holds, i.e. the
output y2 starts its transient before that of y1 : Formally,
it is
8
if L1 > L2 and
>
<0
tot0 L1  L2 ;
gt
>
: g K e t 1 R t e t dt elsewhere;
p r
Ti 0 r

The overall tuning rule is summarized in Table 1.

It appears that, being based on a simple identication
experiment and on the direct application of simple
formulas, the tuning procedure can be easily performed
automatically.

7
where
er t y2 t  ay1 t:

487

In this way, the two process outputs are forced to start

their transient response at the same time instant.
It appears that, in fact, an additional feedback of the
current ratio value is implemented and therefore an
improvement in the performances with respect to the
Blend station has to be expected. From another point of
view, the adoption of a time-varying parameter g aims
actually at shaping the reference function r2 t in such
a way that the response of the second closed-loop system
is as equal as possible to that of the rst one, despite
their possible different dynamics (see the results
presented in Section 5). The adoption of this control
strategy obviously implies that an extra tuning effort is
required with respect to the Blend station. Hence, a
tuning procedure is necessary to ensure the ease of
implementation of the proposed scheme and therefore
its suitability to be adopted in industrial settings.

Remark 1. It is well-known that the original Ziegler

Nichols tuning rules might yield to large overshoots in
the set-point step response. However, the use of a setpoint weight equal to zero prevents this fact and extends
the range of processes for which they provide satisfactory results (see Section 5). Obviously, this implies also
that the rise time increases, but this can be accepted in a
ratio control framework, where keeping the desired ratio
is of major concern, rather than obtaining a highperformance step response. In this context, the Ziegler
Nichols rules have been selected for their simplicity.
However, in case the dynamics of a process is not
suitable for the ZieglerNichols formulas, i.e. the dead
time is greater than the dominant time constant, then a
more appropriate (though more complex) tuning rule
( om
. & H.agglund, 1995)
such as the KappaTau (Astr

Table 1
Overall tuning rule of the proposed ratio controller
Kp1

Ti1

b1

Kp2

Ti2

b2

g

Kp

Ti

0:9T1 =K1 L1

3L1

0:9T2 =K2 L2

3L2

Ti2 =Ti1

0:5L2 =T2 T1 =L1

T1 =L1

ARTICLE IN PRESS
488

A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

should be used for the two PI controllers C1 and C2 ;

whilst formula (9) is maintained (see Example 4 in
Section 5.4).
Remark 2. The value of g has been selected according
to the considerations done in (H.agglund, 2001).
Actually, this appears to be a sensible choice by taking
into account that g is the initial value of g; as the
integral part of the PI controller in (7) is capable to
maintain the most appropriate value of g at the end of
each set-point transient response.
Remark 3. Expression (9) has been obtained by
performing many simulations in which many FOPDT
processes with different values of the time constant and
of the time delay have been considered. It is therefore
empirical. However, it has a clear physical meaning. For
example, the value of the proportional gain Kp is as high
as the value of the ratio L2 =T2 between the dominant
time constant and the apparent dead time of process P2
is greater than L1 =T1 ; i.e. the one of process P1 : Taking
into account that this ratio is somehow a measure of the
ease of a plant to be controlled, and therefore of the
bandwidth of the system that can be obtained, this
means that if the dynamics of the second closed-loop
system is much faster than that of the rst one, then the
value of Kp is very low, according to the intuition, as the
performance of a standard ratio controller (see Fig. 1) is
high and there is therefore no great need of using an
additional feedback of the ratio measure.
Remark 4. In case process P1 has no apparent dead
time, i.e. L1 0; the tuning rule presented in Table 1
cannot be applied as it yields to an innite value of the
proportional gain Kp and also of Kp1 : In this case the
value of Kp1 can be chosen by considering a ctitious
dead time equal to a small fraction of the process time
constant (for example L1 T1 =50). Then, it is no more
worthy to applying a time-varying coefcient g; as the
original Blend station performs very well. Thus, Kp 0
has to be chosen.
Remark 5. It is also worth stressing that, in any case,
being based on a standard PI controller (7), the user can
easily modify the performances of the ratio controller by
increasing or decreasing the value of Kp and Ti
according to its typical know-how, which is therefore
conveniently fully retained.
Remark 6. The proposed tuning rule is not applicable
for the ratio control of processes with underdamped
open-loop response (this class of processes has not been
considered also for the Blend station). It should be
noted that this class of processes are rather unusual in
practice and the knowledge of the type of plant is in
general sufcient to determine if an oscillatory dynamics

is present and therefore if the proposed technique

cannot be applied.

5. Simulation results
In the following examples at time t0 0 s a unit step
is applied to the set-point signal r1 t (i.e. yi1 0 and
yf1 1). Further, the value a 1 has been xed.
5.1. Example 1
As a rst example, the following two FOPDT
processes have been considered:
P1 s

1
e2s ;
6s 1

P2 s

1
e2s :
2s 1

10

By applying the tuning procedure, it results in Kp1 2:7;

Ti1 6; Kp2 0:9; Ti2 6; g 1; Kp 1:5; Ti 3:
The process outputs y1 t (thick solid line) and y2 t
both in the case where the new methodology has been
applied (dashed line) and in the case where a xed
value of g g is adopted following (H.agglund, 2001)
(dash-dot line) are shown in Fig. 3. For the purpose of
comparison, it has been also reported (thin solid line)
the result obtained by applying the standard ratio
control scheme of Fig. 1 (i.e. by xing g 0). In
addition, a comparison has been made with the
adaptive Blend station. First, the value of Ta 10
maxfTi1 ; Ti2 g 60 has been xed (see (2)), as suggested
in (H.agglund, 2001). Then, a large number of set-point
steps has been applied to the ratio control architecture,
until the value of g converges around its optimal value.
The resulting process output y2 t is again reported in
Fig. 3 (dotted line).
The reference input r2 for the second loop with the
new method is plotted in Fig. 4 (solid line), as well as the
variation of the value of g during the transient for the
new method (dashed line) and for the adaptive blend
station (dash-dot line), respectively. It can be seen that
the variation of g for the case of the adaptive Blend
station is hardly visible (i.e. gt is nearly constant during
the transient response), and this indicates that the best
result that can be obtained with this scheme has been
achieved.
To better evaluate the results, the following
performance index has been calculated in the considered
cases:
Z N
J
jay1 t  y2 tj dt:
11
0

It results in J 2:07 for the proposed method, J 4:44

for the original Blend station, J 0:35 for the adaptive
Blend station and J 12:65 for the standard ratio
controller. It has to be stressed that the achievement of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

489

0.8

process outputs

y2 standard ratio controller

0.6
y Blend station
2

y2 proposed ratio controller

0.4

y2 adaptive Blend station

0.2

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

time [s]

Fig. 3. Process outputs for Example 1.

(t) proposed ratio controller

1.8

1.6

(t) adaptive Blend station

1.4

1.2
r (t) proposed ratio controller
2

10

20

30

40
time [s]

50

60

70

80

Fig. 4. Different signals obtained for Example 1.

the best performance by means of the adaptive Blend

station is paid by the need of performing many
experiments (i.e. of evaluating many set-point step
responses) before obtaining that result, conversely to
the other considered methodologies. Actually, if no

adaptation is employed, a signicant improvement in

the performances obtained by applying the new control
scheme emerges.
For a thorough analysis of the achieved performances, the resulting manipulated variables for the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

490
1.5

u1

control variables

u2 standard ratio controller

u2 Blend station
0.5
u2 proposed ratio controller

u2 adaptive Blend station

10

20

30

40
time [s]

50

60

70

80

Fig. 5. Control variables obtained for Example 1.

addressed schemes have been plotted as well in Fig. 5. It

can be seen that the adoption of the new methodology
does not imply a signicant increase of the control effort
(although, obviously, it appears that the control effort
decreases when the ratio control is more sluggish). Note
that, since the same considerations can be done for all
the performed experiments, the resulting control variable signals are not shown anymore in the following for
the sake of brevity.
In order to evaluate the performances when a series of
set-point step changes occurs, three unit steps have been
applied to the set-point signal r1 at time t 0; 8 and
20 s: Results are shown in Fig. 6 where the thick solid
line is the output of the rst process. It can be seen that
with the new method (dashed line) results are still
satisfactory J 2:11: For comparison, the response of
the original Blend station is plotted in Fig. 6 (dash-dot
line) as well as the responses of the adaptive Blend
station (dotted line) and of the standard controller (thin
solid line). In these cases the values of the resulting
performance index are J 4:80; 0.95 and 13.27,
respectively. In Fig. 7 function gt has been plotted
both for the new scheme (dashed line) and for the
adaptive Blend station (dash-dot line) with the reference
signal r2 obtained with the new control architecture
(solid line).
It turns out that similar considerations to the case of a
single set-point step can be done when a series of setpoint changes occurs in the plant.

5.2. Example 2
As a second example, the following two FOPDT
processes have been considered:

P1 s

1
e3s ;
4s 1

P2 s

1
e2s :
8s 1

12

By applying the tuning procedure, it results in Kp1

1:2; Ti1 9; Kp2 3:6; Ti2 6; g 0:67; Kp 0:17;
Ti 1:33: Results are reported in Fig. 8, where again the
new approach has been compared with the standard one
and with the Blend station. In this case, by applying the
adaptive procedure (with Ta 90 as suggested in
(H.agglund, 2001)) for the Blend station on a sequence
of set-point steps, the value of g converges around a
value of about 0.49. Thus, the process output y2 t has
been reported in the case the adaptive procedure is
employed, by starting with a value of g equal to 0.49. In
Fig. 9 the value of g for the case of the Blend station
with the adaptive procedure has been plotted together
with gt and r2 t for the new method. The resulting
values of the performance index are J 1:37 for the new
ratio controller, J 3:33 for the original Blend station,
J 1:044 for the adaptive Blend station and J 7:67
for the standard ratio controller. Indeed, the same
considerations done for Example 1 can be done also for
Example 2.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

491

3
y1
2.5

process outputs

2 y proposed ratio controller

2

1.5

y Blend station
2

1
y adaptive Blend station
2

0.5
y standard ratio controller
2

10

20

30

40
time [s]

50

60

70

80

Fig. 6. Process outputs for Example 1 with a series of set-point step changes.
4

r (t) proposed ratio controller

2

3.5

2.5

2
(t) adaptive Blend station

1.5

(t) proposed ratio controller

1

10

20

30

40
time [s]

50

60

70

80

Fig. 7. Different signals obtained for Example 1 with a series of set-point step changes.

5.3. Example 3

scheme, i.e.

To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed

methodology in different contexts, we consider as a
third example, the same processes of Example 2 but
their position has been swapped in the overall control

P1 s

1
e2s ;
8s 1

P2 s

1
e3s :
4s 1

13

In this case we have, evidently, Kp1 3:6;

Ti1 6; Kp2 1:2; Ti2 9; g 1:5; Kp 1:5; Ti 4:

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

492

1
y2 proposed ratio controller
0.9
0.8
y2 Blend station

process outputs

0.7
0.6
y1
0.5
y2 standard ratio controller
0.4
0.3
y adaptive Blend station
2

0.2
0.1
0

10

20

30

40
time [s]

50

60

70

80

Fig. 8. Process outputs for Example 2.

1
0.9
r2(t) proposed ratio controller

0.8
0.7

(t) proposed ratio controller

0.6
0.5
0.4
(t) adaptive Blend station
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

10

20

30

40
time [s]

50

60

70

80

Fig. 9. Different signals obtained for Example 2.

Results obtained with the different control architectures

are reported in Fig. 10. In this case the adaptive
procedure (again with Ta 90) for the Blend station,
applied when a series of set-point steps occurs,
converges around a value of g 2:12: This value has

been adopted as initial condition for the reported

process output y2 t obtained with the adaptive Blend
station. As for the previous examples, in Fig. 11 the
value of g for the case of the Blend station with the
adaptive procedure has been plotted together with gt

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

493

y adaptive Blend station

2

1
y1
0.8
y proposed ratio controller
process outputs

y2 Blend station

0.6

y standard ratio controller

2

0.4

0.2

10

20

30

40
time [s]

50

60

70

80

Fig. 10. Process outputs for Example 3.

2.5

(t) proposed ratio controller

2
(t) adaptive Blend station

1.5
r (t) proposed ratio controller
2

1
0

10

20

30

40
time [s]

50

60

70

80

Fig. 11. Different signals obtained for Example 3.

and r2 t for the new method. The resulting values of the

performance index are J 2:37 for the new ratio
controller, J 5 for the original Blend station, J
2:07 for the adaptive Blend station and J 16:5 for the

standard ratio controller. By comparing the results

obtained for this example with those obtained for
Example 2, it appears that, as already mentioned in
Section 3, it is more sensible to choose as process P1 that

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

494

with the fastest dynamics but in any case the performances obtained with the proposed ratio controller are
still satisfactory (indeed, the same conclusion of
Examples 1 and 2 can be drawn also for this example).
5.4. Example 4
As a fourth example, the following two high-order
processes have been considered:
P1 s

1
;
s 18

P2 s

1
:
0:25s 18

14

By applying the identication procedure, it results

in K1 1; T1 2:99; L1 5:55; K2 1; T2 0:71;
L2 1:82: Being the dead time of the two processes
signicantly greater than the corresponding dominant
time constant, the KappaTau tuning rules have
been adopted instead of the ZieglerNichols ones (see
Remark 1). Thus, it results: Kp1 0:13; Ti1 2:62;
b1 2:91; Kp2 0:11; Ti2 0:71; b2 3:67; g 0:27;
Kp 0:69; Ti 0:54: Results are reported in Fig. 12,
where the process output y2 t for the adaptive Blend
station has been obtained by starting with a value of g
equal to 0.32, which results after the application of a
sequence of set-point steps with Ta 26:2: In Fig. 13
the value of g for the case of the Blend station with
the adaptive procedure has been plotted together with
gt and r2 t for the new method. The resulting values
of the performance index are J 0:52 for the new
ratio controller, J 1:81 for the original Blend station,

J 1:70 for the adaptive Blend station and J 4:56 for

the standard ratio controller. It appears that in this case
the proposed method provides better performances even
than the adaptive Blend station. This is possibly
explained by the fact that it is gt 0 when to3:73
(see (7)), thus allowing the two process outputs to start
their transient almost at the same time so that a very
satisfactory result is achieved.

6. Experimental results
In order to prove the effectiveness of the devised
technique in practical applications, a laboratory experimental setup (made by KentRidge Instruments) has
been employed (see Fig. 14). Specically, the apparatus
consists of two small perspex tower-type tanks (whose
area is 40 cm2 ) in which a level control is implemented
by means of a PC-based controller. Each tank is lled
with water by means of a pump whose speed is set by a
DC voltage (the manipulated variable), in the range 0
5 V; through a PWM circuit and it is tted with an
outlet at the base in order for the water to return to a
reservoir. The measure of the level of the water is given
by a capacitive-type probe that provides an output
signal between 0 (empty tank) and 5 V (full tank). Note
that the two processes actually have a nonlinear
dynamics, since the ow rate out of a tank depends on
the square root of its level. The task to be accomplished
is to perform an output transition from 2 to 3 V for the

y1
y2 proposed ratio controller

0.9

y adaptive Blend station

2

0.8

process outputs

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
y2 standard ratio controller

0.3
0.2
0.1

y2 Blend station
0

10

20

30

40
time [s]

Fig. 12. Process outputs for Example 4.

50

60

70

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

495

1
0.9
0.8
r2(t) proposed ratio controller
0.7
0.6
(t) proposed ratio controller
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
(t) adaptive Blend station
0.1
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

time [s]

Fig. 13. Different signals obtained for Example 4.

In order to diversify the dynamics of the two level

control loops, as a rst experiment, a software time
delay of 10 and 5 s has been added to the measure of the
level of the rst and of the second tank, respectively. A
FOPDT model of each process has been estimated
separately by employing the well-known area method to
the open-loop step response. The transfer functions
obtained are
P1 s

Fig. 14. The experimental setup.

rst tank as well as for the second one, maintaining a

desired ratio value a 1 during the whole transient
response.

1:98
e11s ;
25s 1

P2 s

2:27
e6s :
25s 1

15

By applying the formulas of Table 1 it results in

Kp1 1:03; Ti1 33; Kp2 1:65; Ti2 18; g 0:55;
Kp 0:27; Ti 2:27:
Results presented in Fig. 15 show again the effectiveness of the proposed methodology that provides better
performances than both the standard ratio controller
and the Blend station. The resulting performance index
(11) (calculated over the time interval from t 0 to
t 195 s) is J 5:32 for the new approach, J 7:41 for
the Blend station and J 23:59 for the standard ratio
controller.
A second experiment has been performed by modifying the added dead time of the second process,
decreasing it to 4 s: In this case the control parameters
are Kp1 1:03; Ti1 33; Kp2 1:98; Ti2 15; g
0:45; Kp 0:23; Ti 2:27: Results are shown in
Fig. 16 and the calculated performance indexes are
J 12:18 for the new approach, J 22:60 for the Blend
station and J 20:35 for the standard ratio controller.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

496

3
y1
2.8

process outputs

y2 Blend station
2.6

y standard ratio controller

2

2.4
y proposed ratio controller
2

2.2

20

40

60

80

100
time [s]

120

140

160

180

Fig. 15. Process outputs for the rst experiment.

3
y Blend station
2

process outputs

2.8

2.6
y

2.4
y proposed ratio controller
2

2.2
y standard ratio controller
2

20

40

60

80

100
time [s]

120

140

160

180

Fig. 16. Process outputs for the second experiment.

By comparing the obtained results, it appears that making

the second loop dynamics faster yields, as expected, to a
better performance obtained by the standard controller. In
any case, the new ratio controller provides again the best
performances and the difference with the original Blend
station is more evident in this case.

7. Conclusions
In this paper a new ratio control structure has been
proposed. An automatic tuning procedure has been
devised so that no tuning effort from the user is needed.
The methodology is easy to implement (note that no

ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485497

extra measurements are required with respect to

the standard ratio controllers) and it is based on the
use of classical PI controllers, so that it can be
easily understood by operators, who retain their
know-how. Results show its effectiveness for a wide
range of processes. Thus, the overall methodology
appears to be suitable to be implemented in DCS as
well as in single-station controllers for use in the
industrial context.

497

References
( om,
.
Astr
K., & H.agglund, T. (1995). PID controllers: Theory, design
and tuning. Research Triangle Park: ISA Press.
H.agglund, T. (2001). The Blend stationa new ratio control structure.
Control Engineering Practice, 9(11), 12151220.
Shinskey, F. G. (1996). Process control systemsapplication, design,
and tuning. USA: McGraw-Hill.
Skogestad, S. (2003). Simple analytic rules for model reduction and
PID controller tuning. Journal of Process Control, 13, 291309.