Process Control

Improve Control
of Liquid
Level Loops
Robert Rice Use this tuning recipe
Douglas J. Cooper
for the classic integrating

B
Control Station, Inc.
process control challenge.

ecause most processes are self-regulating, it can
sometimes be challenging to tune a controller for an
integrating process. The principal characteristic of a
self-regulating process is that it naturally seeks a steady-
state operating level if the controller output and disturbance
variables are held constant for a sufficient period of time.
For example, a car’s cruise control is self-regulating.
By holding the fuel flow to the engine constant (assuming
the car is traveling on flat ground on a windless day), the
car is maintained at a constant speed. If the fuel flowrate
Self-Regulating
PV
is increased by a fixed amount, the car will accelerate and
then settle at a different constant speed.
The temperature of a process stream exiting a heat
exchanger is also self-regulating. If the shellside cooling
fluid flowrate is held constant and there are no significant
external disruptions, the tubeside exit stream temperature
will settle at a constant value. If the cooling flowrate is
increased, allowed to settle, and then returned it to its
original value, the tubeside exit stream temperature will
move to a new operating level during the increased
flowrate and then return to its original steady-state.
Tanks that have a regulated exit flow stream do not nat-
urally settle at a steady-state operating level. This is a
common example of what process control practitioners

refer to as a non-self-regulating (or integrating) process.

Integrating processes can be remarkably challenging to
PV tracks up and control. This article explores their distinctive behaviors.
down with CO Armed with this knowledge, you may come to realize
that some of your facility’s more-difficult-to-control level,
CO

temperature, pressure and other loops have such character.

IntegratingBehavior Integrating (non-self-regulating)

PV

behavior in manual mode

The top plot of Figure 1 shows the open-loop (manual
mode) behavior of a self-regulating process. In this ideal-
PV at new value
when CO returns
ized response, the controller output (CO) signal and meas-
ured process variable (PV) are initially at steady state. The
CO

CO is stepped up from this steady state and then back

down. As shown, the PV responds to the step, and ulti-
mately returns to its original operating level.
Time

The bottom plot of Figure 1 shows the open-loop

response of an ideal integrating process. The distinctive
■ Figure 1. Integrating processes are characterized by the process
variable moving to a new value when the controller output returns
to its starting value. In an ideal self-regulating process, the behavior occurs when the CO returns to its original
value and the PV settles at a new operating level.
process variable returns to its original value when the controller
output is stepped back down.

54 www.aiche.org/cep June 2008 CEP

 Level control in a surge tank for a single-valve kegging (SVK) system
urge tanks are designed to counteract fluctua-
S tions in flow characteristics that would other-
wise disrupt upstream or downstream systems. Draft
Single Valve Kegging System

Beer
Surge tanks are often installed between two Storage
process systems with incompatible flow patterns Beer Pump
to provide flow smoothing. The “wild stream” has
FT02
flow control requirements that are difficult to influ- CT01 FLOW
CO2
ence, and the controller then adjusts the controlled
FT01
Beer CT04

stream to maintain the liquid level in the tank. FLOW

FC LIC Surge
LIC
O2

Tank
TT02 AT02 PT03

The primary objective of a surge tank is to TT01

PT01 AT01 PT02 CT02
TEMP pH PRES CT03
TEMP BALL
absorb the fluctuations of the wild stream without PRES BALL PSI O2

significantly impacting the controlled stream. To

best achieve this result, the level in a surge tank Beer Valve
should be allowed to swing between an upper Racker Pump
and a lower level limit. The more the tank is Surge Tank Performance
allowed to swing, the larger the surge capacity of 70
the tank. Often, however, these swinging tanks
Level PV / SP, %

Upper Constraint
are viewed as poor performers and are then 60
tuned for tight performance, counteracting the
intended design objective. 50
A major beer brewer uses an SVK system to
fill several lanes of kegs (top). Because the keg- Lower Constraint
40
filling lanes are operated in an on/off fashion, the
wild stream flowrates requested by the SVK sys- Aggressively Tuned PI Controller Conservatively Tuned PI Controller

tem can quickly vary from 0 to 180 gal/min 40

CO, %

depending on the number of kegs being filled at

20
any point in time.
As shown in the figure on the bottom, adjust- 140
Flow, gal/min
Wild-Stream

120
ing the flow of beer pumped from the large stor- 100
age tanks controls the level in the surge tank. 80
Due to the sensitive nature of beer and of the 60
40
analytical instrumentation involved, a surge tank 20
is installed to dampen the large demand fluctua- 0
tions required by the keg-filling system. By allow- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

ing the surge tank to swing more freely between Time, h

its constraints, the control changes sent to the
■ Tuning a control system for a beer-keg filling line (top) to allow the surge tank to fluctuate
large storage tank are reduced. more between its constraints (bottom) reduces the control changes sent to the storage tank.

The integrating behavior plot is somewhat misleading, as
it implies that for such processes, a steady controller output
will produce a steady process variable. While this is possi-
ble with idealized simulations like that used to generate the
plot, such “balance point” behavior is rarely found in inte-
grating processes in industrial operations.
More realistically, if left uncontrolled, the lack of a bal-
ance point means that the process variable of an integrating
process will naturally tend to drift up or down, possibly to
extreme and even dangerous levels. Consequently, integrat-
ing processes are rarely operated in manual mode for long.
P-only control behavior is different
To appreciate the difference in controlled behavior for
integrating processes, first consider the proportional, or
P-only, control of an ideal self-regulating simulation. As
shown in Figure 2 (p. 56), when the setpoint (SP) is ini-
tially at the design level of operation (DLO) in the first
moments of operation, then PV equals SP (the DLO is
where the setpoint and process variable are expected to be
during normal operation when the major disturbances are
at their normal or typical values).
The setpoint is then stepped up from the DLO on the
left side of the plot. The simple P-only controller is unable
to track the changing SP, and a steady error, called offset,
results. The offset grows as each step moves the SP farther
away from the DLO.
Midway through the process, a disturbance occurs, as
shown in the middle of the plot. (Its size was predeter-
mined for this simulation to eliminate the offset.) When
the SP is then stepped back down (on the right) the offset
shifts, but again grows in a similar and predictable pattern.

CEP June 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 55

Process Control

With this as background, consider an ideal integrating

process simulation under P-only control. Even under simple
CO, % PV and SP, %

65
60
P-only control, as shown on the left of Figure 3, the process
variable is able to track the setpoint steps with no offset. This
55

behavior can be quite confusing, as it does not fit the expect-

50
3) … shifting
1) Offset grows …
ed behavior of the more-common self-regulating process.
60 the offset
55
50
This happens because integrating processes have a natu-
ral accumulating character (and is, in fact, why “integrating
45
2) … then disturbance
load changes … process” is used as a descriptor for non-self-regulating
processes). Since the process integrates, it appears that the
65
D, %

50
controller does not need to.
Yet the setpoint steps in the right of Figure 3 show this is
not completely correct. Once a disturbance shifts the baseline
100 200 300 400 500 600
Time
or balance-point operation of the process (shown roughly at
the midpoint in the plot), an offset develops and remains con-
■ Figure 2. P-only control of an ideal self-regulating process

stant even as SP returns to its original design value.

shifts the offset caused by disturbances.

Controller output behavior is telling

The CO plots in Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate an interest-
CO, % PV and SP, %

65

ing feature that distinguishes self-regulating from integrating

60

process behavior. In the self-regulating process plot, the

55
50
3) … producing

average CO value tracks up and then down as the SP steps

1) No offset … sustained offset

up and then down. In the integrating process plot, the CO

60

spikes with each SP step, but then in a most unintuitive fash-

50

ion, returns to the same steady value. It is only the change in

40
2) ...then disturbance
54 load changes … the disturbance flow that causes the average CO to shift mid-
way through the plot, where it then remains centered around
D, %

52

the new value for the remainder of the SP steps.

50

40 80 120 160
Time PI control behavior is different
The dependent, ideal form of a proportional-integral (PI)
■ Figure 3. Unlike an ideal self-regulating process, P-only control controller (1) is one of numerous algorithms that are widely
employed in industrial practice:
for an ideal integrating process shifts the baseline operation of the

K
process, producing a sustained offset even as the setpoint returns

CO = CObias + K c e(t ) + c ∫ e(t )dt (1)

to its original value.
Ti
PV and SP, %

56 57
PV and SP, %

54 54
52 51
50 48
48
45
Kc = 0.3 Kc = 0.3 Kc = 1.2 Kc = 1 Kc = 4 Kc = 8
60 No oscillation Modest oscillation PV oscillates PV oscillates No oscillation PV oscillates
100
80
CO, %

CO, %

55
60
50
40
45 20

150 300 450 600 750

Time 75 150 225 300
Time
■ Figure 4. Increasing controller gain (Kc) for the PI control of an ■ Figure 5. For PI control of an integrating process, oscillatory
ideal self-regulating process causes the process variable response response behavior can occur both when the controller gain (Kc)
to move from a sluggish to an oscillatory response behavior. of a PI controller is too small and when it is too large.

56 www.aiche.org/cep June 2008 CEP

 Figure 4 shows an ideal self-regulating process simula-
Table 1. Use tuning correlations for

tion that is controlled using this PI algorithm. Reset time,

PI and PID controllers for integrating processes.

T i, is held constant throughout the simulation while con- Kc Ti Td

troller gain, K c, is doubled and then doubled again. As K c 1 2Tc + θ p
increases, the controller becomes more active, and, as PI 2Tc + θ p
K *p (Tc + θ p )2
expected, this increases the tendency of the PV to display
oscillating (underdamped) behavior. 1 2Tc + θ p 0.25θ p 2 + Tcθ p
For comparison, consider PI control of an ideal inte- PID 2Tc + θ p
K p (Tc + 0.5θ p )2
*
2Tc + θ p
grating process simulation as shown in Figure 5. T i, is
again held constant while K c, is increased. A counter-intu-
itive result is that as K c becomes small and as it becomes information to yield reliable and predictable control
large, the PV begins displaying an underdamped (oscillat- performance when used with the rules and correlations
ing) response behavior. While the frequency of the oscilla- in Step 4 of the recipe.
tions is clearly different between a small and large K c,
when seen together in a single plot, it is not always obvi- The FOPDT integrating model
ous in what direction the controller gain needs to be The FOPDT dynamic model commonly used to approxi-
adjusted to settle the process, in particular, when seeing mate self-regulating dynamic process behavior has the form:
such unacceptable performance on a control room display. dPV (t )
Tp + PV (t ) = K pCO(t − θ p ) (2)
A tuning recipe provides benefit dt
One of the biggest challenges for practitioners is recogniz- where K p is the steady-state process gain, T p is the overall
ing that a particular process shows integrating behavior prior process time constant, and θp is the process dead time. Yet
to starting a controller design and tuning project. This, like this model cannot describe the kind of integrating process
most things, comes with training, experience and practice. behaviors explored above. These dynamic behaviors are
Once in automatic mode, closed-loop behavior of an better described with the FOPDT integrating model form:
integrating process can be unintuitive, and even confound- dPV (t )
ing. Trial-and-error tuning methods can lead one in circles = K *p CO(t − θ p ) (3)
dt
trying to understand what is causing the unacceptable
control performance. It is interesting to note when comparing these two mod-
A formal controller design and tuning procedure for inte- els that individual values for the familiar process gain, K p,
grating processes helps overcome these issues in an orderly and process time constant, T p, are not separately identified
and reliable fashion. Best practice is to follow a formal recipe for the FOPDT integrating model. Instead, an integrator
when designing and tuning any PID controller. A recipe- gain, K p*, is defined that has units of the ratio of the
based approach causes less disruption to the production process gain to the process time constant, or:
schedule, wastes less raw material and utilities, requires less Kp PV
personnel time, and generates less off-specification product. K *p [=] or K *p [=] (4)
The controller design and tuning recipe for integrating Tp CO × time
processes contains four steps, as follows (2):
1. Establish the design level of operation (the normal or
expected values for the setpoint and major disturbances). The FOPDT integrating model parameters K p* and θp can
Tuning correlations for integrating processes

2. Bump the process, and collect dynamic process data of
the process variable response to changes in controller output.
3. Approximate the process data behavior with a first-
order-plus-dead-time integrating (FOPDT integrating)
dynamic model.
4. Use the model parameters generated in step 3 and the
correlations in Table 1 to complete the controller tuning.
It is important to recognize that real processes are
more complex than the simple FOPDT integrating model.
In spite of this, the model does provide an approximation
of process behavior that is sufficiently rich in dynamic
be computed using a graphical analysis of plot data, or in an
industrial setting by automated analysis using a commercial
software package. Once the model parameters are known, the
tuning values for the dependent, ideal PI form, Eq. 1, as well
as the popular PID algorithm form, can be calculated:
K dPV
CO = CObias + K c e(t ) + c ∫ e(t )dt − K c Td (5)
Ti dt
For integrating processes there is no identifiable
process time constant in the FOPDT integrating model.
Thus, dead time, θp, is used as the baseline marker of time

CEP June 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 57

Process Control
■ Figure 6. Simulated pumped-tank level control in automatic
mode uses a throttling valve to adjust the process variable, the
liquid level in the tank.
for tuning. Specifically, θp is used as the basis for comput-
ing the closed-loop time constant, T c.
Building on the popular internal model control (IMC)
approach to controller tuning, the closed-loop time con-
stant is computed as T c = 3θp (3).
The controller tuning correlations for integrating
processes use this T c, as well as the K p* and θp from the
FOPDT integrating model fit, in the correlations of Table 1.
A simulated example — the pumped-tank
A pumped-tank simulation illustrates the design and tun-
ing of a controller for an integrating process. As shown in
Figure 6, the process has two liquid streams feeding the top
of the tank and a single exit stream pumped out of the bot-
tom. The measured process variable (PV) is the liquid level
in the tank. To maintain the liquid level, the controller out-
put (CO) signal adjusts a throttling valve at the discharge of
a constant-pressure pump to manipulate the flowrate out of
the bottom of the tank. This approximates the behavior of a
centrifugal pump operating at relatively low throughput.
Note that a pump strictly regulates the discharge
flowrate out of the tank. As a consequence, the physics do
not naturally work to balance the system when any of the
stream flowrates change. This lack of a natural balancing
behavior is why the pumped tank is classified as an inte-
grating process. If the total flow into the tank is more than
the flow pumped out, the liquid level will rise and contin-
ue to rise until the tank fills or a stream flow changes. If
58 www.aiche.org/cep June 2008 CEP
… and tank drains
Level, m
2
0
Exit flow increases …
80
CO, %
75
70
20 25 30 35 40 45
Time, min
■ Figure 7. With the simulated level control in manual mode,
the liquid level falls as the controller increases the flowrate out
of the bottom of the tank.
the total flow into the tank is less than the flow pumped
out, the liquid level will fall and continue to fall.
Figure 7 is a plot of the pumped-tank behavior with the
controller in manual mode (open-loop). The CO signal is
stepped up, increasing the discharge flowrate out of the
bottom of the tank. The flow out becomes larger than the
total feed into the top of the tank and, as shown, the liquid
level begins to fall. As the situation persists, the liquid
level continues to fall until the tank is drained. The saw-
toothed pattern occurs when the tank is empty because the
pump briefly surges every time enough liquid accumulates
for it to regain suction.
Figure 7 does not show that if the controller output were
to be decreased enough to cause the flowrate out to be less
than the flowrate in, the liquid level would rise until the
tank was full. If this were a real process, the tank would
overflow and spill, creating safety and profitability issues.
Graphical modeling of integrating process data
The graphical method of fitting an FOPDT integrating
model to process data requires a data set that includes at
least two constant values of controller output, CO1 and
CO2. As shown in Figure 8 for the pumped tank, both must
be held constant long enough that a slope trend in the PV
response (tank liquid level) can be visually identified.
An important difference between the traditional process
reaction curve graphical technique for self-regulating
processes and integrating processes is that integrating
processes need not start from a steady-state value before a
bump is made to the CO. The graphical technique discussed
here is only concerned with the slopes (or rates of change)
in PV and the constant controller output signal that caused
each PV slope.
The FOPDT integrating model describes the PV behavior
at each value of constant controller output, CO1 and CO2, as:
 Slope2 (27, 5.2)
5.2 5.2 (31, 5.2)
4.8 4.8
Level, m

Level, m
4.4 4.4 (36, 4.6)
Slope1 (24, 4.8)
4.0 4.0

75 75
CO, %

CO, %
CO1
70 70 CO1 = 65 CO2 = 75
CO2
65 65

20 25 30 35 40 20 25 30 35 40
Time, min Time, min
■ Figure 8. To perform a manual-mode bump test of the pumped- ■ Figure 9. The slopes are calculated from bump test data to
tank process, the controller outputs must be held constant long compute the integrator gain, Kp*.
enough to show the slope trend in the PV response.

dPV
= K *p CO1 (t − θ p )
dt 1 5.2

and 4.8
Level, m

dPV
= K *pCO2 (t − θ p ) (6))
4.4

dt θP = 1 min
4.0
2

Subtracting and solving for K p* yields: 75

dPV dPV
CO, %

− 70

dt dt 1 Slope2 − Slope1
K *p = 2 = (7)
CO2 − CO1 CO2 − CO1
65

20 25 30 35 40
Time, min
Computing integrator gain. The values of the open-loop
Graphical modeling of pumped-tank data

data from the pumped-tank simulation in Figure 8 are dis-

played in Figure 9. The CO is stepped from 71% down to
65%, causing the liquid level (the PV) to rise. The con-
■ Figure 10. The difference in time from when the CO signal is
stepped and when the measured PV starts to show a clear
response to that change provides an estimate of the dead time
from the bump test data.

troller output is then stepped from 65% up to 75%, causing
a downward slope in the liquid level.
The slope of each segment is calculated as the change in
tank liquid level divided by the change in time. From the
plot data, Slope1 is calculated to be 0.13 m/min and Slope2
as –0.12 m/min. Using the slopes with their respective CO
values yields the integrator gain, K p* = –0.025 m/%-min.
Computing dead time. The dead time, θp, is calculated as
the difference in time from when the CO signal was stepped
and when the measured PV starts to exhibit a clear response
to that change. From the plot in Figure 10, the pumped-tank
dead time is estimated be θp = 1.0 min.
is normally put into practice using bumpless transfer —
that is, when switching to automatic control, SP is initial-
ized to the current value of PV and CObias to the current
value of CO. By choosing the current operation as the
design state at switchover, the controller needs no correc-
tive actions and it can smoothly engage.
Controller gain, K c, and reset time, T i. The first step in
using the IMC correlations listed in Table 1 is to compute
T c, the closed-loop time constant. T c describes how active
the controller should be in responding to a setpoint change
or in rejecting a disturbance. For integrating processes, the
design and tuning recipe suggests:

PI control study T c = 3θp = 3 × 1.0 min = 3 min

Now the controller design and tuning recipe for integrat-
ing processes can be used to design and test a PI controller. The PI controller gain, K c, and reset time, T i, are
Determining bias value, CObias. A commercial controller computed as:

CEP June 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 59

Process Control

CO, % PV and SP, %

Level control in a distillation column reflux drum 5.0
4.8
t the top of a petroleum-refinery distillation column 4.6
A (below, top), vapor enters a condenser and flows as liq-
uid into a reflux drum. The liquid then exits the drum and
4.4
Accept some PV overshoot … … to get disturbance rejection
80
either returns to the column as reflux or exits the unit as dis-
70
tillate. The control strategy design for the column is to main-
60
tain a fixed distillate flow and adjust the level of the reflux
drum through manipulation of the reflux flowrate returning to 4 inlet flow disturbance

D, %
the top of the column. 3
Distillation columns are very sensitive unit operations 2
with very slow response times (long time constants). If the 1
level controller is tuned aggressively for tight setpoint track- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time
ing, large and rapid reflux flow changes could dramatically Sample Time, T = 1 s
impact column efficiency and stability. Thus, the reflux drum
needs to be tuned for conservative control actions while ■ Figure 11. A PI controller provides setpoint tracking and
maintaining the level constraints. disturbance rejection.
Using the tuning procedure outlined in this article, the

1 2Tc + θ p
reflux drum level not only tracks closer to setpoint — it does
Kc = ⋅ Ti = 2Tc + θ p (8)
K *p (Tc + θ p )2
so with 95% less controller output movement.

Substituting the K p*, θp and T c identified above into

these tuning correlations, we compute:
1 2( 3) + 1
Kc = = –18 m/% Ti = 2( 3) + 1 = 7 miin
Condenser

LIC Reflux Drum –0.025 (3 + 1)2

Recall that the P-only control of an integrating process
Distillation
Column
FIC FIC
(Figure 3) can provide a rapid setpoint response with no
overshoot until a disturbance changes the balance point of
L D

the process. As labeled in Figure 11, the PI control set-

point response now includes some overshoot.
Reflux Valve Distillate Valve

The benefit of integral action is that when a disturbance

occurs, a PI controller can reject the upset and return the
process variable to its setpoint. This is because the con-
stant summing of integral action continues to move the
controller output until the controller error is driven to zero.
Reflux Drum Level Performance

Thus, PI control requires accepting some overshoot during

Level PV / SP, %

60 Upper Constraint

setpoint tracking in exchange for the ability to reject dis-

turbances. In many industrial applications, this is
50

considered a fair trade. CEP

40
Lower Constraint

Literature Cited
90
30 Aggressively Tuned PI Controller Conservatively Tuned PI Controller
80
Reflux Flow, %

1. Cooper, D. J., ed., “Practical Process Control,”

70
60
50 www.controlguru.com (2008).
40
2. Rice, R., and D. J. Cooper, “A Rule-Based Design
Methodology for the Control of Non-Self-Regulating
30

Processes,” Proc. ISA Expo 2004, ISA CD Vol. 454,

20
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Time, h
TP04ISA076 (2004).
3. Arbogast, J. E., and D. J. Cooper, “Extension of IMC
■ Using the tuning recipe for reflux drum (top) level control Tuning Correlations for Non-Self-Regulating
(Integrating) Processes,” ISA Transactions, 46,
improves the performance (bottom) with 95% less controller

pp. 303 (2007).

output movement.

60 www.aiche.org/cep June 2008 CEP

 Glossary and Nomenclature ROBERT RICE, PhD, is director of solutions engineering at Control Station,

CO = controller output signal

Inc., a provider of process control solutions (One Technology Dr., Tolland,

CObias = controller bias or null value

CT 06084; Phone: (860) 872-2920 x101; E-mail:
bob.rice@controlstation.com; Website: www.controlstation.com). He has

DLO = design level of operation

extensive field experience in both regulatory and advanced controls and

e(t) = current controller error, defined as SP – PV

has published papers on a wide array of topics associated with automatic

FOPDT = first-order-plus-dead-time model

process control, including multi-variable process control and model
predictive control. He has led the development and support of LOOP-PRO

IMC = internal model control

Product Suite, a PID diagnostic and optimization toolkit, and is a trainer

Kc = controller gain, a tuning parameter

for the company’s portfolio of practical process control training

K p* = integrator gain
workshops. Prior to joining Control Station, he was an engineer with PPG
Industries. He received his BS in chemical engineering from Virginia

PV = measured process variable

Polytechnic Institute and State Univ. and both his MS and PhD in chemical

SP = setpoint
engineering from the Univ. of Connecticut.

SVK = single-valve kegging

DOUGLAS J. COOPER, PhD, is founder and chief technology officer of Control

T = sample time
Station, Inc. (Phone: (860) 872-2920; E-mail:

Tc = closed-loop time constant

doug.cooper@controlstation.com) and a professor of chemical, materials
and biomolecular engineering at the Univ. of Connecticut. He is also the

Ti = reset time, a tuning parameter

author and editor of controlguru.com, an e-book of industry best

Tp = overall process time constant

practices for improving process control. He is a recognized specialist in

= process dead time

the fields of advanced process modeling, monitoring and control;

θp
intelligent technologies and adaptive process control; and software tools
for process control system analysis, tuning and training. Prior to forming
Control Station, he held research positions with Arthur D. Little and
Chevron. He received his BS in chemical engineering from the Univ. of
Massachusetts, Amherst, MS in chemical engineering from the Univ. of
Michigan, and PhD in chemical engineering from the Univ. of Colorado.

Circle No.xx on Reader Inquiry Card

CEP June 2008 www.aiche.org/cep 61