2.
35 Tuning PID Controllers
P. W. MURRILL (1970) P. D. SCHNELLE, JR.
J. GERRY, M. RUEL, F. G. SHINSKEY (2005)
In order for the reader to fully understand the content and
concepts of this section, it is advisable to first become familiar
with some basic topics. These include gains, time lags and reac-
tion curves (Section 2.22), the PID control modes (Section 2.3),
feedback and feedforward control (Section 2.9), and relative
gain calculations (Section 2.25).
Controllers are designed to eliminate the need for con-
tinuous operator attention when controlling a process. In the
automatic mode, the goal is to keep the controlled variable
(or process variable) on set point. The controller tuning
parameters determine how well the controller achieves this
goal when in automatic mode.
DISTURBANCES
The purpose of a controller is to keep the controlled variable
as close as possible to its set point at all times. How well it
achieves this objective depends on the responsiveness of the
process, its control modes and their tuning, and the size of
the disturbances and their frequency distribution.
Sources
Disturbances arise from three different sources: set point,
load, and noise. Noise is defined as a random disturbance
whose frequency distribution exceeds the bandwidth of the
control loop. As such, the controller has no impact on it,
other than possibly amplifying it and passing it on to the
final actuator, which can cause excessive wear and ultimate
failure.
Set point and load changes affect the behavior of the
control loop quite differently, owing to the dynamics in their
path. A controller tuned to follow set point changes tends to
respond sluggishly to load variations, and conversely a con-
troller tuned to correct disturbances tends to overshoot when
its set point is changed.
Set Point The set point is the desired value of the controlled
variable and is subject to adjustment by the operator. In a
continuous process plant, most of the control loops operate
414
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
(1985) B. G. LIPTÁK (1995)
as regulators, having a set point that remains unchanged for
days and even months at a time.
Examples of variables held at constant set points are
drum-level and steam temperature of a boiler, most pressure
and level variables, pH of process and effluent streams, most
product-quality variables, and most temperature loops. Set-
point response is of no importance to these loops, but they
must contend with load upsets minute by minute. In fact, the
only loops in a continuous plant that must follow set-point
changes are flow loops.
Batch plants have frequent transitions between steady
states, some of which require rapid response to set-point
changes with minimal overshoot. However, some of these
changes are large enough to saturate the controller, particu-
larly at startup. This can cause integral windup, which
requires special means of prevention to overcome.
The Load Only pure-batch processes — where no flow into
or out of the process takes place — operate at constant load,
and that load is zero. All other processes can expect to encoun-
ter variations in load, which are principally changing flow rates
entering and leaving vessels. A liquid-level controller, for
example, manipulates the flow of one liquid stream, while
other streams represent the load. Feedwater flow to a boiler is
manipulated to control drum level and must balance the com-
bined flows of steam and blowdown leaving to keep level at
set point. The load changes frequently and often unpredictably,
but the set point may never change.
In a typical temperature control loop, the load is the flow
of heat required to keep temperature constant. Liquid entering
a heat exchanger will require a certain flow of steam to reach
a controlled exit temperature. Variations in liquid flow and
inlet temperature will change the demand for steam flow
manipulated to keep exit temperature at set point.
Dynamics
The term process dynamics can refer to capacitance, inertia,
resistance, time constant, dead time or their combinations.
There is no dynamics involved with changing the set point,
unless intentionally placed there for the purpose of filtering
the set point.
 2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 415

Set point Load Noise

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

Step Responses

Step testing is recommended for all control loops where the

frequency content of the disturbance variables is not speci-
fied. There are cases of periodic disturbances, and they can
pose special problems for control loops that themselves are b
capable of resonating at a particular period. They are found a
1.0
principally in cascade loops and in process interactions where
controllers manipulate valves in series or in parallel. These
are considered in other sections of this work. Another period P
disturbance is the cyclic operation of such cleaning devices
as soot-blowers. a/b = 1/4
For the general case, the step disturbance is the most
difficult test for the controller in that it contains all frequen- 0 Time
cies, including zero. In fact, the frequency content of the step 0
is identical to that of integrated white noise — therefore, it is FIG. 2.35b
an excellent test for loops subject to random disturbances. Step response curve of a control loop tuned for 1/4 decay ratio.

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

416 Control Theory
should) allow simulating a load change by using that feature.
This is done by waiting until the loop is at steady state and
on set point (zero deviation). At that point switching to the
manual mode and stepping the output by the desired amount
in the desired direction, and immediately (before a deviation
develops) transferring back to the automatic mode.
This procedure can be followed for all but the fastest
loops, such as flow loops. For them, a step in set point is
acceptable, both because flow loops must follow set-point
changes, and because for them, set-point tuning gives accept-
able load response.
Comparing Set-Point and Load Responses
The steady-state process gain of a flow loop is typically
between 1 and 2, as indicated by the controller output being
between 50 and 100% when the flow measurement is at full
scale. The proportional gain of a typical flow controller is in
the range of 0.3 to 1.0, with the higher number associated
with the process that has the lower steady-state gain. There-
fore, the proportional loop gain for a typical flow loop is in
range of 0.6 to 1.0. As a result, a step change in set point
will move the controller output approximately the correct
amount to produce the same change in flow, by proportional
action alone, that gives excellent set-point response.
This is not the case for other loops. Level has the opposite
behavior. To maintain a constant level, the controller must
match the vessel’s inflow and outflow precisely. Changing
the set point will cause the controller to change the manip-
ulated flow, but only temporarily — when the level reaches
the new set point, the manipulated flow must return to its
original steady-state value.
Therefore, no steady-state change in output is required
for a level controller to respond to a set-point change. The
Integrated Error (IE) sustained by a controller following a
disturbance varies directly with the change in output between
its initial and final steady states. In response to a set-point
change, the level controller has the same initial and final
steady-state output values and hence sustains zero integrated
error.
As a result, the error that is integrated while the level is
approaching the new set point will be matched exactly by an
equal area of overshoot. In other words, set-point overshoot
is unavoidable in a level loop unless set-point filtering is
provided.
Most other processes, such as temperature, pressure, and
composition, have steady-state gains higher than those of a
flow process. But more importantly, they are also dominated
by lags, which allows the use of a higher controller propor-
tional gain for tight load regulation. When this high propor-
tional gain is multiplied by the process steady-state gain, the
resulting loop gain can be as high as 5 to 10 or more.
A set-point step then moves the controller output far more
than required to drive the controlled variable to the new set
point, producing a large overshoot. To minimize set-point
overshoot, the controller must be detuned, with lower gain
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
No
filter SP tuning
Set
Controlled variable
Load
SP filter tuning
Load
0 1 2 3 4
Time, t/St
FIG. 2.35c
Set-point tuning slows load recovery for lag-dominant processes.
and longer integral time than is optimum for load regulation,
or a filter must be applied to the set point.
Figure 2.35c compares responses to steps in set point and
load for a process with distributed lag such as a dashed
exchanger, distillation column, or stirred tank. The time scale
is normalized to Στ , which is the time required for the dis-
tributed lag to reach 63.2% of the full response to a step input
in the open loop. It is also the residence time of liquid in a
stirred tank.
If the PID settings are adjusted to minimize the Integrated
Absolute Error (IAE) to the set point change, the dashed
response curve is produced (SP tuning). Note that following
a step change in load, the return to set point is sluggish. This
is commonly observed with lag-dominant processes. The PID
settings that produce the minimum-IAE load response, shown
in black (no filter), result in a large set-point overshoot,
however.
Set-Point Filtering
If optimum load rejection is desired, without the large set-
point overshoot that it produces on lag-dominant processes,
the proportional response to set-point changes needs to be
reduced.
Some PID controllers have the option to eliminate pro-
portional action on the set point altogether. This tends to
produce a set-point undershoot, which can significantly dashed
the controller response, and it should never be used in the
secondary controller of a cascade system. (Incidentally,
derivative action should never be applied to the set point, as
this always produces overshoot.)
Some controllers can reduce the controller’s proportional
gain when it acts on set point changes, either through the use
of a lead-lag filter, or by the use of a specially structured
algorithm. This adjustment allows separate optimization of
set-point response, after the PID settings have been tuned to
optimize the controller’s load response. The filter used for
the loop whose response is shown in Figure 2.35c has applied
only half the controller’s proportional gain to the set point.
 2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 417

OPEN-LOOP TUNING Controlled

process variable
Applying a step to the process is simple and can be used to (% of full scale)
tune the loop and to obtain a simple model for the process.
80
Two methods are widely used. The first is the “process reac-
tion curve,” which is not used to calculate the process model
but is used to obtain the tuning parameters for rejecting the 70
65.8
upsets caused by load changes. K
The second method uses the “process model” by obtain- 60
ing a simple process model; the tuning parameters are cal- Lr
culated from this model based on either a load rejection or 50
a set point change criterion. Lr Rr
40 Time (minutes)
Process Reaction Curve 0 2 4 6 8
t0.632

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

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

130
Process Variable

Slope = (132 – 123) deg C

(70 – 40) s

120
23 s

40 80
50

48
Controller Output

46

44

42

40
40 80
Time (sec)

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

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

418 Control Theory

Yet another advantage is that this test can be performed prior

TABLE 2.35f to the installation of the control system.
Equations for Calculating the Ziegler–Nichols Tuning Parameters
The disadvantages are also multiple. The open-loop test
for an Interacting Controller
is not as accurate as the closed-loop one because it disregards
Type of Controller P (gain) I (minutes/repeat) D (minutes) the dynamics of the controller. Another disadvantage is that
the S-shaped reaction curve and its inflection point are diffi-
P ∆CO — — cult to identify when the measurement is noisy and/or if a
Rr ∗ td
small step change was used.
∆CO Because of the above considerations, a good approach is
PI 0.9 * 3.33 td —
Rr ∗ td to use the open-loop method of tuning in order to obtain the
first set of initial tuning constants for a loop during startup.
PID ∆CO 2 td 0.5 td Then, refine these settings once the system is operating by
1.2
Rr ∗ td retuning the loop using the closed-loop method.

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

and the reaction rate (speed) is
∆PV
Rr = 2.35(1)
∆t
The slope is:
9 deeg C
∗ 100
∆PV 132 deg C − 123 deg C 9 deg C 300 deg C
= = = popularity of this approximation is that a real-time delay of
∆t 70 s − 40 s 30 s 30 s
3%
= = 0.1%/s = 6.0%/min
30 s
After the dead time (td) and the reaction rate (Rr ) have
been determined, the controller settings are calculated by
using the equations in Table 2.35f.
If a PI controller is to be used for the process that was
tested in Figure 2.35e, the values are:
P = 0.9*10%/(0.1%/s X 23 s) = 3.9
I = 3.33 * 23 s = 76.6 s = 1.28 minutes.
Ziegler and Nichols recommend using the ratio of the
controller output divided by the product of the slope and the
dead time to calculate the proportional gain. The ideal process
has a small dead time and a small slope, so that the controller
can aggressively manipulate the controller output to bring the
process back to set point.
The integral and derivative are calculated using the dead
time. The proportional is calculated using the slope and the
dead time. If the slope is high, then the controller gain must
be small because the process is sensitive; it reacts quickly. If
the dead time is long, the controller gain must be small
because the process response is delayed and therefore the
controller cannot be aggressive. If one can reduce the slope
and the dead time of any process, it will be easier to control.
One of the advantages of open-loop tuning over the
closed-loop tuning technique is its speed because one does
not need to wait for several periods of oscillation during
several trial-and-error attempts. The other advantage is that
one does not introduce oscillations into the process with
unpredictable amplitudes. In open-loop tuning, the user
selects the upset that is introduced, and it can be small.
There are many ways to use and interpret the dead time (td)
and reaction rate (Rr) values obtained from the open-loop
tuning method. Most open-loop methods are based on
approximating the process reaction curve by a simpler sys-
tem. Several techniques are available to obtain a model.
The most common approximation by far is a pure time
delay (dead time) plus a first-order lag. One reason for the
any duration can only be represented by a pure time delay
because there is yet no other simple and adequate approxi-
mation. Theoretically, it is possible to use higher-than-first-
order lags plus dead time, but accurate approximations are
difficult to obtain. Thus the real process lag is usually approx-
imated by a pure time delay plus a first-order lag. This
approximation is easy to obtain, and it is sufficiently accurate
for most purposes.
The process’s dead time is the time period following an
upset during which the controlled variable is not yet respond-
ing. The time constant is a period between the time when a
response is first detected and the time when the response has
reached 63.2 % of its final (new steady-state) value. The time
constant is also the time it would take for the controlled
variable to reach its final value if the initial speed were
maintained.
Bump Tests Figure 2.35g shows the Ziegler–Nichols pro-
cedure to approximate that process reaction curve with a first-
order lag plus a time delay. The first step is to draw a straight-
line tangent to the process reaction curve at its point of
maximum rate of ascent (point of infection).
Although this is easy to visualize, it is quite difficult to
do in practice. This is one of the main difficulties in this
procedure, and a considerable number of errors can be intro-
duced at this point. The slope of this line is termed the
reaction rate R r . The time between the instant when the bump
was applied and the time at which this line intersects the
initial value of the controlled variable prior to the test is the
dead time, or transport time delay td.
Figure 2.35g illustrates the determination of these values
for a one-unit step change (∆CO) in the controller output

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

 2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 419

170 τ = 183 − 33 s
160

Process variable
150

140

130

120
400 800
50
Controller output

48
46
44
42
40
400 800
Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35g
Maximum slope curve, Fit 1.

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

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

420 Control Theory

170

160 Process gain = (165 − 120) degC

Process variable
(50− 40)%
150 120 degC + 0.632 * = 4.5 degC = 100*(4.5/300)%
45 degC = 148 degC % %
140
= 1.5
130

120 155 s
33 s
400 800

50
Controller output

48
46
44
42
40
400 800
Time (sec)

FIG. 2.35h
Bump test, Fit 2 curve.

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

170

160
Process variable

150

140

130

120

400 800

50

48
Controller output

46

44

42

40
400 800
Time (sec)

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

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

 2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 421

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

τ Note that this term can also be determined from the process
P — —
K ∗ td reaction curve. For processes originally considered by Ziegler
and Nichols, µ equals zero and therefore there is no self-
τ regulation. To account for variations in µ, Cohen and Coon
PI 3.33 td —
0.9 *
K ∗ td suggested the equations given in Table 2.35l in terms of td and τ.
In case of a proportional control, the requirement that the
decay ratio be 1/4 is sufficient to ensure a unique solution, but
PID τ 2 td 0.5 td
1.2 for the case of proportional-plus-reset control, this restraint is
K ∗ td
not sufficient.
Another constraint in addition to the 1/4 decay ratio can
consider the level control of a tank with a constant rate of be placed on the response to determine the unique values of
liquid outflow. Assume that the tank is initially operating at Kc and Ti . This second constraint can be to require that the
constant level. If a step change is made in the inlet liquid flow, control area of the response be at its minimum, meaning that
the level in the tank will rise until it overflows. This process the area between the response curve and the set point be the
is not “self-regulating.” smallest. This area is called the error integral or the integral
On the other hand, if the outlet valve opening and outlet of the error with respect to time.
backpressure are constant, the rate of liquid removal With the proportional-plus-reset-plus-rate controller
increases as the liquid level increases. Hence, in this case, (PID), the same problem of not having a unique solution
exists even when the 1/4 decay ratio and the minimum error
TABLE 2.35k integral constraints are applied. Therefore, a third constraint
The Tuning Setting Recommendations for a PI Controller must be chosen to obtain a unique solution. Based on the
Resulting from the Three Methods of Testing Described work of Cohen and Coon, it has been suggested that this new
constraint could have a value of 0.5 for the dimensionless
τ (s) td (s) Kc Ti (min)
Testing Method Used K
group Kc Ktd /τ. The tuning relations that will result from
Reaction curve 3.91 1.28 applying these three constraints are given in Table 2.35l. This
5–7
Process model Fit1, ZN 1.5 150 23 3.91 1.28 method has been referred to as the 3C method.
Greg Shinskey suggested a variation to the above, where
Process model Fit 2, ZN 1.5 122 23 3.18 1.28
the proportional gain and the integral time are increased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

= 2.0(td /τ )
τ 1 + 0.6(td /τ )

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

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

422 Control Theory

8
Integral Criteria Tuning
TABLE 2.35m
Table 2.35m provides the controller settings that minimize Tuning Settings for Load and Set Point Disturbances
the respective integral criteria to the ratio td/τ. The settings Load Change Set Point Change
differ if tuning is based on load (disturbance) changes as
A B A B
opposed to set point changes. Settings based on load changes
IAE P 0.902 –0.985
will generally be much tighter than those based on set point
changes. When loops tuned to load changes are subjected to P 0.984 –0.986 0.758 –0.861
a set point change, a more oscillatory response is observed. I 0.608 –0.707 1.020 –0.323
P 1.435 –0.921 1.086 –0.869
I 0.878 –0.749 0.740 –0.130
Which Disturbance to Tune for D 0.482 1.137 0.348 0.914

With tuning parameters calculated for load rejection, the ITAE P 0.490 –1.084
integral time (Ti) and derivative time (Td) will depend mostly P 0.859 –0.977 0.586 –0.916
on the dead time (td) of the process. I 0.674 –0.680 1.030 –0.165
In contrast, if the tuning parameters are calculated for a P 1.357 –0.947 0.965 –0.855
set-point change, the integral time will be longer and the I 0.842 –0.738 0.796 –0.147
derivative time will be shorter, and they will depend mostly D 0.381 0.995 0.308 0.929
on the time constant of the process. ISE P 1.411 –0.917
The relationship between the controller settings based on P 1.305 –0.959
integral criteria and the ratio t0 /τ is expressed by the tuning I 0.492 –0.739
relationship given in Equation 2.35(6).
P 1.495 –0.945
I 1.101 –0.771
B
t  D 0.560 1.006
Y = A 0 2.35(6)
τ ZN P 1.000 –1.000
P 0.900 –1.000
I 0.333 –1.000
where Y = KKc for proportional mode, τ /Ti for reset mode,
P 1.200 –1.000
Td/τ for rate mode; A, B = constant for given controller and
mode; t0, τ = pure delay time and first-order lag time constant. I 0.500 –1.000
Hence, using these equations, D 0.500 1.000
CCC P 1.208 –0.956
B P 0.928 –0.946
A  t0 
Kc = 2.35(7) I 1.078 –0.583
K  τ  P 1.370 –0.950
B I 1.351 –0.738
1 A  t0 
= 2.35(8) D 0.365 0.950
Ti τ  τ  Shinskey P 1.000 –1.000
B P 0.952 –1.000
t 
Td = τ ∗ A  0  2.35(9) I 0.250 –1.000
τ P 0.855 –1.000
I 0.625 –1.000
Lambda Tuning D 0.600 1.000
4 to 1 decay P 1.235 –0.924
Lambda tuning originated from Dahlin in 1968; it is based Critical damping P 0.300 –1.000 0.300 –1.000
4,5
on the same IMC theory as MPC, is model-based, and uses (no overshoot, P 0.600 –1.000 0.350 –1.000
a model inverse and pole-zero cancellation to achieve the maximum speed) I 0.250 –1.000 Ti =1.16τ
desired closed-loop performance.
P 0.950 –1.000 0.600 –1.000
Lambda tuning is a method to tune loops based on pole
I 0.420 –1.000 Ti = τ
placement. This method ensures a defined response after a
set-point change but is generally too sluggish to properly D 0.420 1.000 0.500 1.000
reject disturbances. Promoters for this method often claim
that all loops should be tuned on the basis of Lambda tuning.
Doing so, the controllers are almost in “idling mode” and

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

 2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 423

when the process load changes or other disturbance occurs,

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

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

IAE = 1449.67 SSE=16731.6

185
175 Lambda
Process variable

165
IAE SP
155
145 ExperTune SP
135
ExperTune Load
125 IAE
ZN
115 CCC Shinskey
200 400 600 800 1000
45
Controller output

35

25

15

5
200 400 600 800 1000
Time (sec)

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

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

424 Control Theory

IAE = 2286.29 SSE = 37317

170 CCC
IAE
ZN Shinskey
160

Process variable
ExperTune Load
150
140 )
IAE (SPLoad Lambda
xp er Tu ne
130 E

120
200 400 600 800 1000

80
Controller output

70
60
50
40
30
200 400 600 800 1000
Time (sec)

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

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

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

160
CCC
IAE (L)
150
Process variable

ZN
Shinskey
140
IAE (SP)
130 Lambda

120

200 400 600 800 1000

64
60
Controller output

56
52
48
44
40
200 400 600 800 1000
Time (sec)

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

© 2006 by Béla Lipták


previously may be used, considering that the dead time used
is the sum of the true process dead time and one-half of the
sampling time, as expressed by Equation 2.35(12):
t0′ = t0 + T /2 2.35(12)
where T is the sampling time. t′0 is used in the tuning rela-
tionships instead of t0. (Section 2.38 deals with the subject
of controller tuning by computer.)
CLOSED-LOOP RESPONSE METHODS
As has been discussed previously, in the open-loop method of
tuning, the controller does not even have to be installed in order
for the controller settings to be determined. When the closed-
loop method is used, the controller is in automatic. Described
below are the two most common closed-loop methods of tuning,
the ultimate method and the damped oscillation method.
Ultimate Method
One of the first methods proposed for tuning controllers was
1
the ultimate method, reported by Ziegler and Nichols in
1942. This method is called “the ultimate method” because
its use requires the determination of the ultimate gain (sen-
sitivity) and the ultimate period. The ultimate gain Ku is the
maximum allowable value of gain (for a controller with only
a proportional mode) for which the system is stable. The
ultimate period is the response’s period with the gain set at
its ultimate value (Figure 2.35r).
In order for a closed loop to display a quarter of the
amplitude damping (Figure 2.35b), its loop gain must be at
0.5. This means that the product of the gains of all the com-
ponents in the loop — composed by the process gain (Gp), the
sensor gain (Ks), the transmitter gain (Kt), the controller gain
(Kc = 100/PB), and the control valve gain (Kv) — must be at
0.5. When the loop is in sustained, undampened oscillation,
the gain product of the loop is 1.0 and the amplitude of cycling
is constant (Curve B in Figure 2.35r).
The period when the closed loops oscillate depends
mostly on the amount of dead time in the loop. The period of
oscillation in flow loops is 1 to 3 seconds; for level loops, it
is 3 to 30 seconds (sometimes minutes); for pressure loops,
5 to 100 seconds, for temperature loops; 0.5 to 20 minutes;
and for analytical loops, from 2 minutes to several hours.
When controlled by analog controllers (no dead time
added by sampling), plain proportional loops oscillate at peri-
ods ranging from two to five dead times, PI loops oscillate
at periods of three to five dead times, and PID loops at around
three dead time periods.
The settings determined by this method will be based on
load disturbance rejection and will not be suitable for set-point
changes. The tuning parameters are in fact calculated on the
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 425
Output
Curve A
Curve B
Curve C
Pu
Time
Curve A: unstable, runaway oscillation
Curve B: continuous cycling, marginal stability
Curve C: stable, damped oscillation
FIG. 2.35r
Ultimate gain is the gain that causes continuous cycling (Curve B)
and ultimate period (Pu) is the period of that cycling.
basis of the distance where the loop will operate from insta-
bility. Settings for load rejection are not too far from instabil-
ity, but tuning parameters for set-point change are different,
and the process model is needed for their determination.
The optimum integral and derivative settings of control-
lers vary with the number of modes in the controller (P = 1,
PI = 2 mode, PID = 3 mode) and with the amount of dead
times in the loop. For noninteracting PI controllers with no
noticeable dead time, one would set the integral (Ti ) for about
75% of the period of oscillation.
As the dead time-to-time constant ratio rises, the integral
setting becomes a smaller percentage of the oscillation
period — around 60% when the dead time equals 20% of the
time constant, about 50% when their ratio is at 50%, about
33% when they are equal, and about 25% when the dead time
exceeds the time constant.
For noninteracting PID loops with no dead time, one
would set the integral minutes/repeat (I) to a value equal to
50 % of the period of oscillation and the derivative time (D)
to about 18% of the period. As dead time rises to 20% of the
time constant, (I ) drops to 45% and (D) to 17% of the period.
At 50% dead time, (I) = 40% and (D) = 16%. When the dead
time equals the time constant, (I ) = 33% and (D) = 13%;
finally, if dead time is twice the time constant, (I ) = 25% and
(D) = 12%.
426 Control Theory
Tuning Example The same example as was used earlier will
be used to illustrate the “ultimate” closed-loop tuning
method. The aim of this tuning process is to determine the
controller gain or proportional band that would cause sus-
tained, undampened oscillation (Ku) and to measure the cor-
responding period of oscillation, called the ultimate period
(Pu). The steps in this tuning sequence are as follows:
1. Set all controller dynamics to zero. In other words, set
the integral to infinite (or maximum) minutes per
repeat or zero (or minimum) repeats per minute and
set derivative to zero (or minimum) minutes.
2. Set the gain or proportional band to some arbitrary
value near the expected setting (if known) or at Kc = 1
(PB = 100%) if no better information is available.
3. Let the process stabilize. Once the PV is stable, intro-
duce an upset. The simplest way to do that is to move
the set point up or down by a safe amount (for exam-
ple, move it by 2% for half a minute) and then return
it to its original value.
The result will be an upset in the PV resembling the
characteristics of curve A, B, or C in Figure 2.35r. If the
response is undampened (curve A), the gain (or proportional)
setting is too high (proportional narrow); inversely, if the
response is damped (curve C), the gain (or proportional)
setting is too low (proportional wide). Therefore, if the
response resembles curve A, the controller gain is increased;
if it resembles curve C, the gain is reduced, and the test is
repeated until curve B is obtained.
After one or more trials, the state of sustained, undamp-
ened oscillation will be obtained (curve B), and at that point
the test is finished. (Make sure that the oscillation is a sinu-
soidal and not a limit cycle.) Next, read the proportional gain
that caused the sustained oscillation. This is called the “ulti-
mate gain” (Ku), and the corresponding period is the ultimate
period of oscillation (Pu).
Once the values of Ku and Pu are known, one might use
the recommendations of Ziegler–Nichols (Table 2.35s) or the
recommendations that were described earlier, which also con-
sider the dead time-to-time constant ratio. No one tuning is
perfect, and experienced process control engineers do come
up with their own “fudge factors” based on experience.
TABLE 2.35s
Tuning Parameters Based on the Measurement of Ku and Pu
Recommended by Ziegler–Nichols for a Noninteracting
Controller
Type of Controller P (gain) I (minutes/repeat) D (minutes)
P 0.5 Ku — —
PI 0.45 Ku Pu /1.2 —
PID 0.6 Ku Pu /2 Pu /8
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
Process variable
145
Pu
125
300 600
Controller output
55
35
300 600
Time (sec)
FIG. 2.35t
Ultimate cycling response of the same process that was tested in
Figure 2.35e.
In order to use the ultimate gain and the ultimate period
to obtain the controller settings for proportional controllers,
Ziegler and Nichols correlated the decay ratio vs. gain
expressed as a fraction of the ultimate gain for several sys-
tems. From the results they concluded that if the controller
gain is set to equal one-half of the ultimate gain, it will often
give a decay ratio of 1/4, i.e.,
Kc = 0.5Ku (PB = 2PBu) 2.35(13)
By analogous reasoning and testing, the equations in
Table 2.35s were found to also give reasonably good settings
for noninteracting two- and three-mode controllers. Again it
should be noted that these equations are empirical and excep-
tions abound. For the same example as before, Figure 2.35t
illustrates the ultimate cycling response.
The ultimate gain and period obtained from Figure 2.35t
are: Ku = 7.75 and Pu = 87 s.
Hence the recommended tuning settings for the process
that was used in the example are: Kp = 3.49 and Ti = 1.21
minutes.
There are a few exceptions to the tuning procedure
described here because in some cases, decreasing the gain
makes the process more unstable. In these cases, the “ultimate”
method will not give good settings. Usually in cases of this
type, the system is stable at high and low values of gain but
unstable at intermediate values. Thus, the ultimate gain for
systems of this type has a different meaning. To use the ulti-
mate method for these cases, the lower value of the ultimate
gain is sought.
Advantages and Disadvantages The main advantage of the
closed-loop tuning method is that it considers the dynamics
of all system components and therefore gives accurate results
at the load where the test is performed. Another advantage
is that the readings of Ku and Pu are easy to read and the
period of oscillation can be accurately read even if the mea-
surement is noisy.
 2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 427

This method usually requires about the same amount of work

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

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

Example for Damped Cycling From Figure 2.35v the gain

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

150
1. FRM require only one process bump to identify the pro-
140
cess. The bump can be a change in automatic or manual,
130
120
300 600
TABLE 2.35w
80
Controller output

Comparison of Closed and Open Loop Test Results

70
60 Type of Tuning Test Kc Ti (min)
50
40 Open loop Reaction curve 3.91 1.28
30 Model Fit 2 3.18 1.28
Closed loop Closed loop, ultimate cycling 3.49 1.21
FIG. 2.35v
Damped cycling for the example. Closed loop, damped cycling 3.5 1.20

© 2006 by Béla Lipták

428 Control Theory

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

−1.25

−23.75

10−1 100 101

0
Phase angle (deg)

−180

−360

10−1 100 101

Frequency (radians/sec)

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

© 2006 by Béla Lipták


that the combined phase and amplitude ratio decreases with
frequency when the process and the controller frequency
responses are combined, the following general stability rule
applies: A control system will be unstable if the open-loop
frequency response has an amplitude ratio that is larger than
one when the phase lag is 180 degrees.
To provide proper tuning, a margin of safety in the gain
and phase is desired. Tuning constants are therefore adjusted
to result in the highest gain at all frequencies and yet achieve
a certain margin of safety or stability. This is best accom-
plished using computer software.
FINE TUNING
The performance of a controller can be tested by simulating
a load change in the closed loop as described at the beginning
of this section. This can be especially useful if the initial
tuning is not satisfactory or if the process characteristics have
changed. It is simply a trial-and-error method of recognizing
and approaching an optimum — or otherwise desirable —
load response.
Optimum Load Response
As described earlier, the optimum load response is generally
considered to be that which has a minimum IAE, in that it
combines minimum peak deviation with low integrated error
and short settling time. The second curve from the bottom in
each of Figures 2.35y and z represents a minimum-IAE load
response for a distributed lag under PI control.
This second curve from the bottom has a symmetrical
first peak, low overshoot, and effective damping. The time
scale of these curves is normalized to the 63.2% open-loop
step response of the distributed lag, identified as Στ. On either
side of the optimum curve in both figures are other response
curves, which were produced by changing one of the con-
troller settings.
Popt × 3
Popt × 1.5
Deviation
Popt
0
Popt ÷ 1.5
0 1 2 3
Time, t/St
FIG. 2.35y
The proportional setting affects the height of the first peak and its
symmetry.
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 429
lopt × 3
Deviation
lopt × 1.5
0
lopt
lopt ÷ 1.5
0 1 2 3 4
Time, t/St
FIG. 2.35z
The integral setting primarily affects the location of the second peak.
In Figure 2.35y, the proportional band of the controller
is the parameter being adjusted. Note that increasing the
proportional band increases the height of the first peak and
also its damping; but along with the increased damping
comes a loss of symmetry. In Figure 2.35z, it is the integral
time of the controller that is being adjusted. Note that it has
no effect at all on the first peak but determines the location
of the second, i.e., the overshoot or undershoot of the process
variable’s deviation.
The integrated error IE of a standard PID controller varies
directly with the product of its proportional band and integral
time. While increasing either of these settings improves
damping, it also increases IE in direct proportion, and there-
fore it costs performance. Increasing both settings above their
optimum compounds this effect.
Effect of Load Dynamics
All of the tuning rules described in this section to optimize
load regulation will apply only to loops in which the dynam-
ics in the load path are identical to those in the path of the
controller output. Yet Figure 2.35a shows the possibility that
the dynamics are different in the two paths, for example in
the case of heat exchangers.
Any dead time in the load path, or variation thereof, will
have no effect on the load response curve, simply delaying
it by more or less time. The dominant lag in the load path is
what determines the shape of the leading edge of the response
curve.
As a demonstration, a distributed lag in a PI control loop
was simulated to assess the effects of variations in load
dynamics. Three different load-response curves appear in
Figure. 2.35aa representing ratios of Στq /Στm varying from
0.5 to 2, where subscripts q and m identify the load and
4
manipulated-variable paths, respectively.
In all three cases, the PI controller has been tuned to min-
imize IAE following a simulated load change, simulated by
stepping the controller output, which produces the center curve
represented by Στq /Στm = 1. However, when a true load step
430 Control Theory

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

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

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

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

10

PID

Integral corr.
PI

1 Prop. corr.
Nonint. PID

0.1
0.1 1 10
Σtq /Σtm

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

© 2006 by Béla Lipták


t0(td) Process dead time (seconds)
Ti Integral time (s) -for a PID controller
Td Derivative time (s) for a PID controller

F PV filter time constant
tu Ultimate period
Bibliography
Astrom, K.J., and Hagglund, T., Automatic Tuning of PID Controllers,
Research Triangle Park, NC: ISA Press, 1988.
Bjornsen, B.G., A Fluid Amplifier Pneumatic Controller, Control Engineering,
June 1965.
Box, G.E.P., and Jenkins, G.M., Time Series Forecasting and Control, San
Francisco: Holden-Day, 1970.
Caldwell, W.I., Coon, G.A., and Zoss, L.M., Frequency Response for Process
Control, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Campbell, D.P., Process Dynamics, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958.
Chen, C.T., Introduction to Linear System Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1970.
Corripio, A.B., Tuning of Industrial Control Systems, Research Triangle
Park, NC: ISA Press, 1990.
Gerry, J.P., How to Control Processes with Large Dead Times, Control
Engineering, March 1998.
Gerry, J.P., PID settings sometimes fail to make the leap, Intech, November
1999.
Gerry, J.P., Tune Loops for Load Upsets VS Setpoint Changes, CONTROL
Magazine, September 1991.
Higham, J.D., Single-Term Control of First- and Second-Order Processes with
Dead Time, Control, February 1968.
Hougen, J.O., Experiences and Experiments with Process Dynamics, Chemical
Engineering Process Monograph Series, Vol. 60, No. 4, 1964.
Howell, J., Rost, D., and Gerry, J.P., PC Software Tunes Plant Startup, InTech,
June 1988.
Kraus, T.W., and Myron, T.J., Self-Tuning PID Controller Uses Pattern
Recognition Approach, Control Engineering, June 1984.
Larson, R.E., et al., State Estimation in Power Systems, Part I and Part II,
IEEE Trans. on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS 89, No. 3,
March 1970.
Lelic, M.A., and Zarrop, M.B., Generalized Pole-Placement Self-Tuning
Controller, Int. J. Control, 46, 1987, pp. 569–607.
Lipták, B.G., How to Set Process Controllers, Chemical Engineering,
November 1964.
Lopez, A.M., et al., Controller Tuning Relationships Based on Instrumentation
Technology, Control Engineering, November 1967.
Luyben, W.L., Process Modeling, Simulation and Control for Chemical
Engineers, 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.
Mehra, R.K., Identification of Stochastic Linear Dynamic Systems Using
Kalman Filter Representation, AIAA Journal, January 1971.
Mehra, R.K., On-Line Identification of Linear Dynamic Systems with Applica-
tions to Kalman Filtering, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. AC 16,
No. 1, February 1971.
Miller, J.A., et al., A Comparison of Open-Loop Techniques for Tuning Con-
trollers, Control Engineering, December 1967.
Murrill, P.W., Automatic Control of Processes, Scranton, PA: International
Textbook Co., 1967.
Raven, F., Automatic Control Engineering, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.
Rovira, A.A., Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
LA, 1969.
© 2006 by Béla Lipták
2.35 Tuning PID Controllers 431
Rovira, A.A., Murrill, P.W., and Smith, C.L., Tuning Controllers for Set-Point
Changes, Instruments and Control Systems, December 1969.
Ruel, M., Loop Optimization: before You Tune, Control Magazine, Vol. 12,
No. 03 (March 1999), pp. 63–67.
Ruel, M., Loop Optimization: Troubleshooting, Control Magazine, Vol. 12,
No. 04, (April 1999), pp. 64–69.
Ruel, M., Loop Optimization: How to Tune a Loop, Control Magazine, Vol. 12,
No. 05 (May 1999), pp. 83–86.
Ruel, M., Instrument Engineers' Handbook, chap. 5.9, Plantwide Control
Loop Optimization, 3rd ed., Bela G. Liptak, Ed., Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, 2002, 40 pp.
Shinskey, F.G., Process Control Systems, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill,
1996.
Shinskey, F.G., Process Control Systems, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill,
1996.
Shinskey, F.G., Interaction between Control Loops, Instruments and Control
Systems, May and June 1976.
Salmon, D.M., and Kokotovic, P.V., Design of Feedback Controllers for Non-
linear Plants, IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, Vol. AC 14, No. 3,
1969,
Sastry, S., and Bodson, M., Adaptive Control: Stability, Convergence and
Robustness, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Seborg, D., Edgar, E., and Mellichamp, D., Process Control, New York:
Wiley, 1990.
Seborg, D.E., Edgar, T.F., and Shah, S.L., Adaptive Control Strategies for
Process Control, AI Chem. E. Journal, 32, 1986, pp. 881–913.
Smith, C.A., and Corripio, A.B., Principles and Practice of Automatic Process
Control, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985.
Smith, C.L., Controller Tuning That Works, Instruments and Control Systems,
September 1976.
Smith, C.L., and Murrill, P.W., A More Precise Method for the Tuning of
Controllers, ISA Journal, May 1996.
Smith, C.L., Controllers—Set Them Right, Hydrocarbon Processing and
Petroleum Refiner, February 1966.
Smith, O.J.M., Close Centrol of Loops with Dead Time, Chemical Engineering
Progress, May 1957.
Sood, M., Tuning Proportional-Integral Controllers for Random Load
Changes, M.S. thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering, University
of Mississippi, University, MS, 1972.
Sood, M., and Huddleston, H.T., Optimal Control Settings for Random Dis-
turbances, Instrumentation Technology, March 1973.
Stephanopoulos, G., Chemical Process Control: An Introduction to Theory
and Practice, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984.
Suchanti, N., Tuning Controllers for Interacting Processes, Instruments and
Control Systems, April 1973.
Wade, H.L., High-Capability Single-Station Controllers: A Survey, InTech,
September 1988.
Wells, C.H., Application of Modern Estimation and Identification Techniques
to Chemical Processes, AIChE Journal, 1971.
Wells, C.H., and Mehra, R.K., Dynamic Modeling and Estimation of Carbon
in a Basic Oxygen Furnace, paper presented at 3rd Int. IFAC/IFIPS
Conf. on the Use of Digital Computers in Process Control, Helsinki,
Finland, June 1971.
Wellstead, P.E., and Zarrop, M.B., Self-Tuning Systems, New York: Wiley,
1991.
Widrow, B., and Stearns, S.D., Adaptive Signal Processing, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985.
Ziegler, J.G., and Nichols, N.B., Optimal Settings for Automatic Controllers,
ASME Trans., November 1942.
Ziegler, J.G., and Nichols, N.B., Optimal Settings for Controllers, ISA Journal,
August 1964.