COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT METHODS FOR

TUNING PID CONTROLLERS

FABIO CASTRILLÓN
Department of Chemical Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana,
Cq 1 # 70 – 01 Bq. 11. Medellín, P.O. Box 56006, Colombia. fcastrillon@upb.edu.co

MARISOL OSORIO
Department of Electrical Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana
Cq 1 # 70 – 01 Bq. 11. Medellín, P.O. Box 56006, Colombia. mosorio@upb.edu.co

RAFAEL VÁSQUEZ
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana
Cq 1 # 70 – 01 Bq. 11. Medellín, P.O. Box 56006, Colombia. rafavasquez@asme.org

Tuning of Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) control algorithms is a common

problem of the chemical processes industry that has not been completely studied yet.
Despite there have been several authors working on the matter, this approach has been a
bit subjective and a wider study including techniques comparison is required. In this
work, some methodologies for PID controllers tuning are reviewed. First, several
algorithms employed by industrial controllers are studied; then, their philosophy and their
limits are discussed. A comparison among the different methods is made using a process
for drying phosphate pebbles, and their behavior is evaluated by different criterions of
performance and robustness. Finally, a statistical analysis of the variability of the results
is made.

1. Introduction
Chemical processes show some characteristics that make difficult their
regulation, for instance: multivariable interactions between controlled and
manipulated variables, non-measurable state variables, non-measurable
disturbances, uncertain and time-variable parameters, restrictions in manipulated
variables, presence of dead time, etc, [1]. The most used algorithm, at the
industrial level, is the called Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID), [1], some
of its advantages are:

1
2

• It has been used for many years by the instrumentation and control
engineers [3].
• Many advanced control algorithms can be reduced to a PID form [3], [4].
• Some reports suggests that there is no feedback algorithm that gives better
performance and robustness than a well tuned PID control, for processes
with frequent and not measured changes in disturbance variables, except for
those situations in which dead time predominates [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].
• It is mathematically simple [5].

In consequence, the study of the PID algorithm and its effects over the
control loop is very common.

2. The PID algorithm

The most studied structure is an ideal PID controller structure that has
implementation restrictions. There are other algorithms that are widely used by
different manufacturers, and it’s fundamental to recognize these structures and
how their differences with respect to the ideal algorithm affect the determination
of the tuning parameters. The most commonly used structures are the non-
interacting ideal PID structure, the parallel ideal PID structure and the
interacting PID structure, [8], [9], [10], [11].

2.1. Non-interacting ideal PID structure

⎛ 1 ⎞
Gc( s ) = Kc ⎜1 + +τ Ds ⎟ . (1)
⎝ τIs ⎠
Where,
Kc: Controller gain
τD: Derivative time
τI: Integral time
Gc(s): Controller transfer function

2.2. Parallel ideal PID structure

KI
Gc( s ) = Kp + + KD S . (2)
S
Where,
KP: Proportional gain
KI: Integral gain
 3

KD: Derivative gain

Gc(s): Controller transfer function

2.3. Interacting PID structure

⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ τ D ' s +1 ⎞
Gc( s ) = Kc ' ⎜1 + ⎟⎜ ⎟. (3)
⎝ τ I ' s ⎠ ⎝ ατ D ' s + 1 ⎠

Where,
Kc’:Gain of the interacting controller
τD’: Derivative time of interacting controller
τI’: Integral time of the interacting controller
α: Derivative time filter
Gc(s): Controller transfer function

3. PID controllers tuning methods

Tuning is the adjusting of the feedback controller parameters to obtain a
specified closed-loop response. Castrillón, [12], reviewed twenty-four different
methods; eight of which were selected and used for the development of this
work.

3.1. Ziegler-Nichols Method

Ziegler and Nichols developed a set of semi-empirical equations to tune
PID controllers and obtained a closed loop response with decay ratio of 0.25.
The ultimate gain, Kcu, and the ultimate period, Tu, are required in this method,
[10], [13]. Table 1 contains the equations to adjust the parameters.

Table 1. Ziegler-nichols tuning equations

Proportio- Integral Derivative

Controller type nal Gain Time Time
Kc’ τI’ τD’

Proportional Kcu/2 --- ---

Proportional – Integral Kcu/2.2 Tu/1.2 ---

Proportional – Integral
Kcu/1.7 Tu/2 Tu/8
– Derivative
4

3.2. IAE Method for disturbances

The method was developed by López, Miller, Smith and Murrill at
Louisiana State University, [14]. They proposed a set of equations that
minimizes the integral of the absolute value of the error, using dead time, the
time constant and the gain of the process, [9]. They assumed that the controlled
variable is affected in the same way by both, the manipulated variable and the
main disturbance variable. Table 2 contains the equations to adjust the
parameters.
Table 2. IAE Method for disturbances tuning equations

Controller parameter a b
b
a ⎛ t0 ⎞
Kc =
K ⎜⎝ τ ⎟⎠
1.435 -0.921

τ ⎛t ⎞
b

τ1 = ⎜ 0 ⎟ 0.878 -0.749
a⎝τ ⎠
b
⎛ t0 ⎞
τ D = aτ ⎜ ⎟ 0.482 1.137
⎝τ ⎠

3.3. Tyreus-Luyben Method

This method was developed for control of chemical processes, assuming
slow dynamics of the system, using classical frequency response methods. For
its application the developers used the ultimate gain, and the ultimate period
[15], [16]. This method gives more conservative settings (higher closed-loop
damping coefficient) than the Ziegler – Nichols [16]. Table 3 contains the
equations to adjust the parameters.

Table 3. Tyreus-Luyben tuning equations

Proportio- Integral Derivative

Controller type nal Gain Time Time
Kc’ τI’ τD’

Proportional – Integral Kcu/3.22 2.2Tu ---

Proportional – Integral
Kcu/2.2 2.2Tu Tu/6.3
– Derivative
 5

3.4. Shinskey Method

Shinskey proposes a change to the IAE Method for disturbances, that
allows to find a good relationship between the performance obtained with the
design of the controller to compensate changes in the set-point, and the design
to compensate disturbances; to do this a lead-lag unit is required in the set-point,
and it is adjusted using the graphical procedure described in [17]. The dead
time, time constant, gain and time constant attached to the disturbance variable
are required [17].

3.5. Gain Margin Specification Method

Astrom and Hagglund proposed a methodology for PID controllers tuning,
based on the gain margin specification, which can be considered to quantify the
robustness of the control system, [3]. Table 4 contains the equations to adjust
the parameters.

Table 4. Gain Margin Specification tuning equations

Controller parameter
Kcu
Proportional Gain Kc =
Am
1
Derivative Time τD =
Wu 2τ I

3.6. Controller Synthesis Method

Martin, Corripio and Smith propose a method for PID controllers tuning,
which requires the determination of the structure of the controller, having a
model of the process and the closed loop response specification for the control
system [8], [9], [10], [18]. For a first order plus dead time (FOPDT) closed-loop
response, the equations are shown in Table 5, [10].

Table 5. Controller synthesis tuning equations

Controller parameter
τ
KC ' =
K ( t0 + τ C )
Proportional Gain

Integral Time τI ' =τ

Derivative Time τ D ' = t0 2
6

Here, τc, is the closed-loop desired time constant, and must be specified.
Different criterions to choose τc could be found in [18], [19], [7], [20].

3.7. Method of Ciancone and Marlin

Marlin and Ciancone developed a set of rules for PID controllers tuning.
The rules have to keep in mind multiple factors, such as: minimization of the
IAE, prevention of the excessive variability of the manipulated variable and a
25% for the maximum change in the model parameters [20]. The controller
parameters can be calculated using the graphical procedure proposed in [20].

3.8. Practical Rules of Tuning

These methods recommend the mode of the PID controller and suggest the
values to adjust the controller parameters, depending of the variable to be
controlled. These methods do not require the exact knowledge of the process
dynamics [16], [21], [22].

4. Case of study
The comparison between the different methods is made using a process for
drying phosphate pebbles, Figure 1, [10]. A table feeder transports the pebbles
into the bed of the dryer. In this bed the pebbles are dried by direct contact with
hot combustion gases. The controlled variable is the output moisture of the
dryer, the manipulated variable is feeding speed of the pebbles and the main
disturbance variable is input moisture.

Figure 1. Dryer of phosphate pebbles.

 7

To obtain the process model, a step change in the controller output was
made. There were obtained the transfer functions that relate the controlled
variable with the controller output (4) and the controlled variable with the main
disturbance variable (5), using the “two-point method”, proposed in [10].

4.69 ⋅ e −1.23⋅s
G ( s) = . (4)
1.90 ⋅ s + 1

16.67 ⋅ e −0.867⋅s
Gp ( s ) = . (5)
1.667 ⋅ s + 1
A simulation of the system was made using Simulink™. Responses of the
control system with set point and disturbances were observed. The input signals
were of step kind, and saturation in the controller output and noise in the
controlled variable, were considered. A parallel ideal structure for the PID
controller was used, and its tuning parameters were adapted using
transformation equations, reported in [9], [10], [19].

5. RESULTS
The maximum peak height (MPH), the IAE and the settling time (Ts), were
used as performance indexes. The relations between the ultimate parameters of
the process and the normal operation parameters were used to measure the
robustness of the system, [9]. Figure 2 to Figure 9 contain graphics of results.

5.1. Ziegler-Nichols KP = 0.492, KI = 0.160, KD = 0.242

Figure 2 Deviation of the moisture regarding set-point and disturbance changes. Ziegler – Nichols

5.2. IAE disturbances KP =0.455, KI = 0.290, KD = 0.255

Figure 3. Deviation of the moisture regarding set-point and disturbance changes. IAE Disturbances
8

5.3. Tyreus – Luyben KP =0.322, KI = 0.034, KD = 0.194

Figure 4. Deviation of the moisture regarding set-point and disturbance changes. Tyreus – Luyben

5.4. Shinskey KP =0.455, KI = 0.290, KD = 0.255

Figure 5. Deviation of the moisture regarding set-point and disturbance changes. Shinskey

5.5. Gain Margin KP = 0.220, KI = 0.141, KD = 0.059, Am=3

Figure 6. Deviation of the moisture regarding set-point and disturbance changes. Gain Margin

5.6. Synthesis KP = 0.436, KI = 0.173, KD = 0.203

Figure 7. Deviation of the moisture regarding set-point and disturbance changes. Synthesis

5.7. Ciancone – Marlin KP = 0.256, KI = 0.117, KD = 0.024

Figure 8. Deviation of the moisture regarding set-point and disturbance changes. Ciancone – Marlin
 9

5.8. Practical rules KP = 0.737, KI = 0.067, KD = 0.670

Figure 9. Deviation of the moisture regarding set-point and disturbance changes. Practical rules

5.9. Numerical results

To select each comparison index, a statistical analysis of the variability of the
results was made using the variation coefficient.

Table 6. Performance index for set-point and disturbance changes

Method Set-point changes Disturbance changes

* Best result, **Worst result MPH IAE Ts MPH IAE Ts
Ziegler-Nichols 1.40 68.5 23.4 1.04 67.5 24.88
IAE disturbances 1.6** 70.04 15.02 1.04* 49.0* 16.81
Tyreus – Luyben 1* 158** 60** 1.04 316** 76**
Shinskey 1.27 57.3* 14.33 1.04 49.08 37.42
Gain margin 1.22 71.42 13.02 1.15 95.34 16.4*
Synthesis 1.35 58.35 13.8 1.04 62.16 17.86
Ciancone – Marlin 1.16 60.7 11.8* 1.2** 91.29 17.73
Practical rules N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Variation coefficient (%) 5.73 91.18 74.61 14.82 46.18 80.94

Table 7. Robustness index

Method
* Best result, **Worst result tou/to Ku/K τ / τu
Ziegler-Nichols 1.56** 1.26** 1.29**
IAE disturbances 1.58 1.36 1.41
Tyreus – Luyben 3.25* 1.66 1.74
Gain margin 2.24 2.88* 6.79*
Synthesis 1.80 1.46 1.56
Ciancone – Marlin 2.32 2.32 5.59
Practical rules N/A N/A N/A
Variation coefficient (%) 27.71 28.62 65.66

6. Conclusion
With regards to the performance of the controller, the integral of the
absolute value of the error (IAE) for the set-point changes response was
10

evaluated. Accordingly, the method that showed the best performance was the
Shinskey method; conversely, the method that showed the worst results was
Tyreus – Luyben.
In regards of the performance of the controller, the settling time (Ts) for the
disturbance changes response was evaluated. Accordingly, the method that
showed the best performance was the minimization of the IAE for disturbances;
conversely, the method that showed the worst results was Tyreus – Luyben.
Regarding the robustness, the relation between the normal operation time
constant and the ultimate time constant was evaluated. Accordingly, the best
results were obtained with the gain margin specification method and the worst
results with Ziegler-Nichols.
Both, the wide variety of rules for tuning PID controllers, and the continued
research in this field, show the importance of these classical controllers, in spite
of the existence of more advanced control algorithms

References
1. K.J. Aström, T.H. Hägglund. “Future of PID Control”, Control
Engineering Practice, Vol 9, (2001).
2. B. W. Bequette, “Nonlinear Control of Chemical Process: A Review”, Ind.
Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 30, (1991).
3. M. Vera, “PID Controllers: tuning and self-tuning methods”, Proceedings
of the 1st Colombian Automation Congress. Cali, Colombia. (1993).
4. C. C. Hang, W. K. Ho, and L. S. Cao, “A comparison of two design
methods for PID controllers”, ISA transactions, Vol 33, (1994).
5. I. Chien, and P.S. Fruehauf, “Consider IMC tuning to improve controller
performance”, Chemical Engineering Progress. Oct (1990).
6. S. Sung, I. Lee, “Limitations and Countermeasures of PID Controllers”,
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. Vol. 35. (1996).
7. D. Chen and D. Seborg. “PI/PID Controller design based on direct
synthesis and disturbance rejection”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. Vol. 41. (2002).
8. D. Seborg, and T. Edgar, Process Dynamics and Control, 2nd Ed. Wiley,
New York, (2003).
9. F.G. Shinskey, Feedback Controllers for the Process Industries, McGraw-
Hill, Singapore, (1994).
10. C. Smith, and A. Corripio, Principles and Practice of Automatic Process
Control, 2nd Ed. Wiley, New York, (1997).
11. R. C. Panda, C.C. Yu and H.P. Huang. “PID tuning rules for SOPDT
systems: Review and some new results”, ISA transactions, Vol 43, (2004).
12. F. Castrillón, “PID Controllers tuning methods”, Esp. Thesis. Eng. School.
UPB. Medellín, Colombia. (2005).
 11

13. J.G. Ziegler and N.B. Nichols, “Optimum settings for automatic
controllers”, Intech, June (1995).
14. A.M. López, J.A. et al. “Tuning controllers with error integral criterion”,
Intech, Nov (1967).
15. W. Luyben, “Tuning Proportional–Integral–Derivative Controllers for
Integrator/Deadtime Processes”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol 35, 1996.
16. W. Luyben and M. Luyben. Essentials of process control. Ed. McGraw-
Hill, Singapore, (1997).
17. F.G. Shinskey, “Optimization of the charge regulation”, Chemical
Engineering, March, (2000).
18. J. Martin, A. Corripio and C. Smith. “How to select controller modes and
tuning parameters from simple process models”, ISA transactions, Vol 15,
(1976).
19. A. Corripio. Tuning of industrial control systems. 2nd Ed. ISA, USA. 2001.
20. T. Marlin, Process Control, 1st Ed. McGraw-Hill, Singapore, (1994).
21. M.J. Willis, “Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control”, Newcastle:
http://lorien.ncl.ac.uk/ming, (1998).
22. G. Anderson. “Initial controller settings for use at plant startup”, Chemical
Engineering. Jul (1983).