Process

7. PID Controllers
Control
Laboratory

7.0 Overview
7.1 PID controller variants
7.2 Choice of controller type
7.3 Specifications and performance criteria
7.4 Controller tuning based on frequency response
7.5 Controller tuning based on step response
7.6 Model-based controller tuning
7.7 Controller design by direct synthesis
7.8 Internal model control
7.9 Model simplification

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–1

 7. PID Controllers

Process
Control
7.0 Overview
Laboratory
PID controller (”pee-i-dee”) is a generic name for a controller containing a linear
combination of
 proportional (P)
 integral (I)
 derivative (D)
terms acting on a control error (or sometimes the process output).
All parts need not be present. Frequently I and/or D action is missing, giving a
controller like
 P, PI, or PD controller
It has been estimated that of all controllers in the world
 95 % are PID controllers

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–2

 7. PID Controllers

Process
Control
7.1 PID controller variants
Laboratory
7.1.1 Ideal PID controller
An ideal PID controller is described by the control law
1 𝑡𝑡 d𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.1)
𝑇𝑇i 0 d𝑡𝑡
 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) is the controller output
 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑟𝑟 𝑡𝑡 − 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) is the control error, which is the difference between the
setpoint 𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡) and the measured process output 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡)
 𝐾𝐾c is the proportional gain
 𝑇𝑇i is the integral time
 𝑇𝑇d is the derivative time
 𝑢𝑢0 is the “normal” value of the controller output
The transfer function of the PID controller is
𝑈𝑈(𝑠𝑠) 1 𝐾𝐾c
𝐺𝐺PID = = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 = 1 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 2 (7.2)
𝐸𝐸(𝑠𝑠) 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠

 𝑈𝑈(𝑠𝑠) is the Laplace transform of 𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 − 𝑢𝑢0

 𝐸𝐸(𝑠𝑠) is the Laplace transform of the control error

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–3

 7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.1 Ideal PID controller

Depending on the values of 𝑇𝑇i and 𝑇𝑇d , the transfer function of the PID controller
Process
Control can have
Laboratory
 real or complex-valued zeros
Complex zeros might be useful for control of underdamped systems with complex
poles.

A PI controller is obtained from a PID controller by letting 𝑇𝑇d = 0. Its transfer

function is
1 𝐾𝐾c
𝐺𝐺PI = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + = 1 + 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 (7.3)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠

A PD controller is obtained from a PID controller by letting 𝑇𝑇i = ∞. Its transfer

function is
𝐺𝐺PD = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 (7.4)

The ideal PID controller is sometimes referred to as

 the parallel form of a PID controller
 the (ISA) standard form

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–4

 7. PID Controllers 7.1 PID controller variants

Process
7.1.2 The series form of a PID controller
Control

In the pre-digital era it was convenient to implement an analog PID controller as a

Laboratory

PI controller and a PD controller in series. This form of a PID controller is called

the series form. Occasionally, the terms interactive form or classical form are
used. The controller has the transfer function
1 𝐾𝐾c′
𝐺𝐺PIPD = 𝐾𝐾c′ 1+ 1+ 𝑇𝑇d′ 𝑠𝑠 = 1 + 𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠 1 + 𝑇𝑇d′ 𝑠𝑠 (7.5)
𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠

where ′ is used to distinguish the parameters from the parameters of the

parallel form.
 The series form of a PID controller can only have real valued zeros. This
means that the series form is less general than the parallel form.
 It is relatively easy to find the controller parameters of the series form by
frequency analytic methods by so-called lead-lag design.
Exercise 7.1
Which is the control law in the time domain for a series form PID controller?

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–5

 7. PID Controllers 7.1 PID controller variants

Process
7.1.3 A PID controller with derivative filter
Control

A drawback with the ideal PID controller (7.1) is that the derivative part cannot
Laboratory

be realized exactly in a real controller. For example, if the control error 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)
changes as a step, the derivate in (7.1) becomes infinitely large. This problem can
be remedied by
 filtering the signal to be differentiated.
This also has the practical advantage that (high-frequency) noise is filtered before
differentiation.
The transfer function of a parallel form PID controller with a derivative filter is
1 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺PIDf = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + (7.6)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1

The transfer function of a series form PID controller with a derivative filter is
usually stated in the form
1 𝑇𝑇d′ 𝑠𝑠+1
𝐺𝐺PIPDf = 𝐾𝐾c′ 1+ (7.7)
𝑇𝑇i′ 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f′ 𝑠𝑠+1

𝑇𝑇f and 𝑇𝑇f′ are filter constants, usually 10-30 % of corresponding derivative time.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–6

 7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.3 A PID controller with derivative filter

Relationships between parallel and series form

Process
Control
Laboratory
If the parameters of the series form are known, the corresponding parameters of
the parallel form can be calculated according to
′ ′
𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇
𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇i′ + 𝑇𝑇d′ − 𝑇𝑇f′ , 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇d′ i − 𝑇𝑇f′ , 𝑇𝑇f = 𝑇𝑇f′ , 𝐾𝐾c = 𝐾𝐾c′ i (7.8)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑇𝑇 i

For calculation of the parameters of the series form from the parameters of the
parallel form, we define the parameter
4𝑇𝑇i (𝑇𝑇d +𝑇𝑇f )
𝛿𝛿 = 1 − (7.9)
(𝑇𝑇i +𝑇𝑇f )2

If 𝛿𝛿 ≥ 0, the zeros of the parallel PID are real. Then, there exists a series-form PID
controller which is equivalent to the parallel form according to
(𝑇𝑇i +𝑇𝑇f ) 𝑇𝑇i′
𝑇𝑇i′ = 1 + 𝛿𝛿 , 𝑇𝑇d′ = 𝑇𝑇i + 𝑇𝑇f − 𝑇𝑇i′ , 𝑇𝑇f′ = 𝑇𝑇f , 𝐾𝐾c′ = 𝐾𝐾c (7.10)
2 𝑇𝑇i

The condition for 𝛿𝛿 ≥ 0 in terms of the controller parameters is

(𝑇𝑇i −𝑇𝑇f )2
𝑇𝑇d ≤ (7.11)
4𝑇𝑇i
i.e., the derivative time has to be “small enough”.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–7

 7. PID Controllers 7.1 PID controller variants

Process
7.1.4 Differentiation of the measured output
Control

Even if we have a derivative filter, a step change in the setpoint 𝑟𝑟(𝑡𝑡) tends to
Laboratory

affect the derivative part much more strongly than a disturbance in the output
𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡). A remedy to this is to
 differentiate the (filtered) output instead of the control error 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡).
The ideal control law (7.1) then becomes
1 𝑡𝑡 d𝑦𝑦f (𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 − 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.12a)
𝑇𝑇i 0 d𝑡𝑡
d𝑦𝑦f (𝑡𝑡)
𝑇𝑇f + 𝑦𝑦f 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) (7.12b)
d𝑡𝑡
In the Laplace domain we get
1 1 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠
𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.13)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1

which is a combination of a PI controller and a PID controller

𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺PI 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺PIDf 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.14)
This kind of 2-degrees-of-freedom (2DOF) controller can be tuned separately for
setpoint tracking and disturbance rejection.
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–8
 7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.4 Differentiation of the measured output

Process
Exercise 7.2
Control
Laboratory Which is the control law, both in the time domain and the Laplace domain, for
the series form of a PID controller with differentiation of the filtered output
measurement?
7.1.5 Setpoint weighting
A simple way of obtaining a 2DOF PID controller is to use setpoint weighting.
With the definitions
𝑒𝑒p = 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝑦𝑦 , 𝑒𝑒 = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦 , 𝑒𝑒d = 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 − 𝑦𝑦f (7.15)
where 𝑏𝑏 and 𝑐𝑐 are setpoint weights, the control law becomes
1 𝑡𝑡 d𝑒𝑒d (𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒p 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.16a)
𝑇𝑇i 0 d𝑡𝑡

d𝑦𝑦f (𝑡𝑡)
𝑇𝑇f + 𝑦𝑦f 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑦𝑦(𝑡𝑡) (7.16b)
d𝑡𝑡

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–9

 7.1 PID controller variants 7.1.5 Setpoint weighting

In the Laplace domain the control law with setpoint weighting is

Process
Control
Laboratory 𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺vPID 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺PIDf 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.17)
where
1
𝐺𝐺vPID = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑏𝑏 + + 𝑐𝑐𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠 (7.18)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠

and 𝐺𝐺PIDf is as in (7.6).

 With suitable choices of 𝑏𝑏 and 𝑐𝑐, all previously treated PID controllers on
parallel form can be obtained.
 𝑏𝑏 and 𝑐𝑐 do not affect the controller’s ability to reject disturbances in the
output, only the ability to track setpoint changes.
 𝐺𝐺vPID can be tuned for setpoint tracking and 𝐺𝐺PIDf for disturbance rejection
(i.e., 𝐾𝐾c , 𝑇𝑇i and 𝑇𝑇d need not have the same values in 𝐺𝐺vPID and 𝐺𝐺PIDf ).

Exercise 7.3
Include setpoint weighting in the series form of a PID controller.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–10

 7. PID Controllers 7.1 PID controller variants

Process
7.1.6 Non-interactive form of a PID controller
Control

 In the control laws treated so far, the proportional part alone cannot be
Laboratory

disconnected by letting 𝐾𝐾c = 0 because that would disconnect all parts; it

would put the controller on “manual” with 𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝑢𝑢0 .
 Tuning the proportional part by adjusting 𝐾𝐾c will affect all controller parts
(however, this is often a desired feature); hence, it is an interactive controller
form.
The non-interactive form
𝑡𝑡 d𝑒𝑒d (𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡 + 𝐾𝐾i ∫0 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝐾𝐾d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.19)
d𝑡𝑡
is a more flexible control law. In the Laplace domain it can be written
𝑈𝑈 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺vP+I+D 𝑅𝑅 𝑠𝑠 − 𝐺𝐺P+I+Df 𝑌𝑌(𝑠𝑠) (7.20)
where
𝐺𝐺vP+I+D = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑏𝑏 + 𝐾𝐾i 𝑠𝑠 −1 + 𝑐𝑐𝐾𝐾d 𝑠𝑠 (7.21a)
𝐺𝐺P+I+Df = 𝐾𝐾c + 𝐾𝐾i 𝑠𝑠 −1 + 𝐾𝐾d 𝑠𝑠(𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠 + 1)−1 (7.21b)

Note: It is essential to know which form is used when tuning a controller!

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–11

 7. PID Controllers

Process
Control
7.2 Choice of controller type
Laboratory
The choice between controller types such as P, PI, PD, PID is considered. In
principle, the simplest controller that can do the job should be chosen.
7.2.1 On-off controller
An on-off controller is the simplest type of controller, where the control signal
has only two levels. If the variables are defined such that a positive control error
𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) should be corrected by an increase of the control signal 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡), the control
law is
𝑢𝑢max if 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 > 𝑒𝑒hi
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = �𝑢𝑢0 or unchanged if 𝑒𝑒lo ≤ 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 ≤ 𝑒𝑒hi (7.22)
𝑢𝑢min if 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 < 𝑒𝑒lo

where 𝑢𝑢max , 𝑢𝑢0 , 𝑢𝑢min are the high, normal, low value of the control signal. The
interval [𝑒𝑒lo , 𝑒𝑒hi ] is a dead zone. In the simplest case, 𝑒𝑒lo = 𝑒𝑒hi = 0.
The on-off controller is inexpensive, but it causes oscillations in the pro-cess. It is
often used for temperature control in simple appliances such as ovens, irons,
refrigerators and freezers, where oscillations are tolerated.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–12

 7. PID Controllers 7.2 Choice of controller type

Process
7.2.2 P controller
Control

A P controller implements the simple control law

Laboratory

𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.23)

where 𝐾𝐾c is the adjustable controller gain and 𝑢𝑢0 is the normal value of the
control signal, which is also be adjustable. In principle, 𝑢𝑢0 is selected to make
the control error 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 = 0 at the nominal operating point.
If the output is changed by a disturbance or a setpoint change, the P controller is
unable to bring the control error to zero, i.e., there will be a remaining control
error.
The higher the controller gain, the smaller the control error. Thus, P control is
used when a (small) control error is allowed and a high controller gain can be
used without risk of instability.
A typical application for P control is level control in a liquid tank. Another
situation when P control is often sufficient is as an inner loop (a secondary loop)
in so-called cascade control.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–13

 7. PID Controllers 7.2 Choice of controller type

Process
7.2.3 PI controller
Control

A PI controller is by far the most common type of controller. The ideal PI

Laboratory

controller implements the control law

1 𝑡𝑡
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + ∫ 𝑒𝑒 𝜏𝜏 d𝜏𝜏 + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.24)
𝑇𝑇i 0

where the gain 𝐾𝐾c and the integral time 𝑇𝑇i are adjustable parameters; 𝑢𝑢0 is
less important due to the integral.
The main advantage of the PI controller is that there will be no remaining control
error after a setpoint change or a process disturbance. A disadvantage is that
there is a tendency for oscillations.
PI control is used when no steady-state error is desired and there is no reason to
use derivative action. Measurement noise is often a reason for not using
derivative action.
PI control is suitable for noisy processes, integrating processes and processes
resembling first-order systems. The most typical application is flow control. PI
control might also be preferable for processes with large time delays.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–14

 7. PID Controllers 7.2 Choice of controller type

Process
7.2.4 PD controller
Control

The ideal form of a PD controller implements the control law

Laboratory

d𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)
𝑢𝑢 𝑡𝑡 = 𝐾𝐾c 𝑒𝑒 𝑡𝑡 + 𝑇𝑇d + 𝑢𝑢0 (7.25)
d𝑡𝑡

where the gain 𝐾𝐾c and the derivative time 𝑇𝑇d are adjustable parameters; 𝑢𝑢0 is
chosen as for a P controller.
A PD controller is preferred when integral action is not needed, but the dynamics
of the process are so slow that the predictive nature of derivative action is useful.
Many thermal processes, where energy is stored with small heat losses (e.g.,
ovens), usually have slow dynamics, almost as integrating systems. A PD
controller might then be suitable for temperature control.
Another typical application for PD control is in servo mechanisms such as
electrical motors, which usually behave as second-order integrating systems.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–15

 7. PID Controllers 7.2 Choice of controller type

Process
7.2.5 PID controller
Control

As has been shown in Section 7.1, there are many variants of PID controllers.
Laboratory

 The ideal form and the classical series form have 3 adjustable parameters in
addition to 𝑢𝑢0 : the proportional gain, the integral time, and the derivative
time.
 If a derivative filter is included, there are 4 adjustable parameters, but the
filter time constant is usually selected as a given fraction (e.g., 10 %) of the
derivative time.
 In addition, the setpoint can be weighted in the proportional part and the
derivative part.
If there is no reason to exclude integral action or derivative action, a PID
controller is the natural choice. Typically PID control is used for underdamped
processes, processes with slow dynamics and not very large time delays, and
systems of second and higher order.
Typical applications are control of temperature and chemical composition when
the process is not close to an integrating system.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–16

 7. PID Controllers

Process
Control
7.3 Specifications and performance criteria
Laboratory
7.3.1 General performance criteria
The task of a controller is to control a system to behave in a desired way despite
unknown disturbances and an inaccurately known system.
The controlled system should satisfy performance criteria such as:
 The controlled system must be stable; this is absolutely necessary.
 The effect of disturbances on the controlled output is minimized; this is
especially important for regulatory control.
 The controlled output should follow setpoint changes fast and smoothly; this
is especially important for setpoint tracking.
 The control error is minimized or kept within certain limits,
 The control signal variations should be moderate or at least not be excessively
large; more variations wear out control equipment faster.
 The control system should be robust (insensitive) to moderate changes in
system properties, which introduce model uncertainty.
The importance of these criteria varies from case to case. Since many criteria are
conflicting, compromises have to be made in the control design.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–17

 7. PID Controllers 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria

Process
7.3.2 Fundamental limitations
Control

One reason to the fact that there are usually good solutions to the conflicting
Laboratory

control criteria is that feedback control is used.

 However, feedback also introduces limitations because a control error is
required for the controller to take action.
 The fact that the available resources for control are always limited, also limit
the achievable performance.
In addition to the general limitations above, there are also limitations that
depend on the process to be controlled, e.g.,
 the dynamics of the process
 nonlinearities
 model and process uncertainty
 disturbances
 control signal limitations

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–18

 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria 7.3.2 Fundamental limitations

The process dynamics is often the performance-limiting factor. Such factors are
Process
Control
Laboratory
 time delays as well as RHP (right-half plane) poles and zeros
 high-order dynamics
In practice, all processes are nonlinear. Such a process
 cannot be described accurately at different operating points by a linear model
with constant parameters; thus there is model/process uncertainty.
Disturbances such as load disturbances and measurement noise limit how well a
variable can be controlled.
 Efficient control of load disturbances often require derivative action, but
measurement noise is bad for the derivative.
 Large load disturbances can cause the control variable to reach its (physical)
maximum or minimum value. This is especially troublesome if the controller
contains an integrator. Proportional band and integrator windup are two
concepts that deal with this limitation.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–19

 7. PID Controllers 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria

Process
7.3.3 Proportional band and integrator windup
Control
Laboratory
Proportional band
A controller’s proportional band (PB) denotes the maximum control error the
controller can handle with the available control signal. The PB is defined for a P
controller, but it can be extended to a full PID controller.
If the control signal is limited by 𝑢𝑢min ≤ 𝑢𝑢(𝑡𝑡) ≤ 𝑢𝑢max , a P controller can
according to (7.23) handle a control error that satisfies
𝑢𝑢min −𝑢𝑢0 𝑢𝑢max −𝑢𝑢0
≡ 𝑒𝑒min ≤ 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) ≤ 𝑒𝑒max ≡ (7.26)
𝐾𝐾c 𝐾𝐾c

The PB is equal to 𝑒𝑒max − 𝑒𝑒min = 𝑦𝑦hi − 𝑦𝑦lo , where 𝑦𝑦hi is the highest output
(𝑒𝑒min = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦hi ) and 𝑦𝑦lo is the lowest output (𝑒𝑒max = 𝑟𝑟 − 𝑦𝑦lo ) the controller
can handle. Usually, the PB is defined in percent of the total measurable output
interval 𝑦𝑦min , 𝑦𝑦max . Then, the PB is
𝑦𝑦hi −𝑦𝑦lo 𝑢𝑢max −𝑢𝑢min 100%
𝑃𝑃b = 100% = ⋅ (7.27)
𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝐾𝐾c

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–20

 7.3.3 Proportional band and integrator windup Proportional band

If the proportional band is known, the controller gain is given by

Process
Control 𝑦𝑦hi −𝑦𝑦lo 𝑢𝑢max −𝑢𝑢min 100%
Laboratory
𝐾𝐾c = 100% = ⋅ (7.28)
𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝑦𝑦max −𝑦𝑦min 𝑃𝑃b

In (old) automation systems, the signals are often expressed as a fraction or

percentage of the total signal interval (0-1 or 0-100%). The PB is
then
𝑃𝑃b = 100%/𝐾𝐾c (7.29)
Note that the controller gain here has to be expressed in terms of normalized
signals, which means that the controller gain is dimensionless.
The practical usefulness of the PB is that it tells something about the size of
control errors that can be handled without reaching an input signal constraint. If
𝑢𝑢0 is in the middle of the interval 𝑢𝑢min , 𝑢𝑢max , a P controller with 𝑃𝑃b = 50 %
can handle an instantaneous control error equal to ±25 % (i.e., 50 % in total) of
the total output signal range.
Note that the PB is an adjustable controller parameter — if it is to small, it can be
increased (corresponding to a decrease of 𝐾𝐾c ).

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–21

 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria 7.3.3 PB and integrator windup

Integrator windup
Process
Control
Laboratory
Usually controllers are tuned for stability and performance, not for signal limits.
Therefore, it is not uncommon that a control signal reaches a constraint. If the
controller contains integral action, this can be very damaging to the control
performance unless the situation is handled properly.
Consider the figure, where the PI control law (7.24) is used. A strong disturbance
causes the process output to fall well below the set-point. The controller is not
able to eliminate the control error (A)
because the control signal has reached a
constraint. During this time, the positive
control error will increase the integral in
the controller. If the disturbance later
disappears, the controller will still keep
the control signal at the constraint due
to the large value of the integral, even
If the control error goes below zero.
This will cause the output (B), which is
entirely due to the controller.
Illustration of integral windup.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–22

 7.3.3 Proportional band and integrator windup Integrator windup

The described phenomenon is called integrator windup, integral windup, or reset

Process
Control windup.
Laboratory

There are sophisticated as well as simple methods for handling the problem. The
term anti-windup is used for such arrangements.
A simple solution is to stop integrating when a control signal reaches a constraint.
This requires that
 it is known when the control signal reaches a constraint (e.g., through
measurement)
 there is some built-in logic to interrupt the integration
In the case of digital control, which nowadays is customary, automatic anti-
windup can be built into the control law.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–23

 7. PID Controllers 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria

Process
7.3.4 Design specifications
Control

Above, some general performance criteria and fundamental limitations to

Laboratory

achievable control performance have been considered.

 Here, some ways of making more specific design specifications will be
introduced.
 If a process model is available, the specifications make it possible to calculate
controller parameters.
Step-response specifications
It is of often desired that the closed-loop response to a step change in the
setpoint resembles an underdamped second-order system. Therefore,
parameters familiar from the step response of such a system can be used to
specify the desired behaviour. Such parameters are
 the maximum relative overshoot 𝑀𝑀
 the rise time 𝑡𝑡r
 the settling time 𝑡𝑡𝛿𝛿
 the relative damping 𝜁𝜁
 the ratio between successive relative overshoots (or undershoots) 𝑀𝑀R

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–24

 7.3.4 Design specifications Step-response specifications

According to the relationships in Section 5.3.3:

Process
Control
Laboratory
 The two parameters 𝑀𝑀 and 𝑡𝑡r are sufficient to determine the transfer
function of an underdamped second-order system with a given gain.
 The settling time 𝑡𝑡𝛿𝛿 can be used instead of 𝑀𝑀 or 𝑡𝑡r , but the relationships
are then only approximate.
 The relative damping 𝜁𝜁 or the overshoot ratio 𝑀𝑀R can be specified instead
of 𝑀𝑀.
Some classical tuning recommendations are based on the specification 𝑀𝑀R =
1/4.
 This may be acceptable for regulatory control, but not for setpoint tracking.
𝑀𝑀R = 1/4 corresponds to 𝑀𝑀 = 0.5 (i.e., a 50 % overshoot) and 𝜁𝜁 = 0.22 .
 For setpoint tracking, 𝑀𝑀 ≈ 0.1 (𝜁𝜁 ≈ 0.6) is usually more appropriate.
If an overdamped closed-loop response is desired, this cannot be achieved with a
specification 𝜁𝜁 > 1 , because the other parameters require an underdamped
system. Instead, the closed-loop transfer function can be directly specified and
controller parameters calculated by direct synthesis (Section 7.7), for example.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–25

 7.3 Specifications and performance criteria 7.3.4 Design specifications

Error integrals
Process
Control
Laboratory
In principle, a small overshoot, rise time and settling time are desired. In
practice, the overshoot and settling time will increase with decreasing rise time,
and vice versa. Therefore, compromises have to be made.
One way of solving this problem in an optimal way is to specify some error
integral to be minimized. Examples of such error integrals are
𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡
𝐽𝐽IAE = ∫0 s 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) d𝑡𝑡 , 𝐽𝐽ISE = ∫0 s 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)2 d𝑡𝑡
𝑡𝑡s 𝑡𝑡s (7.30)
𝐽𝐽ITAE = ∫0 𝑡𝑡 𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡) d𝑡𝑡 , 𝐽𝐽ITSE = ∫0 𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑒(𝑡𝑡)2 d𝑡𝑡
where the acronyms are
– IAE = “integrated absolute error”
– ISE = “integrated square error”
– ITAE = “integrated time-weighted absolute error”
– ITSE = “integrated time-weighted square error”
The weighting with time forces the control error towards zero as time increases.
In principle, the integration time should be infinite, but because the minimization
has to be done numerically, a finite 𝑡𝑡s has to be used.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–26

 7.3.4 Design specifications Error integrals

It is of interest to consider how the error integrals relate to step-response

Process
Control specifications when the closed-loop system is of second order, i.e.,
Laboratory
2
𝜔𝜔n
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 2 (7.31)
𝑠𝑠 2 +2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔n

In the figure, IAE and ISE are normalized with 𝜔𝜔n , ITAE and ITSE with 𝜔𝜔n2 . As can
be seen, every normalized error integral has a minimum for a given relative
damping 𝜁𝜁 . This damping as well
as the corresponding relative
overshoot 𝑀𝑀 are shown below.
Table 7.1 Optimal relative
damping for 2nd order system.

Error integral ζ M (%)

ISE 0.50 16.3

ITSE 0.59 10.1
IAE 0.66 6.3
ITAE 0.75 2.8
Error integrals as function of 𝜁𝜁.
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–27
 7. PID Controllers

Process
Control
7.4 Tuning based on frequency response
Laboratory
7.4.1 Experimental tuning
An ideal PID controller of interactive
form can be tuned experimentally G
by making closed-loop control experi-
ments with the real process. The
standard feedback structure is used.
1. A P controller (𝐺𝐺c = 𝐾𝐾c ) is used for the first experiment. A low value is chosen
for the gain 𝐾𝐾c . Note that 𝐾𝐾c must have the same sign as 𝐾𝐾p .
2. A change in the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 is introduced. (Some other disturbance could also
be used.) The controller gain 𝐾𝐾c is increased until the output 𝑌𝑌 starts to
oscillate with a constant amplitude (see next slide).
3. The value of the controller gain yielding constant oscillations is denoted
𝐾𝐾c,max . The period of the oscillations is denoted 𝑃𝑃c .
4. The controller gain is changed to 𝐾𝐾c = 0.5𝐾𝐾c,max . If the intention was to tune
a P controller, this is the final tuning.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–28

 7.4 Tuning based on frequency response 7.4.1 Experimental tuning

5. To tune a controller with integral

Process
Control action (PI or PID), an experiment
Laboratory
is done with a PI controller using
𝐾𝐾c = 0.5𝐾𝐾c,max . A large value is
initially used for the integral time 𝑇𝑇i .
6. A change in the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 (or some
other disturbance) is introduced. The
integral time 𝑇𝑇i is reduced until 𝑌𝑌
starts to oscillate with a constant
amplitude. This occurs at 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇i,min .
7. The integral time for a PI or PID
controller is chosen as 𝑇𝑇i = 3𝑇𝑇i,min .
7. To tune the derivative part of a PID (or PD) controller, an experiment is done
with such a controller using 𝐾𝐾c = 0.5𝐾𝐾c,max , 𝑇𝑇i = 3𝑇𝑇i,min (if a PID controller).
The derivative time is initially set at 𝑇𝑇d = 0 .
9. A change in the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 (or some other disturbance) is introduced.
The derivative time 𝑇𝑇d is increased until the output 𝑌𝑌 starts to oscillate with a
constant amplitude. This occurs when 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇d,max .
10. The derivative time for a PD or PID controller is set at 𝑇𝑇d = 13𝑇𝑇d,max .
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–29
 7.4 Tuning based on frequency response 7.4.1 Experimental tuning

If the control performance obtained by the above tunings turns out to be

Process
Control unsatisfactory, the controller parameters can be adjusted by “trial and error”.
Laboratory

The next figure shows how changes of the controller gain 𝐾𝐾c and the integral time
𝑇𝑇i typically affect the control performance. The optimal performance is in this
case obtained by 𝐾𝐾c = 3 and 𝑇𝑇i = 11 .
𝑇𝑇i = 5 𝑇𝑇i = 11 𝑇𝑇i = 20

𝐾𝐾c = 5

𝐾𝐾c = 3

𝐾𝐾c = 1

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–30

 7. PID Controllers 7.4 Tuning based on frequency response

Process
7.4.2 Ziegler-Nichols’s recommendations
Control

In 1942, Ziegler and Nichols suggested tunings for P, PI and PID controllers based
Laboratory

on 𝐾𝐾c,max and 𝑃𝑃c only. To obtain this information, it is sufficient to do steps

1–3 in the experimental procedure.
The tunings are primarily intended for regulatory control (i.e., disturbance
rejection). For setpoint tracking, setpoint weighting is suggested, e.g. 𝑏𝑏 = 0.5.
The controller tuning should Table 7.2. Ziegler-Nichols’s controller
preferably not be used out- tuning recommendations based on
side the range 0.1 < 𝜅𝜅 < 0.5, frequency response (0.1 < 𝜅𝜅 < 0.5).
where
−1 Controller K c / K c,max
𝜅𝜅 = 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c,max . Ti / Pc Td / Pc

𝐾𝐾 is the process gain. P 0.5 – –

The critical frequency 𝜔𝜔c is PI 0.45 0.8 –
often used instead of 𝑃𝑃c :
PID 0.6 0.5 0.125
𝜔𝜔c = 2𝜋𝜋/𝑃𝑃c .

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–31

 7. PID Controllers 7.4 Tuning based on frequency response

Process
7.4.3 Åström’s and Hägglund’s correlations
Control

In 2006, Åström and Hägglund showed that, in general, 𝐾𝐾c,max and 𝑃𝑃c alone do
Laboratory

not provide sufficient information for good controller tuning.

In addition to 𝐾𝐾c,max and 𝑃𝑃c , Åström and Hägglund also use the parameter
−1
𝜅𝜅 = 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c,max in their controller tuning correlations.
The tuning correlations are primarily intended for regulatory control; for setpoint
tracking, setpoint weighting is suggested.
The correlations should Table 7.3. Åström-Hägglund’s controller
not be used below the tuning correlations based on frequency
range 𝜅𝜅 > 0.1 . response (𝜅𝜅 > 0.1).
Large time delays are Controller K c / K c,max Ti / Pc Td / Pc
allowed, but clearly
underdamped systems PI 0.16 (1 + 4.5κ ) −1 –
are less suitable.
0.6 0.15(1 − κ )
PID 0.3 − 0.1κ 4
1 + 2κ 1 − 0.95κ

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–32

 7. PID Controllers

Process
Control
7.5 Tuning based on step response
Laboratory
A drawback with generating the frequency response is that it is quite
cumbersome and time-consuming to generate oscillations with constant
amplitude by adjusting a controller parameter.
An alternative is to use a step response for the process.
The figure illustrates how the
needed parameters are obtained
from a unit-step response, i.e., a
step with size 𝑢𝑢step = 1 expressed
in the units used for the control
variable. yi

The method is based on the

(modified) tangent method, but
L ti
here it is not necessary to wait
for the new steady state; only
the parameters 𝑎𝑎 and 𝐿𝐿 need Characteristic parameters from a
to be determined. monotonous unit-step response.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–33

 TaK
id //cTL
7. PID Controllers 7.5 Tuning based on step response

Instead of taking the 𝑎𝑎 parameter from the point, where the tangent through
Process
Control the inflexion point (i.e., the point where the slope is highest) of the step response
Laboratory
crosses the vertical axis, it can be calculated when the coordinates (𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ) of the
inflexion point are known. The calculation is valid for any size of 𝑢𝑢step . The
formula for 𝑎𝑎 is
𝐿𝐿𝑦𝑦i
𝑎𝑎 = (7.32)
𝑢𝑢step (𝑡𝑡i −𝐿𝐿)

Another useful parameter is

𝜃𝜃 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇eq , 𝑇𝑇eq = 𝑡𝑡63 − 𝐿𝐿 (7.33)
where 𝑇𝑇eq is the equivalent time constant of the system and 𝑡𝑡63 is the time it
takes to reach 63 % of the total output change.
The step response of a purely integrating system is a ramp that changes linearly
with time, i.e., it has a constant slope. Any point on the ramp can then be used
as a pair of coordinates (𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ) for calculation of 𝑎𝑎 according to (7.32).

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 4–34

 7. PID Controllers 7.5 Tuning based on step response

Process
7.5.1 Ziegler-Nichols’s recommendations
Control

In 1942, Ziegler and Nichols suggested tunings for P, PI and PID controllers
Laboratory

based also on the information that can be obtained from a step test. Their
recommendations for an ideal controller are given in Table 7.4.
The method requires 𝐿𝐿 > 0 and preferably 0.1 ≤ 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1.

Table 7.4. Ziegler-Nichols’s controller tuning

recommendations based on step response.

Controller aK c Ti / L Td / L

P 1.0 – –
PI 0.9 3 –
PID 1.2 2 0.5

Note that Ziegler-Nichols’s recommendations based on frequency response and

step response do not necessarily give the same controller tuning for the same
process.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–35

 7. PID Controllers 7.5 Tuning based on step response

Process
7.5.2 The CHR method
Control

In 1952, Chien, Hrones and Reswick suggested improvements to Ziegler’s and

Laboratory

Nichols’s recommendations based on a step response. The CHR-method gives

 different tunings for regulatory control and setpoint tracking
 tunings for aggressive control (with ~20 % overshoot) and cautious control
(no overshoot)
The method requires 𝐿𝐿 > 0 and preferably 0.1 ≤ 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1.
The CHR tunings (even the aggressive one) are less aggressive than the ZN tuning.
Note that the different tunings for regulatory control and setpoint tracking can
directly be used in a 2DOF controller.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–36

 7.5 Tuning based on step response 7.5.2 The CHR method

Table 7.5. Controller tuning for regulatory control by the CHR method.
Process
Control
Laboratory
No overshoot 20 % overshoot
Controller
aK c Ti / L Td / L aK c Ti / L Td / L

P 0.3 – – 0.7 – –
PI 0.6 4.0 – 0.7 2.3 –
PID 0.95 2.4 0.42 1.2 2.0 0.42

Table 7.6. Controller tuning for setpoint tracking by the CHR method.
No overshoot 20 % overshoot
Controller
aK c TTi / Teq Td / L aK c TTii //TTeq Td / L

P 0,3 – – 0,7 – –
PI 0,35 1,2 – 0,6 1,0 –
PID 0,6 1,0 0,5 0,95 1,4 0,47

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–37

 7. PID Controllers 7.5 Tuning based on step response

Process
7.5.3 Åström’s and Hägglund’s correlations
Control

In 2006, Åström and Hägglund presented improved controller tunings based on a

Laboratory

step response. In addition to 𝑎𝑎 and 𝐿𝐿 , they use 𝜃𝜃 in their correlations, which

can be used for all 𝜃𝜃 ≥ 0. However, for 𝜃𝜃 < 0.4 , the tunings tend to be
conservative. For an integrating process, 𝜃𝜃 = 0 is used.
The tunings are primarily intended for regulatory control. For setpoint tracking,
setpoint weighting can be used as follows:
 PI control: 𝑏𝑏 = 1 if 𝜃𝜃 > 0.4 , 𝑏𝑏 < 1 if 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 0.4 (optimal 𝑏𝑏 is unclear)
 PID control: 𝑏𝑏 = 1 if 𝜃𝜃 > 1 , 𝑏𝑏 = 0 if 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1
Table 7.7. Åström’s and Hägglund’s controller tuning correlations.
Controller aK c Ti / L Td / L

θ 13
PI 0.35 + 0.15θ − 0.35 + –
(1 + θ ) 2 1 + 12 θ + 7θ 2
8 + 4θ 0.5
PID 0.45 + 0.2 θ
1 + 10 θ 1 + 0.3θ

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–38

 7. PID Controllers

Process
Control
7.6 Model-based controller tuning
Laboratory
The controller tuning methods in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 employ parameters that
can be determined from an experiment with an existing process.
If a process model is known, the same parameters can be determined
 through a simulation experiment
 possibly by direct calculation from the process model
For example, a first-order system with a time delay has the transfer function
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.34)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1

from which the parameters 𝑎𝑎 and 𝜃𝜃 can be calculated according to

𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 𝐿𝐿
𝑎𝑎 = , 𝜃𝜃 = (7.35)
𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇

The same tuning methods as in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 can then be used.
However, the methods in Sections 7.4 and 7.5 are “general purpose” methods
that are not optimized for any specific model type.
For a given model, better controller tunings probably exist.
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–39
 7. PID Controllers 7.6 Model-based controller tuning

Process
7.6.1 First-order system with a time delay
Control

The transfer function is defined in (7.34) and the parameter 𝜃𝜃 in (7.35).

Laboratory

Minimization of error integrals

Controller tunings that minimize IAE and ITAE when 0.1 ≤ 𝜃𝜃 ≤ 1.
Table 7.8. IAE and ITAE minimizing controller tunings for regulatory control.

Error P controller PI controller PID controller

integral KK c KK c Ti / T KK c Ti / T Td / T

IAE 0.902 θ −0.985 0.984 θ −0.986 1.645 θ 0.707 1.435 θ −0.921 1.139 θ 0.749 0.482 θ 1.137

ITAE 0.490 θ −1.084 0.859 θ −0.977 1.484 θ 0.680 1.357 θ −0.947 1.188 θ 0.738 0.381 θ 0.995

Table 7.9. IAE and ITAE minimizing controller tunings for setpoint tracking.

Error PI controller PID controller

integral KK c Ti / T KK c Ti / T Td / T

IAE 0.758 θ −0.861 (1.020 − 0.323θ ) −1 1.086 θ −0.869 (0.740 − 0.130 θ ) −1 0.348 θ 0.914

ITAE 0.586 θ −0.916 (1.030 − 0.165θ ) −1 0.965 θ −0.855 (0.796 − 0.147 θ ) −1 0.308 θ 0.929

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–40

 7.6 Model-based controller tuning 7.6.1 First-order system with time delay

Other optimality criteria

Process
Control
Laboratory
The controller tunings for minimizing the error integrals IAE and ITAE in Tables
7.8 and 7.9 do not give any robustness guarantees. Thus, the control
performance can be bad if the model contains errors.
Cvejn (2009) has derived controller tunings that have a certain robustness even
for systems with large time delays, i.e., for large 𝜃𝜃 values.

Table 7.10. Cvejn’s tunings for regulatory control and setpoint tracking.
PI controller PID controller
Control
KK c Ti / T KK c Ti / T Td / T

1 5.92 θ 3.26 + θ 3.91θ θ θ

Regulatory +
2θ 1 + 5.92 θ 4θ 1 + 3.91θ 3 3.26 + θ
1 3 +θ θ θ
Tracking 1 1+
2θ 4θ 3 3 +θ

The PI controller tunings tend to give better robustness than the PID controller
tunings, which tend to give better performance.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–41

 7. PID Controllers 7.6 Model-based controller tuning

Process
7.6.2 Second-order no-zero system with a time delay
Control

We shall consider second-order systems with a time delay but no zeros. Such a
Laboratory

system has the transfer function

2
𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 2 2 e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.36)
𝑠𝑠 +2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔n

In Cvejn’s method for tracking control, the controller 𝐺𝐺c (𝑠𝑠) is tuned to give the
loop transfer 𝐺𝐺ℓ (𝑠𝑠) = 𝐺𝐺(𝑠𝑠)𝐺𝐺c (𝑠𝑠) such that
1 −𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝐺𝐺ℓ 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.37)
2𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
or
1 3
𝐺𝐺ℓ 𝑠𝑠 = 1+ e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.38)
4 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

Tuning by (7.37) gives better stability, (7.38) gives better performance.

Exercise 7.3
Use Cvejn’s method for tracking control to tune a PID controller for the system
(7.36).

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–42

 7.6 Model-based controller tuning 7.6.2 Second-order system with delay

Overdamped system without zeros

Process
Control
Laboratory
For an overdamped (or critically damped) second-order system, 𝜁𝜁 ≥ 1. In this
case, (7.36) is more conveniently written as
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 , 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇2 (7.39)
(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)

Cvejn’s method can be used also in this case, but Åström and Hägglund (2006)
suggest the following tuning when the system is overdamped:
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c = 0.19 + 0.37𝜃𝜃1−1 + 0.18𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.02𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇i = 0.48 + 0.03𝜃𝜃1−1 − 0.0007𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.0012𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1 (7.40)
𝜃𝜃1 +𝜃𝜃2
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d /𝐿𝐿 = 0.29 + 0.16𝜃𝜃1−1 − 0.2𝜃𝜃2−1 + 0.28𝜃𝜃1−1 𝜃𝜃2−1
𝜃𝜃1 +𝜃𝜃2 +𝜃𝜃1 𝜃𝜃2
where
𝜃𝜃1 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇1 , 𝜃𝜃2 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇2 (7.41)

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–43

 7.6.2 Second-order system with delay Overdamped system

Second-order system including integration

Process
Control
Laboratory
A second-order no-zero system including an integrator has the transfer function
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.42)
𝑠𝑠 (𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)

For this kind of system, Åström and Hägglund (2006) suggest the tuning:
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿 = 0.37 + 0.02𝜃𝜃2−1
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿2 /𝑇𝑇i = 0.03 + 0.0012𝜃𝜃2−1 (7.43)
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d = 0.16 + 0.28𝜃𝜃2−1

If the system is a double integrator with the transfer function

𝐾𝐾 −𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.44)
𝑠𝑠 2
the suggested tuning is
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿2 = 0.02
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝐿𝐿3 /𝑇𝑇i = 0.0012 (7.45)
𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾c 𝑇𝑇d 𝐿𝐿 = 0.28

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–44

 7.6 Model-based controller tuning 7.6.2 Second-order system with delay

Second-order system with a zero

Process
Control
Laboratory
An overdamped 2nd order system with a zero has the transfer function
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.46)
(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)
Such a system can often be approximated by a first-order system or a second-
order system without a zero (see Section 7.9).
Integrating second-order system with a zero
An IPZ system (1 integrator, 1 pole, 1 zero) has a transfer function
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1) −𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e , 𝑇𝑇3 > 𝑇𝑇2 > 0 (7.47)
𝑠𝑠 (𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)
An IPZ system is difficult to approximate by a simpler one, esp. if 𝑇𝑇3 ≫ 𝑇𝑇2 .
In Table 7.11, Table 7.11. Slätteke’s regulatory tuning for an IPZ process.
𝜃𝜃2 = 𝐿𝐿/𝑇𝑇2 . For
PID control, a Controller T3 KK c Ti / L Td / T2
derivative filter 100 + 17θ 2
𝑇𝑇f = 0.1𝑇𝑇d is PI 0.0767(3θ 2−1 + 1)
11 + 94 θ 2
–
used. For set-
point tracking, 835 + 842 θ 2 + 277 θ 22 3 + 176 θ 2 + 736 θ 22
PID 0.115(3θ 2−1 + 1)
𝑏𝑏 < 1 is used. 3(55 + 386 θ 2 + 241θ 22 ) 500(1 + 2 θ 2 + θ 22 )

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–45

 7. PID Controllers

Process
Control
7.7 Controller design by direct synthesis
Laboratory
In the previous sections, equations for controller tuning have been given for first-
and second-order no-zero systems.
 The equations are usually the result of optimization of some criterion that is
considered to imply “good control”.
 However, what is “good control” varies from case to case depending on the
compromise between stability and performance.
 A drawback of the tuning equations is that the user cannot influence the
tuning according to his/her opinion of “good control”.
In this section, a method is introduced whereby
 the user can influence the controller tuning in a systematic way according to
his/her opinion of “good control”
 more model types than in previous sections can be handled, e.g., systems with
a zero

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–46

 7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis

Process
7.7.1 Closed-loop transfer functions
Control

Consider the closed-loop

Laboratory
V (s)
Gd ( s )
system in the figure with the
+
following transfer functions: R( s) + Y (s)
Gc ( s ) G (s)
– 𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 process being controlled +
−
– 𝐺𝐺c 𝑠𝑠 controller
– 𝐺𝐺d 𝑠𝑠 disturbance system Block diagram of closed-loop system
Standard block-diagram algebra gives
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 𝐺𝐺d
𝑌𝑌 = 𝑅𝑅 + 𝑉𝑉 (7.48)
1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c
where
𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 𝐺𝐺d
𝐺𝐺r = , 𝐺𝐺v = (7.49,50)
1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c 1+𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺c
are the closed-loop transfer functions from the setpoint 𝑅𝑅 and the disturbance
𝑉𝑉 to the output 𝑌𝑌.
The user can specify the desired 𝐺𝐺r for setpoint tracking or 𝐺𝐺v for regulatory
control. For setpoint tracking, the required controller is given by
1 𝐺𝐺r
𝐺𝐺c = (7.51)
𝐺𝐺 (1−𝐺𝐺r )

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–47

 7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis

Process
7.7.2 Low-order minimum-phase systems
Control
Laboratory
First-order system
A strictly proper first-order system without a time delay has the transfer function
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺 = (7.52)
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1
Assume that we want the controlled system to behave as a first-order system
with the time constant 𝑇𝑇r . Then,
1 𝐺𝐺r 1
𝐺𝐺r = , which gives = (7.53)
𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠
Substitution of (7.52) and (7.53) into (7.51) gives
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1 1 𝑇𝑇 1
𝐺𝐺c = = 1+ (7.54)
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇

which is a PI controller with the parameters

𝑇𝑇
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇 (7.55)
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r

Here, 𝑇𝑇r is a design parameter, by which the performance of the control system
can be affected.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–48

 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.2 Low-order minimum-phase systems

Second-order system with no zero

Process
Control
Laboratory
A second-order system with no zero and no time delay has the transfer function
2
𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 2 (7.56)
𝑠𝑠 2 +2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔n

Even if the uncontrolled system is of second order, we can specify the controlled
system to be of first order. Substitution of (7.53) and (7.56) into (7.51) then gives
𝑠𝑠 2 +2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔n
2 1 2𝜁𝜁 𝜔𝜔n 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺c = 2 = 1+ + (7.57)
𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n 𝑇𝑇r 2𝜁𝜁𝑠𝑠 2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n

which is an ideal PID controller with the parameters

2𝜁𝜁 2𝜁𝜁 1
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = , 𝑇𝑇d = (7.58)
𝐾𝐾𝜔𝜔n 𝑇𝑇r 𝜔𝜔n 2𝜁𝜁𝜔𝜔n

Also here, 𝑇𝑇r is a design parameter which only affects the controller gain.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–49

 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.2 Low-order minimum-phase systems

Overdamped second-order system with a LHP zero

Process
Control
Laboratory
An overdamped second-order system with a zero in the left half of the complex
plane (LHP) has the transfer function
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = , 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0 (7.59)
(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)

We can specify the controlled system to be of first order. Substitution of (7.53)

and (7.59) into (7.51) gives
(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1) 1 1 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠 2 + 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1
𝐺𝐺c = =
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1) 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1
1 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇3 𝑇𝑇3 2
= 1 + 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠 + 𝑠𝑠
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1
or
1 𝑇𝑇d 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺c = 𝐾𝐾c 1 + + (7.60)
𝑇𝑇i 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1
where
𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇3 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇3 , 𝑇𝑇d = − 𝑇𝑇3 , 𝑇𝑇f = 𝑇𝑇3 (7.61)
𝐾𝐾𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇3

This is a PID controller with a derivative filter.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–50

 7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis

Process
7.7.3 High-order minimum-phase systems
Control

A high-order minimum-phase system with real poles and zeros, but with no time
Laboratory

delay, has the transfer function

∑𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚
𝑗𝑗=𝑛𝑛+1(𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 = 𝐾𝐾 ∑𝑛𝑛
, 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 > 0 , 𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗 > 0 , 𝑛𝑛 > 2 (7.62)
𝑖𝑖=1(𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠+1)

 If 𝑛𝑛 = 3 and 𝑚𝑚 = 0 or 1 , a closed-loop system of second order can be

obtained by a full PID controller.
 If 𝑛𝑛 > 3, it is not possible to obtain a closed-loop system of lower order than
3 by a PID controller and an exact design by specifying 𝐺𝐺r is thus not
practical.
In the case of 𝑛𝑛 > 3 , two possibilities are to specify a closed-loop system of first
or second order and then to
 first calculate a 𝐺𝐺c according to (7.51), then to approximate 𝐺𝐺c by a PID
controller;
 first approximate 𝐺𝐺 by a model of at most third order, then to calculate the
PID controller according to (7.51).
In Section 7.9, the latter approach will be described.
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–51
 7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis

Process
7.7.4 Second-order system with RHP zero
Control

A second-order system with real poles and a right half-plane (RHP) zero has the
Laboratory

transfer function
𝐾𝐾(−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = , 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 0 (7.63)
(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)

Now division by 𝐺𝐺 in (7.51) will result in an unstable controller with a RHP pole if
𝐺𝐺r is chosen as in the previous sections.
 One possible solution is to approximate the unstable controller by a stable
controller. This tends to result in too aggressive control because the
controller is then designed as if there were no RHP zero in 𝐺𝐺 .
 Another solution is to include the same RHP zero in 𝐺𝐺r as in 𝐺𝐺 ; it will then be
cancelled out in (7.51) and the controller will automatically be stable. This
means that the choice of 𝐺𝐺r is restricted, but otherwise the control
performance tends to be as expected.

In this section, the latter approach is used.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–52

 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.4 Second-order system with RHP zero

Closed-loop system of first order

Process
Control
Laboratory
The closed-loop transfer function is chosen as
−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1 𝐺𝐺r −𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1
𝐺𝐺r = , which gives = (7.64)
𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 1−𝐺𝐺r (𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 )𝑠𝑠

Substitution of (7.63) and (7.64) into (7.51) gives

(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1) 1 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 1 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺c = = 1+ + (7.65)
𝐾𝐾 (𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 )𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 ) 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2

which is a PID controller with the parameters

𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 , 𝑇𝑇d = (7.66)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3 ) 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–53

 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.4 Second-order system with RHP zero

Closed-loop system of second order

Process
Control
Laboratory
A first-order system with a zero is proper, but not strictly proper. If a zero is
present, a strictly proper system has to be at least second order. Hence, a more
natural choice for 𝐺𝐺r is
(−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)𝜔𝜔r2 𝐺𝐺r (−𝑇𝑇3 𝑠𝑠+1)𝜔𝜔r2
𝐺𝐺r = , which gives = (7.67)
𝑠𝑠 2 +2𝜁𝜁r 𝜔𝜔r 𝑠𝑠+𝜔𝜔r2 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑠𝑠(𝑠𝑠+2𝜁𝜁r 𝜔𝜔r +𝑇𝑇3 𝜔𝜔r2 )

To simplify the derivation of controller parameters, we define

𝑇𝑇f = 1/(2𝜁𝜁r 𝜔𝜔r + 𝑇𝑇3 𝜔𝜔r2 ) (7.68)
Substitution of (7.63) and (7.67) into (7.51), gives, with (7.68),
(𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1)𝑇𝑇f 𝜔𝜔r2 𝑇𝑇f 𝜔𝜔r2 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠 2 + 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1
𝐺𝐺c = = (7.69)
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑠𝑠 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇f 𝑠𝑠+1

Analogously with the derivation of (7.61), this gives the PID controller parameters
𝑇𝑇f 𝜔𝜔r2 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2
𝐾𝐾c = (𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇f ), 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇f , 𝑇𝑇d = − 𝑇𝑇f (7.70)
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 −𝑇𝑇f

where 𝑇𝑇f , given by (7.68), is the derivative filter time constant in a PID controller
(7.60).

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–54

 7.7.4 Second-order system with RHP zero Closed-loop system of 2nd order

Choice of closed-loop system parameters

Process
Control
Laboratory
In (7.67), there are two design parameters, the relative damping 𝜁𝜁r , and the
undamped natural frequency 𝜔𝜔r . The meanings of these parameters are
discussed in Section 5.3, especially Subsection 5.3.3.
The choice of design parameters can be simplified in the following two ways.
 Let 𝐺𝐺r have two equally large real poles at −1/𝑇𝑇r . This corresponds to
𝜁𝜁r = 1 and 𝜔𝜔r = 1/𝑇𝑇r , which for (7.68) gives
𝑇𝑇r2
𝑇𝑇f = (7.71)
2𝑇𝑇r +𝑇𝑇3

 Let 𝐺𝐺r have real poles at −1/𝑇𝑇r and −1/𝑇𝑇3 . This corresponds to
𝜁𝜁r = 0.5(𝑇𝑇r + 𝑇𝑇3 )𝜔𝜔r and 𝜔𝜔r = 1/ 𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇3 , which for (7.68) gives
𝑇𝑇r 𝑇𝑇3
𝑇𝑇f = (7.72)
𝑇𝑇r +2𝑇𝑇3

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–55

 7. PID Controllers 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis

Process
7.7.5 First-order system with a time delay
Control

To illustrate how systems with a time delay can be handled by direct synthesis, a
Laboratory

first-order system with a time delay will be studied. Such a system has the
transfer function
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.73)
𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠+1

Calculation of a controller by (7.51) will then result in a controller containing a

time delay — there is no practical way to avoid this by the choice of 𝐺𝐺r .
 There are methods to implement a controller resulting from (7.51) (see
Section 7.8), but not by a regular PID controller.
 If a PID controller is desired, the time delay has to be approximated in some
way.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–56

 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.5 First-order system with a delay

Time-delay approximation in the model

Process
Control
Laboratory
A standard way of approximating a time delay is to use a Padé approximation. A
first-order Padé approximation
1−0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 ≈ (7.74)
1+0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
gives the model
𝐾𝐾(−0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1)
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = (7.75)
(𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠+1)(0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1)

A natural choice for 𝐺𝐺r is then

−0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1 𝐺𝐺r −0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1
𝐺𝐺r = , which gives = (7.76)
(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1)(0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿+1) 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑠𝑠(0.5𝑇𝑇r 𝐿𝐿𝑠𝑠+𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿)

Substitution of (7.75) and (7.76) into (7.51) gives a PID controller with the
parameters
𝑇𝑇+0.5𝐿𝐿−𝑇𝑇f 0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 0.5𝐿𝐿𝑇𝑇r
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇 + 0.5𝐿𝐿 − 𝑇𝑇f , 𝑇𝑇d = , 𝑇𝑇f = (7.77)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿) 𝑇𝑇+0.5𝐿𝐿−𝑇𝑇f 𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿

Here, 𝑇𝑇f is the time constant of a derivative filter in the PID controller (7.60).

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–57

 7.7 Controller tuning by direct synthesis 7.7.5 First-order system with a delay

Time-delay approximation in the controller

Process
Control
Laboratory
If e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 is retained in the model, it also has to be part of 𝐺𝐺r , because it is
impossible for the closed-loop system to have a shorter time-delay than the
uncontrolled system.
If 𝐺𝐺r is chosen to be first order with a time delay
1 𝐺𝐺r e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
𝐺𝐺r = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 , which gives = (7.78)
𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 1−𝐺𝐺r 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1−e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿

Substitution of (7.73) and (7.78) into (7.51) gives

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1
𝐺𝐺c = (7.79)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1−e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 )

Unfortunately, this controller cannot be implemented by a PID controller in a

regular feedback loop. In order to do that, the time delay in (7.79) has to be
approximated by a rational expression.
 If the approximation (7.74) is used, the controller parameters will be as in
(7.77).
 The simpler approximation e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 ≈ 1 − 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 gives a PI controller with
𝑇𝑇
𝐾𝐾c = , 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇 (7.80)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r +𝐿𝐿)

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–58

 7. PID Controllers

Process
Control
7.8 Internal model control
Laboratory
“Internal model control” (IMC) is closely related to “direct synthesis” (DS). As in
DS, a model of the system to be controlled is explicitly built into the controller,
but in a different way.
 An advantage with IMC is that it is easier to implement more complex control
laws than regular PID controllers. For example, the controller transfer function
(7.79) can easily be implemented exactly with IMC.
 Even if the controller design is based on IMC, it is often desirable to
implement the controller as a regular PID controller. In such cases, the IMC
approach offers better possibilities to deal with robustness issues than DS.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–59

 7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control

Process
7.8.1 The IMC structure
Control

Consider the closed-loop

Laboratory

system in the figure with the

following transfer functions:
E (s)
– 𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 true process G (s)

– 𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 process model

– 𝐺𝐺IMC 𝑠𝑠 a controller Gˆ ( s )

– 𝐺𝐺d 𝑠𝑠 disturbance system

Standard block diagram algebra The IMC structure.
�
gives 𝑈𝑈 = 𝐺𝐺IMC (𝐸𝐸 + 𝐺𝐺𝑈𝑈) from which
𝑈𝑈 −1 −1 𝐺𝐺IMC
= 𝐺𝐺c = 𝐼𝐼 − 𝐺𝐺IMC 𝐺𝐺� � IMC
𝐺𝐺IMC = 𝐺𝐺IMC 𝐼𝐼 − 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺 = � IMC
(7.81)
𝐸𝐸 1−𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺
Assume that
𝐺𝐺IMC = 𝐺𝐺� −1 𝐺𝐺f (7.82)
where 𝐺𝐺f is a “filter”. Substitution of (7.82) into (7.81) gives
1 𝐺𝐺f
𝐺𝐺c = 𝐺𝐺� −1 𝐺𝐺f 𝐼𝐼 − 𝐺𝐺f −1
= (7.83)
𝐺𝐺� (1−𝐺𝐺f )
If the filter is chosen as 𝐺𝐺f = 𝐺𝐺r (and 𝐺𝐺� = 𝐺𝐺), this is the same as (7.51) !
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–60
 7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control

Process
7.8.2 Handling of time delays without approximation
Control

Consider a system modelled as a first-order system with a time delay, i.e.,

Laboratory

𝐺𝐺� = 𝐾𝐾e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 /(𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 + 1). Choose the IMC filter as 𝐺𝐺f = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 /(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠 + 1) . Substitution
into (7.82) now gives
1 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1 1 𝑇𝑇−𝑇𝑇r
𝐺𝐺IMC = = 1+ 𝑠𝑠 (7.84)
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1 𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1

which is a PD controller with a derivative filter having the parameters 𝐾𝐾𝑐𝑐 = 1/𝐾𝐾 ,
𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇 − 𝑇𝑇r , 𝑇𝑇f = 𝑇𝑇r . Substitution of (7.84) and the model 𝐺𝐺� into (7.81) gives
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇+1
𝐺𝐺c = (7.85)
𝐾𝐾(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1−e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 )

which is identical with (7.79). The difference is that (7.85) can be implemented
exactly by the IMC structure without time-delay approximation.
Note that there is no integration in 𝐺𝐺IMC , but the feedback of 𝐺𝐺� in the IMC
structure introduces integration if 𝐺𝐺IMC is calculated using the same 𝐺𝐺� in
(7.82); integration is achieved even if 𝐺𝐺� ≠ 𝐺𝐺 .
Exercise. Calculate the closed-loop transfer function 𝐺𝐺r when 𝐺𝐺� ≠ 𝐺𝐺 . Show
that there will be no steady-state error, i.e., that 𝐺𝐺r 0 = 1 .

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–61

 7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control

Process
7.8.3 The predictive character of the IMC structure
Control

 The previous block diagram of the IMC structure is drawn to emphasize how
Laboratory

𝐺𝐺IMC combined with the feedback of 𝐺𝐺� is equivalent to 𝐺𝐺c .

 The block diagram can also be drawn to emphasize the predictive character of
the IMC structure, as shown below. (Note that the two diagrams are
completely equivalent.)
– The control signal is an input to the real system 𝐺𝐺 and the model 𝐺𝐺. �
– 𝐺𝐺� predicts the output 𝑌𝑌,
� which is compared with the true output 𝑌𝑌.
– Only the prediction error 𝐸𝐸 = 𝑌𝑌 − 𝑌𝑌� is fed back, not the entire 𝑌𝑌.
The latter property is a clear
advantage in controller design.
If 𝐺𝐺� = 𝐺𝐺 (i.e., 𝐸𝐸 = 0)
G (s)
𝐺𝐺r = 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺IMC (7.86)
which means that the closed- Gˆ ( s )
loop transfer function depends
linearly on 𝐺𝐺IMC making design
of 𝐺𝐺IMC easier than design of 𝐺𝐺c . Predictive nature of IMC structure.
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–62
 7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control

Process
7.8.4 Controller design
Control

The following conclusions can be drawn from (7.86):

Laboratory

 A stable closed-loop system 𝐺𝐺r requires a stable IMC controller 𝐺𝐺IMC ;

in particular, the IMC controller may not contain integral action.
 Non-minimum phase properties (i.e., RHP zeros and time delays) in 𝐺𝐺 will
also be present in 𝐺𝐺r because they cannot be cancelled out by a stable and
realizable 𝐺𝐺IMC .
From (7.82) it follows that
 the filter 𝐺𝐺f has to be chosen to cancel out non-minimum phase properties of
𝐺𝐺 — this is equivalent to the choice of 𝐺𝐺r in direct synthesis.
In practice, the IMC design is done differently. Instead of guaranteeing the
stability and realizability of 𝐺𝐺IMC by the choice of 𝐺𝐺f , it is handled by the choice
of 𝐺𝐺� to be inverted; non-minimum phase parts of 𝐺𝐺� are not inverted.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–63

 7.8 Internal model control 7.8.4 Controller design

The process model 𝐺𝐺� can always be factorized as

Process
Control
Laboratory 𝐺𝐺� = 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ (7.87)
where 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ contains all non-minimum-phase elements of 𝐺𝐺, � but no minimum-
phase elements, and normalized so that 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ 0 = 1 (i.e., it has the static gain
1). This means that 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ contains all RHP zeros and time delays of 𝐺𝐺� ; if there
are no such elements, 𝐺𝐺� ⊕ = 1.
When 𝐺𝐺IMC is calculated according to (7.82), only 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ is inverted. Thus,
−1
𝐺𝐺IMC = 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ 𝐺𝐺f (7.88)
Note that the full 𝐺𝐺� is to be used as internal model as illustrated by the IMC
block diagrams — the use of 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ is only a technical aid for the calculation of
𝐺𝐺IMC .
The IMC filter 𝐺𝐺f could be chosen as the desired closed-loop transfer function
without any non-minimum phase elements (not even a time delay), but in
practice a low-pass filter
1
𝐺𝐺f = 𝑛𝑛 (7.89)
(𝑇𝑇r 𝑠𝑠+1)

is chosen. Here, 𝑛𝑛 is an integer, usually 𝑛𝑛 = 1, sometimes 𝑛𝑛 > 1.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–64

 7. PID Controllers 7.8 Internal model control

Process
7.8.5 Implementation with a regular PID controller
Control

An advantage of the IMC structure is that time delays can be handled exactly, but
Laboratory

often a regular PID controller is preferred, because it is standard software in all

automation systems.
If an IMC controller 𝐺𝐺IMC has been designed, the corresponding “regular”
controller 𝐺𝐺c can be calculated according to (7.81).
 If 𝐺𝐺� contains a time delay, it will also be present in 𝐺𝐺c .
 In such cases, the time delay has to be approximated in a suitable way.
Table 7.12 shows IMC-based tunings of regular PID controllers for some typical
model structures.
 The tunings can also be used for models of lower degree or no time delay as
long as
𝑇𝑇1 > 0 , 𝑇𝑇2 ≥ 0 , 𝑇𝑇3 ≥ 0 , 𝐿𝐿 ≥ 0 (7.90)
 The tunings can be used for (underdamped) models expressed by the relative
damping and the natural frequency by the substitutions
𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 = 2𝜁𝜁/𝜔𝜔n , 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 = 1/𝜔𝜔n2 (7.91)
 Usually 𝑇𝑇r is chosen such that 𝐿𝐿 ≤ 𝑇𝑇r < 𝑇𝑇 (but no clear consensus).
KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–65
 7.8 Internal model control 7.8.5 Implementation with a PID controller

Table 7.12. IMC-based tuning of ideal PID controller.

Process
Control
Laboratory G (s) Kc K Ti Td λ

K e− Ls
Ti / λ T1 + 12 L 1 LT1 / Ti Tr + 12 L
T1s + 1 2

K (T3 s + 1) e− Ls
Ti / λ T1 + T2 − T3 (T1T2 / Ti ) − T3 Tr + L
(T1s + 1)(T2 s + 1)

K (−T3 s + 1) e− Ls
Ti / λ T1 + T2 + (T3 L / λ ) (T1T2 / Ti ) − (T3 L / λ ) Tr + T3 + L
(T1s + 1)(T2 s + 1)

K e− Ls L(1 − 12 L / Ti ) Tr + 12 L
Ti / λ 2 2λ 1
2
s

K e− Ls
Ti / λ 2 2λ + T2 − L T2 (1 − T2 / Ti ) Tr + L
s (T2 s + 1)

The desired time constant of the closed-loop system is 𝑇𝑇r . 𝜆𝜆 , which is used in
the calculations, is closely related to 𝑇𝑇r . Note that the calculated integral time
𝑇𝑇i is used in several expressions.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–66

 7. PID Controllers

Process
Control
7.9 Model simplification
Laboratory
Many controller tuning methods have been presented in the previous sections.
 Section 7.4: Controller tuning based on frequency-response parameters
𝐾𝐾c,max , 𝑃𝑃c (or 𝜔𝜔c ) and 𝜅𝜅. These methods are “general-purpose methods”
not optimized for any specific model type.
 Section 7.5: Controller tuning based on step-response parameters 𝑎𝑎 (or 𝑡𝑡i , 𝑦𝑦i ),
𝐿𝐿 and 𝜃𝜃. These methods are also general-purpose methods not optimized for
any specific model type.
 Section 7.6: Model-based tuning optimized for given model structures and
control criteria with no user interaction.
 Section 7.7: Direct synthesis for low-order models according to desired closed-
loop response.
 Section 7.8: Internal model control mainly for low-order models according to
desired closed-loop response.
In this section, methods to reduce high-order models to first- or second-order
models are presented. Any controller tuning method can be used.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–67

 7. PID Controllers 7.9 Model simplification

Process
7.9.1 Skogestad’s method
Control

Skogestad and Grimholt (2012) have presented a method to simplify a high-order

Laboratory

model with real poles and zeros to a first- or second-order model with a time
delay but with no zeros.
The transfer function to be simplified is factorized into a minimum-phase part
𝐺𝐺 ⊖ and a non-minimum-phase part 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ , i.e.,
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ (𝑠𝑠)𝐺𝐺 ⊖ (s) (7.92)
Any left-half plane (LHP) zeros of 𝐺𝐺 ⊖ (s) and RHP zeros of 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ (𝑠𝑠) are eliminated
by suitable approximations.
Elimination of LHP zeros
If the poles and zeros are real, the minimum-phase part has the form
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 = (7.93)
𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠+1)

where 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 > 0, 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 > 0 , 𝑛𝑛 > 𝑚𝑚. The
simplification procedure now goes as follows.
 The numerator time constants 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 , 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 , …, 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 are considered in that
order. Assume that 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is the one currently being considered.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–68

 7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Elimination of LHP zeros

 Next, the smallest remaining denominator time constant 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 such that
Process
Control 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is selected. If there is no such time constant, or if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≫ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ,
Laboratory
the smaller 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 closest to 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 is chosen. It is considered that 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≫ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗
2
if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 > 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖+1 and 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖+1 < 1.6 .
 The ratio (𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠 + 1)/(𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠 + 1) is now approximated as
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 5𝑇𝑇r a
5𝑇𝑇r /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖
if 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 5𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 b
5𝑇𝑇r −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1 1
≈ if 5𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 c (7.94)
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 𝑠𝑠+1
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 if 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 ≥ 𝑇𝑇r (d)
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 /𝑇𝑇r if 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (e)
1 if 𝑇𝑇r ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (f)
Here, 𝑇𝑇r is the desired closed-loop time constant. If this is not known, the
suggested value is 𝑇𝑇r = 𝐿𝐿� , which is the time delay in the simplified model.
Since this is not initially known, one may have to iterate (i.e., first guessing 𝐿𝐿� ,
then possibly correcting with the new 𝐿𝐿� ).

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–69

 7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Elimination of LHP zeros

The above procedure gives an approximate minimum-phase part 𝐺𝐺� ⊖ of the

Process
Control form
Laboratory
�
𝐾𝐾
� ⊖
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = � (7.95)
� �
𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛
� 𝑠𝑠+1)

Note that the gain as well as the values and number of denominator time
constants may have changed from the original 𝐺𝐺 ⊖ .

Elimination of RHP zeros and the half rule

The transfer function 𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐺𝐺 ⊕ (𝑠𝑠)𝐺𝐺� ⊖ (s) now has the form
� −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+1 𝑠𝑠+1 −𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(−𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑝𝑝 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e−𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 (7.96)
𝑇𝑇�1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇�2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇� 𝑛𝑛
� 𝑠𝑠+1)

where 𝑇𝑇�1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇�2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛� > 0, 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑝𝑝 > 0 .

Skogestad’s half rule
If an approximate model of order 𝑛𝑛� is desired, the 𝑛𝑛� largest denominator time
constants are retained in the model with the modification that half of 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛+1 � is
added to 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛� . Half of 𝑇𝑇�𝑛𝑛+1
� is also added to the time delay as well as all remaining
smaller denominator time constants. In addition, all negative numerator time
constants are subtracted from the time delay.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–70

 7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Elimination of RHP zeros and the half rule

Approximation by first-order system

Process
Control
Laboratory
If a first-order model is desired, the half rule gives
�
𝐾𝐾 −𝐿𝐿� 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = �
e (7.97a)
𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠+1
𝑝𝑝
𝑇𝑇� = 𝑇𝑇�1 + 12𝑇𝑇�2 , 𝐿𝐿� = 𝐿𝐿 + 12𝑇𝑇�2 + ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=3
�
𝑇𝑇�𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑗𝑗=1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑗𝑗 (7.97b)

Approximation by second-order system

If a second-order model is desired, the half rule gives
�
𝐾𝐾 −𝐿𝐿� 𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e (7.98a)
(𝑇𝑇�1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇�2 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝑝𝑝
𝑇𝑇�2 = 𝑇𝑇�2 + 12𝑇𝑇�3 , 𝐿𝐿� = 𝐿𝐿 + 12𝑇𝑇�3 + ∑𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑖=4
�
𝑇𝑇�𝑖𝑖 + ∑𝑗𝑗=1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚+𝑗𝑗 (7.98b)

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–71

 7.9 Model simplification 7.9.1 Skogestad’s method

Example 7.2. IMC via model reduction by Skogestad’s method.

Process
Control
Laboratory Simplify the model
(16𝑠𝑠+1)(4𝑠𝑠+1)(−8𝑠𝑠+1)e−2𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 =
(50𝑠𝑠+1)(20𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)

to a second-order model by Skogestad’s method and determine the parameters

of a PID controller by IMC-based tuning for this model. Use a first-order filter
time constant 𝑇𝑇r = 10.
Here
(16𝑠𝑠+1)(4𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 = .
(50𝑠𝑠+1)(20𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)
16𝑠𝑠+1 1
According to (7.94c), ≈ . The numerator factor (4𝑠𝑠 + 1) can now be
20𝑠𝑠+1 4𝑠𝑠+1
cancelled out against the new denominator factor, which gives
1
𝐺𝐺� ⊖ 𝑠𝑠 =
(50𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)
and
(−8𝑠𝑠+1)e−2𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = .
(50𝑠𝑠+1)(12𝑠𝑠+1)(6𝑠𝑠+1)(3𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑠𝑠+1)

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–72

 7.9.1 Skogestad’s method Example 7.2

The resulting second-order model is

Process
Control
1 −𝐿𝐿� 𝑠𝑠
Laboratory
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e
(𝑇𝑇�1 𝑠𝑠+1)(𝑇𝑇�2 𝑠𝑠+1)

with 𝑇𝑇�1 = 50 , 𝑇𝑇�2 = 12 + 12 ⋅ 6 = 15 , 𝐿𝐿� = 2 + 12 ⋅ 6 + 3 + 1 + 8 = 17. Thus,

1
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = e−17𝑠𝑠 .
(50𝑠𝑠+1)(15𝑠𝑠+1)

According to Table 7.12 for IMC-based tuning of second-order model:

– 𝜆𝜆 = 𝑇𝑇r + 𝐿𝐿� = 10 + 17 = 27
– 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇�1 + 𝑇𝑇�2 = 50 + 15 = 65
� = 65/(1 ⋅ 27) = 2.4
– 𝐾𝐾c = 𝑇𝑇i /(𝐾𝐾𝜆𝜆)
– 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇�1 𝑇𝑇�2 /𝑇𝑇i = 50 ⋅ 15/65 = 11.5

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–73

 7. PID Controllers 7.9 Model simplification

Process
7.9.2 Isaksson’s and Graebe’s method
Control

Isaksson and Graebe (1999) have presented a method to simplify a high-order

Laboratory

model, where the fast and slow dynamics are combined to yield a model with a
desired number of poles and zeros. If the original model contains a time delay, it
is either left intact or substituted by a Padé approximation.
To describe the method, both factorized and polynomial forms of the original
transfer function are employed. If the numerator order is 𝑚𝑚 and the
denominator order is 𝑛𝑛 , the transfer function is
𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝐺𝐺 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾𝐾 (7.99a)
𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 𝑇𝑇2 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠+1)
𝑏𝑏0 𝑠𝑠 𝑚𝑚 +⋯+𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−2 𝑠𝑠 2 +𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 𝑠𝑠+1
= 𝐾𝐾 (7.99b)
𝑎𝑎0 𝑠𝑠 𝑛𝑛 +⋯+𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 𝑠𝑠 2 +𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1

where 𝑇𝑇1 ≥ 𝑇𝑇2 ≥ ⋯ ≥ 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛 > 0 (i.e., a stable system) and |𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 | ≥ |𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+2 | ≥
⋯ ≥ |𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚 | . The numerator time constants can be positive or negative.

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–74

 7.9 Model simplification 7.9.2 Isakssons’s and Graebe’s method

If a model with the numerator order 𝑚𝑚

� and the denominator order 𝑛𝑛� is desired,
Process
Control the simplified model is
Laboratory

𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+� �

𝑚𝑚
𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠+1) + 𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−� 𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠 +⋯+𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 𝑠𝑠+1
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 𝐾𝐾 �
𝑛𝑛 (7.100)
𝑇𝑇1 𝑠𝑠+1 …(𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛
� 𝑠𝑠+1) + 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−� 𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑠 +⋯+𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1

Complex-conjugated poles or zeros is no problem, except if they occur as poles

number 𝑛𝑛� and 𝑛𝑛� + 1 or zeros number 𝑛𝑛 + 𝑚𝑚
� and 𝑛𝑛 + 𝑚𝑚 � + 1. One solution is
then to use the real part of the complex conjugate as 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛� or 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑚𝑚
� .

If the model is to be used for controller tuning, a strictly proper first- or second-
order model, possibly with a time delay, is usually desired. Then
𝐾𝐾
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 1 (1st order) (7.101)
𝑇𝑇1 +𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1
2
1
𝐾𝐾 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+1 +𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 𝑠𝑠+1
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 1 2
1 (2nd order) (7.102)
𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 +𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 𝑠𝑠 2 + 𝑇𝑇1 +𝑇𝑇2 +𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 𝑠𝑠+1
2 2
where
𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 = ∑𝑚𝑚 𝑛𝑛
𝑗𝑗=1 𝑇𝑇𝑛𝑛+𝑗𝑗 , 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 = ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 , 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 = 2
1
∑𝑛𝑛
2 𝑛𝑛 2
𝑖𝑖=1 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 −∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑇𝑇𝑖𝑖 (7.103)

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–75

 7.9 Model simplification 7.9.2 Isakssons’s and Graebe’s method

Example 7.3. IMC via model reduction by Isaksson–Graebe’s method.

Process
Control
Laboratory
Solve the same problem as in Example 7.2 by Isaksson’s and Graebe’s model
reduction method.
The model gives
𝑏𝑏𝑚𝑚−1 = 16 + 4 − 8 = 12 , 𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−1 = 50 + 20 + 12 + 6 + 3 + 1 = 92
𝑎𝑎𝑛𝑛−2 = 12 922 −(502 +202 +122 +62 +32 +12 ) = 2687
from which
1
16+12 𝑠𝑠+1 (14𝑠𝑠+1)e−2𝑠𝑠
𝐺𝐺� 𝑠𝑠 = 1 2
1 e −2𝑠𝑠
=
1000+2687 𝑠𝑠 2 + 70+92 𝑠𝑠+1 1843.5𝑠𝑠 2 +81𝑠𝑠+1
2 2

This model has complex-conjugated poles, but according to (7.91), 𝑇𝑇1 + 𝑇𝑇2 = 81
and 𝑇𝑇1 𝑇𝑇2 = 1843.5 can be used in the controller calculations. Table 7.12 for
IMC-based tuning of second-order model then gives
– 𝜆𝜆 = 𝑇𝑇r + 𝐿𝐿 = 10 + 2 = 12
– 𝑇𝑇i = 𝑇𝑇�1 + 𝑇𝑇�2 − 𝑇𝑇�3 = 81 − 14 = 67
– 𝐾𝐾c = 𝑇𝑇i /(𝐾𝐾𝜆𝜆) = 67/(1 ⋅ 12) = 5.6 (much bigger than in Ex. 7.2!)
– 𝑇𝑇d = 𝑇𝑇�1 𝑇𝑇�2 /𝑇𝑇i − 𝑇𝑇�3 = 1843.5/67 −14 = 13.5

KEH Process Dynamics and Control 7–76