5th International Conference on Advances in Control and

5th
5th International
Optimization Conference
of Dynamical
International on
on Advances
Advances in
Systems
Conference in Control
Control and
and
Optimization
5th of
of Dynamical
International Systems
Conference on Advances in Control
February 18-22,
Optimization 2018. Hyderabad,
Dynamical SystemsIndia
Available onlineand
at www.sciencedirect.com
5th International
February 18-22,
Optimization
February Conference
2018.
of Dynamical
18-22, 2018. on Advances
Hyderabad,
Systems
Hyderabad, India
India in Control and
Optimization of Dynamical
February 18-22, Systems
2018. Hyderabad, India
February 18-22, 2018. Hyderabad, India
ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 51-1 (2018) 413–418
Optimal
Optimal tuning
tuning rules
rules for
for PI/PID
PI/PID
Optimal
controllers fortuning
inverserules for PI/PID
response processes
controllers
Optimal fortuning
inverse response
rules processes
for PI/PID
controllers for inverse ∗response ∗∗processes
controllers for inverse
Mohammad Irshad response
Ahmad Ali processes
Mohammad Irshad ∗∗ Ahmad Ali ∗∗
∗∗
Mohammad Irshad ∗ Ahmad Ali ∗∗
∗ Mohammad Irshad Ahmad Ali
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute
Irshad ∗ Ahmad Ali ∗∗ of Technology
∗ Department ofMohammad
∗
∗ Department of Electrical Engineering,
Electrical India
Patna, Bihta-801106 (e-mail: Indian
Engineering, Indian Institute
Institute of
of Technology
Technology
irshad.pee15@iitp.ac.in).
∗∗Department
Patna,
Patna, of Electrical
Bihta-801106
Bihta-801106 Engineering,
India
India (e-mail:
(e-mail: Indian Institute of Technology
irshad.pee15@iitp.ac.in).
irshad.pee15@iitp.ac.in).
∗ Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
∗∗Department
∗∗ Patna, of Electrical
Bihta-801106 Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Department
∗∗ Department
of ElectricalIndia
Electrical
of Bihta-801106
Patna, (e-mail:
Engineering,
Engineering,
India irshad.pee15@iitp.ac.in).
Indian
Indian
(e-mail: Institute
Institute of
of Technology
ali@iitp.ac.in).Technology
Patna, Bihta-801106
Department of
Patna, Electrical India
Bihta-801106 (e-mail:
Engineering,
India irshad.pee15@iitp.ac.in).
Indian
(e-mail: Institute of Technology
ali@iitp.ac.in).
∗∗ Patna, Bihta-801106 India (e-mail: ali@iitp.ac.in).
Department Patna, of Bihta-801106
Electrical Engineering, Indian
India (e-mail: Institute of Technology
ali@iitp.ac.in).
Abstract: In this work, Patna,optimal Bihta-801106
tuning rules Indiafor (e-mail:
PI/PID ali@iitp.ac.in).
controllers for stable and integrating
Abstract:
Abstract:inverse
first-order In
In this work,
work, optimal
thisresponse optimal
processes tuning
tuningare rules
rules for
for PI/PID
reported. Integralcontrollers
PI/PID controllers
performance for stable
stable and
forcriteria and
(ISTE, integrating
IST 22 E
integrating
Abstract:
first-order
first-order
and IST 3 E)3 In
inverse
inversethis work,
response
response optimal
processes
processes tuningare rules for
reported.
are reported. PI/PID
Integral controllers
performance
IntegralOptimization for
performance(PSO), stable
criteria
criteriaan and
(ISTE,
(ISTE, integrating
IST
IST 22 E E
Abstract:
first-order
and IST 3 E) Inhave
inverse
have
been
work,minimized
thisresponse
been optimal
processes
minimized
using
tuningare
using
Particle
rules for Swarm
reported.
Particle PI/PID
Integral
Swarm controllers
performance
Optimization for(PSO),
stable an
criteria and evolutionary
(ISTE, integrating
ISTset-
evolutionary E
and IST
optimization E) have been
technique, minimized
to get optimal using Particle
controller Swarm
parameters. Optimization
For integrating (PSO), an
process evolutionary
model, 2
first-order
and IST
optimization 3 inverse
E) have response
been
technique, processes
minimized
to get optimal are
using reported.
Particle
controller IntegralOptimization
Swarm
parameters. performance
For integrating criteria
(PSO), (ISTE,
an
process ISTset-
evolutionary
model, E
optimization
point filter3 is technique,
used for to get optimal
reducing largeusing controllerFor
overshoot. parameters.
nominal For integrating
conditions, processresults
simulation model,show set-
and
point IST
optimization
filter E)is have
used been
technique,
for minimized
to
reducingget optimal
large Particle
controller
overshoot. For Swarm
parameters.
nominal Optimization
For integrating
conditions, (PSO), an evolutionary
process
simulation model,
results set-
show
point filter improvement
significant is used for reducing large overshoot. For nominal conditions, simulation results show
optimization
point filter is technique,
used toin
for reducing
both
get servo
optimal
large
and regulatory
controller
overshoot.
performances
parameters.
For nominal
. The
For integrating
conditions,
optimal controllers
process model,
simulation set-
significant
significant
also give improvement
improvement
good robust in
in both
control both servo
servo
performances and regulatory
and during
regulatory performances
performances
model-mismatch .. The
The
conditions. optimalresults
optimal show
controllers
controllers
point filter
significant
also is used
improvement for reducing
in both large
servoovershoot.
and For
regulatory nominal conditions,
performances . simulation
The optimal results show
controllers
also give
give goodgood robust
robust control
control performances
performances during during model-mismatch
model-mismatch conditions. conditions.
© 2018,
significant
also giveIFAC improvement
good (International
robust control inFederation
both servo and during
of Automatic
performances regulatory
Control) performances
Hosting by Elsevier
model-mismatch . The optimal
Ltd.
conditions. All rights controllers
reserved.
Keywords:
also give good Optimal,
robustPI/PID
control controllers,
performances inverse
duringresponse, integral performance
model-mismatch conditions. criteria, servo.
Keywords: Optimal,
Keywords: Optimal, PI/PID PI/PID controllers,
controllers, inverseinverse response,
response, integral
integral performance
performance criteria,criteria, servo.
servo.
Keywords: Optimal, PI/PID controllers, inverse response, integral performance criteria, servo.
Keywords: 1. INTRODUCTION
Optimal, PI/PID controllers, inverse response, control theory.
integral A performance
Smith-type predictorcriteria, servo.scheme that uses
1. INTRODUCTION
1. INTRODUCTION control
control
H theory.
theory. A
A Smith-type
Smith-type predictor
predictor et al.scheme
(2009).that
scheme that uses
uses
∞ design is reported in Alcántara
1. INTRODUCTION control
H
H∞ designtheory.
is A Smith-type
reported in predictor
Alcántara et scheme
al. (2009). that uses
∞ design is reported in Alcántara et al. (2009).
1. INTRODUCTION control
Parameters
H∞ design theory. PIAcontroller
Smith-type
of reported
is predictor
as functions
in Alcántara et al.scheme
of thatplane
right-half
(2009). uses
Proportional integral (PI) and proportional integral deriva- Parameters H∞ design
Parameters
(RHP) zero of
is
of
and PI
PI controller
reported
controller
time delay as
as
are functions
in Alcántara
functions
proposed et al.of
of
in right-half
(2009).
right-half
Luyben plane
plane
(2000)
Proportional integral (PI) (PI) and proportional integral deriva-
deriva-
appli- Parameters
Proportional
tive
Proportional
tive (PID)
integral
(PID) controllers
integral
controllers
are and
(PI)
are
widely
and
widely
proportional
used in industrial
proportional
used in
integral
integral
industrial appli- for
deriva-
(RHP)
(RHP) zero of
zero
second-order and
and PItime
controller
plusdelay
time delay asdelay
timeare
are functions
proposed
proposedinverse of
inright-half
in Luyben
Luyben plane
response(2000)
(2000)
pro-
tive (PID)
cations controllers
because of their are widely used
simplicity, in industrial
acceptable appli-
cost/benefit Parameters
(RHP)
for zero
second-order of
and PItime
controller
plus delay
time asdelay
are functions
proposedinverse of
in right-half
Luyben
response plane
(2000)
pro-
Proportional
tive (PID)
cations integral
controllers
because of their (PI)
are and
widely
theirperformance proportional
used
simplicity, acceptable in
acceptable integral
industrial deriva-
appli-
cost/benefit for second-order
cesses. A PID plus
controller time
is delay
designed inverse
using response
direct pro-
synthesis
cations
ratio andbecause of
satisfactory simplicity, for a class cost/benefit
of process (RHP)
for
cesses. zero
second-order
A PID and time
plus
controller delay
time
is are proposed
delay
designed inverse
using indirect
Luyben
response (2000)
pro-
synthesis
tive
ratio (PID)
cations and controllers
because of
satisfactory their are widely used
simplicity,
performance ina industrial
acceptable
for class cost/benefit
of process cesses.
appli- approach A PID
and controller
IMC is
principles designed
in using
Chien et direct
al. synthesis
(2003) and
ratio
models. andPIsatisfactory
controllers performance
are more for a class
preferred than ofPIDprocess
con- for second-order
cesses.
approach A PID
and IMC plus
controller time
is
principles delay
designed
in inverse
using
Chien et response
direct
al. (2003) pro-
synthesis
and
cations
ratio
models. andbecause
PI of theirperformance
satisfactory
controllers simplicity,
are more acceptable
for
preferred a class
than cost/benefit
ofPIDprocess
con- approach
Chen etA al.and IMC respectively.
(2006), principles in Jeng Chienand et al.
Lin(2003)
(Jeng and
models.
trollers PI controllers
due to less noisearesensitivity.
more preferred PI and than PID PID tuning cesses.
con- approach
Chen et PID
and
al. controller
IMC
(2006), is
principles
respectively.designed
in Jeng using
Chien et
and direct
al.
Lin synthesis
(2003)
(Jeng and
con- Lin Chen(2012))
et al. (2006),
have respectively. Jeng andrules
Lin (Jeng
basedand
ratio
models.
trollers
trollers
rules
and PIsatisfactory
due
due
proposed controllers
to less
to less
in the noise
noise
performance
are more preferred
sensitivity.
sensitivity.
literature
forPIa and
for aPI
class
and
class than ofPID
PID
PID
of
process
tuning
tuning
processes approach
Chen
Lin et al.
(2012)) and IMCproposed
(2006),
have principlesPID
respectively.
proposed PIDin Jengtuning
Chien
tuning etrules
and al.
Lin (2003)
(Jeng
based
on
and
on
models.
trollers PI
due
rules proposed
proposed controllers
to less
in the noise
the are more preferred
sensitivity.
literature PI and
for aaunstable, than
class of PID PID
of etc) con-
tuning
processes Lin (2012))
Smith-type have
compensatorproposed PID
design thattuning
gives rules
robust based on
perfor-
rules
(stable, integrating, in literature
inverse response,for class processes
have Chen
Lin et al. compensator
(2012))
Smith-type (2006),
have respectively.
proposed PID
design Jeng
thattuning andrules
gives Lin (Jeng
robust based and
on
perfor-
trollers
rules
(stable, due
proposed to less
integrating, in noise
the sensitivity.
literature
inverse response,for aPI and of
class
unstable, PID tuning
processes
etc) have Smith-type
mance. compensator design that gives robust perfor-
(stable,
been integrating,
summarized in inverse
O’Dwyer response,
(2009). unstable, etc) have Lin mance.(2012)) compensator
Smith-type have proposed PIDthat
design tuning
gives rules
robust based on
perfor-
rules
(stable,
been
proposed
integrating,
been summarized
summarized in inthe
in inverse
literature
O’Dwyer
O’Dwyer response,for aunstable,
(2009).
(2009).
class of etc) have mance.
processes Smith-type
For integrating
mance. compensator
first-order designplus time thatdelaygivesinverse
robustresponse
perfor-
(stable, integrating, inverse response, unstable, etc) have For integrating first-order
A
A
large
been
large
number
summarized
number of
of in
tuning
of in
O’Dwyer
tuning
formulas
(2009).
formulas
have
have
been reported
been reported
for mance.
for For integrating
processes, Luyben (Luybenplus
first-order plus time
timehas
(2003)) delay
delay inverse response
inverseempirical
proposed response
been
A
stable summarized
large number
overdamped O’Dwyer
tuning
processes. (2009).
formulasAs far have as been
inverse reported
response for For integrating
processes,
processes, Luyben
Luyben first-order
(Luyben
(Luyben plus time
(2003))
(2003)) delay
has
has inverseempirical
proposed
proposed response
empirical
A largeoverdamped
stable number
overdamped of tuning
processes.formulasAs far have
far been
as tuning
inverse reported
response for For PI/PID tuning
integrating rules
first-orderbased on
plus frequency-domain
time delay concept.
inverseempirical
response
stable
processes are concerned, processes.
less As
number as
of inverse response
rules have processes,
PI/PID
PI/PID
Based on Luyben
tuning
tuning
H (Luyben
rules
rules based
based
optimization (2003))
on
on has proposed
frequency-domain
frequency-domain
and IMC principles, concept.
concept.
tuning
A large
stable
processes number
overdamped of
are concerned, tuning
concerned, processes.formulas
less As have
far of as been reported
inverserules response for
processes
been are
proposed. For less number
first-order number
inverse of tuning
tuning
response rules have processes,
have
processes PI/PID
Based
Based
rules on
on
for tuning
H
H
∞
Luyben
∞
PI/PID
(Luyben
rules based
optimization
optimization
controllers
(2003))
onand
are
has proposed
frequency-domain
and IMC
IMC
reported principles,
principles,
in
empirical
Guconcept.
tuning
tuning
et al.
stable
processes
been and overdamped
are
proposed. concerned,
Fortimeprocesses.
less
first-order As
number far
inverse as
of inverse
tuning
response response
rules have
processes PI/PID tuning ∞
rules based onand frequency-domain concept.
been
with proposed.
without For first-order
delay, inverse
PI tuning response
rules processes
using two Based
rules
rules
(2006). on
for
forA H∞ optimization
PI/PID
PI/PID
PID controllers
controllers
controller is are
are
designed IMC
reported
reported
in principles,
Pai in
in
et Gu
Gu
al. tuning
et
et al.
al.
(2010)
processes
been
with and are
proposed. concerned,
without For time less number
first-order
delay, inverse
PI tuningofresponse
tuning
rules rules have
processes
using two
with and methods
different without time have delay, PI tuningin rules
been reported Sree using
and Chi- two Basedrules
(2006).
(2006).
using
on
forA
A
direct
H∞ optimization
PI/PID
PID
PID controllers
controller
controller
synthesis is
is
approach
and
are
designed
designed
for
IMC
reported
in
in
principles,
Pai
Pai
disturbance in
et
et Gu
al.
al.
tuning
et al.
(2010)
(2010)
rejection.
been proposed.
with and methods
without For first-order inverse response processes
different
different
dambaram
with (2003). time
methods
and methods
without
have
have
In
time thedelay,
been
been PI tuning
reported
reported
first method,
delay, PI tuning
in rules
in Sree using
Sree
controller
rules
and
and two rules
Chi-
Chi-
parame-
using two using
(2006). forA PI/PID
directPID
using direct synthesis
synthesis
controllers
controller approach
approach
are
is designed
for reported
in Pai in
for disturbance
disturbance et Gu et al.
al. (2010)
rejection.
rejection.
different
dambaram
dambaram
ters are obtained(2003).
(2003). have
In
In
byhave the
the
matchingbeen
first
first reported
method,
method,
the in Sree
controller
controller
coefficients and Chi-
parame-
parame-
of respective (2006).
Minimization
using A
direct PID ofcontroller
integral
synthesis is designed
performance
approach for in Pai
criteria
disturbance et al. (2010)
generally
rejection.
different
dambaram
ters are
are of methods
(2003).
obtained byIn thebeen
matching reported
first the
method,
the in Sree
controller
coefficients and Chi- Minimization
parame-
of respective
respective of
of integral performance criteria generally
ters
powers
dambaram
obtained
‘s’ in
(2003). theby matching
numerator
In the first the and coefficients
method, denominator
controller
of of closed using
parame-
results direct
Minimization
Minimization
in smallsynthesis
of
integral
integral
approach
undershoot for disturbance
performance
and
performance
shortercriteria
criteria
rejection.
generally
settling time
generally
ters are
powers
powers obtained
of ‘s’
of ‘s’ inin theby matching
numerator
the numerator and
and coefficients
denominator
denominator of respective
of closed
ofmethod results in
results inand
closed (Zhuang small
small undershoot
undershoot
Atherton (1991); and
and
Kaya shorter
shorter
et al. settling
settling
(2007); time
time
Padula
loop
ters transfer
are obtained function for
by numerator
matching servo theresponse.
coefficients Secondof respective Minimization
results in smallof integral
undershoot performance
and shortercriteria generally
settling time
powers
loop
loop of
transfer
transfer‘s’ in the
function
function for servo
forprinciples and
servo response.denominator
response. Second
Second of closed
method
method and (Zhuang
(Zhuang
Visioli and
and Atherton
Atherton
(2011)). PI (1991);
(1991);
and PID Kaya
Kaya et
et al.
al.
controller (2007);
(2007);
settings Padula
Padula
have
which
powers is
of based
‘s’ in on
the IMC
numerator and yields
denominator a PI controller
of closed results
(Zhuang inand small undershoot
Atherton (1991); and
Kaya shorter
et al. settling
(2007); time
Padula
loop transfer
whichfirst-order
is based function
based on on for servo
IMCPIprinciples
principles response.
yields Second
aa PI method
PI tocontroller
controller and Visioli
and Visioli (2011)).
(2011)). PI and
PI and PID
PID controller
andcontroller settings
settings have
have
which
with is
loop transfer function
IMC
filter. for controller
servo
yields
response.is tuned Second achieve been
method (Zhuang
and
reported
Visioli
in Majhi
and(2011)).
Atherton PI
(2005)
(1991);
and PID Kaya Zhuang and
et al. (2007);
controller
Atherton
settings Padula
have
which
with
with is based
first-order
first-order on IMC
filter.
filter.log PI principles
controller
PImodulus
controller yields
is tuned
is tuned a PI to
tocontroller
achieve
achieve (1993) been reported
been reported
for FOPTD in Majhi
in Majhiprocess (2005)
(2005) and Zhuang
and Zhuang
models using integraland Atherton
and Atherton
perfor-
maximum closed-loop ofyields
+2 dB a for first-order
which
with
maximum
maximum
plus
is based
first-order
time closed-loop
closed-loop
delay
on IMC
filter.
inverse log
log
principles
PIresponse
controller
modulus
modulus of +2
of is tuned
+2
processes dB
dB
PI to
for
for
in achieve and
controller
first-order
first-order
Marchetti
been
(1993)
mance
Visioli
(1993)reported
for (2011)).
for FOPTD
FOPTD
criteria in Majhi
(ISE,
PI and
process
process (2005)
ISTE,
PID
models
IST 2 controller
and
models E). Zhuang
using
using
For
settings
and
integral
integral
integrating
have
Atherton
perfor-
perfor-
pro-
with
maximum
plus first-order
closed-loop
time (2000). filter.
delay inverse
inverse PI controller
logresponse
modulus processes
response is tuned
of +2 dB for
processes to achieve
in first-order
Marchetti mance been
(1993)
mance reported
for FOPTD
criteria in Majhi
(ISE, process (2005)
ISTE, and
models2
ISTrules
2 Zhuang
using
E). have and
integral
For integrating Atherton
integrating perfor-
pro-
plus
and time
Scali delay in Marchetti cesses, criteria
optimal (ISE,
PI/PID ISTE, IST
tuning E). For been pro-
proposed
maximum
plus
and
closed-loop
time (2000).
and Scali
Scali delay inverse
(2000). logresponse
modulus processes
of +2 dB for Marchetti (1993)
in first-order mance
cesses,
cesses,
in Ali
for FOPTD
criteria
optimal
optimal
and Majhi(ISE,
PI/PID
PI/PID
process
ISTE,
(2011). tuning
models
IST
tuning
The
2
E).using
rules
rules
controller
2
have
have
integral
For integrating
been
been
perfor-
pro-
proposed
proposed
parameters are
plus
In time (2000).
andWaller
Scali delayNygardas
and inverse response
(1975), itprocesses
is demostrated that a mance
in Marchetti cesses,
in
in Ali
Ali
obtained
criteria
optimal
and
and for Majhi
Majhi
(ISE,
PI/PID ISTE,
(2011).
(2011).
integrating and
ISTcontroller
tuning
The
The
E). have
rules
controller
unstable
For integrating
been
parameters
parameters
processes in
pro-
proposedare
are
Visioli
In Waller
and
In
PID Waller
Scali and Nygardas
(2000).
and
controller Nygardas (1975), it
(1975),
with Ziegler-Nichols it is
is tuning
demostrated
demostrated (Ziegler that
that andaa cesses,
in Ali
obtained optimal
and for Majhi PI/PID
(2011).
integrating tuning
and The rules have
controller
unstable been in proposed
parameters
processes are
Visioli
In Waller
PID controller and
controller Nygardas
with (1975),
Ziegler-Nichols it is demostrated
tuning that
(Ziegler and and a obtained
(2001) and for integrating
Kaya (2003) and
by unstable
minimizing processes
ISTE in Visioli
criterion.
PID
Nichols (1942)) with
gives Ziegler-Nichols
acceptable tuning
control (Ziegler
performance for in Ali and
obtained
(2001) and for Majhi
Kaya (2011).and
integrating
(2003) byThe controller
unstable
minimizing parameters
processes
ISTE in are
Visioli
criterion.
fora On (2001) and
similar Kaya (2003) by minimizing ISTE criterion.
In Waller
PID
Nichols
Nichols
second-order
and Nygardas
controller
(1942))
(1942)) with
gives
inverse
(1975), itcontrol
Ziegler-Nichols
gives response
acceptable
acceptable
is tuning
control
processes
demostrated (Ziegler
performance
performance
(without
that and
for
delay). obtained
(2001)
On and
similar forlines,
Kaya
lines,
PI/PID
integrating
(2003)
PI/PID and
by
controller
unstable
minimizing
controller
settings
processes
ISTE
settings
forin aVisioli
for
class
criterion.
a class
PID
Nicholscontroller
second-order(1942)) with Ziegler-Nichols
gives model,
inverse acceptable
response tuning
control
processes (Ziegler
performance
(without for of
and
delay). Oninverse
similarresponse
lines, PI/PID
processes controller
are proposed settingsin for this a work.
class
second-order
For the same inverse
process response anprocesses
analytical (without
design ofdelay).a PID (2001)
On
of inverseandresponse
similar Kaya PI/PID
lines, (2003)
processes by minimizing
controller
are proposed ISTE
settings in forcriterion.
this a Eber-
class
work.
Nichols
second-order
For (1942))
the same
same gives
inverse
process acceptable
response
model, control
anprocesses
analytical performance
(without
design ofdelay).for of inverse
Particle response
Swarm processes
Optimization are
(PSO) proposed
(Kennedy in this
and work.
For the
controller basedprocesson model,
IMC an
theory analytical
is proposed designin of
Scaliaa PID
PID
and On
of similar
inverse
Particle
Particle
hart Swarm
Swarm
(1995);
lines,
response PI/PID
processes
Optimization
Optimization
Eberhart
controller
and Kennedy are
(PSO)
(PSO)(1995);
settingsin for
proposed
(Kennedy
(Kennedy Shi this
and a Eber-
class
work.
and Eber-
second-order
For the
controller same
based inverse
processon response
model,
IMC an
theory processes
analytical
is proposed (without
designin of delay).
Scali a PID
and of inverse response processes are proposed in this work.
controller
Rachid based
(1998). on IMC
Iinoyamodel, theory
and Altpeter is proposed
(Iinoya in
and of Scali
Altpeterand Particle
hart (1995); Swarm
(1995); Optimization
Eberhart and (PSO)
Kennedy (Kennedy
(1995); Shi and Eber-
For the same
controller
Rachid
Rachid
(1962)) based
(1998).
(1998).
have
processon IMC
Iinoya
Iinoya
reported andantheory
and an analytical
Altpeter
Altpeter
inverse is response
proposed
(Iinoya
(Iinoya
designin Scali
and
and Altpeter
compensator and hart
a PID
Altpeter (1998);
Particle
hart Swarm
(1995);
(1998);
Eberhart
Eberhart and
Optimization
Eberhart
Eberhart
andKennedy
and
and
Shi(PSO)
Kennedy
Shi
(2001);
(2001);
(1995);
Poli Shi
(Kennedy
(1995);
Poli Shi
et
and Eber-
et al.
and(2007))
al. Eber-
(2007))
controller
Rachid
(1962))for based
(1998).
have on
reported IMC
Iinoyasaid and theory
Altpeter
an process
inverse is proposed
(Iinoya
response in
and Scali
Altpeter
compensator and hart
is (1998);
used to Eberhart
minimize and
the Shi (2001);
objective Poli
functions. et al.
The (2007))
three
(1962))
design have
the reported
above an inverse response
model. compensator
Iinoya and Alt- hart
is (1995);
(1998);
used to Eberhart
Eberhart
minimize and
and
the Kennedy
Shi (2001);
objective (1995);
Poli
functions. Shi
et and(2007))
al.
The Eber-
three
Rachid
(1962))
design for (1998).
forhave Iinoya
the reported
above and
said an in Altpeter
inverse
process (Iinoya
response
model. and Altpeter
compensator
Iinoya and Alt-
Alt- is used
integral to minimize
performance the objective
criteria viz. functions.
integral of The
the three
squared
design
peter’s the
scheme above
is modifiedsaid process
Zhang model.
et al. Iinoya
(2000) and
using H hart
is (1998);
used
integral to Eberhartcriteria
minimize
performance andobjective
the Shiviz.
(2001);
integral Poliofetthe
functions. al.
The (2007))
three
squared
(1962))
design forhave
peter’s scheme the
scheme is reported
above
is modified said
modified in an inverse
process
in Zhang
Zhang et response
model.
et al. compensator
Iinoya
al. (2000)
(2000) using and
using H
∞
Alt-
H∞ integral performance criteria viz. integral of the squared
peter’s ∞ is used to
integral minimize criteria
performance the objective functions.
viz. integral of theThe three
squared
design
peter’s for the above
scheme is modified said in process
Zhangmodel. Iinoyausing
et al. (2000) and Alt-H∞ integral performance criteria viz. integral of the squared
Copyright
peter’s
2405-8963 © 2018,
© 2018is
scheme IFAC
modified
IFAC in Zhang
(International et al. (2000)
Federation H∞429Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
usingControl)
of Automatic
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 429
Peer review©under
2018 responsibility
IFAC 429Control.
of International Federation of Automatic
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 429
10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.05.063
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 429
5th International Conference on Advances in Control and
Optimization of Dynamical Systems Mohammad Irshad et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-1 (2018) 413–418
414
February 18-22, 2018. Hyderabad, India

time-weighted error (ISTE ), integral of the squared time-
squared weighted error (IST 2 E) and integral of the
squared time-cubed weighted error (IST 3 E) have been
minimized for set-point tracking. For each of the process
model, the steady-state gain and time-lag constant have
been assumed as unity. The combined value of time delay
and positive zero time constant or value of positive zero
time constant is varied and for each value, PSO algorithm
is run to obtain optimal PI/PID controller parameters.
Finally, analytical expressions are obtained for the optimal
controller parameter values using curve fitting toolbox.
The paper has been organized as follows: Section 2 presents
processes undertaken and integral functions used for min-
imization. PI/PID tuning formulas for the processes stud-
ied are presented in Section 3. Section 4 contains illustra-
tive examples and simulation results. Lastly, conclusions
are drawn in Section 5.
2. PROCESSES STUDIED
where α symbolizes controller parameters to be selected
to minimize Jn (α). Here J1 (α), J2 (α) and J3 (α) denote
ISTE, IST 2 E and IST 3 E criterion respectively
3. TUNING FORMULAS
3.1 FO-IR and FOPTD-IR process models
Optimal tuning rules for FO-IR process models, relating
coefficients of PI controller to the process parameters are
given in Table 1. The above tuning rules are obtained
by minimising performance indexes mentioned in (6) for
set-point tracking. For a wide range of normalized ττz
ratios, optimal PI values have been obtained. The optimal
PI coefficients have been analytically interpolated using
curve-fitting toolbox to derive the tuning rules. Tuning
rules obtained for FO-IR process models are valid for
FOPTD-IR process models if ττz is replaced by τz +Dτ .

The inverse response processes considered in the present 3.2 IFOPTD-IR process model
work are as follows:
First-order inverse response (FO-IR) process For the IFOPTD-IR process models, PI controllers fail to
give stable output. Using optimal PID values obtained for
a wide range of normalized τz +D
τ ratios, tuning rules are
(−τz s + 1) derived. The obtained tuning rules are given in Table 2.
Gp (s) = Kp (1)
(τ s + 1)
A set-point filter with the following transfer function
First-order plus time delay inverse response (FOPTD-IR) is considered for reducing the overshoot for integrating
process process models during simulations.

(−τz s + 1) −Ds 1
Gp (s) = Kp e (2) Fsp = (7)
(τ s + 1) as2 + bs + 1
Integrating first-order plus time delay inverse response where a = τi τd and b = τi .
(IFOPTD-IR) process
Table 1. Tuning rules for optimal PI controllers
for FO-IR process models
(−τz s + 1) −Ds
Gp (s) = Kp e (3)
s(τ s + 1) ISTE IST 2 E IST 3 E
Kc Kp = a1 ( ττz )b1 + c1 a1 0.483 0.366 0.318
where ( τ , D, τz > 0 ); Kp is the steady-state gain; τ is
b1 -1.069 -1.157 -1.191
time-lag constant; D is the time delay and τz is the positive
zero time constant. c1 0.319 0.269 0.226
τi /τ = a2 ( ττz )b2 + c2 a2 0.344 0.211 0.144
PI/PID controller having following transfer function is b2 1.099 1.242 1.364
considered in this work :
c2 1.019 0.981 0.969

1 Table 2. Tuning rules for optimal PID con-

Gc (s) = Kc (1 + ) (4)
τi s trollers for IFOPTD-IR process models
1 ISTE IST 2 E IST 3 E
Gc (s) = Kc (1 + + sτd ) (5)
sτi Kc Kp τ = a1 ( τz τ+D )b1 + c1 a1 0.601 0.630 0.670
b1 -1.295 -1.353 -1.242
where Kc is proportional gain , τi is integral time constant
c1 0.140 0.160 0.129
and τd is derivative time constant.
τi /τ = a2 ( τz τ+D )b2 + c2 a2 5.192 3.439 3.033
In order to obtain optimal controller parameters, an in- b2 0.947 0.912 0.958
tegral performance criterion has been minimized. Mathe- c2 2.167 1.118 1.496
matically, the integral performance indexes are represented τ +D τ +D
a3 ( z τ )2 +b3 ( z τ )+c3
τd /τ = a3 0.379 0.351 0.318
by τ +D
( z τ +d3 )
b3 0.683 0.619 0.588
 ∞ c3 -0.043 -0.037 0.002
Jn (α) = [tn e(α, t)]2 dt, n = 1, 2, 3 (6) d3 -0.028 -0.016 0.032
0

430
 5th International Conference on Advances in Control and
Optimization of Dynamical Systems Mohammad Irshad et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-1 (2018) 413–418 415
February 18-22, 2018. Hyderabad, India

Table 3. PI controller parameter values for 1.5

Example 1.
1

Sree and Chidambaram ISTE IST 2 E IST 3 E 0.5

Process variable
Sree and Chidambaram
Kc 0.2537 0.802 0.635 0.544 0
IST3E
2
τi 1.0428 1.363 1.192 1.113 −0.5 IST E

−1
4. SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS
−1.5

To analyse the effectiveness of the proposed tuning rules, −2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(sec)
several examples of the processes mentioned above are con-
sidered. For physical implementation, a first-order filter is (a)
cascaded with the derivative term and filter time constant
is taken to be 0.1 times the derivative time constant. Rise 2

time (tr ) and settling time(ts ) in seconds and overshoot 1.8

(Os ) in percentage are calculated to compare the closed 1.6

Control variable
loop performances of various tuning methods. 1.4

1.2
Sree and Chidambaram
IST3E
4.1 Example 1. Consider a first-order inverse response 1
IST2E
0.8
process (Sree and Chidambaram (2003)) having transfer
0.6
function:
0.4

0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(sec)
(1 − s)
Gp (s) = (8) (b)
(s + 1)
Fig. 1. (a) Output responses for Example 1 (nominal) (b)
The controller parameters obtained by ISTE, IST 2 E and Controller outputs for Example 1 (nominal).
IST 3 E criterion for the above process model are listed in
the Table 3. The step responses and the control signals
2
obtained by applying unit step set-point change at t =
1.5
0 and step disturbance change of magnitude 0.5 at t
1
= 20 sec are shown in Fig. 1a and 1b respectively. For
Process variable

comparison, method reported in Sree and Chidambaram 0.5

(2003) has been considered. ISTE criterion response is 0

not shown as it results in very high undershoot which −0.5 Sree and Chidambaram+20%
IST3E+20%
is undesirable. Except undershoot behavior which is least −1
Sree and Chidambaram−20%
for IST 3 E criterion, IST 2 E and IST 3 E criterion result −1.5
3
IST E−20%

in similar responses. Both criteria lead to considerable −2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(sec)
reduction in rise time and settling time for servo response
as compared to Sree and Chidambaram method. They also (a)
give superior regulatory performance. The various perfor-
mance measures are shown in Table 4. For investigating 1.8

model-mismatch condition, IST 3 E criterion is preferred 1.6 Sree and Chidambaram+20%

because of least undershoot. All process parameters are 1.4
IST3E+20%
Sree and Chidambaram−20%
Control variable

perturbed by ±20% and the corresponding plots are shown 1.2 IST3E−20%
in Fig. 2. It is observed that IST 3 E criterion results in 1
lesser rise time and settling time as compared to Sree and 0.8
Chidambaram method. Thus optimal controller obtained 0.6
(IST 3 E criterion) is also giving robust control perfor- 0.4
mance.
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time(sec)
4.2 Example 2. An isothermal CSTR exhibiting multiple
(b)
steady state solutions is considered (Sree and Chidambaram
(2003)). The series-parallel reactions occuring in following Fig. 2. (a) Output responses for Example 1 (perturbed)
manner: (b) Controller outputs for Example 1 (perturbed).

dx1 F
1
A −→
k 2
B −→ C
k
= −k1 x1 − k3 x1 2 + (CA0 − x1 )
dt V
3 k dx2 F
2A −→ D = k1 x 1 − k 2 x 2 − x 2
dt V
(9) (10)
For the species A and B, mass balance equations are given where x1 and x2 are the concentrations of A and B re-
by: spectively in the reactor,F is the flow rate(l/min), V is

431
5th International Conference on Advances in Control and
Optimization of Dynamical Systems Mohammad Irshad et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-1 (2018) 413–418
416
February 18-22, 2018. Hyderabad, India

Table 4. Performance measures for various 1.4

examples
1.2

Tuning Servo Regulatory 1

Process variable
methods tr ts Os (%) ts 0.8

Example 1
0.6
Sree and Chidambaram 6.88 13.25 0.00 13.10 Sree and Chidambaram
0.4 IST3E
IST 3 E 2.15 5.71 0.00 6.82
IST2E
IST 2 E 1.55 5.62 0.00 7.00 0.2 ISTE

Example 2 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Sree and Chidambaram 1.12 4.96 9.87 5.74 Time(sec)

IST 3 E 0.76 3.16 14.35 3.70 (a)

IST 2 E 0.71 2.84 15.84 3.43
ISTE 0.64 3.18 17.39 3.10 1.4

Example 3 1.2 Sree and Chidambaram

Jeng and Lin 3.86 14.16 6.23 10.43 3
IST E
1
IST2E

Control variable
IST 3 E 3.47 6.68 0.34 7.15
0.8 ISTE
IST 2 E 3.31 6.18 1.18 6.96
0.6
ISTE 7.43 14.22 0.00 12.68
0.4
Example 4
0.2
Jeng and Lin 5.77 20.89 3.34 15.69
0
IST 3 E 5.60 15.08 3.82 15.26
−0.2
IST 2 E 5.98 19.07 4.37 20.15 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time(sec)

Table 5. PI parameter values for Example 2.
ISTE IST 2 E IST 3 E
Kc 1.270 1.003 0.857
τi 0.890 0.773 0.718
the reactor volume (l) and CA0 is the feed concentration
of A(mol/l)). The values of the parameters considered in
Sree and Chidambaram (2003) are k1 = 0.8333 l/min,
k2 = 1.6667 l/min, k3 = 0.16667 l/mol-min, CA0 = 10
mol/l. A steady-state value of x2 = 1.117 mol/l is ob-
tained at F/V = 0.5714 min−1 . The transfer function ob-
tained after linearization around above steady-state value
is 0.5848(-0.3546s+1)/[(0.4149s+1)(0.4464s+1)]. With a
measurement delay of 0.1 min, model obtained is reduced
to FOPTD-IR (Sree and Chidambaram (2003)) having
transfer function :
−0.3567s
 p (s) = 0.5848(−0.3546s + 1)e
G (11)
(0.6302s + 1)
The controller parameters reported in Sree and Chi-
dambaram (2003) are Kc = 0.3647 and Ti = 0.5065.
Table 5 shows optimal PI parameter values for various
integral criteria. For performance evaluation, non-linear
CSTR model is considered. The closed loop performances
are evaluated by applying unit step set-point change at t =
0 and step disturbance of magnitude 0.5 at t = 10 sec. Fig.
3 shows the output responses and corresponding control
signals. Amongst the various integral performance crite-
ria, servo and regulatory performances shown by IST 2 E
criterion are optimum. From Table 4, it is observed that
IST 2 E criterion has more overshoot but rise time and set-
tling time are less as compared to Sree and Chidambaram
method. Also, it has better load disturbance rejection.
Hence, optimal controller obtained from proposed tuning
rules is showing robust control performance.
(b)
Fig. 3. (a) Output responses for Example 2 (non-linear
CSTR model) (b) Controller outputs for Example 2
(non-linear CSTR model).
4.3 Example 3. Consider an IFOPTD-IR process (Jeng
and Lin (2012)) with transfer function:
0.547(−0.418s + 1) −0.1s
Gp (s) = e (12)
s(1.06s + 1)
The optimal controller parameter values are given in
Table 6. Process variable plots obtained by applying unit
step set-point change at t = 0 and step disturbance
change of magnitude -1 at t = 25 sec, are shown in Fig.
4(a) whilst Fig. 4(b) shows corresponding control variable
plots. The results are compared with the method reported
in Jeng and Lin (2012). Table 4 shows various performance
measures calculated for each of the tuning method. As is
seen from the plots, the IST 2 E and IST 3 E criterion have
similar responses but better than ISTE criterion. For set-
point tracking, settling time and percentage overshoot are
considerably less for both the criteria as compared to Jeng
and Lin method. They also show better load disturbance
rejection. Now considering the case of model-mismatch
in which all process parameters are assumed to have
uncertainties of +20%. Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) show the related
output and control signals respectively. It is observed that
IST 3 E criterion yields best servo and regulatory responses
amongst all performance criteria. It has less percentage
overshoot and settling time for servo response and load
disturbance rejection is much better compared to Jeng and
Lin method. Thus optimal controller (IST 3 E criterion)
shows more robust control performance compared to Jeng
and Lin method. It is to be noted that Jeng and Lin
already showed that their method has more satisfactory
results compared to Luyben (2003), Gu et al. (2006) and
Pai et al. (2010).

432
 5th International Conference on Advances in Control and
Optimization of Dynamical Systems Mohammad Irshad et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-1 (2018) 413–418 417
February 18-22, 2018. Hyderabad, India

Table 6. PID parameter values for Example 3. 1.2

1
Jeng and Lin ISTE IST 2 E IST 3 E
0.8

Process variable
Kc 1.608 2.852 3.128 3.025
0.6

τi 3.518 5.098 3.087 3.209 0.4

Jeng and Lin
τd 1.06 0.878 0.784 0.744 0.2 IST3E
τf 0.029 - - - IST2E
0 ISTE
a 3.729 4.476 2.420 2.387 −0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
b 3.518 5.098 3.087 3.209 Time(sec)

1.2
(a)

1
3
0.8
Process variable

2.5 Jeng and Lin

0.6 3
IST E
2
IST2E

Control variable
0.4
1.5 ISTE
Jeng and Lin
0.2 IST3E 1
IST2E
0 ISTE 0.5

0
−0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(sec) −0.5

(a) −1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(sec)

2 (b)

1.5 Fig. 5. (a) Output responses for Example 3 (perturbed)

(b) Controller outputs for Example 3 (perturbed).
Control variable

Table 7. PID parameter values for Example 4.

0.5
Jeng and Lin
3
IST E
Jeng and Lin ISTE IST 2 E IST 3 E
0 IST2E
ISTE Kc 0.95 1.115 1.186 1.204
−0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time(sec)
30 35 40 45 50 τi 5.88 9.112 5.653 5.594
τd 1.161 1.263 1.144 1.060
(b) τf 0.057 - - -
a 6.827 11.508 6.467 5.930
Fig. 4. (a) Output responses for Example 3 (nominal) (b)
Controller outputs for Example 3 (nominal). b 5.88 9.112 5.653 5.594

4.4 Example 4. Consider a higher order plant transfer
function (Jeng and Lin (2012)):
0.5(−0.5s + 1)
Gp (s) =
s(0.4s + 1)(0.1s + 1)(0.5s + 1)
The IFOPTD-IR process model (Jeng and Lin (2012))
obtained for controller design is:
−0.81s
 p (s) = 0.5183(−0.4699s + 1)e
G (14)
s(1.1609s + 1)
For the process model obtained, controller parameter
values are calculated using proposed tuning rules and
shown in Table 7. The method reported in Jeng and Lin
(2012) has been considered for comparison. Performance
evaluation is done on higher order plant model. The set-
point and load disturbance rejection responses obtained
by applying unit step set-point change at t = 0 and step
disturbance of magnitude -0.5 at t = 40 sec, are shown
in Fig. 6. The step response of ISTE criterion is not
shown as it has sluggish response which is unacceptable.
The IST 3 E criterion shows better servo and regulatory
responses than IST 2 E criterion. As compared to Jeng
and Lin method, IST 3 E criterion has less rise time and
settling time for servo response. Load disturbance rejection
is slightly better. Thus, more robust control performance
is shown by optimal controller (IST 3 E criterion) with less
controller parameters than Jeng and Lin method.
e−0.7s (13)
5. CONCLUSION
In this paper, optimal tuning rules for stable and integrat-
ing first-order inverse response processes have been pre-
sented. Analytical expressions have been provided relating
PI/PID controller parameters with the plant parameters.
Proposed tuning rules give better servo and regulatory
performances for nominal condition and robust control
performance for model-mismatch condition. A compara-
tive study of the closed-loop performances achieved by
ISTE, IST 2 E and IST 3 E criterion has been done. Simula-
tion results illustrate that ISTE criterion generally results
in either large undershoot or sluggish response. IST 3 E
criterion yields less undershoot and provides overall better
set-point tracking and load disturbance rejection.
REFERENCES
Alcántara, S., Pedret, C., Vilanova, R., and Zhang, W.
(2009). Analytical H∞ design for a smith-type inverse-

433
5th International Conference on Advances in Control and
Optimization of Dynamical Systems Mohammad Irshad et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-1 (2018) 413–418
418
February 18-22, 2018. Hyderabad, India

1.2
42(1), 111–121.
1
Kaya, I., Tan, N., and Atherton, D.P. (2007). Improved
cascade control structure for enhanced performance.
0.8
Journal of Process Control, 17(1), 3–16.
Process variable

Jeng and Lin

0.6
IST3E
Kennedy, J. and Eberhart, R. (1995). Particle swarm
0.4 2
IST E optimization. In Proceeding of IEEE International
0.2
Conference on Neural Network ,Perth, Australia, 1942–
0
1948.
Luyben, W.L. (2000). Tuning proportional- integral con-
−0.2
0 10 20 30 40
Time(sec)
50 60 70 80 trollers for processes with both inverse response and
deadtime. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Re-
(a)
search, 39(4), 973–976.
Luyben, W.L. (2003). Identification and tuning of inte-
1.2
grating processes with deadtime and inverse response.
1 Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 42(13),
0.8 3030–3035.
Control variable

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time(sec)
(b)
Fig. 6. (a) Output responses for Example 4 (real process)
(b) Controller outputs for Example 4 (real process).
response compensator. In American Control Confer-
ence., 1604–1609. IEEE.
Ali, A. and Majhi, S. (2011). Integral criteria for optimal
tuning of PI/PID controllers for integrating processes.
Asian Journal of Control, 13(2), 328–337.
Chen, P., Zhang, W., and Zhu, L. (2006). Design and
tuning method of PID controller for a class of inverse
response processes. In American Control Conference,
274–279. IEEE.
Chien, I.L., Chung, Y.C., Chen, B.S., and Chuang, C.Y.
(2003). Simple PID controller tuning method for pro-
cesses with inverse response plus dead time or large over-
shoot response plus dead time. Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research, 42(20), 4461–4477.
Eberhart, R. and Kennedy, J. (1995). A new optimizer
using particle swarm theory. In Proceedings of the
Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and
Human Science., 39–43. IEEE.
Eberhart, R.C. and Shi, Y. (2001). Particle swarm opti-
mization: developments, applications and resources. In
Proceedings of the Congress on Evolutionary Computa-
tion, volume 1, 81–86. IEEE.
Gu, D., Ou, L., Wang, P., and Zhang, W. (2006). Relay
feedback autotuning method for integrating processes
with inverse response and time delay. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research, 45(9), 3119–3132.
Iinoya, K. and Altpeter, R.J. (1962). Inverse response in
process control. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry,
54(7), 39–43.
Jeng, J.C. and Lin, S.W. (2012). Robust
proportional-integral-derivative controller design
for stable/integrating processes with inverse response
and time delay. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 51(6), 2652–2665.
Kaya, I. (2003). A PI-PD controller design for control of
unstable and integrating processes. ISA Transactions,
Majhi, S. (2005). On-line PI control of stable processes.
Journal of Process Control, 15(8), 859–867.
Marchetti, G. and Scali, C. (2000). Use of modified relay
Jeng and Lin techniques for the design of model-based controllers for
IST3E
2
chemical processes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
IST E
60 70 80
Research, 39(9), 3325–3334.
O’Dwyer, A. (2009). Handbook of PI and PID Controller
Tuning Rules. Imperial College Press.
Padula, F. and Visioli, A. (2011). Tuning rules for optimal
PID and fractional-order PID controllers. Journal of
Process Control, 21(1), 69–81.
Pai, N.S., Chang, S.C., and Huang, C.T. (2010). Tun-
ing PI/PID controllers for integrating processes with
deadtime and inverse response by simple calculations.
Journal of Process Control, 20(6), 726–733.
Poli, R., Kennedy, J., and Blackwell, T. (2007). Particle
swarm optimization An overview. Swarm Intelligence,
1(1), 33–57.
Scali, C. and Rachid, A. (1998). Analytical design of
proportional- integral- derivative controllers for inverse
response processes. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Research, 37(4), 1372–1379.
Shi, Y. and Eberhart, R.C. (1998). Parameter selection in
particle swarm optimization. In International Confer-
ence on Evolutionary Programming, 591–600. Springer.
Sree, R.P. and Chidambaram, M. (2003). Simple method
of tuning PI controllers for stable inverse response
systems. J. Indian Inst. Sci, 83, 73–85.
Visioli, A. (2001). Optimal tuning of PID controllers
for integral and unstable processes. IEE Proceedings-
Control Theory and Applications, 148(2), 180–184.
Waller, K.V. and Nygardas, C. (1975). On inverse repsonse
in process control. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Fundamentals, 14(3), 221–223.
Zhang, W., Xu, X., and Sun, Y. (2000). Quantitative per-
formance design for inverse-response processes. Indus-
trial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 39(6), 2056–
2061.
Zhuang, M. and Atherton, D. (1991). Tuning PID con-
trollers with integral performance criteria. In Interna-
tional Conference on Control., 481–486. IET.
Zhuang, M. and Atherton, D. (1993). Automatic tuning of
optimum PID controllers. In IEE Proceedings D-Control
Theory and Applications, volume 140, 216–224. IET.
Ziegler, J.G. and Nichols, N.B. (1942). Optimum settings
for automatic controllers. Trans. ASME, 64(11).

434