Comparative Study of PID Tuning Methods for

Processes with Large & Small Delay Times

Asfaw Gezae Daful
Department of Chemical Engineering, Higher College of Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

Abstract— Kp
A series of simulations have been carried out to compare the PI and
PID controller tunings of different tuning methods, namely Ziegler-
Nichols(ZN), Cohen-Coon (CC), Chien-Hrones-Reswick(CHR) and
minimum error criteria ISE, ISTE, ISTSE methods for various process
R(s) E(s) Ki
C(s)
models. Using simple first order plus time delay (FOPTD) and second − s
Gp (s)
order plus time delay (SOPTD) processes in a feedback control loop,
simulations of system responses to setpoint changes were plotted and
analyzed for speed of response, stability, and robustness of these
tuning methods. It was found that minimum error criteria ISE, ISTE, Kd s
ISTSE tuning methods, although they give a relatively slow response,
were superior in stability and robustness in almost all cases. The
minimum error tuning method is easy to implement and gives the
Fig. 1. Basic control system configuration of PID
desired results using MATLAB/Simulink effortlessly. It gives faster
responses with less oscillation. This superiority is observed both for
PI and PID controllers. On the other hand, ZN and CHR gave larger
overshoots with longer settling time for PI and PID, while CC gives
very sluggish response for PI controller. The ZN and CHR tuning
methods have higher proportional gains and smaller integral time Ki
Gc = Kp + + Kd s
constants leading to very poor damping, thus they are only suitable  s  (1)
for processes that operate deep within the stable region while for 1
processes operating on the periphery of the stable region will be = Kp 1 + + τd s
τi s
unsafe to tune using ZN and CHR tuning methods.
Keywords—PID tuning, Ziegler-Nichols, Cohen-Coon, ISE, ISTE, where Kp , Ki and Kd are proportional gain, integral
ISTSE.
gain and derivative gain constants respectively, while τi is
integral time constant and τd is derivative time constant. The
I. I NTRODUCTION proportional controller is used when we want the controller
action to be proportional to the size of the error signal. The

P roportional integral derivative, PID controllers have been

the heart of control engineering and is the most popular
in the industry, controlling more that 95% of closed-loop
introduction of integral action facilitates the elimination of
offset while the derivative action changes in the desired value
by anticipation, and thus an appropriate correction may be
industrial processes [1–3] . PID controller is the most popular added prior to the actual change. Thus, in simplified terms,
feedback controller with wide applications in the chemical and the PID controller allows contributions from present, past and
food processing industries as well as the automotive, electronic future controller inputs. The PID control method is most flex-
and aerospace manufacturing industries [2,4,5] . ible and simple method. This method is more popular among
PID control has been an active research topic for many all control methods. The determination of proportional (Kp ),
years. Since many process plants controlled by PID controllers derivative (Kd ) and integral (Ki ) gains or their respective time
have similar dynamics, it has been found possible to set constants is known as tuning of PID controller. LeBlanc [1]
satisfactory controller parameters from less plant information defined tuning as the adjustment of the controller parameters
than a complete mathematical model. Such techniques are (proportional gain Kp , integral time constant τi and derivative
needed to adjust controller parameters in situ with a minimum time constant τd ) to achieve satisfactory control.
effort. The two most popular PID tuning techniques were the Although, more and more PID tuning methods are proposed
step reaction curve experiment, and a closed-loop “cycling” to deal with various processes recently, a large number of
experiment under proportional control around the nominal industrial PID controllers are poorly tunned [6,7] . Sung and
operating point. A PID controller is shown in Fig. 1 and the Lee [8] proposed an identification algorithm for the automatic
transfer function is give by Eq. (1). tuning of PID controllers for better accuracy and to provide
more frequency data sets of the process. Vrancic et al. [9] used
Dr. Asfaw Gezae Daful is an Assistant Professor in the Department of the multiple integration of the process time response for calcu-
Chemical Engineering at Higher College of Technology, Abu Dhabi, United
Arab Emirates. e-mail: [email protected] [email protected] lating the parameters of the PID controller. Shen [10] proposed
Manuscript received —; revised —. a tuning method for PID controller providing the performance
assessment formulas based on a genetic algorithm-based de- III. PID T UNING M ETHODS
sign technique. Syrcos and Kookes [11] presented a general Tuning a control loop is arranging the control parameters
mathematical formulation for the development of customized to their optimum values in order to obtain desired control
PID control tuning. Ramasamy and Sundaramoorthy [12] used response. At this point, stability is the main necessity, but
the impulse response instead of the step response of the plant beyond that, different systems leads to different behaviors and
to tune the PID controller, requiring no approximation of the requirements and these might not be compatible with each
plant by any model. Pai et al. [13] presented a simple calculation other. To tune a feedback control system means to adjust
method of a PI/PID controller tuning for integrating processes parameters in the controller to achieve robust control over
with dead-time and inverse response based on a model. The the process [1,2] . Robust in this context is usually defined
purpose of this paper is to compare the performances of typical as stability of the process variable despite changes in load,
tuning methods for different processes. Two First Order Plus fast response to changes in setpoint, minimal oscillation and
Time Delay (FOPTD) and Second Order Plus Time Delay minimal offset (error between setpoint and process variable)
(SOPTD) processes are considered with large and small delay over time. Robust control is far easier to define than it is to
times. Thus, the paper is organized as follow: the processes achieve. With PID control being the most common feedback
considered are described in section II, followed by discussion control algorithm used in industry, it is important for the
on PID tuning methods III, Finally result and discussion is technicians and engineers to understand how to tune these
presented is section IV followed by conclusions drawn from controllers effectively and with a minimum investment of
the results in section V. time [1–3] .
The selection of the controller parameters is essentially an
optimization problem in which the designer of the control
II. P ROCESSES C ONSIDERED
system attempts to satisfy some criterion of optimality. A
Modelling of process plants for control analysis and design typical criterion for good control is that the response of the
often give rise to higher order models in order to capture system to a step change in set point or load have minimum
delicate dynamic behaviors of the process, with higher accu- overshoot, one-quarter decay ratio, minimum rise time and
racy [1,2] . Tuning of suitable controllers for these higher order minimum settling time. For a system to operate properly, the
processes are a bit challenging. It has been shown that a output should be stable, and the process should not oscillate
reduced order model is required for a higher order plant before in any condition of set point change or disturbance. However,
its tuning with a PID controller using classical tuning rules [14] . for some cases bounded oscillation condition as a marginal
Classical model reduction techniques for PID tuning mostly stability can be accepted.
used FOPTD and SOPTD. A large number of industrial plants Different types of processes, having different dynamic
are modeled by FOPTD, Eq. (2) and SOPTD, Eq. (3) transfer behaviors, require different levels of proportional, integral,
functions as follows: and derivative control actions to achieve stability and robust
response. It is therefore imperative for anyone seeking to tune
Kp a PID controller to understand the dynamic nature of the
Gp (s) = e−τd s (2) process being controlled. Descriptions of the tuning techniques
τ1 s + 1
considered in this work are presented in the next sections.

Kp
Gp (s) = e−τd s (3) A. Ziegler-Nichols (ZN) step response method
(τ1 s + 1)(τ2 s + 1)
The ZN tuning method determines the value of Kp , τi
where Kp is the system gain, τd is the time delay, τ1 > 0 and τd centered on transient response of the plant. Most PID
and τ2 > 0 are the time constants. The selection of a tuning rules are based on the assumption that the plant can be
controller type (P, PI, PID) and its parameters is intimately approximated by a first-order plus time delay system, depicted
related to the model of the process to be controlled. Their in Eq. (4) whose unit-step response resemble an S-shaped
computations required that the response should have 14 decay curve with no overshoot, as depicted in Fig. 2.
ratio, minimum offset, minimum area under the load-response
curve, and other favorable properties [1] . Ideally, it is necessary k
G(s) = e−sL (4)
the closed-loop system to satisfy the following performance Ts + 1
criteria [2] : the closed-loop system must be stable; the effects The S -shaped step response is termed as the Process Re-
of disturbances are minimized, providing good disturbance action Curve in process [15,16] . Such step response curves can
rejection; rapid & smooth responses to set-point changes are be generated experimentally or from a dynamic simulation of
obtained, that is, good set-point tracking; steady-state error the plant. The S-shaped reaction curve can be characterized by
(offset) is eliminated; excessive control action is avoided; the two constants, delay time L and time constant T , which are
control system is robust, that is, insensitive to changes in determined by drawing a tangent line at the inflection point of
process conditions and to inaccuracies in the process model. the curve and finding the intersections of the tangent line with
Two FOPTD processes were selected for tuning purposes, one the time axis and the steady state level line, as shown in in Fig.
with large delay time and one with small delay time as well 2. The time constant can be identified by taking the maximum
as an SOPTD process. slope and measuring the time period between the points where
the maximum slope line crosses the initial and final response test as is more sensitive than the ZN method. The controller
lines. So this method is useful even when transfer function parameters with this method are given by formulae in Table
of the plant is not known. First a step response of the plant II, where a = kL
T and τ = L+T .
L

is obtained. If the plant do not have integrator and dominant

conjugate poles then the unit step response curve will show TABLE II
C ONTROLLER TUNING PARAMETERS OF CC T UNING RULES
S-shaped curve. This curve has two constants, delay time L
and time constant T as shown in Fig. 2. These constants are Control Mode Kp τi τd
obtained by drawing a tangent at the inflection point of the  
curve and find the intersection of the tangent with time axis P 1
a
1+ 0.35τ
1−τ
and line c(t) = k. The compensator transfer function can
be obtained by the formulae given in the Table I. The PID
 
0.9 0.92τ 3.3−3τ
PI a
1+ 1−τ 1+1.2τ
L
controller settings recommended by ZN Kc , τi , and τd are
presented in Table I where a = kL T .
 
1.35 0.18τ 2.5−2τ 0.37−0.37τ
PID a
1+ 1−τ 1−0.39τ
L 1−0.81τ
L

y(t)
C. Chien-Hrones-Reswick (CHR) PID Tuning Algorithm
The CHR PID tuning method, which is also called modified
k
ZN method, focuses on set-point regulation and disturbance
rejection. The method provides formula for 0% and 20%
overshoot. The CHR PID tuning formulas are summarized
in Table III for set point regulation. Compared with ZN
method CHR PID tuning formula uses the time constant, T , of
the process explicitly. The more heavily damped closed-loop
response, which ensures, for the ideal plant model, the quickest
response without overshoot is labeled with 0% overshoot, and
t the quickest response with 20% overshoot is labeled with 20%
a L T overshoot. Similarly, this method can also be used to design
controllers for disturbance rejection purposes, though only set
point regulation is considered in this work for comparison
purpose against other tuning methods.
TABLE III
CHR T UNING FOR SET- POINT REGULATION
Fig. 2. Open-loop process reaction curve (S-shaped response curve) for a
step change Control Mode with 0% overshoot with 20% overshoot
Kp τi τd Kp τi τd
0.3 0.7
TABLE I P a a
ZN T UNING RULE BASED ON S TEP R ESPONSE OF P LANT
0.35 0.6
PI a
1.2T a
T
Control Mode Kp τi τd
0.6 0.95
PID a
T 0.5L a
1.4T 0.47L
1
P a

0.9
PI a
3L

1.2 L
PID a
2L 2
D. Optimum PID Controller Design
The optimum settings (parameters) are usually considered
to be those which give a minimum error integral after a step
change in set point or load. Ideal reset action is assumed so
B. Cohen Coon (CC) Method that the error eventually becomes zero and the error integral
In this method control action is removed and an open loop reaches a finite limit. Several authors have used the integral
transient is introduced by a unit step change in the signal to of the square of the error as a criterion of control quality. In
the process. At the output of the measuring element the step this work, the time domain optimal tuning method of FOPID
response is recorded as process reaction curve as shown in controllers has been formulated for the control of higher
Fig. 2. Then the dynamics of process is approximated by a order processes. This technique searches for an optimal set of
first order plus transportation lag model. The CC method is controller parameters while minimizing a suitable time domain
a more complex version of the ZN method. In this method integral performance index [14] . The simple error minimization
the process reaction curve is obtained first, by an open loop criteria can be customized by a suitable choice of a time
domain performance index to have a better control action as engineering applications [19] . The proportional gain, Kp , of ZN
reported by Guzmán et al. [17] and Saptarshi et al. [18] . This and CHR methods are about twice as large as CC’s Kp . While
introduces an alternative controller design relation based on the Kp of ISE, ISTE, ISTSE are higher than that of CC’s
a performance index that considers the entire closed loop Kp but lower than ZN’s and CHR’s Kp . The time domain
response. In this work the three popular integral error criteria specifications were also used for comparing these tuning
(optimum criteria) were considered, the integral squared error methods as performance index criteria, including rise time,
(ISE) criterion, integral squared time weighted error (ISTE) setting time, overshoot, peak time, peak as depicted in Table V,
criterion, and the integral squared time-squared weighted error where less error will be considered as the best controller. The
(ISTSE) criterion. The ISE criterion penalizes large errors, shortest settling time was for the CC settings for a step change,
while the ISTE and ISTSE criteria penalize errors that persist with a value of 673.90 seconds. Similarly, ZN and CHR
for long periods. In addition the following performance crite- methods have the shortest rise time and peak times compared
rion were considered for quantitative analysis of good control, with CC as well as longest settling time and peak time too. The
the good overshoot and short settling time, settling time, peak difference in rise time after the change in setpoint was quite
value and peak time. small among all the tuning methods except the CC method,
1) Integral of Square Error (ISE): as shown in Table V. The overshoot of ZN and CHR methods
Z ∞ were found way far higher than CC method. ZN method
ISE = e2 (t)dt (5) generally aims at obtaining fast disturbance compensation [20]
0 and results in poor tuning. Despite the popularity ZN is largely
2) Integral of Time multiplied Square Error (ITSE): due to the fact that it was amongst the first tuning methods to
Z ∞ be proposed, and compared to most other tuning techniques it
ITSE = te2 (t)dt (6) is still the simplest to use. As one can expect the optimum error
0 criteria (ISE, ISTE, ISTSE) gave least oscillatory responses. It
3) Integral of Squared Time multiplied by Square Error is also found that the optimum error tuning methods gave less
(ISTSE): Z ∞ overshoot peaks (about 1.2) for a change in setpoint, while the
ISTSE = t2 e2 (t)dt (7) ZN and CHR have as high as about 1.8. The integral time of
0 ISE, ISTE, ISTSE methods on the other hand were higher than
ZN, CHR and Cohen-Coon, except ISE having lower than that
IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION of CC.
Control tuning parameters and performances were calcu-
lated/simulated for different tuning techniques considered in
Step Response
this work. The controller tuning parameters estimated by ZN, 2
CC, CHR and minimum error criteria (ISE, ISTE, ISTSE)
1.8
methods are presented below. With these tuning parameters
obtained for P, PI and PID controllers by ZN, CC, CHR 1.6

methods and the optimum error criteria (ISE, ISTE, ISTSE) for 1.4

FOPDT and SOPDT processes are discussed and compared. 1.2

Amplitude

A unit step change in set point of the both processes under

1
different modes of controller and tuning methods are shown in
0.8
Figs. 3 to 6 respectively and the corresponding time domain
specifications are listed in Tables IV and X. In both tuning 0.6

methods, PID controller gave better performance compared to 0.4

P and PI controllers with reference to settling time, rise time,

0.2
offset, ISE, ISTE and ISTSE.
0
For a FOPDT process given below, Eq. (8), having short 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (seconds)
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

delay time
220
Gp (s) = e−2s (8) Fig. 3. Step responses for FOPDT process with PID controller tuned by
6.5s + 1 different turning methods: ZN +, Cohen-Coon ◦, CHR 4, ISE ∗, ISTE B,
the step repones of PID closed loop systems with different ISTSE •.
tuning techniques are depicted in Fig. 3. With CHR and
ZN PID tuning methods, the resulting system exhibit a large TABLE IV
maximum overshoot in the step response method, which is PID TUNING PARAMETERS Kp , τi AND τd , FOR A FOPTD PROCESS WITH
unacceptable. In such a case, we need a series of fine-tuning LARGE DELAY TIME

until an acceptable result is obtained. On the other hand CC

ZN CC CHR ISE ISTE ISTSE
method gives slow response with high rise time. The PID Kp 52.59 26.29 61.09 38.52 38.29 36.00
tuning Turing parameters shown in Table IV, also showed τi 276.00 762.00 321.93 675.32 807.29 818.32
that ZN and CHR methods have larger controller gain and τd 69.00 69.00 49.36 81.71 62.39 52.45
shorter integral time which are not good for most chemical
 TABLE V
T IME DOMAIN PERFORMANCE INDEXES OF THE TUNED PID, RESPONSE time depicted in, Eq. (9), is considered.
PARAMETER VALUES OF FOPDT
0.126 −138s
Gp (s) =
e (9)
ZN CC CHR ISE ISTE ISTSE 762s + 1
Rise Time 40.98 434.48 44.57 72.87 93.94 113.89
Settling Time 1451.80 673.90 1642.70 1073.60 702.85 598.14 The step repones of PID closed loop systems with different
Overshoot 89.24 0.91 94.80 31.89 20.22 8.34 tuning techniques are depicted in Fig. 5. As can be seen
Peak 1.89 1.01 1.95 1.32 1.20 1.08 from Table VII, the ZN and CHR tuning methods have higher
Peak Time 277.47 1227.80 281.03 274.57 276.03 277.83
proportional gains, Kp and smaller integral time constants, τi .
Similar to the process of FOPDT shown above in Eq. (8), the
ISE, ISTE and ISTSE settings give responses very much minimum error tuning methods are found to be superior to all
similar to each other, better than ZN and CHR, with ISE other methods with shorter settling time, smaller overshoot
slightly higher overshoot 31.89 and settling time 1073.60. giving better performance with stability and robustness in
Moreover, these ISE, ISTE and ISTSE settings gave faster almost all cases, depicted in Table VIII.
response than CC settings which gives a slower rise time and
a slower settling time.
Step Response
Similarly, for a proportional-integral, PI, mode of controller,
1.8
the unit step response of the process under the tuning tech-
niques considered is shown in Fig. 4. The ZN and CHR tuning 1.6

methods gave large overshoots with longer settling time, while 1.4

the CC gives very sluggish response. The minimum error

1.2
tuning methods gave smooth relatively fast response and small

Amplitude
overshoot similar with what was observed for PID controller 1

mode above. The smaller proportional gain, Kp , and shorter 0.8

integral time constat, τi , of PI controller were found from CC

0.6
method. The time domain performance indexes of PI are also
shown in Table VI. 0.4

0.2

Step Response 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
2 Time (seconds)

1.8

1.6
Fig. 5. Step responses for SOPDT process with PID controller tuned by
1.4 different turning methods: ZN +, Cohen-Coon ◦, CHR 4, ISE ∗, ISTE B,
ISTSE •.
1.2
Amplitude

1
TABLE VII
0.8
PID TUNING PARAMETERS Kp , τi AND τd , FOR A SOPTD PROCESS WITH
LARGE DELAY TIME
0.6

0.4 ZN CC CHR ISE ISTE ISTSE

Kp 199.61 99.81 225.05 110.56 109.93 105.33
0.2
τi 0.22 9.05 0.27 7.60 9.19 9.29
0 τd 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.09 0.064 0.06
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Time (seconds)

TABLE VIII
T IME DOMAIN PERFORMANCE INDEXES OF THE TUNED PID, RESPONSE
Fig. 4. Step responses for FOPDT process with PI controller tuned by
PARAMETER VALUES OF SOPDT
different turning methods: ZN +, Cohen-Coon ◦, CHR 4, ISE ∗, ISTE B,
ISTSE •.
ZN CC CHR ISE ISTE ISTSE
Rise Time 0.06 0.16 0.067 0.11 0.13 0.14
TABLE VI Settling Time 0.79 0.49 1.17 0.29 0.43 0.47
T IME DOMAIN PERFORMANCE INDEXES OF THE TUNED PI, RESPONSE
Overshoot 67.87 9.83 77.92 6.09 9.51 10.79
PARAMETER VALUES OF FOPDT
Peak 1.68 1.10 1.78 1.06 1.10 1.11
PeakTime 0.22 0.33 0.22 0.22 0.28 0.31
ZN CC CHR ISE ISTE ISTSE
Rise Time 130.32 1022.90 107.68 161.46 222.72 288.44 The tuning methods for PI controller showed the CC and
Settling Time 1636.60 2052.20 3291.30 1707.30 1069.90 820.76
Overshoot 57.21 0.00 90.78 23.12 11.63 5.41
the minimum error tuning methods have good performance
Peak 1.57 1.00 1.91 1.23 1.12 1.05 with relatively small overshoots, and settling times as depicted
Peak Time 437.98 4854.70 425.37 436.00 521.42 614.38 in Fig. 6 and Table IX. The ZN and CHR tuning methods
gave large overshoots with longer settling time. These tuning
A second process considered is a FOPDT with longer delay methods result in closed-loop systems with very poor damping.
It was observed that these, ZN and CHR tuning methods Step Response

were only suitable for open-loop stable processes and the 1.8

closed-loop method is applicable to processes that operate 1.6

deep within the stable region under closed-loop conditions. 1.4

Processes operating on the periphery of the stable region will

1.2
be unsafe to tune using closed loop ZN and CHR tuning. These

Amplitude
two methods also result in poor tuning. 1

0.8

0.6

Step Response
0.4
2.5

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 Time (seconds)

1.5
Fig. 7. Step responses for SOPDT process, (Gp(s) = 10s2 100 e−0.1s ),
Amplitude

+11s+1
with PID controller tuned by different turning methods: ZN +, Cohen-Coon
◦, CHR 4, ISE ∗, ISTE B, ISTSE •.
1

0.5 are compared. It is concluded that minimum error tuning

method is easy to implement and gives the desired results
0
using MATLAB/Simulink effortlessly. It gives faster responses
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (seconds) with less oscillation. This superiority is observed both for
PI and PID controllers. On the other hand, ZN and CHR
gave larger overshoots with longer settling time for PI and
0.126 −138s
Fig. 6. Step responses for FOPDT process, (Gp(s) = 762s+1 e ) with PID, while CC gives very sluggish response for PI controller.
PI controller tuned by different turning methods: ZN +, Cohen-Coon ◦, CHR For both processes with short and long delay times, the ZN
4, ISE ∗, ISTE B, ISTSE •.
and CHR tuning methods have higher proportional gains and
smaller integral time constants leading them to have very poor
TABLE IX damping. These two methods if applied for processes with
PI TUNING PARAMETERS Kp AND τi FOR A SOPTD PROCESS WITH
0.126
LARGE DELAY TIME , Gp(s) = 762s+1 e−138s large delay time may lead for instability. Thus, ZN and CHR
tuning methods are only suitable for processes that operate
ZN CC CHR ISE ISTE ISTSE deep within the stable region while for processes operating on
Kp 149.71 58.22 151.36 101.13 83.52 76.21 the periphery of the stable region will be unsafe to tune using
τi 0.36 10.86 0.35 13.15 9.38 8.86 ZN and CHR tuning methods.

TABLE X R EFERENCES
T IME DOMAIN PERFORMANCE INDEXES OF THE TUNED PI, RESPONSE
PARAMETER VALUES OF SOPDT [1] S. E. LeBlanc and D. R. Coughanowr, Process Systems
Analysis and Control, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, 2009.
ZN CC CHR ISE ISTE ISTSE
Rise Time 0.11 0.27 0.11 0.16 0.19 0.21 [2] D. E. Seborg, D. A. Mellichamp, T. F. Edgar, and F. J.
Settling Time 7.19 1.29 8.34 1.53 1.02 1.08 Doyle III, Process Dynamics and Control, 3rd ed. Wiley,
Overshoot 103.08 12.52 105.25 34.92 26.60 22.87 2011.
Peak 2.03 1.13 2.05 1.35 1.27 1.23
PeakTime 0.34 0.54 0.34 0.39 0.43 0.45 [3] L. Sun, D. Li, K. Hu, K. Y. Lee, and F. Pan, “On tuning
and practical implementation of active disturbance
PID controller gave better performance compared to P and rejection controller: A case study from a regenerative
PI controllers with reference to settling time, rise time, offset, heater in a 1000 mw power plant,” Industrial and
ISE, IAE and IATE. Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 55, no. 23, pp.
Similar trends were observed for SOPDT process, Gp(s) = 6686–6695, 2016, cited By 0.
100 −0.1s [4] M. Shamsuzzoha, “A unified approach for proportional-
10s2 +11s+1 e , where the ZN and CHR found to be of
higher overshoots and oscillatory responses with longer set- integral-derivative controller design for time delay
tling times. Cohen-Coon method shows better performance processes,” Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
close to the minimum error tuning methods ISE, IAE and vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 583–596, 2015, cited By 3.
IATE. [5] S. Zheng, X. Tang, and B. Song, “Graphical tuning
method of fopid controllers for fractional order uncertain
V. C ONCLUSION system achieving robust d -stability,” International
Different PID tuning methods are discussed in this paper. Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 26, no. 5,
Step response of all methods and their system characteristics pp. 1112–1142, 2016, cited By 0.
 [6] S. Skogestad, “Simple analytic rules for model reduction
and PID controller tuning,” modeling, identification and
control, vol. 25, pp. 85–120, 2004.
[7] C. Grimholt and S. Skogestad, “Optimal pid-control on
first order plus time delay systems & verification of
the SIMC rules,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 46,
no. 32, pp. 265 – 270, 2013, 10th IFAC International
Symposium on Dynamics and Control of Process
Systems.
[8] S. W. Sung and I.-B. Lee, “An improved algorithm
for automatic tuning of PID controllers,” Chemical
Engineering Science, vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 1883 – 1891,
2000.
[9] D. V. S. Strčnik and Ä. Juričić, “A magnitude optimum
multiple integration tuning method for filtered PID
controller,” Automatica, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1473 – 1479,
2001.
[10] J.-C. Shen, “New tuning method for PID controller,”
ISA Transactions, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 473 – 484, 2002.
[11] G. Syrcos and I. Kookos, “Pid controller tuning using
mathematical programming,” Chemical Engineering and
Processing: Process Intensification, vol. 44, no. 1, pp.
41–49, 2005, cited By 15.
[12] M. Ramasamy and S. Sundaramoorthy, “Pid controller
tuning for desired closed-loop responses for siso systems
using impulse response,” Computers and Chemical
Engineering, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1773–1788, 2008, cited
By 21.
[13] N.-S. Pai, S.-C. Chang, and C.-T. Huang, “Tuning pi/pid
controllers for integrating processes with deadtime and
inverse response by simple calculations,” Journal of
Process Control, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 726 – 733, 2010.
[14] A. O. Dwyer, Handbook of PI and PID controller tuning
rules. London, U.K.: Imperial College Press, 2006.
[15] D. Seborg, T. Edgar, and D. Mellichamp, Process Dy-
namics and Control. John Wiley and Sons, 2004.
[16] C. Smith, “Pid explained for process engineers: Part 2
- tuning coefficients,” Chemical Engineering Progress,
vol. 112, no. 2, 2016, cited By 0.
[17] J. Guzmán, T. H´’agglund, M. Veronesi, and A. Visioli,
“Performance indices for feedforward control,” Journal
of Process Control, vol. 26, pp. 26 – 34, 2015.
[18] S. Das, I. Pan, S. Das, and A. Gupta, “A novel fractional
order fuzzy PID controller and its optimal time
domain tuning based on integral performance indices,”
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 430 – 442, 2012, special Section:
Local Search Algorithms for Real-World Scheduling
and Planning.
[19] T. Olsen and N. Ito, “Implement an effective loop tuning
strategy,” Chemical Engineering Progress, pp. 42–48,
2013.
[20] F. Haugen, “The good gain method for simple experimen-
tal tuning of PI controllers,” Modeling, Identification and
Control,, vol. 33, pp. 141–152, 2012.