8th International IFAC Symposium on

Dynamics and Control of Process Systems

Preprints Vol.2, June 6-8, 2007, Cancún, Mexico

ANALYTICAL CONTROLLER DESIGN OF INTEGRATING AND FIRST ORDER UNSTABLE

TIME DELAY PROCESS

M. Shamsuzzoha, MunKyu Yoon, Moonyong Lee*

School of Chem. Eng. and Tech., Yeungnam University, Kyongsan, 712-749, Korea

Abstract: The design of the PID controller cascaded with first order filter has been
proposed for the integrating and first order unstable time delay process. The design
algorithm is based on the IMC criterion which has single tuning parameter to adjust
the performance and robustness of the controller. The setpoint filter is used to
diminish the overshoot in servo response. The simulation results of the suggested
method are compared with other recently published tuning methods to demonstrate
the superiority of the proposed method. For the reasonable comparison the controllers
are tuned to have the same degree of robustness by the measure of maximum
sensitivity and the robustness of the controllers also investigated for model mismatch,
where proposed method has clear advantage. For the ease of the selection of closed-
loop time constant (λ), a guideline is provided at two different robustness levels for a
broad range of θ/τ ratio. Copyright © 2007 IFAC

Keywords: Unstable process, Integrating delay process, PID controller, Disturbance

rejection, Time delay, Distillation columns control

1. INTRODUCTION

Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) control has the purpose of designing controller by an integrating

three-term functionality offering treatment of both process with time delay. Consequently, there has
transient and steady-state responses; it provides a been much recent interest in the literature on tuning
generic and efficient solution to real world control the industrially standard PID controllers for open-
problems. The wide application of PID control has loop unstable systems and integrating processes. The
stimulated and sustained research and development effectiveness of internal model control (IMC) design
to “get the best out of PID’’, and “the search is on to principle has attracted in process industry, which
find the next key technology or methodology for PID causes many efforts made to exploit the IMC
tuning”. principle to design the equivalent feedback
controllers for stable and unstable processes (Morari
The numerous important chemical processing units and Zafiriou, 1989). The IMC based PID tuning rules
are open-loop unstable process in industrial and have the advantage of only one tuning parameter to
chemical practice are well known to be difficult to achieve a clear trade-off between closed-loop
control especially when there exists time delay, such performance and robustness. It is well know that the
as continuous stirred tank reactors, polymerization IMC structure is very powerful for controlling stable
reactors and bioreactors are inherently open loop processes with time delay and cannot be directly
unstable by design. Furthermore, many of the used for unstable processes by reason of the internal
processes are usually run batch-wise, and as a result instability (Morari and Zafiriou, 1989), some
of possible formulation changes, may operate with modified IMC methods of two-degree-of-freedom
significant batch-to-batch variability. Clearly, the (2DOF) control such as Lee et al. (2000), Yang et al.
tuning of controllers to stabilize these processes and (2002), Wang and Cai (2002), Tan et al. (2003), Liu
impart adequate disturbance rejection is critical. On et al. (2005) had been developed for controlling
the other hand the integrating processes are also unstable processes with time delay. In addition,
frequently encountered in the process industries and 2DOF control methods based on the Smith-Predictor
many of the researchers suggested that considerable (SP) had been proposed by Majhi & Atherton (2000),
numbers of chemical processes can be modeled for Zhange et al. (2004) and achieved smooth nominal
E-mail:[email protected],*[email protected]
397
setpoint response without overshoot for first order processes the IMC structure cannot be implemented,
unstable processes with time delay. It is a notable since any input d will make y grow without bound if
merit that the nominal setpoint response tends to be Gp is unstable. Nevertheless, as discussed in (Morari
faster without overshoot for unstable process and Zafiriou, 1989), we could still use IMC approach
according to either the modified IMC methods or the to design a controller for an unstable process, if only
modified SP methods. In fact, the common the following conditions are satisfied for the internal
characteristic of the abovementioned modified IMC stability of the closed-loop system:
and SP methods is utilizing the nominal process (i) q stable.
model in their control structures, which effectively (ii) G p q stable.
contributes to acquire the above merit. It should be
noted that most existing 2DOF control methods (iii) (1 − G q ) G stable.
p p

restricted attention on unstable processes modeled in These conditions result in the well known standard
the form of a first order rational part plus time delay, interpolation conditions (Morari and Zafiriou, 1989):
which in fact, cannot represent a variety of industrial • If the process model G p has unstable poles,
and chemical unstable processes well enough.
Besides, there usually exist the process unmodeled up1 , up2 ,L, upm , then q should have zeros at
dynamics that inevitably tend to deteriorate the up1 , up2 ,L, upm .
control system performance. The delay integrating • If the process model GD has unstable poles,
process has clear advantage in the identification test,
because the model contains only two parameters and dup1 , dup2 , L , dupm , then 1 − G% p q should have zeros at
simple for identification. Some of the well acceptable dup1 , dup2 , L , dupm .
PID tuning methods for the delay integrating process Since the IMC controller q is designed as q = pm−1 f
are Chien and Fruehauf (1990); Lubyen (1996) and
Chen & Seborg (2002). in which pm−1 includes the inverse of the model
portion, the controller satisfies the first condition.
It is well known that in recent time the controller The second condition could be satisfied through the
hardware support the microprocessor implementation design of the IMC filter f . For this, the filter is
for the PID cascaded filter. Therefore, PID controller
designed as
cascaded with first order lead lag filter can be easily
∑ m α si + 1 (2)
implemented using the modern control hardware. f = i =1 i
The important reason for using the controller in this ( λ s + 1) r
form is availability of these facilities in the present where r is the number of poles to be canceled; α i are
microprocessor implementation to achieve the better determined by Eq. (3) to cancel the unstable poles in
performance. Many authors have suggested the PID GD ; r is selected large enough to make the IMC
controller cascaded with first order filter either to get controller proper.
PID structure or for the better performance. The PID (3)
pm−1 (∑im=1 αi si + 1)
controller cascaded first or second order filter type %
1 − Gp q = 1− =0
s = dup1 , dup2 ,L, dupm (λ s + 1)r
structure in Eq. (1) are suggested by Rivera et al. s = dup1 , dup2 ,L, dupm

(1986), Lee et al. (1998), Horn et al. (1996) and Then, the IMC controller comes to be
Dwyer (2003). ( ∑ m α s i + 1) (4)
q = pm−1 i =1 i r
 1
Gc = K c 1 +
 1 + as
+τDs 
(1) (λ s + 1)
 τIs  1 + bs Thus, the resulting setpoint and disturbance rejection
where K c , τ I and τ D are the proportional gain, is obtained as (nominal case i.e., GP = G% P ):
integral time constant, and derivative time constant y p A ( ∑mi =1 α i s i + 1) (5)
of the PID controller, respectively, and a & b are = Gp q =
( λ s + 1)
r
r
the filter parameters. It has essential to emphasize
y  p A ( ∑im=1 α i s i + 1)  (6)
that design principle of the aforementioned tuning = (1 − G p q)GD = 1 −  GD
 ( λ s + 1) 
r
methods for the unstable and delay integrating d
 
process is either complicated or providing modified d

IMC structure which is difficult to implement in the IMC GD

real process plant. R
controller Process
y
+- q Gp ++

Therefore, in the present study a simple method has Process model

been proposed for the design of the PID controller Gp
~
-+

cascaded with first order filter to accomplish the

improved performance for the first order unstable Fig . 1 (a) IMC Structure
and delay integrating processes. A closed-loop time d
GD
constant (λ) guidelines has been recommend cover a
wide range of θ/τ ratio. Simulation study has been Controller Process
performed to show the superiority of the proposed R
+
- Gc Gp ++
y

method for both the nominal and perturbed processes.

2. DESIGN PROCEDURE
Fig. 1 (b ) Classical Feedback Control

The IMC controller (Fig. 1-a) has been shown to be a

Fig. 1. Block diagram of classical feedback control
powerful method for control system synthesis
(Morari and Zafiriou, 1989). However, for unstable
398
The numerator expression ( ∑ mi =1 α i si + 1) in Eq. (5) Expanding and rearranging the above Eq. (15)
(16)
causes an unreasonable overshoot in the servo
response, which can be eradicated by adding the (−τs+1) (6+4θs+θ2s2) (αs+1)
Gc =
setpoint filter f R as: −K(6θ +18λ−6α) s1+
(
 2αθ +θ2 +12λθ +18λ2
s+
) (
3λθ2 +12λ2θ +6λ3 2 3λ2θ2 +4λθ
s+
3
) (
s3
λθ
3 2
)

s4 
 (6θ +18λ −6α) ( 6θ +18λ −6α) (6θ +18λ −6α) (6θ +18λ−6α) 
1 (7)
fR = The analytical PID formula can be obtained by
(∑ m
i =1 α i s i + 1)
rearranging the above Eq. (16) and presented as:
From Figs. (1-a) and (1-b), a feedback controller Gc 4θ (17)
which is equivalent to the IMC controller q is KC = − ; τ I = 2θ 3; τ D = θ 4; a = α
K ( 6θ + 18λ − 6α )
represented by
The parameters b in filter can be obtained by
q (8)
Gc =
1 − G% P q
equating the remaining part of the denominator of Eq.
(16) with the process pole and filter ( bs + 1) . Since the
The resulting ideal feedback controller obtained as
( ∑ im= 1 α i s i + 1) (9) remaining part of the denominator of Eq. (16)
p m− 1
Gc =
( λ s + 1) r contains the factor of the process pole, filter ( bs + 1)
p A ( ∑ im= 1 α i s i + 1 )
1− and a high order polynomial terms in s . The high
(λ s + 1 )
r

order polynomial term in s has barely any impact

The aforementioned resulting controller in Eq. (9)
because it is not in control relevant frequency range.
does not have a standard PID controller configuration.
Therefore filter parameters can be obtained as
The remaining objective is to design the PID ( 2αθ +θ +12λθ +18λ ) s + ( 3λθ +12λ θ + 6λ ) s + (3λ θ + 4λ θ ) s s (18)
2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3
λθ 3 2

controller cascaded with first order filter that 1+ 2 3 4

( 6θ +18λ − 6α ) (6θ +18λ − 6α ) ( 6θ +18λ − 6α ) ( 6θ +18λ − 6α )

( bs +1) =
( −τ s +1)
resemble the equivalent feedback controller most
closely and is discussed in the next section. Taking the first derivative of the above Eq. (18) and
substituting s = 0 , the parameter b can be easily
3. PROPOSED TUNING RULE obtained below
( 2αθ + θ + 12λθ + 18λ )
2
(19)
2

+τ
The first order delay unstable process (FODUP) is b=
( 6θ + 18λ − 6α )
the typical representative model which is commonly
The Gc in Eq. (15) contains the RHP (zero) which
utilized in the chemical process industries.
Consequently this section comprises the design of the will eliminate from the controller after factorization
tuning rule for FODUP and it also extended for the and cancel out with remaining part of Eq. (16). The
delay integrating process (DIP). value of the extra degree of freedom α is selected
so that it cancels out the open-loop unstable pole at
3.1. First-Order Delay Unstable Process (FODUP) s = 1 τ . This means certainly adopt α so that the
Ke −θ s (10) term [1 − Gq ] has a zero at the pole of GD . That
GP = GD =
τ s −1 required [1 − Gq ] and 1− αs +1 e−θs λs +1 3  . The
=0
where K is the gain, τ the time constant and θ is s =1 τ  ( ) ( )
s=1τ
=0

time delay. The IMC filter structure exploited is value of α is obtained after some simplification
given as:  λ θτ 
3 (20)
α s +1 (11) α = τ  1 + e − 1
f =  τ  
( λ s + 1)
3

The resulting IMC controller can be obtained as 3.2. Delayed Integrating Process (DIP)
follows K e −θ s (21)
G p = GD =
(τ s −1)(αs +1) (12) s
q= The DIP can be modeled by considering the
K ( λs +1)
3

integrator as an unstable pole near zero. This is

The IMC controller in the Eq. (12) is proper and the necessary because it is not possible to apply the
ideal feedback controller which is equivalent to the aforementioned IMC procedure for DIP, since the
IMC controller is:
term of α disappears at s = 0 . Therefore, DIP can
Gc =
(τ s −1)(αs +1) (13)
be approximated to FODUP as below:
K ( λs +1) − e−θ s (α s +1)
3
  K e −θ s K e −θ s ψ K e −θ s (22)
Gp = GD = = =
s − 1 /ψ ψ s −1
Approximating the dead time e −θ s with a 1/2 Pade s

expansion where ψ is an arbitrary constant with a sufficiently

−θ s ( 6 − 2θ s ) (14) large value. Accordingly, the optimum filter structure
e = for DIP is same as that for the FODUP model, i.e.,
(6 + 4θ s + θ s ) 2 2

f = (α s + 1) ( λ s + 1) . Therefore, the resulting IMC

3
It is important to note that the 1/2 Pade
approximation is precise enough to convert the ideal controller becomes q = (ψ s −1)(αs +1) Kψ ( λs +1)3 and
feedback controller into a PID cascaded first order the consequently PID tuning rules are obtained
filter with barely any loss of accuracy as well as follows:
retain the desired controller form. Therefore, dead 4θ (23a)
time in Eq. (13) is approximated with 1/2 Pade KC = - ; τ I = 2θ 3; τ D = θ 4; a = α
Kψ ( 6θ + 18λ - 6α )
expansion and the resulting Gc is
(τ s −1)(αs +1) ( 6 + 4θ s +θ 2s2 ) (15)
Gc =
K ( λs +1) ( 6 + 4θ s +θ 2s2 ) − (α s +1)( 6 − 2θ s)
3

 

399
( 2αθ + θ 2
+ 12λθ + 18λ 2 ) +ψ (23b) (2005), for the proposed method λ = 0.20 has been
b=
( 6θ + 18λ − 6α ) adjusted and corresponding tuning parameters are
 λ  θψ 
3
(23c) Kc = 0.4615 , τ I = 0.2667 , τ D = 0.1 , a=1.5779 , b= 0.1053
α = ψ  1 + e − 1

ψ   and f R = 1 (1.5779s+1) . The tuning parameters for the
Lee et al. (2000) method is identical with Liu et al.
4. SIMULATION RESULTS (2005) disturbance estimator at the same Ms value.
It is very obvious that the disturbance estimator
This section deals with the simulation study for the design of the Liu et al. (2005) method is exactly
two different examples and the results are compared identical with the Lee et al. (2000), but the setpoint
with some of the recently reported methods. To response is different in both cases, because both of
evaluate the robustness of a control system, the them have different approach. Lee et al. (2000) PID
maximum sensitivity, Ms , which is defined by controller setting are K c = 2.634 , τ I = 2.5197 ,
Ms = max 1/[1 + G p Gc (iw)] , is used. Since the Ms is the
τ D = 0.1541 and setpoint filter f R = 1 ( 2.3566s+1) .
inverse of the shortest distance from the Nyquist
curve of the loop transfer function to the critical
Figure 2(a) and 2(b) show the comparison of the
point ( −1, 0 ) , a small Ms value indicates that the
proposed method with Liu et al. (2005) and Lee et al.
stability margin of the control system is large. (2000), by introducing a unit step change in the
The Ms is a well known robustness measure and is setpoint and a unit step input in the load disturbance
used by Chin and Seborg, (2002). Therefore, respectively. For the servo response the setpoint filter
throughout all our simulation examples, all of the is used for both the proposed and Lee et al. (2000)
controllers compared were designed to have the same methods whereas three control element structure is
robustness level in terms of the maximum sensitivity. used for the Liu et al (2005).
4.1. Example 1. FODUP It is clear from the Fig. (2), the proposed method
A widely published example of a FODUP has been results in the improved load disturbance response.
considered for the comparisons (Lee et al., 2000; Tan For the servo response the Liu et al. (2005) methods
et al., 2003, Liu et al., 2005) is: appears better but the settling time of the Liu et al.
1e −0.4 s (24) (2005) method and the proposed method is almost
G =G = p D
1s − 1 similar. In Fig. (2-a) Lee et al. (2000) response is
In the recently published paper of Liu et al. (2005) very slow and it requires long settling time. It is
which had already demonstrated its superiority over important to note that in the well known modified
many widely accepted previous approaches (Tan et IMC structure has theoretical advantage of
al. 2003 and Majhi & Atherton, 2000). The proposed eliminating the time delay from the characteristic
method is compared with the Lee et al. (2000) and equation. Unfortunately, this advantage is lost if the
Liu et al. (2005). process model is inaccurate. Besides, there usually
1 exists the process unmodeled dynamics in real
process plant that inevitably tends to deteriorate the
0.8
control system performance severely. For the
Process Variable

0.6 disturbance rejection the proposed methods has big

0.4
advantage over other methods as shown in Fig. (2-b).
As discussed the disturbance estimator design of the
0.2 Proposed
Liu et al. Liu et al. (2005) and Lee et al. (2000) method is
(a) 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Lee et al.
6
exactly similar which cause the same PID tuning
0.7
Time setting and consequently same response for
Proposed
Liu et al. disturbance rejection and have overlapping in Fig.
0.5
Lee et al.
(2-b).
Process Variable

0.3
Despite the fact that the comparison has been
performed on the same robustness by equalizing the
0.1 Ms of the compared tuning methods by adjusting
their λ value. It is worthwhile to check the
-0.1
robustness of the controller by inserting a
(b) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 perturbation uncertainty of 10% in all three
Ti
Fig. 2. Simulation results for Example 1 (FODUP) parameters simultaneously to obtain the worst case
model mismatch, i.e., G p = GD = 1.1e−0.44s ( 0.9s − 1) . The
The three controller parameters for Liu et al. (2005)
method were taken as K c = 2 , C( s) = ( s +1) ( 0.4s +1) and simulation results for the proposed and other tuning
methods are presented in Fig. (3) for both the set-
λ = 0.5 , they suggested the disturbance estimator point and the disturbance rejection. It is clear from
F ( s ) = 2.634 +
1
+ 0.4058 s
. For the fair comparison λ Fig. (3) that the proposed controller tuning method
0.9566s has the best setpoint as well as load response while
has been adjusted for each tuning methods which the modified IMC controller structure which contains
gives the same Ms , because Ms is well know the three-element controller of the Liu et al.(2005)
robustness measure and used by many researchers. In method has worst response for the model mismatch
order to achieve the same Ms = 3.03 with Liu et al. for the setpoint. As we have seen in the setpoint
response for the nominal case the Liu et al.(2005)
400
has smooth and fast response, which is achieved by simulation results for plant-model mismatch are
the sacrificing the robustness of the closed-loop given in Fig. (5) for both servo and regulatory
system. The model mismatch case for the disturbance problem. It needs to clarify that the controller
rejection of Liu et al. (2005) and Lee et al. (2000) is settings are those calculated for the process with
identical and overlapping. The setpoint response of nominal process parameters. The responses indicate
Lee et al. (2000) is achieved by simple feed back that the proposed method has less oscillatory
controller with setpoint filter as in the proposed study response for both disturbance rejection and setpoint
also. The performance and robustness from the above and required less settling time. Chen and Seborg
study obviously exhibit that the proposed method has (2002), method has more oscillation and followed by
better nominal as well as robust performance among Lee et al. (2000). It seems that the proposed method
others. clearly gives good performance, even for high
process uncertainties. Also, the proposed method is
1 more robust than other tuning rules for large
0.8
uncertainness in process parameters.
Process Variable

0.6

0.4 1

0.2 Proposed 0.8

Process Variable
Liu et al.
Lee et al.
(a) 0 0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
0.4
Proposed
0.8 Liu et al. Proposed
Lee et al. 0.2
Chen and Seborg
0.6 Lee et al.
(a) 0
Process Variable

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.4 Time
2
Proposed
0.2
Chen and Seborg
Lee et al.
0 1.5
Process Variable

-0.2
(b) 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
0.5
Fig. 3. Perturbed response for Example 1 (FODUP)
(b)
0
4.2. Example 2. DIP (Distillation Column Model) 0 20 40 60
Time
80 100 120

The distillation column model studied by Chien &

Fruehauf (1990) and Chen & Seborg (2002) was Fig. 4. Simulation results for Example 2 (DIP)
considered for the present study. The distillation
column separates a small amount of a low-boiling 1

material from the final product. The bottom level of 0.8

the distillation column is controlled by adjusting the
Process Variable

steam flow rate. The process model for the level 0.6

control system is represented as the following DIP 0.4

model which can be approximated by the FODUP Proposed

0.2
model as follows: Chen and Seborg
Lee et al.

G =G =
0 .2 e − 7.4 s
=
2 0 K e − 7.4 s (25) (a) 0
0 50 100 150
p D
s 1 00 s − 1 3 Time
Proposed
The proposed method, Chen and Seborg (2002), and 2.5 Chen and Seborg
Lee et al.
Lee et al. (2000) was used to design the PID 2
Process Variable

controllers, as shown in Fig. (4) and λ was selected 1.5

5.56, 9.15, and 11.0 respectively, which have 1

resulting Ms = 1.90 for each tuning rule. Figure (4) 0.5

shows the output response, where the proposed 0

tuning rule result in the least settling time for both (b) -0.5
0 50 100 150
the servo and disturbance rejection and followed by Time

Chen and Seborg (2002). Lee et al.’s (2000) method

has the slowest response and requires the maximum
settling time for both the setpoint and disturbance Fig. 5. Perturbed response for Example 2 (DIP)
rejection. On the basis of Fig. (4), it is clear that the
proposed method performs better than the other 4.3. Closed-loop time constant λ guidelines
conventional methods for both the servo as well as The closed-loop time constant λ is an only one
regulatory performance. user-defined tuning parameter in the proposed tuning
rule. It is directly related to the performance and
The robustness of the controller is evaluated by robustness of the proposed tuning method, which is
inserting a perturbation uncertainty of 50% in the why it is important to have some λ guidelines in
gain and 20% in the dead time simultaneously order to provide both a fast and robust performance
towards the worst case model mismatch. The for a desirable range of θ τ ratio.
resulting worst case plant-model mismatch after
perturbation is obtained as Gp = GD = 0.3e−8.88s s . The

401
Figure (6) shows the plot of λ τ versus θ τ ratios REFERENCES
for FODUP. The presented λ guideline is for the Chen, D., D. E. Seborg, (2002), PI/PID Controller
nominal model for Ms = 3.0 and 3.6 values. It is Design Based on Direct Synthesis and
important to mention that the proposed tuning Disturbance Rejection, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 41,
method is applicable for dead time dominant process 4807-4822.
also. The λ guideline is not extended for the lager Chien, I. L., P. S. Fruehauf, (1990), Consider IMC
θ τ value in the Fig. (6) because it is difficult to Tuning to Improve Controller Performance
obtain the above suggested Ms value for the large Chem. Eng. Prog, 86, 33-41
θ τ ratio. So, for the θ τ > 0.6 , based on many Dwyer, A. O., (2003), Handbook of PI and PID
controller tuning rules; Imperial College Press,
simulation studies, it is observed that the starting
London.
value of λ can be considered to be equal as process
Horn, I. G., J. R. Arulandu, J. G. Christopher, J. G.
time delay, which can gives robust control
VanAntwerp, R. D. Braatz, (1996), Improved
performance. If not, the value should be increased
Filter Design in Internal Model Control, Ind. Eng.
carefully until both the nominal and robust control
Chem. Res. 35, 3437-3441.
performances are achieved.
Lee, Y., J., Lee, S., Park, (2000), PID Controller
Tuning for Integrating and Unstable Processes
0.4
Ms=3.0
Ms=3.6
with Time Delay, Chem. Eng. Sci. 55, 3481-3493.
Lee, Y., S. Park, M. Lee, C. Brosilow, (1998), PID
Controller Tuning for Desired Closed-Loop
Responses for SI/SO Systems, AIChE J., 44,
0.3 106-115.
Luyben, W. L., (1996), Design of Proportional
Integral and Derivative Controllers for
Integrating Dead-time Processes, Ind. Eng. Chem.
0.2
Res., 35, 3480.
Majhi, S., D. P., Atherton, (2000), Obtaining
Controller Parameters for a New Smith Predictor
using Autotuning, Automatica 36, 1651–1658.
0.1
Morari, M., and E., Zafiriou, (1989), Robust Process
Control, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ,.
Liu, T., W. Zhang and D. Gu, (2005), Analytical
0
Design of Two-Degree-of-Freedom Control
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Scheme for Open-loop Unstable Process with
Time Delay, J. Process Control, 15, pp. 559–
Fig. 6. λ guidelines for FODUP 572.
Tan, W., H. J., Marquez, T., Chen, (2003), IMC
Design for Unstable Processes with Time Delays.
5. CONCLUSIONS J. Process Control, 13, 203–213.
A simple design method of the analytical PID Wang, Y. G., W. J., Cai, (2002), Advanced
cascaded filter tuning method has been proposed Proportional-Integral-Derivative Tuning for
based on the IMC principle. Two important Integrating and Unstable Processes with Gain
representative processes have been considered in the and Phase Margin Specifications, Ind. Eng.
present study which is frequently used in the Chem. Res. 41 (12), 2910–2914.
chemical process industries. The proposed method Yang, X. P., Q. G., Wang, C. C., Hang, C., Lin,
has excellent improvement in both setpoint and (2002), IMC-Based Control System Design for
disturbance rejection for the FODUP and DIP Unstable Processes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 41
process. The simulation has been conducted for the (17), 4288–4294.
fair comparison when the various controllers were Zhang, W. D., D., Gu, W., Wang, X., Xu, (2004),
tuned to have the same degree of robustness by the Quantitative Performance Design of a Modified
measure of Ms value. The robustness study has been Smith Predictor for Unstable Processes with
conducted by inserting a perturbation uncertainty in Time Delay. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 43 (1), 56–62.
all parameters simultaneously to obtain the worst
case model mismatch, where proposed study has
clear advantage. The closed-loop time constant λ
guideline was also proposed for over a wide range of
θ τ ratio.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors wish to thank and express their
appreciation for providing the financial support for
this research, which was supported by the 2006
Energy Resource and Technology Project and
second-phase of BK (Brain Korea) 21 program.

402