J.

Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Report DP-8955




Improving PID Controller Disturbance Rejection by Means of
Magnitude Optimum





Damir Vrani and Satja Lumbar
*



*
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana





May, 2004

1
2
Table of Contents

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 4
2. The original MO method ............................................................................................................. 5
3. The disturbance-rejection MO (DRMO) method for PID controller......................................... 11
4. Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 15
5. References.................................................................................................................................. 15
Appendix A. Comparison of disturbance-rejection properties of original MO and
DRMO method for 63 process models ...................................................................... 18
Appendix B. List of Matlab and Simulink files used: ....................................................................... 91

3
4
1. Introduction
Most of the PID tuning methods available so far concentrate on improving tracking performance of
the closed-loop.
One of such tuning methods is the magnitude optimum (hereafter MO) method
[1,8,10,11,15,16,17], which results in a relatively fast and non-oscillatory system closed-loop
response. The MO method is originally used for achieving superior reference tracking. On the other
hand, by using the MO method, the process poles could be cancelled by the controller zeros. This
may lead to poor attenuation of load disturbances if the cancelled poles are excited by disturbances
and if they are slow compared to the dominant closed-loop poles [1]. Poorer disturbance rejection
performance can be observed when controlling low-order processes. This is one of the most serious
drawbacks of the MO method. In process control, disturbance rejection is usually more important
than superior tracking [1,12].
Recently, a modified method for tuning parameters of PI controllers, based on the magnitude
optimum method, has been developed. Namely, the original magnitude optimum (MO) has been
adjusted for improving disturbance rejection by using the so-called disturbance-rejection MO
(DRMO) method [18]. The results were encouraging, since disturbance rejection performance has
been greatly improved, especially for lower-order processes.
Modification of the magnitude optimum method is not limited only to the PI controllers. The aim of
this report is to show how the modification can be applied to PID controllers. However, since the
structure of the PID controller is more complex, the calculation of the PID controller parameters
cannot be performed analytically as is the case for the PI controller. Therefore, controller
parameters should be calculated by numerical methods.
DRMO method for PI and PID controllers is compared to original MO method on 63 process
models.
The report is set out as follows. Section 2 describes the original magnitude optimum tuning method
for the PI and the PID controllers. Section 3 provides the theoretical background of disturbance
rejection magnitude optimum method for the PI and the PID controller. Conclusions are given in
section 5. Appendix shows the matlab files, which were used for the calculation of PI/PID
controller parameters and the closed-loop simulation.


5
2. The original MO method
The objective of the magnitude optimum (MO) method is to maintain the closed-loop magnitude
response curve as flat and as close to unity for as large bandwidth as possible for a given plant and
controller structure [8,15] (see Fig. 1). Such a controller results in a fast and non-oscillatory closed-
loop response for a large class of processes.


Fig. 1. Magnitude optimum (MO) criterion.
This technique can be found under other names such as modulus optimum [1] or Betragsoptimum
[1,10,11], and results in a fast and non-oscillatory closed-loop time response for a large class of
process models.
If G
CL
(s) is the closed-loop transfer function from the set-point to the process output, the controller
is determined in such a way that

( )
( )
0
1 0
0
=
=
=

r
CL
r
CL
d
i G d
G
(1)
for as many r as possible [1].
Let us assume that the actual process can be described by the following rational transfer function:
( )
del
sT
n
n
m
m
PR P
e
s a s a s a
s b s b s b
K s G

+ + + +
+ + + +
=
L
L
2
2 1
2
2 1
1
1
, (2)
where K
PR
denote the process steady-state gain, and a
1
to a
n
and b
1
to b
m
are the corresponding
parameters (mn) of the process transfer function, where n can be an arbitrary positive integer
value. T
del
denotes pure time delay.
6
The process transfer function (2) can be developed into the following infinite series
1
:
L + + =
3
3
2
2 1 0
s A s A s A A G
P
, (3)
where A
i
are so-called characteristic areas:

( )
( ) ( )
( )
( )
i k i
k
i
i k
i k
i
del
k
i
i k
k k
k
PR k
del PR
PR
a A
i
b T
b a
K A
T b a K A
K A

=
+

=
+
+

+
+
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
=
+ =
=
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
0
1
!
1
1
M
. (4)
The controller structure is chosen to be of the PID type (see Fig. 2) and is described by the
following transfer function:
( )
( )
( )
f
d i
C
sT
sK
s
K
K
s E
s U
s G
+
+ + = =
1
, (5)
where U and E denote Laplace transforms of the controller output, and the control error
respectively. The controller parameters K, K
i
, K
d
, and T
f
represent proportional gain, integral gain,
derivative gain, and filter time constant, respectively.
In industrial controllers, the filter time constant T
f
is usually given implicitly by defining the ratio
between T
f
, K
d
and K:
K
K
T
d
f
= (6)
Typical values of are 0.05 to 0.125 [1].


1
The process time delay can be developed into infinite Taylor (or Pade) series (see Vrani et al., 1999).
Note that expression (3) is not related to any conventional process model. However, this kind of representation by the
infinite series will result in simpler calculation of controller parameters.
7
PID
+
_
w
d
y
+
+
Process
e u

Fig. 2. The PID controller in the closed-loop with the process.
The closed-loop transfer function is the following:
( )
C P
C P
CL
G G
G G
s G
+
=
1
. (7)
When placing the process transfer function (3) and controller transfer function (5)
2
into expressions
(1), the controller parameters can be calculated from process characteristic areas in the following
way [17,20]:

(
(
(

(
(
(

=
(
(
(

0
0
5 . 0 0
1
3 4 5
1 2 3
0 1
A A A
A A A
A A
K
K
K
d
i
(8)
The PI controller parameters are calculated simply as:

(

=
(

0
5 . 0
1
2 3
0 1
A A
A A
K
K
i
(9)
The characteristic areas can also be calculated in time-domain from the measurement of the process
steady-state change. If u(t) and y(t) denote process input and process output signals, then the
following conditions should be obeyed to calculate the characteristic areas:

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) <

= = =
= = =


t u
y t y
t y t y
y y
t
t t
0 lim
0 lim lim
0 0 0
L & & &
L & & &
. (10)
The calculation of areas proceeds then as follows:

2
Note that the filter time constant (T
f
) is assumed to be very small (T
f
0). If this condition is not satisfied, the exact
expressions for calculating PID controller parameters are given in [20].
8

( )
( )

=
=
0
1
0
1


d y y
d u u
k k
k k
, (11)
where

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
Y
y t y
t y
U
u t u
t u
U
Y
A
y y Y
u u U

=
=
=
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. (12)
The areas in expression (4) can then be calculated in the following way:

( ) ( )
k
k
k
k
k k k
y u A u A u A A
y u A A
1 1
0
1
2 1 1 1
1 1 0 1
+ + + =
=

L
M . (13)
Since in practice the integration horizon should be limited, there is no need to wait until t=. It is
enough to integrate until the transient response dies out.
The given tuning procedure will be illustrated on two examples.


Case 1
The process is assumed to have the following transfer function:

( )
5
1
1
s
G
P
+
= . (14)
The specific areas are calculated from (4):
126 , 70 , 35 , 15 , 5 , 1
5 4 3 2 1 0
= = = = = = A A A A A A . (15)
The PID controller parameters are calculated from expression (8):
1 , 313 . 0 , 06 . 1 = = =
d i
K K K . (16)
Note that in all simulation experiments, T
f
is chosen as T
f
=K
d
/(10K).
9
Fig. 3. shows the closed-loop response on reference change and input-disturbance. Note that the
closed-loop response features relatively good tracking performance and disturbance rejection.

Case 2
The process is assumed to have the following transfer function:

( ) ( ) s s
G
P
1 . 0 1 1
1
2
+ +
= . (17)
The specific areas (4) are:

543 . 6 , 432 . 5 , 321 . 4
, 21 . 3 , 1 . 2 , 1
5 4 3
2 1 0
= = =
= = =
A A A
A A A
(18)
and the PID controller parameters (8) are as follows:
1 . 5 , 09 . 5 , 19 . 10 = = =
d i
K K K . (19)
Fig. 4. shows the closed-loop response on reference change and input-disturbance (d=1 at t=0s).
Note that disturbance rejection compared to reference tracking becomes relatively slow. The reason
is that the process is of a relatively lower order so the controller zeros practically cancel the slowest
process poles [1]. Namely, the controller can be expressed in the following form:
( )
( )( )
s
s s
s G
C
002 . 1 1 1
09 . 5
+ +
= . (20)
So, both dominant poles are cancelled by controller zeros.

10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Reference following
t [s]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Disturbance rejection
t [s]

Fig. 3. The closed-loop response of the process (14) to the step change of the reference input and
disturbance signal; the PID controller applied is tuned by using the MO method.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.5
1
1.5
Reference following
t [s]
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Disturbance rejection
t [s]

Fig. 4. The closed-loop response of the process (17) to the step change of the reference input and
disturbance signal; the PID controller applied is tuned by using the MO method.
11
3. The disturbance-rejection MO (DRMO) method for PID controller
In the previous section it was shown that, by using the original MO method, disturbance rejection is
degraded when dealing with lower-order processes, since slow process poles are almost entirely
cancelled by controller zeros.
This is not unusual, since the MO method aims at achieving good reference tracking, so it optimises
the transfer function G
CL
(s)=Y(s)/W(s) instead of G
CLD
(s)=Y(s)/D(s). Let us now express G
CL
(s) in
terms of G
CLD
(s):

( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( )
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + =
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + =
= =
2
2
1
1
s
K
K
s
K
K
s G
s
K
K
s
K
K
s
K
s G
s G s G s G
i
d
i
CLO
i
d
i
i
CLD
C CLD CL
, (21)
where
( )
( )
( ) ( ) s
K
s G s G
s G
s G
i
C P
P
CLO
+
=
1
. (22)
From expression (21) it can be seen that controllers zeros (the sub-expression in brackets) play an
important role within G
CL
(s), which is actually optimised by the original MO method. On the
other hand, controllers zeros may significantly degrade disturbance rejection performance. A
strategy proposed herein is to optimise the transfer function G
CLO
(s) (22) instead of G
CL
(s) in
expression (1).
The number of conditions which can be satisfied in expression (1) depends on controller order [20].
Namely, by using the PID controller (three independent controller parameters), the first three
derivatives (r=1,2,3) can be satisfied. Note that the first expression (G
CL
(0)=1) is already satisfied
since the controller contains an integral term (under condition that the closed-loop response is
stable).
By placing G
CLO
(s) in expression (1), the following set of equations are obtained (for r=1,2 and 3):
0 1 2 2 2
1
2
0 0
2 2
0
= + +
i d i
K A K K A K A K A (23)
0 2 2 2 2 2 4
2
1 2
2
0 3 2 1
2 2
1 2 0
2 2
0
= K K A A K A K A K A K A K A K A K A K A
d i i d i d d
+ + + + (24)

0 4 2
2 2 2 2 4 2 2
3 1
2 2
1
2
2
2
2 0 5 4 3 4 0
2
3 1
2 2
2
2
4 0
= K K A A K A K K A
K A A K K A A K A K K A A K A A K A K A A
i d d d i
d i d d i
+ +
+ +
(25)
Since in each equation, the parameters K and K
i
are of the second order, the final result can be
obtained usually by means of optimisation (it cannot be solved analytically). The proper solution
should fulfil the following conditions:
K should be a real number (K) and should not exceed some pre-defined range of values.
12
The chosen K
i
together with K and K
d
should have the same sign as the process steady-state gain
(K
PR
or A
0
).
Initial values for the optimisation are the values calculated by using expressions (8). Any method of
optimisation (iterative search for numeric solution) that solves the system of nonlinear equations
can be applied.
Possible practical tuning procedure is to calculate derivative gain from expression (8), then
calculate proportional gain K from equations (23) and (24):

( ) ( )
0 2 6 2 2 4
4 4 4 4 4 2 2
3 4
0
2
1
2
0
2
1 3 2 0
2
2
0 2 1
2
1 0 3 0
2
2 1 0
3
1 3
2
0
= + + + +
+ + + +
d d d d
d d
K A K A A K A A K A A
K K A A A A K A A A A K A A A A A A
. (26)
Integral gain K
i
can be then calculated from equation (23):

( )
( )
d
i
K A A
K A
K
2
0 1
2
0
2
1
+
+
= . (27)
Then equation (25) should be tested. Derivative gain should be modified and K (26) and K
i
(27) re-
calculated until equation (25) becomes zero. One of the simplest solutions for the calculation of
controller parameters is to use some simple search methods like Newtons. In most cases only few
iterations are required for achieving very accurate result. MATLAB files which calculate optimal
PID controller parameters for disturbance rejection (according to expressions (23) to (25)) are given
in appendix and in [24].
Such tuning procedure is also called disturbance-rejection MO (DRMO) method.
Calculation of PI controller parameters is simpler, since K
d
is fixed to K
d
=0. Then K and K
i
are
calculated from expressions (26) and (27).
To sum up, the DRMO tuning procedure goes as follows:
1. Calculate characteristic areas from the process transfer function (4) or from the process
steady-state change (13),
2. calculate PID controller parameters (8) by using the original MO method (only for PID
controllers),
3. calculate gains of the proportional and the integral term from expressions (26) and (27). For
the PI controller, replace K
d
with 0.
4. Test expression (25). Appropriately modify K
d
and repeat steps 3 and 4 until (25) is
satisfied.
The given tuning procedure will be illustrated on two examples.

Case 3
The process is assumed to have the same transfer function as in Case 1. The obtained PID controller
parameters were calculated by using described tuning procedure (the optimisation was performed in
program package Matlab [24]).
The obtained controller parameters were the following:
10 . 1 , 43 . 0 , 29 . 1 = = =
d i
K K K . (28)
13
The calculated parameters are similar to those given in expression (16). It is therefore expected that
tracking and disturbance rejection performance will remain almost the same to Case 1. This
assumption is confirmed by the closed-loop responses given in Fig. 5 (see solid lines).
Case 4
The process is assumed to have the same transfer function as in Case 2.
The obtained controller parameters were the following:
10 . 5 , 57 . 44 , 3 . 24 = = =
d i
K K K . (29)
The calculated PID controller parameters are now quite different from ones given in (19). Note that
the integral gain (K
i
) is now much higher than before, so relatively high change of disturbance
rejection performance might be expected. The closed-loop responses on reference change (w=1 at
t=0) and disturbance (d=1 at t=0s) are given in Fig. 6 (solid lines). It can be seen that disturbance
rejection is now quite improved in comparison to the original MO method (see Fig. 4).
However, improved disturbance rejection has its price. Namely, enlarged process overshoots after
reference change can be noticed especially in Figure 6. The only way of improving deteriorated
tracking performance while retaining the obtained disturbance rejection performance is using two-
degrees-of-freedom (2-DOF) PID controller. One of the most simple solutions is to use the set-point
weighting approach [1]. Only the integral term has been connected to the control error, while
proportional and derivative terms were connected to the process output only:
( ) ( ) ( ) s Y
sT
sK
K s E
s
K
s U
f
d i
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+ =
1
. (30)
Figures 5 and 6 show tracking performance when using 2-DOF PID controller (see dashed lines).
The overshoots on reference following are now quite lower than when using a conventional PID
controller.
14
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Reference following
t [s]
2DOF & DRMO method
DRMO method
MO method
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Disturbance rejection
t [s]
DRMO method (1 & 2DOF)
MO method

Fig. 5. The closed-loop response of the process (14) to the step reference signal (w=1 at t=0) and
step disturbance signal (d=1 at t=0).

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
0.5
1
1.5
Reference following
t [s]
2DOF & DRMO method
DRMO method
MO method
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Disturbance rejection
t [s]
DRMO method (1 & 2DOF)
MO method

Fig. 6. The closed-loop response of the process (17) to the step reference signal (w=1 at t=0) and
step disturbance signal (d=1 at t=0).
15
Besides the shown examples, larger number of experiments on different process models has been
performed. The closed-loop responses on disturbance were compared in Appendix A for MO and
DRMO methods. Appendix B gives the Matlab files that were used for the calculation of controller
parameters.
It is obvious that disturbance rejection performance improves significantly when using the proposed
DRMO method. The exception is the process G
P8
, where some sub-processes give more oscillatory
response when using the PID controller. The reason is that the number of expressions which can be
satisfied in (1) depend on the number of controller parameters. Therefore, higher derivatives in (1)
are not always satisfied and the closed-loop amplitude response (Fig. 1) may have resonant peak.
This happened when using process G
P8
.


4. Conclusions
The purpose of this report was to present a modification to the original MO method in order to
achieve optimal disturbance rejection performance for the PID controllers. The given
modification is simple and straightforward for implementation in practice. Simulation experiments
on two process models have shown that the proposed approach results in improved disturbance
rejection properties. The disturbance rejection performance is evidently improved for the lower-
order processes. By using 2-DOF PID controller, the overshoots on reference following were kept
relatively low.
On the other hand, the original MO method, as well as the proposed modification, does not
guarantee stable closed-loop responses [17,22,20]. Unstable responses can be obtained when
dealing with processes with oscillating poles or strong zeros [17], as has been shown in
Appendix. Fortunately, such processes are infrequent in practice.


5. References
[1] strm, K. J., and T. Hgglund (1995). PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and Tuning.
Instrument Society of America, 2
nd
edition.
[2] strm, K.J., Panagopoulos, H. and Hgglund, T., Design of PI Controllers based on Non-
Convex Optimization. Automatica, 1998, 34 (5), 585-601.
[3] Besanon-Voda, A., Iterative auto-calibration of digital controllers: methodology and
applications. Control Engineering Practice, 1998, 6, 345-358.
[4] Deur, J., Peri, N. and Staji, D., Design of reduced-order feedforward controller. Proceedings
of the UKACC CONTROL98 Conference, Swansea, 1998, 207-212.
[5] Ender, D.B., Process control performance: Not as good as you think. Control Engineering,
1993, 40 (10), 180-190.
[6] Gorez, R., A survey of PID auto-tuning methods , 1997, Journal A, 38 (1), 3-10.
[7] Hang, C.C., strm, K.J. and Ho, W.K. Refinements of the Ziegler-Nichols tuning formula,
IEE Proceedings Part D, 1991, 138 (2), 111-118.
16
[8] Hanus, R. Determination of controllers parameters in the frequency domain, Journal A,
1975, XVI (3).
[9] Ho, W.K., Hang, C.C. and Cao, L.S. Tuning of PID Controllers Based on Gain and Phase
Margin Specifications, 12
th
World Congress IFAC, Sydney, Proceedings, 1993, Vol. 5, 267-
270.
[10] Kessler, C., ber die Vorausberechnung optimal abgestimmter Regelkreise Teil III. Die
optimale Einstellung des Reglers nach dem Betragsoptimum, Regelungstechnik, 1955, 3, 40-
49.
[11] Preuss, H.P., Prozessmodellfreier PID-regler- Entwurf nach dem Betragsoptimum,
Automatisierungstechnik, 1991, 39 (1), 15-22.
[12] Shinskey, F.G. (2000). PID-deadtime control of distributed processes. Pre-prints of the IFAC
Workshop on Digital Control, Terassa, pp. 14-18.
[13] Skogestad, S. Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller tuning, Journal
of process control, 2003, 13, 291-309.
[14] Strejc, V., Auswertung der dynamischen Eigenschaften von Regelstrecken bei gemessenen
Ein- und Ausgangssignalen allgemeiner Art, Z. Messen, Steuern, Regeln, 1960, 3 (1), 7-11.
[15] Umland, J.W. and Safiuddin, M. Magnitude and symmetric optimum criterion for the design
of linear control systems: what is it and how does it compare with the others?, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, 1990, 26 (3), 489-497.
[16] Voda, A. A. & I. D. Landau (1995). A Method for the Auto-calibration of PID Controllers.
Automatica, 31 (1), pp. 41-53.
[17] Vrani, D. (1997). Design of Anti-Windup and Bumpless Transfer Protection. PhD Thesis,
University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana. Available on www-
e2.ijs.si/Damir.Vrancic/bibliography.html
[18] Vrani, D., and S. Strmnik (1999). Achieving Optimal Disturbance Rejection by Using the
Magnitude Optimum Method. Pre-prints of the CSCC99 Conference, Athens, pp. 3401-3406.
[19] Vrani, D., Peng Y. and Danz, C. A comparison between different PI controller tuning
methods, Report DP-7286, J. Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, 1995.
Available on http://www-e2.ijs.si/Damir.Vrancic/bibliography.html
[20] Vrani, D., S. Strmnik, and . Jurii (2001). A magnitude optimum multiple integration
method for filtered PID controller. Automatica, 37, pp. 1473-1479.
[21] Vrani, D. and Strmnik S. Achieving optimal disturbance rejection by means of the
magnitude optimum method, Proceedings of the CSCC'99, July 4-8, Athens, 1999, 3401-
3406.
[22] Vrani, D., Peng, Y. and Strmnik, S. A new PID controller tuning method based on
multiple integrations, Control Engineering Practice, 1999, 7, 623-633.
[23] Vrani, D., Strmnik, S. and Jurii, . A magnitude optimum multiple integration method
for filtered PID controller, Automatica, 2001, 37, 1473-1479.
[24] Vrani, D. Matlab functions for the calculation of controller parameters from the
characteristic areas and Matlab Toolset for Disturbance Rejection Controller (PID),
Available on http://www-e2.ijs.si/damir.vrancic/tools.html.
[25] Vreko, D., Vrani D., Jurii . and Strmnik S. A new modified Smith predictor: the
concept, design and tuning, ISA Transactions, 2001, 40 (2), 111-121.
17
[26] Wang, Q. G., Hang C. C. and Bi Q. Process frequency response estimation from relay
feedback, Control Engineering Practice, 1997, 5 (9), 1293-1302.
[27] Whiteley, A.L., Theory of servo systems, with particular reference to stabilization, The
Journal of IEE, part II, 1946, 93 (34), 353-372.

18
Appendix A. Comparison of disturbance-rejection properties of original MO
and DRMO method for 63 process models
The optimal disturbance rejection magnitude optimum (DRMO) tuning method has been tested and
compared to original MO method on 63 process models. There are 9 types of process models, each
with 7 different value of parameter, as given in Table 1.


Process Range of parameter
( )
( ) sT
e
s G
s
P
+
=

1
1

s s T 10 1 . 0 K =
( )
( )
2 2
1 sT
e
s G
s
P
+
=

s s T 10 1 . 0 K =
( )
( )( ) s sT
s G
P
+ +
=
1 1
1
3

s s T 10 1 . 0 K =
( )
( ) ( )
2 2 4
1 1
1
s sT
s G
P
+ +
=
s s T 10 1 . 0 K =
( )
( )
n P
s
s G
+
=
1
1
5

8 2K = n
( )
( )( )( )( )
3 2 6
1 1 1 1
1
sT sT sT s
s G
P
+ + + +
=
s s T .8 0 2 . 0 K =
( )
( )
( )
3 7
1
1
s
sT
s G
P
+

=
s s T 10 1 . 0 K =
( )
( )
( )
2 8
1
1
s
sT e
s G
s
P
+
+
=

s s T 1 1 . 0 K =
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) i s i s s
s G
P
+ + + +
=
1 1 1 1 1
1
9

s s 1 1 . 0 K =

Table 1. The tested processes with parameter range

The PI and PID controller parameters, calculated by using the MO method ((9) and (8)), are denoted
as area2PI and area2PID, respectively (matlab functions area2PI.m and are2PID.m are given in
Appendix B). The PI and PID controller parameters calculated by using the DRMO method are
denoted as PIopt and PIDopt (functions PIopt.m and PIDopt.m are given in Appendix B).
Indexes in G
Pi,j
denote i = process (1-9), j = sub-process (1-7).
19
Process 1:
1
1
+
=

Ts
e
G
s
P



Table 1. PI controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.27529 0.2946 0.39546 0.62772 1.1643 2.8814 5.7944
K
i
0.73925 0.69833 0.6491 0.66237 0.78073 1.2555 2.0984

Table 2. PI controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PI.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.25677 0.27442 0.36538 0.57143 1.0395 2.5165 5.0083
K
i
0.68797 0.64535 0.57692 0.53571 0.51316 0.50275 0.50076

Table 3. PID controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIDopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.52017 0.57028 0.80817 1.3081 2.3983 5.7799 10
K
i
0.97611 0.94752 0.97649 1.1468 1.5836 3.0034 4.4475
K
d
0.083731 0.10117 0.1741 0.32277 0.64648 1.6525 2.603

Table 4. PID controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PID.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.45354 0.49247 0.66883 1.0203 1.7587 4.003 7.7514
K
i
0.86686 0.82705 0.77922 0.76014 0.75291 0.75049 0.75012
K
d
0.072096 0.086815 0.1461 0.26182 0.50615 1.2525 2.5012

20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P1,1
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 7. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
G
P1,1
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 8. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.


21
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P1,2
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 9. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P1,2
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 10. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

22
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P1,3
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 11. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P1,3
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 12. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.


23
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P1,4
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 13. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P1,4
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 14. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.


24
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P1,5
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 15. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P1,5
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 16. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.


25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P1,6
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 17. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P1,6
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 18. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.


26
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
t[s]
G
P1,7
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 19. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
t[s]
G
P1,7
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 20. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.


27
Process 2:
( )
2 2
1 +
=

Ts
e
G
s
P



Table 5. PI controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.28017 0.30615 0.39925 0.52596 0.67386 0.83417 0.90922
K
i
0.68285 0.60929 0.48947 0.38809 0.28018 0.15292 0.086789

Table 6. PI controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PI.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.2613 0.28519 0.37097 0.49 0.63532 0.80504 0.89041
K
i
0.63441 0.56085 0.43548 0.33 0.22706 0.11864 0.06621

Table 7. PID controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIDopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.53421 0.6074 0.91052 1.5458 3.1847 10 10
K
i
0.90922 0.84558 0.79859 0.86365 1.1617 2.3984 1.2407
K
d
0.094402 0.1278 0.28533 0.75204 2.5374 14.225 27.761

Table 8. PID controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PID.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.46478 0.52193 0.74857 1.1829 2.1192 5.0577 10
K
i
0.80398 0.72995 0.62429 0.56098 0.52383 0.50525 0.5
K
d
0.081299 0.10983 0.24387 0.64161 2.1565 12.664 49.996


28
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P2,1
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 21. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P2,1
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 22. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

29

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P2,2
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 23. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P2,2
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 24. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P2,3
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 25. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P2,3
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 26. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

31
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P2,4
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 27. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P2,4
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 28. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

32
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P2,5
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 29. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P2,5
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 30. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

33
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P2,6
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 31. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
t[s]
G
P2,6
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 32. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

34
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P2,7
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 33. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
t[s]
G
P2,7
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 34. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.



35
Process 3:
( )( ) 1 1
1
3
+ +
=
Ts s
G
P



Table 9. PI controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 5.05 2.6 1.25 1 1.25 2.6 5.05
K
i
16.637 5.4 1.6875 1 0.84375 1.08 1.6638

Table 10. PI controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PI.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 5.05 2.6 1.25 1 1.25 2.6 5.05
K
i
5.0455 2.5833 1.1667 0.75 0.58333 0.51667 0.50455

Table 11. PID controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIDopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
K
i
40.789 28.842 18.241 12.899 9.1207 5.7684 4.0789
K
d
0.38324 0.89762 1.8166 2.6904 3.6332 4.4881 3.8324

Table 12. PID controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PID.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
K
i
9.5455 8.75 7 5.25 3.5 1.75 0.95455
K
d
0.45 1.2333 2.9167 4.5 5.8333 6.1667 4.5



36
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
t[s]
G
P3,1
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 35. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
t[s]
G
P3,1
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 36. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

37
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P3,2
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 37. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
t[s]
G
P3,2
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 38. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

38
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P3,3
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 39. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
t[s]
G
P3,3
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 40. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

39
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P3,4
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 41. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
t[s]
G
P3,4
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 42. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P3,5
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 43. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
t[s]
G
P3,5
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 44. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

41
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P3,6
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 45. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
t[s]
G
P3,6
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 46. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

42
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
t[s]
G
P3,7
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 47. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
t[s]
G
P3,7
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 48. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.



43
Process 4 :
( ) ( )
2 2
4
1 1
1
+ +
=
Ts s
G
P



Table 13. PI controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.83582 0.72738 0.57557 0.52786 0.57557 0.72738 0.83582
K
i
0.76597 0.62164 0.41374 0.2918 0.20687 0.12433 0.076597

Table 14. PI controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PI.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.80916 0.69512 0.54545 0.5 0.54545 0.69512 0.80916
K
i
0.59507 0.49797 0.34848 0.25 0.17424 0.099593 0.059507

Table 15. PID controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIDopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 9.6365 4.1038 2.008 1.7028 2.008 4.1038 9.6365
K
i
11.309 3.2957 1.1248 0.70571 0.5624 0.65913 1.1309
K
d
2.8019 1.552 1.0222 1.1757 2.0443 7.7599 28.019

Table 16. PID controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PID.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 5.174 2.8083 1.5833 1.375 1.5833 2.8083 5.174
K
i
2.5791 1.3785 0.69444 0.46875 0.34722 0.27569 0.25791
K
d
2.599 1.444 0.95139 1.0938 1.9028 7.2201 25.99



44
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P4,1
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 49. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
t[s]
G
P4,1
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 50. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

45
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P4,2
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 51. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P4,2
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 52. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

46
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P4,3
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 53. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P4,3
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 54. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

47
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P4,4
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 55. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P4,4
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 56. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

48
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P4,5
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 57. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P4,5
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 58. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

49
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P4,6
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 59. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P4,6
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 60. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

50
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P4,7
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 61. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
t[s]
G
P4,7
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 62. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.



51
Process 5:
( )
n
P
s
G
1
1
5
+
=


Table 17. PI controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIopt.m)
n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
K 1 0.65153 0.52786 0.46447 0.42591 0.4 0.38139
K
i
1 0.45459 0.2918 0.21447 0.16944 0.14 0.11926

Table 18. PI controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PI.m)
n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
K 1 0.625 0.5 0.4375 0.4 0.375 0.35714
K
i
0.75 0.375 0.25 0.1875 0.15 0.125 0.10714

Table 19. PID controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIDopt.m)
n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
K 10 2.9541 1.7028 1.2939 1.0917 0.97142 0.89165
K
i
12.899 1.7372 0.70571 0.43102 0.30807 0.23908 0.19512
K
d
2.6904 1.5 1.1757 1.1038 1.1014 1.128 1.1694

Table 20. PID controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PID.m)
n 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
K 10 2.3125 1.375 1.0625 0.90625 0.8125 0.75
K
i
5.25 0.9375 0.46875 0.3125 0.23438 0.1875 0.15625
K
d
4.5 1.5 1.0938 1 0.98438 1 1.0313



52
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P5,1
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 63. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
t[s]
G
P5,1
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 64. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

53
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P5,2
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 65. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P5,2
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 66. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

54
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P5,3
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 67. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P5,3
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 68. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

55
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P5,4
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 69. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P5,4
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 70. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

56
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P5,5
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 71. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P5,5
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 72. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

57
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P5,6
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 73. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P5,6
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 74. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

58
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P5,7
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 75. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P5,7
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 76. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.


59
Process 6:
( )( )( )( ) 1 1 1 1
1
3 2 6
+ + + +
=
s T s T Ts s
G
P



Table 21. PI controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIopt.m)
T 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
K 2.1758 1.3765 0.99834 0.79029 0.66819 0.59563 0.55424
K
i
4.0407 1.9928 1.2295 0.85471 0.63944 0.50257 0.40916

Table 22. PI controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PI.m)
T 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
K 2.1 1.3167 0.95 0.75 0.63333 0.56429 0.525
K
i
2.0833 1.2821 0.89286 0.66667 0.52083 0.42017 0.34722

Table 23. PID controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIDopt.m)
T 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
K 10 10 5.346 3.4592 2.5617 2.0956 1.8509
K
i
26.682 20.871 7.2677 3.4892 2.0629 1.4002 1.0461
K
d
1.0195 1.4817 1.1466 0.97436 0.89869 0.88878 0.93272

Table 24. PID controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PID.m)
T 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
K 10 6.0118 3.603 2.5139 1.9517 1.6443 1.4778
K
i
8.4135 4.5955 2.5265 1.6074 1.1267 0.84655 0.66998
K
d
1.582 1.4166 1.0779 0.91134 0.83813 0.82767 0.868



60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P6,1
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 77. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
t[s]
G
P6,1
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 78. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

61
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P6,2
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 79. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
t[s]
G
P6,2
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 80. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

62
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P6,3
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 81. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P6,3
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 82. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

63
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P6,4
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 83. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P6,4
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 84. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

64
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P6,5
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 85. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P6,5
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 86. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

65
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P6,6
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 87. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P6,6
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 88. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

66
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P6,7
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 89. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P6,7
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 90. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.


67
Process 7:
( )
3
7
1
1
+

=
s
sT
G
P



Table 25. PI controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.62237 0.59539 0.52577 0.43845 0.3276 0.18519 0.10713
K
i
0.42453 0.3977 0.33257 0.25864 0.17625 0.087791 0.047144

Table 26. PI controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PI.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 0.59351 0.56452 0.49057 0.4 0.28947 0.15625 0.08794
K
i
0.35274 0.33266 0.28302 0.225 0.15789 0.082031 0.045226

Table 27. PID controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIDopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 2.5831 2.2898 1.695 1.1692 0.71199 0.32269 0.16786
K
i
1.4394 1.218 0.80917 0.49688 0.26718 0.10617 0.05194
K
d
1.3597 1.243 0.98778 0.73478 0.48489 0.23935 0.12965

Table 28. PID controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PID.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
K 2.0008 1.7593 1.2824 0.875 0.53009 0.24074 0.1257
K
i
0.80672 0.70602 0.50926 0.34375 0.20602 0.092593 0.048131
K
d
1.3078 1.1574 0.85648 0.59375 0.36574 0.16898 0.088937



68
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P7,1
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 91. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P7,1
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 92. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

69
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P7,2
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 93. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P7,2
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 94. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P7,3
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 95. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P7,3
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 96. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

71
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
G
P7,4
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 97. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P7,4
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 98. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

72
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
t[s]
G
P7,5
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 99. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
t[s]
G
P7,5
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 100. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

73
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
t[s]
G
P7,6
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0.5
1
1.5
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 101. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
2
1
0
1
2
3
t[s]
G
P7,6
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 102. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

74
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
t[s]
G
P7,7
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 103. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120
6
4
2
0
2
4
t[s]
G
P7,7
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 104. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.


75
Process 8:
( )
( )
2
8
1
1
+
+
=

s
e sT
G
s
P



Table 29. PI controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0
K 0.54731 0.56955 0.59236 0.61518 0.63702 0.67016 0.62772
K
i
0.41279 0.43991 0.46956 0.50169 0.53597 0.6064 0.66237

Table 30. PI controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PI.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0
K 0.51027 0.53106 0.55195 0.57225 0.59091 0.61608 0.57143
K
i
0.34837 0.36824 0.38961 0.4124 0.43636 0.48525 0.53571

Table 31. PID controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIDopt.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0
K 1.6973 1.8747 2.0812 2.3153 2.5559 2.5669 1.3081
K
i
0.98326 1.1317 1.3168 1.5447 1.8074 2.001 1.1468
K
d
0.7996 0.85102 0.90503 0.95775 0.99804 0.87906 0.32277

Table 32. PID controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PID.m)
T 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0
K 1.2769 1.3763 1.4754 1.563 1.62 1.5378 1.0203
K
i
0.61273 0.6701 0.73161 0.79344 0.84799 0.88598 0.76014
K
d
0.68035 0.71728 0.74777 0.76403 0.75465 0.61039 0.26182



76
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P8,1
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 105. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P8,1
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 106. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

77
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P8,2
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 107. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P8,2
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 108. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

78
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P8,3
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 109. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P8,3
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 110. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

79
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P8,4
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 111. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
t[s]
G
P8,4
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 112. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

80
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P8,5
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 113. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
t[s]
G
P8,5
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 114. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

81
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P8,6
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 115. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
t[s]
G
P8,6
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 116. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

82
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P8,7
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 117. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P8,7
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 118. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

83
Process 9:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) i s i s s
G
P
+ + + +
=
1 1 1 1 1
1
9



Table 33. PI controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIopt.m)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0
K 0.64665 0.63215 0.6084 0.57601 0.53582 0.43616 0.25658
K
i
0.45191 0.44399 0.43116 0.41397 0.39312 0.34376 0.26317

Table 34. PI controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PI.m)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0
K 0.62032 0.60644 0.58374 0.55288 0.51471 0.42038 0.25
K
i
0.37344 0.36881 0.36125 0.35096 0.33824 0.30679 0.25

Table 35. PID controller parameters calculated by using DRMO method (PIDopt.m)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0
K 2.915 2.8039 2.6367 2.4342 2.2174 1.804 1.3431
K
i
1.7087 1.6284 1.5098 1.37 1.2251 0.96184 0.68629
K
d
1.4852 1.4431 1.3799 1.3041 1.225 1.0873 1

Table 36. PID controller parameters calculated by using MO method (area2PID.m)
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0
K 2.287 2.2138 2.1019 1.9636 1.8118 1.5101 1.15
K
i
0.929 0.90461 0.86731 0.8212 0.77059 0.67003 0.55
K
d
1.4852 1.4431 1.3799 1.3041 1.225 1.0873 1



84
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P9,1
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 119. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P9,1
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 120. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

85
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P9,2
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 121. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
t[s]
G
P9,2
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 122. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

86
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P9,3
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 123. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P9,3
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 124. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

87
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P9,4
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 125. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P9,4
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 126. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

88
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P9,5
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 127. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P9,5
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 128. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

89
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P9,6
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 129. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
t[s]
G
P9,6
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 130. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

90
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
t[s]
G
P9,7
PI
PIopt.m
area2PI.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIopt.m
area2PI.m

Fig. 131. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PI controllers.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
t[s]
G
P9,7
PID
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
t[s]
PIDopt.m
area2PID.m

Fig. 132. Process output (upper figure) and input (lower figure) on disturbance when using DRMO
(solid lines) and MO (broken lines) tuning method for PID controllers.

91
Appendix B. List of Matlab and Simulink files used:
Piopt.m
Pinopt.m
PIDopt.m
PIDnopt.m
DistPID_Kd2KKi.m
Area2PID.m
Area2PI.m
PIDcontroller.mdl

************************************************************************
% function [Ki,K] = PIopt (A0,A1,A2,A3,Kmax);
%
% Function araa2PI calculates parameters of the PI controller:
%
% u = (Ki/s + K) * e
%
% from the measured areas of the process A0 to A3 (A0 is the process steady-state gain)
% for "optimal" disturbance rejection.
% The parameter Kmax represents the highest allowed open-loop gain K*A0


function [Ki,K] = PIopt (A0,A1,A2,A3,Kmax);

Ceta1 = A0*A0*A3 - 2*A0*A1*A2 + A1*A1*A1;
Ceta2 = A1*A2 - A0*A3;

if (Ceta1 == 0)
Num = A3; % Numerator
Den = 2*(A1*A2-A0*A3); % Denominator

if (Num == 0)
K = 0;
elseif (Den == 0)
if (A0 ~= 0)
K = Kmax/A0;
else
K = Kmax;
end;
else
K = Num/Den;
end;

Tmp = K*A0; % Nominal gain

92
if (Tmp > Kmax) | (Tmp < 0)
K = Kmax/A0;
end;

else

K = (Ceta2 - sign(Ceta2)*A1*sqrt(A2*A2-A1*A3))/Ceta1;

Tmp = K*A0; % Nominal gain

if (Tmp > Kmax) | (Tmp < 0)
K = Kmax/A0;
end;

end;

Ki = 0.5*(K*A0 + 1)*(K*A0 + 1)/A1;


************************************************************************
% function [Ki,K] = PInopt (A0,A1,A2,A3,Kmax);
%
% Function araa2PI calculates parameters of the PI controller:
%
% u = (Ki/s + K) * e
%
% from the measured areas of the process A0 to A3 (A0 is the process steady-state gain)
% for "not optimal" disturbance rejection.
% The parameter Kmax represents the highest allowed open-loop gain K*A0


function [Ki,K] = PInopt (A0,A1,A2,A3,Kmax);

[Ki,K] = area2PI (A0,A1,A2,A3,Kmax);
Ki = 0.5*(K*A0 + 1)*(K*A0 + 1)/A1;


************************************************************************
%PIDopt.m

function [K,Ki,Kd,CF] = PIDopt (A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,Kmax);

[Ki,K,Kd] = area2PID (A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,Kmax);

Kdv = [0.999*Kd;Kd];
[K,Ki,CF] = DistPID_Kd2KKi (Kdv,A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5);
i = 1;

while (i <= 10 & abs(CF(2)-CF(1)) >= 1e-8)
if (Kd*A0 < 1e-6)
Kd = 1e-6;
93
end
Kd = Kd*(1-0.001*CF(2)/(CF(2)-CF(1)));
Kdv = [0.999*Kd;Kd];
[K,Ki,CF] = DistPID_Kd2KKi (Kdv,A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5);
i = i+1;
end;

i = 1;
Kmax1 = Kmax/A0;
if (abs(CF(2)-CF(1)) < 1e-8 | K(2)*A0 > Kmax | Ki(2)*A0 < 0)
while (i <= 10 & K(2) ~= K(1))
Kd = Kd*(1+0.001*(Kmax1-K(2))/(K(2)-K(1)));
Kdv = [0.999*Kd;Kd];
[K,Ki,CF] = DistPID_Kd2KKi (Kdv,A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5);
i = i+1;
end;

end;

[K,Ki,CF] = DistPID_Kd2KKi (Kd,A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5);


************************************************************************
% function [Ki,K,Kd] = PIDnopt (A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,Kmax);
%
% Function araa2PID_dist calculates parameters of the PID controller:
%
% u = (Ki/s + K + Kd*s) * e
%
% from the measured areas of the process A0 to A5 (A0 is the process steady-state gain)
% for "optimal" disturbance rejection.
% The parameter Kmax represents the highest allowed open-loop gain K*A0

function [Ki,K,Kd] = PIDnopt (A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,Kmax);

[Ki,K,Kd] = area2PID (A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,Kmax);

al1=2*A0^2*A3+2*A1^3-4*A1*A0*A2;
be1=4*A0*A3-4*A0*A1^2*Kd-4*A2*A1+4*A0^2*Kd*A2;
ga1=4*A0*Kd*A2+2*A3+2*A1^2*Kd+6*A1*A0^2*Kd.^2+2*A0^4*Kd.^3;

if (al1==0) % The first order
K = -ga1./be1;
else % The second order
K = 0.5*(-be1 - sqrt(be1.*be1 - 4*al1*ga1))/al1;
end;

Tmp = K*A0; % Nominal gain

if (Tmp > Kmax)
K = Kmax/A0;
94

Kdv = [0.999*Kd;Kd];
[Kv,Kiv,CF] = DistPID_Kd2KKi (Kdv,A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5);
i = 1;
Kmax1 = Kmax/A0;
while (i <= 10 & Kv(2) ~= Kv(1))
Kd = Kd*(1+0.001*(Kmax1-Kv(2))/(Kv(2)-Kv(1)));
Kdv = [0.999*Kd;Kd];
[Kv,Kiv,CF] = DistPID_Kd2KKi (Kdv,A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5);
i = i+1;
end;
K = Kv(2);

elseif (Tmp < 0)
K = 0;
end;

Ki = 0.5*(1 + 2*A0*K + A0^2*K^2)/(A1 + A0^2*Kd);

if (Ki*A0 < 0)
Ki = 0;
end;


************************************************************************
%DistPID_Kd2KKi.m

function [K,Ki,CF] = DistPID_Kd2KKi (Kd,A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5);

al1=2*A0^2*A3+2*A1^3-4*A1*A0*A2;
be1=4*A0*A3-4*A0*A1^2*Kd-4*A2*A1+4*A0^2*Kd*A2;
ga1=4*A0*Kd*A2+2*A3+2*A1^2*Kd+6*A1*A0^2*Kd.^2+2*A0^4*Kd.^3;

if (al1==0) % The first order
K = -ga1./be1;
else % The second order
K = 0.5*(-be1 - sqrt(be1.*be1 - 4*al1*ga1))/al1;
end;

Ki = 0.5*(1+2*A0*K+A0^2*K.^2)./(A1+A0^2*Kd);
CF = -4*A0*Ki*A4.*Kd-2*A3*Kd+2*A4*K-2*A5*Ki+2*A0*K.^2*A4-2*A0*Kd.^2*A2-
2*A1*K.^2*A3-2*A2^2*Ki.*Kd+A1^2*Kd.^2+A2^2*K.^2+4*A1*Kd*A3.*Ki;


************************************************************************
% function [Ki,K] = area2PI (A0,A1,A2,A3,Kmax);
%
% Function araa2PI calculates parameters of the PI controller:
%
% u = (Ki/s + K) * e
%
95
% from the measured areas of the process A0 to A3 (A0 is the process steady-state gain)
% The parameter Kmax represents the highest allowed open-loop gain K*A0


function [Ki,K] = area2PI (A0,A1,A2,A3,Kmax);

Num = A3; % Numerator
Den = 2*(A1*A2-A0*A3); % Denominator

if (Num == 0)
K = 0;
elseif (Den == 0)
if (A0 ~= 0)
K = Kmax/A0;
else
K = Kmax;
end;
else
K = Num/Den;
end;

Tmp = K*A0; % Nominal gain

if (Tmp > Kmax) | (Tmp < 0)
K = Kmax/A0;
end;

Ki = (K*A0 + 0.5)/A1;


************************************************************************
% function [Ki,K,Kd] = area2PID (A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,Kmax);
%
% Function araa2PID calculates parameters of the PID controller:
%
% u = (Ki/s + K + Kd*s) * e
%
% from the measured areas of the process A0 to A5 (A0 is the process steady-state gain)
% The parameter Kmax represents the highest allowed open-loop gain K*A0


function [Ki,K,Kd] = area2PID (A0,A1,A2,A3,A4,A5,Kmax);

Num = A3*A3 - A1*A5; % Numerator
Den = 2*(A1*A2*A3+A0*A1*A5-A1*A1*A4-A0*A3*A3); % Denominator

if (Num == 0)
K = 0;
elseif (Den == 0) % Division with zero
if (A0 ~= 0)
K = Kmax/A0;
96
else
K = Kmax;
end;
else % Everything is OK
K = Num/Den;
end;

Tmp = K*A0; % Nominal gain

if (Tmp > Kmax) | (Tmp < 0) % If the calculated gain is too high or negative
K = Kmax/A0;
end;

if (A1 ~= 0)
Kd = (2*K*(A1*A2-A0*A3)-A3)/(2*A1*A1);
else
Kd = 0;
end;

Tmp = Kd*A0; % Nominal gain of D-term

if (Tmp < 0) % If derivative time constant is negative
Kd = 0;
end;

if (Kd == 0) % If negative, calculate PI controller parameters
[Ki,K] = area2PI (A0,A1,A2,A3,Kmax);
else
Ki = (2*K*A0 + 1)/(2*A1);
end;


A MATLAB Simulink model pid_controller.mdl, shown on figure below has been used to test the
process responses.


Fig.: pid_controller.mdl