How to Tune PID Controllers on Self-Regulating

Processes
blog.isa.org/how-to-tune-pid-controllers-self-regulating-processes

This guest blog post is part of a series on loop tuning. This blog post is Part 2 in the loop
tuning series. Click these links to read Part 1 and Part 3.

The two most common categories of process responses in industrial manufacturing

processes are self-regulating and integrating. A self-regulating process response to a step
input change is characterized by a change of the process variable, which moves to and
stabilizes (or self-regulates) at a new value. An integrating process response to a step input
change is characterized by a change in the slope of the process variable. From the
standpoint of a proportional, integral, derivative (PID) process controller, the output of the
PID controller is an input to the process.

The output of the process, the process variable (PV), is the input to the PID controller. Figure
1 compares the response of the process variable to a step change of the PID controller
output for a self-regulating process and for an integrating response.

Self-regulating responses are very common in the process industry. Many flows, liquid
pressures, temperatures, and composition processes are self-regulating. In the first blog post
in this series, I presented techniques for tuning a PID controller used on an integrating
process. In this post, I will present a method to tune PID controllers on self-regulating
processes.

1/6
Challenges
Regardless of the tuning of the PID controller, the control performance is limited by the
performance of the instrumentation and final control element. Before tuning a controller, it is
helpful to have an understanding of the process and to verify the performance of the
instrumentation and final control element, usually a control valve. The control valve should
have a small deadband and resolution—another topic of discussion! It should have an
appropriate and consistent flow gain. It should have a response time that is appropriate for
the process performance requirements. ANSI/ISA-75.25 and the EnTech Control Valve
Dynamic Specification V3.0 are excellent sources of information on this topic. Also, the
control scheme should be reviewed to make sure it is an appropriate, linear, control scheme
for the application. Finally, the interaction of the control loop to be tuned with other control
loops should be reviewed and understood. The desired “aggressiveness” of the loop tuning
should be based on the interaction of the control loop with other loops and the consequences
of movement of the controller output.

Tuning for a self-regulating process

A tuning methodology called lambda tuning addresses these challenges. The lambda tuning
method allows the user to choose the closed loop response time, called lambda, and
calculate the corresponding tuning. The lambda closed loop response time is chosen to
achieve the desired process goals and stability criteria. This could result in choosing a small
lambda for good load regulation, a large lambda to minimize changes in the controller output
and manipulated variable by allowing the PV to deviate from the set point, or somewhere in
between these two extremes. More importantly, the lambda of the loop can be used to
coordinate the responses of many loops to reduce interaction and variability.

Lambda tuning for self-regulating processes can result in a closed loop response that is
slower or faster than the open loop response time of the process. Though lambda is defined
as the closed loop time constant of the process response to a step change of the controller
set point, the load regulation capability is also a function of the lambda of the loop. The
response to a step set point change and a step load change for a self-regulating process
response with lambda tuning is shown in figure 2.

Self-regulating process responses typically include dead time and can usually be
approximated by a “first-order” or “second-order” response. This article describes the lambda
tuning procedure when the process response can be approximated by a first-order-plus-
dead-time response. The lambda tuning for a second-order-plus-dead-time response will be
covered in future articles.

Procedure
The lambda tuning method for self-regulating processes involves three steps:

1. Identify the process dynamics.

2/6
 2. Choose the desired closed loop speed of response, lambda.
3. Calculate the required PID tuning constants.

Figure 3 shows the dynamic parameters of a self-regulating, “first-order-plus-dead-time”

process, which include dead time (Td), in units of time; time constant (tau), in units of time;
and the process gain (Kp), in units of percent controller PV span/percent controller output
span. Typically several step tests are performed; the results are reviewed for consistency;
and the average process dynamics are calculated and used for the tuning parameter
calculations. If the controller output goes directly to a control valve, any significant deadband
in the valve will reduce process gain if the output step was a reversal in direction. If the
controller output cascades to the set point of a “slave” loop, the slave loop should be tuned
first.

The next step is to choose the lambda to achieve the desired process control goal for the
loop—the allowable stability margin and the expected changes in process dynamics. A
shorter lambda produces more aggressive tuning and less stability margin. A longer lambda
produces less aggressive tuning and more stability margin. It is not uncommon for the
process dynamics, particularly the process gain, to vary by a factor of 0.5 to 2. If testing
during different conditions reveals that the process dynamics change significantly, then an
additional margin of stability is required. Or, the process response can be “linearized” or
adaptive tuning can be used.

This blog post is Part 2 in the loop tuning series. Click these links to read Part 1 and Part 3.

If the potential change in process dynamics is unknown, starting with lambda equal to three
times the larger of the dead time or time constant will provide stability even if the dead time
doubles and the process gain doubles. If it is desirable to coordinate the response of loops to
avoid significant interaction, the lambda of the interacting loops can be chosen to differ by a
factor of three or more. For cascade loops, the lambda can be chosen to ensure the slave
loop of the cascade pair has a lambda 1/5 or less of the master control loop.

The lowest recommended lambda for a first-order-plus-dead-time self-regulating process is

equal to the dead time, although this provides a very low gain and phase margin. Thus, a
smaller increase in the dead time or process gain can cause instability of the loop.

From a stability standpoint, there is no upper limit on the lambda. If the lambda is not chosen
based on a coordinated response, a good starting point for stability is:

3/6
The tuning performance can be monitored for a time period and adjusted to be a shorter or
longer lambda as needed.

The final step is to calculate the tuning parameters from the process dynamics. Care should
be taken to use consistent units of time for the dead time and the lambda. For a first-order-
plus-dead-time process response (no significant lag or lead), the controller gain and reset
times are calculated with the following equations. The derivative time is set to 0. These
equations are valid for the standard (sometimes called ideal, noninteractive) and series
(sometimes called classical, interactive) forms of the PID implementation. Note that only the
controller gain changes as lambda (λ) changes. The integral time remains equal to the time
constant regardless of the lambda chosen.

Example

Consider the steam pressure controller shown in figure 4. The pressure controller, PIC-101,
manipulates a properly sized control valve that has a high-performance digital positioner.

Because there are no “loop response coordination” requirements, the initial lambda is
chosen to be 3 * (larger of dead time or time constant) = 3*20 seconds = 60 seconds.

Now, the tuning can be calculated with the lambda tuning rules.

4/6
In preparation for being able to make the tuning more aggressive if the control loop is
consistent over the required operating range, the tuning can be calculated for shorter values
of lambda. The following table shows the tuning for different values of lambda. Note that the
integral time remains the same for all choices of lambda.

Figure 6 shows the response to a step set point and a step load change for each of the
lambda values in the table. Note that the tuning is stable for much shorter lambda values
than the starting point of 3 * (larger of dead time or time constant). However, this is with
perfectly constant process dynamics in a simulator. Additional tests on a real process, at
different operating conditions will help determine the consistency of the process dynamics.

Meeting process goals

Most published PID controller tuning methods are designed for optimum load regulation, not
necessarily optimum process performance. The lambda tuning method provides the ability to
tune the PID controller to achieve process performance goals, whether they are maximum
load regulation or a coordinated response to other loops. Note that the lambda tuning
method for integrating processes can also be used for a lag dominant, self-regulating
process to achieve excellent load regulation. This technique and tuning for more complex
dynamics will be covered in a future article in this series.

James Beall
James Beall is a principal process control consultant at Emerson Automation Solutions with
more than 35 years of experience in process control. He graduated from Texas A&M
University with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and worked for Eastman
Chemical Company until 2001, when he joined Emerson. His areas of expertise include
process instrumentation, control valve performance, control strategy analysis and design,
advanced regulatory control and multivariable, and model predictive control. He has
designed and implemented process control improvement projects in the chemical, refinery,

5/6
pulp and paper, power, pipeline, gas and oil, and pharmaceutical industries. Jamesl is a
member of AIChE and ISA, and chair of ISA committee ISA75.25, Control Valve Dynamic
Testing.

6/6