ARTICLE IN PRESS

Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497

Design and tuning of a ratio controller$

Antonio Visioli*
Dipartimento di Elettronica per l’Automazione, University of Brescia, Via Branze 38, 25123 Brescia, Italy
Received 16 July 2003; accepted 12 April 2004
Available online 25 May 2004

Abstract

In this paper a design and tuning procedure for a ratio control architecture is proposed. The overall control scheme is based on the
use of the Blend station proposed in (Control Eng. Pract. 9 (11) (2001) 1215) and standard PI controllers. Since all the control
parameters can be automatically selected based on a simple model of the process under control, the proposed methodology is easy to
implement and therefore suitable to be applied in the industrial context. Simulation and experimental results show the effectiveness
of the methodology for a wide range of processes.
r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ratio control; Auto-tuning; PID controllers; Blending

1. Introduction Recently, this effort has been further motivated by the

increase of the computational capability which is
Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers are available in modern single-station industrial controllers
the controllers most adopted in industry due to the good and distributed control systems (DCS). Conversely, the
cost/benefit ratio they are able to provide for a wide design of methodologies for the implementation of the
range of processes. Often, they are employed as basis of above mentioned basic couplings has been much over-
more complex control schemes where couplings between looked. Obviously, to be suitable for industrial settings,
simple control systems are exploited. An example is in addition to the achievement of high performances, the
ratio control, which consists of keeping a constant ratio ease of understanding and of use of new techniques is a
between two process variables. This is actually required major requirement.
in many applications, such as chemical dosing, water A relevant recent work in this context is the one of
treatment, chlorination, mixing vessels, waste incinera- H.agglund (2001) in which a new ratio control structure
tors. For example, in combustion systems the air-to-fuel is proposed. Based on this control scheme, in this
ratio has to be controlled to obtain an high efficiency, paper a design methodology for a ratio controller is
and in blending processes a selected ratio of different proposed. A salient feature of the proposed method is
flows has to be maintained to keep a constant product that all the control parameters are selected based on
composition. simple models obtained by accomplishing standard
In the last 60 years, a major effort has been provided identification experiment, and therefore the overall
by researchers to develop useful techniques for the method can be easily performed automatically. The
implementation of the basic PID algorithm (tuning and paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, a short
automatic tuning methods) and of additional function- introduction of ratio control is provided and H.agglund’s
alities such as anti-windup, gain scheduling, adaptive Blend station is briefly reviewed. In Section 3, the new
control and so on (Astr ( om
. & H.agglund, 1995). ratio control architecture is proposed. The tuning
procedure is revealed in Section 4. Simulation results
$
are presented and discussed in Section 5, whilst
This work was supported in part by MIUR scientific research
funds.
experimental results obtained with a laboratory equip-
*Tel.: +39-030-371-5460; fax: +39-030-380-014. ment are shown in Section 6. Finally, conclusions are
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Visioli). drawn in Section 7.

0967-0661/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2004.04.010
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
486 A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497

2. Ratio control and the Blend station The value of g can be selected as the ratio of the time
constants of the two closed-loop systems (or, if they are
The aim of a ratio control system is to keep the ratio not available, as the ratio of the integral time constants
between the values of two process variables y1 and y2 of the two controllers) or, alternatively, by applying a
equal to a constant value a; in order to meet some suitable adaptive procedure, i.e. by applying the
higher-level requirements. For this purpose, the control following formula (H.agglund, 2001):
scheme shown in Fig. 1 is usually implemented. Each dg S
variable is controlled by two separate controllers C1 and ¼ ðay1  y2 Þ; ð2Þ
dt Ta
C2 (typically of PI type) and the output y1 of the first
process is multiplied by a and adopted as the set-point of where SAf1; 0; 1g is a sign parameter that takes into
the closed-loop control system of the second process, i.e. account if the set-point step is positive or negative. In
it is r2 ðtÞ ¼ ay1 ðtÞ (Shinskey, 1996). In this way, at the (H.agglund, 2001) it is suggested to select the value of the
steady state, provided that the gain of the second loop is adaptation rate Ta as a factor times the longest integral
equal to unity (note that this condition is normally time of the two loops. Note that, for the two PI
verified by the presence of the integral part in the controllers, explicit tuning rules to be adopted in this
controller) the requirement context are not given.
y2 ðtÞ
¼a
y1 ðtÞ 3. The new ratio control architecture
is satisfied.
The main disadvantage of this scheme is related to the The ratio control architecture proposed in this paper
transient response to a change in the set-point r1 ; as the is based on the Blend station but aims at achieving
output y2 is necessarily delayed with respect to y1 ; due to better transient responses by adopting a time-varying
the closed-loop dynamics of the second loop. To parameter gðtÞ: Assume that a transition from the initial
overcome this drawback, H.agglund proposed an alter- value yi1 to the final value yf1 is required to be performed
native architecture, named the Blend station (H.agglund, at time t ¼ t0 from the process variable y1 (i.e. a step set-
2001). This is shown in Fig. 2. The main feature of the point signal of amplitude yf1  yi1 is applied to the set-
scheme is that the value of the set-point r2 depends both point signal r1 ðtÞ at time t ¼ t0 ). Without loss of
on the value of the process output y1 and on the value of generality, in the following it will be assumed that a
the set-point r1 ; according to the expression positive step signal is applied, i.e. yf1 > yi1 : First, the
r2 ðtÞ ¼ aðgr1 ðtÞ þ ð1  gÞy1 ðtÞÞ: ð1Þ second loop, has to be selected as the one with the fastest
dynamics, i.e. the dynamics of process P2 is faster than
Note that g is a constant parameter that weights the the one of P1 : This is actually the obvious choice in the
relative influence of the set-point r1 on r2 with respect to typical ratio control scheme of Fig. 1, as the output of
y1 (for g ¼ 0 the classical scheme of Fig. 1 is obtained). process P2 (appropriately scaled) can follow easier the
one of process P1 as requested.
Processes P1 and P2 are modelled with first order plus
r1 u1 dead time (FOPDT) transfer functions:
C1 P1 y
1
K1
P1 ðsÞ ¼ eL1 s ; ð3Þ
T1 s þ 1
a
K2
r2 u2
y P2 ðsÞ ¼ eL2 s : ð4Þ
C2 P2 2 T2 s þ 1
This choice is motivated by the fact that the dynamics of
Fig. 1. The typical ratio control scheme. many industrial processes can be well-captured by a
FOPDT model and that in any case, the knowledge of a
higher-order model cannot be significantly exploited in
r1
C1 P1 y1 the synthesis of a simple PI controller (Astr ( om. &
H.agglund, 1995). Actually, obtaining a high-order
γ model of a plant and adopting it in the design of a
BS controller might prevent the good cost/benefit ratio that
is the main reason of the extensive use of PI(D)
r2 controllers in industrial settings. However, it should be
C2 P2 y2
stressed that whereas a second-order plus dead time
(SOPDT) model is available, the controller can be
Fig. 2. The ratio control scheme using the Blend station. selected of PID type, where a zero of the controller is
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497 487

employed to cancel the fastest pole of the process (see 4. Tuning

e.g. Skogestad, 2003). This yields again to the tuning of
a PI controller based on a FOPDT model of the plant. The classical approach adopted for the tuning of a
Thus, based on FOPDT models (3)–(4) of the two ratio controller (see Fig. 1) is to try to obtain a value of
processes, the two single-loop controllers C1 and C2 are the dominant time constant of the second closed-loop
therefore selected as PI controllers with set-point system much smaller than that of the first closed-loop
weighting, i.e. the manipulated variables u1 and u2 (see system. This might also lead to a detuning of the
Fig. 2) can be expressed as controller C1 ; which is obviously detrimental for the
 Z t  overall performance.
1
u1 ðtÞ ¼ Kp1 b1 r1 ðtÞ  y1 ðtÞ þ ðr1 ðtÞ  y1 ðtÞÞ dt ; The tuning procedure for the new ratio controller
Ti1 0
proposed in Section 3 is as follows. First, a FOPDT
ð5Þ transfer function for the two processes P1 and P2 (see
 Z t  (3)–(4)) has to be estimated. This can be easily
1
u2 ðtÞ ¼ Kp2 b2 r2 ðtÞ  y2 ðtÞ þ ðr2 ðtÞ  y2 ðtÞÞ dt : accomplished with standard methodologies based on
Ti2 0
the open-loop step response, such as the well-known
ð6Þ ( om
area method (Astr . & H.agglund, 1995). Then, the two
Then, the value of g is chosen as the output of a PI PI controllers C1 and C2 (see (5)–(6)) are tuned
according to the Ziegler–Nichols formula (Astr ( om. &
controller as well, whose input is the current ratio error,
summed to a constant value g : An additional condition H.agglund, 1995) and the set-point weights b1 and b2 are
has to be set to account for the case in which L1 > L2 ; in set to zero in order to avoid significant overshoots, as it
is implemented in many industrial controllers (Astr ( om.
order to avoid that at the beginning of the transient

response the condition y2 ðtÞ > ay1 ðtÞ holds, i.e. the & H.agglund, 1995, p. 110). Finally, g is chosen as
output y2 starts its transient before that of y1 : Formally, Ti2 =Ti1 and the gains of the PI controller that provides
it is the current value of g (see (7)) are selected according to
8 the following formula:
<0
> if L1 > L2 and
L2 T1 T1
gðtÞ ¼ tot0 þ L1  L2 ; Kp ¼ 0:5 ; Ti ¼ : ð9Þ
: g þ K ðe ðtÞ þ 1 R t e ðtÞ dtÞ elsewhere;
> T2 L1 L1
p r Ti 0 r
The overall tuning rule is summarized in Table 1.
ð7Þ It appears that, being based on a simple identification
where experiment and on the direct application of simple
formulas, the tuning procedure can be easily performed
er ðtÞ ¼ y2 ðtÞ  ay1 ðtÞ: ð8Þ
automatically.
In this way, the two process outputs are forced to start
their transient response at the same time instant. Remark 1. It is well-known that the original Ziegler–
It appears that, in fact, an additional feedback of the Nichols tuning rules might yield to large overshoots in
current ratio value is implemented and therefore an the set-point step response. However, the use of a set-
improvement in the performances with respect to the point weight equal to zero prevents this fact and extends
Blend station has to be expected. From another point of the range of processes for which they provide satisfac-
view, the adoption of a time-varying parameter g aims tory results (see Section 5). Obviously, this implies also
actually at ‘‘shaping’’ the reference function r2 ðtÞ in such that the rise time increases, but this can be accepted in a
a way that the response of the second closed-loop system ratio control framework, where keeping the desired ratio
is as equal as possible to that of the first one, despite is of major concern, rather than obtaining a high-
their possible different dynamics (see the results performance step response. In this context, the Ziegler–
presented in Section 5). The adoption of this control Nichols rules have been selected for their simplicity.
strategy obviously implies that an extra tuning effort is However, in case the dynamics of a process is not
required with respect to the Blend station. Hence, a suitable for the Ziegler–Nichols formulas, i.e. the dead
tuning procedure is necessary to ensure the ease of time is greater than the dominant time constant, then a
implementation of the proposed scheme and therefore more appropriate (though more complex) tuning rule
its suitability to be adopted in industrial settings. such as the Kappa–Tau (Astr ( om. & H.agglund, 1995)

Table 1
Overall tuning rule of the proposed ratio controller

Kp1 Ti1 b1 Kp2 Ti2 b2 g Kp Ti

0:9T1 =K1 L1 3L1 0 0:9T2 =K2 L2 3L2 0 Ti2 =Ti1 0:5L2 =T2 T1 =L1 T1 =L1
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
488 A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497

should be used for the two PI controllers C1 and C2 ; is present and therefore if the proposed technique
whilst formula (9) is maintained (see Example 4 in cannot be applied.
Section 5.4).

Remark 2. The value of g has been selected according

to the considerations done in (H.agglund, 2001). 5. Simulation results
Actually, this appears to be a sensible choice by taking
into account that g is the initial value of g; as the In the following examples at time t0 ¼ 0 s a unit step
integral part of the PI controller in (7) is capable to is applied to the set-point signal r1 ðtÞ (i.e. yi1 ¼ 0 and
maintain the most appropriate value of g at the end of yf1 ¼ 1). Further, the value a ¼ 1 has been fixed.
each set-point transient response.
5.1. Example 1
Remark 3. Expression (9) has been obtained by
performing many simulations in which many FOPDT As a first example, the following two FOPDT
processes with different values of the time constant and processes have been considered:
of the time delay have been considered. It is therefore
1 1
empirical. However, it has a clear physical meaning. For P1 ðsÞ ¼ e2s ; P2 ðsÞ ¼ e2s : ð10Þ
example, the value of the proportional gain Kp is as high 6s þ 1 2s þ 1
as the value of the ratio L2 =T2 between the dominant By applying the tuning procedure, it results in Kp1 ¼ 2:7;
time constant and the apparent dead time of process P2 Ti1 ¼ 6; Kp2 ¼ 0:9; Ti2 ¼ 6; g ¼ 1; Kp ¼ 1:5; Ti ¼ 3:
is greater than L1 =T1 ; i.e. the one of process P1 : Taking The process outputs y1 ðtÞ (thick solid line) and y2 ðtÞ
into account that this ratio is somehow a measure of the both in the case where the new methodology has been
ease of a plant to be controlled, and therefore of the applied (dashed line) and in the case where a fixed
bandwidth of the system that can be obtained, this value of g ¼ g is adopted following (H.agglund, 2001)
means that if the dynamics of the second closed-loop (dash-dot line) are shown in Fig. 3. For the purpose of
system is much faster than that of the first one, then the comparison, it has been also reported (thin solid line)
value of Kp is very low, according to the intuition, as the the result obtained by applying the standard ratio
performance of a standard ratio controller (see Fig. 1) is control scheme of Fig. 1 (i.e. by fixing g ¼ 0). In
high and there is therefore no great need of using an addition, a comparison has been made with the
additional feedback of the ratio measure. adaptive Blend station. First, the value of Ta ¼ 10
maxfTi1 ; Ti2 g ¼ 60 has been fixed (see (2)), as suggested
Remark 4. In case process P1 has no apparent dead in (H.agglund, 2001). Then, a large number of set-point
time, i.e. L1 ¼ 0; the tuning rule presented in Table 1 steps has been applied to the ratio control architecture,
cannot be applied as it yields to an infinite value of the until the value of g converges around its optimal value.
proportional gain Kp and also of Kp1 : In this case the The resulting process output y2 ðtÞ is again reported in
value of Kp1 can be chosen by considering a fictitious Fig. 3 (dotted line).
dead time equal to a small fraction of the process time The reference input r2 for the second loop with the
constant (for example L1 ¼ T1 =50). Then, it is no more new method is plotted in Fig. 4 (solid line), as well as the
worthy to applying a time-varying coefficient g; as the variation of the value of g during the transient for the
original Blend station performs very well. Thus, Kp ¼ 0 new method (dashed line) and for the adaptive blend
has to be chosen. station (dash-dot line), respectively. It can be seen that
the variation of g for the case of the adaptive Blend
Remark 5. It is also worth stressing that, in any case, station is hardly visible (i.e. gðtÞ is nearly constant during
being based on a standard PI controller (7), the user can the transient response), and this indicates that the best
easily modify the performances of the ratio controller by result that can be obtained with this scheme has been
increasing or decreasing the value of Kp and Ti achieved.
according to its typical know-how, which is therefore To better evaluate the results, the following
conveniently fully retained. performance index has been calculated in the considered
cases:
Remark 6. The proposed tuning rule is not applicable Z N
for the ratio control of processes with underdamped J¼ jay1 ðtÞ  y2 ðtÞj dt: ð11Þ
0
open-loop response (this class of processes has not been
considered also for the Blend station). It should be It results in J ¼ 2:07 for the proposed method, J ¼ 4:44
noted that this class of processes are rather unusual in for the original Blend station, J ¼ 0:35 for the adaptive
practice and the knowledge of the type of plant is in Blend station and J ¼ 12:65 for the standard ratio
general sufficient to determine if an oscillatory dynamics controller. It has to be stressed that the achievement of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497 489

y
1

0.8

y2 standard ratio controller

process outputs

0.6
y Blend station
2

y2 proposed ratio controller

0.4

y2 adaptive Blend station

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [s]

Fig. 3. Process outputs for Example 1.

γ (t) proposed ratio controller

1.8

1.6

γ (t) adaptive Blend station

1.4

1.2
r (t) proposed ratio controller
2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [s]

Fig. 4. Different signals obtained for Example 1.

the best performance by means of the adaptive Blend adaptation is employed, a significant improvement in
station is paid by the need of performing many the performances obtained by applying the new control
experiments (i.e. of evaluating many set-point step scheme emerges.
responses) before obtaining that result, conversely to For a thorough analysis of the achieved perfor-
the other considered methodologies. Actually, if no mances, the resulting manipulated variables for the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
490 A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497

1.5

u1

1
control variables

u2 standard ratio controller

u2 Blend station

0.5
u2 proposed ratio controller

u2 adaptive Blend station

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [s]

Fig. 5. Control variables obtained for Example 1.

addressed schemes have been plotted as well in Fig. 5. It 5.2. Example 2

can be seen that the adoption of the new methodology
does not imply a significant increase of the control effort As a second example, the following two FOPDT
(although, obviously, it appears that the control effort processes have been considered:
decreases when the ratio control is more sluggish). Note
that, since the same considerations can be done for all 1 1
the performed experiments, the resulting control vari- P1 ðsÞ ¼ e3s ; P2 ðsÞ ¼ e2s : ð12Þ
4s þ 1 8s þ 1
able signals are not shown anymore in the following for
the sake of brevity.
In order to evaluate the performances when a series of By applying the tuning procedure, it results in Kp1 ¼
set-point step changes occurs, three unit steps have been 1:2; Ti1 ¼ 9; Kp2 ¼ 3:6; Ti2 ¼ 6; g ¼ 0:67; Kp ¼ 0:17;
applied to the set-point signal r1 at time t ¼ 0; 8 and Ti ¼ 1:33: Results are reported in Fig. 8, where again the
20 s: Results are shown in Fig. 6 where the thick solid new approach has been compared with the standard one
line is the output of the first process. It can be seen that and with the Blend station. In this case, by applying the
with the new method (dashed line) results are still adaptive procedure (with Ta ¼ 90 as suggested in
satisfactory ðJ ¼ 2:11Þ: For comparison, the response of (H.agglund, 2001)) for the Blend station on a sequence
the original Blend station is plotted in Fig. 6 (dash-dot of set-point steps, the value of g converges around a
line) as well as the responses of the adaptive Blend value of about 0.49. Thus, the process output y2 ðtÞ has
station (dotted line) and of the standard controller (thin been reported in the case the adaptive procedure is
solid line). In these cases the values of the resulting employed, by starting with a value of g equal to 0.49. In
performance index are J ¼ 4:80; 0.95 and 13.27, Fig. 9 the value of g for the case of the Blend station
respectively. In Fig. 7 function gðtÞ has been plotted with the adaptive procedure has been plotted together
both for the new scheme (dashed line) and for the with gðtÞ and r2 ðtÞ for the new method. The resulting
adaptive Blend station (dash-dot line) with the reference values of the performance index are J ¼ 1:37 for the new
signal r2 obtained with the new control architecture ratio controller, J ¼ 3:33 for the original Blend station,
(solid line). J ¼ 1:044 for the adaptive Blend station and J ¼ 7:67
It turns out that similar considerations to the case of a for the standard ratio controller. Indeed, the same
single set-point step can be done when a series of set- considerations done for Example 1 can be done also for
point changes occurs in the plant. Example 2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497 491

y1

2.5

2 y proposed ratio controller

2
process outputs

1.5

y Blend station
2

y adaptive Blend station

2

0.5
y standard ratio controller
2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [s]

Fig. 6. Process outputs for Example 1 with a series of set-point step changes.

r (t) proposed ratio controller

2
3.5

2.5

γ(t) adaptive Blend station

1.5

γ(t) proposed ratio controller

1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [s]

Fig. 7. Different signals obtained for Example 1 with a series of set-point step changes.

5.3. Example 3 scheme, i.e.

1 1
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed P1 ðsÞ ¼ e2s ; P2 ðsÞ ¼ e3s : ð13Þ
8s þ 1 4s þ 1
methodology in different contexts, we consider as a
third example, the same processes of Example 2 but In this case we have, evidently, Kp1 ¼ 3:6;
their position has been swapped in the overall control Ti1 ¼ 6; Kp2 ¼ 1:2; Ti2 ¼ 9; g ¼ 1:5; Kp ¼ 1:5; Ti ¼ 4:
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
492 A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497

1
y2 proposed ratio controller
0.9

0.8
y2 Blend station
0.7
process outputs

0.6
y1
0.5
y2 standard ratio controller
0.4

0.3
y adaptive Blend station
2
0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [s]

Fig. 8. Process outputs for Example 2.

0.9

r2(t) proposed ratio controller

0.8

0.7
γ (t) proposed ratio controller
0.6

0.5

0.4

γ (t) adaptive Blend station

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [s]

Fig. 9. Different signals obtained for Example 2.

Results obtained with the different control architectures been adopted as initial condition for the reported
are reported in Fig. 10. In this case the adaptive process output y2 ðtÞ obtained with the adaptive Blend
procedure (again with Ta ¼ 90) for the Blend station, station. As for the previous examples, in Fig. 11 the
applied when a series of set-point steps occurs, value of g for the case of the Blend station with the
converges around a value of g ¼ 2:12: This value has adaptive procedure has been plotted together with gðtÞ
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497 493

y adaptive Blend station

2
1

y1

0.8
y proposed ratio controller
2
process outputs

y2 Blend station
0.6

y standard ratio controller

2
0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [s]

Fig. 10. Process outputs for Example 3.

2.5

γ (t) proposed ratio controller

γ (t) adaptive Blend station

1.5

r (t) proposed ratio controller

2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
time [s]

Fig. 11. Different signals obtained for Example 3.

and r2 ðtÞ for the new method. The resulting values of the standard ratio controller. By comparing the results
performance index are J ¼ 2:37 for the new ratio obtained for this example with those obtained for
controller, J ¼ 5 for the original Blend station, J ¼ Example 2, it appears that, as already mentioned in
2:07 for the adaptive Blend station and J ¼ 16:5 for the Section 3, it is more sensible to choose as process P1 that
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
494 A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497

with the fastest dynamics but in any case the perfor- J ¼ 1:70 for the adaptive Blend station and J ¼ 4:56 for
mances obtained with the proposed ratio controller are the standard ratio controller. It appears that in this case
still satisfactory (indeed, the same conclusion of the proposed method provides better performances even
Examples 1 and 2 can be drawn also for this example). than the adaptive Blend station. This is possibly
explained by the fact that it is gðtÞ ¼ 0 when to3:73
5.4. Example 4 (see (7)), thus allowing the two process outputs to start
their transient almost at the same time so that a very
As a fourth example, the following two high-order satisfactory result is achieved.
processes have been considered:
1 1
P1 ðsÞ ¼ ; P2 ðsÞ ¼ : ð14Þ 6. Experimental results
ðs þ 1Þ8 ð0:25s þ 1Þ8
By applying the identification procedure, it results In order to prove the effectiveness of the devised
in K1 ¼ 1; T1 ¼ 2:99; L1 ¼ 5:55; K2 ¼ 1; T2 ¼ 0:71; technique in practical applications, a laboratory experi-
L2 ¼ 1:82: Being the dead time of the two processes mental setup (made by KentRidge Instruments) has
significantly greater than the corresponding dominant been employed (see Fig. 14). Specifically, the apparatus
time constant, the Kappa–Tau tuning rules have consists of two small perspex tower-type tanks (whose
been adopted instead of the Ziegler–Nichols ones (see area is 40 cm2 ) in which a level control is implemented
Remark 1). Thus, it results: Kp1 ¼ 0:13; Ti1 ¼ 2:62; by means of a PC-based controller. Each tank is filled
b1 ¼ 2:91; Kp2 ¼ 0:11; Ti2 ¼ 0:71; b2 ¼ 3:67; g ¼ 0:27; with water by means of a pump whose speed is set by a
Kp ¼ 0:69; Ti ¼ 0:54: Results are reported in Fig. 12, DC voltage (the manipulated variable), in the range 0–
where the process output y2 ðtÞ for the adaptive Blend 5 V; through a PWM circuit and it is fitted with an
station has been obtained by starting with a value of g outlet at the base in order for the water to return to a
equal to 0.32, which results after the application of a reservoir. The measure of the level of the water is given
sequence of set-point steps with Ta ¼ 26:2: In Fig. 13 by a capacitive-type probe that provides an output
the value of g for the case of the Blend station with signal between 0 (empty tank) and 5 V (full tank). Note
the adaptive procedure has been plotted together with that the two processes actually have a nonlinear
gðtÞ and r2 ðtÞ for the new method. The resulting values dynamics, since the flow rate out of a tank depends on
of the performance index are J ¼ 0:52 for the new the square root of its level. The task to be accomplished
ratio controller, J ¼ 1:81 for the original Blend station, is to perform an output transition from 2 to 3 V for the

1
y1
y2 proposed ratio controller
0.9

y adaptive Blend station

0.8 2

0.7
process outputs

0.6

0.5

0.4

y2 standard ratio controller

0.3

0.2

0.1
y2 Blend station
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
time [s]

Fig. 12. Process outputs for Example 4.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497 495

0.9

0.8
r2(t) proposed ratio controller
0.7

0.6

γ (t) proposed ratio controller

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
γ (t) adaptive Blend station
0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
time [s]

Fig. 13. Different signals obtained for Example 4.

In order to diversify the dynamics of the two level

control loops, as a first experiment, a software time
delay of 10 and 5 s has been added to the measure of the
level of the first and of the second tank, respectively. A
FOPDT model of each process has been estimated
separately by employing the well-known area method to
the open-loop step response. The transfer functions
obtained are
1:98 2:27
P1 ðsÞ ¼ e11s ; P2 ðsÞ ¼ e6s : ð15Þ
ð25s þ 1Þ ð25s þ 1Þ
By applying the formulas of Table 1 it results in
Kp1 ¼ 1:03; Ti1 ¼ 33; Kp2 ¼ 1:65; Ti2 ¼ 18; g ¼ 0:55;
Kp ¼ 0:27; Ti ¼ 2:27:
Results presented in Fig. 15 show again the effective-
ness of the proposed methodology that provides better
performances than both the standard ratio controller
and the Blend station. The resulting performance index
(11) (calculated over the time interval from t ¼ 0 to
t ¼ 195 s) is J ¼ 5:32 for the new approach, J ¼ 7:41 for
the Blend station and J ¼ 23:59 for the standard ratio
controller.
A second experiment has been performed by modify-
ing the added dead time of the second process,
Fig. 14. The experimental setup. decreasing it to 4 s: In this case the control parameters
are Kp1 ¼ 1:03; Ti1 ¼ 33; Kp2 ¼ 1:98; Ti2 ¼ 15; g ¼
0:45; Kp ¼ 0:23; Ti ¼ 2:27: Results are shown in
first tank as well as for the second one, maintaining a Fig. 16 and the calculated performance indexes are
desired ratio value a ¼ 1 during the whole transient J ¼ 12:18 for the new approach, J ¼ 22:60 for the Blend
response. station and J ¼ 20:35 for the standard ratio controller.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
496 A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497

y1

2.8

y2 Blend station
process outputs

2.6

y standard ratio controller

2
2.4

y proposed ratio controller

2

2.2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

time [s]

Fig. 15. Process outputs for the first experiment.

3
y Blend station
2

2.8
process outputs

2.6

y
1

2.4
y proposed ratio controller
2

2.2

y standard ratio controller

2

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

time [s]

Fig. 16. Process outputs for the second experiment.

By comparing the obtained results, it appears that making 7. Conclusions

the second loop dynamics faster yields, as expected, to a
better performance obtained by the standard controller. In In this paper a new ratio control structure has been
any case, the new ratio controller provides again the best proposed. An automatic tuning procedure has been
performances and the difference with the original Blend devised so that no tuning effort from the user is needed.
station is more evident in this case. The methodology is easy to implement (note that no
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
A. Visioli / Control Engineering Practice 13 (2005) 485–497 497

extra measurements are required with respect to References

the standard ratio controllers) and it is based on the
( om,
Astr . K., & H.agglund, T. (1995). PID controllers: Theory, design
use of classical PI controllers, so that it can be
easily understood by operators, who retain their and tuning. Research Triangle Park: ISA Press.
H.agglund, T. (2001). The Blend station—a new ratio control structure.
know-how. Results show its effectiveness for a wide Control Engineering Practice, 9(11), 1215–1220.
range of processes. Thus, the overall methodology Shinskey, F. G. (1996). Process control systems—application, design,
appears to be suitable to be implemented in DCS as and tuning. USA: McGraw-Hill.
well as in single-station controllers for use in the Skogestad, S. (2003). Simple analytic rules for model reduction and
industrial context. PID controller tuning. Journal of Process Control, 13, 291–309.