IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 12, NO.

1, JANUARY 2004

123

Identification-Based PID Control Tuning for Power

Station Processes
Steve Glickman, Roland Kulessky, and Gregory Nudelman

AbstractThis paper presents a new approach for PID-controller tuning based on the requirements of power station
processes. It uses a novel optimization procedure based on four
power process-oriented criteria. A new approach for transfer
function identification of process models is also proposed as a
robustness basis for the PID-control design. The tuning of PID
controllers implemented on Israel Electric Corporation (IEC)
steam power plant processes provides sufficiently good settings for
these controller parameters and illustrates industrial applications
of this approach.
Index TermsIdentification, optimization, performance limits,
PID-control, temperature and flow control.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Methodologies of PID-Control Tuning

number of methodologies exist for PID-controller tuning

(see, for example, [1][24]). Three main methodologies
are dealt with here: the Internal Model Control (IMC), the Quantitative Feedback Theory (QFT), and the Direct Design (DD)
approach.
The IMC approach [1] is essentially an open loop design in
which PID-control parameters depend mainly on the nominal
process model which leaves the robustness filter as the only tunable parameter. This filter time constant is calculated to satisfy
the systems largest bandwidth and the performance specification for the worst case of the closed loop sensitivity function
[2]. Because power station processes generally include a time
delay, the full IMC-controller has to contain the approximation
of transcendental functions since it is not exactly the PID-order.
In other words, PID-controller is an approximation [2]. We note
that the IMC approach is widely used in practice (for example,
[19], [21], [22]) and is based on a simple first-order plus time
delay (FOPTD) process model.
The QFT approach [3] is a closed loop-shaping procedure in
which the order of the controller depends on plant uncertainties
and performance specifications. Also PID-controller may be an
approximation of the designed control. The Horowitz and IMC
methods may yield similar controllers [2].
The approach pioneered by [4] named here as the DD is
a PID-closed loop optimization based on knowledge of the
process transfer function. There have been many studies of this

Manuscript received March 24, 2003. Manuscript received in final form August 28, 2003. Recommended by Associate Editor K. Schlacher.
The authors are with the Generation and Transmission GroupThe Israel
Electric Corporation, Ltd., Haifa 31000 Israel (e-mail: uhi10@iec.co.il;
kulesskyr@iec.co.il; nudelmang@iec.co.il).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCST.2003.821955

method (see [5][17] and [10], [11, references therein]). The

DD approach reflects the industrial control system practice for
which the PID-control is currently most often implemented.
Actually, this approach requires a two-stage design procedure:
the first stage is process identification while the second one is
controller optimization using the identified model so obtained.
Main features of the modern DD are as follows.
As a rule, FOPTD process model is used [4], [6], [10], [12],
[14]. Limit cycle analysis [14], [15], or time response approximation [21], [22] identifies the model parameters. The secondorder plus time delay (SOPTD) model is identified by the characteristic area approach [7], frequency response analysis [13]
or minimization of the prediction error mean square [9], [11].
Using models of higher orders [16] are not typical. For uncertainty models, creation of a procedure of random changing of
the frequency response data is proposed in [18] but it is not used
in power station practice.
Robustness characteristics are gain and phase margins [5],
[9], [10], [12], [18], or sensitivity functions [11], [18]. In the
realm of PID-controller optimization they are constrained by
empirical formulas, not by uncertainty models analysis.
The best optimization criterion in the case of the FOPTD
process model is the minimum integral of absolute error multiplied by time (ITAE) [6]. The minimum integral of error squared
(ISE) is applied to analytical approaches [7], [8]. The minimum
integral of absolute error (IAE) is also transformed into the criterion for maximum PID-integrating if the control error is positive [9], [11]. The procedures for performance and robustness
calculation of well-known PID formulas are proposed in detail in [10], [12] for the case of the FOPTD process. Optimization procedures are based on both methods of variation calculus,
mathematical programming including the MATLAB optimization toolbox, an equivalence to the Smith predictor idea [17]
and exhaustive search [7][11]. Such characteristics as the over, the settling time
and the rise time
are applied
shoot
usually to the time response analysis of a PID-closed loop after
is used as a criterion in [16].
its optimization. The required
Three main parameters of a PID-controller are usually optimized: proportional gain , reset and differentiating gain .
However, the fourth parameter must be also optimized: the filter
of the differentiating element (see (1) below).
time constant
This filter is needed not only to reduce noise influence [11] but
also to prevent overactivity and mechanical impact on the final
control element. In the above approach, this filter is either absent
[6], [7], [9], [14], [16] or predetermined (not optimized) [10],
. In addition, this ratio often is limited
[11] by the ratio
by the existing equipment of various companies (Metso/MAX. In order to prevent
Control, Bailey etc.) by

1063-6536/04$20.00 2004 IEEE

124

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 12, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004

end element overactivity, this ratio can be

, as one
can see from application examples (Section VI).
Summing up the preceding, main disadvantages of the above
works are as follows:
None of the works [4][7], [9][14], [16] give a way for uncertainty models identification, which can be used for power station processes. Only three main parameters of a PID-controller
, , are usually optimized that sufficiently limits the degree
of freedom of PID control for power station processes (see, for
example [6], [7], [9][11], [14], [16]). The most of the works
(see, for example, [4], [6], [10], [12], [14]) are oriented on the
simple FOPTD model, which can not perform well for power
station processes.
B. Existing Practice of Power Station PID-Control
There exist a number of effective computer packages, for the
tuning of PID-control loops (see, for example, [19][24]). They
are based on the IMC approach (LALTS01 [21], WES-Tune
[22], INTUNE [19] etc.) and the DD approach (ExperTune [20],
Tune Wizard [23], Protuner System Analyzer [24]). Unfortunately, in most power station applications PI-controllers are
usually used instead of the more suitable PID-controllers. This
phenomenon can be explained by the fact that specific features
of power station processes and control equipment are not fully
taken into consideration by the existing PID control functionality, namely:
Both PI- and PID- controllers robustness has to be based on
their optimization which requires the most accurate nominal
model of a power process. However, the packages [21][23]
are usually oriented on very approximate models, as a rule the
FOPTD model which are often inadequate for these processes.
Dissimilar power station processes require different optimization criteria. In spite of this, the same optimization criterion
is applied to all processes [19][24]. PID-controller parameters are also often limited by control valve speed constraints,
which can significantly restrict strong and robust tuning parameters. The PID control optimization by known tuning packages
[17][24] are not fulfilled under these constraints.
Ignoring these requirements causes unrealistic PID-control
design and PI-control becomes more effective.
C. Novel Contributions of This Paper
The novel contributions are as follows:
a) A new way for model family identification of power processes and the criteria (both in time and frequency domains) for searching the nominal model and uncertainty
models from this family.
b) Power process-oriented criteria for optimal PID-control,
including restrictions for executing element (control
valve) of power stations.
c) A new way for simultaneous calculation of set parameters
, , ,
among them the optimal parameters of PID
control.
d) Tuning procedure allowing effective usage of the degrees
of freedom of a PID-control (its four parameters , , ,
) for robust controller design and improvement of the
power station behavior.

Fig. 1.

Block diagram for the tuned control loop.

The Control System Tuning Program (CSTP) [33] based on

these principles was developed at IEC and has been effectively
used as the tuning tool.
This paper is organized as follows. The typical PID-control
loop is described in Section II. The proposed identification approach is presented in Section III. The presented PID-control
optimization is discussed in Section IV and V. Industrial application examples are given in Section VI. Some of the conclusions can be seen in Section VII.
II. PID-CONTROL LOOP DESCRIPTION
We consider the following typical SISO control loop structure
(Fig. 1). The process model and the controller are represented
,
, respectively, where four paby transfer functions
, are optimized simulrameters of PID-controller, , , ,
taneously according to the controller transfer function
(1)
, process output
,
The signals in Fig. 1 are set point
, loop disturbance
, power unit disturbance
error signal
(depending on the unit mode), measurement noise
and
.
controller output
The disturbance
is the internal signal defining the loop
operation mode (for example, it is the network frequency deviation [30] in the control loop of a power unit load where
). The disturbance
is the external signal introduced to this loop, which determines the transfer function
for the unit steady-state mode. For example,
may be
steam pressure or/and its temperature deviations for a certain
steady-state load.
acts through a control valve
,
The controller
the output of which should usually be in a normalized scale
according to practical requirements. On this basis,
parameters of the structure (Fig. 1) are normalized such that
, , also belong to the same scale
. Hence, the
structure (Fig. 1) is correct under the following assumptions
(2)
(3)
Here, there is an upper bound on the valve speed denoted by
and measured in units of %/s. To prevent overactivity in a
control valve, (2) and (3) have to be carried out.
Remark 1: A prefilter is usually used to reduce the effect
of measurement noises. Without loss of generality, such filter

GLICKMAN et al.: IDENTIFICATION-BASED PID CONTROL TUNING

can be included into

which describes a process. Then
will be a noise after this prefilter. In addition, set point filters
(SP-filters) are sometimes used for the overshoot reduction of
. This problem however is beyond the
the time response to
scope of this paper.
Remark 2: The scheme in Fig. 1 describes PID-control under
(2)(3), where a control system operates in linear regions for all
of its parameters. Of course, if only one parameter reaches its
limit a closed control system degenerates into an open control
loop.
In the framework in which the proposed tuning procedure is
developed, the concept is as follows:
a) in the linear region, the PID-control tuning is fulfilled
within the proposed procedure;
b) if a controller output reaches a limit, the standard antiwindup control begins to operate.
The anti-windup control is not dealt with as it is beyond the
scope of this paper.
III. PROCESS IDENTIFICATION
A. About Identification Method
The transfer function identification (TFI) technique is used
very widely in power system applications [25][31]. Of the two
main methods, ARMA TFI and Prony TFI [28], only the first
one is directly related to the TFI problem.
According to ARMA TFI, a pseudorandom binary sequence
(PRBS) or many uncorrelated PRBS are usually applied to the
input of a system operating in closed loop (closed loop identification) and a SIMO or a MIMO process is identified by this
method using response data [25][27]. However, even if identification of a system operating in closed loop is theoretically
possible, the estimates obtained may be in practice very poor,
due to the effect of the MIMO feedback terms in the input signal
[29]. From these considerations, the individual SISO identification procedure for each link transfer function (for each equation)
of a model may be more accurate [25], [30]. In addition, detercan be used (see Theorem 2 in [31])
ministic test signals
instead of the PRBS signals which are mandatory for MIMO
processes. This leads both to a less time-consuming identification procedure and to a safer identification experiment.
In this paper the identification method [30], [31] is used
without changes. Below only main principles of this method
are introduced.
The following two-stage procedure for TFI is proposed in
[31]: the first stage is frequency response (FR) identification of
a process, while the second one is TF computation using the frequency response obtained from the first stage. The main reason
for this is to provide the maximum of TFI accuracy (see Theorem in [30]) through the optimal limiting the bandwidth in the
.
frequency response identification by
There are several methods for TF computation (see [30])
using the frequency response data in which problems of
TF order determination and of parameters estimation are
solved simultaneously. The convergence is problematic in
these methods. In [30], [31] the above problems are solved
separately.

125

Usually, transfer functions of power station processes are of

the third order at the most [30]. Because of this reason and ascorresponds to the identified
suming that the band
process, several transfer functions (TF) of the first-, second-,
and third-order (with and without zeros) are computed. Then
one may expect the true TF to fall somewhere between these
computed values.
B. Model Family Identification Statement
The method [30], [31] is used for this model family identification.
Let a process be described by the identification experiment
data set
. As a rule, the closed loop experiment is
is the step function
preferable when
where
. We emphasize that the process is assumed
to contain a control valve.
,
are:
Without loss of generality, expected values of
for
and
,
for
. In the case of a linear stable time-invariant process
is the recovery time. Therefore, the usage of finite is only
the approximation in continuous systems.
Due to the noises, nonlinearities, inaccurate measurements,
small deviations of , and other factors a fixed linear timeinvariant identified process model will never exactly represent
obtained from the process. Furthermore,
the data
such a model can forecast the process behavior with different
accuracy on different parts of these data. What is meant by this
and fulis that choosing different subsets from data
filling identification we will obtain a family of linear time-invariant models. The most accurate of them may be taken, as the
nominal one while the others will define the process uncertainties related to modeling errors.
is broken down into
Suppose that the data set
-data subsets
,
,
,
,
,
,
where:
is the expected value of the bracketed function.
Applying the method [31] to the subsets
a family of linear time-invariant models may be obtypes of models, namely
tained. For each above subset,
, are represented by their transfer
functions.
Let this model family is calculated in the frame of the following general type

(4)
The following five model types are suggested here to identify
for

(5)

where the FOPTD-model is

126

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 12, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004

Taken into account that

a SISO-process is described by the following model family

D. Nominal Model Identification

defines the maximum identification quality in the
Let
time domain

...............................................
(6)
...............................................
(11)
Now we select such model set
, which satisfies

For further usage, the quality index is introduced

(12)

(7)

where

is the model
time response. Clearly,
and the ideal identification corresponds
.
to
The functional (7) estimates identification accuracy in the
time domain. The correct usage of an identified model in the frequency domain requires calculation of a frequency bandwidth,
in which a model correctly describes frequency properties of a
process [32]. The following theorem is applied to this problem.

In our experience,
is usually chosen.
Next we select the nominal model
, which satisfies the following
model set

from

(13)
According to (12) and (13), the nominal model describes a
process in the widest bandwidth and, simultaneously, with the
permissible accuracy in the time domain.
E. Additive Uncertainties Estimation

C. Theorem 1
Suppose that a stable process is described by its frequency
response
. Assume also that
,
.
Next we introduce the complex number
(8)
Then the phase shift between the frequency responses of a
process
and its model
is equal to

Let

is defined by
(14)

defines the maximum identificaAccording to (14),

tion accuracy in the time domain by using the data subset with
number .
,
, which
Now we select the model set
satisfies
(15)

(9)
where

The best model

,
subset with number satisfies

(10)
is the argument of the complex number
,
are Fourier transforms;

identified by the data

(16)
Models
give the closest approach to the identified
process using data subsets
,
..............
(17)
..............

Proof: See Appendix I.

The expression (9) relates an error in time domain between a
to the error in frequency
process and its model
domain between a process and its model
.
be the upper frequency bound of the model
Let
, which corresponds to a certain
computed by (9).
will determine the model bandwidth upper
Then
limit on the stage of controller optimization.

We note that the nominal model

belongs to
Keeping with (17), additive uncertainties can be introduced
to model errors in high-frequency dynamics. Denoting additive
we have
uncertainties as
(18)

GLICKMAN et al.: IDENTIFICATION-BASED PID CONTROL TUNING

127

in the steadyIn addition, allowable fluctuations

should be met
state mode caused by the noises
(21)
Here
and

is the standard deviation of the bracketed function

is its permissible upper bound.

C. Control Loop Performance Specification

Following [6], [10] we use the ITAE criterion. Then the index
quality for the controller adjusting is applied to the control loop
with the nominal process model

Fig. 2.

where

(22)

Typical PID-controller response u(t).

IV. PID-CONTROL TUNING PROBLEM

A. About Control Loop Operation Mode
The primary design goal may be to achieve good rejection
of load disturbances [5], [11]. However, detailed assumptions
can not be made about . Sometimes, PID-controllers are tuned
as a possible disproviding good response to a step
turbance [11]. More often good response to the unit step change
is the tuning goal [7], [8], [12], [13],
in demand
[16], [17], [20][24]. There are several reasons for this.
First, the set point step
is equivalent to
. This disturbance spectrum is wider
because
is a low-pass link [14].
than
is a sufficiently strong disturbance in
Hence
comparison with the unit step
and is therefore a
step. At the same time, the
reasonable replacement for the
response to set point step must be optimized as well. Finally,
,
,
are more convenient for
quality estimates such as
operating staff when applied to set point step response.
Hence, we use a good response to the step demand
as the PID-control tuning goal.
B. Control Valve Performance Limits
Fig. 2 shows a typical PID-controller response
to a set
point step change. Now the following constraints have to take
place in accordance with Fig. 2:

where is a step response of the closed loop system to the unit

and for the ideal tuning
step. Obviously,
.
Because industrial thermal processes are not stationary ones,
their transfer function (parameters or/and structure) change with
time (usually, during months). Therefore phase/gain margins
may be rejected with relation to an initial tuning of the PID controller. So we impose the following restrictions (for the nominal
model) for the phase margin
(23)
and the gain margin
(24)
of the tuned system. Here, required lower bounds are denoted
,
.
as
or
These are some processes, for which such indexes as
or
are more important than
. Then the index quality
(25)
can be introduced instead of (22) where is equal to either
or
or . The minimizing of is the optimization purpose
for certain processes.
If nonstationary properties of a particular power station
process are not negligible, it is reasonable to introduce the
as the stability guarantee
minimum of the phase margin
for all uncertainty models of a tuned system

(19)
(26)
is measured in the digital form. Then acUsually
cording to (3) we have
(20)
where

is the sampling interval and

D. PID-Control Tuning Problem

PID-controller is tuned for the nominal process model
through optimal adjusting all four parameters in (1). Additionally, this controller has to ensure required phase margin for all
plant uncertainty models.

128

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 12, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004

Now the tuning problem can be formulated as an optimization

problem:
that simultaneously
Find controller parameters , , ,
maximize (22) or minimize (25) i.e.,

1) Lower Bound : The bandwidth lower bound can be

approximately estimated using the identified FOPTD model
from the family (6)
(31)

(27)
under restrictions (19)(21), (23), (24) for the nominal model
,
,
.
and the constraint (26) for
Remark 3: Checking of (19), (20) requires modeling of the
tuned control loop with real values of and . This is fulfilled
on the final step of the proposed tuning procedure.
V. TUNING PROCEDURE
Before the tuning procedure will be discussed, permissible
domains of controller parameters and a possible frequency region are defined.
It is important to define these domains with a safety margin,
as we deal with a wide variety of power stations processes. The
above domains are estimated approximately however PID optimal parameters inside of them are calculated accurately.
A. Permissible Domain of Controller Parameters
Two principal conditions (28) and (29) give the relationship
between , , ,
,
,
(
is the crossover
frequency).
be the crossover frequency of the
1) Theorem 2: Let
control loop (Fig. 1). Then the following condition is met for
the PID-control

(28)

where
Real
Imag
Proof: See Appendix II.
2) Consequence: Zeroing and
in (28) we define the
corresponding condition for PI-controller
(29)
As one can see from (29), PI-controller parameters
are calculated separately.

and

B. Permissible Domain Of
Usage of (28), (29) requires to define a domain of

are upper and lower bounds of

(32)
is equal to
2) Upper Bound : The estimate of
and limits the frequency region by the condition of a nominal model correct usage (Theorem 1)
(33)

C. Permissible Domain Of
The ratio
is not a constant in the presented procedure.
We emphasize again that the upper bound
is defined by
mechanical effects in a final control element, which is usually
a control valve. These effects are indirectly prevented by limits
(19) and (20). Generally, we have
(34)
is a nonlinear function of
and
It is clear that
which determine
and in (19), (20). Therefore,
can be approximately defined only for certain operating mode
parameters. For this approximate calculation we consider that
,
,
,
. These
parameters are typical for different power stations control loop
(see Appendix IV).
tuning. As one proves,
is chosen as
beThe lower bound of
cause it approximately corresponds to the extreme case of a
PI-control.
D. Permissible Domain of
The constraint (21) can be used for an approximate calculation of the permissible domain :
(35)
A process which is a low-pass link [14] significantly filters
fluctuations
so effectively that they will influence control
can be approximately comvalve behavior only. Then
puted in the open loop where
(36)

(30)
where ,

This model does not need to be the nominal one. Considering

that the open loop is optimal according to [8] one can prove (see
Appendix III) that

is known from (34).

Here the permissible domain of
is represented by the Parsevals theorem and ,
Now
are computed according to known values
,
.

GLICKMAN et al.: IDENTIFICATION-BASED PID CONTROL TUNING

129

TABLE I
PARAMATERS OF PROCESS TRANSFER FUNCTIONS

E. Tuning Procedure
,
are known, values of
,
,
Suppose that
,
and are chosen and the certain function in (25) is
given. The proposed tuning procedure consists of the following
main stages fulfilled in both frequency and time domains:
acquisition from identification exa) Data
,
periment and selecting -data subsets
.
b) Applying the method [31] to the above data and transfer
calculation of the nominal model and
functions
of uncertainty model family.
,
, .
c) Calculating permissible domains of
d) Assembling sets of parameters , , ,
for PID-controller (or , for PI-controller) by calculating equation
,
systems (28) or (29) in permissible domains of
, .
e) Searching the optimal values , , ,
or , that
satisfy the optimization criterion (27) under constraints
(24), (26) and (19)(21). We recall that checking (19),
(20) requires to simulate the designed closed loop with
and .
real values of
into a tuned
f) Inserting the optimal parameters , , ,
controller and checking control loop performance.
Remark 4: This tuning procedure is not iterative and calculates PID optimal parameters from their permissible set through
exhaustive search. Because the permissible parameter set is assembled by calculating equation systems (28) or (29) in per,
, , it is nonempty and this
missible domains of
procedure is favorable.
We note that the tuning procedure in [16] is closely related to
the proposed here. It includes a definition of model family and
calculation of parameters sets , , . These sets can simultaneously place characteristic polynomial roots into the desired
region in the complex plane that guarantees a specified settling
time of the responses.

Fig. 3. Time responses of the FOPTD model

model
( )-(b).

G s

G (s)-(a) and the optimal

perheater temperature set point is broken down into 6-data sub,

. Applying the above identisets
the family
fication method to the subsets
was calculated (see Table I). The nominal model is described
because it and only it satisfies (12) and (13) where
by
and
. Other
models satisfy only (15), (16) and, therefore, describe uncertainty models.
,
, illustrate
For example, time responses (Fig. 3),
where model transfer functwo identification results for
,
are as follows:
tions and values of
(37)
(38)
As one can see from (38) and Fig. 3, the FOPTD-model does
not perform well for this process.
2) PID Controller Tuning: The initial PI-controller param,
. Applying the tuning procedure
eters are
5.5 to the identified process, two optimal controllers were cal,
and PID-conculated: PI with parameters
,
,
,
troller with parameters
. We note that
. Requirements for the
optimal loop operation were as follows:
a) Minimum overshoot of the control loop step response as
the optimization criterion.
b)

VI. INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION EXAMPLES

Two industrial application examples given below illustrate
the proposed tuning procedure. These examples deal with a
.
Westinghouse DCS that does not limit the inserted ratio
CSTP [33] was used as the tuning tool.
A. Superheater Temperature Control on a 140 MW Unit
1) Process Identification: The data set
is the superheater steam temperature and

, where
is the desu-

The superheater temperature control loop response are shown

in Fig. 4. Because of a relatively low level of noise and suffi, PID-controller provides the highest
ciently high value of
quality.
3) Some Conclusions: The following conclusions follow
from this example:

130

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 12, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004

Fig. 4. Plot of time responses for superheater temperature control of 140MW

unit.

Fig. 6. Plot of time responses for main air flow control of 140 MW unit.

tification. In addition, Fig. 3 also demonstrates the high

identification accuracy (time responses of process and its
model coincide practically). These practical results validate the high identification accuracy which is theoretically proved in [30], [31] (see Section III-A).
B. Main Air Flow Process of 140 MW Unit

Fig. 5. Time responses of the FOPTD model

( )-(b).
model

G s

G (s)-(a) and the nominal

a) The optimal PID controller sufficiently improves the

system dynamical behavior in comparison with the
optimal and initial PI controllers (see Fig. 4).
(for example, [6], [7], [9],
b) All methods in which
[14], [16]) can result in, at best, only the above PI op(for the PID optimal contimal control because
trol) should be equal to 2.5. The same results can be
is predeterreached by methods [10], [11] where
mined (not optimized) or by using the equipment where
.
c) Additional deterioration of dynamic behavior based on
methods [4], [6], [10], [12], [14]) may take place due to
the FORTD model, which does not perform well for the
superheater process [see Fig. 3(a)].
, , , of transfer
d) Table I gives parameters
functions (4), (5). In particular, first row corresponds to
, second, third, fourth rowsto
,
,
, fifth, sixth rowsto
,
. Differences
between parameter values belonged to the same model
type are not significant. Between different model types,
parameters are distinguished sufficiently.
e) The superheater PID control is tuned under constraints
(19), (20), which take into account possible superheater
stresses. According to the proposed tuning procedure
(Section V-E) the calculation of optimal controller
parameters includes checking (19), (20). Hence, the improved dynamic behavior does not stress the superheater.
f) Identification accuracy of the process nominal model is
equal to 99.17% in relation to 100% for the ideal iden-

1) Process Identification: The data set

is
,
,
broken down into 7-data subsets
. Below we touch upon usage of the FOPTD model
only.
Time responses (Fig. 5) illustrate two identification results for
,
the following model transfer functions and values of

(39)
(40)
As one can see from (40) and Fig. 5, the FOPTD-model describes this process more accurate in the time domain. However,
this description holds within the bandwidth of 0.105 rad/s. At
providing the closed accuracy
the same time, the model
is valid within the bandwidth of 0.25 rad/s. So the model
is preferred over its counterpart according to (12), (13).
2) PID Controller Tuning: The initial PI-controller has the
,
. PID-control parameters after
parameters
,
,
,
,
its tuning:
. Actually we have PI-optimal controller because
. Requirements for optimal loop operation were as follows:
a) Maximum
of the control loop step response as the
optimization criterion.
b)

The main air flow control loop responses are shown in Fig. 6.
Because of a relatively low level of noise PID-controller prodyvides sufficiently high quality. However, due to small
namics, improvement is less than in the previous example.

GLICKMAN et al.: IDENTIFICATION-BASED PID CONTROL TUNING

131

3) Identification Accuracy: Identification accuracy of the

process nominal model is equal to 97.25% in relation to 100%
for the ideal identification. In addition, Fig. 5 illustrates the
high identification accuracy (time responses of process and its
model coincide practically). These practical results validate the
high identification accuracy which is theoretically proved in
[30], [31] (see Section III-A).

Next we substitute into (44) algebraic forms of complex numbers

(45)
Equating separately real and imaginary parts in both left- and
righ-hand sides of (44) we arrive at (28).

VII. CONCLUSION
A new approach to the PID-control tuning for power station
processes is presented. Its main principles are as follows:
A novel procedure for highly accurate identification of the
process model family is presented. This family contains both the
nominal and uncertainty models describing a process by transfer
functions up to the third order with and without zeros. The robustness parameters, gain and phase margins, are constrained by
using these uncertainty models in the tuning procedure.
, are optiFour parameters of PID-controller, , , ,
mized simultaneously according to its transfer function (1). The
optimization is fulfilled in the frame of the robust theory approach using four power process-oriented criteria considering
also the control valve performance limits.
Main stages of the proposed tuning procedure are data acquisition for process identification, calculation of model transfer
functions, calculating permissible domains of certain param,
eters, composing sets of controller parameters , , ,
searching the optimal parameters , , ,
, checking tuned
control loop performances.
Theoretical principles of this approach have been successfully
applied for PID/PI-control loop tuning in IEC power stations.

APPENDIX III
A. Appendix 3
much small that the phase shift
so that a frequency response deviation
in (31) is negligible. Then the
caused by the delay link
simple FOPTD process model (31) can be approximately
in this low frequency
described by
domain.
It is known [8], the second-order optimal closed control loop
is represented by the transfer function of Butterworths filter
. This loop structure is optimal from
both a few deterministic and statistics optimization criteria point
we get
of view [8]. Considering that
which determines the lowest loop bandwidth determined
inertia only.
by this process
Let

be

so

APPENDIX IV
A. Appendix 4
Computing the controller (1) response to the error signal
we have

APPENDIX I
A. Appendix 1
First we introduce functions
(41)
(42)
where
culating

are defined in comments to (10). Calwhere

and
we have:

(46)
Expression (46) can be used for checking (19) and (20) fulfillment.
and
into the
Zeroing in (46) and substituting
second inequality of (19) we find
(47)
Taking
from the interval
which corresponds
we have
to the highest permissible

(43)
Here, is from (42). Substituting (43) and
,
into (41) and taking into account (8) we find after conversions
we arrive
the (10). Since
at (9).

(48)
Now substituting

and

into (20) we arrive at

(49)

APPENDIX II

where the sampling period usually belong to interval

s.
. Analysis of the
From (48), (49) it is follows that
in certain cases. For
first inequality in (19) may reduce
calculation the (46) can be used.

According to the Nyquist stability criterion and the requirement (23), the following condition is held

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

A. Appendix 2

(44)
where

The authors wish to thank D. Kohn and M. Bachar for their

help in planning and fulfilling this work at the Israel Electric
Corporation.

132

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 12, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004

REFERENCES
[1] M. Morari and E. Zafiriou, Robust Process Control. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1988.
[2] C. G. Beril, J. T. Rockman, D. R. Lewin, and P. O. Gutman, A comparison between the horowitz and IMC design methods for a chemical
process control problem, in ECC91 Europ. Contr. Conf., Grenoble,
France, 1991, pp. 292297.
[3] I. Horowitz and M. Sidi, Synthesis of feedback systems with large plant
ignorance for prescribed time-domain tolerances, Int. J. Contr., vol. 2,
no. 16, pp. 287309, 1972.
[4] J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols, Optimum settings for automatic controllers, Trans. ASME, vol. 64, pp. 759768, 1942.
[5] K. J. strm and T. Hgglund, Automatic tuning of simple regulators
with specifications on phase and amplitude margins, Automatica, vol.
20, pp. 645651, 1984.
[6] A. M. Lopez, J. A. Miller, C. L. Smith, and P. W. Murrill, A comparison
of controller, Control Eng., pp. 7376, December 1967.
[7] Y. Nishikawa, N. Sannomiya, T. Ohta, and H. Tanaka, A method for
auto-tuning of PID control parameters, Automatica, vol. 20, no. 1, pp.
321332, 1984.
[8] G. C. Newton Jr, L. A. Gould, and J. F. Kaiser, Analytical Design of
Linear Feedback Controls. New York: Wiley, 1957.
[9] T. S. Schei, Automatic tuning of PID controllers based on transfer function estimation, Automatica, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 19831989, 1994.
[10] W. K. Ho, O. P. Gan, E. B. Tay, and E. L. Ang, Performance and gain
and phase margins of well-known PID tuning formulas, IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 473477, 1996.
[11] H. Panagopoulos, PID Control. Design, Extension, Application. Lund:
Lund Institute of Technology, 2000.
[12] A. P. Swanda and D. E. Seborg, Controller performance assessment
based on setpoint response data, in 1999 Amer. Contr. Conf., San Diego,
CA, pp. 38633867.
[13] Q. G. Wang, T. H. Lee, H. W. Fung, Q. Bi, and Y. Zhang, PID tuning
for improved performance, IEEE Trans. Contr. Technol., vol. 7, pp.
457465, 1999.
[14] Z. J. Palmor, Y. Halevi, and N. Krasney, Automatic tuning of decentralized PID controllers for TITO processes, Automatica, vol. 31, no.
7, pp. 10011010, 1995.
[15] L. Grouzman, R. Kulessky, and E. Zeheb, Identification-based power
station models for purposes of robust control design, in Proc. 2003
Amer. Control Conf., Denver, CO, pp. 22882293.
[16] J. Ackermann and D. Kaesbauer, Design of robust PID controllers, in
2001 Europ. Contr. Conf., Porto, Sept. 2001.
[17] S. Glickman, R. Kulessky, and G. Nudelman, PID control design for
power station processes based on timeDelay compensationSmith
predictor, in MMAR 2002 IEEE Conf., Poland, 2002, pp. 11631168.
[18] S. P. Bhattacharyya, H. Chapellat, and L. H. Keel, Robust Control. The
Parametric Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1992.
[19] INTUNE: Process Loop Monitoring, Tuning, & Diagnostic Software.
Presented by ControlSoft, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, USA. [Online]. Available: http//www.controlsoftinc.com
[20] ExperTune: PID Tuning, Analysis and Simulation. ExperTune Inc, Hubertus, WI. [Online]. Available: http//www.expertune.com
[21] Bailey infi90: Loop Tuning System LALTS01. Instruction. Cleveland,
OH: Controlsoft Inc, 1992.
[22] (1995) WES-Tune. Users Guide, Document UO-8105. Westinghouse
Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, PA. [Online]. Available: http//www.westinghousepc.com
[23] TuneWizard: PID Controller Tuning, Process Diagnostic, Loop Simulation. CONTROLSERVE. [Online]. Available: http//www.tunewizard.
com
[24] Protuner: Loop Tuning, Analysis, Simulation. TECHMATION, Scottsdale, AZ. [Online]. Available: http//www.protuner.com
[25] G. Pellegrinetti and J. Bentsman, Nonlinear control oriented boiler
modelingA benchmark problem for controller design, IEEE Trans.
Contr. Syst. Technol., vol. 4, pp. 5763, Jan. 1996.
[26] P. K. Chawdry and B. M. Hogg, Identification of boiler models, IEEE
Proc., vol. 136, pp. 261271, Sept. 1989.
[27] E. Swidenbank and B. M. Hogg, Application of system identification
techniques to modeling a turbogenerator, IEEE Proc., vol. 136, pp.
113120, May 1989.

[28] J. R. Smith, J. F. Hauer, and D. J. Trudnowski, Transfer function identification in power system applications, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol.
8, pp. 12821289, Aug. 1993.
[29] I. Gustavsson, L. Ljung, and T. Soderstrom, Identification of processes
in closed loopIdentifiability and accuracy aspects, Automatica, vol.
13, pp. 5975, 1977.
[30] Y. Hain, R. Kulessky, and G. Nudelman, IdentificationBased power
unit model for load-frequency control purposes, IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 15, pp. 13131321, 2000.
[31] R. Kulessky, G. Nudelman, and Y. Hain, Thermal power plant dynamics
identification, in 1999 Amer. Contr. Conf., San Diego, CA, 1999, pp.
843847.
[32] R. Kulessky and G. Nudelman, Power boiler control loops optimal
tuning, in 9th Mediterranean IEEE Conf., Tel-Aviv, Israel, 1998, pp.
484488.
[33]
, (2000) CSTP: Users Guide. Israel Electric Corporation, Haifa.
[Online]. Available: http://www.ardan-pic.co.il/CSTPsite/

Steve Glickman was born in the United States in

1947. He received the B.Sc. degree in chemistry,
math, and physics from Stevens Institute of Technology, NJ.
He worked for a major manufacturer of industrial
control and computer systems, Leeds & Northrup, PA
for 16 years where he was a field systems startup engineer, field project manager, as well as a systems
programmer. In 1985, he immigrated to Israel and
began working for the Israel Electric Corporation at
the Rutenberg Power Station where he worked for 17
years. He was directly involved in the startup of the stations four generating
units (total capacity 2250 MW ). At Rutenberg, he worked as Manager of the
Controls Department, and later, as Plant Manager. He is presently Assistant to
the Manager of the IEC Generating Division in charge of electrical matters, controls, and computerization.

Roland Kulessky was born in Russia in 1937. He received the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees, all in electrical engineering, from the Ural Politechnic Institute (UPI),
Russia, in 1959 and 1967, respectively. He received
the Dr.Sc degree in electrical engineering from the
Moscow Energy Institute, Russia, in 1988.
Until 1991, he worked in Russia: the Ural
Turbine Plant (19591961), Electro-Project Institute
(19611967), the UPI (19671991). Since 1989
he has been Full Professor at the UPI. After
immigrating to Israel, he joined the Control System
Department of the Israel Electric Corporation, where he has been working as
a Senior Controls Specialist. His research interests are digital control systems
optimization, process identification, variable bandwidth control, and amplitude
quantization theory.

Gregory Nudeman was born in Russia in 1958. He received the M.S. degree in
control system engineering from the Moscow Institute of Railway Engineering,
Russia, in 1980. Until 1991, he had worked in Russia as a Control Field Engineer with the Start Up Company (19811991). There he dealt mainly with
optimization of power unit control systems configuration and their performance
optimization in their main regimes. SInce 1992, he has worked in Israel as a Controls Engineer with the Haifa Power Station of the Israel Electric Corporation.
His research interests are thermal power process identification, loadfrequency
coordination control, industrial control system tuning, and autotuning problems.