individual loops [5], but cannot strictly be generalised to larger-dimensional

systems (without making the interaction measure dependent on the control-

ler). The Niederlinski index applies also to systems of large dimension, but
it is this authors (subjective) opinion that it is of less use than the RGA.

5 Tuning of decentralized controllers

5.1 Introduction
In this section, we consider the case when the control configuration is fixed,
and focus on fully decentralized control. That is, it is assumed that the
overall controller consists of multiple single-input, single-output controllers,
and the pairing of manipulated and controlled variables has been determi-
ned. Despite the prevalence of decentralized controllers in industry, the tu-
ning (determination of controller parameters) of decentralized controllers is
not a solved problem in mathematical terms. The well established con-
troller synthesis methodologies, like H2 − or H∞ −optimal control, cannot
handle a pre-specified structure for the controller. In fact, a truly H2 −
or H∞ −optimal decentralized controller would have an infinite number of
states[40]. This follows, since these controller synthesis procedures result
in controllers which have the same number of states as the ’plant’. When
synthesizing one decentralized controller element, all the other decentralized
controllers would become a part of the ’plant’ as seen from the controller
to be synthesized, and this controller element would therefore have a large
number of states. Now, with this new controller in operation, it becomes
a part of the ’plant’ as seen from the other controllers, and the other con-
trollers may therefore be improved - thereby introducing yet more states.
Sourlas et al. have looked at l1 -optimal 13 decentralized control [47, 46], and
have developed a method for calculating the best achievable decentralized
performance, both for decentralized control in general and for fixed order
decentralized controllers. However, the computations involved are rather
complex, and may well become hard to solve even for problems of moderate
dimension. In the absence of any decentralized controller synthesis method
that has both solid theoretical foundation and is easily applicable, a few
practical approaches have been developed:
13
In l1 -optimal control, the ratio ky(t)k∞ / kd(t)k∞ is minimized.

47
 • Independent design. The individual decentralized controller elements
are designed independently, but bouds on the controller designs are
sought which ensure that the overall system will behave acceptably.

• Sequential design. The controller elements are designed sequentially,

and the controllers that have been designed are assumed to be in ope-
ration when the next controller element is designed.

• Simultaneous design. Optimization is used to simultaneously optimize

the controller parameters in all decentralized controller elements. A
particular controller parametrization (e.g. PI-controllers) have to be
chose a priori.

In the following, these three tuning approaches will be described in some

detail, but first some methods for tuning conventional single-loop controllers
will be reviewed.

5.2 Tuning of single-loop controllers

There are a number of methods for tuning single-loop controllers, and no
attempt will be made here at providing a comprehensive review of such tuning
methods. Instead, a few methods will be described, which all are based on
simple experiments or simple models, and do not require any frequency-
domain analysis (although such analysis may enhance understanding of the
resulting closed loop behaviour).

5.2.1 Ziegler-Nichols closed-loop tuning method

This tuning method can be found in many introductory textbooks, and is
probably the most well-known tuning method. It is based on a simple closed
loop experiment, using proportional control only. The proportional gain is
increased until a sustained oscillation of the output occurs (which neither
grows nor decays significantly with time). The proportional gain giving the
sustained oscillation, Ku , and the oscillation period (time), Tu , are recorded.
The proposed tuning parameters can then be found in Table 1. In most
cases, increasing the proportional gain will provide a sufficient disturbance
to initiate the oscillation - measurement noise may also do the trick. Only
if the output is very close to the setpoint will it be necessary to introduce a
setpoint change after increasing the gain, in order to initiate an oscillation.
Note that for controllers giving positive output signals, i.e., controllers giving

48
output signals scaled in the range 0−1 or 0%−100%, a constant bias must be
included in the controller in addition to the proportional term, thus allowing
a negative proportional term to have an effect. Otherwise, the negative part
of the oscillation in the plant input will be cut off, which would also effect
the oscillation of the output - both the input and output of the plant may
still oscillate, but would show a more complex behaviour than the single-
frequency sinusoids that the experiment should produce.
Table 1. Tuning parameters for the closed loop Ziegler-Nichols method
Controller type Gain, KP Integral time, TI Derivative time, TD
P 0.5 · Ku
PI 0.45 · Ku 0.85 · Tu
PID 0.6 · Ku 0.5 · Tu 0.12 · Tu
Essentially, the tuning method works by identifying the frequency for
which there is a phase lag of 180◦ . In order for the tuning method to work,
the system to be controlled must therefore have a phase lag of 180◦ in a
reasonable frequency range, and with a gain that is large enough such that
the proportional controller is able to achieve a loop gain of 1 (0 dB). These
assumptions are fulfilled for many systems. The tuning method can also
lead to ambigous results for systems with a phase lag of 180◦ at more than
one frequency. This would apply for instance to a system with one slow,
unstable time constant, and some faster, but stable time constants. Such
a system would have a phase lag of 180◦ both at steady state and at some
higher frequency. It would then be essential to find the higher of these two
frequencies. Furthermore, the system would be unstable for low proportional
gains, which could definitely lead to practical problems in the experiment,
since it is common to start the experiment with a low gain. Despite its
popularity, the Ziegler-Nicols closed loop tuning rule is often (particularly
in the rather conservative chemical processing industries) considered to give
somewhat aggressive controllers.

5.2.2 Tuning based on the process reaction curve

In process control, the term ’reaction curve’ is sometimes used as a synonym
for a step response curve. Many chemical processes are stable and well
damped, and for such systems the step response curve can be approximated
by a first-order-plus-deadtime model, i.e.,
Ke−θs
y(s) = u(s) (25)
1 + Ts
and it is relatively straight forward to fit the model parameters to the ob-
served step response. This is illustrated in Figure 10. Assuming that

49
 Output

0 Time
q T

Figure 10: Estimating model parameters from the process reaction curve.

the response in Fig. 10 is the result of a step of size B at time 0 in the

manipulated variable, the model parameters are found as follows:
1. Locate the inflection point, i.e., the point where the curve stops curving
upwards and starts to curve downwards.
2. Draw a straight line through the inflection point, with the same gradi-
ent as the gradient of the reaction curve at that point.
3. The point where this line crosses the initial value of the output (in
Fig.10 this is assumed to be zero) gives the apparent time delay θ.
4. The straight line reaches the steady state value of the output at time
T + θ.
5. The gain K is given by A/B.

Ziegler-Nichols open loop tuning Ziegler and Nichols [51] propose the
tuning rules in Table 2 based on the model in Eq. (25).
Table 2. Tuning parameters for the open loop Ziegler-Nichols method
Controller type Gain, KP Integral time, TI Derivative time, TD
T
P Kθ
0.9T θ
PI Kθ 0.3
4T θ
PID 3Kθ 0.5
0.5θ

50
 Corresponding
conventional controller, K

Manipulated Controlled
Reference IMC variable variable
Plant, G
controller, Q
_

+
Plant model,
_
Gm

Figure 11: An internal model controller.

Cohen-Coon tuning Cohen and Coon [10] have modified the Ziegler-
Nichols open loop tuning rules. The modifications are quite insignificant
when the deadtime θ small relative to the time constant T , but can be im-
portant for large θ. The Cohen-Coon tuning parameters are given in Table 3.
Table 3. Tuning parameters for Cohen-Coon method
Controller type Gain, KP Integral time, TI Derivative time, TD
T θ
P Kθ
(1 + 3T )
PI T
Kθ
θ
(0.9 + 12T ) θ( 30+3θ/T
9+20θ/T
)
T 4 θ 32+6θ/T 4
PID ( + 4T
Kθ 3
) θ( 13+8θ/T ) θ 11+2θ/T

5.2.3 IMC-PID tuning

In internal model control (IMC), the controller essentially includes a process
model operating in ”parallel” with the process, as illustrated in Figure 1.
The IMC controller Q and the corresponding conventional feedback controller

K are related by

K = Q(1 − Gm Q)−1 (26)

Note that if the model is perfect, Gm = G, IMC control essentially results in

an open loop control system. This means that it is not straight forward to
use it for unstable systems, but for stable systems (and a perfect model) any
stable IMC controller Q results in a stable closed loop system - this holds also
for non-linear systems. In the following discussion on IMC controllers we

51