Disturbance Observer based Control of Integrating Processes with
Dead-Time using PD controller
Sujay D. Kadam
SysIDEA Lab, IIT Gandhinagar, India.

arXiv:1711.11250v1 [] 30 Nov 2017

Abstract
The work presented here addresses the issue of tuning PD controllers for controlling integrating plus deadtime (IPDT) processes using settling time and gain and phase margin specifications. Tuning formulae are
derived for PD controller being used for controlling IPDT processes. Simulations have been carried out
to determine the effectiveness of the tuning formulae. Also, comparison between proposed and the other
existing tuning methods with respect to performance indices, time domain specifications and the control
effort expressed in terms of control signal energy has been done. Effects of gain margin and settling time
specifications on process output responses have been discussed. A PD controller cannot account for load
disturbances. So, a disturbance observer is suggested for use along with the PD controller. Regulatory and
tracking responses are then compared with respect to performance indices and control effort.
Keywords: Dead time, disturbance observer, gain and phase margins, integrating processes, PD
controller, tuning.
1. Introduction
The problem of controlling integrating plus dead time (IPDT) processes has received significant attention during recent past [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Numerous PI, PD and PID controller tuning methods for intergrating
processes have been proposed earlier [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Integrating processes are open loop unstable
because of pole at origin. In addition, existence of dead-time along with the integrator makes it difficult
to tune a PI, PD or a PID controller for controlling the resulting integrating plus dead-time (IPDT) process. The paper discusses the use of PD control for IPDT process, assuming that the IPDT process, by
its integrating nature, should not require integral control action at all. However, to subvert the effects of
load disturbances, integral action is required. Instead of using a full three mode PID controller, the use of
disturbance observer is suggested for taking into account load disturbances, as integral action necessitates
Email address: kadam.sujay@iitgn.ac.in (Sujay D. Kadam)

more control effort by the final control element. Simulations have been carried out for ascertaining the
performance of the controllers and the results have been compared with methods proposed by Wang and
Cluett [5], Sree and Chidambaram [6] and Ali and Majhi [3].
The paper is organized in the following manner. Section 2.1 deals with the derivation of the tuning
rules for PD controller using settling time (T s ), gain margin (Am ) and phase margin (φm ) specifications.
Section 2.2 enumerates a step by step procedure to get tuning parameters for a PD controller to control a
given IPDT process. Section 2.3 gives the guidelines for selecting ω pc and ωgc frequencies required for designing the PD controller. Section 3.1 starts with assumption of the IPDT process to be controlled and then
controller tuning parameters for methods under comparison are deduced. Comparison of step responses
of proposed PD tuning and other methods has been done with respect to time domain specifications like
rise time, settling time and overshoot and perfomance indices like ISE, IAE and ITAE in Section 3.2 Also,
in Section 3.2, control effort defined in terms of control signal energy required for each method to control
the process . Servo responses for proposed and tuning method are compared in Section 3.3. Section 3.4
demonstrates how a change in either settling time (T s ) or gain margin (Am ) specification causes a change
in process output response at a constant value of phase margin. The idea of using disturbance observer
alongwith the proposed PD controller for regulatory control is presented in Section 4.1. Regulatory responses for each of the methods under comparison under the influence of unit step disturbance have been
compared in Section 4.2 against performance indices and the criterion of control signal energy. Operation
of controllers being compared under servo plus regulatory control is discussed in Section 4.3. Conclusions
thus drawn, have been put forth in Section 5. Section 6 includes the references.
2. Controller Design
2.1. Derivation of tuning rules for PD controller
Consider an integrating plus dead-time (IPDT) process, given by the transfer function
G I (s) =

K p −ds
e ,
s

(1)

which is to be controlled by a PD controller of the form,
GCPD (s) = KcPD (1 + T dPD s).

(2)

The loop transfer function is given by,
GOLPD (s) =

K p Kc (1 + T dPD s) −ds
e ,
s
2

(3)

where K p is the process gain, d is the dead-time, Kc is the proportional gain and T d is the derivative time.
From the definitions of gain margin,
Am =

1
|GC ( jω pc )G I ( jω pc )|

(4)

and from definitions of phase margin,
φm = arg[GC ( jωgc )G I ( jωgc )] + π

(5)

where Am is the gain margin, φm is the phase margin, ωgc is the gain crossover frequency and ω pc is the
phase crossover frequency.
In context of equation (5), the phase margin for loop transfer function for process with PD controller
is given by

and

φmPD = arg[GOLPD ( jωgcPD )] + π

(6)

π
arg[GOLPD ( jωgcPD )] = arctan(ωgcPD T dPD ) − ωgcPD d − .
2

(7)

We get the following equation on simplification
π
tan(φmPD + ωgcPD d − ) = ωgcPD T dPD
2

(8)

Re-arranging the equation, we have,
T dPD

tan(φmPD + ωgcPD d − π2 )
=
ωgcPD

(9)

where, φmPD is the phase margin and ωgcPD is the gain crossover frequency for loop transfer function
defined by equation (3). The value of ωgcPD has to be pre-specified so as to achieve desired closed loop
performance.

Also, in context of equation (4), we can write the following equation,
AmPD =

∴ AmPD =

1
|GCPD ( jω pcPD )G I ( jω pcPD )|

(10)

ω pcPD
p
K p .KcPD 1 + (T dPD .ω pcPD )2

(11)

The above equation can be re-arranged as,
KcPD =

ω pcPD
p
K p .AmPD 1 + (T dPD .ω pcPD )2
3

(12)

where, AmPD is the gain margin and ω pcPD is the phase crossover frequency for loop transfer function defined by equation (3).

Equations (9) and (12) give the derivative time and proportional gain respectively for a PD controller
used for controlling an IPDT process given by equation (1).

2.2. PD controller design procedure
For the integrating plus dead time process G I (s) having model as equation (1),
1. Specify the desired values of gain margin (AmPD ) and phase margin (φmPD ).
2. Specify the gain and phase crossover frequencies (ωgcPD ) and (ω pcPD ) indirectly by specifying desired
settling time (T sPD ) as per equation (13). Refer to Section 2.3 for guidelines on selecting ω pc and ωgc
frequencies.
3. Calculate T dPD using the values specified above in equation (9). Ignore the negative sign if the value
of T d is negative, as derivative time cannot be negative.
4. The value of KcPD can be obtained by substituting the values of T dPD obtained in the previous step,
AmPD , φmPD , and ω pcPD in equation (12).
2.3. Guidelines for selecting ω pc and ωgc frequencies
Performance specifications in terms of frequency domain parameters are not as intuitive as time domain
specifications for an average plant operator. The choice of the crossover frequencies ω pc and ωgc for getting
reasonable controller parameters can be challenging.
The frequencies ω pc and ωgc can be specified indirectly in terms of settling time (T s ) as described in
[12]. The desired settling time can be intuitively specified, to find the values of ω pc and ωgc as,
2π
Ts
4π
ωgc =
Ts

ω pc =

(13)

∴ ωgc = 2ω pc
The frequencies thus selected for computation of controller parameters are the frequencies that have greatest influence on the time domain performance [12].

4

3. Simulations and comparison of results with other tuning methods
3.1. Consideration of process and controller tuning parameters for simulation
Simulations are carried out on process defined by equation (1) with K p = 0.0506 and d = 6 s.
G I (s) =

0.0506 −6s
e
s

(14)

The tuning parameters in Wang-Cluett’s method [5] are selected as ζ = 1 and β = 3. The settings for
proposed PD controller are obtained by assuming settling time (T sPD = 40 s), gain margin (AmPD = 2 =
6.0206 dB) and phase margin (φmPD = π rad = 180◦ ). Table 1 shows the controller parameters used in
the simulation studies for various tuning methods.
Table 1: Controller Parameters

Parameters

Kc

Ti

Td

(sec)

(sec)

Wang-Cluett’s tuning

1.2416

55.065

1.028

Sree-Chidambaram’s

2.95

15

3

Ali-Majhi’s tuning

3.39

19.02

2.94

Proposed PD tuning

1.5321

tuning

1.0343

3.2. Comparison of tuning methods with respect to step responses
The step responses for IPDT process given in (14) for respective methods are shown in Fig. 1. The set
point used is a unit step signal.
The comparison of the responses is made based on the time domain specifications of rise time, settling
time and overshoot. This comparison is tabulated in Table 2.
From the comparisons made from Table 2, it can be inferred that proposed PD tuning method provides
smaller values of settling time and overshoot.
Table 3 shows comparisons with respect to performance indices like IAE, ITAE and ISE when the
setpoint is a step signal. From Table 3, proposed tuning gives rise to smaller values of IAE and ITAE
indices meaning that it provides smaller values of overshoot and settling time.

5

Figure 1: Tracking responses for unit step reference command

Table 2: Unit step reference command: Comparison of time domain specifications

Parameters

Rise

Settling

Overshoot

Time

Time

(sec)

(sec)

(%)

Wang-Cluett’s tuning

10.65

110.97

23.43

Sree-Chidambaram’s

2.60

65.75

52.24

Ali-Majhi’s tuning

2.03

47.91

69.56

Proposed PD tuning

14.03

28.12

0.19

tuning

Table 3: Comparison of step responses with respect to Performance Indices

Performance
Indices

ISE

IAE

ITAE

Wang-Cluett’s tuning

12.27

26.81

1067

Sree-Chidambaram’s tuning

8.774

15.55

243.2

Ali-Majhi’s tuning

8.264

13.61

173

Proposed PD tuning

0.2512 1.022

6

4.479

Another criterion considered for comparison is the control effort defined in terms of the energy spent
by the controller in controlling the process i.e. the energy of the control signal (Eu(t) ) defined by,
Z T
Eu(t) =
|u(t)|2 dt

(15)

0

where, t is the simulation time and [0 T ] is the simulation time interval. Comparison results are tabulated
in Table 4.
Table 4: Comparison with respect to control signal energy as defined in (15) for simulation interval [0 200].

Parameter

Control signal energy

Wang-Cluett’s tuning

214.9

Sree-Chidambaram’s tuning

4351

Ali-Majhi’s tuning

5690

Proposed PD tuning

78.22

3.3. Comparison of tuning methods with respect to servo responses
In order to judge the proposed tuning methods set point tracking ability, the set points were applied to
the closed loop system as,




1,
for t ∈ [0 100]





SP = 
3, for t ∈ (100 200]






 2, for t ∈ (200 300].
Fig. 2 shows the set point tracking responses. The performance indices IAE and ISE are compared for
each set point change in following Tables 5 and 6 respectively.
Table 5: Comparison of Servo responses against ISE criterion

Parameters

ISE
SP=1

SP=3

SP=2

Wang-Cluett’s tuning

10.91

43.63

10.92

Sree-Chidambaram’s tuning

8.774

35.1

8.779

Ali-Majhi’s tuning

8.264

33.05

8.256

Proposed PD tuning

9.887

39.55

9.887

7

Figure 2: Servo responses of the tuning methods being compared

Table 6: Comparison of Servo responses against IAE criterion

Parameters

IAE
SP=1

SP=3

SP=2

Wang-Cluett’s tuning

22.7

45.39

22.7

Sree-Chidambaram’s tuning

15.56

31.11

15.58

Ali-Majhi’s tuning

13.63

27.26

13.64

Proposed PD tuning

12.95

25.9

12.95

8

3.4. Comparison of process output responses for different values of gain margin (Am ) and settling time
(T s ) specifications
The effect of input specifications like gain margin (Am ) and settling time (T s ) as described in Section
2.2, on the response of a process given by equation (1) controlled by the resulting PD controller is demonstrated here. Above Fig. 3 shows process output responses for the process given by equation (14) when

Figure 3: Output responses when Am = 2 and T s = 40, 50, 60, 70.

gain margin Am = 2, phase margin φm = 180 ◦ and settling time T s = 40, 50, 60, 70. As the specified
value of settling time increases, the speed of response gets slower. From Fig. 3 it can be seen that the
responses follow the specified settling time agreeably. Fig. 4 shows the process output responses for the
process given by equation (14) when settling time T s = 40, phase margin φm = 180◦ and gain margin
Am = 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5. Increase in gain margin specification increases the settling time, but decreases
the oscillatory nature of the response i.e. it increases the damping coefficient of the overall system. A
sufficiently small value of gain margin would result in an oscillatory response as in the case of Am = 1.
4. Regulatory control using proposed PD controller
4.1. Use of disturbance observer with proposed PD controller
The proposed controller being a PD controller, will fail to reject any permanent disturbances that act on
the IPDT process. In order to make the proposed PD controller cope up with permanent load disturbances,
a disturbance observer consisting of the IPDT process model G M (s) and a gain Kc with the arrangement
9

Figure 4: Process output responses when settling time T s = 40, phase margin φm = 180◦ and Am = 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5.

10

suggested in Fig. 5 can be used. D(s) is the unmeasured disturbance acting internally on the process and
b is the approximation of the disturbance generated by the disturbance observer. Under influence of
D(s)
b
disturbance, the control signal applied to the IPDT process will be U(s) = U PD (s) − D(s).
It is therefore
b closely follows D(s).
essential that D(s)

Figure 5: Load disturbance rejection using PD controller and a disturbance observer

The behaviour of the disturbance observer can be described analytically by the equations that follow.
With reference to Fig. 5,
Y(s) = (U(s) + D(s)).G I (s)

(16)

Y M (s) = U PD (s).G M (s)

(17)

b + D(s)].G M (s)
Y(s) = [U PD (s) − D(s)

(18)

b = Kc [Y(s) − Y M (s)]
D(s)

(19)

b = Kc [G I (s).(U PD (s) − D(s)
b + D(s)) − U PD (s).G M (s)]
D(s)

(20)

Also,

and,

Using equations (17) and (18) in (19),

If perfect modeling is assumed,
G M (s) = G I (s)

(21)

Then, by rearranging above equation (20), we have,
b
D(s)
G M (s)Kc
=
D(s) 1 + G M (s)Kc

11

(22)

Equation (22) represents the transfer function of the disturbance observer. From equation (22) it should
b would be present only if D(s) is present. And, the gain Kc present in the forward path
be clear that D(s)
of the block diagram shown in Fig. 5 is necessary for quicker approximation of D(s) and this has been
determined after exhaustive simulations. The alternative representation of the disturbance observer can be
done as shown in Fig. 6.

Figure 6: Alternative representation of the disturbance observer

4.2. Regulatory responses
Regulatory responses of the propose scheme and the methods under study, when the process is subjected to a step change disturbance are shown in Fig. 7.

Figure 7: Regulatory responses against a constant disturbance

The disturbance observer must approximate the disturbance affecting the process quickly for better
regulatory response. The disturbance and its approximation generated by the disturbance observer are
shown in Fig. 8. Table 7 shows the comparison of proposed scheme and other tuning methods with respect

12

Figure 8: Permanent disturbance and its approximation by disturbance observer

13

to performances measures like ISE, IAE and control signal energy for regulatory responses obtained in Fig.
7.
Table 7: Comparison of regulatory responses

Parameters

Regulatory
ISE

IAE

Control signal
energy

Wang-Cluett’s tuning

20.41

44.2

210.9

Sree-Chidambaram’s

1.4518 6.526

193.9

Ali-Majhi’s tuning

1.259

5.842

194.2

Proposed PD tuning

0.03

1.002

211.4

tuning

with disturbance observer

4.3. Servo plus regulatory responses
Also, when the process is required to perform servo as well as regulatory control , the comparison of
such responses obtained by using proposed scheme and other tuning methods is shown in Fig. 9.

Figure 9: Comparison of servo and regulatory responses when SP = 1 and constant disturbance enters process at t = 100 s

14

Table 8: Comparison of servo and regulatory responses

Parameters

Servo and Regulatory
ISE

IAE

Control Signal
Energy

Wang-Cluett’s tuning

21.83

50.78

425.6

Sree-Chidambaram’s

10.23

22.1

4439

Ali-Majhi’s tuning

9.52

19.49

5743

Proposed PD tuning

12.69

21.55

289.7

tuning

with disturbance observer

15

From comparisons in Table 8 the servo plus regulatory response of the proposed is acceptable when
compared to other responses. At the same time, it can be seen that proposed control scheme is efficient in
terms of control energy as reasonably less control effort is required as compared to other methods.
5. Conclusion
An approach for controller tuning comprising of both process transfer function based and frequency response based approaches was discussed for tuning PD controllers for integrating plus dead-time processes.
The tuning rules can be easily computed by knowledge of process transfer function and intuitive specifications of settling time, gain and phase margins. Comparisons with Wang-Cluett’s [5], Sree-Chidambaram’s
[6], and Ali-Majhi’s [3] methods in terms of time domain specifications show that smaller settling times
for the integrating plus dead time processes can be obtained using proposed PD tuning rules. Control
action taken by the proposed tuning rules is efficient as the control signal energy measure is appreciably
below the control signal energy required by the other methods in order to control the process in case of
servo or tracking control. The regulatory control has been made possible by using the proposed PD controller along with a disturbance observer. The regulatory responses of the proposed method are fair and
acceptable in comparison with the regulatory responses of other methods. Looking towards the combined
servo and regulatory responses, the proposed scheme fares well over other methods in terms of control
effort, as the disturbance observer contributes to the control action only when a disturbance acts upon the
process, otherwise the control action remains the same as a PD controller’s action.
6. References
References
1. Mercader, P., Baños, A.. A pi tuning rule for integrating plus dead time processes with parametric
uncertainty. ISA transactions 2017;67:246–255.
2. Kadam, S.D., Waghmare, L.. Control of integrating processes with dead-time using pid controllers
with disturbance observer based smith predictor. In: Control Applications (CCA), 2013 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE; 2013, p. 1265–1269.
3. Ali, A., Majhi, S.. PID controller tuning for integrating processes. ISA Transactions 2010;49(1):70
– 78. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001905780900069X.
doi:10.1016/j.isatra.2009.09.001.
16

4. Zhang, M., Wang, G.. Study on integrating process with dead time. In: Proceedings of the 29th
Chinese Control Conference. 2010, p. 207–209.
5. Wang, L., Cluett, W.. Tuning PID controllers for integrating processes. Control Theory and
Applications, IEE Proceedings - 1997;144(5):385 –392. doi:10.1049/ip-cta:19971435.
6. Sree, R.P., Chidambaram, M.. A Simple and Robust Method of Tuning PID Controllers for Integrator/Dead Time Processes. Chemical Engineering Japan, Journal of - 2005;38(2):113–119.
7. Chidambaram,

M., Sree,

integrator/dead-time processes.

R.P..

A simple method of tuning PID controllers for

Computers &; Chemical Engineering 2003;27(2):211 – 215.

URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0098135402001783. doi:10.
1016/S0098-1354(02)00178-3.
8. Zhong, Q.C., Normey-Rico, J.. Control of integral processes with dead-time. 1. Disturbance
observer-based 2 DOF control scheme. Control Theory and Applications, IEE Proceedings - 2002;
149(4):285 – 290. doi:10.1049/ip-cta:20020438.
9. Mataušek, M., Ribić, A.. Design and robust tuning of control scheme based on the PD controller
plus Disturbance Observer and low-order integrating first-order plus dead-time model. ISA Transactions 2009;48(4):410 – 416. URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0019057809000500. doi:10.1016/j.isatra.2009.06.003.
10. Luyben,

W.L..

Identification and Tuning of Integrating Processes with Deadtime and In-

verse Response. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2003;42(13):3030–3035. URL:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie020935j. doi:10.1021/ie020935j. arXiv:http:
//pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ie020935j.
11. Poulin, E., Pomerleaú, A.. PI settings for integrating processes based on ultimate cycle information.
Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on 1999;7(4):509 –511. doi:10.1109/87.772167.
12. Wang, L., Barnes, T., Cluett, W.. New frequency-domain design method for PID controllers.
Control Theory and Applications, IEE Proceedings - 1995;142(4):265 –271. doi:10.1049/ip-cta:
19951859.

17

