Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 17,No.

3, 1978

237

Evaluating Parameters from Process Transients

K. R. Sundaresan, C. Chandra Prasad, and P. R. Krishnaswamy"'
Deparfment of Chemical Engineering, lndian fnstitute of Technology, Madras-600036, fndia

Based on process transient response, a procedure for approximating process dynamics by a second-order-dead
time model is developed. The method is general enough to be applied for under, over, and critically damped systems with and without dead time. It also circumvents some of the practical difficulties of the earlier methods.

Whenever information on process dynamics is inadequate, simplified parameters defining a process are usually
determined experimentally. A survey of frequently used experimental techniques, based on deterministic and stochastic
signals, for identification of chemical, metallurgical, and allied
processes is given by Gustavsson (1973). These methods are
of varying complexity, the simplest one being the reaction
curve method involving step response data. This is adequate
for many chemical processes with low to moderate noise level
and has the distinct advantage of involving far less theory and
computations for a practical man to worry about. On the other
hand, processes requiring on-line control techniques, or those
corrupted by high degree of noise, or certain complex systems
(e.g., neuromuscular parameter variations in a pilot during
tracking (Wells, 1972)) may demand elaborate and sophisticated identification procedures. A discussion on this aspect
of the problem may be found in a comprehensive article by
Isermann et al. (1974). Thus the choice of an identification
procedure for a given process would depend upon the objectives of the test, data properties, and available tools and
equipment. However, for chemical processes, it has been
recognized (Latour et al., 1967) that the dynamics may in
general be simplified by an overdamped second-order approximation of the form
e-Ls

G(s) =

(7'1s

+ l)(Tzs+ 1)

Under certain conditions, say when the open loop process

output exhibits an oscillatory behavior as in the case of cascade control with the main loop cut-off, eq l a may take the
form
e-LS

G(s) =

(-y
+

2t($)

(5

< 1)

(1b)

+1

Hence, restricting ourselves to the above form of process

modeling, it is our objective here to provide a rapid, but reliable, procedure for estimating the governing parameters,
namely, L, 2'1, Ta, l, and w,. A simple way to achieve this is
to modify the existing identification methods based on the
reaction curve in such a way as to provide more meaningful
and reliable results.
One of the drawbacks common to the available reaction
curve methods is that they are all subject to certain uncertainties. Thus, the oldest method due to Oldenbourg and
Sartorius (1948) heavily relies on the accuracy with which the
sensitive point of inflection in the reaction curve is located
and, besides, it is not found applicable to all overdamped
systems (Meyer et al., 1967) nor does it provide any basis for
Address correspondence to this author a t the Department of
Chemical Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada L8S 4L7.

0019-7882/78/1117-0237$01.00/0

evaluating the important dead time parameter. Sten's (1970)

modification to the above approach, which permits evaluation
of dead time from a knowledge of the inflection point, slightly
enhanced its usefulness. For underdamped systems, Smith
and Murrill (1966) proposed an analytical approach which
simply involves predicting E and w, from the first over-shoot
and time of its occurrence. This method does not account for
dead time. Meyer et al. (1967) suggested a radically different
procedure which involves determining the damping coefficient
and natural frequency by matching two arbitrarily chosen
points in the experimental time response with the corresponding points in a pure second-order response. The results
obtained are found to vary with the choice of the arbitrary
points involved and, besides, dead time evaluation lacks
theoretical basis. On the other hand, a unique feature of this
procedure is its applicability to both over- and under-damped
systems. Subsequently Csaki and Kis (1969) made a simple
extension to the above methods by providing nomograms in
the form of a set of precalculated curves as an aid to parameter
evaluation. Naslin and Miossec (1971) examined various
methods for an alternate three-parameter approximation,
namely n equal time constants and one time delay. All the
drawbacks of the previous methods, Le., sensitivity to error
in the inflection point, lack of a sound basis for establishing
dead time, and arbitrariness involved in chosing data points
from the response curve, are present here also.
Thus, the available methods essentially hinge on the
error-prone point of inflection for parameter evaluation or do
not provide any rational basis for dead time estimation. The
aim of this paper is, therefore, to suggest a more reliable and
general procedure, applicable to both oscillatory and nonoscillatory systems, that would avoid direct use of the point of
inflection and also provide a theoretical basis for estimating
all the parameters involved including the dead time. The
method would also be applied to a system with moderate noise
which previous similar studies on the reaction curve had neglected.
Parameter Estimation
Nonoscillatory Systems. The overdamped reaction curve,
c ( t ) , of the form shown in Figure 1,also known as cumulative
residence time distribution, resembles certain distribution
functions employed in statistics. Therefore, some of the statistical concepts may be employed here also. For example, the
curve could be described by its moments, which in turn could
be used for parameter evaluation (Lees, 1971). Though Lees
had used up to first four moments in his analysis and while,
theoretically, moments of any order could be utilized, in
practice, however, problems of accuracy and reliability arise
when moments higher than the first two are employed from
the reaction curve data (Gibilaro and Waldram, 1972).
Therefore, restricting ourselves to the first moment, ml,of the
step response function c ( t ) , it can be easily shown that (Gibilaro and Waldram, 1972)

0 1978 American Chemical Society

238

Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1978
I

1.0

A-

Figure 2. Plot of X vs. p.

Time, t

Figure 1. Evaluation of second-order-dead time parameters from

an overdamped curve.

ml =

Am (1

(12)

X = Xe-x

c(t))dt

(2)

which is nothing but the shaded area in Figure 1.

It has also been recognized that LaPlace transform is related
to the moment generating function. Thus, the first moment
can be expressed as
(3)
which, for eq la, reduces to

ml = L

eq 11 for real values of r), it is sufficient if one considers the

range of 0 to 1for r).
Equation 11can be written in a more elegant form as

+ T I + T2

(4)

Equation 4 means that the shaded area in Figure 1equals the

sum of all the system parameters.
Now, considering the time domain solution of eq la, for a
unit step change, we have

where

- ml)Mi

(124

x = In D / ( D - 1)

(12b)

X = (t,

and

from which it is clear that the maximum value of X is e-l which

occurs when the system is critically damped at 9 = 1or x = 1.
For the overdamped case, r ) < 1and consequently 0 < X < e-l.
In the extreme, X = 0 when r) = 0 signifying that the system
reduces to a first order. In other words, for the true response
to be approximated by a second-order model with or without
dead time, X must necessarily be greater than zero. A plot of
the right-hand side of eq 12 for 0 6 r ) 6 1 is given in Figure 2
as a function of r). Once ml, t,, and Mi are measured and h is
computed, r) can be read from Figure 2. Use of eq 9 along with
the observed value of 17 yields a value for 0. Now eq 4,7, and
8 are solved simultaneously to get the overdamped parameters
TI, T2, and L . The resulting expressions are

An expression for the point of inflection, where the second

derivative of c ( t ) in eq 5 becomes zero, may be found as
ti = L t 0 In r)

(6)

where
D = T1/T2

(7)

0 = TiT2/(Ti - 7'2)

(8)

and

and

When the system is critically damped, it can be shown that,

for r ) 1,eq 13a, b, and c reduce to

The slope, Mi, a t the point of inflection assumes the form

(9)

and
n

and is provided by a tangent passing through ti and intersecting the final value of c(t) at time t , (see Figure 1).The
value of this time is given by

t, = L

+ 0[ln 17 + ( 0 2 - 1)/7]

(10)

Combining eq 4,9, and 10, we have

It may be noted that in the last equation, if r ) is changed to l/r),

the right-hand side still remains the same. Therefore, to solve

L=ml-4Mie
Oscillatory systems. For X greater than e-l, underdamped
system results for which the treatment follows. In Figure 3 a
typical response curve corresponding to an oscillatory system
is given. Such a curve has at least two points of inflection-one
during rise and another after overshoot. The first inflection
point may be considered analogous to t i for the nonoscillatory
case. Then, starting with the time domain solution of eq Ib,
i.e.

Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1978

239

v
c

n
UI

-a
0
._
c

lime, t

Figure 3. Evaluation of second-order-dead time oarameters from

an-underdamped curve.

Figure 4. Plot of X vs. (.

( t - L ) ) + cos(-

w,(t

-L))

11

(15)

we derive, by a similar procedure

h = (t,

cos-1 (
- m1)Mi = -

-(

cos-'(

di=-p

( t , - rnl)

w, = -

cor1E )

'/

(16)

and
L = m 1 - - 2E

(17b)

On

I t may be noted that, in order to evaluate rnl used in the preceding three equations, the shaded area in Figure 3 is measured as follows: whenever the area is below the ordinate of
1 it is taken as positive, otherwise negative.
Equation 16 provides an infinity of roots for E for a given
value of A. However, in the region of our interest (0 6 E 6 l),
h is a monotonic function of E, decreasing from a/2 at = 0 to
e-l at ( = 1. Figure 4,which is a plot of eq 16, aids in determining the value of ( for a given oscillatory response. The
other system parameters, wn and L , are then computed from
eq 17a and b. In eq 17a, for c0s-l (, which is a multiple valued
function, its value in the primary period, i.e., in the range 0 to
~ 1 2should
,
be used.
It is important to realize here that, unlike the previous
methods, a knowledge of the point of inflection is not essential
to carry out the preceding parameter evaluation. This is of
practical significance because, for a typical response curve,
it is extremely difficult to locate ti accurately. It may be recalled here that at the point of inflection the second derivative
of the response function vanishes and hence the first derivative is a t its extremum value. When the function, like c ( t ) in
this case, is smooth, the second derivative in the vicinity of ti
becomes small and the first derivative lies near its extremum
value for a considerable period of time (see, for example, AB
in Figure 1).Therefore, location of the point of inflection becomes a sensitive process and for the same reason estimation
of the slope becomes easier. In fact, the greater the difficulty
in locating the point of inflection, the easier it is to estimate
the slope. Hence the present method, in contrast to the previous ones, makes use of the maximum value of the slope
which is easy to determine rather than the time of its occurrence which is difficult to locate. Now the method will be extended to systems with inherent pure delay.
System with Pure Delay. In the equations developed
above, L represents apparent dead time, i.e., dead time due
to the cumulative effect of minor process and measurement

/
/
Tome. min

Figure 5. Approximations to an overdamped process.

lags. If, in addition to L , the actual process also contains a pure

delay, d , it may be noted that the foregoing analysis is still
valid. In this latter case, the entire reaction curve shifts to the
right by an amount equal to d which means that the apparent
model dead time is added to the pure delay. Distinguishing
the system with pure delay from the one without by a prime,
the experimental parameters for the two cases are related
by

rn

ml

+ d ; t,'=

t,

+ d ; M I ' = M1

(18)

From eq 12a and 18, A' = X and consequently from eq 11, we

see that 9 remains unaltered by the presence of pure delay, d .
Also eq 9 shows that 0 does not change either. Thus, as per eq
13a and b, the two time constants remain the same whereas,
from eq 13c, we see that L' = L d. In other words, when pure
delay is augmented to the process, the only parameter that is
altered is the dead time parameter.

Illustrative Examples
Example 1. As a first example, let us approximate a
third-order system with time constants of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0
minutes by an overdamped second-order-dead time model.
The true response curve is shown in Figure 5. In order to apply
the proposed procedure, first the area enclosed by this curve
and the projection of its final value is measured as m l = 3.5
min. Then a tangent passing through the straight line portion
of the response is drawn to yield Mi = 0.23 min-l and t , =
5.10 min. For the corresponding numerical value of ( t , - rnl)
Mi, from Figure 2 , is~read as 0.90. Substitution of these values
T2 and L which agree well with
in eq 13a, b, and c yield T1,

240

Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1978

Table I. Comparison of Parameter Values Obtained by

Various Methods
L,
min

Method
Least square
Present
Meyer et al. (1967)

T1,

min

0.315
0.33
0.32

Primary
Process

T2,

min

1.49
1.50

1.69
1.67
1.54

1.54

Figure 6. Inner loop of a cascade control arrangement.

1.1

Table 11. Values Obtained for E and wn by the Method of

Mever et al. (1967)

Points chosen (in %

of final value of the
resDonse)
10-60%
20-60%
20-80%
20-90%

Average

i
0.72
0.85
0.77
0.74
0.77

wn

1.13

1.23
1.20

1.19
1.188

those obtained by a least square curve fit (see Table I). The
present approximation is represented in Figure 5 from which
it is seen that it coincides with the true response almost over
its entire range, thus demonstrating the efficiency of the
suggested technique. The approximation predicted by Meyer
et al. (1967), corresponding to the values given in Table I, is
also reproduced and compared in the same figure. It is evident
that this approximation shows a consistent deviation from
reality which again reflects upon the superiority of the present
method. It is also interesting to note that the earlier methods
due to Oldenbourg and Sartorius (1948) and Sten (1970) altogether fail in this case. To apply these methods, first a ratio
T,/Ty should be obtained from the response curve by reading
the time intervals T, and T y as indicated in Figure 1. This
ratio, for this example, is found to be 0.712, whereas no solution is possible when T,/Ty is less than 0.735.
Example 2. Let us consider, as a second example, a typical
cascade configuration for the inner loop as shown in Figure
6. This represents an oscillatory system. The two blocks within
the loop denote a P I controller with a reset time of 0.5 min and
a secondary process with a time constant of 2.0 min. The primary process is assumed to have a dead time of 0.5 min and
a time constant of 1.0 min. For this case, the response c ( t )to
a unit step change in R is given by
c ( t ) = ~ (- t0.5) [I - e-(t-0.5) - e - ( t - 0 . 5 ) / 2
X {cos((t- 0.5) ~

5 1 2 +) 4 sin((t - 0.5) 4 1 2 ) )I (19)

Equation 19 is plotted in Figure 7 as a solid curve.

In order to model this system in accordance with eq l b , the
relevant information from the above graph is found as

Mi = 0.417 min-'; t, = 3.40 min; m l = 1.99 rnin

which give a value of X = 0.588. From Figure 4, corresponding
to this A, we get 4 = 0.588. Equations 17a and b together with
these values yield the required parameters as

L = 0.566 min; w, = 0.826 min-l

The resultant curve, obtained by substituting for L , E, and wn
in eq 15, is also shown in Figure 7. The approximation
achieved is quite good in the sense that the dead time, initial
response, maximum overshoot, settling time, and area under
the curve all agree well with those of the true response.
Figure 7 also provides a comparison with the only other
available method (Meyer et al., 1967) for approximating an
oscillatory system with dead time. The dead time by this
method turns out to be too high, Le., 0.85 min, and the values
o f t and w, vary with the two arbitrary points in the response

TO

PlimOry
COntrOller

!i

0.7c

__-

:,:I/i

TrYC

response

Appro.imoI~on

1 Present1

Approximation

Meyer et

01

:::I

,19571

01

Time. mrns

Figure 7. Approximations t o an underdamped system.

curve chosen for their evaluation. This is illustrated in Table

I1 for a few combination of points. The best possible approximation from among these and wn values corresponds to the
10% and 60% points in Table 11. This approximation, also
shown in Figure 7, can be seen to be relatively poor. In other
words, other parameter values based on the method of Meyer
et al. would have predicted worse results.
Example 3. Here we illustrate the applicability of our
method to a system with pure delay and also with noise. The
process under consideration is the same as the one in example
1 with an added delay of 0.5 min; i.e., the new process transfer
function is
e-0.5s

(0.5s

+ l)(s + 1)(2s + 1)

(20)

In addition to pure delay, random noise is also introduced to

the process via simulation by a procedure employed earlier
(Rajakumar and Krishnaswamy, 1975) such that the noise
level at the output response is 3% peak to peak. The resulting
process output, shown in Figure 8, may be compared with
Figure 5 (solid curve) to appreciate the extent to which the
original system is modified by the imposed noise and delay.
The parameter values, as measured directly from the figure,
are

Mi' = 0.234 min-l; t,'

= 5.55 min; ml' = 4.00 rnin

It may be noted that these values and the corresponding

values observed in example 1 satisfy eq 18 within 1%in spite
of the imposed 3% noise. From the resulting estimates of T I ,
T2, and L , the response curve is computed as indicated by dots
in Figure 8. A comparison with true system response (solution
to eq 20), also shown in Figure 8 as continuous curve, reveals
that the agreement between the computed and the original
curves is excellent. It may therefore be said that, considering
the limited graphical reading accuracy involved, the proposed
estimation procedure yields very good results even in the
presence of pure delay and random noise.
T o summarize, the proposed technique makes use of the
first moment of the response curve which, in a sense, amounts
to including information provided by the entire curve. This

Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., Vol. 17, No. 3, 1978

241

G(s) = model transfer function

1.0

L = effective model dead time

ml = first moment of c ( t )
= slope of the tangent a t ti
s = Laplaceoperator
t = time
ti = time a t which the point of inflection occurs
t , = time a t which the tangent cuts the final value of c ( t )
T , = time interval between ti and t ,
Ty = time interval between the intersections of the tangent
with the initial and final values of c ( t )
TI, T2 = model time constants
7) = definedbyeq7
0 = definedbyeq8
X = defined below eq 12
x = defined below eq 12
E = damping coefficient
w, = natural frequency
' = system with pure delay

Mi
7 5

a
d

p9

54-

3-

.1

'

TIME.

'

'
10

'

12

'

I
14

lo

MINS

Figure 8. Responses t o a system with random noise and pure

delay.

Literature Cited

is in contrast to the earlier methods which are governed by the

judiciousness with which one or two crucial points in the response curve are chosen. This factor alone makes the present
method more straightforward and superior. In addition, it also
has the following advantages: (i) reliability and ease of measurement of relevant data from the reaction curve, (ii) applicability to both oscillatory and nonoscillatory systems, and
(iii) improved accuracy in parameter estimation.
Acknowledgment
One of the authors (P.R.K.) is thankful to McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada, for providing him, as Visiting
Professor, with facilities for completion of this work.
Nomenclature
c ( t ) = fractional step response
d = process pure delay

Csaki, F., Kis, P., Period. Polytecb., 13, 73 (1969).

Gibilaro, L. G.. Waldram, S. P., Cbem. Eng. J., 4, 197 (1972).
Gustavsson, I.,Proceedingsof 3rd IFAC Symposium on Identification and System
Parameter Estimation, Part i, p 67, The Hague, 1973.
Isermann, R., Baur, U., Bamberger, W., Kneppo, P., Siebert, H., Automatica, 10,
81
- . 119741
\.-.
Latour, P. R., Koppel, L. B., Coughanowr, D. R., Ind. Eng. Cbem. Process Des.
Dev.. 6.
- , 452
- - 119671.
-Lees, F. P., Cbem. Eng. Sci., 26, I 179 (197 1).
Meyer, J. R., Whitehouse, G. D., Smith, C. L.. Murrill, P W., Instrum. ControISyst.,
40 (121. 76 (1967).
Naslin', P,', Miossec,'C., Automatisme, 16, 513 (1971).
Oldenbourg, R. C., Sartorius, H., "The Dynamics of Automatic Controls", p 276,
ASME. New York, N.Y., 1948.
Rajakumar, A., Krishnaswamy. P. R., Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev., 14,
250 (1975).
Smith, C. P., Murrill, P. W., /SA J., 13 (9), 48 (1966).
Sten. J. W., Instrum. Techno/., 17 (9), 39 (1970).
Wells, W. R., Preprints of 13th Joint Automatic Control Conference, p 33,
Stanford, 1972.
.I.

Received for reuieu June 17,1976

Accepted March 23, 1978