PID Tuning Comparison Back
JP | EN | ZH
Process Control

PID Tuning Method Comparison (Z-N / IMC / SIMC)

Set FOPDT process parameters (Kp, τ, θ) and compare four PID tuning methods simultaneously: Ziegler-Nichols, Cohen-Coon, IMC, and SIMC. Real-time step response, integral criteria, and stability margins.

Process Model (FOPDT)

$$G(s)=\frac{K_p\,e^{-\theta s}}{\tau s+1}$$

Process Gain Kp 1.00
Time Constant τ (s) 10.0 s
Dead Time θ (s) 2.0 s
IMC Closed-Loop Time Constant
λ (s) 5.0 s
SIMC auto-sets λ = τ
Tuning Results
MethodKcTi (s)Td (s)

Theory Reference

Z-N: $K_c = \frac{1.2\tau}{K_p\theta}$, $T_i = 2\theta$, $T_d = 0.5\theta$

IMC: $K_c = \frac{\tau}{K_p(\lambda+\theta)}$, $T_i = \tau$, $T_d = \frac{\theta}{2}$

Best ISE Method
Rise Time (s)
Overshoot (%)
Settling Time 2% (s)
Note: Dead time is approximated with a 2nd-order Padé expansion. In practice, excessive dead time may cause Z-N tuned loops to become unstable.

Tuning Method Summary

  • Ziegler-Nichols (Z-N): Empirical rules from open-loop step response. Fast but aggressive — typically ~30% overshoot and low stability margins.
  • Cohen-Coon: Improves on Z-N for large dead-time ratios θ/τ. Explicitly accounts for the ratio τ/θ.
  • IMC (λ tuning): Derived from Internal Model Control theory. The designer directly controls speed-vs-robustness trade-off via λ.
  • SIMC (Skogestad IMC): Auto-sets λ = τ for an engineering-balanced response — widely regarded as the most practical single-parameter tuning rule.