Electrical Engineering (2006) 88: 215221 DOI 10.

1007/s00202-004-0276-9

O R I GI N A L P A P E R

Ibrahim Kaya Nusret Tan Derek P. Atherton

A renement procedure for PID controllers

Received: 30 June 2004 / Accepted: 28 September 2004 / Published online: 4 March 2005 Springer-Verlag 2005

Abstract Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers are still extensively used in industrial systems. In the literature, many publications can be found considering PID controller design for processes with resonances, integrators and unstable transfer functions. However, due to structural limitations of PID controllers, generally, a good closed-loop performance cannot be achieved with a PID, for controlling the aforementioned processes, and usually a step response with a high overshoot and oscillation is obtained. PIPD controllers provide very satisfactory closed-loop performances in the case of controlling processes with resonances, integrators and unstable transfer functions. This paper introduces a simple approach to get parameters of a PI-PD controller from parameters of a PID controller so that a good closed-loop system performance can be realized. Extensive simulation examples are given to illustrate the value of the approach proposed. Keywords PID controller PI-PD controller Unstable process Integrating process Disturbance rejection

1 Introduction
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers are still widely used in industrial systems, despite signicant developments in control theory and technology during recent years. The controller has three parameters to be adjusted. Appropriate values for these parameters can be found using many theoretical approaches if a plant transfer function is given or by one of several tuning rules, which can be found in the literature, based on typical process models. Often the PID controller is taken to have the error as its input to the closed-loop system, which produces an undesirable derivative kick at its output for a step input to the feedback loop even when the D term has a lter. Also, it is well known that it is dicult to get good closed-loop step responses for processes with resonances, integrators and unstable plant transfer functions. Some recent publications addressing the control of unstable processes from dierent points of view can be found in Poulin and Pomerleau [1], Park et al. [2], Visioli [3] and Ho and Xu [4] and for integrating processes can be found in Poulin and Pomerleau [1], Wang and Cluett [5] and Kwak et al. [6]. However, as will be shown later by examples, all usually result in an excessive overshoot. The PI-PD controller has been shown to give improved performance in controlling unstable [7, 8], and integrating processes [8], for both set-point tracking and disturbance rejection. Papers have also been written describing the use of PI-PD controllers for controlling unstable and integrating processes in a Smith predictor conguration [9, 10], but this will not be discussed further here. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how the performance of a PID controller can simply be improved by using its parameter values to choose the parameters for a replacement PI-PD controller. This simplies the problem of selecting the four tuning parameters of the PI-PD controller. The given approach can be applied to any existing PID design method for controlling

I. Kaya (&) N. Tan Faculty of Engineering, Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Inonu University, 44280 Malatya, Turkey E-mail: ikaya@inonu.edu.tr Tel.: +90-422-3410010 Fax: +90-422-3410046 E-mail: ntan@inonu.edu.tr D. P. Atherton School of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QT, UK E-mail: d.p.atherton@sussex.ac.uk Tel.: +44-1273-678046 Fax: +44-1273-678399

216

processes with resonances, integrators and unstable transfer functions. Extensive simulation examples are provided to show the use of the suggested design approach.

this not only converts the open-loop unstable or integrating processes to open-loop stable processes but also guarantees more suitable pole locations. To clarify this better, consider the PD controller of the form given by Eq. 2 and a general plant transfer function of G s bm sm bm1 sm1 b1 s b0 : an sn an1 sn1 a1 s a0 3

2 PI-PD control structure

In the conventional PID control algorithm, the proportional, integral and derivative parts are implemented in the forward loop, thus acting on the error between the set-point and closed-loop response. This PID controller implementation may lead to an undesirable phenomenon, namely the derivative kick. Also, by moving the PD part into an inner feedback loop, an unstable or integrating process can be stabilized and then controlled more eectively by the PI controller in the forward path. Therefore, the control structure shown in Fig. 1, which is known as a PI-PD control structure, has been proposed. In this structure, G(s) is the plant transfer function and GPI(s) and GPD(s) are the PI and PD controller transfer functions, respectively, which have the following ideal forms:   1 GPI s Kp 1 1 Ti s GPD s Kf 1 Td s: 2

The closed-loop transfer function for the inner loop, with G(s) given by Eq. 3, is Gil s bm sm bm1 sm1 b1 s b0 n n an s an1 s 1 a1 Kf b1 Kf Td b0 s a0 Kf b0

This structure, which uses an inner feedback loop, is not a totally new concept. Benouarets [11] was the rst to mention the PI-PD controller structure. Unfortunately, its true potential was not recognized there as it was used to control plants with simple stable real pole transfer functions where its advantages are relatively minor. Later, Kwak et al. [6] and Park et al. [2] used a PID-P control structure for controlling integrating and unstable processes, respectively. However, as they still use the derivative term, D, in the forward path, the structure may result in a derivative kick. Also, they use a gainonly controller to alter the open-loop unstable or integrating processes to open-loop stable processes and then use the PID controller for an eective control of the overall system. It is better to use an inner feedback loop with a PD controller rather than a P-only controller, as

provided that n>m+2. The modication in the last two terms of the denominator of Eq. 4, due to the insertion of the PD controller used in the feedback loop, is clear. Let us assume that the coecients a0 and a1 take suitable values to make the plant transfer function given in Eq. 3 an unstable, integrating or a resonant plant transfer function. The PD controller used in the inner feedback loop can be used to convert it to an open-loop stable plant transfer function for the PI controller used in the forward loop, which can then be used for a more satisfactory closed-loop performance. Another point, which should be pointed out, is that the use of the PI-PD controller gives more exibility than a PID-P controller to locate the poles of open-loop plant transfer function Gil(s) in more desired locations, with the simultaneous use of Kf and Td rather than a gain-only parameter Kf.

3 Obtaining PI-PD parameters from PID parameters

Using a block diagram reduction for the PI-PD controller structure given in Fig. 1, one can easily obtain the block diagram given in Fig. 2. The more common structure used for a PID controller in the literature is   1 GPID s Kc 1 Td s 5 Ti s Since, GPID=GPI + GPD, substituting Eqs. 1 and 2 and rearranging results in

Fig. 1 The PI-PD control structure

Fig. 2 Equivalent PID structure of a PI-PD control structure

217 Table 1 PI-PD controller parameters for G1(s), G2(s) and G3(s) Plant b Kp Ti Kf Td G1(s) 1.0 4.917 2.213 4.917 2.896 0.6 3.688 1.660 6.146 2.317 0.2 1.639 0.737 8.194 1.738 0.05 0.468 0.211 9.365 1.521 G2(s) 1.0 2.453 2.936 2.453 5.885 0.6 1.839 2.202 3.066 4.708 0.2 0.818 0.979 4.088 3.531 0.05 0.234 0.280 4.671 3.090 G3(s) 1.0 0.624 1.085 0.624 2.263 0.6 0.468 0.814 0.780 1.811 0.2 0.208 0.362 1.040 1.358 0.05 0.059 0.103 1.190 1.188

GPID s Kp Kf

! Kp Kf 1 Td s : 1 Kp Kf Ti s Kp Kf 6

G 2 s G 3 s

1 5s 12s 1s 10:5s 1 s2 1 s 12s 10:5s 1

To obtain the four parameters of the PI-PD controller from the three parameters of the PID controller, the relation Kp=b Kf can be used. Hence, comparing Eq. 6 with Eq. 5, the PI-PD controller parameters in terms of the PID settings are easily found to be Kp Kf Ti
bK c 1b Kc 1b

7 8 9 10

bTi 1b

It is assumed that all three processes are controlled by a PID controller with its parameters found from minimization of the integral of squared time-weighted error (ISTE) (Zhuang and Atherton [12]). The resulting PID controller parameters are Kc *=9.833, Ti *=4.425 * * and T* d=1.448 for G1(s); Kc =4.905, Ti =5.871 and * * * Td=2.943 for G2(s) and Kc =1.248, Ti =2.169 and T* d=1.132 for G3(s); respectively. The corresponding PIPD controller parameters found from Eqs. 7, 8, 9, 10 are given in Table 1. The closed-loop transfer function for the inner loop can be shown to have the characteristic equation 1 Gs
Kc 1 1 bTd s 0 1b

Td 1 bTd

11

Before proceeding to some simulation examples to illustrate the value of the approach presented, it is worthwhile to illustrate how the value of b aects the root locations of a plant transfer function and the performance of the overall system. For this, consider the following three transfer functions, which contain the respective features of integration, a right-half plane pole and complex poles: G 1 s 1 ss 1s 2s 3

From this, one can plot the roots as a function of beta for each of the three G(s) transfer functions, using the * values of K* c and Td found from the ISTE optimization and given in Table 1. This is done for G1(s), G2(s) and G3(s) and the corresponding root locations are given in Figs. 3, 4 and 5, respectively. It is clear from the gures that using a PD in the inner feedback loop helps to locate the poles of the closed inner feedback loop, which includes an integrating,

Fig. 3 Root locations for original G1(s) (left) and with the PD used in the inner feedback loop (right)

218 Fig. 4 Root locations for original G2(s) (left) and with the PD used in inner feedback loop (right)

unstable or a resonant plant transfer function, in more appropriate locations. For example, the maximum gain required to make G1(s), G2(s) and G3(s) unstable is 8.539, 2.017 and 2.268, respectively. With the PD in the inner feedback loop, the closed-loop roots for G1(s) and G3(s) are always on the left-hand plane. For the unstable plant transfer function, the maximum value that b can take for the system not to be unstable is 3.685. It is also seen that with the smaller b values, the roots are always far away from the imaginary axis, implying a larger margin before the system becomes unstable. In Figs. 6, 7 and 8 step responses to a unity set-point change are illustrated for G1(s), G2(s) and G3(s), respectively. It is seen that smaller b values result in closed-loop performances with smaller overshoots. However, it is also seen that a b value smaller than 0.2 provides less improvement in the closed-loop systems performance. Hence, throughout the paper, the b=0.2 value is used. It should be noted that in the gures the responses for disturbance rejection are not given as disturbance rejection of the PID and the proposed PI-PD structures are the same. This can be shown easily by working out the transfer functions between the output and the disturbance for both congurations.
Fig. 5 Root locations for original G3(s) (left) and with the PD used in inner feedback loop (right)

4 Simulation examples
In this section, examples, which are taken from dierent publications considering the PID controller design for processes with unstable, integrating or resonance transfer functions, are given to illustrate that with the proposed approach an improved closed-loop performance, with roughly the same settling time but less overshoot, can be obtained. In all the examples, b has been chosen equal to 0.2 to obtain the PI-PD controller parameters from the PID controller parameters, which have been proposed for controlling processes with unstable, integrating or resonance transfer functions. Example 1 Here, an unstable process transfer function G(s)=exp(0.5s)/(2s 1)(s+1) is considered. The design method of Ho and Xu [4], which is based on gain and phase-margin specications, is used for comparison. * The suggested PID settings were K* c =2.676, Ti =8.139 * and Td=1.000. The corresponding PI-PD controller parameters calculated from Eqs. 7, 8, 9, 10 are Kp=0.446, Ti =1.357, Kf = 2.230 and Td =1.200. The closed-loop system performances, for both design methods, to a unity set-point change are shown in

219

Fig. 6 Step responses for G1(s) with a PID; b PI-PD, b=1; c PIPD, b=0.6; d PI-PD, b=0.2; e PI-PD, b=0.05

Fig. 8 Step responses for G3(s) with a PID; b PI-PD, b=1; c PIPD, b=0.6; d PI-PD, b=0.2; e PI-PD, b=0.05

Fig. 7 Step responses for G2(s) with a PID; b PI-PD, b=1; c PIPD, b=0.6; d PI-PD, b=0.2; e PI-PD, b=0.05

Fig. 9 Step responses for example 1

Fig. 9. To illustrate the sensitivity to plant parameter changes, 20% change in the time delay plus gain have been assumed and the simulations were re-performed. The results are given in Fig. 10. Certainly, the PI-PD conguration gives more satisfactory results. Example 2 Here, the example which was used by Wang and Cluett [5] is considered. The process has a pure integrating plus dead time transfer function of G(s)=0.0506 exp(6s)/s. The PID controller parameters * * suggested were K* c =2.982, Ti =15.658 and Td=1.925, which yield the PI-PD controller parameters of Kp=0.497, Ti=2.610, Kf=2.485 and Td=2.311. The responses, for both design methods, to a unity step

set-point change are shown in Fig. 11, which clearly shows the reduced overshoot of the PI-PD design. Example 3 This example is given to compare the performance of the PI-PD controller design method presented with the performance of the PID-P controller design suggested by Kwak et al. [6] for controlling integrating processes. The plant transfer function which was used is G(s)=exp(0.2s)/s(s+1)3 and their corresponding PID-P controller parameters were Kc=0.260, Ti=3.760, Td=2.954 and Kf=0.198. In order to nd the PI-PD controller parameters, the parameters of a PID controller must be known. For a PID controller designed based on the ISTE criterion, as in Sect. 3, the

220

Fig. 10 Step responses for example 1: a PI-PD, +20% change in the time delay and gain b PI-PD, 20% change in the time delay and gain c Ho and Xu [4], +20% change in the time delay and gain d Ho and Xu [4], 20% change in the time delay and gain

Fig. 12 Responses for example 3

Fig. 13 Responses for example 4

Fig. 11 Step responses for example 2

* * parameters are K* c =0.648, Ti =9.050 and Td =2.332, which yield PI-PD parameters of Kp=0.108, Ti =1.508, Kf =0.540 and Td =2.798. The closed-loop performances to a unity step set-point change and a disturbance with a magnitude of 0.5 introduced at time t=50 s are shown in Fig. 12. The PID-P and PID designs based on the ISTE have very similar response characteristics, whereas the PI-PD design gives almost no overshoot. Note that the disturbance responses of the PID and PI-PD are the same as explained above and better than the disturbance rejection of the PID-P.

G(s)=4 exp(2s)/(4s 1). Their controller parameters were Kc=0.068, Ti=1.885, Td=4.296 and Kf=0.350. A PID controller designed using the ISTE criterion gives * * parameters K* c =0.627, Ti =8.143 and Td=0.978, and the corresponding PI-PD controller parameters are Kp=0.105, Ti=1.357, Kf=0.522 and Td=1.174. The closed-loop performances with these controllers are shown in Fig. 13 for a unity step set-point change and disturbance with a magnitude of 0.5 introduced at time t=50 s. The PI-PD controller has a smaller overshoot. Again, the disturbance rejection of the PID and PI-PD is the same and better than the disturbance rejection of the PID-P structure.

Example 4 Here, the performance of a PID-P controller suggested by Park et al. [2] for controlling unstable processes is compared with a PI-PD controller using their suggested unstable plant transfer function of

5 Conclusions
Although PID controllers are still widely used in industrial practice, they often have a poor performance

221

in giving a high overshoot to set-point changes when controlling processes including elements such as an integrator, a resonance or an unstable pole in their transfer functions. Many PID controllers can easily be changed to provide two P terms, so a simple procedure has been presented in this paper to obtain the parameters of a PI-PD controller from those of a PID controller to achieve a smaller overshoot. Another important virtue of PI-PD controllers is their lower sensitivity to modelling errors and parameter changes due to operating conditions than to PID controllers. Several examples have been given to illustrate the use of the approach and responses compared with those using PID and PID-P controllers.

References
1. Poulin E, Pomerleau A (1996) PID tuning for integrating and unstable processes. IEE Proc Control Theory Appl 143(5):429 435 2. Park JH, Sung SW, Lee IB (1998) An enhanced PID control strategy for unstable processes. Automatica 34(6):751756

3. Visioli A (2001) Optimal tuning of PID controllers for integral and unstable processes. IEE Proc Control Theory Appl 148(2):180184 4. Ho WK, Xu W (1998) PID tuning for unstable processes based on gain and phase-margin specications. IEE Proc Control Theory Appl 145(5):392396 5. Wang L, Cluett WR (1997) Tuning PID controllers for integrating processes. IEE Proc Control Theory Appl 144(5):385 392 6. Kwak HJ, Sung SW, Lee IB (1997) On-line process identication and autotuning for integrating processes. Ind Eng Chem Res 36:53295338 7. Atherton DP, Boz AF (1998) Using standard forms for controller design. In: Proceedings of Control98, September (1998) Swansea, pp 10661071 8. Kaya I (2003) A PI-PD controller design for control of unstable and integrating processes. ISA Trans 42(1):111121 9. Kaya I (2003) A new Smith predictor and controller for control of processes with long dead time. ISA Trans 42(1):101110 10. Kaya I (2003) Obtaining controller parameters for a new PI-PD Smith predictor using autotuning. J Process Control 13(5):465 472 11. Benouarets M (1993) Some design methods for linear and nonlinear controllers. PhD Thesis, University of Sussex 12. Zhuang M, Atherton DP (1993) Tuning PID controllers with integral performance criteria, chap 8. Matlab toolboxes and applications, Peter Peregrinus, London, pp131144