Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
In this paper we offer a tuning method for the design of stabilizing PI controllers that utilizes the stability region centroid in the controller parameter
space. To this end, analytical formulas are derived to describe the stability boundaries of a class of relative-degree-one linear time invariant secondorder systems, the stability region of which has a closed convex shape. The so-called centroid stable point is then calculated analytically and the resultant
set of algebraic formulas are utilized to tune the controller parameters. The freedom to choose the surface density function in the calculation of
centroid stable point provides the designer with the possibility to incorporate optimal or robustness requirements in the controller design process.
The proposed method uses the stability regions in the controller parameter space to ensure closed-loop stability, and, while offering robust stability
properties, it does not rely on predetermined information with regard to the nature or range of parameter variations and coefficient uncertainty
bounds. Being situated away from the boundaries of the stability region in the controller parameter space, controllers designed based on the centroid
method are both robust and non-fragile.
Keywords
Numerator dynamics, optimal tuning, PI controller, robust tuning, second-order system, stability region, stabilizing controllers, surface density
Introduction
Favoured for their simple structure, eectiveness and robustness, PID controllers remain of paramount importance in the
control of industrial processes (Astrom and Hagglund, 1995,
2005). Moreover, good man-machine interfaces for the specication of controller structure and parameters, as well as
ecient tuning tools, are necessary requirements for widespread adoption of any industrial controller; and methods
that can expedite, ameliorate and simplify the tuning process
are highly sought after (Astrom and Hagglund, 2001).
Among various design criteria to be satised by a controller, closed-loop stability is the most basic, and the stability of
nal closed-loop systems for both fractional-order and integer-order PID controllers have been the subject of many previous studies (Nusret Tan et al., 2006; Hamamci, 2007; Fang
et al., 2009). The set of controller parameters yielding a stable
closed-loop system is known as the stability region, and a lot
can be learned about PID control through analysis of stability
regions. The problem of nding all stabilizing PID controllers
for a given plant, which leads to the stability domains in the
controllers parameter space, has traditionally been dealt with
using Nyquist plot, stability boundary locus, characteristic
equation and frequency-based methods. Applications of the
HermiteBiehler theorem (Caponetto et al., 2010), as well as
elaborate polynomial calculations (Hohenbichler and
Ackermann,
2003a;
Soylemez
and
Baki,
2003;
Hohenbichler, 2009), have been the driving force behind
some of the recent results on this topic. The author in
Hamamci (2008) has introduced a method for investigating
488
,
Rs 1 CsGs
C(s)
G(s)
as b ,
s2 cs d
ki
:
s
Fs mhs2 mks kh
489
The Hurwitz stability criterion for the characteristic polynomial in (6) is satised if and only if every root of P(s) lies in
the left half plane (LHP). In other words, the imaginary axis
and the origin are the only places where the stability shift of
the system will occur (Fang et al., 2009). However, the positions of roots of P(s) will change continuously as long as its
coecients are continuous functions of the plant or controller
parameters and those parameters are changed continuously.
Thus, a stable polynomial, P(s), whose roots all lie in the
LHP, becomes unstable if and only if at least one root crosses
the imaginary axis. Accordingly, the set of coecients that
would lead to a stable closed-loop system can be denoted as
stability domains in the parameter space of the characteristic
polynomial P(s). These stability domains are determined by
the following three boundaries, which describe the roots
crossing from the LHP to the RHP and vice versa
(Hohenbichler and Ackermann, 2003b; Hamamci, 2008;
Hamamci and Koksal, 2010):
v2 d bkp aki :
cd cb ad kp abkp 2
:
b ca a2 kp
10
s5
:
s2 15s 5
11
490
12
kp r2 d ,
b
13
100
CRB
RRB
50
0
50
ki
100
150
Stability region
200
250
300
350
400
40
30
20
14
10
kp
10
20
Figure 2 The stability region is plotted for the control system of Figure 1, where G(s) and C(s) are given by (11) and (4), respectively.
491
RR
RR
sx, yx dxdy
,
M
15
sx, yy dydx
,
M
16
I2
Z Z
I1
,
Mc
18
ki c
I2
,
Mc
19
S2
S P
1 Q,
2a3 b a4 b
21
22
17
sx, y dydx,
20
S3
PS2 P2 3b2 RS1 R b2
Q,
6a5 b 2a6 b
2a7 b
a3
Mc
where M is given by
M
S3
PS2
RS
b Q,
6 1 ac
a2
3a4 b2 2a5 b2
a
P a2 d b2 ,
23
R ,
Q bR
ln
a5
b2
24
R P abc,
25
Sn an dn bn cn , n 2 N:
26
27
Table 1 Constraints on the plant parameters for the case where a < 0
and b > 0
Table 3 Constraints on the plant parameters for the case where a > 0
and b < 0
Additional conditions
Additional conditions
c < 0,
c > 0,
c < 0,
c > 0,
ac \ db \
ac \ db \
db \ bac
a2
None
c < 0,
c > 0,
c < 0,
c > 0,
bac
a2
bac
a2
bac
a2
d>0
d<0
d<0
d>0
bac
a2
bac
a2
or db \ ac
or db \ ac
d>0
d<0
d<0
d>0
\ db \ ac or ac \ db
\ db \ ac or ac \ db
\ db
None
Table 2 Constraints on the plant parameters for the case where a < 0
and b < 0
Table 4 Constraints on the plant parameters for the case where a > 0
and b > 0
Additional conditions
Additional conditions
c < 0,
c > 0,
c > 0,
c < 0,
bac
a2
bac
a2
bac
a2
c > 0,
c < 0,
c > 0,
c < 0,
ac \ db \
ac \ db \
db \ bac
a2
None
d<0
d>0
d<0
d>0
\ db \ ac or
\ db \ ac or
\ db
None
d
b
d
b
\
\
c
a
c
a
d>0
d<0
d<0
d>0
bac
a2
bac
a2
or db \ ac
or db \ ac
492
60
50
40
CRB
Centroid stable point
RRB
30
ki
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
30
20
10
kp
10
20
Figure 3 The centroid stable point is depicted for the control system given by Figure 1 and equations (11) and (4).
493
where e(t) is the error to a step input function. If the closedloop system output is denoted by y(t), then e(t) is given by
et 1 yt, 8t>0:
31
32
The integral performance index in (30) can be used to evaluate the performance of a designed control system or, as here,
for optimal tuning of xed structure controllers. In the latter
case, the parameters of the control system are optimized by
minimizing the integral performance index given by (32). In
Astrom and Hagglund (1995) it is shown that for a stable
closed-loop system, if the error is initially zero and a unit
step disturbance is applied at the plant input, then
IE 1 :
ki
33
s 1N , N 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . ,
J
28
34
I1
,
I2
35
ki
I2
,
I2
36
29
Once the cost function J in (29) is described in terms of controller parameters kp and ki, the function s s*, given by
(29), can be used in the context of (15) to (17) to calculate
the corresponding centroid stable point. Integrated Error (IE)
is an integral performance index, which is dened (Astrom
and Hagglund, 1995) as
Z
IE
et dt,
30
0
s kp , ki 1 jki j:
J
37
I 2 f 2 kp r 2 f 2 kp r 1 ,
38
494
where kp r1 and kp r2 are given by (12) and (13), and the functions f1() and f2() are dened in the Appendix.
The algebraic tuning formulas introduced in (35) to (38)
can be applied to Example 1, and the corresponding optimal
centroid stable point can be computed as
kp 1 9:2808,
39
ki 1 12:8080:
60
50
s = constant
s = 1 = |k i |
J
40
30
ki
20
10
0
10
20
30
40
30
20
10
kp
10
Figure 4 The two centroid stable points, derived using a constant and an optimal s, are depicted above.
20
495
phase zeros inhibit superior disturbance rejection at low frequencies (Freudenberg and Looze, 1998). Accordingly,
increasing the parameter a from its nominal value of a 1
causes the zero at z 5a to move closer to the origin, thus
further degrading the disturbance rejection at low frequencies. The next example compares the performance of the
2
s = constant
1.5
s = 1 = |k i|
J
y(t)
0.5
0.5
10
t
Figure 5 The responses for the closed-loop system of Figure 1, with (11) as the plant and the two PI controllers specified by (27) and (39).
1.6
1.4
1.2
y(t)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
20
40
60
t (s)
80
100
120
Figure 6 The responses for the closed-loop system of Figure 1, with (40) as the plant and the two PI controllers specified by (41) and (42).
496
32s 1
:
G2 s
5s 110s 1
kp ZN 1:1400,
41
ki ZN 0:0898:
ZN
Phase margin
Gain margin
Phase crossover frequency
Gain crossover frequency
Rise time (0 90%)
Settling time (65%)
Overshoot
Decay ratio
Maximum sensitivity (Ms)
19.30198
1.6298
0.3375 rad/s
0.2370 rad/s
7.9916 s
65.2532 s
63.0855%
0.3602
3.9373
22.9355
1.7250
0.353 rad/s
0.2363 rad/s
8.0669 s
52.7526 s
53.5915%
0.3046
3.4579
kp c2 1:1563,
ki c2 0:0730:
40
Performance measure
Conclusion
This paper oered a set of algebraic tuning formulas that
would ensure robust stability of the closed-loop system without
1.4
1.2
1
u (t)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
20
40
60
t (s)
80
100
120
Figure 7 The control signals for the closed-loop system of Figure 1, with (40) as the plant and the two PI controllers specified by (41) and (42).
497
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Samira Rahimian for her help with
calculation of centroids and derivation of conditions in Tables 1 to 4.
Funding
This research received no specic grant from any funding agency in
the public, commercial or not-for-prot sectors.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
References
Astrom K (2000) Limitations on control system performance.
European Journal of Control 6: 119.
Astrom KJ and Hagglund T (1995) PID Controllers: Theory, Design
and Tuning, 2nd edn. Durham, NC, USA: ISA.
Astrom KJ and Hagglund T (2001) The future of PID control.
Control Engineering Practice 9: 11631175.
Astrom KJ and Hagglund T (2005) Advanced PID Control. Durham,
NC, USA: ISA.
Astrom KJ, Panagopoulos H and Hagglund T (1998) Design of PI
controllers based on non-convex optimization. Automatica 34:
585601.
Caponetto R, Dongola G, Fortuna L and Gallo A (2010) New results
on the synthesis of FO-PID controllers. Communications in
Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 15: 9971007.
El-Mahallawy A, Yousef H, El-Singaby M, Madkour A and Youssef
A (2011) Robust flight control system design using H
loop-shaping and recessive trait crossover genetic algorithm.
Expert Systems with Applications 38: 169174.
498
Roup A and Bernstein D (2003) Adaptive stabilization of secondorder non-minimum phase systems. In: Proceedings of the 2003
American Control Conference 1: pp. 225230.
Seborg DE, Edgar TF and Mellichamp DA (2004) Process Dynamics
and Control, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.
Skogestad S and Postlethwaite I (1996) Multivariable Feedback
Control: Analysis and Design. New York: Wiley.
Soylemez NM, Munro T and Baki H (2003) Fast calculation of stabilizing PID controllers. Automatica 39: 121126.
Thomas GB and Finney RL (1999) Calculus and Analytic Geometry,
8th edn. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company.
Wang FC and Chen HT (2009) Design and implementation of fixedorder robust controllers for a proton exchange membrane fuel cell
system. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34: 27052717.
Xu Y and Paul R (1988) On position compensation and force control
stability of a robot with a compliant wrist. In: Proceedings of the
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation 2:
pp. 11731178.
Appendix
The centroid stable point with s*(kp, ki) |ki|
Functions f1() and f2(), which appear in the formulation of
the optimal centroid stable point in (37) and (38), are dened
as follows:
2 2
3
2 4
f1 x b x2 P x6 x 4
8a
4a
3a
bR2
ac b hx bPR kx,
gx
l x
a6
2a10
3 4
3
2
3
2 2
bR3
b Px
11 2
bP 7x
f2 x b x3 P x
9
3a
12a
6a l x
3a5
2a
bP2 Rgx b3 R2
ac b b hx
gx
l x
a
a11
a11
2
2
2
b11PR 2b PR
kx,
a l x
a7
where P and R are dened in (23) and (25), and l(x), g(x), h(x)
and k(x) are given by
l x a2 x ca b,
gx lnl x,
2
hx b 10R a2 c2 b2 2abc gx 0:5x2 a4 xa2 ac b ,
a
b gx:
kx x2 ac
a
a4