Copyright @ IFAC Digital Control: Past, Present and

Future of PlO Control, Terrassa, Spain, 2000

DESIGN OF PID CONTROLLERS VIA FREQUENCY RESPONSE

APPROXIMATION

S. Pegel. S. Engell

Process Control Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering,

University of Dortmund, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany,
Tel: ++49 231 7555127, Fax: ++49231 7555129,
e-mail: s.pegel@ct.uni-dortmund.de

Abstract: This paper presents an efficient numerical method for designing PID
controllers. The method is based on frequency response approximation. It is shown that
the controller design method outlined in this work yields very good results in PID-
controller design. To evaluate the performance of the frequency response approximation
method the design method is applied to several benchmark systems for PID control
presented in Astrom, et al. (1999). Copyright © 2000IFAC

Keywords: PID control, frequency response approximation, performance limitations,

benchmark systems, computer aided design.

1. INTRODUCTION specified by the user or be the result of the

The vast majority of industrial controllers is of PID-
type. Despite recent advantages in control theory and
implementation technology, the PID controller
remains pervasive and popular. It is desirable to use
PI- or PID-controllers because they can easily be
implemented and the acceptance by the operators is
high, a key factor for success in an industrial
environment.
Recent academic research is re-exammmg the
foundations of PID design looking with a more
theoretical interest at questions like what can actually
be achieved with PID control. For industrial
applications the tuning of PID-controllers is still a
challenging task.
In this paper, we describe a method to compute PID-
controllers based on the idea of the approximation of
a desired closed-loop behaviour which can either be
computation of more sophisticated, e.g. IJ.-optimal,
controllers of high order which cannot be
implemented directly. In order to reduce the amount of
trial-and-error involved in the classical design, the use
of optimisation techniques was proposed in Engell
(1988a). Motivated by the observation that in classical
controller design the usual rules of thumb (i.e. to obtain
a certain crossover-frequency and phase margin) reflect
the goal to achieve a certain closed-loop response, the
controller design is performed by frequency response
approximation. The key idea which makes this a very
efficient procedure in the SISO-case is the use of a
frequency-dependent weighting in the approximation
which reflects the sensitivity of the closed-loop
response to the deviation of the controller frequency
response from the one which achieves the desired
behaviour exactly. This was generalised to the
multivariable case in Engell, et al. (1991; 1992; 1993).
The advantage of the method is that the controller
structure and the order of its elements can be chosen

63
freely and experimented with by the designer. It is
implemented as a MATLAB-toolbox (Pegel, et al.,
1999).
The procedure of controller design based on
frequency response approximation is described in the
next section. In the third section the specification of
the desired closed-loop behaviour is considered. In
this section also the performance limitations due to
dead times, right half plane zeros, right half plane
poles and input constraints are discussed. In the third
section the presented design method is tested for
several benchmark systems suggested by Astrom et
al. (1999). Some conclusions are given in the last
section.
2. CONTROLLER DESIGN BY FREQUENCY
RESPONSE ApPROXIMATION
For a unity feedback control system with plant P and
controller C, the reference-to-output frequency
response is given by
T(jw) = (I + P(jw)C(jW»)-1 P(jw)C(jw). (1)
The starting point in the design process is to specify a
desired response of the closed-loop system, M (jw) .
This can either be done by computing a complex
controller and the corresponding closed-loop
response by any ..modem" technique, or M{jw) can
be defined by parametrizing standard models
automatically from characteristic step response values
such as maximum overshoot and rise time. Given the
desired closed-loop behaviour M (jw) and the plant
model P{jw) , the frequency response of the ideal
controller Co, which achieves the desired behaviour
exactly, results as
Co{jw) =P(jw)-t(M {jw)-t _I)-I. (2)
To calculate the sensitivity of the closed-loop
frequency response to deviations of the compensator
frequency response from its nominal value Co (jw) ,
we write the approximated controller as
C{jw) =Co (jw) + AC{jw) . (3)
To get a PID-controller, the frequency response of
this system is approximated by a transfer matrix of
prescribed structure and order. The aim of the
approximation is to minimise the deviation AT{jw)
of the closed-loop system frequency response from its
desired value. AT{jw) can be computed as
AT(jw) =S (jw)P{jw)AC(jw)So (jw) , (4)
where So (jw) and S(jw) are the nominal and
actual sensitivity functions. If the approximation is
good, S (jw) can be replaced by So (jw). This
64
yields a linear relation of AT{jw) and AC{jw) . As
the order of the numerator and of the denominator
polynomials can be chosen freely and the numerator
polynomials can be also set to zero, arbitrary
controller structures can be optimised, in particular
PID controller structures. The procedure outlined
above is realised in FASTER (Pegel, et al., 1999), a
MATLAB toolbox.
If the desired performance is not obtained, the
controller order can be increased or the performance
specifications must be modified.
3. SPECIFICATION OF THE DESIRED
PERFORMANCE
The desired performance can be specified in many
different ways. In this work, we concentrate on the
specification of the desired complementary sensitivity
function T. This approach allows the designer to
specify the response of the outputs for a change in the
setpoint. Many practitioners prefer to use time
domain specifications e.g., by specifying the desired
closed-loop response to a step input in terms of
settling time, rise time, maximal overshoot and
steady-state error. For the SISO case, such
specifications can be mapped into a second-order
transfer function M:
(5)
where t r is the rise time which is approximately the
time when the response reaches 80 % of its final
value, 0 is the maximal overshoot in [%] and e~ is
the permitted offset. The parameters w n (undamped
natural frequency) and d (damping ratio) can be
easily calculated from the time domain specifications.
If the plant is non-minimum phase, the model (5) has
to be extended. In case of systems with a significant
right half plane zero, the controller would
compensate the non-minimum phase zero by an
unstable pole if the desired closed-loop behaviour
were minimum phase. In this case this undesired
cancellation is avoided by addition of the non-
minimum phase zero nu into the desired closed-loop
behaviour:
(6)
A zero in the right half plane limits the achievable
bandwidth of the closed-loop system. The bandwidth
of good disturbance rejection S(jw) is limited by the
smallest right half plane zero. In practice the
achievable bandwidth has to be smaller than the
magnitude of the right half plane zero. A higher
bandwidth results in a strong increase of the peak in
the frequency response of the sensitivity function.
Thus, the rise time of the closed-loop is restricted by
a lower bound (Engell. 1988b; Skogestad. et al.•
1996).
For unstable systems with one right half plane pole
Pu. the closed-loop model is chosen as (Engell,
1988a)
(7)
The closed-loop thus has a zero in the left half plane.
Unlike a zero in the right half plane which limits the
upper bound of the closed-loop bandwidth a pole in
the right half plane limits the minimum bandwidth.
Lowering the crossover frequency close to the fastest
unstable pole results in an undesirable high peak of
the complementary sensitivity function. Thus the rise
time is restricted by an upper bound. Usually the
lower limit of the crossover frequency is
approximately given by 3. 1Mil s; wc'
J.f' max
complementary sensitivity function of the type (7)
with a free left half plane zero should also be chosen
if the plant model has a difference of the orders of the
denominator and the numerator of 1.
Bode's theorem shows that two poles at the origin or
one pole at the origin and one unstable pole limit the
smallest possible peak value of the complementary
sensitivity function I T(jw) I. The controller for an
open-loop system with two poles at the origin or one
pole at the origin and one unstable pole has to be
designed very carefully to avoid large settling times.
Systems with pure time delays are very common in
technical processes. Sources of time delays are
transportation lags due to the flow of material and
measurement lags. Very important for controller
design by frequency response approximation is the
definition of a realisable closed-loop behaviour. To
avoid non-causal controllers, the dead time has to be
added to the desired closed-loop behaviour. In the
SISO case, an attainable desired closed-loop
behaviour is achieved by multiplying the minimum
phase model with the dead time. For a plant with time
delay Td , the model for the closed-loop system is
(8)
The influence of a time delay on the achievable
bandwidth of the reference reaction is similar to that
of right half plane zeros. Similarly the disturbance
reaction properties are limited as in the case of right
half plane zeros. Although the transfer function of
the ideal controller is irrational, its frequency
response can be computed easily. Since the
approximation of the controller is only based on the
frequency response, systems with pure delays can be
treated easily by this method.
For systems with input constraints the minimal rise
time can be calculated by integration of the modulus
of the impulse response. As
t
y(t) =fp(r)u(t -r)dr,
o
with p(r) =jg(r)1
for symmetric input constraints
the fastest move of the controlled variable is given by
I
A y'(t) =umaxfp(r)dr.
o
The fastest theoretical achievable rise time can thus
be calculated from the condition
The achievable rise time for linear controllers is
larger. A practical method is to specify the model M
with the desired overshoot and to calculate t r from
y' as the minimal rise time to 50% of the final value
as a first guess. After calculating the manipulated
value for a step response a violation of the constraints
might make an adaption necessary. Usually these
adaptions are small.
M (jw) can easily be modified to take additional
requirements into account, e.g. more roll-off at high
frequencies to reduce the sensitivities to sensor noise
and modelling errors.
4. PID-CONTROLLER DESIGN WITH FASTER
To evaluate the performance of the presented
controller design method, it was applied to the set of
benchmark systems proposed by Astr6m, et al.
(1999).
6S
In the first design step the closed-loop behaviour has The model and the controller parameters are listed in
to be chosen in state space fonn or as a transfer table 1.
function. Additionally the user may choose the model
from several predefined model types as PT I, PT2, The step responses of the closed-loop system with
oscillatory PT 2, PT 2 with left half plane zero, etc. by plant G2(s) is shown in figure 2. To design the
defining rise time and overshoot. After the c1osed- controller the dead time was added to the desired
loop behaviour has been chosen, the frequency closed-loop behaviour. eqn.(8). The rise time should
response is approximated by a controller of the not be smaller than the dead time. Consequently good
chosen structure and order. For PID controller design performance was achieved by specifying a rise time
the controller structure of 3 and an overshoot of 10%.
2
_ b 2s +bls +bo
GPlD - 2 (9) 1.4,-----~----_-----,
I I
a 2 s +s 12 - - - - - - - _1 ..J _
I I
1 - - - - - - - -: - - - - - -~-~ ~
is used. I I
0.8 - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - --

I I
0.6 - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - -
To start with, we consider two simple systems: I I
0." - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - "'1 - - - - - - - -
I I
1-5s 02 - - - - -1- - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - -

GI = &+ 1)3 ' °0!;-.L----~-----,t;0----__},5

I I

lime

1 Fig. 2: Step response of the closed-loop system

G - e -s
2-(10s+1)2 with plant G2 (s) (solid) and the desired c1osed-
loop behaviour (dashed)
Plant G1 (s) has a zero in the right half plane and
three equal poles. The achievable perfonnance is We will now discuss some more complex systems. At
limited by the right half plane zero. Plant G2 (s) has first a system with a fast and a slow mode is
a dead time. considered:

12r------,---,-...,.--,---,----,-----,---,
I I
G = 100 (_1_+ 0.5 )
1 --"'---1- 3 &+10)2 s+1 s+0.05 .
I I I I I I I
0.8 - - .,. - - - - -,- - - t- - - l' - - "'i - - -1- - -

0.6 - -
I
+- -
I I I
-1 - - -1- - - I- - -
I
+- -
I
-i - -
1
-1- - - The system has a fast time constant at T = 1 with a
0.. - -
I
+-
I
-i - -
I
-1- - -
I
~
I
- - .... - -
I
-1- -
I
-1- - - moderate gain and a slow time constant T = 20 with a
I I I I , I I
02 - - -l- - -1 1 ~ __ J. _ _ ...J 1 _ large gain. To control the system a model with
I I I I I I I
o -- -- -I - - -1- __ L.. __ J. __ ...J 1_ - - oscillatory PT 2 elements was chosen. There is no
I I I I I I I
difficulty to control a system with a slow and a fast
mode by frequency response approximation. Because
there are no serious perfonnance limitations a rise
Fig. 1: Step response of the closed-loop system time of 0.5, about 5% of the rise time of the plant,
with plant G1 (s) (solid) and the desired c1osed- and an overshoot of 10% were chosen. The step
loop behaviour (dashed) response of the closed-loop system is shown in figure
3, the controller parameters are listed in table 1.
To design the controller for GI (s), the right half 12,-----,----.-------,----,
plane zero was included into the closed-loop ---+----~-~-~----~
I

behaviour to avoid an undesired pole/zero u

I
l
I
L _
cancellation, eqn.(6). The right half plane zero limits I
I
I
I
I

the achievable bandwidth. Due to the limitations ~ ---- -I------T------r----- I I 1

OA I l L _
caused by the right half plane zero a good estimation I I I

of the achievable bandwidth is Wc ~ >{n u (Engell, 1

--~------T------r-----
I I

1 I I
1988b). For 2nd order systems with right half plane 0.5 1.5
zeros either the overshoot and rise time or the over- lime
and undershoot can be detennined. The relation
between over-/undershoot and rise time is given in Fig. 3: Step response of the closed-loop system
(Engell, et al., 1982). A PT 2 transfer function with with plant G3 (s) (solid) and the desired c1osed-
right half plane zero, overshoot and undershoot of loop behaviour (dashed)
15% yields good closed-loop performance for system
G1 (s) . Figure 1 shows the closed-loop step response. The next system is a conditionally stable system:

66
 presented PID controller design method:

An oscillatory PT z element with a rise time of 0.5 was

chosen as closed-loop model. The plant model G4 (s) The open-loop step response is shown in figure 5, the
contains an integrator. If a PID controller is specified. result of the controller design is shown in figure 6
the direct application of frequency response and listed in table 1. The closed-loop behaviour was
approximation produces a cancellation of the pole at defined by an oscillatory PT z element with a rise time
the origin by a very small zero. Le. the controller is of 2 and an overshoot of 10%.
reduced to a lead element. This is not an error in the 1.2,---~---~-- -,
method. For a plant with integral action this
controller is sufficient to produce good setpoint I
I I I
tracking. If, in order to achieve perfect tracking of 0.11 - - - - -1- J, - - - - - - ~ - - - __
I I I
ramps or to reject disturbances at the plant input. an I
---~------T------r-----
I I

integral action of the controller is required. a different I

_ _ _ _I
I I
L _

~
approach must be used. Therefore the unconstrained I
I
I
I
I
I
quadratic programming (QP) used for the frequency -----,------~------r-----
, I I
response approximation of the ideal controller, eqn. IS 20

(4), was replaced by sequential quadratic time

programming (SQP). This formulation technique is
Fig. 6: Step response of the closed-loop system
able to handle nonlinear constraints as e.g. minimum
values for controller parameters. Thus the with plant Gs (s) (solid) and the desired c1osed-
approximation of a PID controller can be guaranteed loop behaviour (dashed), specified rise time 2
also for systems with integral action.
A comparison of the magnitude of the poles of the
1.•, - - - - - - , - - - - . , . - - - , - - - - - . - - - - - - - - , system and of the controller shows, that the complex
I I I I
1.2 - - - - ~ - - - - ~ - - - - -I - - - - - 1- - - - - conjugated controller zeros at -0.1226± 0.995i
I I I
, - - - + -""=:::_--------~ compensate the poles of the system at -0.1 + 0.995i .
I I I I
~8 - --+----~----~-----~----
I I I I
This achieves best performance and stability for the
- --~----4----~-----~----
I I I I
nominal system. However, for the real system, which
---~----~----~-----~---- deviates from the nominal one, this exact
___ I I I IL _
compensation may cause problems, even instability.
~ ~ ~

I I I I

10
Fig. 4: Step response of the closed-loop system
with plant G4 (s) (solid) and the desired closed-
loop behaviour (dashed)
20 30 40 50
To achieve robustness, a smaller controller pole,
time which also compensates the deviations of the real
system from the nominal one is preferable. Therefore
we designed a controller with a rise time of 8 and an
overshoot of 10%. The results of this design are
shown in figure 7 and table 1.

Due to the two integral parts of the open-lOOp, the 1.2,----.,.----,--.---r----.--,----r-----,

I I
rise time cannot be chosen arbitrarily small, to avoid 1 _ - L __ .J _ _, L _ -,......_.l--......_--;
, , I , ,
an oscillating system. Therefore the rise time was set 0.8
,
- - T - -
I '
1- - -1- - - r --
I
T - - 1 - - -,- - -
, ,

to 5 and the overshoot to 10%. The step response is 0.6

1
- - • - - ~
I 1
- - -1- - -
I
~
I
- - .. - - -l -
1
-
,
-1- - -
shown in figure 4, the controller parameters are given 1 , I 1 I I I

in table 1. 0.4 __ ' - - ~ - - -:- - - ~ - - +- - ~ - - -:- --

I I I I I I
T - - .., - - -1- - - r- - - T - - .., - - -1- - -
I I I I I I 1

1.4~-.~·~~·=-~~~·~~~;--~h_=_r-:~:;- -1- -, 10 15 20 25 30 35 <0

1.2 time
1·' .

... ; ... __ .1 __ ___ ~

Fig. 7: Step response of the closed-loop system
0.6

0.6- .
.. _. .I.. h _.1_.. h j L. ' _ ._ L __ ! _ _ 1. __ ~ with plant Gs (s) (solid) and the desired c1osed-
I I 1 i
0.41 __! __ L _ h.I •. _ .l .h _l.-. _ ..J __ L. __ ! _ _ 1. _ ~ loop behaviour (dashed), specified rise time 8
I I I I ; ; I I j i
0.2 __: __ ~ __ : __ ~ - -:- _. -1 - - ~ - -~ - - ~ - -~
Q()"- ~··--·-1~·--·115---,2!70--;:2~5---:::3Q::----f.
35'--.';;'O,---:.';;;5----;50
The last system considered was the model of an
time inverted pendulum:
Fig. 5: Step response of the system with plant
G s (s)

This system is unstable. To achieve a good and stable

Also an oscillatory system was chosen to evaluate the

67
closed-loop performance an oscillatory PT 2 c1osed- for the engineer is a suitable choice of the desired
loop model with a left half plane zero (7) was chosen. closed-loop system dynamics. To demonstrate this we
The rise time of the closed-loop is bounded by the designed real PID controllers for examples of
unstable pole. For an overshoot of 10% a good choice different complexity. The designed PID controllers
of the rise time is t r < 0.09. Due to the right half plane achieve good performance and the design effort is
pole and the integral action of the open-loop a low. If a predefined controller structure must be
reduction of the maximum overshoot would cause a realised. which is not advantageous for the response
smaller upper bound for the rise time and visa versa. to reference signals, the approximation of the ideal
controller can be performed subject to constraints to
1.2,-----r---,----,----,------, avoid pole-zero cancellations.
1 ~ ~ I
--

~8
I
----r----l----------r---- I I

I I I I
0.6 - - - - + - - - - -1 - - - - -1- - - - - I- - - - - REFERENCES
I I I I
0.. - - - - 1. J __ - - _1- 1 _
I I I I
I I I I Astrom. KJ. and T. Hagglund (1999). Benchmark
0.2 - - - - i - - - - , - - - - -1- - - - - r- - - - -
I I I I Systems for PID Control, URL: http://www-
00 10 esaiiterrassa. upc.es/pidOO/bench.htm.
time Engell. S. (1988a). Multivariable Controller Design
by Frequency Response Approximation. Proc. of
Fig. 8: Step response of the closed-loop system
the lEE International Conference on Control,
with plant G6 (s) (solid) and the desired c1osed-
CONTROL 88, No. 285, pp. 253-258.
loop behaviour (dashed) Engell, S. (1988b). Optimale lineare Regelung -
Grenzen der erreichbaren Regelgute.
Fachberichte Messen-Steuern-Regeln. Springer-
Table 1: List of model and controller parameters of Verlag, Berlin.
the controller design Engell. S. and R. Muller (1991). Controller design
by frequency-weighted approximation: the
Specified Controller
Plant closed-loop lr
0 U multivariable case. Proc. lEE International
[%1 [%1
dynamics gain poles zeros Conference CONTROL-9i, Edinburgh, 332. pp.
G.(s) PTz with -0.616 0.114+1.106i 581-586.
15 15 30.78
rHpzero 0 0.114-1.106i Engell, S. and R. Muller (1992). Fast and efficient
G2 (s)
oscillatory
-1.532 -0.097+O.018i
selection of control structures. European
PTz with 3 10 0.02 Symposium on Computer-Aided Process
0 -0.097-0.018i
dead time
Engineering (ESCAPE-i), Supplement to
G3 (s) oscillatory -0.384 -1.1210
PTz
0.5 10 - 0.51
0 -0.0544
Computers & Chemical Engineering, Pergamon
Press, pp. 157-164.
G.(s) oscillatory -1 -1.516
PTz
5 10 - 4.53
0 0.003
Engell. S. and R. Muller (1993). Multivariable
controller design by frequency response
oscillatory -10 -0.1216+0.99i
Gs(s) PTz
2 10 - 0.14
0 -0.1216-0.99i approximation, Proc. 2nd European Control
oscillatory -00401 -0.0334+O.99i Conference, Groningen, pp. 1715-1720.
8 10 - 14.44
PTz 0 -o.0334-0.99i Engell, S.• G. Noth and J. Pangalos (1982).
oscillatory Indirekte Reglersynthese fur Strecken mit einer
G.(s) -61.15 -1.0810
PT. with 0.08 10 - 0.001
0 -0.2975 Nullstelle in der rechten Halbebene,
IHP zero
Regelungstechnik 30, pp. 232-239.
Pegel, S. and R. Muller (1999) FASTER-Toolbox
implemented in MATLAB, Process Control
Laboratory. Department of Chemical
5. CONCLUSIONS
Engineering. University of Dortmund, Germany,
URL: http://astwww.chemietechnik.uni-dortmundde.
A method for controller design by frequency response
Skogestad, S. and I. Postlethwaite (1996).
approximation was presented. Because the controller
Multivariable feedback control, John Wiley &
is designed by approximation of the frequency
Sons, Chichester.
response of the desired closed-loop behaviour by a
controller of prescribed structure and order, the
controller design is very easy. The only decision left

68