* Corresponding author. Tel.

: #44-116-201-5531; fax: #44-116-
2015464.
E-mail address: guoping.liu@energy.alstom.com (G.P. Liu)
Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830
Optimal-tuning PID controller design in the frequency domain with
application to a rotary hydraulic system
G.P. Liu*, S. Daley
Energy Technology Centre, ALSTOM, Cambridge Road, Leicester LE8 6LH, UK
Received 13 November 1998; accepted 25 March 1999
Abstract
In this paper a new PID controller design scheme that uses optimisation in the frequency domain is proposed for industrial process
control. An optimal-tuning PID controller is designed to satisfy a set of frequency-domain performance requirements: gain margin,
phase margin, crossover frequency and steady-state error. Using an estimated process frequency response, the method can provide
optimal PID parameters even in cases where the process dynamics are time variant. This scheme is demonstrated through its
application to a rotary hydraulic system and its performance is compared with six alternative PID tuning rules. 1999 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Optimal-tuning control; PID controller; Frequency-domain; Hydraulic system
1. Introduction
The proportional, integral and derivative (PID) con-
trol algorithm remains the most popular approach for
industrial process control despite continual advances in
control theory. This is not only due to the simple struc-
ture, which is conceptually easy to understand and,
which makes manual tuning possible, but also to the
fact that the algorithm provides adequate performance
in the vast majority of applications. However, for a var-
iety of reasons optimal setting of the gains is di$cult
and as a result many PID design techniques have
been developed in the literature (see, for example,
Astrom & Hagglund, 1984; Zhuang & Atherton, 1993;
Daley & Liu, 1998; Liu, Dixon & Daley, 1998;
McCormack & Godfrey, 1998).
Most of the PID tuning rules developed in the last 50
years use frequency-response methods. Examples in-
clude, Ziegler}Nichols rule (Ziegler & Nichols, 1942),
symmetric optimum rule (Kessler, 1958; Voda & Landou,
1995), Ziegler}Nichols' complementary rule (Mantz
& Tacconi, 1989), some-overshoot rule (Seborg, Edgar
& Mellichamp, 1989), no-overshoot rule (Seborg et al.,
1989), re"ned Ziegler}Nicholes rule (Hang, Astrom
& Ho, 1991), integral of squared time weighted error rule
(Zhuang & Atherton, 1993), and integral of absolute
error rule (Pessen, 1994). These methods are straightfor-
ward to apply since they provide simple tuning formulae
to determine the PID controller parameters. However,
since only a small amount of information on the dynamic
behaviour of the process is used, in many situations they
do not provide good enough tuning or produce a satis-
factory closed-loop response. For example, in practice,
the Ziegler}Nichols rule often leads to a rather oscilla-
tory response to setpoint changes.
In an e!ort to improve the performance of PID tuning
for processes with changing dynamic properties, several
automatic tuning and adaptive strategies have been pro-
posed (Kraus & Mayron, 1984; Astrom & Hagglund,
1984; Radke & Issermann, 1987). These controllers have
self-initialisation and recalibration features to cope with
little a priori knowledge and signi"cant changes in the
process dynamics, based on the automatic measurement
of the ultimate gain and period. Various techniques, such
as relay excitation feedback (Astrom & Hagglund, 1984)
and rule-based autotuning (McCormack & Godfrey,
1998), have been developed. However, the PID controller
parameters are still computed using the classic tuning
formulae and, as noted above, these do not provide good
control performance in all situations.
0967-0661/99/$- see front matter 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 7 - 0 6 6 1 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 4 7 - 7
Table 1
Six PID tuning rules
PID rule PID parameters
Ziegler}Nichols K
A
"0.60K
S
, ¹
G
"0.5¹
S
, ¹
B
"0.125¹
S
Integral of absolute
error
K
A
"0.70K
S
, ¹
G
"0.4¹
S
, ¹
B
"0.150¹
S
Some-overshoot rule K
A
"0.33K
S
, ¹
G
"0.5¹
S
, ¹
B
"0.330¹
S
No-overshoot rule K
A
"0.20K
S
, ¹
G
"0.5¹
S
, ¹
B
"0.330¹
S
Integral of squared
time weighted error
K
A
"0.509K
S
, ¹
G
"0.051(3.302K
N
K
S
#1)¹
S
n ¹
B
"0.125¹
S
Symmetric optimum
K
A
"
4#B
8(2
B
K
¹``
, ¹
G
"
4#B
B
¹``
, ¹
B
"
B
(4#B)
¹``
Fig. 1. Standard PID control system.
In order to address this problem a PID controller
design based on direct optimisation in the frequency-
domain is developed in this paper. A set of frequency-
domain performance functions are considered, which are
the gain-margin, phase-margin, crossover-frequency and
steady-state error. The PID controller is then designed to
directly satisfy the requirements set for these functions.
Using a non-parametric model represented by the system
frequency response, a method is derived that can pro-
vide optimal PID parameters for di!erent working con-
ditions. This controller is demonstrated through its
application to a rotary hydraulic system and its perfor-
mance evaluated through comparison with six other PID
tuning rules.
2. Rule-based PID controller design
A large number of industrial processes can be charac-
terised by a "rst-order plant with dead time (FOPDT).
The transfer function of a FOPDT model is described by
G(s)"
K
N
eQO
1#s¹
, (1)
where K
N
is the gain, ¹ the time constant and the dead
time. It is assumed that the ideal transfer function of
a PID controller is given by
K(s)"K
A

1#
1
¹
G
s

B
s

, (2)
where K
A
, ¹
G
and ¹
B
are the PID parameters.
Based on the FOPDT model, there are a number of
PID tuning formula available. Six PID tuning rules are
introduced and assessed in later sections. These tuning
rules are Ziegler}Nichols (NZ) (Ziegler & Nichols, 1942),
integral of absolute error (IAE) (Pessen, 1994), some-
overshoot rule (SOR) (Seborg et al., 1989), no-overshoot
rule (NOR) (Seborg et al., 1989), integral of squared time
weighted error (ISTWE) (Zhuang & Atherton, 1993),
symmetric optimum rule (SO) (Kessler, 1958; Voda
& Landou, 1995). A summary of the six PID tuning rules
are given in Table 1.
In Table 1, K
S
and ¹
S
are the inverse of the system gain
and frequency at which the phase is !1803. K
¹``
and

¹``
correspond to the gain of the system and frequency
at which the system phase is !1353. B3[1, 2] is an
acceleration factor. It can be seen from the table that the
six PID design methods do not require a parametric
transfer function model of the process and only need
either one or two frequency response measurements of
the process.
3. Optimal-tuning PID control
The design of feedback control systems in industry
using frequency-response methods is more popular than
any other. This is primarily because the frequency re-
sponse method provides good designs in the face of
uncertainty in the plant model and can easily use experi-
mental information for design purposes.
3.1. Frequency response estimation
To estimate the system frequency response, the design
of the excitation signal is very important. The excitation
signal utilised here is the commonly used multi-sine
which has the following form:
x(t)"
,

I¯¹
A
I
sin(2 f
G
t#
I
) , (3)
where A
I
,
I
and f
I
are the amplitude, phase and fre-
quency of the signal components. The phase chosen after
the desired power distribution is determined has an im-
portant in#uence on the time-domain signal shape. For
example, the maximal peak can be signi"cantly com-
pressed, enabling greater energy to be injected for the
given input range of the measurement device, and the
system is kept in the linear working region.
During the identi"cation, the closed-loop system with
the PID controller is assumed to be of the structure
shown in Fig. 1. The multi-sine signal is added to the
reference r(t). For this system, the unbiased estimate of
the frequency-response of the process using spectral anal-
ysis is given by (Wellstand, 1981; McCormack & God-
frey, 1998)
GK( j)"
PK
WP
( j)
PK
SP
( j)
, (4)
822 G.P. Liu, S. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830
where
PK
WP
( j)"
1
m
K

G¯¹
RH
G
( j)>
G
( j), (5)
PK
SP
( j)"
1
m
K

G¯¹
RH
G
( j);
G
( j) (6)
with R
G
( j), ;
G
( j) and >
G
( j) representing the
Fourier coe$cients of the reference input, the control
input and the output, respectively. If the averaging of
every quantity is done in a recursive way, then, for
k"1, 2,
2
GK( j)"
PK'I'
WP
( j)
PK'I'
SP
( j)
, (7)
where
PK'I'
WP
( j)"
k!1
k
PK'I¹'
WP
( j)#
1
k
RH
I
( j)>
I
( j), (8)
PK'I'
SP
( j)"
k!1
k
PK'I¹'
SP
( j)#
1
k
RH
I
( j);
I
( j) (9)
with PK'"'
WP
( j)"0 and PK'"'
SP
( j)"0. For the open-loop
identi"cation case, the multi-sine signal is directly added
to the control input of the process. The estimation of the
frequency response of the process is still the same as the
above with R
I
( j)"1, ∀k. Generally speaking, the accu-
racy of the open-loop estimation is better than the
closed-loop case. But, in practice, the latter is more con-
venient for implementation than the former.
3.2. Optimal PID controller design
Although the six PID design methods give simple
tuning rules for the controller parameters using either
one or two measurement points of the system frequency
response, their control performance may not satisfy the
desired requirements. To overcome this disadvantage, an
optimal PID controller design is proposed in the fre-
quency domain.
In the frequency domain, there are two quantities used
to measure the stability margin of the system. One is the
gain margin, which is the factor by which the gain is less
than the neutral stability value. The other is the phase
margin, which is the amount by which the phase of the
system exceeds !1803 when the system gain is unity.
The gain and phase margins are also related to the
damping of a system. In addition to the stability of
a design, the system is also expected to meet a speed-of-
response speci"cation like bandwidth. The crossover fre-
quency, which is the frequency at which the gain is unity,
would be a good measurement in the frequency domain
for the system's speed of time response. Also, the larger
the value of the magnitude on the low-frequency asym-
ptote, the lower the steady-state errors will be for the
closed-loop system. This relationship is very useful in the
design of suitable compensation.
After the above considerations, it is assumed that
the major requirements in the frequency domain are
those on the gain-margin, the phase-margin, the crossover-
frequency and the steady-state error. Thus, the follow-
ing performance functions need to be considered during
the design of a PID controller:

¹
(K
A
, ¹
G
, ¹
B
)"

"K( j)G( j)"
G
+
,
LK( j)G( j)"!1803

, (10)

`
(K
A
, ¹
G
, ¹
B
)"

2!
180#LK( j)G( j)
P
+
,
"K( j)G( j)""1

, (11)

`
(K
A
, ¹
G
, ¹
B
)"

2 f
B
, "K( j) G( j)""1

, (12)

"
(K
A
, ¹
G
, ¹
B
)"

1
e
QQ
"K( j)G( j)"
, "1

, (13)
where
G
(K
A
, ¹
G
, ¹
B
), for i"1, 2, 3, 4, are the normalised
gain-margin, phase-margin, crossover-frequency and the
steady-state error functions with the desired values
G
+
, P
+
, f
B
and e
QQ
, respectively. Thus, the following
performance criteria should be satis"ed:

G
(K
A
, ¹
G
, ¹
B
))1, i"1, 2, 3, 4. (14)
If the above inequalities are met, then the problem is
solved. Clearly, the design problem is to "nd a PID
controller to make Eq. (14) hold. There are a number of
methods to solve the performance criteria problem (14).
Here, two methods are brie#y introduced: the minimax
optimisation method and the method of inequalities.
Using the minimax optimisation method (Gill, Murray
& Wright, 1981), the performance criteria (14) can be
satis"ed if
min
)A 2G 2B
max
G¯¹ ` ` "
+
G
(K
A
, ¹
G
, ¹
B
),)1. (15)
Clearly, the above minimises the worst case values of the
performance functions.
The method of inequalities (Zakian & Al-Naib, 1973;
Liu, 1992; Whidborne & Liu, 1993) uses optimisation
algorithms (e.g., moving boundaries algorithm) to "nd
the admissible or feasible set of parameter vectors, for
which all the performance inequalities hold. The admiss-
ible set is de"ned as
"
¹
5
`
5
`
5
"
, (16)
G.P. Liu, S. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 823
Fig. 3. Schematic of hydraulic rig.
Fig. 2. Optimal-tuning PID control structure.
where
G
is the set of parameter vectors for which the ith
functional inequality is satis"ed, that is

G
"+(K
A
, ¹
G
, ¹
B
),
G
(K
A
, ¹
G
, ¹
B
))1,. (17)
Similar algorithms for solving the problem de"ned in (14)
now exist in standard libraries of optimisation software,
for example, the optimisation toolbox for use with MAT-
LAB (Grace, 1994).
3.3. Optimal-tuning PID control scheme
When a system has di!erent operating points with
widely di!ering dynamic properties, it is not always pos-
sible to exercise control with a "xed parameter control-
ler, even if this is a highly robust controller. For this case,
the optimal-tuning PID control scheme shown in Fig. 2
is proposed. It mainly consists of four parts: frequency
response estimation, desired system speci"cations,
optimal-tuning mechanism and PID controller. The fre-
quency response estimated using frequency-domain iden-
ti"cation methods provides a non-parametric model for
the process. The desired system speci"cations includes
a set of requirements in the frequency domain: gain
margin, phase margin, crossover frequency and steady-
state error. The optimal-tuning mechanism uses the pro-
cess frequency response to "nd optimal parameters for
the PID controller so that the desired system speci"ca-
tions are satis"ed.
The operating procedure of the optimal-tuning PID
control is as follows. When the system's operating-point
or dynamics change, the new process frequency response
is re-estimated by switching on the excitation signal.
Then, using this updated frequency-response, the tuning
mechanism searches for the optimal parameters for the
PID controller to satisfy the desired system speci"ca-
tions. Finally, the PID controller is set to the obtained
optimal parameters. In this way, the PID controller may
cope with all operating-points of the system and the
closed-loop system will have similar optimal-control
performance. But, compared with a "xed parameter con-
trol, the disadvantage of this strategy is that it needs
slightly more computation to search for the optimal
parameters.
4. Application to a rotary hydraulic system
The optimal-tuning PID control scheme is applied to
a rotary hydraulic test rig (Daley, 1987), which is repre-
sentative of many industrial systems that utilise #uid
power. This is a particularly opposite application of the
method since hydraulic systems are often very conserva-
tively tuned, due to the fact that the cost of getting the
tuning wrong can be highly destructive and costly. To
e!ectively assess the performance of the proposed tuning
method the other six tuning rules which were introduced
in Section 2 are also applied to the rig.
4.1. Rotary hydraulic system
The rotary hydraulic test rig, as shown in Fig. 3,
comprises an electro-hydraulic servo control valve driv-
ing a "xed displacement hydraulic motor up to 8000 rpm
with a maximum operating pressure of 21 MPa. The
motor is coupled by a rigid shaft to a hydraulic pump of
the same displacement as the motor and a solenoid
controlled relief valve is used to simulate variations in
load.
824 G.P. Liu, S. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830
Fig. 4. Implementation of the optimal-tuning PID control of the hydraulic rig.
Fig. 5. Multisine excitation signal.
This type of hydraulic system is typically applied to
mixer drives, centrifuge drives and machine tool
drives where accurate speed control with fast response
times is required, and large changes in load can be
expected.
4.2. Implementation structure
The optimal-tuning PID control scheme is imple-
mented using the MathWorks Real-Time Workshop
connected to a dSPACE DSP board based around the
TMS320, MATLAB and SIMULINK. With this system
a powerful implementation strategy is possible, as shown
in Fig. 4. It mainly comprises an external control loop
and an internal control loop. The external control loop
includes the hydraulic system and a PID controller. The
internal control loop includes the adaptive model up-
dated by an on-line system identi"cation algorithm and
a PID controller.
The parameters of the two PID controllers are ad-
justed by the optimal-tuning PID algorithm. Roughly
speaking, the implementation of PID control strategies
consists of two stages. The "rst stage is to run a
PID controller on the identi"ed on-line model to predict
the performance of the PID controller before it is used
on the rig. The second stage is to apply the PID control-
ler to the rotary hydraulic system using the PID
parameters that have been veri"ed as being safe on
the adaptive model. In this way, any unnecessary
damage resulting from the wrong PID parameters can
be prevented through a slight increase in computational
load.
4.3. Experimental results
During the experiment, the rotary hydraulic system
was operated in two working conditions: with load and
without load. So, the experimental results for the two
cases are presented.
4.3.1. Case I: with load
For the sake of simplicity, a periodic multi-sine excita-
tion signal, as shown in Fig. 5, was directly applied to the
hydraulic system in an open-loop way. Based on the
input}output data, the frequency response of the system
G.P. Liu, S. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 825
Fig. 6. Frequency-response of the hydraulic motor with load.
Table 2
PID parameters for case I
PID rule K
A
¹
G
¹
B
Ziegler}Nichols 0.1662 0.0606 0.0152
Integral of squared time
weighted error
0.1410 0.0423 0.0152
Integral of absolute error 0.1939 0.0485 0.0182
Symmetric optimum 0.1268 0.1141 0.0065
Some-overshoot rule 0.0914 0.0606 0.0400
No-overshoot rule 0.0554 0.0606 0.0400
Optimal design rule 0.0632 0.0372 0.0351
was estimated using the frequency-domain identi"cation
methods discussed in Section 3. The estimated magnitude
and phase of the system with respect to frequency are
shown in Fig. 6.
Following the six PID tuning rules in Section 2 and the
optimal PID design rule proposed in this paper provides
the parameters which are given in Table 2. The speed
responses of the hydraulic motor using seven PID
controllers are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.
4.3.2. Case II: without load
In this case, there was no load on the hydraulic motor.
This means the process dynamics are di!erent. When the
PID parameters for Case I were still used, three PID
controllers failed to stabilise the system, namely the
Ziegler}Nichols, integral of squared time weighted error
and integral of absolute error rules. The speed responses
using the other four PID control rules are given in Fig. 9.
Note that the symmetric optimum rule and the some-
overshoot rule give a signi"cant oscillatory response.
Though the no-overshoot rule and the optimal design
rule do not give a speed response as good as the optimal
design rule for Case I, their performance is reasonably
good and for some practical cases may be considered
acceptable.
Since the process dynamics have changed signi"cantly
a more appropriate response would be to re-tune. The
periodic multi-sine excitation signal, as shown in Fig. 5,
was directly applied to the hydraulic system again. The
estimated frequency response of the load-free case is
shown in Fig. 10. Comparing Fig. 10 with Fig. 6, it is
clear that the system frequency responses for these two
cases are di!erent, with the loading change being seen
mainly as an apparent gain change. In terms of the seven
PID tuning rules, the parameters of the PID controllers
for this case are given in Table 3.
The performance of the seven PID controllers for this
case are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. It is clear that the
relative performance is similar to that displayed for
Case I.
5. Conclusions
In this paper an optimal PID controller design scheme
based in the frequency domain has been presented. The
scheme mainly consists of four parts: frequency-response
826 G.P. Liu, S. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830
Fig. 7. The speed of the hydraulic motor using NZ, ISTWE, IAE and SO controllers (Case I).
Fig. 8. The speed of the hydraulic motor using SOR, NOR and ODR controllers (Case I).
estimation, a de"nition of desired system speci"cations,
an optimal-tuning mechanism and a PID controller.
The frequency response estimated using frequency-
domain identi"cation methods provides a non-paramet-
ric model for the process. The desired system speci"ca-
tions includes a set of requirements in the frequency
G.P. Liu, S. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 827
Fig. 9. The speed of the hydraulic motor without load using SOR, NOR, SO and ODR controllers for Case I.
Fig. 10. Frequency response of the hydraulic motor without load.
Table 3
PID parameters for case II
PID rule K
A
¹
G
¹
B
Ziegler}Nichols 0.1012 0.0549 0.0137
Integral of squared time
weighted error
0.0858 0.0330 0.0137
Integral of absolute error 0.1180 0.0439 0.0165
Symmetric optimum 0.0844 0.0994 0.0056
Some-overshoot rule 0.0556 0.0549 0.0362
No-overshoot rule 0.0337 0.0549 0.0362
Optimal design rule 0.0317 0.0262 0.0385
domain: gain-margin, phase-margin, crossover-frequency
and steady-state error. The optimal-tuning mechanism
uses the process frequency response to "nd optimal para-
meters for the PID controller so that the desired system
speci"cations are satis"ed. This scheme has been success-
fully applied to a rotary hydraulic system and has also
been compared with another six auto-tuning PID con-
trol rules. The experimental results have shown that this
optimal-tuning PID controller can signi"cantly improve
system performance, and copes well with changes in the
process dynamics.
828 G.P. Liu, S. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830
Fig. 11. The speed of the hydraulic motor using NZ, ISTWE, IAE and SO controllers (Case II).
Fig. 12. The speed of the hydraulic motor using SOR, NOR and ODR controllers (Case II).
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the management of the
ALSTOM Energy Technology Centre for giving per-
mission to publish this work.
References
Astrom, K. J., & Hagglund, T. (1984). Automatic tuning simple regu-
lators with speci"cations on phase and amplitude margins. Auto-
matica, 20(5), 645}651.
G.P. Liu, S. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 829
Daley, S. (1987). Application of a fast self-tuning control algorithm to
a hydraulic test rig. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, 201, 285}295.
Daley, S., & Liu, G. P. (1998). Optimal PID tuning using direct search
algorithm. Tuning-in to increase proxt-developments in PID tuning,
IMechE Seminar, London.
Hang, C. C., Astrom, K. J., & Ho, W. K. (1991). Re"nements of the
Ziegler}Nichols tuning formula. IEE Proceedings-D, 138(2), 111}118.
Gill, P. E., Murray, W., & Wright, M. H. (1981). Practical optimisation.
New York: Academic Press.
Grace, A. (1994). Optimisation toolbox for use with MATLAB. The Math-
Works Inc.
Kessler, C. (1958). Das symmetrische optimum. Regelungstetechnik,
6(11), 395}400.
Kraus, T. W., & Mayron, T. J. (1984). Self-tuning PID controllers based
on a pattern recognition approach. Control Engineering, 106}111.
Liu, G. P. (1992). Theory and design of critical control systems. Ph.D.
thesis, Control Systems Centre, University of Manchester Institute
of Science and Technology, U.K.
Liu, G. P., Dixon, R., & Daley, S. (1998). Multiobjective optimal-tuning
PI controller design for a gasi"er. The MEC benchmark challenge on
gasixer control, IMechE Seminar, Coventry.
Mantz, R. J., & Tacconi, E. J. (1989). Complementary rules to Ziegler
and Nichols' rules for a regulating and tracking controller. Interna-
tional Journal of Control, 49(5), 1465}1471.
McCormack, A. S., & Godfrey, K. (1998). Rule-based autotuning based
on frequency domain identi"cation. IEEE Transactions on Control
Systems Technology, 6(1), 43}61.
Pessen, D. W. (1994). A newlook at PID-controller tuning. Transactions
of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Journal of Dynamic
Systems, Measurement and Control, 116, 553}557.
Radke, F., & Isermann, R. (1987). A parameter-adaptive PID controller
with stepwise parameter optimisation. Automatica, 23, 449}457.
Seborg, D. E., Edgar, T. F., & Mellichamp, D. A. (1989). Process
dynamics and control. New York: Wiley.
Voda, A., & Landau, I. D. (1995). A method for the auto-calibration of
PID controllers. Automatica, 31(1), 41}53.
Wellstead, W. E. (1981). Nonparametric methods of systems identi"ca-
tion. Automatica, 17(1), 55}69.
Whidborne, J. F., & Liu, G. P. (1993). Critical control systems: Theory,
design and applications. New York: Research Studies Press Ltd and
Wiley.
Zhuang, M., & Atherton, D. P. (1993). Automatic tuning of optimum
PID controllers. IEE Proceedings-D, 140(3), 216}224.
Ziegler, J. G., & Nichols, N. B. (1942). Optimum settings for automatic
controllers. Transactions of ASME, 64, 759}768.
Zakian, V., & Al-Naib, U. (1973). Design of dynamical and control
systems by the method of inequalities. IEE Proceedings, 120(11),
1421}1427.
830 G.P. Liu, S. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830

¹ "0.5¹ .20K .1. crossover-frequency and steady-state error. someovershoot rule (SOR) (Seborg et al. S. no-overshoot rule (NOR) (Seborg et al. phase-margin. ¹ the time constant and the dead N time. Standard PID control system. ¹" . The phase chosen after the desired power distribution is determined has an important in#uence on the time-domain signal shape. 1981. and f are the amplitude. (3) I G I I where A . there are a number of PID tuning formula available. ¹ "0. 3. ¹ "0. 1993).60K . 1. symmetric optimum rule (SO) (Kessler. It can be seen from the table that the six PID design methods do not require a parametric transfer function model of the process and only need either one or two frequency response measurements of the process. 1994). Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 In order to address this problem a PID controller design based on direct optimisation in the frequencydomain is developed in this paper. B3[1. the maximal peak can be signi"cantly compressed. 1995). the closed-loop system with the PID controller is assumed to be of the structure shown in Fig. 2] is an acceleration factor. This controller is demonstrated through its application to a rotary hydraulic system and its performance evaluated through comparison with six other PID tuning rules. ¹ "0. Liu. which are the gain-margin. Voda Table 1 Six PID tuning rules PID rule Ziegler}Nichols Integral of absolute error Some-overshoot rule No-overshoot rule Integral of squared n time weighted error Symmetric optimum PID parameters K "0.051(3..4¹ . A summary of the six PID tuning rules are given in Table 1. 1998) P (j ) K G( j )" WP K . Optimal-tuning PID control The design of feedback control systems in industry using frequency-response methods is more popular than any other. 1989). A G B Based on the FOPDT model.509K . Six PID tuning rules are introduced and assessed in later sections. The PID controller is then designed to directly satisfy the requirements set for these functions. K P (j ) SP (4) 2..P. K and  correspond to the gain of the system and frequency  at which the system phase is !1353. 1#s¹ (1) where K is the gain. 1942).5¹ . This is primarily because the frequency response method provides good designs in the face of uncertainty in the plant model and can easily use experimental information for design purposes. (2) A B ¹ s G where K . ¹" G B B (4#B) A 8(2 K    Fig. A set of frequencydomain performance functions are considered. McCormack & Godfrey. ¹ and ¹ are the PID parameters. the unbiased estimate of the frequency-response of the process using spectral analysis is given by (Wellstand. ¹ "0. integral of squared time weighted error (ISTWE) (Zhuang & Atherton.330¹ A S G S B S K "0. x(t)" A sin(2 f t# ) .70K . ¹ "0. integral of absolute error (IAE) (Pessen. Using a non-parametric model represented by the system frequency response.5¹ .822 G. In Table 1. . the design of the excitation signal is very important. These tuning rules are Ziegler}Nichols (NZ) (Ziegler & Nichols.150¹ A S G S B S K "0. It is assumed that the ideal transfer function of a PID controller is given by 1 K(s)"K 1# #¹ s . The transfer function of a FOPDT model is described by K e\QO G(s)" N . 1. The multi-sine signal is added to the reference r(t).125¹ B S 4#B B 4#B B K" . ¹ "0. Frequency response estimation To estimate the system frequency response. 3. During the identi"cation. 1958. enabling greater energy to be injected for the given input range of the measurement device.33K . and the system is kept in the linear working region. ¹ "0. For this system. a method is derived that can provide optimal PID parameters for di!erent working conditions. K and ¹ are the inverse of the system gain S S and frequency at which the phase is !1803. ¹ "0. The excitation signal utilised here is the commonly used multi-sine which has the following form: . & Landou. For example.125¹ A S G S B S K "0. Rule-based PID controller design A large number of industrial processes can be characterised by a "rst-order plant with dead time (FOPDT). phase and freI I I quency of the signal components. 1989).330¹ A S G S B S K "0.302K K #1)¹ A S G N S S ¹ "0.

Optimal PID controller design Although the six PID design methods give simple tuning rules for the controller parameters using either one or two measurement points of the system frequency response. If the averaging of every quantity is done in a recursive way. 1992. Whidborne & Liu. ¹ . the multi-sine signal is directly added to the control input of the process. 2. the system is also expected to meet a speed-ofresponse speci"cation like bandwidth. there are two quantities used to measure the stability margin of the system. ¹ )" . the performance criteria (14) can be satis"ed if max + (K . ∀k.2 PI(j ) K . 3. G( j )" WP K PI(j ) K SP where k!1 1 P I ( j )" K P I\ ( j )# RH( j )> ( j ). the following performance functions need to be considered during the design of a PID controller: (K . which is the amount by which the phase of the system exceeds !1803 when the system gain is unity. 3. would be a good measurement in the frequency domain for the system's speed of time response. 2. K WP WP I k k I k!1 1 P I ( j )" K P I\ ( j )# RH( j ). ( j ) K SP SP I k k I (7) closed-loop system. ¹ ))1. Liu. To overcome this disadvantage.2. are the normalised G A G B gain-margin. Thus.. the crossoverfrequency and the steady-state error.G. ¹ ). Clearly. 180#LK( j )G( j ) (K . (14) hold.  A G B P + (10) (8) (9) "K( j )G( j )""1 .)1. . G A G B (14) If the above inequalities are met. P . S. Murray & Wright. for k"1. for i"1. There are a number of methods to solve the performance criteria problem (14). 4. (5) WP G G m G 1 K P ( j )" K RH( j ). Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 823 where 1 K P ( j )" K RH( j )> ( j ). Thus. Generally speaking. The gain and phase margins are also related to the damping of a system. ( j ) (6) SP G G m G with R ( j ).P. respectively. ¹ . 4. the larger the value of the magnitude on the low-frequency asymptote. their control performance may not satisfy the desired requirements. ¹ )" 2! . then. then the problem is solved. (11) (12) with P  ( j )"0 and P  ( j )"0. ¹ . This relationship is very useful in the design of suitable compensation. ¹ . which is the factor by which the gain is less than the neutral stability value.g. G + LK( j )G( j )"!1803 . which is the frequency at which the gain is unity. The estimation of the frequency response of the process is still the same as the above with R ( j )"1.  A G B e "K( j )G( j )" QQ (13) where (K . Also. ¹ ). In addition to the stability of a design. ¹ . 2. moving boundaries algorithm) to "nd the admissible or feasible set of parameter vectors. But. After the above considerations.  A G B 2 f B "K( j ) G( j )""1 . in practice. f and e . The method of inequalities (Zakian & Al-Naib. the control input and the output. For the open-loop K K WP SP identi"cation case. min G A G B )A 2G 2B G    (15) Clearly. 3. In the frequency domain. the above minimises the worst case values of the performance functions. the phase-margin. the design problem is to "nd a PID controller to make Eq. Liu. the accuI racy of the open-loop estimation is better than the closed-loop case. (K . 1993) uses optimisation algorithms (e. crossover-frequency and the steady-state error functions with the desired values G . an optimal PID controller design is proposed in the frequency domain. 1981). the latter is more convenient for implementation than the former. two methods are brie#y introduced: the minimax optimisation method and the method of inequalities. the following + + B QQ performance criteria should be satis"ed: (K . Using the minimax optimisation method (Gill. The admissible set is de"ned as "  5  5  5  . phase-margin. respectively. One is the gain margin. it is assumed that the major requirements in the frequency domain are those on the gain-margin. (16) . ¹ )"  A G B "K( j )G( j )" . 1973. the lower the steady-state errors will be for the 1 (K . i"1. ( j ) and > ( j ) representing the G G G Fourier coe$cients of the reference input. ¹ )" . The crossover frequency. "1 . The other is the phase margin. ¹ . ¹ . for which all the performance inequalities hold. Here.

the PID controller may cope with all operating-points of the system and the closed-loop system will have similar optimal-control performance. ¹ .. When the system's operating-point or dynamics change. Fig. which is representative of many industrial systems that utilise #uid power. (17) G A G B G A G B Similar algorithms for solving the problem de"ned in (14) now exist in standard libraries of optimisation software. ¹ . 3. Rotary hydraulic system The rotary hydraulic test rig. that is "+(K . To e!ectively assess the performance of the proposed tuning method the other six tuning rules which were introduced in Section 2 are also applied to the rig. ¹ ))1. 2. The optimal-tuning mechanism uses the process frequency response to "nd optimal parameters for the PID controller so that the desired system speci"cations are satis"ed. the optimisation toolbox for use with MATLAB (Grace. crossover frequency and steadystate error. for example. (K . 3. even if this is a highly robust controller. It mainly consists of four parts: frequency response estimation. the disadvantage of this strategy is that it needs slightly more computation to search for the optimal parameters. the new process frequency response is re-estimated by switching on the excitation signal. as shown in Fig. using this updated frequency-response. desired system speci"cations. In this way. Optimal-tuning PID control structure. This is a particularly opposite application of the method since hydraulic systems are often very conservatively tuned. the optimal-tuning PID control scheme shown in Fig. phase margin. Schematic of hydraulic rig. 4. But. 3. . The operating procedure of the optimal-tuning PID control is as follows. 1994). Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 where is the set of parameter vectors for which the ith G functional inequality is satis"ed. optimal-tuning mechanism and PID controller.824 G. Finally. The frequency response estimated using frequency-domain identi"cation methods provides a non-parametric model for the process. the tuning mechanism searches for the optimal parameters for the PID controller to satisfy the desired system speci"cations. Fig. it is not always possible to exercise control with a "xed parameter controller. 2 is proposed. due to the fact that the cost of getting the tuning wrong can be highly destructive and costly.1. ¹ ).3. the PID controller is set to the obtained optimal parameters. S. compared with a "xed parameter control. The desired system speci"cations includes a set of requirements in the frequency domain: gain margin. The motor is coupled by a rigid shaft to a hydraulic pump of the same displacement as the motor and a solenoid controlled relief valve is used to simulate variations in load. 4. 1987).P. Then. Optimal-tuning PID control scheme When a system has di!erent operating points with widely di!ering dynamic properties. For this case. Application to a rotary hydraulic system The optimal-tuning PID control scheme is applied to a rotary hydraulic test rig (Daley. comprises an electro-hydraulic servo control valve driving a "xed displacement hydraulic motor up to 8000 rpm with a maximum operating pressure of 21 MPa. Liu.

any unnecessary damage resulting from the wrong PID parameters can Fig. The external control loop includes the hydraulic system and a PID controller.P.2. a periodic multi-sine excitation signal. 4.3. With this system a powerful implementation strategy is possible. and large changes in load can be expected. Implementation of the optimal-tuning PID control of the hydraulic rig. This type of hydraulic system is typically applied to mixer drives. was directly applied to the hydraulic system in an open-loop way. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 825 Fig.G. the rotary hydraulic system was operated in two working conditions: with load and without load. It mainly comprises an external control loop and an internal control loop. as shown in Fig. 4. The parameters of the two PID controllers are adjusted by the optimal-tuning PID algorithm. Multisine excitation signal. The internal control loop includes the adaptive model updated by an on-line system identi"cation algorithm and a PID controller. S. Case I: with load For the sake of simplicity. Implementation structure The optimal-tuning PID control scheme is implemented using the MathWorks Real-Time Workshop connected to a dSPACE DSP board based around the TMS320. be prevented through a slight increase in computational load. MATLAB and SIMULINK. 4. Based on the input}output data.3. 4. In this way. The second stage is to apply the PID controller to the rotary hydraulic system using the PID parameters that have been veri"ed as being safe on the adaptive model. 5. the implementation of PID control strategies consists of two stages. 5. Experimental results During the experiment. Liu. 4.1. Roughly speaking. as shown in Fig. the frequency response of the system . the experimental results for the two cases are presented. The "rst stage is to run a PID controller on the identi"ed on-line model to predict the performance of the PID controller before it is used on the rig. centrifuge drives and machine tool drives where accurate speed control with fast response times is required. So.

there was no load on the hydraulic motor. 7 and 8. The scheme mainly consists of four parts: frequency-response . 6.0914 0.0554 0.1939 0.0372 ¹ B 0.1141 0. In terms of the seven PID tuning rules. Table 2 PID parameters for case I PID rule Ziegler}Nichols Integral of squared time weighted error Integral of absolute error Symmetric optimum Some-overshoot rule No-overshoot rule Optimal design rule K A 0.0065 0. with the loading change being seen mainly as an apparent gain change. The estimated magnitude and phase of the system with respect to frequency are shown in Fig. Frequency-response of the hydraulic motor with load. their performance is reasonably good and for some practical cases may be considered acceptable. the parameters of the PID controllers for this case are given in Table 3.0485 0.0400 0. Liu. 9. 4. 5. Note that the symmetric optimum rule and the someovershoot rule give a signi"cant oscillatory response.0423 0. 6.0152 0. 10 with Fig.0351 was estimated using the frequency-domain identi"cation methods discussed in Section 3.0182 0.0606 0. When the PID parameters for Case I were still used. This means the process dynamics are di!erent. it is clear that the system frequency responses for these two cases are di!erent. The periodic multi-sine excitation signal. The performance of the seven PID controllers for this case are shown in Figs.3. The estimated frequency response of the load-free case is shown in Fig. as shown in Fig. Since the process dynamics have changed signi"cantly a more appropriate response would be to re-tune. S. 5. Following the six PID tuning rules in Section 2 and the optimal PID design rule proposed in this paper provides the parameters which are given in Table 2. The speed responses using the other four PID control rules are given in Fig. three PID controllers failed to stabilise the system. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 Fig.2.P.826 G.0606 0. Though the no-overshoot rule and the optimal design rule do not give a speed response as good as the optimal design rule for Case I.0632 ¹ G 0. Comparing Fig.1268 0. 6.0400 0. integral of squared time weighted error and integral of absolute error rules. Case II: without load In this case. 10.0606 0. Conclusions In this paper an optimal PID controller design scheme based in the frequency domain has been presented.0152 0. 11 and 12. It is clear that the relative performance is similar to that displayed for Case I. The speed responses of the hydraulic motor using seven PID controllers are shown in Figs.1410 0.1662 0. was directly applied to the hydraulic system again. namely the Ziegler}Nichols.

P. Liu. a de"nition of desired system speci"cations. IAE and SO controllers (Case I). The frequency response estimated using frequency- domain identi"cation methods provides a non-parametric model for the process. an optimal-tuning mechanism and a PID controller. Fig.G. S. The speed of the hydraulic motor using NZ. The desired system speci"cations includes a set of requirements in the frequency . estimation. 8. The speed of the hydraulic motor using SOR. ISTWE. 7. NOR and ODR controllers (Case I). Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 827 Fig.

.0056 0.828 G. Fig. SO and ODR controllers for Case I.0385 domain: gain-margin.0556 0. S.0362 0.0337 0.0330 0. 9.0549 0.0858 0. The optimal-tuning mechanism uses the process frequency response to "nd optimal parameters for the PID controller so that the desired system speci"cations are satis"ed. and copes well with changes in the process dynamics. crossover-frequency and steady-state error.0439 0. The speed of the hydraulic motor without load using SOR.1180 0. phase-margin.0844 0.0549 0.0362 0. 10.0262 ¹ B 0.0549 0.0994 0. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 Fig. NOR.0137 0.1012 0.P. Frequency response of the hydraulic motor without load. The experimental results have shown that this optimal-tuning PID controller can signi"cantly improve system performance. Liu.0137 0. Table 3 PID parameters for case II PID rule Ziegler}Nichols Integral of squared time weighted error Integral of absolute error Symmetric optimum Some-overshoot rule No-overshoot rule Optimal design rule K A 0. This scheme has been successfully applied to a rotary hydraulic system and has also been compared with another six auto-tuning PID control rules.0317 ¹ G 0.0165 0.

12. The speed of the hydraulic motor using SOR. IAE and SO controllers (Case II). Automatica. . 20(5). J. NOR and ODR controllers (Case II).P. Fig. & Hagglund. Automatic tuning simple regulators with speci"cations on phase and amplitude margins. ISTWE. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 829 Fig. K. 11. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the management of the ALSTOM Energy Technology Centre for giving permission to publish this work. The speed of the hydraulic motor using NZ. Liu. 645}651. T.G.. S. (1984). References Astrom.

G. Automatic tuning of optimum PID controllers. Process dynamics and control. Whidborne.. Optimal PID tuning using direct search algorithm. C. J. 64. Self-tuning PID controllers based on a pattern recognition approach.K. D. (1989). Gill. (1973). A. & Daley. (1991). Pessen. Edgar. Liu.. P. Murray.. Hang. D.. & Atherton. & Landau. The MEC benchmark challenge on gasixer control. D. G. 116. G. I. 49(5). (1984). U..830 G. J. Grace. Regelungstetechnik. J. Ziegler. S. Nonparametric methods of systems identi"cation. T. & Al-Naib. & Liu. Critical control systems: Theory. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. J. thesis. (1995). G. & Wright. New York: Research Studies Press Ltd and Wiley. R. Kessler. Design of dynamical and control systems by the method of inequalities. 41}53. . M.. Transactions of ASME. 285}295. S.P. A parameter-adaptive PID controller with stepwise parameter optimisation. A method for the auto-calibration of PID controllers. P. 31(1). Astrom. Zakian.. J. 120(11). R. IEE Proceedings-D. G. (1993). (1998). T. Automatica. E. & Mayron. Automatica. 140(3). IMechE Seminar. (1958). IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology. 55}69. 23.. Dixon. W. 106}111. 111}118. Multiobjective optimal-tuning PI controller design for a gasi"er. 43}61.. design and applications. (1989). B. H. Daley. P.. IEE Proceedings. E. K. Control Engineering. U. 553}557. A. IEE Proceedings-D. K. Automatica. & Liu. & Tacconi. 1465}1471. Rule-based autotuning based on frequency domain identi"cation. (1994). New York: Academic Press.. (1987). (1993).. Voda. (1998). (1981). London. 449}457. S. The MathWorks Inc. 201. S... K. Mantz. (1942). Complementary rules to Ziegler and Nichols' rules for a regulating and tracking controller. 6(1). Practical optimisation. Liu. Wellstead. & Nichols. 6(11). T. Seborg. M. Re"nements of the Ziegler}Nichols tuning formula. (1987). N. & Mellichamp. (1992).D. Daley. & Godfrey. A. E. Ph. & Ho. F. P. 138(2). Optimum settings for automatic controllers. A. R. (1998). IMechE Seminar. D. F. University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. (1981). Journal of Dynamic Systems. F. W. 17(1). 216}224. Coventry. Theory and design of critical control systems. New York: Wiley. Optimisation toolbox for use with MATLAB. D. Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Liu. 395}400. Control Systems Centre. W. S.. Zhuang. 1421}1427. E. Das symmetrische optimum. & Isermann. W... C. (1994). V. W. Tuning-in to increase proxt-developments in PID tuning. J. Application of a fast self-tuning control algorithm to a hydraulic test rig. Radke. International Journal of Control. A new look at PID-controller tuning. 759}768. C. P.. Measurement and Control. Daley / Control Engineering Practice 7 (1999) 821}830 McCormack. Kraus. P.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful