1

Undesired Effects of Input Saturation

1.1 Introductory Remarks

Most of the controllers found in industrial applications can be characterized
by linear differential equations, and also the plant models used for control
design are often linear. Though systems that satisfy all formal definitions of
linearity do not exist in practice, linear models describe the system behaviour
with sufficient accuracy as long as the loop operates in the vicinity of the oper-
ating point for which the control design was carried out. Due to unexpectedly
large disturbance inputs, or during major set point changes, as for example,
in startup operations, large tracking errors can result, which cause large com-
pensator output signals that cannot be transferred to the plant. Limitations
of the amplitude of plant inputs are either a consequence of technological
or energy restrictions, or they are imposed by safety requirements. In such
a situation, the compensator output signal is larger than the signal actually
driving the system, i.e., there is an actuator saturation.
In linear control systems, the transient settling time (for example after
reference step inputs) is independent of the actual amplitude. This is no longer
true if input saturation becomes active. The input signal to the (linear) plant
is then smaller than the control input generated by the controller, causing
an increased settling time in the constrained case. This delaying influence of
amplitude restrictions cannot be avoided, and one could argue that this should
result in better damped transients.
If, however, the controller contains integral action, input saturation can
give rise to large and poorly decaying overshoots in the transients, which
must be avoided. These undesired overshoots result from an overreaction of
the integrator. The integral part of the controller “winds up” during input
signal limitation, and this effect is usually called “reset windup” or simply
“windup”. However, not only integral action can give rise to an uncontrolled
increase of the compensator output. Since feedback is interrupted during ac-
tuator saturation (because variations of the output signal of the plant have
no influence on the input of the plant during this period), any critically stable
2 1 Undesired Effects of Input Saturation

or unstable modes of the compensator can develop freely in this open loop
situation, causing the typical windup phenomenon.
In the early windup literature, only this undesired influence of input sat-
uration and its prevention were discussed. This is probably due to the fact
that in classical PI- or PID-applications, the destabilizing influence of input
saturation is mainly attributable to unstable controller dynamics, e.g., to in-
tegral action. This form of windup is consequently called “controller windup”.
An example of the background and of the effects of controller windup can be
found in Section 1.2.
A closer inspection of control loops with input saturation shows that the
so-called controller windup is not the only undesired influence of limitations of
the plant input signals. Also in the absence of unstable compensator modes, as
for example, in a constant state feedback loop where the compensator does not
contain any dynamic element at all, input saturation may cause an oscillatory
transient behaviour or even instability. Since this destabilizing influence of
actuator saturation is quite similar to that observed in the presence of unstable
compensator dynamics, it is also called windup. This windup, however, is not
attributable to the controller dynamics (for example to an integrator). It is
related to the dynamics of the (controlled) plant, and is consequently called
“plant windup” or also “oscillatory plant windup”.
The two examples discussed in Section 1.3 clearly demonstrate the back-
ground of an oscillatory plant windup. In a given control application controller
and plant windup effects can, of course, superimpose. This is possibly the
main reason why the clear separation of the two windup phenomena is not
generally accepted in the windup community. The following investigations will
show, however, that this separation is not only helpful for an interpretation
of windup, but it is also of importance in the design of preventive measures.
In the presence of stable systems, the destabilizing effect of input satu-
ration can give rise to limit cycles in the worst case. If, however, the plant
is unstable, the undesired effects of actuator saturation are much more dra-
matic. Due to the limited amplitude range, there is always a critical output
amplitude (systems with eigenvalues at the origin of the s-plane are not con-
sidered here) beyond which the unstable system cannot be stabilized. If the
output passes this critical amplitude, it will increase in an exponential fash-
ion. As plant windup often leads to an oscillatory behaviour, it can further
reduce the safely applicable reference step amplitudes that do not cause an
unstable operation. The problems produced by plant windup in the presence
of unstable systems are demonstrated by an example in Section 1.4.
In multivariable control problems, i.e., when the system to be controlled
has more than one control input, the windup phenomena discussed above
can also occur. In the presence of unstable modes of the compensator there
is the danger of controller windup, and if the eigenvalues of the system are
shifted too far to the left, plant windup can cause an oscillatory behaviour.
Controller windup can be prevented by stabilizing the controller in the case of
input saturation, and by shaping the linear part of the loop (in the presence