See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349394299

Improved PID Controller for DC Motor Control Improved PID Controller for DC
Motor Control

Article  in  IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering · February 2021

DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/1052/1/012058

CITATIONS READS

0 139

6 authors, including:

Mohammed Ahmed Nura Musa Tahir

University of Anbar Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University
11 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    31 PUBLICATIONS   44 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aminu Yahaya Zimit Kamal Abubakar Abubakar

University of Malaya Nigerian Army University, Biu.
9 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    9 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Comparative Studies of Hybrid Model-Dependant and Model-Free Controller Application on Crane System View project

Electronic Outpatient Queuing Management System View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kamal Abubakar Abubakar on 18 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Improved PID Controller for DC Motor Control

To cite this article: Mohammed Ahmed et al 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1052 012058

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 105.112.229.129 on 17/02/2021 at 19:14

The 5th International Conference on Marine Technology (SENTA 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1052 (2021) 012058 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1052/1/012058

Improved PID Controller for DC Motor Control

Mohammed Ahmed1, Nura Musa Tahir2, Aminu Yahaya Zimit3, Musa Idi2,
Kamal Abubakar Abubakar4, Salihu Abdulmumini Jalo5
1
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa
University, P. M. B. 0248 Bauchi, Nigeria.
2
Department of Mechatronics and System Engineering, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa
University, P. M. B. 0248 Bauchi, Nigeria.
3
University of Hafr Albatin Housing, Saudi Arabia.
4
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Nigerian Army University,
Biu, Nigeria.
5
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Adamawa State Polytechnic
Yola, Nigeria.

inunugoloma@yahoo.com

Abstract. Presented is an improved version of the PID controller (PIDC) for DC motor control.
The PIDC is a very cheap and easy controller to implement and is currently in use in many
systems. There are instances whereby higher precision is required and an improved version of
the PID can serve. The systems might not be necessary limited to marine systems. Hence, saving
the need for more costly redesign. The PIDC proposed was compared with the PID. Results show
that the PIDC has superior performance compared to the PID. Hence, it is an indication that the
PID could still withstand future developments; that is maintaining its characteristics of simplicity
and cheapness.

1. Introduction
Electric motors have a wide range of applications as results of remarkable improvements in technology.
Some the areas include positioning in large telescopic antennas, tracking of radar systems, aircraft
systems actuators, marine systems actuators and robotic systems [1-3]. Achieving desired objectives
sometimes only require simple and cheap designs.
Rubaai and Kotaru [4] and Benard [5] explored the artificial neural networks for direct current (DC)
motor control. In the works of Hameed and Mohamed [6], the fuzzy logic control technique was
combined with the artificial neural network counterpart was applied. The fuzzy logic technique was
investigated by Sadiq et al in their studies [7-9]. Rajesekhar et al. [10, 11], utilised the fractional-order
proportional integral derivative (PID) along with the artificial bee colony algorithm in their works. In
the studies conducted by Mishra et al., the proportional-integral (PI) control method was harnessed for
motor control. The PID control methods have the advantage of simplicity, easy implantation and also a
lot was known about it. Despite all these, some systems require better performance which cannot be
attained with the ordinary PID control scheme. Hence, the need enhanced version of the PID [12]. The
study was on exploring the reaching law for enhancing the PID controller performance which is referred
to as the PIDC for the armature controlled direct current (DC) motors.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The 5th International Conference on Marine Technology (SENTA 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1052 (2021) 012058 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1052/1/012058

2. Methodology

2.1. Plant modelling

The system plant is an armature controlled DC motor. Equations (1) – (4) give the motor transfer
function. The parameters; are the motor torque constant KT, total moment of inertia for the motor system
J, armature inductance of the motor 𝐿𝑎 , armature resistance of the motor 𝑅𝑎 , total viscous friction B
and back e.m.f constant 𝐾𝑏 . The values of the aforementioned parameters are: 0.085 Nm, 5.0 x 10-4
kgm2/s2, negligible, 5 ohms, 6.0 x 10-3 Nm/sec and 0.1 V/rad/sec respectively.
𝐺(𝑠) = 𝜃(𝑠)/𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) (1)
𝐺(𝑠) = 𝐾𝑇 /(𝐴𝑠 3 + 𝐵𝑠 2 + 𝐶𝑠) (2)
𝐴 = 𝐽𝐿𝑎 ; 𝐵 = 𝐽𝑅𝑎 + 𝐵𝐿𝑎 (3)
𝐶 = 𝐵𝑅𝑎 + 𝐾𝑏 𝐾𝑇 (4)
Equation (5) resulted after substituting the values. Replacing the armature voltage 𝐸𝑎 with the control
signal, u made equation (6) emerges. The plant mathematical model in the canonical form is as given
by Equation (7).
𝜃(𝑠)/𝐸𝑎 (𝑠) = 34/(𝑠 2 + 15.4𝑠) (5)
2
𝜃/𝑢 = 34/(𝑠 + 15.4𝑠) (6)
̈𝜃 = 34𝑢 − 15.4𝜃̇ (7)

2.2. The Improved PID Control (PIDC) System

Equation (8) is the reaching law and equation (9) is the sliding mode function. Replacing left-hand side
of (8) with the control signal and f with s in the sgn function and negating the right-hand side, and
inserting (9) after the operation resulted in (10). Equation (10) now has the property of the proportional
and derivative of the PID controller. Equation (11) resulted after adding the integral component in
equation (10). The improved PID control law was as given by (11). Where: e is the tracking error, ė its
derivative, G is the proportional constant, H is the derivative constant, M is the integral constant, Sedt
refers to the integral of the tracking error, f is chosen as the desired response of the system, D is a
constant and has to be greater than unity.
𝑠̇ = −𝐷 ∗ 𝑠𝑔𝑛(𝑠) − 𝐾𝑠 (8)
𝑠(𝑡) = 𝑐𝑒(𝑡) + 𝑒̇ (𝑡) (9)
𝑢 = 𝐷 ∗ 𝑠𝑔𝑛(𝑓) + 𝐾𝑐𝑒 + 𝐾𝑒̇ (10)
𝑢 = 𝐷 ∗ 𝑠𝑔𝑛(𝑓) + 𝐺𝑒 + 𝐻𝑒̇ + 𝑀𝑆𝑒𝑑𝑡 (11)

The system with the improved Proportional Integral Derivative controller (PIDC) compared with
the system implemented with the normal Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) control method.

3. Results
The presentation of results was made in an orderly manner. The first presented result was without any
disturbance effect. Next was with the positive pulse effect, followed by with the negative pulse
effects. These try to simulate what happens when the armature voltage suddenly surges and in the
second case sudden dip. It was followed with the dynamic friction reduced to 30% and then increase to
110%; in reality, the parameter is not fixed it changes. An effort was made to have a replica of real
operating conditions. The next was on reduction of the system combined moment of inertia to 30%
and then increased by 110%; which was an effort to see what happens to the system due to changes
loading. Finally, the presentation of the results was closed with its summary.

3.1. Unit step response without disturbance

Figure 1a is the unit step performance of the system without disturbance effect. Table1 gives a
tabulation of the response. Figure 1b was the error plots of the system during the transition.

2
The 5th International Conference on Marine Technology (SENTA 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1052 (2021) 012058 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1052/1/012058

Table 1. Unit step response without disturbance.

Controllers
Parameters
PID PIDC
Overshoot (%) 8.0000 0.0000
Rise time (s) 0.0700 0.1000
Settling time (s) 0.2000 0.2000

Unit step response Unit step response errors

1.4 1
REF PID
0.9 PIDC
PID
1.2
PIDC 0.8

1 0.7

0.6
Amplitude
0.8
Amplitude

0.5
0.6
0.4

0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 1. Unit step response and error graphs without disturbance.

The results from the Table 1 and Figure 1a show that the system response with the PIDC was the best.
It has no overshoot, with a rise time of 0.1s and 0.2s settling time. The system having the PID was
characterized with an overshoot of 8% overshoot, a rise time of 0.07s, settling time of 0.2 and also a
steady-state error of about 1.5% lapsing up to 2.5s response duration.
It can be seen from Figure 1b the system with the PIDC has less error accumulation than with PID.
The error is the difference between the reference and the response obtained. All the errors of the
system with both control scheme diminish with time which implied high stability tendency of the
system [13-15].

3.2. Unit step response with pulse disturbance (positive)

The response with positive pulse disturbance was as given by Figure 2a and Table 2. The disturbance
(DIS) appeared between 2.5 to 3.5s of the system response. Figure 2b is the graphical presentation of
the errors that occurred.
Table 2. Unit step response with pulse disturbance (positive).
Controllers
Parameters
PID PIDC
Overshoot (%) 8.0000 0.0000
Rise time (s) 0.0700 0.1000
Settling time (s) 0.2000 0.2000
Compensation ability (%) 93.0000 100.0000

3
The 5th International Conference on Marine Technology (SENTA 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1052 (2021) 012058 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1052/1/012058

Response with pulse disturbance(Positive) Response errors with pulse disturbance (Positive)
1.4 1
REF PID
DIS 0.9 PIDC
1.2
PID
0.8
PIDC
1 0.7

0.6
0.8
Amplitude

Amplitude
0.5
0.6
0.4

0.4 0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 2. Unit step response and error plots with positive pulse disturbance.

Figure 2a give the system response and was tabulated in Table 2. The results are similar to without
disturbance except that it can be seen that with the PIDC there was a total compensation of the
disturbance whereas with the PID it was annulled up to 93%.
Figure 2b shows the errors of the DC motor system. The system designed with the PIDC has by far
lesser amount of error compared to with the PID. The appearance of the pulse disturbance makes the
system amount of error higher than without it as presented earlier, while it remains the same with the
PIDC. This ability makes the PIDC system response better than with the PID. The errors all diminish
with time, hence the chances of the systems being stable are high.

3.3. Unit step response with pulse disturbance (negative)

The system performance response with the negative pulse disturbance was as given by Figure 3a and
Table 3. The disturbance (DIS) also lapses between 2.5 to 3.5s and Figure 3b are the errors plots of the
system.
Table 3. Unit step response with pulse disturbance (negative)
Controllers
Parameters
PID PIDC
Overshoot (%) 8.0000 0.0000
Rise time (s) 0.0700 0.1000
Settling time (s) 0.2000 0.2000
Compensation ability (%) 93.0000 100.0000

4
The 5th International Conference on Marine Technology (SENTA 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1052 (2021) 012058 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1052/1/012058

Response with pulse disturbance(Negative) Response errors with pulse disturbance (Negative)
1.5 1
REF PID
DIS 0.9 PIDC
PID
1 0.8
PIDC
0.7

0.5 0.6
Amplitude

Amplitude
0.5

0 0.4

0.3

-0.5 0.2

0.1

-1 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 3. Unit step response and plot of errors with negative pulse disturbance.

Table 3 and Figure 3a showed the tabulated results obtained which are similar to, with the positive
pulse disturbance. Except that the pulse direction is opposite.
The error plots are as given by Figure 3b. They are also similar to the ones obtained with the positive
pulse disturbance.

3.4. Unit step response with B reduced to 30%

The effect of reduction of the system dynamic friction (B) to 30% on the performance were as given
by Figure 4a which were then tabulated in Table 4. Figure 4b give the errors aroused in the process.
Table 4. Unit step response with B reduced to 30%.
Controllers
Parameters
PID PIDC
Overshoot (%) 39.0000 0.0000
Rise time (s) 0.0500 0.1000
Settling time (s) 0.3500 0.2000

B reduced to 30% B reduced to 30%

1.4 1
REF PID
PID 0.9 PIDC
1.2
PIDC
0.8

1 0.7

0.6
0.8
Amplitude

Amplitude

0.5
0.6
0.4

0.4 0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 4. Unit step response and errors portrait with B reduced to 30%.

5
The 5th International Conference on Marine Technology (SENTA 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1052 (2021) 012058 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1052/1/012058

The results in Table 4 and Figure 4a showed that the system with the PIDC has a better result. It
maintained its parameters as the case without disturbance effect. The system implemented with the PID
has its performance worsens. It resulted in 39% overshoot, settling time of 0.35s and also has a steady-
state error of about 1% throughout.
In terms of the errors resulted, the system with the PIDC has the least which was same as without
any disturbance. It worsens for the system with the PID as illustrated by Figure 4b. The dying-out nature
of the error graphs indicates the possibility of the systems to be stable.

3.5. Unit step response with B increased by 110%

The results achieved for the system with its dynamic friction (B) added by 100% as illustrated by Figure
5a. Table 5 shows the results in tabular form and Figure 5b portrays the resulted errors of the system.
Table 5. Unit step response with B increased to 110%.
Controllers
Parameters
PID PIDC
Overshoot (%) 0.0000 0.0000
Rise time (s) 0.0500 0.1000
Settling time (s) 0.2500 0.2000

B increased by 110% B increased by 110%

1.4 1
REF PID
PID 0.9 PIDC
1.2
PIDC
0.8

1 0.7

0.6
0.8
Amplitude

Amplitude

0.5
0.6
0.4

0.4 0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 5. Unit step response and errors graph with B increased by 110%.

Figure 5a and Table 5 are illustrations of the system performance. The system response, with the
PIDC, was the same as without any disturbance effect and with B reduced to 30%. Here as well it was
better than with PID. Although there is a bit of improvement with PID compared to when the B was
30% in terms of the other parameters, the 1.5% steady-state error still exist.
The PIDC maintain the lead in terms of the amount of error resulted as shown in Figure 5b. The error
of the system with the PID reduced compared to the previous case. The resulted errors also diminished
with time. Hence, indicating the likelihood of system stability.

3.6. Unit step response with J reduced to 30%

Presented in Table 6 was the system performance obtained with the combined moment of inertia reduced
by 50% which ties to perceive what happens when the loading effect suddenly decreases by close to
50% on the motor system. Figure 6a also shows the response while Figure 6b is the resulting system
errors.

6
The 5th International Conference on Marine Technology (SENTA 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1052 (2021) 012058 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1052/1/012058

Table 6. Unit step response with J Reduced to 30%

Controllers
Parameters
PID PIDC
Overshoot (%) 0.0000 0.0000
Rise time (s) 0.0500 0.1000
Settling time (s) 0.2000 0.2000

J reduced to 30% J reduced to 30%

1.4 1
REF PID
PID 0.9 PIDC
1.2
PIDC
0.8

1 0.7

0.6
0.8
Amplitude

Amplitude
0.5
0.6
0.4

0.4 0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 6. Unit step response and plot of errors with J decreased to 30%.

The system performance as given by Figure 6a and Table 6. The overshoot, rise time and settling
time for the PIDC remained as 0%, 0.1s and 0.2s respectively, which are 0%, 0.05s and 0.2s with the
PID. The system with the PID still has the 1.5% steady-state error which in this case diminishes to about
1% around 2.5s and continues to the end.
Regarding the errors as shown in Figure 6b. It was same for the PIDC and it was lesser with the
reduced J and all subsided with time, hence, an indication of stability.

3.7. Unit step response with J increased by 110%

The response with the moment of inertia raised by 110% is as given by Table 7 and Figure 7a. Figure
7b was the graphs of the errors.
Table 7. Unit step response with J Increased by 110%
Controllers
Parameters
PID PIDC
Overshoot (%) 20.0000 0.0000
Rise time (s) 0.1000 0.1000
Settling time (s) 0.3000 0.2000

7
The 5th International Conference on Marine Technology (SENTA 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1052 (2021) 012058 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1052/1/012058

J increased by 110% J increased by 110%

1.4 1
REF PID
PID 0.9 PIDC
1.2
PIDC
0.8

1 0.7

0.6
0.8
Amplitude

Amplitude
0.5
0.6
0.4

0.4 0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 7. Unit step response and errors plot with J increased by 110%.

Figure 7a shows the system response and its summary in Table 7. The system with the PIDC was
better. Performance of the system with the PID worsened in terms of overshoot and settling time
compared with reduced J to 30%.
The error plots were as given in Figure 7b. The PIDC has the least amount of error. The errors here
also all die-down with time portraying high probability of the system stability.

3.8. Summary of results

The system was subjected to different test and results revealed the high robustness of the PIDC. Despite
the varying conditions the system implemented using the PIDC maintained the same results throughout
which was the same as without any changes. Some level of robustness was shown by the system with
PID which changes as the level of disturbance changes. An insight into the system stability was the
dying-away of the error signals under all conditions. Hence, the proposed control scheme has portrayed
the ability to remarkably improve the motor control system.

4. Conclusion
The improved PID controller PIDC was successfully applied for control of an armature controlled DC
motor. It was evaluated most likely associated disturbances referred to as the positive pulse effect and
the negative pulse effects; these were to simulate what happens when the armature voltage suddenly
increases and in the latter case sudden decrease. Others are the dynamic friction reduction to 30% and
increase to 110%; to simulate changes in the dynamic friction which is, in reality, is not fixed it changes.
Next was the reduced system moment of inertia to 30% and then increased by 110%; which was an
effort to simulate what happens to the system due to changes loading. Even though different conditions
are imposed on the system, the system implemented with the PIDC maintained the same results
throughout which was the same as without any disturbance injected. Thus, a high level of robustness of
the PIDC was portrayed. A certain level of robustness was shown by the system with PID which changes
depending on the introduced perturbation. Information on the system stability was revealed as the error
die away with time under all examined conditions meaning that the system has a high chance of being
stable under the conditions. Therefore, the presented control method has indicated the ability to
remarkably improve the armature controlled motor control system. It may not be limited to such a system
as further works could reveal other possibilities. Hence, it indicated that the PID could still withstand
future developments while maintaining its characteristics of being simple and cheap. The work is novel
in the sense that to best of the authors there no such proposed.

8
 The 5th International Conference on Marine Technology (SENTA 2020) IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1052 (2021) 012058 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1052/1/012058

References
[1] J. Fu, J.-C. Maré, and Y. Fu, "Modelling and simulation of flight control electromechanical
actuators with special focus on model architecting, multidisciplinary effects and power flows,"
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 30, pp. 47-65, 2017.
[2] B. Drury, Control techniques drives and controls handbook: IET, 2001.
[3] H. Lendenmann, R. R. Moghaddam, A. Tammi, and L.-E. Thand, "Motoring ahead," ABB review,
2011.
[4] A. Rubaai and R. Kotaru, "Online identification and control of a DC motor using learning
adaptation of neural networks," IEEE Transactions on industry applications, vol. 36, pp. 935-
942, 2000.
[5] A. Bernard, "Speed control of separately excited DC motor using artificial intelligent approach,"
Masters, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 2013.
[6] W. I. Hameed and K. A. Mohamad, "Speed control of separately excited dc motor using fuzzy
neural model reference controller," International Journal of Instrumentation and Control Systems
(IJICS) Vol, vol. 2, pp. 27-39, 2012.
[7] A. Sadiq, G. Bakare, E. Anene, and H. B. Mamman, "A fuzzy-based speed control of DC motor
using combined armature voltage and field current," IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 46, pp.
387-392, 2013.
[8] A. Sadiq, H. Mamman, and M. Ahmed, "Field current speed control of direct current motor using
fuzzy logic technique," International Journal of Information and Computation Technology, vol.
3, pp. 751-756, 2013.
[9] A. Sadiq, H. Mamman, and I. Musa, "Fuzzy Speed Control of Separately Excited DC Motor Using
Armature Voltage Control Method," in The International Conference on Digital Information
Processing, E-Business and Cloud Computing (DIPECC), 2013, p. 225.
[10] A. Rajasekhar, S. Das, and A. Abraham, "Fractional order PID controller design for speed control
of chopper fed DC motor drive using artificial bee colony algorithm," in 2013 World Congress
on Nature and Biologically Inspired Computing, 2013, pp. 259-266.
[11] A. Rajasekhar, R. K. Jatoth, and A. Abraham, "Design of intelligent PID/PIλDμ speed controller
for chopper fed DC motor drive using opposition based artificial bee colony algorithm,"
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, vol. 29, pp. 13-32, 2014.
[12] C. Lynch and M. Popovic, "Closed-loop control for FES: Past work and future directions," in 10th
Annual Conference of the International FES Society, 2005, pp. 2-4.
[13] N. S. Nise, CONTROL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, (With CD): John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
[14] J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied nonlinear control vol. 199: Prentice hall Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1991.
[15] H. K. Khalil, "Nonlinear systems, 3rd," New Jewsey, Prentice Hall, vol. 9, 2002.

View publication stats