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

net/publication/281985672

Regulation of a pump-tank-sensor system using two fractional-order

controllers

Article · January 2013

CITATION READS

1 50

3 authors, including:

Roy Daou Francis Clovis

Lebanese German University Lebanese University
86 PUBLICATIONS   255 CITATIONS    99 PUBLICATIONS   687 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

NDD tool - Parkinson patients View project

Vehicle Dynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roy Daou on 25 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

REGULATION OF A PUMP-TANK-SENSOR SYSTEM USING TWO FRACTIONAL-ORDER CONTROLLERS

Roy ABI ZEID DAOU*/**, Xavier MOREAU* and Clovis FRANCIS***

*
University of Bordeaux 1, laboratory IMS, Department LAPS,

33405 Talence cedex, France - emails: {prenom.nom}@ims-bordeaux.fr

**
Faculty of Public Health, Biomedical Technologies department, Lebanese German University, Sahel Alma

– P.O. Box: 206, Jounieh, Lebanon - email: {r.abizeiddaou@lgu.edu.lb}

***
Faculty of Engineering I, Lebanese University, Tripoli, Lebanon - email: {cfrancis@ul.edu.lb}

Abstract: This article presents a comparative study of the regulators of a hydro-

electromechanical system, composed of two pumps, a uniform tank and a level sensor.

Both controllers are fractional orders where the first one is the generalized PID controller

and the second one is the CRONE (French acronym: Commande Robuste d’Ordre Non

Entier) controller. In a first time, the transfer function of the plant is presented after

identification (using the gray-box method) and simplification process. Then, the realisation

of both regulators is shown where the first controller (generalized PID) is obtained after

imposing the regulator model whereas the second one is deduced using the open-loop

constraints. At the end, a comparison between the behaviour of both controllers is made in

the frequency domain around some functional points of the plant as its transfer function is

nonlinear.

Keywords: Grey-box modelling approach, Generalized PID and CRONE controllers,

Fractional calculus.
1. INTRODUCTION

The fractional calculation was introduced in the 19th century by well-known mathematicians as Laplace,

Liouville, Abel, Riemann, Cauchy,... [1] but its application in the physics domain has not started before the

second half of the following century [2-7]. As far as the control systems are concerned, the fractional

calculus was introduced markedly by Manabe in 1961 [8] then by Oustaloup [9] in 1975 when he introduced

the control of laser by a regulator of order 3/2. This experiment had led to the development of the CRONE

command.

As for the PID controller, this regulator is one of the eldest and most used regulators. It was firstly developed

in its integer form by Ziegler and Nichols in 1942 [10]. Many approaches were developed in order to

calculate or to fine tune the optimal values of the regulator parameters [11-12].

As for the fractional or generalized PID controller, it has been implemented in the last part of the 20th

century. Two main approaches of the generalized PID were mainly developed: the cascade form and the

summation form. One of the most recent forms of the generalized PID was introduced by Poldubny [13]

using the summation approach. Hence, the transfer function of this controller is as follow:

C (s ) = k p + k i / s λ + k d s μ , (1)

where λ and η represent the differentiation and integration orders which can be real. When these two

parameters are equal to the unit, the well-known integer PID controller is obtained. Numerous algorithms

were introduced to tune the five parameters of this controller in order to get a more reliable and robust system

[14] [15] [16] [17] [18].

One of the essential reasons that had led to the use of the CRONE and the generalized PID controllers is the

huge difference in the synthesis method applied to get the transfer functions for both regulators. These

approaches can be resumed as follow:

- the structure of the generalized PID is fixed a priori from traditional PID in cascade form;
- the structure of the CRONE is deduced a posteriori from the loop shaping.

Before starting the calculation of both controllers transfer function, the hydro-electromechanical composed of

a double-direction electropump (it fills and empties the main tank), two tanks and a level sensor is

introduced. A level disturbance is introduced by a second electropump. In order to calculate the plant transfer

function, a grey-box approach [19] is used to derive a model that represents the most the behaviour of this

hydro-electromechanical system. This approach combines physical knowledge and information coming from

test-bench tests and measurements. Once the plant transfer function is defined, both controllers are calculated

in order to respond to special performance specifications.

In more details, this article is composed as follow: in section 2, the synthesis method for both controllers is

presented. The specifications are first shown then the approaches used to calculate the generalized PID

controller and the CRONE controller are introduced. In section 3, the plant test bench based on the hydro-

electromechanical is presented. The identification method is developed then the plant transfer function is

deduced. Based on the plant transfer function, both the PID and the CRONE controllers are calculated with

respect to the specifications proposed in the previous section. At the end, the simulation results and the test

bench outputs are presented. Finally, section 4 presents a conclusion and some perspectives for this work.

2. SYNTHESIS METHODS

A. Performance specifications

The performance specifications concern:

• the stability degree;

• the bandwidth;

• the precision in steady state;

• the rejection level of the measured noise;

 • the rejection level of the output perturbation;

• the plant input sensitivity.

In the following, the study is limited in the frequency domain. So, the stability degree can be specified with

respect to the module margin MM, the gain margin MG or the phase margin MФ. The last one will be used in

this article. Thus,

M Φ = π + arg β ( jωu ) , (2)

where β(s) represents the open-loop transfer function and ωu the crossover frequency in the open loop

defined such as:

β ( jωu ) = 1 . (3)

The stability degree specification can be presented as the following constraint:

M Φ ≥ M Φmin , (4)

where M Φ min represents the minimal acceptable value of the phase margin. In substituting relation (4) in

equation (2), the constraint of the open-loop argument for the crossover frequency ωu is easily computed as

follow:

arg β ( jωu ) ≥ − π + M Φmin . (5)

The argument of the controller can be deduced for equation (5) in respect to equation (6)

arg β ( jω ) = arg C ( jω ) + arg G( jω ) , (6)

where G(s) represents the plant transfer function. Hence, the reduced form of the controller argument

constraint at the crossover frequency is:

arg C( jωu ) ≥ − π + M Φmin − arg G( jωu ) . (7)

The bandwidth specification is also computed at the crossover frequency ωu. The objective of this constraint

is to fix the closed-loop dynamics speed. Hence, the frequency range that is concerned by this condition is
 ωu ≥ ωu min , (8)

where ωu min represents the minimal acceptable value of ωu. Referring to equation (3) and knowing that:

β ( jω ) = C( jω ) G( jω ) , (9)

a controller gain constraint at the frequency ωu can be deduced from relation (8) as follow:

C ( jωu ) ≥ G ( jωu min ) .

−1
(10)

Concerning the rejection level of the measured noise, it is calculated using a specification applied to the

complementary sensitivity function module as follow:

T ( jω ) = β ( jω ) 1 + β ( jω )
−1
∀ ω ≥ ωT , ≤ A, (11)

where A shows the desired rejected noise level for the given frequency ωT:

T ( jωT ) = A . (12)

If the value of ωT is chosen to be much bigger than ωu, relation (12) can be rewritten as:

∀ ω ≥ ωT , T ( jω ) ≈ β ( jω ) ≤ A . (13)

Hence, a new controller gain constraint around the frequency ωT is deduced from relation (11) as follow:

C ( jω ) ≤ A G ( jωT ) .
−1
∀ ω ≥ ωT , (14)

The rejection level of the output disturbance is used for low frequencies (ωS < ωu) and is computed using a

specification of the sensitivity module function as follow:

S ( jω ) = 1 + β ( jω )
−1
∀ ω ≤ ωS , ≤ B, (15)

where B represents the desired rejected output disturbance level for the frequency ωS:

S ( jωS ) = B . (16)

When choosing ωS << ωu, relation (15) can be written as follow:

 S ( jω ) ≈ β ( jω )
−1
∀ ω ≤ ωS , ≤B . (17)

Hence, a new controller gain constraint around the frequency ωS is deduced from relation (15) as follow:

C ( jω ) ≥ (B G ( jω S ) ) .
−1
∀ ω ≤ ωS , (18)

The plant input sensitivity is computed using a specification of the form:

R( jω ) = C ( jω ) (1 + β ( jω ))
−1
∀ ω ≥ ωR , ≤ D, (19)

where D represents the maximal value at the frequency ωR:

R( jωR ) = D . (20)

As for the third condition, if the frequency ωR is much bigger than ωu, the relation (19) can be rewritten as:

∀ ω >> ωR , C( jω ) ≤ D . (21)

The constraints (14) and (21) represent almost the same aspect which is the controller gain at high

frequencies. Hence, they can be reduced to one constraint by choosing the lowest value of these two

relations. Thus,

∀ ω >> ωu , C ( jω ) ≤ Min A G( jωT ) , D . [ −1

] (22)

B. Generalized PID controller

Two forms are the most used for representing the generalized PID controller: the parallel form and the

cascade form. This second one is used in this article. The transfer function can be presented as follow:

C (s ) = C0 C I (s ) CD (s ) , (23)

⎛⎛
λ
⎞ ⎛ ⎞⎞
⎜⎜ s s ⎟⎟
C I (s ) = 1 +
⎟ ⎜
⎜⎜ ⎟ / ⎜ ⎟⎟ (24)
with ⎜⎜
⎜ ⎜⎝
⎝
ω ⎟⎟
i ⎠
⎜⎜
⎝
ω ⎟⎟ ⎟
i ⎠ ⎟⎠

⎛⎛
μ
⎞ ⎛ ⎞⎞
⎜⎜ s s ⎟⎟
CD (s ) = 1 +
⎟ ⎜
and ⎜⎜ ⎟ / 1+
⎜ ⎟⎟
, (25)
⎜⎜
⎜ ⎜⎝
⎝
ω⎟⎟
b⎠
⎜⎜
⎝
ω ⎟⎟ ⎟
h ⎠ ⎟⎠
where ωi, ωb et ωh are the transitional frequencies, C0 is a constant, λ the integration and μ the differentiation

real order.

As previously mentioned, the computation of the PID transfer function is done directly according to the

specifications.

In order to have a more reduced form of the PID transfer function, let’s introduce some new variables as

follow:

a = ωh / ωb , b = ωu / ωi and ωm = ωb ωh , (26)

where ωm represents the frequency for which the controller phase is maximal (e.g., ϕm = Max[argC(jω)] =

argC(jωm)). Inserting ωu in equation (23) leads to below PID function:

μ
λ ⎛⎜ ⎞
⎟
⎛
1 + b s /ω ⎞
1 + a s /ω
C (s ) = C
⎜ ⎟ ⎜
⎜ u ⎟ u ⎟
⎜ ⎟ . (27)
b s /ω ⎛ ⎞⎟
0 ⎜ ⎟⎟
⎜
⎝ u ⎠
⎜
⎜ 1 + s / ⎜⎜ a ω ⎟
u ⎟⎠ ⎟
⎝ ⎝ ⎠

Hence, the PID module and phase are given by:

μ/2
⎧ ⎛ ⎞
λ /2 ⎜
⎪ C ( jω ) =C ⎛⎜1 + (bω / ω ) 2 ⎞⎟ (bω / ω ) − λ ⎜
⎜ 1 + a ⎛⎜
⎝
ω / ω ⎞⎟ 2 ⎟
u⎠ ⎟
⎟
⎪⎪ ⎝ ⎠ −
0 u u ⎜ ⎟
⎜1 + a
1 ⎛⎜
ω / ω ⎞⎟ 2 ⎟
⎨ ⎝ ⎝ u⎠ ⎠ (28)
⎪arg C ( jω )=λ (arctan (bω / ωu ) − π / 2 )
⎪
⎩⎪ ( ( )
+ μ arctan a ω / ωu − arctan ω / a ωu ( ( )))
At the open-loop crossover frequency ωu, relation (28) can be rewritten as follow:

⎧Cu = C ( jωu ) = C0 (1 + b2 )λ / 2 b − λ a μ / 2
⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪ϕ u = arg C ( jωu ) = λ (arctan(b ) − π / 2 )
. (29)
⎪
⎩ ( ( )
+ μ arctan a − arctan 1 / a ( ))
If b >> 1 (minimization of the noise effect caused by the integration due to the phase delay of ωu), system

(29)becomes:
 ⎧Cu = C ( jωu ) = C0 a μ / 2
⎪
⎨ , (30)
⎪ϕ = arg C ( jω ) = λ (arctan(b ) − π / 2 ) + ϕ
⎩ u u m

where ϕ m = μ arcsin((a − 1) / (a + 1)) . (31)

After recalculating the controller module and phase at central frequency ωu, we obtain for low frequencies (ω

<< ωu)

C ( jω ) ≈ C0 (ωu / (b ω )) and arg C ( jω ) ≈ − λ π / 2 ,

λ
(32)

and for high frequencies (ω >> ωu)

C ( jω ) ≈ C0 a μ and arg C ( jω ) ≈ 0 . (33)

Considering the system (28), the constraints of relations (7), (10), (14), (18) and (21), valid independently of

the controller nature, can be rewritten to suit best the generalized PID controller as follow:

λ (arctan(b) − π / 2) + ϕ m ≥ − π + M Φ − arg G ( jωu ) ,

min
(34)

λ /2
C0 ⎛⎜1 + b2 ⎞⎟ b − λ a μ / 2 ≥ G ( jωu min ) ,
−1
(35)
⎝ ⎠

C0 a μ ≤ A G ( jωT )
−1
∀ ω ≥ ωT , (36)

C0 (ωu / (b ω )) ≥ (B G ( jωS ) )
λ −1
∀ ω ≤ ωS , (37)

and ∀ ω >> ωR , C0 a μ ≤ D . (38)

In order to determine the optimal values of the parameters vector θ = [C0, b, a, λ, μ], two phases are required.

The first one depends on the initial values of the vector θ and the second phase involves the search for the

optimal values of this vector.

In order to accomplish the first phase, the five following steps must be achieved.

1 – Let’s λ = 1, μ = 1, b = 10, ωu = ωu min and M Φ = M Φmin ;

2 – One calculates ρ 0 = C I ( jωu ) G ( jωu ) and Φ 0 = arg C I ( jωu ) + arg G ( jωu ) ;

3 – One deduces ϕ m = M Φ − π − Φ 0 ;

4 – One calculates the value of a with respect to the relation (31): a = (1 + sin ϕ m ) / (1 − sin ϕ m ) ;

C0 = (a μ / 2 ρ 0 ) .
−1
5 – Knowing that β ( jωu ) = 1 , one deduces the value of C0 as follow:

The second phase consists on determining the optimal values of the vector θ. Two methods can be used in

this case: the genetic algorithms or the optimization toolbox of Matlab and its function fmincon.

In this article, the second method is used. This function requires a large number of inputs and returns the five

values of the vector θ once all five relations ((34) to (38)) are valid. The initial vector and the lower and

upper bound vectors have a big impact on the output values. Note that, in order to emphasize the fractional

behaviour of the generalized PID controller, the value of the integrator and differentiator orders, λ and η,

should vary between 0.1 and 0.9.

C. CRONE Controller

The second approach used to design a controller, presented in this article, is based on defining this regulator

with respect to the open-loop constraints (robust loop shaping). The CRONE controller is designed using this

method.

Hence, the first step consists on defining the necessary specifications for the synthesis of the nominal plant

transfer function. The frequency approach is also used in this part as the calibration of the sensitivity

functions is easier.

The second step consists on reassigning the frequency closed-loop specifications into open-loop frequency

specifications for the nominal plant. These new conditions take into account the plant behaviour at:

• low frequencies in order to have good accuracy in the steady state;

• middle frequencies, especially around the frequency ωu, to get the stability degree robustness;
• high frequencies to have good input plant sensitivity.

Once the behaviour of the system in the open-loop is defined, a decision should me made concerning the

CRONE generation that will be used. This decision depends on the plant uncertainties. If these uncertainties

a related to the gain while the phase is constant, the second generation CRONE control is sufficient [9]. If

both the gain and the phase vary, the third generation CRONE control must be used. In this paper, we are

interested in the second generation as the third one presents complex differentiation and integration orders,

and the use of special programs is a must to solve such equations [9].

Hence, the open-loop behaviour due to the plant gain uncertainties leads to the following transfer function:

nb n
⎛ 1 + s /ω b ⎞ ⎛ 1 + s /ω h ⎞
β ( s ) = β 0 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (1 + s /ω h )−nh , (39)
⎝ s /ω b ⎠ ⎝ 1 + s /ω b ⎠

where ωb and ωh represent the low and high transitional frequencies, n is the fractional order varying between

1 and 2, nb and nh are the asymptotic order behaviours for low and high frequencies and β0 is a constant that

assure a unit gain at the frequency ωu. This constant is calculated as follow:

(
β 0 = (ωu /ω b )2 1 + (ωu /ω b )2 )( n −nb ) / 2
(1 + (ω
u )
2 ( nh −n ) / 2
/ω h ) (40)

Knowing that β ( s ) = C crone (s ) G (s ) , (41)

the CRONE transfer function Ccrone(s) is deduced for the nominal plant value, which is to say:

Ccrone (s ) = β ( s ) / G (s ) . (42)

3. TEST BENCH APPLICATION

A. Presentation of the test bench

The test bench, used to test the behaviour of both controllers, is a hydro-electromechanical system constituted

of:
- a double-direction electropump that can fill or empty the main tank,

- a secondary tank,

- a second electropump used to introduce a level disturbance in the main tank,

- a level sensor that measures the water level in the main tank,

- and a data acquisition board that enables the communication between the hydro-electromechanical system

and the LabVIEW© program.

Figure 1 shows the physical test bench. Figure 2 represents the closed-loop functional block diagram of the

hydro-electromechanical system.

Fig.1 – Hydro-electromechanical test bench

Control Flow disturbance

Electropump 2
signal (V) (m3/s)

Reference + Error Control Hydraulic Hydraulic Level Measured

Controller Electropump 1 + flow (m3/s)
Tank Level sensor
Input (V) signal (V) signal (V) flow (m3/s) (m) Level (V)
-

Fig. 2 – Functional block diagram of the hydro-electromechanical system

B. Plant model

Advanced control design requires a model that describes process behaviour adequately. Such a model can be

constructed using physical modelling (white-box model) or statistical identification techniques (black-box

model). Both have their disadvantages: physical models are rigorous and thus often expensive to construct,

while black-box model structures are not necessarily compatible with physical reality. Since both approaches

have undeniable merits as well, their combination seems to be attractive and rewarding.

In this study, a grey-box approach [19] is used to derive a model of the plant. This approach combines

physical knowledge and information embedded in data. More precisely, the model structure is deduced from

physical principles and the values of the unknown parameters of the model structure are estimated from

measured data series around three operating points. The structure model is given by

H ( s ) = k / (s (1 + s / ω0 )) , (43)

where k is a constant and ω0 a transitional frequency.

The parameters k and ω0 are estimated from “System Identification Toolbox” of Matlab (output error

estimation method). A PRBS (Pseudo Random Binary Signal) is used as the input signal. Its amplitude varies

between ± 2.5V whereas the minimal allowed period is 2 seconds and the number of samples 16. This input

signal is applied to the electropump1 around three operating points (three levels in the tank: 2/4/6 cm) in

order to respect small variations (±2cm) of level.

The values of k and ω0 for each functional point are given in table 1.

Operating Point Level (cm) K (V/V) ω0 (rad/s)

1st 2 8.30 10-4 4.0 10-3

2nd 4 5.90 10-4 3.8 10-3

 3rd 6 2.24 10-4 3.6 10-3

Max/Min 3.7 1.11

Table 1 – Values of k and ω0 for each functional point

As the transitional frequency values ω0 for each operating points are very close, the two controllers are

designed from an uncertain model given by (43) with:

[ ]
k ∈ 2.24 × 10−4 , 8.30 × 10−4 , ω0 = 3.36 × 10−3 rad/s. (44)

Figure 3.a presents the Bode plots of H(jω) obtained for the three operating points.

For the controller synthesis, the nominal model is arbitrary fixed by the third operating point (knom = 2.24 10-4

V/V).

C. User constraints

Once the uncertain model transfer function is defined, the user constraints applied to synthesize both

controllers are presented in this section:

- The stability degree: M Φ min = 45° ⇔ QT max = 3 dB ,

where QTmax is the maximum of the complementary sensitivity function (resonance peak);

- The bandwidth : ωu min = 0.0108 rad / s ;

- The rejection level of the measured noise:

∀ ω ≥ ωT = 0.108 rad / s, T ( jω ) ≤ 0.1 ;

- The rejection level of the output perturbation:

∀ ω ≤ ω S = 0.00108 rad / s, S ( jω ) ≤ 0.1 ;

- The plant input sensitivity:

 ∀ ω ≥ ω R = 10.8 rad / s, R ( jω ) ≤ 100 .

D. Controllers synthesis

Considering the model transfer function and its uncertainties, the user specifications and the synthesis

methods for the generalized PID and the CRONE controllers, the generalized PID transfer function is as

follow:

0.2
⎛ ⎞ 0.698
⎜
1 + s / 8.3 10− 4 ⎟⎟ ⎛
1 + s / 7.95 10− 3 ⎞⎟⎟
CPID (s ) = 50 ⎜ ⎜
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ , (45)
⎜
⎜ s / 8.3 10 −4 ⎟
⎟
⎜⎜
⎝ 1 + s / 1.47 10− 2 ⎟⎟⎠
⎝ ⎠

whereas the CRONE transfer function is:

⎛ ⎞ 0.5435
⎜ 1 + s / 36 10 − 4 ⎟ ⎛⎜ 1 + s / 6.98 10
−4 ⎞
Ccrone (s ) = 2.41 10 5 ⎟
⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (46)
⎜ −7 ⎛ ⎟ ⎜
⎜
⎝
s / 4.87 10 ⎜⎝1 + s / 0.5014 ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠ ⎜⎝ 1 + s / 0.5014 ⎟⎟⎠
⎞

Figure 3.b shows the Bode plots of both controllers.

E. Simulation results

Figures 4 present the open-loop Bode plots obtained with the generalized PID controller (Fig.4.a) and the

CRONE controller (Fig.4.b) around the first (in green) and third (in blue) operating points.

Figures 5 also show the open-loop Nichols loci obtained with the generalized PID controller (Fig.5.a) and

with the CRONE controller (Fig.5.b) around the first (in green) and third (in blue) operating points.

With the CRONE controller, the phase margin (45°) and the module margin (3 dB) remain constant for the

extreme values of k: illustration of the stability degree robustness versus gain uncertainties in frequency

domain.

Figures 6, 7 and 8 present the different sensitivity functions obtained with the generalized PID controller

(Fig.6.a, Fig.7.a, Fig.8.a) and with the CRONE controller (Fig.6.b, Fig.7.b, Fig.8.b) around the first (in green)

and third (in blue) operating points. For the nominal operating point (3rd point, in blue), all performance

bounds are respected, except for the input sensitivity function obtained with the generalized PID controller
(Fig.8.a). For the first operating point (in green), all performance bounds are also respected, except for the

stability degree (Fig.7.a, in green) and for the input sensitivity function obtained with the generalized PID

controller (Fig.8.a).

Figure 9 shows the closed-loop step responses obtained with the generalized PID controller (Fig.9.a) and

with the CRONE controller (Fig.9.b) around the first (in green) and third (in blue) operating points. With the

CRONE controller, the first overshoot and the damping remain constant for the extreme values of k:

illustration of the stability degree robustness versus gain uncertainties in time domain.

E. Test bench results

Figures 10 and 11 present the measured level in the main tank and the control signal in rejection mode

obtained with the generalized PID controller (Fig.10.a, Fig.11.a) and with the CRONE controller (Fig.10.b,

Fig.11.b) around the first (in red) and third (in blue) operating points. One notes that:

- the static error is nil with the CRONE controller, it is not the case with the generalized PID controller;

- the control signal remains smaller than the saturation value (±6V).

4. CONCLUSION

In this article, the synthesis methods of two fractional order controllers were presented. These controllers

treated in this work are the generalized PID and the CRONE regulators. The main difference between these

two controllers is the way the structure is defined. The generalized PID controller structure is fixed a priori

whereas the CRONE controller is deduced a posteriori using the loop shaping.

The performance specifications have been firstly translated into open-loop constraints in order to deduce the

CRONE controller transfer function. Then, they were translated into controller constraints for the calculation

of the generalized PID transfer function. In order to determine the five optimal parameters of the generalized
PID, a method with two steps has been proposed:

- in the first step, the three optimal parameters of the traditional PID controller were calculated after

supposing that the integrator and differentiator orders are integers and equal to the unit. These three

parameters were defined using a classical frequency-domain design method;

- in the second step, an optimization process is simulated under MatLab is used in order to determine the five

optimal parameters.

The last part of this article contains a comparative study of a nonlinear hydro-electromechanical plant

controlled by these two regulators that were calculated based on the same specification. The results obtained

in simulation and with the test bench have shown the interest of this study.
Plant : control tension->sensor tension 100
20
Generalized PID
0 80 CRONE
Gain (dB)

-20 60
Gain (dB)

-40
40
-60
20
-80 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10
-100
-90
50
1st point
2nd point
Phase (deg.)

3rd point
Phase (deg)

0
-135

-50

-180 -100
-4 -3 -2 -1 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 3 – Frequency responses of the plant for the three functional points (blue: first point; green: second

point; red: third point) (a) and Bode plots of the PID (in blue) and the CRONE (in red) controllers (b)
 100 100
3rd point 3rd point
50 50 1st point
1st point
Gain (dB)

Gain (dB)
0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s)

-90 -90

Phase (deg)
Phase (deg.)

-135 -135

-180 -180

-225 -225
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 4 – Open-loop Bode plots for the generalized PID controller (a) and for the CRONE controller (b)

Open-loop with PID controller Open-loop with CRONE controller

40 40
0 dB 0 dB
30 30

20 1 dB 20 1 dB
Open-Loop Gain (dB)
Open-Loop Gain (dB)

10 3 dB 10 3 dB
6 dB 6 dB
0 0

-10 -10

-20 -20

-30 -30

-40 -40
-270 -225 -180 -135 -90 -45 0 -270 -225 -180 -135 -90 -45 0
Open-Loop Phase (deg) Open-Loop Phase (deg)

(a) (b)

Fig. 5 – 0pen-loop Nichols loci obtained with the generalized PID controller (a)

and the CRONE controller (b)

 10 10

0 0

Sensitivity function (dB)

Sensitivity function (dB)

-10 -10

-20 dB -20 dB
-20 -20

3rd point
1st point
-30 -30

-40 -40

-50 -50
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10ω S = 0.00108 rad/s10 10 10 10 10ω S = 0.00108 rad/s10 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 6 – Sensitivity functions with: (a) the generalized PID controller, (b) the CRONE controller

10 10
QTmax = 3 dB 3rd point QTmax = 3 dB 3rd point
1st point 1st point
0 0
- 3 dB - 3 dB
Complementary Sensitivity function (dB)

Complementary Sensitivity function (dB)

-10 -10

-20 dB -20 dB
-20 -20

-30 -30

-40 -40

-50 -50

-60 -60
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
10 10 ω umin = 0.0108 rad/s 10 10 10 10 ω umin = 0.0108 rad/s 10 10
Frequency (rad/s) ω T = 0.108 rad/s Frequency (rad/s) ω T = 0.108 rad/s

(a) (b)

Fig. 7 – Complementary sensitivity functions with: (a) the generalized PID controller, (b) the CRONE

controller
 60 60

50 50
Input Sensitivity function (dB)

Input Sensitivity function (dB)

40 dB 40 dB
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10
3rd point 3rd point
1st point 1st point
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
ω R = 10.8 rad/s ω R = 10.8 rad/s
Frequency (rad/s) Frequency (rad/s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 8 – Input sensitivity functions with: (a) the generalized PID controller, (b) the CRONE controller

Step reponses with PID controller Step reponses with CRONE controller
1.6 1.6
3rd point 3rd point
1st point 1st point
1.4 1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1
vm(t) (volt)
vm(t) (volt)

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 9 – Step responses with: (a) the generalized PID controller, (b) the CRONE controller
 0.005 0.005

0 0

-0.005 -0.005
Measured level (V)

Measured level (V)

-0.01 -0.01

-0.015 -0.015

reference input reference input

-0.02 output for 1st point -0.02 output for 3rd point
output for 3rd point output for 1st point

-0.025 -0.025
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 10 – Output responses in rejection mode with: (a) the generalized PID controller,

(b) the CRONE controller

6 6
control signal for 3rd point control input for 3rd point
5 control signal for 1st point 5 control input for 1st point
input disturbance input disturbance

4 4
Control signal (V)

Control signal (V)

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) (b)

Fig. 11 – Control signal responses in rejection mode with: (a) the generalized PID controller,

(b) the CRONE controller

REFERENCES

[1] Dugowson S. Les différentielles métaphysiques : histoire et philosophie de la généralisation de l’ordre de

dérivation, Thèse de Doctorat de l’Université Paris Nord, 1994.

[2] Cois O. Systèmes linéaires non entiers et identification par modèle non entier : application en thermique,

Thèse de Doctorat de l’Université Bordeaux 1, 2002.

[3] Lin J. Modélisation et identification de systèmes d'ordre non entier, Thèse de Doctorat, Université de

Poitiers, 2001.

[4] Miller K.S. and Ross B. An introduction to the fractional calculus and fractional differential equations, A

Wiley-Interscience Publication, 1993.

[5] Oldham K.B. and Spanier J. The fractional calculus, Academic Press, New-York and London, 1974.

[6] Oustaloup A. La dérivation non entière : théorie, synthèse et applications, Edition Hermès, Paris, 1995.

[7] Samko S. G., Kilbas A. A. and Marichev O. I. Fractional integrals and derivatives: theory and

applications., Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1993.

[8] Manabe S. The non-integer integral and its application to control systems. ETJ of Japan, Vol. 6, pp.83-87,

1961.

[9] Oustaloup A. Etude et réalisation d'un système d'asservissement d'ordre 3/2 de la fréquence d'un laser à

colorant continu. Thèse de Docteur-Ingénieur, Université Bordeaux 1, 1975.

[10] Ziegler J. G. and Nichols N. B. Optimum settings for automatic controllers. Transactions of ASME,

vol. 64, pp. 759-768, 1942.

[11] Asröm K. J. and Hägglund T. The future of PID control. IFAC Workshop on Digital Control, Past,

Present and Future of PID Control, pp. 19-30, Terressa, Spain, 2000.

[12] Chen Y. Q., Hu C. H. and Moore K. L. Relay feedback tuning of robust PID controllers with iso-

damping property. 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Maui, Hawaii, USA, 2003.
[13] Podlubny I. Fractional-order systems and PID-controllers. IEEE Transaction on Automatic Control,

Vol.44, pp.208-214, 1999.

[14] Vinagre B. M., Podlubny I., Dorcak L. and Feliu V. On fractional PID controllers: a frequency domain

approach. IFAC Workshop on Digital Control, Past, Present and Future of PID Control, pp. 53-58,

Terressa, Spain, 2000.

[15] Caponetto R., Fortuna L. and D. Porto. Parameter tuning of a non integer order PID controller.

Proceedings of 5th International Symposium on Mathematical Theory of Networks and Systems, Notre

Dame, Indiana, 2002.

[16] Leu J. F., Tsay S. Y. and Hwang C. Design of optimal fractional-order PID controllers. Journal of the

Chinese Institute of Chemical Engineers, Vol. 33, pp. 193-202.

[17] Monje C. A., Calderon A. J. and Vinagre B. M. PI vs fractional DI control : first results. Controlo

2002, 5th Portuguese Conference on Automatic Control, pp. 359-364, Aveiro, Portugal, 2002.

[18] Chen Y. Q., Hu C. H., Vinagre B. M. and Monje C. A. Robust PID controller tuning rule with iso-

damping property. American Control Conference, 2004.

[19] Tulleken H.J.A.F. Grey-box modelling and identification using physical knowledge and bayesian

techniques. Automatica, Vol. 29, Issue 2, pp. 285-308, March 1993.

View publication stats