Chapter 4

PID Pole-Placement Controller

4.1 Introduction
For many years ago a great deal of attention has been paid to the problem of
designing pole-placement controller. Various linear control designs based on
classical pole-placement ideas were developed and employed in real
application. The pole placement has proved to be one of the most successful
design methods for linear control systems. Ultimately, each design
specification leads, either directly or indirectly, to a particular assignment of
the poles of the system. The practical designs, however, rarely call for exact
pole positions [8]. In the practical designs, the PID controllers are widely
used. This may be attributed to the fact that PID controllers has simple
structure, and easy to maintained and tune. Therefore it is desirable to
combine the advantages of pole-placement and PID control.

4.2 PID Controller

The PID controller is the most common form of feedback control systems. It
was an essential element of early governors and it became the standard tool
when process control emerged in the 1940s.
In process control today, more than 95% of the control loops are of PID type,
most loops are actually PI control. PID controllers are today found in all areas
where control is used [9].
The controllers come in many different forms. There are standalone systems
in boxes for one or a few loops, which are manufactured by the hundred
thousands yearly. PID control is an important ingredient of a distributed
control system. The controllers are also embedded in many special purposes
control systems. PID control is often combined with logic, sequential
functions, selectors, and simple function blocks to build the complicated
automation systems used for energy production, transportation, and

23
Chapter 4

manufacturing. Many sophisticated control strategies, such as model

predictive control, are also organized hierarchically. PID control is used at the
lowest level, the multivariable controller gives the set points to the controllers
at the lower level. The PID controller can thus be said to be an important
component in every control engineer’s tool box.
PID controllers have survived many changes in technology, from mechanics
and pneumatics to microprocessors via electronic tubes, transistors, integrated
circuits. The microprocessor has had a dramatic influence on the PID
controller. Practically all PID controllers made today are based on
microprocessors.
This has given opportunities to provide additional features like automatic
tuning, gain scheduling, and continuous adaptation [10].

4.3 Conventional PID Controller

PID controller is a one of the earliest industrial controllers. It has many
advantages: Its cost is economic , simple and easy to be tuned and
robust .
This controller has been proven to be remarkably effective in regulating a
wide range of processes. It does not require an exact model and hence, it can
be used for processes whose models are considerably difficult to be driven.
A good survey is found in [11].
In general there are two approaches in PID tuning:
- Model based approach, if the process model is available.
- Non-model based approach, if the process model is difficult to be driven.
In the second approach, Ziegler and Nichols method can be applied based on
used the relay feedback to estimate the limit cycle and then tune the PID
parameters.

24
 Chapter 4

However, in spit of the advantages of the PID controller, there remain several
drawbacks. It cannot cope well in some cases such as:
- Non-linear processes, (changing in operating point).
- Time-varying parameters.
- Compensation of strong and rapid disturbances.
- Supervision in multivariable control.
PID controller is simple and linear; it can give a good performance for stable
linear processes. Self-tuning and adaptive PID design approaches can
overcome the operating point varying parameters. However, this requires a
high capacity of computations and makes the PID performance not
guaranteed.
Controller

+ u (t )
w (t)
+ kp GA
Actuat
Gp process
- + or
__
-- (k pT ) s

Figure (4.1.a) General structure of continuous time PID controller

PID controller consists of three terms:
- Proportional action.
- Derivative action to speed up the response.
- Integral action to eliminate the steady state error.
Combining all the previous three control action, we have the conventional PID
controller which finds extensive application in industrial control. For the

25
Chapter 4

continuous time case, the controller in its basic from is described by the
integral-differential equation [10].
 1 t de(t ) 
u (t )  K P e(t )   e(t ) dt  Td  (4.1)
 Ti 0 dt 

The transfer function Gc (s) is:

K  1 
PID controller: GC ( s)  K P  K d s  si  K P 1  T s  Td s  (4.2)
 i 
K P : Proportional gain

K d : Derivative time

K i : Integral time

P K
And also: K i  T , K d  K pTd
i

Figure (4.1.a) presents a block diagram of three term controller GC (s ) . In the

case of discrete time system, the PID controller can be described in its
simplest form by the following difference equation.
 T  z  Td  z  1 
GC ( z )  K P 1      (4.3)
 Ti  z  1  T  z 

Where T is sampling time.

After some algebraic manipulations, GC (z ) may be written as:
 z 2  az  b 
GC ( z )  K   (4.4)
 z ( z  1) 
 

Where
 TT  Td Ti  T 2 
K  KP  i  (4.5)
 T T 
 i 

TiT  Td Ti
a (4.6)
TTi  Td Ti  T 2

Td Ti
b (4.7)
TTi  Td Ti  T 2

Figure (4.1.b) presents the block diagram of tree term controller GC (z ) .

26
 Chapter 4

Controller

u (t )
w (t) + kp + GA
Actuat
Gp
Process
- + or
k pTd
T ( z  1/ z)

Figure (4.1.b) General structure of discrete time PID controller

4.4 Action of Proportional-Integral-Derivative

Proportional: To handle the immediate error, the error is multiplied by a
constant P (for proportional), and added to the controlled quantity.
Integral: To learn from the past, the error is integrated (added up) over a
period of time, and then multiplied by a constant (making an average), and
added to the controlled quantity. A simple proportional system either
oscillates, moving back and forth around the set point because there’s nothing
to remove the error when it overshoots, or oscillates and/or stabilizes at a too
low or too high value. By adding a proportion of the average error to the
process input, the average difference between the process output and the set
point is continually reduced.
Derivative: To handle the future, the first derivative (the slope of the error)
over time is calculated, and multiplied by another constant D, and also added
to the controlled quantity. The derivative term controls the response to a
change in the system. The larger the derivative term, the more rapidly the

27
Chapter 4

controller responds to changes in the process’s output. In table (4.1) below we

can see the effect of Independent P, I and D closed response.

Effect of independent P,I, and D tuning on closed loop response

Increasing Rise time Over shoot Settling time Steady state error
Kp Decrease Increase Increase Decrease
Ki Decrease Increase Increase Decrease
Kd Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase
Table (4.1) Effect of Independent P, D and I closed response

4.5 Assessment of the Ziegler- Nichols, (Z-N) Methods

The Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules were developed to give closed loop systems
with good attenuation of load disturbances. The methods were based on
extensive simulations. The design criterion was quarter amplitude decay ratio,
which means that the amplitude of an oscillation should be reduced by a factor
of four over a whole period. This corresponds to closed loop poles with a
relative damping, which is too small. Controllers designed by the Ziegler-
Nichols rules thus inherently give closed loop systems with poor robustness. It
also turns out that it is not sufficient to characterize process dynamics by two
parameters only. The methods developed by Ziegler and Nichols have been
very popular in spite of these drawbacks. Practically all manufacturers of
controller have used the rules with some modifications in recommendations
for controller tuning.
One reason for the popularity of the rules is that they are simple and easy to
understand. The tuning rules give ball park figures. Final tuning is then done
by trial and error. Another bad reason is that the rules lend themselves very
well to simple exercises for control education. With the insight into controller
design that has developed over the years it is possible to develop improved
tuning rules that are almost as simple as the Ziegler-Nichols rules. These rules
are developed by starting with a solid design method that gives robust

28
Chapter 4

controllers with effective disturbance attenuation. We illustrate with some

rules where the process is characterized by three parameters [12]. Ku and Pcr
are obtained by experiment. Ku is the critical gain where the shaft exhibits
sustained oscillations. Tu designates the period of these oscillations.

Controller Kp Ti Td

Proportional P 0.5ku ∞ 0

Proportional Integral PI 0.45ku (1/1.2)Tu 0

Proportional Integral
PID 0.6ku 0.5Tu 0.125Tu
Derivative
Table (4.2) the value of parameters Kp, Ti and Td using the (Z-N)

4.6 Tuning Techniques

There are three schools of thought on how to select the values of P, I, and D
required achieving an acceptable level of performance for the controller. The
first method is simple trial and error tweak the tuning parameters and watches
the controller handle the next error. If it can eliminate the error in a timely
fashion, quit. If it proves to be too conservative or too aggressive, increase or
decrease one or more of the tuning constants. Experienced control engineers
seem to know just how much proportional, integral, and derivative action to
add or subtract in order to correct the performance of a poorly tuned
controller.
Unfortunately, intuitive tuning procedures can be difficult to develop because
a change in one tuning constant tends to affect the performance of all three
terms in the controller's output. For example, turning down the integral action
reduces overshoot. This in turn slows the rate of change of the error and thus
reduces the derivative action as well. Therefore, it is desirable to combine the

29
Chapter 4

advantages of both PID and pole-placement which can be easily tuned. In the
next section we will study some PID pole-placement control design [11].

4.8 PID Pole-Placement Controllers (PID-PPC)

A controller based on the pole placement method in a closed feedback control
loop is designed to stabilise the closed control loop whilst the characteristic
polynomial should have a previously determined. Digital PID controllers are
possible can be expressed in the form of a discrete transfer function (for the
derivation see Appendix A1):
w(t )( f 0  f1  f 2 )  ( f 0  f1 z 1  f 2 z  2 ) y (t )
u (t )  (4.8)
1  z 1

The coefficients f 0 , f1 and f 2 are related to k p , kD and k I the proportional,

derivation and integral gain setting by:
k P   f1  2 f 2 (4.9)
kD  f2 (4.10)
k I  f 0  f1  f 2 (4.11)
In the order to realize our design, we must assume that the system to be
controlled has the following special structure [13]:
b0 z 1 1
y (t )  1 2
u (t )  1
 (t ) (4.12)
1  a1 z  a2 z 1  a1 z  a2 z  2

The design process begins by combining the system model given by equation
(4.12) with the controller of equation (4.8) to obtain the closed loop equation
relating w(t ) and y (t ). Thus:
b0 z 1 ( f 0  f1  f 2 )
y (t )  w(t ) +
(1  z 1 )(1  a1 z 1  a 2 z  2 )  z 1b0 ( f 0  f1  f 2 )

1
1
(1  z )(1  a1 z 1
 a2 z 2
)  z 1b0 ( f 0  f1 z 1  f 2 z  2 )
(4.13)

30
Chapter 4

 (t ) 1
Controller
A

w(t ) 1 u (t ) + y (t )
f 0  f1  f 2 +
- 1
z 1 B
A
(1  z ) +

f 0  f 1 z 1  f 2 z 2

Figure (4.2) PID Pole-Placement controller (PID-PPC) scheme

Here can now select the coefficients f 0 , f1 and f 2 , to give the desired closed
loop performance. The aim of our design is to locate the poles of closed loop
system at their desired positions given by the following polynomial:
T  1  t1 z 1  t 2 z 2 (4.14)
Also can now determine the controller coefficients, and which give the desired
closed characteristic equation.
(1  z 1 )(1  a1 z 1  a2 z  2 )  b0 z 1 ( f 0  f1 z 1  f 2 z  2 )  T (4.15)
By equating coefficients of like power of z 1 , the following solution for
controller settings is obtained.
t1  (1  a1 )
f0  (4.16)
b0

t 2  (a1  a2 )
f1  (4.17)
b0

a2
f2  (4.18)
b0

It is obvious from the equation (4.12), (4.13), (4.14) and (4.15) that in order to
achieve PID pole-placement control presented in section (4.78), the mode of
the process must be described by the same model given by equation (4.12).

31
Chapter 4

Therefore, the PID Pole-Placement controller presented in this section suffers

from the following drawback.
1- It can only be applied to limited process models as described by equation
(4.12).
2- If the time delay is more than one, the controller cannot be used.
In order to overcome the second limitation a Smith Predictor can be used. In
order to overcome both disturbances as model reduction method can be used
and then the PID Pole-Placement given (4.7) can be applied.
However, if the parameters obtained from the model reduction method are not
accurate, the output response will be affected. Therefore a new PID Pole-
Placement controller is developed to overcome all the limitations mentioned
above.

4.8 Smith Predictor Controller (SPC)

In the late 1950s, O. I. M. Smith proposed a controller that became known as
a Smith Predictor. He first suggested this control scheme for factory processes
with long transport delays, for example catalytic crackers and steel mills, but
the idea can be generalized to all control processes that have long loop
delays[14].

4.9 Smith Predictor Controller Idea:

The presence of large delays reduces the achievable control performance [15].
In all real life system, k will at least be one, because all meaning full systems
take a none zero amount of time to respond to external stimuli. If there is a
transport delay in implementing the control effort, k will be larger than one.
Such a situation arises also when the plants are inherently sluggish and they
take some time respond to control efforts. Chemical processes they have this
short coming. In chemical engineering terminology, the time to respond to

32
Chapter 4

external inputs is known as dead time. In all these cases k could be a large
number. The presence of a large delay k implies that the control action will be
delayed by the same extent and the large delay, the worse the control
performance will be. Because of the adverse effect of long delays in the plant,
and would like to account for them.
In order to carry out the PID design discussed in section (4.7) the system that
includes k >1, the effect of the any delay more large than one must be
removed, through a strategy known as the smith predictor. In view of this, will
assume that the plant model given by:
B( z 1 ) 1
y (t )  z  k 1
  (t ) (4.19)
A( z ) A( z 1 )

Recall that the number polynomial B (z ) has the form:

B ( z 1 )  b0 (4.20)
Defining:
Bd ( z 1 )  z 1B ( z 1 ) (4.21)
Equation (4.19) becomes:
Bd ( z 1 )
G ( z )  z  ( k 1) (4.22)
A( z 1 )

and have defined that Bd has one delay, the minimum which expected in real
applications. Now looking for ways to get rid of the adverse effects of the
delay term z  ( k 1) . Towards this end, consider the following equation:
Bd ( z 1 )
  BA
1
y p (t )  z  ( k 1) u (t )  1  z ( k m 1) dm ( z ) u (t )
(4.23) Where
A( z 1 ) m (z )
1

k m , Bdm and Am can be thought of as estimates of k, Bd and A , respectively.

33
Chapter 4

Fi
w(t ) u (t )  (t ) y (t )
1 Bd
H0 -
_
+ 
z   k 1
A

PID
B dm
1  z  (k m 1) +
+
Am
yˆ  y p
f 0  f1 z 1  f 2 z  2

gure (4.3) PID structure of Smith predictor controller

When a good knowledge of the plant, the estimates has becomes exact, and
equation (4.23) becomes:
Bd ( z 1 )u (t )
yp  (4.24)
A( z 1 )

Thereby getting rid of the adverse effects of z  ( k 1) in equation (4.22). This
can be treated as the equivalent model of the original plant given by equation
(4.19). Figure (4.3) shows structure of this idea, where have discussed, and
PID pole-placement controller in section (4.7). Therefore, if the good
knowledge of plant as a result, the model parameters will be identical to those
of original plant model. That is, Am  A , Bdm  B and k m  k . Then y p can be
measured as:
z 1b0
y p  u (t ) (4.25)
A( z 1 )

In the figure (4.4) can see the effect of smith predictor on paper machine
printer (case study 4). The discrete time model of this system given by [16]:
0.63z  3
y (t )  , where the parameters are a1  0.37 , a 2  0 , b0  1 ,
1  0.37 z 1

b1  0 , With time delay (k=3).

34
Chapter 4

y (t )
1 After SPC
Before SPC
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 t
0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure (4.4): Effect of smith predictor on paper machine printer

Hence, the identical PID pole-placement control design steps can be followed
and the effect of the extra delays is removed. It is clear from equation (4.7)
that Smith predictor reduces the time delay to one. This allows us to use PID
pole-placement discussed in section (4.7). However, this modification is not
enough in the situation when the polynomial B ( z 1 ) is of order more than
zero. For such process a model reduction method or New Modified PID Pole-
Placement Controller (NM-PID-PPC), which is proposed in section (4.10) and
(4.11), can be used.

4.10 Model Reduction

The capacity of a model to accurately describe a system seems to increase
with the order of the model, in practice, models with low orders are required
in many situations. In some cases, the amount of information contained in a
complex model may obfuscate simple (some of our cases), insightful
behaviors, which can be better captured and explored by a model with low
order. In cases such as control design and filtering, where the design

35
Chapter 4

procedures might be computationally very demanding, limited computational

resources certainly benefit from low order models. These examples justify the
need to develop procedures that are able to approximate complex high order
models by generating adequate reduced order models. As a result, some
degree of detailing will be permanently lost in the reduced order model. The
differences between the dynamics of the high order model and the obtained
low order model (the unmodeled dynamics) can be often taken into account in
the low order model as a noise, which can be handled using stochastic process
methods. In any case, the model reduction procedures might be flexible
enough to let the user indicate the essential behaviors that need to be captured
for its application. There are many model reduction methods can be used. In
this thesis, the model reduction based least squares is used. The least squares
(model reduction method) are situated in the Appendix (A2). Figure (4.5)
shows the block diagram of the PID Pole-Placement controller based on least
squares model reduction [17].
In the following section (4.11), a more effective PID Pole-Placement is
proposed.
The model is implemented to one case study and the simulation results are
show in appendix (A2).

36
Chapter 4

System model (off line identification)

PID z 1b0
Control design
1  a1 z 1  a2 z  2

 (t ) 1 Process

w(t ) +
e(t ) PID controller
u (t )
z k B ( z 1 ) + y (t )
- A( z 1 ) +

Figure (4.5) Block diagram of the PID Pole-Placement controller based on LS

model reduction

4.11 New Modified PID Pole-Placement Controller (NM-PID-PPC)

Here can see the modified pole-placement control design discussed in section
(3.4), is extended to a PID controller. The modified pole-placement control
low given by equation (3.14) can by written as [18]:
1 ~
G
 ~
u (t )  ~ F (1) w(t )  F ( z 1 ) y (t )  (4.26)
~ ~
Let assume that F ( z 1 ) is of order 2, then the polynomial F ( z 1 ) is used to
~
find the PID controller parameters. The polynomial G acts as a compensator
[6]. Combining equation (4.26) and (3.1) gives the closed loop system as
follows:
~ ~ ~ ~
( GA  BFz  k ) y (t )  BF (1) z 1w(t )  CG (t ) (4.27)
Assuming that:
A  ( A) (4.28)

37
Chapter 4

And let:
~ ~
(GA  BFz  k )  TC (4.29)
Where
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
F  f 0  f1 z 1  .......  f n~
f
z  nf (4.30)
~ ~ ~ z  ng~
~ z 1  ........  g
G 1 g 1 ng (4.31)
T  1  t1 z 1  ..........  t nt z nt (4.32)
It can be seen from the equation (4.8), (4.9), (4.10), (4.11) and (4.30), the PI
control is achieved if the order of the plant is one and a PID controller is
obtained if the plant is second order.
Pole placement
Compensator

Plant
NM-PID -PPC

w(t ) ~ ~ ~
f 0  f1  f 2 + 1 1
~
SYSETM y (t )
-  G
+
k P   f1  2 f 2
kD  f2 ~ ~ 1 ~ 2
k I  f 0  f1  f 2 f 0  f1 z  f 2 z

Figure (4.6) New Modified PID Pole-Placement Control system

If the plant is of order more than two, a PID controller plus additional
compensator is achieved [18]. Figure (4.6) shows the New modified PID pole-
placement control design.

38