KON 509E: Design of Discrete

Control Systems

Structures of Discrete Controller

Assist. Prof. Dr. İlker Üstoğlu

5.1 Introduction
𝑈 𝑧 𝑏0 𝑧 𝑚 + 𝑏1 𝑧 𝑚−1 + ⋯ + 𝑏𝑚
𝐷 𝑧 = =
𝐸 𝑧 𝑎0 𝑧 𝑛 + 𝑎1 𝑧 𝑛−1 + ⋯ + 𝑎𝑛

• To obtain the difference equation, we can employ "long division" or

residue approach…

𝐷 𝑧 = 𝑑0 𝑧 𝑚−𝑛 + 𝑑 𝑇 𝑧 𝑚−𝑛−1 + ⋯ + 𝑑 2𝑇 𝑧 𝑚−𝑛−2 + ⋯

• 𝑧 𝑘 = 𝑒 𝑇𝑠 𝑘 = 𝑒 𝑇𝑠𝑘
• 𝑧 = 𝑒 𝑇𝑠 → prediction operator
• 𝑧 −1 = 𝑒 −𝑇𝑠 → delay operator

Slide 2
5.1 Introduction
• To end up with a proper controller, it is required that 𝑚 ≤ 𝑛

𝑈 𝑧 𝑏0 𝑧 𝑚 + 𝑏1 𝑧 𝑚−1 + ⋯ + 𝑏𝑚
𝐷 𝑧 = =
𝐸 𝑧 𝑎0 𝑧 𝑛 + 𝑎1 𝑧 𝑛−1 + ⋯ + 𝑎𝑛

• Usually, we prefer 𝑚 = 𝑛 for more design flexibility (i.e. more

design parameters)
𝑈 𝑧 𝑏0 + 𝑏1 𝑧 −1 + ⋯ + 𝑏𝑛 𝑧 −𝑛
𝐷 𝑧 = =
𝐸 𝑧 𝑎0 + 𝑎1 𝑧 −1 + ⋯ + 𝑎𝑛 𝑧 𝑛
• If 𝑏0 ≠ 0 and 𝑎0 ≠ 0, otherwise we will end up with a prediction
operator, and thus can NOT implement the difference equation in
real time.

Slide 3
5.1 Introduction
• The most commonly employed control structures are
• P- Proportional Controller
• PI- Proportional – Integral Controller
• PD- Proportional – Derivative Controller
• PID- Proportional – Integral – Derivative Controller

• Before examining their discrete time version, lets remember the

continuous time counterparts and their implementations

Slide 4
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
• Let us the following generic control system
• Controller input: 𝑟 − 𝑦𝑚
• Feedback signal: 𝑦𝑚 = 𝑦 + 𝑛
• Feedback Error signal 𝑒 = 𝑟 − 𝑦𝑚
• Control signal: 𝑢 = 𝐾 𝑟 − 𝑦𝑚 = 𝐾 𝑟 − 𝑦 − 𝑛
• Note that the actual error signal is 𝑒 = 𝑦 − 𝑟!!

Slide 5
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
• Now let us define the system output 𝑦
𝑦 = 𝐺𝑢 + 𝐺𝑑 𝑑
𝑦 = 𝐺𝐾 𝑟 − 𝑦 − 𝑛 + 𝐺𝑑 𝑑
𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 𝑦 = 𝐺𝐾𝑟 + 𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝐺𝐾𝑛
• 𝐼 is the unit matrix as we are handling the most general case (MIMO)

Slide 6
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
• Now let us define the system output 𝑦
𝑦 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1 𝐺𝐾𝑟 + 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝐾𝑛

T S T
𝑦 = 𝑇𝑟 + 𝑆𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝑇𝑛
𝑆 + 𝑇 = 𝐼 ⇒ 𝑇 − 𝐼 = −𝑆

Slide 7
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
• Now let us define the system output 𝑦
𝑦 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1 𝐺𝐾𝑟 + 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝐾𝑛
T S T
𝑦 = 𝑇𝑟 + 𝑆𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝑇𝑛
Open Loop Transfer Function:
𝐿 = 𝐺𝐾
Sensitivity Transfer Function:
𝑆 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1 = 𝐼 + 𝐿 −1
Complementary Sensitivity Transfer Function:
𝑇 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝐾 = 𝐼 + 𝐿 −1 𝐿
For MIMO:
𝑆 + 𝑇 = 𝐼 ⇒ 𝑇 − 𝐼 = −𝑆
For SISO:
1 𝐿
𝑆+𝑇 =1 , 𝑆= , 𝑇=
1+𝐿 1+𝐿
Slide 8
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
• Now let us define the system output 𝑦
𝑦 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1 𝐺𝐾𝑟 + 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝐾𝑛

T S T
𝑦 = 𝑇𝑟 + 𝑆𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝑇𝑛
𝑇 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝐾, 𝑆 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1
𝑆 + 𝑇 = 𝐼 ⇒ 𝑇 − 𝐼 = −𝑆
• Let us now define the actual error signal
𝑒 = 𝑦 − 𝑟 = 𝑇𝑟 + 𝑆𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝑇𝑛 − 𝑟
𝑒 = −𝑆𝑟 + 𝑆𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝑇𝑛
and the control signal
𝑢 = 𝐾(𝑟 − 𝑦𝑚 )
𝑢 = 𝐾𝑆𝑟 − 𝐾𝑆𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝐾𝑆𝑛

Slide 9
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
𝑒 = −𝑆𝑟 + 𝑆𝐺𝑑 𝑑 − 𝑇𝑛
𝑇 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝐾 = 1 + 𝐿 −1 𝐿 𝑆 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1 = 1 + 𝐿 −1
𝐿 = 𝐺𝐾
• Perfect Control : 𝑒 = 𝑦 − 𝑟 = 0
𝑒 ≈ 0⋅ 𝑑 +0 ⋅𝑟 +0 ⋅𝑛
• Tracking and Disturbance Rejection performance: 𝑆 ≈ 0 𝑜𝑟 𝑇 ≈ 𝐼
𝑆 = 𝐼 + 𝐿 −1 → 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐿 𝑚𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑏𝑖𝑔!
• In the presence of noise (to reduce the effect of the noise):
𝑇 ≈ 0 𝑜𝑟 𝑆 ≈ 𝐼 → 𝐿 ≈ 0!
• They are conflicting!

Slide 10
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
Design Criteria, 𝐿 = 𝐺𝐾 :
• Performance, disturbance rejection 𝐿↑
• Performance, reference tracking 𝐿↑
• Stabilizing unstable systems 𝐿↑
• Reducing the effect of the noise 𝐿↓
• Reducing the magnitude of the controller output 𝐾 ↓ , 𝐿 ↓
• To have a strictly proper controller 𝐾 → 0 ,𝐿 → 0
• in high frequencies
• Nominal stability 𝐿↓
• right hand side zeros and time delay

• Robustness 𝐿 ↓ (uncertainties)
 In low frequencies 𝐿 >1
 In high frequencies 𝐿 <1

Slide 11
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
• In closed loop control systems, we encounter
• Uncertainties
• Unknown disturbances and System dynamics
• Unstable systems
• Stability:
• Closed loop poles-> Left hand side
• Bode: 𝐿(𝑗𝜔180 ) < 1
• Let us connect now, 𝑆 and 𝑇 to stability
𝑇 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝐾 = 1 + 𝐿 −1 𝐿 𝑆 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1 = 1+𝐿 −1

Slide 12
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
𝑇 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1𝐺𝐾 = 1+𝐿 −1 𝐿 𝑆 = 𝐼 + 𝐺𝐾 −1 = 1+𝐿 −1

• Unknown Usually PM > 30⁰

• The maximum allowable (uncertain)
time delay:
𝑃𝑀
𝜃𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝜔𝑐
• PM & GM: compromise between
performance and robust stability

Slide 13
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
• Maximum Sensitivity value:
𝑀𝑠 = max 𝑆(𝑗𝜔)
𝜔
𝑀𝑠 = 𝑆 ∞
• Complementary Sensitivity values:
𝑀𝑇 = max 𝑇(𝑗𝜔)
𝜔
𝑀𝑇 = 𝑇 ∞
• Usually in process control
1.2 < 𝑀𝑠 < 2 , 𝑀𝑇 < 1.25
• 𝐹𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑖𝑔 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑇 > 4 ⇒
𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 ↓
• Usually for stable systems 𝑀𝑠 > 𝑀𝑇
𝑆+𝑇 =1 ⇒ 𝑆 − 𝑇 ≤ 𝑆+𝑇 =1
• The maximum difference between 𝑀𝑠 and 𝑀𝑇 is 1

Slide 14
5.1.1 Control Systems with One Degree of Freedom
The relationship between (Ms and MT) with (GM and PM) :

𝑀𝑠 1 1
𝐺𝑀 ≥ , 𝑃𝑀 ≥ 2 arcsin ≥ 𝑟𝑎𝑑
𝑀𝑠 − 1 2𝑀𝑠 𝑀𝑠
If Ms = 2,Then GM ≥ 2 ve PM ≥ 29.0⁰ is guaranteed

1 1 1
𝐺𝑀 ≥ 1 + , 𝑃𝑀 ≥ 2 arcsin ≥ 𝑟𝑎𝑑
𝑀𝑇 2𝑀𝑇 𝑀𝑇
If MT = 2, Then GM ≥ 1.5 ve PM ≥ 29.0⁰ is guaranteed

By choosing Ms < 2, GM > 2 and PM > 30⁰ will be satisfied.

(Usually: GM ≈ 2 – 5 ; PM ≈ 30⁰ – 60⁰ )

MATLAB : nd2sys, msub, hinform

Slide 15
5.1.2 Control Systems with Two Degree of Freedom
• For satisfactory reference tracking, it is desired that the controller
structure is
1 −1
⋅𝐺
𝑠
• For satisfactory disturbance rejection, it is desired that the controller
structure is
1 −1
𝐺 𝐺𝑑
𝑠

However, this is NOT possible with a Process Control System with ONE
Degree of Freedom!

Slide 16
5.1.2 Control Systems with Two Degree of Freedom
• Independent control system design for 𝑟 ve 𝑦𝑚
• 𝐾𝑦 : Feedback Controller
• 𝐾𝑟 : Set point Weighting
• Different Control Structures

Slide 17
5.1.2 Control Systems with Two Degree of Freedom
• Design:
• Firstly, design 𝐾𝑦 to have a good disturbance rejection performance
• Secondly, design 𝐾𝑟 to enhance the control performance
• In other words;
𝑇 = 𝐿 1 + 𝐿 −1 𝐿 = 𝐺𝐾𝑦
𝑦 = 𝑇 ⋅ 𝑟 1𝐷𝑂𝐹
𝑦 = 𝑇 ⋅ 𝐾𝑟 ⋅ 𝑟 2𝐷𝑂𝐹
𝐾𝑟 𝑠 = 𝑇 −1 ⋅ 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓
𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑠 :𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
• 𝐾𝑟 𝑠 might be unstable 
• 𝑇 𝑠 → 𝑀𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑒𝑥𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑛!

Slide 18
5.1.2 Control Systems with Two Degree of Freedom
• In Process Control applications;
𝑇1 𝑠 + 1
𝐾𝑟 𝑠 = (𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒!)
𝑇2 𝑠 + 1
• The speed of the transient state response,
• can be increased, if 𝑇1 > 𝑇2
• can be decreased, if 𝑇1 < 𝑇2
• Simple design approach
• Never increase the speed of the system response, thus 𝑇1 = 0!
1
𝐾𝑟 𝑠 =
𝑇2 𝑠 + 1

Slide 19
5.2 Continuous Controller Structures
• The Standard PID Controller
1 𝑑𝑒 𝑡
𝑢 𝑡 = 𝐾𝑐 𝑒(𝑡) + 𝑒 𝜏 𝑑 𝜏 + 𝑇𝑑
𝑇𝑖 𝑑𝑡

• 𝐾𝑐 : Controller gain
• 𝑇𝑖 : Integral time-constant 𝑇𝑖 > 0
• 𝑇𝑑 : Derivative time-constant 𝑇𝑑 > 0
• The corresponding s-domain representation is
1 𝑇𝑖 𝑠 + 1 + 𝑇𝑖 𝑇𝑑 𝑠2
𝑃𝐼𝐷 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑐 1 + + 𝑇𝑑 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑐
𝑇𝑖 𝑠 𝑇𝑖 𝑠
• 𝑚 = 2 order of numerator
• n= 1 order of denominator
• Thus, since 𝑚 > 𝑛, the PID can NOT be implemented directly.

Slide 20
5.2 Continuous Controller Structures
• The corresponding s-domain representation is
1 𝑇𝑖 𝑠 + 1 + 𝑇𝑖 𝑇𝑑 𝑠2
𝑃𝐼𝐷 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑐 1 + + 𝑇𝑑 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑐
𝑇𝑖 𝑠 𝑇𝑖 𝑠
• 𝑚 = 2 order of numerator
• n= 1 order of denominator
• Thus, since 𝑚 > 𝑛, the PID can NOT be implemented directly.
• Two standard PID implementations
• Interacting PID implementation
• Non-Interacting PID implementation

Slide 21
5.2 Continuous Controller Structures
• Interacting PID implementation
1 1 + 𝑇𝑑 ′𝑠
𝑃𝐼𝐷 ′ 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑃 ′ 1 +
𝑇𝑖 ′𝑠 𝛼𝑇𝑑′ 𝑠 + 1
• Filtered Derivative action
• 𝛼 = 0.05~0.2
• The zeros are always real

Slide 22
5.2 Continuous Controller Structures
• Also known as "Text-book" PID controller, not used widely in the
industry.
• Design
• First design the PI part such that to end up 𝑒𝑠𝑠 = 0 without changing
the transient-state performance (much).
• Then, design the PD part to enhance the transient-state.

Slide 23
5.2 Continuous Controller Structures
• Non-Interacting PID implementation
′′
𝐾𝐼 ′
𝑃𝐼𝐷 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑃 ′ + + 𝐾𝐷 ′𝑠
𝑠
1
𝑃𝐼𝐷 ′′ 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑐 ′ 1 + + 𝑇𝑑′𝑠
𝑇𝑖 ′𝑠

Slide 24
5.2 Continuous Controller Structures
1
𝑃𝐼𝐷 ′′ 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑐 ′ 1 + + 𝑇𝑑′𝑠
𝑇𝑖 ′𝑠
• Parameters have a physical meaning!
• More flexible
• Zeros can be complex or real

Slide 25
5.2 Continuous Controller Structures
• Non-Interacting PID to Interacting PID
𝑇𝑖′ + 𝑇𝑑′ 𝑇𝑖′ 𝑇𝑑′
𝐾𝑃 = 𝐾𝑃′
′ 𝑇𝑖 = 𝑇𝑖′ + 𝑇𝑑′ 𝑇𝑑 = ′
𝑇𝑖 𝑇𝑖 + 𝑇𝑑′

• Interacting PID to Non-Interacting PID

𝐾𝑃 4𝑇𝑑 𝑇𝑖 4𝑇𝑑
𝐾𝑃′ = 1+ 1− 𝑇𝑖′ = 1+ 1−
2 𝑇𝑖 2 𝑇𝑖

𝑇𝑖 4𝑇𝑑
𝑇𝑑′ = 1− 1−
2 𝑇𝑖

• Constraint → 𝑇𝑖 > 4𝑇𝑑

Slide 26
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
A) Derivative Action
𝑑𝑒𝐷 𝑡
𝑈𝐷 =
𝑑𝑡

• Assume that, 𝑟 𝑡 = 0 and 𝑦 𝑡 = sin 𝜔𝑡 (i.e. pure noise)

𝑑𝑒𝐷 𝑡 𝑑 𝑟 𝑡 −𝑦 𝑡 𝑑 −𝑦 𝑡 𝑑 − sin 𝜔𝑡
𝑈𝐷 = = = =
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
𝑈𝐷 = − cos 𝜔𝑡 𝜔
• 𝜔 ↗⟹ 𝑈𝐷 ↗
• The Derivative action is sensitive to noise.

Slide 27
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
A) Derivative Action
𝑑𝑈𝐷 𝑑𝑒𝐷
𝛼𝑇𝐷 + 𝑈𝐷 = 𝑇𝐷
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡

𝛼𝑇𝐷 𝑠𝑈𝐷 𝑠 + 𝑈𝐷 𝑠 = 𝑇𝐷 𝑠𝐸𝐷 𝑠

𝑈𝐷 𝑠 𝑇𝐷 𝑠
=
𝐸𝐷 𝑠 1 + 𝛼𝑇𝐷 𝑠
• Semi Proper 𝑛 = 𝑚
• The pure derivative action is still a problem

Slide 28
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
A) Derivative Action
𝑑𝑈𝐷 𝑑𝑒𝐷
𝛼𝑇𝐷 + 𝑈𝐷 = 𝑇𝐷
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑈𝐷 𝑑𝑒𝐷
𝛼𝑇𝐷 + 𝑈𝐷 𝑑𝑡 = 𝑇𝐷 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑈𝐷 𝑑𝑒𝐷
𝛼𝑇𝐷 𝑑𝑡 + 𝑈𝐷𝑑𝑡 = 𝑇𝐷 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
• Taking now the s-domain transform
1
𝛼𝑇𝐷 𝑈𝐷 𝑠 + 𝑈𝐷 𝑠 = 𝑇𝐷 𝐸𝐷 𝑠
𝑠
𝑈𝐷 𝑠 𝑇𝐷
=
𝐸𝐷 𝑠 1
𝛼𝑇𝐷 +
𝑠
• Now, all components can be implemented.
Slide 29
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
A) Derivative Action

• 𝛼 should be small. Extra pole locations should be between 5-10 order

of the poles.

Slide 30
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
B) Integral Action
• Most control systems are designed based on linear theory
• A linear controller is simple to implement and performance is good, as long
as dynamics remain close to linear
• Nonlinear effects require care, such as actuator saturation (always present)
• Saturation phenomena, if neglected in the design phase, can lead to closed-
loop instability, especially if the process is open-loop unstable
• Main reason: the control loop gets broken if saturation is not taken into
account by the controller: u(k) = K(r(k)-y(k)) for some k instants

Slide 31
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
Anti-windup techniques
• Avoiding the limits
• Smooth Control Signal
• Tradeoff!
• Wind-up
• Performance!
• Set-Point Filter
• Smooth Control Signal
• Improves also the transient state response
• But what about Disturbance rejection?
• Wind-up
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
Anti-windup techniques
• Conditional integrator,
• Integrator clamping
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
Anti-windup techniques
• Tracking anti-windup, back-calculation
𝑇𝑡 = 𝑇𝐼 𝑇𝐷
• 𝑇𝐼 > 𝑇𝑡 > 𝑇𝐷 , (Astrom, 95)
• For PI: 𝑇𝑡 = 𝑇𝐼
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
2 DOF PID Controllers
1 𝑑𝑒𝐷 𝑡
𝑢 𝑡 = 𝐾𝑐 𝑒𝑃 (𝑡) + 𝑒 𝜏 𝑑 𝜏 + 𝑇𝑑
𝑇𝑖 𝑑𝑡

where
𝑒𝑃 𝑡 = 𝛽𝑟 𝑡 − 𝑦 𝑡 ; 0 ≤ 𝛽 ≤ 1
𝑒 𝑡 = 𝑟 𝑡 − 𝑦(𝑡)
𝑒𝐷 𝑡 = 𝛾𝑟 𝑡 − 𝑦(𝑡);0 ≤ 𝛾 ≤ 1
• If 𝛾 = 0 ⇒ No derivative kick
• If 𝛽 = 0 ⇒ No proportional kick

Slide 35
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
• Let us reformulate the output as follows:
𝑢 𝑡 = 𝑢1 𝑡 + 𝑢2 (𝑡)
where
1 𝑑𝑟 𝑡
𝑢1 𝑡 = 𝐾𝑐 𝛽𝑟(𝑡) + 𝑟 𝜏 𝑑 𝜏 + 𝑇𝑑 𝛾
𝑇𝑖 𝑑𝑡

1 𝑑𝑦 𝑡
𝑢2 𝑡 = −𝐾𝑐 𝑦(𝑡) + 𝑦 𝜏 𝑑 𝜏 + 𝑇𝑑
𝑇𝑖 𝑑𝑡

• Then, we can define

𝑈1 (𝑠) 1
𝐺𝐹𝐹 𝑠 = = 𝐾𝑐 𝛽 + + 𝑇𝑑 𝛾𝑠
𝑅(𝑠) 𝑇𝑖 𝑠
𝑈2 (𝑠) 1
𝐺𝐶 𝑠 = = −𝐾𝑐 𝛽 + + 𝑇𝑑 𝛾𝑠
𝑌(𝑠) 𝑇𝑖 𝑠
Slide 36
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
• Then, we can define
𝑈1 (𝑠) 1
𝐺𝐹𝐹 𝑠 = = 𝐾𝑐 𝛽 + + 𝑇𝑑 𝛾𝑠
𝑅(𝑠) 𝑇𝑖 𝑠
𝑈2 (𝑠) 1
𝐺𝐶 𝑠 = = −𝐾𝑐 1 + + 𝑇𝑑𝑠
𝑌(𝑠) 𝑇𝑖 𝑠

Slide 37
5.3 Implementation Issues of PID Controller Structures
• Design Strategy
• First design 𝐺𝐶 𝑠 to have a fast disturbance rejection performance
• 𝐾𝑐, 𝑇𝑖 ,𝑇𝐷
• Then design 𝐺𝐹𝐹 𝑠 to have a satisfactory transient state
performance
• 𝛽, 𝛾

• To sum up,
• More Flexibility
• More Design parameters

Slide 38
5.4 Discrete PID Controller Structures
• Continuous PID implementation
𝐾𝐼
𝑃𝐼𝐷 𝑠 = 𝐾𝑃 + + 𝐾𝐷 𝑠
𝑠
• To obtain the discrete time PID controller, we need to discretize the
• "pure integration"
• "pure derivative“
operators.

Slide 39
5.4 Discrete PID Controller Structures: Discrete Derivative Action
Approximation to the derivative action
𝑑𝑒(𝑡)
𝑢 𝑡 =
𝑑𝑡

• By definition we know
𝑒 𝑡 + ℎ − 𝑒(𝑡)
𝑢 𝑡 = lim
ℎ→0 ℎ
• Thus, for a fixed sampling time, we can define
𝑒 𝑘 − 𝑒(𝑘 − 1)
𝑢 𝑘 ≈
𝑇
Then,
𝑈 𝑧 𝑧 −1
=
𝐸 𝑧 𝑇𝑧

Slide 40
5.4 Discrete PID Controller Structures: Discrete Derivative Action
Approximation to the derivative action
𝑑𝑒(𝑡)
𝑢 𝑡 =
𝑑𝑡
Forward Difference
(𝑘+1)𝑇
𝑧−1
𝑒((𝑘 + 1)𝑇) − 𝑒(𝑘𝑇) = 𝑒(𝜏)𝑑𝜏 ≈ 𝑇 𝑒(𝑘𝑇) → 𝑠 =
𝑘𝑇 𝑇
(𝑧−1)𝑒(𝑘𝑇) 𝑇𝑠𝑒(𝑘𝑇)

Slide 41
5.4 Discrete PID Controller Structures: Discrete Derivative Action
Approximation to the derivative action
𝑑𝑒(𝑡)
𝑢 𝑡 =
𝑑𝑡
Backward Difference
𝑘𝑇
1 − 𝑧 −1
𝑒(𝑘𝑇) − 𝑒((𝑘 − 1)𝑇) = 𝑒(𝜏)𝑑𝜏 ≈ 𝑇𝑒(𝑘𝑇) → 𝑠 =
−1 (𝑘−1)𝑇 𝑇
1−𝑧 𝑒(𝑘𝑇) 𝑇𝑠𝑒(𝑘𝑇)

Slide 42
5.4 Discrete PID Controller Structures: Discrete Derivative Action
Approximation to the derivative action
𝑑𝑒(𝑡)
𝑢 𝑡 =
𝑑𝑡
Trapezoidal (Tustin) Difference
(𝑘+1)𝑇
𝑒((𝑘 + 1)𝑇) − 𝑒(𝑘𝑇) 𝑒(𝜏)𝑑𝜏 ≈ 𝑇 𝑒((𝑘 + 1)𝑇) + 𝑒(𝑘𝑇)
(𝑧−1)𝑒(𝑘𝑇) 𝑘𝑇 2
2(𝑧 − 1)
𝑠=
𝑇(𝑧 + 1)

Slide 43
5.4 Discrete PID Controller Structures: Discrete Integral
Action
Forward Integration
𝑡
0
𝑒𝜏 𝑑 𝜏 ≈ area under the curve
1 𝑇
=
𝑠 𝑧−1
Backward Integration
𝑡
0
𝑒 𝜏 𝑑 𝜏 ≈ area under the curve
1 𝑇𝑧
=
𝑠 𝑧−1
Trapezoidal (Tustin) Integration
𝑡
0
𝑒 𝜏 𝑑 𝜏 ≈ area under the curve
1 𝑇𝑧 + 1
=
𝑠 2𝑧 −1

Slide 44
5.4 Discrete PID Controller Structures: Tustin version
𝑈 𝑧 1 𝑇𝑧+1 2(𝑧 − 1)
= 𝐾𝑐 1 + + 𝑇𝑑
𝐸 𝑧 𝑇𝑖 2 𝑧 − 1 𝑇(𝑧 + 1)

𝑈 𝑧 𝑇𝑧+1 2(𝑧 − 1)
= 𝐾𝑃 + 𝐾𝐼 + 𝐾𝐷
𝐸 𝑧 2𝑧−1 𝑇(𝑧 + 1)
where
𝐾𝑐
𝐾𝑃 = 𝐾𝑐 𝐾𝐼 = 𝐾𝐷 = 𝐾𝑐 𝑇𝑑
𝑇𝑖

Slide 45