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

net/publication/328578498

Tuning guidelines for fractional order PID controllers: Rules of thumb

Article  in  Mechatronics · October 2018

DOI: 10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.10.004

CITATIONS READS
54 1,109

3 authors:

Ali Ahmadi Dastjerdi Niranjan Saikumar

Imperial College London Delft University of Technology
22 PUBLICATIONS   244 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   431 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hassan Hosseinnia
Delft University of Technology
160 PUBLICATIONS   1,717 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Constant gain Lead phase for precision motion control View project

homotopy perturbation method View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Ahmadi Dastjerdi on 02 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Tuning Guidelines for Fractional Order PID controllers:
Rules of thumb

Ali Ahmadi Dastjerdi, Niranjan Saikumar, S. Hassan HosseinNia∗

Dept. of Precision and Microsystems Engineering (PME),
Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Abstract

Today, fractional order proportional integration derivative (FO-PID) controllers

have attracted much attention from academia and industry. Despite FO-PID
controllers outperforming integer order (IO) ones in many cases, the latter con-
tinues to dominate industrial utilization. One of the big barriers which confine
adoption of FO-PID controllers is the complexity of the current tuning methods
for industrial application. In this paper, a practical tuning method for FO-PID
controllers is introduced. In this line, classical loop-shaping tools are utilized to
propose this new simple tuning rule. A rule of thumb and a guideline are given
for non-expert and industrial users for controlling motion systems. Finally, the
tuning method is validated in a high-tech precision positioning system.
Keywords: Fractional order PID, Rule of thumb, Loop-shaping, Motion
control

1. Introduction

Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers are predominately used

in the industry owing to their simplicity. PID controllers are used for more
than 90 percent of control applications in the industry because of the following
reasons [1]. Firstly, since there are many simple and auto-tuning methods for
PID controllers, even non-specialist engineers can work with them. Secondly,

∗ Correspondingauthor
Email address: s.h.hosseinniakani@tudelft.nl (S. Hassan HosseinNia)

Preprint submitted to Journal of LATEX Templates November 2, 2018

simple analogue and digital realization techniques facilitate the implementation
of PID controllers.
During the past decades, many researchers have paid attention to fractional
order (FO) controllers [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] since they provide many benefits in
the control area. For instance, FO controllers can compensate disturbances due
to undesired nonlinearities such as dead zone, backlash, hysteresis, and static
distortion in the systems and this feature results in increasing the precision of
the systems [9, 10, 11]. Moreover, some research manifests that FO calculus
describes the dynamic characteristics of some special plant more precisely than
IO ones and also it improves modelling of complicated dynamic systems such
as distributed parameter systems, biomimetics materials, smart materials, etc.
[12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 17, 22, 23, 24]. Moreover, it is shown
that FO controllers are more suitable than IO controllers for many FO plants
[25, 26, 27, 28].
Among FO-controllers, FO-PID controllers have attracted a lot of attention
from engineers [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. FO-PID controllers have more tuning
parameters than integer order ones. As a consequence, FO-PID controllers give
more flexibility to designers which results in some special constraints such as
iso-damping to be considered for tuning [25, 27, 18, 35]. On the one hand, higher
is the number of the integrators, better is tracking but worse is the stability of
the closed system. On the other hand, higher is the number of differentiators,
higher is the stability margin and worse is the noise rejection performance of
the closed-loop system. FO-PID can be a proper trade-off controller between
IO-PID controllers (i.e. P I 2 D, P ID2 , P I 2 D2 ). In other words, FO-PID is a
trade-off between higher precision (provided by higher order of integrator) and
stability (provided by higher order of differentiator) [36]. Hence, depending on
performance requirement, FO-PID controllers can perform better than IO-PID
controllers [18, 37, 25, 26, 27, 38, 39].
Despite advantages of FO-PID controllers, IO-PID controllers are not re-
placed with FO ones because there are some barriers which confine adoption
of FO-PID controllers in the industry. One of the most significant barriers is

2
that tuning of FO-PID controllers is not straightforward. Consequently, find-
ing a proper tuning method for FO controllers has been the subject of several
investigations in order to promote usage of these controllers in industry. The
existed tuning methods for FO-PID controllers fall into three categories namely
auto-tuning, optimal tuning, and robust tuning methods [40, 41, 35, 42, 43, 44,
45, 46, 47, 48, 37, 49, 16, 50].
In [40, 41, 42], auto-tuning of FO-PID controllers was studied using the relay
test. Although these auto-tuning methods are very useful for practical applica-
tions, they are hardly used in motion control industry where high bandwidths
(cross-over frequency) are required. However, they are very effective tools for
process systems (first order plus delay plants).
Some investigations were devoted to finding a new tuning method by utilizing
optimization algorithms like particle swarm optimization and genetic algorithm
[43, 44, 45, 46, 47]. In this way, different objective functions and constraints
are considered for tuning of FO-controllers [48, 37, 49, 16]. These methods help
controllers to work at their optimal point. However, these are very complex
and in most of them, the dynamics of the system must be known. So, any
uncertainty in the parameters of the system may even lead to instability.
In addition, some research has resulted in tuning methods based on H∞
constraints in which the performance constraints such as stability, bandwidth,
robustness, and precision are solved by using mathematical methods such as
the graphical method, the Newton-Raphson numerical iterative algorithm and
so on [51, 52, 53, 35]. Although these methods satisfy all requirements needed
by the designer, solving these nonlinear equations is very difficult, and in some
cases, it is not possible to find the answer. Moreover, in some of these methods,
the dynamic parameters of the plant must be determined which leads to several
problems. In some cases, loop-shaping is used for solving these performance
constraints. For instance, in [36], loop-shaping methods are applied to tune
an FO-PID controller for a precision motion system. Loop-shaping tools and
an optimization method are used to achieve a high bandwidth. However, this
method has only been applied in a specific application and it cannot be directly

3
used for general purposes.
To recap, most of the existing tuning methods are very complex and each
of them is suitable only for a specific class of systems. Hence, there is a big
need for a widely applicable simple rule for FO-PID controllers particularly for
motion control applications (high bandwidth and low time delay). As it has
been discussed, one of the most important reasons for the widespread usage
of IO-PID controllers in industry is that a lot of simple tuning methods exist
for these controllers. One of the simplest and most popular tuning methods for
IO-PID controllers used in motion control industry is the rule of thumb which is
proposed by using loop-shaping principles [36, 54]. So, it can be anticipated that
IO-PID controllers will be substituted with FO ones if the design of FO-PID
controllers becomes as easy through a simple tuning method.
As discussed before, a lot of research has already been done to show that
FO-PID controllers outperform integer order ones [25, 27, 18, 35, 37, 55, 21, 22,
23, 38, 6, 39]. However, FO-PID controllers are not commonly used in industry
since there is a lack of a simple tuning rule for such controllers. In this line, the
scope of this article is to use loop-shaping tools to achieve a straightforward and
simple tuning method for FO-PID controllers. In other words, the rule of thumb
which is introduced for IO-PID controllers [36, 54] will be generalized for FO-
PID controllers in order to ensure utilization of FO-PID in more applications
including motion control.
The basis and methodology used to develop the tuning method are elabo-
rated in section 2. Next, the proposed tuning method is evaluated on a high-tech
precision positioning system. Finally, some remarks for further development of
this method are given in section 4.

2. Tuning method

In this section, our new tuning method for FO-PID controllers is elaborated.
Since the rule of thumb is widely utilized in industry, the proposed method is
compatible with this to ensure that industry uses it. Therefore, it is necessary

4
to introduce the rule of thumb [54] for IO-PID controllers briefly. It can be said
that our tuning method is obtained by generalizing the rule of thumb.

2.1. Rule of thumb for IO-PID controllers

One of the simplest approaches for tuning PID controllers defined as:
lead
compensator
PI Block z }| {
1 + ωsd
z }| {
ωi
CIO (s) = kp (1 + ) ( ) (1)
s 1 + ωst

is the rule of thumb which is based on loop-shaping methods. In loop-shaping,

the open-loop transfer function (L = CG) is designed by a controller so that
the closed-loop system behaves in a desired way. As shown in figure 1, the
desired shape of the open-loop transfer function in positioning systems is:

• Having high gain at low frequencies for better tracking and disturbance
rejection

• Sufficient phase margin to ensure stability and robustness

• Having good roll-off at high frequency for better noise rejection

In this respect, the PI block of controller (1) improves the disturbance rejection
and tracking.

5
 100

80
Integration
60 Part

40
Gain slope -1
Lead-Lag
Magnitude (dB)

20
Compensator
0
Gain slope -2
-20
Low-Pass
-40 Filter

-60

-80 Gain slope -1

-100
-80

-100
Tracking and Noise
Stability rejection
disturbance rejection
-120
Phase(°)

-140

-160

-180
Low Frequency-----------------------Bandwidth--------------------High frequency

Figure 1: The desired open-loop transfer function (loop-shaping)

Moreover, the lead compensator part of controller (1) is used to achieve the
phase (ϕ) at the cross-over frequency (ωc ). The phase provided by this controller
at the cross-over frequency is equal to:

ωc ωc ωi
ϕ = tan−1 ( ) − tan−1 ( ) − tan−1 ( ) (2)
ωd ωt ωc

According to the rule of thumb [36, 54], the tuning knobs in above equations
are set to:
1
kp = (3)
3|G(ωc )|
ωc
ωd = (4)
3
ωt = 3ωc (5)

6
 ωc
ωi = (6)
10
where G(ω) is the plant transfer function. It is obvious that, in this tuning
method, all the control parameters are directly related to the cross-over fre-
quency. It is important to mention that factor 3 in kp, ωd and ωt are chosen
to provide about 53◦ phase at the cross-over frequency and, if a higher phase
margin is required, this factor can increased. This method has been used in
industry since it is simple and reliable. However, it must be recalled that this
is not an optimal tuning method.

2.2. Problem formulation

As mentioned before, FO-PID controllers can provide an appropriate trade-

off between stability and precision. In addition, unlike IO-PID controllers, some
special constraints such as iso-damping can be considered for tuning FO-PID
controllers which results in higher robustness against the gain variations in the
system. Consequently, in many cases, FO-PID controllers outperform IO-PID
controllers. Here, we introduce a new simple tuning method for FO-PID con-
trollers which have below structure:
s
ωi λ 1 + ωd µ
CF O (s) = kp (1 + ) ( ) (7)
s 1 + ωst

Similar to the rule of thumb for IO-PID controllers, the cut-off frequencies are
substituted with:
ωc
ωd = (8)
a
ωt = aωc (9)
ωc
ωi = (10)
b
Now, controller (7) becomes:
as
ωc λ 1 + ωc µ
CF O (s) = kp (1 + ) ( ) (11)
bs 1 + aωs c

where:

(i) (a, b, λ, µ) ∈ R,

7
 (ii) µ ∈ [0, 2],
(iii) λ ∈ [1, 2],
(iv) 2 ≤ a ≤ b,
(v) b ≥ 5,
(vi) |GC(ωc )| = 1,
(vii) 3 ≤ aµ = Q ≤ 9.

Looking at the controller (11), it is understood that the cross-over frequency (ωc )
is the geometric mean of the corner frequencies of the lead compensator. Con-
sequently, the maximum phase of the controller is at the cross-over frequency.
Using constraint (vi), we get:

|G(ωc )|−1 |G(ωc )|−1

kp ≈ µ
= , µ = loga Q (12)
a Q

Now, gain at low and high frequencies are achieved as:

ωc λ |G(ωc )|−1 ωc λ
limω→0 |CF O (ω)| = kp ( bω ) = Q ( bω )
as
|G(ωc )|−1
(13)
limω→∞ |CF O (ω)| = kp ( ωc
s
µ
) = Q (a2 )µ = |G(ωc )|−1 Q
aωc

The bode diagram of the controller (11) is shown in figure 2 and relations
between controller performances and tuning knobs are summarized in table 1:

Table 1: Relations between controller performances and knob parameters

Performance Dependency

Disturbance rejection High gain

1
kp , ωi , λ ∝ Q, b
, λ
and tracking at low frequencies

Phase margin
Stability ωd , ωt , µ ∝ Q
at the bandwidth

Low gain
Noise rejection kp , ωd , ωt , µ ∝ Q
at high frequencies

8
 I action P action D action T action
Magnitude(dB)

- 20dB/decade 20dB/decade

90

Tracking and Noise

Stability rejection
disturbance rejection
Phase(°)

- 90

i d c t
Frequency(rad/s)

Figure 2: Bode diagram of FO-PID controller

It is observed from table 1 that parameter Q = aµ plays a significant role

and determines key performance indicators of the designed controller in all three
regions including precision, stability, and robustness.

• Stability: Increasing parameter Q leads to an increased phase margin.

• Robustness: Increasing parameter Q while µ is constant leads to better iso-

damping behaviour (figure 3). Therefore, the system has more robustness
against gain variations.

• Precision: According to equation (13), decreasing parameter Q leads to

better tracking, noise and disturbance rejection (figure 4).

As a result, a controller with larger Q has worse precision (worse tracking,

disturbance and noise rejection capabilities) while it has higher stability margin

9
and robustness. Applying the rule of thumb ((4) and (5)), the parameter Q can
be found to be 3 and 9 for the first and second order lead filter, respectively. On
the one hand, for Q less than 3, robustness and stability features of the controller
are not in an appropriate shape; on the other hand, for Q more than 9, precision
is unfavourable. Hence, it is rational to constrain the value of Q in the range of
[3, 9] (i.e. constraint(vii)). As shown in figure 2, constraint (iv) is used to avoid
the differentiator cancelling the integration. Constraints (iii) and (v) are to be
considered for tuning the parameters of the lag compensator. The former one is
used to avoid losing disturbance rejection and tracking performance compared
to lag compensator of IO-PID controllers. The latter one is supposed to give
flexibility to designers in order to tune a so that it satisfies constraint (iv) (i.e
a ≤ b).

Q2
Q1

0
Phaseo

-90

c
Frequency(rad/s)

Figure 3: Comparison of phase behavior of the controller for a fixed value of µ with different
value of Q (Q2 > Q1 )

10
 Q1
Magnitude(dB) Q2

c
Frequency(rad/s)

Figure 4: Comparison of magnitude behavior of the controller for two values of Q (Q2 > Q1 )

2.3. Setting parameters

All in all, for tuning this controller, there are four parameters (Q, a, b, λ)
which must be set. In the following sections, the tuning procedure of each
part including lag and lead compensator are elaborated separately. Finally, the
tuning procedure is summarized in section 2.4.

2.3.1. Lag compensator

In this section, the tuning of lag compensator which involves setting the
values of b and λ is described. As shown in table 1, the gain of the controller
at low frequencies depends on (Q, b, λ). Tuning parameter Q will be discussed
in the next section because it influences the lead compensator. So, for each
value of Q, parameters b and λ are set so that the FO-lag compensator has the
same or better disturbance rejection and tracking capability in comparison with
IO-lag compensator which is tuned by the rule of thumb. From the tracking
perspective, this guarantees that FO-PID tuned by the proposed method out-
performs the IO-PID tuned by the rule of thumb. In addition, for each value
of Q, b must be chosen as minimum as possible since the amount of phase loss
at the cross-over frequency owing to this lag compensator is a monotonically
increasing function with respect to parameter b (see Appendix A). Eventually,

11
the tuning parameters of the lag compensator are obtained as:

 30 3 ≤ Q ≤ 6

Q
b= (14)
5 6<Q≤9



1 3≤Q≤6

λ= (15)
Q
log 6<Q≤9

2 3

Figure 5 shows (b, λ) versus Q parameter. For detailed information about how
equations (14) and (15) are derived, see Appendix A. As defined before, equation
(14) has to satisfy the constraint (iv), hence:

3 ≤ Q ≤ 9

a≤5
(16)
3 ≤ Q ≤ 30
a>5

a

1.6 10
9.5
1.5 9
8.5
1.4
8
7.5
1.3
7
b

1.2 6.5
6
1.1 5.5
5
1 4.5
4
0.9 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 Q
Q

(a) λ versus Q (b) b versus Q

Figure 5: (λ, b) versus Q

2.3.2. Lead compensator

As it has been discussed, the lead part is utilized to increase the phase of
the system in order to achieve the specified phase margin. The positive phase
from the lead element at the cross-over frequency can be obtained as:
1

ϕLead = 57◦ µ tan−1 (a) − tan−1 ( ) (17)
a
Using equation (12), equation (17) can be rewritten as:
1

ϕLead = 57◦ loga Q tan−1 (a) − tan−1 ( ) (18)
a

12
Equation (18) can be simplified as:

(0.2Q + 0.42)F (a, 3) 3≤Q≤6

ϕLead ≈ (19)
(0.12Q + 0.92)F (a, 3) 6<Q≤9


where F (a, 3) (figure 6) is ϕLead for Q = 3 (For more information see Appendix
B). Finally, the phase of the controller at the cross-over frequency can be ob-
tained by adding phase of the lead compensator to the phase of lag compensator
as (see Appendix B):
  
(0.2Q + 0.42) F (a, 3) − 6.2

3≤Q≤6
ϕC = ϕLead + ϕIP ⇒ ϕC ≈  
(0.12Q + 0.92) F (a, 3) − 8.16

6<Q≤9
(20)

59
58
57
56
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
a

Figure 6: ϕLead versus a for Q = 3

The maximum error of the phase of the controller at the cross-over frequency
due to these simplifications is less than 3◦ which is negligible (see Appendix B).
Hence, we can claim that the phase of the controller at the cross-over frequency
for each value of a and Q can be found by using equation (20) and figure 6.

13
2.4. Design procedure summary

In the previous sections, the lag and lead elements are separately tuned in a
simple manner. Now, it is possible to present the new complete simple tuning
method. The procedure for tuning the FO-PID controller for a given ωc and ϕm
(the cross-over frequency and desired phase margin respectively) is as follows:

1. Calculate the amount of phase lead to be provided by the controller at

the cross-over frequency by utilizing below equation:

ϕC = ϕm − Arg(G(ωc )) − 180 (21)

2. Choose a proper value for a by considering gain uncertainty of the plant

(empirically, it is suggested to consider initial value between 3 and 6)
3. Find the value of F (a, 3) using figure 6 for the considered value of a
4. Having F (a, 3) and ϕC , obtain the values of Q through equation (20)
considering constraint (16) and select the smaller value
5. Find the value of µ, kp , b and λ using equations (12), (12), (14) and (15)
6. Check the precision constraints. If they are satisfied, the controller is
tuned. Otherwise, decrease the value of parameter a and repeat the steps
(3) to (6)
7. To implement FO controllers, it is necessary to approximate fractional
order part of the controller to a rational transfer function using present
methods such as Matsuda, Oustaloup, Carlson etc. [56, 57]

14
 Determine values of
c and m

Calculating c using
equation (21)

Guess parameter a

Finding F(a , 3) using

figure 6

Having F(a , 3) and c , calculating Q using

equation (20) under constraint (16) and
choosing the smaller value of it

Setting parameters
b, , and k p

Checking precision
Decrease value of a
requirements

Are they
satisfied?
No

Yes
Approximation
fractional order part

Finish

Figure 7: Design procedure

Figure 7 shows the tuning procedure completely. Although this is not an opti-
mal tuning method, it is a simple and straightforward rule for tuning FO-PID
controllers for industrial applications.

3. Practical example

To validate the proposed tuning method, a precision planar positioning stage

(figure 8) is used [58]. In order to make it simple, only one of the actuators (1A)

15
is considered and used for controlling the position of mass ‘3’ attached to the
same actuator which results in a SISO system.

Figure 8: 3 DOF planar precision positioning ‘Spyder’ stage. Voice coil actuators 1A, 1B and
1C control 3 masses (indicated as 3) which are constrained by leaf flexures. The 3 masses are
connected to central mass (indicated by 2) through leaf flexures. Linear encoders (indicated
by 4) placed under masses ‘3’ provide position feedback

To identify the plant and implement the controller, an FPGA module (Myrio
from National Instruments) has been used running on Labview 2016 which leads
to a fast real-time control. LM388 linear power amplifier is utilized to drive
the Lorentz actuator and Mercury M2000 linear encoder is used to obtain po-
sition feedback with a resolution of 0.1 µm. The whole setup and identified
frequency response data of the system are respectively illustrated in figure 9
and 10. Although the plant is a collocated double mass-spring system, the
identified frequency response data is well approximated by a second order mass-
spring-damper system (equation (22)) because this system has a high damping
coefficient as shown in figure 10.
Ke−τ s 105e−0.0006s
G(s) ≈ s2
= s2
(22)
2
ωn + 2ζs
ωn + 1
s
7744 + 176 + 1

The design requirements for this system are:

• the cross-over frequency: ωc = 85Hz

16
• the phase margin: ϕm = 50◦

• the gain margin: gm ≥ 6dB

• the modulus margin: Mm ≤ 6dB

Figure 9: 3-DOF planar precision positioning set up

17
 50
FRF Data
40 Fitted transfer
function

Magnitude(dB)
30

20

10

-10
200

100
Phase(°)

-100

-200
10-1 100 101 102
Frequency(Hz)

Figure 10: Identified frequency response data and its approximation

Now, the controller is tuned using the described procedure to satisfy these re-
quirements:

1. The required phase lead of the controller is calculated through equation

(21):
ϕC = 50 − (−194) − 180 = 64◦

2. The initial value for a is selected to be 5.

3. The value of F (5, 3) = 46 is obtained from figure 6.
4. The value of parameter Q is found solving equation (20) as:
  
(0.2Q + 0.42) F (5, 3) − 6.2

3≤Q≤6
64 =  
(0.12Q + 0.92) F (5, 3) − 8.16

6<Q≤9
⇒ Q = 6, 6.5

As was mentioned before, the minimum value of Q is chosen due to better

noise attenuation. Hence, Q = 6 is chosen.

18
 5. Other parameters including µ, kp , λ, and b are calculated utilizing equa-
tions (12), (12), (15) and (14) respectively. Therefore, the tuning param-
eters are as follow:

• a=5

• Q=6
|G(ωc =85)|−1
• kp = Q = 0.0595

• µ = log5 6 = 1.11

• λ=1
30
• b= 6 =5

6. The performance specifications of these controllers are in the table 2. As

can be observed, all the requirements are met by FO-PID. Hence, another
iteration is not needed and the tuning procedure is finished.
7. The fractional part of the lead compensator of this controller is approxi-
mated by the Oustaloup continuous approximation method [50, 54], which
is one of the most known approximation methods. The frequency band
is from 17 to 425 Hz and the order of the approximation is 2 (number of
poles and zeros). Hence, the designed controller is:
Approximation part
z }| {
s s
107
s
1+ 107 1+ 219 1+ 1094 (23)
CF O (s) = 0.0595(1 + s )( 1+ 2670
s )( s )( s )
1+ 261 1+ 1305
Although the goal of this paper is introducing a simple tuning rule for FO-PID
controllers and not to show advantages of FO-PID over IO-PID controllers, it is
noteworthy to compare performances of the IO-PID tuned by the rule of thumb
of [36, 54] and FO-PID tuned by this proposed method. The tuning parameters
for IO-PID are listed below:

|G(ωc =85)|−1
• kp = 3 = 0.1117

ωc
• ωi = 10 = 54

ωc
• ωd = 3 = 176

19
 • ωt = 3ωc = 1600

The Bode plots of the open-loop transfer functions of the system for both con-
trollers are plotted in figure 11. It is discerned from this figure that the FO-PID
has more phase margin, more phase flatness around the bandwidth, better track-
ing and disturbance rejection than IO-PID. Although at high frequencies the
performance of IO controller is slightly better than FO one, this is of less con-
cern since it can be overcome using an extra low pass filter. However, it might
slightly reduce the phase margin which is the consequence of waterbed effect.
In other words, when stability and robustness are improved, the precision will
decrease and vice versa. In addition, it is found that the IO-PID tuned by the
rule of thumb could not satisfy the phase margin requirement and this fact can
be considered as one of the advantages of the designed FO-PID over IO-PID
tuned by the rule of thumb.

Table 2: Performance specifications of designed controllers

Controllers ωc ϕm MM GM
◦
FO-PID 85Hz 49 3.6dB 15dB
IO-PID 85Hz 35◦ 6.1dB 13.3dB

20
 FO-PID
IO-PID
60
Magnitude (dB)
40

=85 Hz
c
20

-20

180

90
Phase (°)

-90

-180

10-1 100 101 102

Frequency [Hz]

Figure 11: Frequency response of the open-loop transfer function of the system for FO-PID
and IO-PID

Now, the robustness of the systems against gain variations (i.e iso-damping)
and tracking performance are investigated practically. To obtain experimental
results, the designed controllers are discretized for implementation using Tustin
method [50, 54] with a sampling time Ts = 0.1ms. The discretized forms of the
controllers are as follows:

2.03z 4 − 7.79z 3 + 11.18z 2 − 7.12z + 1.7

CF O (z) = (24)
z 4 − 3.56z 3 + 4.72z 2 − 2.77z + 0.61
37.74z 2 − 74.62z + 36.88
CIO (z) = (25)
z 2 − 1.852z + 0.8519
Figure 12 illustrates the response of the closed-loop systems to a step input of
50 µm. The gain of the plant is varied from 80%K to 120%K (i.e K ∈ (85−125))

21
in both cases. It is deduced from figure 12 that FO-PID has less overshoot and
is more robust against gain variation within the range of 80%K to 120%K in
comparison with IO-PID controller. The tracking response and tracking error
of both controllers are depicted in figure 13 and 14. As it is shown, the FO-PID
reduces the error tracking by 30%. It is concluded that the FO-PID has better
tracking and disturbance rejection features than IO-PID controller. These facts
are predictable from figure 11 because i) open-loop transfer function FO-PID
has more phase margin and its phase is flatter near the bandwidth ii) gains of the
FO-PID at low frequency are higher than the IO one. Finally, the advantages
of FO-PID tuned by the proposed method over IO-PID tuned by the rule of
thumb are summarized as:

• PID (tuned by the rule of thumb) cannot achieve a bandwidth of 85Hz

guaranteeing the phase margin to be 50◦ . To do so the differentiation
band has to change, which jeopardizes the noise rejection and tracking
performance [36].

• Designing both controllers for the bandwidth of 85Hz, the FO-PID has
better tracking and disturbance rejection performance than integer order
one as shown in figure 13.

• The FO-PID is more robust against the gain variation as shown in figure
12 (iso-damping behaviour).

22
 80
80 K=85
K=85
K=105
K=105
K=125
K=125 70
70

60
60

50

Amplitude( m)
50
Amplitude( m)

40
40

30
30

20
20

10
10

0
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Time(s)
Time(s)

(a) FO-PID (rule of thumb) (b) IO-PID (rule of thumb)

Figure 12: Experimental step responses of the system

600
Reference
500 FO-PID
IO-PID
499.5
400
499

498.5
200
Amplitude( m)

498
1.245 1.25 1.255 1.26 1.265

-200

-400

-600
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time(s)

Figure 13: Tracking performance of FO-PID and IO-PID for r = 500 sin(2πωt)

23
 7
FO-PID
IO-PID

5
Amplitude( m)

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time(s)

Figure 14: Tracking error of the system for both FO-PID and IO-PID for r = 500 sin(2πωt)

4. Conclusion

In this study, an industry standard simple tuning method for fractional

order PID controllers is proposed. This method is widely applicable to both
linear process and motion systems. In this method, the controller is easily
tuned through the knowledge of the frequency response of the plant. Controllers
tuned by the proposed method are robust against gain variations based on the
flatness of the phase plot of the controller around the cross-over frequency. The
method has been verified experimentally on a precision planar positioning stage.
The results illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed tuning method and the
possibility of iso-damping behavior with this method. Moreover, it is shown that
the FO-PID controller tuned by the proposed method outperforms the IO-PID
tuned by the rule of thumb. All in all, this paper proposes and demonstrates the
effectiveness of a widely applicable simple tuning rule through which engineers
can quickly find a proper initial tuning point for the FO-PID controllers.

24
Appendix A (lag compensator)

In this section, the tuning of lag compensator which involves setting the
values of b and λ is elaborated completely. As discussed earlier, for each value
of Q, parameters b and λ are set so that the lag compensator has the same or
better disturbance rejection capability and tracking in comparison with IO-lag
compensators which are tuned by the rule of thumb. As a result,

lim |CF O (s)| ≥ lim |CIO−thumb (s)| (26)

ω→ωlow ω→ωlow

where (ωlow ∈ (0, ω10c )). Then, equation (26) is approximated to:

|G(ωc )|−1 ωc λ |G(ωc )|−1 ωc

( ) ≥ . (27)
Q bs 30s
When λ ≥ 1, the new tuning rule will have better tracking than the rule of
thumb if its gain is at least equal to the gain of IO-PID controllers tuned by the
ωc
rule of thumb at ω = 10 . Therefore, equation (27) is replaced by:
−1
|G(ωc )|−1 ωc 

|G(ωc )| ωc λ 10
λ Q Q

| ( ) |=| | ⇒ = ⇒ λ = log( 10 ) . (28)
Q bs 30s ω= ωc b 3 b 3
10

Applying constraint (iii) to equation (28), we get:

Q Q 10 30
λ ≥ 1 ⇒ log( 10b ) ( )≥1⇒ ≥ ⇒b≥ . (29)
3 3 b Q
In addition, the phase loss at cross-over frequency owing to this lag compensator
is:
1 Q 1
ϕlP = −57◦ λ tan−1 ( ) ⇒ ϕlP = −57◦ log( 10b ) ( ) tan−1 ( ) (30)
b 3 b
It must be noted that 57◦ is the conversion factor from radians to degrees.
Equation (30) is a monotonically increasing function with respect to parameter
b for each value of Q:

∂|ϕIP |  ln( Q )  tan−1 ( 1 ) 1  ∀Q∈(3,9) ∂ϕIP

= 57◦ 3 b
− =====⇒ ≥0 (31)
∂b ln( 10
b ) b ln( 10
b )
1 + b2 b≥5 ∂b

So, for each Q, b must be chosen as minimum as possible. Eventually, the

lag compensator of the controller is tuned by solving the below optimization
problem:

25
 1. Objective function : {b}min
2. C1 : b ≥ 5
30
3. C2 : b ≥ Q

4. C3 : 3 ≤ Q ≤ 9
5. C4 : λ = log( 10b ) ( Q
3)

The tuning parameters are obtained as:


 30 3 ≤ Q ≤ 6

Q
b= (32)
5 6<Q≤9



1 3≤Q≤6

λ= (33)
Q
log 6<Q≤9

2 3

Figure 15 shows (|ϕIP |) versus Q parameter. Equation (30) is simplified by

approximating it by a linear function using the least square fitting tool as follows:

Q −(1.87Q + 0.12) 3 ≤ Q ≤ 6

◦ −1 1
ϕIP = −57 log( 10b ) ( ) tan ( ) ≈ (34)
3 b −(2.18Q − 1.5) 6 < Q ≤ 9


18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Q

Figure 15: |ϕIP | versus Q

26
Appendix B (lead compensator)

As it has been discussed, the phase from the lead element at the cross-over
frequency can be obtained as:
1

ϕLead = 57◦ loga Q tan−1 (a) − tan−1 ( )
a
Function ϕLead can be reshaped as:
 1

ϕLead = (log3 Q) 57◦ loga 3 tan−1 (a) − tan−1 ( ) = (log3 Q)F (a, 3) (35)
a
In this respect, F (a, 3) (figure (6)) is used to calculate function ϕLead using
figure (6) and equation (35) for each value of a and Q. For simplicity, it is
decided to linearize function log3 Q utilizing the least square method to get:

0.2Q + 0.42 3 ≤ Q ≤ 6

log3 Q ≈ (36)
0.12Q + 0.92 6 < Q ≤ 9


Now, the phase of the controller at the cross-over frequency is calculated as

below equation using equation (34):

(0.2Q + 0.42)F (a, 3) − (1.87Q + 0.12) 3 ≤ Q ≤ 6

ϕC = ϕLead +ϕIP ⇒ ϕC ≈
(0.12Q + 0.92)F (a, 3) − (2.18Q − 1.5) 6 < Q ≤ 9


(37)
Equation (37) can be rewritten in the form of:
  
(0.2Q + 0.42) F (a, 3) − α(Q)

3≤Q≤6
ϕC ≈   (38)
(0.12Q + 0.92) F (a, 3) − β(Q)

6<Q≤9
1.87Q+0.12 2.18Q−1.5
where α(Q) = 0.2Q+0.42 and β(Q) = 0.12Q+0.92 . For further simplification,
functions α(Q) and β(Q) can be substituted with their average values. In other
words, R6
α(Q)dQ
α(Q) ≈ 3
≈ 6.2
R 9 6−3 (39)
β(Q)dQ
β(Q) ≈ 6
9−6 ≈ 8.16
Finally, equation (37) becomes:
  
(0.2Q + 0.42) F (a, 3) − 6.2

3≤Q≤6
ϕC ≈  
(0.12Q + 0.92) F (a, 3) − 8.16

6<Q≤9

27
For each value of a and Q, the exact value of the phase at the cross-over fre-
quency is compared to the one obtained from approximation (equation (20))
and figure 16 shows the maximum error for each value of Q. As it is observed,
the maximum error of the phase of the controller at the cross-over frequency
due to these simplifications is less than 3◦ which is negligible.

2.5
Maximum error ( o)

1.5

0.5

0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Q

Figure 16: The maximum value of error for each value of Q

References

[1] A. O’Dwyer, Handbook of PI and PID controller tuning rules, World Sci-
entific, 2009.

[2] J. Sabatier, O. P. Agrawal, J. T. Machado, Advances in fractional calculus,

Vol. 4, Springer, 2007.

[3] D. Baleanu, J. A. T. Machado, A. C. Luo, Fractional dynamics and control,

Springer Science & Business Media, 2011.

[4] R. E. Gutiérrez, J. M. Rosário, J. Tenreiro Machado, Fractional order cal-

culus: basic concepts and engineering applications, Mathematical Problems
in Engineering 2010.

[5] K. Oldham, J. Spanier, The fractional calculus theory and applications of

differentiation and integration to arbitrary order, Vol. 111, Elsevier, 1974.

28
 [6] L. Marinangeli, F. Alijani, S. H. HosseinNia, Fractional-order positive posi-
tion feedback compensator for active vibration control of a smart composite
plate, Journal of Sound and Vibration 412 (2018) 1–16.

[7] S. H. HosseinNia, I. Tejado, B. M. Vinagre, Fractional-order reset control:

Application to a servomotor, Mechatronics 23 (7) (2013) 781–788.

[8] E. Gonzalez, L. Dorčák, C. Monje, J. Valsa, F. Caluyo, I. Petráš, Con-

ceptual design of a selectable fractional-order differentiator for industrial
applications, Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis 17 (3) (2014) 697–
716.

[9] J. M. Cruz-Hernández, V. Hayward, Phase control approach to hysteresis

reduction, IEEE transactions on control systems technology 9 (1) (2001)
17–26.

[10] C. Ma, Y. Hori, The application backlash of fractional order control to

vibration suppression, in: American Control Conference, 2004. Proceedings
of the 2004, Vol. 3, IEEE, 2004, pp. 2901–2906.

[11] S. H. HosseinNia, R. L. Magin, B. M. Vinagre, Chaos in fractional and

integer order nsg systems, Signal Processing 107 (2015) 302–311.

[12] Y. Chen, K. L. Moore, Analytical stability bound for a class of delayed

fractional-order dynamic systems, in: Decision and Control, 2001. Proceed-
ings of the 40th IEEE Conference on, Vol. 2, IEEE, 2001, pp. 1421–1426.

[13] Y. Chen, I. Petras, D. Xue, Fractional order control-a tutorial, in: Ameri-
can Control Conference, 2009. ACC’09., IEEE, 2009, pp. 1397–1411.

[14] D. Xue, Y. Chen, A comparative introduction of four fractional order con-

trollers, in: Intelligent Control and Automation, 2002. Proceedings of the
4th World Congress on, Vol. 4, IEEE, 2002, pp. 3228–3235.

[15] J. T. Machado, et al., Discrete-time fractional-order controllers, Fractional

Calculus and Applied Analysis 4 (1) (2001) 47–66.

29
[16] C. Zhao, D. Xue, Y. Chen, A fractional order PID tuning algorithm for
a class of fractional order plants, in: Mechatronics and automation, 2005
IEEE international conference, Vol. 1, IEEE, 2005, pp. 216–221.

[17] Y. Chen, Ubiquitous fractional order controls?, IFAC Proceedings Volumes

39 (11) (2006) 481–492.

[18] D. Xue, Y. Chen, Fractional order calculus and its applications in mecha-
tronic system controls organizers, in: Mechatronics and Automation, Pro-
ceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, 2006, pp.
nil33–nil33.

[19] I. Tejado, S. H. HosseinNia, D. Torres, B. M. Vinagre, Á. López-Bernal,

F. J. Villalobos, L. Testi, I. Podlubny, Fractional models for measuring
sap velocities in trees, in: Fractional Differentiation and Its Applications
(ICFDA), 2014 International Conference on, IEEE, 2014, pp. 1–6.

[20] M. P. Aghababa, M. Borjkhani, Chaotic fractional-order model for muscu-

lar blood vessel and its control via fractional control scheme, Complexity
20 (2) (2014) 37–46.

[21] F. Ge, Y. Chen, C. Kou, Cyber-physical systems as general distributed pa-

rameter systems: three types of fractional order models and emerging re-
search opportunities, IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 2 (4) (2015)
353–357.

[22] K. Cao, Y. Chen, D. Stuart, A fractional micro-macro model for crowds of

pedestrians based on fractional mean field games, IEEE/CAA Journal of
Automatica sinica 3 (3) (2016) 261–270.

[23] J. Huang, Y. Chen, H. Li, X. Shi, Fractional order modeling of human oper-
ator behavior with second order controlled plant and experiment research,
IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica 3 (3) (2016) 271–280.

30
[24] J. Wang, L. Qiao, Y. Ye, Y. Chen, Fractional envelope analysis for rolling
element bearing weak fault feature extraction, IEEE/CAA Journal of Au-
tomatica Sinica 4 (2) (2017) 353–360.

[25] B. M. Vinagre, I. Podlubny, L. Dorcak, V. Feliu, On fractional PID con-

trollers: a frequency domain approach, IFAC Proceedings Volumes 33 (4)
(2000) 51–56.

[26] I. Podlubny, Fractional-order systems and PIλ Dµ -controllers, IEEE Trans-

actions on automatic control 44 (1) (1999) 208–214.

[27] Y. Luo, Y. Chen, Y. Pi, Experimental study of fractional order proportional

derivative controller synthesis for fractional order systems, Mechatronics
21 (1) (2011) 204–214.

[28] S. E. Hamamci, An algorithm for stabilization of fractional-order time de-

lay systems using fractional-order PID controllers, IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control 52 (10) (2007) 1964–1969.

[29] K. Rajagopal, L. Guessas, A. Karthikeyan, A. Srinivasan, G. Adam, Frac-

tional order memristor no equilibrium chaotic system with its adaptive slid-
ing mode synchronization and genetically optimized fractional order PID
synchronization, Complexity 2017.

[30] A.-A. Zamani, S. Tavakoli, S. Etedali, Fractional order PID control design
for semi-active control of smart base-isolated structures: a multi-objective
cuckoo search approach, ISA transactions 67 (2017) 222–232.

[31] F. N. Deniz, A. Yüce, N. Tan, D. P. Atherton, Tuning of fractional order

PID controllers based on integral performance criteria using Fourier series
method, IFAC-PapersOnLine 50 (1) (2017) 8561–8566.

[32] R. Sharma, P. Gaur, A. Mittal, Performance analysis of two-degree of free-

dom fractional order PID controllers for robotic manipulator with payload,
ISA transactions 58 (2015) 279–291.

31
[33] I. Petráš, Tuning and implementation methods for fractional-order con-
trollers, Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis 15 (2) (2012) 282–303.

[34] S. K. Damarla, M. Kundu, Design of robust fractional PID controller us-

ing triangular strip operational matrices, Fractional Calculus and Applied
Analysis 18 (5) (2015) 1291–1326.

[35] D. Valério, J. S. da Costa, Tuning of fractional PID controllers with

Ziegler–Nichols-type rules, Signal Processing 86 (10) (2006) 2771–2784.

[36] M. E. Krijnen, R. A. van Ostayen, H. HosseinNia, The application of

fractional order control for an air-based contactless actuation system, ISA
transactions.

[37] C. A. Monje, A. J. Calderon, B. M. Vinagre, Y. Chen, V. Feliu, On frac-

tional PIλ controllers: some tuning rules for robustness to plant uncertain-
ties, Nonlinear Dynamics 38 (1) (2004) 369–381.

[38] S. H. Hosseinnia, I. Tejado, V. Milanés, J. Villagrá, B. M. Vinagre, Ex-

perimental application of hybrid fractional-order adaptive cruise control at
low speed, IEEE transactions on control systems technology 22 (6) (2014)
2329–2336.

[39] M. Zarghami, M. Babazadeh, S. H. Hosseinnia, Performance enhancement

of spark ignition engines by using fractional order controller, in: Control
Conference (ECC), 2016 European, IEEE, 2016, pp. 1248–1252.

[40] C. A. Monje, B. M. Vinagre, A. J. Calderon, V. Feliu, Y. Chen, Auto-

tuning of fractional lead-lag compensators, IFAC Proceedings Volumes
38 (1) (2005) 319–324.

[41] C. A. Monje, B. M. Vinagre, V. Feliu, Y. Chen, Tuning and auto-tuning of

fractional order controllers for industry applications, Control engineering
practice 16 (7) (2008) 798–812.

32
[42] B. M. Vinagre, C. A. Monje, A. J. Calderón, J. I. Suárez, Fractional PID
controllers for industry application. a brief introduction, Journal of Vibra-
tion and Control 13 (9-10) (2007) 1419–1429.

[43] J.-Y. Cao, J. Liang, B.-G. Cao, Optimization of fractional order PID con-
trollers based on genetic algorithms, in: Machine Learning and Cybernetics,
2005. Proceedings of 2005 International Conference on, Vol. 9, IEEE, 2005,
pp. 5686–5689.

[44] J. T. Machado, Optimal tuning of fractional controllers using genetic algo-

rithms, Nonlinear Dynamics 62 (1-2) (2010) 447–452.

[45] Z. Chen, X. Yuan, B. Ji, P. Wang, H. Tian, Design of a fractional or-

der PID controller for hydraulic turbine regulating system using chaotic
non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II, Energy Conversion and Man-
agement 84 (2014) 390–404.

[46] M. Zamani, M. Karimi-Ghartemani, N. Sadati, M. Parniani, Design of a

fractional order PID controller for an AVR using particle swarm optimiza-
tion, Control Engineering Practice 17 (12) (2009) 1380–1387.

[47] D. Maiti, S. Biswas, A. Konar, Design of a fractional order PID

controller using particle swarm optimization technique, arXiv preprint
arXiv:0810.3776.

[48] Y. Chen, T. Bhaskaran, D. Xue, Practical tuning rule development for

fractional order proportional and integral controllers, Journal of Computa-
tional and Nonlinear Dynamics 3 (2) (2008) 021403.

[49] F. Padula, A. Visioli, Optimal tuning rules for proportional-integral-

derivative and fractional-order proportional-integral-derivative controllers
for integral and unstable processes, IET Control Theory &amp; Applica-
tions 6 (6) (2012) 776–786.

[50] J. Sabatier, P. Lanusse, P. Melchior, A. Oustaloup, Fractional order differ-

entiation and robust control design, Vol. 77, Springer, 2015.

33
 [51] V. Feliu-Batlle, R. R. Perez, L. S. Rodriguez, Fractional robust control of
main irrigation canals with variable dynamic parameters, Control Engi-
neering Practice 15 (6) (2007) 673–686.

[52] H. Li, Y. Luo, Y. Chen, A fractional order proportional and derivative

(FOPD) motion controller: tuning rule and experiments, IEEE Transac-
tions on control systems technology 18 (2) (2010) 516–520.

[53] Y. Luo, Y. Chen, Fractional order [proportional derivative] controller for a

class of fractional order systems, Automatica 45 (10) (2009) 2446–2450.

[54] R. M. Schmidt, G. Schitter, A. Rankers, The Design of High Performance

Mechatronics-: High-Tech Functionality by Multidisciplinary System Inte-
gration, IOS Press, 2014.

[55] J. Liu, T. Zhao, Y. Chen, Maximum power point tracking with fractional
order high pass filter for proton exchange membrane fuel cell, IEEE/CAA
Journal of Automatica Sinica 4 (1) (2017) 70–79.

[56] I. Podlubny, I. Petraš, B. M. Vinagre, P. O’leary, L. Dorčák, Analogue re-

alizations of fractional-order controllers, Nonlinear dynamics 29 (1) (2002)
281–296.

[57] D. Valério, J. Sa da Costa, Ninteger: A non-integer control toolbox for

matlab, Proceedings of the Fractional Differentiation and its Applications,
Bordeaux.

[58] D. Laro, The design of the spider stage, Master’s thesis, TU Delft (2005).

34

View publication stats