Tips Effects Search Control Tutorials

TIPS ABO UT BASIC S HAR DWAR E INDEX NEXT ►

INTR O DUC TIO N C R UISE C O NTR O L

 SYSTEM

MO DELING
Introduction: PID
ANALYSIS Controller Design

In this tutorial we will introduce a simple yet

CONTROL
versatile feedback compensator structure, the
PID Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller.

R O OT LO C US We will discuss the effect of each of the pid

parameters on the closed-loop dynamics and
FR EQ UENC Y
demonstrate how to use a PID controller to
STATE-SPAC E improve the system performance.

DIGITAL Key MATLAB commands used in this tutorial are:

tf, step, pid, feedback, pidtool, pidtune

SIMULINK

MO DELING
Related
C O NTR O L
Tutorial
Links
RC
Circuit

Control

Activity

Temperature
Control

Activity

Motor

Speed
Control

Activity

Related
External
Links
MATLAB

PID
Control

Video

PID
 PID

Control
Intro

Video

Contents

PID Overview

The Characteristics of P, I, and D Controllers

Example Problem

Open-Loop Step Response

Proportional Control

Proportional-Derivative Control

Proportional-Integral Control

Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control

General Tips for Designing a PID Controller

Automatic PID Tuning

PID Overview

In this tutorial, we will consider the following unity feedback system:

The output of a PID controller, equal to the control input to the plant, in

the time-domain is as follows:

(1)

First, let's take a look at how the PID controller works in a closed-loop

system using the schematic shown above. The variable ( )

represents the tracking error, the difference between the desired input

value ( ) and the actual output ( ). This error signal ( ) will be sent to

the PID controller, and the controller computes both the derivative and
the PID controller, and the controller computes both the derivative and
the integral of this error signal. The control signal ( ) to the plant is

equal to the proportional gain ( ) times the magnitude of the error

plus the integral gain ( ) times the integral of the error plus the

derivative gain ( ) times the derivative of the error.

This control signal ( ) is sent to the plant, and the new output ( ) is
obtained. The new output ( ) is then fed back and compared to the

reference to find the new error signal ( ). The controller takes this new

error signal and computes its derivative and its integral again, ad

infinitum.

The transfer function of a PID controller is found by taking the Laplace

transform of Eq.(1).

(2)

= Proportional gain = Integral gain = Derivative gain

We can define a PID controller in MATLAB using the transfer function

directly, for example:

Kp = 1;
Ki = 1;

Kd = 1;

s = tf('s');

C = Kp + Ki/s + Kd*s

C=

s^2 + s + 1

-----------

Continuous-time transfer function.

Alternatively, we may use MATLAB's pid controller object to generate

an equivalent continuous-time controller as follows:

an equivalent continuous-time controller as follows:

C = pid(Kp,Ki,Kd)

C=

1
Kp + Ki * --- + Kd * s

with Kp = 1, Ki = 1, Kd = 1

Continuous-time PID controller in parallel form.

Let's convert the pid object to a transfer function to see that it yields

the same result as above:

tf(C)

ans =

s^2 + s + 1

-----------

Continuous-time transfer function.

The Characteristics of P, I, and D Controllers

A proportional controller ( ) will have the effect of reducing the rise

time and will reduce but never eliminate the steady-state error. An

integral control ( ) will have the effect of eliminating the steady-state

error for a constant or step input, but it may make the transient
response slower. A derivative control ( ) will have the effect of

increasing the stability of the system, reducing the overshoot, and

improving the transient response.

improving the transient response.

The effects of each of controller parameters, , , and on a

closed-loop system are summarized in the table below.

CL RISE SETTLING S-S

OVERSHOOT
RESPONSE TIME TIME ERROR

Small
Kp Decrease Increase Decrease
Change

Ki Decrease Increase Increase Eliminate

Small No
Kd Decrease Decrease
Change Change

Note that these correlations may not be exactly accurate, because ,

, and are dependent on each other. In fact, changing one of

these variables can change the effect of the other two. For this

reason, the table should only be used as a reference when you are

determining the values for , and .

Example Problem

Suppose we have a simple mass, spring, and damper problem.

The modeling equation of this system is

(3)

Taking the Laplace transform of the modeling equation, we get

(4)

The transfer function between the displacement and the input

then becomes
 then becomes

(5)

Let

M = 1 kg

b = 10 N s/m

k = 20 N/m

F=1N

Plug these values into the above transfer function

(6)

The goal of this problem is to show you how each of , and

contributes to obtain

Fast rise time

Minimum overshoot

No steady-state error

Open-Loop Step Response

Let's first view the open-loop step response. Create a new m-file and

run the following code:

s = tf('s');

P = 1/(s^2 + 10*s + 20);

step(P)
The DC gain of the plant transfer function is 1/20, so 0.05 is the final

value of the output to an unit step input. This corresponds to the

steady-state error of 0.95, quite large indeed. Furthermore, the rise

time is about one second, and the settling time is about 1.5 seconds.
Let's design a controller that will reduce the rise time, reduce the

settling time, and eliminate the steady-state error.

Proportional Control

From the table shown above, we see that the proportional controller

(Kp) reduces the rise time, increases the overshoot, and reduces the

steady-state error.

The closed-loop transfer function of the above system with a

proportional controller is:

(7)

Let the proportional gain ( ) equal 300 and change the m-file to the

following:

Kp = 300;

C = pid(Kp)

T = feedback(C*P,1)

t = 0:0.01:2;

step(T,t)

C=

Kp = 300

P-only controller.
 T=

300

----------------

s^2 + 10 s + 320

Continuous-time transfer function.

The above plot shows that the proportional controller reduced both

the rise time and the steady-state error, increased the overshoot, and

decreased the settling time by small amount.

Proportional-Derivative Control

Now, let's take a look at a PD control. From the table shown above,

we see that the derivative controller (Kd) reduces both the overshoot

and the settling time. The closed-loop transfer function of the given
system with a PD controller is:

(8)

Let equal 300 as before and let equal 10. Enter the following

commands into an m-file and run it in the MATLAB command window.

Kp = 300;

Kd = 10;

C = pid(Kp,0,Kd)

T = feedback(C*P,1)

t = 0:0.01:2;

step(T,t)

C=

Kp + Kd * s

with Kp = 300, Kd = 10

Continuous-time PD controller in parallel form.

T=

10 s + 300

----------------

s^2 + 20 s + 320

Continuous-time transfer function.

This plot shows that the derivative controller reduced both the

overshoot and the settling time, and had a small effect on the rise

time and the steady-state error.

Proportional-Integral Control

Before going into a PID control, let's take a look at a PI control. From

the table, we see that an integral controller (Ki) decreases the rise

time, increases both the overshoot and the settling time, and

eliminates the steady-state error. For the given system, the closed-

loop transfer function with a PI control is:

(9)

Let's reduce the to 30, and let equal 70. Create an new m-file

and enter the following commands.

Kp = 30;

Ki = 70;

C = pid(Kp,Ki)

T = feedback(C*P,1)

t = 0:0.01:2;

step(T,t)

C=

Kp + Ki * ---
s

with Kp = 30, Ki = 70
 Continuous-time PI controller in parallel form.

T=

30 s + 70

------------------------
s^3 + 10 s^2 + 50 s + 70

Continuous-time transfer function.

Run this m-file in the MATLAB command window, and you should get
the following plot. We have reduced the proportional gain (Kp)

because the integral controller also reduces the rise time and
increases the overshoot as the proportional controller does (double
effect). The above response shows that the integral controller

eliminated the steady-state error.

Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control

Now, let's take a look at a PID controller. The closed-loop transfer

function of the given system with a PID controller is:

(10)
After several trial and error runs, the gains = 350, = 300, and
= 50 provided the desired response. To confirm, enter the

following commands to an m-file and run it in the command window.

You should get the following step response.

Kp = 350;

Ki = 300;
Kd = 50;

C = pid(Kp,Ki,Kd)
T = feedback(C*P,1);

t = 0:0.01:2;

step(T,t)

C=

Kp + Ki * --- + Kd * s
s

with Kp = 350, Ki = 300, Kd = 50

Continuous-time PID controller in parallel form.

Now, we have obtained a closed-loop system with no overshoot, fast

rise time, and no steady-state error.

General Tips for Designing a PID Controller

When you are designing a PID controller for a given system, follow the

steps shown below to obtain a desired response.

1. Obtain an open-loop response and determine what needs to be

improved

2. Add a proportional control to improve the rise time

3. Add a derivative control to improve the overshoot

4. Add an integral control to eliminate the steady-state error

5. Adjust each of Kp, Ki, and Kd until you obtain a desired overall

response. You can always refer to the table shown in this "PID
Tutorial" page to find out which controller controls what
characteristics.

Lastly, please keep in mind that you do not need to implement all

three controllers (proportional, derivative, and integral) into a single

system, if not necessary. For example, if a PI controller gives a good

enough response (like the above example), then you don't need to
implement a derivative controller on the system. Keep the controller

as simple as possible.

Automatic PID Tuning

MATLAB provides tools for automatically choosing optimal PID gains

which makes the trial and error process described above

unnecessary. You can access the tuning algorithm directly using
pidtune or through a nice graphical user interface (GUI) using pidtool.

The MATLAB automated tuning algorithm chooses PID gains to

balance performance (response time, bandwidth) and robustness

(stability margins). By default the algorthm designs for a 60 degree

phase margin.
Let's explore these automated tools by first generating a proportional

controller for the mass-spring-damper system by entering the

following commands:

pidtool(P,'p')

The pidtool GUI window, like that shown below, should appear.

Notice that the step response shown is slower than the proportional

controller we designed by hand. Now click on the Show Parameters

button on the top right. As expected the proportional gain constant, Kp,

is lower than the one we used, Kp = 94.85 < 300.

We can now interactively tune the controller parameters and

immediately see the resulting response int he GUI window. Try

dragging the resposne time slider to the right to 0.14s, as shown in

the figure below. The response does indeeed speed up, and we can
see Kp is now closer to the manual value. We can also see all the

other performance and robustness parameters for the system. Note

that the phase margin is 60 degrees, the default for pidtool and
generally a good balance of robustness and performance.
generally a good balance of robustness and performance.

Now let's try designing a PID controller for our system. By specifying

the previously designed or (baseline) controller, C, as the second

parameter, pidtool will design another PID controller (instead of P or
PI) and will compare the response of the system with the automated

controller with that of the baseline.

pidtool(P,C)

We see in the output window that the automated controller responds

slower and exhibits more overshoot than the baseline. Now choose

the Design Mode: Extended option at the top, which reveals more
tuning parameters.
 Now type in Bandwidth: 32 rad/s and Phase Margin: 90 deg to

generate a controller similar in performance to the baseline. Keep in

mind that a higher bandwidth (0 dB crossover of the open-loop)

results in a faster rise time, and a higher phase margin reduces the
overshoot and improves the system stability.

Finally we note that we can generate the same controller using the
command line tool pidtune instead of the pidtool GUI

opts = pidtuneOptions('CrossoverFrequency',32,'PhaseMargin'

[C, info] = pidtune(P, 'pid', opts)

C=

1
Kp + Ki * --- + Kd * s
s

with Kp = 320, Ki = 169, Kd = 31.5

Continuous-time PID controller in parallel form.

info =

Stable: 1
CrossoverFrequency: 32
PhaseMargin: 90

Published w ith MATLAB® 7.14

A ll c ontents lic ens ed under a C reative C ommons A ttribution-

ShareA like 4 .0 I nternational L ic ens e.