Tips Effects Search Control Tutorials

TIPS ABOUT BASICS HARDWARE INDEX NEXT ►

INTRODUCTION CRUISE CONTROL MOTOR SPEED

SYSTEM

MODELING
Introduction: PID Controller
ANALYSIS
Design

CONTROL In this tutorial we will introduce a simple, yet

versatile, feedback compensator structure: the

PID
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller. The
ROOT LOCUS PID controller is widely employed because it is very

FREQUENCY understandable and because it is quite effective. One

attraction of the PID controller is that all engineers

STATE-SPACE
understand conceptually differentiation and
DIGITAL integration, so they can implement the control

system even without a deep understanding of control

theory. Further, even though the compensator is

SIMULINK

simple, it is quite sophisticated in that it captures the

MODELING
history of the system (through integration) and
CONTROL anticipates the future behavior of the system

(through differentiation). We will discuss the effect of

SIMSCAPE
each of the PID parameters on the dynamics of a

closed-loop system and will demonstrate how to use

a PID controller to improve a system's performance.

Key MATLAB commands used in this tutorial are: tf ,

step , pid , feedback , pidtune

Related
Tutorial Links

Circuit

Control

Activity

Temp

Control

Activity

Motor

Control
 Activity

Related
External
Links

MATLAB

PID Video

PID Intro

Video

Contents

PID Overview

The Characteristics of the P, I, and D Terms

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, which is equal to the control input to the

plant, is calculated in the time domain from the feedback error 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 output ( ) and the actual
output ( ). This error signal ( ) is fed to the PID controller, and the controller

computes both the derivative and the integral of this error signal with

respect to time. 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 fed 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 an update of the control input. This process continues while the

controller is in effect.

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

transform of Equation (1).

(2)

where = proportional gain, = integral gain, and = derivative gain.

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

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 object to generate an equivalent

continuous-time controller as follows:

C = pid(Kp,Ki,Kd)
 C =

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 verify that it yields the

same result as above:

tf(C)

ans =

s^2 + s + 1

-----------

Continuous-time transfer function.

The Characteristics of the P, I, and D Terms

Increasing the proportional gain ( ) has the effect of proportionally

increasing the control signal for the same level of error. The fact that the

controller will "push" harder for a given level of error tends to cause the

closed-loop system to react more quickly, but also to overshoot more.

Another effect of increasing is that it tends to reduce, but not eliminate,

the steady-state error.

The addition of a derivative term to the controller ( ) adds the ability of

the controller to "anticipate" error. With simple proportional control, if is

fixed, the only way that the control will increase is if the error increases.

With derivative control, the control signal can become large if the error

begins sloping upward, even while the magnitude of the error is still

relatively small. This anticipation tends to add damping to the system,

thereby decreasing overshoot. The addition of a derivative term, however,

has no effect on the steady-state error.

The addition of an integral term to the controller ( ) tends to help reduce

steady-state error. If there is a persistent, steady error, the integrator builds

and builds, thereby increasing the control signal and driving the error down.

A drawback of the integral term, however, is that it can make the system

more sluggish (and oscillatory) since when the error signal changes sign, it
may take a while for the integrator to "unwind."

The general effects of each controller parameter ( , , ) on a closed-

loop system are summarized in the table below. Note, these guidelines hold

in many cases, but not all. If you truly want to know the effect of tuning the

individual gains, you will have to do more analysis, or will have to perform

testing on the actual system.

CL RISE SETTLING S-S

OVERSHOOT
RESPONSE TIME TIME ERROR

Small
Kp Decrease Increase Decrease
Change

Ki Decrease Increase Increase Decrease

Small No
Kd Decrease Decrease
Change Change

Example Problem

Suppose we have a simple mass-spring-damper system.

The governing equation of this system is

(3)

Taking the Laplace transform of the governing equation, we get

(4)

The transfer function between the input force and the output

displacement then becomes

 (5)

Let

m = 1 kg

b = 10 N s/m

k = 20 N/m
F = 1 N

Substituting these values into the above transfer function

(6)

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

contributes to obtaining the common goals of:

Fast rise time

Minimal overshoot

Zero 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 a unit step input. This corresponds to a steady-state error of

0.95, which is quite large. 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 ( )

reduces the rise time, increases the overshoot, and reduces the steady-state

error.

The closed-loop transfer function of our unity-feedback system with a

proportional controller is the following, where is our output (equals

) and our reference is the input:

(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 a small amount.

Proportional-Derivative Control

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

that the addition of derivative control ( ) tends to reduce 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 addition of the derivative term reduced both the

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

and the steady-state error.

Proportional-Integral Control

Before proceeding to PID control, let's investigate PI control. From the table,

we see that the addition of integral control ( ) tends to decrease the rise

time, increase both the overshoot and the settling time, and reduces the
steady-state error. For the given system, the closed-loop transfer function

with a PI controller is:

(9)

Let's reduce to 30, and let equal 70. Create a 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 * ---

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 generate

the above plot. We have reduced the proportional gain ( ) 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 in this case.

Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control

Now, let's examine PID control. The closed-loop transfer function of the

given system with a PID controller is:

(10)

After several iterations of tuning, 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 obtain 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 =
 1

Kp + Ki * --- + Kd * s

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

Continuous-time PID controller in parallel form.

Now, we have designed 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 reduce the overshoot

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

5. Adjust each of the gains , , and 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 which

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 meets the given requirements (like

the above example), then you don't need to implement a derivative controller

on the system. Keep the controller as simple as possible.

An example of tuning a PI controller on an actual physical system can be

found at the following link. This example also begins to illustrate some

challenges of implementing control, including: control saturation, integrator

wind-up, and noise amplification.

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 pidTuner.

The MATLAB automated tuning algorithm chooses PID gains to balance

performance (response time, bandwidth) and robustness (stability

margins). By default, the algorithm 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 command

shown below. In the shown syntax, P is the previously generated plant

model, and 'p' specifies that the tuner employ a proportional controller.

pidTuner(P,'p')

The pidTuner 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, , is smaller than the

one we employed, = 94.86 < 300.

We can now interactively tune the controller parameters and immediately

see the resulting response in the GUI window. Try dragging the Response

Time slider to the right to 0.14 s, as shown in the figure below. This causes

the response to indeed speed up, and we can see is now closer to the

manually chosen value. We can also see other performance and robustness

parameters for the system. Note that before we adjusted the slider, the

target phase margin was 60 degrees. This is the default for the pidTuner

and generally provides a good balance between 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,

pidTuner 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.

pidTuner(P,C)

We see in the output window that the automated controller responds slower

and exhibits more overshoot than the baseline. Now choose the Domain:

Frequency option from the toolstrip, which reveals frequency domain tuning

parameters.
 Now type in 32 rad/s for Bandwidth and 90 deg for Phase Margin, to

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

that a higher closed-loop bandwidth results in a faster rise time, and a larger

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 pidTuner GUI employing the

following syntax.

opts = pidtuneOptions('CrossoverFrequency',32,'PhaseMargin',9

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

C =

Kp + Ki * --- + Kd * s

with Kp = 320, Ki = 796, Kd = 32.2

Continuous-time PID controller in parallel form.

info =

struct with fields:

Stable: 1

CrossoverFrequency: 32

PhaseMargin: 90

Published with MATLAB® 9.2

All contents licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International

License.