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.
