Published in IET Control Theory and Applications

Received on 4th May 2010

Revised on 15th September 2010
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239
ISSN 1751-8644
Exact tuning of PID controllers in control
feedback design
L. Ntogramatzidis
1
A. Ferrante
2
1
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Curtin University, Perth, WA 6845, Australia
2
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dellInformazione, Universita` di Padova, via Gradenigo, 6/B I-35131, Padova, Italy
E-mail: L.Ntogramatzidis@curtin.edu.au
Abstract: In this study, the authors introduce a range of techniques for the exact design of PID controllers for feedback control
problems involving requirements on the steady-state performance and standard frequency-domain specications on the stability
margins and crossover frequencies. These techniques hinge on a set of simple closed-form formulae for the explicit computation
of the parameters of the controller in nite terms as functions of the specications, and therefore they eliminate the need for
graphical, heuristic or trial-and-error procedures. The relevance of this approach is (i) theoretical, since a closed-form solution
is provided for the design of PID-type controllers with standard frequency-domain specications; (ii) computational, since the
techniques presented here are readily implementable as software routines, for example, using MATLAB
w
; (iii) educational,
because the synthesis of the controller reduces to a simple exercise on complex numbers that can be solved with pen, paper
and a scientic calculator. These techniques also appear to be very convenient within the context of adaptive control and self-
tuning strategies, where the controller parameters have to be calculated online. Furthermore, they can be easily combined with
graphical and rst/second-order plant approximation methods in the cases where the model of the system to be controlled is
not known.
1 Introduction
Countless tuning methods have been proposed for PID
controllers over the last 70 years. Accounting for all of
them goes beyond the possibilities of this paper. We limit
ourselves to noting that many surveys and textbooks have
been entirely devoted to these techniques, which differ from
each other in terms of the specications, the amount of
knowledge on the model of the plant and the tools
exploited, see, for example, [14] and the references therein.
Recently, renewed interest has been devoted to design
techniques for PID controllers under frequency-domain
specications, see, for example, [59]. In particular, much
effort has been devoted to the computation of the
parameters of the PID controllers that guarantee desired
values of the gain/phase margins and of the crossover
frequency. Specications on the stability margins have
always been extensively utilised in feedback control system
design to ensure a robust control system. It is also common
to encounter specications on phase margin and gain
crossover frequency, since these two parameters together
often serve as a performance measure of the control system.
Indeed, loosely speaking, the phase margin is related to
characteristics of the response such as the peak overshoot
and the resonant peak, while the gain crossover frequency
is related to the rise time and the bandwidth [10, 11].
In the last 15 years, three important sets of techniques have
been proposed to deal with requirements on the phase/gain
margins and on the gain crossover frequency, to the end of
avoiding the trial-and-error nature of classical control
methods based on Bode and Nichols diagrams. The rst one
is a graphical method hinging on design charts, and exploits
an interpolation technique to determine the parameters of
the PID controller. This method can be adapted to control
problems involving different kinds of compensators,
including phase-correction networks, and can deal with
specication on the stability margins, crossover frequencies
and the steady-state performance [5]. A second important set
of techniques that can handle specications on the phase and
gain margins relies on the approximation of the plants
dynamics with a rst (or second)-order plus delay model
[6, 9]. A third numerical technique has been recently
proposed in [7] in which the objective is the determination
of the set of PID controllers that satisfy given requirements
on the gain and phase margins, but without the exibility
required to also deal with specications on the crossover
frequencies, and on the steady-state performance.
To overcome the difculties and approximations of trial-
and-error procedures on Bode and Nyquist plots, and of the
three above-described design methods, a unied design
framework is presented in this paper for the closed-form
solution of the feedback control problem with PID
controllers. The problem of determining closed-form
expressions for the parameters of the controller to exactly
meet the aforementioned design specications has been
described as a difcult one [9], and this in part explains the
popularity of heuristic, numerical and graphical solutions to
this problem [10, 12]. In this paper, we show that this is not
IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578 565
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
the case: simple closed-form formulae are easily established
for the computation of the parameters of a PID controller
that exactly meets specications on the steady-state
performance, stability margins and crossover frequencies,
without the need to resort to approximations for the transfer
function of the plant.
There are several advantages connected with the use of the
methods presented here for the synthesis of PID controllers:
(i) unlike other analytical synthesis methods [13], steady-
state performance specications can be handled easily;
moreover, the desired phase/gain margins and crossover
frequency can be achieved exactly, without the need for trial-
and-error approximations of the plant dynamics or graphical
considerations; (ii) a closed-form solution to the feedback
control problem allows to analyse how the solution changes
as a result of variations of the problem data; moreover, the
explicit formulae presented here can be exploited for the
self-tuning of the controller; (iii) very neat necessary and
sufcient solvability conditions can be derived for each
controller and each set of specications considered, and
reliable methods can be established to select the compensator
structure to be employed depending on the specications
imposed; (iv) Several important questions arising in the
design of PID controllers can nd a precise answer for the
rst time. For example, is it possible to determine in nite
terms the range of phase margins that can be achieved at a
particular gain crossover frequency for each type of
compensator belonging to the family of PID controllers?
(v) The approach presented here can be used jointly with
graphical considerations on Bode or Nichols diagrams to
determine the set of solutions of the control problem in the
case of inequality constraints; (vi) The formulae presented
here are straightforwardly implementable as MATLAB
w
routines. Furthermore, as shown in the several numerical
examples throughout the paper, the calculation of the
parameters of the controller is carried out via standard
manipulations on complex numbers, and therefore appears
to be very suitable for educational purposes; (vii) The
generality of this method allows more complex compensator
structures to be taken into account, as well. For example, the
proper versions of the PID and PD controllers will be
considered as well; (viii) In the case of additional degrees of
freedom in the solution of the control problem, it is possible
to exactly establish how to select the parameters to be chosen
in order to guarantee the solvability of the problem; (ix) The
closed-form formulae that deliver the parameters of the PID
controller as a function of the specications only depend on
the magnitude and argument of the frequency response of
the system to be controlled at the desired crossover
frequency. As such, this method can be used in conjunction
with a graphical method based on any of the standard
diagrams for the representation of the dynamics of the
frequency response, for example, the Bode, Nyquist or
Nichols diagrams; (x) In case a mathematical model of the
plant or a graphic representation of its frequency reponse is
not available, the technique presented in this paper can be
used on a rst/second-order plus delay approximation of the
plant. The extra exibility offered by the design method
presented here consists in the fact that the formulae for the
computation of the parameters are not linked to a particular
structure of the plant. This means that, differently from other
approaches based on such approximation, when a more
accurate mathematical model is available for the model of
the plant, the formulae presented here can still be used
without modications, and will deliver more reliable values
for the parameters of the compensator.
This paper provides a unied and comprehensive
exposition of this technique, not only for PID controllers in
standard form, but also for PI and PD controllers, as well as
for modied (bi-)proper PID and PD controllers with
approximation of the derivative action. The basic problem
considered throughout the paper consists in nding the
parameters of the controller that guarantees a certain phase
margin and crossover frequency, and to satisfy appropriate
steady-state requirements. Standard PID controllers will be
considered rst. Differently from the synthesis with lead
and lag networks [14, 15], here it is necessary to
distinguish between two different types of steady-state
requirements. In fact, because of the pole at the origin in
the transfer function of the standard PID controller, it is
essential to discriminate between the case where the steady-
state specications impose a constraint on the Bode gain (or
integral constant) of the PID controller, and the case where
the presence of the pole at the origin in the PID controller
alone is sufcient to satisfy the steady-state requirements.
The synthesis procedures differ signicantly in these two
scenarios. In the rst case, three simple formulae yield the
expression of the three parameters of the PID controller as a
function of the phase margin and the crossover frequency
required [11]. In the solution of the second problem there is
a degree of freedom that can be exploited to satisfy
additional requirements. Here, we consider two possibilities.
The rst is the imposition of the ratio of the two time
constants of the PID controllers, which is useful since that
ratio directly affects the quality of the time response of the
closed-loop system, and its assignment can avoid the
situation of complex conjugate zeros in the transfer function
of the PID controller, see also [16]. The second is the
imposition of the gain margin, in addition to the phase
margin. More precisely, in the case of specications on
both stability margins and on the gain crossover frequency,
it is possible to compute the phase crossover frequency by
solving a polynomial equation, and then compute the
parameters of the controller in nite terms. In the case of PI
and PD controllers, when the steady-state requirements
sharply assign the integral constant, it is not possible to
simultaneously impose the phase margin and the gain
crossover frequency, except for particular cases. However,
when the use alone of a PI (or PD) controller is sufcient to
guarantee the satisfaction of the steady-state specications,
the problem can be solved in closed form as described
above.
2 Problem formulation
In this section we formulate the problem of the design of
the parameters of a compensator belonging to the family of
PID controllers such that different types of steady-state
specications are satised and the crossover frequency and
the phase margin of the loop gain transfer function are
equal to desired values v
g
and PM, respectively. For the
sake of simplicity of exposition, only unity feedback
schemes are considered here. The extension to non-unity
feedback schemes does not present difculties. Consider
the following assumptions on the loop gain transfer
function L(s):
1. L(s) has no poles in the open right half-plane and is strictly
proper;
2. The polar plot of L( jv) for v 0 intersects the unit circle
and the negative real semi-axis only once (except for the
intersection in the origin as v 1).
566 IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239
www.ietdl.org
These are the standard assumptions that guarantee that the
stability margins are both well dened, and that a positive
value of these margins will guarantee stability of the
closed-loop system by virtue of the Nyquist Criterion, [10,
11]. Consider compensators described by the one of the
following transfer functions:
1. PID controller in standard form
C
PID
(s) = K
p
1 +
1
T
i
s
+T
d
s
_ _
(1)
2. Proper PID controllers
C

PID
(s) = K
p
1 +
1
T
i
s
+
T
d
s
1 +t
d
s
_ _
(2)
3. PI controllers
C
PI
(s) = K
p
1 +
1
T
i
s
_ _
(3)
4. PD controllers in standard form
C
PD
(s) = K
p
(1 +T
d
s) (4)
5. Proper PD controllers
C

PD
(s) = K
p
1 +
T
d
s
1 +t
d
s
_ _
(5)
with K
p
, T
i
, T
d
, t
d
. 0. The parameter K
p
is the proportional
sensitivity constant, while T
i
and T
d
are the time constants
of the integral and derivative actions, respectively. The
modications of the PID and PD controllers in (2) and (5)
are usually introduced because the derivative action cannot
be perfectly realised, and approximate lters must be used
instead. The problem we are concerned with can be stated
in precise terms as follows.
Problem 1: Consider the classic feedback control architecture
in Fig. 1, where G(s) is the plant transfer function. Design a
controller C(s) [ {C
PID
(s), C

PID
(s), C
PI
(s), C
PD
(s), C

PD
(s)}
such that the steady-state requirements on the tracking error
e(t)
def
= r(t) y(t) are satised, and such that the crossover
frequency and the phase margin of the compensated system
(loop gain transfer function) L(s)
def
= C(s)G(s) are v
g
and PM,
respectively, such that
|L(jv
g
)| = 1 (6)
arg L(jv
g
) = PMp (7)
3 PID controllers in standard form
The classical PID controller is described by the transfer
function
C
PID
(s) = K
p
1 +
1
T
i
s
+T
d
s
_ _
= K
p
1 +T
i
s +T
i
T
d
s
2
T
i
s
with K
p
, T
i
, T
d
. 0. Our aim in this section is to solve
Problem 1 with C(s) = C
PID
(s). Here, we have to
discriminate between two important situations. The rst is
the one in which the steady-state specications can be met
only by the use of a controller with a pole at the origin;
consider for example, the case of a type-0 plant and the
steady-state performance criterion of zero-position error. In
this case, the fact itself of using a PID controller guarantees
that the steady-state requirement is satised. The second
case of interest is the one in which the imposition of the
steady-state specications gives rise to a constraint on the
Bode gain K
i
def
= K
p
/T
i
of C
PID
(s). This situation occurs, for
example, in the case of a type-0 plant when the steady-state
specication not only requires zero-position error, but also
that the velocity error be equal to (or smaller than) a given
non-zero constant. A similar situation arises with constraints
on the acceleration error for type-1 plants.
3.1 Steady-state requirements do not constrain K
i
First, we consider the case where the steady-state
specications do not lead to a constraint on the integral
constant of the PID controller. In order to compute the
parameters of the PID controller, we write G( jv) and
C
PID
(jv) in polar form as
G(jv) = |G(jv)|e
j arg G(jv)
, C
PID
(jv) = M(v)e
jw(v)
The loop gain frequency response can be written as
L(jv) = |G(jv)|M(v)e
j( arg G(jv)+w(v))
. If the gain crossover
frequency v
g
and the phase margin PM of the loop gain
transfer function L(s) are assigned, by (67) it is found that
|L(jv
g
)| = 1 and PM = p +arg L(jv
g
) must be satised.
These two equations can be written as
1. M
g
= 1/|G(jv
g
)|,
2. w
g
= PMp arg G(jv
g
),
where M
g
def
= M(v
g
) and w
g
def
= w(v
g
). In order to nd the
parameters of the controller such that (12) are met, equation
M
g
e
jw
g
= K
p
1 +jv
g
T
i
v
2
g
T
i
T
d
jv
g
T
i
(8)
must be solved in K
p
, T
i
, T
d
. 0. It is easy to see that in the
solution to this problem there is a degree of freedom, since by
equating the real and imaginary parts of both sides of (8) we
obtain the pair of equations
v
g
M
g
T
i
cos w
g
= v
g
K
p
T
i
(9)
M
g
v
g
T
i
sin w
g
= K
p
K
p
v
2
g
T
i
T
d
(10)
in the three unknowns K
p
, T
i
and T
d
. A possibility to carry out
the design at this point is to freely assign one of the unknowns
and to solve (910) for the other two. However, from (9) it is
easily seen that K
p
cannot be chosen arbitrarily. If we choose
Fig. 1 Unity feedback control architecture
IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578 567
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
T
i
, (9) gives K
p
= M
g
cos w
g
, and (10) leads to
T
d
=
1 +v
g
T
i
tan w
g
T
i
v
2
g
However, in order to guarantee K
p
. 0 and T
d
. 0, the angle
w
g
must be such that cos w
g
. 0 and T
i
must be chosen to be
such that v
g
T
i
tan w
g
. 1. These two conditions are
simultaneously satised only when w
g
[ (0, p/2). If we
choose T
d
, we get K
p
= M
g
cos w
g
and
T
i
=
1
v
2
g
T
d
v
g
tan w
g
which implies that in order to ensure T
i
. 0 we must choose
T
d
to be .tan w
g
/v
g
. Therefore T
d
is arbitrary when
w
g
[ (p/2, 0), while when w
g
[ (0, p/2), we must
choose T
d
. tan w
g
/v
g
.
Another possibility to carry out the design of the PID
controller in the case of an unconstrained integral constant is
to exploit the remaining degree of freedom so as to satisfy
some further time- or frequency-domain requirements. There
are several ways to exploit this degree of freedom in the
calculation of the parameters of the controller. In the sequel,
we consider two important situations: the rst is the one
where the ratio T
d
/T
i
is chosen, so as to ensure, for example,
that the zeros of the PID controller are real; the second is the
one where a gain margin constraint is to be satised.
3.1.1 Imposition of the ratio T
d
/T
i
: A very convenient
way to exploit the degree of freedom in the solution of (8)
consists in the imposition of the ratio s
def
= T
d
/T
i
. This is
convenient since it is an easily established fact that when
T
i
4T
d
, that is, when s
1
4, the zeros of the PID
controller are real (and coincident when s
1
= 4), and they
are complex conjugate when s
1
, 4. In the following
theorem, necessary and sufcient conditions are given for
the solvability of Problem 1 in the case of a standard PID
controller when the ratio s is given. Moreover, closed-form
formulae are provided for the parameters of the PID
controller to meet the specications on PM, v
g
and s exactly.
Theorem 1: Let s = T
d
/T
i
be assigned. Equation (8) admits
solutions in K
p
, T
i
, T
d
. 0 if and only if
w
g
[
p
2
,
p
2
_ _
(11)
If (11) is satsed, the solution of (8) with s xed is given by
K
p
= M
g
cos w
g
(12)
T
i
=
tan w
g
+
..............
tan
2
w
g
+4s
_
2v
g
s
(13)
T
d
= T
i
s (14)
Proof: (Only if). As already observed, equating real part to
real part and imaginary part to imaginary part in (8) results
in (9) and (10). Since K
p
must be positive, from (9)
which can be written as K
p
= M
g
cos w
g
we get that w
g
must satisfy p/2 , w
g
, p/2. If this inequality is
satised, it is also easy to see that (10) always admits a
positive solution. In fact, (10) can be written as the
quadratic equation
v
2
g
sT
2
i
v
g
T
i
tan w
g
1 = 0 (15)
in T
i
, that always admits two real solutions, one positive and
one negative.
(If). From (12), it follows that (9) is satised. Moreover,
since as aforementioned (10) can be written as (15) and
.............
tan
2
w +4s
_
. | tan w|, the positive solution is given by
(13). A
3.1.2 Imposition of the gain margin: Another
possibility in the solution of the control problem in the case
of unconstrained K
i
is to x the gain margin to a certain
value GM. To this end, the conditions arg L(jv
p
) = p and
GM = |L(jv
p
)|
1
on the loop gain frequency response must
be satised by denition of gain margin and phase crossover
frequency v
p
. By writing again C
PID
(jv) = M(v)e
jw(v)
, it is
found that these conditions are equivalent to
M
p
=
1
|GM|G(jv
p
)|
(16)
w
p
= p arg G(jv
p
) (17)
where M
p
def
= M(v
p
) and w
p
def
= w(v
p
). Therefore now the
parameters K
p
, T
i
, T
d
. 0 of the PID controller must be
determined so that (8) and
M
p
e
jw
p
= K
p
1 +jv
p
T
i
v
2
p
T
i
T
d
jv
p
T
i
(18)
are simultaneously satised. By equating the real and the
imaginary part of (8) and (18) we obtain (9), (10) and the
additional two equations
v
p
M
p
T
i
cos w
p
= v
p
K
p
T
i
(19)
M
p
v
p
T
i
sin w
p
= K
p
K
p
v
2
p
T
i
T
d
(20)
From (9) and (19), we obtain the equation
M
g
cos w
g
= M
p
cos w
p
(21)
in the unknown v
p
. For the control problemto be solvable, it is
required that (21) admits at least one strictly positive solution.
At rst glance, (21) seems transcendental in v
p
. However, a
more careful analysis reveals that the solution of (21) can be
found by solving a polynomial equation in v
p
, as the
following lemma shows.
Lemma 1: Let G(s) be a rational function in s [ C. Then, (21)
can be reduced to a polynomial equation in v
p
. Let n
1
and m
1
represent the number of real poles/zeros of G(s), and let n
2
and m
2
represent the number of complex conjugate pairs of
poles/zeros of G(s), respectively, and let n [ Z be the
number of poles at the origin of G(s) (with the
understanding that if n , 0, the transfer function has 2n
zeros at the origin). Then, the degree of the polynomial (21)
568 IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239
www.ietdl.org
is at most
max{n +l, 2m
1
+4m
2
} if n 0
max{l, n +2m
1
+4m
2
} if n , 0
_
where l = m
1
+m
2
+n
1
+n
2
.
Proof: Let us write the transfer function of the plant in the
Bode real form
G(s) =
K
B
s
n

m
1
i=1
(1 + t
i
s)

m
2
i=1
1 +2

z
i
v
n,i
s +
s
2
v
2
n,i
_ _

n
1
i=1
(1 +t
i
s)

n
2
i=1
1 +2
z
i
v
n,i
s +
s
2
v
2
n,i
_ _
with n [ Z. In the Bode real form given above, the
parameters t
i
and t
i
are the time constants associated with
the real poles/zeros, z
i
and

z
i
are the damping ratios and
v
n,i
and v
n,i
are the natural frequencies associated with the
complex conjugate pairs of poles/zeros of G(s). It follows that
M
p
=
v
n
p
K
B

n
1
i=1
..........
1 +v
2
p
t
2
i
_

n
2
i=1
........................
1
v
2
p
v
2
n,i
_ _
2
+4z
2
i
v
2
p
v
2
n,i

_
GM

m
1
i=1
..........
1 +v
2
p
t
2
i
_

m
2
i=1
........................
1
v
2
p
v
2
n,i
_ _
2
+4

z
2
i
v
2
p
v
2
n,i

_
and
w
p
= hp +

n
i=1

p
2
_ _
+

m
1
i=1
arctan(v
p
t
i
)
+

m
2
i=1
arctan
2

z
i
v
p
v
n,i
v
2
p
v
2
n,i

n
1
i=1
arctan(v
p
t
i
)

n
2
i=1
arctan
2z
i
v
p
v
n,i
v
2
p
v
2
n,i
where the integer h depends on the sign of K
B
and on the sign
of the real parts of the second order terms of the frequency
response G( j v). As such, w
p
can be written as
w
p
= (h +n n)p +

n
i=1

p
2
_ _
+

l
j=0
F
j
for suitably dened angles F
j
, where l = m
1
+m
2
+n
1
+n
2
and n is either equal to 0 when n is even and equal to 1 if n is
odd. Therefore
cos w
p
=
(1)
h+n1
cos

l
j=0
F
j
_ _
if n is even
(1)
h+n
sin

l
j=0
F
j
_ _
if n is odd

(22)
In view of the well-known formulae
cos

l
j=0
F
j
_ _
=

even k[{0,...,l}
(1)
k/2

S#{1,...l}
|S|=k

j[S
sin F
j

j[S
cos F
j
_ _
(23)
sin

l
j=0
F
j
_ _
=

odd k[{0,...,l}
(1)
k/2

S#{1,...l}
|S|=k

j[S
sin F
j

j[S
cos F
j
_ _
(24)
we obtain
cos w
p
=

p
j=1

m
1
i=1
f
a
i, j
( arctan(v
p
t
i
))

m
2
i=1
f
b
i, j
arctan
2

z
i
v
p
v
n,i
v
2
p
v
2
n,i
_ _ _

n
1
i=1
f
c
i, j
( arctan(v
p
t
i
))

n
2
i=1
f
d
i, j
arctan
2z
i
v
p
v
n,i
v
2
p
v
2
n,i
_ __
where f
k
i, j
(with k [ {a, b, c, d}) are either sine or cosine
functions and p = 2
m
1
+m
2
+n
1
+n
2
1
. From the goniometric
identities
sin arctan u =
u
.......
1 +u
2
_ cos arctan u =
1
.......
1 +u
2
_
it follows that cos w
p
can be written as (see equation at the
bottom of the page)
where F(v
p
) is a polynomial function of v
p
given by sums of
products of the type v
p
t
i
, v
p
t
i
,

z
i
v
p
/ v
n,i
and z
i
v
p
/v
n,i
. Its
degree depends on the term containing the largest number of
sine factors in the sum (22). From (2324) it is easy to
establish that when n is even
deg F =
l if l is even
l 1 if l is odd
_
and, when n is odd
deg F =
l 1 if l is even
l if l is odd
_
cos w
p
=
F(v
p
)

n
1
i=1
..........
1 +v
2
p
t
2
i
_

n
2
i=1
.......................
1
v
2
p
v
2
n,i
_ _
2
+4z
2
i
v
2
p
v
2
n,i

_

m
1
i=1
..........
1 +v
2
p
t
2
i
_

m
2
i=1
........................
1
v
2
p
v
2
n,i
_ _
2
+4

z
2
i
v
2
p
v
2
n,i

_
IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578 569
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
Therefore the degree of F(v
p
) is at most l. Hence
M
p
cos w
p
=
v
n
p
F(v
p
)
K
B
GM

m
1
i=1
(1 +v
2
p
t
2
i
)

m
2
i=1
1
v
2
p
v
2
n,i
_ _
2
+4

z
2
i
v
2
p
v
2
n,i

Therefore (21) is a polynomial equation in v

p
. In view of
possible cancellations, the degree of this equation is not
greater than max{n +l, 2m
1
+4m
2
} if n 0 and
max{l, n +2m
1
+4m
2
} if n , 0. A
Remark 1: If the transfer function of the process is given by
the product of a rational function

G(s), and a delay e
t
0
s
,
that is, if G(s) =

G(s)e
t
0
s
, (21) is not polynomial in v
p
,
and it needs to be solved numerically. More details about
this case are given in Section 9.
Theorem 2: Consider Problem 1 with the additional
specication on the gain margin GM. Equations (8) and
(18) admit solutions in K
p
, T
i
, T
d
. 0 if and only if
w
g
[ (p/2, p/2) and (21) admits a positive solution v
p
such that
v
p
,v
g
v
g
tanw
g
.v
p
tanw
p
v
p
tanw
g
.v
g
tanw
p

or
v
p
.v
g
v
g
tanw
g
,v
p
tanw
p
v
p
tanw
g
,v
g
tanw
p

(25)
If w
g
[ (p/2, p/2) and (25) is satised, the control problem
admits solutions with a PID controller, whose parameters can
be computed as
K
p
= M
g
cos w
g
(26)
T
i
=
v
2
g
v
2
p
v
g
v
p
(v
p
tan w
g
v
g
tan w
p
)
(27)
T
d
=
v
g
tan w
g
v
p
tan w
p
v
2
g
v
2
p
(28)
Proof: (Only if). As already seen, a necessary condition for
the problem to admit solutions is that v
p
is a solution of
(21). From (9) and (10), and from (19) and (20), we obtain
v
g
T
i
tan w
g
= 1 v
2
g
T
i
T
d
(29)
v
p
T
i
tan w
p
= 1 v
2
p
T
i
T
d
(30)
By solving (29) and (30) in T
i
and T
d
, we obtain (2628). For
K
p
to be positive, it is necessary that w
g
[ (p/2, p/2).
Moreover, the time constants T
i
and T
d
are positive if v
g
and v
p
satisfy (25).
(If). It is a matter of straighforward substitution of (2628)
into (9), (10), (19) and (20). A
Remark 2: In view of the constraint K
p
. 0, (25) can be
written as follows:
If v
g
. v
p
, one of the following conditions must hold:
w
g
, w
p
[ (0, p/2) and w
g
. w
p
;
w
g
[ (0, p/2) and w
p
[ (p/2, 0);
w
g
, w
p
[ (p/2, 0) and w
g
, w
p
.
If v
g
, v
p
, one of the following conditions must hold:
w
g
, w
p
[ (0, p/2) and w
g
, w
p
;
w
g
[ (p/2, 0) and w
p
[ (0, p/2);
w
g
, w
p
[ (p/2, 0) and w
g
. w
p
.
3.2 Steady-state requirements constrain K
i
Now, the Bode gain K
i
= K
p
/T
i
is determined via the
imposition of the steady-state requirements; for example, for
type-0 (resp. type-1) plants, K
i
is computed via the
imposition of the velocity error (resp. acceleration error).
As such, the factor K
i
/s can be separated from

C
PID
(s) = 1 +T
i
s +T
i
T
d
s
2
, and viewed as part of the plant.
In this way, the part of the controller to be designed is

C
PID
(s), and the feedback scheme reduces to that of Fig. 2.
Denote

G(s)
def
= (K
p
/T
i
)sG(s), so that the loop gain transfer
function can be written as L(s) =

C
PID
(s)

G(s). Write

G(jv)
and

C
PID
(jv) in polar form as

G(jv) = |

G(jv)|e
j arg

G(jv)
,

C
PID
(jv) = M(v)e
jw(v)
so that the loop gain frequency response can be written as
L(jv) = |

G(jv)|M(v)e
j( arg

G(jv)+w(v))
. If the crossover
frequency v
g
and the phase margin PM of the loop gain
transfer function L(s) are assigned, the equations |L(jv
g
)| = 1
and PM = p +arg L(jv
g
) must be satised. These can be
written as
1. M
g
= 1/|

G(jv
g
)|,
2. w
g
= PMp arg

G(jv
g
),
where M
g
def
= M(v
g
) and w
g
def
= w(v
g
). Alternatively, M
g
and
w
g
can be computed as functions of the frequency response
of G(s) at v = v
g
M
g
=
K
p
T
i
jv
g
G(jv
g
)

1
=
v
g
K
i
|G(jv
g
)|
(31)
w
g
= PMp arg
K
p
T
i
jv
g
G( jv
g
)
_ _
= PM
p
2
arg G(jv
g
) (32)
since K
p
, T
i
. 0. In order to nd the parameters of the
controller such that (12) are met, equation
M
g
e
jw
g
= 1 +jv
g
T
i
T
i
T
d
v
2
g
(33)
must be solved in T
i
. 0 and T
d
. 0. The closed-form
solution to this problem is given in the following theorem.
Fig. 2 Modied feedback structure with unity DC gain controller
570 IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239
www.ietdl.org
Theorem 3: Equation (33) admits solutions in T
i
. 0 and
T
d
. 0 if and only if
0 , w
g
, p and M
g
cos w
g
, 1 (34)
If (34) are satised, the solution of (33) is given by
K
p
= K
i
1
v
g
M
g
sin w
g
(35)
T
i
=
1
v
g
M
g
sin w
g
(36)
T
d
=
1 M
g
cos w
g
v
g
M
g
sin w
g
(37)
The two conditions (34) can be alternatively written as
w
g
[ arccos
1
M
g
, p
_ _
if M
g
. 1
w
g
[ (0, p) if M
g
, 1
In fact, when w
g
[ (0, p/2), condition cos w
g
, 1/M
g
is
always satised when M
g
, 1, and is satised when
w
g
. arccos(1/M
g
) when M
g
. 1. When w
g
[ (p/2, p),
the condition cos w
g
, 1/M
g
is always satised since
cos w
g
, 0 and (1/M
g
) . 0. As a consequence, we have
the following.
Corollary 1: When the ratio K
p
/T
i
is assigned, Problem 1
admits solutions if and only if
arg G(jv
g
) [ PM
3
2
p, PM
p
2
_ _
if |G(jv
g
)| .
v
g
K
i
;
arg G(jv
g
) [ PM
3
2
p, PM
p
2
arccos
K
i
|G(jv
g
)|
v
g
_ _
if
|G(jv
g
)| ,
v
g
K
i
.
When the steady-state specications lead to a constraint on
the ratio K
i
= K
p
/T
i
, there are no degrees of freedom that can
be exploited to assign s = T
d
/T
i
. As a result, in this case the
design technique based on the imposition of the phase margin
and crossover frequency can lead to PID controllers with
either real or complex conjugate zeros. However, in
standard practice it is desirable to work with PID controllers
with real zeros. The following theorem establishes
necessary and sufcient conditions on the problem data and
specications for the zeros of the PID controller to be real.
Theorem 4: The zeros of the PID controller are real if and
only if
|G(jv
g
)| ,
v
g
K
i
;
arg G(jv
g
) [ PM
p
2
arccos
2K
i
|G(jv
g
)|v
g
v
g
, PM
p
2
_ _
.
Proof: The discriminant T
i
(T
i
4T
d
) of the numerator of
C
PID
(s) is 0 if and only if T
i
4T
d
. Using (3637), this
inequality becomes
1
v
g
M
g
sin w
g
4
1
v
g
1 M
g
cos w
g
M
g
sin w
g
which leads to
M
2
g
cos
2
w
g
4M
g
cos w
g
+(4 M
2
g
) 0 (38)
Solving (38) in cos w
g
yields
2 M
g
M
g
cos w
g

2 +M
g
M
g
However, (2 +M
g
/M
g
) . 1. Moreover, (2 M
g
/M
g
) . 1
and (2 M
g
/M
g
) , 1 if and only if M
g
. 1. Hence
2 M
g
M
g
,
2 +M
g
M
g
_ _
>[1, 1] =
only when M
g
. 1. Hence, when M
g
, 1 the inequality (38)
is never satised, while when M
g
. 1, (38) holds if and only
if cos w
g
. (2 M
g
)/M
g
. It follows that the zeros of the PID
controller are real if and only if
M
g
. 1 and 0 , w
g
, arccos
2 M
g
M
g
(39)
The result is then a matter of substitution of the denitions of
M
g
and w
g
in (39). A
4 Proper PID controllers
The transfer function of the PID controller in standard form is
not proper. To obtain a proper approximation of C
PID
(s),
usually a further real pole is introduced into the derivative
term
C

PID
(s) = K
p
1 +
1
T
i
s
+
T
d
s
1 +t
d
s
_ _
=
K
p
T
i
s
T
i
(T
d
+t
d
)s
2
+(T
i
+t
d
)s +1
1 +t
d
s
(40)
with K
p
, T
i
, T
d
, t
d
. 0. Owing to the additional pole
s = 1/t
d
, the transfer function C

PID
(s) is now (bi-)proper.
Typically, to obtain a good approximation of the derivative
action, the frequency associated with the further pole is
chosen to be much higher than the frequencies of all other
poles and zeros of the loop gain transfer function. As such,
the parameter t
d
is usually very small. Our aim here is to
solve Problem 1 using a controller C(s) = C

PID
(s). For the
sake of brevity, we only consider the case where the steady-
state specications lead to an assignment of the Bode gain
K
p
/T
i
. By dening

PID
(s) =
T
i
(T
d
+t
d
)s
2
+(T
i
+t
d
)s +1
1 +t
d
s
and L(s) =

C

PID
(s)

G(s), and by expressing

G(jv) and

PID
(jv) in polar form, M
g
and w
g
can be dened as in
(31) and (32). Then, in order to nd the parameters of the
controller, equation
M
g
e
jw
g
=
T
i
(T
d
+t
d
)v
2
g
+j(T
i
+t
d
)v
g
+1
1 +jv
g
t
d
(41)
IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578 571
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
must be solved in T
i
. 0 and T
d
. 0. The closed-form
solution to this problem is given in the following theorem.
Theorem 5: Equation (41) admits solutions in T
i
. 0 and
T
d
. 0 if and only if
t
d
,
M
g
sin w
g
v
g
(1 M
g
cos w
g
)
(42)
If (42) is satised, the solution of (41) is given by
K
p
=
K
i
M
g
sin w
g
v
g
t
d
(1 M
g
cos w
g
) (43)
T
i
=
M
g
sin w
g
v
g
K
i
t
d
(1 M
g
cos w
g
) (44)
T
d
=
1 +v
2
g
t
2
d
v
g
M
g
sin w
g
1 M
g
cos w
g
_ _
v
g
t
d
_ _ (45)
Proof: It is easy to see that

C
PID
(jv)
=
[T
i
(T
d
+t
d
)v
2
g
+j(T
i
+t
d
)v
g
+1](1 jv
g
t
d
)
(1 +jv
g
t
d
)(1 jv
g
t
d
)
=
T
i
T
d
v
2
+jv, T
i
+1 +jv
3
t
d
T
i
T
d
+jv
3
T
i
t
2
d
+v
2
t
2
d
1 +v
2
t
2
d
Hence, by (41) we obtain
M
g
cos w
g
(1 +v
2
g
t
2
d
) = T
i
T
d
v
2
g
+1 +v
2
g
t
2
d
M
g
sin w
g
(1 +v
2
g
t
2
d
) = v
g
T
i
+v
3
g
t
d
T
i
T
d
+v
3
g
T
i
t
2
d
Solving both equations in T
i
and equating the results yield
(1 M
g
cos w
g
)(1 +v
2
g
t
2
d
)
T
d
v
2
g
=
M
g
sin w
g
(1 +v
2
g
t
2
d
)
v
g
(1 +v
2
g
t
d
T
d
+v
2
g
t
2
d
)
that can be solved to get T
d
. This gives (45). A
Finally, the proportional sensitivity K
p
can be computed
from the ratio K
p
/T
i
using the value of T
i
thus found.
Example 1: Consider the plant described by the transfer
function
G(s) =
1
s(s +2)
and consider the problem of determining the parameters of a
PID controller that exactly achieves a phase margin of 45
8
and
gain crossover frequency v
g
= 30 rad/s in the two situations:
the acceleration error is equal to 0.005.
the velocity error is equal to zero; rst use the remaining
degree of freedom to assign the ratio T
i
/T
d
= 16, and then
to impose a gain margin equal to 3.
Consider the rst problem. The expression of the
acceleration error is
e
a
1
=
1
lim
s0
s
2
L(s)
=
1
lim
s0
s
2
K
p
1 +T
i
s +T
i
T
d
s
2
T
i
s
2
(s +2)
=
2T
i
K
p
Then, e
a
1
= 0.005 implies K
i
= K
p
/T
i
= 400. Dene

G(s) = K
i
G(s)/s. Compute M
g
= 30/K
i
|G(30j)| =
9
....
904

/4 and w
g
= PMp/2 arg G(30j) = p/4+
arctan 15. Using Theorem 3, it is seen that the time
constants of the PID controller are
T
i
=
M
g
sin w
g
30
=
12
5
..
2
, T
d
=
1 M
g
cos w
g
30M
g
sin w
g
=
..
2

+63
2160
The zeros of the PID controller are real since T
i
is . 4T
d
.
From the ratio K
p
/T
i
= 400, we nd K
p
= 400T
i
=
960/
..
2

. The transfer function of the PID controller is

C
PID
(s) =
960
..
2
1 +
5
..
2

12s
+
..
2

+63
2160
s
_ _
Let us now solve the same problem with a PID controller with
an additional pole as in (40). We rst need to choose t
d
to be
smaller than the quantity
M
g
sin w
g
v
g
(1 M
g
cos w
g
)
0.0373
Hence, by choosing t
d
= 0.01s, after standard goniometric
manipulations we nd
T
i
=
M
g
sin w
g
30
t
d
(1 M
g
cos w
g
) =
177
..
2

100
..
2

T
d
=
1 +30
2
t
2
d
30
M
g
sin w
g
1 M
g
cos w
g
30t
d
_ _ =
109(63 +
..
2

)
300(531 3
..
2

)
From the factor K
p
/T
i
= 400, we nd K
p
= 400T
i
=
2(177
..
2

2). The zeros of this controller are still real.

Now let us consider the second problem, where the ratio
K
i
= K
p
/T
i
is not constrained. Now, the pole at the origin
alone guarantees that the velocity error be equal to zero. We
rst consider the situation where T
i
/T
d
= s
1
= 16. First,
we compute M
g
= 1/|G(30j)| = 30
....
904

and w
g
= PM
p arg G(30j) = p/4 p +p/2 +arctan 15 = p/4 +
arctan 15. Using (12) we nd
K
p
= 30
....
904

cos
p
4
+arctan 15
_ _
= 480
..
2

Moreover, a simple computation shows that tan w

g
= 7/8, so
that using the results in Theorem 1, and in particular (13) with
s
1
= 16, we nd
T
i
=
7 +
...
65

30
and T
d
=
7 +
...
65

480
572 IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239
www.ietdl.org
The transfer function of the PID controller in this case is
C
PID
(s) = 480
..
2

1 +
30
(7 +
...
65

)s
+
7 +
...
65

480
s
_ _
Now we solve the same problem by imposing a gain margin
equal to 3. We compute M
p
and w
p
as functions of v
p
M
p
=
1
GM|G(jv
p
)|
=
v
p
........
v
2
p
+4
_
3
w
p
= p arg G(jv
p
) =
p
2
+arctan
v
p
2
Using these expression, (21) can be written as
v
p
........
v
2
p
+4
_
3
sin arctan
v
p
2
_ _
= M
g
cos w
g
whose unique real solution is v
p
=
............
3M
g
cos w
g
_
. 0. Using
the expressions for M
g
and w
g
it is easily found that
v
p
=
........
720
..
8

_
rad/s. Hence
w
p
=
p
2
+arctan
........
720
..
8

_
2
=
p
2
+arctan
........
180
..
8

_
which gives tan w
p
= 1/
........
180
..
8

_
. It is easily veried that
the conditions in Theorem 2 are not satised, since v
p
. v
g
but v
g
tan w
g
. v
p
tan w
p
= 2. Let us consider the same
problem with PM = 2p/3, v
g
= 3 rad/s, and GM 3.
In this case, we nd M
g
= 3
...
13

, w
g
= p/6 +arctan(3/2),
and consequently tan w
g
= (2 +3
..
3

)/(2
..
3

3). Using
these values in (21) yields
v
p
=
............
3M
g
cos w
g
_
=
..............
9
2
(2
..
3

3)
_
As such
w
p
=
p
2
+arctan
.............
9(2
..
3

3)
8
_
which yields tan w
p
= 1/
..................
(9/8)(2
..
3

3)
_
. In this case, the
conditions in Theorem2 are satised, and the parameters of the
PID controller can be computed in closed form as
K
p
= M
g
cos w
g
=
3
2
(2
..
3

3)
T
i
=
v
2
g
v
2
p
v
g
v
p
(v
p
tan w
g
v
g
tan w
p
)
=
5 2
..
3

10 +9
..
3

T
d
=
v
g
tan w
g
v
p
tan w
p
v
2
g
v
2
p
=
26
..
3

144
..
3

243
Since T
i
, 4T
d
, the zeros of the PID controller are complex
conjugate.
Example 2: Consider the example in [5], where a PID
controller must be used for the plant
G(s) =
3
s(s
2
+4 s +5)
to achieve the following control objectives: (i) acceleration
constant K
a
= 2; (ii) gain crossover frequency
v
g
= 2.5 rad/s and phase margin PM = 488. First, the
steady-state specication xes the ratio K
i
= K
p
/T
i
, as
K
a
= lim
s0
(s
2
C
PID
(s)G(s)) =
3
5
K
p
T
i
= 2
which in turn implies K
i
= K
p
/T
i
= 10/3. From
G(5/2j) = 24/(25j 200), we obtain
M
g
=
5/2
K
i
|G(5/2j)|
=
25
...
65

32
w
g
= PM
p
2
arg G
5
2
j
_ _
=
37
30
p +arctan
1
8
From sin(37/30p) = sin(7/30p) = k
1
/8 and cos(37/
30p) = cos(7/30p) = k
2
/4, with
k
1
= 1
..
5

+
...........
30 +6
..
5

_
k
2
=
.........................
7
..
5

+
............
6(5
..
5

)
_
_
we obtain
sin w
g
=
1
...
65
k
1

k
2
4
_ _
cos w
g
=
1
...
65
2 k
2
+
k
1
8
_ _
Plugging these values into (3637), we obtain closed-form
expressions for all the parameters of the PID controller
K
p
=
25
24
k
1

k
2
4
_ _
T
i
=
5
16
k
1

k
2
4
_ _
T
d
=
256 +25k
1
+400k
2
500k
1
125k
2
Notice that, differently from [5], the solution provided here is
given in nite terms. This ensures that the desired crossover
frequency and the desired phase margin are achieved
accurately.
Let us now consider the same plant, for which a PID
controller must be designed to achieve a gain crossover
frequency crossover frequency v
g
= 1 rad/s, a phase
margin PM = 308, and a gain margin GM 3. It is easily
seen that M
g
= 4
..
2

/3 and w
g
= p/12, so that tan(w
g
) =
(
..
2

..
6

)/4. It is easily seen that (21) admits a positive

IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578 573
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
solution
v
p
=
.................
3GM
4
M
g
cos w
g
_
=
..........
3
..
3

+1
2
_
Therefore
w
p
=
p
2
+arctan
4v
p
5 v
2
p
Since v
p
,
..
5

, we nd that
tan w
p
=
3
..
3

7
4
............
6(
..
3

+1)
_
A simple computation yields
K
p
=
2
..
3

+2
3
T
i
=
4(1 +3
..
3

)
15
..
3

19
T
d
=
9 5
..
3

4(1 +3
..
3

)
In this case, T
i
. 4T
d
; the zeros of the PID controller are real
and strictly negative.
5 PI controllers
The synthesis techniques presented in the previous sections
can be adapted to the design of PI controllers for the
imposition of phase margin and crossover frequency of the
loop gain transfer function. This can be done, however,
only when the steady-state specications do not lead to the
imposition of the Bode gain of the loop gain transfer
function. The transfer function of a PI controller is
C
PI
(s) = K
p
1 +
1
T
i
s
_ _
= K
p
T
i
s +1
T
i
s
By dening

G(s) = G(s)/s, it is found that
M
g
=
1
|

G(jv
g
)|
=
v
g
|G(jv
g
)|
w
g
= PMp arg

G(jv
g
) = PM
p
2
arg G(jv
g
)
To nd the parameters of the PI controller, equation
M
g
e
jw
g
= K
p
jT
i
v
g
+1
T
i
(46)
must be solved in K
p
. 0 and T
i
. 0.
Theorem 6: Equation (46) admits solutions in K
p
. 0 and
T
i
. 0 if and only if
w
g
[ 0,
p
2
_ _
(47)
If (47) is satised, the solution of (46) is given by
K
p
=
M
g
sin w
g
v
g
T
i
=
1
v
g
tan w
g
As already observed, when the steady-state requirements lead
to the imposition of the ratio K
p
/T
i
, the problem of assigning
the phase margin and the crossover frequency of the loop gain
transfer function cannot be solved in general. Indeed, if we
dene

G(s) = (K
p
/T
i
s)G(s) and

C
PI
(s) = 1 +T
i
s, the values
M
g
= 1/|

G(jv
g
)| and w
g
= PMp arg

G(jv
g
) are such
that the identity 1 +jv
g
T
i
= M
g
e
jw
g
must be satised. The
latter yields M
g
cos w
g
= 1 and M
g
sin w
g
= v
g
T
i
, which are
two equations in one unknown T
i
; the rst does not even
depend on T
i
, but only on the transfer function of the plant
G(s). As such, the problem at hand now admits solutions
only if the equality constraint M
g
cos w
g
= 1 is satised. If
that constraint is satised, T
i
= M
g
sin w
g
/v
g
.
Example 3: Consider the plant described by the transfer
function in Example 1. Find the parameters of a PI controller
that achieves a phase margin of 45
8
, a crossover frequency
v
g
= 10 rad/s and zero-velocity error. First, let us compute
M
g
= 1/|G(j)| = 20
...
26

and w
g
= PMp arg G(j) =
p/4 +arctan(1/2). The angle w
g
lies in (0, p/2), so that
a PI controller meeting the specications exists. The
parameters can be found with
K
p
=
M
g
sin w
g
v
g
= 40
..
2

T
i
=
1
v
g
tan w
g
=
1
15
The transfer function of the PI controller is
C
PI
(s) =
M
g
v
g
cos w
g
+M
g
sin w
g
s
v
g
s
= 40
..
2

s +15
s
Notice that, since in this case we have M
g
cos w
g
=
..
3

cos (p/4 +arctan 1/2) =1, we cannot solve the

problem with constraints on K
i
.
6 PD controllers
As for the design of PI controllers, the synthesis techniques
presented for the imposition of phase margin and crossover
frequency of the loop gain transfer function can be used for
PD controllers only when the steady-state specications do
not lead to the imposition of the proportional sensitivity K
p
.
The transfer function of a PD controller is
C
PD
(s) = K
p
(1 +T
d
s)
574 IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239
www.ietdl.org
To nd the parameters of the PD controller, the equation
M
g
e
jw
g
= K
p
(1 +jT
d
v
g
) (48)
must be solved in K
p
. 0 and T
d
. 0.
Theorem 7: Equation (48) admits solutions in K
p
. 0 and
T
d
. 0 if and only if
w
g
[ 0,
p
2
_ _
(49)
If (49) is satised, the solution of (48) is given by
K
p
= M
g
cos w
g
T
d
=
1
v
g
tan w
g
When the imposition of the steady-state specications lead
to a sharp constraint on K
p
, and dene

G(s) = K
p
G(s) and

C
PD
(s) = 1 +T
d
s, the values M
g
= 1/|

G(jv
g
)| and
w
g
= PMp arg

G(jv
g
) lead to the identity
1 +jv
g
T
d
= M
g
e
jw
g
, which in turn leads to the two
equations M
g
cos w
g
= 1 and M
g
sin w
g
= v
g
T
d
, so that the
problem admits solutions only if the constraint
M
g
cos w
g
= 1 is satised. In that case, T
d
= M
g
sin w
g
/v
g
.
7 Proper PD controllers
Now we consider an alternative form of the PD controller,
described by the transfer function
C

PD
(s) = K
p
1 +
T
d
s
1 +t
d
s
_ _
= K
p
1 +(T
d
+t
d
)s
1 +t
d
s
(50)
with K
p
, T
d
, t
d
. 0. In this case, the proposed method can be
applied even in the presence of steady-state requirements on
the position error for type-0 plants, on the velocity error for
type-1 plants, and on the acceleration error for type-2
plants. In fact, the transfer function C

PD
(s) is exactly that of
a lead network. Since the transfer function C

PD
(s) does not
contain poles at the origin, usually the steady-state
specications lead to constraints on the proportional
sensitivity K
p
. In that case, let us dene

G(s) = K
p
G(s), and

PD
(s) =
1 +(T
d
+t
d
)s
1 +t
d
s
If we also set

C

PD
(jv) = M(v)e
jw(v)
, by imposing |L(jv
g
)| =
1 and PM = p +arg L(jv
g
), we nd that, as before, in order
to nd the parameters of the controller, equation
M
g
e
jw
g
=
1 +j(T
d
+t
d
)v
g
1 +jt
d
v
g
(51)
must be solved in T
d
, t
d
. 0.
Theorem 8: Equation (51) admits solutions T
d
, t
d
. 0 if and
only if
M
g
. 1, w
g
[ 0,
p
2
_ _
, M
g
.
1
cos w
g
(52)
If (52) are satised, the solution of (51) is given by
T
d
=
M
2
g
2M
g
cos w
g
+1
M
g
v
g
sin w
g
t
d
=
M
g
cos w
g
1
M
g
v
g
sin w
g
8 Graphical and approximate solution to the
design problem
The synthesis methods developed in the previous sections are
based on closed-form formulae for the computation of the
parameters of the PID controller. In this regard, it could be
argued that often a full knowledge of the dynamics of the
plant is not available in practice and therefore the presented
closed-form formulae are of little interest. On the contrary,
the approach presented here still offers a solution even
when the model of the plant is not exactly known, but may
be based on (i) graphical considerations similar in spirit to
those considered in the literature [5] (but that can be carried
out on any of the standard diagrams for the frequency
response), (ii) on the approximation of the plant with a rst-
or second-order transfer function [9] or even (iii) on the
results of an experiment conducted on the plant in the same
spirit of the Ziegler and Nichols methods, [17]. In this and
in the following section we discuss these issues.
As already mentioned, a graphical version of the method
presented in this paper can be implemented using any of
the frequency domain plots usually employed in control to
represent the frequency response dynamics, that is, Bode
diagrams, Nyquist diagrams or Nichols charts. This is
owing to the fact that the formulae used to derive the
parameters of the PID controller are expressed in terms of
the magnitude and the argument of the frequency response
of the plant at a given crossover frequency, which is
readable over any of these diagrams.
Example 4: Consider Example 5.12 in [10], in which the
control of a small airplane has to be implemented via a PID
controller achieving a crossover frequency of 8 rad/s, a
phase margin of 75
8
and a ratio T
i
/T
d
equal to 4. The
Nyquist plot of the plant, in which the input is the pitch
attitude and the output is the elevator angle, both expressed
in degrees, is represented by the dark line in Fig. 3. Given
the point of the Nyquist plot corresponding to the desired
gain crossover frequency v
g
= 8 rad/s, that is
G(jv
g
) 2.9 2.2j
we can estimate
M
g
=
1
.............
2.9
2
+2.2
2
= 0.2747
w
g
= PMp arctan
2.2
2.9
p = 0.6600
These values lead to the parameters
K
p
= 0.2170, T
i
= 0.5105 s, T
d
= 0.1276 s (53)
The frequency response of the loop gain transfer function
obtained by combining the PID controller thus obtained
IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578 575
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
with the transfer function of the plant given in [10], that is
G(s) = 160
(s +2.5)(2 +0.7)
(s
2
+5 s +40)(s
2
+0.03 s +0.06)
is depicted with the green solid line in Fig. 3. By direct
inspection it can be seen that the loop gain transfer function
guarantees the desired phase margin and crossover
frequency. In fact, using the MATLAB
w
routine margin
on the loop gain given by the series of the PID controller
with (53) and G(s) shows that the phase margin and gain
crossover frequency obtained are 74.93
8
and 7.96 rad/s,
respectively. The step response of the controlled system is
given in Fig. 4.
The approach described in the previous example may be
employed even in the absence of graphical descriptions of
the plant transfer function. Indeed, in the very same spirit of
the Ziegler and Nichols method, we may perform an
experiment on the plant by feeding it with a sinusoidal input
with frequency v
g
, that is, the desired crossover frequency.
From the steady-state output we can estimate G(jv
g
), and
hence M
g
, and w
g
and we can thus readily apply the
proposed method.
9 Second-order plus delay approximation
Several tuning techniques proposed in the literature do not
require exact knowledge of the mathematical model of the
plant, but rely on its rst- or second-order plus delay
approximation, [1, 2, 9]. While in this paper the formulae
for the parameters of the PID controller have been obtained
under the assumption of exact knowledge of the transfer
function of the plant, the procedure outlined can be used in
conjuction with the heuristics or numerical methods based on
these approximations. In this section we show that the
formulae presented in this paper can be specialised to the case
of a second-order plus delay approximation of the plant
dynamics, and compare our results with those in [9], in the
case of specications on the stability margins and gain
crossover frequency. We consider the second-order plus delay
model
G(s) =
K
(1 +t
1
s)(1 +t
2
s)
e
Ts
where t
1
, t
2
, T . 0 and K . 0. A direct calculation shows that
M
g
=
.......................
(1 +v
2
g
t
2
1
)(1 +v
2
g
t
2
1
)
_
K
w
g
= u p +arctan(v
g
t
1
) +arctan(v
g
t
2
)
where u = PM+v
g
T, which lead to
M
g
cos(w
g
) =
v
g
(t
1
+t
2
) sin u (1 v
2
g
t
1
t
2
) cos u
K
If the specications are on the ratio s = T
d
/T
i
, the parameters
of the compensator can be computed directly using (1214),
which with this particular model yield
K
p
=
v
g
(t
1
+t
2
) sin u (1 v
2
g
t
1
t
2
) cos u
K
T
i
=
(1 v
2
p
t
1
t
2
) tan u +v
p
(t
1
+t
2
)
(1 v
2
p
t
1
t
2
) v
p
(t
1
+t
2
) tan u
T
d
= T
i
s
If the specications are on both the phase and gain margin (and
on the gain crossover frequency), we must also compute
M
p
=
.......................
(1 +v
2
p
t
2
1
)(1 +v
2
p
t
2
1
)
_
K
w
p
= p +v
p
T +arctan(v
p
t
1
) +arctan(v
p
t
2
)
so that
M
p
cos(w
p
) =
v
p
(t
1
+t
2
) sin(v
p
T) (1 v
2
p
t
1
t
2
) cos(v
p
T)
GM K
Therefore in order to achieve the desired phase and gain margins
at the desired gain crossover frequency, we need to nd the roots Fig. 4 Step response of the controlled system
Fig. 3 Nyquist diagram of the plant G (dark solid line) and of the
loop gain transfer function L (light solid line)
576 IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239
www.ietdl.org
v
p
of the equation
c(v
p
) = v
p
(t
1
+t
2
) sin(v
p
T) (1 v
2
p
t
1
t
2
) cos(v
p
T)
GM K M
g
cos(w
g
) = 0 (54)
Note that this time function c(v
p
) is not a polynomial, since the
transfer function of the model is not rational. The roots of this
equation can be determined numerically, as shown in the
following example. Of all the roots of c(v
p
), one satisfying
the conditions of Theorem 2 must be determined (if no such
roots exist, the problem does not admit solutions), and
compute the parameters of the PID controller using (2628).
Example 5: In this example we compare the results presented
in this paper with those based on a second-order
approximation described in [9]. In particular, we consider
the process in [9, Table 5] described by the transfer
function 1/(s +1)
5
and approximated with the second-order
model
G(s) =
e
1.73s
(1 +1.89s)
2
The design specications considered are on the phase and on
the gain margin, which are required to be equal to 60
8
and 3,
respectively. The desired gain crossover frequency is
0.30 rad/s. This problem can be solved as described above
with t
1
= t
2
= 1.89 s, T = 1.73 s and K 1. In this case,
function c(v
p
) is depicted in Fig. 5. It can be numerically
established that the smallest root of c(v
p
) is at
v
p
= 0.8728 rad/s. It is a matter of direct substitution to see
that this frequency satises the conditions given in Theorem
2. This means that the control problem is solvable, and we
can use v
p
to compute the parameters of the compensator
K
p
= 1.1038, T
i
= 3.7797 s, T
d
= 0.8291 s
With these values, the phase and gain margins of the loop gain
transfer function obtained by the series of the real process
and the PID controller designed using its second-order
approximation are 62.26
8
and 3.26, respectively, and the real
gain crossover frequency is at 0.3173 rad/s.
The values of the parameters of the PID controller are
different from those obtained here because in [9] the
different transfer function for the PID controller
C
PID
(s) = K
P
(1 +T
i
s)(1 +T
d
s)
T
i
s
is utilised. The values of the phase margin and gain margin
obtained in [9] are 62.58 and 3.38, respectively.
The closed-form formulae given in this paper for the
parameters of the PID controller are given in nite terms.
Hence, a remarkable advantage of this method is the fact that
these formulae can be applied to any plant approximation,
even though in this section for the sake of comparison with
the existing methods only the second-order plus delay
approximation has been considered. As such, the exibility
offered by the method presented here also extends to the
case where the transfer function of the plant to be controlled
is not exactly known, and necessarily guarantees a better
performance when a better approximation of the plant
dynamics is available. This also means that the method
proposed in this paper outperforms any method constructed
on a plant approximation with a xed structure.
10 Conclusions
A unied approach has been presented that enable the
parameters of PID, PI and PD controllers (with corresponding
approximations of the derivative action when needed) to be
computed in nite terms given appropriate specications
expressed in terms of steady-state performance, phase/gain
margins and gain crossover frequency. The synthesis tools
developed in this paper eliminate the need of trial-and-error
and heuristic procedures in frequency-response design, and
therefore they undoubtedly outperforms the heuristic, trial-
and-error and graphic approaches proposed so far in the
literature for the feedback control problem with specications
on the steady-state performance and on the gain/phase
margins, in the case of perfect knowledge of the model of the
plant. When the plant model is not exactly known as is
often the case in practice the present method can still be
fruitfully employed for the design of the PID controller.
Indeed, the formulae delivering the controller parameters only
require the magnitude and the argument of the frequency
response of the plant at the desired crossover frequency. These
data can be obtained graphically by direct inspection over any
of the Nyquist, Bode and Nichols diagrams (with the
advantage that no special charts are needed). Alternatively, the
closed-form design techniques can be used jointly with a rst-
or second-order plus delay approximation of the plant to
deliver the desired values of the stability margins and
crossover frequency.
11 Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by the Australian Research
Council (Discovery Grant DP0986577) and by the Italian
Ministry for Education and Research (MIUR) under PRIN
grant Identication and Robust Control of Industrial Systems.
12 References
1 A

strom, K.J., Hagglund, T.: PID controllers: theory, design, and tuning
(Instrument Society of America, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1995, 2nd
edn.)
2 A

strom, K.J., Hagglund, T.: Advanced PID control (Instrument

Society of America, Research Triangle Park, NC, 2006)
3 Datta, A., Ho, M.-T., Bhattacharyya, S.P.: Structure and synthesis of
PID controllers (Springer, 2000) Fig. 5 Function c(v
p
)
IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578 577
doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
4 Visioli, A.: Practical PID control: advances in industrial control
(Springer-Verlag, 2006)
5 Yeung, K.S., Lee, K.H.: A universal design chart for linear time-
invariant continuous-time and discrete-time compensators, IEEE
Trans. Edu., 2000, E-43, (3), pp. 309315
6 Skogestad, S.: Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID
controller tuning, J. Process Control, 2003, 13, pp. 291309
7 Kim, K., Kim, Y.C.: The complete set of PID controllers with
guaranteed gain and phase margins. Proc. 44th IEEE Conf. on
Decision and Control, and the European Control Conf. 2005, Seville,
Spain, 1215 December 2005, pp. 65336538
8 Keel, L.H., Bhattacharyya, S.P.: Controller synthesis free of analytical
models: three term controllers, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 2008, AC-
53, (6), pp. 13531369
9 Ho, W.K., Hang, C.C., Cao, L.S.: Tuning of PID controllers based on
gain and phase margin specications, Automatica, 1995, 31, (3),
pp. 497502
10 Franklin, G., Powell, J.D., Emami-Naeini, A.: Feedback control of
dynamic systems (Prentice Hall, 2006)
11 Ferrante, A., Lepschy, A., Viaro, U.: Introduzione ai controlli
automatici (UTET Universit, 2000)
12 Ogata, K.: Modern control engineering (Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 2000, 2nd edn.)
13 Wakeland, W.R.: Bode compensation design, IEEE Trans. Autom.
Control, 1976, AC-21, (5), pp. 771773
14 Phillips, C.L.: Analytical bode design of controllers, IEEE Trans.
Educ., 1985, E-28, (1), pp. 4344
15 Zanasi, R., Marro, G.: New formulae and graphics for compensator
design. Proc. 1998 IEEE Int. Conf. on Control Applications, 14
September 1998, vol. 1, pp. 129133
16 Marro, G.: TFI: insegnare ed apprendere i controlli automatici di base
con MATLAB
w
(Zanichelli Ed., Bologna, Italy, 1998)
17 Ziegler, J.G., Nichols, N.B.: Optimum settings for automatic
controllers, Trans. ASME, 1942, 64, pp. 759768
578 IET Control Theory Appl., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 4, pp. 565578
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2010.0239
www.ietdl.org