See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282122625

Application of FOPID control technique In

Antiwindup Scheme
Conference Paper April 2013

READS

46

4 authors, including:
Anurag Gupta

N.S. Rathore

Moti Lal Nehru Medical College

National Institute of Technology Raipur

1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

4 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Richa Negi
Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technol
15 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: N.S. Rathore

Retrieved on: 29 April 2016

Application of FOPID control technique

In Antiwindup Scheme
Anurag Gupta, Natwar S. Rathore, Student Member, IEEE, Saurabh Shukla, Richa Negi

AbstractAn anti-windup scheme for proportional-integralderivative controllers is presented. The approach is based on the
combined use of Fractional order PID control and backcalculation anti-windup technique. In this way, the
disadvantages' that can hinder previously proposed strategies are
overcome. Specifically, the method can guarantee a satisfactory
performance for processes with different normalised dead times,
without the tuning of additional parameters being required.
Therefore, considering its simplicity, it is highly suitable for
implementation in industrial regulators.
KeywordsFractional order PID controllers, Antiwindup
Design,back calculaton

I.
INTRODUCTION
The PID controllers have remained, by far; the most commonly
used in practically all industrial feedback control applications.
The main reason is its relatively simple structure, which can be
easily understood and implemented in practice. They are thus,
more acceptable than advanced controllers in practical
applications unless evidence shows that they are insufficient to
meet specifications. Many techniques have been suggested for
their parameters tuning [1,2]. Although all the existing
techniques for the PID controller parameter tuning perform
well, a continuous and an intensive research work is still
underway towards system control quality enhancement and
performance improvements. On the other hand, in recent years,
it is remarkable to note the increasing number of studies related
with the application of fractional controllers in many areas of
science and engineering [3]. This fact is due to a better
understanding of the fractional calculus potentialities. In the
field of automatic control, the fractional order controllers
which are the generalization of classical integer order
controllers would lead to more precise and robust control
performances [4]. Although it is reasonably true that the
fractional order models require the fractional order controllers
to achieve the best performance, in most cases the researchers
consider the fractional order controllers applied to regular
linear or non-linear dynamics to enhance the system control
performances.
However, the performance of PID controllers can he severely
limited in practical cases by the presence of saturation of the
actuators, which causes the well-known phenomenon of
integrator windup [5] . To deal with this problem, it is
Anurag Gupta is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Motilal
Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad-211004, India (e-mail:
anurag.gupta4516@gmail.com).
Natwar S Rathore is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Motilal
Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad-211004, India (e-mail:
natwarsmertia@gmail.com).
Saurabh Shukla is with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Motilal
Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad-211004, India (e-mail:
saurabh.original@gmail.com).
Richa Negi is Associate Professor with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad211004, India(e-mail: richa@mnnit.ac.in)

necessary, from a theoretical point of view, to design the

controller explicitly taking into account the actuator
constraints from the first stage, e.g. referring to the nonlinear
systems framework. However, the overall design becomes
much more complicated and therefore inappropriate in the PID
control context, where the ease of implementation has to be
preserved as a major feature. Therefore, the typical method to
deal with the integrator windup problem is to tune the
controller ignoring the actuator saturation and subsequently to
add an anti-windup compensator to prevent the degradation of
performance. In this context, several techniques have been
devised to design the compensator [6,7]. Basically, they
belong to two different approaches, namely, conditional
integration (in which the value of the integrator is frozen when
certain conditions are verified) and back-calculation (in which
the difference between the controller output and the actual
process input is fed back to the integral terms) [8].
This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we present a
brief introduction to fractional calculus. Section 3 deals with
fractional order PID controller. Section 4 we present a brief
introduction of integrator windup and back-calculation a
method to avoid integrator windup. Section 5 presents the
implementation of proposed fractional PID controller and
back-calculation anti-windup scheme simultaneously. Section
6 deals with simulation results of the system and section 7
discuss the conclusion.
II.

FUNDAMENTALS OF FRACTIONAL ORDER CALCULAS

A. Definitions of fractional order calculus

A simple traditional PID controller can be written in the
following form:
u(t) = Kpe(t) + Ki e t dt + Kd

d
(e(t)) ,
dt

where u(t) is the output of the PID controller, e(t) is the error
and K p , Ki , K d are the proportional, integral and the
derivative gains, respectively. There are several different
methods for tuning PID controllers that have been explored by
researchers over the years [9]. The tuning rules by Ziegler and
Nichols, [10] however, are the most prevalently used since its
use is simple Replacing the integer order derivatives and
integrals in eq. by integral and derivative Operators of

arbitrary real order provide a fractional order PID or FO-PID

controller.
The mathematical representation of such a controller is as
follows:

where uf (t) is the output of the FO-PID controller, e(t) is the

error. , R are the orders of the integral and differential
operators, respectively. K pf , K if , K df are the proportional,
integral, and the derivative gains for the FO-PID controller.
The operator of the form , D p shown here is the GrunwaldLetnikov (GL) [11],form of the fractional differintegral
operator where a, t are the terminals.The uniform formula of a
fractional integral with (0, 1) is defined as follows:

B. FOPID Controller
PID Controller

C(s)

Kp

Plant
y

r
Ki/s

Ps

Kds

Fig. 2. Representation of P, PI, PD, PID

C. Merit of using FOPID Controller

Advantages of using fractional-order PID controller have been
introduced in a number of publications [11]. It is claimed that,
FOPID has following specifications:
(i) No steady-state error,
(ii) Phase margin and gain crossover frequency specifications,
(iii) Gain margin and phase crossover frequency
specifications,
(iv) Robustness to variations in the gain of the plant,
(v) Robustness to high frequency noise,
(vi) Good output disturbance rejection, five specifications can
be met by the closed-loop system, because the fractional-order
PID controller has five tuning parameters (i.e. Kp, Ki, Kd, ,
).
III.

Fig. 1. FOPID Controller

PI D Controller one of the FOPID controllers with

fractional integrator. In case =1, the Controller is equivalent
to the traditional PID controller. Advantages of the fractional
Control scheme, it was reported that PI D control system
has robust characteristics for the saturation of the input.
Fractional order PID controller output is:

f (s) = K p + K i + K d * s

The FOPID controller needs to design five parameters, Kp, Ki,

Kd, , . The order and are not necessary to be integers;
they will be any real numbers.
Selecting =1, =1, a classical PID can be obtained.
Selecting =1, =0, a PI can be obtained.
Selecting =0, =1, a PD can be obtained.
Selecting =0, =0, a gain can be obtained.
The PI D controller is more flexible and gives an
opportunity to better adjust the dynamical properties of a
fractional-order control system.

ANTI-WINDUP STRATEGIES FOR PID CONTROLLERS

A. General Introduction
The integrator windup is a phenomenon that can occur in the
presence of a saturation of the process input. We refer to the
scheme of Fig. 3 , where u is the controller output, Us is the
actual process input, y is the process output, w is the setpoint
reference value and e is the system error. It is assumed that a
transition from the value Yo to the value Yt is required for the
system output and this determines the amplitude of the step
signal to be applied as input to the closed-loop system. The
PID controller is described by the following expression (noninteracting form) in the Laplace domain:

sTd
1
U s K p E s
E s
Y s
Ti s
1 s Td / N

Where K p , Ti and Td are the proportional gain and the integral

and derivative time constants respectively, and N is usually set
between five and 20. The integrator windup occurs when a
step change in w causes the actuator to saturate. In this case
the system error decreases more slowly than in the ideal case
(when there is No input limitation) and therefore the value of
the integral term becomes large. Thus, even when the value of
y attains that of w, the controller still saturates due to the
integral term and this generally leads to large overshoots and
settling times. It has to be noted that the integrator windup

mainly occurs when a step is applied to the reference setpoint

is applied to the reference setpoint signal rather than to the
manipulated variable

conditional integration and the hack-calculation approaches

have been presented in [4] and [5]. Specifically, in [5] it is
proposed to apply an additional limit to the proportional
derivative part.
IV.

FIG.3. ANTI-WINDUP STRATEGIES FOR PID CONTROLLERS

(i.e. in the presence of a load disturbance)[12]. Furthermore,

the most significant effects of the integrator windup take place
when the process is of low order. For these reasons, in the
following we will restrict the analysis to the first-order set
point response plus dead time systems, whose transfer
function is denoted as:
P s

K
e Ls
Ts 1

The normalised dead time is defined as H = L/T.

B. Back-Calculation Antiwindup Technique
It can be implemented to avoid integrator windup. An
alternative approach to conditional integration is backcalculation. It consists of recomposing the integral term once
the controller saturates. In particular, the integral value is
reduced by feeding back the difference of the saturated and
unsaturated control signal, as shown in Fig. 4 where T, is
called tracking time constant. Formally, denoting by ei the
integrator input, we have:
The value of T, determines the rate at which the integral term
is reset and its choice determines the performances of the
overall control scheme.

SIMULATION RESULTS

A. Comparison of conventional PID control and FOPID

control.
Let the transfer function of open loop system whose controller is
to be designed is given by:
20
G(s) =
s 3 5s 2 41s 10
Given transfer function is supposed to have transport delay of 2
seconds .Thus the effective transfer function of system is given by
:
20
F(s)=
e2s
s 3 5s 2 41s 10
The transfer function of the closed feedback control loop with the
fractional-order controller with unity feedback is given by :
C(s)=

F ( s)
1 F ( s) H ( s)

Now we are comparing its performance in terms of two

controllers
1. If only PID controller is applied i.e =1, =1,
2. If FOPID controller is applied with =0.5, =0.5
Desired Simulink block diagram is shown in figure 5:

Fig.5. Simulink diagram for PID and FOPID Controller

Fig.4. Back- calculation technique

Some suggestions are to set Tt = Ti [2, 3], or Tt TT

[4].
i d
The latter formula results in Tt =0 for PI control (which is
often applied in industrial settings) and it will not be
considered any further because of the unsatisfactory results it
provides in this case. Anti-windup strategies that combine the

It is worth noting that both of controllers have same values of

K d = K v = K p = 1and U max =1,only difference in configuration
is value of and . Simulation of block diagram shown in figure
results to simulation results which are shown in figure

Fig.7. Simulink Block diagram for with Anti-windup Technique

Fig.8. Simulink result for Anti-windup Technique

Fig.6. Simulink result for PID and FOPID Controller

By observing results of figure ,it is clear that for same value of

K d , K v and K p FOPID controller shows better results than
PID controller in terms of risetime , Peak overshoot and
settling time.Thus in this case FOPID controller not only
inmproves transient response but also improoves its steady
state response
B. Comparison of system with and without anti windup
scheme
The controlled plant is a first-order process with dead-time
described by
P s

1
e 2 s
10s 1

The plant has known input saturation limits of [-10, 10], which
are accounted for in the Saturation block labelled Plant
Actuator. First, we examine the effect of saturation on the
closed-loop when the saturation model is not considered by
the PID Controller block When the setpoint value is 10, the
PID control signal reaches a steady-state at about 24, outside
the range of the actuator. The controller is therefore operating
in a nonlinear region where increasing the control signal has
no effect on the system output, a condition known as winding
up. Note that the dc-gain of the plant is unity, and therefore
there is no reason for the controller output to have a steadystate value outside the actuator's range. When the setpoint
value becomes 5, there is a considerable delay before the PID
controller output returns to within the actuator range.
Designing the PID controller to account for the effect of
saturation will improve its performance by allowing it to
operate in the linear region most of the time and recover
quickly from nonlinearity. Anti-windup circuitry is one way to
achieve this Simulink block diagram shown in figure 7 thus
compares the effect of antiwindup performance of
conventional PID controller.

By observing results of figure,it indicates that how quiclky

PID control signal returns to linear region and how fast the
loop recovers the saturation. Here the parameters are defined
as, K p = 1.7018012505578, K v = 0.208461637073455 , K d = 1.26102994076046,
0.178109803713032

Filter

coefficient

C. Application of FOPID technique to improove antiwindup

performance.
In this section we try to improve performance of anti windup
design using FOPID control so that loop may recover more
fastly from saturation and signal returns to linear region more
quickly
Figure 9 and Figure 10 shows simulink block diagram of
antiwindup design using back calculation based algorithm.
Subsystem of block diagram is shown in figure .It has error
signal as input port and Usat ,integeral term , control variable
as output

Fig.9. PID Anti-windup Block

Fig.10. Detailed Block of PID Anti-windup Tecchnique

Simulation of above block diagram for PID control with

constants as
K d =1
K v =1/4

Kp= 6
Tt =1/25

Umax =10
Umin =-10

And for FOPID control with contants are same as that of

coneventinal PID control except it has values of
=0.5, =0.5
Results in the following output which is shown in figure

V.

CONCLUSION

Use of combined use FOPID control and back calculation

based anti windup scheme is presented in this paper. Main
feature ot this scheme is that the controller recovers more
fastly from saturation and signal returns more quickly to linear
region Due to this fact it appears that it is suitable for
industrial applications particularly industrial regulators
REFERENCES
I.Petras and L. Dorcak. Some possibilities of realization of fractionalorder controllers. Envirautom, J. Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity
and Magnetism, 3rd ed., vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1892, pp.68-73,1996

[1]

[2] Valerio, D., Costa, J.S.. Tuning of fractional PID controllers with
ZieglerNicholstype rules, Signal Processing, Vol. 86, pp. 27712784, 2006
[3] Y. Luo, Y.Q. Chen, C.Y. Wang, Y.G. Pi. Tuning fractional order
proportional integral controllers for fractional order systems. Journal of
Process Control 20 (2010) 823831
[4] H. B. Shin, S. Lee, J. M. Park, and H. S. Shin, Anti-windup PID
controller, Korea Patent, 2010-0014689, Feb. 18, 2010.
[5] Scottedward Hodel, A., and Hall, C.E.: 'Variable-structure PID control to
prevent integrator windup', IEEE Tmni. lnd. Elecnon., 2001.48, (2), pp. 442451
[6] Bohn, C.. and Atherton, D.P: 'An analysis package comparing PID antiwindup strategies'. IEEE Control Syvr. Maz.. 1995, pp. 3440
[7] Peng, Y., Vrancic, D., and Hanus.R.: 'Anti-windup. bumpless. and
conditioned transfer techniques for PiD controllers', IEEE Contml Swt. Mog.,
1996, pp. 48-57

Fig.11. Comparision of results for Anti-windup using FOPID and PID

By observing simulations it is clear that for same value of

constants and saturation limits . FOPID controller with of
=0.5and =0.5 recovers more fast from saturation and signal
returns more quickly to linear region To better evaluate the
results, the control variables and the integral terms for the
considered cases are reported in figure

[8] Astrom and Hagclund. PID controllers theory, design and tunning, (ISA
Press, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1995
[9] K. Ohishi, E. Hayasaka, T. Nagano, M. Harakawa, and T. Kanmachi,
High-performance speed servo system considering voltage saturation of a
vector-controlled induction motor, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., Vo 53, No. 3,
pp. 795802, Jun. 2006
[10] Valerio, D., Costa, J.S. Ninteger, A Non-Integer Control Toolbox for
MATLAB, Proceedings of Fractional Differentiation and its
Applications,Bordeaux,2004

Fig.12. Integral term and Control variable for FOPID Controller and PID controller