Two-degree-of-freedom Controllers for Double Integrating Systems with Time Delay and Unstable First Order plus Time Delay Systems with an Integrator

Rao, C. V. Nageswara; Sree, R. Padma

doi:10.1080/00194506.2014.927181

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Next, the following two equations can be obtained by solving equations ( 14) and (15) for k p TK and…”

Section: The Generalized Stability Region Of the Pi Controllermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[2][3][4][5] The proportional-integral (PI)/proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers have been dominantly used for controlling integrating processes. 6,7 Some examples of approaches used for designing the controller might involve internal mode control, 8,9 optimal tuning based on optimization criteria, 10,11 delay time compensation using the modified Smith predictor, 12,13 cascade control, 13,14 two-degree-of-freedom PID controller, 15 and many more. However, PI/PID controllers do not offer good closed-loop performances for controlling integrating processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Proportional–integral and proportional–derivative controller design based on analytically computed centroid point for controlling integrating processes

Alyoussef

Kaya

2023

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The proportional–integral and proportional–derivative controller is characterized by its capability to effectively control integrating processes compared with proportional–integral/proportional–integral–derivative controllers. Recently, several graphical methods have been proposed for tuning the PI-PD controller parameters by computing the centroid point of the stability boundary locus. However, these approaches are time-consuming because they entail plotting the stability boundary locus for finding the centroid point. Another disadvantage of those design methods is that the design procedure has to be redone as the transfer function changes. In this article, a generalized stability boundary locus is constructed in terms of the controller and assumed plant transfer function model parameters to enable the designer to avoid replotting the stability boundary locus as the process transfer function changes. More importantly, two analytical approaches, which simplify the design of the proportional–integral and proportional–derivative controller very much, are proposed to compute the centroid point of the generalized stability boundary locus. Analytical expressions for computing the performance measures of the designed closed-loop system have also been provided so that one can predict the performance of the designed closed-loop system. It has been shown by simulation examples that the analytical centroid of convex stability region method provides quicker responses with faster disturbance rejections compared to other reported design methods. Also, the simulation results have displayed that analytical weighted geometrical center gives more robust closed-loop responses in terms of gain margin, phase margins, and maximum sensitivity than analytical centroid of convex stability region. Finally, the feasibility of the proposed methods is tested using a real-time application based on an aerodynamical system. Real-time results have demonstrated that the analytical centroid of convex stability region and analytical weighted geometrical center methods give quicker responses with small overshoots compared to other reported methods.

show abstract

“…Next, the following two equations can be obtained by solving equations ( 14) and (15) for k p TK and…”

Section: The Generalized Stability Region Of the Pi Controllermentioning

confidence: 99%