mathematics

Article
High-Order Filtered PID Controller Tuning Based on
Magnitude Optimum
Damir Vrančić 1, * and Mikuláš Huba 2

1 Jožef Stefan Institute, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

2 Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava,
Ilovičova 3, 81219 Bratislava, Slovakia; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The paper presents a tuning method for PID controllers with higher-order derivatives
and higher-order controller filters (HO-PID), where the controller and filter orders can be arbitrarily
chosen by the user. The controller and filter parameters are tuned according to the magnitude
optimum criteria and the specified noise gain of the controller. The advantages of the proposed
approach are twofold. First, all parameters can be obtained from the process transfer function or from
the measured input and output time responses of the process as the steady-state changes. Second,
the a priori defined controller noise gain limits the amount of HO-PID output noise. Therefore, the
method can be successfully applied in practice. The work shows that the HO-PID controllers can
significantly improve the control performance of various process models compared to the standard
PID controllers. Of course, the increased efficiency is limited by the selected noise gain. The proposed
tuning method is illustrated on several process models and compared with two other tuning methods
for higher-order controllers.



Keywords: higher-order controllers; PID controller; magnitude optimum; controller tuning; noise


attenuation
Citation: Vrančić, D.; Huba, M.
High-Order Filtered PID Controller
Tuning Based on Magnitude
Optimum. Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340. 1. Introduction
https://doi.org/10.3390/math9121340
The PID controllers are widespread in many industries and are frequently included in
embedded solutions [1–4]. This is not surprising, since the basic PID control algorithm is
Academic Editor: Ioannis Dassios
very simple and the control performance, when the controller is tuned appropriately, is
Received: 6 May 2021
usually very good. However, the control performance can be improved by increasing the
Accepted: 5 June 2021
controller order. The improvement depends on the process order. While the first-order
Published: 9 June 2021 process can be efficiently controlled by the PI controller and the second-order process by
the PID controller, the control efficiency for higher-order processes can be improved by
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral increasing the controller order beyond the PID control.
with regard to jurisdictional claims in In practice the PI controllers are used more often than the PID controllers, since the
published maps and institutional affil- latter significantly increase the controller output noise. Naturally, with higher degrees
iations. of controllers, the problem becomes aggravated. Therefore, the appropriate higher-order
controller filter is inevitable in practical applications.
For easier classification of the HO-PID controllers according to the controller (m) and
filter (n) order, let us denote them as PIDm m
n . A general PIDn controller transfer function
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
GCF (s) can be defined as follows:
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
GCF (s) = GC (s) GF (s), where
This article is an open access article
GC (s) = K−1 s−1 + K0 + K1 s + · · · + Km sm


distributed under the terms and (1)
conditions of the Creative Commons
GF (s) = (1+T1 s)n
F
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ where K−1 , K0 , K1 , . . . Km are controller gains, and GF (s) is the binomial filter with filter
4.0/). time constant TF . In practical applications, in order to limit the higher-frequency controller

Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9121340 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 2 of 24

output noise, n ≥ m. Note that PID00 denotes the PI controller (KI = K−1 , KP = K0 ) and PID11
denotes the PID controller (KI = K−1 , KP = K0 , KD = K1 ) with the first-order filter (n = 1).
Several tuning methods for HO-PID controllers have been proposed so far. The
majority of them are made for proportional-integrative-derivative-accelerative (PIDA)
controllers (PID2n ). The controller structure is either 1 degree of freedom (1-DOF) [5–20]
or 2 degrees of freedom (2-DOF) [21–23] which can optimise the tracking and control
performance.
The tuning methods for the mentioned PIDA controllers are derived either for the first-
order process with delay [20,22,23], third order process [5,11,13,14,21], first-order double
integrating process [5,11,16], second-order integrating process [8,9,11,16], double integrat-
ing process with time delay [10], fourth-order system [18], for different types of process
models [6,17,18] or for the automatic voltage regulator (AVR) in the generator excitation sys-
tem [7,15,19]. Unfortunately, only a few of the mentioned PIDA controller tuning methods
take into account the controller filter in the controller design stage [5–7,10,15,23]. Therefore,
the practical implementation of other PIDA tuning methods remains questionable.
Besides PIDA controllers, some higher-order controller tuning methods also exist [24–27].
The tuning method for the PID30 controller (the controller filter is not considered), where
the controlled process is a model of the ship power plant, including the heat exchanger, is
given in [24]. The method optimises the IAE for disturbance rejection while limiting the
peak of the closed-loop amplitude frequency response.
Tuning methods for even higher-order controllers (m > 3) were developed for the
integrating process model with a time delay (IPTD) [25–27]. Although the type of the
process model seems to be limited, we have to mention that many stable process models
can be modelled as IPTD processes [1]. For HO-PID control of stable time-delayed processes,
a new method was also proposed by generalizing Skogestad’s method SIMC [28]. The basic
version is based on the approximation of processes by transfer functions with multiple time
constants (obtained, for example, by an appropriate identification method); however, a
suitable model can also be obtained from a more general description of the process reduced
by the modified “half-rule” method [29]. Although not specifically designed for HO-PID
controllers, we should also mention that the tuning approach is based on the design of
multiple dominant closed-loop poles for delayed processes, applied to the PI and PID
controllers [30], which can be easily extended to HO-PID controllers.
The developed tuning methods for the PIDm n controllers reveal that the HO-PID
controllers can be much more efficient than the ordinary PID controllers without significant
increase of the controller output noise.
This paper presents the PIDm n controller and filter tuning method, which is based on
the parametric or the non-parametric process description. It means that the process can
be given by the general transfer function (of the arbitrary order and time delay) or by the
process input and output time-responses during the steady-state change of the process.
The only user-defined parameters will be the controller (m) and the filter (n) order and
the desired high-frequency gain of the controller. As will be shown later, the controller
parameters will be calculated analytically.
Therefore, the main advantages of the proposed method are the flexibility of the
process description (the process model is not required), simple specifications by the user
and simple calculation of the controller and filter parameters.
The content of the paper is as follows. The tuning method for the PIDm n controllers is
covered in Section 2. The calculation of the controller and controller filter time constant,
according to the desired closed-loop high-frequency gain, is derived in Section 3. The com-
parison with some other tuning methods is carried out in Section 4. The paper concludes
with Section 5.

2. HO-PID Controller Tuning

The HO-PID controller parameters will be derived according to the magnitude op-
timum multiple integration (MOMI) tuning method, which is based on the magnitude
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 3 of 24

optimum (MO) criteria [31–37]. The main advantages of the MOMI method are that it
combines frequency-domain MO tuning criterion (providing a fast and non-oscillatory
closed-loop process output response) with the time-domain method of moments (the
calculation of the process characteristic areas directly from the process time responses).
The process
The general order process transfer function with time delay is defined by the follow-
ing expression:
K PR 1 + b1 s + b2 s2 + · · · + br sr −sT


GP ( s ) = e del (2)
1 + a1 s + a2 s2 + · · · + a p s p
where KPR is the process gain, Tdel is the process time delay and a1 to ap and b1 to br are
the process dynamic parameters. To simplify the derivation, let us assume that the process
transfer function is developed into an infinite Taylor series around s = 0:

GP2 2 GP3 3
GP (s) = GP0 + GP1 s + s + s +··· , (3)
2! 3!
where GPk are the k-th derivatives of the GP (s) over s around s = 0. The moments can be
calculated from the process impulse response h(t) in the following way [1,38]:
Z ∞
(k)
GP (0) = GPk = (−1)k tk h(t)dt (4)
0

Besides measuring the process impulse response, the moments can also be calculated
from the process steady-state change by measuring the process input and output time
responses [32,34]. By integrating the process input and output time responses, the so-called
characteristic areas Ak are obtained, which are related to the process moments as follows:

(−1)k
Ak = GPk (5)
k!
The process transfer function, based on the characteristic areas, can be derived from
(3) and (5) as follows:

GP ( s ) = A0 − A1 s + A2 s2 − A3 s3 + · · · . (6)

Since the calculation of the mentioned areas from the process input and output time
responses, during arbitrary steady-state change, are already covered in detail in [36], it will
not be repeated herein.
The process moments (4) and, therefore, the characteristic areas Ak (5), can also be
calculated from the process transfer function (2) by calculating the derivatives of GP (s) over
s around s = 0. The result is the following [32,34]:

A0 = K PR
A1 = K PR( a1 − b1 + Tdel ) 
2
Tdel
A2 = A1 a1 + K PR b2 − a2 − Tdel b1 + 2!
(7)
..
.
k −1 k
(−1)k+i i
Ak = ∑ (−1)k+i−1 A1 ak−i + (−1)k+1 K PR ( ak − bk ) + K PR ∑ i! Tdel bk−i
i =1 i =1

Therefore, the characteristic areas in expression (6) can be calculated either from the
process time response or from the process transfer function. This is a very important
advantage, since the actual process model can be used, but is not required.
In order to simplify the derivation of the controller parameters, the controller binomial
filter GF (s) (1) will be considered as a part of the process. Since the above areas are calculated
for the process without the filter, the areas Ai should be modified, accordingly. If the filter
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 4 of 24

GF (s) (1) is added to the process (2) and developed into a Taylor series, it can be derived
that the new areas, denoted by AiF , can be simply calculated as:

AVF = MFn AV , where

1 0 0 0 0 0 A0 A0F
     
 TF 1 0 0 0 0   A1   A1F 
TF2
     
 TF 1 0 0 0   A2   A2F 
(8)
MF =  TF3 TF2 , AV =  , AVF = 
     
 TF 1 0 0    A3   A3F 


 TF4 TF3 TF2 TF 1 0  

 A4 


 A4F 

.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . T F . . .

Note that n is the binomial filter order (1). Naturally, the chosen size of the matrix and
the vectors depends on the number of the required areas.
Note that the characteristic areas with the included controller filter can be obtained
a-posteriori, when the process areas Ai are already measured either from the process time
response (5) or calculated from the process transfer function (7).
For further reference, please note that the process areas with the included controller
binomial filter are denoted with index F (AiF ) and the process areas without the controller
filter are denoted without index F (Ai ).
The closed-loop transfer function
In the paper, the process and the HO-PID controller (1) will be considered, as shown
in Figure 1. Signals r, rf , e, u, d, n and y stand for the reference, filtered reference, control
error, controller output, process input disturbance, process output noise and the process
output, respectively. Block GFR represents the second order filter for the reference signal in
order to reduce excessive controller output change on reference changes:

1
GFR (s) = , (9)
(1 + TFR s)2

where TFR denotes the reference filter time constant. Due to simplicity, the filter order in (9)
is fixed. However, note that the filter order may be increased by increasing the controller
order so as to additionally attenuate the swings of the signal u for step-like changes of the
reference signal r.

Figure 1. The control loop with HO-PID controller and the process.

Let us now calculate the process closed-loop transfer function GCL (s) from the filtered
reference (rf ) to the process output (y). The closed-loop transfer function is then defined as:

Y (s) GC GP
GCL (s) = = , (10)
R F (s) 1 + GC GP

where Y(s) and R(s) are the Laplace transforms of the process output and the reference
signals, respectively.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 5 of 24

When applying the process (6) and the controller (1) transfer functions to (10), and
considering that the controller binomial filter is a part of the process (in the process transfer
function (6) the areas Ai are replaced by AiF ), the closed-loop transfer function becomes:

OL G (s)
GCL (s) = 1+G ,
OL ( s )
− 1
GOL (s) = A0F K−1 s + ( A0F K0 − A1F K−1 ) + s( A0F K1 − A1F K0 + A2F K−1 )
+s2 ( A0F K2 − A1F K1 + A2F K0 − A3F K−1 ) + · · · (11)
k +1
+sk ∑ (−1)i AiF Kk−i + · · ·
i =0

where GOL (s) denotes the open-loop transfer function GOL (s) = GC (s)GP (s).
The MO criteria
According to [35], the MO tuning criterion states that the closed-loop amplitude
(magnitude) should be 1 in as wide a frequency bandwidth as possible (starting from
frequency ω = 0). This can be achieved if the open-loop transfer function GOL (jω), in the
Nyquist diagram, follows the vertical line with the real value −0.5 (according to M and N
circles in control theory).
Replacing s with complex frequency jω in GOL (s) (11) yields:

GOL (s) = − jA0F K−1 ω −1 + ( A0F K0 − A1F K−1 ) + jω ( A0F K1 − A1F K0 + A2F K−1 )
−ω 2 ( A0F K2 − A1F K1 + A2F K0 − A3F K−1 ) + · · ·
k +1
(12)
+( jω )k ∑ (−1)i AiF Kk−i + · · ·
i =0
√
where j denotes the imaginary component j = −1.
Since merely the real part of the open-loop transfer function is required, only the even
powers over frequency in (12) are needed. Therefore:

Re{ GOL (s)} = ( A0F K0 − A1F K−1 ) − ω 2 ( A0F K2 − A1F K1 + A2F K0 − A3F K−1 ) + · · ·
2q+1 (13)
+(−1)q ω 2q ∑ (−1)i AiF K2q−i + · · ·
i =0

In order to achieve that the Re{GOL (s)} = −0.5 for as high frequencies as possible, the
following conditions should be fulfilled:

− A1F K−1 + A0F K0 = −0.5

− A3F K−1 + A2F K0 − A1F K1 + A0F K2 = 0
− A5F K−1 + A4F K0 − A3F K1 + A2F K2 − A1F K3 + A0F K4 = 0 (14)
..
.

or in matrix form:

MKV = C, where
− A1F A0F 0 0 0 ··· A −1 −0.5
     

 − A3F A2F − A1F A0F 0 ··· 

 K0




 0 

 − A5F A4F − A3F A2F − A1F · · ·   K1   0 
(15)
MF =  , KV =  K2 , C = 
     
 − A7F A6F − A5F A4F − A3F · · ·     0 


 − A9F A8F − A7F A6F − A5F · · · 
 K3




 0 

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . .
Note that the matrix and vector dimensions depend on the number of controller
parameters (m + 2):
M(m+2)×(m+2) , KV(m+2)×1 , C(m+2)×1 (16)
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 6 of 24

The controller parameters (gains) can then be simply calculated from (15):

KV = M −1 C (17)

The calculation of the controller and filter parameters is straightforward. However, to

make it even simpler, we have provided online MATLAB/Octave scripts via the OctaveOn-
line Bucket website [39]. The provided scripts calculate all the controller parameters for the
given process transfer function and the filter time constant. The website layout is shown in
Figure 2. The calculation procedure proceeds as follows:
1. Select the appropriate Octave (MATLAB) script (test_HO_TF.m).
2. Provide the process parameters, the filter time constant, the controller order and filter
order,
3. press the “Save” button, and
4. press the “Run” button.

Figure 2. The layout of the OctaveOnline Bucket website (function test_HO_TF.m).

The script then calculates the characteristic areas, the controller and the filter parame-
ters. The results are then shown on the right panel of the website.
Illustrative example 1
The D11 , PID22 and PID33 controller parameters will be calculated for the following
processes:
GP1 (s) = 1 4
(1+ s )
−0.5s (18)
GP2 (s) = e 2
(1+ s )

The chosen controller filter time constants is TF = 0.1. The characteristic areas, without
(7), and with controller filter (8) are given in Table 1.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 7 of 24

Table 1. The calculated areas for the processes (18) without and with the controller filter.

A0 A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
Areas GP1 1 4 10 20 35 56 84 120 165 220
Areas GP1 with controller
1 4.1 10.41 21.041 37.104 59.71
PID11 filter
Areas GP1 with controller
1 4.2 10.83 22.124 39.317 63.64 96.34 138.63
PID22 filter
Areas GP1 with controller
1 4.3 11.26 23.25 41.642 67.81 103.12 148.94 206.66 277.63
PID33 filter
Areas GP2 1 2.5 4.125 5.771 7.419 9.068 10.717 12.365 14.014 15.663
Areas GP2 with controller
1 2.6 4.385 6.209 8.040 9.872
PID11 filter
Areas GP2 with controlle
1 2.7 4.655 6.675 8.708 10.743 12.778 14.814
PID22 filter
Areas GP2 with controller
1 2.8 4.935 7.168 9.425 11.685 13.947 16.208 18.470 20.732
PID33 filter

The calculated controller parameters (17) are given in Table 2.

Table 2. The calculated controller parameters.

K −1 K0 K1 K2 K3
GP1 —controller PID11 0.438 1.295 1.041 - -
GP1 —controller PID22 0.812 2.911 3.599 1.556 -
GP1 —controller PID33 1.810 7.282 11.008 7.417 1.883
GP2 —controller PID11 0.890 1.814 0.934 - -
GP2 —controller PID22 1.140 2.578 1.738 0.300 -
GP2 —controller PID33 1.304 3.152 2.459 0.678 0.0674

In order to reduce the excessive swing of the controller output when changing the
reference, the following reference filter time constant (9) is used for both processes:

TFR = 0.5 (19)

Note that the second order reference filter is used (9).

The closed-loop responses for the processes GP1 (s) and GP2 (s), for all three types of
controllers, are shown in Figures 3 and 4. It is clear that tracking and control performance
increase by the controller order. Note that the controller output response of PID33 con-
troller is not shown entirely in order to see the responses of PID11 and PID22 controllers
more clearly.
When comparing process output responses when using controllers PID11 and PID33
in Figures 3 and 4, it can be seen that the relative difference in performance is larger on
higher-order process GP1 (s). This is expected, since lower-order processes can already be
optimally controlled by lower-order controllers (e.g., the first-order process with PID00 and
the second-order process with the PID11 controller). Since the second-order process GP2 (s)
has an additional delay, the closed-loop performance can still be slightly increased with the
PID33 controller.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 8 of 24

Figure 3. The closed-loop responses for the process GP1 (s) when using controllers PID11 , PID22
and PID33 .

Figure 4. The closed-loop responses for the process GP2 (s) when using controllers PID11 , PID22
and PID33 .

According to the closed-loop responses, it can be concluded that HO-PID controllers

can significantly improve the closed-loop performance, especially for higher-order pro-
cesses. The only required parameter from the user is the controller filter time constant TF .
Namely, the amplification of the process output measurement noise depends on the chosen
TF . However, the relation between TF and the actual amplification of the high-frequency
(HF) noise depends on several other controller parameters and is a rather complex func-
tion. Therefore, in practice, it would be more appropriate to define the desired HF noise
amplification than the controller filter time constant.

3. HO-PID Controller with Specified HF Noise Amplification

As mentioned in the previous section, the n-th order controller filter GF (s) (1) is
primarily used to decrease the controller output noise due to the measurement noise (in
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 9 of 24

addition to making the entire controller transfer function proper or strictly proper and,
therefore, realisable in practice). High controller amplification of the measurement noise is
never desired, since it may also cause large swings of the control output signals and thus
may decrease the actuator’s life span. In order to limit the amplification of the process
measurement noise, the user can try different values of TF until the desired amplification
(attenuation) of the noise is achieved. In practice, this may take too long, since the function
between TF and the noise amplification is complex and non-linear. Therefore, from the
user’s perspective, it is easier to define the desired noise amplification of the controller
than select filter time constant TF .
The process output noise (ny ) is amplified by the controller (1) in the closed-loop
configuration as follows:
  −1
GCF (s) 1
UN = GCN (s) Ny = Ny = GP ( s ) + Ny , (20)
1 + GCF (s) GP (s) GCF (s)

where Ny and UN are Laplace transforms of the measurement noise and the controller
output noise, respectively. The negative sign is omitted to simplify the derivation. From (20)
it can be seen that at lower frequencies, the transfer function GCN (s) is mostly dominated
by the process transfer function GP (s), while at higher frequencies, it is mostly dominated
by the controller transfer function GCF (s). At lower frequencies, the process can be approxi-
mated by its gain KPR , while at higher frequencies the controller gains K−1 and K0 can be
neglected. Therefore, GCN (s) can be approximated by the following transfer function:
−1
K PR + K1 s + K2 s 2 + · · · + K m s m
GCN (s) ≈ . (21)
(1 + TF s)n

On the other hand, the desired controller output noise (UND ) should be similar to:

UND = K HF Ny , (22)

where KHF is a chosen noise amplification factor. Since amplitudes UN and UND cannot be
compared directly due to different frequency characteristics, it is easier to compare noise
powers of both signals in some chosen frequency bandwidth (from ω1 to ω2 ). Namely, due
to Parseval theorem, the power of the controller output signal (PUN ) is proportional to:
Z ω2 
PUN ∝  GCN (ω ) Ny (ω )2 dω .

(23)
ω1

The desired noise power is, according to (22), proportional to:

Z ω2 
PUND ∝ K HF Ny (ω )2 dω .

(24)
ω1

When considering the Ny as a white noise with amplitude over frequency as Ny (ω) = 1,
the powers PUN and PUND would become the same when:

F0 + F1 ω 2 + F2 ω 4 +···+ Fm ω 2m −1
= K2HF (ω2 − ω1 ), where K0 = K PR
R ω2
n dω and
ω1 (1+TF2 ω2 )
F0 = K02
F1 = K12 − 2K0 K2
..
. (25)
k −1
k +i
Fk = Kk2 + 2 ∑ (−1) Ki K2k−i
i =0
..
.
2
Fm = Km
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 10 of 24

However, the solution of the integral in (25), due to the denominator (controller filter),
becomes very complex and highly non-linear in respect to TF . Therefore, some search
algorithm (optimization) must be applied for each calculation of the TF .
This would seriously impact the simplicity of the proposed method. Therefore, it is
decided to simplify the function inside the above integral. Since at higher frequencies,
the most dominant controller term becomes the one with the highest derivative (Km ), the
function can be simplified as follows:

2 4
F0 + F1 ω + F2 ω + · · · + Fm ω 2m  Fm ω 2m ; ω ≤ T1F
n ≈ 2 ( m − n ) . (26)
1 + TF2 ω 2  Fm ω 2n ; ω > T1F


T F

According to (26), the expression (25) simplifies into:

Fm ω 2m dω + ω 2 Fm ω 2(m−n) ω 2n 2
R ωF Rω
ω1 F F dω ≈ K HF ( ω2 − ω1 )
2m + 1 2m + 1
2m dω = Fm (ω F − ω1 )
R ωF
ω1 Fm ω  (2m+1)
2(m−n)+1 2(m−n)+1
 
 Fm ω2n
F ω2 −ω F (27)
R ω2
Fm ω 2(m−n) ω 2n n>m
F dω = 
(2m−2n+1)
ωF
Fm ω 2n
F ( ω2 − ω F ) n=m
1
ω F = TF

The contribution of noise power in the frequency region below ω F is usually much
smaller than at higher frequencies. Therefore, in order to even further simplify the deriva-
tion, we can choose ω 1 = 0 without making any significant error in the calculation. Selection
of the upper frequency (ω 2 ) in the integral, due to the Shannon theorem, depends on the
controller sampling frequency. Without loss of generality, the upper frequency can be
selected as:
2π
ω2 = ω S = , (28)
TS
where ω S is controller sampling frequency (in rad/s) and TS is controller sampling time.
By taking into account that:
ωS  ω F , (29)
and ω 1 = 0, the expression (27) simplifies even further:

F ω 2m+1
Fm ω 2m dω m F
R ωF
0  = 2m+1
+1
 Fm ω2m F (30)
R ωS Fm ω 2(m−n) 2 ( n − m )− 1
n>m
ωF TF2n
dω ≈
 F ω 2n ω n=m
m F S

Therefore, the final expression, when taking into account that Fm = Km 2 , reads as:
 
2 ω 2m+1 1 1 2
Km F 2m+1 + 2(n−m)−1 ≈ K HF ωS n > m , (31)
Km 2 ω 2m ≈ K 2 n=m
F HF

Therefore, the filter time constant (TF =1/ω F ) can be estimated as follows:
s  
2
Km 1 1
2m+1 2m+1 + 2(n−m)−1
TF ≈ K2HF ωS
; n>m
q , (32)
m | Km |
TF ≈ K HF ; n=m

Note that the above derivation of the filter time constant takes into account approxi-
mations (26) and (29). This means that the final output noise power of the controller may
differ from that defined by the selected high frequency gain KHF . However, if the above
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 11 of 24

approximations are not taken into account, then the final expressions for the calculation of
ω F in (31) would become those of the higher order without analytic solution for TF . This
would significantly complicate the filter calculation.
The entire procedure for the calculation of the controller parameters for a given process
is given in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Calculation of the filter and controller parameters.

As shown in Figure 5, the calculation of the controller and filter parameters is straight-
forward. However, to make it even simpler, as mentioned before, we have provided online
MATLAB/Octave scripts via OctaveOnline Bucket website [39]. The website layout is
shown in Figure 6. The calculation procedure proceeds as follows:
1. Select the appropriate Octave (MATLAB) script (test_HO_filt.m).
2. Provide the process parameters, the desired noise gain, the controller sampling time,
the controller order and filter order,
3. press the “Save” button, and
4. press the “Run” button.

Figure 6. The layout of the OctaveOnline Bucket website (function test_HO_filt.m).

The script then calculates the filter time constant, the characteristic areas and the
controller parameters. The results are shown on the right panel of the website.
Illustrative example 2
Consider the following fourth-order process transfer function GP3 (s) (18):

e−0.2s
GP3 (s) = (33)
(1 + s )4
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 12 of 24

The initially chosen controller filter time constants is TF = 0.1. For all the experiments
in this section, the chosen sampling time is TS = 0.002 s. In order to retain clarity of the
derivations, the characteristic areas of the process are not mentioned herein; however, they
can be calculated (besides all the controller and the filter parameters) on the aforementioned
website [39].
a. Changing the parameter KHF
According to the procedure given in Figure 5, when choosing parameter KHF , con-
troller PID43 and repeating steps 3–5 a few times (in our case, 3 times), the calculated filter
time constants, and the calculated controller parameters (17) are given in Table 3.

Table 3. The calculated filter time constants TF and controller parameters at different noise gains KHF .

TF K −1 K0 K1 K2 K3 σ rel
KHF = 2 0.209 0.679 2.445 3.282 1.954 0.440 1.85
KHF = 5 0.155 0.773 2.684 3.426 1.896 0.382 4.60
KHF = 10 0.124 0.844 2.873 3.562 1.885 0.352 9.2
KHF = 20 0.100 0.914 3.062 3.710 1.890 0.329 18.3

Again, in order to reduce the excessive swing of the controller output when changing
the reference, the following second-order reference filter time constant (9) is used:

TFR = 0.2 (34)

The closed-loop responses for different values of KHF are given in Figure 7.

Figure 7. The closed-loop responses for the process GP3 (s) when using controllers PID43 , at differ-
ent KHF .

As expected, the speed of the closed-loop response and the controller output signal
noise increases by increasing the noise gain factor KHF . However, the improvement of the
closed-loop speed is not so significant at the highest factors KHF . On the other hand, the
controller output noise increases at higher factors KHF . As expected, there is a trade-off
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 13 of 24

between the closed-loop speed and the amount of the controller output noise. Therefore, in
practice, the allowed noise gain should be chosen wisely according to the amount of noise
present in the system.
The actual “amplification” of the measurement noise (the actually achieved noise gain
KHF ) is measured by dividing standard deviations of the controller output signal (u) and
the process output (n) when the process is in the steady-state:
σu
σrel = . (35)
σy

The actual amplifications of the measurement noise signals are given in Table 3. It is
obvious that the actual gains of the noise (σrel ) are very similar to the desired ones (KHF ).
b. Changing the filter order (n)
On the other hand, the speed of the closed-loop response, for the same KHF and the
controller order (m), can also be altered by changing the filter order. In this regard, we
tested the performance of the controllers PIDn3 , where n varies from 3 to 6.
According to the procedure given in Figure 5, when choosing KHF = 10 and repeating
steps 3–5 3 times, the calculated filter time constants and the controller parameters (17) are
given in Table 4.

Table 4. The calculated filter time constants TF and controller parameters at different n.

Controller Structure TF K −1 K0 K1 K2 K3 σ rel

PID33 0.396 0.619 2.402 3.547 2.388 0.629 10.1
PID43 0.124 0.844 2.873 3.562 1.885 0.352 9.17
PID53 0.109 0.799 2.731 3.410 1.824 0.348 5.05
PID63 0.104 0.742 2.564 3.247 1.777 0.352 3.33

The closed-loop responses for different controller filter orders (n = 3 to 6) are given in
Figure 8.

Figure 8. The closed-loop responses for the process GP3 (s) when using controllers with different filter
orders PIDn3 , at KHF = 10.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 14 of 24

As can be seen, the speed of the closed-loop response is the highest for controller PID43 .
The speed of controllers with higher-order filters (n > 4) are slightly slower. The speed of
response for n > 4 is not improving since a higher-order filter also adds some complexity to
the closed-loop transfer function. This, in return, may result in lower closed-loop speeds.
The practical question is how to find the most optimal controller filter order in advance,
before making the closed-loop experiment on the process. This can be answered by
calculating the integral of control error (IE), which can be considered as a measure of the
closed-loop speed:
Z∞
IE = (r − y)dt (36)
t =0

If the closed-loop responses have small overshoots, the higher values of IE indicate
slower closed-loop responses. For such responses, the IE can be a useful tool to measure
the closed-loop speed. The IE value can be relatively easily calculated by transforming the
Equation (36) into Laplace domain. It can be shown that:

1
IE = . (37)
K PR K−1

Therefore, for the process with the same steady-state gain KPR (2), the closed-loop
speed is inversely proportional to the integrating gain (K−1 ) of the controller. Therefore,
the controller with the highest gain K−1 will produce the fastest closed-loop response
(providing that the closed-loop responses have small or negligible overshoots). Indeed,
from Table 4 it is evident that the highest gain K−1 is calculated for controller PID43 . This
corresponds to our previous observations.
The actual amplifications of the measurement noise signals, according to (35), are
given in Table 4. The actual noise gains (σrel ) are very similar to the desired ones (KHF ) for
filter orders 3 and 4, while for higher-order filters the actual noise gain is lower. This is due
to various assumptions (simplifications) made when deriving the filter time constant (32).
c. Changing the controller order (m)
As is already known, the speed of the closed-loop response can also be altered by
changing the controller order. In this regard, we tested the performance of the controllers
PIDnm , where m varies from 1 to 4. In all cases the controller filter is chosen to be 1 order
higher than the controller order (n = m + 1). The desired noise gain remains the same as in
the previous experiment (KHF = 10).
The calculated filter time constants and the controller parameters (17) are given in
Table 5.

Table 5. The calculated filter time constants TF and controller parameters at different controller order
m (n = m + 1).

Controller Structure TF K −1 K0 K1 K2 K3 K3 σ rel

PID21 0.015 0.517 1.323 0.904 - - - 10.9
PID32 0.078 0.766 2.36 2.45 0.863 - - 9.7
PID43 0.124 0.844 2.873 3.562 1.885 0.352 - 9.2
PID54 0.161 0.876 3.270 4.694 3.225 1.068 0.143 8.9

The closed-loop responses for different controller orders (m = 1 to 4) are given in

Figure 9.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 15 of 24

Figure 9. The closed-loop responses for the process GP3 (s) when using controllers with different
controller orders PIDnm , at KHF = 10 and n = m + 1.

As can be seen, the closed-loop speed increases by increased controller order, similar
to the results in Figures 3 and 4. The difference is that now the controller output noise is
under control (KHF = 10), so the level of control noise is similar for all of the controllers. The
fastest responses are obtained with PID54 . In a similar manner as in the previous case, the
speed of responses can be estimated by comparing the values of the calculated integrating
gains (K−1 ) in Table 5. Indeed, K−1 is the highest for PID54 .
The actual amplifications of the measurement noise signals, according to (35), are
given in Table 5. The actual gains of the noise (σrel ) are very similar to the desired ones
(KHF ) for all controller orders.

4. Robustness
The proposed design of HO-PID controllers results in a relatively fast and non-
oscillatory response. In addition, the controller noise is under control by choosing pa-
rameter KHF . However, the designed closed-loop system can still be not robust enough
to process variations. Namely, due to nonlinearity or time-variations of the process, its
characteristics (gain, delay, time constants, etc.) can vary by working point or by time.
The robustness of a stable closed-loop system is usually measured by maximum
sensitivity (MS ) [1,38]. Maximum sensitivity is related to the distance of the open-loop
transfer function GC (jω)GP (jω) from the critical point (−1+j0). Namely, MS is the inverse
of the minimum distance between the open-loop transfer function and the critical point.
Generally, a smaller value of MS denotes a more robust closed-loop system to process
variations. Usual values of MS for stable processes are between 1.4 and 2.0 [1,38].
The robustness of the closed-loop system for the proposed HO-PID controllers has
been tested on the following third-order process with delay:

K PR e−Tdel s
GP4 (s) = , (38)
(1 + sT )3

where the nominal values are KPR = 1, Tdel = 1 and T = 1. Three different HO-PID controllers
are selected: PID32 , PID43 , and PID54 . The calculated controller parameters, when choosing
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 16 of 24

KHF = 10, TS = 0.002 s and according to the proposed tuning method, are shown in Table 6.
The calculated values of the maximum sensitivity MS , for all three controllers, are shown
in the same table. It can be seen that the MS values slightly increase with the increased
controller order. However, the differences are not large and all the values are below 2.0.

Table 6. The calculated filter time constants TF and controller parameters at different controller
orders m (n = m + 1) for GP4 (s).

Controller Structure TF K −1 K0 K1 K2 K3 K3 MS
PID32 0.0702 0.498 1.597 1.752 0.668 - - 1.78
PID43 0.125 0.554 1.992 2.674 1.596 0.362 - 1.86
PID54 0.170 0.579 2.308 3.629 2.832 1.117 0.185 1.91

Besides calculating the MS values, we were also simulating the closed-loop responses
using all three controllers on the nominal process, and on the changed process (±10%
change of process gain KPR , time-delay Tdel and time constant T). The closed-loop re-
sponses are shown in Figures 10–12. It is evident that the closed-loop responses under
perturbed parameters are still stable without significant oscillations. When comparing
Figures 10 and 12 it can be noticed that the perturbed parameters with controller PID54
result in slightly more deviation from the nominal response than with controller PID32 .
This is all in accordance with the calculated values of MS in Table 6.

Figure 10. The closed-loop responses for the process GP4 (s), using controller PID32 at KHF = 10
for nominal (solid line), 10% increased (dashed line) and 10% decreased (dash-dotted line)
process parameters.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 17 of 24

Figure 11. The closed-loop responses for the process GP4 (s), using controller PID43 at KHF = 10
for nominal (solid line), 10% increased (dashed line) and 10% decreased (dash-dotted line)
process parameters.

Figure 12. The closed-loop responses for the process GP4 (s), using controller PID54 at KHF = 10
for nominal (solid line), 10% increased (dashed line) and 10% decreased (dash-dotted line)
process parameters.

5. Comparison with Other Tuning Methods

The proposed tuning method was compared with some other methods for PIDA
controllers. The chosen methods, which were tested on a particular process model, are from
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 18 of 24

Lurang and Puangdownreong [21] (denoted as the Lurang method from here on) and Jung
and Dorf [11] (denoted as the Jung method from here on). The Lurang method involves
calculating the PIDA controller parameters by optimizing the tracking and disturbance
rejection response under several limitations given on rise time, overshoot, settling time,
steady-state error and similar. The optimization is carried out with a modified bat algorithm
proposed by the authors. The Jung method analytically calculates the PIDA controller
parameters for the third-order process according to provided desired overshoot and settling
time. Both methods do not take into account the controller’s filter. Therefore, the actual
implementation in practice could be questionable if the filter dynamics become slower.
Case 1
The following process model has been selected, according to [21]:

1
GP5 (s) = (39)
(1 + s)(1 + 0.5s) 1 + 3s

The Lurang method suggests the following PIDA controller parameters:

K−1 = 2.20, K0 = 3.60, K1 = 1.60, K2 = 0.06 (40)

The chosen controller filter time constant was very low (TF = 0.01), since we did
not want to spoil the closed-loop response of the Lurang method. Namely, as already
mentioned, the Lurang method does not take into account the controller filter in the
design phase.
For comparison, we chose the controller structures with the lowest possible controller
filter order n: PID22 . For illustrative purposes, the one-order higher controller structure
(PID33 ) was also tested. Note that the closed-loop results of our proposed method, for the
same level of controller noise, can be improved by using n > m.
The calculated controller parameters, for the given process and controller filter were
the following:

PID22 : K−1 = 25.06, K0 = 45.95, K1 = 25.07, K2 = 4.18

(41)
PID33 : K−1 = 37.53, K0 = 69.42, K1 = 38.88, K2 = 6.88, K3 = 0.104

We tested, separately, the tracking response and the disturbance rejection when using
all three controllers. For tracking response, the reference (r) changed from 0 to 1 at t = 1 s
and for disturbance response the process input disturbance (d) changed from 0 to 1 at
t = 1 s.
The closed-loop responses are shown in Figure 13.
As can be seen, the responses of the proposed method with PID22 controller are
superior to the Lurang method. Certainly, the one-order higher controller (PID33 ) has a
better result.
For a more objective comparison, the integral of squared error (ISE) signal has been
calculated for all three controllers. The results are shown in Table 7. It is obvious that the
ISE values for the PID22 controller are much lower than the ones for the Lurang controller.

Table 7. The ISE values for all three controllers in tracking and disturbance rejection.

ISE PID22 PID33 Lurang

Tracking 0.0228 0.0131 0.322
disturbance rejection 4.38 × 10−7 1.95 × 10−7 0.061
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 19 of 24

Figure 13. The comparison of the closed-loop responses for the process GP5 (s) when using PID22 ,
PID33 and the Lurang controller.

Case 2
The second process model has been selected according to [11]:

0.0556
GP6 (s) = (42)
(1 + s) 1 + 3s 1 + 6s

The Jung method suggests the following PIDA controller parameters:

K−1 = 529.8, K0 = 516.5, K1 = 179.2, K2 = 26.3 (43)

As before, the controller filter time constant was chosen very low (TF = 0.005), since
we wanted to preserve the closed-loop response of the Jung method, which was obtained
without the controller filter.
The calculated PID22 and PID33 controller parameters, for the given process and
controller filter were the following:

PID22 : K−1 = 902, K0 = 1353, K1 = 501, K2 = 50.1

(44)
PID33 : K−1 = 1351, K0 = 2037, K1 = 767, K2 = 81.3, K3 = 0.6

As in the previous case, the closed-loop responses were tested on the tracking response
and the disturbance rejection. The closed-loop responses are shown in Figure 14.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 20 of 24

Figure 14. The comparison of the closed-loop responses for the process GP6 (s) when using PID22 ,
PID33 and the Jung controller.

Again, the responses of the proposed method with PID22 and PID33 controllers are
superior to the Jung method. The comparison of ISE values in Table 8 shows PID22 controller
has lower values than the Jung controller. However, note that the disturbance rejection
settling time is the best with the Jung method.

Table 8. The ISE values for all three controllers in tracking and disturbance rejection.

ISE PID22 PID33 Jung

Tracking 8.12 × 10−3 4.11 × 10−3 1.97 × 10−2
disturbance rejection 4.38 × 10−7 1.95 × 10−7 2.18 × 10−6

Case 3
The fourth-order process model has been selected according to [6]:

1
GP7 (s) = s

s

s

(45)
(1 + s ) 1 + 2 1+ 4 1+ 8

The Puangdownreong method suggests the following PIDA controller parameters:

K−1 = 1.647, K0 = 2.684, K1 = 1.105, K2 = −2.65·10−3 (46)

The method calculated the following controller filter:

1
GF ( s ) = (47)
1 + 0.0132s + 5.26·10−5 s2

which was also used in design of the proposed PID22 controller parameters. For the
given process and controller filter transfer function, the following controller parameters
were calculated:

PID22 : K−1 = 4.36, K0 = 7.735, K1 = 3.97, K2 = 0.60 (48)

Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 21 of 24

As in the previous case, the closed-loop responses were tested on the tracking response
and the disturbance rejection. The closed-loop responses are shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15. The comparison of the closed-loop responses for the process GP6 (s) when using PID22 and
the Puangdownreong controller.

Again, the responses of the proposed method with the PID22 controller are superior to
the Puangdownreong method. The comparison of ISE values in Table 9 shows the PID22
controller has lower values than the Puangdownreong controller.

Table 9. The ISE values for both controllers in tracking and disturbance rejection.

ISE PID22 Puangdownreong

Tracking 0.172 0.466
disturbance rejection 0.0162 0.107

6. Conclusions
In the paper, the method for tuning the parameters of the m-th order controller with
the n-th order binomial filter has been presented. The proposed tuning method is based on
the MO criteria which aims to produce non-oscillatory and fast closed-loop reference step
responses. The calculation of the controller parameters is analytical and does not require
any kind of optimization. An additional advantage of the proposed method is that the
process can be described either by the process model or by the process time responses
during the steady-state change.
To keep the noise gain of the controller under control, the filter time constant of the
controller can also be calculated according to the specified noise gain. The calculation
procedure is still analytical, and the results confirm that the level of controller noise is
consistent with the given noise gain. The only exception is the use of larger relative degrees
between the controller and the filter order, which is the consequence of some simplifications
in the calculation of the filter time constant.
The proposed method was tested on six different process models (from second to
fourth-order process models with or without time delay). The results confirmed that the
control performance can be improved by increasing the controller order or by selecting
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 22 of 24

the filter order appropriately without increasing the controller output noise. The study
shows that increasing the filter order improves the performance only up to a certain level,
after which the performance starts to decrease. The optimum degree of controller and filter
order can be easily determined by the value of integral gain of the controller.
The tuning method was compared with three other tuning methods for PIDA con-
trollers (Lurang [21], Jung [11] and Puangdownreong [6] methods). Although the selected
process models were the same as in the aforementioned methods, the proposed method
resulted in a better control performance.
Therefore, the proposed higher-order controller design is efficient, and the controller
output noise gain is under control. However, it does not mean that the proposed method
cannot be improved. Indeed, the proposed method is based on optimizing the reference
tracking performance. In our further research, we plan to improve the disturbance rejection
performance as well. Namely, the article shows that the MO controller design leads to a
strong asymmetry in the dynamics of tracking and disturbance rejection behaviour. While
the HO-PID controller design leads to an increase in the number of pulses of the control
signal after reference step changes, the responses of the control signal after the change of
disturbance remain monotonic. This motivates us to deal with the modification of the MO
controller design with regard to a faster response to disturbances.
Moreover, we also plan to design a method that will find the most optimal controller
and filter order for the given process and noise amplification considering the complexity of
the controller and filter order. We plan to calculate the optimal parameters of the reference
filter to control the change of the controller output signal when the reference signal is
changed.
Another planned modification is adding a user-defined parameter for changing the
speed of the closed-loop control. Slowing down the control speed would further increase
the robustness of the system.

Author Contributions: Writing-original draft preparation, D.V. and M.H. Simulations, D.V. and M.H.
Editing, D.V. and M.H. Project administration, D.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the grants P2-0001 financed by the Slovenian Research
Agency, APVV SK-IL-RD-18-0008 platoon modelling and control for mixed autonomous and conven-
tional vehicles: a laboratory experimental analysis, and VEGA 1/0745/19 control and modelling of
mechatronic systems in e-mobility.
Acknowledgments: Supported by Slovenská e-akadémia, n. o.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Åström, K.J.; Hägglund, T. PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and Tuning, 2nd ed.; Instrument Society of America: Pittsburgh, PA,
USA, 1995.
2. Vilanova, R.; Visioli, A. PID Control in the Third Millennium, 1st ed.; Vilanova, R., Visioli, A., Eds.; Advances in Industrial Control;
Springer: London, UK, 2012; ISBN 978-1-4471-2424-5.
3. Alfaro, V.M.; Vilanova, R. Model-Reference Robust Tuning of PID Controllers; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland,
2016. [CrossRef]
4. Visioli, A. Practical PID Control; Springer: London, UK, 2016. [CrossRef]
5. Jung, S.; Dorf, R.C. Analytic PIDA controller design technique for a third order system. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE on
Decision and Control, Kobe, Japan, 13 December 1996; Volume 3. [CrossRef]
6. Puangdownreong, D. Application of Current Search to Optimum PIDA Controller Design. Intell. Control Autom. 2012, 3, 303–312.
[CrossRef]
7. Sambariya, D.K.; Paliwal, D. Design of PIDA Controller Using Bat Algorithm for AVR Power System. Adv. Energy Power 2016, 4,
1–6. [CrossRef]
8. Ukakimaparn, P.; Pannil, P.; Boonchuay, P.; Trisuwannawat, T. PIDA Controller Designed by Kitti’s Method. In Proceedings of the
ICCAS-SICE, Fukuoka, Japan, 18–21 August 2009; pp. 1547–1550.
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 23 of 24

9. Smerpitak, K.; Ukakimaparn, P.; Trisuwannawat, T.; La-orsri, P. Discrete-time PIDA Controller designed by Kitti’s method with
Bilinear transform. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems, JeJu Island, Korea,
17–21 October 2012; pp. 1585–1590.
10. Huba, M. Filtered PIDA Controller for the Double Integrator Plus Dead Time. IFAC PapersOnLine 2019, 52, 106–113. [CrossRef]
11. Jung, A.; Dorf, R.C. Novel Analytic Technique for PID and PIDA Controller Design. IFAC Proc. Vol. 1996, 29, 1146–1151.
[CrossRef]
12. Sharma, A.; Sharma, H.; Bhargava, A.; Sharma, N. Optimal design of PIDA controller for induction motor using Spider Monkey
Optimization algorithm. Int. J. Metaheuristics 2016, 5, 278–290. [CrossRef]
13. Jitwang, T.; Nawikavatan, A.; Puangdownreong, D. Optimal PIDA Controller Design for Three-Tank Liquid-Level Control System
with Model Uncertainty by Cuckoo Search. Int. J. Circuits Syst. Signal Process. 2019, 13, 60–65, ISSN 1998-4464.
14. Kumar, M.; Hote, Y.V. Robust CDA-PIDA Control Scheme for Load Frequency Control of Interconnected Power Systems. IFAC
PapersOnLine 2018, 51, 616–621. [CrossRef]
15. Mosaad, A.M.; Attia, M.A.; Abdelaziz, A.Y. Whale optimization algorithm to tune PID and PIDA controllers on AVR system. Ain
Shams Eng. J. 2019, 10, 755–767. [CrossRef]
16. Dal-Young, H.; Ihn-Yong, L.; Young-Seung, C.; Young-Do, L.; BooKwi, C. The design of PIDA controller with pre-compensator
[for induction motors]. In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics Proceedings (Cat.
No.01TH8570), Pusan, Korea, 12–16 June 2001; Volume 2, pp. 798–804. [CrossRef]
17. Raju, M.; Saikia, L.C.; Sinha, N. Automatic generation control of a multi-area system using ant lion optimizer algorithm based
PID plus second order derivative controller. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2016, 80, 52–63. [CrossRef]
18. Guha, D.; Roy, P.K.; Banerjee, S. Multi-verse optimisation: A novel method for solution of load frequency control problem in
power system. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 2017, 11, 3601–3611. [CrossRef]
19. Sahib, M.A. A novel optimal PID plus second order derivative controller for AVR system. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2015, 18,
194–206. [CrossRef]
20. Bisták, P.; Huba, M. Analysis of Higher Derivative Degree PID Controllers via Virtual Laboratory. In Proceedings of the 27th
Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED), Akko, Israel, 1–4 July 2019; pp. 256–261. [CrossRef]
21. Lurang, K.; Puangdownreong, D. Two-degree-of-freedom PIDA controllers design optimization for liquid-level system by using
modified mat algorithm. Int. J. Innov. Comput. Inf. Control 2020, 16, 715–732. [CrossRef]
22. Ozbey, N.; Yeroglu, C.; Baykant Alagoz, B.; Herencsar, N.; Kartci, A.; Sotner, R. 2DOF multi-objective optimal tuning of disturbance
reject fractional order PIDA controllers according to improved consensus oriented random search method. Int. J. Innov. Comput. J.
Adv. Res. 2020, 25, 159–170. [CrossRef]
23. Huba, M.; Vrančić, D. Comparing filtered PI, PID and PIDD control for the FOTD plants. IFAC PapersOnLine 2018, 51, 954–959.
[CrossRef]
24. Simanenkov, A.L.; Rozhkov, S.A.; Borisova, V.A. An algorithm of optimal settings for PIDD2D3-controllers in ship power plant.
In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Electronics and Nanotechnology (ELNANO), Kiev, Ukraine,
18–20 April 2017; pp. 152–155. [CrossRef]
25. Huba, M.; Vrančić, D. Introduction to the Discrete Time PIDmn Control for the PDT Plant. In Proceedings of the 15th IFAC
International Conference on Programmable Devices and Embedded Systems, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 23–25 May 2018.
26. Bistak, P. Disturbance Analysis Virtual Laboratory for PID Controllers with Higher Derivative Degrees. In Proceedings of the
2018 16th International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA), Stary Smokovec, Slovakia,
15–16 November 2018; pp. 69–74. [CrossRef]
27. Huba, M.; Vrančić, D.; Bisták, P. PIDmn Control for IPDT Plants. Part 1: Disturbance Response. In Proceedings of the 26th
Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation (MED), Zadar, Croatia, 19–22 June 2018; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
28. Skogestad, S. Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller tuning. J. Process Control 2003, 13, 291–309. [CrossRef]
29. Huba, M.; Vrancic, D. Extending the Model-Based Controller Design to Higher-Order Plant Models and Measurement Noise.
Symmetry 2021, 13, 798. [CrossRef]
30. Vítečkova, M.; Víteček, A. 2DOF PI and PID controllers tuning. In Proceedings of the 9th IFAC Workshop on Time Delay Systems,
Prague, Czech Republic, 7–9 June 2010; Volume 9, pp. 343–348.
31. Vrančić, D.; Strmčnik, S.; Hanus, R. Magnitude optimum tuning using non-parametric data in the frequency domain. In
Proceedings of the PID’00: Preprints: IFAC Workshop on Digital Control: Past, Present and Future of PID Control, Terrassa,
Spain, 5–7 April 2000; pp. 438–443.
32. Vrančić, D.; Strmčnik, S.; Juričić, Ð. A magnitude optimum multiple integration method for filtered PID controller. Automatica
2001, 37, 1473–1479. [CrossRef]
33. Vrančić, D.; Strmčnik, S.; Kocijan, J.; de Moura Oliveira, P.B. Improving disturbance rejection of PID controllers by means of the
magnitude optimum method. ISA Trans. 2010, 49, 47–56, ISSN 0019-0578. [CrossRef]
34. Vrančić, D. Magnitude optimum techniques for PID controllers. In Introduction to PID Controllers: Theory, Tuning and Application to
Frontiers Areas; Panda, R.C., Ed.; InTech Cop.: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011; pp. 75–102.
35. Whiteley, A.L. Theory of servo systems, with particular reference to stabilization. J. IEE Part II 1946, 93, 353–372.
36. Preuss, H.P. Model-free PID-controller design by means of the method of gain optimum. Automatisierungstechnik 1991, 39, 15–22.
(In German) [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2021, 9, 1340 24 of 24

37. Kessler, C. Über die Vorausberechnung optimal abgestimmter Regelkreise Teil III. Die optimale Einstellung des Reglers nach dem
Betragsoptimum. Regelungstechnik 1955, 3, 40–49.
38. Åström, K.J.; Panagopoulos, H.; Hägglund, T. Design of PI Controllers based on Non-Convex Optimization. Automatica 1998, 34,
585–601. [CrossRef]
39. Octave Online Bucket Website. Available online: https://octave-online.net/bucket~{}957TukXTyYuXNMsxeL75FP (accessed on 8
April 2021).