algorithms

Article
Design of PIDDα Controller for Robust Performance of
Process Plants
Muhammad Amir Fawwaz 1 , Kishore Bingi 1, * , Rosdiazli Ibrahim 1 , P. Arun Mozhi Devan 1
and B. Rajanarayan Prusty 2, *

1 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS,

Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia; [email protected] (M.A.F.); [email protected] (R.I.);
[email protected] (P.A.M.D.)
2 Department of Electrical, Electronics and Communication Engineering, School of Engineering,
Galgotias University, Greater Noida 203201, India
* Correspondence: [email protected] (K.B.); [email protected] (B.R.P.)

Abstract: Managing industrial processes in real-time is challenging due to the nonlinearity and
sensitivity of these processes. This unpredictability can cause delays in the regulation of these
processes. The PID controller family is commonly used in these situations, but their performance is
inadequate in systems and surroundings with varying set-points, longer dead times, external noises,
and disturbances. Therefore, this research has developed a novel controller structure for PIDDα
that incorporates the second derivative term from PIDD2 while exclusively using fractional order
parameters for the second derivative term. The controllers’ robust performance has been evaluated
on four simulation plants: first order, second order with time delay, third-order magnetic levitation
systems, and fourth-order automatic voltage regulation systems. The controllers’ performance has
also been evaluated on experimental models of pressure and flow processes. The proposed controller
exhibits the least overshoot among all the systems tested. The overshoot for the first-order systems is
9.63%, for the third-order magnetic levitation system, it is 12.82%, and for the fourth-order automatic
voltage regulation system, it is only 0.19%. In the pressure process plant, the overshoot is only 4.83%.
All controllers for the second-order systems have a time delay, while the flow process plant has no
overshoot. The proposed controller demonstrates superior settling times in various systems. For
Citation: Fawwaz, M.A.; Bingi, K.; first-order systems, the settling time is 14.26 s, while in the pressure process plant, the settling time
Ibrahim, R.; Devan, P.A.M.; Prusty, is 8.9543 s. Similarly, the proposed controllers for the second-order system with a time delay and
B.R. Design of PIDDα Controller for the flow process plant have the same settling time of 46.0495 s. In addition, the proposed controller
Robust Performance of Process results in the lowest rise time for three different systems. The rise time is only 0.0075 s for the
Plants. Algorithms 2023, 16, 437. third-order magnetic levitation system, while the fourth-order automatic voltage regulation system
https://doi.org/10.3390/a16090437 has a rise time of 0.0232 s. Finally, for the flow process plant, the proposed controller has the least rise
Academic Editors: Quanmin Zhu, time of 25.7819 s. Thus, in all the cases, the proposed controller results in a more robust controller
Jing Chen and Ya Gu structure that provides the desired performance of a regular PIDD2 controller, offering better dynamic
responses, shorter settling times, faster rise times, and reduced overshoot. Based on the analysis, it is
Received: 20 August 2023
evident that PIDDα outperforms both PID and FOPID control techniques due to its ability to produce
Revised: 8 September 2023
a more robust control signal.
Accepted: 8 September 2023
Published: 11 September 2023
Keywords: PID; fractional order; robustness; process control; stability

Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 1. Introduction
This article is an open access article In recent years, various industries, including oil and gas, chemical manufacturing,
distributed under the terms and food and beverages, and pharmaceuticals, have prioritised automating their process plants
conditions of the Creative Commons
by incorporating advanced technology and software to manage and oversee industrial
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
processes, aiming to minimise human intervention and enhance efficiency and safety.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
Automation is typically achieved by regulating and supervising process variables, such as
4.0/).

Algorithms 2023, 16, 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/a16090437 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/algorithms

Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 2 of 32

flow, temperature, level, and pressure within the process plant. PID controllers have gained
popularity in automatic control systems due to their simplicity, good performance, and cost-
effectiveness [1–4]. However, their effectiveness must be improved to cater to more complex
and higher-order systems [5]. Recent research suggests the integration of more complex
PID controller configurations, such as fractional order calculus and higher-order derivative
terms, such as PIDD2 and proportional integral derivative acceleration controllers, to
regulate more complex systems [1,3,6–8]. The PIDD2 controller has found extensive usage
in power systems, power electronics, and control systems, and its recent developments and
applications are discussed in the following sections. The list of abbreviations used in the
following sections is available at the end of the manuscript.

1.1. Power System Applications

1.1.1. AVR Systems
Ensuring the reliability of power systems is crucial, and the automatic voltage reg-
ulator system plays a critical role in regulating the voltage of synchronous generators.
However, this system is prone to insufficient oscillating transient response, maximum
overshoot, additional settling time, and steady-state errors. Despite extensive research to
develop a control strategy for the AVR system, finding the best approach requires signifi-
cant time and effort. The authors in [1] proposed a PIDD2 controller for the synchronous
generator to enhance the system’s robustness. The controller has been practically imple-
mented and demonstrated better performance than its counterparts. An iterative procedure
obtains the controller parameters through a constrained optimisation problem. A PIDD2
controller tuned with an improved Runge Kutta optimiser has been developed to enhance
the AVR systems’ transient and robustness performance [9]. The controller is designed to
strengthen transient and robustness performance, and simulation results showed better
transient response characteristics than other controllers. Another PIDD2 controller tuned
with the coronavirus herd immunity optimiser algorithm is presented in [10] to achieve
optimal system control. The practical implementation of this controller exhibited superior
performance in ITAE and ISAE compared to PIDD2 controllers tuned with other algorithms.
In control systems, optimal control is crucial to ensure efficient performance. Using
a PIDD2 controller, tuned with the Archimedes optimisation algorithm [11], has proven
effective in achieving optimal control, as demonstrated in [12]. Additionally, an equilibrium
optimiser has successfully optimised the design of a PIDD2 controller for controlling
an AVR system, as presented in [13]. Incorporating hybrid optimisation, considering
the excitation voltage limitations of an AVR system [14], has led to the development
of an optimal PIDD2 controller from the conventional PID. Such controllers have been
proposed in [12–14] and exhibited superior transient responses in comparison to alternative
controllers. Further research in this field has resulted in the implementation of a hybrid
algorithm consisting of simulated annealing and manta ray foraging to optimise the PIDD2
controller, which has been shown to outperform other controllers in terms of transient
response characteristics [15]. These findings highlight the significance of optimal control
design in achieving desirable system performance.
In this study, a PIDD2 controller for the AVR system is developed using whale opti-
misation [16]. The performance of the proposed controller design is evaluated based on
transient response characteristics and compared to other controller designs and tuning
algorithms, demonstrating significant improvement. Previous works, such as [7,17], have
utilised particle swarm and arithmetic optimisation algorithms to tune PIDD2 controllers
for AVR systems, resulting in improved performance in all step response characteristics
compared to their counterparts. Additionally, a PID controller based on a linear quadratic
method is introduced for the system, which, combined with a PIDD2 controller, demon-
strated outstanding performance compared to a standard PID controller [3]. Although the
PIkDND2N2 controller tuned using a coyote optimisation algorithm proposed in [18] out-
performed its competitors, it had a more complex control structure due to the need to tune
around seven parameters, compared to only four for PIDD2 and five for FOPID. Recently,
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 3 of 32

a fractional-order PIDD2 controller with optimal algorithm-tuned control parameters is

proposed for the system, providing superior performance compared to all conventional
controllers [19].

1.1.2. Two and Multi-Area Power System

In a two-area power system, two control areas are connected by a weak tie line. Both
areas must generate enough power to meet customers’ demands while maintaining the
system’s predetermined frequency and tie-power levels. Since frequency and active power
are closely linked, the system frequency regulates any changes in power. A load frequency
controller properly balances generated power and load demand. In conventional and
hybrid two-area power systems, researchers in [6,20,21] have proposed a fuzzy PIDD2
controller for voltage and frequency regulation. They have significantly improved the
controller’s performance compared to its counterpart in transient response characteristics
by tuning the controller parameters via a gradient-based optimisation algorithm. To
effectively control frequency variations in the system, the authors in [22] have proposed
a design that uses a PIDD2 -PD controller for a two-area linked power system. They have
simulated the proposed design by tuning controller parameters using the wild horse
optimiser, and it has shown superior settling times, maximum overshoot, and undershoot
values compared to other PID controllers.
In addition, a study by the authors in [23] has suggested a robust load frequency
control design utilising PIDD2 . The controller’s parameters are fine-tuned with the help
of internal model control, which enhances the controller’s transient response. Another
configuration for PIDD2 controller design is used in [24], which is applied to a two-area
power system. The design is simulated and demonstrates an improvement in ISE by
utilising a sine-cosine optimal algorithm. In [25], the authors introduce a PIDD controller
with the 2DOF to be incorporated into a multi-area thermal system. The controller’s
parameters are adjusted using the cuckoo search method to improve its settling time, peak
overshoot, and oscillation rate performance. The suggested design outperforms controllers
like I, PI, and PID controllers.

1.2. Control System Applications

Due to their high productivity and accuracy standards, there is a growing interest
in using intelligent control methods for robotic applications. Recent years have seen
numerous advancements in this area, including an open–closed-loop control design using
a PIDD2 /PID controller to control a robot arm, as the authors in [26] proposed. The control
parameters have been improved using iterative learning control, and the design has been
tested in both simulation and real-time. However, more information is needed to evaluate
its performance measures and viability compared to other controller designs. Unmanned
aerial vehicles, such as quadcopters, are typically flown remotely from the ground or by
onboard computers. However, quadcopters have significant power efficiency limitations
due to their flying stability and their four motors’ constant, quick acceleration. To address
this issue, a hybrid FLC-PID-PIDD2 controller is proposed with controller parameters tuned
using complementary error minimisation algorithms [27]. The simulations showed that
this design outperforms other controllers, such as FLC-PID and PID controllers, regarding
response time and control accuracy, making it an effective measure for enhancing stability
during unmanned aerial vehicle flights.
Using magnetic levitation involves lifting or suspending a magnetic item by interacting
with a magnetic field. The system requires dynamic adjustments of its electromagnets
to maintain the desired position of the item. As the maglev system is naturally unstable,
electronic feedback control is necessary to stabilise the levitated magnetic item. In [28],
the authors proposed the PIDD2 -PID controller for a magnetic levitation system, which
uses the slime mould algorithm to tune its control parameters. The simulation results of
this design were compared with other controllers like ASO-FOPID, AEF-FOPID, ABC-
FOPID, SCA-PID, WDO-PID, and ABC-PID controllers, and it outperformed them in terms
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 4 of 32

of performance measures. Similarly, in [2], the author proposed a method for optimal
higher-order controllers, where multiple controllers such as PI2IDD2, PI2ID, PIDD2 , PID2,
and PI2D are tuned with multi-objective GA algorithms. The proposed design performs
better in the angular velocity’s transient response and the controller’s control gain. It has
been observed through practical implementations that the higher-order controllers perform
better than the lower-order controllers, with slight deviations in performance measures
among each other.
In [4], the authors suggest using a PIDD2D3 controller for a ship power plant, which
uses a digital control system simulation model and tests the proposed design’s performance.
The results were compared with PID and PIDD2 controllers, and the proposed controller
performed better. A marine internal combustion engine is an essential component of a
ship’s propulsion system that provides power. The efficiency of MICE is greatly affected
by the temperature and pressure of the coolant, lubricating oil, and fuel in the engine’s
fuel line. The design constraints of these automated control systems come from the heat
exchangers, making adjusting the temperature and pressure of lubricating oil and coolant
challenging.
In [29], the PIDD2 controller proposed by the authors for the fuel preparation system of
a combustion engine outperforms the PID controller in terms of integral criterion, oscillation
index, and control parameter deviation. Similarly, the controller design proposed in [30] for
the hydraulic actuator, utilising a feedforward PIDD2 , is proven superior in step response
compared to the PID controller. The valve-controlled hydraulic motor speed servo system,
known for its quick, accurate, and efficient response due to the high-frequency response of
the servo valve, is typically used in low- and medium-power applications requiring excellent
accuracy. The authors in [31] have proposed a controller design utilising a feedforward
PIDD2 controller for the valve-controlled hydraulic motor system, which shows better
performance in position tracking capability when simulated and compared to PID, PIDD,
and differential PID controllers. It is clear from the results that the PIDD2 controller design
is a promising option for controlling various systems, providing better performance than
traditional PID controllers.
Plant processes can be modelled as differential equations of varying orders, with the
behaviour and order of the system being influenced by its degree of freedom and direction
of motion. For instance, the transfer function of a DC motor is a second-order system,
with the input voltage and shaft angle or position serving as input variables, including the
armature’s inductance, resulting in a third-order transfer function. To optimise predictive
algorithms, the authors in [32] proposed a universal searchless method for parametric
optimisation, using a PIDD2 controller to control a third-order model with time delay.
The control parameters are tuned using the universal searchless method, with simulation
showing an improvement in the transient response of the set-point signal compared to the
predictive PID controller.
Similarly, in [33], researchers proposed a PIDD2 controller, tuned through a maximal
stability degree method with iteration, for a second-order model with inertia and time
delay. The proposed method outperforms the PID controller regarding control time and
voltage overshoot, exhibiting superior performance. The authors in [34] presented a PIDD2
controller tuned with the identification algorithm REDIC to attain adaptive self-tuning of
controller parameters based on the analog model of a control plant. The proposed method
significantly outperforms traditional PID controllers in terms of transient responses. Finally,
in [35], researchers proposed a PIDD2 controller for an IPDT plant model, with control
parameters tuned using the quintuple real dominant pole tuning method resulting in
improved performance in terms of IAE, with the proposed design surpassing PI, PID, and
PIDD2 controllers.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 5 of 32

Diabetes mellitus is a medical condition linked to the improper control of blood glucose
levels and is caused by inadequate insulin production or ineffective use of insulin in the
body. Type 1 diabetes is characterised by a complete lack of insulin production, requiring
a syringe or implanted micro-pump for insulin administration. Automated closed-loop
devices are being explored to improve the accuracy and reliability of insulin regulation. In
a recent study by the authors in [36], the FPIDD2 controller with a two-delay differential
model is proposed to simulate this scenario. The study demonstrated that this approach
improved MAPE, RMSE, and insulin usage compared to other controllers, such as PD,
PI, parallel PID, and single-rule-based FPID. The particle swarm optimisation algorithm
enhanced performance with linearly decreasing weight, ensuring optimal results.

1.3. Power Electronic Applications

Managing output voltage in a DC-DC boost converter poses a complex challenge
for control engineers. The authors in [37] have presented a PIDD2 controller design for a
non-ideal DC-DC boost converter to address this issue. The proposed method employs the
IMC approach to derive the controller parameters. The practical implementation of this
approach demonstrates a significant enhancement in maximum sensitivity, rise time, and
total variation, surpassing the performance of its predecessor, the IMC PID controllers.
All the above literature review has been briefly summarised in Table 1. From the
literature review, it can be summarized that the performance of PIDD2 can be enhanced
using the fractional-order concept. This is because fractional ordering allows for increased
flexibility and robust performance [38]. Recently, a PLC-based FOPID controller has also
been designed for industrial process control application [39]. From the review findings, this
paper presents a novel PIDDα controller that combines the advantages of FOPID controllers
and PIDD controllers. The main contributions of this work are as follows:
• A new controller structure for PIDDα has been proposed, which includes the second
derivative term from PIDD2 and utilizes fractional order parameters exclusively for
the second derivative term.
• The controllers’ robust performance has been tested in both simulation and experi-
ment compared to PID, PIDD2 , and FOPID controllers regarding transient response
characteristics.
• The controllers’ robust performance has also been tested for fixed and variable set
points and in the presence of external disturbances.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 6 of 32

Table 1. Summary of recent developments and applications of PIDD2 controller in various fields.

Ref. Year Controller Parameters Comparison System Tuning Measures Simulation/Practical Software
Conventional and
Gradient-based
[6] 2023 Fuzzy PIDD2 8 PID, Fuzzy PID hybrid two-area ITAE Simulation MATLAB
optimization
power systems
Constrained
AVR of synchronous optimization problem
[1] 2023 PIDD2 5 PID IAE Practical MATLAB
generator via an iterative
procedure
rise time, settling
GBO tuned ID-T, Two-area hybrid Gradient-based Simulation and
[20] 2023 FPIDD 6 time, max overshoot MATLAB/Simulink
FPID system optimisation Practical
and undershoot, ITAE
Settling time,
Two-area linked maximum overshoot,
[22] 2022 PIDD2 -PD 9 PID-TID, ID-T Wild horse optimizer Simulation MATLAB/Simulink
power system and undershoot
values
IWO-PIDD2 ,
Coronavirus herd
PSO-PIDD2 , Simulation and
[10] 2022 PIDD2 4 AVR system immunity ITAE, ITSE MATLAB
OBASO-PIDD2 , Practical
optimization
ASO-PIDD2
PIDD2 -PSO,
Arithmetic overshoot, rise time,
FOPID-SMA,
[7] 2022 PIDD2 -PD 6 AVR system optimisation settling time, phase Simulation MATLAB
PID-SCA,
algorithm margin, bandwidth
PIDA-WOA
rise time, settling
PID, PID-F, PIDA, Improved Runge
[9] 2022 PIDD2 6 AVR system time, percent Simulation –
FOPID, PIDD2 Kutta optimiser
overshoot
Archimedes settling time, rise
PID, FOPID, RPID,
[12] 2022 PIDD2 4 AVR system optimization time, overshoot Simulation –
SPID
algorithm voltage
transient response
FOPID, PID, PIDA, Coyote optimization
[18] 2022 PIkDND2N2 7 AVR system and disturbance Simulation MATLAB
PIDD2 algorithm
rejection
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 7 of 32

Table 1. Cont.

Ref. Year Controller Parameters Comparison System Tuning Measures Simulation/Practical Software
Non-ideal DC-DC Internal model max sensitivity, rise
[37] 2021 PIDD2 4 IMC PID Practical MATLAB
boost converter control time, total variation
PID, FOPID, ideal Equilibrium rise time, settling
[13] 2021 PIDD2 6 AVR system Simulation –
PIDD2 optimizer time, overshoot
Equilibrium
SA-MRFO-PIDD2 ,
optimizer- rise time, delay time,
[14] 2021 PIDD2 4 PSO-PIDD2 , AVR system Simulation MATLAB
evaporation rate overshoot
AEO-PID
water cycle
Two-area linear
settling time,
(HSCOA, GBO, thermal model and
Gradient-based maximum overshoot,
[21] 2021 Fuzzy PIDD2 5 BFO)-FPIDD2 , linear multi-source Simulation MATLAB/Simulink
optimisation and undershoot
FPID, PID topology in two-area
values
environments
(ASO, AEF,
settling time, rise
ABC)-FOPID, (SCA, Magnetic levitation Slime mould
[28] 2021 PIDD2 -PID 6 time, overshoot Simulation MATLAB
WDO, ABC)-ideal system algorithm
voltage
PID
settling time, rise
FOPID, PID, PIDA, Equilibrium
[19] 2021 FOPIDD2 7 AVR system time, overshoot Simulation MATLAB
PIDD2 Optimizer
voltage
Settling time,
Two-area time
Internal model maximum overshoot
[23] 2021 PIDD2 4 PI, PID delayed power Simulation MATLAB/Simulink
control and undershoot
system model
values
Simulated
annealing—Manta settling time, rise
ideal PID, real PID,
[15] 2021 PIDD2 5 AVR system ray foraging time, overshoot Simulation MATLAB
FOPID, PIDD2
optimization voltage
algorithm
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 8 of 32

Table 1. Cont.

Ref. Year Controller Parameters Comparison System Tuning Measures Simulation/Practical Software
Particle swarm
PD, PI, parallel PID,
Two-delay differential optimization with MAPE, RMSE, insulin
[36] 2020 Fuzzy PIDD2 9 and single-rule-based Simulation –
model linearly decreasing used
PID fuzzy controllers
weight
settling time, rise
(MOL, PSO, CS, Whale optimisation
[16] 2019 PIDD2 4 AVR system time, overshoot Simulation MATLAB/Simulink
ABC)-PID algorithm
voltage
Two-area power
[24] 2018 PIDD2 7 – Sine cosine algorithm ISE Simulation MATLAB/Simulink
system
Quintuple real
[35] 2018 PIDD2 4 PI, PID, PIDD2 IPDT plant model dominant poles IAE Simulation MATLAB/Simulink
tuning
Neuroarm robotic Iterative learning Simulation and
[26] 2018 PIDD2 /PID 8 – – –
manipulator control Practical
PI2IDD2,
PI2IDD2, PI2ID, time response of
PI2ID, PIDD2 , Cansat carrier launch
[2] 2018 3 to 5 PIDD2 , PID2, and Multi-objective GA angular velocity and Practical –
PID2, and system
PI2D control gain
PI2D
3rd-order model with Universal search-less transient response of
[32] 2017 PIDD2 4 predictive PID Simulation –
time delay method set-point signal
PID tuned with DEA,
Linear quadratic peak magnitude, rise
[3] 2017 PIDD2 4 PSO, ABC algorithms AVR system Simulation MATLAB
method time, settling time
and LQR method
Simulation model of a integral index,
[4] 2017 PIDD2 D3 5 PID, PIDD2 Ship power plant Simulation MATLAB
digital control system oscillation index
integral criterion,
MICE fuel oscillation index,
[29] 2017 PIDD2 4 PID – Simulation MATLAB
preparation system control parameter
deviation
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 9 of 32

Table 1. Cont.

Ref. Year Controller Parameters Comparison System Tuning Measures Simulation/Practical Software
Unmanned aerial Complimentary error
FLC-PID- response time, control
[27] 2017 4 FLC PID, PID vehicles in indoor minimization Simulation MATLAB/Simulink
PIDD2 accuracy
terrains algorithms
Hydraulic continuous
Feedforward rotation motor
[30] 2016 4 PID – system response Simulation AMESim
PIDD2 electro-hydraulic
servo system
settling time, peak
Multi-area thermal Cuckoo search
[25] 2015 2-DOF-PIDD 6 I, PI, PID overshoot, oscillation Simulation MATLAB
system algorithm
rate
PID, FOPID with
Particle swarm maximum overshoot,
[17] 2015 PIDD2 4 other tuning AVR system Simulation MATLAB
optimization rise time, settling time
algorithms
Maximal stability
2nd-order model with control time,
[33] 2013 PIDD2 4 PID degree method with Simulation MATLAB
inertia and time delay overshoot
iteration
Valve-controlled
Feedforward position tracking
[31] 2012 4 PID, PIDD, Dff-PID hydraulic motor – Simulation AMESim
PIDD2 capability
system
Analogue model of Identification Simulation and
[34] 2003 PIDD2 4 PID transient responses ADAPTLAB
control plant algorithm REDIC Practical
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 10 of 32

2. Design of Proposed PIDDα Controller

2.1. PID Controller
The PID controllers in feedback control systems manage a system’s behaviour using
proportional, integral, and derivative terms. The operation of these terms is explained as follows:
• Proportional Control: This term refers to correcting action proportionate to the present error.
• Integral Control: This term is a correction based on accumulating errors over time
through low-frequency compensation.
• Derivative Control: This term applies a correction based on the error’s rate of change
through high-frequency compensation.
The PID control action in the Laplace domain is given as follows:

U (s) U (s) K
C (s) = = = K p + i + Kd s. (1)
E(s) R(s) − Y (s) s

In the above equation, K p , Ki , and Kd are the proportional, integral, and derivative
constants. The block diagram representation of the controller is shown in Figure 1. The
figure and Equation (1) show that the PID controller combines the proportional, integral, and
derivative control elements to provide a composite control signal that compromises error
reduction, overshoot, and oscillation mitigation. The PID controller’s settings, such as the gains
for each control term, can be tuned to obtain the desired performance for a particular system.

Figure 1. Block diagram of PID controller.

PID controllers can encounter problems like destabilising the system and poor perfor-
mance if not tuned correctly, particularly with the integral and derivative terms. Integral
windup can arise due to the integral action, causing the control action to saturate, leading
to low-frequency oscillations and instability. A derivative kick can occur when the system
introduces a step change to the controller, resulting in a significant spike in the derivative
term as it acts upon the rate of error change [40]. It is crucial to tune the derivative term
carefully as it improves the system’s phase and gain margin, which can either enhance or
reduce the system’s stability. As a result, 80% of PID controllers used in industries have
been turned off due to issues with tuning the derivative term [41].

2.2. PIDD2 Controller

The PID with derivative filter (PIDD2 ) controller is a modification of the conventional
PID controller that contains an extra derivative filter. In terms of pole placement, a standard
form of PID for a second-order control system is as follows:

ωn2
C= , (2)
s2 + 2ζωn s + ωn2
s

2
ρ + 1 ωn s
CZ = 2 2
= C + C, (3)
s + 2ζωn s + ωn ρ
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 11 of 32

where ωn is the undamped natural frequency. Here, the additional derivative filter adds
another zero to the transfer function where s = −ρ. The modified second-order controller’s
step response will be the original response with the scaled derivative version added based
on the ρ value. The systems’ response equation is shown below:

s 1
YZ = Y + Y or yz (t) = ẏ(t) + y(t). (4)
ρ ρ

As the zero located at s = −ρ moves to the left side away from the origin, i.e., ρ
increases, the step response will start to equate to the original step response as yz (t) ≈ y(t).
On the other hand, when the zero moves closer to the origin of the complex plane, i.e.,
ρ decreases, the effect of the derivative term becomes more apparent, causing higher
overshoot and lower rise time and response time [17]. This controller design improves the
phase margin, steady-state accuracy, and plant stability [9,23,28].
The PIDD2 control action in the Laplace domain is as follows:

U (s) U (s) K
C (s) = = = K p + i + Kd1 s + Kd2 s2 . (5)
E(s) R(s) − Y (s) s

In the above equation, K p , Ki , and Kd1 are the proportional, integral, and derivative
constants. Kd2 is the constant for the extra derivative filter, which controls the smoothing of
the derivative term over time. Figure 2, which shows the block diagram of the controller
and Equation (5), the PIDD2 controller adds another derivative control element to the
pre-existing PID control elements where all four constants can be tuned to achieve the
desired performance characteristics.

Figure 2. Block diagram of PIDD2 controller.

This control mechanism is also subject to the derivative kick phenomenon inherent
in the PID controller. In practical applications, this phenomenon can become a significant
issue as its effect is amplified by the second derivative term, leading to an increase in the
gain that amplifies the input signal to the square of the frequency. This is particularly
problematic in high-frequency environments due to measurement noise, which can result
in an overshoot in the control signal that causes the actuators to open and close abruptly,
leading to wear and tear rapidly [17].

2.3. FOPID Controller

The FOPID controller utilises fractional calculus principles in its design and implemen-
tation to provide a more flexible and robust control method than traditional PID controllers.
It combines non-integer orders of differentiation and integration. To comprehend frac-
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 12 of 32

tional calculus, it is essential to establish the fundamental principles and approximation

techniques for resolving fractional differential equations. The differential operator, which
combines fractional differentiator and integrator, is widely utilised. The equation provided
below defines this operator.
 q
d
 dtq f (t), q > 0,


q
D t f ( t ) = f ( t ), q = 0, (6)

R t
0 f ( τ ) dτ, q < 0,


where q is the fractional order.

The Riemann–Liouville definition is popular among the definitions in the
literature [19,42–44]. The fractional order of order q, denoted by D q , is given by

dn
Z x
1 f (t)
D q [ f ( x )] = dt, (7)
Γ(n − q) dx n a ( x − t ) q +1− n

where f ( x ) is a sufficiently well-behaved function defined on the interval [ a, b], n is the

dn
smallest integer greater than q, Γ is the gamma function, and dx n represents the nth deriva-
tive of the function with respect to x.
The Riemann–Liouville fractional derivative extends the classical derivative to non-
integer orders. The integral in the definition represents the memory effect of the function
f ( x ) on its fractional derivative, where the order q determines the degree of memory.
The FOPID controller comprises proportional, integral, and derivative components
that require a corresponding gain value to function effectively. The controller employs
fractional-order parameters, β and µ, to adjust the integral and derivative terms, enhancing
the system’s stability, transient response characteristics, and robustness. The fractional
integral represents the curve’s projection onto a plane, with the fractional integration order
acting as a weight that influences the system’s responsiveness and steady-state errors [19].

U (s) U (s) K
C (s) = = = K p + βi + Kd sµ . (8)
E(s) R(s) − Y (s) s

In the above equation, K p , Ki , and Kd1 are the proportional, integral, and derivative
constants. The parameters β and µ represent the degree of non-integer integration and
differentiation used in the controller, respectively, where β > 0 and µ < 2 [43]. Figure 3
shows the block diagram for the FOPID controller where all five parameters can be tuned.
Notice that a regular PID controller is achieved by setting both β and µ to be 1. By utilising
non-integer values for the integral and derivative terms, the controller can simulate more
complex and non-linear systems in control systems.

Figure 3. Block diagram of FOPID controller.

Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 13 of 32

2.4. Proposed PIDDα Controller

The configuration of the proposed PIDDα will combine a FOPID controller and PIDD2
controller where the fractional calculus is only implemented on the second derivative term.
The proposed design is to achieve a compromise between the robustness and superior
performance of the controller to handle non-linear processes through the utilisation of
non-integer differentiation while also reducing the increased complexity that the FOPIDD2
controller faced by only having five tuning parameters instead of seven.
The PIDDα control action in Laplace’s domain is given as,

U (s) U (s) K
C (s) = = = K p + i + Kd1 s + Kd2 sα . (9)
E(s) R(s) − Y (s) s

In the above equation, K p , Ki , Kd1 , and Kd2 are the proportional, integral, and deriva-
tive constants. The order α represents the non-integer differentiation parameter used in
the controller. Figure 4 shows the block diagram of the proposed controller where the
parameters can be tuned to control both linear and non-linear processes. A PID controller
can be achieved when α = 0 and PIDD2 controller can be achieved when α = 2, allowing
the proposed controller to control linear order and non-linear processes.

Figure 4. Block diagram of PIDDα controller.

It is important to note that the fractional-order operators can impact the controller
performance, and reliable approximation methods are available to solve these fractional-
order operators. The Oustaloop method and the Matsuda method are two commonly used
approximation techniques. The Matsuda method involves obtaining a rational sα model
through continued fraction expansion, which can create a transfer function of sα by fitting
the original model at desired frequency points. The order of approximation, ‘N’, should be
an even number to avoid an improper transfer function creation [45]. On the other hand,
the Oustaloop method is the most widely used method for integer-order approximation of
fractional-order operators. However, it is limited in fitting the expected frequency range in
practical applications [46].

3. Simulation Study
This study uses simulations to evaluate the performance of a proposed controller.
The parameters used in the study are gathered from existing literature and cover various
processes with different transfer functions and behaviours. The proposed controller’s
characteristics, such as percentage overshoot ( Mp), rise time (tr ), and settling time (ts),
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 14 of 32

are measured and compared to other controllers discussed in the paper, including PID,
PIDD2 , and FOPID.
The controller gains are kept constant for all four controllers, except for PIDDα and
FOPID, which use fractional parameters obtained through Oustaloup approximation. The
fractional parameters are selected through trial and error. The Oustaloup approximation’s
frequency range and order are (10−4 , 104 ) and 5, respectively. The general block diagram
of the considered plants is shown in Figure 5. From the figure, the transfer function of a
closed-loop block diagram is computed as follows:

G p (s) · C (s)
G (s) = , (10)
1 + G p (s) · C (s)

where G p (s) and C (s) are the respective transfer functions of plant and controller.

Figure 5. General block diagram of closed-loop controller with unity feedback.

3.1. First-Order System

A generic mathematical equation representing a first-order equation is selected to
simulate a PID, PIDD2 , FOPID, and PIDDα controlling a plant in a simulation. An RC low-
pass filter circuit is an example of a real-life first-order system. To obtain the closed-loop
transfer function of the entire system, Equation (10) is used with C (s) substituted with
Equations (1), (5), (8) and (9), and G p (s) = 5s1+1 . The controller gains, fractional parameters,
and transient response characteristics used are shown in Table 2 and Figures 6–8.

Table 2. Controller parameters and transient response characteristics for first order system.

Controller Kp Ki Kd1 Kd2 µ β α M p (%) tr ( s ) ts ( s )

PID 1 1 2 – - – – 20.3731 3.6417 27.4682
PIDD2 1 1 2 1 - – – 22.8111 4.985 28.1916
FOPID 1 1 2 – 0.5 0.98 – 9.6332 3.8846 14.2615
PIDDα 1 1 2 1 – – 0.1 11.068 3.867 14.2194

1.4

1.2

1
Amplitude

0.8

0.6

0.4 Setpoint
PID
PIDD2
0.2 FOPID
PIDD

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time(s)

Figure 6. Step response of controller structure for first order system.

Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 15 of 32

3.5
Setpoint
PID
3
PIDD2
FOPID
PIDD
2.5

Amplitude
2

1.5

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (s)

Figure 7. Variable set-point tracking of controller structure for first order system.

1.4

1.2

1
Amplitude

0.8

0.6

Setpoint
0.4
PID
PIDD2
0.2 FOPID
PIDD

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (s)

Figure 8. Disturbance rejection of controller structure for first order system.

Based on the simulation results, using fractional parameters leads to significant im-
provements in transient response characteristics compared to integer parameters. Both
the FOPID and proposed PIDDα controllers show better performance in overshoot, with
9.6332% and 11.068%, respectively, as well as in settling time, with 14.2615 s and 14.2194 s,
respectively, in contrast to the PID and PIDD2 controllers. The PID controller shows the
lowest tr of 3.6147 s, while the PIDD2 controller performs the worst in all three transient re-
sponse characteristics. Despite performing worse than FOPID in overshoots, the proposed
PIDDα controller outperforms the tr of 3.867 s and settling time of 14.2194 s. Overall, the
proposed PIDDα controller demonstrates the best performance on average compared to
its competitors.
The initial set-point is designated 1 when the time is 0 to monitor set-point tracking
performance. After that, at 50 s, 100 s, and 150 s, the set-point changes to 2, 3, and 1.5,
respectively. These changes cover both positive and negative changes in the controller.
The set-point changes at intervals of 50 s to ensure that the step responses can reach their
respective steady-state values, as specified in Table 2.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 16 of 32

Figure 7 shows that each controller structure can manage the output to reach each set-
point change. In terms of overall performance, the proposed PIDDα controller outperforms
its competitors. For disturbance rejection, a disturbance magnitude of −0.2 is introduced
to the controller structure at the 60 s to replicate external disturbances that can take place in
a real-world plant environment. Figure 8 illustrates that each controller structure can reject
the disturbance by managing the output to reach the set-point following the step response.
Overall, the proposed PIDDα controller achieves the best overall performance compared to
its competitors.

3.2. Second-Order Model with Inertia and Time Delay

The current section focuses on the model object, which is based on [33] and represents
a second-order system with inertia and time delay. The block diagram of this system is
comparable to the first-order plant discussed in Section 3.1. The transfer function of the
model, which has a time delay of 0.2 s, is as follows:

0.37
G p (s) = e−0.2s . (11)
1.4299s2 + 2.46s + 1
Following the methodology outlined in the preceding section, the controller parame-
ters, transient response characteristics, step responses, and set-point tracking of various
controllers have been illustrated in Table 3 and Figures 9–11. Based on the simulation
results, it is clear that both PIDD2 and the proposed PIDDα controllers outperform PID and
FOPID controllers in terms of overshoot values. Specifically, PIDD2 achieved an impressive
overshoot value of 0%, while the proposed PIDDα achieved an overshoot value of 0.0864%.

Table 3. Controller parameters and transient response characteristics for second-order system.

Controller Kp Ki Kd1 Kd2 µ β α M p (%) tr ( s ) ts ( s )

PID 17.5 4.12 9.46 – – – – 3.7692 0.3821 6.1165
PIDD2 17.5 4.12 9.46 0.3 – – – 0 0.4606 6.1126
FOPID 17.5 4.12 9.46 – 1 1.2 – 2.9108 0.3869 3.1772
PIDDα 17.5 4.12 9.46 0.3 – – 1.75 0.0864 0.4037 6.1118

In comparison, PID and FOPID controllers only managed to achieve overshoot values
of 3.7692% and 2.9108%, respectively. Furthermore, the utilisation of fractional parameters
in the integral control of the FOPID controller resulted in a significant reduction in the
response time of the plant, from 6.11 s to 3.17 s.

1.2

0.8
Amplitude

0.6

0.4 Setpoint
PID
PIDD2
FOPID
0.2
PIDD

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time(s)

Figure 9. Step response of controller structure for second-order system.

Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 17 of 32

3.5

Setpoint
3 PID
PIDD2
FOPID
2.5 PIDD

Amplitude
2

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

Figure 10. Variable set-point tracking of controller structure for second-order system.

1.2

0.8
Amplitude

0.6

0.4

Setpoint
0.2 PID
PIDD2
FOPID
0
PIDD

-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

Figure 11. Disturbance rejection of controller structure for second-order system.

However, this came at the cost of a slightly increased tr of 0.3869 s at the start of a step
change and an overshoot of 2.9108%. While the PID controller had the lowest tr of 0.3821 s,
it had the highest overshoot value of 3.7692% among all the other controllers. On the other
hand, the PIDD2 controller managed to achieve an impressive overshoot value of 0%, but
at the expense of a higher tr of 0.4606 s. Overall, the proposed controller demonstrated the
best overall performance when compared to the other controllers, achieving a lower tr of
0.4037 s and ts of 6.1118 s compared to the PIDD2 controller, with only a slight increase in
overshoot of 0.0864%.
During the tracking performance, the set-point changes to 2, 3, and 1.5 at 5 s, 12 s,
and 20 s, respectively, encompassing both positive and negative changes occurring in the
controller as illustrated in Figure 10. The intervals of the set-point changes are precisely
planned to ensure that the step responses can attain their steady-state values, which are
tabulated in Table 3.
Here, each controller structure can control the output for achieving each set-point
change following the step response. The proposed PIDDα controller outperforms its com-
petitors, delivering the best overall performance. Further, to simulate plant behaviour where
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 18 of 32

external disturbances occur, a disturbance magnitude of −0.2 is introduced to the controller

structure at 15 s for disturbance rejection. Figure 11 demonstrates that each controller struc-
ture can reject the disturbance by controlling the output to attain the set-point following the
step response. The proposed PIDDα controller stands out from its competitors, delivering
the best overall performance.

3.3. Magnetic Levitation System

A magnetic levitation system from authors of [28] is used as the plant for this system.
The control is performed with an input voltage, which controls the current flowing through
the electromagnet, which in turn manipulates the height of the ball to levitate. To ensure
that the ball levitates in place, the overshoot of the control system must be low and closest
to the desired height. The magnetic levitation system can be represented as a transfer
function given as
885.9
G p (s) = 3 . (12)
s + 100s2 − 19.62s − 1962
The open-loop response of the plant in Figure 12 shows that the system is unstable,
which means the ball may fall off the system.

Open loop response

0

-200
Change in ball position (cm)

-400

-600

-800

-1000

-1200

-1400

-1600
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time(s)

Figure 12. Open-loop response of magnetic levitation system.

To control the system and to reach stability, the plant is controlled by all four con-
trollers, similar to previous sections where the controller parameters, transient response
characteristics, and step response are shown in Table 4 and Figure 13.

Table 4. Controller parameters and transient response characteristics for magnetic levitation system.

Controller Kp Ki Kd1 Kd2 µ β α M p (%) tr ( s ) ts ( s )

PID −159 −139 −8 – – – – 44.5024 0.0167 0.1723
PIDD2 −159 −139 −8 −0.18 – – – 13.0223 0.0207 0.1914
FOPID −159 −139 −8 – 0.9 1.1 – 35.1198 0.0128 0.1989
PIDDα −159 −139 −8 −0.18 – – 2.04 12.8299 0.0075 0.2025

Achieving set-point tracking involves changing the set-point from 1 to 2, 3, and 1.5 at
0.3 s, 0.6 s, and 0.9 s, respectively, and their numerical analysis is listed in Table 4. Figure 14
shows that each controller structure successfully controls the output to reach each set-point
change following the step response.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 19 of 32

1.5

1
Amplitude

0.5
Setpoint
PID
PIDD2
FOPID
PIDD

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time(s)

Figure 13. Step response of controller structure for magnetic levitation system.

3.5
Setpoint
PID
3
2
PIDD
FOPID
2.5 PIDD
Amplitude

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (s)

Figure 14. Variable set-point tracking of controller structure for magnetic levitation system.

Among its competitors, the proposed PIDDα controller performs the best in achieving
the desired outcome. A disturbance magnitude of −12 is introduced to the controller
structure at 0.4 s to emulate real-world behaviour. This disturbance represents external
disturbances that can occur in the overall process plant. Figure 15 shows that each controller
structure can successfully reject the disturbance by controlling the output to reach the set-
point following the step response. Once again, the proposed PIDDα controller outperforms
its competitors in achieving the desired performance.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 20 of 32

1.5

1
Amplitude

0.5

PID
PIDD2
FOPID
PIDD

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Time (s)

Figure 15. Disturbance rejection of controller structure for magnetic levitation system.

3.4. Automatic Voltage Regulation System

The AVR system regulates the terminal voltage of a generator to a predetermined
nominal value by using a sensor located at the generator’s output, which measures the
actual value, calculates the error signal, and sends it back to the controller. The controller
then sends a control signal to the amplifier, exciter, and generator, correcting the output
voltage [13]. The AVR system can be represented as a transfer function given by the
following equation:

0.1s + 10
G p (s) = . (13)
0.0004s4 + 0.045s3 + 0.555s2 + 1.51s + 11
The system response in Figure 16 shows that it is a stable system, although it reaches
a steady state at around 10 s and suffers tremendous overshoot values. So, the control
action must be able to reduce the overshoot value, rise time, and settling time to achieve
its objective. All four controllers control the plant, similar to previous sections where the
controller parameters, transient response characteristics, and step response are shown in
Table 5 and Figure 17.

Open loop response

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Figure 16. Open-loop response of an AVR system.

Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 21 of 32

1.2

0.8
Amplitude

0.6

0.4 Setpoint
PSO-PID
PIDD2
CAS-FOPID
0.2
PIDD

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time(s)

Figure 17. Step response of controller structure for an AVR system.

Table 5. Controller parameters and transient response characteristics for an AVR system.

Controller Kp Ki Kd1 Kd2 µ β α M p (%) tr ( s ) ts ( s )

PID 4.8938 3.2301 2.2479 - - - - 4.7876 0.2582 1.1458
PIDD2 4.8938 3.2301 2.2479 0.2048 - - - 0.2872 0.0245 0.0373
FOPID 4.8938 3.2301 2.2479 - 1.1122 1.0624 - 3.8758 0.2196 0.9012
PIDDα 4.8938 3.2301 2.2479 0.2048 – – 2.01 0.1923 0.0232 0.0984

From the simulation results, the PIDD2 controller and the proposed PIDDα controller
exhibit superior performance in all three transient response characteristics. Regarding
overshoot performances, PIDD2 and PIDDα trump their competitors with values of 0.2782%
and 0.1923% compared to PID and FOPID, with values of 4.7876% and 3.8753%, respectively.
The same is true for tr , where PIDD2 and PIDDα achieve 0.0245 s and 0.0232 s compared
to 0.2582 s and 0.2196 s for PID and FOPID. For settling time, PIDD2 and PIDDα achieved
0.0373 s and 0.0984 s, respectively, compared to the 1.1458 s and 0.9012 s that PID and FOPID
achieved. The proposed controller performs better between PIDD2 and the proposed PIDDα
controller with the most negligible overshoot value and tr of 0.1923% and 0.0232 s but at a
higher ts of 0.0984 s.
The set-point is initially set to 1, then changes to 2, 3, and 1.5 at 2 s, 4 s, and 6 s,
respectively. These timed set-point changes ensure that step responses can reach their
respective steady-state values. Each controller structure in Figure 18 can effectively control
the output to reach the set-point changes. Regarding disturbance rejection, a disturbance
magnitude of −0.3 is introduced to the controller structure at 2 s to simulate real-world
plant behaviour. Figure 19 shows that each controller structure can reject the disturbance
by effectively controlling the output to reach the set-point following the step response. The
proposed PIDDα controller outperforms competitors, delivering the best set-point tracking
and disturbance rejection performance.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 22 of 32

3.5
Setpoint
PSO-PID
3
PIDD2
CAS-FOPID
2.5 PIDD

Amplitude
2

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (s)

Figure 18. Variable set-point tracking of controller structure for an AVR system with PSO-PID and
CAS-FOPID.

1.2

0.8
Amplitude

0.6

0.4

0.2 Setpoint
PSO-PID
PIDD2
0 CAS-FOPID
PIDD

-0.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)

Figure 19. Disturbance rejection of controller structure for an AVR system with PSO-PID and
CAS-FOPID.

4. Experimental Study
The present study applies the proposed controllers to an experimental analysis by
incorporating real-time process plants available at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS’ plant
process control systems laboratory. Specifically, this section delves into the schematics and
operations of two such plants. Notably, a first-order transfer function with a time delay
characterises both plants. However, this time delay causes the system to become non-causal
and unstable. Pade approximation is used to estimate the time delay to avoid these issues.
This makes the system causal and stable, making it suitable for implementing the proposed
control strategies. As discussed below, these approximated transfer functions are used in
the implementation process.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 23 of 32

4.1. Real-Time Pressure Process Plant

The schematics of the real-time pressure process plant, which runs in real time, are
shown in Figure 20. VL 202, the primary buffer tank, is designed to sustain up to 10 Bar of
pressure from the centralised air compression system that provides it with air.

Outlet gas to
downstream process Digital I/O Card
PCI-1751

Process Control AI Card

Valve PCI-1713U
PCV 202
AO Card
Inlet gas from PCI-1720U
centralized
compressor I/O Interface
Board
Hand Valve
HV 202

Buffer Tank
VL 202

Pressure Transmitter MATLAB Server

PT 202 (HOST PC)

Figure 20. Schematic of real-time pressure process plant.

The pressure inside the tank can be controlled using the hand valve, HV 202, while the
process control valve, PCV 202, ensures that the pressure remains constant at the desired
level. The pressure is measured using pressure transmitter PT 202, converted to digital
voltage values ranging from 0 to 5 V. These signals are sent to the PCV 202 pressure-
indicating controller, which sends the control signal to the host PC through I/O interface
boards. An analogue pressure gauge that indicates pressure fluctuations inside the tank is
provided for safety. If the valve PCV 202 malfunctions, a hand-operated valve at the bottom
of the buffer tank releases compressed air from the VL 202 in an emergency. The hand valve
can also be employed as an external disturbance injection channel during the experiment.
Excess air is released through an exit on the top of the process tank, connected to another
process control valve, PCV 203, to adjust the pressure inside the buffer tank. During the
experiment, this valve is kept at 50% open to prevent excessive pressure buildup inside
the VL 202. The host PC sends signals to the control valve actuator PCV 202 based on the
set-point value.
Figure 21 depicts the pressure process plant’s P&ID diagram. The facility runs in
“Remote Desktop Connection” mode for safety, with processes controlled from the central
control centre. PCI cards connect the mainframe PC and field equipment, such as the
control valve actuator, flow sensors, and pressure transmitter. These cards provide 2500 V
DC isolation protection between PCI bus outputs.
A 32-channel analogue input board dubbed PCI-1713U receives the process plant’s
analogue input. It features a 12-bit resolution and a sampling rate of 100,000 samples per
second. A critical component of the PCI card, the PCI-1720U module, utilises a high-quality
12-bit, 4-channel analogue output port to transfer accurate control signals to the host PC.
Furthermore, with 48 bits of parallel digital input/output, the PCI-1751 card enables remote
management of the pressure process plant by transmitting digital signals from the PT 202
to the host PC.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 24 of 32

PIC 0-5V PCI-1720U

Host PC
202
PT 0-5V PCI Bus
202 PCI-1713U

0-5V R/L PCI-1751

Host PC Panel
Outlet gas to TCP/IP (Ethernet)
Inlet gas from downstream process Access through
centralized compressor VL 202 Remote Desktop Connection

Workstation at
control room

HV 202 PCV 202

Figure 21. P&ID of the pressure process plant.

The transfer function of the pressure process plant can be derived from the open-loop
response of the plant in Figure 22. Thus, the computed transfer function is given as

0.866
G (s) = e−s (14)
1.365s + 1

Figure 22. Open-loop response of pressure process plant before and after Pade approximation.

To control the system to reach stability, the plant is controlled by all four controllers,
similar in previous systems where the following controller parameters, transient response
characteristics, and step response are shown in Table 6, Figures 23–25.

Table 6. Controller parameters and transient response characteristics for real-time pressure process plant.

Controller Kp Ki Kd1 Kd2 µ β α M p (%) tr ( s ) ts ( s )

PID 0.5 0.5 −0.01 - - - - 6.2148 2.8287 9.2664
PIDD2 0.5 0.5 −0.01 −0.1 - - - 5.1179 2.8486 9.0571
FOPID 0.5 0.5 −0.01 - 0.99 0.15 - 5.5126 2.8792 8.96
PIDDα 0.5 0.5 −0.01 −0.1 - - 1.7 4.838 2.6272 8.9543
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 25 of 32

1.2

0.8

Amplitude 0.6

0.4

0.2
Setpoint
PID
0
PIDD2
FOPID
-0.2 PIDD

-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time(s)

Figure 23. Step response of controller structure for pressure process plant.

3.5
Setpoint
3 PID
2
PIDD
FOPID
2.5 PIDD

2
Amplitude

1.5

0.5

-0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (s)

Figure 24. Variable set-point tracking of controller structure for pressure process plant.

1.2

0.8
Amplitude

0.6

0.4

0.2 Setpoint
PID
PIDD2
0 FOPID
PIDD

-0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

Figure 25. Disturbance rejection of controller structure for pressure process plant.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 26 of 32

From the simulation results, PIDD2 and the proposed PIDDα controllers have better
overshoot values than PID and FOPID controllers. The proposed PIDDα performs best
with only 4.838% overshoot, while PID and FOPID controllers have 6.2148% and 5.5126%,
respectively. The proposed PIDDα also has the best rise time of 2.6272 s compared to PID,
PIDD2 , and FOPID controllers, with rise times of 2.8287 s, 2.8486 s, and 2.8792 s, respectively.
Moreover, the proposed PIDDα outperforms its competitors in settling time with a value of
8.9543 s compared to PID, PIDD2 , and FOPID with values of 9.2664 s, 9.0571 s, and 8.96 s,
respectively.
In the set-point tracking, the initial set-point starts at one at zero seconds and changes
to 2, 3, and 1.5 at 15 s, 30 s, and 45 s, respectively. These changes cover both positive and
negative changes in the controller. All set-point changes reach their steady-state values,
as shown in Table 6. Figure 24 illustrates that each controller structure can achieve each
set-point change following the step response. For disturbance rejection, a disturbance with
a magnitude of −0.6 is introduced into the controller structure at 15 s to simulate real-world
plant behaviour. Figure 25 shows that each controller structure can reject the disturbance
and control the output to reach the set-point following the step response. The proposed
PIDDα controller achieves the best overall performance compared to its competitors.

4.2. Real-Time Flow Process Plant

The schematics of the real-time flow process plant are displayed in Figure 26. The
process tank, VE 420, can hold up to 100 L of liquid from the product tank, VE 410, thanks
to the assistance of a centrifugal pump P412. The tank’s level can be adjusted using the
hand valve, HV 420, while the process control valve, FCV 413, maintains a constant flow
rate at the desired level. The pressure transmitter FT 413 measures the flow rate, converted
into digital voltage values ranging from 0 to 5 volts. These values are then sent to the
FIC 413 via a pressure-indicating controller, which sends the control signal to the host PC
through I/O interface boards.

Input feed from

Product Tank
VE410

Flow Control
Valve
FCV413

Process Tank
VE420

Output feed to
Product Tank Flow Transmitter
VE410 FT413

I/O Interface
Product Tank Board
VE410

Figure 26. Schematic of real-time flow process plant.

Figure 27 illustrates the real-time flow process P&ID. The facility operates similarly to
the previous pressure process plant, running in “Remote Desktop Connection” mode with
PCI cards connecting the field instruments and the remote workstation.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 27 of 32

FCV 420
0-5V FIC 0-5V Host PC
PCI-1720U
202
PCI Bus
FT 0-5V PCI-1713U
VL 420 202
R/L PCI-1751

Host PC Panel
TCP/IP (Ethernet)

Access through
Remote Desktop Connection

VL 410 Workstation at
control room

HV 420

Figure 27. P&ID of the flow process plant.

The transfer function of the pressure process plant can be derived from the open-loop
response of the plant in Figure 28.

Figure 28. Open-loop response of flow process plant before and after Pade approximation.

Thus, the computed transfer function is given as

0.072
G (s) = e−3s (15)
0.126s + 1
Four controllers control the plant, and these controllers have similar parameters,
transient response characteristics, and step response as previous systems. The controller
parameters and transient response characteristics for the real-time flow process plant are
given in Table 7.

Table 7. Controller parameters and transient response characteristics for real-time flow process plant.

Controller Kp Ki Kd1 Kd2 µ β α M p (%) tr ( s ) ts ( s )

PID 1 1 0.1 - - - - 0 25.8559 46.788
PIDD2 1 1 0.1 −0.01 - - - 0 25.8284 46.2981
FOPID 1 1 0.1 - 0.99 0.1 - 0 27.2797 50.6053
PIDDα 1 1 0.1 −0.01 - - 2.05 0 25.7819 46.0495
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 28 of 32

In Figure 29, the simulation results for set-point tracking performance indicate that
all controllers have achieved 0% overshoot. However, regarding rise time, the proposed
PIDDα controller outperforms the PID and PIDD2 controllers with a time of 25.7819 s
compared to 25.8559 s and 25.8284 s, respectively. The FOPID controller has the worst rise
time at 27.2797 s. The same trend can be seen in settling time, where the PIDDα controller
performs better than its competitors with a time of 46.0495 s compared to the PID, PIDD2,
and FOPID controllers with times of 46.788 s, 46.2981 s, and 50.6053 s, respectively.

0.8
Amplitude

0.6

0.4
Setpoint
PID
2
0.2 PIDD
FOPID
PIDD

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time(s)

Figure 29. Step response of controller structure for flow process plant.

The process of variable set-point tracking involves changes to 2, 3, and 1.5 at 100 s,
200 s, and 300 s, respectively, from the initial value of 1 at zero seconds. These changes
cover both positive and negative changes in the controller. The intervals between these
changes ensure that the step responses reach their respective steady-state values, as noted
in Table 7. Figure 30 shows that each controller structure can control the output to reach
every set-point change following the step response.

3.5
Setpoint
3 PID
PIDD2
FOPID
2.5 PIDD

2
Amplitude

1.5

0.5

-0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Time (s)

Figure 30. Variable set-point tracking of controller structure for flow process plant.

A disturbance magnitude of −1.2 is introduced to the controller structure at 100 s for

disturbance rejection to simulate real-world plant behaviour when external disturbances
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 29 of 32

affect the overall process plant. Figure 31 demonstrates that each controller structure can
control the output to achieve the set-point and reject the disturbance, as shown in the step
response. The PIDDα controller proposed in this study exhibits the best overall performance
compared to its competitors.

1.2

0.8
Amplitude

0.6

0.4

0.2 Setpoint
PID
PIDD2
0 FOPID
PIDD

-0.2
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (s)

Figure 31. Disturbance rejection of controller structure for flow process plant.

5. Conclusions
This research proposes a new controller structure for PIDDα , which includes the
second derivative term from PIDD2 and utilizes fractional order parameters exclusively for
the second derivative term. The controller has shown robust performance while tested in
both simulation and experiment compared to PID, PIDD2 , and FOPID controllers regarding
transient response characteristics. The controllers’ robust performance is also tested for
fixed and variable set points and in the presence of external disturbances. In all the cases, the
controller gain’s parameters were chosen based on literature reviews, while the fractional
order parameters were determined through trial and error. The proposed controllers have
been evaluated for various systems, and the results indicate their superior performance
in overshoot and settling time. The proposed controllers show better performance for the
first-order system, with an overshoot of 9.6332% and a settling time of 14.2615 s. Similarly,
the proposed and FOPID controllers exhibit the least overshoot for the second-order system
of 0.0864% and 0%, respectively. The magnetic levitation system performs better with the
proposed controller, which has the least overshoot and rise time of 12.8299% and 0.0075 s,
respectively. In the case of the automatic voltage regulator system, the proposed controller
also outperforms the others with the least overshoot and rise time of 0.1923% and 0.0232 s,
respectively. The proposed controller for the pressure process plant has the least overshoot,
rise time, and settling time of 4.838%, 2.6272 s, and 8.9543 s, respectively. On the other hand,
all controllers for the flow process plant have 0% overshoot, but the proposed controller
has the least rise time and settling time of 25.7819 s and 46.0495 s, respectively. For all the
six considered process plants, the proposed controller achieved better dynamic responses,
shorter settling times, faster rise times, and reduced overshoot. This research also highlights
that selecting fractional-order parameters using trial and error is inadequate. Thus, future
recommendations include utilizing the tuning algorithms covered in the literature review
to enhance the controller’s performance and implementing the proposed controller for
other control loop operations, such as feedforward and cascade control loops.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 30 of 32

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.B. and R.I.; methodology, M.A.F. and R.I.; software,
M.A.F.; validation, M.A.F., K.B. and P.A.M.D.; formal analysis, M.A.F. and P.A.M.D.; investigation,
M.A.F. and P.A.M.D.; resources, K.B. and B.R.P.; data curation, M.A.F. and P.A.M.D.; writing—original
draft preparation, M.A.F. and P.A.M.D.; writing—review and editing, K.B. and B.R.P.; visualization,
K.B. and B.R.P.; supervision, K.B. and R.I.; project administration, K.B.; funding acquisition, K.B.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Short-Term Internal Research Funding (STIRF) with grant
number 015LA0-048.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

ABC Artificial Bee Colony

AEF Artificial Electric Field
ASO Atom Search Optimization
AVR Automatic Voltage Regulator
DOF Degree of Freedom
FLC Fuzzy Logic Control
FOPID Fractional-order Proportional Integral Derivative
FPID Fuzzy PID
FPIDD Fuzzy Proportional-Integral-Derivative-Double Derivative
GA Genetic Algorithm
GBO Gradient-Based Optimization
IAE Integral Absolute Error
IMC Internal Model Control
ISAE Integral Square Absolute Error
ISE Integral Square Error
ITAE Integral Time Absolute Error
ITSE Integral Time Square Error
MAPE Mean Absolute Percentage Error
MICE Marine Internal Combustion Engines
P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
PCI Peripheral Interface Cards
PCV Process Control Valve
PI Proportional Integral
PID Proportional Integral Derivative
PIDA Proportional-Integral-Derivative-Acceleration
PIDD2 PID with Derivative Filter
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
PT Pressure Transmitter
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
SCA Sine Cosine Algorithm
WDO Wind-Driven Optimization

References
1. Veinović, S.; Stojić, D.; Ivanović, L. Optimized PIDD2 controller for AVR systems regarding robustness. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy
Syst. 2023, 145, 108646. [CrossRef]
2. Jahanshahi, H.; Sari, N.N.; Pham, V.T.; Alsaadi, F.E.; Hayat, T. Optimal adaptive higher order controllers subject to sliding modes
for a carrier system. Int. J. Adv. Robot. Syst. 2018, 15, 1729881418782097. [CrossRef]
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 31 of 32

3. Chatterjee, S.; Mukherjee, V. Comparative performance analysis of classical controllers for automatic voltage regulator. In
Proceedings of the 2017 7th International Conference on Power Systems (ICPS), Pune, India, 21–23 December 2017; pp. 296–301.
4. Simanenkov, A.; Rozhkov, S.; Borisova, V. An algorithm of optimal settings for PIDD 2 D 3-controllers in ship power plant. In
Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 37th International Conference on Electronics and Nanotechnology (ELNANO), Kyiv, Ukraine, 18–20
April 2017; pp. 152–155.
5. Devan, P.A.M.; Ibrahim, R.; Omar, M.B.; Bingi, K.; Abdulrab, H.; Hussin, F.A. Improved Whale Optimization Algorithm for
Optimal Network Coverage in Industrial Wireless Sensor Networks. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on
Future Trends in Smart Communities (ICFTSC), Kuching, Malaysia, 1–2 December 2022; pp. 124–129.
6. AboRas, K.M.; Ragab, M.; Shouran, M.; Alghamdi, S.; Kotb, H. Voltage and frequency regulation in smart grids via a unique
Fuzzy PIDD2 controller optimized by Gradient-Based Optimization algorithm. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 1201–1235. [CrossRef]
7. Izci, D.; Ekinci, S.; Çetin, H. Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm based Controller Design for Automatic Voltage Regulator
System. In Proceedings of the 2022 Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications Conference (ASYU), Antalya, Turkey,
7–9 September 2022; pp. 1–5.
8. Devan, P.A.M.; Ibrahim, R.; Omar, M.; Bingi, K.; Abdulrab, H. A Novel Hybrid Harris Hawk-Arithmetic Optimization Algorithm
for Industrial Wireless Mesh Networks. Sensors 2023, 23, 6224. [CrossRef]
9. Izci, D.; Ekinci, S. An improved RUN optimizer based real PID plus second-order derivative controller design as a novel method
to enhance transient response and robustness of an automatic voltage regulator. e-Prime-Adv. Electr. Eng. Electron. Energy 2022,
2, 100071. [CrossRef]
10. Emiroglu, S.; Gümüş, T.E. Optimal Control of Automatic Voltage Regulator System with Coronavirus Herd Immunity Optimizer
Algorithm-Based PID plus Second Order Derivative Controller. Acad. Platf. J. Eng. Smart Syst. 2022, 10, 174–183. [CrossRef]
11. Omar, M.B.; Bingi, K.; Prusty, B.R.; Ibrahim, R. Recent advances and applications of spiral dynamics optimization algorithm:
A review. Fractal Fract. 2022, 6, 27. [CrossRef]
12. Agwa, A.; Elsayed, S.; Ahmed, M. Design of Optimal Controllers for Automatic Voltage Regulation Using Archimedes Optimizer.
Intell. Autom. Soft Comput. 2022, 31, 799–815. [CrossRef]
13. Micev, M.; Ćalasan, M.; Radulović, M. Optimal design of real PID plus second-order derivative controller for AVR system. In
Proceedings of the 2021 25th International Conference on Information Technology (IT), Zabljak, Montenegro, 16–20 February
2021; pp. 1–4.
14. Ćalasan, M.; Micev, M.; Radulović, M.; Zobaa, A.F.; Hasanien, H.M.; Abdel Aleem, S.H. Optimal PID controllers for avr system
considering excitation voltage limitations using hybrid equilibrium optimizer. Machines 2021, 9, 265. [CrossRef]
15. Micev, M.; Ćalasan, M.; Ali, Z.M.; Hasanien, H.M.; Aleem, S.H.A. Optimal design of automatic voltage regulation controller
using hybrid simulated annealing–Manta ray foraging optimization algorithm. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 641–657. [CrossRef]
16. Chatterjee, S.; Dalel, M.A.; Palavalasa, M. Design of PID plus second order derivative controller for automatic voltage regulator
using whale optimizatio algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Recent Developments in Control,
Automation & Power Engineering (RDCAPE), Noida, India, 10–11 October 2019; pp. 574–579.
17. 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]
18. Moschos, I.; Parisses, C. A novel optimal PIλDND2N2 controller using coyote optimization algorithm for an AVR system. Eng.
Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2022, 26, 100991. [CrossRef]
19. Tabak, A. A novel fractional order PID plus derivative (PIλDµDµ2) controller for AVR system using equilibrium optimizer.
COMPEL Int. J. Comput. Math. Electr. Electron. Eng. 2021, 40, 722–743. [CrossRef]
20. Hossam-Eldin, A.A.; Negm, E.; Ragab, M.; AboRas, K.M. A maiden robust FPIDD2 regulator for frequency-voltage enhancement
in a hybrid interconnected power system using Gradient-Based Optimizer. Alexandria Eng. J. 2023, 65, 103–118. [CrossRef]
21. Priyadarshani, S.; Satapathy, J. Novel Application of Gradient-Based Optimizer for tuning a Fuzzy-PIDD 2 controller for Load
Frequency Stabilization. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication
Technologies (CONECCT), Bangalore, India, 8–10 July 2022; pp. 1–6.
22. Khudhair, M.; Ragab, M.; AboRas, K.M.; Abbasy, N.H. Robust control of frequency variations for a multi-area power system in
smart grid using a newly wild horse optimized combination of PIDD2 and PD controllers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8223. [CrossRef]
23. Kumar, M.; Hote, Y.V. Robust PIDD2 controller design for perturbed load frequency control of an interconnected time-delayed
power systems. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2020, 29, 2662–2669. [CrossRef]
24. Shankar, R. Sine-Cosine algorithm based PIDD 2 controller design for AGC of a multisource power system incorporating GTPP in
DG unit. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Computational and Characterization Techniques in Engineering
& Sciences (CCTES), Lucknow, India, 14–15 September 2018; pp. 197–201.
25. Debbarma, S.; Nath, A.; Sarma, U.; Saikia, L.C. Cuckoo search algorithm based two degree of freedom controller for multi-area
thermal system. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Energy, Power and Environment: Towards Sustainable
Growth (ICEPE), Shillong, India, 12–13 June 2015; pp. 1–6.
26. Lazarević, M.P.; Mandić, P.D.; Cvetković, B.; Bučanović, L.; Dragović, M. Advanced open-closed-loop PIDD 2/PID type ILC
control of a robot arm. In Proceedings of the 2018 Innovations in Intelligent Systems and Applications (INISTA), Thessaloniki,
Greece, 3–5 July 2018; pp. 1–8.
Algorithms 2023, 16, 437 32 of 32

27. Todd, C.; Koujan, H.; Fasciani, S. A Hybrid Controller for Inflight Stability and Maneuverability of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
in Indoor Terrains. Autom. Control Syst. Eng. J. 2017, 17, 27–39.
28. Izci, D.; Ekinci, S.; Eker, E.; Dündar, A. Assessment of slime mould algorithm based real PID plus second-order derivative
controller for magnetic levitation system. In Proceedings of the 2021 5th International Symposium on Multidisciplinary Studies
and Innovative Technologies (ISMSIT), Ankara, Turkey, 21–23 October 2021; pp. 6–10.
29. Simanenkov, A. An analysis of PIDD2 controllers optimal adjusting algorithm in mpp fuel preparation system. EUREKA Phys.
Eng. 2017, 3–12. [CrossRef]
30. Qiankun, M.; Xuyong, W.; Fan, Y.; Jianfeng, T.; Peng, L. Research on feed-forward PIDD2 control for hydraulic continuous rotation
motor electro-hydraulic servo system with long pipeline. In Proceedings of the 2016 UKACC 11th International Conference on
Control (CONTROL), Belfast, UK, 31 August–2 September 2016; pp. 1–6.
31. Zhou, K.; Wang, X.; Tao, J.; Guo, X.; Xu, C. Research on a novel PID based controller for nonmagnetic hydraulic navigation
simulator with AMESim simulation. In Proceedings of the 2012 UKACC International Conference on Control, Cardiff, UK, 3–5
September 2012; pp. 496–501.
32. Pashchenko, F.; Pikina, G.; Rodomanova, Y. Universal searchless method for parametric optimization of predictive algorithms.
In Proceedings of the 2017 13th IEEE International Conference on Control & Automation (ICCA), Ohrid, North Macedonia, 3–6
July 2017; pp. 952–957.
33. Izvoreanu, B.; Cojuhari, I. The Tuning of the PID and PIDD2 Algorithms to the Model Objects with Inertia and Identical Elements
and Time Delay. 2013. Available online: http://repository.utm.md/handle/5014/17375 (accessed on 15 July 2023).
34. Alexík, M. Adaptive Self-Tuning PIDD2 Algorithm. IFAC Proc. Vol. 2003, 36, 83–88. [CrossRef]
35. Huba, M. Extending spectrum of filtered controllers for ipdt plant models. In Proceedings of the 2018 Cybernetics & Informatics
(K&I), Lazy pod Makytou, Slovakia, 31 January–3 February 2018; pp. 1–6.
36. Jaradat, M.A.; Sawaqed, L.S.; Alzgool, M.M. Optimization of PIDD2-FLC for blood glucose level using particle swarm optimization
with linearly decreasing weight. Biomed. Signal Process. Control 2020, 59, 101922. [CrossRef]
37. Kumar, M.; Hote, Y.V. PIDD2 Controller Design Based on Internal Model Control Approach for a Non-Ideal DC-DC Boost
Converter. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Texas Power and Energy Conference (TPEC), College Station, TX, USA, 2–5 February
2021; pp. 1–6.
38. Bingi, K.; Ibrahim, R.; Karsiti, M.N.; Hassan, S.M.; Harindran, V.R. Fractional-Order Systems and PID Controllers; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; Volume 264.
39. Mystkowski, A.; Zolotas, A. PLC-based discrete fractional-order control design for an industrial-oriented water tank volume
system with input delay. Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 2018, 21, 1005–1026. [CrossRef]
40. Lendek, A.; Tan, L. Mitigation of derivative kick using time-varying fractional-order PID control. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 55974–55987.
[CrossRef]
41. Ghamari, S.M.; Narm, H.G.; Mollaee, H. Fractional-order fuzzy PID controller design on buck converter with antlion optimization
algorithm. IET Control Theory Appl. 2022, 16, 340–352. [CrossRef]
42. Bingi, K.; Ibrahim, R.; Karsiti, M.N.; Hassan, S.M. Fractional order set-point weighted PID controller for pH neutralization process
using accelerated PSO algorithm. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2018, 43, 2687–2701. [CrossRef]
43. Bingi, K.; Ibrahim, R.; Karsiti, M.N.; Hassam, S.M.; Harindran, V.R. Frequency response based curve fitting approximation of
fractional-order PID controllers. Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 2019, 29, 311–326. [CrossRef]
44. Faieghi, M.R.; Nemati, A. On fractional-order PID design. In Applications of MATLAB in Science and Engineering; IntechOpen:
London, UK, 2011.
45. Shanmugam, S.K.; Duraisamy, Y.; Ramachandran, M.; Arumugam, S. Mathematical modeling of first order process with dead
time using various tuning methods for industrial applications. Math. Model. Eng. 2019, 5, 1–10. [CrossRef]
46. Bingi, K.; Rajanarayan Prusty, B.; Pal Singh, A. A Review on Fractional-Order Modelling and Control of Robotic Manipulators.
Fractal Fract. 2023, 7, 77. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.