Original Article

Proc IMechE Part I:

J Systems and Control Engineering
1–15
Design of an integer order Ó IMechE 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
proportional–integral/proportional– sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0959651818792363

integral–derivative controller based on journals.sagepub.com/home/pii

model parameters of a certain class of

fractional order systems

Erhan Yumuk, Müjde Güzelkaya _

and Ibrahim Eksin

Abstract
In this study, we deal with systems that can be represented by single fractional order pole models and propose an integer
order proportional–integral/proportional–integral–derivative controller design methodology for this class. The basic
principle or backbone of the design methodology of the proposed controller relies on using the inverse of the fractional
model and then approximating this fractional controller transfer function by a low integer order model using Oustaloup
filter. The emerging integer order controller reveals itself either in pre-filtered proportional–integral or proportional–
integral–derivative form by emphasizing on the dominancy concept of pole-zero configuration. Parameters of the pro-
posed controllers depend on the parameters of the single fractional order pole model and the only free design para-
meter left is the overall controller gain. This free design parameter is determined via some approximating functions
relying on an optimization procedure. Simulation results show that the proposed controller exhibits either satisfactory
or better results with respect to some performance indices and time domain criteria when they are compared to classi-
cal integer order proportional–integral–derivative and fractional order proportional–integral–derivative controllers.
Moreover, the proposed controller is applied to real-time liquid level control system. The application results show that
the proposed controller outperforms the other controllers.

Keywords
Fractional order model, fractional order proportional–integral–derivative, pre-filtered integer order proportional–inte-
gral/proportional–integral controller, inverse control, liquid level control system

Date received: 30 November 2017; accepted: 3 July 2018

Introduction d’Ordre Non Entier) method in the control of dynamic

Fractional calculus is an ongoing subject since the 17th
century and is accepted to emerge with the correspon-
dence between Leibniz and L’Hospital in 1695.1
Nevertheless, the first application of the fractional cal-
culus was made by Abel2 in 1823 for the solution of the
integral equation for tautochrone problem. Later, in
the 19th century, Heaveside2 showed that fractional
calculus can solve certain problems in electromagnetic
theory.
The application of fractional calculus to control
areas is a more current issue. Manabe3 considered non-
integer integral system as open loop transfer function
and dealt with its closed loop time-domain and
frequency domain characteristics in 1961. Later,
Oustaloup4,5 proposed CRONE (Commande Robuste
systems. This is a frequency-domain-based methodol-
ogy that uses fractional differentiation and outperforms
its counterparts, namely, classical integer order propor-
tional–integral–derivative (PID) controller perfor-
mances. Integer order PID controllers are generalized
to fractional order PID controllers by Podlubny6,7 in
1999. Podlubny demonstrated that fractional order
PID performs better than integer order PID controllers
Department of Control and Automation Engineering, Istanbul Technical
University, Istanbul, Turkey
Corresponding author:
Müjde Güzelkaya, Department of Control and Automation Engineering,
Istanbul Technical University, Maslak, 34469 Istanbul, Turkey.
Email: guzelkaya@itu.edu.tr
2 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 00(0)
for fractional order dynamic control systems. The frac-
tional calculus is used for modeling and control of sev-
eral systems. Modeling and/or control of heat flow
platform,8,9 hexapod robot,10 liquid level system,11
servo-system,11–13 twin rotor helicopter,14 power elec-
tronic buck converters15 and so on are investigated in
various studies.
In control area, fractional calculus provides three
different combinations in terms of the controller and
system types: fractional order control for integer order
system,9,16–19 fractional order control for fractional
order system8,20–22 and integer order control for frac-
tional order system.23,24 In this respect, fractional cal-
culus is an excellent tool to describe a control system
compared to intr order calculus.
There are various controller design strategies for
fractional order controllers in the literature. These
mostly rely on and end up with integer order control
structures. Some of related studies in this respect can be
stated as fractional order composite model reference
adaptive control,25,26 fractional order sliding mode con-
trol27,28 and fuzzy fractional order sliding mode con-
troller.29 The most widely used fractional controllers
are fractional order PID controllers. The tuning meth-
ods for fractional order PID controller can be divided
into three categories: analytical methods,8,20,21 numeri-
cal methods18,19,22 and rule-based methods.16,17 Finally,
recent developments for design and implementation of
fractional PID can be found in the survey.30
The stability analysis in fractional calculus is an
important issue as it is in integer calculus. A stability
analysis for integer order system is generalized to frac-
tional commensurate and incommensurate order sys-
tem using state space representation.31,32 There are also
some studies invoking the effect of dead time into frac-
tional order system stability. In that respect, numerical,
analytical and graphical stability tests are derived and
given in Hwangi and Cheng,33 Merrikh-Bayat and
Karimi-Ghartemani,34 Shi and Wang,35 Yu and
Wang,36 Kheirizad et al.37 and Hamamci.38
Fractional order controllers are mostly designed in
frequency domain since the frequency response of a
fractional expression can exactly be obtained.
Moreover, the translation or transformation of fre-
quency domain characteristics to time domain is not a
unique and easy task for fractional order representa-
tion. Time domain design can only be achieved in an
approximate manner after some integer order approxi-
mations for fractional order expressions. In addition,
when a fractional order controller is somehow obtained
via any domain criteria, the implementation of this
controller is another challenge for the designer. The
reason is that we still do not have a direct physical rep-
resentation of fractional order operator. The best way
of implementing fractional order controllers can be
achieved through high integer order transfer functions
keeping in mind that this is still an approximation. In
this respect, proposing an integer low order controller
which preserves the dominant dynamic characteristics
of these high order approximations will be advanta-
geous in design and implementation. An integer order
PID controller and reduced integer order inverse con-
troller design for a fractional order system are pre-
sented in Yumuk et al.,23,24 respectively.
In this study, we propose integer order pre-filtered
PI/PID controllers for a certain class of fractional order
systems which is composed of a single fractional order
pole. The single fractional order pole models (SFPM)
are generalized form of the first integer order models.
In the design method, first the inverse of the fractional
model is taken into consideration for the proposed con-
trollers. The inverse fractional order controller is then
represented by the second order Oustaloup filter
approximation. The integer order PI/PID controllers
with an integer first order filter is finally obtained by
emphasizing the dominant pole-zero concept. It is a
well-known fact that integer PID type controllers are
still widely used in industrial implementations. Since
the evolving controller is in an integer PI/PID control-
ler form, it can easily be used in real-time applications.
The parameters of the proposed controllers depend on
the parameters of the single fractional order pole model
and the only free design parameter left is the overall
controller gain. This free design parameter is deter-
mined via some approximating functions based on an
optimization procedure. Simulations are done to com-
pare the performances of proposed controllers with
classical integer order PID and fractional order PID
controllers. The results exhibit that the proposed con-
troller provides either a comparable or satisfactory per-
formance with respect to some performance indices and
time domain criteria. Moreover, the proposed control-
ler, classical integer order PID and fractional order
PID controllers are all applied to a liquid level control
system in real time. The application results show that
the proposed controller outperforms the others.
The article is organized as follows. In section
‘‘Fractional calculus,’’ a brief introduction to fractional
calculus is provided. In section ‘‘Integer order pre-
filtered PI/PID controller design,’’ the single fractional
order pole model is introduced and an integer order
pre-filtered PI/PID controller design method is pro-
posed for two different regions specified according to
the fractional order of this model. Simulation studies
are presented in section ‘‘Simulation results’’ to show
the effectiveness of the proposed method and compare
its results with those of classical integer order PID and
fractional order PID controllers. Section ‘‘Experimental
results’’ presents the application of the proposed
method on double-tank liquid level control system. The
tank system is modeled by both the first order dead
time and the single fractional order pole model. Various
Yumuk et al. 3

comparative studies are done and the results are pre- Thus, a continuous fractional order transfer function
sented over the emerged controllers. Finally, conclusion G(s) can be represented as follows
and discussions are given in section ‘‘Conclusion.’’
Y(s) bm sam + bm1 sam1 +    + b0 sa0
G(s) = =
U(s) am sbm + am1 sbm1 +    + a0 sb0
Fractional calculus ð7Þ
There are many definitions of fractional derivative or where ak (k = 0, 1, 2, . . . , m) and bk (k = 0, 1, 2, . . . , n)
integral in the literature. The commonly used three of are real numbers, bk \ bk1 \    \ b0 ak \ ak1
these definitions are proposed by Grunwald–Letnikov, \    \ a0 and ak (k = 0, 1, 2, . . . , m) and bk(k=0,
Riemann–Liouville and Caputo definitions.39 1, 2, . . . , n) are constant coefficients. The continuous
30
Grunwald–Letnikov definition for numerical evalua- fractional order transfer function in equation (7) is
tions is described as follows called a commensurate transfer function when all ak
and bk orders are integer multiples of the least common
½trh
X   divisor (a 2 R+ ). The commensurable transfer func-
1 n
a
r Dt g(t)= lim a ( 1)j g(t  jh), tion can be written as follows
h!0 h
j=0 j ð1Þ
P
m
n  1\a\n bk ska
Y(s) k=0
G(s) = = n ð8Þ
where r and t are limits of the operator, h is time incre- U(s) P
ak ska
ment, a is a real number, ((t  r)=h) denotes  integer k=0
n It is said that the transfer function given in equation
part of the upper limit of summation and bino-
j
(8) is Bounded Input-Bounded Output (BIBO) stable
mial coefficient is given by if and only if 0 \ a \ 2 and j arg (sak )j . a(p=2)
  (k = 1, P. . . , n) where sk are the roots of the polynomial
n G(n + 1)
= ð2Þ P(s) = nk = 0 ak ska which is the denominator of the
j G(j + 1)G(n  j + 1)
commensurate fractional order transfer function in
where gamma function G(n) is equation (8).
In real-time applications, the implementation of
Б
tn1 et dt n 2 R fractional order differentiation is a challenging prob-
G(n) = 0 ð3Þ lem. For this purpose, there are various integer order
(n  1)! n2N
approximations in the literature. These approximations
Riemann–Liouville definition, which is appropriate are generally divided into two categories: continuous-
to find analytical solution of simple functions like et , tb , time implementations (Oustaloup filter approximation,
and so on40 is described as follows continued fraction approximation, etc.) and discrete-
time implementations (finite impulse response (FIR) fil-
ðt ter approximation, approximation using step or
a 1 dn g(t)
r Dt g(t) = dt, impulse response invariants).2,39 One of the most
G(n  a) dtn (t  t)an + 1 ð4Þ
r widely used approximation is Oustaloup filter approxi-
n  1\a\n mation,2,11,41–43 and it is defined as follows
YN
s + vk0
where r and t are limits of the operator, and a is a real sa ’ O(sa ) = K0 ð9Þ
number. Caputo fractional derivative which provides k=1
s + vk
the use of initial conditions y(0), y0 (0) instead of frac-
where a 2 (0, 1) is the order of derivative, N is the order
tional initial conditions y0:5 (0), y1:2 (0) and so on, unlike
of filter, the poles (vk ), zeros (vk0 ) and the gain (K0 ) are
Riemann–Liouville definition, is given as follows
as follows
ðt n  2k1a
a 1 d g(t) vh 2N
r Dt g(t) = dt, vk0 = vl
G(n  a) dtn (t  t)an + 1 ð5Þ vl
r
 2k12N+ a ð10Þ
n  1\a\n vh
vk = vl
vl
where r and t are limits of the operator, and a is a real K0 = vah
number. Using these fractional derivative definitions,
the Laplace transformation of the fractional derivative where vl and vh are the lower and upper frequency bound
which have zero initial conditions, can be defined as values. The Oustaloup filter approximation completely
follows represents the fractional order differentiation when N is
equal to infinity. In the literature, N is usually taken as 11
L fr Dat g(t)g = sa G(s) ð6Þ in order to have satisfactory approximation. When the
4 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 00(0)

Pre-filtered PID controller design for a 2 (0, 1

Using the second order Oustaloup filter approximation
to implement fractional order differentiation yields the
second integer order approximate transfer function of
equation (12), which is obtained in parametric form as
follows
Figure 1. Classical unity feedback block diagram.
3 3 3 a
s2 m4 (1 + r) + svh m4 nð1 + rÞ + vl vh m4 + 2 (1 + r)
C(s) = Kc 3 a 3 a
sðs2 m + svh m n + vl vh m
4 4 4+ 2 Þ
frequency responses of fractional derivative and integral (s  z1 )(s  z2 )
= Kc
are compared with those of Oustaloup filter approxima- s(s  p1 )(s  p2 )
tion with N equal to 11, no ripple is observed between ð13Þ
selected frequencies (vl and vh ).42 pffiffiffiffi
where m = (vh =vl ), n = 1 + m, r = K0 T.
The zeros (z1 , z2 ) and poles (p1 , p2 ) are calculated via
Integer order pre-filtered PI/PID following the formulas
controller design qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Here, single fractional order pole modeled systems are bp, (z) + b2p, (z)  4ap, (z) cp, (z)
taken into consideration which are represented as p1 (z1 ) =
2ap, (z)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi ð14Þ
follows bp, (z)  b2p, (z)  4ap, (z) cp, (z)
p2 (z2 ) = 2ap, (z)
K
G(s) = ð11Þ
Tsa +1
where
where K, a 2 (0, 2 and T are the system gain, fractional
order and time constant, respectively. 3
az = m4 ð1 + K0 TpÞffiffiffiffi
The basic spirit and philosophy of the controller a
bz = vh m 4 ð1 + mÞð1 + K0 TÞ ð15Þ
design is to eliminate the system dynamics as much as 3 a
cz = vl vh m4 + 2 (1 + K0 T)
possible and thus to obtain overall forward transfer
3
function that approaches to unity. In that respect, the ap = m 4
a pffiffiffiffi
following inverse controller is one of the simplest and bp = v h m 4 ð 1 + m Þ ð16Þ
first choice that comes to the mind of designer 3
cp = vl vh m4 + 2
a

Tsa + 1
C(s) = Kc ð12Þ Here, subscripts p and z indicate the poles and zeros of
s the controller in equation (13).
The above controller possesses an integrator to elim- The controller C(s) given in equation (13) has real
inate the steady-state error to step inputs and a control- poles and the pole p2 is not dominant. In order to
ler gain represented by Kc . All the work in the study is express C(s) in pre-filtered PID form, the pole p2 is
done on the basic classical unity feedback control dia- neglected and this controller is named as IIS PID
gram given in Figure 1. In the figure, R(s), E(s), U(s) (Inverse Integer order Single fractional order pole model
and Y(s) represent reference, error, control and output PID). The final form of IIS PID controller is as follows
signals, respectively.  
In our study, we prefer the Oustaloup approximation Kc Ki
CIIS PID (s) = Kp + + Kd s
to fractional order differentiation. If high order approx- ts + 1 s
ð17Þ
imation is used, the integer order version of controller Kc (s  z1 )(s  z2 )
(12) will possess great number of zeros and poles. Even =
s(s  p1 )
if the number of poles and zeros of system model are
the same as the order of the controller gets higher, the where the parameters of the controller and filter time
control effort may dramatically increase. PID control- constant are given by
lers are the most preferred controller types due to their
simple structure, easy implementation, well-known z1 + z2 z1 z2 1 1
Kp = , Ki = , Kd = , t =
effects and characteristics of its each components. p1 p1 p1 p1
Therefore, the aim of this study is to find an integer ð18Þ
order PID controller where its parameters are based on
the model parameters of single fractional order pole The parameter (Kc ) in equation (17) is a design para-
system model (11). For this reason, the second order meter. An optimization-based procedure is given in sec-
Oustaloup approximation of the fractional order differ- tion ‘‘A formula generation procedure for the free
entiation is used. Two different cases emerge designated design parameter Kc ’’ for the selection of this
by a 2 (0, 1 and a 2 (1, 2 in this design methodology. parameter.
Yumuk et al. 5

Pre-filtered PI/PID controller design for a 2 (1, 2 controller, the dominant pole can again be found easily
Similarly, using the second order Oustaloup approxi- but the dominant zeros cannot be identified quite easily
mation in fractional order differentiation, the inverse as in the previous case. The dominancy of these zeros
controller in equation (12) is approximated in the fol- will depend on T, a, vl and vh . In order to make a
lowing parametric form dominance analysis based on two fractional system
model parameters; namely, T and a, we fix the other
     
s3 rv1 m
a1
2 + s2 m
a1
2 + rm
a4
4 n
3a2
+ svl r + m 4 n + vma1 two parameters that emerge from implementation of
C(s) = Kc h
 a1
 a

a1
s m 2 s2 + svl m 4 n + vm 2 fractional differentiation in the system model, namely,
= Kc (sz 1 )(sz2 )(sz3 )
s(sp1 )(sp2 )
vl and vh . We set vl and vh values to 103 and 103 rad/
s, respectively, as it is commonly used in the
ð19Þ
literature.42,46
pffiffiffiffi
where m = (vh =vl ), n = 1 + m, r = Tvah , v = vh vl When these frequencies bound values are placed, k2 ,
and p1 , p2 are the poles and z1 , z2 , z3 are the zeros of k1 and k0 in equation (23) are obtained as follows
C(s). The poles (p1 , p2 ) of controller in equation (19)
are found in parametric form using equation (14) where 3(1 + a) 103a
k2 = 1001:10 2 +
T
a pffiffiffiffi a1 3(1 + a)
ap = 1, bp = vl m4 1 + m , cp = vh vl m 2 1001:10 2
k1 = + 103a ð24Þ
ð20Þ T
1
In order to find the zeros (z1 , z2 , z3 ) of the controller k0 =
T
in equation (19) in parametric form, the third order
equation in the numerator should be solved. For this As it is mentioned above, all zeros of equation (19)
purpose, we refer to Holmes44 and Mitchell45 and find might be on left half s plane real axis. In this case, two
the following parametric closed form formulas dominant zeros can be considered in the design of the
  proposed PID controller with a pre-filter (IIS PID).
z1 = 2(  p)0:5 cos 13 arccos qp (  p)0:5  0 2p 3  k2 When two of the zeros are in complex conjugate form
  3 the dominancy will either occur on the real zero or on
z2 = 2(  p)0:5 cos 13 arccos qp (  p)0:5  1 2p 3  k2
  3 the complex conjugate ones. In this case, if the complex
z3 = 2(  p)0:5 cos 13 arccos qp (  p)0:5  4 2p 3  k32 conjugate zeros are dominant, still PID type of control-
ler will be obtained. Otherwise, if the real zero is domi-
ð21Þ nant, then the controller will be in pre-filtered PI form
where which we named as IIS PI (Inverse Integer order Single
fractional order pole model PI). The final form of
3k1  3k22 2k32  9k1 k2 + 27k0 IIS PID controller is as follows
p= , q= ð22Þ
9 54  
Kc Ki
and CIIS PID (s) = Kp + + Kd s
ts + 1 s
ffiffiffi ð25Þ
m
a1
2 + Tvah m
a4 p
4 ð1 + mÞ Kc (s  z10 )(s  z20 )
k2 = =
Tva1
a1
m 2 s(s  p1 )
 h
3a2 p ffiffiffi 
vl Tvah + m 4 ð1 + mÞ
k1 = a1
ð23Þ where the parameters of the controller and filter time
Tva1 m 2
h constant are given by
vh vl ma1
k0 = a1
Tva1 m 2
h z10 + z20 z10 z20 1 1
Kp = , Ki = , Kd = , t =
In the pre-filtered PID controller design for the case p1 p1 p1 p1
of a 2 (0, 1, the lower and upper frequency bound val- ð26Þ
ues (vl and vh , respectively) take place in equation (13)
directly. Moreover, the poles and zeros of equation and z10 and z20 are the dominant zeros of the controller
(13) are on the left half s plane real axis and the domi- in equation (19). The IIS PI will be in the form
nant ones can obviously be identified from equations  
Kc Ki Kc (s  z10 )
(14)–(16). While expressing IIS PID as in equation (17) CIIS PI = Kp + = ð27Þ
using equation (13), non-dominant pole is neglected ts + 1 s s(s  p1 )
and IIS PID parameters depend on vl and vh .
Here, z10 is the dominant zero and the parameters of
In the pre-filtered PI/PID controller design for the
the controller and filter time constant are given by
case of a 2 (1, 2, the poles and zeros of equation (19)
also depend on vl and vh . The poles and zeros of equa- 1 z1 0 1
tion (19) are on the left half s plane. While all poles take Kp = , Ki = , t = ð28Þ
p1 p1 p1
place on the real axis, the zeros might be in complex
conjugate form. Thus, in design of the proposed where p10 = p1 and z10 = z1 .
6 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 00(0)
Figure 2. PID and PI regions for different T and a values.
Figure 2 is an illustration of the evolved PI or PID
controllers from the proposed methodology for various
a and T values. Here, the system time constant T is
chosen to vary between 0 and 100. The evolved PID
controllers in the red and green regions are named as
IIS PIDr and IIS PIDg , respectively. The zeros (z10 , z20 )
of IIS PIDr controller given in equation (25) take z1
and z2 zero values provided in equation (21). In a simi-
lar fashion, the zeros (z10 , z20 ) of IIS PIDg controller in
equation (25) are z1 and z3 in equation (21). The PI
controllers in the yellow and purple regions are named
as IIS PIy and IIS PIp , respectively. In these cases, the
zero (z10 ) becomes z1 for IIS PIy controller and z2 for
IIS PIp controller where z1 and z2 are given in equation
(21).
In equations (25) and (27), Kc is the design para-
meter which is tried to be determined via a procedure
explained in the next section.
A formula generation procedure for the free design
parameter Kc
In this section, the controller design parameter repre-
sented by Kc is tried to be formulated in terms of T, a
Figure 3. Optimal K values (a) a 2 ½0, 1, T 2 ½0, 100 and (b) a 2 ½1, 2, T 2 ½0, 100.
and system gain K based on optimization algorithm.
The performance criteria is taken as follows
J = ISE + TV ð29Þ
where ISE (integral square error) and TV (total varia-
tion of control input) are defined as follows,
respectively
ð‘
ISE = (r(i)  y(i))2 ð30Þ
i=0
X
‘
TV = ju(i + 1)  u(i)j ð31Þ
i=1
where r, y and u are the reference, system output and
control signals, respectively. Then, J is optimized using
Big Bang Big Crunch optimization algorithm (BB-
BC)47 to determine an approximating function for Kc .
When BB-BC, which is a very effective global optimiza-
tion algorithm, is compared with its counterparts, it is
faster and needs fewer parameters to be assigned by the
designer. Because of these features, it is highly and
effectively used in various real-time applications even
with very small time constants.
This function defining Kc is generated in terms of
fractional system model time constant T and system
gain K for various a intervals in the ranges a 2 ½0, 2
and T 2 ½0, 100. Using BB-BC optimization algorithm,
the optimal Kc K values are obtained for discretized a
and T values. The increment for discretized a and T
values are selected as 0.1 and 5, respectively. The
related figures are presented in Figure 3(a) and (b) for
a 2 ½0, 1, T 2 ½0, 100 and a 2 ½1, 2, T 2 ½0, 100,
respectively. Kc approximating function is represented
in the following form
kn Tn +    + k3 T3 + k2 T2 + k1 T + k0
Kc = f(T, K) =
K
ð32Þ
Yumuk et al. 7

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 4. Optimized Kc K values and fitting approximating function curves (a) a 2 ½0, 0:15, (b) a 2 ½0:15, 0:75, (c) a 2 ½0:75, 1 and
(d) a 2 ½1, 2, T 2 ½0, 100.

Table 1. The coefficient of polynomial functions.

a k4 k3 k2 k1 k0

½0, 0:15 – – – 0.3454 4.445

½0:15, 0:75 20.000001567 0.0003895 20.03407 1.1570 1.750
½0:75, 1 – – 20.002708 0.6055 5.044

This function is generated by using fit command in
MATLAB based on optimum values found via the opti-
mization procedure.
Case A: a 2 ½0, 1
In this case, extensive analysis on the resulting data
forced us to generate more than one approximating
function. As a result, various Kc approximating func-
tions are generated for different a intervals given in
Table 1. In that way, we have obtained lesser root mean
square error (RMSE) compared to single approximat-
ing function.
Case B: a 2 ½1, 2
In this case, it is observed that only one approximat-
ing function is sufficient and it is obtained as follows
0:00004072T3  0:007273T2 + 0:6526T + 5:73
Kc = f(T) =
K
ð33Þ
Optimized Kc K values and the four fitting function
curves are shown in Figure 4.
The procedure of the integer order pre-filtered PI/
PID controller design method proposed can be given as
follows:
1. Inverse of the fractional order model is taken.
2. The steady-state error is eliminated via insertion of
an integrator in the loop.
8 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 00(0)

(a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) Step responses and (b) control signals for system (36) using C PID, IIS PID and FO PID controllers.

3. Oustaloup second order filter approximation is uti- pre-filtered PI/PID controller design.’’ The related
lized in driving integer order controller from frac- parameters of the classical integer order PID (C PID)
tional order type. and the classical fractional order PID (FO PID) are
4. A pre-filtered PID or PI controller form is found via the BB-BC optimization algorithm over the
obtained using domination rules. performance measure given in equation (29). Finally,
5. The design parameter is determined via approxi- the following controller transfer functions are obtained
mating functions given in Table 1 and equation as follows
(33).
2:207(s + 0:129415)(s + 18:1288)
CIIS PID (s) =
s(s + 0:177828)
Simulation results  
1 48:5912
CC PID (s) = 52:9608 + + 6:8845s
In this section, the proposed controller is compared 2:8664s + 1 s
with pre-filtered integer order classical PID and classi- 32:9836
CFO PID (s) = 2:6797 + 0:7732 + 0:0001s1:1673
cal fractional order PID on two different system mod- s
els, which is given as follows ð37Þ
  The unit step system responses and control inputs
1 Ki
CC PID (s) = Kp + + Kd s ð34Þ related to all controllers are given in Figure 5(a) and
ts + 1 s
(b). The measured performance values and resultant
Ki
CFO PID (s) = Kp + l + Kd sm ð35Þ three time domain criteria values are listed in Table 2.
s Mp , ts and tr in Table 2 indicate overshoot, settling time
The classical pre-filtered PID in equation (34) and and rise time, respectively.
fractional order PID in equation (35) possess four and It can be clearly seen that even though there is a
five design parameters, respectively. The fractional inte- small improvement in the listed time domain criteria
grator in CFO PID (s) is implemented as (O (s1l )=s) using for FO PID compared to IIS PID and C PID, the con-
Oustaloup approximation to eliminate steady-state error. trol signal is very aggressive and the magnitude of the
control signal is large compared to the cases of the
IIS PID and the C PID as it is illustrated in Figure
Simulation for a 2 (0, 1 5(b). Moreover, the IIS PID controller has the mini-
In this simulation, the following system in Luo et al.20 mum cost.
is considered as follows The robustness analysis is carried out for both
6%20 variation in Kc and T, and the results are given
1
G(s) = ð36Þ in Table 3. The robustness of the proposed controller is
0:4s0:5 +1 in a comparable level with respect to that of other
For fractional order differentiation, vl and vh are controllers.
taken as 103 and 103 rad/s, respectively. The simula- The Bode diagrams of the open loop transfer
tions are all run via FOMCON toolbox,42,46 in functions of the control systems attained by the con-
MATLAB. trollers IIS PID, C PID and FO PID are illustrated
The proposed PID controller is attained executing in Figure 6. The frequency domain criteria values
all steps of the procedure given in section ‘‘Integer order are depicted from the related Bode diagrams and
Yumuk et al. 9

Table 2. The performance of the controllers.

Controller Mp ts tr ISE TV J

IIS PID 1.02 0.405 0.114 0.0163 0.0376 0.0538

C PID 2.43 1.437 0.209 0.0281 0.0377 0.0658
FO PID 0 0.263 0.095 0.0108 0.0434 0.0542

ISE: integral square error; TV: total variation of control input; PID: proportional–integral–derivative; IIS_PID: inverse integer order single fractional
order pole model PID; C_PID: classical integer order PID; FO_PID: classical fractional order PID.

Table 3. The robustness of the controllers.

Controller ISE TV J ISE TV J

+ %20 variation in Kc 2%20 variation in Kc

ISS_PID 0.0132 0.0363 0.0494 0.0215 0.0409 0.0624
C_PID 0.0224 0.0361 0.0586 0.0368 0.0408 0.0775
FO_PID 0.0085 0.0439 0.0524 0.0145 0.0421 0.0566
+ %20 variation in T 2%20 variation in T
ISS_PID 0.0191 0.0386 0.0577 0.0139 0.0349 0.0488
C_PID 0.0320 0.0402 0.0721 0.0242 0.0346 0.0587
FO_PID 0.0126 0.0451 0.0577 0.0091 0.0414 0.0505

ISE: integral square error; TV: total variation of control input; IIS_PID: inverse integer order single fractional order pole model proportional–integral–
derivative; C_PID: classical integer order proportional–integral–derivative; FO_PID: classical fractional order proportional–integral–derivative.

Table 4. The frequency domain criteria values.

Controllers PM vPM (rad/s) L (s) Ms

ISS_PID 113° 24.2 0.0815 2.7828

C_PID 130° 19.1 0.1190 2.8353
FO_PID 121° 49.1 0.0431 3.3355

PM: phase margin; IIS_PID: inverse integer order single fractional order
pole model proportional–integral–derivative; C_PID: classical integer
order proportional–integral–derivative; FO_PID: classical fractional order
proportional–integral–derivative.

where S(jv), C(jv) and G(jv) are the sensitivity func-

Figure 6. The Bode diagrams of open loop transfer functions
of the control systems attained by the controllers IIS PID, C PID
and FO PID.
they are given in Table 4. In Table 4, PM, vPM , L
and Ms indicate phase margin, phase crossover fre-
quency, maximum value of the dead time to be
added to system and maximum sensitivity, respec-
tively. Maximum sensitivity is an important quantity
which shows the largest amplification of the distur-
bances and described as follows
1 This is a fractional order model proposed for an elec-
Ms = max jS(jv)j = max j j ð38Þ
v v 1 + C(jv)G(jv)
tion, the controller transfer function and system trans-
fer function, respectively.
All three control systems provide infinity gain mar-
gin. Even though L is the highest for C_PID, its time
domain performance is not preferable. The minimum
value of the maximum sensitivity function is obtained
for the proposed IIS_PID controller case. Therefore,
from this frequency domain analysis, we conclude that
IIS_PID controller is the most preferable one.
Simulation for a 2 (1, 2)
In the simulation, the following single fractional pole
model in Tavazoei48 is considered as follows
1
G(s) = ð39Þ
39:69s1:26 + 0:598
trical radiator. When this model is transformed to the
10 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 00(0)

(a) (b)

Figure 7. (a) Step responses and (b) control signals for system (39) using IIS PIDr , P PID and FO PID controllers.

Finally, the controller transfer functions are obtained

Table 5. The performance of the controllers.
as follows
Controller Mp ts tr ISE TV J
28:012(s2 + 0:0279s + 0:0011707)
CIIS PIDr (s) =
IIS PIDr 5.52 4.439 1.481 1.093 0.553 1.646 s(s + 0:0776247)
 
C PID 50.94 8.793 0.881 0.904 2.110 3.014 1 21:7994
FO PID 11.99 9.920 1.989 0.831 0.693 1.524 CC PID (s) = 59:0905 + + 8:3222s
0:4580s + 1 s
ISE: integral square error; TV: total variation of control input; IIS_PID:
1:190 0:1773
CFO PID (s) = 24:0237 + 0:4375 + 0:0679s
inverse integer order single fractional order pole model proportional– s
integral–derivative; C_PID: classical integer order proportional–integral– ð40Þ
derivative; FO_PID: classical fractional order proportional–integral–
derivative. The related unit step system responses and control
inputs are given in Figure 7(a) and (b), respectively.
The performance measure values and resultant three
form in equation (11), the following parameter values other time domain criteria values are listed in Table 5.
are obtained as follows The proposed controller is slight worse than
FO PID according to our main performance criteria J.
K = 1:672, T = 66:371, a = 1:26 Nevertheless, it is evident that Mp and ts for IIS PIDr
are less than C PID and FO PID controller outcomes.
For fractional order differentiation, vl and vh are Moreover, the TV value is the least for IIS PIDr
taken as 103 and 103 rad/s, respectively. The robustness analysis is carried out for both 6%20
For this system model, the IIS PIDr is obtained by variation in Kc and T and the results are given in Table
executing the steps of the same procedure. The related 6. The robustness of the proposed controller is in a com-
parameters of the classical integer order PID (C PID) parable level with respect to that of other controllers.
and the classical fractional order PID (FO PID) are The Bode diagrams of the open loop transfer func-
found via the BB-BC optimization algorithm over the tions of the control systems attained by the controllers
same performance measure given in equation (29). IIS_PID, C_PID and FO_PID are illustrated in

Table 6. The robustness of the controllers.

Controller ISE TV J ISE TV J

+ %20 variation in Kc 2%20 variation in Kc

ISS_PID 0.9349 0.5780 1.5129 1.3286 0.5703 1.8989
C_PID 0.8005 2.0180 2.8184 1.0567 2.2287 3.2853
FO_PID 0.7183 0.6949 1.4133 0.9937 0.6918 1.6855
+ %20 variation in T 2%20 variation in T
ISS_PID 1.2629 0.5720 1.8348 0.9218 0.5898 1.5116
C_PID 1.0319 2.2117 3.2435 0.7750 1.9919 2.7668
FO_PID 0.9542 0.6927 1.6469 0.7020 0.6933 1.3953

ISE: integral square error; TV: total variation of control input; IIS_PID: inverse integer order single fractional order pole model proportional–integral–
derivative; C_PID: classical integer order proportional–integral–derivative; FO_PID: classical fractional order proportional–integral–derivative.
Yumuk et al.
Figure 8. The Bode diagrams of open loop transfer functions
of the control systems attained by the controllers IIS PID, C PID
and FO PID.
Table 7. The frequency domain criteria values.
Controllers PM vc (rad/s) L (s)
ISS_PID 71.3° 0.761 1.63
C_PID 30.4° 1.240 0.43
FO_PID 65.9° 0.701 1.64
PM: phase margin; IIS_PID: inverse integer order single fractional order
pole model proportional–integral–derivative; C_PID: classical integer
order proportional–integral–derivative; FO_PID: classical fractional order
proportional–integral–derivative.
Figure 8. The frequency domain criteria values are
depicted from the related Bode diagrams and they are
given in Table 7. All control systems have infinity gain
margin, but FO_PID has the minimum value of the
maximum sensitivity and maximum dead time to be
added. Even though FO_PID seems to be the prefer-
able one with respect to frequency domain criteria, it
has five free parameters to be tuned. IIS_PID gives a
satisfactory frequency domain performance and it has
only one design parameter (controller gain) which is
determined via some approximating functions relying
on an optimization procedure.
Experimental results
The general view of the liquid level control system and
its components are given in Figure 9(a) and (b). In this
system, the water in reservoir tank is continuously
pumped to liquid inlet by means of a DC motor. The
liquid flow rate depends on the position of the propor-
tional valve. There are two tanks in the control system.
The liquid input is only let through the first tank and
liquid flow into other tank is provided by means of
three transition valves. The drainage of the water to the
11
Figure 9. Liquid level control system: (a) front view and (b)
back view.
1. Proportional valve; 2. level sensor; 3. tanks; 4. transition valves
between tanks; 5. drain valves; 6. reservoir tank; 7. start/stop buttons; 8.
tank level selector and transducer; 9. pressure/voltage (0–2 PSI/1–5 V)
transducer; 10. electropneumatic regulator (current/pressure (4–20 mA/
0.7–14 PSI) transducer); 11. electrical level data (to PLC); 12.
proportional valve position data (from PLC); 13. compressor; 14. input/
output unit of PLC; 15. pump; and 16. circuit breaker.
Ms
1.875
1.103 reservoir tank is provided through two drain valves on
1.000 the first tank. The diameter of both tanks is 10 cm, and
their height is 50 cm.
Electro-pneumatic elements are utilized to measure
the position of proportional valve and the level of
liquid. The compressed air required to operate electro-
pneumatic elements is provided by a compressor.
Electro-pneumatic regulator controls the position of
proportional valve by transforming current between 4
and 20 mA to air pressure between 0.7 and 14 psi.
The liquid level is measured by the pressure sensor
and the tank level selector determines which tank level
will be measured. Pressure/voltage transducer trans-
forms pressure to the voltage between 1 and 5 V, and
this information is then transmitted to PLC with
feedback.
As it is seen in Figure 9, a proportional valve and
pressure sensor exist in the input and output of the
liquid level system, respectively. The proportional valve
is an actuator which transforms digital flow rate data
to analog flow rate in cm3/s, while the pressure sensor
transmits analog level value in cm to digital level value.
By using the inverse characteristics of the proportional
valve and pressure sensor, their effects on the overall
closed loop system are eliminated as it is seen in Figure
10. For this elimination purpose, the functions Ginv p
and Ginv v are used for the pressure sensor and the
proportional valve, respectively.
There exist highly nonlinear effects because of the
nature of physical elements in the experimental setup.
The basic resource of the nonlinear effects arises from
the upper and lower limit of the proportional valve, the
12 Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 00(0)

Figure 10. Overall block diagram of the double-tank liquid level control system.

approximate linear characteristic of the proportional

Table 8. The optimized parameters of the models and their
valve, water flow depending on the previous position of
total squared error values.
the proportional valve and the varying resistance of sys-
tem valves (the drain and transition valves) due to the SFPM FOPDTM
level of the water.
The controllers are implemented using Allen-Bradley K 1.183 Kf 0.887
T 273.643 Tf 2119.520
PLC. The input/output (I/O) unit of Allen-Bradley a 20.817 L 21.570
PLC consists of a 24-V DC power supply, analog/digi- etotal 28.788 etotal 220.527
tal input modules and analog/digital output modules.
The communication between I/O unit and PLC is pro- FOPDTM: first order plus dead time model; SFPM: single fractional
order pole model.
vided by ControlNet which is a network protocol for
industrial automation applications. SMC ITV1010
series electropneumatic regulator and SMC PSE550
pressure sensor are connected to the analog output and
analog input modules, respectively. Moreover, other
elements such as start, stop buttons and their lamps are
connected to input/output digital modules.
In our article, the collected data from the above-
described real-time system is tried to be modeled by
two different system descriptions: single fractional
order pole model in equation (11), the first order plus
dead time model (FOPDTM) commonly used in pro-
cess industry. The first order plus dead time model is
described as follows

Kf
Gf (s) = eLs
Tf s + 1
where Kf , Tf and L are the gain, time constant and
dead time of FOPDTM, respectively. Another reason
of selecting the model in equation (41) is that it has
three free parameters as in the single fractional pole
model given in equation (11). Thus, a fair modeling
comparison is obtained. Both model parameters are
obtained using the total squared error given below
t =X
Tsample
etotal = (ymodel (t)  ymeasurement (t))2
t=0
where Tsample , ymodel (t) and ymeasurement (t) indicate the
number of sample points, the output of the model and
collected data from the system, respectively. BB-BC
Algorithm is utilized for optimization of equation (42).
Table 8 shows the obtained model parameters and total
ð41Þ
Figure 11. Open loop step responses of the real-time system
and its various models.
square error in the result of optimization. According to
the total squared error, the best fitted model is the sin-
gle fractional order pole model. The collected data
from system and the step responses of the models are
depicted in Figure 11.
In this section, we provide two different types of
comparison for the proposed controller. First, the pro-
ð42Þ
posed controller is compared with C PID and FO PID
designed using SFPM as it is done in section
‘‘Simulation results.’’ In the second part, the proposed
controller is compared with pre-filtered PID in Wang
et al.49 designed for FOPDTM.
The performance measure in equation (29) is opti-
mized using BB-BC optimization algorithm so as to
Yumuk et al. 13

(a) (b)

Figure 12. The liquid level control system real time: (a) step response and (b) control signal.

Table 9. The performance of the controllers.

Controller Mp ts tr ISE TV J umax

IIS PID 11.97 104.5 6.15 385.7 1093.0 1478.6 269.4

C PID 29.98 148.3 4.42 603.9 2277.2 2881.1 349.1
FO PID 46.07 84.6 5.08 287.6 1457.1 1744.7 286.9
Wang PID 11.78 248.5 35.60 423.9 3631.5 4055.4 369.1

ISE: integral square error; TV: total variation of control input; IIS_PID: inverse integer order single fractional order pole model proportional–integral–
derivative; C_PID: classical integer order proportional–integral–derivative; FO_PID: classical fractional order proportional–integral–derivative.

find four parameters of C PID and five parameters of Comparison of the proposed controller with pre-
FO PID. The proposed PID controller is attained filtered PID designed for FOPDTM
executing all steps of the procedure given in section
As it is seen in Table 8, FOPDTM for double-tank
‘‘Integer order pre-filtered PI/PID controller design.’’
liquid level system is given as follows
The controllers are found as follows
0:88692
(s + 0:009007)(s + 1:9011) Gf (s) = e1:57s ð46Þ
GIIS PID = 20:9019 ð43Þ 119:5197s + 1
s(s + 0:5311)
  According to total squared error values given in Table
1 10:3782
GC PID = 66:1761 + + 0:4383 8, it can easily be concluded that FOPDTM does not
0:1s + 1 s so adequately represent the real system compared to
ð44Þ SFPM.
In this section, the proposed controller (CIIS PID (s))
54:8377
GFO PID = 48:3351 + + 0:1816s0:2 : ð45Þ is compared with pre-filtered PID proposed by Wang
s
et al.49 designed for FOPDTM. The transfer function
In order to be able to use the same implementation of pre-filtered PID (CWang PID (s)) is obtained as follows
PLC blocks in all controller design cases, we had to  
make a slight simplification in equation (45) control- 1 0:779s
CWang PID (s) = 46:075 1 + +
ler transfer function. Step responses and the control 120:3s 0:0779s + 1
signals obtained using controllers (43)–(45) are given (119:515s + 1)(0:862523s + 1)
= 0:383
in Figure 12. The performance of the proposed con- s(0:0779s + 1)
troller is better than C PID and FO PID with respect ð47Þ
to the performance criteria J and also gives satisfac-
tory time domain response. Moreover, the amplitude Step responses and the control signals obtained using
of the control signal of the proposed controller is controllers (43) and (47) are given in Figure 12. These
lower. The performance comparison of the controllers two controllers have the same overshoot values, but the
is given in Table 9. proposed controller has better rise time and settling
14
time. The performance comparison of the controllers
(IIS PID, C PID, FO PID and Wang PID) are given
in Table 9. umax and C PID in Table 9 are the maximum
value of control input and the classical PID found in
the previous section, respectively. The performance
results of the proposed controller (IIS PID) is superior
to those of both C PID, FO PID and Wang PID in
regard to performance index J. Moreover, the proposed
controller outperforms the other controller in terms of
ISE, TV and umax .
Conclusion
A design method of an integer order pre-filtered PI/
PID controller is proposed for single fractional pole
modeled systems. The gain of the proposed controller
is the only design parameter which is determined via
some approximating functions relying on an optimiza-
tion procedure. The other parameters are directly
obtained from single fractional order pole model para-
meters. The performance of the proposed controller are
compared with classical PID and fractional order PID
on two different system models in the simulations. The
proposed controller performs better or provides
approximately equal performance values when com-
pared with the other two controllers with respect to
some performance measures and time domain criteria.
However, it should be noted that while fractional order
PID has five and classical PID has three parameters to
be adjusted, the proposed controller has none.
Moreover, the frequency domain criteria values are
also analyzed for the proposed and the compared con-
troller methods. It has been observed that the proposed
controllers give either satisfactory or preferable perfor-
mances with respect to all frequency domain criteria.
The proposed controller, classical PID, fractional order
PID and the first order plus dead time system model–
based pre-filtered PID controllers are also implemented
on a real-time liquid level control system. The applica-
tion results also show that the proposed controller out-
performs the others in performance means.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Müjde Güzelkaya https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4150-4278
Proc IMechE Part I: J Systems and Control Engineering 00(0)
References
1. Oldham KB and Spanier J. The fractional calculus. New
York and London: Academic Press, 1974.
2. Monje CA, Chen YQ, Vinagre BM, et al. Fractional-
order systems and controls: fundamentals and applications.
London: Springer-Verlag, 2010.
3. Manabe S. The non-integer integral and its application
to control systems. Japan Inst Electr Eng J 1961; 6(3/4):
83–87.
4. Oustaloup A. Linear feedback control systems of frac-
tional order between 1 and 2. In: Proceedings of the IEEE
symposium on circuit and systems, Chicago, IL, 27–29
April 1981. New York: IEEE.
5. Oustaloup A. Laderivation Non Entiere. Paris: Hermès,
1995.
6. Podlubny I. Advanced PID control. New York: Academic
Press, 1999.
7. Podlubny I. Fractional-order systems and PIl Dm con-
trollers. IEEE T Automat Contr 1999; 44(1): 208–214.
8. Malek H, Luo Y and Chen YQ. Identification and tun-
ing fractional order proportional integral controllers for
time delayed system with a fractional pole. Mechatronics
2013; 23: 746–754.
9. Al-Saggaf U, Mehedi I, Bettayeb M, et al. Fractional-
order controller design for a heat flow process. J Syst
Contr Eng 2016; 230: 680–691.
10. Silva MF and Machado JAT. Fractional order control of
a hexapod robot. Nonlinear Dynam 2004; 38: 417–433.
11. Barbosa RS, Machado JAT and Jesus IS. Effect of frac-
tional orders in velocity control of a servo systems. Com-
put Math Appl 2010; 59: 1679–1686.
12. Yu W, Luo Y and Pi Y. Fractional order modeling and
control for permanent magnet synchronous motor velo-
city servo system. Mechatronics 2013; 23: 813–820.
13. HosseinNia SH, Tejado I and Vinagre BM. Fractional-
order reset control: application to a servomotor. Mecha-
tronics 2013; 23: 781–788.
14. Azarmi R, Tavakoli-Kakhki M, Sedigh AK, et al. Analy-
tical design of fractional order PID controllers based on
the fractional set-point weighted structure: case study in
twin rotor helicopter. Mechatronics 2015; 31: 222–233.
15. Calderon AJ, Vinagre BM and Feliu V. Fractional order
control strategies for power electronic buck converters.
Signal Process 2006; 86: 2803–2819.
16. Visioli A and Padula F. Tuning rules for optimal PID
and fractional order PID controllers. J Process Contr
2011; 21: 69–81.
17. Valerio D and da Costa JS. Tuning rules for fractional
PID controllers. In: Proceedings of the second IFAC sym-
posium on fractional differentiation and its applications,
Porto, 19–21 July. New York: Curran Associates, Inc.
18. Monje CA, Vinagre BM, Feliu V, et al. Tuning and auto-
tuning of fractional order controllers for industry applica-
tions. Control Eng Pract 2008; 16: 798–812.
19. Merrikh-Bayat F and Mirebrahimi N. Introduction to
the nonlinear PIl Dm control. In: Proceedings of 2011
IEEE international conference on control system, comput-
ing and engineering, Penang, Malaysia, 25–27 November
2011. New York: IEEE.
Yumuk et al.
20. Luo Y, Chen YQ, Wang CY, et al. Tuning fractional
order proportional integral controllers for fractional
order systems. J Process Contr 2010; 20: 823–831.
21. Bettayeb M and Mansouri R. Fractional IMC-PID-filter
controllers design for non-integer order systems. J Pro-
cess Contr 2014; 24: 261–271.
22. Tepljakov A, Petlenkov E and Belikov J. Gain and
order scheduled fractional-order PID control of fluid
level in a multi-tank system. In: Proceedings of 2014
IEEE international conference on fractional differentia-
tion and its applications, Catania, 23–25 June 2014.
New York: IEEE.
23. Yumuk E, Guzelkaya M, Eksin I, et al. Design of an
integer order PID controller for single fractional order
pole model. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE conference on
systems, process and control (ICSPC), Bandar Sunway,
Malaysia, 18–20 December 2015. New York: IEEE.
24. Yumuk E, Guzelkaya M and Eksin I. Reduced integer
order inverse controller design for single fractional pole
model. In: Proceedings of MED’16: the 24th Mediterra-
nean conference on control and automation, Athens, 21–24
June 2016. New York: IEEE.
25. Wei Y, Sun Z, Hu Y, et al. On fractional order composite
model reference adaptive control. Int J Syst Sci 2016; 47:
2521–2531.
26. Ladaci S, Loiseau JJ and Charef A. Fractional order
adaptive high-gain controllers for a class of linear sys-
tems. Commun Nonlinear Sci 2008; 13: 707–714.
27. Zhang B, Pi Y and Luo Y. Fractional order sliding-mode
control based on parameter auto-tuning for velocity con-
trol of permanent magnet synchronous motor. ISA T
2012; 51: 649–656.
28. Dadras S and Momeni HR. Control of fractional-order
economical system via sliding mode. Physica A 2010; 389:
2434–2442.
29. Delavari H, Ghaderi R, Ranjbar A, et al. Fuzzy frac-
tional order sliding mode controller for nonlinear sys-
tems. Commun Nonlinear Sci 2010; 15: 963–978.
30. Shah P and Agashe S. Review of fractional PID control-
ler. Mechatronics 2016; 38: 29–41.
31. Tavazoei MS and Haeri M. A note on the stability of
fractional order systems. Math Comput Simulat 2009; 79:
1566–1576.
32. Jiao Z and Chen YQ. Stability of fractional-order linear
time-invariant system with multiple noncommensurate
orders. Comput Math Appl 2012; 64: 3053–3058.
33. Hwangi C and Cheng Y. A numerical algorithm for stabi-
lity testing of fractional delay systems. Automatica 2006;
42: 825–831.
15
34. Merrikh-Bayat F and Karimi-Ghartemani M. An effi-
cient numerical algorithm for stability testing of
fractional-delay systems. ISA T 2009; 48: 32–37.
35. Shi M and Wang Z. An efficient analytical criterion for
stability testing of fractional-delay systems. Automatica
2011; 47: 2001–2005.
36. Yu YJ and Wang ZH. A graphical test for the interval
stability of fractional-delay systems. Comput Math Appl
2011; 62: 1501–1509.
37. Kheirizad I, Jalali AA and Khandani K. Stabilization of
fractional-order unstable delay system by fractional order
controllers. J Syst Contr Eng 2012; 226: 1166–1173.
38. Hamamci SE. An algorithm for stabilization of fractional-
order time delay systems using fractional-order PID con-
trollers. IEEE T Automat Contr 2007; 52(10): 1964–1969.
39. Valerio D and da Costa JS. Introduction to single-input,
single-output fractional control. IET Control Theory A
2011; 5(8): 1033–1057.
40. Loverro A. Fractional calculus: history, definitions and
applications for the engineering, 2004, http://citeseer-
x.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=304F1A4581
D9686D683E3FBE04E60DDD?doi=10.1.1.363.9101&
rep=rep1&type=pdf
41. Tepljakov A, Petlenkov E, Belikov J, et al. Design and
implementation of fractional-order PID controllers for
a fluid tank system. In: Proceedings of 2013 American
control conference, Washington, DC, 17–19 June 2013.
New York: IEEE.
42. Tepljakov A, Petlenkov E and Belikov J. FOMCON: a
MATLAB toolbox for fractional-order system identifica-
tion and control. Int J Microelectron Comput Sci 2011;
2(2): 51–62.
43. Taijudin M, Arshad NM and Adnan R. A design of
fractional-order PI controller with error compensation.
Eng Technol Int J Comput 2013; 7(6): 727–735.
44. Holmes GC. The use of hyperbolic cosines in solving
cubic polynomials. Math Gaz 2002; 86: 473–477.
45. Mitchell DW. Solving cubic by solving triangles. Math
Gaz 2007; 91: 514–516.
46. Tepljakov A, Petlenkov E and Belikov J. FOMCON tool-
box [Online], 2011, http://www.fomcon.net/
47. Erol OK and Eksin I. A new optimization method: big
bang-big crunch. Adv Eng Softw 2006; 37: 106–111.
48. Tavazoei MS. Notes on integral performance indices in
fractional-order control system. J Process Contr 2010; 20:
285–291.
49. Wang FS, Juang WS and Chan CT. Optimal tuning of
PID controllers for single and cascade control loops.
Chem Eng Commun 1995; 132: 15–34.