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

net/publication/260417316

Comparison Between PID and FOPID Controllers Based on Particle Swarm

Optimization

Article · February 2014

CITATIONS READS

6 8,209

2 authors:

Mohamed Jasim Mohamed Mr. Amjad Khashan

University of Technology, Iraq 2 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   
21 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohamed Jasim Mohamed on 28 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Second Engineering Conference of Control, Computers and Mechatronics Engineering (ECCCM2, 2014)
Comparison Between PID and FOPID Controllers
Based on Particle Swarm Optimization
Dr. Mohamed Jasim Mohamed
Control and Systems Engineering Department
University of Technology
Baghdad, Iraq
moh62moh@yahoo.com
Abstract—The intelligent optimization method for designing
Fractional Order ( PIλDδ ) controller (FOPID) based on Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO) is used in this paper . The Fractional
Order ( PIλDδ ) controller (FOPID) same as conventional PID
controller but integral order (λ) and derivative order (δ) are
fractional. The new and good performance extension for FOPID
can be provided by Fractional calculus because of the flexibility
order of fractional calculus. The Fractional Order ( PIλDδ )
controller (FOPID) and conventional PID controller are applied
to the three problems (stable, unstable and non-minimum phase
systems). The parameters of FOPID comprise proportionality
constant, integral constant, derivative constant, integral order (λ)
and derivative order (δ). The design of ( PIλDδ ) controller needs
to optimize five parameters while the design of conventional PID
controller needs only three parameters to optimize. Therefore,
the task of designing FOPID controller is more challenger than
conventional PID controller. The design of controllers focuses on
minimizing the integral square error (ISE) and integral time
square error (ITSE) criterion.
IndexTerms—Fractional Calculus, ISE & ITSE Criteria,
Particle Swarm Optimization, PID and FOPID or PIλDδ
Controllers.
I. INTRODUCTION
One of the oldest control strategies is the PID control. It has
been widely used in the industrial control field because of its
simplicity of design, good performance including low
percentage overshoot and small settling time for slow
industrial processes [1,2]. Therefore, it is worth the care to
improve their quality and robustness. One of the methods that
are used to improve conventional PID controller is to employ
fractional order controller with fractional order of I and D. In
recent years, fractional calculus has been applied in the
modeling and control of various kinds of physical systems, as
is well known and documented in many control theory or in
the literatures of applications. In FOPID controller beside the
proportional, integral and derivative parameters (Kp, Ki, and
Kd) it have two additional parameters the order of fractional
integration λ and the order of fractional derivative δ.
Therefore, it has five parameters that are made the FOPID
more flexible [3-5].
To get optimal controller, it must be found an optimal set of
values for Kp, Ki, Kd, λ and δ. In fact, there are many
powerful intelligent searching methods to find any optimal
Mr. Amjad Khashan
Control and Systems Engineering Department
University of Technology
Baghdad, Iraq
amjadkhashan@yahoo.com
solution. One of these methods is PSO which is an
evolutionary computation technique. This technique combines
social psychology principles in socio-cognition human agents
and evolutionary computations. It depends on behaviors of
organisms such as fish schooling and bird flocking. It has
some characteristics such as a simple concept, easy to
implement, computationally efficient algorithm, flexible and
well-balanced mechanism to enhance global and local
exploration abilities and it has more efficiency than GA [6].
II. FRACTIONAL CALCULUS
Fractional order system is a dynamical system that can be
modeled by a fractional differential equation that is containing
derivatives of non-integer order. Fractional order systems are
useful in studying the anomalous behavior of dynamical
systems in electrochemistry, biology, viscoelasticity, and
chaotic systems.
The fractional calculus is one of mathematical analysis that is
used in different fields with many applications in physics,
engineering, mathematical biology, finance, life sciences, and
optimal control. The first appearance of fractional calculus is
before three centuries ago. In 1695, the derivative of the order
α=1/2 was described by Leibniz and L. Euler (1730) [7], it has
been developed up to nowadays. A list of mathematicians,
whom have provided important contributions up to the middle
of 20 century, includes P.S. Laplace (1812), J.B.J. Fourier
(1822), N.H. Abel (1823-1826), J. Liouville (1832-1873), B.
Riemann (1847), H. Holmgren (1865-67), A.K. Grunwald
(1867-1872), A.V. Letnikov (1868-1872), H. Laurent (1884),
P.A. Nekrassov (1888), A. Krug (1890), J. Hadamard (1892),
O. Heaviside (1892-1912), S. Pincherle (1902), G.H. Hardy
and J.E. Littlewood (1917-1928), H. Weyl (1917), P. Levy
(1923), A. Marchaud (1927),H.T. Davis (1924-1936), A.
Zygmund (1935-1945), E.R. Love (1938-1996), A. Erdelyi
(1939-1965), H. Kober (1940), D.V. Widder (1941), M. Riesz
(1949)[8].
Fractional calculus is a successful tool for describing
complex quantum field dynamical systems, dissipation, and
long-range phenomena that cannot be well illustrated using
ordinary differential and integral operators [7].There are
several different ways to define fractional order differential
The Second Engineering Conference of Control, Computers and Mechatronics Engineering (ECCCM2, 2014)
and fractional order integral. The generalized differintegrator 1 𝑥
aDx
-α
f(x) = 𝑥−𝑡 α -1
f(t) dt (9)
operator may be as: 𝛤(α) a

. 𝛼 𝑑 𝛼 𝑓(𝑡) where, 𝛤 (·) is the well-known Euler’s gamma function

𝑎 𝐷𝑡 𝑓 𝑡 = [𝑑(𝑡−𝑎)]𝛼 (1)
The Euler’s Gamma function Γ: (0, ∞) →R, defined by [11].
where, a is starting limitation, t is final limitation, and α ∞ 𝑥 −1
Γ (x) =
0
𝑡 𝑒 −𝑡 𝑑𝑡, (10)
is a fractional order . The differential and integral operators
can be generalized into one fundamental operator aDtα where: For n ∈ N, we have (n−1)! =Γ (n).
The second case is one which is from properties of fractional
𝑑𝛼 differintegral order. The case α>0 will be defined using the
forα)0
𝑑𝑡 𝛼 definition for α<0 as follows [10]:
aDt
α = 1 forα)=0 (2)
α 1 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑓(𝑡)
t
aDt f(x)=aDt
n
[aDt-(n -α)
f(x)]= [ 𝑑𝑡 ]
𝛤(𝑛−𝛼 ) 𝑑𝑥 𝑛 𝑎 (𝑥−𝑡)𝛼 −𝑛 +1
a (d)-α forα)<0
α  +
(11)
There are several mathematical definitions used for fractional
differintegral .These definitions do not always lead to exact Then, the general Riemann-Liouville definition is;
results, but approximate result .The most important of these 1 𝑥 𝛼 −1
mathematical definitions [9]: 𝑥−𝑡 𝑓(𝑡)𝑑𝑡 if α<0
𝛤(α) a
a. Riemann-Liouville definition (RL).
The first case is the method which depends on Cauchy’s 𝑑 𝛼 𝑓(𝑥)
𝑅𝐿 𝛼
𝑎 𝐷𝑥 𝑓(𝑥)= if αN (12)
formula, if the order of differentiation is less than 0. The 𝑑𝑥 𝛼
Cauchy’s formula Indefinite integrals are given by[10]; 𝑑𝑛 − 𝑛 –𝛼
[ .𝐷 𝑓 𝑥 =
𝑑𝑥 𝑛 𝑎 𝑡
1 𝑥 1 𝑑𝑛 𝑥 𝑓 𝑡
aDx f(x)=
-α
a
𝑥−𝑡 α -1 f(t)dt , αN (3) 𝛤 𝑛−𝛼 𝑑𝑥 𝑛 a 𝑥−𝑡 𝛼 −𝑛 +1
𝑑 if 0<n-1<α <n
𝛤(α)
f(x) if α=0
Proof: By mathematical induction can be rewritten aDx-α f(x)
as : b. Caputo definition (C)
𝑥 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥
aDx
-α
f(x)=
a a a
… . . a 𝛼 −1 𝑓 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 … . 𝑑𝑥3 𝑑𝑥2 𝑑𝑥1
𝐶 𝛼 1 t 𝑓 𝑛  𝑑
(4) 𝑎 𝐷𝑡 𝑓 𝑡 =
𝛤(𝑛−𝛼 ) a (𝑡−)𝛼 −𝑛 +1
n-1<α<n (13)
Dirichlet’s equality is;
𝑥 𝑥1 𝑥 𝑥 c. Grunwald-Letnikov definition (GL).
a a
𝑓 𝑥1 , 𝑡 𝑑𝑡𝑑𝑥1 = a t
𝑓 𝑥1 , 𝑡 𝑑𝑥1 𝑑𝑡 (5)
𝑡−𝑎
In particular, if f is a function of t alone, 𝐺𝐿 𝛼 1 𝑕 𝑗 α
𝑎 𝐷𝑡 𝑓 𝑡 = lim𝑕→0
𝑕𝛼
−1 𝑗
𝑓 𝑡 − 𝑗𝑕 (14)
𝑥 𝑥1 𝑗 =0

a a
𝑓 𝑥1 , 𝑡 𝑑𝑡𝑑𝑥1
𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 𝑡−𝑎
=
a t
𝑓 𝑥1 , 𝑡 𝑑𝑥1 𝑑𝑡= a
𝑓 𝑡 t
𝑑𝑥1 𝑑𝑡= Where, [ ] means the integer part, the first method is
𝑕
𝑥 derived from the Grunwald-Letnikov definition, this definition
a
𝑓 𝑡 𝑥−𝑡 𝑑𝑡 (6) is come from basic definition of derivative:
By applying this property again, 𝑓 𝑡 −𝑓 𝑡−𝑕
Df(t)=lim𝑕 →∞ (15)
𝑕
𝑥 𝑥1 𝑥2 𝑥 𝑥1
a a a
𝑓 𝑡 𝑑𝑡𝑑𝑥2 𝑑𝑥1 = a a
𝑥1 − Let us reckon explicit expressions for higher order derivatives.
𝑥 𝑥1 The first two cases are
𝑡 𝑓 𝑡 𝑑𝑡𝑑𝑥1 = a t
𝑥1 − 𝑡 𝑓 𝑡 𝑑𝑥1 𝑑𝑡 =
𝐷𝑓 𝑡 −𝐷𝑓 𝑡−𝑕
𝑥 𝑥1 𝑥 𝑥 1 −𝑡 2 D2f(t)=lim𝑕 →∞ (16)
a
𝑓 𝑡 t
𝑥1 − 𝑡 𝑑𝑥1 𝑑𝑡 = a
𝑓 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 (7) 𝑕
2
𝑓 𝑡 −𝑓 𝑡−𝑕 𝑓 𝑡−𝑕 −𝑓 𝑡−2𝑕
− 𝑓 𝑡 −2𝑓 𝑡−𝑕 +𝑓 𝑡−2𝑕
With α order of integral then; =lim𝑕 →∞ 𝑕 𝑕
=lim𝑕 →∞
𝑕 𝑕2
𝑥 𝑥1 𝑥 −𝑡 𝛼 −2 3 𝐷 2 𝑓 𝑡 −𝐷 2 𝑓 𝑡−𝑕

a a
𝑓 𝑡 1𝛼 −2 ! 𝑑𝑡𝑑𝑥1 = D f(t)=lim𝑕 →∞
𝑕
𝑓 𝑡 −2𝑓 𝑡−𝑕 +𝑓 𝑡−2𝑕 𝑓 𝑡−𝑕 −2𝑓 𝑡−2𝑕 +𝑓 𝑡−3𝑕
𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 −𝑡 𝛼 −2 2 −
𝑕2
a t
𝑓(𝑡) 1𝛼 −2 ! 𝑑𝑥1 𝑑𝑡= =lim𝑕→∞ 𝑕
𝑕
𝑥 𝑥 𝑥 −𝑡 𝛼 −2 𝑥 𝑥−𝑡 𝛼 −1 𝑓 𝑡 −3𝑓 𝑡−𝑕 +3𝑓 𝑡−2𝑕 −𝑓 𝑡−3𝑕
𝑓 𝑡 t 1𝛼 −2 ! 𝑑𝑥1 𝑑𝑡 = a 𝑓 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 (8) =lim𝑕→∞ (17)
a 𝛼 −1 ! 𝑕3
This can be rewritten with Euler’s gamma function [10]
The Second Engineering Conference of Control, Computers and Mechatronics Engineering (ECCCM2, 2014)
𝑓 𝑡 − 3𝑓 𝑡 − 𝑕 + 3𝑓 𝑡 − 2𝑕 − 𝑓 𝑡 − 3𝑕 = Where ak (k=0,1,2,….,n) are constant coefficients of the
3 FODE; αk, (k = 0, 1, 2, ….. , n) are real numbers and
𝑗 3
−1 𝑗
𝑓(𝑡 − 𝑗𝑕) (18) αn> αn-1 > αn-2 >……α1 > α0 ≥ 0 .
𝑗 =0
By taking Laplace transform to the linear Fractional-order
The numerical calculation formula of fractional derivative can Differential Equations (FODEs):
be achieved as [10]:
𝐿
ansαny(s)+an-1sαn-1y(s)+……..+a1sα1y(s)+a0sα0y(s)=u(s) (34)
α −𝛼
t-LDt f(t)≈ 𝑕 𝑇 𝑏
𝑗 =0 𝑗
𝑓(𝑡 − 𝑗𝑕) (19) The transfer function is:
𝑌(𝑠) 1
L is the length of memory. T the sampling time always 𝐺𝑝 = = (35)
𝑈(𝑠) 𝑎 𝑛 𝑠 𝛼 𝑛 +𝑎 𝑛 −1 𝑠 𝛼 𝑛 −1 +𝑎 𝑛 −2 𝑠 𝛼 𝑛 −2 +⋯+𝑎 1 𝑠 𝛼 1 +𝑎 0 𝑠 𝛼 0
replaces the time increment h during approximation. The
weighting coefficients bj can be calculated recursively by [3]:
1+α III. STABILITY OF FRACTIONAL ORDER SYSTEMS
b0=0 ,bj= 1 − 𝑏𝑗 −1 , (j≥1) (20)
𝑗
The stability is the very fundamental and critical requirement
The second method α
is binomial coefficients. during control system design. In an integer order continuous-
𝑗 time linear time-invariant system is stable, if and only if, all
α α α α−1 α−2 …(α−j+1) poles of its characteristic polynomial have negative real parts.
0
=1, 𝑗
= (21)
𝑗! In other words, the system is stable, if all poles in the left half
It can be replaced by Euler’s Gamma function [4] side of the complex s-plane, while in fractional order, the
stability is not determined by only the locations of the poles in
α 𝛤 α+1
𝑗
= (22) the left half side. It depends on the fractional order that
𝑗 !𝛤 α−𝑗 +1
becomes more complex as shown below:
Then the equation (2) becomes: The characteristic equation of a general linear fractional
𝑡−𝑎 differential equation has the form
1 𝑕 𝛤 α+1 𝑗 𝛼𝑖
𝑖=0 𝑎𝑖 𝑆 =0
α 𝑗
aDt f(t) = lim𝑕 →0 −1 𝑓(𝑡 − 𝑗𝑕) (23) (36)
𝑕𝛼 𝑗 !𝛤 α−𝑗 +1
𝑗 =0 Where, αi is rational, the characteristic equation can rewritten
The derivative function of f(t) can be converted to Laplace as;
𝑖
transform by : 𝑛
𝑖=0 𝑎𝑖 𝑆 𝑚 = 0 (37)
L{0Dtα f(t)}=sα F(s)-[0Dtα-1 f(t)]t=0 (24)
1
Where, m is integer, α = and ai> 0
Where F(s) is the Laplace transform of f(t). 𝑚
The integral function of f(t) can convert to Laplace transform Fig.(1.a) shows the stability region of fractional order system
by[10,13] : when 0 <α <1, the stability region larger than integer order
system. Fig.(1-b) shows the stability region of fractional order
L{0Dt- αf(t)}=s- αF(s) (25) system when 1 < α < 2, the stability region less than integer
order system [15-18].
The some properties of fractional differintegral order .n, α≥0
i- DnDαf(t)=Dn+αf(t) (26) Im
n α α n
ii- D D f(t)=D D f(t) (27)
iii- α
D [f(t)+u(t)]=D f(t)+D u(t) α α
(28) Stable area Unstable
𝛼π area
iv- JαDαf(t)=f(t) (29)
2
where Jα is fractional integration
𝛼π Re
v- D -αf(t)=Jαf(t) (30)
𝑛 𝑛
2
vi- c𝐷𝑥 𝑓 𝑥 = (𝐷𝑐+ 𝑓) 𝑥 = 𝐷𝑥𝑛−𝑐 𝑓 𝑥 =
𝑑𝑛
𝑓 𝑥 (31)
𝑑(𝑥−𝑐)𝑛
𝑛 𝑛 𝑛
vii- x𝐷𝑐 𝑓 𝑥 = (𝐷𝑐− 𝑓) 𝑥 = 𝐷𝑐−𝑥 𝑓 𝑥 =
𝑑𝑛
𝑓 𝑥 [10,12] (32)
𝑑(𝑐−𝑥)𝑛
0 <α<1
Linear Fractional-order Differential Equations (FODEs) with
n term in time domain is given by [14]: Fig.1.a
αn αn-1 α1 α0
anD y(t)+an-1D y(t)+……..+a1D y(t)+a0D y(t)=u(t) (33)
The Second Engineering Conference of Control, Computers and Mechatronics Engineering (ECCCM2, 2014)
In time domain, the control function is the sum of these three
Im actions.
𝑑𝑒 (𝑡)
𝛼π 𝑈(𝑡) = 𝐾𝑝 𝑒(𝑡) + 𝐾𝑖 𝑒 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 + 𝐾𝑑 (38)
𝑑𝑡
Unstable
Stable
2 area The transfer function of PID controller in s-domain is;
area U(S) 1 Kd s 2 + Kps + Ki
Gc(s) = = Kp + Ki + Kd s = (39)
𝑒(𝑆) 𝑠 𝑠
Re The FOPID controller at first time was proposed by Podlubny
𝛼π in 1999. It is expansion of the conventional PID controller
2 based on fractional calculus.
Kp e(t)

W + E Ki D-λ e(t) U Y
∑ Gp(s)
_
1 <α< 2 Kd Dδ e(t)
Fig.1.b feedback

Fig. 1. Region of stability for fractional order system. Fig. 3. Generic closed loop control system with the fractional order
a. when 0 < α < 1 b. when 1 < α < 2 (PIλDδ ) controller (FOPID)

IV. FOPID Controller It is same as conventional PID controller when λ=1 and
The PID controller is a flexible feedback controller for many δ=1, it is PI controller when δ=0, and it is PD controller when
applications, and some time it is called the three modes λ=0. The block diagram of a single input - single output closed
controller (three terms controller) because it has three loop control system with fractional (PIλDδ) controller (FOPID)
parameters in its building structure. The values of these is illustrated in Fig.(3) [3,4,9,19].
parameters are depending on the required performance index. The differential equation of the PIλDδ controller is described
One of these performance indices is the integral of square by;
error between a measured process variable and a desired set 𝑈 𝑡 = 𝐾𝑝 𝑒 𝑡 + 𝐾𝑖 𝐷 −𝜆 𝑒 𝑡 + 𝐾𝑑 𝐷𝛿 𝑒(𝑡) (40)
point. The developed controller tries to minimize the integral
of square error and so improve dynamic response. The values Where, λ and δ are fractional orders. By taking Laplace
of the parameters of the three actions can be interpreted in transform for the above equation, the controller equation
terms of time: ( P ) depends on the present error, ( I ) depends becomes;
on the accumulation of past errors, and ( D ) is a prediction of
U(s)=Kp e(s) +Ki s-λ e(s) + Kdsδ e(s) (41)
future errors. The PID controller is the sum of these three
λ δ
actions. Table (I) shows the effect of the parameter of each The PID controller is a special case of PI D controller,
action on time response and stability of the system [19]. where λ = δ =1.The conventional PID controller is represented
by fourpoints (P, PI , PD , PID), while fractional PI λDδ
Table I. Effects of increasing the value of each parameter of conventional controller is expanded to plane. This expansion adds more
PID controller. flexibility and accuracy, Fig.(4) displays this concept
Rise Steady-
Parameter
time
Overshoot Settling time
state error
Stability [3,4,9,18].
Kp
Ki
Decrease
Decrease
Increase small change
Increase Increase
Decrease
Eliminate
Degrade
Degrade
λ
Kd
Minor
change
Decrease Decrease
No effect in Improve
theory if Kd small (0,2) (2,2)
The block diagram of a single input-single output with unity
feedback closed loop control system is shown in Fig.(2),
where Gc(s) is the transfer function of the controller , Gp(s) is
the transfer function of the plant ,W is the required value, E is
(0,1) (1,1)
the error between the value of desired input and the value of PI PID
real output, U is the control value and Y is the real value of
output.
W + E Gc(s) U Gp(s) Y (1,0) (2,0)
_
P PD δ
feedback
Fig. 2. The feedback control loop
Fig. 4. Generalization of FOPID Controller: From point to plan
The Second Engineering Conference of Control, Computers and Mechatronics Engineering (ECCCM2, 2014)
V. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
PSO is an optimization method based on stochastic technique
that is developed by Dr. Eberhart and Dr. Kennedy in 1995 Start
[20, 21]. It is inspired from intelligent of the swarm and is
based on the movement behavior of the flock of bird and fish
for research about food. The birds are searching about food in
the form of either scattered or go together. They know the Generate random
distance of the food but don’t know the location of the food. initial swarm
The birds have positions and velocities while birds fly to (position and velocity)
search for the food from one place to another. The good
information is translated immediately from one bird to the
swarm at any time. This information comes from good sense
of smell for birds which leads the swarm toward the food. The Calculate the fitness for
movement of bird from one place to another is equal to each particle (using simulink)
development of the solution in PSO [21].
In PSO the particle is same as bird in swarm; it has
position, velocity, and distance from optimal solution. The
PSO has some advantages; it is simple, easy to implement, and Calculate thePbest for each
the algorithm can be used in wide range of the fields such as particle and gbest for swarm
function optimization, the model classification, machine
study, neutral network training, the signal processing, vague
system control, automatic adaptation control and etc...[21].
PSO algorithm consists of 'n' particles, each particle existing Update the position and velocity
in a 'D' dimensional solution space. The condition of each according to Pbest and gbest
particle is changing according to three principles:
1- To keep inertia of particles.
2- To change the condition according to most optimize
position of particle.
3- To change the condition according to most optimize If
position of swarm. the maximum No
The new position of each particle is affected by the most iterations reached
optimized position of its previous positions which they passed
during its movement and the most optimized position of
particles in its surrounding.
Each particle has position and velocity that are both Yes
changing because of movement. The new position and
velocity of particle can be calculated by two equations below
[21,22]:
Stop

𝑉𝑖𝑑𝑘+1 = 𝑀. 𝑉𝑖𝑑𝑘 + 𝐶1 . 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑() 𝑃𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑑 − 𝑥𝑖𝑑

𝑘 Fig.5.The flow chart of PSO.
+
𝑘
𝐶2 . 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑()[𝑔𝑏𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑑 − 𝑥𝑖𝑑 ] (42)
Pbest new position
𝑘+1 𝑘 𝑘+1 previous velocity
𝑥𝑖𝑑 = 𝑥𝑖𝑑 + 𝑣𝑖𝑑 (43)

i=1,2,3,….,N; where N is a number of particles in swarm. new velocity Optimal solution

d=1,2,3,….,D; where D is a number of dimensions of the
particle (number of variables that optimize the fitness
function),V and X are the velocity and position of particle
respectively. Pbest is the best position of the ith particle (local
best position of ith particle) , gbest is the global best position
in the swarm (the position that has the best fitness), rand is
random number in range (0-1),C1,C2 are regulating constants
,M is inertia weight constant. Fig.(5) shows the flowchart of
PSO [21-23].
Current position
gbest
Fig. 6. Trajectory of particle after velocity updating.
In this paper, the parameter of PSO is chosen as C1= C2 =2,
M=0.75 [20,24,25,26]. Fig.(6) shows the trajectory of the
solution. This trajectory depends on equation (42) and
equation (43), the new position is the average of vectors.
 The Second Engineering Conference of Control, Computers and Mechatronics Engineering (ECCCM2, 2014)
VI. Illustrative Examples 1.6
FOPID
To illustrate the proposed design method of the FOPID
1.4 PID
controller, detailed examples are presented as well as the
results of using FOPID are compared with the results of using
1.2
conventional PID controller.

Output Responses
1
Example 1.
The open loop third order stable system is described as [27]; 0.8
1
𝐺(𝑠) = (44) 0.6
𝑠+3 (𝑠 2 +2𝑠+2)

It is required to find the optimal values of the 0.4

conventional PID controller gains (Kp, Ki , and Kd) and then
the optimal parameters of FOPID controller (Kp, Ki , Kd, λ and 0.2
δ) so that to minimize the ISE or ITSE performance indices
using PSO. Assume the input is unit step, the observation time 0
Tob=20 sec, the step size of simulation is H s=0.001 sec. 0 2 4 6 8 10
Maximum generation 150, the number of particles 10 and the Time (sec)
Fig.7.b. ITSE criterion
search space for Kp,Ki, and Kd is from 0 to 100 and for Fig.7. The step responses of optimal PID and FOPID controllers for
fractions λ and δ is 0 to 2. The PSO parameters setting is example 1.
C1=C2=1.5 and Mis variable from 4 to 0.25.
The results are shown in the Table (II) and the step responses
of the optimal PID and FOPID controller parameters are Example 2.
shown in the Fig.(7). The open loop third order non-minimum phase system is
described as [27];
Table II. The optimal parameters of PID and FOPID controllers for example 1
(𝑠−1)
Number 𝐺(𝑠) = (45)
Criterion Method Kp Ki Kd λ δ
Value of
of 𝑠+1 (0.3𝑠+1)2
criterion
Iteration
It is required to find the optimal values of the conventional
PID with
GA [27]
30.1960 100 100 1 1 0.126327 1000 PID controller gains and then the optimal gains and orders of
PID FOPID controller according to minimize the ISE or ITSE
ISE with 30.6981 100 100 1 1 0.124561 150 criterion using proposed PSO. The input is assumed a unit
PSO step, the observation time is T ob=20 sec, the step size of
FOPID
with PSO
100 100 100 0.335 1.7556 0.024006 150 simulation is Hs=0.001 sec. the Maximum generations is 150,
PID with the number of particles is 10 and the search space for Kp, Ki
60 100 100 1 1 0.026563 1000 and Kd is from -1 to 1. The range of λ and δ is 0 to 2. The
GA [27]
ITSE
PID with
60.3886 100 100 1 1 0.025774 150 PSO setting parameters are C1=C2=1.5 and M variable from 4
PSO to 0.25.
FOPID
with PSO
96.7243 83.56 71.4112 0.882 1.3205 0.004452 150 The results are shown in the Table (III) and the step responses
1.4 of the optimal PID and optimal FOPID controllers are shown
PID in the Fig.(8).
1.2 FOPID
Table III. The optimal PID and FOPID controller’s parameters for example 2
Number
1 Value of Pop
Output Response

Criterion Method Kp Ki Kd λ δ of
criterion size
Iteration
0.8 PID with - - -
1 1 2.125728 30 1000
GA[27] 0.65490.48230.3176
PID with - - -
0.6 ISE PSO 0.65790.48510.3149
1 1 2.124423 10 150
FOPID
- - -
0.4 with 1.124 1.379 2.0408 10 150
0.98320.38850.2406
PSO
PID with - - -
0.2 1 1 1.126229 30 1000
GA[27] 0.81170.58430.3725
PID with - - -
1 1 1.1242 10 150
0 ITSE PSO 0.81500.58950.3740
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 FOPID
Time (sec) - - -
with 0.979 1.185 1.0512 10 150
0.99240.59780.4200
Fig.7.a. ISE criterion PSO
The Second Engineering Conference of Control, Computers and Mechatronics Engineering (ECCCM2, 2014)
1.2 Table IV. The optimal PID and FOPID controller’s parameters for example 3

1 Criterion Method Kp Ki Kd λ δ
Value of Number of
FOPID
criterion Iteration
0.8
PID PID with
0.6 10 0.82352 10 1 1 0.0756874 1000
GA[27]
Output Responses

0.4 ISE PID with PSO 10 0.8062 10 1 1 0.0747858 150

FOPID with
0.2 10 10 10 0 1.6082 0.0189906 150
PSO
0 PID with
10 0.54901 10 1 1 0.0372611 1000
GA[27]
-0.2 ITSE PID with PSO 10 0.5646 10 1 1 0.03712425 150
-0.4 FOPID with
10 10 10 0 1.2137 0.01742414 150
PSO
-0.6

-0.8

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1.4
Time (sec) FOPID
Fig.8.a. ISE criterion PID
1.2
1.2
1
1

Output Responses
0.8 FOPID
0.6 PID
0.8
0.4
Output Responses

0.2 0.6
0
-0.2 0.4
-0.4
-0.6 0.2
-0.8
-1 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-1.2 Time (sec)
Fig.9.a ISE criterion
-1.4
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (sec)
Fig.8.b. ITSE criterion 1.4
Fig.8. The step responses of optimal PID and FOPID controllers for FOPID
example 2. PID
1.2

Example 3.
1
Output Responses

The unstable open loop system with transfer function is [27];

(𝑠+1)
𝐺(𝑠) = (46) 0.8
𝑠(𝑠 2 −2𝑠+2)

It is required to find the optimal values of the conventional 0.6

PID controller gains and then the optimal gains and orders of
FOPID controller according to minimize the ISE or ITSE 0.4
criterion using proposed PSO. The input is assumed a unit
step, the observation time is T ob=20 sec, the step size of 0.2
simulation is Hs=0.001 sec. the Maximum generations is 150,
the number of particles is 10 and the search space for Kp, Ki
0
and Kd is from -1 to 1. The range of λ and δ is 0 to 2. The 0 2 4 6 8 10
PSO setting parameters are C1=C2=1.5 and M variable from 4 Time (sec)
to 0.25. Fig.9.b ITSE criterion
The results are shown in the Table (IV) and the step responses
of the optimal PID and optimal FOPID controllers are shown Fig.9. The step responses of optimal PID and FOPID controllers for
example 3.
in the Fig.(9).
The Second Engineering Conference of Control, Computers and Mechatronics Engineering (ECCCM2, 2014)
VII. Conclusion
In this paper, the optimization algorithm PSO is used as a
design method for determining the optimal parameters of PID
and FOPID controllers according to minimize time domain
criterions. Moreover, two types of comparisons are
considered; the first one is between efficiencies of the
different optimization algorithms; the PSO algorithm and GA
algorithm. The second comparison is between the capabilities
of PID and FOPID controllers to minimize the performance
criteria. The PID and FOPID controllers are applied on three
type of systems; stable, non minimum phase, and unstable
systems. In addition two design criteria the ISE and ITSE are
used.
In general, the design methods of classical PID controllers
give similar results when PSO algorithm or GA is used.
However, the PSO needs less number of generations or
iterations and so less computation time than GA to find the
optimal parameters of PID controller. On the other side, the
resultant optimal criteria ISE or ITSE when using FOPID are
better than the resultant optimal criteria when using
conventional PID controller. In other words, the FOPID
controller gives better performance comparison to a
conventional PID controller.
The features of the presented design method is (i) it is easily to
implement (ii) the problem is easy to formulate (iii) the entire
procedure still unchanged with different problems, only small
part required to change (iv) it allows the designer to find a
global optimal parameters of controller (v) it allows the
designer to use different performance criterions (vi) the
proposed method can be applied on different plants with
promising results compared to other methods.
REFERENCES
[1] Yuncan Xue, Haibin Zhao and Qiwen Yang, “Self-tuning of PID
Parameters Based on the Modified Particle Swarm
Optimization,” IEEE, 2008.
[2] Deepyaman Maiti, Ayan Acharya, Mithun Chakraborty, Amit
Konar, “Tuning PID and PIλDδ Controllers using the Integral
Time Absolute Error Criterion,” IEEE, Aug. 2005.
[3] Li Meng, Dingy Xue, “Design of an optimal fractional-order
PID controller using Multi-Objective GA optimization,” IEEE,
October 2011.
[4] Jun-Yi Cao, Gun Liang and B. Cao, “Optimization of Fractional
Order PID Controllers Based on Genetic Algorithms,” IEEE,
October 2011.
[5] Ivo Petráš , Ľubomír Dorčák , Imrich Koštial, “Control quality
enhancement by fractional order controllers,” Ročník 3 (1998),
2, 143-148.
[6] M. Zamani, M. Karimi-Ghartemani, N. Sadati, “FOPID
Controller Design for Robust Performance Using Particle
Swarm Optimization, ”Fractional calculus & application
analysis, Vol. 10,Num 2,Sep. 2007.
[7] Almeida, Malinowska, and Torres, “A fractional calculus of
variations for multiple integrals with application to vibrating
string,” American Institute of Physics, March 2010.
View publication stats
[8] R. Gorenflo and F. Mainardi, “Fractional Calculus: Integral and
Differential Equations of Fractional Order,” December 2000.
[9] Kambiz- A. Tehrani, T. Capitaine, L. Barrandon , M. Hamzaoui,
S.M.R .Rafiei and A. Lebrun, “Current Control Design with a
Fractional-Order PID for a Three-Level Inverter,” IEEE, Oct.
2005.
[10] Duarte Pedro Mata de Oliveira Valério, “Fractional Robust
System Control,” Technical University of Lisbon , Oct. 2005.
[11] http://www.sosmath.com/calculus/improper/gamma/gamma.htm
l
[12] B. Bonilla and J. J. Trujillo, “Fractional Order Continuity and
Some Properties about Integr ability and Differentiability of
Real Functions,” Academic Press, April 1998.
[13] Deepyaman Maiti and Amit Konar, “Approximation of a
Fractional Order System by an Integer Order Model Using
Particle Swarm Optimization Technique,” IEEE, Control And
Computer Vision In Robotics& Automation 2008.
[14] B. Bonilla , M. Rivero, J.J. Trujillo, “On systems of linear
fractional differential equations with constant
coefficients,”Elsevier, 2006.
[15] A.G. Radwan , A.M. Soliman, A.S. Elwakil, A. Sedeek, “On the
stability of linear systems with fractional-order elements,”
Elsevier, Oct. 2007.
[16] M. Buslowicz, “Stability analysis of continuous-time linear
systems consisting of n subsystems with different fractional
orders,” Bulletin of The Polish Academy of Sciences, Technical
Sciences, Vol. 60, No. 2, 2012.
[17] C. Farges, J. Sabatier and M. Moze, “Fractional order polytopic
systems: robust stability and stabilization,” Springer, Advances
in Difference Equations ,Sep. 2011.
[18] I. Radek M., “Stability of fractional-order systems with rational
orders: A survey,” Fractional Calculus &Applied Analysis, Vol.
12, No. 3, 2009, pp. 269-298.
[19] Zoran Vukic, Ognjen Kuljaca, “Lectures on PID Controllers,”
April, 2002.
[20] Wenxing Xu, Z. Geng, Q. Zhu and Xiangbai Gu, “A piecewise
linear chaotic map and sequential quadratic programming based
robust hybrid particle swarm optimization,” Elsevier, June 2012.
[21] Saeed Vaneshani and Hooshang Jazayeri-Rad, “Optimized
Fuzzy Control by Particle Swarm Optimization Technique for
Control of CSTR,” World Academy of Science, Engineering
and Technology 59 2011.
[22] Andries Engelbrecht, “Particle Swarm Optimization Pitfalls and
Convergence Aspects,”
[23] http://introcs.cs.princeton.edu/java/assignments/collisions.html.
[24] Qinghai Bai, “Analysis of Particle Swarm Optimization
Algorithm,” Computer and Information Science, Vol. 3,No.
1, Feb. 2010.
[25] G. Panda, D. Mohanty , B. Majhi and G. Sahoo, “Identification
of Nonlinear Systems using Particle Swarm Optimization
Technique,” IEEE Congress on Evolutionary
Computation,2007.
[26] Zwe-Lee Gaing, “A Particle Swarm Optimization Approach for
Optimum Design of PID Controller in AVR System,” IEEE
Transactions on Energy Conversion, Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2004.
[27] Mohamed Jasim Mohamed., “Evolutionary Techniques for
Intelligent PID Controllers,” Thesis of Control and Computer
engineering dep. University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq,
March 2001.