2021 3rd International Conference on Research and Academic Community Services (ICRACOS)
Comparison Study of PI Controller Tuning Method
to Regulate the DC Motor Speed
2021 3rd International Conference on Research and Academic Community Services (ICRACOS) | 978-1-6654-4334-0/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICRACOS53680.2021.9702007
Rifqi Firmansyah
Department of Electrical Engineering
Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Surabaya, Indonesia
rifqifirmansyah@unesa.ac.id
Abstract—Direct current (DC) Motors have been widely
utilized in many applications such as industrial automation, home
appliances, and robot manipulators due to their advantages e.g.
inexpensive, reliability, adaptability, high efficiency, a wide range
of torque, and speed control, and less electrical noise. One of the
most controllers that have been commonly employed for several
decades in industrial processes is Proportional Integral Derivative
(PID) controller. In the literature, there are many methods used to
obtain the parameters of PID namely Ziegler Nichols, Cohen-coon,
CHR, etc. As each method produces different PID parameter
quantities so that the output of the system will provide a different
response. In this paper, the performance of the PI controllers using
different tuning methods will be compared. Each tuning method is
tested with several conditions to investigate the performance of the
controller. The results show that the Cohen-coon method provides
good performance and has the fastest settling time ( %) = .
compared with the Ziegler Nichols tuning ( %) = . and
CHR tuning ( %) = . . Furthermore, Cohen-Coon has a
lower overshoot and the response of cohen-coon is always
following the setpoint.
Keywords— Comparison study, DC Motor, Proportional and
Integral (PI) controller, tuning method
I. INTRODUCTION
Direct current (DC) Motor has been extensively utilized in
many applications such as industrial automation, home
appliances, and robot manipulators due to their advantages e.g.
inexpensive, reliable, adaptable, high efficiency, a wide range of
torque and speed control, and less electrical noise [1]–[5],
compared with induction motors [6]–[8]. To get a great
performance on the DC motor, a controller is required to regulate
the DC motor speed.
One of the most controllers that have been commonly
employed for several decades in industrial processes is
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller due to their
benefits such as simple control algorithm and ease of
implementation. The PID has three parameters namely gain of
proportional , the gain of integral , and gain of derivative
. In a control circuit, there are 2 types of circuits, namely open
loop and closed loop. Open-loop control produces a speed
response that is unlimited and difficult to control but has an
advantage such as a simple and inexpensive price range. While
978-1-6654-4334-0/21/$31.00©2021 IEEE
93
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Nantes. Downloaded on May 17,2024 at 21:54:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Rudi Irmawanto
Department of Electrical Engineering
Universitas Muhammadiyah Surabaya
Surabaya, Indonesia
rudi.irmawanto@ft.um-surabaya.ac.id
the closed-loop circuit has a better and actual response because
there is feedback control so that the speed can be controlled but
the closed-circuit has a complicated and expensive circuit. In a
closed-circuit system [9]. Proportional Integral (PI) control is a
closed-loop control that is usually used in industries. The P-I
control functions speed up the response to reach the steady-state
following the predetermined set point [10].
In the literature, there are many methods used to obtain the
PID parameters namely Ziegler Nichols, Cohen-coon, CHR,
etc.[11], [12]. As each method produces a different PID
parameter quantity so that the output of the system will provide
a different response. Therefore, to obtain and understand the
application of the PID controller, it is required to explore the
influence of each parameter used in the controller with different
tuning methods. In this paper, the performance of the PI
controller using different tuning methods will be compared.
Each tuning method is tested with several conditions to
investigate the performance of the controller.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The
explanation of the DC motor is described in section two. Then,
Section three defines the PI controller tuning method.
Experimental data of system response and its investigation using
LABVIEW software is presented in section IV. Lastly, the
conclusion of this paper is offered in section V.
II. DC MOTOR
In the regulator scheme, the DC motor as shown in Fig. 1 is
widely used as an actuator. In the simple idea, the DC motor is
an implementation of Lorenz which happens in the field of
electrical magnetic, then the DC motor is studied from the
viewpoint of the electrical expression.
In Fig. 1, the source voltage of the DC motor is fixed on
input for armature and . Then, the voltage of that motor is
converted to rotary motion. In general, DC motors (will produce
the same torque for the strength of the magnetic field. So it can
be assumed that the motor torque is proportional to the constant
magnetic field with the motor current by the factor . There
are some requirements for a controller to regulate the DC motor
speed along with the desired point. Several controllers have been
applied to many industries, such as the PID controller.
 TABLE I. ZIEGLER NICHOLS RULES
Parameters
Controller
∞ 0

0.9 0
0.3

# 1.2 2 0.5

TABLE II. COHEN-COON RULES

Parameters
Fig. 1. Motor DC Controller
1.03 *
( + 0.34) - -
'( *+
0.9 * * + 0.092*+
( + 0.092) 3.33*+
'( *+ * + 2.22*+
1.24 *
( * − 0.324*+
# '( *+ - 0.27*+
+ 0.129) * + 2.22*+
1.35 *
( * + 0.185*+ *
# '( *+ 2.5*+ 0.37*+
* + 0.611*+ * + 0.185*+
+ 0.185)

Fig. 2. Step response plot
The PID has a feedback signal which is usually utilized in
many applications to be able to regulate the system to follow the
desired value. In the design of PID, the procedure to obtain the
parameters of the controller is important so that the closed-loop
plant can meet better performance.
III. PI CONTROLLER TUNING METHOD
Occasionally several systems are tough to discover the exact
models. When this takes place, the controller parameters are
hard to define. Therefore, several researchers need the tuning
method to get the PID parameter quantity. Here are several
tuning methods to obtain the parameter of the PID controller.
A. Ziegler Nichols
Ziegler Nichols proposed an idea in setting parameters of
PID controls which are generally used in industry. In the Ziegler
Nichols method, the procedure to get the parameter controller
uses a manual or trial and error system created on the results of
the response from an open-loop system.
The constant is the gain of the steady-state from a control
response. Whereas is the delay time from the results of the
response. So the parameters of Ziegler Nichols are , , as
shown in Fig 2. The value of each parameter controller is
presented in Table I.
B. Cohen-Coon Method
The Cohen-coon tuning is a method to obtain PID
parameters. The Ziegler Nichols method has a slow response
when steady conditions. However, the Cohen-coon method can
overcome these limitations. In this method, the parameters
obtained are the results of an open-loop system experiment. the
results of the response are better than the Ziegler Nichols method
if the response occurs a time delay that exceeds the limit relative
to the time of the open-loop constant. Then, the response is
recommended using the Cohen-coon method. In this case, a
system response has many factors that influence the
performance, which is influenced by the dynamics of the main
process and are influenced by the dynamics of the measurement
sensors and control elements. In this response, there are three
parameters, namely , 2, and *. Where is the steady-state
output divided by the step input change, 2 is the actual time
constant of the first-order response, and * is the time delay. The
parameters of the Cohen-coon method are shown in Table II.
C. Chien Hrones Reswick (CHR) Method
CHR method is an open loop method obtained from the
development of the original Ziegler Nichols method. Where this
method can respond without overshoot and respond with a 20%
overshoot. The method has the advantage of being able to set the
point of interference and adjust it. There are 2 parameters in the
CHR method, namely and , the values of the controller
parameters for the CHR method are presented in Table III. 2
settings can be adjusted which is 0% overshoot and by using a
20% overshoot.

94
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Nantes. Downloaded on May 17,2024 at 21:54:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE III. CHIEN-HRONES-RESWICK RULES

Parameters
Controller
0% Overshoot 20% Overshoot

0.3 - - 0.7 - -

0.6 4 3 - 0.7 2.3 3 -

# 0.95 2.4 3 2.4 4 1.2 2 3 0.42 4

Fig. 5. The system response without a controller

Fig. 3. DIGIAC-1750

Fig. 6. The Response system using Cohen coon without controller

The values of the PI Controller using Ziegler Nichols is to obtain

Fig. 4. Block Diagram of the system design
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this paper, LabVIEW 2011/with 32 bits as supporting
software to collect the experimental data is used. For
supplementary products, DIGIAC trainers type-1750 is used to
getting the data from DC motor speed and NI ELVIS is utilized
as conditioning data. Then, these devices are linked using the
computer. In LabVIEW software, we tune the parameter by
varying the route and modifying the DAQ. In this paper, we
employ the Ziegler-Nichols tuning method, Cohen-Coon, and
CHR. We determine the desired input utilized to present the
graph using LabVIEW software.
the quantity of the and as shown in Fig. 5. According to Fig
5 and using Table I, the quantity of = 1,583 and 3 = 0,65.
The parameters of the PI Controller using Cohen-Coon method
are to obtain the quantity of the and as shown in Fig 6.
According to Fig 6 and using Table II, the quantity of ( =
0.768, = 2,439 and 3 = 0,158.
The parameter of the PI controller using the CHR tuning is by
finding the transient response without control parameters. Using
table III and Fig 7, for CHR 0% overshoot the value =
1,054 and 3 = 0,77 while CHR 20% overshoot value of =
1,221 and 3 = 0,4475
In this work, to investigate the performance of the controller
we compared each tuning method with three tests namely fixed
setpoint changed setpoint, and additional disturbance. The
responses of set point constant, changing setpoint, and additional
load are presented in Fig. 8,9, and 10 respectively.
In Fig. 8, at a stationary input, cohen-coon tuning produces
a faster response compared with the others but provides the
biggest overshoot. Whereas the Ziegler Nichols Tuning and
CHR tuning with 20% overshoot have a similar quantity where
the response achieves the input when it is 4.9 s. Whereas for the
CHR tuning with 0% overshoot, the output can achieve the input
after 8.9s.

95
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Nantes. Downloaded on May 17,2024 at 21:54:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 7. The Response using C-H-R without controller Fig. 10. The Response with additional load

TABLE IV. THE TRANSIENT AND STEADY-STATE RESPONSE COMPARISON

OF EACH TUNING METHOD

Time Rise Time, 5 (s) Settling Time, (s)

Type delay,
5%- 10%-
(s) 95% 90%
5% 2% 0.5%

ZN 0,66 2,85 2,23 2,92 3,87 4,83

CC 0,08 0,33 0,24 0,33 0,41 0,54

CHR
0,73 3,03 2,25 3,12 4,13 5,17
0%

CHR 20% 0,32 0,98 0,74 0,98 1,32 1,65

Fig. 8. The Response with Setpoint Constant In Fig 9, it can be seen that when the setpoint is at 2 the
cohen coon tuning has the fastest output, then the input is
changed to 3v and 4v, the cohen coon response produces a
properly output than others tuning.
In Fig 10, it can be seen that when the output is loaded with
the disturbance the fastest response is the cohen-coon tuning.
When the load is decreased, the response can follow the desired
input. Moreover, Table IV shows the comparison of transient
and steady-state responses for each tuning method.

V. CONCLUSIONS
This study explains the design of a PI control to regulate the DC
motor speed using different tuning methods namely Ziegler
Nichols method, Cohen Coon, and CHR tuning. The result
shows that the cohen-coon method offers a greater response
system and has a smaller overshoot compared with the Ziegler-
Nichols method and CHR methods. Cohen-Coon has a lower
overshoot and the result of response cohen-coon always
Fig. 9. The Response with changing the setpoint
approach the setpoint.

96
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Nantes. Downloaded on May 17,2024 at 21:54:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 REFERENCES
[1] R. Firmansyah and P. P. S. Saputra, “Design of Model Predictive
Control to stabilize Two-Stage Inverted Pendulum,” in Proceeding -
2020 3rd International Conference on Vocational Education and
Electrical Engineering: Strengthening the framework of Society 5.0
through Innovations in Education, Electrical, Engineering and
Informatics Engineering, ICVEE 2020, 2020, DOI:
10.1109/ICVEE50212.2020.9243211.
[2] K. Astrom, “Process control--Past, present, and future,” IEEE
Control Syst. Mag., vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 3–10, 1985.
[3] M. A. Ahmad, K. Kishor, and P. Rai, “Speed Control of a DC motor
using Controllers,” Autom. Control Intell. Syst., vol. 2, no. 6–1, pp.
1–9, 2014.
[4] A. A. Hassan, N. K. Al-Shamaa, and K. K. Abdalla, “Comparative
Study for DC Motor Speed Control Using PID Controller,” Int. J.
Eng. Technol., vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 4181–4192, 2017.
[5] S. Isnur Haryudo, A. Imam Agung, and R. Firmansyah, “Developing
Learning Tool of Control System Engineering Using Matrix
Laboratory Software Oriented on Industrial Needs,” in IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, vol.
336, no. 1, DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/336/1/012030.
[6] P. P. S. Saputra, R. Firmansyah, and D. Irawan, “Various and
multilevel of coiflet discrete wavelet transform and quadratic
discriminant analysis for classification misalignment on three-phase
induction motor,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2019,
vol. 1367, no. 1, DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1367/1/012049.
[7] P. P. S. Saputra, Misbah, Eliyani, R. Firmansyah, and D. Lastomo,
“Haar and Symlet Discrete Wavelet Transform for Identification
Misalignment on Three Phase Induction Motor Using Energy Level
and Feature Extraction,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
2019, vol. 1179, no. 1, DOI: 10.1088/1742-6596/1179/1/012093.
[8] P. P. S. Saputra, F. D. Murdianto, R. Firmansyah, and K. Widarsono,
“Combination of Quadratic Discriminant Analysis and Daubechis
Wavelet for Classification Level of Misalignment on Induction
Motor,” in Proceeding - 2019 International Symposium on
Electronics and Smart Devices, ISESD 2019, 2019, DOI:
10.1109/ISESD.2019.8909431.
[9] T. Yamamoto, K. Takao, and T. Yamada, “Design of a Data-Driven
PID Controller,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 17, no. 1,
2009.
[10] K. Ogata, Modern Control Engineering. .
[11] Krishnan, Karthik, and G. Karpagam, “Comparison of PID Controller
Tuning Techniques for a FOPDT System,” Int. J. Curr. Eng.
Technol., pp. 2667–2670, 2013.
[12] Skogestad and Sigurd, “Simple analytic rules for model reduction and
PID controller tuning,” J. Process Control, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 291–
309, 2003.

97
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Nantes. Downloaded on May 17,2024 at 21:54:02 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.