2012 American Control Conference

Fairmont Queen Elizabeth, Montréal, Canada

June 27-June 29, 2012

H∞ Model Matching PID Design for Fractional FOPDT Systems

Fabrizio Padula, Ramon Vilanova and Antonio Visioli

Abstract— This paper deals with the H∞ model match- parameters is clearly explained and that a tuning procedure is
ing problem for fractional first-order-plus-dead-time processes. devised in order to achieve the desired nominal performance
Starting from the analytical solution of the problem, we show while guaranteeing the robust stability at the same time.
that a fractional proportional-integral-derivative controller can
be obtained. In this context, the (robust) stability issue is We will also highlight, by means of simulation examples,
analyzed. Further, guidelines for the tuning of the controller that, on the contrary to the solution of the model matching
parameters are given in order to address practical issues and to problem for integer-order systems [7], the devised technique
obtain the required performance. Simulation results show that allows the user to treat processes with different dynamics
the design methodology is effective and allows the user (on the (namely, overdamped or underdamped processes) in a unified
contrary to the integer-order case) to consider processes with
different dynamics in a unified framework. framework, in addition to the capability of dealing explicitly
with fractional-order processes. This is an advantage of the
I. I NTRODUCTION proposed methodology with respect to the integer-order case.
In the last years many theoretical and practical re- II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
sults have been achieved in fractional-order control (see,
for example, [1]). In particular, different design methods We consider a unity-feedback control loop where the
for fractional-order-proportional-integral-derivative (FOPID) process G(s) is described by a FFOPDT process model
controllers have been devised (see [2], [3] and references K
Gnt (s) = e−Ls , (1)
therein contained). Despite the large number of results pre- 1 + T sα
sented in the literature, fractional control has never been where K is the gain, T is the time constant, L is the dead
treated analytically under the point of view of H∞ model time and α is the fractional derivative order. Note that, when
matching, until a methodology for fractional first-order-plus- using α = 1, an integer-order FOPDT is obtained. In order
dead-time (FFOPDT) systems has been recently presented to apply the H∞ model matching technique, the delay term
in [4] (note that, as pointed out in [5], a general solution has to be approximated by means of a first-order Taylor
to solve H∞ optimization problem involving fractional- expansion e−Ls ≈ 1 − Ls thus yielding
order plants does not exist yet). In [4], starting from an
Internal Model Control (IMC) controller representation of the 1 − Ls
Gn (s) = K . (2)
feedback loop, the optimization problem is formulated and, 1 + T sα
once the optimal IMC controller is obtained, an equivalent The feedback controller is denoted as K(s), while T (s)
feedback controller is derived via Youla parametrization [6]. denotes the nominal complementary sensitivity function of
It has also been shown that it is possible to determine a the control-loop:
FOPID feedback controller by approximating the optimal
K(s)Gn (s)
one. Indeed, the method extends to fractional-order systems T (s) = . (3)
1 + K(s)Gn (s)
the method proposed in [7] for integer-order ones.
In this paper, after having reviewed the methodology, we It can be shown that, using the IMC paradigm [6] (see Figure
address the stability and robustness issues that arise by 1), T (s) can be expressed by means of the equivalent IMC
applying it. Further, we discuss the tuning of the parameters controller C(s) as:
from a practical point of view by giving suitable guidelines
T (s) = Gn (s)C(s). (4)
in order to achieve the desired performance. Indeed, dealing
with fractional-order dynamics means that more flexibility Once a stable C(s) has been synthesized, the feedback
is introduced in the design phase. While this implies that a controller can be easily recovered by means of:
better performance can be achieved in principle, from another C(s)
point of view the design can be more difficult in practice. It is K(s) = . (5)
1 − C(s)Gn (s)
therefore essential that the physical meaning of all the design
Usually, when using the IMC tuning method, the desired
F. Padula and A. Visioli are with Dipartimento di closed-loop time constant is treated as the tuning parameter
Ingegneria dell’Informazione, University of Brescia, Italy
{fabrizio.padula,antonio.visioli}@ing.unibs.it which allows the robustness/aggressiveness trade-off of the
R. Vilanova is with Dept. de Telecomunicació i Enginyeria de Sis- control loop to be handled. Conversely, in this paper, using
temes, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra (BCN), Spain the same approach proposed in [7] for integer-order transfer
[email protected]
R. Vilanova acknowledges the support received from the Spanish CICYT functions, the IMC formulation is employed in order to set
program under grant DPI2010-15230. a min-max (or model-matching) optimization problem on

978-1-4577-1096-4/12/$26.00 ©2012 AACC 5513

as follows: find a stable transfer function C(s) such as the
cost function
J∞ = kE(s)k∞ = kW (s)(M (s) − C(s)Gn (s))k∞ (11)
is minimized, where Gn (s) is defined in (2), M (s) is defined
in (10) and W (s) in (9). All the transfer functions involved
in the model matching problem are stable and minimum
phase, with the exception of Gn (s) that has a right half
plane (RHP) zero at zg = L1 . This implies that the optimal
Fig. 1. The IMC and the equivalent feedback control schemes. IMC controller cannot have an unstable pole at zg , because
it would cause internal instability. It is also well known
which the controller architecture is based. The problem is that this kind of problem can be recast in an equivalent
formulated as finding an IMC controller C o (s) that solves optimal interpolation one. Thus, the RHP zero introduces
the following min-max optimization problem: an interpolation constraint since, in order to avoid internal
C o (s) = min kW (s)(M (s) − C(s)Gn (s))k∞ , (6) instability, the model matching error has to satisfy:
C(s)
E o (zg ) = W (zg )M (zg ) (12)
where M (s) is the reference model for the closed loop
system transfer function, while W (s) is a weighting function. where E o (s) is the optimal interpolation error:
Then, by means of (5), the equivalent feedback controller o
J∞ = kE 0 (s)k∞ = min kE(s)k∞ . (13)
transfer function is obtained. The reference model is chosen
to be a fractional-first-order (FFO) process Generalizing, each RHP zero zi generates a constraint for
1 the optimal interpolation error. In the integer case, the
M (s) = (7) constraints, together with a theoretical result that states that
1 + T m sλ
E o is an all-pass transfer function (see [8], [9], [10]), give
whose time constant Tm plays the same role of the time a general solution to the H∞ interpolation problem.
constant of the classical IMC control strategy, i.e., it specifies In the fractional case a similar result does not exist, but, for
the desired closed-loop bandwidth. In this paper, a fractional- the particular (but useful to describe plenty of applications)
order weighting function is employed: problem considered in this paper, it is possible to find an
1 + zsµ analytical solution. Indeed, by imposing the constraints (12),
W (s) = γ . (8)
sµ it is easy to see that the following equation holds:
The weighting function plays a double role because it allows L2µ + zLµ
the user to add degrees of freedom to the controller design ρ = |E 0 (zg )| = γ . (14)
Lµ + Tm Lµ−λ
and to include the integral action into the equivalent feedback
controller. Thus, it guarantees, at least for step-like signals, The constraint imposes a lower bound to the ∞-norm of
to achieve a zero steady-state set-point following error and the optimal interpolation error. Thus, any stable controller
complete load disturbance rejection. It is worth noting that C(s) such as kE(s)k∞ = ρ is optimal. Note that, at this
a fractional-order integral action s1µ , with µ < 1, as well as point, we cannot yet state the opposite, indeed an optimal
an integer-order one, guarantees zero steady-state error for controller could make the optimal interpolation error ∞-
step-like signals. norm to be greater than ρ. The following lemma (see the
proof in [4]) is useful to derive the solution to this problem
III. S OLUTION OF THE O PTIMIZATION P ROBLEM stated in Theorem 1.
In order to solve the model-matching problem, applying Lemma 1: A proper fractional-order system
the polynomial division, we slightly reduce the class of Pk ϕi
allowable fractional-order weights and fractional-order refer- i=0 bi s
P (s) = mP ψj
, ψi < 1, a0 > 0, aj ≥ 0 j = 1 · · · m;
ence models to the ones whose exponents can be represented j=0 aj s
(15)
as the ratio of two natural numbers, that is:
m
is always stable.
1 + zs n Theorem 1: The optimal controller that solves the min-
W (s) = γ m , n, m ∈ N (9)
sn max problem stated in (6) is
and
1 C o (s) = (W (s)Gn (s))−1 (W (s)M (s) − ρ) (16)
M (s) = l , l, m ∈ N. (10)
1 + Tm s n m
provided that µ = < 2, n, m ∈ R
n
Note that, with an appropriate choice of n, m, and l, the Proof. First note that, if the controller defined in (16) is
corresponding real numbers µ and λ can be approximated stable, then E(s) = ρ. This comes directly from (16) together
with arbitrary precision. Therefore the exponents µ and λ, with (6) and it is a sufficient condition for the optimality,
from now on, are assumed to be rational numbers. provided C o (s) to be stable.
The min-max optimization problem (6) can be reformulated Now, to conclude the proof, let us show the stability of

5514
C o (s). It is a fractional transfer function whose expression from C o (s) (IMC controller) and Gn (s) by means of (5).
with respect to the parameters of the transfer functions After some passages we have:
involved in the optimization process is:
1 1 + T sα Q(s)
α K o (s) = ρ µ ρ λ+µ Pn−1 k k .
1 1 + Ts K γs sλ
+ Tm + Tm (z + γ )s
C o (s) = k=0 L s
n n
χ(s) (17)
K (1 + zsµ )(1 + Tm sλ ) (24)
We can notice that the optimal controller has the same
where asymptotic behavior of a filtered FOPID controller.
1 + zsµ − sµ (1 + Tm sλ ) γρ
χ(s) = (18) It is worth stressing that, when using unitary exponents
1 − Ls µ = 1, λ = 1 and α = 1, the optimal controller obtained by
is a commensurate transfer function [11]. If µ < 2 the means of (24) is the same one obtained in [7]. Indeed, the
first part of C o (s) is stable, as a direct consequence of the fractional-order case could be seen as the natural extension of
stability theorem stated in [11]. Now the stability of χ(s) the integer-order one and, viceversa, the integer-order one is
has to be proven. Let us define its integer counterpart: a particular case of a more general solution in the presented
fractional-order systems framework.
1 + zsm − sm (1 + Tm sl ) γρ The optimal controller (24) that solves the model match-
χ̄(s) := . (19) ing problem is very difficult to implement because of its
1 − Lsn
complexity. Thus, it is meaningful to look for a simpler
The denominator dχ̄ (s) of χ̄(s) can be easily factorized as: suboptimal controller. In order to do that we assume that
n−1 the fractional degree µ = m n of (9) is equal to the fractional
k 1
degree λ = nl of (10). For this reason from now on we will
X
dχ̄ (s) = ( L n sk )(1 − L n s) (20)
k=0 only use µ.
First note that, as a consequence of the stability of the
and going back to its fractional counterpart leads to: optimal controller, the rest of the division of nχ̄ (s) by
1
n−1 (1 − L n s) has to be null. Thus, it has to be:
k k 1 1
X
dχ (s) = ( L n s n )(1 − L n s n ). (21) ρ ρ Tm m
k=0 −(z − − λ
)=Ln. (25)
γ γL
Now, using Lemma 1, we can see that the first multiplicative
Now let us consider the optimal feedback controller (24).
term of dχ (s) is stable, while the second one is clearly
By means of (25) and by taking into account the previous
unstable (it can be proven by means of the stability result
assumption it can be rewritten as:
derived in [11]). Let us now focus on the numerator nχ̄ (s)
1
of χ̄(s). If it is divisible by (1 − L n s) then the optimal (1 + T sα )(1 + ρT
Pm−1 k k
γLµ )
m
1 k=0 L s
n n
o
controller C o (s) is stable. It is straightforward to see, by K (s) = ρ µ ρ 2µ Pn−1 k k ,
K ( γ + Tm )s + Tm (z + γ )s k=0 L s
n n
polynomial division, that they divide each other and their (26)
ratio Q(s) is: that can be rearranged in the following form:
m−1 m+l−1
X ρ ρ Tm 1 k
X ρ Tm
1 (1 + T sα )(1 + ρT
γLµ )
m
Q(s) = −(z− − l ) m−k s + sk o
K (s) =
γ γ Ln L n γ L m+l−k
n K ( γ + Tm )sµ + Tm (z + γρ )s2µ
ρ
k=0 k=m
(22) Pn−1 k k Pm−1 k k ! (27)
and going back once again to the fractional counterpart of − k=m L n s n + k=n L n s n
· 1+ Pn−1 k k ,
nχ̄ (s) we can see that the optimal controller can therefore k=0 L s
n n

be expressed as:
where each summation is supposed to be null when the
o 1 1 + T sα Q(s) final index is smaller than the initial one. By neglecting
C (s) = Pn−1 k k (23) the summation terms in the previous equation and, once
K (1 + zsµ )(1 + Tm sλ ) k=0 Ln sn
again, by means of (25), we obtain the suboptimal feedback
If the conditions of the theorem are satisfied, the previous controller:
controller is stable and the theorem is proven. 2 +z µ µ
1 (1 + T sα )(1 + Tm LLµ +T s )
Remark 1. The optimal controller does not depend on the K̃(s) = m
. (28)
ρ ρ
+z
coefficient γ, see (9), because it always appears in the ratio K( γ + Tm ) sµ (1 + T ργ sµ )
m +Tm
ρ γ
γ , where ρ is defined in (14). Actually, the weight function
role is to formalize how much we want to consider a certain The previous expression is a FOPID controller in series form
frequency with respect to the others. Thus, a multiplica- (see [3]), filtered by means of a fractional pole. It is worth
tive coefficient that uniformly increases (or decreases) the noting that when using µ = 1 the suboptimal and the optimal
weighting function magnitude does not change the result. solutions coincide, i.e. K̃(s) = K o (s). Indeed, when using
Therefore, without loss of generality, we can assume γ = 1. an integer weight and an integer model reference, the optimal
The equivalent optimal feedback controller K o (s) is obtained controller is already an interacting FOPID controller. Finally

5515
note that, when using α = µ and z = Tm , a fractional- V. ROBUST S TABILITY AND T UNING G UIDELINES
order PI (FOPI) controller is obtained. Then, the suboptimal
A. Robust Stability
FOPID controller has the same low-frequency asymptotic
behavior as the optimal one while, at high frequencies, the The closed-loop stability is guaranteed as long as the pro-
actual process model (1) (that is a low-pass filter) makes the cess model Gnt (s) perfectly describes the process dynamics.
mismatches between the open loop transfer functions less However, as mismatches between the actual process and the
significant. model used are unavoidable, it is important to be able to
stabilize a family of plants around the nominal one. Assume
IV. N OMINAL S TABILITY
that the process belongs to a family F defined as:
When using the nominal process model (2), the optimal
controller (24) guarantees the closed-loop stability for any F = {G(s) = Gnt (s)(1 + ∆m (s)) : |∆m (jω)| < |Γ(jω)|} ,
choice of Tm , z, µ and λ, provided that the hypothesis of (32)
Theorem 1 (i.e., µ < 2 and λ < 2) is satisfied. where ∆m (s) = (G(s) − Gnt (s))/Gnt (s) is the uncertainty
Conversely, when considering the actual process model (1) description and Γ(jω) is a weight that defines the plants
and the suboptimal controller (28), it is important to verify family by upper bounding the modeling error. It is well
the control system stability. In order to do this, the dual locus known that a controller that stabilizes a control system in
method [12] can be employed. By denoting the open-loop the nominal case, also stabilizes the family F of the control
transfer function as H(s) := K̃(s)Gnt (s), the root locus systems such that kΓ(s)Tn (s)k∞ < 1 where Tn (s) is the
method results in the following characteristic equation: stable nominal closed-loop transfer function, namely:
µ
+z µ
(1 + Tm LLµ +T s ) K̃(s)Gnt (s)
1 + H(s) = 1 + m
e−Ls = 0. Tn (s) = . (33)
( γρ + Tm )sµ + Tm ( γρ + z)s2µ 1 + K̃(s)Gnt (s)
(29)
By defining The robust stability condition is always satisfied if
2µ µ µ 2 |Tn (jω)| < |1/Γ(jω)|. Rewritten in this form, it is easy to
(L + zL + Tm L + Tm )s
H1 (s) := − compute, and the left hand side of this inequality is usually
(Lµ + Tm ) + Tm (Lµ + z) a low-pass transfer function.
(30)
Tm (L2µ + 2zLµ + zTm )s2µ
−
(Lµ + Tm ) + Tm (Lµ + z) B. Tuning Guidelines
and H2 := e −Ls
, equation (29), taking into account (14), In this work we propose to handle the robust-
can be rewritten as ness/aggressiveness trade-off by means of the z parameter.
1

H1 (s) − H2 (s) = 0. (31) For a fixed desired bandwidth (Tm ) µ , the user can modify
the z parameter until the robust stability constraint is satis-
The dual locus technique is now applied: first, the inter- fied. Of course, it might be possible that the robust stability
section point has to be determined by solving the equation constraints are never satisfied, in this case the desired closed-
|L1 (s)|s=jω = 1. Once the intersection point frequency ωc loop bandwidth is too large and it is necessary to reduce it by
has been obtained, the phases φ1 (ωc ) and φ2 (ωc ) of H1 (jωc ) 1
increasing (Tm ) µ . Conversely, it might be possible that the
and H2 (jωc ), respectively, are obtained. The closed-loop robust stability constraints are always satisfied, this means
system is stable if φ1 − φ2 < 0. Briefly speaking, the that the required performance is easily achievable and it is
stability condition is satisfied if the locus of H1 (s) reaches possible to speed up the system response by decreasing Tm .
the intersection point earlier than the one of H2 (s). The tuning of the µ parameter is less significant and, in
Solving (31) analytically could be a complex task, because, several cases, the use of an integer-order integrator is the
in particular when µ 6= 1, it results in complex trigonometric best solution [3], [13]. Nevertheless, sometimes the system
equations. Nevertheless, the dual locus method is useful to response becomes sluggish when the system output is close
study the nominal stability using a worst case approach. to the set point value. This behavior mainly depends on
It is worth noting that, as Tm and z decrease, the loop band- the model mismatch between the actual process and the
width increases and the control system robustness decreases. process model. In this context the µ parameter can be
The worst case is thus obtained by setting Tm = 0 and slightly modified in order to achieve a fine tuning that tries
z = 0. With this choice, (31) becomes −Lµ s − e−Ls = 0, to optimize the transient response close to the set point
and it is easy to prove that the stability condition is always value. Summarizing, the tuning procedure can be outlined
satisfied, provided that µ < 2 π−1π ≈ 1.36. Indeed, the actual as follows:
process model and the suboptimal controller guarantee the
1) set µ = 1;
closed-loop stability for any choice of the tuning parameter 1

Tm and z provided that µ < 1.36. On the other hand, when 2) select the desired closed-loop bandwidth Tmµ ;
µ > 1.36, a numerical solution of the dual locus equation 3) compute the process uncertainty and select z to satisfy
(31) can be easily computed. Anyway, it is quite uncommon the robust stability constraints;
1
to meet, in practical cases, fractional integrators with order 4) if such a value of z does not exist then increase Tmµ
greater than 1.3. and go to 3;

5516
5) if the transient response is sluggish when the process 10

output is close to the set point, reduce µ if the 0

process output tends from above to the set-point value, −10

otherwise increase µ;

magnitude [dB]
else set µ = 1; −20

6) if µ > 1.36 then verify the nominal stability; −30

7) if µ 6= 1 go to 3; −40

8) end.
−50
−1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10

VI. S IMULATION R ESULTS ω

Fig. 2. Plants family (green lines), fractional model (solid line) and integer
As Example 1, we consider the process model (dotted line) – Example 1.

K 30
G(s) = Gnt ,F (s) = e−Ls (34)
T sα + 1 20

and we suppose that the nominal process parameters assume 10

magnitude [dB]
their values in the middle points of following uncertainty z
0
intervals: L ∈ [0.35, 0.65], T ∈ [0.7, 1.3], K ∈ [0.7, 1.3] and
α ∈ [0.4, 1.0]. The frequency response of the corresponding −10

family of plants is shown in Figure 2. It is worth noting −20

that the considered uncertainty is significant. In particular,

−30
uncertainty on the order α implies that the controller is 10
−1 0
10
ω
1
10
2
10

required to deal with a wide range of different dynamics. For Fig. 3. Robust stability boundaries (green lines) and nominal closed-loop
transfer functions for z ∈ {0.1, 0.8} using the fractional model with µ = 1
the sake of comparison, the integer model with the nominal and Tm = (1.2L)µ – Example 1.
parameters and α = 1 has been also considered:
30
1 −0.5s
Gnt ,I (s) = e . (35)
s+1 20

Note that, in any case, it fits the family of plants (see Figure magnitude [dB] 10

2). The desired closed-loop bandwidth is initially selected as 0

z

Tm = (1.2L)µ = 0.6. Then, it can be seen that by using −10

z = 0.1, both in integer and in the fractional case the robust

stability is not achieved (see Figures 3 and 4). Using z = 0.8 −20

the fractional process model guarantees the robust stability −30

10
−1 0
10
1
10
2
10

whereas, for the integer one, it is required to use z = 1.5.

ω
Fig. 4. Robust stability boundaries (green lines) and nominal closed-loop
The step responses plotted in Figures 5 and 6 show that the transfer functions for z ∈ {0.1, 0.8, 1.5} and µ = 1 (solid lines) and
for z = 1.55 and µ = 1.1 (dashed line), using the integer model with
use of a fractional model allows the user to increase the speed Tm = (1.2L)µ – Example 1.
of the response without loosing the robust stability with
respect to the same family of plants. Finally, in order improve 2
process variable

1.5
the response when using the integer model, the integrator 1

degree has been increased to µ = 1.1 (and consequently, to 0.5

preserve the desired bandwidth, Tm = (1.2L)µ = 0.57), 0

0 2 4
time
6 8 10

increasing also z to 1.55 in order to satisfy the robust 3

stability constraints (see Figure 4). Of course, the price to

control variable

pay in order to control a family of plants different from the 1

0
nominal one used for controller design is a degradation of the −1
0 2 4 6 8 10
system response that could become oscillatory or sluggish time

depending on the actual process. It is worth noting that Fig. 5. Step-responses using the fractional model with Tm = (1.2L)µ :
plant family response with µ = 1 and z = 0.8 (green lines) and nominal
the fractional model allows the user to guarantee the robust closed-loop step response with µ = 1 and z = 0.8 – Example 1.
stability with a more aggressive tuning (i.e., it improves the
robustness/performance trade-off). On the other hand, be- Once again, a FOPDT model of the process has been
cause of the larger bandwidth, the performance degradation identified by means of the MATLAB function pem, resulting
is more significant when the actual process is very different in:
from the nominal model. Nevertheless, the stability is always 1
Gnt ,I (s) = e−0.9s . (37)
guaranteed. 0.566s + 1
As Example 2, consider the following (underdamped) Of course, modeling a strongly underdamped process with a
second-order-plus-dead-time process: FOPDT model is not sensible, but in this case it is required
1 by the tuning method. Conversely, a FFOPDT model can
G(s) = 2 e−0.6s . (36) also capture an oscillatory behavior. The delay has been
s + 0.4s + 1

5517
1.5 40

process variable
1 30

0.5 20

magnitude [dB]
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 10
time

control variable 3 0

2 −10

1 −20

0 −30
0 2 4 6 8 10 −1 0 1
time 10 10 10
ω
Fig. 6. Step-responses using the integer model with Tm = (1.2L)µ : plant Fig. 7. Robust stability boundaries with Tm = 1.5L and µ = 1: fractional
family response µ = 1.1 and Tm = 1.55 (green lines), nominal closed- case (dashed line) and integer case (dash-dot line). Nominal closed-loop
loop response with µ = 1.1 and Tm = 1.55 (solid line) and with µ = 1 transfer functions: fractional case z = 0.1 (solid line) and integer case
and Tm = 1.5 (dashed line) – Example 1. z = 10 (dotted line) – Example 2.
1.5
identified by considering the time interval when the process

process variable
step response crosses the threshold of 1% of the steady-state 1

value. Then, considering that the step response of FFOPDT 0.5

model is described by means of the two parameters Mittag- 0

0 10 20
time
30 40 50

Leffler function [14], by imposing that that first peak of 1.5

control variable
the model step response coincides with the first peak of the 1

process step response, the FFOPDT model has been obtained 0.5

as:
1 0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Gnt ,F (s) = e−0.74s . (38) time

Fig. 8. Step-responses with Tm = 1.5L and µ = 1: integer model (dotted
1.05s1.702 + 1
line z = 10) and the fractional model for different values of z (dash-dot
The uncertainty has been computed as the difference between line z = 10, dashed line z = 1 and solid line z = 0.1) – Example 2.
the process model and the actual process, normalized with
respect to the process model, that is, Γ(jω) = (G(jω) − methodology can be easily applied in practical cases. It has
Gnt (jω))/Gnt (jω) Then, Tm = 1.5 has been fixed in order also been shown that the additional flexibility in the design
to set the desired bandwidth. Because of the accurate model, because of dealing with fractional-order systems plays a key
in the fractional case z can be reduced to 0 preserving the role in improving the control system performance.
robust stability. Thus, the selection of z can be done just with R EFERENCES
the purpose to speed up or slow down the system response.
[1] C. A. Monje, B. M. Vinagre, V. Feliu, and Y. Q. Chen, “Tuning and
Conversely, in the integer case it is necessary to set z = 10 auto-tuning of fractional order controllers for industry applications,”
in order to achieve the robust stability. In Figure 7 the robust Control Engineering Practice, vol. 16, pp. 798–812, 2008.
stability boundaries and the nominal closed-loop transfer [2] D. Valerio and J. Sa da Costa, “A review of tuning methods for frac-
tional PIDs,” in Preprints IFAC Workshop on Fractional Differentiation
function frequency responses are shown both in the integer and its Applications, Badajoz (E), 2010.
and in the fractional case: as expected, the robust stability [3] F. Padula and A. Visioli, “Tuning rules for optimal PID and fractional-
constraints are much more severe when using an integer order PID controllers,” J. of Process Control, vol. 21, pp. 69–81, 2011.
[4] F. Padula, R. Vilanova, and A. Visioli, “H∞ optimal interpolation
model, because of the non capability of a FOPDT model for fractional first order plus dead time systems,” in Proceedings
to capture underdamped dynamics. Indeed, the capability Symposium on Fractional Signals and Systems, Coimbra (P), 2011.
of treating in a unified framework (that is, using the same [5] D. Valerio, “Fractional robust system control,” Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Lisbon (P), 2005.
process model structure) overdamped and underdamped pro- [6] M. Morari and E. Zafirou, Robust Process Control. Englewood Cliffs
cesses is a great advantage that the fractional model offers. (NY): Prentice-Hall, 1989.
The different step responses shown in Figure 8 for different [7] R. Vilanova, “IMC based robust PID design: tuning guidelines and
automatic tuning,” J. of Process Control, vol. 18, pp. 61–70, 2008.
values of z confirm the role of the parameter z in speeding [8] B. Francis, A Course in H∞ Control Theory. Springer Verlag, 1987.
up or slowing down the transient response and the major [9] B. Chen, “Controller synthesis of optimal sensitivity: multivariable
improvement obtained by using a fractional model. As the case,” in IEEE Proceedings, 1984, pp. 547–551.
[10] G. Zames and B. Francis, “Feedback, min-max sensitivity and optimal
response is satisfactory, there is no need to modify the value robustness,” IEEE Trans. on Aut. Cont., vol. 28, pp. 585–601, 1983.
of µ. [11] D. Matignon, “Stability results for fractional differential equation with
applications to control processing,” Computational Engineering in
VII. C ONCLUSIONS System Application, 1996.
[12] S. Alcantara, “Analytical design of feedback compensators based on
The proposed fractional H∞ optimal model matching robustness/performace and servo/regulator trade-offs,” Ph.D. disserta-
tion, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (E), 2011.
technique is suitable for FFOPDT processes and allows the [13] F. Padula and A. Visioli, “Tuning of fractional PID controllers for
designer to use both fractional-order weighting function and integral processes,” in Proceedings 4th IFAC Workshop on Fractional
fractional-order model reference. The nominal and robust Differentiation and Its Applications, Badajoz (E), 2010.
[14] I. Podlubny, “Fractional-order systems and PIλ Dµ controllers,” IEEE
stability issue has been discussed as well as the tuning of Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 44, pp. 208–214, 1999.
the user-defined parameters. Indeed, the physical meaning
of the parameters has been clarified, thus showing that the

5518