Abstract This paper introduces a novel control law that is

generic in nature and stabilizes linear and a class of non-linear

systems. The parameters of the proposed controller give the
same flexibility of tuning the transient response of a system as
the standard PID does. The superiority of the Output-
Prediction based Proportional Switching (OPPS) controller lies
in the fact that it addresses the fundamental implementation
problems of the PID such as integrator windup, high frequency
gain of the derivative term and especially sacrifice of rise-time
as system damping is further enhanced using the derivative
term. Extensive simulation results are presented implementing
OPPS on different linear and non-linear systems that show its
generic nature and strength. Finally OPPS is implemented to
stabilize a 2-DOF platform stabilization scheme and results are
compared with those of a PID.
I. INTRODUCTION
ODAY more than 90% of the closed-loop industrial
processes incorporate conventional proportional-
integral-derivative (PID) controllers with or without some
slight modifications [1], [2]. Since the invention of PID in
1910, there has been an unbridled increase in acceptance and
application of the PID in industry. Easy to use tuning
methods of Ziegler-Nichols (Z-N), published in 1942 have
contributed a great deal to the success story of PID [3]. With
such a long history of academic research encompassing the
PID and as the knowledge base matures and enters into an
area of diminishing returns, PID still holds an uncanny facet
to many plant operators and engineers around the world.
A standard PID controller is also known as a three-term
controller whose transfer function is generally written either
in a parallel form or a series form [4]. Well known issues
regarding use and tuning of a PID relate mostly to its
integral and derivative terms. Adding integral term to a pure
proportional term decreases the gain margin (GM) and phase
margin (PM) of the system i.e. the system will become
potentially unstable [5]. Moreover in applications where the
controlled actuator has a range limit; techniques of anti-
windup must be introduced to offset the saturation [6]-[7].
The derivative term is perceived to increase stability and
though it increases the PM of the system but at the same

Manuscript received December 31, 2008. This work was supported in
part by the National University of Sciences & Technology, Pakistan.
Mansoor Shaukat is with the Centre for Advanced Studies in
Engineering, Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan (phone: 00923215194279; e-mail:
mansoor@carepvtltd.com).
Khalid Munawar is with the Electrical Engineering Department, National
University of Sciences & Technology, Pakistan (e-mail:
munawar@ceme.edu.pk).
time it decreases GM [5]. This property generates a very
tricky choice for a range of derivative gains which ensure
system stability. This is also a reason why 80% of the PID
controllers in use have their derivative part switched off [8].
The failure of the derivative term to restrict high-frequency
gains makes the introduction of low pass filter mandatory
[9]-[10]. Furthermore, in an attempt to completely kill
overshoots, system damping must be increased. The
derivative gain contributes to the damping factor of a system
and increasing which causes the rise time to be sacrificed
[11]-[13]. This renders task of tuning a PID very tedious
especially when the plant model is unknown.
Problems associated with the PID that have been discussed
relate to the fundamental structure of a PID. Various tuning
methods have been developed that address these intricacies
of implementation as well as help in improving stability.
Moreover these methods also improve robustness, tracking
and regulation performance and noise attenuation using
analytic, heuristic, frequency response, optimization and
adaptive tuning methods [4], [6], [14]-[17]. However, these
tuning methods are generally complex in nature and most of
them need to work offline. Such systems generally work as
an expert operator by first considering that a PID controller
is difficult to tune and try to deliver both a short rise-time
and a low overshoot. Most PID patents filed so far focus on
automatic tuning techniques with intelligent system
identification and a knowledge base of the process to work
with. Although complex and computationally taxing
structures have been built over the years; still there is a lack
of generic methods that can be viably applied on an
embedded system.
In this paper, we propose a discrete nonlinear controller
which addresses the fundamental problems of a standard
PID structure without incorporating a complex structure.
Output-Prediction based Proportional Switching (OPPS)
consists of two control modes about which the control law is
switched. The name "switching controller" comes through
this approach of switching between these modes. The
Output Update (OU) mode and the Output Prediction (OP)
mode constitute OPPS. OU is a very simple control mode
which resembles with a conventional integral controller. OU
governs the control law most of the time while OP
intervenes only when there is an indication of an overshoot
based on rate of change of system output. OP is based on a
very simple overshoot suppression rule base that is
computationally just a fraction of the complex fuzzy and
adaptive structures [18]-[19].
Discrete Output-Prediction based Proportional Switching
Controller
Mansoor Shaukat, Member, IEEE and Khalid Munawar
T
17th Mediterranean Conference on Control & Automation
Makedonia Palace, Thessaloniki, Greece
June 24 - 26, 2009
978-1-4244-4685-8/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE 682



Conventional switching controllers especially employing
Bang-Bang control, time-optimal control [20]-[22] or
switched output feedback [23]-[24] have generally a solitary
control law whose output switches between predefined
constants. OPPS on the other hand has an integrator at heart
which switches to a pre-defined constant in case of an
overshoot prediction. The action resembles that of re-setting
the control output in case of integrator windup.
In Section II, OPPS is presented with the two control
modes discussed in detail and the control law is formulated.
Extensive simulations on different linear and nonlinear
systems incorporating OPPS are given in Section III; where
ability of OPPS to stabilize any linear and a class of
nonlinear systems is established. 2-DOF platform
stabilization, achieved with OPPS is given in Section IV and
the results are compared with those of a PID on the same
system. Finally, Section V concludes the implementation
findings.
II. CONTROLLER STRUCTURE
The purpose of this research was to come up with a
compensator which has the ability of stabilizing a generic
linear/nonlinear system without incorporating a complex
control structure like the ones discussed in Section I.
The block diagram of the novel OPPS controller is shown in
feedback configuration in Fig.1, where e is the error
between the current output y and the desired output y
d
, d/dt
is the discrete differential operator and u is the OPPS control
output which is switched in between OU modules output, u
1

and OP modules output, u
2
depending on the operating
conditions.

Fig.1. Block diagram of controller in closed loop feedback
configuration.

Both OU and OP control modes can be switched between
depending on the set of rules based principally on the idea of
suppression of overshoots and are defined on the basis of
output rate and error.
A. Output Update (OU) module
The OU module is active almost all the time. The OPPS
calculates the suggested differential Au in the output u.
) ( ) ( k e
u
K k u = A (1)
where, K
u
is the positive proportional gain constant and k is
the time index.
The suggested differential is then subtracted or added to the
previous u depending on the negative or positive sign of the
error e respectively, where:
) ( ) ( ) ( k y k
d
y k e = (2)
The partial control law consisting of OU module will be:

A
A +
=
) ( ) 1 (
) ( ) 1 (
) (
1
k u k u
k u k u
k u (3)
OU resembles with an analog integrator in s-domain where:
) ( ) ( s U s E
s
i
K
= (4)
or expressed in time domain as:
) ( ) ( t u t e
i
K = (5)
So, OU is nothing more than a discrete integrator which
computes the proposed differential in u based on the
magnitude and sign of the error and moreover has the
capability of zeroing down the error on its own.
B. Output Prediction (OP) module
The OP module in contrast to the OU module only gets
activated when there is a prediction of an overshoot in the
output y with respect to the desired output y
d
. The idea is to
prevent overshoot before it actually happens. OPPS
continuously predicts the approximated future output
) 1 ( + k y as y
p
(k).
)} ( ) ( { ) ( ) 1 ( k y k y k
p
y k y A + = = + | (6)
where, is a constant prediction gain and Ay = y(k) y(k-1).
In case an overshoot is predicted then the OP module
intervenes and modifies the control law dictated previously
by the OU module. The condition whether y
p
is greater or
lesser than y
d
is actually the indication for an overshoot. If e
in (2) is positive, y
p
> y
d
indicates an overshoot; while when
e is negative, y
p
< y
d
indicates an overshoot. Both the
conditions are catered for in the rule base in (8).
Unlike complex prediction algorithms, a very simple
prediction mechanism based on rate of change of output is
used. After extensive simulations on different linear and
nonlinear systems it was concluded that =1, generally
suffices with the exception of higher prediction gains for
systems with process dead time or transport delay as in (7).
Ls
e
Ts
K
s G

+
=
1
) ( (7)
where, K is the process gain, T is the process time constant
and L is the process dead-time or transportation delay.
The modified control law is given in (8), where u
c
is a
constant, to which control output is switched to, provided
the need for overshoot suppression. The property of OP
mode to switch to some other desirable output, the
magnitude of which is dependent on the type of system and
will be discussed in section III, is in itself an effective
integrator anti-windup technique.
o is a positive constant that defines the error boundary inside
which OP module cannot have an impact. This is to make
683



sure smooth transitioning of output y to desired output y
d
.
Switching OP module, if active within certain error
boundary will give rise to undesired chattering while e tends
to zero. This is to let integrator role of OU to zero down the
error smoothly inside the error boundary.
The sign of the output differential Ay in (8) indicates
whether the output is diverging from the target position or
converging towards it. It has to be noted that the given
conditions are themselves sub-conditions of the error sign
condition.
( ) ( ) 0&
[{ ( ) 0}
&{ ( ) ( )}
&{| ( ) | }]
( )
2
( ) ( ) 0&
[{ ( ) 0}
&{ ( ) ( )}
&{| ( ) | }]
u k if e k
c
if y k
y k y k
p d
e k
u k
u k if e k
c
if y k
y k y k
p d
e k
o
o
>
A >
>
>
=
<
A <
<
>

(8)
C. Control law
The OPPSs overall control law then can be listed as
follows:
( 1) | ( ) | ( ) 0
( ) ( ) 0&
[{ ( ) 0}
&{ ( ) ( )}
&{| ( ) | }]
( )
( 1) | ( ) | ( ) 0
( ) ( ) 0&
[{ ( ) 0}
&{ ( ) ( )}
&{| ( ) | }]
c
p d
c
p d
u k u k if e k
u k if e k
if y k
y k y k
e k
u k
u k u k if e k
u k if e k
if y k
y k y k
e k
o
o
+ A >

>

A >

>

>

=

A <

<
A <

<

>

(9)
III. SIMULATIONS
In this section, OPPS will be applied to different system
categories in the closed loop configuration as given in Fig.1
and the ability of stabilization will be presented and transient
performance based on selection of varying control
parameters will be discussed. Linear systems on which
OPPS will be applied will be over-damped, under-damped
and unstable respectively. OPPS will finally be implemented
on a monotonic nonlinear system.
A. Linear Systems
1) Over-damped system: OPPS is first applied to an
over-damped system given in (10) with only OU control
mode active.
) 1 )( 3 (
2
) (
+ +
+
=
s s
s
s G (10)
Fig.2 shows the step response of (10) for varying
proportional gain K
u
. Fig.2 also shows faster settling times
for increased K
u
and higher frequency of oscillations.
Further if the OP module is also made active, it can be
shown that better transient performance can be achieved as
shown in Fig.3. Step responses are shown by keeping OU
control parameters constant and varying OP control
parameters. For OP mode is kept unity as discussed earlier
while error boundary for over-damped system o (delta) =
0.01 in which OP mode cannot have an impact and u
c
is
varied from 2 in Fig.3 to 2.5 in Fig.4. As soon as the OP
mode gets triggered control output switches and the new
control output due to u
2
pulls back the system. In Fig.4 a
little softer switching approach (selection of u
c
) ensures a
much smoother transitioning of the system output to the
desired output.

Fig.2. Step response of system in (10) with OPPS
parameters: K
u
= 0.2, 0.4, and 1. (OP module: inactive)

Fig.5 shows the control output of the closed loop system
implemented in Fig.4. Control output switches to u
c
at the
instant OP takes over control from OU. OP control mode
resets the saturated u to u
c
as is done by the anti-windup
technique for PID. Control output then gradually smoothes
off due to integration action of OU control mode.
Another characteristic shown in Fig.6 is that though both the
closed loop systems of Fig.3 and Fig.4 have a lot of
difference in their respective overshoots but their rise-times
are identical. Therefore, OPPS gives the user the flexibility
to modify overshoots without sacrificing rise-times. Fig.7
shows the sinusoid for the the over-damped system. Fig.8
shows the improved response of the system once the
proportional constant K
u
of OU module is increased
significantly while other parameters are unchanged.
2) Under-damped system: The controller was further
applied on an under-damped system in a closed loop
configuration as in Fig.1 with G(s) given in (11).
) 5 . 0 )( 5 . 0 (
1
) (
j s j s
s G
+ + +
= (11)
Fig.9 shows the step response for the under-damped system.
Further Fig.10 shows the sinusoid following for the system.
3) Unstable system: OPPS is then applied to an unstable
system with G(s) given in (12) in the same configuration of
Fig.1.
) 1 )( 3 (
2
) (
+
+
=
s s
s
s G (12)
684



Fig.11 shows the step response for the system (12) and the
sinusoid following is given in Fig.12.

Fig.3. OPPS applied to system in (10) with OPPS
parameters: K
u
= 1.00; = 1; o (delta) = 0.01; u
c
= 2.0

Fig.4. OPPS applied to system in (10) with controller
parameters: K
u
= 1.00; = 1; o (delta) = 0.01; u
c
= 2.5

Fig.5. Control output u for closed loop system as in Fig.4.

Fig.6. Comparison of rise-time for closed loop systems in
Fig.3 and Fig.4 with different control switching output.

B. Nonlinear system
Finally, OPPS is applied as in Fig.1 to a monotonic
nonlinear system as given in (13).
3
) ( u u f = (13)
Fig.13 shows the step response for (13) with OPPS applied
and control parameters for both modes stated. Fig.14 shows
the sinusoid following for a non-linear system.

Fig.7. Sinusoid following for system in (10) with controller
parameters: K
u
= 10.00; = 1; o = 0.01; u
c
= 4.0.


Fig.8. Sinusoid following system in (10) with controller
parameters: K
u
= 100.0; = 1; o = 0.01; u
c
= 4.0.


Fig.9. Step-response for system in (11) with controller
parameters: K
u
= 100.0; = 1; o = 0.01; u
c
= 4.0.

IV. 2-DOF PLATFORM STABILIZATION
After extensive simulations in section VI, OPPS is applied
on a 2 Degree-of-Freedom (DOF) platform to test its
performance in the real world. Control was implemented
685



only on 1DOF (azimuth). A Micro Electro-Mechanical
Systems (MEMS) gyro [25] was used to extract information
for change in orientation of the platform base and two servo-
motors in each DOF were implemented in a drive anti-
drive fashion to compensate for gear backlash [26]. The
system can be approximated by (7). Fig.15 shows the PID
compensated step response of the platform in azimuth DOF
with settling time, T
s
=1.32s. Fig.16 shows PID's
performance with varying desired angle and its vulnerability
to high frequency inputs. Fig.17 shows the OPPS
compensated step response of the platform in azimuth DOF
with varying values of with T
s
=1.035s. Higher values of
are used because of the data transportation lag due to the
PIC-SERVO boards (used to control motors) incorporating a
serial protocol [27]. Fig.18 shows OPPS compensated
platform stabilization. Even at a much higher frequency
inputs than in Fig.16, system output never blows as does for
a PID compensated system and OPPS tracks the fast
changing input with system time constant being the
limitation.

Fig.10. Sinusoid following for system in (11) with controller
parameters: K
u
= 100.0; = 1; o = 0.001; u
c
= 0.05.

Fig.11. Step response for system in (12) with controller
parameters: K
u
= 100.0; = 1; o = 0.001; u
c
= 0.0.

V. CONCLUSIONS
OPPSs simple computational structure and ability to
suppress overshoots while maintaining best rise-times,
display no high frequency gains and an inherent integrator
anti-windup technique gives it a much agreeable choice over
the fundamental PID structure. OPPS ability to address all
these fundamental problems of a PID without incorporating
any fuzzy-like expert rule base, learning algorithm or an
adaptive tuning mechanism, makes OPPS easier to be
implemented on an embedded system. Different types of
systems (plants) compensated by OPPS show strength of its
generic control law as well as satisfying transient and
steady-state performance. The control parameters strictly lay
in a typical range for a particular type of a system which
results in easy tuning procedures. Fundamentally, having the
structure of an integrator and an overriding prediction
control mode based on fundamental concepts of overshoot
occurrence; OPPS is a simple solution to most of the
industrial processes. This paper reports very initial results
and future work encompasses development of stability
analysis, sensitivity to the choice of parameters and noise
rejection capability of the controller. The controller will also
be applied to more real world systems.


Fig.12. Step response for system in (12) with controller
parameters: K
u
= 20; = 1; o = 0.001; u
c
= 1.0.

Fig.13. Step-response for system in (13) with controller
parameters: K
u
= 0.05, 0.06; = 1; o = 0.1; u
c
= 0.0.

Fig.14. Sinusoid following system in (13) with controller
parameters: K
u
= 0.06; = 1; o = 0.1; u
c
= 0.0
686




Fig.15. Finally tuned step response of the platform with PID
implemented

Fig.16. Platform response with PID, for varying reference
angle of rotations. High frequency instability is evident.

Fig.17. Step response with OPPS applied with varying beta,
: 0, 8, and 16. Other parameters: K
u
= 12; o = 0.5; u
c
= 0.

Fig.18. Platform response with OPPS, to varying reference
angle of rotation.
REFERENCES
[1] Astrom K. J. and Hagglund T. H., New tuning methods for PID
controllers, in Proc. 3rd European Control Conf., 1995.
[2] W. S. Levine, PID Control, in The Control Handbook, Ed.
Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1996, pp. 198209.
[3] J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols, Optimum settings for automatic
controllers, Trans. ASME, vol. 64, pp. 759768, 1942.
[4] Y. Li,W. Feng, K. C. Tan, X. K. Zhu, X. Guan, and K. H. Ang,
PIDeasy and automated generation of optimal PID controllers, in
Proc. 3rd Asia- Pacific Conf. Control Meas., Dunhuang, P.R. China,
1998, pp. 2933.
[5] Kiam Heong Ang, and Gregory Chong, PID Control System
Analysis, Design, and Technology, IEEE Trans. Control Systems
Tech., vol. 13, no.4, pp. 559576, Jul. 2005.
[6] K. J. strm and T. Hgglund, PID Controllers: Theory, Design, and
Tuning. Research Triangle Park, NC: Instrument Soc. Amer., 1995.
[7] C. Bohn and D. P. Atherton, An analysis package comparing PID
antiwindup strategies, IEEE Control Syst. Mag., vol. 15, no. 2, pp.
3440, Apr. 1995.
[8] Getting the best out of PID in machine control, in Proc. Dig. Inst.
Elect. Eng. PG16 Colloquium (96/287), London, U.K., Oct. 24, 1996.
[9] J. P. Gerry and F. G. Shinskey, (2007, June) PID Controller
Specification. [Online] http://www.expertune.com/PIDspec.htm
[10] Techmation Inc. (2007, July) Techmation. [Online]
http://protuner.com
[11] Yanjie Sun, Tips for successful PID tuning, Servo Trends., vol. 17,
no. 2, April 2002.
[12] Ashish Tewari, PID compensation, in Modern Control Design, Ed.
Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2005, pp. 8894.
[13] Stefani, Shahian, Savant, Hostetter, Rise time, overshoot and settling
time, in Design of Feedback Control Systems, Ed. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 136-139.
[14] W. Feng and Y. Li, Performance indexes in evolutionary CACSD
automation with application to batch PID generation, in Proc. 10
th

IEEE Int. Symp. Comp. Aided Control System Design, 1999, pp. 486-
491.
[15] R. Gorez, A survey of PID auto-tuning methods, J. A, vol. 38, no. 1,
pp. 310, 1997.
[16] A. ODwyer, Handbook of PI and PID Controller Tuning Rules.
London, U.K.: Imperial College Press, 2003.
[17] Digital control: past, present and future of PID control, in Proc.
IFAC Workshop, J. Quevedo and T. Escobet, Eds., Terrassa, Spain,
Apr. 57, 2000.
[18] Honeywell International Inc. (2008, July)
http://www.honeywell.com.pl/automatyka_przemyslowa/akpia/produk
ty/regulatory/pdf/51-52-03-39.pdf [Online]
http://www.honeywell.com
[19] Yokogawa Electric Corporation (2008, February)
http://www.yokogawa.com/ns/cis/utup/ns-index_utup.htm [Online]
http://www.yokogawa.com
[20] L. Consolini and A. Piazzi, "Generalized bang-bang control for
feedforward constrained regulation.," in Proc. IEEE Decision and
Control Conf., pp. 893898, 2006.
[21] Bengea, S. C. and R. A. DeCarlo, "Optimal and suboptimal control of
switching systems," in Proc. IEEE Decision and Control Conf., pp.
5295-5300, 2003.
[22] Timothy D. Tuttle and Warren P. Seering, "Creating Time-Optimal
Commainds for Systems with Denominator Dynamics," in Proc. IEEE
Intl. Conf. Control Applications., pp.385-390, 1996.
[23] K.R. Santarelli, On the synthesis of switched output feedback
controllers for linear, time-invariant systems, Ph.D. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2007.
[24] K.R. Santarelli, A. Megretski, M.A. Dahleh, "On the stabilizability of
two dimensional linear systems via switched output feedback," in
Proceedings of the 24th American Control Conference, vol. 6,
Portland, June 2005, pp. 37783783.
[25] Analog Devices, Inc.(2007, May)
http://www.analog.com/en/other/multichip/adis16250/products/produc
t.html [Online] http://www.analog.com
[26] Z. Haider, F. Habib, M. H. Mukhtar, K. Munawar, Development of
high performance servo drive/anti drive mechanism for backlash
removal, Int.Wrkshp. ROSE 2007, pp.453-456.
[27] JEFFREY KERR, LLC (2007, June)
http://www.jrkerr.com/boards.html [Online]http://www.jrkerr.com.
687