17th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, Beirut, Lebanon, 13-16 April 2014.

Comparison between integer order and fractional

order controllers
Roy ABI ZEID DAOU

Xavier MOREAU
IMS Laboratory, CRONE Group,
University Bordeaux I,
Bordeaux, France
email: xavier.moreau@ims-bordeaux.fr

Biomedical Technologies Department,

Public Health Faculty,
Lebanese German University, Jounieh, Lebanon
email: r.abizeiddaou@lgu.edu.lb

methods were and still are proposed for this purpose in order to
get the optimal values of the integration and differentiation
orders [5].
Most recently, the CRONE controller, also based on the
fractional integration and differentiation, was introduced in
three generations [6].
However, a main difference, other than the way used to
synthesize these controllers, is encountered. The number of
parameters to be defined differs between these controllers. In
fact, the PID needs to define three parameters, the generalized
PID needs 5 parameters and the CRONE controller needs four
parameters.
Nowadays, the use of the fractional controllers is almost
necessary in almost all engineering domains. The reasons
behind this use are diverse; among them we list the most
important:
- The identification of several physical and natural
properties showed that a fractional order differentiation in
implemented when modelling them using transfer function.
Some of the examples are the thermal diffusive interfaces [7],
the muscles activities [8] and much more
- The analogue [9] and digital [10] implementation of the
fractional order controllers is easy;
- Once the user specifications and/or the open loop shape
are defined, the synthesis of the fractional order controller is
not complicated.
As for the fractional calculus, its idea was born in the last
decade of the XVII century after letters exchange between
Leibniz and LHospital [11]. Several definitions of the
fractional integration and differentiation were proposed [12].
The applications in this domain started almost three
centuries later with applications in almost all the engineering
domains [13-15].
Concerning the control systems, the well known PID was
the mostly used controller till 1961 when Manabe introduced
the fractional order concept to such regulators [16]. In 1975,
Oustaloup developed a regulator of order 3/2 in order to control
a laser beam [17] and proposed, some years after, the CRONE
control system [15]. As well, new methods were proposed in
order to search the best values of the generalized PID or the
CRONE controllers [18-19].
To sum up, this paper aims to do a double comparison. It
presents a comparison between fractional order and integer
order controllers, on one hand, and between a priori and a
posteriori controllers on the other hand.

AbstractThis paper presents a comparison between

fractional order controllers and integer order controllers.
The well-known PID is the integer order controller chosen
whereas the generalized PID and the CRONE
(Commande Robuste dOrdre Non Entier which stands
for fractional order robust controller) are the fractional
order controllers studied. Another big difference between
these controllers is that the structure of the PID and the
generalized PID is a priori fixed whereas the structure of
the CRONE is a posteriori deduced from the loop shaping.
Results show that the fractional order controllers are more
robust when small variations appear in the plant and their
behavior is more suitable regarding the user specifications
requirements.
Keywordsfractional order controllers; PID and generalized
PID controllers; CRONE controller; robustness; behavior study;

I.
INTRODUCTION
This paper presents a double comparison between:
1. integer order controllers and fractional order controllers;
2. controllers synthesized using a priori method and
controllers synthesized using a posteriori method.
For the interger order controllers, the PID is used whereas
the generalized PID and the CRONE represent the fractional
order controllers.
As for these controllers, the PID and the generalized PID
controllers are a priori fixed, which means that the
computation of these controllers transfer functions are done
directly according to the user specifications (stability degree,
bandwidth, rejection level of the measured noise, rejection
level of the output disturbance,). Concerning the CRONE
controller, the posterior synthesis method is used. In this case,
the definition of the controller is made with respect to the openloop constraints (robust loop shaping).
Going back to the controllers debut, their synthesis and
their realization has started before almost a century. One of the
earliest forms of a PID controller was developed by Elmer
Sperry in 1911 [1]. However, the first published work
presenting a PID controller was proposed by Russian American
engineer Nicolas Minorsky in 1922 [2].
Many years later, the generalized PID controller, where
the integration and differentiation order can be any positive and
real number less than the unit (e.g., 0 < , < 1 , \ +* ),
was proposed while respecting the tuning rules proposed by
Ziegler and Nichols for integer PIDs [3-4]. Several tuning

978-1-4799-2337-3/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

292

17th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, Beirut, Lebanon, 13-16 April 2014.

The stability degree is specified with respect to the phase

margin M. However, it can also be specified using the module
margin MM or the gain margin MG.
(8)
M = + arg ( ju ) ,

In more details, this paper will be composed as follow: in

section 2, the system components and the performance
specifications, in frequency domain, will be show. In section 3,
the PID controller will be presented. Both the integer order and
the fractional order PIDs are shown. Section 4 presents the
CRONE controller whereas section 5 shows an application
example to illustrate the advantages and drawbacks of each
controller. Section 6 ends up with a conclusion and some future
works.

where (s) represent the open-loop transfer function (relation

(7)) and u is the crossover frequency in the open-loop defined
as follow:
( ju ) = 1 .
(9)
The stability degree specification can be presented as the
following constraint:
M M min ,
(10)

II. SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND USER SPECIFICATIONS

In this section, the representation of the system containing
the plant and the controller will be introduced as well as the
performance specifications that the user would specify in
order to get the best performance from the designed controller.

where M min represents the minimal acceptable value of the

phase margin.
The above leads to the following relation,

A. System components
Figure 1 presents the block diagram of the feedback
control system.
Input disturbance
Du (s)
Yref(s)
Reference
signal

Error signal
U(s)
(s)
+
C(s)
+

Controller

arg ( ju ) + Mmin ,

that can be reduced and becomes:

arg C ( ju ) + Mmin arg G ( ju ) .

Sensor noise
Bm(s)
G(s)

Measured
output

where u min represents the minimal acceptable value of u.

Fig. 1 Block diagram of the feedback control system

Referring to equation (9) and knowing that:

( j ) = C ( j ) G ( j ) ,

From this block diagram, the closed-loop relations are

established:
- for the measured output:
- for the error signal:

C ( ju ) G ( ju min )

(s ) = S (s ) Bm (s ) G (s )S (s ) Du (s ) + S (s ) Yref (s ) , (2)
U (s ) = R (s ) Bm (s ) T (s ) Du (s ) + R (s ) Yref (s ) , (3)

where
1 + (s)
- the complementary sensitivity function is:
( s)
T (s) =
= 1 S ( s) ,
1 + ( s)
- the plant input sensitivity function is:
R ( s) = C (s) S ( s)

- the open-loop transfer function is:

(s) = C (s)G (s) .

(15)
.
Concerning the rejection level of the measured noise, it is
calculated using a specification applied to the complementary
sensitivity function module as follow:

- for the control signal:

- the sensitivity function is: S ( s ) =

(14)

a controller gain constraint at the frequency u can be deduced

from relation (13) as follow:

Y (s ) = S (s ) Bm (s ) + G (s )S (s ) Du (s ) + T (s ) Yref (s ) ,(1)

(12)

The bandwidth specification is also computed at the

crossover frequency u. The main goal of this constraint is to
fix the closed-loop dynamics speed. Hence, the frequency
range that is concerned by this condition is
u u min ,
(13)

Y(s) = Ur(s)

Plant model

(11)

T , T ( j ) = ( j ) 1 + ( j ) AT (16)
where AT shows the desired rejected noise level for the given
frequency T:
T ( jT ) = AT .
(17)

(4)

(5)
(6)

If the value of T is chosen to be much bigger than u,

relation (17) can be rewritten as:
T , T ( j ) ( j ) AT .
(18)

(7)

Hence, a new controller gain constraint around the

frequency T is deduced from relation (18) as follow:
T ,

B. Performance specifications
The performance specifications concern different aspects in
frequency domain, from among we list the following:
the stability degree;
the bandwidth;
the rejection level of the measured noise;
the rejection level of the output perturbation;
the plant input sensitivity.

C ( j ) AT G ( j )

(19)

The rejection level of the output disturbance is used for

low frequencies (S < u) and is computed using a
specification of the sensitivity module function as follow:
S ,

S ( j ) = 1 + ( j )

(20)
BS ,
where BS represents the desired rejected output disturbance
level for the frequency S:

293

17th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, Beirut, Lebanon, 13-16 April 2014.

S ( jS ) = BS .
(21)
When choosing S << u, relation (20) can be written as

1/ 2

1/ 2
1 + (b / ) 2

u
1 + a ( / u ) 2

CPID ( j ) =C0

(b / u )
1 + a 1 ( / ) 2
.

arg CPID ( j )= (arctan(b / u ) / 2 )

+ arctan a / u arctan / a u
(32)
At the open-loop crossover frequency u, relation (32) can
be rewritten as follow:

2
Cu = C PID ( ju ) = C0 1 + b
a

.
(33)
u = arg C PID ( ju ) = (arctan (b ) / 2 )

+ arctan a arctan 1 / a
If b >> 1 (minimization of the noise effect caused by the
integration due to the phase delay of u), system (33) becomes:
Cu = CPID ( ju ) = C0 a

, (34)
= arg C ( j ) = (arctan (b ) / 2 ) +
u
PID
u
m

follow:

(22)
C ( j ) (BS G ( jS ) ) .
The plant input sensitivity is computed using a
specification of the form:
1

S ,

R( j ) = C ( j ) (1 + ( j ))1 DR , (23)

R ,

where DR represents the maximal value at the frequency R:

R( jR ) = DR .
(24)
If the frequency R is much bigger than u, the relation
(23) can be rewritten as:
>> R , C ( j ) DR .
(25)
The constraints (19) and (25) represent almost the same
aspect which is the controller gain at high frequencies. Hence,
they can be reduced to one constraint by choosing the lowest
value of these two relations. Thus,

>> u , C ( j ) Min AT G ( jT )

, DR . (26)

1 +

s
/
i i

(28)

and CD ( s ) =

1 +

/ 1 +
b

h ,

(29)

C PI D (s ) =

C PID (s ) =

1+ a

1 + s /

s / u
a

( )

)))

))

(35)

1 + b s /
u
C0
b
s
/

1 + a s / u

1 +

s / a

,(36)

where and are the integration and the differentiation real

order and vary strictly between 0 and 1.
The module and the phase of the generalized PID
controller are as follow:
/2

/2
1 + (b / ) 2

u
1 + a ( / u ) 2

CPI D ( j ) =C0

1 + a 1 ( / ) 2
(b / u )

arg CPI D ( j )= (arctan (b / u ) / 2 )

+ arctan a / u arctan / a u
(37)
At the open-loop crossover frequency u, relation (37)
can be rewritten as follow:

2 /2
Cu* = C ( ju ) = C0 1 + b
a / 2
PI D

.
(38)
* = arg C ( j ) = (arctan(b ) / 2 )
u
u
PI D

+ arctan a arctan 1 / a

where m represents the frequency for which the controller

phase is maximal (e.g., m = Max[argC(j)] = argC(jm)).
Inserting u in equation (27) leads to the following PID
transfer function:

( (

B. Generalized PID
The computation of the generalized PID (or PID) is made
based on the values found when calculating the PID controller.
In fact, the generalized PID requires 5 parameters. Its form is
as follows:

where i, b et h are the transitional frequencies and C0 is a

constant.
In order to calculate these parameters, the user constraints
must be used. In the following, the method to calculate the
optimal values of the PID parameters is shown.
Lets start by introducing some new constants as follow:
a = h / b , b = u / i and m = b h , (30)

1 + b s /
u
C0
b
s
/

where m = arcsin((a 1) / (a + 1)) .

III. PID CONTROLLER

A. Integer order PID
First, the well known PID controller is described. It is the
eldest controller. It consists on a gain, an integration of order 1
and a derivation of order 1. Two different arrangement of the
PID controller exist: the parallel arrangement and the cascade
arrangement.
The cascade arrangement will be treated in this paper. Its
transfer function can be presented as follow:
CPID (s ) = C0 C I (s ) CD (s ) ,
(27)
with CI ( s ) =

( (

. (31)

Hence, the PID module and phase are given by:

294

( )

))

)))

17th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, Beirut, Lebanon, 13-16 April 2014.

values of the vector once all five relations ((42) to (47)) are
valid. So, different simulations may lead to different values of
the five parameters as the simulation stops once these five
equations are satisfied. The initial vector and the lower and
upper bound vectors have a big impact on the output values.
Note that, in order to emphasize the fractional behaviour of the
generalized PID controller, the value of the integrator and
differentiator orders, and , should vary between 0.2 and 0.8.

If b >> 1 (minimization of the noise effect caused by the

integration due to the phase delay of u), system (38) becomes:
Cu* = C ( ju ) = C0 a / 2
PI D

, (39)
*
u = arg CPI D ( ju ) = (arctan(b) / 2) + m

where m = arcsin ((a 1) / (a + 1)) .

(40)
After recalculating the controller module and phase at
central frequency u, we obtain for low frequencies ( << u)
C ( j ) C0 (u / (b ))
PI D

,
(41)
arg
CPI D ( j ) / 2
and for high frequencies ( >> u)
C ( j ) C0 a
PI D

.
(42)
arg
CPI D ( j ) 0
Considering the system (31), the constraints listed above
can be rewritten to suit best the generalized PID controller as
follow:
(arctan(b) / 2) + m + M min arg G ( ju ) ,(43)

C0 1 + b2

/2

b a /2 G ( ju min )
1

IV. CRONE CONTROLLER

After presenting both PID controllers, this paragraph
presents the CRONE controller.
The CRONE controller is designed using the open-loop
constraints (robust loop shaping), which means it is based on
the a posterior synthesis method.
Three generations of the CRONE controller have been
developed [20].
In the first generation, the constant phase n/2
characterizes this controller around frequency u. When
the frequency u varies, the constant phase controller
doesnt contribute to the phase margin variations;
In the second generation, a phase change is observed in the
plant when varying the frequency u;
In the third generation, the plants phase and margin
change when varying the frequency u.
The first step consists on defining the necessary
specifications for the synthesis of the nominal plant transfer
function. All calculations are made in the frequency domain.
The second step consists on reassigning the frequency
closed-loop specifications into open-loop frequency
specifications for the nominal plant. These new conditions take
into account the plant behaviour at:
low frequencies in order to have good accuracy in the
steady state;
middle frequencies, especially around the frequency u, to
get the stability degree robustness;
high frequencies to have good input plant sensitivity.

(44)

T ,

C0 a AT G( jT )

S ,

C0 (u / (b )) (BS G ( jS ) )

(45)
1

,(46)

(47)
and >> R , C0 a DR .
In order to determine the optimal values of the parameters
vector = [C0, b, a, , ], two phases are required.
- The first one depends on the initial values of the vector
depending on some values found when computing
the PID controller;
- The second phase involves the search for the optimal
values of this vector.
In order to accomplish the first phase, the five following
steps must be achieved.
1 We consider = 1, = 1, b = 10, u = u min and

Once the behaviour of the system in the open-loop is

defined, a decision should be made concerning the CRONE
generation that will be used. This decision depends on the plant
uncertainties. In this paper, only the first or the second
generations will be applied as the third one presents complex
differentiation and integration orders, and the use of special
programs or toolboxes as the one designed by the CRONE
group [21].
Hence, the open-loop behaviour due to the plant gain
uncertainties (e.g., taking into consideration the second
CRONE generation) leads to the following transfer function:

M = M min ;
2

We

0 = C I ( j u ) G ( j u )

calculate

and

0 = arg C I ( ju ) + arg G ( ju ) ;

3 We deduce m = M 0 ;
4 We calculate the value of a with respect to the relation
a = (1 + sin m ) / (1 sin m ) ;
5 Knowing that ( ju ) = 1 , we deduce the value of C0 as

follow:

C0 = a

/2

1+ s / b b 1+ s / h
nh
( s ) = 0
,(48)

(1 + s / h )
s / b 1+ s / b
where b and h represent the low and high transitional
frequencies, n is the fractional order varying between 1 and 2,
nb and nh are the asymptotic order behaviours for low and high
frequencies and 0 is a constant that assures a unit gain at the
frequency u. This constant is calculated as follow:

The second phase consists on determining the optimal

values of the vector . For this purpose, the optimization
toolbox of Matlab and its function fmincon is used or the
genetic algorithms can be also used.
In this paper, the optimisation function will be used. This
function requires a large number of inputs and returns the five

295

17th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, Beirut, Lebanon, 13-16 April 2014.

0 = (u / b ) 1 + (u / b )

( n nb ) /2

( nh n) /2

(1 + ( / ) )
2

(49)
Knowing that ( s ) = Ccrone ( s ) G ( s ) ,
(50)
the CRONE transfer function Ccrone(s) is deduced for the
nominal plant value, which is to say:
(51)
Ccrone ( s ) = ( s ) / G ( s ) .
V. APPLICATION EXAMPLE
After presenting the three controllers, an application will be
shown in this part. The plant is a hydro electromechanical
system constituted of a double direction pump, a perturbation
pump, a water level sensor and two tanks as shown in figure 2.

G (s) =

2.24 104

.
(53)

s
s
1
+

3.6 103

As for the user specifications, they can be resumed by the

following:
- the stability degree: M min = 45 ;
(54)
- the bandwidth : u min = 0.0108 rad / s ;
- the rejection level of the measured noise:

T = 0.108 rad / s, T ( j ) 0.1 ;

(55)

- the rejection level of the output perturbation:

S = 0.00108 rad / s, S ( j ) 0.1 ;

(56)

- the plant input sensitivity:

R = 10.8 rad / s, R ( j ) 100 .

(57)

Depending on the user specifications and the methods used

to calculate the controllers defined previously, the transfer
functions of the PID, the generalized PID and the CRONE
controller of second generation are as follow:
1 + s / 1.1 103 1 + s / 6 103

, (58)
CPID (s ) = 83.62
s / 1.1 10 3 1 + s / 19.6 10 3

1 + s / 8.3 10 4

C PI D (s ) = 46
s / 8.3 10 4

1 + s / 7.95 10 3

1 + s / 1.47 10 2

Figure 2 hydro-electro mechanical system

The identification of this system shows that it can be
presented by the following transfer function form:
k
,
(52)
G ( s) =
( s (1 + s / 0 ) )

(59)

0.5435

1 + s / 6.98 10 4

.
(60)
1 + s / 0.5014

1
1 + s / 0.5014
In the following, some frequency and time domain output
show the behaviour and the robustness of the three controllers
when varying the values of the plants variables.
As we are limited in space, figure 3 shows the step
responses for the system when taking into consideration the
first and the third operational points. As for the frequency
response, almost the same is observed. So, the first overshoot is
maintained for the CRONE controller when varying the water
level sensor, which is not the case for the other controllers.

Table 1 Values of k and 0 for each operational point

k (V/V)
8.30 10-4
5.90 10-4
2.24 10-4
3.7

0.5

1 + s / 3.6 103

Ccrone (s ) = 32.62
s / 3.6 103

where k represents the constant of the water level sensor and

0 the response time of the system. A complete modelling of
the system can be found in [22].
As the plants transfer function is nonlinear, three different
water levels were chosen and a linear study around these
points was made. For each level, the values of k and 0 were
maintained. One of these three levels was identified to be the
nominal level and the two others were used to study the
robustness of the controllers. Table 1 summarizes these
values.

Water Level (cm)

2
4
6
Max/Min

0.2

0 (rad/s)
4.0 10-3
3.8 10-3
3.6 10-3
1.11

VI. CONCLUSION
A comparison between three controllers was proposed in
this work. Two of the controllers are of fractional order (the
generalized PID and the CRONE) whereas the third one has
an integer order integration and derivation (the PID).

The third operational point, which refers to the 6cm water

level, was chosen to be the nominal transfer function. Hence,
this transfer function can be written as follow:

296

17th IEEE Mediterranean Electrotechnical Conference, Beirut, Lebanon, 13-16 April 2014.

Also, two controllers are synthesized using the a priori

method (the PID and generalized PID) whereas the CRONE
is calculated using a posteriori synthesis method.
The methods used to calculate the three controllers were
shown and these controllers were implemented to control a
hydro electromechanical system.
The obtained results showed that the CRONE controller is
robust to plant small variations, which is not the case for the
two other controllers.
As a future work, we will apply this comparative study to
other systems such as diffusive thermal systems.

Fig. 4 Output responses in tracking mode for a step input of 10 mV

with: (a) the PID controller, (b) the generalized PI D controller and
(c) the CRONE controller

REFERENCES
B. Stuart, A Brief History of Automatic Control, June 1996.
N. Minorsky, Directional stability of automatically steered bodies, J.
Amer. Soc. Naval Eng., vol. 34, issue 2, pp. 280309, 1922
[3] V. Duarte, J. Sa da Costa, Tuning rules for fractional PID controllers,
in Proceedings of the 2nd IFAC Workshop on Fractional Differentiation
and its applications, Porto, Portugal, July 19-21, 2006.
[4] J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols, Optimum settings for automatic
controllers, Transactions of ASME, vol. 64, pp. 759-768, 1942.
[5] I. Podlubny, Fractional-order systems and PID-controllers, IEEE
Transaction on Automatic Control, Vol.44, pp.208-214, 1999.
[6] M. Moze, J. Sabatier, A. Oustaloup, Synthesis of a Third Generation
crone Controller using -Analysis Tools, IEEE Industrial Electronics,
IECON 2006, November 2006, Paris, France
[7] FADI ASCC 2013
[8] A. Sommacal, P. Melchior, J.M. Cabelguen, A. Oustaloup, A.J. Ijspeert,
Fractional Multi-Models of the Gastrocnemius Frog Muscle, Journal of
Vibration and Control. Sage Publishing, Vol. 14, No. 9-10, pp. 14151430, 2008.
[9] R. Abi Zeid Daou, C. Francis and X. Moreau, Fractional order systems
applied to electrical domain part 2: implementation results and
Uncertainties influence, 2nd International Conference on Advances in
Computational Tools for Engineering Applications (ACTEA), Lebanon,
December 2012.
[10] S. Das, Functional Fractional Calculus for System Identification and
Controls, Springer, ISBN: 978-3540727026, 2007.
[11] K.S. Miller and B. Ross, An introduction to the fractional calculus and
fractional differential equations, A Wiley-Interscience Publication,
1993.
[12] K.B. Oldham and J. Spanier, The fractional calculus, Academic Press,
New-York and London, 1974.
[13] O. Cois, Systmes linaires non entiers et identification par modle
non entier : application en thermique , Thse de Doctorat de
lUniversit Bordeaux 1, 2002.
[14] J. Lin, Modlisation et identification de systmes d'ordre non entier ,
Thse de Doctorat, Universit de Poitiers, 2001.
[15] A. Oustaloup, La drivation non entire : thorie, synthse et
applications , Edition Herms, Paris, 1995.
[16] S. Manabe, The non-integer integral and its application to control
systems, ETJ of Japan, Vol. 6, pp.83-87, 1961.
[17] A. Oustaloup, Etude et ralisation d'un systme d'asservissement
d'ordre 3/2 de la frquence d'un laser colorant continu , Thse de
Docteur-Ingnieur, Universit Bordeaux 1, 1975.
[18] S. G.Samko, A. A. Kilbas and O. I. Marichev, Fractional integrals and
derivatives: theory and applications, Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers, 1993.
[19] B. M. Vinagre, I. Podlubny, L. Dorcak and V. Feliu, On fractional PID
controllers: a frequency domain approach, IFAC Workshop on Digital
Control, Past, Present and Future of PID Control, pp. 53-58, Terressa,
Spain, 2000.
[20] J. Sabatier, A. Garcia Iturricha, A. Oustaloup, F. Levron, "Third
generation CRONE control of continuous linear time periodic systems",
Proceedings of IFAC Conference on System Structure and Control,
CSSC'98, Nantes, France, July 8-10, 1998
[21] http://www.imsbordeaux.fr/CRONE/toolbox/pages/accueilSITE.php?guidPage=home_p
age
[22]R. Abi Zeid Daou, X. Moreau, A comparison between integer order and
fractional order controllers applied to a hydro-electromechanical
system, Transaction on Control and Mechanical Systems, V.2, No. 3,
pp. 131-143, 2013

[1]
[2]

(a)

(b)

(c)

297