PID controller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (June 2009)
A proportionalintegralderivative controller (PID controller) is a generic control
loop feedbac mechanism (controller) !idely used in industrial control systems. A P"#
controller attempts to correct the error bet!een a measured process variable and a desired
setpoint by calculating and then instigating a corrective action that can ad$ust the process
accordingly and rapidly, to eep the error minimal.
Contents
%hide&
' (eneral
) *ontrol loop basics
+ P"# controller theory
o +.' Proportional term
o +.) "ntegral term
o +.+ #erivative term
o +., -ummary
, .oop tuning
o ,.' /anual tuning
o ,.) 0iegler12ichols method
o ,.+ P"# tuning soft!are
3 /odifications to the P"# algorithm
4 .imitations of P"# control
5 *ascade control
6 Physical implementation of P"# control
7 Alternative nomenclature and P"# forms
o 7.' "deal versus standard P"# form
o 7.) .aplace form of the P"# controller
o 7.+ -eries8interacting form
o 7., #iscrete implementation
o 7.3 Pseudocode
'9 -ee also
'' :;ternal lins
o ''.' P"# tutorials
o ''.) -imulations
o ''.+ -pecial topics and P"# control applications
') <eferences
[edit] eneral
A bloc diagram of a P"# controller
The P"# controller calculation (algorithm) involves three separate parameters= the
proportional, the integral and derivative values. The proportional value determines the
reaction to the current error, the integral value determines the reaction based on the sum
of recent errors, and the derivative value determines the reaction based on the rate at
!hich the error has been changing. The !eighted sum of these three actions is used to
ad$ust the process via a control element such as the position of a control valve or the
po!er supply of a heating element.
>y tuning the three constants in the P"# controller algorithm, the controller can provide
control action designed for specific process re?uirements. The response of the controller
can be described in terms of the responsiveness of the controller to an error, the degree to
!hich the controller overshoots the setpoint and the degree of system oscillation. 2ote
that the use of the P"# algorithm for control does not guarantee optimal control of the
system or system stability.
-ome applications may re?uire using only one or t!o modes to provide the appropriate
system control. This is achieved by setting the gain of undesired control outputs to @ero.
A P"# controller !ill be called a P", P#, P or " controller in the absence of the respective
control actions. P" controllers are particularly common, since derivative action is very
sensitive to measurement noise, and the absence of an integral value may prevent the
system from reaching its target value due to the control action.
2ote: #ue to the diversity of the field of control theory and application, many naming
conventions for the relevant variables are in common use.
[edit] Control loop !asics
A familiar e;ample of a control loop is the action taen to eep oneAs sho!er !ater at the
ideal temperature, !hich typically involves the mi;ing of t!o process streams, cold and
hot !ater. The person feels the !ater to estimate its temperature. >ased on this
measurement they perform a control action: use the cold !ater tap to ad$ust the process.
The person !ould repeat this inputBoutput control loop, ad$usting the hot !ater flo! until
the process temperature stabili@ed at the desired value.
Ceeling the !ater temperature is taing a measurement of the process value or process
variable (PD). The desired temperature is called the setpoint (-P). The output from the
controller and input to the process (the tap position) is called the manipulated variable
(/D). The difference bet!een the measurement and the setpoint is the error (e), too hot
or too cold and by ho! much.
As a controller, one decides roughly ho! much to change the tap position (/D) after one
determines the temperature (PD), and therefore the error. This first estimate is the
e?uivalent of the proportional action of a P"# controller. The integral action of a P"#
controller can be thought of as gradually ad$usting the temperature !hen it is almost
right. #erivative action can be thought of as noticing the !ater temperature is getting
hotter or colder, and ho! fast, anticipating further change and tempering ad$ustments for
a soft landing at the desired temperature (-P).
/aing a change that is too large !hen the error is small is e?uivalent to a high gain
controller and !ill lead to overshoot. "f the controller !ere to repeatedly mae changes
that !ere too large and repeatedly overshoot the target, the output !ould oscillate around
the setpoint in either a constant, gro!ing, or decaying sinusoid. "f the oscillations
increase !ith time then the system is unstable, !hereas if they decay the system is stable.
"f the oscillations remain at a constant magnitude the system is marginally stable. A
human !ould not do this because !e are adaptive controllers, learning from the process
history, but P"# controllers do not have the ability to learn and must be set up correctly.
-electing the correct gains for effective control is no!n as tuning the controller.
"f a controller starts from a stable state at @ero error (PD E -P), then further changes by
the controller !ill be in response to changes in other measured or unmeasured inputs to
the process that impact on the process, and hence on the PD. Dariables that impact on the
process other than the /D are no!n as disturbances. (enerally controllers are used to
re$ect disturbances and8or implement setpoint changes. *hanges in feed !ater
temperature constitute a disturbance to the sho!er process.
"n theory, a controller can be used to control any process !hich has a measurable output
(PD), a no!n ideal value for that output (-P) and an input to the process (/D) that !ill
affect the relevant PD. *ontrollers are used in industry to regulate temperature, pressure,
flo! rate, chemical composition, speed and practically every other variable for !hich a
measurement e;ists. Automobile cruise control is an e;ample of a process !hich utili@es
automated control.
#ue to their long history, simplicity, !ell grounded theory and simple setup and
maintenance re?uirements, P"# controllers are the controllers of choice for many of these
applications.
[edit] PID controller theory
This section describes the parallel or nonBinteracting form of the P"# controller. Cor other
forms please see the -ection FAlternative notation and P"# formsF.
The P"# control scheme is named after its three correcting terms, !hose sum constitutes
the manipulated variable (/D). Gence:
!here
P
out
, I
out
, and D
out
are the contributions to the output from the P"# controller from
each of the three terms, as defined belo!.
[edit] Proportional term
Plot of PD vs time, for three values of H
p
(H
i
and H
d
held constant)
The proportional term (sometimes called gain) maes a change to the output that is
proportional to the current error value. The proportional response can be ad$usted by
multiplying the error by a constant K
p
, called the proportional gain.
The proportional term is given by:
!here
P
out
: Proportional term of output
K
p
: Proportional gain, a tuning parameter
e: :rror E SP I PV
t: Time or instantaneous time (the present)
A high proportional gain results in a large change in the output for a given change in the
error. "f the proportional gain is too high, the system can become unstable (-ee the
section on loop tuning). "n contrast, a small gain results in a small output response to a
large input error, and a less responsive (or sensitive) controller. "f the proportional gain is
too lo!, the control action may be too small !hen responding to system disturbances.
"n the absence of disturbances, pure proportional control !ill not settle at its target value,
but !ill retain a steady state error that is a function of the proportional gain and the
process gain. #espite the steadyBstate offset, both tuning theory and industrial practice
indicate that it is the proportional term that should contribute the bul of the output
change.
[edit] Integral term
Plot of PD vs time, for three values of H
i
(H
p
and H
d
held constant)
The contribution from the integral term (sometimes called reset) is proportional to both
the magnitude of the error and the duration of the error. -umming the instantaneous error
over time (integrating the error) gives the accumulated offset that should have been
corrected previously. The accumulated error is then multiplied by the integral gain and
added to the controller output. The magnitude of the contribution of the integral term to
the overall control action is determined by the integral gain, K
i
.
The integral term is given by:
!here
I
out
: "ntegral term of output
K
i
: "ntegral gain, a tuning parameter
e: :rror E SP I PV
t: Time or instantaneous time (the present)
J: a dummy integration variable
The integral term (!hen added to the proportional term) accelerates the movement of the
process to!ards setpoint and eliminates the residual steadyBstate error that occurs !ith a
proportional only controller. Go!ever, since the integral term is responding to
accumulated errors from the past, it can cause the present value to overshoot the setpoint
value (cross over the setpoint and then create a deviation in the other direction). Cor
further notes regarding integral gain tuning and controller stability, see the section on
loop tuning.
[edit] Derivative term
Plot of PD vs time, for three values of H
d
(H
p
and H
i
held constant)
The rate of change of the process error is calculated by determining the slope of the error
over time (i.e., its first derivative !ith respect to time) and multiplying this rate of change
by the derivative gain K
d
. The magnitude of the contribution of the derivative term
(sometimes called rate) to the overall control action is termed the derivative gain, K
d
.
The derivative term is given by:
!here
D
out
: #erivative term of output
K
d
: #erivative gain, a tuning parameter
e: :rror E SP I PV
t: Time or instantaneous time (the present)
The derivative term slo!s the rate of change of the controller output and this effect is
most noticeable close to the controller setpoint. Gence, derivative control is used to
reduce the magnitude of the overshoot produced by the integral component and improve
the combined controllerBprocess stability. Go!ever, differentiation of a signal amplifies
noise and thus this term in the controller is highly sensitive to noise in the error term, and
can cause a process to become unstable if the noise and the derivative gain are
sufficiently large.
[edit] "#mmary
The proportional, integral, and derivative terms are summed to calculate the output of the
P"# controller. #efining u(t) as the controller output, the final form of the P"# algorithm
is:
!here the tuning parameters are:
Proportional gain, K
p
.arger values typically mean faster response since the larger the error, the larger
the proportional term compensation. An e;cessively large proportional gain !ill
lead to process instability and oscillation.
"ntegral gain, K
i
.arger values imply steady state errors are eliminated more ?uicly. The tradeBoff
is larger overshoot: any negative error integrated during transient response must
be integrated a!ay by positive error before reaching steady state.
#erivative gain, K
d
.arger values decrease overshoot, but slo! do!n transient response and may lead
to instability due to signal noise amplification in the differentiation of the error.
[edit] $oop t#ning
"f the P"# controller parameters (the gains of the proportional, integral and derivative
terms) are chosen incorrectly, the controlled process input can be unstable, i.e. its output
diverges, !ith or !ithout oscillation, and is limited only by saturation or mechanical
breaage. Tuning a control loop is the ad$ustment of its control parameters
(gain8proportional band, integral gain8reset, derivative gain8rate) to the optimum values
for the desired control response.
The optimum behavior on a process change or setpoint change varies depending on the
application. -ome processes must not allo! an overshoot of the process variable beyond
the setpoint if, for e;ample, this !ould be unsafe. Kther processes must minimi@e the
energy e;pended in reaching a ne! setpoint. (enerally, stability of response (the reverse
of instability) is re?uired and the process must not oscillate for any combination of
process conditions and setpoints. -ome processes have a degree of nonBlinearity and so
parameters that !or !ell at fullBload conditions donAt !or !hen the process is starting
up from noBload. This section describes some traditional manual methods for loop tuning.
There are several methods for tuning a P"# loop. The most effective methods generally
involve the development of some form of process model, then choosing P, ", and # based
on the dynamic model parameters. /anual tuning methods can be relatively inefficient.
The choice of method !ill depend largely on !hether or not the loop can be taen
FofflineF for tuning, and the response time of the system. "f the system can be taen
offline, the best tuning method often involves sub$ecting the system to a step change in
input, measuring the output as a function of time, and using this response to determine
the control parameters.
Choosing a %#ning &ethod
&ethod 'dvantages Disadvantages
&an#al
%#ning
2o math re?uired. Knline method.
<e?uires e;perienced
personnel.
(iegler
)ichols
Proven /ethod. Knline method.
Process upset, some trialBandB
error, very aggressive tuning.
"oft*are
%ools
*onsistent tuning. Knline or offline method.
/ay include valve and sensor analysis. Allo!
simulation before do!nloading.
-ome cost and training
involved.
Cohen+
Coon
(ood process models.
-ome math. Kffline method.
Knly good for firstBorder
processes.
[edit] &an#al t#ning
"f the system must remain online, one tuning method is to first set K
i
and K
d
values to
@ero. "ncrease the K
p
until the output of the loop oscillates, then the K
p
should be set to
appro;imately half of that value for a F?uarter amplitude decayF type response. Then
increase K
i
until any offset is correct in sufficient time for the process. Go!ever, too
much K
i
!ill cause instability. Cinally, increase K
d
, if re?uired, until the loop is
acceptably ?uic to reach its reference after a load disturbance. Go!ever, too much K
d

!ill cause e;cessive response and overshoot. A fast P"# loop tuning usually overshoots
slightly to reach the setpoint more ?uicly= ho!ever, some systems cannot accept
overshoot, in !hich case an FoverBdampedF closedBloop system is re?uired, !hich !ill
re?uire a K
p
setting significantly less than half that of the K
p
setting causing oscillation.
:ffects of increasing parameters
Parameter ,ise time -vershoot
"ettling
time
.rror at
e/#ili!ri#m
K
p
#ecrease "ncrease
-mall
change
#ecrease
K
i
#ecrease "ncrease "ncrease :liminate
K
d
"ndefinite (small decrease or
increase)
%'&
#ecrease "ncrease 2one
[edit] (iegler)ichols method
Another tuning method is formally no!n as the 0iegler12ichols method, introduced by
John (. 0iegler and 2athaniel >. 2ichols. As in the method above, the K
i
and K
d
gains
are first set to @ero. The P gain is increased until it reaches the critical gain, K
c
, at !hich
the output of the loop starts to oscillate. K
c
and the oscillation period P
c
are used to set the
gains as sho!n:
0iegler12ichols method
Control %ype K
p
K
i
K
d
P 9.39K
c
B B
PI 9.,3K
c
'.)K
p
8 P
c
B
PID 9.49K
c
)K
p
8 P
c
K
p
P
c
8 6
[edit] PID t#ning soft*are
/ost modern industrial facilities no longer tune loops using the manual calculation
methods sho!n above. "nstead, P"# tuning and loop optimi@ation soft!are are used to
ensure consistent results. These soft!are pacages !ill gather the data, develop process
models, and suggest optimal tuning. -ome soft!are pacages can even develop tuning by
gathering data from reference changes.
/athematical P"# loop tuning induces an impulse in the system, and then uses the
controlled systemAs fre?uency response to design the P"# loop values. "n loops !ith
response times of several minutes, mathematical loop tuning is recommended, because
trial and error can literally tae days $ust to find a stable set of loop values. Kptimal
values are harder to find. -ome digital loop controllers offer a selfBtuning feature in
!hich very small setpoint changes are sent to the process, allo!ing the controller itself to
calculate optimal tuning values.
Kther formulas are available to tune the loop according to different performance criteria.
[edit] &odifications to the PID algorithm
The basic P"# algorithm presents some challenges in control applications that have been
addressed by minor modifications to the P"# form.
Kne common problem resulting from the ideal P"# implementations is integral !indup.
This problem can be addressed by:
"nitiali@ing the controller integral to a desired value
"ncreasing the setpoint in a suitable ramp
#isabling the integral function until the PD has entered the controllable region
.imiting the time period over !hich the integral error is calculated
Preventing the integral term from accumulating above or belo! preBdetermined
bounds
Cree@ing the integral function in case of disturbances
"f a P"# loop is used to control the temperature of an electric resistance furnace,
the system has stabili@ed and then the door is opened and something cold is put
into the furnace the temperature drops belo! the setpoint. The integral function of
the controller tends to compensate this error by introducing another error in the
positive direction. This can be avoided by free@ing of the integral function after
the opening of the door for the time the control loop typically needs to reheat the
furnace.
<eplacing the integral function by a model based part
Kften the timeBresponse of the system is appro;imately no!n. Then it is an
advantage to simulate this timeBresponse !ith a model and to calculate some
unno!n parameter from the actual response of the system. "f for instance the
system is an electrical furnace the response of the difference bet!een furnace
temperature and ambient temperature to changes of the electrical po!er !ill be
similar to that of a simple <* lo!Bpass filter multiplied by an unno!n
proportional coefficient. The actual electrical po!er supplied to the furnace is
delayed by a lo!Bpass filter to simulate the response of the temperature of the
furnace and then the actual temperature minus the ambient temperature is divided
by this lo!Bpass filtered electrical po!er. Then, the result is stabili@ed by another
lo!Bpass filter leading to an estimation of the proportional coefficient. Lith this
estimation it is possible to calculate the re?uired electrical po!er by dividing the
setBpoint of the temperature minus the ambient temperature by this coefficient.
The result can then be used instead of the integral function. This also achieves a
control error of @ero in the steadyBstate but avoids integral !indup and can give a
significantly improved control action compared to an optimi@ed P"# controller.
This type of controller does !or properly in an open loop situation !hich causes
integral !indup !ith an integral function. This is an advantage if for e;ample the
heating of a furnace has to be reduced for some time because of the failure of a
heating element or if the controller is used as an advisory system to a human
operator !ho may or may not s!itch it to closedBloop operation or if the
controller is used inside of a branch of a comple; control system !here this
branch may be temporarily inactive.
/any P"# loops control a mechanical device (for e;ample, a valve). /echanical
maintenance can be a ma$or cost and !ear leads to control degradation in the form of
either stiction or a deadband in the mechanical response to an input signal. The rate of
mechanical !ear is mainly a function of ho! often a device is activated to mae a
change. Lhere !ear is a significant concern, the P"# loop may have an output deadband
to reduce the fre?uency of activation of the output (valve). This is accomplished by
modifying the controller to hold its output steady if the change !ould be small (!ithin
the defined deadband range). The calculated output must leave the deadband before the
actual output !ill change.
The proportional and derivative terms can produce e;cessive movement in the output
!hen a system is sub$ected to an instantaneous step increase in the error, such as a large
setpoint change. "n the case of the derivative term, this is due to taing the derivative of
the error, !hich is very large in the case of an instantaneous step change. As a result,
some P"# algorithms incorporate the follo!ing modifications:
#erivative of output
"n this case the P"# controller measures the derivative of the output ?uantity,
rather than the derivative of the error. The output is al!ays continuous (i.e., never
has a step change). Cor this to be effective, the derivative of the output must have
the same sign as the derivative of the error.
-etpoint ramping
"n this modification, the setpoint is gradually moved from its old value to a ne!ly
specified value using a linear or first order differential ramp function. This avoids
the discontinuity present in a simple step change.
-etpoint !eighting
-etpoint !eighting uses different multipliers for the error depending on !hich
element of the controller it is used in. The error in the integral term must be the
true control error to avoid steadyBstate control errors. This affects the controllerAs
setpoint response. These parameters do not affect the response to load
disturbances and measurement noise.
[edit] $imitations of PID control
Lhile P"# controllers are applicable to many control problems, they can perform poorly
in some applications.
P"# controllers, !hen used alone, can give poor performance !hen the P"# loop gains
must be reduced so that the control system does not overshoot, oscillate or hunt about the
control setpoint value. The control system performance can be improved by combining
the feedbac (or closedBloop) control of a P"# controller !ith feedBfor!ard (or openB
loop) control. Hno!ledge about the system (such as the desired acceleration and inertia)
can be fed for!ard and combined !ith the P"# output to improve the overall system
performance. The feedBfor!ard value alone can often provide the ma$or portion of the
controller output. The P"# controller can be used primarily to respond to !hatever
difference or error remains bet!een the setpoint (-P) and the actual value of the process
variable (PD). -ince the feedBfor!ard output is not affected by the process feedbac, it
can never cause the control system to oscillate, thus improving the system response and
stability.
Cor e;ample, in most motion control systems, in order to accelerate a mechanical load
under control, more force or tor?ue is re?uired from the prime mover, motor, or actuator.
"f a velocity loop P"# controller is being used to control the speed of the load and
command the force or tor?ue being applied by the prime mover, then it is beneficial to
tae the instantaneous acceleration desired for the load, scale that value appropriately and
add it to the output of the P"# velocity loop controller. This means that !henever the
load is being accelerated or decelerated, a proportional amount of force is commanded
from the prime mover regardless of the feedbac value. The P"# loop in this situation
uses the feedbac information to effect any increase or decrease of the combined output
in order to reduce the remaining difference bet!een the process setpoint and the feedbac
value. Loring together, the combined openBloop feedBfor!ard controller and closedB
loop P"# controller can provide a more responsive, stable and reliable control system.
Another problem faced !ith P"# controllers is that they are linear. Thus, performance of
P"# controllers in nonBlinear systems (such as GDA* systems) is variable. Kften P"#
controllers are enhanced through methods such as P"# gain scheduling or fu@@y logic.
Curther practical application issues can arise from instrumentation connected to the
controller. A high enough sampling rate, measurement precision, and measurement
accuracy are re?uired to achieve ade?uate control performance.
A problem !ith the #erivative term is that small amounts of measurement or process
noise can cause large amounts of change in the output. "t is often helpful to filter the
measurements !ith a lo!Bpass filter in order to remove higherBfre?uency noise
components. Go!ever, lo!Bpass filtering and derivative control can cancel each other
out, so reducing noise by instrumentation means is a much better choice. Alternatively,
the differential band can be turned off in many systems !ith little loss of control. This is
e?uivalent to using the P"# controller as a PI controller.
[edit] Cascade control
Kne distinctive advantage of P"# controllers is that t!o P"# controllers can be used
together to yield better dynamic performance. This is called cascaded P"# control. "n
cascade control there are t!o P"#s arranged !ith one P"# controlling the set point of
another. A P"# controller acts as outer loop controller, !hich controls the primary
physical parameter, such as fluid level or velocity. The other controller acts as inner loop
controller, !hich reads the output of outer loop controller as set point, usually controlling
a more rapid changing parameter, flo!rate or acceleration. "t can be mathematically
proven
%citation needed&
that the !oring fre?uency of the controller is increased and the time
constant of the ob$ect is reduced by using cascaded P"# controller.
%vague&
.
[edit] Physical implementation of PID control
"n the early history of automatic process control the P"# controller !as implemented as a
mechanical device. These mechanical controllers used a lever, spring and a mass and
!ere often energi@ed by compressed air. These pneumatic controllers !ere once the
industry standard.
:lectronic analog controllers can be made from a solidBstate or tube amplifier, a capacitor
and a resistance. :lectronic analog P"# control loops !ere often found !ithin more
comple; electronic systems, for e;ample, the head positioning of a dis drive, the po!er
conditioning of a po!er supply, or even the movementBdetection circuit of a modern
seismometer. 2o!adays, electronic controllers have largely been replaced by digital
controllers implemented !ith microcontrollers or CP(As.
/ost modern P"# controllers in industry are implemented in programmable logic
controllers (P.*s) or as a panelBmounted digital controller. -oft!are implementations
have the advantages that they are relatively cheap and are fle;ible !ith respect to the
implementation of the P"# algorithm.
[edit] 'lternative nomenclat#re and PID forms
[edit] Ideal vers#s standard PID form
The form of the P"# controller most often encountered in industry, and the one most
relevant to tuning algorithms is the standard for. "n this form the K
p
gain is applied to
the I
out
, and D
out
terms, yielding:
!here
T
i
is the integral tie
T
d
is the derivative tie
"n the ideal parallel form, sho!n in the controller theory section
the gain parameters are related to the parameters of the standard form through
and . This parallel form, !here the parameters are treated as
simple gains, is the most general and fle;ible form. Go!ever, it is also the form !here
the parameters have the least physical interpretation and is generally reserved for
theoretical treatment of the P"# controller. The standard form, despite being slightly
more comple; mathematically, is more common in industry.
[edit] $aplace form of the PID controller
-ometimes it is useful to !rite the P"# regulator in .aplace transform form:
Gaving the P"# controller !ritten in .aplace form and having the transfer function of the
controlled system, maes it easy to determine the closedBloop transfer function of the
system.
[edit] "eries0interacting form
Another representation of the P"# controller is the series, or interacting form
!here the parameters are related to the parameters of the standard form through
, , and
!ith
.
This form essentially consists of a P# and P" controller in series, and it made early
(analog) controllers easier to build. Lhen the controllers later became digital, many ept
using the interacting form.
[edit] Discrete implementation
The analysis for designing a digital implementation of a P"# controller in a
/icrocontroller (/*U) or CP(A device re?uires the standard form of the P"# controller
to be discretised
%)&
. Appro;imations for firstBorder derivatives are made by bac!ard
finite differences. The integral term is discretised, !ith a sampling time Mt,as follo!s,
The derivative term is appro;imated as,
Thus, a velocit! algorith for implementation of the discretised P"# controller in a /*U
is obtained,
[edit] Pse#docode
Gere is a simple soft!are loop that implements the P"# algorithm:
previous_error = 0
integral = 0
start:
error = setpoint - actual_position
integral = integral + (error*dt)
derivative = (error - previous_error)/dt
output = (Kp*error) + (Ki*integral) + (Kd*derivative)
previous_error = error
wait(dt)
goto start
[edit] "ee also
*ontrol theory
Ceedbac
"nstability
Kscillation
P" controller
[edit] .1ternal links
[edit] PID t#torials
P"# Tutorial
P.".#. Lithout a Ph# : a beginnerAs guide to P"# loop theory !ith sample
programming code
LhatAs All This PB"B# -tuff, Anyho!N Article in :lectronic #esign
-ho!s ho! to build a P"# controller !ith basic electronic components (pg. )))
[edit] "im#lations
Cree, realBtime P"# simulator for Lindo!s
P"# controller using /at.ab and -imulin
P"# controller laboratory, Java applets for P"# tuning
[edit] "pecial topics and PID control applications
Proven /ethods and >est Practices for P"# *ontrol
P"# *ontrol Primer Article in :mbedded -ystems Programming
[edit] ,eferences
'. 2 http:88saba.ntu.ac.ir8eecd8pcl8do!nload8P"#tutorial.pdf
). 2 http:88!!!.scribd.com8doc8'7959)6+8#iscreteBP"BandBP"#B*ontrollerB#esignB
andBAnalysisBforB#igitalB"mplementation
.ipta, >ela ('773). Instruent "ngineers# $and%oo&' Process (ontrol. <adnor,
Pennsylvania: *hilton >oo *ompany. pp. )91)7. "->2 9B69'7B6),)B'.
Tan, Ho Hiong= Lang OingB(uo, Gang *hang *hieh ('777). )dvances in PID
(ontrol. .ondon, UH: -pringerBDerlag. "->2 'B63)++B'+6B9.
Dan, #oren, Dance J. (July ', )99+). F.oop Tuning CundamentalsF. (ontrol
"ngineering (<ed >usiness "nformation).
http:88!!!.controleng.com8article8*A+955,3.html.
-ellers, #avid. FAn Kvervie! of Proportional plus "ntegral plus #erivative
*ontrol and -uggestions for "ts -uccessful Application and "mplementationF
(P#C). http:88!!!.peci.org8library8P:*"P*ontrolKvervie!'P'99).pdf. <etrieved
)995B93B93.
(raham, <on ('989+8)993). FCAO on P"# controller tuningF.
http:88!eb.archive.org8!eb8)9939)94''+7,78!!!.tcn$.edu8Qrgraham8P"#B
tuning.html. <etrieved )997B9'B93.