University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014

PID Controller Tuning

Comparison of classical tuning methods

By Ahmad Taan

1
Content

 Introduction
 Objectives
 Closed-loop Methods
 Ziegler-Nichols Closed-loop
 Tyreus-Luyben
 Damped Oscillation

 Open-loop Methods
 Ziegler-Nichols Open-loop
 C-H-R
 Cohen-Coon
 Ciancone-Marlin
 Minimum Error Integral
 Simulation and Results
 GUI Description

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 2

Introduction

 PID tuning is to find the optimum Kp, Ki and Kd for the controller.

Control objective > Setpoint tracking, Disturbance rejection

Actions > Instantaneous proportional action, Reset integral action, Rate derivative
action

Optimum criteria > Depends on application and system requirements

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 3

Introduction

 Conceptual real-world example

Crosswind

Front wheels
Desired position angle Car position
Driver Car mechanism
(PID) (Process)

Driver’s eyes
(Feedback)

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 4

Introduction

 PID configuration

d𝑒(𝑡) 1 d𝑒(𝑡)
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡 = 𝐾𝑝 𝑒(𝑡) + 𝐾𝑖 𝑒(𝑡)𝑑𝑡 + 𝐾𝑑 = 𝐾𝑐 × (1 + 𝑒(𝑡)𝑑𝑡 + 𝜏𝑑 )
𝑑𝑡 𝜏𝑖 𝑑𝑡

𝐾𝑝 𝑒(𝑡)

SP e(t) Controller output

𝐾𝑖 𝑒(𝑡)𝑑𝑡

PV d𝑒(𝑡)
𝐾𝑑
𝑑𝑡

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 5

Introduction

 Many tuning methods have been proposed for PID controllers each of which
has its advantages and disadvantages. So, no one can be considered the best
for all purposes.
 Closed-loop methods tune the PID while it is attached to the loop while in
open-loop methods the process is estimated using a FOPDT model
 A comparison of the most popular methods is to be done
 Simulation will be implemented for 1st, 2nd and 3rd-order processes, some of
which are lag-dominant and the others are dead-time dominant.
 IAE as criterion (which adds up the time and amplitude weight of the error)

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 6

Objectives

 Compare studied tuning methods for performance and robustness

 Develop a GUI to do the comparison automatically for a given process model

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 7

Closed-loop methods

 Ziegler-Nichols Closed-loop
 Tyreus-Luyben
 Damped Oscillation
D
Tuning
SP C PV
PID Process

Feedback

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 8

Open-loop methods

 Ziegler-Nichols Open-loop
 C-H-R
 Cohen-Coon
 Ciancone-Marlin D
Tuning
 Minimum Error Integral PV
PID Process

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 9

Ziegler-Nichols Closed-loop

 ¼ decay ratio as design criterion (stability condition)

 Trial-and-error procedure to find 𝑲𝒖 and 𝑷𝒖
 Drives the process into marginal stability
 Performs well when 𝝉𝒎 ≥ 𝟐𝒕𝒅 (lag dominant)
 Performs very poorly for 𝒕𝒅 > 𝟐𝝉𝒎 (dead-time dominant)
 Fast recovery from disturbance but leads to oscillatory response
 Not applicable to open-loop-unstable processes
 Some processes do not have ultimate gain

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 10

Ziegler-Nichols Closed-loop

 Procedure:
 Set 𝐾𝑖 and 𝐾𝑑 to 0
 Increase 𝐾𝑝 till sustained oscillation and find 𝐾𝑢 and 𝑃𝑢
 Use the correlations in the table below

Controller 𝐾𝑐 𝜏𝑖 𝜏𝑑
P 0.5𝐾𝑢 - -
PI 0.45𝐾𝑢 0.83𝑃𝑢 -
PID 0.6𝐾𝑢 0.5𝑃𝑢 0.125𝑃𝑢

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 11

Tyreus-Luyben

 An improvement for Ziegler-Nichols closed-loop to make response less

oscillatory
 More robust to imprecise model
 Gives better disturbance response

 Procedure:
 Same procedure as Ziegler-Nichols closed-loop

Controller 𝐾𝑐 𝜏𝑖 𝜏𝑑
PI 0.45𝐾𝑢 2.2𝑃𝑢 -
PID 0.313𝐾𝑢 2.2𝑃𝑢 0.16𝑃𝑢

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 12

Damped Oscillation

 Another improvement for Ziegler-Nichols closed-loop

 Solves the problem of marginal stability
 Can be used with open-loop-unstable processes

1.2

1 4:1
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 13

Damped Oscillation

 Procedure:[1]
 Set 𝐾𝑖 and 𝐾𝑑 to 0
 Increase 𝐾𝑝 till ¼ damping ratio is maintained and find 𝑃𝑑 only
 Use the correlations in the table below to find 𝜏𝑖 and 𝜏𝑑
 Adjust 𝐾𝑝 till ¼ damping ratio is maintained again

Controller 𝐾𝑐 𝜏𝑖 𝜏𝑑
PI 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑑 /6 -
PID 𝑎𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑃𝑑 /6 𝑃𝑑 /1.5

[1] Lipták, Béla G., and Kriszta Venczel. Instrument Engineers' Handbook: Process Control 4thed, Volume Two.

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 14

Ziegler-Nichols Open-loop

 ¼ decay ratio as design criterion

 Performs well when 𝜏𝑚 ≥ 2𝑡𝑑 (lag dominant)
 Performs very poorly for 𝑡𝑑 > 2𝜏𝑚 (dead-time dominant)
 Fast recovery from disturbance but leads to oscillatory response

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 15

Ziegler-Nichols Open-loop

 Procedure:
 The process dynamics is modeled by a first order plus dead time model

𝐾𝑚 𝑒 −𝑡𝑑𝑠
𝐺𝑚 𝑠 =
𝜏𝑚 𝑠 + 1
2.5

1.5

0.5

-0.5

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 16

Ziegler-Nichols Open-loop

 PID parameters are calculated from the table below

Controller 𝐾𝑐 𝜏𝑖 𝜏𝑑
P 1 𝜏𝑚
- -
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑
PI 0.9 𝜏𝑚 𝑡𝑑
-
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 0.3
PID 1.2 𝜏𝑚
2𝑡𝑑 0.5𝑡𝑑
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 17

C-H-R

 A modification of Ziegler-Nichols Open-loop

 Aims to find the “quickest response with 0% overshoot” or “quickest
response with 20% overshoot”
 Tuning for setpoint responses differs from load disturbance responses

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 18

C-H-R
 Procedure:
 Same as Ziegler-Nichols Open-loop

Controller 𝐾𝑐 𝜏𝑖 𝜏𝑑 𝐾𝑐 𝜏𝑖 𝜏𝑑
0% overshoot 20% overshoot
P 0.3 𝜏𝑚 0.7 𝜏𝑚
Setpoint

- - - -
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑
PI 0.35 𝜏𝑚 0.6 𝜏𝑚
1.2𝜏𝑚 - 𝜏𝑚 -
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑
PID 0.6 𝜏𝑚 0.95 𝜏𝑚
𝜏𝑚 0.5𝑡𝑑 1.4𝜏𝑚 0.47𝑡𝑑
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑
P 0.3 𝜏𝑚 0.7 𝜏𝑚
- - - -
Disturbance

𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑
PI 0.6 𝜏𝑚 0.7 𝜏𝑚
4𝑡𝑑 - 2.3𝑡𝑑 -
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑
PID 0.95 𝜏𝑚 1.2 𝜏𝑚
2.4𝑡𝑑 0.42𝑡𝑑 2𝑡𝑑 0.42𝑡𝑑
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 19

Cohen-Coon

 Second in popularity after Ziegler-Nichols tuning rules

 ¼ decay ratio has considered as design criterion for this method
 More robust
𝒕𝒅
 Applicable to wider range of (i.e. 𝑡𝑑 > 2𝜏)
𝝉
 PD rules available

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 20

Cohen-Coon

 Procedure:[1]
 The process reaction curve is obtained by an open loop test and the FOPDT
model is estimated as follows:

3
𝜏𝑚 = 𝑡 − 𝑡1 2.5
2 2
2

𝑡𝑑 = 𝑡2 − 𝜏𝑚 1.5

0.5

-0.5

[1] Smith,C.A., A.B. Copripio; “Principles and Practice of Automatic Process Control”, John Wiley & Sons,1985

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 21

Cohen-Coon

 PID parameters are calculated from the table

Controller 𝐾𝑐 𝜏𝑖 𝜏𝑑

P
1 𝜏𝑚 𝑡𝑑
(1 + ) - -
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 3𝜏𝑚

PI 3𝑡
1 𝜏𝑚 𝑡𝑑 30 + 𝜏 𝑑
𝑚
(0.9 + ) 𝑡𝑑 -
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 12𝜏𝑚 20𝑡𝑑
9+ 𝜏
𝑚

PD 2𝑡
1 𝜏𝑚 𝑡𝑑 6− 𝜏 𝑑
𝑚
(1.25 + ) - 𝑡𝑑
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 6𝜏𝑚 3𝑡𝑑
22 + 𝜏
𝑚

PID 6𝑡
1 𝜏𝑚 𝑡𝑑 32 + 𝜏 𝑑 4
(1.33 + ) 𝑚 𝑡𝑑
𝑡𝑑 2𝑡
𝐾𝑚 𝑡𝑑 4𝜏𝑚 8𝑡𝑑 11 + 𝜏 𝑑
13 + 𝜏 𝑚
𝑚

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 22

Ciancone-Marlin

 Design criteria:
 Minimization of IAE
 Assumption of ±25% change in the process model parameters
 A set of graphs are used for the tuning
 Tuning for setpoint responses differs from load disturbance responses

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 23

Ciancone-Marlin

 Procedure:
 Estimate the process with FOPDT as for Cohen-Coon method
𝑡𝑑
 Calculate the ratio
𝑡𝑑 +𝜏𝑚
𝜏𝑖 𝜏𝑑
 From the appropriate graph determine the values (𝐾𝑐 𝐾𝑚 , , )
𝑡𝑑 +𝜏𝑚 𝑡𝑑 +𝜏𝑚

 Do the calculation to find the PID parameters

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 24

Ciancone-Marlin

1.5 1
1.3 0.8
setpoint

1.1 0.6
0.9 0.4
0.7 0.2
0.5 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1

1
1.5
Disturbance

0.8
1 0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 25

 Ciancone-Marlin

2 1 0.25

1.5 0.8 0.2

setpoint

0.6 0.15
1
0.4 0.1
0.5 0.05
0.2
0 0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1

2 0.8 0.25
Disturbance

1.5 0.6 0.2

0.15
1 0.4
0.1
0.5 0.2
0.05
0 0 0
0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 26

Minimum Error Integral

 Considers the entire closed loop response not like the ¼-decay tuning methods which
considers only the first two peaks
 Less oscillations in response than ¼-decay
 Performs well when 𝝉𝒎 ≥ 𝟐𝒕𝒅 (lag dominant)
 Performs very poorly for 𝒕𝒅 > 𝝉𝒎 (dead-time dominant)
 Tuning for setpoint responses differs from load disturbance responses
 Different error integrals can be used (IAE, ISE, ITAE, ITSE)

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

𝐼𝐴𝐸 = 𝑒(𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 , 𝐼𝑆𝐸 = 𝑒(𝑡)2 𝑑𝑡 , 𝐼𝑇𝐴𝐸 = 𝑡 𝑒(𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 , 𝐼𝑇𝑆𝐸 = 𝑡𝑒(𝑡)2 𝑑𝑡

0 0 0 0

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 27

Minimum Error Integral

 Procedure:
 Estimate the process with FOPDT as for Cohen-Coon method
 Use the appropriate table to find the PID parameters

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 28

Minimum Error Integral

Error integral IAE ITAE

 Setpoint tracking table
PI Controller

𝑎1 𝑡𝑑 𝑏 𝑎1 = 0.758 𝑎1 = 0.586
𝐾𝑐 = ( ) 1
𝐾𝑚 𝜏𝑚 𝑏1 = −0.861 𝑏1 = −0.916

𝜏𝑚
𝜏𝑖 = 𝑎2 = 1.02 𝑎2 = 1.03
𝑡
𝑎2 + 𝑏2 (𝜏 𝑑 ) 𝑏2 = −0.323 𝑏2 = −0.165
𝑚

PID Controller

𝑎1 𝑡𝑑 𝑏 𝑎1 = 1.086 𝑎1 = 0.965
𝐾𝑐 = ( )1
𝐾𝑚 𝜏𝑚 𝑏1 = −0.869 𝑏1 = −0.855

𝜏𝑚
𝜏𝑖 = 𝑎2 = 0.74 𝑎2 = 0.796
𝑡
𝑎2 + 𝑏2 ( 𝑑 ) 𝑏2 = −0.13 𝑏2 = 0.147
𝜏𝑚

𝑡𝑑 𝑎3 = 0.348 𝑎3 = 0.308
𝜏𝑑 = 𝑎3 𝜏𝑚 ( )𝑏3
𝜏𝑚 𝑏3 = 0.914 𝑏3 = 0.9292

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 29

Minimum Error Integral

Error integral IST IAE ITAE

 Disturbance rejection table
P Controller
𝑎1 𝑡𝑑 𝑏 𝑎1 = 1.411 𝑎1 = 0.902 𝑎1 = 0.49
𝐾𝑐 = ( )1
𝐾𝑚 𝜏𝑚 𝑏1 = −0.917 𝑏1 = −0.985 𝑏1 = −1.084
PI Controller

𝑎1 𝑡𝑑 𝑏 𝑎1 = 1.305 𝑎1 = 0.984 𝑎1 = 0.859

𝐾𝑐 = ( )1
𝐾𝑚 𝜏𝑚 𝑏1 = −0.959 𝑏1 = −0.986 𝑏1 = 0.977

𝜏𝑚 𝑡𝑑 𝑏 𝑎2 = 0.492 𝑎2 = 0.608 𝑎2 = 0.674

𝜏𝑖 = ( )2
𝑎2 𝜏𝑚 𝑏2 = 0.739 𝑏2 = 0.707 𝑏2 = 0.68

PID Controller

𝑎1 𝑡𝑑 𝑏 𝑎1 = 1.495 𝑎1 = 1.435 𝑎1 = 1.357

𝐾𝑐 = ( )1
𝐾𝑚 𝜏𝑚 𝑏1 = 0.945 𝑏1 = −0.921 𝑏1 = −0.947

𝜏𝑚 𝑡𝑑 𝑏 𝑎2 = 1.101 𝑎2 = 0.878 𝑎2 = 0.842

𝜏𝑖 = ( )2
𝑎2 𝜏𝑚 𝑏2 = 0.771 𝑏2 = 0.749 𝑏2 = 0.738

𝑡𝑑 𝑏 𝑎3 = 0.56 𝑎3 = 0.482 𝑎3 = 0.381

𝜏𝑑 = 𝑎3 𝜏𝑚 ( ) 3
𝜏𝑚 𝑏3 = 1.006 𝑏3 = 1.137 𝑏3 = 0.995

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 30

Simulation and Results

 Simulation performed for two purposes:

 Performance Assessment
 Robustness Assessment
 Simulation for two response objectives:
 Set point tracking
 Disturbance rejection

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 31

Simulation and Results

1
 Test cases include processes of: 6. 𝐺 𝑠 = 𝑒 −3𝑠
𝑠 2 +1.8𝑠+1
 Dead-time dominant (𝑡𝑑 > 2𝜏𝑚 )
 Lag dominant (𝜏𝑚 ≥ 2𝑡𝑑 ) 1. 𝐺 𝑠 =
1 7. 𝐺 𝑠 =
1
𝑠+1 25𝑠+1 20𝑠+1 30𝑠+1
 In-between cases
 Complex poles 1 2
2. 𝐺 𝑠 = 𝑒 −0.2𝑠 8. 𝐺 𝑠 = 𝑒 −0.5𝑠
0.5𝑠+1 150𝑠 3 +95𝑠 2 +18𝑠+1
 Unstable process

1 2
3. 𝐺 𝑠 = 𝑒 −1.2𝑠 9. 𝐺 𝑠 = 𝑒 −4.2𝑠
0.5+1 2𝑠 3 +5𝑠 2 +4𝑠+1

1 250
4. 𝐺 𝑠 = 10. 𝐺 𝑠 =
30𝑠 2 +13𝑠+1 𝑠 2 +4𝑠+50

1 7𝑠 2 +28𝑠+28
5. 𝐺 𝑠 = 2 𝑒 −0.2𝑠 11. 𝐺 𝑠 =
𝑠 +3𝑠+1 10𝑠 3 −10𝑠 2 −50𝑠−30

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 32

Simulation Example (Closed-loop)

1
 𝐺 𝑠 = 𝑒 −1.2𝑠
0.5+1

Method 𝑲𝒑 𝑲𝒊 𝑲𝒅
Ziegler-Nichols Closed-
0.63 0.24 0
loop
Tyreus-Luyben 0.44 0.06 0
Damped Oscillation 0.76 0.28 0
Settling
Method Overshoot Rise time
time
Ziegler-Nichols Closed-
0 9.41773 20.10063
loop
Tyreus-Luyben 0 41.5833 78.08328

Damped Oscillation 0 1.14425 17.86827

Method IAE ITAE ISE

Ziegler-Nichols Closed-
4.287635 21.66082 2.14574
loop
Tyreus-Luyben 16.21587 326.4134 6.600629
Damped Oscillation 3.657051 16.38796 1.930914

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 33

Simulation Example (Open-loop)

1
 𝐺 𝑠 = 𝑒 −1.2𝑠
0.5+1

Method 𝑲𝒑 𝑲𝒊 𝑲𝒅
Ziegler-Nichols Open-loop 0.38 0.096 0
C-H-R 0.26 0.50 0
Cohen-Coon 0.46 0.59 0
Ciancone-Marlin 0.65 0.61 0
Minimum Error Integral 0.36 0.19 0
Method IAE ITAE ISE
Ziegler-Nichols Open-loop 10.62439 133.3877 4.672032
C-H-R 2.534889 4.215979 1.916891
Cohen-Coon 2.23463 3.378988 1.687213
Ciancone-Marlin 2.31806 4.337486 1.623838
Minimum Error Integral 5.443972 29.46653 2.827566

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 34

Robustness Assessment Example

1 1
 𝐺 𝑠 = 𝑒 −0.2𝑠 ≫ 𝐺 𝑠 = 𝑒 −0.4𝑠 Method
𝑠 2 +3𝑠+1 𝑠 2 +3.4𝑠+1 𝑲𝒑 𝑲𝒊 𝑲𝒅
Ziegler-Nichols
7.38 5.13 0
Closed-loop
Tyreus-Luyben 5.13 1.35 0
Damped Oscillation 8.26 4.36 0

∆%Settling
Method ∆%Overshoot ∆%Rise time
time
Ziegler-Nichols
2.53E+46 0.005528
Closed-loop
Tyreus-Luyben 0.780894 0.021236 0.222945

---- After process parameters change

Damped Oscillation 7.51E+58 0.002601

___ With original process parameters Method ∆%IAE ∆%ITAE ∆%ISE

Ziegler-Nichols
65535 65535 65535
 Only Tyreus Luyben method could preserve the Closed-loop
system stability in this example Tyreus-Luyben 0.578426 1.141222 0.534852
Damped Oscillation 65535 65535 65535

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 35

Results
 Performance assessment

Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 Example 6

Method
Set. Dis. Set. Dis. Set. Dis. Set. Dis. Set. Dis. Set. Dis.
ZN-Closed - - 0.445789 0.283633 4.287635 4.173887 - - 2.220379 0.30278 13.41728 13.1761
Tyreus-Luyben - - 1.102981 1.070794 16.21587 15.8735 - - 1.180371 0.735662 50.61003 49.72932
Damped Oscillation - - 0.612071 0.236871 3.657051 3.591137 5.435811 0.227883 2.036804 0.273401 12.38092 12.11599
ZN-Open - - 0.477394 0.283206 10.62439 10.40774 6.652971 0.659678 2.429928 0.313117 16.09085 15.75623
C-H-R - - 0.421681 0.25155 2.534889 9.219109 4.185609 1.19549 1.174634 0.444315 6.268245 14.07367
Cohen-Coon - - 0.903723 0.290855 2.23463 2.054926 6.597632 1.828374 1.629527 0.386198 6.621596 6.228913
Ciancone-Marlin - - 0.595529 0.316686 2.31806 2.235919 10.79177 4.51365 2.417798 1.027116 7.183998 6.603842
Minimum Integral E. - - 0.426224 0.264112 5.443972 3.585999 5.563018 1.75844 1.204237 0.367181 14.60711 10.23431

Example 7 Example 8 Example 9 Example 10 Example 11 Average

Method
Set. Dis. Set. Dis. Set. Dis. Set. Dis. Set. Dis. Set. Dis.
ZN-Closed 121.105 33.93362 24.0696 13.75189 19.49302 38.61412 - - - - 26.434 14.8908
Tyreus-Luyben 82.82336 75.37933 19.84668 36.28508 74.32392 145.8678 - - - - 35.1576 46.42
Damped Oscillation 74.90803 33.03475 18.32106 13.56714 17.76392 34.84851 0.8825 4.247397 2.4965 0.5507 13.849 10.269
ZN-Open 203.0636 48.10066 41.21583 19.02999 20.80098 40.49981 - - - - 37.669 16.8813
C-H-R 71.53518 62.488 15.79547 23.05193 10.29351 35.97429 - - - - 14.026 18.337
Cohen-Coon 82.23544 40.9686 18.73435 17.27418 11.04538 19.81969 - - - - 16.25 11.106
Ciancone-Marlin 72.66559 54.42106 17.36664 24.75492 10.93768 21.3825 - - - - 15.5346 14.4069
Minimum Integral E. 61.47353 37.4164 14.01516 15.94768 17.36168 29.64329 - - - - 15.0118 12.402

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 36

Results

 Robustness assessment

Example 12 Example 13 Example 14 Average

Method
Set. Dis. Set. Dis. Set. Dis. Set. Dis.
ZN-Closed 0.30377 0.000776 - - 0.485444 0.391874 0.3946 0.1963
Tyreus-Luyben 0.013379 0.003065 0.578426 0.008142 0.027758 0.000149 0.2065 0.003785
Damped Oscillation 0.325173 0.164803 - - 0.322041 0.132218 0.3236 0.1485
ZN-Open 0.283954 0.000466 - - - - 0.283954 0.00466
C-H-R - 0.128355 0.619157 - 0.220264 - 0.4197 0.128355
Cohen-Coon - - - 0.903723 - 0.148872 - 0.52629
Ciancone-Marlin 0.004346 0.012664 0.009255 0.595529 0.01106 0.001862 0.00822 0.20335
Minimum Integral E. 0.293021 - 0.295112 0.426224 0.165632 0.101298 0.2512 0.26376

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 37

GUI Description

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 38

GUI Description

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 39

GUI Description

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 40

GUI Description

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 41

GUI Description

University of Jordan, Department of Mechatronics Engineering, 2014 June 16, 2015 42