Dublin Institute of Technology

ARROW@DIT
Conference papers School of Electrical Engineering Systems
2006-01-01
PI and PID controller tuning rules: an overview
and personal perspective
Aidan O'Dwyer
Dublin Institute of Technology, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: htp://arrow.dit.ie/engscheleart
Part of the Controls and Control Teory Commons
Tis Conference Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the
School of Electrical Engineering Systems at ARROW@DIT. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Conference papers by an authorized administrator
of ARROW@DIT. For more information, please contact
[email protected], [email protected].
Tis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribution-
Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License
Recommended Citation
O'Dwyer, Aidan : PI and PID controller tuning rules: an overview and personal perspective. Proceedings of the IET Irish Signals and
Systems Conference, pp. 161-166, Dublin Institute of Technology, June, 2006.

PI and PID controller tuning rules: an overview and
personal perspective

Aidan ODwyer
School of Control Systems and Electrical Engineering,
Dublin Institute of Technology,
Kevin St., Dublin 8, Ireland
E-mail: [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract: The ability of PI and PID controllers to compensate many
practical processes has led to their wide acceptance in industrial
applications. The requirement to choose two or three controller
parameters is most easily done using tuning rules. Starting with a
general discussion of industrial practice, the paper provides a
survey of additional tuning rules for continuous-time PI and PID
control of time-delayed single-input, single-output (SISO) processes,
to those explored in a recent book by the author.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
I INTRODUCTION
A time delay may be defined as the time
interval between the start of an event at one point in
a system and its resulting action at another point in
the system. Delays are also known as transport lags
or dead times; they arise in physical, chemical,
biological and economic systems, as well as in the
process of measurement and computation. Methods
for the compensation of time delayed processes may
be broadly divided into parameter optimised
controllers, such as proportional-integral (PI) or
proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers, in
which the controller parameters are adapted to the
controller structure, and structurally optimised
controllers, in which the controller structure and
parameters are adapted optimally to the structure and
parameters of the process model.
PI and PID controllers have been at the heart of
control engineering practice for seven decades.
Historically, the first tuning rule (formula) for setting
up controller parameters was defined in 1934 for the
design of a proportional-derivative (PD) controller
for a process exactly modelled by an integrator plus
delay (IPD) model [1]. Subsequently, tuning rules
were defined for PI and PID controllers, assuming
the process was exactly modelled by a first order lag
plus delay (FOLPD) model [2] or a pure delay model
[2], [3].
The use of the PI or PID controller is ubiquitous
in industry. It has been stated, for example, that in
process control applications, more than 95% of the
controllers are of PI or PID type [4-9]. Neglected by
the academic research community until recently,
work by K.J. strm, T. Hgglund and F.G.
Shinskey, among others, has sparked a revival of
interest in the use of this workhorse of controller
implementation. One illustrative statistic is worth
quoting: the author has discovered that 293 of the
408 separate sources of tuning rules have been
recorded since 1992.
However, despite this development work,
surveys indicating the state of the art of control
industrial practice report sobering results. For
example, in testing of thousands of control loops in
hundreds of plants, it has been found that more than
30% of installed PI/PID controllers are operating in
manual mode and 65% of loops operating in
automatic mode produce less variance in manual
than in automatic (thus, the automatic controllers are
poorly tuned) [10]. Another interesting such
comment comes from [11], in which it is stated that
PI/PID controllers are sometimes deliberately
detuned by operating staff for steady state operation.
A typical control system audit is quoted, comprising
300 loops, in which 46 controllers were operated
with default tuning parameters in the controller.
Other such literature [12] claims that extensive
industry testing shows that 75% of all PID based
loops are out of tune. A survey of paper processing
mills is quoted, in which 60% of the 36 mills
surveyed stated that less than half of their control
loops were well tuned (the majority of the mills
reported that they had between 2000 and 4000
regulatory control loops). In a further such comment,
it is claimed [13] that only 20% of all control loops
surveyed in mill audits have been found to actually
reduce process variability in automatic mode over
the short term. Of the problem loops, increased
process variability in automatic mode could be
ascribed specifically to controller tuning problems in
approximately 30% of cases. Many of the points
made above are re-iterated by [14]. The situation has
not improved more recently, with [15] reporting that
80% of PID controllers are badly tuned; 30% of PID
controllers operate in manual with another 30% of
the controlled loops increasing the short-term
variability of the process to be controlled (typically
due to too strong integral action). It is stated that
25% of all PID controller loops use default factory
settings, implying that they have not been tuned at
all.
Thus, there is strong evidence that PI and PID
controllers remain poorly understood and, in
particular, poorly tuned in many applications.
Process performance deteriorates when the controller
is poorly tuned; this deterioration may be reflected,
for example, in a reduction in energy efficiency and
increased environmental emissions. The net effect
will be an increase in operating costs and a reduction
in overall competitiveness. However, good controller
tuning, for example, can allow the recovery of up to
6% of energy costs, in a variety of industries [16].
Poor controller tuning is surprising, as very many
tuning rules exist to allow the specification of the
controller parameters. Tuning rules have the
advantage of ease of calculation of the controller
parameters (when compared to more analytical
controller design methods), on the one hand; on the
other hand, the use of tuning rules is a good
alternative to trial and error tuning. It is clear that the
many controller tuning rules proposed in the
literature are not having an impact on industrial
practice. One reason is that the tuning rules are not
very accessible, being scattered throughout the
control literature; in addition, the notation used is not
unified. In a book published in 2003 [17], PI and PID
controller tuning rules for processes with time delay
have been brought together and summarised, using a
unified notation. A second edition of this book is due
to be published in 2006 [18].
This paper provides a survey of additional
tuning rules for continuous-time PI and PID control
of single-input, single-output (SISO) processes, with
time delay, to those explored in [17]. Firstly, a brief
summary of the range of PI and PID controller
structures proposed in the literature, together with the
process models used to define the controller tuning
rules, is provided. Then, controller architecture and
process modeling issues are outlined. Subsequently,
space considerations dictate that just an outline of
additional tuning rules for setting up PI and PID
controllers, for a number of process models, may be
provided; further details of the tuning rules will be
provided at the conference. Finally, conclusions to
the paper are drawn. Other reviews are recommended
to the interested reader [19]-[35].
II CONTROLLER ARCHITECTURE
AND PROCESS MODELLING
A practical difficulty with PID control
technology is a lack of industrial standards, which
has resulted in a wide variety of PID controller
architectures. Seven different structures for the PI
controller and forty-six different structures for the
PID controller have been identified. Controller
manufacturers vary in their choice of architecture;
controller tuning that works well on one architecture
may work poorly on another. Details are given in
[17], [18]; considering the PID controller, common
architectures are:

1. The ideal PID controller (Figure 1), given by
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + = s T
s T
1
1 K ) s ( G
d
i
c c
(1)






Figure 1. Ideal PID controller in a unity feedback block
diagram representation. This controller structure, and an
equivalent structure, is also labelled the parallel, ideal
parallel, non-interacting, parallel non-interacting,
independent, gain independent or ISA controller [17], [18].
276 tuning rules have been identified for this controller
structure.

This architecture is used, for example, on the
Honeywell TDC3000 Process Manager Type A,
non-interactive mode product [36].

2. The classical PID controller (Figure 2), given
by
N
T
s 1
sT 1
s T
1
1 K ) s ( G
d
d
i
c c
+
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ = (2)




Figure 2. Classical PID controller in a unity feedback block
diagram representation. Also labelled the cascade, interacting,
series, interactive, rate-before-reset or analog controller [17],
[18], 101 tuning rules have been identified for this controller
structure.

This architecture is used, for example, on the
Honeywell TDC3000 Process Manager Type A,
interactive mode product [36].

3. The non-interacting controller based on the two
degree of freedom structure (Figure 3), given by
) s ( E
s
N
T
1
s T
s T
1
1 K ) s ( U
d
d
i
c
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+ + =
) s ( R
s
N
T
1
s T
K
d
d
c
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+

+ (3)


|
|
.
|

\
|
+ + s T
s T
1
1 K
d
i
c
R(s)
+

E(s)
Y(s) U(s)
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
s
N
T
1
s T 1
s T
1
1 K
d
d
i
c
R(s)
+

E(s)
Y(s)
U(s)
Process
Process













Figure 3. Non-interacting controller, based on the two degree
of freedom structure, in a unity feedback block diagram
representation. Also labelled the m-PID or ISA-PID controller
[17], [18], 44 tuning rules have been identified for this
controller structure.

This architecture is used, for example, on the
Omron E5CK digital controller with 1 = and N
= 3 [36].

The most dominant PI controller architecture is the
ideal PI controller, given by
|
|
.
|

\
|
+ =
s T
1
1 K ) s ( G
i
c c
(4)
The wide variety of controller architectures is
mirrored by the wide variety of ways in which
processes with time delay may be modeled.
Common models are:
1. Stable FOLPD model, given by
m
s
m
m
sT 1
e K
) s ( G
m
+
=

(5)
2. IPD model, given by
s
e K
) s ( G
m
s
m
m

= (6)
3. First order lag plus integral plus delay
(FOLIPD) model, given by
( )
m
s
m
m
sT 1 s
e K
) s ( G
m
+
=

(7)
4. Second order system plus time delay (SOSPD)
model, given by
= ) s ( G
m
1 s T 2 s T
e K
1 m m
2 2
1 m
s
m
m
+ +

(8)
or
( )( ) s T 1 s T 1
e K
) s ( G
2 m 1 m
s
m
m
m
+ +
=

(9)
Some 82% of the PI controller tuning rules identified
have been defined for the ideal PI controller
structure, with 42% of tuning rules based on a
FOLPD process model. The range of PID controller
variations has led to a less homogenous situation
than for the PI controller; 40% of tuning rules
identified have been defined for the ideal PID
controller structure, with 37% of PID tuning rules
based on a FOLPD process model [18].
Of course, the modeling strategy used
influences the value of the model parameters, which,
in turn, affect the controller values determined from
the tuning rules. Forty-one modeling strategies have
been detailed to determine the parameters of the
FOLPD process model, for example. Space does not
permit a full discussion of this issue; further details
are provided in [17], [18].
III ADDITIONAL TUNING RULES FOR
PI AND PID CONTROLLERS
Before considering additional tuning rules for PI
and PID controllers over those proposed in [17], it is
timely to review the action of the PID controller.
Considering the ideal PID controller, for example,
which is given by
) s T
s T
1
1 ( K ) s ( G
d
i
c c
+ + = (10),
with
c
K = proportional gain,
i
T = integral time
constant and
d
T = derivative time constant. If
=
i
T and 0 T
d
= (that is, P control), then the
closed loop measured value is always less than the
desired value for processes without an integrator
term, as a positive error is necessary to keep the
measured value constant, and less than the desired
value. The introduction of integral action facilitates
the achievement of equality between the measured
value and the desired value, as a constant error
produces an increasing controller output. The
introduction of derivative action means that changes
in the desired value may be anticipated, and thus an
appropriate correction may be added prior to the
actual change. Thus, in simplified terms, the PID
controller allows contributions from present, past and
future controller inputs.
PI and PID controller tuning rules may be
broadly classified as follows:
Tuning rules based on a measured step response
Tuning rules based on minimising an
appropriate performance criterion
Tuning rules that give a specified closed loop
response
Robust tuning rules, with an explicit robust
stability and robust performance criterion built
in to the design process
Tuning rules based on recording appropriate
parameters at the ultimate frequency.
Tuning rules in the first four subdivisions are
typically based on process model parameters; the
development of a process model is typically not
required for using tuning rules in the final
subdivision above. Some tuning rules could be
considered to belong to more than one subdivision,
so the subdivisions cannot be considered to be
mutually exclusive; nevertheless, they provide a
convenient way to classify the rules. An outline of
tuning rules in these subdivisions is now provided;
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+ +
s
N
T
1
s T
s T
1
1 K
d
d
i
c
R(s)
+

Y(s) U(s)
c
d
d
K
s
N
T
1
s T
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+

+
+

Process
these tuning rules are, with the exception of [37],
additional to those considered in [17].
Tuning rules based on a measured step response
are also called process reaction curve methods. The
first (and most well-known) tuning rule of this type
was suggested in 1942 [37]; in this method, the
process is modeled by a FOLPD process model with
the model parameters estimated using a tangent and
point method, as indicated in Figure 4. Simple
formulae are used to define tuning parameters for PI
and PID controllers. The PI controller settings are
given by
m m
m
c
K
T 9 . 0
K

= ,
m i
33 . 3 T = (11)
The (ideal) PID controller settings are given by
(

m m
m
m m
m
c
K
T 2
,
K
T 2 . 1
K ,
m i
2 T = ,
m d
5 . 0 T = (12)
Figure 4. Tangent and point method [37] for developing a process
model.
m
K = model gain = ratio of the steady state change in
process output to steady state change in process input,
m
T =
model time constant and
m
= model time delay. 54 controller
tuning rules have been identified based on the model parameters
determined from this modelling method. 21 of the 47 other
modelling methods for determining such a process model, prior to
specifying tuning rules, are based on data gathered from the open
loop process step or impulse response [18].

Other process reaction curve tuning rules are also
described, sometimes in graphical form, to control
processes modeled by a variety of time-delayed
models [18]. The advantage of process reaction
curve tuning strategies is that only a single
experimental test is necessary. However, the
disadvantages of the strategy are primarily based on
the difficulty, in practice, of obtaining an accurate
process model; for example, load changes may occur
during the test which may distort the test results and
a large step input may be necessary to achieve a
good signal to noise ratio [38]. Similar disadvantages
will arise in any tuning method dependent on prior
model development.
Tuning rules based on minimising an
appropriate performance criterion may be defined
either for optimum regulator or optimum servo
action. Performance criteria, such as the
minimisation of the integral of absolute error (IAE)
in a closed loop environment, may be used to
determine a unique set of controller parameter
values. Tuning rules have been described, sometimes
in graphical form, to optimise the regulator response,
servo response or other characteristics of a
compensated delayed process, represented by a
variety of models [18].
Tuning rules that give a specified closed loop
response (direct synthesis tuning rules) may be
defined by specifying a time domain related metric,
such as the desired poles of the closed loop response.
The definition may be expanded to cover techniques
that allow the achievement of a frequency domain
metric, such as a specified gain margin and/or phase
margin. Tuning rules of this type have been specified
to compensate a delayed process, represented by a
variety of models [18].
Robust tuning rules have an explicit robust
stability and/or robust performance criterion built in
to the design process. Tuning rules of this type have
also been specified to compensate a delayed process,
represented by a variety of models [18].
Ultimate cycle tuning rules are based on
recording appropriate parameters at the ultimate
frequency (that is, the frequency at which marginal
stability of the closed loop control system occurs).
The first such tuning rule was defined in 1942 [37]
for the tuning of P, PI and PID controller parameters
of a process that may or may not include a delay.
Briefly, the experimental technique is as follows:
a) Place the controller in proportional mode only
b) Increase
c
K until the closed loop system output
goes marginally stable; record
c
K (calling it
u
K ,
the ultimate gain), and the ultimate period,
u
T . A
typical marginally stable output, recorded on a
laboratory flow process, is shown in Figure 5.










Figure 5. Typical marginally stable process variable pattern. Note
that the pattern exhibits evidence of a process nonlinearity, which
is common in real applications. Over 129 controller tuning rules
have been defined, based on the data determined from such a
pattern [18].

Simple formulae are used to define tuning
parameters for PI and PID controllers. The PI
controller settings are given by
u c
K 45 . 0 K = ,
u i
T 83 . 0 T = (13),
with the (ideal) PID controller settings given by

u c
K 6 . 0 K = ,
u i
T 5 . 0 T = ,
u d
T 125 . 0 T = (14)
The tuning rules implicitly build an adequate
frequency domain stability margin into the
compensated system [39]. However, there are a
number of disadvantages to the ultimate cycle tuning
approach:
the system must generally be destabilised under
proportional control
the empirical nature of the method means that
uniform performance is not achieved in general
[40]
several trials must typically be made to determine
the ultimate gain
the resulting process upsets may be detrimental to
product quality
there is a danger of misinterpreting a limit cycle
as representing the stability limit [41] and
the amplitude of the process variable signal may
be so great that the experiment may not be
carried out for cost or safety considerations.
Some of these disadvantages are addressed by
defining modifications of the rules in which, for
example, the proportional gain in the experiment is
set up to give a closed loop transient response decay
ratio of 0.25, or a phase lag of
0
135 . Ultimate cycle
tuning rules, and their modifications, have been
specified to compensate general, possibly delayed
processes, represented by a variety of models [18].
IV CONCLUSIONS
Control academics and practitioners remain
interested in the use of PI and PID controllers. PID
controller tuning rules can be directly implemented
in a number of applications. The outcome is directly
measurable in, for example, energy savings and
waste reduction (including greenhouse gas emission
reduction). This paper summarises mainly recent
work in tuning rule development for processes with
time delays, updating the information provided in
[17]. The most startling statistic to emerge from the
complete work is the quantity of tuning rules
identified to date; 443 PI tuning rules and 691 PID
tuning rules, a total of 1134 separate rules. Recent
years have seen an acceleration in the accumulation
of tuning rules. In general, there is a lack of
comparative analysis regarding the performance and
robustness of closed loop systems compensated with
controllers whose parameters are chosen using the
tuning rules; associated with this is the lack of
benchmark processes, at least until relatively recently
[42]. The main priority for future research in the area
should be a critical analysis of available tuning rules,
rather than the proposal of further tuning rules.

Historical note: The 70
th
anniversary of the receipt of
the first technical paper describing tuning rules for
setting up controller parameters [2] is presently being
marked. The paper was received by the Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London on July
15, 1935; the paper was received, in revised form, on
November 26, 1935 and was read on February 2,
1936. The lead author of the paper subsequently took
out a patent on the PID controller (Callender, A. and
Stevenson, A.B., Automatic control of variable
physical characteristics, US patent 2,175,985. Filed:
Feb. 17, 1936; Issued Oct. 10, 1939).
REFERENCES
[1] A. Callendar, Preliminary notes on automatic
control, I.C.I. Alkali Ltd., Northwich, U.K., Central
File No. R.525/15/3, 1934.
[2] A. Callendar, D.R. Hartree, and A. Porter, Time-lag
in a control system, Phil. Trans. Royal Society of
London Series A, vol. 235, pp. 415-444, 1935/6.
[3] D.R. Hartree, A. Porter, A. Callender and A.B.
Stevenson, Time-lag in a control system II, Proc.
Royal Society of London, vol. 161(A), pp. 460-476,
1937.
[4] K.J. strm and T. Hgglund, PID Controllers:
Theory, Design and Tuning. Research Triangle Park,
NC: Instrument Society of America, 1995.
[5] H.N. Koivo and J.T. Tanttu, Tuning of PID
Controllers: Survey of SISO and MIMO techniques
in Proc. IFAC Intelligent Tuning Adaptive Control
Symp., Singapore, pp. 75-80, 1991.
[6] W.L. Bialkowski, in The Control Handbook, W.S.
Levine, Ed. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC/IEEE Press,
pp. 1219-1242, 1996.
[7] W.L. Luyben and M.L. Luyben, Essentials of
process control. Singapore: McGraw-Hill
International Edition, 1997.
[8] M.A. Hersh and M.A. Johnson, A study of
advanced control systems in the workplace, Control
Eng. Practice, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 771-778, 1997.
[9] H. Takatsu and T. Itoh, Future needs for control
theory in industry report of the control technology
survey of Japanese industry, IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Tech., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 298-305, 1999.
[10] D.B. Ender, Process control performance: not at
good as you think, Control Eng., pp. 180-190,
September 1993.
[11] Protuner U.K. Ltd, The state of art in control, Sales
literature, 1997.
[12] Universal Dynamic Technologies, Brainwave: the
new concept in process control, Sales literature,
1998.
[13] Entech Control Engineering Ltd., Competency in
Process Control - Industry Guidelines. Version 1.0,
3/94, 1994.
[14] C.-C. Yu, Autotuning of PID controllers. London,
U.K.: Advances in Industrial Control Series,
Springer-Verlag, 1999.
[15] P. Van Overschee and B. De Moor, RaPID: the end
of heuristic PID tuning, in Preprints Proc. PID 00:
IFAC Workshop, Terrassa, Spain, pp. 687-692, 2000.
[16] Case histories accompanying Good Practice Guide
346 (Improving the effectiveness of basic closed
loop control systems), The Carbon Trust. Available
at www.thecarbontrust.co.uk (accessed December
2005).
[17] A. ODwyer, Handbook of PI and PID controller
tuning rules. London, U.K.: Imperial College Press,
1
st
edition, 2003.
[18] A. ODwyer, Handbook of PI and PID controller
tuning rules. London, U.K.: Imperial College Press,
2
nd
edition, 2006.
[19] D.E. Seborg, T.F. Edgar and S.L. Shah, Adaptive
control strategies for process control: a survey,
AIChE J., vol. 32, pp. 881-913, 1986.
[20] S.S. Bueno, R.M.C. De Keyser and G. Favier, Auto-
tuning and adaptive tuning of PID controllers,
Journal A, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 28-34, 1991.
[21] D.G. Fisher, Process control: an overview and
personal perspective, Canadian J. Chem. Eng., vol.
69, pp. 5-26, 1991.
[22] K.J. strm, T. Hgglund, C.C. Hang and W.K. Ho,
Automatic tuning and adaptation for PID controllers
- a survey, Control Eng. Practice, vol. 1, pp. 699-
714, 1993.
[23] K.J. strm, T.H. Lee, K.K. Tan and K.H.
Johansson, Recent advances in relay feedback
methods - a survey, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Systems, Man Cybernetics, Vancouver, British
Columbia, pp. 2616-2621, 1995.
[24] K.J. strm, Tuning and adaptation, in Proc. 13
th

IFAC World Congress, San Francisco, U.S.A.,
Plenary Volume, pp. 1-18, 1996.
[25] G. Chen, Conventional and fuzzy PID controllers:
an overview, Int. J. Intelligent Control and Systems,
vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 235-246, 1996.
[26] M.A. Unar, D.J. Murray-Smith and S.F.A. Shah,
Technical Report CSC-96016, 1996. Available at
http://www.mech.gla.ac.uk/Research/Control/Publica
tions/Rabstracts/abs96016.html (accessed December
2005).
[27] R. Gorez, A survey of PID auto-tuning methods,
Journal A, vol. 38, pp. 3-10, 1997.
[28] K.K. Tan, Q.G. Wang, C.C. Hang and T.J.
Hgglund. Advances in PID control, London, U.K.:
Advances in Industrial Control Series, Springer-
Verlag, 1999.
[29] K.J. strm and T. Hgglund, The future of PID
control in Preprints Proc. PID 00: IFAC
Workshop, Terrassa, Spain, pp. 19-30, 2000.
[30] M. Lelic and Z. Gajic, A reference guide to PID
controllers in the nineties in Preprints Proc. PID
00: IFAC Workshop, Terrassa, Spain, pp. 73-82,
2000.
[31] P. Cominos and N. Munro, PID controllers: recent
tuning methods and design to specification, IEE
Proc. Control Theory Applic., vol. 149, no. 1, pp.
46-53, 2002.
[32] C.C. Hang, K.J. strm and Q.G. Wang, Relay
feedback auto-tuning of process controllers a
tutorial review, J. Process Control, vol. 12, pp. 143-
162, 2002.
[33] A. ODwyer, PID compensation of time delayed
processes: a survey, in Proc. Irish Signals Systems
Conf., Dublin, Ireland, June 29-30, pp. 5-12, 2000.
[34] A. ODwyer, PID compensation of time delayed
processes 1998-2002: a survey, in Proc. American
Control Conf., Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 1494-
1499, 2003.
[35] C.-H. Lee, A survey of PID controller design based
on gain and phase margins, International Journal of
Computational Cognition, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 63-100,
2004.
[36] ISMC. RAPID: Robust Advanced PID Control
Manual. Intelligent System Modeling and Control
nv, Belgium, 1999.
[37] J.G. Ziegler and N.B. Nichols, Optimum settings for
automatic controllers, Trans. ASME, vol. 64, pp.
759-768, 1942.
[38] D.E. Seborg, T.F. Edgar and D.A. Mellichamp,
Process dynamics and control, New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1989.
[39] A.M. De Paor, A fiftieth anniversary celebration of
the Ziegler-Nichols PID controller, Int. J. Elect.
Eng. Education, vol. 30, pp. 303-316, 1993.
[40] S.-H. Hwang and T.-S. Tseng, Process
identification and control based on dominant pole
expansions, Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 49, no. 12, pp.
1973-1983, 1994.
[41] D.W. Pessen, A new look at PID-controller tuning,
Trans. ASME. J. Dyn. Sys., Meas. Control, vol. 116,
no. 3, pp. 553-557, 1994.
[42] K.J. strm and T. Hgglund, Benchmark systems
for PID control, in Preprints Proc. PID 00: IFAC
Workshop, Terrassa, Spain, pp. 181-182, 2000.