1.

3
A proportionalintegralderivative controller (PID controller or three term controller) is a control loop
feedback mechanism widely used in industrial control systems and a variety of other applications
requiring continuously modulated control. A PID controller continuously calculates an error value e
( t ) {\displaystyle e(t)} e(t) as the difference between a desired setpoint (SP) and a measured
process variable (PV) and applies a correction based on proportional, integral, and derivative terms
(denoted P, I, and D respectively) which give the controller its name.

In practical terms it automatically applies accurate and responsive correction to a control function. An
everyday example is the cruise control on a road vehicle; where external influences such as
gradients would cause speed changes, and the driver has the ability to alter the desired set speed.
The PID algorithm restores the actual speed to the desired speed in the optimum way, without
delay or overshoot, by controlling the power output of the vehicle's engine.

The first theoretical analysis and practical application was in the field of automatic steering systems for
ships, developed from the early 1920s onwards. It was then used for automatic process control in
manufacturing industry, where it was widely implemented in pneumatic, and then electronic,
controllers. Today there is universal use of the PID concept in applications requiring accurate and
optimised automatic control.
In 1788, James Watt included a flyball governor which is first mechanical feedback device with
only a proportional function into his steam engine.
In 1933, the first pneumatic controller with a fully tuneable proportional controller was
introduced by the Taylor Instrumental Company
Another early example of a PID-type controller was developed by Elmer Sperry in 1911 for ship-steering,
though his work was intuitive rather than mathematically-based. However, it was not until 1922
that a formal control law for what we now call PID or three-term control was first developed using
theoretical analysis, by Russian American engineer Nicolas Minorsky

1.3
Continuous control, before PID controllers were fully understood and implemented, has one of its
origins in the Centrifugal governor which uses rotating weights to control a process. This had been
invented by Christian Huygens in the 17th century to regulate the gap between millstones in
windmills depending on the speed of rotation, and thereby compensate for the variable speed of
grain feed.[2][3]

With the invention of the high pressure stationary steam engine there was a need for automatic speed
control, and James Watts self-designed "conical pendulum" governor, a set of revolving steel balls
attached to a vertical spindle by link arms, came to be an industry standard. This was based on the
mill stone gap control concept.[4]

However, rotating governor speed control was still variable under conditions of varying load, where the
shortcoming of what is now known as proportional control alone was evident. The error between
 the desired speed and the actual speed would increase with increasing load. In the 19th century
the theoretical basis for the operation of governors was first described by James Clerk Maxwell in
1868 in his now-famous paper On Governors. He explored the mathematical basis for control
stability, and progressed a good way towards a solution, but made an appeal for mathematicians
to examine the problem.[5][4] The problem was examined further by Edward Routh in 1874,
Charles Sturm and in 1895, Adolf Hurwitz, who all contributed to the establishment of control
stability criteria.[4] In practice, speed governors were further refined, notably by American
scientist Willard Gibbs, who in 1872 theoretically analysed Watts conical pendulum governor.

About this time the invention of the Whitehead torpedo posed a control problem which required
accurate control of the running depth. Use of a depth pressure sensor alone proved inadequate,
and a pendulum which measured the fore and aft pitch of the torpedo was combined with depth
measurement to become the pendulum-and-hydrostat control. Pressure control only provided a
proportional control, which if the control gain was too high, would become unstable and go into
overshoot, with considerable instability of depth-holding. The pendulum added what is now known
as derivative control, which damped the oscillations by detecting the torpedo dive/climb angle and
thereby the rate of change of depth.[6] This development (named by Whitehead as "The Secret" to
give no clue to its action) was around 1868.[7]

Another early example of a PID-type controller was developed by Elmer Sperry in 1911 for ship-steering,
though his work was intuitive rather than mathematically-based.[8]

However, it was not until 1922 that a formal control law for what we now call PID or three-term control
was first developed using theoretical analysis, by Russian American engineer Nicolas Minorsky.[9]
Minorsky was researching and designing automatic ship steering for the US Navy and based his
analysis on observations of a helmsman. He noted the helmsman steered the ship based not only
on the current course error, but also on past error, as well as the current rate of change;[10] this
was then given a mathematical treatment by Minorsky.[4] His goal was stability, not general
control, which simplified the problem significantly. While proportional control provided stability
against small disturbances, it was insufficient for dealing with a steady disturbance, notably a stiff
gale (due to steady-state error), which required adding the integral term. Finally, the derivative
term was added to improve stability and control.

Trials were carried out on the USS New Mexico, with the controller controlling the angular velocity (not
angle) of the rudder. PI control yielded sustained yaw (angular error) of 2. Adding the D element
yielded a yaw error of 1/6, better than most helmsmen could achieve.[11]

The Navy ultimately did not adopt the system, due to resistance by personnel. Similar work was carried
out and published by several others in the 1930s

1.4
Proportional Response
The proportional component depends only on the difference between the set point and the process
variable. This difference is referred to as the Error term. The proportional gain (Kc) determines the
ratio of output response to the error signal. For instance, if the error term has a magnitude of 10, a
proportional gain of 5 would produce a proportional response of 50. In general, increasing the
proportional gain will increase the speed of the control system response. However, if the
proportional gain is too large, the process variable will begin to oscillate. If Kc is increased further,
the oscillations will become larger and the system will become unstable and may even oscillate out
of control.
Integral Response
The integral component sums the error term over time. The result is that even a small error term will cause the
integral component to increase slowly. The integral response will continually increase over time unless the error
is zero, so the effect is to drive the Steady-State error to zero. Steady-State error is the final difference between
the process variable and set point. A phenomenon called integral windup results when integral action saturates
a controller without the controller driving the error signal toward zero.

Derivative Response
The derivative component causes the output to decrease if the process variable is increasing rapidly. The
derivative response is proportional to the rate of change of the process variable. Increasing the derivative time
(Td) parameter will cause the control system to react more strongly to changes in the error term and will
increase the speed of the overall control system response. Most practical control systems use very small
derivative time (Td), because the Derivative Response is highly sensitive to noise in the process variable signal.
If the sensor feedback signal is noisy or if the control loop rate is too slow, the derivative response can make
the control system unstable
1.5

Dead Time: Dead time is the amount of time that it takes for your process variable to start changing after your
valve changes. If you were taking a shower, the dead time is the amount of time it would take for you (the
controller) to feel a change in temperature after you have adjusted the hot or cold water.

Pure dead time processes are usually found in plug flow or solids transportation loops. Examples are paper machine
and conveyor belt loops. Dead time is also called delay. A controller cannot make the process variable respond before
the process dead time.

To a controller, a process may appear to have more dead time than what it actually has. That is, the controller
cannot be tuned tight enough (without going unstable) to make the process variable respond appreciably before an
equivalent dead time. More accurately, the characteristic time of the loop is determined by equivalent dead time.
Equivalent dead time consists of pure dead time plus process components contributing more than 180 degrees of
phase lag.

The phase of dead time increases proportionally with frequency. Any process having more than 180 degrees phase
lag has equivalent dead time.

Gain (of the controller): This is another way of expressing the "P" part of the PID controller. GAIN =
100/(Proportional Band). The more gain a controller has the faster the loop response and more oscillatory the
process.

The controller gain defines the strength of controller response experienced in relation to a
deviation between the input and output signal
Integral time
The time required to obtain the same manipulated variable as for the proportional action when using only an integral
action. The shorter the integral time, the stronger the correction is of the integral action