AUTOMATIC TUNING LABMETHOD ELIGIBILITY ENFORCED

TUNE THE MODEL.
COMPARE THE TRADE-OFF.

Rules are applied only to the model classes they were derived for. Results are candidates for simulation—not universal answers and never automatic hardware approval.

FORM IDEAL / ISA → PARALLELMODEL FOPDTOVERLAY UP TO 4RELAY SIMULATED

SELECT UP TO FOUR

Tuning methods

4 / 4 active

RESPONSE OVERLAY

No universal winner.

Compare speed, overshoot, integrated error, actuator activity, and robustness. A lower value is not automatically a better engineering choice.

Selected tuning parameters and response metrics
MethodKpKiKdRise / sOvershoot / %IAETV(u)
Manual20.80.251.8501.2251.603
Ziegler–Nichols6.8579.7961.20.2187.895.364268.9
Cohen–Coon7.8699.7960.97060.1893.3210.93542
Skogestad SIMC1.290.645202.4601.5250.7742

ÅSTRÖM–HÄGGLUND STYLE

Relay feedback experiment

A symmetric relay of amplitude d drives a limit cycle. From process oscillation amplitude a and period Pu, the describing-function estimate gives Ku = 4d/(πa). This is simulated autotuning; do not transfer it to hardware without a safety review.

Relay outputProcess oscillationKu 3.979

Controller gains shown in the simulation are parallel-form values: Ki = Kc/Ti and Kd = Kc·Td. Each rule’s source, assumptions, units, and limitations are documented in docs/tuning-methods.md and docs/method-validation.md.