ISSN 1 746-7233, England, UK World Journal of Modelling and Simulation Vol. 6 (2010) No. 2, pp.

141-149

Performance of tuned PID controller and a new hybrid fuzzy PD + I controller

Satish. R. Vaishnav1 , Zafar. J. Khan2
2

Department of Electrical Engineering, RTM Nagpur University, Nagpur 440016, India Electrical and Electronic Engineering Department, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Karimnagar 505001, India (Received December 14 2008, Revised August 11 2009, Accepted December 11 2009) Abstract. Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers are widely used in the industry. This paper describes design of PID controller based on Ziegler Nichols (ZN) step response method, its modied form, Pole Placement method and Robust PID controller design based on root locus approach. One new Hybrid fuzzy PD + I controller (FPD+I) has been proposed and implemented. The fuzzy PD controller is designed using simple design approach and smaller rule base (four rules). Requirements on design of the controllers are specied in terms of time domain response. Simulation results for a second order system with monotonic step response are provided. A performance comparison between the tuned PID controller and the proposed hybrid FPD+I controller is presented. Keywords: PID controller, tuning, hybrid fuzzy PD+I controller, simulation, comparison

Introduction

Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers have been widely used in the industry due to the facts that they have a simple structure and they assure an acceptable performance for the majority of the industrial processes[21] . It has been reported that more than 90% of all the control loops in industrial applications are of PID type[11] . With its three term functionality, PID controller deals with both transient and steady state responses improvement. The PID controller is used for a wide range of problems like motor drives, automotive, ight control, instrumentation etc. PID controllers provide robust and reliable performance for most systems if the PID parameters are tuned properly. Over the years, there are many tuning formulas derived to tune the PID controllers[3, 7, 10, 14, 15, 18] . The Ziegler Nichols tuning rules were the rst tuning rules for PID controller and they are still widely used today. Ziegler Nichols presented two tuning methods, a step response method and a frequency response method[3, 7] . In this paper, we have investigated step response method. There have been many suggestions on modications of the Ziegler Nichols methods. Chien, Hrones and Reswick (CHR) changed the step response method to give better damped closed loop systems[3] . The dynamics of system is described more accurately if three parameters are used in the design instead of two. The Kappa-Tau tuning method[1, 7] is a new method in that direction and can be viewed as extension of Ziegler-Nichols rules. Basilio[5] proposed methodologies for tuning PI and PID controllers that, like the Ziegler-Nichols method are based on the plant step response. Unlike the Ziegler Nichols step response method, they provide systematic means to adjust the proportional gain in order to have no overshoot on the closed loop step response. The Pole Placement design method attempts to nd a controller that gives desired closed loop poles[3, 7] . A Robust PID controller can be designed directly either by frequency response or root locus methods[16] . Ang, Chong and Lee[2] presented software based tuning method, named PID easy for designing PID controller. Karimi and Gracia[10] proposed a new method for PID controller tuning based on Bodes Integral. Ho,Gan,Tay and Ang[8] studied the performance of well known

Corresponding author. E-mail address: srv992003@yahoo.co.in. Published by World Academic Press, World Academic Union

142

S. Vaishnav & Z. Khan: Performance of tuned PID controller

PID tuning formula for process with dead time which includes Ziegler Nichols formula, Cohen-Coon method and tuning formulas that optimize for load disturbance response. A survey of various sophisticated PID software packages and hardware models is found in [2]. While a number of tuning techniques are available in the literature, we observed that there exists a lack of performances comparison among them based on some common parameters and criteria. This paper attempts to compare some of the discussed PID tuning methods for a second order system with monotonic step response. Requirements on the design of PID controller are specied on a uniform base in terms of transient response (peak overshoot Mp and settling time ts ) and steady state response (steady state error ess ). Analysis of second order system generally helps to form a basis for understanding of design and analysis of higher order systems, especially the ones that can be approximated by second order systems. The eld of fuzzy control has been making rapid progress in recent years. One hybrid Fuzzy Proportional Derivative plus conventional Integral controller (FPD+I) has been also proposed in this paper. The fuzzy PD controller is designed using simple reasoning and a smaller number of rules (four rules), as it gives the same performance as by larger rule set [6, 22]. The proposed hybrid FPD + I controller is implemented on the same second order system with monotonic response and simulation results are presented. The performance is compared with the results obtained from tuned PID controller. A set of conclusion establishes the advantage of the proposed FPD+I controller. The paper has been organized as follows: Section-II explains generalized model of PID controller. Section-III describes the design consideration for a second order system with monotonic step response. Section-IV presents design of PID controller using different tuning techniques. Section-V presents design of a new hybrid fuzzy PD + conventional I controller using simple approach and smaller rule base. Section-VI nally performance analysis & conclusion close the paper.

Generalised model of PID controller

A PID controller is described by the following transfer function in the continuous s-domain: Gc (s) = P + I + D = Kp + Ki /s + Kd s, or Gc (s) = Kp (1 + 1/Ti s + Td s). (1) (2)

Where, Kp is the proportional gain, Ki is the integration coefcient and Kd is the derivative coefcient. Ti is known as integral action time and Td is referred to as derivative action time. Such a controller has three different adjustments that interact with each other. For this reason, it is very difcult and time consuming to tune these three parameters in order to get best performance according to the design specication of the system.

Design consideration

Consider a Spring-Mass-Damper system[19] with transfer function: G(s) = 1/(s2 + 10s + 20). Fig. 1 shows the simulink model of the PID controller and the plant with unity feedback. The authors have proposed design of i) PID controller ii) Hybrid fuzzy PD + conventional I controller so that the closed loop system exhibit small overshoot (Mp )and settling time (ts ) with zero steady state error (ess ).

Fig. 1. Plant with controller

WJMS email for contribution: submit@wjms.org.uk

World Journal of Modelling and Simulation, Vol. 6 (2010) No. 2, pp. 141-149

143

4
4.1

Design of PID controller

Ziegler-nichols step response method

The most employed PID design technique used in the industry is the Ziegler-Nichols method[3, 7] which is based on the open loop step response of the system and characterized by two parameters a and L. The parameter setting according to Ziegler-Nichols method is carried out in four steps: (1) Obtain the plant open loop step response (Fig. 2); (2) Draw the steepest straight line tangent to the response; (3) The intersections of this tangent with the vertical and the horizontal axis gives a and L respectively; (4) Set the parameters Kp , Ti and Td according to Tab. 1.
Table 1. PID controller paramters according to Ziegler-Nichlos METHOD Controller P PI PID Kp 1/a 0.9/a 1.2/a Ti 3L 2L Td L/2 Table 2. Effects OF Kp , Ki and Kd Closed loop response Overshoot Settling time Small Increase Increase Decrease Steady State error Decrease Large Decrease Minor Change

Increasing Kp Increase Increasing Ki Increase

Increasing Kd Decrease

1.6 0.05 1.4

0.04

1.2

Amplitude

0.03 Amplitude

0.8

0.02

0.6 0.01 0.4 0

0.2

-0.01

0.5

1.5 Time (sec)

2.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 Time

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fig. 2. Plant step response for determining a and L Fig. 3. Step response with Kp = 387.09, Ki = 3722.01 and Kd = 10.06

From the step response in Fig. 2, a & L are obtained as a = 0.0031, L = 0.052. As per Tab. 1, Kp = 387.09, Ti = 0.104 therefore Ki = Kp /Ti = 3722.01, Td = 0.026 therefore Kd = Kp Kd = 10.06 With the above values of Kp , Ki and Kd , step response is shown in Fig. 3. Mp = 58.5%, ts = 0.77 sec, ess = 0. 4.2 Fine tuned PID controller

With Ziegler-Nichols PID tuning formula, the resulting system exhibit a large maximum overshoot in the step response method, which is unacceptable. In such a case, we need a series of ne-tuning until an acceptable result is obtained. The individual effect of Kp , Ki and Kd [12] summarized in Tab. 2 can be very useful in ne tuning of PID controller. Beginning with the values of Kp , Ki and Kd obtained from Z-N step response method, unit step response for different combination of Kp , Ki and Kd were observed. After ne tuning, PID controller parameters obtained are Kp = 300, Ki = 200 and Kd = 16. The unit step response for Kp = 300, Ki = 200 and Kd = 16 is shown in Fig. 4, which gives Mp = 1.2%, ts = 0.2 sec and ess = 0.
WJMS email for subscription: info@wjms.org.uk

144
1.4

S. Vaishnav & Z. Khan: Performance of tuned PID controller

1.2

0.8 Amplitude

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 Time(sec)

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fig. 4. Step response with ne tuned PID parameters

Fig. 5. Determination of T

4.3

Chien, Hrones and Reswick method (CHR)

To tune the controller according to the CHR method[3] , the parameters aand Lof the process model are rst determined in the same way as for the Ziegler-Nichols step response method. The controller parameters for the set point response method are not only based on aand L, but also on the time constant T. There are different ways to determine T. One method determines T from distance AC, where the point C is the time when the tangent intersects the line y(t) = K (Fig. 5). The controller parameters from Chien, Hrones and Reswick setpoint response method are summarized in Tab. 3. For 0% overshoot case and T = AC = 0.67, Kp = 193.5, Ki = Kp /Ti = 288.8 and Kd = Kp Td = 5.03. With controller parameters Kp = 193.5, Ki = 288.8 and Kd = 5.03, step response is shown in Fig. 6. Mp = 16.15%, ts = 0.55 sec, ess = 0.
1.4 1.4

1.2

1.2

Amplitude

0.6

Amplitude 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Time(sec) 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 Time(sec)

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fig. 6. Step response for Kp = 193.5, Ki = 288.8 Fig. 7. Step response for Kp = 551.28, Ki = 2460.35 and Kd = 5.03 and Kd = 24.14

Table 3. Controller parameters Overshoot 0% 20% Controller Kp T i T d Kp Ti Td P 0.3/a 0.7/a PI 0.35/a 1.2 T 0.6/a T PID 0.6/a T 0.5L 0.95/a 1.4T 0.47L

Table 4. Parameters of function f ( ) aK Ti /L Td /L a0 3.8 5.2 0.89 a1 8.4 2.5 0.37 a2 7.3 1.4 4.1

WJMS email for contribution: submit@wjms.org.uk

World Journal of Modelling and Simulation, Vol. 6 (2010) No. 2, pp. 141-149

145

4.4

Kappa-Tau tuning method

Signicantly better tuning rules can be obtained if the process dynamics are described in terms of three parameters instead of two. The Kappa-tau tuning method is a recent method that was developed for automatic tuning[1, 3, 7] . As in Z-N method, it is given in two versions, one that is based on step response and one that is based on the frequency response of the process. In both the methods, maximum sensitivity Ms is used as a design variable. The controller parameters are a function of normalized dead time given by: = L/L + T . The normalized controller parameters can be well approximated by functions having the forms: f ( ) = a0 ea1 +a2 .
2

(3)

The function parameters are given for (Ms = 1.4) in Tab. 4. T = 0.67, = 0.072, a = 0.0031. Using Eq. (3) and Tab. 4. aK = 2.15 therefore K = Kp = 551.28, Ti /L = 4.3 therefore Ki = 2460.35, Td /L = 0.847 therefore Kd = 24.14. Unit step response for Kp = 551.28, Ki = 2460.35 and Kd = 24.14 is shown in Fig. 7. Mp = 21.3%, ts = 0.56 sec, ess = 0. 4.5 Pole placement

The pole placement design method simply attempts to nd a controller that gives desired closed loop poles[1, 3, 7] . Let the process is of the form: Gp (s) = K . (1 + sT1 )(1 + sT2 ) (4)

Comparing the design example with Eq. (4), we get T1 = 0.138, T2 = 0.361, K = 0.05. Let the design criteria is Mp = 2%, ts = 0.2 sec. Therefore, = 0.78, 0 = 25.66. Assume the third pole at 25.The desired characteristic equation with above specications is: (s + 25)(s2 + 40.02s + 658.4) = 0, 0 = 25, therefore = 0.974. Kp =
2 T1 T2 0 (1 + 2) 1 , K

Ti =

2 T1 T2 0 (1 + 2) 1 , 3 T1 T2 0

Td =

T1 T2 0 ( + 2) T1 T2 . 2 T1 T2 0 (1 + 2) 1 = 1646.6, Ti =

Using above equations, obtained values of controller parameters are: Kp

1.4

1.2

0.8 Amplitude

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 Time(sec)

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Fig. 8. Step response for Kp = 1646.64, Ki = 16632.72 and Kd = 55.3

0.099 therefore Ki = 16632.7, Td = 0.033 therefore Kd = 55.3. With the above values of Kp , Ki and Kd , step response is shown in Fig. 8, Mp = 27.7%, ts = 0.28 sec, ess = 0. 4.6 Robust PID controller

Robust Control has low sensitivities and is stable over a wide range of parameter variations. It is economical and simpler to implement. A Robust PID Controller design using Root Locus approach is presented in [16]. Consider a PID controller = kd (s2 + as + b)/s where a = Kp /Kd and b = Ki /Kd .
WJMS email for subscription: info@wjms.org.uk

146

S. Vaishnav & Z. Khan: Performance of tuned PID controller

Thus the PID Controller has a pole at origin and two zeros which can be placed anywhere in the left half s plane. PID controller is designed with complex conjugate zeros. Let the complex zeros are chosen at 6 j2. The open loop transfer function with PID controller will be: G(s) = Gc (s)Gf (s) = Kd (s + 6 + j2)(s + 6 j2) 1 Kd (s2 + 12s + 40) 2 = 3 . s s + 10s + 20 s + 10s2 + 20s

The root locus for the compensated system is shown in Fig. 9. The controller introduces a complex conjugate pair of poles at Kd above a certain value. It is seen from the root locus plot that if Kd is made high
1.4
4

1.2
3

1
2

0.8 Amplitude

Imaginary Axis

0.6

-1

0.4
-2

0.2
-3

0
-4 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 Time(sec)

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Real Axis

Fig. 9. Root locus of the plant with controller

Fig. 10. Step response for Kp = 1200, Ki = 4000, and Kd = 100

enough, the two closed loop poles moves quite close to open loop zeros thereby canceling the controller zeros appearing in the closed loop transfer function. By adjusting the gain Kd = 100, a = Kp /Kd = 12 therefore Kp = 1200, b = Ki /Kd = 40 therefore Ki = 4000, therefore Kp = 1200, Ki = 4000, Kd = 100. The step response with the obtained values of PID parameters is shown in Fig. 10. Mp = 15.26%, ts = 0.86 sec, ess = 0.

Hybrid fuzzy PD + Conventional I controller (FPD+I)

It is straightforward to envisage a fuzzy PID controller with three input terms, error, integral error and derivative error. A rule base with three inputs however becomes rather big and the rules concerning the integral action are troublesome. Therefore it is common to separate the integral action. A hybrid fuzzy PD + conventional I controller structure can be achieved by placing a Fuzzy PD controller in parallel with the conventional Integral controller[9, 17] . The simulink model of Jantzen hybrid fuzzy PD + conventional I controller with the plant is as shown in Fig. 11. A new reduced rule fuzzy PD + conventional I controller is proposed and implemented. For a two input fuzzy controller, 3, 5, 7, 9 or 11 membership functions for each input are mostly used[6] . In this paper, only two fuzzy membership functions are used for the two inputs error e and derivative of error e as shown in Fig. 12. The fuzzy membership functions for the output parameter are shown in Fig. 13 here N means Negative, Z means Zero and P means Positive. The rule base for fuzzy PD controller consists of only four rules. The design and tuning of fuzzy PD + I controller is based on the steps proposed in [9, 22, 23]. The fuzzy linguistic rules are dened from the output response of the system (Fig. 14). The system response can be divided in two phases. Phase A - System output is below the set point. Phase B - System output is above the set point. Depending upon whether the output is increasing or decreasing, 4 rules were derived for the fuzzy logic controller (Fig. 16). These four rules are sufcient to cover all possible situations[20, 22] . The PID controller parameters and the fuzzy gains in FPD + I controller are related in the following way: GE GU = Kp , GCE/GE = Td , GIE/GE = 1/Ti .
WJMS email for contribution: submit@wjms.org.uk

(5)

World Journal of Modelling and Simulation, Vol. 6 (2010) No. 2, pp. 141-149

147

1 GE Derivative du/dt Step error -KGCE Mux Mux 1 -KFig. 11. Simulink model of Plant with Jantzen Fuzzy s2+10s+20 GU Output Plant Fuzzy I controller PDController + Logic

Fig. 12. Membership functions for inputs e

1 s Integrator

1 GIE

Fig. 11. Simulink model of Plant with Jantzen Fuzzy PD + I controller

Fig. 13. Membership functions for output

Fig. 13. Membership functions for output

1.4

1.2

0.8 Amplitude

In
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Time(sec) 2.5 3 3.5 4

Fig. 15. Step response for GE = 1, GCE = 0.02, GIE = 1and GU = 5000 Table 5. Fuzzy rules u e N P N N Z e P Z P

0.6

0.4

0.2

Fig. 15. Step response for GE = 1, GCE = 0.02, GIE = Fig. 16. Fuzzy rules the fuzzy logic controller (Tab. 5). These four rules are sufcient to cover all possible situations 1and GU = 5000

The PID controller parameters and the fuzzy gains in FPD + I controller are related in the follow

The reference input is 1 and the input universe is xed at (1, 1), therefore, GE is xed at 1. The initial tuning GE GU = Kp , GCE/GE = Td , GIE/GE = 1/Ti of PID controller was carried out by using the Ziegler Nichols tuning formula to give Kp = 387, Ki = 3722 and Kd = 10. Next the PID controller was replaced by hybrid fuzzy PD + I controller with the variables The reference input is 1 and the input universes are xed at (-1, 1), therefore, GE is xed at 1. T determined by Eq (5). The controller was ne tuned by adjusting GCE, GIE and GU. By manual ne tuning, tuning of PID controller was carried out by using the Ziegler Nichols tuning formula to give Kp following parameter values were obtained. GE = 1, GCE = 0.02, GIE = 1 and GU = 5000. Ki = 3722 and Kd = 10. Next the PID controller was replaced by hybrid fuzzy PD + I controlle The resulting compensated system response is shown in Fig. 15. Mp = 1.07%, ts = 0.06 sec, and variables determined by Eq (5). The controller was ne tuned by adjusting GCE, GIE and GU. B ess = 0. ne tuning, following parameter values were obtained. GE = 1, GCE = 0.02, GIE = 1 and GU = The resulting compensated system response is shown in Fig. 15. Mp = 1.07%, ts = 0.06 sec, and

Conclusion

The paper describes design of PID controller for a second order system with monotonic step response using different PID tuning formulas. Total six PID tuning techniques were implemented and their perforWJMS email for subscription: info@wjms.org.uk

Pr es s
Fig. 12. Membership functions for inputs e & e Fig. 14. System step response Fig. 14. System step response

WJMS email for subscription: info@

148

S. Vaishnav & Z. Khan: Performance of tuned PID controller

mances analyzed. One new hybrid fuzzy PD plus conventional I (FPD+I) controller has been proposed here and implemented. The Fuzzy PD controller is designed with smallest number of rules (only four rules) and simple approach. The system performances with tuned PID controller and proposed hybrid FPD+I Controller are summarized in Tab. 5.
Table 5. System performances Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PID Design Method Ziegler Nichols (ZN) Fine tuned PID Chines Hrones Reswick Method (CHR) Kappa Tau tuning Pole Placement Robust PID Controller Hybrid FPD+ I Controller Kp 387.09 300 193.5 551.28 1646.6 1200 Ki 3722.01 200 288.8 2460.35 16632.7 4000 Kd 10.06 16 5.03 24.14 55.3 100 Mp (%) 58.5 1.2 16.15 21.3 27.7 15.26 1.07 ts (sec) 0.77 0.20 0.55 0.56 0.28 0.86 0.06 ess 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The system exhibits a large percent overshoot with Ziegler Nichols technique. Among the four Ziegler Nichols based PID tuning techniques, the ne tuned PID controller gives the best results. Both the Pole placement method and the Robust PID controller method give high overshoot and settling time than ne tuned PID controller The proposed Hybrid FPD+I controller gives smallest overshoot and settling time with zero steady state error. Simulation results and performance analysis conrm that the proposed Hybrid FPD+I controller provides better performance compared to all other methods discussed. Further the design of the proposed controller is simple and easy.

References
[1] The Control Handbook. CRC Press, 1999. [2] K. Ang, G. Chong, Y. Li. PID Control System Analysis, Design and Technology. IEEE Transaction on Control Systems Technology, 2005, 13(4): 559576. [3] K. Astrom, T. Hagglund. PID Controllers: Theory, Design and Tuning. The Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society (ISA), 1995. [4] K. Astrom, T. Hagglund. The Future of PID Control. Control Engineering Practice, 2001, 9: 11631175. [5] J. Basilio, S. Matos. Design of PI and PID Controllers with Transient Performance Specication. IEEE transaction on Education, 2002, 45(4): 364370. [6] S. Chopra, R. Mitra, V. Kumar. Fuzzy Controller: Choosing an Appropriate and Smallest Rule Set. International Journal of Computational Cognition, 2005, 3(4): 7378. [7] P. Cominos, N. Munro. PID Controllers: Recent Tuning Methods and Design to Specication. in: IEE Proceedings, Control Theory and Applications, vol. 149, 2002, 4653. [8] W. Ho, O. Gan, et al. Performance and Gain and Phase Margins of well known PID Tuning Formulas. IEEE Transaction on Control System Technology, 1994, 4: 473477. [9] J. Jantzen. Tuning of Fuzzy PID Controllers. Department of Automation, Technical University of Demnark, DENMARK, 1998. [10] A. Karimi, D. Garcia, R. Longchamp. PID Controller Tuning using Bodes Integrals. IEEE transaction on Control System Technology, 2003, 11(6): 812821. [11] C. Lee. A Survey of PID Controller Design based on Gain and Phase Margins. International Journal of Computational Cognition, 2004, 2(3): 63100. [12] Y. Li, K. Ang, G. Chong. PID Control System Analysis and Design: Problems , Remedies and Future Directions. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, February, 2006, 3241. [13] H. Malki, H. Li, G. Chen. New Design and Stability Aanalysis of Fuzzy ProportionalDerivative Control Systems. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 1994, 2(4): 245254. [14] G. Mann, B. Hu, R. Gosine. Time Domain based Design and Analysis of New PID Tuning Rules. IEE proceedings, Control Theory Applications, 2001, 148(3): 251261.
WJMS email for contribution: submit@wjms.org.uk

World Journal of Modelling and Simulation, Vol. 6 (2010) No. 2, pp. 141-149

149

[15] M. Moradi. New Techniques for PID Controller Design. IEEE, 2003, 903908. [16] I. Nagrath, M. Gopal. Control Systems Engineering, 3rd edn. New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, India, 2002. [17] M. Petrov, I. Ganchev, K. Kutryansky. A Study on the Fuzzy PID Controller. Control Systems Department, Technical University, Soa, Plovdiv, Bulgaria. [18] J. Shen, H. Chiang. PID Tuning Rules for Second Order Systems. in: 5th Asian Control Conference, 2004, 472477. [19] Control Tutorials for MATLAB: PID tutorial. Http://www.engin.umich.edu/group/ctm/PID/PID.html. [20] S. Vaishnav, Z. Khan. Design and Performance of PID and Fuzzy Logic Controller with Smaller Rule Set for Higher Order System. International Conference on Modeling, Simulation and Control, San Francisco, USA. 2007, 24-26: 855858. [21] L. Yao, C. Lin. Design of Gain Scheduled Fuzzy PID Controller. Transaction on Engineering, Computing and Technology, 2004, 6: 432436. [22] H. Ying. Fuzzy Control and Modeling: Analytical Foundations and Applications. IEEE Press series on Biomedical Engineering, New York, 2000. [23] H. Zamzuri, A. Zolotas, R. Goodall. Tilting Control System using Fuzzy PD + I Controller. Department of EEE, Loughborough University, UK, 2005.

WJMS email for subscription: info@wjms.org.uk