ARTICLE IN PRESS

Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428

www.elsevier.com/locate/conengprac

Dead-time compensators: A survey

Julio E. Normey-Ricoa,, Eduardo. F. Camachob
a
Depto. de Automac- ão e Sistemas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, 88040-900, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
b
Depto. de Ingenierı´a de Sistemas y Automática, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla 41092, Spain
Received 9 October 2006; accepted 25 May 2007
Available online 12 July 2007

Abstract

This paper presents a review of the main dead-time compensators (DTC) described in literature. The paper analyses the basic Smith
predictor (SP) showing its advantages and drawbacks. DTC structures designed to improve closed-loop characteristics and to control
unstable systems are described. The paper concludes with some recommendations for designing dead-time compensator controllers.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Dead-time systems; Predictors; Robustness; Dead-time compensators; Process control

1. Introduction in the process industry (Huzmezan, Gough, Dumont, &

Many processes in industry, as well as in other areas,
exhibit dead times in their dynamic behaviour. Dead times
are mainly caused by mass, energy or information
transportation phenomena, but they can also be caused
by processing time or by the accumulation of time-lags in a
number of simple dynamic systems connected in series.
Processes with significant dead times are difficult to
control using standard feedback controllers mainly because
of the effect of the perturbations is not felt until a
considerable time has elapsed and furthermore, the effect
of the control action takes some time to be felt in the
controlled variable. The control action that is applied
based on the actual error, tries to correct a situation that
originated some time before. These difficulties can also be
explained in the frequency domain: the dead time
introduces an extra decrease in the system’s phase which
make the process more difficult to control.
When the process has a significant dead time, the
performance of the closed-loop system can be improved
by using a predictor structure. These predictor based
controllers are known as dead-time compensators (DTC)
and have been applied to many engineering fields, mainly
Corresponding author. Fax: +55 48 3721 9934.
E-mail addresses: julio@das.ufsc.br (J.E. Normey-Rico),
eduardo@cartuja.us.es (E.F. Camacho).
Kovac, 2002; Normey-Rico, Bordons, & Camacho, 1997)
but also in other fields such as robotics (Normey-Rico,
Gómez-Ortega, & Camacho, 1999) and internet congestion
control (Mascolo, 2006). The first DTC structure, the
Smith predictor (SP), was presented at the end of the 1950s
(Smith, 1957) to improve the performance of classical
controllers (PI or PID controllers) for plants with dead
time. It is one of the most popular dead-time compensating
methods and most widely used algorithm for dead-time
compensation in industry.
Over the past 25 years, numerous extensions and
modifications of the SP have been proposed in order to:
(a) improve the regulatory capabilities of the SP for
measurable or unmeasurable disturbances; (b) to allow its
use with unstable plants; (c) to improve the robustness or
(d) to facilitate the tuning in industrial applications.
Practical stability of SPs was analysed in Palmor (1980)
and Palmor and Halevi (1983) showing that if the primary
controller is not properly tuned, the SP could be unstable
when a small mismatch in the delay is considered, in spite
of having high gain and phase margins for the ideal system.
The properties of the SP were analysed in Jerome and Ray
(1986) and in Garcia and Morari (1984) and Morari and
Zafiriou (1989) using some ideas derived from internal
model control (IMC). Different tunings of the parameters
of the SP are proposed in Santacesaria and Scattolini
(1993) and Lee, Wang, and Tan (1996) in order to improve

0967-0661/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2007.05.006
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
408 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428
robustness. An analysis of the asymmetry of the dead-time-
estimation error effect on performance and stability is
made in Limon-Marruedo, Normey-Rico, Pagano, and
Aracil (1999), Ingimundarson and Hägglund (2001), and
Pagano, Normey-Rico, and Franco (2001). Simple tuning
rules for the SP are given in Hagglung (1996) while two-
degree-of-freedom (2DOF) structures has been introduced
in Normey-Rico and Camacho (2002). An SP with a
modified fast model is presented in Watanabe and Ito
(1981) to improve the disturbance rejection capabilities.
This structure can also be used to control unstable plants.
A modified structure with a filtered predictor is proposed in
Normey-Rico et al. (1997) and is used to control a process
with variable dead time in Normey-Rico, Bordons,
Berenguel, and Camacho (1998). Other structures, includ-
ing a disturbance-observer in the DTC, are presented in
Zhong and Normey-Rico (2002) and also analysed in
Zhong and Mirkin (2002) and Zhong and Li (2003).
DTC structures for integrative and unstable processes
have been analysed in several papers. Aström, Hang, and
Lim (1994) introduced a modified SP for integrative
processes based on a different structure. A simple DTC
for integrative processes based on the estimation of the
disturbance was presented in Mataušek and Micić (1996)
and Mataušek and Micić (1999). Modified versions of this
structure were presented in Kwak, Whan, and Lee (2001),
Kaya (2003), Chien, Peng, and Liu (2002), and Hang,
Wang, and Yang (2003) where more complex algorithms
and tuning rules are described. 2DOF control strategies
for integrating processes were proposed in Zhong and
Normey-Rico (2002) and Zhong and Li (2003) based on the
disturbance observer approach. Other solutions using a
similar approach for the unstable process case were
presented in Liu, Cai, Gu, and Zhang (2005) and Lu,
Yang, Wang, and Zheng (2005).
Because of implementation problems, only the discrete
versions of the dead-time compensators are used in
practice. Some of the particular properties of the digital
version of the SP are discussed in Palmor and Halevi
(1990), Guo, Wang, and Shieh (2000), Torrico and
Normey-Rico (2005), and Normey-Rico and Camacho
(2007).
Previous reviews of the SP and its modifications can be
found in Palmor (1996), Normey-Rico and Camacho
(1998, 1999c) for monovariable systems. The extension of
the SP for multivariable systems with multiple delays is
discussed in Alevisakis and Seborg (1973), Ogunnaike and
Ray (1979), Ogunnaike, Lemaire, Morari, and Ray (1983)
and also in Palmor and Halevi (1983), Bhaya and Desoer
(1985), Jerome and Ray (1986), Feng (1991), and Rao and
Chidambaram (2006).
This survey deals with the analysis, design and tuning of
DTCs for stable and unstable processes. Some of the most
important modifications presented in literature are de-
scribed. Special attention is paid to the simple tuning
procedures of the DTCs for industrial processes. Further-
more, the discrete implementation of DTCs is analysed.
Problems such as the appropriate selection of the discrete
model and sampling time are discussed.
Next section presents the SP while Sections 3 and 4 are
dedicated to analyse the DTCs for stable and unstable
processes, respectively. The discrete implementation is
presented in Section 5. The paper ends with some
recommendations and conclusions.
2. The SP and its properties
The structure of the SP, shown in Fig. 1, can be divided
into two parts: the primary controller CðsÞ and the predictor
structure. The predictor is composed of a model of the
plant without dead time (G n ðsÞ), also known in literature as
the fast model, and a model of the dead time eLn s . Thus,
the complete process model is Pn ðsÞ ¼ G n ðsÞeLn s . The fast
model Gn ðsÞ is used to compute an open-loop prediction.
To consider the modelling errors, the difference between
the output of the process and the model including dead
time is added to the open-loop prediction, as can be seen in
the scheme of Fig. 1. If there are no modelling errors or
disturbances, the error between the current process output
and the model output will be null and the predictor output
signal yp ðtÞ will be the dead-time-free output of the plant.
Under these conditions, CðsÞ can be tuned, at least in the
nominal case, as if the plant had no dead time. Some
fundamental characteristics of the SP must be analysed
when considering perfect modelling (Jerome & Ray, 1986),
that is, when PðsÞ ¼ Pn ðsÞ; GðsÞ ¼ G n ðsÞ and L ¼ Ln .
2.1. Nominal properties of the SP
The SP structure for the nominal case (no modelling
errors) has the following fundamental properties:
2.1.1. Dead-time compensation and prediction
The dead time is eliminated from the closed-loop
characteristic equation. From Fig. 1, it is easy to see that
if qðtÞ ¼ 0 and GðsÞeLs ¼ G n ðsÞeLn s , the error signal ep ðtÞ
is zero. Under this condition yp ðtÞ ¼ yðt ^ þ Ln Þ and the
characteristic equation is
1 þ CðsÞG n ðsÞ ¼ 0. (1)
q (t)
r(t) + + y (t)
C (s) P (s)
_
y^ (t + Ln) ^y (t)
+
Gn (s) e-Lns
_
yp (t) +
ep (t)
+
Fig. 1. Smith predictor controller.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428
The feedback signal yp ðtÞ produced by the predictor in
Fig. 1 anticipates the system output for changes in the set-
point, although this is not the case for disturbances1:
^ þ Ln Þ þ Pn ðsÞ½qðtÞ  qðt þ Ln Þ.
yp ðtÞ ¼ yðt
Note that for slow changes in the disturbance qðtÞ ’
^ þ Ln Þ but if
qðt þ Ln Þ and yp ðtÞ is a good prediction of yðt
qðtÞ changes rapidly then the disturbance cannot be
eliminated from the feedback signal yp ðtÞ.
2.1.2. Performance limitations of the SP
The structure of the SP implicitly factorises the plant
into two parts: Gn ðsÞ that, in some cases, can be invertible
and eLn s that is non-invertible due to the dead time. Using
this idea and considering that an ‘‘ideal’’ controller (one
with infinity gain) could be applied, it follows (see Fig. 2):
CðsÞ
C 0 ðsÞ ¼ ¼ ðGn ðsÞÞ1 .
1 þ CðsÞG n ðsÞ
Considering PðsÞ ¼ Pn ðsÞ, the following ‘‘ideal’’ output is
obtained:
yðtÞ ¼ rðt  Ln Þ þ Pn ðsÞ½qðtÞ  qðt  Ln Þ.
Note that the ‘‘ideal’’ transfer function between the
reference and the output is a simple delay. Although this
ideal controller cannot be used in practice, it shows what
could be achieved with the SP and gives an upper limit
of performance for the closed-loop. Even in the ideal case,
if a disturbance is applied at t ¼ 0, it is necessary to wait
until t ¼ 2Ln to note the effect of the controller on the
output.
2.2. Reference tracking and disturbance rejection
To understand how the SP performs at the set-point and
disturbance rejection responses, the closed-loop transfer
functions of the structure in Fig. 1 are computed in the
nominal case. When the model of the plant is perfect
(PðsÞ ¼ Pn ðsÞ)
Y ðsÞ CðsÞPn ðsÞ
H r ðsÞ ¼ ¼ ,
RðsÞ 1 þ CðsÞG n ðsÞ
 
Y ðsÞ CðsÞPn ðsÞ
H q ðsÞ ¼ ¼ Pn ðsÞ 1  . (5)
QðsÞ 1 þ CðsÞG n ðsÞ
Using the previous transfer functions it must be noted
that
 if CðsÞ is tuned to define the disturbance rejection
dynamics then it is not possible to attain a desired set-
point response. This is a common problem of all one-
degree-of-freedom structures, not just a drawback of the
SP. Note that as CðsÞ is the only degree of freedom, it is
not possible to arbitrarily define YQðsÞ
ðsÞ
and YRðsÞ
ðsÞ
. achieved than in the PID case where dPðoÞ is dead-time
1
The notation X ðsÞuðtÞ indicates the inverse Laplace transform of
X ðsÞUðsÞ.
409
q (t)
e (t) u (t)
r (t) + + y (t)
C (s)
P (s)
_ + _ +
+
Gn (s) Pn (s) _
C'(s)
Fig. 2. Equivalent control structure of the Smith predictor.
 the poles of PðsÞ cannot be eliminated from the
disturbance rejection transfer function, except for a
pole at s ¼ 0. Eq. (3) clearly shows this, even in the ideal
case (CðsÞ ! 1), Pn ðsÞ appears in the expression of yðtÞ,
(2) but when Pn ðsÞ has a pole at s ¼ 0, Pn ðsÞ½1  eLn s  has
not. Note that ½1  eLn s  is zero for s ¼ 0, thus the root
of the numerator cancels the root of the denominator.
In the non-ideal case, note that Pn ðsÞ is a factor in
expression (5) and its denominator will appear in the
(3)
denominator of YQðsÞðsÞ
even when CðsÞ cancels the plant
poles. This has a fundamental consequence: if the poles
of PðsÞ are slower than the defined closed-loop poles of
H r ðsÞ, they will dominate the disturbance rejection
response, and thus, the slow transients cannot be
cancelled. In practice this is only a problem when the
dead time is small, because in other cases the closed-loop
poles are, in general, very close to the open-loop ones, as
can be seen in this paper.
2.3. Robustness
In the real case there are modelling errors, thus
Pn ðsÞaPðsÞ. Consider a family of plants PðsÞ such that
PðsÞ ¼ Pn ðsÞ½1 þ dPðsÞ ¼ Pn ðsÞ þ DPðsÞ
and
jdPðjoÞjpdPðoÞ; o40
(4)
for all plants in the family. If CðsÞ stabilises G n ðsÞ, the
condition for the robust stability of the SP closed loop is
that, for all frequencies
j1 þ CðjoÞG n ðjoÞj
dPðoÞodPðoÞ ¼ . (6)
jCðjoÞGn ðjoÞj
Function dPðoÞ is the upper bound of the multiplicative
modelling error of the plant to guarantee stability and it
can be used as a measure of the controller robustness. Note
that: (i) dPðoÞ is a rational function because the predictor
has eliminated the dead time. This, in general, allows a
better trade-off between robustness and performance to be
dependant; (ii) if CðsÞ is not appropriately chosen, small
uncertainties could drive the system to instability, as
pointed out by Palmor (1980).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
410 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428
Because of the important effect of errors in dead-time
estimation on robustness, it is usual to define the delay
margin of the system Dm as the largest variation in the dead
time that can occur in the process PðsÞ before the closed-
loop system becomes unstable. Several tuning rules have
been defined using the idea of dead-time sensitivity. For
example, in Morari and Zafiriou (1989) the gain of CðsÞ (a
PI controller) is defined using the maximum dead-time
error DLmax while in Palmor and Blau (1994) the same gain
is related to Dm . Similar tuning procedures are analysed in
Sections 3 and 4 as this is an important property of the
dead-time compensator structures.
2.4. Shortcomings of the SP
2.4.1. SP for general unstable plants
As pointed out in the previous analysis, the poles of PðsÞ
cannot be eliminated from the disturbance rejection
transfer function (5) except for a pole at s ¼ 0. This has
a very important consequence: the SP cannot be used
with general unstable plants that possess pole(s) with
ReðsÞ40.
Eq. (4) shows that the reference tracking can be obtained
even in the unstable case, as CðsÞ can be chosen to stabilise
G n ðsÞ. However, the transfer function YQðsÞ ðsÞ
always has
unstable poles.
2.4.2. SP for integrative processes
Integrative processes are a special case of unstable
plants. In this case, the SP gives a stable closed-loop if the
controller is properly implemented. This point is analysed
with details in Sections 4.1.3 and 5.4. Consider that CðsÞ
stabilises Gn ðsÞ and gives a closed-loop with unitary gain,
thus
CðsÞG n ðsÞ N e ðsÞ
¼ ,
1 þ CðsÞG n ðsÞ De ðsÞ
where De ðsÞ has all its roots with ReðsÞo0 and
N e ð0Þ ¼ De ð0Þ. The disturbance to the output transfer
function is then
 
N e ðsÞ Ln s
H q ðsÞ ¼ Pn ðsÞ 1  e (7)
De ðsÞ
which has a root at s ¼ 0 both in the numerator and
denominator. The pole at s ¼ 0 does not appear in H q ðsÞ
when properly implemented, avoiding closed-loop instabi-
lity.
Assume now a step disturbance and that Pn ðsÞ ¼ PesðsÞ,
Ln s
where Pe ðsÞ is stable and Pn ðsÞ ¼ G e ðsÞ e s . To reject the
Y ðsÞ
disturbance, the gain of QðsÞ must be zero. This gain cannot
be computed directly because the cancellation causes an
indetermination. The analysis can be made using the
equivalent structure shown in Fig. 3. The internal model
principle states that in order to reject a step disturbance the
equivalent cascade controller, C eq ðsÞ in Fig. 3, must have
integral action (a pole at s ¼ 0) and the closed-loop system
q (t)
+ + + y (t)
r (t)
C (s) P (s)
_
_ +
Gn (s)-Pn (s)
Ceq (s)
Fig. 3. Equivalent structure of the Smith predictor.
must be stable. In this case C eq ðsÞ is
CðsÞ
C eq ðsÞ ¼
1 þ CðsÞðG n ðsÞ  Pn ðsÞÞ
that is, the primary controller has a feedback block
HðsÞ ¼ G n ðsÞ  Pn ðsÞ. Computing the static gain of HðsÞ
for the SP, it follows:
lim HðsÞ ¼ Ln G e ð0Þa0, (8)
s!0
that is, even if CðsÞ has integral action, the equivalent
controller C eq ðsÞ will not have the pole at s ¼ 0 as desired
and, in consequence, will not reject the step disturbances.
Because of these problems, over the last twenty years
several authors have proposed special tuning procedures or
modified versions of the SP. In Sections 3 and 4 some of
these problems are addressed.
2.5. When to use a DTC
DTC structures are more complex and require more
knowledge for tuning than traditional PIDs. Is the more
complex design and tuning when compared to PID
compensated for by better performance and robustness? In
which situations the DTC offers better performance? There is
a tendency to think that DTC should be used when the dead
time of the process is dominant, (i.e. when the normalised
L
dead-time t ¼ LþT 40:5). However, not many papers
analyse the performance and robustness of PID and DTC
for dead-time processes to determine when DTC must be
used (Ingimundarson & Hägglund, 2002; Normey-Rico &
Camacho, 2007; Rivera, Morari, & Skogestad, 1986).
In Ingimundarson and Hägglund (2002) the integrated
absolute error (IAE) is compared for PI, PID and simple
DTC for stable and integrative processes when an input
step disturbance is applied and a certain robustness is
imposed. The conclusions of the analysis are that DTC
offer better performance than PI for T=L in the interval
½0:1; 5 while the performance of a PID is better than a
DTC for T=L on ½1; 10. However, these results were
obtained for a fixed value of Dm and the performance of
the DTC improves when smaller values of Dm are
considered. The analysis concludes that the advantages of
the DTC are more significant for integrative processes.
A different analysis is presented in Normey-Rico and
Camacho (2007) where it is shown that the improvement
obtained with a DTC has more to do with the error in the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428 411

estimation of the dead time than with the absolute value of and the effect of the disturbance can be eliminated from
the dead time. The PID is considered as an SP with a dead- the output of the process independently of the type of
time model computed using a Padé approximation. The disturbance if C ff ðsÞ exists such that
conclusion is that the PID can be tuned to offer almost Pq ðsÞ
the same trade-off between performance and robustness as C ff ðsÞ ¼ .
PðsÞ
the SP when the maximum relative dead-time estimation
error is greater than 80%. Finally, for small modelling Consider the plant and load disturbance transfer functions
errors, the advantages of the DTC are more appreciable PðsÞ and Pq ðsÞ defined as
when the dead time is dominant.
PðsÞ ¼ GðsÞeLs ; Pq ðsÞ ¼ Gq ðsÞeLq s .
The SP performs better than the PID controller when the
dead time is dominant and well known. In general, the There are two situations:
improvement in the set-point tracking is more noticeable
than in the disturbance rejection response.  LpLq . In this case the controller is
Gq ðsÞ
3. Improvements and modifications of the SP for stable C ff ðsÞ ¼ eðLq LÞs .
GðsÞ
plants G ðsÞ
q
If GðsÞ can be computed the disturbance is eliminated
This section presents modifications to the SP that have from the output. Otherwise, a pseudo inverse of GðsÞ can
been proposed in literature suitable for open-loop stable be computed
processes. C ff ðsÞPðsÞ ¼ Pq ðsÞX ðsÞ.
Y ðsÞ
The final QðsÞ is
3.1. Improving disturbance rejection
Y ðsÞ
¼ eLq s G q ðsÞ½1  X ðsÞ, (9)
The regulatory capabilities of the DTC for measurable QðsÞ
disturbances can be improved introducing a feed-forward where 1  X ðsÞ has zero static gain and the fastest
action. The formulation is almost the same as the one used achievable response.
in classical controllers and has been incorporated in the SP  L4Lq . In this case is not possible to compute the inverse
structure in Palmor and Powers (1985). When the of eðLq LÞs and the feed-forward controller is given by
disturbances are not measurable the same idea can be used
but an estimation of qðtÞ is required. These two solutions G q ðsÞ
C ff ðsÞ ¼
are presented in the following sections. GðsÞ
and the final transfer function is
3.1.1. Measured disturbances: the DTC with a feed-forward Y ðsÞ
Fig. 4 shows a block diagram of a DTC with a feed- ¼ eLq s G q ðsÞ½1  X ðsÞeðLLq Þs . (10)
QðsÞ
forward using the IMC structure. In this controller the
block Pnq ðsÞ represents the model for Pq ðsÞ. The structure Note that even in this case the solution is better than the
used can represent input disturbances (when Pq ðsÞ ¼ PðsÞ), one obtained when the feed-forward is not used. To
output disturbances (when Pq ðsÞ ¼ 1) and a general show this, compare the transfer function YQðsÞ ðsÞ
in Eq. (10)
disturbance (when Pq ðsÞaPðsÞ and Pq ðsÞa1). In the ideal with the one without the feed-forward
case, when Pnq ðsÞ ¼ Pq ðsÞ and Pn ðsÞ ¼ PðsÞ, the transfer  
Y ðsÞ Lq s CðsÞG n ðsÞ Ls
function YQðsÞ
ðsÞ
is QðsÞ
¼e G q ðsÞ 1 
1 þ CðsÞG n ðsÞ
e . (11)
Y ðsÞ
¼ ½Pq ðsÞ  C ff ðsÞPðsÞ The first term on the right-hand side of the two
QðsÞ equations is the same: eLq s G q ðsÞ. The second term on
the right-hand side (the term between brackets) is
different. First note that the dead time of this term in
q (t)
Eq. (10) is L  Lq while in Eq. (11) it is L. That is, the
Pq (s) dead time has been reduced in Lq . Secondly, the
u1 (t)
Cff (s) dynamics of this term in Eq. (10) is given by X ðsÞ while
r (t) u2 (t) Pnq (s) CðsÞG n ðsÞ
+ _ + y (t) in Eq. (11) it is given by 1þCðsÞG . In general X ðsÞ can be
+ + n ðsÞ
_ C (s) P (s) CðsÞG n ðsÞ
_ chosen to have a faster response than
+ 1þCðsÞGn ðsÞ.
_ +
Gn (s) + +
Pn (s) It is clear that in the two cases analysed, the advantage of
this solution is less important when Lq ! 0.
The previous structure cannot be used when disturbance
Fig. 4. Control structure of the Smith predictor with a feed-forward. is not measurable. However, the idea can be used to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
412 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428

improve the controller using an estimation of the distur-
bance qðtÞ. In this case, the controller is composed of a
disturbance observer and a feed-forward controller. One
advantage of this approach is that the controller can easily be
tuned to reject other types of disturbances and not only steps.
3.1.2. The disturbance-observer-based DTC
For clarity, the following analysis will consider the
system model Y ðsÞ ¼ PðsÞðUðsÞ þ QðsÞÞ where an input
disturbance is used. However, the formulation of the
controller can be made for the general case (Zhong &
Normey-Rico, 2002). The disturbance can be computed
ideally as
QðsÞ ¼ P1 ðsÞY ðsÞ  UðsÞ
and then used in a feed-forward controller. This ideal
solution is not realisable as P1 ðsÞ contains a term eLs , thus
a delayed disturbance is computed:
eLs QðsÞ ¼ G 1 ðsÞY ðsÞ  eLs UðsÞ.
^
The estimated delayed disturbance QðsÞ can be computed
using the model Gn ðsÞ and a filter V ðsÞ that gives a proper
and stable V ðsÞG 1
n ðsÞ
^ ¼ V ðsÞ½G1 ðsÞY ðsÞ  eLs UðsÞ
QðsÞ
n
The robust stability of the closed-loop system is defined by
1
dPðoÞodPðoÞ ¼ 8o 2 ½0; 1. (16)
jV ðjoÞj
Expressions (14–16) show that the controller has decoupled
the set-point tracking and the disturbance rejection
responses and that only V ðsÞ defines the robust stability.
Thus, V ðsÞ is tuned for a compromise between robustness
and disturbance rejection response and F ðsÞ for a desired
set-point tracking behaviour. To reject the disturbances in
the steady state V ð0Þ ¼ 1.
The structure in Fig. 5a is not appropriate for
implementation so a modified scheme must be used, as is
shown in Fig. 5b. In this new structure it is clear that if
G1
n ðsÞ has poles on the right-hand side of the s-plane, V ðsÞ
has to be designed to eliminate these poles from the
controller. This condition is achieved if V ðsÞ has the same
zeros as Gn ðsÞ on the right-hand side of the s-plane.
Furthermore, for the implementation, V ðsÞ must guarantee
(12) that GVnðsÞ
ðsÞ is proper. Thus, the relative degree of V ðsÞ must be
same as the relative degree of G n ðsÞ.
This structure also shows that the equivalent controller
C eq ðsÞ has integral action (1  V ðsÞeLn s ¼ 0 for s ¼ 0),
thus the closed-loop system tracks step changes at the
(13) reference. The settling time and overshoot of the set-point

and allows a feed-forward action to be implemented to response can be modified with an appropriate choice of
design the disturbance rejection characteristics of the F ðsÞ which must be proper.
closed-loop system. To reject the disturbances of the form s1m in the steady
The complete controller must also include another state the numerator of
degree-of-freedom to define the set-point response, giving Pn ðsÞ½1  V ðsÞeLs , (17)
the 2DOF-DTC based on a disturbance observer as shown
in Fig. 5a. must have m roots in s ¼ 0. This implies
8
The nominal transfer functions between the reference, > ð1  V ðsÞeLs Þjs¼0 ¼ 0;
>
>
the disturbance and the output of this system are given by >
> d
>
> Ls
Y ðsÞ < dsð1  V ðsÞe Þjs¼0 ¼ 0;
>
¼ F ðsÞGn ðsÞeLs , ð14Þ .. (18)
RðsÞ >
> .
>
>
Y ðsÞ > dm1
>
¼ Pn ðsÞð1  V ðsÞeLs Þ. ð15Þ >
>
: m1 ð1  V ðsÞeLs Þjs¼0 ¼ 0;
QðsÞ ds

q (t) where m is the order of the disturbance (1 for steps, 2 for

r (t) + + y (t) ramps, etc.).
+ u (t)
F (s) P (s) Consider, for instance, a FOPDT model of the process
_ 1
and a step disturbance. As m ¼ 1 a simple V ðsÞ ¼ 1þT vs
will
_ +
e-Ls Gn-1 (s) be enough to satisfy the conditions. However, in the case
where a ramp disturbance is considered (m ¼ 2) a second-
order V ðsÞ must be used. Moreover, 1  V ðsÞeLn s must
V (s) have two roots at s ¼ 0 which implies
q (t) ½1  V ðsÞeLn s js¼0 ¼ 0 ! V ð0Þ ¼ 1,
r (t) u (t)
F (s) Gn (s) + V(s) + + y (t)  
V (s)
P (s) d½1  V ðsÞeLn s  dV ðsÞ
_ Gn (s) [1-V(s) e
-Ls
]
ds  ¼ 0 ! ds  ¼ Ln .
s¼0 s¼0

The simplest V ðsÞ is

Fig. 5. Control structure of 2DOF-DTC with a disturbance observer and 1 þ bs
a feed-forward action: (a) structure for analysis; (b) structure for V ðsÞ ¼ .
implementation. ð1 þ sT v Þ2
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428 413

To satisfy the previous conditions, b ¼ 2T v þ Ln and T v is 3.1.3. The SP with a modified fast model
the tuning parameter. T v is tuning for a trade-off between As has been pointed out in the original structure
performance and robustness. Note that dPðoÞ for this proposed by Smith, the disturbance rejection properties
controller is defined by of the closed-loop system cannot be arbitrarily defined as
  the open-loop poles are also closed-loop poles of the
ð1 þ sT v Þ2 
dPðoÞ ¼  . transfer function YQðsÞ
ðsÞ
. To avoid this problem a modified
1 þ sb 
dead-time-free model (G m ðsÞ) can be chosen, G m ðsÞa
Thus, this approach allows a more general solution that Pn ðsÞeLn s in such a way that HðsÞ ¼ G m ðsÞ  Pn ðsÞ does
can be applied to every process model and every type of not have the poles of Pn ðsÞ (Watanabe & Ito, 1981). This
disturbance. This controller also allows independent tuning N
scheme is shown in Fig. 7. Consider that Pn ðsÞ ¼ Dpp eLn s .
of V ðsÞ and F ðsÞ. Furthermore, this structure can be used
for other types of disturbances, for example sinusoidal A simple way to obtain this condition is using Gm ðsÞ
signals. If qðtÞ ¼ sinðo0 tÞ, then the condition that V ðsÞ must N m ðsÞ
satisfy is Gm ðsÞ ¼ ; N m ðsÞaN p ðsÞ
Dp ðsÞ
ð1  V ðsÞeLs Þjs¼jo0 ¼ 0. and selecting N m ðsÞ in such a way that the following
The following example illustrates the design of the conditions are verified:
controller for the case of ramp disturbances. Hðsj Þ ¼ 0; sj ¼ 0; sj =Dp ðsj Þ ¼ 0. (19)
5s
e When these conditions are satisfied the poles of Pn ðsÞ are
Example. Consider the process PðsÞ ¼ ð1þsÞ 3 and the model
e6s
Pn ðsÞ ¼ ð1þ2sÞ. The closed-loop system must follow step not poles of YQðsÞ
ðsÞ
. For an off-set free closed-loop system CðsÞ
changes at the set-point with a settling time similar to the
open-loop one and it also has to reject ramp disturbances. q (t)
r (t) +
Thus + + y (t)
F (s) C (s) P (s)
ð6 þ 2T v Þs þ 1 _ _ +
V ðsÞ ¼ ; F ðsÞ ¼ 1
ðT v s þ 1Þ2
are used. Fig. 6 shows the effect of T v on the responses. Gm (s)-Pn (s)
v (t)
Note that for T v ¼ 2 the closed-loop system has a faster H (s)
response but some oscillations appear because of the effect
of the model uncertainties. Fig. 7. 2DOF-DTC with a modified fast model.

case Tv = 3
1
y
y and r

0
-1 r
-2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

5
u and q

0 u
-5 q

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

case Tv = 2
1
y and r

0 y
-1 r
-2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

5
u and q

0 u
-5 q

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

time

Fig. 6. Plant output, reference, disturbance and control action for the 2DOF disturbance-observer-based DTC for T v ¼ 3 and 2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
414 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428

has integral action. Note that CðsÞ must be tuned to q (t)

‘‘control’’ the new fast model G m ðsÞ. In general, this tuning r (t) y (t)
+ + +
is more complicated than the original case because to F (s) C (s) P (s)
_ _ +
satisfy the conditions in HðsÞ the fast model normally
includes zeros on the right-hand side of the s-plane.
For example, if Gn (s)-Pn (s)
v (t)
H (s)
eLs 1 þ sT 1
Pn ðsÞ ¼ ; G m ðsÞ ¼
1 þ Ts 1 þ sT Fig. 8. Structure of the two degree of freedom Smith predictor.

and T 1 ¼ ð1  eL=T ÞT, Gm ðsÞ has a positive zero that goes

to zero if LbT (T 1 ! 1).
A direct consequence of the new fast model and primary 3.1.4.2. Tuning of the 2DOF-SP for FOPDT processes. The
controller is a negative effect on robustness. If CðsÞ is a PI dynamic behaviour of many processes in industry can be
tuned for a pair of fast poles in 1=T 0 , the upper bound of approximated by a first-order plus a dead time (FOPDT)
the multiplicative uncertainty dPðoÞ is given by model
 
ð1 þ joT 0 Þ2 
dPðoÞ ¼    K p eLs
1 þ joT i  Pn ðsÞ ¼ .
1 þ Ts
and as T 0 5T i , dPðoÞ will be less than one at medium
frequencies, thus, the closed-loop system will have poor The tuning procedure for this case can be summarised as
robustness. follows:
Furthermore, it is important to note that the elimination
K
of the open-loop poles from YQðsÞ ðsÞ
only has an important  p
choose Gn ðsÞ ¼ 1þTs ;
effect if the poles of the term in brackets in the transfer  choose CðsÞ ¼ kc ð1 þ sT1 i Þ. By making T i ¼ T, the
function characteristic equation is
 
Y ðsÞ CðsÞPn ðsÞ kc K p
¼ Pn ðsÞ 1  1 þ CðsÞG n ðsÞ ¼ 1 þ ;
QðsÞ 1 þ CðsÞG m ðsÞ sT i
are faster than the open-loop ones. This is not the case
when the process has a dominant dead time, because slow  define a closed-loop time constant T 0 and compute
responses are necessary to achieve robust performance of kc ¼ KTp Ti 0 ;
the closed-loop system. Furthermore, when the dead time is  choose F ðsÞ ¼ 1þsT
1þsT 1 .
0

dominant the contribution of the open-loop poles to the

closed-loop response will be small, thus their elimination With this choice, the closed-loop transfer functions are
will contribute with a small increment in the speed of the given by
transients.  
Y ðsÞ eLs Y ðsÞ K p eLs eLs
¼ ; ¼ 1 (20)
3.1.4. The 2DOF SP RðsÞ 1 þ T 1 s QðsÞ 1 þ Ts 1 þ T 0s
When the primary controller of the SP is tuned to
accelerate the closed-loop disturbance rejection response, which shows that the nominal set-point response (defined
the set-point tracking response deteriorates. This effect is by parameter T 1 ) has been decoupled from the disturbance
caused by the position of some of the zeros of the reference response (defined by parameter T 0 ). As a measure of
to the output closed-loop transfer function which are controller robustness:
introduced by the primary controller. As these zeros do not dPðoÞ ¼ j1 þ joT 0 j (21)
appear in the disturbance rejection transfer function, their
effect can be attenuated using a reference filter, as shown in is used, showing that T 0 also defines the robust stability
the scheme of Fig. 8. and can be chosen as a good compromise between
robustness and disturbance rejection. Note also that T 0
3.1.4.1. General tuning procedure. The tuning procedure and T 1 have clear physical meaning and can easily be used
consists of defining the primary controller CðsÞ to achieve by practitioners. It is clear that small values of T 0 will
the highest bandwidth for the nominal disturbance cause faster disturbance responses and, at the same time,
response maintaining the robustness condition given by less robust behaviour of the closed-loop.
expression (6). For this computation, a nominal model The proposed controller only has five parameters
Pn ðsÞ and an estimation of the modelling errors dPðsÞ are (K p ; T; L; T 1 and T 0 ) to be tuned, the same as a 2DOF
necessary. After this, as a second step, F ðsÞ can be defined PID. The controller offers both simplicity and performance
to improve the closed-loop set-point response. in the control of dead-time processes.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428 415

3.2. Robustness q (t)

r (t) + y (t)
+
3.2.1. Robust tuning C (s) P (s)
_ +
For processes with dominant dead time, robust tuning
y^ (t + Ln) ^y (t)
of the 2DOF-DTC can be obtained taking only dead-time-
+
estimation errors into account. Note that under these Gn (s) e-Lns
circumstances, the error in the dead time dominates _
the other sources of errors (Ingimundarson & Hägglund, yp (t) +
Fr (s) ep (t)
2001)
+

dPðoÞ ¼ j1 þ joT 0 j4j1  eDLjo j 8o. (22) Fig. 9. Structure of the filtered SP.

When the maximum value of the delay estimation error

DLmax is known, a simple tuning rule for a robust stable
controller can be defined by choosing T 0 in such a way that
the right part of the inequality (22) intersects the left part
for DL ¼ DLmax . This is approximately obtained for
T 0 ¼ 0:69DLmax . Note that for a defined T 0 this relation-
ship allows the maximum admissible error in the dead-time
estimation (DLmax ) to be computed. Although this tuning
rule does not consider errors in the estimation of the gain
and equivalent time constant of the process, it introduces a
small error when the dead time is dominant (Ingimundar-
son & Hägglund, 2001).
In practice, robust stability is not sufficient and robust
performance is desired. In this case, a greater value of T 0
must be used in order to obtain a lower oscillatory response
when the model differs from the real process. To define the
robust performance for the disturbance response a simple
rule can be used. For example, a factor of 0.5 can be
applied to the robust stability condition
j1  eDLjo
j improve the robustness of the system at the desired
o0:5 8o. (23)
dPðoÞ
Using the same procedure, the condition for the robust
performance is T 0 ¼ 1:7DLmax . A rule of thumb for tuning
the reference filter is to choose T 1 2 ½T; T 0 . The PI tuning
is in this case similar to the one proposed in Morari and
Zafiriou (1989) using the IMC approach.
3.2.2. A simple robust solution: the filtered SP
Dead-time errors can drive the SP to instability. A
simple analysis of the block diagram of the SP in Fig. 1
shows that when dead-time errors are considered, the
errors between the real and the predicted outputs are fed
back to the controller in a ‘‘periodic’’ way. Note that after
the change in the set-point is applied at t ¼ t0 , the error
between the real output and the predicted one
^ The properties of the FSP suggest the following two-step
(ep ðtÞ ¼ yðtÞ  yðtÞ) will be zero until the instant t ¼ t0 þ x
where x ¼ minðLn ; LÞ. This signal is then fed back to the
controller and its reaction will be perceived at ep ðtÞ after
only x seconds. This error may cause closed-loop
instability but on the other hand, if this error is not fed
back to the controller, the disturbances will not be rejected.
Thus, the effect of the dead-time-estimation error can be
interpreted as the addition of the nominal response plus a
periodic disturbance with a period approximately equal to
minðLn ; LÞ (Normey-Rico et al., 1997).
A simple solution to this problem is to use a filter F r ðsÞ
with unitary static gain (F r ð0Þ ¼ 1), as shown in Fig. 9
(Normey-Rico et al., 1997). The filter should be designed
to attenuate the oscillations in the plant output especially
at the frequency where the uncertainty errors are impor-
tant. The robust stability condition for the filtered SP
(FSP) is
j1 þ CðjoÞGn ðjoÞj
dPðoÞodPFSP ðoÞ ¼ (24)
jCðjoÞGn ðjoÞF r ðjoÞj
8o40, thus
dPSP ðoÞ
dPFSP ðoÞ ¼ . (25)
jF r ðjoÞj
That is, if the filter F r ðsÞ is low pass it can be used to
frequency region. Eq. (25) shows that dPFSP ðoÞ can be
increased arbitrarily at medium and high frequencies using
an adequate F r ðsÞ.
Note that if there are no disturbances (qðtÞ ¼ 0), the
nominal performance of the closed-loop system is not
modified by the inclusion of F r ðsÞ. It must be noted,
however, that the nominal disturbance to the output
closed-loop transfer function is modified by the inclusion
of the filter. In general, after the inclusion of the filter, the
response will be slower than the nominal one. Note that the
new YQðsÞ
ðsÞ
is
 
Y ðsÞ Ls F r ðsÞCðsÞG n ðsÞ Ls
¼ Gn ðsÞe 1 e
QðsÞ 1 þ CðsÞG n ðsÞ
so F r ðsÞ will produce slower transients than the ones
obtained with the SP.
general procedure for tuning the controller:
 compute CðsÞ and F ðsÞ in order to obtain the desired
closed-loop performance for the nominal plant.
 estimate the uncertainty bound of the plant, and
compute the filter F r ðsÞ in order to obtain robust
stability or robust performance.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
416 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428
q (t)
u (t)
+
y (t)
r (t) +
Qr (s) P (s)
_ +
+ process has a pole p such that ReðpÞ40, the SP results in an
_ internally unstable closed-loop system; (ii) for the parti-
Pn (s)
Qd (s)
Fig. 10. Structure of the two-degree-of-freedom IMC.
3.3. IMC interpretation of the DTC
The SP can be considered as a particular case of the IMC
(Morari & Zafiriou, 1989). The modified versions of the SP
presented in the previous sections such as the FSP, FPPI,
the 2DOF-DTC and the disturbance-observer-based DTC
can also be represented as a 2DOF IMC.
A 2DOF IMC structure is shown in Fig. 10. In the IMC
Qd ðsÞ defines the robust stability and the disturbance
rejection and Qr ðsÞ defines the set-point response. In the
IMC approach the tuning of Qd ðsÞ and Qr ðsÞ is done using
optimal procedures considering a defined type of input
signals rðtÞ and qðtÞ.
3.4. Predictive PI
In the dominant-dead-time case the closed-loop response
of the 2DOFSP will also be dominated by the dead time
and it is not necessary to speed it up. A simple tuning can
be used
T 0 ¼ T 1 ¼ T ) K c ¼ 1=K p ; T i ¼ T.
This controller is called predictive-PI (PPI) (Hagglung,
1996). Note that the simple tuning rule (only three
parameters are tuned) eliminates the zero of the reference
filter and gives a fixed robustness index.
The idea of the FSP can be applied to the PPI to obtain
better robustness and to reduce the number of tuning
parameters. In this case, filter F r ðsÞ can be defined as
1
F r ðsÞ ¼ 1þ0:5Ls . As shown in Normey-Rico et al. (1997)
T f ¼ Ln =2 gives a good solution for dead-time errors of up
to 30%. This controller, denominated filtered PPI (FPPI)
has been used in several DTC structures in literature
(Ingimundarson & Hägglund, 2001; Normey-Rico et al.,
1997; Rao & Chidambaram, 2006). Also, the same idea is
used in model predictive control to improve the robustness
of the controller for dead-time processes (Normey-Rico &
Camacho, 1999b, 2000).
4. DTCs for unstable plants
There are some cases where the process exhibits
integrative or unstable open-loop behaviour and a dead
time. Some batch chemical reactors and heating boilers are
examples of these types of processes that can be found in
industry.
As has been pointed out the original structure of the SP
cannot be used to control unstable plants because: (i) if the
cular case of integrative processes, the SP does not reject
step disturbances at the plant input. In this case, internal
instability can be avoided by proper implementation of the
controller.
Different approaches can be considered to solve these
problems:
 a DTC with a modified fast model instead of the one
used in the SP (DTC-MFM);
 modified SP structures incorporating feed-forward
controller ideas;
 special solutions for integrative processes.
All of these approaches eliminate the open-loop unstable
poles from the transfer function YQðsÞðsÞ
and guarantee the
rejection of step disturbances in the steady state.
Because of the importance in practice, special attention
is paid to some solutions that are only valid for integrative
processes. As in the case of stable processes, 2DOF
controllers are considered and the tuning take into account
the robustness of the closed-loop system.
4.1. Using a modified fast model
The idea used in the stable case to eliminate the slow open-
loop poles of the process from the transfer function YQðsÞ
ðsÞ
can
be used here. Consider the structure in Fig. 7, where Pn ðsÞ is
the plant model and G m ðsÞ is the dead-time-free model. As in
the stable case, Gm ðsÞ can be chosen with the same
denominator as Gn ðsÞ and with a modified numerator
N m ðsÞ
Gm ðsÞ ¼
Dp ðsÞ
N m ðsÞ is designed in order to eliminate the unstable poles of
Dp ðsÞ in YQðsÞ
ðsÞ
, this is equivalent to HðsÞjs¼p ¼ ½Gm ðsÞ 
Pn ðsÞjs¼p ¼ 0 for all p such that Dp ðpÞ ¼ 0; ReðpÞ40.
To reject steps in qðtÞ an integral action is used in CðsÞ
and N m ðsÞ is such that HðsÞjs¼0 ¼ 0.
The complete model of the process is then used for the
tuning of CðsÞ and the reference filter F ðsÞ. The implemen-
tation of HðsÞ cannot be achieved by the cancellation of
unstable roots.
4.1.1. The DTC-MFM for the integrative case
Consider that the process can be described by the model
Pn ðsÞ ¼ GesðsÞ eLn s where G e ðsÞ is a stable transfer function.
In this case G m ðsÞ can be chosen as
NðsÞ
Gm ðsÞ ¼ Ge ðsÞ ,
s
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428 417

where NðsÞ will be tuned to obtain where A; B; C are matrices of proper dimensions and
  Pn ðsÞ ¼ CðsI  AÞ1 BeLn s the output signal of the inner
NðsÞ  eLn s
lim G e ðsÞ ¼ 0. (26) loop (vðtÞ) is obtained as
s!0 s Z 0  Z Ln 
The more simple solution for this problem is NðsÞ ¼ vðtÞ ¼ CeALn eAt Buðt þ tÞ dt  CeAt B dt uðtÞ.
1  Ln s, thus Ln 0
(29)
1  Ln s
G m ðsÞ ¼ G e ðsÞ (27) Because of the finite limits of the integrals, the right-hand
s
will be used in the controller. The tuning will consider the side of Eq. (29) has no singularities. Thus, the implementa-
faster disturbance rejection closed-loop response maintain- tion is made without the pole-zero cancellation (Palmor,
ing the robustness conditions. In a second step, F ðsÞ is 1996).
designed to improve the set-point response. This solution considers that the controller will be
implemented in analogous equipments. This is not the
case in practice, as the real time implementation is carried
4.1.2. The DTC-MFM for plants with one RHP pole
out using digital discrete platforms. This point will be
If a simple unstable process model is considered with
analysed in detail in Section 5.
only one right-half plane pole (RHP)
G e ðsÞeLn s 4.1.4. Simple tuning for the IPDT model
Pn ðsÞ ¼ ; T40
Ts  1 As in the stable case, because of the practical impor-
thus, tance, tuning rules will be derived for the simple-
Ln s
integrative-plus-dead-time model (IPDT) Pn ðsÞ ¼ K v es
T ms þ 1
G m ðsÞ ¼ G e ðsÞ which is the simple model most used in industry to describe
Ts  1 integrative processes. For this case, the fast model and the
gives an HðsÞ with a zero at s ¼ 0. T m is computed in primary controller are
order to obtain HðsÞ ¼ Gm ðsÞ  Pn ðsÞ without a pole at  
s ¼ 1=T. As K v ð1  Ln sÞ 1
Gm ðsÞ ¼ ; CðsÞ ¼ kc 1 þ
s sT i
1
HðsÞ ¼ G e ðsÞ ½T m s þ 1  eLn s  and, for the closed-loop transfer function between the
Ts  1
disturbance and the output, a double pole in s ¼ 1=T 0 is
the cancellation of the root at s ¼ 1=T is obtained if
defined. This gives the following parameters:
½T m s þ 1  eLn s js¼1=T ¼ 0.
This condition is equivalent to
 T i ¼ 2T 0 þ Ln .
 kc ¼ K 2T 0 þLn
ðT þL Þ2
.
v 0 n
T m ¼ Tð1  eLn =T Þ
which gives a fast model G m ðsÞ with a pole and a zero To decouple the disturbance rejection and set-point
located on the RHP (note that T m o0). responses, a filter is defined as
ð1 þ sT 0 Þ2
4.1.3. Implementation issues F ðsÞ ¼ .
ð1 þ sT i Þð1 þ sT 1 Þ
The proposed controller must be implemented to
guaranty a stable inner loop HðsÞ ¼ G m ðsÞ  Gn ðsÞeLn s , With this choice the closed-loop transfer functions are
otherwise the scheme shown in Fig. 7 is not internally given by
stable. Note that there is a pole-zero cancellation at the Y ðsÞ eLn s
unstable poles in HðsÞ. This problem arises in the case of ¼ ,
RðsÞ 1 þ T 1 s
integrative and unstable plants. In the stable case, analysed
 
in Section 3, only stable roots are cancelled which do not Y ðsÞ K v eLn s eLn s ð1 þ sðLn þ 2T 0 ÞÞ
cause instability. ¼ 1 (30)
QðsÞ s ð1 þ T 0 sÞ2
This pole-zero cancellation cannot be eliminated by the
use of polynomial division because the numerator of HðsÞ and
is a non-rational expression. A solution for this problem  
 ð1 þ joT 0 Þ2 
consists of the derivation of a non-dynamical form of the dPðoÞ ¼  (31)
1 þ joðLn þ 2T 0 Þ
inner loop (Palmor, 1996). If a state representation of Pn ðsÞ
is used that is, the parameter T 1 defines the set-point response and
T 0 defines the disturbance response as well as the robust
dx
¼ AxðtÞ þ Buðt  Ln Þ, stability. The same conclusions about the compromise
dt between performance and robustness of the controller
yðtÞ ¼ CxðtÞ, ð28Þ derived for stable processes are valid for this case.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
418 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428

The proposed controller has four parameters (K v ; Ln ; T 1 102

and T 0 ), and when a model of the process is obtained
experimentally, only two parameters (T 0 and T 1 ) need to
be tuned.
When the real process has high-order dynamics, a 101
K v eLn s
second-order model can be used: Pn ðsÞ ¼ sð1þsTÞ . In this

magnitude
case G m ðsÞ ¼ Ksð1þsTÞ
v ð1Ln sÞ
and CðsÞ can be chosen as a PID
100
controller. The same tuning procedure as in the previous
case allows a closed-loop system with a double pole at s ¼
1=T 0 to be obtained.
10-1
norm-error
4.1.5. Robust tuning for the IPDT model norm-dP (T´0=1)
norm-dP (T´0=3)
A similar study to the stable case is done here, again norm-dP (T´0=5)
considering the multiplicative representation of the model- 10-2
10-2 10-1 100 101 102
ling errors. The robust stability of the controller is defined
normalised frequency
by the condition
  Fig. 11. Analysis of expression (34) for different values of T 00 ; d ¼ 0:2 and
 ð1 þ joT 0 Þ2  T 0u ¼ 0:05.
jdPðjoÞjodPðoÞ ¼    8o. (32)
1 þ joðLn þ 2T 0 Þ
Three types of uncertainties will be considered: (i) errors in
estimating the dead time; (ii) errors in the velocity gain K v low frequencies is computed as
and (iii) unmodelled dynamics (that is GðsÞa1=s). The real
dPn0 ¼ lim jdPn ðoÞj ¼ dL þ T 0u .
plant is then given by o!0

K Thus, the minimum value b0 and the maximum value dL þ

PðsÞ ¼ eLs T 0u can be used to tune the robustness of the controller. The
sð1 þ sT u Þ
robust condition is given by
and the model used in the control algorithm is given by
Pn ðsÞ ¼ K v s1 eLn s . The error in the velocity gain only ðT 00 Þ2
affects the curve at very low frequencies where dPðoÞ has b0 4dL þ T 0u ! 4dL þ T 0u
ð1 þ 2T 00 Þ
very high values. Therefore, the error in the velocity gain
will be neglected in the following analysis. The multi- or equivalent
plicative error with a normalised frequency on ¼ Ln o is
T 20
1 b¼ 4L  Ln þ T u .
dPðjon Þ ¼ ejon dL  1. Ln þ 2T 0
1 þ jon T 0u
For dominant-dead-time processes the maximum dead-
Then, Eq. (32) is written as time-estimation error is used to tune the robust condition
   
 1   ð1 þ jon T 00 Þ2 
 e jon dL
1 o  b ¼ DLmax ) T 0 ¼ b½1 þ ð1 þ Ln =bÞ1=2 .
1 þ jo T 0   1 þ jo ð1 þ 2T 0 Þ, (33)
n u n 0
Thus, it follows:
where T 00 ¼ T 0 =Ln , or what is equivalent
     h pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffii
 1 1   ð1 þ jon T 00 Þ2  T 0 ¼ DLmax 1 þ 1 þ Ln =DLmax . (35)
 jon dL 
1 o  
jo 1 þ jo T 0 e jo ½1 þ jo ð1 þ 2T 0 
Þ
8o,
n n u n n 0
If the controller must be chosen for robust performance
(34)
specifications, b should be chosen greater than DLmax . As a
where both sides of the equation are divided by jon . The general tuning rule, the value of b0 can be between 1:5dPn0
analysis of the expression on the right-hand side of Eq. (34) and 2dPn0 if a small overshoot time response is desired.
shows that it is a monotonic decreasing function of the When the unmodelled dynamics impose harder restrictions
frequency and has a constant value at high frequencies on the parameters of the controller than the dead-time
b0 ¼ ðT 00 Þ2 =ð1 þ 2T 00 Þ. Fig. 11 shows the shape of this error the complete expression b ¼ DL þ DT u must be used.
expression for different values of T 00 . This is the case when T e is not negligible if compared to Le
The modelling error divided by jon (jdPn j ¼ jdP=jon j) is and the variations on the high-order dynamics of the
shown in the same figure. Note that this function also has a process are important. As in the stable case, T 1 can be
monotonic decreasing characteristic with the frequency in tuned so as to attenuate the peaks in the step response.
the region where it can intersect the normalised limit of Bigger values of T 1 allows slower responses and smaller
robustness. The constant value assumed by this function at values of the overshoot to be obtained. It is difficult to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428 419

obtain a general rule for tuning T 1 , specially when poor and the pole-zero cancellation in the equivalent controller
information about uncertainties is available. In practice,
V ðsÞ
manual tuning is normally needed and T 1 equal to T 0 is a C eq ðsÞ ¼
good starting point. G n ðsÞ½1  V ðsÞeLn s 
must be eliminated. This can be achieved by using F ðsÞ
having zeros in the same position as the poles of Gn ðsÞ on
4.2. Rejecting disturbances with feed-forward action
the right-hand side of the s-plane. Moreover, F ðsÞ and
C eq ðsÞ must be proper. This implies that the relative degree
When the disturbances can be measured, the feed-
of V ðsÞ must be rd . Furthermore, C eq ðsÞ must be
forward action can also be used to improve the regulatory
implemented with the same procedure as the one explained
capabilities of the DTC for unstable processes. The
in the DTC with a modified fast model.
analysis of this case is similar to the stable one and will
The final tuning takes into account a compromise
not be addressed here. Note that the unstable poles of the
between performance and robustness using an appropriate
plant impose new constraints on the computation of the
tuning of the degree of freedom in F ðsÞ and V ðsÞ. The
pseudo inverse of the process model. However, even for
simple case of lower order models is presented next.
unmeasurable disturbances including a feed-forward action
that uses an estimation of the disturbances, it is possible to
reject them in a DTC when applied to an unstable process. 4.2.2. Tuning for low-order integrative models
Ln s
Because of its importance in practice, some special First consider the model Pn ðsÞ ¼ K v es with a step
structures based on this idea have been presented in disturbance, then:
literature to reject step disturbances when integrator Kv
processes are considered. Gn ðsÞ ¼ ; rd ¼ 1.
s
A simple filter can be used in the set-point controller
s
4.2.1. The disturbance observer approach F ðsÞ ¼ K v ð1þsT 1Þ
, giving
The disturbance observer approach presented in the
Y ðsÞ eLn s
stable case (see Fig. 5) can also be used for unstable ¼ .
N ðsÞ RðsÞ 1 þ sT 1
processes. In this case Gn ðsÞ ¼ DppðsÞ where N p ðsÞ and Dp ðsÞ
The speed of the set-point response is defined by T 1 .
have no common roots and it is assumed that Dp ðsÞ has, at
For this case m ¼ 2, thus, a second-order V ðsÞ with
least, one pole on the right-hand side of the s-plane.
relative degree 1 is necessary. Moreover, 1  V ðsÞeLn s
The set-point response can be defined using F ðsÞ as in the
must have two roots at s ¼ 0 which gives
stable case. The conditions in V ðsÞ are defined by the type
of process and the type of disturbance. 1 þ ð2T 0 þ Ln Þs
V ðsÞ ¼
ð1 þ sT 0 Þ2
 For stability conditions the numerator of 1  V ðsÞeLs and T 0 is the tuning parameter. T 0 is used to obtain an
must cancel the unstable roots of Dp ðsÞ. adequate compromise between performance and robust-
 For a disturbance of type sm11 the numerator of 1  ness because the robust stability condition is given by
V ðsÞeLs must have m roots in s ¼ 0, where  
 1 
m ¼ m1 þ m2 . m1 is the order of the disturbance (1 for jdPðjoÞjo  8o.
steps, 2 for ramps, etc.) and m2 is the number of effective V ðjoÞ
integrators of the plant (the number of roots in s ¼ 0 of The transfer function YQðsÞ
ðsÞ
is
Dp ðsÞ). Thus, this structure can be also used for double-  
integrator processes. Y ðsÞ 1 þ ð2T 0 þ Ln Þs Ln s
¼ Pn ðsÞ 1  e (36)
 For a sinusoidal disturbance of frequency o0 , the QðsÞ ð1 þ sT 0 Þ2
numerator of 1  V ðsÞeLs must include roots at s ¼ this given the same solution as that obtained with the dead-
jo0 and s ¼ jo0 . time compensator based on the modified fast model. Note
that in this case the tuning is simple because the tuning of
For the implementation, V ðsÞ must guarantee that GVnðsÞðsÞ is V ðsÞ does not depend on the tuning of F ðsÞ.
proper. Thus, the order of the controller will depend on the K v eLn s
For a second-order model Pn ðsÞ ¼ sð1þsTÞ and a step
relative degree rd of G n ðsÞ. Furthermore, because of the Kv
disturbance, the fast model is Gn ðsÞ ¼ sð1þsTÞ and rd ¼ 2.
unstable poles of Pn ðsÞ, the implementation is made with
the structure in Fig. 5b with an equivalent filter F eq ðsÞ and For the set-point response a second-order filter is used
cascade controller C eq ðsÞ. Filter F ðsÞ must be chosen so as sð1 þ sTÞ Y ðsÞ eLn s
to obtain a proper and stable equivalent reference filter F ðsÞ ¼ 2
) ¼ ,
K v ð1 þ T 1 Þ RðsÞ ð1 þ sT 1 Þ2
F ðsÞG n ðsÞ where T 1 defines the settling time of this response. For the
F eq ðsÞ ¼
V ðsÞ disturbance rejection, V ðsÞ is a third-order filter with
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
420 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428

dV ðsÞ considered the difference between the model and process

relative degree 2 and must verify: V ð0Þ ¼ 1, ds js¼0 ¼ Ln .
This gives outputs in steady state is an estimation of the amplitude of
1 þ ms qðtÞ. Thus, using MðsÞ this estimated value is introduced in
V ðsÞ ¼ ; m ¼ 3T 0 þ Ln . the loop to eliminate the effect of the disturbance. As MðsÞ
ð1 þ sT 0 Þ3
acts as a feedback controller, it must be tuned to achieve
This last solution will give better results when the process closed-loop stability and also an adequate transient of the
exhibits high-order dynamics because the second-order disturbance rejection response. Moreover, the primary
model allows the model uncertainties to be reduced (Zhong controller CðsÞ is used to define the set-point response of
& Normey-Rico, 2002). the controller.
If the model is equal to the process, the closed-loop
4.2.3. Tuning for the first-order unstable model transfer function between RðsÞ and Y ðsÞ is
Ln s
Consider model Pn ðsÞ ¼ Ke Ts1 . For step disturbance Y ðsÞ CðsÞPn ðsÞ
rejection ½1  eLn s V ðsÞ should have a zero at s ¼ 0 and ¼ ¼ C eq ðsÞPn ðsÞ, (37)
RðsÞ 1 þ CðsÞG n ðsÞ
another one at s ¼ 1=T (V ð0Þ ¼ 1 and V ð1=TÞeLn =T ¼ 1).
This gives where Pn ðsÞ and G n ðsÞ are, respectively, the process model
1 þ sa and dead-time-free process model and C eq ðsÞ is the
V ðsÞ ¼ equivalent controller in Fig. 12. Note that CðsÞ can be
ð1 þ sT 0 Þ2 computed to obtain a desired set-point response and it is
with a such that such that
1 þ a=T lim C eq ðsÞPn ðsÞ ¼ 1.
eLn =T ¼ 1 ) a ¼ ½ð1 þ T 0 =TÞ2 eLn =T  1T, s!0
ð1 þ T 0 =TÞ2
For the disturbances, it follows:
where T 0 is the tuning parameter as in the previous cases.
The nominal closed-loop transfer function is Y ðsÞ Pn ðsÞ
¼ ½1  C eq ðsÞPn ðsÞ ; (38)
QðsÞ 1 þ MðsÞPn ðsÞ
Y ðsÞ 1
¼ eLn s thus, if MðsÞ is stable and stabilises Pn ðsÞ
RðsÞ 1 þ sT 1
being T 1 the desired closed-loop time constant, F ðsÞ is Pn ðsÞ
given by 1 þ MðsÞPn ðsÞ
Ts  1 is stable and as
F ðsÞ ¼
Kð1 þ sT 1 Þ lim½1  C eq ðsÞPn ðsÞ ¼ 0
s!0
and the equivalent reference filter
the transfer function in Eq. (38) has all the poles with
1 ð1 þ sT 0 Þ2 ReðsÞo0 and a zero at s ¼ 0. This guarantees the rejection
F eq ðsÞ ¼ ¼ .
V ðsÞðT 1 s þ 1Þ ð1 þ sT 1 Þð1 þ saÞ of step disturbances.
The condition for robust stability is
 
4.3. Special solutions for integrative processes 1 þ MðjoÞPn ðjoÞ
jdPðjoÞjodPðoÞ ¼  .
C eq ðjoÞ þ MðjoÞ 
In the case of integrative processes, the principal
objective in designing a modified SP is the rejection of Several authors have used this idea to control integrative
step disturbances. Some solutions have been presented with processes and also double integrative processes with a dead
this objective (Aström et al., 1994; Kaya, 2004; Mataušek time (Chien et al., 2002; Hang et al., 2003; Kaya, 2003;
& Micić, 1996, 1999). The simplest controller, proposed in Kwak et al., 2001). In these works, CðsÞ and MðsÞ are
Mataušek and Micić (1996), can be seen in Fig. 12. This defined as P, PI, PD or PID controllers. Because of the
structure can be interpreted as a disturbance observer practical importance, in the next section the analysis and
DTC. The idea here is that when step disturbances are tuning of the controller is presented for the simplest case.

q (t) 4.3.1. The simplest case

r (t) Ceq (s)
The most simple solution for this problem is to use
+ Ln s
+ +
C (s)
u (t) +
P (s)
y (t) model Pn ðsÞ ¼ K v es and a simple gain in each controller
_ _ + (Mataušek & Micić, 1996)
+
Gn (s)
M (s)
_ CðsÞ ¼ K c ; MðsÞ ¼ K 0 .
Pn (s) In this case
Y ðsÞ eLn s 1
Fig. 12. Structure of the modified Smith predictor with feed-forward of ¼ ; Tr ¼ (39)
the estimation of q. RðsÞ 1 þ T r s K cK v
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428 421

that is, T r can be used to define the speed of the set-point dPn ðon Þ, is plotted for different cases in Fig. 13. Thus, it is
response. possible to tune parameter T r using an estimation of the
To complete the tuning of the controller, K 0 is computed uncertainties. Note that the shapes of the curves in Fig. 13
imposing a phase margin fm ¼ 60 of the inner loop 1 þ are very similar to the one obtained in the DTC with the
MðsÞPn ðsÞ ¼ 0 giving (Mataušek & Micić, 1996) modified fast model (see Fig. 11). Thus, using the
1 maximum value of the normalised modelling error (dPn0 ),
K0 ¼ . obtained in Section 4.1.5 a parameter b can be defined for
2K v Ln
robust stability (b ¼ DLmax þ T u ) or for robust perfor-
With these parameters, in the nominal case mance (b ¼ 2ðDLmax þ T u Þ) and the tuning of T r as
  
Y ðsÞ eLn s K v eLn s b
¼ 1 (40) T r4 ,
QðsÞ 1 þ sT r s þ K 0 K v eLn s 1  ðb=2Ln Þ
that is, as expected, a stable transfer function with zero static where T u is again, in this case, the equivalent time constant
gain. It is important to note that in this solution parameter of the unmodelled dynamics. Finally, the controller gain K c
T r which defines the set-point response also affects the is K c ¼ T r1K v .
disturbance rejection performance and the closed-loop This controller presents the same advantages of the FPPI
robustness. For this controller, dPðoÞ is given by presented in the stable case, as just as a PID controller it
has only three tuning parameters: K v , K c and Ln . In
jjoðjo þ K c K v Þð2Ln jo þ ejoLn Þj manual tuning, when the evaluation of the modelling error
dPðoÞ ¼ . (41)
j  ð2Ln K v K c þ 1Þo2 þ joK v K c j is not possible the practical rule is to choose T r similar to
As in Section 4.1.5, this equation is divided by jo. This the equivalent time constant of the non-integrative part of
bound depends almost entirely on T r the process. The disadvantage of this controller, if
compared to the 2DOF-DTC analysed in previous
jðjoT r þ 1Þð2Ln jo þ ejoLn Þj sections, is that T r also affects the disturbance rejection
dPn ðoÞ ¼ 8o. (42)
j  ð2Ln þ T r Þo2 þ joj response and the robustness of the controller and therefore
Using a normalised frequency on ¼ Ln o and T 0r ¼ T r =Ln : it does not allow the set-point and disturbance response to
be decoupled. Furthermore, this controller cannot improve
jðjon T 0r þ 1Þð2jon þ ejon Þj its disturbance rejection when the plant has very long dead
dPn ðon Þ ¼ 8o. (43)
j  ð2 þ T 0r Þo2n þ jon j times, as is shown in Normey-Rico and Camacho (1999a).
The controller presented in this section uses both the
For low frequencies the bound behaves as
simplest model and the simplest controllers CðsÞ and MðsÞ.
1 Using high-order models and/or controllers, the results
dPn ðon Þ ffi ; o!0
on obtained in this section can be improved. Several authors
and for high frequencies: have proposed solutions using these more complex models
(Chien et al., 2002; Hang et al., 2003; Kaya, 2003; Kwak et
2T 0r al., 2001). The following section presents a brief resume of
dPn ðon Þ ffi ; o ! 1,
2 þ T 0r these methods.

102 4.3.2. The improved solutions

Ln s
dPn (T´r =0.1) Maintaining the simplest model Pn ¼ K v es and using a PI
dPn (T´r =0.3) controller in CðsÞ and a PD controller in MðsÞ the closed-
dPn (T´r =0.6) loop performance can be improved. The tuning of CðsÞ and
MðsÞ can follow several approaches. For example, CðsÞ and
101 MðsÞ can be, respectively, tuned for a desired gain margin and
magnitude

a phase margin of loops 1 þ CðsÞPn ðsÞ and 1 þ MðsÞPn ðsÞ.

Moreover, the set-point response can be improved if a
reference filter is included in the controller. This solution
obviously increases the design and tuning complexity.
100
In several cases, the behaviour of the real process can
K v eLn s
better be represented using a SOIPDT model Pn ¼ sð1þsTÞ
(Kaya, 2004). This model will give better results than the
one based on the first-order model only when T is not
10-1 negligible when compared to Ln . However, it must be noted
10-2 10-1 100 101 102 that using a second-order model it is possible to obtain a
normalised frequency
small modelling error and therefore improve the robustness
Fig. 13. jdPn ðon Þj for the Mataušek and Micić’s DTC for different values of the controller. In this case, MðsÞ is a PD controller while
of T 0r . CðsÞ is a PI or a PID with set-point weighting. The tuning
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
422 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428

can be done, for example, using pole-zero cancellation and performance and robustness as the disturbance observer.
the same frequency approach as in the simplest case. Tuning However, a poor performance is expected in the case of
can be improved if the pole-zero cancellation is avoided in dominant dead-time. Also, it is important to note that
MðsÞ and also if a 2DOF-PID is used in CðsÞ. Moreover, when the controller has to detuned to improve the
other procedures can be used to tune CðsÞ and MðsÞ. robustness, the differences between the real F ðsÞ and the
Another solution to this problem can be obtained using ideal one are attenuated. This solution, obtained by low
the idea presented in Liu et al. (2005). In this work the order approximation of the non-rational controller could
authors use a slightly different structure that includes a be also applied to the other cases analysed in this paper,
stabilising controller, as it is shown in Fig. 14. This scheme but as mentioned, in practice the controller will be
can be used with general unstable processes. It uses the implemented in a discrete platform where these approx-
controller gain K c to stabilise the open loop unstable dead- imations are unnecessary.
time free model G n ðsÞ. After defining K c the set-point The following example illustrates some of the aspects
tracking controller G c ðsÞ is tuned to improve the set-point discussed in this section.
response. The disturbance rejection response is defined Ls
e
with F ðsÞ. The nominal transfer function between the Example. Consider the process P ¼ sð1þ10sÞð1þsÞð1þ0:5sÞð1þ0:25sÞ
disturbance (q) and the control action (f) generated by F is with two different dead times. In case 1: L ¼ L1 ¼ 5, and in
case 2: L ¼ L2 ¼ 30. The first-order models are defined as
F ðsÞPn ðsÞ
C q ðsÞ ¼ .
1 þ F ðsÞPn ðsÞ e16:8s e41:8s
Pn1 ¼ ; Pn2 ¼
Ideally the faster achievable response is obtained when s s
C q ðsÞ ¼ eLs (note that the dead-time cannot be elimi- and the second-order models as
nated). In the real case, C q ðsÞ has a numerator and
e6:66s e31:66s
denominator such that Pn3 ¼ ; Pn4 ¼ .
sð1 þ 10:14sÞ sð1 þ 10:14sÞ
1 C q ðsÞ
F ðsÞ ¼ As can be seen, only in case 2 L4T. A dead-time
Pn ðsÞ 1  C q ðsÞ
estimating error of 20% and a gain estimating error of
is proper and does not cancel the unstable poles of Pn ðsÞ. 5% are also considered.
For the FOPDT unstable case, if C q ðsÞ is defined as
Two different tunings for CðsÞ and MðsÞ are considered.
1 þ as
C q ðsÞ ¼ eLs
ð1 þ lsÞ2  DTC1 uses first-order models and:
the estimator F ðsÞ is Tds þ 1
CðsÞ ¼ K c ; MðsÞ ¼ K 0
ðTs  1Þð1 þ asÞ 0:1T d s þ 1
F ðsÞ ¼ fm ¼ 60 ; Am ¼ 2 are used for tuning MðsÞ (Mataušek &
K½ð1 þ slÞ2  ð1 þ asÞeLs 
Micić, 1999) obtaining
and to avoid the zero at s ¼ 1=T, a must verify
0:8
a ¼ T½eL=T ð1 þ l=TÞ2  1, T d ¼ 0:45L; K0 ¼ .
LK v
where l can be used as a tuning parameter. The pole-zero K c is tuned using the robustness analysis of the simplest
cancellation of the root at s ¼ 1=T may cause the unstable case considering b ¼ L  Le þ T u  T e . Note that in
operation of F ðsÞ and cannot be removed directly. Thus, this case the error in the estimation of T u is of the same
the authors suggest to use an approximate transfer order as the error in the dead time. It is assumed that
function of the controller, based on the Maclauring T u  T e ¼ 1:5 for the tuning of the DTC1. Thus, using
expansion formula (Liu et al., 2005). Without considering the formula for robust performance gives b ¼ 2ð1 þ
this approximation this controller achieves the same 1:5Þ ¼ 5 in case 1 and b ¼ 2ð6 þ 1:5Þ ¼ 15 in case 2.

q (t)

r (t) + + u (t) + y (t)

Gc (s) P (s)
_ _
+

Kc f (t) +
F (s)
_ _
Gn (s) e-Ls
+

Fig. 14. Disturbance observer with stabilising controller.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428 423

 The second controller, DTC2, uses the second-order 1.05. As can be seen, the DTC2 has a better closed-loop
models and response. It is possible to see here the effect of the time
T cs þ 1 Tds þ 1 constant T of the second-order model, that has a non-
CðsÞ ¼ K c ; MðsÞ ¼ K 0 negligible value when compared to Ln .
0:1T c s þ 1 0:1T d s þ 1
A new situation is simulated for case 2 (L ¼ L2 ¼ 30): a
and a tuning based on a pole-zero cancellation (Kaya, step change (from 0 to 2) of the set-point at t ¼ 10 and a
2004). Thus, T c ¼ T and T d ¼ T. Gains K c and K 0 are 0:05 step disturbance at t ¼ 500. Initially, the DTC1 was
chosen, respectively, for a desired fm of the loop tuned with b ¼ 15 giving T d ¼ 18:81, K 0 ¼ 0:019,
transfer functions CðsÞPn ðsÞ and MðsÞPn ðsÞ K c ¼ 0:0547. The obtained disturbance rejection response
Kc K v eLn s was two times superior to the one with the DTC2, that
CðsÞPn ðsÞ ¼ , offers, in this case a slow response with the proposed
0:1Ts þ 1 s
tuning parameters: T c ¼ T d ¼ 10:14, K c ¼ K 0 ¼ 0:0158.
K0 K v eLn s Thus, b ¼ 30 was used in the DTC1 giving T d ¼ 18:81,
MðsÞPn ðsÞ ¼ .
0:1Ts þ 1 s K 0 ¼ 0:019, K c ¼ 0:0214. This case is shown in Fig. 16 for
Note that the solution is the same for the two loops. If the nominal dead time and gain and for the real dead time,
the filter of the derivative action is neglected the loop L ¼ 36, and the real gain, 1.05. Note that the advantages of
transfer functions are the same as the one obtained when the DTC2 disappear and DTC1 has better performance.
Pn ¼ Ksv and MðsÞ ¼ K 0 . Thus, using fm ¼ 60 to tune This is the effect of the dominant dead time.
the gain, the obtained K c ¼ K 0 is
1
Kc ¼ K0 ¼ . 5. Discrete DTCs
2K v Ln
Although DTC appeared in the mid fifties, their
The closed-loop behaviour of DTC1 and DTC2 is first implementation with the analogue control equipments
compared for case 1. The simulation considers a step was very difficult and DTCs were not used in industry
change (from 0 to 2) of the set-point at t ¼ 10 and a 0:05 until digital controls took over in the eighties. Moreover,
step disturbance at t ¼ 150. The closed-loop responses the dead-time compensation ideas can be applied areas
obtained with the DTC1 (T d ¼ 7:56, K 0 ¼ 0:0476, K c ¼ other than the traditional continuous processes as, for
0:172) and the DTC2 (T c ¼ T d ¼ 10:14, K c ¼ K 0 ¼ 0:075) instance, to dynamic systems directly described in the
are shown in Fig. 15 without considering modelling errors discrete time domain. In these cases, the design of the
and when the real dead time is L ¼ 6 and the real gain is controller is carried out using only discrete time tools.

case: L=5, K=1

2
r, y

1 y (DTC1)
y (DTC2)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1.5
u (DTC1)
1
u (DTC2)
u

0.5
0
-0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
case: L=6, K=1.05
2
r, y

1 y (DTC1)
y (DTC2)
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1.5
u (DTC1)
1
u (DTC2)
u

0.5
0
-0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
time

Fig. 15. Response of the DTC1 (IPDT model and P/PD controller) and the DTC2 (SOIPDT model and PD/PD controller) for case 1, L ¼ 5.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
424 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428

case: L=30, K=1

2

r, y
1 y (DTC1)
0 y (DTC2)
-1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0.6 u (DTC1)
0.4 u (DTC2)
u

0.2
0
-0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
case: L=36, K=1.05
2
r, y

1 y (DTC1)
0 y (DTC2)
-1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0.6 u (DTC1)
0.4 u (DTC2)
u

0.2
0
-0.2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
time

Fig. 16. Response of the DTC1 (solid) and the DTC2 (dashed) for case 2, L ¼ 30.

A discrete synthesis procedure can be used when a DTC r ( kTs) q (kTs) y (kTs)
has to be applied to a discrete time system. On the other + +
F (z) C (z) P (z)
hand, the design of a discrete DTC for a continuous _ +
process can be made using two different approaches:
S (z)
 computing a discretisation of the continuous controller,
yp (kTs)
or +
Fr (z)
 applying a direct discrete design method using a discrete +
representation of the process.
Fig. 17. Unified representation of the discrete DTCs.

The performance of the controller will depend not only on

the sampling time choice but also on the discretisation
blocks CðzÞ and F ðzÞ represent the 2DOF primary
method used to transform the original differential equation
controller.
(of the plant or of the controller) into a discrete model
This structure is a unified dead-time compensator—
(Guo et al., 2000). In fact, the most important character-
UDTC. The UDTC structure can be used to compute a
istics of the continuous DTC can be maintained in the
controller taking into account the ideas previously
discrete case if the sampling time is very small compared to
discussed aiming at increasing robustness, coping with
the dominant time constant of the process. However, in
unstable plants, improving the disturbance rejection
practice, the real time implementation of the controller
properties, or decoupling the set-point and disturbance
may have time constraints and the sampling time must be
responses.
chosen greater than the ideal theoretical value affecting the
The closed-loop behaviour of the UDTC is defined by
closed-loop performance and robustness of the system,
the transfer functions from the reference to the output
especially in the case of dead-time systems.
(H r ðzÞ) and from the disturbance to the output (H q ðzÞ)
F ðzÞCðzÞPðzÞ
5.1. General properties of the discrete DTC H r ðzÞ ¼ ,
1 þ CðzÞ½PðzÞF r ðzÞ þ SðzÞ
For the analysis of the properties of the discrete DTC a
PðzÞ½1 þ CðzÞSðzÞ
unified representation of DTCs for analysis in the discrete H q ðzÞ ¼ .
1 þ CðzÞ½PðzÞF r ðzÞ þ SðzÞ
domain is presented in Normey-Rico and Camacho (2007)
using a general block diagram, as shown in Fig. 17, where As in the continuous case the robustness is analysed using
blocks F r ðzÞ and SðzÞ represent the predictor structure and the multiplicative modelling error represented in the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428
frequency domain 8o 2 ½0; p
Pðejo Þ  Pn ðejo Þ
dPðjoÞ ¼ pdPðoÞ,
Pn ðejo Þ
j1 þ Cðejo Þ½Pn ðejo ÞF r ðejo Þ þ Sðejo Þj
dPðoÞodPðjoÞ ¼
jG n ðejo ÞCðejo ÞF r ðejo Þj
Note that F r ðzÞ only affects H q ðzÞ and the robustness
condition, while F ðzÞ only affects H r ðzÞ. Thus, the analysis
and tuning in the discrete domain can follow the same
procedure as used in the continuous case.
5.2. Discretisation of the continuous DTC
The simplest way to implement continuous DTC on
digital platforms is to use a discretisation procedure. As the
DTC is a model based controller the discretisation of
the model plays an important role in the final controller. As
the control signal is applied to the process through a zero
order hold (ZOH) the best method for obtaining the
discrete model of the process is a ZOH-based discretisa-
tion. As shown in Normey-Rico and Camacho (2007) if the
model is not appropriate chosen the extra modelling error
introduced in the discretisation of the controller, can
produce instability in some cases.
5.2.1. Robustness analysis
In the continuous process case, the frequency domain
representation of the process plus the sampler and the
hold is
1  ejoT s
Ps ðjoÞ ¼ PðjoÞ 8o 2 ½0; p=T s .
joT s
The nominal model (Pn ðzÞ) will depend on the method used
to compute the controller. Thus, the modelling error is
obtained as
1  ejoT s
PðjoÞ  Pn ðejoT s Þ
joT s
dPðjoÞ ¼ 8o 2 ½0; p=T s ,
Pn ðejoT s Þ
which clearly depends on the modelling error of PðsÞ, on
the nominal model selection and on the sampling time T s .
Note that, for a given sampling time, important
variations in the modelling error can be observed depend-
ing on the discretisation procedure. The following example
illustrate this result.
4s
Example. Consider the process PðsÞ ¼ e1þs. The modelling
error dPðjoÞ is analysed using these models: Pn1 ðzÞ
obtained with Tustin’s method (TUSTIN), Pn2 ðzÞ obtained
with Euler’s forward method (FORWARD) and Pn3 ðzÞ
obtained with the ‘‘zoh’’ method (ZOH) (see Fig. 18). As
can be seen the modelling errors introduced by Euler’s and
Tustin’s discretisation are greater than the one obtained
with the ZOH method. Note that this result was expected
425
100
.
magnitude
10-1
(44)
10-2
|δ P| (ZOH)
|δ P| (Tustin)
|δ P| (forward)
10-3
10-1 100 101
frequency
Fig. 18. Modelling error for the TUSTIN, FORWARD and ZOH.
as in the real process a ZOH block is used to compute the
discrete control actions.
A discrete bound for dPðjoÞ can be computed:
dPðjoÞpdPs ðejoTs Þ 8o 2 ½0; p=T s .
In this case a representation of the form:
Ps ðejoT s Þ  Pn ðejoT s Þ
dPs ðejoTs ÞX ; i ¼ 1; 2; 3
Pn ðejoT s Þ
is obtained and dPs ðejoTs Þ is used for the robust tuning of
the discrete controller.
It is interesting to compute the sampling time T s in order
to obtain a simple representation of dPs ðejoTs Þ using the
ZOH discretisation procedure, both for Pn ðsÞ and PðsÞ. In
this case, if T s is adequately chosen, only a small error is
introduced in the approximation. An equivalent discrete
model Ps ðzÞ is computed for each process model PðsÞ in the
family of continuous processes, and a nominal model Pn ðzÞ
such that Ps ðzÞ ¼ Pn ðzÞ½1 þ dPs ðzÞ. This model approxima-
tion will depend on T s . For the particular case of dead-time
systems, where the dead-time-estimation error (DL) is the
most important model uncertainty, the sampling time
choice should be related to DL. The maximum value of the
modelling error of a dead-time system dPðjoÞ is obtained
close to the frequency p=DLmax . Thus, to capture the
dynamics of the modelling error in this bandwidth, the
sampling time has to be defined as
p=T s Xp=DLmax ) T s pDLmax .
In Torrico and Normey-Rico (2005) the effect of T s on the
performance is analysed and a rule of thumb is given to
avoid performance deterioration with the choice of T s . For
example, for DLmax 2 ½0217%, T s ¼ DLmax and for
DLmax 2 ½18245%, T s ¼ DLmax =2.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
426 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428
5.3. Direct discrete design
The second approach to design discrete DTCs is based
on a discrete model of the continuous process. From a
synthesis point of view, there is no difference between the
two solutions if it is assumed that they use the same process
model, including the uncertainties, and the same control
structure. However, there is a fundamental difference in the
computation of the nominal model and on the model of the
uncertainties, this will depend on the sampling time and on
the discretisation procedure.
5.3.1. Dahlin algorithm: the lambda controller
The discrete dead-time compensation scheme can be also
derived using a direct synthesis approach which can be
easily interpreted as an IMC controller. A particular case is
the popular dead-time compensation algorithm proposed
by Eric Dahlin in 1968 (Dahlin, 1968) for FOPDT models.
The algorithm is known today as the Lambda Tuning or
Dahlin controller. It was mainly used in the pulp and paper
industry in the 1970s and was made possible by the
increasing use of mini-computer based control systems.
The algorithm was developed in the discrete domain but it
can also be used in the continuous time domain.
The algorithm considers the plant to be a FOPDT model
and makes the closed loop behave like a FOPDT system
with unit static gain. That is, if the desired close-loop is
1
given by Pd ¼ ð1lÞz
1lz1
zd and the plant is given by
1
PðzÞ ¼ Kð1aÞz
1az1
zd , the direct synthesis controller is
1  az1 1l
CðzÞ ¼ .
Kð1  aÞ 1  lz  ð1  lÞzðdþ1Þ
1
Note that the Dahlin controller corresponds to a SP with a
1
ð1lÞð1az Þ
PI primary controller C SP ¼ Kð1aÞð1z 1 Þ where l adjust the
controller gain.
5.4. Implementation issues
Flexibility, low cost and simplicity in the implementation
of complex control algorithms are some of the advantages
of discrete controllers. For the particular case of the DTC,
the digital implementation of the controller has some
special advantages related to the polynomial representation
of dead time.
As has been pointed out in Sections 3 and 4, there are
some situations where is necessary to cancel the roots of
some polynomials and pseudo-polynomials for the im-
plementation of the DTC. This is particulary important to
avoid internal instability when controlling unstable dead-
time processes.
Consider, for instance, a DTC with a modified fast
model controlling an unstable plant. The implementation
of the minor loop must be made to have a stable HðsÞ ¼
G m ðsÞ  G n ðsÞeLs in order to obtain internal stability. No
‘‘pole-zero’’ cancellation at the unstable poles of G n ðsÞ must
take place. If a discrete implementation is used the pole-
zero cancellation in:
1
HðzÞ ¼ ½N m ðzÞ  N p ðzÞzd n 
Dp ðzÞ
is solved by directly dividing the polynomials ½zd N m ðzÞ 
N p ðzÞ and Dp ðzÞ.
6. Some design recommendations
The SP is a simple and effective controller for dead-time
processes. It can offer better responses than a PID
controller, mainly in the case where the dead time is
dominant and well known. These advantages are more
evident when high-order models are used. In general,
the improvement of the performance compensates for the
increase in the tuning complexity. However, it has some
limitations that must be taken into account:
 it cannot be used with integrative and unstable
processes;
 the disturbance rejection response cannot be faster than
the open-loop one. This can be important when the dead
time is non-dominant.
The performance and robustness of the DTCs can be
compared to the traditional PID controller. When the dead
time is estimated with a small error, the DTC clearly allows
better performance. However, when the DTC has to be
detuned to maintain robustness, the advantages of the use
of this type of controller are less.
Two aspects must be considered in the DTC design: (a)
model selection; (b) DTC structure and (b) tuning and
practical implementation.
 The selection of the nominal model depends on the
relationship between T, the time constant representing
the dynamics of dead-time-free process (or the non-
integrative part of the process) and L. If the process
exhibits a dominant dead time, that is LbT, the simple
FOPDT or IPDT models can be used. In other cases,
when T is non-negligible, better results will be obtained
using a SOPDT or SOIPDT. Unstable processes with a
dead time are not as common as the integrative one in
practice. The simple unstable first-order model can be
generally used in this case.
 The tuning of the controller for all cases is simpler with
the structure of the disturbance observer approach that
also gives the best results. The analogous implementation
of this controller is, however, more complicated than the
FPPI or Mataušek and Micić controllers. Thus, if the
controller must be implemented on an analogous plat-
form, these latter controllers can be used. Finally, when a
discrete platform is used, the disturbance observer
approach is again the best option. Moreover, the distur-
bance observer approach is easy to analyse and tune
because of the decoupling properties of its structure.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428
 The use of the DTC with a modified fast model to
improve the disturbance rejection is only recommended
when the dead time is not dominant, because in other
cases the disturbance rejection is not appreciably
improved.
 The feed-forward controller should be used when the
disturbances are measurable. It is a very efficient method
to minimise the effect of the disturbances on the process
output.
The analysis and design of a discrete DTC based on a
discrete model of the process use the same concepts and
procedures as in the continuous case, but special attention
must be paid to the modelling error introduced by the
discretisation when the design procedure is obtained from
the discretisation of a continuous controller.
A safe procedure to design the controller should have, as
a first step, an analysis of the modelling error. An adequate
bound for this error should be computed before the
controller tuning.
7. Conclusions
DTCs are effective for controlling dead-time processes as
they eliminate the effect of the dead time in the nominal
set-point response. Furthermore, a good trade-off between
robustness and performance can be obtained by appro-
priate tuning of the primary controller and predictor.
Several structures and tuning rules have been analysed
for controlling stable, integrative and unstable processes
with a dead time. Some of the approaches arrive at similar
results (and in some cases at the same result) if the same
process model and the same set of specifications are
defined. It has been shown that: (a) the DTCs originally
designed to control stable dead-time processes can be
modified to control integrative and unstable plants; (b) in
the cases where the plant can be modelled by simple
models, a good compromise between performance and
robustness can be obtained using simple controllers and
tuning rules.
Acknowledgement
Partially support by CAPES-BRASIL Contract BEXO
0828/05-0 and CICYT Contract DPI 2005-4568.
References
Alevisakis, G., & Seborg, D. (1973). An extension of the Smith predictor
to multivariable linear systems containing time delays. International
Journal of Control, 3, 541–551.
Aström, K. J., Hang, C. C., & Lim, B. C. (1994). A new Smith predictor
for controlling a process with a integrator and long dead time. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 39(2), 343–345.
Bhaya, A., & Desoer, C. A. (1985). Controlling plants with delay.
International Journal on Control, 41, 813–830.
427
Chien, I.-L., Peng, S. C., & Liu, J. H. (2002). Simple control method for
integrating processes with long deadtime. Journal of Process Control,
12(3), 391–404.
Dahlin, E. B. (1968). Designing and tuning digital controllers. Instruments
and Control Systems, 41, 77–83.
Feng, W. (1991). On practical stability of linear multivariable feedback
systems with time delays. Automatica, 27, 389–394.
Garcia, C. E., & Morari, M. (1984). Internal model control 1: A unified
review and some new results. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry
Process Design and Development, 21, 308–316.
Guo, S. M., Wang, W., & Shieh, L. S. (2000). Discretisation of two degree-
of-freedom controller and system with state, and output delays. IEE
Proceedings Control Theory and Applications, 147(1), 87–96.
Hagglung, T. (1996). An industrial dead-time compensating PI controller.
Control Engineering Practice, 4(6), 749–756.
Hang, C. C., Wang, Q.-G., & Yang, X.-P. (2003). A modified Smith
predictor for a process with an integrator and long dead time.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 42, 484–489.
Huzmezan, M., Gough, W. A., Dumont, G. A., & Kovac, S. (2002). Time
delay integrating systems: A challenge for process control industries.
A practical solution. Control Engineering Practice, 10(10), 1153–1161.
Ingimundarson, A., & Hägglund, T. (2001). Robust tuning procedures of
dead-time compensating controllers. Control Engineering Practice, 9,
1195–1208.
Ingimundarson, A., & Hägglund, T. (2002). Performance comparison
between pid and dead-time compensating controllers. Journal of
Process Control, 12, 887–895.
Jerome, N. F., & Ray, W. H. (1986). High performance multivariable
control strategies for systems having time delays. AIChE Journal,
32(6), 914–931.
Kaya, I. (2003). Obtaining controller parameters for a new PI-PD
Smith predictor using auto tuning. Journal of Process Control, 13,
465–472.
Kaya, I. (2004). Two-degree-of-freedom IMC structure and controller
design for integrating processes based on gain and phase-margin
specifications. IEE Proceedings Control Theory and Applications,
151(4), 401–407.
Kwak, H., Whan, S., & Lee, I.-B. (2001). Modified Smith predictor for
integrating processes: Comparisons and proposition. Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Research, 40, 1500–1506.
Lee, T. H., Wang, Q. G., & Tan, K. K. (1996). Robust Smith predictor
controller for uncertain delay systems. AIChE Journal, 42(4),
1033–1040.
Limon-Marruedo, D., Normey-Rico, J. E., Pagano, D. J., & Aracil, J.
(1999). Stability of saturated dead-time compensating PI controllers
for uncertain dead-time systems. In Proceedings of ECC99. Germany.
Liu, T., Cai, Y. Z., Gu, D. Y., & Zhang, W. D. (2005). New modified
Smith predictor scheme for integrating and unstable processes with
time delay. IEE Proceedings Control Theory and Applications, 152(2),
238–246.
Lu, X., Yang, Y.-S., Wang, Q.-G., & Zheng, W.-X. (2005). A double two-
degree-of-freedom control scheme for improved control of unstable
delay processes. Journal of Process Control, 15(5), 605–614.
Mascolo, S. (2006). Modeling the internet congestion control using a smith
controller with input shaping. Control Engineering Practice, 14(4),
425–435.
Mataušek, M. R., & Micić, A. D. (1996). A modified Smith predictor for
controlling a process with a integrator and long dead time. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 41(8), 1199–1203.
Mataušek, M. R., & Micić, A. D. (1999). On the modified Smith predictor
for controlling a process with a integrator and long dead-time. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, 44(8), 1603–1606.
Morari, M., & Zafiriou, E. (1989). Robust process control. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Normey-Rico, J. E., Bordons, C., Berenguel, M., & Camacho, E. F.
(1998). A robust adaptive dead-time compensator with application to a
solar collector field. In Proceedings of IFAC-workshop on linear time
delay systems (LDTS’98) (pp. 105–110). Grenoble, France.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
428 J.E. Normey-Rico, E.F. Camacho / Control Engineering Practice 16 (2008) 407–428
Normey-Rico, J. E., Bordons, C., & Camacho, E. F. (1997). Improving
the robustness of dead-time compensating PI controllers. Control
Engineering Practice, 5(6), 801–810.
Normey-Rico, J. E., & Camacho, E. F. (1998). Dead-time compensators:
A unified approach. In Proceedings of IFAC-LDTS’98 (pp. 141–146).
Grenoble, France.
Normey-Rico, J. E., & Camacho, E. F. (1999a). Robust tuning of dead-
time compensators for processes with an integrator and long dead
time. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 44(8), 1597–1603.
Normey-Rico, J. E., & Camacho, E. F. (1999b). Robustness effects of a
prefilter in Smith predictor based generalised predictive controller. IEE
Proceedings Control Theory and Applications, 146, 179–185.
Normey-Rico, J. E., & Camacho, E. F. (1999c). Smith predictor and
modifications: A comparative study. In Proceedings of ECC99.
Germany.
Normey-Rico, J. E., & Camacho, E. F. (2000). Multivariable generalised
predictive controller based on the Smith predictor. IEE Proceedings
Control Theory and Applications, 147, 538–546.
Normey-Rico, J. E., & Camacho, E. F. (2002). A unified approach to
design dead-time compensators for stable and integrative processes
with dead-time. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 47(2),
299–305.
Normey-Rico, J. E., & Camacho, E. F. (2007). Control of dead-time
processes. Berlin: Springer.
Normey-Rico, J. E., Gómez-Ortega, J., & Camacho, E. F. (1999). A Smith
predictor based generalized predictive controller for mobile robot path
tracking. Control Engineering Practice, 7, 729–740.
Ogunnaike, B. A., Lemaire, J. P., Morari, M., & Ray, W. H. (1983).
Advanced multivariable control of a pilot scale distillation column.
AIChE Journal, 29(4), 632–642.
Ogunnaike, B. A., & Ray, W. H. (1979). Multivariable controller design for
linear systems having multiple time delays. AIChE Journal, 25, 1043–1060.
Pagano, D., Normey-Rico, J. E., & Franco, A. L. D. (2001). Stability
analysis of a modified Smith predictor for integrative plants with
dead-time and saturations. In Proceedings of the 40th IEEE-CDC
(pp. 1855–1860). Orlando, FL.
Palmor, Z. J. (1980). Stability properties of Smith dead time compensator
controller. International Journal of Control, 32, 937–949.
Palmor, Z. J. (1996). The control handbook. Time delay compensation:
Smith predictor and its modifications. Boca Raton and London: CRC
Press and IEEE Press.
Palmor, Z. J., & Blau, M. (1994). An auto tuner for Smith dead-time
compensator. International Journal of Control, 60, 117–135.
Palmor, Z. J., & Halevi, Y. (1983). On the design and proper-
ties of multivariable dead time compensators. Automatica, 19,
255–264.
Palmor, Z. J., & Halevi, Y. (1990). Robustness properties of sampled-data
systems with dead time compensators. Automatica, 26, 637–640.
Palmor, Z. J., & Powers, D. V. (1985). Improved dead time compensator
controllers. AIChE Journal, 31, 215–221.
Rao, A. S., & Chidambaram, M. (2006). Smith delay compensator for
multivariable non-square systems with multiple time delays. Computers
and Chemical Engineering, 30, 1243–1255.
Rivera, D. E., Morari, M., & Skogestad, S. (1986). Internal model control
4. PID controller design. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process
Design and Development, 25, 252–265.
Santacesaria, C., & Scattolini, R. (1993). Easy tuning of Smith predictor in
presence of delay uncertainty. Automatica, 29, 1595–1597.
Smith, O. J. M. (1957). Closed control of loops with dead time. Chemical
Engineering Progress, 53, 217–219.
Torrico, B. C., & Normey-Rico, J. E. (2005). 2DOF discrete dead-time
compensators for stable and integrative processes with dead time.
Journal of Process Control, 15, 341–352.
Watanabe, K., & Ito, M. (1981). A process-model control for linear
systems with delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 26(6),
1261–1269.
Zhong, Q.-C., & Li, H. X. (2003). Control of integral processes with dead
time. Part 3: Dead-beat disturbance response. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 48(1), 153–159.
Zhong, Q.-C., & Mirkin, L. (2002). Control of integral processes with
dead time. Part 2: Quantitative analysis. IEE Proceedings Control
Theory and Applications, 149(4), 291–296.
Zhong, Q.-C., & Normey-Rico, J. E. (2002). Control of integral processes
with dead time. Part 1: Disturbance observer-based 2DOF control
scheme. Control Theory and Applications. IEE Proceedings, 149(4),
285–290.