Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2006, 45, 3149-3160 3149

Analytical Design of Decoupling Internal Model Control (IMC) Scheme for

Two-Input-Two-Output (TITO) Processes with Time Delays
Tao Liu,* Weidong Zhang, and Danying Gu
Department of Automation, Shanghai Jiaotong UniVersity, Shanghai 200240, People’s Republic of China

In this paper, a new decoupling control scheme, in terms of an internal model control (IMC) structure, is
proposed for two-input-two-output (TITO) processes with time delays. Noteworthy improvement of the
decoupling regulation can be achieved for the nominal system output responses, and moreover, either of the
system output responses can be quantitatively regulated by virtue of the analytical relationship between the
adjustable parameters of the decoupling controller matrix and the nominal system transfer matrix. The ideally
optimal controller matrix is analytically derived by proposing the practically desired diagonal system transfer
matrix, in terms of the robust H2 optimal performance objective. Because of the difficulty of physical
implementation, its practical form is carefully configured according to whether there exist any complex right-
half-plane (RHP) zeros in the process transfer matrix determinant. At the same time, tuning constraints for
the proposed decoupling controller matrix to hold the control system robust stability are analyzed in the
presence of the process additive and multiplicative uncertainties, and, accordingly, the on-line tuning rule is
provided to cope with the process unmodeled dynamics in practice. Finally, illustrative simulation examples
are included to demonstrate the remarkable superiority of the proposed method.

1. Introduction
In the process industry, two-input-two-output (TITO) pro-
cesses are mostly encountered multivariable processes, and
moreover, a large number of multivariable processes with inputs/
outputs beyond two can be treated as several two-by-two
subsystems in engineering practice.1-3 Because of the interaction
between the binary process variables, well-developed control
methods for single-input-single-output (SISO) processes can
hardly be extended to TITO processes.4 Moreover, time delay
is a fundamental characteristic of multivariable processes in
practice. Its presence in an individual control loop can badly
prevent the high gain of the closed-loop controller from being
used.5 Many control strategies had been developed for the
decoupling regulation of TITO processes with time delays.
Based on the robust H2 and H infinity optimal specification,
Skogestad and Postlethwaite4 had systematically presented a
loop-shaping design methodology within the framework of a
conventional unity feedback control structure. In view of the
successful application of the Smith predictor (SP) structure for
SISO systems with time delays,6 the earlier literature7-10 further
extended it to TITO processes with time delays to obtain the
delay-free characteristic equation of such a system transfer
matrix, and then utilized some previous decoupling control
methods developed for linear multivariable systems without time
delay. Recently, enhanced control performance, in terms of the
multivariable SP structure, had been captured in refs 11 and
12, using some frequency-response specifications such as the
ultimate frequency and magnitude/phase margin. In light of the
internal model control (IMC) theory,13 refs 14-16 presented
some decoupling control methods based on iterative algorithms,
all of which were indeed capable of much improved decoupling
regulation, in comparison with some previous methods, but at
the cost of a considerable computation effort for implementation.
According to the frequency response data drawn from relay
feedback tests, refs 17-22 have proposed some on-line sequen-
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel./Fax:
+86.21.34202019. E-mail: liurouter@ieee.org.
10.1021/ie051129q CCC: $33.50 © 2006 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 03/22/2006
tial tuning methods, and, meanwhile, refs 23-25 suggested some
simultaneous autotuning methods. In fact, many existing de-
coupling control methods had been based on using a decoupler
in front of the process inputs, to obtain the augmented process
transfer matrix with diagonal dominance, and then tuned the
multiloop controllers by means of some decentralized control
methods recently developed, such as the recent literature26-28
based on a static decoupler, i.e., the inverse of the process static
gain transfer matrix, and refs 29-32, based on a dynamic
decoupler. However, note that the static decoupler has no impact
on the dynamic system output responses in essence, and the
dynamic decoupler is actually difficult to configure precisely,
especially for those TITO processes with large time delays,
because of the requirements of physical properness and causality
for implementation.29,30 Moreover, note that, although recently
enhanced multiloop control methods, such as those discussed
in refs 33-38, are capable of achieving remarkably improved
system output performance, compared to many existing methods,
the controller tuning is aimed at the compromise between the
achievable system output performance and the interaction
between individual loops, which will inherently lead to decou-
pling performance degradation, when compared to a control
system with a full controller matrix.4,13 Hence, to meet the
primary decoupling regulation requirement for a large amount
of TITO processes with time delays in industry, decoupling
control strategies are preferred to be adopted in practice.
In this paper, a new analytical design method of decoupling
controller matrix within the frame of a standard IMC structure
is proposed for TITO processes with time delays. By proposing
the practically desired diagonal system transfer matrix in terms
of the robust H2 optimal performance objective, the ideally
optimal decoupling controller matrix can be inversely deter-
mined. For the convenience of physical realization, its practical
form will be closely configured, using a linear fractional
approximation approach, based on the mathematical Padé
expansion. As expected, the computation effort will be relieved
on a large scale, in comparison with many existing decoupling
control methods based on numerical algorithms. Furthermore,
obviously improved tuning capacities for the system output
3150 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006
Figure 1. Internal model control (IMC) structure.
responses can be achieved. At the same time, how to evaluate
the resultant control system robust stability is analyzed in the
presence of the process additive and multiplicative uncertainties
that are mostly encountered in practice. For clear interpretation
of the proposed method, this paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 presents two fundamental decoupling control precon-
ditions for TITO processes. In section 3, the practically desired
diagonal system transfer matrix form is analyzed. The ideally
desired decoupling controller matrix and its practical form then
are analytically derived in section 4. Subsequently, the robust
stability constraints for tuning the decoupling controller matrix
are analyzed in the presence of the process additive and
multiplicative uncertainties, and, correspondingly, the on-line
tuning rule is provided in section 5. Several illustrative
simulation examples are included in section 6, to demonstrate
the superiority of the proposed method. Finally, some conclu-
sions are addressed in section 7.
2. Decoupling Control Preconditions
For convenience, a TITO process with time delays is usually
[ ]
identified in engineering practice as
k11 e-θ11s k12 e-θ12s
τ s+1 τ12s + 1
G(s) ) 11 -θ21s (1)
k21 e k22 e-θ22s
τ21s + 1 τ22s + 1
Hence, the standard IMC structure can be directly adopted for
such TITO process models, which is shown in Figure 1, where
Gm is the process model. When it exactly matches the actual
process, i.e., G ) Gm, there is an open-loop control for the set-
point response, so the system transfer matrix can be simplified
as
g g
[ c c
H ) GC ) g11 g12 c11 c12
21 22 21 22
][ ] (2)
Consequently, the nominal system response will definitely hold
stability if the controller matrix C is designed to be stable.
However, when there exists an actual process uncertainty, e.g.,
the process unmodeled dynamics, the system transfer matrix
will present the form of
H ) GC[I + (G - Gm)C]-1 (3)
which may be very complex in the presence of various process
uncertainties and has a tendency to lose stability in an intangible
manner. Therefore, the stable controller matrix C, configured
in terms of the nominal process model, may not be able to
guarantee the control system robust stability any longer. In fact,
how to ascertain all the stabilizing set of C for different process
uncertainties is difficult to address and has remained open as
yet in the process control community.4,39 In this paper, the
attention is focused on tuning the decoupling controller matrix
C in an analytical and simple way, according to the referential
process model, which is therefore capable of achieving the
desirable nominal system output responses and decoupling
regulation and, meanwhile, can be conveniently tuned on-line
to cope with the process unmodeled dynamics in practice.
For a nominal TITO process, the decoupled system output
responses, in terms of the standard IMC structure, should
correspond to a diagonal system transfer matrix, i.e.,
[ ]
h1 0
H ) GC ) (4)
0 h2
where the diagonal elements h1 and h2 are stable and proper
transfer functions. Thus, two fundamental decoupling control
preconditions can be ascertained as follows:
(1) Both G and C are required to be nonsingular at s ) 0,
i.e., det[G(0)] * 0 and det[C(0)] * 0.
(2) There is no cross-coupling involved in the tuning of each
column controllers of C.
Remark 1. For precondition (1), it is the sufficient and
necessary condition for the decoupling regulation of a TITO
process. The proof is simple: if either det[G(0)] or det[C(0)]
were zero, det[H(0)] would be zero, according to eq 2, and
thus would contradict the desired diagonal system transfer
matrix form shown in eq 4. From eq 1, it can be easily seen
that the first decoupling precondition requires k11k22 * k12k21.
In this paper, TITO processes with nonsingular static gain
transfer matrix, i.e., det[G(0)] * 0, are considered, that is to
say, their output responses deserVe to be decoupled in essence.
Note that, although some industrial processes can be modeled
in the stable form of eq 1, their transfer matrix inVerses seem
sensitiVe to the process perturbations. The reason lies in det-
[G(0)] f 0 in such a situation. Hence, such process modeling
should be aVoided for decoupling control design, such as by
changing the pairing relationship between the process input and
output Variables.
As for precondition (2), it is a system operation requirement
for regulating TITO processes in engineering practice. The
reason can be intuitiVely seen through the transfer matrix
multiplication relationship between G and C, obtaining the
desired diagonal system transfer matrix shown in eq 4.
3. Desired Diagonal System Transfer Matrix Form
Equation 34 shows that, if the desired diagonal system transfer
matrix form in the nominal case could be ascertained in the
first place, the decoupling controller matrix may be inversely
derived as
adj(G)
C ) G-1H ) H (5)
det(G)
where adj(G) ) [Gij]2×2
T
is the adjoint of G, and Gij denotes the
complement minor corresponding to gij in G, i, j ) 1, 2.
Note that the process transfer matrix determinant can be
formulated as
{
det(G) )
G11G22(1 - G° e-∆θs) (for θ11 + θ22 e θ12 + θ21)
( )
e-∆θs (for θ11 + θ22 > θ12 + θ21)
(6)
-G12G21 1 -
G°
where
∆θ ) |θ11 + θ22 - θ12 - θ21|
k12k21 (τ11s + 1)(τ22s + 1)
G° ) ‚
k11k22 (τ12s + 1)(τ21s + 1)

Without loss of generality, consider the case where θ11 +
θ22 e θ12 + θ21 of some TITO processes. Equations 4 and 5
show that each column controllers of the decoupling controller
matrix C are related to the same diagonal element of H. For
instance, the first column controllers are in the form of
G11
c11 ) h diagonal transfer functions h1 and h2 shown in eqs 9 and 10
det(G) 1
1 (τ11s + 1)eθ11s
) h ) h1 (7)
G22(1 - G°e-∆θs) k11(1 - G°e-∆θs)
1
G12 G12
c21 ) h1 ) 11 22 h1
det(G) G G (1 - G° e-∆θs)
k21(τ11s + 1)(τ22s + 1) e(θ11+θ22-θ21)s
)- h1
k11k22(τ21s + 1)(1 - G° e-∆θs)
(8)
Obviously, it can be found from eqs 7 and 8 that, if the desired
diagonal transfer function h1 were not to include an equivalent
time delay to offset θ11, the controller c11 will inevitably behave
in a predictive manner and so does c21 if θ11 + θ22 > θ21, which,
in fact, will violate the causal law in nature. It can be physically
understood through the phenomenon that either of the binary
process outputs can only begin to track the corresponding
setpoint input after certain process time delay. Besides, if the
polynomial 1 - G° e-∆θs in the denominators of eqs 7 and 8
contain any right-half-plane (RHP) zeros in the complex plane,
h1 is required to include these RHP zeros so that c11 and c21
will not be bundled with them as unstable poles.
Based on the aforementioned constraint analysis and the
robust H2 optimal performance objective,4,13 the desired diagonal
transfer function h1 is proposed in the form of
( )
e-θ1s n -s + zi
h1 ) ∏
λ s + 1 i)1
(9)
1 s + z/i
where λ1 is an adjustable parameter used for meeting the system
response requirement for the first process output y1 and θ1 )
max {θ11, θ11 + θ22 - θ21}, and zi is the RHP zero of 1 -
G°e-∆θs and n denotes its RHP zero number, and z/i denotes
the complex conjugate of zi. Hence one of the first column con-
trollers of C can be implemented in a proper and rational form,
and meanwhile, the other controller can be practically imple-
mented in series with a specified dead-time compensator, so that
independent regulation of the first process output y1 can be real-
ized.
Following a similar analysis, the desired diagonal transfer
function h2 is proposed in the form of
( )
e -θ2s n -s + zi
h2 ) ∏
λ s + 1 i)1
(10)
2 s + z/i
where λ2 is an adjustable parameter used for meeting the system
response requirement for the second process output y2, and θ2
) max {θ22, θ11 + θ22 - θ12}.
As for the case where θ11 + θ22 > θ12 + θ21 of other TITO
processes, the desired diagonal transfer functions h1 and h2 can
be proposed the same as given previously, respectively. The
only difference is that θ1 ) max {θ12, θ12 + θ21 - θ22}, θ2 )
max {θ21, θ12 + θ21 - θ11} and zi is the RHP zero of 1 -
e-∆θs/G° and n denotes its RHP zero number.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006 3151
Note that, by proposing the desired diagonal system transfer
matrix form as shown in eqs 9 and 10, time domain performance
specification of the system output responses can be quantitatively
regulated using the adjustable parameters λ1 and λ2. For
example, as for those TITO processes without RHP zero of det-
(G), that is, 1 - G° e-∆θs (if θ11 + θ22 e θ12 + θ21) or 1 -
e-∆θs/G° (if θ11 + θ22 > θ12 + θ21) has no RHP zero, the desired
can be respectively simplified as
1
h1 ) e-θ1s
λ1s + 1
1
h2 ) e-θ2s
λ2s + 1
By performing the inverse Laplace transform, yield the time
domain response forms of the binary process outputs as
y1(t) ) { 0
1-e -(t-θ1)/λ1
(for t e θ1)
(for t > θ1)
{
0 (for t eθ2)
y2(t) )
1-e -(t-θ2)/λ2 (for t > θ2)
It is thus demonstrated that there is no overshoot in either of
the nominal system output responses, and their time domain
response specifications can be quantitatively achieved by
respectively tuning the adjustable parameters λ1 and λ2. For
instance, define the rise time tr1 to be the period from the
moment that a unit step change of the first set-point input is
added to the moment that the first process output y1 reaches
90% of its final value, it can be therefore figured out as tr1 )
2.3026λ1 + θ1, and similarly, the rise time tr2 of the second
process output y2 can be derived as tr2 ) 2.3026λ2 + θ2. Hence,
it is convenient to tune the adjustable parameters λ1 and λ2
respectively to obtain the desirable process output responses,
which, in fact, are implemented by each column controllers of
the decoupling controller matrix C, and, therefore, will be further
interpreted in the following section.
4. Decoupling Controller Matrix Design
According to the desired diagonal system transfer functions
h1 and h2 shown in eqs 9 and 10, the ideally optimal decoupling
controller matrix C can be inversely determined, using eq 5.
However, there actually exist some difficulties for implementing
G-1. Especially when there actually exist some RHP zeros of
det(G), it can be found from eq 5 in combination with eqs 9
and 10 that there will exist RHP zero-pole canceling in each
controller of the ideally optimal decoupling controller matrix,
which will cause it to behave unstably. Therefore, its practical
form is required to configure pertinently. For clear interpretation,
the design procedure is proposed in terms of two cases: Case
1 is that there exists no RHP zero of det(G), and Case 2 is in
the opposite situation, both of which are presented, in detail, in
the following two subsections.
4.1. Case 1. It can be seen from eq 6 that no RHP zero of
det(G) indicates that 1 - G° e-∆θs (if θ11 + θ22 e θ12 + θ21)
or 1 - e-∆θs/G° (if θ11 + θ22 > θ12 + θ21) has no RHP zero.
Consequently, 1/(1 - G° e-∆θs) or 1/(1 - e-∆θs/G°) is a stable
transfer function.
First, consider the case where θ11 + θ22 e θ12 + θ21 for
some TITO processes. Substituting eq 9 into eq 7 yields
τ11s + 1 e-(θ1-θ11)s
c11 ) ‚
k11(1 - G° e-∆θs) λ1s + 1
3152 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006

the system output responses will come to the ideal case, i.e., h1
) e-θ1s and h2 ) e-θ2s; that is to say, the binary process outputs
y1 and y2 will reach the Values of set-point inputs just after the
process time delays θ1 and θ2, respectiVely, whereas each
column controllers of the decoupling controller matrix will no
Figure 2. Positive feedback control unit.
longer be proper and thus cannot be physically realized. In fact,
For the convenience of physical implementation, rearrange it when λ1 and λ2 are tuned to small, the system output responses
in the form of y1 and y2 will become faster, but the output energy of the
decoupling controller matrix and its corresponding actuators
(τ11s + 1) e-(θ1-θ11)s will be required to be larger, which has a tendency to surpass
c11 ) ‚F (11) their output capacities in practice, and besides, more aggressiVe
k11(λ1s + 1)
dynamic behaVior of the system output responses will occur in
where F ) 1/(1 - G° e-∆θs). Obviously, the first part of c11 the presence of the process uncertainty. On the contrary, tuning
shown in eq 11 can be practically implemented using a λ1 and λ2 to large will slow down the system output responses
conventional first-order lead-lag controller in series with a dead- but the output energy of the decoupling controller matrix and
time compensator, and the second part F can be implemented its corresponding actuators will be required to be smaller, and,
using a positive feedback unit, as shown in Figure 2. Note that accordingly, less-aggressiVe dynamic behaVior of the system
the positive feedback unit shown in Figure 2 holds internal output responses will appear in the presence of the process
stability because its transfer function has no RHP pole and G° uncertainty. Based on a large amount of simulation analysis, it
is doubly proper and stable. is suggested to tune λ1 and λ2 respectiVely within the range of
Similarly, the other three controllers of the decoupling (2-10)θ1 and (2-10)θ2 in the first place. If the resultant system
controller matrix can be derived as output responses are not satisfactory, then, by monotonically
Varying λ1 and λ2 on-line, the best compromise between the
k21 (τ11s + 1)(τ22s + 1) e-(θ1+θ21-θ11-θ22)s nominal system response performance and the output capacities
c21 ) - ‚ ‚F of the decoupling controller matrix and its corresponding
k11k22 (τ21s + 1)(λ1s + 1)
(12) actuators can be conVeniently obtained.
k12 (τ11s + 1)(τ22s + 1) e-(θ2+θ12-θ11-θ22)s 4.2. Case 2. When there exist some RHP zeros of det(G), it
c12 ) - ‚ ‚F can be seen from eq 6 that all of them are exactly the RHP
k11k22 (τ12s + 1)(λ2s + 1) zeros of 1 - G° e-∆θs (if θ11 + θ22 e θ12 + θ21) or 1 - e-∆θs/
(13)
G° (if θ11 + θ22 > θ12 + θ21). Hence, the RHP zero number of
(τ22s + 1) e-(θ2-θ22)s det(G) can be ascertained by observing the Nyquist curve of
c22 ) ‚F (14) -G° e-∆θs (or -e-∆θs/G°). Note that the number of the Nyquist
k22(λ2s + 1)
curve encircling the point (-1, j0) in the complex plane is equal
Then, for the case where θ11 + θ22 > θ12 + θ21 for other TITO to the RHP zero number of det(G), considering that it has no
processes, each column controllers of the decoupling controller RHP pole. Alternatively, all of the RHP zeros of det(G) can be
matrix can be determined similarly, as numerically ascertained by solving 1 - G° e-∆θs ) 0 (or 1 -
e-∆θs/G° ) 0) with some mathematical software packages such
k22 (τ12s + 1)(τ21s + 1) e-(θ1+θ22-θ12-θ21)s as MATLAB and MATHEMATICA.
c11 ) - ‚ ‚F
k12k21 (τ22s + 1)(λ1s + 1) For the case where θ11 + θ22 e θ12 + θ21 for some TITO
(15) processes, substituting the desired diagonal system transfer
functions eqs 9 and 10 into eq 5 yields
(τ12s + 1) e-(θ1- θ12)s
c21 ) ‚F (16)
k12(λ1s + 1) (τ11s + 1) e-(θ1-θ11)s
c11 ) ‚D (19)
(τ21s + 1) e-(θ2-θ21)s n
c12 ) ‚F
k21(λ2s + 1)
(17) k11(λ1s + 1) ∏
i)1
(s + z/i )

k11 (τ12s + 1)(τ21s + 1) e-(θ2+θ11-θ12-θ21)s k21 (τ11s + 1)(τ22s + 1) e-(θ1+θ21-θ11-θ22)s

c22 ) - ‚ ‚F
k12k21 (τ11s + 1)(λ2s + 1) c21 ) - ‚ ‚ D (20)
(18) k11k22 n
(τ21s + 1)(λ1s + 1) ∏ (s + z/i )
where F ) 1/(1 - e-∆θs/G°).Note that G° is doubly proper i)1
and stable, as is 1/G°. Hence, F can be stably implemented using k12 (τ11s + 1)(τ22s + 1) e-(θ2+θ12-θ11-θ22)s
a control unit similar to that shown in Figure 2. c12 ) - ‚ ‚ D (21)
Remark 2. From the proposed controller design formulas k11k22 n
shown in eqs 11-18, it is obserVed that each column controllers (τ12s + 1)(λ2s + 1) ∏ (s + z/i )
of the decoupling controller matrix are exactly tuned by a single i)1
adjustable parameter. Consequently, there exists no cross- (τ22s + 1) e-(θ2-θ22)s
coupling in tuning each column controllers. Besides, it can be c22 ) ‚D (22)
easily examined that the resultant decoupling controller matrix n
is indeed nonsingular at s ) 0. Note that, when the adjustable
parameters λ1 and λ2 are tuned to zero, eqs 9 and 10 show that
k22(λ2s + 1) ∏
i)1
(s + z/i )
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006 3153

where where
n

∏
i)1
(-s + zi) b1 ) -
d2
, a ) d1b0 + d0b1, a0 ) d0b0
d1 1
D) (23)
1 - G° e-∆θs
Remark 3. Equation 23 shows that G°e-∆θs has a tendency
Obviously, the first part of c11-c22 shown in eqs 19-22 can be to decay much faster, in contrast to the rational numerator
respectively implemented using a conventional lead-lag control- polynomial, as s f ∞. Hence, it is confirmable that high
ler in series with a dead-time compensator if necessary, but the accuracy can be attained using a rational linear fractional
second part (D) cannot be reliably implemented, because of the approximation for D. Basically, D can be roughly approximated
RHP zero-pole canceling, which, however, cannot be directly as
removed. Therefore, a rational approximation form is required
to copy it out for physical implementation. In view of the n n

∏ ∏
analytical approximation method that was effectively developed
(-s + zi) (-s + zi)
for obtaining a rational high-order controller form in the recent
i)1 i)1
literature,40 the mathematical Padé expansion is therefore utilized D) )
to construct the linear fractional approximation formula, i.e., 1 - G°(0) 1 - [k12k21/(k11k22)]
U

∑
i)0
aisi ObViously, increasing the approximation order will result in a
much-better approximation leVel. Note that there possibly exist
DU/V ) (24) infinitely many RHP zeros of det(G), which may be identified
V

∑
j)0
bjsj by obserVing whether [k12k21τ11τ22/(k11k22τ12τ21)] > 1 (if θ11 +
θ22 e θ12 + θ21) or [k11k22τ12τ21/(k12k21τ11τ22)] > 1 (if θ11 +
θ22 > θ12 + θ21), because the Nyquist curVe of -G°e-∆θs(or
where U and V are the user-specified orders to achieve the -e-∆θs/G°) will encircle the origin infinitely many times with
desirable system performance specification in practice, and the the radius of k12k21τ11τ22/(k11k22τ12τ21) (or k11k22τ12τ21/(k12k21τ11τ22)
constant coefficients ai (i ) 1, 2, ..., U) and bj (j ) 1, 2, ..., V) if θ11 + θ22 > θ12 + θ21) as ω f ∞ if there exist infinitely

[][ ][ ]
are determined by the following two matrix equations: many RHP zeros of det(G). GiVen that off-dominant RHP zeros
of a system transfer function haVe little impact on the achieVable
a0 d0 0 0 ··· 0 b0 system performance,1,4 it is suggested to utilize those dominant
a1 d d0 0 ··· 0 b1 RHP zeros of det(G) to propose the desired diagonal system
·· ) ·1 ·· ··· ·· ·· (25)
· ·· · ··· · · response transfer functions shown in eqs 9 and 10, so that the
aU dU dU-1 dU-2 ··· dU-V bV practical decoupling controller matrix can be analytically

[ ][ ] [ ]
deriVed in a simple manner, but in exchange for certain system
dU dU-1 ··· dU-V+1 b1 dU+1 performance degradation. Hence, it is dependent on the user
dU+1 dU ··· dU-V+2 b2 dU+2 choice of the dominant RHP zero number to make the
·· ·· ··· ·· ·· )- ·· (26) compromise between the achieVable system performance and
· · · · · the calculation complexity of the decoupling controller matrix
dU+V-1 dU+V-2 ··· dU bV dU+V
and its cost of utilization. In addition, note that the choice of
b0 shown in eq 28 is intended to keep all of bj (for j ) 0, 1, ...,
where dk (k ) 0, 1, ..., U + V) are the constant coefficients of V) the same sign, to exclude the possibility of any RHP zeros
each term in the mathematical Maclaurin expansion series of from being enclosed in the denominator of eq 24. EVen so, such
D shown in eq 23, i.e., a high-order approximation (i.e., V g 3) may be inVolVed with
RHP poles, which can be identified using the Routh-Hurwitz
1 dkD stability criterion. Therefore, it is suggested to use the Routh-
dk ) lim k (for k ) 0, 1, ..., U + V) (27)
k! sf0 ds Hurwitz stability criterion to identify the stability of such a high-
order approximation before using it in practice, to achieVe much
and b0 should be taken as better system performance. NeVertheless, such a linear fractional

{
approximation form, in terms of V e 2, can be reliably
1 (for bj g 0) implemented without identification and, therefore, is primarily
b0 ) (28)
-1 (for bj < 0) recommended for use in practice, for simplicity.
As for the case where θ11 + θ22 > θ12 + θ21 for other TITO
Note that eqs 25 and 26 can be transparently derived by
processes, following a similar design procedure as above, each
substituting eq 24 into the mathematical Maclaurin expansion
column controllers of the decoupling controller matrix can be
series of D shown in eq 23 and then comparing the constant
derived as
coefficients of each complex variable with the same index at
both sides.
For instance, letting U ) V ) 1 yields the first-order k22 (τ12s + 1)(τ21s + 1) e-(θ1+θ22-θ12-θ21)s
approximation formula in the form of c11 ) - ‚ ‚D
k12k21 n

D1/1 )
a1s + a0
(29)
(τ22s + 1)(λ1s + 1) ∏ (s + z/i )
b1s + b0 i)1
(30)
3154 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006

(τ12s + 1) e-(θ1-θ12)s
c21 ) ‚D (31)
n
k12(λ1s + 1) ∏
i)1
(s + z/i )

(τ21s + 1) e-(θ2-θ21)s Figure 3. Perturbed control system with additive uncertainty.

c12 ) ‚D (32)
n
k21(λ2s + 1) ∏
i)1
(s + z/i )

Figure 4. Unified perturbed system form.

k11 (τ12s + 1)(τ21s + 1) e-(θ2+θ11-θ12-θ21)s
c22 ) - ‚ ‚D Thus, the transfer matrix from V to U is obtained as
k12k21 n
(τ11s + 1)(λ2s + 1) ∏
i)1
(s + z/i )
TA ) -C[I + (G - Gm)C]-1 (38)
(33)
Given the fact that G ) Gm for the nominal control system, eq
where 38 can be therefore simplified as
n
TA ) -C (39)
∏
i)1
(-s + zi)
D) Undoubtedly, TA holds stability, because the decoupling control-
-∆θs
1 - (e /G°) ler matrix C has been designed to be stable. According to the
small gain theorem, the perturbed system with additive uncer-
Correspondingly, D can be as well implemented using the tainty holds robust stability if and only if
analytical approximation formula proposed in eq 24.
1
|C|∞ < (40)
|∆A|∞
5. Control System Robust Stability Analysis

Obviously, according to the stable decoupling controller
matrix C proposed in Section 4, the resultant IMC structure
holds internal stability for the nominal system response of a
stable TITO process. However, there usually exist the process
unmodeled dynamics in engineering practice, and, therefore,
how to evaluate the resultant control system robust stability must
be addressed, so that the tuning constraints for holding the
control system stability can be ascertained in the presence of
the process uncertainty. There are three types of process
uncertainty that are mostly encountered in practice, i.e., the
additive uncertainty, multiplicative input, and output uncertain-
ties, all of which are required to cope with properly during the
system operation. Note that many other types of process
unstructured or structured uncertainties can be lumped into the
above-mentioned process uncertainties to cope with in practice.4
First, consider the process additive uncertainty shown in
Figure 3. It describes the actual process family ΠA ) {ĜA(s):
ĜA(s) ) G(s) + ∆A}, where ∆A is assumed to be stable. In
fact, it can be viewed as parameter perturbation of the process
transfer matrix. For the convenience of robust stability analysis,
the perturbed control system with additive uncertainty can be
rearranged into the standard T-∆ structure, as shown in Figure
4. In this figure, T represents the transfer matrix connecting the
outputs of ∆A with its inputs. Figure 3 shows that
U ) CE
E ) R - (Y - GmU)
Y ) GU + V
Solving eqs 34-36 yields
U ) C[I + (G - Gm)C]-1R - C[I + (G - Gm)C]-1V (37)
However, the robust stability constraint shown in eq 40 is not
analytical and the H infinity norm computation effort is
considerably large. Thus, considering the equivalent relationship
between the small gain theorem and the spectral radius stability
criterion, which can be theoretically derived using the general-
ized MIMO Nyquist stability theorem,4 the equivalent robust
stability constraint can be obtained as
F(C∆A) < 1, ∀ ω (41)
Hence, it is practical to use eq 41 to evaluate the robust stability
of the IMC structure intuitively, in the face of the process
additive uncertainty, that is, observing whether the magnitude
plot of the left side of eq 41 falls below unity for all ω ∈ [0,
+∞), which can be graphically performed using some com-
mercial control software packages, such as the MATLAB robust
control toolbox.41
As for the process multiplicative input and output uncertain-
ties that respectively describe the actual process family ΠI )
{ĜI(s): ĜI(s) ) G(s)(I + ∆I)} and ΠO ) {ĜO(s): ĜO(s) ) (I +
∆O)G(s)}, where ∆I and ∆O are assumed to be stable, the transfer
matrixes that connect their outputs and inputs can be respectively
derived as
TI ) -C[I + (G - Gm)C]-1G (42)
(34)
TO ) -GC[I + (G - Gm)C]-1 (43)
(35)
(36) Then, following a similar analysis, obtain the spectral radius
robust stability constraints:
F(CG∆I) < 1, ∀ ω (44)
F(GC∆O) < 1, ∀ ω (45)
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006 3155

Figure 5. Achievable system response performance for a Wood-Berry distillation column.

Hence, for a specified multiplicative uncertainty bound of ∆I (or ∆O), in practice, the control system robust stability can be
intuitively evaluated by observing whether the magnitude plot of the left side of eq 44 (or eq 45) falls below unity for all ω ∈ [0,
+∞). In this way, the admissible tuning range of the adjustable parameters λ1 and λ2 of the decoupling controller matrix can be
numerically ascertained. To cope with the process uncertainty in practice, it is suggested to monotonically increase the adjustable
parameters λ1 and λ2 of the decoupling controller matrix on-line, so that the nominal system response will be gradually slowed in
exchange for better system robust stability, which will be illustrated in the following simulation example 1.

6. Simulation Tests

[ ]
Example 1. Consider the well-known Wood-Berry distillation column process:42

12.8 e-s -18.9 e-3s

+ 1 21s + 1
G ) 16.7s -7s
6.6 e -19.4 e-3s
10.9s + 1 14.4s + 1
Note that there is θ11 + θ22 ) 4 < θ12 + θ21 ) 10, and the Nyquist stability criterion can be used to confirm that there is no RHP

[ ]
zero of det(G). Hence, by employing the analytical design formulas proposed in eqs 11-14, the decoupling controller matrix

16.7s + 1 -0.0761(16.7s + 1)(14.4s + 1) e-2s

12.8(λ1s + 1) (21s + 1)(λ2s + 1)
C)F‚
0.0266(16.7s + 1)(14.4s + 1) e-4s -(14.4s + 1)
(10.9s + 1)(λ1s + 1) 19.4(λ2s + 1)

can be obtained, where

1
F)
0.5023(16.7s + 1)(14.4s + 1) -6s
1- e
(21s + 1)(10.9s + 1)
Correspondingly, it can be implemented using the control unit shown in Figure 2.
For illustration, two groups of simulation tests are performed, by setting λ1 ) 2 and λ2 ) 4, and λ1 ) 4 and λ2 ) 6, respectively.
The simulation results are shown in Figure 5 by adding a unit step change at t ) 0 and t ) 100, respectively, to the binary set-point
inputs. Note that the simulation solver option is chosen as ode5 (Dormand-prince) and the step size is fixed at a value of 0.02
throughout this paper.
3156 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006
Figure 6. System output responses according to the second-order controller approximation.
Figure 5 shows that the binary process output responses have
been absolutely decoupled from each other, and there exists no
overshoot in the set-point responses. Moreover, according to
the time domain system response analysis given in section 3,
the rise time of set-point responses can be conveniently obtained
as tr1 ) 2.3026λ1 + 1 for the process output y1, and tr2 )
2.3026λ2 + 3 for the process output y2. Hence, it is convenient
to tune the adjustable parameters λ1 and λ2 on-line, to achieve
the desired binary system output responses. Note that tuning λ1
and λ2 aims at the tradeoff between the achievable system
response performance and the output capacities of the decou-
pling controller matrix and its corresponding actuators, as
interpreted in Remark 2. Figure 5 has illustrated the compromise
effect; that is, the binary control output energy, in terms of the
smaller tuning parameters λ1 ) 2 and λ2 ) 4, is required to be
more aggressive than that of λ1 ) 4 and λ2 ) 6. Moreover, the
binary control outputs u1 and u2 are observed to be somewhat
oscillatory during the stage of dynamic response, which has a
tendency to wear out the corresponding actuators in a quick
fashion for some industrial processes. The reason lies in F of
the decoupling controller matrix C, of which the denominator
is involved with a time delay factor that will unfavorably trigger
the decoupling controller matrix to yield oscillatory output
signals. The phenomenon may be not admissible for some
industrial and chemical processes. Therefore, it is suggested to
utilize the analytical approximation formulas proposed in eqs
24-28 to copy out F for implementation. For instance, a second-
order approximation formula can be therefore obtained as
73.648s2 + 51.077s + 2.01
F2/2 )
150.662s2 + 32.283s + 1
Substituting it into the above decoupling controller matrix C
and also by letting λ1 ) 4 and λ2 ) 6, the simulation results
shown in Figure 6 are obtained. This figure still shows that the
binary process output responses are completely decoupled with
each other, and, meanwhile, the binary control outputs u1 and
u2 become well-smoothed while the system performance seems
affected only slightly. Note that better system performance can
be obtained using such a high-order approximation formula.
For comparison, three recently developed decoupling control
methods26,28,31 are used here, all of which have already
demonstrated their advantages over many existing methods by
simulation results for the commonly used Wood-Berry column
example. Based on the idea of using a static decoupler, Lee’s
method26 proposed a decoupling controller matrix composed
of proportional-integral (PI) controllers, and Astrom’s method28
presented an enhanced tuning method of decentralized PI
controllers. Wang’s method31 utilized a dynamic decoupler, in
conjunction with decentralized proportional-integral-differ-
ential (PID) controllers for the binary process. In the proposed
method, let λ1 ) 4 and λ2 ) 6 to obtain the similar set-point
tracking speed with these decoupling control methods. By
adding a unit step change at t ) 0 and t ) 150, respectively, to
the binary set-point inputs, and an inverse step change of load
disturbance with a magnitude of 0.1, to both of the process
inputs at t ) 300, one can obtain the simulation results provided
in Figure 7. It is clearly shown that the proposed method has
resulted in obviously improved system output responses and
decoupling regulation. Note that better nominal system perfor-
mance for the set-point tracking and load disturbance rejection
can be conveniently obtained on-line in the proposed method
by gradually decreasing the adjustable parameters λ1 and λ2.
To compare the control system robust stability, assume that
the static gains of the first column elements of the process
transfer matrix are actually 20% larger and those of the second
column elements 30% larger, while all of the time delays and
time constants of the process transfer matrix are actually 20%
larger, which is utilized to represent severe process parameter
uncertainty that may be actually encountered, because of the
process unmodeled dynamics. According to the robust stability
analysis provided in section 5, the magnitude plot of spectral

Figure 7. Nominal system responses for example 1.
Figure 8. Magnitude plots of spectral radius for the perturbed systems.
radius for identifying the control system robust stability can be
drawn using eq 41, as shown in Figure 8. It is obvious that the
peak value (the dotted line in Figure 8) is much smaller than
unity, which indicates that the proposed control system is
capable of good robust stability. Correspondingly, the perturbed
system output responses are provided in Figure 9. This figure
demonstrates that the proposed control system holds robust
stability well. Note that the binary control outputs have varied
little and, thus, are omitted, for the sake of brevity. In fact, better
robust stability can be conveniently obtained to cope with the
severe process parameter uncertainty in the proposed control
system by monotonically increasing the adjustable parameters
λ1 and λ2 on-line.
To further demonstrate the robust stability of the proposed
decoupling control system, assume that there actually exists the
process multiplicative input uncertainty, ∆I ) diag[(s + 0.3)/
(s + 1), (s + 0.3)/(s + 1)], which can be practically viewed as
a situation in which the binary process inputs, fed by the
corresponding actuators, increase by up to 100% uncertainty at
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006 3157
high frequencies and by almost 30% uncertainty within the low-
frequency range. In the other case, assume that there actually
exists the process multiplicative output uncertainty ∆O ) diag[
-(s + 0.2)/(2s + 1), -(s + 0.2)/(2s + 1)], which can be roughly
regarded to be the binary process measurements obtained from
the corresponding output sensors decrease by up to 50%
uncertainty at high frequencies and by almost 20% uncertainty
within the low-frequency range. According to the robust stability
constraints (eqs 44 and 45 given in section 5), the magnitude
plots of spectral radius for identifying the control system robust
stability are also drawn in Figure 8 (the dashed-dotted and solid
lines), both of which indicate that the proposed control system
facilitates good robust stability. Correspondingly the perturbed
system output responses are provided in Figure 10.
Once again, it is observed that the proposed system output
responses have held stability well and remained entirely
decoupled in the presence of the assumed process multiplicative
input and output uncertainties.
Example 2. Consider a TITO process with time delays, as
studied by Wang et al.:31
[ ]
-0.51 e-7.5s 1.68 e-2s
(32s + 1)2(2s + 1) (28s + 1)2(2s + 1)
G)
-1.25 e-2.8s 4.78 e-1.15s
(43.6s + 1)(9s + 1) (48s + 1)(5s + 1)
In Wang’s paper, the first-order process transfer matrix model
was identified as
[ ]
-0.5332 e-19.5838s 1.7171 e-14.8791s
Gm ) 67.7099s + 1 48.3651s + 1
-1.2585 e-8.4505s 4.7861 e-4.9768s
48.7805s + 1 49.7512s + 1
3158 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006

Figure 9. Perturbed system responses for example 1 due to the process parameter perturbation.

Figure 10. Perturbed system responses for example 1 due to the process multiplicative uncertainties.

Hence, it is utilized to derive the decoupling controller matrix in the proposed method. The Nyquist curve of det(Gm) is drawn in
Figure 11. It is observed that there exist infinitely many RHP zeros of det(Gm). By numerically solving det(Gm) with some mathematical
toolboxes such as MATLAB, it can be determined that there exists only one dominant RHP zero at s ) z1 ) 0.0129, which is
therefore used to propose the desired system transfer matrix. Note that there is θ11 + θ22 ) 24.5606 > θ12 + θ21 ) 23.3296. Using

[ ]
the analytical design formulas given as eqs 24-28 and 30-33, the decoupling controller matrix can be obtained:

2.2148(48.3651s + 1)(48.7805s + 1) -(48.7805s + 1)

(49.7512s + 1)(77.5194s + 1)(λ1s + 1) 1.2585(77.5194s + 1)(λ2s + 1)
C)D‚
(48.3651s + 1) e-3.4737s -0.2467(48.3651s + 1)(48.7805s + 1) e-4.7047s
1.7171(77.5194s + 1)(λ1s + 1) (67.7099s + 1)(77.5194s + 1)(λ2s + 1)

where

1 - 77.5194s
D)
1.1809(48.3651s + 1)(48.7805s + 1) -1.231s
1- e
(67.7099s + 1)(49.7512s + 1)
For simplicity, the first-order approximation formula shown in eq 29 is proposed to copy out D involved with a RHP zero-pole
canceling for physical implementation, i.e., D1/1 ) -(373.2751s + 5.5271)/(4.4191s + 1).
For comparison, tune the adjustable parameters λ1 ) 40 and λ2 ) 100 to obtain the similar set-point tracking speed with Wang’s
method. By adding a unit step change at t ) 0 and t ) 1500, respectively, to the binary set-point inputs, and an inverse step change
of load disturbance with a magnitude of 0.1 to both of the process inputs at t ) 3000, obtain the simulation results, as shown in
Figure 12. There clearly is no overshoot in the binary system output responses by using the proposed method, and the peak values
of the binary control outputs are much smaller. Note that better system response performance may be captured in the proposed
method by using a high-order approximation formula for D involved with a RHP zero-pole canceling or decreasing the adjustable
parameters on-line.
To compare the control system robust stability, assume that the static gains of the first column elements of the actual process
transfer matrix are actually 10% larger and those of the second column elements 20% larger, while all of the time delays are actually
10% larger. The perturbed system responses are shown in Figure 13, which also demonstrates that the propose control system is
capable of apparently improved robust stability.

Figure 11. Nyquist curve of the process model determinant.
7. Conclusions
To meet the increasing demands for advanced decoupling
control strategies for TITO processes with time delays in modern
process industry, this paper has proposed a new analytical
Figure 12. Nominal system responses for example 2.
Figure 13. Perturbed system responses for example 2.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006 3159
decoupling control scheme that is based on a standard IMC
structure, which is capable of absolute decoupling regulation
for the nominal binary system output responses. By virtue of
the analytical design procedure developed for the decoupling
controller matrix, the computation effort is relieved on a large
scale, in contrast to many existing decoupling control methods
that are based on numerical algorithms, and, moreover, there
exists a quantitative tuning relationship between the adjustable
control parameters and the nominal binary system output
responses, which will therefore contribute much convenience
to the system operation, from a practical point of view.
At the same time, the sufficient and necessary constraints
for tuning the adjustable parameters of the decoupling controller
matrix to hold the control system robust stability have been
addressed in the presence of the process additive and multiplica-
tive input and output uncertainties that are mostly encountered
in engineering practice. Correspondingly, a practical way to
evaluate the control system robust stability has been presented
in terms of the spectral radius stability criterion. In addition, it
has noted that tuning the adjustable control parameters aims at
3160 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 45, No. 9, 2006
the compromise between the nominal system performance and
its robust stability and the output capacities of the decoupling
controller matrix and its corresponding actuators, which, in fact,
can be conveniently implemented on-line by virtue of the fact
that each column controllers of the proposed decoupling
controller matrix are respectively tuned by a single adjustable
parameter in a monotonic manner.
Acknowledgment
This work is supported by National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (60474031), SRFDP (20030248040), Science and
Technology Rising-Star Program of Shanghai (04QMH1405),
and NCET (04-0383).
Literature Cited
(1) Seborg, D. E.; Edgar, T. F.; Mellichamp, D. A. Process Dynamic
and Control, 2nd Edition; Wiley: New York, 2004.
(2) Shinskey, F. G. Process Control System, 4th Edition; McGraw-
Hill: New York, 1996.
(3) Luyben, W. L. Process Modelling, Simulation and Control for
Chemical Engineers; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1990.
(4) Skogestad, S.; Postlethwaite, I. MultiVariable Feedback Control:
Analysis and Design, 2nd Edition; Wiley: Chichester, U.K., 2005.
(5) Holt, B. R.; Morari, M. Design of resilient processing plantssV.
The effect of deadtime on dynamic resilience. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1985, 40
(7), 1229-1237.
(6) Smith, O. J. M. Closer control of loops with dead time. Chem. Eng.
Prog. Trans. 1957, 53 (5), 217-219.
(7) Alevisakis, G.; Seborg, D. E. An extension of the Smith Predictor
to multivariable linear systems containing time delays. Int. J. Control 1973,
3 (17), 541-557.
(8) Ogunnaike, B. A.; Ray, W. H. Multivariable controller design for
linear systems having multiple time delays. AIChE J. 1979, 25 (6), 1043-
1056.
(9) Watanabe, K.; Ishiyama, Y.; Ito, M. Modified Smith predictor control
for multivariable systems with delays and unmeasurable step disturbances.
Int. J. Control 1983, 37 (5), 959-973.
(10) Jerome, N. F.; Ray, W. H. High-performance multivariable control
strategies for systems having time delays. AIChE J. 1986, 32 (6), 914-
931.
(11) Desbiens, A.; Pomerleau, A.; Hodouin, D. Frequency based tuning
of SISO controllers for two-by-two processes. IEE Proc. Control Theory
Appl. 1996, 143 (1), 49-56.
(12) Wang, Q. G.; Zou, B.; Zhang, Y. Decoupling Smith predictor design
for multivariable systems with multiple time delays. Chem. Eng. Res. Des.
2000, 78 (4), 565-572.
(13) Morari, M.; Zafiriou, E. Robust Process Control; Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1989.
(14) Wang, Q. G.; Zhang, Y.; Chiu, M. S. Non-interacting control design
for multivariable industrial processes. J. Process Control 2003, 13 (3), 253-
265.
(15) Dong, J.; Brosilow, C. B. Design of robust multivariable PID
controllers via IMC. Proc. Am. Control Conf. 1997, 5, 3380-3384.
(16) Jerome, N. F.; Ray, W. H. Model-predictive control of linear
multivariable systems having time delays and right-half-plane zeros. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 1992, 47 (4), 763-785.
(17) Gilbert, A. F.; Yousef, A.; Natarajan, K.; Deighton, S. Tuning of
PI controllers with one-way decoupling in 2 × 2 MIMO systems based on
finite frequency response data. J. Process Control 2003, 13 (6), 553-567.
(18) Toh, W. H.; Rangaiah, G. P. A methodology for autotuning of
multivariable systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41 (18), 4605-4615.
(19) Shiu, S. J.; Hwang, S. H. Sequential design method for multivariable
decoupling and multiloop PID controllers. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1998, 37
(1), 107-119.
(20) Shen, S. H.; Yu, C. C. Use of relay-feedback test for automatic
tuning of multivariable systems. AIChE J. 1994, 40 (4), 627-646.
(21) Loh, A. P.; Hang, C. C.; Quek, C. K.; Vasnani, V. U. Autotuning
of multiloop proportional-integral controllers using relay feedback. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 1993, 32 (6), 1102-1107.
(22) Chiu, M. S.; Arkun, Y. A methodology for sequential design of
robust decentralized control systems. Automatica 1992, 28 (5), 997-1002.
(23) Halevi, Y.; Palmor, Z. J.; Efrati, T. Automatic tuning of decentral-
ized PID controllers for MIMO processes. J. Process Control 1997, 7 (2),
119-128.
(24) Wang, Q. G.; Zou, B.; Lee, T. H. Auto-tuning of multivariable
PID controllers from decentralized relay feedback. Automatica 1997, 33
(3), 319-330.
(25) Palmor, Z. J.; Halevi, Y.; Krasney, N. Automatic tuning of
decentralized PID controllers for TITO processes. Automatica 1995, 31 (7),
1001-1010.
(26) Lee, J.; Kim, D. H.; Edgar, T. F. Static Decouplers for Control of
Multivariable Processes. AIChE J. 2005, 51 (10), 2712-2720.
(27) Chen, D.; Seborg, D. E. Design of decentralized PI control systems
based on Nyquist stability analysis. J. Process Control 2003, 13 (1), 27-
39.
(28) Astrom, K. J.; Johansson, K. H.; Wang, Q. G. Design of decoupled
PI controllers for two-by-two systems. IEE Proc. Control Theory Appl. 2002,
149 (1), 74-81.
(29) Wallter, M.; Wallter, J. B.; Wallter, K. V. Decoupling revisited.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2003, 42 (20), 4575-4577.
(30) Pomerleau, D.; Pomerleau, A. Guide lines for the tuning and the
evaluation of decentralized and decoupling controllers for processes with
recirculation. ISA Trans. 2001, 40 (4), 341-351.
(31) Wang, Q. G.; Huang, B.; Guo, X. Auto-tuning of TITO decoupling
controllers from step tests. ISA Trans. 2000, 39 (4), 407-418.
(32) Perng, M. H.; Ju, J. S. Optimally decoupled robust control MIMO
plants with multiple delays. IEE Proc. Control Theory Appl. 1994, 141
(1), 49-56.
(33) Liu, T.; Zhang, W.; Gu, D. Analytical multiloop PI/PID controller
design for two-by-two processes with time delays. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2005, 44 (6), 1832-1841.
(34) Huang, H. P.; Jeng, J. C.; Chiang, C. H.; Pan, W. A direct method
for multi-loop PI/PID controller design. J. Process Control 2003, 13 (8),
769-786.
(35) Zhang, Y.; Wang, Q. G.; Astrom, K. J. Dominant pole placement
for multi-loop control systems. Automatica 2002, 38 (7), 1213-1220.
(36) Cha, S.; Chun, D.; Lee, J. Two-step IMC-PID method for multiloop
control system design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2002, 41 (12), 3037-3041.
(37) Chien, I. L.; Huang, H. P.; Yang, J. C. A simple multiloop tuning
method for PID controllers with no proportional kick. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
1999, 38 (4), 1456-1468.
(38) Lee, J.; Cho, W.; Edgar, T. F. Multiloop PI controller tuning for
interacting multivariable processes. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1998, 22 (11),
1711-1723.
(39) Zhou, K. M.; Doyle, J. C.; Glover, K. Essentials of Robust Control;
Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1998.
(40) Liu, T.; Zhang, W.; Gu, D. Analytical design of two-degree-of-
freedom control scheme for open-loop unstable processes with time delay.
J. Process Control 2005, 15 (5), 559-572.
(41) Richard, Y. C.; Michael, G. S. Robust Control Toolbox User’s
Guide, 3rd Edition.; The MathWorks, Inc.: Natick, MA, 1998.
(42) Wood, R. K.; Berry, M. W. Terminal composition control of binary
distillation column. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1973, 28 (10), 1707-1717.
ReceiVed for reView October 10, 2005
ReVised manuscript receiVed February 27, 2006
Accepted February 27, 2006
IE051129Q