Robust Smith Predictor Design for

Time-Delay Systems with H∞ Performance

Vinicius de Oliveira 1 and Alireza Karimi 2

Automatic Control Laboratory, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de

Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland

Abstract: A new method for robust fixed-order H∞ controller design for uncertain time-delay
systems is presented. It is shown that the H∞ robust performance condition can be represented
by a set of convex constraints with respect to the parameters of a linearly parameterized
primary controller in the Smith predictor structure. Systems with uncertain dead-time and
with multimodel and frequency-domain uncertainty can be considered straightforwardly in the
proposed approach. Furthermore, it is shown that the design method can also be extended to
design of robust gain-scheduled dead-time compensators. The performance of the method is
illustrated by simulation examples.

1. INTRODUCTION uncertainty is proposed by Lee et al. [1999]. In particular,

first and second order plus dead-time systems which may
Most industrial processes present dead time in their dy- contain uncertainty in multiple parameters of the model
namics. Generally, dead times are caused by the time are considered. In Meinsma and Zwart [2000], tuning
needed to transport energy, mass or information, but they guidelines are presented for setpoint tracking considering
also can be caused by processing time or by accumulation model mismatches in the dead-time.
of time lags in a sequence of simple dynamic systems inter-
Recently, many researchers are interested in the optimal
connected in series (Normey-Rico and Camacho [2007]).
control of dead-time systems, especially H∞ control, i.e.,
The presence of dead times in the control loops has two to find a controller to internally stabilize the system
main consequences: it greatly complicates the analysis and and to minimize the H∞ -norm of an associated transfer
the design of feedback controllers and it makes satisfac- function. Many relevant results have been presented in
tory control performance more difficult to achieve (Palmor this framework using modified versions of the SP. See,
[1996]). Dead-time compensators can be used to improve for instance, Mirkin [2003], Meinsma and Zwart [2000]
the closed-loop performance of classical controllers (PI and Zhong [2003a]. Nonetheless, as pointed out by Zhong
or PID controllers) for processes with delay. The Smith [2003b], these controllers are too involved and the predic-
Predictor (SP) (See Fig.1), proposed in the late 1950s tor always includes additional unstable hidden modes even
by Smith [1957], was the first dead-time compensation for stable plants. As the author argues, these hidden modes
structure used to improve the performance of the classical are not safe as they tend to destabilize the system when
controllers and became the most known and used algo- implemented. Therefore, the practical significance of these
rithm to compensate dead time in the industry. results are limited.
Although the SP offers potential improvement of the This paper presents a new method to design fixed-order
closed-loop performance of process with large dead-time, SP controllers that considers uncertainty simultaneously in
it requires a good model since small modeling errors can the dead-time and in the rational part of the model. The
lead to very poor performance. In fact, even if the SP is performance specification, like the standard H∞ control
nominally stabilizing, the closed-loop system may become problem, is a constraint on the infinity norm of the
unstable for infinitesimal change in the process dynamics weighted sensitivity function and is represented by a set of
(Palmor [1980]). For this reason, research efforts have been convex constraints in the Nyquist diagram. A line search
focused on robustness issues of the SP. A tuning method on the upper bound γ of the infinity norm of the weighted
for models with one uncertain parameter is proposed by sensitivity function can be used in association to a convex
Brosilow [1979]. Easy tuning rules for SP in the presence feasibility problem to determine the primary controller
of dead-time uncertainty is addressed in Santacesaria and parameters. The proposed method can be used for PID
Scattolini [1993] and a guideline for selection the closed- controllers, which are of great practical interest, as well
loop bandwidth based on the dead-time uncertainty bound as for higher order linearly parametrized controllers in
is proposed. In Palmor and Blau [1994], a robust tuning discrete or continuous time. The main idea is introduced
rule is developed which considers the modeling error in the for LTI-SISO systems and will be extended to MIMO
dead time. Robust PID tuning for SP considering model systems in future works.
1 Vinicius de Oliveira is currently a PhD student student at the It is important to point out that a method to design
Department of Chemical Engineering of the Norwegian University of fixed-order controllers for standard control loops based on
Science and Technology, Norway convex constraints in the Nyquist diagram has been firstly
2 Corresponding author: [email protected] proposed in Karimi and Galdos [2010]. This paper uses
the same framework to design dead-time compensators for r + u y
time-delay systems. The extension to MIMO systems will Ceq (s) P (s)
−
be based on the idea presented in Galdos et al. [2010b] for
designing H∞ decoupling MIMO controllers.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section II the class of
models, controllers and the control objectives are defined. Fig. 2. Equivalent control diagram
Section III introduces the control design methodology 2.3 Design specifications
based on convex constraints in the Nyquist diagram. In
Section IV the results are extended to unstable time- The SP can be represented by a classical feedback loop
delay systems. Gain-scheduled SP is designed for time- (see Fig. 2) where Ceq (s) is the equivalent controller given
delay systems in Section V. Finally the concluding remarks by
are given. Ceq (s) = C(s)[1 + C(s)H(s)]−1 (6)
with H(s) = Gn (s) − P0 (s) = Gn (s)(1 − e−τn s ).
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION
Let the sensitivity function of the closed-loop system with
2.1 Class of models the i-th plant model Pi (s) be defined as
1 1 + C(s)H(s)
Si (s) = = (7)
Consider the class of stable time-delay LTI-SISO systems 1 + Pi (s)Ceq (s) 1 + C(s)[H(s) + Pi (s)]
with bounded infinity norm. It is assumed that the plant and the complementary sensitivity function as
model can be represented by: Pi (s)Ceq (s) C(s)Pi (s)
P (s) = G(s)e−τ s (1) Ti (s) = = (8)
1 + Pi (s)Ceq (s) 1 + C(s)[H(s) + Pi (s)]
where the time delay τ is unknown but belongs to a finite A standard robust control problem is to design a controller
set {τ1 , τ2 , . . . , τq } and the dead-time free part of the model that satisfies W1 Si ∞ < 1 for a set of models where
has unstructured multiplicative uncertainty described as: W1 (s) is the performance weighting filter. If the model is
G(s) = Gn (s)[1 + ∆(s)W2 (s)] (2) described by unstructured multiplicative uncertainty, the
where W2 (s) is a known stable uncertainty filter, Gn (s) necessary and sufficient condition for robust performance
the nominal dead-time free model and ∆(s) an unknown is given by (Doyle et al. [1992]):
stable transfer function with ∆∞ < 1. Therefore, we can |W1 Si | + |W2 Ti |∞ < 1 for i = 1, . . . , q (9)
assume that P (s) belongs to a set P of q models given by: The goal of the proposed approach is to design the primary

P = {Pi (s) = G(s)e−τi s ; i = 1, . . . , q} (3) controller C(s) in the SP structure to guarantee robust
performance of the closed-loop system.
2.2 Class of controllers 3. PROPOSED METHOD
The SP control structure shown in Fig.1 is considered. The robust performance condition (9) can be written as:
The nominal model P0 (s) = Gn (s)e−τn s with a fixed τn
belongs to {τ1 , τ2 , . . . , τq } is used for the implementation |W1 (jω)Si (jω)| + |W2 (jω)Ti (jω)| < 1, ∀ω (10)
of the controller. for i = 1, . . . , q. The dependency on frequency ω and s
will be omitted for brevity but the dependency on the
r + u y controller parameter ρ will be highlighted.
C(s) P (s)
−
Let Li (ρ) be defined as Li (ρ) = C(ρ)(H + Pi ). Note that
+ this transfer function is not equal to the open loop transfer
−
Gn (s) e−τn s function Leqi (ρ) = Pi Ceq (ρ) of the equivalent control loop
+
in Fig. 2. The main properties of Li (ρ) are:
yp
+ (1) linearity with respect to the controller parameter ρ;
(2) the closed loop poles are the roots of 1 + Li (ρ) = 0.
Fig. 1. Smith Predictor
The first property is clear because C(ρ) is linearly param-
eterized. To show the second property, let C(ρ) = D Nc
c
,
The primary controller C(s) is linearly parametrized by N
Gn = Dgg be defined. The equivalent controller can be
C(s) = ρ φ(s)
T
(4) written as
where ρ = [ρ1 , ρ2 , . . . , ρnc ] is an nc dimensional vector of
T Nc Dg
Ceq (ρ) = (11)
the controller parameters and Dc Dg + Nc Ng (1 − e−τn s )
φT (s) = [φ1 (s), φ2 (s), . . . , φnc (s)] (5) Then, we have:
is a vector of basis functions with φi (s) transfer functions Dc Dg + Nc Ng (1 − e−τns + e−τi s )
with no RHP poles. For instance, a PID controller could 1 + Leqi (s) = (12)
Dc Dg + Nc Ng (1 − e−τn s )
be linearly parametrized by
Note that the numerator of 1 + Leqi (s) is a quasi-
1 s
ρT = [Kp , Ki , Kd ] , φT (s) = [1, , ] polynomial and its zeros are the closed-loop poles of the
s 1 + Tf s system. On the other hand, we have
Dc Dg + Nc Ng (1 − e−τns + e−τi s ) if Ld is close to Li (ρ) (Karimi and Galdos [2010]). Note
1 + Li (ρ) = (13) that Li (ρ) can be written as:
Dc Dg
It is clear that 1 + Li (ρ) shares the same zeros with 1 + Li (ρ) = C(ρ)Gn + C(ρ)(Pi − P0 ) (22)
Leqi (s). This property will be used to prove the closed loop Therefore, Ld can be seen as the desired open loop transfer
stability. function of the system without dead-time, i.e., C(ρ)Gn .
This will be a good approximation if τi is close to τn or the
3.1 Main Result model mismatch Pi − P0 is small. For systems with large
uncertainty in the time delay, for each model Pi different
The main result of this section is given in the following Ld can be considered. In this case, Ldi can be computed
theorem. as follows:
Ld
Theorem 1. Consider the set of models P in (3) with Ldi = Ld + (Pi − P0 ) (23)
Gn
multiplicative uncertainty filter W2 (jω), then the linearly
parametrized controller in (4) in the SP structure guaran- Note that Ldi should not encircle the critical point. An
tees closed-loop stability and satisfy the following robust iterative algorithm can be used to improve the results. In
performance condition: this algorithm Ld in the (k + 1)-th iteration is computed
using the controller of the last iteration Ck (ρ) and (22):
|W1 Si | + |W2 Ti |∞ < 1 for i = 1, . . . , q (14)
Ldi = Ck (ρ)Gn + Ck (ρ)(Pi − P0 ) (24)
if

W1 (jω)[1 + C(jω, ρ)H(jω)] + 3.2 Primary controller design

W2 (jω)C(jω, ρ)Pi (jω) |1 + Ld (jω)|
The problem of minimizing the upper bound γ of the infin-
− Re{[1 + L∗d (jω)][1 + Li (jω, ρ)]} < 0 ity norm of the weighted sensitivity function is considered.
∀ω for i = 1, . . . , q (15) Therefore, the primary controller should be obtained from
where Ld (jω) is a strictly proper transfer function which the following optimization problem:
does not encircle the critical point and L∗d (jω) is its min γ
complex conjugate. ρ
Subject to: (25)
Proof : Since the real part of a complex number is less than |W1 Si |+|W2 Ti |∞ < γ for i = 1, . . . , q
or equal to its magnitude, we have
This optimization can be convexified using Theorem 1
Re{[1 + L∗d ][1 + Li (ρ)]} ≤ |[1 + L∗d ][1 + Li (ρ)]| (16) and solved by an iterative bisection algorithm. At each
Then, using (15) and the fact that |1 + Ld| = |1 + L∗d|, one iteration j, γj is fixed and W1 and W2 are replaced
obtains by W1 /γj and W2 /γj . Then, a feasibility problem is

W1 (1 + C(ρ)H) + W2 C(ρ)Pi − |1 + Li (ρ)| < 0 solved under the convex constraints (15). If the problem is
feasible, γj+1 is chosen smaller than γj . Otherwise γj+1 is
∀ω for i = 1, . . . , q (17) increased.
Using Li (ρ) = C(ρ)(H + Pi ) we have
Notice that the condition (15) is defined for every fre-
|W1 (1 + C(ρ)H)| + |W2 C(ρ)Pi | quency ω leading to infinite number of constraints. In
<1
|1 + C(ρ)(H + Pi )| practice, a frequency grid can be used with a sufficiently
∀ω for i = 1, . . . , q (18) large number of frequency points N (a finer grid can
be used around the crossover frequency). The effect of
that leads directly to (14). To prove that all closed-loop
gridding on the stability and performance of the closed
transfer functions are stable, consider (15) which gives:
loop system has been studied in Galdos et al. [2010a].
Re{[1 + L∗d (jω)][1 + Li (jω, ρ)]} > 0 ∀ω (19)
or, alternatively, Example 1 Consider the process described by (1) with
multiplicative uncertainty as in (2) with
wno{[1 + L∗d (jω)][1 + Li (jω, ρ)]} = 0 (20)
1
where wno stands for winding number around the origin. Gn (s) = (26)
Since both L∗d (jω) and Li (jω, ρ) are constant or zero (5s + 1)(10s + 1)
for the semi-circle with infinity radius of the Nyquist and
contour the wno depends only on the variation of s in −s2 − 2s
W2 (s) = 2 (27)
the imaginary axis. Thus, s + 2s + 1
wno{[1 + Ld (jω)]} = wno{[1 + Li (jω, ρ)]} (21) The unknown time delay τ belongs to the set [4.5, 5, 5.5].
The nominal model used in the SP structure is chosen
Since Ld (jω) satisfies the Nyquist stability criterion as P0 (s) = Gn (s)e−5s . The performance specification is
Li (jω, ρ) will do so and all zeros of 1 + Li (jω, ρ) will be in
defined by the following filter:
the left-hand side of the complex plan. Since the zeros of
1 + Li (jω, ρ) are the closed-loop poles, the system will be W1 (s) = 2/(30s + 1)2 (28)
internally stable. 2 A PID primary controller with Tf = 0.01 that minimizes
|W1 Si |+|W2 Ti |∞ < γ for i = 1, 2, 3 should be computed.
Remark I: The constraint in (15) is an inner convex
approximation of the non convex constraint in (14) or (10). Since the controller has an integrator, Ld is chosen as
The quality of this approximation depends on the choice of Ld (s) = ωc /s where ωc = 0.1 rad/s which is 20%
Ld . It can be shown that better approximation is achieved higher than open loop bandwidth. Then, the optimization
problem (25) is solved considering N = 100 equally C(ρ)
spaced frequency points between 10−3 and 103 rad/s. The Ceqm (ρ) = (30)
1 + C(ρ)H
resulting primary controller is: where
12.3s2 + 3.28s + 0.2201 H = Gm − P0 = (Nm − Nn e−τ s )
1
C(s) = (29)
0.01s2 + s Dn
and leads to γ = 0.313. This controller is compared to Note that the poles of H are zeros of Ceqm (ρ). Therefore,
that proposed in Kaya [2001]. Kaya’s controllers performs Nm must be tuned such that the zeros of Nm − Nn e−τ s
better than other controllers presented in the literature cancel the unstable poles in Dn . Once Nm has been
(Palmor and Blau [1994], Hagglund [1992] and Hang et al. properly designed, the primary controller can be obtained
[1995]). Fig. 3 depicts the performance of both controller by solving the optimization problem in (25) redefining
on unitary step setpoint change considering the time-delay H = Gm − P0 and Li (ρ) = (Gm − P0 + Pi )C(ρ).
τ = 4.5s, τ = 5.0s and τ = 5.5s. As it can be seen, both Here, care should be taken in the choice of Ld . As it has
controller performed well, however, the proposed controller been shown, the wno of 1 + Li equals the wno of 1 + Ld .
achieves faster response. Therefore, Ld should be chosen such that the number of
encirclement of the critical point (−1 + 0j) by its Nyquist
1
plot is equal to the number of unstable poles in Pi .
Outputs

τ = 4.5s
0.5 Example 2 Consider the model studied in Meinsma and
0
Zwart [2000] given by:
k
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

P (s) = [1 + ∆(s)W2 (s)]e−τ s (31)

1
s−a
τ= 5.0s
where k = 1, a = 1, τ = τn ± 0.02 and τn = 0.2.
Outputs

0.5
The interval of variation of τ is gridded using q = 3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
equally spaced points. A finer grid just increases the
number of constraints and for this example does not
1
change significantly the final controller. The performance
and uncertainty filters are respectively chosen as:
Outputs

τ= 5.5s
0.5

s+1 s + 1.1
W1 (s) = 2 and W2 (s) = 0.2 (32)
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time [s]
25 30 35 40
10s + 1 s+1
Here, we use the SP with modified dead-time free model
Fig. 3. Example 1: Blue solid line: proposed; black dot- (Fig. 4) due to its simplicity. The dead-time free model
dashed line: ref Kaya [2001] Gm (s) is chosen as
Tm s + 1
Gm (s) = . (33)
s−1
4. EXTENSION TO UNSTABLE SYSTEMS Tm is computed in order to obtain H(s) = Gm (s) − P0 (s)
without a pole in s = 1. Since
The SP in the scheme shown in Fig. 1 cannot be used for 1
unstable plants since the controller will contain zeros in H(s) = [Tm s + 1 − e−0.2s ], (34)
right-hand side of the s-plan which cancel the unstable s−1
poles in the plant and leads to instability. To avoid if Tm = e−0.2 − 1, then s = 1 is a zero of H(s).
this unstable zero-pole cancellation, the control structure A PI as the primary controller is designed. The first step is
shown in Fig.1 should be changed. Several alternatives to choose the transfer function Ld (s), which must encircle
are available in literature to cope with unstable processes the critical point in the Nyquist diagram once and must
with dead-time (see, for example, De Paor [1985], Majhi contain one integrator. Therefore, it is chosen as
and Atherton [1998], Liu et al. [2005], Normey-Rico and s+1
Camacho [2007, 2009]). Consider, for instance, the SP with Ld (s) = 10 . (35)
modified dead-time free model depicted in Fig. 4 which s(s − 1)
is discussed in Normey-Rico and Camacho [2007]. In this Optimization problem (25) is solved considering N = 100
case, the dead-time free model is defined as Gm = N m equally spaced frequency points between ω = 10−3 rad/s
Dn and
the equivalent controller becomes: and ω = 103 rad/s and the following controller is obtained:
C0 (s) = (3.582s + 0.5838)/s (36)
r + u y
C(s) P (s) which yields γ = 0.6854. This result can be further
− improved by using a new Ld (s) based on C0 (s) in the
+ optimization problem. With this new Ld (s) = Gm (s)C0 (s)
Gm (s) P0 (s) − the optimal primary controller is:
C(s) = (2.994s + 0.4612)/s (37)
yp +
and γ = 0.6074. Figure 5 depicts the function
+
Γi (jω) = |W1 (jω)Si (jω)| + |W2 (jω)Ti (jω)|
Fig. 4. Smith Predictor with modified dead-time free where Si and Ti are respectively given by (7) and (8)
model with H = Gm − P0 and Pi is obtained by gridding of τ .
Note that the maximum value of the function is 0.6072, r + u y
which occurs when τ = τn + 0.02 = 0.22, is close to C(s, θ) P (s, θ)
−
the bound γ. It is worth to point out that, although
the conditions given in Theorem 1 are only sufficient to +
−
guarantee Γi ∞ < γ, with a proper choice of Ld it is Gn (s, θ) e−τn (θ)s
possible to obtain a solution with very low conservatism.
+
Furthermore, the resulting controller is a standard PI yp
which can be implemented in a straightforward manner +
and has great practical significance.
Fig. 6. Gain-Scheduled Smith Predictor
0.65
ρT (θ) = [ρ1 (θ), ρ2 (θ), . . . , ρn (θ)] (40)
0.6
τn+∆τ Every gain is a polynomial function of order δ of the
0.55 scheduling parameters and is defined as
0.5 ρi (θ) = (νi,δ )T θδ + . . . + (νi,1 )T θ + νi,0 (41)
τn−∆τ
Magnitude

0.45 and θ denotes element-by-element power of k of vector θ.

k

0.4 The sensitivity and complementary sensitivity functions

0.35
are respectively given by:
1 + C(s, θ)H(s, θ)
0.3 Si (s, θ) = (42)
0.25
1 + C(s, θ)(H(s, θ) + Pi (s, θ))
C(s, θ)Pi (s, θ)
0.2 Ti (s, θ) = , ∀θ ∈ Θ
1 + C(s, θ)(H(s, θ) + Pi (s, θ))
−2 0 2
10 10 10
Frequency, [rad,s]
where H(s, θ) = Gn (s, θ)−P0 (s, θ). The primary controller
Fig. 5. Example 2: Blue solid line: Γ for τ = 0.18; green is obtained from the following optimization problem:
solid line: Γ for τ = 0.2; black solid line: Blue solid min γ
line: Γ for τ = 0.22; red dot-dashed line: γ. ρ
Subject to: (43)
For the same example, controller designed in Meinsma and |W1 Si (s, θ)| + |W2 Ti (s, θ)|∞ < γ
Zwart [2000] leads to the optimal γ = 0.9407 which is for i = 1, . . . , q, ∀θ ∈ Θ
55% higher than the value obtained with the proposed
method. It should be mentioned that the true robust Optimization problem (43) is again solved using an itera-
performance criterion in (25) is not minimized in Meinsma tive bisection algorithm as previously presented. At each
and Zwart [2000]. Instead, the maximum singular value of iteration, a feasibility problem is solved with the following
[W1 (jω)S(jω) W2 (jω)T (jω)] for all ω is minimized by convex constraints:

the H∞ control theory. |W1 (jωk )[1 + C(jωk , θl )H(jωk , θl )|+

5. GAIN-SCHEDULED CONTROLLER DESIGN |W2 (jωk )C(jωk , θl )P (jωk , θl )| |1 + Ld (jωk )|−

Consider an uncertain plant P (s, θ) belonging to the set: Re{[1 + L∗d (jωk )][1 + Li (jωk , θl )]} < 0
for k = 1, . . . , N, i = 1, . . . , q, l = 1, . . . , m (44)
P = {G(s, θ)e−τi (θ)s , i = 1, . . . , q} (38)
where the dead-time free part of the model has unstruc- Example 3 The design method is applied on a simulated
tured multiplicative uncertainty and is described as: system having a resonance whose frequency changes as
G(s, θ) = Gn (s, θ)[1 + ∆(s)W2 (s)] (39) a function of a scheduling parameter θ. Consider the
and θ is a vector of scheduling parameters that belongs following plant model
to a finite set Θ = {θ1 , θ2 , . . . , θm } (corresponding e.g. to P (s, θ) = G(s, θ)e−τ s (45)
the different operating point parameters). It is assumed where G(s, θ) = Gn (s, θ)[1 + ∆(s)W2 (s)] and
that the operating point does not frequently change (the
stability and performance are achieved for the frozen (2 + 0.2θ)2
Gn (s, θ) = (46)
scheduling parameter). The dead-time is also a function s2 + 0.2(2 + 0.2θ)s + (2 + 0.2θ)2
of the scheduling parameter and uncertain, so for a given 1.1337s2 + 6.8857s + 9
value of θ it belongs to the set {τ1 (θ), τ2 (θ), . . . , τq (θ)}. W2 (s) = 0.8 (47)
(s + 1)(s + 10)
We will consider the SP shown in Fig. 6 where both, and θ ∈ [−1, −0.5, 0, 0.5, 1]. Consider also that the dead-
the nominal model P0 (s, θ) = Gn (s, θ)e−τn (θ)s and the time is within the interval τ ∈ [2.7, 3.0, 3.3] but its ex-
primary controller C(s, θ) are functions of the scheduling act value is unknown in runtime. The objective is to
parameter vector θ. The goal is to compute a primary gain- design a primary gain-scheduling PID controller for the
scheduled controller for this scheme that meets the H∞ Smith Predictor structure considering the performance
robust performance specification. 2
filter W1 (s) = (20s+1) 2 . The parameters ρ of the primary

The primary controller C(s, θ) is linearly parametrized by: controller will be affine functions of the scheduling param-
C(s, θ) = ρT (θ)φ(s), where the basis function vector φ(s) eter θ. The filter of the derivative action is chosen to have
is defined in (5) and ρT (θ) is given by a time constant of Tf = 0.01s.
Finally, optimization problem (43) is solved considering G. Galdos, A. Karimi, and R. Longchamp. Robust con-
Ld = 1/s and N = 100 equally spaced frequency points troller design by convex optimization based on finite
between 10−2 and 102 rad/s. The resulting gain-scheduled frequency samples of spectral models. In 49th IEEE
controller is given by: Kp (θ) = −0.0168θ+0.2152, Ki (θ) = Conference on Decision and Control, Atlanta, USA,
0.0144θ + 2.4736, Kd (θ) = −0.1224θ + 0.6424. 2010a.
G. Galdos, A. Karimi, and R. Longchamp. H∞ controller
This controller leads to: design for spectral MIMO models by convex optimiza-
|W1 Si (s, θl )| + |W2 Ti (s, θl )|∞ < γ = 0.8928 (48) tion. Journal of Process Control, 20(10):1175 – 1182,
l = 1, . . . , 5, i = 1, 2, 3 2010b.
The gain-scheduled controller is evaluated considering θ = T. Hagglund. A predictive PI controller for processes with
−1, 0, 1 and τ = 3.3s. The performance is compared to a long dead times. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 12
fixed-gain PID designed for the nominal case (θ = 0 and (1):57–60, 1992.
τ = 3s). Figure 7 shows the step response of the gain- C. C. Hang, Q. Wang, and L. S. Cao. Self-tuning Smith
scheduled controller in all conditions (blue, red and green predictors for processes with long dead time. Interna-
solid lines) compared with the fixed PID controller (black tional journal of adaptive control and signal processing,
dashed line, highly oscillating). 9(3):255–270, 1995.
A. Karimi and G. Galdos. Fixed-order H∞ controller de-
sign for nonparametric models by convex optimization.
1 Automatica, 46(8):1388–1394, 2010.
0.9 I. Kaya. Tuning Smith predictors using simple formulas
0.8 derived from optimal responses. Industrial & engineer-
0.7 ing chemistry research, 40(12):2654–2659, 2001.
0.6 D. Lee, M. Lee, S. Sung, and I. Lee. Robust PID tuning
Outputs

0.5
for Smith predictor in the presence of model uncertainty.
0.4
Journal of Process Control, 9(1):79–85, 1999.
0.3
T. Liu, Y. Z. Cai, D. Y. Gu, and W. D. Zhang. New
0.2
modified Smith predictor scheme for integrating and
unstable processes with time delay. IEE Proceedings-
0.1
Control Theory and Applications, 152(2):238–246, 2005.
0
0 5 10 15
Time [s]
20 25 30 S. Majhi and D. P. Atherton. A new Smith predictor and
controller for unstable and integrating processes with
time delay. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE Conference
Fig. 7. Example 3: Blue, red and green solid line: gain-
on Decision and Control, pages 1341–1345, 1998.
scheduled PID Smith Predictor and G2 using θ1 =
G. Meinsma and H. Zwart. On H∞ control for dead-time
−1, θ3 = 0 and θ5 = 1 respectively; black dashed line:
systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 45
fixed PID Smith Predictor using θ = −1.
(2):272–285, 2000.
L. Mirkin. On the extraction of dead-time controllers
6. CONCLUSIONS and estimators from delay-free parametrizations. IEEE
Trans. on Automatic Control, 48(4):543–553, 2003.
This paper presents a new method to design robust Smith J. E. Normey-Rico and E. F. Camacho. Control of dead-
predictor for uncertain time-delay systems using convex time processes. Springer Verlag, 2007.
optimization techniques. The proposed approached allows J. E. Normey-Rico and E. F. Camacho. Unified approach
one to design PI/PID as well as higher order primary for robust dead-time compensator design. Journal of
controllers in the Smith predictor structure which provide Process Control, 19(1):38–47, 2009.
robust H∞ performance for systems with uncertain dead- Z. J. Palmor. Stability properties of Smith dead-time com-
time and multiplicative or multimodel uncertainty in the pensator controllers. International Journal of Control,
dead-time free model of the system. The method is based 32:937–49, 1980.
on a convex approximation of the H∞ robust performance Z. J. Palmor. Time-delay compensation Smith predictor
criterion in the Nyquist diagram. This approximation and its modifications. In W. Levine, editor, The Control
relies on the choice of a desired open-loop transfer function Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1996.
Ld for the dead-time free model of the plant. The extension Z. J. Palmor and M. Blau. An auto-tuner for Smith dead
of the approach to MIMO systems is under investigation. time compensator. International Journal of Control, 60
(1):117–135, 1994.
REFERENCES C. Santacesaria and R. Scattolini. Easy tuning of Smith
predictor in presence of delay uncertainty. Automatica,
C. B. Brosilow. The structure and design of Smith 29(6):1595–1597, 1993.
predictors from the viewpoint of inferential control. O. J. M. Smith. Closer control of loops with dead time.
In Proceedings of Joint American Control Conference, Chemical Engineering Progress, 53(5):217–219, 1957.
Denver, Colorado, 1979. Q. C. Zhong. On standard H∞ control of processes with a
A. M. De Paor. A modified Smith predictor and controlled single delay. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
for unstable processes with time delay. International 48(6):1097–1103, 2003a.
Journal of Control, 41(4):1025–1036, 1985. Q. C. Zhong. H∞ control of dead-time systems based on
C. J. Doyle, B. A. Francis, and A. R. Tannenbaum. a transformation. Automatica, 39(2):361–366, 2003b.
Feedback Control Theory. Mc Millan, New York, 1992.