Robust Tuning of the Simplest Dead Time
Compensators
Mikuláš Huba
Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia
Email: mikulas.huba@stuba.sk
Abstract—This paper rediscovers and modifies the oldest and
the simplest dead-time compensator (DTC) introduced originally
by [1] and shows new possibility for its robust tuning by the
performance portrait method. This method comprising computer
based analysis, compressed characterization and visualization
of the closed loop properties achieved by evaluating set of
performance measures over chosen grid of loop parameters with
an optimization based on sweeping all possible stored data may
be successfully used for an optimal nominal or robust tuning
[2]–[4] based either on the known plant model with parameters
taking values upon uncertainty intervals, or directly on measured
experimental data [5]. In order to enable an easy comparing with
other possible solutions new robustness characteristics will be
derived showing how a model uncertainty influences decrease of
the loop performance.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Tuning of a closed loop systems involving dead-time still
represents a challenging domain of control research. Thereby,
the importance of dead-time systems that are being used to
describe transport of mass, energy and information and to
approximate accumulation of time lags in a chain of low order
systems is permanently increasing, to mention just different
new applications arising in the field of remote control via
computer networks and telecommunication links. As it was
shown in many contributions (see e.g. [6]), in the loops
with PID controllers an increase of the dead-time values
with respect to the dominant plant time constant leads to a
rapid performance deterioration. In robust design controllers
proposed to eliminate dead-time (denoted frequently as the
dead-time compensators, DTCs) are usually proposed for a
nominal plant representing whole family of plants defined by
a norm-bounded multiplicative uncertainty error. The required
performance is then tuned in the frequency domain with the
aim to keep the modeling error within prescribed limits also for
the plant with the largest deviation from the nominal operating
point. In carrying out such a control design one may e.g.
use the phase, or the gain margin, the maximum sensitivity
[7], or the dead-time margin [8]. However, when aiming to
design control loops and having higher requirements on the
resulting control quality that should be respected by all plants
of a given family, the frequency domain approach shows to be
not sufficiently effective [2], [3]. Instead of this, the shape and
time related performance measures based upon closed loop
step responses will now be used. As it is well known, it is
not enough to demonstrate the quality of DTCs just by the
responses measured in nominal case. Their robustness [6] is
then usually shown for the dead-time uncertainty in the range
of 10-20% of its nominal value. In some papers, also the case
with a gain estimation error in the range 10-20% of the nominal
value is shown. So, in total, the DTC performance is used to be
demonstrated in 3-6 different working points. This is, however,
still far from being enough for fully characterizing such a
complex closed loop performance, as the DTC have, from a
potential user view. In this paper the loop performance will
be characterized by information extracted from hundreds, or
thausends of experiments each one carried out for a different
working point. The interesting shape and time related closed
loop properties will be mapped, stored, visualized and used
for the robust control design based on a compressed form
of information representation called here as the closed-loop
performance portrait (PP). The PP method (PPM) is then used
for comparing and optimizing properties of different DTCs.
When considering tuning rules appropriate for education
& practice, according to [9] they should be 1. well motivated,
2. preferably model-based, 3. analytically derived, 4. simple
and easy to memorize and 5. work well on a wide range
of processes. Thereby, a controller tuning is usually based
on trade-off between speed of response, good disturbance
rejection, stability, robustness, less input usage, or less sen-
sitivity to measurement noise [9]. Despite that one may agree
with all these requirements, it is interesting to note that the
up now most frequently used and cited tuning method by
Ziegler and Nichols [10] does not fulfill at least the 3rd
requirement in previous list. Of course, their method is not
universally applicable, but the main reason for mentioning it
is that we may learn from it. It was proposed to generalize
results of numerous experiments on a sample of representative
processes under chosen shape-related performance measure
(quarter amplitude damping). Such an approach can today
be easily performed by using computers. Thereby, one can
easily extend spectrum of different qualitative & quantitative
measures chosen on demand and in different combinations
by engineer carrying out a control design requiring particular
specifications.
This new computer analysis of control loops based on
generating the closed loop PP [2], [3], [11]) is briefly described
to be used in analyzing, designing and comparing DTCs and
in visualizing their properties. The key question is, how to
robustly design control loops with stable dead-time dominated
plants to keep their setpoint and disturbance step responses
nearly monotonic at the the plant input and output also in
the case of possible plant-model mismatch. To cope with this
problem, it is firstly necessary to introduce measures for evalu-
ating deviations of real responses from ideal monotonic (MO)
shapes and then to propose algorithms processing achieved
 1P One-Pulse, with one extreme point
2D Two Dimensional
DO Disturbance Observer
FSP Filtered Smith Predictor
I Integral
IAE Integral of Absolute Error
MO Monotonic, Monotonicity
PDO Predictive Disturbance Observer
PI Proportional Integrative
PP Performance Portrait
PPM Performance Portrait Method
PrI Predictive Integral Controller
SP Smith Predictor
TV Total Variance
TV0 Integral deviation from MO
TV1 Integral deviation from 1P
TABLE I. BASIC ACRONYMS USED IN THE PAPER
information.
The remaining paper is structured as follows. Chapter 2
recalls basic performance measures for evaluation of nearly
monotonic setpoint step responses. In Chapter 3 the evaluation
of disturbance step responses is briefly mentioned. Chapter 4
deals with predictive integral controller design for the simplest
stable dead time dominant plant. In Chapter 5 history of the
predictive I controllers is briefly discussed. Chapter 6 shows
an application example with a higher-order plant and Chapter
7 brings finally short conclusions to the paper.
II. P ERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR EVALUATING NEARLY
MONOTONIC RESPONSES
A. Stable (ST) control and indication of instability
In the time domain the property of stability (ST) and
monotonicity (MO) may be easily tested numerically by eval-
uating simulated or experimentally measured transients, in our
case the setpoint step responses. The Bounded-Input-Bounded-
Output (BIBO) and Internal Model Control (IMC) stability
require for a bounded plant input u(t) a bounded plant output
y(t) that for a given limits Ymax , Umax
|y(t)| < Ymax < ∞; |u(t)| < Umax < ∞;
can be tested numerically. Although in this paper we are
dealing with constrained continuous signals, we will consider
their values sampled with a sampling frequency sufficiently
high enabling to preserve all their important features.
A stable setpoint step responses running to the reference
value r may further be characterized by performance indices
such as an IAE (Integral of Absolute Error)
Z ∞
IAE = |e(t) − e∞ | dt ; e = r − y (2)
0 mated by a model
or a relative Total Variance measure proposed by modification
of Total Variance [9] as T V0 (y) ( [2])
X
T V0 (y) = |yi+1 − yi | − |y∞ − y0 | (3)
i Kmin = 1/2 ; Kmax = 1 ; Tdmin = 1/2 ; Tdmax = 1
Here, y0 and y∞ represent the initial and the final output
values.
Stability, or more precisely instability degrees can be
indicated by values of the parameters Ymax and Umax in (1),
or in many different ways by achieved IAE, or TV values,
by the maximal overshooting, damping ratio, etc. When these
measures increase over some value chosen e.g. as a multiple
of optimal value, transients may be denoted as unstable.
%labelsec:DisturbanceResponse In evaluating disturbance
step responses one can test the same properties as for the
setpoint response, but to note that:
1) Immediately after a disturbance step change the plant
output starts to rise (fall) and controller needs some time to
reconstruct a new disturbance value, to balance its effect and
to reverse output to move back to the reference value. So, the
evaluation of MO output increase (decrease) may start just after
its turnover characterized by an extreme point ym . Deviations
from such a response will be quantified by means of
X
T V1 (y) = |yi+1 − yi | − |2ym − y∞ − y0 | (4)
i
Thereby, y0 and y∞ represent initial and final input values and
ym ∈ / (y0 , y∞ ) is an extreme output value. Though, to keep
the discussion simple, we will speak about MO response, even
it actually is a one-pulse (1P) response.
2) By a prefilter in the reference signal it is possible to
slow down dynamics of the setpoint step responses and thus to
avoid an overshooting. In this way it is possible to get tighter
disturbance rejection by simultaneously having MO setpoint
step response.
In general, MO areas for disturbance response are different
from those corresponding to setpoint response and the con-
troller design has to compromise these differences.
III. PREDICTIVE (DEAD TIME) I0 -CONTROLLER
(P rI0 )
Predictive I0 controller may be considered as a gener-
alization of the first known predictive (dead-time) controller
introduced by Reswick [1] yet before the well known Smith
predictor [12]. Due to its high sensitivity it has been never
∀t > 0 (1) broadly used. However, after its extension by low-pass filters
known from the much later introduced disturbance observer
[13], one gets a robust and universal controller that may be
considered as a counterpart to the well known and broadly used
PI controller. Thus, despite the seemingly simple structure, a
broader exploitation of this new solution has been enabled just
by proposing a new performance portrait method (PPM) for
its reliable tuning [14].
Consider a stepwise constant reference signal r(t) and a
stable uncertain plant with dominant dead-time Td approxi-
S(s) = Ke−Td s
(5)
K ∈ hKmin , Kmax i ; Td ∈ hTdmin , Tdmax i
with parameters defined e.g. as
(6)
The task is to design a robust controller according to Fig-
ure 1 by choosing an operating point K0 , Td0 , a DO filter
characterized by n and Tn and a prefilter given by m and Tp
that would offer the fastest possible dynamics of the setpoint

Figure 1. Predictive I controller of the dynamical class 0 (P rI0 ) designed as
a filtered static feedforward control with an input disturbance reconstruction
and compensation; δ-measurement noise
and disturbance responses and thereby guaranteeing the shape
related output constraints
T V0 (ys ) ≤ ys ; T V1 (yd ) ≤ yd (7)
i.e. MO setpoint step responses of the output variable with a
tolerable output deviation from MO chosen ys , i.e. as ys ∗
100% of the reference value step r = 1 and with a tolerable
output deviation of the output disturbance responses from a 1P
response specified with yd , i.e. as yd ∗ 100% of the output
disturbance step di = 1. In this way, one may add also shape
related input constraints
T V0 (us ) ≤ us ; T V1 (ud ) ≤ ud (8)
with some us and ud . Even when wishing to get responses
with ideal shapes, in order to respect the always limited
precision of control and also that of computer simulations,
some ”sufficiently” small
 = ys = yd = us = ud = 0.001 (9)
and the input disturbance-to-output y1 closed loop transfer
function is
KKm e−Td s (Tn s + 1)n − e−Tm s


Fi1 (s) = (12)
Km ((Tn s + 1)n − e−Tm s ) + Ke−Td s
Since Fw1 (0) = 1 and Fdi1 (0) = 0, this scheme guarantees
rejection of piece-wise constant disturbances also for K0 6= K
and Tm 6= Td . These properties hold also for the output y0 ,
where
Fs0 (s) = Fw1 (s) eTd s ; Fi0 (s) = Fi1 (s) eTd s (13)
For the setpoint and disturbance step responses that do not
change its sign the IAE values may be analytically calculated
as
IAEs1 = Km (Tm + nTn )/K ; IAEi1 = Km (Tm + nTn )
(14)
Thus, for a given plant (5), to keep the IAE values as small
as possible, one usually has to choose as small as possible
parameters Km , Tm , n and Tn . Thereby, it is to remember that
such an approach will be limited by:
• validity of the used plant model and
• the limits imposed by the dynamics of the correspond-
ing closed loop.
The first type of limitation requires that the filter time
constants Tn influencing not only the measurement noise
attenuation, but also the closed loop robustness, should not
be arbitrarily low, especially in situations with no considered
dead time uncertainty. This is caused by the fact that several
possible loop time constants may be included (for the sake of
model simplicity) into the model dead time Td , which may
become apparent especially in situations with Tm = Td .

will be chosen Such a task has been firstly treated for n = 1 A. Performance portrait method (PPM)
and Tp = Tn in [14]. Experience gained in dealing with DO
The second type of above mentioned limitations will be
based controllers for the first order plants gives motivation to
analyzed by the performance portrait method (PPM). To be
come back to this controller tuning with a question, how its
able to use the generated PP for any plant (5), the setpoint
closed loop robustness and noise attenuation depend on the
step responses will be mapped by using normed coordinates
order of the filter
1 K Tn Td
Qn (s) = (10) κ= ; τf = ; τd = ; p = Tm s (15)
(1 + Tn s)n Km Tm Tm
that may be used both in the disturbance reconstruction and which yields
as a prefilter in the setpoint filtration that prevents possible κe−τd p
Fs1 (p) = ((τn p+1)n −e−p )+κe−τd p
overshotings. (16)
Km κe−τd p ((τn p+1)n −e−p )
Fi1 (p) = κ((τn p+1)n −e−p )+κe−τd p
Definition 1 (Predictive I0 controller - P rI0 ): Under the
P rI0 controller we will understand a static feedforward control
with a gain 1/K0 extended by the input or output disturbance The robustness analysis by the PPM will be based on theo-
reconstruction by means of a ”predictive disturbance observer” rems similar to the Theorem 2 proven in [2] stating that when
(PDO) and its compensation at the static feedforward output considering PP including items IAE(ȳs ), IAE(ȳd ), T V 0 (ȳs ),
compensation (Figure 1) with the PDO filter time constant Tn T V 1 (ȳd ), T V 0 (ūs ) and T V 0 (ūd ) generated for the considered
and by the prefilter with the time constant Tp (in the simplest plant (5) with K = 1, Td = 1 over chosen grid of points
case with Tp = Tn ). Tm , n, Tn from the setpoint responses (r = 1, di = 0) with
output and input ȳs (τ ), ūs (τ ) and from the input disturbance
For Tp = Tn , the setpoint-to-output closed loop transfer responses (r = 0, di = 1) with ȳd (τ ), ūd (τ ) stored and
function of the PrI0 controller corresponding to the output y1 expressed over grid of normalized variables
and a plant-model parameter mismatch may be derived as
κ = K/Km ∈ [κP P min , κP P max ]
Ke−Td s τd = Td /Tm ∈ [τdP P min , τdP P max ] (17)
Fs1 (s) = (11)
Km ((Tn s + 1)n − e−Tm s ) + Ke−Td s τn = Tn /Tm ∈ [τnP P min , τnP P max ]
 3 6
n=1
n=2
2.5 n=3
n=4
n=5
2
∆IAEΣ
1.5
1
0.5
0 2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
∆ =(T −T )/T
T dmax dmin dmin
Figure 2. Relative dead time robustness characteristics for  = 0.001 and
different filter orders
then, the loop performance measures corresponding to any
plant parameters K, Td and controller parameters Km , Tm , Tn
belonging to the range (17) with the corresponding responses
ys (t), us (t), yd (t) and ud (t) may be calculated according to
IAE(ys ) = Td IAE(ȳs ) ; IAE(yd ) = KTd IAE(ȳd )
T V0 (ys ) = T V 0 (ȳs ) ; T V1 (yd ) = K T V 1 (ȳd )
1 and, according to the Theorem 3 in [2], by locating an UCS
T V0 (us ) = K T V 0 (ūs ) ; T V1 (ud ) = T V 1 (ūd )
(18)
B. Robustness characteristics for a dead time uncertainty
In [14] it has been shown, how this controller may be tuned
for n = 1 by the PPM by considering uncertainty of both
model parameters (6) in a 3D coordinate space. However, in
order to be able to evaluate impact of the filter order n on
the overall closed loop robustness, it is more appropriate to
derive new robustness characteristics expressing influence of a
particular uncertain parameter (approximated by a fixed value
Km , or Tm ) on the loop performance. Thereby, we will require
to keep the shape related constraints (3) and (4) and to evaluate
the corresponding increase of the IAE (2) values of the setpoint
and disturbance step responses. For such situations it is enough
to generate 2D performance portraits corresponding either to
κ = 1, or τd = const ≈ 1.
Thus, to characterize robustness aspects of the closed loop
control, the corresponding properties will now be checked by
the PPM [2], [3] for a single uncertain parameter. Firslty, the
closed loop dead-time
Td ∈ hTdmin , Tdmax i
will be considered. Thereby, the dead time uncertainty may be
characterized by a relative uncertainty value
∆T = (Tdmax − Tdmin )/Tdmin
Then, in a normed 2D parameter subspace τd , τn , all possible
working points
κ = K/Km = 1 ; τd = Td /Tm ; τn = Tn /Tm
5.5
5
4.5
IAEΣ
4
3.5
n=1
3
n=2
n=3
2.5 n=4
n=5
1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
∆ =(T −T )/T
T dmax dmin dmin
Figure 3. Absolute dead time robustness characteristics for  = 0.001 and
different filter orders
trace out a line segment denoted as an Uncertainty Line
Segment (ULS) that represents a special case of an uncertainty
curve segment (UCS) [2]. It has been shown there that the aim
of an optimal robust controller tuning satisfying given shape
constraints may be interpreted as to optimally locate an UCS
(21) to lie in an area with admissible shape parameter values
into areas with zero deviations from ideal shapes one gets
full performance invariance against dead time perturbations.
The aim is to keep for all possible values of an uncertain
parameter (19) and a chosen controller tuning the tolerable
shape related deviations (3),(4) (9) yielding a minimal value
of the cost function (2).
To simplify the evaluation of the performance changes, it
will be characterized by the sum of the IAE values for the
setpoint and disturbance steps of the output y1 corresponding
to the dead time in the feedforward path
IAEΣ = IAEs + IAEd (22)
For an increasing ∆T (20), one gets by the PPM the deadtime
robustness characteristics showing for particular filter orders n
the corresponding increase of the IAE (22) on ∆T (Figure 2).
It is to note that the minimal relative performance decrease
corresponds to n = 2. However, at the same time, the
absolutely lowest performance decrease due to the dead time
uncertainty corresponds to n = 1 (Figure 3). Thus, when
wishing to discuss about impact of the filter order on the
loop robustness, one has strictly define its meaning. Since
(19) the discussion of robustness have been mostly oriented on a
robust stability [15], this aspect has been neglected up to now.
In interpreting these characteristics by the PP (Figure 4) one
has to note that by increasing the dead time uncertainty (19)
(20) the length of an uncertainty line segment (corresponding to
all possible working points with the first coordinate Td /Tm
increases and thus, to be located in regions with the shape
related deviations below the chosen value (9) it must be shifted
(21) to higher Tn
 TV0(us) TV1(ud) TV0(us) TV1(ud)
1 1
0.001
τn=Tn/Tm

τn=Tn/Tm
0.001 4 4
0.1 0.1
0. 1
0.00.1

1
0.5 1 0.5 1 0 1
0.00

0.00
0.1 0.101 2 0 2
10 10
1 0.1
1 1 1
0.6 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2
TV0(ys) TV1(yd) TV0(ys) TV1(yd)
1 1
τn=Tn/Tm

τn=Tn/Tm
0.001 0.001 4 4
0.1 0.1
1 1
0.00.1 0.00.1
1

1
0.5 1 0.5 1
0.00

0.00
0.1 0.1 2 0 2 0
10 10
1 1 1 1
0.6 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2
IAE(ys) IAE(yd) IAE(ys) IAE(yd)
1 2 1 2 3 3
τn=Tn/Tm

τn=Tn/Tm
4 4
4

4
3 3

8
0.5 0.5 6 2 6 2
4 1.5 4 1.5 2 4 3
2 4 3
65
18
30 65
18
30
23 23 2 1.5 234 2 1.5 234
0.6 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 1 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.5 1 1.5 2
τ =T /T τ =T /T κ =K/K κ =K/K
d d m d d m d m d m

Figure 4. The closed loop performance portrait for n = 1 and an uncertainty Figure 5. The closed loop performance portrait for n = 1 and an uncertainty
line segment (ULS) corresponding to an uncertain dead time (19), κ = 1 line segment (ULS) corresponding to an uncertain gain (23), τd = 1

τn≥τn,min=2
C. Robustness characteristics for a gain uncertainty 1.4
n=1
Let us now consider a plant gain uncertainty n=2
1.2
n=3
K ∈ hKmin , Kmax i (23) n=4
1 n=5
that may also be characterized by a relative value
∆K = (Ksmax − Ksmin )/Ksmin (24) 0.8
∆IAEΣ

Then, for a P rI0 controller with fixed parameters Km , Tm

and Tn acting on an plant with a fixed Td and an uncertain 0.6

gain K, in a normed 2D parameter subspace κ, τn , all possible

working points 0.4

κ = K/Km ; κ ∈ hκmin , κmax i

(25) 0.2
Td = Tm = const, ; Tn = const
trace out an Uncertainty Line Segment (ULS). The aim of an 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
optimal robust controller tuning satisfying the shape related ∆K=(Kmax−Kmin)/Kmin
constraints and minimal IAE values may be interpreted as to
optimally locate an ULS (25) to lie in an area with admissible
Figure 6. Relative gain robustness characteristics for  = 0.001 and
shape parameter values. Thereby, one has to remember that τnmin = 2
a model dead time Tm represents always a sum of smaller
delays (among them also time constants) that are dominated
by a dead time value. Due to this, an assumption Tm = Td , i.e. which should guarantee a constant decrease of the dynamics
τd = 1 leads to an unrealistic results that may be characterized corresponding to a constant increase of the term nTn in the
by Figure 5. In such a case, the ULS will always be located IAE values (14). Such a constraint frequently follows from the
at the lowest available τn P P min. During such a position at fact that such controllers are mostly implemented as quasi-
the lower PP border, up to the moment, when the whole ULS continuous, i.e. with a sampling period Ts that should be
fits into the PP area with required shape related deviations, by sufficiently short [16]. That means that one may only choose
increasing the uncertainty κ the IAE values do not change. filter orders n fulfilling the condition
However, since an ULS placement left from κ = 1 τnmin /n >> Ts (28)
may only be achieved by Km > 1, which leads to slower
responses (increased IAE values (14)), this trivial case of gain-
Already in the case of the relative gain robustness charac-
invariant, but slow transient responses may be eliminated by
teristics that are starting from the optimal nominal performance
an additional optimization constraint
values corresponding to ∆K = 0 one may see that the lowest
κmax > 1 (26) sensitivity to the gain uncertainty corresponds to n = 1
(Figure 6). From the absolute gain characteristics in Figure 7
A similar effect may be achieved by adding an additional
it is obvious that the lowest absolute IAEΣ values correspond
constraint on the filter time constants
again to n = 1. In general, the differences between particular
τn > τn,min /n (27) filter orders increase by increasing τn,min .
 τ ≥τ =2
n n,min
7.5
7 cept,” Trans. ASME, vol. 1, pp. 153–162, 1956.
6.5
6 n=1
n=2
IAEΣ
5.5 n=3
n=4
5 n=5
4.5
4 [6]
3.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
∆ =(K −K )/K
K max min min
Figure 7. Absolute gain robustness characteristics for  = 0.001 and
τnmin = 2
IV. C ONCLUSIONS
The analyzed predictive I-controller represents the simplest
dead time compensator for control of dead time systems that
may be interpreted as a static feedforward extended by a pre-
dictive (dead time) disturbance observer. It is well known that
the model based controllers may hardly be tuned by traditional
intuitive approaches known from the PID control. Similarly as
a computer tomography, the performance portrait method gave
birth to a new tool enabling an easy analysis and design of such
”tricky” systems. To compare such solutions, it is now possible
to derive their robustness characteristics showing impact of an
uncertain model parameter on the resulting loop performance
evaluated by the shape and time related performance measures
in the time domain. Although the carried out analysis of the
influence of higher order DO filters essentially confirms earlier
results achieved in the frequency domain [15], [17]–[19], they
are fully focused on the robust performance, not only on the
robust stability. Thereby, differences between the relative and
absolute robustness characteristics have been firstly noticed.
The analysis also confirmed another known fact that a dead
time uncertainty has a worse impact on the loop performance
than a gain uncertainty. Furthermore, the experience gained in
solving this formally simple problem may further be utilized
in many not yet solved practical problems, as e.g. in [20], [21].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has been partially supported by the grants
APVV-0343-12 Computer aided robust nonlinear control de-
sign and VEGA 1/0937/14 Advanced methods for nonlinear
modeling and control of mechatronic systems.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. B. Reswick, “Disturbance-response feedback - a new control con-
[2] M. Huba, “Performance measures, performance limits and optimal PI
control for the IPDT plant,” Journal of Process Control, vol. 23, 4, pp.
500–515, 2013.
[3] M. Huba, “Comparing 2DOF PI and Predictive Disturbance Observer
Based Filtered PI Control,” Journal of Process Control, vol. 23, 10, pp.
1379–1400, 2013.
[4] M. Huba and D. Soós, “Performance portrait - a 3D approach,” in IFAC
World Congress, Cape Town, South Africa, 2014.
[5] D. Sóos and M. Huba, “Experimental performance portrait based
optimal controller tuning,” in 15th Int. Carpathian Control Conference
- ICCC, Velké Karlovice, Czech Republic, 2014.
J. Normey-Rico and E. Camacho, Control of dead-time processes.
London: Springer, 2007.
[7] D. E. Rivera, M. Morari, and S. Skogestad, “Internal model control.
1
4. pid controller design,” Ind Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 25,1, pp. 252–265,
1986.
[8] A. Ingimundarson and T. Hägglund, “Performance comparison between
PID and dead-time compensating controllers,” Journal of Process
Control, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 887 – 895, 2002.
[9] S. Skogestad, “Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID
controller tuning,” Journal of Process Control, vol. 13, pp. 291–309,
2003.
[10] J. G. Ziegler and N. B. Nichols, “Optimum settings for automatic
controllers,” Trans. ASME, pp. 759–768, 1942.
[11] M. Huba, “Designing robust controller tuning for dead time systems,”
in Int. Conf. System Structure and Control. Ancona, Italy: IFAC, 2010.
[12] O. Smith, “Closser control of loops with dead time,” Chemical Engi-
neering Progress, vol. 53, pp. 217–219, 1957.
[13] K. Ohishi, “A new servo method in mechantronics,” Trans. Jpn. Soc.
Elect. Eng., vol. 107-D, pp. 83–86, 1987.
[14] M. Huba, “Basic Fundamental Controllers of DC0,” in Textbook:
Selected topics on constrained and nonlinear control, M. Huba, S. Sko-
gestad, M. Fikar, M. Hovd, T. Johansen, and B. Roháľ-Ilkiv, Eds. STU
Bratislava - NTNU Trondheim, 2011, pp. 139–186.
[15] E. Sariyildiz and K. Ohnishi, “Performance and Robustness Trade-off in
Disturbance Observer Design,” in 39th Annual Conference of the IEEE
Industrial Electronics Society (IECON). Vienna, Austria: IEEE, 2013,
pp. 3679–3684.
[16] V. R. Segovia, T. Hägglund, and K. Aström, “Measurement noise
filtering for PID controllers,” Journal of Process Control, vol. 24, no. 4,
pp. 299 – 313, 2014.
[17] E. Sariyildiz and K. Ohnishi, “Design constraints of disturbance ob-
server in the presence of time delay,” in Mechatronics (ICM), 2013
IEEE International Conference on, Feb 2013, pp. 69–74.
[18] E. Sariyildiz and K. Ohnishi, “Analysis the robustness of control sys-
tems based on disturbance observer,” International Journal of Control,
vol. 86, no. 10, pp. 1733–1743, 2013.
[19] E. Sariyildiz and K. Ohnishi, “A guide to design disturbance observer,”
J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control, vol. 136, no. 2, 2013.
[20] M. Huba, “Robustness analysis of a disturbance-observer based PI
control,” in 8th Int. Conf. and Exposition on Electrical and Power Eng.
- EPE, Iasi, Romania, 2014.
[21] I. Bélai, P. Bisták, and M. Huba, “Optimal Tuning for a Double
Integrator Plus Dead Time,” in 8th Int. Conf. and Exposition on
Electrical and Power Eng. - EPE, Iasi, Romania, 2014.