International Journal of Systems Science

ISSN: 0020-7721 (Print) 1464-5319 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsys20

Robust PI and PID design for first- and second-

order processes with zeros, time-delay and
structured uncertainties

M. Parada, D. Sbarbaro, R. A. Borges & P. L. D. Peres

To cite this article: M. Parada, D. Sbarbaro, R. A. Borges & P. L. D. Peres (2016): Robust PI
and PID design for first- and second-order processes with zeros, time-delay and structured
uncertainties, International Journal of Systems Science, DOI: 10.1080/00207721.2016.1160453

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207721.2016.1160453

Published online: 16 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsys20

Download by: [RMIT University Library] Date: 18 March 2016, At: 03:02
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE, 
http://dx.doi.org/./..

Robust PI and PID design for first- and second-order processes with zeros, time-delay
and structured uncertainties
M. Paradaa , D. Sbarbarob , R. A. Borgesc and P. L. D. Peresd
a
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany; b Department of Electrical Engineering,
Universidad de Concepcion, Concepcion, Chile; c Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil; d School of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, University of Campinas – UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The use of robust design techniques such as the one based on H2 and H∞ for tuning proportional inte- Received  October 
gral (PI) and proportional integral derivative (PID) controllers have been limited to address a small set of Accepted  February 
processes. This work addresses the problem by considering a wide set of possible plants, both first- and
KEYWORDS
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016

second-order continuous-time systems with time delays and zeros, leading to PI and PID controllers. The Tuning PI and PID controllers;
use of structured uncertainties to handle neglected dynamics allows to expand the range of processes to Lyapunov theory; linear
be considered. The proposed approach takes into account the robustness of the controller with respect matrix inequality; time-delay
to these structured uncertainties by using the small-gain theorem. In addition, improved performance is system; small-gain theorem
sought through the minimisation of an upper bound to the closed-loop system H∞ norm. A Lyapunov–
Krasovskii-type functional is used to obtain delay-dependent design conditions. The controller design is
accomplished by means of a convex optimisation procedure formulated using linear matrix inequalities.
In order to illustrate the flexibility of the approach, several examples considering recycle compensation,
reduced-order controller design and a practical implementation are addressed. Numerical experiments are
provided in each case to highlight the main characteristics of the proposed design method.

1. Introduction
The industrial evidence is that for many control problems, par-
ticularly those in the industrial processes, the proportional inte-
gral derivative (PID) controller is the main control tool being
used so far (Johnson & Moradi, 2005). Many tuning methods
have been introduced to provide guidelines to obtain desired
responses for different processes. In this context, the Ziegler–
Nichols (ZN) method (Ziegler & Nichols, 1942) has been pop-
ular for over 60 years. After the introduction of digital con-
trollers, new versions of the ZN procedures were developed as
the result of an extensive research on rule-based PID tuning.
Notably, advances were also made by Aström and Hägglund, as
can be seen in Aström and Hägglund (1995). Internal Model
Control (IMC) technique has also been an important topic in
robust design of PID, as for instance in Vilanova (2008) an
IMC design method is successfully introduced for first-order
processes with time delay (FOPTD). Many of these rules have
been summarised by O’Dwyer extensive work (O’Dwyer, 2001).
Other interesting approaches include the analysis of stochastic
uncertainties with Pareto optimum design of controllers, as the
one proposed in Nariman-Zadeh, Jamali, and Hajiloo (2007).
Most of these results rely on particular plant structures or special
type of uncertainties without zeros.
Despite its popularity and long history, the PID control strat-
egy represents an intense field of research. See, for example,
the works on H∞ control and robust design (Saeki, 2006), time
delays for different transfer functions (Martelli, 2009; Panda,
Yu, & Huang, 2004) or hybrid dynamic systems (Hohenbichler,
2009). The problem of chemical recycle systems with time delays
is addressed in Márquez-Rubio, del Muro-Cuéllar, Velasco-
Villa, Cortés-Rodríguez, and Sename (2012), a topic that moti-
vates this work. Recent conferences on PID controllers (IFAC,
2012) show the current relevance of this type of controller and
some design issues such as controller robustness (Hansen, 2012;
Nabati & Engell, 2012), time delay (Alfaro & Vilanova, 2012;
Falconí & Ackermann, 2012) or plant uncertainties (Schrödel,
Mashuw, and Abel, 2012). Other related references are (Grassi
& Tsakalis, 2000; Hara, Iwasaki, & Shiokata, 2006; Madhuran-
thakam, Elkamel, & Budman, 2008; Rosinová & Veselý, 2007;
Shamsuzzoha & Lee, 2008; Visioli, 2006).
In this framework, it is of great interest to address the
PID design problem with different techniques to propose more
flexible design criteria. One of these would be by using lin-
ear matrix inequalities (LMIs) as done, for example, in Puig,
Bolea, and Blesa (2012), Shafique and Tsakalis (2012) and Pérez,
Colmenares, Granado, Vega, and Mario (2006). Special atten-
tion has been paid on controller robustness as in Rem and
Zhang (2010) and Ge, Chiu, and Q. Wang (2002). A preliminary
work presented in Parada, Borges, Sbarbaro, and Peres (2011)
explores the design of PID controllers through a novel LMI
formulation considering second-order plants, time delays and
structured uncertainties. There, the proposed methodology was
successfully compared to classical tuning rules providing possi-
bilities for further developments.
Design procedures involving LMI have considerable advan-
tages when compared to other design methods. One of them is

CONTACT R. A. Borges raborges@ene.unb.br

©  Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 M. PARADA ET AL.

the simplicity for the final user. Regardless the complexity of the
matrices involved on the solution of a problem, many LMI feasi-
bility problems can be efficiently handled by a number of differ-
ent solvers available nowadays. Particularly, the results discussed
here do not represent excessive calculation efforts due to the
relatively small dimensions of the matrices involved. Therefore,
by addressing the design problem in a general way, as intended
here, the design tool developed can be applied in multiple cases
and situations. Other advantage is the possibility to incorporate
other design specifications as, for example, reduced-order pro-
portional integral (PI) controller or possible parameter uncer-
tainty. Furthermore, the choice of the Lyapunov functional to Figure . Feedback connection structure.
prove the system stability and to develop the LMI conditions is
arbitrary, and it can be modified for specific problems with rel- IRn×1 , C ∈ IR1×n and d ∈ IR. The nominal transfer function of
ative ease. the system is given by
In this work, extensions of previous formulations appeared
in the literature are presented mainly from a methodological H(s) = (C(Is − A)−1 B + d)e−τ s . (2)
perspective. The interest is to propose a flexible design tool to
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016

address problems such as uncertainties and time delays by tak- Note that no assumption on the pole location of the transfer
ing advantages of the plant structure in a wide range of possi- function is made and therefore the proposed methodology can
ble scenarios. In this sense, a new version of the formulation in be used indistinctly for stable or unstable systems.
Parada et al. (2011) is proposed to include PI design for both In order to study the robustness of system (1) against struc-
uncertain FOPTD and second order process with time delay tured uncertainties, an additional input w(t ) ∈ IR is considered
(SOPTD) plants. The main goal is to ensure stability of the feed- as follows:
back system providing to the designer a tuning parameter used
to speed up the system response without a stability sacrifice. ẋ(t ) = Ax(t ) + Bu(t − τ ) + Bw w(t )
For this end, the process with time delay is conveniently written y(t ) = Cx(t ) + du(t − τ ) + dw w(t )
through an augmented state-space representation and the PID
tuning problem reduced to a LMI feasibility problem. In particu- being w(t) modelled by W(s) = (s)Y(s), where (s) is a causal
lar, the PI design for SOPTD considers also a reduced-order con- transfer function with bounded H∞ norm. Figure 1 illustrates
troller. Further, the proposed methodology can also be extended the feedback connection.
to deal with multi-variable PID controllers, as for instance in the The complete transfer function Guy (s) between the control
context of event-triggered PID controllers recently proposed in input u(t) and the output y(t) can be written as
Gomes da Silva, Lages, and Sbarbaro (2014). Numerical exam-
ples including uncertain, non-minimal phase and recycling sys- H(s)
Guy (s) = (3)
tems, as well as a practical application in a four-tank system, 1 − Hw (s)(s)
illustrate the flexibility of the proposed tool.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 states the prob- where Hw (s) = C(Is − A)−1 Bw + dw . This follows directly
lem to be dealt with. Section 3 presents the controller design from taking the Laplace transform of the augmented system with
methods. The proposed method and the performance of the structured uncertainties and replacing W(s) = (s)Y(s).
controllers are illustrated by means of examples in Section 4.
Finally, some conclusions and future research issues are drawn 2.1. First-order system: PI controller
in Section 5. Preliminary results, useful to prove the main con- Consider the first-order nominal process
tributions of this work, are provided as an appendix.
Through this paper, matrix inequalities such as A < 0 (A > 0) Y (s) b1 s + b0 −τ s
HFO (s) = = e (4)
are used to indicate that matrix A is negative (or positive) defi- U (s) s + a0
nite. The notation ‘’ is used to indicate symmetric block within
a matrix inequality. Identity matrix and null matrix are repre- where a0 , b0 and b1 are the parameters of the system and τ is a
sented, respectively, by I and 0. constant time-delay. Note that the term b1 implies that the sys-
tem could be of non-minimal phase whenever b0 and b1 have
2. Problem statement different signs. However, in most of the practical cases in an
This work considers a nominal SISO system described by the industrial context, b1 can be considered as zero without com-
following state equations: promising the following results.
System (4) can be rewritten as (1) considering an augmented
ẋ(t ) = Ax(t ) + Bu(t − τ ) state-space representation, x(t) = [x1 (t)x2 (t)] , with an extra
(1)
y(t ) = Cx(t ) + du(t − τ ) state-space variable x2 (t) = y(t)dt and matrices
     
where u(t) is the control input, y(t) is the output and x(t ) ∈ IRn −a0 0 1 b − a0 b1
A= ,B = , C = 0 , d = b1 .
is the state space vector. The system matrices are A ∈ IRn×n , B ∈ b0 − a0 b1 0 b1 0
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 3

The equivalence between the expressions can be proved by tak- y(t)dt, is given as in (1) with
ing the Laplace transform of (1) with the above-defined matri-
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ces. This representation is useful because it allows one to access 0 1 0 0 b0
the integral value of the output through the state-space variable A = ⎣ −a0 −a1 0 ⎦, B = ⎣ 1 ⎦, C = ⎣ b1 ⎦, d = 0.
x2 (t). Consider a PI controller with transfer function b0 b1 0 0 0

ki Similar as in the previous case, the equivalence between the

C(s) = k p + . (5)
s expressions can be checked by taking Laplace transform of (1)
with the above-stated matrices. Moreover, the integral of the
Due to the presence of a zero in the transfer function (4),
output can be directly accessed by the state-space variable x3 (t).
that makes the degree of the numerator the same as the degree
For this system, a PID controller with transfer function
of the denominator, a finite dimension state-space realisation of
the closed-loop system with the described PI controller cannot
ki
be obtained. To avoid this, a new signal ỹ is defined as ỹ(t ) = C(s) = k p + + kd s (9)
Cx(t ) + du(t ). This signal is an approximation of the output of s
the system, being exactly the same as it when d = b1 = 0, and will will be designed. The output of the controller can be written as
be used for proportional feedback instead of the original output. follows:
Note that this represents no change in the plant to be controlled,
⎡ ⎤
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016

but merely a different control strategy that approximates the PI

  b0 b1 0
controller. Without loss of generality, a zero reference signal is u(t ) = k p kd ki ⎣ 0 b0 0 ⎦x(t ) + kd b1 ẋ2 (t ). (10)
assumed. As a consequence, the output of the PI controller can 0 0 1
be written in terms of x2 = ydt and ỹ as
  Since in this case, the degree of the numerator polynomial in
  ỹ
u(t ) = k p ki . (8) is lower than the degree of the denominator polynomial, and
x2 therefore d = 0, there is no need to introduce the ỹ signal as done
before. Rewriting Equation (10) as (6) with
Rewriting the last equation as
 
kp kd ki
u(t ) = KFx(t ), (6) K= ,
1 − kd b1 1 − kd b1 1 − kd b1
⎡ ⎤
with b0 b1 0
F = ⎣ −b1 a0 b0 − b1 a1 0 ⎦,
   
kp ki b − a0 b1 0 0 0 1
K= ,F = 0 ,
1 − k p b1 1 − k p b1 0 1
the closed-loop system becomes as the one in (7) with redefined
the closed-loop system becomes matrices Ad = BKF and Cd = dKF = 0.
Similar to the preceding first-order system, the problem to be
ẋ(t ) = Ax(t ) + Ad x(t − τ ) + Bw w(t ) dealt with can be stated as follows.
(7)
y(t ) = Cx(t ) + Cd x(t − τ ) + dw w(t ) Problem 2.2: Find the gains kp , ki and kd of the PID controller (9),
such that the closed-loop system (7) with matrices Ad = BKF and
where Ad = BKF and Cd = dKF. Cd = dKF = 0 is asymptotically stable for any (s) with bounded
The first problem to be dealt with in this work can be stated H∞ norm.
as follows.
Problem 2.1: Find the gains kp and ki of the PI controller (5) such 3. Main results
that the closed-loop system (7) with matrices Ad = BKF and Cd In this section, the three main design procedures are described.
= dKF is asymptotically stable for any (s) with bounded H∞ The first two ones deal with full state feedback design for
norm. FOPTD and SOPTD systems, while the third one can be
regarded as a partial state feedback-based design.
2.2. Second-order system: PID controller
Consider now a second-order nominal process given by 3.1. PI synthesis for FOPTD
Theorem 3.1: For a given τ > 0, if there exist symmetric positive-
Y (s) b1 s + b0
HSO (s) = = 2 e−τ s (8) definite matrices R, M ∈ IR2×2 and a matrix L ∈ IR1×2 such that
U (s) s + a1 s + a0
⎡ ⎤
τ 2 (RA + AR + M) − τ R τ 2 BL + τ R τ 2 RA τ RC τ Bw
where b1 , b0 , a1 and a0 are the system parameters, τ is the ⎢  −τ 2 M − τ R τ 2 L B τ dL 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
constant time-delay and the polynomials in the variable s are ⎢   −τ R 0 τ Bw ⎥
⎢ ⎥<0
coprime. ⎣    −I dw ⎦
An augmented state-space representation of system (8), with     −μI
x(t) = [x1 (t)x2 (t)x3 (t)] and an extra state-space variable x3 (t) = (11)
 4 M. PARADA ET AL.
then a closed-loop FOPTD in the form of (7) is asymptotically sta-
ble for any (s) with ||(s)||∞ < μ− 2 . The PI parameters are
1
given by
k1 k2
kp = , ki = (12)
1 + b1 k1 1 + b1 k1
where K = [k1 k2 ] = L(FR)−1 .
Proof: The main part of the proof can be found in the Appendix.
There, closed-loop stability and robustness issues are discussed
by means of the small-gain theorem, the bounded real lemma
and a delay dependent Lyapunov–Krasovskii functional. These
results are summarised in Lemma A.3 which provides a design
condition with nonlinear terms involving the gains of the con-
troller to be determined. The feasibility of this conditions is suffi-
cient to prove stability and robustness of the closed-loop system
without making any further optimisation.
Note that the use of a Lyapunov–Krasovskii functional
implies less conservative conditions regarding the delay of the
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016
system than the ones developed by quadratic Lyapunov func-
tionals. In fact, there is no a priori condition concerned with
Remark 3.2: In order to improve the performance of the con-
troller, adjustments can be made to matrix A. To obtain a faster
closed-loop response, matrix A can be replaced by A + δI and
matrix Ad by Ad eτ δ in (7) where δ is a positive scalar that moves
the poles s of the system to the open region in the complex plane
defined by Re{s} < −δ. Confining the poles to this region ensures
a minimum decay rate δ and therefore affects the error of the
output signal with respect to the desired output, Mao and Chu
(2006). With this consideration, different results can be obtained
following the same design procedure, giving the designer flexi-
bility in order to choose the controller that best fits his needs in
terms of the error or other parameter, or to evaluate the perfor-
mance of different controllers.
Remark 3.3: In order to obtain valid PI and PID parameters
with Theorems 3.1 and 3.2, matrix F must be non-singular. In
the case of PI design for FOPTD, det{F} = b0 − a0 b1 = 0 will
be assured whenever the polynomials of HFO (s) are coprime.
In a similar way, for the PID controller for SOPTD, it must be
true that det{F} = b0 2 − b0 b1 a1 + b1 2 a0 = 0. As for the nomi-
nal transfer function, HSO (s) in Equation (8) is true that
the delay magnitude. The main purpose hereafter is to obtain
a convex procedure, expressed in terms of LMIs, to face the
synthesis of both PI and, in the following section, PID con-
trollers. For this end, consider the following change of vari-
ables R = P−1 , M = P−1 QP−1 , L = KFR. Then, multiply the
inequality (11) to the left by T and to the right by T, with
T = diag(R−1 , R−1 , R−1 , I, I) in order to obtain LMI (A1) (see
Appendix), what concludes the proof. 
3.2. PID synthesis for SOPTD
Theorem 3.2: For a given τ > 0, if there exist symmetric positive-
definite matrices R, M ∈ IR3×3 and a matrix L ∈ IR1×3 such that
(11) holds, then a closed-loop SOPTD in the form of (7) is asymp-
totically stable for any (s) with ||(s)||∞ < μ− 2 . The PID
1
parameters are given by
k1 k2 k3
kp = , kd = , ki = (13)
1 + k2 b1 1 + k2 b1 1 + k2 b1
where K = [k1 k2 k3 ] = L(FR)−1 .
Proof: Similar to the proof of Theorem 3.1 but considering
higher dimension matrices.  to the robust PI and PID design problems. Whenever one has
Remark 3.1: From a practical point of view, the PI or PID
parameters obtained by (12) or (13) should share the same sign.
This is due to the fact that in industrial applications, the PID
parameters must always be positive. In the case all parameters
are negative, the control action will be performed to the positive
error between the desired output yd (t) and the real output y(t)
of the plant, i.e. e(t) = yd (t) − y(t). The parameters to be imple-
mented are then −kp , −ki and −kd . Otherwise, the PID action
will be performed to the negative error e(t) = y(t) − yd (t) and the
parameters will not differ from the ones stated before. Numer-
ically, in order to ensure this sign concordance of all parame-
ters, new restrictions may be added in the problem formula-
tion. Unfortunately, there is no analytic procedure to determi-
nate these restrictions. However, the authors have noticed that,
in most of the cases, the elements in matrix L may be forced to
be all negative in order to obtain the desired results.

−1 −τ s 1 1 b0 r/b1 2
HSO (s)e = s+ a1 − +
b1 b1 b1 b1 s + b0
with r = b0 2 − b0 b1 a1 + b1 2 a0 . Once again, coprime polynomi-
als will assure that r = det{F} = 0.
Remark 3.4: Due to the general representation by means of
LMIs, the proposed conditions can be naturally extended by
using many LMI techniques available in the literature. In par-
ticular, the authors have explored the option of including norm-
bounded uncertainties in the form of A = A0 + A with A A
 ϵ2 I or polytopic uncertainties
 described by a vector of param-
eters α ∈ {α ∈ IRN : Ni=1 αi = 1, αi ≥ 0}.
Remark 3.5: Note that due to the relatively small dimension of
matrix inequality (11), dim = 8 in the case of Theorem 3.1 and
dim = 11 for Theorem 3.2, the associated feasibility problem can
be efficiently solved in any standard LMI software as YALMIP
(Löfberg, 2004; Sturm, 1999).
Remark 3.6: To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the con-
troller gain structure K = L(FR)−1 represents a new approach
a minimal realisation, Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 can be applied to
find a controller that stabilises system (1).
3.3. PI approximation for SOPTD
In order to achieve better responses, reduce the influence of
measurement noise in the system or tackle a wider range of
problems, it may be desired to tune a PI controller for a SOPTD
as (8) instead of the proposed PID. In order to do this, the deriva-
tive constant (kd ) of the proposed controller can be forced to
be close to zero to attenuate the derivative action. Therefore, a
bound in the values of matrix K is necessary to keep the norm
of kd small enough to make the results of Theorem 3.2 a good
approximation of a PI controller.
In a more generic sense, the procedure suggested here can
also be extended to design partial state feedback controllers of
reduced order. For this end, consider a matrix E = diag(M, m,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 5

M) with scalars M > 0 large and m > 0 small enough. By choos-

1.2
ing K such that
1
K K < E E, (14)
0.8
the second element of K will tend to be smaller than m. There-

Output [pu]
fore, kd will also be limited by a higher bound. Defining η > 0 ∈ 0.6
IR and multiplying (14) to the left and to the right by √1η RF and
0.4
√1 FR, respectively, one gets
η
0.2
1  1 δ = 0.075
L L < RF E EFR. (15) 0
η η δ = 0.100
δ = 0.125
−0.2
Using Proposition A.1 (see Appendix), it can be proved that
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
RF E + EFR ≤ η1 RF E EFR + ηI, then ηI − RF E − EFR + Time [s]
1 
η
L L < 0 assures that (15) is true. Expanding the previous
Figure . Closed-loop step response for designed controllers with parameter δ in
expression by means of the Schur complement, one finds an Example ..
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016

LMI with the variables of Theorem 3.2 given by

 
ηI − RF E − EFR L
<0 (16)
 −η
The new variable η > 0 gives an extra degree of freedom in
order to solve the LMI feasibility problem. By using this new
restriction, PI controllers can be obtained for SOPTD.
By completely ignoring the derivative part obtained with the
aid of inequality (16), i.e. forcing kd  0, a pure PI controller
can be used. To check if this controller stabilises the system, one
should check if the LMI feasibility problem given by (11) can
be solved to ensure that the simplified controller can be used
without compromising stability.
4. Applications and examples
This section presents a wide range of problems that can be
addressed by using the proposed approach. Many of the chosen
examples represent problems that, as far as the authors know,
cannot be solved, or at least not in a straight forward way, with
other tuning methods. A practical application in a four-tank sys-
tem concludes the section.
4.1. PI for FOPTD
... Controller synthesis for non-minimal phase systems
Example 4.1: Consider the following non-minimum phase
matrix L to be non-negative it is possible to assure the design of a
valid controller. However, in this case, as det{F} = b0 − a0 b1 <
0, l1 and l2 cannot share the same sign. To assure the sign concor-
dance of the controller parameters in this case, the constraints
l1 > 0 and l2 < 0 were assumed instead.
Different controllers were synthesised by changing the value
of δ. The step response simulation of this system can be seen in
Figure 2. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the synthesis of
PI or PID controllers for non-minimal phase FOPTD or SOPTD
has not been achieved with the aid of the LMI methodology.
... Methodology comparison with the lambda-method
The lambda-method can be used to tune PI controllers for an
open-loop plant in the form
e−sL
H(s) = k
1 + sT
where k is the gain of the process, T is the time constant and
L is the delay value. This plant do not consider zeros nor any
kind of uncertainties. In the notation of this article, the process
parameters correspond to a0 = 1/T, b0 = k/T, b1 = 0 and τ =
L. The parameters of the PI controller using the lambda-method
can be obtained as


transfer function
2s − 2 −2.5s
H(s) = e .
s + 0.5
Identifying τ = 2.5, a0 = 0.5, b0 = −2.0 and b1 = 2.0, a PI con-
troller can be obtained with the aid of Theorem 3.1. If Bw = 0
and dw = 0, (s) has no effect on the system and LMI (11) is
block diagonal. Therefore, μ can be arbitrarily chosen with no
effect on the synthesis of the controller.
For μ = 100 and δ = 0.100, a PI controller is obtained with
gains given by kp = 0.0743, ki = 0.0321. As mentioned before, in
order to obtain positive PI parameters, further assumptions on
the components of the decision matrix L = [l1 l2 ] must be con-
sidered. For minimal phase systems, by forcing the elements of
1 T a0 1 kp
k p,λ = = , ki,λ = = a0 k p ,
k Tλ + L b0 λ + a0 τ T
where λ > 0 is a tuning parameter that defines the time constant
of the closed-loop system Tcl as a multiple of the open-loop con-
stant, i.e. Tcl = Tλ.
Example 4.2: Considering k = 2.0, T = 4.0 and L = 3.5, the
lambda-method can be applied with values λ1 = 0.4 and λ2 =
0.6. The proposed methodology of this paper can be applied
considering, as in the previous example, Bw = 0, dw = 0 and
μ = 100 with two values for the tuning parameter, δ 1 = 0.05
and δ 2 = 0.07. The performance of the four designed controllers
can be evaluated by the step response simulation. To ensure a
fair comparison of the transient responses, the integral of the
 6 M. PARADA ET AL.

Table . Parameters and performance of controllers in Example .. 4.2. PID for SOPTD
kp ki ITAE OS Tr(s) Ts(s) ... Uncertain systems
Consider the following uncertain system:
λ = . . . . .% . .
λ = . . . . .% . .
δ = . b1 s + b0
. . . .% . . G(s) = e−τ s (17)
δ = . . . . .% . . s2 + a1 s + a0 − α

where α is an unknown scalar such that |α|  α max , that can

be interpreted as a measurement error in the system param-
time-weighted absolute error (ITAE) criterion is considered. eters. Further, consider (s) = α (s) with (s) = s2 +a11 s+a0 ,
The ITAE can be defined as  
and matrices Bw = 0 0 0 , dw = 1. System (17) can be writ-
 ten as in (3) and a PID controller can be calculated. The scalar
∞
ITAE = t|e(t )|dt μ is obtained from the fact that ||(s)|| = |α||| (s)|| 
0 α max || (s)|| = μ−1/2 .
Example 4.3: Assuming a0 = 1, a1 = 1, b0 = 0.2, b1 = 0.1,
Other performance indicators are also defined. The overshoot α max = 0.2 and τ = 1, it follows that det{F} = 0.03 and μ =
(OS) of the responses will be calculated as 2.0809. Taking into account Remark 3.2 with δ = 0.04, a feasible
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016

solution for the LMI given in (11) is

max{y(t )} − max{yd (t )} ⎡ ⎤
OS = 100%. 0.4637 −0.2926 −0.0217
max{yd (t )} R = ⎣ −0.2926 0.5566 −0.0603 ⎦,
−0.0217 −0.0603 0.0979
⎡ ⎤
Settling time (Ts) is calculated so that the output signals reach a 0.0365 −0.0020 0.0020
band of 5% of the desired value. Rise time (Tr) is the time taken M = ⎣ −0.0020 0.0088 −0.0043 ⎦,
for the output signal to reach 63% of the steady-state response. 0.0020 −0.0043 0.0059
The parameters and performance results of the controllers ⎡ ⎤
−0.0008
are summarised in Table 1. It is important to stress that, as L = ⎣ −0.1014 ⎦,
explained in Remark 3.2, δ represents an upper bound to the real −0.0059
part of the poles of system (7) and λ defines exactly the time con-
stant of the closed-loop system (Tcl = Tλ), in other words, these  
and therefore K = −1.8900 −1.4854 −0.3196 .
two parameters do not have the same meaning although both
Taking into account Remark 3.1, as the elements of matrix
are related with the decay rate of the system response. Figure 3
K are all negative, the PID action will be performed over the
shows the simulated step responses. Both methodologies lead
positive error e(t) = yd (t) − y(t). In this case, kp = 2.2197, kd =
to similar responses for the evaluated plant and tuning parame-
1.7445, ki = 0.3753. The δ parameter represents to the designer
ters. However, as it is shown in the following examples, the use of
a way to improve the decay rate of the system response. If, for
LMI conditions represents a powerful approach for tuning PID
example, δ = 0.02, then a slower controller can be obtained with
controllers providing the possibility to deal with a wide range of
kp = 2.1708, kd = 1.6712, ki = 0.2103.
problems and different situations.
For a number of different controllers obtained by changing
the tuning parameter δ, the time response of the closed-loop sys-
tem to a step input is as shown in Figure 4. For simulation pur-
1.2 pose, α = 0.9α max was considered constant through all the sim-
ulation time. It can be seen that, despite the structured uncer-
tainties and the process delay, the closed-loop system response
1
can be regarded as satisfactory.
Similar procedure can be considered for first-order uncertain
0.8
plants and PI controllers.
Output [pu]

0.6
Example 4.4: Consider system (17) with a0 = 0.0476, a1 =
0.4762, b0 = 0.2857, b1 = 0.2857 and τ = 4.5. If α max = 0.999a0 ,
then det{F} = 0.0466 and μ = 1.0005.
0.4
λ = 1.00 From the nominal transfer function of the system in the form
λ = 1.50 of (2), the design problem of a PID controller can be tackled
0.2 δ = 0.07 with the ZN method. The gain margin of the nominal system
δ = 0.10 is GM = 0.5206 at frequency ωcg = 0.3106. With this values, a
0 ZN-PID controller can be obtained with kp, ZN = 0.3431, kd, ZN
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time [s] = 0.8036, ki, ZN = 0.0366. This procedure does not take into
account the information on the uncertainties described by α and
Figure . Closed-loop step response comparison in Example .. has a unique possible solution. This design could also be tackled
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 7

0.8
Output [pu]

0.6

0.4
δ = 0.00
δ = 0.02 Figure . Recycle system with compensator and PID controller.
0.2
δ = 0.04
δ = 0.06
0 of the ITAE and the OS is achieved in comparison to the ZN
0 50 100 150 200
Time [s] case. Even though the Tr is similar in all three cases, the Ts is
considerable smaller when δ = 0.04.
Figure . Closed-loop step response for designed controllers with parameter δ in
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016

Example ..
... Recycle compensator
2 Consider the recycle system with compensator and PID con-
troller shown in Figure 6, where Hfw (s) and Hr (s) represent the
1.8
forward and recycle transfer functions. Hc (s) is a recycle com-
1.6 pensator added in order to simplify the control of the system.
1.4 However, the transfer function of the compensator may be only
an approximation of the actual recycle transfer function, and this
1.2
Output [pu]

represents a source of uncertainty for the controller.

1 If the following matrices are chosen as Bw = B, dw = 0,
0.8
and defining the transfer functions H(s) = Hfw (s) and (s) =
[Hc (s) − Hr (s)]e−τ s , where τ is the time delay of the forward
0.6 system, the plant of Figure 6 can be successfully represented by
0.4 ZN PID a structure as in Figure 1. Therefore, it can be tackled by the pro-
δ = 0.03 posed design method.
0.2
δ = 0.04
0 Example 4.5: Consider the recycle system shown in Figure 6
0 50 100 150 200 with the forward and recycle transfer functions given by
Time [s]

Figure . Closed-loop step response comparison in Example .. Kp (τ3 s + 1) Kr

H f w (s) = e−θs , Hr (s) = e−θr s .
(τ1 s + 1)(τ2 s + 1) τr s + 1
by the lambda-method as described in the previous section, how-
ever a first-order approximation of the SOPTD would be needed The time delay of the recycle transfer function is approxi-
and the uncertainties described by α must be also neglected. mated by a first-order Padé function in the compensator, what
The proposed method was applied with δ = 0.03 providing introduces a source of uncertainty in the system. The compen-
the PID parameters kp, 3 = 0.3215, kd, 3 = 0.7223, ki, 3 = 0.0233, sator transfer function is as follows:
and also with δ = 0.04 providing a third controller given by
θr
kp, 4 = 0.3312, kd, 4 = 0.7256, ki, 4 = 0.0269. The step responses of Kr 1 − s
Hc (s) = 2
θr
.
the three different controllers are presented in Figure 5. For sim- τr s + 1 1 + 2
s
ulation purpose, it was considered that α = 0.9α max . The results
are summarised in Table 2. Assuming the values Kp = 4.0, τ 1 = 5.0, τ 2 = 3.0, τ 3 =
It can be seen that both designed controllers provide better 1.0, θ = 4.0, Kr = 1.0, τ r = 8.0 and θ r = 2.0, it follows that
results compared to the ZN controller. In both cases, a reduction det{F} = 0.038 and the scalar value μ is given by ||(s)||∞ =
μ− 2 . The norm of the disturbance transfer function (s) can be
1

Table . Performance of controllers in Example .. obtained from the magnitude Bode diagram shown in Figure 7
as ||(s)|| = −46.302dB = 0.099 at ω = 2.220rad/s, and then
ZN δ = . δ = .
μ = 102.530.
ITAE . . . For δ = 0.04, Theorem 3.2 provides the following set of PID
OS .% .% .% parameters kp = 0.3583, kd = 0.7121, ki = 0.0351. The step
Tr [s] . . .
Ts [s] . . . response of the system is shown in Figure 8 for different values
of δ.
 8 M. PARADA ET AL.

0 controller. To assure that this new controller stabilises the sys-

||Δ (s)||∞ tem, the feasibility of inequality (11) is checked for a fixed L
−50 given by the controller gains. For the considered example, the
gains kp, PI = 14.6284,
 kd, PI = 0.0000, ki, PI = 6.0645,
 correspond
to a matrix L = −33.9342 −2.4304 −6.8691 . Replacing this
Magnitude [dB]

−100
matrix in LMI (11) and solving the corresponding feasibility
−150 problem, the following matrices can be obtained
⎡ ⎤
57.3130 −66.6160 −5.9851
R = ⎣ −66.6160 130.0344 1.1721 ⎦,
−200

−5.9851 1.1721 3.7373

−250 ω∞ ⎡ ⎤
31.4308 −38.6876 −0.3625
M = ⎣ −38.6876 69.6680 −0.1951 ⎦,
−300
10
−2
10
−1
10
0 1
10
2
10 −0.3625 −0.1951 1.6598
ω [rad/s]
what ensures that the system is stable for the given PI controller.
Figure . (s) Magnitude Bode diagram for Example ..
Example 4.7: Consider a system composed of a DC drive with
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016

a rotational load immersed in a viscous fluid. The viscosity of

1.2 the fluid produces an opposing torque to the movement of the
load with magnitude TL (t) = γ ω(t), where γ is an unknown vis-
1
cosity coefficient in [0, γmax ] ⊂ IR and ω(t) is the angular speed
of the load. The goal in this example is to control the angular
speed ω(t) by changing the voltage va (t) applied to the drive
0.8
Output [pu]

with the help of a controllable DC source. The drive is mod-

elled by the following equations, va (t) = Ra ia (t) + KE ω(t) and
0.6
Te (t ) = KT ia (t ) = J dω
dt
+ TL (t ), where the parameters Ra , KE ,
KT are strictly depending on the chosen drive, and the inertia J
0.4
δ = 0.00 depends mainly on the mass and geometry of the rotatory load.
δ = 0.02 The controllable DC source is modelled by the following
0.2 δ = 0.04 transfer function between the control signal u(t) and the volt-
δ = 0.06 age va (t)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 v a (s) 0.556s + 1 −0.06s
Time [s] HS (s) = = 1.005 e .
u(s) 1.503s + 1
Figure . Close-loop step response comparison for recycle system in Example .
for different δ. The angular velocity of the system is measured by an encoder
that adds a great amount of noise to the signal. Therefore, the
4.3. PI approximation for SOPTD derivative module of a PID controller is not desired. This system
One of the main contributions of this work is related with the can be represented by the structure in Figure 1 with
design of partial state feedback controllers that can be used to
KT
avoid the feedback of noisy state-space variables in the con- H(s) = HS (s),
trol strategy or to force the system to achieve certain desirable Ra Js + KT KE
dynamics. In the PID context, it may be the case of obtaining Ra γ
(s) = , Bw = 0, dw = 1.
a PI controller for a SOPTD. The following two examples deal Ra Js + KT KE
with this issue.
Example 4.6: Consider system (8) with parameters given by The expression for (s) implies that
a0 = 1.0 a1 = 2.0, b0 = 0.2 b1 = 0.1 and τ = 0.5. The (s) feed-
back parameters will be assumed as Bw = B, dw = d and μ = Ra γ Ra γmax 1
||(s)||∞ = ≤ =√ .
400. Theorem 3.2 was applied with δ = 0.1 providing the fol- KT KE KT KE μ
lowing PID gains kp, PID = 38.3486, kd, PID = 19.4876, ki, PID =
8.9358. With a fluid for which γ max = 0.1 and the parameters of
Including restriction (16), with m = 0.1, M = 100000 and the the system DC drive as Ra = 3.9, J = 0.29, KT = 1.307 and
same value of δ, a new controller is obtained with the following KE = 1.183, it follows that ||(s)||  0.252 and μ = 15.709.
gains kp, PI = 14.6284, kd, PI = 0.0544, ki, PI = 6.0645. Using the proposed method, a PID controller can be synthesised
In this case, the magnitude of the derivative gain (kd, PI ) is with the gains given by kp, PID = 9.8847, kd, PID = 2.1694, ki, PID
about 99% smaller than the proportional and integral gains. = 0.8557. Considering the condition (16), a pure PI controller
Consequently, the derivative component may be completely can be approximated by kp, PI = 3.4584, kd, PI = 0.0000, ki, PI =
ignored (by making kd, PI = 0) in order to obtain a pure PI 1.9142.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 9

from the lower reservoir to the four water tanks in a crosswise

way according to the ratio between the flows defined by the posi-
tion of valves. The schematic diagram along with the real system
used in this work can be seen in Figure 10.
The main goal is to control the water levels in the tanks 1 and
2 (h1 and h2 measured using piezoresistive level sensors located
at the base of the tank). The process inputs are the voltages of
the motors and the outputs are the water levels in tanks 1 and
2. Due to the interconnection of the tanks, the variables h3 and
h4 (water levels in the tanks 3 and 4) produce disturbances in
the system. The data acquisition device used was the USB-6008
from the National Instruments company.

Figure . Step response comparison for DC drive system in Example ..

Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016

The step response of both controllers can be seen in Figure 9.

An unknown value of γ < γ max was used during the simulation
with an abrupt change at t = 15s. Note that the noise of the signal
is considerable high for the PID controller compared to the PI
response.

4.4. Practical implementation in a four-tank system

Example 4.8: In order to verify the effectiveness of the proposed
control strategy, a practical implementation in a four-tank sys-
tem was conducted. The system consists of four interconnected
water tank, a lower reservoir and two motors that pump water Figure . Four-tank system (left) and its schematic (right).

Closed−loop system with robust PI control − water level in tank 1

9.5 real
9 reference

8.5
h1(cm)

7.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

time (s)
Closed−loop system with robust PI control − water level in tank 2
17

16.5

16
h2(cm)

15.5

15

14.5

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

time (s)

Figure . Real-time step response of the closed-loop four-tank system.

 10 M. PARADA ET AL.
Table . Performance of robust PI control in the four-tank system of Figure .
TANK kp ki IAE ISE OS(%) Tr(s)
 . . . . .% .
 . . . . .% .
A decentralised control approach was considered assuming
the system as an interconnection of single-input single-output
subsystems. Two first-order transfer functions for the open-loop
system were identified, G11 (s) for the tank 1 and G22 (s) for the
tank 2, by applying small amplitude steps around the steady state
at each of the inputs. The identified transfer functions are given
by
11.77e−0.3s 11.81e−0.3s
G11 (s) = , G22 (s) = . References
1 + 89.26s 1 + 307.21s
Theorem 3.1 was applied with a0 = 1/89, b0 = 11.77/89, b1 =
0 and δ = 1/89 for G11 (s) providing the PI gains kp = 12.5280,
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016
ki = 0.6778, and also with a0 = 1/307.21, b0 = 11.81/307.21,
b1 = 0, and δ = 1/307.21 for G22 (s) providing the PI gains kp
= 43.4591, ki = 0.7032. In order to improve the robustness of
the system against the uncertain process given by tanks 3 and 4,
the parameter μ was minimised in both cases reaching a value
with order of magnitude about 10−15 , what guarantees high H∞
norm for (s). The closed-loop system is then submitted to two
steps, one in tank 1 at 200 s and the other in tank 2 at 500 s, the
results can be seen in Figure 11.
The performance criteria of the robust PI control in terms
of the integral square error (ISE) and the integral absolute error
(IAE), calculated in the time interval 100s  t  800s, as well as
the OS and rise time of 63% are summarised in Table 3. Finally,
it should noticed that even if δ was specified to provide an upper
bound equal to the open-loop time constant (that is 89s for tank
1 and 307s for tank 2), the robust PI control was able to provide a
closed-loop time constant about 80ms for both tanks, what high-
lights the quality of the proposed design approach.
5. Conclusion and future work
In this work, a novel approach to the robust PI and PID design
problem is proposed. The design procedure is described as a
convex optimisation problem with LMI constraints that can be
solved by well known LMI solvers. The use of a new struc-
ture for the controller gain makes possible to deal with time
delays and structured uncertainties, as illustrated in the exam-
ples, that include applications to non-minimum phase, uncer-
tain systems and the design of recycle compensators. In addition,
this work suggests a method for designing partial state feedback
controllers as in the case of PI controllers for SOPTD systems.
Future work considers extensions of the proposed methodol-
ogy to more general cases, including unknown time-delays and
different types of uncertainties (as for instance, polytopic mod-
eling and all the results in this framework appeared so far in
the literature that may be used to reduce the conservatism of
the design conditions). Furthermore, the proposed work may be
extended in order to address additional control strategies, such
as filtered derivative term on PID controllers. Finally, extensions
to higher order or MIMO cases, both for continuous or discrete
time systems, are also possible and should be explored later in
future work.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the Brazilian agencies CNPq, FAPESP and
CAPES and is partially founded by Stic-AmSud. The authors would also
like to thank Mayara C. de F. Wiira, Arthur M. Macêdo and Eduardo S.
Tognetti for helping with the four-tank system implementation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
Brazilian agencies CNPq, FAPESP and CAPES.
Alfaro, V., & Vilanova, R. (2012, March). Optimal-robust-tuning for 1DOF
PI/PID control unifying FOPDT/SOPTDT models. IFAC Conference on
Advances in PID Control. Brescia.
Aström, K.J., & Hägglund, T. (1995). PID controllers. Research Triangle
Park, NC: Instrument Society of America.
Boyd, S., El Ghaoui, K., Feron, E., & Balakrishnan, V. (1994). Linear matrix
inequality in systems and control theory. Philadelphia, PA: Studies in
Applied Mathematics, SIAM.
Falconí, G.P., & Ackermann, J.E. (2012, March). Robust semi-automatic
design of PID controllers for systems with time delay. IFAC Conference
on Advances in PID Control. Brescia.
Ge, M., Chiu, M., & Wang, Q. (2002). Robust PID controller design via LMI
approach. Journal of Process Control, 12, 3–13.
Gomes da Silva Jr, J.M., Lages, W.F., & Sbarbaro, D. (2014). Event-triggered
PI control design. In Proceedings of the 19th International Federation of
Automatic Control World Congress (pp. 6947–6952). Cape town: Inter-
national Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC).
Grassi, E., & Tsakalis, K. (2000). PID controller tuning by frequency loop-
shaping: Application to diffusion furnace temperature control. IEEE
Transactions On Control Systems Technology, 8(5), 842–847.
Gu, K. (2000, December). An integral inequality in the stability problem of
time-delay systems. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Conference on Deci-
sion and Control (Vol. 3, pp. 2805–2810). Sydney: Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Hansen, P. (2012, March). Parametric robustness. IFAC Conference on
advances in PID control. Brescia.
Hara, S., Iwasaki, T., & Shiokata, D. (2006). Robust PID control using gener-
alized KYP synthesis: Direct open-loop shaping in multiple frequency
ranges. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 26(1), 80–91.
Hohenbichler, N. (2009). All stabilizing PID controllers for time delay sys-
tems. Automatica, 45(11), 2678–2684.
Ibrir, S. (2006). Convex optimization approach to observer-based stabiliza-
tion of uncertain linear systems. Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measure-
ment and Control, Transactions of the ASME, 128, 989–994.
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control). (2012). 2nd IFAC
Conference on advances in PID control. Brescia: Author.
Johnson, M., & Moradi, M. (2005). PID control. New identification and
design methods. London: Springer-Verlag.
Löfberg, J. (2004). YALMIP: A toolbox for modeling and optimization in
MATLAB. In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Symposium on
Computer Aided Control System Design (pp. 284–289). Taipei: Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
Madhuranthakam, C.R., Elkamel, A., & Budman, H. (2008). Optimal tun-
ing of PID controllers for FOPTD, SOPD and SOPTD with lead pro-
cesses. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 47, 251–264.
Mao, W.-J., & Chu, J. (2006). D-stability for linear continuous-time systems
with multiple time delays. Automatica, 42(9), 1589–1592.
Márquez-Rubio, J.F., del Muro-Cuéllar, B., Velasco-Villa, M., Cortés-
Rodríguez, D., & Sename, O. (2012). Control of delayed recycling sys-
tems with unstable first order forward loop. Journal of Process Control,
22, 729–737.
Martelli, G. (2009). Stability of PID-controlled second-order time-delay
feedback systems. Automatica, 45(11), 2718–2722.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE 11

Nabati, E.G., & Engell, S. (2012, March). Online adaptive robust tuning of
PID parameters. IFAC Conference on Advances in PID Control. Bres-
 ρ  ρ   ρ
cia.

Nariman-Zadeh, N., Jamali, A., & Hajiloo, A. (2007). Frequency-based reli- ρ ω (β )Mω(β )dβ ≥ ω(β )dβ M ω(β )dβ .
ability Pareto optimum design of proportional-integral-derivative con- 0 0 0
trollers for systems with probabilistic uncertainty. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part I: Journal of Systems and Con- The asymptotic stability of system (7) can be guaranteed by the
trol Engineering, 221(8), 1061–1075. next lemma.
O’Dwyer, A. (2001). PI and PID controller tuning rule design for processes
with delay, to achieve constant gain and phase margins for all values Lemma A.3: For a given τ , if there exist matrices P = P > 0 and
of delay. In R. Shorten, T. Ward, & T. Lysaght (Eds.), Proceedings of the Q = Q > 0, such that
Irish Signals and Systems Conference (pp. 96–101). Maynooth: National ⎡ ⎤
University of Ireland (NUI). τ 2 (A P + PA + Q) − τ P τ 2 PAd + τ P τ 2 A P τ C τ PBw
Panda, R.C., Yu, C., & Huang, H. (2004). PID tuning rules for SOPTDT ⎢  −τ 2 Q − τ P τ 2 Ad P τ Cd 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
systems: Review and some new results. ISA Transactions, 43, 283–295. ⎢   −τ P 0 τ PBw ⎥
Parada, M., Borges, R.A., Sbarbaro, D., & Peres, P.L.D. (2011, September). ⎢ ⎥
⎣    −I dw ⎦
Robust PID design for second-order processes with time-delay and struc-
tured uncertainties. 18th IFAC World Congress. Milano.     −μI
Pérez, O., Colmenares, W., Granado, E., Vega, P., & Mario, F. (2006, August). <0 (A1)
Integrated system design with PID controllers via LMIs. 2006 IEEE PES
T & D Latin America. Caracas.
then the closed-loop system (7) is asymptotically stable for any
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016

Puig, V., Bolea, Y., & Blesa, J. (2012, March). Robust gain-scheduled smith
(s) such that ||(s)||∞ < μ− 2 .
1
PID controllers for second order lpv systems with time varying delay.
IFAC Conference on Advances in PID Control. Brescia.
Rem, J., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Robust H control for uncertain descriptor
Proof: Consider the Lyapunov–Krasovskii-type functional
system by proportional-derivative state feedback. International Journal  t
of Control, 83(1), 89–96.
Rosinová, D., & Veselý, V. (2007). Robust PID decentralized controller

v dd (x(t )) = x(t ) Px(t ) + x(θ ) Qx(θ )dθ
design using LMI. International Journal of Computers, Communications  0 t t−τ

& Control, III(2), 195–204. + ẋ(θ ) Pẋ(θ )dθ dβ,

Saeki, M. (2006). Fixed structure PID controller design for standard H −τ t+β
control problem. Automatica, 42(1), 93–100.
Schrödel, F., Mashuw, J., & Abel, D. (2012, March). An approach for calcu- with
lating all stable PID parameters for time delay systems with uncertain
parameters. IFAC Conference on Advances in PID Control. Brescia.
v̇ dd (x(t )) = ẋ(t ) Px(t ) + x(t ) Pẋ(t ) + x(t ) Qx(t )
Shafique, A., & Tsakalis, K. (2012, March). Discrete-time PID controller tun-  t
ing using frequency loop-shaping. IFAC Conference on Advances in PID  
Control. Brescia. −xd Qxd + τ ẋ(t ) Pẋ(t ) − ẋ(θ ) Pẋ(θ )dθ
t−τ
Shamsuzzoha, M., & Lee, M. (2008). Design of advanced PID controller for
enhanced disturbance rejection of second-order processes with time
delay. AIChE Journal, 54(6), 1526–1536. where xd = x(t − τ ).
Sturm, J.F. (1999). Using SeDuMi 1.02, a MATLAB toolbox for optimiza- Using Lemma A.2, the integral term in the right-hand side of
tion over symmetric cones. Optimization Methods and Software, 11–12, the above expression can be replaced by a lower bound
625–653. Retrieved from http://sedumi.mcmaster.ca/
Vilanova, R. (2008). IMC based robust PID design: Tuning guidelines and  t
1
automatic tuning. Journal of Process Control, 18(1), 61–70. ž(t ) Pž(t ), ž(t ) = ẋ(θ )dθ = x(t ) − xd (t )
Visioli, A. (2006). Practical PID control. London: Springer-Verlag. τ t−τ
Ziegler, J.G., & Nichols, N.B. (1942). Optimum settings for automatic con-
trollers. Transactions of the ASME, 64, 759–768. implying that
Zhou, K., Doyle, J.C., & Glover, K. (1996). Robust and optimal control. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
v̇ dd (x(t )) ≤ ẋ(t ) Px(t ) + x(t ) Pẋ(t ) + x(t ) Qx(t )
1
Appendix A. Auxiliary results −xd Qxd + τ ẋ(t ) Pẋ(t ) − ž(t ) Pž(t ).
τ
To solve Problem 2.1 and Problem 2.2, some previous results are
needed. The rest of the proof follows from standard steps of linear
Lemma A.1 (Small Gain Theorem Zhou, Doyle, & Glover, time-delay systems involving the bounded real lemma and the
1996): Let Hwy (s) be the transfer function of the closed-loop system above-defined functional vdd (·), i.e. by imposing v̇ dd + y y −
√
(7). If γ 2 w  w < 0, where γ = μ.
Indeed, the stated condition can be written as
||Hwy (s)||∞ ||(s)||∞ ≤ 1 ⎡ ⎤
V11 PAd + τ A PAd + τ1 P + C Cd PBw + τ A PBw + C dw
v ⎣  −Q + τ Ad PAd − τ1 P + Cd Cd τ Ad PBw + Cd dw ⎦
then the feedback connection shown in Figure 1 is stable. 
  τ Bw PBw + dw dw I − μI
Lemma A.2 (Gu, 2000): For any constant matrix M ∈ Rm×m , v<0
M = M > 0, scalar ρ > 0, vector function ω : [0, ρ] → Rm such
that the integrations in the following are well defined, then where V11 = A P + PA + Q + τ A PA − τ1 P + C C which
implies that the matrix is negative definite.
 12 M. PARADA ET AL.

The last equation may be expanded by means of the Schur Note that the feasibility of matrix inequality (A1) implies that
complement (Boyd, El Ghaoui, Feron, & Balakrishnan, 1994) to the closed-loop system has an upper bound γ to the H∞ perfor-
obtain the following inequality mance and, in accordance with Lemma A.1, the feedback con-
nection shown in Figure 1 is stable. 
⎡ ⎤
A P + PA + Q − τ1 P PAd + τ1 P PBw C τ A P A straightforward, but conservative, extension to deal with
⎢  −Q − τ1 P 0 Cd τ Ad P ⎥ unknown time delays can be obtained considering a similar
⎢ ⎥
⎢   −μI τ Bw P ⎥
⎢ dw ⎥ < 0. Lyapunov–Krasovskii functional without the double integral
⎣    −I 0 ⎦ term. In this case, delay independent design conditions can be
    −τ P derived to deal with problems 2.1 and 2.2.
(A2) Other results on this work will be obtained with the aid of the
following well-known proposition.
Proposition A.1 (Ibrir, 2006): For given vectors v ∈ Rn , w ∈ Rm ,
Defining a congruence transformation matrix
a constant matrix M of appropriate dimensions and for any η >
0, the following statement is true
⎡ ⎤
τI 0 0 0 0    
⎢ 0 τI 0 0 0⎥ √ √
⎢ ⎥ √1 v
η
− ηMw √1 v −
η
ηMw ≥ 0
T=⎢
⎢0 0 0 0 I⎥⎥,
Downloaded by [RMIT University Library] at 03:02 18 March 2016

⎣0 0 0 I 0⎦ By factorisation it follows that

0 0 I 0 0
1 
v Mw + w M v ≤ v v + ηw M Mw.
and multiplying (A2) to the left and to the right by T, one gets η
(A1).