This article presents design and evaluation of filtered proportional–integral controllers and filtered Smith predictor–inspired constrained dead time compensators. Both are based on the integral plus dead time and on the first-order time delayed plant models. They are compared as for tuning simplicity, robustness and noise attenuation. Such a comparison, which presents a robustness test regarding the importance of the internal plant feedback approximation, may be carried out by performance measures built on deviations of the input and output transient responses from their ideal shapes. When combined with integral of absolute error measures of both solution types with the disturbance responses set as nearly equivalent, we can see that the filtered Smith predictor setpoint responses may be significantly faster than the filtered proportional–integral controller responses, more robust and, using higher-order filters, also sufficiently smooth. Furthermore, tuning of the possibly higher-order filters for filtered Smith predictor is simpler. Its overall design is more transparent and straightforward with respect to the control constraints, where the filtered Smith predictor requires some additional anti-windup measures.
ÅströmKJHägglundT.Advanced PID control. Research Triangle Park, NC: ISA, 2006.
2.
MercaderPÅströmKJBanosAet al. Robust PID design based on QFT and convex/concave optimization. IEEE T Contr Syst T2017; 25(2): 441–452.
3.
BanosAVidalA. Definition and tuning of a PI+CI reset controller. In: Proceedings of the European control conference, Kos, 2–5 July 2007. New York: IEEE.
4.
SegoviaVRHägglundTÅströmK.Measurement noise filtering for common PID tuning rules. Control Eng Pract2014; 32: 43–63.
5.
HubaMBistákPŤapákP.Combining model based and data-driven approaches: first order nonlinear plants control. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on electrical drives and power electronics, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 4–6 October 2017. New York: IEEE.
6.
WeiYQiuJFuSet al. New results on H∞ dynamic output feedback control for Markovian jump systems with time-varying delay and defective mode information. Optim Contr Appl Met2014; 35: 656–675.
7.
WeiYQiuJFuS.Mode-dependent nonrational output feedback control for continuous-time semi-Markovian jump systems with time-varying delay. Nonlinear Anal: Hybri2015; 16: 52–71.
8.
KothareMPJCampoPMorariMet al. A unified framework for the study of anti-windup designs. Automatica1994; 30: 1869–1883.
9.
GlattfelderASchaufelbergerW.Control systems with input and output constraints. Berlin: Springer, 2003.
JohnsonC.Accommodation of external disturbances in linear regulator and servomechanism problems. IEEE T Automat Contr1971; 16(6): 635–644.
12.
RadkeAGaoZ. A survey of state and disturbance observers for practitioners. In: Proceedings of the American control conference, Minneapolis, MN, 14–16 June 2006. New York: IEEE.
13.
MorariMZafiriouE.Robust process control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989.
14.
OhishiKNakaoMOhnishiKet al. Microprocessor-controlled dc motor for load-insensitive position servo system. IEEE T Ind Electron1987; IE-34(1): 44–49.
15.
SmithO.Closser control of loops with dead time. Chem Eng Prog1957; 53: 217–219.
16.
DonoghueJF.A comparison of the Smith predictor and optimal design approaches for systems with delay in the control. IEEE T Ind El Con In1977; IECI-24(1): 109–117.
17.
WatanabeKItoM.A process-model control for linear systems with delay. IEEE T Automat Contr1981; 266: 1261–1266.
18.
VrečkoDVrančičDJuričičDet al. A new modified Smith predictor: the concept, design and tuning. ISA T2001; 402: 111–121.
19.
GuzmánJGarcíaPHägglundTet al. Interactive tool for analysis of time-delay systems with dead-time compensators. Control Eng Pract2008; 167: 824–835.
20.
GarciaPAlbertosP.Robust tuning of a generalized predictor-based controller for integrating and unstable systems with long time-delay. J Process Contr2013; 238: 1205–1216.
21.
AlbertosPGarcaPSanzR. Some contributions to the design of dead-time compensators. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on control, automation, robotics and vision, Phuket, Thailand, 13–15 November 2016, pp.1–7. New York: IEEE.
22.
SanzRGarciaPZhongQCet al. Predictor-based control of a class of time-delay systems and its application to quadrotors. IEEE T Ind Electron2017; 64: 459–469.
23.
ÅströmKJHangCCLimBC.A new Smith predictor for controlling a process with an integrator and long dead-time. IEEE T Automat Contr1994; 392: 343–345.
24.
PalmorZ.Time-delay compensation. In: LevineS (ed.) The control handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC/IEEE Press, 1996, pp.224–237.
25.
MajhiSAthertonDP. A new Smith predictor and controller for unstable and integrating processes with time delay. In: Proceedings of the 37th IEEE conference on control and decision, Tampa, FL, 1998, pp.1341–1345. New York: IEEE.
26.
MataušekMMicičA.On the modified Smith predictor for controlling a process with an integrator and long dead-time. IEEE T Automat Contr1999; 44: 1603–1606.
27.
LiuTCaiYGuDet al. New modified Smith predictor scheme for integrating and unstable processes with time delay. IEE P: Contr Theor Ap2005; 152: 238–246.
28.
RaoASRaoVSRChidambaramM.Set point weighted modified Smith predictor for integrating and double integrating processes with time delay. ISA T2007; 461: 59–71.
29.
ZhangWRieberJGuD.Optimal dead-time compensator design for stable and integrating processes with time delay. J Process Contr2008; 185: 449–457.
30.
Normey-RicoJGuzmánJDormidoSet al. An unified approach for DTC design using interactive tools. Control Eng Pract2009; 17: 1234–1244.
31.
MataušekMRRibicAI.Control of stable, integrating and unstable processes by the modified Smith predictor. J Process Contr2012; 22(1): 338–343.
32.
RiveraDEMorariMSkogestadS.Internal model control. 4. PID controller design. Ind Eng Chem Res1986; 251: 252–265.
33.
SkogestadS.Simple analytic rules for model reduction and PID controller tuning. J Process Contr2003; 13: 291–309.
34.
O’DwyerA.Handbook of PI and PID controller tuning rules. 3rd ed.London: Imperial College Press, 2009.
35.
ZieglerJGNicholsNB.Optimum settings for automatic controllers. Trans ASME1942; 64: 759–768.
36.
TakahashiYChanCAuslanderD.Parametereinstellung bei linearen DDC-Algorithmen. Regelungstechnik1971; 19(6): 237–244.
37.
HubaM.Performance measures, performance limits and optimal PI control for the IPDT plant. J Process Contr2013; 234: 500–515.
38.
MercaderPBanosA.A PI tuning rule for integrating plus dead time processes with parametric uncertainty. ISA T2017; 67: 246–255.
39.
FliessMJoinC.Model-free control. Int J Control2013; 86(12): 2228–2252.
40.
GaoZ.On the centrality of disturbance rejection in automatic control. ISA T2013; 53: 850–857.
41.
HubaM.Estimation of the properties of digital control of a nonlinear first-order system by zero- and first degree linear models. Autom Praha1987; 30(5): 124–130.
42.
HubaMSovišováDSpurnáN.Digital time-optimal control of nonlinear second-order system. IFAC Proc Vol1987; 20: 31–36.
43.
HubaMVrancicDHubaT. Evaluating performance limits in FOTD plant control. In: Proceedings of the 11th IFAC ACE, Bratislava, Slovakia, 1–3 June 2016. Elsevier Science Direct - IFAC PapersOnline.
44.
HubaMŽákováK. Comparing controllers based on IPDT plant models. In: Proceedings of the 20th IFAC world congress, Toulouse. 9–14 July 2017, Elsevier Science Direct - IFAC PapersOnline.
45.
HubaM. Some practical issues in the Smith predictor design for FOTD systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on control, decision and information technologies, Barcelona, 5–7 April 2017. IEEE.
46.
HubaMŠimunekM.Modular approach to teaching PID control. IEEE T Ind Electron2007; 546: 3112–3121.
47.
FeldbaumA.Optimal control systems. New York: Academic Press, 1965.
48.
FöllingerO.Nichtlineare regelungen. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1993.
49.
ShinskeyF.How good are our controllers in absolute performance and robustness. Meas Control1990; 23: 114–121.
50.
HanJ.From PID to active disturbance rejection control. IEEE T Ind Electron2009; 56(3): 900–906.
51.
YangXHuangY. Capabilities of extended state observer for estimating uncertainties. In: Proceedings of the American control conference, St. Louis, MO, 10–12 June 2009, pp.3700–3705. New York: IEEE.
52.
HubaMBistákPHubaTet al. Comparing filtered PID and Smith predictor control of a thermal plant. In: Proceedings of the 19th international conference on electrical drives and power electronics, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 4–6 October 2017. New York: IEEE.
53.
HubaMTapákP. Experimenting with modified Smith predictors using B&R automation studio target for Simulink. In: Proceedings of the 11th IFAC/IEEE international conference on programmable devices and embedded systems, Brno, Czech Republic, 23–25 May 2012, Elsevier Science Direct - IFAC PapersOnline.
54.
HubaMHubaT. Modifications of model free control to FOTD plants. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics). 2018R. Moreno-DiazR, et al. (Eds.), EUROCAST 2017, Part I, LNCS 10671, pp. 1–8, 2018.
55.
HubaM. Triple real dominant pole tuning of a filtered PI controller. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on cybernetics and informatics, Levoca, Slovakia, 2–5 February 2016. New York: IEEE.
56.
VítečkováMVítečekA.2DOF PI and PID controllers tuning. In: Proceedings of the 9th IFAC workshop on time delay systems, vol. 9, Praha, Slovakia, 7–9 June 2010, pp.343–348. Elsevier Science Direct - IFAC PapersOnline.
57.
HubaM. Robust tuning of the simplest dead time compensators. In: Proceedings of the international conference and exposition on electrical and power engineering, Iasi, Romania, 16–18 October 2014. New York: IEEE.
58.
WeiYQiuJLamHKet al. Approaches to T-S fuzzy-affine-model-based reliable output feedback control for nonlinear Ito stochastic systems. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst2017; 25(3): 569–583.
59.
WeiYQiuJShiPet al. A new design of H -infinity piecewise filtering for discrete-time nonlinear time-varying delay systems via T-S fuzzy affine models. IEEE T Syst Man Cy A2017; 47(8): 2034–2047.
60.
WeiYQiuJKarimiHR.Reliable output feedback control of discrete-time fuzzy affine systems with actuator faults. IEEE T Circuits: I2017; 64(1): 170–181.
61.
BistakP. Time sub-optimal controller for triple integrator applied to three-level hydraulic system. In: Proceedings of the 13th IASTED international conference on control and applications, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1–3 June 2011, pp.28–35. Calgary, AB: ACTA Press.
