Automatic Tuning of a Dead-Time Compensator

for Stable, Integrative and Unstable Processes

Rene D. O. Pereira1 , Francisco V. Andrade2 , Bismark C. Torrico3 and Wilkley B. Correia4
Departamento de Engenharia Eletrica, Universidade Federal do Ceara
Caixa postal 6001, Campus do Pici, CEP 60455-760, Fortaleza-CE, Brasil
1
reneolimpio@alu.ufc.br, 2 vanierandrade@ifce.edu.br, 3 bismark@dee.ufc.br, 4 wilkley@dee.ufc.br
AbstractThis work proposes a method of automatic
tuning for a dead-time compensator that can cope with stable,
integrative and unstable process. At first, a identification
method is devised and then simple tuning rules are defined to
retune the controller. Furthermore, a performance assessment
procedure is presented. Simulation results are presented to
show the effectiveness of the method.

integrating systems [4], whose block diagram is shown in

Fig. 1, where the nominal plant model is written as Pn (s) =
Gn (s)eLm s , Gn (s) is the dead-time free model and Lm is
the nominal dead-time.
Q(s)
R(s)
F(s)

Resumen Este trabajo propone un metodo de sintonizacion

automatica para un compensador de tiempo muerto apropiado
para procesos estables, inestables e integradores con retardo.
Inicialmente es propuesto un metodo de identificacion
para luego despues resintonizar el controlador. Ademas, es

presentado un procedimiento de evaluacion de desempeno.

Resultados de simulacion son presentados para mostrar la
eficacia del metodo propuesto.

II. C ONTINUOUS - TIME SFSP

The FSP structure has lately become one of the most
popular DTC structures to deal with stable, unstable and

U(s)

+
+

Y(s)
P(s)

Ym(s)
Gn(s)

e-Lms

I. I NTRODUCTION
Over the last decades, the study of dead-time systems has
been widely considered, regarding its importance for both
academia and industry. Within this context the Smith Predictor (SP) [1], described as the first dead-time compensator
(DTC) proposed in literature, plays an important role.
Many modifications regarding the SP structure have been
proposed over the last decades as [2] to deal with integrating
processes and [3]. The Filtered Smith Predictor (FSP) includes a robustness filter which makes the proposed structure
able to deal with stable, integrating and unstable cases as
it improves closed loop robustness properties [4], [5]. High
frequencies noise attenuation is dealt in [6] and the study
of SISO systems with multiple dead-time can be found in
[7] and [8]. A FSP structure with simplified tuning rules
is proposed in [9] for stable, unstable and integrating first
order plus dead-time (FOPDT) systems, which considers the
controller and the reference filter as simple gains, easing the
tuning procedure by making it more intuitive.
Following this idea, the work developed in this paper
investigates simple tuning rules, when the automatic tuning
methods proposed by [10][14] and considered by [15] are
applied.
This paper is organized as follows: Section II describes the
Simplified FSP for the continuous-time case, Section III
present the identification method of the automatic tuning,
Section IV describes the simple tuning rules and the performance assessment used by the proposed method, Section V
show simulations results for each case of processes and in
Section VI conclusions are commented.

C(s)

Fig. 1.

Fr(s)

FSP structure.

If model uncertainties are not taken into account, then

Pn (s) = P (s), leading to the following closed loop transfer
functions
F (s)C(s)Pn (s)
Y (s)
=
(1)
Hr (s) =
R(s)
1 + C(s)Gn (s)


Y (s)
F (s)C(s)Pn (s)Fr (s)
Hq (s) =
= Pn (s) 1
(2)
Q(s)
1 + C(s)Gn (s)
where R(s), Y (s) and Q(s) are the Laplace transform of the
desired set-point r(t), the output y(t) and the disturbance
q(t), respectively.
Alternatively, the FSP structure can be rewritten by applying
block manipulations to the diagram in Fig. 1 to obtain a
classical 2-DOF structure as the one shown in Fig. 2, where
Ceq (s) =

C(s)Fr (s)
1 + Gn (s)C(s)(1 Fr (s)eLm s )

and
Feq =

F (s)
.
Fr (s)

(3)

(4)

Q(s)
R(s)
Feq(s)

Ceq(s)

U(s)

+
+

Y(s)
P(s)

Fig. 2.

Classical 2-DOF structure.

As usual for a 2-DOF controller, one might have

lim Feq (s) = 1.

s0

In addition, in order to assure zero steady-state error for

step-like set-point reference tracking, one might consider an
integrator (a pole at s = 0) for the Ceq (s) controller.
Simple tuning rules for the FSP controller were proposed in
[9], applicable for FOPDT discrete-time systems, where the
feedback controller C(s) and the reference filter F (s) are
reduced to simple gains: kc and kr , respectively.
For the continuous-time case, a FOPDT stable system can
be written as
Km
eLm s .
(5)
Pn (s) =
Tm s + 1

Note that Eqs. (11) and (12) or Eqs. (13) may be arranged
as a linear system of size two whose variables of interest
are b1 and b2 , leading to obtain b2 = kr and, for the stable
case,
(Tm )2
+ b2 Tm ,
(15)
b1 =
Tm eLm /Tm
for the unstable case,
b1 =

s0

1 + kc Gn (s)
.
kc Gn (s)

(6)

For FOPDT stable processes, the primary controller is then

expressed as
Tm
.
(7)
kc =
Km (Tcl 1)
For unstable cases (UFOPDT), one gets
kc =

Tm
,
Km (Tcl + 1)

(8)

and for integrating plus dead-time (IPDT) systems

kc =

1
,
Km Tcl

(9)

where Tcl is the desired closed loop time constant of the

controlled system.
Additionally, the robustness filter Fr (s) can be written in
continuous-time as
b1 s + b2
.
(10)
Fr (s) =
(s + 1)2
In this case, b1 and b2 are designed such as Ceq (s) meet
the conditions (i) to exhibit a pole at s = 0 (ii) to cancel
the pole related to the Tm time constant on the closed loop
equation Hq (s). The filter pole is a tuning parameter set
for faster or slower disturbance rejection dynamics. Some
algebraic manipulations on Eq. (3) allow to write
Fr (s)

Ceq (s) =
Gn (s)

1+C(s)Gn (s)
C(s)Gn (s)

Fr (s)eLm s

.

Consider Tm s+1 at the denominator of the Eq. (5) is written

as s + a. Thus, in order to reach conditions (i) and (ii), for
the stable and unstable cases (a 6= 0), one might have



1 + C(s)Gn (s)
Lm s 
Fr (s)e
= 0 (11)

C(s)Gn (s)

 s=0

1 + C(s)Gn (s)
Fr (s)eLm s 
= 0, (12)
C(s)Gn (s)
s=a
and for the integrating case (a = 0),



1 + C(s)Gn (s)
Lm s 
Fr (s)e

C(s)Gn (s)

 s=0

d 1 + C(s)Gn (s)
Fr (s)eLm s 
ds
C(s)Gn (s)
s=a

b1 = 2 + Lm +

0 (13)

0. (14)

1
.
kc Km

(17)

III. M ODEL IDENTIFICATION

Basically, the overall algorithm can be be summarized as
follows: (i) the SFSP controller is tuned for the nominal
known model, however it presents poor performance if
uncertainties are taken into account; (ii) a more accurate
model is required leading to a new identification process;
(iii) the primary controller is retuned for the latter model
obtained. Thus, in order to apply the SFSP as the primary
controller, the identification step on the described procedure
has to be applied to obtain a first order model.
The proposed identification method is an extension of the
methodology presented in [15] for the FSP autotuning. The
procedure can be applied after a set-point step change (of
magnitude As ) or a step load disturbance (of magnitude Ad ),
when the system reaches the steady-state. The identification
is mainly based on the application of the final value theorem
(FVT) to determine the parameters of the model. As a result,
relations between the parameters of the model, the known
parameters of the system and integrals of time dependent
variables are obtained.
On the following, the identification method is presented for
the three cases mentioned earlier (FOPDT, UFOPDT and
IPDT) for both set-point step changes and step load disturbances. For all cases it is assumed null initial conditions.
A. Stable processes
The FOPDT model is described as in Eq. (18).
KeLs
(18)
Ts + 1
1) Set-point step change: After a set-point step change
and applying the FVT to the control signal u(t), it can be
obtained for processes like Eq. (18) that
P (s) =

As
.
(19)
t+
s0
K
From the structure of the SFSP, the control signal expression
can be obtained as:
lim u(t) = lim sU (s) =

U (s) = Ceq (s)Ef (s),

where
Ef (s) =

(16)

and for integrating processes

Therefore, for the SFSP design and following the ideas in

[9], kr is tuned in order to guarantee zero steady-state error
for a step-like set-point, i.e.,
kr = lim

(Tm + )2 eLm /Tm

b2 Tm
Tm

F (s) As
Y (s).
Fr (s) s

(20)
(21)

Substituting Eqs. (20) and (21) in Eq. (19), the static gain
results
As K m
K=
,
(22)
IEf

where

ef (t)dt

IEf =

(23)

and
= 2 b + Lm + Tcl ,

(24)

with b = b1 /b2 . It is important to highlight that the constant

appears in many of the following derived relations for
stable and unstable processes.
Consider the variable:
esu (t) = Ku(t) y(t).

(25)

By applying the FVT, to the integral of the esu one gets

Z
Esu (s)
IEsu =
esu (t)dt = lim s
= As (T + L), (26)
s0
s
0
leading to the time constant
T =

IEsu
L.
As

Ad =

IY
.
Km

(29)

(30)

By integrating the above equation and applying the FVT, it

is obtained
Z
Ad Km
J(s)
IJ =
=
.
(31)
j(t)dt = lim s
s0
s
K
0
Therefore, the static gain is
K=

Ad Km
.
IJ

(32)

Consider now to define

esj (t) = Kj(t) y(t).

(33)

and the time constant is found to be

DIEsj
T =
L.
KIJ

KeLs
(36)
Ts 1
1) Set-point step change: Applying the FVT to the
control signal u(t) after a set-point step change, it can be
obtained for processes like Eq. (36) that
P (s) =

t+

s0

As
.
K

K=

As K m
.
IEf

(35)

(38)

The following variable is defined:

euu (t) = Ku(t) y(t).

(39)

Applying the FVT to its integral, it can be obtained

Z
Euu (s)
IEuu =
euu (t)dt = lim s
= As (L T ). (40)
s0
s
0
Therefore, the time constant is
IEuu
.
(41)
As
Henceforward, the apparent dead-time L can be obtained by
the same way described in Section III-A1.
2) Step load disturbance: Applying the FVT to the
integral of the output variable y(t) results
T =L

IY = Ad Km .

(42)

Therefore, the magnitude of the step load disturbance is

Ad =

IY
.
Km

(43)

Applying the FVT to the integral of j(t) (Eq. (30)) it can

be obtained
Ad K m
IJ =
.
(44)
K
Therefore, as for stable processes, the static gain results
K=

(34)

(37)

Substituting the control variable U (s) for Eqs. (20) and (21)
in Eq. (37), the static gain is obtained as the same relation
for stable processes:

Ad Km
.
IJ
Defining the following variable:

By applying the FVT to its double integral results

Z Z t
Esj (s)
esj ()ddt = lim s
DIEsj =
=
s0
s2
0
0
= K(T + L)IJ ,

The UFOPDT model is given by

lim u(t) = lim sU (s) =

The variable j(t) is then defined to be

j(t) = u(t) + d(t).

B. Unstable processes

(27)

Henceforward, as mentioned in [10], the apparent dead-time

L can be estimated as the time interval between the set-point
step change and the instant when the output variable y(t)
attains 2% of the step magnitude As , i.e., when y(t) =
0.02As . Nevertheless, in a practical context, a noise band
NB equal to the measurement noise can be defined [16].
Hence, the apparent dead-time L can be estimated as the
time interval until y(t) NB .
2) Step load disturbance: At first, an estimation of the
magnitude Ad of the step load disturbance is needed. By
applying the FVT to integral of the output of the system, it
is obtained
Z
Y (s)
= Ad Km .
(28)
IY =
y(t)dt = lim s
s0
s
0
Therefore,

Henceforward the apparent dead-time L can be obtained as

the time interval between the instant by which a step load
disturbance is applied and the instant by which the output
variable y(t) attains 2% of the corresponding final value of
y(t) produced by an input step of magnitude Ad , i.e., when
y(t) = 0.02KAd . Considering practical aspects, as in the
previous section, a noise band NB equal to the measurement
noise can be defined and the apparent dead-time is estimated
as the time interval until y(t) NB .

euj (t) = Kj(t) y(t),

and applying the FVT to its double integral results
Z Z t
Euj (s)
DIEuj =
euj ()ddt = lim s
=
s0
s2
0
0

(45)

(46)

= K(T L)IJ .

(47)

Therefore, the time constant is

DIEuj
+ L.
(48)
KIJ
The apparent dead-time L is then obtained as mentioned in
Section III-A2.
T =

C. Integrative processes

L=

DIEij
.
DIJ

(63)

IV. T UNING AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

The IPDT model is presented below.

Ls

Ke
(49)
s
1) Set-point step change: Applying the FVT to the output
variable of a process described by Eq. (49) after a set-point
step change, it is obtained
P (s) =

lim y(t) = lim KeLs s

t+

and applying the FVT to its double integral, it is obtained

Z Z t
Eij (s)
eij ()ddt = lim s 2 = LDIJ .
DIEij =
s0
s
0
0
(62)
The apparent dead-time then results

s0

where

U (s)
= KIU = As ,
s

A. Tuning
(50)

IU =

u(t)dt.

(51)

Therefore, the static gain is

As
.
IU
The following variable is defined:
Z t
eiu (t) = K
u()d y(t).
K=

(52)

(53)

Applying the FVT to its integral:

Z
Eiu (s)
IEiu =
eiu (t)dt = lim s
= As L.
s0
s
0

(54)

Therefore, the apparent dead-time results

L=

IEiu
.
As

Once the new model (for the uncertain system) has been
identified, we proceed to apply simple tuning rules to the
controller. Once the controller is reset, then the performance
assessment is performed based on the new parameters and
the actual response of the system, in order to compute
performance indexes.

(55)

2) Step load disturbance: Applying the FVT to the

integral of the output variable y(t) results
IY = Ad Km ,

(56)

= 2 + 2Tcl L2m /2 + b1 Lm .

(57)

where

The tuning rules that are defined for the SFSP were
devised for the FSP in [15]. Given the similarities of the two
controllers, that tuning rules can apply to the corresponding
tuning parameters of the SFSP, namely, and Tcl .
For disturbance rejection, the tuning rules were devised
through the nominal sensitivity peak Ms using an interval
of Lm /Tm (0, 10], that is, covering a considerable
range of lag-dominant and dead-time dominant models. The
tuning can be done with = Lm /2 (for Ms = 1.5) for
stable processes and with = Lm (for Ms = 2.2) for
integrative processes. For unstable processes, it can also be
done = Lm (for Ms = 3), since Lm /Tm < 0.6.
For set-point tracking, considering lag-dominant processes,
the closed-loop time constant Tcl can be chosen between the
interval [Lm /4,Lm /2], where there is a trade-off between
robustness and performance. Hence, lower values result
in higher performance and higher values result in robust
responses. For dead-time dominant processes, a conservative
rule is to choose Tcl = Tm [17].
B. Performance assessment
In general, the performance assessment of a control
system is made by comparing the actual performance with
a target performance. As the performance index used to the
assessment it is chosen the integrated absolute error IAE ,
defined as
Z
IAE =
|e(t)|dt.
(64)

The magnitude of the step load disturbance then results

Ad =

IY
.
Km

(58)

Taking the double integral of the variable j(t) (Eq. 30) and
applying the FVT, it is obtained
Z Z t
Ad Km
J(s)
. (59)
DIJ =
j()ddt = lim s 2 =
s0
s
K
0
0
Therefore, the static gain is
Ad Km
.
DIJ
Defining the variable below:
Z t
eij (t) = K
j()d y(t),
K=

(60)

This choice is based on the characteristic that its minimization results generally in low overshoot and reduced settling
time [18].
The actual IAE value is computed after a set-point step
change or a step load disturbance. After the identification,
the target IAE can then be computed assuming that the
identified model perfectly represents the plant.
1) Set-point step change: For set-point tracking, the
closed-loop transfer function of the SFSP for FOPDT, IPDT
and UFOPDT models is given by
Hr (s) =

(61)

eLm s
Y (s)
=
.
R(s)
Tcl s + 1

(65)

For the SFSP, as for the FSP, considering the above transfer
function and a monotonic response (no overshoot) of the

output variable after a set-point step change, the target IAE

value is computed as
(66)

2) Step load disturbance: For regulation tasks, the

closed-loop transfer function of the SFSP for FOPDT, IPDT
and UFOPDT models is given by


Y (s)
(bs + 1)eLs
.
Hq (s) =
= Pn (s) 1
Q(s)
(Tcl s + 1)(s + 1)2
(67)
Based on that transfer function, the target IAE value is
computed for FOPDT models as
(68)

for UFOPDT models as

IAEld = |Ad Km |

(69)

and for IPDT models as

IAEld = |Ad Km |.

Set-point step change and step load disturbance responses

output variable y

IAEld = |Ad Km |,

Set-point
Initial tuning
SP Autotuning
LD Autotuning

0.5

(70)

3) Performance indexes: The Set-Point Performance Index (SPPI) can then be defined below as the ratio between
the target and the actual IAE values:
IAEsp
.
(71)
IAE
Similarly, the Load Disturbance Performance Index (LDPI)
is defined as
IAEld
LDPI =
.
(72)
IAE
Theoretically, the SFSP has satisfactory performance when
the performance index value is equal to 1. Nevertheless,
in a pratical context, a FSP can be considered well tuned
when that value is greater than 0.8 [15]. Certainly, if the
system has tighter performance requirements, that value can
be higher.
SPPI =

50

100

150

time

control variable u

IAEsp = As (Tcl + Lm ).

integrated absolute error is IAE1 = 5.34 and the estimated

parameters are Km = 0.12, Tm = 5.96 and Lm = 3.04,
resulting SPPI = 0.712. After a step load disturbance of
amplitude 8, it is obtained actual IAE2 = 4.0397 and it
is estimated Ad = 8, Km = 0.12, Tm = 5.868 and Lm
= 3.14, resulting LDPI = 0.664. The output and control
signals responses are shown in Fig. 3.
With the autotuning based on the set-point step response it
was obtained actual IAE1 = 3.842, SPPI = 0.989, actual
IAE2 = 2.511 and LDPI = 1. While with the autotuning
based on the load disturbance step response it was obtained
actual IAE1 = 4.059, SPPI = 0.936, actual IAE2 = 2.7
and LDPI = 0.994.

Initial tuning
SP Autotuning
LD Autotuning

60
40
20
0
0

50

100

150

time

Fig. 3. Set-point and load disturbance step responses for process P1 (s)
with the initial tuning and with the autotunings.

B. Unstable process
The second example is a model of concentration control
in an unstable reactor [5].
3.433e20s
.
(74)
103.1s 1
The uncertainties were +10% for the static gain, 5% for
the time constant and +10% for the dead-time. The resulting
parameters are Km = 3.776, Tm = 97.945 and Lm = 22.
The chosen tuning rules are = Lm and Tcl = Lm /4.
After a set-point unit step change is applied, actual IAE1
= 39.69 and the estimated parameters are Km = 3.457, Tm
= 100.318 and Lm = 20.3, resulting SPPI = 0.639. After
a step load disturbance of magnitude 0.2, the actual IAE2
= 20.388 and Ad = 0.2, Km = 3.489, Tm = 106.505 and
Lm = 22.2, resulting LDPI = 0.786. The output and control
signal responses are shown in Fig. 4.
With the autotuning based on the set-point step response it
was obtained actual IAE1 = 27.826, SPPI = 0.912, actual
IAE2 = 14.08 and LDPI = 1. While with the autotuning
based on the load disturbance step response it was obtained
actual IAE1 = 29.897, SPPI = 0.849, actual IAE2 = 16.089
and LDPI = 0.996.
P2 (s) =

V. S IMULATION RESULTS
The chosen examples are stable, unstable and integrative
processes presented in [5] and [19]. For each case, it was
added model uncertainties considering that the initial model
was incorrectly estimated or that the parameters of the plant
changed. In the same simulation are performed both the
autotunings based on the set-point (SP) step change as
on the step load disturbance (LD). Its responses are then
plotted in the same figure with the initial tuning response
for comparison. Furthermore, the tuning rules of Section
IV-A were used for each controllers.
A. Stable process
The model for temperature control in a heat exchanger
[5] is presented below.
P1 (s) =

0.12e3s
.
6s + 1

(73)

The uncertainties of the model are of +10% in the static

gain, 10% in the time constant and +20% in the deadtime. Therefore, the parameters result Km = 0.132, Tm =
5.4 and Lm = 3.6. The tuning rules are = Lm /2 and
Tcl = Lm /4. After a set-point unit step change, the actual

C. Integrative process
The integrative process below is presented in [19].
P3 (s) =

0.1e8s
.
s(s + 1)(0.5s + 1)(0.1s + 1)

(75)

Set-point step change and step load disturbance responses

output variable y

1.5

1
Set-point
Initial tuning
SP Autotuning
LD Autotuning

0.5

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

time

control variable u

6
Initial tuning
SP Autotuning
LD Autotuning

4
2
0

integrative and stable plants. An identification method was

devised for each type of plant, when a set-point step change
or a step load disturbance is applied. The simple tuning rules
of the method are suitable for automatic tuning applications
and the performance assessment indexes can easily verify
the real need to a better tuning.
The simulation results showed the effectiveness of the
procedure and the authors believe that the proposed method
has potential to industrial applications.
As future works, the method will be applied to the temperature control of a neonatal incubator and its potential to
self-tuning applications will be explored.

-2
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

time

Fig. 4. Set-point and load disturbance step responses for process P2 (s)
with the initial tuning and with the autotunings.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the financial support
for scientific research provided by the Brazilian institutions
CNPq and FUNCAP.
R EFERENCES

A IPDT model for this process is

0.1e9.6s
Pn (s) =
.
(76)
s
The uncertainties are 20% for the static gain and +30%
for the dead-time, resulting in Km = 0.08 and Lm = 12.48.
The tuning rules are = Lm and Tcl = Lm /4. Applying a
set-point unit step change, the actual IAE1 = 19.749 and
the estimated parameters are Km = 0.1 and Lm = 9.6,
resulting SPPI = 0.608. Applying a step load disturbance
of magnitude 0.3, actual IAE2 = 15.887 and are estimated
Ad = 0.3, Km = 0.1 and Lm = 9.447, resulting LDPI =
0.716. The output and control signal responses are seen in
Fig. 5.
With the autotuning based on the set-point step response
it was obtained actual IAE1 = 12.187, SPPI = 0.985,
actual IAE2 = 11.749 and LDPI = 0.968. While with the
autotuning based on the load disturbance step response it
was obtained actual IAE1 = 12.303, SPPI = 0.975, actual
IAE2 = 11.371 and LDPI = 1.

output variable y

Set-point step change and step load disturbance responses

1

Set-point
Initial tuning
SP Autotuning
LD Autotuning

0.5

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

control variable u

time
Initial tuning
SP Autotuning
LD Autotuning

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

time

Fig. 5. Set-point and load disturbance step responses for process P3 (s)
with the initial tuning and with the autotunings.

VI. C ONCLUSION
It was presented an automatic tuning methodology applied
to a SFSP dead-time compensator that can cope with stable,

[1] O. Smith, Closed control of loops with dead time, Chemical

Engineering Progress, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 217219, 1957.
[2] M. R. Matausek and A. D. Micic, A modified smith predictor for
controlling a process with an integrator and long dead-time, IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, no. 41, pp. 11991203, 1996.
[3] M. R. Matausek and A. I. Ribic, Control of stable, integrating
and unstable processes by the modified smith predictor, Journal of
Process Control, no. 22, pp. 338343, 2012.
[4] J. E. Normey-Rico and E. F. Camacho, Control of Dead-time Processes. London, UK: Springer-Verlag, 2007.
[5] , Unified approach for robust dead-time compensator design,
Journal of Process Control, vol. 19, pp. 3847, 2009.
[6] T. L. M. Santos, P. E. A. Botura, and J. E. Normey-Rico, Dealing
with noise in unstable dead-time process control, Journal of Process
Control, no. 20, pp. 840847, 2010.
[7] J. E. Normey-Rico, R. C. Flesch, and T. L. Santos, Unified dead-time
compensation structure for siso processes with multiple dead times,
ISA Transactions, vol. 53, pp. 18651872, 2014.
[8] B. C. Torrico, W. B. Correia, and F. G. Nogueira, Simplified deadtime compensator for multiple delay siso systems, ISA Transactions,
vol. 60, pp. 254261, 2016.
[9] B. C. Torrico, M. U. Cavalcante, A. P. S. Braga, J. E. NormeyRico, and A. A. M. Albuquerque, Simple tuning rules for dead-time
compensation of stable, integrative, and unstable first-order dead-time
processes, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, vol. 52, pp.
11 64611 654, 2013.
[10] M. Veronesi and A. Visioli, Performance assessment and retuning
of PID controllers, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research,
vol. 48, pp. 26162623, 2009.
[11] , An industrial application of a performance assessment and
retuning technique for PI controllers, ISA Transactions, vol. 49, pp.
244248, 2010.
[12] , Performance assessment and retuning of PID controllers for
integral processes, Journal of Process Control, vol. 20, pp. 261269,
2010.
[13] , A simultaneous closed-loop automatic tuning method for
cascade controllers, IET Control Theory and Applications, vol. 5,
pp. 263270, 2011.
[14] J. E. Normey-Rico, R. Sartori, M. Veronesi, and A. Visioli, An
automatic tuning methodology for a unified dead-time compensator,
Control Engineering Practice, vol. 27, pp. 1122, 2014.
[15] , An automatic tuning methodology for a unified dead-time
compensator, Control Engineering Practice, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 11
22, 2014.
om, T. Hagglund, C. C. Hang, and W. K. Ho, Automatic
[16] K. J. Astr
tuning and adaptation for PID controllers - a survey, Control Engineering Practice, vol. 1, pp. 699714, 1993.
[17] T. Hagglung, An industrial dead-time compensating pi controller,
Control Engineering Practice, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 749756, 1996.
[18] F. G. Shinskey, Feedback controllers for the process industries. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[19] P. Garca and P. Albertos, A new dead-time compensator to control
stable and integrating processes with long dead-time, Automatica,
vol. 44, pp. 10621071, 2008.