You are on page 1of 11

Robust PID controller design via LMI approach

Ming Ge
a
, Min-Sen Chiu
b
, Qing-Guo Wang
c,
*
a
Honeywell Singapore Laboratory, Honeywell International, 17 Changi Business Park Central 1, Singapore 486073, Singapore
b
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Singapore
c
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National University of Singapore, 10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260, Singapore
Abstract
In this paper, a method which allows explicit incorporation of the description of system uncertainties in the problem formulation
for designing robust proportional-integal-derivative (PID) controller is presented. The multiple-model paradigm is employed to
represent the uncertainties and provides the basis for the PID controller design. Using standard techniques, the robust PID con-
troller design is reduced to a convex constraint problem which can be eciently solved with linear matrix inequalities (LMIs)
approach. Various practical specications are considered simultaneously within this framework. Extension to system with time-
delays, which follows naturally from the preceding development, is also discussed. Two examples are used to demonstrate the
eectiveness of the proposed method and a comparison with the existing PID tuning methods is made. #2001 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved.
Keywords: PID; Linear matrix inequalities (LMI); Multiple-model; Time-delay
1. Introduction
Proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers
have found extensive industrial applications for several
decades since Ziegler and Nichols proposed their rst
PID tuning method. This is because its simple structure
makes the PID controller much easier to be understood
by the control engineer [1] than most other advanced
controllers. Numerous modications have been made to
improve the ZieglerNichols (ZN) tuning methods [2
4]. Nevertheless, these ZN related methods might be
inadequate in the applications where the high perfor-
mance is required because much a-priori information of
the processes is not exploited in the PID controller
design. To tackle this problem, varieties of new techni-
ques have been developed. Among them are the analy-
tical tuning method [5,6], the optimization based
method [68], the gain and phase margin method [8,9],
and so forth.
These approaches have proven to work well in a lot of
practical situations. Most of them, however, only make
use of a single linear model to design the PID controller,
which inevitably causes the plantmodel mismatch.
Consequently, the resultant PID controller may behave
quite poorly if the plant is operated in a wide range of
operating conditions. One possible way to overcome
this problem is to employ an internal-model-based PID
tuning method [10,11] to consider the model uncer-
tainty, where the plant-model mismatch can be accom-
modated by the proper design of IMC lter. However,
this method inherently implies the pole-zero cancella-
tions, which can cause the inferior response to load dis-
turbance when the cancelled poles are slow in
comparison with the dominant poles [8].
The objective of this paper is to propose a novel
robust PID controller design to address the problem
mentioned above. To this end, a multiple-model para-
digm is employed to describe the uncertainties that are
inherent in the approximation of nonlinear plants. The
concept of multiple-model has been recently developed
and found its widespread use in nonlinear system mod-
eling and control [1223]. Under the mild condition, it
has been shown that multiple-model can uniformly
approximate any system on a compact subset provided
that a sucient number of local models is given [13].
Various practical requirements on control systems are
considered in the paper and formulated as LQR cost,
H
o
performance, regional pole constraints, and so on.
These measures are then tackled in terms of linear
0959-1524/02/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PI I : S0959- 1524( 00) 00057- 3
Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313
www.elsevier.com/locate/jprocont
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +65-874-2282; fax: +65-779-1103.
E-mail address: elewqg@nus.edu.sg (Qing-Guo Wang).
matrix inequalities (LMIs) which can be solved e-
ciently using recently developed convex optimization
algorithms [2426]. The resulting PID controller will
achieve a superior performance in comparison with the
single model based PID controller. Extension to systems
with time-delays, which follows naturally from the pre-
ceding formulation, is also discussed. Examples are
included to demonstrate the eectiveness of the pro-
posed method and show signicant improvement over
the existing PID tuning methods.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents
the LQRLMI framework as the basis to develop the
robust PID controller. In Section 3, the robust PID
controller design problem is formulated and solved by
the LQRLMI approach. Various design specications
are converted to LMI constraints to be used in PID
controller design and extension to time-delay system is
discussed. Simulation studies are conducted in Section
4. Section 5 concludes this paper.
2. LQRLMI framework
In this section, we present some background material
on linear quadratic regulator (LQR) and linear matrix
inequality (LMI) which will be used for the robust PID
controller design in this paper. In many control pro-
blems, it is well motivated to base the design on the
LQR control theory for its nice robustness [27]. Con-
sider the time invariant linear system:
x
.
= Ax Bu.
y = Cx. (1)
The standard LQR problem is to determine the con-
trol u which minimizes the quadratic cost:
J(u) =
_
o
0
(x
T
Qx u
T
Ru)dt
for any initial state x(0), where Q and R are symmetric
positive semidenite matrix and symmetric positive
denite matrix, respectively, i.e. Q = Q
T
50 and
R = R
T
> 0. Assume that (A. B) are controllable and
(Q
1,2
. A) are observable. It turns out that the solution u
+
to this optimal control problem can be expressed [27] in
the state feedback form:
u
+
= Kx = R
1
B
T
Px.
where P is the symmetric positive denite solution of the
algebraic Riccati equation (ARE):
A
T
P PA PBR
1
B
T
P Q = 0 (2)
and the minimum quadratic cost is given by
J
min
= x
T
(0)Px(0). (3)
Thus, the solution to the LQR problem relies on sol-
ving the ARE (2). An ecient alternative for this pro-
blem is the LMI technique that has emerged recently as
a powerful design utility for a variety of control pro-
blems due to its convexity [24]. By the LMI technique,
the LQR problem can be rephrased [24] as an optimi-
zation problem over P
^
and Y:
min
P^.Y
x
T
(0)P
^
1
x(0) (4)
subject to
AP
^
P
^
A
T
BY Y
T
B
T
P
^
Y
T
P
^
Q
1
0
Y 0 R
1
_
_
_
_
40. P
^
>0.
(5)
where Y = KP
^
and P
^
= P
1
. In many practical situa-
tions, the objective (4) is modied as
x
T
(0)P
^
1
x(0)4,.
where , is the specied upper bound. The above
inequality can also be expressed as LMI:
, x
T
(0)
x(0) P
^
_ _
50. (6)
Consequently, the optimization problem in (4) and (5)
is converted to seeking a solution (P
^
+
. Y
+
) that satises a
set of LMIs in (5) and (6) and the state feedback gain is
given by
K = Y
+
(P
^
+
)
1
(7)
The system matrix [A. B] is usually not precisely
known in practice. Assume that [A. B] is uncertain but
belongs to a polytopic set:
= Cov [A
1
. B
1
]. [A
2
. B
2
]. . [A
N
m
. B
N
m
]
_ _
(8)
where Cov refers to a convex hull, or [A. B] c if
[A. B] =

N
m
i=1
w
i
(x. u)[A
i
. B
i
].
where N
m
is the number of multiple models, and w
i
the
weighting functions constrained between 0 and 1, and
satisfy
4 M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313

N
m
i=1
w
i
(x. u) = 1. \(x. u) c R
n
x
R
n
u
.
Generally, we have to search for a solution to LMIs in
(5) and (6) all over the uncertain system , which will be
obviously an arduous task. However, due to the prop-
erties of the polytopic systemn [24], solutions can be
sought only at the polytopic vertices instead of all
points within the polytope. In other words, if we can
nd a pair of Y and P
^
such that all LMIs are satised at
the polytope vertices, then they also hold for the whole
polytope. Therefore, a solution to LMIs in (5) and (6)
only needs to be sought at the vertices [A
i
. B
i
], i =
1. 2. . N
m
, and hence the task for solving the con-
straints is much reduced.
One advantage of using LMI is its convenience to
include other specications for the controller design.
Therefore, various design specications may be recast
into the LMIs and the resulting LMI constraints can be
eciently solved in polynomial time by using recently
developed convex optimization algorithms [28].
Denition 1 and Lemma 1 below are needed in the
next section to recast the performance specications
into LMIs. Let H denote the ellipsoid centered at the
origin: H = { c R
n
[
T
P
1
41].
Denition 1 [24]. The ellipsoid His said to be invariant if
1. for every trajectory x of dynamic system (1), x(t
0
) c
H implies x(t) c H, for all t5t
0
; or
2. P satises A
T
P PA - 0, for all A c ,
where denotes some uncertainty sets.
Lemma 1. [24]. The following matrix inequality:
V(x) S(x)
S
T
(x) Z(x)
_ _
> 0.
where V(x)=V
T
(x), Z(x) = Z
T
(x) and S(x) depend
anely on x, is equivalent to
Z(x) > 0.V(x) S(x)Z
1
(x)S
T
(x) > 0.
and
V(x) > 0. Z(x) S
T
(x)V
1
(x)S(x) > 0.
3. Robust PID controller design
Consider an uncertain second order process
G(s) =
b
2
s
2
a
1
s a
2
(9)
where the parameters vary in intervals:
a
1
c [a
1
. a
1
]. a
2
c [a
2
. a
2
]. b
2
c [b
2
. b
2
]. (10)
According to Astrom and Hagglund [8], a PID con-
troller:
C(s) = K
p

K
i
s
K
d
s
is adequate for such a kind of process. The resultant
negative feedback system is shown in Fig. 1. The objec-
tive of PID controller design is to determine PID set-
tings to meet various design specications given by
users. In this paper, the PID controller is designed in the
state-space settings for the ease of using LQRLMI
approach. The feedback system is transferred from s-
domain (Fig. 1) to time domain (Fig. 2) and can be
expressed in the state space description:
x
.
= Ax Bu B
r
r.
u = Kx K
p
r K
d
r
.
.
y = Cx. (11)
where y is the system output, x = [ x
1
x
2
x
3
]
T
the
state with variables dened by
x
1
= y. x
2
= x
.
1
. x
3
=
_
edt. e = r y.
r the reference input, and
A =
0 1 0
a
2
a
1
0
1 0 0
_
_
_
_

_. B =
0
b
2
0
_
_
_
_

_. B
r
=
0
0
1
_
_
_
_

_.
C = [ 1 0 0] . K = [K
p
. K
d
. K
i
].
(12)
In this state-space model, the PID controller design
becomes a static state feedback controller, and the static
feedback gain K simply contains all the PID controller
parameters. Note also that there are three uncertain
parameters in (9) and (12) and the polytopic uncertain
set in (8) reduces to
= Cov [A
1
. B
1
]. [A
2
. B
2
]. . [A
8
. B
8
]
_ _
.
where the vertex matrices [A
i
. B
i
] are determined by
permutation of the extreme points of (10) in the system
matrices.
In the above discussion, we only focused on the con-
troller design for the second order system. As a matter
of fact, similar results can be easily derived for the rst
order process and are omitted here for brevity.
In practical situations, the controller is usually
required to meet various specications simultaneously.
The design specications are often a mixture of perfor-
mance and robustness objectives. Unfortunately, these
dierent objectives may rarely be encompassed by a
single design criterion. For instance, the output energy
is more naturally expressed in LQR terms, but the
robustness is better captured by an H
o
criterion and
M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313 5
transient behaviors are more easily tuned in terms of
closed-loop damping via the pole placement. Therefore,
the multi-objective design will be highly desirable in the
PID controller design. As we mentioned before, these
specications have to be converted to the LMIs for the
use of LQRMI approach.
Consider rst disturbance rejection. Let the uncertain
system with disturbance w be
x
.
= Ax Bu B
w
w.
y = Cx.
A. B [ ] c .
= Cov [A
1
. B
1
]. [A
2
. B
2
]. . [A
8
. B
8
]
_ _
.
Denoting by T the closed-loop transfer functions
from disturbance w to output y and T | |
o
the H
o
norm
of T, the disturbance rejection can be measured by the
performance specication T | |
o
- o. It is equivalent to
seeking a pair of P
^
and Y in a static feedback gain K =
YP
^
1
such that the following LMI constraint holds
[28]:
AP
^
BY P
^
A
T
Y
T
B
T
P
^
B
w
C
T
B
T
w
P
^
oI 0
C 0 oI
_
_
_
_
40. (13)
Next, it is well known that the transient response of
the dynamic system is closely related to the locations of
poles. The desired damping can be achieved by con-
straining the closed-loop poles to lie in a prescribed
region. The conditions for the pole placement con-
straints can also be recast in the LMIs and LMI region.
Dene the notation L = L
T
= [l
ij
]
14i. j4m
and M =
M
T
= [j
ij
]
14i.j4m
, which means that L and M are m
m matrix with the elements l
ij
and j
ij
, respectively. The
closed-loop poles lies in the LMI regions:
= {z c C : L Mz M
T
z - 0]
if and only if there exists a symmetric positive denite
matrix P
^
satisfying the following LMI [29]:
[l
jk
P j
jk
(AP
^
BY) j
kj
(AP
^
BY)
T
]
14j.k4m
- 0. (14)
Fig. 1. PID control system (s-domain).
Fig. 2. PID control system (time-domain).
6 M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313
The third specication we consider is the physical
limitations on the control signal. Assume the control
signal u = Kx = Y
+
(P
^
+
)
1
x is the solution to LMIs
in (5) and (6), and x
T
(0)P
^
1
x(0)41. From Denition 1,
we know that the quadratic stability can be interpreted
in terms of invariant ellipsoids and x(t) belongs to H for
all t50. Consequently, one has
max
t50
u(t)
_
_
_
_
2
= max
t50
YP
^
1
x(t)
_
_
_
_
_
_
2
4max
xcH
YP
^
1
x
_
_
_
_
_
_
2
= max
xcH
(YP
^
1,2
P
^
1,2
x)
T
(YP
^
1,2
P
^
1,2
x)
= max
xcH
(P
^
1,2
x)
T
(YP
^
1,2
)
T
(YP
^
1,2
)P
^
1,2
x
4l
max
((YP
^
1,2
)
T
(YP
^
1,2
))(P
^
1,2
x)
T
P
^
1,2
x
= l
max
((YP
^
1,2
)
T
(YP
^
1,2
))x
T
P
^
1
x
4l
max
((YP
^
1,2
)
T
(YP
^
1,2
))4u
2
max
.
where u
max
is the maximum control signal amplitude
available. The last inequality shown above is a general-
ized eigenvalue problem and it holds true at all times
t50 if the following LMI holds [24]:
P
^
Y
T
Y u
2
max
_ _
50. (15)
Since time-delays exist widely in industrial processes
such as chemical rectors, steel manufacturing and
paper-making process, it is meaningful to extend the
preceding development to the time-delay system. Con-
sider the system described by the following delay-dier-
ential equation:
x
.
(t) = Ax(t) Bu(t t) B
w
w.
y(t) = Cx(t).
A. B [ ] c .
= Cov A
1
. B
1
[ ]. A
2
. B
2
[ ]. . A
8
. B
8
[ ]
_ _
.
u(t) = Kx(t). (16)
where t is a positive real number. It is shown [30] that
the system is closed-loop uniformly asymptotically
stable with the state feedback gain K = YP
^
1
if
1
t
[P
^
A
T
AP
^
BY Y
T
B
T
] BY
Y
T
B
T

1
2
P
^
_
_
_
_

_ - 0.
[
1
P
^
AP
^
A
T
40.
[
2
P
^
0
0 0
_ _

0 BW
Y
T
B
T
P
^
_ _
40. (17a)
where the symmetric positive denite matrix P
^
, matrix
Y, and the scalars [
1
and [
2
are unknown parameters to
be solved. In addition, the o-stability of the closed-loop
system and a prescribed level o on disturbance attenua-
tion are achieved [31] if
P
^
A
T
AP
^
o
2
B
d
B
T
d
S BY Y
T
Y
T
B
T
S 0
Y 0 I
_
_
_
_

_ - 0.
P
^
A
T
AP
^
S 2oP
^
BYe
ot
Y
T
B
T
e
ot
S
_ _
- 0. (17b)
where S, Y, and the symmetric positive denite matrix P
^
are to be solved. As a result, we have obtained a set of
LMI conditions to guarantee the robust performance
and stability for time-delay system.
These various design specications may lead to plenty
of LMIs which appear rather complicated at a rst
glance. However, LMIs are actually quite ecient to be
solved due to the convexity of LMIs and high quality
software is now available for use (e.g. LMI toolbox
developed by Gahinet et al. [25]). Also, we should point
out that a possible conservativeness might be caused by
using the same P
^
matrix in the LMI equations which
means the robust PIDcontroller may not be true optimal.
In view of the above development, the robust PID
controller design procedure is summarized as follows
for the ease of reference.
3.1. Robust PID controller design procedure
. Step 1. Linearize or identify a set of multiple
models from the given process;
. Step 2. Set the LQR weighting matrix Q and R ;
give the prescribed LQR cost ,, H
o
performance
o and control input constraint u
max
(if any);
Choose the desired closed-loop poles region to
Table 1
Process parameters and operating condition for example 1
Parameter Notation Value
Process ow rate q 100 l/min
Feed concentration C
Af
1 mol/l
Feed temperature T
f
350 K
Coolant inlet temperature T
cf
350 K
Reactor volume V 100 l
Heat transfer coecient h
A
710
5
cal/min/K
Reaction rate constant k
o
7.210
10
min
1
Activation energy term E,R 110
4
K
Heat of reaction H 210
5
cal/mol
Liquid densities ,. ,
c
110
3
g/l
Specic heat C
P
. C
PC
1 cal/g/K
M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313 7
guarantee some minimum decay rate and closed-
loop damping, or o for o-stability and o as
disturbance attenuation level for time-delay sys-
tem;
. Step 3. Find the solution (P
^
+
. Y
+
) to LMIs (5), (6),
(13), (14), (15) or (17);
. Step 4. Calculate the PID controller parameters by
(7).
4. Examples
In this section, we present two examples to illustrate
the proposed robust PID controller design method. Like
the practical implementation of the PID controller, our
simulation puts the derivative action in the feedback
loop but not in front of the error signal.
Example 1. Consider a continuous stirred tank reac-
tor described by the following dynamic equations [32]:
C
.
A
=
q
V
(C
Af
C
A
) k
0
C
A
e
E,RT
.
T
.
=
q
V
(T
f
T)
Hk
0
,C
p
C
A
e
E,RT

,
c
C
pc
,C
p
V
q
c
(1 e

h
A
,cCpcqc
)(T
cf
T). (18)
whose variables, parameters and nominal values are
dened in Table 1. In this example, C
A
is the measured
output, q
c
is the manipulated variable, and C
Af
is the
disturbance. Considering the stable operating range of
C
A
between [0.06 0.14], three models are obtained at the
operating points 0.06, 0.10, and 0.14, respectively:
C
A
= 0.06 :
0.04612
s
2
9.251s 22.19
.
C
A
= 0.10 :
0.04107
s
2
2.674s 10.97
.
Fig. 3. Pole placement region.
Fig. 4. Closed-loop responses to successive step changes in the set point. Conventional PID controller (
.
), robust PID controller ().
8 M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313
C
A
= 0.14 :
0.03707
s
2
0.01248s 5.862
.
Specify the LQRcost weight as Q = 1, R = 1, , = 570,
o = 0.9, and the LMI region for pole placement as the
intersection of the half plane x - 1 and of the sector
Fig. 5. Closed-loop response to disturbance in C
Af
: conventional PID controller (
.
), robust PID controller ().
Fig. 6. Closed-loop response to successive step changes in the set point: non-robust PID controller (
.
), robust PID controller ().
M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313 9
centred at the origin and with inner angle 3/4 as shown
in Fig. 3. By the proposed method, the PID controller
parameters are obtained as K = [K
p
. K
d
. K
i
] = [516.6.
143.8. 765.5].
For comparison, simulation results are also presented
for the PID controller tuned by pole placement method
[8]. The nominal model for tuning is chosen at the mid-
operating point C
A
= 0.10. The conventional PID
Fig. 7. Bode bands of GC/(1+GC) for stable region (C
A
=0.06 to C
A
=0.14). () Robust PID controller; (
.
): conventional PID controller.
Fig. 8. Bode bands of GC/(1+GC) for unstable region (C
A
=0.15 to C
A
=0.5). () Robust PID controller. (
.
) non-robust PID controller.
10 M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313
controller parameters are calculated as K = [33.4. 51.8.
233.7] by choosing the desired poles at (2. 1.4 1.4j).
The control performances of both PID controllers are
evaluated for successive step change in the euent con-
centration C
A
that varies between 0.06 and 0.14. From
Fig. 4, it is observed that the robust PID controller
Fig. 9. Closed-loop responses to step changes in the set point. Conventional PI controller (
.
), robust PI controller ().
M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313 11
outperforms the conventional PID controller globally
when tracking the successive step changes. This can be
justied since the robust PID controller has considered
the uncertainties of the system in the design procedure
such that the controller shows strong robustness in the
whole operating region. Similar results can also be
obtained for the disturbance responses (see Fig. 5).
One advantage of the proposed robust PID controller
design consists in that it is also applicable to the
unstable system. To illustrate this, consider the unstable
region starting from C
A
=0.15 to C
A
=0.5 and three
local models are obtained as follows:
C
A
= 0.15 :
0.036
s
2
0.405s 4.996
.
C
A
= 0.30 :
0.026
s
2
2.647s 0.879
.
C
A
= 0.50 :
0.016
s
2
2.251s 2.252
.
Specify the LQR cost weight Q = 1, R = 1, , = 724,
o = 0.9, and the LMI region for pole placement as the
intersection of the half plane x - 1. The PID con-
troller parameters are obtained as K = [804.6. 316.2.
607.3]. To demonstrate the advantages of the robust
PID controller, we use the same method to design a
non-robust PID controllers based only on the nominal
model at C
A
= 0.3 to meet the same specications. The
PID settings are calculated as K
0
= [463.6. 249.7. 383.1].
In the whole operating regime, the performance of the
single model based controller turns rather worse than
that of the robust PID controller (see Fig. 6). To illus-
trate the superiority of the proposed PID controller
further, we draw Bode bands graph for the closed-loop
transfer functions as shown in Figs. 7 and 8. From
these gures, we observe that the bands of the pro-
posed PID controller system are tighter and smoother
than those of non-robust/conventional PID controllers.
These results conrm the robustness of the proposed
PID controller from the frequency response point of
view.
Example 2. Consider an inverted cone tank described
by
h
.
(t) =
kF(t t)
h(t)
2

k[
h(t)
1.5
.
y(t) = h(t). (19)
where liquid level h is the measured output, F the inlet
owrate used as the manipulated variable, t = 1 the
time delay, k = 2, and [ = 10. Three local models at
operating points, h=2, 6, 10, are given as follows:
h = 2 :
0.57
1.13s 1
e
s
.
Fig. 10. Closed-loop responses to step disturbance. Conventional PI controller (
.
); robust PI controller ().
12 M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313
h = 6 :
0.98
17.63s 1
e
s
.
h = 10 :
1.26
63.25s 1
e
s
.
Specify o = 0.23, and o = 0.9. A PI controller is ade-
quate for this rst order plus dead time process. By the
proposed method, the PI controller parameters are cal-
culated as K = [K
p
. K
i
] = [5.33. 0.56]. The conventional
PI controller was tuned based on the dominant pole
placement [8] with nominal model at h = 6. The desired
dominant poles are chosen at x = 0.7 0.7j and the
resulting PI controller parameters are calculated as
K
0
= [8.3. 0.51]. Comparison results are shown in Fig. 9
where step changes in the set point are conducted. It is
observed that in the whole operating regimes the general
performance of robust PI controller is superior to that
of conventional PI controller. Note that near the oper-
ating point h = 2 the conventional PI control system
becomes unstable while the robust PI control system
still remains stable. Similar results are also obtained for
the load disturbance responses as shown in Fig. 10.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, a robust PID controller design method
is developed via the LQRLMI approach. Uncertainties
are tackled by multiple-model paradigm in this method
and various design specications arising from practical
situations are considered simultaneously to determine
the robust PID settings. Simulation studies demon-
strated the superiority of the proposed method over the
existing PID design methods.
References
[1] W.L. Luyben, Process Modeling, Simulation and Control for
Chemical Engineers, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company, USA, 1990.
[2] I.L. Chien, J.A. Hrones, J.B. Reswick, On the automatic control
of generalized passive systems, Trans. ASME 74 (1952) 175185.
[3] C.L. Chen, A simple method for on-line identication and con-
troller tuning, AIChE J. 35 (1989) 20372039.
[4] C.C. Hang, K.J. Astrom, W.K. Ho, Renements of the Ziegler
Nichols tuning formula, IEE Proc. Part D 138 (1991) 111118.
[5] S.H. Hwang, H.C. Chang, A theoretical examination of closed-
loop properties and tuning methods of single-loop PI controllers,
Chem. Eng. Sci. 42 (1987) 23952415.
[6] S.P. Boyd, C.H. Barratt, Linear Controller Design: Limits of
Performance, Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Clis, New Jersey,
1991.
[7] S.K.P. Wong, D.E. Seborg, Control strategy for single-input sin-
gle-output nonlinear systems with time delays, Int. J. Control 48
(1988) 23032327.
[8] K.J. Astrom, T. Hagglund, PID Controller, 2nd Edition, Instru-
ment of Society of America, Research triangle park, North Car-
olina, 1995.
[9] H.W. Fung, Q.G. Wang, T.H. Lee, PI tuning in terms of gain and
phase margins, Automatica 34 (1998) 11451149.
[10] M. Morari, E. Zariou, Robust Process Control, Prentice Hall,
USA, 1989.
[11] Y. Lee, S. Park, M. Lee, C. Brosilow, PID controller tuning for
desired closed-loop responses for SI/SO systems, AIChE J. 44
(1998) 106115.
[12] C. Yu, R.J. Roy, H. Kaufman, B.W. Bequette, Multiple-model
adaptive predictive control of mean arterial-pressure and cardiac-
output, IEEE Trans. on Biomed. Eng. 39 (1992) 765778.
[13] T.A. Johansen, B.A. Foss, Constructing narmax models using
armax models, Int. J. Control 58 (1993) 11251153.
[14] M. Pottmann, H. Unbehauen, D.E. Seborg, Application of a
general multi-model approach for identication of highly non-
linear processes a case study, Int. J. Control 57 (1993) 97
120.
[15] R. Murray-Smith, A Local Model Network Approach to Non-
linear Modeling, PhD thesis, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow,
UK, 1994.
[16] T.A. Johansen, B.A. Foss, Identication of nonlinear system
structure and parameters using regime decomposition, Auto-
matica 31 (1995) 321326.
[17] K.S. Narendra, J. Balakrishnan, M.K. Ciliz, Adaptation and
learning using multiple models, switching and tuning, IEEE
Control Systems Magazine 15 (1995) 3751.
[18] K.J. Hunt, T.A. Johansen, Design and analysis of gain-scheduled
control using local controller networks, Int. J. Control 66 (1997)
619651.
[19] A. Banerjee, Y. Arkun, B. Ogunnaike, R. Pearson, Estimation of
nonlinear systems using linear multiple models, AIChE J. 43
(1997) 12041226.
[20] Y. Chikkula, J.H. Lee, B.A. Ogunnaike, Dynamically scheduled
MPC of nonlinear processes using hinging hyperplane models,
AIChE J. 44 (1998) 26582674.
[21] M.S. Chiu, S. Cui, Q.G. Wang, Internal model control design for
transition control, AIChE J. 46 (2000) 309320.
[22] Y.C. Cheng, C.C. Yu, Nonlinear process control using multiple
models: relay feedback approach, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39 (2000)
420431.
[23] M. Ge, M.S. Chiu, Q.G. Wang, An extended self-organizing map
for nonlinear system identication, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 39
(2000) 37783788.
[24] S.P. Boyd, L.E. Ghaoui, E. Feron, V. Balkrishnan, Linear matrix
inequalities in systems and control theory, SIAM, Philadelphia,
1994.
[25] P. Gahinet, A. Nemirovski, A.J. Laub, M. Chilali, LMI Toolbox
for Use With Matlab, The Mathworks Inc, 1995.
[26] J.G. VanAntwerp, R.D. Braatz, A tutorial on linear and bilinear
matrix inequalities, J. Proc. Control 10 (2000) 363385.
[27] F.L. Lewis, V.L. Syrmos, Optimal Control, John Wiley & Sons,
1995.
[28] P. Gahinet, P. Apkarian, A linear matrix inequality approach to
H
o
control, Int. J. of Robust and Nonlinear Control 4 (1994)
421448.
[29] M. Chiliali, P. Gahinet, H
o
design with pole placement con-
straints: an LMI approach, IEEE Trans. on Auto. Control 41
(1996) 358367.
[30] S.I. Niculescu, M. Fu, H. Li, Delay-dependent closed-loop stabi-
lity of linear system with input delay: an LMI approach, Proc.
CDC (1997) 1012.
[31] S.I. Niculescu, H
o
memoryless control with an ostability con-
straint for time-delay systems: an LMI approach, IEEE. Trans.
on Auto. Control 43 (1998) 739743.
[32] G. Lightbody, G.W. Irwin, Direct neural model reference adap-
tive control, IEE Proc. Part D 142 (1995) 3137.
M. Ge et al. / Journal of Process Control 12 (2002) 313 13