Design of controllers for decoupled TITO systems
using different decoupling techniques
Maher Ben Hariz
Université de Tunis El Manar, Faculté des Sciences de
Tunis, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs de Tunis
LR11ES20 Laboratoire Analyse, Conception et Commande
des Systèmes,
Tunis, tunisie
maherbenhariz@gmail.com
Abstract—This paper deals with the design of controllers for
TITO decoupled systems. The main objective of these controllers
is to ensure some time response specifications such as the settling
time and the overshoot for each output independently. The
controller parameters are obtained by solving a nonconvex
optimization problem. In order to obtain the global solution and
then an optimal control law a global optimization method was
applied to resolve this problem. In order to decouple TITO
processes, two different decoupling methods have been
considered.
Keywords— time response specifications; TITO systems;
decoupling systems; nonconvex optimization problem; global
optimization.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the industrial field most systems have multiple inputs
and multiple outputs [1]. Owing to the interactions between
inputs and outputs, multivariable systems present usually
difficulties when designing controllers. Thus, in order to
surmount this problem, control engineers had resort to
decoupling system techniques. The study of these techniques
has attracted the attention of many researchers over the years
[2], [3]. Since each decoupling technique has advantages and
limitations, the choice of one of these methods is relatively
complicated. Ideal decoupling, which is not often
implemented, facilitates the focus on the controller transfer
matrix. Simplified decoupling is very used in practice. Its
main advantage lies in the simplicity of its elements. Inverted
decoupling is also used in practice. It combines the advantages
of both ideal and simplified techniques. In some works a
comparison between different decoupling techniques was
performed. References [5] and [6] compared ideal and
simplified decoupling methods. They concluded that
simplified decoupling is more robust than ideal decoupling.
Both simplified and inverted decoupling techniques were
described in [6]. A comparative survey between simplified,
ideal and inverted decoupling was made in [7]. In this research
simplified and inverted decoupling methods will be used. In
previous work [8], we have presented the design of a fixed
low-order controller for Single Input Single Output (SISO)
systems with some time response performances such as the
978-1-4799-8701-6/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE.
Faouzi Bouani
Université de Tunis El Manar, Ecole Nationale d’Ingénieurs
de Tunis
LR11ES20 Laboratoire Analyse, Conception et Commande
des Systèmes,
Tunis, tunisie
bouani.faouzi@yahoo.fr
settling time and the overshoot. The design of this controller
for decoupled Multiple Input Multiple Output systems using
the simplified decoupling technique was proposed in [10] and
[11]. The controller synthesis is formulated as an optimization
problem which takes into consideration the desired closed-
loop performances. The methodology of fixing the desired
closed loop characteristic equation was detailed in [12].
Given that the controller parameters are determined by
minimizing a nonconvex optimization problem, the use of a
global optimization method is recommended. In this work, the
Generalized Geometric Programming (GGP) method will be
exploited in order to solve this problem. The main idea of this
method involves transforming a nonconvex optimization
problem to a convex one by means of variable
transformations.
The outline of this paper is as follows. Section II presents
the decoupling techniques used in this work. Section III
proposes the controllers design method. In order to show the
efficiency of the proposed controllers some simulation results
are proposed in section VI.
II. DECOUPLING SYSTEM METHODS
Let consider the following Two Input Two Output (TITO)
process G(s) described by:
ªG (s) G12 ( s ) º
G ( s ) = « 11 . (1)
G 22 ( s ) »¼
¬ G 21 ( s )
The process G(s) is represented in Fig. 1. The elements
G11(s), G12(s), G21(s) and G22(s) are supposed to be known.
From configuration represented in Fig.1, the system
outputs are given by:
­Y1 ( s ) = G11 ( s )U 1 ( s ) + G12 ( s )U 2 ( s )
® . (2)
¯Y2 ( s ) = G 21 ( s )U 1 ( s ) + G 22 ( s )U 2 ( s )
1116
 D ( s ) = G ( s ) −1 T ( s )
1 (5)
= .
G11 ( s )G 22 ( s ) − G12 ( s )G 21 ( s )
ª G 22 ( s )T1 ( s ) − G12 ( s )T2 ( s ) º
« − G ( s )T ( s ) G11 ( s )T2 ( s ) »¼
¬ 21 1

T1(s) and T2(s) are the only unknown elements. They

represent the desired dynamics of the decoupled system.
The simplified decoupling consists in selecting the
decoupler as follows:

Fig. 1 TITO process representation

ª G12 ( s ) º
« 1 −
Decoupling a TITO process G(s) needs the design of a G11 ( s ) » (6)
transfer matrix D(s), such that G(s)D(s) is a diagonal transfer D (s) = « ».
matrix T(s). « G 21 ( s ) »
« − G (s) 1 »
¬ 22 ¼
ª D (s) D12 ( s ) º (3)
D ( s ) = « 11 By using (1), (4) and (6), the resulting transfer matrix is,
¬ D 21 ( s ) D 22 ( s ) »¼ then, given by:
and
ª G12 ( s ) G 21 ( s ) º
ªT ( s ) 0 º « G11 ( s ) − G 22 ( s )
0 »
T (s) = « 1 = G ( s ) D ( s ). (4) » (7)
T (s) = «
¬ 0 T2 ( s ) »¼ « G12 ( s )G 21 ( s ) »
« 0 G 22 ( s ) − »
Now, the two decoupling methods used in this work will ¬ G11 ( s ) ¼
be presented.
where
A. Simplified Decoupling
G12 ( s ) G 21 ( s ) (8)
A simplified decoupling system design for a TITO process T1 ( s ) = G11 ( s ) −
is shown in Fig. 2. G 22 ( s )
and

G12 ( s )G 21 ( s ) (9)
T2 ( s ) = G 22 ( s ) − .
G11 ( s )
The control signals are given by:

­ G12 ( s )
°U 1 ( s ) = V1 ( s ) − G ( s ) V 2 ( s )
° 11 (10)
® .
°U ( s ) = V ( s ) − 21 ( s ) V ( s )
G
°̄ 2 2
G 22 ( s )
1

B. Inverted Decoupling
Fig. 2 Block diagram of the simplified decoupling By considering this decoupling technique, the transfer
matrix T(s) will be given by:
The variables V1(s) and V2(s) represent the controller
outputs, U1(s) and U2(s) are the control signals and Y1(s) and
Y2(s) are the process outputs. ªG ( s ) 0 º (11)
T ( s ) = « 11 .
By using equations (1) and (3), equation (4) can be ¬ 0 G 22 ( s ) »¼
expressed by:
From expressions (5) and (11) we find the following
relation [7]:

1117
 The objective, now, is the design of the controllers C1(s)
ª G11 (s)G22 ( s) −G12 ( s)G22 (s) º and C2(s) which will ensure the desired closed loop
« specifications.
ªU1 (s) º « G11G22 (s) − G12 (s)G21 (s) G11G22 (s) − G12 (s)G21 (s) »
«U ( s) » = « »
¬ 2 ¼ −G21 ( s)G11 (s) G11 (s)G22 (s) » (12) III. CONTROLLERS DESIGN METHOD
« G G (s) − G ( s)G (s) G11G22 (s) − G12 (s)G21 (s) »¼
¬ 11 22 12 21
A. Problem Statement
ªV1 (s) º
«V ( s) » As mentioned previously, a TITO process can be
¬ 2 ¼ represented by two SISO systems using a decoupling method.
A SISO process can be defined by a transfer function Ti(s) for
Then, the expressions of the control signals can be deduced i=1, 2 as shown in Fig. 4. The transfer function is given by:
and given by [7]:
N i (s)
Ti ( s ) =
­ G12 ( s ) Di ( s )
°U 1 ( s ) = V1 ( s ) − U 2 ( s ) G ( s ) (15)
° 11 (13) m m −1
n m s + n m −1 s + " + n0
® . = .
°U ( s ) = V ( s ) − U ( s ) 21 ( s )
G d l s l + d l −1 s l −1 + " + d 0
°̄ 2 2 1
G 22 ( s )
Hence, The controller transfer function is defined by:
­U 1 ( s ) = V1 ( s ) + U 2 ( s ) D12 ( s ) (14)
® .
¯U 2 ( s ) = V 2 ( s ) + U 1 ( s ) D 21 ( s ) Ci ( s ) =
Bi ( s ) (16)
Ai ( s )
From equation (14) we can deduce the control system with where
the decoupling structure depicted in Fig. 3. This representation
was introduced by Wade and called “inverted decoupling”
[13]. We remind that the transfer functions of the decoupler, in ­° Ai ( s ) = s t + at −1 s t −1 + " + a1 s + a 0
. (17)
the case of inverted decoupling, are the same as those used ® r r −1
°̄ Bi ( s ) = br s + br −1 s + " + b1 s + b0
with simplified decoupling.
For a fixed low order controller, the following relation
must be verified: r ≤ t < l − 1.
So as to obtain a null steady state error, a polynomial Fi(s)
is introduced:

Fi ( s ) = f q s q + f q −1 s q −1 + " + f1 s + f 0 . (18)

By using relations (15), (16) and (18) the closed loop

transfer function can be deduced:

Fi ( s ) Bi ( s ) N i ( s ) (19)
H i (s) = .
Ai ( s ) Di ( s ) + Bi ( s ) N i ( s )
Fig. 3 Block diagram of the inverted decoupling

The decoupling methods applied to TITO systems allow us Then, the closed loop characteristic equation will be
to obtain the following configuration which is composed by expressed by:
two SISO systems as shown in Fig. 4. Each system is
constituted by a controller Ci(s) and a transfer function Ti(s) δ i ( s ) = Ai ( s ) Di ( s ) + Bi ( s ) N i ( s )
for i=1, 2. (20)
= δ n s n + δ n −1 s n −1 + " + δ 1 s + δ 0
where n = l + t .

The target, now, is to design a controller which will be able

Fig. 4 Control structure of a SISO system
to guarantee some time response performances such as the
overshoot and the settling time. We indicate that the desired
closed loop characteristic equation should be fixed using the
polynomial characteristic ratios which was explained in [8],
[9].

1118
B. Controllers Design
( ) ( )
T
F3 = q − δ W q −δ
We note by x the following controller parameters vector:
and W is a weighting matrix.
It has been reported in [12] that the coefficients of lower
x = [ b0 a t −1 ] .
T
" br a0 " (21)
powers of s in the transfer function are the most associated to
the step response. Then, the weighting matrix elements must
We mention that each controller Ci(s) possess be selected while respecting this hypothesis.
r + t + 1 parameters. The controller parameters can be obtained by solving
The coefficient vectors of the closed-loop characteristic the following nonconvex optimization problem:
polynomial δ and the desired closed-loop polynomial δ are
given respectively by: min f ( x ). (26)
x
The resolution of this nonconvex optimization problem by
δ = [δ 0 δn ]
T
δ 1 " δ n −1 (22) a local approach may lead to a local solution. Consequently, in
T order to obtain an optimal control law, the use of a global
δ = ª¬δ 0 δ 1 " δ n −1 δ n º¼ . (23)
optimization method is suggested. In this work, the GGP
method is exploited. This method was explained in [10], [11],
The coefficient vector of the closed-loop characteristic [14]-[17].
polynomial δ can be expressed in function of x by: IV. SIMULATIONS RESULTS

δ = Px + q (24) A. System Presentation

Let consider the following TITO process:
where the matrix P and the vector q which depend on the
transfer function parameters are given respectively by: ª s 2 + 2s + 2 1 º
« s 4 + 3s3 + 7.5s 2 + 5s + 1 2
s + 8s + 3 » (27)
ª n0 0 " 0 d0 0 " 0 º G( s) = « ».
«n » « 1 2
s + 2s + 1 »
" " «¬ s 4 + 3s3 + 6s 2 + 4s + 1»¼
n0 0 d1 d0 0
« 1 » s 2 + 6s + 2
« # # # d2 d1 " 0 »
« » Then according to expression (7), the decoupler can be
n n m −1 " nm − r # # #
P=« m » determined and its elements are given by:
« # # # dl d l −1 " d l − t +1 »
« »
«0 0 " nm # # # » s 4 + 3 s 3 + 7.5 s 2 + 5 s + 1
« # D12 ( s ) = −
# # 0 0 " dl » s 4 + 10 s 3 + 21s 2 + 22 s + 6
« »
«¬ 0 0 " 0 0 0 " 0 »¼ s 4 + 3s 3 + 6 s 2 + 4 s + 1
D 21 ( s ) = − 4 .
s + 8 s 3 + 15 s 2 + 10 s + 2
q = [0 " dl ]
T
0 d0 " d l −t "
We remind that D11(s)=D22(s)=1.

P ∈ R ( n +1)× ( r + t +1) , x ∈ R r + t +1 , q ∈ R n +1 . B. Case of Inverted Decoupling

By adopting this decoupling technique, the TITO system
The controller parameters are computed such that the G(s) will be described by the following transfer matrix:
difference between the closed-loop characteristic polynomial
δ and the desired closed-loop polynomial δ is minimal. This ª s 2 + 2s + 2 º
« s 4 + 3s3 + 7.5s 2 + 5s + 1 0 » (28)
objective can be achieved by defining the following cost
function: T ( s) = « ».
« s 2 + 2s + 1 »
«¬ 0
T s 4 + 3s3 + 6s 2 + 4s + 1»¼
f ( x ) = ª¬δ − δ º¼ W ª¬δ − δ º¼ (25)
The next step is the design of controllers that will be able
= x T F1 x + 2 F2 x + F3
to guarantee some time specifications for each system output.
where Let our target be the synthesis of a controller for T1(s)
F1 = P T WP which will satisfy the following performances:
i. Overshoot ≤ 2%.
(
F2 = q − δ WP ) ii. 2% settling time ≤ 10s.
The controller is defined by the following polynomials:

1119
 Setpoints and outputs
3.5

­° A(s) = s + a1s + a0
2
(29) 3
Setpoint 1

® . Output 1

°̄ B(s) = b1s + b0
Setpoint 2
2.5 Output 2

With an aim of achieving these specifications a desired

Amplitude
2

characteristic polynomial δ ( s ) is chosen using the procedure 1.5

presented in [12]. The optimization problem is given by the 1

following objective function f(X ): 0.5

f ( X ) = c1 x1 x2 + c2 x1x3 + c3 x1x4 + c4 x2 x3 + c5 x2 x4 + c6 x3 x4 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s)
2 2 2 2
+c x + c x + c x + c x − c11x1 − c12 x2 − c13 x3 (30)
7 1 8 2 9 3 10 4 Fig. 5 Evolution of set points and outputs using the inverted decoupling
−c14 x4 + c15 Control signals

where ci > 0 for i = 1, ! ,15.

1.5
Control 1

It is noted that the first six terms of the second member of 1

Control 2

(30) are nonconvex. So, we will apply the convexification

strategy of the GGP method [10], [11], [15]. We remark that

Amplitude
these six terms have positively signed terms, and then the 0.5

exponential transformation will be applied. New variables yi

are introduced for i=1,…,4 such that: 0

xi = exp( yi ). (31)
A new objective function f(X,Y) which convex is obtained: -0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s)

f ( X ,Y ) = c1 exp( y1 )exp( y2 ) + c2 exp( y1 )exp( y3 ) + c3 exp( y1 )exp( y4 ) Fig. 6 Evolution of control signals using the inverted decoupling

+c4 exp( y2 )exp( y3 ) + c5 exp( y2 )exp( y4 ) + c6 exp( y3 )exp( y4 ) (32)

+c7 x12 + c8 x22 + c9 x32 + c10 x42 − c11 x1 − c12 x2 − c13 x3 − c14 x4 + c15 In the next section, we will be interested by the design of
controllers for the TITO system (27), but using another
The minimization of this optimization problem using a decoupling technique which is the simplified decoupling.
local optimization method leads to the following controller: C. Case of simplified Decoupling
In this case, the resulting transfer matrix (7) is given by:
1.268 s + 0.51 (33)
C1 ( s ) = . T1 (s) =
N1 (s) G (s)G21 (s)
= G11 (s) − 12
s 2 + 9.164 s + 2.96 D1 (s) G22 (s)
12s7 + 93.5s6 + 300.5s5 + 525s4 + 542s3 + 318.5s2 + 95s +11
Let our objective be the synthesis of a controller for T2(s) =
s +19s +137.5s8 + 525s7 +1285s6 + 2008s5 +1948.5s4 +1152s3 + 402s2 + 76s + 6
10 9

which will ensure the following specifications:

(35)
i. Overshoot ≤ 5%.
N (s ) G (s)G21 (s)
ii. 2% settling time ≤ 8s. T2 (s) = 2 = G22 (s) − 12
D2 (s) G11 (s)
By applying the same strategy adopted for T1(s), we obtain
the following controller: 12s7 + 93.5s6 + 300.5s5 + 525s4 + 542s3 + 318.5s2 + 95s +11
=
s10 +19s9 +137s8 + 517s7 +1247s6 +1976s5 + 2087s4 +1404s3 + 572s2 +128s +12
1.29 s + 2.906 (36)
C2 (s) = . (34) Suppose that our objective is the design of a controller for
2
s + 4.992 s + 3.113 T1(s) which will guarantee the same desired performances for
the first output in the case of simplified decoupling.
By using these controllers to the system, we obtain the At this stage, the controller is defined by the following
evolutions of the output signals and the control signals polynomials:
represented in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 respectively.
According to Fig. 5, we note that the controllers ensure the
°­ A(s) = s + a4 s + a3 s + a2 s + a1s + a0
5 4 3 2
desired requirements for the two outputs. . (37)
® 3 2
°̄ B(s) = b3s + b2 s + b1s + b0

The resolution of the optimization problem using the GGP

method allows us to obtain the following controller:

1120
 96.016s3 + 272.119s2 +180.423s + 36.408 It is noted that the resulting transfer matrix of the inverted
C3 (s) = − decoupling presents two transfer functions with a low degree
s5 +14.629s4 + 83.022s3 +196.464s2 + 208.364s +111.114 thus the designed controllers have, also, lower degrees.
(38)
V. CONCLUSION
Assume that our purpose is the synthesis of a controller In this work, the design of controller for decoupled TITO
while ensuring the same time specifications for the second systems was presented. The main objective of this controller is
output as in the case of simplified decoupling. to guarantee some time response specifications. The controller
The minimization of the objective function by means of parameters are obtained by solving nonconvex optimization
the GGP method leads to the following controller: problem by using a global optimization method. Two
decoupling techniques have been applied to decouple
11.98s3 + 88.717s2 + 72.67s + 20.255 multivariable system. Simulation results show that it is possible
C4 (s) = − to use one of these methods in the design of the proposed
s5 +10.428s4 + 54.42s3 +102.119s2 +101.851s + 39.016
(39) controller.
A practical implementation of the proposed controllers will
be the subject of future research.
The evolutions of the output signals and the control signals
are plotted in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8 respectively. REFERENCES
Setpoints and outputs
3.5
Setpoint 1
[1] S. Skogestad and I. Postlethwaite, Multivariable Feedback Control:
3 Output 1 Analysis and Design, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2005.
2.5
Setpoint 2 [2] B. Ogunnaike and W. Harmor, Process Dynamics, Modelling and
Output 2
Control. Oxford University Press, 1994.
Amplitude

2
[3] Q.W. Wang, Decoupling Control, Lecture Notes in Control and
1.5 Information Sciences, Springer-Verlag, 2003.
1
[4] W. L. Luyben, “Distillation decoupling,” AIChE Journal, vol. 16, pp.
198–203, 1970.
0.5
[5] D.E. Seborg, F. E. Thomas and A. M. Duncan, Process Dynamics and
0 Control. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 2010.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (s) [6] F.G. Shinskey, Process Control Systems: Application, Design, and
Adjustment, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988.
Fig. 7 Evolution of set points and outputs using the simplified decoupling
[7] E. Gagnon, A. Pomerleau and A. Desbiens, “Simplified, ideal or
inverted decoupling ?,” ISA Transactions, vol. 37, pp. 265-276, 1998.
[8] M. Ben Hariz, F. Bouani and M. Ksouri, “Robust controller for
Control signals
2 uncertain parameters systems,” ISA Transactions, vol. 51, pp. 632-640,
Control 1 2012.
Control 2
1.5 [9] L. Jin and Kim Y.C. “Fixed, low-order controller design with time
response specifications using non-convex optimization,” ISA
Transactions, vol. 47, pp. 429–438, 2008.
Amplitude

1
0.5
0
-0.5
0 10 20 30
Time (s)
Fig. 8 Evolution of control signals using the simplified decoupling
From Fig. 7, we observe that the designed controllers meet
the required time specifications (an overshoot about 2% and a
settling time less or equals to 10s for the first output and an
overshoot about 5% and a settling time less or equals to 8s for
the second output).
It is noted that, in the case of simplified decoupling, the
output signals present a remarkable interaction when changing
set points compared to those obtained by applying the inverted
decoupling. It is observed, also, that control signals obtained in
the case of simplified decoupling present peaks with high
amplitude when varying set points in comparison with those
gotten by applying the inverted decoupling.
[10] M. Ben Hariz, W. Chagra and F. Bouani, “Controllers design for MIMO
systems with time response specifications,” International Conference on
Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT), 2013 pp.
573-578.
[11] M. Ben Hariz, W. Chagra and F. Bouani, “Synthesis of Controllers for
MIMO Systems with Time Response Specifications,” International
40 50 60 70 Journal of System Dynamics Applications, vol. 3, pp. 25-52, 2014.
[12] Y.C. Kim, L.H. Keel and S.P. Bhattacharyya, “Transient response
control via characteristic ratio assignment,” IEEE Trans. on Automatic
Control, vol. 48, pp. 2238–2244, 2003.
[13] Wade H.L. “Inverted decoupling: a neglected technique,” ISA
Transactions, vol. 36, pp. 3–10, 1998.
[14] C. Maranas and C. Floudas, “Global optimization in generalized
geometric programming,” Computers and Chemical Engineering, vol.
21, pp. 351-369, 1997.
[15] J. Tsai, M. Lin and Y. Hu, “On generalized geometric programming
problems with non positive variables,” European Journal of Operational
Research, vol. 178, pp. 10-19, 2007.
[16] R. Porn, K. Bjork, and T. Westerlund, “Global solution of optimization
problems with signomial parts,” Discrete optimization, vol. 5, pp. 108-
120, 2007.
[17] J. Tsai, “Treating free variables in generalized geometric programming
problems,” Computers and Chemical Engineering, vol. 33, pp. 239-243,
2009.

1121