A Dynamical Discontinuous Control Approach for
Inverse Response Chemical Processes
Estefania Asimbaya1 , Henry Cabrera1 , Oscar Camacho1,2 Danilo Chávez1 , Paulo Leica1
1 Departamento de Automatización y Control Industrial, Escuela Politécnica Nacional, Quito − ECUADOR
2 Escuela de Ingenierı́a Eléctrica Universidad de los Andes Núcleo La Hechicera, Mérida, 5101 VENEZUELA
{estefania.asimbaya, henry.cabrera, oscar.camacho,danilo.chavez,paulo.leica}@epn.edu.ec
Abstract—In this work is proposed a dynamical control scheme
combining concepts of Linoya’s compensator and sliding mode
control for inverse response process. The design of dynamical
controller is shown in this paper, and it is used for linear system
and in a no linear process that is found in a continuous stirred
tank reactor (CSTR) by simulations.The performance of the
proposed approach is compared against a PID controller and
Linoya’s compensator with PID
Index Terms—Dynamical Controller, Linoya’s Compensator,
Sliding Mode Control
I. I NTRODUCTION
A process with inverse response occurs when the direction
of response is opposed at the final steady state value. In some
chemical processes appears the inverse response effect, such
as reactors drums, boilers, reboilers, etc [1]. The presence of
an inverse response causes limitations in the gain and a tight
control is required at low and high frequencies, therefore the
bandwidth is limited [2].
In [3] was shown a way to design a Sliding Mode Control
(SMC), for process with inverse response. In that paper, the
controller was designed from a First Order Plus Dead Time
(FOPDT). The controller was applied to difference inverse
response processes with good performance.
Dynamical Sliding Mode Control (DSMC) has been taken
special attention in the last years, with different techniques
like adding a compensator (extra dynamics) [4], using a
low pass integrators [5], and including functions that reduce
chattering as the hyperbolic function within the discontinuous
function [6], all of these controllers running in linear
functions. Other way to design DSMC is proposed in [7] in
which is combined the backstepping technique and SMC for
trajectory tracking of underactuated unmanned underwater
vehicles.
To work with SMC is necessary an approximation of
model of procces due to this is used the estimation proposed
by Alfaro [8], this approch method could be used for
nonlinear process and higher order systems with inverse
response behavior. The combination of the approximation
with Linoya’s ideas and the use of the Sliding Mode Control
result in a Dynamic Sliding Mode Control. This new control
technique proposed reduces the presence of the chattering in
the final control element and is robust because it also keeps
the robustness of SMC.
The paper is organized as follows section II makes a brief
description about the method to obtain a transfer function
with inverse response, a IMC structure and SMC, section III
explain the develop of DSMC controller, in section IV shows
the simulations for linear and nonlinear system with inverse,
section V compare the performance of controllers to finally
presents conclussions.
II. BASIC C ONCEPTS
A. Inverse Response System Identification
As it is known, for control purpose design is better have
simple models of systems, for this reason in this paper the
general model for systems with inverse response is represented
by a second order transfer function with right-half-plane
(RHP) zero (1), being K=gain, η=zero, T1 =principal time
constant, T2 =secondary time constant.
K(−ηs + 1)
G(s) = (1)
(T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
This section describes all algorithms proposed by [8]. The
approximation is made from the reaction curve, where t%
represents time when the system output reaches a certain
percentage (y% ). Hence, three points of curve (t47% , y47% ),
(t90% , y90% ) and (tp , yp% ), being tp =time when occur inverse
response and yp% = magnitude of inverse peak in percentage,
all this variables are necessary to build the transfer function be-
causeand have main characteristics of inverse response curve.
The main points to make the approximation is shown in Fig.1
[8]. The transfer function is obtained by next equations:
Gain:
∆y
K= (2)
∆r
The term ∆y are defined as system ouput variation (y(t)) and
∆r as system input variation (r(t)).
The minimum relative error is between the points (t47% , y47% )
and (t90% , y90% ), this means insensibility to errors in the step
response [8]. Slow time constant approximation is represented
by T1 , and Zero by η.
T1 = 0.6(t90% − t47% ) (3)
!
1 − yp%
η = 1− tp %
(4)
e − T1

Fig. 1: Inverse Response System Identification curve. [8]
The last term T2 depends on the relations given by T2 /T1 and
η/t1 , and the variation of relative normalized time (t0 = t/T1 ),
as demonstrated in [8]. Thus, we have the following expression
for T2 .  
t −n
T2 = 47% T1 (5)
m
Where m y n are constants for the proposed identification
algorithm, the values are shown in [8].
The relation between fast and slow times constants (T2 /T1 ),
its limited by values between [0.1, 0.9] due to inverse response
exist, and the relation between zero and slow times constant
(η/T1 ), its limited by values between [0.1,4].
B. Linoya’s Compensator
Internal Model Control (IMC) is used for the control the
systems with difficult dynamic. There are some applications
for this kind of controller as the Smith Predictor and
Linoya’s compensator [9]. The disadvantage of the use of this
controllers is that the controller performance depends of the
accuracy of the process model.
Linoya’s compensator uses a configuration based on Smith
Predictor Fig. 2) to reduce the effects of a non-minimum
phase system (inverse response), and introduce a transfer
function (G0 (s)) which improves the performance of process.
Fig. 2: Linoya’s compensator and modified scheme [10]
Where: R(s)= reference or (Set-point), Y (s)= output,
D(s)= disturbances, G(s)= process, G0 (s)= new transfer
function introduced, Gc (s)= Controller, E(s)= error, Y ∗ (s)=
new output in modified scheme.
Linoya’s compensator makes that the controller observes
the process how a system without inverse response, allowing
a better control, because of the gain is not restricted. With this
modification of the original plant, the controller shows a better
performance when is compared with conventional closed loop
scheme [9].
C. Sliding Mode Control Methodology
SMC is named of this way because the trajectory of
the system is limited by a specific space, called sliding
surface. The choice of surface is very important because the
closed-loop dynamics of the system depends of the sliding
surface.This method of control is an effective tool when is
necessary to control process exposed to disturbances and in
which the exact model of the system is not available.
This control technique is formed by two parts, the first part
is a slide mode control law this is responsible to maintain the
system dynamic on the sliding surface (continuous function),
uc (t). The second part is reaching mode control law which
permits reaching the desired surface as the state trajectories
change (discontinuous function), ur (t) [11].
Fig. 3: Representation of a SMC [11]
u(t) = uc (t) + ur (t) (6)
1) Continuous function- Sliding mode: In this part of the
control law is necessary choosing a sliding surface because
this one will define the limits in which the process must stay.
The principal sliding surfaces, S(t), are derivative and integral
and in this work is used an integral surface (7) [12].
Integral:
 n Z t
d
S(t) = +α e(t)dt (7)
dt 0
Where e(t) is the difference between the reference value, r(t),
and the output measurement, y(t). α is a tuning parameter
that defines the surface and the system. n is the system order.
For this research, integral surface will be used, acting on the

tracking error [11].
To ensure that the error and its variation is always equal
to zero (e(t) = 0 and ė(t) = 0), is necessary the following
condition, called sliding condition:
dS(t)
=0 (8)
dt
The continuous part is obtained by combining the process
model and sliding condition.
2) Discontinuous function-Reaching Mode: The sliding
mode emerges from the effects of the relay systems with their
switching characteristic at a high frequency (i.e. chattering);
the control function is defined as (9).
K(−ηs + 1) Kλs
G∗ (s) = + (16)
(T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1) (T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
K[(λ − η)s + 1]
G∗ (s) = (17)
(T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
Using (17) is obtained three conditions for λ value. If λ ≤ η,
the zero moves at right of the its initial position; if λ = η,
positive zero is cancelled; If λ ≥ η, the zero is on half left
plane ”s”. The third condition is used for controller design
due to eliminates the inverse response from the feedback loop,
but while the λ is bigger this produced a slower control loop
[9].A criterion for initial lambda according to several tests
minimizing the Integral Squared Error (ISE) is expresed by
(18)

ur (t) = KD signS(t) (9) λ = 2η (18)

The aggressiveness to reach the sliding surface depends on Replacing (18) in (17), we have the expression given by (19).
the control gain, but this action increase the the chattering.
K(ηs + 1)
The expression (9) arise from Lyapunov function when the G∗ (s) = (19)
sysstem reached in a finite time smaller to surface S(t). (T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
The new transfer function observed by controller is:
K(ηs + 1)
III. C ONTROLLER D EVELOPMENT Y ∗ (s) = U (s) (20)
(T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
The general system model used in this work is represented
From this transfer function, the controller design is
by (1); in classical feedback, the output of the system that is 0
started.Knowing that Y ∗ (s) depends on G (s), and this one
view by controller contains a Right-Half-Plane zero (10) mak-
depends of the modeling errors; It is proposed to use slid-
ing that the controller takes wrong initial corrective actions.
ing mode control (SMC) due to its performace no depends
K(−ηs + 1) these.The SMC is designed from Y ∗ (s) (n = 2) and it’s
Y (s) = U (s) (10)
(T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1) chosen an integral sliding surface (7), resulting in a surface of
Linoya’s compensator Fig. 2 gets a new zero ubication in the the PID form (21).
plane ”s” depending the tuning parameters of this controller. Z t
de(t)
A transfer function is initially obtained, it is able to do that S(t) = 2αe(t) + α2 e(t)dt + (21)
0 dt
the controller observes the output without the positive zero,
and then is chosen a controller to complete the Linoya’s If the error is defined as the difference between the reference
scheme. The function that reduces the positive zero effects is and the new output (22), and using the sliding condition (8):
called G0 (s) and it is designed separating the process model
e(t) = r(t) − y ∗ (t) (22)
in two parts (11), one part contains the zero on the right side
of the plane ”s” and the other the part Go (s) contains the dS(t) d2 e(t) de(t)
gain and poles of the model (12); The last one is going to be = + 2α + α2 e(t) = 0 (23)
dt dt2 dt
part of the designed transfer function. Derivating (22):

G(s) = Go (s)(1 − ηs) (11) de(t) dr(t) dy ∗ (t)

= − (24)
dt dt dt
K
Go (s) = (12) It is assumed that steady state reference changes do not exist:
(T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1)
dr(t)
The transfer function G0 (s) is defined in (13), where λ =0 (25)
represent a parameter that makes that the controller observes dt
a system without inverse response. Replacing equations (24), (25), in (21) results:
d2 y ∗ (t) dy ∗ (t)
0
G (s) = Go (s)λs (13) = −2α + α2 e(t) (26)
dt2 dt
Kλs The parameter α eliminates dy ∗ (t)/dt and the value of this
G0 (s) = (14)
(T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1) depends on the model studied, in general:
The λ values is given in accordance with the development of Y ∗ (s)(T1 s + 1)(T2 s + 1) = K(ηs + 1)U (s) (27)
the scheme depicted in Fig. 2.
Y ∗ (s)(T1 T2 s2 + (T1 + T2 )s + 1) = KηsU (s) + KU (s)
G∗ (s) = G(s) + G0 (s) (15) (28)
 d2 y ∗ (t) dy ∗ du(t) KηKD
T1 T2 + (T1 + T2 ) + y ∗ (t) = Kη + Ku(t) − |S(t)| < 0 (42)
dt2 dt dt T1 T2
(29)
Finally the condition (42) is neccesary to ensure the stability
Solving:
KηKD
dy ∗ (t) dy ∗ (t) >0 (43)
 
T1 T2 −2α + α2 e(t) + (T1 + T2 ) + y ∗ (t) T1 T2
dt dt
du(t) IV. S IMULATIONS
= Kη + Ku(t)
dt
(30) In this section the performance of DSMC will be compared
with a clasical controller PID and PID controller combined
dy ∗ (t)
(T1 + T2 −2αT2 T1 ) + α2 T2 T1 e(t) + y ∗ (t) = with Linoya’s compensator.
dt (31)
du(t)
Kη + Ku(t) A. Linear System
dt
If we choose α equal to equation (32), then dy ∗ (t)/dt = 0, It consists in a system with inverse response used to
T1 + T2 develop the controller from the transfer function [9].
α= (32)
2T2 T1 2(1 − 4s)
Replacing 32 in 31: Y (s) = U (s) (44)
(2s + 1)(5s + 1)
 2
T1 + T2 du(t) To this system are designed three controllers PID, DSMC and
T2 T1 e(t) + y ∗ (t) = Kη + Ku(t) (33)
2T2 T1 dt Linoya’s compensator, PID parameters are obtained through
u(t) becomes uc (t) because this part of controller uses the Ziegler Nichols tuning rules, DSMC is tuning taking in con-
system and sliding condition. sideration ISE results and finally Linoya’s compensator uses
as part of its scheme the PID before mentioned, all parameters
duc (t) (T1 + T2 )2 y ∗ (t) uc (t) are shown in Table I.
= e(t) + − (34)
dt 4KηT2 T1 Kη η
Controller PID DSMC Linoya
The discontinuous part is given by the (9), so the dynamic Parameter Kp Ti TD KD α λ
controller has the form: Linear 0.525 6 1.5 1.35 0.35 8

du(t) (T1 + T2 )2 y ∗ (t) uc (t) TABLE I: Controller Parameters

= e(t) + − + KD sign(S(t))
dt 4KηT2 T1 Kη η
(35)
The PID, DSMC, and Linoya’s compensator controllers are
Finally, the control law is given by:
tested before setpoint changes, disturbances and noise.
Z t Z t
(T1 + T2 )2 y ∗ (t) uc (t)
u(t) = e(t)+ − + KD sign(s(t))
0 4KηT2 T1 Kη η 0
(36)

A. Stability analysis
From Lyapunov’s function described in (37) and stability
condition (38) [12].
S(t)2
V (t) = >0 (37)
2
dV (t) dS(t)
= S(t) <0 (38)
dt dt
V (t) is a differentiable function and dS(t)/dt is defined from
(23) as:
dS(t) dy ∗ (t) d2 y ∗ (t)
= −2α + α2 e(t) − (39)
dt dt dt
Replacing (35) in (29) is obtained a condition desribes as: Fig. 4: Set-Point Changes in linear system
dS(t) KηKD sign(S(t))
=− (40) Comparing the applied controllers to the system can be
dt T1 T2 observed as the one of better performance is the DSMC, so that
To demostrate the system stability (40) is introduced in (38) for the reference changes the reverse peak decreases, it is the
obtaining: quickest to recover its reference value when setpoint changes
KηKD S(t)sign(S(t)) or disturbances and its performance does not decrease with
− <0 (41) noise presence like the other controllers.
T1 T2
 Process reaction curve: At a signal u(t) from 60% to 70%
and 60% to 50%, the open loop response of the nonlinear sys-
tems presents the following parameters: K1 =0.32, K2 =0.428
, t90 =1.891 seg , t47 =0.95 seg, T1 =0.5646, b=0.8,a=0.9586.
The transfer function for a positive step change:
0.32(−0.3692s + 1)
G(s) = (50)
(0.54s + 1)(0.4363s + 1)
The transfer function for a negative step change:
0.428(−0.3692s + 1)
G(s) = (51)
(0.54s + 1)(0.4363s + 1)
We can get average transfer function:

Fig. 5: Noise presence in linear system

y%
Nonlinear
B. NonLinear System Linear
The Van de Vusse reaction (inverse response) that produces
in a CSTR, is commonly seen this in chemical process, as time [min]
shown [13]:
1k
A−→B 2
−→C
k Nonlinear
(45) y% Linear
3k
2A−→C
The equations that describes a reaction mass balance are:
time [min]
dCA (t) F
= −k1 CA (t) − k3 CA 2 (t) + (CAf (t) − CA (t)) Fig. 6: Reaction Curves for Linear and no Linear system
dt V
(46)
0.374(−0.3692s + 1)
dCB (t) F G(s) = (52)
= k1 CA (t) − k2 CB (t) + (CB (t)) (47) (0.54s + 1)(0.4363s + 1)
dt V
Table II contains a tuning parameters of three controllers of
Where F represents the input feed of product A; V is the
nonlinear system
reactor volume this will be constant; k1 , k2 , k3 are the reaction
rate for the three reactions; CA (t) and CB (t) are the reactant
concentration presents in the reactor, so the controlled variable Controller PID DSMC Linoya
is CB (t), F is manipulated variable of the process, CAf (t) Parameter Kp Ti TD KD α λ
Linear 3 0.65 0.162 35 2.07 0.7384
is the initial concentration of A, this one is considered as
disturbance. TABLE II: Controller Parameters
The values for the variables are V=700 liters, CAf (t) =
10mol.l−1 , k1 = 10 mol−1 .min−1 , k2 = 10 mol−1 .min−1 ,
k3 = 10 mol−1 .min−1 . At the beginning, steady-state condi-
tions are CAo =2.9175 mol.l−1 y CBo =1.1 mol.l−1 and the
maximum flow of the valve used in the process is 634.17
mol.l−1 .The valve and transmitter equations are expressed
in (48) and (49) respectively. The signals u and y will be
expressed as a percentage where the steady stable conditions
are y0 % = 70% y u0 = 60%.
100
y(t)% = ( )(CB (t)) (48)
1.5714
634.17
F (t) = ( )u(t)% (49)
100
The process of approaching the non-linear plant to a second-
order system with inverse response is based on the method
described in section II-A Fig. 7: Set-Point Changes in nonlinear system
 classical schemes, and the output of controller the chattering
is reduced.
DSMC is a robust controller that no depends the error
models, and reduce the efects of the inverse response due to
the combination of Linoya’s compensator and Sliding Mode
Control.

VII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Oscar Camacho thanks PROMETEO project of
SENESCYT, Republic of Ecuador for its support in the
realization of this work. Authors thank to PIJ-15-17 Project
of Escuela Politécnica Nacional for its sponsorship for the
realization of this work.

R EFERENCES
Fig. 8: Noise presence in nonlinear system
[1] O. Camacho, “Sliding mode control in process industry,” Process
Control and Optimization, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 351–359, 2005.
[2] T. E. Skogestad and P. I., Multivariable Feedback Control: Analysis and
In this case the controllers present a good performance but Design. Wiley, 2001.
DSMC is the fastest to get reference value for each case and [3] R. Rojas, W. Garca-Gabn, and O. Camacho, “On sliding-mode control
for inverse response processes,” IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 38,
it is evident as the use of Linoya’s compensator improves the no. 1, p. 525530, 2005.
performance of controllers. [4] A. Koshkouei, K. Burnham, and A. Zinober, “Dynamic sliding mode
control design,” IEE Proceedings - Control Theory and Applications,
vol. 152, no. 4, p. 392396, Jan 2005.
V. R ESULTS [5] J.-L. Chang, “Dynamic sliding mode controller design for reducing
chattering,” Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, vol. 37, no. 1,
To evaluate the simulations results, the DSMC is compared p. 7178, 2012.
with PID, and PID with linoya’s compensator. Set point [6] P. Lesniewski and A. Bartoszewicz, “Hyperbolic tangent based switching
changes (linear = 0% to 0.2% and 0.2% to 0.4%),(nonlinear reaching law for discrete time sliding mode control of dynamical
systems,” 2015 International Workshop on Recent Advances in Sliding
= 70% to 73% and 73% to 76%); disturbances (linear = Modes (RASM), 2015.
±5%), (nonlinear= ±10% of CAf (t)); noise = (linear =5% [7] J. Xu, M. Wang, and L. Qiao, “Dynamical sliding mode control for
),(nonlinear = 5%); the trajectory tracking of underactuated unmanned underwater vehicles,”
Ocean Engineering, vol. 105, p. 5463, 2015.
Furthermore to compare the controllers the average value [8] P. Balaguer, V. Alfaro, and O. Arrieta, “Second order inverse response
of the performance index ISE. This value was obtained in the process identification from transient step response,” ISA Transactions,
simulations and are presented in table (III) and (IV). vol. 50, no. 2, p. 231238, 2011.
[9] B. Ogunnaike and W. H. Ray, Process dynamics, modeling and control.
Oxford University Press, 1995.
[10] K. Linoya and R. Alpeter, “Inverse response in process control,” Ind.
Iype Setpoint Disturbances Noise
Eng. Chem, vol. 54, p. 3949, 1962.
Controller ISE ISE ISE
[11] O. Camacho and C. A. Smith, “Sliding mode control: an approach to
PID 0.8265 0.0511 0.8265
regulate nonlinear chemical processes,” ISA Transactions, vol. 39, no. 2,
PID+Linoya 0.131 0.0080 0.1310
p. 205218, 2000.
DSMC 0.0638 0.0036 0.0638
[12] J.-J. E. Slotine and W. Li, Applied nonlinear control. Pearson Education
TABLE III: ISE comparison for linear system Taiwan, 2005.
[13] V. Alfaro, P. Balaguer, and O. Arrieta, “Robustness considerations on
pid tuning for regulatory control of inverse response processes,” IFAC
Conference on Advances in PID Control, vol. 45, no. 3, p. 193198, 2012.
Iype Setpoint Disturbances Noise
Controller ISE ISE ISE
PID 11.4 0.04805 11.59
PID+Linoya 5.516 0.02955 5.677
DSMC 4.376 0.00084 4.594

TABLE IV: ISE comparison for nonlinear system

In the comparation of ISE results, in the three tests it can be

observed that the dynamical sliding mode control has a better
performance than others controllers with lower ISE value.

VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper is shown a dynamic sliding mode control in
processes with inverse response. In the examples presented
the results of the controller in front of different type of
disturbances have a better ISE performance, compared to the