Non-linear PID and Dynamic SMC for the Artificial
Pancreas control in the treatment of Type 1 Diabetes
Dayan Calupiña, Andrea García, Oscar Camacho, Andrés
Rosales
Facultad de Ingeniería Eléctrica y Electrónica
Escuela Politecnica Nacional
Quito, Ecuador
{dayan.calupina, andrea.garcia, oscar.camacho,
andres.rosales}@epn.edu.ec
Abstract— The development of the artificial pancreas in the
Type 1 Diabetes treatment has gained strength in recent years.
However, the main challenge facing this development is the
variations of the parameters in the plant, which are expected to
change even up to an 80% of their nominal values. This
parametric variation presents greater difficulty when applying
controllers. This paper presents the design and evaluation of two
robust controllers, the Nonlinear PID controller and the
Dynamic Sliding Mode Controller. The simulation scenarios
consider the intake of 3 meals per day and different parametric
variation. The performance analysis shows that NPID maintains
blood glucose levels in its set-point zone better than the DSMC.
Finally, the controllers are tested in the UVA/Padova metabolic
simulator obtaining the 100% of the patients in the safe range.
Keywords—Artificial pancreas, NPID, DSMC, parametric
variation, type 1 diabetes.
I. INTRODUCTION
The main source of energy of the human being is glucose
and the hormone responsible for maintaining its normal level
in the blood is insulin. This hormone is secreted by beta cells,
located in the islets of Langerhans of the pancreas, allowing
the storage of glucose in adipose tissue, muscle and liver in
the form of glycogen [1].
A person with diabetes is who has hyperglycemia or blood
glucose levels above the parameters considered normal, that
is, from 70 mg/dl to 120 mg/dl, before consuming food, and
maximum 180 mg/dl after of consuming food [2]. This disease
can generate cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disorders,
dysfunction in eyes, nerves, kidneys, blood vessels and heart,
coma and even life risk, if not treated in time [3]. In 2016 there
were 4906 deaths in Ecuador due to Diabetes, increasing this
number by 51% since 2007; taking into account these
statistics, Diabetes has become the second cause of death in
the country, surpassed only by ischemic diseases of the heart
[4].
T1D affects 10% of patients[5], being mostly children and
adolescents, although the possibility of it occurring at any age
is not ruled out [6].
Insulin therapy is one of the most effective treatments for
T1D and involves the delivery of insulin either by Multiple
Daily Injections (MDI) or Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin
Infusion (CSII), these latter one uses insulin pumps. It is
important to create efficient therapies because if the insulin is
supplied in the wrong way, hypoglycemia or low blood
glucose levels can occur, which also cause serious
consequences [5]. With this in mind, the artificial pancreas
(AP) is an excellent alternative for the treatment of T1D since
it automates the whole process, controlling the blood glucose
978-1-5386-6657-9/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Pablo Rivadeneira
Departamento de Energía Eléctrica y Automática
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Medellín, Colombia
psrivade@unal.edu.co
level by using a control algorithm, an insulin pump and a
sensor of glucose, forming a closed control loop [7].
BLOOD
INSULIN GLUCOSE
INSULIN
CONTROLLER
PUMP
GLUCOSE
SENSOR
Fig. 1. Artificial pancreas closed loop
The difficulty arises when working with biological plants,
in this case the glucose-insulin regulation cycle, since is
characterized by having parameters that vary intraday and
interpatient. The desirable result is to have a model that
describes as accurately as possible to each patient with
diabetes and its parameters variation throughout the day. For
patients with T1D, insulin sensitivity or the time of action of
insulin are the most variable parameters since they can be
affected by physical activity, stress levels, among others.
Many of the proposed models fail to solve the aforementioned
problems since they are modeled based on taking samples of
a few hours or days; however, the model used in the present
development [8], being one of the most current, it takes data
over 12 weeks in 8 patients, making the description of the
glucose regulation cycle very close to a real one.
The most used control algorithms for this type of plants,
are the PID and MPC [9]. These two types of controllers have
presented satisfactory results, however, there are small
disadvantages for them. In the case of the PID, as it is not a
robust controller, it does not provide the necessary reliability
in case of variations of the model parameters and the MPC,
has a high computational cost [11]. With this in mind, in this
work different controllers are going to be designed looking for
viable control alternatives that are simple, robust and
implementable.
This paper presents the design and tuning of two
controllers accompanied by a Feedforward controller. The
first, a Non-linear PID (NPID), whose design introduces non-
linear functions for the error producing variable gains
depending on the value of the functions [12]. Finally, a Sliding
Mode Controller is presented; in the design of this, a filter is
added to the FOPDT model of the plant, improving stability.
Adding this particularity this becomes a Dynamic Sliding
Mode Controller (DSMC). The advantage of this new
controller is the reduction of chattering.
In the results obtained after the simulation, in nominal
conditions and in the presence of parametric variations, blood
glucose levels are better with the NPID controller than with
the DSMC.
Finally, to verify the performance of the controllers
presented in this paper, the T1D patient simulator, called
UVA/Padova, was used. This simulates the dynamics of the
glucose-insulin cycle of a population of 33 patients, divided
into 3 groups, adolescents, adults and children. The results in
11 adults, show that the two controllers allow to be within
acceptable blood glucose levels. It is important to mention that
this simulator is approved by the FDA.
Section II of this paper details the equations that integrate
the mathematical model that describes the behavior of the
glucose-insulin cycle. Subsequently, in Section III, the design
and tuning of the Non-linear PID controller and DSMC
applied to the plant are shown. The results, after having
performed the simulations applying the controllers to the
glucose-insulin model, are shown in Section IV. Finally, the
conclusions obtained from this work are presented in the last
section.
II. MODEL
The mathematical model used in this project is the one
proposed by Roman Hovorka [8], with 5 state variables, it
consists of 7 differential equations, which are divided into 3
subsystems, each one containing a part of the glucose-insulin
regulation cycle. The insulin infusion is considered as input,
the intake of carbohydrates as input disturbance and the
concentration of glucose in the blood as output of the model.
5.556 ∗ 𝐴𝐺 ∗ 𝑎2 (𝑡)
𝑈𝑀 (𝑡) = ()
𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝐺 ∗ 𝑉𝐺 ∗ 𝑊
Where 𝑎1 (𝑡) , in (g), and 𝑎2 (𝑡) , in (g), are the
carbohydrate amount in the first and second meal absorption
compartment respectively; 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥,G , in (min), represents the
time of maximum appearance rate of glucose; 𝑢𝐺 (𝑡𝑗 ), in (g),
is the carbohydrate amount eaten at time (𝑡𝑗 ) ; 𝑈𝑀 (𝑡) , in
(mmol/l/min), represents the gut carbohydrate absorption rate
with unit converted to glucose concentration rate of change;
𝐴𝐺 , (unitless), represents the fractional biovariability and 𝑉𝐺 ,
in (l/kg), is the plasma glucose pool size fixed at 0.16 [8].
C. Subsystem 3
Finally, this unique equation (), describes the kinetics of
the continuously monitored glucose concentration.
𝑑𝐺(𝑡)
= −𝑆𝐼 [𝑋(𝑡) − 𝑋𝑏 ] + 𝑈𝑀 − 𝐾[𝐺(𝑡) − 𝐺𝑏 ] ()
𝑑𝑡
Where 𝐺(𝑡 ), in (mmol/l), is the blood glucose
concentration; 𝑆𝐼 , in (mmol/l/min per mU/l), is the insulin
sensitivity; 𝑋𝑏 , in (mU/l), is the basal effective insulin
concentration at which glucose level would be maintained
constant; 𝐾, in (/min), the glucose self-regulation fractional
rate and 𝐺𝑏 , in (mmol/l), represents the basal level of the blood
glucose concentration [8].

A. Subsystem 1 III. CONTROLLERS

With 3 equations, this subsystem represents the insulin
absorption and action: The main goal of the controller is to maintain
𝑑𝑥1 (𝑡) 1 𝑢𝐼 (𝑡) normglycemia within 70 mg/dl to 180 mg/dl.
=− 𝑥 (𝑡) + ()
𝑑𝑡 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝐼𝐴 1 60 The parameters which constitutes the approximation of
first order with delay (FOPDT) are obtained using the reaction
𝑑𝑥2 (𝑡) 1 curve method, Smith [13], and can be represented as follows:
= [𝑥 (𝑡) − 𝑥2 (𝑡)] ()
𝑑𝑡 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝐼𝐴 1
𝐾 𝑒 −𝑡0 𝑠
1000 ∗ 𝑥2 (𝑡) 𝐺= ()
𝑋(𝑡) = () 𝜏𝑠 + 1
𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝐼𝐴 ∗ 𝑀𝐶𝑅𝑖 ∗ 𝑊
Where 𝐾 is the static gain, 𝑡0 is the dead time, and 𝜏 is the
Where 𝑥1 (𝑡) and 𝑥2 (𝑡), both in (U), are the amount of time constant, these parameters are calculated in the following
effective insulin in the first and second insulin absorption way:
compartment, respectively; 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝐼𝐴 , in (min), represents the
time to maximum of effective insulin concentration; 𝑢𝐼 (𝑡), in 𝑡0 = 𝑡2 − 𝜏 ()
(U/h), represents exogenous delivery rate of insulin aspart at
time t; 𝑋(𝑡) , in (mU/l), represents the concentration of 𝜏 = 1.5(𝑡2 − 𝑡1 ) ()
effective insulin; 𝑀𝐶𝑅𝑖 , in (l/kg/min), is the metabolic
clearance rate of effective insulin fixed at 0.017 and 𝑊, in ∆𝑋
𝐾= ()
(kg), represents the body’s weight of the subject, as described ∆𝑈
in [8].
The parameter 𝑡1 is the time at 28.3 % of de final value,
B. Subsystem 2 and 𝑡2 , the time at 63.2 % of de final value.
This subsystem describes the meal absorption dynamics
by the following 3 equations: A. Non Linear PID
In order to achieve a better response of the plant compared
𝑑𝑎1 (𝑡) 1
=− 𝑎 (𝑡) + 𝛿𝑡𝑗 (𝑡) ∗ 𝑢𝐺 (𝑡𝑗 ) () with a Linear PID, Gao, in [12], proposes a nonlinear
𝑑𝑡 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝐺 1 functions combination, (), () and (), that depend on the
𝑑𝑎2 (𝑡) 1 proportional, integral and derivative error, respectively.
= [𝑎 (𝑡) − 𝑎2 (𝑡)] ()
𝑑𝑡 𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝐺 1
 |𝑒𝑝 |
𝛼𝑝
∗ 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝑝 ), |𝑒𝑝 | > 𝛿 𝑌(𝑠) 𝑒 −𝑡0𝑝 𝑠
𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) = = 𝐾𝑝 ()
𝑓𝑎𝑙(𝑒𝑝 , 𝛼𝑝 , 𝛿) = { 𝐵 () 𝑈(𝑠) 𝜏𝑝 𝑠 + 1
𝑒𝑝
1−𝛼𝑝 , |𝑒𝑝 | ≤ 𝛿 𝑡𝑓 𝑠 + 1 𝑒 −𝑡0𝑝𝑠
𝛿 𝐺𝑝 (𝑠) = 𝐾𝑝 ( )( ) ()
𝜏𝑝 𝑠 + 1 𝑡𝑓 𝑠 + 1
|𝑒𝑖 |𝛼𝑖 ∗ 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝑖 ), |𝑒𝑖 | > 𝛿 The plant is formed by its invertible () and not invertible
𝑓𝑎𝑙(𝑒𝑖 , 𝛼𝑖 , 𝛿) = { 𝑒 𝐵 () () part.
𝑖
, |𝑒𝑖 | ≤ 𝛿 −
𝛿 1−𝛼𝑖 𝑋𝑚 (𝑠) 𝑡𝑓 𝑠 + 1
𝐺𝑝 (𝑠)− = = 𝐾𝑝 ( ) ()
|𝑒𝑑 |𝛼𝑑 ∗ 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑒𝑑 ), |𝑒𝑑 | > 𝛿 𝑈(𝑠) 𝜏𝑝 𝑠 + 1

𝑓𝑎𝑙(𝑒𝑑 , 𝛼𝑑 , 𝛿) = { 𝑒 𝐵 () 𝑋𝑚+

(𝑠) 𝑒 −𝑡0𝑝𝑠
𝑑 𝐺𝑝 (𝑠)+ = =( ) ()
, |𝑒𝑑 | ≤ 𝛿 𝑈(𝑠) 𝑡𝑓 𝑠 + 1
𝛿 1−𝛼𝑑

For the development of the controller, only the invertible

Where 𝑒𝑝 is the proportional error, 𝑒𝑖 is the integral error part of the plant is used.
and 𝑒𝑑 is the derivative error. In the same way, 𝛼𝑝 , 𝛼𝑖 , 𝛼𝑑 are
the tuning constants which vary the nonlinear function. The selected surface was developed by Proaño in [15],
[16], however, a variation is applied, eliminating 𝐾𝑝 , and this
By choosing 𝛿 > 0 , it includes a linear region in the will not affect the performance, leaving the following
function, graphically seen in Fig. 2. On the other hand, the equation:
value of 𝛼𝑝 , 𝛼𝑖 , 𝛼𝑑 should be tuned taking into consideration
that, in comparison to a linear controller, if 𝛼 < 1 the gain will − (𝑡)
𝑆(𝑡) = 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝐾𝑝 ) (𝑅(𝑡) − 𝑋𝑚 + 𝜆 ∫ 𝑒(𝑡)𝑑𝑡) ()
be small when the error is large and when the error is small
the gain will be lower. Alternatively, if 𝛼 > 1 when the error
is large the gain will be higher and when the error is small, the
The control law, 𝑈(𝑡), is composed of a continuous part
gain will be small.
(), obtained from the sliding surface, and a discontinuous
y () which is defined from the sign function [15], responsible
for bringing the system to the sliding surface and keep it at the
y=e y = fal (e,α,δ) setpoint value, respectively.
𝜏𝑝 𝜆 1 1
𝑈𝐶 = ∫ ( 𝑒(𝑡) + 𝑋 − (𝑡) − 𝑈𝑐 (𝑡)) 𝑑𝑡 ()
δ 1 e
𝐾𝑝 𝑡𝑓 𝐾𝑝 𝑡𝑓 𝑚 𝑡𝑓

𝑈𝐷 = ∫ 𝑘𝐷 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑆(𝑡)) ()

Fig. 2. NPID graphical interpretation The final control law () is the sum of these two
components, but it must be taken into account that the design
of this controller is done in deviation variables, so to
Finally, the control law is: implement it in plants with initial conditions, the following
1 considerations must be taken:
𝑈𝑁𝑃𝐼𝐷 = 𝑘𝑝 [𝑓𝑎𝑙(𝑒𝑝 , 𝛼𝑝 , 𝛿) + 𝑓𝑎𝑙(𝑒𝑖 , 𝛼𝑖 , 𝛿)
𝑇𝑖 () ̅ ± 𝑈(𝑡)
𝑚(𝑡) = 𝑚 ()
+ 𝑇𝑑 𝑓𝑎𝑙(𝑒𝑑 , 𝛼𝑑 , 𝛿)]
− (𝑡)
𝑋𝑚 − (𝑡)
= 𝑋𝑚 − 𝐺̅ ()
Given that the base of this controller is a PID, to find the 𝜏𝜆 1
𝑘𝑝 , 𝑇𝑖 and 𝑇𝑑 values, Dahlin tuning is used [14]. 𝑚(𝑡) = 𝑚
̅ ± ∫( 𝑒(𝑡) + (𝑋 − (𝑡) − 𝐺̅ )
𝐾𝑡𝑓 𝐾𝑡𝑓 𝑚
𝜏𝑝 ()
𝑘𝑝 = () 1
2 𝐾𝑝 𝑡0𝑝 − 𝑈𝑐 (𝑡)) 𝑑𝑡 + ∫ 𝑘𝐷 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛(𝑆(𝑡))
𝑡𝑓
𝑇𝑖 = 𝜏𝑝 ()
With their respective tuning constants, which are obtained
𝑇𝑑 = 0.5 𝑡0𝑝 () according to [16]:
B. DSMC 0.51 𝜏 0.76
𝐾𝐷 = 𝑐 [ ] ()
The FOPDT model of the plant is obtained and a filter is |𝐾| 𝑡0
added in the numerator and denominator, where the value of
the pole and the zero of this filter is 𝑡𝑓 > 1: 𝜏 + 𝑡0
𝜆=𝑐 ()
𝜏𝑡0
 Where, 𝐾, 𝜏 y 𝑡0 are the values of the parameters of the 𝜶𝒊 0.8
FOPDT model of the plant and 𝑐 is a tuning constant [16]. 𝜶𝒅 0.5
For the design of the controller, the diagram shown in Fig.
3, that part of the Smith predictor, should be considered. The DSMC uses tuning constants shown in the TABLE III.
TABLE III. DSMC TUNING PARAMETERS
R (s) E(s) DSMC U (s) Y (s)
SETPOINT +
CONTROLLER
PLANT
--
Parameter Value
Xm-(s) +
Xm(s) +
Gp-(s) Gp+(s) + -- 𝒄 100
I. Cond. 𝒕𝒇 1000
+ I. Cond.
+
𝝀 1.1021
X(s) Em(s)
+
+ 𝒌𝑫 5.3537

Fig. 3. DSMC diagram Finally, the 𝐾𝑑 parameter is obtained for the feedforward
controller ().
C. Feedforward
The food intake is taken into account as the disturbance of 𝐺𝑓𝑓 = b ∗ 1.4 ()
the plant.
Based on the equations proposed by Marchetti, in [17], the 𝑏 = 4.2 ()
information of two transfer functions is used. The first, 𝐺𝑃
(), is the FOPDT model of the plant, which represents the
effect of the controlled variable 𝑌(𝑠) against a change of the Where 𝑏 is a re-tuning parameter to improve the controller
manipulated variable 𝑈(𝑠); and the second, 𝐺𝑑 (), is the performance.
FOPDT model of the perturbation that represents the effect of
The feedforward controller is applied to the NPID and the
the disturbance 𝐷(𝑠), in the controlled variable 𝑌(𝑠) . DSMC.
Consequently, 𝐺𝑓𝑓 is the feedforward controller, like this:
For the simulation, the consumption of food distributed in
𝑌(𝑠) 𝑒 −𝑡0𝑑 𝑠 three daily meals with a duration of 10 minutes each was
𝐺𝑑 (𝑠) = = 𝐾𝑑 () considered, which had the following amounts of
𝐷(𝑠) 𝜏𝑑 𝑠 + 1
carbohydrates; breakfast at 8:00 am with 40 grams of
𝐾𝑑 carbohydrates, lunch at 1:00 pm with 60 grams and finally
𝐺𝑓𝑓 = − ()
𝐾𝑝 dinner at 7:00 pm with 30 grams of carbohydrates.
After applying the controllers to the Hovorka model [8],
IV. RESULTS with nominal values, the results shown in Fig. 4 were
obtained, and the controller effort observed in Fig. 5 y Fig. 6.
A. Matlab simulation
In the TABLE I, the FOPDT model parameters are shown,
as shown in Section III.
TABLE I. PLANT FOPDT MODEL PARAMETERS

Parameter Value
𝝉𝒑 (min) 298.975
𝒕𝟎𝒑 (min) 130.28
𝑲𝒑 (mg⁄dl per U/h) -321.355
Fig. 4 NPID and DSMC glucose response

As explained in the previous section, using these Where it can be observed, that for the NPID, the glucose
parameters and the equations (), () y (), we obtain the always remains within the normoglycemia levels, being its
tuning of a PID; after this, the values of the NPID parameters maximum value 170.2 (mg/dl) and the minimum 70 (mg/dl).
are assigned. On the other hand, the DSMC presents hypoglycemia at
TABLE II. NPID PARAMETERS minute 1143, descending from normoglycemia 7.7 (mg/dl).

Parameter Value
𝐤𝐩 -0.00357
𝐓𝐢 298.975
𝐓𝐝 64.14
𝜹 20
𝜶𝒑 1.2
 Fig. 5 NPID and DSMC control effort When observing the results of the glucose levels after
applying scenario 2, the NPID shows hyperglycemia with a
value of 184 (mg/dl) in the second meal, while the DSMC
presents hyperglycemia in the second meal reaching 216.6
(mg/dl) and in the third meal the glucose level reaches the
upper limit.

Fig. 6. Detail of the NPID and DSMC control effort

However, when considering the control effort, the NPID

at minute 938 has its minimum peak of 0.0008 (U / min), and
at minute 786 its maximum peak of 0.618 (U / min); and the
DSMC presents a minimum peak of 0.015 (U / min) in the Fig. 9 NPID scenario 2 glucose response
1534 minute and a maximum peak of 0.615 (U / min) in the
786 minute.
To observe the performance of the controllers, 2 scenarios
were simulated.
Scenario 1 considers modeling errors on the insulin
sensitivity 𝑆𝐼 , the time at the maximum insulin concentration
𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝐼𝐴 and the self-regulation constant 𝐾 , with an
underestimation of 30%, 30% and 20%, respectively,
obtaining the results shown in Fig. 7 y Fig. 8. Fig. 10 DSMC scenario 2 glucose response

B. UVA/Padova simulation
Below are the graphs of the 11 adult patients for both the
NPID (Fig. 11) and the DSMC (Fig. 12). Being able to observe
that there are no hypoglycemias in none of the cases.

Fig. 7. NPID scenario 1 glucose response

Fig. 11. NPID adults glucose response

Fig. 8. DSMC scenario 1 glucose response

As shown in Fig. 7 y Fig. 8, when applying scenario 1, the

NPID presents hyperglycemia in the second meal, exceeding
the upper limit by 7.9 (mg/dl); and with the DSMC controller,
in the first and third meal, it is in the limit of normoglycemia
and there is hyperglycemia in the second meal, being 51.6
(mg/dl) above normal.
Scenario 2 performs the combination of scenario 1
together with the presence of two phenomena that affect some
Fig. 12. DSMC adults glucose response
parameters. From 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., as a result of the
dawn phenomenon, the insulin sensitivity 𝑆𝐼 is varied by The UVA/Padova simulator allows to show the results of
+25% and the 𝐾 autoregulation constant by +10%; and from the performance of the controllers with the patients in a
8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. by +20 % the insulin sensitivity 𝑆𝐼 and summarized table shown in Fig. 13. Where it can be evidenced
-10% the constant of self-regulation, representing the that both, the NPID (represented as black circles with filling)
performance of physical activity of the patient. The results are and the DSMC (represented as black circles without filling),
seen in Fig. 9 y Fig. 10. remain within acceptable levels, this means that they are
within zones A and B, which represent glycemias of
maximum 300 mg/dL and minimum of 70 mg/dl.
Fig. 13. UVA/Padova summarized results
V. CONCLUSIONS
The proposed controllers, NPID and DSMC, show
satisfactory results when are applied to the glucose-insulin
cycle model, demonstrating that it is possible to implement
simple and robust controllers for this type of plants.
In addition, with nominal values, the glucose level
response with the NPID controller is better since it does not
show hypoglycemic frames as in the response with the DSMC
controller.
It is demonstrated that when performing variations of the
parameters to represent modeling errors, which are common
in biological systems, and to represent characteristics of a
patient, dawn phenomenon and physical activity; the
performance of the controllers is affected, causing
hyperglycemia, however, the DSMC presents higher peaks
compared to the NPID.
Finally, both, the NPID and the DSMC, manage to
maintain the glucose level within zones A and B, so that their
performance is satisfactory when they are applied to adult
patients in the UVA/Padova simulator.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Olivares and A. Arellano, “Bases Moleculares de las
Acciones de la Insulina,” vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 9–18, 2008.
[2] National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse, Guía para
personas con diabetes tipo 1 y 2. National Diabetes
Information Clearinghouse, 2013.
[3] J. Mediavilla, “Complicaciones de la diabetes mellitus.
Diagnóstico y tratamiento,” Semergen, vol. 27, no. 3, pp.
132–145, 2001.
[4] Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Sensos, “Anuario de
Estadísticas Vitales: Nacidos Vivos y Defunciones 2016,”
2016.
[5] J. Bondia, J. Vehi, C. C. Palerm, and P. Herrero, “El
Páncreas Artificial : Control Automatico de Infusion de
Insulina en Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 1,” Revista
Iberoamericana de Automática e Informática Industrial,
vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5–20, 2010.
[6] A. Molina, “Sistema de Control Borroso en lazo cerrado
para terapias con insulina en Diabetes Tipo 1,” Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, 2013.
[7] C. Cobelli, E. Renard, and B. Kovatchev, “Artificial
pancreas: Past, present, future,” Perspect. Diabetes, vol. 60,
no. 11, pp. 2672–2682, 2011.
[8] R. Hovorka, H. Thabit, M. E. Wilinska, and Y. Ruan,
“Modeling day-to-day variability of glucose-insulin
regulation over 12-week home use of closed-loop insulin
delivery,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 64, no. 6, pp.
1412–1419, 2017.
[9] H. Thabit and R. Hovorka, “Coming of age: The artificial
pancreas for type 1 diabetes,” Diabetologia, vol. 59, no. 9,
pp. 1795–1805, 2016.
[10] J. E. Sereno, M. A. Caicedo, and P. S. Rivadeneira,
“Análisis in silico de Controladores MPC y SMC con
Variaciones Paramétricas en Pacientes Diabéticos Tipo 1.”
[11] J. M. Maciejowki, Predictive Control with Constraints.
Prentice Hall, 2000.
[12] Z. Gao, Y. Huang, and J. Han, “An Alternative Paradigm
For Control System Design,” Proc. 40th IEEE Conf. Decis.
Control. 2001., vol. 5, pp. 4578–4585, 2001.
[13] C. A. Smith, Automated Continuous Process Control.
2002.
[14] C. A. Smith and A. B. Corripio, Principles and Practice of
Automatic Process Control, 2nd ed. 1987.
[15] P. Proaño, L. Capito, A. Rosales, and O. Camacho, “A
dynamical sliding mode control approach for long
deadtime systems,” in 2017 4th International Conference
on Control, Decision and Information Technologies
(CoDIT), 2017, pp. 0108–0113.
[16] E. Baez, Y. Bravo, P. Leica, D. Chavez, and O. Camacho,
“Dynamical sliding mode control for nonlinear systems
with variable delay,” in 2017 IEEE 3rd Colombian
Conference on Automatic Control (CCAC), 2017, no. 2,
pp. 1–6.
[17] G. Marchetti, M. Barolo, L. Jovanovič, H. Zisser, and D.
Seborg, “A feedforward-feedback glucose control strategy
for type 1 diabetes mellitus,” J. Process Control, vol. 18,
no. 2, pp. 149–162, 2008.