Impact of the Lost Samples on Performance of the Discrete-Time Control System

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1196)


Exceeding controller calculation time and consecutive loss of control samples impact discrete-time control system performance. It is obvious that lost samples deteriorate loop performance and it is expected that higher number of such losses should increase the deterioration gain. However, it is unclear how this impact occurs with different control structures and what is the possible scale of lost performance. Three discrete control systems: PD, PID and Internal Model Control (IMC) have been considered in the paper and then subjected to simulations with disturbances. The disruption model of the lost samples has been modeled on the basis of statistical anomalies estimated using fat-tailed distributions. Magnetic levitation process MagLev has been used as a simulation case study. This process is strongly non-linear and unstable, which makes it easier to observe the phenomenon of control disruptions. Obtained results show that simple predictive Internal Model Control strategy is the most robust against lost samples phenomenon, while PID and PD controllers are not able to track setpoint changes properly and lose stability much faster.


Discrete-time control PID IMC Lost samples Magnetic levitation 


  1. 1.
    Branicky, M.S., Phillips, S.M., Zhang, W.: Stability of networked control systems: explicit analysis of delay. In: Proceedings of the 2000 American Control Conference, vol. 4, pp. 2352–2357 (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cervin, A., Henriksson, D., Lincoln, B., Eker, J., Arzen, K.E.: How does control timing affect performance? Analysis and simulation of timing using Jitterbug and TrueTime. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 23(3), 16–30 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cloosterman, M., van de Wouw, N., Heemels, M., Nijmeijer, H.: Robust stability of networked control systems with time-varying network-induced delays. In: Proceedings of the 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, pp. 4980–4985 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Czerwiński, K., Ławryńczuk, M.: Identification of discrete-time model of active magnetic levitation system. In: Mitkowski, W., Kacprzyk, J., Oprzędkiewicz, K., Skruch, P. (eds.) Trends in Advanced Intelligent Control, Optimization and Automation, pp. 599–608. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Domański, P.D.: Zastosowanie metod jakościowych do modelowania i projektowania układów regulacji. Ph.D. thesis, Instytut Automatyki i Informatyki Stosowanej, Politechnika Warszawska (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Halevi, Y., Ray, A.: Integrated communication and control systems: part i - analysis, and part ii - design considerations. ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 110(4), 367–381 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    INTECO: Magnetic Levitation System User Guide, Kraków, Poland (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khosla, P.K.: Effect of sampling rates on the performance of model-based control schemes. In: Schweitzer, G., Mansour, M. (eds.) Dynamics of Controlled Mechanical Systems, pp. 271–284. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koller, G., Sauter, T., Rauscher, T.: Effects of network delay quantization in distributed control systems. In: 5th IFAC International Conference on Fieldbus Systems and their applications 2003, IFAC Proceedings, Aveiro, Portugal, 7–9 July 2003, vol. 36, no. 13, pp. 291–298 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laskawski, M., Wciślik, M.: Sampling rate impact on the tuning of PID controller parameters. Int. J. Electron. Telecommun. 62(1), 43–48 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levine, W.S.: The Control Handbook. Jaico Publishing House (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacGregor, J.F.: Optimal choice of the sampling interval for discrete process control. Technometrics 18(2), 151–160 (1976)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nilsson, J.: Real-time control systems with delays. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Automatic Control, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Piłat, A.: Badania porównawcze dyskretnego regulatora pid dla aktywnego zawieszenia magnetycznego. Automatyka 14(2), 181–196 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Samaranayake, L., Leksell, M., Alahakoon, S.: Relating sampling period and control delay in distributed control systems. In: EUROCON 2005 - The International Conference on “Computer as a Tool”, vol. 1, pp. 274–277 (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Torngren, M.: Fundamentals of implementing real-time control applications in distributed computer systems. Real Time Syst. 14(3), 219–250 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Control and Computation EngineeringWarsaw University of TechnologyWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations