0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

22 просмотров10 страницNice Paper

Jan 24, 2014

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Nice Paper

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

22 просмотров10 страницNice Paper

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

B.M. Mohan

*

, Arpita Sinha

Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, India

Received 14 July 2006; received in revised form 31 May 2007; accepted 10 June 2007

Available online 14 June 2007

Abstract

Analytical structure for a fuzzy PIDcontroller is introduced by employing two fuzzy sets for each of the three input variables and four fuzzy sets

for the output variable. This structure is derived via left and right trapezoidal membership functions for inputs, trapezoidal membership functions

for output, algebraic product triangular norm, bounded sum triangular co-norm, Mamdani minimum inference method, and center of sums (COS)

defuzzication method. Conditions for bounded-input bounded-output (BIBO) stability are derived using the Small Gain Theorem. Finally, two

numerical examples along with their simulation results are included to demonstrate the effectiveness of the simplest fuzzy PID controller.

# 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Fuzzy PID controllers; Analytical structure; BIBO stability

1. Introduction

Most of the industrial processes are still the conventional

PID controllers due to their simple and robust design,

affordable price, and effectiveness for linear systems [3,10].

So far two different congurations have been reported for PID

control as shown in Fig. 1. Due to their linear structure,

conventional PID controllers are usually not effective if the

processes involved are higher order and time delay systems,

nonlinear systems, complex and vague systems without precise

mathematical models, and systems with uncertainties [3,8,10].

Till 1990 most of the research activity in fuzzy control systems

area dealt with applications rather than theory. Around

1990 people began developing analytical structures for fuzzy

controllers and analyzing the same, with an objective of

building fuzzy control theory so that it can be applied in the

similar lines of conventional control theory [21]. It has been

observed that fuzzy PI [15,21] and fuzzy PD [11,14] controllers

can handle the above mentioned systems better than their

conventional counterparts. Fuzzy PI controllers are preferred

more to fuzzy PD controllers as fuzzy PD controllers are not

able to eliminate steady state errors [16]. However, fuzzy PI

controllers show poor performance during the transient phase

for higher order processes due to their internal integration

operation. To obtain overall improved performance, fuzzy PID

controllers are preferred [8,16].

A hybrid fuzzy logic proportional plus conventional

integral-derivative controller in incremental form has been

presented [10]. This controller is obtained by considering an

incremental fuzzy logic controller in place of the proportional

term in a conventional PID controller. Also a sufcient

condition for BIBO stability of this controller is derived using

the Small Gain Theorem. As a matter of fact, stability analysis

of fuzzy control systems has been extensively discussed in [1].

This book presents several techniques for stability analysis of

both Mamdani type and Takagi-Sugeno type fuzzy models. An

in-depth treatment on analysis and design of fuzzy control

systems via a linear matrix inequality approach has been given

in [17] to deal with systems described by Takagi-Sugeno type

fuzzy models.

Anewfuzzy PIDcontroller structure, based on conguration

1 [16] in Fig. 1, has been proposed. To tune the parameters of

the fuzzy controller on line, a parameter adaptive method via

peak observer has been presented. A two-level tuning strategy

has been introduced [9] which rst tries to set up the

relationship between fuzzy proportional/integral/derivative

gain and scaling gains at the high level, and then optimally

tunes the control resolution at low level. Based on the

conguration 1, a fuzzy PID controller has been suggested [7]

using minimum inference engine and center average defuzzi-

cation, which behaves approximately like a parameter varying

PID controller. In order to improve further the performance in

www.elsevier.com/locate/asoc

Applied Soft Computing 8 (2008) 749758

* Corresponding author. Fax: +91 3222 282262/255303.

E-mail address: mohan@ee.iitkgp.ernet.in (B.M. Mohan).

1568-4946/$ see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2007.06.003

transient and steady states, an adaptive method via function

tuner has been developed [19] to tune the scaling factors of the

fuzzy controller on line. An adaptive method via relative rate

observer has been proposed [5] for tuning the scaling factors of

the fuzzy logic controller in an on-line manner.

Fuzzy PI and fuzzy PD controllers are combined to get a

fuzzy PID controller according to the conguration 2 [8] in

Fig. 1. Its knowledge base consists of two-dimensional rule

bases for PI and PD controls. A tuning method, based on gain

margin and phase margin specications, has been proposed [20]

for determining the parameters of the fuzzy PID controller.

Also sufcient conditions for BIBO stability have been

determined. Several forms of decomposed proportional-

integral-derivative fuzzy logic controllers (fuzzy P fuzzy

I fuzzy D form, fuzzy PD fuzzy I form, fuzzy

PI conventional D form, fuzzy P conventional ID form

and fuzzy PI fuzzy PD form) have been tested and compared

[4]. To obtain simple structures, the activities of the

proportional, integral and derivative parts of the fuzzy PID

controller are dened with simple rules in proportional rule

base, integral rule base and derivative rule base.

A function-based evaluation approach has been proposed

[6] for a systematic study of fuzzy PID controllers, and the

fuzzy controllers have been analyzed using ve simple

evaluation criteria (control-action composition, input cou-

pling, gain dependency, gain-role change, and rule/parameter

growth).

It has been already proved by Mizumoto [13] that PID

controllers can be obtained by using fuzzy control methods like

product-sum-gravity method (algebraic product triangular

norm, Larsen product inference method, bounded sum

triangular co-norm and center of gravity method for

defuzzication) and simplied fuzzy reasoning method (special

case of product-sum-gravity method when fuzzy sets in

consequent part are of same size). However, PID controller

cannot be constructed by min-max-gravity method as this

method gives a complicated inference result of nonlinear form

for a simple fuzzy reasoning form, see Fig. 5 in [13]. It has been

shown that extrapolative reasoning can also be accomplished by

product-sum-gravity method and simplied fuzzy reasoning

method by extending membership functions of antecedent parts

of fuzzy rules [13].

In this paper attempts are made to obtain analytical structure

of the fuzzy PID controller (conguration 3 in Fig. 1) by

employing algebraic product triangular norm, bounded sum

triangular co-norm, left (G-type) and right (L-type) trapezoidal

membership functions for inputs, trapezoidal membership

functions for output, nonlinear control rules, Mamdani

minimum inference method, and COS method of defuzzica-

tion. Conditions for BIBO stability of fuzzy PID control

systems are obtained. Finally, to demonstrate the superiority of

fuzzy PID controller over the conventional PID controller,

simulation results of two examples are included.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section deals

with the fundamental components of a typical fuzzy PID

controller. Section 3 presents the fuzzy PIDanalytical structure.

Section 4 is about BIBO stability analysis of fuzzy PID control

systems. Section 5 deals with design aspects of the simplest

fuzzy PID controller. Section 6 includes simulation results

while Section 7 consists of concluding remarks.

Fig. 1. PID controllers: (a) conguration 1; (b) conguration 2; (c) conguration 3.

B.M. Mohan, A. Sinha / Applied Soft Computing 8 (2008) 749758 750

2. Components of fuzzy PID controllers

The incremental control signal generated by a discrete-time

PID controller is given by

Du(kT) = u(kT) u[(k 1)T[

= K

d

P

v(kT) K

d

I

d(kT) K

d

D

a(kT) (1)

where K

d

P

, K

d

I

, and K

d

D

are, respectively the proportional,

integral and derivative constants of digital PID controller,

the velocity v(kT), displacement d(kT) and acceleration

a(kT) are given by

v(kT) =

d(kT) d[(k 1)T[

T

(2)

d(kT) = e(kT) (3)

a(kT) =

v(kT) v[(k 1)T[

T

; (4)

e(kT) is the error signal given by r(kT) y(kT), r(kT) the

reference signal, y(kT) the process output, and Tis the sampling

period. The time derivatives of displacement d(t) and velocity

v(t) at t = kT are obtained by using backward-difference rule

approximation of d(t) and v(t), as shown in Eqs. (2) and (4).

Eq. (1) is known as velocity algorithm and it is a widely used

form of digital PID control. The principal structure of a fuzzy

PID controller (see Fig. 2), based on conguration 3 of Fig. 1,

consists of the following components.

2.1. Scaling factors

An input variable to a fuzzy logic controller can be mapped

onto the interval [l; l[ by multiplying it by a normalization

factor. N

d

, N

v

, N

a

and N

Du

are the normalization factors for d, v,

a and Du, respectively. Denormalization maps the normalized

output value into its physical output domain. N

1

Du

is the

reciprocal of N

Du

, called denormalization factor. These scaling

factors play a role similar to that of the gain coefcients K

d

P

, K

d

I

and K

d

D

in a conventional PID controller.

2.2. Fuzzication

Fuzzication converts crisp values of controller inputs into

fuzzy sets that can be used by the inference engine (refer to

Section 2.4) to activate and apply the control rules. The fuzzy

PID controller employs three inputs: the error signal e(kT) (i.e.,

displacement d(kT)), the rst-order time derivative of e(kT)

(i.e., velocity v(kT)), and the second-order time derivative of

e(kT) (i.e., acceleration a(kT)). These inputs are fuzzied by a

combination of L-type and G-type membership functions as

illustrated in Fig. 3 where d

N

, v

N

and a

N

are the normalized

inputs. The mathematical description of L-type and G-type

membership functions is, respectively given by

m

nx

=

1 L _ x _ l

x l

2l

l _ x _ l

0 l _ x _ L

_

_

(5)

m

px

=

0 L _ x _ l

x l

2l

l _ x _ l

1 l _ x _ L

_

_

(6)

Note that

m

nx

m

px

= 1 (7)

Fig. 2. Fuzzy PID control system.

B.M. Mohan, A. Sinha / Applied Soft Computing 8 (2008) 749758 751

The fuzzy controller has a single output, called incremental

control output Du(kT). The membership functions for the

normalized output Du

N

are shown in Fig. 4. The constants l,

L, m and M are chosen by the designer.

2.3. Control rule base

The following control rules are considered [12] in terms of

the input and output fuzzy sets shown in Figs. 3 and 4,

respectively:

v R1: If d

N

= n d& v

N

= n v & a

N

= n a then Du

N

= O

2

v R2: If d

N

= p d & v

N

= n v & a

N

= n a then Du

N

= O

1

v R3: If d

N

= p d & v

N

= n v &a

N

= p a then Du

N

= O

1

v R4: If d

N

= n d & v

N

= n v & a

N

= p a then Du

N

= O

1

v R5: If d

N

= n d &v

N

= p v &a

N

= p a then Du

N

= O

1

v R6: If d

N

= n d & v

N

= p v & a

N

= n a then Du

N

= O

1

v R7: If d

N

= p d & v

N

= p v & a

N

= n a then Du

N

= O

1

v R8: If d

N

= p d &v

N

= p v &a

N

= p a then Du

N

= O

2

where the & symbol in the antecedent part represents the

fuzzy AND operation which is considered here as

algebraic product triangular norm, and is dened as

m(d

N

; v

N

; a

N

) = m

i

(d

N

) m

j

(v

N

) m

k

(a

N

) (8)

where mrepresents the combined membership function of the

rule-antecedent part and i, j and k are the ith, jth and kth fuzzy

sets on d

N

, v

N

and a

N

, respectively. Notice that the control

rules are nonlinear as the output fuzzy sets are not linearly

related to the input fuzzy sets.

2.4. Inference engine

Overall value of the incremental control output variable is

computed by the inference engine by considering the individual

contribution of each rule in the rule base. For this,

corresponding to each rule, rst the degree of match is found

by using the algebraic product triangular norm in Eq. (8). Then

the degree of match is used to determine the inferred output

fuzzy set using Mamdani minimum inference method which is

dened as

min ( m; m(Du

N

))

where m is the outcome of algebraic product triangular norm

operation and m(Du

N

) is the membership function of the output

fuzzy set Du

N

. The reference output fuzzy set (trapezoidal),

and the inferred output fuzzy set (shown with hatching) corre-

sponding to Mamdani minimum inference are shown in

Fig. 5. The area of inferred fuzzy set is given by

m(2 m mu)((2M 3m)=3), where u is the ratio of upper

side width (2m) and base width 2((2M 3m)=3) of the tra-

pezoid, and is given by

u =

3m

2M 3m

See Appendix A for the details. Here we consider 0 _ u <1 to

avoid overlap between upper sides of two adjacent output fuzzy

sets.

As there are three inputs to the fuzzy PID controller, it is

necessary to consider all possible combinations of these

variables in a 3D space. A point, say (x

1

, y

1

, z

1

), in a 3D space

can always be distinctly shown by taking its projection on the

xy-, yz-, and zx-planes. So, as shown in Fig. 6, 20 input

combinations are considered in each (d

N

v

N

, d

N

a

N

, and

v

N

a

N

) plane so that the state point (d

+

N

, v

+

N

, a

+

N

) can be

uniquely located in the 3D cell (subspace) represented by the

triplet (n

I

; n

II

; n

III

) where n

I

; n

II

; n

III

= 1; 2; . . . ; 20. For exam-

ple, the triplet (10, 11, 18) represents the 3Dcell with 10 from I,

11 from II, and 18 from III of Fig. 6.

The control rules (R1)(R8) of the fuzzy PID controller

are used to evaluate appropriate control law in each valid cell

(n

I

; n

II

; n

III

). By using the algebraic product triangular norm

the outcome of premise part of each rule is found for all valid

cells and is shown in Table 1. There are altogether 20

20 20 = 8000 cells in the 3D input space. Not all 8000

cells are valid cells; only a few of them are valid. A cell

(n

I

; n

II

; n

III

) is said to be valid if and only if the relations

between d

N

and v

N

, and d

N

and a

N

produce the relation

Fig. 3. Input membership functions.

Fig. 4. Output membership functions.

Fig. 5. Illustration of Mamdani minimum inference.

B.M. Mohan, A. Sinha / Applied Soft Computing 8 (2008) 749758 752

between v

N

and a

N

. For example, the cell (7, 2, 6) is a valid

cell because the relations d

N

_ v

N

and d

N

_a

N

produce the

relation v

N

_d

N

_a

N

which is satised by the relation

v

N

_a

N

.

It may be seen from the control rules that the output fuzzy

sets O

1

and O

1

are red three times each. In such a situation,

a fuzzy triangular co-norm is used [15] to evaluate combined

output fuzzy sets corresponding to the rule sets

(R2); (R4); (R6) and (R3); (R5); (R7). The bounded

sum triangular co-norm used here is dened as

min 1; m

A

(x) m

B

(y)

Since the fuzzy controller has three inputs and algebraic

product triangular norm is used, sum of all the outcomes

corresponding to either rule set is less than unity. Therefore the

combined memberships using bounded sum triangular co-norm

are given by

m(R2)m(R4)m(R6) <1 and m(R3)m(R5)m(R7) <1

2.5. Defuzzication

Defuzzication module converts fuzzy information into crisp

information. The most commonlyusedCOSmethodis employed

to defuzzify the incremental control output. This is expressed as

Du

N

(kT)

=

A(m(R1))(M) [A(m(R2)) A(m(R4))

A(m(R6))[(M=3) [A(m(R3)) A(m(R5))

A(m(R7))[(M=3) A(m(R8))(M)

8

i=1

A(m(Ri))

(9)

Fig. 6. Regions of the fuzzy PID controller input combinations.

Table 1

Outcomes of algebraic product operation of premise part of control rules (R1)(R8) for valid 3D cells

Cells (R1) (R2) (R3) (R4) (R5) (R6) (R7) (R8)

(1, 1, 1) to (8, 8, 8)

a

m

1

m

2

m

3

m

4

m

5

m

6

m

7

m

8

(9, 17, 9) to (16, 17, 16) 0 m

nv

0 0 0 0 m

pv

0

(9, 18, 12) to (16, 18, 13) 0 0 m

nv

0 0 0 0 m

pv

(10, 11, 18) to (11, 12, 18) 0 0 m

pd

m

nd

0 0 0 0

(10, 16, 17) to (11, 15, 17) m

nd

m

pd

0 0 0 0 0 0

(12, 19, 12) to (13, 19, 13) 0 0 0 m

nv

m

pv

0 0 0

(12, 20, 9) to (13, 20, 16) m

nv

0 0 0 0 m

pv

0 0

(14, 12, 19) to (15, 11, 19) 0 0 0 0 m

nd

0 0 m

pd

(14, 15, 20) to (15, 16, 20) 0 0 0 0 0 m

nd

m

pd

0

(17, 9, 10) to (17, 10, 11) 0 m

na

m

pa

0 0 0 0 0

(17, 17, 17) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

(17, 18, 18) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

(18, 13, 11) to (18, 14, 10) m

na

0 0 m

pa

0 0 0 0

(18, 19, 18) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

(18, 20, 17) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(19, 13, 14) to (19, 14, 15) 0 0 0 0 m

pa

m

na

0 0

(19, 19, 19) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

(19, 20, 20) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

(20, 9, 15) to (20, 10, 14) 0 0 0 0 0 0 m

na

m

pa

(20, 17, 20) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

(20, 18, 19) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

m

1

= m

nd

m

nv

m

na

, m

2

= m

pd

m

nv

m

na

, m

3

= m

pd

m

nv

m

pa

, m

4

= m

nd

m

nv

m

pa

, m

5

= m

nd

m

pv

m

pa

, m

6

= m

nd

m

pv

m

na

, m

7

= m

pd

m

pv

m

na

, and m

8

= m

pd

m

pv

m

pa

.

a

Only valid cells in (1, 1, 1) through (8, 8, 8).

B.M. Mohan, A. Sinha / Applied Soft Computing 8 (2008) 749758 753

where A(m(Ri)) is the area of the inferred fuzzy set corre-

sponding to rule Ri.

3. Analytical structure

In this section, we obtain analytical structure of a fuzzy PID

controller using algebraic product triangular norm, bounded

sum triangular co-norm, Mamdani minimum inference method,

L-type and G-type input fuzzy sets and trapezoidal output fuzzy

sets. The analytical structures in the following three cases are

derived by substituting the inferred areas A(m()), correspond-

ing to all eight rules, into Eq. (9), grouping various terms

according to the normalized inputs d

N

, v

N

, and a

N

, and

simplifying. In the following the sampling time kT is shown

as k for simplicity. The analytical structure is:

Case (a). l _ d

N

(k), v

N

(k), a

N

(k) _ l

Du(k) =

_

2M

3N

Du

_

N

1

v

N

(k) N

2

d

N

(k) N

3

a

N

(k)

D

(10)

where

N

1

= (7 u)l

5

(1 u)[(a

2

N

(k) d

2

N

(k))l

3

a

2

N

(k)d

2

N

(k)l[

(11)

N

2

= (7 u)l

5

(1 u)[(v

2

N

(k) a

2

N

(k))l

3

v

2

N

(k)a

2

N

(k)l[

(12)

N

3

= (7 u)l

5

(1 u)[(d

2

N

(k) v

2

N

(k))l

3

d

2

N

(k)v

2

N

(k)l[

(13)

and

D = (15 u)l

6

(1 u)(d

2

N

(k) v

2

N

(k) a

2

N

(k))l

4

(d

2

N

(k)v

2

N

(k) v

2

N

(k)a

2

N

(k) a

2

N

(k)d

2

N

(k))l

2

d

2

N

(k)v

2

N

(k)a

2

N

(k) (14)

in which u is as dened in Section 2.4, and l is a parameter

shown in Fig. 3.

Case (b). One normalized input is in the interval [l; l[ and

the remaining two normalized inputs are not in the interval

[l; l[, see Fig. 3. The Du(k) in different cells is as follows:

Du(k) =

_

2lM

3N

Du

_

(1 u)x

(3 u)l

2

(1 u)x

2

for cells in Table 2 (15)

Du(k) =

_

2M

3N

Du

_

(3 u)l

2

(1 u)lx (1 u)x

2

(3 u)l

2

(1 u)x

2

for cells in Table 2 (16)

Du(k) =

_

2M

3N

Du

_

(3 u)l

2

(1 u)lx (1 u)x

2

(3 u)l

2

(1 u)x

2

for cells in Table 2 (17)

with x as dened in Table 2.

Case (c). All the three normalized inputs d

N

(k), v

N

(k) and

a

N

(k) are not in the interval [l; l[, see Fig. 3.

Du(k) =

_

M

3N

Du

_

for cells (17; 17; 17);

(18; 19; 18); (19; 20; 20) (18)

Du(k) =

_

M

3N

Du

_

for cells (17; 18; 18); (19; 19; 19);

(20; 17; 20) (19)

Du(k) =

_

M

N

Du

_

for cell

(18; 20; 17) (20)

Du(k) =

_

M

N

Du

_

for cell (20; 18; 19) (21)

It is to be noted here that the maximum and minimum values of

Du

N

(k) always remain at M and M, respectively for any

value of u in 0 _ u <1. This can be explained in simple terms in

the following manner: Eq. (20) is applicable for the case d

N

, v

N

,

a

N

[L; l[. As long as d

N

, v

N

, a

N

are in the interval [L; l[

the value of Du is always (M=N

Du

) only. In other words, the

value of Du

N

is (M) only. Similarly, Eq. (21) is applicable for

the case d

N

, v

N

, a

N

[l; L[. According to this equation, the value

of Du

N

is always (M). Interestingly, Eqs. (20) and (21) are

independent of u. As far as maxima and minima are concerned,

Eqs. (18) and (19) can be ruled out as the value of Du in Eq. (18)

is one-third of the value of Du in Eq. (20), and it is true even

with Eqs. (19) and (21). So, if M and Mare, respectively the

maximum and minimum values of Du

N

, we must be able to get

this same maxima and minima information even fromEqs. (10),

(15), (16) and (17) which are expressed in terms of u. By means

of rigorous simulation study, it is observed that for any value of

u in [0; 1) the maximum value (M) and the minimum value

(M) of Du

N

are found to occur only at (l; l; l) and (l; l; l),

respectively.

4. BIBO stability of fuzzy PID control systems

In this section BIBO stability analysis of the fuzzy PID

control system, shown in Fig. 7, is done using the Small Gain

Theorem [18].

Table 2

Attributes of x

x Eq. (15) with cells Eq. (16) with cells Eq. (17) with cells

d

N

(k) (10, 11, 18), (11, 12, 18), (14, 15, 20), (15, 16, 20) (14, 12, 19), (15, 11, 19) (10, 16, 17), (11, 15, 17)

v

N

(k) (9, 17, 9), (16, 17, 16), (12, 19, 12), (13, 19, 13) (9, 18, 12), (16, 18, 13) (12, 20, 9), (13, 20, 16)

a

N

(k) (17, 9, 10), (17, 10, 11), (19, 13, 14), (19, 14, 15) (20, 9, 15), (20, 10, 14) (18, 13, 11), (18, 14, 10)

B.M. Mohan, A. Sinha / Applied Soft Computing 8 (2008) 749758 754

Let the subsystems G

1

and G

2

represent fuzzy PID controller

and plant under control, respectively. The overall feedback

system is described by the equations

e

1

= u

1

y

2

; e

2

= u

2

y

1

; y

1

= G

1

e

1

; y

2

= G

2

e

2

Suppose that both subsystems G

1

and G

2

are causal and stable,

and let g

1

= g(G

1

), the gain of G

1

and g

2

= g(G

2

), the gain of

G

2

. Also suppose that there are constants b

1

, b

2

, g

1

_0 and

g

2

_0 so that

|y

1

| = |G

1

e

1

| _ g

1

|e

1

| b

1

(22)

|y

2

| = |G

2

e

2

| _ g

2

|e

2

| b

2

(23)

Under these conditions, the system is BIBO stable if g

1

g

2

<1,

i.e. any bounded input pair (u

1

; u

2

) produces a bounded output

pair (y

1

; y

2

).

We consider the general case where the process under

control is nonlinear, denoted by A. By dening r(k) = u

1

(k),

e(k) = d(k) = e

1

(k), Du(k) = y

1

(k), u(k 1) = u

2

(k), u(k) =

e

2

(k) and y(k) = y

2

(k) in Fig. 2, we obtain the equivalent

closed loop system in Fig. 7.

Let

M

d

= sup

k _0

[d(k)[; M

v

= sup

k _0

[v(k)[ _

2

T

M

d

;

M

a

= sup

k _0

[a(k)[ _

2

T

M

v

or

4

T

2

M

d

;

M

d

= N

d

M

d

;

M

v

= N

v

M

v

;

M

a

= N

a

M

a

when d

N

(k), v

N

(k) and a

N

(k) are in the interval [l; l[ we have

from Eqs. (10)(14)

|Du(k)| = |y

1

(k)| = |G

1

e

1

(k)|

_

_

2M

3N

Du

__

N

1

DT

N

2

D

N

3

DT

2

N

d

[d(k)[

_

N

1

DT

N

3

DT

2

M

d

_

which is in the form of Eq. (22) with

g

1

=

_

2MN

d

3N

Du

T

2

_

A

B

(24)

where A = (7 u)l

5

l(1 u)[

M

2

a

M

2

d

l

2

(

M

2

a

M

2

d

)[T

(7 u)l

5

l(1 u)[

M

2

v

M

2

a

l

2

(

M

2

v

M

2

a

)[T

2

(7 u)

l

5

l(1 u)[

M

2

d

M

2

v

l

2

(

M

2

d

M

2

v

)[ and B = (15 u)l

6

(1 u)[

M

2

d

M

2

v

M

2

a

(

M

2

d

M

2

v

M

2

v

M

2

a

M

2

a

M

2

d

)l

2

(

M

2

d

M

2

v

M

2

a

)l

4

[. Next, we have

|y(k)| = |y

2

(k)| = |G

2

(k)e

2

(k)| or |Ae

2

(k)| _ |A|[e

2

(k)[

which is in the form of Eq. (23) with

g

2

= |A| < (25)

So the sufcient condition for the nonlinear fuzzy PID control

system to be BIBO stable is the parameters of the fuzzy PID

controller must satisfy the inequality g

1

g

2

<1 where g

1

and g

2

are dened in Eqs. (24) and (25), respectively.

5. Design of the simplest fuzzy PID controller

Eq. (10) can be rewritten as

Du(kT) =

_

2M

3N

Du

__

N

1

N

v

D

v(kT)

N

2

N

d

D

d(kT)

N

3

N

a

D

a(kT)

_

(26)

Now by comparing Eq. (26) with Eq. (1) one can easily

recognize that fuzzy PID controllers are very much similar

in structure to the linear PID controllers. Since N

1

, N

2

, N

3

and

D are not just constants but are nonlinear functions of normal-

ized inputs d

N

(kT), v

N

(kT) and a

N

(kT), the fuzzy PID con-

troller is a nonlinear PID controller with the dynamic gains

dened by

K

Pd

=

2MN

1

N

v

3N

Du

D

;

K

Id

=

2MN

2

N

d

3N

Du

D

and K

Dd

=

2MN

3

N

a

3N

Du

D

(27)

where K

Pd

, K

Id

and K

Dd

are, respectively the dynamic propor-

tional gain, dynamic integral gain and dynamic derivative gain

of fuzzy controller. In the case of linear PID controller the gains

K

d

P

, K

d

I

and K

d

D

are constants, i.e. static. Hence, for comparison

sake, we also dene static gains of fuzzy PID controller by

making d

N

(kT) = v

N

(kT) = a

N

(kT) = 0 in Eq. (27) to get

K

Ps

= bN

v

; K

Is

= bN

d

and K

Ds

= bN

a

(28)

where K

Ps

, K

Is

and K

Ds

are, respectively the static proportional

gain, static integral gain and static derivative gain, and

b =

2M(7 u)l

5

3N

Du

(15 u)l

6

=

2M(7 u)

3N

Du

(15 u)l

(29)

To implement the mathematical model of the simplest fuzzy

PID controller, the design parameters are to be appropriately

chosen. For this a simple procedure is developed here based on

the design methodology of fuzzy two-term controllers [11,22].

Let the proportional gain, integral gain and derivative gain

be K

d

P

; K

d

I

and K

d

D

, respectively, for the best possible process

output corresponding to the incremental control effort in

Eq. (1). Assume that the peak absolute values of error

(displacement), velocity and acceleration of the ne tuned

Fig. 7. Feedback control system.

B.M. Mohan, A. Sinha / Applied Soft Computing 8 (2008) 749758 755

linear PID control system are [d[

max

, [v[

max

and [a[

max

,

respectively.

Assume that the sampling period T of the fuzzy PID control

system is the same as that of the linear PID control system. The

values of the functional parameters like N

d

; N

v

; N

a

; N

Du

; l; L

and M are calculated in the following manner.

Assuming that the static gains of the fuzzy PIDcontroller are

set equal to the respective gains of the linear PID controller, we

have from Eq. (28)

K

Ps

= K

d

P

= bN

v

; K

Is

= K

d

I

= bN

d

and

K

Ds

= K

d

D

= bN

a

(30)

or

K

d

P

K

d

I

=

N

v

N

d

and

K

d

P

K

d

D

=

N

v

N

a

(31)

The values of N

d

, N

v

and N

a

can be any arbitrary numbers as

long as the ratios in Eq. (31) are maintained. For simplicity let

N

v

= 1. Then

N

d

=

K

d

I

K

d

P

and N

a

=

K

d

D

K

d

P

(32)

For simplicity assuming l = M, the value of N

Du

can be

calculated from Eqs. (29) and (30), i.e.

N

Du

=

2(7 u)

3(15 u)K

d

P

(33)

Recall that 0 _ u <1. Theoretically analyzing the inuence of u

value on the controller performance is not easy. Its selection is

empirical and plant dependent.

The value of parameter l can be chosen such that all the three

normalized input variables d

N

, v

N

and a

N

lie in the interval

[l; l[ which is possible if the value of l is found from

l = max N

d

[d[

max

; N

v

[v[

max

; N

a

[a[

max

(34)

The value of L can be chosen such that L_l depending upon the

situation.

Usually for any process (especially a nonlinear one),

the desired performance is not obtained with the aforemen-

tioned design methodology of calculating functional para-

meters. This normally happens if the performance of the

tuned linear PID control system is not satisfactory. In such a

situation, all the functional parameters of the fuzzy PID

controller should be carefully ne tuned locally about their

initial values (obtained from the linear PID controller as

explained above) on trial-error-basis to obtain the desired

performance.

6. Illustrative examples

Comparison of the performances of linear PID controller

and the simplest fuzzy PID controller is done here by

considering the following examples:

(i) a linear third-order nonminimum phase system [2]

G

p

(s) =

s

2

s 2

s

3

3s

2

10s 24

(35)

with unit setpoint, and

(ii) a nonlinear rst-order system [2]

y(t) = y(t) sin

2

(

[y(t)[

_

) u(t) (36)

with step input of magnitude 4 as the reference signal. In

Eq. (35), G

p

(s) represents the transfer function of the plant

to be controlled.

The fuzzy PID controllers are designed for the above two

plants using the design procedure in Section 5. The values of

sampling period T, proportional gain K

d

P

, integral gain K

d

I

,

derivative gain K

d

D

, maximum absolute displacement (error)

[d[

max

, maximum absolute velocity [v[

max

, and maximum

absolute acceleration [a[

max

are given in Table 3 for both the

processes.

The parameters N

d

, N

v

, N

a

, N

Du

, l, and M of the fuzzy

PID controllers, which gave rise to the responses in Figs. 8

and 9, are listed in Table 4 in which M

p

, t

r

and t

s

denote

peak overshoot, rise time and settling time, respectively.

u = 0 is considered for both the plants. Figs. 8 and 9

also show the responses with conventional PID controllers.

Upon comparison, it is evident from the plots that the

fuzzy PID controllers perform better, demonstrating their

Table 4

Attributes and time-domain performance data of plants with linear and fuzzy PID controllers

Process PID controller N

d

N

v

N

a

N

Du

l = M M

p

(%) t

r

(s) t

s

(s)

G

p

(s) Linear 85.2357 0.009 0.4020

Fuzzy 1800 4.0 0:41 10

4

1.6 3800 0.2687 0.0022 0.0044

Nonlinear Linear 37.4442 1.0 5.6

Fuzzy 3 3 0.045 2.1 20 0.184 1.164 1.6

Table 3

Attributes of the nonminimum phase, and nonlinear processes

Process T K

d

P

K

d

I

K

d

D

[d[

max

[v[

max

[a[

max

G

p

(s) 0.001 10.5T 20,000T 0.0005T 1 131.343 19960.067

Nonlinear 0.1 1:8T 1:8T 0:008T 4 4.10676 994.592

B.M. Mohan, A. Sinha / Applied Soft Computing 8 (2008) 749758 756

superiority over their counterparts-conventional PID con-

trollers.

7. Conclusions

In this paper, analytical structure for fuzzy PID controllers

has been derived using L-type and G-type input fuzzy sets,

trapezoidal output fuzzy sets, algebraic product triangular

norm, bounded sum triangular co-norm, Mamdani minimum

inference method and COS defuzzication method. It has been

found that the maximum (M) and minimum (M) values of

normalized incremental control effort Du(kT) do not change for

any value of u in [0; 1). BIBO stability results for fuzzy PID

control have also been derived.

Since analytical structure of a fuzzy controller, in general,

depends on the type of triangular norm, and minimum

triangular norm has already been proved to be inappropriate for

realizing fuzzy PID control [13], the important task that

remains to be done is nding analytical structures for fuzzy PID

controllers via other types of triangular norms, if possible, and

studying their properties. It is believed that research in this

direction is desirable to have a clear picture of fuzzy PID

control systems.

Acknowledgments

Both the authors are highly grateful to the anonymous

Referees, and the Editor in Chief for their helpful suggestions

and encouragement. The second author would like to thank the

Council of Scientic and Industrial Research, India for

providing fellowship for the above work.

Appendix A

Consider Fig. 5. Trapezoid ABEF represents inferred fuzzy

set whose area is calculated as follows:

Area of inferred fuzzy set

= area of triangle ABC area of rectangle BEDC

area of triangle DEF:

Since triangles ABC and DEF are identical, we have

Area of inferred fuzzy set

= area of rectangle BEDC 2 area of triangle DEF

= 2a m 2

1

2

(b a) m = m(a b)

where a = m(b m) b from Fig. 5. Substituting the value

of a, we obtain

Area of inferred fuzzy set = m(2b mb mm)

= mb(2 m mu)

where u = m=b.

Assuming b = (2M 3m)=3, we have

Area of inferred fuzzy set =

m(2 m mu)(2M 3m)

3

and u = 3m=(2M 3m):

References

[1] J. Aracil, F. Gordillo (Eds.), Stability Issues in Fuzzy Control, Physica-

Verlag, Heidelberg, 2000.

[2] J. Carvajal, G. Chen, H. Ogmen, Fuzzy PID controller: design, perfor-

mance evaluation, and stability analysis, Inform. Sci. 123 (2000) 249270.

[3] G. Chen, Conventional and fuzzy PID controllers: an overview, Int. J.

Intell. Control Syst. 1 (1996) 235246.

[4] M. Golob, Decomposed fuzzy proportional-integral-derivative control-

lers, Appl. Soft Comput. 1 (2001) 201214.

[5] M. Guzelkaya, I. Eksin, E. Yesil, Self-tuning of PID-type fuzzy logic

controller coefcients via relative rate observer, Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.

16 (2003) 227236.

[6] B.G. Hu, G.K.I. Mann, R.G. Gosine, A systematic study of fuzzy PID

controllersfunction-based evaluation approach, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy

Syst. 9 (2001) 699712.

[7] T.T. Huang, H.Y. Chung, J.J. Lin, A fuzzy PID controller being like

parameter varying PID, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Int. Fuzzy Systems

Conference, Korea, (1999), pp. 269276.

Fig. 9. Step (magnitude 4) response of closed loop system with nonlinear

process.

Fig. 8. Unit step response of closed loop system with G

p

(s).

B.M. Mohan, A. Sinha / Applied Soft Computing 8 (2008) 749758 757

[8] J.H. Kim, S.J. Oh, A fuzzy PID controller for nonlinear and uncertain

systems, in: Soft Computing, vol. 4, Springer Verlag, 2000, pp. 123129.

[9] H.X. Li, H.B. Gatland, Conventional fuzzy control and its enhancement,

IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.-Part B 26 (1996) 791797.

[10] W. Li, Design of a hybrid fuzzy logic proportional plus conventional

integral-derivative controller, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 6 (1998) 449462.

[11] H.A. Malki, H. Li, G. Chen, New design and stability analysis of fuzzy

proportional-derivative control systems, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2 (1994)

245254.

[12] M. Margaliot, G. Langholz, New Approaches to Fuzzy Modeling and

Control: Design and Analysis, World Scientic, 2000.

[13] M. Mizumoto, Realization of PID controls by fuzzy control methods,

Fuzzy Sets Syst. 70 (1995) 171182.

[14] B.M. Mohan, A.V. Patel, Analytical structures and analysis of the simplest

fuzzy PD controllers, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.-Part B: Cybern. 32

(2002) 239248.

[15] A.V. Patel, B.M. Mohan, Analytical structures and analysis of the simplest

fuzzy PI controllers, Automatica 38 (2002) 981993.

[16] W.Z. Qiao, M. Mizumoto, PID type fuzzy controller and parameters

adaptive method, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 78 (1996) 2335.

[17] K. Tanaka, H.O. Wang, Fuzzy Control Systems Design and Analysis: A

Linear Matrix Inequality Approach, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 2001.

[18] M. Vidyasagar, Nonlinear Systems Analysis, 2nd edn., Prentice-Hall,

Engle Wood, 1993.

[19] Z.W. Woo, H.Y. Chung, J.J. Lin, A PID type fuzzy controller with self-

tuning scaling factors, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 115 (2000) 321326.

[20] J.X. Xu, C.C. Hang, C. Liu, Parallel structure and tuning of a fuzzy PID

controller, Automatica 36 (2000) 673684.

[21] H. Ying, W. Siler, J.J. Buckley, Fuzzy control theory: a nonlinear case,

Automatica 26 (1990) 513520.

[22] H. Ying, Fuzzy Control & Modeling: Analytical Foundations and

Applications, IEEE Press, 2000.

B.M. Mohan, A. Sinha / Applied Soft Computing 8 (2008) 749758 758

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.