Fuzzy Gain Scheduling of Coupled PID Controllers

for Stabilization of the Inverted Pendulum

Mariagrazia Dotoli, Biagio Turchiano

Politecnico di Bari, Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica
Via Re David, 200, I-70125 Bari, Italy
Phone: +39-080-5963312, Fax +39-080-5963410
email:{dotoli, turchiano}@poliba.it

ABSTRACT: Changes in operating conditions can alter performances of nonlinear processes controlled with a fixed
PID algorithm. One way of preventing degradation is to develop a supervised control system. In this paper we present
some results about fuzzy gain scheduling of a double PID controller for stabilization of an inverted pendulum on a cart.
First, on the basis of the responses obtained with an unsupervised and locally optimized double PID, a simplified fuzzy
supervisor is designed, including the cart set-point as the scheduling variable. Subsequently, the rule base is modified
with two additional inputs: the pole and cart errors. Finally, a peak observer is introduced to moderate the steady-state
error through integral action in the cart PID. The resulting fuzzy supervisor adapts the coupled PIDs to the changing
operating conditions. The proposed control strategy is implemented in the MatLab software environment. Results are
discussed in comparison with an unsupervised PID algorithm.

KEYWORDS: PID control, gain scheduling, adaptive control, fuzzy supervisor, non linear system.

INTRODUCTION
In most control applications the most popular control algorithm is by far the PID controller with a fixed configuration
and structural parameters determining the amount of proportional, derivative and integral action in the overall control
law. This regulator is so popular that many rules of thumbs exist in the literature for tuning the parameters [1]. When
the controlled process is nonlinear, however, a fixed gain PID controller cannot produce satisfactory control
performance in all process operating regions. Hence, using the linear PID control technique for controlling a nonlinear
system results in a tuning configuration that must be adjusted when a change in the operating conditions occurs. The
resulting gain scheduling of PID controllers technique has over the years become one of the most popular
methodologies to solve non linear control problems [1], [9]. The main advantage of conventional gain scheduling
(CGS) is that controller parameters can be changed very quickly in response to changes in the plant dynamics, since no
parameter estimation is required. One drawback of CGS is that the parameter change may be rather abrupt across
boundaries of the process operating regions, which may result in unsatisfactory or even unstable control performance. A
successful way of solving nonlinear control problems using PID controllers consists in employing fuzzy gain scheduling
(FGS) to adjust the controller parameters [11]. The resulting control strategy is hierarchical, consisting of a fuzzy
supervisor and of a PID control algorithm. The former is designed on the basis of operator or expert knowledge, while
the latter is optimally tuned for each operating condition [1]. In addition, a fuzzy inference mechanism interpolates the
controller parameters in the transition regions. Not mentioning adaptivity and the ability to cope with incomplete
knowledge of the process, the main advantage in using fuzzy logic to adapt the PID parameters is that switching
between operating conditions is smoothly operated, since the controller parameters are adjusted via a bumpless transfer
algorithm. For further insights on FGS of a PID controller and its theoretical aspects see [2], [4], [6], [10], [11].
Recently, there has been increasing interest in multivariable PID controllers [5], [8] and FGS of MIMO PID controllers
[7]. In this paper a double PID controller is proposed for controlling a well-known MIMO control benchmark: the
inverted pendulum on a cart. The control task is to stabilize the pole in its upwards equilibrium point, while
simultaneously controlling the cart to a varying reference position on a track. In the sequel, FGS of the coupled PID
controllers is investigated: the structure and design issues of the proposed technique are discussed and different
implementations of the methodology are illustrated with simulation examples conducted on the case study. It is shown
that the technique guarantees a satisfactory performance under changing operating conditions, characterized by
bumpless transfers across the transition regions.
The paper is organized as follows: in the first section the case study is described; in the second section a double PID
control stabilizing the inverted pendulum is considered; in the subsequent section FGS of the coupled PIDs is presented
and discussed; in the fourth section the proposed control algorithm is evaluated by analyzing simulation results and
discussing them in comparison with traditional PID algorithms. The paper is concluded by a discussion on the
advantages and drawbacks of the method, with suggestions for further research.

INVERTED PENDULUM ON A CART

In this section we recall the model of an inverted pendulum (see Figure 1). A pole, hinged to a cart moving on a track, is
balanced upwards by a horizontal force applied to the cart via a DC motor. The cart is simultaneously motioned to an
objective position on the track. The system observable state vector is x=[x1 x2 x3 x4]T, including respectively the cart
horizontal distance from the track centre, the pole angular distance from the upwards equilibrium position and their
derivatives. The force motioning the cart may be expressed as F=αu, where u is the input, i.e., the limited motor supply
voltage (α=11.5 [N·V-1]). The system dynamics may be expressed as follows [3]:
x 1 = x 3
x 2 = x 4
(1)
x 3 = f 2 (x) + b 2 (x)u
x 4 = f1 (x) + b1 (x)u

where
l cos x 2 (−Tc − µx 24 sin x 2 ) + µg sin x 2 − f p x 4 l cos x 2 α
f1 ( x ) = , b1 (x) = ,
2
J + µl sin x 2 J + µl sin 2 x 2
(2)
a (−Tc − µx 24 sin x 2 ) + l cos x 2 (µg sin x 2 − fpx4 ) aα
f 2 ( x) = , b 2 ( x) = ,
J + µl sin 2 x 2 J + µl sin 2 x 2

with
Lm p J
l= , a = l2 + , µ = (m c + m p ) ⋅ l . (3)
2(m c + m p ) mc + mp

The cart and pole masses are respectively mc=1.12 Kg and mp=0.12 Kg, g represents the gravity acceleration, L=0.51 m
is the pole length, J is the system overall moment of inertia with respect to its centre of mass, fp=3.7·10-4 N·m·s is the
pole rotational friction coefficient and Tc is the horizontal friction acting on the cart, modelled by a nonlinear function
of the cart speed x3. Here, the control task is to stabilize the pole in its unstable equilibrium, while simultaneously
controlling the cart to a varying reference position on the track. Hence, the system desired trajectory is x1d=x1d(t), x2d=0,
x 3d = x 1d ( t ) and x4d=0. There is one control input u, which is bounded: the DC motor saturates. In addition, the cart
position is limited in the interval (-0.5 m , 0.5 m), since the track length is finite. The inverted pendulum on a cart is a
nonlinear under-actuated fourth order system, including two second order subsystems, namely, the cart and pendulum
subsystems, with state vectors respectively [x1 x3]T and [x2 x4]T, coupled by way of the control input u.

x2
mp l

mc
F

DC Motor
x1
Figure 1. The inverted pendulum on a cart.
The nonlinearities in the pole and cart dynamics make the task of stabilizing the pendulum while controlling the cart
strongly dependent on the operating condition and, in particular, on the cart set-point. Despite the system nonlinearities,
it is relatively easy to design two coupled PID controllers working at a specific operating condition, i.e., when the cart
reference matches a nominal value; on the contrary, if such a PID algorithm is operated for a set-point differing from
the designed one, the system performances deteriorate, and unstable dynamics may result.

GAIN SCHEDULED DOUBLE PID CONTROL OF THE INVERTED PENDULUM

A classical approach adopted in nonlinear control problems is to split the range of operation into several local regimes
defined around some operating regions. Thus, local models are derived and controlled with a linear technique.
Typically, for each operating point a PID controller is tuned and the locally optimal controller is then used in the
corresponding operating region. For instance, the inverted pendulum angular position may simply be controlled by
means of a PID controller. However, a single PID controller is unable to control the pole and cart positions at the same
time, since the inverted pendulum is an under-actuated system. Hence, in the related literature an infinite track is
typically considered and the cart is supposed to move freely along the track: in other words, in equation (1) the cart is
let free to evolve.
A solution that is effective in controlling both the cart and pole with the single horizontal force F produced by the motor
(see Figure 1) consists of two PID controllers operating in parallel. Thus, for each local model of the nonlinear plant a
PID regulating the cart error and one controlling the pole are designed. In particular, in order to simultaneously control
the cart and pole with one input, the double PID is designed as follows. When a change in the cart reference position
occurs, the cart error becomes non zero and the cart PID is activated, moving the cart away from its novel objective
position. Hence, the pole falls down from its upwards equilibrium position and the pole angular error becomes non zero.
The pole PID controller is consequently activated, with an overall negative feedback on the cart that makes the errors
both on the pole angle and the cart position tend to zero, thus stabilizing the system in the objective trajectory. We
remark that, in order to stabilize the pole first and regulate the cart position subsequently, the cart control loop carries
out a positive feedback: in other words, the parameters of the cart PID are negative.
Now, in order to make the double PID effective in different operating regions, a gain scheduler is designed. Several
optimal configurations of the PIDs parameters are determined, each corresponding to a particular operating condition,
i.e., a cart set point, and to a locally optimal response. A tuning table is thus produced recording the PIDs coefficients,
i.e., a set of six optimal tuning parameters for each operating region of the inverted pendulum. When the actual
operating condition does not match any of the regimes listed in the table, interpolation between local adjacent
controllers is carried out. Hence, the control law is expressed as follows:
t de P ( t )
u ( t ) = K PP (i) ⋅ e P ( t ) + K IP (i) ⋅ ∫ e P (τ)dτ + K DP (i) ⋅ +
0 dt
, i=1,…,n (4)
t de ( t )
+ K PC (i) ⋅ e C ( t ) + K IC ( t ) ⋅ ∫ e C (τ)dτ + K DC (i) ⋅ C
0 dt

where n local operating regions are considered. The first pedex of the double PID generic parameter Khk(i) indicates
respectively the proportional (P), integral (I) or derivative (D) action, while the second pedex refers to the pole (P) or
the cart (C). Further, eP(t) and eC(t) represent respectively the cart and pole errors, i.e.:

e C ( t ) = x1 ( t ) − x1d ( t ) , e P ( t ) = x 2 ( t ) . (5)

Hence, a set of six optimal parameters has to be determined for each operating condition.
In order to reduce the complexity of the tuning process, some simplified tuning configurations were investigated. In
particular, several simulation experiments conducted for steps of different amplitude on the cart reference position
showed that satisfactory performance is obtained with a null integral action on the cart in each operating condition:
KIC(i)=0 ∀ i=1,..,n. (6)

Likewise, several alternative PID tuning tables with at least one fixed coefficient, such that
Khk(i)=K*hk ∀ i=1,..,n (7)

were investigated. The following configuration was selected following to a robustness analysis:
(KPP(i),KIP(i),KDP(i),KPC(i),0,KDC(i))=(KPP(i),KIP(i),K*DP,KPC(i),0,K*DC) ∀ i=1,..,n. (8)
 KPP KIP KDP KPC KIC KDC TsC [s] MPC ITAEC ITAEP
Step [m]
2
[%] [s ·m] [s2·rad]
0.03 35.00 25.50 11.00 -7.50 -0.00 -8.10 2.49 12.52 0.04 0.07
0.10 30.87 28.30 11.00 -4.67 -0.00 -8.10 3.21 15.56 0.21 0.09
0.20 30.93 27.00 11.00 -4.30 -0.00 -8.10 3.43 12.87 0.28 0.11
0.30 31.75 25.55 11.00 -4.16 -0.00 -8.10 3.56 11.81 0.45 0.14
0.40 31.25 24.65 11.00 -3.68 -0.00 -8.10 3.76 12.37 0.68 0.17
0.50 30.17 23.00 11.00 -3.22 -0.00 -8.10 3.98 13.55 0.99 0.20
0.60 28.50 20.62 11.00 -2.78 -0.00 -8.10 4.23 15.30 1.36 0.25
0.70 26.83 18.24 11.00 -2.30 -0.00 -8.10 4.39 13.24 1.60 0.27

Table I: Tuning table of gain scheduled double PID and corresponding performance indices.

The resulting tuning table is reported in Table I. In the first column the change of cart position step input is reported,
defining the ith operating region and corresponding to the ith row of the table (i=1,…,8 in the table). In the six
subsequent columns of table I the sets of PID parameters corresponding to the operating point are reported. In addition,
the four remaining columns report the performance indices of the controlled system recorder in the corresponding
simulation experiments: TsC represents the 5% settling time of the cart position range, MPC records the cart position
overshoot and ITAEC and ITAEP respectively indicate the Integral Time Absolute Error (ITAE) of the cart (C) and
pole (P) responses.
As previously mentioned, the tuning table was selected by opting for a simplified tuning set of PID parameters on the
basis of simulation evidence. In particular, several parameters sets were compared by conducting a robustness analysis
at the extreme and middle regions of the cart reference position, corresponding respectively to a step input of 0.03 m,
0.4 m and 0.7 m (see Table I), and recording the steady state maximum deviation of the cart position from the set-point
corresponding to a non-nominal pendulum length L or pole mass mp. Simulation tests showed that the selected tuning
table is robust to a variation in the pole mass up to +300%, while the system is less robust to a variation in the pole
length. As an example, in Figure 2 the steady-state maximum deviation of the cart error is reported with respect to
various non-nominal values of the pendulum length for a 0.4 m reference step. The worst performance among those
keeping the steady-state deviation in the ±2 cm maximum allowable range is obtained for L=0.18 m, corresponding to a
change in the pole length of about -65% (see Figure 3). Although the performance of the system is not satisfactory, the
controller is able to stabilize the pole, showing the robustness of the designed double PID.
The unsupervised double PID control strategy was implemented in the MatLab software environment, including a user-
friendly Graphical User Interface (GUI). In Figure 4 the introductory GUI (Figure 4, a) and the robustness analysis GUI
(Figure 4, b) of the double PID control scheme are reported. In addition to non-nominal values of the pole length and
mass, variations of the cart mass and introduction of random noise in the system dynamics may be investigated in the
controlled process responses.
error [m]
Steady-state maximum deviation of

Cart
cart position from set-point [m]

error [deg]
Pole
action [V]
Control

Pole length L [m] Time [s]

Figure 2. Steady-state maximum deviation Figure 3. Worst acceptable performance
of cart position from set-point for various for stabilization of inverted pendulum
non-nominal values of pendulum length L. under a non-nominal pole length (L=0.18).
 (a) (b)
Figure 4. The initial MatLab GUI (a) and the robustness analysis GUI (b) for the unsupervised double PID algorithm.

FUZZY GAIN SCHEDULING OF COUPLED PID CONTROLLERS

FGS is a rule-based scheme for gain scheduling of PID controllers that is remarkably effective in nonlinear systems
control [11]. The performance of a conventionally gain-scheduled PID algorithm significantly improves when a fuzzy
inference mechanism is adopted to perform interpolation between local PID control algorithms. More specifically, the
resulting hierarchical structure includes a fuzzy controller supervising the PID regulator that is able to cope with
imprecise and incomplete knowledge.
Generally speaking, FGS control schemes are characterized by smoother transitions between operating regions than the
corresponding CGS techniques [11]. In particular, the fuzzy supervisor adapts the parameters of the lower-level PID
controller on-line by carrying out a fuzzy inference that interpolates between the tuning table rows (see Table I), on the
basis of information on the plant operating condition, i.e., on the scheduling variables.
In this section, FGS is implemented to automatically adjust the parameters of the previously introduced double PID
controller for stabilizing the inverted pendulum on a cart. Hence, a MIMO FGS control methodology is developed.
The proposed control scheme is depicted in Figure 5. The fuzzy supervisor inputs are as follows: the cart position
reference, the cart and pole errors, the output of the cart integral action block and the supervisor activation block output.

rP(t) + - eP(t) Pole

PID
Pendulum
time Supervisor Angle
KPP KIP KDP
Activation x2(t)

+
Fuzzy Inverted
Supervisor +
Pendulum
Cart
Integral
Action Cart
KPC KIC KDC Position
x1(t)
eC(t) Cart
rC(t) + PID
-

Figure 5. The proposed control scheme.

 1 Z PVS PMS PMB PB PVB

of membership
PS PM

Degree
0.5

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Cart set point [m]
N Z P

of membership
1

Degree
0.5

0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Normalized cart position error [m]
N Z P

of membership
1

Degree
0.5

0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
Normalized pole angle error [deg]

Figure 6. Structure of the cart integral action block. Figure 7a. Membership functions of supervisor inputs.

1 PVVS PS PM 1
Z PVS PMS PVB NVVS NVS NS NMS NM NMB NB NVB Z
membership

PMB PB

membership
Degree of

Degree of
0.5 0.5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Pole PID proportional action Cart PID proportional action
1 1
Z PVVSPVSPS PMS PB Z
membership

PMB NM
membership
Degree of

Degree of
PM
0.5 0.5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 -2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Pole PID integral action Cart PID integral action
1 1
PM PB NS NM NB
membership

membership
Degree of

Degree of

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 5 10 15 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
Pole PID derivative action Cart PID derivative action

Figure 7b. Membership functions of pole PID parameters. Figure 7c. Membership functions of cart PID parameters.

The main scheduling variable, i.e., the foremost input to the supervisor, is the cart set-point, defining the current
operating region. Further inputs to the fuzzy controller are the cart and pole errors, providing additional information to
the supervisor in order to enhance the system steady state precision. Moreover, the cart integral action block output is
fed to the supervisor. Such a block is depicted in Figure 6. The block modifies the cart PID, featuring an integral action
equal to zero in any operating regime (see Table I), by introducing an integral component only after the cart position has
reached its peak and is about to enter the settling band. Hence, the cart position steady-state error is reduced without
affecting the speed of the transient. Finally, the supervisor activation block triggers the fuzzy supervisor each time a
change in the reference position is observed or, alternatively, on the basis of a user-defined time step.
As mentioned previously, the FGS design procedure follows the same major steps of CGS, with the exception of
interpolation, which is performed by a fuzzy reasoning technique. Specifically, the Sugeno fuzzy model is employed in
FGS [11]. In fact, using crisp functional consequences in the rule base has been proven to be ideal for embedding linear
controllers in the control action and keeping the defuzzification procedure simple [10].
For sake of simplicity, triangular and trapezoidal membership functions (MFs) are considered for the input variables. In
particular, operating regions are defined in the universe of discourse of the cart position reference input by means of
overlapping membership functions with vertex of unitary membership grade centred on each set-point value and base
positioned on the adjacent set-point values (see Table I and Figure 7a). Indeed, in the design procedure the number of
rows in Table I has been increased, in order to better mimic the local optimal double PID. In particular, the study has
been intensified for the lower values of cart set-point changes. In fact, in such operating regions the plant nonlinearity is
marked, due to the influence of the friction dead-zone, causing performances to deteriorate under non-nominal
operation. Following to such a process, some similar MFs have been merged. Likewise, the cart and pole error MFs are
defined by way of trapezoidal and triangular shapes. The supervisor outputs are the PIDs parameters, i.e., the
proportional, integral and derivative gains of the cart and pole PIDs, defined by singletons in the corresponding
universes of discourse, according to the Sugeno fuzzy model. The selected inference technique is the classical max-min
method and the defuzzification scheme is the weighted average [9].
The fuzzy supervisor is designed as follows. On the basis of the tuning table recording the PID parameters (see Table I),
a simplified fuzzy supervisor with the set point as a single input is designed, with rules of the kind “If the reference set
Figure 8. The MatLab GUI for the supervised double PID. Figure 9. The GUI for the supervised system response.

point is big then the pole proportional gain is low and the pole integral gain is low and the cart proportional gain is
low”. In other words, following to equation (7), only the gains KPP, KIP, KPC in Figure 5 are adjusted, and the
supervisor initially comprises three outputs. Afterwards, the fuzzy rule base is modified taking into account additional
information incorporated in the pole and cart errors, and the gains KDP and KDC in Figure 5 are adapted, too: the
supervisor includes five outputs. In a later phase, the peak observer and cart integral action block are introduced, and
the rules are varied accordingly, so as to incorporate adjustment of the KIC gain after the peak time of the cart position
response: hence, the complete supervisor incorporates six outputs (see Figure 5). The rule base is further refined
performing several experiments and evaluating the following performance indices: rise, delay and settling time, ITAE
and overshoot of the cart position and pole angle with respect to their references. The resulting MFs are reported in
Figure 7: notice the increase in MFs density on the universe of discourse of the cart reference scheduling variable for
low set-points, corresponding to highly non-linear operating regions (see figure 7a). The set of rules is omitted for lack
of space.
The control strategy is implemented in the MatLab software environment, including a user-friendly GUI, reported in
Figure 8. The system response and performance are also reported in the GUI, together of an animation of the plant (see
Figure 9 for an example of the system response GUI under the fuzzy supervised double PID control scheme).

EVALUATION OF FUZZY GAIN SCHEDULED COUPLED PIDS: SIMULATION RESULTS

Two sets of tests were performed, the first at “low” set-point values, e.g. 0.2 m, the second at “high” values, e.g. 0.7 m.
In each set of tests we compared the optimal unsupervised double PID, designed for that specific operating condition,
with the fuzzy supervised PIDs. In both cases the fuzzy supervisor outperforms the optimal PID, as can be remarked
observing the system responses in Figures 10 and 11 and by comparing the rows reporting the performance indices in
Table II.

Change in TsC
Test MPC ITAEC ITAEP
cart set point
type [s] [%] [s2·m] [s2·rad]
[m]
Optimal supervised
0.2 3.4 12.9 0.27 0.08
PID (tuned at 0.2 m)
0.2 Fuzzy supervised PID 2.1 12.4 0.14 0.08
Optimal unsupervised
0.7 4.4 13.2 1.61 0.27
PID (tuned at 0.7 m)
0.7 Fuzzy supervised PID 2.8 10.4 0.72 0.21

Table II: Results of tests with unsupervised and fuzzy supervised

PID for a 0.2 m and 0.7 m change in cart set point.
 0.3 0.8

Cart position under supervised double PID 0.7

0.25
Cart position under unsupervised double PID
Cart position under unsupervised double PID
C a rt p o s itio n [m ] a n d P o le a n g le [ra d ]

0.6

C a rt p o s itio n [m ] a n d P o le a n g le [ra d ]
0.2
0.5
Cart position under supervised double PID

0.15 0.4

0.1 0.3

0.2
0.05
Pole angle under supervised double PID Pole angle under supervised double PID
Pole angle under unsupervised double PID 0.1
Pole angle under unsupervised double PID
0
0

-0.05 -0.1
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Time [s] Time [s]

Figure 10: Comparison of fuzzy supervised (solid) Figure 11: Comparison of fuzzy supervised (solid)
and unsupervised (dash) PIDs with 0.2 m set point. and unsupervised (dash) PIDs with 0.7 m set point.

0.4

0.3 Cart position

Cart position [m] and pole angle [rad]

0.2 Cart position changing reference

Pole angle
0.1

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time [s]

Figure 12: Example of system response under the fuzzy gain scheduled double PID algorithm:
cart position (black) and pole angle (grey) for a series of successive changes in the cart set point.

To fully exhibit the benefits of the proposed approach, the fuzzy supervised control scheme was further tested in
response to a series of successive changes in the cart objective position on the track. The resulting cart position and
pendulum angle are depicted in figure 12.

CONCLUSIONS
In this paper applicability of the classical PID control strategy on nonlinear processes is discussed. In particular, a
Fuzzy Gain Scheduling (FGS) scheme that allows for on-line adjustment and improved performance of an existing
MIMO PID controller is proposed. The suggested control strategy is highlighted for the well-known task of stabilizing
an inverted pendulum on a cart. The presented control structure is hierarchical, including a fuzzy supervisor and two
coupled PID controllers: the first PID implements positive feedback on the cart subsystem and the other achieves
negative feedback for the pole subsystem. The proposed controller is designed as follows. First, a set of locally optimal
PID algorithms is defined and a tuning table is produced. Next, the scheduling variables are singled out and described
by membership functions on their universes of discourse on the basis of the PID tuning table. Subsequently, a fuzzy
inference mechanism based on the Sugeno method is designed to interpolate between controllers operating in adjacent
regimes of the table. Several experimental evidences showed that the resulting control scheme enables smooth
transitions between optimal controllers in response to a change in the cart set-point reference. Such results were fully
analyzed and discussed in comparison with traditional PID algorithms. Specifically, the unsupervised and supervised
configurations resulted in similar dynamics for all values of the set point. We remark that in the experiments carried out
the fuzzy supervisor automatically adapts the double PID to a changing operating region. The resulting control scheme
outperforms a locally optimal unsupervised PID. In conclusion, advantages of the proposed method are the FGS
adaptivity to different operating conditions, the preservation of the performance standards, the high computational
speed and the linguistic approach to the supervision. The main drawback is tuning the parameters of the FGS
supervisor, which may not be straightforward and requires significant process knowledge on the designer’s part.
Further, under the presented control scheme the system performances tend to deteriorate when a considerable initial
error on the pole angle is taken into account. At the present time, swing-up of the inverted pendulum under the proposed
strategy is being investigated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Mr. Domenico Trisolini for his support in the development of the MatLab graphical user
interface and in the collection of the simulation data.

REFERENCES

[1] Åstrom, K. J., Wittenmark, B., 1995, “Adaptive Control”, Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachussets.

[2] Blanchett, T.P., Kember, G.C., Dubay, R., 2000, “PID Gain Scheduling Using Fuzzy Logic”, ISA Transactions,
Vol. 39, pp. 317 - 325.

[3] Dotoli, M., Maione, B., Naso, D., 2002, “Fuzzy Sliding Mode Controllers Synthesis Through Genetic
Optimization”, Advances in Computational Intelligence and Learning, Methods and Applications, Zimmermann H-
J., G. Tselentis, M. van Someren, G. Dounias (Eds.), Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp. 331 - 341.

[4] Dotoli, M., Maione, B., Turchiano, B., 2001, “Fuzzy-Supervised PID Control: Experimental Results”, Proceedings
of EUNITE 2001 – the 1st European Symposium on Intelligent Technologies, Hybrid Systems and their
Implementation on Smart Adaptive Systems, Spain, pp. 31 - 35.

[5] Ho., W. K., Lee, T.H., Xu, W., Zhou, J., Tay, E.B., 2000, “The Direct Nyquist Array Design of PID Controllers”,
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 175 – 185.

[6] Ketata, R., Geest, De, D., Titli, A., 1995, “Fuzzy Controller: Design, Evaluation, Parallel and Hierarchical
Combination with a PID Controller”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 71, pp. 113 - 129.

[7] Koivo, H., 2002, “Fuzzy Gain Scheduling of MIMO PID Controllers for Nonlinear Multivariable Systems”,
Proceedings of IEEE-SMC2002, the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Tunisia, pp.
320 - 325.

[8] Menani, S., Koivo, H. N., 2001, “A Comparative Study of Recent Relay Autotuning Methods for Multivariable
Systems”, International Journal of System Science, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 443 - 466.

[9] Rugh, W.J., Shamma, J.S., 2000, “Research on Gain Scheduling”, Automatica, Vol. 36, pp. 1401 – 1425.

[10]Tan, S., Hang, C.-C., Chai, .-S., 1997, “Gain Scheduling: from Conventional to Neuro-Fuzzy”, Automatica, Vol.
33, No. 3, pp. 411 - 419.

[11]Zhao, Z.-Y., Tomizuka, M., Isaka, S., 1993, “Fuzzy Gain Scheduling of PID Controllers”, IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 1392-1398.