Using Evolutionary Techniques to Design Control System For Non-linear Systems 1

Using Evolutionary Techniques to Design

Control System for Non-linear Systems
 Mr Joe Bloggs

 A simple example of a nonlinear system is an inverted

Abstract— Many of the techniques taught in undergraduate pendulum on a free-moving cart [2, 3]. More complex
control systems courses rely on the systems being analysed to be examples can be found in many types of aircraft [4-6], in
linear, or that a linear approximation can be made of the system. industrial furnaces [7], power plants[8] and many other areas.
However, there are many occasions where we want to design a
control system for a non-linear system. In these cases we need
For example, Xioa and Jiang[9] give the following equations
different tools. for a continuous stirred tank reactor:
Evolutionary Techniques (ETs) are a group of algorithms and     1 
heuristics that draw inspiration from genetics and evolutionary
process in biology. They offer a way generating optimised (1)
solutions to non-linear systems. ETs have been used numerous
times to attempt to design control systems. This paper looks at a   1   1   
selection of instances where ETs have been used to design control
systems, what the system was that they were trying to control and (2)
how successful they were in designing a controller for that  
system. (3)
where , , and are constants and  is a function
Index Terms— control systems, evolutionary techniques,
genetic algorithms, non-linear systems defined as:

I. INTRODUCTION
URING undergraduate studies in control systems, content
is often limited to the study of linear systems. In
practice, a control engineer may often find that they need to
design controller for systems that are nonlinear. In these
cases, there is a need for additional tools to be used.
Evolutionary techniques offer a powerful toolset for solving
optimisation problems. They can be applied to nonlinear
systems as easily as linear ones and offer a way to explore
many possible solutions to a problem simultaneously to find
an optimal solution. As such, they are worth evaluating as
possible methods for developing controllers for nonlinear
systems.
II. NON LINEAR CONTROL SYSTEMS
1) What does it mean to be nonlinear
A nonlinear system is one where the principal of
superposition does not apply[1]. This presents a problem as
the traditional methods for analysis and design of control
systems cannot be used. There are many examples in a wide
range of areas where we find nonlinear systems for which we
wish to design some sort of control system.
Manuscript submitted June 3, 201.
-RH%ORJJV is a Masters of Engineering student at the School of Engineering,
Edith Cowan University, Joondalup WA 6027, Australia. (e-mail:
MEORJJV@our.ecu.edu.au).

1  
(4)
As can be seen, the nonlinearities in these equations would
make the use of standard control engineering techniques
impossible to use.
2) Implications of nonlinearity
The most important impact of nonlinearity is that we cannot
apply standard control system techniques to the analysis and
design of controllers for such a system without devising a
linear approximation of the system [1]. A linear
approximation may not be possible for the full range of
possible inputs and may contain significant errors.
Having established that there are many non-linear control
systems that we are interested in that we cannot use linear
techniques to analyse, what can we do design these control
systems?
III. EVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUES
A. Overview
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) were first developed by John
Holland in the 1960s [10]. GAs find optimal solutions by
emulating how the process of evolution works in nature. By
using a combination of random elements, application of fitness
functions and the recombination of more successful solutions,
GAs are able to ‘explore’ the possible solutions of a problem
to find optimal solutions.
Using Evolutionary Techniques to Design Control System For Non-linear Systems
As more research occurred in this area, GAs were expanded
upon, resulting a proliferation of terms: evolutionary
programming [9] and genetic programming [6] are just two of
the terms used. However, all these techniques feature some
common elements.
B. Definitions
1) Solutions
A solution to a problem is a set of values for the available
parameters of the system. For example, for a circuit design,
these would be the resistances, capacitances and inductances
of the various components, plus information on how each
component is connected to the other components. In a
chemical system they would be the flow rates, volumes of
tanks and their interconnections.
For each problem, there are many possible combinations of
parameters that could be used to solve that problem. Some
combinations of parameters will produce bad results (e.g.
blow up the tanks or produce a non-functioning circuit), some
will produce good or even optimal results and some solutions
will sit somewhere in between (i.e. they may produce the
desired outcome but cost more to build or they may produce
useful but sub-optimal results).
C. Assessing Solutions and Fitness Functions
How do we tell if one solution is better than another? In
control system we look at criteria such as stability, steady-
state error, delay time, rise time, peak time, maximum
overshoot, settling time, etc [1]. We may also be concerned
with other factors such as cost to build, number of components
and size. To assess the suitability of one solution over
another, we need to define one or more ‘fitness functions’ to
measure how well a given solution meets our desired criteria.
A fitness function will produce a numerical value reflecting
how well a solution meets the desired criteria and may
combine several factors; for example a control system’s
fitness function could be a combination of the steady-state
error, maximum overshoot and cost to build of the system,
with scaling factors to ensure that all three values contribute
equally to the fitness value.
Developing a fitness function can be quite tricky, especially
when dealing with opposing objectives (such as cost verses
performance) or orthogonal objectives (performance verse
aesthetics).
1) Solution Space
The range of possible solutions is known as the ‘solution
space’ of the problem. Somewhere in this multi-dimensional
solution space lays the optimal solution for the problem, as
defined by our fitness function(s).
If the fitness function is relatively simply, we have many
techniques available to find where the optimal solution will
lie. For instance, with the example shown in Figure 1, simple
differentiation would enable us to determine the optimal
solution. However, when we encounter more complex fitness
functions, we need different techniques to sift through all the
possible solutions to find the good ones. Evolutionary
techniques offer one such method of searching through large
2
and complex solution spaces to find optimal solutions.
Within a solution space there may be several combinations
that produce results that are considerably better than other
neighbouring solutions (those solutions that have similar, but
not identical, parameter values). If a solution’s parameters are
varied away from these local maxima, its fitness value would
start to decrease, indicating that the searcher should head back
towards to local maxima. However, these local maxima are
not the global optimal points and can present a problem for
any optimisation algorithm. Any search technique needs to be
able to take into account local maxima and present a way to
take leaps away from them in an attempt to find a truly global
maxima.
4
3
2
1
2.2
0 1.1
0
‐1 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
2 2.4 2.8
‐2
Figure 1: A sample solution space.
The fitness function takes in two values and generates a score for the
fitness, measured by the vertical axis. This system has multiple peaks
where there are locally maximal solutions, but there is only one global
optimal solution.
D. Components of a ETs and design decisions
1) Choice of parameters and define the problem.
The initial step of applying ETs to a problem is to define
what parameters you are trying to optimise. For some control
system designs, the developers have already decided upon the
configuration of the controller they are going to use (for
example a PID controller [9] or a sliding mode controller [11])
and just wish to use the ETs to develop the parameters of the
controller. A more complex approach is to define the ET in
such a way as to allow it to control the interconnection of
elements, evolving the control equations [6] or to help with
design of other advanced control systems such as neural
networks [2] or fuzzy logic controllers [12].
2) Encoding the Solutions
For an ET to work, it requires the potential solutions to be
expressed in terms of a number of ‘genes’. This encoding
scheme is required to be developed to allow for the solution to
be divided into components for use in the ‘breeding’ stage of
the algorithm (see below). The choice of how a solution is
encoded will depend on the parameters that have been chosen
to be optimised.
The simplest method for a set of numeric values is to simply
express those numbers in binary and concatenate them into a
Using Evolutionary Techniques to Design Control System For Non-linear Systems
single value. However, this may not be the best way to
structure the encoding in all problems. For example, when
using ETs to develop the control for a UAV (Unmanned Arial
Vehicle), Bourmistrova and Khantsis [6] needed to design the
encoding to be able to express equations in a meaningful way
as they were not just selecting parameters, but how those
parameters are combined.
3) Evaluating Fitness
An important part of the operations of an ET is the
evaluation of the fitness of the encoded solutions. Commonly,
the parameters of a solution are feed into a single fitness
function and a single numeric value is returned. However,
sometimes multiple fitness functions are used, such as in the
co-operative co-evolution genetic algorithm (CCGA) [13].
The choice of the fitness function(s) is important, as it dictates
what goals the system will be optimizing towards.
For a given fitness function or functions, there may be
multiple optimal solutions. For functions with multiple
unrelated goals, there will be some solutions that balance out
the various goals, while others may favour a single goal to the
detriment of others. Various different ET strategies try to
compensate for this problem and are important considerations
when designing a program to solve a particular problem.
4) Operations and Iterations
ETs work over a large number of iterations, known as
generations. For each generation, the ET will perform a
number of operations to produce a subsequent generation.
With each generation, the ET should be progressing towards
the optimal solution(s).
a) Initial population and population size
At the start of the process, an initial selection of solutions
needs to be generated. This is done by using a random
number generator to create a number of random solutions. At
this stage it is unlikely that any solution is optimal.
The number of solutions in the population is one of the
factors that can be modified to affect the outcome of the ET.
Too few solutions or two many can both have detrimental
effects on the outcome.
b) Breeding
To produce the next generation of solutions from the current
one, a ‘breeding’ method is used. Elements from two (or
more) solutions are combined together to form a new solution.
This can be as simple as selecting a random point in the binary
array representing the solutions and ‘cutting’ the solution at
that point and combining it the complementary section from
another solution, to more complex combination techniques.
The most important part of the breeding process is that
solutions are chosen to contribute to a new generation based
on their fitness function results. Solutions that have higher
fitness values should be selected more frequently to contribute
to the next generation of solutions. Low fitness solutions
should contribute to few or maybe no new solutions.
Over the generations of solutions, those with elements that
produce higher fitness values will become more common
within the population. By producing new solutions by
3
combining the features of the fitter solutions, the system will
eventually produce solutions that combine the best
characteristics of all the solutions present.
c) Mutation
To allow for parameter values that were not present in the
original population, random changes known as mutations are
applied to solutions as part of the process of creating a new
generation of solutions. Applying mutations also helps to
prevent the population becoming stuck on a local maxima.
However, the frequency and degree of mutation needs to be
carefully set, as too frequent or too large mutations can
destroy the work the fitness based breeding operations have on
improving the overall fitness of the population and the
progress towards optimal solutions.
5) Problems with Evolutionary Systems as Optimisation
Techniques
While ETs are powerful optimisation methods, they do have
a number of disadvantages. Firstly, there are the design
challenges of coming up with the correct encoding scheme for
the solution, designing the fitness function(s) and selecting
the correct parameters for the population size, breeding
functions and mutation functions. Making the correct
decisions in these areas is important to the success of the
optimisation process.
Another limitation of ETs is that they can be computational
expensive to run (having to evaluation fitness for a large
number of solutions per generation) and require many
generations to successfully find an optimal solution.
Furthermore, as they rely on random elements as part of
several operations, there is no definitive way to determine how
long (if every) it will take before they find the optimal
solutions to a problem. These two time elements can restrict
the use of ETs if a rapid answer to a design decision is
required.
IV. EXAMPLES OF APPLYING EVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUES
Evolutionary techniques have been applied in the
development of control systems for many non-linear systems.
Below are four examples.
A. Controlling an Oil Tanker
McGookin et al [11] used a genetic algorithm to design a
Sliding Mode controller for the steering of an oil tanker.
Using linear models for control of oil tankers has difficulties
as their overall performance changes significantly with the
speed of the vessel and the depth of the water it is in. As such
non-linear controllers, such as Sliding Mode controllers, are
desirable. However, they present difficulties in selecting the
parameters of the controller.
McGookin et al designed their GA to optimise 4 parameters
– the first and second closed loop poles, the switching gain
and the boundary layer thickness of the heading controller.
Their fitness function was the weighted sum of the error
between the desired and obtained heading and the rudder
deflection. Rudder deflection was included as they wished to
minimise the movement of the rudder.
Using Evolutionary Techniques to Design Control System For Non-linear Systems 4

The solution that the GA produced was compared against a density, is fuel flow valve position, is steam control
manually tuned solution for the problem and was found to be valve position and is feedwater valve position. The valves
slightly more optimal, with the advantage that it was able to all have limitations on their rate of change and maximum and
find this solution without any prior information about the minimum values.
approximate region of the optimal solution and in much Dimeo and Lee used genetic algorithms to design a coupled
quicker time. PI controller and a linear-quadratic regulator (LQR) controller.
To determine the parameters for each system, they used
B. Boeing 747 Autopilot Control
different population sizes and parameters for developing a
Manocha [4] models the four forces that apply to a aircraft: generation of solutions. They ran their GAs until either 30
thrust, weight, drag and lift. These forces result in linear and generations had passed, or until they had 95% convergence on
angular motion about the x, y and z axis, and are a set of non- a single solution in the population. They found that the PI
linear equations. By working through these equations and controller they developed had good steady-state results, but
using data for a Boeing 747-400, Manocha developed the some strong oscillations during the transitive response. Their
following transfer functions for pitch control, roll control and LQR controller preformed well, but has a small steady state
yaw control: error.
1.312 0.3896
 
 0.70 2.41 0.3896 V. CONCLUSION
(5)
When working ‘in the real world’, an engineering cannot
Φ 0.1732s 0.03999 0.155
  expect to find problems to neatly fit into the introductory
s  0.7387 1.205 0.4364 0.155 topics covered in an undergraduate course. It is important for
(6) a control engineer to be able to deal with nonlinear systems, as
Ψ 0.051s  0.022 there many real world problems that may require a control
 
s  0.7387 1.09 0.4488 system that cannot be adequately expressed as linear
(7) equations. These problems arise across all areas of
Manocha then used MATLAB’s GA library to determine engineering.
the parameters for the pitch, roll and yaw PID control systems. Engineers often look to nature for inspiration in how to
These values were then entered into autopilot software in a solve design challenges. As such, it shouldn’t be surprising
flight simulator for testing. Manocha described the results that evolutionary techniques can be successful used to solve
from the GA as producing an ‘enhanced autopilot system’. many control system problems.
C. Modelling a Twin Rotor System Evolutionary techniques such as genetic algorithms offer a
control engineer a useful tool for designing controllers for
Darus, Aldebrez and Tokh [5] compared the use of a GA non-linear systems. ETs can also be used where the exact
against a recursive least squares (RLS) method for modelling a design is unknown, rather than the component values for a
twin rotor multi-input multi-output system (TRMS). The design. While harder to construct, these ETs could help were
TRMS rig used consisted of a beam on a pivot that could a starting design is only vaguely known, or when certain
freely rotate horizontally and vertical. At one end was a sections can only be treated as complex ‘black-boxes’. It is
horizontal rotor to produce lift while at the other end a smaller also important to understand the drawbacks associated with
vertical rotor was used to make the beam turn left or right. ETs, namely time taken to run them and the sensitivity to
The system is highly nonlinear. implantation choices that can have a dramatic impact on
The GA used had 100 solutions in each generation and was results.
run for 500 generations. The model obtained from the GA
was compared against the model derived using RLS and REFERENCES
against the physical model. The GA derived model was had
[1] K. Ogata, Modern control engineering, Fifth ed. Boston: Pearson,
approximately half the error as the RLS model and was within 2010.
95% confidence level of the physical model. [2] N. Metni, "Neuro-control of an inverted pendulum using Genetic
Algorithm," in Advances in Computational Tools for Engineering
D. Power Plant Applications, 2009. ACTEA '09. International Conference on,
2009, pp. 27-33.
Dimeo and Lee investigated the use of a genetic algorithm [3] K. SULTAN. (2003). Inverted Pendulum: Analysis, Design and
to control a Swedish boiler-turbine plant [8]. The system has Implmentation. Available:
the following characteristic equations: http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/3790
[4] A. Manocha and A. Sharma, "Three Axis Aircraft Autopilot
0.0018  0.9  0.15 Control Using Genetic Algorithms : An Experimental Study," in
Advance Computing Conference, 2009. IACC 2009. IEEE
International, 2009, pp. 171-174.
0.073 0.016  0.1 [5] I. Z. M. Darus, et al., "Parametric modelling of a twin rotor system
using genetic algorithms," in Control, Communications and Signal
141   1.1 0.19 Processing, 2004. First International Symposium on, 2004, pp.
85 115-118.
where is drum pressure, is power output, is fluid [6] A. Bourmistrova and S. Khantis, "Control system design
optimisation via genetic programming," in Evolutionary
Using Evolutionary Techniques to Design Control System For Non-linear Systems 5

Computation, 2007. CEC 2007. IEEE Congress on, 2007, pp.

1993-2000.
[7] X. Peng, et al., "Research and Application on GA-Based Two-
Stage Fuzzy Temperature Control System for a Type of Industrial
Furnace," in Electrical and Control Engineering (ICECE), 2010
International Conference on, 2010, pp. 1558-1561.
[8] R. Dimeo and K. Y. Lee, "The use of a genetic algorithm in power
plant control system design," in Decision and Control, 1995.,
Proceedings of the 34th IEEE Conference on, 1995, pp. 737-742
vol.1.
[9] Y. Xiao and J. Jiang, "Evolutionary programming in non-linear
control systems," in Industrial Electronics, 1999. ISIE '99.
Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on, 1999, pp.
1290-1293 vol.3.
[10] Perspectives on Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems :
Essays in Honor of John Holland. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford
University Press, 2005.
[11] E. W. McGookin, et al., "Non-linear tanker control system
parameter optimisation using genetic algorithms," in OCEANS '97.
MTS/IEEE Conference Proceedings, 1997, pp. 17-22 vol.1.
[12] L. Joon-Yong, et al., "Multi-objective evolutionary design of fuzzy
logic controllers for car parking problem," in Advanced Motion
Control, 2006. 9th IEEE International Workshop on, 2006, pp.
607-612.
[13] N. Chaiyaratana and A. M. S. Zalzala, "Recent developments in
evolutionary and genetic algorithms: theory and applications," in
Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems: Innovations and
Applications, 1997. GALESIA 97. Second International
Conference On (Conf. Publ. No. 446), 1997, pp. 270-277.

-RH is currently aQHQJLQHHULQJ consultant to the 3DWHQWV2IILFH

of Western Australia, and is studying for his Masters of
Engineering at Edith Cowan University, Western Australia.