Tuning of PID controllers with fuzzy logic

A.Visioli

Abstract: The paper presents a comparison between different methods, based on fuzzy logic, for
the tuning of PID controllers. Specifically considered are different control structures in which a
fuzzy mechanism is adopted to improve the performances given by Ziegler-Nichols parameters.
To verify the full capabilities of each controller, genetic algorithms are used to tune the parameters
of the fuzzy inference systems (scaling coefficients, shape of the membership functions, etc.).
Furthermore, a discussion about the practical implementation issue of the controllers is provided,
and comparisons made with a typical PID-like fuzzy controller and a standard and a nonlinear PID
controller. The results show the superiority of the fuzzy set-point weighting methodology over the
other methods.

1 Introduction fuzzy inference system is used to tune the PID gains

Although many innovative methodologies have been
devised in the past 50 years to handle more complex
control problems and to achieve better performances, the
great majority of industrial processes are still controlled by
means of simple porportional-integral-derivative (PID)
controllers. This seems to be because PID controllers,
despite their simple structure, assure acceptable perfor-
mances for a wide range of industrial plants and their usage
(the tuning of their parameters) is well known among
industrial operators. Hence, PID controllers provide, in
industrial environments, a cost/benefit performance that
is difficult to beat with other kinds of controllers. However,
because of their simple structure, PID controllers are
particularly suited for pure first- or second-order processes,
while industrial plants often present characteristics such as
high order, time delays, nonlinearities and so on. In this
context, the tuning of the parameters is a crucial issue and
the many tuning formulae, that have been devised [l], such
as the Ziegler-Nichols one, often fail to achieve satisfac-
tory performances, and therefore the operator has to use
their experience and might fail to attain the best perfor-
mances.
For these reasons it is highly desirable to increase the
capabilities of PID controllers by adding new features; in
this way they can improve their performances for a wide
range of plants while retaining their basic characteristics,
so that industrial practicioners can still fully exploit their
knowhow.
In this context, the use of fuzzy logic seems to be
particularly appropriate, since it allows us to make use of
the operator's experience and therefore to add some sort of
intelligence to the automatic control [ 2 ] . On this basis,
several solutions have been proposed [3-61. Specifically, a
0 IEE, 2001
IEE Proceedings online no. 20010232
DOL 10.1049/ip-cta:20010232
Paper first received 10th October 2000
The author is with the Dipartimento di Elettronica per l'Automazione,
University of Brescia, Via Branze 38, 1-25123, Brescia, Italy
E-mail: visioli@bsing.ing.unibs.it
IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 148, No. I , January 2001
depending on the current operating conditions of the
controlled system. In this way, it is implemented as a
fuzzy supervisor more than a fuzzy controller, a solution
known to be more appropriate for industrial control
systems [7]. However, a comparison between the different
solutions has not been performed yet and in some cases
there are unclear points that still need to be discussed, to
verify the practical usage of the controller in industrial
settings. For example, it is not clear how to set the
parameters (scaling coefficients, shape of the membership
functions and so forth) of the fuzzy mechanisms to
improve performances. Then, it has to be shown that a
proposed control system is superior to other, simpler, ones,
and it is necessary to show that a controller devoted to set-
point following is also effective in load-disturbance
attenuation.
In other words, the trade-off between the potential
improvement in the performance and the increased
complexity in the controller's design and implementation
has to be quantified.
The aim of this paper is to clarify these points by means
of a large number of simulation results and of a thorough
discussion. In particular, different fuzzy logic based meth-
ods will be compared with a typical fuzzy PID-like
controller, with a nonlinear PID controller and a standard
PID controller with a set-point weight. To make a fair
comparison, the fuzzy inference systems have been opti-
mally tuned separately for each considered plant by means
of a genetic algorithm, a technique whose effectiveness has
been recognized in the literature [XI.
2 PID tuning w i t h fuzzy logic
2. I Standard PID control
The typical PID control law in its standard form is
where e(t)=y,(t) - y(t) is the system error (difference
between the reference input and the system output), u(t) the
control variable, Kp the proportional gain, Td the derivative
time constant and Ti the integral time constant. Eqn. 1 can
also be written as
+de(t)
u(t) = Kpe(t) Kd - K;
dt
+ joe(z)dz
where Kd=KpTd and Ki=Kp/Tj. The tuning problem
consists of determining the values of these three para-
meters with the aim of satisfying different control specifi-
cations such as set-point following, load disturbance
attenuation, robustness to model uncertainties and rejec-
tion of measurement noise. The several tuning rules
proposed in the literature along the past 50 years are
generally devoted to meet one in particular of these
requirements. For example, the widely known Ziegler-
Nichols formula [9] assures a good load-disturbance
attenuation, but it generally provides a poor phase
margin, and therefore it might produce a large overshoot
and settling time in the step response. To avoid these
situations partially, a modification can be applied to eqn.
1. Specifically, to reduce the overshoot, the set-point for the
proportional action can be weighted by means of a constant
parameter b < 1 [ 1, 101 so that we have the following more
general expression:
where b may be either 0 or 1. In this way a two degrees of
freedom controller is implemented. Namely, a part of the
control structure is devoted to the load disturbances
attenuation (for which a high loop gain is desirable) and
the other part is devoted to the set-point following. Fig. 1
shows this scheme for the following transfer functions:
The main drawback of this method is that it leads to an
increasing of the rise time, since, obviously, the effective-
ness of the proportional action is somewhat reduced.
Fuzzy logic can be used in the above context to vary the
PID parameters values during the transient response, in
order to improve the step response performances, main-
taining a basic tuning aimed at properly rejecting load
disturbances (e.g. the Ziegler-Nichols parameters). In this
way, it is possible to implement a nonlinear controller so
that the rise time and the overshoot are reduced at the same
time.
2.2 Incremental fuzzy expert PID control (IFE)
Tzafestas and Papanikolopoulos [3] proposed to scale the
values of the three controller parameters (initially deter-
mined by the Ziegler-Nichols formula) during the transient
response depending on the system error and its rate. In
Fig. 1 Two degrees-of-freedom scheme of PID controller with set-point
weighting
L IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 148, No. 1, January 2001
other words, the current values of the proportional, integral
and derivative gains are increased or decreased by means
of a fuzzy inference system, according to the following
(2) relations:
+
P = P CV(e(t),e(t)} x k,
+
I = I CV{e(t),e(t)) x k2 (4)
D = D + CV(e(t),e(t)) x k3
where the basic tuning is the Ziegler-Nichols one, CV(e(t),
t.(t)} is the output of the fuzzy inference system, based on
the Macvicar-Whelan fuzzy rule matrix [ 111, which
reflects the typical action of a human controller (for
example, the integral action has to be increased at the
beginning of the transient response to decrease the rise
time and then it has to be decreased when the system error
is negative, to reduce the overshoot). Finally, k , , k, and k3
are constant parameters that determine the range of varia-
tion of each term. The whole fuzzy system involves 14
quantisation levels for both e and b. It has to be stressed
that the tuning of the three parameters k, ,k2 and k3, and of
the two scaling factors that multiply the two inputs e and b
(the range of the input membership functions is assumed to
be normalised between - 1 and l), is left to the user, and it
might be a difficult task, as it is not clear how these
parameters influence the performances of the overall
controller, for a generic system.
2.3 Fuzzy self-tuning of a single parameter (SSP)
The method devised by He et al. [4] consists of parame-
terising the Ziegler-Nichols formula by means of a single
parameter a,then using an online fuzzy inference system to
self-tune the parameter. In this way, the three PID para-
meters can be expressed as
Kp = 1.2a(t)ku
1
T, = 0.75-
+
1 a(t)tu (5)
Td = 0.25Ti
where k, and tu are the ultimate gain and the ultimate
period, respectively, of the process. The value of a(t) is
determined recursively with the following equation:
where y is a positive constant that has to be chosen in the
range [0.2,0.6] and h(t) is the output of the fuzzy inference
system which has seven membership functions both for
each of the two inputs (the system error and its derivative)
and for the output. It has to be noted that the initial value of
a(t) is set equal to 0.5 which corresponds to the Ziegler-
Nichols formula. Also for the SSP method, the tuning of
the scaling coefficient of the fuzzy module and of the
parameter y is left to the user and no rules of thumb are
given for this task.
2.4 Fuzzy gain scheduling (FGS)
According to the methodology proposed by Zhao et al. [ 5 ] ,
the three current PID parameters are determined as
follows:
K; = Kj/(aK,)
where Kk, K&,and a are determined by means of a fuzzy Table 1. Meaning of the linguistic variables in the fuzzy
mechanism and Kpsm,, Kp,min,Kd," and Kd:min are inference system
adopted to normalise the values of Kp and Kd into the
range between zero and one. These constants are deter- NVB negative very big
mined by the following rule of thumb: NB negative big
NM negative medium
NS negative small
Z zero
PS postive small
Seven triangular membership functions are used for the PM postive medium
two inputs e(t) and e(t) of the fuzzy module, while only two PB postive big
are used for the outputs Kh and K& and four singletons PVB postive very big
define the output of a. In this scheme, only the two scaling
coefficients of the two inputs of the fuzzy module (the
system error and its derivative) have to be fixed by the user,
so that setting the overall controller appears to be easier
than in the case of the IFE and SSP methods.

2.5 Fuzzy set-point weighting (FSW)

The approach proposed by Visioli [6] consists of fuzzify-
ing the set-point weight, leaving fixed the other three
parameters (again determined with the Ziegler-Nichols Fig. 3 Control scheme with the fuzzy set-point weighting (FSW)
methodology
method to preserve a good load disturbance attenuation).
In this way, the control law can be written as
Finally, Reference [6] shows the methodology is robust
to variation of the Ziegler-Nichols parameters, and there-
fore its practical implementation seems to be quite simple.

2.6 Fuzzy PID-like controller

where w is a positive constant parameter less than or equal
to 1, andf(t) is the output of the fuzzy inference system,
which consists of five triangular membership functions for
the two inputs e(t) and e(t) and nine triangular membership
functions for the output. The fuzzy rules are based on the
Macvicar-Whelan matrix [ I l l , as shown in Fig. 2 (the
meaning of the linguistic variables is described in Table 1).
Fig. 3 shows the overall control scheme. It is worth
stressing that in this method the role of the fuzzy mechan-
ism parameters is somewhat intuitive, and it is very similar
to the one in the typical fuzzy PD-like controller, for which
tuning procedure have been established [ 121. Hence, the
task of the user is simplified. In any case, a simple
empirical procedure for the manual tuning of the fuzzy
module has been proposed.
Ae
NB NS z PS
The above methodologies, in which fuzzy logic is used to
determine the parameters of the PID controller, have been
compared also with a fuzzy PID-like controller, in which
the control variable is determined directly by means of a
fuzzy inference system. The evaluated PID-like controller
is the one proposed in Reference [13],in which the control
variable is the sum of the outputs of a fuzzy PI-like
controller and a fuzzy PD-like controller (see Fig. 4).
This choice allows to keep a low number of rules (with
respect to the typical case of the fuzzy PID-like controller,
in which three inputs have to be considered) without
decreasing the performances. Two membership functions
are used for the two inputs e and 2, and three singletons for
the output, which is of the Takagi-Sugeno type. It turns out
that two scaling factors for the two inputs and two for the
two outputs of the PI and PD-like controller have to be
PB selected by the user. Typical rules of thumb regarding the
fuzzy controllers can be adopted in this case, as for the
fuzzy set-point weighting.
Note that the implemented scheme encompasses both
the single standard PI-like and PD-like controller and
therefore also the well known fuzzy sliding mode control

e . fuzzy
-
.
PI-like
e controller

o u.
- fuzzy
-
.
PD-like
controller

Fig. 2 Basic rules table of the fuzzy inference system for the FSW
scheme Fig. 4 Control scheme with PID-like fuzzy controller
IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 148, No. 1, Janualy 2001 3
[14]. This can be seen as an improved version of the PD-
like control, in which the full control capabilities are
retained despite the simplified design (the number of
rules is reduced) [ 141.
2.7 Nonlinear PID controller
Finally nonlinear PID controller, in which fuzzy logic is
not adopted, has been considered. The implemented
control law is [ 151
It comes out that the proportional gain depends on the
current system error, and the parameter L E [0, 11 represent
the degree of nonlinearity: if L = 1 we have a typical PID
(linear) controller and, on the contrary, if L=O the
controller is highly nonlinear, i.e. the proportional gain is
bigger when the error is big than when the error is small. In
this control scheme there are four parameters to tune, the
PID gains and the scalar constant L.
3 Optimal tuning of the fuzzy modules by
means of genetic algorithms
To test the full capabilities of the examined control
schemes, for each case and for each considered process
under control (cf. Section 4), the free parameters have been
determined using a genetic algorithm [ 161, which guaran-
tees in a stochastic sense that a global optimum is
achieved. The selected objective function to minimise is
the integrated absolute error, defined as
which somehow takes into account at the same time the
rise time, the overshoot and the settling time. Note that
when triangular membership functions are employed, the
genetic algorithm also searches for the optimal shapes of
the membership functions. In particular, the optimal posi-
tion of the peaks of all the membership functions is
searched, except for the central ones and those at the
limits of the variable range, both for the inputs and the
outputs. For the sake of simplicity, a symmetric shifting of
the involved membership functions for each variable has
been considered. The bases of the other membership
functions are updated accordingly to preserve the fuzzy
partition property (i.e. the sum of the membership degrees
for each value of the variable is always equal to one). This
procedure is shown in Fig. 5.
The only exception to this optimisation procedure has
been applied to the SSP method, since it has been seen that
searching for the constant parameters and the shape of the
membership functions does not lead to any improvement
t
-1 0 1
c
e, e
Fig. 5 Tuning o f p e a b of membership functions
A symmetric shifting of the intermediate membership functions is permitted
4 IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 148, No. I , January 2001
with respect to the pure Ziegler-Nichols method. Hence, in
this case, also the rules of the fuzzy mechanism have been
optimally selected by means of the genetic algorithm.
4 Simulation results
The performances of the different controllers have been
evaluated on a wide range of plants. Here, the following
transfer functions, with different values of the parameters,
are considered:
4 = 1; = 0.2,0.8; (12)
G1(s) = s2 + 2w5s + CO: ; W,
1
G~(s)= -’
s(1 +s)’
p L
G~(s)= T = 1, 10; L = 0.1,0.4, 0.8; (14)
~
(1 + sT)’ *
’
1
) -.
G ~ ( s=
(1 +s)3 ’
e-sL
G,(s) = (1 +s)(l +0.5s)(l +0.25s)(l +0.125s)’
L = 0,O.l; (16)
(1 - 0.5s)
G6(S) =
(1 +s)3 .
First, to verify the full potentialities of the investigated
methodologies, it will be assumed that no saturation levels
are present for the control variable. After the tuning phase,
accomplished using the genetic algorithm, the unit step
responses have been simulated with Matlab and Simulink.
The resulting values of the IAE for the different processes
and different controllers are reported in Table 2. To
compare the control laws, tuned by a genetic algorithm
with classical industrial methodologies, it also shows a PID
tuned with the Ziegler-Nichols method, both without
(‘Z-N’) and with (‘Z-N b’) a fixed set-point weight. In
the latter case, the value of b has been optimally selected
again to minimise the IAE parameter) by a simple iterative
procedure. For example, the step responses of system (eqn.
15) with the different controllers are plotted in Figs. 6 and
7. Note that the ‘fixed b’ and ‘SSP’ cases are missing, as
they are equal to the ‘PID’ and ‘Z-N’ cases, respectively.
To provide a more detailed insight of the results, Tables
3 and 4 shows the values of overshoot and the rise time,
respectively, for the different cases.
Although the investigated methodologies have been
devised for the control of pure linear systems, a saturation
level U, = f 5 on the control variable has been considered
for each case to test the controllers’ capabilities in the
presence of a typical process nonlinearity. For each
scheme, with the exception of the fuzzy PID-like control-
ler, an anti-windup system (Reference 1, page 83) has been
used, where the tracking time constant T, has been tuned by
the rule of thumb Tt = l/(TiTd), where Ti and Td are the
base integral and derivative time constants of the control-
ler. The controller parameters have been retuned, again by
means of genetic algorithms. Results are reported in Tables
5, 6 and 7.
Table 2. Value of IAE achieved by the examined controllers tuned by the genetic algorithm (compared also with the
Ziegler-Nichols response) when no saturation is present

Process PID fixed b IFE SSP FGS FSW fuzzy nonlinear Z-N Z-N b

GI( s ) , 5 = 0.2 0.90 0.90 0.83 1.16 0.94 0.60 0.99 1.32 3.34 2.23
G~(s), (~0.8 0.70 0.70 0.83 0.95 1.27 0.56 0.99 0.83 1.27 0.97
G2 ( S ) 0.85 0.79 1.01 2.09 1.56 0.66 1.55 1.06 2.09 1.44
G,(s),T = l , L=0.1 0.72 0.72 0.95 1.05 1.40 0.75 0.86 0.73 1.40 0.99
G,(s),T = l , L=0.4 1.31 1.31 1.48 1.48 1.34 1.38 1.57 1.30 1.79 1.50
G,(s), T = l , L=0.8 2.00 1.99 2.22 1.96 2.81 2.10 3.25 2.08 2.22 2.13
G,(s), T=10, L=0.1 0.85 0.82 2.21 4.91 1.91 0.81 3.92 1.59 4.91 2.50
G,(s),T=10, L=0.4 1.39 1.39 3.69 7.62 3.65 1.66 3.26 3.13 7.62 4.05
G,(s),T=10, L=0.8 2.24 2.24 4.20 9.38 5.17 2.60 3.87 3.70 9.38 5.14
G~(s) 1.13 1.13 1.13 2.34 1.34 0.98 1.49 1.72 2.34 1.89
G,(s),L=O 0.99 0.98 1.01 1.55 1.44 1.22 1.27 1.09 1.83 1.36
G~(s),
L=0.1 1.25 1.25 1.22 1.29 1.31 1.30 1.37 1.31 1.59 1.41
G6(S) 2.12 2.11 2.60 2.86 2.87 2.43 5.28 2.86 2.86 2.53

Table 3. Value of the overshoot (%) achieved by the examined controllers tuned by the genetic algorithm (compared
also with the Ziegler-Nichols response) when no saturation is present

Process PID fixed b IFE SSP FGS FSW fuzzy nonlinear 2-N Z-N b

GI ( s ) , 5 = 0.2 17 16 0 16 0 18 1 22 46 18
GI ( s ) , 5 10.8 31 12 21 20 41 22 2 13 41 6
G,(s) 21 0 1 31 20 15 0 8 31 9
G~(s),
T= 1, L=0.1 13 13 41 19 57 1 0 3 57 3
G~(s),T= 1, L=0.4 8 10 33 4 18 6 11 12 37 4
G~(s),
T= 1, Lz0.8 5 6 23 7 22 10 0 10 23 8
G~(s),
T=10, L=0.1 1 0 30 66 13 2 3 6 66 9
G~(S),
T=10, L r 0 . 4 10 10 11 62 13 3 2 3 62 6
G~(s),T=10, L=0.8 9 12 6 59 13 1 0 3 59 5
G~(s) 14 14 3 49 15 4 2 26 49 5
G~(S),
L=O 24 23 17 15 15 8 5 8 52 6
G~(s),
Lz0.1 7 7 15 6 10 6 14 15 34 6
G~(S) 14 9 22 34 15 21 17 18 34 17

Table 4. Rise times Is)achieved by the examined controllers tuned by the genetic algorithm (compared also with the
Ziegler-Nichols response) when no saturation is present

Process PID fixed b IFE SSP FGS FSW fuzzy nonlinear Z-N Z-N b

GI (s),5 = 0.2 0.38 0.39 0.50 0.93 0.77 0.11 0.66 0.46 0.46 0.72
GI ( s ) ,5 = 0.8 0.11 0.13 0.34 0.45 0.32 0.07 0.78 0.35 0.32 0.46
G2 (s) 0.31 0.59 0.46 0.96 0.58 0.20 1.21 0.84 0.96 1.24
G,(s), T=l, L=0.1 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.44 0.28 0.24 0.37 0.23 0.28 0.48
G,(s), T = l , L=0.4 0.52 0.58 0.44 0.90 0.46 0.68 0.38 0.52 0.60 0.84
G,(s),T=l, L=0.8 0.98 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.82 0.98 3.06 1.oo 0.88 1.02
G,(s),T= IO, L=0.1 0.42 0.42 1.00 0.88 1.22 0.30 5.32 1.20 0.88 1.58
G3(s),T= IO, L=0.4 0.66 0.66 2.14 1.78 2.38 1.16 3.26 3.58 1.78 3.02
G,(s), T= I O , L=0.8 1.24 1.20 2.02 2.50 2.82 1.78 3.82 3.52 2.50 4.26
G4(s) 0.65 0.65 0.73 0.63 0.82 0.54 1.14 0.70 0.68 1.48
G~(s),
L=O 0.34 0.35 0.38 0.74 0.40 0.58 0.72 0.58 0.56 0.88
G~(s),L=0.1 0.56 0.56 0.46 0.60 0.56 0.70 0.46 0.54 0.60 0.80
G6(S) 0.84 1.02 0.90 0.80 0.88 0.92 0.90 1.oo 0.80 1.02

IEE Proc-Control Theory AppL. Vol. 148, No. I , January 2001 5

 1.6 r

time, s time, s
Fig. 6 Step responses of G4(s) with the different controllers without Fig. 7 Step responses of G4(s) with the different fizzy logic based
fuzzy logic controllers

Table 5. IAE achieved by the examined controllers tuned by the genetic algorithm (compared also with the Ziegler-
Nichols response) when saturation of the control variable is present
Process PID fixed b IFE SSP FGS FSW fuzzy nonlinear 2-N Z-N b

GI (s),c = 0.2 1.74 1.09 0.98 1.56 1.41 0.96 1.06 1.36 3.33 2.66
GI ( s ) , { = 0.8 1.05 1.00 1.01 1.17 1.28 1.01 1.08 1.07 1.44 1.41
G~(s) 2.53 1.19 1.14 2.35 2.12 0.97 1.12 2.06 3.49 3.01
G~(s),T = l , L=0.1 1.12 1.10 1.11 1.14 1.26 1.10 1.22 1.11 1.41 1.33
G,(S), T = l , LzO.4 1.65 1.59 1.46 2.00 1.64 1.53 1.46 1.52 2.00 1.95
G~(s),T = l , L=0.8 2.46 2.34 2.40 2.32 2.50 2.35 2.94 2.27 2.55 2.54
G,(s), T=10, L=0.1 6.03 5.73 5.70 5.82 5.90 5.70 6.70 5.78 6.20 6.20
G~(s),T=10, L=0.4 6.51 6.01 6.07 6.57 6.98 6.03 7.57 6.17 7.53 7.53
G,(s), T=10, L=0.8 7.28 6.44 6.55 7.29 7.12 6.50 7.69 6.64 9.11 9.11
G~(s) 1.75 1.68 1.65 1.91 2.09 1.68 2.23 1.70 2.73 2.33
G~(s),L = O 1.34 1.28 1.26 1.44 1.45 1.25 1.32 1.25 1.65 1.59
G~(s),Lx0.1 1.55 1.52 1.35 1.50 1.63 1.43 1.78 1.39 1.78 1.75
Gtj(S) 2.98 2.74 2.60 2.81 2.82 2.68 2.85 2.57 3.37 3.11

Table 6. Overshoot (%) achieved by the examined controllers tuned by the genetic algorithm (compared also with the
Ziegler-Nichols response) when saturation of the control variable is present

Process PID fixed b IFE SSP FGS FSW fuzzy nonlinear Z-N 2-N b

GI (s), 5=0.2 0 13 4 22 3 10 2 28 45 17
GI (s), {=0.8 0 1 7 20 15 4 0 8 22 25
G2 (s) 0 7 11 38 32 6 2 38 19 27
G~(s),T=l, L=0.1 2 2 3 5 3 2 0 1 28 19
G3(s), T= 1, L = 0.4 12 5 4 30 10 4 9 13 30 10
G~(s), T=l, L=0.8 28 5 29 10 24 7 2 20 15 11
G,(S), T=10, L=0.1 3 3 0 4 4 0 1 1 8 8
G~(s), T= I O , L=0.4 0 0 1 3 8 0 1 2 11 11
G ~ ( S )T=
, I O , L=0.8 0 0 2 8 2 1 2 1 14 14
G4 (s) 8 7 6 13 23 1 0 9 4 12
G~(s),L=O 8 5 4 16 25 3 4 13 32 12
G~(s),L=0.1 12 8 2 6 11 5 17 15 26 17
G6 (S) 20 4 20 6 10 8 4 14 35 11

6 IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 148. No. I, January 2001

Table 7. Value of the rise timers (s)achieved by the examined controllers tuned by the genetic algorithm (compared also
with Ziegler-Nichols response) when saturation of the control variable is present
Process PID fixed b IFE SSP FGS FSW fuzzy nonlinear Z-N Z-Nb

G ~ ( s )5, ~ 0 . 2 2.60 0.56 0.54 0.82 0.86 0.46 0.58 0.56 0.68 0.98
GI (s), 5 = 0.8 0.61 0.60 0.54 0.54 0.60 0.60 0.68 0.62 0.66 0.60
G~(s) 4.74 0.84 0.70 0.96 0.88 0.50 0.70 0.90 2.34 1.84
G ~ ( s ) T=
, 1, L=0.1 0.56 0.58 0.58 0.64 0.74 0.62 0.84 0.62 0.56 0.58
G ~ ( s ) T=
, 1, L z 0 . 4 0.70 0.76 0.68 0.78 0.76 0.70 0.64 0.60 0.78 1.10
G ~ ( s ) T=
, 1, L=0.8 0.98 1.20 0.74 1.20 1.20 1.12 2.18 0.86 1.22 1.30
G ~ ( s ) T=
, IO, L=0.1 5.58 5.58 5.64 5.58 5.88 5.70 5.96 5.80 5.56 5.56
G3(s), T= IO, L=0.4 5.68 5.68 5.64 5.70 5.74 5.80 10.3 5.96 5.56 5.56
G ~ ( s )T=
, IO, L=0.8 5.72 5.72 5.70 5.70 5.86 6.00 6.20 6.28 5.98 5.98
G4 ( S ) 0.96 1.oo 1.02 1.06 0.94 1.24 2.56 1.08 1.88 1.48
G ~ ( s )L, = O 0.58 0.64 0.70 0.70 0.54 0.68 0.80 0.58 0.68 0.88
G ~ ( s )L=0.1
, 0.72 0.76 0.78 0.90 0.74 0.74 0.76 0.60 0.76 0.86
G~(S) 0.96 1.24 0.80 1.56 1.16 1.18 1.66 1.02 1.22 1.66

5 Discussion the same performances can be attained by simply applying

From the results, it appears that, without an amplitude limit
on the control variable, it is very difficult to improve the
performances of an optimally tuned PID, even if we use a
nonlinear (fuzzy-based) controller, The use of an additional
parameter b is almost useless if the PID is optimally tuned
(in this case, when the overshoot is reduced, the rise time
increases, so that the IAE does not decrease significantly).
However, it has to be highlighted again that in practical
cases it is very difficult to achieve an optimal tuning, so it
is appropriate to compare the results obtained by using
fuzzy-logic-based methodologies with those obtained with
the Ziegler-Nichols tuning formula. In this context, the
only two techniques that are generally able to improve the
performances achieved with the simple use of a fixed set-
point weight are the IFE and the FSW. In particular, the
latter appears to be the best method and it gives better step
responses than in a standard nonlinear PID. This is because
with the FSW method, both the overshoot and the rise time
can be decreased from the Ziegler-Nichols response (see
Tables 3 and 4). Conversely, results show that the SSP and
FGS methods are not always worth using, as, in general,
a fixed set-point weight, simple to determine and imple-
ment.
Fuzzy-logic-based tuning is more useful if saturations
are significant in the process. In fact, it appears that in this
case the performances of a classic PID can be improved
using time-varying parameters, and the achieved results are
difficult to improve by a standard fuzzy controller.
Between the considered schemes, the FSW seems in
general to ensure better performances, although the
values of the IAE attained by the different controllers are
closer in this case than when there is no saturation.
Finally, one should consider the ease of tuning of the
controllers (i.e. of the fuzzy module’s parameters), since in
practical industrial applications, the use of genetic algo-
rithms is possible if a good process model is available.
Many simulations (not reported here for the sake of
brevity) have been performed for this purpose. It emerges
that, for the fuzzy-logic-based tuning methods for which a
technique for the selection of the parameters of the fuzzy
inference system has not been proposed, it might very
difficult to perform this task effectively. For example, for
the IFE method, the choice of parameter k3 is critical since

Table 8. Value of the IAE on a load disturbance response achieved by the examined controllers turned by the genetic
algorithm (compared also with the Ziegler-Nichols response) when no saturation is present. The lack of a number
means that the system has become unstable
Process PID fixed b IFE SSP FGS FSW fuzzy nonlinear Z-N

0.66 0.46 - - - 0.003 - 0.51 0.39

0.06 0.09 - - - 0.02 - 1.49 2.80
7.99 33.35 - - 8.82 0.08 - - 7.39
0.57 0.17 - - - 0.16 - 0.70 0.27
2.23 1.37 - - 1.99 1.29 - 2.44 1.38
4.10 3.30 3.36 4.21 5.70 3.37 - 4.14 3.33
0.29 0.02 0.20 - 0.09 0.04 - 0.81 0.13
1.71 0.91 - - 0.99 0.44 - 4.46 0.92
3.93 1.14 - - 2.47 1.21 - 6.08 2.04
4.63 0.35 - - 1.74 0.15 - 1.97 1.40
1.84 1.84 - 1.05 1.36 0.83 - 1.94 0.93
1.97 1.84 - 1.77 3.1 1 1.39 - 1.99 1.33
5.30 5.15 - - 6.67 4.33 - 6.06 4.28

IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 148, No. I , January 2001 7

 its value has to be kept very low, otherwise the overall
control system can be unstable. The derivative action is
critical in the FGS scheme as well, while SSP control
structure is very difficult to set, as it depends on the results
obtained from the genetic algorithm, which is not always
able to improve on the Ziegler-Nichols response and, when
it succeeds, the selected rules are very difficult to interpret.
The only scheme in which the setting of the fuzzy module’s
parameters is straightforward is the FSW one, for which a
manual tuning procedure can be applied [6].
Finally, the evaluation of the load disturbance attenua-
tion capabilities of the proposed schemes has been eval-
uated. Specifically, a load disturbance step has been
applied to the plant at steady-state initial conditions, with-
out limits on the control variable. The controllers are the
same as in the case of no saturation, i.e. tuned by the
genetic algorithm to minimise the integrated absolute error
on the set-point step response. The resulting IAE in the
different cases have been reported in Table 8. Obviously,
there is no difference in the results between two PID
controllers in which only the fixed set-point weight value
changes (remember that, on the contrary, all the PID
parameters are different between the ‘PID’ and the ‘fixed
b’ columns). Gaps in the table mean that the controlled
system has become unstable. Hence it is apparent that, for
some methodologies, great care has to be taken in the
tuning of the overall controller, as highly undesirable
effects might occur for some aspects of the control
system. It has to be stressed again that the system has
become unstable with the tuning performed by the genetic
algorithm in order to optimise the IAE of the set-point step
response, so that the system can be stabilised provided that
the controller is detuned. However, it is worth noting that
the reported results about the following setpoint might not
be achieved in practical cases; hence, it turns out that those
controllers that present stability problems are less effective
than previously thought. From the load-disturbance
attenuation viewpoint, again, the FSW scheme is better
than the others.
6 Conclusions
In this paper, a comparison between different methodolo-
gies regarding the tuning of PID controllers by means of
fuzzy logic has been presented. The exposed results have
allowed a detailed discussion about the use of fuzzy
inference systems in this context. It has turned out that,
despite the investigated schemes have been conceived for
pure linear systems, the main benefits in the use of fizzy
logic appear when process nonlinearities such as saturation
8 IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl., Vol. 148, No. 1, January 2001
are significant. In other circumstances, it has to be taken
into account that the performances obtained by the fuzzy
based schemes might be achieved with simpler techniques.
The ease of tuning of the fuzzy mechanism parameters
plays a key role in the practical applicability of the
methodologies, since it determines the improvement in
the costlbenefit ratio with respect to standard methods.
In this context, the fuzzy set-point weighting technique
appears superior to the others, as it guarantees in general
very good performances in the set-point and load distur-
bance step responses and it requires a modest implementa-
tion effort; therefore its practical implementation in
industrial environments appears to be very promising.
7 Acknowledgment
This work was supported in part by MURST scientific
research funds.
8 References
1 ASTROM, K., and HAGGLUND, T.: ‘PID controllers: Theory, design
and tuning’ (ISA Press, 1995)
2 TZAFESTAS, S.G.: ‘Fuzzy systems and fuzzy expert control: an over-
view’, Knowl. Eng. Rev., 1994, 9, (3), pp. 229-268
3 TZAFESTAS, S.G., and PAPANIKOLOPOULOS, N.P.: ‘Incremental
fuzzy expert PID control’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 1990,31, (5), pp.
365-371
4 HE, S.-Z., TAN, S., and XU, F.-L.: ‘Fuzzy self-tuning of PID control-
lers’, Fuzzy Sets Sys., 1993, 3 7 4 6
5 ZHAO, Z.-Y., TOMIZUKA, M., and ISAKA, S.: ‘Fuzzy gain scheduling
of PID controllers’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern., 1993, 23, (5), pp.
1392-1 398
6 VISIOLI, A.: ‘Fuzzy logic based set-point weighting for PID control-
lers’, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man, Cybern. - Pt. A , 1999, 29, pp. 587-592
7 CHIU, S.: ‘Using fuzzy logic in control applications: Beyond fuzzy PID
control’, IEEE Control Syst. Mag., 1998, 18, (5), pp. 100-105
8 HOMAIFAR, A., and McCORMICK, E.: ‘Simultaneous design of
membership hnctions and rule sets for fuzzy controllers using genetic
algorithms’, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 1995, 3, (2), pp. 129-139
9 ZIEGLER, J.G., and NICHOLS, N.B.: ‘Optimum setting for automatic
controllers’, ASME Trans., 1942, 759-768
10 LEVA, A., and COLOMBO, A.M.: ‘Method for optimising set-point
weights in ISA-PID autotuner’, IEE Proc. Control Theory Appl., 1999,
~~
146; (2), pp. 137-146
11 MACVICAR-WHELAN,P.J.: ‘Fuzzy sets for man-machine interaction’,
Int. 1 Man-Mach. Stud., 1976, 8, PP. 687-697
12 ZHENG, L.: ‘A practical guide to (he tuning ofproportional and integral
(PI)-like fuzzy controllers’. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Fuzzy systems, New
Orleans, pp. 633-640, 1992
13 LIU, C., XU, J.-X., and HANG, C.-C.: ‘Comparison between a fuzzy
PID controller and a kind of nonliner PID controller’, Proc. 36th IEEE
Int. Conf. on Decision and control, S. Diego (CA), pp. 2736-2741,1997
14 PALM, R.: ‘Fuzzy sliding mode control’, in BONIVENTO, C.,
FANTUZZI, C., and ROVATTI, R. (Eds.) ‘Fuzzy logic control-
Advances in methodology’ (World Scientific, 1998), pp. 75-109
15 SHINSKEY. F.G.: ‘Process control svstems: Auulication. design. and
optimization: A Matlab implementation’: NCSU-IE