2010 Seventh International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD 2010)

Research and Application of Fuzzy PID Controllers

Yanchang Liu Jiasheng Zhang Yang Liu Junxue Gai
Daqing Petroleum Institute Northeastern University at Qinhuandao
Daqing066004, China Qinhuandao 066004, China

Shaohua Sun
Laoning Information Vocational Technical College
Liaoyang 111000, China

Abstract—There are Z - N oscillation method and reaction curve
and so on in based methods classical approaches. In fuzzy PID
auto-tuner conventional gain scheduling involves using extra
information from the plant, environment, or user to tune (via
“schedules”) the gains of a controller. We study how the two-link
flexible robot operates under the “no control” situation. The
robot endpoint position shows a significant amount of endpoint
oscillation. We can overcome a large overshoot and oscillations
near its set-point of open-loop control to use fuzzy control system
with a supervisory level (PID controller). The experiment shows
that the fuzzy control system with supervisor level (PID
controller) gave better results in the case of large and loaded-tip
slews.
Keywords- PID controller; fuzzy rules; feedback control system;
design Methods;
I. CLASSICAL PID CONTROL DESIGN METHODS
controller output. Record the controller critical gain K P = K C
and the oscillation period of controller output, PC .
Adjust the controller parameters according to Table Ⅰ; there
is some controversy regarding the PID parameterization for
which the Z-N method was developed, but the version
described here is applicable of best knowledge.
Example. Consider a plant with a model given by
1
G0 ( s ) = (1)
( s + 1) 3
Find the parameters of a PID controller by using the Z-N
oscillation method. Obtain a graph of the response to a unit step
input reference and to a unit step input disturbance. We first
compute the critical gain K C and critical frequency ωc . These
values must satisfy

One of the traditional ways to design a PID controller was K C G0 ( jωC ) = −1 ⇔ K C = −( jωC + 1) 3 (2)
to empirical tuning rules based on measurements made on the
real plant. The following sections review the best-known of the From this equation we obtain K C = 8 and ωC = 3 .
classical tuning methods. Hence, the critical period is PC ≈ 3.63 . If we use the settings
in Table Ⅰ,and PID controller equation
A. Ziegler-Nichols (Z-N) Oscillation Method
1 T s
This procedure is valid only for open-loop stable plants, C PID ( s ) = K P (1 + + d ) (3)
and it is carried out by means of the following steps. Tr s τ D s + 1

Set the true plant under proportional control, with a very We obtain the following:
small gain.
K P = 0.6 * K C = 4.8; Tr = 0.5 * PC ≈ 1.81; Td
TABLE I. ZIEGLER-NICHOLS TUNING, USING THE OSCILLATION
METHOD = 0.125 * PC ≈ 0.45

KP Ki Kd Where K i = K P ; Kd = K PTd . The derivative mode

Tr
P will be attenuated with time constant τ D = 0.1Td = 0.45 . Thus,
0.05 K C
the final loop-transfer function becomes
PI
0.45 K C 0.54 K C / PC τD 1
(T d + τ D ) s 2 + (1 + )+
G 0C (s) = K P Tr Tr
PID
0.06 K C 0.3 K C / PC 0.075 K C PC s (τ D s + 1)( s + 1) 3
Increase the gain until the loop starts oscillating. Note that 52 . 8 s 2 + 109 . 32 s + 58 . 93
= (4)
linear oscillation is required and that it should be detected at the s ( s + 22 . 2 )( s + 1) 3

Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China

(50902019)，and Science Technology and Develop Project of Hebei
(07213527))

978-1-4244-5934-6/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE 283

 With SIMULINK, the loop was simulated with a unit step y∞ − y 0
reference at t = 0 and a unit step input disturbance at t = 10 . K0 = ; τ 0 = t1 − t1 ; ν 0 = t 2 − t1 (6 )
u∞ − u0
The results are shown in Figure 1.
The model obtained can be used to derive various tuning
methods for PID controllers. One of these methods was
proposed by Ziegler and Nichols. On their proposal, the design
objective is to achieve a particular damping in the loop
response to a step reference. More specifically, the aim is to
obtain a ratio of 4:1 for the first and second peaks in that
response. The suggested parameters are shown in Table Ⅱ.
TABLE Ⅱ. ZIEGLER-NICHOLS TUNING BY USING THE REACTION CURVE
Figure1. Response to step reference and step input disturbance

The response shows in Figure 1 exhibits significant KP Tr Td

overshoot that might be unacceptable in some applications;
however, Z-N tuning provides a starting point for finer tuning.
of course, if significant measurement noise is present, then one
should check whether increasing the derivative action still P ν0
yields good performance. Similar caution applies regarding K 0τ 0
saturation in the controller output. The heuristic nature of these
arguments highlights the limitations of tuning a PID controller
in terms of its classical P, I, and D tuning parameters. 0.9ν 0 3τ
PI K 0τ 0
B. Reaction curve based methods
Many plants, particularly the ones arising in the process PID 1.2ν 0 2τ 0.5τ 0
industries can be satisfactorily described by the model in K 0τ 0

K O e − sτ o The parameter-setting rules proposed in Table Ⅱ are

G0 ( s) = where νo > 0 (5) applied to the model (5), where we have again normalized
ν o s +1
time in delay units. Loop responses for a unit step reference
A linearized quantitative version of this model can be shown in Figure 3 for different values of the ratio x = τ 0 .
obtained with an open-loop experiment, by using the ν0
following procedure. With the plant in open loop, take the
plant manually to a normal operating point. Say that the plant
output settles at y(t ) = yo for a constant plant input u (t ) = uo .

At an initial time t o , apply a step change to the plant

input, from uo to u ∞ (this should be in the range of 10 to 20%
of full scale).
Figure 3. PI Z-N tuned (reaction curve method) control loop
Record the plant output until it settles to the new
operating. Assume that you obtain the curve shown in Figure II. PI AND PID SYNTHESIS REVISITED BY USING POLE
2. This curve is known as the process reaction curve. In Figure ASSIGNMENT
2, m.s.t. stands for maximum slope tangent.
We place these results in a more modern setting by
discussing the synthesis of PI and PID controllers via pole
assignment techniques. Throughout this section, we will
consider one-d.o.f. control loops with PI controllers of the
form
Ki
C P I ( s) = Kp + ( 7)
s
and proper PID controllers of the form
Figure 2. Plant step response
Ki Kd s
Compute the parameter model follows: C PID ( s) = Kp + + (8)
s τ Ds +1

284
 For future reference, we note the following alternative
representation of a PID controller.
Lemma . Any controller of the form
n2 s 2 + n1 s + n0
C (s) = (9 )
d 2 s 2 + d1 s
n1d1 − n0 d 2 n0
KP = Ki =
d 12 d1
n2 d12 − n1d1d 2 + n0 d 22 d2
Kd = τD =
d13 d1
This proof is ignored.
III. APPLICATION OF FUZZY PID CONTROLLERS
The two-link flexible robot shown in Figure 4 consists of
three main parts (1) the robot with its sensors, (2) the computer
and the interface to the robot, and (3) the camera with its
computer and interface. The robot is made up of two very
flexible links constrained to operate in the horizontal plane.
The “shoulder link” is a counterbalanced aluminum strip that is
driven by a DC direct-drive motor with an input voltage v1 .
The “elbow link” which is mounted on the shoulder link
endpoint is a smaller aluminum strip. The actuator for the
elbow link is a geared DC motor with an input voltage v2 . The
sensors on the robot are two optical encoders for the motor
shaft position Θ1 and Θ 2 , and two accelerometers mounted on
the link endpoints to measure the accelerations a1 and a2 .
Figure 4.Two-link flexible robot setup
A line scan camera is used to monitor the endpoint
position of the robot for plotting; this data is not used for
feedback. The sampling period used for all sensors and control
updates is 15 milliseconds (ms). For comparative purposes, we
use the camera data for robot movements that begin in some
position and end in a fully extended position, to approximate
equal movements in each joint. When responses are plotted, the
final endpoint position is nominally indicated (on the plot) to
reflect (approximately) the total movement in degree, of the
shoulder joint.
285
A. objectives and open-loop control
We will first study how the robot operates under the “no
control” situation. We simply apply v1 = ν 2 = 0.3615 volts at
t = 0 seconds and return v1 and ν 2 to zero voltages as soon
as the links reach their set-points. Note that for this experiment
we monitor the movement of the links but so not use this
information as feedback for control.
The results of the “no control” experiment are plotted in
Figure 5, where the endpoint position shows a significant
amount of endpoint oscillation. It is well known that the effect
of mass loading slewing flexible beam is to reduce the modal
frequencies and this is indeed the case for this experiment.
Indeed, when a 30-gram payload is attached to the robot
endpoint, the first model frequency of the second link
(endpoint) reduces significantly. This effect causes
performance degradation in fixed, linear controller. In Figure 5,
as in all plots to follow, endpoint position refers to the position
of the elbow link endpoint. Note that the inset shown in Figure
5 depicts the robot slew employed. The two dashed lines
describe the initial position of the links. The arrows show the
direction of movement, and the solid line shows the final
position of the links. Hence, for this open-loop experiment, we
wanted 90 degrees of movement in each link. In the ideal case
the shaft should stop moving the instant the voltage signal to
the motor amplifier is cut off. But the arm had been moving at
a constant
Figure5. Endpoint position “No control” response
a constant velocity before the signal was cut off, and thus had a
momentum that dragged the shaft past the angle at which it was
to stop. This movement depends on the speed at which the arm
was moving, which in turn depends on the voltage signal
applied. System settling (elimination of residual vibrations in
endpoint position) within 2 seconds of motion initiation, and
overshoot minimized to less than 5% deviation from the final
desired position.
B. Fuzzy control system with a supervisory level (PID
controller)
 We can overcome a large overshoot and oscillations near
its set-point of open-loop control to use fuzzy control system
with a supervisory level (PID controller). The simple fuzzy PID
controller is shown in Figure 6, which monitors the position
error e1 (t ) to the shoulder motor controller and changes the
fuzzy sets and the rules-base of the shoulder motor controller.
Figure 6. Fuzzy control system with a supervisory level (PID
controller)
The rule-base for the fuzzy PID controller consists of tow
single-input multiple-output rules:
1) If e1 (t ) 〈 20 0 then use Rule-Base 1 (Table Ⅲ) and use
expanded universes of discourse.
0
2) If e1 (t ) ≥ 20 Then use Rule-Base 2 (Table Ⅳ) and use
compressed universes of discourse.
TABLE Ⅲ. RULE-BASE FOR COARSE CONTROL
The PID controller expands or compresses the universes of
discourse by simply changing the scaling gains (explained
below). When the universe of discourse is expanded, a “coarse
control” is achieved, and when it is compressed, a“fine control”
is achieves. It is a type of auto - tuning strategy. The form of
the premises of the rules of the supervisor guarantees that one
(and only one) of the rules will be enabled and used at each
time step. Since the control objectives can be achieved using
286
only these two rules and since only one rule will be enabled at
each time step, there is no need for the use of complex
inference strategies in the fuzzy PID controller.
Clearly, it would be possible to view the premises of the
above rules as linguistic statements then define membership
functions to quantify their meaning. Then, our supervisor
would be a fuzzy system that would gradually rather than
abruptly switch between the two conditions. Here, we did not
pursue this approach. Instead, we made sure that the rule-bases
were designed so that a smooth transition would occur as the
supervisor switched between the rules.
TABLE Ⅳ. RULE-BASE FOR FINE CONTROL
Rule-base construction
The membership function and the rules-base for the elbow
link controller are shown in Figure 7. In addition to the rule-
base in Table 3, another rule-base was added for the shoulder
motor controller. The PID controller therefore switches
between these two rule-bases for “coarse control” and “fine
control.” The membership function for the coarse controller
are the fuzzy controller case where the universe of discourse is
[-250, +250] degree for the position error, [-2, +2] g for the
endpoint acceleration, and [-1.5, +1.5] volts for the out put
voltage. The fine controller, with rule-base shown in Table 4,
uses the universe of discourse for the position error is [-25,
+25] degrees, and the universe of discourse is [-0.15, +0.15]
volts.
Notice that while going from the coarse to the fine control,
the widths of the universes of discourse for the position error
and the output of the shoulder link controller have been
reduced by a factor of ten, while the width of the universe of
discourse for the endpoint acceleration is reduced by a factor of
two. This choice was made after several experiments where it
was found that when the width of the universe if discourse for
the acceleration was reduced by a large factor, the controller
became too sensitive near the set-point.
Table Ⅲ and Ⅳ show the rule-base used for the coarse
and fine control, respectively. Notice that in row j = 0 for the
rule-base for fine control there are extra zeros as before to
reduce the sensitivity of the controller became to a noisy
acceleration signal. The rule-base for coarse control does not
have these zeros as the offset voltage from the accelerometers
is of no consequence as long as the controller is operating in
this region. Also notice that while the patterns in the bodies of
the tables shown in Table Ⅲ and Ⅳ are similar, there are
differences included to reflect the best way to control the robot.
Notice that the center values in the fine control rule-base
change more rapidly as we move away from the center of the
rule-base as compared to the coarse control rule-base. This
causes a bigger change in the output of the controller for
smaller changes in the input, resulting in better control over the
Figure 7. Membership functions for the elbow controller Experimental results
shaft speed of the motor, preventing it from overshooting its
set-point and at the same time causing gradual braking of the
motor speed. Finally, we note that the fine control rule-base
was selected so that the output is not changed too much when
the rule-bases are switched promoting a smooth transition
between the rule-bases.
Figure 8. Endpoint position for supervisory control
Experimental results obtained using this supervisory
scheme are shown in Figure 8. The requested slew is 900 for
both links as shown in the inset. The response is relatively fast
with very little overshoot. Comparing this response to the
obtained for the open-loop control (see Figure 5), we can see
that the hump in the initial portion of the graph is almost
eliminated. The response of the robot to a counterrelative slew
is better than the response when using the open-loop control.
From the results obtained for the supervisory control (PID
controller) technique, we see that the results are superior in the
cases tested. The supervisor gave better results in the case of
large, counterrelative, and loaded-tip slews.
Overall, we see that rule-base supervision can be used to
significant benefit in a practical application.
IV. CONCLUSION
Except the PID controller design approaches of the
Ziegler-Nichols (Z-N) oscillation method, the reaction curve
based method, the PI and PID synthesis revisited by using pole
assignment, the fuzzy tuning of PID controllers and their
applications. There are also the design approaches of the PID
synthesis by using the affine parameterization, the adaptive
PID control, intelligence PID control, artificial neural network
PID control, predication PID control, and so on. Every PID
controller design approach has its characteristic.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank the associates in research and development of
Science Technology and Develop Project of Hebei .
REFERENCES
[1] Kevin M. Passion and Stephen Yurkovich. Fuzzzy control. Tsinghua
University Press, 2001
[2] Graham C. Goodwin, Stefan F. Graebe and Mario E. Salgado. Tsinghua
University Press, 2002
[3] Mellquist, M., Crisafulli, S., and MacLeod, I.M. (1997). Derivative
filtering issues for industrial PID controllers. In Proceedings of the I.E.
Aust. Control ’97 Conference, Sydney, pages 1048-1054.
[4] Zhiling Wang, Liang Wu. A fuzzy region understanding tactic object
tracking based on frog’s vision characteristic. Automatica Sinica,
Volume 35 Number 8,2009 , pp.1441-1444.
[5] Isaksson, A.J. and Graebe, S.F. (1999). Model reduction for PID design.
In proceedings of the 12th IFAC world congress, Sydney, Australia,
5:467-472.
[6] Rivera, D., Morari, M., and Skogestad, S. (1986). Internal model
control. PID controller design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des.
Dev.,25:252-265.
[7] Isaksson, A.J. and Graebe, S.F. (1999). Analytical PID parameter
expressions for higher order systems. Automatica.
[8] Feng G. A survey on analysis and design of model-based fuzzy control
systems.IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy Systems,2006,14(5), pp676-697
[9] Xiu Z H, Ren G. Stability analysis and systermatic design of Takagi-
Sugeno fuzzy control systerm .Fuzzy Sets and systerms,2005, 151(1),
pp119-142
[10] J. T. Spooner and K.M. Passino. Stable direct adaptive control using
fuzzy systems and neural networks. In proc. of the IEEE Conf. on
Decision and Control, pages 249-254,New Orleans, LA, December
1995.
287