Comparison of classical control and intelligent control for a MIMO system

Jih-Gau Juang
*
, Ren-Wei Lin, Wen-Kai Liu
Department of Communications and Guidance Engineering, National Taiwan Ocean University, Keelung, Taiwan
a r t i c l e i n f o
Keywords:
Classical control
Intelligent control
Fuzzy system
Genetic algorithm
MIMO system
a b s t r a c t
This paper presents several classical control schemes and intelligent control schemes of an
experimental propeller setup, which is called the twin rotor multi-input multi-output
(MIMO) system. The objective of this study is to decouple the twin rotor MIMO system into
the horizontal plane and vertical plane, and perform setpoint control that makes the beam
of the twin rotor MIMO system move quickly and accurately in order to track a trajectory
or to reach specied positions. We utilize the conventional control and intelligent control
techniques in the vertical and horizontal planes of the twin rotor MIMO system. In classical
control, three of the most popular controller design techniques are utilized in this study.
These are the ZieglerNichols ProportionalIntegralDerivative (PID) rule, the gain margin
and phase margin rule, and the pole placement method. Intelligent control is also proposed
in this paper in order to improve the attitude tracking accuracy of the twin rotor MIMO
system. Intelligent control designs are based on fuzzy logic system and genetic algorithm.
Simulations show that the intelligent controllers have better performance than the classi-
cal controllers.
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
PID control was rst introduced to the public by Minorsky in 1922 [1], while the PID controller was introduced by
Callender in 1936 [2]. PID applies a signal to the process that is proportional to the actuating signal, on top of adding the
integral and the derivative of the actuating signal. It is implemented in industrial single-loop controllers, distributed control
systems, and programmable logic controllers. There are two reasons why the control technique is highly used in industrial
processes. First is that its simple structure and well-known Ziegler and Nichols tuning algorithms have been developed [3,4]
and successfully used for years. Second is that the controlled processes in industrial plants can almost be controlled through
the PID controller [5,6]. In 1942, Ziegler and Nichols provided the parameters adjustment rule for the PID controller, and
trimming parameters are based on trial and error. Since then, a number of methods have been proposed to improve the per-
formance of the PID controller, such as pole placement [7], gain and phase margin [8,9], internal model control (IMC) [10],
among others. In conventional control applications, PID control is the most commonly used control technique in the industry
[11]. In particular, if the control scheme has been developed based on an exact model of the process, then perfect control is
theoretically possible. In practice, however, process-model mismatch is common; the process model may not be invertible,
and the system is often affected by unknown disturbances. Thus, the conventional control arrangement will not be able to
maintain the output at setpoint.
Recently, there are several studies that use genetic algorithms (GA) to improve traditional PID control, such as that of
Krohling and Jaschek [5,6]. GA was rst proposed by Holland in 1975 [12]. It is an optimization technique based on simu-
lating the phenomena that takes place in the evolution of species and has been adapted to many optimization problems. This
0096-3003/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.amc.2008.05.061
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jgjuang@mail.ntou.edu.tw (J.-G. Juang).
Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Applied Mathematics and Computation
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ amc
technique implies the laws of natural selection in the population in order for individuals to become better adjusted to their
environment. The population is nothing more than a set of points in the search space. Each individual in the population rep-
resents a point in that space through their chromosomes. The individual degree of tness is given by the tness function that
is formed by system requirements. GA is inspired by the mechanism of natural selection in which stronger individuals are
the likely winners in an environment dominated by competition. Through the genetic evolution method, an optimal solution
can be found and represented by the nal winner of the genetic game. GA presumes that the potential solution of any prob-
lem is an individual, who can be represented by a set of parameters and is regarded as the genes of a chromosome. A positive
value, generally known as the tness value, is used to reect the degree of goodness of the chromosome for the problem,
which would be highly related with its objective value. An intact principle of GA mainly has several components, namely,
population, tness function, reproduction, crossover, and mutation. Throughout genetic evolution, the better chromosome
has the tendency to yield a good quality of offspring, which means the best solution to any problem is sought until it is deter-
mined. In addition, it can search many points at the same time in order not to arrive at an impulsive optimal solution. After
years of development, GA has been applied to all kinds of engineering optimization problems, such as function optimization,
traditional control, pattern recognition, machine learning, articial intelligence, among others [1315]. GA is easily com-
bined with the intelligent control theory (Mixed or Hybrid) [1619] and solves problems in the traditional control eld.
This paper presents a comparison of several classical control schemes and intelligent control schemes to a MIMO system.
In classical control, the mathematical model of the controlled plant is required. Most of the time, however, the system model
is unknown. The intelligent control system is then introduced to overcome this shortcoming. One of the intelligent tech-
niques that are being used very often in the control problem is the fuzzy system. In 1965, the fuzzy set theory [20] was rst
introduced to the public by Zadeh, hoping to address imprecise information in the real world. Fuzzy logic is a way to make
machines more intelligent, enabling them to reason in a fuzzy manner as humans do. Moreover, fuzzy systems indicate good
potential in consumer products, industrial and commercial systems, as well as decision support systems. The term fuzzy
refers to the ability of dealing with imprecise or vague inputs. Instead of using complex mathematical equations, fuzzy logic
uses linguistic descriptions to dene the relationship between the input information and the output action. In engineering
systems, fuzzy logic provides a convenient and user-friendly front-end to develop control programs, helping designers to
concentrate on the functional objectives and not on the mathematics. Therefore, fuzzy logic is a very powerful tool that per-
vades in every eld and yields successful implementations. There are several ways to use GA and fuzzy controller together
[21]. The rst approach, which was presented by Karr [22], employed GA to the position and shape of the membership func-
tions. In 1996, Bonarini [23] used the GA to generate and evaluate the fuzzy rules and control a desired system. In 2002, Lee
[24] also used GA to generate optimal fuzzy rules. It is independent of the experts knowledge in adjusting the parameters of
the fuzzy controller in order to improve its performance. Controllers that combine intelligent and conventional techniques
are commonly used in the intelligent control of complex dynamic systems. Therefore, embedded fuzzy controllers automate
what have traditionally been human-controlled activities. This paper presents classical control and intelligent control to an
experimental propeller setup. Here, the Z-N PID rule, the gainphase margin rule, and the pole placement rule are used to
perform classical control. The simplied transfer functions of the decoupled horizontal and vertical planes of the twin rotor
MIMO system are rst derived. The setpoint control is then applied to examine the controllers performance. In intelligent
control, the GA, fuzzy system, and PID controller are integrated in the control scheme. The simulation results show that the
intelligent controllers have better performance than classical controllers, and they are easy to design without complicated
system modeling process.
2. Twin rotor MIMO system
The twin rotor MIMO system (TRMS), as shown in Fig. 1, is characterized by the complexity, highly nonlinearity, and inac-
cessibility of some states and outputs for measurements. Hence, it can be considered as a challenging engineering problem
[25]. The control objective is to make the beam of the TRMS move quickly and accurately to the desired attitudes, both the
pitch angle and the azimuth angle, in the condition of decoupling between two axes. The TRMS is a laboratory set-up for
control experiment and is driven by two direct current (DC) motors. Its two propellers are perpendicular to each other
and are joined by a beam pivoted on its base in order to effect rotation freely in the horizontal and vertical planes. The joined
beam can be moved by changing the input voltage and controlling the rotation speed of these two propellers. A pendulum
counter-weight is hanged on the joined beam and is used to balance the angular momentum in a steady state or with load. In
certain aspects, its behavior should resemble that of a helicopter. However, it is difcult to design a suitable controller be-
cause of the inuence between two axes and nonlinear movement. From the control point of view, it exemplies a high-or-
der nonlinear system with signicant cross coupling. For easy demonstration, the TRMS is decoupled in vertical and
horizontal planes by the main rotor and tail rotor separately.
Block diagrams of the TRMS model are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, where M
v
is the vertical tuning moment, J
v
is the moment of
inertia with respect to horizontal axis, a
v
is the vertical or the pitch position of the TRMS beam, l
m
is the arm of aerodynamic
force from the main rotor, l
t
is the effective arm of aerodynamic force from the main rotor, g is the acceleration of gravity, x
m
is the rotational speed of main rotor, F
v
() is the x
m
nonlinear function of aerodynamic force from main rotor, k
v
is the mo-
ment of friction force in horizontal axis, X
v
is the angular or the pitch velocity of the TRMS beam, X
h
is the angular or azi-
muth velocity of TRMS beam, a
h
is the horizontal position (azimuth angle) of TRMS beam, M
h
is the horizontal turning
J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791 779
torque, J
h
is the nonlinear function of the moment of inertia with respect to vertical axis, x
t
is the rotational speed of tail
speed, F
h
(x
t
) is the nonlinear function of aerodynamic force from the tail rotor, k
h
is the moment of friction force in horizon-
tal axis, S
v
is the vertical turning moment, S
h
is the horizontal turning moment, and S
f
is the balance factor, U
v
and U
h
are the
DC-motor control inputs. The mathematical model of main rotor is shown below:
dS
v
dt
l
m
S
f
F
v
x
m
X
v
k
v
gA B cos a
v
C sina
v
; 1
da
v
dt
X
v
; 2
X
v
9:1S
v
; 3
du
vv
dt

1
T
mr
u
vv
U
v
; 4
x
m
P
v
u
vv
; 5
where A
mt
2
m
tr
m
ts
l
t
, B
mm
2
m
mr
m
ms
l
m
, C
m
b
2
l
b
m
cb
l
cb
, m
mr
is the mass of the main DC motor with the main
rotor, m
m
is the mass of the main part of the beam, m
tr
is the mass of tail motor with the tail rotor, m
t
is the mass of the tail
part of the beam, m
cb
is the mass of the counter-weight, m
cb
is the mass of the counter-weight beam, m
ms
is the mass of the
main shield, m
ts
is the mass of the tail shield, l
cb
is the length of the counter-weight beam, u
vv
is the output of the vertical DC
motor, and l
cb
is the distance between the counter-weight and the joint. The mathematical model of the tail rotor is shown
below:
dS
h
dt
l
t
S
f
F
h
x
t
X
h
k
h
; 6
da
h
dt
X
h
; 7
f
F
v
S l
m 1/s
1/J
v 1/s
k
v
( ) (
v v
C B A sin cos 8 . 9
U
v
m
M
v
S
v

v
(t)
v

G
v
P
v
)
Fig. 2. Block diagram of the main rotor.
tail rotor
Tail shield
DC-motor +
tachometer
pivot
main rotor
DC-motor +
tachometer
free-free beam
counterbalance
main shield
Fig. 1. Twin rotor multi-input multi-output system.
S
f
F
h
l
t 1/s 1/s
k
h
U
h
t

M
h
S
h

h
( ) t
h

G
h
P
v
Fig. 3. Block diagram of the tail rotor.
780 J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791
X
h
90S
h
; 8
du
hh
dt

1
T
tr
u
hh
U
h
; 9
x
t
P
h
u
hh
: 10
Two nonlinear input characteristics determine the dependence of the DC-motor rotational speed on input voltage
x
m
= P
v
(u
vv
), x
t
= P
h
(u
hh
), where u
hh
is the output of the horizontal DC motor. In addition, two more nonlinear characteristics
determine the dependence of the propeller thrust on DC-motor rotational speeds, that is, F
v
= F
v
(x
m
), F
h
= F
h
(x
t
). The approx-
imate polynomials are
x
m
90:99u
6
vv
599:73u
5
vv
129:26u
4
vv
1238:64u
3
vv
63:45u
2
vv
1283:4u
vv
; 11
F
v
3:48 10
12
x
5
m
1:09 10
9
x
4
m
4:123 10
6
x
3
m
1:632 10
4
x
2
m
9:544 10
2
x
m
; 12
x
t
2020u
5
hh
194:69u
4
hh
4283:15u
3
hh
262:27u
2
hh
3796:83u
hh
; 13
F
h
3 10
14
x
5
t
1:595 10
11
x
4
t
2:511 10
7
x
3
t
1:808 10
4
x
2
t
0:0801x
t
: 14
The details of the decoupling process of the nonlinearities can be found in [26].
3. Classical control of TRMS
The TRMS is decoupled into the horizontal plane and vertical plane. The control system consists of a PID controller as well
as a horizontal or vertical part of the TRMS as shown in Fig. 4. Simulations of the setpoint control are performed by Simulink.
The simplied models in the vertical plane and horizontal plane of the TRMS are shown in (15) and (16), respectively,
a
v
s
U
v
s

20:07
s
3
3:47s
2
2:36s
; 15
a
h
s
U
h
s

0:44
s
3
0:73s
2
5:7s 3:972
: 16
These models are derived from Figs. 2 and 3 through the Curve Fitting method of a Matlab toolbox. Here, conventional con-
trol techniques, such as the Z-N PID rule, gainphase margin rule, and the pole placement rule are used to perform classical
control.
3.1. ZieglerNichols turning
The conventional closed-loop method determines the gain at which a system with proportional control may diverge, and
then derives the control gain and derivative values from the gain wherein the oscillations are sustained as well as the period
of oscillation. A typical PID controller is given as (17)
G
c
s K
P

K
I
s
K
D
s; 17
where K
P
, K
I
, and K
D
are the proportional, integral, and derivative gains of the controller, respectively. The Z-N closed-loop
method can provide parameters tuning while reducing oscillation. It has long been considered as a good tuning method. The
procedures are described below:
Fig. 4. PID controller in the TRMS.
J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791 781
1. Ensure that the process is lined out with the loop to be tuned automatically, with a gain low enough to prevent
oscillation.
2. Increase the gain in steps by one-half the previous gain. After each increase and no oscillation occurred, change the set-
point slightly in order to trigger any oscillation.
3. Adjust the gain so that the oscillation is sustained and continues at the same amplitude. If the oscillation is increasing,
decrease the gain slightly and increase the gain slightly if the oscillation is decreasing.
4. Make note of the gain which causes sustained oscillations and the period of oscillation. These are the Ultimate Gain (G
U
)
and the Ultimate Period (P
U
), respectively.
5. Calculate the tuning for the following set of equations. Use the set that corresponds with the desired conguration: P
only, PI, or PID.
P only: Gain = 0.5 G
U
PI: Gain = 0.45 G
U
, Reset = 1.2/P
U
PID: Gain = 0.6G
U
, Reset = 2/P
U
, Derivative = P
U
/8
The simulation results using Z-N rule are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The Z-N rule is based on a trade-off adjustment in the
horizontal and vertical planes. To reduce the rise time in the vertical plane, we need to decrease the damping ratio, which
will increase the overshoot in the horizontal plane.
3.2. Pole placement
Knowing the relation between the closed-loop poles and system performance, we can effectively carry out the design by
specifying the location of these poles. For the reason that the locations of the poles can be assigned, the systematic charac-
teristic can virtually be mastered. However, the parameters of the controller are limited at some time, and it is not capable of
putting all the poles deliberately. Hence, we will only appoint the necessary poles to the desired locations. The transfer func-
tion of the PID controller is the same as in (17). It can be expressed as
Fig. 5. Step response using the ZN rule in the horizontal plane, dot line is the desired yaw angle and solid line is the actual yaw angle of the TRMS.
Fig. 6. Step response using the Z-N rule in the vertical plane, dot line is the desired pitch angle and solid line is the actual pitch angle of the TRMS.
782 J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791
G
c
s K 1
1
T
i
s
T
d
s
_ _
; 18
where K, T
i
, and T
d
are the parameters to be determined. The poles designated are
P
1;2
x
0
n
0
j

1 n
2
0
_
_ _
x
0
e
jph
; 19
P
3
ax
0
; 20
where x
0
is the natural frequency and n
0
is the damping ratio. Furthermore, the transfer function of the plant becomes
G
P
x
0
e
jph
ce
j/
21
or
G
P
ax
0
g: 22
Take the chosen poles into the characteristic equation, we can then obtain K, T
i
, and T
d
as follows:
K
a
2
gsinh / gsinh / ac sin2h
cga
2
2acos h 1 sinh
; 23
T
i

Kcga
2
2acos h 1 sinh
ax
0
asinh gsinh / asin/
; 24
T
d

ac sinh gasinh / sin/
Kx
0
cga
2
2acos h 1 sinh
: 25
The simulation results using the pole placement rule are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. Oscillation phenomenon in the vertical plane
is due to the gravity effect of the TRMS.
Fig. 7. Step response using pole placement method in the horizontal plane, dot line is the desired yaw angle and solid line is the actual yaw angle of the
TRMS.
Fig. 8. Step response using pole placement method in the vertical plane, dot line is the desired pitch angle and solid line is the actual pitch angle of the
TRMS.
J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791 783
3.3. Gainphase margin
Gain and phase margins are very important to analyze the control system in the frequency domain. It is applied to the
control system design by extending gain and phase margins such that the system can withstand greater changes in system
parameters before becoming unstable. Assume that the controller is the same as in (18), and assign phase margin and gain
margin to be /
m
and A
m
, respectively
G
P
jx
p
K j KT
d
x
p

K
T
i
x
p
_ _ _ _

1
A
m
; 26
G
P
jx
g
K j KT
d
x
g

K
T
i
x
g
_ _ _ _
e
j/
m
: 27
Let x
p
= ax
u
, a 2 [0.5, 2], where x
u
is the frequency limit and a = 1. When x
p
is chosen, control parameters can be solved by
(26) and (27) as follows:
K Re
1
A
m
G
P
jx
p

_ _
; 28
K
T
i
X
P
x
g
X
g
x
p

x
p
x
g

x
g
x
p
_ _
1
; 29
KT
d

X
P
x
g

X
g
x
p
_ _
x
p
x
g

x
g
x
p
_ _
1
; 30
where X
P
Im
1
AmG
P
jxp
_ _
, X
g
Im
e
j/
m
G
P
jxg
_ _
, and x
g
needs to be satised by
Fig. 9. Step response using the gainphase margin rule in the horizontal plane, dot line is the desired yaw angle and solid line is the actual yaw angle of the
TRMS.
Fig. 10. Step response using the gainphase margin rule in the vertical plane, dot line is the desired pitch angle and solid line is the actual pitch angle of the
TRMS.
784 J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791
Re
1
A
m
G
P
jx
p

_ _
Re
e
j/
m
G
P
jx
g

_ _
: 31
The simulation results using gainphase margin rule are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Oscillation phenomenon in the vertical
plane is due to the gravity effect of the TRMS.
In the horizontal plane, the control parameters obtained by different methods are shown in Table 1. In the vertical plane,
the control parameters obtained by different methods are shown in Table 2. Comparisons of classical control in the horizon-
tal and vertical planes are shown in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively.
Fig. 11. Classical control in the horizontal plane, dot line is the desired yaw angle and solid lines are the actual yaw angle of the TRMS by using different
control methods.
Table 1
PID parameters for the horizontal plane
Method Parameter
K
P
K
I
K
D
Z-N rule 0.24 0.1 0.53125
Pole placement 0.1510 0.05 0.09866
Gainphase margin 0.0816 0.0146 0.00062
Table 2
PID parameters for the vertical plane
Method Parameter
K
P
K
I
K
D
Z-N rule 0.024 1.29 0.3225
Pole placement 2 10.9688 1.2862
Gainphase margin 0.2267 22.67 3.967
Fig. 12. Classical control in the vertical plane, dot line is the desired pitch angle and solid lines are the actual pitch angle of the TRMS by using different
control methods.
J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791 785
4. Intelligent control of TRMS
Classical control systems are designed using models of physical systems. The selected mathematic model captures the
dynamical behavior of interest, while control design techniques are applied to design the mathematical model by an appro-
priate controller. The mathematical model of the system must be simple enough so that it can be analyzed with available
mathematical techniques, and must as well be accurate enough to describe the important aspects of the relevant dynam-
ical behavior. It is quite clear that in controlling the systems, there are some requirements that cannot be addressed success-
fully with the existing classical control theory. They mainly pertain to the issue of uncertainty because of the poor models
and lack of knowledge, or because high-level models have been simplied to avoid excessive computational complexity.
Intelligent control is thus needed in such cases. All control techniques that use various articial intelligent computing ap-
proaches like neural networks, fuzzy logic, machine learning, evolutionary computation, and genetic algorithms can be
put into the class of intelligent control. In this paper, we utilize GA and fuzzy logic in the controller design.
4.1. Based on GA
The control system contains a PID controller. Control gains are obtained by a real-valued GA. The procedures of the GA
operations are described below:
Population: The GA does not work on a single individual but on a population P with p individuals, which undergoes an
evolutionary process starting with the initial population P
0
. The simplest way to create P
0
is to generate p strings or chro-
mosome randomly. Each gene in the chromosome represents a specic parameter of the PID controller. The population
can be expressed as
P x
1
; . . . ; x
P
: 32
In the encoding process, we assign values for each gene within a specic range.
Selection: The selection operator S selects an individual of the given population according to its tness value. In this
paper, we chose the Roulette Wheel Selection as the selection process. This method is based on the survival of the ttest
mechanism, in which individuals with higher tness values have higher probabilities of producing an offspring. The proba-
bility is,
PS
i

f
i

k
i1
f
i
33
where f
i
is the tness value of each individual, and k is the population size.
Reproduction: This operator reproduces the selected individuals in the matting pool.
S
0
R S; 34
where S
0
is new individual and S is the selected individual in the parent generation. R is the reproduction operator.
Crossover: This operator exchanges the chromosome string of two selected individuals starting from a random index.
Here, we use the Adewuya crossover method for the crossover process. It is explained as follows:
Assume that there are two selected individuals x
pm
and x
pn
in the parent generations:
x
pm
1 2 3 ; x
pn
4 5 6 ; 35
ais the crossover position, which is an integer generated within range [1, 3] randomly; b is a real number generated within
range [0, 1] randomly.
When a = 2 and b = 0.3, the values in the parent generation x
pm
and x
pn
are 2 and 5. We substitute these parameters in (36)
x
o1
1 b x
pm
b x
pn
;
x
o2
b x
pm
1 b x
pn
:
_
36
Then x
o1
= 2.9, x
o2
= 4.1. The genes in the left side of the crossover position are invariable, while the genes in the right side of
the crossover position exchange with each other as shown in Fig. 13.
[ ] 3 1
1 o pm
x x =
[ ] 6 4
2 o pn
x x =
position crossover
position crossover
Fig. 13. Example of the Adewuya crossover law.
786 J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791
The individuals in the new generation are x
pm
and x
pn
, and the result is

x
pm
1 2:9 6 ;

x
pn
4 4:1 3 37
Mutation: This mutation operator creates one new offspring individual for the new population by randomly mutating a
randomly chosen gene of a selected individual. For example, there are p genes that represent p parameters in an individual
P = [x
1
, . . . , x
k
, . . . , x
p
], and the kth parameter is in the mutation position within range UB
k
LB
k
. The new gene is
x
knew
LB
k
r UB
k
LB
k
; 38
where r is a real number within [0, 1]. The individual after mutation is P
new
= [x
1
, . . . , x
knew
, . . . , x
p
].
Fitness function: The tness function f is used to direct the evolution in a certain direction. In fact, genetic algorithm is
merely a method of approximating the global maximum of f in the searching space of the chromosome strings. The actual
interpretation of this search space is packed into f and does not concern the algorithm itself. The tness function is
Fitness Function
q
I
ITSE
; 39
where q is a positive number and I
ITSE
is a system performance index, which is known as an integral of time multiplied by the
squared error criterion (ITSE) [27]. There are 10 individuals with three genes in the initial population. The crossover rate is
0.8, and the mutation rate is 0.025. The objective parameters of GA are K
P
, K
I
, and K
D
within the range [0, 1]. The simulations
are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. The control gains of the PID controller are obtained by the ITSE tness function, which sets up
the rise time and overshoot as the criterion. Thus, the rise time and overshoot can be improved.
4.2. Based on fuzzy controller and GA
A fuzzy controller is applied to the TRMS control. The PID controller is replaced by the fuzzy controller as shown in Fig. 16.
The structure of the fuzzy controller is shown in Fig. 17. In order to minimize the output error, the gain factors S
e
, S
ce
, S
se
and
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
horizontal simulation
Time (sec)
D
e
g
.

(
r
a
d
)
reference
system output
control signal
Fig. 14. Step response using GA-PID controller in the horizontal plane, the desired yaw angle is set to 1 rad, solid line is the actual yaw angle of the TRMS,
dash line is the control force to the TRMS.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
horizontal simulation
Time (sec)
D
e
g
.

(
r
a
d
)
re fe re nc e
syst em out put
co nt ro l si gnal
Fig. 15. Step response using GA-PID controller in the vertical plane, the desired pitch angle is set to 0.2 rad, solid line is the actual pitch angle of the TRMS,
dash line is the control force to the TRMS.
J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791 787
S
u
are tuned by GA, where e(n) = y
d
(n) y(n), De(n) = e(n) e(n 1),

e is the sum of errors, ^e S

e
e, D^e S
ce
e,

^e S
se

e
and ^ u
PID
S
u
u
PID
. Dene the linguistic variables that correspond to the input scaled variables ^e, D^e and

^e as E
i
; DE
j
;

E
k
.
The indices i, j and k represent the linguistic values or fuzzy states of the input fuzzy variables and their ranges are
i = 0, 1, 2,. . ., N1 1; j = 0, 1, 2, . . . , N2 1; k = 0, 1, 2, . . . , N3 1; where N1, N2 and N3 denote the total numbers of fuzzy states
assigned for each fuzzy variables. The fuzzy PID structure can be expressed as follows:
If
^
e is E
i
AND D
^
e is DE
j
AND

^
e is

E
k
THEN D
^
u
PID
is DU
m;PID
40
The nal controller output can be expressed by
u
PID
S
u

n
q0
D
^
u
PID
q: 41
In this work, we apply the Gaussian membership function for each control variable. The universe of discourse of each in-
put and output variables is dened to be within the range [1, 1], uniformly portioned in seven membership functions, and
Fig. 16. Fuzzy controller in the TRMS.
1
Z
PID u

PID
u
PID u

e
e
e


e e e f , ,

e e
Se
Sce
Sse
FLC
Su + +
Fig. 17. Structure of fuzzy logic controller.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
horizontal simulation
Time (sec)
D
e
g
.

(
r
a
d
)
reference
system output
control signal
Fig. 18. Step response using fuzzy controller in the horizontal plane, the desired yaw angle is set to 1 rad, solid line is the actual yaw angle of the TRMS,
dash line is the control force to the TRMS.
788 J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791
placed with 50% overlap. The number of linguistic variables used for each ^e
1
, ^e
2
and ^e
3
is seven. The parameters of the fuzzy
controller are adjusted by GA. There are four scaling factors, S
e
, S
ce
, S
se
and S
u
that need to be optimized within the range
[0, 2]. The crossover rate and mutation rate are 0.8 and 0.025, respectively. The computer simulations are shown in Figs.
18 and 19. The PID controller is replaced by the fuzzy controller, which is based on the IF THEN rule to generate the control
force for the TRMS. Thus, the control forces in Figs. 18 and 19 oscillate in the beginning for a short time, like the bangbang
control.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
horizontal simulation
Time (sec)
D
e
g
.

(
r
a
d
)
reference
system output
control signal
Fig. 19. Step response using fuzzy controller in the vertical plane, the desired pitch angle is set to 0.2 rad, solid line is the actual pitch angle of the TRMS,
dash line is the control force to the TRMS.
Fig. 20. Fuzzy compensator and PID controller in the TRMS.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
horizontal simulation
Time (sec)
D
e
g
.

(
r
a
d
)
reference
system output
control signal
Fig. 21. Step response using fuzzy compensator and PID controller in the horizontal plane, the desired yaw angle is set to 1 rad, solid line is the actual yaw
angle of the TRMS, dash line is the control force to the TRMS.
J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791 789
4.3. Based on fuzzy compensator, PID controller, and GA
The control scheme consists of a fuzzy compensator and a PID controller as shown in Fig. 20. The control parameters of
the PID controller and the fuzzy compensator are obtained by GA. The fuzzy compensator is used to compensate for the PID
control signal [28]. The fuzzy PID compensator is placed within the feedback control loop and is used to compute the PID
action through fuzzy inference. The output is used as a compensation signal for the PID controller. There are seven scaling
factors that need to be optimized. These are S
e
, S
ce
, S
se
, S
u
, K
P
, K
I
, and K
D
. The initial population contains 10 individuals within
range [0, 2]. Each individual has seven genes that represent the seven parameters. The crossover rate is set to 0.8, while the
mutation rate is 0.025. The computer simulations are shown in Figs. 21 and 22. The fuzzy compensator is used to provide
bias to the PID controller, which can improve the rise time and overshoot in Figs. 14 and 15.
5. Conclusion
In employing classical control, the rise time of the system response is small by using the pole placement method in the
horizontal part, hence achieving the steady state rapidly. However, the maximal overshoot is very large at about 50%. On the
other hand, the Z-N rule has slow response but has no overshoot. In the vertical plane, the pole placement method and gain
phase margin method will make the response oscillate, whereas the Z-N rule shows slow response and no oscillation. Com-
paring classical control and intelligent control, the latter demonstrates short settling time, small amplitude of the maximum
overshoot, smooth oscillation, and small undershoot in the vertical plane, while the classical control methods are based on
the mathematical model and involve a complicated computation process. This study also showed that the system for control
has been simplied such that conventional control schemes can be applied. Nevertheless, the simplied system will not be
totally suitable for the primitive system to control. The system for intelligent control is relatively small to limit. The experts
knowledge, experience, and manner of training can control the nonlinear system successfully. In addition, the simulation
results show that the intelligent control has better performance than classical control for the TRMS. In this paper, the uncer-
tain of the TRMS and input disturbance are not considered. This condition will highly be considered in our future work.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Science Council, Taiwan, ROC under Grant NSC 95-2221-E-019-054.
References
[1] N. Minorsky, Directional stability of automatically steered bodies, J. Am. Soc. Naval Eng. (1922) 280309.
[2] A. Callender, D.R. Hartree, A. Porter, Time-lag in a control system, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. (1936) 415444.
[3] B.C. Kuo, Automatic Control Systems, sixth ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995.
[4] J.G. Ziegler, N.B. Nichols, Optimum settings for automatic controllers, Trans. ASME (1942) 759768.
[5] R.A. Krohling, H. Jaschek, J.P. Rey, Designing PI/PID controllers for a motion control system based on genetic algorithms, in: Proceedings of the 12th IEEE
International Symposium on Intelligent Control, 1997, pp. 125130.
[6] R.A. Krohling, J.P. Rey, Design of optimal disturbance rejection PID controllers using genetic algorithms, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 5 (1) (2001) 7882.
[7] K.J. Astrom, T. Hagglud, PID Controller: Theory, Design and Tuning, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 1995.
[8] W.K. Ho, C.C. Hang, L.S. Cao, Tuning of PID controllers based on gain and phase margins specications, Automatica 31 (3) (1995) 497502.
[9] W.K. Ho, C.C. Hang, J. Zhou, Self-tuning PID control of a plant with under-damped response with specications on gain and phase margins, IEEE Trans.
Control Syst. Technol. 5 (1997) 446452.
[10] I.L. Chien, P.S. Fruehauf, Consider IMC tuning to improve controller performance, Chem. Eng. Prog. 86 (10) (1990) 3341.
[11] A. Odwyer, Handbook of PI and PID Controller Tuning Rules, Imperial College Press, London, 2003.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
horizontal simulation
Time (sec)
D
e
g
.

(
r
a
d
)
reference
system output
control signal
Fig. 22. Step response using fuzzy compensator and PID controller in the vertical plane, the desired pitch angle is set to 0.2 rad, solid line is the actual pitch
angle of the TRMS, dash line is the control force to the TRMS.
790 J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791
[12] J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Articial System, University of Michigan Press, 1975.
[13] R. Subbu, K. Goebel, D.K. Frederick, Evolutionary design and optimization of aircraft engine controllers, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. Pt. C 35 (4)
(2005) 554565.
[14] J.G. Juang, B.S. Lin, Nonlinear system identication by evolutionary computation and recursive estimation method, in: Proceedings of American Control
Conference, 2005, pp. 50735078.
[15] J.G. Juang, H.K. Chiou, Hybrid RNN-GA controller for ALS in wind shear condition, in: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man &
Cybernetics, 2006, pp. 675680.
[16] H.-J. Cho, K.-B. Cho, B.-I. Wang, Automatic rule generation using genetic algorithms for fuzzy-PID hybrid control, in: Proceedings of IEEE International
Symposium on Intelligent Control, 1996, pp. 271276.
[17] B. Hu, G.K.I. Mann, G. Raymond, New methodology for analytical and optimal design of fuzzy PID controllers, Proc. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 7 (5) (1999)
521539.
[18] Y.-S. Zhou, L.-Y. Lai, Optimal design for fuzzy controllers by genetic algorithms, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 36 (1) (2000) 9397.
[19] K. Belarbi, F. Titel, Genetic algorithm for the design of a class of fuzzy controllers: an alternative, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 8 (3) (2000) 398405.
[20] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inform. Control 8 (1965) 338352.
[21] J.T. Alander, An indexed bibliography of genetic algorithms with fuzzy logic, in: W. Pedrycz (Ed.), Fuzzy Evolutionary Computation, Kluwer Academic,
Boston, 1997, pp. 299318.
[22] C.L. Karr, Genetic algorithm for fuzzy controllers, AI Expert 6 (1991) 2633.
[23] A. Bonarini, Evolutionary learning of fuzzy rules: competition and cooperation, in: W. Pedrycz (Ed.), Fuzzy Modelling: Paradigms and Practice, Kluwer
Academic Press, Norwell, MA, 1996, pp. 265284.
[24] S.F. Lee, H.C. Lu, T.H. Hung, Optimal design GA-based fuzzy PID controllers, in: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on SMC, vol. 2, 2002, pp.
215220.
[25] Feedback Co, Twin Rotor MIMO System 33-220 User Manual, 3-000M5, 1998.
[26] W.K. Liu, Applications of hybrid fuzzy-GA controller and FPGA chip to TRMS, M.S. Thesis, Department of Communications and Guidance Engineering,
National Taiwan Ocean University, 2005.
[27] J.G. Juang, K.T. Tu, W.K. Liu, Hybrid intelligent PID control for MIMO system, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 4234 (2006) 654663.
[28] J.G. Juang, W.K. Liu, Fuzzy compensator using RGA for TRMS control, Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. 4114 (2006) 120126.
J.-G. Juang et al. / Applied Mathematics and Computation 205 (2008) 778791 791