A Fuzzy Proportional-Derivative Controller For Constraint-Bound Engineering Optimization Problems

A Fuzzy Proportional-Derivative Controller for Constraint-Bound Engineering Optimization Problems
Author: Tzu-Chi Liu, Yeh-Liang Hsu (2005-07-14); recommended: Yeh-Liang Hsu

(2004-07-19).
Note: This paper is presented at The 13th National Conference on Fuzzy Theory and Its
Applications, September.30 October.1,2005, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
A Fuzzy Proportional-Derivative Controller for

Constraint-Bound Engineering Optimization Problems
Abstract
This paper proposes a fuzzy proportional-derivative (PD) controller optimization
engine for constraint-bound engineering optimization problems. Instead of using purely
numerical information to obtain the new design point in the next iteration, engineering
knowledge and human supervision process, such as monotonicity of the design variables
and activities of the constraints, are be modeled in the optimization algorithm using fuzzy
rules. In this work, first the active constraints are identified using monotonicity analysis.
Utilizing the monotonicity of the design variables, the fuzzy PD controller optimization
engine then tries to find the design point such that all active constraints are satisfied in
strict equality. Two constraint-bound engineering design optimization examples are
presented to demonstrate this algorithm.
Keywords: constraint-bound, engineering optimization, PD control, fuzzy control
http://designer.mech.yzu.edu.tw/
1. Introduction
The optimality criteria methods are based on the derivation of appropriate optimality
criteria for specialized design [1]. Iterative numerical algorithms are then developed to find
the design that satisfies the optimality criteria. For example, one of the simplest approaches
for minimizing the weight of a statically loaded structure subject to stress constraints is the
fully stressed design (FSD) technique. This paper proposes a fuzzy proportional-derivative
(PD) controller optimization engine for constraint-bound engineering optimization
problems. In a constraint-bound optimization problem, the number of design variables
equals the number of active constraints, and the active constraints can be often be
identified by monotonicity analysis [2]. Therefore, the optimization problem becomes one
of finding the design point such that all active constraints are satisfied in strict equality.
Most real-world engineering design problems have complex phenomena and are often
hard to be expressed with a well-defined mathematical optimization model, which hinders
the use of formal numerical optimization techniques to solve these problems. Moreover,
design modifications in real-world engineering design problems are often based on
engineering heuristics and knowledge, such as monotonicity of design variables which
prevails in engineering problems. On the contrary, when solving an engineering
optimization problem using numerical optimization techniques, the engineering problem is
basically viewed as a pure mathematical optimization model. Design modifications in the
optimization process rely purely on numerical information. Engineering heuristics are
totally ignored in the numerical optimization algorithms.
This paper presents an optimization engine based on the concept of fuzzy
proportional-derivative (PD) controller, which enables the use of engineering heuristics to
generate the new design point of the next iteration in the optimization process. The
structure of an optimization algorithm is maintained to guide the engineering decision
process and to ensure an optimal solution rather than a trial and error solution can be
obtained. Hsu et. al. [3, 4] have used this algorithm to solve the optimality criterion
problem which minimizes the differences between certain system output and the target
values in several engineering optimization problems.
This paper first explains how to apply the concept of fuzzy PD controllers to
optimization algorithms. Two constraint-bound engineering design optimization examples
are presented to demonstrate this algorithm.
2. The Fuzzy PD Controller Optimization Engine

In the past two decades, the field of fuzzy controller applications has broadened to
include many industrial control applications. Fuzzy control is similar to the classic
closed-loop control approaches, but differs in that it substitutes imprecise, symbolic
notions for precise numeric measures. The fuzzy controller takes input values from the real
world. These crisp input values are mapped to the linguistic values through the
membership functions in the fuzzification step. A set of rules that emulates the
decision-making process of the human expert controlling the system is then applied using
certain inference mechanism to determine the output. Finally the output is mapped into
crisp control actions required in practical applications in the defuzzification step.
The control action in a PD controller is in the form of Equation (1), which combines
proportional and derivative control modes. The PD controller makes a control loop respond
faster and with less overshoot, and is the most popular method of control by a great
margin.
u = K Pe + Kd
de
dt
(1)
The fuzzy counterpart of the PD controller also has two inputs: system error e and
error change e . Fuzzy inference is used to compute the control signal u. Five linguistic
terms are used for each variable, NB (Negative Big), NS (Negative Small), ZE (Zero), PS
(Positive Small), and PB (Positive Big).
Figure 1 shows the block diagram of using the fuzzy PD controller as the optimization
engine in an optimization process. Comparing the initial system output y with the target
values, or the set point Y, initial error e and change of error e are input to the fuzzy PD
controller, which generates the change of design variable x for the next iteration. Then,
the system input is updated (xq+1 = xq + xq) and the new system process output yq+1 is
feedback to compare with the set point Y again.
System output y are functions of design variables x. In order to correctly update the
design variables in the next iteration, the relation between x and y should be known
empirically and modeled in the fuzzy PD controller optimization engine. The optimization
process terminates when e and e approach zero, that is, when no change in design
variables x will be generated by the fuzzy PD controller optimization engine.
In the following section, a simple hydraulic cylinder design example is used to
demonstrate how the fuzzy PD controller optimization engine is applied on
constraint-bound optimization problems.
3. A hydraulic cylinder design optimization example

Figure 2 shows a hydraulic cylinder example adapted from Principle of Optimal
Design [2]. There are 4 design variables in this example: inside diameter i, wall thickness t,
force f, and pressure p. It is desired to select i and t to minimize the outside diameter (i + 2t)
subject to some bounds. The optimal design model is summarized in Equation (2).
Force
f
Inside diameter
i
Wall thickness
t
Hydraulic fluid pressure

p
Figure 2. Hydraulic cylinder

min. i + 2t
s.t.
g 1 : Tmin t 0
g 2 : Fmin f 0
g3 :
p Pmax 0
h1 :
f ( 4)i 2 p = 0
(2)
where Tmin, Fmin, Pmax are the lower bound of thickness, the lower bound of force, and the
upper bound of pressure, respectively.
In this example, all constraints are assumed to be implicit constraints, which cannot
be written explicitly in terms of design variables. The monotonicities of the design
variables with respect to the objective and constraint functions are assumed known.
Therefore, Equation (2) can be written as
e, e
y q +1
x q +1 = x q + x q
Figure 1. Using the fuzzy PD controller in an optimization process
min. f i + , t +
s.t.
g 1 (t ) 0
g2 (f
) 0
( )
g3 p + 0
h1 (i , f + , p ) = 0
(3)
where a + sign represents that the variable is monotonically increasing with respect to
the function, and a - sign represents that variable is monotonically decreasing with
respect to the function.Table 1 is the corresponding monotonicity table for Equation (3). In
this table, a dot . means that the variable is independent to the function, and an asterisk
* means that the monotonicity of the variable is not directed in the equality constraint
[2].
Table 1. Monotonicity table
g1
g2
g3
h1
Using monotonicity analysis, this example is found to be a constraint-bound case,

that is, the number of variables equals to the number of active constraints. In this case,
there are 4 active constraints ( g 1 , g 2 , g 3 , and h1 ) and 4 variables (i, t, f, and p).
Therefore the optimization problem becomes one of finding the design point that satisfies
all 4 active constraints with strict equality. 4 simple rules are used to describe how to adjust
the monotonic design variables in order to find the design point that satisfied all active
constraints with strict equality. For monotonically increasing variables,
Rule I: IF the constraint function value is positive, THEN the variable must be
decreased.
Rule II: IF the constraint function value is negative, THEN the variable must be
increased.
Similarly, for monotonically decreasing variables,
Rule III: IF the constraint function value is positive, THEN the variable must be
increased.
Rule IV: IF the constraint function value is negative, THEN the variable must be
decreased.
These rules are further interpreted into the fuzzy rule base in Table 2 using 5 linguistic
terms: negative big (NB), negative small (NS), Zero (ZE), positive small (PS), and positive
big (PB).
The inputs to the fuzzy rule base are the constraint function values. The quantization
table, Table 3, gives quantitative definitions for the fuzzy inputs ( g 1 , g 2 , g 3 , and h1 ).
The values of the fuzzy inputs at different quantized levels are defined by the initial values
of the constraint functions. In this example, the initial values of the design variables are: i
= 100mm, t = 1mm, f = 100N, and p = 2104Pa. The parameters are: Tmin = 3mm, Fmin =
98N, Pmax = 2.45104Pa. The initial constraint function values can be evaluated by those
variables
and
g 1initial = 2 ,
parameters:
g 2initial = 2 ,
g 3initial = 0.45 10 4 ,
and
h1initial = 57.08 .
Table 2. Fuzzy rule base
Monotonically increasing variables

Rule 1
Rule 2
Rule 3
Rule 4
Rule 5
Constraint function value
NB
NS
ZE
PS
PB
Variable
PB
PS
ZE
NS
NB
Monotonically decreasing variables

Rule 6
Rule 7
Rule 8
Rule 9
Rule 10
Constraint function value
NB
NS
ZE
PS
PB
Variable
NB
NS
ZE
PS
PB
Table 3. The quantization level of the fuzzy input variables
Quantized Level
g1
g2
g3
h1
g1initial (2)
g 2initial (2)
g 3initial (0.45)
h1initial (57.08)
g1initial /2 (1)
g 2initial /2 (1)
g 3initial /2 (0.225)
h1initial /2 (28.54)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
-1
-2
- g1initial /2 (-1) - g 2initial /2 (-1) - g 3initial /2 (-0.225) - h1initial /2 (-28.54)

- g1initial (-2)
- g 2initial (-2)
- g 3initial (-0.45)
- h1initial (-57.08)
The fuzzy rule base in Table 2 is used to adjust the variables so that all active
constraints are satisfied with strict equality. For example, constraint g1 only depends on
variable t, which is monotonically decreasing with respect to g1. Since g1initial = 2 , variable
t can be adjusted by Rule III: IF the constraint function value is positive, THEN the
variable must be increased. Through defuzzification of the aggregate outputs of Rule 9
and Rule 10 using centroid of area method, the output quantized level is 1.54 for variable t.
8
The defuzzification value is compared to the quantized levels of the fuzzy output in Table 4,
where tmax, fmax, pmax, and imax are the user defined move limits of the variables in
one iteration. In this case, (tmax, fmax, pmax, imax) = (1, 5, 1, 5).
Table 4. The quantization level of the fuzzy outputs
Quantized Level
tmax
fmax
pmax
imax
tmax/2
fmax/2
pmax/2
imax/2
-1
-tmax/2
-fmax/2
-pmax/2
-imax/2
-2
-tmax
-fmax
-pmax
-imax
The constraint function values are the error inputs in the fuzzy PD controller
optimization engine. The optimization process terminates when the errors converge to zero,
that is, the active constraints are satisfied with strict equality. On the other hand, the error
change (the change of the constraint function value) reflects the trend of the constraint
functions. Considering the error change, the rules can be extended as follows:
For monotonically increasing variables,
Rule Ia: IF the constraint function value is positive and is increasing, THEN decrease
the variable strongly.
Rule Ib: IF the constraint function value is positive and is decreasing, THEN
decrease the variable softly.
Rule IIa: IF the constraint function value is negative and is increasing, THEN
increase the variable softly.
Rule IIb: IF the constraint function value is negative and is decreasing, THEN
increase the variable strongly.
For monotonically decreasing variables,

Rule IIIa: IF the constraint function value is positive and is increasing, THEN
increase the variable strongly.
Rule IIIb: IF the constraint function value is positive and is decreasing, THEN
increase the variable softly.
Rule IVa: IF the constraint function value is negative and is increasing, THEN
decrease the variable softly.
Rule IVb: IF the constraint function value is negative and is decreasing, THEN
decrease the variable strongly.
These rules are further interpreted into the fuzzy rule base with 25 rules shown in
Table 5 and Table 6.
Table 7 shows the quantization level of error change, in which
g i (x 0 )max = g i (x 0 x ) g i (x 0 )
(4)
where x is a vector of design variable and x is the vector of move limits of the variables.
The plus-minus sign depends on the monotonicity of the variable to ensure that
g i (x 0 )max is always positive. If the variable is monotonically increasing in the function,
the sign will be +, and vice versa. In this example, g 1 (x 0 )max = 1 , g 2 (x 0 )max = 5 ,
g 3 (x 0 )max = 1 , and h1 (x 0 )max = 19.20 .
The termination criterion is that all active constraints approach to zero with a
tolerance of 0.01. This example terminates after 31 iterations. Figure 3 shows the iteration
histories of the constraint functions. The numerical results t = 3mm, f = 98N, p=2.45
104Pa, i = 71.4mm are close to the analytical solution t* =3.00 mm, f* = 98.02N, p* = 2.45
104Pa, I* = 71.61mm. Note that in this process, each constraint is evaluated 33 times,
including two evaluation to construct Table 3 and Table 7. No sensitivity information is

required.
10
Table 5. Rule base for the monotonically increasing variables
PB
PS
ZE
NS
NB
PB
NB
NB
ZE
PS
PS
PS
NB
NS
ZE
PS
PS
ZE
NB
NS
ZE
PS
PB
NS
NS
NS
ZE
PS
PB
NB
NS
NS
ZE
PB
PB
Table 6. Rule base for the monotonically increasing variables
PB
PS
ZE
NS
NB
PB
PB
PB
ZE
NS
NS
PS
PB
PS
ZE
NS
NS
ZE
PB
PS
ZE
NS
NB
NS
PS
PS
ZE
NS
NB
NB
PS
PS
ZE
NB
NB
Table 7. The quantization level of the fuzzy input variables
Quantized Level
g1
g2
g3
h1
g1 (x 0 )max
g 2 (x 0 )max
g 3 (x 0 )max
h1 (x 0 )max
g1 (x 0 )max 2
g 2 (x 0 )max 2
g 3 (x 0 )max / 2
h1 (x 0 )max / 2
-1
g 1 (x 0 )max 2
g 2 (x 0 )max / 2
g 3 (x 0 )max / 2
h1 (x 0 )max / 2
-2
g 1 (x 0 )max
g 2 (x 0 )max
g 3 (x 0 )max
h1 (x 0 )max
11
12
Figure 3. The iteration histories of the constraint functions

13
4. An air tank design optimization example

Figure 4 and Equation (5) shows a cylindrical air tank optimal design example [2].
The objective is to minimize the material used m, which depends on the inside radius r, the
shell thickness s, the shell length l, and the head thickness h. The volume of the tank has to
be larger than a specified volume (constraint g1); the thicknesses of the head and the wall
have to satisfy the ASME code (g2, g3), and there are constraints on the size of the tank (g4,
g5, g6).
Figure 4. Air tank design
[(
min . m = 2rs + s 2 l + 2(r + s ) h

2
s.t. g 1 : 2.12 10 7 r 2 l 0
g 2 : 130 10 3 r h 0
14
g 3 : 9.59 10 3 r s 0
g 4 : 10 l 0
g 5 : r + s 150 0
g 6 : l 610 0
(5)
Using monotonicity analysis, it can be found that this is a constraint-bound problem

and the 4 active constraints are g1, g2, g3, and g6. Therefore the optimization problem again
becomes one of finding the design point that satisfies all 4 active constraints with strict
equality.
In this example, the initial values of the variables are: h = 10cm, l = 500cm, r =
150cm, and s = 3cm. The error (initial constraint function values) can be evaluated by
those variables g 1initial = 1.41 10 7 , g 2initial = 9.50 , g 3initial = 1.56 , and g 6initial = 110 .
The maximum allowable change value of the variables (h, l, r, s) are 5, 50, 50, and 1,
respectively. The error change calculated by Equation (4) are g 1 (x 0 )max = 2.12 10 7 ,
g 2 (x 0 )max = 11.5 , g 3 (x 0 )max = 1.48 , g 1 (x 0 )max = 50 . This example terminates after
34 iterations. Each constraint is evaluated 36 times, and no sensitivity information is
required. Table 8 shows the numerical results and analytical solution of the design
variables. Figure 5 shows the iteration histories of the constraint functions.
Table 8. Numerical results and analytical solution

h (cm)
l (cm)
r (cm)
s (cm)
Numerical results
13.67
610.00
105.18
1.01
Analytical Solution
13.71
609.00
105.35
1.01
15
16
Figure 5. The iteration histories of the constraint functions
17
5. Conclusion
In his paper, the fuzzy PD controller optimization engine is used to solve two for
constraint-bound engineering optimization examples. Besides the results presented in the
paper, the algorithm appears to be effective and stable on different initial designs and move
limits.
The full potential of the fuzzy PD controller optimization engine is not realized yet.
More constraint-bound examples should be tested, and the algorithm should be extended to
more general optimization problems.
6. Reference
[1] Rao, S. S. Engineering Optimization, Theory and Practice, 3rd Ed., John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. 1996.
[2] Papalambros, P., and Wilde D. J. Principles of Optimal Design Modeling and
Computation, 2nd Ed., Cambridge University Press, 2000.

[3] Hsu Y. L., Liu T. C., Thibault F., Lanctot B., Design Optimization of the Blow
Moulding Process Using Fuzzy Optimization Algorithm, Proceedings of the I MECH
E Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 218, No. 2, 1 February 2004, p.
197-212(16).
[4] Hsu, Y. L., Liu, T.C. and Liu, T. L. A Fuzzy Proportional Derivative Controller for
Engineering Optimization Problems Using Optimality Criteria Approach, accepted,
Engineering Optimization, November 2004.
18

A Fuzzy Proportional-Derivative Controller For Constraint-Bound Engineering Optimization Problems

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Fuzzy Proportional-Derivative Controller For Constraint-Bound Engineering Optimization Problems

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Fuzzy Proportional-Derivative Controller for Constraint-Bound Engineering Optimization Problems

Author: Tzu-Chi Liu, Yeh-Liang Hsu (2005-07-14); recommended: Yeh-Liang Hsu