2015 15th International Conference on Control,Automation and Systems (lCCAS 2015)

Oct. 13-16,2015 in BEXCO,Busan,Korea

Performances Evaluation and Comparison of PID Controller and Fuzzy Logic Controller for
Process Liquid Level Control
l 2
Asst. Prof. Mrs. Deepa Shivshant Bhandare and Dr. Prof. Mrs. N. R.Kulkarni
I Ph. D. Student, Department of Electrical Engineering, Modem College of Engineering, Pune University,
Pune-05, India (deepal.phdelect@gmail.com)
2 H.O.D. Department of Electrical Engineering, Modem College of Engineering, Pune University,

Pune-05, India (nrkmcoe@gmail.com)

Abstract: Tank level control systems can be found everywhere. It is essential for control systems engineers to
understand how tank control system work and how the level control problems are solved. In industrial control systems
the liquid level is carrying its significance as the control action for level control in tanks containing different chemicals
or mixtures is essential for further control linking set points.
All the real systems exhibits non-linear nature, conventional controllers are not always able to provide good and
accurate results. Fuzzy Logic Control is used to obtain better response. Fuzzy Logic is a paradigm for an alternative
design methodology, which can be applied in developing both linear and non-linear systems for embedded control. By
using fuzzy logic, designers can realize lower development costs, superior features, and better end product performance.
One of the successful applications that used fuzzy control is tank liquid level control.
In this paper, we take the liquid level water tank, and use MATLAB to design a Fuzzy Control. Then we analyze the
control effect and compare it with the effect of PID controller. As a result of comparison, Fuzzy Control is superior to
PID control. Especially it can give more attention to various parameters, such as the time of response, the error in
steady state and overshoot. Comparison of the resultant control response from these two systems indicated that the
fuzzy logic controller significantly reduced overshoot and steady state error.

Keywords: PID Controller, Fuzzy Logic Controller, Simulink, System model.

1. INTRODUCTION
Manipulated variables Controlled Variable (Level)
1.1 Liquid level controller
In control systems there are a number of generic
systems and methods which are encountered in all areas
of industry and technology. From the dozens of ways to Control Element (Valve) Measuring means (Liquid
control any system, it turns out that fuzzy is often the level sensor)
very best way. The only reasons are faster and cheaper.
The control of the liquid level in tanks and flow
between tanks is a basic problem in the process
industries. The process industries require liquid to be Set point
pumped, stored in tanks, and then pumped another tanl....
Many times the liquids will be processed by chemical or
mixing treatment in the tanks, but always the level of Fig.1 A typical industrial Liquid Level control system
fluid in the tanks must be controlled, and the flow
between tanks must be regulated. Often the tanks are so 1.2 Liquid storage tank
coupled together that the levels interact and this must Fig.2 shows a storage tank of constant cross sectional
also be controlled. The primary question at that time
area a.
was: "What the fuzzy logic control does that the
conventional cannot do?"Here we concentrate on fuzzy
logic control ( one of the Intelligent Control Technique)
as an alternative control strategy to the current
proportional - integral - derivative (PID) method
- - - ---c
widely used in industry[I].
Level and flow control in tanks the heart of all h(m)
chemical engineering system. Vital industries [2] where
liquid level and flow control are essential include:

Petro-chemical Industries

Nuclear power plant [3] R
Water treatment Industries -----t><1-/-...",---+- qo (m3/s)
Consider a generic liquid level control application
Fig.2 Storage tank
shown in Fig. I.

978-89-93215-09-0/15/$31.00 @lCROS 1347

The density of the liquid is assumed to be constant. The 2. DESIGNING OF PID CONTROLLER
exit pipe resistance is R. The exit flow qo can be AND FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLER
laminar or turbulent (nonlinear).For a laminar flow, qo
=h/R, and for a turbulent flow, qo =Kh ll2, where K is the For designing PID and Fuzzy logic controller, the
discharge coefficient [4]. subsystems are designed in Simulink. The Subsystem's
description is as follow.
1.3 Model equation
Water enters a tank from the top and leaves through an 2.1 Subsystem's Description
orifice in its base as shown in Fig.3. The rate that water
2.1.1 Valve
enters is proportional to the voltage, V, applied to the
pump. The rate that water leaves is proportional to the The water flow level can be controlled by using
square root of the height of water in the tank [5]. limited integrator in the simulated valve subsystem may
be shown as in FigA.

J k
Wet..:r , ..
bV I
co ntrol

Tcmk
/
x
2 r------- out fl=...
sour ce flow Prod'u d:

Water o .. t
FigA Block diagram of valve subsystem

i-- 2.1.2 Water Tank

am The Simulink block diagram for the water tank may be

Fig.3 Schematic Diagram for the Liquid-Tank shown in Fig.5.

System

Overflow $enSOf flag

A differential equation for the height of liquid in the

tank, H, is given by Eq. (I)
water
level

... (1)

Where Vol is the volume of liquid in the tank, 'A' is

volu me
the cross-sectional area of the tank, 'b' is a constant
related to the flow rate into the tank, and 'a' is a
constant related to the flow rate out of the tank. The Eq.
(1) describes the height of liquid, H, as a function of Fig.5 Block diagram of water tank
time, due to the difference between flow rates into and
2.1.3 Water tank Subsystem
out of the tank. The Eq. (1) contains one state, H, one
input, V, and one output, H. It is nonlinear due to its The water tank model as shown in Fig.6 consists of
dependence on the square-root of H. Linearizing the
model, using Simulink Control Design, simplifies the
analysis of this model. The level is sensed by a suitable
r-------tllOput outu,r----r---.J D
sensor and converted to a signal acceptable to the
controller. The controller compares the level signal to De,red Scop.
WalerLe1<e1 Conroller
the desired set-point and actuates the control element.
The control element alters the manipulated variable to
change position of the valve so that the quantity of
liquid being added can be controlled in the process. The
objective of the controller is to regulate the level as
close to the set point as possible.
Fig.6 Block diagram of water tank subsystem

1348
 The water-tank system itself. 2.2 The FIS Editor
A Controller subsystem to control the height of water. We have defined two Inputs for the Fuzzy Controller.
in the tank by varying the voltage applied to the pump. One is Level of the liquid in the Tank denoted as "level"
A reference signal that sets the desired water level. and the other one is rate of change of liquid in the Tank
A Scope block that displays the height of water as a denoted as "rate". Both these Inputs are applied to the
function of time. Rule Editor [6, 7]. According to the Rules written in the
Double-click a block to view its contents. The Rule Editor the controller takes the action and governs
Controller block contains a simple proportional integral the opening of the Valve which is the Output of the
derivative controller. controller and is denoted by "valve". It may be shown in
Fig.9.
2.1.4 Water-Tank System Block
The circuitry for the water tank system may be shown
in Fig.7.The Eq. (1) describes the height of water, H, as
a function of time, due to the difference between flow
rates into and out of the tank. 'A' is the cross-sectional
area of the tank, 'b' is a constant related to the flow rate
into the tank, and 'a' is a constant related to the flow
rate out of the tank. Values of the parameters are given
as a=2 cm25/s,A=20 cm2, b=5 cm3/(sV )

Fig.9 Mamdani type Fuzzy Controller

Output
2.3 The Membership Function Editor
The Membership Function Editor shares some features
with the FIS Editor [8, 9 and 10]. In fact, all of the five
basic GUI tools have similar menu options, status lines,
and Help and Close buttons. The Membership Function
A SqUilrE!
Editor is the tool that lets you display and edits all of the
Root
membership functions associated with all of the input
and output variables for the entire fuzzy inference
Fig.7 Block diagram of water tank system system [11, 12].

2.1.5 Controller block 2.3.1 Fuzzy Set characterizing the Input

The circuitry for the controller of water tank may be A) Level (Range: -I to I)
shown as in Fig.8. For the Fuzzy Controller there are
o kay 10
two Inputs. One is the liquid level and the other is the
rate of change of liquid level in the tank. The output of
the controller governs the opening or closing of the
valve. The liquid level is sensed by the liquid level 0.5
sensors and the rate of change is calculated by the
derivative of the level signal after that the limits of
which are decided by a saturation non-linearity.
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
in put variable "lever
Fig.IO Gaussian membership function Fuzzy Set
Proportional Characterizing the Level input
Gain
B) Rate (Range: -1 to 1)
neg tive none po s ive
e Integral 1
Int"ll .ator
Gain

0.5
Derivative Derivative
Gain Divisor

-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Filta in put variable "rate"
Fig.8 Block diagram of PTD controller Fig.11 Gaussian membership function Fuzzy Set
Characterizing the rate input

1349
2.3.2 Fuzzy Set Characterizing the Output 3.1 Simulation Results: Response of Liquid Level
Use triangular membership function types for the Controller using PID Controller
output. First, set the Range (and the Display Range) to
(-1 1), to cover the output range. Your system should
look something like this n Fig.I2.

-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

o utput variable "valve"
Fig.l2 Triangular membership function Fuzzy Set
Characterizing the Valve output (Range: -1 to 1)
2.3.3 The Rule Editor
Constructing rules using the graphical Rule Editor
interface is fairly self-evident. Based on the descriptions
of the input and output variables defmed with the FIS
Editor, the Rule Editor allows you to construct the rule
statements automatically, by clicking on and selecting
one item in each input variable box, one item in each
output box, and one connection item [9]. Choosing none
as one of the variable qualities will exclude that variable
Fig.IS Simulation result using PID controller (Pink
line shows PID response and Yellow one indicates
desired level).
From Fig. 15 it is seen that PID controllers drives the
system unstable due to mismatch error generated by the
inaccurate time delay parameter used in the plant model.
Transients & overshoots are present when PID
controller is used to control the liquid level.
3.2 Simulation Results: Response of Liquid Level
Controller using Fuzzy Logic Controller

from a given rule. Rule editor for tank system is as

shown in Fig.l3.

Rule Editor: t a n k

File Edit View Options

e' D ka e va c an
2. If (level is low) then (valve is open_fast) (1)
3. If (level is high) then (valve is close_fast) (1)
4. If (level is okay) and (rate is posive) then (valve is close_slow) (1)
5. If (level is okay) and (rate is negative) then (valve is open_slow) (1)

Fig.13 Rule editor

Fig.I6 Surface Viewer
3. SIMULATION RESULTS
Fig.16 shows the surface viewer indicating 3D
graphical realization of the fuzzy rule base.

Fig.17 Simulation result using Fuzzy Logic controller

Fig.14 Simulink block diagram for the (Pink line shows fuzzy response and Yellow one
comparison between Fuzzy and PID Simulation indicates desired level).

1350
 From Fig. 17, FLC provide good performance in terms
of oscillations and overshoot in the absence of a
prediction mechanism. The FLC algorithm adapts
quickly to longer time delays and provides a stable
Response.
Fig. 18 Transient Response of Fuzzy and PID
controllers
Fig.18 shows the comparison of fuzzy and PID
controller transient response for 1m desired level (Green
line shows PID response, Pink line shows fuzzy
response and Yellow one indicates desired level). It is
clear from the graph that the PID controller has a large
overshoot compared to the fuzzy controller and also
takes a lot of time to stabilize at the desired level. Fuzzy
logic on the other hand, has little overshoot and steady
state error and stabilizes quickly providing accurate
level control. We find that the advantages and
disadvantages of PID control and fizzy control just
offset each other. We can use fuzzy controller for rapid
control (coarse adjustment) and then use PID controller
for accurate control (fine tune).
4. DISCUSSION
The FLC is applied to the plant described above in
Fig. 14. Obtained FLC simulation results are plotted
against with that of conventional controller PID
controller for comparison purposes in Fig.l8. The
simulation results are obtained using a 5 rule FLC. For
comparison purposes, simulation plots include a
conventional PID controller, and the fuzzy algorithm.
As expected, FLC provide good performance in terms
of oscillations and overshoot in the absence of a
prediction mechanism. The FLC algorithm adapts
quickly to longer time delays and provides a stable
response while the PID controllers drives the system
unstable due to mismatch error generated by the
inaccurate time delay parameter used in the plant model.
From the simulations, in the presence of unknown or
possibly varying time delay, the proposed FLC shows a
significant improvement in maintaining performance
and preserving stability over standard PID method.
To strictly limit the overshoot, using Fuzzy Control
can achieve great control effect. As a result of
comparing, Fuzzy Control is superior to PID control.
Especially it can give more attention to various
parameters, such as the time of response, the error of
steadying and overshoot. Comparison of the control
1351
results from these two systems indicated that the fuzzy
logic controller significantly reduced overshoot and
steady state error. Comparison results of PID and FLC
are shown in Table no.1 below.
Table no.l The overall performance parameter of
PID controller and FLC
Parameter PID FLC
Overshoot Present Not Present
Settling More Less
Transient Present Not Present
Rise Time Less More
5. CONCLUSION
The FLC simulated on a level control problem with
promising results can be applied to an entirely different
industrial level controlling apparatus. Here FLC and
PID both are applied to the same exactly modeled level
control system and simulation results are obtained. The
result shows significant improvement in maintaining
performance over the widely used PID design method in
terms of oscillations produced and overshoot. As seen
from the graphs drawn in figs. 15 and 17, 18 the rise
time in case of PID controller is less but oscillations
produced and overshoot and settling time is more. But
in case of fuzzy logic controller, oscillations and
overshoot and settling time are low, so FLC can be
applied where oscillations cannot be tolerated in the
process. The FLC exhibits robust performance for plants
with significant variation in dynamics.
Fuzzy Logic method focuses on what the system
should do rather than trying to understand how it works.
One can concentrate on solving the problem rather
trying to model the system mathematically, if that is
even possible. This ahnost invariably leads to quicker,
cheaper solutions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was partially supported by Mr. Shivshant S.
Bhandare.
REFERENCES
[1] Y. Peng, J. Luo, J. Zhuang, C. Wu, "Model
reference fuzzy adaptive PID control and its
applications in typical industrial processes",
"IEEEIICAL", pp.896-90l, Sep. 2008.
[2] P. J.King and E. H.Mamdani, "The application
of fuzzy control to industrial process," Automatica,
Volume 13, Issue 3, May 1977, Pages 235-242.
[3] Z. Zhi, H. Lisheng, "Performance assessment for
the water level control system in steam generator of the
nuclear power plant", "IEEEICCC'. pp.5842-5847, July
2011.
[4] 'Process dynamics and control' by S.Sundaram,
Cengage Learning, India.
[5] T. E. Marlin, 'Process Control: designing
processes and control systems for dynamic
performance', 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, 2000.
[6] E.H. Mamdani, "Advances in the linguistic
synthesis of fuzzy controllers", International Journal of
Man Machine Studies 8 (1976) 669-678.
[7] E.H. Mamdani, "Applications of fuzzy logic to
approximate reasoning using linguistic synthesis", IEEE
Transactions on Computers 26112 (1977) 1182-119l.
[8] Chuen Chien Lee, "Fuzzy logic in control systems
i.e. fuzzy logic controller", IEEE Transactions on
Systems, man and cybernetics, Volume 20, No.2,
March/April 1990.
[9] S. N. Sivanandam, S. Sumathi and S. N. Deepa,
"Introduction to Fuzzy Logic using MATLAB",
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007.
[10] User's Guide of Matlab for Fuzzy Logic
Toolbox.2012.B.
[II] T.J. Ross, "Fuzzy Logic with Engineering
Applications", 2nd Ed, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, 2004.
[12] J. Harris, "Fuzzy Logic Applications m
Engineering Science", Springer, 2006.

1352