See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314668494

A nonlinear fuzzy PID controller via algebraic

product AND-maximum OR-Height
defuzzification

Conference Paper · September 2016

DOI: 10.1109/TechSym.2016.7872657

CITATIONS READS

0 14

3 authors:

Arun Neelimegham Murali Bosukonda

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
12 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 613 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ritu Raj
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur
6 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fuzzy Controllers: Modelling and Analysis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ritu Raj on 25 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Nonlinear Fuzzy PID Controller via Algebraic
Product AND-Maximum OR-Height Defuzzification
N K Arun
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, India 721 302
Email: neelimegham@ee.iitkgp.ernet.in
B M Mohan
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, India 721 302
Email: mohan@ee.iitkgp.ernet.in
Ritu Raj
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, India 721 302
Email: riturajsam@gmail.com

Abstract—This paper reveals a new mathematical model of
the simplest fuzzy PID controller which employs two fuzzy sets
(negative and positive) on each of the three input variables (error,
change in error and double change in error) and four fuzzy sets
(−2, −1, +1, +2) on the output variable (incremental control). L
- type, Γ - type and Π - type membership functions are considered
in fuzzification process of input and output variables. Controller
modeling is done via algebraic product AND operator-maximum
OR operator-Height (Ht) defuzzification process combination.
The new model obtained in this manner turns out to be nonlinear,
and its properties are studied.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Conventional (linear) PID controllers have been in extensive
use in industrial automation and process control. The reason
behind this is their ease of design, low cost, simplicity of
operation, inexpensive maintenance and effectiveness for most
of the linear plants. These controllers generally do not work
well for nonlinear systems, higher order linear systems, delay
systems and systems which are complex and vague having
no precise mathematical models. To overcome this difficulty,
various kinds of modified linear PID controllers such as auto
tuned and adaptive PID controllers have been developed.
Alternatively, controllers employing fuzzy logic have also been
tried upon sometimes.
We now present the historical developments in fuzzy control
technology. A fuzzy PID controller has been constructed [1]
by combining a fuzzy PD controller and a fuzzy I controller
in parallel. It has been shown [3] that PID controllers can
be realized by product-sum-gravity method and simplified
fuzzy reasoning method. Analytical structure for a fuzzy PID
controller and its Bounded - Input - Bounded - Output (BIBO)
stability analysis have been studied [4]. Fuzzy PI and fuzzy
PD controllers have been combined in parallel to get a fuzzy
PID controller [5]. In order to improve the performance in
transient and steady states, an adaptive method via function
tuner has been developed [6] to tune the scaling factors of
the fuzzy controller online. Tuning of fuzzy PID controller
parameters using gain margin and phase margin specifications
has been proposed [7].
Several forms of decomposed PID fuzzy logic controllers
have been tested and compared [8]. A function-based evalu-
ation approach has been proposed [9] for a systematic study
of fuzzy PID controllers. An adaptive method via relative rate
observer has been proposed [10] for tuning the scaling factors
of the fuzzy logic controller online.
It has been shown that algebraic product triangular norm
- bounded sum triangular co - norm - algebraic product
inference method - Centre of Sums (CoS) defuzzification
method combination leads to a linear fuzzy PID controller
[11]. It has been shown that the analytical structures of fuzzy
PID controllers derived via minimum triangular norm are
not suitable for control [12]. Mohan and Arpita [13] have
introduced an analytical structure for fuzzy PID controller by
employing algebraic product triangular norm, bounded sum
triangular co - norm, Mamdani minimum inference method
and CoS defuzzification method. They also have derived
conditions for BIBO stability using the Small Gain theorem.
Mohan and Neethu [14] have presented a nonlinear fuzzy PID
controller model by using algebraic product triangular norm,
bounded sum triangular co - norm, Larsen product inference
method and CoS defuzzification.
Stabililty analysis of parallel fuzzy P plus fuzzy I plus fuzzy
D control systems was done with the help of mathematical
models of the controllers [15]. A simple design method for
interval type-2 fuzzy PID controllers was presented with
the help of analytical structures of the controllers [16]. A
performance-driven approach has been proposed [17] for gain
tuning of fuzzy PID controller for multi input multi output
systems.
Till date all researchers have used the CoS method only to
find the mathematical models of fuzzy PID controller. The
Ht method of defuzzification is computationally attractive and
satisfies other desirable properties in the context of control.
Mathematical models of fuzzy controller (usually nonlinear)
give better performance than that of conventional PID con-
trollers when applied to nonlinear plants. Further, the models
can be easily implemented on general digital platforms like
Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA), digital computer
etc. This will avoid the requirement of dedicated hardware
or software to implement fuzzy controllers. The existing
controller structures in FPGA or digital computer can be easily
replaced with the nonlinear fuzzy controller models. So, in this
paper an attempt is made to derive a new nonlinear fuzzy PID
controller model using the combination of algebraic product
AND - maximum OR - Ht defuzzification.

The paper is organized as follows: The next section deals with
fundamental components of a typical fuzzy PID controller.
Section III presents a mathematical model of nonlinear fuzzy
PID controller. Properties of the model are described in
Section IV. The computational aspects of the fuzzy controller
are discussed in Section V. Section VI concludes the paper.
II. P RINCIPAL C OMPONENTS OF A TYPICAL F UZZY PID
C ONTROLLER
The incremental control effort generated by a discrete-time
PID controller is given by:
∆u(k) = KPd ∆e(k) + KId e(k) + KD
d
∆2 e(k)
∆u(k) = ∆es (k) + es (k) + ∆2 es (k)
where ∆u(k) = u(k) − u(k − 1), ∆e(k) = e(k) − e(k − 1),
∆2 e(k) = ∆e(k) − ∆e(k − 1) and
KPd , KId and KD d
are respectively the proportional, integral
and derivative constants of discrete-time PID controller. The
inputs to fuzzy PID controller are shown in Fig. 1. The block
diagram of a typical fuzzy PID controller is shown in Fig. 2
−1
in which Se , S∆e , S∆2 e and S∆u represent the scaling factors
of the fuzzy controller. The scaled inputs are given by es (k)
= Se · e(k), ∆es (k) = S∆e · ∆e(k) and ∆2 es (k) = S∆2 e ·
∆2 e(k). The principal components of fuzzy PID controller
are fuzzification and defuzzification modules, and control rule
base which are described in the following.

0

 if −He ≤ es (k) ≤ −he
es (k)+he
µPe (es (k)) = if −he ≤ es (k) ≤ he (4)
 2he
1 if he ≤ es (k) ≤ He

Similarly, the mathematical descriptions of the other member-
ship functions on two scaled inputs ∆es (k) and ∆2 es (k) can
be defined. Notice that µNe (es (k)) + µPe (es (k)) = 1, ∀es (k).
This is true for the other two inputs. The output variable is
fuzzified by L - type, Π - type and Γ membership functions
and are shown in Fig. 4, where ∆us (k) = S∆u · ∆u(k).
These membership functions were used by the researchers
extensively for deriving the mathematical models of fuzzy
(1)
controllers. It is also possible to use nonlinear member-
(2) ship function like Gaussian type for obtaining mathematical
models. However, such a choice will restrict the usage of
other components of fuzzy controller while deriving their
mathematical models. Moreover, the models obtained by using
L - type, Π - type and Γ - type membership functions in the
literature are nonlinear and were applied to control linear as
well as nonlinear plants.

Fig. 3. Input membership functions

Fig. 1. Inputs of fuzzy PID controller

Fig. 2. Block diagram of a typical fuzzy PID controller

Fig. 4. Output membership functions

A. Fuzzification Module
The inputs are fuzzified by L - type and Γ - type mem- B. Control Rule Base
bership functions [2], shown in Fig. 3, whose mathematical Total eight (23 ) rules are required as there are two fuzzy
description is given by sets defined on each of the three input variables. In this paper
 rules having the same consequent part are merged into one
1

 if −He ≤ es (k) ≤ −he rule. As there are four fuzzy sets defined on output variable
µNe (es (k)) = −es2h (k)+he
e
if −he ≤ es (k) ≤ he (3) we have the following four control rules :

0 if he ≤ es (k) ≤ He R1 : IF es (k) is Ne AND ∆es (k) is N∆e AND ∆2 es (k) is

N∆2 e THEN ∆us (k) is ∆U−2 (B − 0.5A) · (µ+2 − µ−2 ) + B3 · (µ+1 − µ−1 )
= (5)
R2 : IF (es (k) is Ne AND ∆es (k) is N∆e AND ∆2 es (k) is µ−2 + µ−1 + µ+1 + µ+2
P∆2 e ) OR (es (k) is Ne AND ∆es (k) is P∆e AND ∆2 es (k) where p(j) represents the peak value of the j th fuzzy set of the
is N∆2 e ) OR (es (k) is Pe AND ∆es (k) is N∆e AND output. Peak values of the fuzzy sets ∆U−2 , ∆U−1 , ∆U+1 and
∆2 es (k) is N∆2 e ) THEN ∆us (k) is ∆U−1 ∆U+2 are −(B − 0.5A), −B B
3 , 3 and (B − 0.5A) respectively.
R3 : IF (es (k) is Ne AND ∆es (k) is P∆e AND ∆2 es (k) is
P∆2 e ) OR (es (k) is Pe AND ∆es (k) is N∆e AND ∆2 es (k) III. M ATHEMATICAL M ODELS OF THE S IMPLEST F UZZY
is P∆2 e ) OR (es (k) is Pe AND ∆es (k) is P∆e AND ∆2 es (k) PID CONTROLLER
is N∆2 e ) THEN ∆us (k) is ∆U+1
For simplicity let h1 = he , h2 = h∆e , h3 = h∆2 e , x1
R4 : IF es (k) is Pe AND ∆es (k) is P∆e AND ∆2 es (k) is
= es (k), x2 = ∆es (k), and x3 = ∆2 es (k). Then upon
P∆2 e THEN ∆us (k) is ∆U+2
substituting the values of µ−2 , µ−1 , µ+1 and µ+2 defined in
Algebraic product t - norm is considered to perform the AND Table I in Eq. (5), we have the following expressions:
operation in the rule base and is defined as N
∆us (k) = D
Algebraic product: t(µA (x), µB (y)) = µA (x) · µB (y) where
Maximum t - co - norm is considered to perform the OR Case 1: In cells (1, 2, 3), (1, 3, 4), (2, 3, 1), (3, 1, 2), (3, 4, 1),
operation in the rule base and is defined as (4, 1, 3)
Maximum: s(µA (x), µB (y)) = max{µA (x), µB (y)} N = S1 B
D=3
We consider all possible combinations of three input vari-
ables in a 3D space. A point, say (xl , yl , zl ), in a 3D and S1 defined in Table I. Here S1 is the sign term either + or
space can always be distinctly shown by taking its projections −. Such a term is introduced here to present the mathematical
on the xy, yz and zx planes. So, as shown in Fig. 5, models in all the possible cells in a concise manner.
twenty input combinations are considered in each input plane Case 2: In cells (2, 2, 2), (4, 4, 4)
(es (k)∆es (k), ∆es (k)∆2 es (k) and ∆2 es (k)es (k)) so that the
N = S1 (2B − A)
input point (es (k), ∆es (k), ∆2 es (k)) can be uniquely located
in the 3D cell (subspace) represented by the triplet (na , nb , nc ) D=2
where na , nb , nc = 1, 2, 3, ..., 20. For example, the triplet (9, Case 3: In cells (1, 7, 9), (1, 8, 10), (3, 11, 5), (3, 12, 6)
11, 20) represents the 3D cell with 9 from (a), 11 from (b),
and 20 from (c) of Fig. 5. A cell is said to be valid if and N = S1 Bx3
only if the relations between es (k) and ∆es (k), and ∆es (k) D = 3h3
and ∆2 es (k) produce the relation between ∆2 es (k) and es (k).
For example, the cell (13, 14, 16) is a valid cell because by Case 4: In cells (2, 7, 6), (2, 8, 5), (4, 11, 10), (4, 12, 9)
combining the relations |∆es (k)| ≥ es (k) (valid in 13 of Fig. N = (4B − 3A)x3 + S1 (8B − 3A)h3
5(a)) and |∆2 es (k)| ≥ |∆es (k)| (valid in 14 of Fig. 5(b)) will
D = 12h3
produce the relation |∆2 es (k)| ≥ es (k) which is valid in 16
of Fig. 5(c). The control rules R1 to R4 are used to evaluate Case 5: In cells (5, 2, 8), (6, 2, 7), (9, 4, 12), (10, 4, 11)
appropriate control law in each valid cell (na , nb , nc ). Let the N = (4B − 3A)x1 + S1 (8B − 3A)h1
outcomes of premise parts of rules R1 , R2 , R3 and R4 be µ−2 ,
µ−1 , µ+1 and µ+2 respectively. By using the algebraic product D = 12h1
triangular norm and the maximum triangular co - norm, the Case 6: In cells (5, 3, 11), (6, 3, 12), (9, 1, 7), (10, 1, 8)
values of µ−2 , µ−1 , µ+1 and µ+2 are found in each valid cell
N = S1 Bx1
and shown in Table I.
D = 3h1
C. Defuzzification Module Case 7: In cells (7, 6, 2), (8, 5, 2), (11, 10, 4), (12, 9, 4)
Defuzzification is done here using the Ht method. Ht N = (4B − 3A)x2 + S1 (8B − 3A)h2
method is used instead of the popular CoS defuzzification
D = 12h2
because it gives simpler yet nonlinear expressions for the
control law. According to this method [2], the defuzzified value Case 8: In cells (7, 9, 1), (8, 10, 1), (11, 5, 3), (12, 6, 3)
of scaled control output is given by N = S1 Bx2
P4 (j)
∗ j=1 p · µj D = 3h2
∆us (k) = P4
j=1 µj Case 9: In cells (5, 7, 16), (5, 7, 17), (5, 8, 18), (6, 7, 15),
Fig. 5. (a) es (k) − ∆es (k) plane, (b) ∆es (k) − ∆2 es (k) plane, and (c) ∆2 es (k) − es (k) plane of 3 - dimensional scaled input space.

TABLE I
O UTCOMES OF ALGEBRAIC PRODUCT AND AND MAXIMUM OR AND ATTRIBUTES OF S1 IN DIFFERENT CELLS
Cells µ−2 µ−1 µ+1 µ+2 S1
Case a: All three inputs lie in the outer cuboid
(1,2,3),(2,3,1),(3,1,2) 0 1 0 0 −
(1,3,4),(3,4,1),(4,1,3) 0 0 1 0 +
(2,2,2) 1 0 0 0 −
(4,4,4) 0 0 0 1 +
Case b: One input lies in the inner cuboid and two inputs lie in the outer cuboid
(1,7,9),(1,8,10),(3,11,5),(3,12,6) 0 N∆2 e P∆2 e 0 +
(2,7,6),(2,8,5) N∆2 e P∆2 e 0 0 −
(4,11,10),(4,12,9) 0 0 N∆2 e P∆2 e +
(5,2,8),(6,2,7) Ne Pe 0 0 −
(5,3,11),(6,3,12),(9,1,7),(10,1,8) 0 Ne Pe 0 +
(7,6,2),(8,5,2) N∆e P∆e 0 0 −
(7,9,1),(8,10,1),(11,5,3),(12,6,3) 0 N∆e P∆e 0 +
(9,4,12),(10,4,11) 0 0 Ne Pe +
(11,10,4),(12,9,4) 0 0 N∆e P∆e +
Case c: Two inputs lie in the inner cuboid and one input lies in the outer cuboid
(5,7,16),(5,7,17),(5,8,18),(6,7,15) Ne N∆2 e Pe N∆2 e Pe P∆2 e 0 −
(5,8,19),(6,7,14),(6,8,13),(6,8,20) Ne N∆2 e Ne P∆2 e Pe P∆2 e 0 −
(7,14,6),(8,13,6),(8,19,5),(8,20,6) N∆e N∆2 e P∆e N∆2 e P∆e P∆2 e 0 −
(7,15,6),(7,16,5),(7,17,5),(8,18,5) N∆e N∆2 e N∆e P∆2 e P∆e P∆2 e 0 −
(9,11,13),(9,11,20),(9,12,14),(10,11,19) 0 Ne N∆2 e Ne P∆2 e Pe P∆2 e +
(9,12,15),(10,11,18),(10,12,16),(10,12,17) 0 Ne N∆2 e Pe N∆2 e Pe P∆2 e +
(11,13,9),(11,19,10),(11,20,9),(12,14,9) 0 N∆e N∆2 e P∆e N∆2 e P∆e P∆2 e +
(11,18,10),(12,15,9),(12,16,10),(12,17,10) 0 N∆e N∆2 e N∆e P∆2 e P∆e P∆2 e +
(13,6,8),(14,6,7),(19,5,8),(20,6,8) Ne N∆e Pe N∆e Pe P∆e 0 −
(13,9,11),(14,9,12),(19,10,11),(20,9,11) 0 Ne N∆e Pe N∆e Pe P∆e +
(15,6,7),(16,5,7),(17,5,7),(18,5,8) Ne N∆e Ne P∆e Pe P∆e 0 −
(15,9,12),(16,10,12),(17,10,12),(18,10,11) 0 Ne N∆e Ne P∆e Pe P∆e +
Case d: All three inputs lie in the inner cuboid
−he ≤ es (k) ≤ he , −h∆e ≤ ∆es (k) ≤ h∆e , −h∆2 e ≤ ∆2 es (k) ≤ h∆2 e
(13,14,16), (14,14,15), (19,13,16),(19,13,17)
Ne N∆e N∆2 e Pe N∆e N∆2 e Pe P∆e N∆2 e Pe P∆e P∆2 e +
(19,19,18),(19,20,17),(20,14,16), (20,14,17)
(13,15,16),(13,15,17),(13,16,18),(14,15,15)
Ne N∆e N∆2 e Pe N∆e N∆2 e Pe N∆e P∆2 e Pe P∆e P∆2 e +
(19,18,18),(20,15,17),(20,16,18)(20,17,18)
(13,16,19),(13,17,19), (14,15,14),(14,16,13)
Ne N∆e N∆2 e Ne N∆e P∆2 e Pe N∆e P∆2 e Pe P∆e P∆2 e +
(14,16,20), (14,17,20),(19,18,19),(20,17,19)
(15,14,14), (16,13,14), (16,19,13),(16,20,14)
Ne N∆e N∆2 e Ne P∆e N∆2 e Ne P∆e P∆2 e Pe P∆e P∆2 e −
(17,19,13),(17,19,20),(17,20,14),(18,19,19)
(15,14,15), (16,13,15), (17,13,15),(17,20,15)
Ne N∆e N∆2 e Ne P∆e N∆2 e Pe P∆e N∆2 e Pe P∆e P∆2 e −
(18,13,16),(18,19,18),(18,20,16),(18,20,17)
(15,15,14), (15,16,13), (15,17,20),(15,17,13)
Ne N∆e N∆2 e Ne N∆e P∆2 e Ne P∆e P∆2 e Pe P∆e P∆2 e −
(16,18,13),(16,18,20),(17,18,20),(18,18,19)
(9, 11, 13), (9, 11, 20), (9, 12, 14), (10, 11, 19) (16, 13, 15), (17, 13, 15), (17, 20, 15), (18, 13, 16),
N = (10B − 3A)h1 x3 + S1 (2B − 3A)x1 x3 + (6B − (18, 19, 18), (18, 20, 16), (18, 20, 17), (19, 18, 19),
3A)(h3 x1 + S1 h1 h3 ) (20, 17, 19)

D = 6[3h1 h3 + x1 x3 + S1 {h1 x3 − h3 x1 }] N = (8B − 3A)h2 h3 x1 + (4B − 3A)x1 x2 x3 + (6B −

Case 10: In cells (5, 8, 19), (6, 7, 14), (6, 8, 13), (6, 8, 20),
(9, 12, 15), (10, 11, 18), (10, 12, 16), (10, 12, 17)
N = (10B − 3A)h3 x1 + S1 (2B − 3A)x1 x3 + (6B −
3A)(h1 x3 + S1 h1 h3 )
3A)h1 (h2 x3 + h3 x2 ) + S1 2Bx1 (h2 x3 − h3 x2 )
D = 6[2h1 h2 h3 + x1 (h3 x2 + h2 x3 ) + S1 h1 (h2 x3 − h3 x2 )]
IV. P ROPERTIES OF THE S IMPLEST F UZZY PID
CONTROLLER

D = 6[3h1 h3 + x1 x3 + S1 {h3 x1 − h1 x3 }] Fuzzy controller presented in the previous section possesses

Case 11: In cells (7, 14, 6), (8, 13, 6), (8, 19, 5), (8, 20, 6), certain interesting properties which are discussed here.
(11, 18, 10), (12, 15, 9), (12, 16, 10), (12, 17, 10) 1. The control surface generated by ∆us (k) is continuous at
N = (10B − 3A)h2 x3 + S1 (2B − 3A)x2 x3 + (6B − any point in the 3D input space.
3A)(h3 x2 + S1 h2 h3 ) 2. The magnitude of incremental control effort increases
monotonically as the distance of the input point increases from
D = 6[3h2 h3 + x2 x3 + S1 {h2 x3 − h3 x2 }]
the origin of 3D input space.
Case 12: In cells (7, 15, 6), (7, 16, 5), (7, 17, 5), (8, 18, 5), 3. Fuzzy PID controller is a nonlinear controller.
(11, 13, 9), (11, 19, 10), (11, 20, 9), (12, 14, 9)
4. Fuzzy PID controller is a variable structure controller as its
N = (10B − 3A)h3 x2 + S1 (2B − 3A)x2 x3 + (6B −
structure is different in different input cells.
3A)(h2 x3 + S1 h2 h3 )
5. The minimum incremental control effort, given by −(B −
D = 6[3h2 h3 + x2 x3 + S1 {h3 x2 − h2 x3 }] 0.5A), occurs at (es (k), ∆es (k), ∆2 es (k)) =
Case 13: In cells (13, 6, 8), (14, 6, 7), (15, 9, 12), (16, 10, 12), (−he , −h∆e , −h∆2 e ).
(17, 10, 12), (18, 10, 11), (19, 5, 8), (20, 6, 8) 6. The incremental control effort is zero at the origin of 3D
N = (10B − 3A)h1 x2 + S1 (2B − 3A)x1 x2 + (6B − input space.
3A)(h2 x1 + S1 h1 h2 ) 7. The maximum incremental control effort, given by (B −
D = 6[3h1 h2 + x1 x2 + S1 {h1 x2 − h2 x1 }] 0.5A), occurs at (es (k), ∆es (k), ∆2 es (k)) = (he , h∆e , h∆2 e ).
Case 14: In cells (13, 9, 11), (14, 9, 12), (15, 6, 7), (16, 5, 7), V. C OMPUTATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE S IMPLEST F UZZY
(17, 5, 7), (18, 5, 8), (19, 10, 11), (20, 9, 11) PID C ONTROLLER
N = (10B − 3A)h2 x1 + S1 (2B − 3A)x1 x2 + (6B − Conventional PID controllers are still widely used in in-
3A)(h1 x2 + S1 h1 h2 ) dustries because they provide control output quickly. The
D = 6[3h1 h2 + x1 x2 + S1 {h2 x1 − h1 x2 }] computational delay introduced by them in the loop is almost
insignificant. In fact, it is the smallest when compared with any
Case 15 : In cells (13, 14, 16), (14, 14, 15), (15, 15, 14), other control scheme. It can be seen from the mathematical
(15, 16, 13), (15, 17, 13), (15, 17, 20), (16, 18, 13), model of PID controllers (Eq. 2) that they require only two
(16, 18, 20), (17, 18, 20), (18, 18, 19), (19, 13, 16), mathematical operations (additions). But conventional PID
(19, 13, 17), (19, 19, 18), (19, 20, 17), (20, 14, 16), controllers do not work satisfactorily for nonlinear, higher
(20, 14, 17) order and time - delay systems. Nonlinear controllers like
N = (8B − 3A)h1 h3 x2 + (4B − 3A)x1 x2 x3 + (6B − fuzzy controllers will provide better performance for such
3A)h2 (h1 x3 + h3 x1 ) + S1 2Bx2 (h3 x1 − h1 x3 ) systems. As the mathematical models of the simplest fuzzy
PID controller via Ht defuzzification are available, we can find
D = 6[2h1 h2 h3 + x2 (h3 x1 + h1 x3 ) + S1 h2 (h3 x1 − h1 x3 )]
the number of mathematical operations and memory locations
Case 16 : In cells (13, 15, 16), (13, 15, 17), (13, 16, 18), required during their implementation. The number of such
(14, 15, 15), (15, 14, 14), (16, 13, 14), (16, 19, 13), mathematical operations and memory locations required for
(16, 20, 14), (17, 19, 13), (17, 19, 20), (17, 20, 14), the fuzzy controller presented in this paper is explained here.
(18, 19, 19), (19, 18, 18), (20, 15, 17), (20, 16, 18), The expression for the simplest fuzzy controller in cell
(20, 17, 18) (13, 14, 16) (Case 15 of section III) is
N = (8B − 3A)h1 h2 x3 + (4B − 3A)x1 x2 x3 + (6B − Nc4 x2 +Nc5 x1 x2 x3 +Nc7 x3 +Nc8 x1 +2Bx2 (h3 x1 −h1 x3 )
∆us (k) = Dc1 +Dc2 x1 −Dc3 x3 +x2 (h1 x3 +h3 x1 )
3A)h3 (h1 x2 + h2 x1 ) + S1 2Bx3 (h2 x1 − h1 x2 )
which requires 26 operations (16 multiplications, 7 additions,
D = 6[2h1 h2 h3 + x3 (h1 x2 + h2 x1 ) + S1 h3 (h2 x1 − h1 x2 )] 2 subtractions and 1 division and these have to be computed
Case 17 : In cells (13, 16, 19), (13, 17, 19), (14, 15, 14), online)
(14, 16, 13), (14, 16, 20), (14, 17, 20), (15, 14, 15), where Nc1 = 3A which requires 1 operation (multiplication)
and 1 memory location,
Nc2 = h1 h2 which requires 1 operation (multiplication) and
1 memory location,
Nc3 = h2 h3 which requires 1 operation (multiplication) and
1 memory location,
Nc4 = (8B − Nc1 )h1 h3 which requires 4 operations (3
multiplications and 1 subtraction) and 1 memory location,
Nc5 = 4B −Nc1 which requires 2 operations (1 multiplication
and 1 subtraction) and 1 memory location,
Nc6 = 6B −Nc1 which requires 2 operations (1 multiplication
and 1 subtraction) and 1 memory location,
Nc7 = Nc6 Nc2 which requires 1 operation (multiplication)
and 1 memory location,
Nc8 = Nc6 Nc3 which requires 1 operation (multiplication)
and 1 memory location,
Dc1 = 12Nc2 h3 which requires 2 operations (2 multiplica-
tions) and 1 memory location,
Dc2 = 6Nc3 which requires 1 operation (1 multiplication) and
1 memory location, and
Dc3 = 6Nc2 which requires 1 operation (multiplication) and
1 memory location,
The total number of mathematical operations and mem-
ory locations required during implementation of the fuzzy
controller to compute ∆us (k) at k th instant are 43 and
11, respectively. The mathematical operations and memory
locations required during implementation of the simplest fuzzy
controller via CoS defuzzification, presented in [18], in cell
(13, 14, 16) are 53 and 16, respectively. Thus, as far as com-
putational aspects are concerned, fuzzy controller presented in
this paper is better than the fuzzy controller presented in [18].
Fuzzy controller presented in [18] will provide smooth control
effort when compared to that of controller presented in this
paper. However, depending on the problem at hand it is always
possible to tune the controller models using evolutionary
optimization algorithms to achieve desired performance.
From the mathematical models of fuzzy controller in differ-
ent cells presented in Section III, it can be observed that the
computational and memory burden on digital controller is the
same when all the three inputs lie in the inner cuboid (Case d
in Table I) and is the highest when compared to that in Cases
a, b, and c. This is true even for fuzzy controller presented in
[18]. As we are comparing the computational and memory
burdens on digital computer during the implementation of
different classes of fuzzy controllers it is good enough to
consider the cell (13, 14, 16) where the computational effort is
maximum. The number of mathematical operations required to
compute es (k) and ∆es (k), and ∆2 es (k) using e(k), e(k −1),
e(k − 2), Se , S∆e and S∆2 e is the same for both the simplest
fuzzy PID controllers, and hence they are not counted here in
the relative assessment.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a new mathematical model for a fuzzy PID
controller has been derived using L - type, Γ - type and Π -
View publication stats
type fuzzy membership functions, algebraic product triangular
norm, maximum triangular co - norm, and Ht defuzzification
method. The model obtained is shown to be nonlinear. The
model obtained is computationally attractive and has all the
desirable properties in the context of control like continuity
and monotonicity. Optimal values of controller parameters can
be found using evolutionary algorithms to achieve desired
performance of the closed - loop system. However, as the
controller expressions are simple, the control effort may not
be very smooth in comparison to that of existing controllers.
The sufficient conditions for BIBO stability with the derived
analytical structures of fuzzy PID controllers in the loop can be
established by applying small gain theorem. This is currently
under investigation.
R EFERENCES
[1] P. Wang and D. P. Kwok, Analysis and synthesis of an intelligent control
system based on fuzzy logic and the PID principle, Intelligent Systems
Engg., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 157-171, 1992.
[2] D. Driankov, H. Hellendoorn and M. Reinfrank, An Introduction to Fuzzy
Control, Narosa Publishing House, New Delhi, 1993.
[3] M. Mizumoto, Realization of PID controls by fuzzy control methods,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 70, no.2-3, pp. 171 -182, 1995.
[4] D. Misir, H. A. Malki, and G. Chen, Design and analysis of a fuzzy
proportional - integral - derivative controller, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 297-314, 1996.
[5] J. H. Kim and S. J. Oh, A fuzzy PID controller for nonlinear and uncertain
systems, Soft Computing, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 123-129, 2000.
[6] Z. W. Woo, H. Y. Chung, and J. J. Lin, A PID type fuzzy controller with
self-tuning scaling factors, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 115, no. 2, pp.
321-326, 2000.
[7] J. X. Xu, C. C. Hang, and C. Liu, Parallel structure and tuning of a fuzzy
PID controller, Automatica, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 673-684, 2000.
[8] M. Golob, Decomposed fuzzy proportional-integral-derivative controllers,
Applied Soft Computing, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 201-204, 2001.
[9] B. G. Hu, G. K. I. Mann, and R. G. Gosine, A systematic study of fuzzy
PID controllers - function-based evaluation approach, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Systems, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 699-712, 2001.
[10] M. Guzelkaya, I. Eksin, and E. Yesil, Self-tuning of PID-type fuzzy logic
controller coefficients via relative rate observer, Engg. Appl. Artificial
Intelligence, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 227-236, 2003.
[11] B. M. Mohan and S. Arpita, The simplest fuzzy PID controllers:
mathematical models and stability analysis, Soft Computing, vol. 10, no.
10, pp. 961-975, 2006.
[12] B. M. Mohan and S. Arpita, Analytical structures for fuzzy PID
controllers?, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 52-60, 2008.
[13] B. M. Mohan and S. Arpita, Analytical structure and stability analysis of
a fuzzy PID controller, Appl. Soft Computing, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 749-758,
2008.
[14] B. M. Mohan and K. Neethu, A nonlinear fuzzy PID controller via
algebraic product AND - bounded sum OR - algebraic product inference,
Int. J. Scientific and Engg. Research, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 1-6, 2012.
[15] K. Vineet, A. P. Mittal, and R. Singh, Stability analysis of parallel fuzzy
P + fuzzy I + fuzzy D control systems, Int. J. Automation and Computing,
vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 91-98, 2013.
[16] T. Kumbasar, A simple design method for interval type-2 fuzzy PID
controllers, Soft Computing, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 1293-1304, 2014.
[17] P. Gil, C. Lucena, A. Cardoso, and L. B. Palma Gain tuning of fuzzy PID
controllers for MIMO systems: a performance-driven approach, IEEE
Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 757-768, 2015.
[18] N. K. Arun, B. M. Mohan, and Neethu Kuruvilla A nonlinear fuzzy
PID controller via algebraic product AND-maximum OR-Larsen product
inference, Proc. 4th International Conference on Advances in Control and
Optimization of Dynamical Systems, NIT Tiruchirappalli, India, February
1-5, 2016.