;: ....

FUZZY
sets

ELSEVIER

and

systems

Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

Design and analysis of a fuzzy proportional-integral-derivative

controller
D a v e M i s i r a, H e i d a r A . M a l k i b,,, G u a n r o n g

Chen a

a Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA

b Electrical-Electronics Technology, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA

Received October 1994; revised February 1995

Abstract

This paper describes the design principle, tracking performance and stability analysis of a fuzzy proportional-integral
(PI) plus a derivative (D) controller. First, the fuzzy PI+D controller is derived from the conventional continuous-time
linear PI+D controller. Then, the fuzzification, control-rule base, and defuzzification in the design of the fuzzy controller
are discussed in detail. The resulting controller is a discrete-time fuzzy version of the conventional PID controller,
which has the same linear structure in the proportional, integral and derivative parts but has nonconstant gains: the
proportional, integral and derivative gains are nonlinear functions of the input signals. The new fuzzy PI+D controller
thus preserves the simple linear structure of its conventional counterpart yet enhances the self-tuning control capability.
Computer simulation results have demonstrated the advantages of the fuzzy controller, particularly when the process to be
controlled is nonlinear. After a brief stability analysis, where a simple and realistic sufficient condition for the boundedinput/bounded-output stability of the overall feedback control system was derived, several computer simulation results
are shown to compare with the conventional PI+D controller. Computer simulation results have shown the new fuzzy
controller indeed has satisfactory tracking performance.
Keywords: Control theory; Engineering; Process control; Membership functions; Fuzzy control systems; PID controllers;

Stability analysis

I. Introduction

Fuzzy control systems have been investigated in many technical and industrial applications since its introduction by Mamdani [13,14]. In effect, fuzzy logic have been increasingly and successfully applied to many
commercial applications as described by Berenji [1]. Fuzzy-logic-based controllers can be divided into three
main categories: (1) fuzzy logic controllers, in which fuzzy inference and if-then logical rules are employed
without using precise mathematical models; (2) fuzzy logic controllers, whose structure is designed based

v:~This work was supported in part by the Energy Laboratory and the Institute for Space Systems Operations, University of Houston.
* Corresponding author.
0165-0114/96/$15.00 (~ 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
SSD1 01 65-0114(95)00149-2

298

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

Fig. 1. The conventionalcontinuous-timePI+D control system.

on fuzzy logic with precise mathematical models [2, 12, 20]; (3) fuzzy-logic and conventional-technique
combined controllers, used to self-tune control parameters, for example, PID parameters [21, 24]. In all the
three categories mentioned above, fuzzy-logic-based controllers have proved to be very effective, particularly
for ill-posed problems, linguistically controlled devices, complex systems without exact mathematical models,
highly nonlinear systems, and systems with significant uncertainties.
Most of the fuzzy controllers used today are implemented based on the designer's experience, not on rigorous theoretical methods. This raises the concern about reliability, controllability and stability of these fuzzy
controllers. It is therefore important to explore design methods for fuzzy controllers using precise mathematical models that have assured stability, reliability, and controllability etc. This work and some of the present
authors' earlier work [4, 5, 12] aim at designing fuzzy controllers of this type.
Conventional PID controllers have been extensively used in industry, due to their effectiveness for linear
systems, ease of design and inexpensive cost. It was reported by Yamamoto and Hashimoto in 1991 [18]
that in Japan, for example, more than 90% of all control loops are of PID type. Despite their effectiveness
for linear systems, conventional PID controllers are not suitable for nonlinear systems and higher-order and
time-delayed systems, not to mention complex and vague systems that require expert knowledge. For these
reasons, it is worth developing fuzzy-logic-based controllers which have the capability to handle not only
linear but also nonlinear, as well as ill-defined, systems.
This paper is an extension of the fuzzy PI controller [5, 20] and fuzzy PD controller [12] developed recently
by the present authors and other researchers. The fuzzy PI+D controller developed here follows the practical
approach of the conventional PI+D controller design method [3], as shown in Fig. 1. This structure of a PI
plus D controller preserves the basic properties and merits of the general PID controller, but has a simple
configuration similar to the fuzzy PI and PD controllers: it has four simple fuzzy if-then rules for each of
the PI and the D control components. Basic characteristics of the proposed design that may differ from other
fuzzy or nonfuzzy PID-type controllers include the following:
(1) It has the same linear structure as the conventional PI+D controller, but has nonconstants gains: the
proportional, integral, and derivative gains are nonlinear functions of the input signals.
(2) The controller is designed based on the precise mathematical model of a discrete PI+D controller, from
which the fuzzy control law is derived.
(3) Membership functions are simple triangular ones with only four fuzzy logic if-then rules, for each of
the PI and the D control components.
(4) The fuzzification, control-rule execution and defuzzification steps are all embedded in the final product
of the fuzzy control law, which is an explicit conventional formula, so that the fuzzification-rulesdefuzzification routine is not needed at all the process control steps.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, the derivation of the fuzzy control law is shown
in detail. Then, the basic framework of the fuzzy PI+D controller, including the fuzzification, fuzzy control
rule base and defuzzification, will be established in Section 3. Section 4 is devoted to a stability analysis of
the proposed fuzzy controller and Section 5 includes simulation results with comparisons to the conventional
PI+D controller. Finally, some remarks are given in the conclusion section.

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

299

2. Derivation of the fuzzy PI+D control law

We have used a fuzzy PI+D control units arrangement, called the derivative-of-output, as shown in Fig. 1.
This arrangement is often desirable if the reference input contains discontinuities [3]. Therefore, the derivation
of the fuzzy control law is performed in two steps: one for the output of the fuzzy PI controller and the other
for the output of the fuzzy D controller. The final control law combines these two individual control laws
together in an appropriate way, as described in more detail in the following sections.
The fuzzy PI+D controller that we design is a digital controller. Hence, we start with a continuous conventional PI+D controller and then use the standard bilinear transform to convert it to the corresponding digital
controller. The next two sections discuss in detail this procedure.
2.1. Derivation o f the f u z z y PI controller

The output of the conventional analog PI controller in the frequency s-domain, as can be verified easily
from Fig. 1, is given by

where Kp and Ki~ are the proportional and integral gains, respectively, and E ( s ) is the tracking error signal.
This equation can be transformed into the discrete version by applying the bilinear transformation s =
( 2 / T ) ( z - 1)/(z + 1), where T > 0, is the sampling period, which results in the following form:

Up1(2)= K;

K#r
~

Kcr )

177-_1 E(z).

Letting
c
Kp = X;

KicT
2

and

K i = K i cT

and then taking the inverse z-transform, we have

upi(nT) - ur,i(nT - T ) = Kp[e(nT) - e ( n T - T)] + K i e ( n T ) .

(1)

Dividing Eq. (1) by T, we obtain

AupI(nT) = Kpev(nT) + Kiep(nT),

(2)

where
Aupt(nT) =

ev(nT) =

upl(nT) - Upl(nT - T )

'

(3)

e(nT) - e(nT - T)

'

ep(nT) = e ( n T ) .

(4)
(5)

More precisely, A u p i ( n T ) is the incremental control output of the PI controller, ep(nT) the error signal, and
ev(nT) the rate of change of the error signal.
We can rewrite Eq. (3) as
upl(nT) = upt(nT - T ) + T A u p l ( n T ) .

(6)

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

300

In the design of the fuzzy PI controller to be discussed later, we will replace the term T A u p r ( n T ) by a fuzzy
control action KuPlAUpl(nT), so that
upl(nT) = upl(nT -- T) + Ku,,Aupl(nT),

(7)

where Kupl is a fuzzy control gain to be determined later in the design.

2.2. Derivation o f the f u z z y D controller

The D controller in the PI+D control system, as shown in Fig. 1, has y as its input and UD as its output.
It is clear that

UD(S) =

sK~r(s),

(8)

where K~ is the control gain and Y(s) is the output signal. Under the bilinear transformation, Eq. (8) becomes
2z-~
UD(Z)- T z - ~ K ~ Y ( z ) ,

(9)

or

_ K C 2 1 - z -I
UD(Z) -- d-~ 1 -+Z -I Y ( z ) .

(10)

Consequently, we have
2K~

u o ( n T ) + u o ( n T - T) = - - T - [ y ( n T ) - y ( n T - T)].

(11)

Then, dividing Eq. (11) by T yields

AuD(nT) = KdA y(nT),

(12)

where
AuD(nT) =

u o ( n T ) + uD(nT -- T )
T

(13)

is the incremental control output of the fuzzy D controller,

A y(nT) =

y ( n T ) - y ( n T - T)
T

(14)

is the rate of change of the output y, and

Kd -

2K3

(15)

As will be further described in the fuzzification section, we modify Eq. (12) by adding the signal K y d ( n T )
to its right-hand side, where
yd(nT) = y(nT) - r(nT) = -e(nT),

(16)

in order to obtain correct control rules, so that (12) becomes

AUD(nT) = K d A y ( n T ) + K y d ( n T ) .

(17)

D. Misiret al./FuzzySetsandSystems79(1996)297-314

301

We always use K = 1 to simplify the design in this paper. Note that from (13), i.e.,
Auo(nT) =

uD(nT) + uD(nT -- T)

we have
uD(nT) = --uD(nT -- T ) + T A u D ( n T ) ,

or, when A u D ( n T ) becomes a fuzzy control action later in the new design, we
gain, which will be determined later in the design, and rewrite it as

use

KuD as a fuzzy control

(18)

uD(nT) = --uD(nT -- T ) + K u o A u D ( n T ) .

2.3. Combination o f the f u z z y PI + D controller

Finally, the overall fuzzy PI+D control law can be obtained by algebraically summing the fuzzy PI control
law (Eq. (7)) and fuzzy D law (Eq. (18)) together. The result is

UplD(nT)= upl(nT)- uD(nT),

or
(19)

UpiD(nT) ---- Upi(nT - T ) + Kup, AUpl(nT) + uD(nT -- T ) - KuoAuD(nT).

Eq. (19) will be referred to as the fuzzy PI+D control law throughout the paper.
The overall conventional PI+D control system is shown in Fig. 2. To this end, the fuzzy PI and fuzzy
D controllers will be inserted into Fig. 2, resulting in the configuration shown in Fig. 3. For simplicity of
notation and presentation, we have omitted all the samplers in these figures.
r(nT)

-ep(nT)+~ , ~
Auet(nT)

i ln

=~-~

Auo(nT)

Ay(nT)

Fig. 2. The conventional digital PI+D control system.

Process

y(nT)

302

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

r(nT) +

ue(nT)

_~:

J:

Fig. 3. The fuzzy PI+D control system.

3. Fuzzification, control rule base, and defuzzification

In this section, we follow the standard procedure of fuzzy controllers design, which consists of fuzzification,
control rule base establishment, and defuzzification.
3.1. Fuzzification

We fuzzify the PI and D components of the PI+D control system individually and then combine the desired
fuzzy control rules for each of them, taking into consideration the overall PI+D fuzzy control law given in Eq.
(19). Similar to the fuzzy PI controller [20], the input and output membership functions of the PI component
are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively.
The fuzzy PI controller employs two inputs: the error signal, ep(nT), and the rate of Change of the error
signal, ev(nT). The fuzzy PI controller has a single output, called the incremental control output and is denoted
by Aupi(nT ), as shown in Fig. 5, where the constant L > 0 is chosen by the designer and is fixed after being
determined.
If we look at the fuzzy control law for the D component (Eq. (12)), the only information it contains that
is relevant to the output performance is A y ( n T ) . Based on this signal alone, it is not possible to come up
with a practically useful fuzzy control action. We therefore look for another control signal that can be used
in conjunction with A y ( n T ) , which should provide information about if the output is above or below the
reference signal (setpoint). For this purpose, a logical and natural choice is the negative error signal (16),
namely,
.......
y d ( n T ) -----y ( n T ) - r ( n T ) ---- - e ( n T ) .

Here, it is important to observe that Yd positive (resp. negative) means that the system output y is above
(resp. below) the reference r. This Yd control signal is implemented as shown by the path with a - 1 block
in Fig. 3 (compared with Fig. 2).
The input and output membership functions for the fuzzy D controller are shown in Figs. 6 and 7,
respectively.

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

ep, eu positi,~e

output negative

303

output ~1
z~'o

e;~ ft.
Fig. 4. The input membership functions for the PI component.

.,o..tive

11/

Yd,Ay positive

-L

t
~0

L output signal Aupl(nT)

Fig. 5. The output membership functions for the PI component.

output negative

- -

Fig. 6. The input membership functions for the D component.

output pmitive

output ~ l
zero

output positive

output signal Aut~(nT)

Fig. 7. The output membership functions for the D component.

3.2. Fuzzy control rules

Using the aforementioned membership functions, the following control rules are established for the fuzzy
PI controller:
(R1) IF ep -- ep - n AND ev = ev n THEN PI-output = o . n.
(R2) IF ep = ep n AND ev = ev . p THEN PI-output = o .z.
(R3) IF ep = ep p AND ev -- ev - n THEN PI-output = o z.
(R4) IF ep = ep - p AND ev = ev p THEN PI-output = o . p.
In these rules, ep : = r - y is the error, ev = @ = 0 - 3) -- -3) is the rate of the error, "PI-output" is the fuzzy
PI control output Aupl(nT), "% p " means "error positive" and " o . p " means "output positive" etc. Also,
"AND" is the Zadeh's logical "AND" [22].
Similarly, from the membership functions of the fuzzy D controller, the following control rules are used
for the D component:
(R5) IF Yd = Y d ' P AND A y = A y . p THEN D-output = o . z.
(R6) IF Yd = Yd " P AND A y = A y . n THEN D-output = o - p.
(R7) IF Yd = Yd ' n AND A y = A y . p THEN D-output = o . n .
(R8) IF Yd = Yd " n AND A y = A y n THEN D-output = o z.
In the above rules, "D-output" is the fuzzy D control output AuD(nT), and the other terms are defined
similarly to the PI component.
These eight rules altogether yield the control actions for the fuzzy P I + D control law.
The formulation of these rules can be understood as follows. For Rule 1 (R1): if we look at this rule
for the PI controller, condition ep. n (the error is negative) implies that the systems output, y, is above the
setpoint, and ev - n (rate of error negative) implies )~ > 0 (meaning that the controller at the previous step is
driving tl~e system output upward). Since the Aupi(nT) component of Eq. (19) contains more control terms
with gain parameters than the D controller, we set this term to be negative and set the Auo(nT) component
to be zero. Thus, the combined control action will drive the system output downward by Rules 1 and 5 of
both controllers.
We note that we could have set the output of the D controller to be positive in order to drive the output
down faster. However, having both controllers' outputs being nonzero at the same time will complicate the

304

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

design of the controller. Computer simulations have convinced us that the simple design described above
performs sufficiently well in all numerical examples tested.
Similarly, for Rule 2 (R2), since the output is above the setpoint and moving downwards, we set the "larger"
component of Eq. (19), namely, the term Aupi(nT), to be zero, and the "smaller" component AuD(nT) to be
positive. Thus, the combined controller will tend to drive the system output down faster by these two rules.
Rules 3 and 4 are similarly determined.

3.3. Defuzzification
In the defuzzification step, for both fuzzy PI and D controllers, the commonly used "center of mass" formula
[12, 20] is employed to defuzzify the incremental control of the fuzzy control law (Eq. (19)):

Au(nT) = ~{membership value of input x output corresponding to the membership value of input}
~{membership value of input}

(20)
For the fuzzy PI controller, the value-ranges of the two inputs, the error and the rate of change of the error,
are actually decomposed into 20 adjacent input-combination (IC) regions, as shown in Fig. 8. This figure is
understood as follows: We put the membership function of the error signal (given by the curves for ep in
Fig. 4) over the horizontal Ki ep(nT)-axis on Fig. 8, and put the membership function of the rate of change
of the error signal (given by the same curves in Fig. 4 for ev) over the vertical Kp. ev(nT)-axis on Fig. 8.
These two membership functions then overlap and form the third-dimensional picture (which is not shown
in Fig. 8) over the two-dimensional regions shown in Fig. 8. When we look at region IC1, for example, if
we look upward to the Ki ep(nT)-axis, we see the domain [0,L] and the membership function (in the third
dimension) over [0,L] of the error signal; if we look leftward to the Ko ev(nT)-axis, we see the domain
[-L, 0] and the membership function (in the third dimension) over [-L, 0] of the rate of change of the error
signal.
The control rules for the fuzzy PI controller (R1)-(R4), with membership functions and IC regions together,
are used to evaluate appropriate fuzzy control law's for each region.
In so doing, we consider the locations of the error Ki - ep(nT) and the rate Kp ev(nT) in the regions IC1
and IC2 (see Fig. 8). Let us look at region IC1, for example, where ep(nT) is in the range [0,L] and ev(nT)
in [-L,0]. For these two signals, we have ev-n > 0.5 > ep-n (see Fig. 4). Hence, Fig. 4 and (R1), where
Zadeh's logical "AND" is used, together lead to
{"error = ep. n AND rate = ev. n"} = min{ep .n, ev. n} = ep. n.
Therefore, Rule 1 (R1) yields
~'the selected input membership value is ep.n;
(R1) ~ the corresponding output membership value is o . n .
Similarly, in region IC1, Rules 2-4, (R2)-(R4), and Zadeh's logical "AND" used in (R2)-(R4) together
yield
(R2)
(R3)

the selected input membership value is ep.n;

the corresponding output membership value is o-z.
f t h e selected input membership value is ev .n;
the corresponding output membership value is o.z.

(R4) ~ the selected input membership value is ev p;

( the corresponding output membership value is o . p .

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

305

It can be verified that the above are true for the two regions IC1 and IC2. Thus, in regions IC1 and IC2, it
follows from the defuzzification formula (20) that
A u p l ( n T ) = ep . n o . n + ep "n x o . z - { - e v . n o . z + e v . p x o . p
ep'n+ep'n+ev.n+ev,

It is very important to note that if one follows the above procedure to work through the two cases, he will
find that both the first two cases give the same result of ep. n (i.e., the two ep. n in the above formula are not
the misprints of ep n and ep p!). To this end, by applying o p = L, o n = - L , o z = 0 (obtained from
Fig. 5), and the following straight line formulas from the geometry of the membership functions associated
with Fig. 8:
ep p =

Ki e p ( n T ) + L
2L
,

ep n =

-Ki . ep(nT) + L
2L
'

ev p =

Kp . e v ( n T ) + L
2L
,

ev n =

-Kp . ev(nT) + L
2L
'

we obtain
L
A u p i ( n T ) = 2(2L - Ki e p ( n T ) ) [Ki" e p ( n T ) + Kp . ev(nT)] .

Here, we note that ep(nT)>~O in regions IC1 and IC2. In the same way, one can verify that in regions IC5
and IC6 we have
L
A u e l ( n T ) = 2(2L + Ki. e p ( n T ) ) [Ki " e p ( n T ) + Kp . e v ( n T ) ] ,

where it should be noted that ep(nT)<~ 0 in regions IC5 and IC6. Hence, by combining the above two formulas
we arrive at the following result for the four regions IC1, IC2, IC5, and IC6:
Aupl(nT) = L[Kiep(nT) + Kpev(nT)]
2(2L - Kilep(nT)[)

Working through all regions in the same way, we obtain the following formulas for the 20 IC regions:
Aupl(nT)

L[Kiep(nT)+Kpev(nT)]
2(2L - K i l e p ( n T ) l )
L[Kiep(nT) + Kpev(nT)]

2(2L - KpIev(nT)] )

(in IC 1,2,5,6)

(21)

(in IC 3,4,7,8)

(22)

= 2l [ K p e v ( n T ) + L]

(in IC 9, 10)

(23)

= !2 [ K i e p ( n T ) + L ]

(in I f 11,12)

(24)

= !2 [ K p e v ( n T ) - L]

(in IC 13, 14)

(25)

= !2 [ K i e p ( n T ) - L]

(in IC 15, 16)

(26)

=0

(in IC 18, 20)

(27)

=L

(in IC 17)

(28)

=-L

(in IC 19).

(29)

306

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

Kd. AV(nT)

Kp. e,(nT)
IC18

IC13

IC17

IC18

IClO

IC13

IC5~

IC17

~ICIO
IC5N

K i " ,(liT)

/]c2

r.v.(-r)
Ii

-L

-L

IC14

IC9

IC14

IC9

IC8~
IC19

IC20

IC19

Fig. 8. Regions of the fuzzy PI controller input-combination values.

IC20

Fig. 9. Regions of the fuzzy D controller input-controller values.

Similarly, defuzzification of the fuzzy D controller follows the same procedure as described above for the
PI component, except that the input signals in this case are different. The IC combinations of these two inputs
are decomposed into 20 similar regions, as shown in Fig. 9.
Similar to formulas (21)-(29), by applying the values o . p = L, o. n = - L , o. z = 0, and the following
straight line formulas obtained from the geometry of Fig. 9:

Yd " P --

Ay.

p =

Kyd(nT)
2L

+ L

-Kyd(nT) + L
,

KdA y(nT)
2L

Yd n =

2L

+L

'

--KdA y(nT) + L
,

Ay.

n ----

2L

'

we obtain the following formulas for the twenty IC regions:

L[Kyd(nT)
AuD(nT)=
2(2L -

- KdA y(nT)]

glYd(nT)l)

= L[Kyd(nT)
2(2L -

- KdAy(nT)]

KoIAy(nT)I)

1- ~ [ - K d A y ( n T ) + L ]
--- [ K y d ( n T )

= [Kyd(nT)

(30)

(in IC 3,4,7,8)

(31)

(in I f 9,10)

- L]

= ~1[ - K d A y ( n T )

(in IC 1,2,5,6)

(in IC 11, 12)

- L]
+ L]

(in I f 13, 14)

(in IC 15, 16)

(32)
(33)
(34)
(35)

=0

(in IC 17, 19)

(36)

=-L

(in IC 18)

(37)

=L

(in IC 20).

(38)

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

307

Note that the constant K that multiplies the signal yd(nT) is used as a parameter for generality here, and
in the derivation of Auo(nT). Although it could be used as a control gain, its value is permanently set to
one throughout all our computer simulations.

4. Stability analysis
By applying the "small gain theorem" [7, 9], the stability of the fuzzy PI controller and the fuzzy PD
controller have been analyzed in [5] and [12], respectively.
If we disconnect the fuzzy D control component from Fig. 3, we see that we have the fuzzy PI control
system studied in [5], and its stability is guaranteed by the following conditions:

Theorem 1. A sufficient condition for the nonlinear fuzzy PI control system shown in Fig. 3, with the fuzzy D
controller disconnected from the configuration, to be globally bounded-input~bounded-output (BIBO) stable
is that
(1) the 9iven nonlinear process has a bounded norm (9ain) IlYll < ~ , and
(2) the parameters of the fuzzy PI controller, Kp,Ki, and KupI, satisfy
Kup'(7"'p+Ki)LIIxIIm- < 1,
T(2L - KM )

(39)

where
3' = max{1,T}

and

KM = max{KpMp,KiMv},

with
Mp = sup lep(nT)l
n>>.O

and

Mv = sup lev(nT)] <~2Mp.

n>~O

The reader is referred to [5] for more technical details. For example, according to the design principle, we
will always have KM <~L (otherwise the control rule will be switched to other regions), and hence the left-hand
side of Eq. (39) is well-defined and is always bounded, in which one may let KM = L for simplicity. In (39),
we note that the minimum of 1/(2L - KM) is 1/2L. This minimum is attained when ep(nT) = ev(nT) = 0 or,
in other words, when Mp = Mv = 0, which implies the "steady-state" condition of the system output. Hence,
if we let Kup1 = T/2 and 7 = 1 (usually, T < 1), then by using the relationship between the nonlinear fuzzy
PI controller and the corresponding conventional linear PI controller described in (6), we can simplify the
stability condition (39) to be
(Ki +Kp)llXll < 1.

(40)

This is a sufficient condition for the conventional linear PI controller to stabilize the process ./V. This result
implies that one can replace an operating conventional linear PI controller by the fuzzy PI controller while
preserving the same local stability, where by "local" we mean around the steady state of the system with
ep(nT) = ev(nT) = 0. This is true no matter if the given process is linear or not. Summarizing, we have the
following result whose proof can he found from a similar result derived in [5].

Theorem 2. In a given linear or nonlinear process controlled stably by a conventional linear PI controller
with the proportional and inteoral 9ains Kp and Ki, respectively, if the PI controller is replaced by the fuzzy
PI controller with Kupl = T/2, then the resultin9 closed-loop fuzzy PI control system will retain the same
(local) stability

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

308

This result is very practical, because if one has already had an operating linear PI controller and wishes
to replace it by the corresponding fuzzy PI controller in order to obtain better control performance while
maintaining the same stability, then he only needs to compute the four parameters Kp, Ki, Kupt(= 1"/2) and
L. In such a design, no extra analysis or computation is needed.
Similarly, for the fuzzy D controller, if we disconnect the fuzzy PI controller from Fig. 3, we reduce the
fuzzy PI+D control system to a simple fuzzy D control system. This fuzzy D control system is a special
case of the fuzzy PD control system studied in [12], and hence its stability condition can be derived from
that obtained in [12] by removing the fuzzy P controller and noticing that the new input to the controller is
now y = r - e. More precisely, the following statement can be derived from the stability result obtained in
[12].
Theorem 3. A sufficient condition for the fuzzy D control system to be BIBO stable is that the given process
has abounded norm (gain) [[JV[[ < c~z and the parameters of the fuzzy D controller, KD and KuD, satisfy

7KdKuD
2T(L - Ko(Mp +

Irl)) I1 11

< 1,

(41)

where 7 = max{ 1,L}.

The reader is referred to [12] for more technical details. For example, according to the design principle,
we will always have Ka[input[ <~L/2 (otherwise the control rule will be switched to other regions), and hence
the left-hand side of Eq. (41) is well-defined and is always bounded.
For the fuzzy PI+D control system shown in Fig. 3, one can easily verify that it is equivalent to the two
configurations shown in Fig. 10. Recall from the "small gain theorem" [7, 9] that if we let the process be
denoted by $1 and the fuzzy PI+D controller together be denoted by $2, which is the dashed-box in the
second picture of Fig. 10, then we can obtain a sufficient condition for the BIBO stability of the overall
closed-loop control system from the bounds

{ II&(Up~D)II~M~ Ll Ilu~IDII
(42)

where M1,M2,L1,LE are constants, which is L1L2 < 1, as discussed in detail in [5, 12].
Here, we observe that due to the special structure of the D controller, denoted So, we actually have

s ([yl) :

::]Ey]

I:l

max{llSDII,IISPIll,1} max{llYll,Ilell}.
Hence, a sufficient condition for the overall fuzzy PI+D control system to be BIBO stable is the worst one
between the fuzzy PI and D control systems stated in Theorems 1 and 3 above. Namely, we may use the
larger norms from the right-hand side of the above. Thus, we will have the second equation of Eqs. (42) in
which SD and SpI are separated in ME and/or L2, so that the analysis performed in [5,12] can be repeated
here for Eqs. (42). Note that in this case we may assume that max{[lSDl[, HSpI[[)i> 1; otherwise, the system
will be stable without additional conditions by the contraction mapping principle.

D. Misir et aL /Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

+
n

fe~y PI
centroller

309

LD

........................................................
i ....

Fig. 10. Equivalent closed-loop control systems.

Under this inequality, the second condition in Eq. (42) can be guaranteed. For more details in this stability
analysis, the reader is referred to [5, 12].
For convenience of the design, we suggest to use the union of the two conditions stated in Theorems 1
and 3. In doing so, of course, the conditions become more conservative. However, as pointed out in [12],
from the controller design point of view, a relatively conservative stability region is actually safer and more
reliable.

5. Computer simulations
We first discussed the fuzzy P I + D controller for lower-order linear processes, to show how well it performs
for these simple cases. Recall that the conventional P I + D controller is designed for linear processes, for which
it works very well. We show that the fuzzy P I + D controller is as good as, if not better than, the conventional
one for such lower-order linear processes. The first example is a first order linear process
H(s) -

1
s+l

with parameters: T = 0.1, K = 1.0, Kp = 1.2, Kd = 0.1, Ki = 1.0, Kupl = 0.2, K~D = 0.01, L = 360.0, and the
setpoint r = 5.0. The response of the fuzzy P I + D controller for a step input is shown in Fig. 11, which is
remarkable. The second example is a second-order linear process with the following transfer function
2
H ( s ) -- se + 4s + 3 ,

310

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

First-Order Unear Fuzzy PID Output

6

2
1

0
1 2

6 7

9 1011 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1

22232425

Otsc,rete-Tlme (nT)
Fig. l 1. Output of a first-order fuzzy PID control system.

Second-Order Unear Fuzzy PID Output

83

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 9 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 4 0 1 5 0 1 6 0 1 7 0 1 8 0 1 9 0 2 0 0
Discrete-Time (nT)

Fig. 12. Output of a second-order fuzzy PID control system.

where the fuzzy P I + D parameters are: T = 0.01, K = 1.0, Kp = 8.0, Kd = 0.01, Ki = 1.0, K u p I = 0.2,
KuD = 0.01, L = 1000.0, and the set-point r --- 5.0. The response o f the fuzzy P I + D controller as shown in
Fig. 12 is almost perfect and has no steady-state error or overshoot.

311

D. Misir et aL /Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

Nonlinear Fuzzy PID Output (1)

_0.3

;o

~o

~o

~,o

~o

do

~o

~o

9o

loo

Discrete-Time(nT)
Fig. 13. Output of a nonlinear fuzzy PID control system.

Finally, we compare the performance of both the conventional and the fuzzy P I + D controller, using a set
of nonlinear processes. Although the fuzzy P I + D controller has the same linear structure as the conventional
P I + D controller, the fuzzy P I + D gains are nonlinear with self-tuning capability and, in general, has better performance. In these simulations, only the nonlinear plants are compared, because as mentioned above
both the conventional and the fuzzy P I + D controllers work very well for the first and second-order linear
processes.
The first nonlinear process has the following simple model:
))(t) = 0.0001 ly(t)l + upID(t),
with fuzzy P I + D parameters: T = 0.1, K = 1.0, Kp = 1.5, Kd = 0.1, Ki = 2.0, Kuei = 0.11, Kuo = 1.0,
L = 45.0, and the set-point r = 5.0. The result is shown in Fig. 13, where it clearly reveals that the fuzzy
P I + D controller tracks the setpoint without any oscillation or steady-state error. On the contrary, the conventional P I + D controller is not able to track the setpoint, no matter how one changes its parameters. A typical
response of the conventional P I + D controller is shown in Fig. 14 with parameters: T = 0.1, K~ = 19.5,
K~ = 0.1, Kic -- 1.0, and r = 5.0.
The second nonlinear process used in the simulation is given by
j2(t) = y ( t ) + x f y ( t ) + upiD(t).

In this case, the fuzzy P I + D parameters are: T = 0.1, K -- 1.0, Kp = 2.0, Kd = 1.942, Ki = 1.0, Kupl ----0.1,
KuD = 0.27, L ----350.0, and the setpoint r = 5.0. The response of the fuzzy P I + D controller for this nonlinear
process to a step input is shown in Fig. 15, which shows a very good tracking result. The conventional P I + D
controller, however, cannot yield any reasonable response, no matter how one adjusts its gains. A typical
response of the conventional P I + D controller (with the parameters T = 0.1, K~ = 2.0, Kic -- 1.0, K,~ = 0.01,
and r -- 5.0) is shown in Fig. 16. We remark that this result is due to the fact that the conventional
P I + D controller usually has difficulties in controlling higher-order and time-delayed linear systems as well

312

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

Nonlinear Conventional PID Output (1)

le+38-

O,

~.-le+38,

-2e+38

-3o+38
0

10

20

30

40
50
60
Discrete-Time(nT)

70

80

90

100

~o

loo

Fig. 14. Output of the corresponding conventional PID control system.

Nonlinear Fuzzy PID Output (2)

~3

~'o

~o

~o

;o

~o

do

~o

so

Discrete-Time (nT)
Fig. 15. Output of a nonlinear fuzzy PID control system.

as nonlinear systems, because they are designed for lower-order linear systems for which they work very
well.
These simulations clearly reveal that the fuzzy P I + D controller has generally better steady-state and transient
responses, especially when the system under control is nonlinear or higher-order linear.

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 29~314

313

Nonlinear Conventional PID Output (2)

30+38

20+38

lo+38

15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180 195 210 225 240 255 270 285 300
Discrete-Time (nT)

Fig. 16. Output of the corresponding conventional PID control system.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, we have described the design principle, tracking performance and stability analysis of a
fuzzy proportional-integral (PI) plus a derivative (D) controller. The new fuzzy PI+D controller preserves
the simple linear structure of its conventional counterpart yet enhances the self-tuning control capability. We
have shown convincing computer simulation results that demonstrate the advantages of the new design over
its conventional counterpart, particularly when the process under control is nonlinear. Finally, it should be
mentioned that the fuzzy "if-then" rules that we used in this design are generic type in the sense that they
do not depend on the specific structure of the system under control. Hence, one may expect that this fuzzy
PI+D controller can be applied to various industrial systems with success, without requiring much knowledge
about the systems from domain experts.
References
[1] H.R. Berenji, Fuzzy logic controllers, in: R.R. Yager and L.A. Zadeh, Eds., An Introduction to Fuzz)' Logic Applications in
Intelligent Systems (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1992) 69-96.
[2] A. Cela and Y. Hamam, A fuzzy robust controller for trajectory tracking of robotic systems, Proc. 1992 IEEE/RSJ lnternat. Conf
on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Raleigh, NC, 7-10 July (1992) 767-774.
[3] C.T. Chen, Analog and Digital Control System Design (Saunders College Pub., Orlando, FL, 1993).
[4] G. Chen, T.T. Pham and J.J. Weiss, Fuzzy modeling of control systems, IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electron. Systems 31 (1995)
414-429.
[5] G. Chen and H. Ying, Stability analysis of nonlinear fuzzy PI control systems, Proc. 3rd Internat. Con/: on Fuzzy Logic
Applications, Houston, TX, 1-3 December (1993) 128-133.
[6] S. Daly and K.F. Gill, Comparison of a fuzzy logic controller with a P+D control law, Trans. A S M E Dynamics Measurement
Control 111/129 (1989) 128-137.
[7] R.J.P. de Figueiredo and G. Chen, Nonlinear Feedback Control Systems: An Operator Theory Approach (Academic Press, New
York, 1993).
[8] M. De Neyer and R. Gorez, Fuzzy and quantitative model-based control systems for robotic manipulators, Internat. J. Systems Sci.
24 (1993) 1863-1883.
[9] C.A. Desoer and M. Vidyasagar, Feedback Systems: Input-Output Properties (Academic Press, New York, 1975).
[10] N. Kiupel and P.M. Frank, Fuzzy control of steam turbines, lnternat. J. Systems Sci. 24 (1993) 1905-1913.

314

D. Misir et al./Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79 (1996) 297-314

[11] K. Liu and F.L. Lewis, Some issues about fuzzy logic control, Proc. 32nd Conf. on Decision and Control, San Antonio, TX,
December (1993) 1743-1748.
[12] H.A. Malki, H. Li and G. Chen, New design and stability analysis of fuzzy proportional-derivative control systems, IEEE Trans.
Fuzzy Systems 2 (1994) 245-254.
[13] E.H. Mamdani, Application of fuzzy algorithm for control of simple dynamic plant, Proc. 1EEE 121 (1974) 1585-1588.
[14] E.H. Mamdani, Advances in the linguistic synthesis of fuzzy controllers, Internat. J. Man Machine Studies, $ (1976) 669-678.
[15] H.P. Preub, Fuzzy control in process automation, Internat. J. Systems Sci. 24 (1993) 1849-1861.
[16] P. Ramaswamy, M. Riese, R. Edwards and K.Y. Lee, Two approaches for automating the tuning process of fuzzy logic controllers,
Proc. 32nd Conf. on Decision and Control, San Antenio, TX, December (1993) 1753-1758.
[17] M. Sugeno, Ed., Industrial Application of Fuzzy Control (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985) 128-137.
[18] S. Yamamoto and I. Hashimoto, Present status and future needs: The view from Japanese industry, Chemical Process Control,
CPCIV, Padre Island, TX (1991) 1-28.
[19] H. Ying, The simplest fuzzy controllers using different inference methods are different nonlinear proportional-integral controllers
with variable gains, Automatica 29 (1994) 1579-1589.
[20] H. Ying, W. Siler and J.J. Buckley, Fuzzy control theory: a nonlinear case, Automatica 26 (1990) 513-520.
[21] R. Yousof and S. Omatu, A multivariable self-tuning PID controller, lnternat. J. Systems Sci. 24 (1993) 1887-1403.
[22] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inform. and Control 8 (1965) 338-353.
[23] J. Zhang, Applications of fuzzy logic control in autonomous robot systems, Internat. J. Systems Sci. 24 (1993) 1885-1904.
[24] H.S. Zhong, T. Shaohua and W.P. Zhuang, Fuzzy self-tuning of PID controllers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 56 (1993) 34-46.