Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 11 (2001) 85–98 85

IOS Press

A new methodology for designing a fuzzy

logic controller and PI, PD blending
mechanism
M. Güzelkaya, İ. Eksin∗ and F. Gürleyen
Istanbul Technical University, Electrical and Electronics Faculty, Control Systems Division 80626, Maslak,
Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract. In this study, a hybrid and intelligent structure that blends the “PI-type” and “PD-type” output portions of a new fuzzy
logic controller is presented. The new fuzzy logic controller consists of two rule-base blocks and a logical switch in between and
its rule-base is formed using new meta-rules. The rule-base blocks admit two inputs one of which is newly devised and called
“normalized acceleration” and the other one is the classical “error”. The newly devised input gives a relative value about the
“fastness” or “slowness” of the system response and provides an easy and straightforward way of forming the rule-base. The new
hybrid controller structure is formed in such a way that it intelligently blends PI and PD portions of the fuzzy logic controller
through a new empirical relation or a rule-base. Both the empirical relation and the rule-base use the same inputs of the new
fuzzy logic controller. The robustness and effectiveness of the new fuzzy logic controller with/without the blending mechanism
are illustrated through simulations done on a second-order system with varying parameters. Furthermore, the results of the new
hybrid fuzzy PID controller is compared with the results obtained using both the conventional fuzzy PID controller and another
hybrid method which is an augmented version of fuzzy PI controller with a resetting factor.

Keywords: Fuzzy logic control, fuzzy rule-base generation, PI-PD blending

1. Introduction man operator. Although, this type of fuzzy logic con-

Fuzzy logic control has been widely used in many
successful industrial applications and demonstrated
significant achievements [1,2,3,4,5,6]. It is a common
fact that two distinct features of fuzzy logic control
are 1) human or operator experience can easily be in-
tegrated and 2) fuzzy logic provides a nonlinear rela-
tionship induced by membership functions, rules and
defuzzification. In that respect, fuzzy logic is exten-
sively used in processes where the system dynamics
are either very complex or exhibits a highly nonlinear
character. The first fuzzy logic control algorithm im-
plemented by Mamdani [7,8] was constructed to syn-
thesize the linguistic control protocol of a skilled hu-
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail: eksin@elk.itu.edu.tr; Fax: +90
212 2853679.
troller (FLC) application was successful compared to
classical controllers, the design procedure is dependent
on the experience and the knowledge of the operator
and it is limited by the elucidation of the heuristic rules
of control. In order to avoid this major difficulty of
depending on the control experience of the operator,
Mac Vicar-Whelan [9] proposed some general rules for
the structure of fuzzy controllers.
A common FLC derives its decisions from the input
error signal (e) and the change of error (de). Thus, it
is structurally similar to a classical proportional plus
derivative (PD) controller. In fact, the equivalence be-
tween this type of FLCs and conventional PD con-
trollers have been established [10, 11]. However, most
of the fuzzy logic controllers have been designed as
fuzzy PID-type controllers in later studies [12,13,14].
PID-type FLCs usually face the following difficulties
associated with

1064-1246/01/$8.00  2001 – IOS Press. All rights reserved

86 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing
1) the generation of an effective and reliable rule-
base,
2) the increase in the size of rule-base with the num-
ber of fuzzy sets used for every input variable in
a polynomial manner,
3) the tuning of large number of parameters.
In study [12], Abdelnour and his friends have
achieved a reduction in storage location using the sym-
metrical properties of 3-D table designed for fuzzy PID
controller. As an alternative approach
Lee [15] has proposed a method that “gain sched-
ules” a fuzzy PD controller gradually to become a
fuzzy PI controller when the response approaches to the
steady-state. Similar to this method, Brehm and Rat-
tan [16] have developed a hybrid fuzzy PID controller
switching between a fuzzy PD and a PI controller. It is
obvious that the “scheduling” or “switching” will not
only be difficult to design but also need to vary with
system input and/or operating levels.
In this study, a new methodology is proposed for
generating a rule-base for a FLC with a new structure.
This FLC consists of two rule-base blocks and a logi-
cal switch in between while each one of the rule-base
blocks have been designed so that they admit two in-
puts; namely the “error” (e) and a newly devised input
named as “normalized acceleration” (s). This new in-
put (s) is derived using the first- and the second-order
derivatives of the error and it gives a relative value about
the “fastness” or “slowness” of the system response.
Process independent way of composing a rule-base is
proposed using the physical meanings of the process
variables. Moreover, a new structure is presented that
blends the “PD-type” and the “PI-type” output portions
of the new FLC in an adaptive manner. The output of
the blending mechanism is obtained either through an
empirical formula or a rule-base both using the same
inputs of the new FLC. The robustness and effective-
ness of the new FLC with the blending mechanism are
illustrated through simulations done on a second-order
system with varying parameters. The results of the
new fuzzy PID using the blending mechanism with the
empirical formula procedure is compared with the re-
sults obtained using both the conventional fuzzy PID
controller and another hybrid method which is an aug-
mented version of fuzzy PI controller with a resetting
factor given in [15].
2. The new fuzzy logic controller
2.1. Basic elements and principles of the new
controller
Let us consider a discrete-time set point controller
where the error at step k is defined as
e(k) = r(k) − y(k) (1)
where r(k) is the set-point and y(k) is the system output.
The incremental change in error is given by
de(k) = e(k) − e(k − 1) (2)
and the acceleration in error is given by
dde(k) = de(k) − de(k − 1) (3)
The new FLC that is proposed in this study will use
these three variables as shown in Fig. 1.
As it is seen from Fig. 1, the new FLC consists of
two rule-base blocks Fuzzy Approach Block (FAB) and
Fuzzy Drift-apart Block (FDB) and a logical switch
block (LSB) between them [17]. Each one of the rule-
base blocks have been designed by making use of two
input variables; namely, error e(k) and a newly devised
input variable s(k) that is defined as
de(k) − de(k − 1) dde(k)
s(k) = = (4)
de(.) de(.)
where de(.) is chosen as follows


de(k) if |de(k)|
|de(k − 1)|
de(.) = (5)
de(k − 1) if |de(k)| < |de(k − 1)|
Ce , Cs and Cu are the input and output scaling factors
(I/O SFs) , respectively. The notation f(.) is used to
denote the the generating function of s(k) in Fig. 1.
The input variable s(k) is named “normalized accel-
eration”. When the system response demonstrates a
smooth and steady increase or decrease, the product
de(k).de(k − 1) is positive. Then, the “fastness” and the
“slowness” of the response can be deduced using this
new input variable s(k). As it can be seen from Fig. 2,
if the absolute value of the change in error |de(k)| is
greater than the previous value |de(k − 1)| then the sys-
tem response increases or decreases in a “fast” nature.
Contrary to this case, if |de(k)| is less than |de(k − 1)|
then the system response increases or decreases in a
“slow” nature. When (3) is taken into consideration
with the signs of de(.) then Table I is obtained. Table
I shows that “fastness” or “slowness” of a system re-
sponse depends on the signs of both dde(k) and de(.).
Thus, (4) has been devised in order to normalize the
 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing 87

Fig. 1. Structure of the new fuzzy logic controller.

Fig. 2. Illustration of the relative rates of the system responses to a step input.

Table 1
Relationship between de(.), dde(k) and the nature of
obtain
de(k) − de(k − 1)
the system response s(k) =
de(k − 1) or de(k) dde(k) System response de(k)
(6)
Positive Positive Fast de(k − 1)
Positive Negative Slow
=1− →1
de(k)
Negative Positive Slow
Negative Negative Fast When we consider (5) and the “slow” rows of Table 1
again for the limiting case; that is, |de(k − 1)| 
acceleration term dde(k) while reserving the informa- |de(k)|, we get
tion about the “fastness” or “slowness” of the system de(k) − de(k − 1)
s(k) =
response. de(k − 1)
(7)
Let us consider (5) and the “fast” rows of Table 1 for de(k)
the limiting cases; that is, |de(k)|  |de(k − 1)|, we = − 1 → −1
de(k − 1)
88 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing
In the case de(k) = de(k − 1) that corresponds to the
region b of Fig. 2, the normalized acceleration s(k) ap-
proaches to zero. This means that the system response
increases or decreases with a constant rate and it can
be considered as a “medium” rate between “fast” and
“slow”. Thus, s(k) given in (4) yields us a relative rate
information about the system response within a range
of [−1, 1].
When the product is negative then the system re-
sponse makes a ripple or changes its direction. In this
case, it is not possible to make a true physical judgment
about the “fastness” or the “slowness” of the system
response. If this situation arises, the previous value
of the change in error (de(k − 1)) is taken zero. This
means that points where the response changes direc-
tion are considered to be the new starting or stationary
points with zero initial conditions. By this precaution,
the normalized acceleration s(k) value is preserved in
the range of [−1, 1]; so, in this manner, the physical
meaning of s(k) is not lost.
An interesting feature of this normalized accelera-
tion concept is that two system response curves with
different time constants can posses the same s(k) val-
ues as it can be seen from Fig. 2. Thus, normalized
acceleration s(k) does not depend on the time constant
of the system. In that respect, it can be considered as
a system independent variable. Furthermore, since this
variable is in the range of [−1, 1] it does not require
any normalization procedure when it is used as a fuzzy
input.
A typical time response of a closed-loop system has
been shown in Fig. 3. As it can easily be seen from
the figure, the system response “approaches” towards
the reference in the regions A 1 and A3 ; whereas, it
“drifts apart” from the reference in the regions A 2 and
A4 . The product “e(k).de(k)” is negative in the regions
A1 and A3 while it is positive in the regions A 2 and
A4 . Since “approach” and “drift apart” behaviors of the
system can be distinguished by crisp values, these two
regions can be separated from each other by a logical
switch block [18,19]. That is, when e(k).de(k)  0
then the Fuzzy Approach Block (FAB) will become
active; otherwise, the Fuzzy Drift-apart Block (FDB)
will become active. This will reduce the calculation
burden and it will fasten the controller.
2.2. Rule-base of the fuzzy logic controller blocks
The metarules for the FLC blocks; namely, Fuzzy
Approach Block (FAB) and Fuzzy Drift-apart Block
(FDB) are given as follows:
A- FAB (Fuzzy Approach Block)
1- If the error e is “large” and the system response is
“fast” or “slow” then the control effort u should
be “large” or at least ‘medium”.
2- a) If the error is “medium” and the system re-
sponse is “fast” then the control effort u should
be “small” or at most “medium”.
b) If the error is “medium” and the system re-
sponse is “slow” then the control effort u should
be at least “medium”.
3- a) If the error is “small” and the system response
is “fast” then the control effort u should be at most
“small”.
b) If the error is “small” and the system response
is “slow” then the control effort u should be at
least “small”.
B- FDB (Fuzzy Drift-apart Block)
1- If the error e is “large” or “medium” and the sys-
tem response is “fast” or “slow” then the control
effort u should be “large” or at least “medium”.
2- a) If the error is “small” and the system response
is “fast” then the control effort u should be at least
“medium”.
b) If the error is “small” and the system response
is “slow” then the control effort u should be at
most “medium”.
The control effort u should be applied with an ap-
propriate sign in each step.
Using the metarules given above, tentative decision
tables for FAB and FDB can be formed as shown in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The input controller vari-
able e and output control u (or du) are quantized into
fuzzy sets of five levels; whereas, the input variable s
is quantized into three levels. The levels are defined as
follows:
PL = positive large
PS = positive small
PZ = positive zero
NL = negative large
NS = negative small
NZ = negative zero
P = positive
Z = zero
N = negative
3. PI plus PD blending mechanism
In process control systems, fuzzy logic PI controllers
are most common and practical followed by the fuzzy
logic PD controllers. The performance of fuzzy logic
 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing 89

Fig. 3. Typical time-response of a closed-loop system.

Table 2
A tentative decision table for “fab”
logic PID controllers are rarely used due to difficulties
associated with the generation of an efficient rule-base
e\s P Z N
PL PS PL PL
and tuning of large number of parameters.
PS PZ PS PL When the output of the main FLC block in Fig. 1
PZ NZ PZ PS is taken as u(k), this controller acts as a PD-type con-
NZ PZ NZ NS troller; whereas, the output is taken to be du(k) the con-
NS NZ NS NL
NL NS NL NL troller becomes PI-type controller. Keeping the above
facts in mind, we propose a PID-type FLC paralleling
Table 3
the output of the FLC block as shown in Fig. 4.
A tentative decision table for “fdb” Since the PID-type FLC is formed blending the PI-
e\s P Z N type and the PD-type controller outputs, we need two
PL PL PL PL output blending factors that are designated as C I and
PS PL PL PS CD for PI-type portion and PD-type portion, respec-
PZ PL PS PZ tively. These blending factors can be found by either
NZ NL NS NZ
NS NL NL NS trial and error or an intelligent evolutionary computa-
NL NL NL NL tional scheme. However, dynamic or adaptive setting
of these factors can either be done using an empirical
PI controllers is known to be quite satisfactory for lin- relation or a rule-base in an online manner. In this
ear first order systems; however, this performance may study, we have proposed an empirical relation and a
degrade for higher order systems, systems with large rule-base that both depend on the input variables of the
dead-time and also for nonlinear systems. Fuzzy logic FLC; namely, the error “e” and the relative acceleration
PD controllers are, however, suitable for a limited class “s”. We have set
of systems. In fact, they should be avoided in presence CD = 1 − CI (8)
of measurement noise and sudden load disturbances.
Therefore, fuzzy logic PID controllers are used in con- so that an exact blending mechanism is obtained be-
trolling much larger class of systems. However, fuzzy tween the two controller types; namely, PI-type and
90 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing

Fig. 4. Structure of the PI and PD-type blending mechanism.

Table 4
PD-type portions. The blending factor CI is calculated Rule-base for “CI ”
by either an empirical formula or a rule-base through
|e|\s N Z P
the metarules that can be summarized as follows:
L L L M
1) For any specific error value CI parameter should M L M S
S M S Z
increase as “s” approaches to ¤C1 and it should
Z S Z Z
decrease as “s” approaches to 1.
2) When the relative speed “s” approaches to −1 1
and the error is large (that is approaches to 1) then Tb (z) = CI + (1 − CI )
1 − z−1
the effect of the PI-type portion or CI parameter (10)
1 − z−1 (1 − CI )
of the fuzzy logic controller should be “highest”. =
1 − z−1
Using the above metarules, an empirical relation for When the parameter C I is equal to zero the output
CI can be proposed as follows: remains to be PD-type, since the main FLC produces a
 
(s + 2) PD-type output. On the other hand, when C I is equal
CI = exp − (9) to one the output of the blending mechanism becomes
1 + |e|
PI-type. Then, it is very obvious that, when C I gets
The above empirical relation is illustrated in Fig. 5. values between 0 and 1, the output can be considered
Inspecting the figure, it can easily be deduced that the as PID-type.
metarules of the blending mechanism are satisfied by
the empirical relation.
A FLC block with the tentative rule-base given in Ta- 4. Simulation results
ble 4 can be proposed in place of the empirical relation.
The inputs of the blending FLC are the absolute value First, the simulation results for pure PD- or PI-type
of error “|e|” and the normalized acceleration “s”. The form of the new controller are given in order to demon-
input variable lel is quantized into fuzzy sets of four strate the effectiveness of the new FLC (without blend-
levels; whereas, the input variable s is quantized into ing mechanism) developed in this study. Next, the ro-
three levels, such that, L = large; M = medium; S = bustness and effectiveness of the blending mechanism
small; Z = zero. with various procedures are shown through simulations.
The triangular membership functions are assigned All of the simulations are done on a second-order linear
for all of the variables. The view of the rule-base is system described by
shown in Fig. 6. Inspecting this figure, it can easily be
5
seen that the rule-base also satisfies the metarules of Gp (S) = (11)
the blending mechanism. s2 + αs + β
The discrete transfer function of the blending mech- for various values of α, β. It is assumed that the pa-
anism can be expressed as rameters α and β vary in the range of [0, 5]. When
 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing 91

Fig. 5. Illustration of the empirical relation of CI .

Fig. 6. View of the rule-base for CI .

the parameters and vary within this range, the poles of
Gp (s) remain inside the shaded region or stay on the
dark and thick line segment as shown in Fig. 7. The
simulations are carried on the typical four pole config-
urations as shown in Fig. 7 and they are designated as
the cases a, b, c and d. The parameter values and the
related system types of these cases are given as
Case (a): α = 5 and β = 0; marginally stable /
type-1 system
Case (b): α = and β = 5; critically damped / type-0
92 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing
Fig. 7. The region for the poles of Gp (s).
system
Case (c): α = 3 and β = 4; over-damped / type-0
system
Case (d): α = 0 and β = 5; oscillatory / type-0
system
The input and output scaling factors (I/O SFs) for
the proposed FLC are set to the fixed values C e =
Cs = 1 and Cu = 4. These fixed values are obtained
for an “optimal” system response of case (a) using
pure PD-type new FLC. Moreover, no online or offline
adjustment or tuning is done on these factors when the
system parameters α and β are changed, so that the
effectiveness of the blending mechanism has been tried
to be demonstrated. In all of the simulations uniformly
distributed triangular membership functions are used.
A- Applications with pure PD-type and PI- type FLC:
It is a known fact that PI controller is needed for type-
0 systems; whereas, PD controller is usually adequate
and satisfactory for systems of type greater than one.
Therefore, two sets of values for α and β are chosen so
that two different system types are obtained from the
system given by (11).
Case (a)
For this case, pure PD-type FLC configuration is im-
plemented and a quite good performance is achieved as
it is seen from Fig. 8. It is a known fact that it is not
possible to remove out steady-state error with PD-type
controllers for a large class of systems. However, since
the system under study is of type-1, steady-state error is
not observed in applying the pure PD-type new FLC. If
the open loop transfer function of the overall system is
not of type zero, no steady-state error occurs in the new
FLC application irrespective of input and output scal-
ing factors; whereas, steady-state error is very common
for the classical FLC (MacVicar-Whelan FLC) appli-
cations and the I/O SF adjustments are needed to over-
come to this problem [17]. This case may also be seen
as a first order zero-type system controlled by the pure
PI-type FLC configuration.
Case (b)
Pure PI-type configuration is used for this case and
the performance is not as good as the previous pure
PD-type application as it is seen from Fig. 9. It is an-
other known fact that PI controller (also PI-type FLC)
gives poor performance in transient response for sys-
tems of order more than one due to the internal inte-
grating operations. This is the main reason why many
studies handling PI-type FLC adopt first order systems
for their simulations. The difficulty in designing fuzzy
PI controllers resides in the selection of the incremen-
tal control input. To make the response faster a large
incremental control input is necessary, but a smaller
input is better to make the system behave well damped.
In that respect, Lee [15] proposed methods fuzzily re-
setting the control input accumulated by the integrating
operation according to situation.
B- Applications with blending mechanism:
The basic or primitive type of blending can be
achieved by mixing the two portions in equal amounts.
In this case, by setting CI equal to 0.5 (so that CD
also becomes 0.5), even blending of PI and PD por-
tions are obtained. This type of blending does not pos-
sess any intelligence and it is named as "direct-even"
blending. Simulations with the blending mechanism
have been performed using three procedures; namely,
“direct-even” blending, the empirical formula (9) and
the FLC with the rule-base given in Table IV. The step
responses related to the three blending procedures have
been presented and compared with each other.
Case (a)
The step responses related to case (a) are given in
Fig. 10. The responses related to the empirical formula
and the fuzzy rule-base are almost the same. Although,
all three of the responses are satisfactory, the response
related to the “direct-even” blending demonstrates a
lower quality compared to the other two responses. For
this case, pure PD-type FLC configuration has pro-
duced better response compared to the responses with
blending configuration as it is easily seen from Fig. 8,
since the I/O SFs have been previously adjusted for
“optimal” performance for pure PD-type FLC.
 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing 93

Fig. 8. Step response and control output of the system given in case (a).

Fig. 9. Step response and control output of the system given in case (b).
94 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing

Fig. 10. Step responses for case (a) with the blending mechanism.

Fig. 11. Step responses for case (b) with the blending mechanism.
 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing
Fig. 12. Step responses for case (c) with the blending mechanism.
Case (b)
The step responses related to case (b) are given in
Fig. 11. All three of the responses are again almost the
same and satisfactory; however, the response related to
the fuzzy blending demonstrates a better quality com-
pared to the other two responses. Although, this system
is of type-zero, pure PI configuration produces very
poor response as it is seen from Fig. 9, since the order
of the system is higher than one. Therefore, PID-type
of controller obtained by blending mechanism is more
adequate, and in fact, it is inevitable for such cases.
Case (c)
The step responses related to case (c) are given in
Fig. 12. Although, all three of the responses are similar
to each other and oscillatory, the response related to the
fuzzy blending demonstrates a slightly better quality
compared to the other two responses. It is quite possible
that much better responses could be obtained if the I/O
SFs of the FLC were tuned.
Case (d)
The step responses related to case (d) are given in
Fig. 13. Since the system to be controlled is of oscilla-
tory type and no tuning on the input and output scaling
factors are done, the output response becomes unstable
for “direct-even” blending procedure. However, when
95
an intelligent blending mechanism such as a fuzzy rule-
base or a empirical formula is used, the system response
remains to be stable with an acceptable oscillatory be-
havior under the same operating conditions; that is, pre-
assigned I/O SFs are not changed. This case is the most
remarkable one since it shows the effectiveness and use
of the intelligent blending mechanisms developed in
this study.
5. Comparison with other related algorithms
In this section, the results of the new fuzzy PID us-
ing the blending mechanism with the empirical formula
procedure (FPIDB) is compared with the results ob-
tained using both the conventional fuzzy PID (FPID)
controller and another hybrid method which is an aug-
mented version of fuzzy PI controller with a resetting
factor (FPIDR) given in [15]. The structure of the con-
ventional FPID controller is given in Fig. 14 and the
rule-base for this controller is the famous Mc Vicar
Whealan rules given in Table 5. The structure of FPIDR
is given in Fig. 15.
In all of these methods the membership functions
that are triangles with equal base and 50% overlap with
96 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing

Fig. 13. Step responses for case (d) with the blending mechanism.

Fig. 14. The structure of the conventional PID controller (FPID).

Fig. 15. The structure of the fuzzy PI controller with a resetting factor (FPIDR).

neigbouring membership functions are used. This is
the most fair and unbiased choice for the membership
functions in order to make comparison among the re-
lated methods. In each simulation, the I/O SFs are fixed
to the values that have been found as “optimum” in the
case (a) for each controller structure.These values are
as follows: Ge = 1, Gde = 1 and Gu = 4. Moreover,
we have not used any limiter at the inputs of the plant
in the simulations of this section, since the other related
studies have not included a limiter in their structures.
 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing 97

Fig. 16. Step responses of all cases for FPIDB ——, FPIDR – – –, FPID — - - — -.

The result of FPIDR outperforms the other methods
for the Case(a). This is quite natural and expected
feature since the system to be controlled is of type-1 and
the FPIDR controller proposed in [15] actually behaves
like a fuzzy PD-type controller and there does not exist
any intelligence in the conventional FPID controller.
In fact, the PD-type feature of FPIDR controller is
illustrated in [20]. However, the result of the proposed
FPIDB outperforms the results of the other methods for
the Cases (b) and (c). In fact, the FPIDR controller in
[15] causes large steady-state errors since the system to
be controlled is type-0 in these cases and the controler
behaves as a PD-type controller.
Both conventional FPID and FPIDR controllers
cause instability for the oscillatory system given in Case
(d) . It should be remembered that the I/O SFs are
set to “optimum” values for Case (a) and they are kept
fixed in the simulations in the other cases. However,
the proposed FPIDB controller still yields a very satis-
factory system response with the fixed I/O SFs; that is,
it does not cause any instability and it does not produce
any steady state error. Moreover, the step response of
the system with the proposed FPIDB controller demon-
strates a tolerable overshoot with fairly good rise-time
for this case.
6. Conclusions
In this study, a hybrid and intelligent structure that
blends the “PI-type” and “PD-type” output portions of
98 M. Güzelkaya et al. / A new methodology for designing
a new fuzzy logic controller is presented. The most
important part of a FLC is its rule-base. How to design
these rules is usually problem dependent and, in most
cases, depends strongly on the experience of an expert.
Here, in this study, a new input variable is used and
problem independent way of composing a rule-base
is proposed using the physical meaning of this new
input variable. In fact, designing a rule-base using the
metarules given in this study is very straightforward
and easy since metarules are derived simply using the
physical meanings of the process variables.
When the system order is greater than one and the
system type is zero, PID-type controller is adequate.
In order to design a PID-type of controller from a PD-
type FLC a new blending mechanism with intelligent
procedures are developed in this study. The output
of the blending mechanism is obtained either using
an empirical relation or a rule-base in an online and
intelligent manner or a fixed setting of blending factors.
The empirical relation and the rule-base use the same
the input variables of the proposed FLC.
When pure PD-type FLC configuration is imple-
mented for a second order and type-1 system, a quite
good performance is achieved. When pure PI-type
configuration is used for type-0 systems with an order
higher than two, the performance degrades quite a bit.
In these cases, a PID-type configuration is inevitable.
The step responses related to the blending mechanism
with three different procedures have been presented and
compared with each other. In all of these simulations, it
has been observed that the blending with an intelligent
procedure (rule-base or empirical formula) produces
better results compared to both “direct-even” procedure
(fixed blending factors) and pure PI-type configuration.
Finally, the results of the proposed blending mecha-
nism is compared with the other related methods and it
has been observed that the new approach outperforms
its counterparts in most of the cases considered.
References
[1] M. Sugeno, Industrial Applications of Fuzzy Control, North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1992.
[2] D. Driankov, H. Hellendoorn and M. Reinfrank, An Introduc-
tion to Fuzzy Control, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.
[3] C.W. De Silva, Intelligent Control, Fuzzy Control Applica-
tions, Boca Raton, FL:CRC, 1995.
[4] C.C. Lee, Fuzzy logic in control systems: Fuzzy logic
controller-Part 1 and Part 2, IEEE Transactions on Systems
Man and Cybernetics 20 (1990), 404–435.
[5] Y.F. Li and C.C. Lau, Development of fuzzy algorithms for
servo systems, IEEE Control Systems Magazine (Apr 1989),
65–71.
[6] W.J.M. Kickert and H.R. Van Navta Lemke, Application of a
fuzzy controller in a warm water plant, Automatica 12 (1976),
301–380.
[7] E.H. Mamdani, Application of fuzzy logic algorithms for con-
trol of simple dynamic plant, Proc Inst Elec Eng 121 (1974),
1585–1588.
[8] E.H. Mamdani, Application of fuzzy logic to approximate
reasoning using linguistic synthesis, IEEE Trans Comput 26
(1977), 1182–1191.
[9] P.J. Mac Vicar-Whelan, Fuzzy sets for man-machine interac-
tion, Int J Man-Machine Studies 8 (1976), 687–697.
[10] S. Galichet and L. Foulloy, Fuzzy controllers: Synthesis and
equivalences, IEEE Trans on Fuzzy Syst 3(2) (1985), 140–148.
[11] H. Ying, W. Siler and J.J. Buckley, Fuzzy control theory: A
nonlinear case, Automatica 26(3) (1990), 513–520.
[12] G.M. Abdelnour, C.H. Chang, F.H. Huang and J.Y. Cheung,
Design of fuzzy controller using input and output mapping fac-
tors, IEEE Trans on Syst Man and Cybernetics 21(5) (1991),
952–960.
[13] M. Mizumoto, Realization of PID controls by fuzzy control
methods, Fuzzy Sets Syst 70 (1992), 171–182.
[14] B. Hu, G.K.I. Mann and R.G. Gosine, New methodology for
analytical and optimal design of fuzzy PID controllers, IEEE
Trans on Fuzzy Syst 7(5) (1999), 521–539.
[15] J.H. Lee, On methods for improving performance of PI-type
fuzzy logic controllers, IEEE Trans on Fuzzy Syst 1(4) (1993),
298–301.
[16] T. Brehm and K.S. Rattan, Hybrid fuzzy logic PID controller,
Proc 3rd IEEE Int Conf on Fuzzy Syst 3 (1994), 1682–1687.
[17] İ. Eksin, M. Güzelkaya and F. Gürleyen, A new methodology
for deriving the rule-base of a fuzzy logic controller with a
new internal structure, Engineering Applications of Artificial
Intelligence 14(5) (2002), 617–628.
[18] M. Güzelkaya, İ. Eksin and F. Gürleyen, A new rule-based
control algorithm, Proc IASTED Int Conf Control and Appli-
cations, Banff, Canada, 1999, pp. 321–325.
[19] İ. Eksin, M. Güzelkaya and F. Gürleyen, A new rule-based con-
trol method based on sliding mode control idea, Proc IASTED
Int Conf Intelligent Systems and Control, Santa Barbara, USA,
1999, pp. 422–427.
[20] R.K. Mudi and N.R. Pal, A note on fuzzy PI-type controllers
with resetting action, Fuzzy Sets Syst 121 (2001), 149–159.