Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
North-Holland
37
Pei-Zhuang Wang 3
Institute of System Science, National University of Singapore,
Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Kent Ridge, Singapore 0511
Received August 1992
Revised October 1992
1. Introduction
38
39
new fuzzy self-tuning PID controller outperforms the PID controllers tuned by the two
fixed tuning laws.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section
2, the new fuzzy self-tuning PID controller is
described in detail, the exposition covers the
basic structure of the controller, fuzzy tuner, as
well as the initialization of the controller. The
simulation analysis is carried out in Section 3
followed by Section 4, which contains further
discussions and conclusions.
Basic structure
To begin with, we assume that the process to
be controlled has single input u(t) and single
output y(t), and the control objective is to bring
the process output y(t) to a prescribed set-point
Yr. The scheme can actually be extended to the
tracking problems where y~ is a time-varying
target output. However, this extension will not
be discussed here to keep our exposition concise.
As mentioned in the previous section, the
fuzzy self-tuning PID controller consists of a
standard PID controller and a fuzzy tuning
mechanism used for the on-line adaptation of the
PID parameters (Figure 1). The PID controller,
which generates a control u(t) based on the
closed-loop error e(t)= Yr- y(t), has the following standard form
(1)
where Ko Td, T~ are, respectively, the proportional gain, the derivative time and the integral
time of the controller, which are to be adjusted
on-line.
One of the key ideas of the control scheme is
to parametrize the three PID parameters by a
single parameter c~ as shown below
Kc-- 1.2c~ku,
1
T~= 0.75 1--~-a t,
Ta = 0.25T~,
(2)
40
f-
I
I
I
I
]FuzzyAdaptatio~-----~ DPasrgm~oerrimZelda
I
[-
_1
Yr
Controller
Process
R
-3
-2
-1
-3
-3
-2
-2
-3
-2
-2
-1
-2
-2
-I
-1
-2
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
0
1
-1
0
1
1
0
1
1
2
-1
2
3
-1
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
-3
-2
-1
0
0
1
Fuzzy adaptation
As shown in Figure 1, the fuzzy self-tuning
mechanism will generate an a(t) given the
instant values of e(t) and O(t) at time t. It is
composed of two parts: a fuzzy core and a
conditional updating formula for a. The fuzzy
core starts with fuzzifying e(t) and O(t) into two
fuzzy variables E, respectively, R. To ensure a
speedy fuzzy inference, both the range of
interest for e(t) and that for ~(t) are covered by
seven different fuzzy sets as shown below
E = {NL, NM, NS, ZO, PS, PM, PL}
R = {NL, NM, NS, ZO, PS, PM, PL},
(3)
PM=2,
NM=-2,
PS=I,
ZP=0,
NL=-3,
(4)
re(x) = e ( ~ ),
(5)
41
(6)
fact that dynamical processes typically encountered in process control will exhibit limit cycle
oscillation under relay feedback. The frequency
of the limit cycle is approximately the ultimate
frequency where the process has a phase lag of
180 . The period of the oscillation tu is easily
obtained by measuring the time between zero
crossings. The amplitude may be determined by
measuring the peak to peak values of the output.
If d is the relay amplitude and a is the process
output amplitude, the ultimate gain is approximately given by
k.
4d
--.
na
(7)
T~= 0.5tu,
Tj : 0.125tu,
Fuzzy
Self-tuning
t
Y~ ' C )
l-
PID
(8)
,Q~.~
Process
42
2
1.5
I
0.5
0
3. Simulation analysis
To cover typical kinds of common industrial
processes, three groups of representative processes are chosen for our simulation analysis. For
each of the latter two types of processes,
different coefficients are set for the same process
models just to reflect the severity of the
time-delay or non-minimum phase characteristics. To evaluate the performance of the new
fuzzy self-tuning PID controller, we compare its
set-point as well as the load disturbance
responses with the PID controllers tuned by the
Ziegler-Nichols formula and the Refined
Ziegler-Nichols formula.
A second-order process
G(s) =
k,,
(T,s + 1)(~s + 1 )
43
(9)
1.5r
0.5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
44
, Closed-LoopResponse,ofprocess
1.5
s",
1 ~ V
-~r'~'''~ -
~~,,~,~--,---'
0.5
00
10
20
30
40
50
yl(-), y2(-.) and y3(--) vs time
60
70
Fig. 5. The set-point and load disturbance responses of the process with small dead-time.
Figures 5 and 6 allow us to draw similar
conclusions: The set-point response improves
considerably while the load disturbance responses are either comparable to those obtained
by the other two controllers (in the case of small
dead-time), or only improves marginally (in the
case of large dead-time). It is also interesting to
observe that in both cases, the fuzzy self-tuning
P I D controller acts m o r e like a further refined
Ziegler-Nichols P I D control, capable of curbing
the excessive overshoot.
Time-delay processes
G(S)
(10)
kpe-ds
(Ts ~- 1) 2.
15
N o n - m i n i m u m p h a s e processes
The last simulation has to do with nonminimum phase processes. The general form of
the process is given as
kp(1 - ps)
G(s) - -~ + ~ .
(11)
,,-~
~'."'--~..~_
0.5
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
yl(-), y2(-.) and y3(--) vs time
80
90
100
Fig. 6. The set-point and load disturbance responses of the process with large dead-time.
45
1.5
'/
.........
---
0 " 50
-0.5
0
10
15
20
25
yl(-), y2(-.) and y3(--) vs time
30
35
--
40
Fig. 7. The set-point and load disturbance responses of the first non-minimum phase process.
0.1, and the load disturbance is introduced
t = 20. Figure 7 shows all the response curves.
For the second n o n - m i n i m u m phase process, p
is set to 2.5, both T and kp remain the same as in
the previous process. The n o n - m i n i m u m phase
zero in this case is at s = 3, much closer to the
origin of the s-plane. All the simulation results
for this process are shown in Figure 8.
It follows from Figures 7 and 8 that while both
the Ziergler-Nichols tuning and the Refined
Ziegler-Nichols tuning cannot provide adequate
control to the n o n - m i n i m u m phase processes,
especially for the second one, the new scheme
works r e m a r k a b l y well in both cases. Observe
that the load disturbance responses also seem to
improve considerably for these processes, thus
contradicting the genral patterns observed in the
preceding simulations. This, perhaps, should not
be understood in terms of the i m p r o v e m e n t
m a d e by the fuzzy self-tuning controller, in fact,
its load disturbance is always acceptable (but not
superior) for various kinds of processes. It
should be understood in terms of the failure of
the other P I D tuning schemes in providing an
1.5
4. Discussions
and conclusions
CloseA,-LoopResponse of process
__ ,
0.50
05
" ' 0
10
.
.
.
20
25
yl(-), y2(-.) and y3(--) vs time
15
30
35
40
Fig. 8. Thc set-point and load disturbance responses of the second non-minimum phase process.
46
References
[1] K.J. ~,str6m and B. Wittenmark, Adaptive Control
(Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA., 1989).
[2] K.J. ,~str0m and T. Hagglund, Automatic tuning of PID
controllers, Instrument Society of America, USA, 1988.
[3] K.J. ,~str6m and T. H~igglund, An industrial adaptive
PID controller, Proc. 1989 IFAC Symp. Adaptive
System in Control and Signal Processing, 1989, pp.
293-298.