This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been

fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

Hardware/Software Implementation of Fuzzy-Neural-

Network Self-Learning Control Methods for
Brushless DC Motor Drives
Ahmed Rubaai, Fellow, IEEE Paul Young, Student member, IEEE
Howard University
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
Washington, DC 20059

Abstract— This paper presents a study of different Fuzzy Neural
Network (FNN) learning control methods for Brushless DC Motor
(BLDC) Drives. The FNN combines fuzzy logic (FL) with the
learning capabilities of an Artificial Neural Network. The study
designs a FNN structure and defines four different training
algorithms for the FNN: Backpropagation (BP), Extended
Kalman Filter (EKF), Genetic (GEN), and Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO). These algorithms are examined in the simple
application of pattern matching an input set to an output set and
determine the strengths and weaknesses of each algorithm. Tests
of each learning algorithm by a pattern matching benchmark are
achieved via dSPACE DSP MATLAB/Simulink environment and
allows for the capability for adaptive self-tuning of the weights
and memberships of the input parameters. Thus, adds a self-
learning capability to the initial fuzzy design for operational
adaptively, and implements the solution on real hardware using a
BLDC motor drive system. The success of the adaptive FNN
controlled BLDC motor drive system is verified by experimental
results. Testing results show that the EKF method is the superior
method of the four for this specific application. The BP method
was also somewhat successful, nearly matching the pattern but
not to the accuracy of the EKF. The GEN method and PSO
methods did not demonstrate success. Demonstrating the
proposed self-learning FNN control on real hardware realizes the
solution.
Index Terms- Learning methods, FNN, real-time control,
MATLAB/Simulink, industrial drives
I. INTRODUCTION
The control problem is to actuate system behavior
according to a desired command. Automated control systems
solve the control problem with minimal human intervention.
The PID controller is a common industrial control strategy for
electrical feedback systems. Two problems exist with the
typical PID control response: (1) a tendency to initially
overshoot step reference changes; and (2) a tendency to
oscillate towards steady state. Separately, another typical
problem with many control solutions is a lack of adaptively of
the controller to system changes over time. Additionally, many
controls algorithms are interesting in theory but lack a
practical implementation example. Fuzzy logic (FL) control
has emerged as one of the most effective nonlinear control
methods, includes analytical stability analysis for bounded
inputs, important for fuzzy systems to gain acceptance among
research and industry communities [1]. Several successful
applications of FL control to improve the popular PID
controller are evident in the research community today to
build advanced and practical control systems [2-5]. Fuzzy
logic control is robust and non-combinatorial, but may lead to
poorly rough granulation and non-adaptation. Nonetheless, FL
control has various drawbacks. The difficulties descend from
the extraction and adjustment of fuzzy rules from input/output
data without the provision of on-line adaptive and learning
methods. In order to resolve these difficulties, numerous
advanced FL control schemes are introduced, for enhanced
PID control of motor drives, including hybrid-fuzzy, genetic-
fuzzy and fuzzy-neural-network control strategies [6-11]. With
reinforcement adaptive/learning mechanism, a FL self-learning
controller can efficiently learn the control law for complex
nonlinear ac machine drives. Treating the controller as a
process and deriving appropriate derivatives allows for
adaptive update to the FL components. The results are very
satisfactory and displayed a high dynamic performance. The
combination of FL controller with the structure of neural
network makes use of the advantages of both the learning
capability of neural network and the robustness of fuzzy logic
control that ought to compensate the disadvantages of
modification of fuzzy control rules or models. Additionally,
FNN-based control is found to be a powerful tool for the
solution of nonlinear control problems, and is employed to
generate and tune fuzzy rules for AC motor drives [12].
Most of the methods developed so far have some
drawbacks to generalization and formulation, so the
parralization and hybridization are beneficial for these
approaches to improve the learning capability and operation of
high performance motor drives. The Fuzzy Neural Network
(FNN) has acceptance today for application in adaptive control
of motor drive systems. The ability of the FNN to train itself to
create a control law or a parameter estimation profile is the
promise of the future, so the training algorithms for FNN are
crucially important to successful application of the FNN. The
objective of this study is to examine four different learning
algorithms: (1) Backpropagation (BP); (2) Extended Kalman
Filter (EKF); (3) Genetic (GEN); and (4) Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO) in the simple application of pattern
matching an input set to an output set and determine the

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
strengths and weaknesses of each method. Tests of each
learning algorithm by a pattern matching benchmark occur in
MATLAM/Simulink environment. The test results allow for
comparison of each algorithm performance. The FNN
structure is introduced to allow for training algorithms,
particularly the incorporation of the most promising method of
the four as a learning algorithm for industrial drives. A
dSPACE DSP board provides controller I/O interfaces and
hosts the control algorithm developed in MATLAB/Simulink
and auto-compiled into an embedded control process. To the
best knowledge of the authors, the FNN membership
parameter vector update via PSO and GEN is not seen in
literature.
II. SELF LEARNING CONTROL TECHNIQUES-
BASED FUZZY NEURAL NETWORK
Fuzzy Logic (FL) is an important area of research for
control systems. FL makes rules based decisions regarding
degrees of membership of input parameters. The Fuzzy Neural
Network (FNN) is an implementation of FL with trainable
parameters similar to an Artificial Neural Network (ANN).
The techniques for training FNN structures can differ and
many methods exist, primarily the gradient decent
Backpropagation (BP) and Extended Kalman Filter (EKF)
methods. Adaptive training algorithms are gaining research
acceptance, particularly Genetic (GEN) and Particle Swarm
Optimization (PSO). Different algorithms are possible for
FNN training process. This section demonstrates a practical
FNN structure with four leaning methods and tests
performance. Fig. 1 displays a FNN learning scheme.
Fig. 1 FNN Training
A. Fuzzy Neural Network
The first step is to specifically design a FNN, which
can have various forms beyond how this work defines one. In
this case, the FNN has four layers: (1) the input layer; (2) the
membership layer; (3) the rule layer; and (4) the output layer.
This paper only uses a FNN form with two inputs and one
output. The membership layer creates a fuzzy membership set
for each input, and the determination of the size of each
membership set is customizable. A membership size of three is
chosen. With more memberships per input the FNN has a finer
granularity to make decisions, but requires more parameters.
The rules layer specifies rules about a truth-table-like
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
matching of the membership sets of each input. The output
layer performs defuzzification by forming a single signal from
the rules.
The FNN consists of a 2-input 1-output structure with
three memberships per input, thus called a 2x3x1 FNN. The
membership layer consists of Gaussian membership functions
parameterized by a mean and sigma each, and the output layer
consists of a parameterized weighted summation. Refer to
Fig.2 for a diagram of the FNN structure.
Fig. 2 2x3x1FNN
The input layer consists of a capture of the two inputs.
𝑦𝑖1 = 𝑢1𝑖 (1)
where 𝑖 = 1,2 and 𝑦𝑖1 is the output of each input node.
The membership layer consists of a Gaussian membership of
the input layer outputs.
(𝑦𝑖1 −𝑚𝑗 )2
𝑦𝑗2 = exp − (2)
(𝜎𝑗 )2
where 𝑗 = 1: 6 , 𝑖 = 1𝑖𝑓1 ≤ 𝑗 ≤ 3, 𝑖 = 2𝑖𝑓4 ≤ 𝑗 ≤ 6 , 𝑚𝑗 and
𝜎𝑗 are parameters, and 𝑦𝑗2 is the output of each membership
node.
The rule layer consists of a table of products of the
membership layer outputs
𝑦𝑘3 = (𝑦𝑙2 )(𝑦𝑚
2
) (3)
where 𝑘 = 1: 9,𝑦𝑘3 is the output of each rule node.
The output layer is a weighted summation of the rule layer
outputs
9
𝑦 = 𝑦𝑜4 = ∑(𝑤𝑘 ) (𝑦𝑘3 ) (4)
𝑘=1
where 𝑜 = 1, 𝑦𝑜4 is the output of the output node, and 𝑤𝑘 are
the weights of the output layer. Note, that between the 6 means
and sigmas of the membership layer (𝑚𝑗 and 𝜎𝑗 , 𝑗 = 1: 6) and
the 9 weights of the output layer (𝑤𝑘 , 𝑘 = 1: 9) there are 21
parameters for the 2x3x1 FNN. The training of these
parameters is an important aspect to the usefulness of the
FNN. For further notation across training algorithms, a state
vector 𝑥(𝑛) shall consist of the parameters at a given time
step 𝑛
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

𝜕(𝑦(𝑛))
𝑤1 (𝑛) 𝜕(𝑤(𝑛))
... 𝜕(𝑦(𝑛))
𝑤9 (𝑛) ℎ(𝑛) = 𝜕(𝑚(𝑛))
(12)
𝑚1 (𝑛) 𝜕(𝑦(𝑛))
𝑥(𝑛) = ... (5) [ 𝜕(𝜎(𝑛)) ]
𝑚6 (𝑛)
𝜎1 (𝑛) where 𝑦 is the output of the FNN. Note that ℎ has length 21
for the 9 weight partials and the 6 partials each of means and
... sigmas. Deriving these partials is similar to the derivation
[ 𝜎6 (𝑛) ] found in the back-propagation method but without an error
function. The partial of the output with respect to the weights,
Then, notationally wrap the evaluations of eqs. (1)-(5) for state sigmas, and means is straightforward
vector 𝑥(𝑛)and input vector 𝑢(𝑛)as The next step of the EKF is to define an innovations
process
𝑦(𝑛) = 𝑓(𝑥(𝑛), 𝑢(𝑛)) (6) 𝑧˜(𝑛) = 𝑦 𝑑 (𝑛) − 𝑦(𝑛) (13)
A few more parameters need to be defined.
B. Learning Methods  Variable𝑃(𝑛) is the state error covariance matrix and
B.1 Backpropagation Training Algorithm is initialized to the identity matrix. Because 𝑥(𝑛)is
The BP method trains the parameters of the FNN to [21x1] in this FNN application then 𝑃(𝑛)is [21x21].
match input sets to an output set using the partial derivatives  Parameter 𝑅 is the output noise characteristic.
of each parameter to an error function. Given a desired output Because the FNN is a single output this parameter is
and a FNN output, define the following error function for BP a scalar. The value may be tuned by the engineer, but
training: based upon 𝐸[𝑣(𝑛)𝑣(𝑛)]where 𝑣(𝑛)is the difference
𝑒(𝑛) = (0.5)(𝑦 𝑑 (𝑛) − 𝑦(𝑛))2 (7) of the desired output minus and the FNN output.
 Parameter 𝑄 is the system state noise characteristic.
The general idea of BP training is to update each parameter of Because the FNN has 21 states this parameter is a
the FNN with the following rule based upon learning rate [21x21] matrix. The value may be tuned by the
𝜕𝑒(𝑛)
𝑥𝑖 (𝑛 + 1) = 𝑥𝑖 (𝑛) − 𝜂𝑖 𝜕𝑥 (𝑛) (8) engineer, but is based upon 𝐸[𝑒(𝑛)𝑒(𝑛)𝑇 ] where
𝑖
𝑒(𝑛) is the difference of the next iteration state
Thus, in order to update the FNN, finding the partial
vector𝑥(𝑛 + 1)minus the state vector 𝑥(𝑛).
derivatives of the error with respect to each weight, mean, and
Finally, the recursion formulas are the following for the EKF
sigma is necessary. The partial of the error function with
[13]:
respect to the weights, means and sigmas is straightforward.
The Kalman Gain matrix equation
Finally, apply the partials of the error with respect to 𝑃(𝑛)ℎ(𝑛)
each parameter to the back-propagation update formula of (8) 𝑘(𝑛) = (14)
𝑅+ℎ𝑇 (𝑛)𝑃(𝑛)ℎ(𝑛)

𝜕𝑒(𝑛)
𝑤𝑘 (𝑛 + 1) = 𝑤𝑘 (𝑛) − 𝜂𝑘𝑤 𝜕𝑤 (9) The state equation based on the innovations
𝑘 (𝑛)
𝑥(𝑛 + 1) = 𝑥(𝑛) + 𝑘(𝑛)𝑧˜(𝑛) (15)
𝑚 𝜕𝑒(𝑛)
𝑚𝑗 (𝑛 + 1) = 𝑚𝑗 (𝑛) − 𝜂𝑗 (10)
𝜕𝑚𝑗 (𝑛)
The state error covariance equation
𝜎 𝜕𝑒(𝑛)
𝜎𝑗 (𝑛 + 1) = 𝜎𝑗 (𝑛) − 𝜂𝑗 𝜕𝜎 (𝑛) (11) 𝑃(𝑛 + 1) = 𝑃(𝑛) − 𝑘(𝑛)ℎ𝑇 (𝑛)𝑃(𝑛) + 𝑄 (16)
𝑗
where 𝜂𝑘𝑤 , 𝜂𝑗𝑚 and 𝜂𝑗𝜎 are
learning rates. The learning rates may
Also note, on a periodic interval the state error covariance
be tuned by the user. The application of (9-11) over a set of
matrix may need to be reset to the identity matrix to avoid
inputs and desired outputs trains the FNN.
numerical instability.
𝑃(𝑛 + 1) = 𝐼 (17)
B.2 EKF Learning Algorithm
The EKF method trains the parameters of the FNN to
B.3 GEN and PSO Learning Algorithms
match inputs sets to an output set by treating the FNN as a
The GEN method treats the parameters of the FNN as a
non-linear stationary process. The first step in the EKF method
chromosome, then initializes a population of these
is to recall the state vector from 𝑥(𝑛)from eq.5. This vector
chromosomes, and evaluates each chromosome under
serves as the baseline for the recursive formulation of the EKF.
performance for a cost. Then, at a reproductive stage, a new
The next step is the definition of the output gradient vector
population is generated by the selection, crossover, and
with respect to each state
mutation of chromosomes from the previous population.
The PSO method treats the parameters of the FNN as a
particle, then initializes a swarm of particles, and evaluates

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
each particle under performance for a cost. Then, at an update
stage, a new swarm is generated by guiding the current swarm
towards the best overall particle and the individual best
performances of each particle along with a momentum
component.
1. Define a population 𝑋(𝑛)at time step 𝑛 of size 𝑁 chromo-
somes
𝑋(𝑛) = [𝑥1 (𝑛) 𝑥2 (𝑛) . . . 𝑥𝑁 (𝑛)] (18)
2. Evaluate a fitness function which quantifies performance.
3. Apply an evolutionary or swarm training method as fol-
lows:
 Genetic: Create a new population by, for each new
entry in the new population, select two from the old
(based on fitness), cross them, and perform mutation.
 Particle Swarm: Create a new swarm based on attrac-
tion to the best overall fitness ever achieved, the best
performance of each vector “particle”, and a momen-
tum of rate of change
II. TESTS PERFORMANCE
The laboratory setup is similar to that reported by the
authors in earlier work [14]. The hardware setup realizes the
theoretical design and supports a testing environment for
operation. The basic components are the motor drive system,
the DSP board, and the PC. The driving board is a Moog
T200-410[15]. The driven motor is a 1-hp 3000 r/min three
phase brushless DC servomotor [16]. A variable auto-
transformer provides the driving power to the driving circuit
with 230V AC. A 24V power supply supports the functional
board electronics. The driving board interfaces with the DSP
providing a resolver measurement and accepting a control
command. The board also interfaces with the PC which hosts
the WinDrive software package which can turn the motor
on/off and provides basic control configurations. The DSP
board is the dSPACE DS1104 DSP board [17]. Fig. 3 displays
a snapshot of the laboratory setup.
Driving Circuit
Variable Auto-
Torque
Transformer
Transducer
24 DC Logic BLDC
PMDC
Power Supply Motor
Generator
PMDC Load
Voltage
DSP dSPACE
Torque Readout
Oscilloscope Board
Simulink / Matlab
ControlDesk / dSPACE
Fig. 3 Photo of the laboratory test bench
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
An experiment tests the learning of a 2x3x1 FNN as
defined in section II using the four different learning
algorithms. The experiment attempts to pattern match a
training set of inputs to outputs through the FNN in software
simulation. The results of each algorithm performance
constitute the basis of analysis for comparing the learning
methods. The MATLAB/Simulink environment provides the
programming for the tests. Using MATLAB functions and
scripts, the following: the execution of a FNN on a parameter
set and inputs; the execution of the training methods; and
plotting utilities; enables for the comparison of the training
methods.
A benchmark test demonstrates a measure of
effectiveness for each training algorithm as a tool for
improving the performance of a FNN for pattern matching. An
epoch of input training data must be defined first as a standard
across all algorithms. Three input values are defined for each
input: -0.5, 0, and +0.5. Since there are two inputs, this test
shall create a table of input pairs across these three values,
creating a set of nine input pairs: {(-0.5,-0.5) , (-0.5,+0.0), (-
0.5,+0.5) , (+0.0,-0.5) , (+0.0,+0.0) , (+0.0,+0.5) ,(+0.5,-0.5),
(+0.5,+0.0) , (+0.5,+0.5)}. An arbitrary non-linear function
f(u1,u2) creates a sample desired output y value for each input
pairing:
y =– u1 – u2 + u1 u1 + u2 u2 + u1 u2 (19)
Recall that at a time step the FNN has a state vector
of parameters. The training of these parameters allows for the
FNN to pattern match an input pair to an output value. Any
comparative analysis of training algorithms depends on the
initial state of this vector – or the initial “guess” of the FNN as
to how to pattern match. The closer the initial state is to
matching the desired pattern, the less training is necessary. The
initial state selection for this experiment requires selecting 9
weights (for the output layer), 6 means (for the membership
layer), and 6 sigmas (for the membership layer). The selection
of the means and sigmas for this test shall be a smart initial
guess, in that the initial means spread the memberships across
the expected inputs. The selection of the initial weights shall
be random between 0 and 1. If the initial points matched the
desired points immediately, to within a margin of error, then
there would be no further problem to explore. The
42V DC Prog.
fundamental aspect to this section is the exploration of training
Power Supply algorithms to match this pattern from this initial condition
benchmark. Table II details the initial states. A battery of tests
demonstrates the effectiveness of the learning methods. A test
of each method on the benchmark case is performed.
Parameter update occurs at every step for BP and EKF
methods. The GEN and PSO methods shall update at the end
of each epoch of training data. The plot of the initial Gaussian
membership based upon the initial means and sigmas follow in
Figs. 4a and 4b.
For the BP test; Cycle 200 training epochs with 9
steps per epoch. A parameter update occurs after each time
step. Fig. 5 details the accumulated error cost (squared error
between desired output and actual output) from each epoch of
training. Notice how the error decreases from the large initial
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

error to a smaller error and stabilizes. Fig. 6 plots the final

pattern of the final FNN state for matching the desired pattern,
in comparison to the initial pattern of the initial FNN state.
Note that the final and desired values are very close to each
other, and much improved over the initial. The BP test
demonstrates moderate success in achieving a pattern
matching FNN for the given input data. The Figs. 7a and 7b
show the membership functions of the membership sets of the
final FNN state, for inputs u1 and u2 respectively.

Fig. 5 BP FNN training performance

Fig. 4a FNN initial error signal memberships

For the EKF test, cycle 200 training epochs with 9

steps per epoch. Each epoch step tests an element of FNN
training data set. A parameter update occurs after each time
step. The Fig. 8 details the accumulated error cost (squared
error between desired output and actual output) from each
epoch of training. Notice how the error decreases to a
negligible amount close to zero. The Fig. 9 plots the final
pattern of the final FNN state for matching the desired pattern, Fig. 6 BP FNN initial and final pattern
in comparison to the initial pattern of the initial FNN state.
Note that the final and desired values effectively match. The
Figs. 10a and 10b display the membership functions of the
membership sets of the final FNN state, for inputs u1 and u2
respectively. The EKF test demonstrates success in achieving a
pattern matching FNN for the given input data.

Fig 7a BP final membership for input 1

Fig. 4b FNN initial delta signal memberships

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

Fig. 10a EKF FNN final membership set for input 1

Fig 7b BP final membership for input 2

Fig. 10b EKF FNN final membership set for input 2

For the GEN test, start from the initial FNN condition
Fig. 8 EKF FNN training performance to create a population of 10 chromosomes; cycle 30 training
epochs for the 10 chromosomes with 9 steps per epoch per
chromosome, in essence making 90 steps per epoch. A
parameter update occurs at the end of each epoch. The Fig. 11
details the accumulated error cost (squared error between
desired output and actual output) from each epoch of training
by chromosome. Notice how the error moves about but then
stabilizes as the genetic algorithm converges. The Fig. 12 plots
the final pattern of the final FNN state for matching the
desired pattern, in comparison to the initial pattern of the
initial FNN state. Note that the final and desired values are not
very close to each other, perhaps slightly improved over the
initial. The Figs. 13a and 13b show the membership functions
of the membership sets of the final FNN state, for inputs 1 and
2 respectively. The GEN test demonstrates very little success
in achieving a pattern matching FNN for the given input data.

Fig. 9 EKF FNN initial and final pattern

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

Fig. 13b GEN FNN Final membership set for input 2

Fig. 11 Genetic FNN training performance
For the PSO test, start from the initial FNN condition
from Table IX to create a swarm of 10 particles; cycle 30
training epochs for the 10 particles with 9 steps per epoch per
particle, in essence making 90 steps per epoch. Each epoch
step tests an element of FNN training data set. A parameter
update occurs at the end of each epoch. The Fig. 14 details the
accumulated error cost (squared error between desired output
and actual output) from each epoch of training by particle.
Notice how the error moves about but then stabilizes to a large
error as the genetic algorithm converges. The Fig. 15 plots the
final pattern of the final FNN state for matching the desired
pattern, in comparison to the initial pattern of the initial FNN
state. Note that the final and desired values are not close to
each other, perhaps slightly improved over the initial. The
PSO test demonstrates very little success in achieving a
pattern matching FNN for the given input data. The Figs. 16a
and 16b illustrate the membership functions of the
Fig. 12 Genetic FNN initial and final pattern
membership sets of the final FNN state, for inputs u1 and u2
respectively

Fig. 13a GEN FNN final membership set for input 1

Fig. 14 PSO FNN training performance

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
Fig. 15 PSO FNN initial and final pattern
Fig. 16a PSO FNN Final membership set for input 1
Fig. 16b PSO FNN final membership set for input 2
The testing results show a range of success for FNN
pattern matching training. The BP training effectively trains
the pattern matching within 100 epochs to a reasonable error
level. The final BP pattern approximately matches the desired
pattern. The EKF training effectively trains the pattern
matching within 25 epochs. The final pattern EKF closely
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
matches the desired pattern. The GEN training ineffectively
trains the pattern matching, stabilizing to a poor solution
within 5 epochs (but note that the epoch is 10 times the size of
a gradient epoch for BP or EKF). The final GEN pattern does
not match the desired pattern. The PSO training ineffectively
trains the pattern matching, roughly stabilizing to a poor
solution within 10 epochs (but note that the epoch is 10 times
the size of a gradient epoch for BP or EKF). The final pattern
PSO does not match the desired pattern. The EKF training
method is the best training method of the four under test for
this exercise, with BP performing admirably well as a second
best, while the GEN and PSO methods are unsuccessful.
The EKF method performs most successfully in this
benchmark, but there are benefits and costs to each method.
For one, the EKF method is computationally intense. The BP
performs fewer operations per iteration, even if performance is
not as good as the EKF. Furthermore, the use of evolutionary
algorithms in this benchmark is not emblematic of all possible
uses. A greater population size, different initial condition, or
modified mutation/swarm algorithm might render the GEN
and PSO methods more competitive.
IV. LABORATORY IMPLEMENTATION OF
LEARNING ALGORITHMS-BASED FNN PI-AND PD-
TYPE CONTROLLER
The laboratory “Implementation of FNN controller”
involves controlling a BLDC motor drive system using a PI/PD
FNN controller system. The PI/PD controller mimics PID
control and composed two FNN structures. The PI FNN
generates a delta control signal as an output that sums with a
state parameter of the previous PI control signal to create the
current PI control signal. The PD FNN generates a PD control
signal directly. The summation of the PI and PD control signals
creates the control signal to send to the motor/load. Each FNN
receives as input the reference error and the derivative of the
reference error with respect to time. As seen in PID control, the
integral and derivative of the error signal are created as part of
the control law. However, instead of PID control, the control
law is built upon fuzzy logic. Fig. 17 shows the FNN PI/PD
control structure. Details of the control structure are similar to
that reported in earlier work [13] and are not repeated in this
paper. The nominal test case shall demonstrate success and
further test cases may demonstrate strengths and weaknesses of
the controller. Four training methods to update the parameters
of the FNN are examined. The backpropagation (BP) method is
common, and the Extended Kalman Filter (EKF) method is
also popular. Additionally, genetic (GEN) and the Particle
Swarm Optimization (PSO) methods show promise towards
training a FNN. The “Examination of FNN Training Methods”
shall involve comparing these four different training methods
to train a randomly initialized 2x3x1 FNN. The test data shall
be a table of 3 input values per input, making 9 input pairings
corresponding to 9 output values. The FNN should match the
input pattern to the output after training is complete. The BP
and EKF methods shall update at each iteration. The GEN and
PSO methods shall update after the end of each 9 input cycle.
The results shall be examined for the quality of the pattern
matching and the speed at which the training occurred. Further
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

conclusions shall be made as to specific strengths of each

algorithm.

Fig 18a Speed tracking via EKF-based FNN controller

Fig. 17 FNN PD-and PI control structure

A. Experimental Results
Several test cases were completed in the laboratory to
evaluate the performance of the FNN controller-based four
learning algorithms. However, only salient results are reported
in this paper. The weights and membership functions of the
FNN were chosen randomly and then trained using the four
training algorithms. The algorithms trained over several
iterations window by modifying the weights and membership
functions, which are used during FNN learning to improve the
tracking performance of the motor speed. In all cases, the
actual speed is superimposed on the desired reference speed in
order to compare the tracking accuracy. To test the load
characteristics of the FNN controller, a PM dc generator that
produced torque proportional to the speed was coupled with the
BLDC motor through a torque transducer. Plots captured in the
laboratory using dSPACE DSP Control Desk validate each of
these test results.
In the first test, a sinusoidal-wave trajectory with amplitude
of 1000 rpm was considered. The motor was operating under
radial load in the clockwise or positive rotating direction. The
results are summarized in Figs 18(a) and (b). Fig. 18a shows
the tracking performance of the rotor speed under EKF learning
algorithm. It is observed that the proposed controller brings the
actual speed to the desired value smoothly and with a small
amount of steady-state error but without the overshoot or
oscillatory response. The test also shows that for arbitrary
initial conditions, the training can improve the tracking
performance. This is a practically key finding since the values
of the adjustable parameters (weights and membership
functions) of the FNN are initialized randomly and the EKF
training algorithm is able to adjust these weights and
membership functions gradually to their accepted values.
Clearly, the controller-based EKF algorithm eliminates both
overshoot and extent of oscillations under loading condition.
Furthermore, the torque is observed to spike when the speed
changes direction from one level to another. Fig. 18(b) shows
the progress of error signals during learning process.
Fig. 18b Error and delta error signals during training
For a comparison purpose, Figs. 19(a) and (b) exhibit a case
where the EKF algorithm was replaced by a PSO learning
algorithm. Clearly, the system response is unsatisfactory. It
shows that there is significant degradation in the tracking
performance. The PSO algorithm is unable to adjust the values
of the adjustable parameters (weights and membership
functions) of the FNN from a random initial state to display
similar tracking to that of Fig 18(a). There is a phase shift in
the response and the actual speed lags the desired speed by
relatively large time-varying angle. Clearly, the tracking
performance-based PSO algorithm exhibits a major amount of
steady-state error as the measured speed approaches the desired
speed. Increasing sampling rates might, thus, may produce
better training due to a higher amount of information. Further
training will result in better tracking accuracy. The error signals
for this tracking are shown in Fig. 19(b). It provides an
indication of how poorly the PSO algorithm fails in generating
a control signal that forces the actual speed to follow the
desired reference speed at all time. The results illustrated in Fig
18(a) and (b) are clearly superior to those shown in Figs 19(a),
and (b).
The above test was repeated with GEN learning algorithm
running under the same conditions and the results obtained are
similar to those shown in Fig. 19a. Because of the matching

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

test results, we also conducted the experimental test using a

square-wave trajectory with the same amplitude of 1000 rpm to
distinguish its performance from the earlier experiment that
utilized the sinusoidal-wave trajectory. The results are
summarized in Figs. 20(a) and (b). Fig. 20(a) illustrates the
tracking performance of the specified square-wave trajectory.
Fig 20 (b) displays the progress of error signals during learning
process. The GEN test demonstrates very little success in
achieving a desirable tracking performance. The up-to-date
investigation is directed on more developing the GEN and PSO
methods considered in this paper and applying them in
laboratory environments to improve the tracking performance
of BLDC motor drives. More work is needed in defining an
effective use of the GEN and PSO learning methods towards
training a FNN. Perhaps only a subset of the parameters of the
FNN shall be trained via these algorithms, or perhaps better Fig. 19b Error and delta error signals during training
tuning of the algorithm parameters would yield more positive
results.

Finally, to display the efficacy of the learning algorithms

further, the POS learning algorithm was replaced by a BP
algorithm. The corresponding trajectories of the actual speed
and the motor voltage are plotted in Figs. 21(a) and (b). Fig.
21(a) shows the test response obtained by a BP algorithm; it
shows a response similar to that of Fig 18a (tracking under
EKF) but with oscillations and overshoot. Furthermore, there is
a discrepancy in the phase response. These oscillations and
phase distortions in the response might be due to either slow
learning or some kind of memory effect. It is to be noted that
the EKF-based algorithm offers healthier response in terms of
oscillations, phase distortions, and overshoot. Fig. 21(b)
displays the motor voltage sequence generated by the BP
controller network during a segment of the learning. The BP
controller exhibits oscillations around steady-state and some Fig 20a Speed tracking via GEN-based FNN controller
overshoot.

Fig. 20b Error and delta error signals during training

Fig 19a Speed tracking via PSO-based FNN controller

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications
Fig. 21a Speed tracking via BP-based FNN controller
Fig. 21b Control signal for the BP learning algorithm
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a study of the different training methods
for a FNN given a benchmark training set was presented. The
study defines four different training algorithms for the FNN:
Backpropagation (BP), Extended Kalman Filter (EKF),
Genetic (GEN), and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO).
Tests of each learning algorithm by a pattern matching
benchmark occur in MATLAB Simulink environment. Testing
results showed that the EKF training algorithm was the
superior method of the four for this specific application, with
the BP coming in a respectable second. The GEN and PSO
methods were ineffective in training the FNN to match the
benchmark pattern in the tests performed. If the processing
demands of the EKF are not available to the user, the BP
method is slower and with more final error but also effective.
The BP method was also somewhat successful, nearly
matching the pattern but not to the accuracy of the EKF.
Unfortunately, neither training design demonstrates much
success compared to the BP and EKF techniques
The EKF learning method is the best training method
of the four under test for this exercise, with BP performing
0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
admirably well as a second best, while the GEN and PSO
methods are unsuccessful. The EKF method performs most
successfully in this benchmark, but there are benefits and costs
to each method. For one, the EKF method is computationally
intense. The BP performs fewer operations per iteration, even
if performance is not as good as the EKF. Furthermore, the use
of evolutionary algorithms in this benchmark is not
emblematic of all possible uses. A greater population size,
different initial condition, or modified mutation/swarm
algorithm might render the GEN and PSO methods more
competitive.
More work is needed in defining an effective use of
the GEN and PSO methods towards training a FNN. Perhaps
only a subset of the parameters of the FNN shall be trained via
these algorithms, or perhaps better tuning of the algorithm
parameters would yield more positive results.
REFERENCES
[1] B. M. Hohan and A. Sinha, “Analytical Structure and
Stability Analysis of a Fuzzy PID Controller,” Applied
Soft Computing, vol. 8, pp. 749-758, 2008
[2] Bao-Gang HU, G. K. I. Mann, and R. Gosine, “A
Systematic Study of Fuzzy PID Controllers – Function-
Based Evaluation Approach,” IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 699-712, Oct 2001.
[3] A. Rubaai, M. J. Castro-Sitiriche, and A. R. Ofoli,
“Design and Implementation of Parallel Fuzzy PID
Controller for High-Performance Brushless Motor
Drives: An Integrated Environment for Rapid Control
Prototyping,” IEEE Transactions on Industry
Applications, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 1090-1098, July/Aug
2008.
[4] A. Sant, K. R. Rajagopal, “PM Synchronous Motor
Speed Control Using Hybrid Fuzzy-PI With Novel
Switching Functions,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics,
vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 4672-4675, October 2009.
[5] A. Rubaai, D. Ricketts and M. D. Kankam,
“Experimental Verification of a Hybrid Fuzzy Control
Strategy for a High Performance Brushless DC Drive
System,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications,
Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 503-512, March/April 2001
[6] Yi-Pinl Kuo, and Tzuu-Hseng S. Li, “GA-Based Fuzzy
PI/PD Controller for Automotive Active Suspension
System,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,
vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1051-1056, Dec 1999.
[7] M. Masiala, B. Vafakhah, J. Salmon, and A. M. Knight,
“Fuzzy Self-Tuning Speed Control of an Indirect Field-
Oriented Control Induction Motor Drive,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Applications, vol. 44, no. 6,
pp. 1732-1740, Nov/Dec 2008.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2468191, IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications

[8] A. Rubaai, M. J. Castro-Sitiriche, and A. R. Ofoli, “DSP-

Based Laboratory Implementation of Hybrid Fuzzy-PID
Controller Using Genetic Optimization for High
Performance Motor Drives,” IEEE Transactions on
Industry Applications, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 1977-1986,
Nov/Dec 2008.

[9] M. N. Uddin; M. A. Abido; M.A. Rahman, “Real-Time

Performance Evaluation of a Genetic-Algorithm-Based
Fuzzy Logic Controller for IPM Motor Drives,” IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, vol 41, no. 1, pp.
246-252, Jan/Feb 2005.

[10] Faa-Jeng Lin, Li-Tao Teng, Jeng-Wen Lin, and Syuan-Yi

Chen, “Recurrent Functional-Link-Based-Neural-
Network-Controlled Induction-Generator System Using
Improved Particle Swarm Optimization,” IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 56, no. 5, pp.
1557-1577, May 2009.

[11] Faa-Jeng Lin; Li-Tao Teng; Hen Chu, “A Robust

Recurrent Wavelet Neural Network Controller With
Improved Particle Swarm Optimization for Linear
Synchronous Motor Drive,” IEEE Transactions on Power
Electronics, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 3067-3078, Nov 2008.

[12] A. Rubaai, D. Ricketts and M. D. Kankam,

“Development and Implementation of an Adaptive
Fuzzy-Neural-Network Controller for Brushless Drives,”
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 38, No.
2, pp. 441-447, March/April 2002

[13] A. Rubaai and P. Young, “EKF-Based PI/PD-Like Fuzzy

Neural Network Controller for Brushless Drives,” IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 47, No. 6,
pp. 2391-2401, Nov./Dec 2011

[14] A. Rubaai, J. Jerry, and S. Smith, “Performance

Evaluation of Fuzzy Switching Position Controller for
Automation and Process Industry Control,” IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 47, No. 5,
pp. 2274-2282, Sept/Oct 2011.

[15] dSPACE User’s Guide, Digital Signal Processing and

Control Engineering, dSPACE, Paderborn, Germany,
2003.

[16] G413-817 Technical Data Manual, Moog Aerospace,

East Aurora, New York, 2000

[17] T200-410 Technical Data Manual, Moog Aerospace,

East Aurora, New York, 2000

0093-9994 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.