## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**Abdel Badie Sharkawy
**

Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Assiut University, Assiut 715 16, Egypt

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 16 June 2008

Received in revised form

18 June 2010

Accepted 23 June 2010

Available online 14 July 2010

Keywords:

Antilock braking system (ABS)

Braking basics

Slip ratio

Decoupled rule bases

Takagi–Sugeno (T–S) fuzzy systems

Self-tuning

Genetic algorithm (GA) and Ziegler–Nichols

(Z–N) method

a b s t r a c t

Since the emergence of PID controllers, control system engineers are in pursuit of more and more

sophisticated versions of these controllers to achieve better performance, particularly in situations

where providing a control action to even a minimal degree of satisfaction is a problem. This work is an

attempt to contribute in this ﬁeld. Variations in the values of weight, the friction coefﬁcient of the road,

road inclination and other nonlinear dynamics may highly affect the performance of antilock braking

systems (ABS). A self-tuning scheme seems necessary to overcome these effects. Addition of automatic

tuning-tool can track changes in system operation and compensate for drift, due to aging and parameter

uncertainties. The paper develops a self-tuning PID control scheme with an application to ABS via

combinations of fuzzy and genetic algorithms (GAs). The control objective is to minimize the stopping

distance, while keeping the slip ratio of the tires within desired range. Computer simulations are

performed to verify the proposed control scheme. Results are reported and discussed.

& 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Difﬁculties in designing an ABS may be classiﬁed as follows.

First, the vehicle braking-dynamics are nonlinear. Second,

there are many unknown environmental parameters, like road

coefﬁcient of friction which may be wet, snowy or dry. Finally,

parameter changes due to mechanical wear and aging. Recently, a

great deal of research has been performed on the antilock brake

system (ABS) (Assadin, 2001; Nouilllant et al., 2002; von Altrock

Nov., 1997; Choi et al., 2002). Currently, most commercial ABSs

are based on look-up tabular approach (Chih-Min Lin and Hsu

March, 2003). These tables are calibrated through iterative

laboratory experiments and engineering ﬁeld tests.

The conventional PID controller for automated machines is

widely accepted by industry. According to a survey reported in Yu

(1999), more than 90% of control loops used in an industry use

PID. This is because PID controllers are easy to understand (has

clear physical meanings i.e. present, past and predictive), easy to

explain to others, and easy to implement. Unfortunately, many of

the PID loops that are in operation are in continual need of

monitoring and adjustment since they can easily become

improperly tuned (Passino and Yurkovich, 1998). Generally

speaking, in order to meet the demands of real time operation,

self-tuning is necessary.

Motivated by the success of fuzzy controllers in controlling

nonlinear, complex, time-varying dynamic processes in real

world, there has been steep increase in the research work on

the theoretical aspects of fuzzy logic controller (FLC). The main

reason is that FLCs essentially incorporate human expertise in the

control strategy, exploiting easier understanding of linguistic

interpretation.

Among the different types of FLC structures, PI-type and

PD-type FLCs are very common (Passino and Yurkovich, 1998;

Sharkawy et al., 2003). Other related works have employed

different adaptation policies to improve one or more performance

indices (Sharkawy, 2005; Mudi. and Pal, 1999; Xu et al., 1998).

However, development of PID-type FLCs was not popular because

they need the construction of three dimensional rule-base, which

complicates the design. Moreover to make PID-type FLC adaptive

in nature, the number of free adaptable parameters increases and

their interaction and interdependence further complicates the

situation (Mann et al., 1999).

The area of auto-tuning of PID controller using fuzzy systems

has attracted many authors (Xu et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1999;

S.-Z. et al., 1993; Visioli January, 2001; Bhattacharya et al., 2003;

Visioli, 1999; Macvicar-Whelan, 1976; Tzafestas and Papanikolo-

poulos, 1990; Marsh, 1998). A fuzzy self-tuning incremental PID

controller has been proposed by He et al. S.-Z. et al. (1993). The

controller implements a conventional PID structure, which starts

its operation with values of proportional gain, integral time, and

derivative time, obtained from the well-known Ziegler–Nichls

(Z–N) tuning formula. This scheme implements a supervisory

fuzzy system, which adaptively changes the control parameter

after each sampling instant to improve the control performance.

In another study, a survey for tuning PID controllers with fuzzy

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engappai

Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence

0952-1976/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2010.06.011

E-mail address: ab.shark@aun.edu.eg

Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052

logic has been made by Visioli January (2001). In his work, several

PID control schemes have been simulated for linear systems.

Although in most cases, the controllers showed superior perfor-

mance for linear processes, they could only reduce the peak

overshoot at the expense of increasing rise time, and the

degradation becomes more and more signiﬁcant with increasing

time delay. This restricted the overall acceptance as a good

controller mechanism (Bhattacharya et al., 2003).

Referring to aforementioned works, one may conclude that

Z–N method has been widely accepted as a base for tuning PID

controllers off- and on-line. This may be referred to the ability of

the method to preserve good load disturbance attenuation. Most of

these studies however have transformed the tuning problem from

using the Z–N tuning parameters to other author-deﬁned para-

meters and use fuzzy logic as the tuning-tool for the new

parameters; (S.-Z. et al., 1993; Visioli January, 2001; Bhattacharya

et al., 2003; Visioli, 1999; Macvicar-Whelan, 1976), [others]. This

indicates the lack of a generalized approach which can be followed

for linear and nonlinear plants. Furthermore, the suitability and

application range of the Z–N method are very limited (Marsh,

1998; Zhuang and Atherton, 1993). For example, it is not suitable

for plants with a delay to time-constant ratio smaller than 0.15 or

larger than 0.6. This method also yields poor damping and high

sensitivity and does not achieve robustness of the closed-loop

when considerable parameter variations take place.

In this study, a self-tuning PID controller is proposed for the

ABS. Controlling the braking torque of an ABS is necessary to avoid

locking of the wheels, so that the driver can keep control on the

vehicle’s motion. Parameter variations and uncertainties imply

the need for an auto-tuning operation to achieve the performance

consistency. The article describes a generalized procedure for the

development of a simple, model free fuzzy PID-type structure as

an effective combination of three independent fuzzy systems.

Each PID parameter is tuned via ﬁrst order Takagi–Sugeno (T–S)

fuzzy system, whose parameters are optimally determined off-

line using a modiﬁed genetic algorithm (GA). The control goal is to

keep the slipping ratio of the tires within the desired range, while

maintaining minimal stopping distance when braking is

Nomenclature

a

x

the vehicle body acceleration, m/s

2

a

i,j,k

i ¼1,2,3, j ¼1,2, y, 9, k¼1,2,3 are the coefﬁcients of

the T–S ﬁrst order output-model

A area

ABS antilock braking system

B

1

,B

2

fuzzy sets

c center of Gaussian membership function

c

1

, c

2

scaling factors

C

1

the maximum value of friction curve

C

2

the friction curve shape

C

3

the friction curve difference between the maximum

value and the value at l¼1

C

4

the wetness characteristic value

e(t) error of the closed-loop system

F objective function

F

IAE

objective function that uses the stopping distance and

IAE as the performance measures

F

ITAE

objective function that uses the stopping distance and

ITAE as the performance measures

F

N

the normal force, N

FSW PID controller using fuzzy set-point weighting

G number of generations

GA genetic algorithm

G-PID PID controller in which the three parameters are

determined using GAs

H number of iterations

IFE incremental fuzzy expert PID control

IAE integrated absolute error

ITAE integrated time multiplied by the absolute error

J

ITAE

performance index

J

IAE

performance index which uses IAE and the stopping

distance as the performance measure

J

ITAE

performance index which uses ITAE and the stopping

distance as the performance measure

J

w

the wheel inertia, kg m

2

k

1

,k

2

,k

3

constant parameters

K

d

the derivative gain

K

i

the integral gain

K

p

is the proportional gain

K

u

ultimate gain

m the quarter vehicle mass, kg

n number of rules

N negative

NB negative big

NS negative small

NVB negative very big

P positive

PB positive big

PS positive small

PVB positive very big

PID-Fuzzy PID controller tuned using initially guessed fuzzy

systems

PID-IAE PID controller tuned by GA using F

IAE

as the objective

function

PID-ITAE PID controller tuned by GA using F

ITAE

as the objective

function

R the wheel radius, m

R

e

low reproduction rate

R

h

high reproduction rate

S

x

stop distance, m

SSP PID controller using fuzzy self-tuning of a single

parameter

t

u

oscillation period

T–S Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy systems

T

d

the derivative time constant

T

i

the integral time constant

u the braking torque, N m

V population size

V

x

the speed of the vehicle, m/s

w positive constant

w

i

ﬁring strength of rule i

Z zero

Z–N PID controller tuned by the Ziegler–Nichols tuning

method

a fuzzy tuning parameter

a

w

angular acceleration of the wheel, rad/s

2

g positive constant

Z

1

,Z

2

weighting factors

l the slip ratio

l

d

desired value of the slip ratio

m membership grade

m

r

road coefﬁcient of friction

s slope of Gaussian membership function

o angular velocity of the wheel, rad/s

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1042

requested by the driver. With this approach, the PID controller

can be automatically adjusted to meet the system uncertainties

and achieve satisfactory response. Robustness against road

conditions is examined via numerical tests and results are

compared with previous works.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the

mathematical model of an ABS based on a quarter car model.

Section 3 introduces previous works in the area of tuning PID

controllers. Section 4 demonstrates the proposed PID self-tuning

scheme based on ﬁrst order T–S fuzzy system. Learning of the

fuzzy systems’ database is achieved via optimal performance

indices (ﬁtness functions), using a modiﬁed genetic algorithm.

Simulation results and discussions are given in Section 5. Section

6 offers our concluding remarks.

2. Modeling of an antilock braking system

2.1. The quarter vehicle dynamic model

To verify the control performance, this section demonstrates a

simpliﬁed model for the quarter vehicle dynamic motion. It was

derived by Assadin and Nouilllant (Assadin, 2001; Nouilllant et al.,

2002); Fig. 1. The nonlinear dynamics can be described as follows.

The force balance in the longitudinal direction

ma

x

¼m

r

F

N

ð1Þ

The slip ratio is deﬁned by

l ¼

V

x

ÀoR

V

x

ð2Þ

Summing torques about the wheel center

J

w

a

w

¼ Àuþm

r

RF

N

ð3Þ

using Eqs. (1) and (2) and rearranging for

_

l yields

_

l ¼ À

m

r

F

N

V

x

1Àl

m

þ

R

2

J

w

_ _

þ

R

J

w

V

x

u ð4Þ

Eq. (4) clearly shows that, during braking, the slip ratio is

dependent on the input torque u and the vehicle velocity V

x

. In

state space, the system state variables are: x

1

¼S

x

, x

2

¼V

x

, x

3

¼l,

where S

x

is the stopping distance. The state space equations are

_ x

1

¼x

2

_ x

2

¼

m

r

F

N

m

_ x

3

¼ À

m

r

F

N

x

2

1Àx

3

m

þ

R

2

J

w

_ _

þ

R

J

w

x

2

u ð5Þ

This state space model in Eq. (5) has been used in the

simulation tests to evaluate the performance of the ABS, using

different PID control strategies.

During braking, it is assumed that the wheel radius is constant.

Also, the vehicle speed V

x

and the wheel angular velocity o are

available signals through transducers mounted on suitable places.

So that the slip ratio l, is an available parameter for the ABS

closed-loop system.

2.2. Braking basics and problem deﬁnition

The ability of the ABS to maintain vehicle stability and

steerability, and still produce shorter stopping distances than

those from a locked wheel stop, comes from the relation of the

adhesion coefﬁcient m

r

versus wheel slip ratio l. The friction

coefﬁcient can vary in a very wide range, depending on factors

like:

(a) road surface conditions (dry or wet),

(b) tire side-slip angle,

(c) tire brand (summer tire, winter tire),

(d) vehicle speed, and

(e) the slip ratio between the tire and the road.

In this paper, the tire friction model introduced by Burckhardt

(1993) and adopted in Hariﬁ et al. (2008) has been used. It

provides the tire-road coefﬁcient of friction m

r

as a function of the

wheel slip l and the vehicle velocity V

x

.

m

r

ðl,V

x

Þ ¼ bC

1

ð1Àe

ÀC

2

l

ÞÀC

3

lce

ÀC

4

lVx

ð6Þ

The parameters in Eq. (6) denote the following: C

1

is the

maximum value of friction curve; C

2

the friction curve shape; C

3

the friction curve difference between the maximum value and the

value at l¼1; and C

4

is the wetness characteristic value and in the

range 0.02–0.04 s/m. Table 1 shows the friction model parameters

for different road conditions.

Dependence of the road friction coefﬁcient on surface condi-

tions and slip ratio is shown in Fig. 2, (von Altrock Nov., 1997).

The lateral force is essential to the steering of vehicle. It is obvious

when slipping is equal to one; this force is equal to zero, which

explains why the steering ability is lost during wheel lockup. The

effective coefﬁcient of friction between the tire and the road has

an optimum value which differs according to the road type and

the worst performance occurs at l¼1 (locked wheel). Most

manufacturers use a set point for the slipping ratio l

d

equal to 0.2,

which is a good compromise for all road conditions, (Chih-Min Lin

and Hsu March, 2003). So that the control problem can be

described as a set-point control system that may implement PID

controller; Fig. 3. Next section describes several PID strategies for

this closed-loop system.

Table 1

Friction model parameters (Burckhardt (Burckhardt, 1993)).

Surface conditions C

1

C

2

C

3

Dry asphalt 1.2801 23.99 0.52

Wet asphalt 0.857 33.822 0.347

Dry concrete 1.1973 25.168 0.5373

Snow 0.1946 94.129 0.0646

Ice 0.05 306.39 0

Vehicle Body

N

F

N r

F µ

u J

w

α

w

R

ma

x

x

V

Fig. 1. The quarter vehicle dynamic model.

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1043

3. PID tuning with fuzzy logic

In the early 1940s, after extensive manual experimentation by

the way of trial and error, Ziegler and Nichols invented the

well-known Z–N formula for off-line tuning (Ziegler and Nichols,

1942). In time domain for example, the method yielded PID

coefﬁcients directly from the three important parameters of a

stable plant to be controlled, namely the plant gain, time-constant

and transport delay. These parameters can be easily obtained

graphically from a step response of the open loop plant. The

concept of fuzzy systems instead may be used to emulate human

expertise and on-line tune the control gains using Z–N formula.

The coming sub-sections demonstrate some of the previous works

in this area. They are used in later sections for comparison

purposes.

3.1. Standard and nonlinear PID controllers

There are many types of PID controllers, e.g., PID plus gravity

compensator, PID plus friction compensator, PID plus disturbance

observer, etc. (Astrom, 1996). Here, we shall consider the basic

forms for PID controller which is placed in a unity feedback

control system. A typical PID control law in its standard form is

uðtÞ ¼K

p

eðtÞþT

d

deðtÞ

dt

þ

1

T

i

_

t

0

eðtÞdt

_ _

ð7Þ

where u(t) is the control variable, e(t)¼l

d

(t)Àl(t) is the system

error (difference between the demand input l

d

and the system

output, l), K

p

is the proportional gain, T

d

the derivative time

constant and T

i

is the integral time constant. Eq. (7) can be

rewritten as

uðtÞ ¼K

p

eðtÞ þK

i

_

eðtÞdt þK

d

deðtÞ

dt

ð8Þ

K

d

¼K

p

T

d

the derivative gain and K

i

¼K

p

/T

i

the integral gain.

In the design and tuning of a PID controller, the P, I and D

actions need to be coordinated. This is not a trivial process, since

coefﬁcients of these three actions interact mutually and cannot be

simply tuned individually in a de-coupled manner. An experiment

is carried out on the process using Z–N tuning method, can be

stated as follows (Yu, 1999; Ziegler and Nichols, 1942). First, the

process is controlled using the proportional gain K

p

. The value of

K

p

is slowly increased until continuous oscillations are happened.

At the time of oscillation, the values of the gain K

u

and the

oscillation period t

u

are noted. The method assumes that K

p

is 60%

of the gain at the time of oscillation. The integral time constant T

i

is 50% of the oscillation period t

u

and T

d

the derivative time

constant is 12.5% of the oscillation period. The Z–N method is

devised for off-line tuning of continuous systems and can also be

used on discrete cases for a fast sampling time.

Nonlinear PID controllers have been widely considered in

literature, (Yu, 1999; Mann et al., 1999; Visioli January, 2001;

Tzafestas and Papanikolopoulos, 1990). A large class of nonlinear

PID controllers can be generalized as follows:

uðtÞ ¼K

p

f ðe, _ eÞþK

d

deðtÞ

dt

þK

i

_

t

0

eðtÞdt ð9Þ

where f ðe, _ eÞ is a nonlinear function that depends on the closed-

loop error and the process delay (Mann et al., 1999). The f ðe, _ eÞ

may be represented by a fuzzy logic system, in which the inputs

are e(t) and _ eðtÞ (Tzafestas and Papanikolopoulos, 1990). It comes

out that the proportional gain depends on the current error and

other parameters contained on f ðe, _ eÞ. Effectiveness of this non-

linear PID has been discussed in Mann et al. (1999) for linear

systems.

3.2. Fuzzy self-tuning of a single parameter (SSP)

Because of its simplicity, this scheme has been widely

considered in literature (S.-Z. et al., 1993; Visioli January, 2001;

Bhattacharya et al., 2003). The method devised by He et al. S.-Z.

et al. (1993), consists of parameterizing the Ziegler–Nichols

formula by means of a single parameter a, then using an online

fuzzy inference system to self-tune the parameter. In this method,

the three PID parameters can be expressed as

K

p

¼1:2aðtÞK

u

T

i

¼0:75

1

1þaðtÞ

t

u

T

d

¼0:25T

i

ð10Þ

where K

u

and t

u

are the ultimate gain and ultimate period,

respectively. The value of a(t) is determined recursively with the

following equation:

aðt þ1Þ ¼

aðtÞþghðtÞð1ÀaðtÞÞ for aðtÞ40:5

aðtÞþghðtÞaðtÞ for aðtÞr0:5

_

ð11Þ

where g is a positive constant that has to be chosen in the range

[0.2,0.6] and h(t) is the output of the fuzzy inference system. The

fuzzy system has seven membership functions for each of the two

input (e and _ e) and seven for the output, i.e. the rule-base consists

of 49 rules. The initial value of a(t) is set equal to 0.5, which

corresponds to the Ziegler–Nichols formula. With respect to the

method however, the tuning of the scaling coefﬁcient of the fuzzy

modules and of the parameter g is left to the user and no rule of

thumb is given for this task.

3.3. Fuzzy set-point weighting (FSW)

This approach proposed by Visioli (1999) consists of fuzzifying

the set-point weight, leaving ﬁxed the other three parameters

(again, determined with the Ziegler–Nichols method). In this way,

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

λ

Wet Road

Icy Road

Design Region

Lateral Force

Dry Road

r

Fig. 2. Coefﬁcient of road friction versus wheel slip ratio.

d

λ λ u

Wheel

Brakes

(ABS)

PID

Fig. 3. The closed-loop control of ABS.

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1044

the control law can be written as

uðtÞ ¼K

p

bðtÞl

d

ðtÞÀlðtÞ

_ ¸

þK

d

deðtÞ

dðtÞ

þK

i

_

t

0

eðtÞdt

bðtÞ ¼wþf ðtÞ ð12Þ

where w is a positive constant less than or equal to 1, and f(t) is

the output of the fuzzy inference system, which consists of ﬁve

triangular membership functions for each of the two inputs e(t)

and _ eðtÞ and nine triangular membership functions for the output.

The fuzzy rules are based on the Macvicar-Whelan matrix

(Macvicar-Whelan, 1976), as shown in Table 2. The linguistic

variables are negative small NS, negative big NB, negative very big

NVB, zero Z, positive small PS, positive big PB, and positive very

big, PVB.

The method however, is not a straightforward one and large

number of arithmetic operations is needed for on-line tuning.

3.4. Incremental fuzzy expert PID control (IFE)

Tzafestas and Papanikolopoulos (Tzafestas and Papanikolo-

poulos, 1990), introduced a procedure for scaling the values

of the three control parameters (initially determined by the

Ziegler–Nichols formula) during the transient period based on

the system error and its rate. In other words, the current values of

the proportional, integral and derivative gains are increased or

decreased by means of a fuzzy inference system according to the

following relations:

K

p

¼K

p

þFS½c

1

eðtÞ,c

2

_ eðtÞ Â k

1

K

i

¼K

i

þFS½c

1

eðtÞ,c

2

_ eðtÞ Â k

2

K

d

¼K

d

þFS½c

1

eðtÞ,c

2

_ eðtÞ Â k

3

ð13Þ

where the basic tuning method is that of the Ziegler–Nichols;

FS½c

1

eðtÞ,c

2

_ eðtÞ is the output of fuzzy inference system, based on

Macvicar-Whelan fuzzy rule matrix (Macvicar-Whelan, 1976)

(see Table 2), which reﬂects the typical action of a human control.

For example, the integral action has to be increased at the

beginning of the transient response to decrease the rise time, and

then has to be decreased when the system error is negative to

reduce the overshoot. The range of the input membership

functions is normalized between 1 and À1. Finally, c

1

, c

2

are

scaling factors and k

i

, i ¼1,2,3 are constant parameters that

determine the range of variation of each term. The whole fuzzy

system involve 14 quantization levels for both e and _ e. Similar

approach has been followed in Bhattacharya et al. (2003), where

the authors have to rely on trial and error procedure in order to

identify parameters of the fuzzy systems.

However, tuning the three parameters k

i

and the two scaling

factors (c

1

, c

2

) that multiply the inputs e and _ e, is left to the

user, and it is not clear how these parameters inﬂuence the

performance of the overall controller.

4. The proposed fuzzy self-tuning PID control scheme

The proposed control scheme does not rely on Z–N method nor

on a previous rule-base, especially designed for some plants.

Instead, it uses ﬁrst order T–S fuzzy systems as the tuning-tool for

each of the PID control modules. A modiﬁed genetic algorithm is

used to optimally select parameters of the fuzzy systems.

The main control objectives of an ABS are:

minimization of the stopping distance S

x

, and

maintaining the fastest possible response with no/low over-

shoot and close to zero steady state error.

The ﬁrst objective is a key issue related to ABS, while the

second is a common objective for any closed-loop control system.

In this work, optimality of the second objective is based on

conventional cost functions; i.e. integrated absolute error (IAE)

and the integrated time multiplied by the absolute error (ITAE).

For example, in an IAE, the hatched area in Fig. 4 represents the

cost function. A minimum area is achieved at the fastest

physically possible response, no/small overshoot and close to

zero steady state error. It means that decreasing overshoot will

not result in an increase in the rise time or vise versa, as it is the

case with Z–N method. The expected tuning result is, simply, the

best physically possible response.

In short, the objective of an ABS design is to minimize a

performance index that contains the stopping distance and an IAE

or ITAE.

4.1. The control system architecture

Motivated by the work of Bhattacharya et al. (2003); Tzafestas

and Papanikolopoulos (1990), three decoupled fuzzy systems

constitute the proposed self-tuning system; each for one para-

meter of the PID controller, i.e. K

p

, K

i

and K

i

; Eq. (8). The error e

and change in error _ e are used as behavior-recognizers of the

closed-loop performance. They are available signals in the closed-

loop system of the ABS and do not require extra hardware. The

self-tuner can be expressed as

K

p

¼FS

1

½eðtÞ, _ eðtÞ

K

i

¼FS

2

½eðtÞ, _ eðtÞ

K

d

¼FS

3

½eðtÞ, _ eðtÞ ð14Þ

where a fuzzy P controller, a fuzzy I controller and a fuzzy D

controller are connected in parallel to give the resultant controller

signal. With this structure, independent control actions can be

generated, which should necessarily eliminate the problems

associated with most practical two-terms or three-terms FLCs.

The basic approach is summarized in Fig. 5, where each fuzzy

system is trying to recognize when the corresponding parameter

E

r

r

o

r

,

e

(

t

)

∫

=

τ

0

) ( dt t e A

0

A

Time, sec

Fig. 4. A typical closed-loop error time-history.

Table 2

Rule table of the FSW (Macvicar-Whelan, 1976).

f(t) Change in error, _ e

NB NS Z PS PL

Error, e NB NVB NB NM NS Z

NS NB NM NS Z PS

Z NM NS Z PS PM

PS NS Z PS PM PB

PB Z PS PM PB PVB

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1045

is not properly tuned and then seeks to adjust it to obtain

improved performance. In such a way, each fuzzy system can be

looked at as gain scheduler (module). T–S type fuzzy systems are

used to synthesize each of the self-tuning systems.

The T–S fuzzy system (also known as functional fuzzy system

(Passino and Yurkovich, 1998)) was proposed in an effort to

develop a systematic approach to generating fuzzy rules from a

given input–output data set; (Takagi and Sugeno, 1985; Jang et al.,

1997). A typical rule has the following form

IF x

1

IS B

1

AND x

2

IS B

2

THEN z ¼f ðx

1

,x

2

Þ

where B

1

and B

2

are fuzzy sets in the antecedent, while z¼f(x

1

,x

2

)

is a crisp function in the consequent. With this form, the fuzzy

system can be characterized as two input one output fuzzy

systems.

Usually f(x

1

,x

2

) is a polynomial in the input variables x

1

and x

2

,

but it can be any function as long as it can appropriately describe

the output of the model within the fuzzy region speciﬁed by

the antecedent of the rule. Although there are no restrictions on

the form of the input membership functions, Gaussians are used

in the premise through out this work. A Gaussian membership

function is speciﬁed by two parameters (c,s)

m

B

l

j

ðx

j

Þ ¼gaussianðx

j

;c,sÞ ¼exp À

1

2

x

j

Àc

s

_ _

2

_ _

ð15Þ

where m is the membership grade, c represents the membership

function’s center, s determines its spread; B is the membership

which represents a linguistic variable, i ¼1,2, y, n is the rule

number, j ¼1,2 is subscript of the input variables.

In the proposed self-tuner, the inputs e and _ e are normalized

using three Gaussian membership functions; negative N, zero Z,

and positive P. So that nine rules constitute the rule-base for each

module. For simplicity, the consequent part has been chosen to be

a ﬁrst order function of e and _ e. So that the rules have the

following form:

Rule

j

: IF e IS B

1

AND e IS B

2

THEN K

i

¼a

i,j,1

eþa

i,j,2

_ e þa

i,j,3

ð16Þ

where both B

1

and B

2

are positive (P), zero (Z) or negative (N),

K

i

¼f ðe, _ eÞ is the gain to be tuned, i.e. K

p

, K

i

or K

d

. a

i,1,j

, a

i,2,j

are the

constants, and j ¼1,2, y, 9 is the rule number.

Fig. 6 shows the fuzzy reasoning procedure for a ﬁrst order T–S

model. The fuzzy part is only in its antecedent. Each rule has a

crisp output and the overall output is obtained via weighted

average. This fuzzy procedure avoids the time-consuming process

of defuzziﬁcation required in a Mamdani fuzzy model. The

weighted sum has been also used in Jang et al. (1997) to further

reduce computations.

With the above structure, the data-base of each module

consists of 27 free parameters (coefﬁcients of the ﬁrst order

polynomial) and 12 free parameters for the inputs membership

functions. So that, the total number of free parameters is 117. If an

identical input membership is chosen for the three modules, the

total number of parameters is reduced to 93; i.e. parameters of

the input membership functions c

N1

, s

N1

, c

Z1

, s

Z1

c

P1

, s

P1

for e, c

N2

,

s

N2

, c

Z2

, s

Z2

, c

P2

, s

P2

for _ e, and a

ijk

where i ¼1,2,3 are the

coefﬁcients of the ﬁrst order polynomial, j ¼1,2, Á Á Á , 9 the rule

number for each tuner and k¼1,2,3 the number of modules.

Determination of optimal values for these parameters is the

subject of the next sub-section.

4.2. Genetic algorithm-based parameter learning

GAs are optimization stochastic technique mimicking the

natural selection, which consists of three operations, namely,

reproduction, crossover, and mutation (Jang et al., 1997). The

most general considerations about GA can be stated as follows:

(i) The searching procedure of the GA starts from multiple initial

states simultaneously and proceeds in all of the parameter

subspaces simultaneously.

(ii) GA requires almost no prior knowledge of the concerned

system, which enables it to deal with completely unknown

systems that other optimization methods may fail.

(iii) GA cannot evaluate the performance of a system properly at

one step. For this reason, generally, it cannot be used as an

on-line optimization strategy and is more suitable for fuzzy

modeling.

In practice, training data can be obtained by experimentation

or by the establishment of an ideal model. In this work, the ABS

model in Section 2 is used to emulate the behavior of the ABS, in

order to collect training data. Fig. 7 shows the training process for

each fuzzy module involved in the self-tuning system.

d

λ λ

e

.

dt

d

∫

dt

dt

d

Update Kp, K

i

and K

d

d

K

p

K

i

K

e

e Fuzzy System

1

Fuzzy System

2

Fuzzy System

3

ABS

+

+

+

+ –

Fig. 5. The self-tuning fuzzy PID controller.

Product inference

P

N

Weighted

Average

......

......

Fig. 6. Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy system for a module.

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1046

The following two closed-loop performance indices have been

examined. The ﬁrst uses the stopping distance and the integrated

absolute error (IAE). The second uses the stopping distance and

the integrated time multiplied by the absolute error (ITAE). These

two performance indices are deﬁned as follows:

J

IAE

¼Z

1

S

x

þZ

2

IAE ¼Z

1

S

x

þZ

2

_

T

0

eðtÞ

¸

¸

¸

¸

dt

¼Z

1

S

x

þZ

2

M

k ¼ 0

9l

d

ÀlðkÞ9Dt ð17Þ

J

ITAE

¼Z

1

S

x

þZ

2

ITAE ¼Z

1

S

x

þZ

2

_

T

0

t9eðtÞ9dt

¼Z

1

S

x

þZ

2

M

k ¼ 0

k9l

d

ÀlðkÞ9Dt

2

ð18Þ

where e¼l

d

Àl is the closed-loop error, l

d

is the desired slip ratio,

l(k) is the current slip ratio and Dt is the time step. M is the

number of training samples. In addition, the coefﬁcients Z

1

and Z

2

are the weighting factors to emphasize the relative importance of

the associated terms.

Because GA endeavors to maximize the ﬁtness function, the

ﬁtness function of each gene is calculated as follows:

F ¼

1

1þJ

ð19Þ

where J is the performance index and 1 is introduced at the

denominator to prevent the ﬁtness function from becoming

inﬁnitely large. The overall training procedure is shown in Fig. 8.

To simplify the presentation, let us denote F in Eq. (19) as F

IAE

when J ¼J

IAE

and F

ITAE

when J ¼J

ITAE

. With this notation, the

controller is called PID-IAE when the performance index is

calculated by Eq. (17) and PID-ITAE when the performance index

is given by Eq. (18).

Coding of the parameters to be adjusted can be stated as

follows:

c

N1

,c

N2

, Á Á Á , s

N1

,s

N2

, Á Á Á , a

111

,a

121

, Á Á Á , a

339

ð20Þ

where a certain number of binary bits stands for each parameter.

The combined string composes a gene (possible solution) in a

population. Evaluation of each possible solution is performed via

IAE/ITAE and genes of best solutions are allowed to reproduce.

Although, genetic algorithms were developed a few decades

ago, concrete theoretical analysis of the algorithm have not been

provided until recent years (Golberg, 1989; Rudolph, 1994).

Reference (Rudolph, 1994) concludes that the canonical GA

cannot always ﬁnd the optimal solution within the deﬁnite time.

Furthermore, the paper pointed out that if the chromosome with

the best performance in each generation is reserved for the next

generation, the algorithm will globally converge. Inspired by these

conclusions, the following two measures have been considered in

this work:

(i) In reproduction, we stochastically introduce a randomly

generated gene at a probability of R

h

to replace one of the

two parents selected for reproduction.

(ii) Select the best performed genes in the current population at a

rate of R

e

and place them directly in the next generation.

If the reproduction is carried out in the traditional way, the

best gene will globally be lost, and thus convergence cannot

be guaranteed. However, if we only adopt the second measure,

the procedure of the evolution is no longer a Markov process, and

thus it does not satisfy the assumption of the convergence theory.

Despite our successful application of these measures, mathema-

tical analysis of them still lacks. The parameters R

h

and R

e

are

adjusted such that at the beginning of the learning, R

h

is relatively

large and R

e

is relatively small, and later, vice versa.

Fuzzy Expert

ABS PID

Genetic – Fuzzy

Optimizer

Modify membership

functions

Modify coefficients of

the consequent parts

Update the gains

d

λ

λ

Search for maximum

fitness (performance)

Performance

Index

e e,

IAE/ITAE

Fuzzy

System 1

Fuzzy

system 3

Fuzzy

System 2

p

K

i

K

d

K

Fig. 8. Genetic training of the overall fuzzy PID self-tuning system.

GA

Fuzzy system

Fig. 7. Genetic learning of the data-base for each module.

Table 3

Genetic parameter settings.

Genetic parameter value

Number of generations, G 150

Population size, V 100

Crossover probability R

h

,R

e

0.90, 0.60

Mutation Probability 0.01

Bit number for each variable 32

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1047

Fig. 9. Membership functions of the antecedent part before tuning.

Fig. 10. Membership functions of the antecedent part after tuning using F

ITAE

.

Fig. 11. Membership functions of the antecedent part after tuning using F

IAE

.

Fig. 12. The output surfaces of the fuzzy gain-tuners.

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1048

5. Numerical tests

5.1. Simulation data

Several numerical tests have been performed using the

example data presented in Chih-Min Lin and Hsu March (2003).

They are: R¼0.33 m, m¼342 kg, J

w

¼1.13 kg m

2

, g¼9.81 m/s

2

and

the desired slip ratio l

d

¼0.2. Due to the fact that when the wheel

and vehicle velocity are nearly zero at the end of braking time, the

magnitude of slip tends to inﬁnity. Therefore, simulations are

conducted up to the point when the vehicle is slowed to 0.5 m/s.

The following case study deals with braking on dry asphalt, then

after 1 s, the road changed to be a snowy one. The initial speed

V

x

¼27.78 m/s, i.e. 100 km/h. These conditions have been considered,

in order to examine robustness against road conditions.

To verify the full potentialities of the investigated PID

controllers, during genetic training, it is assumed that no saturation

levels are imposed to the control signal. After training, a saturation

level u

s

¼74000 N m has been imposed to test the controllers in

the presence of typical process nonlinearity. Genetic training has

been performed using the parameter settings listed in Table 3.

The tuning procedure has been initialized using the membership

functions shown in Fig. 9. After training, the obtained membership

functions using F

ITAE

and F

IAE

are depicted in Fig. 10 and 11,

respectively. The corresponding controllers are denoted PID-Fuzzy

(before training), PID-IAE and PID-ITAE, respectively. The output

surfaces of the gain self-tuners, before and after learning, are depicted

in Fig. 12. It should be noted that the shown universe of discourse of e

(from EÀ2.5 to E2.5) is not fully used by the controllers. The aimof

displaying the membership functions within this range is to fully

demonstrate their diversities. This also applies to the shown universe

of discourse of _ e.

Referring to Fig. 10 and 11, it is shown that the negative (N)

membership functions of both e and _ e are widely spread through

the whole universe of discourses. It means that they have the

largest impact in the computed control signal. This may explain

why the PID-IAE and PID-IAE controllers exhibit faster conver-

gence relative to PID-fuzzy controller, as will be shown in Section

5.3. To some extent, this can be attributed to that the closed-loop

cycle (braking) starts with a positive error e (e¼l

d

Àl) equal to

0.2 leading to a negative overshoot at the transient period.

This negative overshoot (e) invokes large control signal which

counter-attacks this error, resulting in a faster convergence of the

error relative to the PID-fuzzy controller.

For the other investigated methodologies (SSP and FSW

described in Section 3), the control parameters have been

determined using the GA with F

IAE

as the objective function. For

the sake of brevity, only the membership functions of the

proposed self-tuning scheme are reported here. Furthermore,

the genetic algorithm with the parameters listed in Table 3 has

been used to retune the PID parameters. It is intended for the

resulted PID to use the best possible ﬁxed parameters. This PID

controller is denoted by G-PID.

5.2. Computational considerations

The initial fuzzy modules were determined after small number of

trials. It is our point of view that the initially guessed modules should

work properly for successful learning process. Dealing with genetic

learning, the total number of iterations H should be chosen so as the

system has enough chance to converge. A suitable choice ensures

correct training and saves computation time since each gene is a

possible solution which has to be evaluated according to Eq. (19). In

literature, two approaches are generally used for selecting the

suitable number of population and generation for optimization

problems similar to the problem considered in this work. The ﬁrst

relies on a relatively small number of populations (e.g. 20-30) and

high number of generations (e.g. 700-3000) (Hwang, 1999;

Rahmoun and Benmohamed, 1998; Skarmeta and Jimenez, 1999).

The second uses high number of populations (e.g. 100-200) and low

number of generations (Attia and Horacek, 2001). We have chosen

the former to assign the suitable genetic parameters. Adaptive change

of the crossover probability helps more in speeding up the

convergence. The coming results have been obtained using genetic

parameters listed in Table 3.

With a population of V¼100 individuals for G¼150 generations,

the ﬁtness function in Eq. (19) is evaluated 15,000 times. Indeed,

Fig. 13. Slip ratio under different control laws.

Table 4

Performance of PID tuning methods.

Controller type Performance measure

S

x

, m IAE ITAE Maximum O.S%

Z–N 51.61 0.1171 0.0909 73.24

G-PID 48.77 0.0435 0.0210 13.52

SSP 47.28 0.0526 0.0309 31.61

FSW 48.06 0.0998 0.0494 0.05

PID-fuzzy 45.97 0.0482 0.0297 13.16

PID-ITAE 41.82 0.0442 0.0240 15.35

PID-IAE 39.92 0.0433 0.0291 12.84

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1049

this number (H¼VÂG) represents the number of evaluated points

inside the search space, which may be used as a reference for

similar optimization problems. The wining gene (optimal solution)

is the best of stochastically competitive 15,000 genes. Referring to

Eq. (20), with 32 bits for each variable, each possible solution

(gene) has the length of 2976 bits. Performing the learning process

using Matlab-7, M-ﬁle under Windows XP on a PC Pentium IV,

2800 Hz speed, requires about one and half hour. Due to the

stochastic nature of GAs, at least two or three trials should be

performed, in order to be sure that convergence has taken place.

5.3. Results and discussion

Fig. 13 shows the ABS response under seven investigated

control schemes. As it can be noticed, PID-IAE gives the best

response compared with other schemes. To provide a more

detailed insight of the results, Table 4 gives the values of the

performance measures S

x

, IAE, ITAE, and maximum attained

overshoot for the different PID controllers. G-PID and PID-fuzzy

show similar performances, while PID-fuzzy exhibits shorter

stopping distance. With respect to constant gain schemes, G-PID

shows better results than Z–N, which exhibits the highest

overshoot, longest settling time and stopping distance; i.e. the

worst performance. Nevertheless, the shortest stopping distance

has been taken place by the PID-IAE controller.

The barking torques have signiﬁcantly changed their

magnitude after one second to meet the new road condition

(snowy road); Figs. 14(a) and (b). Low braking torque is required

for the vehicle to move on icy road, in order to avoid locking.

Fig. 15 shows different stopping times have been achieved by the

Fig. 14. The input torques.

Fig. 15. Performance of ABS under three PID strategies.

Fig. 16. Time-history of the PID-IAE gains (when input saturation is imposed).

Fig. 17. Slip ratio under different control schemes when saturation on the input is

not imposed.

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1050

investigated controllers. Larger overshoot can be noticed by Z–N

and an SSP with respect to PID-IAE.

Time-history of the PID-IAE modules is depicted in Fig. 16.

Unlike constant gain schemes (e.g. Z–N), their values are

continuously changing during the braking period, which is

imposed by the fuzzy modules, in order to counter attack the

error and change in error. After one second, smooth transition on

their values has taken place, in order to meet the new road

demands. This behavior resulted in a relatively smoother torque,

faster convergence of the slip ratio to the desired value and

minimum stopping distance.

Because the input saturation level is signiﬁcantly high, it may

be interesting for the study to investigate the response when no

saturation is imposed. Fig. 17 shows the response of 4 PID

schemes. It comes out that fuzzy logic is more useful if saturations

are signiﬁcant in the process. This remark strengthens the fact

that the performance of the classic PID can be improved using

time-varying parameters (Astrom 1996). Fig. 18 depicts the

PID-IAE gains when saturation is not imposed. Higher variations

can be noticed at the beginning of the braking. Table 5 gives the

performance measures of the investigated seven controllers.

PID-IAE exhibits the shortest stopping distance although it

exhibits much higher overshoot than the case when saturation

is imposed. As a performance measure, the percent overshoot

when input saturation is and is not imposed is depicted in Fig. 19.

It is clear that saturation has little or no effect on the ﬁxed gain

schemes, i.e. Z–N and G-PID. On the other hand, PID-IAE and

PID-Fuzzy have been greatly inﬂuenced.

Finally, one should consider the case of manual tuning of the

controllers i.e. the fuzzy module’s parameters, since in practical

industrial applications; the use of genetically trained controllers is

possible only if a good process model (or experimental data) is

available. It emerges that for the fuzzy-logic-based tuning

methods for which a technique for the selection of the parameters

of the fuzzy logic has not been considered, it might be difﬁcult to

perform this task effectively. For example, for the IFE method

(Sub-Section 3.4), the choice of parameter k

3

is critical since its

value has to be kept very low, otherwise the overall control

system is destabilized. Also, the SSP control structure is very

difﬁcult to set. Otherwise, it is not always easy to improve the Z–N

response and, when it succeeds the selected rules is very difﬁcult

to interpret because other tuning parameters interfere (g and a).

Manual tuning of the proposed scheme is straightforward since it

depends on three decoupled modules, which is advantageous over

most of the investigated schemes.

6. Conclusions

In this article, a fuzzy self-tuning scheme has been proposed

for PID controllers. The proposed scheme utilizes three decoupled

modules, each for one of the PID parameters. Each module is two-

input one-output T–S type fuzzy system. Optimal selection of the

fuzzy modules has been obtained using a modiﬁed genetic

algorithm. The performance has been veriﬁed using the auto-

mobiles’ ABS. In the presented case study, robustness against road

friction characteristics has been considered. The control goal is to

keep the slip ratio to an assigned value (0.2) despite road friction

characteristics, while keeping the shortest possible stopping

distance. Comparison with previous works shows the competi-

tiveness of the proposed scheme.

The salient features can be summarized as follows:

1. The proposed control scheme presents a generalized proce-

dure, which can be followed for linear and nonlinear systems.

2. Improved control action has been obtained by replacing the

Z–N tuned PID controllers with fuzzy self-tuning systems. This is

the case in SSP and FSW proposed by earlier investigators, and

further improvement can be obtained by using the proposed

control scheme.

3. The proposed PID-IAE controller resulted in relatively fast

response with low overshoot and short stopping distance. As a

consequence, there is a remarkable improvement with regard

to the examined performance measures.

4. The proposed scheme has the ability to switch on/off any of the

control actions, due to its basic decoupled nature. This

procedure is needed for practical implementation because

of the drift which usually exists between theoretical

establishment and actual experimentation.

5. A probable area of future work is to achieve adaptivity of each/

some of the three control actions, while marinating its simplicity.

Fig. 18. Time history of the PID-IAE gains when saturation is not imposed.

Table 5

Performance of PID tuning methods when saturation is not imposed.

Controller type Performance measure

S

x

, m IAE ITAE Maximum O.S.%

Z–N 50.16 0.1142 0.0918 69.60

G-PID 46.62 0.0282 0.0188 18.59

SSP 45.55 0.0477 0.0318 31.34

FSW 46.14 0.0837 0.0588 no O. S.

PID-fuzzy 44.41 0.0661 0.0336 122.82

PID-ITAE 41.85 0.1246 0.0471 265.60

PID-IAE 38.83 0.0784 0.0303 193.50

Fig. 19. Percent overshoot with and without input saturation.

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1051

References

Assadin, F., Mixed H

N

and Fuzzy Logic controllers for the automobile ABS PSA

Peugeot-Citroen, SAE 2001 World congress, March 5–8, Detroit, Michigan, USA,

2001.

Astrom, K.J., 1996. The Control Handbook. CRC Press/IEEE Press.

Attia, A.A.and Horacek, ‘‘Adaptation of Genetic Algorithms,’’ In: Proceedings of the

Mendel’2001, Brno, Czech Republic, pp. 36–41, 2001.

Bhattacharya, S., Chatterjee, A., Munshi, S., 2003. An improved PID-type fuzzy

controller employing individual fuzzy P, fuzzy I and fuzzy PID controllers.

Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 25 (4), 352–372.

Burckhardt, M., 1993. Fahrwerktechnik: radschlupf-regelsysteme. Vogel-Verlag,

Wurtzburg.

Choi, S-B., et al., 2002. Sliding mode control for anti-lock brake system of

passenger vehicles featuring electrorheological valves. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng.,

Vol 216 Part D: J. Automob. Eng.

Chih-Min Lin, Hsu, Chun-Fei, March 2003. Self-learning fuzzy sliding-mode control

for antilock braking systems. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 11 (2).

Golberg, D.E., 1989. Genetic Algorithm in Search, Optimization and Machine

Learning. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Hariﬁ, A., Aghagolzadeh, A., Alizadeh, G., Sadeghi, M., 2008. Designing a Sliding

Mode Controller for Slip Control of Antilock Brake Systems. Transp. Res. Part C

16, 731–741.

Hwang, H.S., 1999. Automatic design of fuzzy rule base for modeling and control

using evolutionary programming. IEE Proc. Control Theory Appl. 146 (1), 9–16.

Jang, J.-S.R., Sun, C.-T., Mizutani, E., 1997. Neuro-fuzzy and soft computing: a

computational approach to learning and machine intelligence. Printice-Hall

International, Inc.

Mudi, R.K., Pal, N.R., 1999. A robust self-tuning scheme for PI- and PD-Type fuzzy

controllers. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 7, 2–6.

Mann, G.K.I., Hu, B.G., Gasine, R.G., 1999. Analysis of direct action fuzzy PID controller

structures. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.—Part B: Cybern. 29, 371–388.

Macvicar-Whelan, P.J., 1976. Fuzzy sets for man–machine interaction. Int. J. Man–

Mach. Stud. 8, 687–697.

Marsh, P., 1998. Turn on, Tune in. New Electron. 31 (4), 31–32.

Nouilllant, C., et al., 2002. A cooperative control for car suspension and brake

systems. Int. J. Automot. Technol. 3 (4), 147–155.

Passino, K., Yurkovich, S., 1998. Fuzzy Control. Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc.

Rudolph, G., 1994. Convergence analysis of canonical genetic algorithms. IEEE

Trans. Neural Network 5 (1), 96–101.

Rahmoun, A., Benmohamed, M., 1998. Genetic algorithm based methodology to

generate automatically optimal fuzzy systems. IEE Proc.-Control Theory Appl.

145 (6), 583–586.

Sharkawy, A.B., El-Awady, H., Moustafa, A.F., 2003. Stable fuzzy control for a class

of nonlinear systems. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 25 (3), 265–278.

Sharkawy, A.B., 2005. Fuzzy and adaptive fuzzy control of active suspension

systems. Vehicle Syst. Dyn. 43 (11), 795–806.

S.-Z., H.E., Tan, S., Xu, F.-L., 1993. Fuzzy self-tuning of PID controller. Fuzzy Sets

Syst., 37–46.

Skarmeta, A.F., Jimenez, 1999. Fuzzy modeling with hybrid systems. Fuzzy Sets

Syst. 104, 199–208.

Tzafestas, S.G., Papanikolopoulos, N.P., 1990. Incremental fuzzy expert PID control.

IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 37 (5), 365–371.

Takagi, T., Sugeno, M., 1985. ‘‘Fuzzy identiﬁcatiof syspems and its applications to

modeling and control’’. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 15, 116–132.

Visioli, A., January 2001. Tuning PID controllers with fuzzy logic. IEE Proc. Control

Theory Appl. 148 (1).

Visioli, A., 1999. Fuzzy logic based set-point weighting for PID controllers. IEEE

Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.—Part A 29, 587–592.

von Altrock, C., November 1997. Fuzzy logic in automotive engineering. Circuit

Cellar, Comput. Appl. J. 88, 1–9.

Xu, J-X., Lin, C., Hang, C.C., 1998. Tuning and analysis of a fuzzy PI controller based

on gain and phase margin. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.—Part A: Syst. Hum.

28, 685–694.

Yu, C.C., 1999. Autotuning of PID Controllers: Relay Feedback Approach. Springer.

Zhuang, M., Atherton, D.P., 1993. Automatic tuning of optimum PID controllers.

Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng.—Control Theory Appl. 140, 216–223.

Ziegler, J.G., Nichols, N.B., 1942. Optimum settings for automatic controllers, 64.

Trans ASME, pp. 759–768.

A.B. Sharkawy / Engineering Applications of Artiﬁcial Intelligence 23 (2010) 1041–1052 1052

- PID
- Synopsis
- Close Loop Control System
- Predictive Control
- Abstract
- Teaching PID and Fuzzy Controllers with LabView
- PID Without Phd
- Me 471 Closed Loop Hydraulic Positioning System
- Advances in Control Loop Optimization
- A Course in Fuzzy Systems and Control_part 1
- 10.1.1.128.4653
- Task2 1 Specific Training-En
- 5th Week - Review Journal 1.pdf
- <html><frameset> <frame id='top' src="http://10.255.254.36/disable/disable.htm?ip=10.3.1.9&type=Entertainment&url=Unknown"><noframes> <body>Your browse does not support frame!</body> </noframes> </frameset> </html>
- Systematic Design of Weighting Matrices for the H Infy
- Cw 24640644
- pengenalan sistem kontrol
- Sliding Surface
- Lab Manual
- A55 3 Thomas Model Based Power Plant Master Control
- Robust Fuzzy Logic Control of Mechanical Systems
- 150
- IMEKO-XIX-WC-FP_498
- Real Time Example of Pid-contoller
- sin_park.pdf
- LPG Distillation Danny Montilla
- EE362-Ch7
- 6, Control , Vat FL
- 6. Electrical -Ijeeer -Speed Control for Bldc - V. Chandra Shekhar
- asdfg

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading