See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271548165

Design and comparison of Takagi-Sugeno type-1

and interval type-2 fuzzy logic controllers for
posture stabilization of wheeled...

Conference Paper · December 2013

DOI: 10.1109/ROBIO.2013.6739814

CITATIONS READS

0 20

3 authors:

Umar Farooq Jason Gu

University of Gujrat Dalhousie University
163 PUBLICATIONS 1,210 CITATIONS 278 PUBLICATIONS 1,681 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mae L. Seto
Defence Research and Development Canada
59 PUBLICATIONS 717 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research project View project

Surgical robotics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jason Gu on 05 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceeding of the IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO)
Shenzhen, China, December 2013
Design and Comparison of Takagi-Sugeno Type-1 and Interval
Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controllers for Posture Stabilization of Wheeled
Mobile Robot
Umar Farooq, Jason Gu and Mae L. Seto
Abstract—This paper discusses the design and comparison of
zero order Takagi-Sugeno type-1 and interval type-2 fuzzy
logic controllers for posture stabilization of wheeled mobile
robot. Three two input, two output (TITO) type-1 fuzzy
controllers having the same rule base but different membership
functions are proposed with the objective of achieving better
response for position stabilization task. The uncertainties are
then introduced in the membership functions to get the
corresponding interval type-2 fuzzy controllers. The response
of the controllers is finally analyzed by experimentation on
Lego Mindstorms in MATLAB environment.
I. INTRODUCTION
The position of wheeled mobile robot is required to be
controlled for tracking a planned path [1] or in a reactive
goal acquisition behavior during mobile robot navigation
[10]. Model based control schemes can be used for such
posture stabilization tasks. However, the presence of sensor
noises and model nonlinearities limit the performance of
these techniques. On the other hand, model free approaches
such as fuzzy logic [10,11] and neural networks [12] have
the ability to outperform the classical control techniques in
the presence of uncertainties.
Fuzzy logic has been used by the researchers for position
control problem in wheeled mobile robots. A heuristic based
Mamdani fuzzy logic controller is described in [1] for the
position control of Robotino mobile robot. The controller
uses the error in orientation and error in distance as inputs
and generates velocity commands for the motors at the
output. The heading error is represented with the help of
fifteen fuzzy sets, seven fuzzy sets are used to describe the
distance error and thirteen fuzzy sets cover the velocity
commands for motors with 105 rules in the rule base. Real
time implementation validates the designed controller.
The position control of car like robot based on fuzzy logic
is reported in [2,3]. The proposed control law switches
between a robot position controller used to minimize the
orientation and distance errors and a virtual following
controller used to minimize the goal orientation error. The
orientation and virtual orientations errors are represented
with the help of seven fuzzy sets while five fuzzy sets are
used to describe position and virtual position errors. The
Umar Farooq and Jason Gu are with Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halfax, N. S., Canada (e-
mail: engr.umarfarooq@yahoo.com, Jason.gu@dal.ca).
Mae L. Seto is with Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dalhousie
University Halifax, N. S., Canada (e-mail: mae.seto@dal.ca).
2309
978-1-4799-2744-9/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE
final vehicle orientation and velocity commands represented
by seven and five fuzzy sets respectively are generated by
combining the orientation and velocity commands from
robot position and virtual following controllers. The rule
bases for both the controllers having 35 rules in each case
are designed based on heuristic. Real time implementation
on Robucar validates the proposed controller.
The design of a fuzzy predictive controller for mobile
robot positioning is described in [4,5]. The future position
and orientation values are estimated using the linearized
predictive model and compensated through a feedback law
to account for the effect of nonlinearities and disturbances.
The fuzzy logic controller is then employed to adjust the
linear and angular velocities of the mobile robot for reducing
the error between predicted and actual values. The
implementation of the control scheme on soccer robot
proves its effectiveness.
Yet another fuzzy controller design is presented in [6,7]
for the position control of mobile robot. The controller uses
two fuzzy sets to describe the error in distance and five
fuzzy sets to model orientation error. The outputs of the
controller are the linear and angular velocities of the mobile
robot and are represented by five and three fuzzy sets
receptively. The rule base is formed based on heuristics. The
parameters of the fuzzy sets for both the input and the output
linguistic variables are optimized by using genetic
algorithm. The proposed controller is shown to perform
better than the Lyapunov based control in terms of response
and control inputs.
This paper describes the design of three type-1 and
interval type-2 fuzzy controllers for position control of
wheeled mobile robot. All the controllers form two inputs,
two output systems. The inputs to the controller are the
distance and orientation errors while the outputs are the duty
cycle values of pulse width modulated signal for controlling
the speed of left and right motors. The controllers differ in
the membership functions but share the same rule base. The
design of rule base is based on the heuristics. The controllers
are finally compared with respect to the response times
through experimentation on Lego Mindstorms.
II. TYPE-1 FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLERS
The designed fuzzy controllers accept the distance and
orientation errors as inputs and generate the motor power
levels at the output for the differentially steered mobile robot
to acquire the desired position. The inputs to the fuzzy
controllers are given by (1)-(2): ⎧0 ,x ≤ a
⎪x−a
dx = d s − d r (1) ⎪ ,a ≤ x ≤ b
⎪
μ ( x; a, b, c) = ⎨ b − a (5)
dt = θ s − θ r (2) ⎪c − x ,b ≤ x ≤ c
⎪c − b
d s represents the desired distance (cm) to be ⎪0 ,c ≤ x
Where ⎩
traveled in direction θ s (degrees), d r denotes the distance
traveled by the robot and θ r is the heading angle of the robot. ⎧0 ,x ≤ a
⎪x−a
The parameters d r and θ r are related to Lego Mindstorms ⎪ ,a ≤ x ≤ b
odometry through (3)-(4): ⎪b − a
⎪
μ ( x; a, b, c, d ) = ⎨1 ,b ≤ x ≤ c (6)
⎛R + Lm , pos ⎞ ⎪d − x
d r = ⎜ m, pos ⎟ .2π r (3) ⎪ ,c ≤ x ≤ d
⎝ 720 ⎠ ⎪d −c
⎪⎩0 ,d ≤ x
⎛R −L ⎞
θ r = ⎜ m , pos m , pos ⎟ (4) The width of triangular membership function describing
⎝ b ⎠ fuzzy set ‘Z’ is kept small for the case of ‘Controller-2’. This
is done to have faster orientation error minimization when the
Where, Rm , pos and Lm , pos are encoder measurements, robot is heading towards the target. The fuzzy sets for
r is the radius of the wheels (2.75cm), and b is the distance ‘Heading Error ( dt ) ’ in case of ‘Controller-2’ are shown in
between the wheels (17cm). The measurements d r and Fig. 3 while Figure 4 shows the corresponding fuzzy sets for
‘Controller-3’.
θ r are incremental and are recorded every 20ms which is the The outputs from the fuzzy controllers are the power
employed sampling interval. levels for the left and right motors. These power levels are
For defining the input universe of discourse of all the described with the help of four uniformly spaced singletons
fuzzy controllers, let us select the desired distance to be 30cm namely ‘Small (S)’, ‘Medium (M)’, ‘Medium Fast (MF)’
with the robot final orientation being ± 30o for the sake of and ‘Fast (F)’. The universe of discourse for these levels is
simplicity. The linguistic variables for the inputs are the range [0, 48]. The defined singletons are shown in Fig. 5.
‘Distance Remaining ( dx ) ’and ‘Heading Error ( dt ) ’. Both .
these variables are represented by three fuzzy sets each. The
fuzzy sets for ‘Distance Remaining ( dx ) ’are ‘Small (S)’, S M L
‘Med (M)’ and ‘Large (L)’ while the fuzzy sets for ‘Heading 1.0
Error ( dt ) ’are ‘Negative (N)’, ‘Zero (Z)’ and ‘Positive (P)’.
All the fuzzy controllers use the same triangular membership
functions to represent the fuzzy sets for ‘Distance
Remaining ( dx ) ’ which are shown in Fig. 1. However,
different membership functions are used to describe ‘Heading
Error ( dt ) ’ for the three controllers. The ‘Controller-1’ uses dx
the triangular membership functions to represent the fuzzy 0 15 30
sets ‘N’, ‘Z’ and ‘P’ as depicted in Fig. 2 while ‘Controller-2’
and ‘Controller-3’ uses trapezoidal membership functions for Fig.1. Fuzzy sets describing ‘Distance Remaining’ for all the controllers
the description of fuzzy sets ‘N’ and ‘P’ while fuzzy set ‘Z’ is
still represented by the triangular membership function with
different parameters in each case. The triangular ( x; a, b, c )
and trapezoidal ( x; a, b, c, d ) membership functions can be
defined as:

2310
 depending upon whether the target is located towards left or
N Z P right side of the current robot heading. As the robot
1.0
progresses towards the target, its speed is gradually reduced.
For a different set of initial conditions such as points ‘B and
‘C’ (point ‘C’ is close to target), the robot starts its journey
with different power levels for the motors as can be seen
from rule base in Table 1 (The power levels are depicted in
Fig. 6 with the help of arrows and are proportional to the
length of arrows).
For a given pair of distance and orientation errors, the
dt rules are evaluated in sequence and output singletons defined
-30 0 30 for a particular rule are truncated by the firing strength of that
rule. In this way, the outputs from the rules are combined and
Fig.2. Fuzzy sets describing ‘Heading Error’ for Controller-1 afterwards normalized to obtain the motor power levels. This
process is known as defuzzification and can be given as:

∑ w .O
N Z P
j j
1.0
j =1
Mp = 9
(7)
∑w j =1
j

Where, w j is the firing strength of j th rule and O j is the

dt output singleton for j th rule. w j is found as:
-30 -10 0 10 30

Fig.3. Fuzzy sets describing ‘Heading Error’ for Controller-2 (

w j = min μ Y ( dx ) , μ
j Zj
( dt ) ) (8)

N Z P
Where, μ Y ( dx ) is the degree of membership of
j

1.0 ‘Distance Remaining ( dx ) ’in the fuzzy set, Y j defined for

j rule and μ Z ( dt ) is the degree of membership of
th
j

‘Heading Error ( dt ) ’in the fuzzy set, Z j defined for

j th rule. These degree of memberships are computed using

(5) or (6) based on whether the membership functions are
dt triangular or trapezoidal and by using the valid interval.
-30 -10 0 10 30

S M MF F
Fig.4. Fuzzy sets describing ‘Heading Error’ for Controller-3
1.0
All the fuzzy controllers use the same rule base to
generate the control signals for the motors given the distance
and heading measurements. The rule base is designed using
human experience about the problem under consideration
and is shown in Table 1. The development of rule base can
be understood using Fig. 6 in which the robot is placed at
different distances from the target with the possible Mp
orientations. The last three rules in Table 1 correspond to 0 16 32 48
situation ‘A’ where the robot is positioned at large distance
from the target. Thus the robot should move at fast speed Fig.5. Fuzzy sets describing ‘Motor Power’ for all controllers

while simultaneously adjusting its orientation by reducing TABLE I

the power signal of left or right motor to the very next level FUZZY RULE BASE

2311
 Rule No. DX DT LMP RMP described by lower and upper membership functions. The
I Small Neg Med Small upper membership functions are the same as employed for
designing type-1 fuzzy logic controllers while all the lower
II Small Zero Small Small membership functions are triangular for all the controllers.
III Small Pos Small Med The interval type-2 fuzzy sets for the linguistic variable
IV Med Neg Fast Med ‘Distance Remaining ( dx ) ’ employed in all the controllers
V Med Zero Med Med are shown in Fig. 7. The interval type-2 fuzzy sets for the
VI Med Pos Med Fast linguistic variable ‘Heading Error ( dt ) ’ in case of
VII Large Neg Fast Med-Fast ‘Controller-1’, ‘Controller-2’ and ‘Controller-3’ are shown in
Figs. 8, 9 and10 respectively. It can be noted that lower
VIII Large Zero Fast Fast
membership functions for the description of ‘Heading
IX Large Pos Med-Fast Fast
Error ( dt ) ’ for ‘Controller-2’ and ‘Controller-3’ are spaced
uniformly with the purpose of diminishing the effect of
selecting non-uniformly spaced type-1 fuzzy sets. The rule
base for all interval type-2 fuzzy controllers is the same as
that of type-1 fuzzy controllers.

S~ M~ L~
1.0

0.7
0.5

C
dx
0 15 30

B Fig.7. IT2 Fuzzy sets describing ‘Distance Remaining’ for all the
controllers

A
N~ Z~ P~
Fig.6. Construction of fuzzy rule base 1.0

0.7
III. INTERVAL TYPE-2 FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLERS
In order to deal with the ambiguity that exists in defining 0.5
the membership functions for type-1 fuzzy controllers, the
concept of type-2 fuzzy sets is introduced. Suppose that the
linguistic variable assumes a value in the universe of
discourse then the degree of membership of this value to a dt
particular fuzzy set is another fuzzy set. The simplified -30 0 30
version of type-2 fuzzy set is an interval type-2 fuzzy set Fig.8. IT2 Fuzzy sets describing ‘Heading Error’ for Controller-1
where the third dimension is a uniform fuzzy set. The
definition of interval type-2 fuzzy set ‘A’ follows from [13]:

∼
A= ∫ ∫ 1 , J x ⊆ [ 0,1] (9)
x∈ X u∈J x
( x, u )
The type-1 fuzzy sets described in previous section are
blurred to account for the uncertainties associated with the
reasoning process. The resulting interval type-2 fuzzy sets are

2312
 N~ Z~ P~
Where, μ Y ( dx ) and μ − are the degree of
1.0 −j Yj

memberships of ‘Distance Remaining ( dx ) ’in the fuzzy

−
0.5
sets, Y and Y j respectively defined for j th rule,
− j

μ Z ( dt ) and μ Z ( dt ) are the degree of memberships of

−
j
− j
dt
-30 -10 0 10 30 ‘Heading Error ( dt ) ’in the fuzzy sets, Z and
− j
Fig.9. IT2 Fuzzy sets describing ‘Heading Error’ for Controller-2 −
Z j respectively defined for j th rule.
N~ Z~ P~
IV. RESULTS
1.0
The performnce of the controlles is analyzed by
experimentation on Lego Mindstorms in MATALB
enviornment. With the initial position and orientation being
0.5 (0cm, 0deg), the robot is set to reach at (30cm, 30deg). The
mimization of position and orientation errors by the three
type-1 fuzzy controllers are shown in Figs. 11 and 12
respectively. It can be observed that all the controllers
dt exhibited the same response for distance error minimization.
-30 -10 0 10 30 However, the performace of ‘Controller-2’ for orientation
error minimzation in terms of rise time and settling time is
Fig.10. IT2 Fuzzy sets describing ‘Heading Error’ for Controller-3
better than the other two controllers, followed by ‘Controller-
The employed inference mechanism for interval type-2 3’ and ‘Controller-1’.
fuzzy controllers can be viewed as weighted sum of lower With the same initial and desired robot positions, the
and upper type-1 fuzzy controllers corresponding to lower three type-1 and corresponding interval type-2 fuzzy
and upper membership functions [14]. The motor power is controllers are compared for distance and orientation error
therefore modified as: minimization. These results are shown in Figs. 13-15. It can
be seen that interval type-2 fuzzy controllers have
9 9 −
outperformed their type-1 counterparts in terms of response
∑wj =1
− j
.O j ∑w
j =1
j
.O j times. The response times for the controllers are shown in
Table 2.
Mp = m 9
+n 9 −
(10) The three interval type-2 fuzzy controllers are also
∑w
j =1
− j
∑w
j =1
j
compared in Fig. 16. It is observed that even if the
performance of type-1 fuzzy ‘Controller-2’ is better than
other type-1 fuzzy controllers, the corresponding interval
m and n are the weighting parameters for the
Where, type-2 fuzzy controllers have less difference in the response
lower and upper type-1 fuzzy logic controllers, w and times. Thus by taking into considertion the uncertainities
− j associated with defining the membership functions, interval
− type-2 fuzzy controllers have produced better results.
w are the firing strengths of j th rule for lower and upper
j TABLE II
COMPARISON OF CONTROLLERS
type-1 fuzzy logic controllers, and O j is the output singleton Settling Time for Settling Time for
Controller Type
− Distance (sec) Orientation (sec)
for j th rule. w and w are found as: Type-1 Controller-1 4.20 3.00
− j j
Type-1 Controller-2 4.26 1.24

Type-1 Controller-3 4.48 2.10

⎛ ⎞
w = min ⎜ μ Y ( dx ) , μ Z
( dt ) ⎟ (11) Interval Type-2
4.10 2.48
− j
⎝ −j − j ⎠ Controller-1
Interval Type-2
3.66 1.10
Controller-2

( ( dt ) )
− Interval Type-2
w j = min μ Y− j ( dx ) , μ
3.48 1.64
− (12) Controller-3
Zj

2313
 (b)
Fig.11. Comparison of type-1 fuzzy logic controller for ‘Distance Error’
Fig.13. Comparison of type-1 and interval type-2 fuzzy logic ‘Controller-1’
minimization
for (a) ‘Distance Error’ minimization (b) ‘Heading Error’ minimization

Fig.12. Comparison of type-1 fuzzy logic controller for ‘Heading Error’ (a)
minimization

(b)
(a) Fig.14. Comparison of type-1 and interval type-2 fuzzy logic ‘Controller-2’
for (a) ‘Distance Error’ minimization (b) ‘Heading Error’ minimization

2314
 (a)
(b)
Fig.16. Comparison of interval type-2 fuzzy logic controllers for (a)
‘Distance Error’ minimization (b) ‘Heading Error’ minimization

REFERENCES
[1] S. A. Arogeti, N. Berman, “Path following of autonomous
vehicles in the presence of sliding effects,” IEEE Transactions
on Vehicular Technology, vol. 61, no. 4, 2012, pp. 1481-1492.
[2] S. E. Oltean, M. Dulau, R. Puskas, “Position control of
Robotino mobile robot using fuzzy logic,” Proc. IEEE
International Conference on Automation Quality and Testing
Robotics, 2010, pp. 1-6.
[3] N. Ouadah, L. Ourak, M. Hamerlain, F. Boudjema,
“Implementation of an oriented positioning on a car-like
mobile robot by fuzzy control,” Proc. IEEE Annual Industrial
Electronics Conference, 2006, pp. 4076-4081.
(b)
[4] N. Ouadah, L. Ourak, F. Boudjema, “Car like mobile robot
Fig.15. Comparison of type-1 and interval type-2 fuzzy logic ‘Controller-3’
for (a) ‘Distance Error’ minimization (b) ‘Heading Error’ minimization
oriented positioning by fuzzy controllers,” International
Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, vol. 5, no. 3, 2008, pp.
249-256.
[5] Xianhua Jiang, Yuichi Motai, Xingquan Zhu, “Predictive
fuzzy control for a mobile robot with nonholonomic
constraints,” Proc. International Conference on Advanced
Robotics, 2005, pp. 58-63.
[6] Xianhua Jiang, Yuichi Motai, Xingquan Zhu, “Predictive
fuzzy logic controller for trajectory tracking of a mobile
robot,” Proc. IEEE Mid Summer Workshop on Soft Computing
in Industrial Applications, 2005, pp. 29-32.
[7] B. Lacevic, J. Velagic, N. Osmic, “Design of fuzzy logic
based mobile robot position controller using genetic
algorithm,” Proc. International Conference on Advanced
Intelligent Mechatronics, 2007, pp. 1-6.
[8] B. Lacevic, J. Velagic, “Evolutionary design of fuzzy logic
based position controller for mobile robot,” Journal of
Intelligent and Robotic Systems, vol. 63, no. 3, 2011, pp. 595-
(a) 614.
[9] E. H. Gucehi, A. Abellard, M. Franceschi, “Experimental
fuzzy visual control for trajectory tracking of a Khepera II
mobile robot,” Proc. IEEE International Conference on
Industrial Technology, 2012, pp. 25-30.
[10] W. L. Xu, S. K. Tso, “Sensor based fuzzy reactive navigation
of a mobile robot through local target switching,” IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernatics, Part C:
Application and Reviews, vol. 29, no. 3, 1999, pp. 451-459.

2315
 [11] T. H. Lee, H. K. Lam, F. H. F. Leung, P. K. S. Tam, “A
practical fuzzy controller for path tracking of wheeled mobile
robots,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 2003, pp. 60-65.
[12] F. G. Rossomando, C. Soria, R. Carelli, “Adaptive neural
dynamic compensator for mobile robots in trajectory tracking
control,” IEEE Latin America Transactions, vol. 9, no. 5,
2011, pp. 593-602.
[13] Jerry M. Mendel, Robert I. John, Feilong Liu, “Interval type-2
fuzzy sets made simple,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy
Systems, vol. 14, no. 6, 2006, pp. 808-821.
[14] M. Biglarbegian, W. W. Melek, J. M. Mendel, “On the
stability of interval type-2 TSK fuzzy logic control systems,”
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernatics-Part B:
Cybernatics, vol. 40, no. 3, 2010.

2316

View publication stats