29

CHAPTER 4

DESIGN OF FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLER

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with the working of Fuzzy PI Controller, the

simulation studies conducted on FPIC under normal tuning conditions as well
as under tuning using analytically determined scaling factors. It also discusses
the simulation results and their comparison for FPIC and Analytically tuned
FPIC.

4.2 FUZZY PI CONTROLLER

Figure 3.1 shows the block diagram of FPIC and its working is
explained in section 3.2.1.

The design steps of FLC are:

1. Identify the variables of the plant.

2. Partition the universe of discourse into a number of fuzzy

subsets and assign a linguistic label for each.

3. Determine the membership function for each fuzzy subset.

4. Based on the fuzzy relationships between the inputs and

outputs a rule base is formed.

5. Appropriate scaling factors are chosen for the input and output
variables in order to normalize the variables to [0,1] or the [-
1,1] interval.
 30

6. Fuzzify the inputs to the controller.

7. Using fuzzy approximate reasoning the output is obtained

from each rule.

8. Defuzzification is applied to form a crisp output.

The membership functions, the rule bases and tuning of FPIC are
explained below:

4.2.1 Membership Functions

The Membership Functions (MFs) for: 1) controller inputs, i.e.,

error and change of error and 2) incremental change in controller output for
PI-type FLC are defined on the common interval [-1, 1]. The error and change
in error are converted into seven linguistic values namely NB, NM, NS, ZE,
PS, PM and PB. Similarly controller output is converted into seven linguistic
values namely NB, NM, NS, ZE, PS, PM and PB. Symmetric triangles
(except the two MFs at the extreme ends) with equal base and 50% overlap
with neighboring MFs are shown in Figure 4.1.

e, e

Figure 4.1 Memberhip functions for e, e and u

 31

where NB - Negative Big

NM - Negative Medium
NS - Negative Small
ZE - Zero
PS - Positive Small
PM - Positive Medium
PB - Positive Big

4.2.2 Rule Bases

The control rules are built based on the knowledge about the
characteristics of the step response. For example, if the output is falling far
away from the set-point, a large control signal that pulls the output toward the
set-point is expected, whereas a small control signal is required when the
output is near and approaching the set-point. Moreover it is standard rule set
available in the literature The rule blocks in the fuzzy logic design contain the
actual control strategy.

The incremental change in the controller output ( u) for a fuzzy PI

controller is determined by rules of the form:

If e is E and e is E then u is U.

The rule base for computing u is shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Fuzzy rules for computation of u

e/e NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB
NB NB NB NB NM NS NS ZE
NM NB NM NM NM NS ZE PS
NS NB NM NS NS ZE PS PM
ZE NB NM NS ZE PS PM PB
PS NM NS ZE PS PS PM PB
PM NS ZE PS PM PM PM PB
PB ZE PS PS PM PB PB PB
 32

4.2.3 Scaling Factor Determination

The MFs for both scaled inputs (eN and eN ) and output uN of the
controller have been defined on the common interval [ -1, 1]. The values of
the actual inputs e and e are mapped onto [- 1, 1] by the input SFs Ge and
G e respectively. The controller output uN is mapped onto the respective
actual output u domain by the output SF Gu.

The relationship between SFs and the input and output variables of
the Fuzzy PI controller are as follows

eN G ee (4.1)

eN G e. e (4.2)

u Gu. u N (4.3)

4.2.3.1 Tuning of the controller by trial and error method

Selection of suitable values for Ge, G e and Gu are made based on

the knowledge about the process to be controlled and through trial and error
to achieve the best possible control performance.

The SFs of FLC for a given process should be tuned to achieve a

reasonably good control performance. In doing so, first Ge should be selected
in such a way that the error almost covers the entire domain [ -1,1] to make
efficient use of the rule bases (Mudi and Pal 1999). Then G e and Gu are tuned
to make the transient response of the system as good as possible. Table 4.2
shows the tuned scaling factors for Fuzzy PI Controller.
 33

Table 4.2 Tuned scaling factors for FPIC determined by trial and error
method

Process
Process Ge G e Gu
variable
Second order SISO process Pressure 0.1 0.5 0.3
Third order SISO process Force 0.1 0.5 0.02
Tleft 0.1 150 -0.3
Second order MIMO process
Tright 0.1 100 -0.3
T1 0.1 200 0.01
Third order MIMO
T2 0.1 500 0.005
process
H2 0.1 150 0.0005

4.2.3.2 Tuning of the controller by analytical method

Using the Equations 3.17 and 3.18 G e, G e and Gu are calculated

analytically. Table 4.3 shows the scaling factors of Fuzzy PI Controller
obtained by analytical calculation.

Table 4.3 Tuned scaling factors for FPIC determined by analytical

calculation

Process
Process Ge G e Gu
variable
Second order Pressure 0.1 0.93 0.28
SISO process
Third order Force 0.1 0.37 0.209
SISO process
Second order Tleft 0.1 120 -0.478
MIMO process Tright 0.1 96 -0.28
T1 0.1 180 0.012
Third order
T2 0.1 452 0.008
MIMO process
H2 0.1 124 0.0007
 34

4.3 SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Simulation results for unit step input, unit step input under
parameter variations, under disturbance conditions and under set point change
for FPIC and Analytically tuned FPIC are shown below.

4.3.1 Second Order SISO Process

The simulation results are obtained for both the FPIC and
Analytically tuned FPIC for the second order SISO process.

The output responses of pressure for unit step input, output

responses for unit step input with disturbance at 45 sec., output responses with
20% variation in gain and 10% variation in time constant and output
responses with set point change at 50 sec. are shown below:

1.4
FPIC
AFPIC
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time(Sec)

Figure 4.2 Output responses of pressure for unit step input (FPIC and
AFPIC)
 35

1.4
FPIC
AFPIC
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.3 Output responses of pressure with disturbance for unit step
input (FPIC and AFPIC)

Figure 4.2 shows the output responses of the pressure for both FPIC
and AFPIC for unit step input.Simulation result shows clearly that under both
FPICs the response for pressure tracks the set point without steady state error.
However, the settling time varies for FPIC and AFPIC with the values 20.7
sec. and 13.9 sec. respectively. The response obtained in AFPIC is more
improved than that in FPIC.

Figure 4.3 shows the output responses of the pressure for FPIC and
AFPIC with disturbance for unit step input. A negative step disturbance of
magnitude 0.05 given at 45sec. is reflected in the response immediately.
Inspite of the disturbance, the system tracks the set point without steady state
error within a short duration. However, the settling time varies for FPIC and
AFPIC with the values 52.5 sec. and 52.2 sec. respectively.Hence, AFPIC
yields more improved performance compared to FPIC.
 36

1.4
FPIC
AFPIC
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.4 Output responses of pressure with 20% variation in gain for
unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)

1.5
FPIC
AFPIC

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time(Sec)

Figure 4.5 Output responses of pressure with 10% variation in time

constant for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)
 37

2.5
FPIC
AFPIC

1.5

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.6 Output responses of pressure for different set points

(FPIC and AFPIC)

Figure 4.4 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
pressure with 20% variation in gain for unit step input. Eventhough the gain
varies by 20%, the responses for the pressure track the set point without
steady state error. However, the settling time varies for FPIC and AFPIC with
the values 39.9 sec. and 20.6 sec. respectively. Hence AFPIC provides more
improved performance compared to FPIC and the system is robust.

Figure 4.5 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
pressure for unit step input with 10% variation in time constant. Eventhough
the time constant varies by 10%, responses for pressure track the set point
without steady state error. However the settling time varies for FPIC and
AFPIC with the values 85.6 sec. and 47.2 sec. respectively.Hence the
response obtained in AFPIC is more improved than that in FPIC. Hence the
system is robust.
 38

Figure 4.6 shows the output responses of the pressure for FPIC and
AFPIC for two different set points. The responses for the pressure track the
set point without steady state error and at 50 sec. there occurs a response
change to a given input change, and a similar tracking of set point happens
again without steady state error. However, the settling time varies for FPIC
and AFPIC with the values 68.7 sec. and 61.7 sec. respectively and the
response obtained in AFPIC is more improved than that in FPIC .

From Figures 4.2 to 4.6, it is inferred that Analytically tuned FPIC

provides more improved performance compared to FPIC for the second order
SISO process and the system is robust.

4.3.2 Third Order SISO Process

This section of the study describes the simulation results obtained

for both FPIC and Analytically tuned FPIC for the third order SISO process.

The output responses of force for unit step input, output responses
with disturbance at 40 sec. for unit step input , output responses with 20%
variation in gain and 10% variation time constant and output responses with
step change in set point at 50 sec. are shown below:
 39

1.4
FPIC
AFPIC
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time(Sec)

Figure 4.7 Output responses of force for unit step input (FPIC and
AFPIC)

Figure 4.7 shows the output responses of the force for both FPIC
and AFPIC for unit step input.Simulation result shows clearly that under both
FPICs, the responses for the force track the set point without steady state
error. However, the settling time varies for FPIC and AFPIC with the values
14.9 sec. and 1.4 sec. respectively, and the response obtained in AFPIC is
more improved compared to FPIC.
 40

1.4
FPIC
AFPIC
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.8 Output responses of force with disturbance for unit step
input (FPIC and AFPIC)

Figure 4.8 shows the output responses of the force with disturbance
for FPIC and AFPIC for unit step input. A negative step disturbance of
magnitude 0.05 given at 40 sec. is reflected in the response immediately.
Inspite of the disturbance at 40 sec. the responses for the force track the set
point without steady state error within a short duration and the settling time
varies for FPIC and AFPIC with the values 52.6 sec. and 42.1 sec.
respectively. Hence the response obtained in AFPIC is more improved
compared to FPIC.
 41

1.4
FPIC
AFPIC
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.9 Output responses of force with 20% variation in gain for
unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)

1.4
FPIC
AFPIC
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.10 Output responses of force with 10% variation in time

constant for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)
 42

Figure 4.9 shows the output responses of FPIC and Analytically

tuned FPIC for the force for unit step input with 20% variation in gain.
Eventhough the gain varies by 20%, the responses for the force track the set
point without steady state error. However, the settling time of FPIC and
AFPIC are 13.6 sec. and 2.05 sec. respectively. Hence, the output responses
of the force show that Analytically tuned FPIC gives more improved
performance compared to FPIC. Hence, the system is robust.

Figure 4.10 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
force for unit step input with 10% variation in time constant . Eventhough the
time constant varies by 10%, the responses for the force track the set point
without steady state error. However, as the settling time varies for FPIC and
AFPIC with the values 14.8 sec and 1.4 sec. respectively, the response
obtained in AFPIC is more improved than FPIC. Hence the system is robust.

2.5
FPIC
AFPIC

1.5

0.5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time(Sec.)

Figure 4.11 Output responses of force for different set points (FPIC and
AFPIC)
 43

Figure 4.11 shows the output responses of the force for two
different set points. The responses for the force track the set point without
steady state error and at 50sec., there occurs a response change to a given
input change,and a similar tracking of set point happens again without steady
state error. However, the settling time varies for FPIC and AFPIC with the
values 62.5 sec. and 51.25 sec. respectively and the response obtained in
AFPIC is more improved than FPIC.

From Figures 4.7 to 4.11 it is inferred that under various conditions

discussed, AFPIC provides more improved performance compared to FPIC
for the third order SISO process and the system is robust.

4.3.3 Second Order MIMO Process

This section of the study describes the simulation results

obtained for both FPIC and Analytically tuned FPIC for second order
MIMO process.

The output responses for unit step input and their interaction
responses, output responses with disturbance at 850 sec. for unit step input ,
output responses with 20% variation in gain, with 10% variation time constant
and output responses with step change in set point at 1000 sec. for the process
variables temperature on left (Tleft) and temperature on right (Tright) are
shown below:
 44

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time(Sec)

Figure 4.12 Output responses of Tleft for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)

0.09
FPIC
0.08 AFPIC

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.13 Interaction responses of Tright for unit step input to Tleft
(FPIC and AFPIC)
 45

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time(Sec.)

Figure 4.14 Output responses of Tright for unit step input (FPIC and
AFPIC)

0.09
FPIC
0.08 AFPIC

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.15 Interaction responses of Tleft for unit step input to Tright
(FPIC and AFPIC)
 46

Figure 4.12 shows the output responses of the temperature on the

left (Tleft) for both FPIC and AFPIC for unit step input.Simulation result
shows clearly that under both FPIC and AFPIC, the temperature on the left
(Tleft) tracks the set point without steady state error. However, the settling
time of FPIC and AFPIC are 744.6 sec. and 536.6 sec. respectively and
AFPIC provides improved performance compared to FPIC.

Figure 4.13 shows the interaction responses of the temperature on

the right (Tright) for both FPIC and AFPIC for unit step input to Tleft. From
Figure 4.13, it is clear that there occurs a small amount of interaction in
temperature on the right (Tright) due to unit step input in Tleft under both
FPICs. However, AFPIC gives lesser interaction than FPIC.

Figure 4.14 shows the output responses of the temperature on the

right (Tright) for both FPIC and AFPIC for a unit step input.Simulation result
shows clearly that under both FPICs the temperature on the right (Tright)
tracks the set point without steady state error. However, the settling time of
FPIC and AFPIC are 532.4 sec. and 415.3 sec. respectively. Hence AFPIC
yields improved performance compared to FPIC.

Figure 4.15 shows the interaction responses of the temperature on

the left (Tleft) for both FPIC and AFPIC for unit step input to Tright. From
Figure 4.15, it is clear that there occurs a small amount of interaction in the
temperature on the left (Tleft) due to unit step input in Tright under both
FPICs, AFPIC gives lesser interaction than FPIC.However the controller acts
on the system and reduces the interaction within a short duration.

Figures 4.12 to 4.15 show that under both FPIC and AFPIC, a
variation in the temperature on the left (Tleft) affects the temperature on the
right (Tright) and vice versa. However AFPIC provides more improved
performance and lesser interaction compared to FPIC.
 47

1.4
FPIC
AFPIC
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.16 Output responses of Tleft with disturbance for unit step
input (FPIC and AFPIC)

1.4
FPIC
AFPIC
1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.17 Output responses of Tright with disturbance for unit step
input (FPIC and AFPIC)
 48

0.9 FPIC
AFPIC
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.18 Output responses of Tleft with 20% variation in gain for
unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.19 Output responses of Tright with 20% variation in gain for
unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)
 49

Figure 4.16 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
temperature on the left (Tleft) for unit step input. A negative step disturbance
of magnitude 2 given at 850 sec., is reflected in the response immediately.
However, the responses for the temperature on the left (Tleft) track the set
point without steady state error with settling time of FPIC and AFPIC as 1054
sec. and 1051 sec. respectively. Hence, the output responses of the left (Tleft)
shows that Analytically tuned FPIC provides improved performance
compared to FPIC.

Figure 4.17 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
temperature on the right (Tright) for unit step input. A negative step
disturbance of magnitude 2.5 given at 850 sec., is reflected in the response
immediately. Inspite of the disturbance, the responses for the temperature on
the right (Tright) track the set point without steady state error within a short
duration, the settling time varies for FPIC and AFPIC with the values
1061sec. and 954.9 sec. respectively. Hence AFPIC evokes improved
performance compared to FPIC.

Figure 4.18 shows the output responses of FPIC and Analytically

tuned FPIC for the temperature on the left (Tleft) for unit step input with 20%
variation in gain . Eventhough the gain varies by 20%, the responses for the
temperature on the left (Tleft) track the set point without steady state error.
However, the settling time varies for FPIC and AFPIC with the values 767
sec. and 547.9 sec. respectively. Hence, AFPIC gives improved performance
compared to FPIC and the system is robust.

Figure 4.19 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
temperature on the right (Tright) for unit step input with 20% variation in
gain. Eventhough the gain varies by 20%, the output responses for Tright
track the set point without steady state error. However, the output responses
of the temperature on the right (Tright) show that AFPIC provides settling
time of 405 sec. and FPIC provides settling time of 557.1 sec. Hence, AFPIC
yields improved performance compared to FPIC and the system is robust.
 50

FPIC
0.9
AFPIC
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.20 Output responses of Tleft with 10% variation in time

constant for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6
Tright (Deg.)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.21 Output responses of Tright with 10% variation in time

constant for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)
 51

1.8 FPIC
AFPIC
1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.22 Output responses of Tleft for different set points (FPIC and
AFPIC)

2
FPIC
1.8 AFPIC

1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.23 Output responses of Tright for different set points (FPIC
and AFPIC)
 52

Figure 4.20 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
temperature on the left (Tleft) for unit step input with 10% variation in time
constant. Inspite of 10% variation in time constant the output responses of the
temperature on the left (Tleft) track the set point without steady state error
and provides a settling time of 730 sec. and 525.4 sec. for FPIC and AFPIC
respectively. Hence, AFPIC yields more improved performance compared to
FPIC. Hence, the system is robust.

Figure 4.21 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
temperature on the right (Tright) for unit step input with 10% variation in
time constant. Inspite of 10% variation in time constant, the output responses
of the temperature on the right (Tright) track the set point without steady
state error and provides a settling time 518 sec. and 409.1 sec. for FPIC and
AFPIC respectively. Hence AFPIC yields improved performance compared to
FPIC. Hence,the system is robust.

Figure 4.22 shows the output responses of Tleft for FPIC and
AFPIC for two different set points. The responses for the temperature on the
left (Tleft) track the set point without steady state error and at 1000sec.,there
occurs a response change to a given input change, and a similar tracking of set
point happens again without steady state error. However, the settling time
varies for FPIC and AFPIC with the values 1627 sec. and 1453 sec.
respectively and the response shows that AFPIC brings in better improvement
than FPIC.

Figure 4.23 shows the output responses of the temperature on the

right (Tright) for FPIC and AFPIC for two different set points. The responses
for the temperature on the right (Tright) track the set point without steady
state error and at 1000sec. there occurs a response change to a given input
change,and a similar tracking of set point happens again without steady state
error. However, the settling time varies for FPIC and AFPIC with the values
 53

1448 sec. and 1348 sec. respectively and AFPIC brings in better improvement
than FPIC.

From Figures 4.12 to 4.23 it is inferred that AFPIC provides more

improved performance compared to FPIC under all the conditions discussed
for the second order MIMO process and hence the system is robust.

4.3.4 Third Order MIMO Process

The simulation results are obtained for both FPIC and Analytically
tuned FPIC for the third order MIMO process.

The output responses and their interaction responses for unit step
input, output responses with disturbance, under parameter variations in time
constant and gain as well as under set point changes for all the process
variables i.e. temperature of tank 1 (T1), temperature of tank 2 (T2) and the
level of tank 2 (H2) are shown below:

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500
Time(Sec)

Figure 4.24 Output responses of T1 for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC )
 54

Figure 4.24 shows the output responses of the temperature of tank

1(T1) for both FPIC and AFPIC for a unit step input.Simulation result shows
clearly that under both FPICs, the temperature of the tank 1 (T1) tracks the set
point without steady state error. However, the settling time varies for FPIC
and AFPIC with the values 897.3 sec and 776.1sec. , the responses obtained
in AFPIC is more improved than that in FPIC.

0.14
FPIC
AFPIC
0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 500 1000 1500
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.25 Interaction responses of T2 for unit step input to T1 (FPIC

and AFPIC)

Figure 4.25 shows the interaction responses of the temperature of

tank 2 (T2) for both FPIC and AFPIC for unit step input to T1. From
Figure 4.25 it is clear that there occurs a small amount of interaction in
temperature of Tank 2 (T2) for unit step input to T1 under both FPICs,
AFPIC gives lesser interaction compared to FPIC. However due to the
controller action the interaction gets reduced within a short duration.
 55

0.9
FPIC
0.8
AFPIC

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.26 Output responses of T2 for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.27 Output responses of H2 for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)
 56

-4
x 10
2

-2

-4 FPIC
AFPIC
-6

-8

-10

-12

-14
0 500 1000 1500
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.28 Interaction responses of T2 for unit step input to H2 (FPIC

and AFPIC)

Figure 4.26 shows the output responses of the temperature of tank 2

(T2) for both FPIC and AFPIC for unit step input.Simulation result reveals
clearly that under both FPICs, the temperature of tank 2 (T2) tracks the set
point without steady state error. However, AFPIC provides settling time of
1912 sec. and FPIC provides settling time of 2245 sec. and AFPIC brings in
better improvement than FPIC.

Figure 4.27 shows the output responses of the level of tank 2 (H2)
for both FPIC and AFPIC for a unit step input. Simulation result shows
clearly that under both FPICs, the level of tank 2 (T2) tracks the set point
without steady state error. However, the settling time varies for FPIC and
AFPIC with the values 674.4 sec and 520 sec. respectively. The response
obtained in AFPIC is improved than FPIC. Hence, the system is robust.
 57

Figure 4.28 shows the interaction responses of the temperature of

tank 2 (T2) for both FPIC and AFPIC for unit step input to H2. From Figure
4.28, it is clear that there occurs a small amount of interaction in temperature
of Tank 2 (T2) for unit step input to H2 under both FPICs, the AFPIC gives
lesser interaction than FPIC. However due to the controller action the
interaction gets reduced within a short duration.

From Figures 4.24 to 4.28 it is inferred that a variation in the heat

input to tank 1 produces a corresponding variation in the temperature of tank
1 (T1),there occurs a small interaction in the temperature (T2) of tank 2. A
variation in heat input to tank 2 produces a corresponding variation in
temperature of tank 2 (T2). A variation in volume input to tank 2 produces a
corresponding variation in the level of tank 2 (H2),there occurs a small
interaction in the temperature (T2) of tank 2. However, the responses obtained
in AFPIC is more improved than FPIC and also the interaction of T2 gets
more reduced in AFPIC than FPIC.

0.9
FPIC
0.8 AFPIC

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.29 Output responses of T1 with disturbance for unit step input
(FPIC and AFPIC)
 58

0.9 FPIC
AFPIC
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.30 Output responses of T2 with disturbance for unit step input
(FPIC and AFPIC)

0.9

FPIC
0.8
AFPIC
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.31 Output responses of H2 with disturbance for unit step input
(FPIC and AFPIC)
 59

Figure 4.29 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
temperature of tank 1 (T1) with disturbance for unit step input. A negative
step disturbance of magnitude 0.1 given at 1000 sec., is reflected in the
response immediately. Despite the disturbance, the system tracks the set point
without steady state error and FPIC provides a settling time of 1216 sec. while
AFPIC provides a settling time of 1172 sec. Output responses of T1 show that
Analytically tuned FPIC gives more improved performance compared to
FPIC.

Figure 4.30 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC with
disturbance for the temperature of tank 2 (T2) for unit step input. A negative
step disturbance of magnitude 0.1 given at 2500 sec., is reflected in the
response immediately. The output responses of both FPIC and AFPIC track
the set point without steady state error. However, the settling time varies for
FPIC and AFPIC with the values 3084 sec and 2819 sec. respectively, and
hence the responses of T2 show that AFPIC brings in better improvement
than FPIC.

Figure 4.31 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
level of tank 2 (H2) with disturbance for unit step input . A disturbance given
to the level of tank 2 (H2) at 1000 sec is reflected in the response
immediately. Inspite of a negative step disturbance of magnitude 0.1 given at
1000 sec., output responses of both FPIC and AFPIC track the set point
without steady state error. However, the settling time varies for FPIC and
AFPIC with the values 1746 sec and 1576 sec. respectively. Hence, AFPIC
gives more improved performance compared to FPIC.
 60

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.32 Output responses of T1 with 20% variation in gain for unit
step input (FPIC and AFPIC)

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.33 Output responses of T2 with 20% variation in gain for unit
step input (FPIC and AFPIC)
 61

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.34 Output responses of H2 with 20% variation in gain for unit
step input (FPIC and AFPIC)

Figure 4.32 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
temperature of tank 1 (T1) for unit step input with 20% variation in gain.
Inspite of 20% variation in gain, the output responses of both FPIC and
AFPIC track the set point without steady state error. However, the settling
time varies for FPIC and AFPIC with the values 871.2 sec. and 762 sec.
respectively and the output responses of T1 show that AFPIC gives more
improved performance compared to FPIC.

Figure 4.33 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
temperature of tank 2 (T2) for unit step input with 20% variation in gain.
Eventhough the gain varies by 20%, output responses of both FPIC and
AFPIC track the set point without steady state error.The settling time varies
for FPIC and AFPIC with the values 2191sec. and 1871 sec. respectively.
However, the output responses of T2 show that AFPIC gives improved
performance compared to FPIC.
 62

Figure 4.34 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
level of tank 2 (H2) for unit step input with 20% variation in gain.
Eventhough the gain varies by 20%, the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC
track the set point without steady state error and provides settling time of 656
sec. and 527.5 sec. respectively. However, the output responses of H2 show
that AFPIC gives minimum settling time and more improved performance
compared to FPIC.

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.35 Output responses of T1 with 10% variation in time constant

for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)

Figure 4.35 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
temperature of tank 1 (T1) for unit step input with 10% variation in time
constant. Eventhough the time constant varies by 10%, the output responses
of T1 track the set point without steady state error. FPIC and AFPIC provides
settling time of 880 sec. and 760.40 sec. respectively. However, the output
responses of T1 show that AFPIC gives minimum settling time and improved
performance compared to FPIC. Hence the system is robust.
 63

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.36 Output response of T2 with 10% variation in time constant

for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)

1
FPIC
0.9 AFPIC

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 500 1000 1500
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.37 Output responses of H2 with 10% variation in time constant

for unit step input (FPIC and AFPIC)
 64

Figure 4.36 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
temperature of tank 2 (T2) for unit step input with 10% variation in time
constant . Despite the variation in time constant by 10%, the output responses
of both FPIC and AFPIC track the set point without steady state error and
provide settling time of 2203 sec. and 1874 sec. respectively. The output
responses of T2 show that AFPIC brings in better improvement than FPIC
and hence the system is robust.

Figure 4.37 shows the output responses of FPIC and AFPIC for the
level of tank 2 (H2) for unit step input with 10% variation in time constant .
Eventhough the time constant varies by 10%, the responses for H2 track the
set point without steady state error. However, the settling time varies for FPIC
and AFPIC with the values 665 sec. and 518.30 sec. respectively, the response
obtained in AFPIC is more improved than FPIC. Hence the system is robust.

1.8 FPIC
AFPIC
1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.38 Output responses of T1 for different set points (FPIC and
AFPIC)
 65

1.8 FPIC
AFPIC
1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.39 Output responses of T2 for different set points (FPIC and
AFPIC)

FPIC
1.8
AFPIC
1.6

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (Sec.)

Figure 4.40 Output responses of H2 for different set points (FPIC and
AFPIC)
 66

Figure 4.38 shows the output responses of the temperature of tank 1

(T1) for FPIC an AFPIC for two different set points. The responses for T1
track the set point without steady state error and at 1500sec. there occurs a
response change to a given input change,and a similar tracking of set point
happens again without steady state error. However, as the settling time varies
for FPIC and AFPIC with the values 2248 sec. and 2158 sec. respectively,the
response obtained in AFPIC is more improved than FPIC.

Figure 4.39 shows the output responses of the temperature of tank 2

(T2) for FPIC and AFPIC for two different set points. The responses for T2
track the set point without steady state error and at 3000sec. there occurs a
response change to a given input change,and a similar tracking of set point
happens again without steady state error. However, the settling time varies for
FPIC and AFPIC with the values 4886 sec. and 4578 sec. respectively,the
response obtained in AFPIC is more improved than FPIC.

Figure 4.40 shows the output responses of the level of tank 2 (H2)
for FPIC and AFPIC for two different set points. The responses for H2 tracks
the set point without steady state error and at 1500sec. there occurs a response
change to a given input change,and a similar tracking of set point happens
again without steady state error. However, the settling time varies for FPIC
and AFPIC with the values 2064 sec. and 1947 sec. respectively and AFPIC
provides improved performance compared to FPIC.

From Figures 4.24 to 4.40 it is inferred that AFPIC provides more

improved performance compared to FPIC for the third order MIMO process.
Hence, the system is robust.
 67

4.4 CONCLUSION

The simulation results obtained for all the four processes are
discussed in the chapter and it is clearly proved that the Analytically tuned
Fuzzy PI Controller gives more improved response than Fuzzy PI Controller
under all conditions.Also,the AFPIC is applicable for all the processes.