International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems
ARTICLE
Optimal Design and Tuning
of PID-type Interval Type-2
Fuzzy Logic Controllers for
Delta Parallel Robots
Regular Paper
Xingguo Lu1* and Ming Liu1
1 Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang,
*Corresponding author(s) E-mail: hitluxingguo@163.com
Received 03 August 2015; Accepted 25 April 2016
DOI: 10.5772/63941
© 2016 Author(s). Licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
Abstract
In this work, we propose a new method for the optimal
design and tuning of a Proportional-Integral-Derivative
type (PID-type) interval type-2 fuzzy logic controller (IT2
FLC) for Delta parallel robot trajectory tracking control.
The presented methodology starts with an optimal design
problem of IT2 FLC. A group of IT2 FLCs are obtained by
blurring the membership functions using a variable called
blurring degree. By comparing the performance of the
controllers, the optimal structure of IT2 FLC is obtained.
Then, a multi-objective optimization problem is formulated
to tune the scaling factors of the PID-type IT2 FLC. The
Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) is
adopted to solve the constrained nonlinear multi-objective
optimization problem. Simulation results of the optimized
controller are presented and discussed regarding applica‐
tion in the Delta parallel robot. The proposed method
provides an effective way to design and tune the PID-type
IT2 FLC with a desired control performance.
Keywords PID-type IT2 FLC, Blurring Degree, Scaling
Factors, Multi-objective Optimization, NSGA-II
1. Introduction
Fuzzy logic controllers have been commonly adopted in
many areas of engineering over the last few decades [1-4].
This can be attributed to their linguistic-based structure,
which does not need a precise mathematical model of the
object and can handle the uncertainty of systems’ informa‐
tion [5-8]. Some researchers [9, 10] have proved that FLCs
are more robust and their performance is less sensitive to
parametric variations than conventional controllers. H
Ying et al. proved that FLC is a nonlinear, variable param‐
eter controller, which can effectively control nonlinear,
strong coupling with time-varying structure systems [11].
Due to the closed kinematic structure, Delta robots present
better performance in accuracy, rigidity and payload
capacity over their serial counterparts. All these advantag‐
es make this robot a good platform in many areas of
engineering [12-15]. However, the Delta robot system is a
kind of nonlinear, strong coupling system with time-
varying parameters, and traditional controllers cannot
provide a satisfactory control performance. So FLC is a
good candidate to control such a robot effectively, some‐
thing that is much needed in engineering applications.
Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941 1
 Generally speaking, three types of fuzzy controllers are presented. In Section 3, the background review of T2 FLC
widely used in process control systems: PI-, PD- and PID- is provided and the design of the controller’s structure is
type FLCs [16]. PI-type FLCs are more commonly used than carried out. The multi-objective optimization of the scaling
PD because they can eliminate steady-state errors [17]. PI- factors of PID-type IT2 FLC is investigated in Section 4.
type FLCs show satisfactory performance for linear first- Section 5 presents the simulation results and Section 6 gives
order systems, but poor performance for higher-order the conclusions.
systems due to their integration operations. For improved
performance, PID-type FLCs are preferred [18, 19]. It 2. System Description of the Delta Parallel Robot
should be pointed out that for PID-type FLCs, it is difficult
to obtain a 3-D rule base since they are beyond the sensing The Delta robot designed at Harbin Institute of Technology
capability of human technicians. To form a PID-type FLC, is utilized for evaluating the controllers as shown in Figure
researchers usually combine the PI- and PD-type FLCs or 1. The Delta robot is a successfully commercialized indus‐
one PD-type FLC with an integrator and a summation unit trial parallel robot invented by Dr. Clavel in 1985. As
at the output [20]. illustrated in Figure 2, the Delta robot system consists of
three parallel kinematic chains. Each chain goes from the
Recently, much work has been done by researchers to apply
base platform (1 in Figure 2) to the travelling platform (5 in
T2 FLC to many engineering areas [21-25], because this
Figure 2), which is driven by a servo motor (2 in Figure 2)
shows better performance than T1 counterparts. The fuzzy
on the base platform. Motions of the base platform are
logic controller that contains at least one T2 fuzzy set is
transmitted to the travelling platform through the actuat‐
called T2 FLC. The T2 fuzzy set is characterized by its
ing arms (3 in Figure 2) and the passive arms (4 in Figure
membership function, which itself is a fuzzy set [26]. The
T2 fuzzy sets are three dimensional including primary 2). The passive arms are a parallelogram structure, which
membership and corresponding secondary membership. ensures the travelling platform remains parallel to the robot
The additional uncertainty dimensions provide more base.
degrees of freedom to directly handle dynamic uncertain‐ Due to the triple symmetrical structure, each chain of the
ties, so T2 FLC could achieve better control performance robot can be treated separately. The structure parameters
[27]. However, general type-2 FLCs are computationally of the Delta robot are defined in Figure 3. We use the index
intensive due to the type-reduction procedures, which i (i = 1, 2, 3) to identify the chain number. The three
restrict their application [28]. To reduce the computational kinematic chains of the robot are separated by an angle of
burden, IT2 FLC is considered in this paper. When the 120 ° from each other.
secondary membership functions are either zero or one, the
T2 FLCs are called IT2 FLCs. This constitutes a significant
reduction in computational burden and a simplification of
the controller’s design process.
A systematic design method for T1 and T2 fuzzy controllers
is still an open question. Many efforts have been made to
design the controller structure and tune the scaling factors
for both T1 and T2 fuzzy controllers [29-32]. However, there
is very limited research on the systematic design method
for PID-type IT2 FLCs [33-36]. In this study, an optimal
design and tuning method was developed for PID-type IT2
FLCs applied to Delta parallel robots’ trajectory tracking
control. The proposed method was broken into two steps
as follows: i) construct an optimal structure of the IT2 FLC;
and ii) tune the scaling factors of the PID-type IT2 FLC. In
the first step, only one design parameter was used to design
all the fuzzy membership functions of the entire IT2 FLC.
This constitutes a significant simplification of the control‐
ler’s design process. In the second step, a multi-objective
problem was carried out to tune the scaling factors of the
PID-type IT2 FLC. The genetic algorithm NSGA-II was
introduced to solve the multi-objective optimization
problem. The effectiveness of the optimized controllers was
evaluated on the trajectory tracking control of the Delta
parallel robot.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, the rigid-body dynamics of the Delta robot is Figure 1. Delta robot designed at Harbin Institute of Technology

2 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

 where τ is the driving torque matrix of the actuating arms,
I L is the inertia matrix of the actuating arms and the
motors, q is the vector of the actuating arm angles, J is the
Jacobian matrix of the Delta robot, mn is the mass of the
travelling plate and the payload, X n is the centre position
vector of the travelling platform, GL is the gravity vector
of the actuating arms and Gn is the gravity vector of the
travelling platform. For more detailed derivation of the
equations, please refer to [37].

Eq.(2) can be further simplified as:

3
t = Aq&& + Tcc q& + Tg + åt M ,i (3)
Figure 2. Scheme of the Delta robot   i =1

 
Based on the virtual work principle, the rigid-body where A is the inertia matrix:
dynamic model of the Delta robot can be expressed as:
A = I L + J T mn J (4)
3 3
t mn + åt L ,i + åt M ,i = 0 (1)
i =1 i =1 T cc is the Coriolis/centripetal matrix:

where τmn is the generalized force of the travelling platform, Tcc = J T mn J& (5)
τL ,i is the generalized force of the actuating arm i, and τM ,i
is the generalized force of the passive arm i. T g is the gravity vector:

By substituting the dynamic parameters of the Delta robot

into Eq.(1), we get: Tg = - J TGn - GL (6)

3
&& - G - J TG + t In practice, the Coulomb friction and viscous friction of the
t = I Lq&& + J T mn X n L n å M ,i
i =1
(2)
robot joints cannot be neglected. Most of the frictions of the

Figure 3. Kinematic sketch of the Delta robot

 
Xingguo Lu and Ming Liu: 3
Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot
 Delta robot come from the actuating arm joints and the gear
reducers connected to the joints, because they have
relatively higher angular velocities and driving torques
when the Delta robot is running. There are also frictions in
the ball-and-socket passive joints in the passive arms, but
since these angular velocities and torques are low, the
frictions of the passive joints are negligible. So only the
frictions of the actuating joins and the gear reducers are
considered in this paper. The rigid-body dynamic equation
of the Delta robot considering Coulomb and viscous
frictions is obtained:
3
t = Aq&& + Tcc q& + Tg + åt M ,i + Fv q& + Fc sgn(q& ) (7)
i =1
where F v is the viscous friction coefficient and F c is the
vector of Coulomb friction.
3. PID-type IT2 Fuzzy Logic Controller Structure Design
for the Delta Parallel Robot
3.1 Type-2 fuzzy logic controller
The block diagram of a typical T2 FLC is depicted in Figure
4. When compared to its T1 FLC counterpart, the major
difference between the two controllers is that there is at
least one type-2 fuzzy set implemented in the T2 FLC. The
character of T2 fuzzy set can overcome the limitations in
the ability of T1 fuzzy sets to handle system uncertainties.
Figure 4. The structure of T2 fuzzy logic controller
A typical type-2 fuzzy set à is characterized by a type-2
membership function μÃ(x, u), which can be expressed as
follows:
% =
A ò ò
xÎX uÎ J x
m A% ( x , u) / ( x , u) (8)
where x ∈ X and u ∈ J x ⊆ 0, 1 are the primary and secon‐
dary variables, and J x is the primary membership of x, ∫∫
denotes the union over all admissible x and u for continu‐
ous universes of discourse. For discrete universes of
discourse ∫ is replaced by ∑ . The union of all primary
memberships defines the Footprint-Of-Uncertainty (FOU)
of the type-2 fuzzy set Ã. The FOU can be expressed as:
4 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941
%)=
FOU( A UJ x (9)
xÎX
The FOU of a T2 fuzzy set is illustrated in Figure 5. Observe
that the FOU is bounded from above and below by two T1
fuzzy sets, which are called the upper membership function
(UMF) and lower membership function (LMF).
 A ( x)
 A ( x)
 A ( x)
Figure 5. FOU of a T2 fuzzy set
3.2 Interval type-2 fuzzy logic controller
The computational complexity and difficulty in implemen‐
tation restrict the application of type-2 fuzzy controllers. So
the interval type-2 fuzzy logic controller is considered in
this paper, for its computational inexpensiveness and ease
of implementation. An IT2 fuzzy set à can be expressed as
follows:
% =
A ò ò
xÎX uÎ J x
1 / ( x , u) (10)
Here, all the secondary membership grades of the IT2 fuzzy
set à are equal to 1. This makes for substantial simplifica‐
tion when compared to general T2 fuzzy sets.
Consider the rule base of an IT2 FLC consisting of N rules,
which can be expressed as:
R n : IF x1 is Ãn1 and … and xI is ÃnI , THEN y is B̃ n .
where Ãin and B̃ n (i = 1, 2, ..., I , n = 1, 2, ..., N ) are antecedent
and consequent IT2 fuzzy sets, respectively.
To obtain a crisp output value, the typical computations of
an interval type-2 fuzzy logic system usually consist of the
following steps.
1. The crisp input vector with I elements x = (x1, ..., xI ) is
mapped into interval type-2 fuzzy sets.
2. For rule n, the firing interval (F n (x)) is computed as
follows:
F n ( x ) = éê m A% n ( x1 ) * ... * m A% n ( xI ), m A% n ( x1 ) * ... * m A% n ( xI ) ùú = éë f n , f n ùû (11)
ë 1 I 1 I û
 e E
Kp Ki 
U
Ku
e E
Kd Ka

Figure 6. Control scheme

  of the Delta robot system

 , Ku


e Ku
U
Ku
e

 , Ku

e E
Kp Ki 
U
Ku
e E
Kd Ka

  optimization procedure
Figure 7. Design and

where * denotes a general t-norm, the product t-norm is where the switching points L and R can be calculated using
adopted in this paper. the Karnik-Mendel (KM) algorithms [38].

3. Perform type-reduction procedure to get the type- 4. The final crisp output can be computed as:
reduced set. In this paper, the centre-of-sets type-
reducer is considered. The type-reduced set can be yl + yr
computed as: y= (15)
2

N
3.3 The structure design of IT2 FLC for the delta parallel robot
åf n
yn
Ycos ( x ) = U n =1
N
= éë yl , yr ùû (12) For most fuzzy controllers, the error and its time derivative
f n ÎF n ( x )
y n ÎBn åf n
are usually chosen as the inputs of the controllers. Howev‐
n =1 er, it is difficult for the fuzzy PD type controller to remove
the steady-state error. For the purpose of improving the
performance of the IT2 FLC to handle steady-state error
The centroid of the resulting IT2 output fuzzy set is an
and transient response at the same time, the PID-type IT2
interval T1 fuzzy set, which can be described by its left and
FLC is proposed in this work. A schematic view of the PID-
right end points yl and yr :
type fuzzy logic control system connected to the robot
platform is presented in Figure 6.

å f yln + å n = L + 1 f n yln
L N
n
In this paper, the inputs of the controller were designed
n =1
yl = (13) using two trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy sets for
å f n + å n= L +1 f n
L N
n =1 describing the input signal error e(t) and its time derivative
ė(t). The error was calculated as the difference between the
actual and desired angle of the joint. The output of the
å f yrn + å n = L + 1 f n yrn
R n N
n =1
controller u(t) was modelled using four triangular interval
yr = (14)
type-2 fuzzy sets {Y 1, Y 2, Y 3, Y 4}. The fuzzy rule base of
å f n + å n= L +1 f n
L N
n =1
the controller is:

Xingguo Lu and Ming Liu: 5

Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot
 ˜ , THEN u is Y
R 1 : IF e is Ẽ −1 and ė is Ė 1 obtained by the method proposed by Lu et al. [40], for each
−1
α there is a K u corresponding to it. For each pair of α and
˜ , THEN u is Y
R 2 : IF e is Ẽ −1 and ė is Ė 2
1 K u , a IT2 FLC with different structure can be formed. Then
3 ˜ , THEN u is Y
R : IF e is Ẽ 1 and ė is Ė 3 the obtained set of PD-type IT2 FLCs is applied to the
−1
trajectory tracking control of the Delta parallel robot, and
˜ , THEN u is Y
R 4 : IF e is Ẽ 1 and ė is Ė 4
1 the trajectory is given in Eq. (16).
˜ and
where Ẽ −1 and Ẽ 1 are the input IT2 fuzzy sets of e , Ė −1
˜ are the input IT2 fuzzy sets of ė .
Ė ì p
ï x = 0.1cos( 2 t + p) + 0.1
1

Due to the complexity of the controller’s structure, we ï

í y = 0.1sin( p t + p) (16)
designed a two-step procedure to design and optimize the ï 2
PID-type IT2 FLC as shown in Figure 7. In the first step, the ï
î z = -0.025sin(2 pt ) - 0.6769
structure of the IT2 FLC is designed without the scaling
factors and the integral element. Then, the scaling factors
are tuned based on a multi-objective evolutionary algo‐ Figure 9 shows the recorded RMSE values of the three joints
rithm in the second step. of the robot with different α and corresponding K u . It can
For simplicity, an identical value α is used to design all the be observed that when α = 0.5, the RMSE of the three joints
input fuzzy membership functions of the entire IT2 FLC, have the minimum value and the robot shows the best
which is called blurring degree. The value α is increased tracking accuracy. So the optimized IT2 FLC structure is
and decreased on the left and right side to determine how obtained by setting the blurring degree as 0.5 and K u as 44.
much the FOU is to be extended. Figure 8 illustrates the Figure 10 plots the membership functions of the optimized
antecedent membership functions of the controller. From IT2 FLC.
Hsiao’s work [39], we concluded that changing the width
of the consequent sets does not significantly affect the
controller’s responses, so only the antecedent IT2 fuzzy sets -3
x 10
were tuned with the blurring degree during the first step. 8
Joint1
6 Joint2
 E  E Joint3
E 1 E1
RMSE

1 1

 E  E 2
1 1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
 1   1 

Figure 9. The RMSE values of the three joints with variable blurring degrees
 E  E
E 1 E1
1 1

1 1

 E 1
 E1
E 1 E1 E 1 E1
0.5 0.5

 1   1  0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

  Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4
    antecedent membership functions for (a) input
Figure 8. Illustrations of the
0.5

ė and (b) input e

0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5

To obtain the optimal value of α , the scaling factor K i is set    

 

to zero and K a, K p , K d are set to one during the first tuning
procedure. By changing the value of α we can get a group
of IT2 FLCs with different antecedent membership func‐
tions. When the membership functions are blurred, the
controller could not provide enough output control signal
when adopting the same inputs [40]. So the value K u is also
tuned in this step to overcome this issue. The value of K u is
Figure 10. The membership functions: (a) error input sets (b) error derivative
input sets (c) output sets
Figure 11 depicts the output control surfaces of different
blurring degrees. Due to space limitations, only the most
representative three control surfaces are selected. It can be
observed that when α = 0.5, IT2 FLC offers substantially
smoother control performance than other values.

6 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

 1 1 1

0.5 0.5 0.5

Output

Output

Output
out
out

out
0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-1 -1 -1
2 2 2
2 2 2
0 1 0 1 0 1
0 0 0

e e e
-1 -1 -1
Input2 -2 -2
e
Input1 Input2 -2 -2
e
Input1 Input2 -2 -2
e
Input1

 
  control surface when: (a) α=0, (b) α=0.5 and (c) α=1
Figure 11. The output

4. Multi-objective Optimization of the Scaling Factors of sorting genetic algorithm with an elitist strategy, especially
PID-Type IT2 FLC for multi-objective optimization. Figure 12 shows the
process of NSGA-II, and the algorithm used in this work
4.1 Multi-objective optimization and NSGA-II can be stated as:

The process of optimizing a mathematical problem ex‐ 1. Generate a uniformly distributed parent population P0
pressed systematically and simultaneously involving a with the population size N .
collection of objective functions is called multi-objective
2. Using crossover, mutation and selection operations to
optimization. It is a kind of multiple-criteria decision
create an offspring population Q0 with the population
making and usually has a set of optimal solutions. Mathe‐
matically speaking, a multi-objective optimization problem size N .
consists of optimizing a vector of functions: 3. Combine the offspring and parent population to form
extended population Rn with the population size of
Opt( F( x )) = ( f1 ( x ), f2 ( x ),K , f k ( x )) 2N .
subject to: gi ( x ) £ 0, i = 1,2,K , q , (17) 4. Sort the extended population based on non-domina‐
h j ( x ) = 0, j = 1,2,K , r. tion.

5. Choose the best N individuals from the sorting result

where x = (x1, x2, … , xn )T ∈ X is the decision variable, X is to form a new parent population Pn+1.
the set of feasible solutions, F (x) is the vector of objectives,
f i : I R n → IR, i = 1, 2, … , k are the objective functions and 6. Create the new offspring population Qn+1.
n
gi , h j : I R → IR, i=1,2,…q, j=1,2,…,r are the constraint 7. Repeat the steps (3) to (6) until a stopping criterion is
functions of the problem. met.

The concept used in single-objective optimization prob‐

lems is usually not applicable in multi-objective optimiza‐
tion problems. For this reason, a class of definitions is
introduced in terms of Pareto optimality, according to the
following definitions [41]. In terms of minimization of
objective functions:

Definition 1. Pareto optimal: A point, x * ∈ X , is Pareto optimal

if there does not exist another point, x ∈ X , such that
F (x) ≤ F (x *) , and f i (x) < f i (x *) for at least one function.

Definition 2. Pareto dominance: A vector of objective func‐

tions, F (x *) ∈ Z , is non-dominated if there does not exist another
vector, F (x) ∈ Z , such that F (x) ≤ F (x *) with at least one
  Figure 12. Procedure of the NSGA-II algorithm
f i (x) < f i (x *) . Otherwise, F (x *) is dominated.

Definition 3. Pareto set: A set of non-dominated feasible 4.2 Multi-objective optimization of the scaling factors
solutions is said to be a Pareto set.
The goal of multi-objective optimization is to determine the
Definition 4. Pareto front: The image of a Pareto set in the
scaling factors of the PID-type IT2 FLC to achieve a
objective space is called a Pareto front.
desirable control performance. As depicted in Figure 7,
In this paper, we chose a Non-dominated Sorting Genetic there are four scaling factors to be tuned at the second step,
Algorithm II (NSGA-II) to find the Pareto solutions for so the decision variables of the multi-objective problem can
multi-objective optimization. It is a fast non-dominated be defined as:

Xingguo Lu and Ming Liu: 7

Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot
 T é f ( x ) = tf t e (t ) dt + tf t e (t ) dt + tf t e (t ) dt ù
x = éë K p , Kd , Ki , K a ùû (18) ê 1 ò0 1 ò0 2 ò0 3 ú
ê ú
min F( x ) = min ê
òW 1 + òW 2 + òW 3
T dW T dW T dW ú (23)
ê f2 ( x ) = ú
There are two optimization objectives we will take into ê
ë òW dW òW dW òW dW ú
û
account simultaneously in NSGA-II: (i) minimization of the
position errors of the three joints ( f 1) and (ii) minimization
Subject to:
of the mean value of the torques provided by the three
motors ( f 2).
ì10 £ K p £ 70
In this paper, integral of time-weighted-absolute-error ï
ï0 £ K d £ 5
(ITAE) is adopted as the first objective function to evaluate
ïï0 £ Ki £ 5
the position errors of the joints. Since there are three joints í (24)
of the Delta robot, the first objective function can be defined ï0 £ K a £ 5
ï f £ 10
as: ï 1
ïî f2 £ 20
tf tf tf
f1 = ò t e1 (t ) dt + ò t e2 (t ) dt + ò t e3 (t ) dt (19)
0 0 0
5. Simulation Results and Discussion

where e1, e2 and e3 are the errors of the three joints. The multi-objective optimization was carried out in a
desired trajectory given in Eq.(16). NSGA-II was imple‐
We need f 1 to be minimized for it represents the robot mented using MATLAB with the population=200, and
having the best tracking accuracy. If the mean values of the generation=200. Figure 13 shows the Pareto front of the
torques provided by the motors are minimized during the multi-objective scaling factors’ optimization results
trajectory tracking operation, the energy consumption of obtained by NSGA-II. Table 1 shows the Pareto optimal
the robot will be reduced, which is very necessary in solutions of the optimization. It is noticed that there is a
engineering applications. So the second objective function trade-off between tracking accuracy and energy consump‐
is given by: tion. In other words, if we want to have a smaller tracking
error, the mean values of the torques will be larger, which
means the robot will use more energy to do the same work
f2 =
ò
W
T1 dW
+
ò W
T2 dW
+
ò W
T3 dW
(20)
and vice versa.
ò
W
dW ò W
dW ò W
dW
12

where T 1, T 2 and T 3 are the torques of the three joints on

11.95
each sampling point, and W is the whole sampling points
on the trajectory. 11.9

The search ranges of the scaling factors are set as:

11.85
f2

ì10 £ K p £ 70 11.8
ï
ï0 £ K d £ 5
í (21) 11.75
ï0 £ K i £ 5
ï0 £ K £ 5
î a 11.7

11.65
To improve the computational efficiency, the objective 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
f1
functions should follow the following constrains:
Figure 13. The Pareto front obtained by NSGA-II

ìï f1 £ 10 The scaling factors with minimum f 1 and minimum f 2 are

í (22)
ïî f2 £ 20 presented in Table 2. Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the
errors and torques of the three joints of the Delta robot
From Eq.(18-22), the multi-objective optimization problem when tracking the desired trajectory with the scaling
of tuning the scaling factors of the PID-type IT2 FLC can be factors in Table 2. It can be seen from the figures that the
formulated as follows: controller shows different behaviour when adopting
different tuned scaling factors. When the errors of the joints
Find a vector x * = K p*, K d*, K i*, K a* T
that verifies: are minimized, the desired torques of the three motors are

8 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

 0.015 20
Joint1 1
Joint2 15
0.01 2
Joint3
10 3
0.005 5
Error(rad)

Torque(N)
0
0
-5
-0.005 -10

-15
-0.01
-20

-0.015 -25
0 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time(s) Time(s)

Figure 14. Response of the robot with PID type IT2 FLC with minimum f1

larger at the beginning of the motion. A larger torque means No. Kp Kd Ki Ka f1 f2

the robot has a faster response and higher accuracy. On the
contrary, when the minimized torque-scaling factors are 1 10.2423 0.2419 0.3440 0.7715 0.2673 11.9733

applied to the controller, the mean value of the torque is 2 10.0014 0.0807 0.0160 0.5000 4.5401 11.6663
smaller, which means less energy is needed when the robot
3 10.2366 0.2422 0.3244 0.7703 0.2688 11.9556
finishes the same operation. However, the tracking accu‐
racy will decrease. It also can be observed from Figure 13-15 4 10.0148 0.2008 0.1914 0.7876 0.4305 11.8495
that, in the Pareto solutions, torque changes less than the 5 10.0125 0.2038 0.1791 0.7817 0.4541 11.8421
errors ( f 1 is in the range of 0.2673 to 4.5401 and f 2 is in the
…
range of 11.6663 to 11.9733), which means if we want to
reduce energy consumption by reducing the mean torque 196 10.0032 0.3267 0.1488 0.5952 0.6949 11.7859
of the motors in a given trajectory, the tracking accuracy 197 10.0057 0.3120 0.1403 0.5919 0.7515 11.7760
will decrease more quickly. Once the trajectory of the Delta
198 10.5219 0.3095 0.1613 0.5951 0.5998 11.8073
robot is given, it is difficult to optimize energy by tuning
the controller’s scaling factors. 199 10.0301 0.2357 0.2762 0.7719 0.2988 11.9180

An optimized PID controller used to control the Delta robot 200 10.0048 0.3140 0.1334 0.5659 0.8851 11.7569

[42] is adopted to compare the trajectory tracking control Table 1. Results of the multi-objective optimization
performance with PID-type IT2 FLC proposed in this
paper. Here, the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
algorithm is used to tune the parameters of the PID Results Kp Kd Ki Ka f1 f2

controller. The position of each particle is represented by Min f 1 10.2423 0.2419 0.3440 0.7715 0.2673 11.9733
the proportional, integral and derivative gains of the PID
Min f 2 10.0014 0.0807 0.0160 0.5000 4.5401 11.6663
controller. The fitness function of the PSO algorithm is
chosen the same as in Eq.(19). The response of the Delta Table 2. Results of minimum f1 and f2
robot using an optimized PID controller is presented in
Figure 16. From Figure 14-16, we can see that the PID-type We can also objectively choose other values in the Pareto
IT2 FLC has much higher control precision than the solutions according to the design requirements. For
optimized PID controller, but the control torque is slightly example, if we want to get a small trajectory tracking error
larger than its PID counterpart (whether use the scaling but not too much average torque during the operation, the
factors with minimum f 1 or minimum f 2). Compared with solution with a relatively small f 1 is selected: K p = 10.0184,
the regularly used PID controller, the PID-type IT2 FLC K d = 0.3242, K i = 0.1838, K a = 0.6394. The simulation results are
designed in this work can provide a better control perform‐ shown in Figure 17, we can see that the errors and torques
ance in Delta robot trajectory tracking control. This obser‐ create some trade-offs with each other, so we get a control‐
vation can be explained by the characteristics of the IT2 ler with different control behaviour: an acceptable accuracy
FLC. Analysis has shown that the IT2 FLC can be seen as a and not too much torque. However, we cannot say that one
PI controller with variable gains [43], which can effectively solution is better than the others, because each solution is
control the nonlinear and strong coupling systems, such as a trade-off between the two objective functions. The final
the Delta robot, compared with the regular optimized PID choice of solutions can be made according to specific
controller. requirements of engineering applications.

Xingguo Lu and Ming Liu: 9

Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot
 0.01 6
1
0.005
4 2
0 3
2
-0.005
Error(rad)

Torque(N)
0
-0.01
-2
-0.015

-0.02 -4
Joint1
-0.025 Joint2 -6
Joint3
-0.03 -8
0 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time(s) Time(s)

Figure 15. Response of the robot with PID-type IT2 FLC with minimum f2

0.005 4
Joint1 1
0 Joint2 2 2
Joint3 3
-0.005 0
Error(rad)

Torque(N)

-0.01 -2

-0.015 -4

-0.02 -6

-0.025 -8
0 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time(s) Time(s)

Figure 16. Response of the robot with an optimized PID controller

 
0.01 10
Joint1 1
Joint2
Joint3 5 2
0.005
3
0
0
Error(rad)

Torque(N)

-5
-0.005
-10

-0.01
-15

-0.015 -20
0 1 2 3 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time(s) Time(s)

Figure 17. Response of the robot with a relatively small f1

6. Conclusions optimization problem of determining the controller’s

In this paper, we presented a systematic procedure for
optimal design and tuning of a PID-type IT2 FLC. Due to
the complexity of the controller’s structure, the procedure
was broken into two steps. In the first step, a variable called
the blurring degree was introduced to find the optimal
structure of IT2 FLC. In the second step, based on the two
objective functions we have defined, the multi-objective
scaling factors was formulated. Then the NSGA-II algo‐
rithm was adopted to solve the multi-objective optimiza‐
tion problem. To evaluate the method, we applied it to the
problem of trajectory tracking control of Delta parallel
robot. The proposed approach gives a good approximation
of Pareto optimal solutions, and each solution is a compro‐
mise between the two objective functions. Simulation
results show that by using different scaling factors obtained

10 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

in the second step, the PID-type IT2 FLC shows different
control behaviours, but all of them provide better control
performance than the regularly used PID controller. We
believe that the proposed methodology can be a good
alternative to solve optimal design problems of similar type
IT2 FLCs.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editors and unnamed
reviewers for their valuable comments.
8. References
[1] M. Yahyaei, J. E. Jam and R. Hosnavi, "Controlling
the navigation of automatic guided vehicle (AGV)
using integrated fuzzy logic controller with pro‐
grammable logic controller (IFLPLC)—stage 1," The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, vol. 47, pp. 795-807, 2010.
[2] Z. Xia, J. Li and J. Li, "Delay-dependent non-fragile
H∞ filtering for uncertain fuzzy systems based on
switching fuzzy model and piecewise Lyapunov
function," International Journal of Automation and
Computing, vol. 7, pp. 428-437, 2010.
[3] K. Su, S. Huang and C. Yang, "Development of
Robotic Grasping Gripper Based on Smart Fuzzy
Controller," International Journal of Fuzzy Systems,
2015.
[4] V. B. Nguyen and A. S. Morris, "Genetic Algorithm
Tuned Fuzzy Logic Controller for a Robot Arm with
Two-link Flexibility and Two-joint Elasticity,"
Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, vol. 49,
pp. 3-18, 2007.
[5] S. R. S. Abdullah, M. M. Mustafa, R. A. Rahman, T.
O. S. Imm, and H. A. Hassan, "A fuzzy logic
controller of two-position pump with time-delay in
heavy metal precipitation process," in Pattern
Analysis and Intelligent Robotics (ICPAIR), 2011
International Conference on, Putrajaya, 2011, pp.
171-176.
[6] R. M. Hilloowala and A. Sharaf, "A rule-based fuzzy
logic controller for a PWM inverter in a standalone
wind energy conversion scheme," Industry Appli‐
cations, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 32, pp. 57-65,
1996-01-01 1996.
[7] N. Kehtarnavaz, E. Nakamura, N. Griswold, and J.
Yen, "Autonomous vehicle following by a fuzzy
logic controller," in Fuzzy Information Processing
Society Biannual Conference, 1994. Industrial
Fuzzy Control and Intelligent Systems Conference,
and the NASA Joint Technology Workshop on
Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic, San Antonio,
TX, 1994, pp. 333-337.
[8] E. Pathmanathan and R. Ibrahim, "Development
and implementation of Fuzzy Logic Controller for
Flow Control Application," in Intelligent and
Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot
Advanced Systems (ICIAS), 2010 International
Conference on, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2010, pp.
1-6.
[9] S. T. Wierzchon, "Intelligent control: Aspects of
fuzzy logic and neural nets: by C.J. HARRIS, C.G.
MOORE and M. BROWN; World Scientific Series in
Robotics and Automated Systems; World Scientific;
Singapore; 1993; xx + 380 pp.; $53-00; ISBN:
981-02-1042-6," Control Engineering Practice, vol. 3,
pp. 745–746, 1995.
[10] R. Palm, "Sliding mode fuzzy control," IEEE
Conference Proceeding, pp. 519 - 526, 1992.
[11] H. Ying, W. Siler and J. J. Buckley, "Fuzzy control-
theory - A nonlinear case," Automatica, vol. 26, pp.
513-520, 1990.
[12] O. Linda and M. Manic, "Evaluating uncertainty
resiliency of Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controllers for
parallel delta robot," in Human System Interactions
(HSI), 2011 4th International Conference on,
Yokohama, 2011, pp. 91-97.
[13] B. P. Shi, S. K. Han, S. Changyong, and K. Kyungh‐
wan, "Dynamics modeling of a Delta-type parallel
robot (ISR 2013)," in Robotics (ISR), 2013 44th
International Symposium on, Seoul, 2013, pp. 1-5.
[14] J. Hirano, D. Tanaka, T. Watanabe, and T. Naka‐
mura, "Development of delta robot driven by
pneumatic artificial muscles," in Advanced Intelli‐
gent Mechatronics (AIM), 2014 IEEE/ASME Inter‐
national Conference on, Besacon, 2014, pp.
1400-1405.
[15] M. Afroun, T. Chettibi and S. Hanchi, "Planning
Optimal Motions for a DELTA Parallel Robot," in
Control and Automation, 2006. MED '06. 14th
Mediterranean Conference on, Ancona, 2006, pp.
1-6.
[16] R. K. Mudi and N. R. Pal, "A robust self-tuning
scheme for PI- and PD-type fuzzy controllers," IEEE
Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 7, pp. 2-16,
1999.
[17] F. G. Shinskey, "Process control systems: applica‐
tion, design, and tuning," Process Control Systems
Application Design & Tuning, 1988.
[18] J. H. Kim and S. J. Oh, "A fuzzy PID controller for
nonlinear and uncertain systems," Soft Computing,
vol. 4, pp. 123-129, 2000-07-01 2000.
[19] Z. Q. Wu and M. Mizumoto, "PID type fuzzy
controller and parameters adaptive method," Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, vol. 78, pp. 23-35, 1996-02-26 1996.
[20] B. M. Mohan and A. Sinha, "Analytical structure
and stability analysis of a fuzzy PID controller,"
Applied Soft Computing, vol. 8, pp. 749-758,
2008-01-01 2008.
[21] H. A. Hagras, "A hierarchical type-2 fuzzy logic
control architecture for autonomous mobile robots,"
Xingguo Lu and Ming Liu: 11
 Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 12, pp.
524-539, 2004-01-01 2004.
[22] M. Biglarbegian, W. W. Melek and J. M. Mendel,
"On the Stability of Interval Type-2 TSK Fuzzy Logic
Control Systems," Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
Part B: Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 40,
pp. 798-818, 2010-01-01 2010.
[23] M. Tinkir, U. Onen, M. Kalyoncu, and F. M. Botsali,
"PID and interval type-2 fuzzy logic control of
double inverted pendulum system," in Computer
and Automation Engineering (ICCAE), 2010 The
2nd International Conference on, Singapore, 2010,
pp. 117-121.
[24] S. A. Zaheer and K. Jong-Hwan, "Type-2 fuzzy
airplane altitude control: A comparative study," in
Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ), 2011 IEEE International
Conference on, Taipei, 2011, pp. 2170-2176.
[25] L. Ping-Zong, H. Chun-Fei and Tsu-Tian Lee,
"Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller Design for Buck
DC-DC Converters," in Fuzzy Systems, 2005. FUZZ
'05. The 14th IEEE International Conference on,
Reno, NV, 2005, pp. 365-370.
[26] J. M. Mendel, "Uncertain rule-based fuzzy logic
system: introduction and new directions," 2001.
[27] J. M. Mendel, R. I. John and L. Feilong, "Interval
Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Systems Made Simple," Fuzzy
Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 14, pp. 808-821,
2006-01-01 2006.
[28] L. Qilian and J. M. Mendel, "Interval type-2 fuzzy
logic systems: theory and design," Fuzzy Systems,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 8, pp. 535-550, 2000-01-01
2000.
[29] R. Martínez, O. Castillo and L. T. Aguilar, "Optimi‐
zation of interval type-2 fuzzy logic controllers for
a perturbed autonomous wheeled mobile robot
using genetic algorithms," Information Sciences,
vol. 179, pp. 2158-2174, 2009-06-13 2009.
[30] O. Castillo, L. Aguilar, N. Cázarez, and S. Cárdenas,
"Systematic design of a stable type-2 fuzzy logic
controller," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 8, pp.
1274-1279, 2008-06-01 2008.
[31] J. C. Cortes-Rios, E. Gomez-Ramirez, H. A. Ortiz-
de-la-Vega, O. Castillo, and P. Melin, "Optimal
design of interval type 2 fuzzy controllers based on
a simple tuning algorithm," Applied Soft Comput‐
ing, vol. 23, pp. 270-285, 2014-10-01 2014.
[32] M. Hsiao, T. S. Li, J. Z. Lee, C. H. Chao, and S. H.
Tsai, "Design of interval type-2 fuzzy sliding-mode
12 Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941
controller," Information Sciences, vol. 178, pp.
1696-1716, 2008-03-15 2008.
[33] A. M. El-Nagar and M. El-Bardini, "Derivation and
stability analysis of the analytical structures of the
interval type-2 fuzzy PID controller," Applied Soft
Computing, vol. 24, pp. 704-716, 2014-11-01 2014.
[34] D. T. Liem, D. Q. Truong and K. K. Ahn, "A torque
estimator using online tuning grey fuzzy PID for
applications to torque-sensorless control of DC
motors," Mechatronics, vol. 26, pp. 45-63, 2015-03-01
2015.
[35] Y. Maldonado, O. Castillo and P. Melin, "A multi-
objective optimization of type-2 fuzzy control speed
in FPGAs," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 24, pp.
1164-1174, 2014-11-01 2014.
[36] J. Kacprzyk, W. Pedrycz, T. Kumbasar, and H.
Hagras, "Interval Type-2 Fuzzy PID Controllers," in
Springer Handbook of Computational Intelligence,
J. Kacprzyk and W. Pedrycz, Eds.: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg, 2015, pp. 285-294.
[37] A. Codourey, "Dynamic Modeling of Parallel
Robots for Computed-Torque Control Implementa‐
tion," The International Journal of Robotics Re‐
search, vol. 17, pp. 1325 -1336, 1998-12-01 1998.
[38] W. Dongrui and J. M. Mendel, "Enhanced Karnik--
Mendel Algorithms," Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Trans‐
actions on, vol. 17, pp. 923-934, 2009-01-01 2009.
[39] M. Hsiao, T. S. Li, J. Z. Lee, C. H. Chao, and S. H.
Tsai, "Design of interval type-2 fuzzy sliding-mode
controller," Information Sciences, vol. 178, pp.
1696-1716, 2008-03-15 2008.
[40] X. Lu, M. Liu and J. Liu, "Design and Optimization
of Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta
Parallel Robot Trajectory Control," International
Journal of Fuzzy Systems. In press.
[41] E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns and S. Bleuler, "A tutorial
on evolutionary multiobjective optimization," in
Metaheuristics for multiobjective optimisation:
Springer, 2004, pp. 3-37.
[42] L. Xingguo and L. Ming, "A fuzzy logic controller
tuned with PSO for delta robot trajectory control,"
in Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2015 - 41st
Annual Conference of the IEEE, 2015, pp. 4345-4351.
[43] D. Wu, "On the fundamental differences between
interval type-2 and type-1 fuzzy logic controllers,"
Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 20, pp.
832-848, 2012.