Proc.

of the 3rd International Conference on Electrical, Communication and Computer Engineering (ICECCE)
12-13 June 2021, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Comparative study of conventional PID and fuzzy

logic controllers applied to an electric oven
2021 International Conference on Electrical, Communication, and Computer Engineering (ICECCE) | 978-1-6654-3897-1/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/ICECCE52056.2021.9514104

Serigne Modou DIOUF Ibrahima GUEYE Abdoulaye KEBE Moustapha DIOP

Ecole Normale Supérieure de
l’Enseignement Technique et
Professionnel
Cheikh Anta DIOP University
Dakar, Sénégal
serignemodoudiouf9@gmail.com
Ecole Normale Supérieure de
l’Enseignement Technique et
Professionnel
Cheikh Anta DIOP University
Dakar, Sénégal
igueye5@gmail.com
Ecole Normale Supérieure de
l’Enseignement Technique et
Professionnel
Cheikh Anta DIOP University
Dakar, Sénégal
abdoulaye.kebe@ucad.edu.sn
Ecole Normale Supérieure de
l’Enseignement Technique et
Professionnel
Cheikh Anta DIOP University
Dakar, Sénégal
moustapha17.diop@ucad.edu.sn

Abstract— This paper proposes a comparative study of
conventional proportional-integral-derivative (PID) and fuzzy
logic controllers for the temperature control of an electric oven.
This study gives an overview of conventional PID and fuzzy logic
controllers to investigate their applicability on the temperature
control of an electric oven. This study is all the more important as
the PID controller is mainly used for a system control when the
mathematical representation is known; contrary to the fuzzy logic
control concept, which is more and more used in applications and
does not require a model. To compare the performances of the two
controllers, a reference temperature of 100° is fixed for an electric
oven of dimensions (Length: 150 cm, Width: 131 cm, Depth: 150
cm) with a frontal opening. The simulation results performed
under Matlab-Simulink were compared in terms of control
performance, including steady state error, response time and
system stability. The evaluation shows that the fuzzy logic
controller provides the best performance.
Keywords—Electric oven, Fuzzy controller, Heat, PID controller
I. INTRODUCTION
Regulation is a set of devices and techniques set up to
maintain a physical quantity at a desired value (set point). In
fact, the preference for a control device is justified by its design,
its performance, but especially by its applicability to the system
to be controlled. Industrial systems can be divided into two
categories, linear systems like the electric oven and non-linear
systems like amplifiers. To control these systems, multi-loop,
PWM, digital, discrete, conventional (PID, PI, PD ...) and fuzzy
logic controllers are often used. However, the conventional PID
and fuzzy logic controllers are the most used to control the
temperature of an electric oven. The principle of PID
controllers is based on binary operations. While fuzzy logic
controllers (FC) reflect the functioning of the human brain,
which is plagued by uncertainty and imprecision [1]. Fuzzy
logic controllers were not created to replace conventional PID
controllers, but to complement. Despite the limitations
encountered, such as sensitivity to disturbances, disappointing
results, system slowness, and unsuitability for complex systems
[2], the conventional PID controllers are still used in industry.
Their repeated use in heat treatment applications has caught our
attention and aroused our interest. The objective of this work is
to study and compare the conventional PID and fuzzy logic
controllers for the temperature control of an electric oven. The
performance criteria targeted for comparison are mainly error,
response time and system stability. To compare them, some
simulations were performed under MATLAB-Simulink
environment with a reference temperature of 100° for an
electric oven of dimensions (Length: 150 cm, Width: 131 cm,
Depth: 150 cm) with a frontal opening.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In
Section 2, a basic overview of conventional PID and fuzzy logic
controllers is given. Section 3 is devoted to the study and
description of the overall system. Then, the simulation results
are presented and discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5
presents the conclusion.
II. State Of The Art
Controllers are control devices that optimize the
performance of a servo system. They are quite common in the
industry, and appreciated by their adaptation to multiple
systems of different physical sizes. Thus, in this section, a
general review of PID and logic controllers will be made. This
study allows to identify and discuss their performances and
their limits but also to examine their applicability to thermal
systems.
A. PID Controller
The principle of the PID controller is to control the error
unconditionally [3]. It is typically used to regulate simple
systems with insignificant performance requirements. To
control a process with a PID controller, it is necessary to know
the system to be regulated and the physical quantity to be
obtained at the output. Knowledge of the system makes it
possible to determine the transfer function. First, only the

978-1-6654-3897-1/21/31.00$ ©2021 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE SANTIAGO DE CHILE. Downloaded on September 12,2022 at 15:16:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 transfer function will be simulated in order to get an idea of the Θ : The ambient temperature
nature of the system faults. Thus several synthesis methods exist
for the calculation of the parameters. These methods allow us to θ ! : The temperature outside the oven
know what type of controller is best suited to correct the m: Body mass
imperfections observed in the response of the system. The
Ziegler-Nichols method is one of the most used methods [4]. c : Specific heat of the body
B. Fuzzy logic controller or Fuzzy controller K: Loss coefficient
Fuzzy logic controllers are typically used to overcome the V% : Interior volume
limitations of conventional controllers (PIDs), including
unexpected operational changes. They belong to the family of According to (1) and (2), the electric power is given by:
AI (Artificial Intelligence) which is based on the functioning of
&'( )
the system to be regulated and not on a mathematical model ( )= . . + [ ( )− ] (4)
&
which for reasons of simplicity omits many parameters [5].
Systems controlled with fuzzy logic controllers are faster, and (
more adaptive than systems controlled with the conventional Let us say: ( )= ( )− (5)
controllers mentioned above [5]. The design of the fuzzy logic
&' ) ( )
controller consists of the following steps: translating numerical ( )= . . + . (
( ) (6)
&
values into linguistic values, establishing a rule base and finally
transforming the linguistic values into numerical values. Each
of these steps requires expert knowledge [6]. By applying the Laplace transform to (6), we obtain:

(*) = ( (*)
III. DESCRIPTION AND MODELING OF THE SYSTEM ( . .* + ) (7)

Finally, the transfer function if the system is given in (8)

' ) (,) ./
+(*) = = (8)
-(,) 01 2.,

Where
4.5
3= (9)
.

0
6 = (10)
.

3 : Oven time constant

Fig. 1. Synoptic diagram
A. Mathematical modeling
According to Joule's law, the electric oven receives energy
by converting electrical energy into calorific energy, through
resistors. The following formula gives the quantity of heat ( )
supplied by the oven during the moment ( ) by the electric
power (P):
= ( )
6 : Static gain
B. Sizing
Based on dimensions of the electric oven, the numerical
value of the loss coefficient (K) is:
K = 0.34. V% = 0.34. (1.5 x 1.5 x 1.31) = 1
Calculation of body mass (m)
For the calculation of body mass (m), the tables published
by Frank M are used the tables published by Frank M. (White
Transfer, Heat and Mass, Addison - Wesley):
For 400 K:
(1)
Specific heat of the body is c = 1.014 78. 79:0 . :0

:;
The same quantity of heat is given by the law of NEWTON And ρ = 0.883 kg. .
[7]: Consequently, body mass (m) is equal:
= . . ( )+ [ ( )− ]dt (2) m = ρ. = 0.883 < 1.5 x 1.5 x 1.31 = 2.6 kg

= 0,34. (3)

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE SANTIAGO DE CHILE. Downloaded on September 12,2022 at 15:16:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 According to previous value, the static gain (K0) and the So to overcome these problems, we aspire to set up two
time constant are given by (3) and (10) controllers.
A switch is provided to simulate the system with one of the
1 correctors.
6 = =1
1
A. PID controller
. 2,6 < 1,014 Laplace transform of the command:
3= = = 2.63
1
0
@(*) = A(*)[ B + + D . *] (11)
Finally, the transfer function is given by: C .,

1 PID controller parameters (open-loop step response

6
+(*) = = approach of the Ziegler and Nichols method):
1 + 3. * 1 + 2,63. *
EFG H 4F
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS B = 1,2 . . (12)
IFJH KF& 4F

DL = 2. L MNO (13)

D = 0,5. L MNO (14)

The Ziegler-Nichols method allowed us to find the

following values for the parameters of the PID corrector.
B = 3.48; DL = 2 s and D = 0.5 s

Fig. 2. Simulation model under Matlab-Simulink

The simulation on Matlab-Simulink made it possible to

obtain the results below. The setpoint temperature is equal to
100 ° C. The following figure is the result of the simulation of
the process without a controller.

Fig 4. Temperature evolution (PID controller)

Fig. 3. Temperature evolution (without controller)

We can see in figure 3 that the system is certainly stable, but

the error is very important and it shows a lot of delay before
reaching the steady state.

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE SANTIAGO DE CHILE. Downloaded on September 12,2022 at 15:16:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Figure 4 shows that the system remains stable after 10
seconds. Time beyond which the system exhibits no oscillation,
hence a good rise time. Despite the speed, the accuracy of the
measurement is to be appreciated (the measurement and the
setpoint are equal over 9/10 of the period). However, the
response time must be improved to avoid overshooting during
the warm-up period.

Fig. 6. Synthesis of fuzzy logic

Before the simulation of the fuzzy controller, you can view

the rule Viewer and surface VIEWER interfaces to know in
advance the behavior of the controller.

Fig. 5. Evolution of process control

According to Figure 5, the command of the process transfer

function is constant and linear, but exhibiting distortions from
T = 5 seconds. This explains the stability of the system after the
transient phase which extends between 0 and 5 seconds.
B. Fuzzy logic controller
Fig. 7. Rule VIEWER
We used as inputs the error “e” and its derivative “de”. Each
of the entries contains three subsets. The output represents the The figure 7 obtained after simulation shows the action of
order which consists of five subsets. Thus the inference engine each of the nine rules on the command.
which establishes the rules between the inputs and the output is
illustrated by the table below:

TABLE I. RULES OF INFERENCE

e
COLD OK HOT
de

COOL HEAT A LOT HEAT COOL

CONST HEAT NOTHING COOL

WARM UP HEAT COOL COOL A LOT

Thus, figure 6 defines the inputs (error, derived from error)

and the output (command) of the fuzzy logic controller, the
inference method and the défuzzification method.

Fig. 8. Surface VIEWER

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE SANTIAGO DE CHILE. Downloaded on September 12,2022 at 15:16:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 The Figure 8 represents the 3D graph of the command as
the function of the error and it’s derivate.
After acting on the membership functions we obtained the
following characteristics:
Fig 9. Temperature evolution (controller with Fuzzy logic)
Figure 9 shows that with the fuzzy logic controller, the
system exhibits better rise time and is precise and stable
throughout the heating period.
Fig. 10. Evolution of process control
Referring to Figure 10, the control of the process transfer
function is constant, linear, and undistorted from T = 5 seconds.
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD DE SANTIAGO DE CHILE. Downloaded on September 12,2022 at 15:16:53 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
V. CONCLUSION
The results obtained with the PID controller show that this
controller has faults which, if not corrected, can cause the
process to fail. Indeed the results also illustrate that the response
of the system is more precise and more stable with the fuzzy
logic controller. However, there are no specific guidelines for
the design of the fuzzy logic controller. Despite the
performance limits of the PID controller, it remains the most
widely used thanks to its general synthesis method, its
simplicity of implementation and its cost. This work allowed us
to discover the performances of the PID controller and the fuzzy
logic controller. However, the implementation of a general
synthesis method of the fuzzy logic controller can be
considered to predict the performance of thermal systems.
REFERENCES
[1] Q.-X. Chen and Ch.-F. Wu, ‘Biogas engine start controller
PID parameter setting’, presented at the 2017 2nd
International Conference on Automation, Mechanical
Control and Computational Engineering (AMCCE 2017),
Beijing, China, 2017. doi: 10.2991/amcce-17.2017.175.
[2] K. Hachemi and al, ‘Etude Comparative des Régulateurs
« PID et Flou »: « Autopilotage d’un Moteur Synchrone a
Aimant Permanent»’, DUJ, vol. 2, p. 22, 2005.
[3] R. Shakya and al, ‘Design and Simulation of PD, PID and
Fuzzy Logic Controller for Industrial Application’, IRPH,
vol. 4, p. 6.
[4] P. Srinivas, ‘Comparative Analysis of Conventional Pid
Controller and Fuzzy Controller with various
Défuzzification Methods in a Three Tank Level Control
System’, IJITCA, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 75–86, Oct. 2012, doi:
10.5121/ijitca.2012.2407.
[5] C. Abdelkader and al ‘Comparative study between the
conventional regulators and fuzzy logic controller:
application on the induction machine’, IJ-STA, vol. 1, no.
2, p. 17.
[6] N. J. Sujatha and M. Saravanan, ‘A comparative study of
fuzzy logic controllers for bldc motor drive’, ARPN, vol.
10, no. 9, p. 9, 2015.
[7] M. Dourfaye, ‘Temperature control application to an
electric oven’, thesis for the CAESTP, Cheikh Anta DIOP
University of Dakar, 1986.