applied

sciences
Article
Equivalence between Fuzzy PID Controllers and
Conventional PID Controllers
Chun-Tang Chao, Nana Sutarna, Juing-Shian Chiou * and Chi-Jo Wang
Department of Electrical Engineering, Southern Taiwan University of Science and Technology, 1, Nan-Tai St.,
Yongkang District, Tainan City 71005, Taiwan; tang@stust.edu.tw (C.-T.C.); da320208@stust.edu.tw (N.S.);
chijo@stust.edu.tw (C.-J.W.)
* Correspondence: jschiou@stust.edu.tw; Tel.: +886-916-221-152; Fax: +886-6-3010-069

Academic Editor: Hung-Yu Wang

Received: 25 March 2017; Accepted: 6 May 2017; Published: 2 June 2017

Abstract: This paper proposes the equivalence between fuzzy Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID)
controllers and conventional PID controllers. A well-designed conventional PID controller, with the
help of the proposed method, can be rapidly transformed to an equivalent fuzzy logic controller (FLC)
by observing and defining the operating ranges of the input/output of the controller. Furthermore,
the knowledge base of the proposed equivalent fuzzy PID controller is represented as a cube fuzzy
associative memory (FAM), instead of a combination of PD-type and PI-type FLCs in most research.
Simulation results show the feasibility of the proposed technique, both in continuous and discrete
time. Since the design techniques of conventional linear PID controllers have matured, they can act
as preliminary expert knowledge for nonlinear FLCs designs. Based on the proposed equivalence
relationship, the designer can further tune the membership functions of fuzzy variables in the
control rules to exhibit the nonlinearity of a FLC and yield more satisfactory system responses in an
efficient way.

Keywords: equivalence; conventional PID controller; fuzzy logic PID controller

1. Introduction
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controllers are widely used in industrial process control.
The three-mode controller contains a proportional, an integral, and a derivative term. The popularity
of a PID controller can be attributed to its good performance and functional simplicity, which allows
engineers to operate it in a simple and straightforward manner. For example, the three controller
gains can be chosen independently by an engineer, based on one’s experience or through some simple
selection methods such as the classical tuning rules proposed by Ziegler-Nichols [1]. For simplicity of
the controller design, a PI or PD controller are also popular for practical applications. A PI controller
can add damping to a system and reduce steady-state error, but yields penalized rise time and settling
time. A PD controller also adds damping and reliably predicts and reduces large overshoots, but does
not improve the steady-state error. Thus, for complete design considerations, a PID controller should
be employed to obtain a desirable system response in settling time, steady-state error, and overshoot.
On the other hand, since Lotfi Zadeh rediscovered and promoted fuzziness in 1965, the subsequent
two fuzzy inference techniques proposed by Mamdani [2] and Sugeno [3] have inspired research in
fuzzy logic controllers (FLC). The heuristic fuzzy rules, which reflect the experience of human experts,
can be applied to plants that are difficult to model mathematically. The most common FLCs are
PI-type or PD-type controllers [4–6], which possess the same characteristics as traditional PI or PD
controllers, respectively. Moreover, they exhibit superior applicability compared with traditional PI or
PD controllers [7].

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513; doi:10.3390/app7060513 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 2 of 12

The FLC commonly outperforms the corresponding PI, PD, or PID controller because a FLC is a
nonlinear controller, while a PI, PD, or PID controller is linear. This raises the equivalence problem
between a fuzzy PID controller and a conventional PID controller. It is well known that the design
of fuzzy rules for a FLC requires expert knowledge, and those who are skilled in conventional PID
controller design are then qualified as the experts. For a well-tuned conventional PID controller, design
work is saved by replacing it with an equivalent linear FLC, then improving the performance over a
conventional PID controller by slightly modifying the fuzzy rules.
Moon [8] revealed that when a PI controller is given, an FLC output is identical to that of the
PI controller by using specified fuzzy logic operations. However, Moon’s design is limited to PI
controllers, and the design procedure is not clear enough. Several studies have investigated fuzzy
PID controller structures, by taking different combinations of the fuzzy PID structural elements [9–11].
This involves a large number of parameters in defining the fuzzy rule base. Manikandan et al. [12]
presented a design for an equivalent fuzzy PID controller from the conventional PID controller, but the
tuning procedure was too complicated and the resulting FLC was not purely linear according to the
control surface view of the study. Therefore, the equivalence problem between different systems is
very crucial to many research fields [13].
The objective of the study is to extend the significant results derived by Moon [8] by examining
the equivalence relationship and design procedure between a traditional PID controller and its
corresponding equivalent FLC. This research proposes an equivalent fuzzy PID controller which
has a simple PID structure design with a 3-dimensional fuzzy rule table, instead of the combination
of different fuzzy PID structural elements or a hybrid controller structure [14]. Moreover, to achieve
optimal control performance for a FLC, some artificial intelligent techniques such as Genetic Algorithm
and Neural Network are efficient approaches [15,16]. This inspires us in the future to propose nonlinear
factors for tuning the membership functions to develop an optimal fuzzy PID controller design with
less parameters.
This study presents the equivalent fuzzy PID controller design (Section 2), followed by the
simulation results of Matlab/Simulink for verifying the proposed design (Section 3). Finally, the
concluding remarks and implementation issues (Section 4) are discussed.

2. The Equivalent Fuzzy PID Controller Design

The fuzzy PID controller design proposed is equivalent to a conventional PID controller, and
is derived from the equivalence equations. First, for a conventional PID controller, the equation for
output u(t) in the time domain is

de(t)
Z
u(t) = K P e(t) + K I e(t)dt + K D , (1)
dt

where the controller provides a proportional term, an integration term, and a derivative term. The
R .
output u(t) and the three inputs e(t), e(t), and e(t) can be thought as fuzzy variables in the FLC
R .
design. It is assumed that the operating ranges for u(t), e(t), e(t), and e(t) are ORu = [− au , au ],
ORe = [− ae , ae ], ORi = [− ai , ai ], and ORd = [− ad , ad ], respectively. Figure 1 shows the membership
functions for graphically defining the four fuzzy variables.
As shown in Figure 1, the m fuzzy sets are equally-spaced and triangular-shaped for each input
R .
fuzzy variable e(t), e(t), or e(t). On the other hand, the output fuzzy variable u(t) is fuzzified by
3m − 2 singleton membership functions. Let ek , ik , dk , and uk denote the center of fuzzy sets Ek , Ik , Dk ,
and Uk , respectively, so that we obtain the following equations

(2k − m − 1) (2k − m − 1) (2k − m − 1)

ek = ae , ik = ai , dk = ad , 1≤k≤m (2)
m−1 m−1 m−1

(2k − 3m + 1)
uk = au , 1 ≤ k ≤ (3m − 2). (3)
3( m − 1)
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 3 of 12

We further define the distance between uk and uk+1 as

∆u = uk+1 − uk , (4)

which will be used in later equation simplification. Based on the above fuzzy variables definition,
the expression of antecedent (IF) and consequent (THEN) for each fuzzy rule is defined as
Z
.
IF e(t) is Ei and e(t) is Ij and e(t) is Dk THEN u(t) is Ul , (5)

R .
where three input fuzzy variables e(t), e(t), and e(t) are taken into consideration simultaneously.
In the proposed linear fuzzy PID design, the overall fuzzy rules for the three-by-one system can be
represented by the sliced cube fuzzy associative memory (FAM), as shown in Figure 2. Furthermore,
we have the following equation related to Equation (5)

l = i + j + k − 2. (6)
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 3 of 13

E1 E( m +1)/2 Em I1 I ( m +1)/ 2 Im

e1 em i1 im

− ae
e(t )
ae − ai
 e(t ) ai

D1 D( m +1)/ 2 Dm U1 U (3m −1)/ 2 U 3m −2

d1 dm u1 u3m − 2
e(t ) u (t )
− ad ad − au au

e ( te)(,t), e(te)(,t),ee(t()t), ,and 

R .
Figure Figure 1.7,Graphical
Graphical
1. 2017,
Appl. Sci. definition
513 definition of of membership functions
membership functions for
forfuzzy variables,
fuzzy variables, and ( t ).
4 ofu13

u(t ) . e

As shown in Figure 1, the m fuzzy sets are equally-spacedm and U

U triangular-shaped for each 2 m −1 3m− 2

input fuzzy variable e ( t ) ,  e(t ) , or e(t ) . On the other hand, the output fuzzy variable u(t ) is
e e(t )
fuzzified by 3m− 2 singleton membership functions. Let ek , ik , 1dk ,Uand uk m
denote
U 2 m −1
the center of
m
fuzzy sets Ek , Ik , Dk , and Uk , respectively, eso that we obtain the following
1 equations
m
e(t )
m
e
(2k − m −m1) (2k − mm− 1)U U (2k − m − 1)
ek = ae , ik = ai , dk = m +i
ad , 1 ≤ k ≤ m 2 m + i −1
(2)
1
m −1 m −1 m −1
1
1 m
e
(2k − 3m +1)
1 U
uk = au , 1 ≤ k ≤U(3m − 2) .1+ i m+i
(3)
e 3(m −1) 1 m
e
U 2 mu
m U m between
We further define the distance uk +1
−1
k and as

Δu = uk +1 − uk , (4)
1 Um U1
which will be used in later equation simplification.
1 Based on the above fuzzy variables definition,
1
the expression of antecedent (IF) and m
consequent (THEN) for each fuzzy rule is defined as
e 
IF e ( t ) is
Figure 2. Sliced cube fuzzyEi and  e( t )
associative is I (t ) is D
j and e(FAM)
memory k THEN u(oft )knowledge
representation
Figure 2. Sliced cube fuzzy associative memory (FAM) representation of knowledge base.
is U l , base. (5)

Subsequently,
where three input verification
fuzzy variables ( t ) , e(design
of the eproposed e(t) by
t ) , andis done 
are applying the consideration
taken into Sugeno-style
inference, the resulting
simultaneously. controllerlinear
In the proposed output u ( t PID
fuzzy ) fordesign,
controller inputs fuzzy
the overall e(tfor
e ( t ) ,rules ) , and e(t) can be
the three-by-one 
system can be represented by the sliced cube fuzzy
calculated by carrying out an aggregation of the form associative memory (FAM), as shown in Figure 2.
Furthermore, we have the following equation related to Equation (5)
u ×(μ
l Ei (e(t)) × μI j ( e(t))
l = i×+μDjk+(e(t)))

k −2 . (6)
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 4 of 12

Subsequently, verification of the proposed design is done by applying the Sugeno-style inference,
R .
the resulting controller output u(t) for controller inputs e(t), e(t), and e(t) can be calculated by
carrying out an aggregation of the form
.
∑ ul × (µ Ei (e(t)) × µ Ij ( e(t)) × µ Dk (e(t)))
R
u(t) = . , 1 ≤ i, j, k ≤ m, l = i + j + k − 2, (7)
∑ (µ Ei (e(t)) × µ Ij ( e(t)) × µ Dk (e(t)))
R

where the product operation rule is used for the fuzzy logic implications and the center of gravity
(COG) is applied for the defuzzification process. It is determined that there is at most, eight rules
R .
to be fired for any controller inputs e(t), e(t), and e(t). To clarify, consider the crisp input e(t)
corresponding to the membership functions Ei and Ei+1 to the degrees of p and 1 − p, respectively.
R
Similarly, consider that e(t) maps the membership functions Ij and Ij+1 to the degrees of q and 1 − q,
.
respectively. Also, it is assumed that e(t) has degrees of r and 1 − r with respect to the membership
functions Dk and Dk+1 . Based on the above assumption, the membership degrees p, q, and r can be
described as R .
ei +1 − e ( t ) i j +1 − e ( t ) d − e(t)
p= , q= , and r = k+1 (8)
ei +1 − ei i j +1 − i j d k +1 − d k
The fired eight rules are listed below, and Figure 3 is an illustration for these eight rules.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 5 of 13
R .
1. IF e(t) is Ei and e(t) is Ij and e(t) is Dk THEN u(t) is Ui+ j+k−2


.
IF
IF ee((tt))isisEiEand
i and e ( te)(is
t )Iis I j +1e(and (kt+) 1is D
t) is eD THEN
u(t) is Uui+
(tj)+kis−U
R
2.
4. j and THEN
k +1 1 i + j +k
R .
3. IF e(t) is Ei and e(t) is Ij+1 and e(t) is Dk THEN u(t) is Ui+ j+k−1
5.
4.
IF e(t ) is Ei +1 and R

e(t ) is I j and
IF e(t) is Ei and e(t) is Ij+1 and
. e(t ) is D THEN u(t ) is U
e(t) is Dk+1 kTHEN u(t) is Ui+ j+ki + j + k −1


.
IF
IF ee((tt))isisEiE and e(et()tis) is I j ande(t)eis(tD) kis D THEN
u(t) is Uui+
(tj)+kis−U
R
5.
6. +i1+1and Ij and THEN
k +1 1 i + j +k
R .
6. IF e(t) is Ei+1 and e(t) is Ij and e(t) is Dk+1 THEN u(t) is Ui+ j+k
7.
7.
IF 
e(t ) is E andR e(t ) is I +1 and
IF e(t) is Ei+i1+1and e(t) is Ij+1 jand
. e (t ) is Dk THEN u(t ) is U i + j + k
e(t) is Dk THEN u(t) is Ui+ j+k
.
 e(t)eis
R
8.
8. IF
IF ee((tt))isisEiE
+1 and
i +1 and e(et()tis) is
Ij+I1 and andj +1 (t )Dis
k +D
1 THENTHENu(t) uis(U
k +1 t )i+isj+Uk+1 i + j + k +1

Dk Ij I j +1 Dk +1 Ij I j +1
(r ) (q) (1 − q) (1 − r ) (q ) (1 − q)
Ei ( p) U i + j + k −2 U i + j + k −1 Ei ( p) U i + j + k −1 Ui+ j+k
Ei +1 (1 − p ) U i + j + k −1 Ui+ j+k Ei +1 (1 − p ) U i + j + k U i + j + k +1

Figure
Figure 3.
3. The
Thefired
fired eight
eight rules.
rules.

num u (t )
u(t)ucan
( t ) becan u(t)
As inEquation
As shown in Equation(7),
(7),the
the crisp
crisp output
output be evaluated
evaluated = num
as u(t) as u (t u) (=t) by taking the
den
by
den u (t )
weighted average of the eight rules consequents. Thus, the denominator of u(t) with 8 terms will be
taking
finally the weighted
reduced average
to 1, as shownofinthe (9). consequents. Thus, the denominator of u ( t ) with
eight rules
Equation
8 terms will be finally reduced to 1, as shown in Equation (9).
den u(t) = pqr + pq(1 − r ) + p(1 − q)r + p(1 − q)(1 − r ) + (1 − p)qr
den u (t ) = pqr + pq (1 − r ) + p (1 − q ) r + p (1 − q )(1 − r ) + (1 − p)qr
+(1 − p)q(1 − r ) + (1 − p)(1 − q)r + (1 − p)(1 − q)(1 − r ) (9)
=+1(1 − p ) q (1 − r ) + (1 − p )(1 − q ) r + (1 − p )(1 − q )(1 − r ) (9)
On the other hand,=the
1 nominator part of u(t) with 8 terms is obtained by
On the other hand, the nominator part of u ( t ) with 8 terms is obtained by
num u(t) = pqr ui+ j+k−2 + pq(1 − r ) ui+ j+k−1 + p(1 − q)r ui+ j+k−1 + p(1 − q)(1 − r )ui+ j+k
num u (t ) = pqru
+(1 − p)qru+i+pq
i+ j +k −2
j+k(1−1−+ + j + k −1 + p (1 − q ) rui + j + k −1 + p (1 − q )(1 − r )ui + j + k
r )(u1i− p)q(1 − r )ui+ j+k + (1 − p)(1 − q)rui+ j+k , (10)
+(1 − p)(1 − q)(1 − r )ui+ j+k+1
+(1 − p )qrui + j + k −1 + (1 − p )q (1 − r )ui + j + k + (1 − p )(1 − q )rui + j + k , (10)
+ (1 − p )(1 − q )(1 − r )ui + j + k +1
which can also be confirmed in Figure 3. In order to simplify Equation (10), we use a method of
applying Equation (4) and defining ux = ui+ j +k . Then Equation (10) can be reduced to
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 5 of 12

which can also be confirmed in Figure 3. In order to simplify Equation (10), we use a method of
applying Equation (4) and defining u x = ui+ j+k . Then Equation (10) can be reduced to

num u(t) = u x + ∆u(1 − p − q − r ) = ui+ j+k+1− p−q−r

, (11)
= (2(i+ j+k+13−(mp−
−q−r )−3m+1)
1)
au

where Equation (3) is also applied.

By substituting Equation (2) into Equation (8), we can rewrite the membership degrees p, q,
and r as R
(2i −m+1) ae −(m−1)e(t) (2j−m+1) ai −(m−1) e(t)
p= 2ae , q = 2ai ,
.
(2k−m+1) ad −(m−1)e(t)
(12)
and r = 2a .
d

With Equation (12) substituted into Equation (11), num u(t) is finally obtained as follows
R
( m −1) e ( t )
num u(t) = au
3( m −1)
[2i + 2j + 2k − 3m + 3 + (m−a1e)e(t) − 2ia ae
e
+ ( m −1) a e
ae + ai
.
( m −1) a i ( m −1) e ( t ) ( m −1) a d
− 2ja i
ai + ai R + ad − 2ka d
ad + ad ] (13)
au au au .
= 3a e
e ( t ) + 3ai e ( t ) + 3ad e ( t ) .

Thus, the crisp output u(t) of the proposed linear FLC is given by

au au au de(t)
Z
u(t) = e(t) + e(t)dt + , (14)
3ae 3ai 3ad dt

which implies a linear PID controller with

au au au
KP = , KI = , and KD = . (15)
3ae 3ai 3ad

Equation (15) shows that if a FLC design is based on the fuzzy knowledge from Figure 2 and the
defuzzification process in Equation (7), then it will yield a linear PID controller and the resulting PID
parameters have no relation with m, the number of membership functions, but is strongly correlated
to the operating ranges of the control input/output. With the derived important equivalence result,
the designer can obtain a FLC design prototype based on a conventional PID controller design.
In practical application, a FLC will be finished by digital implementation. When considering a
digital PID controllers, the equation for the output u[n] at each sampling time will be

e [ n ] − e [ n − 1]
u[n] = K P e[n] + K I Ts ∑ e[n] + K D , (16)
Ts

where Ts is the sampling time. In the subsequent section, the performance of the FLC implemented in
digital form is verified.

3. Simulation Results
In this section, the proposed equivalence relationship is verified by use of Matlab/Simulink.
A three-order controlled plant is employed with transfer function [17], which is shown below

1.2
P(s) = . (17)
0.36s3 + 1.86s2 + 2.5s + 1

A conventional PID controller design for P(s) with K P = 1.2, K I = 0.36, and K D = 1, which
was simulated by Simulink is shown in Figure 4, and the PID controller can simultaneously improve
system responses in rise time, settling time, steady-state error, and overshoot. The magnitude of the
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 6 of 12

Appl.
input stepSci.signal
2017, 7,is
513set as 5, and the resulting error signal, error integral, error derivative, control
7 of 13
signal,
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 7 of 13
and system output are shown in Figure 5 (red line).

Figure 4. The Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID)-controlled system in Simulink.

Figure 4.4.The
Figure TheProportional-Integral-Derivative (PID)-controlled
Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID)-controlled system
system in Simulink.
in Simulink.
Amplitude

Amplitude
Amplitude

Amplitude
Amplitude

Amplitude
Amplitude

Amplitude
Amplitude

Amplitude
Amplitude

Amplitude

Figure 5. The (a) step input; (b) error signal; (c) error integral; (d) error derivative; (e) control signal and
Figure 5. The (a) step input; (b) error signal; (c) error integral; (d) error derivative; (e) control signal
(f) Figure
system5.output(a)with PID controller, the equivalent fuzzy logic controller (FLC),(e)
and the equivalent
and (f) The
system step input;
output with(b)PID
error signal; (c)the
controller, error integral;
equivalent (d) error
fuzzy derivative;
logic controller control
(FLC), signal
and the
FLC in discrete
and form.
(f) system output with PID controller, the equivalent fuzzy logic controller (FLC), and the
equivalent FLC in discrete form.
equivalent FLC in discrete form.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 8 of 13

Subsequently, we built the equivalent FLC based on the above conventional PID controller
design according to the derived equivalence equation. By observing the system responses e ( t ) ,

e(tSci.
Appl. e(t)
) , 2017, 7, 513
, and u(t ) with the above conventional PID controller in Figure 5 (red 7line),
of 12

the operating ranges ORe , ORi , ORd , and ORu can be defined in accordance with Equation (15),
as theSubsequently,
procedure belowwe built the equivalent FLC based on the above conventional PID controller design
shows. R .
according to the derived equivalence equation. By observing the system responses e(t), e(t), e(t),
1. uOR
and is set
(t) ewith [ − aeconventional
theasabove , ae ] = [−5, 5] ,PID
which is the range
controller for e5 ((red
in Figure t ) . line), the operating ranges ORe ,
OR ORd , and
2. i , OR u asu[ −
is setOR a ,be
can
u] = [−18,18]
a defined
u
in accordance
to satisfywith = 1.2 . (15), as the procedure below shows.
K Equation P

3. OR
1. ORei isisset
setas [ −aae ,i ,aaei]]== [[−
as[− −16.67,16.67]
5, 5] , which is to thesatisfy KI e=(t0.36
range for ). .
4. OR
2. ORdu isisset
setas [ −aaud, ,aaud] ]== [[−
as[− −6,
18,6]18to
] to satisfyKKDP =
satisfy =11.2.
.
3. ORi is set as [− ai , ai ] = [−16.67, 16.67] to satisfy K I = 0.36.
4. For
ORdthis case,
is set it shows
as [− ad , ad ] = good[−6,results in defining
6] to satisfy K D =the 1. operating ranges. Furthermore, this is not a
limitation as there are four parameters ae , au , ai , and ad for adjustment to satisfy the three
For this case, it shows good results in defining the operating ranges. Furthermore, this is not
control parameters K , KI , and KD in Equation (15). The Fuzzy Logic Designer in
a limitation as there are Pfour parameters ae , au , ai , and ad for adjustment to satisfy the three control
Matlab/Simulink
parameters K P , K Iwas
, andapplied for the equivalent
K D in Equation (15). TheFLC design
Fuzzy Logicand simulation.
Designer Figure 6 showswas
in Matlab/Simulink the
feedback control structure.
applied for the equivalent FLC design and simulation. Figure 6 shows the feedback control structure.

Figure 6. The equivalent FLC-controlled

Figure 6. FLC-controlled system
system in
in Simulink.
Simulink.

The “FIS
The “FIS Type”
Type” of of the
the FLC
FLC design
design in in Figure
Figure 66 should
should be be set
setas as“Sugeno”.
“Sugeno”. Based
Based on on the
the above
above
operating ranges of four fuzzy variables, the corresponding membership
operating ranges of four fuzzy variables, the corresponding membership functions can be defined functions can be defined by
Figure
by Figure1. The
1. The parameter
parameter mmwaswassetsetas as 5,
5, resulting
resulting in in 55 fuzzy sets, which
fuzzy sets, which are are equally-spaced
equally-spaced and and


.
On e
e(t),e ( t e)(t, ), ore(et()t),. or (t)other
R
triangular-shaped,
triangular-shaped, for for each
eachinput
inputfuzzyfuzzyvariable
variable the . On hand, the output
the other hand,
fuzzy variable u(t) is fuzzified by 13 singleton membership functions with singleton values −18, −15,
the
− 12,output
. . . , −3,fuzzy
0, 3, variable
. . . , 12, 15,u(and
t ) is18.fuzzified
Figure 7by 13 singleton
shows the settings membership functions with
of all the membership singleton
functions in
values
the Matlab−18,environment.
−15, −12, …, −3, The0,125
3, …, 12, 15,
fuzzy rules andare18. Figureaccording
defined 7 shows the settings
to the of all the
knowledge basemembership
in Figure 2,
functions
and in the Matlab
the resulting system environment. The 125
input and responses arefuzzy
shown rules are defined
in Figure 5 (green according to the knowledge
line). However, it is found
base in Figure 2, and the resulting system input and responses are
that the system responses with a green line cannot be examined, which is due to the overlap of system shown in Figure 5 (green line).
However, it is found that the system responses with a green line cannot
responses in the red line. In Figure 5, the green lines (responses by the equivalent FLC) were plotted be examined, which is due
to thetooverlap
prior of system
the red lines responses
(responses by theinPID thecontroller).
red line. In OnFigure 5, the green
the contrary, lines
if we plot (responses
system by the
responses by
equivalent FLC) were plotted prior to the red lines (responses by the PID
the PID controller (red line) first, it will turn out that all the red responses are covered by the latter controller). On the contrary,
if we responses
green plot system in responses
the equivalent by the
FLC. PID
This controller (redproposed
verifies the line) first, it will turnrelationship
equivalence out that allbetween
the red
responses are covered by the latter green responses in the equivalent
the PID controller and the equivalent FLC. Figure 8 further shows the linearity of the equivalent fuzzy FLC. This verifies the proposed
equivalence relationship between the PID controller
under and the equivalent FLC. Figure 8 further shows
R
PID controller with the control surface view e(t) = 0.36.
For the equivalent
the linearity FLC-controlled
of the equivalent system
fuzzy PID in Figure
controller with6,the
thecontrol
Matlab/Simulink under theesimulation
finishes
surface view (t ) = 0.36.
in a manner of a continuous-time system. Alternatively, for practical applications, a FLC could be

implemented in a discrete form. Therefore, to enhance the applicability of this research, the Sample
and Hold unit and the Zero Order Hold unit, which can be used to model A/D (analog-to-digital) and
D/A (digital-to-analog) converters, are added to make a discretized FLC, as shown in Figure 9. It must
be noted that the Fuzzy Logic Controller in Figures 6 and 9 are identical. So, in Figure 9, the gain (K) in
the “Discrete-Time Integrator” or “Discrete Derivative” does not denote K P or K I , and is set as 1. The
system input and the resulting responses (blue line) are shown in Figure 5, with sampling period Ts
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 8 of 12

set as 0.1 s. Simulation results show the equivalent FLC implemented in a discrete form have similar
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 9 of 13
responses compared with the conventional PID controller. If the sampling period Ts is set to a smaller
value, the closer of the two responses will be obtained.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 9 of 13

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c) (d)
(c) (d)

Figure 7. Membership functions for fuzzy variables (a) e ( t ) ; (b) e(t ) ; (c) e (t) ; (d) u(t ) in Matlab.
e ( t ) e (t ) 
e(t ) ; (d)uu((tt)) in
R .
Figure
Figure 7. Membership functions for fuzzy variables (a) e(t); (b) e(t); (c) e(t;)(d)
7. Membership functions for fuzzy variables (a) ; (b) ; (c) inMatlab.
Matlab.

R
Figure 8. The control surface view of the equivalent fuzzy PID controller ( e(t) = 0.36).

 
Figure 8. The control surface view of the equivalent fuzzy PID controller ( e(t ) = 0.36).
Figure 8. The control surface view of the equivalent fuzzy PID controller ( e(t ) = 0.36).

For the equivalent FLC-controlled system in Figure 6, the Matlab/Simulink finishes the simulation
For the equivalent FLC-controlled system in Figure 6, the Matlab/Simulink finishes the simulation
in a manner of a continuous-time system. Alternatively, for practical applications, a FLC could be
in a manner of a continuous-time system. Alternatively, for practical applications, a FLC could be
implementedinina adiscrete
implemented discreteform.
form.Therefore,
Therefore,
to to enhance
enhance thethe applicability
applicability of this
of this research,
research, the the Sample
Sample
andHold
and Holdunit
unitand
andthe
theZero
ZeroOrder
Order Hold
Hold unit,
unit, which
which cancan
be be used
used to model
to model A/DA/D (analog-to-digital)
(analog-to-digital) andand
D/A (digital-to-analog) converters, are added to make a discretized FLC, as shown in Figure
D/A (digital-to-analog) converters, are added to make a discretized FLC, as shown in Figure 9. It must 9. It must
be noted that the Fuzzy Logic Controller in Figures 6 and 9 are identical. So, in Figure 9, the gain (K) (K)
be noted that the Fuzzy Logic Controller in Figures 6 and 9 are identical. So, in Figure 9, the gain
inthe
in the“Discrete-Time
“Discrete-TimeIntegrator”
Integrator”oror “Discrete
“Discrete Derivative”
Derivative” does
does notnot denote
denote KP Kor KI , K
P or I , and
and is as
is set set1.as 1.
Thesystem
The systeminput
inputand
andthe
theresulting
resulting responses
responses (blue
(blue line)
line) areare shown
shown in Figure
in Figure 5, with
5, with sampling
sampling period
period
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 10 of 13
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 10 of 13

T
Tss set
set as
as 0.1
0.1 s.
s. Simulation
Simulation results
results show
show the
the equivalent
equivalent FLC
FLC implemented
implemented in
in aa discrete
discrete form
form have
have
similar
similar responses compared with the conventional PID controller. If the sampling period T
Tss is set
Appl. Sci. responses
2017, 7, 513 compared with the conventional PID controller. If the sampling period is
9 ofset
12
to
to a
a smaller
smaller value,
value, the
the closer
closer of
of the
the two
two responses
responses will
will be
be obtained.
obtained.

Figure
Figure 9.
9. The
The equivalent
equivalent FLC-controlled
FLC-controlled system
system in
in discrete
discrete form.
form.
Figure 9. The equivalent FLC-controlled system in discrete form.

We
We slightly adjusted the membership functions (MFs) of the equivalent FLC design in Figure 7.
We slightly adjusted the membership
membership functions
functions (MFs)
(MFs) of of the
the equivalent
equivalent FLCFLCdesign
designin inFigure
Figure7.7.
It
It could be found that MFs are no longer equally-spaced, which implies that the FLC has become
It could
could be found that MFs are no longer equally-spaced,
equally-spaced, whichwhich implies
implies that
that the
the FLC
FLC has become
become
nonlinear,
nonlinear, as
nonlinear, as shown
as shown
shown in in Figure
inFigure 10.
Figure10. The
10.The 13
The13 singleton
13singleton values
singletonvalues for
valuesfor the
forthe output
theoutput fuzzy
outputfuzzy variable u( t ) are
variableuu((tt)) are
fuzzyvariable −18,
are − 18,
−18,
−16.91,
− 16.91,−15.05,
− 15.05,−12.44,
− 12.44,−9.05,
− −4.91,
9.05, − 0,
4.91, 4.91,
0, 9.05,
4.91, 12.44,
9.05, 15.05,
12.44, 15.05,16.91,
16.91, and
and 18.
18. Figure
Figure11
−16.91, −15.05, −12.44, −9.05, −4.91, 0, 4.91, 9.05, 12.44, 15.05, 16.91, and 18. Figure 11 shows that the11 shows
shows that
that the
the
control
control surface
control surface view
surface view is
view is no
is no longer
no longer a
longer aa plane.
plane. The
plane. The resulting
The resulting error
resulting error signal,
error signal, error
signal, error integral,
error integral, error
integral, error derivative,
error derivative,
derivative,
control
control signal, and system output are shown in Figure 12 (blue line), and can be compared with
control signal,
signal, and
and system
system output
output are
are shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 12
12 (blue
(blue line),
line), and
and can
can be
be compared
compared with the
with the
the
previous
previous PID
PID controller,
controller, and
and the
the equivalent
equivalent FLC
FLC (red
(red lines
lines
previous PID controller, and the equivalent FLC (red lines for both). for
for both).
both).

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)

(c)
(c) (d)
(d)

Figure fuzzy variables

Figure 10. Membership functions adjustment for fuzzy (a)e(et)(;t(b)
variables (a) 
Figure 10. Membership functions adjustment for fuzzy variables (a) e ( t ) ; R(b) e(t ). ; (c) e
) ; (b)e(t);e(c)
(t )e(; t(c)
(t) ;
); (d)e(ut()t;)
u(t ) in Matlab.
in Matlab.
(d) u(t ) in Matlab.
(d)
 Appl.
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci.
Sci. 2017,
2017,
2017, 7,513
7, 7, 513
513 11 10
of11
13of
of 1213

Figure
Figure 11.11.The
Thecontrol
controlsurface
surface view
view of
of the
the equivalent
equivalentfuzzy
fuzzyPID
PIDcontroller ( (e
controller 
R(t ) = 0.36) under
e(t) = 0.36) under
Figure
MFs 11. The
adjustment.
MFs adjustment.control surface view of the equivalent fuzzy PID controller ( 
e(t ) = 0.36) under
MFs adjustment.
Amplitude
Amplitude

Amplitude
AmplitudeAmplitude

Amplitude
Amplitude

Amplitude
AmplitudeAmplitude

Amplitude
Amplitude

Figure 12. The (a) step input; (b) error signal; (c) error integral; (d) error derivative; (e) control signal
Figure 12. The (a) step input; (b) error signal; (c) error integral; (d) error derivative; (e) control
and (f) system output with PID controller, the equivalent FLC, and the equivalent FLC under
signal and (f) system output with PID controller, the equivalent FLC, and the equivalent FLC under
MFs adjustment.
MFs adjustment.
Figure 12. The (a) step input; (b) error signal; (c) error integral; (d) error derivative; (e) control signal
and (f) system output with PID controller, the equivalent FLC, and the equivalent FLC under
MFs adjustment.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 11 of 12

Table 1 summarizes the response performance, including the rise time (Tr), the settling time (Ts),
the percentage overshoot (P.O.), and the steady-state error (Ess ), of the three controllers in Figure 12.
Which controller has better performance cannot be determined since the performance criterion is not
defined. But based on this study, a fuzzy PID controller may outperform a conventional PID controller
quickly by fine-tuning the MFs of the fuzzy variables.

Table 1. Response performance of different controllers.

Controller Tr (s) 0.1–0.9 Ts (s) ±5% P.O. (%) Ess

PID, FPID 3.75 5.76 0 0
FPID with adjustment 3.04 4.57 0.56 0

We have found that some learning-based techniques or evolutionary algorithms have been applied
in the optimal FLC design [14–16]. Experienced researchers should agree on the importance of setting
initial values or weights in the learning system, which will greatly influence the learning results and
convergence speed. With the proposed equivalence relationship, one can easily and quickly obtain
a fuzzy PID controller through a conventional PID controller design, then the derived equivalent
FLC can be set as one of the initial designs. This process will result in the optimal FLC design in an
efficient way.

4. Conclusions
This paper proposed and clearly identified the equivalence relationship between a conventional
PID controller and a FLC. The derived equivalence equation is straightforward, so a well-designed
conventional PID controller can be easily transformed to an equivalent FLC by simply defining the
input/output operating ranges and following the Sugeno-style inference. The knowledge base for
the equivalent FLC can be built by a cube FAM, instead of the combination structure of PI-type or
PD-type FLCs. Simulation results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, where
system responses with the conventional PID controller or the equivalent FLC are similar. Moreover,
the equivalent FLC implemented in discrete form was also provided and simulated, with comparable
system responses to the original conventional PID controller. Based on the result of this study,
the mature design results of traditional PID controllers can be applied as prior knowledge for an FLC
design. Subsequently, a nonlinear FLC can outperform a traditional linear PID controller by changing
fuzzy rule design or fuzzy membership functions. The proposed equivalent FLC can be set as the
initial design for some learning-based techniques or evolutionary algorithms, which may achieve the
optimal FLC design and considerably improve the convergence speed. Our future work will involve
developing an optimal fuzzy PID controller with a simpler structure and fewer parameters, which will
be designed to be more efficient for practical applications.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express the sincere thanks to the reviewers for their invaluable
comments and suggestions. This work is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under
Grant no. MOST 103-2221-E-218-027.
Author Contributions: Juing-Shian Chiou and Chun-Tang Chao developed the methodology and drafted
the manuscript. Moreover, Nana Sutarna and Chi-Jo Wang implemented the Matlab/Simulink simulations.
The authors approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ziegler, J.G.; Nichols, N.B. Optimum settings for automatic controllers. Trans. ASME 1942, 64, 759–768.
[CrossRef]
2. Mamdani, E.H.; Assilian, S. An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. Int. J. Man
Mach. Stud. 1975, 7, 1–13. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 513 12 of 12

3. Sugeno, M. Industrial Applications of Fuzzy Control; Elsevier Science Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1985.
4. Mudi, K.R.; Pal, R.N. A self-tuning fuzzy PI controller. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2000, 115, 327–388. [CrossRef]
5. Oh, S.K.; Jang, H.J.; Pedrycz, W. Optimized fuzzy PD cascade controller: A comparative analysis and design.
Simul. Model. Pract. Theory 2011, 19, 181–195. [CrossRef]
6. Chao, C.T.; Teng, C.C. A PD-like self-tuning fuzzy controller without steady-state error. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1997,
87, 141–154. [CrossRef]
7. Pitalua-Díaz, N.; Herrera-López, E.J.; Valencia-Palomo, G.; González-Angeles, A.; Rodríguez-Carvajal, R.A.;
Cazarez-Castro, N.R. Comparative analysis between conventional PI and fuzzy logic PI controllers for indoor
Benzene concentrations. Sustainability 2015, 7, 5398–5412. [CrossRef]
8. Moon, B.S. Equivalence between fuzzy logic controllers and PI controllers for single input systems.
Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1995, 69, 105–113. [CrossRef]
9. Kang, C.S.; Hyun, C.H.; Kim, Y.T.; Baek, J.; Park, M. A design of equivalent PID structure control using Fuzzy
gain scheduling. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient
Intelligence (URAI), Jeju, Korea, 30 October–2 November 2013; pp. 354–356.
10. Mann, G.K.I.; Hu, B.G.; Gosine, R.G. Analysis of direct action fuzzy PID controller structures. IEEE Trans.
Syst. Man Cybern. B 1999, 29, 371–388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Hu, B.G.; Mann, G.K.I.; Gosine, R.G. A systematic study of fuzzy PID controller-function-based evaluation
approach. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2001, 9, 699–712.
12. Manikandan, R.; Arulprakash, A.; Arulmozhival, R. Design of equivalent fuzzy PID controller from
the conventional PID Controller. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Control,
Instrumentation, Communication and Computational Technology (ICCICCT), Thuckalay, India, 18–19
December 2015; pp. 356–362.
13. Li, H.X.; Philip-Chen, C.L. The equivalence between fuzzy logic systems and feedforward neural networks.
IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. 2000, 11, 356–365. [PubMed]
14. Chiou, J.S.; Tsai, S.H.; Liu, M.T. A PSO-based adaptive fuzzy PID-controllers. Simul. Model. Pract. Theory
2012, 26, 49–59. [CrossRef]
15. Pelusi, D. PID and intelligent controllers for optimal timing performances of industrial actuators. Int. J.
Simul. Syst. Sci. Technol. 2012, 13, 65–71.
16. Pelusi, D.; Mascella, R. Optimal control algorithms for second order systems. J. Comput. Sci. 2013, 9, 183–197.
[CrossRef]
17. Ogata, K. Modern Control Engineering, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; p. 583.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).