2009 Eighth Mexican International Conference on Artificial Intelligence
An Optimal Fuzzy Self-Tuning PID Controller for
Robot Manipulators via Genetic Algorithm
J. L. Meza
Instituto Tecnologico de la Laguna
Torreon, Coahuila 27001, MEXICO
Email: jlmeza@faraday.itlalaguna.edu.mx
Abstract—This paper deals with the problem of optimizing a
fuzzy self-tuning PID controller for robot manipulators. Fuzzy
PID controllers have been developed and applied in many fields
in the last fifteen years. However, there is no systematic method
to design Membership Functions (MFs) for these controllers.
We propose a simple method based on Genetic Algorithms
(GA) to find optimal input and output MFs of a fuzzy self-
tuning PID controller. The stability via Lyapunov theory for the
closed loop control system is also analyzed and shown that is
asymptotically stable for a class of gain matrices depending on
the manipulator states. To show the usefulness of the proposed
approach, simulation results using a two degree of freedom robot
arm are presented.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Most of the present industrial robots are controlled through
local PID controllers. The PID controller has been shown
in practice to be effective for set point control of robot
manipulators. However, the performance of PID controllers
depends heavily on the operating parameters of the system.
Once these parameters change, a significant amount of effort
is required to manually tune the PID controllers. In order to get
high performance it may be necessary to have variable gains
for these controllers [1]. Several practical techniques have been
suggested to choose adequate values for the controller gains
which depend on the robot configuration such as gain schedul-
ing, fuzzy control and neural networks approach [2], [3], [4].
We use the potential of fuzzy self-tuning schemes in order to
design a methodology for on-line selection of the proportional,
derivative and integral gains for the PID controller. In addition,
to guarantee Lyapunov stability for the closed-loop system,
this approach ensures also practical performances beyond the
standard non-fuzzy scheme. The development of the self-
tuning PID scheme is based in [5]. In recent years fuzzy
logic has been widely used as successful practical approach
for designing and implementing control systems. Fuzzy logic
controllers have three significant advantages over conventional
techniques, such as PID control, they are cheaper to develop,
they cover a wider range of operating conditions, and they are
more readily customizable in natural language terms. Fuzzy
PID controllers have been developed and applied in many
fields in the last 30 years. However, there is no systematic
method to design Membership Functions and rules for these
controllers [6]. In this paper we propose a simple method
978-0-7695-3933-1/09 $26.00 © 2009 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/MICAI.2009.34
R. Soto
and J. Arriaga
ITESM, Campus Monterrey
Monterrey, N.L. 64849, MEXICO
Email: rsoto@itesm.mx,
A00787862@itesm.mx
based on genetic algorithms to adjust off-line the input and
output Membership Functions (MFs) of a fuzzy self-tuning
PID controller for robot manipulators. The performance of
the proposed fuzzy scheme has been verified by means of
simulation tests on a two degree of freedom robot arm. The
results of the proposed optimization method are compared with
those reported in [5].
The remainder of this work is organized as follows: Section
2 is devoted to the robot dynamics. Section 3 presents the
structure of the linear PID controller with nonlinear gains and
recalls the stability analysis. Fuzzy approach for self-tuning
the PID controller gains, presented in Section 4. Section 5
describes the application of the genetic algorithm to adjust the
Self-tuning PID controller. A simulation evaluation to verify
the theoretical results is presented in Section 6. Finally, in
Section 7 we give some conclusions to our work.
II. ROBOT DYNAMICS
In the absence of friction and other disturbances, the dynamics
of a serial n-link rigid robot can be written as [7]:
M (q)q̈ + C(q, q̇)q̇ + g(q) = τ (1)
where q is the n × 1 vector of joint displacements, q̇ is the
n × 1 vector of joint velocities, τ is the n × 1 vector of
applied torques, M (q) is the n×n symmetric positive definite
manipulator inertia matrix, C(q, q̇) is the n × n matrix of
centripetal and Coriolis torques, and g(q) is the n × 1 vector
of gravitational torques obtained as the gradient of the robot
∂U (q )
potential energy U(q), i.e. g(q) = ∂ q
III. S TABILITY A NALYSIS OF PID C ONTROLLERS WITH
N ONLINEAR G AINS
PID controller is a well known set point control strategy
for manipulators which ensures asymptotic stability for fixed
symmetric positive definite gain matrices. In order to improve
the performance, it may be necessary to have variable gains.
A. PID Control with Nonlinear Gains
In this section we introduce a new PID controller whose
main feature is that stability hold even though the parameters
depend on the robot state. A generalization of the classical
linear PID controller can be obtained by allowing nonlinear
21
proportional Kp (q̃), integral Ki (ω) and derivative Kv (q̃) gain
matrices as function matrices of the robot configuration. This
leads to the following proposed control law
Z t
τ = Kp (q̃)q̃ − Kv (q̃)q̇ + Ki (ω) q̃(σ) dσ (2)
0 nonlinear gain matrices. Stability analysis is based in [5].
where Kp (q̃), Kv (q̃) and Ki (ω) are positive definite diagonal
n × n matrices, whose entries are denoted by kpi (q̃i ), kvi (q̃i )
and kii (ωi ) respectively, and q̃ = q d − q denotes the position
error vector and ω̇ = αq̃ − q̇, with α > 0.
For stability analysis purposes, the control law(2) can be
rewritten as [8]:
B. Stability Analysis
In this subsection we show that the stability also holds for
a class of nonconstant state-depending proportional, integral
and derivative gain matrices. More specifically, consider the
control law (3) corresponding to a PID control scheme with
1) Lyapunov Function Candidate: In order to study sta-
bility of equilibrium point obtained above we recall the
stability analysis presented in [9], with the following Lyapunov
function candidate,
Z qe Z ω
T 0 0

Z t V (q̃, q̇, ω) = ξ Kp (ξ) dξ + ξ T Ki (ξ) dξ (8)

0 0 0 0
τ = Kp (q̃)q̃ − Kv (q̃)q̇ + Ki (ω) ˙
(αq̃(σ) + q̃(σ)) dσ (3) Z qe
0
+α ξ T Kv (ξ), dξ − αq̃ T M (q)q̇
where Kp (q̃) = Kp (q̃) − Kiα(ω ) , Ki (ω )
0 0
Ki (ω) = α with 0
M {Ki }
1
α > λλm {Kp } . −U(q d ) + U(q) + g(q d )T q̃ + q̇ T M (q)q̇
2
This latter condition ensures that Kp0 (q̃) > 0. The α constant
R qe
is introduced in order to make easier the stability analysis and Under Assumption 1 we have α 0 ξ T Kv (ξ) dξ −
will be used as a parameter of the Lyapunov function. α2 T α T
2 q̃ M (q)q̃ ≥ 2 q̃ [Kvl − αM (q)] q̃. Also note that under
Assumption 1. There exist positive constants kpli , kpui , kvli , Assumption 1 the function in (8) can be lower bounded as:
kvui , kili and kiui such that Lemma 1 given in [5] can be
applied. That is: 1 T 0
V (q̃, q̇, ω) ≥ Va (q̃, q̇, ω) = q̃ Kpl q̃ + U(q) − U(q d )
Z qe 2
1 T 0 0 1 0 1 T
q̃ Kpu q̃ ≥ ξKp (ξ) dξ ≥ q̃ T Kpl q̃ (4) + [−q̇ + αq̃] M (q) [−q̇ + αq̃]
2 0 2 2
Z qe α 1 0
1 T 1 + q̃ T [Kvl − αM (q)] q̃ + ω T Kil ω
q̃ Kvu q̃ ≥ ξKv (ξ) dξ ≥ q̃ T Kvl q̃ (5) 2 2
2 0 2 +g(q d )T q̃
Z ω
1 T 0 0 1 0
ω Kiu ω ≥ ξKi (ξ) dξ ≥ ω T Kil ω (6) Following the same steps as in [9], The Lyapunov function
2 0 2
0 0 0 0
candidate (8) is a globally positive definite function under the
where Kpu , Kpl , Kvu , Kvl , Kiu , Kil are n × n con- condition: n  
stant positive definite diagonal matrices whose entries are X  ∂gi (q) 
0 0 0 0 kpli > maxq   (9)
kpui , kpli , kvui , kvli , kiui , kili respectively, with i = 1, 2, ...n. ∂qj 
j=1
Assumption 2. In an -neighborhood N (ω, ) = and α chosen in such way that it satisfies:
{ω ∈ IRn : k ωk < } of ω = 0, the integral gain matrix
0 0 0
is constant, that is, Ki (ω) = Kil , where Kil ∈ IRn×n is a kvli kili
diagonal positive definite constant matrix. Pn >α> Pn
The practical usefulness of this control strategy will become j=1 maxq |Mij (q)| kpli − j=1 maxq |∂gi (q)/∂qj |
(10)
clear later when a fuzzy self–tuning algorithm will be intro-
Thus, V (q̃, q̇, ω) introduced in (8) is a globally positive
duced.
definite and radially unbounded function.
The closed- loop system is obtained substituting the control
law (3) into the robot dynamics (1). This can be written as C. Time Derivative of the Lyapunov Function Candidate
 The time derivative of the Lyapunov function candidate (8)
q̃ −q̇
  
h 0 along the trajectories of the closed loop equation (7) is
q̇   M −1 K (q̃)q̃ − Kv (q̃)q̇ − C(q, q̇)q̇ − g(q) 
d   

p
V̇ (q̃, q̇, ω) = −q̇ T [Kv (q̃) − αM (q)]q̇
 = i 
0
dt   

+ Ki (ω)ω + g(q d ) 
−αq̃ T [Kp (q̃) − Ki (ω)/α]q̃
ω̇ α q̃ − q̇
−αq̃ T [g(q d ) − g(q)] − αq̃ T C(q, q̇)T q̇
Rt (7)
where ω is defined as ω(t) = 0 [α q̃(σ) + q̃(σ)] ˙ dσ − Again, following similar steps given in [9], note that we
0−1
Kil g(q d ) and we have used the Assumption 2 in such a can write Kv (q̃) = Kvρ (q̃) + Kvσ (q̃), where Kvρ (q̃) and
way that (7) becomes an autonomous nonlinear differential Kvσ (q̃) are two diagonal positive definite matrices, because
T
equation whose origin [ q̃ T q̇ T ω T ] = 0 ∈ IR3n is an Kv (q̃) is a diagonal positive definite matrix. Hence, we can
equilibrium point. write q̇ T [Kv (q̃) − αM (q)]q̇ = q̇ T Kvσ (q̃)q̇ + q̇ T [Kvρ (q̃) −

22
αM (q)]q̇. Suppose that Kvρ (q̃) is chosen such that Kvρ (q̃) −
αM (q) is positive definite, i.e.:

kvρli
Pn > α, i = 1, · · · , n, (11)
j=1 maxq |Mij (q)|

where kvρli is the i-th entry of a positive definite diagonal

matrix Kvρl satisfying Kvρ (q̃) > Kvρl for all q̃ ∈ IRn .
Hence, we can write: q̇ T [Kv (q̃) − αM (q)]q̇ ≥ q̇ T Kvρ (q̃)q̇ ≥
2
λm {Kvρl } kq̇k . Now, we can rewrite the time derivative
V̇ (q̃, q̇, ω) as (see [5]):

2
V̇ (q̃, q̇, ω) ≤ − [λm {Kvρl } − αkc kq̃k] kq̇k (12)
Ki (ω ) ∂ g (ϑ)
h i
T
−αq̃ Kp (q̃) − α + | q̃
∂ ϑ ϑ=ξ

Let us define η as the radius of an open ball D around the

origin of the state space: Fig. 1. Input membership functions

D = {x := [q̃ T q̇ T ω T ]T ∈ IR3n : kxk < η}

A. Basic Fuzzy Logic Tuner
in which V̇ (q̃, q̇, z) is negative semidefinite. Using η instead
of kq̇k in (12) we can write the conditions for negative In order to tune the proportional gains kpli (q̃i ), the integral
semidefiniteness of V̇ (q̃, q̇, z) in the domain D as: gain kili (ωi ) and the derivative gains kvli (q̃i ) according to the
input |q̃i | and |ωi |, this is |q̃i | 7→ kpi , |ωi | 7→ kii , and |q̃i | 7→
λm {Kvρ (q̃)} kili kvi , we define one conceptual Fuzzy Logic Tuner (FLT).
>α> Pn , This FLT is defined by one input |x| and the corresponding
kc η kpli − j=1 maxq |∂gi (q)/∂qj |
output y, which can be seen as a static mapping H defined by
(13)
under the assumption that (9), (10) and (11) are satisfied. Use H : IR+ → IR
(14)
of the LaSalle invariance principle ensures local asymptotic |x| 7→ y .
stability.
The universes of discourse of |x| and y are partitioned
So far, we have proved the following: into three fuzzy sets: B (Big), M (Medium) and S (Small)
each described by a MF. Trapezoidal MFs are used for input
Proposition 1. Consider the robot dynamical model (1) to- variables and singleton for output variables. As can be seen
gether with the control law (3). Under conditions (9), (10), in Fig. 1, the corresponding Small, Medium and Big MFs for
(11), (13), there always exist appropriate proportional Kp (q̃), the input variable x are denoted by
derivative Kv (q̃) and integral Ki (ω) gain matrices, such that  B 
T µ (|x| ; p3 , p4 )
the equilibrium q̃ T q̇ T ω T = 0 ∈ IR3n of the closed-

µ(|x| ; p) =  µM (|x| ; p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 )  (15)
loop system (7) is locally asymptotically stable. A Lyapunov µS (|x| ; p1 , p2 )
function to prove this is given by (8).
IV. F UZZY A PPROACH FOR S ELF – TUNING THE PID For the output variable y (see Fig. 2), the corresponding
C ONTROLLER G AINS singleton MFs to Small, Medium and Big are represented by
µSy (·; k1 ), µM B
y (·; k2 ), and µy (·; k3 ).
Fuzzy Logic is a suitable approach to determine the non-
linear gains of the PID control scheme according to previous B. Rule Base and Inference Method
practical specifications. Gains kpli (q̃i ), kili (ωi ) and kvli (q̃i ) In order to reduce the computational effort and avoid torque
satisfy the requirements established
 in Proposition 1: saturation, the following rules using Mamdani’s method are
Pn  ∂gi (q ) 
1) kpli (q̃i ) > j=1 maxq  ∂q j
 for all q̃i ∈ IR, and i = considered
1, · · · , n IF µS (|x| ; p1 , p2 ) THEN µB
y (·; k3 )
IF µ (|x| ; p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 ) THEN µM
M
y (·; k2 )
2) kili (ωi ) > 0 for all ωi ∈ IR, and i = 1, · · · , n
Pn IF µB (|x| ; p3 , p4 ) THEN µSy (·; k1 ).
maxq |Mij (q)|Kii
3) kvli (q̃i ) > KP i −j=1
Pn for all q̃i ∈ IR, For a big position error we need to apply a small kp in order
j=1 maxq |∂gi (q)/∂qj |
and i = 1, · · · , n to avoid torque saturation. The first rule specifies that for a

23

Fig. 2. Output membership functions
small position error we should apply a big kp in order to reduce
this error. For the derivative gain kv , a similar criterion is used
taking into account that for big position errors it is suitable to
have small damping, to avoid an oscillatory response. In the
case of integral gains a inverse criterion is used taking into
account that for big |ω| it is suitable to have big ki to reduce
the position error.
C. Defuzzification Method
The defuzzification strategy chosen in this paper is the
center average method [10]. As demonstrated in [5], the output
y can be computed as:
µ(|x| ; p)
y = kT (16)
kµ(|x| ; p)k1
where p = {p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 } and k = {k1 , k2 , k3 }, k·k1 stands
for the 1 norm, and (·)T denotes transpose. Therefore, for a
given input |x| the output y can be computed straightforward
from (16). It is assumed that ||µ(|x|; p)||1 > 0 for all x ∈ IR,
and k3 > k2 > k1 > 0. Then y(|x|) ≥ k1 > 0 ∀x ∈ IR .
By definition all entries of µ(|x|; p) are nonnegative and
by assumption k3 > k2 > k1 > 0, then [k1 k2 k3 ]µ(|x|; p) ≥
k1 ||µ(|x|; p)||1 . Assumption ||µ(|x|; p)||1 > 0 means that the
intersection of the input MFs is nonempty for all input |x|.
This is easy to check by testing that p1 < p2 < p3 < p4 .
V. G ENETIC A LGORITHM A PPROACH TO F UZZY
S ELF - TUNING PID C ONTROLLER
Adjusting parameters for each FLT is a complex task given
that there is no systematic method to design MFs. In this
section we present a method based in Genetic Algorithms
(GAs) to optimize MFs for the FLT in order to obtain a higher
performance of the PID controller.
Genetic algorithms are widely used in control applications.
In [11] a Real-coded Genetic Algorithm is used for system
24
Fig. 3. Block diagram fuzzy self-tuning PID control
identification and controller tuning. In [12] a fuzzy self-tuning
controller for a non-linear valve is optimized via GA.
The genetic algorithm used for this paper is a virtual
gene genetic algorithm (vgGA) [13]. In the vgGA, traditional
crossover and mutation are implemented as arithmetic func-
tions. This implementation allows the generalization to virtual
chromosomes of alphabets of any cardinality. This codification
is more efficient than using an integer number to represent
a single bit, in terms of computer memory. The FLTs are
adjusted off-line by means of computer simulations by the
vgGA.
A. Parameters Adjusted by the vgGA
As stablished above, the universes of discourse of each
FLT are partitioned into three fuzzy sets. The input MFs are
defined by p = {p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 } and the output singleton MFs
by k = {k1 , k2 , k3 }. This parameters are coded each in a 6-bit
substring and concatenated into a string to be handled by the
vgGA.
In order to decode the parameters from the string, first p1
is obtained and the next three parameters are decoded and
adjusted as pn = pn−1 + dpn , were dpn is the decodified
value of each parameter and n = 2, 3, 4. This results in p1 <
p2 < p3 < p4 .
For the output singleton MFs, it is needed to obtain gains
that satisfy the restriction k3 > k2 > k1 . Therefore the de-
codification and adjustment for these parameters is k3 = dk3 ,
dk2 dk1
k2 = 100 k3 , and k1 = 100 k2 , where dk2 , dk1 ∈ [0, 100] are
the decodified values of these parameters.
So, for the Controller of a single link there are 7 parameters
for each of the three FLT. The resulting string has 126 bits. A
block diagram of the self–tuning PID controller adjusted by
the vgGA is depicted in Fig. 3.
B. Individual Evaluation
Instead of taking as reference the given set point, the
response of the system is compared with that of a first order
system with G = 1, τ = 0.2 for link-1 and τ = 0.3 for link-2.
So the error is calculated as
e(t) = q 0d (t) − q(t) (17)
where q 0d (t) is the response of a first order system to the given
set point and q(t) is the actual output. This error is used to q1
6 [deg]
obtain an IAE parameter which is aimed to minimize .. .... .... .... ....
Z ∞ 90 ....................................................................................
.. ... ... .......
.
... .... ... ... ......
... ... ... ... .......
IAE = |e(t)| dt . (18) 75 ... ... ...
... .... ...
.. ....
. . ..
... ... .. 
... .... .. ... ... ... Fuzzy self-tuning PID
o .. ..... .. ... ..
... ....... ... .... ...
... ...... ... .... ...
Another parameter for the evaluation of individuals is 60 ... ...... ... ... ...
... ... ... .... ..
the maximum torque required by the controller. The fitness .. .... ... .... ... Optimal Fuzzy self-tuning PID 
...... .. ... ..
. .
............................................................................ ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
function penalizes those individuals who exceed the maximum 45 ..
.... ...
.... ...
... ...
torque as follows 30
.. ..
... .
... .
... ..
... ...
.
.. ...
....
...

IAE, if |TM | ≤ TL 15 .....
......
F itness = (19) ...
.. t [sec]
(IAE + |TM |)|TM |3 , if |TM | > TL ..
...
... -
0
where |TM | is the maximum absolute torque used by the 0 2 4 6 8 10
controller in the simulation time. TL is the maximum torque
each actuator can provide. Torque penalization assures that Fig. 4. Desired and actual positions link 1, for the fuzzy self-tuning PID
even if an individual has an error very close to zero, if it and optimal fuzzy self-tuning PID.
exceeds the maximum torque it will anyway have a poor
evaluation.
The minimization problem is turned to a maximization q2
6 [deg]
problem if the fitness is multiplied by −1. Using fitness 90 ........................................................................... ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...
...... ... ........ .
...... ... ....
.... .. . ... ..... .... .
normalization before the artificial reproduction process allows ...
... ..
.....
......
... .... ....
 Optimal Fuzzy self-tuning PID
..... .. ......... .
. . ..
.
.
. . ....... ... . .. ..
... ... ...
to have negative fitness. 75 .
.. ..
... ..
..... ...
.. .. ..
.. .... .
. ... .
.
... .... ...
.
... ..
A population with a fixed number of 50 individuals was ... ..
..
... ... ....
.. .. .. ... .......
... .......
 Fuzzy self-tuning PID
.. .. . .. .
... .... ... .....
evolved along 30 generations, the mutation probability was 60 ... ..
.
.. . ... .... ...
.
....
..........
... .. .. ...
.
.
.
.. .
. .
.
. . ... ..... ..
... .. .... .....
... ....................... .... .... .... .......
pm = 0.02. Two-point crossover [14] is used to create new 45
..
.. ..
.. .
...............................................................
.... ...
individuals. Elitism [15] is implemented, after reproduction ..
... ..
.. .
.. ...
.. .
the worst individual is replaced by the best found so far in 30 ... ...
..
......
......
each generation. ........
......
15 ....
..
.....
.....
VI. S IMULATION R ESULTS ...
......
t [sec]
0 .... -
To illustrate the performance of the self-tuning PID Con- 0 2 4 6 8 10
troller optimized by the vgGA with respect to the empirically
adjusted, some experiments were carried out with the robot Fig. 5. Desired and actual positions link 2, for the fuzzy self-tuning PID
arm model used in [5]. The maximum torque provided by the and optimal fuzzy self-tuning PID.
actuators is given by |τ1 | ≤ 200 [Nm] and |τ2 | ≤ 15 [Nm].
To compare its performance in the same conditions the
system is given
 the following references:
45[deg] if 0 ≤ t < 2 sec τ1 [Nm]
6
200

qd1 (t) = 90[deg] if 2 ≤ t < 4 sec
 ....
45[deg] if 4 ≤ t < 10 sec .
..... Fuzzy self-tuning PID

 150 ... ...
..... ..
90[deg] if 0 ≤ t < 2 sec ...
... ...
 ...... .......
.
.
Optimal Fuzzy self-tuning PID
 ... ... ..... .........
... ..
... .... ..... ..........
qd2 (t) = 45[deg] if 2 ≤ t < 4 sec 100 .... .........
..
.... ..........
........ .........
..........
.
.... ........ ..........
................
.... .........
90[deg] if 4 ≤ t < 10 sec . .. .......
 ... ...... .......................
............. ...................... ..... .....
.......... ..... . ......
50 ........ ................ ...................................................................................... .... ....
........................... ............................................................... ... ..................... ... ... .. ..
These position references really demand large torques to . .. .... . .. ........................ .. ..
............. ........ ..........
.......... .. ....
........ ...
... ..
.. ...
. . .. ...
...................... ......... ....... .....................................................................................................................................................................
.......... .. ...............................................................................................................................................................................
... . .. .....
.... .................. ...... .
.. . ....... .
reach the amplitude of the requested step. The FLTs for each 0 ... ............ ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
....
... ..................
.... .....
....... .......
link were adjusted separately by the vgGA. .
...... ........
..
... ........
... ........
Tables I and II show the fuzzy partitions of the universes of −50 . ..
.... .......
..
... ....
..
discourse for the input and output of each FLT, parameters are
−100
adjusted by trial and error and by the vgGA. These parameters
change significantly in most cases. t [sec]
−150 -
Fig. 4 and 5 illustrate the position of link-1 and link-2. From 0 2 4 6 8 10
those figures we can observe that the transient responses for
both links using the fuzzy self-tuning PID controller adjusted Fig. 6. Applied torque joint 1, for the fuzzy self-tuning PID and optimal
by the vgGA are much better than those of the controller fuzzy self-tuning PID.
adjusted by trial and error.

25
 loop system for set-point control. There is no need to know
τ [Nm] the plant parameters, only the desired positions and joint
62
20 displacements for each link.
The stability via Lyapunov theory for the closed loop control
15 ......
..
Fuzzy self-tuning PID system is also analyzed and shown that is asymptotically stable
.
......
.........

...
.. for a class of gain matrices depending on the manipulator
...... ..... Optimal Fuzzy self-tuning PID
10 ........ .... states.
.......... .... ..
.......... ... .........
............ ..... ........
This procedure has been illustrated for a two degrees-of-
........ .. ..
. ......... ...
.................... ........ ............ .
5 .... .............................. ... . ... . ....
.... ..
..................... .................................................. . the freedom robot and tested via computer simulations. From
..... ....................................................................................................................................... ............ .......................... ..... ..........................................................................................................................................................................................
............... ....... ..... .. .............................................................................................................................................................................................
... ................. .... .......................... .. .......... . . . . . .............
..... ............
................. ..........
................ ... ............... ....
the results, it is clear to show that a satisfactory control
............................ .. ........ .
..... ................. ... ... ... ... ... ... ....................................... ... ... ......................................................................................... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ...
0 ..... ............ ................................................................ ....
....
.....
........... ............... . .
.
... .
............
...
.....
performance can be achieved by using the proposed algorithm.
.... ...... ....
.... ....
−5 ...
..
...
...
...
... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
..... ....
.... ....
... .
−10
..
.....
.... This research was funded by CONACyT México postdoc-
...
. toral fellowship grant No. 290536, CONACyT SNI Project
t [sec]
−15 - No.89605, ITESM eRobots Research chair and Dirección Gen-
0 2 4 6 8 10 eral de Educación Superior Tecnológica (DGEST) México.
R EFERENCES
Fig. 7. Applied torque joint 2, for the fuzzy self-tuning PID and optimal
fuzzy self-tuning PID. [1] Kelly R., Haber R., Haber R. E. and Reyes F., “Lyapunov stable
control of robot manipulators: A fuzzy self-tuning procedure”, Intelligent
Automation and Soft Computing, vol. 5, No. 4, pp.313-326, 1999.
[2] J. C. Shen,“Fuzzy Neural Networks for Tuning PID Controller for Plants
The torque delivered by the controllers is shown in Fig. with Underdamped Responses”, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems,
vol. 9, No. 2, April 2001.
6 and 7. The maximum torques required by the controller [3] C. H. Tsai, C. H. Wang, and W. S. Lin,“Robust Fuzzy Model-Following
adjusted by trial and error are higher than those of the adjusted Control of Robot Manipulators”, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems,
by the vgGA. In all cases the torque remains within the vol. 8, No. 4, August 2000.
[4] H. B. Kazemian, “The SOF-PID Controller for the Control of a MIMO
actuator limits. Robot Arm”, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 10, No. 4, August
2002.
VII. C ONCLUSIONS [5] J. L. Meza, V. Santibañez, R. Soto and M. A. Llama, “Stable Fuzzy
Self-Tuning PID Control of Robot Manipulators”, IEEE International
In this paper we have addressed the optimal fuzzy self- Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Oct. 2009 (To Appear).
tuning PID control for robot manipulators. We have proposed [6] K. K. Ahn, D. Q. Truong, “Online tuning fuzzy PID controller using
a genetic-algorithm based method for the optimal adjustment robust extended Kalman filter”, Journal of Process Control 19, pp. 1011-
1023, 2009.
of membership functions of a fuzzy self-tuning PID controller [7] M. Spong, S. Hutchinson and M. Vidyasagar, Robot Modeling and
which guarantees asymptotic stability of the overall closed- Control, John Wiley and Sons, 2006.
[8] R. Ortega, A.Lorı́a, P. Nicklasson, and H. Sira–Ramirez, Passivity–based
control of Euler–Lagrange systems Springer–Verlag, 1998.
TABLE I [9] V.M. Hernandez-Guzman, V. Santibañez and R. Silva-Ortigoza, “A new
F UZZY PARTITIONS FOR THE INPUT OF EACH FLT ADJUSTED BY TRIAL Tuning Procedure for PID Control of Rigid Robots”, In Advanced
AND ERROR COMPARED WITH THOSE ADJUSTED BY THE VG GA. T HE Robotics (22), pp. 1007-1023, 2008.
UNITS ARE [ DEG ]. [10] Li-Xi Wang, “A course in fuzzy systems and control”, Prentice Hall,
1997.
[11] K. Valarmathi, D. Devaraj, T.K. Radhakrishnan, “Real-Coded genetic
Empirically adjusted Adjusted by vgGA
algorithm for system identification and controller tuning”, Applied Math-
Pkp (|q̃1 |) = {0, 2, 4, 10, 30, 180} {0, 31, 38, 53, 63, 180} ematical Modelling, pp. 3392-3401, 2008.
Pkp (|q̃2 |) = {0, 2, 4, 10, 30, 180} {0, 18, 23, 32, 46, 180} [12] Devinder Kaur, Sam A. McGilvery, Adel A. Ghandalky, “Genetic Fuzzy
Pkv (|q̃1 |) = {0, 2, 4, 10, 30, 180} {0, 41, 47, 60, 72, 180} Gain Schedule for a Non-Linear Valve”, Fuzzy Information Processing
Pkv (|q̃1 |) = {0, 2, 4, 10, 30, 180} {0, 13, 27, 37, 45, 180} Society, NAFIPS, pp. 96-101, 2006.
Pki (|ω1 |) = {0, 1, 6, 14, 29, 86} {0, 13, 32, 61, 78, 180} [13] Manuel Valenzuela, “The Virtual Gene Genetic Algorithm”, LNCS,
Pki (|ω2 |) = {0, 6, 29, 57, 115, 286} {0, 2, 11, 39, 62, 180} Springer-Berlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 1457-1468, 2003.
[14] William M. Spears, Kenneth A. De Jong, “An Analysis of Multi-Point
TABLE II Crossover”, In Rawlins, “Foundations of Genetic Algorithms”, pp. 301-
F UZZY PARTITIONS FOR THE OUTPUT OF EACH FLT ADJUSTED BY TRIAL 315, 1991.
AND ERROR COMPARED WITH THOSE ADJUSTED BY THE VG GA. T HE
[15] D. E. Goldberg, “Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and
UNITS ARE [N M / DEG ].
Machine Learning”, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1989.

Empirically adjusted Adjusted by vgGA

kp1 = {2.97, 10.47, 17.45} {0.54, 2.83, 12.92}
kp2 = {0.15, 0.87, 1.75} {0.15, 0.54, 2.46}
kv1 = {0.041, 0.26, 0.5} {1.28, 1.58, 1.77}
kv2 = {1.66, 2, 2.5} {0.02, 0.05, 0.48}
ki1 = {1.57, 1.92, 2.36} {0.03, 0.68, 2.24}
ki2 = {0.0087, 0.035, 0.087} {0.02, 0.13, 0.18}

26