See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255567860

Fuzzy PID controllers: An overview

Conference Paper · October 2003

CITATIONS READS

13 2,000

3 authors, including:

Engin Yesil Ibrahim Eksin

Getron Corp. Istanbul Technical University
84 PUBLICATIONS 974 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 1,564 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TEYDEB funded project with TAV IT View project

Fuzzy Cognitive Maps in modeling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Engin Yesil on 18 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 FUZZY PID CONTROLLERS: AN OVERVIEW

Engin Yesil, Müjde Güzelkaya, Ibrahim Eksin

Istanbul Technical University, Electrical and Electronics Faculty, Control Systems Division,
34390, Maslak, Istanbul, TURKEY
E-mail: {yesil, gkaya, eksin}@elk.itu.edu.tr
Fax: +902122856700

Abstract: The aim of this study is to examine various studies on fuzzy PID
controllers in literature and to classify these fuzzy controllers into categories . There
exist three major categories: Direct action (DA) type fuzzy PID controllers, fuzzy
gain scheduling (FGS) type fuzzy PID controllers, and hybrid type fuzzy PID
controllers. The DA type fuzzy PID controllers are further classified according to
the number of the input variables; namely single input, two input, and three input
fuzzy PID controllers.

Keywords: Fuzzy controllers, fuzzy PID controllers, tuning mechanisms.

1. INTRODUCTION rules devised by Mac Vicar-Whelan approach to a

The best-known controllers used in industrial control
processes are proportional-integral-derivative (PID)
controllers because of their simple structure and
robust performance in a wide range of operating
conditions. However, the PID controller being linear
is not suited for strongly nonlinear systems. Fuzzy
Control is often mentioned as an alternative to PID
control [1]. Most fuzzy controllers used in the industry
have the same structure as incremental PI or PID
controllers. The parameterization using rules and
fuzzy membership functions makes it easy to add
nonlinearities, logic, and additional input signals to
control law [2]. Therefore, in recent years, fuzzy logic
controllers (FLC), especially Fuzzy PID controllers
have been widely used for industrial processes owing
to their heuristic nature associated with simplicity and
effectiveness for both linear and nonlinear systems.
The first fuzzy logic control algorithm implemented
by Mamdani (1974) [3] was constructed to synthesize
the linguistic control protocol of a skilled human
operator. Although, this type of FLC application was
successful compared to classical controllers, the
design procedure is dependent on the experience and
knowledge of the operator and it is limited by the
elucidation of the heuristic rules of control. In order to
avoid this major difficulty or drawback of depending
on the control experience of the operator, Mac Vicar-
Whelan (1976) [4] firstly proposed some general rules
for the structure of fuzzy controllers. These fuzzy
deterministic (PI) or (PD) controller in the limit as
quantization levels of control and measurement
variables become infinitely fine [5].
In literature, various structures for fuzzy PID
(including PI and PD) controllers and fuzzy non-PID
controllers have been proposed. A classification of
fuzzy controllers is sketched in Figure 1. In general,
the application of fuzzy PID controllers can be
classified into three major categories according to the
way of their construction [6, 7]:
(a) When a typical FLC is constructed as a set of
heuristic control rules, control signal is directly
deduced from the knowledge base and the fuzzy
inference as it is done in Mc Vicar-Whelan [4] or
diagonal rule-base [8] generation approaches [9-11].
Since the fuzzy controller directly drives the process,
controllers in this category are referred as “Direct
Action” (DA) type [12].
(b) When the gains of the conventional PID controller
are tuned on-line in terms of the knowledge base and
fuzzy inference, while still the conventional PID
controller generates the control signal [13, 14], the
overall controllers of this category are referred as
“Fuzzy Gain Scheduling” (FGS) type [15].
(c) When a conventional PID controller and a DA-
type FLC are combined, the overall controllers are
referred as “Hybrid” type [15, 16].
 Figure 1. A classification of fuzzy controllers

In the rest of the paper, various studies on fuzzy PID variable to generate three separate fuzzy proportional
controllers in literature will be examined and they will action [12, 15].
be classified according to the above mentioned three
major categories.

2. DIRECT ACTION TYPE FUZZY PID

CONTROLLERS

2.1 Types of Fuzzy PID Controllers

Fuzzy PID controllers can be constructed either using

two inputs or three inputs. Therefore, DA fuzzy PID
controllers can be classified into three categories:
i) Single input fuzzy PID controllers,
ii) Two input fuzzy PID controllers,
iii) Three input fuzzy PID controllers.
i) Single input fuzzy PID controllers:
The error signal is the essential and fundamental
control component in PID control. Using error as the
only input, a single input fuzzy PID controller can be
formed. As it is seen in Figure 2 [17], this is simply a
nonlinear mapping of error into fuzzy proportional
action cascaded to a conventional PID controller.
Figure 3. Single input fuzzy PID controller with three
separate rule bases.
ii) Two input fuzzy PID controllers:
If two inputs are used in forming a fuzzy PID
controller then one can obtain either fuzzy PD or
fuzzy PI controller. For instance, if the inputs are
chosen as error (e) and derivative (or chance) of error
( e& ) then one ends up with a fuzzy PD controller as
shown in Figure 4. When the inputs are chosen as
error (e) and the integral (or the sum) of error then the
controller becomes absolute form fuzzy PI controller.
If the inputs are chosen as error (e) and derivative (or
chance) of error (e& ) then an incremental form fuzzy
PI controller can be obtain, but the output is achieved
as the derivative (or the chance) of control signal as
shown in Figure 5 [18].

Figure 2. Single input fuzzy PID controller with one

rule base.

The other way of forming a single input fuzzy PID is

shown in Figure 3. In this structure, there exist three Figure 4. Fuzzy PD-type controller structure
distinct rule bases using again only error as the input
 fuzzy PD and a fuzzy I controller and their control
actions are summed to form a fuzzy PID controller. A
similar idea is used in [27] to form a fuzzy PID by
combining a fuzzy PI and fuzzy D controller. These
two fuzzy PID controllers are given in Figure 8,
Figure 9 respectively.
Figure 5. Fuzzy PI-type controller structure

The equivalence of fuzzy PD and conventional PD

controllers has been established under special
conditions [19-21].

Fuzzy PI control is known to be more practical than

fuzzy PD because it is difficult for the fuzzy PD to
remove steady state error. The fuzzy PI control,
however, is known to give poor performance in
transient response for higher order processes due to
the internal integration operation.

To obtain proportional, integral and derivative control Figure 8. A fuzzy PID controller formed by
action all together, it is intuitive and convenient to combining a fuzzy PD and a fuzzy I controller
combine PI and PD actions together to form a fuzzy
PID-type controller [6, 21-24]. Therefore, the
formulation of fuzzy PID controller can be achieved
by combining fuzzy PI and PD controllers with two
distinct rule-bases. Another and a simpler way of
construction a fuzzy PID controller is combining
fuzzy PD controller with an integrator and a
summation unit at the output. These two cases are
given in Figure 6 and in Figure 7, respectively. It is
obvious that the fuzzy PID controller given in Figure
7 has less number of rules and scaling factors
compared to the fuzzy PID that is given in Figure 6
[25].

Figure 9. A fuzzy PID controller formed by

combining a fuzzy PI and a fuzzy D controller

iii) Three input fuzzy PID controllers:

Figure 7. Fuzzy PID-type controller structure formed
of combining fuzzy PD-type and PI-type controllers
A fuzzy PID controller may be constructed by
introducing the third information besides error and
derivative (or the change) of error [28, 29]. When this
third input is chosen as the integral (or the sum) of
error, an absolute form fuzzy PID controller with 3-D
rule base, which is given in Figure 10, can be
obtained. In order to get an incremental form fuzzy
PID controller then the third input should be taken as
the rate of change in error [6].

Figure 7. Fuzzy PID-type controller structure with one

rule-base

In [26], a new fuzzy PID controller design is presented

Figure 10. Fuzzy PID-type controller structure with
to control a flexible-joint robot arm. This controller
3-D rule-base
mimics a conventional PD+I controller. There exist a
 The fuzzy PID controller with 3-D rule base is
difficult to construct because of the following reasons:
(1) For the case of using rate of change in error, a
human expert can hardly sense the third dimension of
information, for instance, the acceleration besides
position and velocity in a motion control system, and
thus it is difficult to obtain the control rules,
(2) For the case of using sum of error, it is difficult to
quantitate its linguistic values since a different plant
needs different integral gain and steady state value of
sum of error,
(3) A 3-D rule base can be very complex when the
number of quantizations of each dimension increases,
and in this situation, the control rule number increases
cubically with the number of quantizations [6].
In [30], a design procedure for fuzzy PID controller is
presented and a reduced look up table is introduced.
An implementation of three input fuzzy PID controller
on a robotic manipulators is studied in [31]. In
addition, a brief analysis is presented to prove that the
controller has BIBO stability.
2.2 Tuning Mechanisms of Fuzzy PID Controllers
As it is discussed above a wide variety of fuzzy PID
controllers have been developed. The design
parameters that can be used to improve the
performance of these fuzzy PID controllers can be
summarized within two groups [7, 32]: (a) structural
parameters, (b) tuning parameters.
Structural parameters include input/output (I/O)
variables to fuzzy inference, fuzzy linguistic sets,
membership functions, fuzzy rules, inference
mechanism and defuzzification mechanism. Tuning
parameters include I/O scaling factors (SF) and
parameters of membership functions (MF). Usually
the structural parameters are determined during off-
line design while the tuning parameters can be
calculated during on-line adjustments of the controller
to enhance the process performance, as well as to
accommodate the adaptive capability to system
uncertainty and process disturbance.
However, the adjustment of the scaling factors
becomes more crucial for the former case mentioned
above. There exist various heuristic and non-heuristic
tuning strategies for the adaptation of scaling factors
of fuzzy controllers [33-39].
The fuzzy PID controller, given in Figure 7., has a
simple structure and has only four scaling factors, so it
has a great importance in literature. In [21], this fuzzy
PID controller is used with a parameter adaptive
method that is based on a peak observer. The tuning
mechanism adjusts the input and output scaling factors
corresponding to the integral and derivative
coefficients of the controller. The block diagram of
the proposed method is shown in Figure 11. The peak
observer keeps watching on the system’s output,
transmits a signal at each peak time, and measures the
absolute peak value. The parameter regulator tunes the
controller parameters Kd and ß simultaneously at each
peak time according to the peak value.
Figure 11. The closed-loop control structure for
parameter adaptive PID type fuzzy logic controller via
peak observer
The block diagram of the parameter adaptive PID type
FLC using a function tuner, which has been proposed
in [40], is shown in Figure 12. This tuner adjusts the
input scaling factor corresponding to the derivative
coefficient and the output scaling factor corresponding
to the integral coefficient of the PID type fuzzy logic
controller through empirical functions.
Figure12. The closed-loop control structure for
parameter adaptive PID type fuzzy logic controller via
function tuner
A new method for tuning the coefficients of fuzzy PID
controller is presented in [32] that uses the error and
rate information of the system response together.
Again, this method adjusts the scaling factors that
correspond to the derivative and integral coefficients
of the fuzzy PID controller using a fuzzy inference
mechanism in an on-line manner. The fuzzy inference
mechanism that adjusts the related coefficients has
two inputs one of which is “system error” designated
as e and the other one is a new variable rv named as
“normalized acceleration” in [41]. The normalized
acceleration gives “relative rate” information about
the fastness or slowness of the system response and
therefore the mechanism that provides this
information can be interpreted as “Relative Rate
Observer”(RRO). It has been shown that the new
method is more efficient since lesser number of
parameters is to be tuned and it is more robust to the
system parameter or structural changes compared to
the other related methods mentioned above. The
closed-loop control structure for parameter adaptive
fuzzy PID controller via relative rate observer is given
in Figure 13.

Figure 13. The closed-loop control structure for
parameter adaptive PID type fuzzy logic controller via
relative rate observer
The mechanism given in Figure 11 ameliorates the
response after the occurrence of the first peak value
and therefore it outperforms worst than the other two
mechanisms. However, one should keep in mind that
the mechanism given in Figure 11 has no parameter to
be adjusted [41].
3. FUZZY GAIN SCHEDULING TYPE
CONTROLLERS
The fuzzy gain scheduling (FGS) is a rule-based
scheme for gain scheduling [14, 42, 43]. This type of
fuzzy PID controller is composed of the conventional
PID control system in conjunction with a set of fuzzy
rules (knowledge base) and a fuzzy reasoning
mechanism. The PID gains are tuned on-line in terms
of the knowledge base and fuzzy inference, and then
the PID controller generates the control signal. FGS is
implemented in essentially the same way as
conventional gain scheduling (CGS), expect that the
operating regions are associated with overlapping
membership functions of the fuzzy sets defined in the
scheduling variable space and that a fuzzy inference
mechanism is used to dynamically interpolate the
controller parameters around region boundaries based
on known local controller parameters. Hence, it is able
to express and use incomplete knowledge of the
controlled system and provide smooth transitions from
region to region.
In the last decade, several studied are published in this
category of fuzzy PID controller. In [43], the Takagi-
Sugeno fuzzy model [44] is employed in FGS. The
FGS rule base contains a set of fuzzy gain scheduling
rules of the form
Ri : IF a i 1 is A i1 and a i 2 is A i2 ... a iq is A iq
THEN gi = K( a i )
where a ik (k=1, 2, ..., q) is the kth component of the
scheduling variable vector, a i is the scheduling
variable vector that best fits the description in the
premise part of the rule, and the rule’s output gi is the
controller gain matrix for a i . A ik is a fuzzy set
defined on the kth scheduling variable space.
Extensions to the FGS scheme can be made to further
enhance the performance. For instance, in [43],
model-based fuzzy gain scheduling (MFGS) is
proposed to improve performance when the
nonlinearity involves is too severe. MFGS technique
on water-gas shift reactor, because this system
demonstrates many behaviors typical of nonlinear
processes. They demonstrated that because of large
variations in process gain; traditional linear controller
such as PID was inadequate for the laboratory-scale
reactor.
Besides the form of the fuzzy rule set stated in (1), an
alternative form is utilized in [14], where the
Mamdani fuzzy model is implemented. In that study, a
new scheme utilizes fuzzy rules and reasoning to
determine the control signal. It is demonstrated that
the human expertise on PID gain scheduling can be
represented in fuzzy rules. Furthermore, better control
performance can be expected in the proposed method
than that of the PID controllers with fixed parameter
since this type of fuzzy PID controllers can adapt
themselves to varying environments. The fuzzy PID
structure used in [14] is given in Figure 14. The main
difficulty in using this category of fuzzy PID
controllers is that the analysis task is relatively tough,
as it is hard to acquire the equivalent nonlinearity of
the fuzzy knowledge base. The issue of stability is
also addressed in [14]. As in CGS, global stability
cannot be ensured, because the linear controller
parameters are functions of time. It is suggested that a
supervisor be included to monitor the stability of the
control system and take appropriate actions when
instability is identified.
Figure 14. PID control system with a fuzzy gain
scheduler.
In [45], the idea given in [14] is implemented to area
load frequency control problem in power systems to
schedule the conventional PI controllers.
(1)
Also, a scheme for self-tuning of a conventional PID
controller using fuzzy rules is proposed in [13]. The
proportional gain (Kp ), the integral time constant (Ti ),
and derivative time constant (Td ) are initially
calculated using Ziegler-Nichols tuning formula [46].
These three parameters are then modified online by a
single parameter, which is updated by a rule-base
defined on error and change in error. A considerable
improvement in the overall performance of the over its
conventional counterpart is reported in [13]. The
results show a remarkable reduction in overshoots of
the second-order processes with dead time but at the
cost of increased rise times.
In [47], FGS allows simple online duplication of PID
control and the online improvement of PID control
performance. A learning fuzzy PID controller
introduced in [48]. The self-organizing fuzzy (SOF)
PID controller is an extension of the rule-based fuzzy
controller with an additional learning capability. The
SOF is used as a master controller to readjust
conventional PID gains at the actuator level during the
system operation. The rule creation and modification
of the SOF-PID controller produces its own control
rule strategies, beginning with no rules in the rule
base. All three PID gains are tuned initially using
conventional tuning methods. The SOF controller
readjusts the proportional PID gains continuously to
improve the process output response, during the
system operation. While the system is in operation,
the corresponding readjusting values of the integral
and derivative PID gains are calculated.
4. HYBID TYPE FUZZY PID CONTROLLERS
When a conventional PID controller and a DA-type
FLC are combined, the overall controllers are referred
as “Hybrid” type [22, 49-53]. A simple block diagram
of hybrid type fuzzy PID controller is given in Figure
15. In some applications, these controllers are
combined by a switch [16, 54-56]. In [57], a fuzzy
switching method between fuzzy PID and
conventional PID controllers is used to achieve
smooth control during switching.
Figure 15. Block diagram of hybrid type fuzzy PID
controller.
In [56], a hybrid PID controller is derived by replacing
the conventional PI controller by a two input fuzzy PI
controller and executing the conventional D controller
in an incremental form. Genetic algorithm is used to
determine the scaling factors of the fuzzy PI controller
and the derivative constant of the conventional D
controller.
5. CONCLUSION
In this study, various studies in literature on fuzzy PID
controllers are examined. The fuzzy PID controllers
are classified then into three major categories; namely,
direct action (DA) type, fuzzy gain scheduling (FGS)
type, and hybrid type. In addition, structural and
tuning parameters of fuzzy control systems are
discussed and some tuning mechanisms of fuzzy PID
controllers are presented and compared.
6. REFERENCES
[1] Passino, K. M., Yurkovich, S., 1998. Fuzzy
Control. Menlo Park, CA. Addision-Welsley-
Longman.
[2] Åström. K. J., Hägglund, T., 2000. The future of
PID control. Control Engineering Practice (9), 1163-
1175.
[3] Mamdani, E.H., 1974. Application of fuzzy logic
algorithms for control of simple dynamic plant. Proc
Inst Elec Eng., pp. 1585-1588.
[4] MacVicar-Whelan, P.J., 1976. Fuzzy sets for man-
machine interaction. Int. J. Man-Machine Studies (8),
687-697.
[5] Tang, K. L., Mulholland, R. J., 1987. Comparing
fuzzy logic with classical controller designs. IEEE
Trans on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 17(6): 1085-
1087.
[6] Xu, J. X., Hang, C. C, Liu, C., 2000. Parallel
structure and tuning of a fuzzy PID controller.
Automatica, 36, 673-684.
[7] Hu, B., Mann, G. K. I., Gosine, R. G., 1999. New
methodology for analytical and optimal design of
fuzzy PID controllers. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems
7(5), 521-539.
[8] Palm, R., Driankov, D., 1996. Model Based Fuzzy
Control, Springer.
[9] Mizumoto, M., 1992. Realization of PID controls
by fuzzy control methods. Fuzzy Sets and Systems
(70), 171-182.
[10] Qin, S. J., Borders, G., 1994. A multiregion fuzzy
logic controller for nonlinear process control. IEEE
Trans on Fuzzy Systems (2), 74-81.
[11] Xu, J.X., Liu, C., Hang, C.C., 1998. Tuning and
analysis of a fuzzy PI controller based on gain and
phase margins. IEEE Trans on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics-PartA 28(5), 685-691.
[12] Mann, G. K. I., Hu, B., Gosine, R. G., 1999.
Analysis of direct action fuzzy PID controller
structures. IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics 29(3), 371-388.
[13] He, S. Z., Shaoua, T. D., Xu, F. L., 1993. Fuzzy
self-tuning of PID. Fuzzy Sets and Systems (56), 37-
46.
[14] Zhao, Z. Y., Tomizuka, M., Isaka, S., 1993.
Fuzzy gain scheduling of PID controllers. IEEE Trans
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 23(5), 1392-1398.
[15] Hu, B., Mann, G. K. I., Gosine, R. G., 2001. A
systematic study of fuzzy PID controllers-Function-
based evaluation approach. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Systems 9(5), 699-712.
[16] Ketata, R., Geest, D. D., Titli, A., 1995. Fuzzy
controller: design, evaluation, parallel and hierarchical
combination with a PID controller. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems (71), 113-129.
[17] Hu, B., Mann, G. K. I., Gosine, R. G., 1997.
Theoretic and genetic designs of a three-rule fuzzy PI
controller. Proc. Sixth IEEE Int. Conf.. Fuzzy Syst.,
1489-1496.
[18] Arzen. K. E., Johansson, M., Babuska, R., 1999.
Fuzzy Algorithms for Control, Verbruggen, H. B.,
Zimmermann, H.-J., Babuska, R. (editors), Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
[19] Galichet, S., Foulloy, L., 1995. Fuzzy controllers:
Synthesis and equivalences. IEEE Trans.Fuzzy
Systems 3, 140-148.
[20] Moon, B.S., 1995. Equivalence between fuzzy
logic controllers and PI controllers for single input
systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 69, 105-113.
[21] Qiao, W. Z., Mizumoto, M., 1996. PID type
fuzzy controller and parameters adaptive method.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems (78), 23-35.
[22] Kwok, D. P., Tam, P., Li, C. K., Wang, P., 1990,
Linguistic PID controllers. Proceedings of the 11th
World Congress, Tallin, Estonia, 7, 192-197.
[23] Li, H. X., Gatland, H. B. 1996. Conventional
Fuzzy Control and its enhancement. IEEE Trans on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part B 26(5): 791-
797.
[24] Golob, M, 2001. Decomposed fuzzy
proportional-integral-derivative controllers. Applied
Soft Computing, 1, 201-204.
[25] Güzelkaya, M., Eksin, I., Gürleyen, F., 2001. A
new methodology for designing a fuzzy logic
controller and PI, PD blending mechanism. Journal of
Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 11, 85-98.
[26] Malki, H. A., Misir, D., Feigenspan, D., Chen,
G., 1997. Fuzzy PID control of a flexible-joint robot
arm with uncertainties from time-varying loads. IEEE
Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 5(3),
371-378.
[27] Tang, K. S., Man, K. F., Chen, G., Kwong, S.,
2001. An optimal fuzzy PID controller. IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 48(5), 757-765.
[28] Wong C. C., Feng, S. M., 1994. A switching type
of fuzzy controller. Proceeding of the 3rd IEEE World
Conference on Computational Intelligence, 30-34.
[29] Mann, G. K. I., Hu, B., Gosine, R. G., 2001.
Two-level tuning of fuzzy PID controllers. IEEE
Trans. on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 31(2), 263-
269.
[30] Abdelnour, G. M., Chang, C. H., Huang, F. H.,
Cheung, J. Y., 1991. Design of a fuzzy controller
using input and output mapping factors. IEEE Trans.
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 21(5), 952-960.
[31] Carvajal, J., Chen, G., Ogmen, H., 2000. Fuzzy
PID controller: Design, performance evaluation, and
stability analysis. Information sciences (123), 249-
270.
[32] Güzelkaya, M., Eksin, I., Yesil, E., 2003. Self-
tuning of PID-type fuzzy logic controller coefficients
via relative rate observer. Engineering Applications of
Artificial Intelligence, (In press).
[33] Chou, C.H., Lu, H.1994. A heuristic self-tuning
fuzzy controller. Fuzzy Sets and Systems (61), 249-
264.
[34] Jung, C. H., Ham, C. S., Lee, K. I., 1995. A real-
time self-tuning fuzzy controller through scaling
factor adjustment for adjustment for the steam
generator of NPP. Fuzzy Sets and Systems (74), 53-
60.
[35] Madea, M., Murakami S, 1992. A self-tuning
fuzzy controller. Fuzzy Sets and Systems (51), 29-40.
[36] Mudi, R.K., Pal, N.R., 1999. A robust self-tuning
scheme for PI- and PD-type fuzzy controllers. IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Systems 7(1), 2-16.
[37] Zheng, L., 1992. A practical guide to tune of
proportional and integral (PI) like fuzzy controllers.
IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems,
633-640.
[38] Chung, H. Y., Chen, B. C., Lin, J. J., 1998. A PI-
type fuzzy contoller with self-tuning scaling factors.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems (93), 23-28.
[39] Chao, C. T., Teng., C. C., 1997. A PD-like self-
tuning controller without steady-state error. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems (87), 141-154.
[40] Woo, Z. W., Chung, H. Y., Lin, J.J.,2000. A PID-
type fuzzy controller with self-tuning scaling factors.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems (115), 321-326.
[41] Eksin, I, Güzelkaya, M., Gürleyen, F., 2001. A
new methodology for deriving the rule-base of a fuzzy
logic controller with a new internal structure.
Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
14(5), 617-628.
[42] Tan , S., Hang, C. C., Chai, J. S., 1997. Gain
scheduling: from conventional to neuro-fuzzy.
Automatica, 33(3), 411-419.
[43] Ling, C., Edgar, T.F., 1997. Real-time control of
a water-gas shift reachtor by a model-based fuzzy gain
scheduling technique. J. Proc. Cont. 7(4), 239-253.
[44] Takagi, T., Sugeno, M., Fuzzy identification of
systems and its application to modeling and control.
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1985, 15(1), 116.
[45]Chang, C. S., Fu, W., 1997. Areal load frequency
control using fuzzy gain scheduling of PI controllers.
Electric Power Systems Research (42), 145-152.
[46] Ziegler, J. G., Nichols, N. B., 1943. Optimum
settings for automatic controllers. Trans. ASME, 65,
433.
[47] Blanchett, T. P., Kember, G. C., Dubay, R., 2000.
PID gain scheduling using fuzzy logic. ISA
Transactions, 39, 317-325.
[48] Kazemian, H. B., Comparative study of a
learning fuzzy PID controller and a self-tuning
controller. ISA Transactions, 40, 245-253.
[49] Brehm, T., Rattan, K. S., 1993. Hybrid fuzzy
logic PID controller. Proceeding of the IEEE National
Aerospace and Electronics Conference, Vol:2, 807-
813.
[50] Li, W. 1998, Design of hybrid fuzzy logic
proportional plus conventional integral-derivative
controller. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 6(4), 449-463.
[51] Li, W., Chang, X. G., Wahl, F. M., Tso, S. K.,
1999. Hybrid fuzzy P+ID control of manipulators
under uncertainty. Mechatronics (9), 301-315.
 [52] Xiaoyin, L., Belmin, Q., 1993. Fuzzy-PID
controller. IEE TENCON’93, Beijing, 296,299.
[53] Reznik, L., Ghanayem, O. Bourmistrov, A., 2000.
PID plus fuzzy controller structure as a design base
for industrial applications. Engineering Applications
of Artificial Intelligence, 13 , 419-430.
[54] Matsunaga, N., Kawaji, S., 1991. Fuzzy hybrid
control for DC servomotor. Trans. Inst. Electrical Eng.
Japan D (111), 195-200.
[55] Otsubo, A., Hayashi, K., Murakami, S., Maeda,
M., 1998. Fuzzy hybrid control using simplified
indirect inference method. Fuzzy Sets and Systems
(99), 265-272.
[56] Parnichkun, M., Ngaecharoenkul, C., 2001.
Kinematics control of pneumatic systems by hybrid
fuzzy PID. Mechatronics (11), 1001-1023.
[57] Er, M. J., Sun, Y. L., 2001. Hybrid fuzzy
proportional-integral plus conventional derivative
control of linear and nonlinear systems. IEEE Trans.
On Industrial Electronics 48(6),1109-1117.

View publication stats