ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF A PROPORTIONAL PLUS

DERIVATIVE FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLER

Gurpreet S. Sandhu, T. Brehm and Kuldip S. Rattan
Department of Electrical Engineering,
Wright State University,
Dayton, Ohio 45435, USA
ABSTRACT
analysis of FLC also provide an insight into the ap-
The objective of this paper is to present the anal- proach for design procedure. Currently for known
ysis and design of a proportional plus derivative and unknown plants, the design procedure consists
fuzzy logic controller (PDFLC) that combines the
mathematical approach with the linguistic interpre-
tation of the control system. The design of a fuzzy
logic controller (FLC) generally involves manipula-
tion of controller parameters based mainly on the
designer's experience. A mathematical approach is
needed to correlate FLC parameters with the sys-
tem response but without obscuring the meaning
of the actual physical action. In this paper, math-
ematical expression of a PDFLC is developed and
then used in time domain analysis to see the eect
of controller parameter variation on the system re-
sponse. The results from the analysis provide the
basis for the design methodology developed. Fi-
ict of classical propor-
nally, the step by step design procedure is presented
and then demonstrated with a numerical example.
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In the past twenty years, since the publication of
the landmark papers by L. A. Zadeh [10,11] and E.
H. Mamdani [6], there has been an explosion in the
development of the theory and application of fuzzy
logic to control systems [9]. Fuzzy logic controllers
(FLCs) have proven to be highly successful in the
control of processes, where the transfer function of
of tweaking the denitions of the input and output
fuzzy sets and their relationships in order to achieve
the desired performance. If the plant transfer func-
tion is known and some assumptions and approxi-
mations are made about the FLC, the system can
be analyzed using the classical techniques.
1.2 Motivation
The output equation for a proportional FLC (PFLC)
can be derived [1], which shows that the PFLC is
a piecewise linear controller with many similarities
to it's classical counterpart [1]. PFLC is shown
to overcome the design con
tional controller in terms of overshoot and steady-
state error [7] and gives a system response similar
to that of a classical PD controller. However, PFLC
still leaves room for improvement in the case of the
classical trade o between rise time and overshoot.
To overcome this trade o, we need to add damping
term; which means we need to go one step further to
derive and analyze the output equation of PDFLC.
The analysis of PDFLC output equation should pro-
vide an insight into design procedure to be followed.
1.3 FLC Architecture and Terminol-
the plant is undened, but the control action is de- ogy
ned in terms of \if...then..." rules. FLCs have also The basic design parameters of the FLC include the
shown improved performance over \classical" con- scaling factors, fuzzication, inference engine and
trollers when the plant transfer function is known.
To see the cause of this improved performance, we
need to analyze the FLC and compare the results
of this analysis with those obtained from the clas-
sical controller. The results from the time domain
defuzzication [3,4]. The scaling factor at the input
is needed to map the physical values of the cur-
rent process variable into a normalized universe of
discourse (normalized domain). Figure 1 shows the
basic building blocks of an FLC (the shaded region).
 value of the membership of the change in error in-
put for the change in error fuzzy subset. Urulen is
Error Input Scaling Fuzzification Inference Defuzzification Output Scaling Controller

Signal Gain Module Engine Module Gain Output

the center value of the output for rule n.

Knowledge
The following constraints on fuzzication, de-
fuzzication and the knowledge base of an FLC gives
Base

Figure 1. Components of a general FLC. a linear approximation of most FLC implementa-

tions.
Fuzzication maps a set of crisp inputs on to the CONSTRAINT 1: The fuzzication process uses
corresponding fuzzy sets. The input sensor value is the triangular membership function.
fuzzied by applying membership functions to map CONSTRAINT 2: The width of a fuzzy set extends
the crisp value to membership values in the fuzzy to the peak value of each adjacent fuzzy set and vice
sets. The value at which the membership is max- versa as shown in Figure 2. The sum of the member-
imum is called the center value. Width of a fuzzy ship values over the interval between two adjacent
set is the distance from the center value to the point sets will be one. Therefore, the sum of all mem-
where the membership is zero, as shown in Figure 2. bership values over the universe of discourse at any
Linguistic rules express the relationship between in- instant for a control variable will always be equal
put variables. The rules that describe a PDFLC in to one. This constraint is commonly referred to as
\English" are of the form: RN : If error, Ei , is PB fuzzy partitioning [3,4].
and change in error,
Ei , is NB then output, Ui , is a a j, j+1- Centers of the fuzzy sets

ZO, where 1  i  N, N is number of sets for error a - Crisp Input

 number of sets for change in error. In this paper,

belief W- Width of the fuzzy sets

A(a) = aa j+1 a
sets are named according to the standard notation,
1.0
aj
A(a)
j j+1

that is, PB means positive big; PM means posi- j

A(a) = a
a aj

tive medium; PS means positive small; ZO means j +1 j+1 aj

zero; NS means negative small; NM means negative A(a) A A =

j j +1
1.0

medium; and NB means negative big. If both the

j +1

aj a aj+1 Input
error and the change in error variables have seven W

fuzzy sets each, there will be a total of 49 possible Figure 2. Two membership functions in the
rules. universe of discourse for the variable a.
The defuzzication process determines the \crisp
output" by resolving the applicable rules into a sin- CONSTRAINT 3: The defuzzication method used
gle output value. One method of defuzzication is is the modied center of area method. This method
the simplied reasoning method (also referred to as is similar to obtaining a weighted average of all pos-
the modied centroid of area method) [3,4]. This sible output values. Therefore, this component is
method uses weighted average of the input mem- also linear.
bership values and the center points of the output
fuzzy sets to determine the crisp output. For this 2 TIME DOMAIN ANALYSIS
method, the output membership functions must be
symmetric around the center values. Input mem-
2.1 Output Equation Derivation
bership values are determined on a per rule basis. PDFLC is based on linguistic expression of the de-
The weighted average of the output center values sired control action. Therefore, to derive an output
and the input membership values gives the output equation for the PDFLC, the numerical expressions
expression of the fuzzication and defuzzication processes are
# ofPRules used to translate the \English" like terms to a math-
rulen Urulen ematical form. The fuzzication process uses func-
u= # n=1 tions to return membership values for dierent crisp
ofPRules inputs. These membership functions are substi-
rulen tuted into the equation for defuzzication to give
n=1
the output expression of the PDFLC.
where rulen is the input membership value, calcu- PDFLC has two input control variables, error
lated by multiplying the value of the membership (desired value minus actual value) and change in er-
of the error input for the given fuzzy subset to the ror (current error minus previous error divided by
the time interval). Each of the inputs has mem- RuleRj;k : = +1+1 , ?
+1 ,
; U1 = U
1
ej e ek e
,
+1 ,
j;k

= +1, , ?

+1+1,,

; U2 = U +1
ej ej ek ek

bership in exactly two fuzzy sets as can be veried RuleRj+1;k : 2

e ej ek e
j ;k
+1 , ?
,
; U3 = U +1
ej ej ek ek

from the generalized representation for both error RuleRj;k+1 : = +1 ,3
+1 ,

ej e e ek
j;k

and change in error fuzzy sets given in Figure 2. = +1, , ?

+1,
,
; U4 = U +1

ej ej ek ek

RuleRj+1;k+1 : 4
e ej e ek

For the error input, if the error value, e, is between

ej ej ek ek j;k

ej and ej+1 , fuzzy sets EJ and EJ +1 are active. The The expressions for i and Ui from above are sub-
membership in EJ , from generalized representation stituted into equation (5) to yield output equation
in Figure 2, is as
e ,e
= 1 ?U +2 ?U +11 ++2+3 ?U
u j;k +1 +4 ?U +1 +1
3 +4
j ;k j;k j ;k

j = j +1 (1) Removing the common denominator and rear-

ej +1 , ej
ranging the terms, we get the nal expression for
and similarly, the membership in EJ +1 is PDFLC output equation as
e , ej
j +1 = (2) u = e ?
e [U +1(,
k j;k U +1 +1 ]+
e +1 [U +1 ,Uj;k]
e +1 ,e )(
e +1 ,
e )
j ;k
+ k j ;k

ej+1 , ej j j k k

e +1 [U +1 ,U ]+e [U +1 ,Uj +1;k+1]

e ? j j;k
(e +1 ,e )(
e +1 ,
e )
j;k
+
j j ;k

Similarly, for the change in error input, if the value [

j j

U ,U +1 ]+[U +1 +1 ,Uj +1;k ]

k k

e is between
ek and
ek+1 , then the member- (e ?
e) ? j;k

(e +1 ,e )(
e +1 ,
e )
j;k
+ j ;k

ship in
EK is
j j k k

e +1 [
e +1 U ,
e U +1 ]+e [
e U +1 +1 ,
e +1 U +1 ]

(e +1 ,e )(
e +1 ,
e )
j k j;K k j;k j k j ;k k j ;k

ek+1 ,
e (6)
j j k k


E (
e) = (3)

K

ek+1 ,
ek 2.2 Analysis
and the membership in
EK +1 is PDFLC output, given by equation (6), is a function
of error and change in error. The output also de-

E +1 (
e) =

e ,
ek (4) pends on a term consisting of product of the error
K

ek+1 ,
ek and change of error, however, this term is negligi-
As required, the sum of the memberships given ble, since generally both e and
e are small. For a
by (1) and (2) and also for (3) and (4) is one. For specic operating point, the input and output sets
the two control variables, error and change in error, are xed and the only variables are the crisp error
with two active sets, there will be four applicable and change in error. This implies that for a specic
rules, given as
operating point, last term in equation (6) as well
R : if e is E and
e is
E then u is U as the coecients of both e and
e are constant.
R +1 : if e is E +1 and
e is
E then u is U +1
j;k J K j

R +1 : if e is E and
e is
E +1 then u is U ( +1)

j ;k J K j
Comparing this equation with the classical PD out-
R +1 +1 :if e is E +1 and
e is
E +1 then u is U( +1) ( +1)
j;k J K j; k
j ;k J K j ; k put equation, we recognize the coecients of e and
The crisp output control action is determined by
e as the proportional constant (Kp ) and deriva-
applying the modied centroid of area defuzzica-
tion scheme to the four control rules and is given
by
P4 iUi
u = i=14
P i
i=1
where i is the input membership calculated by the
\Product Rule" i.e. by multiplying the value of
membership of error input in the given error fuzzy
subset and the value of membership of change in
error input in the change in error fuzzy subset and
Ui is the center value of the output fuzzy set for
the ith rule. The expressions for i and the output
values Ui are
tive constant (Kd ). Equation (6) also shows that
these coecients are not constant as is case with
classical controller, but they vary with the change
in the operating point which changes with the error
and change in error. So PDFLC equation can be
(5) expressed as
u = Kp,eff ? e + Kd,eff ?
e + Constant (7)
The terms Kp,eff and Kd,eff are the eective
values of Kp and Kd, respectively and are used to
enhance the performance of a PDFLC. The eective
value of Kp is dependent on the error value and the
eective value of Kd varies with the variation in the
change in error value. From equation (7), it is seen
that the output can come from either of the follow-
ing, depending on the current operating point.
Case 1 : u = Kp ,e ? e + Kd ,e ?
e
This case occurs when the center values of both the
inputs and the output are all equally spaced and in
this case PDFLC is equivalent to the classical PD
controller [1,7]. So the response of the system can
be easily found by the classical techniques.
Case 2 : u = Constant
For this case, where the controller output is a con-
ginning to allow for faster response.
 Derivative gain should be increased over the
successive ranges to reduce overshoot in the
system.
 Proportional gain should always be greater in
magnitude as compared to derivative gain.
 The interval in which the response settles to
stant, the control system is equivalent to an open its nal value should not have any constant
loop system [1,7]. When the controller output is term, so as not to add to any nal steady-state
constant, regardless of the controller type, the re- error.
sponse in this case will be the same as in the case of
PFLC controller with constant output [1,7]. There 3 DESIGN OF A PDFLC
is no way to control this output, however, the rate 3.1 Introduction
of change of output can be modied by varying the
constant value.
Case 3 : u = Kp ,e ? e + Kd ,e ?
e + Constant
Finally consider the PDFLC that operates in the
region which uses both the eective gains and the
constant. The system output is the result of two
inputs, constant input (Case 2) and the input from
a PD like controller (Case 1). The response to unit
step input can be compared to that for the case 1
with the constant term modifying the steady-state
component of the equation and it can be shown that
larger the constant value, compared to the eective
gain, larger will be the steady-state error in the out-
put.
There are many ways to approach a design of classi-
cal controllers, however, the techniques have a for-
mal procedure. Classical design methods can be
used even without truly understanding what is actu-
ally happening. However, the linguistic expressions
of FLC control action requires the designer to fully
understand the physical system. The \if...then.."
rules are used to describe the desired relationship
between inputs and output, which can then be im-
plemented using the fuzzy logic control. This makes
it possible to design a controller for a system with an
unknown transfer function.To improve on the per-
formance of FLC, the membership values and the
rules are tweaked till the controller produces the
From the knowledge of classical control, addi-
tion of Kd has the eect of adding damping and
thus causing faster decay of oscillations compared
to the proportional compensated system. However,
due to increased damping in the system, the rise
time of the system increases. The objective here
is to reduce overshoot and at the same time mini-
mize the rise time. This can be achieved by varying
Kd,eff and Kp,eff over dierent ranges of inputs.
desired response. There are no set of specied rules
for the design of a proportional plus derivative fuzzy
logic controller. We present here a formal approach
to the design procedure of PDFLC which is a combi-
nation of mathematical approach and the linguistic
interpretation of the system.
3.2 Design Assumptions
The constraints described in Section 1 are used:
1) input values from the sensors are crisp; 2) the
As we know, increasing Kd reduces overshoot, how- fuzzication process uses the triangular member-
ever, to decrease rise time of the system, we need to ship functions; 3) the sets in the domain make up
increase the rate of change of c(t), which suggests fuzzy partition; 4) the defuzzication method used
decreased damping i.e. low value of Kd initially in is the modied center of area method and 5) the
the system. Further, if Kd is increased over suc- rules in the knowledge base cover all possible input
cessive ranges, damping increases in each successive variables. The design procedure presented here is
interval. for normalized inputs. For a non-normalized input,
The insights we get from the time domain anal-
ysis, which form the basis of PDFLC design method
described in the next section, are
 Derivative gain should be minimum in the be-
gain is used to normalize it rst before fuzzifying
and this gain is then used to scale the output.
3.3 Input-output Gains
PDFLC design is an extension of the PFLC design.
Similar to the PFLC design [1,7], a baseline PDFLC 1.2

is one where the center values of all the fuzzy sets 1

are equally spaced and PDFLC behaves like a clas- 0.8

System Output

sical PD controller, which can be modeled as 0.6

Response
0.4

u = Kp ? e + Kd ?
e (8)
Error
0.2

The fuzzication process assumes that each input 0.2

variable is normalized in the range of -1 to 1. For 0.4

Change in Error

a system with normalized error, the change in error 0.6

0 0.5 1 1.5

input may not be in the range -1 to 1. Therefore, we

Time (sec)

may need to scale change in error. Equation (8) can
be rewritten where Kp is used to scale the PDFLC
output as
u = Kp(e + (Kd=Kp )
e) (9)
where Kd =Kp is a scaling factor for the change in
Figure 3. Step response of a prototype second
order system
Figure 3 shows the variation of error, change in
error and the output with respect to time. It is ob-
vious from the plot that to obtain faster rise time,
damping in the system should be minimum in the
interval where change of error goes from zero to
error input. Selection of these scaling gains is de-
scribed during the design procedure.
3.4 Approach to General Design Scheme
The design procedure described in this paper is based
on the analysis and design of PFLC [1,7] and the
analysis of PDFLC described in Section 2. Since
manipulating the eective derivative gain can de-
crease the overshoot that might be caused by larger
negative maximum. However, to obtain specied
overshoot, Kd,eff should be maximum, when the
change of error varies from negative maximum to
zero. This implies that, there are two opposing re-
quirements of Kd,eff in the range zero to negative
maximum of change in error. There are two possi-
ble solutions to this problem. First using the sign
change of \change of change of error", as switch or
proportional gains, PFLC is designed rst to meet
ag for changing the damping in the system. Sec-
the rise time and steady-state error specications ond solution which is discussed and is used in the
as described in [7]. Using these xed center values following sections is the one which uses the modi-
for the error and output fuzzy sets, the objective cation of the rule base to allow maximum control
is to nd the center values for the change in error action initially to get required rise time.
fuzzy sets so that the system also meets the over- 3.5 Design Procedure
shoot specication along with meeting steady-state
and rise time requirements. As described during
PDFLC output equation analysis, damping should
be least in the beginning so that we get the desired
rise time and then it should be increased over the
next intervals to cut down the overshoot.
Another important point to remember during
the design of PDFLC is that the constant part of
the controller output should be zero in the region,
In this section, a step by step procedure to design
PDFLC is presented.
Step 1:
This step consists of designing the PFLC to meet
the rise time and steady-state requirements using
the design method described in [7]. The center val-
ues of the error and output fuzzy sets are selected
along with the constant Kp .
where the response nally settles, to avoid adding
to the steady-state error of the system. Therefore,
the goal is to vary Kd,eff with the change in er-
ror in such a way so as to meet the overshoot and
steady-state requirements, along with with the rise
time. For this purpose, it will be useful to look at
the step response of a system.
Step 2:
Keeping the change in error fuzzy sets equally spaced,
the scaling gain for change in error Kd =Kp, is se-
lected such that it maps the change in error to -1
to +1 range. This controller with the change in er-
ror fuzzy sets equally spaced is called the baseline
controller, since this basic controller is then modi- requirement.
ed to meet the overshoot specication by varying 1.2

Kd,eff .
1

Table I. Equally spaced change in error fuzzy set

peak values.
0.8

Response
NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB
0.6

e -1 -2/3 -1/3 0 1/3 2/3 1 0.4

Step 3: 0.2

Keeping the output sets equally spaced, the \over-

shoot test" is conducted [7]. The center values of
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Time (secs)

change in error fuzzy sets are multiplied by a con-
stant \a" and the response of the system is ob-
tained. The value of \a" which gives the required
overshoot is selected.
Figure 4 shows the plots of the controller out-
Figure 5. Response for controller outputs shown in
Figure 4.
Step 4:
The change in error fuzzy set center values are de-
puts for error xed at zero value and peak values termined by a graphical approach. The plots of
of change in error fuzzy sets multiplied by two dif- baseline controller and the \overshoot test" con-
ferent values of \a". The plots are not linear, as troller are overlaid as shown in the Figure 5.
expected, since the output fuzzy sets values, as se- Overshoot

lected in step 1, are not equally spaced. 1.0

Controller Baseline
Controller

Controller
Output

PM

Controller
PS
Output

a =0.5

a = 1.0

(0,0) PS PM 1.0

Change of Error

Change in Error( e) Figure 6. Overlaid plots of baseline and overshoot

(at Error =0.0)
Figure 4. Plots of controller output with respect to

e for dierent values of \a"
Table II.Change in Error fuzzy set peak values for
overshoot test.
NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB

e -a -2a/3 -a/3 0 a/3 2a/3 a
Figure 5 shows the plots of system response for
these two controllers shown in Figure 4. As the
value of \a" decreases, the eective gain Kd,eff
becomes larger (slope of the controller output line
increases), the rise time increases and the overshoot
controller
For seven sets, the center values of zero fuzzy
set (ZO) is zero and center value of PB fuzzy set
is one. The center values of PS and PM fuzzy sets
are selected by taking the values at the intersection
of the baseline controller and the \overshoot test"
controller with the horizontal lines drawn through
the output fuzzy set center values for PS and PM
(obtained in the Step 1). Since we are assuming the
controller action to be symmetric about the origin,
the values for NS, NM, NB are same as that for PS,
PM, PB but with negative sign.
Step 5:
decreases. So, we keep on decreasing the value of The nal step in the design of PDFLC, as discussed
\a", till the system response meets the overshoot in the Section 2, is modication of the rule base. As
pointed out earlier, during the initial phase of the Table III. Fuzzy set (Error (e) and Output
response, when the change of error is negative, we (o/p)) peak values for the PFLC designed.
have two opposing requirements on the two sides of
the peak of change of error, which suggested that NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB
e -1 -0.26 -0.1 0 0.1 0.26 1
we can not use just the variation of Kd,eff with o/p -1 -0.26 -0.2 0 0.2 0.26 1
change in error.
Since controller action has to be maximum in
the beginning, so we modify the rule base to achieve 1.2

that. For example, Figure 7 shows the modication

of the rule base in the PB error region to give max-
1

imum controller action. 0.8

Response
Error Error 0.6
NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB
NB NB NB NB NM NS ZO NB NB NB NB NB NM NS PB
0.4
NB NB NB NM NS ZO PS NM NB NB NB NM NS ZO PB

Change NB NB NM NS ZO PS PM NS NB NB NM NS ZO PS PB Change 0.2

in NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB ZO NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB
in
Error Error
0
NM NS ZO PS PM PB PB PS NM NS ZO PS PM PB PB 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time (sec)
NS ZO PS PM PB PB PB PM NS ZO PS PM PB PB PB

ZO PS PM PB PB PB PB PB ZO PS PM PB PB PB PB Figure 8. Response of the system for PFLC

ORIGINAL MODIFIED controller given in TABLE III

Figure 7. Modifying the rule base  Keeping the change in error fuzzy sets equally
spaced, a value of Kd=Kp is selected in such a
Once the controller output curve is decided, way so that the change in error is scaled in the
simulation should be run to check the working of range -1 to +1. For this example, a Kd =Kp
the design and nal tweaking can be done to further value of 0.007 was selected.
improve on the performance of the original design.
 Overshoot test is conducted as described ear-
4 NUMERICAL EXAMPLE lier and it is seen that \a" = 0.3 meets the
overshoot specication.
For the system shown in Figure 1, let the transfer
function of the plant be given by  Using the graphical approach described in the
45 design procedure, center values of PM and PS
Gp (s) = (s+15)( s+3) change in error are obtained as described in
Figure 9. The center values of the fuzzy sets
The goal is to design a controller to satisfy the fol- for the nal design are given in the Table IV.
lowing specications Overshoot Test (a=0.3)

1. Steady-state error to a unit step input is less

Controller Baseline (a=1)
Controller
1.0

than 5%.
2. Maximum overshoot to a unit step input is less
Controller
Output

than 10%.
3. Rise time should be less than 0.1 sec.
To design PDFLC, following steps were carried out: PM 0.26

 Design a PFLC to meet the rise time and PS 0.20

steady-state error requirements. Using the de-

sign method described in [7], the center values 0.06 0.667

of error and output fuzzy sets (given in Table

(0,0) 1.0
PS PM

III) and Kp value of 12.0 are obtained. Fig-

Change of Error

ure 8 shows the response of the system for this Figure 9. Graphical approach for nding PS
compensator. and PM of change in error sets.
 Table IV. Change in error center values.
NB NM NS ZO PS PM PB
-1 -0.667 -0.06 0 0.06 0.667 1
 To obtain maximum controller action in the
we have derivative gain to add extra damping at
later stages of the response, proportional gain can
be raised to give better rise time, during the begin-
ning of the response and 3) zero error region should
not have any constant term in it's controller output
initial phase of the response, the nal design equation. The step by step design method is listed
step is modication of the rule base in PB
error region (Figure 7).
 Figure 10 shows the system response with the
PDFLC designed in previous steps. The steady-
state error is less than 5%, overshoot is less
than 10% and rise time is less than 0.1 sec.
1.2
1
0.8
Response
and then is demonstrated with a numerical example.
REFERENCES
1. T. Brehm, Fuzzy Logic Controller: Fuzzy Logic
Controller: Analysis and Design, Masters The-
sis, Wright State University, Winter, 1994.
2. J.J. Buckley and H. Ying, \Fuzzy Controller
Theory: limit Theorems for Linear Fuzzy Con-
trol Rules," Automatica, pp 469-472, 1989.
3. Lee, Chuen Chien, \Fuzzy Logic in Control
Systems: Fuzzy Logic Controller- Part I," IEEE
Trans. Systems, Man Cybernetics, Vol 20, pp.

0.6

404-418, 1990.
4. Lee, Chuen Chien, \Fuzzy Logic in Control
0.4

0.2 Systems: Fuzzy Logic Controller- Part II," IEEE

Trans. Systems, Man Cybernetics, Vol 20, pp.
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
419-435, 1990.
Time (sec)

Figure 10. Response of the nal PDFLC
compensated system.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the analysis and design of a PDFLC
is presented. The objective is to develop a design
procedure, which combines the mathematical inter-
pretation of the controller with the interpretation of
linguistic rules for the control system. A mathemat-
ical approach is developed, which correlates PDFLC
parameters to system response, without obscuring
the meaning of the actual physical action. Output
equation for PDFLC is derived, which shows that
if properly constrained, the PDFLC can be approx-
imated as a piecewise linear controller with many
similarities to the classical PD controller and thus
making it possible to analyze it using the classical
methods. It is shown analytically that PDFLC has
a response which is an improvement over classical
PD controller response. Results of the analysis pro-
vide the ground rules for the design of the PDFLC.
The rules to remember while designing the PDFLC
are: 1) keep the derivative gain minimum in the be-
ginning to get quick response and then increase it
successively to reduce the overshoot, 2) since now
5. G. Langari, A Framework for Analysis and
Synthesis of Fuzzy Linguistic Control Systems,
Ph.D thesis, University of California at Berke-
ley, December 1990.
6. E. H. Mamdani, \Application of Fuzzy Algo-
rithms for Control of Simple Dynamic Plant,"
Proc. IEE 121 Vol. 12 pp. 1585-1588, 1974.
7. K. Rattan, T. Brehm, Gurpreet Sandhu, \Anal-
ysis and design of proportional fuzzy logic con-
troller," 6th IFSICC, Hawaii, April 1996.
8. D. Sabharwal and K. Rattan, \Design of a
Rule Based Fuzzy Controller for the Pitch Axis
of an Unmanned Research Vehicle," NAECON
Proceedings, Dayton, 1992.
9. M. Sugeno, Industrial Applications of Fuzzy
Control, North-Holland, 1985.
10. L. A. Zadeh, \Fuzzy sets," Information and
Control, Vol. 8, 1965, pp.338-353.
11. L. A. Zadeh, \Outline of a New Approach to
the Analysis of Complex Systems and Deci-
sion Processes," IEEE Trans. Systems, Man
Cybernetics, Vol 3, pp. 28-44, 1973.