We are IntechOpen,

the world’s leading publisher of

Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists

5,500
Open access books available
136,000
International authors and editors
170M
Downloads

Our authors are among the

154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

Interested in publishing with us?

Contact book.department@intechopen.com
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter

Fuzzy Logic Control with PSO

Tuning
Jeydson Lopes da Silva

Abstract

Several applications of artificial intelligence in the area of control of dynamic

systems have proven to be an efficient tool for process improvement. In this con-
text, control systems based on fuzzy logic - Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC) are part of a
series of advances in the areas of control systems. Fuzzy control is based on natural
language and therefore has the ability to make approximations closer to the real
nature of the problems. The use of metaheuristic algorithms such as the particle
swarm optimization (PSO) allows it to provide adequate adjustments to the fuzzy
controller in an optimized manner. This technique allows to adjust the FLC in a
simple way according to the performance desired by the designer, without the need
for a long time of conventional tests.

Keywords: FLC, PSO, artificial intelligence, controller, optimization

1. Introduction

FLC represents a family of intelligent controllers with a lot of potential for use in
the world for industrial control systems. Its popularity is mainly due to its perfor-
mance being robust in several operating conditions and its functional simplicity, in
addition to its ease of implementation, allowing engineers to operate them in a
simple and direct way. Even with the emergence of new control techniques, FLC
controllers will still be on the market for a long time in industrial plants [1].
A good parameterization of the FLC inference functions is essential to allow a
good performance of this type of closed loop controller. The tuning of the controller
is a persistent problem in the area of control and automation, from the initial
approach of this topic to the present day; a definitive solution has not yet been
reached, being a subject constantly addressed in several works in the field of control
engineering. However, it is important to note that despite the various techniques
that produce adjustments in the FLC parameters, it is still necessary to assess the
designer regarding the result of the parameterization of this controller [2].
In recent years, the computational capacity available allows optimization tech-
niques developed in the field of artificial intelligence to gain space in the solution of
several engineering problems [3, 4]. In this context, algorithms based on
metaheuristics can provide adequate solutions to the FLC parameterization prob-
lem. Since the parameters necessary for the proper functioning of the FLC can be
numerous and often complex, techniques based on intelligent computing provide
an alternative solution to this type of problem.

1
Fuzzy Systems

2. Particle swarm optimization

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm is a population metaheuristics

created from models of the collective and social behavior of animals, in their
coordination of movements in the tasks of searching and obtaining food. These
models were simplified, losing the requirement to maintain a minimum distance
between its neighbors. In addition, the communication architecture was
transformed, which was initially inspired by spatial proximity and was changed to
use a topology defined by a graph. Therefore, PSO ends up having, nowadays, more
similarities with models of mutual influence between human beings in their ways of
thinking and acting [5].
In the PSO there is a fixed amount of agents, called particles. This set of agents is
called a swarm, designed in such a way that each agent is able to communicate with
its neighbor, which is a subset of its peer, and can be defined in a static or dynamic
way. Each of the particles moves in the solution space with a certain speed, always
evaluating the solution corresponding to that occupied position in each iteration.
The speed of the particles must be influenced by your own experience (cognitive
factor), and also influenced by your neighbors (social factor). Such influences are
implemented as two attractors, the first located in the best position already evalu-
ated by the particle itself and the second located in the best position visited by the
neighboring particles [6, 7].
In general, the position of a particle i at a time k is represented by a vector xik and
its respective speed as a vector vik . Both vectors are stored during the learning
process in generation k and used for updating in the next generation. In addition to
the vectors xik and vik , PSO uses the best position of the particle i (pik ), as well as the
g
position of the best particle of the whole swarm (pk), both evaluated throughout the
process until the moment k evaluated.
The equations that govern the PSO can be defined as

 
viþ1 ¼ ωvi þ c1 r1 pi xi þ c2 r2 pg xi (1)

xiþ1 ¼ xi þ viþ1 (2)

where x is the position of the particle; v is the velocity of the particle; w is the
inertial weight, controlling the impact of the previous speed at the current speed; c1
and c2 are positive constants, controlling the social and individual behavior of each
particle; r1 and r2 are random numbers in the interval [0.1], contributing to
diversify the exploration of the problem search space.
The basic PSO algorithm can be defined as follows.
Randomly initialize the particle positions xik and speeds vik within the search
space at k = 0.

Algorithm 1: PSO algorithm

2
Fuzzy Logic Control with PSO Tuning
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96297

3. Fuzzy logic controller

From the concepts of fuzzy logic, which include fuzzification, defuzzification,

inference system and compositional rules, it was possible to build a fuzzy logic
controller, where control actions are generated from a set of linguistic knowledge.
In general, the FLC is conceptually easy to understand. Despite its easy under-
standing, its design requires a greater amount of parameterization than normal in
other controllers [8].
Several previous works attest that the application of FLC can overcome the
effectiveness of traditional controllers in several tasks. In fact, the FLC works
perfectly in a dynamic control environment, its steps can be similar to other con-
trollers. In the fuzzification stage, the signals from the plant’s sensors and any other
information that is declared important are mapped to the pertinence functions and
appropriate truth values. Then, the processing step makes use of each appropriate
rule, thereby generating a particular result individually and then combines the
results of those rules. Finally, the result of the operation in the previous stage is then
converted into the defuzzification to an output value according to the system in
which the FLC is inserted [9, 10].
Regarding the FLC memberships functions (MFs), it should be noted that the
most applicable functions are the triangular, trapezoidal and Gaussian MFs type.
This is due to the fact that. In the FLC project there is no exact number of how many
curves, or what types of curves must be inserted in order to improve the FLCs
performance, this work is part of the specialist’s commitment.
A fuzzy controller can contain dozens of pertinent functions and associated
rules. The rules have an empirical character, since they are elaborated from the
knowledge of a process specialist. This fact is especially important and makes the
FLC different and advantageous compared to other controller architectures. The
reason for this is that empirical rules are especially useful in plants that contain
complex processes or even with insufficient information that would decrease the
effectiveness of more conventional control techniques.

3.1 FLC designer

Similar to what happens in fuzzy logic applications in other areas, the FLC
project requires several operational requirements that must be adequately dimen-
sioned for the correct functioning of this type of control. An important choice as to
how the final control signal will take place is the decision between the TSK or
Mamdani FLC. The general rule model is given as:

IF x is A AND y is B THEN u is C, (3)

where, A is a fuzzy set of X, B is one of the fuzzy set of Y and C is fuzzy set U
(signal of controller).
In the case of the FLC of the Mamdani type, each rule is a conditional fuzzy
proposition, and different fuzzy relationships in A x B x C can be derived from it.
The implementation of each rule is done by defining operators to process the rule’s
antecedent and the implication function that will define its consequent. In this case,
the action of the FLC is defined based on the aggregation of rules that make up the
algorithm. This aggregation results in the fuzzy set C, which defines the output of
controller C. The effective output of the controller is then obtained through a
defuzing process applied to set C.
The TSK FLC is a simplified model of the Mamdani controller, where the conse-
quent of each rule is defined as a function of the linguistic input variables.

3
Fuzzy Systems

Each rule results in no longer a numerical value but a fuzzy set. The weight
assumes the pertinence value resulting from processing the rule’s antecedent. The
value of u can be defined as a constant (single value with relevance equal to one) -
singleton. From a singleton it is possible define rules with output values that
represent a classification of the controller response, without changing the simplified
way of determining the final controller response.
In many practical situations of real controllers trapezoidal MFs are used for the
function inputs. The reason is that several sensors installed in the system can
present different noise in the measurement and as a consequence change some
conditional rule in the operation of the FLC.
Regarding the design of the basic FLC rules, the expert needs to decide the total
number of rules and how these operational conditions are related.

3.2 FLC optimization

The central idea of using metaheuristics in the pursuit of optimizing FLC per-
formance is in the design characteristic of this controller. The various parameters
and variables that are necessary for the good functioning of the FLC do not present
general rules, making the role of the operator essential in the analysis and dimen-
sioning of these terms [11].
Despite the specialist’s knowledge, the resulting FLC may not perform as opti-
mally. Metaheuristics, on the other hand, can function as an intelligent search
engine for the various possible architectures for the FLC, without the need for the
exhaustive work of trial and error on the part of an expert control engineer [11–13].
The use of a metaheuristic for the optimization of the FLC needs to be correctly
dimensioned for its proper and effective functioning. There are different architec-
tures to be explored when using these techniques despite an FLC [13]. Figure 1
presents an FLC architecture using metaheuristics for its optimization.
From the observation of Figure 1, it is possible to notice that metaheuristics can
help in the solutions of different areas of the FLC. There are several options for the
parametric optimization of the FLC, therefore, the designer needs to define what
one wants to obtain or which are the important parameters to be defined in his
control project.

3.2.1 FLC membership function optimization

An application of FLC parametric optimization with metaheuristics is based on

determining the positions and characteristics of MFs. In this case, algorithm

Figure 1.
FLC optimization scheme.

4
Fuzzy Logic Control with PSO Tuning
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96297

objective is to find the values of each MF individually that allows to obtain a better
performance of this controller [14].
Assume that you have determined a set of rules and chosen all the MFs in your
project. A common application of a metaheuristic algorithm in this case is to deter-
mine the ideal positioning of the MFs. In this particular context, the MF designer is
a time-consuming exercise and it is usually possible to achieve good results. For this
reason, some techniques offer benefits to develop such functions. In this case, it is
necessary to turn the positions of each MF into optimization variables of the algo-
rithm. Figure 2 presents a representation of this application.
Figure 2 presents a possible model for the application of metaheuristic optimi-
zation of MFs. From a set of previously selected MFs, it is assumed that the posi-
tions of these functions are the variables (xi ) of the optimization problem. In this
way, the algorithm seeks to select such parameters, increasing or decreasing the
space of each one in the possible set. The position and size of each MF is important
since this has a direct influence on the output of the FLC system.
In this FLC optimization application, it is necessary to define which MFs are
involved and the respective definition limits. In practice, it is necessary to limit the
range of values for each variable (xi ), thus avoiding that the optimization does not
result in inadequate results.

3.2.2 FLC rules optimization

The optimization of the FLC rules is also an interesting application on this topic.
Determining the rules of an FLC is naturally an empirical process, since trial and
error are very necessary in order to be successful in these rules [15].
The application of metaheuristics in this case is configured to determine the best
rules that, when combined in the logic of the FLC, optimize its operation. The
variables in this situation are the defining set of MFs and can be combined in
different ways to compose the rules. In this case, based on a previous set of infor-
mation, it is possible to determine which variables will be part of a given rule and
even how many rules should drive the FLC. Figure 3 shows a metaheuristic scheme
for the determination of a specific rule of the IF-THEN type.
Figure 3 shows an optimization of rules based on IF - THEN. From the set of
MFs (NB, NS, NM, Z, PS, PM, PB), the subsequent terms y1 ðiÞ (de/dt) and y2 ð jÞ (e),
as well as the consequent term zðkÞ can be defined appropriately for the formation
of FLC rules. In this example, i = 7 and j = 7, totaling 49 possible rules to be
determined by metaheuristic optimization.

Figure 2.
MF optimization scheme.

5
Fuzzy Systems

Figure 3.
Optimization scheme for fuzzy rule conditionals.

Metaheuristic algorithm tests all possible combinations of the IF-THEN condi-

tion simultaneously, thus allowing to speed up this process of determining the FLC
rules.
In fact, there are several possibilities for the elaboration of FLC rules, which
makes this problem complex for the use of traditional optimization methods.

4. Fitness function modeling

One or more performance requirements can be used to compose the perfor-

mance index of the system, which will serve as the objective function (fitness) of
the optimization problem used to obtain the tuning of the controller. The perfor-
mance and robustness requirements act as restrictions on the tuning of the control-
ler, that is, they allow imposing limits on the behavior of the control loop. The
performance index to be useful to the problem must be composed of system
parameters, in addition to that, it must be computed with some ease, analytically or
experimentally [16].
In order to make the optimization functional, the definition of a fitness function
is extremely necessary. This function aims to assess the quality and behavior of the
control system, allowing the designer to check how well his project is performing. In
general, dynamic performance quality indices are adopted as variables of an objec-
tive function in control systems.
The composition of the objective function is based on the dynamic characteris-
tics that the operator wants the FLC to achieve in the optimization. This definition
happens empirically based on the observation of the system and execution tests.
If the designer wishes the controller response to have a low overshooot value,
this variable should be added with some gain in the composition of the fitness
function. This gain depends on how much this variable is intended to influence the
optimization goal. Moreover, if there is a desire to minimize some error rate in
general, ITAE, ISE or IAE can be adopted in the function.
In such cases, the goal of metaheuristics is to minimize the objective function
and, since this function is directly associated with a specific parameter, the specific
objective can be achieved.
In order to demonstrate the construction of the objective function, consider the
following general formulation

J ¼ C1 X 1 þ C2 X 2 þ … þ Cn X n , (4)

where Ci represents the constants that are associated with the variables of
interest X i . The designer must determine how many variables one wishes to com-
pose the function such that it achieves its final FLC performance objective. How-
ever, some variables in the function can be redundant and not affect the overall
performance of the optimization. In this way, the designer’s expertise is essential to
obtain a function that allows an effective optimization of the FLC.

6
Fuzzy Logic Control with PSO Tuning
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96297

5. FLC optimization example

In order to present a practical application of FLC optimization via metaheuristic

algorithm, this section presents an example of using a metaheuristic (PSO) for
positional optimization of MFs in an FLC.
An air flow system is presented as a transfer function and an FLC is connected to
it, which is parameterized manually and also by the PSO. Since the PSO algorithm is
relatively simple and easy to apply, consider it for use in this application example.
The FLC is of the TSK type (control output is a specific value). In addition, the
error and its derivative are considered as input to the system. The reason for this is
that in addition to the error, it is also necessary to understand the speed and
direction of the error variation.
In order to facilitate application, an example in MATLAB is used. Figure 4
shows the FLC scheme associated with a metaheuristic.
From Figure 4, it can be seen that the FLC has the error and the error derivative
as inputs. The error signal is used to calculate the ITAE and IAE indices. The FLC
model has two outputs, one for the control signal and one for the rules. The control
signal output passes through an integrating signal to compose the control signal.
Moreover, the other output of the FLC is being used for the optimization of this
controller. In this example five MFs are used (NB, NS, Z0, PS, PB) for the input
error e (triangular), input error derived d/dt (triangular) and for the controller
output. The optimization focuses on determining the position of the MFs (section
3.2.1) for the inputs and output.
First, the optimization focuses on the triangular functions, choosing one of the
three positions that make up the triangle to carry out the modification. This is done
by adding a variable X 1 and X 2 to this position while the others remain with a fixed
value. Second, we seek to find the value of the output using the optimization vari-
ables X 3 and X 4. In addition, the rules have already been pre-established and are not
targets for optimization. The source code for the definition of the FLC, including
the MFs and the respective rules are presented in Figure 5.
Regarding the fitness function to be used in this example, the system uses the
ITAE and IAE error indexes to formulate this function (Figure 6).

J ¼ 0:5 ∗ ITAE þ 0:5 ∗ IAE (5)

For each new population resulting from the PSO swarm, the variables from the
algorithm are stored and inserted in the FLC and, from that, the result of the fitness
function (J) is estimated. This is done until reaching the stopping criterion. In this
example, add the value of J < 102 as the main stop criterion for the algorithm. The
code that presents the implementation of the objective function is shown below.

Figure 4.
FLC scheme for optimization by PSO in MATLAB.

7
Fuzzy Systems

Figure 5.
FLC code in MATLAB.

Figure 6.
Fitness function code in MATLAB.

For the application of the PSO, it is first necessary to initialize the algorithm
parameters. In this case, initially the value of the particle positions in the swarm is
randomly defined. The position of all particles is usually started with some speed, in
this example all speeds are started at zero. Finally, it is defined as a minimum value
of the best initial particle in 1000. The particles in the swarm must reach and exceed
at least this value of the “best initial particle”. Figure 7 shows the code used.
The operation of the PSO is simple, the population is evaluated and its position is
updated based on its position and previous speeds. The swarm positions are then
entered in the X variables, which in turn are the inputs for the “OptFuzzy” optimi-
zation function. The X values are actually the values that will adjust the positions of
the FLC’s input MFs. If the value obtained in the optimization is less than the
current value of the objective function, the best individual particle values and the
best global value are increased. This is done until reaching the stopping criterion.
Figure 8 shows the PSO operation code in this FLC optimization example.
In order to test the PSO in the optimization of the FLC MFs of the present example,
we try to test the algorithm with 10, 20, 50, 100, 200 and 500 particles in the swarm.
Figure 9 shows the behavior of the objective function “OptFuzzy” over 50 iterations.

8
Fuzzy Logic Control with PSO Tuning
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96297

In general, the greater the amount of swarms in the PSO, the faster the minimi-
zation of the objective function will occur, since this way there will be a greater
exploration of the search space of the algorithm.

Figure 7.
PSO parameters.

Figure 8.
PSO code in MATLAB.

Figure 9.
Fitness function optimization.

9
Fuzzy Systems

In addition to optimizing the FLC’s input (e and de/dt) and output via PSO,
manual tuning is also applied to these MFs. The manual tuning basically consists of
determining “manually” the positional values of the triangular functions of the MFs

Figure 10.
MFs manual tuning vs. MFs PSO tuning.

Figure 11.
FLC manual tuning vs. FLC PSO tuning.

10
Fuzzy Logic Control with PSO Tuning
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96297

FLC Tunning Rise Time (s) Settling Time (s)

Manual 33,94 72,10

Metaheurístic 3,56 6,99

Table 1.
Comparison between the different tunings of the FLC.

and the value of the MFs at the output. This choice is empirical and is based on the
operator’s knowledge and experience regarding the control system. The result of the
MFs tuning process in different ways is shown in Figure 10.
From the MFs resulting from the tuning processes discussed above (Figure 4),
the FLC controller is simulated in both tuning situations (Manual and PSO) by
applying different steps to the control system input. Figure 11 shows the result of
the behavior of the FLC resulting from the different synotnias mentioned above.
From Figure 11 it is possible to notice that the FLC obtained from the PSO
presented a much more satisfactory performance in terms of dynamic behavior.
Table 1 presents detailed values of the performance indices for both processes.

6. Conclusions

The FLC is an important controller in the area of intelligent systems of control

engineering, however its design aspects represent a challenge to the specialist, as its
operational requirements require a characteristic knowledge based on linguistic
resources.
An alternative to the development of the FLC is the use of optimization
resources to aid the development of this type of controller. Metaheuristics can
clearly contribute to this issue, as they represent an effective way of exploring
solutions to complex problems. The use of this feature involves the definition of an
optimization problem, that is, the definition of a fitness function and which vari-
ables are associated in the process.
An FLC optimized by a metaheuristic algorithm represents a viable alternative
for several applications, as the solutions can be adapted to the optimization criteria
of these algorithms, thus allowing the specialist to develop an FLC to meet their
specific performance needs.

Abbreviations

FLC fuzzy logic control

MF membership function
PSO particle swarm optimization
GA genetic algorithm
TSK Takagi–Sugeno–Kang

11
Fuzzy Systems

Author details

Jeydson Lopes da Silva†

Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil

*Address all correspondence to: jeydson.lopes@ufpe.br

† These authors contributed equally.

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

12
Fuzzy Logic Control with PSO Tuning
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96297

References

[1] Chuen L. Fuzzy logic in control IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man,

systems: fuzzy logic controller. I. IEEE and Cybernetics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 404–
Transactions on Systems, Man, and 418, March–April 1990, doi: 10.1109/
Cybernetics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 404–418. 21.52551.
DOI: 10.1109/21.52551
[9] Zhou, et al.Optimized Fuzzy Logic
[2] Yahaya, S Z, Hussain Z, Boudville R, Control Strategy for Parallel Hybrid
Ahmad F, Taib M N. Optimization of FLC Electric Vehicle Based on Genetic
parameters for optimal control of FES- Algorithm. Applied Mechanics and
assisted elliptical stepping exercise using Materials, 274, 345–349. https://doi.org/
GA and PSO. 2014 IEEE International 10.4028/www.scientific.net/a
Conference on Control System, mm.274.345
Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE
2014), Batu Ferringhi, 2014, pp. 663–667. [10] P. Rajakumar, R. Saravanakumar.
DOI: 10.1109/ICCSCE.2014.7072801 Design of Fuzzy Logic Controller for
DSTATCOM. Advanced Materials
[3] Ronaldo A, Luis C, Davidson M, Research, vol. 905, Trans Tech
Jeydson S, Camila B, Andre A. An Publications, Ltd., Apr. 2014, pp. 401–
Emotional Controller PLC 405. Crossref, doi:10.4028/www.scie
Implementation for an Industrial Fan ntific.net/amr.905.401.
System. Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2016
International Joint Conference on, 2016. [11] Lamkhade P, Parvat B, Kadu C.
Design and implementation of fuzzy
[4] Arrofiq M, Saad N. A PLC-based logic controller for level control. 2015
Self-tuning PI-Fuzzy Controller for International Conference on Energy
Linear and Non-linear Drives Control. Systems and Applications, Pune, 2015,
2nd IEEE International Conference on pp. 475–479, DOI: 10.1109/
Power and Energy (PECon 08), ICESA.2015.7503395.
Malaysia, 2008.
[12] Katbab A. Fuzzy logic and controller
[5] Kennedy J, Eberhart R. Particle design-a review. Proceedings IEEE
swarm optimization. Proceedings of Southeastcon ‘95. Visualize the Future,
IEEE International Conference on Raleigh, NC, USA, 1995, pp. 443–449.
Neural Networks, p. 1942–1948, 1995. DOI: 10.1109/SECON.1995.513133.

[6] Saptarshi S, Sanchita B, Richard A P. [13] Shahraki A, Shahraki M, Mosavi M.

Particle Swarm Optimization: A Survey Design and simulation of a fuzzy
of Historical and Recent Developments controller for a busy intersection. 2013
with Hybridization Perspectives. International Conference on Computer
Journal of Machine Learning and Applications Technology (ICCAT),
Knowledge Extraction. DOI: 10.3390/ Sousse, 2013, pp. 1–6. DOI: 10.1109/
make1010010. ICCAT.2013.6521986.

[7] Juan L F M. A Brief Historical Review [14] Rahma A, Khemliche M. Combined

of Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO). approach between FLC and PSO to find
Journal of Bioinformatics and Intelligent the best MFs to improve the
Control 1(1):3–16 DOI: 10.1166/ performance of PV system. 2014
jbic.2012.1002. International Conference on Electrical
Sciences and Technologies in Maghreb
[8] C. C. Lee, “Fuzzy logic in control (CISTEM). doi:10.1109/
systems: fuzzy logic controller. I,” in cistem.2014.7077038

13
Fuzzy Systems

[15] Li P, Du X. A GA Optimization for

FLC with Its Rule Base and Scaling
Factors Adjustment. In: Huang DS.,
Li K., Irwin G.W. (eds) Computational
Intelligence. ICIC 2006. Lecture Notes
in Computer Science, vol 4114.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-540-37275-2_1

[16] Ogata K. Modern Control

Engineering, Prentice-Hall, 2003. ,
Prentice-Hall, 2003.

14