Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type

International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems

ARTICLE

Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controllers for Delta Parallel Robots Regular Paper

Xingguo Lu1* and Ming Liu1 1 Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang, *Corresponding author(s) E-mail: [email protected] Received 03 August 2015; Accepted 25 April 2016 DOI: 10.5772/63941 © 2016 Author(s). Licensee InTech. This is an open access article 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.

Abstract

1. Introduction

In this work, we propose a new method for the optimal design and tuning of a Proportional-Integral-Derivative type (PID-type) interval type-2 fuzzy logic controller (IT2 FLC) for Delta parallel robot trajectory tracking control. The presented methodology starts with an optimal design problem of IT2 FLC. A group of IT2 FLCs are obtained by blurring the membership functions using a variable called blurring degree. By comparing the performance of the controllers, the optimal structure of IT2 FLC is obtained. Then, a multi-objective optimization problem is formulated to tune the scaling factors of the PID-type IT2 FLC. The Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA-II) is adopted to solve the constrained nonlinear multi-objective optimization problem. Simulation results of the optimized controller are presented and discussed regarding applica‐ tion in the Delta parallel robot. The proposed method provides an effective way to design and tune the PID-type IT2 FLC with a desired control performance.

Fuzzy logic controllers have been commonly adopted in many areas of engineering over the last few decades [1-4]. This can be attributed to their linguistic-based structure, which does not need a precise mathematical model of the object and can handle the uncertainty of systems’ informa‐ tion [5-8]. Some researchers [9, 10] have proved that FLCs are more robust and their performance is less sensitive to parametric variations than conventional controllers. H Ying et al. proved that FLC is a nonlinear, variable param‐ eter controller, which can effectively control nonlinear, strong coupling with time-varying structure systems [11].

Keywords PID-type IT2 FLC, Blurring Degree, Scaling Factors, Multi-objective Optimization, NSGA-II

Due to the closed kinematic structure, Delta robots present better performance in accuracy, rigidity and payload capacity over their serial counterparts. All these advantag‐ es make this robot a good platform in many areas of engineering [12-15]. However, the Delta robot system is a kind of nonlinear, strong coupling system with timevarying parameters, and traditional controllers cannot provide a satisfactory control performance. So FLC is a good candidate to control such a robot effectively, some‐ thing that is much needed in engineering applications. Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

1

Generally speaking, three types of fuzzy controllers are widely used in process control systems: PI-, PD- and PIDtype FLCs [16]. PI-type FLCs are more commonly used than PD because they can eliminate steady-state errors [17]. PItype FLCs show satisfactory performance for linear firstorder systems, but poor performance for higher-order systems due to their integration operations. For improved performance, PID-type FLCs are preferred [18, 19]. It should be pointed out that for PID-type FLCs, it is difficult to obtain a 3-D rule base since they are beyond the sensing capability of human technicians. To form a PID-type FLC, researchers usually combine the PI- and PD-type FLCs or one PD-type FLC with an integrator and a summation unit at the output [20]. Recently, much work has been done by researchers to apply T2 FLC to many engineering areas [21-25], because this shows better performance than T1 counterparts. The fuzzy logic controller that contains at least one T2 fuzzy set is called T2 FLC. The T2 fuzzy set is characterized by its membership function, which itself is a fuzzy set [26]. The T2 fuzzy sets are three dimensional including primary membership and corresponding secondary membership. The additional uncertainty dimensions provide more degrees of freedom to directly handle dynamic uncertain‐ ties, so T2 FLC could achieve better control performance [27]. However, general type-2 FLCs are computationally intensive due to the type-reduction procedures, which restrict their application [28]. To reduce the computational burden, IT2 FLC is considered in this paper. When the secondary membership functions are either zero or one, the T2 FLCs are called IT2 FLCs. This constitutes a significant reduction in computational burden and a simplification of the controller’s design process.

presented. In Section 3, the background review of T2 FLC is provided and the design of the controller’s structure is carried out. The multi-objective optimization of the scaling factors of PID-type IT2 FLC is investigated in Section 4. Section 5 presents the simulation results and Section 6 gives the conclusions. 2. System Description of the Delta Parallel Robot The Delta robot designed at Harbin Institute of Technology is utilized for evaluating the controllers as shown in Figure 1. The Delta robot is a successfully commercialized indus‐ trial parallel robot invented by Dr. Clavel in 1985. As illustrated in Figure 2, the Delta robot system consists of three parallel kinematic chains. Each chain goes from the base platform (1 in Figure 2) to the travelling platform (5 in Figure 2), which is driven by a servo motor (2 in Figure 2) on the base platform. Motions of the base platform are transmitted to the travelling platform through the actuat‐ ing arms (3 in Figure 2) and the passive arms (4 in Figure 2). The passive arms are a parallelogram structure, which ensures the travelling platform remains parallel to the robot base. Due to the triple symmetrical structure, each chain of the robot can be treated separately. The structure parameters of the Delta robot are defined in Figure 3. We use the index i (i = 1, 2, 3) to identify the chain number. The three kinematic chains of the robot are separated by an angle of 120 ° from each other.

A systematic design method for T1 and T2 fuzzy controllers is still an open question. Many efforts have been made to design the controller structure and tune the scaling factors for both T1 and T2 fuzzy controllers [29-32]. However, there is very limited research on the systematic design method for PID-type IT2 FLCs [33-36]. In this study, an optimal design and tuning method was developed for PID-type IT2 FLCs applied to Delta parallel robots’ trajectory tracking control. The proposed method was broken into two steps as follows: i) construct an optimal structure of the IT2 FLC; and ii) tune the scaling factors of the PID-type IT2 FLC. In the first step, only one design parameter was used to design all the fuzzy membership functions of the entire IT2 FLC. This constitutes a significant simplification of the control‐ ler’s design process. In the second step, a multi-objective problem was carried out to tune the scaling factors of the PID-type IT2 FLC. The genetic algorithm NSGA-II was introduced to solve the multi-objective optimization problem. The effectiveness of the optimized controllers was evaluated on the trajectory tracking control of the Delta parallel robot. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the rigid-body dynamics of the Delta robot is 2

Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

Figure 1. Delta robot designed at Harbin Institute of Technology

where τ is the driving torque matrix of the actuating arms, I L is the inertia matrix of the actuating arms and the

motors, q is the vector of the actuating arm angles, J is the Jacobian matrix of the Delta robot, mn is the mass of the travelling plate and the payload, X n is the centre position

vector of the travelling platform, GL is the gravity vector of the actuating arms and Gn is the gravity vector of the

travelling platform. For more detailed derivation of the equations, please refer to [37]. Eq.(2) can be further simplified as: 3

 

Figure 2. Scheme of the Delta robot

 

Based on the virtual work principle, the rigid-body dynamic model of the Delta robot can be expressed as:

t = Aq&& + Tcc q& + Tg + åt M ,i i =1

where A is the inertia matrix: A = I L + J T mn J

3

3

i =1

i =1

t mn + åt L ,i + åt M ,i = 0

(1)

where τmn is the generalized force of the travelling platform, τL

(3)

(4)

T cc is the Coriolis/centripetal matrix:

Tcc = J T mn J&

(5)

,i is the generalized force of the actuating arm i, and τM ,i

is the generalized force of the passive arm i.

T g is the gravity vector:

By substituting the dynamic parameters of the Delta robot into Eq.(1), we get: 3

&& - G - J TG + t t = I Lq&& + J T mn X å M ,i n L n i =1

(2)

Tg = - J TGn - GL

(6)

In practice, the Coulomb friction and viscous friction of the robot joints cannot be neglected. Most of the frictions of the

Figure 3. Kinematic sketch of the Delta robot

 

Xingguo Lu and Ming Liu: Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot

3

Delta robot come from the actuating arm joints and the gear reducers connected to the joints, because they have relatively higher angular velocities and driving torques when the Delta robot is running. There are also frictions in the ball-and-socket passive joints in the passive arms, but since these angular velocities and torques are low, the frictions of the passive joints are negligible. So only the frictions of the actuating joins and the gear reducers are considered in this paper. The rigid-body dynamic equation of the Delta robot considering Coulomb and viscous frictions is obtained: 3

t = Aq&& + Tcc q& + Tg + åt M ,i + Fv q& + Fc sgn(q& ) i =1

%)= FOU( A

UJ

xÎX

(9)

x

The FOU of a T2 fuzzy set is illustrated in Figure 5. Observe that the FOU is bounded from above and below by two T1 fuzzy sets, which are called the upper membership function (UMF) and lower membership function (LMF).

 A ( x)  A ( x)

(7)

where F v is the viscous friction coefficient and F c is the

 A ( x)

vector of Coulomb friction.

3. PID-type IT2 Fuzzy Logic Controller Structure Design for the Delta Parallel Robot 3.1 Type-2 fuzzy logic controller The block diagram of a typical T2 FLC is depicted in Figure 4. When compared to its T1 FLC counterpart, the major difference between the two controllers is that there is at least one type-2 fuzzy set implemented in the T2 FLC. The character of T2 fuzzy set can overcome the limitations in the ability of T1 fuzzy sets to handle system uncertainties.

Figure 5. FOU of a T2 fuzzy set

3.2 Interval type-2 fuzzy logic controller The computational complexity and difficulty in implemen‐ tation restrict the application of type-2 fuzzy controllers. So the interval type-2 fuzzy logic controller is considered in this paper, for its computational inexpensiveness and ease ˜ can be expressed as of implementation. An IT2 fuzzy set A follows: % = A ò

ò

xÎX uÎ J x

1 / ( x , u)

(10)

Here, all the secondary membership grades of the IT2 fuzzy ˜ are equal to 1. This makes for substantial simplifica‐ set A tion when compared to general T2 fuzzy sets. Consider the rule base of an IT2 FLC consisting of N rules, which can be expressed as:

Figure 4. The structure of T2 fuzzy logic controller

˜ is characterized by a type-2 A typical type-2 fuzzy set A membership function μA˜ (x, u), which can be expressed as

follows:

ò

xÎX uÎ J x

m A% ( x , u) / ( x , u)

(8)

where x ∈ X and u ∈ J x ⊆ 0, 1 are the primary and secon‐ dary variables, and J x is the primary membership of x,

∫∫

denotes the union over all admissible x and u for continu‐ ous universes of discourse. For discrete universes of

∫ is replaced by ∑ . The union of all primary

memberships defines the Footprint-Of-Uncertainty (FOU) ˜ . The FOU can be expressed as: of the type-2 fuzzy set A 4

˜ n and B ˜ n (i = 1, 2, ..., I , n = 1, 2, ..., N ) are antecedent where A i

and consequent IT2 fuzzy sets, respectively. % = A ò

discourse

˜ n and … and x is A ˜ n , THEN y is B ˜ n. R n : IF x1 is A 1 I I

Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

To obtain a crisp output value, the typical computations of an interval type-2 fuzzy logic system usually consist of the following steps. 1.

The crisp input vector with I elements x = (x1, ..., xI ) is mapped into interval type-2 fuzzy sets.

2.

For rule n, the firing interval (F n (x)) is computed as follows:

F n ( x ) = éê m A% n ( x1 ) * ... * m A% n ( xI ), m A% n ( x1 ) * ... * m A% n ( xI ) ùú = éë f n , f n ùû I 1 I ë 1 û

(11)

e

Kp

e

Kd

E

U E

Ki 

Ku Ka

Figure 6. Control scheme   of the Delta robot system

 , Ku



e

Ku

U

Ku

e

 , Ku

e e

Kp

Kd

E

U E

Ki 

Ku Ka

  optimization procedure Figure 7. Design and where * denotes a general t-norm, the product t-norm is adopted in this paper.

where the switching points L and R can be calculated using the Karnik-Mendel (KM) algorithms [38].

3.

4.

Perform type-reduction procedure to get the typereduced set. In this paper, the centre-of-sets typereducer is considered. The type-reduced set can be computed as: N

Ycos ( x ) =

åf

U

f n ÎF n ( x ) y n ÎBn

n =1 N

n

åf

yn n

n

å f å

n

L

yl

n =1 L

= éë yl , yr ùû

(12)

n =1

yln + å n = L + 1 f n yln

R

yr =

N

f n + å n= L +1 f n N

n =1

n =1 L

n =1

yrn + å n = L + 1 f n yrn

(13)

N

f n + å n= L +1 f n N

y=

yl + yr 2

(15)

3.3 The structure design of IT2 FLC for the delta parallel robot

The centroid of the resulting IT2 output fuzzy set is an interval T1 fuzzy set, which can be described by its left and right end points yl and yr :

å f = å

The final crisp output can be computed as:

(14)

For most fuzzy controllers, the error and its time derivative are usually chosen as the inputs of the controllers. Howev‐ er, it is difficult for the fuzzy PD type controller to remove the steady-state error. For the purpose of improving the performance of the IT2 FLC to handle steady-state error and transient response at the same time, the PID-type IT2 FLC is proposed in this work. A schematic view of the PIDtype fuzzy logic control system connected to the robot platform is presented in Figure 6. In this paper, the inputs of the controller were designed using two trapezoidal interval type-2 fuzzy sets for describing the input signal error e(t) and its time derivative e˙ (t). The error was calculated as the difference between the actual and desired angle of the joint. The output of the controller u(t) was modelled using four triangular interval type-2 fuzzy sets {Y 1, Y 2, Y 3, Y 4}. The fuzzy rule base of the controller is:

Xingguo Lu and Ming Liu: Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot

5

˜˙ , THEN u is Y ˜ and e˙ is E R 1 : IF e is E −1 −1 ˜˙ , THEN u is Y ˜ and e˙ is E R 2 : IF e is E 1 −1

2

˜˙ , THEN u is Y ˜ and e˙ is E R : IF e is E 1 −1

3

3

˜˙ , THEN u is Y ˜ and e˙ is E R 4 : IF e is E 1 1

obtained by the method proposed by Lu et al. [40], for each α there is a K u corresponding to it. For each pair of α and

1

K u , a IT2 FLC with different structure can be formed. Then

the obtained set of PD-type IT2 FLCs is applied to the trajectory tracking control of the Delta parallel robot, and the trajectory is given in Eq. (16).

4

˜˙ and ˜ and E ˜ are the input IT2 fuzzy sets of e , E where E 1 −1 −1 ˜˙ are the input IT2 fuzzy sets of e˙ . E 1

ì p ï x = 0.1cos( 2 t + p) + 0.1 ï í y = 0.1sin( p t + p) ï 2 ï î z = -0.025sin(2 pt ) - 0.6769

Due to the complexity of the controller’s structure, we designed a two-step procedure to design and optimize the PID-type IT2 FLC as shown in Figure 7. In the first step, the structure of the IT2 FLC is designed without the scaling factors and the integral element. Then, the scaling factors are tuned based on a multi-objective evolutionary algo‐ rithm in the second step.

Figure 9 shows the recorded RMSE values of the three joints of the robot with different α and corresponding K u . It can be observed that when α = 0.5, the RMSE of the three joints have the minimum value and the robot shows the best tracking accuracy. So the optimized IT2 FLC structure is obtained by setting the blurring degree as 0.5 and K u as 44.

For simplicity, an identical value α is used to design all the input fuzzy membership functions of the entire IT2 FLC, which is called blurring degree. The value α is increased and decreased on the left and right side to determine how much the FOU is to be extended. Figure 8 illustrates the antecedent membership functions of the controller. From Hsiao’s work [39], we concluded that changing the width of the consequent sets does not significantly affect the controller’s responses, so only the antecedent IT2 fuzzy sets were tuned with the blurring degree during the first step.  E

1

 E

1

Figure 10 plots the membership functions of the optimized IT2 FLC.

8

x 10

-3

Joint1 Joint2 Joint3

6 E1

 E

RMSE

E 1

(16)

 E

1

4 2

1

 1 

E 1

0 0

 1   E

1

 E

1

0.2

0.4

1

1

E1 1

 E

E 1

E 1

E1

1

0.5

 1 

0.8

Figure 9. The RMSE values of the three joints with variable blurring degrees

1

 E

0.6



 1 

0 -1.5

E1

0.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

0 -1.5

Y1

Y2

Y3

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

1

    antecedent membership functions for (a) input Figure 8. Illustrations of the

 

e˙ and (b) input e

To obtain the optimal value of α , the scaling factor K i is set

to zero and K a, K p , K d are set to one during the first tuning

procedure. By changing the value of α we can get a group of IT2 FLCs with different antecedent membership func‐ tions. When the membership functions are blurred, the controller could not provide enough output control signal when adopting the same inputs [40]. So the value K u is also

tuned in this step to overcome this issue. The value of K u is 6

Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

Y4

0.5

0 -1.5

 

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

  Figure 10. The membership functions: (a) error input sets (b) error derivative input sets (c) output sets

Figure 11 depicts the output control surfaces of different blurring degrees. Due to space limitations, only the most representative three control surfaces are selected. It can be observed that when α = 0.5, IT2 FLC offers substantially smoother control performance than other values.

 

1 0.5

out

out

0

-0.5

Output

1 0.5 Output

out

Output

1 0.5

0

-0.5

-1 2

-1 2 0

e

Input2

-2

-2

-1

0

1

e

Input1

0 -0.5 -1 2

2 0

e

-2

Input2

-2

-1

0

1

2 0

e

e

Input2

Input1

-2

-2

-1

0

1

Input1

 

  control surface when: (a) α=0, (b) α=0.5 and (c) α=1 Figure 11. The output 4. Multi-objective Optimization of the Scaling Factors of PID-Type IT2 FLC 4.1 Multi-objective optimization and NSGA-II The process of optimizing a mathematical problem ex‐ pressed systematically and simultaneously involving a collection of objective functions is called multi-objective optimization. It is a kind of multiple-criteria decision making and usually has a set of optimal solutions. Mathe‐ matically speaking, a multi-objective optimization problem consists of optimizing a vector of functions:

sorting genetic algorithm with an elitist strategy, especially for multi-objective optimization. Figure 12 shows the process of NSGA-II, and the algorithm used in this work can be stated as: 1.

gi ( x ) £ 0, i = 1,2,K , q ,

h j ( x ) = 0, j = 1,2,K , r.

2.

(17)

the set of feasible solutions, F (x) is the vector of objectives, f i : I R n → IR, i = 1, 2, … , k are the objective functions and gi , h j : I R → IR,

Using crossover, mutation and selection operations to create an offspring population Q0 with the population

size N . 3.

Combine the offspring and parent population to form extended population Rn with the population size of 2N .

where x = (x1, x2, … , xn )T ∈ X is the decision variable, X is

n

Generate a uniformly distributed parent population P0 with the population size N .

Opt( F( x )) = ( f1 ( x ), f2 ( x ),K , f k ( x )) subject to:

2

e

i=1,2,…q, j=1,2,…,r are the constraint

functions of the problem.

4.

Sort the extended population based on non-domina‐ tion.

5.

Choose the best N individuals from the sorting result to form a new parent population Pn+1.

6.

Create the new offspring population Qn+1.

7.

Repeat the steps (3) to (6) until a stopping criterion is met.

The concept used in single-objective optimization prob‐ lems is usually not applicable in multi-objective optimiza‐ tion problems. For this reason, a class of definitions is introduced in terms of Pareto optimality, according to the following definitions [41]. In terms of minimization of objective functions: Definition 1. Pareto optimal: A point, x * ∈ X , is Pareto optimal if there does not exist another point, x ∈ X , such that F (x) ≤ F (x *) , and f i (x) < f i (x *) for at least one function. Definition 2. Pareto dominance: A vector of objective func‐ tions, F (x *) ∈ Z , is non-dominated if there does not exist another vector, F (x) ∈ Z , such that F (x) ≤ F (x *) with at least one   f i (x) < f i (x *) . Otherwise, F (x *) is dominated. Definition 3. Pareto set: A set of non-dominated feasible solutions is said to be a Pareto set. Definition 4. Pareto front: The image of a Pareto set in the objective space is called a Pareto front. In this paper, we chose a Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II) to find the Pareto solutions for multi-objective optimization. It is a fast non-dominated

Figure 12. Procedure of the NSGA-II algorithm

4.2 Multi-objective optimization of the scaling factors The goal of multi-objective optimization is to determine the scaling factors of the PID-type IT2 FLC to achieve a desirable control performance. As depicted in Figure 7, there are four scaling factors to be tuned at the second step, so the decision variables of the multi-objective problem can be defined as:

Xingguo Lu and Ming Liu: Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot

7

x = éë K p , Kd , Ki , K a ùû

T

(18)

There are two optimization objectives we will take into account simultaneously in NSGA-II: (i) minimization of the position errors of the three joints ( f 1) and (ii) minimization

of the mean value of the torques provided by the three motors ( f 2).

é f ( x ) = tf t e (t ) dt + tf t e (t ) dt + tf t e (t ) dt ù ò0 1 ò0 2 ò0 3 ê 1 ú ê ú min F( x ) = min ê T dW T dW T dW ú òW 1 + òW 2 + òW 3 ê f2 ( x ) = ú dW dW dW ê ú òW òW òW ë û

Subject to: ì10 £ K p £ 70 ï ï0 £ K d £ 5 ïï0 £ Ki £ 5 í ï0 £ K a £ 5 ï f £ 10 ï 1 ïî f2 £ 20

In this paper, integral of time-weighted-absolute-error (ITAE) is adopted as the first objective function to evaluate the position errors of the joints. Since there are three joints of the Delta robot, the first objective function can be defined as: tf

tf

tf

0

0

0

f1 = ò t e1 (t ) dt + ò t e2 (t ) dt + ò t e3 (t ) dt

(19)

where e1, e2 and e3 are the errors of the three joints. We need f 1 to be minimized for it represents the robot

having the best tracking accuracy. If the mean values of the torques provided by the motors are minimized during the trajectory tracking operation, the energy consumption of the robot will be reduced, which is very necessary in engineering applications. So the second objective function is given by:

f2 =

ò

T1 dW

W

ò

W

dW

+

ò

T2 dW

W

ò

W

dW

+

ò

T3 dW

W

ò

W

dW

(20)

(23)

(24)

5. Simulation Results and Discussion The multi-objective optimization was carried out in a desired trajectory given in Eq.(16). NSGA-II was imple‐ mented using MATLAB with the population=200, and generation=200. Figure 13 shows the Pareto front of the multi-objective scaling factors’ optimization results obtained by NSGA-II. Table 1 shows the Pareto optimal solutions of the optimization. It is noticed that there is a trade-off between tracking accuracy and energy consump‐ tion. In other words, if we want to have a smaller tracking error, the mean values of the torques will be larger, which means the robot will use more energy to do the same work and vice versa.

12

where T 1, T 2 and T 3 are the torques of the three joints on

11.95

each sampling point, and W is the whole sampling points on the trajectory.

11.9

The search ranges of the scaling factors are set as: f2

11.85

ì10 £ K p £ 70 ï ï0 £ K d £ 5 í ï0 £ K i £ 5 ï0 £ K £ 5 a î

11.8

(21)

11.75

11.7

To improve the computational efficiency, the objective functions should follow the following constrains:

11.65 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5 f1

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Figure 13. The Pareto front obtained by NSGA-II

ìï f1 £ 10 í ïî f2 £ 20

(22)

From Eq.(18-22), the multi-objective optimization problem of tuning the scaling factors of the PID-type IT2 FLC can be formulated as follows: Find a vector x * = K p*, K d*, K i*, K a* 8

T

that verifies:

Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

The scaling factors with minimum f 1 and minimum f 2 are

presented in Table 2. Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the errors and torques of the three joints of the Delta robot when tracking the desired trajectory with the scaling factors in Table 2. It can be seen from the figures that the controller shows different behaviour when adopting different tuned scaling factors. When the errors of the joints are minimized, the desired torques of the three motors are

0.015

20

Joint1 Joint2 Joint3

0.01

2

10

0.005

3

5 Torque(N)

Error(rad)

1

15

0 -0.005

0 -5 -10 -15

-0.01 -20

-0.015

0

1

2 Time(s)

3

-25

4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2 Time(s)

2.5

3

3.5

4

Figure 14. Response of the robot with PID type IT2 FLC with minimum f1

larger at the beginning of the motion. A larger torque means the robot has a faster response and higher accuracy. On the contrary, when the minimized torque-scaling factors are applied to the controller, the mean value of the torque is smaller, which means less energy is needed when the robot finishes the same operation. However, the tracking accu‐ racy will decrease. It also can be observed from Figure 13-15 that, in the Pareto solutions, torque changes less than the errors ( f 1 is in the range of 0.2673 to 4.5401 and f 2 is in the range of 11.6663 to 11.9733), which means if we want to reduce energy consumption by reducing the mean torque of the motors in a given trajectory, the tracking accuracy will decrease more quickly. Once the trajectory of the Delta robot is given, it is difficult to optimize energy by tuning the controller’s scaling factors.

An optimized PID controller used to control the Delta robot [42] is adopted to compare the trajectory tracking control performance with PID-type IT2 FLC proposed in this paper. Here, the Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm is used to tune the parameters of the PID controller. The position of each particle is represented by the proportional, integral and derivative gains of the PID controller. The fitness function of the PSO algorithm is chosen the same as in Eq.(19). The response of the Delta robot using an optimized PID controller is presented in Figure 16. From Figure 14-16, we can see that the PID-type IT2 FLC has much higher control precision than the optimized PID controller, but the control torque is slightly larger than its PID counterpart (whether use the scaling factors with minimum f 1 or minimum f 2). Compared with the regularly used PID controller, the PID-type IT2 FLC designed in this work can provide a better control perform‐ ance in Delta robot trajectory tracking control. This obser‐ vation can be explained by the characteristics of the IT2 FLC. Analysis has shown that the IT2 FLC can be seen as a PI controller with variable gains [43], which can effectively control the nonlinear and strong coupling systems, such as the Delta robot, compared with the regular optimized PID controller.

No.

Kp

Kd

Ki

Ka

f1

f2

1

10.2423

0.2419

0.3440

0.7715

0.2673

11.9733

2

10.0014

0.0807

0.0160

0.5000

4.5401

11.6663

3

10.2366

0.2422

0.3244

0.7703

0.2688

11.9556

4

10.0148

0.2008

0.1914

0.7876

0.4305

11.8495

5

10.0125

0.2038

0.1791

0.7817

0.4541

11.8421

196

10.0032

0.3267

0.1488

0.5952

0.6949

11.7859

197

10.0057

0.3120

0.1403

0.5919

0.7515

11.7760

198

10.5219

0.3095

0.1613

0.5951

0.5998

11.8073

199

10.0301

0.2357

0.2762

0.7719

0.2988

11.9180

200

10.0048

0.3140

0.1334

0.5659

0.8851

11.7569

…

Table 1. Results of the multi-objective optimization

Results

Kp

Kd

Ki

Ka

f1

f2

Min f 1

10.2423

0.2419

0.3440

0.7715

0.2673

11.9733

Min f 2

10.0014

0.0807

0.0160

0.5000

4.5401

11.6663

Table 2. Results of minimum f1 and f2

We can also objectively choose other values in the Pareto solutions according to the design requirements. For example, if we want to get a small trajectory tracking error but not too much average torque during the operation, the solution with a relatively small f 1 is selected: K p = 10.0184,

K d = 0.3242, K i = 0.1838, K a = 0.6394. The simulation results are

shown in Figure 17, we can see that the errors and torques create some trade-offs with each other, so we get a control‐ ler with different control behaviour: an acceptable accuracy and not too much torque. However, we cannot say that one solution is better than the others, because each solution is a trade-off between the two objective functions. The final choice of solutions can be made according to specific requirements of engineering applications.

Xingguo Lu and Ming Liu: Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot

9

0.01

6 1

0.005

2

4

0

3

Torque(N)

Error(rad)

2

-0.005 -0.01 -0.015

-2 -4

-0.02 Joint1 Joint2 Joint3

-0.025 -0.03

0

0

1

2 Time(s)

-6

3

-8 0

4

0.5

1

1.5

2 Time(s)

2.5

3

3.5

4

Figure 15. Response of the robot with PID-type IT2 FLC with minimum f2

4

0.005

-0.005

3

0

-0.01

-2

-0.015

-4

-0.02

-6

-0.025

2

2

Torque(N)

Error(rad)

0

 

1

Joint1 Joint2 Joint3

0

1

2 Time(s)

3

-8

4

0

0.5

1

1.5

2 Time(s)

2.5

3

3.5

4

Figure 16. Response of the robot with an optimized PID controller

0.01

10

Joint1 Joint2 Joint3

0.005

1 2

5

3

0

Torque(N)

Error(rad)

0

-0.005

-5 -10

-0.01

-0.015

-15

0

1

2 Time(s)

3

4

-20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2 Time(s)

2.5

3

3.5

4

Figure 17. Response of the robot with a relatively small f1

6. Conclusions In this paper, we presented a systematic procedure for optimal design and tuning of a PID-type IT2 FLC. Due to the complexity of the controller’s structure, the procedure was broken into two steps. In the first step, a variable called the blurring degree was introduced to find the optimal structure of IT2 FLC. In the second step, based on the two objective functions we have defined, the multi-objective 10

Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

optimization problem of determining the controller’s scaling factors was formulated. Then the NSGA-II algo‐ rithm was adopted to solve the multi-objective optimiza‐ tion problem. To evaluate the method, we applied it to the problem of trajectory tracking control of Delta parallel robot. The proposed approach gives a good approximation of Pareto optimal solutions, and each solution is a compro‐ mise between the two objective functions. Simulation results show that by using different scaling factors obtained

in the second step, the PID-type IT2 FLC shows different control behaviours, but all of them provide better control performance than the regularly used PID controller. We believe that the proposed methodology can be a good alternative to solve optimal design problems of similar type IT2 FLCs. 7. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the editors and unnamed reviewers for their valuable comments. 8. References [1] M. Yahyaei, J. E. Jam and R. Hosnavi, "Controlling the navigation of automatic guided vehicle (AGV) using integrated fuzzy logic controller with pro‐ grammable logic controller (IFLPLC)—stage 1," The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 47, pp. 795-807, 2010. [2] Z. Xia, J. Li and J. Li, "Delay-dependent non-fragile H∞ filtering for uncertain fuzzy systems based on switching fuzzy model and piecewise Lyapunov function," International Journal of Automation and Computing, vol. 7, pp. 428-437, 2010. [3] K. Su, S. Huang and C. Yang, "Development of Robotic Grasping Gripper Based on Smart Fuzzy Controller," International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 2015. [4] V. B. Nguyen and A. S. Morris, "Genetic Algorithm Tuned Fuzzy Logic Controller for a Robot Arm with Two-link Flexibility and Two-joint Elasticity," Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, vol. 49, pp. 3-18, 2007. [5] S. R. S. Abdullah, M. M. Mustafa, R. A. Rahman, T. O. S. Imm, and H. A. Hassan, "A fuzzy logic controller of two-position pump with time-delay in heavy metal precipitation process," in Pattern Analysis and Intelligent Robotics (ICPAIR), 2011 International Conference on, Putrajaya, 2011, pp. 171-176. [6] R. M. Hilloowala and A. Sharaf, "A rule-based fuzzy logic controller for a PWM inverter in a standalone wind energy conversion scheme," Industry Appli‐ cations, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 32, pp. 57-65, 1996-01-01 1996. [7] N. Kehtarnavaz, E. Nakamura, N. Griswold, and J. Yen, "Autonomous vehicle following by a fuzzy logic controller," in Fuzzy Information Processing Society Biannual Conference, 1994. Industrial Fuzzy Control and Intelligent Systems Conference, and the NASA Joint Technology Workshop on Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic, San Antonio, TX, 1994, pp. 333-337. [8] E. Pathmanathan and R. Ibrahim, "Development and implementation of Fuzzy Logic Controller for Flow Control Application," in Intelligent and

Advanced Systems (ICIAS), 2010 International Conference on, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2010, pp. 1-6. [9] S. T. Wierzchon, "Intelligent control: Aspects of fuzzy logic and neural nets: by C.J. HARRIS, C.G. MOORE and M. BROWN; World Scientific Series in Robotics and Automated Systems; World Scientific; Singapore; 1993; xx + 380 pp.; $53-00; ISBN: 981-02-1042-6," Control Engineering Practice, vol. 3, pp. 745–746, 1995. [10] R. Palm, "Sliding mode fuzzy control," IEEE Conference Proceeding, pp. 519 - 526, 1992. [11] H. Ying, W. Siler and J. J. Buckley, "Fuzzy controltheory - A nonlinear case," Automatica, vol. 26, pp. 513-520, 1990. [12] O. Linda and M. Manic, "Evaluating uncertainty resiliency of Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controllers for parallel delta robot," in Human System Interactions (HSI), 2011 4th International Conference on, Yokohama, 2011, pp. 91-97. [13] B. P. Shi, S. K. Han, S. Changyong, and K. Kyungh‐ wan, "Dynamics modeling of a Delta-type parallel robot (ISR 2013)," in Robotics (ISR), 2013 44th International Symposium on, Seoul, 2013, pp. 1-5. [14] J. Hirano, D. Tanaka, T. Watanabe, and T. Naka‐ mura, "Development of delta robot driven by pneumatic artificial muscles," in Advanced Intelli‐ gent Mechatronics (AIM), 2014 IEEE/ASME Inter‐ national Conference on, Besacon, 2014, pp. 1400-1405. [15] M. Afroun, T. Chettibi and S. Hanchi, "Planning Optimal Motions for a DELTA Parallel Robot," in Control and Automation, 2006. MED '06. 14th Mediterranean Conference on, Ancona, 2006, pp. 1-6. [16] R. K. Mudi and N. R. Pal, "A robust self-tuning scheme for PI- and PD-type fuzzy controllers," IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 7, pp. 2-16, 1999. [17] F. G. Shinskey, "Process control systems: applica‐ tion, design, and tuning," Process Control Systems Application Design & Tuning, 1988. [18] J. H. Kim and S. J. Oh, "A fuzzy PID controller for nonlinear and uncertain systems," Soft Computing, vol. 4, pp. 123-129, 2000-07-01 2000. [19] Z. Q. Wu and M. Mizumoto, "PID type fuzzy controller and parameters adaptive method," Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 78, pp. 23-35, 1996-02-26 1996. [20] B. M. Mohan and A. Sinha, "Analytical structure and stability analysis of a fuzzy PID controller," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 8, pp. 749-758, 2008-01-01 2008. [21] H. A. Hagras, "A hierarchical type-2 fuzzy logic control architecture for autonomous mobile robots,"

Xingguo Lu and Ming Liu: Optimal Design and Tuning of PID-type Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot

11

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26] [27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

12

Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 12, pp. 524-539, 2004-01-01 2004. M. Biglarbegian, W. W. Melek and J. M. Mendel, "On the Stability of Interval Type-2 TSK Fuzzy Logic Control Systems," Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B: Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 40, pp. 798-818, 2010-01-01 2010. M. Tinkir, U. Onen, M. Kalyoncu, and F. M. Botsali, "PID and interval type-2 fuzzy logic control of double inverted pendulum system," in Computer and Automation Engineering (ICCAE), 2010 The 2nd International Conference on, Singapore, 2010, pp. 117-121. S. A. Zaheer and K. Jong-Hwan, "Type-2 fuzzy airplane altitude control: A comparative study," in Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ), 2011 IEEE International Conference on, Taipei, 2011, pp. 2170-2176. L. Ping-Zong, H. Chun-Fei and Tsu-Tian Lee, "Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller Design for Buck DC-DC Converters," in Fuzzy Systems, 2005. FUZZ '05. The 14th IEEE International Conference on, Reno, NV, 2005, pp. 365-370. J. M. Mendel, "Uncertain rule-based fuzzy logic system: introduction and new directions," 2001. J. M. Mendel, R. I. John and L. Feilong, "Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Systems Made Simple," Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 14, pp. 808-821, 2006-01-01 2006. L. Qilian and J. M. Mendel, "Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems: theory and design," Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 8, pp. 535-550, 2000-01-01 2000. R. Martínez, O. Castillo and L. T. Aguilar, "Optimi‐ zation of interval type-2 fuzzy logic controllers for a perturbed autonomous wheeled mobile robot using genetic algorithms," Information Sciences, vol. 179, pp. 2158-2174, 2009-06-13 2009. O. Castillo, L. Aguilar, N. Cázarez, and S. Cárdenas, "Systematic design of a stable type-2 fuzzy logic controller," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 8, pp. 1274-1279, 2008-06-01 2008. J. C. Cortes-Rios, E. Gomez-Ramirez, H. A. Ortizde-la-Vega, O. Castillo, and P. Melin, "Optimal design of interval type 2 fuzzy controllers based on a simple tuning algorithm," Applied Soft Comput‐ ing, vol. 23, pp. 270-285, 2014-10-01 2014. M. Hsiao, T. S. Li, J. Z. Lee, C. H. Chao, and S. H. Tsai, "Design of interval type-2 fuzzy sliding-mode

Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2016, 13:96 | doi: 10.5772/63941

controller," Information Sciences, vol. 178, pp. 1696-1716, 2008-03-15 2008. [33] A. M. El-Nagar and M. El-Bardini, "Derivation and stability analysis of the analytical structures of the interval type-2 fuzzy PID controller," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 24, pp. 704-716, 2014-11-01 2014. [34] D. T. Liem, D. Q. Truong and K. K. Ahn, "A torque estimator using online tuning grey fuzzy PID for applications to torque-sensorless control of DC motors," Mechatronics, vol. 26, pp. 45-63, 2015-03-01 2015. [35] Y. Maldonado, O. Castillo and P. Melin, "A multiobjective optimization of type-2 fuzzy control speed in FPGAs," Applied Soft Computing, vol. 24, pp. 1164-1174, 2014-11-01 2014. [36] J. Kacprzyk, W. Pedrycz, T. Kumbasar, and H. Hagras, "Interval Type-2 Fuzzy PID Controllers," in Springer Handbook of Computational Intelligence, J. Kacprzyk and W. Pedrycz, Eds.: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2015, pp. 285-294. [37] A. Codourey, "Dynamic Modeling of Parallel Robots for Computed-Torque Control Implementa‐ tion," The International Journal of Robotics Re‐ search, vol. 17, pp. 1325 -1336, 1998-12-01 1998. [38] W. Dongrui and J. M. Mendel, "Enhanced Karnik-Mendel Algorithms," Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Trans‐ actions on, vol. 17, pp. 923-934, 2009-01-01 2009. [39] M. Hsiao, T. S. Li, J. Z. Lee, C. H. Chao, and S. H. Tsai, "Design of interval type-2 fuzzy sliding-mode controller," Information Sciences, vol. 178, pp. 1696-1716, 2008-03-15 2008. [40] X. Lu, M. Liu and J. Liu, "Design and Optimization of Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controller for Delta Parallel Robot Trajectory Control," International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. In press. [41] E. Zitzler, M. Laumanns and S. Bleuler, "A tutorial on evolutionary multiobjective optimization," in Metaheuristics for multiobjective optimisation: Springer, 2004, pp. 3-37. [42] L. Xingguo and L. Ming, "A fuzzy logic controller tuned with PSO for delta robot trajectory control," in Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2015 - 41st Annual Conference of the IEEE, 2015, pp. 4345-4351. [43] D. Wu, "On the fundamental differences between interval type-2 and type-1 fuzzy logic controllers," Fuzzy Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 20, pp. 832-848, 2012.