ELECTRIC POWER STEERING SYSTEM

FOR VEHICLES USING COMPUTATIONAL

INTELLIGENT TECHNIQUE

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

KARTHIK P

in partial fulfillment of the requirement

for the award of the degree

of

MASTER OF ENGINEERING

in

POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

K.S. RANGASAMY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

(An Autonomous Institution, affiliated to Anna University Chennai and Approved by
AICTE, New Delhi)

TIRUCHENGODE – 637 215

DECEMBER 2022
 ii

K.S. RANGASAMY COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY

TIRUCHENGODE - 637 215

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE

Certified that this project report titled “ELECTRIC POWER STEERING

SYSTEM FOR VEHICLES USING COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENT
TECHNIQUE” is the bonafide work of KARTHIK P (73772138102) who carried out
the project under my supervision. Certified further, that to the best of my knowledge
the work reported herein does not form part of any other project report or dissertation
on the basis of which a degree or award was conferred on an earlier occasion on this or
any other candidate.

SIGNATURE SIGNATURE
Dr. G. VIJAYAGOWRI, M.E., Ph. D., Dr. M.K. ELANGO, M.E. Ph.D.,
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR
Professor and Head Professor
Department of Electrical and Electronics Department of Electrical and Electronics
Engineering Engineering
K.S. Rangasamy College of Technology K. S. Rangasamy College of Technology
Tiruchengode - 637 215 Tiruchengode - 637 215

Submitted for the viva-voce examination held on ………………

Internal Examiner External Examiner

 iii

DECLARATION

I declare that the project report on “ELECTRIC POWER STEERING

SYSTEM FOR VEHICLES USING COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENT
TECHNIQUE” is the result of original work done by me and best of my knowledge,
similar work has not been submitted to “ANNA UNIVERSITY CHENNAI” for the
requirement of Degree of Master of Engineering. This project report is submitted on the
partial fulfilment of the requirement of the award of Degree of Master of Engineering.

Signature

____________________
KARTHIK P

Place: Tiruchengode

Date:
 iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to express our sincere gratitude to my honourable Correspondent

Late Lion Dr. K. S. RANGASAMY, M.J.F., for providing immense facilities at our
institution.

I would like to express special thanks of gratitude to my Chief Executive Officer

Dr. K. THYAGARAJAH, M.E., Ph.D., who has been the key spring of motivation to us
throughout the completion of our course and project work.

I very proudly rendering my thanks to my Principal

Dr. R. GOPALAKRISHNAN, M.E., Ph.D., for the facilities and the encouragement given by him
to the progress and completion of our project.

I regard my sincere and heartfelt thanks to my Dean School of Electrical Sciences

Dr. K. B. JAYANTHI, M.E., Ph.D., who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful
project.

I proudly render my immense gratitude to the Head of the Department

Dr. G. VIJAYA GOWRI, M.E., Ph.D., for her effective leadership, encouragement and
guidance in the project.

I regard my sincere and heartfelt thanks to my project coordinator

Mr. T. VENKATESAN, M.E., Ph.D., Professor for his effective coordination and motivation
to complete our project work in time.

I highly indebted to provide my heart full thanks to my supervisor

Dr. M. K. ELANGO, M.E., Ph.D., Professor for his valuable ideas, encouragement and
supportive guidance throughout the project.

I wish to extend my sincere thanks to all faculty members of my Electrical and

Electronics Engineering Department for their valuable suggestions, kind co-operation and
constant encouragement for successful completion of this project.

I wish to acknowledge the help received from various Departments and various
individuals during the preparation and editing stages of the manuscript.
 v

ABSTRACT

The steering system in autonomous vehicles is an essential issue that must be

addressed. Appropriate control will result in a smooth and risk-free steering system.
Compared to other types of controls, type-2 fuzzy logic control has the advantage of
dealing with uncertain inputs, which are common in autonomous vehicles. This paper
proposes a novel method for the steering control of autonomous vehicles based on type-
2 fuzzy logic control combined with PI control. The primary control, type-2 fuzzy logic
control, has three inputs-distance, navigation, and speed. The fuzzy system’s output is
the steering angle value. This was used as input for the secondary control, PI control.
This control is in charge of adjusting the motor’s position as a manifestation of the
steering angle. The study results applied to the EPS system of autonomous vehicles
revealed that type-2 fuzzy logic control and PI control produced better and smoother
control than type-1 fuzzy logic control and PI. The slightest disturbance in the type-1
fuzzy logic control showed a significant change in steering, while this did not occur in
the type-2 fuzzy logic control. The results indicate that type-2 fuzzy logic control and
PI control could be used for autonomous vehicles by maintaining the comfort and safety
of the users.
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO.

ABSTRACT v

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi

1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT 2
1.3 OBJECTIVE 2
1.4 NOVELTY OF THE PROJECT WORK 2
1.5 OUTLINE OF THE PROJECT 2
1.6 SUMMARY 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 INTRODUCTION 4
2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE SURVEY 4
2.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW 5

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 6

3.1 INTRODUCTION 6
3.2 BLOCK DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED SYSTEM 6
3.2.1 WORKING OF PROPOSED BLOCK DIAGRAM 6
3.3 SUMMARY 7
4.1 INTRODUCTION 8
4.2 LABVIEW SIMULATION DIAGRAM 8
4.3 SUMMARY 13

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 14

 vii

5.1 INTRODUCTION 14
5.2 RESULT 14
5.3 SUMMARY 25

5 CONCLUSION 26
6.1 CONCLUSION 26
6.2 FUTURE SCOPE 26

REFERENCES 27
 viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

NO. NO.

5.1 Control parameter for secondary control 6

5.2 Control parameter for Ziegler Nichols method 15

 ix

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

NO. NO.

3.1 Block diagram of proposed system 6

4.1 LabVIEW Simulation diagram 9

4.2 Input of system 9

4.3 System output at speed 10 km/hr 10

4.4 System output at speed 20 km/hr 10

4.5 System output at speed 30 km/hr 10

4.6 System output at speed 40 km/hr 10

5.1 Simulation diagram of motor control system 16

5.2 Oscillation output 16

5.3 Output of PI controller 17

5.4 Output of PD controller 17

5.5 Output of PID controller 17

5.6 Position control response to the up down up input signal 18

5.7 Simulation result for output signal generator at the speed of 10

km/hr 19

5.8 Simulation result for output signal generator at the speed of 20

km/hr 19
 x

5.9 Simulation result for output signal generator at the speed of 30

km/hr 20

5.10 Simulation result for output signal generator at the speed of 40

km/hr 20

5.11 FLC system input for vehicle steering disturbances 21

5.12 System output using Type 1 FLC and PI controller 22

5.13 System output using Type 2 FLC and PI controller 22

5.14 System output using Type 2 FLC and PD controller 23

5.15 Pulse variation on steering with load variation of motor shaft 24

 xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS

EPS - Electric Power Steering

FLC - Fuzzy Logic Controller

PD - Proportional Derivative

PI Proportional Integral

PID - Proportional Integral Derivative

 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Humans are currently very dependent on modes of transportation to meet their needs,
resulting in a rapidly growing number of vehicles on the road. According to WHO data, road
accidents kill 1.3 million people each year. Therefore, it is necessary to be careful when driving
a car. One solution to overcome this issue is to use an autonomous vehicle. With advanced
features, this kind of vehicle can take someone to their destination with high navigation
accuracy, optimal vehicle speed, and maintained comfort. Due to these benefits, many studies
have been conducted dealing with autonomous vehicles. PID control has been used in vehicle
steering control studies. Closed-loop control generated smoother results than open-loop
control. The application of adaptive PID control to high-power servo motors was also used for
autonomous vehicle steering. Robust-PID control worked well on a midsized sedan, allowing
it to follow the intended path. PID control was also used to control the yaw rate and sideslip in
lateral control. A vehicle is made up of a series of subsystems.

These subsystems include the engine propulsion subsystem, steering subsystem,

braking subsystem, and others. It is a complex and nonlinear system. Controlling a system and
analysing the results require the use of mathematical modelling. Meanwhile, creating a vehicle
model is not an easy task. The solution to this problem is to employ artificial intelligence.
Unlike conventional controls, these modern controls do not require complicated modelling.
Apart from being able to follow a predetermined path, an autonomous vehicle’s stability factor
while running remains essential. A study on lateral control used a neural network to maintain
yaw stability by minimizing the angle of deviation.
 2

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

 In Manual steering needs more steering effort.

 Steering accuracy is very low.
 Creates more collision not suitable for autonomous vehicles

1.3 OBJECTIVE

 To reduce the steering effort lateral vehicle model based on kinematics

were studied and analysed
 To develop computational technique for achieving better steering
accuracy

1.4 NOVELTY OF THE PROJECT WORK

 Accurate optimization and computational technique is proposed to

implement smooth and risk free electric power steering system.
 Steering accuracy is increased to steer at very fast rate.
 Best control technique was introduced to reduce collision and make it
suitable for all vehicles, trucks, autonomous drives.

1.5 OUTLINE OF THE PROJECT

The whole project paper is sorted out into six chapters. The description in each part
will be as for the following:

CHAPTER 2: Gives an information that is collected from various journals

related to the project.

CHAPTER 3: Describes about the materials and methods used in this project.

CHAPTER 4: Furnished with LABVIEW and simulation circuit of this

proposed system.

CHAPTER 5: Shows the result of the designed circuit.

CHAPTER 6: Presents the conclusion of the project

 3

1.6 SUMMARY

This chapter explains the problem statement of the project and gives the basic
introduction of the project. This introduction shares the helpful information to know
about the objectives of the project. Finally, it provides the guidelines to the report.
 4

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The literature survey deals with the previous works done by different authors in
the same field using different methods. The major works has implemented the error free
steering mechanism system.

2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE SURVEY

The purpose of the literature review is to provide the general overview of the
project. It helps to gain an understanding of the existing research and debates correlated
to a particular area of study. Literature review provides the overview of this project.

Amer, N.H et al, have published Z.A. Modelling and Control Strategies in Path
Tracking Control for Autonomous Ground Vehicles. The control strategies usually
employed in path tracking control, and the performance criteria used to evaluate the
controller's performance. The several promising advancement is proposed with the main
prospect is focused on adaptive geometric controller developed on a nonlinear vehicle
model

Chandni, C.K et al have published Vision based closed loop PID controller design
and implementation for autonomous car. Steering control subsystem constitutes a PWM
motor, driving a steering linkage that eventually steers the front axle of the car.The closed loop
PID controlling enables accurate steering control and hence efficient path tracking

Zhao, P et al., have published Design of a Control System for an Autonomous

Vehicle Based on Adaptive-PID. The autonomous vehicle is a mobile robot integrating multi-
sensor navigation and positioning, intelligent decision making and control technology. A two
degree-of-freedom dynamic model is developed to formulate the path-tracking problem in state
space format.
 5

Surendharan, S. and Jennifer Ranjani, J. have published Environment conscious

automated vehicle navigation system using PID controller. The driverless car is a vehicle
that is accomplished by identifying its environment and steering without a car driver
autonomous vehicles are designed to travel between the destinations by keeping the vehicles
on a lane even when the traffic conditions change.

Marino, R et al., have published PID steering control for lane keeping in
autonomous vehicles. A PI active front steering control based on the yaw rate tracking error
is used to improve the vehicle steering dynamics. The yaw rate reference is computed by an
external control loop which is designed using a PID control with a double integral action based
on the lateral offset.

2.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM THE LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature review provides a handy guide to a particular topic. The Literature survey
for the error free steering mechanism system gives an overview for the topic and provides a
solid background of the paper. From all the reviews gives an idea to provide a project in an
efficient way.
 6

CHAPTER 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with the explanation of materials and methods and also explains the
block diagram of electric power steering system. The explanation of block diagram is useful to
know the function of the system.

3.2 BLOCK DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED SYSTEM

Figure 3.1 Block diagram of proposed system

3.2.1 WORKING OF PROPOSED BLOCK DIAGRAM

An autonomous vehicle was created using type-2 FLC, due to its advantages over its
predecessor, type-1 FLC. It has three input parameters—distance, speed, and navigation. Fuzzy
control produces an output in the form of an angle. Furthermore, this controller is called the
primary controller. This value is used as an input by the motor controller, which is in charge of
 7

moving the vehicle’s wheels to the right, straight, or left. This part is called the secondary
controller. The encoder is used to provide feedback from the motor movement. The vehicle
was equipped with sensors, such as proximity sensors, speed sensors, and navigation sensors.
The secondary controller controls motors with PI control, while the primary controller controls
vehicles with type-2 FLC.

3.3 SUMMARY

The block diagram of the proposed system was described in this chapter. The forth
coming chapter describes about the software implementation of the project.
 8

CHAPTER 4

SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

National Instruments’ LabVIEW was used in the simulation program. The program
highlighted speed, navigation, and distance visualizations. This chapter mainly presents the
simulation of error free electric power steering analysis.

4.2 LABVIEW SIMULATION DIAGRAM

The Figure 4.1 presents the simulation display. The left side highlighted three major
indicators—speed, navigation, and distance. The maximum speed indicated by the speedometer
is 40 km/h. The navigation indicator demonstrated the vehicle’s direction or orientation, such
as whether it was moving straight along its path, turning left, or turning right. The existing
digital indicator display was also visible in the middle. When the simulation began, the
autonomous indicator would initiate. The steering movement was demonstrated by turning the
steering wheel to the right, straight, or left based on the input received. This was followed by
a light sign indicating the vehicle’s direction. The upper right corner was provided to save the
recording file of all system inputs and outputs.
 9

Figure 4.1 LabVIEW Simulation diagram

Illustrates a 10 km/h input speed over a distance of 3.5 m for the first 20 s. A sinusoidal
signal was fed into the system in order for all angles to be detected. demonstrates the output
based on the input using type-1 FLC (blue dashed line) and type-2 FLC (red dashed line) (red
continuous line). The maximum steering angle obtained for type-1 fuzzy control was –35
degrees to the left and it was –31.5 degrees for type-2 fuzzy control. The minus sign in the
figure represents the left direction. Type-1 fuzzy control, on the other hand, produced a rate of
35 degrees and type-2 fuzzy control produced a rate of 31.5 degrees at 15 s. Positive numbers
indicate that the direction is to the right.

Figure 4.2 Input of system

 10

Figure 4.3 system output at speed 10 km/h

Figure 4.4 system output at speed 20 km/h

Figure 4.5 system output at speed 30 km/h

Figure 4.6 system output at speed 40 km/h.

The results of the system with a seven-meter distance, at the same speed of 10 km/h
and with a sinusoidal navigation signal input form, are presented in Figure 4.3. The time
interval ranged from 20 to 40 s. Different results were obtained from the previous settings with
this combination of inputs. At a starting time of 22.980 s, the output for the type-1 FLC reached
 11

a steering angle of –27.22 degrees. The minus sign indicates the left direction. The steering
angle of the type-2 FLC was –23.587 degrees. This value lasted for a maximum of 27.060 s.

In the same figure, the distance detected was 10 m in the third part, which lasted 40 s
to 60 s. This system was configured with a speed of 10 km/h and a sinusoidal navigation signal.
The maximum steering angle obtained in 42.740 s was 26.250 degrees to the left for type-1
FLC and 22.750 degrees to the right for type-2 FLC. This state lasted up to 47.340 s. With the
same input distance, in 52.740 s, the steering control to the right was generated at 26.250
degrees for type-1 FLC and at 22.750 degrees for type-2 FLC. This output value lasted up to a
maximum of 57.340 s.

Figure 4.3 shows that at a speed of 10 km/h, there were several variations of the
steering angle output. With a relatively close distance, the resulting steering angle was of great
value so that the car could avoid existing obstacles. With type-2 FLC, the resulting steering
angle was high, but not until it reached the maximum. This was different from the results of
the type-1 FLC output. Therefore, it can be said that the type-2 FLC produced a smoother
steering system than the type-1 FLC. At moderate distances, the control automatically reduced
the steering angle. Similarly, if the distance between the car and the barrier was far, the resulting
steering angle would be smaller as well. This shows that at low speeds and with close obstacles,
the control produced a small control angle. This was done for the sake of convenience. To
summarize, the type-2 FLC method produced smoother results than the type-1 FLC method.

For the following input, the speed increased to 20 km/h, with sinusoidal for navigation
and a distance of 3 m, resulting in an increased steering angle response to a peak of

–35 degrees for type-1 FLC and –31.5 degrees for type-2. The negative value in Figure
4.4 indicates that the direction was to the left. The peak was reached in 5 s. On the other hand,
when the sine input ran in the opposite direction, the steering system output reached its peak in
15 s, with a value of 35 degrees for type-1 FLC and 31.5 degrees for type-2 FLC.

At a distance of 7 m, the next position caused a different response from the previous
settings (medium distance of seven meters in 20 s to 40 s). Although the navigation input was
sinusoidal, the output from 22.980 s to 27.060 s showed a similar value. The resulting values
were –28.00 degrees for type-1 FLC and –24.553 degrees for type-2 FLC. The positive value
 12

was obtained between 32.980 s and 37.06 s for the next half of the sinusoidal navigation input
condition.

A time interval of 40 to 60 s indicates an input distance of 10 m. The response obtained

was that the steering system moved according to the input until the time was 41.720 s, reaching
a value of –17.5 degrees for type-1 and type-2 FLC. This value lasted up to 48.360 s. In the
sinusoidal navigation input condition, the value of 17.5 degrees (both type-1 FLC and type-2
FLC) was obtained when it reached a time of 51.720 s to 58.360 s.

According to Figure 4.4 and the description above, at a speed of 20 km/h with a
sinusoidal variation of the navigation input, the short distance produced by both types was
similar to that produced at a low speed (10 km/h). For a medium distance (seven meters), the
resulting control was slightly different between the two FLCs, but the type-2 FLC had a smaller
steering angle. However, these two controls showed the same results at a far distance (10 m).
The results show that the type-2 FLC was more capable than the type-1 FLC at providing a
smoother steering system.

In the following simulation experiment, the input speed was 30 km/h and the navi-
gation was sinusoidal, with variations in the distance used. The close-range distance was 3.5 m
at 0 to 20 s, the medium distance was 7 m at 20 to 40 s, and the far distance was 10 m at 40 to
60 s. The results are presented in Figure 4.5. The resulting steering angle response was –26.25
degrees for type-1 FLC and –22.750 degrees for type-2 FLC at the close-range input. It took
between 2.7 s and 7.3 s. The duplicate value in the opposite direction occurred at 12.7 s to 17.3

For a medium distance of seven meters, the resulting response at 22.720 s to 27.32 s
showed a maximum value of –26.25 degrees for type-1 FLC and –22.750 for type-2 FLC. The
positive direction was achieved in 32.720 s to 37.32 s.

The response obtained when the input was a relatively far distance of 10 m was

17.5 degrees for both types of control. This occurred between 41.720 s and 48.360 t
seconds. The opposite value, which is 17.5 degrees, was obtained in 51.720 s to 58.36 s.

According to the previous description and Figure 4.5, the steering angle control value
at 30 speeds for short and medium distances was similar. Type-1 FLC had an angle of 26.25
degrees, while type-2 FLC was at 22.750 degrees. The steering angle of type-2 FLC was
smaller than that of type-1 FLC. This indicates that type-2 FLC had better control at high
 13

speeds. Furthermore, the shape of the graphic response was also smoother. Meanwhile, with a
long-distance input of 10 m, both showed the same steering angle results.

At a high speed (according to city car specifications) of 40 km/h and at a distance of

3.5 m, both type-1 and type-2 FLC achieved a maximum steering angle of –17.5 degrees in
1.68 s to 8.32 s. The direction shown was to the left because it was negative. Meanwhile, at
11.68 s to 18.32 s, the steering angle showed a value of 17.5 degrees in positive numbers,
indicating the right direction.

The same thing happened when the obstacle distance was increased to seven meters.
Both the right and left steering directions still showed a value of 17.5 degrees in response to
the sinusoidal navigation input. The steering angle of the autonomous vehicle remained at 17.5
degrees both to the right and to the left for a 10-meter distance. The control results are presented
in Figure 4.6.

The steering system produces a small steering angle at high speeds, according to the
analysis. This prevents uncontrollable movements in the vehicle caused by a large steering
angle when going fast. According to Figure 4.6, the type-2 FLC (dotted line) output was
smoother than the type-1 FLC output (dashed line). This indicates that the type-2 FLC had
better high-speed control.

4.3 SUMMARY

The definition of LabVIEW and its important features were presented. The simulation
executed is for error free electric power steering system using LabVIEW was explained in this
chapter.
 14

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the results and discussion of error free electric steering
mechanism. The results were shown in the graphical representation.

5.2 RESULT

Following the simulation, we applied it to the Sultan Agung Autonomous Vehicle

(SAAV). The SAAV is an electric car designed by H-Molex, with dimensions of 160 cm long
and 96 cm wide. SAAV equipped with an autonomous system and steering motor. A modified
Daihatsu Xenia 2012 steering system, consisting of an EPS (electric power steering) motor and
its column, was used as the driving force for the steering wheel. The motor has a specification
of 2000 rpm 12 volts. The system steering uses a rack and pinion system, the turning angle of
which is 35 degrees with an encoder value of 23,000 pulses.

To control the motor, conventional control was used, which was proportional–integral
and differential. The result of type-2 FLC, namely the steering angle, became the input of this
control. This control was chosen because of its simplicity and ease of obtaining the parameters.
There were several methods used to obtain the control parameter values. One was the Ziegler–
Nichols method. The Ziegler–Nichols method chosen was the closed-loop type, often known
as type-2. Its equations are shown in Table 5.1. The step signal was converted into an input for
the plant, and the plant’s response was observed. To generate oscillations, the gain was
continuously added until the output reached a steady- state value to get oscillations. The gain
value (K) obtained was 6, with an oscillation time (Pu) of 0.0064 s. Table 5.2 shows the values
obtained by the type-2 Ziegler–Nichols method.
 15

Table 5.1 Control parameter for secondary controller

Control Kp Ti Td
PI 2.7 0.0053 0
PD 4.8 0 0.0008

PID 3.6 0.0032 0.0008

The program consisted of inputs for the motor control set-points, equipped with PID
control inputs, namely Kp, Ti, and Td. The control output produced the PWM value. This value
directs the motor to the right or vice versa according to the control. The encoder section was
used to determine the results of the motor rotation generated by the rotary encoder. The encoder
value output is useful for providing predefined control feedback. The bottom side shows that
all data (input and output) were stored in an array, and the shift register was used to store the
results in a file, so that they could, then, be analyzed.

Figure 5.2 shows the output of the motor when amplification was applied; the value
continuously increased until oscillation. These results occurred when K = 6 was strength- ened,
and the oscillation period was 0.0064 s. After obtaining these two values, the motor was
controlled using the PI, PD, and PID methods, as shown in Table 5.2. For PI control with values
of Kp = 2.7 and Ti = 0.0053, the response was as shown in Figure 5.3; PD control with values
of Kp = 4.8 and Td = 0.0008 was as shown in Figure 5.4; for PID control with Kp = 3.6, Ti
= 0.0032, and Td = 0.0008, the response was as shown in Figure 5.5. The PID control
achieved the settling time at 14.6 s, the PD control achieved it at 10.8 s, and the PI
control achieved it at 9 s.

Table 5.2 Control parameter for Ziegler Nichols method

Control Kp Ti Td

PI 0.45 K Pu/1.2 0

PD 0.8 K 0 Pu/8

PID 0.6 K Pu/2 Pu/8

 16

Figure 5.1 Simulation diagram of motor control system

Figure 5.2 Oscillation output

 17

Figure 5.3 Output of PI controller

Figure 5.4 Output of PD controller

Figure 5.5 Output of PID controller

A trial of several positions of the EPS motor was carried out to test the secondary
control. Following the design, the steering angle of this vehicle was 35 degrees for both the left
and right directions, which was converted to 23,000 pulses. There were five outputs—turning
more to the left (big left = –23,000 pulses), turning little to the left (small left = –12,000 pulses),
heading straight (0 pulses), turning little to the right (small right = 12,000 pulses), and turning
more to the right (big right = 23,000 pulses). An up- down-up signal was used to test the
 18

position control at these angles. The output signal (PI control = red continuous line; PD control
= blue continuous line; PID control = green continuous line) in response to the input signal
(blue dashed line). The initial state was an input of 23,000 pulses. The PI control achieved the
settling time at 1.08 s, the PD control achieved the settling time at 1.44 s, and the PID control
achieved it at 1.52 s. It can be seen that the PD control overshot until it reached a value of
23,834 pulses and oscillated. The pulse was lowered to 12,000 to change the motor position.
The PI control achieved the settling time at 5.4 s, the PD control achieved it at 5.78 s, and the
PID control achieved it at 5.86 s. In this condition, the PD control reached an overshoot of
11,336 pulses. For the straight position, the PI, PD, and PID controls reached the settling time
at 10.6 s, 10.78 s, and 11.18 s, respectively. The PI control reached the settling time at 15.86 s,
the PD control at 16.22 s, and the PID control at 16.48 s when the input signal was lowered to
–23,000 pulses. The PD control in this state overshot up to –23,265 pulses and oscillated. The
input pulse was increased to –12,000 pulses; this caused the PI, PD, and PID controls to reach
the settling time at 20.6 s, 20.92 s, and 21.14 s, respectively. This position change caused the
PD control overshoot to reach –12,401 pulses. The next straight position caused the PI control
to reach the settling time at 25.64 s, the PD control at 25.9 s, and the PID control at 26.16 s. As
before, the PD control oscillated and overshot at 313 pulses. A similar condition also occurred
in the next position change. Based on the data obtained, it can be seen that this position change
can be handled properly by the PI control. The PD control with overshoot and oscillation
values, and the PID control with the slowest settling time are described later.

Figure 5.6 Position control response to the up down up input signal

 19

Following the discovery of good motor control, namely PI control, the next step was
to provide the plant with the same input signal as the simulation. The simulation (blue dashed
line) and reality (red continuous line) results for type-1 FLC (the left-hand side) and type-2
FLC (the right-hand side) at a speed of 10 km/h. At a distance of 3.5 m, it appears that the
control of the type-1 FLC steering wheel movement was not very similar to the simulation. In
contrast to the type-1 FLC, the movement of the simulated steering wheel and the real one was
more similar in type-2 FLC. Type-1 FLC reached a simulation value of –22,995 pulses and a
reality value of –21,176 pulses in the left direction. The value in type-2 FLC simulation was –
20,376, whereas its reality value was –19,641 pulses. The minus sign in the figure indicates
that the direction was to the left. For type-1 FLC, the difference between simulation and reality
was 1819, and for type-2 FLC, it was 726. For the right direction, type-1 FLC reached a value
of 22,995 in the simulation and 21,539 in reality, whereas the type-2 FLC achieved a value of
20,367 in the simulation and 19,639 in reality. The differences in the timing between the
simulation and reality for type-1 and type-2 FLC were 1456 pulses and 728 pulses, respectively.

Figure 5.7 Simulation result for output signal generator at the speed of 10 km/hr

Figure 5.8 Simulation result for output signal generator at the speed of 20 km/hr
 20

Figure 5.9 Simulation result for output signal generator at the speed of 30 km/hr

Figure 5.10 Simulation result for output signal generator at the speed of 40
km/hr

At a distance of seven meters at the beginning, both controls produced the same
response, but the type-2 FLC was more stable at the peak of the turn. In the left direction, type-
1 FLC reached a value of –17,739 pulses for the simulation value and a value of –17,731 pulses
for the reality value. The value in the type-2 FLC simulation was –15,111, whereas the reality
value was –15,108 pulses. The difference between the simulation and reality for type-1 FLC
was eight pulses and for type-2 FLC, it was three pulses. For the right direction, type-1 FLC
reached a simulation value of 17,739 and a reality value of 17,598, while the type-2 FLC
reached a value of 15,111 in the simulation and 15,097 in reality. The differences in the pulses
between the simulation and reality for the type-1 and type-2 FLC were 141 and 14, respectively.
At a distance of 10 m, both controls produced the same response. Type-1 FLC reached a
simulation value of –17,082 pulses and a real value of –17,062 pulses in the left direction. The
value in the type-2 FLC simulation was achieved values of 17,082 in the simulation and 16,959
in reality for the right direction. Meanwhile, type-2 FLC reached values of 14,454 in the
simulation and 14,431 in reality. The difference in the timing between the type-1 and type-2
FLC simulation and reality was 123 pulses and 23 pulses, respectively. The type-2 FLC in all
 21

simulations and experiments had nearly the same form of control. Based on the value
differences between the two, different things happened to type-1 FLC because the simulation
and experiment were somewhat different.

The comparison of the results between the type-1 FLC (the left-hand side) and type-2
FLC (the right-hand side) simulation and reality at a speed of 20 km/h. There was a slight
difference between the left and right for type-1 and type-2 FLC, re- spectively. Based on the
value difference, type-2 FLC outperformed type-1 FLC despite having nearly the same shape.
The speed of 30 km/h for a distance of 3.5 m, Type-2 was better than the type-1 FLC, while
other distances show the same shape. The same shape for a speed of 40 km/h, although there
is a slight difference in the pulses generated.

The FLC system input for the SAAV. In the first 10 s, there was a vehicle-steering
disturbance. Based on the type-1 FLC output, this disturbance was first responded to at 10.46
s, with an encoder value of 657 pointing in the right direction. The encoder value increased to
1314 until it peaked at 10.48 s by producing an encoder value of 1971 in the same direction,
and it began to slope until 14.62 s. This disturbance began to be responded to by type-2 FLC
at 10.88 s, with a value of 657 pulses in the right direction. The value of 657 remained constant
until the peak of 12.46 changed to 1314 and returned to 657 at 14.24 s. It was discovered that
the type-2 FLC output responded to this disturbance in a shorter time and produced a smaller
encoder pulse value. This means that the turning angle caused was smaller than the type-1 FLC
output.

Figure 5.11 FLC system input for vehicle steering disturbances

The type-1 and type-2 FLC outputs are shown in Figure. When the vehicle started
turning right at 20 s, type-1 FLC responded with an initial value of 657 pulses at 20.06 s. It
continued to increase until 22.68 s with an encoder value of 17,082 pulses. This type-1 FLC
output lasted until 27.28 s and gradually decreased until 29.92 s. Meanwhile, type-2 FLC
started to respond with a value of 657 pulses at 20.12 s. This value continued to increase to
 22

14,454 until 22.46 s. This value began to decrease at 27.52 s and ended at 29.88 s. These results
show that the turning angle produced by type-2 FLC was smaller and smoother than that
produced by type-1 FLC.

Figure 5.12 System output using Type 1 FLC and PI controller

Figure 5.13 System output using Type 2 FLC and PI controller

The DC motor on the EPS could be properly controlled using PI control. These results
show that the secondary control processed the FLC output (dashed line) to drive the motor
(continuous line). As a result, the motor response could closely follow the FLC results. There
was a time delay at 20 s when the vehicle turned right and returned to its original direction at
27 s. However, the error that occurred at that time was very minor. It determined that the motor
response directly followed the FLC output because the delay was still tolerable. At 40 s, the
same thing happened when the vehicle began to turn left and returned to its original direction
at around 50 s. The delay between the FLC output and the motor response was also very slight.
Therefore, with PI control, the motor could respond well to the incoming input and produce
fast and precise control in response to the FLC results.
 23

Since type-2 FLC showed better results, the following test used PD and PID controls
for type-2 FLC. The test results with PD control are shown. When the vehicle began to turn
right at 20 s, the PD motor control began to respond at 21.32 s. For PID control, this movement
was responded to at 20.34 s. The PD control took longer to respond than the PID control. On
the other hand, the PD control quickly reached the specified turning angle at 25.76 s. In
contrast, PID control reached its maximum angle at 27.74 s.

Figure 5.14 System output using Type 2 FLC and PD controller

The PD control reached steady-state in 1.26 s, whereas the PID control never did. The
PD control was 1.32 s faster than the PID control to achieve straight steering. When small
disturbances occurred for the first time at 10 s, the PID control could handle them better than
the other controls. However, this was not always the case because the steering wheel remained
straight due to the slow PID response. It was demonstrated that the PID control was the last to
respond when the vehicle turned right or left.

The PI control responded quickly from 20.5 s to 24.64 s by generating 13,793 pulses.
The steering wheel moved slowly until it reached 26.22 s. The steering wheel began to stop
moving while maintaining a turn for 1.44 s. PD control was a bit slow to respond, taking

21.32 s to 25.76 s with 14,780 pulses. The steering wheel stopped moving for 0.84 s.
PID control responded in 20.34 s to 27.74 s and immediately reversed directions. It made the
passengers feel uncomfortable because these controls never stopped moving. In the second
turn, which is to the left, the PI control generated 13,002 pulses in 40.12 s to 43.98 s. The
steering wheel turned slowly until 46.4 s and then stopped turning for 1.26 s. While the PD
control began to respond at 40.14 s and ended at 46.02 s, it produced 14,426 pulses. PID control
responded in 42.46 s to 48.24 s. Without pausing to move, the steering wheel immediately
reversed direction. Based on the values obtained, PI control could provide comfort. It was
indicated by a quick response to reach the expected value and a slow response when almost
 24

there. Following this, PI control could maintain a longer steady-state value compared to the
other controls. PD control had a slower response than PI control PD control reached the desired
value without decelerating. Of course, this affected the passenger comfort. PID control is not
recommended because it cannot guarantee comfort or accuracy in steering control, and it never
achieved the desired value. The steering wheel also changes direction immediately. In
comparison to the others, the level of comfort of PID control comes in last.

Loading was applied to the EPS motor shaft to test the performance robustness. These
loads came in a variety of weights, including 1 kg, 2 kg, 3 kg, 4 kg, and 5 kg. The proposed
control provided input to the EPS motor, allowing it to move to the right or left. The motor
generated 19,700 pulses with no load. It can be seen that at a load of 1 kg, the motor still moved
well and achieved a value of 19,658 pulses. For a load of 2 kg, the motor could also move
following the input by reaching a value of 19,623 pulses. When loaded with 3 kg, the motor
could only produce 1500 pulses. At this load, it appears that the motor lost its ability to produce
the required output. When the motor was loaded with 4 kg, the output was 1000 pulses; when
loaded with 5 kg, the output was 500 pulses. Based on the results, it can be stated that the motor
could only be loaded up to 2 kg and that any load greater resulted in a significant decrease in
performance.

Figure 5.15 Pulse variation on steering with load variation of motor shaft
 25

5.3 SUMMARY

This chapter deals with the result and discussion of disturbance of sudden change of
steering wheel in opposite direction. The result of superior of P, PI, PID controller was quickly
achieved was explained in this chapter
 35

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

6.1 CONCLUSION

This study used two types of controls—FLC and conventional control. The primary
control was based on fuzzy logic, while the secondary control was based on conventional PI
control. Both of these controls were applied to a SAAV. A SAAV is an electric car with a city
car design. There were three inputs to this fuzzy control—speed, navigation, and distance.
Speed and distance were divided into three membership functions, while navigation was
divided into five membership functions. The rule set used had 45 rules. The results show that
at a low speed (10 km/h) and medium speeds (20 km/h and 30 km/h), type-2 FLC was superior
to type-1 FLC. At a high speed (40 km/h), the type-2 FLC control and the type-1 control
showed the same results. However, type-2 FLC showed smoother results than type-1 FLC. The
results of this fuzzy control were used as input for the secondary control, namely conventional
control. The results obtained indicate that the PI control was better than the PD and PID control.
The time differences between the steady-state and settling time were 1.8 s and 5.6 s,
respectively. This is significant for autonomous vehicle driving. Based on the data obtained, it
can be concluded that the type-2 FLC and conventional PI control are more capable of
controlling autonomous vehicles.

As a result, vehicle safety could be guaranteed because all sides of the vehicle
would be detected and turned right or left. Better methods, such as genetic algorithms,
can be used to determine the optimal fuzzy values.

6.2 FUTURE SCOPE

The future work of this is the principle of the proposed technique will be
developed to eliminate sudden steering jam using hydraulic control system. In the
future, this study can be expanded on to include a broader range of fuzzy input. Starting
with long-range detection, it can also detect the vehicle’s side and, if possible, the rea
 27

REFERENCES

1. Amer, N.H.; Zamzuri, H.; Hudha, K.; Kadir, Z.A. Modelling and Control Strategies in Path
Tracking Control for Autonomous Ground Vehicles: A Review of State of the Art and
Challenges. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. World Electr. Veh. J. 2022, 13, 53 21 of 21

2. Chandni, C.K.; Sajith Variyar, V.V.; Guruvayurappan, K. Vision based closed loop PID
controller design and implementation for autonomous car. In Proceedings of the 2017
International Conference on Advances in Computing, Communications and Informatics
(ICACCI), Udupi, India, 13–16 September 2017.

3. Cherroun, L.; Nadour, M.; Kouzou, A. Type-1 and Type-2 Fuzzy Logic Controllers for
Autonomous Robotic Motion. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on
Applied Automation and Industrial Diagnostics (ICAAID), Elazig, Turkey, 25–27
September 2019; Volume 1, pp. 1–5

4. Emirler, M.T.; Uygan, I.M.C.; Aksun Güvenç, B.; Güvenç, L. Robust PID steering control
in parameter space for highly automated driving. Int. J. Veh. Technol. 2018..

5. Guo, J.; Hu, P.; Li, L.; Wang, R. Design of automatic steering controller for trajectory
tracking of unmanned vehicles using genetic algorithms. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2022.

6. Handayani, A.S.; Husni, N.L.; Nurmaini, S.; Yani, I. Application of type-1 and type-2 fuzzy
logic controller for the real swarm robot. Int. J. Online Biomed. Eng. 2019, 15, 83–98.

7. Hussain, I.; Murtza, S.A.; Qadri, M.Y.; Fleury, M.; Qadri, N.N. Scalable, energy-aware
system modeling and application-specific reconfiguration of MPSocs with a type-2 fuzzy
logic system. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2019, 74, 292–304.

8. Ji, X.; He, X.; Lv, C.; Liu, Y.; Wu, J. Adaptive-neural-network-based robust lateral motion
control for autonomous vehicle at driving limits Control Engineering Practice Adaptive-
neural-network-based robust lateral motion control for autonomous vehicle at driving
limits. Control Eng. Pract. 2018, 76, 41–53.

9. Li, H.M.; Wang, X.B.; Song, S.B.; Li, H. Vehicle Control Strategies Analysis Based on
PID and Fuzzy Logic Control. Procedia Eng. 2018.

10. Nguyen, A.T.; Ryu, S.W.; Rehman, A.U.; Choi, H.H.; Jung, J.W. Improved Continuous
Control Set Model Predictive Control for Three-Phase CVCF Inverters: Fuzzy Logic
Approach. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 75158–75168.

11. Handayani, A.S.; Husni, N.L.; Nurmaini, S.; Yani, I. Application of type-1 and type-2 fuzzy
logic controller for the real swarm robot. Int. J. Online Biomed. Eng. 2019, 15, 83–98.
[CrossRef]