Research on Optimized Fuzzy PID Temperature Control Strategy Based on Improved Particle Swarm Optimization

To rigorously evaluate the proposed control strategy, we employ the First-Order Plus Dead Time (FOPDT) model, the standard approximation for industrial thermal processes. The transfer function $G(s)$ is defined as:

$$G(s)=\frac{Ke^{-\tau s}}{Ts+1}$$

(1)

where $K=1.5$ represents the process gain, $T=120s$ denotes the time constant reflecting thermal inertia, and $\tau=30s$ is the pure time delay. The ratio $\tau/T=0.25$ indicates a significant delay, a characteristic that typically destabilizes conventional high-gain controllers.

Crucially, to simulate the realistic ”slow time-varying” behavior caused by equipment aging (e.g., heater degradation or insulation loss), we define a ”Composite Perturbation” scenario. In this stress test, the gain $K$ is attenuated by 10% (to 1.35) and the time constant $T$ is increased by 25% (to 150 s). A controller that performs well only on the nominal model but fails under these perturbed conditions would be of little practical value in a real plant.

The proposed control architecture seamlessly integrates a fuzzy inference engine with a conventional PID structure, allowing for the real-time modulation of control parameters based on the system’s instantaneous state. Fig. 1 illustrates the fundamental schematic block diagram, showing how the system computes correction factors based on the error $e(t)$ and its rate of change $ec(t)$ in a closed-loop feedback mechanism.

Based on this theoretical framework, a detailed simulation model was constructed in the MATLAB/Simulink environment, as presented in Fig. 2. This implementation includes the FOPDT plant module, the fuzzy inference subsystem, and the signal routing for real-time performance monitoring.

The adaptive control law is governed by:

	$\displaystyle u(t)=$	$\displaystyle(K_{p0}+\Delta K_{p})e(t)+(K_{i0}+\Delta K_{i})\int e(t)dt$		(2)
		$\displaystyle+(K_{d0}+\Delta K_{d})\frac{de(t)}{dt}$

where $K_{x0}$ represents the baseline parameters and $\Delta K_{x}$ represents the fuzzy outputs determined by the Mamdani inference engine. The magnitude of these outputs is strictly determined by scaling factors $(K_{e},K_{ec},K_{u})$, which serve as the decision variables for our optimization algorithm.

The rule base follows precise control logic: When the error magnitude is large, the primary goal is rapid elimination; thus, $\Delta K_{p}$ is boosted while $\Delta K_{d}$ is minimized. Conversely, in the steady phase (small error), $\Delta K_{p}$ and $\Delta K_{i}$ are increased to overcome static friction. This nonlinear mapping creates a sophisticated variable-gain controller—aggressive when needed to reduce rise time, yet cautious when approaching the setpoint to prevent overshoot.

Standard PSO frequently stagnates in complex fitness landscapes when particles collapse into local optima. To counter this, LMPSO introduces a mutation mechanism based on Levy flights (Eq. 3), utilizing Mantegna’s Algorithm to generate heavy-tailed step sizes:

$$s=\frac{u}{|v|^{1/\beta}}$$

(3)

This mechanism triggers long-distance jumps upon stagnation detection, effectively ”teleporting” particles to unexplored regions. To balance this exploration with exploitation, an Elite Memory Pool preserves the top performing solutions. Empirical sensitivity analysis suggests an optimal pool size of 10%, ensuring that valuable evolutionary history (”genetic memory”) is retained to guide the swarm efficiently.

The integration of these mechanisms creates a robust optimization cycle. The process begins with random initialization of fuzzy scaling factors. In each iteration, the fitness (ITAE) is evaluated via Simulink. The Elite Memory Pool is then updated with superior solutions. If stagnation is detected, Levy mutation is applied; otherwise, standard velocity updates guided by the Elite Pool are performed. This cycle repeats until the maximum iteration count is reached, ensuring a balance between global search and local refinement. The detailed iterative execution of this process is explicitly visualized in Fig. 3.

To validate the proposed strategy, a comprehensive simulation environment was constructed in MATLAB/Simulink. The objective function employed for optimization is the Integral of Time-weighted Absolute Error (ITAE), which penalizes long-duration errors and encourages faster settling:

$$J=\int_{0}^{\infty}t|e(t)|dt+\gamma\int_{0}^{\infty}u^{2}(t)dt$$

(4)

The specific parameters for the LMPSO algorithm and the simulation environment are detailed in Table I. These parameters were selected to ensure a fair comparison across all control strategies.

Before conducting performance comparisons, it is crucial to determine the optimal hyperparameters for the algorithm. The Levy flight index ($\beta$) is the core parameter governing the mutation step size. We conducted a sensitivity analysis testing $\beta\in\{1.0,1.5,2.0\}$.

As illustrated in Fig. 4, the choice of $\beta$ significantly impacts search efficiency. A smaller index ($\beta=1.0$) induces excessive randomness, leading to oscillation. Conversely, a larger index ($\beta=2.0$) mimics Gaussian behavior, causing the algorithm to trap in local optima. The selected value of $\beta=1.5$ provides the optimal trade-off, achieving the lowest ITAE.

With $\beta=1.5$, we compared the convergence behavior of LMPSO against Standard PSO and a competitive Improved PSO (IPSO) variant. Note that the IPSO employed here is based on the widely cited Dynamic Inertia Weight strategy [12, 15], representing a strong benchmark in the literature.

The superiority of LMPSO is immediately evident in Fig. 5.

• •

  Standard PSO: Exhibits an ”L-shaped” curve, dropping rapidly but flatlining early (around generation 10), indicating premature convergence.

• •

  IPSO: Converges faster than Standard PSO due to dynamic weights, but eventually traps in a local optimum (around generation 15).

• •

  LMPSO: Demonstrates a distinctive multi-stage descent. As marked in Fig. 5, around the 16th generation, the Levy flight mechanism is triggered by the stagnation detection, effectively dislodging the swarm from the local optimum where IPSO stalled, allowing it to discover a deeper minimum.

To rigorously validate the algorithm, we compared it with Conventional PID, Empirical Fuzzy, Standard PSO, and the IPSO benchmark. The qualitative differences are profound (Fig. 6), and the detailed quantitative metrics are explicitly summarized in Table II.

Scheme A (PID) shows a massive 27% overshoot. Scheme C (Standard PSO) is overly conservative. The IPSO significantly improves the settling time to 183.5 s compared to Standard PSO. However, the proposed Scheme E (LMPSO, black solid line) is decisive: it achieves an aggressive rise time of 105.5 s—42.5% faster than IPSO—while maintaining a negligible overshoot of 1.63%.

The ultimate test of an industrial controller is its resilience. At $t=400$ s, a 20% negative load disturbance was injected. As shown in Fig. 7, while IPSO recovers reasonably well (better than Std PSO), the LMPSO controller limits the temperature deviation to a mere 3.24^∘C and recovers the setpoint significantly faster.

Furthermore, under severe model mismatch (Gain -10%, Time Constant +25%), as shown in Fig. 8, LMPSO maintains a response profile remarkably similar to its nominal performance. The degradation in ITAE is minimized, verifying that LMPSO has located a ”robust” optimum that is less sensitive to parameter drift compared to the IPSO solution.