Performance Comparison of PID, FOPID, and NN-PID Controller for AUV Steering Problem

This study examines and compares three Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) steering control techniques utilizing the following three control algorithms: Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID), Fractional Order PID (FOIPD), and Neural Network-PID (NN-PID). The objective of this investigation is to gain a comprehensive understanding of each controller's response in terms of step input scenarios, trajectory changes, and when encountering disturbances. The response analysis will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the controller by examining parameters such as Rise Time, Settling Time, Settling Min, Settling Max, Overshoot, Peak, and Peak Time for each controller response. To determine the accuracy performance of each controller strategy, the root mean square error (RMSE) technique will be applied, allowing users to confidently select the most suitable controller option. FOPID displays the best settling time of 3.2218 seconds, and PID stands out in rise time, achieving 0.4725 seconds. The results indicate that NN-PID is the top performer as it reduces overshoot to 0.3022%. Among the three controllers that were tested, FOPID had the smallest RMSE value, while the NN-PID control's slower response and larger error resulted in a smaller overshoot than PID and FOPID. This factor is due to the online learning process on NN-PID, which requires time. Based on the simulation results, FOPID outperforms PID in settling time and produces the smallest error due to the inclusion of parameters λ and μ, leading to improved control performance.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Jurnal Elektronika dan Telekomunikasi
Published
2024-08-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.55981/jet.596
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Robotic Path Planning Algorithms
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.25

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Performance Comparison of PID, FOPID, and NN-PID Controller for AUV Steering Problem

Afif Widaryanto, Muhammad Putra Rasuanta, Michael Andreas Purwoadi, Sasono Rahardjo et al.
1 citations
Jurnal Elektronika dan Telekomunikasi
Robotic Path Planning Algorithms
0.25
article

Performance Comparison of PID, FOPID, and NN-PID Controller for AUV Steering Problem

Afif Widaryanto, Muhammad Putra Rasuanta, Michael Andreas Purwoadi, Sasono Rahardjo, Muhammad Yusha Firdaus, Maristya Rahmadiansyah, Sakinah Puspa Anggraeni, Peni Laksmita Widati, Tinova Pramudya, Hanifah Dwiyanti, Osen Nami, Teddy Alhady Lubis
article en
1 citations

Abstract

This study examines and compares three Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) steering control techniques utilizing the following three control algorithms: Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID), Fractional Order PID (FOIPD), and Neural Network-PID (NN-PID). The objective of this investigation is to gain a comprehensive understanding of each controller's response in terms of step input scenarios, trajectory changes, and when encountering disturbances. The response analysis will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the controller by examining parameters such as Rise Time, Settling Time, Settling Min, Settling Max, Overshoot, Peak, and Peak Time for each controller response. To determine the accuracy performance of each controller strategy, the root mean square error (RMSE) technique will be applied, allowing users to confidently select the most suitable controller option. FOPID displays the best settling time of 3.2218 seconds, and PID stands out in rise time, achieving 0.4725 seconds. The results indicate that NN-PID is the top performer as it reduces overshoot to 0.3022%. Among the three controllers that were tested, FOPID had the smallest RMSE value, while the NN-PID control's slower response and larger error resulted in a smaller overshoot than PID and FOPID. This factor is due to the online learning process on NN-PID, which requires time. Based on the simulation results, FOPID outperforms PID in settling time and produces the smallest error due to the inclusion of parameters λ and μ, leading to improved control performance.

Jurnal Elektronika dan TelekomunikasiVol. 24(1)
Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (US), Centre for Materials for Electronics Technology (IN), SMART Reading (US)
Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional
Openalex Percentile: Top 48%
Robotic Path Planning Algorithms
0.25
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.