An Optimal Fuzzy PID Controller Design Based on Conventional PID Control and Nonlinear Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The technical novelty of this work is weak from the previous studies done by the same authors. The basic concept is exactly same except using GA for each optimized parameter to have its own crossover point. In other words, the scientific significance of this paper is weak.

2. The authors asserted that the proposed controller has less parameters with a concise structure. However, this has not been validated in the results.

3. The comparison between the PID and the proposed controller does not have any scientific rigor since anyone can expect this result. Therefore, a comparative work between the proposed controller and a similar control strategy but different number of parameters needs to be undertaken to show some benefits of the proposed controller.

4. In the comparative work, control input (voltage or torque) should be compared also to understand the power consumption of the implemented controllers.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her kind and professional comments and suggestions.

Attached please find the pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The references to related work should be enhanced with papers which deal with optimization of fuzzy systems via Genetic Algorithms (e.g. see [1]).

In order to improve the paper, a strict computational complexity analysis should be introduced. Moreover, the proposed fuzzy system could be improved with the design of a suitable neural network (e.g. see [2]).

The target of paper must be better specified and the hardness points must be underlined.

The control surface view of the equivalent fuzzy PID controller is very similar to the plan surface of [3].

[1] DOI:10.1109/IHMSC.2011.105

[2] DOI: 10.1080/09720529.2013.821333

[3] DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2018.02.026

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her kind and professional comments and suggestions.

Attached please find the pdf file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The terminology of Section 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 should be changed to Simulation 3.1..... to avoid the confusion.

Table 9 presents comparative results in the sense of no. of tuning parameters. A comparative work between the proposed and one of the previous works should be done in the sense of the control responses like Figure 18.

In the simulations, control torque should be presented and compared between the proposed and one adopted method. This is very important to understand the transient behaviors of the system.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We would like to thank your kind professional comments and suggestions.

Attached please find the pdf file of response letter.

Sincerely yours,

Chao, Chun-Tang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is now acceptable.