
Nursing is pivotal to healthcare delivery but is often associated with high levels of organizational stress. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to investigate the associations between exposure to organizational stressors, measured using the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool, and psychosomatic complaints among nurses in a medium-sized city hospital in northeastern Italy.
A total of 215 nurses participated in the study, completing self-report questionnaires assessing organizational stressors and the prevalence of psychosomatic complaints experienced over the preceding six months.
Significant associations were observed between various organizational stressors and psychosomatic complaints among nurses. Specifically, the Relationships factor emerged as a significant predictor of palpitations, irritability, anxiety, physical and mental tiredness, and headache. Additionally, Demands and Managers' support were identified as significant predictors of specific psychosomatic complaints.
This study highlights the critical role of addressing organizational stressors, particularly those related to interpersonal relationships, in promoting nurse well-being and optimizing patient care delivery. Despite its strengths, including the use of a well-established measurement tool and a comprehensive assessment of psychosomatic complaints, limitations such as the cross-sectional design and self-report measures warrant consideration. By prioritizing supportive work environments and implementing targeted interventions, healthcare organizations can cultivate a culture of well-being among nurses, ultimately enhancing the quality and safety of healthcare delivery.
Citation: Francesco Marcatto, Emilia Patriarca, Davide Bramuzzo, Emanuela Lucci, Francesca Larese Filon. Investigating the role of organizational stress in nurses' psychosomatic complaints: Evidence from a study in northeastern Italy[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(2): 420-431. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024021
[1] | Biao Tang, Weike Zhou, Yanni Xiao, Jianhong Wu . Implication of sexual transmission of Zika on dengue and Zika outbreaks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5092-5113. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019256 |
[2] | Fabio Sanchez, Luis A. Barboza, Paola Vásquez . Parameter estimates of the 2016-2017 Zika outbreak in Costa Rica: An Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC) approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 2738-2755. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019136 |
[3] | Chad Westphal, Shelby Stanhope, William Cooper, Cihang Wang . A mathematical model for Zika virus disease: Intervention methods and control of affected pregnancies. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2025, 22(8): 1956-1979. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2025071 |
[4] | Minna Shao, Hongyong Zhao . Dynamics and optimal control of a stochastic Zika virus model with spatial diffusion. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 17520-17553. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023778 |
[5] | Hai-Feng Huo, Tian Fu, Hong Xiang . Dynamics and optimal control of a Zika model with sexual and vertical transmissions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 8279-8304. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023361 |
[6] | Bo Zheng, Wenliang Guo, Linchao Hu, Mugen Huang, Jianshe Yu . Complex wolbachia infection dynamics in mosquitoes with imperfect maternal transmission. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(2): 523-541. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018024 |
[7] | Chen Liang, Hai-Feng Huo, Hong Xiang . Modelling mosquito population suppression based on competition system with strong and weak Allee effect. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(4): 5227-5249. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024231 |
[8] | A. Endo, H. Nishiura . Age and geographic dependence of Zika virus infection during the outbreak on Yap island, 2007. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 4115-4126. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020228 |
[9] | H.T. Banks, Jimena L. Davis . Quantifying uncertainty in the estimation of probability distributions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2008, 5(4): 647-667. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2008.5.647 |
[10] | Nao Yamamoto, Hyojung Lee, Hiroshi Nishiura . Exploring the mechanisms behind the country-specific time of Zika virusimportation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 3272-3284. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019163 |
Nursing is pivotal to healthcare delivery but is often associated with high levels of organizational stress. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to investigate the associations between exposure to organizational stressors, measured using the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool, and psychosomatic complaints among nurses in a medium-sized city hospital in northeastern Italy.
A total of 215 nurses participated in the study, completing self-report questionnaires assessing organizational stressors and the prevalence of psychosomatic complaints experienced over the preceding six months.
Significant associations were observed between various organizational stressors and psychosomatic complaints among nurses. Specifically, the Relationships factor emerged as a significant predictor of palpitations, irritability, anxiety, physical and mental tiredness, and headache. Additionally, Demands and Managers' support were identified as significant predictors of specific psychosomatic complaints.
This study highlights the critical role of addressing organizational stressors, particularly those related to interpersonal relationships, in promoting nurse well-being and optimizing patient care delivery. Despite its strengths, including the use of a well-established measurement tool and a comprehensive assessment of psychosomatic complaints, limitations such as the cross-sectional design and self-report measures warrant consideration. By prioritizing supportive work environments and implementing targeted interventions, healthcare organizations can cultivate a culture of well-being among nurses, ultimately enhancing the quality and safety of healthcare delivery.
In real control problems, there exited many uncertainties, like model structure, measurement, external disturbance and so on, tradition PID and type-1 fuzzy controller can’t deal with these uncertainties [1,2,3,4,5]. Type-2 fuzzy controller can handle uncertainties more robust than PID and type-1 fuzzy controller for it was described by type-2 fuzzy sets proposed by Zadeh in 1975 [6]. Type-2 fuzzy sets mainly included interval type-2 fuzzy sets whose secondary membership degree was 1 and general type-2 fuzzy sets whose secondary membership degree was decided by a function, such as triangular, Gaussian, trapezoid. As the secondary membership degree of interval type-2 fuzzy sets was 1, so it was easily to be implemented and Karnik-Mendel (KM) algorithm was the most widely applied type reduction for interval type-2 fuzzy sets [7]. Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems has been applied in many applications, like face recognition [8], prediction problems [9,10,11], pattern recognition [12], clustering [13], intelligent control [14], industrial [15], neuro-fuzzy systems [16], interval type-2 fuzzy PID controller [17,18], sculpting the state space [19], peer-to-peer e-commerce [20], classification [21,22], regression [23], diagnosis problems [24], metaheuristics [25], gravitational search algorithm [26], healthcare problem [27], unmanned aerial vehicles [28], deep neural network [29], pursuit evasion game [30], analytical structure of interval type-2 fuzzy controller [31,32,33] and so on.
As the secondary membership degree of general type-2 fuzzy sets was determined by a function rather than 1, so general type-2 fuzzy sets contained more uncertain information than interval type-2 fuzzy sets. And general type-2 fuzzy logic systems had more design parameters when describing reality. Thus, general type-2 fuzzy systems can obtain a better performance in some control systems with high uncertainties. Now there existed some efficient type reduction algorithms for general type-2 fuzzy sets, for example, α-plane representation method [34,35,36], zSlices-based representation method [37,38], sample method [39], geometric method [40,41], hierarchical collapsing method [42] and so on. In these algorithms, α-plane representation method was widely applied in general type-2 fuzzy sets type reduction. By α-plane representation, general type-2 fuzzy sets will be assembled by some interval type-2 fuzzy sets (α-planes). Some exiting interval type-2 fuzzy sets type reduction algorithms can be applied to these α-planes, like KM, EKM [46], IASC [47] or EIASC [48]. General type-2 fuzzy logic systems have been applied in many situations, like: mobile robots [38,46,47,48,49,50,51], water tank [52], traffic signal scheduling [53], inverted pendulum plant [54], 5-agents system [55], nonlinear power systems [56], water level and DC motor speed [57], aerospace [58], airplane flight [59], steam temperature [60], power-line inspection robots [61,62], fractional order general type-2 fuzzy controller [63,64], medical diagnosis [65,66,67], fuzzy classifier and clustering [68,69], sculpting the state space [70], similarity measures [71], forecasting [72], brain-machine interface [73] and so on. [74,75,76] made a detailed introduction on type 2 fuzzy logic applications.
The type reduction of general type-2 fuzzy sets was converted to type reduction of several interval type-2 fuzzy sets. And KM type reduction algorithm was applied to these interval type-2 fuzzy sets in most applications. KM algorithm was an iterative process without analytic solution. The number of α-planes and iterative process of KM algorithm decided the execution time of general type-2 fuzzy sets type reduction. Thus the real time of general type-2 fuzzy controller was weaker than type-1 and interval type-2 fuzzy controller. In according with these problems, a simplified general type-2 fuzzy PID (SGT2F-PID) controller is studied. The SGT2F-PID controller applies triangular function as the primary and secondary membership function. The inputs of SGT2F-PID controller are error and error derivative, and each input defines 2 fuzzy membership functions in fuzzy domains, thus only 4 rules will be derived in this SGT2F-PID controller. This paper mainly contains the following 3 contributions:
Ⅰ). The primary membership degree of apex for secondary membership degree is applied to get the centroid of SGT2F-PID controller. Then the real time of SGT2F-PID controller is almost the same as conventional type-1 fuzzy PID (T1F-PID) controller and better than interval and general type-2 fuzzy PID controller.
Ⅱ). The primary membership degree of apex for secondary membership degree is decided by the up and low bounds of footprint of uncurtains, which inherits the benefits of type-2 fuzzy PID controller. So the SGT2F-PID controller contains more design freedom and handles uncertainties better than PID or type-1 fuzzy PID controller.
Ⅲ). The accurate mathematical expression of SGT2F-PID controller is obtained and compared with mathematical expressions of interval type-2 fuzzy PID controller (IT2F-PID) and conventional T1F-PID controller. The mathematical expressions indicate that these 3 fuzzy PID controllers are all PID type controller. Furthermore, we obtain the relationship of controller gains and explain why SGT2F-PID controller can get better controlling effects.
A type-1 fuzzy set in the universe X is characterized by a membership function μA(x) as Eq (1).
A={(x,μA(x))|x∈X} | (1) |
where
A general type-2 fuzzy sets
˜A={(x,u),μ˜A(x,u)|∀x∈X,∀u∈[0,1]} | (2) |
u is the primary membership degree and
If the secondary membership degrees
˜A={(x,u),1|∀x∈X,∀u∈[0,1]} | (3) |
Figure 1 shows the definition of type-1 fuzzy sets, interval type-2 fuzzy sets and general type-2 fuzzy sets whose secondary membership function is triangular.
Liu introduced an α-plane representation for general type-2 fuzz sets [34], and pointed that α-plane denoted as
˜Aα={(x,u),μ˜A(x,u)⩾α|∀x∈X,∀u∈[0,1],0⩽α⩽1} | (4) |
If assemble all α-planes
˜A=⋃α∈[0,1]FOU(˜Aα) | (5) |
The centroid of general type-2 fuzzy sets can be calculated by the centroids of its all α-planes
C˜A(x)=⋃α∈[0,1]α/C˜Aα(x) | (6) |
C˜Aα(x)=[l˜Aα,r˜Aα] | (7) |
The general structure of fuzzy PID controller can be depicted as Figure 2 [76]. The antecedent parts can be type-1, interval type-2 or general type-2 fuzzy sets and the consequent parameters are crisp values.
In this paper, triangular primary function is applied. The inputs of general type-2 fuzzy PID controller are normalize error (E) defined in [-de-d1, de+d1] and error derivative (
The consequent parameters are symmetric and from Figure 3, 4 rules will be generated as follows, here H1 > H2 > -H2 > -H1.
Rule 1: If
Rule 2: If
Rule 3: If
Rule 4: If
Around the steady state, that is in interval [-de+d1, de-d1] for error and
{ˉμ˜PE=E+de+d12×deμ−˜PE=E+de−d12×de | (8) |
{ˉμ˜NE=de+d1−E2×deμ−˜NE=de−d1−E2×de | (9) |
{ˉμ˜P˙E=˙E+d˙e+d22×d˙eμ−˜P˙E=˙E+d˙e−d22×d˙e | (10) |
{ˉμ˜N˙E=d˙e+d2−˙E2×d˙eμ−˜N˙E=d˙e−d2−˙E2×d˙e | (11) |
By fuzzy inference of interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems and product operation, the fired membership degrees of fuzzy rules can be described as Eq (12).
Rule 1: [ˉf1,f−1]=[ˉμ˜N˙E×ˉμ˜NE,μ−˜N˙E×μ−˜NE] | (12.1) |
Rule 2: [ˉf2,f−2]=[ˉμ˜P˙E×ˉμ˜NE,μ−˜P˙E×μ−˜NE] | (12.1) |
Rule 3: [ˉf3,f−3]=[ˉμ˜N˙E×ˉμ˜PE,μ−˜N˙E×μ−˜PE] | (12.1) |
Rule 4: [ˉf4,f−4]=[ˉμ˜P˙E×ˉμ˜PE,μ−˜P˙E×μ−˜PE] | (12.1) |
The triangular membership function of type-1 fuzzy PID controller is depicted as Figure 4, also for simplify,
In interval [-de, de] for error and
μPE=E+de2×de | (13) |
μNE=−E+de2×de | (14) |
μP˙E=˙E+d˙e2×d˙e | (15) |
μN˙E=−˙E+d˙e2×d˙e | (16) |
So the fired membership degrees of fuzzy rules for type-1 fuzzy PID controller can be described as Eq (17).
Rule 1: f1=μN˙E×μNE | (17.1) |
Rule 2: f2=μP˙E×μNE | (17.1) |
Rule 3: f3=μN˙E×μPE | (17.1) |
Rule 4: f4=μP˙E×μPE | (17.1) |
Figure 5 shows an example of membership degrees for fuzzy rules corresponding to consequent parameters using TIF-PID.
From Figure 5 and defuzzification process of type-1 fuzzy sets, the output of type-1 fuzzy inference U(t) in Figure 2 can be calculated as Eq (18).
UT1=4∑i=1fi×yi4∑i=1fi | (18) |
where, fi is described as Eq (17) and yi = [-H1, -H2, H2, H1]. By the mathematical expression of Eqs (13–17) and yi, the final solution of UT1 can be expressed as Eq (19).
UT1=(H1−H2)×˙E+(H1+H2)×E2de=(H1−H2)×GCE×˙e+(H1+H2)×GE×e2de | (19) |
According to Eq (19) and Figure 2, the final output of T1F-PID controller can be expressed as Eq (20).
uT1=GPD×UT1+GPI×∫UT1 | (20) |
Combine Eq (19) and Eq (20), the output of T1F-PID controller is a PID type controller as Eq (21).
uT1=KT1P×e+KT1I×∫e+KT1D×˙e | (21) |
where:
KT1P=GPD(H1+H2)×GE+GPI(H1−H2)×GCE2de |
KT1I=GPI(H1+H2)×GE2de |
KT1D=GPD(H1−H2)×GCE2de |
Figure 6 shows the shape of control surface of type-1 fuzzy controller, here H1 = 1 and H2 = 0.
For KM algorithm didn’t have analytic solution, so NT type reduction [78,79] algorithm will be applied to get the mathematical expression of IT2F-PID controller. Figure 7 shows an example of upper and lower bounds for fuzzy rules corresponding to consequent parameters using IT2F-PID controller.
From Figure 7, by defuzzification process and NT algorithm, the output of interval type-2 fuzzy inference U(t) in Figure 2 can be calculated as Eq (22).
UIT2=4∑i=1(f−i+ˉfi)×yi4∑i=1(f−i+ˉfi) | (22) |
where,
UIT2=de[(H1−H2)˙E+(H1+H2)E]2(de2+d12)=de[(H1−H2)GCE×˙e+(H1+H2)GE×e]2(de2+d12) | (23) |
According to Eq (23) and Figure 2, the final output of IT2F-PID controller can be expressed as Equation (24).
uIT2=GPD×UIT2+GPI×∫UIT2 | (24) |
Combine Eq (23) and Eq (24), the output of IT2F-PID controller can be calculated as Eq (25).
uIT2=KIT2P×e+KIT2I×∫e+KIT2D×˙e | (25) |
where:
KIT2P=de×[GPD(H1+H2)×GE+GPI(H1−H2)×GCE]2(de2+d12) |
KIT2I=de×GPI(H1+H2)×GE2(de2+d12) |
KIT2D=de×GPD(H1−H2)×GCE2(de2+d12) |
Figure 8 shows the shape of control surface of interval type-2 fuzzy controller, here H1 = 1 and H2 = 0.
For type reduction of general type-2 fuzzy sets was converted to type reduction of several interval type-2 fuzzy sets, so the number of α-planes will affect the real time of GT2F-PID controller.
Figure 9 shows an example of membership degrees for fuzzy rules corresponding to consequent parameters using GT2F-PID controller.
The differences of GT2F-PID and SGT2F-PID controller can be seen from Figure 10.
From Figure 10, GT2F-PID controller firstly fixes the number of α-planes, that is D. Then derives D intervals
In this paper, the SGT2F-PID controller adapts the primary membership degree of α-plane (α = 1) as the membership degree of fuzzy rules, which is calculated as Eq (26).
fi(1)=f−i+w(ˉfi−f−i) | (26) |
here, w is an adjustable parameter.
The output of simplified general type-2 fuzzy inference U(t) in Figure 2 can be calculated as Equation (27).
USGT2=4∑i=1fi(1)×yi4∑i=1fi(1)=4∑i=1(f−i+w(ˉfi−f−i))×yi4∑i=1(f−i+w(ˉfi−f−i)) | (27) |
where,
USGT2=(de−d1+2d1×w)[(H1−H2)˙E+(H1+H2)E]2(de2−2de×d1+d12+4de×d1×w)=(de−d1+2d1×w)[(H1−H2)GCE×˙e+(H1+H2)GE×e]2(de2−2de×d1+d12+4de×d1×w) | (28) |
According to Eq (28) and Figure 2, the final output of SGT2F-PID controller can be expressed as Eq (29).
uSGT2=GPD×USGT2+GPI×∫USGT2 | (29) |
Combine Eq (28) and Eq (29), the output of SGT2F-PID controller can be calculated as Eq (30).
uSGT2=KSGT2P×e+KSGT2I×∫e+KSGT2D×˙e | (30) |
where:
KSGT2P=(de−d1+2d1×w)×[GPD(H1+H2)×GE+GPI(H1−H2)×GCE]2(de2−2de×d1+d12+4de×d1×w) |
KSGT2I=(de−d1+2d1×w)×GPI(H1+H2)×GE2(de2−2de×d1+d12+4de×d1×w) |
KSGT2D=(de−d1+2d1×w)×GPD(H1−H2)×GCE2(de2−2de×d1+d12+4de×d1×w) |
Figure 11 shows the shape of control surface of simplified general type-2 fuzzy controller, here H1 = 1, H2 = 0 and w = 0.
From the control surface curve of T1-FPID, IT2-FPID and SGT2-FPID controller, when the system error is near the endpoint, the output of SGT2-FPID controller is larger than T1-FPID and IT2-FPID, so the SGT2-FPID controller has the faster rising time. When the error is near zero, the output of SGT2-FPID controller is smoother than T1-FPID and IT2-FPID, so the SGT2-FPID controller has faster steady time and smaller overshoot.
In summary, the unified T1-FPID, IT2F-PID and SGT2F-PID controller mathematical expressions can be indicated as Eq (31).
uFPID=K(GPD(H1+H2)×GE+GPI(H1−H2)×GCE)×e+KGPI(H1+H2)GE×∫e+KGPD(H1−H2)×GCE×˙e | (31) |
where:
KT1=12de | (32.1) |
KIT2=de2(de2+d12) | (32.2) |
KSGT2=(de−d1+2d1×w)2(de2−2de×d1+d12+4de×d1×w) | (32.3) |
If calculate the derivative of KSGT2 to w, then the partial derivative is Eq (33).
∂KSGT2∂w=−d1(de2−d12)(de2−2dede12+4ded1w)2<0 | (33) |
From Eq (33), KSGT2 is a decreasing function of w and in general, w is in range [0, 1]. So the ranges of KSGT2 is denoted as Eq (34).
{KminSGT2=12(de+d1),w=1KmaxSGT2=12(de−d1),w=0 | (34) |
For de > d1, so,
when w = w1, KSGT2 = KT1 and w = w2, KSGT2 = KIT2, then w1 = (de-d1)/(2de) and w2 = 0.5.
According to the characteristics of PID controller, the advantage of proportional action is timely. If increase proportional gain, then the system response speed will be enhanced (that is reducing the rising time and steady time) but the system overshoot will be increased. The integral action can eliminate static error, if increase integral gain, the system overshoot will be decreased. The differential action also has the advantage of timely, which is belonging to ‘future control’. If increase differential gain, the steady time and system overshoot will be reduced.
From above analysis, if a control system maintains both faster response speed and smaller overshoot, the PID controller should chose larger proportional gain, integral gain and differential gain. Figure 12 shows that if w < w1, then the proportional gain, integral gain and differential gain of SGTF-PID are larger than T1F-PID and IT2F-PID.Thus the controlling efforts of SGTF-PID will be better than T1F-PID and IT2F-PID, which is proved by section 5 of four simulation examples.
In simulations, 3 plants and a practical inverted pendulum system are tested to demonstrate the robustness and efficiency of SGT2F-PID. The controlling efforts of SGTF-PID are also compared with PID, T1F-PID, and IT2F-PID controller using NT type reduction algorithm.
G(s)=1s2+2ζωns+ω2ne−Ls | (35) |
The tuning PID controller parameters are KP = 0.4088, KI = 0.1084, KD = 0.3547 under case 1 plant parameters. Fuzzy PID controller parameters are GE = 0.7757, GCE = 0.7442, GPD = 3.5336, GPI = 0.6996,
Case 1: ζ = 1.125, ωn = 0.45, L = 0.4.
Case 2: ζ = 1.6875, ωn = 0.225, L = 0.4.
Case 3: ζ = 0.5624, ωn = 0.675, L = 0.4.
Case 4: ζ = 1.6875, ωn = 0.675, L = 0.6.
Table 1 summarizes some controlling performance comparisons of SGT2F-PID controller with other 3 controllers. In Table 1, ts is steady state time, tris rising time, OS is system overshoot and three error integral criterions ISE, ITSE, ITAE.
ISE=∫ts0e(t)2dt |
ITSE=∫ts0t×e(t)2dt |
ITAE=∫ts0t×|e(t)|dt |
P1 | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ts(s) | 12.3 | 6.1 | 6.69 | 4.96 | |
tr(s) | 5.05 | 2.01 | 2.3 | 2.07 | ||
OS (%) | 5.1 | 22.2 | 19.1 | 14.9 | ||
ISE | 1.44 | 1.15 | 1.24 | 1.13 | ||
ITSE | 1.49 | 0.84 | 0.96 | 0.74 | ||
ITAE | 5.37 | 2.23 | 2.53 | 1.58 | ||
case 2 | ts(s) | 17.68 | 8.5 | 9.3 | 7.01 | |
tr(s) | 3.18 | 1.84 | 2.07 | 1.88 | ||
OS (%) | 29.8 | 39.2 | 35.1 | 28.0 | ||
ISE | 1.59 | 1.26 | 1.32 | 1.15 | ||
ITSE | 3.27 | 1.26 | 1.35 | 0.87 | ||
ITAE | 14.77 | 4.07 | 4.49 | 2.55 | ||
Case3 | ts(s) | > 20 | 9.18 | 9.72 | 7.95 | |
tr(s) | > 20 | 1.94 | 2.25 | 2.01 | ||
OS (%) | - | 17.8 | 11.7 | 11.0 | ||
ISE | 1.74 | 1.13 | 1.21 | 1.11 | ||
ITSE | 3.78 | 0.86 | 0.93 | 0.76 | ||
ITAE | 20.26 | 2.98 | 3.04 | 2.27 | ||
case 4 | ts(s) | > 20 | 8.85 | 9.61 | 8.0 | |
tr(s) | 12.06 | 3.05 | 3.59 | 3.06 | ||
OS (%) | 2.3 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 7.1 | ||
ISE | 2.67 | 1.47 | 1.61 | 1.46 | ||
ITSE | 5.73 | 1.30 | 1.60 | 1.23 | ||
ITAE | 17.08 | 3.87 | 4.77 | 3.10 |
G(s)=KTs−1e−Ls | (36) |
The tuning PID controller parameters are KP = 9.999, KI = 0.9483, KD = 0.2785 under case 1 plant parameters. Fuzzy PID controller parameters are GE = 1.9956, GCE = 0.9387, GPD = 0.2532, GPI = 20.0573,
Case 1: K = 1, T = 10, L = 0.2.
Case 2: K = 1, T = 10, L = 0.4.
Case 3: K = 1, T = 20, L = 0.2.
Case 4: K = 2, T = 20, L = 0.35.
Table 2. shows the P2 controlling performance comparisons of SGT2F-PID controller with other 3 controllers.
P2 | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ts(s) | 22.9 | 9.36 | 10.49 | 3.94 | |
tr(s) | 1.78 | 2.0 | 2.31 | 2.49 | ||
OS (%) | 16.7 | 27.9 | 28.2 | 5.2 | ||
ISE | 0.71 | 1.09 | 1.23 | 1.09 | ||
ITSE | 1.53 | 0.96 | 1.23 | 0.72 | ||
ITAE | 16.02 | 3.62 | 4.70 | 1.37 | ||
case 2 | ts(s) | 22.71 | 13.44 | 14.91 | 9.72 | |
tr(s) | 1.56 | 1.95 | 2.2 | 2.14 | ||
OS (%) | 19.1 | 44.9 | 46.9 | 30.5 | ||
ISE | 0.90 | 1.44 | 1.60 | 1.26 | ||
ITSE | 1.64 | 1.92 | 2.51 | 1.10 | ||
ITAE | 15.86 | 7.56 | 10.00 | 3.77 | ||
case 3 | ts(s) | 26.3 | 18.33 | 19.76 | 8.14 | |
tr(s) | 3.37 | 2.62 | 3.01 | 2.96 | ||
OS (%) | 20.4 | 43.5 | 40.04 | 17.01 | ||
ISE | 1.27 | 1.78 | 1.91 | 1.44 | ||
ITSE | 4.13 | 3.63 | 4.02 | 1.36 | ||
ITAE | 29.76 | 15.44 | 17.88 | 3.69 | ||
case 4 | ts(s) | 20.94 | 9.25 | 12.28 | 5.68 | |
tr(s) | 1.71 | 1.98 | 2.27 | 2.25 | ||
OS (%) | 12.8 | 35.3 | 36.2 | 16.7 | ||
ISE | 0.75 | 1.27 | 1.41 | 1.17 | ||
ITSE | 0.96 | 1.30 | 1.65 | 0.82 | ||
ITAE | 11.26 | 4.60 | 6.28 | 1.84 |
d2y(t)dt2+2εσdy(t)dt+σ2y2(t)=σ2u(t−L) | (37) |
PID controller parameters are KP = 0.8028, KI = 1.8548, KD = 0.4609 selected from article [1] optimized by hybridized ABC-GA algorithm. Fuzzy PID controller parameters are GE = 0.8359, GCE = 0.1944, GPD = 20.5501, GPI = 20.2681,
Case 1: ε = 1, σ = 1, L = 0.
Case 2: ε = 1, σ = 1, L = 0.1.
Case 3: ε = 1, σ = 0.7, L = 0.
Case 4: ε = 1.3, σ = 1, L = 0.
Table 3 shows the P3 controlling performance comparisons of SGT2F-PID controller with other 3 controllers.
P3 | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ts(s) | 6.32 | 2.69 | 2.91 | 0.52 | |
tr(s) | 1.41 | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.6 | ||
OS (%) | 16.3 | 21.9 | 20.6 | 13.1 | ||
ISE | 0.52 | 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.25 | ||
ITSE | 0.26 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.04 | ||
ITAE | 1.34 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.15 | ||
case 2 | ts(s) | 6.65 | 4.08 | 4.34 | 2.84 | |
tr(s) | 1.42 | 0.61 | 0.69 | 0.58 | ||
OS (%) | 20.1 | 38.5 | 34.0 | 27.2 | ||
ISE | 0.62 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.34 | ||
ITSE | 0.36 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.08 | ||
ITAE | 1.73 | 0.64 | 0.7 | 0.30 | ||
case 3 | ts(s) | 7.52 | 3.15 | 3.44 | 2.07 | |
tr(s) | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.67 | 0.58 | ||
OS (%) | 22.6 | 27.2 | 26.0 | 16.1 | ||
ISE | 0.54 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.25 | ||
ITSE | 0.33 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.04 | ||
ITAE | 1.93 | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.18 | ||
case 4 | ts(s) | 2.73 | 2.19 | 2.37 | 1.56 | |
tr(s) | 1.27 | 0.53 | 0.6 | 0.55 | ||
OS (%) | 5.7 | 12.1 | 11.1 | 4.1 | ||
ISE | 0.36 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.20 | ||
ITSE | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | ||
ITAE | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.07 |
The inverted pendulum system was often applied to demonstrate the reliability of a new controller, as shown in Figure 25.
The inverted pendulum system is consisted of a cart and a pendulum, the controlling aim is to keep pendulum angle at a certain value under external force. Equation (38) describes the state equations of the inverted pendulum system [80].
[˙x1˙x2]=[x2gsin(x1)−(mp+Δmp)lx22sin(x1)cos(x1)(mp+Δmp+mc)4l3−((mp+Δmp)lcos(x1)2(mp+Δmp+mc)]+ΔA[x1x2]+[0cos(x1)(mp+Δmp+mc)4l3−((mp+Δmp)lcos(x1)2(mp+Δmp+mc)]u | (38) |
In (38), x1is the pendulum angle θ and x2 is the pendulum angular velocity
PID controller parameters are KP = 40, KI = 100, KD = 8. Fuzzy PID controller parameters are GE = 0.1009, GCE = 0.1944, GPD = 30.5501, GPI = 30.2681,
Case 1: Normal case.
The initial conditions x1 = 0.1rad and x2 = 0rad/s, the setting value is x1 = 0rad. In normal case, Δmp = 0 and
Case 2: Normal case.
The initial conditions x1 = 0.4rad and x2 = 0rad/s, the setting value is x1 = 0rad. In normal case, Δmp = 0 and
From case 3 to case 6, we will indicate the controlling effects of SGT2-FPID controller when the system adding uncertainties.
Case 3: Pendulum mass uncertainty.
Here, we will add pendulum mass uncertainty (Δmp = 2.7kg) at 2s.
Case 4: Measurement uncertainty in pendulum angle.
Here, we will add measurement uncertainty in pendulum angle θ (∆x1 = 0.052) at 3s.
Case 5: Structure uncertainty. Here, we will add structural uncertainty in the inverted pendulum as 2s (
Case 6: External disturbance uncertainty.
Here, we will add an external disturbance of controlling force at 2s (∆d = 29N).
Table 4 shows the P4 controlling performance comparisons of SGT2F-PID controller with other 5 controllers for case 1 and case 2. As compares with controlling performances of [80] and [81], another two error integral criterions are added as follows.
RMSE=√1NN∑i=1e(i)2 |
IAE=∫ts0|e(t)|dt |
P4 | IT2F-PID [80] | IT2F-PD+I [81] | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ISE | 0.036 | - | 2.78 × 10-4 | 3.32 × 10-4 | 2.53 × 10-4 | 1.9 × 10-4 | |
ITSE | - | - | 2.34 × 10-5 | 2.0 × 10-5 | 7.22 × 10-6 | 3.64 × 10-6 | ||
ITAE | - | - | 0.0036 | 9.35 × 10-4 | 4.52 × 10-4 | 1.62 × 10-4 | ||
RMSE | 0.0085 | - | 0.0118 | 0.0129 | 0.013 | 0.0097 | ||
IAE | 1.8001 | - | 0.0101 | 0.0076 | 0.0051 | 0.0033 | ||
case 2 | ISE | - | 1.5844 | 0.0045 | 0.0064 | 0.0069 | 0.005 | |
ITSE | - | - | 3.33 × 10-4 | 2.34 × 10-4 | 2.43 × 10-4 | 1.23 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | - | 0.0119 | 0.003 | 0.0029 | 0.0014 | ||
RMSE | - | 0.0514 | 0.0472 | 0.0568 | 0.0586 | 0.0499 | ||
IAE | - | 7.4692 | 0.0379 | 0.029 | 0.0287 | 0.0191 |
Table 5 shows the P4 controlling performance comparisons of SGT2F-PID controller with other 4 controllers for case 3 to case 6.
P4 | IT2F-PD+I [81] | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 3 | ISE | 1.9203 | 0.0045 | 0.0064 | 0.0069 | 0.005 | |
ITSE | - | 3.56 × 10-4 | 2.34 × 10-4 | 2.43 × 10-4 | 1.25 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0288 | 0.0035 | 0.0037 | 0.0019 | ||
RMSE | 0.04 | 0.0273 | 0.0328 | 0.0338 | 0.0288 | ||
IAE | 14.7056 | 0.0419 | 0.0292 | 0.0290 | 0.0192 | ||
case 4 | ISE | 2.527 | 0.0046 | 0.0066 | 0.007 | 0.0051 | |
ITSE | - | 6.47 × 10-4 | 5.9 × 10-4 | 5.5 × 10-4 | 4.0 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0316 | 0.0172 | 0.0154 | 0.011 | ||
RMSE | 0.0649 | 0.0276 | 0.0331 | 0.0341 | 0.0291 | ||
IAE | 13.3876 | 0.044 | 0.033 | 0.032 | 0.022 | ||
case 5 | ISE | 0.094 | 2.78 × 10-4 | 3.32 × 10-4 | 2.53 × 10-4 | 1.90 × 10-4 | |
ITSE | - | 2.34 × 10-5 | 2.04 × 10-5 | 7.73 × 10-6 | 3.64 × 10-6 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0036 | 0.0010 | 5.08 × 10-4 | 1.89 × 10-4 | ||
RMSE | 0.0125 | 0.0068 | 0.0074 | 0.0065 | 0.0056 | ||
IAE | 2.2475 | 0.0101 | 0.0077 | 0.0052 | 0.0033 | ||
case 6 | ISE | - | 0.0046 | 0.0065 | 0.0069 | 0.005 | |
ITSE | - | 7.53 × 10-4 | 3.67 × 10-4 | 3.79 × 10-4 | 1.75 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0447 | 0.0169 | 0.0185 | 0.0091 | ||
RMSE | - | 0.0278 | 0.0329 | 0.0340 | 0.0289 | ||
IAE | - | 0.0508 | 0.0345 | 0.0347 | 0.022 |
We discuss 3 kinds of fuzzy PID controllers and derive the mathematical expressions of TIF-PID, IT2F-PID and SGT2F-PID described by Eq (21), Eq (25) and Eq (30). The SGT2F-PID controller contains more adjustable parameters and only 4 fuzzy rules are generated. For the primary membership degree of α-plane (α = 1) is used to get the defuzzification result of SGT2F-PID controller, thus the SGT2F-PID controller maintains the ability of handing uncertainties as general type-2 fuzzy controller and higher real-time. By the mathematical expressions of TIF-PID, IT2F-PID and SGT2F-PID controller, the controlling performance is discussed and explains why SGT2F-PID controller has better controlling effects than TIF-PID and IT2F-PID controller.
And 4 simulations including a second order linear plant, an unstable first order linear plant and two second order nonlinear plants are tested. In addition, the controller parameters of each plant are the same when the plant parameters are changed, which demonstrate the robustness of SGT2F-PID controller. From the 4 simulation results, when the controlled object changes, the SGT2F-PID controller can still maintain small overshoot, faster response time and stable time. Also the controller performance evaluation indexes (ISE, ITSE, ITAE) of SGT2F-PID controller are better than other 3 compared controllers. The results of simulation 4 indicates that, when the controlled object exists uncertainties of measurement, structure and external disturbance, the SGT2F-PID controller can handle these uncertainties more robust than PID, TIF-PID and IT2F-PID controller.
The next researches will focus on the following 4 aspects:
Ⅰ). Although SGT2F-PID controller can achieve better control performances, but the determined parameters are more than other controllers. How to determine the appropriate parameters will be a major work.
Ⅱ). Triangular function is applied as primary and secondary membership function, other membership function like Gaussian, trapezoid will be discussed in the future.
Ⅲ). In this paper, we fix the parameters de and d1 and discuss the influence of w on the controller parameters gains. In the future, we will study the influence of de and d1 on the controller parameters gains.
Ⅳ). The fractional order simplified general type-2 fuzzy PID controller will be investigated and compared with existing PID and fuzzy PID controllers.
This study was funded by the scientific research fund project of Nanjing Institute of Technology (YKJ201523, QKJ201802).
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] | Healy C, McKay M (1999) Identifying sources of stress and job satisfaction in the nursing environment. Aust J Adv Nurs 17: 30-35. |
[2] |
McVicar A (2003) Workplace stress in nursing: A literature review. J Adv Nurs 44: 633-642. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0309-2402.2003.02853.x ![]() |
[3] | Gandi JC, Wai PS, Karick H, et al. (2011) The role of stress and level of burnout in job performance among nurses. Ment Health Fam Med 8: 181-194. |
[4] |
Khamisa N, Oldenburg B, Peltzer K, et al. (2015) Work related stress, burnout, job satisfaction and general health of nurses. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12: 652-666. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120100652 ![]() |
[5] |
Roberts RK, Grubb PL (2014) The consequences of nursing stress and need for integrated solutions. Rehabil Nurs 39: 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1002/rnj.97 ![]() |
[6] |
Babapour AR, Gahassab-Mozaffari N, Fathnezhad-Kazemi (2022) A nurses' job stress and its impact on quality of life and caring behaviors: A cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs 21: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00852-y ![]() |
[7] |
Sipos D, Kunstár O, Kovács A, et al. (2023) Burnout among oncologists, nurses, and radiographers working in oncology patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Radiography 29: 503-508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2023.02.008 ![]() |
[8] |
Cseh S, Zorga B, Sipos D, et al. (2021) Professional well-being of nurses in Southwest Hungarian hospitals. Kontakt 23: 76-82. https://www.doi.org/10.32725/kont.2021.016 ![]() |
[9] |
McNeely E (2005) The consequences of job stress for nurses' health: Time for a check-up. Nurs Outlook 53: 291-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2005.10.001 ![]() |
[10] |
de Gaudemaris R, Levant A, Ehlinger V, et al. (2011) Blood pressure and working conditions in hospital nurses and nursing assistants the ORSOSA study. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 104: 97-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.acvd.2010.12.001 ![]() |
[11] |
Barzideh M, Choobineh AR, Tabatabaee HR (2014) Job stress dimensions and their relationship to musculoskeletal disorders in Iranian nurses. Work 47: 423-429. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-121585 ![]() |
[12] |
Maharaj S, Lees T, Lal S (2019) Prevalence and risk factors of depression, anxiety, and stress in a cohort of Australian nurses. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16: 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010061 ![]() |
[13] |
Sarafis P, Rousaki E, Tsounis A, et al. (2016) The impact of occupational stress on nurses' caring behaviors and their health related quality of life. BMC Nurs 15: 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12912-016-0178-y ![]() |
[14] |
Karimi A, Adel-Mehraban M, Moeini M (2018) Occupational stressors in nurses and nursing adverse events. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 23: 230-234. https://doi.org/10.4103ijnmr.IJNMR_253_15 ![]() |
[15] |
Glazer S, Gyurak A (2008) Sources of occupational stress among nurses in five countries. Int J Intercult Relat 32: 49-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.10.003 ![]() |
[16] | Moustaka E, Constantinidis TC (2010) Sources and effects of work-related stress in nursing. Health Sci J 4: 210-2016. |
[17] |
Power KG, Sharp GR (1988) A comparison of sources of nursing stress and job satisfaction among mental handicap and hospice nursing staff. J Adv Nurs 13: 726-732. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1988.tb00563.x ![]() |
[18] | Najimi A, Goudarzi AM, Sharifirad G (2012) Causes of job stress in nurses: A cross-sectional study. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res 17: 301-305. |
[19] |
Toh SG, Ang E, Devi MK (2012) Systematic review on the relationship between the nursing shortage and job satisfaction, stress and burnout levels among nurses in oncology/haematology settings. Int J Evid Based Healthc 10: 126-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00271.x ![]() |
[20] |
MacKay CJ, Cousins R, Kelly PJ, et al. (2004) ‘Management standards’ and work-related stress in the UK: Policy background and science. Work Stress 18: 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370410001727474 ![]() |
[21] |
Cousins R, Mackay CJ, Clarke SD, et al. (2004) ‘Management standards’ work-related stress in the UK: Practical development. Work Stress 18: 113-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370410001734322 ![]() |
[22] |
Marcatto F, Colautti L, Filon FL, et al. (2014) The HSE management standards indicator tool: Concurrent and construct validity. Occup Med 64: 365-371. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqu038 ![]() |
[23] |
Kerr R, McHugh M, McCrory M (2009) HSE management standards and stress-related work outcomes. Occup Med 59: 574-579. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqp146 ![]() |
[24] | Marcatto F, Ferrante D (2021) Oltre la valutazione del rischio stress lavoro-correlato: L'approccio dei management standards per il benessere organizzativo. G Ital Med Lav Erg 43: 126-130. |
[25] |
Marcatto F, Di Blas L, Luis O, et al. (2022) The perceived occupational stress scale: A brief tool for measuring workers' perceptions of stress at work. Eur J Psychol Assess 38: 293-306. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1027/1015-5759/a000677 ![]() |
[26] |
Marcatto F, Colautti L, Filon FL, et al. (2016) Work-related stress risk factors and health outcomes in public sector employees. Saf Sci 89: 274-278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.07.003 ![]() |
[27] |
Marcatto F, Orrico K, Luis O, et al. (2021) Exposure to organizational stressors and health outcomes in a sample of Italian local police officers. Polic J Policy Pract 15: 2241-2251. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paab052 ![]() |
[28] |
Guidi S, Bagnara S, Fichera GP (2012) The HSE indicator tool, psychological distress and work ability. Occup Med 62: 203-209. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqs021 ![]() |
[29] |
Burke M (2013) Managing work-related stress in the district nursing workplace. Br J Community Nurs 18: 535-538. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2013.18.11.535 ![]() |
[30] |
Ageel M, Shbeer (2022) A exploring occupational stress among intensive care units nurses in Saudi Arabia using the health and safety executive management standards indicator tool. Nurs Res Rev 12: 247-258. https://doi.org/10.2147/NRR.S386670 ![]() |
[31] |
Creed FH, Davies I, Jackson J, et al. (2012) The epidemiology of multiple somatic symptoms. J Psychosom Res 72: 311-317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.01.009 ![]() |
[32] |
Nomura K, Nakao M, Sato M, et al. (2007) The association of the reporting of somatic symptoms with job stress and active coping among Japanese white-collar workers. J Occup Health 49: 370-375. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.49.370 ![]() |
[33] | Marcatto F, Di Blas L, Ferrante D (2023) Diagnostic utility of the perceived occupational stress scale. Eur J Psychol Assess . Advance online publication. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1027/1015-5759/a000789 |
[34] | Marcatto F, D'Errico G, Di Blas L, et al. (2011) La valutazione dello stress lavoro correlato: Adattamento italiano dell'HSE management standards work-related stress indicator tool. G Ital Med Lav Ergon 33: 403-408. |
[35] |
Nieuwenhuijsen K, Bruinvels D, Frings-Dresen M (2010) Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occup Med 60: 277-286. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqq081 ![]() |
[36] | Rondinone BM, Persechino B, Castaldi T, et al. (2012) Work-related stress risk assessment in Italy: The validation study of health safety and executive indicator tool. G Ital Med Lav Ergon 34: 392-399. |
[37] |
Dartey AF, Tackie V, Worna Lotse C, et al. (2023) Occupational stress and its effects on nurses at a health facility in Ho Municipality, Ghana. SAGE Open Nursing 9: 23779608231186044. https://doi.org/10.1177/23779608231186044 ![]() |
[38] | Acquadro Maran D, Giacomini G, Scacchi A, et al. (2024) Consequences and coping strategies of nurses and registered nurses perceiving to work in an environment characterized by workplace bullying. Dialogues in Health 100174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dialog.2024.100174 |
[39] |
Sipos D, Kövesdi O, Raposa B, et al. (2024) Occupational stress levels among radiologists and radiographers in Hungary during the COVID-19 era. Healthcare 12: 160. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020160 ![]() |
[40] |
Sipos D, Jenei T, Kövesdi OL, et al. (2023) Burnout and occupational stress among Hungarian radiographers working in emergency and non-emergency departments during COVID-19 pandemic. Radiography 29: 466-472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2023.02.013 ![]() |
[41] |
Roberts NJ, McAloney-Kocaman K, Lippiett K, et al. (2024) Factors influencing fatigue in UK nurses working in respiratory clinical areas during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic: An online survey. J Clin Nurs 33: 322-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16375 ![]() |
[42] |
Sagherian K, Steege LM, Cobb SJ, et al. (2023) Insomnia, fatigue and psychosocial well-being during COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey of hospital nursing staff in the United States. J Clin Nurs 32: 5382-5395. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15566 ![]() |
[43] |
Poole-Wright K, Guennouni I, Sterry O, et al. (2023) Fatigue outcomes following COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ open 13: e063969. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063969 ![]() |
[44] |
Singh SP, Tir J (2023) Threat-inducing violent events exacerbate social desirability bias in survey responses. Am J Political Sci 67: 154-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12615 ![]() |
[45] |
Cohen C, Pignata S, Bezak E, et al. (2023) Workplace interventions to improve well-being and reduce burnout for nurses, physicians and allied healthcare professionals: A systematic review. BMJ open 13: e071203. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071203 ![]() |
1. | Ling Xue, Xinru Cao, Hui Wan, Releasing Wolbachia-infected mosquitos to mitigate the transmission of Zika virus, 2021, 496, 0022247X, 124804, 10.1016/j.jmaa.2020.124804 |
P1 | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ts(s) | 12.3 | 6.1 | 6.69 | 4.96 | |
tr(s) | 5.05 | 2.01 | 2.3 | 2.07 | ||
OS (%) | 5.1 | 22.2 | 19.1 | 14.9 | ||
ISE | 1.44 | 1.15 | 1.24 | 1.13 | ||
ITSE | 1.49 | 0.84 | 0.96 | 0.74 | ||
ITAE | 5.37 | 2.23 | 2.53 | 1.58 | ||
case 2 | ts(s) | 17.68 | 8.5 | 9.3 | 7.01 | |
tr(s) | 3.18 | 1.84 | 2.07 | 1.88 | ||
OS (%) | 29.8 | 39.2 | 35.1 | 28.0 | ||
ISE | 1.59 | 1.26 | 1.32 | 1.15 | ||
ITSE | 3.27 | 1.26 | 1.35 | 0.87 | ||
ITAE | 14.77 | 4.07 | 4.49 | 2.55 | ||
Case3 | ts(s) | > 20 | 9.18 | 9.72 | 7.95 | |
tr(s) | > 20 | 1.94 | 2.25 | 2.01 | ||
OS (%) | - | 17.8 | 11.7 | 11.0 | ||
ISE | 1.74 | 1.13 | 1.21 | 1.11 | ||
ITSE | 3.78 | 0.86 | 0.93 | 0.76 | ||
ITAE | 20.26 | 2.98 | 3.04 | 2.27 | ||
case 4 | ts(s) | > 20 | 8.85 | 9.61 | 8.0 | |
tr(s) | 12.06 | 3.05 | 3.59 | 3.06 | ||
OS (%) | 2.3 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 7.1 | ||
ISE | 2.67 | 1.47 | 1.61 | 1.46 | ||
ITSE | 5.73 | 1.30 | 1.60 | 1.23 | ||
ITAE | 17.08 | 3.87 | 4.77 | 3.10 |
P2 | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ts(s) | 22.9 | 9.36 | 10.49 | 3.94 | |
tr(s) | 1.78 | 2.0 | 2.31 | 2.49 | ||
OS (%) | 16.7 | 27.9 | 28.2 | 5.2 | ||
ISE | 0.71 | 1.09 | 1.23 | 1.09 | ||
ITSE | 1.53 | 0.96 | 1.23 | 0.72 | ||
ITAE | 16.02 | 3.62 | 4.70 | 1.37 | ||
case 2 | ts(s) | 22.71 | 13.44 | 14.91 | 9.72 | |
tr(s) | 1.56 | 1.95 | 2.2 | 2.14 | ||
OS (%) | 19.1 | 44.9 | 46.9 | 30.5 | ||
ISE | 0.90 | 1.44 | 1.60 | 1.26 | ||
ITSE | 1.64 | 1.92 | 2.51 | 1.10 | ||
ITAE | 15.86 | 7.56 | 10.00 | 3.77 | ||
case 3 | ts(s) | 26.3 | 18.33 | 19.76 | 8.14 | |
tr(s) | 3.37 | 2.62 | 3.01 | 2.96 | ||
OS (%) | 20.4 | 43.5 | 40.04 | 17.01 | ||
ISE | 1.27 | 1.78 | 1.91 | 1.44 | ||
ITSE | 4.13 | 3.63 | 4.02 | 1.36 | ||
ITAE | 29.76 | 15.44 | 17.88 | 3.69 | ||
case 4 | ts(s) | 20.94 | 9.25 | 12.28 | 5.68 | |
tr(s) | 1.71 | 1.98 | 2.27 | 2.25 | ||
OS (%) | 12.8 | 35.3 | 36.2 | 16.7 | ||
ISE | 0.75 | 1.27 | 1.41 | 1.17 | ||
ITSE | 0.96 | 1.30 | 1.65 | 0.82 | ||
ITAE | 11.26 | 4.60 | 6.28 | 1.84 |
P3 | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ts(s) | 6.32 | 2.69 | 2.91 | 0.52 | |
tr(s) | 1.41 | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.6 | ||
OS (%) | 16.3 | 21.9 | 20.6 | 13.1 | ||
ISE | 0.52 | 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.25 | ||
ITSE | 0.26 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.04 | ||
ITAE | 1.34 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.15 | ||
case 2 | ts(s) | 6.65 | 4.08 | 4.34 | 2.84 | |
tr(s) | 1.42 | 0.61 | 0.69 | 0.58 | ||
OS (%) | 20.1 | 38.5 | 34.0 | 27.2 | ||
ISE | 0.62 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.34 | ||
ITSE | 0.36 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.08 | ||
ITAE | 1.73 | 0.64 | 0.7 | 0.30 | ||
case 3 | ts(s) | 7.52 | 3.15 | 3.44 | 2.07 | |
tr(s) | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.67 | 0.58 | ||
OS (%) | 22.6 | 27.2 | 26.0 | 16.1 | ||
ISE | 0.54 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.25 | ||
ITSE | 0.33 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.04 | ||
ITAE | 1.93 | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.18 | ||
case 4 | ts(s) | 2.73 | 2.19 | 2.37 | 1.56 | |
tr(s) | 1.27 | 0.53 | 0.6 | 0.55 | ||
OS (%) | 5.7 | 12.1 | 11.1 | 4.1 | ||
ISE | 0.36 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.20 | ||
ITSE | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | ||
ITAE | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.07 |
P4 | IT2F-PID [80] | IT2F-PD+I [81] | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ISE | 0.036 | - | 2.78 × 10-4 | 3.32 × 10-4 | 2.53 × 10-4 | 1.9 × 10-4 | |
ITSE | - | - | 2.34 × 10-5 | 2.0 × 10-5 | 7.22 × 10-6 | 3.64 × 10-6 | ||
ITAE | - | - | 0.0036 | 9.35 × 10-4 | 4.52 × 10-4 | 1.62 × 10-4 | ||
RMSE | 0.0085 | - | 0.0118 | 0.0129 | 0.013 | 0.0097 | ||
IAE | 1.8001 | - | 0.0101 | 0.0076 | 0.0051 | 0.0033 | ||
case 2 | ISE | - | 1.5844 | 0.0045 | 0.0064 | 0.0069 | 0.005 | |
ITSE | - | - | 3.33 × 10-4 | 2.34 × 10-4 | 2.43 × 10-4 | 1.23 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | - | 0.0119 | 0.003 | 0.0029 | 0.0014 | ||
RMSE | - | 0.0514 | 0.0472 | 0.0568 | 0.0586 | 0.0499 | ||
IAE | - | 7.4692 | 0.0379 | 0.029 | 0.0287 | 0.0191 |
P4 | IT2F-PD+I [81] | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 3 | ISE | 1.9203 | 0.0045 | 0.0064 | 0.0069 | 0.005 | |
ITSE | - | 3.56 × 10-4 | 2.34 × 10-4 | 2.43 × 10-4 | 1.25 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0288 | 0.0035 | 0.0037 | 0.0019 | ||
RMSE | 0.04 | 0.0273 | 0.0328 | 0.0338 | 0.0288 | ||
IAE | 14.7056 | 0.0419 | 0.0292 | 0.0290 | 0.0192 | ||
case 4 | ISE | 2.527 | 0.0046 | 0.0066 | 0.007 | 0.0051 | |
ITSE | - | 6.47 × 10-4 | 5.9 × 10-4 | 5.5 × 10-4 | 4.0 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0316 | 0.0172 | 0.0154 | 0.011 | ||
RMSE | 0.0649 | 0.0276 | 0.0331 | 0.0341 | 0.0291 | ||
IAE | 13.3876 | 0.044 | 0.033 | 0.032 | 0.022 | ||
case 5 | ISE | 0.094 | 2.78 × 10-4 | 3.32 × 10-4 | 2.53 × 10-4 | 1.90 × 10-4 | |
ITSE | - | 2.34 × 10-5 | 2.04 × 10-5 | 7.73 × 10-6 | 3.64 × 10-6 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0036 | 0.0010 | 5.08 × 10-4 | 1.89 × 10-4 | ||
RMSE | 0.0125 | 0.0068 | 0.0074 | 0.0065 | 0.0056 | ||
IAE | 2.2475 | 0.0101 | 0.0077 | 0.0052 | 0.0033 | ||
case 6 | ISE | - | 0.0046 | 0.0065 | 0.0069 | 0.005 | |
ITSE | - | 7.53 × 10-4 | 3.67 × 10-4 | 3.79 × 10-4 | 1.75 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0447 | 0.0169 | 0.0185 | 0.0091 | ||
RMSE | - | 0.0278 | 0.0329 | 0.0340 | 0.0289 | ||
IAE | - | 0.0508 | 0.0345 | 0.0347 | 0.022 |
P1 | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ts(s) | 12.3 | 6.1 | 6.69 | 4.96 | |
tr(s) | 5.05 | 2.01 | 2.3 | 2.07 | ||
OS (%) | 5.1 | 22.2 | 19.1 | 14.9 | ||
ISE | 1.44 | 1.15 | 1.24 | 1.13 | ||
ITSE | 1.49 | 0.84 | 0.96 | 0.74 | ||
ITAE | 5.37 | 2.23 | 2.53 | 1.58 | ||
case 2 | ts(s) | 17.68 | 8.5 | 9.3 | 7.01 | |
tr(s) | 3.18 | 1.84 | 2.07 | 1.88 | ||
OS (%) | 29.8 | 39.2 | 35.1 | 28.0 | ||
ISE | 1.59 | 1.26 | 1.32 | 1.15 | ||
ITSE | 3.27 | 1.26 | 1.35 | 0.87 | ||
ITAE | 14.77 | 4.07 | 4.49 | 2.55 | ||
Case3 | ts(s) | > 20 | 9.18 | 9.72 | 7.95 | |
tr(s) | > 20 | 1.94 | 2.25 | 2.01 | ||
OS (%) | - | 17.8 | 11.7 | 11.0 | ||
ISE | 1.74 | 1.13 | 1.21 | 1.11 | ||
ITSE | 3.78 | 0.86 | 0.93 | 0.76 | ||
ITAE | 20.26 | 2.98 | 3.04 | 2.27 | ||
case 4 | ts(s) | > 20 | 8.85 | 9.61 | 8.0 | |
tr(s) | 12.06 | 3.05 | 3.59 | 3.06 | ||
OS (%) | 2.3 | 9.9 | 9.9 | 7.1 | ||
ISE | 2.67 | 1.47 | 1.61 | 1.46 | ||
ITSE | 5.73 | 1.30 | 1.60 | 1.23 | ||
ITAE | 17.08 | 3.87 | 4.77 | 3.10 |
P2 | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ts(s) | 22.9 | 9.36 | 10.49 | 3.94 | |
tr(s) | 1.78 | 2.0 | 2.31 | 2.49 | ||
OS (%) | 16.7 | 27.9 | 28.2 | 5.2 | ||
ISE | 0.71 | 1.09 | 1.23 | 1.09 | ||
ITSE | 1.53 | 0.96 | 1.23 | 0.72 | ||
ITAE | 16.02 | 3.62 | 4.70 | 1.37 | ||
case 2 | ts(s) | 22.71 | 13.44 | 14.91 | 9.72 | |
tr(s) | 1.56 | 1.95 | 2.2 | 2.14 | ||
OS (%) | 19.1 | 44.9 | 46.9 | 30.5 | ||
ISE | 0.90 | 1.44 | 1.60 | 1.26 | ||
ITSE | 1.64 | 1.92 | 2.51 | 1.10 | ||
ITAE | 15.86 | 7.56 | 10.00 | 3.77 | ||
case 3 | ts(s) | 26.3 | 18.33 | 19.76 | 8.14 | |
tr(s) | 3.37 | 2.62 | 3.01 | 2.96 | ||
OS (%) | 20.4 | 43.5 | 40.04 | 17.01 | ||
ISE | 1.27 | 1.78 | 1.91 | 1.44 | ||
ITSE | 4.13 | 3.63 | 4.02 | 1.36 | ||
ITAE | 29.76 | 15.44 | 17.88 | 3.69 | ||
case 4 | ts(s) | 20.94 | 9.25 | 12.28 | 5.68 | |
tr(s) | 1.71 | 1.98 | 2.27 | 2.25 | ||
OS (%) | 12.8 | 35.3 | 36.2 | 16.7 | ||
ISE | 0.75 | 1.27 | 1.41 | 1.17 | ||
ITSE | 0.96 | 1.30 | 1.65 | 0.82 | ||
ITAE | 11.26 | 4.60 | 6.28 | 1.84 |
P3 | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ts(s) | 6.32 | 2.69 | 2.91 | 0.52 | |
tr(s) | 1.41 | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.6 | ||
OS (%) | 16.3 | 21.9 | 20.6 | 13.1 | ||
ISE | 0.52 | 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.25 | ||
ITSE | 0.26 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.04 | ||
ITAE | 1.34 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.15 | ||
case 2 | ts(s) | 6.65 | 4.08 | 4.34 | 2.84 | |
tr(s) | 1.42 | 0.61 | 0.69 | 0.58 | ||
OS (%) | 20.1 | 38.5 | 34.0 | 27.2 | ||
ISE | 0.62 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.34 | ||
ITSE | 0.36 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.08 | ||
ITAE | 1.73 | 0.64 | 0.7 | 0.30 | ||
case 3 | ts(s) | 7.52 | 3.15 | 3.44 | 2.07 | |
tr(s) | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.67 | 0.58 | ||
OS (%) | 22.6 | 27.2 | 26.0 | 16.1 | ||
ISE | 0.54 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.25 | ||
ITSE | 0.33 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.04 | ||
ITAE | 1.93 | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.18 | ||
case 4 | ts(s) | 2.73 | 2.19 | 2.37 | 1.56 | |
tr(s) | 1.27 | 0.53 | 0.6 | 0.55 | ||
OS (%) | 5.7 | 12.1 | 11.1 | 4.1 | ||
ISE | 0.36 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.20 | ||
ITSE | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | ||
ITAE | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.07 |
P4 | IT2F-PID [80] | IT2F-PD+I [81] | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 1 | ISE | 0.036 | - | 2.78 × 10-4 | 3.32 × 10-4 | 2.53 × 10-4 | 1.9 × 10-4 | |
ITSE | - | - | 2.34 × 10-5 | 2.0 × 10-5 | 7.22 × 10-6 | 3.64 × 10-6 | ||
ITAE | - | - | 0.0036 | 9.35 × 10-4 | 4.52 × 10-4 | 1.62 × 10-4 | ||
RMSE | 0.0085 | - | 0.0118 | 0.0129 | 0.013 | 0.0097 | ||
IAE | 1.8001 | - | 0.0101 | 0.0076 | 0.0051 | 0.0033 | ||
case 2 | ISE | - | 1.5844 | 0.0045 | 0.0064 | 0.0069 | 0.005 | |
ITSE | - | - | 3.33 × 10-4 | 2.34 × 10-4 | 2.43 × 10-4 | 1.23 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | - | 0.0119 | 0.003 | 0.0029 | 0.0014 | ||
RMSE | - | 0.0514 | 0.0472 | 0.0568 | 0.0586 | 0.0499 | ||
IAE | - | 7.4692 | 0.0379 | 0.029 | 0.0287 | 0.0191 |
P4 | IT2F-PD+I [81] | PID | T1F-PID | IT2F-PID | SGT2F-PID | ||
case 3 | ISE | 1.9203 | 0.0045 | 0.0064 | 0.0069 | 0.005 | |
ITSE | - | 3.56 × 10-4 | 2.34 × 10-4 | 2.43 × 10-4 | 1.25 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0288 | 0.0035 | 0.0037 | 0.0019 | ||
RMSE | 0.04 | 0.0273 | 0.0328 | 0.0338 | 0.0288 | ||
IAE | 14.7056 | 0.0419 | 0.0292 | 0.0290 | 0.0192 | ||
case 4 | ISE | 2.527 | 0.0046 | 0.0066 | 0.007 | 0.0051 | |
ITSE | - | 6.47 × 10-4 | 5.9 × 10-4 | 5.5 × 10-4 | 4.0 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0316 | 0.0172 | 0.0154 | 0.011 | ||
RMSE | 0.0649 | 0.0276 | 0.0331 | 0.0341 | 0.0291 | ||
IAE | 13.3876 | 0.044 | 0.033 | 0.032 | 0.022 | ||
case 5 | ISE | 0.094 | 2.78 × 10-4 | 3.32 × 10-4 | 2.53 × 10-4 | 1.90 × 10-4 | |
ITSE | - | 2.34 × 10-5 | 2.04 × 10-5 | 7.73 × 10-6 | 3.64 × 10-6 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0036 | 0.0010 | 5.08 × 10-4 | 1.89 × 10-4 | ||
RMSE | 0.0125 | 0.0068 | 0.0074 | 0.0065 | 0.0056 | ||
IAE | 2.2475 | 0.0101 | 0.0077 | 0.0052 | 0.0033 | ||
case 6 | ISE | - | 0.0046 | 0.0065 | 0.0069 | 0.005 | |
ITSE | - | 7.53 × 10-4 | 3.67 × 10-4 | 3.79 × 10-4 | 1.75 × 10-4 | ||
ITAE | - | 0.0447 | 0.0169 | 0.0185 | 0.0091 | ||
RMSE | - | 0.0278 | 0.0329 | 0.0340 | 0.0289 | ||
IAE | - | 0.0508 | 0.0345 | 0.0347 | 0.022 |