axioms

Article
A Numerical Implementation of Fractional-Order PID
Controllers for Autonomous Vehicles
Iqbal M. Batiha 1,2, * , Osama Y. Ababneh 3 , Abeer A. Al-Nana 4 , Waseem G. Alshanti 1 ,
Shameseddin Alshorm 1 and Shaher Momani 2,5

1 Department of Mathematics, Al Zaytoonah University of Jordan, Amman 11733, Jordan

2 Nonlinear Dynamics Research Center (NDRC), Ajman University, Ajman P.O. Box 346, United Arab Emirates
3 Department of Mathematics, Zarqa University, Zarqa 11831, Jordan
4 Department of Mathematics, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj 11942, Saudi Arabia
5 Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
* Correspondence: i.batiha@zuj.edu.jo

Abstract: In the context of reaching the best way to control the movement of autonomous cars linearly
and angularly, making them more stable and balanced on different roads and ensuring that they avoid
road obstacles, this manuscript chiefly aims to reach the optimal approach for a fractional-order PID
controller (or PI γ D ρ -controller) instead of the already classical one used to provide smooth automatic
parking for electrical autonomous cars. The fractional-order PI γ D ρ -controller is based on the particle
swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm for its design, with two different approximations: Oustaloup’s
approximation and the continued fractional expansion (CFE) approximation. Our approaches to the
fractional-order PID using the results of the PSO algorithm are compared with the classical PID that
was designed using the results of the Cohen–Coon, Ziegler–Nichols and bacteria foraging algorithms.
The scheme represented by the proposed PI γ D ρ -controller can provide the system of the autonomous
vehicle with more stable results than that of the PID controller.

Keywords: PI γ D ρ -controller; particle swarm optimization; Laplacian operator; Oustaloup’s approach;

Citation: Batiha, I.M.; Ababneh, O.Y.;
continued fractional expansion approach
Al-Nana, A.A.; Alshanti, W.G.;
Alshorm, S.; Momani, S. A Numerical
MSC: 26A33; 34A08; 34K37
Implementation of Fractional-Order
PID Controllers for Autonomous
Vehicles. Axioms 2023, 12, 306.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
1. Introduction
axioms12030306
Recently, the subject of self-driving systems has taken up a large part of the research
Academic Editors: Hans J. Haubold,
into car development. In order for these systems to work in an effective manner, the
Fahad Al Basir and Konstantin
car must have a number of sensors to collect information about traffic, the surrounding
Blyuss
areas of the car and pedestrians, as well as information on traffic safety under different
Received: 15 January 2023 climatic conditions.
Revised: 15 February 2023 In self-driving cars, research and practical experiments have been aimed at developing
Accepted: 22 February 2023 the PID controller, which is latent in the heart of the autonomous car, into a highly accurate
Published: 17 March 2023 sensor that provides quick and stable responses. Such a controller is typically used to
determine the deviation of the car’s position, the position of the axle, the balance of the
four rotors and independent cars that are following a certain path smoothly without
overtaking [1–6].
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
The PID controller has a wide range of applications in many industrial fields due to its
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
effectiveness in controlling systems [7,8]. Most notably, flow and temperature measurement
distributed under the terms and
systems, cars and engines of all kinds. The PID controller is built from an integro-differential
conditions of the Creative Commons equation whose simplicity lies in the adjustment of three different parameters: k p , k i and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// k d . By optimizing these parameters, the improvement in device performance is more
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ obvious and precise. Among the most widely used PID-controller tuning methods in
4.0/). control engineering are the Ziegler–Nichols and Cohen–Coon methods, the particle swarm

Axioms 2023, 12, 306. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms12030306 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/axioms

Axioms 2023, 12, 306 2 of 12

optimization algorithm, the bacteria foraging algorithm, the genetic algorithm, the artificial
bee colony, ant colony optimization, the grey wolf optimizer, the hybrid optimization
technique and many others [9]. The Cohen–Coon tuning method is the second most
popular after the Zeigler–Nichols tuning method because it is more flexible than the
Zeigler–Nichols tuning method in a wider variety of processes. The Cohen–Coon tuning
method is reasonable for processes where the dead time is less than twice that of the time
constant, but the Zeigler–Nichols tuning method works well only on processes where
the dead time is less than half that of the time response [10]. In the same regard, the
particle swarm optimization (PSO) technique, proposed by Kennedy and Eberhart [11],
is an evolutionary-type global optimization technique, whose development was inspired
by social activities in flock of birds and schools of fish, and it is widely applied to various
engineering problems due to its high computational efficiency. Compared with other
population-based stochastic optimization methods, such as the genetic algorithm, PSO has
a comparable or even superior search performance for many hard optimization problems,
with faster and more stable convergence rates. It has been proved to be an effective optimum
tool in system identification and PID-controller tuning for a class of processes [12]. The
efficiency of, e.g., the genetic algorithm can be used to create an objective function that
evaluates the PID gains based on the overall errors of the systems and generate a high
quality solution [13].
Recently, the PID controller has been improved using the concept of fractional
calculus [14]. With this new concept, the PID controller has been upgraded from the classic
PID controller to a fractional-order PID controller. According to this concept, the equation
from the classical controller was updated into the fractional-order PID controller [14]. Based
on this evolution, the further tuning of two parameters, the fractional-order integral value
(γ) and the fractional-order derivative value (ρ), in addition to the three existing ones, are
needed. These two parameters require proper handling of the fractional-order Laplacian
operators, sγ and sρ , which can be approximated by different numerical approaches, such
as the continued fractional expansion (CFE) scheme, Oustaloup’s approximation and oth-
ers. These approximations are characterized by the ability to convert the fractional-order
Laplacian operators, (sγ and sρ ), into their corresponding integer-order rational transfer
functions. In general, these techniques can improve the PID controller by transforming it
into the PI γ D ρ -controller by optimizing the five parameters (K p , Ki , Kd , γ, ρ).
In this manuscript, we are interested in implementing the PSO optimization algorithm
for the purpose of tuning the fractional-order PID controller in order to make the control
system for self-driving cars on different roads and situations more stable, more controlled
and more responsive. The CFE and Oustaloup approaches were used to approximate the
fractional-order Laplacian operators, sγ and sρ . Our approaches to fractional-order PID
using the results of the PSO algorithm were compared with the classical PID controller that
was designed using the results of the Cohen–Coon (CC) approach, the Ziegler–Nichols
(ZN) method and the bacteria foraging algorithm (BFA).
In this work, we emphasize the fact that the fractional-order PID controller can provide
better results over standard PID controllers, here by proposing different PI γ D ρ -controllers
for autonomous vehicle systems that were established based on the application of the PSO
algorithm simultaneously with the use of two different approximations (Oustaloup and
the continued fractional expansion) of the fractional-order integro-differential Laplacian
operators. Actually, including these two approaches within the autonomous vehicle system,
using the PSO algorithm to verify the validity of using the fractional-order PID controller,
is regarded as the main contribution of this work.

2. The Fractional-Order PID Controller

Podlubny et al. are credited with creating the fractional-order PID controller in 1977
by adding two extra parameters (γ and ρ) to the basic parameters (K p , Ki , Kd ) of the PID
controller, which clearly shows the high response speed of this construction compared
Axioms 2023, 12, 306 3 of 12

to the classical version [15–17]. Generally, the PID controller is obtained by using the
following fractional-order integro-differential equation [18]:

y ( t ) = K p e ( t ) + Ki J γ e ( t ) + K d D ρ e ( t ), (1)

where J γ is the Riemann–Liouville operator of order γ, D ρ is the Caputo operator of order

ρ and e(t) is the error signal. By utilizing the forward Laplace transform of (1), we obtain
the following:
Y (s) K
Z (s) = = K p + γi + Kd sρ , (2)
E(s) s
where E(s) = L (e(t)) is the Laplace transform of e(t).
The main objective of this work was to effectively enable the provided controller inside
autonomous electric vehicles to provide a safe and stable place away from road hazards
for the autonomous vehicle. Accordingly, the PSO algorithm [11,14,19,20] was applied to
obtain the best values for the five parameters of the fractional-order PID controller. The
parameters of the PSO algorithm used throughout this work are taken as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Parameters of the PSO algorithm.

Parameter Value
Population size. 20
Max. number of iterations. 100
Range of K p . (0, 60]
Range of Ki . (0, 66]
Range of Kd . (0, 61]
Range of γ. (0, 1)
Range of ρ. (0, 1)

As for optimality theory, building the so-called fitness function within the algorithm
and reducing its value was the ultimate goal of this theory, through which it is easy
to obtain the optimal values for the fractional-order PID controller. According to what
has been mentioned, we are in the process of adopting a specific fitness function [19,20].
The following is how such a fitness function (integral time absolute error (ITAE)) can
be expressed: Z ∞
V= t|et |dt, (3)
0

where e(t) is the error signal over the time t. However, the overall tuning process of the
PID controller using the PSO algorithm can be described by the block diagram shown
in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Block diagram of the PSO algorithm running to tune the PI γ D ρ –controller.

To obtain the optimal tuning of a given system, it is necessary to approximate the

fractional-order Laplacian operators: sγ and sρ . This can be performed specifically by
using the CFE and Oustaloup approaches, which are based on the development of two
appropriate equations for the above-mentioned Laplacian operators; however, the reader
Axioms 2023, 12, 306 4 of 12

can obtain more comprehensive information about these two approaches by referring to
the following content.

2.1. The CFE Approximation

This method is regarded as the primary mathematical approach for providing the
Laplacian operator by proper integer-order rational transfer functions. Such an approach
was established based on the following approximation [21]:

1
(1 + z ) α = αz
, (4)
1− (1+ α ) z
1+ (1− α ) z
2+
(2+ α ) z
3−
(2− α ) z
2+
···+(n+α)z
5+
(n−α)z
2+
2n+1+...

where 0 < α < 1 and n ∈ N.

For the purpose of obtaining a finite-order approximation of the operator sα , one
might replace the term s for the variable z in (4). This exchange step enables the nth-order
approximation of such operators to appear around the center frequency ω0 = 1 rad/s, as
follows [21]:
α 0 s n + α 1 s n −1 + · · · + α n −1 s + α n
sα ∼
= , (5)
α n s n + α n −1 s n −1 + · · · + α 1 s + α 0
where 0 < αi < 1, i = 0, 1, 2, · · · , 5. In particular, the coefficient values of αi can be found
in reference [21], for i = 0, 1, · · · , 5. Moreover, the operator s−α can be simply obtained by
inverting the expression given in (5).

2.2. Oustaloup’s Approximation

Oustaloup’s approximation is a popular approximation that can be used to generate
specific rational transfer functions of odd-order only. The bandwidth over which the
approximation is considered can be customized to yield a good fitting to the fractional-
order elements s±α within a predefined frequency band, where 0 < α < 1. Thus, for
geometrically distributed frequencies over the frequency range of interest (ωb , ωh ), the
following rational function is used for approximating sα [22]:

N s + ωk0 Bn sn + Bn−1 sn−1 + · · · + B1 s + B0

sα ∼
= ∏ s + ωk
=
A n s n + A n −1 s n −1 + · · · + A 1 s + A 0
, (6)
k =− N

where the poles, zeros and the gain are evaluated form the following relations:

 ω  K+ N2N
+0.5(1+α)
+1
h
ωk = ωb , (7)
ωb

+0.5(1−α)
 ω  K+ N2N
h +1
ωk0 = ωb , (8)
ωb
 ω − α2 N
ωK
K=
ωb
h
∏ ωk0
. (9)
K =− N

Due to the geometrical distribution of frequencies, the unity-gain geometric frequency

ωu is calculated from the following:
√
ωu = ωb .ωh , (10)

where the approximation depends on the order filer N and the lower frequency range (ωb , ωh ).
Axioms 2023, 12, 306 5 of 12

Observe that the order of the transfer function (6) is always of order n = 2N + 1. In
the special case where the limited frequencies ωb and ωh are symmetrical around the center
frequency, ωu = 1 rad/s, (i.e., ωb = 1/ωh ), then the coefficients of (6) will be correlated to
each other as follows [22]:

An−i = Bi , i = 0, 1, 2, · · · , N. (11)

3. The Design of the Fractional-Order PID Controller for Autonomous Cars

Regarding the execution of system data, the system was initially programmed using
MATLAB by giving it the system inputs and executing it to obtain the required output. The
MATLAB code implements the two tuning methods mentioned for the fractional-order PID
controller in autonomous cars, analyzes them and then obtains and evaluates the results. In
fact, the system is described with two different types of transfer function for modeling the
steering, which is represented by a servo motor, and the car motion, which is represented
by DC motors. By defining the system for each of the linear motion subsystems and the
angular motion subsystem, the results were obtained as in [23]. The input to the linear
motion subsystem is the voltage, and the output is the velocity. For the angular motion
subsystem, the voltage is also the input, and the output is the angular velocity. The angular
motion, which has two poles with no zeros, is given as the following transfer function [23]:

0.121
T1 (s) = . (12)
s2 + 0.619s + 0.1636
In addition, the transfer function of the linear motion, which has two poles with no
zeros, can be formulated as follows [23]:

0.008936
T2 (s) = . (13)
s2 + 0.1258s + 0.02384
From this point of view, we aim to reduce the fitness function given in (3) by using the
PSO algorithm followed by approximating the resulting fractional-order operators (sγ and
sρ ) using the CFE and Oustaloup methods. Through these approximations, we obtained
two fractional-order PID controllers Ci (s), which necessarily means we also obtained two
closed-loop systems Hi (s), where i = 1, 2. We compared all closed-loop systems to derive
the best controller for the proposed subsystems.
In the following two subsections, different results of the proposed improvements are
shown, and the results of the CC, ZN and BFA improvements for the classic PID controller
are listed and compared by specific graphics and tables. The preferences of the proposed
novel improvements is also shown.

3.1. Tuning Fractional-Order PID of Linear Transfer Motion

In this part, we execute the PSO algorithm to obtain two fractional-order PID con-
trollers, C1 (s) and C2 (s), to tune the linear transfer motion T2 (s) given in (13). These
controllers are given as follows:
• The PI γ D ρ -PSO-controller via the CFE approach:
0.31
C1 (s) = 14.7631 + 0.911 + 51s0.867 . (14)
s
Using the CFE approach turns the two operators, s0.911 and s0.8670 , into the following
integer-order rational transfer functions:

2.4696e + 2s5 + 2.6421e + 3s4 + 5.607e + 3s3 + 2.9951e + 3s2 + 3.3208e + 2s + 0.9999
s0.911 = (15)
s5 + 3.32084e + 2s4 + 2.9951e + 3s3 + 5.6074e + 3s2 + 2.6421e + 3s + 2.4696e + 2
Axioms 2023, 12, 306 6 of 12

and

1.4201e + 2s5 + 1.5719e + 3s4 + 3.4354e + 3s3 + 1.8949e + 3s2 + 2.2056e + 2s + 1

s0.867 = , (16)
s5 + 2.2056e + 2s4 + 1.8949e + 3s3 + 3.4354e + 3s2 + 1.5719e + 3s + 1.42014e + 2
where e here is shorthand for ×10(·) . Therefore, C1 (s) in (14) is transformed into the
following form:

1.792e6s10 + 3.978e7s9 + 3.113e8s8 + 1.063e9s7 + 1.792e9s6 + 1.561e9s5

+ 7.168e8s4 + 1.702e8s3 + 1.982e7s2 + 9.843e5s + 1.302e4
C1 (s) = . (17)
247s10 + 5.711e4s9 + 1.056e6s8 + 7.095e6s7 + 2.075e7s6 + 2.92e7s5
+ 2.011e7s4 + 6.647e6s3 + 9.508e5s2 + 4.873e4s + 142

This consequently yields the following closed-loop system:

2.594e7s10 + 5.75e8s9 + 4.505e9s8 + 1.538e10s7 + 2.593e10s6 + 2.259e10s5

+ 1.037e10s4 + 2.463e9s3 + 2.868e8s2 + 1.424e7s + 1.884e5
H1 (s) = . (18)
247s13 + 7.599e4s12 + 5.448e6s11 + 1.2e8s10 + 1.255e9s9 + 6.899e9s8 + 1.992e10s7 + 3.068e10s6
+ 2.531e10s5 + 1.118e10s4 + 2.572e9s3 + 2.923e8s2 + 1.427e7s + 1.884e5

• The PI γ D ρ -PSO-controller via Oustaloup’s approach:

9.88342
C2 (s) = 0.17 + 0.2823 + 61s0.976 . (19)
s
In this case, we use Oustaloup’s approach to approximate the two operators, s0.2823 and
s0.976 ,which are in the following two forms:

3.66s5 + 133.8s4 + 667.5s3 + 514.6s2 + 61.35s + 1

s0.2823 = (20)
s5 + 61.35s4 + 514.6s3 + 667.5s2 + 133.8s + 3.669
and
89.54s5 + 1724s4 + 4538s3 + 1847s2 + 116.2s + 1
s0.976 = . (21)
s5 + 116.2s4 + 1847s3 + 4538s2 + 1724s + 89.54
Actually, the above two Laplacian operators can convert (19) into the following form:

2.005e4s10 + 1.119e6s9 + 1.883e7s8 + 1.123e8s7 + 2.676e8s6 + 2.622e8s5

+ 1.216e8s4 + 2.898e7s3 + 3.641e6s2 + 1.93e5s + 3323
C2 (s) = . (22)
3.669s10 + 560.1s9 + 2.299e4s8 + 3.419e5s7 + 1.906s6 + 4.218e6s5
+ 3.611e6s4 + 1.227e6s3 + 1.564e5s2 + 7217s + 89.54

Hence, the corresponding closed-loop system is in the following form:

2.901e5s10 + 1.619e7s9 + 2.725e8s8 + 1.625e9s7 + 3.872e9s6 + 3.795e9s5

+ 1.76e9s4 + 4.194e8s3 + 5.268e7s2 + 2.793e6s + 4.809e4
H2 (s) = . (23)
3.669s13 + 840.6s12 + 6.621e4s11 + 2.451e6s10 + 4.674e7s9 + 4.599e8s8 + 2.16e9s7 + 4.613e9s6
+ 4.286e9s5 + 1.907e9s4 + 4.373e8s3 + 5.35e7s2 + 2.803e6s + 4.81e4

• The PID controller via the bacteria-foraging-algorithm (BFA) approach: herein, we

implement the BFA to obtain the PID controller. The output form is as follows:
14.0836
C3 = 12.7302 + + 22.4950s, (24)
s
Axioms 2023, 12, 306 7 of 12

which immediately gives the closed-loop system H3 (s), which has the form:

325.5s2 + 184.2s + 203.8

H3 (s) = . (25)
s4 + 76.43s3 + 435.3s2 + 184.3s + 203.8

• The PID controller via the Ziegler–Nichols (ZN) approach: herein, we implement the
ZN algorithm to obtain the PID controller. The output is of the following form:
C4 (s) = 2.5 + 0.582/s + 4.271s. (26)
This, consequently, implies the closed-loop system H4 (s), which is in the follow-
ing form:
61.81s2 + 36.18s + 8.422
H4 (s) = 4 . (27)
s + 0.7306s3 + 171.6s2 + 36.31s + 8.422
• The PID controller via the Cohen-Coon (CC) approach: here, we applied the CC
algorithm to obtain the PID controller. This controller has the following form:
C5 (s) = 3.02 + 0.472/s + 2.81s. (28)
Therefore, the closed-loop system H5 (s) is expected to be as follows:

40.66s2 + 43.7s + 6.83

H5 (s) = . (29)
s4 + 76.43s3 + 150.4s2 + 43.83s + 6.83
Table 2 presents a numerical comparison between the five methods in which the
gain of PID and FOPID is shown based on a certain transfer function of linear motion.
Table 3 draws attention to the dynamic results of the closed-loop transfer functions given in
H1 , H2 , H3 , H4 and H5 , while Figure 2 reflects the advantage and accuracy of the CFE and
Oustaloup methods as they show a clear decrease in the amount of overshoot followed by
a tendency to quickly stabilize.
λ δ
PI D controllers v.s PID controllers via Several Approaches
1.4

1.2

1
Amplitude

0.8

0.6

0.4 PSO−PIλDδ−CFE
PSO−PIλDδ−Oustaloup
0.2 PID−ZN
PID−CC
PID−BFA
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (seconds)

Figure 2. Step responses of H1 (s), H2 (s), H3 (s), H4 (s) and H5 (s).

Axioms 2023, 12, 306 8 of 12

Table 2. The gains of PID and fractional-order PID controllers for linear vehicle motion.

Gains/Methods ZN CC BFA CFE Oustaloup

Proportional gain (K p ). 2.5 3.02 12.73 48 0.17
Integral gain (Ki ). 0.582 0.472 14.08 24.2411 9.8834
Differential gain (Kd ). 4.271 2.81 22.50 51 61
γ 1 1 1 0.9110 0.2823
ρ 1 1 1 0.7119 0.976

Table 3. Step responses of H1 (s), H2 (s), H3 (s), H4 (s) and H5 (s).

Step Response H1 (s) H2 (s) H3 (s) H4 (s) H5 (s)

Rise time. 0.2789 0.2443 0.7812 4.0109 3.6089
Settling time. 5.4935 5.3397 13.7308 31.669 20.479
Settling minimum. 0.9029 0.9000 0.9014 0.9001 0.9008
Settling maximum. 1.0004 1.0068 1.1513 1.2346 1.1892
Overshoot. 0.0479 0.7059 15.1346 23.4691 18.9203
Undershoot. 0 0 0 0 0
Peak. 1.0004 1.0068 1.1513 1.2346 1.1892
Peak time. 14.385 10.107 3.3052 10.4523 9.5893

3.2. Tuning the Fractional-Order PID Controller for Angular Transfer Motion
Similarly to the previous subsection, we re-execute the PSO algorithm once again, but
this time to obtain two other fractional-order PID controllers C6 (s) and C7 (s). This tunes
the angular transfer motion T1 (s) given in (12). These controllers are given as follows:
• The PI γ D ρ -PSO-controller via the CFE approach:
24.2411
C6 (s) = 48 + 0.911 + 51s0.7119 . (30)
s
The two Laplacian operators, s0.911 and s0.7119 , can, therefore, be approximated using
the CFE approach as follows:

2.4696e + 2s5 + 2.6421e + 3s4 + 5.6074e + 3s3 + 2.9951e + 3s2 + 3.3208e + 2s + 0.9999
s0.911 = (31)
s5 + 3.32.084e + 2s4 + 2.9951e + 3s3 + 5.6074e + 3s2 + 2.6421e + 3s + 2.4696 + 2
and

38.7389s5 + 4.8518e + 2s4 + 1.1765e + 3s3 + 7.2524e + 2s2 + 99.1305s + 1

s0.7119 = . (32)
s5 + 99.1305s4 + 7.2524e + 2s3 + 1.1765e + 3s2 + 4.8518e + 2s + 38.7389

Thus, the PI γ D ρ -controller C6 (s) is of the form:

4.998e5s10 + 1.264e7s9 + 31.136e8s8 + 4.583e8s7 + 9.503e8s6 + 1.087e9s5

+ 7.179e8s4 + 2.752e8s3 + 5.861e7s2 + 6.048e6s + 2.338e5
C6 (s) = . (33)
247s10 + 2.712e4s9 + 4.466e5s8 + 2.766e6s7 + 7.592e6s6 + 1.009e7s5
+ 6.588e6s4 + 2.062e6s3 + 2.783e5s2 + 1.335e4s38.74

This, consequently, implies the closed-loop system H6 (s), which is in the

following form:

6.047e4s10 + 1.53e6s9 + 1.375e7s8 + 5.545e7s7 + 1.15e8s6 + 1.316e8s5

+ 8.687e7s4 + 3.33e7s3 + 7.092e6s2 + 7.319e5s + 2.829e4
H6 (s) = . (34)
247s12 + 2.728e4s11 + 5.239e5s10 + 4.576e6s9 + 2.312e7s8 + 7.07e7s7 + 1.291e8s6
+ 1.394e8s5 + 8.95e7s4 + 3.38278s3 + 7.146e6s2 + 7.341e5s + 2.83e4
Axioms 2023, 12, 306 9 of 12

• The PI γ D ρ -PSO-controller via Oustaloup’s approach:

61.8823
C7 (s) = 59 + 0.821 + 61s0.7167 . (35)
s
The two operators, s0.821 and s0.7167 , can be approximated using Oustaloup’s approach
as follows:
43.85s5 + 973.9s4 + 2957s3 + 1388s2 + 100.8s + 1
s0.821 = 5 (36)
s + 100.8s4 + 1388s3 + 2957s2 + 973.9s + 43.85
and
27.13s5 + 663.2s4 + 2217s3 + 1146s2 + 91.53s + 1
s0.7167 = . (37)
s5 + 91.53s4 + 1146s3 + 2217s2 + 6373.2s + 27.13
This allows (35) to be rewritten in the following form:

7.522e4s10 + 3.692e6s9 + 5.935e7s8 + 3.597e8s7 + 9.902e8s6 + 1.333e9s5

+ 9.65e8s4 + 3.478e8s3 + 5.796e7s2 + 3.647e6s + 7.528e4
C7 (s) = . (38)
43.85s10 + 4987s9 + 1.424e5s8 + 1.485e6s7 + 5.704e6s6 + 8.803e6s5
+ 5.18e6s4 + 1.225e6s3 + 106724s2 + 3398s + 27.13

Hence, the closed-loop system is in the following form:

9101s10 + 4.467e5s9 + 7.181e6s8 + 4.352e7s7 + 1.198e8s6 + 1.613e8s5

+ 1.168e8s4 + 4.209e7s3 + 7.014e6s2 + 4.413e5s + 9109
H7 (s) = . (39)
43.85s12 + 5015s11 + 1.545e5s10 + 2.021e6s9 + 1.383e7s8 + 5.61e7s7 + 1.314e8s6
+ 1.672e8s5 + 1.185e8s4 + 4.236e7s3 + 7.033e6s2 + 4.418e5s + 9113

• The PID controller via the bacteria foraging algorithm (BFA): in this part, we obtain
the following result:
10.5707
C8 (s) = 8.4629 + + 13.1024 ∗ s. (40)
s
This leads to the following closed-loop system:

1.585s2 + 1.024s + 1.279

H8 (s) = . (41)
s3 + 2.204s2 + 1.188s + 1.279

• The PID controller via the Ziegler–Nichols (ZN) approach: in this part, we have
the following:
C9 (s) = 1.94 + 1.02s + 0.9922s. (42)
This, consequently, implies the closed-loop system H9 (s), which is of the
following form:
0.1116s2 + 0.2347s + 0.1234
H9 (s) = 3 . (43)
s + 0.7306s2 + 0.3983s + 0.1234
• The PID controller via the Cohen–Coon (CC) approach: herein, we have
C10 (s) = 2.22 + 1.01s + 0.745s. (44)
This gives the closed-loop system H8 (s), which is of the following form:

0.09015s2 + 0.2686s + 0.1222

H10 (s) = . (45)
s3 + 0.7091s2 + 0.4322s + 0.1222
Regarding angular movement motion, Table 4 shows the gains of the fractional-order
PID controllers for each method, Table 5 shows their dynamic results and, finally, Figure 3
shows the effect of applying the different methods on the fractional-order PID controller
and the greater stability of the CFE and Oustaloup methods.
Axioms 2023, 12, 306 10 of 12

Table 4. The gains of PID and FOPID controllers for vehicle angular motion.

Gains/Methods ZN CC BFA CFE Oustaloup

Proportional gain (K p ). 1.94 2.22 8.46 48 59
Integral gain (Ki ). 1.02 1.01 10.57 24.2411 9.8834
Differential gain (Kd ). 0.922 0.745 13.10 51 61
γ 1 1 1 0.9110 0.821
ρ 1 1 1 0.7119 0.7167

Table 5. Step responses of H6 (s), H7 (s), H8 (s), H9 (s) and H10 (s).

Step Response H5 (s) H6 (s) H8 (s) H7 (s) H8 (s)

Rise time. 0.2831 0.2316 1.0025 2.8371 2.6644
Settling time. 1.3539 1.2385 19.6450 26.0728 20.0318
Settling minimum. 0.9056 0.9053 0.8478 0.8669 0.8747
Settling maximum. 1.1989 1.2447 1.2566 1.2999 1.2888
Overshoot. 19.921 24.5356 25.6579 29.9886 28.8789
Undershoot. 0 0 0 0 0
Peak. 1.1989 1.2447 1.2566 1.2999 1.2888
Peak time. 0.6748 0.5863 2.8777 6.2479 6.0252

PIλDδ controllers v.s PID controllers via Several Approaches

1.4

1.2

1
Amplitude

0.8

0.6

0.4 PSO−PIλDδ−CFE
PSO−PIλDδ−Oustaloup
0.2 PID−ZN
PID−CC
PID−BFO
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (seconds)

Figure 3. Step responses of H6 (s), H7 (s), H8 (s), H9 (s) and H10 (s).

4. Conclusions
In order to obtain the best performance of passenger car movement and stability on
and off the roads, along with higher flexibility on straight and angular roads according to
changing conditions and safety from sudden obstacles that appear on the roads, different
control units have been designed. In particular, different PI γ D ρ -controllers were estab-
lished based on the application of the PSO algorithm simultaneously with the use of two
different approximations of the fractional-order integro-differential Laplacian operators.
These approximations are Oustaloup’s approximation and the continued fractional expan-
sion (CFE) approximation. Based on the numerical results gained from several performed
comparisons, we conclude that there are significant improvements in the step responses
achieved by using PI γ D ρ -controllers over using PID controllers. In particular, in order
not to obtain too much overshoot, we can implement the best controller among all of the
proposed controllers, which is the PI γ D ρ -controller that was established by executing the
PSO algorithm through the CFE approach. On the other hand, in order to obtain the fastest
Axioms 2023, 12, 306 11 of 12

step response and fastest settling time, one may choose the PI γ D ρ -controller, which was
established by executing the PSO algorithm through Oustaloup’s approach. In general, the
PI γ D ρ -controller provides an autonomous vehicle with more stable results than that of the
PID controller.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.M.B. and A.A.A.-N.; Data curation, I.M.B. and S.A.;
Formal analysis, I.M.B., O.Y.A. and A.A.A.-N.; Funding acquisition, W.G.A., S.A., S.M. and O.Y.A.;
Investigation, S.A.; Methodology, I.M.B. and A.A.A.-N.; Project administration, W.G.A. and S.M.;
Resources, S.A., O.Y.A. and S.M.; Software, O.Y.A.; Supervision, S.A. and S.M.; Validation, O.Y.A.;
Visualization, S.M.; Writing—original draft, S.A.; Writing—review & editing, S.A. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ammar, H.H.; Azar, A.T. Robust path tracking of mobile robot using fractional order pid controller. In Advances in Intelligent
Systems and Computing, Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Machine Learning Technologies and Applications
(AMLTA2019), Cairo, Egypt, 28–30 March 2019; Hassanien, A.E., Azar, A.T., Gaber, T., Bhatnagar, R.F., Tolba, M., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 370–381.
2. Ammar, H.H.; Azar, A.T.; Tembi, T.D.; Tony, K.; Sosa, A. Design and implementation of fuzzy PID controller into multi agent
smart library system prototype. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Advanced Machine Learning Technologies and Applications (AMLTA2018), Cairo, Egypt, 22–24 February 2018; Hassanien, A.E., Tolba,
M.F., Elhoseny, M., Mostafa, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 127–137.
3. Azar, A.T.; Serrano, F.E. Design and Modeling of Anti Wind up PID Controllers; Springer International Publishing: Cham,
Switzerland, 2015; pp. 1–44.
4. Azar, A.T.; Vaidyanathan, S. Handboook of Research on Advanced Intelligent Control Engineering and Automation; IGI Global:
New York, NY, USA, 2015.
5. Bimbraw, K. Autonomous cars: Past, present and future a review of the developments in the last century, the present scenario and
the expected future of autonomous vehicle technology. In Proceedings of the 2015 12th International Conference on Informatics
in Control, Automation and Robotics (ICINCO), Colmar, France, 21–23 July 2015; Volume 1, pp. 191–198.
6. Ogata, K. Modern Control Engineering; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010.
7. Jeongheon, H.; Skelton, R. An LMI optimization approach for structured linear controllers. In Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE
International Conference on Decision and Control, Maui, HI, USA, 9–12 December 2003; pp. 5143–5148.
8. Kalangadan, A.; Priya, N.; Kumar, T.K.S. PI, PID controller design for interval systems using frequency response model matching
technique. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Control, Communication and Computing India, ICCC 2015,
Trivandrum, India, 19–21 November 2015; pp. 119–124.
9. Ahmmed, T.; Akhter, I.; Karim, S.M.R.; Sabbir Ahamed, F.A. Genetic Algorithm Based PID Parameter Optimization. Am. J. Intell.
Syst. 2020, 10, 8–13. [CrossRef]
10. Suksawat, T.; Kaewpradit, P. Comparison of Ziegler-Nichols and Cohen-Coon Tuning Methods: Implementation to Water Level
Control Based MATLAB and Arduino. Eng. J. Chiang Mai Univ. 2021, 28, 153–168.
11. Kennedy, J.; Eberhart, R. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the ICNN’95—International Conference on Neural
Networks, Perth, WA, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; pp. 1942–1948.
12. Latha, K.; Rajinikanth, V.; Surekha, P.M. PSO-Based PID Controller Design for a Class of Stable and Unstable Systems. ISRN Artif.
Intell. 2013, 2013, 543607. [CrossRef]
13. Masrom, M.F.; Ghani, N.M.A.; Tokhi, M.O. Particle swarm optimization and spiral dynamic algorithm-based interval type-2
fuzzy logic control of triple-link inverted pendulum system: A comparative assessment. J. Low Freq. Noise Vib. Act. Control. 2021,
40, 367–382. [CrossRef]
14. Momani, S.; El-Khazali, R.; Batiha, I.M. Tuning PID and PI λ D δ controllers using particle swarm optimization algorithm via
El-Khazali’s approach. In Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Application of Mathematics in Engineering and
Economics (AMEE’19), Sozopol, Bulgaria, 7–13 June 2019; Volume 2172, p. 050003.
15. Batiha, I.M.; El-Khazali, R.; Ababneh, O.Y.; Ouannas, A.; Batyha, R.M.; Momani, S. Optimal design of PI ρ D µ -controller for
artificial ventilation systems for COVID-19 patients. AIMS Math. 2023, 8, 657–675. [CrossRef]
16. Batiha, I.M.; Njadat, S.A.; Batyha, R.M.; Zraiqat, A.; Dababneh, A.; Momani, S. Design Fractional-order PID Controllers for
Single-Joint Robot Arm Model. Int. J. Adv. Soft Comput. Appl. 2022, 14, 96–114. [CrossRef]
17. Momani, S.; Batiha, I.M. Tuning of the Fractional-order PID Controller for some Real-life Industrial Processes Using Particle
Swarm Optimization. Prog. Fract. Differ. Appl. 2022, 8, 377–391.
Axioms 2023, 12, 306 12 of 12

18. Hammad, M.A. Conformable Fractional Martingales and Some Convergence Theorems. Mathematics 2022, 10, 6. [CrossRef]
19. Halilu, B.D.; Anene, E.C.; Omigzegba, E.E.; Maijama’a, L.; Baraza, S.A. Optimization of PID controller gains for identifiedmagnetic
levitation plant using bacteria foraging algorithm. Int. J. Eng. Mod. Technol. 2019, 5, 12–18.
20. Munz, M.A.; Halgamuge, S.K.; Alfonso, W.; Caicedo, E.F. Simplifying the bacteria foraging optimization algorithm. In Proceedings
of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Barcelona, Spain, 18–23 July 2010; pp. 1–7.
21. Krishna, B.T. Studies on fractional order differentiators and integrators: A survey. Signal Process. 2010, 91, 386–426. [CrossRef]
22. Batyha, R.M. Optimal design of fractional-order PID controllers using bacterial foraging optimization algorithm. Int. J. Adv. Soft
Comput. Appl. 2021, 13, 136–149.
23. Azar, A.T.; Ammar, H.H.; Ibrahim, Z.F.; Ibrahim, H.A.; Mohamed, N.A.; Taha, M.A. Implementation of PID Controller with PSO
Tuning for Autonomous Vehicle. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Proceedings of the International Conference on
Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics 2019, AISI 2019, Cairo, Egypt, 26–28 October 2019; Hassanien, A., Shaalan, K., Tolba, M.,
Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 1058.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.