Comparison of Intelligent Fuzzy Controller and Fuzzy Rule Suram Algorithms in the Drying Process

Both the Intelligent Fuzzy Controller and Suram Fuzzy Rule are using a look-up table such as defuzzification analysis, which is based on weather variables, namely ambient temperature and ambient humidity for a drying process. State variable membership functions are expressed in terms of error values and error changes with typical triangular maps and trapezoidal maps. An Intelligent fuzzy controller is a hybrid controller which consists of an optimal fuzzy controller, fuzzy controller, and adaptive fuzzy controller. Membership function design is used to build the algorithm process. The algorithm process was developed based on the input-output knowledge pair for the drying process. The membership function must be stable and flexible with respect to weather and performance derived from the acquisition process, time constants, and system delays. The developed control system involves temperature control in different zones and ambient humidity. The system model was developed using a system identification scheme based on online input/output data and knowledge gathered through extensive testing. The knowledge base of fuzzy tuners is derived from drying schedules for certain wood specimens. The intelligent fuzzy control algorithm is used for scheduling the controller on various drying schedules. The results show that the proposed approach to overall control has great potential for performance improvement when applied to other industrial kilns. An intelligent fuzzy controller is also implemented, and its performance is compared with conventional controllers, it is more smooth, robust and controllable. On the other hand, the Suram fuzzy rule is an algorithm developed to control a drying system using diesel as an energy source by modifying the value of the fuzzy membership function [0.5,1]; and has been developed taking into account the wind speed in the drying process. The comparison results show that the Fuzzy Rule Suram is more efficient than the Intelligent Fuzzy Controller in terms of the use of electrical energy, by maximizing the use of solar energy

Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367.FindingsBetween Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5–13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications.InterpretationSurgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management