2

j;

sets and systems

ELSEVIER
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 151-160

FUZZY

Fuzzy control and conventional control: What is (and can be) the real contribution of Fuzzy Systems?
H.B. Verbruggen*, P.M. Bruijn
Control Engineering Laboratory, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5031, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
Received February 1997

Abstract
The applicability of classical control methods has been demonstrated in many practical control problems in industry. It is shown, however, that still unanswered questions remain, which can probably be solved with the fuzzy system approach. Modern production methods and modern production units require increased flexibility. This results in highly nonlinear system behavior of partly unknown systems. Advanced control methods developed by system and control theorists are only partly able to satisfy the demands. It is in this area that fuzzy modeling and control methods can play an important role, because available qualitative operator and design knowledge can easily be implemented. In the paper, the possible role of fuzzy systems in low level control and in more advanced control is indicated. The introduction of fuzzy methods has been a controversial subject and has resulted in many misunderstandings. The paper tries to clarify this situation and to emphasize the possible cooperation between the various players in the game: conventional control theory, fuzzy control, the AI community, and last but not least the end users. 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Control theory; Production and process control; Classical control; Advanced control; Fuzzy logic

1. Classical control: solved problems and unanswered questions

Control Engineering has been for centuries an art in which craftsmen like the builders of windmills and steam engine designers used experiments, their common sense, and their experience to control the speed of the wings of a mill, to set the mill automatically in the right direction and to govern the speed of steam engines. It was not until the last century that a mathematical description was given

* Corresponding author. 0165-0114/97/$17.00 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved PII S 0 1 6 5 - 0 1 1 4 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 0 8 1 - X

of the principles of the analysis and design of feedback systems. In the first few decades of this century, much equipment was built, based on mechanical, hydraulic and pneumatic solutions. Ingenious flap and nozzle constructions served as controllers, while measurement equipment provided the information which was processed by the controller and delivered as a manipulated variable to the actuator acting on the flow, pressure, speed and other quantities which influence the system. The introduction of computers provided new and challenging possibilities and opened many application areas for control engineering. However, control engineering in

152

H.B. Verbruggen, P.M. Bruijn / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 151-160

practice was, and is still, based in the majority of applications on simple controllers (PID) and the application of simple tuning rules to set the parameters of these controllers. It is mainly in the last four decades that systems and control theory has been developed and has become a sophisticated and highly respected science. However, few of the theories were applied in common practice. Only in very sophisticated areas such as the space industry can one find applications of advanced system and control theories, and also in sophisticated mass-produced (consumer) products are these new theories applied sometimes despite their high development costs. This is also the area in which fuzzy logic was applied successfully. What are the reasons for the gap between sophisticated theory and common practice? What are the scopes for fuzzy systems? To find an answer to these questions, we have to go back to the basic questions to be posed when solving a control problem. The questions are the following: W h a t should be controlled? This may be an easy question, because it boils down in most cases to simple answers such as: the temperature of a batch reactor, the flow in a supply pipe line, the speed of a motor, the position of an antenna, etc. But behind this question there is a hidden world of experience, reasoning and knowledge, because the chosen quantity is, perhaps, a substitute for the real quantity we want to control: the quality of a product, the minimization of the waste of material, or the minimization of the consumption of energy. In most processes, a number of quantities are controlled; these interact, have constraints and are sometimes only partly manageable. The dynamic properties of the system significantly influence the speed and the magnitude of the actual and possible behavior. Our simple question expands into many questions such as What is the dynamic behavior of the system to be controlled? Is the system linear or nonlinear? Time-varying? Exhibits delay time? What are the disturbances acting on the system? Can they be measured and compensated for?
-

Which quantities are measurable and which quantities can be reconstructed from measurements? Which quantities describe to a reasonable extent the unknown or non-measurable quantities we actually want to control? - Which quantity should be controlled by which manipulated quantity? Therefore, the answer to our simple question can be very complicated, but it is sustained by methods developed in control theory. However, still, many questions can only be solved by human experience and qualitative information (reasoning). W h a t are the requirements? This question is related to the previous one and describes the final behavior of the controlled system. It is related to such questions as: What is the required range of the controlled quantity? - How fast should the system react to a required set point change (tracking behavior) or diminish the influence of sudden disturbances (disturbance rejection) or diminish the influence of random disturbances (minimum variance control)? These questions can sometimes be related to such simple criteria as the amount of overshoot allowed, the rise-time of the system to a set point change, the settling time of the response, the relative and absolute damping ratio, the reduction of the variance of the noise acting on the system and the ability to follow a desired response (model reference). The requirements can also be translated to performance criteria or cost functions that penalize the difference between the desired and the actual behavior of process variables together with the magnitude of the manipulated variables. Usually, quadratic criteria are used which are very easy to manipulate mathematically when the system to be controlled is linear, thus resulting in a linear control law. Once the system is known and the cost function has fixed parameters, the controller design is a straightforward procedure that is solved analytically; the structure and the parameters of the control algorithm follow directly from the system and the requirements. Not much is left to the creativity of the designer.
-

H.B. Verbruggen, P.M. Bruijn / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 151-160

153

This "ideal" situation is, however, hardly met because it requires the exact knowledge of the process and the disturbances acting on it, and it requires the translation of the real requirements into a quadratic cost function. The real system should, however, act within possible constraints on inputs, outputs and state variables. Again, even in this simple case, some intuitive knowledge about the parameters to be chosen should be available. Often we choose some reasonable values, simulate the system and evaluate the results. Based on these results, we change some "optimal" parameter values to get a more desired behavior, which is also based on our "hidden" requirements and previous experience. What tools are available to satisfy the required overall system performance? This question can be related to methodologies and hardware and software solutions. When we restrict ourselves to methodologies the above question can be expanded to three categories of questions: (1) What is the structure of the solution? Is it possible to control the system by a feedforward solution or should we use a feedback solution? Are intermediate signals available to implement a cascade control structure? Are disturbances measurable and can they be diminished by feedforward control, or should the average influence of the unmeasurable disturbances be leveled out by feedback? Is there such a high interaction between the controlled variables that a multi-input-multi-output control structure is needed? Is the state of the system available or reconstructable and should it be used in a statefeedback structure? Although nearly all control engineering textbooks treat many of the above-mentioned control structures, few or nothing is said about the question of which method should be preferred under certain circumstances. It seems an interesting possibility to apply fuzzy decision making techniques in a decision support system to help the designer in making the right choice. Recently, interesting research has been going on in the field of heterogeneous control, in which in-line a choice is made between a number of controllers (for regulator control and for servo control, for instance). The configuration is switched

from one controller to another depending on the situation [14]. (2) What are the structural parameters of the controller configuration? Once the structure of the controller has been chosen, this question often boils down to such questions as: what is the order of the controller to be designed or how many and which states has to be reconstructed? In many cases, especially in common practice, we choose a fixed structure for the controller. In industry, by far the most popular controller is a PIDcontroller with a fixed structure and structural parameters determining the use of proportional action, derivative action and integral action. This controller is so popular that there are many rules of thumb to set the parameters. This holds also for the structural parameters. Depending on the expected noise or the delay time, the structural parameters are fixed, and this implies that the controller is a P-controller, PI-controller, PD-controller or PID-controller. (3) The last question to be posed is what are the actual values of the parameters of the controller? Commonly, the parameter values of the controller have to be set or adjusted by the control engineer. As indicated in Ref. [1], there are many rules of thumb to set the three parameters of a PID-controller. These rules are developed either from experience, depending on the type of controlled variable (pressure, temperature, flow, level, etc.), or on a rough estimate of the main parameters that describe the process: gain, delay time and dominant time constant. The controller parameters and the sampling period are then a function of these process parameters. If the process parameters are not available, the controller settings are based on the closed loop behavior of the controlled process, by bringing the process into oscillation with a P-controller and using the frequency of oscillation and the proportional gain of the P-controller by which this oscillation happens, as the two parameters that define the three parameters of the controller. In some commercially available controllers, such a procedure is done by an AI approach. As indicated above, control engineering practice is based on the combination of theoretical background, supplied by the control and system theory

154

H.B. Verbruggen, P.M. Bruijn / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 151-160

community, and of expertise, built up over many decades and based on experience, experiments, and sound engineering solutions. This combination provides, in principle, a good basis for the application of AI techniques, and especially fuzzy systems, in combination with analytical analysis and design methods, as long as the methods support each other and do not try to compete in those areas in which one of the two has the better testimonials. Then, it is most likely that some unanswered questions can be answered.

2. Advanced control: unsolved problems and the need for solutions

In modern process operation and production methods, there is - An increasing demand for flexibility: operating the plant with varying throughput, product mix and product grade; customer-defined production instead of producer-defined production. - A strong demand for new production methods and the development of new production plants to decrease the waste of material, to minimize the energy consumption, to minimize the effects on the environment, and to cope with the everincreasing competition. - An integrated information system that is plantwide in operation and can handle in a hierarchical, multi-level way the various levels of automation in one concept: control, monitoring, optimization, supervision, scheduling, planning, management. This requires the ability to handle qualitative and quantitative information in one system with different levels of precision and complexity. The result of these requirements for control engineering solutions can be summarized as follows: - Because of fast and extensive changes in conditions, the process is required to operate at different operating points, to change over fast from one operating point to another, to take into account constraints that have to be met, the system will exhibit a stronoly nonlinear behavior and can probably insufficiently be analyzed in comparison with the situation where the process

was mainly required to operate at a few welldefined operating points. - New production methods require very complicated equipment with many inner loops and utility feedbacks to decrease energy consumption and waste of material. This leads to highly nonlinear systems, much interaction between the control loops, increased danger of instability and various phenomena acting simultaneously on the system. Many of these newly developed production methods can only partly be described by first principles and conservation laws. However, experience gained by pilot plant operations and available as expert rules and experimental data should be used for the plant description. In summary: strong emphasis should be placed on the combination of knowledge about the system in the form of a mathematical description based on first principles and conservation laws, experience gained from operators and pilot plant operation, and the results of experiments with similar processes. - The need for multi-layered information processes increases the demand for control engineering methods that can be applied to the different layers of the plant-wide control system. There is an increasing need for supervision of complicated processes, for extensive fault detection and fault diagnosis methods, and for dynamic planning and scheduling methods. These tasks are mainly fulfilled by different people responsible for the various levels of automation. However, the ever-increasing demand for flexibility and fast reactions to market situations will demand a dynamic and reactive response on all levels of automation. Control engineering methods that cope naturally with dynamic systems are well equipped to address these problems and fuzzy methods can play an important role. The use of the state variables approach to describe dynamical systems introduced a strong theoretical framework for control. The main advantage of this method is its universality in describing linear, nonlinear, multi-input-multi-output, single-input-single-output, continuous and discrete systems, within the same mathematical framework. Not only the input-output behavior of the system is described but also its internal behavior. Based on

H.B. Verbruggen, P.M. Bruijn / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 151-160

155

this system description, we got a complete framework for a linear system which provides universal analysis and design procedures for closed and open loop systems. The combination with quadratic performance criteria especially became quite popular, which let to optimal control and optimal noise rejection using, e.g., Kalman filtering techniques. What is needed is an adequate description of the system (linear or linearized), a translation of the requirements into the parameters of the performance criterion, and the availability of the state of the system. Many techniques were developed to reconstruct or estimate unknown system parameters and states. The designer's experience was mainly introduced in the choice of the performance criterion parameters. The main problems encountered are the availability of a good model of the process that can be sufficiently linearized around an operating point, the availability of all state variables, and the choice of the right parameters in the performance criterion. Within the process industries, model-based predictive control (MBPC) is successfully applied in a number of applications [22]. MBPC is based on an internal model and dynamic optimization of a specified criterion. Important aspects for successful applications are the quality of the internal (nonlinear) model and the definition of the control goal expressed in an object function. Both aspects needs improvement to obtain a wider field of applications. Control problems in the aeronautical and space industry initiated the research on adaptive controllers that adapt their parameters to changing conditions. These autonomous adapting systems must, however, be protected by extensive safe guarding and jacketing measures. These measures are mainly based on experience, and are related to rule-based systems. Robust control is becoming a very important research area in control. Realizing that exact knowledge of a system is almost never available, robust control methods take into account the uncertainty of the model description. Generally, a quite conservative control algorithm will be the result. Finally, the research on nonlinear control and modeling techniques has been developing quite fast over the last decade and practical approaches are

becoming available, especially for afine process models. So, there is a need for advanced control methods in industry. The control and system theory community is supplying most interesting methods, which, however, need extensive mathematical process models and performance criteria. This is often not in line with industrial practice, in which mathematical models are mostly incomplete or only roughly known. The following discussion will indicate that the application of fuzzy techniques can be an alternative that sometimes fits better the problem at hand.

3. Fuzzy control: benefits and possibilities

The main reason to introduce fuzzy control, see [11, 16], was to mimic the control actions of the human operator in the fuzzy controller. In this case, a priori knowledge is used and the final controller performs as well as the best operators. Fuzzy control in this sense fits well when the system to be controlled is only partly known, difficult to describe by a white box model, and few measurements are available, or the system is highly nonlinear. However, extensive experience in operating the process should be available to the human operators and system designers. Many applications of fuzzy control are also related to simple control algorithms, such as PIDcontrollers. In a natural way, nonlinearities and exceptions are included which are difficult to realize with conventional controllers. In conventional control, many additional measures have to be included for the proper functioning of the controller: antireset windup, proportional kick, retarded integral action, etc. These enhancements of the simple PID-controller are based on long-lasting experience and the newly made marriage between continuous control and discrete control. This bag of tricks can be built-in in a very natural way in a fuzzy PID-like controller [1, 15, 38]. Moreover, other types of local nonlinearities can be built-in easily, because a fuzzy controller can be described as a nonlinear mapping [6, 7, 34]. As indicated in the previous section, (nonlinear) models play an important role in many advanced

156

H.B. Verbruggen, P.M. Bruijn / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 151-160

controllers. There are several possibilities to model a system by applying fuzzy techniques [3, 18, 19, 31, 32] such as models based on Mamdani fuzzy rules [25], models based on Tagaki-Sugeno rules [5, 23, 24, 26], relational models [17] and a combination of these models I-4]. Some approaches to determine a fuzzy model are: - A fuzzy model can be obtained by using a priori knowledge about the system provided as rules by system designers and system operators. Knowledge acquisition is sometimes cumbersome, costly, and time-consuming. - A fuzzy model can be obtained by using available measurements and using identification methods, e.g. clustering methods to find the parameters and fuzzy terms of the rules describing the system. This method provides good results E35] and can easily be interpreted in a linguistic way, thus providing a means for evaluating and validating the final model with knowledge from operators and experts [-5,32]. The resulting fuzzy models (especially the Tagaki-Sugeno model) can be used to develop fuzzy controllers [27, 28, 30]. Another interesting application is the use of these models in model-based predictive controllers (MBPC) to calculate the future output of a system for different control sequences, and to find the optimal control action while taking into account a desired behavior and constraints on system variables, Fuzzy methods can also be used to describe the goals of the control action. As we have seen in conventional control, it is necessary to express our requirements and desires in crisp values or mathematical expressions which should be optimized. In reality, some constraints should not be violated and some requirements should be kept. However, some constraints and requirements are less important and fulfilling them independently of the effort required is not really useful. By means of fuzzy constraints and requirements, relaxing unnecessary precision is possible [17]. Little research has been done on the application of fuzzy methods in multi-input-multi-output systems [21]. This has mainly been the domain of classical linear control, in which either a direct multi-dimensional controller is designed, or a decoupling mechanism is used to diminish the inter-

action between the loops. These methods are, however, based on a rather precise mathematical description of the process model and the performance requirements. Fuzzy methods can handle systems which are less precisely described and of which the interaction between variables is only approximately known (e.g. strong interaction, weak interaction, no interaction). Adaptive fuzzy control is a possibility to cope with time-varying and even nonlinear behavior of a system [9, 30]. However, the measures to keep them always functioning in the right way are complicated. In fuzzy controllers, exceptions can be easily implemented and their interpretation is straightforward to the user and designer. Generally, it can be said that exception handling and safety guarding is implemented in a fuzzy controller in a transparent way with easy linguistic interpretations, while in conventional (adaptive) control these measures result from a different system view that are not easily intermingled with the conventional control algorithm. When the actual parameters of the controller are adapted according to the behavior of the overall system, an adaptive supervisory control algorithm is used. The adaptation should be related to some performance measure of the system. Several possibilities to apply fuzzy techniques can be distinguished: - The performance criterion provides information as membership functions, such as the overshoot is too high, too low, within the specs. Most criteria can be used, such as overshoot, rise time, accuracy in steady state. The supervision is done by rules relating these fuzzy performance measures (premisses) to the settings of the parameters of the controller to be adapted (consequents). - A fuzzy model is used as a representation of the time-varying system. This model is adapted and used in a fuzzy control strategy. Depending on the situation, a choice is made between different control strategies (strategy switching). A fuzzy decision maker realizes this selection based on the requirements and actual state of the system and takes care of transient behavior. Because a more or less autonomous system will result in the supervisory methods described above,
-

H.B. Verbruggen, P.M. Bruijn / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 151-160

157

special attention should be paid to exception handling and safety nets, which can be described quite easily by rules. The whole supervisory system can then be realized in a fuzzy expert system.

4. Misunderstandings to be cleared up and possibilities offered Fuzzy control has always been a controversial subject, especially in the control theory community. However, in practice, fuzzy control is becoming increasingly popular, partly because of commercially available programming tools [2]. The need for control methods for nonlinear systems is becoming very important because of modern production methods and new innovative industrial installations. There is still a large gap between the control theory community and industrial practice. It is frustrating for the control theory community that the elegant and comprehensive framework for system analysis and design is hardly ever applied in the process industry, which is still applying the well-known PID-controller in most of the applications (90%), and trusts to manual control in more complex situations. Industrial practice is, however, demanding solutions to problems which are not always in line with the methods available in system and control theory. Fuzzy control and the application of artificial neural networks seem to promise some solutions, although this cannot be expected to be the panacea for all problems still existing in practice. There is a lack of mutual understanding between the fuzzy control community and the conventional control community, partly due to exaggerated claims made by the fuzzy control community and partly due to traditional control community's presumptuous attitude, through which the empirical nature of fuzzy control was designated an "unscientific" approach. The fuzzy control community boasts sometimes about the ability of fuzzy methods to handle all nonlinear systems and claims, together with the proponents of the artificial neural network approach, that they provide the sole solution to nonlinear system design. However, many interesting results have been obtained recently by applying

nonlinear systems theory, of which the approach of exact linearisation for afine models is only one of the breakthroughs. A match can be made between control theory and fuzzy methods when the nonlinear model is provided by fuzzy techniques and the controller is based on classical or advanced control, e.g., using the inverse nonlinear model found by fuzzy modeling or neural networks in the exact-linearisation approach to nonlinear afine systems. Some people attack the fuzzy control community by stating that the final control algorithm just boils down to a nonlinear gain schedule which could actually be obtained by other interpolation methods. This is true, because it has been proved (see [8, 13,36,37]) that fuzzy controllers are universal approximators. This is, however, also true for other methods such as neural networks, splines or wavelets. Fuzzy control provides a man-machine interface which very much facilitates the acceptance, validation and transparency of the control algorithm. That the tool boils down to a simple algorithm is not something that is questionable, but is very convenient from the point of view of computational effort. It has also been stated that one cannot predict the performance of fuzzy controllers. In the case of fuzzy control that models the operators' strategy, the performance is clearly related to the performance of the best operators, and thus predictable. In the case of fuzzy control (that is a nonlinear mapping from process output to process input), the performance of the final controlled system is more difficult to predict. However, predictable control is only possible when a good mathematical description of the system is available, and the control aims can be stated in crisp numbers or as a criterion to be optimized. By introducing fuzzy constraints and performance criteria, new possibilities are introduced 1-33]. Stability is a principal characteristic of feedback systems, and the research on how to design a controller which guarantees stability has been a major topic in control theory. There are many stability definitions which are based on the internal (state) or external (input-output) character of the system. For nonlinear systems in particular, much research has been performed over many decades, of which

158

H..B. Verbruggen, P.M. Bruijn / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 151-160

Lyapunov's direct method and the Circle Criterion are the most important results. The control theory community might have the impression that stability is not an issue in fuzzy control. This is not true, see [12]. Much research has been done in applying Lyapunov's methods for fuzzy systems [28]. Also, methods based on the Circle Criterion have been developed for fuzzy systems, see [20]. An alternative approach has been developed by Wang [29]. He introduces a supervisory controller which is responsible for keeping the state of the system in a constraint set. A qualitative study of the stability of fuzzy systems can be performed by using linguistic trajectories, see [9]. An interesting point is that stability and robustness measures are introduced, comparable to the margins used in conventional linear control systems. However, due to the graphical interpretation, the use of these methods is restricted to second-order systems. The real desion problem is not only to assess stability, but to describe the influence of the design parameters (the controller) and the process parameters on the stability, and to use stability criteria not only as an analysis tool but also as a design tool. This means that in the design phase, one is not interested in a crisp concept which provides a yes/no answer about stability but in how far the system is from the instability limits. Thus, it is important also for nonlinear systems, to define (fuzzy) measures to indicate how far the system is from instability. Thus far the relationship between classical control and fuzzy control. What about the relationship between the AI community and fuzzy control? The origin of fuzzy control was within the perspective of Artificial Intelligence. The fuzzy logic controller was built to represent the knowledge and expertise of the operator and designer, and there was no relation to the classical control engineering approach. Today, fuzzy control is, by the control community, increasingly seen as a universal approximator, (see [6, 13, 36, 37]) which is competing with other approximation methods, such as artificial neural networks, and which is strongly competing with nonlinear control strategies. The main AI motivation to use fuzzy logic as an application of approximate reasoning is disappearing on the

lower levels of control, and it is sometimes seen only as an interesting by-product. It is, therefore, interesting to see that especially in the area of modeling and identification, there is a tendency to blend information of a different nature (expertise of operators and designers, measurements and mathematical equations). It provides solutions in between black box and white box models, and fuzzy modeling plays an important role in this process of information fusion [5, 25]. Classical control has not been very much involved in solving higher-level control problems such as supervision, optimization, monitoring, planning and scheduling of dynamic complex systems, although these issues are very important from an economic point of view. Compared to conventional control techniques, fuzzy techniques are well equipped to solve these kinds of problems. They allow, for instance, for more uncertainty, which tends to reduce complexity and to increase the credibility of the resulting model. Besides, fuzzy logic allows the inclusion on these levels of the expertise of experienced operators and plant managers. This expertise is often based on qualitative, uncertain and incomplete information. As an example, developments in the field of Fault Detection and Fault Diagnosis show that fuzzy methods are playing an increasingly important role. Fault tolerance is gaining more importance in control systems. Especially when large faults occur, it will be necessary to reconfigure the control system, otherwise the whole system would break down (see [10]).

5. Conclusions

In this paper, the authors' personal view on the role of fuzzy control in control engineering is given. The authors realize that they have exaggerated some statements in order to emphasize the differences between the classical control approach and the fuzzy control approach. They hope that this will provide food for thought, and will be beneficial for people involved in practical applications of control, for "conventional" and "fuzzy" control people, and people from the AI community. It is to be hoped that they would all realize the advantages and

H.B. Verbruggen, P.M. Bruijn / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 151-160

159

disadvantages of the various methods and not stick solely to their own approach. We have indicated that there are many possibilities to work together, and many challenging directions have been mentioned in which cooperation between both control communities and the AI community would prove profitable and yield practical applications in the future.

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank our colleagues of the Esprit Working Group FALCON for their valuable suggestions on this topic. In particular, many thanks to D. Dubois (IRIT, Toulouse, France), A. Titli (LAAS, CNRS, Toulouse, France) and G. Ulivi (DIS, Rome, Italy), who commented extensively on a number of statements which form the backbone of this paper.

References
[1] K.-E. /~rzrn, Expert control: intelligent tuning of PID controllers, in: S.G. Tzafestas (Ed.), Applied Control: Current Trends and Modern Methodologies, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1993, pp. 851-873. [2] F.J. Bartos, Fuzzy logic reaches adulthood, Control Eng. (1996) 50-56. [3] R. Babuska, H.B. Verbruggen, Fuzzy modeling for control. Accepted for publication in Control Engineering Practice, 1996. [4] R. Babuska, H.B. Verbruggen, Fuzzy modeling and model-based control for nonlinear systems, in: M. Jamshidi, A. Titli, S. Boverie, UA. Zadeh (Eds.), Applications of Fuzzy Logic: Towards High Machine Intelligence, Quotient Systems, Prentice-Hall, New York, 1997. [5] R. Babuska, H.B. Verbruggen, Fuzzy set methods for local modeling and identification, in: R. Murray-Smith, T.A. Johansen (Eds.), Multiple Model Approaches to Nonlinear Modeling and Control, Taylor and Francis, London, 1997. [6] J.J. Buckley, Universal fuzzy controllers, Automatica 28 (1992) 1245-1248. [7] J.J. Buckley, Fuzzy controller: further limit theorems for linear control rules, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 36 (1990) 225533. [8] J. Castro, Fuzzy logic controllers are universal approximators, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. (1995) 629-635.

[9] D. Driankov, H. Hellendoorn, M. Reinfrank, Introduction to Fuzzy Control, Springer, Berlin, 1993. [10] F.M. Frank, B. Krppens-Seliger, New developments using AI in fault diagnosis, in: IFAC-Workshop AI in Real-time Control, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1995, pp. 1-12. [11] L.P. Holmblad, J.J. Ostergaard, Control of a cement kiln by fuzzy logic, in: M.M. Gupta, E. Sanchez (Eds.), Fuzzy Information and Decision Processes, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 389-399. [12] W.J. Jansen et al., Stability properties of fuzzy controllers, Journal A 36 (1995) 27-37. [13] B. Kosko, Fuzzy systems as universal approximators, IEEE Trans. Comput. 43 (1994) 1329-1333. [14] B. Kuipers, K.J./~strrm, The compensation and validation of heterogeneous control laws, Automatica 30 (1994) 233-249. [15] M.X. Li, P.M. Bruijn, H.B. Verbruggen, Tuning cascade PID controllers using fuzzy logic, Math. Comput. Simulation 37 (1994) 143-151. [16] E.H. Mamdani, Applications offuzzyalgorithms for control of simple dynamic plants, Proc. IEE 121 (1974) 1585-1588. [17] W. Pedrycz, Fuzzy Control and Fuzzy Systems, 2nd, extended, ed., Wiley, New York, 1993. [18] W. Pedrycz, Relevancy of fuzzy models, Inform. Sci. 52 (1990) 285-302. [19] W. Pedrycz, Fuzzy modeling: fundamentals, construction and evaluation, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 41 (1991) 1-15. [20] K.S. Ray, D.D. Maunder, Application of the circle criteria for stability analysis of linear SISO and MIMO systems associated with fuzzy logic controllers, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. 2 (1984) 345-349. [21] C. Raymond, S. Boverie, A. Titli, First evaluation of fuzzy MIMO control laws, in: FUZZ-IEEE 1994, Orlando. [22] J. Richalet, Industrial applications of model based predictive control, Automatica 29 (1993) 1251-1274. [23] M. Sugeno, G.T. Kang, Structure identification of fuzzy model, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 28 (1988) 15-33. [24] M. Sugeno, K. Tanaka, Successive identification of a fuzzy model and its application to prediction of a complex system, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 42 (1991) 315-334. [25] M. Sugeno, T. Yasukawa, A fuzzy-logic-based approach to qualitative modeling, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 1 (1993) 7-31. [26] T. Takagi, M. Sugeno, Fuzzy identification of systems and its application to modeling and control, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. 15 (1) (1985) 116-132. [27] T. Terano, K. Asai, M. Sugeno, Applied Fuzzy Systems, Academic Press, Boston, 1994. [28] K. Tanaka, M. Sugeno, Stability analysis and design of fuzzy control systems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 45 (1992) 135-156. [29] Li-Xin Wang, A supervisory controller for fuzzy control systems that guarantees stability, in: Proc. 3rd FUZZIEEE, IEEE, Orlando, 1994, pp. 1035-1039. [30] L.-X. Wang, Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control, Design and Stability Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.

160

H.B. Verbruggen, P.M. Bruijn / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90 (1997) 151-160

[31] R.R. Yager, D.P. Filev, Unified structure and parameter identification of fuzzy models, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. 23 (1993) 1198-1205. [32] R.R. Yager, D.P. Filev, Essentials of Fuzzy Modeling and Control, Wiley, New York, 1994. [33] S. Yasunobu, S. Miyamoto, Automatic train operation system by predictive fuzzy control, in: M. Sugeno (Ed.) Industrial Applications of Fuzzy Control, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985, pp. 1-18. [34] H. Ying, W. Siler, J.J. Buckley, Fuzzy control theory: a nonlinear case, Automatica 26 (3) (1990) 513-520.

[35] Y. Yoshinari, W. Pedrycz, K. Hirota, Construction of fuzzy models through clustering techniques, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 54 (1993) 157-165. [36] X.J. Zeng, M.G. Singh, Approximation theory of fuzzy systems - SISO case, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 2 (1994) 162-176. [37] X.J. Zeng, M.G. Singh, Approximation theory of fuzzy systems - MIMO case, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Systems 3 (1995) 219-235. [38] Z.-Y. Zhao, M. Tomizuka, S. Isaka, Fuzzy gain scheduling of PID controllers, IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet. 23 (5) (1993) 1392-1398.