Computational Intelligence in Control Engineering - King

Foreword
In the last 50 years, Automatic Control Theory has developed into a

well-established engineering discipline that has found application in
space technology, industry, household appliances and other technological implementations. It was designed to monitor and correct the performance of systems without the intervention of a human operator. Lately,
with the growth of digital computers and the universal acceptance of systems theory, it was discovered and used in softer fields of human interest
such as ecology, economics, biology, etc. In the meanwhile, being a dynamic discipline, Automatic Control with the aid of the digital computer
has evolved from simple servomechanisms to an autonomous selforganizing decision-making methodology that was given the name of Intelligent Control. Several manifestations of Intelligent Control have been
proposed by various scientists in the literature. Fuzzy, Neural, Hierarchical Intelligent, Cerebellar and Linguistic control systems are typical examples of such theoretically developed Intelligent Controls.
However, the application of such sophisticated methodologies to
real life problems is far behind the theory. The areas with the highest
need and the smallest tolerance for adopting the techniques resulting
from such theoretical research are the industrial complexes. The main
reason is the lack of suitable intelligent computational algorithms and interfaces designed especially for their needs. This book attempts to correct this by first presenting the theory and then developing various computational algorithms to be adapted for the various industrial applications
that require Intelligent Control for efficient production.
vii
viii
Foreword
The author, who was one of the first to actually implement Intelligent Control in industry, accomplishes this goal by developing step by
step some of the most important Intelligent Computational Algorithms.
His industrial experience, coupled with a strong academic background,
has been channeled into creating a book that is suitable for graduate academic education and a manual for the practicing industrial engineer.
Such a book fills a major gap in the global literature on Computational
Intelligence and could serve as a text for the developing areas of biological, societal and ecological systems. I am very proud to introduce such
an important work.
George N. Saridis
Professor Emeritus
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, New York, 1999
Preface
Conventional control techniques based on industrial three-term controllers are almost universally used in industry and manufacturing today, despite their limitations. Modern control techniques have not proved possible to apply because of the difficulties in establishing faithful microscopic models of the processes under control. It is not surprising, therefore, that manual control constitutes the norm in industry. In the early
1970s Intelligent Control techniques, which emulate the processing of
human knowledge about controlling a process by machine, appeared and
a new era of control was born. Intelligent Control has come a long way
since then, breaking down the barriers of industrial conservatism with
impressive results.
Intelligent Control, which includes Fuzzy, Neural, Neuro-fuzzy
and Evolutionary Control, is the result of applying Computational Intelligence to the control of complex systems. This class of unconventional
control systems differs radically from conventional (or hard control) systems that are based on classical and modern control theory. The techniques of Intelligent Control are being applied increasingly to industrial
control problems and are leading to solutions where conventional control
methods have proved unsuccessful. The outcome of their application to
industry and manufacturing has been a significant improvement in productivity, reduced energy consumption and improved product quality,
factors that are of paramount importance in todays global market.
The first Chapter presents an introduction to Computational Inix
telligence, the branch of Soft Computing which includes Expert Systems,
Preface
Fuzzy Logic, Artificial Neural Networks and Evolutionary Computation

(Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing) with special emphasis on
its application to Control Engineering.
The theoretical background required to allow the reader to comprehend the underlying principles has been kept to a minimum. The
reader is expected to possess a basic familiarity with the fundamentals of
conventional control principles since it is inconceivable that unconventional control techniques can be applied without an understanding of
conventional control techniques. The book is written at a level suitable
for both undergraduate and graduate students as well as for practicing
engineers who are interested in learning about unconventional control
systems that they are likely to see in increasing numbers in the next millennium. The primary objective of the book is to show the reader how
the fusion of the techniques of Computational Intelligence techniques
can be applied to the design of Intelligent Systems that, unlike conventional control systems, can learn, remember and make decisions.
After many years of teaching in higher education, the author
took leave to work in industry only to face the technology gap between
control theory and practice firsthand. He is one of that rare breed of academics who had a free hand to experiment on-line on large-scale chemical processes. He spent considerable time trying to apply conventional
modern control techniques but frustrated with the outcome, sought unconventional techniques that could and did yield solutions to the difficult
practical control problems that he faced. His search led him first to fuzzy
control and later to neural control, which he applied to the process industry with considerable success. Those pioneering years in industry
proved critical to his thinking about control practice and the use of Computational Intelligence, which is proving to be a powerful tool with
which to bridge the technology gap.
After some ten years in industry, the author returned to academe,
applying reverse technology transfer instructing his students on Intelligent Control techniques that have proved effective in industry. This book
is the result of the experience he gained during those years in industry
and of teaching this material to his graduate class on Intelligent Control
while many of the examples presented in this book are the result of this
experience.
Chapter 1 is an introduction to the techniques of Computational
Intelligence, their origins and application to Control Engineering. Conventional and Intelligent Control are compared, with a view to focusing
Preface
xi
on the differences which led to the need for Intelligent Control in industry and manufacturing. Chapter 2 discusses Expert Systems with reference to their engineering applications and presents some common applications in industry and manufacturing. Chapter 3 discusses Intelligent
Control Systems, their goals and objectives while Chapter 4 discusses its
principal components.
The elements of Fuzzy Logic on which Fuzzy Controllers are
based are presented in Chapter 5 while Chapter 6 discusses the mechanisms of Fuzzy Reasoning, i.e., the inference engine that is the kernel of
every fuzzy controller. Chapter 7 defines the fuzzy algorithm, methods
of fuzzification and de-fuzzification and outlines the principal fuzzy controller design considerations. The requirements for real-time fuzzy controllers, both supervisory as well as embedded, are discussed in Chapter
8, which also includes examples of industrial applications. Chapter 9
presents fuzzy three-term industrial controllers that are replacing many
conventional three-term controllers in the industrial environment. Chapter 10 outlines the Takagi-Sugeno Model-Based Fuzzy Controller design
technique and fuzzy gain-scheduling that fuse conventional and fuzzy
control.
Neural Control, the second important technique of Intelligent
Control, is presented in Chapter 11. The elemental artificial neuron and
multi-layer artificial neural networks that form the kernel of neural controllers are introduced in this Chapter. The delta and back-propagation
algorithms, two of the most common algorithms for training neural network, are described in Chapter 12. Chapter 13 discusses how neural controllers can be trained from linguistic control rules identical to those used
in fuzzy control. Finally, the result of fusing fuzzy and neural techniques
of Computational Intelligence in the design of hybrid neuro-fuzzy controllers is discussed in Chapter 14.
Evolutionary Computation, the latest entrant in the field of Computational Intelligence, and Genetic Algorithms, the best known example
of stochastic numerical optimization techniques, are presented in Chapter
15. Chapter 16 introduces Simulated Annealing, a stochastic technique
that has found considerable application in engineering optimization. Finally, Chapter 17 demonstrates how these two techniques can be used to
advantage in the design of conventional and intelligent controllers.
An extensive Bibliography on Computational Intelligence and its
applications is presented in Chapter 18.
xii
Preface
Appendix A offers a step-by-step study for the design of a fuzzy

controller of a realistic non-linear dynamic plant using MATLAB and its
Fuzzy Toolbox. Appendices B and C offer listings of the MATLAB mfiles of Genetic and Simulated Annealing Algorithms. Finally, Appendix
D presents a listing of a MATLAB m-file for training industrial neural
controllers using the Neural Toolbox.
Acknowledgments
This book would not have been written had it not been for two people:
an anonymous kidney donor and. Mark Hardy M.D., Auchinloss Professor of Surgery in the Department of Surgery at the College of Physicians
& Surgeons of Columbia University in New York, who performed the
transplant. Together, they gave him that most precious gift: Life. He is
forever indebted to them.
The author gratefully also acknowledges the contributions of his
colleagues and former students at the University of Patras in Greece, N.
Antonopoulos to Chapter 2, K. Kouramas to Chapters 2 and 10, P.
Skantzakis to Chapter 11, G. Tsitouras and G. Nikolopoulos to Chapter
13 and V. Goggos to Chapters 15, 16 and 17.
Robert E. King
reking@ieee.org
October 2004
Series Introduction
Many textbooks have been written on control engineering, describing new
techniques for controlling systems, or new and better ways of mathematically formulating existing methods to solve the ever-increasing complex
problems faced by practicing engineers. However, few of these books fully
address the applications aspects of control engineering. It is the intention of
this new series to redress this situation.
The series will stress applications issues, and not just the mathematics
of control engineering. It will provide texts that not only contain an expos
of both new and well-established techniques, but also present detailed examples of the application of these methods to the solution of real-world
problems. The authors will be drawn from both the academic world and the
relevant applications sectors.
There are already many exciting examples of the application of control techniques in the established fields of electrical, mechanical (including
aerospace), and chemical engineering. We have only to look around in todays highly automated society to see the use of advanced robotics techniques in the manufacturing industries; the use of automated control and
navigation systems in air and surface transport systems; the increasing use
of intelligent control systems in the many artifacts available to the domestic
consumer market; and the reliable supply of water, gas, and electrical power
to the domestic consumer and to industry. However, there are currently
many challenging problems that could benefit from wider exposure to the
applicability of control methodologies, and the systematic systems-oriented
basis inherent in the application of control techniques.
v
vi
Series Introduction
This new series will present books that draw on expertise from both
the academic world and the applications domains, and will be useful not
only as academically recommended course texts but also as handbooks for
practitioners in many applications domains.
Neil Munro
Contents
Cover Page
Series Introduction by Neil Munro
Foreword by George N. Saridis
vii
Preface
ix
1. Introduction
1.1 Conventional Control
1.2 Intelligent Control
1.3 Computational Intelligence in Control
1
2
6
8
2. Expert Systems in Industry

2.1 Elements of an Expert System
2.2 The Need for Expert Systems
2.3 Stages in the Development of an
Expert System
2.4 The Representation of Knowledge
2.5 Expert System Paradigms
2.5.1 Expert systems for product design
2.5.2 Expert systems for plant simulation
and operator training
2.5.3 Expert supervisory control systems
2.5.4 Expert systems for the design of
industrial controllers
2.5.5 Expert systems for fault prediction
and diagnosis
2.5.6 Expert systems for the prediction
of emergency plant conditions
2.5.7 Expert systems for energy
management
2.5.8 Expert systems for production
scheduling
2.5.9 Expert systems for the diagnosis
of malfunctions
13
15
17
18
20
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
26
27
28
3. Intelligent Control
3.1 Conditions for the Use of Intelligent Control
3.2 Objectives of Intelligent Control
31
33
34
4. Techniques of Intelligent Control

4.1 Unconventional Control
4.2 Autonomy and Intelligent Control
4.3 Knowledge-Based Systems
4.3.1 Expert systems
4.3.2 Fuzzy control
4.3.3 Neural control
4.3.4 Neuro-fuzzy control
39
40
45
48
49
50
51
51
5. Elements of Fuzzy Logic

5.1 Basic Concepts
5.2 Fuzzy Algorithms
5.3 Fuzzy Operators
5.4 Operations on Fuzzy Sets
5.5 Algebraic Properties of Fuzzy Sets
5.6 Linguistic Variables
5.7 Connectives
53
54
59
60
63
64
64
69
6. Fuzzy Reasoning
6.1 The Fuzzy Algorithm
6.2 Fuzzy Reasoning
6.2.1 Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP)
6.2.2 Generalized Modus Tollens (GMT)
6.2.3 Boolean implication
6.2.4 Lukasiewicz implication
6.2.5 Zadeh implication
6.2.6 Mamdani implication
6.2.7 Larsen implication
6.2.8 GMP implication
6.3 The Compositional Rules of Inference
71
74
76
77
77
78
78
79
79
80
80
81
7. The Fuzzy Control Algorithm

7.1 Controller Decomposition
7.2 Fuzzification
7.2.1 Steps in the fuzzification algorithm
7.3 De-fuzzification of the Composite
Controller Output Membership Function
7.3.1 Center of area (COA) de-fuzzification
7.3.2 Center of gravity (COG)
de-fuzzification
7.4 Design Considerations
7.4.1 Shape of the fuzzy sets
7.4.2 Coarseness of the fuzzy sets
7.4.3 Completeness of the fuzzy sets
7.4.4 Rule conflict
89
90
91
96
99
100
100
100
101
102
8. Fuzzy Industrial Controllers

8.1 Controller Tuning
8.2 Fuzzy Three-Term Controllers
8.2.1 Generalized three-term controllers
8.2.2 Partitioned controller architecture
8.2.3 Hybrid architectures
8.2.4 Generic two-term fuzzy controllers
8.3 Coarse-Fine Fuzzy Control
105
106
107
108
109
112
113
117
9. Real-time Fuzzy Control

9.1 Supervisory Fuzzy Controllers
9.2 Embedded Fuzzy Controllers
9.3 The Real-time Execution Scheduler
119
120
123
124
10. Model-Based Fuzzy Control

10.1 The Takagi-Sugeno Model-Based
Approach to Fuzzy Control
10.2 Fuzzy Variables and Fuzzy Spaces
10.3 The Fuzzy Process Model
10.4 The Fuzzy Control Law
10.5 The Locally Linearized Process Model
10.5.1 Conditions for closed system
stability
10.6 The Second Takagi-Sugeno Approach
10.7 Fuzzy Gain-Scheduling
11. Neural Control
11.1 The Elemental Artificial Neuron
11.2 Topologies of Multi-layer
Neural Networks
11.3 Neural Control
11.4 Properties of Neural Controllers
11.5 Neural Controller Architectures
11.5.1 Inverse model architecture
98
98
135
136
137
139
141
142
144
144
146
153
156
158
160
161
162
164
11.5.2 Specialized training architecture

11.5.3 Indirect learning architecture
165
166
12. Neural Network Training

12.1 The Widrow-Hoff Training Algorithm
12.2 The Delta Training Algorithm
12.3 Multi-layer ANN Training Algorithms
12.4 The Back-propagation (BP) Algorithm
169
170
173
175
176
13. Rule-Based Neural Control

13.1 Encoding Linguistic Rules
13.2 Training Rule-Based Neural Controllers
181
182
183
14. Neuro-Fuzzy Control

14.1 Neuro-Fuzzy Controller Architectures
14.2 Neuro-Fuzzy Isomorphism
193
194
195
15. Evolutionary Computation

15.1 Evolutionary Algorithms
15.2 The Optimization Problem
15.3 Evolutionary Optimization
15.4 Genetic Algorithms
15.4.1 Initialization
15.4.2 Decoding
15.4.3 Evaluation of the fitness
15.4.4 Recombination and mutation
15.4.5 Selection
15.4.6 Choice of parameters of a GA
15.5 Design of Intelligent Controllers
Using GAs
15.5.1 Fuzzy controllers
15.5.2 Neural controllers
203
205
207
208
211
212
212
213
214
215
217
16. Simulated Annealing

16.1 The Metropolis Algorithm
16.2 Application Examples
225
226
228
17. Evolutionary Design of Controllers

17.1 Qualitative Fitness Function
17.2 Controller Suitability
235
236
237
18. Bibliography
A. Computational Intelligence
B. Intelligent Systems
C. Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy Control
D. Fuzzy Logic and Neural Networks
E. Artificial Neural Networks
F. Neural and Neuro-Fuzzy Control
G. Computer and Advanced Control
H. Evolutionary Algorithms
I. MATLAB and its Toolboxes
247
247
247
248
251
252
253
254
254
257
Appendix A
Case Study: Design of a Fuzzy Controller Using MATLAB
A.1 The Controlled Process
A.2 Basic Linguistic Control Rules
A.3 A Simple Linguistic Controller
A.4 The MATLAB fuzzy Design Tool
A.5 System Stabilization Rules
A.6 On the Universe of Discourse of the
Fuzzy Sets
A.7 On the Choice of Fuzzy Sets
221
221
222
259
259
261
261
264
266
267
268
A.8 Compensation of Response Asymmetry 269

A.9 Conclusions
270
Appendix B
Simple Genetic Algorithm
279
Appendix C
Simulated Annealing Algorithm
285
Appendix D
Network Training Algorithm
289
Index
291
Back Cover
Chapter 1
Introduction
Modern control theory, which has contributed so significantly to the exploration and conquest of space, has not had similar success in solving
the control problems of industry and manufacturing. Despite the progress
in the field since the 1950s, the chasm between theory and practice has
been widening and many of the needs of industry remain unsolved. Industry has had little choice, therefore, but to rely heavily on conventional
(sometimes termed hard) control techniques that are based on industrial
three-term controllers. Unfortunately, these simple and ubiquitous devices cannot always cope with the demands and complexity of modern
manufacturing systems.
The chasm between theory and practice has led to a search for
new and unconventional techniques that are not subject to the constraints
and limitations of modern control theory to solve the control problems
faced by industry and manufacturing,. The breakthrough came in the
mid-1960s with the introduction of Fuzzy Logic by Zadeh. The application of Zadehs theory to control was to come almost ten years later and
it was to take even more years before it received the respect and acceptance that it rightly deserved. At about the same time, Widrow demonstrated the use of ADALINEs (Adaptive Linear Networks), which are a
primitive form of Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), in control. This
was a radical departure from conventional control since a generic controller was trained to perform a specific task instead of being designed.
Chapter 1
The two approaches were developed independently and it was to take

many years before these concepts were applied to any degree.
The application of Fuzzy Logic to Control Engineering was first
demonstrated in Europe and Japan in the mid-1970s. Mamdani presented
the first demonstration of Fuzzy Logic in 1974 on an experimental process. This demonstration of Fuzzy Logic Control (FLC) gave the impetus
for a seemingly endless series of applications, which continues unabated
to this day. With a few notable exceptions, Zadehs theory of Fuzzy
Logic went unnoticed in the West for many years while, in the meantime, there was a frenzy of activity in Japan applying the theory to such
varied fields as home appliances, cameras and transportation systems.
Not until the early 1980s did industries in the West seriously consider
applying fuzzy control. At the forefront of this thrust was the process industry and in particular the cement industry, which was the first to apply
the new technique to control large-scale processes. The developments in
the field since then have been impressive and today there are hundreds of
plants worldwide being successfully controlled by such techniques.
The field of Artificial Neural Networks, which evolved quite
separately, has had a difficult evolution. Appearing in the 1970s as a
field that offered much promise and potential, it was thwarted by inadequate computational facilities and a lack of effective network training algorithms. Re-emerging in the 1980s, by which time significant progress
had been made in both training algorithms and computer hardware, research and development in the field has evolved rapidly. Artificial Neural Networks can be found today in a host of applications ranging from
communications, speech analysis and synthesis, control and more.
1.1 Conventional Control

Despite the advances in the theory of automatic control, most industrial
plants, even to this day, are under the exclusive supervision and control
of human operators. Their observations on the state of the plant from a
host measurements taken from sensors in the plant coupled with their
knowledge and experience of the plant lead them to decide on what control strategy to take in order to achieve the desired product quality and
production specifications.
In the past, industry has had little option but to use Classical
Control theory that is based on macroscopic models of the plant in de-
Introduction
signing appropriate conventional controllers. These methods depend on

empirical knowledge of the dynamic behavior of the controlled plant, derived from measurements of the control and manipulated variables of
that plant. Traditionally industry has relied heavily on three-term (PID)
controllers, that are incorporated today in most Remote Terminal Units
(RTUs) and Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs). The ubiquitous
three-term controller is used to control all kinds of devices, industrial
processes and manufacturing plants. Their tuning is based on simple approximants of the controlled plant dynamics and on design methods such
as the classical ones by Nichols and Ziegler or more modern techniques
such as those of Persson and Astrom. Most often in practice turning is
performed heuristically by expert tuners in situ.
Without doubt, these simple industrial controllers have offered
sterling service for many decades and will continue to do so for many
more, wherever simplicity and robustness are essential and control specifications permit. However, three-term controllers cannot always satisfy
the increasing complexity of modern industrial plants and the demands
for high flexibility, productivity and product quality, which are essential
in todays very competitive global market. The problem is further aggravated by the increasing environmental restrictions being placed on industry and manufacturing.
Modern Control was introduced in the early 1960s and is a rigorous methodology that has proved invaluable for finding solutions to
well-structured control problems. With a few notable exceptions, however, its application to industry has been disappointing and few industrial
controllers are designed with this methodology. The reasons for this discrepancy are the complexity, uncertainty and vagueness with which industrial processes are characterized - conditions that do not allow for
ready modeling of the controlled plant, essential to the application of
modern control methodologies.
Despite more than five decades of research and development in
the theory and practice of Control Engineering, most industrial processes
are by and large still controlled manually. Today, Supervisory Control
And Data Acquisition (SCADA) Systems and Distributed Control Systems (DCS) make the operators task considerably easier. A partial schematic of such an information system using a distributed architecture, is
shown in Figure 1.1.
Chapter 1
Raw Materials
Kiln
Fuel
Air
Clinker
RTUs
LAN
Operator Consoles
Figure 1.1 Distributed Control System architecture
The operator console possesses one or more screens that display

the essential variables of the plant through a graphical user interface by
which the operator interacts with the plant. A typical example of such a
display is shown in Figure 1.2.
In plants where the various sub-processes interact, it is clear that
the control problem can be severe, requiring operator skills that can only
be acquired after years of experience. Today, Multimedia and Virtual
Reality are finding their way into the control room, improving the manmachine interface and making decision-making considerably easier and
the work environment more tolerable.
Introduction
One or more human operators normally supervise a cluster of

sub-processes, receiving data on the state of the plant and sending corrections to the set points of the local controllers which are distributed
throughout the plant so that the plant remains at its nominal state despite
external disturbances. These local controllers are often embedded in
RTUs that are also capable of performing sequential switching control,
data acquisition and communications with the Supervisory Control System and the operators consoles via a local area network.
Figure 1.2 A typical graphical user interface
In most industrial applications, human operators close the loop

between the controlled and the control variables of the controlled plant.
Operators respond to observations of the principal variables of the plant
and continuously stride to satisfy often-conflicting objectives, e.g.,
maximizing productivity and profit while minimizing energy demand.
Proper operation of a process is thus very much dependent on the experience of the operator, his knowledge about the process and its dynamics
and the speed with which he responds to plant disturbances, malfunctions and disruptions. The yield of a process can vary quite significantly
from operator to operator and less experienced operators are often unable
Chapter 1
to control a plant effectively, particularly under abnormal situations

which they have never met before.
The control actions of a human operator are subjective, frequently incomprehensible and often prone to errors particularly when
they are under stress. Indeed in the case of abnormal operating (i.e.,
alarm) conditions, their actions may be potentially dangerous and there is
little margin for errors. Delays in making decisions can lead to disastrous
results as was amply demonstrated in the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster.
Thus in modern complex plants there exists a very real need to
assist operators in their decision-making, particularly in abnormal situations in which they often are bombarded with conflicting signals. The
advent of Computational Intelligence and unconventional control free
operators of many of the tedious and complex chores of monitoring and
controlling a plant, assuring them fast and consistent support in their decision-making.
1.2 Intelligent Control

During the past twenty years or so, a major effort has been under way to
develop new and unconventional control techniques that can often augment or replace conventional control techniques. A number of unconventional control techniques have evolved, offering solutions to many difficult control problems in industry and manufacturing. This is the essence
of what has been termed Practical Control, which is a collection of techniques which practicing engineers have found effective and easy to use
in the field. It is true to say that virtually all the techniques of unconventional control could not have been possible but for the availability of
computationally powerful and high-speed computers.
Significant research has been carried out in understanding and
emulating human intelligence while, in parallel, developing inference
engines for processing human knowledge. The resultant techniques incorporate notions gathered from a wide range of specialization such as
neurology, psychology, operations research, conventional control theory,
computer science and communications theory. Many of the results of this
effort have migrated to the field of Control Engineering and their fusion
has led to a rapid growth of new techniques such as inductive reasoning,
Introduction
connectionism and parallel distributed processing for dealing with

vagueness and uncertainty.
This is the domain of Soft Computing, which focuses on stochastic, vague, empirical and associative situations, typical of the industrial
and manufacturing environment. Intelligent Controllers (sometimes
termed soft controllers) are derivatives of Soft Computing, being characterized by their ability to establish the functional relationship between
their inputs and outputs from empirical data, without recourse to explicit
models of the controlled process. This is a radical departure from conventional controllers, which are based on explicit functional relations.
Unlike their conventional counterparts, intelligent controllers can learn,
remember and make decisions. The functional relationship between the
inputs and outputs of an intelligent controller can be specified either:
indirectly by means of a relational algorithm, relational

matrix or a knowledge base, or
directly from a specified training set.
The first category belongs to the domain of Fuzzy Systems while

Artificial Neural Networks belong to the second. Generality, in which
similar inputs to a plant produce similar outputs so that sensitivity to perturbations in the plant inputs is minimized, is an inherent feature of such
systems. Generality implies that the controller is capable of operating
correctly on information beyond the training set.
Intelligent controllers, whatever form they may take, share the
following properties: they
use the same process states,

use parallel distributed associative processors,
assure generality, and
are capable of codifying and processing vague data.
The principal medium of intelligent control is Computational Intelligence, the branch of Soft Computing which includes Expert Systems,
Fuzzy Logic, Artificial Neural Networks and their derivatives. Evolutionary Computation (Genetic Algorithms and Simulated Annealing) is a
very recent addition to this rapidly evolving field.
Chapter 1
1.3 Computational Intelligence in Control

The field of Expert Systems, the first class of systems that this book discusses, is the precursor to Computational Intelligence and is the most
successful outgrowth of Artificial Intelligence. Expert systems use linguistic rules to specify domain knowledge and are used extensively today in industry in such diverse applications as fault prediction, fault diagnosis, energy management, production management and supervisory
control, among others.
Chronologically, fuzzy logic was the first technique of intelligent control. Neural, neuro-fuzzy and evolutionary control and their derivatives followed later, each technique offering new possibilities and
making intelligent control even more versatile and applicable in an everincreasing range of industial applications.
The third technique of intelligent control considered in this book
appeared towards the end of the 1980s and is based on Artificial Neural
Networks. Neural networks have had a varied history, progress having
remained stagnant until the mid-1980s when efficient training algorithms
were developed and fast computational platforms became readily available. Since then, neural networks have had a remarkable resurgence, being successfully used in a wide range of applications such as communications, speech analysis and synthesis pattern recognition, system identification and control.
Finally, in the mid-1990s Evolutionary Control, an outgrowth of
Evolutionary Computing, emerged as a viable method for optimum control. This technique, which is possible only because of the rapid developments in computer hardware and software, uses stochastic methods.
Since the early 1990s a major effort has been underway to develop derivatives of these techniques in order to exploit the best features
of each in the design of intelligent controllers. These new techniques
have revolutionized the field of Control Engineering, offering new hope
in solving many of the difficult control problems of industry and manufacturing.
Computational Intelligence is based on concepts that practicing
control engineers use on a daily basis and has played a major role in reducing the chasm between advanced control and engineering practice.
The new control techniques based on Computational Intelligence no
longer face the barrier of disbelief that they faced when they first ap-
Introduction
peared. Numerous successful applications in a variety of fields attest to

the usefulness and power of these techniques.
Computational Intelligence uses numerical representation of
knowledge in contrast to Artificial Intelligence, which uses symbolic
representation. This feature is exploited in Control Engineering, which
deals with numerical data since control and controlled variables are both
defined numerically. Computational Intelligence adapts naturally to the
engineering world, requiring no further data conversion. The techniques
of Computational Intelligence share the following properties: they
use a numerical representation of knowledge,

demonstrate adaptability,
have an inherent tolerance to errors, and
possess speeds comparable to those of humans.
Intelligent controllers infer the control strategy that must be applied to a plant in order to satisfy specific design requirements. This action can be the result of operations on a set of pre-specified linguistic
control rules, as in the case of Fuzzy Controllers, or of training an artificial neural network with numerically coded rules as in the case of Neural
Controllers. In either case, the primary objective is to generate control
actions which closely match those of an expert human operator. In this
manner, the controller can assist the human operator to maintain the
plant under his supervision at its nominal operating state while simultaneously compensating for his inconsistency and unreliability brought
about by fatigue, boredom and difficult working conditions.
Intelligent controllers can be trained to operate effectively in
conditions of vagueness and uncertainty of both the plant state and plant
environment and can respond to unforeseen situations autonomously,
i.e., without intervention from the plant operator. They differ, however,
from their human counterpart in their ability to learn new control rules or
to adapt to new situations for which they have not been trained. Selforganizing controllers that have the ability to learn new rules on-line
have been variously proposed in the literature and tried out in the laboratory, but none has been commissioned so far in a manufacturing plant.
The main reason is that this class of controllers assumes extended testing
and experimentation on the controlled plant under normal operating conditions, a situation that few plant managers are likely to entertain.
10
Chapter 1
A variety of architectures have been proposed for the design and

implementation of high level intelligent controllers for large-scale systems. One of the most useful is the hierarchical architecture proposed by
Saridis in the mid-1970s. In this, information from the controlled plant
flows with decreasing frequency from the lowest to the highest layer of
the hierarchy. In contrast, management directives (on such matters as
production quotas, product qualities, etc.) flow in the reverse direction
with increasing frequency as they descend the hierarchy, leading ultimately to selection of the best control strategy that must be imposed on
the plant.
Saridis principle, on which a number of successful intelligent
hierarchical process management and control systems have been developed, can be paraphrased as:
Increasing/decreasing precision is accompanied
by decreasing/increasing intelligence.
It is useful, finally, to note the features that every Intelligent System involving clusters of intelligent controllers must support:
Correctness - i.e., the ability to operate correctly for specific
sets of commands and plant safety constraints.
Robustness - i.e., the ability to operate acceptably despite
wide variations in plant parameters. The higher layers of the
hierarchy must possess an inherent ability to deal with
unforeseen variations.
Extendibility - i.e., the ability to accept extensions to both
hardware and software without the necessity for major
modifications to either. Extendibility implies modularity,
which is the partitioning of the system into easily modifiable
software and hardware modules.
Reusability - i.e., the ability to use the same software in
different applications. To possess this feature, the system
must be general or possess an open architecture.
The field of intelligent control is one of the most exciting and
promising new directions of automatic control that is opening up new
frontiers for research and development in radical solutions to the control
of industrial systems in the new millenium.
Introduction
11
Chapter 2
Expert Systems in Industry

Expert Systems, which are the most commercially successful result of
research in Artificial Intelligence, are software entities that emulate the
cognitive abilities of human experts in complex decision making situations. As one of the primary activities of Computer Science and dependent heavily on the rapid developments in computer technology, Expert
Systems have been eagerly adopted by industry and applied to a wide
range of applications. Expert Systems belong to the field of Intelligent
Knowledge-Based Systems that constitute one of the principal fields of
activity of Computational Intelligence, a field which has been referred to
as the science that attempts to reproduce human intelligence using computational means. Computational Intelligence has also been referred to as
the science that attempts to make computers perform tasks at which
humans, for now at least, are better!
Computational Intelligence has many branches, one of the earliest and most important of which belongs to Expert Systems. The other
branches of Computational Intelligence are shown in Figure 2.1 and are
introduced in subsequent chapters. Expert systems use a variety of
methods to represent knowledge and derive decisions while they have
the ability to manage knowledge from different sources of human
thought and activity. The manner in which this knowledge is represented
in the computational environment depends on the nature of the knowledge and the field of expertise. In an industrial environment knowledge
13
Chapter 2
14
is typically represented in the form of linguistic rules that describe the

actions that must be taken in response to specified excitations.
Expert
Systems
Evolutionary
Computing
Computational
Intelligence
Neural
Systems
Fuzzy
Systems
Neuro-fuzzy
Systems
Figure 2.1 Branches of Computational Intelligence
There are many techniques for representing knowledge and each

one has its advantages and disadvantages. The principal theoretical
research issue is how to give Expert Systems the ability to search
through the domain knowledge systematically and arrive at decisions
rapidly. The following are techniques commonly used for representing
knowledge:
predicate logic,
semantic networks,
procedural representation,
production systems, and
frames.
15
2.1 Elements of an Expert System

Expert systems are the outcome of a major effort in computer science to
emulate the cognitive faculty of humans. Artificial intelligence is the
basis for this field of endeavor, which includes such areas as pattern
recognition, artificial speech and artificial vision, among others. Conventional computer software can be viewed as the synergy of:
Software = Data + Algorithm
Here, the algorithm processes data in a top-down sequential manner until
the result is arrived at. In contrast, computer software used in Expert
Systems can be described as the synergy of:
System = Knowledge + Inference
In this case the system structure differs radically and the principal elements are the knowledge base, which is a depository of all the available
domain specific knowledge and the inference engine, the software whose
function is to infer decisions.
An Expert System can be characterized as an intelligent knowledge-based system provided it reproduces knowledge in the form of
rules. The most significant characteristic of this class of systems is that it
draws on human knowledge and emulates human experts in the manner
with which they arrive at decisions. One definition of an Expert System
is thus:
An Expert System is the embodiment of knowledge elicited
from human experts, suitably encoded so that the computational system can offer intelligent advice and derive intelligent conclusions on the operation of a system.
Production rules are a convenient form by which to represent the
knowledge of domain experts. Before describing this method, we note
some alternative methods for representing knowledge that have been
found useful in industrial applications. In general, knowledge that is
useful in solving real industrial problems has two components:
Chapter 2
16
facts, which constitute ephemeral information subject to

changes with time (e.g., plant variables) and
procedural knowledge, which refers to the manner in which
experts in the specific field of application arrive at their decisions.
Procedural knowledge (e.g., information flows, control sequences and actions, etc.) and the step-by-step procedure which must be
followed in the specific manufacturing plant, is evidently known by
production engineers and is the result of years of experience with working with the plant or process. This is one of the principal reasons why
Expert Systems have attracted so much attention in the industrial world.
The use of rules is the simplest way to describe a manufacturing procedure, while linguistic rules of the classical if then else form are
most commonly used by humans.
Domain Experts
Knowledge
Acquisition
System
Knowledge Base
Inference Engine
Explanation
Sub-system
Figure 2.2 Basic elements of an Expert System
M anM achine
Interface
17
The basic elements of an Expert System are shown in Figure 2.2.

An Expert System includes the following elements:
the knowledge base, which comprises facts and rules with

which to control a plant,
the inference engine, which processes the data in the
knowledge base in order to arrive at logical conclusions,
the explanation sub-system, which is capable of a giving a
rational explanation on how the decision was arrived at,
the knowledge acquisition system, which is used by the
knowledge engineers to help them analyze and test the
knowledge elicited from human domain experts and
the man-machine or user interface system through which the
human operator interacts with the system.
2.2 The Need for Expert Systems

The developments in the field of Expert Systems rapidly found proponents in industry despite the inherent reluctance to adopt new technology. The application of Expert Systems in industry and manufacturing
was left to innovative manufacturers who were sufficiently broadminded to take the risk in the expectation that the outcome would increase their competitive position and their market share. Despite some
early failures of Expert Systems, which were touted for what they were
supposed to do but didnt, the positive results which were reported
motivated more manufacturers to invest in knowledge-based technology.
This in turn led to further research and development in the field of Expert Systems in universities and research establishments. The reasons
that has motivated industry to adopt knowledge-based techniques are the
following:
the lack of an explicit quantitative description of the physical

plant,
the existence of the knowledge and experience to control the
plant, and
Chapter 2
18
the ability of a class of knowledge-based systems to deal with

vagueness and uncertainty that is characteristic of many industrial plants.
A common feature in industrial and manufacturing systems is that
their quantitative models that are supposed to predict their dynamic
behavior are either unknown or do not possess sufficient fidelity. This is
particularly true in the case of large-scale industrial plants whose quantitative description is a difficult, tedious and occasionally impossible task
for lack of sufficient deep knowledge. Deep knowledge is the result of
microscopic knowledge of the physical laws that govern the behavior of
a plant. In contrast, shallow knowledge is the result of holistic or macroscopic knowledge and is readily available from human domain experts.
This knowledge is acquired after years of experience in operating the
plant and observing its peculiarities and nuances.
2.3 Stages in the Development of an Expert

System
In developing a knowledge-based system using an Expert System, it is
essential to concentrate first on the objectives of the Expert System and
not how these objectives can be met. Great effort must therefore be made
to specify these objectives and constrain the domain of the Expert System. Inadequate specifications of the constraints of the Expert System
over which it is expected to function and unwarranted expectations were
the basic reasons for failure of many early Expert Systems to meet user
requirements.
Once the domain of the Expert System has been specified, we
are in a position to select the tools and methods with which to design the
Expert System. During this phase of development, the knowledge engineer elicits the rules by which the plant is to be controlled from domain
experts. Following interviews that invariably include questionnaires on
what variables are observed and what controlling actions the domain
experts would take in every conceivable situation, the knowledge so
acquired is stored in a suitably coded form in the knowledge base of an
Expert System shell. An Expert System shell is nothing more than a
collection of software elements that perform all the tasks of an Expert
System. While in the past Expert Systems were developed using object-
19
oriented languages, notably LISP, it is inconceivable today to develop

such a system without a shell. It should be noted that knowledge elicitation is one of the most painstaking tasks in the design procedure. Human
domain experts are often reluctant to part with their knowledge, fearful
that divulging knowledge gained after years of experience may lead to
their redundancy and termination.
In the first stage of development of any Expert System, it is very
useful to implement a rapid prototype. The objective here is not development of a complete Expert System, but a prototype that will form the
basis of the final system under development. Once the knowledge engineer has a thorough understanding of the rules elicited from the domain
experts and the manner in which decisions are arrived at and justified, he
must then encode the knowledge in a form suitable for processing by the
Expert System. It is noted that the rapid prototype need not possess all
the features of the end product, but should incorporate the basic features
that can be evaluated by both the domain experts and the end users.
Should the prototype system demonstrate deficiencies and difficulties in
inferring decisions, it is clearly preferable to make corrections and improvements at this stage rather than in the end product when it may be
very difficult and costly.
In the implementation stage of the Expert System, the knowledge
elicited from the domain expert is transferred to the Expert System that
runs on a suitable platform. Early Expert Systems invariably ran on
powerful workstations or special purpose computers (such as the shortlived LISP machines) which were subsequently superceded by common
microcomputers. Today, most Expert Systems can run on high end PCs
or workstations. Once completed, the Expert System is tested off-line
until the end users are convinced of its ability to infer correct results and
support its decisions. It is noted that it is often difficult and uneconomic
to test the Expert System exhaustively, i.e., for all possible conditions, in
practice. For these reasons, end users must develop a close liaison with
the Expert System designer, assisting him whenever some discrepancy is
observed between their decision and that of the Expert System. Such
discrepancies arise from rule conflict, misunderstandings or errors in the
knowledge base.
20
Chapter 2
2.4 The Representation of Knowledge

Simplicity in representing knowledge in an Expert System is essential
and a variety of techniques have been proposed to this end. One of the
most common representations of domain knowledge is the decision tree,
each branch of which represents some action. Every branch of the tree
emanates from a node where a condition is examined. Depending on the
outcome of this condition, a specific branch of the tree is traversed until
the next node. The tree may have many branches and nodes. Some early
Expert Systems proposed for diagnosis in medicine had thousands of
branches and nodes, making them cumbersome, slow and difficult to use.
Implementation of an Expert System can be either direct, using
an object oriented programming language such as LISP, Prolog, C++,
Visual Basic, Visual C++, Visual J++, Visual Fortran, etc. or, more
conveniently using an Expert System shell such as G2, NEXPERT, etc.
As noted earlier, the rule base of an Expert System contains linguistic rules of the classical if ... then ... else form with which plant
operators are trained and subsequently use to justify their decisions.
These rules may appear as strings in their original form or encoded into
numerical form. Quantitative descriptions of a plant are not always
straightforward, particularly when only incomplete and vague data on
the plant are available. To make descriptions possible in such cases,
special techniques such as Fuzzy Logic (which is introduced in chapter
5) or probabilistic methods are used.
2.5 Expert System Paradigms

Expert systems have been diffusing into industry rapidly since their
introduction in the mid-1970s. Today, Expert Systems can be found in a
variety of industrial applications, the most successful examples of which
are described briefly below. The typical stages of a manufacturing plant
are shown in Figure 2.3, which shows where Expert Systems can benefit
production.
21
Chapter 2
22
2.5.1 Expert systems for product design

Modern Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) produce specialized
products of high quality, limited production runs and short life cycles,
i.e., lean production. These products undergo changes often and their
design must be completed in very short times, imposing considerable
stress on product designers. Expert computer-aided-design systems are
now available to assist the designer, permitting him to exploit his creative abilities to the utmost while advising him on design and materials
constraints following extensive background computations.
Product
specifications
Knowledge
Design
Product
properties
Programming
Interpretation
Desired
properties
Control
Production
Process
Diagnosis
Interpretation
Supervision
Prediction
Observed
properties
Future
behavior
Figure 2.3 The manufacturing environment
23
While conventional Computer Aided Design (CAD) software

can process geometric shapes rapidly, the designer needs to know rapidly
certain characteristics of the product being designed, such as strengths,
thermal distributions, costs, etc. Expert CAD systems provide all this
information while in addition advising the designer of alternative shapes
from a priori experience with similar designs. The trend in product
design today does not yet permit total design with expert CAD systems
since design normally depends on the designers intuition and aesthetic
knowledge, the prehistory of the product and economic factors that are
difficult to incorporate in a knowledge base. The final product is a set of
diagrams or plans, design specifications and various documents on which
manufacturing will then proceed, as shown in Figure 2.3.
2.5.2 Expert systems for plant simulation and

operator training
The training of operators to control modern industrial plants is important,
time-consuming and very expensive when performed on the actual
physical plants. Apart from the dangers involved should some wrong
control action be taken with on-line training, the unevenness of production and uncertain quality of the product produced during operator
training makes this procedure undesirable and very costly. Plant simulators, which simulate the plant and can be programmed to take into account faults and malfunctions in the plant (quite similar, in fact, to flight
simulators) are today being used extensively to train new plant operators.
Usually an instructor, unseen to the trainee operator, enters malfunctions
and observes the trainees reactions and performance.
The role of the instructor can be taken by Expert Systems, which
can tirelessly repeat plant malfunctions and, like their human counterparts, examine and instruct the trainee operators. The knowledge with
which to operate a plant is embedded in a set of if then else rules
that are used to operate the plant. Multimedia and Virtual Reality can be
used in the man-machine interface in training plant operators, even
before the plant has been commissioned. The same system can also be
used to refresh old operators knowledge, much as pilots must undergo
periodic training and certification using flight simulators.
Chapter 2
24
2.5.3 Expert supervisory control systems

Reference was made in Section 2.3 to the use of Expert Systems for the
supervision and control of Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM)
systems. The primary objective of any Supervisory Control And Data
Acquisition (SCADA) system, which constitutes the kernel of any CIM
system, is data acquisition, the overall supervision of the health of the
plant, prompt alarming of out-of-range variables and control of the
principal variables of the plant under control. Supervisory control systems have revolutionized production plants, increasing productivity
while significantly reducing production costs.
The next stage in their evolution was the introduction of Computational Intelligence techniques that broadened their abilities significantly. The new generation of supervisory control systems exploits the
knowledge and experience of domain experts in automatically correcting
for plant malfunctions and discrepancies. New and advanced intelligent
control techniques that were inconceivable until recently, are now commonly incorporated into most commercially available SCADA systems,
further improving product quality and productivity while simultaneously
reducing production costs.
Expert systems are being used in industrial control, which is an
integral part of any SCADA system, in the following fields:
the design of industrial controllers, and

the supervision and control of manufacturing plants.
One of the major difficulties in the design of plant controllers, particularly in the case of large-scale multivariable plants, using conventional control techniques, is the unavailability of explicit models of the
plants. For this reason industrial automation leans towards the use of
three term (PID) controllers and various empirical and semi-empirical
design techniques have been proposed to determine the parameters of
these controllers. Examples of these design techniques are the wellknown methods of Ziegler and Nichols and modern variants due to
Persson and Astrom. In contrast, expert controller techniques, which can
exploit the knowledge of expert controller tuners, can often offer superior results. A number of vendors currently offer such software products.
The use of Expert Systems in the design of industrial controllers
has two aspects. The first involves the rules on the most appropriate
25
design technique to use in order to achieve the desired result. These rules
are dependent on the specific plant to be controlled and criteria by which
the control quality, i.e., the performance of the closed plant, is judged.
The second aspect involves rules that specify the best control strategy to
follow in any situation, given as advice to the operator.
2.5.4 Expert systems for the design of

industrial controllers
Human operators are trained to use linguistic rules that involve the
principal measured plant variables in order to maintain the plant at the
desired state following some exogenous disturbance. The operators
speed of reaction is critical in achieving a high quality of control and
satisfactory product quality. Inaction, delays and inconsistencies in the
actions of the operator due to fatigue or when under pressure, invariably
leads to uneconomic operation and in the worst case, to disastrous results, a prime example being the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
The necessity to assist the operator in his routine tasks and advise him on the best strategy to follow in extreme cases or in rare situations which he may not have met earlier, was the motivation for the
development of a new class of expert supervisory control systems. Coupled with the rapid developments in computer technology, this new
generation of control systems is a reality that is finally diffusing into
manufacturing.
Expert supervisory control systems do not require deep knowledge of the plant to be controlled, but are based on shallow knowledge of
the form normally used by human operators. The fundamental requirement is the existence of a conventional supervisory control system to
which the Expert System is appended.
2.5.5 Expert systems for fault prediction and

diagnosis
A very significant field of application of Expert Systems has been in
equipment fault prediction and diagnosis, sometimes termed equipment
health condition. Many such systems have augmented existing data
acquisition systems and have proved invaluable for the prediction of
faults in equipment. Examples of faults that are important to predict are
26
Chapter 2
increased wear of bearings of rotating machinery due to vibrations or

excess friction due to overheating. This class of on-line, real-time Expert
Systems is giving new meaning to the field of predictive maintenance.
Productivity is benefiting through improved estimates of the time-to-go
before catastrophic failure to the equipment is likely to occur. This is
particularly important in the case of large equipment for which expensive
spare parts have to be in stock, to be used in case of a breakdown. Expert
systems can minimize and even eliminate stocks through timely procurement. The use of Expert Systems for fault prediction results leads to
a drastic reduction in the mean time to repair equipment and a corresponding increase in the availability of the equipment and, most importantly, an increase in plant productivity.
In preventive maintenance, historical data is gathered from suitable sensors attached to the equipment (e.g., temperatures, pressures,
vibrations, etc.). Real-time measurements of critical variables are compared with expected or desired values and any discrepancy is used to
diagnose the possible cause of the discrepancy from rules embedded in
the Expert System. Following spectral analysis of such measurements of
bearing sounds by standard signal processing techniques, the Expert
System suggests what maintenance will be required and when best to
perform it.
Expert systems for fault diagnosis can be either off-line or online. In the former case, maintenance personnel enter into a dialog with
the Expert System, supplying answers to questions posed by the Expert
System on the health of the equipment. The Expert System then gives
instructions on what further measurements and what actions should be
followed that will focus on the source of the problem and then give
advice on how to repair it. It is obvious that rapid fault diagnosis is of
paramount importance in a manufacturing environment where every
minute of lost production results in a loss of profit. It should be evident
why expert fault prediction and diagnosis systems have been the subject
of considerable commercial interest and have found such extensive
application.
27
2.5.6 Expert systems for the prediction of

emergency plant conditions
Effective control of large complex industrial systems, such as nuclear
reactors, power distribution networks and aircraft, is critically important
since breakdowns can lead to unforeseen and potentially disastrous
results. In recent history, the Chernobyl disaster stands out as a leading
example of human error. Likewise, power blackouts over large areas of
the power distribution network, are often the result of human error. But
the most visible example is pilot error, when hundreds of lives are lost
because of wrong pilot decisions that have been made in situations of
immense pressure.
A human operator has great difficulty in making decisions when
facing conflicting or excessive information, particularly if under stress.
Real-time Expert Systems, using data from the plant and rules derived
from logical reasoning and prior experience, advise the plant operator on
the best course of action to take in order to avert a catastrophe and return
the plant to its nominal operating state as quickly as possible, with
minimal disruption of production and damage to the equipment.
2.5.7 Expert systems for energy management

With the ever-increasing costs of energy, the management of energy in
large industrial plants is of major concern and means to contain these
costs are actively sought. Energy-intensive industries, such as the metallurgical, cement and petrochemical industries, have a very real need to
contain their energy demand and most nowadays use some form of
energy management system.
In large manufacturing plants the electric energy pricing policy
is dependent on the power absorbed over, for instance, each 15-minute
period. The power provider and the manufacturer agree on a pricing
policy for every minute period during the day, the cost of energy being
significantly lower in off-peak periods and prohibitively high in peak
periods. In turn, the consumer agrees to restrict his energy intake to these
limits. A significant penalty must be paid if the contractual limits are
exceeded in any period. Such additional costs can make production noncompetitive.
28
Chapter 2
It is therefore necessary to accurately predict what the power absorbed over each period will be and to monitor the energy demand by
shedding loads in time to avoid exceeding the contractual energy limit.
The decision on which loads to shed and when to do so without disrupting production, is a very difficult and tiring task for a human who would
have to make this decision every 15 minutes throughout the day and
night. The operator has to know which equipment can be shut down and
which must, at all costs, be left running in order to avoid major disruption of the production line or manufacturing plant and how long before
each piece of equipment can be restarted without causing excess wear to
it. In a large plant this is normally performed by shedding auxiliary
equipment that is not considered absolutely essential to the manufacturing plant (e.g., circulation pumps, conveyor belts) and in the worst case
by a total stoppage of production in periods of high energy cost. Many
electric energy intensive plants today are forced to shut down production
during peak hours in order to conserve energy.
Real-time expert energy management systems have been developed and have been very successful in containing energy costs, replacing
the human operator in this arduous task. Indeed, avoiding just one or two
overload penalties often pays for the cost of the Expert System! The
rules by which equipment can be operated, the order in which they may
be shed, when and how many times per day they can be restarted are
elicited from human operators and are embedded in the Expert System
rule base. The real-time expert energy management system is then executed every few seconds following prediction of the energy absorbed at
the end of the timing period. Naturally, the magnitude of the load that
must be shed is critically dependent on the time-to-go before the end of
the period: the shorter the time left, the larger must be the load that must
be shed and the greater the malfunction that is incurred. Accurate prediction and effective and fast decisions from the Expert System are essential
to proper operation.
2.5.8 Expert systems for production scheduling

Production scheduling in manufacturing plants with multiple parallel
production lines is essential in order to maintain high product throughput
despite changes in production priorities, equipment malfunctions and
variations in the raw materials. In deciding which production line can be
29
used to manufacture a specific product, the production manager must

know the production capacity and limitations of each production line, the
overall production schedule, equipment and storage capabilities, etc.
When a production line is disrupted for whatever reason, it is often
necessary to switch production lines and change the priorities with which
the product is produced, permitting high priority items to be completed
first while lower priority items are placed in a queue.
The long-term production schedule is normally produced on a
weekly or monthly basis but changes to it may be necessary due to
equipment failures. When these failures are serious enough to cause
extended production disruption it is necessary to re-compute the production schedule. Operational research techniques based on linear integer or
mixed-integer programming is the conventional approach to this problem, but these techniques are time-consuming.
An alternative way to reschedule production is through the use
of empirical rules that are followed by production management. Expert
scheduling systems using this knowledge and experience are considerably simpler to use and lead to equally feasible results much faster and
have been used with excellent results.
2.5.9 Expert systems for the diagnosis of

malfunctions
This application involves Expert Systems for the diagnosis of malfunctions in the sub-systems of a manufacturing system. The method requires
decomposition of the manufacturing system into a set of interacting subsystems and leads to the development of a knowledge base from which
the cause of the malfunction can be inferred. The method is particularly
useful in Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) - discrete production
lines, typical examples of which are beverage bottling, cigarette packing
and food canning lines.
A malfunction in any sub-system can lead to a total shutdown of
the production line and it is therefore critically important to diagnose the
source of the malfunction as quickly as possible in order that the malfunctioning equipment be repaired rapidly and be put on-line once more.
Thus sensors (photocells, inductive detectors, etc.) are placed at critical
points along the production line, from which flow rates can be estimated
continuously. It is obvious that rapid reinstatement of the production line
30
Chapter 2
is of paramount importance in order to maintain high equipment availability and meet production schedules. In large bottling or canning
plants, for instance, the sensors are linked to the Factory Data Acquisition (FDA) system and measurements are continuously compared with
the desired values.
Should some unit along the line malfunction, then clearly both
the proceeding and succeeding units will suffer the consequences. Due to
the interactive nature of most production systems and work cells, it is
obvious that when any sub-system malfunctions, the sub-systems upstream and down-stream will be affected sooner or later. Up-stream units
must thus be stopped in time to avoid strangulation as a consequence of
the accumulation of partially finished products which may exceed the
capacity of the silos or queues if the malfunction persists for some time,
while down-stream, units must be stopped because of starvation.
Expert systems for the diagnosis of equipment malfunctions
contain the rules by which a malfunction can be transmitted to adjacent
units embedded in their knowledge base. The Expert System continuously monitors the materials flows and should the mass balance for each
unit be essentially constant, then no alarm is issued. However, when
some malfunction occurs, the Expert System is executed with the object
of determining the source of the fault. Timing is clearly of the essence.
Chapter 3
Intelligent Control
Intelligent control takes a radically different approach to the control of
industrial processes and plants from conventional control. The knowledge and experience of human operators constitutes the basis for this
new approach to Control Engineering for which Computational Intelligence provides the theoretical foundation. In this chapter we summarize
the potential and some limitations of intelligent control and we attempt
to address the questions on how, where, when and under what conditions
can intelligent control be applied in practice.
Intelligent control seeks solutions to the problem of controlling
plants from the viewpoint of the human-operator. In other words, the
technique seeks to establish some kind of cognitive model of the human
operator and not the plant under his control. This is the point at which intelligent control departs from conventional control and it is undoubtedly
true that the technique could not have been possible but for the rapid
progress in computer technology. Computational Intelligence provides
the tools with which to make intelligent control a reality. The reproduction of human intelligence and the mechanisms for inferring decisions on
the appropriate control actions, strategy or policy that must be followed
are embedded in these tools.
Figure 3.1 shows how Computational Intelligence can be classified according to the form of the knowledge (i.e., structured or unstructured) and the manner in which this knowledge is processed (i.e., symbolic or numerical). For control applications, knowledge can be struc31
Chapter 3
32
tured or not, but processing is invariably numerical. Fuzzy and neural

control form the core of intelligent control and are the principal components of computational intelligence.
PROCESSING
Structured
Symbolic
Numerical
Expert
Systems
Fuzzy
Systems
KNOWLEDGE
Unstructured
Neural
Systems
Figure 3.1 Classification of Computational Intelligence
In contrast to conventional control, intelligent control is based

on advanced computational techniques for reproducing human knowledge and experience. Thus in intelligent control the focus of interest
moves away from the tedious task of establishing an explicit, microscopic model of the controlled plant and the subsequent design of a corresponding hard controller, to the emulation of the cognitive mechanisms
used by humans to infer and support control decisions.
Intelligent control has been applied with considerable success in
the process industry. Examples can be found in the petrochemical, cement, paper, fertilizer and metals industries. With time, it is predicted
that intelligent control will diffuse into most branches of industry by
manufacturing and be adopted by progressive organizations that are
seeking to improve their strategic position in the global market through
improved productivity and product quality.
Intelligent Control
33
3.1 Conditions for the Use of Intelligent

Control
Intelligent controllers use empirical models that form the framework on
how and not why the controlled plant behaves in a particular manner, instead of relying on explicit mathematical models of the plant. The fundamental problem in developing an intelligent controller is elicitation
and representation of the knowledge and experience of human operators
in a manner that is amenable to computational processing.
Intelligent systems invariably use a collection of heuristic and
non-heuristic facts of common logic as well as other forms of knowledge
in combination with inference mechanisms in order to arrive at and support their decisions. A basic characteristic of this class of systems is that
these systems are able to infer decisions from incomplete, inaccurate and
uncertain information, typical of many industrial and manufacturing environments. As noted in chapter 2, intelligent systems can be applied
off-line, e.g., for controller design, for fault diagnosis and
production management or
on-line, e.g., for fault prediction and supervisory control.
In conventional control, the knowledge about the controlled
plant (i.e., its model) is used implicitly in designing the controller,
whereas in intelligent control, the knowledge about the plant is distinct
from the mechanism that infer the desired control actions. This is shown
schematically in Figure 3.2. It is obvious that an intelligent controller can
therefore be easily configured for any plant by simply modifying its
knowledge base.
The most common means to reproduce knowledge are linguistic
rules, sometimes termed control protocols, which relate the state of the
plant to the corresponding desired control actions. These rules represent
shallow empirical knowledge, deep knowledge or model-based knowledge about the plant.
Chapter 3
34
Real-time Data Base
Inference
Engine
Knowledge Base
Figure 3.2 Basic elements of an intelligent controller
3.2 Objectives of Intelligent Control

The principal objectives of intelligent control are maximization of:
the strategic success (i.e., profit) of the business and
productivity.
In order to succeed in these objectives, it is presumed that an intelligent controller is technically correct. The success of any application is
based on both technical and social factors that must co-exist and cooperate in order to bring about the desired results. The distinct characteristics
of each must therefore be respected, otherwise conflicts will arise which
are bound to minimize its impact and effectiveness. Thus continuing cooperation among plant management, production management and plant
operators is essential to the acceptance of any such system. Doubts and
differences of opinion, for whatever reason, by any one of those involved, may easily doom any system unless it has been studied in depth.
The optimum solutions using social criteria are by no means easy to
determine or measure. For an intelligent system to be technically correct
it is necessary that its technical specifications meet the demands of the
particular application. There are a number of vendors that offer intelligent controllers for the process industry. All claim to meet the demands
of industry and the choice of which one is the most suitable is not always
Intelligent Control
35
easy. Cost is one factor but prior experience with a similar plant is considered the most important factor in making a decision on which system
to purchase. The socially optimum solution is given by the support that
plant management, production management and plant operators are prepared to give to a particular system to make it successful.
In considering intelligent control seriously for solving production
control problems, which conventional control is unable to solve, answers
must be sought to the following questions: will the proposed system
repay its cost in finite time?

decrease the cost of production?
increase productivity?
lead to savings in energy?
improve equipment availability?
be simple to use or require specialized knowledge that is not
available in-house?
decrease the workload of plant operators?
It is implicitly assumed that the knowledge to control the plant is
available by the plant operators who have spent years operating the
plant. It should be obvious that intelligent control is not a candidate
when this knowledge is absent or incomplete, as in the case of an entirely new plant for which there is no prior experience. In practice this
situation is not very likely to occur since most new plants are based on
earlier designs for which some prior knowledge exists.
It is difficult to state all the technical properties of a successful
intelligent system since they vary according to the application. The success of an intelligent system is very much dependent on the support of
the users of the system. Intelligent controllers are underutilized and even
ignored when user support is undermined.
Assuming that plant management has been convinced that intelligent control could lead to an improvement in the strategic position of
the business, improve productivity and lead to a reduction in production
costs, it is still necessary to convince plant operators to use the system.
This is not always an easy task, as by tradition, operators are fearful of
any new technology that may undermine their post, future and usefulness
in the business. These are natural feelings that have to be taken into account when any new system is introduced. This inbred fear can be
36
Chapter 3
greatly reduced by including the plant operators in the system development process and providing adequate training to alleviate his fears.
The older generation of plant operators spent years controlling
plants from central control areas with classical instrumentation, adjusting
the setpoints of conventional three term controllers and tediously logging
plant activity manually. Today, the new generation of plant operators
have been brought up in the era of computers, consoles with graphical
user interfaces and all the benefits of Computer Integrated Manufacturing systems. Even the older plant operators have adapted, even though
sometimes reluctantly, to the new environment. New plant operators no
longer view the introduction of advanced technology as a threat but on
the contrary, show great interest and an enviable ability to assimilate and
use it effectively to improve their working conditions. This is especially
true where management has had the foresight to provide the necessary
training in advance. The days of pulling down control switches and turning control knobs are gone, replaced by the touch of a light pen or a finger on a screen or the click of a keyboard or a mouse. Report generation
is a matter of seconds instead of hours, days or even weeks. Information
is power and this can undoubtedly be enhanced through the use of intelligent techniques.
From the viewpoint of management, the success of an intelligent
control system is judged solely on how rapidly the system will repay its
investment. This is measured from the observed (and not assumed) increase in productivity, the energy reduction and the improvement in the
mean-time-between-failures of the plant. Improvements of the order of
5-10% are not uncommon in the process industry. History has shown
that since their introduction, manufacturers that have taken advantage of
the new control techniques have benefited significantly on all counts.
The specialization required to develop intelligent systems is
Knowledge Engineering. It would be very wrong to conclude, however,
that no knowledge of conventional control and system theory is necessary to design such systems. On the contrary, a very thorough knowledge
of the abilities and limitations of classical and modern control techniques
must constitute the background of the knowledge engineer. The most
successful intelligent control systems that have been commissioned have
been designed by control engineers with a very thorough background in
conventional control techniques.
Knowledge Engineering requires the cooperation of knowledge
engineers, domain experts and plant operators in the design phase, com-
Intelligent Control
37
missioning and operation of an intelligent system. Characteristics such as

the quality, depth of knowledge, effectiveness of the inference engine and
the suitability of the man-machine interface, are important to the efficiency and acceptance of an intelligent system.
An intelligent system based on computational intelligence uses
linguistic rules with which to describe the knowledge about controlling
the plant. Before eliciting the rules from human operators, it is very important to stipulate the bounds of this knowledge, otherwise the system is
likely to be unwieldy. It should be obvious, furthermore, that the intelligent system software can be written in any high-level language or be developed on some expert system shell that simplifies the design process
significantly.
Chapter 4
Techniques of
Intelligent Control
Conventional control systems design relies on the existence of an adequate macroscopic model of the physical plant to be controlled. The first
stage in the analysis of such a system is therefore the development of an
explicit mathematical model of the controlled plant that adequately reproduces the characteristics of the plant with fidelity. The model can be
determined either from first physical laws or using some technique of
identification from operating data mined from the plant. There exist a variety of design techniques that can then be used to design an appropriate
hard controller. Today, this task is made simpler through the use of computer aided control systems design software with which the performance
of the closed system can be rapidly evaluated and optimized. The ultimate objective is clearly the development of a hard controller that satisfies specific performance specifications.
On completion of the design, the hard controller is then implemented in hardware or software that will execute in real-time on a process computer. The design of a conventional controller, particularly in the
case of multivariable plants, is a tedious and painstaking process that requires repeated cycles of analysis, synthesis and testing. The design
hopefully converges to an acceptable solution and ultimately to commissioning.
39
40
Chapter 4
In order to use conventional design techniques, it is essential that

the model of the plant be simplified yet be sufficiently comprehensive so
that it reproduces the essential dynamic features of the physical plant.
Modern manufacturing plants have to meet increasing demands for more
flexible production and improved quality while striving to meet stringent
environmental constraints. Though there were high expectations that
modern control theory would meet these demands, it has failed by and
large to do so to any significant degree in industry and manufacturing,
which thus far have had to be content with conventional industrial threeterm controllers.
The design of simple, practical and robust controllers for industry is usually based on low order holistic models of the physical plant.
These approximants form the basis for the design of industrial controllers
that satisfy relaxed performance criteria. Three-term controllers are the
backbone of industrial control and these ubiquitous, simple and robust
controllers have offered sterling service. However, these controllers can
only perform at their best at the nominal operating point of the plant
about which the approximant holds. When the operating point moves
away from the nominal point, their performance is invariably degraded
due to the inherent non-linearity of the physical plant. A number of techniques have been proposed to anticipate this problem, the most common
example of which is gain-scheduling, a variant of which is considered in
a later chapter.
The objective here is one of extending the domain over which
satisfactory controller performance is maintained. Adaptive controllers
are another class of controllers whose parameters can be varied to track
the changes in the operating point. Here, periodic identification is required in order to follow the changes in the plant dynamics. The degree
of autonomy of a controller is closely related to the range of operation of
the controller and consequently to its robustness. The degree of autonomy of a gain-scheduled controller is higher than that of a fixed controller but lower than that of an adaptive controller whose range of operation
is correspondingly greater.
Techniques of Intelligent Control
41
4.1 Unconventional Control

There are many situations in practice where, due to unforeseen changes
in the controlled plant and its operational environment, a greater degree
of autonomy is required. Conventional control techniques often fail to
provide the necessary autonomy which these situations demand and this
has led to an extensive search for new advanced control techniques
which offer high autonomy and robustness despite the unfavorable operating conditions, uncertainty and vagueness that characterize the plant
and its environment. This is typically the domain of industry and manufacturing. Coincidentally, this is also the domain of Intelligent Control.
This recognition was not long in coming and it was not long before the
beneficial results of applying Intelligent Control to industry became evident.
Many industrial processes are so complex that any attempt at describing them analytically is often futile. Even if much effort is expended
in determining some form of explicit model, it is usually so complex as
to make it of little use for the design of a suitable controller. To apply
modern control design techniques it is necessary to simplify the model
through linearization and then model reduction before proceeding to determine an appropriate linear controller. This design procedure used often in design exercises leaves much to be desired in practice, as the
original control problem is no longer attacked. Instead, some idealized
controller for an idealized plant is determined and the probability that
this controller is applicable to the real problem is small indeed. Invariably resort has to be taken to parameter tuning on-line in order to obtain
acceptable performance. Techniques for designing and analyzing nonlinear plants are virtually non-existent and what techniques are available
apply to very restricted situations. Thus the designer invariably falls on
simulation to design an acceptable controller which must then be tested
exhaustively in the field, an iterative, time-consuming procedure.
The field of Industrial Automation, which relies largely on Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) and industrial three-term controllers, is now being confronted with new control techniques which find
their origins in Soft Computing and Computational Intelligence. The
need to maintain tight production and quality control in large-scale industrial and manufacturing plants producing products with high specifications, and the inability of conventional control techniques to satisfy
these requirements, has led to emergence of a new class of automatic
42
Chapter 4
control techniques. What sets these new unconventional techniques apart

is their ability to arrive at control decisions and control strategies in ways
that are radically different from those of conventional control. It is not
unreasonable, therefore, that the new class of unconventional control
techniques has caused considerable interest in industrial and manufacturing circles and has led to innovative controllers which have been applied
to many difficult problems in industry. In this new class of controllers,
the primary objective is minimization of the uncertainty and vagueness
with which industrial processes are shrouded, leading to controllers with
high autonomy and robustness.
The reproduction of the cognitive and decision making processes
of a human operator of an industrial plant executing his control task has
been the subject of intense research since the 1950s, reaching fruition in
the 1970s with the implementation of the first experimental rule-based
control system. The first practical unconventional industrial controllers
were commissioned in the early 1980s in the cement industry, an industry with many difficult problems particularly in the critical kilning process. The development of unconventional controllers since then has been
very rapid and they are to be found today not only in most process industries but in all kinds of household appliances as well.
The new field of unconventional control, which is based on the
knowledge and experience of human operators, is better known as Intelligent Control and is supported by fuzzy, neural, neuro-fuzzy and evolutionary control techniques. This book is devoted exclusively to these
techniques and their application to practical industrial problems. In line
with the use of the term Soft Computing in Control this field is sometimes known as Soft Control.
Modern control theory, which is based on a microscopic description of the controlled plant using differential or difference equations,
can, in contrast, be described as Hard Control since it uses inflexible algorithmic computing techniques. There are fundamental differences between conventional and intelligent control techniques. These differences
are highlighted in this chapter. It is important to note that control in no
way supercedes conventional control, but rather augments it in an effort
to resolve some of the difficult and unsolved control problems which industry and manufacturing face.
A fundamental difference between conventional and Intelligent
Control is the manner in which the plant and controller are viewed. This
is seen schematically in Figure 4.1. In conventional control, the plant and
43
controller are viewed as distinct entities. The plant is assumed invariant

and designed to perform a specific task without the controller in mind.
The controller is subsequently designed independently and after the plant
has been completed. In contrast, in intelligent control, the plant and the
controller are viewed as a single entity to be designed and commissioned
simultaneously. Thus plants which are unstable by nature are stable
when a unified approach is taken. A typical example is a helicopter that
is by nature an unstable plant, but so long as its controller is operational
is perfectly stable.
Plant
Plant
Controller
Controller
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.1 (a) Conventional and (b) Intelligent control configurations
The generalized closed control system is shown in Figure 4.2.

Here block P depicts the controlled plant, block C depicts the controller
and block S specifies the desired closed system performance specifications. In conventional control blocks P and C are assumed linear (or linearized) and the block S defines the cost function, or criterion of performance, e.g., stability margin, rise time, settling time, overshoot,
steady state error, integral squared error, etc. following some exogenous
disturbance.
The following characteristics apply to industrial processes:
the physical process P is so complex that it is either not known

explicitly or is very difficult to describe in analytical terms, and
the specifications S ideally demand a high degree of system
autonomy so that the closed system can operate satisfactorily
and without intervention despite faults in the system.
Chapter 4
44
Disturbance
Output
Control
Action
Plant P
Specifications S
Controller C
Input
Figure 4.2 Closed control system variables
The intelligent control problem can be stated in precisely the

same way: given the plant P, find a controller C that will satisfy specifications S that may be either qualitative or quantitative. The basic difference here is that in intelligent control it is not necessary to have an explicit description of the plant P. Furthermore, it may not always be possible to separate the plant and controller. Since intelligent control is often
rule-based, the control rules are embedded in the system and form an integral element of the system. This structure presents new possibilities for
improved integrated manufacturing systems.
As illustrated in Figure 4.3, Intelligent Control is the fusion of
Systems Theory, Computer Science, Operations Research and Computational Intelligence that bonds them. These techniques are now being
called upon to solve problems of control engineering, which were hitherto unsolvable. Intelligent control has been claimed to be able to reproduce human-like properties such as adaptation and learning under unfavorable and uncertain conditions. There is considerable debate on this
matter and many have refuted these claims. No one has refuted the fact,
however, that intelligent control is capable of controlling large-scale industrial processes that have hitherto been controlled only manually very
successfully. Industry has only to take advantage of this fact to benefit
significantly.
Computational
Intelligence
Computer
Science
45
Systems
Theory
Operations
Research
Figure 4.3 Intelligent Control
4.2 Autonomy and Intelligent Control

An intelligent system is designed to function in an uncertain and vague
industrial or manufacturing environment with a view to increasing the
success of the business. Success is defined as satisfaction of the system
objectives, primarily the profit margin. Intelligent control systems are
required to sense the environment, infer and justify the appropriate control action on the system so as to improve productivity, reduce energy
consumption and labor costs.
In advanced forms of autonomous systems, intelligence implies
the faculties of perception and thought, the ability to make wise decisions and act correctly under a large range of unforeseeable conditions in
order to survive and thrive in a complex and often hostile environment.
In order to relieve the human operator of his often boring and tiresome
control task, a high degree of autonomy is required in intelligent supervisory control systems. In the case of humans, these faculties are credited
to his natural intelligence. In order to approach this level of intelligence
Chapter 4
46
under conditions of uncertainty and vagueness by mechanistic means, it

is necessary to develop advanced inference and decision support techniques. Autonomy of operation is the objective and intelligent control is
the means to this objective.
The theory of intelligent systems, which was developed by
Saridis, fuses the powerful techniques for decision support of Soft Computing and advanced techniques of analysis and synthesis of conventional Systems Theory. The fusion of Computational Intelligence, Operations Research, Computer Science and Systems Theory offers a unified approach to the design of intelligent control systems. The result of
this fusion is Soft Control, which today is one of the most interesting areas of research and development in Control Engineering.
Organization
Coordination
Execution
Intelligence
Precision
Figure 4.4 Hierarchical structure of an Intelligent System
Intelligence is distributed hierarchically and in accordance with

Saridis principle of increasing precision with decreasing intelligence
as is depicted in Figure 4.4. Most practical hierarchical intelligent control systems have three layers:
47
the Organization layer in which high level management decisions, e.g., production scheduling, are made,
the Coordination layer for the tasks that have been decided on at
the Organization layer. As in the case of the uppermost layer of
the hierarchy, this layer normally possesses intelligence, and
the Execution layer, which has little or no intelligence, is the
layer in which the commands of the higher layers are executed.
This layer involves low-level controllers embedded in the plant
Remote Terminal Units (RTU). Recently, some vendors have
added some degree of intelligence into this layer.
Organizer
Coordinator
Coordinator
LAN
Executor
Executor
Executor
Figure 4.5 Distributed architecture of an intelligent system
The uppermost layer of the hierarchy is activated rarely and at

random as need requires and uses qualitative reasoning to arrive at its
decisions. The intermediate Organization level is activated by production
management and has low repetition frequency, perhaps once or twice
48
Chapter 4
daily. In this layer, management arrives at a long-term production policy

that must be followed to achieve production goals. The production policy that has been decided in the highest layers is relayed to the Coordination layer, which is responsible for carrying out this policy. In this intermediate layer, decisions on changes in the policy can be made should,
for instance, a serious malfunction or breakdown occur in a production
line, if raw material shortages are ascertained, or if changes are made in
customer priorities. The Coordination layer is also responsible for product quality control, maximization of productivity of each unit in the factory and for coordination between the various manufacturing units.
Even though the structure of an intelligent system is normally
represented vertically in Figure 4.4 to indicate its hierarchical architecture, in practice such systems use a distributed architecture based on a
client/server structure, as shown in Figure 4.5. Here, the Organizer acts
as the server while the Coordinators and Executors are clients of the system.
4.3 Knowledge-Based Systems

Intelligent controllers use a qualitative description on how a process operates instead of an explicit quantitative description of the physical principles that relate the causes to the effects of the process. An intelligent
controller is therefore based on knowledge, stated linguistically in the
form of production rules, which are elicited from human experts. Appropriate inference mechanisms must then be used to process this knowledge in order to arrive at suitable control decisions. One or more of the
following techniques of Computational Intelligence may be used to this
end:
Expert Systems
Fuzzy Logic
Artificial Neural Networks
Neuro-fuzzy Systems
Evolutionary Computation
49
4.3.1 Expert systems

The objective of an expert system is to permit a non-expert user to exploit the accumulated knowledge and experience of an expert in a specific field of expertise. Knowledge-based expert systems use rules, data,
events, simple logic and any other form of knowledge in conjunction
with search techniques to arrive at decisions. Where an element of
knowledge is missing then the expert system cannot but return a dont
know response, implying an inability to arrive at a decision. An expert
system cannot extrapolate data and infer from similar or adjacent knowledge.
Expert systems operate either on-line when decisions are required in real-time, as in the cases of fault prediction, energy management and supervisory control, or off-line, as in the cases of interactive,
dialog-based systems for fault diagnosis and production management. In
dialog-based expert systems using decision trees, forward and backtracking mechanisms for searching the tree have proved successful in industrial applications. In the category of on-line expert systems, a number of
vendors supply real-time expert supervisory control systems for industrial applications.
In the case where a complete decision tree that can account for
every possible situation that may arise in practice is available, then such
knowledge-based systems offer a simple and effective solution to the unconventional control problem. Expert systems can be developed using
object-oriented languages such as LISP, Prolog and C++ or any of the
available expert system shells, such as G2, NEXPERT, etc. It should be
obvious that situations involving uncertainty and vagueness cannot be
treated effectively using conventional decision-tree based expert systems.
In contrast, when insufficient or incomplete knowledge about a
process is available and when uncertainty and vagueness characterize the
plant and its measurements, then such knowledge-based expert systems
are not always able to arrive at decisions and are consequently unacceptable for real-time control purposes. It would be extremely frustrating to
receive a dont know or a conflicting decision in the case of an unforeseen emergency when immediate action is required! In situations of uncertainty and vagueness, more effective mechanisms, capable of inferring decisions from incomplete data, are necessary. Fuzzy logic and artificial neural networks and their hybrids are the primary examples of
50
Chapter 4
techniques that possess appropriate mechanisms to deal with uncertainty

and vagueness.
4.3.2 Fuzzy control

The assumptions that industrial processes can be modeled by sets of algebraic or differential equations and that the measurements from sensors
are noise-free and exact rarely hold in practice. Likewise, the degree of
uncertainty in the controlled process, which is characterized by the completeness and vagueness of the information that is mined from the process, plays a major part in determining the behavior of a closed industrial
system.
Many industrial processes can be controlled adequately by human operators whose knowledge of mathematical models, algorithms
and the underlying physical principles on which the process operates is
limited to non-existent. Human operators have an inherent ability for deciding on acceptable or satisfactory actions to follow from qualitative information received from a variety of apparently disparate sources. Naturally, where control of a process or plant is in the hands of human operators, it is inappropriate to talk about optimum control decisions, but
rather acceptable control decisions. It is unlikely that two operators will
make identical decisions in any given situation and the only way to
evaluate the quality of their decisions is to evaluate the productivity of
the process under their control. Experience has shown that there is always a best operator who is consistently capable of increased productivity. This is the operator whose knowledge should be elicited since he
clearly knows how to get the most out of the process!
Fuzzy control requires some qualitative description of the rules
with which a human operator can control a process. Zadeh has noted that
for many complex processes a high level of precision is not possible or
even necessary in order to provide acceptable control. This is a pivotal
concept in Computational Intelligence and forms the basis of unconventional control. Fuzzy logic, which in no way replaces probability theory,
is the underlying theory for dealing with approximate reasoning in uncertain situations where truth is a matter of degree.
51
4.3.3 Neural control

Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) were originally proposed in the
1940s but limitations in the hardware and in training methods at the time
did not permit their practical application. Extensive and often disheartening research followed over the next decades and it was not until the
1980s that ANNs became established as a viable technique of Computational Intelligence. ANNs are made up of densely parallel layers of simple non-linear neurons (or nodes) which are interconnected with varying
weights (the synaptic weights) that completely specify the behavior of
the network once it has been trained. Various network architectures have
been proposed and their application to unconventional control was simply a matter of time.
ANNs may be constructed with both analog and digital hardware
and exhibit the properties of massive parallelism, robustness and fault
tolerance, properties which make them ideally suited to control applications. Furthermore ANNs possess:
the ability to learn from experience instead of from models,
the ability to generalize and relate similar inputs to similar outputs,
the ability to generate any arbitrary non-linear functional relationship between their inputs and outputs,
a distributed architecture which is eminently suited to parallel
computation,
inherent stability,
the ability of absorbing new knowledge without destroying existing knowledge, and
the ability to learn on-line, despite disturbances in the process.
4.3.4 Neuro-fuzzy control

Traditionally, fuzzy and neural systems were considered as distinct,
since their origins are very different. This restrictive viewpoint has
changed radically since the late 1980s when it was realized that both
fields belonged to Computational Intelligence and had much in common.
Fuzzy systems are very powerful for representing linguistic and
structured knowledge by means of fuzzy sets, but it is up to the experts
52
Chapter 4
to establish the knowledge base that is used in the system. Execution of

the fuzzy algorithm is performed as a sequence of logical steps at the end
of which a full explanation of the steps that were taken and the rules that
were used in arriving at the conclusion is made available. In contrast,
ANNs are ideal for the representation of an arbitrary nonlinear functional
relationship with parallel processing methods, can be trained from training sets but do not offer any mechanism for giving explanations on the
decisions at which they arrive.
It is natural, therefore, to consider the advantages and benefits
that a fusion of the two methods may present. This possibility is discussed at length in a later chapter and it is shown how fuzzy control and
neural control can be combined with interesting results.
Chapter 5
Elements of Fuzzy Logic

Uncertainty can be traced to Heisenbergs principle, which established
multi-valued logic in the 1920s. In the late 1930s the mathematician Max
Black applied continuous logic to sets of elements and symbols and
named this uncertainty. The developments that followed allowed for degrees of uncertainty, with truth and falsity being at the extremes of a
continuous spectrum of uncertainty.
In his seminal publication entitled Fuzzy Sets, Zadeh presented in 1965 the theory of multi-valued logic, which he termed Fuzzy
Set Theory. Zadeh used the term Fuzzy Logic and established the foundations of a new area of scientific endeavor that continues to this day. Initially, many have been critical of Zadehs theory, claiming that Fuzzy
Logic is nothing but probability theory in disguise. Zadeh was to develop
his theory into Possibility Theory, which differs significantly from probability theory. In contrast, in Japan the theory of Fuzzy Logic was rapidly assimilated into a host of applications that have yielded enormous
profits! Kosko conjectures that the principles of Fuzzy Logic are much
closer to the Far Eastern concept of logic than Aristotelian logic which
the West espouses and this was the reason why the Japanese were more
appreciative of Fuzzy Logic.
The theory of Fuzzy Logic establishes the basis for representing
knowledge and developing the mechanisms essential to infer decisions
on the appropriate actions that must be taken to control a plant. Since the
late 1970s, Fuzzy Logic has found increasing application in the process
53
Chapter 5
54
industry, in traffic and train control systems and most notably in household appliances.
The fundamental elements of Fuzzy Logic necessary to understand the techniques of Fuzzy Control are presented in this chapter. For
further in depth study of the theory of Fuzzy Sets, the reader is referred
to the numerous books and papers on the subject given in the Bibliography in chapter 18.
5.1 Basic Concepts

In classical set theory, a set consists of a finite or infinite number of elements belonging to some specified set termed the universe of discourse.
The elements of the universe of discourse may or may not belong to the
set A, as shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 Characteristic function of a classical Boolean set
The crisp or Boolean characteristic function fA(x) in Figure 5.1 is

expressed as the discontinuous function
fA (x) = 1 if xA
= 0 if xA
55
Vagueness can be introduced in the theory of sets if the characteristic

function is generalized to permit an infinite number of values between 0
and 1, as shown in Figure 5.2.
Support set
Support set
Universe of Discourse
Universe of Discourse
Figure 5.2 Examples of triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy sets
If is the universe of discourse with elements x (i.e., the region

to which the physical variable is confined), then we may state X={x}. A
fuzzy set A on the universe of discourse X can be expressed symbolically
as the set of ordered pairs
A= {A(x)/x} or
{ (x)/x} for xX
A
for the continuous and discrete cases respectively. Here A(x) is termed
the membership function of x on the set and is a mapping of the universe of discourse on the closed interval [0,1]. The membership function is simply a measure of the degree to which x belongs to the set ,
i.e.,
A (x) : X[0,1]
It is noted that the symbols and imply a fuzzy set and bear no relation
to the integration and summation.
Chapter 5
56
The support set of a fuzzy set is a subset of the universe of discourse for which A(x)>0. Thus a fuzzy set is a mapping of the support
set on the closed interval [0,1]. As an example, consider the temperature
of water at some point in a plant. Consider for example the fuzzy variable Low. This can be described in terms of a set of positive integers in
the range [0,100] and defined as ={Low}. This set expresses the degree
to which the temperature is considered Low over the range of all possible
temperatures. Here, the membership function A(x) has discrete values
specified in degrees Centigrade by the set:
A(0)= (5)= (10)= (15)= (20)=1.0,
(25)=0.9, (30)=0.8, (35)=0.6, (40)=0.3, (45)=0.1,
(50)= (55)= ..... (100)=0
More compactly, this set can be expressed as:
(x)= {1/0 + 1/5 + 1/10 + 1/15 + 1/20 + 0.9/25 + 0.8/30 +
0.6/35 + 0.3/40 + 0.1/45 + 0/50 + 0/55 +....0/100}
The symbol + represents the union operator in set theory and must not
be confused with arithmetic addition. A graphical representation of the
corresponding fuzzy membership function A(x) is shown in Figure 5.3.
(x)
10
20
30
40
......
A={Low}
Figure 5.3 Discrete membership function of the fuzzy set A={Low}
57
A fuzzy variable is one whose values can be considered labels of

fuzzy sets. Thus TEMPERATURE can be considered as a fuzzy variable
which can take on linguistic values such as Low, Medium, Normal, High
and Very_High. This is precisely the way that human operators refer to
plant variables in relation to their nominal values. It is shown in the following that fuzzy variables can be readily described by fuzzy sets.
In general, any fuzzy variable can be expressed in terms of
phrases that combine fuzzy variables, linguistic descriptors and hedges.
Thus the values of the fuzzy variable TEMPERATURE in the foregoing
example can be described as High, NOT High, rather_High, NOT
Very_High, extremely_High, quite_High etc., labels such as High, negation NOT, connectives AND and hedges such as extremely, rather, quite
etc. Figure 5.4 shows the variable TEMPERATURE with a few of its values.
TEMPERATURE
Very_Low
Linguistic Variable
Low
High
0.6
Linguistic Values
Membership values
0.8
0.6 0.8 0.9 1
Universe of Discourse (degrees C)

0
20
40
60
80
100
Figure 5.4 The linguistic variable TEMPERATURE and some of its values
Chapter 5
58
The dependence of a linguistic variable on another can be described by means of a fuzzy conditional statement of the form:
R : IF S1 THEN S2
or symbolically as:
S1 S2
where S1 and S2 are fuzzy conditional statements which have the general
form:
S : is
and . A linguistic meaning can be given to the fuzzy subset to
specify the value of , for example:
IF the LOAD is Small THEN TORQUE is Very_High
OR
IF the ERROR is Negative_Large THEN OUTPUT is
Negative_Large.
Two or more fuzzy conditional statements can be combined (or
included in another) so as to form a composite conditional statement
such as:
R : IF S1 THEN (IF S2 THEN S3).
It should be obvious that the composite statement can be decomposed
into the two simpler conditional statements:
R1 : IF S1 THEN R 2 AND
R 2 : IF S2 THEN S3
The composite statement (or rule):
IF the ERROR is Negative_Large THEN
(IF CHANGE_IN_ERROR is Positive_Large THEN OUTPUT is
Positive_Large)
can be written more simply as a pair of rules:
59
R1 : IF ERROR is Negative_Large THEN R 2

R 2 : IF CHANGE_IN_ERROR is Positive_Large THEN OUTPUT
is Positive_Large
This is the most useful rule structure in practice. Human operators are invariably taught to control plants with linguistic rules of this
type, rather than composite rules that appear to be far too complicated.
The number of rules that are required to control a plant varies
enormously and depends on the complexity of the plant. Human plant
operators rarely use more than approximately 30 rules for routine control
tasks, since rules that are rarely used tend to be quickly forgotten. To
control a complex plant like a rotary kiln as many as 60-80 rules may be
required but as few as 5 are necessary to control simple appliances like
washing machines or cameras.
5.2 Fuzzy Algorithms

Two or more fuzzy conditional statements can be combined with the OR
(or ELSE) connective to form a fuzzy algorithm RN of the form:
RN : R1 OR R2 OR R3 OR .... OR Rn
For example a subset of linguistic rules used to control a steam
engine can be written as:
IF SPE is Negative_Large THEN (IF CSPE is NOT (Negative_Large OR Negative_Medium) THEN CFUEL is Positive_Large)
OR
IF SPE is Negative_Small THEN (IF CSPE is (Positive_Large
OR Positive_Small) THEN CFUEL is Positive_Small)
OR
IF SPE is Negative_Small THEN (if CSPE is
Positive_Medium THEN CFUEL is Positive_Small)
where
Chapter 5
60
SPE = SPeed Error

CSPE = Change in Speed Error
CFUEL = Change in Fuel Intake
It is noted that linguistic control rules are of the familiar if then else
form, where else is replaced by the connective OR.
5.3 Fuzzy Operators

The operators min (for minimum) and max (for maximum) can be used
for either one or two elements. Thus the operations min and max on two
elements a and b are defined respectively as:
a b = min (a,b) = a if a b
= b if a>b
a b = max (a,b) = a if ab
= b if a<b
Well known applications of these operators are to be found in programmable controllers (PLCs) for logical switching operations. These are the
AND () and OR () functions whose operations are shown symbolically below. A black tile indicates a 1 and a blank tile a 0.
0
0
1
OR (max )
AND (min )
The operators min and max of two sets A and B result in the sets
C and D as follows:
D = AB = {max(a,b)} aA, bB
C = A B = {min(a,b)} aA, bB
61
and are shown in Figure 5.5. The AND operator is therefore synonymous
with the min operation and the OR operator with the max operation. It is
worth remembering this in the following chapters.
When operators are used on one element only they imply the
minimum (inf or infinum) or maximum (sup or supremum) of all the
elements of the set, thus:
A = inf(A) aA and
a = A = sup(A) aA
a=
Operators can also be used as functions on elements of discrete

sets, e.g.,
(a ,a ,......a )
= a a ..... a
= k( a )
= (A ,A ,......A )
= A A ..... A
= k( A )
a =
When the elements of the set are functions of a variable, then the
operators are expressed as:
a=
x(a(x))
xX
It is noted, finally, that expressions that involve the min and max
operators use identical rules to those of arithmetic multiplication and addition respectively.
Chapter 5
62
1
(x)
1
1
(x)
0
1
(x)
D(x) - max
C(x) - min
0
Figure 5.5 Graphical representation of the min and max operations
63
5.4 Operations on Fuzzy Sets

A fuzzy set A on X is said to be a null set if its membership function is
zero everywhere, i.e.,
A = if A (x) = 0 x X
The complement of a fuzzy set is simply:
A = 1 A(x) x X
Two fuzzy sets are considered identical if their membership functions
are identical everywhere on the universe of discourse, i.e.,
A = B if A(x) B(x) x X
A fuzzy set B is a subset of A if the membership function of B is smaller
or equal to that of the fuzzy set A everywhere on X, i.e.,
A B if A (x) B(x) x X
The union of two fuzzy sets A and B on X is defined as:
A B(x) = A(x) B(x) x X
while the intersection of two fuzzy sets A and B on X is defined as:
AB(x) = A (x) B(x) x X
Finally, the product of two fuzzy sets A and B on X is defined as:
AB(x) = A(x)B(x) x X
64
Chapter 5
5.5 Algebraic Properties of Fuzzy Sets

The standard definitions for the union, intersection and complement of
classical logic can readily be extended to fuzzy sets. The classical properties of sets can be expressed in terms of membership functions. For instance, the distribution property in terms of fuzzy sets becomes:
(A A) C = A (A C )
while DeMorgans theorem becomes:
( ) =
The following properties apply only to fuzzy sets:

E
A = or 0 = 0
A = A or 0 =
A E = A or 1 =
A E = E or 1 = 1
where is the unit set specified by A(x) = 1 xX and is the null set.
5.6 Linguistic Variables

As was noted earlier, a linguistic variable can take on values that are
statements of a natural or artificial language. In general the value of a
linguistic variable is specified in terms of the following terms:
primary terms which are labels of fuzzy sets, such as High,

Low, Small, Medium, Zero,
negation NOT and connectives AND and OR,
hedges such as very, nearly, almost and
markers such as parentheses ( ).
65
The primary terms may have either continuous or discrete membership functions. Continuous membership functions are normally defined by analytic functions. The Danish company F. L. Smidth in its
fuzzy controllers designed for the cement industry uses Gaussian-like
membership functions of the type shown in Figure 5.7 given by the expression:
A ( x) = 1 e

)
| x|
(x)
1
x
-1
Figure 5.7 Examples of membership functions

used in the F. L. Smidth fuzzy controller
The triplet (,,) defining the shape of the F. L. Smidth fuzzy

sets shown in Figure 5.7 is given in the following table:
Chapter 5
66
Linguistic Variable
Positive_Large
Positive_Medium
Positive_Small
Positive_Zero
Zero
Negative_Zero
Negative_Small
Negative_Medium
Negative_Large
Large
Normal
Low
Acronym
LP
MP
SP
ZP
ZE
ZN
SN
MN
LN
HIGH
OK
LOW
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.1
0.25
0.1
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.6
0.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
6
6
6
2.5
2.5
2.5
6
8
6
1
0.7
0.4
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.4
-0.7
-1
1
0
-1
An alternative way of defining continuous membership functions

is through the generic S and functions shown in Figures 5.8(a) and
5.8(b). The first is monotonic and is specified by:
S(x,,,) = 0
= 2[(x -)/(-)]2
= 1 - 2[(x -)/(-)]2
= 1
for x
for x
for x
for x
(x)
1
Figure 5.8(a) The generic membership functions S(x,,,)
67
The second generic membership function is the function that

changes monotonicity at one point only. This function can be defined in
terms of S functions. In this case the parameter represents the width of
the function between the median points where the membership function
has a value of 0.5. This function is given by:
(x,,,) = S(x,-,-/2,) for x
= 1 - S(x,,+/2,+) for x >
Continuous fuzzy sets can also be constructed from standardized
trapezoidal or triangular functions. Three examples of trapezoidal functions that represent the primary sets (Small, Medium and Large) are
shown in Figure 5.9. These fuzzy sets can be uniquely defined using four
parameters, the inflexion points b and c and the left and right extinction
points a and d that define the support set.
Figure 5.10 shows examples of some of the membership functions available in the MATLAB/Fuzzy Toolbox. Finally, discrete fuzzy
sets are sets of singletons on a finite universe of discourse. For example,
if the universe of discourse is given by the finite set:
X = {0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6}
A(x)
Figure 5.8(b) The generic membership functions (x,,,)
Chapter 5
68
(x)
1
(x)
Neg_Large
-x
Neg_Small
Zero
0
Pos_Small
Pos_Large
x
Figure 5.9 Standardized trapezoidal membership functions
then the fuzzy sets for the linguistic variables small, medium and large
as shown in Figure 5.11 could be defined as the sets:
small (x) = {0.3 + 0.7 + 1 + 0.7 + 0.3 + 0 + 0}

medium(x) = {0 + 0 + 0.3 + 0.7 + 1 + 0.7 + 0.3}
large (x) = {0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0.3 + 0.7 + 1}
Figure 5.10 Examples of membership functions provided in the

MATLAB/Fuzzy_Toolbox
69
5.7 Connectives
Negation (NOT) and the connectives AND and OR can be defined in
terms of the complement, union and intersection operations respectively.
Usually the connective AND is used for fuzzy variables which have different universes of discourse. If
= {A(x)/x}
B = {B(y)/y}
for xX
for yY
it follows that
A AND B = A(x) B(y)/(x,y) for xX, yY

= AB (x,y)/(x,y)
The connective OR connects linguistic values of the same variable. It is
obvious that both variables must belong to the same universe of discourse.
(x)
(x)
small
(x)
medium
large
Figure 5.11 Examples of discrete membership functions made up of singletons
Thus if
= {A(x)/x} for xX
B = {A(x)/x} for xX
Chapter 5
70
then
A OR B = A(x) B(x)/(x)
= AB (x)/(x) for xX
The connective OR can be used only when the fuzzy variables
have different universes of discourse except in the case where the variables appear on the same side of a conditional if .... then statement as in
the rule:
if the PRESSURE is High or the SPEED is Low
then FUEL_FEED must be Zero.
The NOT operator is synonymous with negation in a natural language. Thus if:
= {A(x)/x} for xX
NOT == {1 A(x)/x}
The statement PRESSURE is NOT High is clearly identical to
the statement PRESSURE is Not_High.
Linguistic hedges are useful in generating a larger set of linguistic values from a smaller set of primary terms. Thus using the hedges
very, the connectives NOT, AND and the primary term Large, we may
generate the new fuzzy sets very_Large, NOT_very_Large, Large_
AND_NOT_very_Large, etc. In this manner it is possible to compute the
membership function of complex terms such as:
= NOT_Small AND_NOT_Large
whose membership function is
(x) = [1 - Small(x)] [1 - Large(x)].
Chapter 6
Fuzzy Reasoning
At the core of every fuzzy controller is the inference engine, the computational mechanism with which decisions can be inferred even though the
knowledge may be incomplete. It is this very mechanism that can give
linguistic controllers the power to reason by being able to extrapolate
knowledge and search for rules which only partially fit any given situation for which a rule does not exist. Unlike expert systems that depend
on a variety of techniques to search decision trees, fuzzy inference engines perform an exhaustive search of the rules in the knowledge base to
determine the degree of fit for each rule for a given set of causes. The
contribution to the final decision of rules that exhibit a small degree of fit
is clearly small and may even be ignored while rules with a high degree
of fit are dominant. It is clear that a number of rules may contribute to
the final result to varying degrees. A degree of fit of unity means that
only one rule has fired and only one unique rule contributes to the final
decision, while a degree of fit of zero implies that the rule does not contribute to the final decision.
Inference engines can take different forms depending on the
manner in which inference is defined. It is therefore prudent to review
the fundamentals of fuzzy logic that will allow us to understand how the
inference works and how it may be implemented. A fuzzy propositional
implication defines the relationship between the linguistic variables of a
fuzzy controller. Given two fuzzy sets and that belong to the universes of discourse and respectively, then we define the fuzzy propositional implication as:
71
Chapter 6
72
R : IF THEN =
where is the Cartesian product of the two fuzzy sets A and B. The
Cartesian product is an essential operation of all fuzzy inference engines.
Using the conjunctive operator (min), the Cartesian product is
defined as:
=
( (x) (y)) / (x,y) = min( (x), (y)) / (x,y)
while for the case of an algebraic product the Cartesian product is:
=
( (x) (y)) / (x,y)
Thus, for example, given the discrete fuzzy sets:

= {1 + 2 + 3} and = {1 + 2 + 3 + 4}
whose corresponding discrete membership functions (sometimes termed
the grades of membership) are:
{(x)/x} = (1/1 + 0.7/2 + 0.2/3)
and
{(y)/y} = (0.8/1 + 0.6/2 + 0.4/3 + 0.2/4),
using the union (or more generally disjunction) operator, the Cartesian
product using the conjunctive (min) operator is:
R = = {min(1, 0.8)/(1,1), min(1, 0.6)/(1,2),
min(1, 0.4)/(1,3), min(1, 0.2)/(1,4),
min(0.7, 0.8)/(2,1), min(0.7, 0.6)/(2,2),
min(0.7, 0.4)/(2,3), min(0.7, 0.2)/(2,4),
............
= {0.8/(1,1) + 0.6/(1,2) + 0.4/(1,3) + 0.2/(1,4) +
0.7/(2,1) + 0.6/(2,2) + 0.4/(2,3) + 0.2/(2,4) +
Fuzzy Reasoning
73
0.2/(3,1) + 0.2/(3,2) + 0.2/(3,3) + 0.2/(3,4)}

This Cartesian product can be conveniently represented by means of the
relational matrix:
x\y
1
2
3
1
0.8
0.7
0.2
2
0.6
0.6
0.2
3
0.4
0.4
0.2
4
0.2
0.2
0.2
which is shown in graphical form in Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1 Graphical representation of the relational matrix R
Likewise, the Cartesian algebraic product is computed as follows:

R* = = {0.80/(1,1)+ 0.60/(1,2) + 0.40/(1,3) + 0.20/(1,4) +
0.56/(2,1) + 0.42/(2,2) + 0.28/(2,3) + 0.14/(2,4) +
0.16/(3,1) + 0.12/(3,2) + 0.08/(3,3) + 0.04/(3,4)}
whose relational matrix is:
Chapter 6
74
x\y
1
2
3
1
0.8
0.56
0.16
2
0.6
0.42
0.12
3
0.4
0.28
0.08
4
0.2
0.14
0.04
which is shown graphically in Figure 6.2. It is observed that the graphical representations of the relational matrices of the two Cartesian products have similarities. The Cartesian product based on the conjunctive
operator min is much simpler and more efficient to implement computationally and is therefore generally preferred in fuzzy controller inference
engines. Most commercially available fuzzy controllers in fact use this
method.
R*
x
Figure 6.2 Graphical representation of the relational matrix R*
6.1 The Fuzzy Algorithm

The membership function that specifies fuzzy implication is given in
terms of the individual membership functions (x) and (y) of the sets
and in different ways, as described below. Assume that
R(x,y)= ((x), B(y)) for x X and yY
Fuzzy Reasoning
75
where is some implication operator and

R = {R(x,y)/(x,y)}.
In general, if 1, 2, ... are fuzzy sub-sets of and 1, 2, ... are
sub-sets of (corresponding to the antecedents or causes and the consequents or effects respectively), then the fuzzy algorithm is defined as the
set of rules:
R :
OR
IF 1 THEN 1
IF 2 THEN 2
OR
...............................
IF THEN
This form is typically used in fuzzy control and is identical to the manner
and terms in which human operators think.
The connective OR, abbreviated as , depends on the fuzzy implication operator . Thus the membership function for N rules in a
fuzzy algorithm is given by:
R(x,y) = (R1(x,y), R2(x,y) .... )
= ((1(x) B1(y)), (2(x) B2(y))....)
The foregoing relations apply to simple variables and . In
general, the part of the conditional statement of the form IF THEN
ELSE involves more than one variable and can be expressed as a series of nested statements of the form:
IF 1 THEN (IF 2 THEN .... (IF N THEN ))
or as a statement where the antecedents are related through the connective AND, i.e.,
IF (1 AND 2 AND .... N) THEN
Chapter 6
76
whereupon:
R(x1,x2,.....xN) = {1(x1),(2(x2)),...((N(xN),(B(y))))}
for x1,x2....xn X1, X2 ... XN, yY
or
R(x1,x2,.....xn) = {1(x1) 2(x2) ....
( N(xN), B(y))}
= {k (k(xk) B(y))} for k=1,2..N
6.2 Fuzzy Reasoning

As noted earlier, the knowledge necessary to control a plant is usually
expressed as a set of linguistic rules of the form IF (cause) THE (effect). These are the rules with which new operators are trained to control
a plant and they constitute the knowledge base of the system. In practice,
it is possible that not all the rules necessary to control a plant have been
elicited, or are known. It is therefore essential to use some technique capable of inferring the control action in this case, from available rules.
In classical propositional calculus the conditional statement (or
rule):
IF THEN
that can be expressed symbolically as:
is equivalent to the operation A B, where and are sub-sets of the

universes of discourse and respectively and A = NOT A. In fuzzy
logic and approximate reasoning there are two fuzzy implication inference rules:
Fuzzy Reasoning
77
6.2.1 Generalized Modus Ponens (GMP)

In fuzzy logic there exist two principal categories of inferences. The first
is Generalized Modus Ponens (or GMP) defined as follows:
GMP:
Premise 1: x is
Premise 2: IF x is THEN y is
Consequence: y is
GMP is related to forward data-driven inference, which finds

use in all fuzzy controllers. The objective here is to infer the effect given
the cause. For the special case where = and = then GMP reduces
to Modus Ponens.
6.2.2 Generalized Modus Tollens (GMT)

The second category is Generalized Modus Tollens (or GMT) for which
the following holds:
GMT:
Premise 1: y is B
Premise 2: IF x is THEN y is
Consequence: x is A
GMT is directly related to backwards goal-driven inference

mechanisms, which find application in expert systems. In contrast to
GMP, the objective here is to infer the cause that leads to a particular effect. For the special case where = A and = B then GMT reduces
to Modus Tollens.
The most common inference relations, with which fuzzy inference engines can be constructed, are given in the following. It will observed that they have differing degrees of complexity and simplicity of
use and only the last two have found extensive application in practice.
Chapter 6
78
6.2.3 Boolean implication

The classical binary implication due to Boole uses the conjunctive union
operator in addition to negation and is defined as:
Roole = A B = ( A Y) (X B)
and
R(x,y) = (1 - (x))
(y)
For the case of rules, use is made of the connective AND in which
case:
(x,y) =
RN =
RN
Rk where k=1,2.... and
(((1- k(x)) k(y)))
6.2.4 Lukasiewicz implication

The Lukasiewicz implication (also known as Zadehs arithmetic rule of
fuzzy implication) is chronologically one of the first and is based on
multi-valued logic. It is similar to Booles implication intersection is replaced by simple arithmetic addition but in this case, i.e.,
RL = ( A Y) (X B)
and
R(x,y) = 1 (1 - (x) + (y))
Likewise, the implication for the case of rules use is made of the connective AND is given by:
R where k=1,2.... and

(x,y) = (1 (1 - (x)+ (y)))
RN =
R
Fuzzy Reasoning
79
6.2.5 Zadeh implication

The Zadeh max-min implication involves the max and min operators and
is defined as:
RZadeh2 = (A B) ( A X)
and
R(x,y) = ((x)
(y)) (1 - (x))
Zadehs fuzzy implication rule is difficult to apply in practice

and it took several years before Mamdani proposed a simplification that
made it especially useful for control applications.
6.2.6 Mamdani implication

The Mamdani implication rule is a simplification of the implication proposed by Zadeh and uses only the min operator and is defined as:
Ramdani = A B
and
R(x,y) = (x) (y) = min((x), (y))
For a fuzzy algorithm comprising N rules use is made of the connective OR, in which case the implication is:
RN =
RN(x,y) =
(k(x) k(y))
Chapter 6
80
6.2.7 Larsen implication

Finally, the Larsen implication rule uses arithmetic multiplication in the
computation of the Cartesian product and is defined as:
RLarsen = A B
and
R(x,y) = (x) (y)

For a fuzzy algorithm comprising N rules, use is made of the
connective OR, i.e.,
RN =
R(x,y) =
(
k
k
(x)
k(y)).
Both Mamdanis and Larsens implications have found

extensive application in practical control engineering due to their computational simplicity. Nearly all industrial fuzzy controllers use one or the
other of these two fuzzy implications in their inference engines. Mamdanis implication, being computationally faster, is found most often.
6.2.8 GMP implication

For completeness, it is useful to revisit Generalized Modus Ponens with
a view to comparing it with the implication rules previously defined.
Here
RGMP = A Y X B
whereupon using the bounded product
Fuzzy Reasoning
81
1 if (x) (y)
R(x,y) = (x) > (y) =
0 if (x) > (y)
Alternatively, using the algebraic product
1 if (x) (y)
R(x,y) = (x) > (y) =
(x) if (y) > (y)
A
(y)
6.3 The Compositional Rules of Inference

Fuzzy controllers invariably involve numerous rules and it is essential,
therefore, to establish suitable mechanisms with which to process these
rules in order to arrive at some consequent. Given, for instance, two sequential fuzzy conditional rules:
R1 : IF THEN
R2 : IF THEN C
it is possible to combine the two rules into a single rule by absorbing the
intermediate result B and find the relationship between antecedent and
the ultimate consequent directly, i.e.,
R 12 : IF A THEN C
The composition of these two rules into one can be expressed as:
R12 = R1 o R2
Chapter 6
82
where o implies rule composition. In terms of the max-min operators

used by Mamdani, the membership function of the resultant compositional rule of inference is:
R12(x,z) =
(
y
1
R (x,y)
R2(y,z))
= max (min (R1(x,y), R2(y,z))

and in the case of the Larsen implication rule using the max-product operators:
R12(x,z) =
(
y
1
R (x,y)
R2(y,z))
= max (R1(x,y) R2(y,z))

When discrete membership functions are used, the compositional
rule of inference in the case of Mamdani implication is analogous to the
inner product of two matrices in which multiplication and addition are
replaced by the min and max operators, respectively. For Larsen implication, addition is replaced by the max operator while multiplication is
arithmetic.
In the following, we discuss the procedure for determining the
consequent (or effect), given the antecedent (or cause). Given
= {(x)/x}
= {(y)/y}
for x X
for y Y
and the compositional rule of inference:

R = {R(x,y)/(x,y)} for x and y Y
We wish to infer the consequent if the antecedent is modified
slightly to , i.e.,
= {(x)/x} for x X
Fuzzy Reasoning
83
Making use of the fuzzy compositional rule of inference using

the max-min operators for instance:
= o R
=
(
x
A(x)/x
R(x,y)/(x,y)) for x X and y Y
or using the max-product operators:

= o R
=
(
x
A(x)/x
R(x,y)/(x,y)) for x X and y Y
By way of example consider the rule:

IF is Slow THEN is Fast
given the fuzzy sets for Slow and Fast are given by the discrete membership functions:
(x) = {1 + 0.7 + 0.3 + 0 + 0 + 0}
(y) = {0 + 0 + 0.3 + 0.7 + 1 + 1}
Figure 6.3 The fuzzy sets Slow and Fast in the example
on the universes of discourse X, = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6}. The discrete membership functions are shown in Figure 6.3. We wish to determine the outcome if A = slightly Slow for which there no rule exists.
Chapter 6
84
The procedure is straightforward, though tedious. The first step

is to compute the Cartesian product and using the min operator this is
simply:
R = = {min[(xi ), B(yj)]} =
min[1, 0]
min[0.7, 0]
min[0.3, 0]
min[0, 0]
min[0, 0]
min[0, 0]
min[1, 0]
min[0.7, 0]
min[0.3, 0]
min[0, 0]
min[0, 0]
min[0, 0]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
min[1, 0.3]
min[0.7, 0.3]
min[0.3, 0.3]
min[0, 0.3]
min[0, 0.3]
min[0, 0.3]
0.3
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0.7
0.7
0.3
0
0
0
1
0.7
0.3
0
0
0
min[1, 0.7]
min[0.7, 0.7]
min[0.3, 0.7]
min[0, 0.7]
min[0, 0.7]
min[0, 0.7]
min[1, 1]
min[0.7, 1]
min[0.3, 1]
min[0, 1]
min[0, 1]
min[0, 1]
min[1, 1]
min[0.7, 1]
min[0.3, 1]
min[0, 1]
min[0, 1]
min[0, 1]
1
0.7
0.3
0
0
0
Thus if the antecedent A is modified somewhat, by displacing

the elements of the discrete fuzzy set one place to the left to represent the
fuzzy set A = slightly Slow then the original discrete membership function:
(x) = {1 + 0.7 + 0.3 + 0 + 0 + 0}
becomes
= {0.3 + 0.7 + 1 + 0.7 + 0.3 + 0}
which is shown in Figure 6.4.
Using the fuzzy compositional inference rule:
= o R
and the max-min operators (i.e., the Mamdani compositional rule):
(y) = max (min (A(x), R(y)))
Fuzzy Reasoning
'
85
'
Figure 6.4 The compositional inference rule using the max-min operators
then the discrete membership function of the new consequent can be

readily computed. The relational matrix {min((x),R(y))} contains
elements of the matrix R and the discrete membership function (x)
and is given by:
(y) =
min(0, 0.3)
min(0, 0.7)
min(0, 1)
min(0, 0.7)
min(0, 0.3)
min(0, 0)
min( 0, 0.3)
min(0, 0.7)
min(0, 1)
min(0, 0.7)
min(0, 0.3)
min(0, 0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
min(0.3, 0.3)
min(0.3, 0.7)
min(0.3, 1)
min(0, 0.7)
min(0, 0.3)
min(0, 0)
0.3
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0.3
0.7
0.3
0
0
0
0.3
0.7
0.3
0
0
0
min(0.7, 0.3)
min(0.7, 0.7)
min(0.3, 1)
min(0, 0.7)
min(0, 0.3)
min(0, 0)
min(1, 0.3)
min(0.7, 0.7)
min(0.3, 1)
min(0, 0.7)
min(0, 0.3)
min(0, 0)
min(1, 0.3)
min(0.7, 0.7)
min(0.3, 1)
min(0, 0.7)
min(0, 0.3)
min(0, 0)
0.3
0.7
0.3
0
0
0
The final operation in determining the membership function

(y) of the new consequence is selection of the largest element in each
column, which is equivalent to applying the max operator in each column. These are shown in bold. The result of the procedure is shown in
Figure 6.4 and is:
(y) = {0 + 0 + 0.3 + 0.7 + 0.7 + 0.7}
Chapter 6
86
It is noted that the displacement of the membership function for

the new condition must be small, otherwise all the elements of the relational matrix will be zero and no conclusion can be drawn. By way of
comparison, the corresponding result using the max-product rule of compositional inference:
(y) = max ( (x) R(y))
has a relational matrix:
R* = = {(xi) B(yj)} =
[1* 0]
[0.7* 0]
[0.3* 0]
[0* 0]
[0* 0]
[0* 0]
[1* 0]
[0.7* 0]
[0.3* 0]
[0* 0]
[0* 0]
[0* 0]
0
0
0
0
0
0
[1* 0.3]
[0.7*0.3]
[0.3*0.3]
[0* 0.3]
[0* 0.3]
[0* 0.3]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.21
0.09
0
0
0
[1* 0.7]
[0.7*0.7]
[0.3* 0.7]
[0* 0.7]
[0* 0.7]
[0* 0.7]
0.7
0.49
0.21
0
0
0
1
0.7
0.3
0
0
0
[1* 1]
[0.7* 1]
[0.3* 1]
[0* 1]
[0* 1]
[0* 1]
[1* 1]
[0.7* 1]
[0.3* 1]
[0* 1]
[0* 1]
[0* 1]
(1* 0.3)
(0.7*0.7)
(0.3* 1)
(0* 0.7)
(0* 0.3)
(0* 0)
(1*0.3)
(0.7*0.7)
(0.3* 1)
(0* 0.7)
(0* 0.3)
(0* 0)
1
0.7
0.3
0
0
0
whereupon
{(xi ) B(yj)} =
(0* 0.3)
(0* 0.7)
(0* 1)
(0* 0.7)
(0* 0.3)
(0* 0)
(0* 0.3)
(0* 0.7)
(0* 1)
(0* 0.7)
(0* 0.3)
(0* 0)
(0.3*0.3)
(0.21*0.7)
(0.09*1)
(0* 0.7)
(0* 0.3)
(0* 0)
(0.7*0.3)
(0.49*0.7)
(0.21* 1)
(0* 0.7)
(0* 0.3)
(0* 0)
Fuzzy Reasoning
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.09
0.15
0.09
0
0
0
0.21
0.35
0.21
0
0
0
0.3
0.49
0.3
0
0
0
87
0.3
0.49
0.3
0
0
0
The maximum elements of each column are therefore:

(y) = {0 + 0 + 0.15 + 0.35 + 0.49 + 0.49}
which are shown graphically in Figure 6.5.
'
'
Figure 6.5 Compositional inference using the max-product
In general, industrial fuzzy controllers are multivariable, involving m inputs and p outputs. It is, however, simpler to think in terms of p
parallel fuzzy controllers each with one output only. In practice this is
achieved by multiplexing a multi-input single output controller since the
precedents are the same and only the antecedents change in each case.
For the case of a fuzzy controller with m inputs and one output only:
RN = {RN(x1,x2....xm,y)/(x1,x2....xm,y)} for xk Xk and yY.
Now, given
k = {k(xk)/xk} for xk Xk, k=1,2...m
Chapter 6
88
the consequent is given by the relationship:
= ( k Ak) o RN for k=1,2...m

= {(y)/y} for yY
where
(y) =
. . . [
x1 x2
xm
(k(xk) RN(x1,x2....xm))]
for k=1,2...m.
Finally, for completeness, if the max-product is used in the compositional inference rule, the corresponding expressions for the resultant
consequence is given by:
(y) =
. . . [
x1 x2
xm
k(xk) RN(x1,x2....xm)]
for k=1,2...m
where now
RN(x1,x2....xm) =
[( Akj(xk) Bj(y)]
for k=1,2...m and j=1,2...n.
Chapter 7
The Fuzzy Control

Algorithm
Industrial processes are invariably multi-variable and considerable research has gone into developing conventional analytical techniques for
multi-variable plants both in the time and frequency domains. All of
these techniques assume the plant is linear, but with rare exceptions,
these techniques have not found their way into industry because of their
complexity and restrictions. There is no comparable theory for nonlinear processes and thus industry has had to be content with various
configurations of conventional industrial three-term controllers. It is obvious that this arrangement leaves much to be desired, leaving a gap between control theory and practice which has been waiting to be bridged.
Soft control is proving to be this very bridge.
Fuzzy control is by nature eminently suited to multi-variable and
non-linear processes. Fuzzy linguistic rules required to control a multivariable plant have already been considered in earlier chapters. It was
observed there that whereas the antecedents of each rule differ for each
output variable, the precedents are identical. This suggests that a multivariable fuzzy controller can conveniently be decomposed into a set of
single-output controllers equal to the number of outputs.
In practice, the measurements of plant variables even if contaminated by noise and the control actions to the plant actuators are crisp. In
order to apply the fuzzy algorithm it is therefore necessary first to fuzzify
89
Chapter 7
90
the measured plant variables and following completion of the fuzzy algorithm to de-fuzzify the result and thereby return to the engineering world.
This chapter discusses the procedure of fuzzification and de-fuzzification
as they apply to practical control.
7.1 Controller Decomposition

The decomposition of a fuzzy multi-input multi-output (MIMO) controller into a set of multi-input single-output (MISO) fuzzy controllers (FC1,
FC2 FCn) as shown in Figure 7.1. The outputs of a multi-variable
fuzzy controller can be computed in parallel in a multi-processor or sequentially by multiplexing the MISO controllers when computational
times are not critical.
x
FC1
y1
FC2
y2
FC3
y3
FCn
yn
Figure 7.1 Decomposition of a multi-input multi-output incremental fuzzy

controller into a set of multi-input single-output incremental controllers
The Fuzzy Control Algorithm
91
7.2 Fuzzification
The algorithm for computing the crisp output of a fuzzy controller involves the following three steps:
(1) fuzzification
(2) inference
(3) de-fuzzification
To make these steps easier to understand, consider a fuzzy controller with three inputs and a single output only. It should be obvious
that the procedure that follows can be generalized for any number of inputs. Given a MISO controller with inputs x1, x2, x3 and output y and assuming that the linguistic control rules are of the form:
IF (1 AND 2 AND 3) THEN
then the membership function of the output of the controller is given by:
R(x1,x2,x3) = (1(x1) 2(x2)
= (
(3(xN), B(y)))
(j(xk), B(y))) for j=1,2,3
where the operator implies max-min or max-product. Using the intersection operator, the degree of fulfillment of the j-th rule j(k)[0,1] is
defined by:
j(k) = 1(x1)
2(x2)
....
N(xN)
and is computed every time the algorithm is executed. The degrees of

fulfillment are thus a measure of how closely the inputs to the controller
match the control rules. They can be viewed conveniently as weights
that are assigned to every rule. In practice only a small number of the
rules in the rule-base (typically less than 6) will exhibit non-zero degrees
of fulfillment at any instant.
The expression for the degree of fulfillment given above applies
when the Mamdani max-min implication rule is used. For the case of
Chapter 7
92
max-product implication, the corresponding expression for the degree of

fulfillment is:
j(k) = 1(x1) 2(x2) .... N(xN)
The fuzzy implication rules yield the membership function of the
output of the controller from knowledge of the current instantaneous
measurements of the inputs to the controller x1(k), x2(k), x3(k). Thus at
any instant k the membership function of the output of the controller using the max-min fuzzy implication rule is:
Y(k) = (1(k) 2(k)
3(k)) o RN
or, the max-product implication rule:

Y(k) = (1(k) 2(k) 3(k)) o RN
where X1, X2 and X3 are the corresponding fuzzy sets of the controller inputs. These computations are simplified significantly if the fuzzy sets of
the inputs to the controller are taken as singletons defined as:
i(k) = 1 if xi =xi(k)
= 0 otherwise
whereupon:
Y(y) =
(111
x1
x2
x3
RN(x1,x2,x3,y)
Example 7.1 illustrates the procedure.
N
R (x1,x2,x3,y)
93
Example 7.1 Graphical interpretation of

fuzzification
The various operations required to establish the fuzzy set of the output of
a fuzzy controller are illustrated graphically in this example. For simplicity assume that the controller has two inputs and a single output. Assume
that the first input to the controller Input_1 (x1) is specified by 5 fuzzy
sets, while Input_2 (x2) is specified by 3 fuzzy sets. The linguistic
variables are assumed to be VL=Very_Low, LO=LOw, ZO=ZerO,
LH=Little_High, MH=Medium_High, and VH=Very_High.
Assume that the following 15 control rules constitute the rule base:
R1: If Input_1 is LO and Input_2 is VL then Output is LO
R2: If Input_1 is ZO and Input_2 is VL then Output is ZO
R3: If Input_1 is LH and Input_2 is VL then Output is LH
R4: If Input_1 is MH and Input_2 is VL then Output is LH
R5: If Input_1 is VH and Input_2 is VL then Output is LH
R6: If Input_1 is LO and Input_2 is ZO then Output is LO
R7: If Input_1 is ZO and Input_2 is ZO then Output is LH
R8: If Input_1 is LH and Input_2 is ZO then Output is MH
R9: If Input_1 is MH and Input_2 is ZO then Output is MH
R10: If Input_1 is VH and Input_2 is ZO then Output is VH
R11: If Input_1 is LO and Input_2 is VH then Output is LH
R12: If Input_1 is ZO and Input_2 is VH then Output is MH
R13: If Input_1 is LH and Input_2 is VH then Output is MH
R14: If Input_1 is MH and Input_2 is VH then Output is VH
R15: If Input_1 is VH and Input_2 is VH then Output is VH
that can de depicted more compactly by means of the rule matrix:

x2\x1
VL
ZO
VH
LO
LO
ZO
LH
ZO
ZO
LH
MH
LH
LH
MH
MH
MH
LH
MH
VH
VH
LH
VH
VH
For simplicity, assume, furthermore that the fuzzy sets of the inputs and
outputs are triangular and are as shown in Figure 7.2.
Chapter 7
94
The universes of discourse of Input_1 and Input_2 are assumed symmetric and are expressed as percentages of their maximum
permissible values. Output y involves 5 fuzzy sets and is assumed
asymmetric. Thus the inputs to the controller can take any value between
100% of their maximum permissible values while the output can take
any value between 0 and 100% of its maximum permissible value. For
example, the Output y could represent the opening of a servo-valve,
while Input_1 could be a pressure deviation and Input_2 could be
the temperature deviation about their nominal values.
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
1
Input_1
-100%
100%
VL
ZO
VH
1
Input_2
-100%
LO
100%
ZO
LH
MH
VH
1
Output
100 %
Figure 7.2 Fuzzy sets of inputs and outputs
The first five rules in the rule base are depicted graphically in Figure 7.3.
Assume, furthermore, that at the instant of execution of the algorithm,
the instantaneous inputs to the controller are -20% and -50% respectively.
95
Every rule is now examined with a view to determine the degree to

which it contributes to the final decision. This measure is termed the degree of fulfillment j. The computational time required for this determination is clearly dependent on the number of rules in the rule base. Fortunately, rarely are more than 20 to 50 rules required in practice and consequently computational time is minimal.
Input_2
Input_1
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
VL
ZO
Output
VH
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
R1
100%
-100%
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
-100%
100%
VL
ZO
VH
100 %
1
R2
100%
-100%
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
-100%
100%
VL
ZO
VH
100 %
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH 1
R3
100%
-100%
LO
R
ZO
LH
MH
VH
-100%
100%
VL
ZO
VH
100 %
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
100%
-100%
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
-100%
100%
VL
ZO
VH
100 %
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH 1
R5
100%
-100%
x (k)
1
-100%
100%
100 %
x (k)
2
Figure 7.3 Graphical representation of first five rules in the rule base
For the given values of the inputs, it is clear that rules R1, R4 and R5
have no part in the final decision (and consequently the output) since
these rules have not fired. The degrees of fulfillment of the non-fired
rules are consequently zero. The intercepts of the vertical lines corresponding to the instantaneous value of Input_1 and Input_2 and the
corresponding fuzzy sets specifying the membership value are:
96
Chapter 7
97
11=0, 21=0.66, 31=0.33, 41=0, 51=0

and
12=0.5, 22=0.5, 32=0.5, 42=0.5, 52=0.5
respectively.
The degree of fulfillment j for every rule is computed from the
membership values and the operation min(j1,j2). Here
R1 : 1= min(11,12)=min(0, 0.5)=0
R2 : 2= min(21,22)=min(0.66, 0.5)=0.5
R3 : 3= min(31,32)=min(0.33, 0.5)=0.33
R4 : 4= min(41,42)=min(0, 0.5)=0
R5 : 5= min(51,52)=min(0, 0.5)=0
etc.
7.2.1 Steps in the fuzzification algorithm

The first step in the fuzzy controller algorithm is determination of the
minimum intercepts for each input, i.e., their membership. If any rule has
zero intercept then it is discarded in subsequent computations, as it does
not contribute to the final decision.
The second step involves determination of the degrees of fulfillment of every rule. Using the min operator, this is equivalent to scanning
the intercepts of every rule horizontally. Should any intercept be zero
then this rule clearly does not contribute to the final conclusion.
The third involves determination of the composite membership
function of the output of the controller. This operation is dependent on
the choice of fuzzy implication rule. Thus in the case of Larsen implication, the membership function of the output of the controller is the union
of the individual membership functions for each rule that has fired
weighted with the corresponding degree of fulfillment, i.e.,
(y) = 11(y) 22(y) 33(y) 44(y) 55(y)
= 22(y) 33(y)
Chapter 7
98
This is shown in graphical form in Figure 7.4. The resultant

composite membership function of the output of the controller is shown
in the lower right hand side diagram of Figure 7.5. Using Mamdani implication, the composite membership function of the controller output is
the union of the maximum values of the weighted membership functions
of each rule that has fired, i.e.,
(y)= max (1,1(y))max(2,2(y))max(3,3(y))
max(4 ,4(y))max(5, 5(y)))

= max (2,2(y))max(3,3(y))
This procedure is shown in Figure 7.5 for comparison.
Input_2
Input_1
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
1
VL
ZO
Output
VH
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
R2
100%
-100%
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
1
-100%
100%
VL
ZO
VH
100 %
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH 1
R3
100%
-100%
x (k)
1
-100%
100%
x (k)
2
100 %
(y)
100 %
Figure 7.4 Determination of the composite membership function of the

controller output using the Larsen implication
99
7.3 De-fuzzification of the Composite

Controller Output Fuzzy Set
The final step in the fuzzy controller design procedure is de-fuzzification
of the fuzzy set of the output to yield a single crisp value that uniquely
specifies the desired control action. It must be noted that there is no theoretical basis for deciding which is the best manner to perform defuzzification and there exist a number of schemes, each of which presents a different degree of computational complexity. Simplicity and
speed of computation are invariably the primary requirements in industrial controllers. Below, we note those de-fuzzification techniques that
have found application in practical control applications:
Input_2
Input_1
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
VL
ZO
Output
VH
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
R2
100%
-100%
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
-100%
100%
VL
ZO
VH
100 %
LO
ZO
LH
MH
VH
R3
100%
-100%
x (k)
1
-100%
100%
x (k)
2
100 %
1
(y)
100 %
Figure 7.5 Determination of the fuzzy set of the controller output

using the Mamdani implication
7.3.1 Center of area (COA) de-fuzzification

In this method the center of the area under the composite membership
function of the output of the controller Y(y) is taken as the final output
of the controller:
100
Chapter 7
y COA =
( y )dy
( y )dy
where S is the support set of Y(y). In the case where the composite membership function is discrete with I elements, this becomes:
I
y COA =
y
i
i =1
I
i =1
( yi )
( yi )
This method is sensitive to changes in the shape of the membership functions of the output. Because it yields intuitive results, this method has
found extensive use in practical fuzzy control.
7.3.2 Center of gravity (COG) de-fuzzification

In this method, the centers of gravity of the individual components of the
composite fuzzy set for the rules that have fired, are combined by
weighting them in accordance with their degrees of fulfillment. The outcome is thus:
I
y COG =

i =1
i =1
( yi )
( yi )
On concluding de-fuzzification, the crisp output of the controller is applied to the plant actuators.
101
7.4 Design Considerations

The principal factors that must be considered prior to implementation of
the fuzzy control algorithm are the following:
7.4.1 Shape of the fuzzy sets

In the continuous case, the fuzzy sets are uniquely defined by some analytic function while in the discrete case the fuzzy sets can be defined by
arrays whose size depends on the number of quantization levels. The
shape of the fuzzy sets used in the design of a fuzzy controller has been
the subject of considerable research and it is fair to state that at this time
there is no theory which can guide the designer on the best shape to use
for a specific application. Experience in similar controllers and computational ease appear to be the basic criteria in selecting the shapes of membership functions. In practice it appears triangular and trapezoidal functions are generally used, though Gaussian-like functions are used by a
number of vendors of fuzzy controllers for the process industry.
It has been claimed that the output of the controller is rather insensitive to the shape of the membership function. Comparison of the
performance of a simple control system to changes in the membership
functions of both the inputs and outputs of the fuzzy controller is made
in Appendix A.
7.4.2 Coarseness of the fuzzy sets

The number of fuzzy sets that are required to specify a variable is termed
the coarseness of the controller and determines the accuracy of the controller. High accuracy requires a large number of fuzzy sets and corresponding memory requirements. In some cases it is desirable to use two
or more levels of coarseness to control a process. Thus when the process
variables are at some distance from the desired operating point, coarse
control is applied through the use of very few fuzzy sets. As the trajectory of the process approaches the operating point, the number of fuzzy
sets is increased. This results in finer control with increased accuracy.
This technique is not unlike coarse-fine control used in classical control.
An example of a pair of fuzzy sets for coarse-fine control is shown in
Figure 7.6. Here, three fuzzy sets (NE Negative, ZE - Zero, and PO -
Chapter 7
102
POsitive) are used for coarse control and five for fine control. This technique has been applied with success in a number of processes requiring
high terminal accuracy.
NE
ZE
PO
(a)
NB
NM
NS
ZE
PS
PM
PB
(b)
Figure 7.6 Coarse-fine fuzzy sets
7.4.3 Completeness of the fuzzy sets

The fuzzy control algorithm must lead to a unique control action for any
set of inputs. This property is termed completeness and depends on the
contents of the knowledge-base as well as the number and shape of the
fuzzy sets used to describe the inputs and outputs of the controller.
The manner in which the fuzzy sets are defined on the universe
of discourse, as well as the degree with which they overlap specifies the
integrity of the controller, i.e. its ability to infer a plausible outcome under all circumstances. In the example of Figure 7.6, the overlap, defined
as the intersection of the fuzzy sets, is at least 50%. In this case there will
always be a dominant rule which has membership in excess of 0.5 so that
an outcome will always be forthcoming. In the worst case, two rules at
most will fire with an equal membership of 0.5 but still there will be no
ambiguity as to the final result.
In contrast, the fuzzy sets in Figure 7.7 possess points on the
universe of discourse where the intersection is less than 0.5. This leads to
highly uneven control surfaces and irregular control actions. Indeed there
103
are regions on the universe of discourse where membership is zero

whereupon if the instantaneous value of the input falls in these regions
no rule can be fired with the result that the controller is unable to infer
any control action. This is clearly undesirable and indicates that fuzzy
sets must overlap in order to obtain a continuous output.
ZE
PS
PM
PB
Figure 7.7 Fuzzy set overlap
7.4.4 Rule conflict

The set of linguistic rules used to control a plant or process is normally
elicited from expert human operators or domain experts. It is an undisputed fact that the knowledge elicited from two human operators is
rarely the same. Though they may have been trained with the same rules,
with experience and time they have learned to modify them, believing
that in this manner they can control the process better. Of course better
is clearly a subjective criterion, since it may imply increased productivity, reduced energy costs or even less trouble to the operator. Many of
these criteria are conflicting.
Thus in eliciting the knowledge for a controller it is advisable to
restrict interviews to one human operator, e.g., the supervisor whose
knowledge on how to control the plant efficiently and effectively is undisputed. If this is not possible, then there is little recourse but for the
plant engineer to state the rules that he wishes to be followed. Even so,
rule conflict is a common phenomenon and some means must be found
for resolving this conflict. By simply writing the rules in sequential order
it is virtually impossible to do so, however. Graphical means are very effective when the number of inputs to the controller are three or less
104
Chapter 7
whereupon rules can be represented in the form of tiles whose colors

specify the control action required. This is none other than the Fuzzy Associative Memory or FAM and Figure 7.8 shows an example of this simple technique that has proved very useful in practice. The human eye is
an excellent detector of abnormal color changes and thus by simply looking at the manner in which the colors of the tiles vary in control space it
is possible to identify possible conflict.
Figure7.8 Representation of the knowledge base in tile form

or Fuzzy Associative Memory (FAM)
Chapter 8
Fuzzy Industrial
Controllers
The industrial three-term controller without doubt constitutes the backbone of industrial control, having been in use for over a century. Threeterm controllers can take a number of forms, from the early mechanical
to later hydraulic, pneumatic, analog and digital versions. The modern
form takes the form of multi-tasking discrete-time three-term algorithms
embedded in almost all industrial PLCs and RTUs. Undisputedly, industrial progress would have been greatly limited but for these ubiquitous
controllers. To this very day, the majority of industrial plants rely almost
exclusively on this inexpensive, robust and easy to use conventional controller.
The output of a conventional industrial controller normally involves three-terms: the first is proportional to its input (the P term), the
second is proportional to the integral of the input (the I term) and the
third is proportional to the derivative of the input (the D term). In most
practical applications, the first two terms are sufficient and only a small
fraction of industrial controllers make use of the derivative term. Threeterm controllers can be configured in a variety of ways, from the simplest autonomous single-loop controller to cascade control when a single
controller is insufficient to provide the necessary control due to the interactions in the controlled variables of the plant. Three-term controllers
can also be configured so as to provide ratio or blending control when
105
106
Chapter 8
quantities must be maintained as percentages, typically found in materials blending and mixing processes.
Productivity is closely related to the quality of control. Low
quality of control implies poor product quality with products that cannot
meet standards, reduced productivity, loss of competitiveness and ultimately the collapse of the manufacturer. Effective control is thus of vital
importance where high product quality and productivity are essential,
high standards are to be maintained and market share assured. Effective
operation of a plant implies correct tuning of the controllers to meet the
product specifications while the efficiency of a plant is critically dependent on specifying the correct parameters of these controllers.
Traditionally, a three-term controllers are tuned on-line by human experts who excite the plant by injecting appropriate disturbances to
the set-points and then systematically adjust the parameters (i.e., gain
constants) of the controller until the plant meets its design specifications.
Re-tuning is normally necessary whenever the operating conditions of
the plant are changed. Controller tuning requires considerable expertise
and patience and takes time to master. The way in which a human tunes
a control loop or plant is based on heuristic rules which involve such factors as the rise time, settling time and steady state error of the closed system. Indeed, as will be seen later in this chapter, these rules are put to
good use in the design of expert controller tuners, which a number of
vendors offer today.
8.1 Controller Tuning

Manual tuning can be supported by simple analytical techniques, which
systematically determine the best (in some sense) controller parameters
based on a simple macroscopic model (or approximant) of the controlled
plant. Ziegler and Nichols offered design procedures to tune industrial
controllers as far back as the 1940s that are still used to this day. By observing the initial slope of the response of the plant when subjected to a
step disturbance and the dead time of the plant before it responds, a complex plant can be approximated by the classical first order lag plus dead
time approximant. This simple but very approximate approach has
formed the basis for improved variants on the Ziegler-Nichols approach.
Modern tuning techniques such as those by Persson and Astrom require
additional information from the response of the controlled plant and re-
Fuzzy Industrial Controllers
107
quire more computational effort but yield vastly improved plant responses. All these techniques assume that the controlled plant is scalar,
i.e., has a single input and a single output and are not applicable to multivariable plants. Multivariable plants, for which three-term controllers do
not find ready application, require an entirely different approach to controller design.
For best performance three-term controllers must be tuned for all
operating conditions. Unfortunately, the dynamic characteristics of most
industrial plants depend on their operating state and production rates and
these are far from linear or stationary. A three-term controller is normally tuned for best (note that use of the word optimum is tactfully
avoided) performance at a specific operating state. When the operating
conditions of the plant change, so does the operating state, whereupon
the parameters of the controller may no longer be the best and as a consequence performance is degraded. The degree to which such degradation is acceptable clearly depends on the nature of the controlled plant,
plants that are highly nonlinear being the most difficult to control effectively. The robustness of a controller is a measure of its ability to operate
acceptably despite changes in the operating state of the plant.
Where the variations in the plant are severe, a three-term controller with fixed parameters is no longer effective and alternate techniques, which are capable of tracking the changes in the plant must be
employed. Such techniques as gain-scheduling, auto-tuning and adaptive
control are commonly used to extend the domain of effectiveness and
thereby the robustness of the controller. Fuzzy logic can likewise be used
to extend the domain of effectiveness of a three-term controller.
8.2 Fuzzy Three-Term Controllers

The advent of fuzzy control motivated many researchers to reconsider
the familiar robust three-term controller in the hope that fuzzifying it
would improve its domain of effectiveness. This is a case of a technology retrofit, in which Computational Intelligence is applied to improve a
well-known device. The result has been a new generation of intelligent
three-term controllers with increased robustness that a number of vendors currently are offering.
Fuzzy logic can be applied to three-term controllers in a number
of ways. One obvious approach is to fuzzify the gains of the three-term
108
Chapter 8
controller by establishing rules whereby these gains are varied in accordance with the operating state of the closed system. In this case the controller output has the generalized form
u = = fP(e,edt,De) + fI(e,edt,De)) + fD(e,edt,De)
which when fuzzified can be expressed as the weighted sum
u = fuzzy(kP) e + fuzzy(kI) edt + fuzzy(kD) De
Hybrid fuzzy three-term controllers in which only the proportional and derivative terms are fuzzified while the integral term remains
conventional, have also been used. In this case the controller output is
u = uPD + kI edt
An alternative class of fuzzy controllers, which possess the characteristics of a two-term PI controller is the generic fuzzy controller
which has been used extensively in practice. Generic fuzzy controllers
are very simple and require few rules to operate effectively. Using the
closed system error and its derivative only, this class of fuzzy controllers
is normally incremental with output
Du = f(e,De)
which must subsequently be integrated (or accumulated) to generate the
final controller output.
8.2.1 Generalized three-term controllers

The output of a conventional three-term controller contains a term proportional to the error e between the desired and the actual output of the
controlled plant, a term proportional to the derivative of the error
De=de/dt and a term proportional to the integral of the error edt. In
practice it is often preferable to use the derivative and the integral of the
output of the process instead of the error in order to avoid sudden
changes in the output when changing the setpoint, i.e., bump-less operation. If the fuzzy sets of the error, derivative and integral terms are ,
109
and respectively, then the control rules of a generalized fuzzy threeterm controller can be expressed as:
Rr: IF e is Er AND De is r AND edt is r THEN u is Ur
Further, if the union operator relates the control rules, then the fuzzy algorithm reduces to the fuzzy implication rule
(E E IE U )
R = R1R2.....Rn=
The fuzzy set of the output of the generalized fuzzy three-term controller
is thus given by
U = (EEIE) R
whose membership function is consequently
( (e)
U(u)=
(De)
(edt) R(e,De,edt,u))
for eE, DE and edtIE. A graphical display of the parameter surface of such a three-term controller would have to be three-dimensional
and it would be difficult to comprehend the effect of each parameter on
the controller output.
8.2.2 Partitioned controller architecture

It is often more convenient to partition the three-term controller into two
independent fuzzy sub-controllers that separately generate the signals
uPD and uI that correspond to the proportional plus derivative term and
the integral term respectively. The result is a fuzzy proportional plus derivative sub-controller FPD in parallel with a fuzzy integral controller
FPI as shown in Figure 8.1. Both sub-controllers are fed with the error
and its derivative. The second sub-controller requires an integrator (or
accumulator) to generate the integral term. Both this controller and the
generic two-term fuzzy controller that is discussed in a later section in
this chapter require the error derivative De. In situations where the signal
Chapter 8
110
contains high frequency extraneous noise, there may be certain misgivings in generating the derivative or difference term from the error since
noise aggravates the situation. In this case it is clear that some form of
low pass filtering or signal processing is necessary to reduce the effect of
high frequency noise.
uPD
e
FPD
De
FPI
uI
Integrator
Figure 8.1 Decomposition of a three-term controller into two sub-controllers
The rule matrix or Fuzzy Associative Matrix for the FPD fuzzy subcontrollers is:
e\De
NB
NM
NS
ZO
PS
PM
PB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NB
NM
NS
ZO
NM
NB
NB
NM
NS
NS
ZO
PS
NS
NB
NB
NM
NS
ZO
PS
PM
ZO
NM
NM
NS
ZO
PS
PM
PM
PS
NM
NS
ZO
PS
PM
PB
PB
PM
NS
ZO
PS
PM
PB
PB
PB
PB
ZO
PS
PM
PB
PB
PB
PB
This FAM contains 77=49 rules, a number that must be compared to

the case of a three-term controller which would require 777=343 rules
and corresponding memory storage locations in its knowledge base. It is
noted that the FAM shown above is symmetric about the principal diagonal. It is possible to take advantage of this fact and store only half the
rules if memory must be conserved. Rule pruning, in which adjacent
rules are systematically eliminated, can further reduce the number of
111
rules that have to be stored to about a quarter of the original number or

about a dozen.
Applying the Mamdani compositional rule and confining the
controller inputs e and De to the closed interval [-3,3] and quantizing the
two inputs into 7 levels, results in the relational matrix shown below.
The entries in the matrix are the numerical values of uPD that are stored in
the controller memory: this form of look-up table control is very simple
to implement and has been applied extensively in practice. By altering
some of the entries in the matrix it is possible to trim the performance of
the controller further, intentionally warping the control surface in order
to compensate for inherent non-linearities in the plant characteristics. In
the design study presented in Appendix A, it is shown how step-response
asymmetry may be compensated for using this approach.
e\De
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-2
-1
0
-2
-3
-3
-2
-1
-1
0
1
-1
-3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
0
-2
-2
-1
0
1
2
2
1
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
3
2
-1
0
1
2
3
3
3
3
0
1
2
3
3
3
3
The relational matrix is shown graphically in Figure 8.2. This is

none other than the control surface of the FPD sub-controller. Due to
quantization of the controller inputs, the controller output is not continuous and smooth and is sometimes referred to as a multilevel relay controller. Clearly the control surface can be smoothed and the controller
performance improved by using extrapolation techniques in which case
the control actions are defined everywhere in the bounded control space.
Chapter 8
112
4
2
0
-2
uPD
-4
De
1 2
3 4
5 6
7
e
Figure 8.2 Control surface of the FPD sub-controller
8.2.3 Hybrid architectures

Various hybrid architectures that combine fuzzy and deterministic elements have been proposed for the three-term controller. One such architecture is shown in Figure 8.3. In this architecture the P+D subcontroller FPD is identical to the one considered earlier but the integral
term involves a gain coefficient which is the result of using the simple
rules given below. The proportional and derivative terms are determined
from the simple set of rules
e
uPD
NB
NB
NM
NM
NS
NS
ZO
ZO
PS
PS
PM
PM
PB
PB
while the integral gain is varied according to the following rules

e
kI
NB
PS
NM
PM
NS
PM
ZO
PB
PS
PM
PM
PM
PB
PS
113
The final output of this hybrid fuzzy controller is the sum

u = uPD + uI = uPD + fuzzy(kI)edt
De
uPD
FPD
e
uI
fuzzy(kI)
Integrator
Multiplier
Figure 8.3 Hybrid three-term controller
Extending the method further, it is possible to design a threeterm controller using the configuration shown in Figure 8.4 with each of
the controller parameters (kP, kI and kD) specified by independent rules,
i.e.,:
U = fuzzy(kP)e + fuzzy(kI)edt + fuzzy(kD)De
8.2.4 Generic two-term fuzzy controllers

The phase plane, which portrays the trajectory of the error between desired and actual output of a process, is a useful domain in which to specify the linguistic control rules of the process. Figure 8.5(a) shows a typical trajectory in phase-space, analogous to state space in which one of
the states is related to its derivative. Figure 8.5(b) shows the error e(t)
and the corresponding rate of change of error De(t) in response to a step
excitation of the plant.
Chapter 8
114
De
fuzzy(kP)
e
fuzzy(kI)
Integrator
fuzzy(kD)
Figure 8.4 Fuzzy controller with independent fuzzy parameters
The temporal error response to a step excitation and its derivative can be
broken up into regions defined by their zero crossover points. Thus the
error may be coarsely described as positive, zero at the crossover or
negative. Assume, therefore, that the three fuzzy sets (POsitive, ZerO
and NEgative) suffice to describe each control variable.
In Region 1 we can thus write the first generic control rule:
R1: IF e is PO AND De is NE THEN u is PO
The objective of this rule is to apply maximum positive control action
(e.g., torque in the case of a servomotor) to the controlled process in order to force it to accelerate to its final value with a minimum rise time.
In Region 2 the corresponding generic control rule is:
R2: IF e is AND De is NE THEN u is
Here the objective is to apply maximum negative control action to decelerate the process in order to minimize overshoot. Using similar reasoning, the 11 rule Fuzzy Associative Memory that follows is derived.
115
De
(a)
e
a
ii iii iv v vi vii viii ix

(b)
Figure 8.5 (a) Phase-space trajectory and (b) time-domain response
Chapter 8
116
Rule
De
Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
PO
ZO
NE
ZO
ZO
PO
NE
NE
PO
PO
NE
ZO
NE
ZO
PO
ZO
NE
NE
PO
PO
NE
PO
PO
NE
NE
PO
ZO
PO
NE
NE
PO
ZO
ZO
a,e,i
b,f,j
c,g,k
d,h,l
origin
i,v
ii,vi
iii,vii
iv,viii
ix
ix
It is obvious that finer control can be achieved if the number of

control rules is increased. The number of rules is consequently a measure
of the granularity of the controller.
Rule
De
Points
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
PL
PM
PS
ZO
ZO
ZO
NL
NM
NS
ZO
ZO
ZO
ZO
PL
PS
NL
NS
PS
NS
ZO
ZO
ZO
NL
NM
NS
ZO
ZO
ZO
PL
PM
PS
ZO
NS
NL
PS
PL
NS
PS
PL
PM
PS
NL
NM
NS
NL
NM
NS
PL
PM
PS
ZO
PM
NM
NM
PM
ZO
ZO
a
e
i
b
f
j
c
g
k
d
h
l
origin
i
i
iii
iii
ix
xi
Increasing the number of fuzzy sets assigned to each control

variable to 19 and using 5 fuzzy variables PL for Positive_Large, PM for
Positive_Medium, PS for Positive_Small, ZO for ZerO, NS for Nega-
117
tive_Small, NM for Negative_Medium and. NL for Negative_Large leads

to the FAM given above.
Du
e
De
u0
u
Generic
Fuzzy
Controller
Integrator
Figure 8.7 Generic two-term incremental fuzzy controller
Figure 8.7 shows a schematic of the generic two-term architecture. This

incremental fuzzy controller is generic since it can be applied to any dynamic process that exhibits under-damped behavior. Being incremental,
it is necessary to supply the nominal controller output u0 to the controller
in order to generate the total control variable.
8.3 Coarse-Fine Fuzzy Control

When a controller is required to operate under conditions of both large
and small excursions of its inputs from their nominal values, it is convenient to use two or more sets of fuzzy rules to effect improved control.
For large excursions of the controller input variables, coarse control is
applied with the objective of forcing the plant to return to its nominal
operating point as rapidly as possible. Accuracy of control is of secondary importance under these circumstances and only a few rules are required. When the plant variables reach some small region about the
nominal operating point then fine control is applied. Here a new set of
control rules necessary to effect the desired fine control actions are used
and these involve a larger number of rules and fuzzy sets. Under normal
operating conditions the controller uses fine control for small excursions
about the nominal operating point.
An alternative way of achieving coarse-fine control is through
zooming of the universe of discourse of each controller input variable. In
118
Chapter 8
this case the universe of discourse is varied, either in discrete regions in

control space or smoothly as the plant approaches the desired operating
point (see fuzzy gain-scheduling in chapter 10). This approach has been
used to great effect for the control of high precision mechatronic devices.
Chapter 9
Real-time Fuzzy Control

Chronologically, fuzzy control was the first form of intelligent control. It
was to radically alter the course of Control Engineering with seemingly
infinite applications. Fuzzy control appears today in real-time applications ranging from domestic appliances (such as air-conditioners and refrigerators where it has become a major selling point) to high-speed
trains, automobiles and process control.
Zadehs theory of fuzzy sets laid the foundations of Fuzzy Control and the revolution in Control Engineering that continues unabated to
this day. Whereas the foundations of fuzzy set theory are on solid
ground, fuzzy control is still very much an art, requiring knowledge and
experience to implement correctly. Soft control is not a panacea for all
control problems and it would be wrong to state that it will ultimately replace conventional control. There are numerous cases where conventional control results in excellent quality of control and there is no need
to replace it. There are however many cases, especially in industry, that
have defied solution using any of the conventional control techniques
and here fuzzy control has proved invaluable, offering solutions where
none existed previously.
The control strategy of an industrial plant may often be described in linguistic terms by way of control rules or control protocols
that relate the control actions to the controlled variables in linguistic
terms. The resultant fuzzy controller must faithfully replicate the actions
of the human operator from which the control rules were elicited.
119
120
Chapter 9
As noted earlier, the rules (sometimes referred to as production

rules) by which a plant can be controlled are normally expressed as a set
of relational statements of the form:
IF (Current_State_of_Plant) THEN (Control_Action)
These rules, which are suitably encoded, are stored in the knowledge
base of the fuzzy controller and are processed by a fuzzy inference engine based on one of the implication functions presented in chapter 6.
9.1 Supervisory Fuzzy Controllers

The elements (i.e., building blocks) of a fuzzy controller are shown
schematically in Figure 9.1 and are:
a real-time data base RTDB where the current and the previous
values of the control variables of the physical plant obtained
from the local RTUs are deposited (usually following some
form of signal processing to remove extraneous signals). The
real-time database also contains the values of the controlled
variables (i.e., control actions) and the time when the previous
action was taken on the plant. The real-time database is the interface between the physical plant and the controller,
the knowledge base KB in which the control rules, suitably
coded, are stored,
a database FS in which the fuzzy sets of the inputs and outputs
of the controller are stored,
a fuzzifier FZ where the inputs to the controller are transformed
into the domain of fuzzy sets,
an inference engine IE, the kernel of the fuzzy controller, is
software with which the fuzzy sets of the controller outputs are
computed,
a de-fuzzifier DF where the fuzzy sets of the outputs are transformed back into the engineering domain and the numerical
control actions are deposited in the real-time data base RTDB
for transmittal to the RTUs which subsequently enforce these
control actions on the physical plant and, finally
121
a development system DS through which the engineer interacts

with the fuzzy controller during the development or whenever
modifications have to be made. This module is removed once
the controller is finalized.
Effects
Causes
Real-time
Database RTDB
Fuzzifier FZ
De-fuzzifier
Inference
Engine IE
Knowledge
Base KB
Fuzzy
Controller
Kernel
Fuzzy
Sets FS
Development System DS
Figure 9.1 Elements of a fuzzy controller
Chapter 9
122
In modern industrial plants, the link between the supervisory

control system (whether SCADA or DCS) and the physical plant being
controlled is through a Local Area Network (LAN) to which remote terminal units (RTUs) are attached. The RTUs include analog to digital
converters for the conversion of the physical variables at rates that can
reach thousands of samples per seconds. These units invariably include
software with which three-term controllers (PID) can be implemented, as
well as software with which the RTUs can communicate with the host
computer (i.e., server) via the LAN. The client/server architecture shown
in Figure 9.2 and is one of the most common architectures in use today.
It is noted that in the new generation of industrial control systems, smart
sensors and actuators with built-in micro-controllers that can be directly
connected to the LAN are gradually replacing RTUs.
RTU
RTU
LAN
PC
PC
PC
Clients
Figure 9.2 Architecture of a distributed supervisory control system
Distributed supervisory control systems involve a cluster of industrial grade microcomputers, RTUs, micro-controllers and peripherals
connected to a LAN. Each component of the cluster performs real-time
control of a specific sub-process of the plant. The host computer usually
123
contains the real-time database where all current data on the state of the
plant is stored and can serve this data to any of the clients (sometimes referred to as agents) in the cluster on demand.
An alternative architecture involves a distributed real-time database in which each client retains the data pertinent to the tasks it is assigned. The client can transmit this data to any other client on demand.
This leads to considerably more data having to be transmitted over the
LAN between clients, resulting in data transmission delays. Finally, a
hybrid architecture in which the local real-time databases are mirrored in
the server can be used. In this case, each client must continuously update
the data that has changed since the last transmission in the master database in the host computer. The advantage of this last architecture is that
in the unlikely case that the host computer fails and its data is lost or corrupted, then the master database can be restored from the local databases
in the clients when the host becomes operational again.
9.2 Embedded Fuzzy Controllers

Fuzzy controllers are increasingly being embedded in micro-controllers
for operation at the lowest level of the control hierarchy. Chip-size fuzzy
micro-controllers have found their way into a variety of products such as
disk drives, printers, video cameras, laser printers, cars, household appliances, and so forth. The use of real-time embedded micro-controllers is
spreading rapidly for two reasons: convenience and cost. Except for
memory restrictions, embedded controllers can be programmed to do just
about anything their larger counterparts can do. Unlike their larger counterparts, which operate under such real time operating systems as Unix or
Windows NT, there is no standardized real-time operating system for
micro-controllers. Windows CE, which features a deterministic scheduler, may change this situation, however. The programming language of
choice for micro-controllers in the foreseeable future is likely to be Java,
which is processor independent. Micro-controller hardware has generally
been restricted to 16 and 32 bit processors but 4-bit and even 64-bit
processors are in use, the former in domestic appliances.
The architecture of embedded intelligent micro-controllers follows that presented in the previous section closely. Only the development system is independent and resides in a host PC where all development is performed off-line. Once the design has been completed, the ex-
124
Chapter 9
ecutable software, which includes the knowledge base, fuzzy sets, inference engine, fuzzifier and de-fuzzifier, is downloaded to the microcontroller via a local link or is burned into an erasable programmable
read-only memory (EPROM) which is then plugged into the microcontroller.
A new class of intelligent industrial three-term controllers is
gradually replacing conventional industrial controllers in a number of
critical applications that require increased autonomy. These controllers
find use in situations where the operational demands of the application
do not permit fixed or programmed gains. Intelligent industrial controllers are implemented in software in micro-controllers (MC), programmable logical controllers (PLCs) or remote terminal controllers (RTUs) and
a number of vendors today offer appropriate software for their development. In new plants it would be wise to consider incorporating intelligent
controllers that have been shown to enhance control over conventional
industrial controllers.
In order to minimize memory requirements as well as accelerate
computation in embedded fuzzy controllers, many vendors restrict both
the number and the shape of the permissible fuzzy sets for both inputs
and outputs. Triangular fuzzy sets are almost universally used for the inputs and outputs of the controller. Rules are coded numerically and the
number of fuzzy sets is restricted. Singletons are often used to define the
fuzzy sets of the outputs of the controllers as they simplify defuzzification considerably.
9.3 The Real-time Execution Scheduler

Intelligent controllers reside in a devoted intelligent agent or are distributed throughout the clients in the cluster. They can be executed either at
regular intervals (analogous to discrete-time control) or on demand. In
the case of a devoted intelligent agent, the executable program of the
fuzzy controllers is scheduled to run at fixed time intervals. The execution interval is clearly dependent on the dynamics of the plant under control. The execution interval is typically set equal to one-tenth to onetwentieth of the value of the smallest time constant of the plant. In some
cases, particularly in process control, where static control is acceptable,
the execution interval is set equal to the settling time of the plant as determined from experimental observations.
125
An alternative technique for scheduling the intelligent controller

which is useful particularly when dealing with fast dynamic plants, is to
have a control scheduler that continuously tracks the inputs to the fuzzy
controller and their changes. Based on some measure of the rates of
change (or differences) of these inputs, the control scheduler is programmed to decide whether or not the controller should execute. Clearly
if the inputs to the controller (i.e., the plant variables) do not change significantly with time, implying that the plant is stationary and operating at
its nominal state, then there is no reason to effect control and the controller algorithm is not executed. Conversely, if the inputs are changing significantly, implying that the plant is in transition then immediate action
must be taken in order to restore it to its nominal state. By continuously
following the changes of the controller inputs, the control scheduler is
therefore in a position to issue commands on when to execute the controller. If, following execution and after some minimum time interval,
the control scheduler continues to observe that the rates of the controller
inputs exceed pre-specified limits, then it sends another command to
execute the controller and continues to do so until the plant returns to its
nominal state. This scheme leads to a controller that executes at irregular
intervals and on demand. The control scheduler is shown schematically
in Figure 9.3.
Controller
Differencer
Execution Scheduler
Input
Output
Figure 9.3 The real-time execution scheduler
On executing the fuzzy algorithm and following defuzzification, the new control variables are deposited in the real-time da-
126
Chapter 9
tabase. At regular intervals (measured in milliseconds) and provided

there has been a significant change in the control variables since the last
time the algorithm was executed, this information is transmitted via the
LAN to the appropriate RTUs for immediate action on the plant. This final action closes the control loop.
The structure of a fuzzy controller can be seen to be very general
and is applicable to a wide variety of plants and processes. The only
thing that is required to change the controller is to modify the numbers of
the inputs and outputs of the controller, the shape and number of the
fuzzy sets and, most importantly, the rule base.
Example 9.1 Waste-water treatment control

An interesting application of real-time fuzzy control to an environmental
problem is outlined below. The system has been used in a municipal water-treatment plant, achieving significantly improved water treatment
over existing methods. The system was implemented on a commercial
PLC.
Through suitable modification of the biological treatment process,
stabilization of the nitrogen compounds (nitrates, ammonia) can also be
achieved. Biological treatment is classified by the type of microorganisms that are used in the removal of the organic load and is either
aerobic, anaerobic or both. Because of the anoxic zone in aerobic treatment, the simultaneous removal of both nitrates and ammonia is possible. Interest is normally focused on secondary biological treatment and
on aerobic treatment in particular. The wastewater treatment plant considered in this paper involves extended aeration and is a variation of the
active sludge method. A schematic of the plant is shown in Figure 9.6.
Here the biological reactor possesses a tank with two zones as well as a
secondary settling tank. Wet sludge is fed into the anoxic zone in which
low oxygen conditions prevail and de-nitrification initially takes place.
To operate satisfactorily, this stage requires low oxygen concentrations
in the presence of nitrates.
127
Sludge is transferred to a second aerated zone where organic load is

removed and nitrification take place. A fraction of this sludge is then returned to the anoxic zone while the remainder is fed to the secondary settling tank. The quantity of sludge returned for further treatment depends
on factors that affect nitrification and de-nitrification and is therefore one
of the process variables that must be controlled.
Finally, a fraction of the sludge in the secondary settling tank is returned to the biological reactor, while the rest is removed and fed to the
fusion stage.
Sludge feed
Primary settling tank
Secondary settling tank
Grit chamber
Biological
treatment
Bar
racks
Skimming
tank
Sludge returns
Suspended
liquids
Remaining sludge
Solids
storage
Sludge Fusion
Sludge Drying
Figure 9.5 Schematic of a typical wastewater treatment plant

The fraction of sludge fed back to the biological reactor is another
variable that must be controlled. In all wastewater treatment plants it is
necessary to control the oxygen content in the aerated zone of the reactor. The oxygen content depends on the removal of the organic load and
nitrification. The removal of organic load, nitrification and denitrification are the three principal quantities in a wastewater treatment
plant that must be controlled. This is achieved by a suitable control strategy for the following three manipulated variables:
Chapter 9
128
1. the oxygen supply to the aerated zone (O2Feed),

2. the mixed liquid returns rate from the aerated zone to the anoxic
zone of the biological reactor (R_ml) and
3. the sludge returns rate from the secondary settling tank to the
biological reactor (R_sludge).
Measurement of
BOD
Measurement of:
Temperature, DO
and MLSS
Reactor
AERATED
ZONE
ANOXIC
ZONE
Sludge
feed
Settling tank
Oxygen
Feed
Liquid Returns
Pump for return
of liquids
Measurement of
N=NO3 and N-NH3
Measurement of
BOD
Sludge returns
Remaining sludge
for fusion
Figure 9.6. The treatment process and its principal variables

The controlled variables of the plant and inputs to the controller are:
the ammonia concentration in the reactor (N-NH3),
the nitrate concentration in the reactor (N-NO3),
the dissolved oxygen in the reactor (DO),
the temperature in the reactor (TEMP),
the mixed liquid suspended solids concentration in the reactor
(MLSS),
6. the difference in biochemical oxygen demand D(BOD)between
the entrance and exit of the secondary settling tank.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
129
The integrity of the controller is directly related to the number of

fuzzy variables used. Increasing the number of fuzzy variables, however,
increases the memory requirements of the controller logarithmically.
For wastewater plant control, the three fuzzy variables, HI (HIgh),
OK and LO (LOw) normally suffice to characterize the controller inputs.
Trapezoidal fuzzy sets (membership functions) are computationally simple and effective in practice. Similarly, the manipulated variables or controller outputs must be allocated an appropriate number of linguistic descriptors. Five fuzzy variables, i.e., VH (VeryHigh), HI (HIgh), OK, LO
(LOw) and VL (VeryLow) provide sufficiently fine control.
Finally, for computational simplicity, singletons are used to describe the fuzzy sets of the controller outputs, leading to a particularly
simple and fast procedure for de-fuzzification. The knowledge with
which a given wastewater plant is controlled must first be elicited from
plant operators. This is a painstaking task and one that is critical for
proper operation.
If the 6 manipulated variables have 3 descriptors each, then the
theoretical maximum number of rules is 36 or 729, a number which is
clearly unmanageable and practically unnecessary. In practice 50 rules
suffice to provide control of a wastewater treatment plant. Of these some
27 are required to stabilize the organic load (BOD), 11 to stabilize the nitrification process while 12 rules similar to those for nitrification are
necessary to stabilize de-nitrification.
The 50 rules, which form the knowledge base of the controller, are
considered to be the minimum necessary to achieve acceptable control of
a wastewater treatment plant under most operating conditions. A subset
of these rules is shown in the Table on p. 130.
The control rules have the standard form:
R : IF (D(BOD) is Y1) AND (MLSS is Y2) AND (TEMP is Y3)
AND (DO is Y4) AND (N-NH3 is Y5) AND (N-NO3 is Y6)
THEN (O2Feed is U1) AND (R_Sludge is U2) AND (R_ml is U3)
The controller outputs are all normalized to the range [0,100]%.
Under normal operating conditions the plant outputs have nominal values
of 50% and the corresponding levels of reactor stabilization, nitrification
and de-nitrification are 90%, 70% and 60% respectively.
130
Chapter 9
L=Low, OK= normal, H=High, VH=VeryHigh,

B=Big, VB=VeryBig, S=Small, VS=VerySmall
O2Feed
MLSS
D(BOD)
Figure 9.7. Variations in oxygen feed in response

to a triangular perturbations in the D(BOD) and O2Feed
Finally, Figure 9.7 shows the effect on the oxygen feed to the reactor
of a triangular perturbation of 50% on D(BOD) and MLSS about their
nominal values.
131
Example 9.2 Rotary kiln control

The rotary kiln is the basic process in cement production. Raw feed is
processed in a cyclone pre-heater comprising the rotary kiln and precalciner strings, both of which supply pre-heated feed to the rotary kiln, a
long tubular structure with a refractory lining. Fuel, either coal dust or
fuel oil is burnt at the exit of the kiln in a long flame that extends along
most of the length of the kiln.
Throughout the length of the kiln there is a hot airflow induced by
an induction fan at the top of the precalciner. As a result of this hot air
mass, there is a transfer of heat between the hot air and the raw feed.
The raw feed undergoes crystallization as it reaches the end of the kiln
where the temperatures are of the order of 1400 degrees. The kiln is rotated at a few revolutions per minute to allow for the lava-like fluid to
exit the kiln and flow to the grate cooler where it solidifies into clinker.
Clinker, when added to gypsum and ground to a fine powder in a finishgrinding mill, results in the final product, cement.
The cement production process is very energy-intensive, requiring
large quantities of fuel in the kilning stage and electric power in the
finish grinding process. As the cost of energy constitutes the largest
component of the total cost of production, it is clear that every effort
must be made to keep this cost to a minimum.
The kilning process is one of the most difficult processes to control. It is significant that this process is one of the few remaining in the
process industry, which generally relies on human operators. Many attempts have been made to model the process and then apply modern
theory to control it. All these attempts have failed dismally due to the
complexity, non-linearity and distributed nature of the process. Until
the advent of fuzzy kiln control, first introduced by F. L. Smidth of
Denmark in the early 1980s, all cement kilns were manually controlled.
A kiln operators objective is to produce clinker of the desired specifications and production rate while minimizing fuel feed, and at all times
maintaining the process in a stable state.
Under-burning (i.e., using less fuel, which results in lower kiln
temperatures) the raw material leads to clinker which is less reactive
and thus undergoes an incomplete change of phase of the raw material.
The lava-like material, which slowly slides down the kiln may then solidify, a catastrophic situation that results in kiln shut-down and repairs
to the kiln lining. Over-burning, on the other hand, leads to excessive
fuel consumption, less reactive clinker and high refractory lining wear.
132
Chapter 9
Most kiln operators prefer to operate the kiln in the region of overburning however, as it is more stable. In between the two extremes,
however, there is a narrow region of stable operation in which high productivity and product quality can be achieved. Kiln operators find this
state very difficult to maintain for long periods or time as the controls
must be continuously manipulated to account for small changes in the
operating state of the process.
Kiln operators learn to control their plant from linguistic rules of
the type:
IF the Kiln_KW demand is HIgh
AND the outlet oxygen content O2 is Low
AND the Previous_Fuel_Feed is OK
THEN make a SMall reduction to the Fuel_Feed
AND make NO change to the induced draft fan speed VIDF
Here, Kiln_KW, outlet oxygen content O2 and Previous_Fuel_Feed constitute the input fuzzy variables, while current
Fuel_Feed and induced draft fan speed VIDF are the output fuzzy
variables. Approximately 50-60 linguistic rule are used to provide very
good control of the kiln under normal operating conditions. For start-up
and shut-down conditions, as well as abnormal situations, different sets
of rules may be used.
The fuzzy controller can control this most difficult of processes as
well as, and certainly more consistently than, a human operator, by observing the same control variables and adjusting the same manipulated
variables. Fuzzy kiln controllers can easily maintain control of the process in this stable intermediate state, consistently achieving marked fuel
economy and high productivity. Fuzzy kiln controllers normally reside
in a client on a client-server network, receiving information on the current values of the control variables and returning the manipulated variables to the real-time data base on the file server for transmittal to the
local RTUs. The fuzzy controller can be executed either at regular intervals or following an interrupt from the control scheduler, which monitors the temporal changes in the control variables.
Using fuzzy kiln control, fuel costs have been reduced by up to 5%
while productivity has been increased by an equal amount. Today there
is a very large number of kilns worldwide under fuzzy control. Similar
fuzzy controllers have been used to control all of the processes associated with cement production.
133
Hierarchical intelligent control has also been used to control a

cluster of fuzzy controllers, each controlling a different sub-process of
the kilning process.
The cement industry was the first process industry to adopt fuzzy
control and today a number of vendors supply such controllers. There is
certainly no doubt that fuzzy control has resulted in a major change in
the cement industry and many process industries are now following suit,
encouraged by the progress in the field.
VIDF
Precalciner
Prev_Fuel_Feed
Raw
Feed
Controller
O2
Kiln KW
Fuel Feed
Air flow
Kiln motor
Fuel
Rotary Kiln
Clinker flow
Figure 9.10 The rotary kiln intelligent control system

and the principal control and controlled variables
Chapter 10
Model-Based Fuzzy Control

Two distinct trends in the design of fuzzy controllers have evolved in the
last decade or so. The first, based on heuristic knowledge of the control
actions necessary to control a process, has been dealt with at length in
the preceding chapters. Heuristic fuzzy control does not require deep
knowledge of the controlled process in order to be applied successfully.
This feature has made heuristic fuzzy control very popular in the industrial and Fmanufacturing environments where such knowledge is often
lacking. In general, soft control is possible only if heuristic knowledge of
the control policy is known a priori. Thus for new processes, where
there is no such prior knowledge, heuristic soft control is not a candidate.
It is also clear that the heuristic approach cannot resolve such issues as
overall system stability and system performance. This implies that this
approach is case-dependent and it is therefore not possible to generalize
the performance of fuzzy controllers from knowledge of their behavior
in other applications.
The limitations of the heuristic approach led to a search for more
rigorous methods that combine fuzzy logic and the theory of modern
control. The result was Model-based Fuzzy Control which has attracted
considerable attention and has been applied successfully in a number of
applications, particularly in Japan, for the control of high-speed trains,
helicopters, robotic arms and more. The technique assumes the existence
of an explicit microscopic model of the controlled process of sufficient
fidelity from which a series of linearized models can be derived for each
135
136
Chapter 10
nominal operating state. The model-based fuzzy control methodology is

thus a fusion of soft and hard control techniques and offers advantages in
situations where stability and transient behavior must be guaranteed.
In conventional gain-scheduling control, the selection of the
scheduling procedure, i.e., the control law to use, is dependent on some
exogenous variable. In contrast, fuzzy gain scheduling, which is a special
form of model-based fuzzy control, uses linguistic rules and fuzzy reasoning to determine the corresponding control law. Issues of stability,
pole placement and closed loop dynamic behavior are resolved using
conventional modern control techniques.
10.1 The Takagi-Sugeno Model-Based

Approach to Fuzzy Control
In the mid-1980s Takagi and Sugeno proposed the use of fuzzy reasoning to specify the control law of a conventional state feedback controller
so that the overall system would have guaranteed properties. The original
controller that Takagi and Sugeno proposed is characterized by a set of
fuzzy rules that relate the current state of the process to its process
model and the corresponding control law. These composite rules have
the form:
R: IF (state) THEN (fuzzy process model) AND (fuzzy control law).
Consider a physical process described by its non-homogeneous
state equations:
x = f (x,u); x0
where xn and um are the crisp n-dimensional process state vector
and m-dimensional control vector respectively and x0 is the initial state.
This explicit description of the process may be the result of deep knowledge about the process or the result of identification of the process from
experimental data using any of the well-known system identification
techniques.
One of the interesting features of the first Takagi and Sugeno
technique for designing model-based fuzzy controllers is that under cer-
137
tain conditions that are, unfortunately, not always easy to satisfy, this
technique guarantees stability of the closed system while specifying the
transient behavior of the closed system through pole-placement. These
are properties that are inconceivable with the heuristic fuzzy controller
design technique. The difficulties in meeting the conditions for stability
of the first method proposed by Takagi and Sugeno were eliminated in
the second version that uses state differences. Both techniques are outlined in this chapter.
10.2 Fuzzy Variables and Fuzzy Spaces

Consider the crisp process state vector x define on a closed, real set .
The fuzzy state variables xi are fuzzy sets defined on . The values of
these variables are termed the fuzzy values of the fuzzy state variable and
are written as Xij. For every fuzzy value of xi there exists a corresponding membership function Xij(x), which specifies the membership value
of the crisp value xi* of this variable. In general we define:
X ij = X ij ( x) / x
X
for the continuous case and

X ij = X ij ( x ) / x
for the discrete case. The universe of discourse is given as the set:
TXi = { X i 1 , X i 2 ...X iki }
where ki is the number of fuzzy values xi. In order to simplify the analysis that follows it will be assumed that:
the shapes of the fuzzy sets of Xi are identical for all i,

the number of fuzzy numbers k1 = k2 =...=kn and that
X 1i = X 2 i ... = X ij = X nj .
Examples of such fuzzy sets are shown in Figure 10.1.
Chapter 10
138
i2
in
xi
Figure 10.1 Fuzzy sets of the state xi
The state vector x of a process is defined over some space.

Every crisp value x* of the state vector corresponds to a specific state in
state space. In the case of fuzzy controllers based on the Takagi-Sugeno
model, the states take on fuzzy values and consequently the concept of
state space must be modified to account for the fuzzy values of the state
vector. Knowing that every fuzzy variable has a finite number of fuzzy
values, we can then generate a finite number of fuzzy vectors that result
from the combinations of the fuzzy values.
Each element of the crisp state variable x is fuzzified as in the
heuristic fuzzy control case. In each fuzzy region of fuzzy state space, a
rule uniquely defines the local process model in that region, e.g.,
RSi : IF x=xi THEN x i =fi(xi,ui)
(10.1)
The symbolism x=Xi implies that the state of the process x belongs to the fuzzy region Xi. The consequent of each rule describes an
explicit local model of the process in the corresponding fuzzy region
139
i. Simple examples of fuzzy process rules for both continuous and

discrete-time processes are:
IF u is Low AND x is High
THEN the process model is
x = -0.7x - 0.2x3 - 3.1u
ELSE
IF u is High AND x is Low
THEN the process model is
x = -0.6x - 0.3x3 - 2.8u
and
Given the process parametric model
Pressure(k+1)=a0 Pressure(k) + b1 Valve(k)
+b2 Input_Flow_Rate(k)
IF Pressure(k+1) is High AND Valve(k) is Closed AND
Input_Flow_Rate(k) is Very_High
THEN the process parameters are a0=-3, b1=2 and b2=-1
ELSE
IF Pressure(k+1) is Low AND Valve(k) is OK AND
Input_Flow_Rate(k) is High
THEN the process parameters are a0=-4, b1=1 and b2=-2
ELSE
etc.
10.3 The Fuzzy Process Model

It is observed that whereas the antecedent of the fuzzy process rules are
similar to those used in the heuristic fuzzy control case, the consequents
are analytical expressions that describe a process model. Process rules
can be expressed in terms of the elements of the crisp process state as:
RSi: IF x1=xi1 AND x2=xi2 AND xn=xin THEN x i =fi(x,u)
Chapter 10
140
In any fuzzy region Xi the process can thus be specified by the

state equation:
(10.2)
i
x i = S ( x) f i ( x, u )
where
i
S ( x) = X i ( x1 ) X i ( x 2 ) ... X i ( x n )
1
= min( X i ( x1 ), X i ( x 2 ),..., X i ( x n )).

1
(10.3)
are the degrees of fulfillment of the local models of the process using
Mamdanis fuzzy compositional rule.
For each nominal state of the process, a state equation of the
form of (10.2) is determined. Using the set of fuzzy process rules (10.1)
we establish the fuzzy open-loop model of the process, which is the
weighted sum of the local models fi(x,u) , i.e.
i
x = wS ( x) f i ( x, u )
(10.4)
where
i
wS ( x ) =
S ( x)
S ( x)
i
[0, 1]
(10.5)
are the normalized degrees of fulfillment or process function weights.

Clearly the sum of the weights is unity, i.e.
w
i
i
S
( x) = 1
141
10.4 The Fuzzy Control Law

Similarly, for every antecedent there exist two consequents, the second
one of which specifies the state feedback control law that must be applied in order to stabilize the process. This, of course, assumes that all
states are measurable, a restrictive limitation of the technique in practice.
Where it is not possible to measure all the state variables then observers
or other forms of state estimators may be used to provide the missing
states provided an explicit microscopic model of the process is available.
The second consequent of every rule in the fuzzy region Xj has
the form:
RSj : IF x=xj THEN u =gi(x)

while the control law that must be applied to the process so that stability
is assured at any nominal states is derived in an analogous manner and
is:
(10.6)
u j = C ( x) g j ( x)
where
j
C ( x) = k ( X j ( x k ))
k
= min( X j ( x1 ), X j ( x 2 ),..., X j ( x n )). (10.7)

1
The overall control law is thus the weighted sum:
u = wC ( x) g j ( x)
j
(10.8)
where wCj are the control weights which are computed in Equation
(10.5).
Chapter 10
142
10.5 The Locally Linearized Process Model

When the nonlinear model of the process is linearized (also termed
Lyapunov linearization) about each nominal state of the process, the result is a set of locally linearized models of the controlled process described by state equations:
x i = f i ( x i , u i ) = Ai xi + Biu i
(10.9)
where
Ai =
f i
x
, Bi =
xi ,ui
f i
u i
xi ,ui
are the usual partial derivatives of the nonlinear functions fi() evaluated
at the nominal conditions (xi,ui). The set of locally linearized models at
these nominal states defines the state equations of the controlled process
at those states and is termed the overall fuzzy open-loop model of the
process.
For each linearized local model there must be a corresponding
linear control law that guarantees closed system stability while satisfying time-domain criteria. The complete set of control laws constitutes the
global control law of the closed system. In the Takagi-Sugeno approach,
the decision on the process model and the control law to use clearly depends on the nominal state of the process and is based on fuzzy linguistic
rules.
The linearized process model rule (10.2) now becomes:
RS i : IF x=xi THEN x = Ai x + Bi u
P
(10.10)
Modern control theory assumes that all the states of the process
are measurable or can be estimated, in which case a constant state feedback control law of the form:
(10.11)
143
u i = Ki x
can be applied, where Ki is a suitably gain matrix. Using any poleplacement technique, the elements of the gain matrix are chosen so that
the poles of the closed system yield the desired transient behavior. The
fuzzy control rule is therefore:
(10.12)
RC : RSi : IF x=xi THEN ui =Kixi

i
Now, from the definitions of wS (x) and wC (x) it is seen that

these two are in fact identical, whereupon to simplify notation, let
i
j
wS ( x) = w i ( x) and wC ( x) = w j ( x) . Substituting Equation (10.5) in
(10.4), we obtain the Overall Closed System (linearized) Fuzzy Model:
x = w i ( x)( Ai x + Bi u )
(10.13)
and likewise the overall control law:

u = w j ( x) K j x
(10.14)
Finally, substituting Equation (10.14) in (10.13) yields the overall homogeneous closed system state equations:
x = w i ( x) w j ( x )( Ai + Bi K j ) x
(10.15)
x = w i ( x) w j ( x) Aij x
(10.16)
or
where
Aij = Ai + Bi K j
144
Chapter 10
is a Hurwitz matrix. It should be noted that with this technique, even

though linearized models of the process have been used in the development, both the overall system state equations and the overall control law
are not linear because of the nonlinearity of the normalized membership
functions wi(x) and wj(x). This leads us to the conclusion that asymptotic
stability of the closed system can be guaranteed only locally, i.e., around
each nominal state, and cannot be inferred elsewhere.
10.5.1 Conditions for closed system stability

The conditions for stability of the Takagi-Sugeno model-based fuzzy
controller can be stated as follows:
he closed system (10.15) is asymptotically stable and stabilizable at the origin x=0, if and only if
1. the matrix Aij is Hurwitz, i.e., all its eigenvalues possess
negative real parts and
2. there exists a positive definite matrix P such that
Aij T P + PAij < 0 i,j
(10.17)
.
Even though these stability conditions are necessary and sufficient, it is very difficult to determine a suitable positive definite matrix
P. Furthermore, if the matrix ij is not Hurwitz then a matrix P which
satisfies Equation (10.17) does not exist and this technique is not applicable.
10.6 The Second Takagi-Sugeno Approach

To overcome these limitations, Takagi and Sugeno proposed a second
approach that follows the one already outlined in principle, but differs in
the formulation of the fuzzy rules. Thus the rule which defines the fuzzy
open loop model is modified to:
145
Rsi: IF xd=xi THEN x i = f i ( x i , u i )

(10.18)
d
where x is the desired state of the process. The modified model-based
fuzzy control approach determines which fuzzy region the desired state
of the process belongs to before deciding what control law to follow. It
is noted that the desired state need not be stationary but may change continuously without the need to re-compute the control law.
The desired state xd and the control law ud are the result of solving the steady state equations:
fi (xd ,u d ) = 0
Assuming that the desired state xd is constant or varies very

slowly with time so that x d 0, the nonlinear system can then be linearized about (xd,ud) to yield:
x = A d ( x x d ) + B d (u u d )
(10.19)
which are linear state equations involving the state and control input deviations from their nominal states xd and ud respectively, while
A d = A( x d , u d ) =
f i ( x, u )
x
x = x d ,u = u d
f i ( x, u )
u
x = x d ,u = u d
and
B d = B( x d , u d ) =
The modified technique has the following limitations that may

make application difficult:
it is valid only for small deviations in the state and input vectors from their nominal values and
for every change in the nominal state, the rules by which decisions are made must be changed and the linearization procedure repeated.
146
Chapter 10
10.7 Fuzzy Gain-Scheduling

Gain-scheduling is a well-known technique of conventional industrial
control that is used when the plant is subject to changes in its operating
state. Here the gains of the controller are varied in accordance with some
exogenous variable. A typical example is aircraft control: as the altitude
of the aircraft increases the influence of the control surfaces decreases
due to the thinner air. This in turn requires a greater control action to
achieve a particular result. If altitude (as measured by an altimeter) is
therefore used as the exogenous variable to adjust the controller gains at
given altitudes, then the controlling effect can scheduled to be essentially
the same whatever the altitude. The adjustments to the controller gains
are step-wise, resulting in bumpy control when the adjustments are effected. Automatic transmission in vehicles is another well-known example. The distinct changes in the gear ratios while accelerating are a cause
of jerky motion is undesirable. To avoid these sudden changes some
manufacturers offer infinitely variable ratio transmissions that lead to
smooth motion.
Refering to the problem described in the previous section, if it
were possible to generate a set D of known nominal states xi, for which a
corresponding set S of linearized process models is computed, then fuzzy
gain-scheduling can offer distinct advantages. In this scheme, the transition from one nominal state to another is smooth since the system parameters can be made to vary smoothly along the trajectory. These two
sets are clearly invariant with changes in the nominal states. For any
nominal state that does not belong to the set D, an approximating model
can be derived from models belonging to the set without recourse to linearization.
For each nominal state xd the locally linearized model is stored in
the model base S while the corresponding control law is stored in the
control law base U. The nominal states xi in the nominal states base D
can be conveniently chosen to be at the centers of the fuzzy regions X,
i.e., the states xiXi at which:
147
LX i ( x i ) = min(1,1,...,1) = 1.
Thus at the centers of each fuzzy region, the linearized system in
the consequents of the fuzzy rules are given by Equation (10.19) with xi
in place of xd. The set of rules which describe the fuzzy open-loop model
reduce to:
RSj: IF xd=Xi THEN x i =Ai(x-xd)+Bi(u- ud)
(10.20)
and the control law rules are defined by:
RCj: IF xd=Xj THEN u=Kj(x-xd)+ud
(10.21)
Where the gain matrix K(xj,uj) is computed on the basis of the

linearized closed system defined in the corresponding fuzzy region Lj.
The fuzzy open loop model is now specified in terms of the deviations of
the state and control actions from the nominal values, i.e.:
x = w i ( x d ) A i ( x x d ) + B i (u u d )
(10.22)
The overall control law is now given by:
u = w j (x d ) K * (x x d ) + u d
(10.23)
It is observed that both the closed system model and the control
law are linear since the normalized membership functions wi(xd) and
wj(xd) are constants less than unity. As in the previous case, the closed
system is now given by:
x = w i ( x d ) w j ( x d ) A i + B i K j ( x x d )
i
It follows that
w (x
i
Here
) = w j ( x d ) = wi ( x d ) w j ( x d ) = 1
j
(10.24)
Chapter 10
148
Ad = wi ( x d ) Ai ; B d = wi ( x d ) B i
i
and
K d = w j ( xd )K j
j
In an analogous way
x = A d ( x x d ) + B d (u u d )
and
u = K d (x xd ) + u d
The overall closed system is stable at the nominal state xd if and
only if:
Re{m ( A*)} < 0 m = 1,2,..., n

where m are the eigenvalues of the matrix
A*=d+BdKd.
If these conditions hold, then we can state the following:
The fuzzy gain-scheduled closed system (10.24) is asymptotically stable if and only if positive definite matrices and
Q exist such that
A *T P + PA* = Q
(10.25)
In summary, the advantages of the second Takagi-Sugeno approach are:
the approach leads to linear descriptions of the open and

closed system descriptions and the desired control law,
149
computation of the control law and the conditions for stability are well established and
the determination of the matrix is almost always possible.
The second Takagi-Sugeno technique combines the simplicity of
heuristic fuzzy logic with rigorous hard control techniques and offers the
possibility of specifying the desired closed system response as well as
the conditions for stability. It suffers, however, from the fact that an explicit analytical model of the process must be known.
Example 10.1 Fuzzy gain-scheduling of a

simple process
The second Takagi-Sugeno approach is illustrated by way of an example for fuzzy gain-scheduling. Aircraft exhibit dynamic characteristics
which vary significantly with altitude: if a controller is tuned at low altitudes then control performance is grossly degraded with altitude due
to the thinning air. Thus gain-scheduling is resorted to in order to adapt
the parameters of the controller with altitude. The example presented
here assumes a linearized scalar model of the dynamics of the aircraft
or plant. The explicit model of the plant is assumed known at ground
level xd=0 and at some other specified altitude xd=1. The process rules
are assumed, for simplicity, to be:
R0: IF xd=0 THEN x = f 1 ( x, u) = 0.5 x + 0.5u (a)
R1: IF xd=1 THEN x = f 2 ( x, u) = x + 2u
(b)
At low altitude, case (a), the dynamics of the plant are slow with a normalized time constant of T=2 whereas at high altitude in case (b), the
150
Chapter 10
response of the plant is faster, with a time constant T=0.5 and is considerably more sensitive to control actions. The corresponding step responses are shown in Figure 10.2.
(b)
(a)
Figure 10.2 Step responses of the plant at the two altitudes

The transition of the dynamics of the plant with altitude is assumed to
vary smoothly. Consider the use of a fuzzy gain-scheduling controller
whose control rules are as follows:
R0: IF xd=0 THEN u1 = g1(x,xd)= k1(x-xd)
R1: IF xd=1 THEN u2 = g2(x,xd)= k2(x-xd)
In order to obtain the desired closed system response at both altitude extremes, the state feedback gains k1=0.6, k2=0.4 are selected so
that the eigenvalue of the closed system is at (-0.2,0) in both cases.
To simplify the analysis, let the fuzzy membership functions
shown in Figure 10.3 indicate how the transition of the dynamics of the
plant follows the altitude. It is clear that at very low altitudes the
mathematical model of the plant is predominantly of type (a) but as altitude increases the type (a) model increasingly fades into type (b) until
x=xd at which the model is entirely type (b).
151
Chapter 10
152
Figure 10.3 Fuzzy sets of gain-scheduling

The gain-scheduling fuzzy sets can be described by the expressions 1(x)=1-x and 2(x)=x. It is noted that 1+2=1x. The overall
fuzzy process model is therefore given by the weighted sum:
x = w1 (0.5( x x d ) + 0.5u ) + w2 (( x x d ) + 2u )
where w1 and w2 are the normalized membership functions:

wi =
i
= i
1 + 2
The overall fuzzy control law is therefore the weighted sum:

u = 0.6 w1 ( x x d ) + 0.4 w2 ( x x d )
The fuzzy gain-scheduling controller provides the control actions

to force the closed system to follow the desired response for all values
of altitude. The response of the closed system to a very large step demand in altitude from x=0 to x=xd=1 is shown in Figure 10.4(b). Figure 10.4(a) shows for comparison, the response of an invariant system
governed by:
x = 0.2 x + 0.2u
(a)
(b)
Figure 10.4 Responses of (a) an invariant system with the desired

dynamic characteristics and (b) the fuzzy gain-scheduled plant
Since the closed system with the fuzzy gain scheduler is clearly nonlinear, it would be unreasonable to expect the two responses shown in
Figure 10.3 to be the same. It is noted that in the proximity of x=0 and
x=xd the response of the closed system approaches the response of the
invariant system, as desired.
153
Chapter 11
Neural Control
The emulation of human cognitive ability is one of the primary fields of
research interest in Computational Intelligence. The human is nowhere
near as fast or as accurate in calculating as a modern computer, yet even
at a very early age one can easily recognize objects and relate them in
their natural environment even if they are distorted or partially hidden.
Exactly the opposite is true with computers they are far more capable
than humans in performing tedious tasks that involve extensive numerical computations yet they have difficulty performing cognitive tasks despite the impressive progress made in Artificial Intelligence.
The ability to learn through experience is one of the principal
characteristics of humans. Humans have the capacity to store huge quantities and types of information, recall this data and process it in a very
short time with little difficulty. One possible explanation for this superiority is the lack of suitable computer software to emulate the humans
ability to process information. A second explanation is the fact that the
human brain and computers work in radically different ways, the brain
being much more efficient at processing information. The human brain is
extremely powerful, comprising a huge number (of the order of 109) of
simple processing elements or neurons, each one of which is capable of
communicating with the others. This is massive parallelism and it is interesting that modern computer designs are increasingly following this
architecture.
154
Chapter 11
The neurons of an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) are arranged in such a manner as to process information in parallel and simultaneously. Each neuron sends activation or de-activation signals to other
neurons while its activation depends on signals received from other neurons to which it is connected. The term synapses is commonly used for
153
these connections. Suitable interconnection of these simple elements can
yield powerful networks with the ability to learn, adapt and infer. The
use of artificial neural networks is sometimes known as connectionism
and ANNs can therefore be viewed as generalized connectionist machines or generalized function mappers.
Since their re-emergence in the early 1980s, there has been an
explosion of interest in the application of ANNs for qualitative reasoning, which is at the core of the fields of Soft Computing and Intelligent
Systems. This interest has been encouraged by the increasing availability
of powerful parallel computing platforms capable of very high computational speeds and parallel programming techniques. Multi-layer ANNs
are finding use in an ever-increasing range of applications, from image
recognition, voice analysis and synthesis to system identification and industrial control. This chapter, and those that follow, present the most
commonly used ANN architectures that have found application in Control Engineering, the basic network-learning algorithms and examples of
industrial applications.
The origins of ANNs are to be found some fifty years ago in the
work of McCulloch and Pitts. The first contribution in the area of network learning was due to Hebb in 1949 who showed that learning in
complex networks can be achieved by adapting the strengths of the synapses. Rosenblatt introduced the Perceptron, an early form of neuron, in
the late 1950s.
The operation of multi-layer ANNs was not fully understood in
those early days and research was restricted to structured perceptrons.
Nilsson followed in the mid-1960s with learning machines and machines that were made up of clusters of threshold logic units. In 1969
Minsky and Papert published their seminal work on Perceptrons, in
which they proved that Perceptrons are limited in their ability to learn,
pointing to their inability to represent a simple R logic element. This
work was to dampen the enthusiasm in ANNs and research in the field
was virtually paralyzed for almost a decade.
Fortunately, ANNs re-emerged in the early 1980s due mainly to
the work of Hopfield who continued his research on network training
Neural Control
155
methods. New ANN architectures and powerful learning algorithms were

introduced in the field in the mid-1980s rekindling interest in ANNs and
their application.
The rapid progress in very large-scale integrated circuitry (VLSI)
and parallel computers aided the developments in ANNs and today the
field of neural networks constitutes a thriving area of research and development. In a very comprehensive paper, Hunt et al. in 1992 (see the
Bibliography in chapter 18) presented a host of applications of neural
networks in Control Engineering and the reader is well advised to refer
to this work. The properties that make ANNs particularly applicable to
control applications are the following:
being non-linear by nature, they are eminently suited to the

control of non-linear plants,
they are directly applicable to multi-variable control,
they are inherently fault tolerant due to their parallel structure,
faced with new situations, they have the ability to generalize and
extrapolate.
These properties satisfy the fundamental requirements for their use in Intelligent Control. Neural controllers and fuzzy controllers, thus constitute
the core of intelligent control.
An ANN is essentially a cluster of suitably interconnected nonlinear elements of very simple form that possess the ability of learning
and adaptation. These networks are characterized by their topology, the
way in which they communicate with their environment, the manner in
which they are trained and their ability to process information. ANNs are
classified as:
static when they do not contain any memory elements and their
input-output relationship is some non-linear instantaneous function, or
dynamic when they involve memory elements and whose behavior is the solution of some differential equation
Chapter 11
156
11.1 The Elemental Artificial Neuron

ANNs are constructed from elemental artificial neurons (which vaguely
approximate physical neurons) that are suitably interconnected via
branches. The synaptic weights are the gains or multipliers of these
branches and uniquely specify the input-output transfer function (functional relationship or mapping) of the neural network. The synaptic
weights of an untrained network are initially unknown and are determined following training using some network training law which aims at
minimizing some measure of the error between the output of the network
and the desired output of the network.
A model of an elemental artificial neuron (also referred to as a
node) is shown in Figure 11.1. A static neuron has a summer or linear
combiner, whose output is the weighted sum of its inputs, i.e.:
= w1 x1 + w2 x 2 + ....wn x n + b
where w and x are the synaptic weight and input vectors of the neuron
respectively, while b is the bias or offset. A positive synaptic weight implies activation, whereas a negative weight implies de-activation of the
input. The absolute value of the synaptic weight defines the strength of
the connection. The weighted sum activates a distorting (or compression) element f(i). One form that this element can take is the threshold
logic unit, in which the output of the neuron is triggered when the inner
product <w,x> exceeds the bias b. There are many variations of the nonlinear distorting element, the most common of which are
1) Linear (ADALINE):
f()=
2) Binary (Threshold Logic Unit or TLU):
f() = 1 if >0
= 0 if 0
Neural Control
157
3) Sigmoid:
f( ) =
1
[0,1]
1 + e
4) Hyperbolic tangent:
f ( ) =
1 e
=(1+tanh) [-1,1]
1 + e
5) Perceptron:
f() = if >0
=0 if 0
x1
w1
x2
y
f()
w2
xn
wn
b
Figure 11.1 The elemental artificial neuron or node
The input to the compression element may take on either of the following forms, depending on whether the neuron is static or dynamic:
weighted sum (for the case of static memoryless neurons):
Chapter 11
158
w x
i
i =1
+ b=
n+1
w x
i
; x n+1 = 1, b = wn+1
i =1
accumulated output (for the case of dynamic neurons with

memory):
n +1
( k ) = ( k 1) + wi x i ( k )
i =1
Here k is the time index and it is necessary to store the previous

value of the weighted sum (k-1).
11.2 Topologies of Multi-layer Neural

Networks
As noted earlier, ANNs are clusters of neurons structured hierarchically
in a multiplicity of layers. The neurons of a network, depicted as circles
in Figures 11.2 and 11.3, are normally structured in layers, resulting in
multi-layered ANNs. The input layer of the network is at the lowest
layer of the hierarchy while the highest layer corresponds to the output
layer and yields the output of the network.
Feed-forward ANNs are networks where information flows successively from the lowest to the highest layers of the network and no
feedback is involved. Figure 11.2 shows an example of a multi-layered
ANN belonging to this class. It is observed that the internal or hidden
layers of the network communicate with the environment only through
the input and output layers. Though an ANN may, in principle, have any
number of hidden layers, it has been proved that one hidden layer suffices to generate any arbitrary mapping between inputs and outputs.
Depending on the manner in which the various neurons in the network are connected, i.e., the network topology or network architecture,
the following constitute the principal classes of ANNs:
Hopfield recurrent network where the nodes of one layer interact with nodes of the same, lower and higher layers,
Neural Control
159
feed-forward networks in which information flows from the

lowest to the highest layers,
feedback networks in which information from any node can return to this node through some closed path, including that from
the output layer to the input layer and
symmetric auto-associative networks whose connections and
synaptic weights are symmetric.
Outputs
Output
Layer
Hidden
Layer
Input
Layer
Inputs
Figure 11.2 Feed-forward network
Figure 11.2 shows an example of a multi-layer feed-forward ANN

involving an input layer, a single hidden layer and an output layer. This
is a very common feed-forward network topology. Figure 11.3 shows a
single-layered Hopfield network, which involves feedback. In contrast to
feed-forward networks, every node of a Hopfield network is connected
to all others. These ANNs can be useful in Soft Control because they
possess the following three properties: they
160
Chapter 11
can learn from experience rather than programming,

have the ability to generalize,
can generate arbitrary non-linear input-output mappings and
are distributed and inherently parallel.
Outputs
Buses
Inputs
Figure 11.3 Hopfield network with feedback
11.3 Neural Control

In order to compare any unconventional control method with conventional methods it is necessary to enumerate the basic characteristics of
each method and to specify a measure of comparison. Thus neural control:
is directly applicable to non-linear systems because of their
ability to map any arbitrary transfer function,
has a parallel structure thereby permitting high computational
speeds. The parallel structure implies that neural controllers
have a much higher reliability and fault tolerance than conventional controllers,
Neural Control
161
can be trained from prior operational data and can generalize

when subjected to causes that they were not trained with, and
have the inherent ability to process multiple inputs and generate multiple outputs simultaneously, making them ideal for
multivariable intelligent control.
From the control viewpoint, the ability of neural networks to
cope with non-linear phenomena is particularly significant. As is well
known, there is no unified theory of non-linear control and there exists a
host of scattered techniques capable of giving solutions only to specific
cases. ANNs can therefore be used to advantage in the design of nonlinear controllers for nonlinear plants, particularly since the design is the
result of learning.
11.4 Properties of Neural Controllers

Modern intelligent control systems are capable of some degree of autonomy and the fusion of modern control techniques and Computational Intelligence assures them increased efficiency in changing, vague and uncertain environments. The ultimate objective is: autonomous intelligent
systems capable of understanding and adapting to the changes in both the
operating conditions and the environment in order to consistently maximize performance. There are many situations where autonomous intelligent systems are considered essential, typically in cases of high danger
such as in nuclear reactor and armament inspection, space and underwater exploration where intelligent robots are already playing their part.
This objective is feasible using the techniques of Computational Intelligence.
Both man and machine can control an industrial plant. There is,
however, a fundamental difference in the manner in which they do so.
Man processes large and seemingly disparate quantities of stimuli compared to machines whose stimuli are usually highly limited. The reason
for this is not so much the absence of sensors but the manner in which
these stimuli are processed. Humans have an inherent ability to process
massive quantities of data quickly and efficiently, sorting what is relevant and ignoring what is not while fusing information from a variety of
sources before arriving at a conclusion. Machines do not have this ability
and it is uncertain whether they will in the foreseeable future.
Chapter 11
162
Finally, neural networks have the following properties that make

them particularly useful for control: they
possess a collective processing ability,

are inherently adaptable,
are easily implemented,
achieve their behavior following training,
can be used for plants that are non-linear and multivariable,
can process large numbers of inputs and outputs making them
suitable for multi-variable control,
are relatively immune to noise,
are very fast in computing the desired control action due to
their parallel nature and do not require an explicit model of the
controlled process.
11.5 Neural Controller Architectures

Widrow and Smith demonstrated the first application of a neural network
in Control in the mid-1960s. They used a single ADALINE (ADaptive
LInear NEuron) to control an inverted pendulum and showed that this
elementary trainable controller was just as effective as a conventional
controller after being trained.
The increasing demands for improved productivity, product
quality and plant efficiency coupled with the increasing complexity of
industrial plants have led inevitably to a search for more advanced control techniques. Since the late 1980s, significant activity in the use of
ANNs for identification and control of systems has been observed. Their
ease of use, their inherent reliability and fault tolerance, has made ANNs
a viable medium for control. Many architectures for the control of plants
with ANNs have been proposed since the mid-1980s and the subject still
presents considerable interest, not only in research but also practice. An
alternative to fuzzy controllers in many cases, neural controllers share
the need to replace hard controllers with intelligent controllers in order to
increase control quality.
The problem of macroscopic identification of physical plants
from normal operational data using multi-layer ANNs reduces to one of
finding a dynamic functional relationship between the plant inputs and
Neural Control
163
outputs. The method is well established and is not limited to linear approximants. By way of example, consider the case of a SISO discretetime system that is to be identified by the ANN shown in Figure 11.4.
The input to the ANN is fed from the input to the physical plant. If, following training, the output of the ANN is identical to that of the plant
then we say that the plant has been exactly identified. In practice, perfect
identification is unlikely and the plant can be identified only approximately. The fidelity of the approximation depends on the complexity of
the network and is directly related to the order of the neural network and
the number of past samples of the input that are used.
ANN
Delayor
Dx
D 2x
y
D nx
Figure 11.4 Multi-layer dynamic neural network model of a SISO plant
By placing a series of n delayors D (i.e., elements that delay the

signal one sample period) in series as shown in Figure 11.4, in effect a
tapped delay line, we obtain the input signal x(k) and n delayed versions
of it x(k-1), x(k-2) x(k-n). The n delayed signals from the transversal
delay line are then fed to a multi-layer ANN that generates the scalar signal y. This signal is then compared with the desired signal d from the
physical plant. The object of identification is to minimize some measure
of the difference (dy), by suitably adjusting (i.e., network training) the
Chapter 11
164
synaptic weights of the ANN. As will be seen in the following, a similar

technique is used for the control of plants using ANNs.
11.5.1 Inverse model architecture

The success of the back-propagation training algorithm for multi-layer
neural networks, which is presented in some detail in the next chapter,
was instrumental in opening the gates to a flood of applications of ANNs
for control.
u
Neural
Controller
y
Plant
Figure 11.5 Inverse model structure
A neural controller that has found use in practice due to its simplicity uses an inverse model of the plant. The method has much in
common with conventional auto-tuning. During the training phase of the
ANN, which is performed off-line with known training sets, the objective is to establish the inverse relationship P-1 between the output(s) and
the input(s) of the physical plant, in effect the inverse transfer function if
the plant is linear. Thus if the physical plant is characterized by the mapping y=P(u), then following training the ANN will ideally generate the
inverse mapping u=P-1(y) so that the overall relationship between the
input and the output of the closed controlled system is unity, i.e., perfect
tracking! In keeping with accepted symbolism the output of the neural
Neural Control
165
controller, now the control signal to the plant has been renamed u
whereas y refers to the plant output. Network training is based on some
measure of the open system error between the desired and the actual outputs eo=d-y of the closed system. A flow diagram of the method is
shown in Figure 11.5.
It should be obvious that the very simplicity of the method is
questionable. In theory the method should work but in practice it may
not, because identification of an inverse mapping can never be exact, in
which case the overall transfer relationship of the system is not unity. In
order to work, even partially, the method requires repeated identification
at regular intervals, a fact that makes the method impractical for most industrial applications.
eC
u
Controller
y
Plant
Figure 11.6 Specialized training architecture
11.5.2 Specialized training architecture

The lack of robustness of the previous architecture can be compensated
for by using what has been referred to as the specialized training architecture. The flow diagram of this architecture is shown in Figure 11.6 in
which the closed system error becomes the driving force. In this architecture, the ANN is placed in series with the plant, as in the previous case,
but within the closed loop. The result is increased robustness coupled
with the advantages of conventional feedback, since training is now
based on some measure of the closed system error ec=d-y. Training is
Chapter 11
166
considerably more difficult, however, with this structure, due to the feedback action.
11.5.3 Indirect learning architecture

The indirect training architecture is more complicated than either
of the preceding methods since it involves not one but two dynamic
ANNs and its training is considerably more difficult. Here, one ANN is
trained to model the physical plant following identification while the
second ANN performs the controlling task using a feed-forward network.
Both ANNs are trained on-line from normal operating records. A flow
diagram of the architecture is shown in Figure 11.7.
Plant
Model
y*
e*
d
u
Controller
y
Plant
Figure 11.7 Indirect learning architecture
During the training phase, the simulator ANN learns the functional relationship between input(s) and output(s) (i.e., the transfer function) of the physical plant. This is the identification phase, which is
based on some measure of the error between the output of the plant and
that of the plant model simulator ANN, i.e., e*=y-y*.
Neural Control
167
Training can be either off-line or on-line with random or pseudorandom signals. Simultaneously, the overall error e=d-y is used to train
the controller ANN. The advantage of this architecture is that it presents
easier training of the controller ANN on-line since the error can be
propagated backwards through the simulator ANN at every sampling instant.
Chapter 12
Neural Network Training

Heuristic knowledge on how to control a plant can be used to train an artificial neural network provided this knowledge is suitably encoded. The
resultant neural controller is thus simply an ANN whose synaptic
weights are trained with this encoded knowledge using an appropriate
training algorithm. Network training is basic to establishing the functional relationship between the inputs and the outputs of any neural network and considerable effort has been spent on finding faster and more
efficient training algorithms which will reduce the time required to train
a network. There are two basic classes of network training:
supervised learning that involves an external source of
knowledge about the system or
unsupervised learning that involves no external source of
knowledge and learning relies on local information and
internal data.
In the case of supervised learning, the desired outputs of the network for every given input condition are specified and the network
learns the appropriate functional relationship between them following
repeated application of training sets of input-output pairs. The popular
back-propagation algorithm, which is used in many applications, belongs to this class. This algorithm gets its name from the fact that the
synaptic weights of a multi-layer network are adapted iteratively by
169
Chapter 12
170
propagating some measure of the error between the desired and actual
output of the network from its output back to its input.
In the case of unsupervised learning, no information on the desired output of the network that corresponds to a particular input is available. Here, the network is auto-associative, learning to respond to the
different inputs in different ways. Typical applications of this class are
feature detection and data clustering. Hebbs algorithm and competitive
learning are two examples of unsupervised learning algorithms. A wide
range of network topologies such as those due to Hopfield, Hamming
and Boltzmann, also use the same method of learning. In general, these
networks, with their ability to generate arbitrary mappings between their
inputs and outputs, are used as associative memories and classifiers.
12.1 The Widrow-Hoff Training

Algorithm
A basic adaptive element is the ADAptive LInear NEuron (ADALINE)
that was introduced by Widrow and Hoff in the 1960s. This element has
a linear input-output relationship. The element is useful in introducing
the fundamental concepts of network training. Clusters of ADALINES
can be assembled into complex networks termed MADALINES (for
Multiple ADALINEs) which were used in early classifiers and Learning
Machines. Network training can be conveniently explained by considering first how the synaptic weights of a single ADALINE may be adapted
to generate a given functional relationship between its inputs and its outputs. It will be seen that the same principle can be used for adapting
nonlinear neurons and finally, multi-layer ANNs.
A single neuron with inputs:
x = {x1, x2 xn, xn+1} ; xn+1=b
which, weighted by an array of synaptic weights:
w = {w1, w2 wn, wn+1} ; wn+1=1
results in the weighted sum:
171
= {w1 x1 + w2 x2 + wnxn + wn+1xn+1} = <w,x>

An ADALINE has a linear functional relationship given by
f()= and can be trained by adapting its synaptic weights provided the
desired output d is known. Training is based on some measure of the discrepancy or error e=d-y between the desired and actual output of the
element.
Widrow and Hoff presented the first successful training algorithm for ADALINES in the 1960s. They named their training procedure
the LMS algorithm (for Least Mean Squares), using the squared error for
each training set as the objective function, i.e.
J=
2
i
i =1
which is computed for all the elements of the training set. We seek the
values of the synaptic weights that minimize the objective function. The
inputs to the ADALINE may be either binary or real, whereas the values
of the synaptic weights are always real and may be positive or negative,
signifying activation and de-activation respectively. In terms of the inputs and the synaptic weights of the element, the error is:
e = d - <w,x>
where <w,x> is the inner product of the synaptic weight vector and the
input vector and thus the squared error is:
e2 = d2 2d<w,x> + <w,<x,x>w>
whose expected value is:
E(e2) = E(d2) - 2E(d<w,x>) + E(<w,<x,x>w>)

The partial derivative of the expected value with respect to the synaptic
weights is:
172
Chapter 12
E ( e 2 )
= -2p + 2Rw
w
(12.1)
where
p = E(dx) and R = E(<x,x>)

R is the power of the input signal while p is the expectation of the product of the desired output and the input vector. Setting the partial derivative in Equation 12.1 to zero yields the optimum synaptic weight vector:
w* = R-1p
which is known as the Wiener solution. If the matrix R and the vector p
are known explicitly then the optimum synaptic weight vector w* can be
computed directly. In practice, however, R and p are not known and the
Wiener solution unfortunately cannot be used.
Widrow and Hoff observed that using the partial derivative of
the squared instantaneous error
= ek
k
w
2
instead of its expectation, made little difference to the final result. This
observation simplified network training significantly since the squared
error sensitivity could now be expressed in terms of the synaptic weights
and the error directly, i.e.,
= 2e ek = 2e (d < w , x >) = 2e w
k
k
k
k
k k
k k
wk
wk
The Widrow-Hoff algorithm can be expressed as the iteration:
~
wk +1 = wk + wk = wk k = wk + 2e k x k
(12.2)
where is some positive constant that defines the rate of convergence of

the algorithm. This expression shows how the synaptic weights at the
173
following iteration of the training procedure must be adapted. The search

direction that must be followed is dependent on the sign of the gradient:
thus if the gradient is negative then clearly the search trajectory is tending towards some minimum. The algorithm is initialized with arbitrary
initial synaptic weigh vector w0 and a new training set is applied to the
element. The iteration is terminated once the squared error in that iteration falls below some acceptable value. At each iteration the change in
the error is
ek = (dk - <wk ,xk>) = -<xk ,wk>

and using the fact that the change in the synaptic weight is
wk = 2ek xk
it follows that
ek = -2<xk ,xk>ek = - ek
This means that the error is reduced by a factor of at each iteration. This factor thus plays a major role in the stability of convergence
of the algorithm and must lie in the range 0<<2. In practice values of
in the range of 0.1<<1 are preferred. Too small a value of leads to
very slow convergence while a large value leads to oscillations and ultimately instability.
The Widrow-Hoff training algorithm has the advantage of simplicity but is plagued by slow convergence. Training algorithms are the
subject of considerable research and algorithms with vastly increased
training rates have been developed. The back-propagation algorithm,
which was the major breakthrough that opened up the field of ANN, is
one of the most popular, though by no means the fastest or most reliable.
This algorithm is presented later in this chapter.
12.2 The Delta Training Algorithm

The original Widrow-Hoff algorithm must be modified when the neural
element contains a nonlinear element. However, in order to develop a
systematic training procedure for the general case, it is necessary to place
174
Chapter 12
certain restrictions on the non-linear element. As will be seen below, the

fundamental condition on the non-linear element is that it must be uniformly differentiable, i.e., the non-linearity must not exhibit discontinuities.
Given a neuron with =<w,x>, output y=f() and error e=d-y,
the error sensitivity is given by the partial derivative:
e
y
f ( ) f ( )
= =
=
= g( )x
w w
w
w
It is obvious that for the error sensitivity to exist everywhere, it
is necessary that the gradient of the nonlinear function g() = f() exist
for all values of . This implies that the nonlinear function must be differentiable or smooth. In the special case of a linear neuron clearly
g()=1.
The development of the Delta algorithm follows that of the Widrow-Hoff algorithm closely. Here, the squared error sensitivity is
ek
ek2
f
f
~
= 2e
= 2ek
= 2ek
k =
w k
wk
wk
= 2ek g k xk
w k
which shows how the gradient g of the nonlinear function f enters the
training algorithm. This expression is very similar to that of the WidrowHoff algorithm except that an additional term has been added.
The Delta training algorithm is given by the iteration
~
wk +1 = wk + wk = wk k = w k + 2e k g k x k
(12.3)
In order to accelerate convergence, it is possible to vary the

value of according to the progress achieved in training. Thus, at each
iteration, for example, the value of may be made a function of the norm
of the change in the synaptic weights. If the rate of change of the norm
of the synaptic weights drops below some pre-specified lower limit, then
the value of is doubled whereas if the error norm rises above some upper pre-specified limit then the value of is halved. This is perhaps the
simplest possible approach to adapting the value of the multiplier , and
much more sophisticated ways are available but are beyond the scope of
this book.
175
12.3 Multi-layer ANN Training Algorithms

The training algorithm for a single nonlinear neuron is straightforward
and is a variation of the original Widrow-Hoff algorithm. A multi-layer
ANN comprises an input layer, a hidden layer and an output layer, each
of which involves many nonlinear neurons. Indeed some ANNs used in
pattern recognition, speech analysis and synthesis involve thousands of
neurons. Often one or more of the layers of an ANN involves linear neurons. Unfortunately, however, there is no way to know a priori how
many neurons are required in each layer with which to generate a specified input-output mapping. At this time, the choice is arbitrary and a
matter of experimentation. Training is performed first for a given number of neurons, the number is then reduced and the ANN is re-trained.
The number of neurons is further reduced at each successive training
session until the measure of the error starts to increase.
For control applications, it is essential that the size of the ANN
in the neural controller be limited both in the number of layers and the
number of neurons per layer. Fortunately, minimal neural networks involving an input layer, a single hidden layer and an output layer, with a
total of less than 10 nodes have proved quite successful in practical neural controllers. This small size implies fast training and re-training
should the circumstances require this.
The problem of supervised learning of a complex multi-layer
ANN must be viewed as an iterative algorithm for systematically minimizing some measure of the discrepancy between the inputs and outputs
of the network by adapting the synaptic weights and biases in each layer
of the network. The structure of the iterative training algorithm for
adapting the synaptic weights of the network is shown in Figure 12.1.
The basic training algorithm for a multi-layer ANN is a variation of the
Delta algorithm for a single neuron. In this case vectors are replaced by
matrices whose dimensions depend on the layer number and the number
of neurons in each layer. In the next section back-propagation, the most
popular network-training algorithm is presented.
Chapter 12
176
12.4 The Back-propagation (BP) Algorithm

A multi-layer neural network is characterized by the number of neurons
it possesses in each layer. Thus, for instance, a 30-50-10 ANN has 30
neurons in the input layer, 50 in the second or hidden layer and 10 neurons in the output layer.
An analysis of the back-propagation algorithm is presented below in simplified form so that it can be easily understood. Generalization
of the algorithm to multi-layered ANNs with many neurons is relatively
straightforward but requires multiple indices on the various synaptic
weight vectors for each layer being considered. In order to avoid unnecessary complications we will consider a simple 2-2-1 ANN involving
two neurons in the input layer, two in the hidden layer and one in the
output layer. This minimal ANN has, incidentally, been used successfully in a neural controller for a large mill used for pulverizing coal for a
cement kiln as well as a controller for a finish cutting lathe.
w
e
Training
Algorithm
Figure 12.1 The structure of the network training procedure
177
The signals at the inputs and outputs of the neurons of the first
layer are respectively:
1 = w11 x1 + w21 x 2 + w13 ; y 1 = f ( 1 )

2 = w12 x1 + w22 x 2 + w23 ; y 2 = f ( 2 )
while the weighted signal at the output of the second (output) layer is:
3=v1y1+v2y2+v3 ; y3=f(3)
The synaptic weights of the first layer are given by the vector w
and those of the second layer by the vector v. The error is
e = d - y3 = d - f(3)
1
w13
w11
x1
v1
w12
v2
w21
x2
v3
w22
w23
Figure 12.2 An example of a simple 2-2-1 ANN
y3
178
Chapter 12
The partial derivatives of the squared error with respect to the

synaptic weights in each layer therefore are
e 2
e
= 2e
; i = 1,2; j = 1,3
wij
wij
e 2
e
= 2e
; i = 1,3
vi
vi
Following the steps taken in developing the Delta training algorithm presented in the previous section, the synaptic weights of the first
layer must be adapted according to
Wk +1 = Wk + W k = Wk + 2 e k
e
W
where W={wij} and the weights of the output layer as
v k+1 = v k + v k = v k + 2k e k e
v
The training algorithm thus requires evaluation of the partial derivatives of the errors with respect to the synaptic weights of both layers,
i.e. the error sensitivities
e
e
and
W
v
Dropping the iteration index k to simplify notation, the chain rule is used
to derive the first three partial derivatives for the first layer, which are:
179
e
y
f ( 3 ) 3
f ( 3 ) 3 f ( 1 ) 1
= 3 =
=
= g ( 3 ) g ( 1 )v1 x1
w11
w11
3 w11
3 f ( 1 ) 1 w11
e
y
f ( 3 ) w3
f ( 3 ) 3 f ( 1 ) 1
= 3 =
=
= g ( 3 ) g ( 1 )v1 x2
w12
w12
3 w12
3 f ( 1 ) 1 w12
f ( 3 ) 3 f ( 1 ) 1
y
f ( 3 ) 3
e
=
= g ( 3 ) g ( 1 )v1
= 3 =
3 f ( 1 ) 1 w13
w13
w13
3 w13
The reader is encouraged to derive the remaining three partial

derivatives following the same procedure. It is noted that given the input-output relationship of the compression function analytically, the derivative g can be readily derived. Thus for the tanh non-linearity, used
very commonly as the distorting or compression function of the node:
f ( ) =
1 e
2
and g ( ) = f ' ( ) =
1+ e
(1 + e ) 2
In the same manner, the partial derivatives for the neuron in the
second layer are
e
y
f ( 3 ) 3
= 3 =
= g ( 3 ) y1
v1
v1
3 v1
e
y
f ( 3 ) 3
= 3 =
= g ( 3 ) y2
v2
v2
3 v2
e
y
f ( 3 ) 3
= 3 =
= g ( 3 )
v3
v3
3 v3
These expressions are especially simple if the propagation is
through one layer only. Thus given some random values for the synaptic
weights in all layers of the ANN and the known input vector, the first
pass is made during which the signals 1, 2, 3 are computed. Computation of the neuron outputs y1, y2, y3 then follows from which the various
nonlinear functions and their derivatives (f,g) are computed.
At every iteration of the algorithm, the corrections to the synaptic weight matrix Wk for the first layer and the weight vector vk for the
second layer are computed. These corrections are then added to the previous synaptic weights and the algorithm is repeated until convergence,
Chapter 12
180
defined as satisfaction of some error measure, is achieved, whereupon

the algorithm is terminated. It is obvious that for complex ANNs containing many layers and neurons in each layer, it may be necessary to
perform many thousands of iterations before convergence is achieved
and clearly computers with high computational speeds are essential.
Finally, it must be noted that the back-propagation algorithm,
though convenient and used extensively for training ANNs, is by no
means the fastest training algorithm. Many variations of this algorithm
have been developed by additional terms to the synaptic weight adaptation vector which take into account such factors as the momentum of
learning. This additional term results in a significant increase in the rate
of convergence of the training algorithm.
W0 v0
W v
1 2 y1 y2
Training
Algorithm
3 y3
First
layer
Second
Figure 12.3 Flow chart for the back-propagation algorithm for the 2-2-1 ANN
Chapter 13
Rule-Based Neural Control

eural controllers that can be trained from linguistic rules are a relatively new concept in Soft Control. As in the case of heuristic fuzzy controllers, it is expected that rule-based neural controllers will play their
part in furthering the diffusion of Computational Intelligence to Control
Engineering. As noted earlier, Soft Control is based on the knowledge
and experience of human operators who are trained to control a plant using linguistic rules of the classical IF (cause) THEN (effect) ELSE form.
In the previous chapters, methods were presented for processing heuristic
linguistic control rules of this form using Fuzzy Logic. In this chapter we
discuss a simple, yet effective, technique with which an artificial neural
network embedded in a neural controller can be trained from linguistic
rules. This technique can be considered as a special case of neuro-fuzzy
control that was examined in the previous chapter.
The neural networks used in control are either static, i.e., they
contain no elements with memory, or dynamic, containing delayors that
take account of the plants past history. Furthermore, these neural networks are characterized by the fact that they are small involving only a
small number of neurons and at most one hidden layer. Simplicity being
of essence in industrial controllers where high reliability and robustness
are of primary importance, it is not uncommon to find neural controllers
with as few as 10 neurons.
181
182
Chapter 13
13.1 Encoding Linguistic Rules

The training of a neural network is normally performed with a numerical
training set. There are numerous commercially available software packages from a number of vendors, notably MATLAB and its Neural Toolbox, Neural, Neuralware, etc., which make this task a relatively simple
matter. As control rules involving linguistic variables cannot be used directly for network training, it is therefore necessary to encode the linguistic rules into numerical form prior to using them in existing network
training packages. The problem reduces to one of finding a suitable mapping
T: R(L) R(Q)
that maps the linguistic (i.e., qualitative) rule set R(L) into a corresponding numerical (i.e., quantitative) training set R(Q). This procedure has
been proved very effective in training neural controllers for a number of
applications, from large-scale industrial plants to mechatronic systems
using even simple transformations.
The following simple example shows the procedure for transforming linguistic rules into numerical data. Defining the linguistic variables NL = Negative_Large, NSM = Negative_Small, OK =Normal,
PSM = Positive_Small, PL = Positive_Large then a one-to-one transformation of linguistic variables into their numerical equivalents defined in
the normalized range [-1,1] could be as follows:
[NL|NSM|OK|PSM|PL] [-1.0|-0.5|0|0.5|1.0]
This is an example of a linear mapping that follows human intuition. Non-linear mapping may be used when necessary to compensate for
any non-linear behavior of the plant being controlled. Thus a rule with
three input variables, INPUT_1, INPUT_2 and INPUT_3 and output
variable CONTROL_VARIABLE:
IF
INPUT_1 is Negative_Small
AND INPUT_2 is Positive_Small
AND INPUT_3 is OK
183
THEN
CONTROL_VARIABLE must be Positive_Large
will appear as the training string: [-0.5, 0.5, 0] [1]. This training
string can be used directly to form the training set of a neural network of
specified topology. The corresponding MATLAB Neural Toolbox statement is simply:
P=[-0.5
0.5
0.0]; inputs
while the corresponding output is specified by the statement:

T=[1.0] ; output
The training set is the collection of all the (P,T) pairs corresponding to
every linguistic rule in the rule base.
13.2 Training Rule-Based Neural

Controllers
The training of rule-based neural controllers of specified topology is performed off-line. The results of this training are the optimum values of the
synaptic weights and the biases of the neural network that yield the required control surface. These weights are subsequently downloaded to
the real-time version of the controller. Should it prove necessary to modify or add any rule then the network must be re-trained off line. Fortunately, small changes require very short training times since the network
parameters will be initialized with its previous known values rather than
entirely random values as in the case of a new controller.
In order to train the network it is necessary to map all the N linguistic rules contained in the rule base in accordance with the chosen
mapping. For the earlier example, the numerical strings for each rule
(i.e., the (P,T) pairs) are concatenated to form the training string:
P=[-1.0 -1.0
-0.5 -0.5
0
0.5
...] ;
-1.0;
0.5;
-0.5;
string of N triplets
184
Chapter 13
In a like manner, the corresponding output training set of a multi input single output neural controller can be stated as follows:
T=[0 0.5 -0.5 ...... -1.0] ; string of N corresponding
outputs
This training set is used to train the neural network, hundreds or

even thousands of times in random order until the synaptic weights converge. The initial estimates of the unknown synaptic weights are taken
randomly. At every epoch (i.e., iteration of the training algorithm), the
synaptic weights are updated in accordance with the training algorithm
used. The back-propagation algorithm (BP) is by far the most popular
training algorithm, though it often converges slowly, particularly when
the network contains many neurons and layers. Fortunately, in the majority of control applications neural controllers normally contain very few
neurons and training is fast. Learning is considered completed when
some measure of the error between the desired and actual outputs of the
network reaches some acceptable limit, or the number of epochs reach
some upper limit.
Example 13.1 Design of a rule-based

neural controller for a mechatronic
system
A schematic diagram of a mechatronic device involving a finish lathe is
shown in Figure 13.1. The cutting tool, on which a force sensor is
attached, is forced to follow a desired force on the object being turned on
the lathe. The quality of finish of the object is critically dependent on the
rate with which the metal is cut. It is important where a high quality
finish is required that the depth of cut be controlled with great accuracy.
In most existing cutting lathes this is achieved with conventional twoterm (PI) controllers. Here we will present how an unconventional
controller may be used with equal or better results.
185
The minimal neural network shown in Figure 13.2 will be used in

the neural controller. The network will be trained using linguistic rules.
The controller has two inputs: the error between desired and actual force
ek and the change in error Dek=ek-ek-1.
The incremental output of the network is Duk= F(gpek,gdDek) while
the output of the neural controller is simply:
uk= uk-1+Duk=uk-1+F(giek,gpDek)
Controller
Actuator
Force Sensor
Lathe
Figure 13.1 A force-cutting lathe
Finally, the output of the controller is weighted before being applied to the plant as:
ck=gc uk
The parameters gi, gp and gc are the normalizing gains of the
controller, necessary to convert the inputs to the controller into the range
[-1,1]. The value for gc=(ck/uk)max while the pair of controller parameters
(gi,gp) are tuned on-line or obtained in an identical manner to the ZieglerNichols method.
The linguistic control rules required to control the lathe cutting
process are shown in the form of the checkerboard pattern in the
linguistic rule matrix in Figure 13.3.
186
Chapter 13
{w}
e
{v}
De
Du
1
Figure 13.2 Minimal neural controller for the mechatronic system
Both the ERROR (e) and the CHANGE_OF_ERROR (De) are quantized into five elements (equal to the number of linguistic variables assigned to each controller input) over the normalized ranges [-1,1]. Here,
each controller input has been assigned seven linguistic variables and
consequently the Linguistic Rule Matrix (LRM) or Fuzzy Associative
Memory (FAM), contains 49 possible rules not every one of which is
specified. Typically some 20-30% of the possible elements of the FAM
are specified. In the example shown in Figure 13.3, the FAM contains 13
of the 49 possible rules.
De\e
NL
PL
OK
NM
NMS
OK
PMS
PM
PM
PL
PL
PM
PMS
OK
OK
NM
NMS
PMS
OK
NMS
PM
OK
NM
NL
NL
NM
OK
Figure 13.3 Linguistic Rule Matrix (LRM) or Fuzzy Associative Memory (FAM)
187
Here PL = Positive_large, PM = Positive_Medium, OK = Normal, NS =

Negative_Small, PS = Positive_Small, NM = Negative_Medium, PMS =
Positive_Medium_Small and NMS = Negative_Medium_Small.
If the linguistic variables for the inputs to the controller are assigned the following numerical values:
NM=-0.8. PM=0.8. OK=0. NS=-0.3. PS=0.3. NM=-0.8. PM=0.8
and the corresponding controller output:
NM=-1. PM=1. OK=0. NS=-0.35. PS=0.35. NM=-0.55. PM=0.55
then the numerical fuzzy associative memory (NFAM) matrix is shown in
Figure 13.4. The magnitude of the control variable is specified in the
darkened elements of the matrix. All other elements are left blank. The
neural network will perform the necessary interpolation.
+1
0
De
0
0.35
0
-0.55
-0.35
-1
+1
0.55
0.55
0
-0.55
-1
-1
0
Figure 13.4 Numerical FAM
+1 e
188
Chapter 13
The training set comprising 13 rules is given below:

Rule
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
e
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
-0.3
-0.3
-0.8
-0.8
-0.8
De
0.8
0
0.8
0.3
-0.3
0.8
0
-0.8
0.3
-0.3
0.8
0
-0.8
Du
1
0.55
0
0.35
0
0.55
0
-0.55
0
-0.35
0
-0.55
-1
The complete network training program in MATLAB is given in

Appendix D. On executing this program the following synaptic weights
are obtained:
w11= 0.7233
w12= 0.2674
w21= 1.0764 v1= 0.798 v2= 0.2237

w22= -0.9706
where wij are the synaptic weights of the first layer and vi the synaptic
weights of the second layer. The corresponding biases are:
b1=0.6312
b2=0.166
b3=-0.5403
Figure 13.5 shows the Network Learning Rate and the Network Error (i.e., the sum of squared errors) as functions of the number of epochs. It is noted that less than 100 epochs are required to bring about
conversion. This translates into a few seconds of computational time depending on the platform used.
The performance of the closed system with the neural controller
compares favorably with that of a conventional two-term controller in
Figure 13.6, proving that unconventional control can be as good as conventional control and often superior.
189
Network Error
8
6
4
2
0
0
20
40
60
Epoch
Network Learning Rate
80
100
80
100
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0
20
40
60
Epoch
Figure 13.5 Network Errors and Network Learning Rates

as functions of epochs
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
10
20
30
Time (second)
40
50
60
Figure 13.6 Comparison of step responses of the mechatronic system with the
conventional controller (continuous line) and the neural controller (crosses)
190
Chapter 13
Example 13.2 Rule-based neural control

of a coal mill
A schematic of a large vertical mill which is used to pulverize coal
which is fed to a rotary kiln producing clinker at one of Europes largest
cement manufacturers. This coal is injected into a rotary kiln where it
self-ignites. The kiln produces clinker which is the principal constituent
of cement (see also Example 9.2). Every cluster of cement kilns has one
or more adjoined coal mills that feed them with pulverized coal. The
coal mills normally operate discontinuously and on demand. When in
operation, a coal mill normally produces more pulverized coal than a
kiln can consume and thus an intermediate storage silo is used to store
excess production. When the level of coal in the silo drops below some
predetermined level, the coal mill is automatically started. Due to the
danger of fire because of the combustibility of the coal, special care
must be taken to maintain the coal mill environment inert. Conventional
multivariable controllers have not been successful in controlling this
process, a task normally left to human operators.
The process and the principal control and controlled variables are
shown in Figure 13.7. The operator manipulates three principal variables: the raw feed to the coal mill (FEED), the air feed to the mill
(HADR) and the pulverized coal returns (RDPR) and his decision is based
on measurements of the Differential Pressure in the mill (DP), the EXit
Temperature of the pulverized coal (EXT) and the Under-Pressure in the
mill (UP). The operator sets the nominal values for both the inputs and
the outputs of the controller and the objective of the controller is to
maintain the process in the desired state despite disturbances to the operation of the process from external sources.
Human operators are trained to control this process using a set of
linguistic rules. It is interesting to note, however, that despite this common training set, human operators develop their own control strategy
over time which often vary from operator to operator. It is not surprising, therefore, that plant performance and productivity vary accordingly.
Operational consistency with human operators is desirable but rarely obtained in practice. Intelligent controllers, in contrast, assure such consistency on a 24-hour basis.
In the specific example a set of 125 rules (555) were elicited
from human operators, examined for conflict and consistency and
formed the knowledge from which the controllers were trained.
191
Five linguistic variables are used for each controller input, sufficient
to yield the desired accuracy, whereupon the overall FAM has
3555=375 rules. In practice this number is unwieldy and it is simpler to design three independent three-input single-output subcontrollers which are executed sequentially. Here the sub-controllers
have identical causes but different effects. The three sub-controllers can
consequently be trained independently. Fewer than 125 rules are necessary in practice to achieve satisfactory control. Rule pruning was systematically performed with a view to reducing the number of control
rules without loss of controller performance. This led to a reduced training set of 65 rules, an example of which is given below:
R:
IF DP is Very_High AND EXT is HIgh AND UP is OK

THEN FEED is Very_High AND HADR is OK AND RDPR is OK
DP
EXT
RDPR
UP
HADPR
FEED
CONTROLLER
UP(0)
EXT(0)
DP(0)
HADPR(0)
FEED(0)
RDPR(0)
Figure 13.7 Rule-based neural control of a coal mill
192
Chapter 13
The controller algorithm is resident in the supervisory control system and is executed every 10 seconds. If the resultant incremental control actions are small, indicative of stable operation, they are ignored and
the process is maintained at its previous state.
Two such neural coal mill controllers have been in continuous operation since 1992 and have consistently led to energy demand reduction
of approximately 5% and a comparable increase in productivity, food for
thought for anyone still doubting the economics of intelligent control!
Chapter 14
Neuro-Fuzzy Control
Neuro-fuzzy controllers constitute a class of hybrid Soft Controllers that
fuse fuzzy logic and artificial neural networks. Though the principles of
fuzzy logic and artificial neural networks are very different, the two
techniques have important common features: fuzzy logic aims at reproducing the mechanism of human cognitive faculty while neural networks
attempt to emulate the human brain at the physiological level.
In fuzzy controllers linguistic rules embody the knowledge on
how to control a physical plant. In a neural controller this knowledge is
embedded in the structure and the synaptic weights of the network. Feedforward processing in ANNs is analogous to the inference engine in
fuzzy logic. Fuzzy controllers use fuzzy compositional rules to arrive at
their decisions, require fuzzification of the input variables and defuzzification of the composite fuzzy set of the output in order to obtain a
crisp output from the controller. In contrast, neural controllers use simple
arithmetic techniques, operating directly in the physical world. In both
cases, current data from the physical plant being controlled is stored in a
real-time database and then processed by an appropriate algorithm. Only
in the manner with which the two techniques arrive at this control action
do they differ radically. The ability to generalize, i.e., to extrapolate
when faced with a new situation, is a feature common to both.
Evolving from very different origins, fuzzy and neural controllers developed independently by researchers with very different backgrounds and very different objectives. Scant thought was given to the
193
Chapter 14
194
possibility of combining the two at the time. It did not take much time,
however, for control engineers to realize that the operations of a fuzzy
controller could be implemented to advantage with artificial neural networks, which, because of their inherent parallelism and their superior
computational speed, could lead to controllers capable of significantly
higher bandwidth as required in a number of critical situations.
Neuro-fuzzy control has been the subject of numerous books and
it is beyond the scope of this book to delve in depth into the various architectures that have been proposed. This chapter presents a brief introduction on how the two techniques can be combined and how the fuzzy
controller algorithm can be implemented with artificial neural networks.
14.1 Neuro-Fuzzy Controller Architectures

It is logical to examine the fusion of fuzzy logic and ANNs with a view
to developing hybrid neuro-fuzzy controllers that possesses the best attributes of both techniques in the hope that this will lead to a superior
class of intelligent controller. In principle it should be possible to neuralize a fuzzy controller or fuzzify a neural controller. It is useful,
therefore, to state the principal characteristics of hybrid neuro-fuzzy controllers:
they possess an architecture derived from both techniques,

they have elements of both fuzzy and neural controllers, each of
which performs a separate task and
their design methodology is a combination of the two
techniques.
A number of neuro-fuzzy controller architectures have been proposed, each with features that make them suitable for specific applications. Considering fuzzy and neural elements as distinct entities, it is
possible to construct a controller structured in layers, some of which are
implemented with neural elements and others with fuzzy elements. A
fuzzy element can, for instance, act as supervisor to a neural element that
controls some conventional industrial three-term controller.
The following characteristics of ANNs are useful in implementing fuzzy controllers: they
Neuro-Fuzzy Control
195
use a distributed representation of knowledge,

are macroscopic estimators,
are fault-tolerant and
can deal with uncertainty and vagueness.
14.2 Neuro-Fuzzy Isomorphism

The inference mechanism in a fuzzy controller follows a series of systematic steps (the fuzzy algorithm) and in the process justifies its decisions by identifying which rules have been fired and what contribution
each rule had on the final decision. There is no similar mechanism in a
neural controller, which is consequently unable to justify its decisions. In
this sense a neural controller is little more than a black box capable of
performing an arbitrary functional mapping of its inputs to its outputs.
With the term neuralization we imply the use of ANNs in implementing fuzzy controllers. It is possible, for instance, to represent
each linguistic rule with a separate ANN, maintaining thereby an isomorphism (i.e., the same form) between the two techniques. Alternatively, it is possible to represent each linguistic rule with many neurons
and synaptic weights using only one ANN. This destroys the isomorphism, but leads to a much simpler implementation. In the first case, the
resultant controller is unduly complicated, whereas in the second the resultant controller has a compact structure with few neurons and very few
layers. With the term fuzzification, concepts of fuzzy logic are introduced in ANNs in which case the resultant controller will have neural
equivalents of the basic fuzzy operators, e.g., min, max, max product and
others.
The hybrid neuro-fuzzy controller that is described in the following comprises a multi-layered feed-forward network that implements the
elements of a fuzzy controller using connectionist techniques. This example of neuralized design shows how it is possible, in principle, to substitute the elements (or building blocks) of a fuzzy controller with neural
equivalents. The resultant hybrid neuro-fuzzy controller uses a variety of
dissimilar neurons and is certainly not the most practical or economical
solution to neuro-fuzzy control. The structure of this neuro-fuzzy controller is interesting though impractical, however, because it retains the
Chapter 14
196
flow of operations of a fuzzy controller while emphasizing the concept

of isomorphism.
d1
y1
dm
ym
Layer 4
Layer 3
Layer 2
Layer 1
u1
u2
un
Figure 14.1 Multi-layered hybrid neuro-fuzzy controller

(for simplicity not all branches are shown)
Figure 14.1 shows a multi-layer neural network of the hybrid

neuro-fuzzy controller. It is observed that each layer of the neural network has a fuzzy equivalent. The causes and effects (i.e., inputs and outputs) of the network correspond to the input and output nodes of the network, while the hidden layers perform the intermediate operations on the
fuzzy sets while embedding the knowledge base.
Every node in the second layer of the network performs a nonlinear mapping of the membership functions of the input variables. The
second layer involves a cluster of neurons that have been trained a priori
Neuro-Fuzzy Control
197
to map the desired membership functions. The nodes in the third layer
perform the same function as the knowledge base in a fuzzy controller,
while the connections between the second and third layers correspond to
the inference engine in a fuzzy controller. The nodes in the third layer
map the membership functions of the output variables. In the fourth and
final layer, there is only one node for the output of the network and a
node from which the training sets are introduced to the network.
The various neurons of each ANN are shown as nodes in Figure
14.1 and have properties which depend on the layer to which they belong. The relation between the inputs and output of an elemental neuron
is, as before, simply:
p
i=1
wi ui where y = f()
where y is the output, ui are the inputs, is the weighted sum, wi the synaptic weights, and f() the non-linear (compression) function of the elemental neuron. There are p inputs and p+1 synaptic weights for each
neuron to account for the bias term.
In the first layer, each neuron distorts the weighted sum of the
inputs so that it corresponds to the membership function. For example, if
the fuzzy set is Gaussian, then
=-
(xi ij ) 2
s ij
and f()= e
where ij are the centers and sij the standard deviations of the membership functions. Here, the synaptic weights of the first layer of the network must be equal to the centers of the membership functions, i.e., wij=
ij. Using Mamdanis fuzzy compositional rule for instance, the nodes in
the second layer of the controller perform the AND operator (i.e., min) in
which
=min(u1, u2.up) and f()=
The neurons in the third layer perform the OR operator required
in the final stage of the fuzzy compositional rule. Here the synaptic
weights in this layer are unity and
Chapter 14
198
p
and f()=min(1,).
i =1
The fourth layer of the network possesses two sets of nodes. The
first set is required for de-fuzzification and in the case where the fuzzy
sets of the output are also Gaussian then the synaptic weights of these
nodes and the non-linear compression function are defined by
wij = ijsij and f () =
sij u i
The second set of nodes in this layer transfer the elements of the
training sets to the network in a reverse direction, i.e., from the output to
the input of the network and here i = di.
The training of the network is performed in two phases, at the
end of which the parameters (ij,sij) of the neurons in the first and third
layer are determined. During this phase, the network also learns the control rules, storing this knowledge in the synaptic weights of the connections between the second and third layer.
Example 14.1 Design of a simple 2-input

1-output neuro-fuzzy controller
A simple example of a hybrid neuro-fuzzy controller is considered here.
The controller has two inputs and one output. It will be assumed that
each input is assigned three fuzzy variables LOw, OK and HIgh. Assume, furthermore, that the fuzzy sets of the input variables are triangular, as shown in Figure 14.2.
Each input to the network is fed to three ANNs, each of which has
an input-output relationship (i.e., mapping) approximating the corresponding fuzzy set. The output of each ANN thus represents the corresponding membership function 1i, 2i and 3i.
Neuro-Fuzzy Control
LO
199
HI
OK
ui
Figure 14.2 Fuzzy sets of the input variables
Furthermore, assume that the knowledge base comprises five rules distributed in control space (i.e., FAM) as shown in the tile diagram of Figure 14.3.
u2\u1
HI
LO
R1: OK
HI
R2: HI
R3: OK
OK
LO
OK
R4: LO
Figure 14.3 Rules in control space
R5: OK
Chapter 14
200
R1
1
R2
R3
3
y
R4
R5
u
1
u
2
Figure 14.4 The inference mechanism
Given the membership values for each input, the nodes in the second layer compute the degree of fulfillment of each rule, as shown in
Figure 14.4. For the given input values, only rules R3 and R5 are fired
and the corresponding degrees of fulfillment are 0.2 and 0.5. Figure 14.5
shows the neuro-fuzzy controller with two inputs, five rules and one output. The five rules in the knowledge base are embodied in the second
layer. The connections between the nodes in this layer and the next are
determined by the rules. Thus, for example, the node corresponding to
rule R3 has connections from the nodes representing the fuzzy sets OK
and OK respectively while the node for rule R5 is linked to the nodes HI
and LO of the first layer.
Neuro-Fuzzy Control
201
Output
De-fuzzification
LO:OK:HI
Output Fuzzy Set
R1:R2:R3:R4:R5
Rules
Input Fuzzy
Sets
LO:OK:HI
u1
u2
Figure 14.5 The simple neuro-fuzzy controller

with 2-inputs, 1-output and 5 rules
The outputs of the nodes of the second layer are the degrees of fulfillment of each rule. The fuzzy sets of the contributions from each rule
that has fired are combined (using the union operator) in the third layer
and finally the fourth and final layer performs the task of de-fuzzifying
the output fuzzy set to yield a crisp output at the output of the neurofuzzy controller.
Chapter 15
The design of intelligent controllers based on unconventional control
techniques will undoubtedly become increasingly common in the near
future and these developments will rely heavily on the use of the stochastic methods of Soft Computing in seeking optimum results. These
hybrid methods offer a new and very exciting prospect for Control Engineering, leading to solutions to problems that cannot be solved by conventional analytical or numerical optimization methods.
Although stochastic methods of optimization are computerintensive, the impressive progress that has been observed in computer
hardware over the past decades has led to the ready availability of extremely fast and powerful computers that make stochastic techniques
very attractive. One of the ascending techniques of Intelligent Control is
the fusion of Fuzzy and Neural Control with Evolutionary Computation.
Evolutionary Computation is a generic term for computational
methods that use models of biological evolutionary processes for the solution of complex engineering problems. The techniques of Evolutionary
Computation have in common the emulation of the natural evolution of
individual structures through processes inspired from natural selection
and reproduction. These processes depend on the fitness of the individuals to survive and reproduce in a hostile environment. Evolution can be
viewed as an optimization process that can be emulated by a computer.
Evolutionary Computation is essentially a stochastic search technique
with remarkable abilities for searching for global solutions.
203
204
Chapter 15
There has been a dramatic increase in interest in the techniques

of Evolutionary Computation since their introduction in the mid-1970s.
Many applications of the technique have been reported, including solving problems of numerical and combinatorial optimization, the optimum
placing of components in VLSI devices, the design of optimum control
systems, economics, modeling ecological systems, the study of evolutionary phenomena in social systems, and machine learning, among others.
The idea behind Evolutionary Computation is best explained by
the example quoted in Michalewicz (1992):
Do what nature does. Let us take rabbits as an example: at any
given time there is a population of rabbits. These faster, smarter
rabbits are less likely to be eaten by foxes, and therefore more of
them survive to do what rabbits do best: make more rabbits. Of
course, some of the slower, dumber rabbits will survive just because they are lucky. This surviving population of rabbits starts
breeding. The breeding results in a good mixture of rabbit genetic
material: some slow rabbits breed with fast rabbits, some fast with
fast, some smart rabbits with dumb rabbits, and so on. And on the
top of that, nature throws in a wild hare every once in a while by
mutating some of the rabbit genetic material. The resulting baby
rabbits will (on average) be faster and smarter than those in the
original population because more faster, smarter parents survived
the foxes ...
By analogy, in Evolutionary Computation, solutions that maximize some measure of fitness (the criterion or cost function) will have a
higher probability of participating in the reproduction process for new
solutions and it is likely that these solutions are better than the previous
ones. This is a fundamental premise in Evolutionary Computation. Solutions of an optimization problem evolve by following the well-known
Darwinian principles of survival of the fittest. The basic principles, the
principal techniques and operators of Evolutionary Computation are introduced in this chapter and an example illustrates how an Evolutionary
Algorithm can be used to determine the global optimum parameters of a
complex problem. In Chapter 17 the technique is applied to the design of
optimized control systems.
205
15.1 Evolutionary Algorithms

Historically, Evolutionary Algorithms were introduced at the end of the
1950s, but due to the lack of readily available fast computers, the whole
field did not become known for many years. Initially, Evolutionary Programming was proposed as an alternative method of Artificial Intelligence, while Evolutionary Strategies were designed and used for the solution of difficult optimization problems. The seminal book by Holland
entitled Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems published in
1975, laid the foundations of the technique and introduced the Genetic
Algorithm, which is the most popular Evolutionary Algorithm.
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) derive their name from the genetic
processes of natural evolution. They were developed from Holland in the
mid-1960s and have been implemented successfully in a broad range of
control applications, e.g., the design of neural and fuzzy controllers, for
tuning of industrial controllers and for the creation of hybrid fuzzy/ evolutionary and neural/evolutionary controllers, etc. During the 1980s, the
rapid progress in computer technology permitted the use of the Evolutionary Algorithms in difficult large-scale optimization problems and the
method rapidly diffused into the scientific community. Today, new applications of Evolutionary Algorithms are being reported in large numbers and the field has finally achieved general acceptance.
The terminology in the field of Evolutionary Computation is derived from Biology and Genetics. This terminology may lead to some
confusion to the engineer who must associate the new terminology with
known engineering terms. Here, the terms used will be adapted to make
them easier to comprehend. Although Evolutionary Algorithms appear to
be extremely simple compared with their biological counterparts, they
are, however, sufficiently complicated so as to yield solutions where
conventional numerical methods have been known to fail.
Evolutionary Algorithms are a subset of Evolutionary Computation and belong to the generic fields of the Simulated Evolution and Artificial Life. The search for an optimum solution is based on the natural
processes of biological evolution and is accomplished in a parallel manner in the parameter search space. The terminology used in Evolutionary
Computation is familiar. Thus, candidate solutions of an optimization
problem are termed individuals. The population of solutions evolves in
accordance with the laws of natural evolution. After initialization, the
population undergoes selection, recombination and mutation repeatedly
206
Chapter 15
until some termination condition is satisfied. Each iteration is termed a

generation, while the individuals that undergo recombination and mutation are named parents that yield offsprings.
Selection aims at improving the average quality of the population, giving the individuals with higher quality increased chances for replication in the next generation of solutions. Selection has the feature of
focusing the search in promising areas of the parameter search space.
The quality of every individual is evaluated by means of a fitness function, which is analogous to an objective function. The assumption that
better individuals have increased chances to reproduce even better offspring is based on the fact that there is a strong correlation between the
fitness of the parents and that of their offspring. In Genetics this correlation is termed heredity. Through selection, exploitation of the numerical/genetic information is thereby achieved.
Through recombination, two parents exchange their characteristics through random partial exchange of their numerical/genetic information. The recombination of the characteristics of two parents of high fitness assumes that if a portion of the numerical/genetic information responsible for high values of fitness recombines with an equivalent parent, then the chances that their offspring will have as high or even higher
fitness values are correspondingly increased. Recombination is also referred to as Crossover. Likewise, through mutation, an individual undergoes a random change in one of its characteristics, i.e., in a specific section of its structure. Mutation aims at introducing new characteristics to
the population that does not necessarily exist in the parents, leading
thereby to an increase in the variance of the population. Exploration of
the search space is achieved through the operators of recombination and
mutation
The cornerstone of Evolutionary Algorithms is the iterative procedure in exploring the search space while simultaneously exploiting the
information that is being accumulated during the search. This is in fact,
where their functionality lies. Through exploration, a systematic sampling of the search space is achieved, while through exploitation the information that has been accumulated during exploration is used to search
for new areas of interest in which exploration can be continued. Unlike
exploitation, exploration includes random steps. It should be emphasized
that random exploration does not mean exploration without direction
since the technique focuses on the most promising directions.
207
The most common types of Evolutionary Algorithms are:
Genetic Algorithms
Evolutionary Strategies
Evolutionary Programming
Classifier Systems
Genetic Programming
The first three are used extensively in optimization problems,

while Classifier Systems are used in machine learning. Finally, Genetic
Programming is used in the automatic production of computer programs.
It is noted that Genetic Programming and Classifier Systems are often
considered as special cases of Genetic Algorithms and not as special
cases of Evolutionary Algorithms.
15.2 The Optimization Problem

In the generalized optimization problem, the objective is a search of the
values of a vector x M, whose cost or objective function is to be minimized, i.e.:
(x) min
The solution of the problem requires determination of the optimum solution vector x*, for which:
x : (x*) (x).
In practice, the space of feasible solutions is often bounded, i.e.,
G M by functions of the form gj : M and an analytical solution to
the problem is unlikely. Only when and gj are particularly simple functions can conventional numerical optimization methods such as linear
and non-linear programming be used. Also, optimization problems met
in practice often require simplification, resulting thereby in solutions that
do not correspond to the original problem. This is one of the principal
reasons for the adoption of unconventional stochastic optimization
Chapter 15
208
methods, such as Genetic Algorithms that are not bound by such constraints.
15.3 Evolutionary Optimization

The field of Evolutionary Optimization has generated considerable interest and excitement in the engineering community and is one of the ascending fields of Control Engineering. The technique can yield solutions
to optimization problems that cannot be solved otherwise. In Soft Control, in particular, after the initial period of enthusiasm, it became necessary to search for optimum solutions where heuristics and prior knowledge could not be applied or were not always useful. For example, issues
concerning the best form of the fuzzy sets to use in a Fuzzy Controller or
the best topology and the number of neurons and layers of the ANN being used in Neural Control are now being sought using Evolutionary Optimization.
The well-known numerical optimization methods of nonlinear
programming do not always lead to acceptable solutions in practical
problems, often becoming entrapped in local minima instead of yielding
global solutions. Evolutionary Algorithms, in combination with local
hill-climbing techniques, in most cases are able to locate global optimum
solutions and are rapidly superceding classical techniques.
What then are the benefits of Evolutionary Computation and
what are the reasons for the intense interest in this field? The answer is
simple: Evolutionary Algorithms are robust, flexible and adaptable and
they can yield global solutions to any problem, whatever the form of the
objective function. Conventional numerical optimization methods, in
contrast, can yield excellent results in a specific class of problems and
fail in all others. The main differences between Evolutionary Algorithms
and conventional numerical optimization methods are the following:
they
seek the optimum solution by searching a population of

points of the search (solution) space in parallel and not in an
isolated space,
do not require derivative information or any other information. The direction of search is influenced by the evaluations
209
of the objective function and of the respective fitness function only,

use stochastic (probabilistic) transition and not deterministic
rules in the optimization procedure,
are simple to implement and apply,
can yield a population of optimum feasible solutions in a
problem and not a unique one. The choice of the best solution is then left to the user. This is very useful in practical
problems where multiple solutions exist as well as in multiobjective optimization problems.
Figure 15.1 Structure of a simple Evolutionary Algorithm
The search process, which is followed by a simple Evolutionary

Algorithm for the solution of an optimization problem is shown in the
flow chart of Fig. 15.1 and is summarized as follows:
Chapter 15
210
1. a population of initial solutions is created heuristically or

randomly,
2. the fitness of every individual-solution is evaluated, using
the fitness function, which depends strongly on the
corresponding value of the objective function of every
candidate solution,
3. the selection operator gives improved chances to the better
solutions for survival in the next generation,
4. using the recombination operator, two parents, which have
been chosen randomly using the selection operator,
exchange numerical information, according to a pre-defined
probability of recombination,
5. using the mutation operator, partial numerical information is
perturbed according to a pre-defined probability of mutation,
6. the fitness values of the new population are re-evaluated and
7. if the termination criterion (statistical or temporal) is not
satisfied, then a return is made to the 3rd step, otherwise the
algorithm is terminated and
8. the best solution from the set of optimum solutions is
selected.
If the optimization problem has constraints, then there are two
alternative methods of approaching an optimization problem:
the first uses penalties (solutions which violate the constraints are penalized and their respective fitness function
values are reduced) and
the second uses a mapping of the candidate solutions with
simultaneous use of the exploration operators (recombination and mutation).
The pseudo-code of a simple Evolutionary Algorithm is shown

below:
k=0 ; % Initialization of the iteration index
Init_population P(k) ; % Initialization of the random population
Evaluate P(k) ; % Evaluation of the Fitness of the initial population
until(done) % Iteration till the termination criterion be satisfied
k:= k + 1; % Increment iteration index or epoch
P':= select_parents P(k) ; % Selection of the sub-population for the
211
reproduction of the offspring

recombine P'(k) ; % Recombination
mutate P'(k) ; % Mutation
evaluate P'(k) ; % Evaluation of the fitness of the new population
P := survive P, P'(k) ; % Selection of survivors
15.4 Genetic Algorithms

Here, we will limit our interest to the most popular Evolutionary Algorithm, the Genetic Algorithms. As was noted above, Holland proposed
Genetic Algorithms in the 1970s, having studied the adaptability of organisms as a natural phenomenon. Since the early 1980s, Genetic Algorithms have been used extensively in optimization problems. Meanwhile,
the research efforts during the 1980s and 1990s resulted in the development of many new forms of Genetic Algorithms, which differ significantly from the initial version proposed by Holland. It is beyond the
scope of this book to describe these variants and the reader is referred to
the Bibliography in chapter 18 for further study.
The differences between Genetic Algorithms, Evolutionary
Strategies and Evolutionary Programming lie in the operations that candidate solutions are subject to during the evolutionary procedure. These
differences may be critical in a successful implementation of an Evolutionary Algorithm but in practice, they are of lesser importance compared with the properties that they share. It is worthy of note that since
the early 1980s each technique has borrowed principles from the others
and their differences have tended to disappear.
In the design and use of a Genetic Algorithm, the following issues must be considered: the
creation of the initial population initialization,

representation-mapping of the candidate solutions,
evaluation of the fitness of every candidate solution,
implementation of the exploration operators
recombination and mutation,
selection of the parents for reproduction of the offspring
selection and
choice of the parameters of the Genetic Algorithm
Chapter 15
212
The stages of a simple Genetic Algorithm are discussed in some detail

below.
15.4.1 Initialization
An initial population of N candidate solutions (one for each of the N unknowns) is created and for every solution/individual/chromosome xi the
corresponding objective function value i is evaluated. Alternative methods for the creation of the initial population or part of it, is through statistical analysis of the search space or through heuristic reasoning.
15.4.2 Decoding
The N candidate solutions of the optimization problem are converted into
binary strings of length L that are used to represent real numbers as follows:
000.0 = minimum value of the parameter
000.1 = minimum value of the parameter + q20
00010 = minimum value of the parameter + q21
11111 = maximum value of the parameter

where q = (max. value min value)/(2L-1). Clearly the discretization step
q specifies the precision of the representation while the length L of each
representation need not be equal for all candidate solutions. When the
optimization problem is multidimensional, then the partial strings are
concatenated as shown in Figure 15.2 in order to create a single binary
string. Other mappings that are commonly used are representations with
real numbers and the Gray code.
By way of example, consider a simple two-dimensional optimization problem whose objective function is quadratic:
(x)=x12+ x22
where 0xi7 are integers. Here we select the length of the binary string
to be L=3 since 23=8, sufficient to represent the integer values of the so-
213
lutions. Thus the string 000 000 represents the solution (0, 0), the string
000 001 the solution (0,1), the string 111 111 the solution (7,7), etc.
Following accepted terminology, the binary string is named a
genotype, the decoded information the phenotype, while every individual
solution is a chromosome.
Fig. 15.2 Creation of the string in a multidimensional problem of optimization
15.4.3 Evaluation of the fitness

Evaluation of the fitness of every candidate solution is fundamental in
Genetic Algorithms. When a Genetic Algorithm is used for the optimization of an objective function, the fitness is analogous with the objective
function. If the objective function takes positive values only, then the fitness values and the objective function values of an individual are synonymous. If not, then a transformation is necessary to reflect the qualitative difference of the candidate solutions while ensuring that the fitness
values are always positive. Usually, we use the relative fitness fi of the
individual-solutions defined as:
Chapter 15
214
fi =
i
N
j =1
15.4.4 Recombination and mutation

The recombination and mutation operators perform the necessary exploration of the search space. Through recombination (or crossover), numerical information (i.e., the genetic material) is exchanged between
two random individuals, while through mutation a bit-digit is perturbed
and its value is changed.
For example, consider the following two 3-digits genotypes:
Q1=
Q2=
and
The crossover point is chosen randomly and in the example the

result of recombination in the third gene (or digits) of the two binary
strings are the new strings:
Crossover Point
Q1*=
Q2*=
and
In string Q1 the digits to the right of the crossover point are exchanged with these of the second string Q2, while the opposite is done
with the digits of the second string. Crossover can be performed at one
215
or more points that are selected randomly. An alternative form of crossover is uniform crossover where every digit of every offspring has equal
probabilities of being taken from either parent. The frequency with
which the crossover operator acts on the candidate solutions depends on
some pre-defined crossover probability pcross[0, 1]. Practical values of
the crossover probability are in the range [0.6-0.95], while techniques
have been proposed where the same search process adapts the crossover
probability.
During mutation, a random bit that is selected with some predefined mutation probability pmut, takes on values of 0 or 1 at random.
This operation results in an increase in the variability of the population.
Mutation is necessary since potentially useful genetic material may be
lost at specific locations of the generation during previous operations.
For instance, after mutation of the second digit/gene which is chosen
randomly, the string,:
Q1=
is transformed into:
Q1*=
Figure 15.3 depicts the operations of crossover and mutation in genotype

space, in phenotype space in the objective function and correlated to the
fitness function.
15.4.5 Selection
During selection, N individuals are chosen for survival in the next generation according to their fitness values from a population of candidate
solutions-individuals. Individuals with high fitness values have an increased probability of survival in the next generation/iteration, compared
to those with low fitness values. Many methods of selection have been
proposed but here only the popular roulette-wheel method is considered.
Consider the surface of a roulette wheel that is divided according
to the fitness values, i.e., the angles of every sector of the roulette wheel
are set proportional to the fitness. If the relative fitness values are equal
(an unlikely situation in practice), then the roulette sectors will have
216
Chapter 15
equal angles, implying that there is an equal probability that the roulette
ball will stop in any of the sectors.
Figure 15.3 Representation of the Crossover and Mutation Operators
The hypothetical case of the ball stopping on a dividing line is

discounted! In reality, the fitness values are unequal in which case the
sectors of the roulette will also be unequal, implying that the probability
of the ball stopping in any given sector increases with the angle of the
sector. It is not improbable, however, that the ball will stop in a sector
with a small angle. Imagine now that the ball is rolled and finally stops
in one of the N sectors of the roulette wheel. The sector where the ball
stops defines the chromosome that will undergo evolution. It is obvious
that the ball may fall two or more times in a sector which corresponds to
a high fitness value and the corresponding solution/chromosome is selected an equal number of times for survival in the next generation. A so-
217
lution with low fitness may not be selected for survival in the next generation.
13.13%
25.25%
9.09%
A/A Chromosome
1
011100
2
000011
3
110100
4
010011
TOTAL
Fitness
% Totally
25
9
52
13
99
25.25%
9.09%
52.53%
13.13%
100%
52.53%
Figure 15.4 Roulette-wheel selection for the objective function

(x1,x2) =x12+x22 and a population of N=4.
15.4.6 Choice of the parameters of a GA

The main parameters that must be considered in the design of a Genetic
Algorithm are the population size of the N solutions-individuals and the
values of the probabilities of recombination/crossover and mutation.
There are no general rules for selecting the appropriate probabilities but
some general guidelines on values that give acceptable results have been
established from experience. These guidelines suggest the following:
[60, 100], pcross[0.6, 0.9] and pm[0.001, 0.01]

It is noted that the probability of recombination is referred to the
population N, while the probability of mutation is referred to all the digits of the population. Also, it is worthy of note also that Genetic Algorithms have been used for the optimization of the parameters of the Genetic Algorithms (i.e., meta-GAs).
218
Chapter 15
Example 15.1 Constrained optimization

of a complex function
A difficult objective function is chosen for the demonstration of the potential of the Genetic Algorithms. Assume that the following objective
function must be minimized:
(x1,x2)=x12+x22-0.3 cos(3x1)-0.4 cos(4x2)+0.7
where x1,x2 [-1,1]. As shown in Figure 15.5, the function (x1,x2) has
multiple minima, which would be difficult to locate using conventional
numerical methods of optimization. Even if the initial starting state in the
search space were good, it would be difficult to avoid entrapment in
some local optimum.
Figure 15.6 shows the two-dimensional contour of (x1,x2). Note
that the minimum value of the function is at (0,0), while the search space
is a square with axes (-1,1) and (-1,1). In Appendix C a program for the
solution of the optimization problem of the function (x1,x2) is presented.
The program is written in MATLAB and is based on routines that can be
found at the Mathworks web site www.mathworks.com.
Executing the Genetic Algorithm to optimize the objective function
(x1,x2) with random initial conditions leads to the results depicted in
Figures 15.7 and 15.8. In Figure 15.7 the evolution of the optimization
trajectory of the optimum solution in every generation is shown while in
Figure 15.8 the evolution of the objective function in every generation
(i.e., iteration) is shown. The upper, middle and lower curves correspond
to the worst, average and minimum or optimum solution respectively.
It is noted that the Genetic Algorithm that has been implemented in
this example follows an elitist strategy, i.e., it preserves the optimum solution, found so far, in every generation. Finally, the other parameters of
the Genetic Algorithm are population_size=10, probability of mutation
pm=0.01, probability of crossover pcross=0.5 and maximum number of
generations maxgen= 40. The length of the binary string for every parameter is 12, in which case the concatenated string has 24 digits.
219
Figure 15.5 The objective function (x1,x2)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Figure 15.6 Contour graph of the objective function (x1,x2)
Chapter 15
220
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1
-0.5
0.5
Figure 15.7 Evolution of the trajectory of the optimum solution

in every generation
2.5
1.5
0.5
10
20
30
40
50
60
Figure 15.8 Evolution of the best/average/worst solution for every epoch
221
15.5 Design of Intelligent Controllers

Using GAs
15.5.1 Fuzzy controllers
The traditional design of fuzzy controllers is based primarily on heuristic
techniques. The main problem in fuzzy control design is the difficulty in
defining a host of parameters, such as the number and shape of the fuzzy
sets of the inputs and outputs, the form of the inference engine and the
de-fuzzification mechanism. Their choice has considerable influence on
the overall behavior of the controller. Unfortunately, at present the theoretical foundations for determining the optimum solutions does not exist
and consequently only experience with similar problems can be used in
their design. Often, the result is acceptable, but there is no guarantee that
there does not exist a better solution.
The flexibility of Evolutionary Algorithms is the principal motivating factor for their use in determining the optimum values of the parameters of a fuzzy controller. As was mentioned in previous chapters,
the linguistic values of a fuzzy variable are defined by their membership
functions. When the membership functions are triangular, then the three
parameters a, b and c shown in Figure 15.9 uniquely specify the fuzzy
set. The parameters of every fuzzy set are encoded into binary strings of
sufficient length to give the desired precision. For n fuzzy sets and m
variables and encoding with p digits, the total length of the chromosome
is clearly nmp digits.
(x)
Figure 15.9 Parameters of a triangular fuzzy set
Chapter 15
222
If the dynamic behavior of the process is known and there exists

a macroscopic model of the process, then we may use the single objective function (or criterion) to evaluate the performance of the closed system to a step disturbance:
t e dt or
e 2 dt
where T. These are the familiar ITAE and ISE criteria respectively.
Alternatively some criterion which involves overshoot, steady state error
and rise time could be used.
15.5.2 Optimum neural controllers

The performance of a neural controller depends critically on the architecture of the ANN used, i.e., the number of neurons in every layer, the
number of the layers and the topology of the network, the form of the
compression function and the algorithm used to train the network.
The determination of these parameters is based on the knowledge and experience of the designer and any discussion on optimum design is of no consequence. The determination of the parameters of a neural controller can, however, be transformed into an optimization problem
for which Evolutionary Algorithms appear very attractive.
Genetic Algorithms are considered very efficient in rapidly finding the approximate optimum solution of an optimization problem, but
they are generally slow in finding the precise solution. For better convergence, Genetic Algorithms can be combined with local-search techniques, such as hill climbing, which are ideally suited to finding optimum solutions in the small. It is noted that for an Artificial Neural Network with m layers and ni neurons in the ith-layer, the total number of
parameters in the optimization problem is:
m 1
N = ( n i + 1) n i +1
i =0
If every weight is decoded into a binary string with L digits, the

total length of the chromosome is clearly NL. It is obvious that the use of
Genetic Algorithms in problems involving ANNs with thousands of neu-
223
rons becomes difficult and extremely time-consuming. However ANNs,

which are used in Neural Controllers, usually have a very simple architecture with rarely more than 30 neurons or more than one hidden layer,
in which case GAs are very efficient.
The second application of Evolutionary Algorithms in the field
of Neural Control has to do with the evolution of the topology of the
network (i.e., the manner in which the neurons of the network are interconnected) with or without parallel evolution of the weights of the network. This problem is practically unsolvable with conventional optimization methods.
The main characteristic that makes Evolutionary Algorithms attractive for a broad class of optimization problems is their robustness because:
they do not require specific knowledge or derivative information of the objective function
discontinuities, noise or other unpredictable phenomena
have little impact on the performance of the method
they perform in parallel in the solution space, exploring
the search space with simultaneous exploitation of the
information derived and they do not become entrapped
in local optima
they have good performance in multidimensional largescale optimization problems and
they can implement in many different optimization problems without big changes in their algorithmic structure.
The main disadvantages of GAs are that they:
face some difficulties in locating the precise global optimum, although it is easy for them to locate the vicinity
where the global optimum exists and
require a great number of evaluations of the objective
function and therefore require considerable computational power.
With regard to the first disadvantage, many hybrid evolutionary

algorithms, which embed local search techniques, have been proposed.
Methods like hill-climbing or Simulated Annealing (presented in the
224
Chapter 15
next chapter) in combination with Evolutionary Algorithms have been

developed in order to determine the exact global optimum and to improve the overall performance of the search algorithm. A notable genetic
algorithm is that due to Moed and Saridis for global optimization. Concerning the second disadvantage, the dramatic evolution in computer
technology in combination with the progress in parallel computer machines is tending to minimize this disadvantage.
Chapter 16
Simulated Annealing
Simulated Annealing, which has much in common with Evolutionary
Computation, is a derivative-free stochastic search method for determining the optimum solution in an optimization problem. The method was
proposed by Kirkpatrick et al. in 1983 and has since been used extensively to solve large-scale problems of combinatorial optimization, such
as the well-known traveling salesman problem (TSP), the design of
VLSI circuitry and in the design of optimum controllers. The main difference between Evolutionary Computation and Simulated Annealing is
that the latter is inspired by the annealing process for metals during cooling, while the former is based on evolutionary processes.
The principle of annealing is simple: at high temperatures the
molecules in a metal move freely but as the metal is cooled gradually
this movement is reduced and atoms align to form crystals. This crystalline form actually constitutes a state of minimum energy. Metals that are
cooled gradually reach a state of minimum energy naturally, while if
they are forcibly cooled they reach a polycrystalline or amorphous state
whose energy level is significantly higher. Metals that are annealed are
pliable while the latter are brittle.
However, even at low temperatures there exists a small, but finite probability that the metal will enter a state of higher energy. This
implies that it is possible that the metal will leave the state of minimum
energy for a new state where the energy is increased. During the cooling
process, the intrinsic energy may rise or drop but as the temperature is
lowered the probability that the energy level will increase suddenly is re225
Chapter 16
226
duced. The probability that a change in the state of the metal at some
temperature T and initial energy level E1 to some other state with energy
level 2 is given by:
p=e
( E2 E1 )
T
if 2>1
=1 otherwise
where is Boltzmanns constant.

This thermodynamic principle was adapted to numerical analysis
by Metropolis et al. in 1953 giving rise to the terms Simulated Annealing. Simulated annealing attempts to minimize energy. This is similar to
minimizing a Lyapunov function in modern control theory. In implementing the Metropolis algorithm the following must be known:
the objective function (by analogy with the energy E of

the metal) whose minimum is sought and,
a control parameter T (the simulated temperature) whose
temporal strategy defines the changes in the simulated temperature at every iteration of the algorithm.
16.1 The Metropolis Algorithm

Although the analogy between the physical annealing process and Simulated Annealing is far from perfect, there is clearly much in common. In
all the stochastic algorithms of optimization, an attempt is made to guide
the solution from an initial random point to an optimum solution as rapidly as possible. This can lead to entrapment in some local optimum
from which it may be difficult if not impossible to extricate. Simulated
Annealing does not suffer this problem, since the technique is stochastic
and searches the solution space randomly. For the solution of an optimization problem with Simulated Annealing, the following steps are required:
1. an initial random solution vector x1 in the bounded parameter
space is selected and its objective function (x1) is computed,
2. an initial temperature T(0)= Tinit is specified,
Simulated Annealing
227
3. using some stochastic or heuristic strategy, a new solution vector

x2 is selected and the corresponding objective function value is
evaluated (x2),
4. the difference of the objective function = (x2)-(x1) is
computed,
5. if <0, then the solution vector x2 is accepted, otherwise if
>0 accept the solution vector according to the probability of
acceptance:
p(k ) = e
T (k )
otherwise go to step 7,
6. set x1=x2 and (x1)=(x2) and weight the current simulated temperature with the coefficient , where 0<<1, decreasing the
simulated temperature successively at every iteration, so that at
the (k+1)st iteration:
T(k+1) = T(k),
where k is the iteration index,
7. if the current simulated temperature is lower or equal to the final
temperature, i.e., T(k) Tfinal, then accept the current solution
vector as being optimum, otherwise return to Step 3 and repeat
the process.
If the Simulated Annealing algorithm is to succeed, it is important
that the temporal annealing strategy that is followed, i.e., the simulated
temperature profile, be suitable. The rate at which the simulated temperature is decreased depends on the weighting coefficient . Too high a
simulated cooling rate leads to non-minimum energy solutions, while too
low a cooling rate leads to excessively long computation times. The
closer the value of is to unity, the slower simulated temperature decreases. Figure 16.1 shows the probability of acceptance of the solution
p(), as a function of the iteration index for different values of . In order
to achieve effective exploration of the search space, it is advisable to use
0.95<<0.98. Finally, as in Evolutionary Computation, the trajectory of
an optimization problem is critically dependent on the initial estimates of
the optimum solutions that are heuristic or the result of statistical analysis.
Chapter 16
228
p()
1
=0.5
=0.8
=0.95
10
19
28
37
46
55
64
73
82
91 100 109 118
Figure 16.1 Variation of the acceptance probability p()

as a function of the iteration index k.
16.2 Application Examples

Two examples of the application of simulated annealing are presented
below. In the first, the two-dimensional parameter optimization problem
that was presented in the previous chapter on Evolutionary Computation
is used. The second application example shows how Simulated Annealing can be used to advantage to obtain the optimum coefficients of a
two-term (PI) industrial controller.
Simulated Annealing
229
Example 16.1 Constrained optimization

of a complex function
The problem statement in this example is identical to that of Example
15.1 in the previous chapter and refers to the problem of finding the parameters x1 and x2 which minimize the multi-peaked objective function:
(x1,x2)=x12+x22-0.3 cos(3x1)-0.4 cos(4x2)+0.7
The parameter search space is bounded by the square x1,x2[-1,1]. Figure
15.5 showed that the objective function has multiple minima in the permissible parameter search space. An example of the trajectory of the solutions in the bounded search space using simulated annealing algorithm
is shown in Figure 16.2.
The evolution of the objective function (x1, x2) is shown in Figure
16.3. During the initial iterations of the algorithm and particularly when
the simulated temperature is high, the trajectory appears random with
large fluctuations. With successive decreases in the simulated temperature, however, the algorithm is seen to converge. Without systematically
decreasing the simulated temperature, the solution to the problem at
every iteration would be totally random, something analogous to the
Monte Carlo method and convergence is unlikely. Finally, Figures 16.4
and 16.5 show the trajectories of the parameters x1 and x2 as they converge to the null state (0,0) at which the objective function has a minimum. This is the state of minimum energy.
Convergence is achieved in approximately 150 iterations. It is noted
that convergence is achieved without knowledge of the derivative of the
objective function. This is particularly useful when the derivative of the
objective function, required by most non-linear programming methods, is
difficult or impossible to obtain analytically.
Chapter 16
230
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1
-0.5
0.5
Figure 16.2. Trajectory of the solution in the search space (x1,x2)

(x1,x2)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Figure 16.3 Evolution of the objective function (x1,x2)

as a function of the iteration index
Simulated Annealing
231
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
Figure 16.4 Evolution of x1 as a function of the iteration index
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0
50
10
15
20
25
30
35
Figure 16.5 Evolution of x2 as a function of the iteration index
232
Chapter 16
Example 16.2 Optimization of a two-term

industrial controller
Given a simple SISO (Single Input - Single Output) plant whose step response, derived from experimental data, is shown in Figure 16.6. The
plant is to be controlled by a classic industrial two-term controller (PI),
whose input-output relationship is simply:
t
u = K p e + Ki e( )d
0
Here e is the error between the desired and the real output and u is
the control variable. The unknown parameters of the industrial controller
are the gains Kp and Ki whose optimum values are sought. One way of
determining the best gain pair is to use classical tuning methods such
as those of Ziegler and Nichols or modern tuning techniques such as
those of Persson and Astrom (see Bibliography in chapter 18). These
methods (i) assume a simplified dynamic model of the plant and (ii) use
heuristics to arrive at the best parameters instead of an analytical error
criterion. Here in contrast, an analytical criterion is used directly and the
optimum pair is determined using stochastic techniques
Figure 16.6 Discrete-time step response of the controlled process
Simulated Annealing
233
Using the ITAE criterion it is desired to obtain the values of the parameter pair (Kp,Ki), which minimize the objective function (i.e., error
criterion):
()= ITAE =
t e(t ) dt
T
where T. An example of the evolution of the criterion dependent

from the iterations is depicted in Figure 16.7. Convergence is achieved in
about 120 epochs (iterations).
Figure 16.7 Evolution of the objective function
Figure 16.8 Evolution of the parameters of the industrial controller
234
Chapter 16
Figure 16.8 shows the evolution of the parameter pair (Kp,Ki) of the
industrial controller. It is noted that convergence is achieved, whatever
the initial values of the unknown parameters. Finally, the step response
of the closed-loop system is shown in Figure 16.9. This response must be
compared with that of Figure 14.6 for the non-optimized neural controller. A cursory glance will confirm that the response of this system is superior.
Figure 16.9 Step response of the closed-loop system

with minimum ITAE
Chapter 17
Evolutionary Design of
Controllers
The criteria used in the design of control systems, better known as objective or cost functions, are normally formulated in terms of analytical
functions. In practice, multiple engineering objectives are often difficult
to express in closed analytical form and great effort is spent trying to
find suitable expressions that result in acceptable system performance. In
industrial three-term controller design, for instance, the optimum parameters of the controller must satisfy not only specific closed system
specifications but may also involve economical, ecological, production
and other engineering factors. These multiple objectives are difficult to
formulate analytically, conflicting and impossible to satisfy simultaneously.
Controller design with multiple objectives can be attempted using a composite objective function in which the various objectives are
assigned weights or penalties and the design problem is transformed into
a nonlinear optimization problem. Nonlinear programming is the traditional method for obtaining numerical solutions to this problem, but
there is no guarantee that the procedure will reach a global optimum. The
problem is compounded if the parameter search space is bounded. Stochastic optimization using Evolutionary Programming or Simulated Annealing is an attractive alternative when numerical solutions are required
and significant inroads in its use have been made in recent years.
236
Chapter 17
Stochastic optimization with a qualitative measure of performance of a closed system, instead of quantitative terms, offers distinct advantages in controller design to the Control Engineer as he is able to235
relate to the design problem directly in linguistic terms rather than through
some abstract analytical formulation.
17.1 Qualitative Fitness Function

Evolutionary Algorithms are used mainly in optimization problems and
especially in constrained problems in which the objective function is
complicated. This class of problems is usually difficult to solve with
conventional numerical methods. In the stochastic approach using evolutionary programming, the multiple objective function is transformed into
a composite fitness function, which then constitutes the driving force of
the evolutionary search procedure.
Human knowledge and engineering objectives can normally be
expressed in qualitative terms when a quantitative formulation is not
possible. Considering the flexibility of Evolutionary Computation, it is
evident that comparison of the candidate solutions can be performed using fuzzy linguistic rules. The formulation of the optimization problem
in such a way as to use linguistic objectives constitutes the difference between the stochastic technique using Evolutionary Algorithms and fuzzy
fitness criteria and conventional forms of Evolutionary Algorithms. In
the qualitative design technique, fitness is expressed in terms of fuzzy
linguistic rules that are processed using an inference mechanism whose
outcome is de-fuzzified to yield crisp values for the fitness. It is recalled
that in the classical Evolutionary Algorithms described in Chapter 15,
the fitness values are computed from an analytical objective function.
In the generalized optimization problem, the objective is a search
for the values of a vector x M, whose objective function is minimized
i.e.,
(x) min
The function (x) expresses the engineering objectives in functional
form and is some measure of the behavior of the system being studied. In
the stochastic design technique, a Genetic Algorithm is used to search
for the optimum values of the unknown vector xM, in the same manner
Evolutionary Design of Controllers
237
that was described in Chapter 15. The main difference here is that the
evaluation of fitness does not follow the classical approaches, but is derived from a set of linguistic rules that express the multiple engineering
objectives of the problem. The consequent of each fuzzy rule is taken as
the objective function that can take m fuzzy linguistic values from the
set:
w = {w1, w2 wm}
Assume also that the array
a = {a1, a2 am}
is the set of parameters, which consist of the antecedents, and
vi = {vi1 , vi2 viq}
is the set of q fuzzy values of the variable ai. Then, the linguistic rules
that specify the fitness function in the Evolutionary Algorithm take the
form:
R: IF a1 is v1i AND a2 is v2i AND a3 is v3i THEN is wi
The total number of design rules is thus equal to a1*n1+a2*n2++ak*nk.
17.2 Controller Suitability

The knowledge about controlling a system exists in the form of linguistic
rules whose antecedents (i.e., controller attributes) and consequents (i.e.,
controller suitability) uniquely specify a particular design. What is
required therefore are rules that describe, in linguistic terms, how the
controller attributes affect the performance of the closed system. Once
this is done the stochastic design technique reduces to one of using fuzzy
reasoning to infer the suitability of any design. De-fuzzification of the
membership function of the suitability yields a crisp value for the fitness
that is subsequently used as the fitness measure in the stochastic
optimization procedure. A Genetic Algorithm is then used to determine
the global optima of the parameters of the controller.
238
Chapter 17
The controller attributes are described by fuzzy sets, three to five

being sufficient for most practical purposes. These fuzzy sets describe
the desired attributes of the design. The specifications normally used in
designing industrial controllers are overshoot, rise time (i.e., the time for
the closed-loop response to reach some specified percentage of its final
value) and settling time (i.e., the time required for the closed-loop
response to reach some specified percentage of its final value). More
design specifications can be added as necessary, e.g. steady-state error
and the maximum permissible control actions that can be used, in which
case the complexity of the computational problem is increased
proportionally.
Consider for example, the fuzzy sets for the Rise_Time,
Overshoot and Settling_Time to be Small, Medium and Large
while the fuzzy sets of the resultant Fitness to be Very_Small, Small,
Negative_ Medium, Medium, Positive_Medium, Large and Very_Large.
A sample of suitability rules can therefore be stated as follows:
R1: IF (Rise_Time is Small) AND (Overshoot is Small) AND
(Settling_Time is Small) THEN (Fitness is Very_Large)
2
R : IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is Small) AND
(Settling_Time is Small) THEN (Fitness is Large)
3
R : IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is Medium)
AND (Settling_Time is Large) THEN (Fitness is
Negative_Medium)
R4: IF (Rise_Time is Large) AND (Overshoot is Medium) AND
(Settling_Time is Large) THEN (Fitness is Small))
R5: IF (Rise_Time is Large) AND (Overshoot is Large) AND
(Settling_Time is Large) THEN (Fitness is Very_Small)
Examples of membership functions that can be used in the
qualitative design technique are shown in Figure 17.1. Assuming that the
settling time of the closed system is to remain constant, the variation of
the fitness with rise time and overshoot is shown in Figure 17.2. The
complete set of linguistic rules, containing 33=27 rules, constitutes the
rule-base of the design procedure and is given in the Table that follows.
These rules may be modified to satisfy any control objective and
MATLAB and its Fuzzy Toolbox can be used to implement the design
technique.
(a) Rise_Time
(b) Overshoot
(c) Settling_Time
Figure 17.1 Fuzzy sets used in the qualitative design technique
239
240
Chapter 17
(d) Fitness
Figure 17.1 (continued) Fuzzy sets used in the qualitative design technique
Figure 17.2. The fitness surface
241
1. IF (Rise_Time is Small) AND (Overshoot is Small) AND (Settling_Time

is Small) THEN (Fitness is Very_Large)
2. IF (Rise_Time is Small) AND (Overshoot is Small) AND (Settling_Time is
Medium) THEN (Fitness is Large)
3. IF (Rise_Time is Small) AND (Overshoot is Small) AND (Settling_Time is
Large) THEN (Fitness is Positive_Medium)
4. IF (Rise_Time is Small) AND (Overshoot is Medium) AND (Settling_Time
is Small) THEN (Fitness is Large)
is Medium) THEN (Fitness is Positive_Medium)
is Large) THEN (Fitness is Medium)
7. IF (Rise_Time is Small) AND (Overshoot is Large) AND (Settling_Time is
Small) THEN (Fitness is Positive_Medium)
Medium) THEN (Fitness is Medium)
Large) THEN (Fitness is Negative_Medium)
10. IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is Small) AND (Settling_Time is Small) THEN (Fitness is Large)
11. IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is Small) AND (Settling_Time is Medium) THEN (Fitness is Positive_Medium)
12. IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is Small) AND (Settling_Time is Large) THEN (Fitness is Medium)
13. IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is Medium) AND (Settling_Time is Small) THEN (Fitness is Positive_Medium)
14. IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is Medium) AND (Settling_Time is Medium) THEN (Fitness is Medium)
15. IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is MEDIUM) AND (Settling_Time is Large) THEN (Fitness is Negative_Medium)
16. IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is Large) AND (Settling_Time is Small) THEN (Fitness is Medium)
17. IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is Large) AND (Settling_Time is Medium) THEN (Fitness is Negative_Medium)
18. IF (Rise_Time is Medium) AND (Overshoot is Large) AND (Settling_Time is Large) THEN (Fitness is Small)
19. IF (Rise_Time is Large) AND (Overshoot is Small) AND (Settling_Time
is Small) THEN (Fitness is Positive_Medium)
242
Chapter 17

is Medium) THEN (Fitness is Medium)
is Large) THEN (Fitness is Negative_Medium)
22. IF (Rise_Time is Large) AND (Overshoot is Medium) AND (Settling_Time is SMALL) THEN (Fitness is Medium)
23. IF (Rise_Time is Large) AND (Overshoot is Medium) AND (Settling_Time is Medium) THEN (Fitness is NM)
24. IF (Rise_Time is Large) AND (Overshoot is Medium) AND (Settling_Time is large) THEN (Fitness is Small)
25. IF (Rise_Time is Large) AND (Overshoot is Large) AND (Settling_Time
is Small) THEN (Fitness is Negative_Medium)
is Medium) THEN (Fitness is Small)
is Large) THEN (Fitness is Very_Small)
Rule-Base for the qualitative evaluation of controller fitness

using Rise_Time, Overshoot and Settling_Time.
Example 17.1 Design of an optimum

two-term controller for temperature
control of a greenhouse
The qualitative controller design technique is applied to the design of a
two-term (PI) controller to control the environment inside a greenhouse.
Following a step demand in the reference temperature Tref, the
temperature T at some point in the greenhouse shown in Figure 17.3, has
the characteristic dead time followed by an exponential rise shown in
Figure 17.4.
Tref
C
Greenhouse
Figure 17.3 Schematic of the controlled greenhouse

The proposed technique is model-free and no attempt is made to
obtain a low order approximant of the plant in order to tune the closed
system. Here it is sufficient to know only the continuous or discrete step
response. The design objective is to find the optimum parameters (Kp,
Ki)* of a two-term controller that will lead to a closed system step
response with a nominal rise time Trise=26 units, a nominal overshoot of
p=10% and a nominal settling of Ts=20 units.
Instead of defining some quantitative criterion with penalty
functions, qualitative measures are used to describe the desired
attributes of the closed system. Each attribute is therefore assigned a
fuzzy variable, which define the suitability of the overall system.
243
244
Chapter 17
The fuzzy sets of the three attributes that form the inputs to the
inference engine are assumed to be triangular while the fuzzy sets of
the suitability function are Gaussian. The fuzzy sets are shown in
Figure 17.1. In deriving the control surface, use is made of the
Mamdani min-max compositional inference rule. De-fuzzification uses
the Center of Gravity (COG). A simple Genetic Algorithm, which
follows an elitist strategy, is finally used to obtain the global optima of
the controller parameters. It is observed that fitness decreases with
increasing overshoot and increasing rise time.
Figure 17.4 Normalized step response of the greenhouse

The step response of the optimum system designed with the
proposed hybrid Evolutionary - Fuzzy (E-F) technique is compared in
Figure 17.5 with that of the same controller designed for minimum
ITAE. It is evident that the response of the E-F design is superior, being
better damped, and reaches the steady state faster than the ITAE design.
It is interesting to note that the E-F design has a higher ITAE index
than that of the ITAE design. That the E-F design is superior to the
ITAE design is no surprise since a multiple criterion was used in the
former.
ITAE
245
E-F
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Figure 17.5 Comparison of closed system step responses

for the optimum E-F and minimum ITAE controllers
Example 17.2 Design of an optimum neural

controller for a lathe cutting process
A rule-based neural controller for a cutting lathe was described earlier in
chapter 16 and a schematic of the lathe cutting process was shown in
Figure 16.7. The response of the process to a small step demand in feed
rate was shown in Figure 16.8. The objective in this case study is a
controller with a rise time of less than some specified value Trise, an
overshoot that does not exceed p% of the steady state value and a
settling time Tset less than some specified value. These design objectives
can be achieved by (i) the proper choice of the control rules, (ii) the
inference mechanism and (iii) optimization of the free parameters of the
controller.
Assume that the first part of the controller design procedure that
involves rule elicitation and rule-encoding, has been completed and that
a suitable neural network of specified topology has been designed and
trained to generate the desired control surface, as in chapter 16. Our
concern here is the second part of the design, i.e., the optimization of the
free controller parameters.
246
Chapter 17
Twenty-seven rules relating the design attributes were necessary to

specify the desired properties of the closed system completely and are
displayed in Figure 17.3. The fuzzy sets of the three controller design
attributes constitute the inputs to the inference engine and are assumed
to be triangular while the fuzzy set for the fitness function is taken as
Gaussian as shown in Figure 17.1.
ITAE
E-F
Figure 17.6 Step responses of optimum controllers

for the optimum E-F and minimum ITAE controllers
The step response of the optimum controller designed with the
qualitative Evolutionary - Fuzzy (E-F) design technique is compared
with that of the same controller designed for minimum ITAE in Figure
17.6. The response of the qualitative design is superior, being better
damped and faster in reaching the steady state than the ITAE design,
presumably because a multi-objective criterion has been used.
Chapter 18
Bibliography
A. Computational Intelligence
Eberhart R. C., Dobbins R. C. and Simpson P. K. (1996) : Computational Intelligence PC Tools, AP Professional.
Kaynak O. (1998) : Computational Intelligence: Soft Comnputing and
Fuzzy-neuro Integration with Applications, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Palaniswani M., Attikiouzel Y. and Marks R. (Eds) (1996) :
Computational Intelligence - a dynamic systems perspective, IEEE
Press, NY.
Pedrycz W. (1997) : Computational Intelligence - an Introduction, CRC
Press.
Poole D., Mackworth A. and Goebel R. (1998) : Computational
Intelligence, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Reusch B. (Ed). (1999) : Computational Intelligence: Theory and
Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Tzafestas S. G. (Ed.) (1999) : Computational Intelligence in Systems and
Control: Design and Applications, Kluwer Academic Publications, Hingham, Ma.
247
248
Chapter 18
B. Intelligent Systems
Antsaklis P. J., Passino K. M. and Wang S. J. (1989) : Towards
intelligent autonomous control systems: architecture and fundamental issues, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, Vol. 1,
pp. 315-342.
Bernard J. (1988) : Use of rule-based systems for process control,
IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 3-13.
Bigger C. J. and Coupland J. W. (1982) : Expert Systems : a
bibliography, IEE Publications, London.
Chiu S. (1997) : Developing Commercial Applications of Intelligent
Control, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, April, pp. 94-97. 247
Francis J. C. and Leitch R. R. (1985) : Intelligent knowledge based
process control, Proc IEE Conference on Control, London.
Harris C. J., Moore C. G. and Brown M. (1993) : Intelligent Control,
Aspects of Fuzzy Logic and Neural Nets, World Scientific, Singapore.
Saridis G. N. (1979) : Towards the realization of intelligent control,
Proc IEEE, Vol. 67, No. 8, pp. 1115-1133.
Saridis G. N. and Valavanis K. P. (1988) : Analytical design of
intelligent machines, Automatica, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 123-133.
Saridis G. N. (1996) : On the theory of intelligent machines: a
comprehensive analysis, Int. Journal of Intelligent Control and
Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Tzafestas S. G. (Ed.) (1993) : Expert Systems in Engineering
Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Tzafestas S. G. (Ed.) (1997) : Methods and Applications of Intelligent
Control, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Hingham, Ma.
Tzafestas S. G. (Ed.) (1997) : Knowledge Based Systems Control, World
Scientific, Singapore.
Valavanis K. and Saridis G. N. (1992) : Intelligent robotic system
theory: design and applications, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Hingham, Ma.
Bibliography
249
C. Fuzzy Logic and Fuzzy Control

Astrom K. J., Anton J. J. and Arzen K.-E., (1986) : Fuzzy Control,
Automatica, Vol. 22, No. 3.
Berkan R. C. (1997) : Fuzzy systems design principles, IEEE Press, NY.
Boverie S., Demaya B. and Titli A. (1991) : Fuzzy logic control
compared with other automatic control approaches, Proc. 30th
CDC Conference, Brighton.
Chen C-L., Chen P-C. and Chen C-K. (1993) : Analysis and design of
fuzzy control systems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 57, pp. 125140.
He S.-Z., Tan S., Xu F.-L. and Wang P.-Z. (1993) : Fuzzy self-tuning of
PID Controllers, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 56, pp. 37-46.
Jamshidi M., Vadiee N. and Ross T. J. (Eds.) (1994) : Fuzzy Logic and
Control, Prentice Hall, NY.
Jamshidi M., Titli A., Zadeh L. A. and Boverie S. (Eds.) : Applications
of Fuzzy Logic, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kickert W. J. M. and Mamdani E. H. (1978) : Analysis of fuzzy logic
controller, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 1, pp. 29-44.
King P. J. and Mamdani E. H. (1975) : The application of fuzzy control
systems to industrial processes, Proc. IFAC World Congress,
MIT Press, Boston.
King R. E. and Karonis F. C. (1986) : Rule-based systems in the
process industry, Proc. 25th IEEE CDC, Athens.
King R. E. and Karonis F. C. (1988) : Multi-layer expert control of a
large-scale industrial process, Chapter in Fuzzy Computing,
Gupta M. M. and Yamakawa T. (Eds.), Elsevier Science Publishers, NY.
King R. E. (1992) : Expert supervision and control of a large-scale
plant, J. Intelligent and Robotic Systems, Vol. 2, No. 3.
King R. E. (1996) : Synergistic fuzzy control, Chapter in Applications
of Fuzzy Logic, Jamshidi M., Titli A., Zadeh L. A. and Boverie S.
(Eds.), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Klir G. J. and Yuan B. (1995) : Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic - Theory and
Applications, Prentice Hall, NY.
Klir G. J., St Clair U. and Yuan B. (1997) : Fuzzy Set Theory Foundations and Applications, Prentice Hall, NY.
Kosko B. (1994) : Fuzzy Thinking, Hyperion
Kosko B. (1996) : Fuzzy Engineering, Prentice Hall, NY.
250
Chapter 18
Larsen P. M. (1980) : Industrial applications of fuzzy control, Int.

Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 12 (one of the first publications on applications of fuzzy control).
Lee C. C. (1990a) : Fuzzy logic control systems: fuzzy logic controller Part I, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
Vol. SMC-20, No. 2, pp 404-418. (contains an extensive Bibliography on fuzzy control).
Lee C. C. (1990b) : Fuzzy logic control systems: fuzzy logic controller
- Part II, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics,
Vol. SMC-20, No. 2, pp. 419-435.
Li Y. and Lau C. (1989) : Development of fuzzy algorithms for fuzzy
systems, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 6577.
Mamdani E. H. and Gaines B. R. (Eds) (1981) : Fuzzy Reasoning and its
Applications, Academic Press, NY.
Mamdani E. H. (1974) : An application of fuzzy algorithms for the
control of a dynamic plant", Proc. IEE, Vol. 121, No. 12.
Mendel J. M. (1995) : Fuzzy logic systems for Engineering: a tutorial,
Proceedings IEEE, Vol. 83, No. 3, Mar 1995, pp. 345-377 (contains an extensive list of references on Fuzzy Logic).
Negoita C. V. (1981) : Fuzzy Systems, Gordon and Brown.
Negoita C. V. (1985) : Expert systems and fuzzy systems, Benjamin
Cummings Publishing Co.
Mylnek D. M. and Patyra M. J. (Eds.) (1996) : Fuzzy logic implementation and application, J. Wiley, NY.
Pedrycz W. (1989) : Fuzzy control and fuzzy systems, J. Wiley and Sons,
NY.
Ross T. J. (1995) : Fuzzy logic with engineering applications, McGraw
Hill, NY.
Rutherford D. and Bloore G. (1976) : The implementation of fuzzy
algorithms for control, Proc. IEEE, Vol. 64, No. 4, pp. 572-573.
Sugeno M. (1985) : Industrial Applications of Fuzzy Control, Elsevier
Science Publishers North Holland.
Sugeno M. and Kang G. T. (1986) : Fuzzy modelling and control of
multilayer incinerator, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 18, pp. 329346.
Sugeno M. and Yawagawa T. (1993) : A fuzzy-logic-based approach to
qualitative modeling, IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 1, No.
1, pp. 7 - 31.
Bibliography
251
Takagi T. and Sugeno M. (1985) : Fuzzy identification of systems and

its application to modeling and control, IEEE Trans on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-15, pp. 116-132.
Terano T., Asai K. and Sugeno M. (1989) : Applied fuzzy systems,
Academic Press, NY.
Tzafestas S. G. and Venetsanopoulos A. N. (Eds) (1994) : Fuzzy
Reasoning in Information, Decision and Control Systems, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Hingham, Ma.
Wang P. P. and Tyan C-Y. (1994) : Fuzzy dynamic system and fuzzy
linguistic controller classification, Automatica, Vol. 30, No. 11,
pp. 1769-1774.
Wang L-X. (1994) : Adaptive fuzzy systems and control - design and
stability analysis, Prentice Hall, NY.
Yen J., Langari R. and Zadeh L.A. (Eds.) (1995) : Industrial
applications of fuzzy logic and intelligent systems, IEEE Press,
NY.
Zadeh L. A. (1965) : Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control, Vol. 8, pp.
3-11. (the definitive paper which laid out the foundations of Fuzzy
Logic).
Zadeh L. A. (1972) : A rationale for fuzzy control, Trans. ASME,
Journal of Dynamic Systems and Control, Vol. G-94, pp. 3-4.
Zadeh L. A. (1973) : Outline of a new approach to the analysis of
complex systems and decision processes, IEEE Trans. n Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-3, No. 1, pp. 28-44.
Zadeh L. A. (1988) : Fuzzy logic, IEEE Computer, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.
83-93.
Zimmermann H. J. (1996) : Fuzzy set theory and its applications, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Hingham, Ma.
D. Fuzzy Logic and Neural Networks

Chen C. H. (Editor) (1995) : Fuzzy logic and neural network handbook,
IEEE Press, NY.
Ishibuchi H., Fujioka R. and Tanaka H. (1993) : Neural networks that
learn from fuzzy if-then rules, IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems,
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 85-97.
Kartalopoulos S. V. (1996) : Understanding neural networks and fuzzy
logic, IEEE Press, NY.
252
Chapter 18
Kosko B. (1992) : Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems, a dynamic

systems approach to machine intelligence, Prentice Hall, NY.
Yager R. R. (1992) : Implementing fuzzy logic controllers using a
neural network framework, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 148, pp.
53-64.
E. Artificial Neural Networks

Aggarwal M. (1997) : A Systematic Classification of Neural-NetworkBased Control, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, April, pp. 7593. (contains some 170 references on neural control).
Dayhoff J. (1990) : Neural network architectures, Van Nostrand
Rheinhold, NY.
Haykin S. (1994) : Neural networks, IEEE Press, NY.
Hebb D. (1988) : The organization of behavior, in Neurocomputing:
foundations and research (Eds. Anderson A. and Rosenfeld E.),
MIT Press, Boston, Mass.
Marcos S., O., Vignat C., Dreyfus G., Personnaz L. and Roussel-Ragot
P. (1992): A unified framework for gradient algorithms used for
filter adaptation and neural network training, Int. Journal of
Circuit Theory and Applications, Vol. 20, pp. 159-200.
McCullough W. and Pitts W. (1943) : A logical calculus of the ideas
immanent in nervous activity, Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, Vol. 5.
Minsky M. and Papert S. (1969) : Perceptrons : an introduction to
computational geometry, MIT Press, Boston.
Nahas E. P., Henson M. A. and Seborg D. E. (1992) : Nonlinear
internal model control strategy for neural network models, Computers in Chemical Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 12, pp. 1039-1057.
Narendra K. S. and Mukhoopadhyay S. (1992) : Intelligent control
using neural networks, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, Apr.,
pp. 11-18.
Patterson D. W. (1996) : Artificial Neural Networks Theory through
backpropagation, Prentice Hall, NY.
Rosenblatt F. (1958) : The Perceptron: a probabilistic model for
information storage and organization in the brain, Psychological
Review, Vol. 65. (the definitive work on the Perceptron).
Bibliography
253
Widrow B., Winter R. G. and Baxter R. A. (1988) : Layered neural nets

for pattern recognition, IEEE Trans. Acoustics, Speech and
Signal Processing, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 1109-1118.
F. Neural and Neuro-Fuzzy Control

Corneliusen A., Terdal P., Knight T. and Spencer J. (1990) :
Computation and control with neural networks, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, A293, pp. 507-516.
Guez A., Eilbert J. E. and Kam M. (1988) : Neural network architecture
for control, IEEE Control Systems Magazine, April, pp. 22-25.
Hunt K. J., Sbarbaro D., Zbikowski R. and Gawthrop P. J. (1992):
Neural networks for control systems - a survey, Automatica,
Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 1083-1112.
Jang J.-S. R., Sun C.-T. and Mizutani E. (1996) : Neuro-Fuzzy and Soft
Computing, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kohonen T. (1988) : Self-organization and associative memory,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Lin C. T. and Lee C. S. G. (1991) : Neural-network based fuzzy logic
control and decision system, IEEE Trans. on Computers, Vol. C40, No. 12, pp 1320-1336.
Lin C. T. (1994) : Neural Fuzzy Control Systems with Structure and
Parameter Learning, World Scientific, Singapore.
Lin C. T. and Lee C. S. G. (1996) : Neural fuzzy systems, Prentice Hall,
NY.
Miller W.T., Sutton R. S. and Werbos P. J. (Eds) (1990) : Neural
Networks for Control, MIT Press, Boston, Mass.
Nauck D. and Kruse R. (1996) : Designing neuro-fuzzy systems
through backpropagation in Fuzzy Modeling Paradigms and
Practice (Ed. Pedrycz W.), Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Hingham, Ma.
Nie J. and Linkens D. (1995) : Fuzzy-Neural Control, Prentice-Hall Intl.,
UK.
Omatu S., Khalid M. and Yusof R. (1995) : Neuro-control and its
applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Palm R., Driankov D. and Hellendoorn H. (1996) : Model Based Fuzzy
Control, Springer, Berlin.
254
Chapter 18
Tsitouras G. S. and King R. E. (1997) : Rule-based neural control of

mechatronic systems, Proc. Int. Journal of Intelligent Mechatronics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Von Altrock C. (1995) : Fuzzy Logic and Neuro-fuzzy applications,
Prentice Hall, NY.
Wu Q. H., Hogg. B. W. and Irwin G. W. (1992) : A neural network
regulator for turbo-generators, IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks,
Vol. 3, No.1, pp. 95-100.
G. Computer and Advanced Control

Astrom K. and Hagglund T. (1995) : PID Controllers: Theory, Design
and Tuning, Instrument Society of America, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
Harmon Ray W. (1981) : Advanced Process Control, McGraw Hill, NY.
Olsson G. and Piani G. (1992) : Computer Systems for Automation and
Control, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, Herts.
Popovic D. and Bhatkar V. P. (1990) : Distributed Computer Control for
Industrial Automation, Marcel Dekker, NY.
Tzafestas S. G. (Ed) (1993) : Applied Control, Marcel Dekker, NY.
H. Evolutionary Algorithms
Angeline P. J., Saunders G. M. and Pollack J. B. (1994) : An evolution
algorithm that constructs recurrent neural networks, IEEE Trans
on Neural Networks, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 54-65.
Back T., Hammel U. and Schwefel H-P. (1997) : Evolutionary
Computation: Comments on the History and Current State, IEEE
Trans on Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 3 - 17.
(contains over 220 references on Evolutionary and Genetic Algorithms).
Dasgupta D. and Michalewicz Z. (Eds) (1997) : Evolutionary Algorithms
in Engineering, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Davis L. (1991) : Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, Van Nostrand, NY.
DeGaris H. (1991) : GenNETS - Genetically programmed neural nets,
Proc. IEEE Intl. Joint Conf. on Neural Networks, Singapore.
Bibliography
255
DeJong K. A. (1985) : Genetic Algorithms - a 10 year perspective,

Proc. First Intl. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms, Hillsdale, NJ., pp.
169-177.
Fogel D. B. (1994) : An Introduction to Simulated Evolutionary
Optimization, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.
3-15.
Fogel D. B. (1995) : Evolutionary Computation: Towards a new
philosophy of machine intelligence, IEEE Press, NY.
Fogel D. B. (Editor) (1997) : Handbook of Evolutionary Computation,
IOP Publishing, Oxford.
Fogel D. B. (Editor) (1998) : Evolutionary Computation- the Fossil
Record, IEEE Press, NY. (Selected readings on the history of
Evolutionary Algorithms).
Goggos V. and King R. E. (1996) : Evolutionary Predictive Control,
Computers and Chemical Engineering, Supplement B on Computer Aided Process Engineering, pp. S817-822.
Goldberg D. E. (1985) : Genetic algorithms and rule learning in
dynamic systems control, Proc 1st Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms and their Applications, Hillsdale, N.J., pp. 5-17.
Goldberg D. E. (1989) : Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and
Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. (seminal
book on Genetic Algorithms).
Greffenstette J. (1986) : Optimization of control parameters for Genetic
Algorithms, IEEE Trans. on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol.
16, No. 1, pp. 122-128.
Holland J. H. (1975) : Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems,
University of Michigan Press, Michigan.
Holland J. H. (1990) : Genetic Algorithms, Scientific American, July,
pp. 44-50.
Karr C. L. and Gentry E. J. (1993) : Fuzzy Control of pH using Genetic
Algorithms, IEEE Trans. on Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.
46-53.
Kim J., Moon Y. and Zeigler P. (1995) : Designing Fuzzy Net
Controllers using Genetic Algorithms, IEEE Control Systems, pp.
66-72.
Lin F. T., Kao C. Y., Hsu C. J. C. (1993): Applying the genetic
approach to Simulated Annealing in Solving some NP-Hard
Problems, IEEE Trans. on Systems Man and Cybernetics, Vol.
23, No. 6, pp. 1752-1767.
256
Chapter 18
Man K. F., Tang T. S., Kwong S. and Halang W. A. (1997) : Genetic

Algorithms for Control and Signal Processing, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Maniezzo V. (1994) : Genetic evolution of the topology and weight
distribution of neural networks, IEEE Trans. on Neural Networks, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp 39-53.
Marti L (1992) : Genetically generated neural networks, Proc. IEEE
Intl. Joint Conf. on Neural Networks, pp. IV-537-542.
Michalewicz Z. (1992) : Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures =
Evolution Programs, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Michalewicz Z. and Schoenauer M. (1996) : Evolutionary Algorithms
for constrained parameter optimization problems, Evolutionary
Computation, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-32.
Moed M. C. and Saridis G. N. (1990) : A Boltzmann machine for the
organization of intelligent machines, IEEE Trans. on SMC, Vol.
20, No. 5, pp. 1094-1102.
Mohlenbain H., Schomisch M. and Born J. (1991) : The parallel
Genetic Algorithm as function optimizer, Parallel Computing,
Vol. 17, pp. 619-632.
Park D., Kandel A. and Langholz G. (1994) : Genetic-based new fuzzy
r reasoning models with application to fuzzy control, IEEE Trans
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 39-47.
Spears W. M, DeJong K. A., Bock T., Fogel D. B. and DeGaris H.
(1993) : An Overview of Evolutionary Computation, Proc.
European Conference on Machine Learning.
Srinivas M. and Patnaik L. M. (1991) :Learning neural network weights
using Genetic Algorithms - improving performance by searchspace reduction, Proc IEEE Int. Joint Conf. on Neural Networks,
Singapore.
Varsek A., Urbancic T. and Filipic B. (1993) : Genetic Algorithms in
Controller Design and Tuning, IEEE Trans on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 1330-1339.
Zhang J. (1993) : Learning diagnostic knowledge through neural
networks and genetic algorithms, Studies in Informatics and
Control, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 233-252.
I. MATLAB and its Toolboxes
Bibliography
257
Bishop R. H. (1997) : Modern Control Systems Analysis and Design

using MATLAB and Simulink, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Cavallo A. (1996) : Using MATLAB, Simulink and Control System
Toolbox : A Practical Approach, Prentice Hall, NY.
Dabney J. and Harman T. L. (1998) : Mastering Simulink 2 : Dynamic
System Simulation for MATLAB, Prentice Hall, NY.
Djaferis T. E. (1997) : Automatic Control : the power of feedback using
MATLAB, PWS Publishers.
Dorf R. C. (1997) : Modern Control Systems Analysis and Design using
MATLAB and Simulink, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.
Gulley N. and Roger Jang J.-S. (1995) : Fuzzy Logic Toolbox for use
with MATLAB, Mathworks, Boston, Mass.
Moscinski J. and Ogonowski Z. (1995) : Advanced Control with
MATLAB and Simulink, Ellis Horwood, Hertfordshire.
Appendix A
Case Study:
Design of a Fuzzy
Controller using MATLAB
This Appendix considers a case study for the design of a generic fuzzy
controller for the control of a simple, yet representative process. The dynamic process exhibits nonlinear behavior and response asymmetry, for
which it is desired to compensate. The objective is to show the reader the
step-by-step procedure that must be followed and the ease with which it
is possible to examine the performance of the resultant fuzzy controller
using MATLAB and its Simulink and Fuzzy Toolboxes.
The steps in the design procedure are explained in sufficient detail so that the advantages and disadvantages of fuzzy control over conventional three-term control can be evaluated. The case study includes a
comprehensive study of the effects of the choice of fuzzy sets on the performance of the closed system. The case study is based on the example
given in the book by Gulley and Roger Jang (1995) on the use of the
MATLAB Fuzzy Toolbox.
259
260
Appendix A
A.1 The Controlled Process

The controlled process comprises a single storage tank shown in Figure
A.1. Inflow is controlled by a flow control valve while outflow is
through a fixed opening at the bottom of the tank. Outflow depends on
the pressure in the tank and consequently on the level of the fluid in the
storage tank.
The control objective is to maintain the level of the fluid in the
storage tank h(t) constant so that the outflow rate remains constant despite perturbations in the inflow rate. In order to maintain the storage
tank level constant, it is necessary to know the level of the fluid in the
tank at all times. This can be achieved by using an inductive, capacitive
or ultrasonic sensor, for instance. Even a floating ball connected to a potentiometer will do if the variations in the fluid level are relatively small.
The controller has the error e(t)= hd - h(t) where hd and h(t) are the desired and actual levels of the fluid in the tank respectively as input and
the rate u(t) with which the valve is opened or closed as output.
u(t)
Inflow
Level sensor
Desired fluid level hd

Actual level h(t)
Figure A.1 The controlled process
Outflow rate y(t)
Design of a Fuzzy Controller Using MATLAB
261
A.2 Basic Linguistic Control Rules

Without knowing anything about the controlled process characteristics
and using only basic qualitative knowledge, it is possible to control the
level of fluid in the storage tank by following the three intuitive rules:
R1: IF the error_in_the_fluid_level is ZEro (i.e., the actual level is equal to the desired level) THEN the control_valve_rate
must be ZEro (i.e., do nothing),
R2: IF the error_in_the_fluid_level is LOw (i.e., the
actual level is less than the desired level) THEN the control_valve_rate must be POsitive_large (so that the
tank will fill as quickly as possible),
R3: IF the error_in_the_fluid_level is HIgh (i.e., the
actual level is higher than the desired level) THEN the control_valve_rate must be NEgative_large (so that the
tank will empty as fast as possible),
Since the controller must send a quantitative action to the control
valve, then the following additional information is required:
the maximum permissible change (also termed the deadzone) in the nominal value of the fluid level and
the maximum rate of change of the fluid level (which can be
computed from the dimensions of the storage tank and the
maximum inflow rate or by experimental measurements).
A.3 A Simple Linguistic Controller

A very simple linguistic controller can be implemented very easily using
the three rules presented above. Thus, for example, let the linguistic variable NORmal be assigned a tolerable discrepancy from the desired level
of meters. If the level is greater than meters below the desired level
then the valve must open at its highest rate POsitive_Large. By contrast
if the level of fluid in the tank exceeds the desired level by then the
rate of valve closure must be NEgative_Large. It is noted that this simple
262
Appendix A
principle is used in simple on-off controllers using relays in building

thermostats for which no knowledge of the room dynamics or characteristics is required!
Unfortunately, this simple controller leads to undamped oscillations in the level of fluid in the tank with a peak to peak amplitude of 2
meters, as seen in Figures A.2(a) and A.2(b). Furthermore the step response, i.e., the fluid level as a function of time in response to a sudden
change in the desired level, is asymmetric. As seen, an increase in the desired fluid level leads to a different response than a decrease in the desired level. This is characteristic of fluid systems since fluid pressure and
level are nonlinearly related. There is no way of estimating the frequency
of oscillation since there it is assumed that there is no knowledge of the
dynamics of the controlled process. It is observed, however, that reducing the dead-zone 2 reduces the amplitude and increases the frequency
of the oscillation. This is observed in Figures A.2(a) and A.2(b). Reducing the dead-zone to zero will, in theory, lead to an infinite frequency of
oscillation. In practice this is unlikely because of the inherent delays in
the relay. In any case this continuous chattering is undesirable since it
shortens relay life.
Figure A.2(a) Step response of linguistic controller with =0,1
263
Figure A.2(b) Step response of linguistic controller with =0,025
The system can be modeled using MATLAB/Simulink/Fuzzy

Toolbox simply typing the instruction
sltank
at which the flow diagram shown in Figure A.3 appears. In this file we
are given the opportunity to compare the step responses of the fuzzy and
fuzzy controllers for the same conditions.
The fuzzy sets in this simple case have the Boolean form shown
in Figure 5.1. As a consequence the output of the controller can only
take one of three possible values, i.e., POL, ZER or NEL. The qualitative
controller is equivalent to a threshold logic unit with dead-zone, as
shown in Figure A.4. If the fluid level error is within the dead-zone then
the controller gives no output and the process coasts freely. However,
when the absolute error exceeds the dead-zone then the controller gives a
command of sgn(e).
264
Appendix A
Figure A.3 Simulink flow diagram using sltank

u
1
-
-1
Figure A.4 Input-output relationship of qualitative controller
A.4 The Design Procedure

With the simple linguistic controller, the oscillations (or more precisely,
limit cycles) of the fluid in the storage tank about its desired value are
not acceptable except only where coarse control suffices. The constant
chattering of the controller relay inevitably leads to wear of the control
valve, which is in a state of continuous motion. We must find a suitable
control strategy that will dampen these oscillations and ultimately elimi-
265
nate them. It is also desirable to find some technique to compensate for

the response asymmetry.
We could, of course, follow the road of conventional control,
identifying the process dynamics by applying step disturbances to it, determining a simple approximant and using the cookbook techniques of
Ziegler and Nichols, or more sophisticated methods in order to establish
the parameters of the required three-term controller. This procedure is
quite tedious and time-consuming and it is doubtful that all objectives
can be satisfied simultaneously. It is certain, however, that a conventional three-term controller cannot compensate for the observed asymmetric response.
If we could change the control strategy by adding some additional stabilizing rules and some advanced inference mechanism so that
the control action changes smoothly, instead of abruptly as in the case of
the simple controller, then we could achieve stabilization and significant
improvement in the closed system response. The solution is to turn to
unconventional control techniques and design a fuzzy controller with
one of the available computer aided design packages. This case study
uses MATLAB Simulink and the Fuzzy Toolbox.
In the following, we present the procedure that must be followed
in the design of a simple generic fuzzy controller. Our objective is a robust fuzzy controller which can be described by simple linguistic rules
but which will not exhibit the problems that were encountered with the
simple linguistic controller described earlier.
The next step in the design procedure following encoding of the
control rules, is to decide on the number of fuzzy sets for every input and
output variable of the controller. We must also specify the shape of the
corresponding fuzzy sets, some of the available choices being shown in
Figure 11.5. In this study we experiment with a number of shapes in an
attempt to find acceptable overall performance. The FIS Editor in the
Fuzzy_Toolbox shown in Figure A.5. is a simple and effective tool that
makes designing fuzzy controllers simple.
As was noted in earlier chapters of this book, it is not necessary
to specify many fuzzy sets for the inputs to the controller in order to obtain acceptable accuracy. Most industrial applications use 3 to 5 fuzzy
sets. Where fine control is essential then many more fuzzy sets are required. In the F. L. Smidth kiln controller, for instance, more than a
dozen fuzzy sets are used. In the fuzzy controller proposed here, only
266
Appendix A
three fuzzy sets LOw, OK and HIgh are used for the input variables for
simplicity.
A.5 System Stabilization Rules

The oscillations in the fluid level in the storage tank which were observed with the simple qualitative controller resulting from the use of
only three rules, can be damped by adding two more rules which involve
the derivative of the level error de(t)/dt. This is a classical procedure
even in conventional control. However, in order to avoid any problem
through using derivatives of the set point, we prefer to use the derivative
of the measured fluid level in the tank dh(t)/dt as the second input to the
controller in addition to the level error e(t)=hd-h(t). In practice the derivative is replaced by the first backwards difference of the level hk=hkhk-1.
Figure A.5. The FIS Editor in the fuzzy design tool
Adding two rules can, indeed, stabilize the closed system:
267
R4: IF error_in_the_fluid_level is ZEro AND the

rate_of_change_of_level is NEgative_Small THEN the
control valve must be closed slowly, i.e., the control_valve_rate must be NEgative_Small
R5: IF error_in_the_fluid_level is ZEro AND the
rate_of_change_of_ level is POsitive_Small THEN
the control valve must be opened slowly, i.e., the control_valve_rate must be POsitive_Small
These 5 control rules may be specified in many ways, the most convenient of which is linguistic, as shown in Figure A.6.
1. If (level is OK) then (valve is no_change)
2. If (level is low) then (valve is
open_fast)
3. If (level is high) then (valve is
close_fast)
4. If (level is OK) and (rate_of_change_of
level is positive) then (valve is
close_slow)
5. If (level is OK) and (rate_of_change_of
level
is negative) then (valve is open_slow)
Figure A.6. The control rules in linguistic form
A.6 On the Universe of Discourse of the

Fuzzy Sets
The universe of discourse of every input to the controller depends on the
permissible range of that variable. Errors are confined to e[-, ] and
the change of errors to dh(t)/dt|max[-, ]. The two parameters and
thus uniquely specify the universes of discourse of the two controller inputs.
The output of the controller is the rate with which the flow control valve is opened or closed . Here we specify 5 fuzzy variables, i.e.,
268
Appendix A
NEg_Large, NEgative_Small, ZEro, POsitive_Small and POsitive_Large

for finer control. The universe of discourse in this Case is normalized to
[-1,1] where +1 indicates that the valve is entirely open (i.e., 100% open)
and 1 that it is closed (i.e., 0% open). The median 0.5 implies that the
valve is at the center of its range.
A.7 On the Choice of Fuzzy Sets

The fuzzy sets of the controller inputs and outputs can be given any of
the most common shapes offered in the Fuzzy Toolbox, such as triangular, trapezoidal, Gaussian, etc. (see Figure 5.12). Various combinations
are tried and the resultant control surface and corresponding dynamic
behavior of the closed system are compared.
The control surface is a graphical interpretation of the control actions in input space, i.e., how the outputs of the controller vary as functions of the controller inputs. For a given set of control rules the control
surface depends on the shape of the fuzzy sets of both the inputs and the
outputs of the controller but this does not greatly affect the dynamic performance of the closed system.
The control surface of a generic controller with two inputs gives
us an immediate indication of the magnitude of the control action in control space but clearly when the controller has more than two inputs, the
control surface becomes a manifold which is impossible to visualize.
Should the performance of the closed system prove unsatisfactory, the
control surface can be examined to see how the rules must be modified
or what new rules must be added to bring about the desired behavior.
In the design example, the control surfaces were computed using
an inference engine based on Mamdanis compositional inference rule
while COG (Center Of Gravity) was used to de-fuzzify the fuzzy set of
the controller output. The Fuzzy Toolbox provides alternative forms for
both the inference engine and de-fuzzification..
The following five cases were considered in the design study:
1. Case - Figure A.7: Inputs with 3 triangular fuzzy sets and
outputs with 5 symmetric triangular fuzzy sets with large support (50%) and no overlap.
269
2. Case - Figure A.8: Inputs with 3 triangular fuzzy sets and

outputs with 5 symmetric triangular fuzzy sets with small
support and no overlap.
3. Case C - Figure A.9: Inputs with 3 Gaussian fuzzy sets and
outputs with 5 symmetric triangular fuzzy sets with small
4. Case D - Figure A.10: Inputs with 3 Gaussian fuzzy sets and
outputs with 5 asymmetric triangular fuzzy sets with small
5. Case E - Figure A.11 : Inputs with 3 Gaussian fuzzy sets and
outputs with 5 asymmetric triangular fuzzy sets with small
support and some overlap.
It is noted that triangular fuzzy sets with small support, i.e., ,
0 approximate singletons (see chapter 5) that have been used in industrial fuzzy controllers. The advantage of using singletons is the simplicity and speed of the computations for de-fuzzification. A number of
vendors use singletons in their products, e.g., S5-Profuzzy, S7Fuzzy_Control by Siemens and FuzzyTech by Allen Bradley.
For every one of the five cases we present the control surface
and the corresponding step response. Figure A.12 shows the computer
screen from the Fuzzy Toolbox which shows which rules are fired for a
given controller input values and the corresponding controller output for
the Case E.
A.8 Compensation of Asymmetry

Asymmetry in the step response of a closed system is not an uncommon
phenomenon in practice due to the inherent nonlinearities in the controlled plants. In these cases, the step response for a positive demand differs significantly from the response for a negative demand. A typical example is in the control of pressure, which is related by the square root of
the observed height, as shown in the example analyzed in this Appendix.
A conventional industrial three-term controller cannot easily compensate
for this asymmetry. In contrast, asymmetry can be compensated for relatively easily in soft controllers (both fuzzy and neural) by warping the
control surface appropriately. This can be achieved easily by displacing
one or more of the fuzzy sets laterally on the universe of discourse. In
270
Appendix A
Figure A.10(c) for instance, the fuzzy set Positive_Small has been
shifted to the left with the consequence that the control action for small
positive errors in the liquid level is greater than that for small negative
errors. Thus for small discrepancies in the liquid level about the nominal
level, the rate with which the valve is changed is increased when the tank
is filling and decreased when it empties. This leads to compensation of
response asymmetry.
A.9 Conclusions
It should have become clear that altering the shape of the fuzzy sets of
the controller does not lead to major changes in the control surface. This
is evident in Figures A.7(c) to A.11(c). In cases and , the control surfaces shown in Figures A.7(c) and A.8(c) are almost flat in the dead-zone
due the triangular nature of the fuzzy sets of both the inputs and the output. The corresponding step responses are shown in Figures A.11(a) and
A.11(b) are unsatisfactory because their steady-state error is non-zero
and response asymmetry is severe. It is noted, also, that in these two
cases, both the triangular fuzzy sets with a large support set and the singletons have comparable step responses. In contrast, in cases C, D and E
the control surfaces are smooth because of the smooth (Gaussian) shape
of the fuzzy sets of the controller inputs. The corresponding step responses are seen to be superior. In cases D and E (see Figures A.11(d)
and B.11(e)) the step responses are almost symmetric. Finally, in the last
three cases the steady-state errors are essentially zero and overshoot is
negligible. Case E appears to be the best as it demonstrates symmetric
response, zero steady-state error and no overshoot.
As was seen in all five cases, the closed system step response is
influenced significantly by the shape of the fuzzy sets of the inputs and
to a lesser extent by the fuzzy sets of the controller output. In general,
Gaussian fuzzy sets have smoother control surfaces, implying smoother
control actions and improved responses. The best shapes of the fuzzy
sets are not generally known and are the subject of ongoing research.

CASE A
Figure A.7(a) Input fuzzy sets
Figure A.7(b) Output fuzzy sets
Figure A.7(c) Control surface
271
272
Appendix A
CASE B

CASE C
273
274
Appendix A
CASE D
275
CASE E
276
Appendix A
Figure A.12(a) Step response for Case A
Figure A.12(b) Step response for Case B
Figure A.12(c) Step response for Case C
Figure A.12(d) Step response for Case D
277
278
Appendix A
Figure A.12(e) Step response for Case E
Figure A.13 Computations for case E
Appendix B
A Simple Genetic Algorithm

The m-files given in the Appendices that follow can be downloaded from the
authors web site www.lar.ee.upatras.gr/reking
% Main_Program - ga.m
popsize=10; % Population Size
maxgen=50; % Number of Generations (iterations)
length=12; % Length of genotype (i.e. number of bits
in the binary array)
pcross=0.8; % Probability of Crossover
pm=0.01; % Probability of Mutation
bits=[length length];
vlb=[-1 -1];
vub=[1 1];
phen=init(vlb,vub,popsize,2); % Initialization of the
population of phenotypes
[gen, lchrom, coarse, nround] = encode(phen, vlb,
vub, bits); % Conversion of phenotypes to binary
string
[fitness, object]=score(phen,popsize); % Evaluation
of Fitness & Objective Function
x=-1:0.1:1; % Display of the contour graph of the
objective function
y=-1:0.1:1;
[x1,y1]=meshgrid(x,y);
z=x1.^2+y1.^2-0.3*cos(3*pi*x1)-0.4*cos(4*pi*y1)+0.7;
figure(1);
contour(x,y,z);
279
280
Appendix B
[best_obj(1), index] = min(object); % Store the best

candidate of the initial population
best_gen=gen(index,:);
best_phen=phen(index, :);
[worst_obj(1), index1] = max(object); % Store the
worst candidate of the initial population
worst_cur_gen=gen(index1);
worst_cur_phen=phen(index1);
avg_obj(1)=0; % Calculate the average performance of
the population
for k=1:popsize
avg_obj(1)=avg_obj(1)+object(k);
end;
avg_obj(1)=avg_obj(1)/popsize;
best_x(1)=best_phen(1);
best_y(1)=best_phen(2);
for i1=1:2
fprintf(1,'%f ',best_phen(1));
end;
fprintf('\n');
fprintf(1,'BEST : %f WORST : %f AVG : %f
\n',best_obj(1),worst_obj(1),avg_obj(1));
for i=1:maxgen % Start of the Genetic-Loop
newgen=reproduc(gen,fitness); % Reproduction
gen=mate(gen);
% Mate two members of the
population
gen=xover(gen, pcross); % Crossover Operation
gen=mutate(gen, pm);
% Mutation Operation
[phen, coa] = decode(gen, vlb, vub, bits); %
Decode the genotype of the new population
to phenotype
[fitness, object]=score(phen,popsize); %
Evaluation
of the Fitness & Objective Functions
[best_cur_obj, index] = min(object); % Store
the best candidate of the current population
best_cur_gen=gen(index, :);
best_cur_phen=phen(index, :);
[worst_obj(i+1), index1] = max(object); % Store
the worst candidate of the current population
worst_cur_gen=gen(index1);
worst_cur_phen=phen(index1);
avg_obj(i+1)=0; % Average performance of the
current population
for k=1:popsize
avg_obj(i+1)=avg_obj(i+1)+object(k);
281
end;
avg_obj(i+1)=avg_obj(i+1)/popsize;
if(best_cur_obj > best_obj(i)) % Apply Elitist
Strategy
phen(index1,:) = best_phen;
gen(index1,:) = best_gen;
object(index1) = best_obj(i);
best_obj(i+1) = best_obj(i);
elseif(best_cur_obj <= best_obj(i))
best_phen = best_cur_phen;
best_gen = best_cur_gen;
best_obj(i+1) = best_cur_obj;
end;
best_x(i+1)=best_phen(1); % Display evolution
of the best solution on the contour graph
best_y(i+1)=best_phen(2);
hold;
line(best_x,best_y);
for i1=1:2
fprintf(1,'%f ',best_phen(i1));
end;
fprintf(1,'---> %f\n',best_obj(i+1));
fprintf('\n');
fprintf(1,'BEST : %f WORST : %f AVG : %f
\n',best_obj(i+1),worst_obj(i+1),avg_obj(i+1));
end
xx=1:maxgen+1; % Display evolution of objective
functions for the worst, average and best
solutions
figure(2);
plot(xx,best_obj,xx,worst_obj,xx,avg_obj);
grid;
% File init.m - This function creates a random
population
function phen=init(vlb,vub, siz, sea)
for i=1:siz
phen(i,:)=(vub-vlb).*rand(1, sea) + vlb;
end
% File score.m - This function computes the fitness
and the objective function values of a population
function [fitness, object]=score(phen, popsize)
for i=1:popsize
282
end
Appendix B
object(i)=phen(i,1)^2+phen(i,2)^20.3*cos(3*pi*phen(i,1))0.4*cos(4*pi*phen(i,2))+0.7;
fitness(i)=1/(object(i)+1);
The following m-files called by the main

program can be downloaded directly from the
MATHWORKS web site www.mathworks.com and
bear the indication:
% Copyright (c) 1993 by the MathWorks, Inc.
% Andrew Potvin 1-10-93.
% File encode.m - This function converts a variable
from
real to binary
function [gen,lchrom,coarse,nround] =
encode(x,vlb,vub,bits)
lchrom = sum(bits);
coarse = (vub-vlb)./((2.^bits)-1);
[x_row,x_col] = size(x);
gen = [];
if ~isempty(x),
temp = (x-ones(x_row,1)*vlb)./ ...
(ones(x_row,1)*coarse);
b10 = round(temp);
nround = find(b10-temp>1e-4);
gen = b10to2(b10,bits);
end
% File reproduc.m - This function selects individuals
in accordance to their fitness
function [new_gen,selected] = reproduc(old_gen,fitness)
norm_fit = fitness/sum(fitness);
selected = rand(size(fitness));
sum_fit = 0;
for i=1:length(fitness),
sum_fit = sum_fit + norm_fit(i);
index = find(selected<sum_fit);
selected(index) = i*ones(size(index));
end
new_gen = old_gen(selected,:);
% File mate.m - This function mates two members of
the population
283
function [new_gen,mating] = mate(old_gen)

[junk,mating] = sort(rand(size(old_gen,1),1));
new_gen = old_gen(mating,:);
% File xover.m - This function performs the Crossover
operation
function [new_gen,sites] = xover(old_gen,Pc)
lchrom = size(old_gen,2);
sites = ceil(rand(size(old_gen,1)/2,1)*(lchrom-1));
sites = sites.*(rand(size(sites))<Pc);
for i = 1:length(sites);
new_gen([2*i-1 2*i],:) =
old_gen([2*i-12*i],1:sites(i)) ...
old_gen([2*i 2*i-1],sites(i)+1:lchrom)];
end
% File mutate.m - This function performs the Mutation
operation
function [new_gen,mutated] = mutate(old_gen,Pm)
mutated = find(rand(size(old_gen))<Pm);
new_gen = old_gen;
new_gen(mutated) = 1-old_gen(mutated);
% File decode.m - This function coverts a variable

from binary to real
function [x,coarse] = decode(gen,vlb,vub,bits)
bit_count = 0;
two_pow = 2.^(0:max(bits))';
for i=1:length(bits),
pow_mat((1:bits(i))+bit_count,i) =
two_pow(bits(i):-1:1);
bit_count = bit_count + bits(i);
end
gen_row = size(gen,1);
coarse = (vub-vlb)./((2.^bits)-1);
inc = ones(gen_row,1)*coarse;
x = ones(gen_row,1)*vlb + (gen*pow_mat).*inc;
% File b10tob2 - This function converts a variable
from base 10 to base 2
function b2 = b10to2(b10,bits)
bit_count = 0;
b2_index = [];
284
Appendix B
bits_index = 1:length(bits);
for i=bits_index,
bit_count = bit_count + bits(i);
b2_index = [b2_index bit_count];
end
for i=1:max(bits),
r = rem(b10,2);
b2(:,b2_index) = r;
b10 = fix(b10/2);
tbe = find( all(b10==0) | (bits(bits_index)==i) );
if ~isempty(tbe),
b10(:,tbe) = [];
b2_index(tbe) = [];
bits_index(tbe) = [];
end
if isempty(bits_index),
return
end
b2_index = b2_index-1;
end
Appendix C
Simulated Annealing
Algorithm
% Main_Program sa.m
Tinit=120; % Initial Simulated Temperature
l=0.98; % Temperature Decrement Parameter
Tfinal=0.00001; % Final Temperature
% Computation and Display of objective Function
Contour
x=-1:0.1:1;
y=-1:0.1:1;
[x1,y1]=meshgrid(x,y);
z1=x1.^2+y1.^2-0.3*cos(3*pi*x1)-0.4*cos(4*pi*y1)+0.7;
figure(1);
contour(x,y,z1);
Tcur=Tinit; % Initialize Simulated Temperature
x1=-1 + 2*rand; % Select First Solution (x1, x2)
x2=-1+2*rand;
z(1)=x1^2+x2^2-0.3*cos(3.*pi*x1)0.4*cos(4*pi*x2)+0.7;
r1(1)=x1;
r2(1)=x2;
i=1;
while Tcur>Tfinal % Start of Simulated Annealing Loop
285
286
Appendix C
x_1=-1 + 2*rand; % Select New Solution (x_1, x_2)

x_2=-1 + 2*rand;
% Evaluate New Objective Function Value
z_1=x_1^2+x_2^2 - 0.3*cos(3.*pi*x_1)0.4*cos(4*pi*x_2)+0.7;
g=exp(-((z_1-z(i))/Tcur)); % Acceptance Probability
if ((z_1 < z(i))| (rand < g))
x1=x_1;
x2=x_2;
z(i+1)=z_1;
else
z(i+1) = z(i);
end
Tcur=Tcur*l; % New Simulated Temperature
r1(i+1)=x1;
r2(i+1)=x2;
title('Search for the global optimum point');
xlabel('x axis');
ylabel('y axis');
i=i+1;
end % End of Loop
f=find(z==min(z));
fprintf(1,'The Minimum value has of the Obj. func.
been observed so far is : %f in the %d iteration\n',
min(z),f(1));
fprintf(1,'x=%f,y=%f\n',r1(f(1)),r2(f(1)));
hold;
line(r1,r2);
title('Movement of x-y parameters in the search
space');
xlabel('x parameter');
ylabel('y parameter');
figure(2);
plot(z);
title('Obective Function values versus Iterations');
xlabel('Iterations');
ylabel('Objective Function');
figure(3);
plot(r1);
title('Movement of the x parameter');
Simulated Annealing Algorithm

ylabel('x parameter');
figure(4);
plot(r2);
title('Movement of the y parameter');
ylabel('y parameter');
287
Appendix D
Network Training
Algorithm
% Main_Program net.m
P=[0.8 0.8; 0.8 0; 0.8 -0.8; 0.3 0.3;
0.3 -0.3; 0
0.8; 0
0; 0
-0.8;
-0.3 0.3; -0.3 -0.3; -0.8 0.8; -0.8 0;
-0.8 -0.8];
T=[1 0.55 0 0.35 0 0.55 0 -0.55 0 -0.35 0
-0.55 -1];
[R,Q] = size(P); S1 =2; [S2,Q] = size(T);
[W10,B10] = rands(S1,R); Randomize network parameters
W20 = rands(S2,S1)*0.5; B20 = rands(S2,1)*0.5;
disp_freq = 20;
max_epoch = 9999; epoch limit
err_goal = 0.01; error measure limit
lr = 0.01; learning rate
lr_inc = 1.05; learning increment
lr_dec = 0.7; learning decrement
err_ratio = 1.04; error ratio
mom_const=0.95;
TP = [disp_freq max_epoch err_goal lr lr_inc
lr_dec mom_const err_ratio];
[W10,B10,W20,B20,epochs,TR]=trainbpx(W10,B10,
'purelin',W20,B20,'purelin',P,T,TP) ; training
algorithm with linear neurons in
289
290
Appendix D
both layers
plottr(TR); plot results
W10
; print synaptic weights of first layer
W20
; print synaptic weights of second layer
B10
; print bias of first layer
B20
; print bias of second layer
Index
Adaptive linear networks

(ADALINEs), 156, 162, 170
Artificial intelligence, 13
Artificial neural networks, 1, 51,
153
autoassociative, 159
feedback, 159
feed-forward networks, 159
generalized function mapping,
154
Hopfield recurrent networks,
158
multi-layer network topologies,
158
Artificial neurons, 153, 156
dynamic, 158
static, 156
Cartesian product, 72
Classical control, 2
Compositional rules of inference,
81
Computational intelligence, 6, 9,
13, 23, 31, 41, 153
Computer integrated manufacturing

(CIM), 23, 36
Control:
protocols, 119
rules, 119
Conventional control, 39
Deep knowledge, 18, 32
De-fuzzification, 98
center of area (COA), 98
center of gravity (COG), 98
Elemental artificial neuron, 156
Embedded fuzzy controllers, 123
Evolutionary:
algorithms, 20
computation, 203
control, 8
controller suitability, 237
decoding, 212
design of conventional
controllers, 235
design of intelligent controllers,
221
291
292
[Evolutionary]
operations, 205
crossover, 206, 214
mutation, 206, 214
recombination (see
crossover)
selection, 206, 215
simulated evolution, 205
optimization, 205, 208
programming, 211
strategies, 211
Expert systems, 13, 49
classification, 32
development, 18
diagnosis of malfunctions, 28
elements, 15
energy management, 26
fault diagnosis, 20, 24
fault prediction, 24
implementation, 19
industrial controller
design, 24
LISP machines, 19
need, 17
operator training, 22
paradigms, 20
plant simulation, 22
prediction of emergency
plant conditions, 26
predictive maintenance, 25
product design, 21
production scheduling, 27
representation of
knowledge, 20
shells, 18, 20
supervisory control
systems, 23
tools and methods, 18
Flexible manufacturing systems
(FMS), 21, 28
Fuzzification, 91, 96
Index
degree of fulfillment, 91, 96
graphical interpretation of, 93
Fuzzy:
algorithm, 59
associative memory (FAM),
103, 115
conditional statements, 58
control, 54, 89
algorithm, 89
controllers, 105
coarse-fine, 117
decomposition, 90
embedded, 123
gain-scheduled, 40, 136
generalized three-term, 108
generic two-term, 113
hybrid architectures, 112
integrity, 101
optimization using genetic
algorithms, 221
partitioned architecture, 109
real-time, 119
robustness, 107
Tagaki-Sugeno, 136, 144
three-term, 107
fitness criteria, 236
gain-scheduling, 136, 146
implications, 78
Boolean, 78
GMP, 80
Larsen, 80
Lukasiewicz, 78
Mamdani, 79
Zadeh, 79
inference engine, 71
degree of fit, 71
linguistic variables, 64
logic, 1, 7, 8
algorithm, 59, 74
basic concepts, 54
logic control (FLC) (see also
Fuzzy controllers), 2
293
Index
operators, 60
conjunctive, 72
propositional implication, 71
reasoning, 71, 76
relational matrix, 73
sets, 55, 100
algebraic properties of, 64
choice of, 268
coarseness of, 100
completeness of, 101
linguistic descriptors of, 57
membership function of, 55
operations on, 63
complement, 63, 64
connectives, 69
DeMorgan's theorem, 64
intersection, 63, 64
product, 63
union, 63, 64
shape of, 100
support set of, 56
singletons, 67, 92
systems, 32
variable, 57
universe of discourse of, 55
Gain-scheduled controllers, 40
Generalized:
Modus Ponens (GMP), 77
Modus Tollens (GMT), 77
Genetic algorithms (GAs), 8, 205,
211
fitness functions, 203, 206,
213
initialization, 212
parameters, 217
Hard control, 42
Human:
intelligence, 6
operators, 59
Industrial:
control, 23
controller optimization, 232
Inference engine, 6, 15, 17
effectiveness, 37
quality, 37
Intelligent:
agents, 124
control, 6, 11, 31, 41, 43
autonomy, 45
basic elements, 34
conditions for use, 33
objectives, 34
techniques, 39
controllers, 7, 35
correctness, 10
extendibility, 10
precision, 10
reusability, 10
robustness, 10, 40
systems, 10
acceptance, 37
architecture, 46
design tools and methods,
18
distributed architecture, 47
efficiency, 37
hierarchical structure, 46
Knowledge:
base, 76
based systems, 13, 48
embedded, 193
empirical, 33
engineering, 37
and experience, 31
heuristic, 135
Learning machines, 154
Linguistic:
controller, 261
descriptors, 57
294
[Linguistic]
rule matrix, 186
rules, 8, 14, 16, 20, 32, 59
values, 57
variables, 57
Mamdani, 1, 79, 84, 111
Membership function, 55
generic S, 66
generic , 67
Model-based fuzzy control (see
also Tagaki-Sugeno
controllers), 135, 136
Modern control, 3
Multi-level relay controller, 111
Neural:
control, 51, 153, 160
learning and adaptation, 161
parallel processing, 161
rule-based, 181
controllers, 160
architectures, 162
indirect learning, 166
inverse model, 164
specialized training, 165
design using genetic
algorithms, 222
fidelity, 163
indirect training of, 166
inverse model of, 164
multi-variable, 161
properties of, 161
rule-based, 181
network training algorithms,
169
back-propagation (BP), 169,
176
flow chart, 180
Delta, 173
least mean squares (LMS),
171
Index
multi-layer, 175
supervised learning, 169
unsupervised learning, 169
Widrow-Hoff, 170
Neuro-fuzzy control, 8, 51, 193
architectures, 194
isomorphism, 195
fuzzification of neural
controllers, 195
neuralization of fuzzy
controllers, 195
Numerical Fuzzy Associative
Memory (NFAM), 187
Perceptron, 154
Procedural knowledge, 16
Real-time:
expert systems, 26
execution scheduler, 124
fuzzy control, 119
Relational algorithm, 7
Representation of knowledge, 20
Response asymmetry
compensation, 269
Rule:
composition, 82
conflict, 102
encoding, 182
granularity, 116
Rule-based:
neural control, 181
network training, 183
Saridis' principle, 10, 46
Shallow knowledge, 18, 24, 32
Simulated annealing, 8, 225
Metropolis algorithm, 226
optimization:
constrained, 229
industrial controller, 232
295
Index
Soft:
computing, 7, 41, 42, 154, 203
control, 42
Supervisory fuzzy controllers, 120
de-fuzzifier, 120
fuzzifier, 120
inference engine, 120
knowledge-base, 120
real-time data base, 120
Symbolic representation, 9
Synaptic weights, 156
Tagaki-Sugeno controllers (see
also Model-based
controllers),
136, 144
first approach, 136
fuzzy control law, 141
fuzzy process models, 139

fuzzy variables and fuzzy
spaces, 137
locally linearized process
model, 142
second approach, 144
stability conditions, 144
Uncertainty and vagueness, 7, 53
Unconventional control, 6, 40
Universe of discourse, 55
Waste-water treatment control, 126
Widrow-Hoff training algorithm,
170, 172, 173
Zadeh, 1, 50, 53, 119

Computational Intelligence in Control Engineering - King

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Computational Intelligence in Control Engineering - King

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foreword

In the last 50 years, Automatic Control Theory has developed into a

Fuzzy Logic, Artificial Neural Networks and Evolutionary Computation

Appendix A offers a step-by-step study for the design of a fuzzy

Foreword by George N. Saridis

2. Expert Systems in Industry

4. Techniques of Intelligent Control

5. Elements of Fuzzy Logic

7. The Fuzzy Control Algorithm

8. Fuzzy Industrial Controllers

9. Real-time Fuzzy Control

10. Model-Based Fuzzy Control

11.5.2 Specialized training architecture

12. Neural Network Training

13. Rule-Based Neural Control

14. Neuro-Fuzzy Control

15. Evolutionary Computation

16. Simulated Annealing

17. Evolutionary Design of Controllers

A.8 Compensation of Response Asymmetry 269

The two approaches were developed independently and it was to take

1.1 Conventional Control

signing appropriate conventional controllers. These methods depend on

Figure 1.1 Distributed Control System architecture

The operator console possesses one or more screens that display

One or more human operators normally supervise a cluster of

Figure 1.2 A typical graphical user interface

In most industrial applications, human operators close the loop

to control a plant effectively, particularly under abnormal situations

1.2 Intelligent Control

connectionism and parallel distributed processing for dealing with

indirectly by means of a relational algorithm, relational

The first category belongs to the domain of Fuzzy Systems while

use the same process states,

1.3 Computational Intelligence in Control

peared. Numerous successful applications in a variety of fields attest to

use a numerical representation of knowledge,

A variety of architectures have been proposed for the design and

Expert Systems in Industry

is typically represented in the form of linguistic rules that describe the

Figure 2.1 Branches of Computational Intelligence

There are many techniques for representing knowledge and each

Expert Systems in Industry

2.1 Elements of an Expert System

facts, which constitute ephemeral information subject to

Figure 2.2 Basic elements of an Expert System

Expert Systems in Industry

The basic elements of an Expert System are shown in Figure 2.2.

the knowledge base, which comprises facts and rules with

2.2 The Need for Expert Systems

the lack of an explicit quantitative description of the physical

the ability of a class of knowledge-based systems to deal with

2.3 Stages in the Development of an Expert

Expert Systems in Industry

oriented languages, notably LISP, it is inconceivable today to develop

2.4 The Representation of Knowledge

2.5 Expert System Paradigms

Expert Systems in Industry

2.5.1 Expert systems for product design

Figure 2.3 The manufacturing environment

Expert Systems in Industry

While conventional Computer Aided Design (CAD) software

2.5.2 Expert systems for plant simulation and