1, FEBRUARY 1996

n to Fuzzy Control of
s: Stability and Design
Hua 0. Wang, Member, IEEE, Kazuo Tanaka, Member, IEEE, and Michael F. Griffin, Member, IEEE

Abstract-We present a design methodology for stabilization of feedback control is designed. The resulting overall controller,
a class of nonlinear systems. First, we represent a nonlinear plant which is nonlinear in general, is again a fuzzy blending of
with a Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model. Then a model-based fuzzy each individual linear controller.
controller design utilizing the concept of the so-called ‘‘parallel
distributed compensation” is employed. The main idea of the ThIs paper deals with stability and design issues in the pro-
controller design is to derive each control rule so as to compensate posed fuzzy control approach of nonlinear systems. Stability
each rule of a fuzzy system. The design procedure is conceptually conditions of both fuzzy models and fuzzy control systems
simple and natural. Moreover, the stability analysis and control are given. The design procedure aims at rendering stable
design problems can be reduced to linear matrix inequality fuzzy controllers. More significantly, the stability analysis and
(LMI) problems. Therefore, they can be solved efficiently in
practice by convex programming techniques for LMI’s. The control design problems are reduced to linear matrix inequality
design methodology is illustrated by application to the problem (LMI) problems [ 151. Numerically, the LMI problems can be
of balancing and swing-up of an inverted pendulum on a cart. solved very efficiently by means of some of the most powerful
tools available to date in the mathematical programming
literature. Therefore, recasting the stability analysis and control
design problems as LMI problems is equivalent to finding
E HAVE witnessed rapidly growing interest in fuzzy solutions to the original problems. The recasting of stability
control in recent years. There have been many success- analysis and design of fuzzy control systems to LMI problems
ful applications. Despite the success, it has become evident was first made in [ l l ] and [12].
that many basic issues remain to be further addressed. Stabil- For illustration the design methodology is applied to the
ity analysis and systematic design are certainly among the problem of balancing and swing-up of an inverted pendulum
most important issues for fuzzy control systems. Recently, on a cart.
there have been significant research efforts on these issues The paper is organized as follows: The main results are
[1]-[6]. This paper attempts to present a systematic design presented in Section 11. Stability analysis of Takagi-Sugeno
methodology for fuzzy control of a class of nonlinear systems. fuzzy models is presented in Section 11-A. In Section 11-B, we
There are several approaches to control of a nonlinear consider the control design problems via parallel distributed
system. A typical approach is the feedback stabilization of compensations. Section 11-C contains an introduction to LMI’s
nonlinear systems where a linear feedback control is designed as well as results and discussions on the LMI approach to
for the linearization of the system about a nominal operating the stability analysis and design of fuzzy control systems.
point. This approach, however, generally only renders a local In Section HI, the design methodology is illustrated via a
result. Other approaches [ 141 such as feedback linearization detailed example, namely the balancing and swing-up of an
are rather involved and tend to result in rather complicated inverted pendulum on a car. Concluding remarks are collected
controllers. in Section IV.
In this paper, we consider a nonlocal approach which
is conceptually simple and straightforward. Linear feedback 11. STABILITY ANALYSIS, PARALLEL DISTRIBUTED
control techniques can be utilized as in the case of feedback COMPENSATION AND LINEARMATRIXINEQUALITIES
stabilization. The procedure is as follows: First the nonlinear
In this paper, results for discrete-time systems only are pre-
plant is represented by a Takagi-Sugeno type fuzzy model.
sented for brevity’s sake. The results, however, also hold for
In this type of fuzzy model, local dynamics in different state
continuous-time systems subject to some minor modifications.
space regions are represented by linear models. The overall
To illustrate the design procedure, we apply the results to the
model of the system is achieved by fuzzy “blending” of these
problem of balancing and swing-up of an inverted pendulum
linear models. The control design i s carried out based on the
on a cart, which is a continuous-time system.
fuzzy model via the so-called parallel distributed compensation
In the proposed design procedure, to begin with we represent
scheme. The idea is that for each local linear model, a linear
a given nonlinear plant by the so-called Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy
Manuscript received January 1995; revised April 28, 1995. model [7]. This fuzzy modeling method is simple and natural.
H. 0. Wang and M. F. Griffin are with the United Technologies Research The system dynamics is captured by a set of fuzzy implications
Center, East Hartford, CT 06108 USA. which characterize local relations in the state space. The main
K. Tanaka is with the Department of Mechanical Systems Engineering,
Kanazawa University, 2-40-20 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa 920 Japan. feature of a Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model is to express the local
Publisher Item Identifier S 1063-6706(96)00639-X. dynamics of each fuzzy implication (rule) by a linear system
1063-6706/96$05.00 0 1996 IEEE

.e. Given a pair of ( z ( k ) . 2 for the initial condition (discrete-time) linear systems when r = 1.. Obviously there does not such that the V = z T P z proves the stability of system (2). exist a common P > 0 since the fuzzy system is unstable. the dimension of state n = 2... Mij V is called a quadratic Lyapunov function. Theorem 1 thus + are fuzzy sets.. the LMI problems can be solved very efficiently by means of some of the most powerful tools available to date in the mathematical programming literature.um(~)] the system (2) is also said to be quadratically stable and the i = 1 .e. Stability Analysis via Lyapunov Approach Rule 2: IF 22(k) is MZ (e. .. the linear subsystems are i. . final output of the fuzzy system is inferred as follows: To check the stability of fuzzy system (2)... for ensuring stability of (2) is given as follows: where %(IC) = \z1(IC) z2(k)IT and Theorem I. .uz(IC).r and r is the number of IF-THEN rules. 2 .u(k) + 0 where -a a z T ( k ) = [. Membership functions of Example 1.. UT@) = [ul(~)..n(IC)I Fig. Small) + THEN ~ ( k1) = Alz(IC). 1 shows the membership functions of M I and M2. Most of the time a trial-and-error type of procedure has been used [2].e. .g. For instance. = [0. a z(k + 1) = i=l r (1) procedure to construct a common P is given for second-order fuzzy systems. the Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy system is described by fuzzy IF-THEN rules. and z(L 1) = Aiz(k) B. i. Each linear component Aiz(k)is called a subsystem.WANG et al.g. that the stability condition of Theorem 1 is expressed in . Fig. 121: The equilibrium of a fuzzy system (2) is asymptotically stable in the large if there exists a common positive definite matrix P such that L J L ATPA% .(. The fuzzy system is of the following form: Rule i: IF z l ( b ) is Mal . . the recently developed interior-point methods [ 161 are extremely i=l efficient in practice. a common P has to exist for all subsystems. However.P < 0. It should be noted that the linearization The stability condition of Theorem 1 is derived using a of the fuzzy system around 0 is stable (which implies that quadratic function V(z) = zTPz.the (2). and zn(k)is Mzn + THEN z ( k 1) = A. Mi 1 Specifically.70IT. . for some initial conditions the fuzzy system This theorem reduces to the Lyapunov stability theorem for can be unstable as shown in Fig. a= I In this paper. This is an LMI problem (see The open-loop system of (1) is Section 11-C for details on LMI’s and the related LMI approach to stability analysis and design of fuzzy control systems). If there exists a P > 0 the fuzzy system is locally stable). i = 1 . .90 -0. .(k)). To do this a very important observation is wz(k) = J-J Ma. we point out that the common P problem where can be solved efficiently via convex optimization techniques n for LMI’s [15].=1 LMI’s. Example 1: Consider the fuzzy system: for all k . For system (2) a question naturally arises is whether system where it is assumed that r (2) is stable if all its subsystems are stable. all At’s are stable. it has long been r recognized there is a lack of a systematic procedure to find C w i ( I C ) {Aiz(k)+ IC) 1 a common positive definite matrix P .. The answer is no in general as illustrated by the following example. 1. 2 .z(lc) B. i.Z(k).. stable.u(k)). The overall fuzzy model of the system is achieved by fuzzy “blending” of the linear system models.: APPROACH TO FUZZY CONTROL OF NONLINEAR SYSTEMS 15 model. To check stability we need to find a common P or is the grade of membership of x 3 ( k ) in Ma. .. Big) A sufficient stability condition derived by Tanaka and THEN Z(IC + 1) = A ~ zIC)( Sugeno [2].r (3) Since A1 and A2 are stable. A. Rule 1: IF m ( k ) is MI (e. .l(IC>. Ma3(x3(IC)) determine that no such P exists.. r Numerically. In [IO]. which locally represent linear input- output relations of a system.u(k)is the output + presents a sufficient condition for quadratic stability of system from the ith IF-THEN rule.

5 -x2. In the next subsection.5 -2. for this example. an interesting interpretation can be Ip given for the dependence of basin of attraction on membership functions.2. how the basin of attraction would change as a varies of the fuzzy model.25 a = 2.. . (c) The black area indicates regions of instability (horizontal a = 0. . 3.’ (C) (4 Fig.5 -x. NO. For system (1). which is nonlinear in decreases (increases) from one the basin of attraction becomes general. 3(a) shows the basin of attraction for the case of a = 1.2. As a increases (decreases) the inference process tends to be “fuzzier” (“crisper”). It can be seen that as a The resulting overall fuzzy controller. . . (b) a = 0. . It is also of interest to consider how the basin of attraction changes as the membership functions vary. is a fuzzy blending of each individual linear controller. when a = 00. Therefore. Response of Example 1 ( a = 1).5 -xl. Fig. Basin of attraction for Example 1-(a) a = 1. 4 shows the concept of PDC design. VOL.5 -2. axis is 2 1 ) . r r esting topic. Fig. Moreover. .5 -x2. How to systematically select rules and membership Substituting (4) into (1) we obtain functions to satisfy prescribed stability properties is an inter.z(k) which is linear and globally asymptotically stable.5 -2. the basin of attraction for the The fuzzy controller shares the same fuzzy sets with the fuzzy fuzzy system could be membership function dependent.2.. functions. Fig. As illustrated by the example.16 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS. This is determined by a = 0.2.5 -xz. and (d) a = 2. Still an interesting question is for what initial conditions is -2. we consider the control design problems via parallel distributed compensations.2. the fuzzy controller is For this specific example. 4. Parallel Distributed Compensation We utilize the concept of parallel distributed compensation (PDC) [SI and [9] to design fuzzy controllers to stabilize fuzzy When applying Theorem 1. 3(b).5 -2.2. this can also be shown numerically by convex optimization algorithms involving LMI’s.5 -2. 1. smaller (larger).5 -zl-2. 2. Hence. where i = 1 . The idea is to design a compensator for each rule instance. condition for (quadratic) stability. Hence.0 studying the basin of attraction of the origin. 2 ..the fuzzy system becomes A I + A2 Rule i: IF ~ ( kis )M I .5 the fuzzy system stable (or unstable).5 -x2. B.5 a=l a = 0. In the system (1) example.25.5 (a) (b) -6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 k Fig.5 -x.5. . attraction for various values of a. T . and (d) shows the basin of For each rule.0. and ~ ( kis )Mnz z(k + 1) = ___ 2 4k) THEN = ( k ) = --F. we have to take stability issue into consideration when selecting rules and membership Note that the controller (4) is nonlinear in general. we can use linear control design techniques. FEBRUARY 1996 61 r 1 I 1 -2.5 -2. (c). we have the following sufficient ’Sugeno mentioned this point in his plenary talk at FUZZ-EEE ’92. “fuzzier” decision leads to larger basin of attraction while “crisper” decision leads to smaller basin of attraction.2. This can be shown analytically.

we have to repeat the procedure.: APPROACH TO FUZZY CONTROL OF NONLINEAR SYSTEMS 17 Fuzzy srjtem Fuzzy cmtrolier the system (1) is also said to be quadratically stabilizable via PDC design. In general. . 2 . If there exist such F. . Using the notation of quadratic stability.P < 0 . i = 1. . satisfies (10).B. The control design problem is to select F. Theorem 4: In the case of B. . we note that for some special cases.1750 [ I 0 1 .B. .BF1= A2 . 2 . + THEN ~ ( k1) = Azz(k) B u ( ~ ) + i=l. T ) and we choose F. . { A . .F.(k). i<j 5 r.P < 0.32501 and G ~ P G .2. the control design problem can be solved analytically. i . we first design a controller for each rule and check whether the stability conditions are satisfied. Rule 2: IF x 2 ( k ) is M2 w= E WZ(k)Wj(k). = B . such that Fig. the equi- librium of fuzzy control system ( 5 ) can be made asymptotically stable in the large by the fuzzy PDC controller (4) where F. Parallel distributed compensation (PDC) design. P < 0. Theorem 3: The equilibrium of a fuzzy control system (5) is asymptotically stable in the large if there exists a B= [:I. Because of (10) and for w.F3}. . we can also think of z(k + 1) = G z (k ) the control design problem as finding F... .2.B. We remark that a common G might not always be possible even if (A. ) are controllable. Recall we can use LMI convex programming techniques to solve this stability analysis problem. .’s.j = 1.=l where A I . .85 -0.T .B . A1 .B. . 4.}TP{A.r F1 = [0. i = 1 .’s such that the closed- loop system ( 5 ) is quadratically stable. Assume (A. . we have the following sufficient condition. Please consult Section 11-C on how LMI’s can be used for directly solving the control design problem. which is stable since G is stable. we obtain { A .B. If B.T. (9) Remark: The conditions of Theorem 3 are more relaxed than those of Theorem 2. There exists a P such that is asymptotically stable in the large if there exists a common positive definite matrix P such that -P G~PG 0.351. .15 -0. = B(i = 1 . .WANG et al. If the stability conditions are not satisfied.. Here.5 0. . r ) The closed loop becomes such that conditions (8) and (9) in Theorem 3 are satisfied. w3( k ) # 0. eigenvalues to be [0... . . . . + (6) Gij = G i s j Note that system ( 5 ) can be also written as the following theorem follows from Theorem 3.}TP{A. Example 2: Consider the fuzzy system: where Rule 1: IF 4 k ) is MI + + THEN ~ ( k1) = A l z ( k ) B % ( k ) .(i = 1.-.BF2 1 G= 0.F.A2 are the same as in Example 1 and Therefore.32501 (8) F2 = [-1. common positive definite matrix P such that the following Employ the PDC controller (4) and choose the closed-loop two conditions are satisfied.85 -0. Theorem 2: The equilibrium of a fuzzy control system ( 5 ) where G is a Hunvitz matrix. V k .) are controllable.Pi} .

51 F2 = [0. we DeJinition 1.i.111 and 1 NonlinearSystem 1 0. Therefore recasting design methodology. 6 illustrates the fuzzy model-based fuzzy control efficiently solved numerically in all cases. Stability Analysis and Design Using LMI’s 2=1 Recently. However.F z ~ ( k ) . Except for a few special cases The design procedure represents a systematic framework of these problems do not have analytical solutions. 0- we have J 6.= 0. z ) is the variable and the symmet- . 4.3 - 0.. F .3044 1 L I Parellel-Distributed Compensation (PDC) Fuzzy Controller Fig. are tractable at least in a theoretical sense. .18 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS. In the next section. 6. The P is obtained by utilizing an LMI optimization and control. the fuzzy modeling and fuzzy control design for a large class of main point is that through an LMI framework they can be systems.2400 Note that Gl2 is stable. .1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 F1 [0. Fig.2150 Giz = 0. = FF E W X ni . a class of numerical optimization problems called where zT = ( 1 c 1 . the stability conditions (8) and (9) are satisfied.I 0.5 - where A I . >0 (11) C.1810 -0. m F ( X ) = Fo +C z . Again choose the closed-loop eigenvalues to be [0. inequality symbol > O means that F ( z ) is positive definite. Moreover. FEBRUARY 1996 ~ Next we consider the more general case. the LMI formulation of the a control problem as an LMI problem is equivalent to finding stability analysis and design problems enables very efficient a “solution” to the original problem.7 Rule 2: IF z z ( k ) is M z 0.51: A linear matrix inequality (LMI) is a present an introduction to LMI’s as well as the LMI approach matrix inequality of the form to stability analysis and design of fuzzy control systems.9450 0. . the closed-loop fuzzy control system which consists of the fuzzy model and the PDC controller is globally asymptotically been found to be extremely efficient in practice. NO.6 - + THEN ~ ( k1) = A ~ I G (Baa(k) ~) + 0.1 the simulation. ~ is( kM ) I + THEN ~ ( k1) = Alic(k) Bla(k).87 -0.65 -0. hence.Az are the same as in Example 1 and 5 0. 2 2 . LMI problems has received significant attention [ 151. Bz= [-. 1. -0.m are given. It can be easily shown that if we choose the positive definite matrix P to be [ 1.4- B1= [:I. solutions to these problems in practice. be recast as LMI problems [15]. The recently The LMI (11) is a convex constraint on z. . the set developed interior-point methods [ 161 for these problems have {zlF(z)> 0} is convex. Rule 2: IF x2(k) is M2 P= THEN ~ ( k=) .9 Example 3: Consider the fuzzy system: Rule I: IF ~ c . the importance of LMI optimization stems from algorithm. . 0. These ric matrices P. In other words. 5 illustrates the behavior of the fuzzy control the fact that a wide variety of system and control problems can system for the same initial condition of Fig. Fig.2 - The membership functions of Example 1 ( a = 1) are used in - 0.0614 -0. For systems stable.0614 2.351. (1.5 0. The LMI (11) can represent a wide . + 0.e.3050 I ’ The PDC controller is Rule 1: IF 1c2(k) is M I THEN ~ ( k=) -Piic(k). . Fuzzy model-based fuzzy control design. The optimization problems can be solved in polynomial-time and. . 2. VOL. .

a Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model and PDC design.B K } > 0. In addition to saving notation. the system is said to be and convex quadratic matrix inequalities. . Remark 2: The stability analysis and control design results Consider the case T = 1.B K } T Q . Of course.. F ( p ) > + ) 0. problem.A P . We can easily extend the LMI based control design ap- or determine that no such P exists. . the system (13) + P A < 0. the The condition (14) is not jointly convex in F and P . This form of an LMI.P < o . i = 1. Very often in the LMI's the variables are matrices. The recasting therefore constitutes solutions to the stability analysis and control design problems in the framework of Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model and PDC design. and defining a new variable Q = P .B F } T Q . using standard stability theory for linear time invariant systems or Theorem 2. In Q { A .l . If such a gain F exists. . the LMI LMI form using Schur complements [ 151.F. Here. >O (17) As an example. (1) becomes a linear time invariant system well. This is a convex feasibility problem. will be discussed elsewhere. .l { A . e.. the system (13) is quadratically stabilizable W n X n . time systems. is (quadratically) stable if there exist P > 0 such that In the next section. .{AQ . . Multiple LMI's F(') > 0. and K such that the LMI (17) holds. proach to multiple rule ( r > 1) cases of the Takagi-Sugeno The stability conditions encountered in this paper are ex. [(AQQ B K ) (AQ -Q tion in Theorem 1 is exactly an LMI problem: Given A.P < 0.g. T . . (14) continuous-time system.. Thus. gain F such that the closed-loop system is (quadratically) and constraints that arise in control theory. . they also guarantee stability for related uncertain a control that ensures the stability of the closed-loop system. where P I .. solved) using the work well when applied to the real system. The iterative design procedure has been very Remark 1: The stability conditions presented in this paper. The control design problem is to find a state-feedback ities. Instead of using the Lyapunov inequality for discrete- z ( k + 1) = h ( k ) + B u ( k ) .WANG ef al. we may rewrite (14) as AP < o A~P. the quadratic stabilizability of the pressed in the form of LMI's.l . from the standpoint of not only guarantee stability of fuzzy models and fuzzy control control design. we should use the Lyapunov inequality for (13) continuous-time systems For a given control gain F .e. we apply the PDC approach to a { A . conditions are not satisfied.r The design procedure presented in this paper involves an iterative process. effective in our experience.B F } . This point is LMI approach. . .2. In the case where the stability PDC design... Thus. However. based on consideration of local performance only.: APPROACH TO FUZZY CONTROL OF NONLINEAR SYSTEMS 19 variety of convex constraint on 2. convex quadratic inequalities. are a basis for symmetric n x n matrices. matrix norm inequalities. can all be cast in the quadratically stabilizable (via linear state feedback).BF}Q . We claim that controller that works well with the fuzzy model is likely to the control problem can be recast (hence. the controller for each rule will Some important remarks are in order: be redesigned. there is only one IF-THEN presented in this paper hold for continuous-time systems as rule.. i = 1. the inequality (12) can be readily put in the form (11): Take Fo = O. . it is more desirable to be able to directly design systems. the simultaneous Lyapunov stability condi. (15) this case the LMI will not be written explicitly in the form Define K = FQ so that for Q > 0 we have F = K Q .. E in Q and K .2. i=l. (16) + -ATP. i = 1.. this may lead to Substituting into (15) yields more efficient computation [ 151. F ( z )> 0. LMI approach to the control design problem. In particular. The resulting LMI is Problem is to find zfeassuch that F(zfeas) > 0 or determine that the LMI is infeasible. The P>O. = Q . Then an The LMI based control design approach has also been LMI-based stability analysis is carried out to check whether the developed for the control of Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy models via stability conditions are satisfied. p can be quadratic stabilizability problem can be recast as an LMI - expressed as a single LMI diag ( F ( l ) . linear inequal. presented elsewhere. however.r state feedback gain is F = K Q .. For each rule a controller is designed with the state feedback gain F = K Q .. linear time-varying systems (LDI's) and nonlinear systems This is referred to as the control problem in the framework of satisfying some global or local sector conditions. we only briefly state the ideas of the clearly demonstrated by the application in the next section. we need to find P satisfying the LMI if there exist Q > 0. i.fuzzy models. This nonlinear (convex) inequality can now be converted to LMZprobZems [15]: Given an LMI F ( z )> 0. This recasting is significant Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy models via a linear state feedback can in the sense that efficient convex optimization algorithms can be cast as the following LMI problem in Q and K : be used for stability analysis and control design problems. Now Lyapunov inequality multiplying the inequality on the left and right by P e l . For instance.Q < 0.P . Details will be The theoretical details. ATPA.B F } T P { A.l { A Q . such as Lyapunov stable.l .l . (12) where A E Rnxn is given and P = PT is the variable.

r 0 11 + respectively. and 52 is the angular velocity.66671 illustrates the closed-loop behavior of the system with the 8'2 = [-2551.amlb2) model + PDC control). i = 1 . -21 for A1-BIF1 controls for initial conditions x1 = 15". the It can be easily shown that the following stability conditions system is uncontrollable.6250 0.2812 ' model. we approximate the system are satisfied by the following two-rule fuzzy model. NO 1.B.0kg. the linear control alone U = -FIXfails to balance and p = cos (88").6667 -22. 21 = 1.. a = l/(m + M ) . 2 (20) THEN X = Ala: + B ~ u .8m/s2 is the gravity constant. 75".F. This (nonlinear) control law guarantees the stability of the fuzzy control system (fuzzy Ln(41/3 -.F ~ x 41/3 . 9 F1 = [-120. 7. To minimize the design effort and complexity. fuzzy controller for initial conditions x1 = 65". The equations of motion for the pendulum are [ 181 31 =x2 g sin (21) .F. Hence. consider the problem of balancing and swing-up of an inverted pendulum on a cart. sin (2x1)/2 ..B. Notice that when x1 = f7r/2. Therefore. .w ~ F ~ x (22) 1-41/3-aml1 where w1 and w2 are the membership values of Rule 1 and 2.amlp2 contrast. and U is the Fig. M = 8. (w1 w2 = 1).62501 0. and 22 = 0. It follows that We remark that given the nonlinear plant (18) nonlinear A1 . we first represent the system (18) by a Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy (19) P = p. Rule 1: IF x1 is about 0 { A . M is the -90 0 mass of the cart. we obtain the fol- To use the PDC approach. . forced applied to the cart (in Newtons). g = 9.20 LEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS. To assess the effectiveness of the PDC controller. 30"./a). A.acos ( Q ) U x2 = (18) 41/3 . we apply the controller to the original system (18).0kg. am1 that is U = -wlFla: . Simulations indicate the control law can balance the pen- B2 = dulum for initial conditions 2 1 E [-%" 88"] ( z z = 0). we try to use as few rules as possible. We choose m = 2./Z 7r/2). we have The solid lines indicate responses with the fuzzy controller.F I X .amlx.B2F2.am1 cos2 (21) where q denotes the angle (in radians) of the pendulum from the vertical. response of the pendulum system using linear and fuzzy PDC Choose the closed-loop eigenvalues [-2. we must have a fuzzy model which lowing represents the dynamics of the nonlinear plant. 8 shows the are shown in Fig. However. 45O. GT2P + PG12 < 0.BlFl = A2 . Membership functions for Rule 1 and 2 the pendulum for initial angles lxll> 45". (21) Rule 2: IF 21 is about h / 2 (1x11 < n/2) THEN X AZX B ~ u + The resulting PDC control law is where Rule 1: IF x1 is about 0 0 THEN U = . Rule 2: XF 2 1 is about f7r/2 (1x11 < 7r/2) THEN U = . m is the mass of the pendulum. 85". Using an LMI optimization algorithm. FEBRUARY 1996 111. such control laws . and x2 = 0. Note that G12 is Hunvitz.0m in the simulations and [171.01.6 -764. .6250 0.}TP + P { A . Fig. 7. 21 is the length of the pendulum. and A2 . In 41/3 . Two-RuleModeling and Control The control objective of this subsection is to balance the in. Fig. The dotted lines show those with the linear controller. 4.B2F2 = G = control laws can be designed to balance the pendulum for initial angles $1 E (--.} < 0. VOL. Membership functions of two-rule model. verted pendulum for the approximate range 2 1 E (-n/2. APPLICATION: INVERTED PENDULUM ON A CART Rule 2 To illustrate the PDC approach.

01 sec ( X I ) . B4F4 = G The resulting controller is simple as well. 9 k(zl.B3F3 and A4 . Angle response using two-rule fuzzy control.am1 cos ( 2 1 ) and e l . 10.B4F4. U F3 = [2551.] Fig. we extend the results to the range of X I E [-r r]except for a thin strip near f r / 2 . -21 for A3 . 8. z ~where ) The membership functions of this four-rule fuzzy model are 4kle2 shown in Fig. often tend to be quite involved. + Rule 4: IF x1 is about r THEN X = A42 B ~ u + where A I .4675 l l Suppose the pendulum on the cart system is built in such a way that the work space of the pendulum is the full circle Note that GS4is Hunvitz. 9.6 764. Membership functions of four-rule model. On the other hand. 10. For example. Four-Rule Modeling and Control G34 = -220.WANG et al. choose the closed-loop eigenvalues [-2. Angle response using linear and two-rule fuzzy control.z2)= . A3 . Rule 1: IF 2 1 is about 0 THEN X A12 B ~ u .In this subsection. we have (e1 + 4 x 2 + ele2ml sin ( 5 1 ) + ~. Az. I (23) It follows that F4 = [22.-In [sec(z1) tan ( X I ) ] U 3u + Again.: APPROACH TO FUZZY CONTROL OF NONLINEAR SYSTEMS 21 Rule 4 X1 -180 -90 0 90 180 [deg.r]. + Rule 2: IF X I is about f7r-12 (1x11 < r / 2 ) THEN X = A22 B ~ u . one such control law is [17] U = k ( x 1 . Recall that Fig.tan(z1). [-r.5230 --67. B2 are the same as above and time (sec) Fig. for X I = f r / 2 the system is uncontrollable. and B.B1.6667 22..66671. e2 are the specified closed-loop eigenvalues. . Balancing the pendulum for the angle range of r / 2 < 1x11 5 r is time (sec) referred to as swing-up control of the pendulum. + Rule 3: IF 5 1 is about f r / 2 (1~11> r / 2 ) THEN X = A32 B ~ u . the PDC design is intuitive and simple.B3F3 = Aq . We add two more rules (Rule 3 and 4) to the fuzzy model.

Rule 2: IF 2 1 is about f n / 2 (1x1)< n / 2 ) 120 THEN U = . w2 and w4.5 4 4.5 5 + GT4P PG34< 0.5 3 3.5 2 2.1.5 1 1.5 4 4. THEN U = . 12.F ~ x 60 40 that is 2o U = -wlFlx .F ~ x . 4 (24) 0' 0.5 time (sec) 3 3. The PDC controller is 160 Rule 1: IF z1 is about 0 140 THEN U -FIX.5 5 + system (four-rule fuzzy model PDC control). 11. Angle response using four-nile fuzzy control Fig.F ~ x . . 4. 2 0 1and w4. i = 3 . .5 2 2. 13. Hence. (26) This control law guarantees stability of the fuzzy control 0' 0.}< 0. This controller time (sec) is applied to the Original system (18) for evaluation of its Fig. 3100 Rule 3: IF 21 is about b r / 2 (1x11 > n/2) W ??. FEBRUARY 1996 time (sec) Fig. (25) Fig. Closer-loop angle response with m changed. NO.BtFt}TP + P{A.5 I 1. 14. VOL. Closed-loop angle response with M changed.22 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS. B.F. w ~ F -~ wx ~ F -~~ x4 8 ' 4 2 .w2 and w3. Closed-loop angle response with I changed. only 612 and 180 G34 are needed in stability check. TABLE I COMPARISONS OF DIFFERENTCONTROL DESIGNS I It can be shown that the P of (19) satisfies the additional stability conditions {At . There is no overlap between membership values w1 and ~ 3 . E 80 Rule 4: IF 51 is about 7r THEN U = .

1994. -. “On the stability of fuzzy control systems. from the University of Cincin- nati. “An approach to stability analysis of second order fuzzy systems. Rugh. I.165”. Contr. Li. Numerical Investigations of Chaotic Systems: A Handbook for JAY’S Dynamics.. Moreover. Phys. Ying.” in Proc.. Yorke. and fuzzy control theory. he worked on G. pp. 1994. Inst. T. CT. pp. 2. 2. current research interests include fuzzy stability issues. pp. In 1992 and 1993. vol. “A robust stabilization problem of fuzzy control strip can be reduced by adding more rules to the model and systems and its application to backing up control of a truck-trailer. His logic controller.” in Proc.. R. 40-46.. Tomizuka. W. To test the robustness of this controller. 1994. Seattle. NJ: Prentice-Hall. can be membership function dependent. 1991. Sano. Kazuo Tanaka (S’87-M’91). Japan: Ky- system for initial conditions 2 1 = 125”. Sci. vol. . “Analysis and synthesis of fuzzy linguistic where he has participated in the analysis of jet control systems. Cincinnati. Fig. Tanaka. Tanaka and M. engine controllers. Sugeno. 3rd IFIS. 2. Syst. Man.-J.0 kg. E. “Stability analysis of fuzzy systems using degree in electrical engineering from the University Lyapunov’s direct method. simulations are conducted: 1) m is changed 2. Philadelphia. they can be solved very efficiently in practice by convex programming techniques for LMI’s. Englewood changed from 1. 5 2 = 0. 180°. 12. Adaptive F u m Systems and Control: Design and Stability UTRC. pp. 13..” IEEE Trans. For each case. Chen and H. nonlinear systems: Stability and design issues. Cannon. Cybern. 1992. pp. TX. New York McGraw- Stability conditions of fuzzy models and fuzzy control Hill.” Proc. Automat. “Interior-point polynomial methods in in Figs. 1995. Tokyo. Griffin (S’8O-M’84-M’87-M’89) re- ceived the BSEET and MSEE degrees in 1979 and REFERENCES 1982. he worked as a biomedical engineerhesearcher for Cardiac Research Analysis. and ouritsu Pub. Vachtsevanos. “Fuzzy identification of systems and its (26) is able to balance the pendulum for all initial angles except applications to modeling and control. Simulation results demonstrate that the controller T. for stabilization of a class of nonlinear systems based on Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model and parallel distributed com- pensation control design is presented.0 kg to 4. PA.’’ in system identification of aortic input impedance. 145”.D. at the Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati. NAFIPS ’90. visiting researcher at the Tokyo Institute of Technology where he participated S . “Stability analysis of the fuzzy in the design of a fuzzy logic controller for an unmanned helicopter. R. “Parallel distributed com- T/2 L 1511 I 7r. 2272-2276.” Fuzzy He is currently a Research Engineer for United Sets Syst. Some comparisons between the linear. Griffin.0 M.0 m to 0. T. E. 45. i w . S . of Florida.” in Proc. “Feedback control of nonlinear systems by extended linearization. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors are grateful to Dr. pensation of nonlinear systems by Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy model. Applied Nonlinear Control. 15. Philadelphia. Baumann and W. p. Therefore. 1967. Technologies Research Center in East Hartford. Note that the nonlinear controller (23) does not apply for H.” in Proc. analysis and control design problems are reduced to LMI problems. Prior to L. Langari and M. Tanaka and M. San Antonio. WA. Kawamoto et al. 1986. 1990. I995 Amer. The design methodology is illustrated by application to the problem of balancing and swing-up of an inverted pendulum on a cart. Tanaka. S . IV. pp. for his generous support and encouragement. 1992. 11 illustrates the response of the closed-loop IEEE Trans. 1986. sonadradar adaptive algorithms 3542. A Theory of Advanced Fuzzy Control. for photograph and biography. development. New Jersey: hentice-Hall. There. pp 116-132.: APPROACH TO FUZZY CONTROL OF NONLINEAR SYSTEMS 23 performance. CONCLUSION no. F. X. Michael F. and 3. the following Contr. Tech. -. Wang (M’94). for cases 1.” in Proc. nonlinear and fuzzy FUZZIEEELFES ’95. Fuzzy Syst. Wang..0 kg to 4. The basin of attraction of a fuzzy system H. H. Englewood Cliffs.” IEEE Trans. vol. pp. 1995. Houston. respectively. In 1989.. Nusse and J. Maryland. see this issue.. Dynamics of Physical Systems. The design procedure is conceptually simple and natural. 329-346. we simulate Cliffs. 133-136. and 14. Sugeno. pp. Sugeno and G. K.. T. 135-156.” SIAM. J.5 m. 180°. Farinwata and G. no.. the stability Hua 0. Jr.” Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1993. 85”. PA. Draft. MD. Fuzz IEEE ’92. he received the Ph.WANG et al. Nemirovsky. when 2 1 is in a thin strip 88” < 1x1I < 94’. W. “Stability analysis and design of fuzzy control systems. Takagi and M. A design methodology Univ. 13. 1993.145”. respectively. Thompkins. Wang. nonstationary signal TX. Meet. convex programming. 5 1 = 45”.” SIAM. 1427-1434. IEEE Con8 Decision Contr. 531-538. “An analytical framework of fuzzy modeling and control of control designs are summarized loosely in Table I. S . pp. vol.” controller. p. and 22 = 0. kg. systems are given. see this issue. K. The results are shown Y. Slotine and W. he was a Proc. 2. Boyd et al. “Linear matrix inequalities in systems and control the closed-loop system for the following initial conditions theory. Gainesville. Kang. 18. 0. 1994. and M. A.. The size of this thin K. AC-3 1. College Park. 1994 (in Japanese). 1992. 119-134. 1990. Nesterov and A. Con$. OH. no. processing. 13. and modeling of complex nonlinear systems. “Fuzzy modeling and control of multilayer incinerator. and 3) 21 is J. 2 ) M is changed from 8. for photograph and biography.. K. 1990 ASME Winter Ann.