FUZZY

sets and systems

ELSEVIER Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 33 41

Application of fuzzy logic control in industry

A.J. v a n d e r W a l *
European Technical Centre, Omron Europe B.V. Zilverenberg 2, 5234 GM "s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands

Abstract

In this paper an overview is given of the various ways fuzzy logic can be used to improve industrial control. The
application of fuzzy logic in control is illustrated by two case studies. The first example shows how fuzzy logic,
incorporated in the hardware of an industrial controller, helps to finetune a PID controller, without the operator having
any a priori knowledge of the system to be controlled. The second example is from process industry. Here, fuzzy logic
supervisory control is implemented in software and enhances the operation of a sintering oven through a subtle
combination of priority management and deviation-controlled timing. Finally the key areas of research in fuzzy logic
control are discussed: First the paper discusses how fuzzy logic control can be combined with other methods. By properly
separating the a priori model knowledge of the process under control, a hierarchy of nonlinear control methods is
established. After a short discussion of how to optimize an intuitive fuzzy rule base, we show that it is possible to derive
conditions for asymptotic stability and robustness of fuzzy logic controllers, using classical nonlinear analysis.

Keywords: Nonlinear control; Fuzzy logic; Neural networks; Genetic algorithms

1. Introduction control interface recognizing autographs both op-

After having enjoyed an increasingly great popu-
larity in Japan during the last decade, Fuzzy Logic
(FL) is nowadays applied in virtually all sectors of
industry and science in the western world, espe-
cially in the field of control and, more recently, in
pattern recognition. Apart from the often quoted
application of F L is consumer products, m a n y pro-
fessional products benefit from the advantages of
FL. O M R O N has developed in recent years a wide
range of equipment that incorporates FL techno-
logy: these include a bloodcell analyzer, an access
* E-mail: nlomrawa@ibmmail.com.
tically and by exerted pressure, a low-cost earth-
quake detector, a real-time color copy protection
recognizing major banknotes and various (temper-
ature) controllers and user-programmable FL
modules in PLCs. Although initially scepticism and
lack of know-how hampered and delayed its intro-
duction, the industrial world in Europe and - with
a time lag of about a year - also in the USA, has
now widely accepted FL as a valuable theory to
rapidly develop prototypes, especially in control.
Because of the wide applicability of FL it is not
so easy to give an exhaustive review of all possible
ways in which F L has been applied in industrial
control. The ability of F L to model imprecise and
subjective notions makes it possible to mimic

0165-0114/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDI 0 1 6 5 - 0 1 1 4 ( 9 5 ) 0 0 0 3 3 - X
34 AJ. van der Wal / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 33 41
human-like reasoning with automata. This feature
makes it possible to combine very different types of
information and use these to control real-life pro-
cesses. The many different strategies to achieve this
control further complicate a complete review of FL
control.
Three main reasons can be given for the present
popularity and therefore for the many different
applications of FL control in industry. In the first
place FL can be easily combined with existing
methods. In addition process control often deals
with intrinsic uncertainties and/or ambiguities, due
to change in parameters (starting materials, fuel
mixture, external environment) and/or difficult and
indirect measurements. Classically these uncertain-
ties are to be handled by human operators. A final
advantage of applying FL is its suitability for rapid
prototyping, yielding a shorter time-to-market.
In Section 2 we will first discuss the various
options for designing an industrial controller and
then focus on fuzzy control, highlighting those fea-
tures that are characteristic for fuzzy control. After
reviewing when and how to employ FL, two case
studies are described. In Section 3 the hardware
architecture of the ES100 industrial controller of
O M R O N is described. Next, in Section 4, the con-
trol of a sintering oven by means of FL control
software is explained. In Section 5 we show how FL
control is embedded in other control methods and
finally review in Section 6 the stability and robust-
ness of FL controllers.
2. Industrial controller design
2.1. Basic control design options
In the design stage of an industrial controller
basically three different methodologies can be
followed:
(1) The most accurate approach is to use the
physical model of the system. This looks as the
most elegant solution. However only the most
simple processes can be controlled in this way. The
reasons are obvious: In realistic industrial control
problems we deal with many parameters, interac-
tions that are not always transparent or have
strongly nonlinear relationships, and timescales
that do not allow for real-time evaluation of the
system. In addition not all parameters can be meas-
ured with the desired accuracy.
(2) A second possible approach is to use the
process identification model. In this approach a dy-
namic multi-variable model for control is adopted.
This model is identified by fitting it to the real
process. Using statistics, the model is modified until
its response closely approximates that of the real
process. A disadvantage in utilizing this approach
is that it is often not allowed to accumulate the data
necessary for making the identification, or that the
time necessary to make enough statistics is not
available.
(3) In the third place one can exploit fuzzy logic
to model the control behavior of an expert operator
(or even of more than one operator). This method
can be used independent of the availability of the
process for experiments. Of course it is necessary
that the operators have gained enough expertise as
to control the process and that they are able and
willing to express their expertise to the designers of
a FL controller. Like in the previous methodology,
it is not necessary to have an in-depth understand-
ing of the interrelations of all parameters.
2.2. Fuzzy control
Although fuzzy controllers are based on the
modeling of knowledge using linguistic or fuzzy
variables, this does not imply that for measuring
process parameters low accuracy and cheap sensors
could be used. In the experience of the author fuzzy
logic does not reduce the need for accurate
measurements and sensors. The advantage of fuzzy
logic lies in its ability to use qualitative knowledge
(control rules) to quantify controller actions. The
application of fuzzy logic in designing a controller
has distinct advantages compared to other methods:
(a) Many input- and output variables can be
handled simultaneously.
(b) All knowledge rules in the fuzzy expert
system apply simultaneously; inferencing can easily
be mapped on a multi-processor system. Even
conflicting rules can be accommodated by the
formalism.
(c) An important data reduction is brought
about by reducing the infinite number of values
 A.J. van der Wal / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 33 41 35

that a physical quantity can take to only a finite,

Data
low number of linguistic values. In addition it is processingJ ~J Control J ]
generally not necessary to define output states
for all combinations of input variables, because
a careful selection of variables and subdivision in
sub-strategies will reduce the number of rules
tremendously.
(d) Although vague, control information is
clearly 'localized' in a fuzzy controller. This implies
that if one is not satisfied with the controller action Fig. 1. Fuzzycontrol parallel to PID control as e.g. applied in
for certain combinations of system inputs, the ac- the OMRON E5AF temperaturecontroller.
tive rules causing the controller action can immedi-
ately be identified and corrections can be made,
without affecting the behavior of the controller at
other inputs. This orthogonality of (groups of) con-
trol rules makes it possible to easily add a set of
rules to an existing fuzzy controller or zooming in
on a certain feature of the controller without
disturbing the behavior of the controller in other
situations. This is e.g. in sharp contrast with the
situation of controllers based on neural networks.
In these 'black-box'-type controllers the control
information is distributed over all neurons in the
network. Fig. 2. Simple controller architecture: Fuzzy logic can be em-
(e) The 'zooming' feature makes it also possible ployed in all boxes marked with e.
to combine fuzzy-logic-based controllers with con-
ventional controllers e.g. by improving the PID
demand of relative low quality. FL can accommod-
controller by combining it with a fuzzy controller
ate both simultaneously.
with the purpose of improving over- and/or under-
Finally we will address the question how the FL
shoot behavior once the controller has settled. The
controller should be implemented. The choice basi-
fuzzy controller also decides the degree to which it
cally is straightforward and only determined by the
contributes to the joint output of both parallel
real-time demands of the system to be controlled.
controllers (see Fig. 1).
A software implementation is preferred over hard-
In Fig. 2 a schematic idea is given where fuzzy
ware, if sufficient time is available, because of its
logic can be utilized in simple control. Of course, in
inherent flexibility. As the response time decreases,
real industrial situations, one will often need more
a hardware implementation will be required to
complicated controllers. These controllers can be
meet real-time demands. Within the hardware im-
constructed using the more simple FL controller of
plementations again an hierarchy exists of increas-
Fig. 1 by suitably prioritizing groups of control
ing specialization and speed, starting with general
rules (cf. Section 4).
purpose ~tCs up to DSPs and massively parallel
The question when to use FL control can sche-
non-von Neumann architectures.
matically be answered by reviewing qualitative and
quantitative process demand. When both the com-
plexity (e.g. number of inputs) or the update fre-
quency and the qualitative demand are high, the 3. Case study: ESI00 industrial controller
need for FL control increases. Humans can handle
low quantitative demand with high precision, A very elegant combination of a classical PID
whereas computers can handle high quantitative controller combined with feed-forward to speed up
36 A.J. van der W a l / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 33 41

After entering his demands and their relative

weights, the operator executes a so-called finetun-
Logic ing cycle. He can repeat this step as often he deems
it is necessary. In classical PID control, the oper-
ator has to decide on the basis of his understanding
of the process under control and the underlying
control theory to what extent the proportional
gain, the integral and differential time constants
should be tuned for desired behavior.
l Process The desirability of this novel type of optimiza-
tion is obvious: Instead of becoming a cumber-
Fig. 3. Basic architecture of ESIO0 fuzzy finetuning. some, tedious, labor-intensive and error-prone
specialism, finetuning becomes straightforward and
thus minimizes the possibility of human errors. If
Demand to Adjustment one compares Adaptive Selftuning (AST) with
reduce : coefficient:
Fuzzy Finetuning (FFT) another important feature
Hunting ~[
Overshoot ~ Fuzzy becomes apparent. In AST a fixed process model is
Responsetime
I~1Inference I assumed, e.g. a first-order process + dead time. In
I contrast, FFT is essentially applicable to any type
index of process. In addition AST tends to be slow and
Control J-I .Hu~n,o I cautious because it will react even on a temporary
Characteristics JNlalysl$ j disturbance. In FFT an operator can safely ignore
temporary disturbances if they are judged insigni-
Fig. 4. Fuzzy finetuning algorithm. ficant by the operator. However if retuning is
deemed necessary FFT will work instantly.
The ES100 thus employs FL to help the operator
the response and a fuzzy expert system for finetun- to quickly tune the controller. In this application
ing is the ES100 controller of OMRON. In the the operator does not need to know FL nor control
ES 100 the advantageous qualities of fuzzy logic, the theory for optimum control.
incorporation of tuning knowledge of a human
control expert and the merging of human observa-
tions and the operator's wish to optimize the 4. C a s e study: Control o f a sintering oven
behavior of the system under control, are fully
exploited I-7]. In the previous example FL was used to design
The basic architecture, is shown in Fig. 3. Here, a fast, accurate controller, as applies e.g. in indus-
for the sake of clarity, we have omitted the feedfor- trial automation, packaging industry, etc. In the
ward coupling as well as the fuzzy controller that present case we will discuss a typical example in
operates in parallel to the PID controller. Instead process industry: the control of a sintering oven.
we will concentrate on the fuzzy expert system that The oven operates at high working temperatures
combines the operator's demand to optimize the (up to 2000 ° C) and can be heated by 6 different
operation of the system under control with an types of fuel (gas, oil, cokes, etc.). The chemicals
analysis of which parameters should be modified that are to be sintered have varying composition
(Fig. 4). (e.g. water content) and sometimes stick to the inner
The operator can simultaneously optimize two of walls of the oven, thereby damaging the fire-proof
the following three characteristics: cladding of the inner oven wall. The objectives of
(1) overshoot reduction, the oven controller are many:
(2) reduction of hunting, - improve the quality of the resulting sinter (more
(3) reduction of response time. constant + independent from fuel mix),
 A.J. van der Wal / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 33 41 37

Table 1
Subgroups for fuzzy logic control

1 2 3 4
Burning zone Preheater Composition of Fuel mix
starting material

(1) Startup (1) CO reduction (1) Cokes

(2) Mechanical stability (2) 02 level (2) oil
(3) Perturbations (3) Temperature (3) Gas
(4) Stability (4) Equal distribution
over the preheaters
(5) Quality
(6) Production

DEVIATION 1 ~
CALCULATION INTERVAL

MAX
PRIORITYMANAGEMENT]

I
PROCESS CONSTRAINTS
&
STATE INDICES
Fig. 5. Priority management in the fuzzy control of a sintering
oven.
- reduce the energy consumption,
- reduce the costs of replacing fire-proof cladding,
- reduce the CO and NOx exhaust.
Because of the high number of quantities and the
complexity of the sintering process, it is clear that
the simple fuzzy control strategies discussed so
far will not suffice. Instead, one divides the control-
ler in a number of different groups: In the case of
the sintering oven, these groups are listed in
Table 1.
In each subgroup a fuzzy priority manager deter-
mines the extent to which controller actions will be
executed in order to realize the different (sub)goals.
The numbers used in the table refer to the relative
priorities within each group: (1) has higher priority
than (2) and so on.
M1N
[DEVII " ~
Fig. 6. Timing calculation.
The priority manager will determine a weight
factor that is closer to one, the more the higher
priority goals are approximated (Fig. 5). Within
each rule group the deviations between actual and
target values are calculated and used in two differ-
ent ways: In the first place the deviations are fuzzi-
fled and used as input to the fuzzy control rule base.
In the second place the deviations are translated
into a normalized value DEVI ~ [ - 1, 1] that is
used to define the update frequency of the fuzzy
inference result to the output block.
In Fig. 6 the effect of DEVI on the timing is
shown: the more the absolute value of the control
value deviates from the setpoint, the more frequent
the controller takes action. In combination with the
priority management the controller signals are gen-
erated in a straightforward though subtle way. Fi-
nally the control block takes care of the desired
38 A.J, van der Wal / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 33--41
action, taking into account the current status and
the constraints of the process.
The break-even for the return on investment of
the fuzzy logic controller was already reached after
only one year. Apart from the direct advantages
mentioned above, the improvement of the control
system forced the staff to review all measuring
methodologies and optimizing all subsystems.
Therefore special attention had to be paid to the
oven setup. Generally this yielded an increased
awareness and knowledge with all staff involved in
the project. Another consequence of the incorpora-
tion of fuzzy logic control into the oven has been
observed in practice. Because the installation is
more than 90% of the time productive, the risk exists
that operators may lose their experience and that
new operators cannot reach the skills needed pre-
viously. Countermeasures to prevent this develop-
ment has been taken by constructing on-line simula-
tion programs, through which the operator can train
control by mimicking the fuzzy logic controller.
5. Combining fuzzy control with other methods
In Fig. 1 we already showed a classical PID
controller that was applied in parallel to a fuzzy
controller. The question that we will try to answer
in this section is how to combine different
(non)linear controllers in a meaningful way. Apart
from the basic control design options as mentioned
in Section 2.1, the designer of an industrial control-
ler is always facing the problem how to combine the
different controlling strategies in an efficient and
cost effective way. Especially when facing nonlinear
control, the designer sees himself confronted with
a large number of controlling principles, each hav-
ing a number of advantages and disadvantages.
However a general theoretical framework is lack-
ing, so that a choice mostly is made in a heuristic
way based on previous experience.
In the field of nonlinear control very little has
been published on how the designer of a controller
can take maximum benefit of the different novel
control methodologies (fuzzy logic, neural net-
works and genetic algorithms) at hand, their rela-
tion and on how they should be combined with
classical ( mostly linear) control methods.
In a recent publication Zhao et al. [8] describe
a robust hydraulic servo system that has very fast
response and high positioning accuracy under dif-
ferent load conditions. The system under control is
nonlinear because the natural frequency and damp-
ing vary with load, stroke length and ending
position of the piston. The proposed fuzzy state
controller uses fuzzy sets to represent the dynamic
characteristics of the piston movement. From these
measured data optimum gain constants for the
proportional error, the velocity and acceleration
can be derived, assuming a third-order linear sys-
tem model. Center of gravity defuzzification then
effectively acts as a linear interpolation scheme on
the measured data. The resulting robust fuzzy state
controller is a very elegant example of how fuzzy
logic can be used to control a nonlinear system,
using a linear model.
In the ES100 controller (Section 3), classical PID
control is combined with a fuzzy expert system,
which makes the resultant controller nonlinear,
more robust and having better characteristics com-
pared to a linear PID controller.
Neural networks can be exploited in optimizing
crude, fuzzy-rule-based controllers, as e.g. derived
from directly modeling operator experience. In
Fig. 7 a typical result of this technique is shown.
The picture is produced with the AutoMF tool
[2] and shows the result of tuning a neural net-
work to a nonlinear function through learning 200
data patterns. The network models fuzzy know-
ledge via Gaussian Membership Functions (MF).
The mean and variance of each M F are encoded as
synaptic weights. First the position and width of
the MFs for each of the input and output variables
is determined using a fuzzy c-means clustering
algorithm [ 1]. Next finetuning is achieved by stan-
dard backpropagation of the errors. The combina-
tion of learning capability of neural networks and
the approximate linguistic modeling proves to be
very powerful.
The underlying strategy in making use of various
(non)linear methods that can be used for modeling
real world systems is generally heuristic. In order to
make this process more structured, we propose the
following hierarchical approach:
In a first step we use the accurate physical model
of the system under control. In this way it would be
 A.J. van der Wal / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 33 41 39

2 2
1 1

U 0 U 0
-1 -1
-2 -2

7a 7b

2 2
1.5 1.5
e2 1 e 2
1
0,5 0.5

0 0
70 7d
Fig. 7. Results of AutoMF nonlinear function estimation of the simulated control surface f ( x , y ) = sin(x) + cos(y) on
x,y ~ [0, 6] x [0, 6]. The upper two figures show the results after clustering (a) and after finetuning (b). The lower two figures show the
squared deviation from the exact result after clustering (c) and after finetuning (d). Finetuning was achieved by training with 200
patterns.

possible to include all essential parameters, signifi-
cant variables and their time derivatives into the
model. Also symmetry (both space and time) and
elementary conservation laws are then guaranteed
to be modeled. Linearization should only be done
when appropriate as far as robustness is concerned,
and care should be taken not to eliminate essential
nonlinearities. In this way we avoid having to teach
the system by repeated exposure to (input, output)
pairs what the underlying physics is.
The second step is to incorporate practical ex-
perience-based knowledge. Fuzzy logic is the meth-
odology of choice to model operator knowledge or
supervisory control strategies. Also one can use
fuzzy logic control in a very 'localized' way, focus-
ing on a particular property of the system, without
changing anything else. Thus fuzzy logic enables
the designer to apply the principle of separation of
concerns: each controller output can be optimized
in different areas in state space independently. This
is in contrast with e.g. a neural network (NN)
controller. Here, a change in weights in one of
the neurons basically affects all controller out-
puts. Also if a neural network is trained with
(input, output) pairs, all neurons are updated:
No localization exists. Therefore a pure N N ap-
proach should only be considered to design con-
trollers when structural understanding is absent,
and sufficient training data can be generated. As
a third step we may employ N N to form so-called
40 A.,L van der Wal / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 33 41
neuro-fuzzy (NF) systems. In NF systems the learn-
ing capability of the NN is used to finetune the
MFs of an estimated FL knowledge base, as in
AutoMF.
Finally, if there are not sufficient training data to
finetune our neurofuzzy controller, we have a final
tool: the genetic algorithm (GA). A typical GA
requires the existence (and knowledge) of an evalu-
ation function that rates the 'chromosomes' (e.g.
vectors consisting of neural weights). Optimization
is achieved by a survival-of-the-fittest strategy for
the chromosomes. So if no training is possible, it
may be possible to generate an appropriate (neural)
fuzzy controller if one can validate the different
combinations of neural weights.
In going from the 'exact' model, via a fuzzy,
linguistic, approximate model, to the learning capa-
bilities of NN and GA, we are increasingly dealing
with methods that are highly nonlinear and relying
on emperical data. NN and GA rely strongly on
statistical methods and learning is inherently slow.
On the other hand, 'exact' physical models may be
impractical, as it is not always possible to evaluate
the algorithm in real time.
Of all these methods fuzzy logic clearly is very
attractive because of its ability to focus on problem
areas and thus to separate different concerns. In
addition a fuzzy logic controller has recognizable
structure and outperforms analytical methods in
execution time and memory requirements.
6. Stability and robustness of fuzzy controllers
The initial scepticism with which fuzzy logic was
initially met when Lotfi Zadeh first introduced his
theory in 1965, is only matched by the reluctance of
the control engineering community in Europe and
the US to accept fuzzy-logic-based control as a valu-
able novel methodology for developing nonlinear
control. The early work of Mamdani [3] (introduc-
ing fuzzy logic control) has given rise to a multitude
of practical applications in industrial control in Ja-
pan and China. Of these the well-known voice-
commanded helicopter and car experiments by
Sugeno [6] are outstanding examples of fuzzy con-
trol. At the same time it is a beautiful illustration of
a concept that works, even in solving very hard
control problems such as helicopter flight control,
without the existence of a complete stability theory.
The often-heard complaint from control engin-
eers that fuzzy control (and generally all nonlinear
control) does not provide in a straightforward way
criteria for stability is however true. In the very
inspiring article 'Why is fuzzy control robust?', Pok
and Xu [4] lay the foundation for a more general
stability theory for fuzzy control. By considering
the system trajectories in phase space and making
a number of assumptions on the system to be con-
trolled, they derive conditions for asymptotic stab-
ility and robustness.
Their line of thought is very elementary and
therefore attractive. Starting with a two-input fuzzy
controller consisting of only 4 control rules:
I F ( E = P ) and (R = P) then U = P ,
I F ( E = P ) and (R -- N) then U = Z ,
I F ( E = N ) and (R -- P) then U = Z ,
I F ( E = N ) and (R = N) then U = N .
Here P, N and Z denote linguistic values 'positive',
'negative' and 'zero', respectively. The fuzzy vari-
ables E and R represent the weighted error and
weighted rate of change of the error and both are
represented by two linear membership functions
(P,N) each on a bounded universe of discourse.
The controller output variable U takes three lin-
guistic values (N, Z, P) and is represented by three
triangular MFs.
Using this very elementary fuzzy controller to
stabilize a second-order linear process with low
damping of 0.1 and a unity process gain, the
authors show by simulation that the controller is
capable of stabilizing the system even when the
damping factor is varied from 0 to 1.5 and the
process gain varies between 1 and 3. System re-
sponse is virtually identical under these variations,
indicating its robustness. In addition it is shown
that the same controller is also adaptable to oper-
ate satisfactorily in an open-loop unstable process.
Overall setting time equals the rise time without
oscillation and is therefore substantially shorter
than in the case of PID control.
The subsequent stability analysis of the fuzzy
controller is straightforward using standard
 A.J. van der Wal / Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74 (1995) 33-41
Lyapunov theory, but very laborious, because
many different regions in phase space have to be
considered. The analysis shows that the fuzzy con-
troller effectively operates as a variable structure
controller with a boundary layer [5] of varying
thickness. The robustness and steady-state accu-
racy of the controller can be expressed in terms of
the thickness of the boundary layer. In addition it is
possible to formulate criteria for asymptotic stabil-
ity of the controlled system.
7. Conclusions
In this article we have tried to give an overview of
the enormous variety of possible application
methodologies of fuzzy logic in control. Different
types of hybrid control are possible, as illustrated
by two case studies. Fuzzy control works and has
reached great popularity in factory automation
and, more recently, in process industry. However
to reach full maturity it is necessary to fur-
ther progress with the understanding of these
nonlinear controllers. The rapid prototyping
(costs!), low memory requirements and easy imple-
mentation make that fuzzy logic has quickly be-
come popular in industry. In order to make the
next development step in fuzzy control it is neces-
sary to understand how fuzzy logic compares to
other nonlinear control methodologies. A hier-
archical approach appears here to be the most
logical.
Next we have discussed the first ventures of fuzzy
control in the area of stability analysis. Although it
is possible to derive asymptotic stability in concrete
cases, it does not provide a general approach, be-
cause the case described has an explicit, exact
41
model for the computer experiments. This will in
practice seldom be the case. Bearing in mind how-
ever that under strict conditions often a reasonable
analytical approximation of the system under con-
trol can be made, it can be concluded that a stabil-
ity analysis of a fuzzy controller can be made. In
multi-variable systems however the work will
quickly become tedious or even impossible.
These developments in stability analysis show
that although fuzzy logic controllers deal with lin-
guistic variables and rule-based control algorithms,
they can be treated within the general framework of
nonlinear stability analysis.
References
[1] H. Choe and J.B. Jordan, On the optimal choice of para-
meters in a fuzzy C-means algorithm, Proc. IEEE Internat.
Conf. Fuzzy Systems, San Diego (1992) 349-354.
[2] B.W. Grant and A.J. van der Wal, AutoMF: A neural
network tool for the generation and tuning of fuzzy
knowledge, Proc. 1st lnternat. FLINS workshop (1994)
103-108.
[3] W.J.M. Kickert and E.H. Mamdani, Analysis of a fuzzy
logic controller, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1 (19781 29 44.
[4] Yang-Ming Pok and Jian-Xin Xu, Why is fuzzy control
robust?, Proc. 3rd lnternat. Conf. Fuzzy Systems, Orlando
(1994) 1018-1022.
[-5] J.J.E. Slotine and Weiping Li, Applied Nonlinear Control
(Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N J, 1991) 276-284.
[6] M. Sugeno, T. Murofushi, T. Mori, T. Tatematsu and
J. Tanaka, Fuzzy algorithmic control of a model car by oral
instructions, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 32 (1989) 207-219.
I-7] A.J. van der Wal and T.C. Mattaar, Performance fine-
tuning of a PID controller by fuzzy logic, Proc. Joint
Japanese-European Syrup. on Fuzzy Systems, Berlin (1992)
Vol. 8 (1994) 245-255.
[8] T. Zhao, A.J. van der Wal and T. Virvalo, Robust hydraulic
position control by a fuzzy state controller, Proc. 1st Inter-
nat. FLINS workshop (1994) 91-95.