IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 9, NO.
4, AUGUST 2001
Model Construction, Rule Reduction, and Robust
Compensation for Generalized Form of
Takagi–Sugeno Fuzzy Systems
Tadanari Taniguchi, Kazuo Tanaka, Member, IEEE, Hiroshi Ohtake, and Hua O. Wang, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper presents a systematic procedure of fuzzy
control system design that consists of fuzzy model construction,
rule reduction, and robust compensation for nonlinear systems.
The model construction part replaces the nonlinear dynamics of
a system with a generalized form of Takagi–Sugeno (T–S) fuzzy
systems, which is newly developed in this paper. The generalized
form has a decomposed structure for each element of and
matrices in consequent parts. The key feature of this structure is
that it is suitable for constructing IF–THEN rules and reducing
the number of IF–THEN rules. The rule reduction part provides
a successive procedure to reduce the number of IF–THEN rules.
Furthermore, we convert the reduction error between reduced
fuzzy models and a system to model uncertainties of reduced
fuzzy models. The robust compensation part achieves the decay
rate controller design guaranteeing robust stability for the model
uncertainties. Finally, two examples demonstrate the utility of the
systematic procedure developed in this paper.
Index Terms—Fuzzy control, fuzzy model, robust stability, rule
reduction.
I. INTRODUCTION
R ECENTLY, nonlinear control approaches based on the
Takagi–Sugeno (T-S) fuzzy model have been successfully
developed in the framework of linear matrix inequality (LMI)
designs. The approaches mainly consist of three stages. The
first stage is fuzzy modeling for nonlinear controlled objects.
There are two major ways in fuzzy modeling. One is fuzzy
model identification [1]–[5] using input-output data. The other
is fuzzy model construction (fuzzy IF–THEN rules), by the
idea of sector nonlinearity. The second stage is fuzzy control
rule derivation that mirrors the rule structure of a fuzzy model.
It is realized by the so-called parallel distributed compensation
(PDC) [9], [11], [20]. The third stage is fuzzy controller design,
i.e., determination of feedback gains. The powerful LMI-based
designs play an important role in this stage.
The fuzzy model identification that determines structures and
parameters of fuzzy models from input-output data is available
for the case where we can not have a physical (or mathematical)
model for a nonlinear system. On the other hand, if we can have
a physical model, the fuzzy model construction is employed to
Manuscript received November 10, 2000; revised May 4. 2001.
T. Taniguchi, K. Tanaka, and H. Ohtake are with the Department of Mechan-
ical Engineering and Intelligent Systems, The University of Electro-Commu-
nications, Chofu, Tokyo 182-8585, Japan (e-mail: taniguti@rc.mce.uec.ac.jp;
ktanaka@mce.uec.ac.jp; hohtake@rc.mce.uec.ac.jp).
H. O. Wang is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0291 USA (e-mail: hua@ee.duke.edu).
Publisher Item Identifier S 1063-6706(01)06539-0.
1063–6706/01$10.00 © 2001 IEEE
525
exactly represent the nonlinear dynamics of the model (glob-
ally or semi-globally). The latter case is available for mechan-
ical systems since we can obtain nonlinear dynamic equations
of mechanical systems by Lagrange method or Newton–Euler
method, etc. However a number of IF–THEN rules are needed
to construct a fuzzy model for a complicated system, although
its nonlinear dynamics can be exactly replaced with a T–S fuzzy
model (globally or at least semiglobally). For this problem, rule
reduction is important since computational effort for convex op-
timization design based on LMI conditions is strongly related to
the number of rules. A drastic reduction of the computational ef-
fort can be expected by reducing the number of rules as much
as possible. However, the reduction error caused by rule reduc-
tion seriously influences control performance. Therefore, after
converting the reduction error to model uncertainties, we design
the decay rate fuzzy controller guaranteeing robust stability for
the model uncertainties.
This paper presents a systematic procedure of fuzzy control
system design that consists of fuzzy model construction, rule
reduction, and robust compensation for nonlinear systems. The
fuzzy model construction part replaces the nonlinear dynamics
of a system with a generalized form of the T-S fuzzy model
which is newly developed in this paper. The generalized form
has a convenient structure of effectively constructing IF–THEN
rules and easily reducing the number of IF–THEN rules. We
consider the equivalence between the T–S fuzzy model and the
generalized form. The rule reduction part provides a condition
to reduce the number of rules. The main idea is to find an
IF–THEN rule structure of the reduced model that guarantees
the best performance of decay rate in addition to avoidance of
actuator saturation. Furthermore, we convert the reduction error
between reduced fuzzy models and a system to model uncer-
tainties of reduced fuzzy models. The robust compensation part
achieves the decay rate controller design guaranteeing robust
stability for the model uncertainties. Finally, we illustrate two
examples of model construction, rule reduction, and robust
compensation.
To lighten the notation, this paper frequently uses the fol-
lowing notation:
whose meaning will be given in Appendix A. The definition of
and will be shown in Appendix B.
526 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 9, NO. 4, AUGUST 2001

II. ORDINARY T–S FUZZY SYSTEMS where

The T–S fuzzy model [1] is of the following form:
Model rule
If is and and is The membership functions are assigned as follows:
Then (1)
where . is the fuzzy set and is the number
of model rule. is the state vector, is the input
vector, and . are known
premise variables may be functions of the states measurable,
external disturbances, and/or time. We will use to denote
the vector containing all the individual elements .
Given a pair of , the final output of the fuzzy
system is inferred by using the center of gravity method for de-
fuzzification By using the fuzzy model representation, (3) is rewritten as

(2)

where

(4)

is regarded as the normalized weight of each model By transforming (4) to a matrix form, we arrive at a general-
rule. is the grade of membership of in . ized form of T–S fuzzy systems

III. A GENERALIZED FORM OF T–S FUZZY SYSTEMS

We consider a class of nonlinear systems represented as

(3)
where and denote the numbers of states and inputs, respec-
tively. are states and are inputs.
and are functions of , where
are known variables, may be functions of the (5)
states, external variables, and/or time.
To obtain a generalized form, we define new variables
where

.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .

.. .. .. .. ..
The derivation of the generalized form begins with transforming . . . . .
and into fuzzy model representation. By uti-
lizing the new variables, and can be repre-
sented as .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .

.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .
TANIGUCHI et al.: MODEL CONSTRUCTION, RULE REDUCTION, AND ROBUST COMPENSATION 527

for and . The elements and where

play an important role in the rule reduction. It will be
seen in the next section that the generalized form (5) is a conve-
nient structure of reducing the number of rules.
(9)
IV. RULE REDUCTION
This section presents rule reduction for the generalized form
of T–S fuzzy systems. The purpose of the rule reduction is to
decrease the number of IF–THEN rules. The rule reduction is
strongly related to the computational effort for controller design (10)
utilizing LMIs.
The basic idea for reducing IF–THEN rules is to replace the (11)
nonlinear terms and with constant terms
and , respectively, where
and . (12)
For the reduction with respect to for and ,
the reduced model is described as follows: Note that (8) is the same structure as the ordinary fuzzy model.
For simplicity, in the ordinary fuzzy model representation, we
will use and instead of
and from Section VI. As mentioned above, the generalized
form (5) is suitable for reducing the number of rules. However,
it is inconvenient for fuzzy controller design. Therefore, after
the rule reduction, we transform the generalized form (5) into
the ordinary fuzzy model (8) by using the relations (9)–(12).
Section VI will present a fuzzy controller design for the ordinary
fuzzy model.
(6)
V. DETERMINATION OF MODEL UNCERTAINTY
For the reduction with respect to for and ,
the reduced model is represented as Secion IV dealt with a rule reduction. However, we need
to consider the reduction error in controller design. For this
problem, we convert the reduction error to the model uncer-
tainty. Then we design a robust fuzzy controller so as to com-
pensate the model uncertainty. This section presents determina-
tion of the model uncertainties. Section VI will describe a ro-
bust fuzzy controller design. We show the determination proce-
dure of model uncertainties through two cases. The first case is
the determination process for the reduction case with respect to
and of (5). The second case is that for the
(7)
reduction case with respect to and .
In the first case, the reduced model that covers the reduc-
Equations (6) and (7) show the models reduced by replacing
tion error is described by introducing the model uncertainties
the and elements in and with
and
and , respectively. The reduction procedure will be
concretely given in examples.
Next, we discuss the equivalence between the generalized
form (5) and the ordinary fuzzy model. Equation (8) shows the
equivalent relation

(13)
where
(8)
(14)
528 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 9, NO. 4, AUGUST 2001

The ordinary fuzzy model for the generalized form (13) is ob-
tained as (20)

.. (21)
.
(15)
In (15), and are uncertain blocks, where

.. (22)
.
, and are known matrices given below

..
. .. (23)
.

..
. (24)
..
.
..
. In (21) and (22)

..
.

From the next section, we will use sub-index instead of .

VI. DECAY RATE CONDITION GUARANTEEING ROBUST
In the second case, the reduced model that covers the reduc-
STABILITY
tion error is described by introducing the model uncertainties
and We derive decay rate conditions guaranteeing robust stability.
The decay rate parameter in Theorem 1 will be used as a cri-
terion for selecting one of candidates of reduced fuzzy models.
Consider the following fuzzy system with uncertain blocks
and
(16)

where
(25)
(17)
where
The following ordinary fuzzy model can be transformed from
(16)

(18)
where and are known matrices. and that are
known upper bounds of and are selected by
considering the upper bound of (14) or (17). As a stable fuzzy
.. .. .. .. controller to stabilize (25), we employ the PDC controller
. . . .
(26)

.. .. .. .. Theorem 1 gives decay rate controller design conditions satis-

. . . . fying the stability of (25).
Theorem 1: The PDC controller (26) that simultaneously
(19) considers both the decay rate controller design and robust
TANIGUCHI et al.: MODEL CONSTRUCTION, RULE REDUCTION, AND ROBUST COMPENSATION 529

controller design can be designed by solving the following

LMIs:

subject to

(27) where
s.t. (28)

where (shown in the equation at the bottom of the page)

We consider a positive semidefinite matrix such that the fol-
where
lowing condition is satisfied:

and the symbol * denotes the transposed elements (matrices) for

symmetric positions. s.t. (29)
Proof: Consider a candidate of Lyapunov function
such that From condition (29) and Appendix D, we obtain

and

where . From

block-diag
block-diag
530 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 9, NO. 4, AUGUST 2001

Therefore, if Consider the following simple system:

(30)
(33)
at . Multiplying this in-
equality (30) on the left and right by and defining a new
variable , we obtain By assuming
, the nonlinear system can be exactly represented by
(31) a generalized form. A generalized T–S fuzzy system can be con-
structed from (33) by defining and as follows:
where . Substituting

into (31), we have

Then, (33) is rewritten as

(34)

To begin with, we construct a generalized fuzzy model from the

nonlinear system (34). In this example,
and .

A. Model Construction
The generalized form (35) can be constructed from the non-
linear system (34)

(35)
(32)
In (35)
where

If

The membership functions are assigned as follows:

then at . By Schur com-

plement, (32) is transformed into (27). Inequality (28) can be
obtained from (29) in the same fashion.

VII. EXAMPLE 1: A SIMPLE SYSTEM

This section illustrates an example of model construction,
rule reduction, determination of uncertainty, and robust fuzzy
controller design.
TANIGUCHI et al.: MODEL CONSTRUCTION, RULE REDUCTION, AND ROBUST COMPENSATION 531

The generalized form (35) can be converted to the following TABLE I

fuzzy model: DESIGN RESULTS (SIMPLE SYSTEM)

(36)

For the reduction with respect to , the reduced fuzzy

model is represented as
where

(37)
Note that the element of is replaced with .
For the reduction with respect to , the fuzzy model is
represented as

Note that this fuzzy model has nonlinear terms in

, and , where denotes the
(2, 1) element of matrix.

B. Rule Reduction (from Eight Rules to Four Rules)

In this section, we execute rule reduction for the generalized
fuzzy model. Three kinds of four-rules fuzzy models (37), (38)
and (39) are obtained.
532 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 9, NO. 4, AUGUST 2001

Fig. 1. Control result for simple system (eight-rules fuzzy controller).

(38)

Note that the element of is replaced with .

For the reduction with respect to , the fuzzy model is
represented as

(39)

Note that the element of is replaced with .

TANIGUCHI et al.: MODEL CONSTRUCTION, RULE REDUCTION, AND ROBUST COMPENSATION 533

Fig. 2. Control result for simple system (four-rules fuzzy controller).

C. Determination of Model Uncertainties (Four Rules)

We determine model uncertainties of the fuzzy models
(37)–(39). For the reduction with respect to , the uncer-
tainty is for . For the reduction
with respect to , the uncertainty is for
. For the reduction with respect to , the
uncertainty is for . Fig. 3. BAB System.

D. Fuzzy Controller Design

For the fuzzy models with the uncertainties, we design The dynamics of the system [25] are described as follows:
the decay rate fuzzy controllers guaranteeing robust stability.
Table I shows the decay rate parameters for the design results.
We select the reduced fuzzy model (37) with the largest in
the four-rules fuzzy models. Fig. 1 shows the control result for (40)
the eight-rules fuzzy controller designed from the eight-rules
model, i.e., the original nonlinear system (33). Fig. 2 shows the
control result for a four-rules fuzzy controller designed from where
the selected four-rules fuzzy model (37). position of ball;
angle of the beam;
E. Successive Procedure (Two Rules) torque moved the beam;
Next, we make two kinds of two-rules fuzzy models from the gravity constant;
four-rules fuzzy model (37). The nonlinear terms and friction coefficient.
remain since is replaced with the linear term
We replace , and with , and , re-
. No feasible solutions for all the two-rules fuzzy models are
spectively. In these coordinates, the state equation of the system
obtained in the controller design.
are described by [shown in (41) bottom of the next page] where
and . By assuming
VIII. EXAMPLE 2: BALL AND BEAM (BAB) SYSTEM and
We construct a generalized T–S fuzzy system for the BAB , we transform the nonlinear system (41) into a gener-
system shown in Fig. 3. alized T–S fuzzy system.
534 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 9, NO. 4, AUGUST 2001

A generalized T–S fuzzy system can be constructed from (41)

by defining and as follows:

Then, (41) is rewritten as

(42)

Note from the property of Taylor expansion that

.
The T-S fuzzy system is represented as

(43)

where

(41)
TANIGUCHI et al.: MODEL CONSTRUCTION, RULE REDUCTION, AND ROBUST COMPENSATION 535

TABLE II
DESIGN RESULTS (BAB SYSTEM)

Fig. 4. Control result for BAB system (16-rules fuzzy controller).

Fig. 5. Control result for BAB system (eight-rules fuzzy controller).

The membership functions in (43) are given as follows:

(44)

where In the model construction for the BAB system, we assume that
[Nm], [m], [m/s],
[rad] and [rad/s]. Therefore,
LMI constrains on control input and outputs [26] satisfying the
assumption, in addition to Theorem 1, are employed to obtain
feedback gains .
Table II shows the values of in the reduction results. For the
one-rule fuzzy model, a robust controller design by Theorem
1 is infeasible. Figs. 4–7 show the control results of 16-rules
fuzzy controller, eight-rules fuzzy controller, four-rules fuzzy
controller, and two-rules fuzzy controller for the original system
(40), respectively. Even the two-rules fuzzy controller stabilizes
the original system (40).

IX. CONCLUSION
This paper presented a systematic procedure of fuzzy control
system design that consists of fuzzy model construction, rule
536 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 9, NO. 4, AUGUST 2001

tainties of reduced fuzzy models. The robust compensation part

has achieved the decay rate controller design guaranteeing ro-
bust stability for the model uncertainties. Finally, two examples
have demonstrated the utility of the systematic procedure devel-
oped in this paper.

APPENDIX A
We use the following notations:

whose meaning is

For instance

APPENDIX B
Consider and matrices, where and
Fig. 6. Control result for BAB system (four-rules fuzzy controller). . We define and as follows:

.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .

.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .

.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .

.. .. .. .. ..
. . . . .

Only the or element of the matrix is one and all

the other elements are zero. The and matrices are the
same size as the and matrices.

APPENDIX C
[26]

Fig. 7. Control result for BAB system (two-rules fuzzy controller).

reduction, and robust compensation for nonlinear systems. The

model construction part has replaced the nonlinear dynamics of where
a system with a generalized form of T-S fuzzy systems. The rule
reduction part has provided a successive procedure to reduce the
number of rules. Furthermore, we converted the reduction error
between reduced fuzzy models and a system to model uncer- for all .
TANIGUCHI et al.: MODEL CONSTRUCTION, RULE REDUCTION, AND ROBUST COMPENSATION
Proof: It holds since
APPENDIX D
[26]
If the number of rules that fire for all is less than or equal to
, where , then
where
for all .
Proof: It follows directly from Appendix C.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Takagi and M. Sugeno, “Fuzzy identification of systems and its ap-
plications to modeling and control,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern.,
vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 116–132, 1985.
[2] K. Tanaka, M. Sano, and H. Watanabe, “Modeling and control of carbon
monoxide concentration using a neuro-fuzzy technique,” IEEE Trans.
Fuzzy Syst., vol. 3, pp. 271–279, June 1995.
[3] L. Wang and R. Langari, “Building Sugeno-type models using fuzzy
discretization and orthogonal parameter estimation techniques,” IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 3, pp. 454–458, Aug. 1995.
[4] L.-X. Wang, Adaptive Fuzzy Systems and Control: Design and Stability
Analysis. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1994.
[5] S. Horikawa, T. Furuhashi, and Y. Uchikawa, “On fuzzy modeling
using fuzzy neural networks with the back-propagation algorithm,”
IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 3, pp. 801–806, 1992.
[6] K. Tanaka and M. Sano, “A robust stabilization problem of fuzzy con-
troller systems and its applications to backing up control of a truck-
trailer,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 2, pp. 119–134, 1994.
[7] K. Tanaka, T. Ikeda, and H. Wang, “Robust stabilization of a class of
uncertain nonlinear systems via fuzzy control: Quadratic stabilizability,
H
control theory and linear matrix inequalities,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Syst., vol. 4, pp. 1–13, 1996.
[8] K. Tanaka, T. Ikeda, and H. O. Wang, “Fuzzy regulators and fuzzy
observers: Relaxed stability conditions and LMI based designs,” IEEE
Trans. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 6, pp. 200–265, 1998.
[9] K. Tanaka and M. Sugeno, “Stability analysis and design of fuzzy control
systems,” Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 135–156, 1992.
[10] D. Filev, “Algebraic design of fuzzy logic controllers,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Symp. Intelligence Control, Dearborn, MI, 1996, pp. 253–258.
[11] T. Tani, “A design method of neuro-fuzzy hybrid control system and its
application to tank level control,” in Proc. 2nd IEEE Int. Conf. Fuzzy
Syst., vol. 1, San Francisco, CA, 1993, pp. 618–623.
[12] K. Tanaka, T. Ikeda, and H. Wang, “Robust stabilization of a class of
uncertain nonlinear system via fuzzy control,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst.,
vol. 4, pp. 1–13, 1996.
[13] E. Sanchez et al., “Fuzzy PD scheme for underactuated robot swing-up
control,” in FUZZ-IEEE’98, vol. 1, Anchorage, AK, 1998, pp. 302–306.
[14] H. Kazemian, “The self-organizing fuzzy PID controller,” in FUZZ-
IEEE’98, vol. 1, Anchorage, AK, 1998, pp. 319–324.
[15] S. Tso and Y. Fung, “Synthesis and stability analysis of linguistic fuzzy
controlled systems,” in Proc. FUZZ-IEEE’98, vol. 1, Anchorage, AK,
1998, pp. 366–371.
537
[16] J. Carvajal, G. Chen, and H. Ogmen, “Fuzzy PID controller: Design,
performance evaluation, and stability analysis,” Inf. Sci., vol. 123, pp.
249–270, 2000.
[17] D. Zhang, G. Chen, and H. A. Malki, “Fuzzy-logic control of multi-link
flexible-joint robotic manipulators,” Int. J. Intell. Control. Syst., vol. 2,
no. 1, pp. 111–138, 1998.
[18] K. Jeong et al., “A fuzzy logic-based gain tunner for PID controllers,”
in In FUZZ-IEEE’98, vol. 1, Anchorage, AK, 1998, pp. 551–554.
[19] S. Farinwata and G. Vachtsevanos, “Robust stability of fuzzy logic con-
troller systems,” in Proc. of 1995 American Control Conf., Seattle, WA,
1995, pp. 2267–2271.
[20] H. O. Wang, K. Tanaka, and M. Griffin, “An approach to fuzzy control
of nonlinear systems: Stability and design issues,” IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Syst., vol. 4, pp. 14–23, 1996.
[21] W.-J. Chang and C.-C. Sun, “Fuzzy control with common observability
gramian assignment for continuous Takagi-Sugeno models,” in 1999
American Control Conf., San Diego, CA, 1999, pp. 1366–1370.
[22] S. Hong and R. Langari, “Synthesis of an LMI-based fuzzy con-
trol system with guaranteed optimal H performance,” in Proc.
FUZZ-IEEE’98, Anchorage, AK, 1998, pp. 422–427.
[23] K. Tanaka, T. Taniguchi, and H. O. Wang, “Robust and optimal fuzzy
control: A liner matrix inequality approach,” in 1999 Int. Federation
Automatic Control (IFAC) World Congress, Beijing, July 1999, pp.
213–218.
[24] K. Tanaka, T. Hori, and H. O. Wang, “New robust and optimal designs
for Takagi-Sugeno fuzzy control systems,” in Proc. 1999 IEEE Int. Conf.
Control Applications, vol. 2, Hawaii, Aug. 1999, pp. 415–420.
[25] R. Olfati-Saber and A. Megretski, “Controller design for the
beam-and-ball system,” in Proc. 37th IEEE Conf. Decision and
Control, Tampa, FL, 1998, pp. 4555–4560.
[26] K. Tanaka and H. O. Wang, Fuzzy Control Systems Analysis and Design:
A Linear Matrix Inequality Approach, New York: Wiley, 2001.
Tadanari Taniguchi received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees in mechanical systems engineering from
Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Japan, in 1996 and
1998, respectively.
He is currently a graduate student in mechan-
ical and control engineering, at the Graduate
School of Electro-Communications, university
of Electro-Communications, Tokyo, Japan. His
research interests include intelligent control and
nonlinear control.
Kazuo Tanaka (S’87–M’91) received the B.S.
and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering from
Hosei University, Tokyo, Japan, in 1985 and 1987,
respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in systems science
from Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, in 1990,.
He is currently an Associate Professor in De-
partment of Mechanical Engineering and Intelligent
Systems with The University of Electro-Communi-
cations, Tokyo, Japan. He was a Visiting Scientist
in Computer Science at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, in 1992 and 1993. He is the
author of two books and a co-author of 9 books. Recently, he co-authored Fuzzy
Control Systems Design and Analysis: A Linear Matrix Inequality Approach
(New York:Wiley-Interscience, 2001). His research interests include intelligent
systems and control, nonlinear systems control, robotics and applications.
Dr. Tanaka received the Best Young Researchers Award from the Japan So-
ciety for Fuzzy Theory and Systems in 1990, the Outstanding Papers Award
at the 1990 Annual NAFIPS Meeting in Toronto, Canada, in 1990, the Out-
standing Papers Award at the Joint Hungarian-Japanese Symposium on Fuzzy
Systems and Applications in Budapest, Hungary, in 1991, the Best Young Re-
searchers Award from the Japan Society for Mechanical Engineers in 1994, the
Best Book Awards from the Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and Systems in
1995 and 1999 IFAC World Congress Best Poster Paper Prize in 1999, 2000
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS Outstanding Paper Award in 2000.
He is currently serving on the IEEE Control Systems Society Conference Edi-
torial Board.
538 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS, VOL. 9, NO. 4, AUGUST 2001

Hiroshi Ohtake received the B.E. degree in mechan- Hua O. Wang (M’94) received the B.S. degree from
ical and control engineering from The University of the University of Science and Technology of China
Electro-Communications, Tokyo, Japan, in 2000. (USTC), China, in 1987, the M.S. degree from the
He is currently a graduate student in mechanical University of Kentucky, Lexington, in 1989, and the
and control engineering course, Graduate School of Ph.D degree from the University of Maryland at Col-
Electro-Communications, The University of Electro- lege Park in 1993, all in electrical engineering.
Communications. His research interests include non- From 1993 to 1996, he was with the United
linear mechanical control. Technolgies Research Center, Lexington, KY. In
1996, he joined Duke University, Durham, NC,
where he is assistant Professor in the Department
of Electrical and Computer Engineering. He also
holds a guest appointment as Cheung Kong Chair Professor and Director with
the Center for Nonlinear and Complex Systems at Huazhong University of
Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. Since August 2000, has served as
Program Manager (IPA) for Systems and Control with the U.S. Army Research
Office. He is coauthor of Fuzzy Control Systems Design and Analysis: A Linear
Inequality Approach (New York:Wiley-Interscience, 2001). His research
interests include control of nonlinear dynamics, intelligent systems and control,
networked control systems, sensor fusion, robotics and applications.
Dr. Wang is a recipient of the 1994 O. Hugo Schuck Best Paper award of
the American Automatic Control Council; the 14th IFAC World Congress
Poster Paper Prize; and, the 2000 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON FUZZY SYSTEMS
Outstanding Paper Award. He has served on the IEEE Control Systems Society
Conference Editorial Board and is currently an Associate Editor for the IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, and an Editor for the Journal of Systems
Science and Complexity.