22 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 30, NO.
1, FEBUARY 2000
Optimal Design of CMAC Neural-Network Controller
for Robot Manipulators
Young H. Kim and Frank L. Lewis, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract—This paper is concerned with the application
of quadratic optimization for motion control to feedback
control of robotic systems using cerebellar model arithmetic
computer (CMAC) neural networks. Explicit solutions to the
Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman (H–J–B) equation for optimal control
of robotic systems are found by solving an algebraic Riccati equa-
tion. It is shown how the CMAC’s can cope with nonlinearities
through optimization with no preliminary off-line learning phase
required. The adaptive-learning algorithm is derived from Lya-
punov stability analysis, so that both system-tracking stability and
error convergence can be guaranteed in the closed-loop system.
The filtered-tracking error or critic gain and the Lyapunov
function for the nonlinear analysis are derived from the user input
in terms of a specified quadratic-performance index. Simulation
results from a two-link robot manipulator show the satisfactory
performance of the proposed control schemes even in the presence
of large modeling uncertainties and external disturbances.
Index Terms—CMAC neural network, optimal control, robotic
control.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HERE has been some work related to applying optimal-
control techniques to the nonlinear robotic manipulator.
These approaches often combine feedback linearization and op-
timal-control techniques. Johansson [6] showed explicit solu-
tions to the Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman (H–J–B) equation for
optimal control of robot motion and how optimal control and
adaptive control may act in concert in the case of unknown
or uncertain system parameters. Dawson et al. [5] used a gen-
eral-control law known as modified computed-torque control
(MCTC) and quadratic optimal-control theory to derive a pa-
rameterized proportional-derivative (PD) form for an auxiliary
input to the controller. However, in actual situations, the robot
dynamics is rarely known completely, and thus, it is difficult to
express real robot dynamics in exact mathematical equations or
to linearize the dynamics with respect to the operating point.
Neural networks have been used for approximation of non-
linear systems, for classification of signals, and for associative
memory. For control engineers, the approximation capability of
neural networks is usually used for system identification or iden-
tification-based control. More work is now appearing on the
use of neural networks in direct, closed-loop controllers that
yield guaranteed performance [13]. The robotic application of
Manuscript received June 2, 1997; revised June 23, 1999. This research was
supported by NSF Grant ECS-9521673.
The authors are with the Automation and Robotics Research Institute,
University of Texas at Arlington, Fort Worth, TX 76118-7115 USA (e-mail:
ykim50@hotmail.com; flewis@arri.uta.edu).
Publisher Item Identifier S 1094-6977(00)00364-3.
1094–6977/00$10.00 © 2000 IEEE
neural-network based, closed-loop control can be found [12].
For indirect or identification-based, robotic-system control, sev-
eral neural network and learning schemes can be found in the lit-
erature. Most of these approaches consider neural networks as
very general computational models. Although a pure neural-net-
work approach without a knowledge of robot dynamics may be
promising, it is important to note that this approach will not be
very practical due to high dimensionality of input–output space.
In this way, the training or off-line learning process by pure con-
nectionist models would require a neural network of impractical
size and unreasonable number of repetition cycles. The pure
connectionist approach has poor generalization properties.
In this paper, we propose a nonlinear optimal-design method
that integrates linear optimal-control techniques and CMAC
neural-network learning methods. The linear optimal control
has an inherent robustness against a certain range of model
uncertainties [9]. However, nonlinear dynamics cannot be taken
into consideration in linear optimal-control design. We use
the CMAC neural networks to adaptively estimate nonlinear
uncertainties, yielding a controller that can tolerate a wider
range of uncertainties. The salient feature of this H–J–B control
design is that we can use a priori knowledge of the plant
dynamics as the system equation in the corresponding linear
optimal-control design. The neural network is used to improve
performance in the face of unknown nonlinearities by adding
nonlinear effects to the linear optimal controller.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we will re-
view some fundamentals of the CMAC neural networks. In Sec-
tion III, we give a new control design for rigid robot systems
using the H–J–B equation. In Section IV, a CMAC controller
combined with the optimal-control signal is proposed. In Sec-
tion V, a two-link robot controller is designed and simulated in
the face of large uncertainties and external disturbances.
II. BACKGROUND
Let denote the real numbers, the real -vectors, and
the real matrices. We define the norm of a vector
as and the norm of a matrix
as where and
are the largest and smallest eigenvalues of a matrix. The absolute
value is denoted as .
Given and , the Frobenius norm is
defined by with as the trace
operator. The associated inner product is .
The Frobenius norm is compatible with the two-norm so that
with and .
KIM AND LEWIS: OPTIMAL DESIGN OF NEURAL-NETWORK CONTROLLER 23

Fig. 1. Architecture of a CMAC neural network.

A. CMAC Neural Networks 2) Multidimensional Receptive-Field Functions: Given any

Fig. 1 shows the architecture and operation of the CMAC. The , the multidimensional receptive-
CMAC can be used to approximate a nonlinear mapping : field functions are defined as
where is the application in the -di-
mensional input space and in the application output (3)
space. The CMAC algorithm consists of two primary functions
for determining the value of a complex function, as shown in
Fig. 1
with , . The output of the CMAC is given by

(1) (4)

where where
continuous -dimensional input space; output-layer weight values;
-dimensional association space; : continuous, multidimensional receptive-field
-dimensional output space. function;
The function is fixed and maps each point in the number of the association point.
input space onto the association space . The function The effect of receptive-field basis function type and partition
computes an output by projecting the association vector number along each dimension on the CMAC performance has
determined by onto a vector of adjustable weights such not yet been systematically studied.
that The output of the CMAC can be expressed in a vector notation
as
(2)
(5)
in (1) is the multidimensional receptive field function.
1) Receptive-Field Function: Given where
, let be domain of interest. matrix of adjustable weight values
For this domain, select integers and strictly increasing par- vector of receptive-field functions.
titions Based on the approximation property of the CMAC, there ex-
ists ideal weight values , so that the function to be approxi-
mated can be represented as

(6)
For each component of the input space, the receptive-field basis
function can be defined as rectangular [1] or triangular [4] or with the “functional reconstructional error” and
any continuously bounded function, e.g., Gaussian [3]. bounded.
24 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 30, NO. 1, FEBUARY 2000

Then, an estimate of can be given by Property 1—Inertia: The inertia matrix is uniformly
bounded
(7)
and (16)
where are estimates of the ideal weight values. The Lya-
punov method is applied to derive reinforcement adaptive Property 2—Skew Symmetry: The matrix
learning rules for the weight values. Since these adaptive
learning rules are formulated from the stability analysis of the (17)
controlled system, the system performance can be guaranteed
for closed-loop control. is skew-symmetric.

B. Robot Arm Dynamics and Properties III. OPTIMAL-COMPUTED TORQUE-CONTROLLER DESIGN

The dynamics of an -link robot manipulator may be ex- A. H–J–B Optimization
pressed in the Lagrange form [9]
Define the velocity-error dynamics

(8) (18)
with
The following augmented system is obtained:
joint variable;
inertia;
Coriolis/centripetal forces;
gravitational forces; (19)
diagonal matrix of viscous friction co- or with shorter notation
efficients;
Coulomb friction coefficients; (20)
external disturbances.
The external control torque to each joint is . with , , and .
Given a desired trajectory , the tracking errors are is defined as . A quadratic perfor-
mance index is as follows:
and (9)

and the instantaneous performance measure is defined as (21)

(10) with the Lagrangian

where is the constant-gain matrix or critic (not nec-
essarily symmetric).
The robot dynamics (8) may be written as (22)

(11)
Given the performance index , the control objective is
where the robot nonlinear function is to find the auxiliary control input that minimizes (21) sub-
ject to the differential constraints imposed by (19). The optimal
control that achieves this objective will be denoted by . It is
(12) worth noting for now, that only the part of the control-input-to-
robotic-system denoted by in (14) is penalized. This is rea-
and, for instance sonable from a practical standpoint, since the gravity, Coriolis,
and friction-compensation terms in (12) cannot be modified by
(13) the optimal-design phase.
A necessary and sufficient condition for to minimize
This key function captures all the unknown dynamics of (21) subject to (20) is that there exist a function
the robot arm. satisfying the H–J–B equation [10]
Now define a control-input torque as

(14) (23)

with an auxiliary control input to be optimized later. where the Hamiltionian of optimization is defined as
The closed-loop system becomes
(24)
(15)
KIM AND LEWIS: OPTIMAL DESIGN OF NEURAL-NETWORK CONTROLLER 25

and is referred to as the value function. It satisfies the where is given by (12). It is referred to as an optimal-
partial differential equation computed torque controller (OCTC).

(25) B. Stability Analysis

Theorem 2: Suppose that matrices and exist that satisfy
The minimum is attained for the optimal control , the hypotheses of Lemma 1, and in addition, there exist con-
and the Hamiltonian is then given by stants and such that , and the spectrum
of is bounded in the sense that on .
Then using the feedback control in (29) and (20) results in the
controlled nonlinear system

(35)

(26) This is globally exponentially stable (GES) regarding the origin

in .
Lemma 1: The following function composed of , Proof: The quadratic function is a suitable
and a positive symmetric matrix satisfies the Lyapunov function candidate, because it is positive radially,
H–J–B equation: growing with . It is continuous and has a unique minimum at
the origin of the error space. It remains to show that
(27) for all . From the solution of the H–J–B equation
(A12), it follows that
where and in (10) and (27) can be found from the Riccati
differential equation (36)

(28) Substituting (29) for (31) gives

The optimal control that minimizes (21) subject to (20) is

(29) (37)
See Appendix A for proof. The time derivative of the Lyapunov function is negative defi-
Theorem 1: Let the symmetric weighting matrices , be nite, and the assertion of the theorem then follows directly from
chosen such that the properties of the Lyapunov function [9].
(30)
IV. CMAC NEURAL-CONTROLLER DESIGN
The block diagram in Fig. 2 shows the major components
with . Then the and required in Lemma
that embody the CMAC neural controller. The external-control
1 can be determined from the following relations:
torques to the joints are composed of the optimal-feedback con-
(31) trol law given in Theorem 1 plus the CMAC neural-network
output components.
The nonlinear robot function can be represented by a CMAC
neural network
(32)
(38)
with (32) solved for using Lyapunov equation solvers (e.g.,
MatLab [15]). where is a multidimensional receptive-field function for
See Appendix B for proof. the CMAC.
Remarks: Then a functional estimate of can be written as
1) In order to guarantee positive definiteness of the con-
structed matrix , the following inequality [7] must be (39)
satisfied
The external torque is given by
(33)
(40)
2) With the optimal-feedback control law calculated
using Theorem 1, the torques to apply to the robotic where is a robustifying vector. Then (11) becomes
system are calculated according to the control input

(34) (41)
26 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 30, NO. 1, FEBUARY 2000

Fig. 2. CMAC neural controller based on the H–J–B optimization.

with the weight-estimation error . The state-space Evaluating (47) along the trajectory of (43) yields
description of (41) can be given by

(42)
(48)
with , , and given in (19) and (20).
Inserting the optimal-feedback control law (29) into (42), we Using , and from
obtain the Riccati equation (28), we have

(49)
(43)
Then the time derivative of Lyapunov function becomes
Theorem 3: Let the control action be provided by the
optimal controller (29), with the robustifying term given by
(50)
(44)
Applying the robustifying term (44) and the adaptive learning
with and defined as the instantaneous-perfor-
rule (45), we obtain
mance measure (10). Let the adaptive learning rule for neural-
network weights be given by

(45) (51)

with and . Then the errors , , The following inequality is used in the previous derivation
and are “uniformly ultimately bounded.” Moreover, the
errors and can be made arbitrarily small by adjusting
weighting matrices.
(52)
Proof: Consider the following Lyapunov function:
Completing the square terms yields
(46)

where is positive definite and symmetric given by (31). The

time derivative of the Lyapunov function becomes

(47) (53)
KIM AND LEWIS: OPTIMAL DESIGN OF NEURAL-NETWORK CONTROLLER
which is guaranteed negative as long as either (54) or (55) holds
(54)
(55)
where and are convergence regions. According to a
standard Lyapunov theory extension [11], this demonstrates uni-
formly ultimate boundedness of , , and .
Remarks:
1) The OCTC is globally asymptotically stable if is
fully known, whereas the neural-adaptive controller is
UUB. In both cases, there is a convergence of tracking er-
rors. UUB is a notion of stability in the practical sense that
is usually sufficient for the performance of closed-loop
systems, provided that the bound on system states is small
enough.
2) Robotic manipulators are subjected to structured and/or
unstructured uncertainties in all applications. Structured
uncertainty is defined as the case of a correct dynamical
model but with parameter uncertainty due to tolerance
variations in the manipulator-link properties, unknown
loads, and so on. Unstructured uncertainty describes the
case of unmodeled dynamics that result from the presence
of high-frequency modes in the manipulator, nonlinear
friction. The adaptive optimizing feature of the proposed
neural controller is suitable even without full knowledge
of the system dynamics.
3) From Barron results [2], there exist lower bounds of order
on the approximation error if only the
parameters of a linear combination of basis functions are
adjusted. Our stability proof shows that the effect of the
bounds on the approximation error can be alleviated by
the judicious choice of weighting matrices and .
4) It is emphasized that the neural-weight values may be
initialized at zero, and stability will be maintained by the
optimal controller in the performance-measurement
loop until the neural network learns. This means that there
is no off-line learning or trial and error phase, which often
requires a long time in other works.
5) The advantage of the CMAC control scheme over other
existing neural-network architectures is that the number
of adjustable parameters (i.e., weight values) is signifi-
cantly less, since only weights in the output layer are to
be adjusted. It is very suitable for closed-loop control.
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
The dynamic equations for an -link manipulator can be
found in [9]. The cost functional to be minimized is
(56)
An external disturbance and frictions are
(57)
27
(58)
where sqn is a signum function.
The weighting matrices are as follows:
(59)
Solving the matrices and using MatLab [15] yields
(60)
The motion problem considered is for the robot end-effector
to track a point on a circle centered at 0.05 m and
radius 0.05 m, which turns 1/2 times per second in slow motion
and two times per second in fast motion. It was pointed out that
control-system performance may be quite different in low-speed
and high-speed motion. Therefore, we carry out our simulation
for two circular trajectories.
The desired positions in low speed are
(61)
and the high-speed positions profiles are
(62)
By solving the inverse kinematics, we obtain the desired joint-
angle trajectory in fast motion.
The responses of the OCTC, where all nonlinearities are
exactly known, are shown in Fig. 3 without disturbances and
friction. The simulation was performed in low speed and high
speed. After a transient due to error in initial conditions, the
position errors tend asymptotically toward zero.
To show the effect of unstructured uncertainties, we dropped
a term in gravity forces. The simulation re-
sults are shown in Fig. 4(a) in low speed. Note that there is
a steady-state error with OCTC. Fig. 4(b) shows the effect of
external disturbances and friction forces, which is difficult to
model and compensate. This is corrected by adding a CMAC
neural network as follows.
The CMAC can be characterized by:
• number of input spaces: ;
• number of partitions for each space:
;
• number of association points: ;
• receptive field-basis functions:
with , and
;
28 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 30, NO. 1, FEBUARY 2000

(a) (b)

Fig. 3. Performance of OCTC (34): (a) tracking error for slow motion and (b) tracking error for fast motion (solid: joint 1, dotted: joint 2).

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Performance of OCTC (34): (a) tracking error with modeling error for slow motion and (b) tracking error with disturbance and friction for slow motion
(solid: joint 1, dotted: joint 2).

(a) (b)

Fig. 5. Performance of CMAC neural network controller (40): (a) tracking error for slow motion and (b) tracking error for fast motion (solid: joint 1, dotted:
joint 2).

• learning rate in the weight-tuning law: VI. CONCLUSION

and ; formance index and , through the critic-gain matrix . The
• simulation time: 20 s.
The results in Figs. 5 and 6 clearly show the ability of the CMAC
neural-network controller to overcome uncertainties, both struc-
tured and unstructured. Note that the problem noted in Fig. 4
with OCTC does not arise here, as all the nonlinearities are as-
sumed unknown to the CMAC neural controller.
We have developed a hierarchical, intelligent control scheme
for a robotic manipulator using the HJB optimization process
and the CMAC neural network. It has been shown that the entire
closed-loop system behavior depends on the user-specified per-
Lyapunov function for the stability of the overall system is au-
tomatically generated by the weighting matrices. In the deriva-
tion of the optimal-computed torque controller, it has been as-
sumed that nonlinearities in the robotic manipulator are com-
pletely known. However, even with the knowledge of nonlinear-
ities, it is difficult to achieve the control objective in the pres-
KIM AND LEWIS: OPTIMAL DESIGN OF NEURAL-NETWORK CONTROLLER 29

(a) (b)

! !
Fig. 6. Performance of CMAC neural-network controller (40): (a) tracking error with disturbance and friction for fast motion and (b) tracking error of mass
variation (m ; 2:3 4:0 kg at 5 s, m ; 4:0 2:3 kg at 12 s) with disturbance and friction for fast motion (solid: joint 1, dotted: joint 2).

ence of modeling uncertainties and frictional forces. The salient matrix whose elements are partial derivatives of the elements of
feature of the CMAC neural-HJB design is that the control ob- w.r.t. .
jective is obtained with completely unknown nonlinearities in A candidate for the Hamiltonian (24) is the sum of (A5)
the robotic manipulator. The proposed neural-adaptive learning and the Lagrangian (22). Now we are ready to evaluate how
shows both robustness and adaptation to changing system dy- depends on . The for which has
namics. To that end, a critic signal is incorporated into the adap- its minimum values is obtained from the partial derivative w.r.t.
tive-learning scheme. The application potential of the proposed .
methodology lies in the control design in areas such as robotics Since is unconstrained, (A3) requires that
and flight control and in motion-control analysis (e.g., of biome-
chanics).
(A7)
APPENDIX A
PROOF OF LEMMA 1 which gives a candidate for the optimal control
The theorem claims that the HJB equation
(A8)
(A1)
since
is satisfied for a function
(A9)
(A2)
We know that (A3) is satisfied by , given (A8). Inserting
where (A5) and (A6) into (A8) gives

(A3) (A10)

To derive optimal-control law, the partial derivatives of the Notice that the relation
function need to be evaluated. Here, we have the time deriva-
tive of the function (A11)

(A4) is used.
A necessary and sufficient condition for optimality is that the
The gradient of with respect to the error state is
chosen value function satisfies (23). Substituting (24) for (23)
yields
(A5)

with (A12)

where it is understood that the partial derivatives of in (A12)

(A6) are being evaluated along the optimal control . Inserting
(A4) into (A12), we obtain
In (A6), has dimension is a zero vector,
and the notation is used to represent the (A13)
30 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS—PART C: APPLICATIONS AND REVIEWS, VOL. 30, NO. 1, FEBUARY 2000

Inserting (20), (22), and (A10) into (A13) gives Whence the application of robot property 2, (17) shows that the
matrices of (31) and (32) solve the algebraic Riccati equa-
tion of (A20)
(A14)

Since , (A14) can be written

as (A20)

(A15) This completes the proof.

REFERENCES
We can summarize by stating that if a matrix can be found [1] J. S. Albus, “A new approach to manipulator control: The cerebellar
that satisfies (A15) , then the value function given model articulation controller (CMAC),” J. Dynamic Syst., Meas., Contr.,
vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 220–227, 1975.
in (A2) satisfies the HJB equation (A1). In this case, the desired [2] A. R. Barron, “Universal approximation bounds for superposition of a
optimal control is given by (A10). Note that if the matrix sat- sigmoidal function,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 39, pp. 930–945,
isfies the algebraic Riccati equation (28), then satisfies (A15). Mar. 1993.
[3] C.-T. Chiang and C.-S. Lin, “CMAC with general basis functions,”
This completes the proof. Neural Networks, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1199–1211, 1996.
[4] S. Commuri, F. L. Lewis, S. Q. Zhu, and K. Liu, “CMAC neural net-
works for control of nonlinear dynamical systems,” Proc. Neural, Par-
allel and Scientific Computing, vol. 1, pp. 119–124, 1995.
APPENDIX B [5] D. Dawson, M. Grabbe, and F. L. Lewis, “Optimal control of a modi-
fied computed-torque controller for a robot manipulator,” Int. J. Robot.
PROOF OF THEOREM 1 Automat., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 161–165, 1991.
[6] R. Johansson, “Quadratic optimization of motion coordination and con-
From Lemma 1, it is known that trol,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 35, pp. 1197–1208, Nov. 1990.
[7] D. E. Koditschek, “Quadratic Lyapunov functions for mechanical sys-
tems,” Yale Univ., Tech. Rep. 703, Mar. 1987.
[8] S. H. Lane, D. A. Handelman, and J. J. Gelfand, “Theory and develop-
ment of higher-order CMAC neural networks,” IEEE Contr. Syst. Mag.,
(A16) pp. 23–30, Apr. 1992.
[9] F. L. Lewis, C. T. Abdallah, and D. M. Dawson, Control of Robot Ma-
nipulators, New York: Macmillan, 1993.
[10] F. L. Lewis and V. L. Syrmos, Optimal Control, 2nd ed, New York:
Wiley, 1995.
solves the HJB equation for , solving the matrix [11] K. S. Narendra and A. M. Annaswamy, “A new adaptive law for robust
equation from the quadratic form adaptation without persistent excitation,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr.,
vol. AC-32, pp. 134–145, Feb. 1987.
[12] F. L. Lewis, A. Yesildirek, and K. Liu, “Multilayer neural-net robot con-
troller with guaranteed tracking performance,” IEEE Trans. Neural Net-
(A17) works, vol. 7, pp. 388–399, Mar. 1996.
[13] M. M. Polycarpou, “Stable adaptive neural control of scheme for non-
linear systems,” IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 41, pp. 447–451, Mar.
1996.
[14] Y.-F. Wong and A. Sideris, “Learning convergence in the cerebellar
The optimal-feedback control law that minimizes is model articulation controller,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks, vol. 3,
pp. 115–121, Jan. 1992.
[15] MatLab Users Guide, Control System Toolbox. Natick, MA: Math-
works, 1990.
(A18)
Young Ho Kim was born in Taegu, Korea, in 1960.
He received the B.S. degree in physics from Korea
Military Academy in 1983, the M.S. degree in
Let the weighting matrices be given by (30). electrical engineering from the University of Central
Insertion of expressions for matrices in (20) and Florida, Orlando, in 1988, and the Ph.D. degree in
in (27) into (A2), we have electrical engineering from the University of Texas
at Arlington, Fort Worth, in 1997.
From 1994 to 1997, he was a Research Assistant
at the Automation and Robotics Research Institute,
University of Texas, Arlington. He has published
extensively in the fields of feedback control using
neural networks and fuzzy systems. He authored the book High-Level Feedback
Control with Neural Networks. His research interests include optimal control,
neural networks, dynamic recurrent neural networks, fuzzy-logic systems,
real-time adaptive critics for intelligent control of robotics, and nonlinear
systems.
(A19) Dr. Kim received the Korean Army Overseas Scholarship. He received the
Sigma Xi Doctoral Research Award in 1997. He is a member of Sigma Xi.
KIM AND LEWIS: OPTIMAL DESIGN OF NEURAL-NETWORK CONTROLLER 31

Frank L. Lewis (S’78–M’81–SM’86–F’94) was

born in Wuzburg, Germany. He received the B.S.
degree in physics and electrical engineering and
the M.S. degree in electrical engineering at Rice
University, Houston, TX, in 1971. He received the
M.S. degree in aeronautical engineering from the
University of West Florida, Pensacola, in 1977. He
received the Ph.D. degree from Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, in 1981.
In 1981, he was employed as a Professor of Elec-
trical Engineering with the University of Texas, Ar-
lington. He spent six years in the United States Navy, serving as Navigator
aboard the frigate USS Trippe (FF-1075) and Executive Officer and Acting
Commanding Officer aboard USS Salinan (ATF-161). He has studied the geo-
metric, analytic, and structural properties of dynamical systems and feedback
control automation. His current interests include robotics, intelligent control,
neural and fuzzy systems, nonlinear systems, and manufacturing process con-
trol. He is the author/coauthor of two U.S. patents, 124 journal papers, 20 chap-
ters and encyclopedia articles, 210 refereed conference papers, and 7 books.
Dr. Lewis is a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas and
was selected to the Editorial Boards of International Journal of Control, Neural
Computing and Applications, and International Journal of Intelligent Control
Systems. He is the recipient of an NSF Research Initiation Grant and has been
continuously funded by NSF since 1982. Since 1991, he has received $1.8 mil-
lion in funding from NSF and upwards of $1 million in SBIR/industry/state
funding. He was awarded the Moncrief-O’Donnell Endowed Chair in 1990 at
the Automation and Robotics Research Institute, Arlington, TX. He received a
Fulbright Research Award, the American Society of Engineering Education F.
E. Terman Award, three Sigma Xi Research Awards, the UTA Halliburton En-
gineering Research Award, the UTA University-Wide Distinguished Research
Award, the ARRI Patent Award, various Best Paper Awards, the IEEE Control
Systems Society Best Chapter Award, and the National Sigma Xi Award for
Outstanding Chapter (as President). He was selected as Engineer of the year
in 1994 by the Ft. Worth, TX, IEEE Section. He was appointed to the NAE
Committee on Space Station in 1995 and to the IEEE Control Systems Society
Board of Governors in 1996. In 1998, he was selected as an IEEE Control Sys-
tems Society Distinguished Lecturer. He is a Founding Member of the Board of
Governors of the Mediterranean Control Association.