IFAC MCPL 2007

The 4th International Federation of Automatic Control Conference on Management and Control of Production and Logistics
September 27-30, Sibiu - Romania

HYBRID SYSTEMS MODELING FOR GAS TRANSMISSION NETWORK

¹Amir Noori, ²Mohammad Bagher Menhaj, ³Masoud Shafiee

Amirkabir University of technology, Electrical Engineering Departme,

Iran-Tehran

¹Amirnoori@gmail.com, ²MBMenhaj@yahoo.com, ³Shafiee@yahoo.com

Abstract: Expansion of gas transmission networks and advancement in related automation

systems has made these networks more complex. Study of these networks in an analytical
approch, can help us in their design, management and optimization. We use a hybrid
model based on hybrid automata to model the network. By using abstraction methods, a
finite state automaton can be achieved which is used for intelligent control of the
network. Due to lack of a decision model, Q-learning method is selected for decision-
making purpose in which the proposed hybrid model makes our environment.
Copyright © 2007 IFAC

Keywords: Hybrid systems, Discrete Event Systems, Intelligent Control, Machine

Learning

1. INTRODUCTION restricted, for example in timed and rectangular

Large-scale systems such as Power Transmission
Networks, Oil and Gas Transmission Networks and
Transportation systems have critical rule in all
downstream industries. These systems grow rapidly
and their management and analysis need more
attentions, especially, in a systematic way. Today,
those efficient Analysis and control is the matter of
new researches (Chapman, et al., 2002).
In the Oil and Gas, we have different prominent
features that make problem more complex. Large
delays in response to either smooth or rapid change
of variables and dependency to time and space make
analysis difficult. Optimal operation of these
networks widely considered in literatures (Alato,
2005; Osiadacz, et al.,1994; Carter, 1998; Kelling,
2000), that reduces losses and saves money. The
main assumption of these works is that the system
widely maintains its liveness and safe operation,
which needs more considerations.
However, Such Systems belong to hybrid systems
and a general class of hybrid systems can be
represented using hybrid automaton. Hybrid
automaton are an extension of state automaton,
which includes continuous and discrete dynamics.
For complexity reason, abstraction methods usually
utilize to reduce the underlying problem to a simpler
one. These approaches make a system more abstract
in a way that it preserves properties being analyzed
while hiding details that are of no interest. In
abstraction, either the continuous dynamics must be
hybrid systems or the discrete dynamics must be
restricted, as is the case for o-minimal hybrid
systems (Koutsoukos, et al., 2000). Thus, in large-
scale and hybrid systems, we often investigate a
simpler model, which is derived from original
system.
In first method, we approximate the continuous
behavior of system by a finite discrete behavior. So,
we yield a unified model in discrete form. However,
this approximation requires being safe, meaning that
a controller must be guaranteed to provide same
logical specifications for both the underlying
concrete system and the abstract model. Besides the
safety problem, we are interest in solving this
problem in an optimal way. Moreover, this matter
highlights the need of flexible techniques for
approximation, which can provide different grades of
approximation. By such approximator, that preserves
many important behaviors of system in abstraction
procedure, makes it possible doing analysis in a
simpler level of complexity and extend results to the
concrete system.
However, in our design the abstracted model of the
underlying hybrid system is a Discrete Event
Systems (DES) and needs using DES approaches and
its extensions. In the late 1980s, Ramadge and
Wonham (Ramadge, et al., 1989) proposed the
Supervisory Control Theory (SCT), which applies
feedback theory to DESs that is modeled by
automata. The supervisory control theory is a method
for automatically synthesizing supervisors that

389
restrict the behavior of a plant such that the given
specifications are fulfilled as much as possible (for
further reading, see (Ramadge, et al., 1989)). Today,
this approach is common in discrete event system
modeling and analysis and many researches are
employing this framework. But, RW framework is
based on automata and language theory (and
symbolic computation), which is far from linear
system theory principles.
Moreover, for analysis of these types of problems,
which often meet in lower level analysis of hybrid
systems many approaches have been proposed
(Cohen, et al., 1989; Murata, 1989; Harel, 1987; Ho,
1989). In linear system theory, we have many
powerful tools for analysis of dynamical system,
which can reuse in discrete event systems but most
of mentioned approach does not have strong
connection to classical system theory.
In 1981, the researchers in INRIA started working on
what we now know as Max-algebra; a system
theoretic approach for discrete event systems.
Although, this approach is well suited in some
applications (Doustmohammadi, 1993; Kamen,
1993) but after twenty-six years, it is not as general
as linear system theory. Recently, fuzzy discrete
event systems (FDES) are introduced which convert
symbolic computation of DES to a mathematical
framework.
In this paper, we present a hybrid model of gas
transmission network. This network can model using
hybrid automaton. Hybrid automaton is a suitable
tool for modeling large-scale systems. Moreover, in
contrast with petri-nets and its extensions, this
framework brings decidability property, which in
complex systems is an important subject. A problem
is said to be decidable if there exists an algorithm to
solve that problem and otherwise, is said to be
undecidable.
However, utilization of this feature needs (or
perhaps, are easier) converting the underlying hybrid
system to a unified discrete event model. Then, we
can decide about important properties of this discrete
event system and extend these results to the concrete
one.
Today, the analysis of complex automation systems
becomes more important. However, dependencies
between infrastructures such as power transmission
network, oil and gas transmission network and
telecommunication network make this issue
prominent. In reality, we have some events that are
not observable to operator, because of the lack of
sensors or detection means, too high cost of
detection, or difficulty in information transmission.
Thus, some behavior of the underlying system is not
observable to user.
In this paper, we first model some important
components of gas transmission network using
hybrid automaton. This model for a part of Iranian
Gas Transmission Network is also implemented in
Simulink™ and Stateflow™ . Then, we present an
abstraction method named Fuzzy abstraction which
yields a variable structure automaton. Based on this
model, we proposed a reinforcement learning method
for tuning variable transition of a supervisory
390
controller. However, the membership degree of this
variables are as our control variables. In a decision
support system, which can be used in supervisory
control systems, these transitions yield using if-then
rules (and some other fusion rules).
The major advantage of our model is its interactivity
and reconfigurability, which makes it a suitable
framework for diagnosing and management purpose.
Also, based on this model, analysis and systematic
design of control system is possible.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In
section 2, we present a brief introduction to Natural
Gas Transmission Network, followed by section 3
that models this network based on hybrid automaton.
In section 4, This network is then implemented in
SIMULINK TM /Stateflow TM which, provides a suitable
test bed for further researches. Section 5 is devoted to
present control system design. Section 6 concludes
the paper.
2. NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION NETWORK
Natural gas pipeline networks, or pipeline systems,
are used to transport gas from sources to consumers
over long distances. The distance from a source to a
consumer may be thousands of kilometers. The gas
in the pipeline is pressurized in order to maintain a
pressure difference necessary for moving the gas.
Compressors are used to pressurize the gas. These
are needed at regular intervals along the pipeline-
usually every 50 to 150 kilometers, since the gas
pressure decreases rapidly due to frictional losses.
The most elementary components of a pipeline
system are pipeline segments and compressors. Other
components of pipeline system are valves (discrete or
continuously operating) and gas storages. Long-
distance transmission pipelines operate under high
pressures and gas users at the off-takes use pressure
reduction stations to adapt the gas pressure to their
needs (Alato, 2005).
However, in this paper we only investigate the
following components: Pipeline Segments,
Compressors (compressor Stations), Line Break
Valves and other type of valves. Modeling of these
components is done based on hybrid automaton. A
major advantage of this modeling approach is its user
friendliness that can be easily used and generalized
for other relevant applications. In pipeline systems,
compressor stations are the most complex parts of the
model. Fig.1, illustrates connections between
components in a compressor station.
Connection Valve
Compressor
Pipeline
Line1
Line2
Line Break Valve
Bypass Valve
Line3
Fig.1 Components of a compressor station
In the following, we discuss modeling of network
components.
 Where k12 is a constant and z12 is the average
3. HYBRID MODELING OF COMPONENTS
compressibility of the gas in the segment. If the
elevation of the pipeline segment is essential, then
In this section, we provide a typical hybrid model for
the following expression yields:
each component of gas transmission network. As
mentioned above, we have pipeline segments, k12 g (h2 − h1 ) p122
p12 − p 22 − = k12 z12 q12 q12
0.8539
compressor stations and various types of valves as z12T12
major components of gas transmission network.
The following definition is based on (Johansson, et (2)
al., 1999; Lygeros, et al., 1999).
Where
Definition 1 (Hybrid Automaton). A hybrid h2 is the elevation of the end of the pipeline segment
automaton H is a 6-tuple H = (Q, X, X0 , f, D, R) , above some basic level
Where h1 is the elevation of the beginning of the segment
Q is a finite set of discrete variables; above some basic level
X is a finite set of continuous variables with T12 is the average gas temperature of the segment
X 0 ⊆ Q × X is a set of initial states;
The average pressure p12 in the segment is
f : Q × X → TX is a vector field; calculated using the expression:
D ⊆ Q × X is the domain of H; 2⎛ p p ⎞
R : Q × X → P (Q × X ) is a reset relation. p12 = ⎜⎜ p1 + p 2 − 1 2 ⎟⎟ (3)
3⎝ p1 + p 2 ⎠
We refer to (q, x ) ∈ Q × X as the state of H. In the leak mode, we assume the pressure of nodes
decreases exponentially. In the break mode, pressures
The MathWorks modeling and simulation tools, assumed to be zero. a hybrid model of a pipe
Simulink™/Stateflow™ facilitate the design of segment is shown in fig.2.
complex control systems. In the following, we also Fig.3 shows implementation of a pipe segment in
describe modeling of these components in Stateflow TM .
Simulink™ environment.

3.1 Pipeline Segments

Pipelines are used to transport various kinds of mass,

mainly crude oil and natural gas; however, different
oil products are also transported. Gas pipelines are
also used for nitrogen, oxygen, pressurized air and
gases used by the petrochemical industry such as
ethane, propane and others.
In a typical segment of a pipeline, in addition to the
mass flow rate, a pressure variable is defined at every
node, which based on the analysis assumption Fig.2 Hybrid model of a pipe segment
(steady state or transient) and for each segment; one
of these variables can be computed based on two
others.
Roughly speaking, in hybrid automaton, we have a
discrete set (i.e., modes) in which continuous
changes of variables take place. We will remain in a
mode until the state of H belongs to its invariant set
(i.e., domain). A transition between modes occurs by
means of events and/or conditions. We may also
consider a set/reset operaion in transitions.
Typical discrete modes of a pipeline segment are
Safe, Break and Leak. The Safe mode indicates the
safe and desired operation of a segment. In this
mode, the pressure of one end of the pipeline Fig.3 A typical implementation of pipeline segment
computes based on the flow rate and other end node
pressure, or in a same way, the flow rate can be In this figure, some significant events are shown
computed based on pressures. However, steady-state which may be observable or non-observable. For
behavior of compressible mass in a pipe is described example, the pipeline segment goes to the break state
by this well-known equation (Alato, 2005): because of the occurrence of over-pressure or break
p12 − p 22 = k12 z12 q12 q12
0.8539 events.
(1)
Continuous variables such as pressures and flow
rates compute by invoking function
Calc_Pressure_LineSeg_x_x that is carried out in a

391
subsystem in SIMULINK TM environment. In Fig.4,
this subsystem is shown.

Fig.4 pressure calculation subsystem Fig.5 hybrid model of Compressor

In transient condition, based on the identification As we can see in equation (4), the output pressure of
methods and acquired data from simulation of compressor has a nonlinear algebraic relation with
network in Simone TM , we obtained a transfer function the input pressure. To represent such behavior for
compressor, we use a subsystem that invokes through
for pipe segments with an acceptable error, which is
a function call in Stateflow TM . This subsystem is
useful for optimization and control purpose. But,
these linear models of components are very sensitive shown in Fig.6.
to component’s parameters and individually should
be computed for each component of network.
Therefore, in this paper, we will not discuss this
subject.

3.2 Compressors

The active components of a pipeline system are

compressors, which add potential energy to the gas
flow by increasing the pressure. The adiabatic head
Ha is the energy content increase (kJ/kg) of the gas
when it flows through a compressor (Sandler, et al.,
1987):
γ
z RT ⎡⎛ P ⎞ ⎤ Fig.6 implementation of compressor (by selction
Ha = s s ⎢⎜⎜ d ⎟⎟ − 1⎥ (4) input for pressure or turn command)
γ Mw ⎢⎣⎝ PS ⎠ ⎥⎦
3.3 Valves
Where
Pd is the discharge (outlet) pressure of the Discrete valves are used to block sections of
compressor pipelines and selecting paths for the gas to flow
through it. In Fig.1, discrete valves are used to
PS is the suction (inlet) pressure of the compressor connect or disconnect pipes belonging to the same
R is the universal gas constant parallel pipeline system. Also, several valves at the
z S is the compressibility at compressor suction compressor station are used to select which units are
used for the compression and how to distribute the
conditions
gas between the three outgoing parallel pipes. In fig.7
TS is the gas temperature at the suction point a hybrid model of a typical valve are shown. Major
M w is the molecular weight of the gas modes of a valve are: Open, Close and Fail. By
means of these modes and corresponding events, we
γ is defined as: can express strings which are origin of an crisis in the
ka − 1 nework.
γ =
ka

Where ka is the molar specific heat ratio of the gas

assuming adiabatic compression. In an adiabatic
compression process no heat is transferred into or out
from the compressor. In Fig.5, a hybrid automaton is
shown which represent compressor behaviour.
Fig.7 hybrid model of a valve

Fig.8, Shows the stateflow block of a typical

Valve, which implements these operating modes.

392
However, the fail state rarely uses but it is useful for
diagnosing and management purpose.
Fig.8 implementaion of a Valve
The other types of valves (such as Line Break
Valves_LBVs,…) are similar to this figure and have
such states. The important event of a typical LBV is
pressure imbalance, which causes a transition from
open state to close state. Moreover, by means of
initial state, we can model two well-known types of
valves : normally-open and normally-close.
4. MODELING OF GAS TRANSMISSION
NETWORK
4.1 Network modeling
Modular Design of Network has many advantages. In
other words, reduced design and modification time is
main advantage of a modular approch. Based on the
components modeled in previous section, we have
modeled a part of Iranian Gas Transmission Network
(IGTN).
However, a complex system is defined as a system
with many degree of freedom that coupled to each
others. In network modeling, we must consider
interaction between components. For example,
“when content of a pipe segment is empty?” and
other questions which should be considered. We
have done these subjects by Routing Subsystems,
which determines “flow in junction and branch
points, status of pipe segments based on status of
valves, compressors, and other pipe segments”, and
all such situations. These subjects are essential when
we diagnosis the network. We note that these
interactions can guide us finding source of fault and
help to diagnosis the network.
Fig.9, shows a stateflow block that are used to
represent a T-junction which are frequently found in
gas transmission network.
393
Fig.9 A T-junction block
In this figures, we have five mode for T-junction;
Direct, End, Up, Down and MIX. Transition between
these modes occurs with events which come from
neighbour valves. Moreover, we can consider effect
which take place in these points such as Route
Preference.
5. INTELLIGENT CONTROL OF GAS
TRANSMISSION NETWORK
In this section, we will briefly present precedure for
designing an intelligent control system based on the
proposed model. Due to complex nature of large
networks, analysis and controller design procedures
is usually done in an abstracted level with fewer
complexity. In other words, we convert a problem in
uniform (rather discrete and less continuous)
framework. Before, discussing these abstaction
methods in details, we propose a structure for control
system.
5.1 Structure of Control System
Complex control systems consist of many states,
modes, parameters. Operator interacts with these
systems in an abstract level (using Graphical User
Interface) and only has control over a small subset of
discrete dynamic of the concrete system. However,
presenting large information to user makes decision-
making more complex and time-consuming and
reflexing little knowledge of system’s behaviours
makes it impossible to take a good decision.
Therefore, we extract different amount of
information for two purposes, one for Automated
Control System and another for designing a GUI.
Fig.10 shows a typical abstraction of a complex
control system.
User Interface .
(Abstract Discrete Behavior)
Abstracted model
(Finite Disrete Behavior)
Plant .
(Hybrid model)
Fig.10 different levels of a complex automation
system
However, defining these levels depend on plant and
desired operation features. In small-scale plants, the
second level is unnecessary and user can simply
interact with the concrete system. In Fig.10, it is
obvious that the abstraction process reduces the
knowledge and decision-making takes place under
incomplete knowledge.
However, in large-scale systems (such as gas
transmission network) interactions between operator
and the underlying process are very complex and
needs a systematic approach for analysing the
complex behaviours.
In this paper, we concentrate on the level two and
propose an approach for designing an automated
control system (ACS). We can present this level by
Discrete Event Systems (DESs) (or Fuzzy DES).
Designing controller (which is named supervisor) for
such systems widely considered in literatures and has
many application.
One way for designing an ACS is by using Expert
systems and Decision Support Systems (DSSs).
However, some authors proposed intelligent
approach, which effectively handles uncertainties in
knowledge and model (Nokhbeh, et al., 2006). This
task is accomplished using fuzzy variables, which
generally has gaussian membership function.
However, implementations of such systems are
difficult and are not scalable.
In the following, we present a new approch, which
are based on a hybrid model of network and deals
with model and knowledge uncertainties in a
computational framework.
5.2 Fuzzy Abstraction of Hybrid model
Reduction or abstraction techniques replace a
complex system with a more abstract one, and partly
soften the state explosion problem. There are two
common method for this purpose; predicate
abstraction which divide state space into several
distinct regions, and projection which simply remove
some less important variables.
By considering uncertainties, which naturally exists
in the concrete model, we extend first approach by
dividing state-space into fuzzy subsets. The resulting
model is a Fuzzy DES that can be represented in
matrix form. In fig.11, State diagram of a fuzzy
automaton is shown. Transistions in this diagram are
carried out using a matrix which represent possibility
of each transition. In supervisory control system, this
variables are as our control variable.
However, transitions of such systems are somewhat
vague, and can be represented by a variable structure
automaton. A variable structure automaton is an
automaton that their transitions can tune. Thus, using
these abstracted model, one can design a supervisor
based on if-then rules. In other words, one way to
solve this problem is to manually code rules for
controling subsystems and their interactions.
Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, this approach
is complex to implement and not easy to scale.
394
Fig.11 Fuzzy abstraction of hybrid automaton
Alternatively, we can formulate problem in different
manner to solve it. The supervisor gets positive
reinforcement for maintaining pressure near the
desired value, negative reinforcement for large
deviations from this value. Then, supervisor can
learn the best strategy, to operate network by
providing different setpoints for station and
producers, and trying to maximize the reinforcement,
it receives. This strategy is easy to implement and
scalable also. This way of solving problem is know
as RL (Sutton, et al., 1998).
In the follownig, we discuss a learning method for
tunning variables of supervisor automaton.
5.3 Reinforcement Learning
Machine learning is study of algorithms, which
improve performance with experience
(Mitchell,1997). Such an algorithm is known as
learner and procedure of improving performance
with experience is known as training experience.
RL is learning from interaction with environment.
The learner and decision-maker is called the agent.
The thing it interacts with, is called the environment.
These interact continually, the agent selecting actions
and the environment responding to those actions and
presenting new situations (known as states) and
reward associated with them to the agent, as shown
in Fig.12. There are two flavors of RL problem based
on the fact, that the agent is aware of the
environmental model or not. These are known as
model-based and model-free reinforcement learning.
Q-learning is an example of model-free RL and
pritorized sweeping is a model-based RL. In model-
based approaches, we learn a model and based on the
estimated model make a decision. In model-free RL,
no effort are used to estimate a model.
Agent
State(Si) Action(Ai)
Reward(Ri)
Environment
Fig.12 RL model

Watkins' Q-learning, is a model-free method which
is very easy to implement . Q-learning works by
estimating the value of state-action pair, Q(s; a). The
value Q(s; a), known as Q-value, is defined to be the
expected sum of future reinforcement (penalty)
obtained by taking action a from state s and
following an optimal policy thereafter. Once these
values have been learned, the optimal action from
any state is the one with the lowest Q-value.The
estimation of Q-values can be done on the basis of
experience using following learning rule (Sutton, et
al., 1998):
Q( s, a ) = Q( s, a ) + α ( X + min (Q( s′, a′) − Q( s, a )))
a′∈A
(5)
where,
s0 is new state after taking action a on state s
and X is reinforcement observed.
X = PathCost , if transition is safe
X = R , if transition is unsafe
α is known as learning rate.
A part of IGTN is shown in fig.13 which is used for
explainig the implementation of intelligent control
system.
Fig. 13 a part of a Iranian gas transmission network
Based on the Q-learnig algorithm and defining a cost
function of network states, we trained the supervisor
to learn best action (see fig.14).
Fig.14 Policies which exsit in above example
Actions are listed below:
a1 : Open_valve_2
a2 : Open_valve_3
a3 : Open_valve_7(bypass)
a4 : Open_valve_7
a5 : Open_valve_9
a6 : Open_valve_11
a7 : Open_valve_5
a8 : Open_valve_7
a9 : Open_valve_11
a10 : Open_valve_5
395
a11 : Open_valve_11
a12 : Open_valve_13
We also used a simple cost function for this purpose,
which give all needed information about these two
states :
CostFun = (press_1_1–500)^2 + (press_1_2– 500)^2
+ (press_1_3–500)^2 + (Flwrate_1_1 – 120)^2 +
(Flwrate_1_2–120)^2 + (Flwrate_1_3–120)^2
(6)
Finally, after the training the supervisor, Action 3 in
state1 and action1 in state4 is selected as best actions
with minimum q-values.
Fig.15, shows that the action with lowest Cost
function, is selected more than others and fig.16
represent the convergence of Q-values. However, in
this case, there are one Optimal Policy as mentioned
above, First, Open_valve_7, then Open_valve_5.
Fig.15 Histogram of Selected Cost functions in
Training period.
Fig. 16 Estimation of Q-value
6. CONCLUSION
Simulation is our major tool for analysis of Large-
scale and Complex systems. In oil and gas
transmission, commercial packages or toolboxes give
little information about dynamic behavior of
components and often are not interactive (for
instance, we cannot simply simulate failure modes of
network). However, SIMULINK TM /Stateflow TM is very
powerful and rich for complex system analysis.
Therefore, in first place, we developed a
comprehensive network model, which can utilize for
further researches. This model is also helpful for
dispatchers, which should make a decision under
incomplete knowledge. Moreover, based on this
model, we derived an abstract model and applied
reinforcement learning to tune the supervisor’s
transitions degrees of the associated automaton.
 7. REFERENCES Conference on Decision and Control, Phoenix,
AZ.
K. S. Chapman, M. Abbaspour, (june,2002) H. J. Sandler and E. T. Luckiewicz, , (1987)
“Virtual Pipeline System Testbed to Optimize “Practical Process Engineering”, McGraw-Hill,
the U.S. Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline 638 pages.
System”, Technology Status Assessment Report, H. Nokhbeh, M. B. Menhaj, (2006) “fuzzy decision
The Department of Energy, Strategic Center for support system for crisis management in gas
Natural Gas, Kansas State University. transmission network”, Proceedings of the 15th
H. Alato, (2005) “Real-time Receding Horizon International Iranian Conference on Electrical
Optimisation of Gas Pipeline Networks” PHD Engineering.
dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology. N.R. Jennings, P. Faratin, A.R. Lomuscio, S.
available on-line : Parsons, C. Sierra, M. Wooldridge, (2001)
http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2005/isbn9512276593 “Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and
J. Osiadacz, S. Swierczwski, (1994) “Optimal challenges”, Internat. J. Group Decision
Control of Gas Transportation Systems”. The Negotiation 10 (2) 199–215.
3rd IEEE Conference on Control Applications, T. M. Mitchell, (1997) “Machine Learning”.
Yhe University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. McGraw Hill.
R. G. Carter, “Pipeline Optimisation: (1998) R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, (1998) “Reinforcement
“Dynamic Programming after 30 years”, Learning: An Introduction”. London, England:
Pipeline Simulation Interest Group, Annual The MIT Press.
Conference ,Denver, Colorado, F. Lin, H. Ying, (2002) “Modeling and Control of
USA,www.psig.org/papers Fuzzy Discrete Event Systems” IEEE
Kelling C., K. Reith and E. Sekirnjak (2000), “A TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND
Practical Approach to Transient Optimisation for CYBERNETICS—PART B: CYBERNETICS,
Gas Networks”, Pipeline Simulation Interest VOL. 32, NO. 4
Group, Annual Conference , Savannah, C.G. Cassandras and S. Lafortune, (1999)
Georgia, USA, www.psig.org/papers “Introduction to Discrete Event Systems”,
X. D. Koutsoukos, P. J. Antsaklis, J. A. Stiver, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
AND M. D. Lemmon, (2000) “Supervisory “MATLAB&SIMULINK user’s guide”, The
Control of Hybrid Systems”, Proceedings of the MathWorks, Inc (2005).
IEEE, VOL. 88, NO. 7 A. Noori, M. B. Menhaj, (2007) “Fuzzy abstraction
P.J.G. Ramadge andW.M.Wonham. (1989) “The of hybrid systems” , will appear in : Proceedings
control of discrete event systems”. IEEE of International conference on application of
Proceedings: Special issue on Discrete Event Computational Intelligence for Measurement
Systems, 77(1):81–97,. Systems and Applications.
G. Cohen, P. Moller, J.-P. Quadrat and M. Viot,
(1989) “Algebraic Tools for the Performance
Evaluation of Discrete Event Systems”, Proc.
IEEE, Vol 77, No 1,
T. Murata, (1989) “Petri nets: Properties, analysis
and applications”, Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol
77 No. 4.
D. Harel, (1987) “Statecharts: A Visual Formalism
for Complex Systems”, Science of Computer
Programming, vol. 8.
Y.-C. Ho, (1989) “Special Issue on the Dynamics of
Discrete Event Systems”, Proceedings of the
IEEE.
Doustmohammadi, (1993) “Modeling of Discrete
Event Dynamic Systems based on Petri Nets and
Minimax Algebra Approach”, PhD thesis
proposal, Georgia Inst. Tech., Atlanta.
E. W. Kamen, (1993) “An Equation-Based Approach
to the Control of Discrete Even Systems with
Applications to Manufacturing”, Proc. Int’l
Conf. on Control Theory & its Applications,
Jerusalem, Israel.
K. H. Johansson, M. Egerstedt, J. Lygeros, and S.
Sastry. (1999)”On the regularization of Zeno
hybrid automata.” Systems & Control Letters,
38:141-150.
J. Lygeros, K. H. Johansson, S. Sastry, and M.
Egerstedt. (1999) “On the existence of
executions of hybrid automata.” In IEEE

396