Minimal Solution to Extrinsic Calibration of Camera and 2D Laser Rangefinder Based on Virtual Trihedron
-
摘要: 摄像机与激光测距仪(Camera and laser rangefinder, LRF)被广泛应用于机器人、移动道路测量车、无人驾驶等领域. 其中, 外参数标定是实现图像与LIDAR数据融合的第一步, 也是至关重要的一步. 本文提出一种新的基于最小解(Minimal solution) 外参数标定算法, 即摄像机与激光仅需对标定棋盘格采集三次数据. 本文首次提出虚拟三面体概念, 并以之构造透视三点问题(Perspective-three-point, P3P)用以计算激光与摄像机之间的坐标转换关系.相对于文献在对偶三维空间(Dual 3D space) 中构造的P3P问题, 本文直接在原始三维空间中构造P3P问题, 具有更直观的几何意义, 更利于对P3P问题进行求解与分析. 针对P3P问题多达八组解的问题, 本文还首次提出一种平面物成像区域约束方法从多解中获取真解, 使得最小解标定法具有更大的实用性与灵活性. 实验中分别利用模拟数据与真实数据对算法进行测试.算法结果表明, 在同等输入的条件下, 本文算法性能超过文献中的算法. 本文所提的平面物成像区域约束方法能从多解中计算出真解, 大大提高了最小解算法的实用性与灵活性.Abstract: Camera and laser rangefinder (LRF) are widely utilized in various applications, such as robotics, road survey and mapping vehicle, autonomous driving, etc. This paper presents a novel minimal solution based method for extrinsic calibration of a camera and a 2D LRF by introducing a virtual trihedron from 3 input chessboard planes. We formulate the perspective-three-plane (P3P) problem with the virtual trihedron to compute the extrinsic parameters between the camera and the LRF coordinate systems. Compared to the P3P problem in dual 3D space in existing methods, the proposed P3P problem is directly formulated in the primal 3D space, which is more intuitive and straightforward to derive and analyze the solutions. This paper also presents a novel geometric constraint, called restricted area on plane image (RAPI), to derive the unique real solution from up to 8 solutions. Results of both simulation and real data experiment demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms existing methods in terms of the same input image and LIDAR data. Moreover, the proposed method can derive the real solution from multiple solutions, thus making the minimal solution based method more practical and flexible.
-
1. Introduction
Since recent few decades, some researchers focus their energy on the robust stability and controller design problems about the networked-control systems (NCSs) with some uncertain parameters because some networked-control systems have been succeeded in applications in modern complicated industry processes, e.g., aircraft and space shuttle, nuclear power stations, high-performance automobiles, etc. The fuzzy-logic control based on the Takagi-Sugeno (T-S) is widely used to dealing with complex nonlinear systems because it has simple dynamic structure and highly accurate approximation to any smooth nonlinear function in any compact set. One can consult [1]$-$[8] and the other cited literature therein [9]$-$[31]. Data-packet dropout is an important issue to be addressed in the networked-control systems [6], [32]. Zhang [33] solves the problem of $H_\infty$ estimation for a class of Markov jump linear systems but he neglect possible dropout in practice. Reference [34] reports the problem of $H_\infty$ stability of discrete-time switched linear system with average dwell time and with no dropout. In [6], piecewise Lyapunov function is proposed to analyze robust of the nonlinear NCSs without time-delay issue. Random data-packet dropout and time delay are well considered but the controlled NCSs are linear systems in [32]. Reference [8] discusses the problem of robust $H_\infty$ output feedback control for a class of continuous-time Takagi-Sugeno (T-S) fuzzy affine dynamic systems with parametric uncertainties and input constraints on ignoring some nonlinearities induced by system with data-packet dropout and random time delay. Reference [5] investigates the robust $H_\infty$ stability of a class of half nonlinear NCSs with multiple probabilistic delays and multiple missing measurements regardless of the dropout in the forward path. According to above consideration, we investigate a class of new nonlinear NCSs, in which not only sensors communicate with controllers by network but also controllers do with actuator in the same manner.
The highlights of this paper, which lie primarily on the new research problems and new system models, are summarized as follows:
1) A new model is established, in which the controllers communicate with the actuator by a wireless network and the random missing control from the controller to the actuator occurs and the sensors do with the controllers in the same manner.
2) The investigation on the T-S fuzzy model is used for a class of complex systems that describe the modeling errors, disturbance rejection attenuation, probabilistic delay, missing measurements and missing control within the same framework.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The problem under consideration is formulated in Section 2. Development of robust $H_{\infty}$ fuzzy control performance on the exponentially stability the closed-loop fuzzy system are placed in Section 3. Section 4 gives design of robust $H_\infty$ fuzzy controller. An illustrative example is given in Section 5, and we conclude the paper in Section 6.
Notation 1: The notation used in the paper is fairly standard. %The superscript "T" stands for matrix transpose; $\mathbb{R}^n$ denotes the $n$-dimensional real vectors; $\mathbb{R}^{m\times n}$ denotes the $n$-dimensional matrix; and $I$ and 0 represent the identity matrix and zero matrix, respectively. The notation $P>0$ ($P\geq 0$) means that $P$ is real symmetric and positive definite (semi-definite), ${\rm tr}(M)$ refers to the trace of the matrix $M$, and $ \|\cdot\|_2 $ stands for the usual $l_2$ norm. In symmetric block matrices or complex matrix expressions, we use an "$\star$" to represent a term that is induced by symmetry, and ${\rm diag}\{\cdots\}$ stands for a block-diagonal matrix. In addition, ${E}\{x\}$ and ${E}\{x|y\}$ will, respectively, mean expectation of $x$ and expectation of $x $ conditional on $y$.
2. Problem Formulation
In this note, the output feedback control problem for discrete-time fuzzy systems in NCSs is taken in our consideration, where the frame-work is depicted in Fig. 1.
图 1 Framework of output feedback control systems over network environment.Fig. 1 Framework of output feedback control systems over network environment.The sensors are connected to a network, which are shared by other NCSs and susceptible to communication delays and missing measurements or pack dropouts). As Fig. 1 depicts, pack dropouts from the controller to actuator can take place stochastically. The fuzzy systems with multiple stochastic communication delays and uncertain parameters can be read as follows:
Plant Rule $i$: If $\theta_{1}(k) $ is $ M_{i1}$, and $\theta_{2}(k)$ is $M_{i2}$, and, $\ldots$, and $\theta_{p}(k)$ is $M_{ip}$, then
$ \begin{align} x(k+1)=&\ A_i(k)x(k)+A_{di}\sum\limits_{m=1}^{h}\alpha_m(k)x(k-\tau_m(k))\notag\\ & +B_{1i}u(k)+D_{1i}v(k)\notag\\ \tilde{y}(k)=&\ C_ix(k)+D_{1i}v(k)\notag\\ z(k)=&\ C_{zi}(k)+B_{2i}u(k)+D_{3i}v(k)\notag\\ x(k)=&\ \phi(k)\quad\forall\, {k}\in \mathbb{Z}^{-}, ~\, i=1, \ldots, r \end{align} $
(1) where $M_{ij}$ is the fuzzy set, $r$ stands for the number of If-then rules, and $\theta(k)=[\theta_1(k), \theta_2(k), \ldots, \theta_{p}(k)]$ is the premise variable vector, which is independent of the input variable $u(k)$. $x(k)\in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the state vector, $u(k)\in \mathbb{R}^m$, $\tilde{y}$ $\in$ $\mathbb{R}^s$ is the process output, $z(k)\in \mathbb{R}^q$ is the controlled output, $v(k)\in \mathbb{R}^p$ presents a vector of exogenous inputs, which belongs to $l_2[0, \infty)$, $\tau_m(k)$ $(m=1, 2, \ldots, h)$ are the communication delays that vary with the stochastic variables $\alpha_m(k)$, and $\phi(k)$ $(\forall\, {k}\in \mathbb{Z}^{-})$ is the initial state.
The stochastic variables $\alpha_m(k)\in \mathbb{R}$ $(m=1, 2, \ldots, h)$ in (1) are assumed to satisfy mutually uncorrelated Bernoulli-distributed-white sequences described as follows:
$ \begin{align} & {\rm Prob}\{\alpha_m(k)=1\}={E}\{\alpha_m(k)\}=\bar{\alpha}_m\notag\\ & {\rm Prob}\{\alpha_m(k)=0\}=1-\bar{\alpha}_m.\notag \end{align} $
In this note, one can make the random communication-time delays satisfy the following assumption that the time-varying $\tau_m(k)$ $ (m=1, 2, \ldots, h)$ are subject to $ d_t\leq \tau_m(k)$ $\leq$ $d_T$. The matrices $A_i(k)=A_i+\Delta{A_i(k)}$, $C_{zi}(k)= C_{zi}$ $+$ $\Delta{C_{zi}}(k)$, where $ A_i, A_{di}, B_{1i}, B_{2i}, C_i, C_{zi}, D_{1i}, D_{2i}$, and $D_{3i}$ are known constant matrices with compatible dimensions. $\Delta{A_i(k)} $ and $\Delta C_{zi}(k)$ with the time-varying norm-bounded uncertainties satisfy
$ \begin{align} \left[ \begin{array}{c} \Delta A_i(k)\\ \Delta C_{zi}(k)\\ \end{array} \right]=\left[ \begin{array}{c} H_{ai}\\ H_{ci}\\ \end{array} \right]F(k)E \end{align} $
(2) with $H_{ai}$, $H_{ci}$ being constant matrices and $F^T(k)F(k)\leq I$, $\forall\, {k}$.
In this note, the packet dropout (the miss-measurement) read as
$ \begin{align} y_c(k)&= \Xi{C_i}x(k)+D_{2i}(k)\notag\\ &=\sum\limits_{l=1}^{s}\beta_lC_{il}x(k)+D_{2i}v(k)\notag\\ u(k)&=W(k)u_c(k)=W(k)C_{ki}x_c(k) \end{align} $
(3) where $\Xi=\hbox{diag}\{\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_s\}$ with $\beta_l$ $(l=1, 2, \ldots, s)$ being $s$ unrelated random variables, which are also unrelated with $\alpha_m(k)$ and $W(k)$ denoting the random packet missing from the controllers to the actuator. One can assume that $\beta_l $ has the probabilistic-density function $q_l(s)$ $(l=1, 2, \ldots, s)$ on the interval $[0, 1]$ with mathematical expectation $\mu_l$ and variance $\sigma_l^2$. $C_{il}={\rm diag}\{\underbrace{0, \ldots, 0}\limits_{l-1}, 1, \underbrace{0, \ldots, 0}\limits_{s-l}\}C_i$. We denote the stochastic pack dropouts from the controller to the actuator by $W(k)= {\rm diag}\{\omega_1(k), \ldots, \omega_m(k)\}$, where $\omega_l$ $(l=$ $1, 2, \ldots, m)$ are mutually unrelated random variables and obey Bernoulli distribution with mathematical expectation $\bar{\omega}_l$ and variance$\rho_l $and assumed to be unrelated with $\alpha_m(k)$. For a given pair of $(x(k), u(k))$, the final output of the fuzzy system is read as
$ \begin{align} x(k+1)=&\, \sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}h_i(\theta(k))[A_i(k)x(k)+B_{1, i}u(k)\notag\\ &\, +A_{di}\sum\limits_{m=1}^{h}x(k-\tau_m(k))+D_{1i}v(k)]\notag\\ y_c(k)=&\, \sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}h_i(\theta(k))[\Xi{C_i}x(k)+D_{2i}v(k)]\notag\\ z(k)=&\, \sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}h_i(\theta(k))[C_{zi}(k)x(k)+B_{2i}u(k)+D_{3i}v(k)] \end{align} $
(4) where the fuzzy-basis functions are described as
$ \begin{align} &{h_i(\theta(k))}=\frac {\vartheta_i(\theta(k))} {\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}\vartheta_i(\theta(k))}\notag\\ &\vartheta_i(\theta(k))=\prod\limits_{j=1}^{p}M_{ij}(\theta_j(k))\notag \end{align} $
with $M_{ij}(\theta_j(k))$ being the grade of membership of $\theta_j(k)$ in $M_{ij}$. It is clear that $\vartheta_i(\theta(k))\geq 0$, $i=1, 2, \ldots, r$, $\sum_{i=1}^{r}\vartheta_i(\theta(k))>0$, $\forall\, {k}$, and $h_i(\theta(k))\geq 0$, $i=1, 2, \ldots, r$, $\sum_{i=1}^{r}h_i(\theta(k))=1$, $\forall\, {k}$. In the sequel, we denote $h_i=h_i(\theta(k))$ for brevity.
In the note, the fuzzy dynamic output-feedback controller for the fuzzy system (4) is given as
Controller Rule $i$: If $\theta_1(k)$ is $M_{il}$ and $\theta_2(k)$ is $M_{i2}$ and, $\ldots$, and $\theta_p(k)$ is $M_{ip}$ then
$ \begin{align} \begin{cases} x_c(k+1)=A_{ki}x_c(k)+B_{ki}y_c(k)\\ u(k)= W(k)C_{ki}x_c(k) \end{cases} \end{align} $
(5) with $x_c(k)\in \mathbb{R}^n$ being the controller state along with the controller parameters $A_{ki}$, $B_{ki}$ and $C_{ki}$ to be determined. Naturally, the overall fuzzy output-feedback controller is read as
$ \begin{align} \begin{cases} x_c(k+1)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}h_i[A_{ki}x_c(k)+B_{ki}y(k)]\\ u(k)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}h_iW(k)C_{ki}x_c(k), \ \ i=1, 2, \ldots, r. \end{cases} \end{align} $
(6) Combining (6) with (4), we can obtain the closed-loop system described as
$ \begin{align} \begin{cases} \bar{x}(k+1)=\sum\limits_{i-1}^{r}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{r}h_ih_j[(A_{ij}+B_{ij})\bar{x}(k)+D_{ij}v(k) \\ \qquad \qquad \quad\, +\sum\limits_{m=1}^{h}(\bar{A}_{dmi}+\tilde{A}_{dmi})\bar{x}(k-\tau_m(k)]\\ z(k)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{r}h_ih_j[\bar{C}_{ij}(k)+\bar{\bar{C}}_{ij}]\bar{x}(k) +D_{3i}v(k) \end{cases} \end{align} $
(7) where
$ \begin{align*} &\bar{x}(k)=\left[ \begin{array}{c} x(k) \\ x_c(k) \\ \end{array} \right], \quad A_{ij}=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} A_i(k)&B_{1i}\bar{W}C_{kj} \\ B_{ki}\bar{\Xi}C_j&A_{ki} \\ \end{array} \right]\\[1mm] &B_{ij}=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0& B_{1i}\tilde{W}(k)C_{kj}\\ B_{ki}\tilde{\Xi}C_j& 0\\ \end{array} \right]\\[1mm] &\bar{A}_{dmi}=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \bar{\alpha}_mA_{di}&0 \\ 0&0 \\ \end{array} \right], \quad \tilde{A}_{dmi}=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \tilde{\alpha}_mA_{di}&0 \\ 0&0 \\ \end{array} \right]\\[1mm] &D_{ij}=\left[ \begin{array}{c} D_{1i} \\ B_{ki}D_{2j} \\ \end{array} \right], \quad \bar{C}_{ij}(k)=\bigg[ \begin{array}{cc} C_{zi}(k)&B_{2i}\bar{W}C_{kj} \\ \end{array} \bigg]\\[1mm] &\bar{\bar{C}}_{ij}(k)=\bigg[ \begin{array}{cc} 0&B_{2i}\tilde{W}(k)C_{kj} \\ \end{array} \bigg] \end{align*} $
with $\tilde{\alpha}_m(k)=\alpha_m(k)-\bar{\alpha}_m(k)$ and $\tilde{\omega}_j(k)={\omega}_j(k)-\bar{\omega}_j(k)$. It is evident that $E\{\tilde{\alpha}_m(k)\}=0$ and that $E\{\tilde{\omega}_j(k)\}=0$ and that $E\{\tilde{\alpha}_m^2(k)\}=\bar{\alpha}_m(1-\bar{\alpha}_m)=\sigma_m^2$ and that $E\{\tilde{\omega}_j^2(k)\}$ $=$ $\bar{\omega}_j(1-\bar{\omega}_j)=\rho_j^2$.
Denote
$ \begin{align*} &\bar{x}(k-\tau)\\ &=\left[ \!\!\begin{array}{cccc} \ \ \bar{x}^T(k-\tau_1(k)) &\!\bar{x}^T(k-\tau_2(k))&\! \cdots &\!\bar{x}^T(k-\tau_h(k))\ \ \\ \end{array} \!\!\right]^T\\ &\xi(k)=\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} \bar{x}^T(k)&\bar{x}^T(k-\tau) &v^T(k) \\ \end{array} \right]^T\end{align*} $
then (7) can also be rewritten as
$ \begin{align} \begin{cases} \bar{x}(k+1) =\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{r}h_ih_j\left[A_{ij}\!+B_{ij}, \hat{Z}_{mi}\!+\Delta\hat{Z}_{mi}, D_{ij}\right]\xi(k) \\ z(k)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{r}h_ih_j\left[\bar{C}_{ij}+ \bar{\bar{C}}_{ij}, 0, D_{3i}\right]\xi(k) \end{cases} \end{align} $
(8) where $\hat{Z}_{mi}=[\bar{A}_{d1i}, \ldots, \bar{A}_{dhi}]$ and $\Delta\hat{Z}_{mi}=[\tilde{A}_{d1i}, \ldots, \tilde{A}_{dhi}]$. In order to smoothly formulate the problem in the note, we introduce the following definition.
Definition 1: For the system (7) and every initial conditions $\phi$, the trivial solution is said to be exponentially mean square stable if, in the case of $v(k)=0$, there exist constants $\delta>0$ and $0<\kappa<1$ such that $E\{\|\bar{x}(k)\|^2\}$ $\leq$ $\delta\kappa^k \sup_{-d_M\leq i\leq 0}E\{\|{\phi(i)}\|^2\}$, $\forall\, {k}\geq 0$.
We will develop techniques to settle the robust $H_{\infty}$ dynamic output feedback problem for the discrete-time fuzzy system (7) subject to the following conditions:
1) The fuzzy system (7) is exponentially stable in the mean square.
2) Under zero-initial condition, the controlled output $z(k)$ satisfies
$ \begin{align} \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}E\left\{\|{z(k)}\|^2\right\}\leq \gamma^2\sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty}E\left\{\|{v(k)}\|^2\right\} \end{align} $
(9) for all nonzero $v(k)$, where $\gamma>0$ is a prescribed scalar.
Remark 1: The proposed new model has the function that not only the controllers communicate with the actuator by wireless but also the sensors do with the controllers by the same manner.
3. Development of Robust ${\pmb H}_{\pmb \infty}$ Fuzzy Control Performance
At first, we give the following lemma, which will be adopted in obtaining our main results.
Lemma 1 (Schur complement): Given constant matrices $S_1$, $S_2$, $S_3$, where $S_1=S_1^T$ and $0<S_2=S_2^T$, then $ S_1$ $+$ $S_3^TS_2^{-1}S_3$ $<$ $0$ if and only if
$ \begin{align*} \left[ \begin{array}{cc} S_1&S_3^T \\ S_3 &-S_2 \\ \end{array} \right]<0~~ \hbox{or}~~ \left[ \begin{array}{cc} -S_2&S_3 \\ S_3^T&S_1 \\ \end{array} \right]<0. \end{align*} $
Lemma 2 (S-procedure) [5]: Letting $L=L^T$ and $H$ and $E$ be real matrices of appropriate dimensions with $F$ satisfying $FF^T\leq I$, then $ L+HFE+E^TF^TH^T<0$ if and only if there exists a positive scalar $\varepsilon>0$ such that $L$ $+$ $\varepsilon^{-1}HH^T+\varepsilon E^TE<0$, or equivalently
$ \begin{align*} \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} L&H&\varepsilon{E^T} \\ H^T &-\varepsilon{I}&0 \\ \varepsilon{E}&0 &-\varepsilon{I} \\ \end{array} \right]<0. \end{align*} $
Lemma 3: For any real matrices $X_{ij}$ for $i$, $j=1, 2, \ldots, $ $r$ and $n>0$ with appropriate dimensions, we have [35]
$ \sum\limits_{i=1}^r\sum\limits_{j=1}^r\sum\limits_{l=1}^r\sum\limits_{l=1}^rh_ih_jh_kh_lX_{ij}^T\Lambda{X_{kl}}\leq\sum\limits_{i=1}^r\sum\limits_{j=1}^rh_ih_jX_{ij}^T\Lambda X_{ij}. $
Theorem 1: For given controller parameters and a prescribed $H_{\infty}$ performance $\gamma>0$, the nominal fuzzy system (7) is exponentially stable if there exist matrices $P>0$ and $Q_k$ $>$ $0$, $k=1, 2, \ldots, h$, satisfying
$ \left[ \begin{array}{cc} \Pi_i&\star \\ 0.5\Sigma_{ii}&\bigwedge \\ \end{array} \right]<0 $
(10) $ \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 4\Pi_i&\star \\ \Sigma_{ij}&\bigwedge \\ \end{array} \right]<0, \quad 1\leq i<j\leq r $
(11) where
$ \Pi_i =\ {\rm diag}\bigg\{-P+\sum\limits_{k=1}^h(d_T-d_t+1)Q_k, \hat{\alpha}\breve{A}_{di}^T\breve{P} \breve{A}_{di}\notag\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ -{\rm diag}\{Q_1, Q_2, \ldots, Q_h\}, -\gamma^2I\bigg\} $
(12) $\begin{align*} \hat{\alpha}=&\ {\rm diag}\left\{\bar{\alpha}_1(1-\bar{\alpha}_1), \ldots, \bar{\alpha}_h(1-\bar{\alpha}_h)\right\}\notag\\ \breve{A}_{di}=&\ {\rm diag}\{\underbrace{\hat{A}_{di}, \ldots, \hat{A}_{di}}\limits_h\}\notag\\ \check{C}_{ij}=&\ \left[\sigma_1\hat{C}_{11ij}^TP, \ldots\!, \sigma_s\hat{C}_{1sij}^TP, \rho_1\hat{C}_{k1ij}^TP, \ldots\!, \rho_m\hat{C}_{kmij}^TP\right]^T\notag\\ &\check{P}=\hbox{diag}\{\underbrace{P, \ldots, P}\limits_{s+m}\}\\ &{\small\bigwedge}=\hbox{diag}\{-\check{P}, -P, -I, \hbox{diag}\{\underbrace{-I, \ldots, -I}\limits_m\}\}\\ &\breve{P}=\hbox{diag}\{\underbrace{P, \ldots, P}\limits_h\}\\ &\hat{A}_{di}=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} A_{di}&0\\ 0&0\\ \end{array} \right] \\ &\Sigma_{ij}=\\ &\!\!\!\left[\!\!{\small \begin{array}{ccccc} \check{C}_{ij}\!+\!\check{C}_{ji}\! &\! 0\!&\!0 \\[2mm] PA_{ij}\!+\!PA_{ji} \! &\! P\hat{Z}_{mi}\!+\!P\hat{Z}_{mj} \! &\!PD_{ij}\!+\!PD_{ji}\\[2mm] \bar{C}_{ij}\!+\!\bar{C}_{ji}\! &\!0\! &\!D_{3i}\!+\!D_{3j}\\[2mm] \, [0 ~~ \rho_1B_{2i}C_{kj1}\!+\!\rho_1B_{2j}C_{ki1}] \! &\!0\! &\!0\\[2mm] \vdots\! &\!\vdots\! &\!\vdots\\[2mm] \, [0 ~~ \rho_mB_{2i}C_{kjm}\!+\!\rho_mB_{2j}C_{kim}]\! &\!0\! &\!0\\ \end{array}}\!\!\!\! \right]. \end{align*} $
Proof:
Let
$ \begin{align*} &\Theta_j(k)=\{x(k-\tau_j(k), x(k-\tau_j(k)+1, \ldots, x(k)\}\\ &\chi(k)=\{\Theta_1(k)\bigcup\Theta_2(k)\bigcup\ldots\bigcup\Theta_h(k)\}=\bigcup\limits_{j=1}^{h}\Theta_j(k) \end{align*} $
where $j=1, 2, \ldots, h$. We consider the following Lyapunov functional for the system of (7): $V(\chi(k))=\sum_{i=1}^3V_i(k)$, where
$ \begin{align*} &V_1(k)=\bar{x}^T(k)P\bar{x}\\ &V_2(k)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^{h}\sum\limits_{i=k-\tau_j(k)}^{k-1}\bar{x}^T(i)Q_j\bar{x}(i)\\ &V_3(k)=\sum\limits_{j=1}^h\sum\limits_{m=-d_M+1}^{-d_m}\sum\limits_{i=k+m}^{k-1}\bar{x}^T(i)Q_j\bar{x}(i) \end{align*} $
with $P>0$, $Q_j>0$ $(j=1, 2, \ldots, h)$ being matrices to be determined.
$ \begin{align} {E}[\Delta{V}|x(k)]&={E}[V(\chi(k+1))|\chi(k)]-V(\chi(k))\notag\\ & ={E}[(V(\chi(k+1))-V(\chi(k)))|\chi(k)]\notag\\ & =\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}{E}[\Delta{V_i}|\chi(k)]. \end{align} $
(13) According to (7), we have
$ \begin{align*} &{E}\{\Delta{V_1}|\chi(k)\}\\ &\qquad={E} \left[(\bar{x}^T(k+1)P\bar{x}(k+1)-\bar{x}^T(k)P\bar{x}(k))|\chi(k)\right]\\ &\qquad\leq\xi^T(k)\sum\limits_{i=1}^{r}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{r}\Omega_{ij}\xi(k) \end{align*} $
where
$ \begin{align} & {{\Omega }_{ij}}=E\left\{ \left[\begin{matrix} A_{ij}^{T}P{{A}_{ij}}+B_{ij}^{T}P{{B}_{ij}}-P & {} \\ \star & {} \\ \star & {} \\ \end{matrix} \right. \right. \\ & \left. \left. \begin{matrix} {} & A_{ij}^{T}P{{{\hat{Z}}}_{mi}} & A_{ij}^{T}P{{D}_{ij}} \\ {} & \hat{Z}_{mi}^{T}P{{{\hat{Z}}}_{mi}}+\Delta \hat{Z}_{mi}^{T}P\Delta {{{\hat{Z}}}_{mi}} & \hat{Z}_{mi}^{T}P{{D}_{ij}} \\ {} & \star & D_{ij}^{T}P{{D}_{ij}} \\ \end{matrix} \right] \right\} \\ \end{align} $
$ {{B}_{ij}}=\left[\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \\ {{B}_{ki}}\tilde{\Xi }{{C}_{j}} & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right]+\left[\begin{matrix} 0 & {{B}_{1i}}\tilde{\omega }(k){{C}_{kj}} \\ 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right] $
$ \begin{align} & E\{B_{ij}^{T}P{{B}_{ij}}\} \\ & \ \ \ \ \ =\sum\limits_{l=1}^{s}{\sigma _{l}^{2}}{{\left[\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \\ {{B}_{ki}}{{C}_{jl}} & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right]}^{T}}P\left[\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \\ {{B}_{ki}}{{C}_{jl}} & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & \ \ \ \ \ +\sum\limits_{l=1}^{m}{\rho _{l}^{2}}{{\left[\begin{matrix} 0 & {{B}_{1i}}{{C}_{kjl}} \\ 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right]}^{T}}P\left[\begin{matrix} 0 & {{B}_{1i}}{{C}_{kjl}} \\ 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & \ \ \ ={{({{{\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{P}}}^{-1}}{{{\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{C}}}_{lij}})}^{T}}\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{P}({{{\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{P}}}^{-1}}{{{\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{C}}}_{lij}}) \\ \end{align} $
$ \begin{align} & \overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{P}=\rm{diag}\{\underbrace{\mathit{P}, \ldots, \mathit{P}}_{\mathit{s}+\mathit{m}}\} \\ & {{{\hat{C}}}_{1lij}}=\left[\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 \\ {{B}_{ki}}{{C}_{jl}} & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{{\hat{C}}}_{klij}}=\left[\begin{matrix} 0 & {{B}_{1i}}{{C}_{kjl}} \\ 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{{\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{C}}}_{ij}}={{\left[{{\sigma }_{1}}\hat{C}_{11ij}^{T}P, \ldots, {{\sigma }_{s}}\hat{C}_{1sij}^{T}P, {{\rho }_{1}}\hat{C}_{k1ij}^{T}P, \ldots, {{\rho }_{m}}\hat{C}_{kmij}^{T}P \right]}^{T}} \\ \end{align} $
$ \begin{align} & E\left\{ \Delta \hat{Z}_{mi}^{T}P\Delta {{{\hat{Z}}}_{mi}} \right\} \\ & \ \ \ \ \ =\sum\limits_{m=1}^{h}{{{{\bar{\alpha }}}_{m}}}(1-{{{\bar{\alpha }}}_{m}}){{\left[ \begin{matrix} {{A}_{di}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right]}^{T}}P\left[ \begin{matrix} {{A}_{di}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & \ \ \ \ \ \ =\sum\limits_{m=1}^{h}{\hat{A}_{di}^{T}}P{{{\hat{A}}}_{di}}=\hat{\alpha }\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{A}_{di}^{T}\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{P}{{{\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{A}}}_{di}} \\ \end{align} $
$ \begin{align} & \hat{\alpha }=\rm{diag}\{{{{\bar{\alpha }}}_{1}}(1-{{{\bar{\alpha }}}_{1}}), \ldots, {{{\bar{\alpha }}}_\mathit{h}}(1-{{{\bar{\alpha }}}_\mathit{h}})\} \\ & {{{\overset{\lower0.5em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\smile}$}}{A}}}_{di}}=\rm{diag}\{\underbrace{\mathit{{{\hat{A}}}_{di}}, \ldots, \mathit{{{\hat{A}}}_{di}}}_\mathit{h}\} \\ & E\{\Delta {{V}_{2}}|\chi (k)\}\le E\{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{h}{({{{\bar{x}}}^{T}}(}k){{Q}_{j}}\bar{x}(k) \\ & \ \ \ \ \ -{{{\bar{x}}}^{T}}(k-{{\tau }_{j}}(k)){{Q}_{j}}\bar{x}(k-{{\tau }_{j}}(k)) \\ & \ \ \ \ \ +\sum\limits_{i=k-{{d}_{M}}+1}^{k-{{d}_{m}}}{{{{\bar{x}}}^{T}}}(i){{Q}_{j}}\bar{x}(i))|\chi (k)\} \\ & E\{\Delta {{V}_{3}}|\chi (k)\}=E\{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{h}{((}{{d}_{T}}-{{d}_{t}}){{{\bar{x}}}^{T}}(k){{Q}_{j}}\bar{x}(k) \\ & \ \ \ \ \ -\sum\limits_{i=k-{{d}_{m}}+1}^{k-{{d}_{m}}}{{{{\bar{x}}}^{T}}}(i){{Q}_{j}}\bar{x}(i))|\chi (k)\}. \\ \end{align} $
It is clear that
$ {E}\{\Delta{V_2}|\chi(k)\}+{E}\{\Delta{V_3}|\chi(k)\}\leq\xi^T(k)T_{ij}\xi(k) $
with
$ \begin{align*} T_{ij}=&\ \hbox{diag}\Bigg\{\sum\limits_{k=1}^h(d_T-d_t+1)Q_k, \\ &-\hbox{diag}\{Q_1, Q_2, \ldots, Q_h\}, 0\Bigg\}.\end{align*} $
Therefore, we have ${E}\{\Delta{V}|\chi(k)\}\leq\xi^T(k)\Gamma_{ij}\xi(k)$, where $\Gamma_{ij}$ $=$ $\Omega_{ij}+T_{ij}$. Due to
$ \begin{align*} &{E}\left\{z^T(k)z(k)-\gamma^2v^T(k)v(k)\right\}\\ &\qquad\leq\xi(k)\sum\limits_{i=1}^r\sum\limits_{j=1}^rh_ih_j {E}\left\{[\bar{C}_{ij}+\bar{\bar{C}}_{ij}, 0, D_{3i}]^T\right.\\ &\qquad\quad \left.\times[\bar{C}_{ij}+\bar{\bar{C}}_{ij}, 0, D_{3i}] - \hbox{diag}\{0, 0, \gamma^2I\}\right\}\xi(k) \end{align*} $
we can obtain
$ \begin{align*} &{E}\left\{z^T(k)z(k)-\gamma^2v^T(k)v(k)+\Delta{V(k)}\right\}\\ &\qquad \leq\xi^T(k)({\Omega}_{ij}^T\hbox{diag} \{P, I\}{\Omega}_{ij}\\ &\qquad\quad +\mathcal{Z}_{ij}^T\hbox{diag}\{\check{P}, I\}\mathcal{Z}_{ij}+\bar{P})\xi(k) \end{align*} $
where
$ \begin{align*} &{\Omega}_{ij}=\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} A_{ij}&\hat{Z}_{mi}&D_{ij}\\ \bar{C}_{ij}&0&D_{3i}\\ \end{array} \right]\\ & \Game _{kijt}= \bigg[ \begin{array}{ccc} \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0&\rho_tB_{2i}C_{kjt} \end{array} \right]&0&0 \end{array} \bigg]^T \\ &\mathfrak{D}_{ij}=\bigg[ \begin{array}{ccc} \Game_{kij1}&\ldots&\Game_{kijm} \end{array} \bigg]^T \\ &\mathcal{Z}_{ij}=\left[ \begin{array}{c} [\check{P}^{-1}\check{C}_{ij}, 0, 0]\\ \mathfrak{D}_{ij} \end{array} \right]\\ &\bar{P}=\hbox{diag}\bigg\{-P+\sum\limits_{k=1}^h(d_T-d_t+1)Q_k, \hat{\alpha}\breve{A}_{di}^T\breve{P} \breve{A}_{di}\\ &\qquad -\hbox{diag}\{Q_1, Q_2, \ldots, Q_h\}, -\gamma^2I\bigg\}. \end{align*} $
Define $J(n)={E}\sum\nolimits_{k=0}^n[z^T(k)z(k)-\gamma^2v^T(k)v(k)]$, we have
$ \begin{align*} J(n)=&\ {E}\sum\limits_{k=0}^n\left[z^T(k)z(k)-\gamma^2v^T(k)v(k)+\Delta{V(\chi(k))}\right] \\ &-{E}V(\chi(n+1))\\ \leq&\ {E}\sum\limits_{k=0}^n\left[z^T(k)z(k)-\gamma^2v^T(k)v(k)+\Delta{V(\chi(k))}\right]\\ \leq&\ \sum\limits_{k=0}^n\sum\limits_{i=1}^r\sum\limits_{j=1}^rh_ih_j\xi^T(k)({\Omega}_{ij}^T \hbox{diag} \{P, I\}{\Omega}_{ij}\\ &\ +\mathcal{Z}_{ij}^T\hbox{diag}\{\check{P}, I\}\mathcal{Z}_{ij}+\bar{P})\xi(k)\\ =&\ \sum\limits_{k=0}^n\sum\limits_{i=1}^rh_i^2\xi^T(k)({\Omega}_{ii}^T \hbox{diag} \{P, I\}{\Omega}_{ii}\\ &\ +\mathcal{Z}_{ii}^T\hbox{diag}\{\check{P}, I\}\mathcal{Z}_{ii}+\bar{P})\xi(k)\\ &\ +\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{k=0}^n\sum\limits_{j=1, i<j}^rh_ih_j\xi^T(k)\\ &\ \times\left[({\Omega}_{ij} +{\Omega}_{ji})^T\hbox{diag}\{P, I\}({\Omega}_{ij}+{\Omega}_{ji})\right.\\ &\ +\left. (\mathcal{Z}_{ij}+\mathcal{Z}_{ji})^T\hbox{diag}\{\check{P}, I\} (\mathcal{Z}_{ij}+\mathcal{Z}_{ji})+4\bar{P}\right]\xi(k). \end{align*} $
According to Schur complement, we can conclude from (10) and (11) that $J(n)<0$. Letting $n\rightarrow\infty$, we have
$ \begin{align*} \sum\limits_n^\infty{E}\left\{\|z(k)\|^2\right\}\leq\gamma^2\sum\limits_n^\infty{E}\left\{\|v(k)\|^2\right\}. \end{align*} $
According to Schur complement again, we know that ${E}\{\Delta{V}|x(k)\}$ $<$ $0$ if and only if (10) and (11) hold true. Furthermore, one can easily verify the fact that the discrete-time nominal (7) with $v(k)=0$ is exponentially stable.
4. Design of Robust ${\pmb H}_{\pmb\infty}$ Fuzzy Controller
In this section, we are devoted to how to determine the controller parameters in (6) such that the closed-loop system (7) is exponentially stable with $H_\infty$ performace.
By Theorem 1, one can easily draw the conclusion as follow:
Theorem 2: For a prescribed constant $\gamma>0$, the nominal fuzzy system (7) is exponentially stable if there exist positive definite matrices $P>0$, $L>0$, $Q_k>0$ $(k=1, 2, $ $\ldots, $ $h)$, and $K_i$ and $\bar{C}_{ki}$ such that
$ \Gamma_1=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \Pi_i&\star \\ 0.5\bar{\Sigma}_{ii}& \bar{\Lambda} \\ \end{array} \right]<0, \ \ i=1, 2, \ldots, r $
(14) $ \Gamma_2=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 4\Pi_i&\star \\ \bar{\Sigma}_{ij}&\bar{\Lambda} \\ \end{array} \right]<0, \ \ 1\leq i<j\leq r $
(15) $ PL=I $
(16) hold, then the nominal system (7) is exponentially stable with disturbance attenuation $\gamma$, where $\overline{\bigwedge}=\hbox{diag}\{-\bar{L}, -L, $ $-I, $ $\hbox{diag}\{\underbrace{-I, \ldots, -I}\limits_m\}\}$
$ \bar{\Sigma}_{ij}=\left[ \begin{array}{ccc} \Phi_{11ij}+\Phi_{11ji}&0&0 \\ \Phi_{21ij}+\Phi_{21ji}&\Phi_{22ij}+\Phi_{22ji}& \Phi_{23ij}+\Phi_{23ji} \\ \Phi_{31ij}+\Phi_{31ji}&0&\Phi_{33ij}+\Phi_{33ji} \\ \Phi_{41ij}+\Phi_{41ji}&0&0 \\ \end{array} \right] $
(17) $\begin{align} &I_l=\hbox{diag}\{\underbrace{0, \ldots, 0}\limits_{l-1}, 1, \underbrace{0, \ldots, 0}\limits_{m-l}\}, \quad K_i=\bigg[ \begin{array}{cc} A_{ki}&B_{ki}\\ \end{array}\bigg] \notag\\[1mm] &\bar{C}_{ki}=\bigg[ \begin{array}{cc} 0&C_{ki}\\ \end{array} \bigg], \quad \bar{E}=\left[ \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ I \\ \end{array} \right], \quad \bar{\bar{E}}=\left[ \begin{array}{l} I \\ 0 \\ \end{array} \right] \notag\\[1mm] &\bar{A}_i=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} A_i&0 \\ 0&0 \\ \end{array} \right], \quad \bar{B}_{1i}=\left[ \begin{array}{c} B_{1i} \\ 0 \\ \end{array} \right], \quad R_{il}=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0&0 \\ C_{il}&0 \\ \end{array} \right] \notag\\[1mm] &\bar{D}_{1i}=\left[ \begin{array}{c} D_{1i} \\ 0 \\ \end{array} \right], \quad \bar{D}_{2i}=\left[ \begin{array}{c} 0 \\ D_{2i} \\ \end{array} \right]\notag\\[1mm] & \Phi_{11ij}=\left[ \begin{array}{c} \sigma_1\bar{E}K_iR_{j1} \\ \vdots \\ \sigma_s\bar{E}K_iR_{js} \\ \rho_1\bar{E}\beta_{1i}I_1\bar{C}_{kj} \\ \vdots \\ \rho_m\bar{E}\beta_{1i}I_m\bar{C}_{kj} \\ \end{array} \right], \ \ \Phi_{41ij}=\left[ \begin{array}{c} \rho_1B_{2i}I_1\bar{C}_{kj} \\ \vdots \\ \rho_mB_{2i}I_m\bar{C}_{kj} \\ \end{array} \right]\notag\\[1mm] & \Phi_{21ij}=\bar{A}_i+\bar{E}K_i\bar{R}_j+\bar{B}_{1i}\hbox{diag}\{w_1, \ldots, w_m\}\bar{C} _{kj} \notag\\[1mm] &\Phi_{31ij}=\bar{C}_{zi}+B_{2i}\hbox{diag}\{w_1, \ldots, w_m\}\bar{C}_{kj}\notag \\[1mm] & \bar{C}_{zi}=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} C_{zi}&0 \\ \end{array} \right], \quad \bar{L}=\hbox{diag}\{\underbrace{L, \ldots, L} \limits_{s+m}\}\notag \\[1mm] & \Phi_{22ij}=\hat{Z}_{mi}, \quad \Phi_{23ij}=D_{ij}, \quad \Phi_{33ij}=D_{3i}.\notag \end{align} $
Proof: We rewrite the parameters in Theorem 1 in the following form:
$ \begin{align*} & A_{ij}=\bar{A}_i+\bar{E}K_i\bar{R}_j+\bar{B}_{1i}\hbox{diag}\{w_1, \ldots, w_m\}\bar{C}_{kj} \\ &\hat{C}_{lij}=\bar{E}K_i{R}_{jl} \\ & \bar{C}_{ij}=\bar{C}_{zi}+B_{2i}\hbox{diag}\{w_1, \ldots, w_m\}\bar{C}_{kj} \\ & D_{ij}=\bar{D}_{1i}+\bar{D}_{1i}K_i\bar{D}_{2j}. \end{align*} $
Pre-and post-multiplying the (10) and (11) by $ \hbox{diag}\{I, $ $I, $ $I, $ $\check{P}^{-1}, $ $P^{-1}, $ $\underbrace{I, \ldots, I}\limits_m\}$ and Letting $L=P^{-1}$, we have (14)$-$(16) and complete the proof easily. Now we will point out that the robust $H_\infty$ controller parameters can be determined in light of Theorem 2.
Theorem 3: For given scalar $\gamma>0$, if there exist positive define matrices $P>0$, $L>0$, $Q_k>0$ $(k=1, 2, \ldots, h)$, and matrices $K_i$, $\bar{C}_{ki}$ of proper dimensions and a constant $\varepsilon>0$ such that
$ \left[ \begin{array}{cc} \Gamma_1&\star \\ \Xi_{ii}&\hbox{diag}\{-\varepsilon{I}, -\varepsilon{I}\} \\ \end{array} \right]<0, \notag\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad i=1, 2, \ldots, r $
(18) $ \left[ \begin{array}{cc} \Gamma_2& \star \\ \Xi_{ij}&\hbox{diag}\{-\varepsilon{I}, -\varepsilon{I}\} \\ \end{array} \right]<0, \notag\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad 1\leq i<j\leq r $
(19) $ PL=I $
(20) hold, where
$ \begin{align*}&\Xi_{ii}=\left[ \begin{array}{ccccccc} 0&0&0&0&[H_{ai}^T ~~ 0] &H_{ci}^T&0 \\ \varepsilon[ E ~~ 0] &0&0&0&0&0&0 \\ \end{array} \right]\\ &\Xi_{ij}=\left[ \begin{array}{ccccccc} 0&0&0&0&[H_{ai}^T+H_{aj}^T ~~ 0] &H_{ci}^T+H_{cj}^T&0 \\ \varepsilon[E ~~ 0] &0&0&0&0&0&0 \\ \end{array} \right] \end{align*} $
then the uncertain fuzzy system (7) is exponentially stable and the controller parameters $K_i$ and $\bar{C}_{ki} $ can be obtained naturally.
Proof: Replace $\bar{A}_i$, $\bar{A}_j$, $\bar{C}_{zi}, $ and $ \bar{C}_{zj}$ in Theorem 2 by $\bar{A}_i+\triangle\bar{A}_i(k)$, $\bar{A}_j\triangle\bar{A}_j(k)$, $\bar{C}_{zi}+\triangle\bar{C}_{zi}(k), $ and $ \bar{C}_{zj}\, +\, \triangle\bar{C}_{zj}(k)$, respectively, where
$ \begin{align} & \triangle\bar{A}_i(k)=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} \triangle{A}_i(k)&0 \\ 0&0 \\ \end{array} \right], \quad \triangle\bar{C}_{zi}(k)=[ \triangle{C}_{zi}(k) ~~ 0].\!\notag \end{align} $
According to Lemma 1, (18) and (19) can be rewritten as follows:
$ \begin{align} &\Gamma_1+{H}_1F(k){E}+{E}^TF(k)^T{H}_1^T<0\notag\\ &\Gamma_2+{H}_2F(k){E}+{E}^TF(k)^T{H}_2^T<0\notag \end{align} $
where
$ \begin{align*} &{E}=[E ~~ 0]\\ &{H}_1=\left[ \begin{array}{ccccccc} 0& 0&0&0&[H_{ai}^T ~~ 0] &H_{ci}^T&0 \\ \end{array} \right]\\ & {H}_2=\left[ \begin{array}{ccccccc} 0& 0&0&0 &[H_{ai}^T+H_{aj}^T ~~ 0] &H_{ci}^T+H_{cj}^T&0 \\ \end{array} \right]. \end{align*} $
According to Lemma 1 along with Schur complement, we can easily obtain (18) and (19).
In order to solve (18), (19) and (20), the cone-complementarity linearization (CCL) algorithm proposed in [36] and [37] is used in this note.
The nonlinear minimization problem: $\min\hbox{tr}(PL) $ subject to (18) and (19) and
$ \left[ \begin{matrix} P & I \\ I & L \\ \end{matrix} \right]\ge 0. $
(21) The following algorithm [5] is borrowed to solve the above problem.
Algorithm 1:
Step 1: Find a feasible set $(P_0, L_0, Q_{k(0)}, K_{i(0)}, \bar{C}_{ki(0)})$ satisfying (18), (19) and (21). Set $q=0$.
Step 2: Solving the linear matrix inequality (LMI) problem, $\min\hbox{tr}(PL_{(0)}+P_{(0)}L) $ subject to (18), (19) and (21).
Step 3: Substitute the obtained matrix variables $(P$, $L$, $Q_{k}, K_{i(0)}, \bar{C}_{ki})$ into (14) and (15). If conditions(14) and (15) are satisfied with $|\hbox{tr}(PL)-n|<\delta$ for some sufficiently small scalar $\delta >0$, then output the feasible solutions. Exit.
Step 4: If $q>N$, where $N$ is the maximum number of iterations allowed, then output the feasible solutions $(P$, $L$, $Q_{k}, K_{i}$, $\bar{C}_{ki})$, and exit. Else, set $q=q+1$, and goto Step 2.
5. An Illustrative Example
we give an illustrative examples to explain the proposed model is effective and feasible in this section.
Example 1: Consider a T-S fuzzy model (1). The rules are given as follows:
Plant Rule 1: If $x_1(k)$ is $h_1(x_1(k))$ then
$ \begin{align} \begin{cases} x(k+1) = A_1(k)x(k)+A_{d1}\sum\limits_{m=1}^h\alpha_m(k)x(k-\tau_m(k))\\ \qquad\qquad\quad +~B_{11}u(k)+D_{11}v(k) \\[2mm] y(k) = \Xi C_1x(k) +D_{21}v(k) \\[2mm] z(k) = C_{z1}(k)x(k)+B_{21}u(k)+D_{31}v(k) \end{cases} \end{align} $
(21) Plant Rule 2: If $x_1(k)$ is $h_2(x_1(k))$ then
$ \begin{align} \begin{cases} x(k+1) = A_2(k)x(k)+A_{d2}\sum\limits_{m=1}^h\alpha_m(k)x(k-\tau_m(k))\\ \qquad\qquad\quad +~B_{12}u(k)+D_{12}v(k) \\[2mm] y(k) =\Xi C_2x(k) +D_{22}v(k) \\[2mm] z(k) =C_{z2}(k)x(k)+B_{22}u(k)+D_{32}v(k) \end{cases} \end{align} $
(22) The given model parameters are written as follows:
$ \begin{align} & {{A}_{1}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 0.2 & 0 \\ 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 \\ 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.2 \\ \end{matrix} \right],\quad {{D}_{11}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{A}_{d1}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.03 & 0 & -0.01 \\ 0.02 & 0.03 & 0 \\ 0.04 & 0.05 & -0.1 \\ \end{matrix} \right], \quad {{B}_{11}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0.4 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{D}_{31}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} -0.1 \\ 0 \\ 0.1 \\ \end{matrix} \right], \quad \ {{C}_{1}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 0.8 & 0.7 \\ -0.6 & 0.9 & 0.6 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{C}_{2}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 & 0.8 & 0.7 \\ -0.6 & 0.9 & 0.6 \\ \end{matrix} \right],\quad {{D}_{21}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.15 \\ 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{D}_{22}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 \\ 0 \\ \end{matrix} \right], \quad \ {{C}_{z1}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.2 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0.1 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{B}_{21}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \\ \end{matrix} \right], \quad {{H}_{a1}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 \\ 0.1 \\ 0.1 \\ \end{matrix} \right],\quad {{H}_{c1}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 \\ 0 \\ 0.1 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{H}_{a2}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 \\ 0 \\ 0.1 \\ \end{matrix} \right], \quad \ {{H}_{c2}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 \\ 0 \\ 0.5 \\ \end{matrix} \right],\quad {{D}_{32}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 \\ 0 \\ 0.1 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & E={{\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 \\ 0.1 \\ 0.1 \\ \end{matrix} \right]}^{T}},{{A}_{2}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & -0.38 & 0 \\ -0.2 & 0 & 0.21 \\ 0.1 & 0 & -0.55 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{B}_{12}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \\ \end{matrix} \right],\quad {{A}_{d2}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0 & 0.01 & -0.01 \\ 0.02 & 0.03 & 0 \\ 0.04 & 0.05 & -0.1 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{D}_{12}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 \\ 0 \\ 0.1 \\ \end{matrix} \right],\quad {{C}_{z2}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0.2 & 0 & 0.2 \\ 0 & 0.1 & 0.2 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{B}_{22}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 \\ \end{matrix} \right]. \\ \end{align} $
Assume that the time-varying communication delays satisfy $2 \leq\tau_m\leq 6$ $(m=1, 2)$ and
$ \begin{align*} & \bar{\alpha}_1={E}\{\alpha_1(k)\}=0.8, \quad\bar{\alpha}_2={E}\{\alpha_2(k)\}=0.6 \\[1mm] & \bar{\omega}_1={E}\{\omega_1(k)\}=0.4, \quad \bar{\omega}_2={E}\{\omega_2(k)\}=0.6. \end{align*} $
Assume also that the probabilistic density functions of $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ in $[0 \quad 1]$ are read as
$ \begin{align} q_1(s_1)=\begin{cases} 0,&s_1=0 \\ 0.1,&s_2=0.5 \\ 0.9,&s_3=1 \end{cases}, \quad &q_2(s_2)=\begin{cases} 0,& s_2=0\\ 0.2,&s_2=0.5 \\ 0.8,&s_3=1 \end{cases}. \end{align} $
(23) The membership functions are described as
$ \begin{align} &h_1=\begin{cases} 1,&x_0(1)=0 \\ \left|\dfrac{\sin(x_0(1))}{x_0(1)}\right|,&\hbox{else} \end{cases} \nonumber\\& h_2=1-h_1. \end{align} $
(24) Now, we are to design a dynamic-output feedback paralleled controller in the form of (6) such that (7) is exponentially stable with a given $H_\infty$ norm bound $\gamma$. In the example, we assume $\gamma=0.9$ and obtain the desired $H_\infty$ controller parameters as follows
$ \begin{align} & {{A}_{k1}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} -0.0127 & -0.0083 & -0.0317 \\ 0.0229 & 0.0149 & 0.0221 \\ -0.0588 & -0.0429 & -0.0654 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{A}_{k2}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} -0.1365 & -0.1296 & -0.0570 \\ -0.0107 & -0.0095 & 0.0239 \\ -0.0125 & -0.0129 & -0.0260 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{B}_{k1}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} -0.3236 & 0.1389 \\ 0.0291 & -0.0043 \\ -0.3077 & 0.1867 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{B}_{k2}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1664 & 0.0834 \\ 0.1374 & -0.0712 \\ -0.4340 & 0.5688 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{C}_{k1}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.1355 & 0.0856 & 0.1789 \\ 0.0311 & 0.0209 & 0.0372 \\ \end{matrix} \right] \\ & {{C}_{k2}}=\left[ \begin{matrix} 0.0110 & 0.0464 & 0.0731 \\ 0.0832 & 0.0622 & 0.0502 \\ \end{matrix} \right]. \\ \end{align} $
We take the initial conditions $ x_0=[1 \quad 0 \quad-1]^T$, $x_{c0}$ $=$ $[0 \quad 0 \quad 0]^T $ for the simulation purpose and let external disturbance $v(k)=0$. Fig. 2 depicts the state responses for the uncontrolled fuzzy systems, which are unstable. We can see the fact that the closed-loop fuzzy systems are exponentially stable from the Fig. 3.
图 2 State evolution $x(k)$ of uncontrolled systems.Fig. 2 State evolution $x(k)$ of uncontrolled systems.
图 3 State evolution $x(k)$ of controlled systems.Fig. 3 State evolution $x(k)$ of controlled systems.In order to illustrate the disturbance-attenuation performance, we take the external disturbance
$ \begin{align*} v(k)= \begin{cases} 0.3,&20\leq k\leq 30 \\ -0.2,&50\leq k\leq 60 \\ 0,&\hbox{else}. \end{cases} \end{align*} $
Fig. 4 presents the controller-state evolution $x_c(k)$, Fig. 5 plots the state evolution of the controlled output $z(k)$, and Fig. 6 shows the output feedback controller. From Figs. 3$-$6, one can see that the convergence rate is rapid and effective. By the above simulation results, we can draw the conclusion that our theoretical analysis to the robust $H_\infty$ fuzzy-control problem is right completely.
Remark 2: The above simulation is performed on the basis of the software MATLAB 7.0 and the cone-complementarity linearization algorithm may takes several minutes because of choosing initial feasible set.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, we establish general networked systems model with multiple time-varying random communication delays and multiple missing measurements as weil as the random missing control and discuss its robust $H_\infty$ fuzzy-output feedback-control problem. The proposed system model includes parameter uncertainties, multiple stochastic time-varying delays, multiple missing measurements, and stochastic control input missing. The control strategy adopts the parallel distributed compensation. We obtain the sufficient conditions on the robustly exponential stability of the closed-loop T-S fuzzy-control system by using the CCL algorithm and the explicit expression of the desired controller parameters. An illustrative simulation example further shows that the fuzzy-control method to the proposed new control model is feasible and the new control model can be used for future applications. Whether to construct piecewise Lyapunov functions [8] to solve the proposed control model or not is an interesting topic and in active thought.
-
[1] Kassir A, Peynot T. Reliable automatic camera-laser calibration. In:Proceedings of the 2010 Australasian Conference on Robotics and Automation. Brisbane, Australia:ARAA, 2010. 1-10 [2] [2] Bosse M, Zlot R, Flick P. Zebedee:design of a spring-mounted 3-D range sensor with application to mobile mapping. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2012, 28(5):1104-1119 [3] [3] Osgood T J, Huang Y P. Calibration of laser scanner and camera fusion system for intelligent vehicles using Nelder-Mead optimization. Measurement Science and Technology, 2013, 24(3):1-10 [4] [4] Chen Z, Zhuo L, Sun K Q, Zhang C X. Extrinsic calibration of a camera and a laser range finder using point to line constraint. Procedia Engineering, 2012, 29:4348-4352 [5] [5] Li G H, Liu Y H, Dong L, Cai X P. An algorithm for extrinsic parameters calibration of a camera and a laser range finder using line features. In:Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. San Diego, CA, United states:IEEE, 2007. 3854-3859 [6] [6] Ha J E. Extrinsic calibration of a camera and laser range finder using a new calibration structure of a plane with a triangular hole. International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, 2012, 10(6):1240-1244 [7] [7] Kwak K, Huber D F, Badino H, Kanade T. Extrinsic calibration of a single line scanning LIDAR and a camera. In:Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. San Francisco, CA, USA:IEEE, 2011. 3283-3289 [8] [8] Zhang Z Y. A flexible new technique for camera calibration. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2000, 22(11):1330-1334 [9] [9] Zhang Q, Pless R. Extrinsic calibration of a camera and laser range finder (improves camera calibration). In:Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. Sendai, Japan:IEEE, 2004. 2301-2306 [10] Vasconcelos F, Barreto J P, Nunes U. A minimal solution for the extrinsic calibration of a camera and a laser-rangefinder. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2012, 34(11):2097-2107 [11] Fishler M A, Bolles R C. Random sample consensus:a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Communications of the ACM, 1981, 24(6):381-395 [12] Zhou L P. A new minimal solution for the extrinsic calibration of a 2D LIDAR and a camera using three plane-line correspondences. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2014, 14(2):442-454 [13] Yang H, Liu X L, Patras I. A simple and effective extrinsic calibration method of a camera and a single line scanning LIDAR. In:Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). Tsukuba, Japan:IEEE, 2012. 1439-1442 [14] Dacorogna B, Marchal P. The role of perspective functions in convexity, poly-convexity, rank-one convexity and separate convexity. Journal of Convex Analysis, 2008, 15(2):271-284 期刊类型引用(10)
1. 彭梦，邬书跃，李仪，向民权. 一种可靠的2D激光雷达和摄像机标定方法. 光电子·激光. 2023(08): 792-801 . 
百度学术2. 彭梦，邬书跃，陈龙，李卓凡. 一种鲁棒的2D激光雷达和摄像机最小解标定方法. 电子测量与仪器学报. 2023(08): 146-154 . 百度学术3. 彭梦，万琴，陈白帆，邬书跃. 基于观测概率有效下界估计的二维激光雷达和摄像机标定方法. 电子与信息学报. 2022(07): 2478-2487 . 百度学术4. 刘净瑜，石卫江，党锦龙，武介成，王颜，刘志刚. 一种AGV高精度空间定位的光电传感网络. 航空制造技术. 2022(22): 80-86+93 . 百度学术5. 彭梦，邬书跃，李珍辉，王海涛. 基于不确定性的2D激光雷达和摄像机标定方法. 湖南科技大学学报(自然科学版). 2022(04): 75-83 . 百度学术6. 熊峰，刘成菊，陈启军. 基于垂直约束的激光扫描机构外参标定算法. 自动化学报. 2021(05): 1058-1066 . 本站查看7. 王硕，祝海江，李和平，吴毅红. 基于共面圆的距离传感器与相机的相对位姿标定. 自动化学报. 2020(06): 1154-1165 . 本站查看8. 崔亚平，沙丽荣. 基于激光测量仪的异形建筑结构参数辨识方法研究. 自动化与仪器仪表. 2020(08): 138-141+145 . 百度学术9. 祝飞，范佳，黄玉春，刘洋洋. 融合多种棋盘格约束的面阵相机和线激光外参标定. 武汉大学学报(信息科学版). 2019(10): 1524-1529+1537 . 百度学术10. 韩冲，苏涛，谢基榕. 基于OpenCV的水下机器人单目定位技术研究与仿真. 计算机测量与控制. 2017(12): 219-223 . 百度学术其他类型引用(7)
-
下载:
计量
- 文章访问数: 2000
- HTML全文浏览量: 88
- PDF下载量: 1600
- 被引次数: 17
下载:
