Group Consensus for Networked Euler-Lagrangian Systems Under a Directed Graph Without Relative Velocity Information
-
摘要: 在非对称有向图中，研究网络Euler-Lagrange系统的群一致性问题.每组内的智能体均为合作关系，而组间智能体则可以为合作关系或竞争关系.为了实现群一致性，假设组与组之间是无环连接的且系统有向图满足入度平衡条件.考虑到智能体间相对速度信息难以精确测量的实际情形，设计无需相对速度信息的分布式自适应控制算法，实现网络Euler-Lagrange系统的群一致性.最后通过仿真分析验证所设计算法的有效性.
-
关键词:
- 多智能体系统 /
- Euler-Lagrange系统 /
- 群一致性 /
- 自适应控制
Abstract: In this paper, we study group consensus for networked Euler-Lagrangian systems under a general nonsymmetric directed graph. The relationships between interactive agents in same group are cooperative while the relationships between interactive agents among different groups can be either cooperative or competitive. To achieve group consensus, we assume that the interaction topology among groups is acyclic and the associated directed graph satisfies the in-degree balance condition. Considering the fact that the relative velocity information among neighboring agents is difficult to obtain, we propose a distributed adaptive control algorithm for each agent without relative velocity information to achieve group consensus for networked Euler-Lagrangian systems. Finally, simulation results are presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed control algorithm.-
Key words:
- Multi-agent systems /
- Euler-Lagrangian systems /
- group consensus /
- adaptive control
-
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.
-
图 2 有向拓扑图下智能体位置状态信息
Fig. 2 The position state of agents under the directed interaction graph
-
[1] Oh K K, Park M C, Ahn H S. A survey of multi-agent formation control. Automatica, 2015, 53:424-440 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2014.10.022 [2] Su H S, Wang X F, Lin Z L. Flocking of multi-agents with a virtual leader. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2009, 54(2):293-307 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2008.2010897 [3] Yu H, Xia X H. Adaptive consensus of multi-agents in networks with jointly connected topologies. Automatica, 2012, 48(8):1783-1790 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2012.05.068 [4] Wu W, Zhou W J, Chen T P. Cluster synchronization of linearly coupled complex networks under pinning control. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I:Regular Papers, 2009, 56(4):829-839 doi: 10.1109/TCSI.2008.2003373 [5] Chen T P, Liu X W, Lu W L. Pinning complex networks by a single controller. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I:Regular Papers, 2007, 54(6):1317-1326 doi: 10.1109/TCSI.2007.895383 [6] Xu C J, Zheng Y, Su H S, Chen M Z Q, Zhang C F. Cluster consensus for second-order mobile multi-agent systems via distributed adaptive pinning control under directed topology. Nonlinear Dynamics, 2016, 83(4):1975-1985. doi: 10.1007/s11071-015-2459-5 [7] Xia W G, Cao M. Clustering in diffusively coupled networks. Automatica, 2011, 47(11):2395-2405 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2011.08.043 [8] Yu J Y, Wang L. Group consensus in multi-agent systems with switching topologies and communication delays. Systems and Control Letters, 2010, 59(6):340-348 doi: 10.1016/j.sysconle.2010.03.009 [9] Qin J H, Yu C B. Cluster consensus control of generic linear multi-agent systems under directed topology with acyclic partition. Automatica, 2013, 49(9):2898-2905 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2013.06.017 [10] Wen G G, Huang J, Wang C Y, Chen Z, Peng Z X. Group consensus control for heterogeneous multi-agent systems with fixed and switching topologies. International Journal of Control, 2016, 89(2):259-269 doi: 10.1080/00207179.2015.1072876 [11] 闵海波, 刘源, 王仕成, 孙富春.多个体协调控制问题综述.自动化学报, 2012, 38(10):1557-1570 http://www.aas.net.cn/CN/abstract/abstract17765.shtmlMin Hai-Bo, Liu Yuan, Wang Shi-Cheng, Sun Fu-Chun. An overview on coordination control problem of multi-agent system. Acta Automatica Sinica, 2012, 3810:1557-1570 http://www.aas.net.cn/CN/abstract/abstract17765.shtml [12] Cheng L, Hou Z G, Tan M. Decentralized adaptive consensus control for multi-manipulator system with uncertain dynamics. In:Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. Singapore:IEEE, 2008. 2712-2717 [13] Ren W. Distributed leaderless consensus algorithms for networked Euler-Lagrange systems. International Journal of Control, 2009, 82(11):2137-2149 doi: 10.1080/00207170902948027 [14] 梅杰, 张海博, 马广富.有向图中网络Euler-Lagrange系统的自适应协调跟踪.自动化学报, 2011, 37(5):596-603 http://www.aas.net.cn/CN/abstract/abstract17395.shtmlMei Jie, Zhang Hai-Bo, Ma Guang-Fu. Adaptive coordinated tracking for networked Euler-Lagrange systems under a directed graph. Acta Automatica Sinica, 2011, 375:596-603 http://www.aas.net.cn/CN/abstract/abstract17395.shtml [15] Mei J, Ren W, Ma G F. Distributed coordinated tracking with a dynamic leader for multiple Euler-Lagrange systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2011, 56(6):1415-1421 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2011.2109437 [16] Meng Z Y, Ren W, You Z. Distributed finite-time attitude containment control for multiple rigid bodies. Automatica, 2010, 46(12):2092-2099 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2010.09.005 [17] Mei J, Ren W, Ma G F. Distributed containment control for Lagrangian networks with parametric uncertainties under a directed graph. Automatica, 2012, 48(4):653-659 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2012.01.020 [18] Hu H X, Zhang Z, Yu L, Yu W W, Xie G M. Group consensus for multiple networked Euler-Lagrange systems with parametric uncertainties. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity, 2014, 27(4):632-649 doi: 10.1007/s11424-014-2149-2 [19] Liu J, Xiang L, Zhao L Y, Zhou J. Group consensus in uncertain networked Euler-Lagrange systems with acyclic interaction topology. In:Proceedings of the 34th Chinese Control Conference. Hangzhou, China:IEEE, 2015. 835-840 [20] Liu J, Ji J C, Zhou J, Xiang L, Zhao L Y. Adaptive group consensus in uncertain networked Euler-Lagrange systems under directed topology. Nonlinear Dynamics, 2015, 82(3):1145-1157 doi: 10.1007/s11071-015-2222-y [21] Mei J, Ren W, Chen J, Ma G F. Distributed adaptive coordination for multiple Lagrangian systems under a directed graph without using neighbors' velocity information. Automatica, 2013, 49(6):1723-1731 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2013.02.058 [22] Mei J, Ren W, Chen J. Distributed consensus of second-order multi-agent systems with heterogeneous unknown inertias and control gains under a directed graph. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2016, 61(8):2019-2034 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2015.2480336 [23] Spong M W, Hutchinson S, Vidyasagar M. Robot Modeling and Control. New Jersey, USA:John Wiley and Sons, 2006. [24] Mesbahi M, Egerstedt M. Graph Theoretic Methods in Multiagent Networks. New Jersey, USA:Princeton University Press, 2010. [25] Ren W, Beard R W. Distributed Consensus in Multi-Vehicle Cooperative Control. London, Britain:Springer-Verlag, 2008. [26] Yu W W, Chen G R, Gao M, Kurths J. Second-order consensus for multiagent systems with directed topologies and nonlinear dynamics. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 2010, 40(3):881-891 doi: 10.1109/TSMCB.2009.2031624 [27] Scardovi L, Arcak M, Sontag E D. Synchronization of interconnected systems with applications to biochemical networks:an input-output approach. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2010, 55(6):1367-1379 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2010.2041974 [28] Mei J. Weighted consensus for multiple Lagrangian systems under a directed graph. In:Proceedings of the 2015 Chinese Automation Congress (CAC). Wuhan, China:IEEE, 2015. 1064-1068 [29] Horn R A, Johnson C R. Matrix Analysis. New York, USA:Cambridge University Press, 1985. [30] Kelly R, Sáñtibanez V, Loría A. Control of Robot Manipulators in Joint Space. London, Britain:Springer, 2005. 期刊类型引用(4)
1. 练红海，肖伸平，罗毅平，周笔锋. 基于T-S模糊模型的采样系统鲁棒耗散控制. 自动化学报. 2022(11): 2852-2862 . 
本站查看2. 顾晓清，倪彤光，张聪，戴臣超，王洪元. 结构辨识和参数优化协同学习的概率TSK模糊系统. 自动化学报. 2021(02): 349-362 . 本站查看3. 李军，黄卫剑，万文军，刘哲. 一种新型反馈控制器的研究与应用. 控制理论与应用. 2020(02): 411-422 . 百度学术4. 唐晓铭，邓梨，虞继敏，屈洪春. 基于区间二型T-S模糊模型的网络控制系统的输出反馈预测控制. 自动化学报. 2019(03): 604-616 . 本站查看其他类型引用(1)
-
下载:
下载:
计量
- 文章访问数: 2564
- HTML全文浏览量: 292
- PDF下载量: 669
- 被引次数: 5
