Co-design of output feedback laws and event-triggering conditions for theL2-stabilization of linear systems

Abstract

. Co-design of output feedback laws and event-triggering conditions for the L2 -stabilization of linear systems. Automatica, Elsevier, 2018, 87, pp.337-344. 10.1016/j.automatica.2017 Co-design of output feedback laws and event-triggering conditions for the L 2 -stabilization of linear systems AbstractWe investigate the L2-stabilization of linear systems using output feedback event-triggered controllers. In particular, we are interested in the scenario where the plant output and the control input are transmitted to the controller and to the actuators, respectively, over two different digital channels, which have their own sampling rule. The plant dynamics is affected by external disturbances and the output measurement and the control input are corrupted by noises. We present a co-design procedure to simultaneously synthesize dynamic output feedback laws and event-triggering conditions such that the closed-loop system is L2-stable with a given upper-bound on the L2-gain. The required conditions are formulated in terms of the feasibility of linear matrix inequalities (LMIs). Then, we exploit these LMIs to maximize the guaranteed minimum time between two transmissions of the plant output and/or of the control input. We also present a heuristic method to reduce the amount of transmissions for each channel. The developed technique encompasses time-driven (and so periodic) sampling as a particular case and the result is also new in this context. The effectiveness of the proposed methods is illustrated on a numerical example.

Dynamic intermittent Q‐learning–based model‐free suboptimal co‐design of ‐stabilization

“…Next, we analyze the dynamics of ||e(t)|| ||x(t)|| . When applying the intermittent feedback (15) and the worst-case disturbance (16), the closed-loop system dynamics (14) yields…”

“…In the emulation‐based approach, the feedback law is designed and given a priori to stabilize the closed‐loop system without assuming any communication constraints, and an appropriate event‐triggering condition is synthesized to reduce the communication bandwidth afterwards . In contrast, the intermittent feedback co‐design approach, considered recently, the controller and the event‐triggering condition are designed simultaneously . However, existing results on the co‐design method rely on the full knowledge of the system dynamics, which are vulnerable to exhaustive modeling effort.…”

“…12 In contrast, the intermittent feedback co-design approach, considered recently, the controller and the event-triggering condition are designed simultaneously. [13][14][15] However, existing results on the co-design method rely on the full knowledge of the system dynamics, which are vulnerable to exhaustive modeling effort.…”

Robust ‐gain codesign of networked control systems

“…Thus, those properties should be codesigned along with the controller. Most of recent codesign studies are all based on the event‐triggered sampling, which mainly aim to optimize the transmission energies along with the performance of NCSs . However, the codesign of NCSs along with the network's properties such as sampling interval, service rate, and packet dropout still needs to be further explored.…”

“…Most of recent codesign studies are all based on the event-triggered sampling, which mainly aim to optimize the transmission energies along with the performance of NCSs. 21,22 However, the codesign of NCSs along with the network's properties such as sampling interval, service rate, and packet dropout still needs to be further explored.Based on the above two motivations, in this paper, we focus on both the analysis of generalized integral inequality and the codesign of network-based  2 -gain controller along with the network's properties such as sampling interval, service rate, and packet dropout. First, a comprehensive network-induced delay model is derived on the basis of the queuing theory, in which the sampling interval, the packet dropout, and the communication delay are all involved to formulate the time-varying delay.…”