Processing math: 40%
A journal of IEEE and CAA , publishes high-quality papers in English on original theoretical/experimental research and development in all areas of automation
Jiankun Sun, Jun Yang and Shihua Li, "Reduced-Order GPIO Based Dynamic Event-Triggered Tracking Control of a Networked One-DOF Link Manipulator Without Velocity Measurement," IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 725-734, May 2020. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2019.1911738
Citation: Jiankun Sun, Jun Yang and Shihua Li, "Reduced-Order GPIO Based Dynamic Event-Triggered Tracking Control of a Networked One-DOF Link Manipulator Without Velocity Measurement," IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 725-734, May 2020. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2019.1911738

Reduced-Order GPIO Based Dynamic Event-Triggered Tracking Control of a Networked One-DOF Link Manipulator Without Velocity Measurement

doi: 10.1109/JAS.2019.1911738
Funds:  The work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61473080, 61573099, 61973080, 61750110525, 61633003)
More Information
  • In networked robot manipulators that deeply integrate control, communication and computation, the controller design needs to take into consideration the limited or costly system resources and the presence of disturbances/uncertainties. To cope with these requirements, this paper proposes a novel dynamic event-triggered robust tracking control method for a one-degree of freedom (DOF) link manipulator with external disturbance and system uncertainties via a reduced-order generalized proportional-integral observer (GPIO). By only using the sampled-data position signal, a new sampled-data robust output feedback tracking controller is proposed based on a reduced-order GPIO to attenuate the undesirable influence of the external disturbance and the system uncertainties. To save the communication resources, we propose a discrete-time dynamic event-triggering mechanism (DETM), where the estimates and the control signal are transmitted and computed only when the proposed discrete-time DETM is violated. It is shown that with the proposed control method, both tracking control properties and communication properties can be significantly improved. Finally, simulation results are shown to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of the proposed control approach.

     

  • WITH the many applications of robot manipulators in different fields including advanced medical, space and defense, modern industries, etc., the control issues of manipulators have captured tremendous attention from industrial and academic communities [1], [2]. Meanwhile, the last two decades have witnessed a significant increase in interest in the area of networked control systems (NCS) due to the advances in network infrastructure, communication architecture and computer technology [3]–[8]. For the control issues of networked robot manipulators, many works have been published where the use of a network is essential for receiving the sensor signal and transmitting the control signal [9], [10]. For example, networked are used in the coordination control of multiple manipulators [11], telerobotic control systems [12], and so on.

    Typically, a NCS is composed of five basic components including sensors, controllers, actuators, plants, and a shared communication network [13]–[15]. Those components need to exchange sensor and controller signals to achieve control tasks. For instance, the control input is transmitted and the sensor signal is received from a distance in telerobotic control systems [12]. The information is transported from one agent to another such that some complex tasks can be accomplished by multiple manipulators [11]. For NCSs, low energy consumption and computation are sought, with communication being costly due to the limited energy, computation and communication bandwidth. Even though many researchers have devoted themselves to the networked control manipulators [16]–[21], little attention has been paid to the communication constraint, which motivates us to develop a resource-efficient control method for the networked control manipulator.

    To improve the resource efficiency while guaranteeing desirable control performance, event triggered control has been proposed in recent two decades as a kind of communication protocol where the control tasks are executed only when it is necessary [22]–[29]. In contrast to more commonly used periodic transmission schemes (i.e., time-triggering mechanism (TTM)), event triggered control tends to execute the control tasks that are sporadic in nature, rather than during a certain period of time as in the conventional TTMs [30]–[37]. Some experimental results have demonstrated that the event triggered control can significantly save the communication resource compared with the conventional TTMs with comparable performance [38]. Some survey papers on event triggered control can be found in [13], [39], [40].

    In practical applications, it is hard to obtain the exact dynamics of robot manipulators due to the inevitable existence of lumped disturbances including external disturbances, load variation, friction, and system uncertainties [19], [20], [41]–[44]. Lumped disturbances not only deteriorate control properties, but also result in a waste of system resources, since even small disturbances may lead to increased transmission times [38], [45]. In addition, velocity measurements are generally unknown in most commercially available robot manipulators in order to decrease the manufacturing costs [16], [17], [21]. Therefore, designing a robust output feedback control method to attenuate the undesirable influence of lumped disturbances is essential and contributes to the improvement of both control properties and communication properties of event-triggered systems, which is another motivation of the current study.

    In this paper, a novel dynamic event-triggered tracking control method is proposed for a one-degree of freedom (DOF) link manipulator subject to external disturbances and system uncertainties via the reduced-order generalized proportional-integral observer (GPIO) when only a sampled-data position measurement is available. By using a sampled-data position measurement and the control input, a new reduced-order GPIO is first proposed to estimate the velocity information and the lumped disturbance information, and the robust dynamic event-triggered controller is simultaneously designed by employing the technique of disturbance estimation/compensation to attenuate the undesirable influence of lumped disturbances on communication properties and tracking control properties. In the proposed control method, system information is transmitted via a communication network only when a well-designed dynamic event-triggering mechanism (DETM) is violated, such that a better tradeoff can be achieved between communication resource utilization and tracking control performance. In the proposed DETM, the threshold parameter is dynamically adjusted following an adaptive rule. Under the proposed event-triggering control method, it is shown that tracking errors asymptotically converge to a bounded region, and the bound can be set to be arbitrarily small by choosing appropriate parameters. The major merits of the proposed robust dynamic event-triggered tracking control method in this paper are fourfold:

    1) The proposed tracking control method does not need the velocity measurement, and the values of the lumped disturbance and the velocity can be accurately estimated by the proposed reduced-order GPIO. Compared with the full-order GPIO, the reduced-order observer has one less parameter to be regulated.

    2) The parameters of the proposed DETM can be adaptively updated according to a defined error, such that the communication resources can be significantly saved while guaranteeing a satisfactory tracking control performance.

    3) By the virtue of the technique of disturbance estimation/compensation, the proposed robust control method can attenuate the undesirable influence of the lumped disturbance on communication properties and tracking control properties in the framework of the DETM.

    4) Compared with some results on DETM [46], [47], where the triggering mechanisms are continuous-time, the proposed control method in the paper is more suitable for digital applications, since both the proposed robust output feedback tracking controller and the novel DETM are in discrete-time form.

    The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section II describes the manipulator model and the problem statement. The proposed robust tracking controller and the novel DETM are shown in Section III. The stability analysis with some conditions on the existence of the proposed controller are given in Section IV. Then, Section V depicts the numerical simulation result to verify the efficiency of the proposed controller. Finally, the main conclusions are summarized in Section VI.

    Throughout this paper, let N and N+ represent the sets of non-negative and positive integers, respectively. R and R+0 stand for the sets of real and non-negative real numbers, respectively. For a given rR, its absolute value is denoted by |r|. Given a set a=(a1,,an), where aiR for each i=1,,n, diag(a) denotes a diagonal matrix with the entries of a on the main diagonal. The superscript T represents the transpose. |||| denotes the Euclidean norm of a vector and the corresponding induced matrix norm. For a positive and symmetric matrix P, λM(P) and λm(P) denotes the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of P.

    Consider the dynamics of a one-DOF link manipulator as follows:

    D¨θ+C˙θ+G=τ+d (1)

    where θ and τ are the output angle and the control torque, D=4ml2/3 is the moment of inertia, m is the mass of the manipulator, l is the distance from the centroid to the center of connecting rod rotation, C is the viscous friction coefficient, G=mglcosθ is the gravity of the manipulator, g is the gravitational acceleration and d is the external disturbance. The reference signal of the angle θ is denoted by θd.

    In this paper, system uncertainties are taken into account since system parameters can not be accurately known in practical applications. We define m0, g0, l0, and C0 as the nominal values of m, g, l, and C, respectively.

    Defining a scale parameter L1, with the help of the new denotations y(t)=x1(t)=θ(t)θd(t), x2(t)=˙x1(t)/L and u(t)=τ(t)/L2, we represent (1) by

    {˙x1(t)=Lx2(t)˙x2(t)=La0u(t)+w(t,x(t),u(t),d(t),˙θd(t))Ly(t)=x1(t) (2)

    where a0=3/4m0l20 can be regarded as the nominal parameter of (2). w(t,x(t),u(t),d(t),˙θd(t))=3C4ml2˙θ(t)3g4lcos(θ(t))+ (34ml234m0l20)u(t)+34ml2d(t)+˙θd(t) denotes the lumped disturbance including system uncertainties, the external disturbance and the desired velocity. For simplicity, w(t) is defined as the shorthand of w(t,x(t),u(t),d(t),˙θd(t)) in the rest of the paper.

    Inspired by most of the results on disturbance rejection control [42], [43], a common assumption on the lumped disturbance w(t) is given as follows:

    Assumption 1: The lumped disturbance w(t) is assumed to satisfy |˙w(t)|w1 and |¨w(t)|w2 for all tR, where w1 and w2 are two positive constants.

    Remark 1: It should be mentioned that the hypothesis on disturbances given in Assumption 1 is general and has been utilized in several existing works on disturbance rejection approaches [42], [43]. From a practical point of view, it is reasonable to assume that the lumped disturbance or its derivative are bounded since the external disturbance, the system uncertainties, and the desired velocity are all bounded in practice. The proposed method still works when the disturbance is piecewise continuous, since it can be viewed that the proposed observer is reset at every discontinuous instant.

    Due to the finite rate digital communication channel between the sensor and the controller, the event-triggering mechanism is employed to reduce transmission times while a desirable trajectory tracking error can be guaranteed. In the presence of the lumped disturbance, trajectory tracking performance is inevitably deteriorated, and more communication times are probably generated if the disturbance is not properly handled. Therefore, to improve both the communication properties and trajectory tracking properties, this paper develops a new DETM for a robust output feedback controller via the reduced-order GPIO for the robot manipulator dynamics (1).

    The structure of the proposed event-triggered method is shown in Fig. 1, where the signals are transmitted continuously along the solid lines, periodically along the dashed line, and intermittently based on the events along the dotted line. In the proposed control method, we only know the sampled-data position information at the sampling instant {kT}kN with a constant sampling period T. By using sampled-data, a reduced-order GPIO is first designed to estimate the unknown velocity and the disturbance information. To save communication resources, the output and the estimates are transmitted only when the pre-designed discrete-time DETM is triggered at certain sampling instants. The control input is updated once the latest output and estimates are received; otherwise, it remains the same.

    Figure  1.  The structure of the proposed event-triggered control method.

    Without the loss of generality, we assume the first event happens at t0=0, the sequence {tk}kN stands for the set of event-triggering instants, where tk denotes the (k+1)th event-triggering instant. The proposed triggering condition is detected at every sampling instant {kT}kN. Therefore, there exists some integer ikN, such that tk=ikT holds with i0=0 and ik<ik+1. Defining dk=ik+1ik1, one has dk0 since tk<tk+1. It is obvious that the inter-event interval [tk,tk+1) can be written as [tk,tk+1)=dkj=0Ikj, where Ikj=[tk+jT,tk+(j+1)T), j=0,,dk.

    With the help of the sampled-data output, we design a new reduced-order GPIO for (2) in the time interval Ikj, kN, j=0,,dk as follows:

    {˙z1(t)=Lβ1(z1(t)+β1y(tk+jT))+L(z2(t)+β2y(tk+jT))+La0u(t)˙z2(t)=Lβ2(z1(t)+β1y(tk+jT))+L(z3(t)+β3y(tk+jT))˙z3(t)=Lβ3(z1(t)+β1y(tk+jT))ˆx2(t)=z1(t)+β1y(t),ˆw(t)=L2(z2(t)+β2y(t))ˆ˙w(t)=L3(z3(t)+β3y(t)) (3)

    where zi(t),i=1,2,3 are the internal variables. ˆx2(t), ˆw(t) and ˆ˙w(t) are the estimates of the state x2(t), the disturbance w(t) and its derivative ˙w(t), respectively. y(tk+jT) is the sampled-data output at the sampling instant tk+jT. βi,i=1,2,3 are the observer gains to be designed.

    It should be pointed out that the proposed reduced-order GPIO (3) is in continuous-time form, and such a design form is convenient for stability analysis, but not suitable for practical applications in digital computers. To cope with that, we give an accurate discretized version of (3). Firstly, (3) can be rewritten as follows:

    ˙Z(t)=L[β110β201β300]Π1Z(t)+L[a000]Π2u(t)+L[β21+β2β1β2+β3β1β3]Π3y(tk+jT) (4)

    where Z(t)=[z1(t),z2(t),z3(t)]T.

    Then, by integrating Z(t) from tk+jT to tk+(j+1)T, an accurate discretized version of (4) can be obtained by

    Z(tk+(j+1)T)=eLΠ1TZ(tk+jT)+T0eLΠ1sds×(LΠ2u(t)+LΠ3y(tk+jT))=ˉΠ1Z(tk+jT)+ˉΠ2u(tk+jT)+ˉΠ3y(tk+jT) (5)

    where ˉΠ1=eLΠ1T, ˉΠ2=LT0eLΠ1sdsΠ2 and ˉΠ3=LT0eLΠ1sdsΠ3.

    Let e(t)=[e1(t),e2(t),e3(t)]T denotes the estimation error vector, where e1(t)=x2(t)ˆx2(t), e2(t)=(w(t)ˆw(t))/L2 and e3(t)=(˙w(t)ˆ˙w(t))/L3. Then, with system (2) and observer (3) in mind, one obtains the following estimation error system

    {˙e1(t)=Lβ1e1(t)+Le2(t)+L(β21β2)(y(tk+jk)y(t))˙e2(t)=Lβ2e1(t)+Le3(t)+L(β1β2β3)(y(tk+jk)y(t))˙e3(t)=Lβ3e1(t)+Lβ1β3(y(tk+jk)y(t))+¨w(t)L3. (6)

    Combining (3) and (5), we can get x1(tk), ˆx2(tk) and ˆw(tk). Then, an event-triggered robust controller is designed by

    u(t)=u(tk)=1a0(k1x1(tk)+k2ˆx2(tk)+ˆw(tk)L2),t[tk,tk+1),kN (7)

    where k1 and k2 are the feedback controller gains to be designed.

    The event-triggered controller (7) can be further redescribed by

    u(t)=u(tk)=1a0(k1x1(t)+k2x2(t)+w(t)L2)+1a0(k2e1(t)+e2(t))+k1a0(x1(t)x1(tk+jT))+k2a0(x2(t)x2(tk+jT))+1L2a0(w(t)w(tk+jT))k2a0(e1(t)e1(tk+jT))1a0(e2(t)e2(tk+jT))+k1a0(x1(tk+jT)x1(tk))+k2a0(ˆx2(tk+jT)ˆx2(tk))+1L2a0(ˆw(tk+jT)ˆw(tk)),tIkj,kN,j=0,,dk (8)

    where the last five items k2a0(e1(t)e1(tk+jT)), 1L2a0(e2(t) e2(tk+jT)), k1a0(x1(tk+jT)x1(tk)), k2a0(ˆx2(tk+jT)ˆx2(tk)) and 1L2a0(ˆw(tk+jT)ˆw(tk)) can be viewed as those caused by the DETM to be designed. When dk=0 for all kN, the proposed controller (7) is reduced to a periodic sampled-data controller with a zero-order holder.

    With the help of denotation ε(tk+jT)=[x1(tk+jT)x1(tk), ˆx2(tk+jT)ˆx2(tk),ˆw(tk+jT)ˆw(tk)], kN, j=0,,dk and defining ˉε(qT)=σ(qT)||y(qT)||+σ1εT(qT)Φε(qT), qN, we can design a novel discrete-time DETM by

    tk+1=min (9)

    where \sigma_{1} is a non-negative constant, \varPhi is a positive definite and diagonal weight matrix, and \sigma(qT) is a dynamic parameter, which updates according to the following adaptive law.

    \begin{split} \sigma(qT) = & e^{-\alpha_{1} T}\sigma((q-1)T)+\dfrac{\alpha_{2}\left(1-e^{-\alpha_{1} T}\right)}{1+\bar{\varepsilon}((q-1)T)},\\ & t\in[(q-1)T,qT), \; q\in{\mathbb N}^{+}\end{split} (10)

    with \alpha_{1}\geq 0 and \alpha_{2}\geq 0 , \sigma(0)\geq 0 is the initial condition.

    From the proposed DETM (9), it can be easily deduced that \sqrt{\varepsilon^T(t_{k}+jT)\varPhi\varepsilon(t_{k}+jT)}\leq \sigma(t_{k}+jT)|y(t_{k}+jT)|+\sigma_{1} , \forall k\in{\mathbb N} , since no event happens in the inter-event interval [t_{k}, t_{k+1}) .

    Remark 2: In the proposed DETM (9), there are three key parameters to be regulated. Firstly, we can choose a different weight matrix \varPhi , such that the different entry of the vector \varepsilon(qT) has a different weight. For example, the first entry of \varPhi can be regulated to be quite large when the tracking error x_{1}(qT) is considered. Secondly, the relative threshold \sigma(qt) can be adaptively regulated according to the error function \bar{\varepsilon}((q-1)T) , which means the larger the error function \bar{\varepsilon}((q-1)T) is, the smaller the threshold parameter \sigma(qT) is and the larger the possibility for the event-triggering condition to be violated, and vice versa. The last parameter \sigma_{1} is the absolute threshold to be regulated to avoid the frequent communication. Therefore, a better balance between the communication properties and the control properties can be guaranteed under the proposed DETM (9) compared with most of the results on the event-triggering mechanisms [48]–[50].

    Remark 3: It should be highlighted that the reduced-order GPIO (3) can be accurately discretized, the robust controller (7) is in the form of discrete-time, and the proposed DETM (9) is detected with a constant period as well. Hence, the proposed dynamic event-triggered control method is suitable for the implementation in digital computers.

    Lemma 1: Consider the adaptive law (10) with a given initial condition \sigma(0)\geq 0 . If \alpha_{1}\geq 0 and \alpha_{2} \geq 0 , then 0\leq \sigma(qT)\leq \bar{\sigma} , \forall q\in {\mathbb N} with \bar{\sigma} = \max\left\{\sigma(0),\alpha_{2}\right\} .

    Proof: Firstly, by (10), we have that \sigma(qT)>0 , \forall q\in {\mathbb N} . When \alpha_{1} = 0 , it is easily obtained from (10) that \sigma(qT) = \sigma(0) , \forall q\in {\mathbb N} . Otherwise, by (10), we find that

    \begin{split} \sigma(qT) &\leq e^{-\alpha_{1} T}\sigma((q-1)T)+\alpha_{2}\left(1-e^{-\alpha_{1}T}\right)\\ &\leq e^{-q\alpha_{1} T}\sigma(0)+\alpha_{2}\left(1-e^{-\alpha_{1}T}\right)\dfrac{1-e^{-q\alpha_{1}T}}{1-e^{-\alpha_{1}T}}\\ &= \left(\sigma(0)-\alpha_{2}\right)e^{-q\alpha_{1} T}+\alpha_{2}.\end{split} (11)

    Therefore, it can be easily deduced from (11) that \forall q\in {\mathbb N} , \sigma(qT) is upper-bounded by \bar{\sigma} = \max\left\{\sigma(0),\alpha_{2}\right\} , if \alpha_{1}>0 , \alpha_{2}\geq 0 and \sigma(0)\geq 0 . As a conclusion, one has that \sigma(qT)\geq 0 , and is upper-bounded by \bar{\sigma} , \forall q\in {\mathbb N} .■

    Firstly, to develop the stability analysis of the event-triggered control systems, we introduce an important lemma as follows:

    Lemma 2 [38]: Consider the following dynamics:

    \dot{\zeta}(s) = F(\zeta(s), \zeta(s_{k})),\;\;\; \forall s\in [s_{k}, s_{k+1}),\; s_{k} = kT,\; k\in {\mathbb N} (12)

    where F: {\mathbb R}^n\times{\mathbb R}^n\rightarrow{\mathbb R}^n . If F(\zeta(s), \zeta(s_{k})) satisfies

    ||F(\zeta(s), \zeta(s_{k}))||\leq \rho_{1}(||\zeta(s)-\zeta(s_{k})||+||\zeta(s_{k})||)+\rho_{2} (13)

    where \rho_{1} and \rho_{2} are two positive constant, then it follows that

    \begin{split} &||\zeta(s)-\zeta(s_{k})|| \leq \left(||\zeta(s_{k})||+\dfrac{\rho_{2}}{\rho_{1}}\right)\left(e^{\rho_{1}(s-s_{k})}-1\right),\\ & \forall s\in[s_{k}, s_{k+1}),\; k\in {\mathbb N}. \end{split}

    Then, with the help of (2), (6) and (7), a closed-loop system can be finally obtained in the time interval I^{k}_{j} , k\in {\mathbb N} , j = 0,\ldots,d_{k} as follows:

    \left\{\!{\begin{aligned} {{\dot x}_1}(t) = & \,L{x_2}(t)\\ {{\dot x}_2}(t) = & - L{k_1}{x_1}(t) - L{k_2}{x_2}(t) + L{k_2}{e_1}(t) + L{e_2}(t)\\ & + L{k_1}({x_1}(t) \!-\! {x_1}({t_k} \!+\! jT)) \!+\! L{k_2}({x_2}(t) - {x_2}({t_k} + jT))\\ & + \dfrac{{(w(t) - w({t_k} + jT))}}{L} - L{k_2}({e_1}(t) - {e_1}({t_k} + jT))\\ & - L({e_2}(t) - {e_2}({t_k} + jT)) + L{k_1}({x_1}({t_k} + jT) - {x_1}({t_k}))\\ &+ L{k_2}({{\hat x}_2}({t_k} + jT) - {{\hat x}_2}({t_k})) + \dfrac{{(\hat w({t_k} + jT) - \hat w({t_k}))}}{L}\\ {{\dot e}_1}(t) = & - L{\beta _1}{e_1}(t) + {e_2}(t) + L(\beta _1^2 - {\beta _2})(y({t_k} + jk) - y(t))\\ {{\dot e}_2}(t) = & - L{\beta _2}{e_1}(t) \!+\! {e_3}(t) + L({\beta _1}{\beta _2}\! - \!{\beta _3})(y({t_k} \!+\! jk) - y(t))\\ {{\dot e}_3}(t) = & - L{\beta _3}{e_1}(t) + L{\beta _1}{\beta _3}(y({t_k} + jk) - y(t)) + \dfrac{{\ddot w(t)}}{{{L^3}}}. \end{aligned}} \right. (14)

    Defining a new variable vector \omega(t) = [x_{1}(t), x_{2}(t), e_{1}(t), e_{2}(t), e_{3}(t)]^T , we can represent (14) by

    \begin{array}{l} \dot \omega (t) = L\underbrace {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0&1&0&0&0\\ { - {k_1}}&{ - {k_2}}&{{k_2}}&1&0\\ 0&0&{ - {\beta _1}}&1&0\\ 0&0&{ - {\beta _2}}&0&1\\ 0&0&{ - {\beta _3}}&0&0 \end{array}} \right]}_A\omega (t)\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; + L\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0\\ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {{k_1}({x_1}(t) - {x_1}({t_k} + jT))}\\ { + {k_2}({x_2}(t) - {x_2}({t_k} + jT))}\\ { - {k_2}({e_1}(t) - {e_1}({t_k} + jT))}\\ { - ({e_2}(t) - {e_2}({t_k} + jT))} \end{array}}\\ {(\beta _1^2 - {\beta _2})(y({t_k} + jT) - y(t))}\\ {({\beta _1}{\beta _2} - {\beta _3})(y({t_k} + jT) - y(t))}\\ {{\beta _1}{\beta _3}(y({t_k} + jT) - y(t))} \end{array}} \right]\\ \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; + \left[\!\!\!\!\!{\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0\\ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {L{k_1}({x_1}({t_k} + jT) - {x_1}({t_k}))}\\ { + L{k_2}({{\hat x}_2}({t_k} + jT) - {{\hat x}_2}({t_k}))}\\ { + \dfrac{{(\hat w({t_k} + jT) - \hat w({t_k}))}}{L}} \end{array}}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 \end{array}}\!\!\!\!\right]+ \left[\!\!\!{\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0\\ {\dfrac{{w(t) - w({t_k} + jT))}}{L}}\\ 0\\ 0\\ {\dfrac{{\ddot w(t)}}{{{L^3}}}} \end{array}}\!\!\!\right]. \end{array} (15)

    By Lemma 1, we have 0\leq \sigma(qT)\leq \bar{\sigma} , \forall q\in {\mathbb N} . Hence, with (9) in mind, one obtains ||\varepsilon ({t_k} + jT)|| \le \frac{1}{{\sqrt {{\lambda _m}(\varPhi )} }}(\sigma ({t_k} + jT) |y({t_k} + jT)| + {\sigma _1})\! \le \!\frac{1}{{\sqrt {{\lambda _m}(\varPhi )} }}(\bar \sigma |y({t_k} \!+\! jT)| + {\sigma _1}), \forall k\in {\mathbb N} , j = 0,\ldots, d_{k} . Then, one obtains

    \begin{split} &\left\| {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0\\ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {L{k_1}({x_1}({t_k} + jT) - {x_1}({t_k}))}\\ { + L{k_2}({{\hat x}_2}({t_k} + jT) - {{\hat x}_2}({t_k}))}\\ { + \dfrac{{(\hat w({t_k} + jT) - \hat w({t_k}))}}{L}} \end{array}}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0 \end{array}} \right]} \right\|\\ & \le L|{k_1}||{x_1}({t_k} + jT) - {x_1}({t_k})| + L|{k_2}||{{\hat x}_2}({t_k} + jT) - {{\hat x}_2}({t_k})|\\ & \quad + \dfrac{{|\hat w({t_k} + jT) - \hat w({t_k})|}}{L}\\ &\le {c_1}||\varepsilon({t_k} + jT)||\\ &\le \dfrac{{{c_1}}}{{\sqrt {{\lambda _m}(\varPhi )} }}(\bar \sigma |y({t_k} + jT)| + {\sigma _1}) \end{split} (16)

    where c_{1} = \sqrt{3}\max\left\{L|k_{1}|,L|k_{2}|,\dfrac{1}{L}\right\} .

    By Lemma 2 and Assumption 1, one gets

    \begin{array}{l} \left\| {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0\\ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {{k_1}({x_1}(t) - {x_1}({t_k} + jT))}\\ { + {k_2}({x_2}(t) - {x_2}({t_k} + jT))}\\ { - {k_2}({e_1}(t) - {e_1}({t_k} + jT))}\\ { - ({e_2}(t) - {e_2}({t_k} + jT))} \end{array}}\\ {(\beta _1^2 - {\beta _2})(y({t_k} + jT) - y(t))}\\ {({\beta _1}{\beta _2} - {\beta _3})(y({t_k} + jT) - y(t))}\\ {{\beta _1}{\beta _3}(y({t_k} + jT) - y(t))} \end{array}} \right]} \right\| \le {c_2}||\omega ({t_k} + jT) - \omega (t)|\\ \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad \le {c_2}(||\omega ({t_k} + jT)|| + {b_1})\\ \quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\times \left( {{e^{{b_2}T}} - 1} \right) \end{array} (17)

    where c_{2} , b_{1} and b_{2} are three positive constants.

    According to Assumption 1, one gets

    \left\| {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}} 0\\ {\dfrac{{(w(t) - w({t_k} + jT))}}{L}}\\ 0\\ 0\\ {\dfrac{{\ddot w(t)}}{{{L^3}}}} \end{array}} \right]} \right\| \le \tilde w (18)

    where \tilde{w} = \sqrt{\dfrac{w^2_{1}T^2}{L^2}+\dfrac{w^2_{2}}{L^6}} .

    Obviously, the system matrix A can be designed to be Hurwitz, when the parameters k_{i} , i = 1,2 and \beta_{i} , i = 1,2,3 are chosen such that both of \lambda^2+k_{2}\lambda+k_{1} and \lambda^3+\beta_{1}\lambda_{2}+\beta_{2}\lambda+\beta_{3} are Hurwitz polynomials. Therefore, one can see that there exists a positive definite matrix P = P^{T}\in {\mathbb R}^{5\times 5} such that A^TP+PA = -I .

    Constructing a candidate Lyapunov function V(\omega(t)) = \omega^T(t)P\omega(t) for (15) in the time interval I^{k}_{j},\; k\in {\mathbb N} , j = 0,\ldots,d_{k} , one takes the time derivative of V(\omega(t)) along (15), and integrates (16)–(18) into \dot{V}(\omega(t)) as follows:

    \begin{split} \dot{V}(\omega(t))\leq\; & -L||\omega(t)||^{2}+2Lc_{2}||P||||\omega(t)||(||\omega(t_{k}+jT)||+b_{1})\\ & \times \left(e^{b_{2}T}-1\right)+\dfrac{2c_{1}}{\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(\varPhi)}} ||P||||\omega(t)||\\ & \times(\bar{\sigma}||\omega(t_{k}+jT)||+\sigma_{1})+2\tilde{w}||\omega(t)||.\end{split} (19)

    Noticing that ||P|| = \lambda_{M}(P) , since P is positive definite matrix, we can determine

    \begin{split} \dot{V}(\omega(t)) \leq\; & -\gamma_{1}V(\omega(t))+\gamma_{2}\sqrt{V(\omega(t))V(\omega(t_{k}+jT))}\\ & +\gamma_{3}\sqrt{V(\omega(t))} \end{split} (20)

    where \gamma_{1}\!\!=\!\! \dfrac{L}{\lambda_{M}(P)} , \gamma_{2} \!\!=\!\! \dfrac{2Lc_{2}\lambda_{M}(P)\!\!\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(\!\varPhi\!)}\left(\!e^{b_{2}T}\!\!-\!1\!\right)\!+\!2c_{1} \bar{\sigma}\lambda_{M}(P)}{\lambda_{m}(P)\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(\varPhi)}} and \gamma_{3} = \dfrac{2c_{2}b_{1}\lambda_{M}(P)\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(\varPhi)}\left(e^{b_{2}T}-1\right)+2c_{1} \sigma_{1}\lambda_{M}(P)+\tilde{w}\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(\varPhi)}}{\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(P)}\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(\varPhi)}} .

    Since \gamma_{1}>0 , it can be obtained from (20) that

    \dfrac{d}{{dt}}\sqrt {V(\omega (t))} \le - \dfrac{{{\gamma _1}}}{2}\sqrt {V(\omega (t))} + \dfrac{{{\gamma _2}}}{2}\sqrt {V(\omega ({t_k} + jT))} + \dfrac{{{\gamma _3}}}{2}. (21)

    Integrating \sqrt{V(\omega(t))} from t_{k}+jT to t_{k}+(j+1)T yields

    \begin{split} \sqrt {V(\omega ({t_k} + (j + 1)T))} \le\; & \left( {{e^{ - \dfrac{{{\gamma _1}}}{2}T}} + \left( {1 - {e^{ - \dfrac{{{\gamma _1}}}{2}T}}} \right)\dfrac{{{\gamma _2}}}{{{\gamma _1}}}} \right)\\ & \times \sqrt {V(\omega ({t_k} + jT))} + \left( {1 - {e^{ - \dfrac{{{\gamma _1}}}{2}T}}} \right)\dfrac{{{\gamma _3}}}{{{\gamma _1}}}\\ =\; & {\gamma _4}\sqrt {V(\omega ({t_k} + jT))} + \left( {1 - {e^{ - \dfrac{{{\gamma _1}}}{2}T}}} \right)\dfrac{{{\gamma _3}}}{{{\gamma _1}}} \end{split} (22)

    where \gamma_{4} = \left(e^{-\dfrac{\gamma_{1}}{2}T}+\left(1-e^{-\dfrac{\gamma_{1}}{2}T} \right)\dfrac{\gamma_{2}}{\gamma_{1}}\right) .

    Noticing that \bar{\sigma} = \max\left\{\sigma(0),\alpha_{2}\right\} , it obtains that the condition

    \bar{\sigma}<\dfrac{L\lambda_{m}(P)\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(\varPhi)}}{2c_{1}\lambda_{M}^2(P)} (23)

    can be satisfied by choosing appropriate parameters \sigma(0) , \alpha_{2} and L. When the sampling period T is selected to satisfy the following condition:

    T< \dfrac{1}{b_{2}}\ln\left(\dfrac{L\lambda_{m}(P)\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(\varPhi)}-2c_{1}\bar{\sigma}\lambda^2_{M}(P)}{2Lc_{2}\lambda^2_{M}(P)\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(\varPhi)}}+1\right) (24)

    we have \gamma_{4}<1 . Therefore, by (22), it has that for any bounded \omega(0) , \omega(t_{k}+jT) is uniformly bounded \forall k\in{\mathbb N} , since \left(1-e^{-\dfrac{\gamma_{1}}{2}T} \right)\dfrac{\gamma_{3}}{\gamma_{1}} is bounded. As t_{k}+jT approaches infinity, \omega(t_{k}+jT) converges to the following bounded region {\cal{R}}_{1}

    {\cal{R}}_{1} = \left\{\omega \left|\; \right ||\omega|| \leq \dfrac{\gamma_{3}\left(1-e^{-\dfrac{\gamma_{1}}{2}T}\right)}{\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(P)}\gamma_{1}(1-\gamma_{4})} \right\}. (25)

    Furthermore, by (17), it has

    ||\omega(t)|| \leq ||\omega(t_{k}+jT)||e^{b_{2}T}+b_{1}\left(e^{b_{2}T}-1\right). (26)

    Since \omega(t_{k}+jT) is uniformly bounded, we have from (26) that for any \omega(0) , \omega(t) is also uniformly bounded \forall t\geq 0 , and converges to the bounded region {\cal{R}}_{2}

    {\cal{R}}_{2} = \left\{\omega \left|\; \right ||\omega|| \leq \dfrac{\gamma_{3}\left(1-e^{-\dfrac{\gamma_{1}}{2}T}\right)}{\sqrt{\lambda_{m}(P)}\gamma_{1}(1-\gamma_{4})}e^{b_{2}T}+b_{1}\left(e^{b_{2}T}-1\right) \right\} (27)

    as t approaches infinity.

    It can be observed that the bounded region {\cal{R}}_{2} in (27) can be regulated to be arbitrarily small when the scale gain L is large enough, and the absolute threshold \sigma_{1} and the sampling period T are small enough. Finally, we give the following theorem as a conclusion.

    Theorem 1: Under the proposed dynamic event-triggered control method (3), (7) and (9). If the controller parameters are chosen to satisfy the conditions (23) and (24), then, the state variables of the closed-loop system (15) asymptotically converge to the bounded region {\cal{R}}_{2} in (27). And the radius can be adjusted to be arbitrarily small by selecting appropriate parameters L, \sigma_{1}, and T.

    This section presents the simulation results on a single-link robot manipulator. For simplicity, the shorthand of the proposed event-triggered control method is denoted by DETM with compensation. In order to demonstrate the performance of the proposed control method, we conduct simulations under TTM. Meanwhile, we consider another simulation case where the lumped disturbance is not estimated and compensated in the dynamic event-triggered control method (we call the method as DETM without compensation), such that the benefit of disturbance estimation/compensation can be proven to improve both communication properties and tracking control performance.

    The DETM without compensation means that the lumped disturbance is not estimated and compensated in the dynamic event-triggered control method. Specifically, for the DETM without compensation, the reduced-order observer is reduced to a first-order system as follows:

    \left\{ \begin{aligned} & \dot{z}_{1}(t) = -L\beta_{1}(z_{1}(t)+\beta_{1}y(t_{k}+jT))+La_{0}u(t)\\ & \hat{x}_{2}(t) = z_{1}(t)+\beta_{1}y(t), \forall t\in I^{k}_{j}, k\in{\mathbb N}, j = 0,\ldots,d_{k} \end{aligned} \right. (28)

    where z_{1}(t) is the internal variable. \hat{x}_{2}(t) is the estimate of the state x_{2}(t) . y(t_{k}+jT) is the sampled-data output at t_{k}+jT . \beta_{1} is the observer gain to be designed.

    The event-triggered controller without disturbance compensation becomes

    u(t) = u(t_{k}) = -\dfrac{1}{a_{0}}\left(k_{1}x_{1}(t_{k})+k_{2}\hat{x}_{2}(t_{k})\right), t\in[t_{k},t_{k+1}), k\in{\mathbb N} (29)

    where k_{1} and k_{2} are the feedback control gains to be designed. And the error function \varepsilon (t_{k}+jT) is redefined as \varepsilon(t_{k}+jT) = [x_{1}(t_{k}+jT)-x_{1}(t_{k}), \hat{x}_{2}(t_{k}+jT)-\hat{x}_{2}(t_{k})] , k\in{\mathbb N} , j = 0,\ldots,d_{k} . The remainder of the design of the DETM without compensation is same as the proposed dynamic event-triggered control method, and the stability analysis is very similar with that of the DETM with compensation, hence we omit them.

    The nominal values of the parameters of (1) are chosen as follows: g_{0} = {\rm 9.81}\;{{\rm m/s}^2}, l_{0} = 0.25 m, C_{0} ={\rm 2.0}\;{\rm N\cdot m\cdot s/rad} , m_{0} = {\rm 1.00}\;{\rm kg}. Assume that g = g_{0} , l = l_{0} , where the disturbance d(t) and the uncertainties of other parameters in the simulations are described as follows:

    \begin{split} & d(t) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} 1,&{t \in [0,10)}\\ 2,&{t \in [10,20)} \end{array}} \right.\\ & C(t) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} 2,&{t \in [0,5)}\\ {2 + 0.2(t - 5)},&{t \in [5,7)}\\ {2.2},&{t \in [7,20]} \end{array}} \right.\\ & m(t) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}} 1,&{t \in [0,15)}\\ {1 + 0.2(t - 5)},&{t \in [15,17)}\\ {1.2},&{t \in [17,20]}. \end{array}} \right. \end{split}

    In the simulations, the sampling frequency is set as 100 Hz and the scale gain L is selected as 1. For the TTM and the DETM with compensation, the controller parameters and the initial states are the same, and set as follows: [k_{1},k_{2}] = [49, 14] , [\beta_{1},\beta_{2},\beta_{3}] = [42,588,2744] and the initial states [0.1;\;-2;\;-10;\;0;\;0] . The controller parameters and the initial states for the DETM without compensation [k_{1},k_{2}] = [49, 14] , \beta_{1} = 14 , and the initial states are selected as [0.1;-2;-10] . For the DETMs without and with compensation, the parameters of DETMs are the same, and chosen as \alpha_{1} = 0.7 , \alpha_{2} = 0.08 , \sigma_{0} = 0.03 and \sigma_{1} = 0.08 . Let the weight matrix \varPhi = {\rm diag}(100,80) for the DETM without compensation, and \varPhi = {\rm diag}(100,80,0.01) for the DETM with compensation.

    Using each of the three different control methods, the response curves of the states, the control torque, and the event numbers are depicted in Fig. 2. From Fig. 2, we can see that the event numbers generated by the TTM and the DETMs with and without compensation are 2000 , 639, and 1031 times, respectively. Among the three control methods, the closed-loop system under the proposed DETM with compensation has the least communication times but has comparatively increased tracking performance compared with TTM. In contrast with the DETM without compensation, the proposed DETM with compensation has less communication times but can guarantee better tracking performance since the reduced-order GPIO based control can improve both the tracking control properties and communication properties.

    Figure  2.  The trajectories of the angle \theta , the velocity \dot{\theta} , the control torque \tau, and the execution number under the TTM, the DETM with compensation and the DETM without compensation.

    The results of using variable \sigma designed in the DETMs with and without compensation are displayed in Fig. 3. Fig. 4 shows the results using three triggering mechanisms. It can be concluded that the proposed dynamic event-triggered control method can save communication resources while guaranteeing a desirable tracking control performance.

    Figure  3.  The cures of variable \sigma designed in the proposed DETM.
    Figure  4.  The results under the DETM without compensation (top) and the proposed DETM with compensation (bottom). The left two figures show the curves of \sqrt{\varepsilon^T(qT)\varPhi\varepsilon(qT)} and \sigma(qT)|y(qT)|+\sigma_{1} under the two DETMs; The right two figures show the event-triggering instants and the inter-event intervals under the two DETMs.

    In this paper, we have considered the problem of robust output feedback tracking control design for a networked one-DOF robot manipulator without velocity measurement in the presence of disturbance/uncertainties and resource constraints. A novel reduced-order GPIO based dynamic event-triggered robust control method has been proposed to achieve a better balance of communication properties and tracking control performance. By using the sampled-data position measurement and the control signal, a reduced-order GPIO has been first proposed to estimate the velocity information and the lumped disturbance information. By the virtue of the disturbance estimation/compensation technique, the proposed control method can not only obtain the desired tracking performance, but also improve communication properties. The proposed control method is in the form of discrete-time, and only uses the sampled-data position signal, thereby being more suitable for practical applications. The results of the simulation of a one-DOF robot manipulator have been presented to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed control method.

  • [1]
    L. Sciavicco and B. Siciliano, Modeling and Control of Robot Manipulators, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
    [2]
    F.-Y. Wang and Y. Gao, “On frequency sensitivity and mode orthogonality of flexible robotic manipulators,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 394–397, Oct. 2016. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2016.7510112
    [3]
    B. Wu, M. D. Lemmon, and H. Lin, “Formal methods for stability analysis of networked control systems with IEEE 802.15.4 protocol,” IEEE Trans. Control Systems Technology, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1635–1645, Sept. 2018. doi: 10.1109/TCST.87
    [4]
    N. Mu, X. Liao, and T. Huang, “Consensus of second-order multi-agent systems with random sampling via event-triggered control,” J. the Franklin Institute, vol. 353, no. 6, pp. 1423–1435, Apr. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2016.01.014
    [5]
    A. Hu, J. Cao, M. Hu, and L. Guo, “Event-triggered consensus of multiagent systems with noises,” J. the Franklin Institute, vol. 352, no. 9, pp. 3489–3503, Sept. 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2014.08.005
    [6]
    H. Zhang, G. Feng, H. Yan, and Q. Chen, “Observer-based output feedback event-triggered control for consensus of multi-agent system,” IEEE Trans. Industrial Electronics, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 4885–4894, Sept. 2014. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2013.2290757
    [7]
    B. Wu, H. Lin, and M. D. Lemmon, “Stability analysis for wireless networked control system in unslotted IEEE 802.15. 4 protocol,” in Proc. 11th IEEE Int. Conf. Control & Automation, Taichung, China, Jun. 2014, pp. 1084–1089.
    [8]
    Z. Liu, J. Dai, B. Wu, and H. Lin, “Communication-aware motion planning for multi-agent systems from signal temporal logic specifications,” in Proc. American Control Conf., Seattle, WA, USA, May 2017, pp. 2516–2521.
    [9]
    X. Zhao, C. Ma, X. Xing, and X. Zheng, “A stochastic sampling consensus protocol of networked euler-lagrange systems with application to two-link manipulator,” IEEE Trans. Industrial Informatics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 907–914, Aug. 2015. doi: 10.1109/TII.2015.2435692
    [10]
    Z. Li, Y. Xia, D. Wang, D. Zhai, C.-Y. Su, and X. Zhao, “Neural network-based control of networked trilateral teleoperation with geometrically unknown constraints,” IEEE Trans. Cybernetics, vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 1051–1064, May 2016. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2015.2422785
    [11]
    B. Zhang, Y. Jia, J. Du, and J. Zhang, “Finite-time synchronous control for multiple manipulators with sensor saturations and a constant reference,” IEEE Trans. Control Systems Technology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1159–1165, May 2014. doi: 10.1109/TCST.2013.2271447
    [12]
    C. Yang, X. Wang, L. Cheng, and H. Ma, “Neural-learning-based telerobot control with guaranteed performance,” IEEE Trans. Cybernetics, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 3148–3159, Oct. 2017. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.6221036
    [13]
    X.-M. Zhang, Q.-L. Han, and X. Yu, “Survey on recent advances in networked control systems,” IEEE Trans. Industrial Informatics, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1740–1752, Oct. 2016. doi: 10.1109/TII.2015.2506545
    [14]
    M. Mazo and P. Tabuada, “Decentralized event-triggered control over wireless sensor/actuator networks,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 2456–2461, Oct. 2011. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2011.2164036
    [15]
    J. Sun, J. Yang, S. Li, and W. X. Zheng, “Sampled-data-based eventtriggered active disturbance rejection control for disturbed systems in networked environment,” IEEE Trans. Cybernetics, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 556–566, Feb. 2019. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2017.2780625
    [16]
    X. Liang, H. Wang, Y.-H. Liu, W. Chen, G. Hu, and J. Zhao, “Adaptive task-space cooperative tracking control of networked robotic manipulators without task-space velocity measurements,” IEEE Trans. Cybernetics, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 2386–2398, Oct. 2016. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2015.2477606
    [17]
    L. Wang and B. Meng, “Adaptive position feedback consensus of networked robotic manipulators with uncertain parameters and communication delays,” IET Control Theory &Applications, vol. 9, no. 13, pp. 1956–1963, Aug. 2015.
    [18]
    P. M. Wensing and J. J. Slotine, “Cooperative adaptive control for cloud-based robotics,”. in Proc. 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, May 2018, pp. 6401–6408.
    [19]
    W. He, C. Xu, Q.-L. Han, F. Qian, and Z. Lang, “Finite-time L2 leaderfollower consensus of networked Euler-Lagrange systems with external disturbances,” IEEE Trans. Systems,Man,and Cybernetics:Systems, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 1920–1928, Nov. 2018. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2017.2774251
    [20]
    G. Chen, Y. Song, and Y. Guan, “Terminal sliding mode-based consensus tracking control for networked uncertain mechanical systems on digraphs,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 749–756, Mar. 2018. doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2016.2636323
    [21]
    Y. Zhao, Z. Duan, and G. Wen, “Distributed finite-time tracking of multiple Euler-Lagrange systems without velocity measurements,” Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1688–1703, Jul. 2015. doi: 10.1002/rnc.v25.11
    [22]
    A. Anta and P. Tabuada, “To sample or not to sample: self-triggered control for nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 2030–2042, Sept. 2010. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2010.2042980
    [23]
    J. Lunze and D. Lehmann, “A state-feedback approach to event-based control,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 211–215, Jan. 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2009.10.035
    [24]
    P. Tabuada, “Event-triggered real-time scheduling of stabilizing control tasks,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 1680–1685, Sept. 2007. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2007.904277
    [25]
    X. Wang and M. D. Lemmon, “Self-triggered feedback control systems with finite-gain L2 stability,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 452–467, Mar. 2009. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2009.2012973
    [26]
    X. Yin, D. Yue, and S. Hu, “Distributed event-triggered control of discrete-time heterogeneous multi-agent systems,” J. the Franklin Institute, vol. 350, no. 3, pp. 651–669, Apr. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2012.12.015
    [27]
    G. Guo, L. Ding, and Q.-L. Han, “A distributed event-triggered transmission strategy for sampled-data consensus of multi-agent systems,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 1489–1496, May 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2014.03.017
    [28]
    M. C. F. Donkers and W. P. M. H. Heemels, “Output-based eventtriggered control with guaranteed L∞-gain and improved and decentralized event-triggering,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 1362–1376, Jun. 2012. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2011.2174696
    [29]
    W. Zhu, Z.-P. Jiang, and G. Feng, “Event-based consensus of multiagent systems with general linear models,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 552–558, Feb. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2013.11.023
    [30]
    Y. Qi, P. Zeng, and W. Bao, “Event-triggered and self-triggered H control of uncertain switched linear systems,” IEEE Trans. Systems,Man,and Cybernetics:Systems, pp. 1–13, 2018. doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2018.2801284
    [31]
    J. Zhang and G. Feng, “Event-driven observer-based output feedback control for linear systems,” Automatica, vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 1852–1859, Jul. 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2014.04.026
    [32]
    W. Xiong, X. Yu, R. Patel, and W. Yu, “Iterative learning control for discrete-time systems with event-triggered transmission strategy and quantization,” Automatica, vol. 72, pp. 84–91, Oct. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2016.05.031
    [33]
    L. Xing, C. Wen, Z. Liu, H. Su, and J. Cai, “Event-triggered adaptive control for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 2071–2076, Apr. 2017. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2016.2594204
    [34]
    Y. Qi and M. Cao, “Finite-time boundedness and stabilisation of switched linear systems using event-triggered controllers,” IET Control Theory &Applications, vol. 11, no. 18, pp. 3240–3248, Dec. 2017.
    [35]
    Z. Wang, M. Fei, D. Du, and M. Zheng, “Decentralized event-triggered average consensus for multi-agent systems in CPSs with communication constraints,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 248–257, Jul. 2015. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2015.7152658
    [36]
    Y. Qi, Z. Cao, and X. Li, “Decentralized event-triggered H control for switched systems with network communication delay,” J. the Franklin Institute, vol. 356, no. 3, pp. 1424–1445, Feb. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2018.12.008
    [37]
    J. Sun, J. Yang, S. Li, and W. X. Zheng, “Output-based dynamic event-triggered mechanisms for disturbance rejection control of networked nonlinear systems,” IEEE Trans. Cybernetics, pp. 1–11, 2018. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2018.2877413
    [38]
    J. Yang, J. Sun, W. X. Zheng, and S. Li, “Periodic event-triggered robust output feedback control for nonlinear uncertain systems with time-varying disturbance,” Automatica, vol. 94, pp. 324–333, Aug. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2018.04.042
    [39]
    X.-M. Zhang, Q.-L. Han, and B.-L. Zhang, “An overview and deep investigation on sampled-data-based event-triggered control and filtering for networked systems,” IEEE Trans. Industrial Informatics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 4–16, Feb. 2017. doi: 10.1109/TII.2016.2607150
    [40]
    L. Ding, Q.-L. Han, X. Ge, and X.-M. Zhang, “An overview of recent advances in event-triggered consensus of multiagent systems,” IEEE Trans. Cybernetics, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1110–1123, Apr. 2018. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2017.2771560
    [41]
    Y. Yang, J. Tan, and D. Yue, “Prescribed performance control of one-DOF link manipulator with uncertainties and input saturation constraint,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sinica, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 148–157, Jan. 2019. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2018.7511099
    [42]
    W.-H. Chen, D. J. Ballance, P. J. Gawthrop, and J. O’Reilly, “A nonlinear disturbance observer for robotic manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Industrial Electronics, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 932–938, Aug. 2000. doi: 10.1109/41.857974
    [43]
    W.-H. Chen, “Disturbance observer based control for nonlinear systems,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 706–710, Dec. 2004. doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2004.839034
    [44]
    J. Sun, J. Yang, W. X. Zheng, and S. Li, “GPIO-based robust control of nonlinear uncertain systems under time-varying disturbance with application to DC-DC converter,” IEEE Trans. Circuits and Systems II:Express Briefs, vol. 63, no. 11, pp. 1074–1078, Nov. 2016. doi: 10.1109/TCSII.2016.2548298
    [45]
    D. N. Borgers and W. P. M. H. Heemels, “Event-separation properties of event-triggered control systems,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 2644–2656, Oct. 2014. doi: 10.1109/TAC.9
    [46]
    V. S. Dolk, D. P. Borgers, and W. P. M. H. Heemels, “Output-based and decentralized dynamic event-triggered control with guaranteed {\mathcal{L}}_p -gain performance and zeno- freeness” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 34–49, Jan. 2017. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2016.2536707
    [47]
    T. Liu and Z.-P. Jiang, “Event-based control of nonlinear systems with partial state and output feedback,” Automatica, vol. 53, pp. 10–22, Mar. 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2014.12.027
    [48]
    A. Girard, “Dynamic triggering mechanisms for event-triggered control,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 1992–1997, Jul. 2015. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2014.2366855
    [49]
    Y. Wang, W. X. Zheng, and H. Zhang, “Dynamic event-based control of nonlinear stochastic systems,” IEEE Trans. Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 6544–6551, Dec. 2017. doi: 10.1109/TAC.2017.2707520
    [50]
    Q. Li, B. Shen, Z. Wang, T. Huang, and J. Luo, “Synchronization control for a class of discrete time-delay complex dynamical networks: a dynamic event-triggered approach,” IEEE Trans. Cybernetics, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1979–1986, 2019. doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2018.2818941
  • Related Articles

    [1]Kamal Rsetam, Zhenwei Cao, Zhihong Man, Xian-Ming Zhang. GPIO-Based Continuous Sliding Mode Control for Networked Control Systems Under Communication Delays With Experiments on Servo Motors[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2025, 12(1): 99-113. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2024.124812
    [2]Chenxi Gu, Xinli Wang, Kang Li, Xiaohong Yin, Shaoyuan Li, Lei Wang. Enhanced Tube-Based Event-Triggered Stochastic Model Predictive Control With Additive Uncertainties[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2025, 12(3): 596-605. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2024.124974
    [3]Yuanhong Xu, Mingcong Deng. Nonlinear Control for Unstable Networked Plants in the Presence of Actuator and Sensor Limitations Using Robust Right Coprime Factorization[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2025, 12(3): 516-527. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2024.124854
    [4]Qinglai Wei, Shanshan Jiao, Qi Dong, Fei-Yue Wang. Event-Triggered Robust Parallel Optimal Consensus Control for Multiagent Systems[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2025, 12(1): 40-53. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2024.124773
    [5]Yongxia Shi, Ehsan Nekouei. Quantization and Event-Triggered Policy Design for Encrypted Networked Control[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2024, 11(4): 946-955. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2023.124101
    [6]Honghai Wang, Qing-Long Han. Designing Proportional-Integral Consensus Protocols for Second-Order Multi-Agent Systems Using Delayed and Memorized State Information[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2024, 11(4): 878-892. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2024.124308
    [7]Zhongcai Zhang, Guangren Duan. Stabilization Controller of An Extended Chained Nonholonomic System With Disturbance:  An FAS Approach[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2024, 11(5): 1262-1273. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2023.124098
    [8]Dan Zhang, Jiabin Hu, Jun Cheng, Zheng-Guang Wu, Huaicheng Yan. A Novel Disturbance Observer Based Fixed-Time Sliding Mode Control for Robotic Manipulators With Global Fast Convergence[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2024, 11(3): 661-672. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2023.123948
    [9]Wei Qian, Yanmin Wu, Bo Shen. Novel Adaptive Memory Event-Triggered-Based Fuzzy Robust Control for Nonlinear Networked Systems via the Differential Evolution Algorithm[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2024, 11(8): 1836-1848. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2024.124419
    [10]Zheng Chen, Shizhao Zhou, Chong Shen, Litong Lyu, Junhui Zhang, Bin Yao. Observer-Based Adaptive Robust Precision Motion Control of a Multi-Joint Hydraulic Manipulator[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2024, 11(5): 1213-1226. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2024.124209
    [11]Pan Yu, Kang-Zhi Liu, Xudong Liu, Xiaoli Li, Min Wu, Jinhua She. Robust Consensus Tracking Control of Uncertain Multi-Agent Systems With Local Disturbance Rejection[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2023, 10(2): 427-438. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2023.123231
    [12]Zhijia Zhao, Jian Zhang, Shouyan Chen, Wei He, Keum-Shik Hong. Neural-Network-Based Adaptive Finite-Time Control for a Two-Degree-of-Freedom Helicopter System With an Event-Triggering Mechanism[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2023, 10(8): 1754-1765. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2023.123453
    [13]Jun Ye, Spandan Roy, Milinko Godjevac, Vasso Reppa, Simone Baldi. Robustifying Dynamic Positioning of Crane Vessels for Heavy Lifting Operation[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2021, 8(4): 753-765. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2021.1003913
    [14]Chengdi Xiang, Shan Ma, Sen Kuang, Daoyi Dong. Coherent H Control for Linear Quantum Systems With Uncertainties in the Interaction Hamiltonian[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2021, 8(2): 432-440. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2020.1003429
    [15]Amir Amini, Amir Asif, Arash Mohammadi. Formation-Containment Control Using Dynamic Event-Triggering Mechanism for Multi-Agent Systems[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2020, 7(5): 1235-1248. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2020.1003288
    [16]Ibrahima N'Doye, Khaled Nabil Salama, Taous-Meriem Laleg-Kirati. Robust Fractional-Order Proportional-Integral Observer for Synchronization of Chaotic Fractional-Order Systems[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2019, 6(1): 268-277. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2017.7510874
    [17]Yonghui Sun, Yingxuan Wang, Zhinong Wei, Guoqiang Sun, Xiaopeng Wu. Robust H Load Frequency Control of Multi-area Power System With Time Delay: A Sliding Mode Control Approach[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2018, 5(2): 610-617. doi: 10.1109/JAS.2017.7510649
    [18]Zhenhua Deng, Xiaohong Nian. Robust Control of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2015, 2(2): 143-150.
    [19]Zhaolei Wang, Qing Wang, Chaoyang Dong. Asynchronous H Control for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Switched Polytopic System Approach[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2015, 2(2): 207-216.
    [20]Tengfei Liu, Zhongping Jiang. Distributed Control of Nonlinear Uncertain Systems: A Cyclic-small-gain Approach[J]. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 2014, 1(1): 46-53.

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(4)

    Article Metrics

    Article views (1973) PDF downloads(115) Cited by()

    Highlights

    • The proposed tracking control method does not need the velocity measurement.
    • The proposed robust control method can attenuate the undesirable influence of the lumped disturbance on communication properties and tracking control properties in the framework of the DETM.
    • The proposed control method is suitable for digital applications, since both the proposed robust output feedback tracking controller and the novel DETM are in discrete-time form.

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return