Abstract
This paper is concerned with asynchronous finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control for a class of discrete-time switched linear systems via admissible edge-dependent average dwell time (AED-ADT) approach. Firstly, by considering the switching time delay between the system and the state feedback controller, appropriate Lyapunov functions are constructed for asynchronous and synchronous switching, respectively. Secondly, for the existence of a set of state feedback controllers, a sufficient condition which guarantees the finite-time boundedness of the closed-loop system with AED-ADT is proposed. Thirdly, a sufficient condition for finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control with a prescribed \(H_{\infty }\) performance is further developed based on the obtained result. Finally, a numerical example is given to verify the validity of the proposed theoretical results.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Switched systems are an extremely momentous set of dynamic hybrid systems that can be used to model a large class of controlled objects in the real world, such as physical or man-made systems that show switching characteristics. Generally speaking, a switched system consists of two parts, that is, a family of finite number of continuous or discrete subsystems and a switching signal that determines how to switch between these subsystems [32, 35]. Switched systems have been the subject of intense interest in the past few decades, not only because of their rich and diverse theoretical values [25], but also because of their widespread and profound practical applications [1, 19]. Moreover, there have been fruitful research results on the stability analysis and control synthesis of switched systems under certain constrained switching signals, such as stability and stabilization [31, 34], control and filtering [9, 30].
The so-called asynchronous switching actually refers to the switching behavior in which the switching signal of the controller does not match the one of the subsystems [29]. As we all know, sometimes asynchronous switching will inevitably occur in the process of system operation, which is very likely to reduce the overall performance of the system, even may cause system instability [9]. Moreover, there are many reasons for asynchronous switching, such as time delay, uncertainty and disturbance [21]. In this paper, asynchronous phenomenon due to switching time delay will be mainly considered. If the delay is ignored, the obtained switching control law must be conservative, that is to say, it is crucial to consider the asynchronous phenomenon in the process of studying the stability of the switched system [22]. In addition, in terms of practical value, the application of research results in asynchronous switching theory has a great impact on many practical fields [21].
Finite-time stability is mainly proposed in the research work of Weiss and Infante [20]. A system is called finite-time stable, which means that for a given range of initial conditions, the state will not exceed a certain bound within a specific time interval. This kind of stability and Lyapunov asymptotic stability are two independent concepts, and it has been shown that a system can be finite-time stable but not Lyapunov asymptotically stable, and vice versa [26]. Lyapunov asymptotic stability discusses the system performance in a sufficiently long time interval, while finite-time stability studies it in a finite interval, which is more suitable for practical situations where many state variables do not exceed a given bound in a short interval, and the result is more accurate [2, 8]. In the discrete-time systems, the \(L_{\infty }\) performance refers to the energy-to-peak attenuation of a certain signal, while the \(H_{\infty }\) performance represents the energy-to-energy attenuation of this signal. When the external disturbance w(k) is known, the disturbance suppression performance of \(H_{\infty }\) is better. In the past time, many researchers have developed a strong interest in finite-time stability and \(H_{\infty }\) control of the system, followed by a series of significant research results. For instance, a finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control design scheme for continuous-time switched systems is proposed in [10], which is extended to discrete-time case subsequently in Ref. [18]. And for discrete-time switched systems, there are finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control [26], finite-time boundedness and \(l_{2}\) gain analysis [7], finite-time control [11], etc.
The existence of switching time delay has a crucial impact on the properties of the system. In the switching delay systems, the analysis of stability and the design of the controller have always been of interest to everyone. However, it is very difficult to find a common Lyapunov function for all subsystems in a switching delay system, which motivates the application of the multiple Lyapunov function technique, which is obviously a fairly efficient way to study the stability of switched systems under constrained switching signals [28]. The average dwell time (ADT) [3] indicates that the switching times in a finite interval are limited, and the average time between consecutive switchings is not less than a constant, which generalizes dwell time (DT) [15] to a certain extent. By using the ADT method, sufficient conditions for the globally uniformly exponentially stability of closed-loop systems are deduced in the presence of asynchronous switching controllers [29]. And the design of adaptive output feedback controller [16] and state feedback tracking control [17] for stochastic nonlinear switched systems are studied. However, since the parameters used to calculate the ADT are mode-independent, the results obtained are somewhat conservative. This also prompted the proposal of mode-dependent average dwell time (MDADT) switching, which allows each mode in the underlying system to have its own ADT, which greatly relaxes the constraints of ADT switching [31]. In recent years, the research results obtained by using the MDADT method are also quite rich, such as asynchronous control problem [22], quasi-time-dependent \(H_{\infty }\) controller [12, 33], and finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control [10].
Subsequently, a new admissible edge-dependent average dwell time (AED-ADT) [6, 23, 24, 27] switching is proposed, which is more flexible and less conservative than MDADT switching, and its switching behavior is based on a directed switching graph, each admissible transition edge represents a directed switch between subsystems. The rational application of this method provides great help to the research of switching, such as time-varying \(H_{\infty }\) control [25], the global uniform exponential stability of discrete-time switched systems [5], input-to-state stability of nonlinear discrete-time switched systems [36], \(l_{2}-l_{\infty }\) filtering [4], and asynchronous \(l_{2}-l_{\infty }\) filtering [14]. All in all, the application of the current AED-ADT switching method can effectively reduce the conservativeness of the research results. However, to the best of our knowledge, in the existing research work, there are relatively few results related to analyzing the asynchronous finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control problem by using the AED-ADT switching, which motivated us to carry out our study.
Inspired by the above literature works, we will mainly study the asynchronous finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control problem of discrete-time switched linear systems using AED-ADT approach in this paper. There are three main contributions: (1) In the study of discrete-time switched linear systems, the existence of switching time delay is mainly considered. In contrast to those studies where systems and controllers are defaulted to be switched synchronously, this paper is more suitable for practical applications. (2) For the sake of obtaining less conservative research results, the AED-ADT switching signal, which is more flexible and applicable than MDADT switching, is used. (3) An asynchronous finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control design scheme with AED-ADT switching is proposed for discrete-time switched linear systems.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 gives the problem statements, along with some necessary definitions and lemmas. In Sect. 3, by using the AED-ADT approach for the resulting closed-loop system, the design of a state feedback controller under asynchronous switching is considered, and a sufficient condition to guarantee its finite-time boundedness is derived. In addition, based on the obtained result, the \(H_{\infty }\) performance analysis of the closed-loop system is also performed. In Sect. 4, the numerical simulation is addressed to demonstrate the reasonability and effectiveness of the proposed method. In the end, some conclusions are given in Sect. 5.
Notations In the paper, the notations used are fairly standard. Let \(\mathbb {R}^n\) be the space of n-dimensional real vectors, and \(\mathbb {R}^{n\times m}\) be the set of all \((n\times m)\)-dimensional real matrices. And \(\mathbb {Z}_{0}^{+}\) is the nonnegative integer set. For a matrix P, \(P>0\) \((P<0)\) signifies that P is symmetric positive definite (negative definite) matrix, and \(P\ge 0\) \((P\le 0)\) signifies that P is symmetric semi-positive definite (semi-negative definite) matrix. \(P^{-1}\) and \(P^\textrm{T}\) denote the inverse and transpose of P, respectively. And the asterisk (\(*\)) denotes the symmetrical items in a symmetric matrix. \(\lambda _{\min }(P)\) and \(\lambda _{\max }(P)\) represent the minimum and maximum eigenvalue of matrix P, respectively. I and 0 are identity matrix and zero matrix. \(l_{2}[0,\infty )\) is the space of square-summable infinite sequence over \([0,\infty )\). In addition, if not explicitly stated, it is assumed that the matrices have the compatible dimensions for algebraic operations.
2 Problem Statement and Preliminaries
2.1 Switched System
In this paper, consider the discrete-time switched linear systems as follows:
where \(x(k)\in \mathbb {R}^{n}\) is the system state, \(x(0)=x_{0}\) is the initial state, \(u(k)\in \mathbb {R}^{m}\) is the control input, and \(w(k)\in \mathbb {R}^{p}\) is the disturbance input, which belongs to \(l_{2}[0,\infty )\), \(y(k)\in \mathbb {R}^{q}\) is the output. The switching signal of the system (1) is given by \(\sigma (k):\mathbb {Z}_{0}^{+}\rightarrow \bar{M}=\{1, 2, \cdots , M\}\), \(M>1\) is the number of switched subsystems. \(A_{i}\), \(B_{i}\), \(D_{i}\), \(C_{i}\), \(E_{i}\), \(F_{i}\), \(i\in \bar{M}\), are known constant matrices with appropriate dimensions. For a time sequence \(0=k_{0}<k_{1}<\cdots<k_{i}<k_{i+1}<\cdots \), which is the switching instant of \(\sigma (k)\), when \(k\in [k_{i},k_{i+1})\), we say that the \(\sigma (k_{i})\)th subsystem is active, and hence the trajectory x(k) of the system (1) is just the trajectory of this subsystem.
2.2 State Feedback Controller
A state feedback controller can be considered for the discrete-time switched systems (1); the specific form is as follows:
where \(K_{\sigma (k)}\) is the control gain matrix to be determined.
In fact, in the process of system switching, it takes a certain time to identify the activated subsystem, which will cause the system to switch to the next subsystem, but the controller still stays in the current subsystem. Only after the activated subsystem is successfully identified, the controller can switch to the next subsystem, which causes the switching delay of the controller. This situation is common in practical applications, and we will consider it in this paper.
Due to the existence of the controller switching time delay, the state feedback controller in this paper should take the following form:
where \(K_{\sigma '(k)}\) is the control gain matrix to be determined, \(\sigma '(k)\) is the switching signal of the state feedback controller (3), we say that (3) is called the asynchronous switching controller [9, 21].
Due to the existence of the switching time delay of the state feedback controller, the switching of the controller is often later than the switching of the system. Denote \([k_{i},k_{i+1})=[k_{i},k_{i}+\Delta _{i})\bigcup [k_{i}+\Delta _{i},k_{i+1})\), where \(0\le \Delta _{i}\le k_{i+1}-k_{i}-1\), \(i\in \mathbb {Z}_{0}^{+}\) and \(\Delta _{0}=0\). And \(\Delta _{i}\) is an integer, which denotes the period that the switching instants of the controller have a delay with respect to that of the system. Therefore, when \(k\in [k_{i},k_{i}+\Delta _{i})\), \(\sigma (k)\ne \sigma '(k)\), the switching of the system itself does not match the switching of the controller, and the mismatched period is called the time of asynchronous switching. In addition, \(\Delta _{i}\le k_{i+1}-k_{i}-1\) guarantees that there always exists a period which the controller and the system operate synchronously in any switching interval. That is to say, when \(k\in [k_{i}+\Delta _{i},k_{i+1}),\sigma (k)=\sigma '(k)\), the switching signal of the controller is consistent with that of the system, and this period is called the matched period.
Denote
as the switching sequence of the system, where \(k_{i}\) means the ith switching instant. Then, the switching sequence of the controller can be described as follows:
where \(\sigma (k_{0})=\sigma '(k_{0})\), which indicates that the system and the controller switch simultaneously at the initial moment. Moreover, denote \(\sigma (k_{i})=\sigma '(k_{i}+\Delta _{i})\), where \(i\in \mathbb {Z}_{0}^{+}\).
When the lth subsystem is activated at switching instant \(k_{i-1}\), the ith subsystem is activated at switching instant \(k_{i}\), and the jth subsystem is activated at switching instant \(k_{i+1}\). Due to the existence of asynchronous switching, the corresponding switches of the controller occur at the instant \(k_{i-1}+\Delta _{i-1}\), \(k_{i}+\Delta _{i}\), and \(k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1}\), respectively. That is to say, assume \(\sigma (k_{i-1})=l\), \(\sigma (k_{i})=i\), and \(\sigma (k_{i+1})=j\), then we have \(\sigma '(k_{i-1}+\Delta _{i-1})=l\), \(\sigma '(k_{i}+\Delta _{i})=i\), and \(\sigma '(k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1})=j\), where \(l,i,j\in \bar{M}\), as shown in Fig. 1.
Given any \(k>0\), there are \(N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}\) switches for \(\sigma (k)\) in the interval \([k_{0}, k)\), the switching instants of the system are set as \(\{k_{1}, k_{2}, \cdots \, k_{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}}\}\). Denote \(0=k_{0}<k_{1}\), \(k_{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}}<k<k_{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}+1}\), and \(k_{0}\) is not a switching instant. In addition, the switching instants of the controller are set as \(\{k_{1}+\Delta _{1},k_{2}+\Delta _{2},\cdots ,k_{N_{\sigma (k_{0},k)}}+\Delta _{N_{\sigma (k_{0},k)}}\}\), where \(\Delta _{i}\), \(i=1, 2, \cdots , N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}\) are the time delays between the system and the controller. We simply denote \(N=N_{\sigma (k_{0},k)}\).
In this paper, let \(\mathfrak {M}_{s}\) and \(\mathfrak {M}_{u}\) be the set of all time intervals in which the system and the state feedback controller switch synchronously and asynchronously, respectively. Then, we have \(\mathfrak {M}_{s}=(k_{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}}+\Delta _{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}}, k)\bigcup (\bigcup \limits _{i=0}^{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}-1}[k_{i}+\Delta _{i},k_{i+1}))\) and \(\mathfrak {M}_{u}=\bigcup \limits _{i=1}^{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}}[k_{i}, k_{i}+\Delta _{i})\). Let \(T_{\downarrow }(k_{0}, k)\) and \(T_{\uparrow }(k_{0}, k)\) denote unions of the time intervals during which Lyapunov functional candidate V(x(k)) is decreasing and increasing within the time interval \([k_{0}, k)\), respectively. In other words, \(T_{\downarrow }(k_{0}, k)\) and \(T_{\uparrow }(k_{0}, k)\) denote unions of the time intervals in which the system itself and the state feedback controller switch synchronously and asynchronously, respectively. \(T^{s}(k_{0}, k)\) and \(T^{u}(k_{0}, k)\) represent the length of \(T_{\downarrow }(k_{0}, k)\) and \(T_{\uparrow }(k_{0}, k)\), respectively. Then, in the interval \([k_{0}, k)\), the total time for synchronous switching of the system and the controller is \(T^{s}(k_{0}, k)=\sum \limits _{i=0}^{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}}[k_{i}+\Delta _{i}, k_{i+1})+(k-(k_{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}}+\Delta _{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}}))\), where \(\Delta _{0}=0\), and the total time for their asynchronous switching is \(T^{u}(k_{0}, k)=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}}[k_{i}, k_{i}+\Delta _{i})=\sum \limits _{i=1}^{N_{\sigma (k_{0}, k)}}\Delta _{i}\), and \(T^{s}(k_{0}, k)+T^{u}(k_{0}, k)=k-k_{0}\).
2.3 Switching Signal
Definition 2.1
[10] For a switching signal \(\sigma (k)\), let \(N_{i}^{\sigma }(k_{0}, k)\) and \(T_{i}(k_{0}, k)\) denote the switching numbers that the ith subsystem is active and the total running time of the ith subsystem over the interval \([k_{0}, k)\), respectively. If there exist positive numbers \(\tau _{i}\) and \(N_{i}^{0}\), such that
we say that the switching signal \(\sigma (k)\) has a mode-dependent average dwell time (MDADT) \(\tau _{i}^{a}\) and a corresponding mode-dependent chatter bound \(N_{i}^{0}\).
Definition 2.2
[6] Given a directed graph \(\mathfrak {S}\) and \(\forall i,j\in \bar{M}\) \((i\ne j)\), we define \(\mathcal {I}(i, j)\) as an admissible transition edge (ATE) of \(\mathfrak {S}\) if the directed edge from i to j is admissible. The set of all admissible transition edges (ATEs) is represented by \(\Omega \). An ATE \(\mathcal {I}(i, j)\) has an admissible transition edge-dependent weight (ATEDW) \(\mu _{ij}\), which describes the switching property from the subsystem i to subsystem j. And the set of all admissible transition edge-dependent weights (ATEDWs) is signified by \(\Gamma \).
Remark 2.1
The subsystem will switch from i to j when switching occurs, where i, \(j\in \bar{M}\) and \(i\ne j\). Assuming that there are three subsystems in a discrete-time switched system, then in this directed switching graph \(\mathfrak {S}\), the sets of ATEs and ATEDWs between these three subsystems can be represented as \(\Omega =\{\mathcal {I}(1, 2), \mathcal {I}(1, 3), \mathcal {I}(2, 1),\) \(\mathcal {I}(2, 3), \mathcal {I}(3, 1), \mathcal {I}(3, 2)\}\) and \(\Gamma =\{\mu _{1, 2}, \mu _{1, 3}, \mu _{2, 1}, \mu _{2, 3}, \mu _{3, 1}, \mu _{3, 2}\}\), respectively, as shown in Fig. 2 [6, 26].
Definition 2.3
[26]For a switching signal \(\sigma (k):\mathbb {Z}_{0}^{+}\rightarrow \bar{M}\), and \(\forall (i,j)\in \bar{M}\times \bar{M}, i\ne j\), let \(N_{ij}^{\sigma }(k_{0},k)\) and \(T_{ij}(k_{0},k)\) denote the switching numbers from subsystem i to j and the total running time of subsystem j over the interval \([k_{0},k)\), respectively. If there exist positive numbers \(\tau _{ij}^{a}\) and \(N_{ij}^{0}\) such that
we say that the switching signal \(\sigma (k)\) has an admissible edge-dependent average dwell time (AED-ADT) \(\tau _{ij}^{a}\) and a corresponding admissible edge-dependent chatter bound \(N_{ij}^{0}\).
Remark 2.2
Comparing (6) of Definition 2.1 and (7) of Definition 2.3, it is obvious that the above concept of AED-ADT is more general than that of the mode-dependent case. Let \(\varepsilon (\bar{M})\) be the set of all admissible ordered pairs (i, j), \(\bar{J}(i)=\{j\in \bar{M}\mid (i,j)\in \varepsilon (\bar{M})\}\). Note that \(N_{i}^{\sigma }(k_{0},k)=\sum \limits _{j\in \bar{J}(i)}N_{ij}^{\sigma }(k_{0},k)\) and \(T_{i}(k_{0},k)=\sum \limits _{j\in \bar{J}(i)}T_{ij}^{\sigma }(k_{0},k)\). Obviously, we have \(T_{ij}(k_{0},k)=T_{ij}^{s}(k_{0},k)+T_{ij}^{u}(k_{0},k)\) and \(T^{s}(k_{0},k)=\sum \limits _{i\in \mathfrak {M}_{s}}\sum \limits _{j\in \bar{J}(i)}T_{ij}(k_{0}\) , k), \(T^{u}(k_{0},k)=\sum \limits _{i\in \mathfrak {M}_{u}}\sum \limits _{j\in \bar{J}(i)}T_{ij}(k_{0},k)\).
As considered in AED-ADT, it is assumed that the activation time of each subsystem is also edge-dependent.
Assumption 2.1
[36] Suppose there exist scalars \(\nu _{ij}^{s}\in (0,1]\), \(\nu _{ij}^{u}\in [0,1)\) and constants \(\bar{T_{ij}^{s}}\ge 0\), \(\bar{T_{ij}^{u}}\ge 0\) such that \(\forall k>k_{0}\ge 0\),
Assumption 2.2
[36] Whenever \((i,j)\in \varepsilon (\bar{M})\), there exist constants \(\mu _{ij}\ge 1\), such that Lyapunov functions \(V_{i}\) satisfy inequalities as follows:
2.4 System Stability
Assumption 2.3
[26] It is assumed that the external disturbance w(k) is time-varying and satisfies the following constraint:
where N is a positive integer and d is a positive constant.
Definition 2.4
[26] Given a matrix \(R>0\), two scalars \(c_{2}>c_{1}>0\), an integer \(N>0\), and a switching signal \(\sigma \), the discrete-time switched linear system (1) with \(u(k)\equiv 0\) and \(w(k)\equiv 0\) is said to be finite-time stable with respect to \((c_{1}, c_{2}, R, N, \sigma )\), if \(x^\textrm{T}(0)Rx(0)\le c_{1} \Rightarrow x^\textrm{T}(k)Rx(k)<c_{2},\forall k\in \{1,2,\cdots , N\}\).
Definition 2.5
[26] Given a matrix \(R>0\), two scalars \(c_{2}>c_{1}>0\), an integer \(N>0\), and a switching signal \(\sigma \), the discrete-time switched linear system (1) subject to an exogenous disturbance w(k) satisfying (10) is said to be finite-time bounded w.r.t. \((c_{1}, c_{2}, R, d, N, \sigma )\), if \(x^\textrm{T}(0)Rx(0)\le c_{1} \Rightarrow x^\textrm{T}(k)Rx(k)<c_{2},\forall k\in \{1,2,\cdots , N\}\).
Definition 2.6
[18] Given a matrix \(R>0\), two scalars \(c_{2}>c_{1}>0\), an integer \(N>0\), and a switching signal \(\sigma \), the discrete-time switched linear system (1) is said to be finite-time bounded with a \(H_{\infty }\) performance index \(\gamma \) w.r.t. \((c_{1}, c_{2}, R, d, \gamma , N, \sigma )\), if the system (1) is finite-time bounded w.r.t. \((c_{1}, c_{2}, R, d, N, \sigma )\) and under initial condition \(x(0)=0\), it holds that
Lemma 2.1
[13] For the system (1) and Lyapunov function of the ith subsystem of the form \(V_{i}(x(k))=x^\textrm{T}(k)P_{i}x(k)\), \(i\in \bar{M}\), let \(\lambda _{\max }(P_{i})\) and \(\lambda _{\min }(P_{i})\) be the maximal and minimal eigenvalue of the positive definite matrix \(P_{i}\), respectively. Then, for any \(i\in \bar{M}\), \(\lambda _{\max }(P_{i})>0\), \(\lambda _{\min }(P_{i})>0\) and \(\lambda _{\min }(P_{i})x^\textrm{T}(k)x(k)\le V_{i}(x(k))\le \lambda _{\max }(P_{i})x^\textrm{T}(k)x(k)\).
Under the asynchronous switching controller (3), the corresponding closed-loop system is given by
In the resulting closed-loop system (12), the asynchronous switching between the system and the controller may damage the performance of the system to a certain extent. Therefore, in this paper, we aim to design a set of state feedback controllers formed in (3) and a switching signal with AED-ADT such that (12) is finite-time bounded.
3 Main Results
In this section, we will design a state feedback controller of the form (3) for the system (1), such that the resulting closed-loop system (12) is finite-time bounded, and in the presence of a controller, the corresponding state gain matrix is derived. Then, based on the obtained result, the \(H_{\infty }\) performance will be analyzed. In addition, to reduce the conservatism of the results, we only require the subsystems to be stable during the matched period, and allow the subsystems to be unstable within a bounded mismatched time interval, while allowing the Lyapunov function to increase during the mismatched period.
3.1 Finite-Time Boundedness
At the beginning, the problem of finite-time boundedness for the closed-loop system (12) will be considered under AED-ADT switching.
Theorem 3.1
Given a matrix \(R>0\), an integer \(N>0\), for specified constants \(c_{2}>c_{1}>0\), \(d>0\), \(\gamma >0\), \(0<\alpha _{j}<1\), \(\beta _{ij}>0\), \(\mu _{ij}\ge 1\), and suppose that there exist matrices \(X_{i}>0\), \(X_{j}>0\), \(X_{ij}>0\) and \(Q_{i}>0\), \(Q_{j}>0\), \(Q_{ij}>0\), \(Y_{i}\) such that \(\forall i,j\in \bar{M},i\ne j\),
where
Then, there exists a set of controllers (3) such that the closed-loop system (12) is finite-time bounded for any AED-ADT switching signal \(\sigma (k)\) and coefficients \(\nu _{ij}^{s}\in (0,1]\), \(\nu _{ij}^{u}\in [0,1)\) in Assumption 2.1 satisfying
Moreover, if the controllers exist, the controller gains are given by
Proof
The whole proof process is divided into four steps, which is shown as follows.
Step 1 First, for any \(k\in [k_{i+1},k_{i+2})=[k_{i+1},k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1})\bigcup [k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1},k_{i+2})\), the switching situation of a subsystem is analyzed.
(i) When \(k\in [k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1},k_{i+2})\), one has that \(\sigma (k)=\sigma '(k)=j\), and the closed-loop system (12) can be written as
Consider the following Lyapunov functional candidate:
where \(P_{\sigma (k)}=(X_{\sigma (k)})^{-1}\) is a symmetric positive definite matrix, and \(X_{\sigma (k)}\) satisfies conditions (13a)–(13d). So the difference of the \(V_{j}(x(k))\) along the trajectory of the switched system (16) is
where \(\xi ^\textrm{T}(k)=[x^\textrm{T}(k),w^\textrm{T}(k)]\).
Meanwhile, by multiplying (13c) from both sides by diag\(\{P_{j},I,P_{j}\}\), and using (15), we have
by using Schur complement, inequality (19) is equivalent to
Thus, by combining (18) and (20), we obtain
obviously we get
Then for any \(k\in [k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1},k_{i+2})\), \(\sigma (k)=\sigma (k-1)=\cdots =\sigma (k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1})=j\), and \(\sigma '(k)=\sigma (k)=j\), by iterating (22), it gives
(ii) When \(k\in [k_{i+1},k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1})\), we have \(\sigma (k)=j\), and \(\sigma '(k)=i\), so the closed-loop system (12) can be written as
Consider the following Lyapunov functional candidate
where \(P_{\sigma '(k)\sigma (k)}=(X_{\sigma '(k)\sigma (k)})^{-1}\) is a symmetric positive definite matrix, and it satisfies conditions (13a)–(13d). So the difference of the \(V_{ij}(x(k))\) along the trajectory of the switched system (24) is
where \(\xi ^\textrm{T}(k)=[x^\textrm{T}(k),w^\textrm{T}(k)]\).
Meanwhile, by multiplying (13d) from both sides by diag\(\{P_{ij},I,P_{ij}\}\), and using (15), we have
by using Schur complement, inequality (27) is equivalent to
Thus, by combining (26) and (28), we obtain
obviously we get
Then for any \(k\in [k_{i+1},k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1})\), \(\sigma (k)=\sigma (k-1)=\cdots =\sigma (k_{i+1})=j\), and \(\sigma '(k)=i\), by iterating (30), it gives
(iii) Now, by considering the iterative case of the Lyapunov functional candidate on the interval \(k\in [k_{i+1},k_{i+2})=[k_{i+1},k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1})\bigcup [k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1},k)\), using (13a) and (13b), and combining (23) and (31), we have
Step 2 Next, the iterative condition of the Lyapunov functional candidate over the interval \(k\in [k_{i},k_{i+1})=[k_{i},k_{i}+\Delta _{i})\bigcup [k_{i}+\Delta _{i},k_{i+1})\) is considered, according to (32), we can get
Step 3 Then, according to (22), (23), (30), and (31), the iteration of the Lyapunov functional candidate in a small switching interval \([k_{i},k_{i+1})=[k_{i},k_{i}+\Delta _{i})\bigcup [k_{i}+\Delta _{i},k_{i+1})\) is summarized and organized. Furthermore, using (32) and (33), we can derive the iterative result on the entire time interval \([k_{0},k)\).
(i) For any \(k\in [k_{i}+\Delta _{i},k_{i+1})\) (Synchronous switching period), we derive
(ii) For any \(k\in [k_{i},k_{i}+\Delta _{i})\) (Asynchronous switching period), we receive
(iii) Since the switch between the system and the controller is synchronous at first, for any \(k\in [k_{0},k_{1})\), on the basis of (34b), we obtain
(iv) For any \(k\in [k_{0},k)=[k_{0},k_{1})\bigcup [k_{1},k)\), where \(k\ge k_{i}+\Delta _{i}, \sigma (k)=\sigma (k_{i})=i\), by using (33), (34b), (35b), and (36), we can get
Let
and by using \(0<\alpha _{\sigma (k_{N})}<1\), \(\beta _{\sigma (k_{N})\sigma (k_{N+1})}>0\), we derive
Step 4 Finally, according to iteration result (38), we analyze the finite-time boundedness of system (12). Denote \(\Phi (s,k)=\prod \limits _{(i,j)\in \varepsilon (\bar{M})}\mu _{ij}^{2N_{ij}^{\sigma }(s,k)}, \Psi (s,k)=\prod \limits _{i\in \mathfrak {M}_{s},i\ne j}\prod \limits _{j\in \bar{J(i)}}(1\) \(-\alpha _{j})^{T_{ij}(s,k)}\times \prod \limits _{i\in \mathfrak {M}_{u},i\ne j}\prod \limits _{j\in \bar{J(i)}}(1+\beta _{ij})^{T_{ij}(s,k)}\), and let \(\eta _{1}=(1-\alpha _{\sigma (k_{n})})^{(k_{n}+\Delta _{n})-k_{n+1}}, n=0,1,2,\cdots ,N\), \(\eta _{2}=(1+\beta _{\sigma (k_{n-1})\sigma (k_{n})})^{\Delta _{n-1}}, n=1,2,\cdots ,N \), and \(\eta =\max \{\eta _{1},\eta _{2}\}\ge 1\), where \(\eta _{1}\ge 1,\eta _{2}\ge 1\), and \(\lambda _{3}=\max \limits _{j\in \bar{M}}(\lambda _{\max }(Q_{j}))\). Then, by using (10), we obtain
where \(\Upsilon (s,k)=\Phi (s,k)\Psi (s,k)\), \(k_{0}=0\).
Based on (7) in Definition 2.3, we can obtain that
where \(\varphi _{0}=\exp (\sum \limits _{(i,j)\in \varepsilon (\bar{M})}2N_{ij}^{0}\ln \mu _{ij})\).
Note that
then, according to (8a), (8b), (40), (41), and (42), and (14a) that implies \((1-\alpha _{j})\mu _{ij}^{\frac{2}{\tau _{ij}^{a}}}<1\), we can get
where
Therefore, (39) can be rewritten as
On the other hand, considering \(\bar{X}_{\sigma (k)}=R^{1/2}X_{\sigma (k)}R^{1/2}\), from Lemma 2.1, we can follow from (17) that
Hence, combining inequalities (44) and (45) yields
From Definition 2.5, the closed-loop system (12) is finite-time bounded w.r.t. \((c_{1}, c_{2}, R, d, N, \sigma )\). Hence, the theorem is proved. \(\square \)
3.2 \(H_{\infty }\) Performance Analysis
In this section, we will further give a sufficient condition which guarantees that the closed-loop system (12) is finite-time bounded with a specified \(H_{\infty }\) performance index via AED-ADT switching based on Theorem 3.1.
Theorem 3.2
Given a matrix \(R>0\), an integer \(N>0\), for specified constants \(c_{2}>c_{1}>0\), \(d>0\), \(\gamma >0\), \(0<\alpha _{j}<1\), \(\beta _{ij}>0\), \(\mu _{ij}\ge 1\), and suppose that there exist matrices \(X_{i}>0\), \(X_{j}>0\), \(X_{ij}>0\) and \(Y_{i}\) such that \(\forall i,j\in \bar{M},i\ne j\),
where
Then, there exists a set of controllers (3) such that the closed-loop system (12) is finite-time bounded with a \(H_{\infty }\) performance index \(\tilde{\gamma }\) w.r.t. \((c_{1}, c_{2}, R, d, \tilde{\gamma }, N, \sigma )\) for any AED-ADT switching signal \(\sigma (k)\) and coefficients \(\nu _{ij}^{s}\in (0,1]\), \(\nu _{ij}^{u}\in [0,1)\) in Assumption 2.1 satisfying
where \(\lambda =\prod \limits _{i\in \mathfrak {M}_{s},i\ne j}\prod \limits _{j\in \bar{J(i)}}((1-\alpha _{j})\mu _{ij}^{\frac{2}{\tau _{ij}^{a}}})^{\nu _{ij}^{s}}\times \prod \limits _{i\in \mathfrak {M}_{u},i\ne j}\prod \limits _{j\in \bar{J(i)}}(1+\beta _{ij})\mu _{ij}^{\frac{2}{\tau _{ij}^{a}}})^{\nu _{ij}^{u}}\) and \(\tilde{\gamma }=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma ^{2}\eta \phi _{0}}{1-\lambda }}>0\). Moreover, if the controllers exist, the controller gains are given by (15).
Proof
First, according to Theorem 3.1, we analyze the finite-time boundedness of the closed-loop system (12) combined with the conditions (47a)–(47e). Obviously, by using Schur complement, we can get from (47c) and (47d) that
which imply (13c) and (13d) by setting \(Q_{i}=Q_{ij}=\gamma I\). So, by analogy with Theorem 3.1, it can be concluded that the closed-loop system (12) is finite-time bounded w.r.t. \((c_{1}, c_{2}, R, d, N, \sigma )\) for any AED-ADT switching signal \(\sigma (k)\) and coefficients \(\nu _{ij}^{s}\in (0,1]\), \(\nu _{ij}^{u}\in [0,1)\) in Assumption 2.1 satisfying (48a) and (48b).
Next, letting \(\Gamma (k)=\gamma ^{2}w^\textrm{T}(k)w(k)-y^\textrm{T}(k)y(k)\), to analyze the finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) performance of the closed-loop systems (12).
Step 1 For any \(k\in [k_{i+1}, k_{i+2})=[k_{i+1}, k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1})\bigcup [k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1}, k_{i+2})\), we expand the analysis. For \(i\in \mathfrak {M}_{s}\), synchronous switching is performed between the system and the state feedback controller. At this time, we choose the Lyapunov functional as (17). Based on the proof process of Theorem 3.1, when \(k\in [k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1}, k_{i+2})\), \(\sigma (k)=\sigma '(k)=j\), we can obtain the following closed-loop system:
Since \(\Gamma (k)=\gamma ^{2}w^\textrm{T}(k)w(k)-y^\textrm{T}(k)y(k)\), substituting (50) into it gives
where \(\xi ^\textrm{T}(k)=[x^\textrm{T}(k),w^\textrm{T}(k)]\).
Meanwhile, by multiplying (47c) from both sides by diag\(\{P_{j}, I, P_{j},I\}\), and using (15), we have
by using Schur complement, inequality (52) can be rewritten as
Thus, by combining (51) and (53), we obtain
so we get
Hence, by iterating inequality (55) for any \(k\in [k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1}, k_{i+2})\), it holds that
Similarly, for any \(k\in [k_{i+1},k_{i+1}+\Delta _{i+1})\), it holds that
Step 2 Because of the great similarity with Theorem 3.1, the iterative result of \(V_{\sigma (k)}(x(k))\) over the entire interval \([k_{0},k)\) can be obtained corresponding to its proof process, and according to (56) and (57), we have the following results.
(i) For any \(k\in [k_{i}+\Delta _{i}, k_{i+1})\), \(\sigma (k)=\sigma '(k)=\sigma (k_{i})=i\), (Synchronous switching period), we have
(ii) For any \(k\in [k_{i}, k_{i}+\Delta _{i})\), \(\sigma (k)=\sigma (k_{i}), \sigma '(k)=\sigma (k_{i-1})\), (Asynchronous switching period), we have
(iii) Since the switch between the system and the controller is synchronous at first, for any \(k\in [k_{0}, k_{1})\), we obtain
(iv) For any \(k\in [k_{0}, k)=[k_{0}, k_{1})\bigcup [k_{1}, k)\), where \(k\ge k_{i}+\Delta _{i}\), by using(58), (59), and (60) and analogizing (37), (38), and (39), we can get
Step 3 Finally, according to iteration result (61), the finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) performance of system (12) can be analyzed. When \(w(k)\ne 0\), under zero initial conditions \(x(0)=0\), we can get \(V_{\sigma (0)}(x(0))=x^\textrm{T}(0)P_{\sigma (k)}x(0)=0\), \(V_{\sigma (k)}(x(k))\ge 0\). From \(\Gamma (k)=\gamma ^{2}w^\textrm{T}(k)\) \(w(k)-y^\textrm{T}(k)y(k)\), (61) can be expressed as
then (62) yields that
Let \(\lambda >1-\eta \phi _{0}\), then there has
where \(\tilde{\gamma }=\sqrt{\frac{\gamma ^{2}\eta \phi _{0}}{1-\lambda }}>0\).
According to Definition 2.5 and Definition 2.6, the system (12) is finite-time bounded with a \(H_{\infty }\) performance index \(\tilde{\gamma }\) for any AED-ADT switching signal satisfying (48a). Hence, the proof is completed. \(\square \)
When \(\Delta _{i}\equiv 0\), \(i=1, 2, \cdots , N\), that is, the switching of the system and the controller is completely synchronous, then we can get the following corollary from Theorem 3.2.
Corollary 1
Given a matrix \(R>0\), an integer \(N>0\), for specified constants \(c_{2}>c_{1}>0\), \(d>0\), \(\gamma >0\), \(0<\alpha _{j}<1\), \(\mu _{ij}\ge 1\), and suppose that there exist matrices \(X_{i}>0\), \(X_{j}>0\) and \(Y_{i}\) such that \(\forall i,j\in \bar{M},i\ne j\),
Then, there exists a set of controllers (3) such that the closed-loop system (12) is finite-time bounded with a \(H_{\infty }\) performance index \(\tilde{\gamma }\) w.r.t. \((c_{1}, c_{2}, R, d, \tilde{\gamma }, N, \sigma )\) for any AED-ADT switching signal \(\sigma (k)\) satisfying
where
Moreover, if the controllers exist, the controller gains are given by \(K_{j}=Y_{j}(X_{j})^{-1}\).
4 Numerical Simulation
The numerical example is given to show the validity of the proposed asynchronous finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control approach under AED-ADT switching.
Example
Consider the given parameters of discrete-time switched linear system (1) including two subsystems as follows:
Suppose that \(N=20\), \(c_{1}=0\), \(c_{2}=10\), \(d=1\), \(R=I\). Consider the initial condition \(x(0)=[0~0]^\textrm{T}\) and the disturbance input \(w(k)=\cos (k)\exp (-0.8k)\). Let \(\alpha _{1}=0.62\), \(\alpha _{2}=0.4\), \(\beta _{12}=1.01\), \(\beta _{21}=1.2\), \(\mu _{12}=1\), \(\mu _{21}=1.3\). Then by utilizing MATLAB LMI Toolbox and applying Theorem 3.2, we can get
Hence, according to (15), we can obtain the controller gains
In terms of (48a), the corresponding AED-ADT are \(\tau _{12}^{a}>\tau _{12}^{a*}=0\), \(\tau _{21}^{a}>\tau _{21}^{a*}=0.5423\). On account of \(\bar{X}_{\sigma (k)}=R^{1/2}X_{\sigma (k)}R^{1/2}\), we can get \(\lambda _{1}=0.8494\), \(\lambda _{2}=2.9539\). Let \(\eta =1.1\), \(\gamma =0.5\), \(\nu _{12}^{s}=0.997\), \(\nu _{12}^{u}=0.001\), \(\nu _{21}^{s}=0.001\), \(\nu _{21}^{u}=0.001\), \(N_{ij}^{0}=0\), \(\bar{T_{ij}^{s}}=0\), \(\bar{T_{ij}^{u}}=0\), \(\forall (i,j)\in \bar{M}\) \((i\ne j)\), we have \(-0.1<\lambda =0.6024<1\) from (48b). From this, we can verify that (47e) holds, and get \(\tilde{\gamma }=0.8317>0\).
On the other hand, assume that \(\alpha _{1}=0.62\), \(\alpha _{2}=0.4\), \(\mu _{12}=2.5\), \(\mu _{21}=2.8\), \(\eta =1.5\), \(N_{ij}^{0}=1\). Then, by utilizing MATLAB LMI Toolbox and applying Corollary 1, we can get
Hence, we can obtain the controller gains
and the corresponding AED-ADT are \(\tau _{12}^{a}>\tau _{12}^{a*}=1.7937\), \(\tau _{21}^{a}>\tau _{21}^{a*}=1.8859\), the \(H_{\infty }\) performance index \(\tilde{\gamma }=1.6202>0\).
From Table 1, we can clearly see that the AED-ADT \(\tau _{ij}^{a*}\) in Theorem 3.2 is smaller than that in Corollary 1, and the \(H_{\infty }\) performance index \(\tilde{\gamma }\) in Theorem 3.2 is also smaller than that in Corollary 1, which means that the finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) controller in Theorem 3.2 can make a better performance than the one in Corollary 1.
Additionally, according to Theorem 3.2, it can be obtained the AED-ADT conditions such that the closed-loop system (12) is finite-time bounded as \(\tau _{12}^{a}=3\ge \tau _{12}^{a*}=0\), \(\tau _{21}^{a}=5\ge \tau _{21}^{a*}=0.5423\). Asynchronous switching of \(\sigma (k)\) and \(\sigma '(k)\) occurs when \(\Delta _{1}=2\), \(\Delta _{2}=1\) in this example. Figure 3 is drawn to show the evolutions of \(\sigma (k)\) and \(\sigma '(k)\). And Fig. 4 is used to show the trajectories of state responses \(x_{1}(k)\) and \(x_{2}(k)\) of system. The output responses and w(k) are displayed in Fig. 5. Then, it is obvious that \(x^\textrm{T}(k)Rx(k)\ll c_{2}\), \(\forall k\in [1,20]\), as shown in Fig. 6. That signifies the closed-loop system (12) is finite-time bounded. Consequently, the proposed method of this work is valid.
5 Conclusions
This paper has dealt with asynchronous finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control problem for a class of discrete-time switched linear systems with switching time delay. By using the AED-ADT method, multiple Lyapunov functions, and linear matrix inequalities, a asynchronous state feedback controller is designed, and a sufficient condition to guarantee that the closed-loop system is finite-time bounded is derived. Then, in view of the obtained result, a sufficient condition for finite-time \(H_{\infty }\) control is deduced, which can ensure not only the finite-time boundedness of the closed-loop system, but also the \(H_{\infty }\) performance. Finally, the rationality of the proposed method is verified by a numerical example.
Data Availability
The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
References
F. Guerin, D. Lefebvre, A.B. Mboup, Hybrid modeling for performance evaluation of multisource renewable energy systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 8(3), 570–580 (2011)
L.J. Gao, F.M. Luo, Z.G. Yan, Finite-time annular domain stability of impulsive switched systems: mode-dependent parameter approach. Int. J. Control 92(6), 1381–1392 (2019)
J.P. Hespanha, A.S. Morse, Stability of switched systems with average dwell time. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control 3(38), 2655–2660 (1999)
L.L. Hou, X.D. Zhao, H.B. Sun, G.D. Zong, \({l}_{2}-{l}_{\infty }\) filtering of discrete-time switched systems via admissible edge-dependent switching signals. Syst. Control Lett. 113, 17–26 (2018)
L.L. Hou, M.Z. Zhang, X.D. Zhao, H.B. Sun, G.D. Zong, Stability of discrete-time switched systems with admissible edge-dependent switching signals. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 49(5), 974–983 (2018)
A. Kundu, D. Chatterjee, A graph theoretic approach to input-to-state stability of switched systems. Eur. J. Control 29, 44–50 (2016)
X.Z. Lin, H.B. Du, S.H. Li, Y. Zou, Finite-time boundedness and finite-time \({l}_{2}\) gain analysis of discrete-time switched linear systems with average dwell time. J. Frankl. Inst. 350(4), 911–928 (2013)
H. Liu, Y. Shen, X.D. Zhao, Asynchronous finite-time \({H}_{\infty }\) control for switched linear systems via mode-dependent dynamic state-feedback. Nonlinear Anal. Hybrid Syst. 8, 109–120 (2013)
X. Li, Z.R. Xiang, H.R. Karimi, Asynchronously switched control of discrete impulsive switched systems with time delays. Inf. Sci. 249, 132–142 (2013)
H. Liu, X.D. Zhao, Finite-time \({H}_{\infty }\) control of switched systems with mode-dependent average dwell time. J. Frankl. Inst. 351(3), 1301–1315 (2014)
L.P. Liu, X.Y. Cao, Z.M. Fu, S.Z. Song, H. Xing, Finite-time control of uncertain fractional-order positive impulsive switched systems with mode-dependent average dwell time. Circuits Syst. Signal Process. 37(9), 3739–3755 (2018)
T.H. Liu, C.H. Wang, Quasi-time-dependent asynchronous \({H}_{\infty }\) control of discrete-time switched systems with mode-dependent persistent dwell-time. Eur. J. Control 48, 66–73 (2019)
X.Q. Luo, X.X. Wang, T.F. Li, in Feedback control of switched linear systems with event-triggered link. 2019 IEEE 8th Data Driven Control and Learning Systems Conference (DDCLS) (2019), pp. 158–162
H.Y. Liu, L.J. Gao, Z.Y. Wang, Z.H. Liu, Asynchronous \({l}_{2}-{l}_{\infty }\) filtering of discrete-time impulsive switched systems with admissible edge-dependent average dwell time switching signal. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 52(8), 1564–1585 (2021)
A.S. Morse, Supervisory control of families of linear set-point controllers. Part I: exact matching. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 41(10), 1413–1431 (1996)
B. Niu, H.R. Karimi, H.Q. Wang, Y.L. Liu, Adaptive output-feedback controller design for switched nonlinear stochastic systems with a modified average dwell-time method. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst. 47(7), 1371–1382 (2017)
B. Niu, D. Wang, N.D. Alotaibi, F.E. Alsaadi, Adaptive neural state-feedback tracking control of stochastic nonlinear switched systems: an average dwell-time method. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 30(4), 1076–1087 (2019)
S. Shi, Z.Y. Fei, J.C. Li, Finite-time \({H}_{\infty }\) control of switched systems with mode-dependent average dwell time. J. Frankl. Inst. 353(1), 221–234 (2016)
C. Sowmiya, R. Raja, J.D. Cao, G. Ravi, Global exponential stability of antiperiodic solutions for impulsive discrete-time Markovian jumping stochastic BAM neural networks with additive time-varying delays and leakage delay. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process. 32(6), 908–936 (2018)
L. Weiss, E. Infante, Finite time stability under perturbing forces and on product spaces. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 12(1), 54–59 (1967)
Y.-E. Wang, X.M. Sun, J. Zhao, Asynchronous \({H}_{\infty }\) control of switched delay systems with average dwell time. J. Frankl. Inst. 349(10), 3159–3169 (2012)
B. Wang, H.B. Zhang, G. Wang, C.Y. Dang, S.J. Zhong, Asynchronous control of discrete-time impulsive switched systems with mode-dependent average dwell time. ISA Trans. 53(2), 367–372 (2014)
Y.-E. Wang, X.M. Sun, B.W. Wu, Lyapunov-Krasovskii functionals for switched nonlinear input delay systems under asynchronous switching. Automatica 61, 126–133 (2015)
Y.-E. Wang, B.W. Wu, R. Wang, Asynchronous stabilization of switched systems: adjacent mode-dependent average dwell time. Acta Phys. Sin. 64(5), 7–29 (2015)
R.H. Wang, B.X. Xue, J.B. Zhao, Time-varying \({H}_{\infty }\) control for discrete-time switched systems with admissible edge-dependent average dwell time. Int. J. Control Autom. Syst. 17(8), 1921–1934 (2019)
H.L. Wang, Y.H. Tong, D.M. Xu, W.Q. Song, Finite-time \({H}_{\infty }\) control for discrete-time switched systems with admissible edge-dependent average dwell time. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 52(3), 525–540 (2021)
J.Q. Yang, X.D. Zhao, X.H. Bu, W. Qian, Stabilization of switched linear systems via admissible edge-dependent switching signals. Nonlinear Anal. Hybrid Syst. 29, 100–109 (2018)
D. Yutso, X.W. Liu, H. Chen, in Asynchronous \({H}_{\infty }\) control of discrete-time switched delay systems with mode-dependent average dwell time. 2021 40th Chinese Control Conference (CCC) (2021), pp. 171–176
L.X. Zhang, H.J. Gao, Asynchronously switched control of switched linear systems with average dwell time. Automatica 46(5), 953–958 (2010)
L.X. Zhang, N.G. Cui, M. Liu, Y. Zhao, Asynchronous filtering of discrete-time switched linear systems with average dwell time. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I Regul. Pap. 58(5), 1109–1118 (2011)
X.D. Zhao, L.X. Zhang, P. Shi, M. Liu, Stability and stabilization of switched linear systems with mode-dependent average dwell time. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 57(7), 1809–1815 (2012)
X.D. Zhao, S. Yin, H.Y. Li, B. Niu, Switching stabilization for a class slowly switched systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 60(1), 221–226 (2015)
H. Zheng, G.H. Sun, Y. Ren, C.C. Tian, Quasi-time-dependent \({H}_{\infty }\) controller for discrete-time switched linear systems with mode-dependent average dwell-time. Asian J. Control 20(1), 263–275 (2018)
L.X. Zhang, P. Shi, Stability, \({l}_{2}\)-gain and asynchronous \({H}_{{\infty }}\) control of discrete-time switched systems with average dwell time. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 54(9), 2192–2199 (2019)
Q.J. Zhang, X.Q. Wu, J. Liu, Pinning synchronization of discrete-time complex networks with different time-varying delays. J. Syst. Sci. Complex. 32(6), 1560–1571 (2019)
L. Zhou, H. Ding, X.Q. Xiao, Input-to-state stability of discrete-time switched nonlinear systems with generalized switching signals. Appl. Math. Comput. 392, 125727 (2021)
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 62273218), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. GK202206013), and the Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (Grant No. 2021JM208).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, M., Wu, B., Wang, YE. et al. Asynchronous Finite-Time \(H_{\infty }\) Control for Discrete-Time Switched Systems with Admissible Edge-Dependent Average Dwell Time. Circuits Syst Signal Process 42, 4553–4584 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00034-023-02321-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00034-023-02321-6