Model-based scheduling for networked control systems

In this paper, we introduce a model-based scheduling strategy to achieve ultimate boundedness stability in the sensor-actuator networked control systems, where the communication network between the sensor and the network controller is subject to time-varying network induced delays and data-packet dropouts. An estimator and a nominal model of the plant are used explicitly at the controller node to generate control action and schedule control action updates. The data transmissions from the sensor to the network controller are “self-triggered” by imposing the scheduling of the data packet transmissions to meet a soft deadline, while the control action updates generated by the network controller are “event-triggered”, with a new measurement of the nominal model's state obtained to update control action whenever a triggering condition is satisfied or whenever the state of the nominal model is reset by the estimator.

[1]  K. Åström,et al.  Comparison of Riemann and Lebesgue sampling for first order stochastic systems , 2002, Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2002..

[2]  Panos J. Antsaklis,et al.  State and output feedback control in model-based networked control systems , 2002, Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2002..

[3]  Panos J. Antsaklis,et al.  On the model-based control of networked systems , 2003, Autom..

[4]  Panos J. Antsaklis,et al.  Stability of model-based networked control systems with time-varying transmission times , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[5]  P. Antsaklis,et al.  QUANTIZATION IN MODEL BASED NETWORKED CONTROL SYSTEMS , 2005 .

[6]  Panos J. Antsaklis,et al.  Static and dynamic quantization in model-based networked control systems , 2007, Int. J. Control.

[7]  Paulo Tabuada,et al.  Event-Triggered Real-Time Scheduling of Stabilizing Control Tasks , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[8]  Xiaofeng Wang,et al.  Self-Triggered Feedback Control Systems With Finite-Gain ${\cal L}_{2}$ Stability , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[9]  Panagiotis D. Christofides,et al.  Lyapunov‐based model predictive control of nonlinear systems subject to time‐varying measurement delays , 2009 .

[10]  Paulo Tabuada,et al.  To Sample or not to Sample: Self-Triggered Control for Nonlinear Systems , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[11]  P. Antsaklis,et al.  : Event-Triggered Real-Time Scheduling For Stabilization of Passive / Output Feedback Passive Systems Technical Report of the ISIS Group at the University of Notre Dame isis-2010-001 October , 2010 , 2010 .

[12]  W. P. M. H. Heemels,et al.  Output-based event-triggered control with Guaranteed ℒ∞-gain and improved event-triggering , 2010, 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC).

[13]  Xiaofeng Wang,et al.  Event-Triggering in Distributed Networked Control Systems , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[14]  Panos J. Antsaklis,et al.  Event-triggered output feedback control for networked control systems using passivity: Triggering condition and limitations , 2011, IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference.

[15]  Panos J. Antsaklis,et al.  Event-triggered output feedback control for networked control systems using passivity: Time-varying network induced delays , 2011, IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference.

[16]  Panos J. Antsaklis,et al.  Event-triggered real-time scheduling for stabilization of passive and output feedback passive systems , 2011, Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference.

[17]  Eloy García,et al.  Model-based event-triggered control with time-varying network delays , 2011, IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference.

[18]  Jorge Cortes,et al.  Self-triggered coordination of robotic networks for optimal deployment , 2012, Autom..