Input-to-state stability of self-triggered control systems

Event-triggered and self-triggered control have recently been proposed as an alternative to periodic implementations of feedback control laws over sensor/actuator networks. In event-triggered control, each sensing node continuously monitors the plant in order to determine if fresh information should be transmitted and if the feedback control law should be recomputed. In general, event-triggered control substantially reduces the number of exchanged messages when compared with periodic implementations. However, such energy savings must be contrasted with the energy required to perform local computations. In self-triggered control, computation of the feedback control law is followed by the computation of the next time instant at which fresh information should be sensed and transmitted. Since this time instant is computed as a function of the current state and plant dynamics, it is still much larger than the sampling period used in periodic implementations. Moreover, no energy is spent in local computations at the sensors. However, the plant operates in open-loop between updates of the feedback control law and robustness is a natural concern. We analyze the robustness to disturbances of a self-triggered implementation recently introduced by the authors for linear control systems. We show that such implementation is exponentially input-to-state stable with respect to disturbances.

[1]  Karl-Erik Årzén,et al.  A simple event-based PID controller , 1999 .

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

[3]  Manuel Mazo,et al.  On self-triggered control for linear systems: Guarantees and complexity , 2009, 2009 European Control Conference (ECC).

[4]  M. Velasco,et al.  The Self Triggered Task Model for Real-Time Control Systems , 2003 .

[5]  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..

[6]  W. P. M. H. Heemels,et al.  Analysis of event-driven controllers for linear systems , 2008, Int. J. Control.

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

[8]  Manuel Mazo,et al.  On event-triggered and self-triggered control over sensor/actuator networks , 2008, 2008 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[9]  Michael D. Lemmon,et al.  On Self-triggered Full-Information H-Infinity Controllers , 2007, HSCC.

[10]  A. R. Teelb,et al.  Formulas relating KL stability estimates of discrete-time and sampled-data nonlinear systems , 1999 .

[11]  Hong Ye,et al.  Scheduling of networked control systems , 2001 .

[12]  Hyungbo Shim,et al.  Further results on robustness of (possibly discontinuous) sample and hold feedback , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

[13]  D. Nesic,et al.  Input-Output Stability of Wireless Networked Control Systems , 2005, Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.

[14]  Dragan Nesic,et al.  Input-output stability properties of networked control systems , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

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