Abstract and Applied Analysis

Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 938781, 16 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/938781

Research Article

Robust Finite-Time Control for Nonlinear Markovian Jump Systems with Time Delay under Partially Known Transition Probabilities

Dong Yang and Guangdeng Zong

Institute of Automation, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, Shandong 273165, China

Received 7 November 2013; Accepted 7 December 2013; Published 20 February 2014

Academic Editor: Hao Shen

Copyright © 2014 Dong Yang and Guangdeng Zong. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

This paper is concerned with the problem of robust finite-time control for a class of nonlinear Markovian jump systems with time delay under partially known transition probabilities. Firstly, for the nominal nonlinear Markovian jump systems, sufficient conditions are proposed to ensure finite-time boundedness, finite-time boundedness, and finite-time state feedback stabilization, respectively. Then, a robust finite-time state feedback controller is designed, which, for all admissible uncertainties, guarantees the finite-time boundedness of the corresponding closed-loop system. All the conditions are presented in terms of strict linear matrix inequalities. Finally a numerical example is provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of all the results.

1. Introduction

Markovian jump systems, a class of hybrid dynamical systems, which consists of an indexed family of continuous or discrete-time subsystems and a set of Markovian chain that orchestrates the switching between them at stochastic time instants, have received extensive attention over the past few decades [1, 2]. Many real world processes, such as economic systems [3], manufacturing systems [4], electric power systems [5], and communication systems [6], may be modeled as Markovian jump systems when any malfunction of sensors or actuators cause a jump behavior in process performance. Recently, nonlinear Markovian jump systems have been extensively applied and developed in various disciplines of science and engineering, and a great number of excellent works have been developed [7–9].

Generally speaking, the behavior of nonlinear Markovian jump systems is determined by the transition probabilities in the jumping process. Usually, it is assumed that the information on transition probabilities was completely known. However, transition probabilities may be partially known for some real systems. For example, the networked control systems can be modeled by nonlinear Markovian jump systems with partially known transition probabilities when the packet dropouts or channel delays occur [10]. In addition, there are few results about the known bounds of transition probability rates or the fixed connection weighting matrices [11, 12]. Therefore, it is reasonable to study Markovian jump systems with partially known transition probabilities, especially, when it is difficult to measure the bounds of transition probability rates. It stimulates the research interests of the author.

Uncertainties and time delay frequently occur in various engineering systems, which usually is a source of instability and often causes undesirable performance and even makes the system out of control [14, 15]. Therefore, time delay systems with robustness have received an increasing attention among the control community [16–18]. On the other hand, one may be interested in not only system stability but also a bound of system trajectories over a fixed short time [19]. For instance, for the problem of robot arm control [7], when the robot works under different environmental conditions with changing payloads, it requests that the angle position of the arm should not exceed some threshold in a prescribed time interval. Meanwhile, the scholars attach more importance to the control problem, which is to find a stable controller such that the disturbance attenuation level is below a prescribed level. There are a great number of useful and interesting results about control problem for linear and nonlinear Markovian jump systems in the literature [20–25]. To the best of our knowledge, the synthesis issue of robust finite-time control for nonlinear Markovian jump systems with time delay under partially known transition probabilities has not been fully investigated until now, which motivates us to carry out the present study.

In this paper, we investigate the problem of robust finite-time control for nonlinear Markovian jump systems with time delay under partially known transition probabilities. The main contributions lie in the fact that some tractable sufficient conditions are provided to ensure finite-time boundedness or finite-time state feedback stabilization. A robust finite-time state feedback controller is designed, which guarantees the finite-time boundedness of the closed-loop system. Seeking computational convenience, all the conditions are cast in the format of linear matrix inequalities. Finally, a numerical example is provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of the main results.

Notations. Throughout this paper, the notations used are fairly standard. For real symmetric matrices and , the notation (resp., ) means that the matrix is positive semi-definite (resp., positive definite). represents the transpose matrix of , and represents the inverse matrix of . () is the maximum (resp., minimum) eigenvalue of a matrix . represents the block diagonal matrix of and . is the unit matrix with appropriate dimensions, and the term of symmetry is stated by the asterisk in a matrix. stands for the -dimensional Euclidean space, is the set of all real matrices, and means a set of positive numbers. denotes the Euclidean norm of vectors. denotes the mathematical expectation of the stochastic process or vector. is the space of -dimensional square integrable function vector over .

2. Problem Formulation and Preliminaries

Give a probability space (, , , where is the sample space, is the algebra of events, and is the probability measure defined on . The random process is a Markovian stochastic process taking values in a finite set with the transition probability rate matrix , , and the transition probability from mode at time to mode at time is expressed as

with the transition probability rates , for , and , where , and .

Consider the following nonlinear Markovian jump system with time delay in the probability space (, , ):

where is the state vector, is the control input, is an arbitrary external disturbance, is the control output, represents a vector-valued initial function, and is the constant delay. : is an unknown nonlinear function. , , , , , , , and are known mode-dependent constant matrices with appropriate dimensions. , , and are unknown matrices, denoting the uncertainties in the system, and the uncertainties are time-varying but norm bounded uncertainties satisfying

where , , , , , and are known mode-dependent matrices with appropriate dimensions and is the time-varying unknown matrix function with Lebesgue norm measurable elements satisfying

Consider the following state feedback controller:

where and are the state feedback gains to be designed. Then the closed-loop system is as follows:

For notational simplicity, when , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are, respectively, denoted as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and .

In addition, the transition probability rates are considered to be partially known; that is, some elements in matrix are unknown. For instance, for system (2) with four subsystems, the transition probability rate matrix may be as

where “?” represents the unknown transition probability rate. , we denote , and

Moreover, if , it is further described as

where represents the thknown transition probability rate of the set in the throw of the transition probability rate matrix .

Remark 1. When , , it is reduced to the case where the transition probability rates of the Markovian jump process are completely known. When , , it means that the transition probability rates of the Markovian jump process are completely unknown. Mixing the above two aspects, here, a general form is considered.

In this paper, the following assumptions, definitions, and lemmas play an important role in our later development.

Assumption 2. The external disturbance is varying and satisfies the constraint condition:

Assumption 3. , , and satisfies the following inequality

where

Definition 4 (finite-time stability). For a given time constant , system (2) is said to be finite-time stable with respect to (), if

where , .

Definition 5 (finite-time boundedness). For a given time constant , system (2) is said to be finite-time bounded with respect to (), if the condition (13) holds, where , .

Definition 6 ( finite-time boundedness). For a given time constant , system (2) is said to be finite-time bounded with respect to (), if there exists a positive constant , such that the following two conditions are true:

(1)system (2) is finite-time bounded with respect to ();(2)under zero initial condition (), for any external disturbance satisfying condition (10), the control output of system (2) satisfies

Definition 7 (finite-time state feedback stabilization). The system (2) is said to be finite-time state feedback stabilizable with respect to (), if there exist a positive constant and a state feedback controller in the form of (5), such that the closed-loop system (6) is finite-time bounded.

Definition 8 (see [26]). In the Euclidean space , introduce the stochastic Lyapunov function for system (2) as , and the weak infinitesimal operator satisfies

Remark 9. It easily follows from (12) that , . So and can be decomposed as

Remark 10. It is noticed that finite-time stability can be regarded as a particular case of finite-time boundedness by setting . That is, finite-time boundedness implies finite-time stability, but the converse is not true.

Lemma 11 (see [27]). Let , , , and be real matrices of appropriate dimensions with ; then for a positive scalar , there holds:

The aim in this paper is to find a tractable solution to the problem of finite-time state feedback stabilization.

3. Main Results

3.1. Finite-Time Boundedness Analysis

In this subsection, we will consider the problem of finite-time boundedness for the nominal system of nonlinear Markovian jump system (2) with for all ; that is,

Under the controller (5), the closed-loop system is

Theorem 12. Given , if there exist positive constants and , symmetric positive definite matrices , and , and symmetric matrices , such that for all

then system (18) () under partially known transition probabilities is finite-time bounded with respect to (), where

Proof. For system (18) (), choose a Lyapunov function candidate

where . Then by Definition 8, we get

Based on Lemma 11, there exist scalars such that

Substituting (27) into (26) yields

It is easy to obtain that

From (28) and (29), the following holds:

Due to the fact that for arbitrary symmetric matrices , (30) can be written as

Noticing that for all and for all , if (the elements of the diagonal are known), by inequalities (20) and (21), the following inequalities hold:

If (the elements of the diagonal are unknown), according to the inequalities (20)–(22), inequality (32) holds. Multiplying (32) by yields

Applying Dynkin’s formula for (33), we obtain

which shows

This together with and gives rise to

Considering that

and combining (36) and (37), it follows that

Condition (38) implies that, for , .

The proof is complete.

Corollary 13. Given , if there exist positive constants , , and , symmetric positive definite matrices , and , and symmetric matrices , such that for all

then system (18) under partially known transition probabilities is finite-time bounded with respect to (), where

3.2. Finite-Time Performance Analysis

In this subsection, based on Corollary 13, some sufficient conditions will be provided ensuring the finite-time boundedness of system (18) and the finite-time stabilization of system (19).

Theorem 14. Given and satisfying (10), system (18) under partially known transition probabilities is finite-time bounded with respect to (), if there exist positive constants , , and , symmetric positive definite matrices and , and symmetric matrices , such that for all

where

Proof. From (44), the following inequality holds:

This together with (49) implies (39). Then based on (39)–(42), system (18) is finite-time bounded.

Then, let us prove that inequality (14) is satisfied for any external disturbance under zero initial condition. For system (18), choosing a Lyapunov function candidate (25), we have

for any symmetric matrices .

According to inequality (44), (45), and (46), we derive

Under zero initial condition, using Dynkin’s formula yields

Further, it implies that

Therefore expression (14) holds with .

The proof is complete.

Corollary 15. Given and satisfying (10), system (19) under partially known transition probabilities is finite-time state feedback stabilizable via a state feedback controller (5) with respect to , if there exist positive constants , , and , symmetric positive definite matrices and , and symmetric matrices , such that for all

where

It is clear that (54) is a nonlinear matrix inequality due to the existence of the nonlinear terms , , , and . In order to solve the desired controller , we give the following result.

Theorem 16. Given , system (18) under partially known transition probabilities is finite-time state feedback stabilizable via a state feedback controller with respect to , if there exist positive scalars , , , , and , symmetric positive definite matrices , symmetric matrices , and matrices and such that for all

where

with described in (9) and . Moreover, the finite-time state feedback controller gains in (5) are given by .

Proof. It is clear that system (18) is finite-time state feedback stabilizable if the conditions (54)–(57) are satisfied. Notice that inequality (54) is equivalent to the following condition:

Pre- and postmultiplying inequality (66) by block diagonal matrix diag , letting , , and , we have

where

Since , , inequality (67) is discussed in the following two cases.

Case 1. When , the left side of (67) becomes

where

Applying Schur complement lemma to (69), then (59) easily follows.

Case 2. When , the inequality (69) turns into

where

Similar to the proving process of the case one, we can prove that (60) is true.

Pre- and postmultiplying inequalities (55) and (56) by , respectively, and letting , , and , we have

Inequality (73) is equivalent to LMI (61). Denoting and taking into consideration, we conclude that condition (57) holds. Hence, the following conditions

guarantee that

It should be easily observed that condition (76) implies LMI (63) and (75) is equivalent to (64). Therefore if LMIs (59)–(64) hold, the closed-loop system (19) is finite-time bounded, and then system (18) can be stabilized via the state feedback controller (5).

This completes the proof of Theorem 16.

3.3. Robust Finite-Time Control

In this subsection, a robust finite-time state feedback controller is designed to guarantee the finite-time state feedback stabilization of system (2).

Theorem 17. Given , the problem of robust finite-time state feedback stabilizable for system (2) under partly known transition probabilities is solvable, if there exist positive scalars , , , , , , , , and , symmetric positive definite matrices , symmetric matrices , and matrices and such that for all

where

with described in (9) and . Moreover, the finite-time state feedback controller gains in (5) are given by .

Proof . In (59) and (60), replacing , , and with , , and , respectively, the following conditions are obtained:

Based on Lemma 11, there exist scalars , , , and such that

Applying Schur complement lemma to (85), (77) can be obtained. Similar to the above proving process, we can prove that (78) holds. Therefore, if LMIs (77)–(82) hold, the closed-loop system (6) is robust finite-time bounded, and further system (18) can be stabilized via the state feedback controller (5).

The proof is complete.

Remark 18. It should be pointed out that the conditions in Theorems 16 and 17 are not strict linear matrix inequalities such as conditions (20), (39), (44), (54), (59), (60), (77), and (78), due to the product of unknown scalars and matrices. An efficient way to solve this problem is to choose the appropriate values of the unknown scalars and then solve a set of LMIs for the fixed values of these parameters. For example, if , are fixed, then conditions (59) and (60) of Theorem 16 can be converted to LMIs conditions.

4. Numerical Examples

This section considers the following four-mode uncertain nonlinear Markovian jump systems with time delay as follows.

Mode 1

Mode 2

Mode 3

Mode 4

Choose , , the exogenous disturbance , and the nonlinearities

The four cases for the transition probability matrix considered in Table 1.

Table 1

Case I

Case II

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

1
−1.2
0.3
0.5
0.4
1
?
0.3
?
0.4

2
0.2
−1
0.3
0.5
2
?
−1
0.3
?

3
0.8
0.1
−1.3
0.4
3
0.8
?
−1.3
?

4
0.2
0.1
0.5
−0.8
4
0.2
?
?
?

Case III

Case VI

1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

1
−1.2
?
0.5
?
1
?
?
?
?

2
0.2
?
?
0.5
2
?
?
?
?

3
?
0.1
?
0.4
3
?
?
?
?

4
?
0.1
0.5
−0.8
4
?
?
?
?

Solving the LMIs (77)–(82) in Theorem 17, the robust finite-time state feedback controller gains of are given by Table 2.

Table 2

Case I
Completely known

Controller gains

Case II
Partially known

Controller gains

Case III
Partially known

Controller gains

Case VI
Completely unknown

Controller gains

Figures 1, 2, and 3 are presented. For every figure, the four different transition probability matrices cases are included, which can be better to demonstrate the effectiveness of the design method. Figure 1 depicts the trajectories of system state and the corresponding switching signal. It can be seen that system (6) is robust finite-time stable, which implies that system (2) is robust finite-time state feedback stabilizable via the designed state feedback controller (5). Figure 2 depicts the trajectories of system state with and the corresponding switching signal. It can be seen that system (6) is robust finite-time bounded. The trajectory of the output is described in Figure 3, which further shows the effectiveness of the designed controller (5).

Figure 1: The trajectory of .

Figure 2: The trajectory of with .

Figure 3: The trajectory of .

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we have dealt with the problem of robust finite-time control for a class of nonlinear Markovian jump systems with time delay under partially known transition probabilities. Based on the free-weighting matrices approach, all sufficient conditions have been firstly proposed to ensure finite-time boundedness, finite-time boundedness, and finite-time state feedback stabilization for the given system. We have also designed a robust finite-time state feedback controller, which guarantees the finite-time boundedness of the closed-loop system. All the conditions have been presented in terms of strict linear matrix inequalities. Finally, a numerical example has been provided to demonstrate the effectiveness of all the results.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants 61273123, 61374004, 61104136, and 61304059, in part by the Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University under Grant NCET-13-0878, and in part by the Program for Scientific Research Innovation Team in Colleges and Universities of Shandong Province.

References

X. M. Yao, L. G. Wu, W. X. Zheng, and C. H. Wang, “Passivity analysis and passification of Markovian jump systems,” Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 709–725, 2010.

T. Shi, H. Su, and J. Chu, “Robust control for uncertain discrete-time Markovian jump systems with actuator saturation,” Journal of Control Theory and Applications, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 465–471, 2011.

W. H. Chen, J. X. Xu, and Z. H. Guan, “Guaranteed cost control for uncertain Markovian jump systems with mode-dependent time-delays,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 48, no. 12, pp. 2270–2277, 2003.

L. J. Shen and U. Buscher, “Solving the serial batching problem in job shop manufacturing systems,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 221, no. 1, pp. 14–26, 2012.

W. Assawinchaichote, S. K. Nguang, and P. Shi, “Robust fuzzy filter design for uncertain nonlinear singularly perturbed systems with Markovian jumps: an LMI approach,” Information Sciences, vol. 177, no. 7, pp. 1699–1714, 2007.

M. Atlans, “Command and control theory: a challenge to control science,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 286–293, 1987.

H. N. Wu and K. Y. Cai, “Mode-independent robust stabilization for uncertain Markovian jump nonlinear systems via fuzzy control,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics B, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 509–519, 2006.

H. N. Wu and K. Y. Cai, “Robust fuzzy control for uncertain discrete-time nonlinear Markovian jump systems without mode observations,” Information Sciences, vol. 177, no. 6, pp. 1509–1522, 2007.

F. Liu and Y. Cai, “Passive analysis and synthesis of Markovian jump systems with norm bounded uncertainty and unknown delay,” Dynamics of Continuous, Discrete & Impulsive Systems A, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 157–166, 2006.

L. X. Zhang and E. K. Boukas, “Stability and stabilization of Markovian jump linear systems with partly unknown transition probabilities,” Automatica, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 463–468, 2009.

X. L. Luan, F. Liu, and P. Shi, “Finite-time filtering for non-linear stochastic systems with partially known transition jump rates,” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 735–745, 2010.

Y. Yin, F. Liu, and P. Shi, “Finite-time gain-scheduled control on stochastic bioreactor systems with partially known transition jump rates,” Circuits, Systems, and Signal Processing, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 609–627, 2011.

Y. Zhang, Y. He, M. Wu, and J. Zhang, “Stabilization for Markovian jump systems with partial information on transition probability based on free-connection weighting matrices,” Automatica, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 79–84, 2011.

L. Weiss and E. F. Infante, “Finite time stability under perturbing forces and on product spaces,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 54–59, 1967.

F. Amato and M. Ariola, “Finite-time control of discrete-time linear systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 724–729, 2005.

G. D. Zong, R. H. Wang, W. X. Zheng, and L. I. Hou, “Finite-time stabilization for a class of switched time-delay systems under asynchronous switching,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 219, no. 11, pp. 5757–5771, 2013.

H. G. Li, Q. Zhou, B. Chen, and H. H. Liu, “Parameter-dependent robust stability for uncertain Markovian jump systems with time delay,” Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 348, no. 4, pp. 738–748, 2011.

K. Ramakrishnan and G. Ray, “Robust stability criterion for Markovian jump systems with nonlinear perturbations and mode-dependent time delays,” International Journal of General Systems, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 373–393, 2012.

L. L. Hou, G. D. Zong, and Y. Q. Wu, “Observer-based finite-time exponential control for discrete-time switched delay systems with uncertainties,” Transactions of the Institute of Measurement and Control, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 310–320, 2013.

Y. Zhang, S. Xu, and J. Zhang, “Delay-dependent robust control for uncertain fuzzy Markovian Jump systems,” International Journal of Control Automation and Systems, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 520–529, 2009.

J. Gao, B. Huang, and Z. Wang, “LMI-based robust control for uncertain linear Markovian jump systems with time-delays,” Automatica, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1141–1146, 2001.

S. P. He and F. Liu, “Unbiased filtering for neutral Markov jump systems,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 206, no. 1, pp. 175–185, 2008.

S. P. He and F. Liu, “Robust finite-time control of stochastic jump systems,” International Journal of Control Automation and Systems, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 1336–1341, 2010.

S. P. He and F. Liu, “Stochastic finite-time stabilization for uncertain jump systems via state feedback,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement and Control, vol. 132, no. 3, Article ID 034504, 4 pages, 2010.

P. Balasubramaniam, R. Krishnasamy, and R. Rakkiyappan, “Delay-dependent stability criterion for a class of non-linear singular Markovian jump systems with mode-dependent interval time-varying delays,” Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 3612–3627, 2012.

X. Mao, “Stability of stochastic differential equations with Markovian switching,” Stochastic Processes and Their Applications, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 45–67, 1999.

Y. Y. Wang, L. H. Xie, and C. E. de Souza, “Robust control of a class of uncertain nonlinear systems,” Systems & Control Letters, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 139–149, 1992.