2012
DOI: 10.1049/iet-cta.2011.0089
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic output feedback control for Markovian jump systems with time-varying delays

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…To this end, it is assumed that the lower and upper bounds of time-delay are d 1 = 0.1 and d 2 = 1.1, respectively. It has been found that there is no feasible solution based on the delay-dependent approach presented in [31]. However, by applying Theorem 3 with ϵ 1 = ϵ 2 = 1, one indeed obtains the feasible solutions, and a detailed comparison of the obtained minimum H ∞ performance indices γ min by the mode-dependent nonrational controller (6) with different delay-derivatives and transition rate (TR) divisions is shown in Table 2, where unknown µ indicates the corresponding delay-derivative-independent controller design results, as mentioned in Remark 7, and K = 2, K = 3 and K = 4 represent that the TRM is divided evenly into two, three, and four sections with the mid-points of their upper and lower bounds by the sojourn-time fractionizing technique, respectively.…”
Section: Simulation Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To this end, it is assumed that the lower and upper bounds of time-delay are d 1 = 0.1 and d 2 = 1.1, respectively. It has been found that there is no feasible solution based on the delay-dependent approach presented in [31]. However, by applying Theorem 3 with ϵ 1 = ϵ 2 = 1, one indeed obtains the feasible solutions, and a detailed comparison of the obtained minimum H ∞ performance indices γ min by the mode-dependent nonrational controller (6) with different delay-derivatives and transition rate (TR) divisions is shown in Table 2, where unknown µ indicates the corresponding delay-derivative-independent controller design results, as mentioned in Remark 7, and K = 2, K = 3 and K = 4 represent that the TRM is divided evenly into two, three, and four sections with the mid-points of their upper and lower bounds by the sojourn-time fractionizing technique, respectively.…”
Section: Simulation Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note that most of the existing dynamic output feedback controller (DOFC) synthesis involves exclusively the rational controller for time-delay systems [28][29][30][31]. An attempt to design a nonrational controller [32], which is with a time-delay frame in the controller structure, seems more sensible and less conservative, since more information on time-delays is incorporated in the controller.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Owing to the hybrid nature of reset control systems and the flow set and jump set are dependent on the output matrix uncertainty, the reset controller design is not easy. However, note that the dynamic output feedback (DOF) is used for the flow dynamics of the reset controller (5), and there exist some DOF design methods for linear systems (see [29][30][31]). Then, with the proposed stability conditions in this work, the reset controller can be designed based on the DOF design (i.e.…”
Section: Remarkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to obtain the main results in this paper, the following lemmas are needed: Lemma 3.1: [7] For any scalars M > 0, N > 0 , h(t) is a continuous function and satisfies h m < h(t) < h M , then…”
Section: Output Feedback Designmentioning
confidence: 99%