Predictor‐based output feedback control design for sampled systems with input delay subject to disturbance

Event-triggered predictor-based control with gain-Scheduling and extended state observer for networked control systems

“…It is worth mentioning that the existing error between the exact and the approximated predictions in a disturbed system cannot be removed, even in case of time-constant disturbances using integral action [34]. To overcome this limitation, predictor-feedback approaches were recently combined with Extended State Observer (ESO) to actively reject external disturbances in the presence of time-constant delays [25,17], and further extended to timevarying delays [14]. These last works considered disturbances that affect the state through channels in which the input has no direct influence (mismatched disturbances), which are generally more difficult to handle for disturbance rejection purposes [3].…”

“…comprising transmission delays, packet loss and packet disorder (as explained in Section 2.1 and Section 2.2) are used to update the control scheme during control execution by means of the gain-scheduling law given in (14), (16) and (17). Corollary 1 reveals that closed-loop system behavior approaches to the nominal closed-loop performance given by the eigenvalues of (A + BK) and (A − LC) for sufficiently slow time-varying delays, no matter how long they are.…”

Bounded control of feedforward time‐delay systems with linearized systems consisting of chain of oscillators

“…where y i (t), i ∈ I [1,3], are given by (60), A , b are given by (2) with = 1, and i , i ∈ I[1, 3], satisfy…”

“…For this reason, research interest on these two topics has increased over the past two decades. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Among the problems studied, an important fundamental problem is the global stabilization of control systems with bounded and/or delayed controls. [10][11][12][13] For the global stabilization of multiple integrators systems by bounded controls, the results in the work of Sussmann and Yang 14 have shown that linear feedback is only valid if the dimension is smaller than three.…”

“…121 = 131 = 3 − (h 2 + h 3 + h 4 ), 122 = 132 = 2 − (h 2 + h 3 + h 4 ), 133 = − (h 2 + h 3 + h 4 ), 2 = 231 = 2 − (h 3 + h 4 ), 232 = − (h 3 + h 4 ),3 = − h 4 . Clearly, the above inverse transformation satisfies(10) and the second inequalities of (11) by noticing ≥ Σ 4 i=2 h i .Step Design u(t) for system (59).…”