2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.nahs.2012.11.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

T–S fuzzy-model-based robust stabilization for a class of nonlinear discrete-time networked control systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One can see from Table 1 that the results provided by Theorem 1 à coincide with those obtained from [16], where Theorem 1 à denotes Theorem 1 with P 41 ¼ P 31 , P 42 ¼ P 32 , P 43 ¼ 0 and P 44 ¼ P 33 ; the results are obtained from Theorem 1 in this paper are better than those in [3,6,10,16,17,25] with relatively less demand of computation burden, and some improvements over [10] Table 2 gives the results of the two controller designs under the lower delay bound d 1 ¼ 1: one is based on the method given by [5], and the other is based on Theorem 3 of this paper. It can be seen from Table 2 that the results provided in this paper are less conservative than those by [5]. Moreover, to show the effectiveness of the obtained results, the membership function is assumed to be l 1 ¼ ð1 À 1=ð1 þ expðÀ6x 2 ðkÞ À 1:5pÞÞÞ Â ð1 þ 1=ð1þ expðÀ6x 2 ðkÞ À 1:5pÞÞÞ, l 2 ¼ 1 À l 1 , and let the scenario where the input delay changes randomly in the range 1 dðkÞ 10.…”
Section: Numerical Examplesmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…One can see from Table 1 that the results provided by Theorem 1 à coincide with those obtained from [16], where Theorem 1 à denotes Theorem 1 with P 41 ¼ P 31 , P 42 ¼ P 32 , P 43 ¼ 0 and P 44 ¼ P 33 ; the results are obtained from Theorem 1 in this paper are better than those in [3,6,10,16,17,25] with relatively less demand of computation burden, and some improvements over [10] Table 2 gives the results of the two controller designs under the lower delay bound d 1 ¼ 1: one is based on the method given by [5], and the other is based on Theorem 3 of this paper. It can be seen from Table 2 that the results provided in this paper are less conservative than those by [5]. Moreover, to show the effectiveness of the obtained results, the membership function is assumed to be l 1 ¼ ð1 À 1=ð1 þ expðÀ6x 2 ðkÞ À 1:5pÞÞÞ Â ð1 þ 1=ð1þ expðÀ6x 2 ðkÞ À 1:5pÞÞÞ, l 2 ¼ 1 À l 1 , and let the scenario where the input delay changes randomly in the range 1 dðkÞ 10.…”
Section: Numerical Examplesmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…lemma 3 in [5]). Since the term X T 2 NX 2 is not ignored in the process of the proof, less-conservative results than those in [5] can be expected. This will be demonstrated later through numerical examples.…”
Section: System and Problem Descriptionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…By exploiting both the single Lyapunov function and the so-called parallel distributed compensation (PDC) control law [11], quadratic stabilization conditions for T-S fuzzy control systems have been addressed in the past two decades and many extensive results have been given in terms of LMIs, e.g., [12,13]. However, those existing quadratic stabilization conditions are very conservative and thus numerous slack variable methods have been proposed for further releasing its conservatism [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. As far as the problem of control synthesis of discrete-time T-S fuzzy systems is concerned, the usage of both the nonquadratic Lyapunov function and the non-PDC control law has been fully investigated and several kinds of relaxed non-quadratic stabilization conditions have been proposed in the existing literature.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%