1. Introduction
Lur'e systems are a class of typical nonlinear dynamic systems that include a number of different chaotic models, such as Chua's circuits, Hopfield neural networks, Lorenz systems, and genetic oscillators, as their special cases. Over the past few decades, synchronization of Lur'e systems without and with time-delay has attracted increasing attention from researchers in various disciplines owing to their applications in image encryption as well as secure communication [1, 2]. Corresponding, plenty of research results regarding the synchronization of Lur'e systems have been proposed in the literature; see, e.g. [3-7] and the references therein.
An actual dynamic system inevitably suffers from exterior interference of varying degrees, which may have a great influence on the synchronization behaviors. Considering that the existing interference is bounded in most cases, it is of necessity to make sure that the state of the synchronization-error system (SES) is also bounded. This issue, called the input-to-state stable (ISS) synchronization problem [8-11], has drawn the interest of researchers in the control community. Nevertheless, it seems that there are few results available on ISS synchronization of time-delay Lur'e systems despite their importance.
On the other hand, structure and parameter uncertainties often exist owing to modeling errors. It is often the case that one has very little information on the bound of these uncertainties, which had led in the past decades to a focus on the adaptive control scheme, with the belief that such a control scheme not only is easy to be implemented, but also can relatively smoothly and accurately track the system trajectory during normal operation [12]. For time-delay Lur'e systems, although the adaptive control approach has been considered in [13-15], how to use it to achieve ISS synchronization of uncertain time-delay Lur'e systems with exterior interference is still unclear and deserves further detailed investigation.
In this paper, we attempt to study the issue of adaptive ISS synchronization for uncertain time-delay Lur'e systems with exterior interference. The main contributions of our work are twofold:
| • | A sufficient condition on the ISS of the SES is derived with the help of the Lyapunov function approach. It is theoretically less conservative than the criterion presented in [16] when there are no parameter uncertainties in the Lur'e system; |
| • | A co-design of the feedback gain and estimates of the uncertain parameters is given to determine the desired adaptive synchronization controller. It depends on the feasibility of few linear matrix inequalities (LMIs) and, therefore, is numerically tractable. |
Notation: let us use ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{m}$, ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{+}$, ${{\mathbb{S}}}_{+}^{m}$, and ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{m\times l}$ to denote the m-dimensional Euclidean space equipped with the Euclidean norm $\parallel \cdot \parallel $, the space of nonnegative real numbers, the space of m-dimensional positive-definite real matrices, and the set of all m × l real matrices, respectively; use ${\mathscr{C}}\left({\rm{\Omega }},{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n}\right)$ to denote the family of all continuous ${{\mathbb{R}}}^{n}$-valued functions on set Ω; use λM(P), λm(P), and PT to stand for the largest eigenvalue, the smallest eigenvalue, and the transpose of a matrix P, respectively; and denote further by ${\mathfrak{H}}e(M)$ the sum of M and MT. Moreover, define $\gamma (\rho ):{{\mathbb{R}}}^{+}\to {{\mathbb{R}}}^{+}$ as a ${\mathscr{K}}$ function provided that the function is not only continuous and strictly nondecreasing, but also satisfies γ(0) = 0.
2. Preliminaries
Consider a type of Lur'e system modeled as
$\begin{eqnarray}\left\{\begin{array}{l}{\dot{\zeta }}_{1}(t)={ \mathcal A }{\zeta }_{1}(t)+{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta }{\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta )+{ \mathcal B }F\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{1}(t)\right)\\ +{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }G\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta )\right)\\ +\sum _{j=1}^{p}{{\rm{\Phi }}}_{j}({\zeta }_{1}(t)){\phi }_{j}+\sum _{j=1}^{q}{{\rm{\Psi }}}_{j}({\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta )){\psi }_{j}+{{ \mathcal E }}_{1}\omega (t)\\ {\eta }_{1}(t)={ \mathcal C }{\zeta }_{1}(t),\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}$
where ${\zeta }_{1}(t)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{m}$ represents the state vector; ${\eta }_{1}(t)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n}$ represents the output vector; $\omega (t)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{l}$ represents the exterior interference; $F(\cdot )={[\begin{array}{ccc}{F}_{1}(\cdot ) & \cdots & {F}_{m}(\cdot )\end{array}]}^{{\rm{T}}}$, $G(\cdot )={[\begin{array}{c}{G}_{1}(\cdot )\cdots {G}_{m}(\cdot )\end{array}]}^{{\rm{T}}}$, Øj(∙), ${{\rm{\Psi }}}_{j}(\cdot )\in {\mathscr{C}}({{\mathbb{R}}}^{n},{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n})$ are continuous nonlinear vector functions; ${ \mathcal A }$, ${{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta }$, ${ \mathcal B }$, ${{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }$, ${ \mathcal C }$, ${{ \mathcal E }}_{1}$, and ${ \mathcal H }$ are the system parameter matrices; Øj, ${\psi }_{j}\in {\mathbb{R}}$ denote uncertain parameters; δ > 0 stands for a time-delay.Lur'e system is a common type of nonlinear system formed by a linear time-invariant system and a feedback loop involving nonlinear dynamics. Such systems are capable of generating strange chaotic attractors and, thus, of great application potential in image encryption and secure communication. It is worthy to point out that the Lur'e system model considered herein includes many famous chaotic models, such as the Lorenz systems, Chua's circuits, and chaotic Hopfield neural networks as its special cases.
In the past decades, chaotic synchronization has aroused great interest in various fields. The existing schemes of synchronization can be roughly divided into two types: the coupled synchronization [17-19] and drive-response (or master-slave) synchronization [20-22]. In this paper, the drive-response scheme will be utilized. Let us set (1 ) as a drive (master) system and then set the following as the corresponding response (slave) system:
$\begin{eqnarray}\left\{\begin{array}{l}{\dot{\zeta }}_{2}(t)={ \mathcal A }{\zeta }_{2}(t)+{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta }{\zeta }_{2}(t-\delta )+{ \mathcal B }F\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{2}(t)\right)\\ +\ {{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }G\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{2}(t-\delta )\right)\\ +u(t)+{{ \mathcal E }}_{2}\omega (t)\\ {\eta }_{2}(t)={ \mathcal C }{\zeta }_{2}(t),\end{array}\right.\end{eqnarray}$
in which ${\zeta }_{2}(t)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{m}$, $u(t)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{m}$, and ${\eta }_{2}(t)\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n}$ stand for the state, input, and output vectors, respectively; ${{ \mathcal E }}_{2}\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n\times l}$ is a constant matrix.Define ∈(t) = ζ2(t) − ζ1(t). Then we are able to establish the following SES:
$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \begin{array}{rcl}\dot{\epsilon }(t) & = & { \mathcal A }\epsilon (t)+{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta }\epsilon (t-\delta )\\ & & +\ { \mathcal B }f\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right)+{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }g\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right)\\ & & +u(t)-\sum _{j=1}^{p}{{\rm{\Phi }}}_{j}({\zeta }_{1}(t)){\phi }_{j}\\ & & -\ \sum _{j=1}^{q}{{\rm{\Psi }}}_{j}({\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta )){\psi }_{j}+{ \mathcal E }\omega (t),\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
in which $\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{rcl}f\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right) & = & F\left({ \mathcal H }\left(\epsilon (t)+{\zeta }_{1}(t)\right)\right)\\ & & -\ F({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{1}(t)),{ \mathcal E }={{ \mathcal E }}_{2}-{{ \mathcal E }}_{1},\\ g\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right) & = & G\left({ \mathcal H }\left(\epsilon (t-\delta )+{\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta )\right)\right)\\ & & -G({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta )).\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
In the paper, the adaptive control approach will be adopted. The form of the controller is as follows:
$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \begin{array}{rcl}u(t) & = & K\eta (t)+\sum _{j=1}^{p}{{\rm{\Phi }}}_{j}({\zeta }_{1}(t)){\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)\\ & & +\sum _{j=1}^{q}{{\rm{\Psi }}}_{j}({\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta )){\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t),\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
in which η(t) = η2(t) − η1(t), K is the controller gain, and ${\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)$ and ${\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)$ are the estimates of Øj and ψj, respectively.In order to achieve synchronization of Lur'e systems, a lot of control strategies including the PD control [6], the adaptive control [13-15], the sampled-state feedback control [23], the time-delayed feedback control [24], the output-feedback control [25], and the sliding mode control [26] etc, have been utilized. Among these control strategies, the adaptive control method not only is easy to be implemented, but also can relatively smoothly and accurately track the system trajectory during normal operation [12]. When the drive system under consideration is subject to structure and parameter uncertainties, such a control method serves as an ideal candidate.
Substituting (4 ) into (3 ), one has
$\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \begin{array}{rcl}\dot{\epsilon }(t) & = & \left({ \mathcal A }+K{ \mathcal C }\right)\epsilon (t)+{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta }\epsilon (t-\delta )\\ & & +\ { \mathcal B }f\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right)+{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }g\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right)\\ & & +\sum _{j=1}^{p}{{\rm{\Phi }}}_{j}({\zeta }_{1}(t))\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)-{\phi }_{j}\right)\\ & & +\sum _{j=1}^{q}{{\rm{\Psi }}}_{j}({\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta ))\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)-{\psi }_{j}\right)\\ & & +{ \mathcal E }\omega (t).\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
In what follows we give the definitions of ISS and ISS synchronization:
Suppose that there are a ${\mathscr{K}}$ function γ(ρ) and a strictly decreasing function β(t) that converges to 0 as $t\to \infty $. Then, system (
$\begin{eqnarray}\parallel \epsilon (t)\parallel \leqslant \beta \left(t\right)+\gamma \left(\mathop{\sup }\limits_{0\leqslant \rho \leqslant t}\parallel \omega (\rho )\parallel \right)\end{eqnarray}$
holds for each t ≥ 0.Systems (
In a physical system, exterior interference is usually unavoidable, which is able to make the system oscillating, unstable or difficult to synchronize. Generally, the interference is not known a priori but is bounded in most cases. It can be observed from definition
In this paper, the aim is to give a design of a adaptive controller in the form of (4 ) to make sure that the drive and response systems (1 ) and (2 ) to be ISS synchronized.
To accomplish the aim, let us introduce the following assumption, which is frequently applied in the literature [29-33]:
Functions ${F}_{1}(\cdot ),\cdots ,{F}_{m}(\cdot )$, ${G}_{1}(\cdot ),\cdots ,$ and ${G}_{m}(\cdot )$ are global Lipschitz continuous; that is, there exist constants ${L}_{{fi}}\geqslant 0$ and ${L}_{{gj}}\geqslant 0$, $i=1,\cdots ,m$, $j=1,\cdots ,m$ such that
$\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{l}\left|{F}_{i}(\alpha )-{F}_{i}(\beta )\right|\leqslant {L}_{{fi}}\left|\alpha -\beta \right|,\\ \left|{G}_{j}(\alpha )-{G}_{j}(\beta )\right|\leqslant {L}_{{gj}}\left|\alpha -\beta \right|,\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
for any α, $\beta \in {\mathbb{R}}$.Besides, we prepare two necessary lemmas, where the proof of lemma 2 is not difficult and is omitted herein for brevity:
[34] Given real matrices P and Q of suitable size, for any real constant θ > 0 we have
$\begin{eqnarray*}{\mathfrak{H}}e\left({P}^{{\rm{T}}}Q\right)\leqslant {\theta }^{-1}{P}^{{\rm{T}}}P+\theta {Q}^{{\rm{T}}}Q.\end{eqnarray*}$
For any $\omega (\rho )\in {\mathscr{C}}\left([a,b],{{\mathbb{R}}}^{n}\right)$ (a, $b\in {\mathbb{R}})$, the following equality holds true:
$\begin{eqnarray*}\mathop{\sup }\limits_{\rho \in [a,b]}{\parallel \omega (\rho )\parallel }^{2}={\left(\mathop{\sup }\limits_{\rho \in [a,b]}\parallel \omega (\rho )\parallel \right)}^{2}.\end{eqnarray*}$
3. Main results
This section is focused on the ISS analysis and the corresponding adaptive synchronization controller design. The following criterion regarding the ISS analysis of the SES in (5 ) can be established: 5 ) is ISS if
Suppose that there are scalars θ1 > 0, θ2 > 0, and matrices P, Q, R, $S\in {{\mathbb{S}}}_{+}^{n}$ such that
$\begin{eqnarray}\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}{{\rm{\Xi }}}_{1} & P{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta } & P{ \mathcal E } & P{ \mathcal B } & P{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }\\ * & {\theta }_{2}{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}{ \mathcal H }-Q & 0 & 0 & 0\\ * & * & -R & 0 & 0\\ * & * & * & -{\theta }_{1}I & 0\\ * & * & * & * & -{\theta }_{2}I\end{array}\right]\lt 0,\end{eqnarray}$
where$\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{rcl}{{\rm{\Xi }}}_{1} & = & {\mathfrak{H}}e\left(P({ \mathcal A }+K{ \mathcal C })\right)+{\theta }_{1}{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}{ \mathcal H }+Q+S,\\ {L}_{f} & = & {\rm{diag}}\left\{{L}_{f1},\cdots ,{L}_{{\rm{fm}}}\right\},\\ {L}_{g} & = & {\rm{diag}}\left\{{L}_{g1},\cdots ,{L}_{{\rm{gm}}}\right\}.\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
Then, system ( $\begin{eqnarray}{\mathop{\breve{\phi }}\limits^{\cdot }}_{j}(t)=-(1+2\varepsilon ){\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)-\mu {{\rm{\Phi }}}_{j}^{{\rm{T}}}({\zeta }_{1}(t))P\epsilon (t)+(1+2\varepsilon ){\phi }_{j},\end{eqnarray}$
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}{\mathop{\breve{\psi }}\limits^{\cdot }}_{j}(t) & = & -(1+2\varepsilon ){\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)-\nu {{\rm{\Psi }}}_{j}^{{\rm{T}}}({\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta ))P\epsilon (t)\\ & & +\ (1+2\varepsilon ){\psi }_{j},\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
where $\varepsilon $ is a scalar satisfying $\begin{eqnarray}2\varepsilon {\lambda }_{M}(P)+({{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \delta }-1){\lambda }_{M}(Q)-{\lambda }_{m}(S)\leqslant 0,\end{eqnarray}$
and $\mu $, ν are any positive scalars.Proof. Let us select a Lyapunov function as5 ) that1 , the following inequalities hold true:1 result in13 ) and (14 ), it follows from (12 ) that7 ) ensures that8 ), (9 ), and (16 ), we have from (15 ) that11 ) and (17 ), one gains18 ) from 0 to t, one has19 ), it can be calculated that19 ), we can obtain10 ), it follows by (20 ) that21 ), (22 ) and lemma 2 , we can get (6 ), where5 ) is ISS and the proof is finished.
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}V(t) & = & {\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P\epsilon (t)+{\int }_{t-\delta }^{t}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho \\ & & +\ {\mu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{p}{\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)-{\phi }_{j}\right)}^{2}\\ & & +\ {\nu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{q}{\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)-{\psi }_{j}\right)}^{2}.\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
We have along system ( $\begin{eqnarray}\displaystyle \begin{array}{l}\dot{V}(t)=2{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P\dot{\epsilon }(t)+{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)Q\epsilon (t)\\ -\,{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t-\delta )Q\epsilon (t-\delta )+2{\mu }^{-1}\sum _{j=1}^{p}\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)-{\phi }_{j}\right){\mathop{\breve{\phi }}\limits^{\cdot }}_{j}(t)\\ +\,2{\nu }^{-1}\sum _{j=1}^{q}\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)-{\psi }_{j}\right){\mathop{\breve{\psi }}\limits^{\cdot }}_{j}(t)\\ =\,2{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P({ \mathcal A }+K{ \mathcal C })\epsilon (t)+2{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta }\epsilon (t-\delta )\\ +\,2{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P{ \mathcal B }f\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right)+2{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }g\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right)\\ +\,2{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P{ \mathcal E }\omega (t)+2\sum _{j=1}^{p}\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)-{\phi }_{j}\right){{\rm{\Phi }}}_{j}^{{\rm{T}}}({\zeta }_{1}(t))P\epsilon (t)\\ +\,2\sum _{j=1}^{q}\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)-{\psi }_{j}\right){{\rm{\Psi }}}_{j}^{{\rm{T}}}({\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta ))P\epsilon (t)+{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)Q\epsilon (t)\\ -\,{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t-\delta )Q\epsilon (t-\delta )+2{\mu }^{-1}\sum _{j=1}^{p}\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)-{\phi }_{j}\right){\mathop{\breve{\phi }}\limits^{\cdot }}_{j}(t)\\ +\,2{\nu }^{-1}\sum _{j=1}^{q}\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)-{\psi }_{j}\right){\mathop{\breve{\psi }}\limits^{\cdot }}_{j}(t).\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
With Assumption $\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{l}{f}^{{\rm{T}}}\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right)f\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right)\leqslant {\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t){{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}{ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t),\\ {g}^{{\rm{T}}}\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right)g\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right)\\ \leqslant {\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t-\delta ){{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}{ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta ),\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
which together with lemma $\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{l}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P{ \mathcal B }f\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right)+{f}^{{\rm{T}}}\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right){{ \mathcal B }}^{{\rm{T}}}P\epsilon (t)\\ \leqslant \,\frac{1}{{\theta }_{1}}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P{ \mathcal B }{{ \mathcal B }}^{{\rm{T}}}P\epsilon (t)+{\theta }_{1}{f}^{{\rm{T}}}\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right)f\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right)\\ \leqslant \,{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)\left(\frac{1}{{\theta }_{1}}P{ \mathcal B }{{ \mathcal B }}^{{\rm{T}}}P+{\theta }_{1}{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}{ \mathcal H }\right)\epsilon (t),\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{l}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }g\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right)+{g}^{{\rm{T}}}\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right){{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }^{{\rm{T}}}P\epsilon (t)\\ \leqslant \,\frac{1}{{\theta }_{2}}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }^{{\rm{T}}}P\epsilon (t)+{\theta }_{2}{g}^{{\rm{T}}}\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right)g\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right)\\ \leqslant \,\frac{1}{{\theta }_{2}}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }^{{\rm{T}}}P\epsilon (t)+{\theta }_{2}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t-\delta ){{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}{ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta ).\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
Noting ( $\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{l}\dot{V}(t)\leqslant {\left[\begin{array}{c}\epsilon (t)\\ \epsilon (t-\delta )\\ \omega (t)\end{array}\right]}^{{\rm{T}}}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}{{\rm{\Xi }}}_{2} & P{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta } & P{ \mathcal E }\\ * & {\theta }_{2}{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}{ \mathcal H }-Q & 0\\ * & * & -R\end{array}\right]\\ \left[\begin{array}{c}\epsilon (t)\\ \epsilon (t-\delta )\\ \omega (t)\end{array}\right]-{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)S\epsilon (t)+{\omega }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)R\omega (t)\\ +\,2\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{p}\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)-{\phi }_{j}\right){{\rm{\Phi }}}_{j}^{{\rm{T}}}({\zeta }_{1}(t))P\epsilon (t)\\ +\,2\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{q}\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)-{\psi }_{j}\right){{\rm{\Psi }}}_{j}^{{\rm{T}}}({\zeta }_{1}(t-\delta ))P\epsilon (t)\\ +\,2{\mu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{p}\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)-{\phi }_{j}\right){\mathop{\breve{\phi }}\limits^{\cdot }}_{j}(t)\\ +\,2{\nu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{q}\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)-{\psi }_{j}\right){\mathop{\breve{\psi }}\limits^{\cdot }}_{j}(t),\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
where $\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{rcl}{{\rm{\Xi }}}_{2} & = & {\mathfrak{H}}e\left(P({ \mathcal A }+K{ \mathcal C })\right)+\frac{1}{{\theta }_{1}}P{ \mathcal B }{{ \mathcal B }}^{{\rm{T}}}P\\ & & +\ {\theta }_{1}{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}{ \mathcal H }+\frac{1}{{\theta }_{2}}P{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }^{{\rm{T}}}P+Q+S.\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
According to Schur's complement, ( $\begin{eqnarray}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}{{\rm{\Xi }}}_{2} & P{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta } & P{ \mathcal E }\\ * & {\theta }_{2}{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}{ \mathcal H }-Q & 0\\ * & * & -R\end{array}\right]\lt 0.\end{eqnarray}$
Using ( $\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{l}\dot{V}(t)\leqslant -{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)S\epsilon (t)+{\omega }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)R\omega (t)\\ -\,2(1+2\varepsilon ){\mu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{p}{\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)-{\phi }_{j}\right)}^{2}\\ -\,2(1+2\varepsilon ){\nu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{q}{\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)-{\psi }_{j}\right)}^{2}\\ \leqslant -{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)S\epsilon (t)+{\omega }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)R\omega (t)-4\varepsilon {\mu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{p}\\ {\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(t)-{\phi }_{j}\right)}^{2}-4\varepsilon {\nu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{q}{\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(t)-{\psi }_{j}\right)}^{2}.\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
Deriving the derivative of e2ϵtV(t) and using ( $\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{l}\frac{{\rm{d}}\left({{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon t}V(t)\right)}{{dt}}=2\varepsilon {{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon t}V(t)+{{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon t}\dot{V}(t)\\ \leqslant \,2\varepsilon {{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon t}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P\epsilon (t)+2\varepsilon {{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon t}{\int }_{t-\delta }^{t}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho \\ -\,{{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon t}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)S\epsilon (t)+{{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon t}{\omega }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)R\omega (t).\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
By integrating both sides of ( $\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{l}{{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon t}V(t)-V(0)\leqslant {\int }_{0}^{t}2\varepsilon {{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon r}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(r)P\epsilon (r){\rm{d}}r\\ +{\int }_{0}^{t}\left(2\varepsilon {{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon r}{\int }_{r-\delta }^{r}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho \right){\rm{d}}r\\ -{\int }_{0}^{t}{{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon r}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(r)S\epsilon (r){\rm{d}}r+{\int }_{0}^{t}{{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon r}{\omega }^{{\rm{T}}}(r)R\omega (r){\rm{d}}r.\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
From the second term on the right hand side of ( $\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{l}{\int }_{0}^{t}\left({\int }_{r-\delta }^{r}2\varepsilon {{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon r}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho \right){\rm{d}}r\\ \leqslant \,\,{\int }_{-\delta }^{t}\left({\int }_{\rho }^{\rho +\delta }2\varepsilon {{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon r}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}r\right){\rm{d}}\rho \\ \leqslant \,{\int }_{-\delta }^{0}({{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \delta }-1){\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho \\ +\,{\int }_{0}^{t}({{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \delta }-1){{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \rho }{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho .\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
Substituting the above inequality into ( $\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{l}V(t)\leqslant \left[{\int }_{0}^{t}\left(2\varepsilon {{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \rho }{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}\right.\right.\\ \left.(\rho )P\epsilon (\rho )+({{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \delta }-1){{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \rho }{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho )\\ \left.-\ {{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \rho }{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )S\epsilon (\rho )\right){\rm{d}}\rho \\ +\,{{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \delta }{\int }_{-\delta }^{0}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho +{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(0)P\epsilon (0)\\ \left.\ +\,{\mu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{p}{\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(0)-{\phi }_{j}\right)}^{2}+{\nu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{q}{\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(0)-{\psi }_{j}\right)}^{2}\right]\\ {{\rm{e}}}^{-2\varepsilon t}+\frac{1-{{\rm{e}}}^{-2\varepsilon t}}{2\varepsilon }{\lambda }_{M}(R)\mathop{\sup }\limits_{\rho \in [0,t]}{\parallel \omega (\rho )\parallel }^{2}\\ \leqslant \,\left[,[,\left(2\varepsilon {\lambda }_{M}(P)+({{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \delta }-1){\lambda }_{M}(Q)-{\lambda }_{m}(S)\right)\right.\\ {\int }_{0}^{t}{{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \rho }{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho +{{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \delta }{\int }_{-\delta }^{0}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho \\ +\,{\lambda }_{M}(P){\parallel \epsilon (0)\parallel }^{2}+{\mu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{p}{\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(0)-{\phi }_{j}\right)}^{2}\\ +\,{\nu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{q}{\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(0)-{\psi }_{j}\right)}^{2}\right]{{\rm{e}}}^{-2\varepsilon t}\\ +\,\frac{{\lambda }_{M}(R)}{2\varepsilon }\mathop{\sup }\limits_{\rho \in [0,t]}{\parallel \omega (\rho )\parallel }^{2}.\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
On the basis of ( $\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{l}V(t)\leqslant \left[{{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \delta }{\int }_{-\delta }^{0}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho +{\lambda }_{M}(P){\parallel \epsilon (0)\parallel }^{2}\right.\\ +\,\left.{\mu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{p}{\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(0)-{\phi }_{j}\right)}^{2}+{\nu }^{-1}\displaystyle \sum _{j=1}^{q}{\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(0)-{\psi }_{j}\right)}^{2}\right]\\ {{\rm{e}}}^{-2\varepsilon t}+\frac{{\lambda }_{M}(R)}{2\varepsilon }\mathop{\sup }\limits_{\rho \in [0,t]}{\parallel \omega (\rho )\parallel }^{2}.\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
On the other hand, it is effortless to get $\begin{eqnarray}{\lambda }_{m}(P){\parallel \epsilon (t)\parallel }^{2}\leqslant V(t).\end{eqnarray}$
Now, using ( $\begin{eqnarray*}\beta \left(t\right)=\sqrt{\displaystyle \frac{{{ \mathcal C }}_{0}}{{\lambda }_{m}(P)}}{{\rm{e}}}^{-\varepsilon t},\gamma \left(\rho \right)=\sqrt{\displaystyle \frac{{\lambda }_{M}(R)}{2\varepsilon {\lambda }_{m}(P)}}\mathop{\sup }\limits_{\rho \in [0,t]}\parallel \omega (\rho )\parallel \end{eqnarray*}$
with $\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{l}{{ \mathcal C }}_{0}=\left({{\rm{e}}}^{2\varepsilon \delta }\delta {\lambda }_{\max }(Q)+{\lambda }_{\max }(P)\right){\left(\mathop{\sup }\limits_{\rho \in [-\delta ,0]}\parallel \epsilon (\rho )\parallel \right)}^{2}\\ +{\mu }^{-1}\sum _{j=1}^{p}{\left({\breve{\phi }}_{j}(0)-{\phi }_{j}\right)}^{2}+{\nu }^{-1}\sum _{j=1}^{q}{\left({\breve{\psi }}_{j}(0)-{\psi }_{j}\right)}^{2}.\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
Therefore, system (When Ω(t) ≡ 0, it can be seen from the above proof that system (
Next, attention will be concentrated on the no parameter uncertainties case (i.e. Øj ≡ ψj ≡ 0). In this case, system (5 ) becomes
$\begin{eqnarray}\begin{array}{rcl}\dot{\epsilon }(t) & = & ({ \mathcal A }+K{ \mathcal C })\epsilon (t)+{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta }\epsilon (t-\delta )+{ \mathcal B }f\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t)\right)\\ & & +{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }g\left({ \mathcal H }\epsilon (t-\delta )\right)+{ \mathcal E }\omega (t).\end{array}\end{eqnarray}$
And one can write the following results:System (
$\begin{eqnarray}\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}{{\rm{\Xi }}}_{1} & P{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta } & P{ \mathcal E } & P{ \mathcal B } & P{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }\\ * & {\theta }_{2}{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}{ \mathcal H }-Q & 0 & 0 & 0\\ * & * & -R & 0 & 0\\ * & * & * & -{\theta }_{1}I & 0\\ * & * & * & * & -{\theta }_{2}I\end{array}\right]\lt 0,\end{eqnarray}$
where $\begin{eqnarray*}{{\rm{\Xi }}}_{1}={\mathfrak{H}}e\left(P{ \mathcal A }+{PK}{ \mathcal C }\right)+{\theta }_{1}{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}{ \mathcal H }+Q+S.\end{eqnarray*}$
Proof. Let us select a Lyapunov function as1 , one can readily reveal that system (23 ) is ISS for any bounded interference Ω(t).
$\begin{eqnarray}V(t)={\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P\epsilon (t)+{\int }_{t-\delta }^{t}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho .\end{eqnarray}$
Then, along parallel lines as the proof of theorem In [16], the ISS filtering issue for delayed nonlinear systems was considered. With the application of a more complicated Lyapunov function as23 ) was obtained:
$\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{rcl}V(t) & = & {\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(t)P\epsilon (t)+{\int }_{t-\delta }^{t}{\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )Q\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho \\ & & +\ {\int }_{t-\delta }^{t}\left(\rho -t+\delta \right){\epsilon }^{{\rm{T}}}(\rho )R\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho \\ & & +{\left[{\int }_{t-\delta }^{t}\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho \right]}^{{\rm{T}}}U\left[{\int }_{t-\delta }^{t}\epsilon (\rho ){\rm{d}}\rho \right],\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
together with the analysis approach therein, the following criterion concerning ISS of system ([16] System (
$\begin{eqnarray}\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}{{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{1} & P{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta } & U & P{ \mathcal E } & P{ \mathcal B } & P{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }\\ * & {{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}{ \mathcal H }-Q & -U & 0 & 0 & 0\\ * & * & -\frac{1}{2\delta }{S}_{2} & 0 & 0 & 0\\ * & * & * & -R & 0 & 0\\ * & * & * & * & -I & 0\\ * & * & * & * & * & -I\end{array}\right]\lt 0,\end{eqnarray}$
where $\begin{eqnarray*}{{\rm{\Lambda }}}_{1}={\mathfrak{H}}e\left(P{ \mathcal A }+{PK}{ \mathcal C }\right)+{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}{ \mathcal H }+\delta {S}_{2}+Q+{S}_{1}.\end{eqnarray*}$
With the aid of Schur's complement, it is not difficult to see that (
Now we are in a position to present our design method for the adaptive synchronization controller in (4 ) via the following theorem. 4 ) with gain K = P−1M as well as updating laws (8 ) and (9 ), systems (1 ) and (2 ) are ISS synchronized.
Suppose that there are scalars θ1 > 0, θ2 > 0, matrices P, Q, R, $S\in {{\mathbb{S}}}_{+}^{n}$, and a matrix $M\in {{\mathbb{R}}}^{n\times m}$ such that
$\begin{eqnarray}\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}{{\rm{\Xi }}}_{1} & P{{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta } & P{ \mathcal E } & P{ \mathcal B } & P{{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta }\\ * & {\theta }_{2}{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{g}{ \mathcal H }-Q & 0 & 0 & 0\\ * & * & -R & 0 & 0\\ * & * & * & -{\theta }_{1}I & 0\\ * & * & * & * & -{\theta }_{2}I\end{array}\right]\lt 0,\end{eqnarray}$
where $\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{rcl}{{\rm{\Xi }}}_{1} & = & {\mathfrak{H}}e\left(P{ \mathcal A }+M{ \mathcal C }\right)+{\theta }_{1}{{ \mathcal H }}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}^{{\rm{T}}}{L}_{f}{ \mathcal H }+Q+S,\\ {L}_{f} & = & \mathrm{diag}\left\{{L}_{f1},\cdots ,{L}_{\mathrm{fm}}\right\},\,\,{L}_{g}=\mathrm{diag}\left\{{L}_{g1},\cdots ,{L}_{\mathrm{gm}}\right\}.\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
Then, under the adaptive controller in (Proof. With PK=M, the inequality of (7 ) can be rewritten as that of (27 ). Thus, systems (1 ) and (2 ) are ISS synchronized according to definition 2 .
Once the LMIs in theorem
4. Example
The section provides an example with simulations to show the applicability and superiority of the analysis and design approach. 1 is satisfied with ${L}_{f}={L}_{g}={\rm{diag}}\{1,0,0\}.$
Consider the drive and response Lur'e systems in (
$\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{rcl}{ \mathcal A } & = & \left[\begin{array}{ccc}-\displaystyle \frac{18}{7} & 9 & 0\\ 1 & -1 & 1\\ 0 & -14.286 & 0\end{array}\right],\\ {{ \mathcal A }}_{\delta } & = & \left[\begin{array}{ccc}-0.1 & 0 & 0\\ -0.1 & 0 & 0\\ 0.2 & 0 & -0.1\end{array}\right],\,{ \mathcal B }=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\displaystyle \frac{27}{7} & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right],\\ {{ \mathcal B }}_{\delta } & = & \left[\begin{array}{ccc}0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right],\,{{ \mathcal E }}_{1}=\left[\begin{array}{c}-1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right],\,{{ \mathcal E }}_{2}=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right],\\ { \mathcal C } & = & {\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right]}^{{\rm{T}}},\,{ \mathcal H }=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right],\,\\ {\zeta }_{1}(t) & = & \left[\begin{array}{c}{\zeta }_{11}(t)\\ {\zeta }_{12}(t)\\ {\zeta }_{13}(t)\end{array}\right],\,{{\rm{\Phi }}}_{1}({\zeta }_{1}(t))=\left[\begin{array}{c}F\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{11}(t)\right)\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right],\\ {{\rm{\Psi }}}_{1}({\zeta }_{1}(t)) & = & \left[\begin{array}{c}G\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{11}(t)\right)\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right]\\ F\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{11}(t)\right) & = & G\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{11}(t)\right)=\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\left(\left|{\zeta }_{11}(t)+1\right|-\left|{\zeta }_{11}(t)-1\right|\right),\\ F\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{12}(t)\right) & = & F\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{13}(t)\right)=G\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{12}(t)\right)=G\left({ \mathcal H }{\zeta }_{13}(t)\right)=0,\\ \omega (t) & = & 0.2\sin (10t),p\,=\,1,\,q\,=\,1.\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
Notice Assumption When Øj ≡ ψj ≡ 0, (i.e. there are no parameter uncertainties), then the system considered in this example can be viewed as a time-delay Chua's circuit [35]. For this situation, both proposition 1 and corollary 1 can be used to check the ISS of the SES. However, as theoretically explained in remark 5 , the former is much conservative than the latter. To illustrate this, let us consider the case that $K=k{[\begin{array}{ccc}1 & 1 & 1\end{array}]}^{{\rm{T}}}$. Then, it can be verified that the LMIs in proposition 1 hold true for k ≤ −3.062, while, by corollary 1 , it is observed that the ISS can be ensured even for k ∈ [ −3.062, −1.651].
Next, let us show the applicability of our design approach. Solving the LMIs in theorem 2 , we can obtain a feasible solution, where2 , the ISS synchronization of the drive and response systems can be ensured under the controller in (4 ) with feedback gain8 ) and (9 ).
$\begin{eqnarray*}\begin{array}{rcl}P & = & \left[\begin{array}{ccc}16.4135 & -21.0625 & 2.4124\\ -21.0625 & 78.6244 & -10.4966\\ 2.4124 & -10.4966 & 7.1752\end{array}\right],\\ M & = & \left[\begin{array}{c}-128.7534\\ -212.3368\\ 31.7822\end{array}\right],\\ Q & = & \left[\begin{array}{ccc}109.8950 & -0.0001 & -0.1741\\ -0.0001 & 51.7207 & 1.1786\\ -0.1741 & 1.1786 & 9.7692\end{array}\right],\,R=\begin{array}{c}95.3604\end{array},\\ S & = & \left[\begin{array}{ccc}67.6844 & 0.0000 & 0.0000\\ 0.0000 & 41.8412 & 1.0287\\ 0.0000 & 1.0287 & 5.3038\end{array}\right],\\ {\theta }_{1} & = & 99.2800,\,{\theta }_{2}=61.2565.\end{array}\end{eqnarray*}$
Therefore, according to theorem $\begin{eqnarray}K={P}^{-1}M={\left[\begin{array}{ccc}-17.2568 & -7.4035 & -0.5991\end{array}\right]}^{{\rm{T}}}\end{eqnarray}$
as well as updating laws in (The simulations are carried out in MATLAB R2020b. As in [36], we consider the case when the uncertain parameters have different orders of magnitude. More specifically, the following two cases will be examined: Case A. Ø1 = 0.02, ψ1 = − 0.005; Case B. Ø1 = − 0.75, ψ1 = − 0.075. Under initial condition1 ) for Case A. For Case B, the chaotic behavior is similar to figure 1 and therefore omitted herein for brevity.
$\begin{eqnarray*}{\zeta }_{1}(\rho )={\left[-0.2-0.30.2\right]}^{{\rm{T}}},\,\rho \in [-\delta ,0],\,\,\delta =1,\end{eqnarray*}$
figure 1 shows the chaotic behavior of drive system (
Figure 1. Chaotic behavior. |
Next, set μ = 0.1, ν = 0.1, $\varepsilon =0.001,\,{\breve{\phi }}_{1}(0)=-0.5$, ${\breve{\psi }}_{1}(0)=0.3$, and randomly choose the initial value of response system (2 ) between −1 and 1 as follows:
$\begin{eqnarray*}{\zeta }_{2}(\rho )={\left[\begin{array}{ccc}-0.7613 & -0.1478 & 0.5349\end{array}\right]}^{{\rm{T}}},\,\rho \in [-1,0].\end{eqnarray*}$
Figures 2 and 3 show the state of the SES and the estimates ${\breve{\phi }}_{1}(t)$, ${\breve{\psi }}_{1}(t)$ of Ø1, ψ1 with exterior interference for Case A and Case B, respectively; figures 4 and 5 further show the trajectories in the absence of exterior interference. It is found from these figures that the SES based on the designed adaptive controller is state-bounded under the bounded interference and quickly convergent in the absence of interference. Therefore, the simulations coincide with the present theoretical results.
Figure 2. Trajectories of ∈i(t)(i = 1, 2, 3), ${\breve{\phi }}_{1}(t)$, and ${\breve{\psi }}_{1}(t)$ when (Ø1, ψ1) = (0.02, −0.005). |
Figure 3. Trajectories of ∈i(t)(i = 1, 2, 3), ${\breve{\phi }}_{1}(t)$, and ${\breve{\psi }}_{1}(t)$ when (Ø1, ψ1) = ( − 0.75, −0.075). |
Figure 4. Trajectories of ∈i(t)(i = 1, 2, 3), ${\breve{\phi }}_{1}(t)$, and ${\breve{\psi }}_{1}(t)$ when (Ø1, ψ1) = (0.02, −0.005) and Ω(t) ≡ 0. |
Figure 5. Trajectories of ∈i(t)(i = 1, 2, 3), ${\breve{\phi }}_{1}(t)$, and ${\breve{\psi }}_{1}(t)$ when (Ø1, ψ1) = ( − 0.75, −0.075) and Ω(t) ≡ 0. |
5. Conclusions
In this paper, the issue of adaptive ISS synchronization of time-delay Lur'e systems has been studied, where the exterior interference and parameter uncertainties have been considered simultaneously. With the aid of a Lyapunov function and some inequality techniques, a co-design of the feedback gain and estimates of the uncertain parameters has been proposed to determine the desired adaptive synchronization controller. For showing the applicability and superiority of the analysis and design approaches, an example with simulations has been given.