Controlling The Uncertain Time-Delayed Lipschitz Nonlinear System: The

Finite-time Non-fragile Design Approach

Longfang Li1, Qilong Ai1, Shuping He1,2
1. School of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Anhui University, Hefei, China
E-mail: 1281783825@qq.com, 279550868@qq.com
2. Key Laboratory of Intelligent Computing & Signal Processing, Ministry of Education, Anhui University, Hefei, China
E-mail: shuping.he@ahu.edu.cn

Abstract: TThe finite-time non-fragile H’ controller design problem of a class of Lipschitz nonlinear systems with
uncertainties and time-delays is studied. The objective is to design a suitable non-fragile controller which makes the
Lipschitz nonlinear system be finite-time bounded and satisfies the given H’ performance index. By choosing a proper
Lyapunov function and using linear matrix inequalities, a sufficient condition for the existence of finite-time
non-fragile H’ controller is given and proved. Then, the designed method is described as an optimization one. Finally,
the effectiveness and feasibility of the proposed design method is illustrated by the simulation result.
Key Words: finite-time bounded, Lipschitz nonlinear systems, uncertain, non-fragile H’ controller

more details of this topic, we refer readers to the

1 INTRODUCTION
In the research of control theory, the characteristics of
infinite time interval are usually studied. However, the
transient state is particularly important in some
engineering requirements, which requires that the
trajectory of control system should not exceed a given
limit. To solve the transient, dating back to the 1960s,
Dorator proposed the concept of short-term stability (i .e.
finite-time stability) in [1], after that, the concept of
finite-time boundedness was put forward, and late
attracted many people, which later attracted many people.
In [2], He and Liu studied the finite-time stabilization for
Markov jump systems in continuous/discrete-time case.
For more results in this paper, we cite the reader's
references [3-7].
On the other hand, controller design is affected by many
factors in practical industry, such as system modeling,
working environment changes, measurement accuracy,
etc. Therefore, the inevitable existence of parameter
uncertainties, which cause the system unstable or not up to
the expected performance index. That is, the design of the
controller should not only make the design of the
controller system stable, but also consider the parameters
of the non-fragile control problem. The authors in [8] have
studied the non-fragile guaranteed cost control for
uncertain stochastic nonlinear time-delay systems. For
This work was supported in part by the Foundation for Distinguished
Young Scholars of Anhui Province under Grant No 1608085J05 and the
Key Support Program for University Outstanding Youth Talent of Anhui
Province under Grant gxydZD2017001.
Corresponding author to Shuping He at: School of Electrical
Engineering and Automation, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, PR
China. Tel./fax: +86 55163861943. E-mail addresses:
shuping.he@ahu.edu.cn.
references [ 9-14].
In this paper, the finite-time H’ control problem is
studied for a class of nonlinear systems with uncertainties
and time-delays. Our aim is to design a suitable
non-fragile controller such that the closed-loop control
system is finite-time bounded (FTB) and satisfies the
given H’ performance index. By using a proper Lyapunov
function, a sufficient condition that the solution of the
finite-time non-fragile H’ controller exists is proposed
and proved. Finally, a simulation result is given to show
the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method.
2 SYSTEM FORMULATION
Considering a class of Lipschitz nonlinear systems with
time-delays and uncertainties:
­ x (t ) = ( A + ΔA) x(t ) + ( Ai + ΔAi ) x(t − h)
°+ Bu (t ) + Gw(t ) + Ff ( x(t ), t )
°
® , (1)
° z (t ) = (C + ΔC ) x(t ) + Du (t )
°¯ x(t ) = x0 , t = 0.
where x(t ) ∈ ℜ n is the state, u (t ) ∈ ℜ m is the
controlled input, w(t ) ∈ ℜ p
is the disturbance input, x0
is the initial state, A , Ai , B , C , D , G , F are
known constant matrices with proper dimension. ΔA ,
ΔAi and ΔC are unknown matrices, the matrices with
the symbol Δ (⋅) are considered to be the uncertain
matrices satisfying the following condition:
ª ΔA ΔAi º ª M 1 º
«ΔC * » = « M » S (t )[N1 N 2 ] , (2)
¬ ¼ ¬ 2¼
where S (t ) is the time-varying unknown matrix function
with Lebesgue norm measurable elements satisfying

978-1-5386-1243-9/18/$31.00 2018
c IEEE 5244

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III MADRID. Downloaded on October 27,2020 at 03:23:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 S Τ (t ) S (t ) ≤ I and M 1 , M 2 , N1 , N 2 are known real MS (t ) N + N Τ S Τ (t ) M Τ ≤ μ −1MM Τ + μN Τ N . (11)
constant matrices. And the the disturbance input satisfies: 3 MAIN RESULTS
T
Τ
³ w (t ) w(t )dt < δ , (3) In this section, our purpose is to solve the problem of
0
non-fragile finite-time H’ controller design for the
where δ and T are known constants. closed-loop nonlinear system (6). The solution of the
For system (1), we suppose the state of the system can non-fragile finite-time H’ controller gain is given in the
be available, and the state feedback controller as: form of LMIs.
u(t ) = ( K + ΔK ) x(t ) , (4) Theorem 1. For given T > 0 , α > 0 , c1 > 0 , ε > 0 ,
where K is the controller gain matrix to be determined, δ > 0 and symmetric matrices η , R > 0 , the
ΔK is the additive perturbation of the controller gain, closed-loop nonlinear system (6) is FTB with respect to
and satisfies:
(c1 c 2 T R δ ) , if there exists a constant c 2 > c1 ,
ΔK = M 3 S (t ) N 3 , (5)
symmetric positive definite matrices P ∈ ℜ n× n ,
where S (t ) is the time-varying unknown matrix and n×n
Q∈ℜ , such that:
satisfies S Τ (t ) S (t ) ≤ I , M 3 and N 3 are known
matrices. The state feedback controller (4) can be called ªΠ11 − αP PAi PG º
« »
as the non-fragile H’ state feedback controller of system « * −Q 0 » <0, (12)
(1). « * * 2 »
−γ I¼
Substituting the state feedback controller (4) into ¬
system (1), the closed-loop nonlinear system is obtained γ 2δ
c1 (λ1 + hλ 3 ) + (1 − e −αT ) < λ 2 c 2 e −αT , (13)
as follows: α
­ x (t ) = A x(t ) + Ai x(t − τ ) + Gw(t ) + Ff ( x(t ), t ) where Π11 = A Τ P + PA + Q + ε −1 PFF Τ P + εη Τη ,
°°
® z (t ) = C x(t ) , (6) ~ ~ ~
° x(t ) = x ; t = 0 λ max ( P ) = λ1 , λ min ( P ) = λ 2 , λ max (Q ) = λ 3 .
°¯ 0
Proof. Consider a Lyapunov function as:
t
where A = ( A + ΔA) + B( K + ΔK ) , V ( x (t )) = x Τ (t ) Px (t ) + ³ x Τ ( s )Qx( s )ds . (14)
t −h
C = (C + ΔC ) + D ( K + ΔK ) , Ai = ( Ai + ΔAi ) . Along the trajectories of the system (6), the derivative
Assumption 1. f ( x(t ), t ) is a known nonlinear function of V ( x( t )) is given as
and satisfies the following Lipschitz condition: V ( x(t )) = x Τ (t ) Px(t ) + x Τ (t ) Px(t ) + x Τ (t )Qx(t )
f ( x1 , t ) − f ( x 2 , t ) ≤ η ( x1 − x 2 ) , (7) − x Τ (t − h)Qx(t − h)
where η is a known real constant matrix.
= x Τ (t )( A T P + PA + Q) x(t ) + x Τ (t − h) Ai Τ Px(t ) . (15)
Definition 1. For given constants T > 0 , c1 > 0 ,
Τ Τ Τ Τ
c 2 > 0 and a symmetric matrix R > 0 , the closed-loop + x (t ) PAi x(t − h) + x (t ) PGω (t ) + ω (t )G Px(t )
nonlinear system (6) is said to be finite-time bounded − x Τ (t − h)Qx(t − h) + 2 f Τ ( x, t ) F Τ Px(t )
(FTB) with respect to (c1 c 2 T R δ ) , if there 2 2
Using Assumption 1, we can get f ( x, t ) ≤ ηx .
exists a constant c 2 > c1 , such that:
Then we have:
x Τ (t 0 ) Rx(t 0 ) ≤ c1 Ÿ x Τ (t ) Rx(t ) ≤ c 2 , ∀t ∈ [0 T ] . (8) 2 f Τ (x, t)F ΤPx(t) ≤ ε −1xΤ (t)PFFΤPΤx(t) + εf Τ (x, t) f (x, t)
Definition 2. Controller (4) is said to be a finite-time H’ . (16)
controller of system (1), if the closed-loop nonlinear ≤ xΤ (t)(ε −1PFFΤP + εηΤη)x(t)
system (6) is FTB with respect to (c1 c 2 T R δ ) Hence, we can get
and satisfies the following finite-time H’ disturbance V (x(t)) ≤ xΤ (t)( AΤ P + PA + Q + εηΤη + ε −1PFF Τ P)x(t)
rejection performance: i (t − h) + x (t )PGω(t )
+xΤ (t − h) Ai ΤPx(t) + xΤ (t)PAx Τ
.(17)
T T
Τ
z (t ) z (t )dt < r 2 Τ
w (t ) w(t )dt , (9) +ωΤ (t)GΤPx(t) − xΤ (t − h)Qx(t − h)
³0 ³
0
From inequality (12), we have:
where γ > 0 .
V ( x(t )) < αV ( x(t )) + γ 2 w Τ (t ) w(t ) . (18)
Lemma 1. Given proper dimensional matrices x, y, X and − αt
Y, the following inequality is established: Multiplying the above inequality by e , we can get:
2 x Τ XYy ≤ ε −1 x Τ X Τ Xx + εy ΤY ΤYy . (10) e −αtV ( x(t )) < e −αt αV ( x(t )) + e −αt γ 2 wΤ (t ) w(t ) . (19)
Lemma 2. Suppose that M and N are appropriate Integrating the above inequality from 0 to t , it follows
dimension matrices. If there exists a matrix S (t ) which that:
t
is bounded by S Τ (t ) S (t ) ≤ I and a scalar μ > 0 , we e −αt V ( x(t )) − V (0) < γ 2 −αt
w Τ (t )w(t )dt . (20)
have:
³e 0
Then, the above inequality is equivalent to

The 30th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2018 CCDC) 5245

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III MADRID. Downloaded on October 27,2020 at 03:23:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 t d 
V ( x(t )) < eαtV (0) + eαt γ 2 e −αt wΤ (t ) w(t )dt . (21) [V ( x(t ))] < e −αt [γ 2 w Τ (t ) w(t ) − z Τ (t ) z (t )] . (28)
³ 0 dt
~ ~ −1 2 −1 2 Integrating the above inequality from 0 to t , we have:
If we define P = R −1 2 PR −1 2 and Q = R QR ,
t
we have: e −αt V (t ) − V (0) < −ατ
(γ 2 w Τ (t ) w(t ) − z Τ (t )( z ))dt . (29)
Τ Τ
x (t ) Px (t ) ≤ V ( x(t ))
³e
0

t
Thus,
< eαt V (0) + γ 2 eαt ³ e −αt wΤ (t )w(t )dt t t
0 . (22) ³ e −α t z Τ (t ) z (t ) dt < γ 2
³e
−ατ
w Τ (t ) w (t ) dt , (30)
~ ~ 0 0
< eαT λmax ( P)c1 + eαT τλmax (Q)c1 + δeαT (1 − e −αT ) which means,
~
<eαT [λ1c1 + eαT τλ3 (Q)c1 + γ 2δ α (1 − e −αT )] t t
³z
Τ
(t )z (t )dτ < γ 2 e αT ³e
−ατ
w Τ (τ ) w(τ )dτ . (31)
On the other hand, we have 0 0

V ( x(t )) = x Τ (t ) Px(t ) + ³
t
x Τ ( s )Qx( s )ds For ∀t ∈ [0 T ] , we have:
t −h
. (23) T T
≥ x Τ (t ) Px(t ) ≥ λ2 xΤ (t ) Rx(t ) ≥ λ2 c2 ³ z Τ (τ )z (τ ) dτ < γ 2 e αT ³ w Τ (τ ) w(τ )dτ . (32)
0 0
Then it follows that,
It is clearly that for ∀t ∈ [0 T ] , the finite-time
γ 2δ
c1 (λ1 + hλ 3 ) + (1 − e −αT ) non-fragile H’ disturbance rejection performance (9) can
Τ
x (t ) Rx(t ) ≤ α . (24)
−αT be guaranteed by γ = e αT γ . This completes the proof.
c2 λ2 e
Obviously, condition (13) implies that for ∀t ∈ [0 T ] , Theorem 3. For given constants T > 0 , α > 0 , c1 > 0 ,
ε > 0 , δ > 0 and symmetric matrices η , R > 0 , the
x Τ ( t ) Rx(t ) < c 2 . According to Definition 1, this
closed-loop nonlinear system (6) is FTB with respect to
completes the proof. (c1 c 2 T R δ ) , where c1 < c 2 , and satisfies the
Remark 1. Theorem 1 gives the sufficient conditions to
given H’ disturbance rejection performance (9), if there
guarantee the finite-time boundedness of the closed-loop
nonlinear system (6). Considering the performance index exist scalars c 2 > 0 , ν > 0 , μ > 0 , θ > 0 , σ 1 > 0 ,
function in inequality (12), we can get the following σ 2 > 0 and symmetric positive-definite matrices
Theorem 2. n×n
X ∈ ℜ n× n , Q ∈ ℜ , S ∈ ℜ n× n and real matrix
Theorem 2. For given T > 0 , α > 0 , c1 > 0 , ε > 0 , m× n , such that:
Y ∈ℜ
δ > 0 and symmetric matrices η , R>0, the closed-loop
nonlinear system (6) is FTB with respect to ªΓ1 Ai G Λ1 XN1Τ XN3Τ XN1Τ º
« »
(c1 c 2 T R δ ) and satisfies the given H’ « * −Q 0 0 N2 Τ 0 0 »
disturbance rejection performance (9), if there exist « * * −γ 2 I 0 0 0 0 »
γ >0 , « »
constants c2 > 0 and symmetric Ω3 = « * * * Λ2 0 0 0 » < 0 , (33)
positive-definite matrices P ∈ ℜ n×n , Q ∈ ℜ n×n , such «
* − μI
»
«* * * 0 0 »
that inequalities (12), (13) and the following inequality «* * * * * −νI 0 »
hold: « »
¬* * * * * * −θI ¼
ª Π 11 − α P + C T C P A i PG º
« » σ 1 R −1 < X < R −1 , (34)
« * − Q 0 » < 0 , (25)
0 < Q <σ 2R , (35)
« * * −γ 2I»
¬ ¼ ª γ 2δ º
where Π 11 = A Τ P + PA + Q + ε −1 PFF Τ P + εη Τη . «c1hσ 2 + (1− e −αT ) − c2 e −αT c1 »
α <0, (36)
« »
Proof. Consider the same Lyapunov function as Theorem «¬ c1 −σ 1 »¼
1. Along the track of the system (14), we solve the
derivative of V ( x (t )) and get: where
Γ1 = XAΤ + AX + Y Τ B Τ + BY + S + εXη ΤηX + ε −1 FF Τ
V(x(t)) = xΤ (t)(AΤP + PA + Q+εηΤη +ε −1PFFΤ P)x(t) ,
Τ Τ Τ Τ + μ −1 M 1 M 1Τ − αX +ν −1 BM 3 M 3 Τ B Τ
+ x (t − h)Ai Px(t) + x (t)PAi x(t − h) + x (t)PGω(t) .(26)
Τ Τ Τ
Λ 1 = XC Τ + Y Τ D Τ + ν −1 BM 3 M 3 Τ D Τ ,
+ω (t)G Px(t) − x (t − h)Qx(t − h)
Introduce the following inequality: Λ 2 = − I + ν −1 DM 3 M 3 Τ D Τ + θ −1 M 2 M 2 Τ .
V ( x(t )) < αV ( x(t )) + γ 2 w Τ (t ) w(t ) − z Τ (t ) z (t ) . (27) Furthermore, the controller gain matrix can be
expressed as K = YX −1 .
Multiplying the above inequality by on both e −αt , we
Proof. Substituting A = ( A + ΔA) + B( K + ΔK ) ,
can get:
C = (C + ΔC ) + D ( K + ΔK ) , Ai = ( Ai + ΔAi ) into (25),
we can get:

5246 The 30th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2018 CCDC)

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III MADRID. Downloaded on October 27,2020 at 03:23:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ªΦ 1 P( Ai + ΔAi ) PG º ­ΔΩ2 = M1S(t)N1 + M1ΤS Τ (t)N1Τ
«* −Q 0 »» < 0 . °
« (37)
«¬ * * − γ 2 I »¼
° < μ −1M1M1Τ + μN1Τ N1
° Τ Τ
where °ΔΩ3 = M2S(t)N2 + N2 S Τ (t)N2
® , (40)
Φ1 = ((A + ΔA) + B(K + ΔK))Τ P + P((A + ΔA)
° <ν −1M2M2Τ +νN2Τ N2
+ B(K + ΔK)) + Q + εηΤη + ε −1 PFFΤ P −αP . ° Τ Τ Τ
Τ °ΔΩ4 = M3S(t)N3 + N3 S (t)N3
+ ((C + ΔC) + D(K + ΔK)) ((C + ΔC) + D(K + ΔK)) °
Considering inequality (37), we can get the following ¯ < θ −1M3M3Τ +θN3Τ N3
where M1 = [PM1 0 0 0]Τ , N 1 = [N1 0 0] ,
relation: N2
Ω1 + ΔΩ1 < 0 , (38)
where M 2 = [PBM3 0 0 DM3 ]Τ , N 2 = [N 3 0 0 0] ,
ªΞ 1 PAi PG C Τ + K Τ D Τ º M 3 = [0 0 0 M 2 ]Τ , N 3 = [N 1 0 0 0] .
« »
* −Q 0 0 Then for (38) and (39), using the Schur complement
Ω1 = « »,
lemma, we obtain:
«* * −γ 2I 0 »
« » ªΦ PAi PG Λ11 N1Τ N 3 Τ N1Τ º
¬« * * * −I ¼» « »
«* −Q 0 0 N2Τ 0 0 »
ªΔΦ 1 PΔAi 0 ΔC Τ + ( DΔK ) Τ º «*
« » * −γ 2I 0 0 0 0 »
* 0 0 0 « »
ΔΩ 1 = « », Ω3 = « * * * Λ12 0 0 0 » < 0 ,(41)
« * * 0 0 » « »
« » «* * * * − μI 0 0 »
¬« * * * 0 ¼» «* * * * * −νI 0 »
« »
Ξ1 = A P + PA + (BK) Τ P + PBK + Q + εη Τη
Τ
¬ * * * * * * − θI ¼
,
+ ε −1 PFF Τ P − αP where
ΔΦ 1 = ΔA Τ P + PΔA + (ΔBK ) Τ P + PΔBK . Φ = A Τ P + PA + PBK + ( BK ) Τ P + Q + εη Τη + εPFF T P
,
Then for (38), using the Schur complement lemma and − αP + μ −1 PM 1 M 1 Τ P + ν −1 PBM 3 M 3 Τ B Τ P Τ
Lemma 2, we obtain the following inequality:
Λ 11 = C Τ + ( DK ) Τ + ν −1 PBM 3 M 3 Τ D Τ ,
ΔΩ 2 + ΔΩ 3 + ΔΩ 4 < 0 , (39)
where Λ 12 = − I + θ −1 M 2 M 2 Τ +ν −1 DM 3 M 3 Τ D Τ .
ªΔΦ2 PΔAi 0 0º Define X = P −1 , Y = KX , S = XQX . Pre- and
« * 0 0 0»» post-multiplying inequality (41) by
ΔΩ2 = « <0,
« * * 0 0» diag{P−1 I I I I I I} , we can get (33).
« » ~
¬ * * * 0¼ Then, denoting X~ = R 1 2 XR 1 2 , Q = R −1 2 QR −1 2 ,
~ ~ ~
ªΔΦ3 0 0 (DΔK)T º letting σ 1 ≤ λ min ( X ) , λ max ( X ) < 1 , λ max (Q ) ≤ σ 2 ,
« » ~ ~
* 0 0 0 » and considering λ max ( X ) = 1 λ min ( P ) , it can be easily
ΔΩ3 = « < 0,
« * * 0 0 » shown that condition (13) can be guaranteed by inequality
« »
¬« * * * 0 ¼» (36). This completes the proof.
Remark 2. Theorem 3 gives sufficient conditions for the
ª0 0 0 ΔC T º existence of finite-time non-fragile H’ controller of
« »
* 0 0 0 » system (1). Considering the coupling inequalities
ΔΩ 4 = « <0, (33)-(36) are limited to X , Y , S , c1 , c2 , δ , T ,
«* * 0 0 »
« » α , ν , μ , θ , σ 1 , σ 2 , ε and γ 2 , the optimization
¬«* * * 0 ¼»
problem can be described as follows:
ΔΦ 2 = ΔA T P + PΔA , ΔΦ 3 = ( ΔBK ) T P + PΔBK .
min γ2
According to conditions (2), (5) and Lemma 2, ΔΩ 2 , X ,Y , S ,c1 ,`c2 ,δ ,T ,α ,ν , μ ,θ ,σ 1 ,σ 2 ,ε ,γ 2 . (42)
ΔΩ 3 and ΔΩ 4 can be rewritten as: s.t. LMIs (33) - (36)

4 NUMERAL EXAMPIE
Considering a class of Lipschitz nonlinear systems with
parameters described by:

The 30th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2018 CCDC) 5247

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III MADRID. Downloaded on October 27,2020 at 03:23:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ª− 10 2º ª− 2 1 º ª0.2º From the simulation results, we know that the
A=«
4 − 2 » , Ai = « 1 2» , B = « 1 » , C = [0.5 1] , closed-loop system is stable in Fig.1 and Fig.2; the
¬ ¼ ¬ ¼ ¬ ¼
evolution of x Τ (t ) Rx(t ) of the resulted the uncertain
ª− 0.1º ª1 0.4º ª 0.2 º
D =1 , G = « » , F = «0 1 » , M 1 = «− 0.3» , close-loop system (6) depicted as Fig.3. It can be seen that
¬ 0 . 1 ¼ ¬ ¼ ¬ ¼ the uncertain Lipschitz nonlinear systems are FTB and the
M 2 = [0.3] , M 3 = 1 , N 1 = [0.2 0.1] , N 2 = [0.1 0.3] , state trajectory satisfies x Τ (t ) Rx(t ) < c1 .
N 3 = [1 0.5] .
Remark 3. According to Deinition1, it is obviously that
The value of the constants are given as the uncertain Lipschitz nonlinear systems are FTB with
η=«
ª0.4 1 º respect to (c1 c 2 T R δ ) , in the simulation
» , c1 = 0.5 , α = 0.3 , ε = 0.5 , T = 5 ,
¬ 1 0 .4 ¼ example, as long as the choice of c1 with the initial
δ = 0.6 , μ = 0.8 , ν = 0.2 , θ = 1 , σ 1 = 0.4 , h = 1 . x 0 Τ Rx 0 ≤ c1 . Then, the non-fragile
states is satisfied to
By using LMI toolbox in Matlab to solve LMIs
(33)-(36), we have the controller gain as state feedback controlled system is FTB and satisfies the
K = [− 1.5009 − 2.3311] , constraint condition (9).
with other parameters as c 2 = 82.8068 , σ 2 = 16.9542 , 5 CONCLUSION
γ = 3.1623 .
In this paper, the problem of the finite-time non-fragile
With the initial conditions x 0 = [0.5 0.4]Τ , we can get H’ controller is considered for a class of nonlinear
the simulation results shown in Fig 1-3. systems with uncertainties and time-delays. The nonlinear
terms are satisfied the Lipschitz condition. Based on the
suitable Lyapunov function and linear matrix inequalities,
we design a proper non-fragile controller to make the
closed-loop system be FTB and satisfies the given H’
performance index. A simulation result is given to show
the validity of the proposed approach.
REFERENCES
[1] P Dorato, Short time stability in linear time-varying
systems, Proc of the IRE Int Convention Record, 1961:
83-87.
[2] S He, F Liu, Finite-time stabilization for Markov jump
Fig. 1. The state trajectories of the closed-loop system
systems via state feedback, Control and Decision, 2009, 24
(1): 91-95.
[3] S He, J Song, F Liu, Robust finite-time bounded controller
design of time-delay conic nonlinear systems using sliding
mode control strategy, IEEE Transactions on Systems Man
and Cybernetics: Systems, In press. DOI:
10.1109/TSMC.2017.2695483.
[4] J Zhang, Z Deng, Y Wang, Robust stability and
stabilization of positive interval systems subject to actuator
saturation, Asian Journal of Control, 2014, 16 (5):
1553-1560.
[5] Y Ma, H Chen, Reliable finite-time H’ filtering for
discrete time-delay systems with Markovian jump and
Fig. 2. The output trajectory of the closed-loop system randomly occurring nonlinearities, Applied Mathematics
and Computation, 2015, 268 (25): 897-915.
[6] J Cheng, L Xiong, B Wang, J Yang, Robust finite-time
boundedness of H’ filtering for switched systems with
time-varying delay, Optimal Control Applications and
Methods, 2016, 37(2): 259-278.
[7] Y Zhang, Y Shi, P Shi, Resilient and robust finite-time
H’ control for uncertain discrete-time jump nonlinear
systems, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2017, 49:
612-629.
[8] J Zhang, P Shi, J Qiu, Non-fragile guaranteed cost control
for uncertain stochastic nonlinear time-delay systems,
Journal of the Franklin Institute, 2009, 346 (7): 676-690.
[9] S He, Non-fragile passive controller design for nonlinear
Fig. 3. The state trajectory x Τ (t ) Rx(t ) of the closed-loop system Markovian jumping systems via observer-based controls,
Neurocomputing, 2015, 147 (5): 350-357.

5248 The 30th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2018 CCDC)

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III MADRID. Downloaded on October 27,2020 at 03:23:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 [10] Y Kang, H Xi, D Zhang, H Ji, Robust and non-fragile H’
control for a class of uncertain jump linear systems, Acta
Automatica Sinica, 2006, 32 (3): 438-443.
[11] S He, Q Ai, C Ren, J Dong, F Liu, Finite-time resilient
controller design of a class of uncertain nonlinear systems
with time-delays under asynchronous switching, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems,
In press. DOI: 10.1109/TSMC.2018.2798644.
[12] Y Ma, M Chen, Non-fragile H’ state feedback control for
singular Markovian jump fuzzy systems with interval
time-delay, International Journal of Machine Learning and
Cybernetics, 2016, 1(4): 1-11.
[13] L Liu, Z Han, W Li, H’ non-fragile observer-based sliding
mode control for uncertain time-delay systems, Journal of
the Franklin Institute, 2010, 347 (2): 567-576.
[14] Y Zhang, Y Shi, P Shi, Robust and non-fragile finite-time
H’ control for uncertain Markovian jump nonlinear
systems, Applied Mathematics and Computation, 2016,
279: 125-138.

The 30th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (2018 CCDC) 5249

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDAD CARLOS III MADRID. Downloaded on October 27,2020 at 03:23:01 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.