Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/BasicLatin.js
Research article Special Issues

Adaptive predefined-time prescribed performance control for spacecraft systems


  • Received: 28 October 2022 Revised: 14 December 2022 Accepted: 02 January 2023 Published: 13 January 2023
  • The high-accuracy attitude maneuvering problem for spacecraft systems is investigated. A prescribed performance function and a shifting function are first employed to ensure the predefined-time stability of attitude errors and eliminate the constraints on tracking errors at the incipient stage. Subsequently, a novel predefined-time control scheme is developed by combining prescribed performance control and backstepping control procedures. Radial basis function neural network and minimum learning parameter techniques are introduced to model the function of lumped uncertainty including inertial uncertainties, actuator faults and virtual control law derivatives. According to the rigorous stability analysis, the preset tracking precision can be achieved within a predefined time and the fixed-time boundedness of all closed-loop signals is established. Finally, the efficacy of the propounded control scheme is manifested through numerical simulation results.

    Citation: Yuhan Su, Shaoping Shen. Adaptive predefined-time prescribed performance control for spacecraft systems[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 5921-5948. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023256

    Related Papers:

    [1] Robert Stephen Cantrell, Chris Cosner, Yuan Lou . Evolution of dispersal and the ideal free distribution. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2010, 7(1): 17-36. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2010.7.17
    [2] Minus van Baalen, Atsushi Yamauchi . Competition for resources may reinforce the evolution of altruism in spatially structured populations. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 3694-3717. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019183
    [3] Jinyu Wei, Bin Liu . Coexistence in a competition-diffusion-advection system with equal amount of total resources. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(4): 3543-3558. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021178
    [4] Andrea Pugliese, Abba B. Gumel, Fabio A. Milner, Jorge X. Velasco-Hernandez . Sex-biased prevalence in infections with heterosexual, direct, and vector-mediated transmission: a theoretical analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(1): 125-140. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018005
    [5] Nancy Azer, P. van den Driessche . Competition and Dispersal Delays in Patchy Environments. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2006, 3(2): 283-296. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2006.3.283
    [6] Zhilan Feng, Robert Swihart, Yingfei Yi, Huaiping Zhu . Coexistence in a metapopulation model with explicit local dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2004, 1(1): 131-145. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2004.1.131
    [7] Yang Kuang, Angela Peace, Hao Wang . Special issue: Resource explicit population models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(1): 538-540. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019025
    [8] Bethan Morris, Lee Curtin, Andrea Hawkins-Daarud, Matthew E. Hubbard, Ruman Rahman, Stuart J. Smith, Dorothee Auer, Nhan L. Tran, Leland S. Hu, Jennifer M. Eschbacher, Kris A. Smith, Ashley Stokes, Kristin R. Swanson, Markus R. Owen . Identifying the spatial and temporal dynamics of molecularly-distinct glioblastoma sub-populations. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 4905-4941. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020267
    [9] Azmy S. Ackleh, Shuhua Hu . Comparison between stochastic and deterministic selection-mutation models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2007, 4(2): 133-157. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2007.4.133
    [10] Muntaser Safan . Mathematical analysis of an SIR respiratory infection model with sex and gender disparity: special reference to influenza A. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 2613-2649. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019131
  • The high-accuracy attitude maneuvering problem for spacecraft systems is investigated. A prescribed performance function and a shifting function are first employed to ensure the predefined-time stability of attitude errors and eliminate the constraints on tracking errors at the incipient stage. Subsequently, a novel predefined-time control scheme is developed by combining prescribed performance control and backstepping control procedures. Radial basis function neural network and minimum learning parameter techniques are introduced to model the function of lumped uncertainty including inertial uncertainties, actuator faults and virtual control law derivatives. According to the rigorous stability analysis, the preset tracking precision can be achieved within a predefined time and the fixed-time boundedness of all closed-loop signals is established. Finally, the efficacy of the propounded control scheme is manifested through numerical simulation results.



    In recent years, multi-agent consensus control has been recognized as a vital element of distributed collaborative control for applications such as distributed computing, unmanned aerial vehicle formation, and intelligent transportation systems. Researchers have shown significant interest in this area, and a wide range of control mechanisms have been explored in the past few years. These control mechanisms include adaptive [1,2,3,4], fault-tolerant [5], impulse [6,7], and sliding mode [8] methods.

    In practical systems, the stability of the system state is susceptible to disruption from unexpected factors, including nonlinear dynamics and system uncertainties. Existing research has primarily focused on continuous-time systems, where the state information of intelligent agents is continuously transmitted between nodes, leading to significant network usage and energy consumption. However, the development of event-triggered control solves this problem by avoiding constant communication. Earlier studies on event-triggered control that can be found have investigated centralized, distributed, and self-triggered event-triggered control techniques [9,10,11]. One researcher proposed an adaptive event-triggered control scheme for strongly connected networks that dynamically adjusted the triggering time interval on the basis of sampled data [12]. Another mechanism using a dynamic event-triggering mechanism was proposed to reduce communication resource wastage compared with traditional event-triggering mechanisms [13]. Others have assumed that system parameters such as the efficiency factor of the executor, external disturbances, and precursor control input signals are all unknown and introduced a fault-tolerant control to obtain sufficient conditions for consistent tracking [14]. However, these findings primarily investigate traditional event triggering mechanisms. In [15,16], researchers proposed a dynamic event-triggered mechanism, which can significantly reduce the number of triggers and conserve communication resources. researchers respectively proposed centralized and distributed dynamic event-triggered mechanisms in [15,16], while scholars suggested both centralized and distributed mechanisms in [17], verifying their superiority.

    However, the rapid growth of network information technologies has also led to a rise in cyber attacks. Among them, denial-of-service (DoS) attacks are the most common, being relatively easy to execute in the attack space. These attacks usually target the controller or exhaust the resources of the target system directly, resulting in the system being unable to provide normal services or communication. In some cases, these attacks cause the system to crash. Therefore, countering DoS attacks has received significant research attention. Researchers studied the multi-agent systems(MASs) under DoS attacks in given attack frequency and upper bounds on attack duration [18,19]. Compared with linear systems, nonlinear MASs are more widely used in real life. Among these, a secure controller based on event triggering was proposed to solve the lead-following consensus problem of second-order nonlinear systems [20]. This is more common than linear systems. Another proposal was for an event-triggered adaptive fault-tolerant control strategy, which reduced the computational cost of heterogeneity [21]. For nonperiodic DoS attacks, the upper bounds of network attacks, actuator failures, attack duration, and frequency are obtained. Another method uses a security mechanism employing a prediction-based switching observer scheme to address the issue of invalidation in event-triggered mechanisms during attack intervals [22]. A novel framework for observer-based event-triggered containment control, taking into account the occurrence of DoS attacks, has also been introduced [23]. This framework establishes a resilient event-triggered controller, using a specially designed observer. The goal is to achieve consistent control of MASs in the presence of DoS attacks.

    Based on these observations, we aim to explore the security consensus problem of nonlinear MAS with external disturbances under DoS attacks in this paper. Our contributions are as follows.

    1) In this paper, a nonlinear system with external disturbances is considered, and the effects of the nonlinear dynamics and uncertainty of the system are eliminated by designing an adaptive scheme and state-feedback control gains by updating the laws of the adaptive parameters online.

    2) Compared with [22,23], a dynamic variable is introduced to adjust the triggering instances under DoS attacks. Therefore, the event-triggered mechanism proposed in this paper is more flexible and can effectively save communication resources. In addition, continuous communication between agents is not required to determine whether a trigger condition satisfies the trigger condition.

    Notation R is the set of real numbers, and RN×N is the set of N×N real matrix. represents a Euclidean norm of vectors or matrices. The superscripts A1 and AT represent the inverse and transpose of matrix A. λmax(A) is the maximum eigenvalue, and λmin(A) is the minimum eigenvalue of matrix A. D+() denotes the righthand derivative of a function, and is Kronecker product. diag{A1,,An} is the diagonal matrix. is the intersection of sets, and denotes the union of sets.

    For a given MAS, the digraph G is (V,E), where V={1,2,,N} is the set of nodes, and EV×V represents the edge set of followers. The information exchange between each node can be described by the adjacency matrix A and the Laplacian matrix L. A=[aij]RN×N if agents i and j communicate with one another, aij=1; otherwise aij=0 and L=[lij]Rn×n where L=DA, The degree matrix D=diag(di) with di=Ni=1aij. In this paper, we assume that the agents are linked by a balancing topology, i.e., aij=aji. If the agent i communicates with the leader, then bi=1; otherwise, bi=0.

    For a leader-following system, the dynamics of the leader are described by the equation

    ˙x0=Ax0+f(t,x0(t)). (2.1)

    The ith follower system is

    ˙xi=Axi+Bui(t)+f(t,xi(t))+wi. (2.2)

    In the preceding, x(t)Rn are positions of the agent, ui(t)R is the control input, ARn×n and BRn×p are system matrices, f(x) is a nonlinear function, and wi is the uncertainty input satisfying

    wiςi1|u|+ςi2|x|+γi, (2.3)

    where ςi1<1, ςi2 and γi are unknown constants.

    Lemma 1. If the nonlinear function f(t,xi(t)),i=1,2,..., is continuously differentiable in a region SR2 and xi(t0)S, then for any xi(t0)S, the following formula is satisfied:

    f(xi(t),t)f(xi(t0),t)=f()xi×(xi(t)xi(t0)), (2.4)

    where f()=f(xi(t0))+Δ(xi(t)xi(t0)), 0<Δ<1.

    Assumption 1. If there is a continuously differentiable function f(t,xi(t)) and the highest order s{1,2,N}, there exist bounded positive scalars δix, such that

    |f(zi)xi|δixxis, (2.5)

    where xis=|xi|s+|xi|s1++1,s1. We also need some assumptions to ensure that the purpose is achieved.

    Assumption 2. A,B can be stabilized, and the digraph G is strongly connected.

    Next, we define the position errors ei(t):

    ei(t)=Nj=0,jiaij(xi(t)xj(t))+bi(xi(t)x0(t)). (2.6)

    According to Definition 1, we have

    ˙ei(t)=Nj=0,jiaij(˙xi(t)˙xj(t))+bi(˙xi(t)˙x0(t))=Nj=0,jiaij(A(xixj)+B(uiuj)+[f(t,xi(t))f(t,xj(t))]+(wiwj))+bi(A(xix0)+Bui)+wi+bi[f(t,xi(t))f(t,x0(t))]=Nj=0,jiAaij((xixj)+bi(xix0))+Baij(uiuj)+aijf(zi)xi(xi(t)xj(t0))+aij(wiwj))+bi(Bui+wi))+bi[f(zi)xi(xi(t)x0(t))]=Nj=0,jiA(aij(xixj)+bi(xix0))+f(zi)xi[aij(xi(t)xj(t0))+bi(xi(t)x0(t))]+aij(B(uiuj))+(wiwj))+bi(Bui+wi)). (2.7)

    We also have

    ˙e(t)=(L+L0)(Bu(t)+w(t))+(A+f(zi)x)e(t), (2.8)

    where e(t)=[e1(t),e2(t),,ei(t)], f(zi)x=diagNi=1[f(zi)xi], L0=diagNi=1[bi]. L is defined as

    lij={Nk=1,kiaik,j=iaij,ji. (2.9)

    , then Eq (2.8) can be expressed as

    ˙e(t)=(A+ΔA)e(t)+ˉL(Bu(t)+w(t)), (2.10)

    where A=[IN×N000], ˉL=[0L+L0], ΔA=[000f(zi)x].

    Definition 1. MAS (2.1) and (2.2) are said to have consensus if each agent's position state in the system satisfies

    lim (2.11)

    The distributed adaptive control input is

    \begin{equation} u_{i}(t) = k_{i}e_{i}(t)-\bar{e}_{i}\Psi _{i}(t), \end{equation} (2.12)

    where \bar{e}_{i} = \sum_{j = 1}^{N}a_{ji}e_{ji}, a_{ii} = a_{i0}+\sum_{j = 1, j\neq i}^{N}a_{ij} . k_{i} is the control gain determined based on the linear matrix inequality(LMI)

    \begin{equation} (A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)^{T}P+P(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)\leq 0, \end{equation} (2.13)

    where P = \begin{bmatrix} P_{0} & 0_{N\times N} \\ 0_{N\times N} & I_{N\times N} \end{bmatrix} > 0, K = diag[k_{i}], and P_{0} is a positive definition matrix. \Psi _{i}(t) is defined as

    \begin{equation} \Psi _{i} = \left\{\begin{matrix}\frac{1}{1-\varsigma _{i1}}(\frac{\varsigma _{i1}\left | k_{i}e_{i}\right |+\varsigma _{i2}\left | x_{is}\right |+\gamma_{i}}{\left | e_{i}\right |}+\frac{2\hat{\delta} _{ix}\left | e\right |^{2}x_{is}}{\left | e_{i}\right |^{2}}), & e_{i} \neq 0 \\ 0, & e_{i} = 0 \end{matrix}\right. \end{equation} (2.14)

    where \hat{\delta} _{ix} is the estimate of unknown parameters \delta _{ix} . The following describes the updated laws for the adaptive parameters:

    \begin{equation} \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat{\delta}_{i}}{\mathrm{d}t} = \left | e_{i}\right |^{2}x_{is}. \end{equation} (2.15)

    Since \delta _{i} is an unknown constant, defined as \tilde{\delta}_{i}(t) = \hat{\delta }_{i}(t)-\delta _{i} , the adaptive error systems are described by

    \begin{equation} \frac{\mathrm{d}\tilde{\delta}_{i}}{\mathrm{d}t} = \frac{\mathrm{d}\hat{\delta}_{i}}{\mathrm{d}t}. \end{equation} (2.16)

    It follows from Eq (2.12) that

    \begin{equation} u(t) = ke(t)-\bar{e}\Psi(t), \end{equation} (2.17)

    where k(t) = [k_{1}(t), k_{2}(t), \cdots ]^{T} and \bar{e} = \left [ \bar{e}_{1}, \bar{e}_{2}\cdots \bar{e}_{n}\right ] . According to Eqs (2.11) and (2.15), we have

    \begin{equation} \dot{e}(t) = (A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)e(t)+\Delta _{A}e(t)-\bar{L}(B\bar{e}_{v}\Psi(t))-\bar{L}w(t). \end{equation} (2.18)

    Next, we define the event trigger time series as \left \{t_{k}^{j}\right \} for the j th agent. Therefore, the next triggering time t_{k+1}^{i} for the i th agent can be expressed as

    \begin{equation} t_{k+1}^{i} = \inf\left \{t > t_{k}^{i}|H_{i}(t)\geq 0 \right \} . \end{equation} (2.19)

    The function H_{i}(\cdot) is given by

    \begin{equation} H_{i}(\cdot) = -\theta _{i}\chi _{i}(t)+\alpha _{i}\left \| q_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}-\eta _{i}\left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}, \end{equation} (2.20)

    where \theta _{i} > 0 , \alpha _{i}, \eta _{i}\in \mathbb{R}^{n} > 0 . q_{i}(t) is defined as the measurement error according to Eq (2.6):

    \begin{equation} q_{i}(t) = e_{i}(t_{k}^{i})-e_{i}(t). \end{equation} (2.21)

    \chi _{i}(t) satisfies

    \begin{equation} \dot{\chi }_{i}(t) = -\beta _{i}\chi _{i}(t)+\eta _{i}\left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}-\alpha _{i}\left \| q_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}, \end{equation} (2.22)

    where \beta _{i} > 0 , initial value \chi _{i}(0) > 0 could be randomly selected, and t_{0}^{i} = 0 .

    Remark 1: The internal dynamic variable updates according to internal variables such as self-feedback, measurement error, and neighborhood error. In comparison with the conventional static triggering strategy [22,23], the dynamic event triggered control protocol we proposed can more effectively reduce network communication and save resources.

    A DoS attack aims to block the communication channels so the targeted system cannot exchange information normally. Communication channels are not the only things affected by DoS attacks because the attacks can damage communication equipment along with hindering data transmission, measurement, and control channels simultaneously. DoS attacks are extremely destructive to the system, but their energy consumption requires attackers to replenish energy supplies after the attack is over, which takes time. Therefore, the time series can be split into two sections based on whether a DoS assault was launched. In the absence of the DoS attack, the system functions and communicates properly. However, in the presence of a DoS attack, communication is cut off, and the controller stops functioning. Here, we assume that the time interval of DoS attacks is \left \{t_{m}\right \}_{m\in \mathbb{N}} , where t_{m} is the moment of the DoS attack, and \left [t_{m}, t_{m}+\Delta _{m}\right ] is the m th DoS time interval, and \Delta _{m} is the time duration of the m th attack. The DoS attack interval is the same for all multi-agents. Thus, the set time instants where communication is blocked (the interval of the DoS attack) are

    \begin{equation} \Xi _{a}(t_{0},t) = \left \{\bigcup\limits_{m\in \mathbb{N}}\left [t_{m},t_{m}+\Delta _{m}\right ]\right \}\cap \left [ t_{0},t\right ]. \end{equation} (3.1)

    Similarly, the sequence of time intervals without attacks is given by

    \begin{equation} \Xi _{s}(t_{0},t) = \left [ t_{0},t\right ]\setminus \Xi _{a}(t_{0},t). \end{equation} (3.2)

    Because of the recovery mechanism, the MAS cannot immediately restore communication after the end of a DoS attack, and due to the event-triggering mechanism, there is an upper bound for the time when the two events occur consecutively. We assume that they can exist at the same time. Therefore, the actual DoS attack lasts longer, and consequently, the m th DoS attack's actual time frame may be described as \left [t_{m}, t_{m}+\bar{\Delta} _{m} \right ] . The new time period of the DoS attack is as follows:

    \begin{equation} \tilde{\Xi} _{a}(t_{0},t) = \left \{\bigcup\limits_{m\in \mathbb{N}}\left [t_{m},t_{m}+\bar{\Delta} _{m}\right ]\right \}\cap \left [ t_{0},t\right ] \end{equation} (3.3)
    \begin{equation} \tilde{\Xi} _{s}(t_{0},t) = \left [ t_{0},t\right ]\setminus \tilde{\Xi} _{a}(t_{0},t) \end{equation} (3.4)

    Assumption 2. Define n_{a}(t_{0}, t) as the number of attacks in the period \left [ t_{0}, t\right ] , so the attack frequency F_{a}(t_{0}, t) > 0 satisfies

    \begin{equation} F_{a}(t_{0},t) = \frac{ n_{a}(t_{0},t)}{t-t_{0}}. \end{equation} (3.5)

    Assumption 3. Define N_{a}(t_{0}, t) as the total time interval of the DoS attack in the period \left [ t_{0}, t\right ] . The constants T_{0}\geq 0, F_{0}\geq 0, 0 < \frac{1}{T_{1}} < 1, 0 < \frac{1}{F_{1}} < 1 are such that

    \begin{equation} \left | \Xi _{a}(t_{0},t)\right |\leq \Xi _{0}+\frac{t-t_{0}}{T_{1}} \;\mathrm{ and} \end{equation} (3.6)
    \begin{equation} N_{a}(t_{0},t)\leq F_{0}+\frac{t-t_{0}}{F_{1}}, \end{equation} (3.7)

    where \frac{1}{T_{1}} is the attack strength.

    Lemma 1. Previous research considers Eq (2.1) and this DoS attack model under Assumptions 2 and 3 [18]. If the Lyapunov function V_{1}(t), V_{2}(t) satisfies

    \begin{equation} \left\{\begin{matrix} \dot{V}_{1}(t)\leq -l_{0}V(t)+\tau _{0} & t\in \tilde{\Xi} _{s}\\ \dot{V}_{2}(t)\leq l_{1}V(t)+\tau _{1}& t\in \tilde{\Xi} _{a} \end{matrix}\right. , \end{equation} (3.8)

    where l_{0}, l_{1}, \tau _{0}, \tau_{1} are positive constants. T_{1}, F_{1} defined in Assumption 3 satisfies

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \frac{1}{T_{1}} < \frac{l_{0}-\eta ^{*}}{l_{0}+l_{1}}&\\ \frac{1}{F_{1}} < \frac{\eta ^{*}}{2\ln \kappa +(l_{0}+l_{1})\rho } \end{aligned}, \end{equation} (3.9)

    where 0 < \eta ^{*} < l_{0} is the time to restore communication. \rho > 0 , \kappa\geq1 is a constant satisfying

    \begin{equation} \left\{\begin{matrix} \kappa V_{2}((t_{m}+\bar{\Delta} _{m})^{-})-V_{1}(t_{m}+\bar{\Delta} _{m})\geq 0\\ \kappa V_{1}(t_{m}^{-})-V_{2}(t_{m+1})\geq 0 \end{matrix}\right. . \end{equation} (3.10)

    Thus, we say that V(t) are bounded.

    Remark 2: Lemma 1 gives an upper bound on DoS attack frequency and duration, ensuring that the Lyapunov function remains stable over the entire time span [18].

    Remark 3: The DoS attack considered in this paper mainly attacks the communication channels between agents. Thus, when the DoS attack comes, there is no information interaction between neighboring agents, and the event-triggering control is not triggered. In addition, we consider a DETC. Compared with the traditional event-triggering control, we introduce a dynamic variable that uses communication resources more effectively. In the simulation section below, we compare our method with the traditional event-triggering mechanism.

    In this section, we prove system stability. Our presentation has two sections: the stability study of the MAS (2.1) and (2.2) under a DoS attack and the proof of non-Zeno behavior.

    Theorem 1. For the MAS (2.1) and (2.2) under DoS attacks, we consider Assumption 1 and the controller (2.12). If the LMI (2.13) satisfies (A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)^{T}P+P(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)\leq \xi _{i}P , where \xi _{i}\in \mathbb{R}^{n} = \sigma _{i}\eta _{i}, \sigma _{i} > 1 , then a feasible solution exists and the MAS is said to achieve leader-following consensus.

    Proof of Theorem 1. The system stability proof is also divided into two parts. The communication of the system is damaged under a DoS attack, but the system is not always in an impassable state. The proof is divided between DoS attacks and non-DoS attacks, as per the prior section. When there are non-DoS attacks in the system, we consider the Lyapunov function

    \begin{equation} \begin{split} W(t) = V(t)+\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\chi _{i}(t) = e^{T}(t)Pe(t)+\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\kappa _{i}^{-1}\tilde{\delta _{i}^{2}}+\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\chi _{i}(t). \end{split} \end{equation} (4.1)

    It follows from Eqs (2.20)–(2.22) that

    \begin{equation} \dot{\chi }_{i} = -\beta _{i}\chi _{i}-\theta _{i}\chi _{i}. \end{equation} (4.2)

    The preceding implies that

    \begin{equation} \chi _{i}(t)\geq \chi _{i}(0)e^{-(\beta _{i}+\theta _{i})t} > 0, \end{equation} (4.3)

    which leads to W(t) > 0 .

    The derivative of W is

    \begin{equation} \begin{split} \dot{W}(t)& = e^{T}[(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)^{T}P+P(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)]e+\\&2e^{T}P\Delta _{A}e-2e^{T}P\bar{L}\bar{e}\Psi (t)+2e^{T}P\bar{L}w(t)+\\&\sum\limits_{i}^{N}2\kappa _{i}^{-1}\dot{\tilde{\delta }}_{i}\tilde{\delta }_{i}+\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\dot{\chi} _{i}(t). \end{split} \end{equation} (4.4)

    According to Eq (2.3), the condition in Assumption 1, and the control protocol in {Eq (2.12)}, we have

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \dot{W}(t) & \leq e^{T}[(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)^{T}P+P(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)]e+\\&2\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\left | e\right |^{2}\frac{\partial f(z_{i})}{\partial x_{i}}-2\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\left | e\right |^{2}\Psi _{i}+\\&2\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\left | e\right |(\varsigma _{i1}\left | u\right |+\varsigma _{i2}\left | x\right |+\delta _{i})+\\&\sum\limits_{i}^{N}2\kappa _{i}^{-1}\dot{\tilde{\delta }}_{i}\tilde{\delta }_{i}+\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\dot{\chi} _{i}(t)\\ &\leq e^{T}[(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)^{T}P+P(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)]e+\\&2\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\delta _{ix}\left | e\right |^{2}x_{is}-2\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\left | e\right |^{2}(1-\varsigma _{i1})\Psi _{i}+\\&2\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\left | e\right |(\varsigma _{i1}\left | k_{i}e_{i}\right |+\varsigma _{i2}\left | x\right |+\delta _{i})\\&+\sum\limits_{i}^{N}2\kappa _{i}^{-1}\dot{\tilde{\delta }}_{i}\tilde{\delta }_{i}+\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\dot{\chi} _{i}(t). \end{aligned} \end{equation} (4.5)

    Choosing \Psi _{i}(t) as in Eq (2.15), we obtain

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \dot{W}(t)&\leq e^{T}[(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)^{T}P+P(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)]e-\\&2\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\delta _{ix}\left | e\right |^{2}x_{is}+\sum\limits_{i}^{N}2\kappa _{i}^{-1}\dot{\tilde{\delta }}_{i}\tilde{\delta }_{i}+\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\dot{\chi} _{i}(t)\\ &\leq e^{T}[(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)^{T}P+P(A+\bar{L}\otimes BK)]e+\\&\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\dot{\chi} _{i}(t) \end{aligned}. \end{equation} (4.6)

    On the other hand

    \begin{equation} \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\xi _{i}e_{i}^{T}(t)Pe_{i}(t)\leq \lambda _{max}(P)\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\xi _{i}\left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}. \end{equation} (4.7)

    Based on the condition in Theorem 1, Eq (2.22), and Eq (4.6), we have

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \dot{W}(t)&\leq-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}(\xi _{i}-\eta _{i})\left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\alpha _{i}\left \| q_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\beta _{i}\chi _{i}\\&\leq-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\eta _{i}(\sigma _{i}-1)\left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\beta _{i}\chi _{i} , \end{aligned} \end{equation} (4.8)

    then

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \dot{W}(t)&\leq -(\sigma _{M}-1)\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\xi _{i}\left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\beta _{i}\chi _{i}\\ &\leq -l_{0}W(t)+\tau _{0} \end{aligned}, \end{equation} (4.9)

    where l_{0} = \min ([(\sigma _{M}-1)/\lambda _{\max}(P)], 1 , \beta _{m}) > 0 , \sigma _{M} = \max[\sigma _{i}] , \beta _{m} = \min [\beta _{i}] , \tau _{0} = \sum_{i = 1}^{N}\kappa _{i}^{-1}\tilde{\delta _{i}^{2}} , l_{0}, and \tau _{0} are positive constants.

    When there are DoS attacks in the system, then communication and control channel blockages exist. In this case, the control input becomes 0, u_{i}(t) = 0 , so the Lyapunov function can be expressed as

    \begin{equation} V(t) = e^{T}(t)Pe(t)+\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\kappa _{i}^{-1}\tilde{\delta _{i}^{2}}. \end{equation} (4.10)

    Similar to (4.4), (4.10) can be written as

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \dot{V}(t)&\leq V(t)+2\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\delta _{ix}\left | e\right |^{2}x_{is}+2\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\left | e\right |(\varsigma _{i2}\left | x\right |+\delta _{i})\\ &\leq l_{1}V(t)+\tau _{1}, \end{aligned} \end{equation} (4.11)

    where l_{1} = 1 , and \tau _{1} = 2\sum_{i = 1}^{N}\delta _{ix}\left | e\right |^{2}x_{is}+2\sum_{i = 1}^{N}\left | e\right |(\varsigma _{i2}\left | x\right |+\delta _{i}) . According to the conditions of (3) and Assumption 1, we know that \tau_{1} has an upper bound. From Lemma 1, we know that the system stabilizes in a limited time under a DoS attack. The proof is completed.

    Next is the proof of no Zeno behavior. We assume that there is a positive constant T_{0} such that \lim_{k \to\infty }t_{k}^{i} = T_{0} . Based on the property of limit, we know that for any \varepsilon _{0} > 0 , there exists N(\varepsilon _{0}) such that t^{i}_{k}\in (T_{0}-\varepsilon _{0}, T_{0}+\varepsilon _{0}), \forall k\geq N(\varepsilon _{0}) . This means t_{N(\varepsilon _{0}+1)}^{i}-t_{N(\varepsilon _{0})}^{i} < 2\varepsilon _{0} .

    According to (4.11), W(t) gradually decreases to 0, Then \xi _{m}\lambda _{\min }(P)\left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}\leq V(t) < W(t) . Therefore, we have

    \begin{equation} \left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|\leq \sqrt{\frac{W_{0}}{\xi _{m}\lambda _{\min }(P)}} = \varpi _{0}. \end{equation} (4.12)

    Because \left \| e_{i}(t)\right \| and \left \| q_{i}(t)\right \| are bounded, the Dini derivative of \left \| q_{i}(t)\right \| is

    \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} D^{+}\left \| q_{i}(t)\right \|&\leq \left \| \dot{q}_{i}(t)\right \|\\& = \left \| -\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}a_{ij}(\dot{x}_{i}(t)-\dot{x}_{j}(t))+b_{i}(\dot{x}_{i}(t)-\dot{x}_{0}(t))\right \|\\ &\leq \left \| A+\Delta _{A}\right \|\left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|+\left \| \bar{L}\right \|\left \| B\right \|\left \| \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}(u_{i}(t))\right \|+\\&\left \| \bar{L}\right \|\left \| w_{i}(t)\right \|\\ &\leq \left \| \bar{A}\right \|\varpi _{0}+\left \| \bar{L}\right \|\left \| B\right \|M_{1}+\left \| L\right \|M_{2} = \hat{W}_{0} \end{aligned}, \end{equation} (4.13)

    where \bar{A} = A+\Delta_{A} . According to Eqs (2.3), (2.12), and (2.14), we obtain u_{i}(t) . w_{i}(t) has an upper bound, and M_{1}, M_{2} is their upper bound.

    Since only the trigger condition in {Eq (2.19)} is met and the event is triggered when \left \| q_{i}(t)\right \| is reset to 0, then \left \| q_{i}(t)\right \|\geq \sqrt{\frac{\eta _{i}}{\alpha _{i}}\left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}+\frac{\theta _{i}}{\alpha _{i}}\chi _{i}}\geq \sqrt{\frac{\theta _{i}}{\alpha _{i}}\chi _{i}}, t_{k}^{i-}, k = 1, 2\cdots , which implies that

    \begin{equation} \left \| q_{i}(t_{k}^{i-})\right \|\geq \sqrt{\frac{\theta _{i}}{\alpha _{i}}\chi _{i}(t_{k}^{i-})} = \sqrt{\frac{\theta _{i}}{\alpha _{i}}\chi _{i}(0)}e^{-\frac{\beta _{i}+\theta _{i}}{2}t_{k}^{i-}}, \end{equation} (4.14)

    then, we can obtain

    \begin{equation} t_{N(\varepsilon _{0}+1)}^{i}-t_{N(\varepsilon _{0})}^{i}\geq \frac{1}{\hat{W}_{0}}\sqrt{\frac{\theta _{i}}{\alpha _{i}}\chi _{i}(0)}e^{-\frac{\beta _{i}+\theta _{1}}{2}t_{N(\varepsilon _{0}+1)}^{i-}}. \end{equation} (4.15)

    If \varepsilon _{0} > 0 is a solution of

    \begin{equation} \frac{1}{\hat{W}_{0}}\sqrt{\frac{\theta _{i}}{\alpha _{i}}\chi _{i}(0)}e^{-\frac{\beta _{i}+\theta_{i}}{2}T_{O}} = 2\varepsilon _{0}e^{\frac{\beta _{i}+\theta_{i}}{2}\varepsilon _{0}}, \end{equation} (4.16)

    then

    \begin{equation} t_{N(\varepsilon _{0}+1)}^{i}-t_{N(\varepsilon _{0})}^{i}\geq \frac{1}{\hat{W}_{0}}\sqrt{\frac{\theta _{i}}{\alpha _{i}}\chi _{i}(0)}e^-{\frac{\beta _{i}+\theta_{i}}{2}}(T_{0}+\varepsilon _{0}) = 2\varepsilon _{0}. \end{equation} (4.17)

    As a result, the aforementioned assumption is false, concluding the evidence that the agent i does not have Zeno behavior.

    To show the efficacy of the proposed control strategy, we present a simulation example in this section. Our simulation uses MASs composed of six agents as shown in Figure 1, where agent 1 is the leader, and others are followers. The system is

    \dot{x}_{i}(t) = Ax_{i}(t)+Bu_{i}(t)+(-sin(x_{i}(t))+1.5cos(2.5*t))+w_{i}
    Figure 1.  Graph \mathcal{G} in the example.

    The system parameters are set as

    A = \begin{bmatrix} 0 & I_{3}\\ A_{1} & A_{2} \end{bmatrix}, B = \begin{bmatrix} 0\\I_{3} \end{bmatrix}
    A_{1} = \begin{bmatrix} 0 &0 & 0\\ 0 &2\phi^{2} &0 \\ 0 &0 &-\phi^{2} \end{bmatrix}, A_{2} = \begin{bmatrix} 0 &2\phi &0 \\ -2\phi &0 &0 \\ 0 &0 &0 \end{bmatrix}
    \varsigma _{i1} = 0.1\times \sqrt{1+i^{2}},\varsigma _{i2} = 0.5 \times \sqrt{1+i^{2}}

    In this example, we consider the flight of an aircraft, \phi = 0.002 is the angular velocity of the aircraft, and I_{3} represents the identity matrix of 3 × 3.

    \alpha_{i} = 87.5, \beta_{i} = 0.004, \theta_{i} = 3.5
    \eta_{i} = \begin{bmatrix} 0.21 &0.105 &0.105 &0.21 &0.21 &0.105 \end{bmatrix}

    Figures 2 and 3 show the response curves and consistency errors of the system state for all agents. They show that the followers' states converge toward those of the leader as time progresses. Figures 3 and 4 show the control input curves and event trigger time instant for all agents. There are four times DoS attacks, with T_{0} = 3, F_{0} = 4 . The duration of the DoS attack is \left | \Xi _{a}(0, 40)\right | = 3.5 . In Table 1, we can see that the dynamic event-triggered mechanism proposed in this paper has far fewer triggering instances in the same time than the other two literatures [22,23], which can effectively save communication resources. In addition, continuous communication between agents is not required to determine whether a trigger condition satisfies a trigger condition. Considering the static event-triggered control protocol, we have

    t_{k+1}^{i} = \inf\left \{t > t_{k}^{i}|\left \| q_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}-\rho \left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|^{2}\geq 0 \right \}
    t_{k+1}^{i} = \inf\left \{t > t_{k}^{i}|\left \| q_{i}(t)\right \|-\varrho \left \| e_{i}(t)\right \|\geq 0 \right \}
    Figure 2.  The control input's response curves.
    Figure 3.  The consensus errors' response curves.
    Figure 4.  Position's response curves.
    Figure 5.  Event trigger time instant for all agents.
    Table 1.  Compared with the traditional triggering protocols in [0, 40 s].
    Agent i 1 2 3 4 5 6
    [22] 260 1897 1914 1704 1635 1861
    [23] 1632 1899 1917 1694 1633 1869
    Our DETC 50 65 70 106 42 6

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    where \rho and \varrho are positive constants. Our DETC effectively reduces communication frequency.

    In this paper, we propose a dynamic event-triggered adaptive control approach to address the leader-following consensus problem for nonlinear MASs experiencing DoS attacks. We have presented a distributed control strategy and adaptive update laws to ensure system stability in the presence of uncertainties. The Lyapunov stability theory is used to derive conditions for achieving consensus. The DoS attacks considered here mainly target the MASs' communication channels. In reality, there are other types, scales, and levels of DoS attacks. Formulating mathematical models of these other types of DoS attacks and solving these models is the direction of our future research.

    The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    This research was funded in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 62273109, in part by the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation under Grant 2023A1515010168, Grant 2019A1515010830, in part by the Key Special Foundation for General Universities in Guangdong Province under Grant 2022ZDZX1018, and in part by the Maoming Science and Technology Plan Foundation under Grant 2022S043.

    The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.



    [1] K. Xia, Y. Eun, T. Lee, S. Y. Park, Integrated adaptive control for spacecraft attitude and orbit tracking using disturbance observer, Int. J. Aeronaut. Space Sci., 22 (2021), 936–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42405-021-00359-x doi: 10.1007/s42405-021-00359-x
    [2] X. Chen, L. Zhao, Observer-based finite-time attitude containment control of multiple spacecraft systems, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II Express Briefs, 68 (2020), 1273–1277. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSII.2020.3024941 doi: 10.1109/TCSII.2020.3024941
    [3] R. Nadafi, M. Kabganian, Robust nonlinear attitude tracking control of an underactuated spacecraft under saturation and time-varying uncertainties, Eur. J. Control, 63 (2022), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2021.09.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ejcon.2021.09.003
    [4] Q. Hu, B. Li, M. I. Friswell, Observer-based fault diagnosis incorporating online control allocation for spacecraft attitude stabilization under actuator failures, J. Astronaut. Sci., 60 (2013), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40295-014-0021-1 doi: 10.1007/s40295-014-0021-1
    [5] M. Z. Dai, B. Xiao, C. Zhang, J. Wu, Event-triggered policy to spacecraft attitude stabilization with actuator output nonlinearities, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II Express Briefs, 68 (2021), 2855–2859. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSII.2021.3056761 doi: 10.1109/TCSII.2021.3056761
    [6] Q. Liu, M. Liu, G. Duan, Adaptive fuzzy backstepping control for attitude stabilization of flexible spacecraft with signal quantization and actuator faults, Sci. China Inf. Sci., 64 (2021), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-020-2949-5 doi: 10.1007/s11432-020-2949-5
    [7] S. P. Bhat, D. S. Bernstein, Finite-time stability of continuous autonomous systems, SIAM J. Control Optim., 38 (2000), 751–766. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0363012997321358 doi: 10.1137/S0363012997321358
    [8] Z. Xiong, X. Li, M. Ye, Q. Zhang, Finite-time stability and optimal control of an impulsive stochastic reaction-diffusion vegetation-water system driven by lévy process with time-varying delay, Math. Biosci. Eng., 18 (2021), 8462–8498. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2021419 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021419
    [9] Y. Wang, B. Zhu, H. Zhang, W. X. Zheng, Functional observer-based finite-time adaptive ismc for continuous systems with unknown nonlinear function, Automatica, 125 (2021), 109468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.automatica.2020.109468 doi: 10.1016/j.automatica.2020.109468
    [10] F. Wang, B. Chen, Y. Sun, Y. Gao, C. Lin, Finite-time fuzzy control of stochastic nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Cybern., 50 (2019), 2617–2626. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2019.2925573 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2019.2925573
    [11] A. Polyakov, Nonlinear feedback design for fixed-time stabilization of linear control systems, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 57 (2011), 2106–2110. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2011.2179869 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2011.2179869
    [12] M. L. Zhuang, S. M. Song, Fixed-time coordinated attitude tracking control for spacecraft formation flying considering input amplitude constraint, Int. J. Control Autom. Syst., 20 (2022), 2129–2147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12555-021-0366-8 doi: 10.1007/s12555-021-0366-8
    [13] S. M. Esmaeilzadeh, M. Golestani, A. Fekih, Adaptive attitude stabilization of flexible spacecraft with fast fixed-time convergence, Iran. J. Sci. Technol. Trans. Mech. Eng., 46 (2022), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40997-020-00415-z doi: 10.1007/s40997-020-00415-z
    [14] S. Kang, P. X. Liu, H. Wang, Fixed-time adaptive fuzzy command filtering control for a class of uncertain nonlinear systems with input saturation and dead zone, Nonlinear Dyn., 110 (2022), 2401–2414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-022-07731-w doi: 10.1007/s11071-022-07731-w
    [15] H. Yang, D. Ye, Adaptive fixed-time bipartite tracking consensus control for unknown nonlinear multi-agent systems: An information classification mechanism, Inf. Sci., 459 (2018), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2018.04.016 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2018.04.016
    [16] L. Zhao, J. Yu, X. Chen, Neural-network-based adaptive finite-time output feedback control for spacecraft attitude tracking, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., 2022 (2022), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3144493 doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3144493
    [17] X. Liu, D. Tong, Q. Chen, W. Zhou, K. Liao, Observer-based adaptive nn tracking control for nonstrict-feedback systems with input saturation, Neural Process. Lett., 53 (2021), 3757–3781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11063-021-10575-x doi: 10.1007/s11063-021-10575-x
    [18] E. Jiménez-Rodríguez, J. D. Sánchez-Torres, A. G. Loukianov, Predefined-time backstepping control for tracking a class of mechanical systems, IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50 (2017), 1680–1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.492 doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.492
    [19] S. Xie, Q. Chen, Adaptive nonsingular predefined-time control for attitude stabilization of rigid spacecrafts, IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II Express Briefs, 69 (2021), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCSII.2021.3078708 doi: 10.1109/TCSII.2021.3078708
    [20] J. Ni, L. Liu, Y. Tang, C. Liu, Predefined-time consensus tracking of second-order multiagent systems, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Syst., 51 (2021), 2550–2560. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2019.2916257 doi: 10.1109/TSMC.2019.2916257
    [21] E. Jiménez-Rodríguez, A. J. Muñoz-Vázquez, J. D. Sánchez-Torres, M. Defoort, A. G. Loukianov, A lyapunov-like characterization of predefined-time stability, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 65 (2020), 4922–4927. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2020.2967555 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2020.2967555
    [22] C. P. Bechlioulis, G. A. Rovithakis, Robust adaptive control of feedback linearizable mimo nonlinear systems with prescribed performance, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 53 (2008), 2090–2099. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2008.929402 doi: 10.1109/TAC.2008.929402
    [23] C. Wei, J. Luo, H. Dai, G. Duan, Learning-based adaptive attitude control of spacecraft formation with guaranteed prescribed performance, IEEE Trans. Cybern., 49 (2019), 4004–4016. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2018.2857400 doi: 10.1109/TCYB.2018.2857400
    [24] C. Zhang, G. Ma, Y. Sun, C. Li, Prescribed performance adaptive attitude tracking control for flexible spacecraft with active vibration suppression, Nonlinear Dyn., 96 (2019), 1909–1926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-019-04894-x doi: 10.1007/s11071-019-04894-x
    [25] L. Zhang, S. Xu, X. Ju, N. Cui, Flexible satellite control via fixed-time prescribed performance control and fully adaptive component synthesis vibration suppression, Nonlinear Dyn., 100 (2020), 3413–3432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-020-05662-y doi: 10.1007/s11071-020-05662-y
    [26] S. Gao, X. Liu, Y. Jing, G. M. Dimirovski, A novel finite-time prescribed performance control scheme for spacecraft attitude tracking, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 118 (2021), 107044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2021.107044 doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2021.107044
    [27] R. Chen, Z. Wang, W. Che, Adaptive sliding mode attitude-tracking control of spacecraft with prescribed time performance, Mathematics, 10 (2022), 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10030401 doi: 10.3390/math10030401
    [28] X. Bu, B. Jiang, H. Lei, Performance guaranteed finite-time non-affine control of waverider vehicles without function-approximation, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 2022 (2022), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2022.3224424 doi: 10.1109/TITS.2022.3224424
    [29] X. Bu, B. Jiang, H. Lei, Nonfragile quantitative prescribed performance control of waverider vehicles with actuator saturation, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 58 (2022), 3538–3548. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAES.2022.3153429 doi: 10.1109/TAES.2022.3153429
    [30] X. Bu, Q. Qi, B. Jiang, A simplified finite-time fuzzy neural controller with prescribed performance applied to waverider aircraft, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst., 30 (2022), 2529–2537. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2021.3089031 doi: 10.1109/TFUZZ.2021.3089031
    [31] C. Qian, W. Lin, Non-lipschitz continuous stabilizers for nonlinear systems with uncontrollable unstable linearization, Syst. Control Lett., 42 (2001), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6911(00)00089-X doi: 10.1016/S0167-6911(00)00089-X
    [32] Y. Sun, L. Zhang, Fixed-time adaptive fuzzy control for uncertain strict feedback switched systems, Inf. Sci., 546 (2021), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2020.08.059 doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2020.08.059
    [33] G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood, G. Pólya, Inequalities, Cambridge university press, 1952.
    [34] B. Xiao, S. Yin, Velocity-free fault-tolerant and uncertainty attenuation control for a class of nonlinear systems, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., 63 (2016), 4400–4411. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2016.2532284 doi: 10.1109/TIE.2016.2532284
    [35] M. Golestani, S. M. Esmaeilzadeh, S. Mobayen, Fixed-time control for high-precision attitude stabilization of flexible spacecraft, Eur. J. Control., 57 (2021), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.05.006 doi: 10.1016/j.ejcon.2020.05.006
    [36] Q. Hu, B. Chi, M. R. Akella, Anti-unwinding attitude control of spacecraft with forbidden pointing constraints, J. Guid. Control Dyn., 42 (2019), 822–835. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G003606 doi: 10.2514/1.G003606
    [37] H. Sai, Z. Xu, C. Xia, X. Sun, Approximate continuous fixed-time terminal sliding mode control with prescribed performance for uncertain robotic manipulators, Nonlinear Dyn., 110 (2022), 431–448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-022-07650-w doi: 10.1007/s11071-022-07650-w
    [38] M. Golestani, S. M. Esmaeilzadeh, B. Xiao, Fault-tolerant attitude control for flexible spacecraft subject to input and state constraint, Trans. Inst. Meas. Control, 42 (2020), 2660–2674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142331220923780 doi: 10.1177/0142331220923780
    [39] P. Yang, Y. Su, Proximate fixed-time prescribed performance tracking control of uncertain robot manipulators, IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron., 27 (2022), 3275–3285. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2021.3107150 doi: 10.1109/TMECH.2021.3107150
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2648) PDF downloads(215) Cited by(4)

Figures and Tables

Figures(18)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog