Periodically intermittent controlling complex dynamical networks with time-varying delays to a desired orbit
ABSTRACT This Letter investigates the problem of synchronization in complex dynamical networks with time-varying delays. A periodically intermittent control scheme is proposed to achieve global exponential synchronization for a general complex network with both time-varying delays dynamical nodes and time-varying delays coupling. It is shown that the sates of the general complex network with both time-varying delays dynamical nodes and time-varying delays coupling can globally exponentially synchronize with a desired orbit under the designed intermittent controllers. Moreover, a typical network consisting of the time-delayed Chua oscillator with nearest-neighbor unidirectional time-varying delays coupling is given as an example to verify the effectiveness of the proposed control methodology.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The problem of second-order consensus is investigated in this paper for a class of multi-agent systems with a fixed directed topology and communication constraints where each agent is assumed to share information only with its neighbors on some disconnected time intervals. A novel consensus protocol designed based on synchronous intermittent local information feedback is proposed to coordinate the states of agents to converge to second-order consensus under a fixed strongly connected topology, which is then extended to the case where the communication topology contains a directed spanning tree. By using tools from algebraic graph theory and Lyapunov control approach, it is proved that second-order consensus can be reached if the general algebraic connectivity of the communication topology is larger than a threshold value and the mobile agents communicate with their neighbors frequently enough as the network evolves. Finally, a numerical example is simulated to verify the theoretical analysis. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control 01/2011; 22(2):170 - 182. · 1.55 Impact Factor