Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ISA Transactions
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/isatrans
Research article
art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This paper considers a consensus problem of a class of second-order multi-agent systems with a moving
Received 23 November 2016 mode and multiple delays on directed graphs. Using local information, a distributed algorithm is adopted
Received in revised form to make all agents reach a consensus while moving together with a constant velocity in the presence of
16 May 2017
delays. To study the effects of the coexistence of the moving mode and delays on the consensus con-
Accepted 17 June 2017
Available online 3 July 2017
vergence, a frequency domain approach is employed through analyzing the relationship between the
components of the eigenvector associated with the eigenvalue on imaginary axis. Then based on the
Keywords: continuity of the system function, an upper bound for the delays is given to ensure the consensus
Consensus convergence of the system. A numerical example is included to illustrate the obtained theoretical results.
Delays
& 2017 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Moving mode
Frequency domain analysis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.isatra.2017.06.013
0019-0578/& 2017 ISA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
22 X. Li et al. / ISA Transactions 71 (2017) 21–24
product; (·)T denotes the transpose of vectors or matrixes and (·)* balanced graphs are taken into account, the relationship between
denotes the conjugate transpose of them. 1 represents [1, 1, … , 1]T the delays and the eigenvalues of the system matrix becomes too
with compatible dimensions (sometimes, we use 1n to denote 1 complicated to analyze and hence the analysis approaches in [8]
with dimension n); 0 denotes zero value or zero matrix with ap- and [9] are no longer valid for the system (1) with (3).
propriate dimensions; ∥·∥ refers to the standard Euclidean norm of For convenience of discussion, let 0 ≤ τ1 < τ2⋯ < τM denote all
vectors. different delays of the system (1) with (3). Let
ξ(t ) = [r1(t ) , v1(t ) , … , rn(t ) , vn(t )]T . Writing the system (1) with (3) in
a compact form, we have
2. Graph theory and model M
ξ (̇ t ) = (In ⊗ E )ξ (t ) − ∑ (L m ⊗ F )ξ (t − τm),
Let ( , , ) be a directed graph, where is the set of m=1 (4)
agents, is the set of edges, and = [aik ] is a weighted adjacency where
matrix. The agent indexes belong to a finite index set
= {1, 2, … , n}. An edge of is denoted by eik = (i, k ), which in- ⎡ 0 1⎤ ⎡ 0 0⎤
E=⎢ ,F=⎢ ,
dicates that agent i can receive information from agent k. The ⎣ 0 0⎥⎦ ⎣ 1 1⎥⎦
adjacency matrix is defined as aii = 0 and aik > 0 when eik ∈ . The
and Lm denotes the component of L corresponding to the delay τm
set of neighbors of agent i is denoted by Ni = {k ∈ : (i, k ) ∈ }. M
for m = 1,…,M. It is clear that L m1 = 0 and L = ∑m = 1 L m .
The Laplacian of the graph is defined as L = [lik ], where
n
lii = ∑k = 1 aik and lik = − aik , i ≠ k . A path is a sequence of ordered
edges of the form (i1, i2) , (i2, i3) , ⋯, where ik ∈ . A directed graph
4. Main theorem
is strongly connected if there is a directed path from any node vi to
any other node vk. A directed graph is balanced if
n n
∑k = 1 aik = ∑k = 1 aki for all i ∈ . Moreover, a graph is undirected if Lemma 2 ([8]). Suppose that the directed graph is strongly con-
aik = aki for all i, k . An undirected graph is connected if there is an nected and balanced, the matrix In ⊗ E − L ⊗ F has an eigenvalue at
edge between every pair of different agents. [25] 0 with multiplicity 2 and the other eigenvalues have negative real
parts.
Lemma 1 ([25]). If the graph is undirected and connected, then its
Laplacian L has properties as follows: Since the graph is directed and balanced, we need first study
L + LT
the matrix 2
before presenting the main results. Since the
(1) 0 is a simple eigenvalue with associated eigenvector 1
L + LT
(2) all its other n − 1 eigenvalues are positive and real. graph is balanced and strongly connected, 2 can be regarded
as the Laplacian of a connected undirected graph. From Lemma 1,
L + LT
all the eigenvalues of 2
are real and nonnegative. Let λmax be the
3. Model L + LT
largest eigenvalue of 2
. We have the following theorem.
Consider a multi-agent system with n agents. Each agent is Theorem 1. Suppose that the directed graph is strongly connected
regarded as a node in a directed graph . Suppose that each agent and balanced, and τm = τ for some constant τ > 0 and all m. Using (3)
has the following dynamics: for (2),
ri̇(t ) = vi(t ), lim [ri(t ) − rk(t )] = 0,
t →+∞
vi̇ (t ) = ui (t ) (1) n
Since the system (4) is a real system, if jω is a root of the system λ max ≥ 1. From the continuity of functions, the system (4) has one
(4), then −jω is also a root of the system (4). Without loss of eigenvalue at 0 with multiplicity 2 and all its other eigenvalues
generality, suppose that ω > 0. For simplicity of expression, let have negative real parts. Hence, as discussed previously, all agents
q = q1 ⊗ [1, 0]T + q2 ⊗ [0, 1]T , where q1, q2 ∈ n . From the odd row can reach a consensus as t → + ∞ on position and velocity states
of (5), we have respectively. That is, limt →+∞(ri(t ) − rk(t )) = limt →+∞(vi(t ) − vk(t )) = 0
n
for all i, k . Since the graph is balanced, ∑i = 1 ui(t ) = 0, i.e.,
jωq1 = q2. (6) n n n
∑i = 1 vi̇ (t ) = 0, for all t ≥ 0. Hence, ∑i = 1 vi(t ) = ∑i = 1 vi(0) for all t ≥ 0
Note that ∥ q ∥2 = ∥ q1 ∥2 + ∥ q2 ∥2 = 1. It follows that n
and limt →+∞vi(t ) = (1/n) ∑i = 1 vi(0) for all i.
1 Remark 1. In [8] and [9], the consensus problems for second-or-
q1*q1=
ω2 + 1 der multi-agent systems with time-delay and a moving mode were
ω2 considered, but the obtained results are limited to either the case
q2*q2= 2
ω +1 (7) where the time-delays are all equal or the case where the graph is
undirected. In contrast to [8] and [9], in this paper, we do not only
From (5), we have q*⎡⎣ jωI2n − In ⊗ E + ∑m = 1 (L m ⊗ F )e−jωτm⎤⎦q = 0. It
M
consider the balanced directed graphs but also consider the non-
follows that uniform delays by analyzing the system stability with the eigen-
L + LT
M M
value of 2 .
jωq1*q1 + ∑ q2*L me−jωτmq1 − q1*q2 + jωq2*q2 + ∑ q2*L me−jωτmq2 Remark 2. In this paper, we only studies the case where the
m=1 m=1
graphs are balanced and strongly connected and the agents finally
= 0. (8)
move together in a line. Our future work would be directed to-
Note that τm = τ for all m, from (6), (7) and (8), it follows that wards the case of the general directed graphs and the case where
all agents move in a circle.
(ω2 + 1)q1*Lq1sinωτ = ω3 ∥ q1 ∥2
Theorem 2. Suppose that the graph is undirected and connected.
(ω2 + 1)q1*Lq1cosωτ = ω2 ∥ q1 ∥2 (9) Using (3) for (2),
L + LT lim [ri(t ) − rk(t )] = 0,
Note that q1*Lq1/∥ q1 ∥2 = q1*Lq1/q1*q1 = q1* 2
q1/q1*q1 ≤ λ max , where t →+∞
L + LT n
λmax denotes the largest eigenvalue of . Since |sinωτ| ≤ 1, we
2 lim vi(t ) = ∑ vi(0),
have t →+∞
i=1
If λ max < 1, from (11), we have (1 − λ max )ω2 ≤ λ max . Hence, Proof. Following the lines of the proof of Theorem 1, this theorem
can be proved. But it should be emphasized that the Eq. (9) would
λ max
ω≤ , when λ max < 1 be replaced with the equation
1 − λ max
M
ω3 (ω2 + 1)q1*L mq1sinωτ = ω3 ∥ q1 ∥2
If λ max ≥ 1 and ω < λ max , from (10),
ω2 + 1
=ω 1− ( 1
ω2 + 1 ) ≤ λ max . ∑
m=1
10
References
Position
8
[1] Ren W, Atkins E. Distributed multi-vehicle coordinated control via local in-
6 formation exchange. Int J Robust Nonlinear Control 2007;17(10–11):1002–33.
[2] Hong Y, Gao L, Cheng D, Hu J. Lyapunov-based approach to multiagent systems
4 with switching jointly connected interconnection. IEEE Trans Autom Control
2007;52(5):943–8.
2 [3] Xie G, Wang L, Consensus control for a class of networks of dynamic agents:
fixed topology. In: Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on decision and
0 control, and the European Control conference; 2005. p. 96–101.
[4] Bliman PA, Ferrari-Trecate G. Average consensus problems in networks of
−2 agents with delayed communications. Automatica 2008;44(8):1985–95.
0 5 10 15 20 25 [5] Tian Y, Liu C. Consensus of multi-agent systems with diverse input and
Time communication delays. IEEE Trans Autom Control 2008;53(9):2122–8.
[6] Lin P, Jia Y. Consensus of second-order discrete-time multi-agent systems with
nonuniform time-delays and dynamically changing topologies. Automatica
2009;45(9):2154–8.
5 [7] Tian Y, Liu C. Robust consensus of multi-agent systems with diverse input
delays and asymmetric interconnection perturbations. Automatica 2009;45
(5):1347–53.
4 [8] Lin P, Jia Y, Du J, Yuan S. Distributed consensus control for second-order agents
with fixed topology and time-delay. In: Proceedings of the Chinese control
3 conference; 2007. p. 577–581.
[9] Lin P, Dai M, Song Y. Consensus stability of a class of second-order multi-agent
systems with nonuniform time-delays. J Frankl Inst 2014;351(3):1571–6.
2 [10] Münz U, Papachristodoulou A, Allgöwer F. Delay robustness in consensus
problems. Automatica 2010;46(8):1252–65.
Velocity
[11] Xiao F, Wang L. State consensus for multi-agent systems with switching
1 topologies and time-varying delays. Int J Control 2006;79(10):1277–84.
[12] Liu C, Tian Y. Formation control of multi-agent systems with heterogeneous
communication delays. Int J Syst Sci 2009;40:627–36.
0
[13] Wang L, Qian W, Wang Q. Exponential synchronization in complex networks
with a single coupling delay. J Frankl Inst 2013;350(6):1406–23.
−1 [14] Su H, Chen X, Chen MZQ, Wang L. Distributed estimation and control for
mobile sensor networks with coupling delays. ISA Trans 2016;64:141–50.
[15] Wang L, Dai H, Sun Y. Synchronization criteria for a generalized complex
−2 delayed dynamical network model. Phys A: Stat Mech Appl 2007;383(2):703–
13.
[16] Lin P, Ren W. Constrained consensus in unbalanced networks with commu-
−3
0 5 10 15 20 25 nication delays. IEEE Trans Autom Control 2014;59(3):775–81.
[17] Nedić A, Ozdaglar A, Parrilo P-A. Constrained consensus and optimization in
Time
multi-agent networks. IEEE Trans Autom Control 2010;55(4):922–38.
[18] Lin P, Ren W, Song Y. Distributed multi-agent optimization subject to non-
identical constraints and communication delays. Automatica 2016;65(3):120–
Fig. 2. State trajectories of all agents. 31.
[19] Lin P, Ren W, and Gao H, Distributed velocity-constrained consensus of dis-
crete-time multi-agent systems with nonconvex constraints, switching
bound for the delays is 0.149. Take the τ21 = τ32 = τ43 = τ54= topologies, and delays, IEEE Trans Autom Control, 2017 accepted and available
τ65 = τ76 = τ87 = τ18 = 0.14 , τ14 = τ45 = τ56 = τ67 = τ78 = τ81 = 0.1, online. 〈http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2016.2637005〉.
τ12 = τ23 = τ34 = τ41 = 0.05, where τij denotes the delay corre- [20] Lin P, Ren W, Farrell JA. Distributed continuous-time optimization: Nonuni-
sponding to the edge (i,j). Fig. 2(a) and (b) show the simulation form gradient gains, finite-time convergence, and convex constraint set. IEEE
Trans Autom Contol 2017;62(5):2239–53.
results. It is clear that all agents reach a consensus and move to- [21] Lin P, Jia Y. Distributed rotating formation control of multi-agent systems. Syst
gether in a constant velocity. This is consistent with Theorem 1. Control Lett 2010;59(10):587–95.
[22] Sepulchre R, Paley D, Leonard NE. Stabilization of planar collective motion
with limited communication. IEEE Trans Autom Control 2007;53(3):706–19.
[23] Hernandez S, Paley D. Three-dimensional motion coordination in a time-in-
6. Conclusion variant flowfield. In: Proceedings of the 48th IEEE conference on decision and
control; 2009. p. 7042–7048.
[24] Pavone M, Frazzoli E. Decentralized policies for geometric pattern formation
This paper studies the consensus problem of second-order
and path coverage. ASME J Dyn Syst Meas Control 2007;129(5):633–43.
multi-agent systems with a moving mode and multiple delays on [25] Godsil C, Royle GF. Algebraic graph theory. Vol. 207. Springer Science &
directed graphs. A distributed control algorithm with multiple Business Media, 2013.