0
Technical Briefs

On Exponential Flocking to the Virtual Leader in Network of Agents With Double-Integrator Dynamics

[+] Author and Article Information
Mohammad Haeri

Advanced Control Systems Lab,
Electrical Engineering Department,
Sharif University of Technology,
Tehran, 11155-4363, Iran

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control. Manuscript received August 19, 2011; final manuscript received November 16, 2012; published online March 28, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Rama K. Yedavalli.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 135(3), 034504 (Mar 28, 2013) (8 pages) Paper No: DS-11-1261; doi: 10.1115/1.4023242 History: Received August 19, 2011; Revised November 16, 2012

This paper considers flocking to the virtual leader in network of agents with double-integrator. A locally linear algorithm is employed which guarantees exponential flocking to the virtual leader. A lower bound for flocking rate is calculated which is independent of the initial conditions. Simulations are provided to validate the result and it is shown that the calculated rate is not over bound the actual convergence rate. The effect of coefficients of algorithm is investigated and it is shown that the similar results can be inferred from the calculated formula for the convergence rate.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Reynolds, C. W., 1987, “Flock, Herds and Schools: A Distributed Behavioral Model,” Comput. Graph., 21(4), pp. 25–34. [CrossRef]
Vicsek, T., Czirok, A., Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I., and Shochet, O., 1995, “Novel Type of Phase Transition in a System of Self Driven Particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett., 75(6), pp. 1226–1229. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jadbabaie, A., Lin, J., and Morse, S., 2003, “Coordination of Groups of Mobile Autonomous Agents Using Nearest Neighbor Rules,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 48(6), pp. 988–1001. [CrossRef]
Olfati-SaberR., and Murray, R., 2004, “Consensus Problems in Networks of Agents With Switching Topology and Time Delays,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 49(9), pp. 1520–1533. [CrossRef]
Olshevsky, A., and Tsitsiklis, J. N., 2006, “Convergence Rates in Distributed Consensus and Averaging,” Proceeding of the 45th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, San Diego, CA, Dec. 13–15, pp. 3387–3392. [CrossRef]
Bliman, P.-A., Nedic, A., and Ozdaglar, A., 2008, “Rate of Convergence for Consensus With Delays,” Proceeding of the 47th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Cancun, Mexico, Dec. 9–11, pp. 4849–4854. [CrossRef]
Nedic, A., and Ozdaglar, A., 2010, “Convergence Rate for Consensus With Delays,” J. Global Optim., 47(3), pp. 437–456. [CrossRef]
Cao, M., Morse, A. S., and Anderson, B. D. O., 2008, “Reaching a Consensus in a Dynamically Changing Environment: Convergence Rates, Measurement Delays and Asynchronous Events,” SIAM J. Control Optim., 47(2), pp. 601–623. [CrossRef]
Cao, M., Spielman, D. A., and Morse, A. S., 2005, “A Lower Bound on Convergence of a Distributed Network Consensus Algorithm,” Proceeding of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and the European Control Conference, Seville, Spain, Dec. 12–15, pp. 2356–2361. [CrossRef]
Ren, W., Moore, K., and Chen, Y. Q., 2007, “High-Order and Model Reference Consensus Algorithms in Cooperative Control of Multivehicle Systems,” ASME J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control, 129(5), pp. 678–688. [CrossRef]
Wieland, P., Kim, J. S., Scheu, H., and Allgower, F., 2008, “On Consensus in Multi-Agent Systems With Linear High-Order Agents,” Proceeding of the 17thIFAC, Seoul, Korea, July 6–11, pp. 1541–1546. [CrossRef]
Tanner, H. G., Jadbabaie, A., and Pappas, G. J., 2003, “Stable Flocking of Mobile Agents, Part I: Fixed Topology,” Proceeding of the 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, San Diego, CA, Dec. 9–12, pp. 2010–2015. [CrossRef]
Tanner, H. G., Jadbabaie, A., and Pappas, G. J., 2003, “Stable Flocking of Mobile Agents, Part II: Dynamic Topology,” Proceeding of the 42nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, San Diego, CA, Dec. 9–12, pp. 2016–2021. [CrossRef]
Xie, G., and Wang, L., 2007, “Consensus Control for a Class of Networks of Dynamic Agents,” Int. J. Robust Nonlinear Control, 17(10–11), pp. 941–959. [CrossRef]
Shi, H., Wang, L., and Chu, T., 2005, “Virtual Leader Approach to Coordinated Control of Multiple Mobile Agents With Asymmetric Interactions,” Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and the European Control Conference, Seville, Spain, Dec. 12–15, pp. 6250–6255. [CrossRef]
Olfati-Saber, R., 2006, “Flocking for Multi Agent Dynamic Systems: Algorithms and Theory,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control, 51(3), pp. 988–1001. [CrossRef]
Porfiri, M., Roberson, D. G., and Stilwell, D. J., 2007, “Tracking and Formation Control of Multiple Autonomous Agents: A Two-Level Consensus Approach,” Automatica, 43(8), pp. 1318–1328. [CrossRef]
Peng, L., Yingmin, J., Junping, D., and Shiying, Y., 2007, “Distributed Consensus Control for Second-Order Agents With Fixed Topology and Time-Delay,” Proceedings of 26th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China, July 26–31, pp. 577–581. [CrossRef]
Zhu, J., Tian, Y. P., and Kuang, J., 2009, “On the General Consensus Protocol of Multi-Agent Systems With Double-Integrator Dynamics,” Linear Algebra Appl. J., 431(5-7), pp. 701–715. [CrossRef]
Khalil, H. K., 2002, Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

h1=1, h2=1, c1=1, c2=1, and N=5, actual decadence rate in simulation = 0.9752, calculated rate by Eq. (36) = 0.126

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

h1=1, h2=1, c1=1, c2=5, and N=10, actual decadence rate in simulation = 0.9584, calculated rate by Eq. (36) = 0.0688

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

h1=1, h2=5, c1=1, c2=1, and N=40, actual decadence rate in simulation = 0.4109, calculated rate by Eq. (36) = 0.0092

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

h1=1, h2=5, c1=1, c2=5, and N=150, actual decadence rate in simulation = 0.412, calculated rate by Eq. (36) = 0.0025

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

N=5, actual decadence rate in simulation = 0.126, calculated rate by Eq. (36) = 0.1792

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

N=10, actual decadence rate in simulation = 086, calculated rate by Eq. (36) = 0.0688

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

N=40, actual decadence rate in simulation = 0.0094, calculated rate by Eq. (36) = 0.0092

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

N=150, actual decadence rate in simulation = 0.0025, calculated rate by Eq. (36) = 0.0025

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Effect of h1, h2=5, c1=1, and c2=5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effect of h2, h1=1, c1=1, and c2=5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effect of c1, h1=1, h2=5, and c2=5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effect of c2, h1=1, h2=5, and c1=1

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In