Annual Reviews in Control 36 (2012) 1–10

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Annual Reviews in Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/arcontrol

Decentralized control and communication

Lubomír Bakule ⇑, Martin Papík
Institute of Information Theory and Automation, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, 182 08 Prague 8, Czech Republic

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, the past and current issues involved in the design of decentralized networked control sys-
Received 21 April 2011 tems are reviewed. The basic models of interconnected systems described as continuous-time linear
Accepted 21 August 2011 time-invariant systems in the time domain serve as a framework for the inclusion of communication
channels in the decentralized feedback loop. The I/O-oriented models and the interaction oriented mod-
els with disjoint subsystems and interactions are distinguished. The overview is focused on packet drop-
Keywords: outs, transmission delays, and quantization effects which are included in the time-driven design of
Decentralization
feedback loop components. Single- and multiple-packet transmissions are considered in this contents.
Communication
Large-scale complex systems
The design of decentralized state feedback gain matrices with delayed feedback uses the methodology
Networked control systems of sampled-data feedback design for continuous-time systems, while the decentralized H1 quantizer
Delays design is based on the static output controller. The Liapunov stability approach results in computationally
Quantizers efficient decentralized control design strategies described by using linear matrix inequalities.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A fundamental feature of present-day technological, societal or
environmental processes is a high degree of their complexity. Com-
plexity is the main problem in recent system theory and their appli-
cations. The notion of complexity is used in widely different
contexts. A notable characteristic of most large scale complex sys-
tems is that centrality fails due to the lack of centralized information
or centralized computing capability. Many real world problems are
considered large scale complex by nature and not by choice. Such
systems cannot be dealt with as an unstructured black box by
one-shot methods. Instead, the analysis and synthesis of large scale
complex systems take the advantage of structural properties of the
plant in order to achieve numerical or conceptual simplifications of
the overall problem. The notion of large scale system is a very sub-
jective one. There is no accepted definition for what constitutes a
large scale complex system. Therefore, a more pragmatic view
was adopted: a system is considered as large scale complex when-
ever it is necessary to partition the given analysis or synthesis prob-
lem in order to come up with manageable subproblems. However,
such process requires new approaches for dealing with high dimen-
sionality of the system equations, different types of uncertainties of
the model, information structure constraints, and delays as funda-
mental characteristics of complexity. In contrast to this, small scale
complex systems refer to a low dimensionality of the systems which
exhibit complex dynamic behavior. A decentralized controller is a
feedback controller which consists of independent control stations,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bakule@utia.cas.cz (L. Bakule), papik@utia.cas.cz (M. Papík).
each of which receives the measurement data and influences the
control input only of the attached subsystem. The information flow
from the plant through the controller in the feedback loop is divided
into separated parallel flows through the control stations. For feed-
back control, the use of decentralized controllers is a remarkable
feature of large scale systems.
Classical as well as modern system theories have dealt typically
with problems where the communication links between the plant
and the controller can be considered as transparent ones, that is
with the case of wired connections. Various large scale system
applications of computer networks as well as a significant progress
in technology, where the system to be controlled, actuators, sen-
sors, and controllers are spatially distributed, motivate the usage
of a communication network. The operation of closed-loop systems
is coordinated by a communication network to achieve desired
overall objectives. The move towards networks at all levels proba-
bly belongs to the most notable trend in recent system theory.
Control networks can replace point-to-point wired systems while
providing a number of advantages. The simplest but most impor-
tant advantage is the reduced volume of wiring which results in
increasing reliability and lower implementation costs. An another
significant advantage is that networks enable complex distributed
control. Other advantages of communication networks include en-
hanced interchangeability of devices, improved reconfiguration of
control systems, and increased capability for maintenance. The ba-
sic problem within the framework of networked control systems is
the timing problem, i.e to find the communication frequency of the
networked feedback loops under which the stability as well as the
desired level of performance remain ensured. Typical phenomena
concerning network channels include random delays, packet

1367-5788/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2012.03.001
2 L. Bakule, M. Papík / Annual Reviews in Control 36 (2012) 1–10
dropouts, quantizations, and data-rate limits. Therefore, an essential
issue is to identify methods that include these phenomena for
transmitting state information.
Technologically driven changes caused by low cost micropro-
cessors as well as the reliable transmission of information via wire-
less connections lead to the emphasis on two changes in control
system analysis and synthesis. The first change concerns a renewed
emphasis on decentralized and distributed control systems. The
second change concerns the explicit emphasis on the interconnec-
tions. It means that the network must be now considered explicitly
because it affects significantly the dynamic properties of the con-
trol system. A wide range of research has been recently reported
dealing with problems related to the decentralized control and
the effect of digital network in networked control systems.
The timing problem can be classified into two basic data trans-
mission architectures, i.e. time-driven and event-driven feedback
schemes in NCS. The time-driven NCS are based on synchronous
sampling of continuous-time systems. This approach is motivated
by well known results for sampled control systems, while the
even-driven NCS belong to asynchronous control systems. In
event-driven networked systems, the occurrence of an event rather
than the passing of time decides when a sample is realized. For in-
stance, the event condition could be typically the case when the
absolute value of the error signal is greater than a given threshold,
where the error means the difference between the current value of
error and the value when a control signal was calculated the last
time.
Recently, new methods and algorithms have been proposed to in-
clude communication issues into the decentralized control design
setting. Such extensions concern the communication among subsys-
tems, local controllers, and communication in the feedback loop.
Though a variety of structures, architectures, algorithms, and mod-
els have been analyzed within this framework, there remains a
gap between decentralized control and control over networks.
1.1. Outline of the paper
The paper reviews several basic issues offered by decentralized
control of large scale complex systems with time-driven communi-
cation in the feedback loop. Two main prototype models of decen-
tralized control are considered. They differ according to the degree
reflecting the internal structure of the overall system. Multi-chan-
nel systems and interconnected systems are distinguished. Com-
munication in the feedback loop considers two main groups of
problems. The problem of variable delays including packet drop-
outs and the problem of quantization of signals are considered sep-
arately. The feedback design includes only a static block-diagonal
gain matrix form as the most simple, common, and desirable
decentralized structure for various large scale complex system
applications.
The paper is organized as follows. First, the basic features of
decentralized control and communication in the loop are surveyed.
Then, the delay and packet dropouts as well as the quantization is-
sues are presented for selected structures of multi-channel sys-
tems and interconnected systems with disjoint subsystems and
interconnections. The problem of delay and packet dropouts is in-
cluded explicitly in the design of the decentralized state feedback,
while the quantization problem is described as the H1 quantizer
design for a given static output controller. Linear continuous-time
systems are considered in both cases. The structure of disjoint sub-
system has been selected for interconnected systems as the most
natural and widely used decomposition structure. This review is
focused on the usage of the Liapunov stability resulting in linear
matrix inequalities as a common mathematical framework.
Note only that due to space limitations, a large number of re-
cent promising results have been omitted.
2. Decentralized control
Classical and modern control theories consider a unique plant
with a unique controller. It means that all computations can be
based on the overall information about the plant. The control de-
sign problem is solved as a whole. The controller receives all sensor
data and generates all input signal to the plant. Such a case corre-
sponds with the centralized design of centralized controllers.
This assumption can be hardly satisfied in real world large scale
complex systems. The theory of large scale complex systems was
initiated and developed in the 1970s and 1980s mainly for linear
time-invariant systems to overcome the difficulties caused by
complexity of these systems. In large scale complex systems, nei-
ther a complete model (a priori information) nor a complete mea-
surement data (a posteriori information) can be made available for
a centralized controller (decision maker). The overall design prob-
lem has to be divided into different subproblems with a certain le-
vel of couplings. The overall systems is no longer controlled by a
single controller but by several independent controllers called con-
trol stations. They all together constitute a decentralized control-
ler. The control stations are no longer designed simultaneously
on the basis of a complete information about the plant, but in a se-
quence of design procedures which are based on only relevant
parts of the overall plant, that is the decentralized control design
schemes.
More precisely, a two-step decision problem of decentralized
control design includes the design phase and the execution phase.
The design phase deals with the determination of control laws
based on the a priori information about the plant and the design
requirements, while the execution phase processes the a posteriori
information about the plant by determining control input on the
basis of the system inputs and command signals. Note that classi-
cal information structure corresponds with centralized control,
while decentralized control concerns non-classical information
structure in decision theory as surveyed for instance by Šiljak
(1991), Lunze (1992), Bakule (2008), Zečević and Šiljak (2010)
and Mahmoud (2011).
The basic structures of large scale systems are explained on the
models of continuous-time linear time-invariant systems in the
time domain.
2.1. Centralized model
The plant is a dynamic system described as follows
_
xðtÞ ¼ AxðtÞ þ BuðtÞ xðt o Þ ¼ xo
ð1Þ
yðtÞ ¼ CxðtÞ þ DuðtÞ
where xðtÞ 2 Rn ; uðtÞ 2 Rm , and yðtÞ 2 Rq are vectors of the system
states, control inputs, and outputs, respectively. A,B,C,D are constant
matrices of appropriate dimensions.
2.2. I/O-oriented model
In contrast to centralized model, the sensors and actuators are
grouped to mi- and qi-dimensional vectors of control and output
for all i = 1, . . ., N; N > 1, where the ith control station has access
to the output yi(t) and generates the control ui(t). It means that
the plant is not structured, while the feedback structure is con-
straint. The I/O-oriented model or equivalently multi-channel sys-
tem is described in the form
P
N
_
xðtÞ ¼ AxðtÞ þ Bsi ui ðtÞ xðt o Þ ¼ xo
i¼1
ð2Þ
P
N
yi ðtÞ ¼ C si xðtÞ þ Dsij uj ðtÞ i ¼ 1; . . . ; N
j¼1
 L. Bakule, M. Papík / Annual Reviews in Control 36 (2012) 1–10 3

The relation of the system matrices in (1) and (2) are given as decentralized decision making, the decision units are completely
independent or at least almost independent. Such a complete divi-
Bs ¼ ðBs1 ; Bs2 ; . . . ; BsN Þ
0 1 0 1 sion is possible only for specific problems. It means that the infor-
C s1 Ds11 Ds12 ... Ds1N mation flow among the decision units can be divided into
BC C BD Ds22 ... Ds2N C
B s2 C B s12 C ð3Þ completely independent parts. The concepts and methods for
Cs ¼ B C
B .. C Ds ¼ B ..
B .. .. C
@ . A @ . . . ... C
A
reformulating a control problem as a set of independent subprob-
lems including the solution of these subproblems are usually re-
C sN DsN1 DsN2 . . . DsNN ferred as decentralized or distributed control. Decentralized
Note that this model does not show how the overall system dynam- structures usually take into account the above decomposition algo-
ics depends on the subsystems because the system is considered as rithms. They result in three basic particularly desirable forms of
a whole. the gain matrix: block-diagonal, BBD, and overlapping structures.
Robustness and model simplification are important tools for treat-
ing with high dimensionality and uncertainties of large scale sys-
2.3. Interaction-oriented model
tems. Robustness analysis evaluates dependencies of the solution
on parametric or structural uncertainties, while approximation
Consider the structure of large scale system decomposed in the
deals with the substitution of the given model by similar but sim-
disjoint structure of subsystems and their interconnection. Many
pler model possessing the same main dynamic properties.
large scale systems are considered as interconnection of subsys-
Delays play a key role in the control design of large scale sys-
tems, where every subsystem represents a dynamic system of its
tems. Their increasing importance is underlined mainly by current
own dynamics. The overall plant is a structured dynamic system
technological trends in digital networks and wireless communica-
described as
tion. Decentralized control is superior over centralized control also
P
N from this point of view because of the reduction of shared local
x_ i ðtÞ ¼ Ai xi ðtÞ þ Bi ui ðtÞ þ Aij xj ðtÞ xi ðt o Þ ¼ xio
j¼1 ð4Þ information as can be found for instance in Bakule and Rodellar
(1996), Bakule, Rodellar, and Rossell (2002), Bakule, Rodellar, and
yi ðtÞ ¼ C ri xi ðtÞ þ Dri ui ðtÞ i ¼ 1; . . . ; N _
Rossell (2006), Iftar (2008), Ghosh, Das, and Ray (2009) and Wu
where xi ðtÞ 2 Rni ; ui ðtÞ 2 Rmi , and yi ðtÞ 2 Rqi are vectors of the sub- (2009).
system states, subsystem control inputs, and subsystem outputs, These general methodologies are widely used in theory and
respectively. practice. There is available a number of survey papers as well as
To overcome the difficulties caused by the complexity issues several books which provide further information about this topic
arising in large scale complex systems, several basic methodologies as presented by Šiljak (1991), Lunze (1992), Jamshidi (1997), Bak-
have been and still being developed. The accumulated experience ule (2008), Zečević and Šiljak (2010) and Mahmoud (2011).
in large scale complex systems control results in three main well
known methodologies as follows
3. Communication in control
– Decomposition
– Decentralization Communication and control are related namely in networked
– Robustness and model simplification control systems (NCS). NCS are control systems composed of the
plant, actuators, sensors, and controllers which are connected to
Decomposition methods utilize the internal system structure, i.e. the plant via some form of communication medium. The compo-
the division of plant into subsystems and interconnections. It nents of such systems are spatially distributed, they may operate
means that the plant is not considered as a single object, but as a in an asynchronous manner, but their operation is coordinated in
mixture of different interacting subsystems. Subsystems can be de- some way to achieve satisfactorily desired overall objective.
fined by the main building blocks of the plant (physical decompo- Decentralized NCS (DNCS) are the control systems with multi-
sitions) or are imposed for computational reasons (numerical ple control stations while transmitting control signals through a
decompositions). The main advantage of decomposition ap- network, i.e. date signals are transmitted to multiple controllers
proaches is the reduction of complexity in the analysis and synthe- in the feedback loop. DNCS combine the advantages of the central-
sis of large scale control problems. The decomposition methods ized NCS and the decentralized control systems. Such a combina-
concern the interaction-oriented models. They can be classified tion enables to cut unnecessary wiring, reduce the complexity
according to the properties of subsystem-interconnection struc- and the overall system cost when designing and implementing
tures as control systems. Recently, DNCS design methods are subject to
intensive research. For instance, the projects ICT Research
– Disjoint subsystems (2011b), ICT Research (2011a) and DFG–Priority Program (2011)
– Overlapping subsystems illustrate this attempt. 2-channel DNCS structure is shown in Fig. 1.
– Symmetric composite systems There is no unique theory in the area of networked control sys-
– Multi-time scale systems tems (NCS) up to now. Recent surveys on this topic can be found
– Hierarchically structured systems in Hristu-Varsakelis and Levine (2005), Bemporad, Heemels, and
Johansson (2010), Baillieul and Antsaklis (2007), Hespanha, Nag-
One effective approach for partitioning the systems exploits the hshtabrizi, and Xu (2007), Wei, Xue, and Da-zhi (2007), Matveev
sparsity of large-scale state space models. The decomposition and Savkin (2009), Goodwin, Silva, and Quevedo (2008) and Nešić
algorithms are based on graph-theoretic representations such as and Liberzon (2009).
epsilon decompositions, Bordered Block Diagonal (BBD) ordering, There are available several results dealing with the timing prob-
and input/output constrained decompositions. lem for the time-driven decentralized networked systems. Bakule
Decentralization concerns the information structure of the deci- (2008) and Xu and Hespanha (2004) introduce DNCS problems.
sion process. It generally means that the overall system task is bro- Decentralized stabilization of NCS using periodically time-varying
ken down into several subsystem tasks so that the solution of local controller is presented in Jiang, Zhou, and Zhang (2008), while
subsystem tasks satisfactorily solves the overall system task. In Zhong, Stefanovski, Dimirovski, and Zhao (2009) and Menon and
4 L. Bakule, M. Papík / Annual Reviews in Control 36 (2012) 1–10
Fig. 1. 2-channel DNCS system.
Edwards (2009) deal with the synchronization within the DNCS de-
sign. Alessio and Bemporad (2008) and Barcelli and Bemporad
(2009) present the stability conditions for decentralized model
predictive control under packet dropout communication. Sun and
El-Farra (2009) present a robust quasi-decentralized networked
methodology for the robust stabilization of multi-unit plants with
communicating subsystems. Matveev and Savkin (2009), Nair,
Evans, and Caines (2004), Yüksel and Basßar (2006) and Yüksel
and Basßar (2007) consider the DNCS stabilization for linear I/O-ori-
ented models via limited capacity communication network, while
stability of the DNCS is analyzed by Wei (2008). Tatikonda
(2003) presents some scalability conditions for the DNCS. Bakule
and de la Sen (2009) and Bakule and de la Sen (2010) deal with
the complexity reduced procedures for the DNCS design for differ-
ent classes of symmetric composite systems. Mine ventilation by
using the DNCS design is presented in Witrant et al. (2010), while
Seth, Lynch, and Tilbury (2005) describes the real time wireless
DNCS control of civil engineering structures. A load frequency
decentralized control design with communication delays by using
the LMI is solved in Yu and Tomsovic (2004). Abdollahi and Khora-
sani (2008) deals with a decentralized H1 routing control for mo-
bile networked multi-agents. An extension of conventional
decentralized feedback to gain matrices with arbitrary information
structure constraints offers additional design flexibility, where a
decentralized stabilizing feedback is designed first. Subsequently,
a distributed control law taking into account the network topology
is designed to improve the system performance (Gusrialdi & Hir-
che, 2010; Zečević & Šiljak, 2010). However, the results on event-
driven decentralized networked systems are relatively rare. For in-
stance, the results presented by Wang and Lemmon (2011) and
Donkers and Heemels (2012) including references therein illus-
trate this effort.
3.1. Delays in the loop
System theory is classically focused on the study of dynamical
systems linked through ideal channels transmitting a complete
information, whereas communication theory studies the transmis-
sion of information over imperfect channels. A combination of
these two theories is needed to model NCSs. To transmit a contin-
uous-time signal over a network, the signal must be sampled,
encoded in a digital format, transmitted over the network, and
finally the data must be decoded at the receiver side. This process
is significantly different from the usual uniform sampling in digital
control. The overall delay between sampling and eventual
decoding at the receiver can be highly time-varying because both
the network access delays. It includes the time taken for a shared
network to accept data as well as the transmission delays, i.e. the
time during which data are in transit inside the network. It
depends on highly variable data transmission conditions such as
congestion or channel quality.
Generally, two transmission channels appear in the feedback
loop of the NCS. A closed-loop NCS system consists of a continu-
ous-time plant and a discrete-time controller, which receives
information from the plant only at the sampling instants. A sen-
sor-to-controller delay and a controller-to-actuator delay appear
in the feedback loop. The sensor acts in a time-driven variable
manner, while the controller and actuator with the zero-
order-hold operate in an event-driven manner. It means that the
controller and the actuator update their outputs as soon as they re-
ceive a new sample. The two transmission channels of the NCS may
be considered as an equivalent to a single transmission channel of
the NCS with the sum of both delays when assuming the static
time-invariant controller. In the remainder of the paper it is sup-
posed that only one transmission channel of the NCS is available.
It means that such a delay is considered as a sensor-to-controller
delay.
Delays in the loop including network delays in a NSC can
destabilize the system and degrade its performance. A variety of
available results characterizes a maximum upper-bound on the
sampling interval for which stability can be guaranteed. These
results implicitly minimize the packet-rate which requires the
system feedback stabilization.
Consider a continuous-time linear time-invariant system
_
xðtÞ ¼ AxðtÞ þ BuðtÞ ð5Þ
n m
where xðtÞ 2 R and uðtÞ 2 R are vectors of the system states and
the control inputs. A, B are constant matrices of appropriate dimen-
sions. Suppose that the pair (A, B) is stabilizable.
Consider the design of a state stabilizing controller which is
connected with the system via the communication channel. This
is equivalent to control the continuous-time system (5) with a
sampled feedback. Denote tk a sampling instant, where tk = kD with
k being any positive integer, and a sampler with the sampling per-
iod D with a standard zero order hold. The sampled value of the
state x(t) is transmitted through a network channel and, if trans-
mitted correctly, it is registered in a buffer. xi(tk) denotes the out-
put from the buffer. Suppose that a constant communication
delay denoted as dc and a delay caused by data packet dropout
dkD appear in the transmission channel, where dk P 1 at time tk.
It denotes some sampling interval-dependent integer. The input
of the controller is x(tk) = x(tk  dkD  dc). This value is the input
to the controller K to generate the control action. Therefore, the
goal is to find the gain matrix K
uðtÞ ¼ Kxðt k Þ ð6Þ
stabilizing the closed-loop system (5), (6). Denote the time-varying
delay d(t) = t  tk  dkD  dc, where 1 6 dk 6 (tk1  dc)/D. Suppose
the acknowledgment (ACK) about data losses is always available
to the sender of the plant by Kurose and Rose (2005). Then the
closed-loop system (5), (6) for t 2 [tk,tk+1) can be described as
 0
_
xðtÞ ¼ AxðtÞ þ BKxðt  dðtÞÞ xðto Þ ¼ Uk ðto Þ to 2 ½d; ð7Þ
where

0 < dðtÞ 6 d ð8Þ
Uk(to) denotes the function of initial condition for the correspond-
ing time instant. The gain matrix K can be determined by the proce-
dure resulting in the asymptotic stability on a certain valid domain
of the delay interval. Data losses caused by packet dropouts with
bounded length is illustrated by Ohori, Kogiso, and Sugimoto
(2007) in Fig. 2.
Suppose the Liapunov–Krasovskii functional candidate for the
system (7) in the form
Z t Z t Z t
VðtÞ ¼ xT ðtÞPxðtÞ þ 
xðsÞT RxðsÞds þ d x_ T ðv ÞSxð
_ v Þdv ds

td 
d tþs
ð9Þ
 L. Bakule, M. Papík / Annual Reviews in Control 36 (2012) 1–10 5

Fig. 3. Centralized NCS with single packet transmission.

0 i i t
1 2 3 4 k

Dataloss delays and packet dropouts to design H1 controller. An active vary-

ing sampling period is proposed to make a full usage of network
bandwidth. Ohori et al. (2007) presents a stabilization method of
u NCS with bounded disturbances and unreliable links by using a
kind of randomly-switched system under the disturbances and a
common Liapunov function. Xiong and Lam (2007) is focused on
the stabilization of NCS from the point of view of zero-order hold.
Xiong and Lam (2009) present the stability conditions of NCS with
both arbitrary and Markovian packet losses via a packet-loss Liapu-
nov approach to solve the stabilization problem. Multiple-packet
2T 3T 4T transmissions and packet dropouts are included in the NCS design
for discrete-time systems within the notion of the mean square
0 i i t
1 2 3 4 k stability in Chen, Wang, and Li (2009), while Wu and Chen
(2007) present a sufficient condition for the stochastic stability of
Fig. 2. Control: reliable (upper) and unreliable (lower). discrete-time systems with both single- and multiple-packet trans-
missions. Hu, Bai, Shi, and Wu (2007) deals with a time-driven dig-
where P > 0, R P 0, and S > 0 are appropriate matrices. ital controller and an event-driven holder for the NCS. It includes
The system (5) with a given matrix U and a scalar d  > 0 is
the possibility to deal with time delays and packet dropouts. An
 if
asymptotically stabilized by the controller (6) for all dðtÞ 6 d extension to the NCS design of non-fragile controllers is presented
there exist symmetric matrices P > 0, R P 0, S > 0 and matrices Y, by Xie and Xia (2009).
X satisfying the relation
  3.2. Quantization
K1 K2
K¼ <0 ð10Þ
 K3
A quantizer is a device that converts a real-valued signal into a
where piecewise constant one taking into account only a finite-set of val-
! ues. There are available different classes of quantizers. A common
R  S  UAX T  XAT U T P þ UX T  XAT definition of a quantizer can be introduced as follows. Denote the
K1 ¼ 2 þ X þ X T
 d variable to be quantized as z 2 Rl and j.j the standard Euclidean
 
S  UBY 0 norm in Rl . A quantizer is defined as a piecewise constant function
K2 ¼ ð11Þ
 0 q : Rl ! Q, where Q is a finite subset of Rl . This leads to a partition
  of Rl into a finite number of quantization regions of the form
2S S
K3 ¼ f8z 2 Rl : qðzÞ ¼ ig; i 2 Q. The quantization regions are not as-
 R  S sumed to have any particular shapes. Suppose that there exist po-
The controller gain K in (6) is given as sitive real numbers M and D, D < M, such that the following
conditions hold
K ¼ YX 1 ð12Þ
(a) If
The controller is designed for a single-packet transmission by Zhu
and Yang (2008b). Yue, Han, and Peng (2004) presents a similar re- jzj 6 M ð13Þ
sult. Fig. 3 illustrates this case with a buffer B.
Delays and packet dropouts have been considered in the cen- then
tralized NCS by several approaches. Continuous-time systems with jqðzÞ  zj 6 D ð14Þ
sampled-data feedback, discrete-time systems with digital data
feedback, and switched systems with switched feedback may be (b) If
distinguished from the point of view of the dynamics. Single-pack- jzj > M ð15Þ
et and multi-packet transmission are considered from the point of
view of data transmissions in the feedback loop. The Liapunov– then
Razumikhin stability approach for continuous-time NCS systems
jqðzÞj > M  D ð16Þ
is considered for single-packet as well as multiple-packet trans-
missions in Yu, Wang, Chu, and Hao (2005). The state feedback gain
design and an upper bound determination on the network delay in Condition (a) gives a bound on the quantization error when the
the feedback loop is presented by using the LMI in Yue et al. (2004). quantizer does not saturate. Condition (b) provides a way to detect
Wang and Yang (2009) deal with a combined switching and the possibility of saturation. The quantities M and D are called the
parameter uncertainty-based method to treat with time-varying range of q and the quantization error, respectively. Suppose that
6 L. Bakule, M. Papík / Annual Reviews in Control 36 (2012) 1–10

q(x) = 0 holds for x in some neighborhood of the origin. For in- consist of the constant communication delays denoted as dci and
stance, the quantizer with rectangular quantization regions satis- the delays caused by data packet dropout dkiD. The input of ith local
fies the above requirements with its values in each quantization controller is xi(tk) = xi(tk  dkiD  dci). The control input has the form
region belonging to that region.
ui ðtÞ ¼ K i xi ðt k Þ t 2 ½t k ; tkþ1 Þ k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ð19Þ
Consider the quantized measurements in the form
  T T
  where xðt k Þ ¼ xT1 ðt k Þ xT2 ðt k Þ and uðtÞ ¼ uT1 ðtÞ uT2 ðtÞ consist of ni-
z
ql ðzÞ,lq ð17Þ and mi-dimensional vectors, respectively. x1(tk) and x2(tk) are trans-
l mitted over different channels. Each channel produces its own data
where l > 0 is a scalar parameter. Supposing l = 0 means that the packet dropouts and delays. Suppose also that the acknowledgment
output of the quantizer equals zero. The range of the quantizer is (ACK) about data losses is always available to the sender of the
Ml and the quantization error is Dl. The parameter l can be under- plant. Thus, the network with a multiple-packet transmission is
stood as a ‘‘zoom’’ variable. It means that when l increases, then the modeled as a switch. It is illustrated in Fig. 5 for 2-channels with
zooming goes out and a new quantizer with larger range and larger a buffer B.
quantization error is obtained. When l decreases, then the zooming Denote the corresponding time-varying delays di(t) = t  tk 
goes in and a quantizer with smaller range but also with smaller dkiD  dci, where 1 6 dki 6 (tk1  dci)/D. Suppose that the number
quantization error is constructed. l can be updated in the depen- of packet dropouts is bounded so that it satisfies the constraints
dence on the system local state (or the local measurement output). 
0 < di ðtÞ 6 d ð20Þ
In this sense, another state of the closed-loop system can be
reached. The most common static quantizers are illustrated in Fig. 4.  is a given positive constant.
for i = 1, 2, where d
A common definition of a quantizer has been introduced by Lib- Therefore, the input to the controller includes two different de-
erzon (2003). Zhu and Yang (2008a) and Wen and Yang (2009) con- lays has the form
sider quantized H1 control for the NCSs, while the elimination of    
quantized input effect is considered in Yun, Choi, and Park
x1 ðt k Þ x1 ðt  d1 ðkÞÞ
xðtk Þ ¼ ¼ t 2 ½tk ; t kþ1 Þ k ¼ 1; 2; . . .
(2009). Nešić and Liberzon (2009) presents a unified approach to x2 ðt k Þ x2 ðt  d2 ðkÞÞ
the analysis and synthesis of networked and quantized control ð21Þ
systems.
Consider now the closed-loop overall system (18)–(21) as follows

4. I/O-output oriented systems _

xðtÞ ¼ AxðtÞ þ Bs K s xðtk Þ ¼ AxðtÞ þ Bs D1 K s C 1 xðt  d1 ðtÞÞ
þ Bs D2 K s C 2 xðt  d2 ðtÞÞ xðt o Þ ¼ U ðt o Þ t o 2 ½d; 0 ð22Þ
k
4.1. Delays in the loop
where
Consider the 2-channel system (2) with N = 2, Csi = I, and Dsij = 0,    
I m1 0 0 0
i, j = 1, 2 in the form D1 ¼ D2 ¼
0 0 0 Im2
P
2     ð23Þ
_
xðtÞ ¼ AxðtÞ þ Bsi ui ðtÞ ¼ Ax þ Bs uðtÞ xð0Þ ¼ xo ð18Þ I n1 0 0 0
C1 ¼ C2 ¼
i¼1 0 0 0 I n2
The goal is to find a stabilizing DNCS controller by using the multi- The block diagonal gain matrix Ks has the form Ks = diag(Ks1 Ks2).
ple-packet transmission for the system (18). Analogously to the sin- Uk ðto Þ denotes the function of initial condition of the corresponding
gle-packet transmission, the resulting input time-varying delays time instant to.
Suppose the Liapunov–Krasovskii functional candidate for the
system (22) as
Z t
P
2
V s ðtÞ ¼ xT ðtÞPs xðtÞ þ xðsÞT Rsi xðsÞds
i¼1 
td
Z t Z t
 P
2
þd x_ T ðv ÞSsi xð
_ v Þdv ds ð24Þ
i¼1 
d tþs

where Ps > 0, Rsi P 0, and Ssi > 0 are constant matrices of appropriate
dimensions. Denote the matrices G1i ¼ ð0 . . . Imi . . . 0ÞT and
G2i ¼ ð0 . . . Ini . . . 0Þ, where the identity matrices are located at
the ith position, i 2 {1, 2}.
The system (18) with a given matrix U and a scalar d  > 0 is
asymptotically stabilized by the controller (19) for all dðtÞ 6 d  if

Fig. 4. Uniform (upper) and logarithmic (lower) quantizers. Fig. 5. NCS with multiple packet transmission.
 L. Bakule, M. Papík / Annual Reviews in Control 36 (2012) 1–10 7

there exist symmetric matrices Ps > 0, Rsi P 0, Ssi > 0 and block stabilize the closed-loop system (31) and the standard relation
diagonal matrices Ys, Xs satisfying the relation kD + C1(sI  Ac)1B1k1 < c holds. Then, there exist positive definite
P<0 ð25Þ matrices P, R satisfying the matrix inequality
0 1
where ATc P þ PAc þ 1c C T1 C 1 þ R PB1 þ 1c C T1 D
  @ A<0 ð32Þ
P1 P2 BT1 P þ 1c DT C 1 cI þ 1c DT D
P¼  VW  ðWVÞT
 P3
0 1 as follows from the bounded real lemma.
P
2
B ðRsi  Ssi Þ Ps C Suppose that each local quantizer is located between sensors
P1 ¼ B C
i¼1
B C and a local controller in the local feedback loop, where each quan-
@ 2 P
2 A
 2d Ssi tizer is described in the same way as a centralized quantizer by
i¼1 (13)–(16) with the quantized measurements (17). Suppose the
 
Ssi 0 availability of only quantized local output information. The static
P2 ¼ ð P21 P22 ÞP2i ¼ output feedback (30) can be modified using the quantized informa-
0 0 ð26Þ
  tion on y as
2Ssi Ssi
P3 ¼ diagðP31 P32 ÞP3i ¼    
 Rsi  Ssi y1 y2
  u1 ðtÞ ¼ K 1 l1 q1 u2 ðtÞ ¼ K 2 l2 q2 ð33Þ
V ¼ UT I 0 . . . 0 l1 l2
W ¼ ð H 1 H2 N 1 0 N 2 0 Þ The closed-loop system (31), (33) with any fixed positive scalars l1
P2 P
2 and l2 has the form
H1 ¼ A GT2i X si G2i H2 ¼  GT2i X si G2i
i¼1 i¼1 _
xðtÞ ¼ Ac xðtÞ þ B1 wðtÞ þ Fðl; yÞ
Ni ¼ Bs Di G1i Y si G2i i ¼ 1; 2 ð34Þ
zðtÞ ¼ C 1 xðtÞ þ DwðtÞ
The gain matrix Ks is given as where
K s ¼ Y s X 1
s ð27Þ Fðl; yðtÞÞ ¼ F 1 ðl1 ; y1 ðtÞÞ þ F 2 ðl2 ; y2 ðtÞÞ
   
where F 1 ðl1 ; y1 ðtÞÞ ¼ l1 B21 K 1 q1 yl1 ðtÞ  yl1 ðtÞ
1 1 ð35Þ
Y s ¼ diagðY s1 Y s2 ÞX s ¼ diagðX s1 X s2 Þ ð28Þ    
F 2 ðl2 ; y2 ðtÞÞ ¼ l2 B22 K 2 q2 yl2 ðtÞ  yl2 ðtÞ
The relations P s ¼ X Ts PX s ; Rsi ¼ X Ts Ri X s ; Ssi ¼ X Ts Si X s between the 2 2

matrices in (24) and (25) are introduced by Zhu and Yang The goal is to find the parameters l1 depending on the local output
(2008b). Communication requirements for decentralized control y1(t) as well as l2 depending on the local output y2(t) guaranteeing
systems with noiseless digital channels and bounded system noise the closed-loop system stability with the H1 disturbance attenua-
are presented by Yüksel and Basßar (2006, 2007). Decentralized sta- tion level c.
bilization of multi-channel systems with communication con- Given two quantizers Mi sufficiently larger than Di as
straints is studied by Matveev and Savkin (2009).
kPB2i K i kkC 2i k
M i > 4 Di i ¼ 1; 2 ð36Þ
4.2. Quantization km ðRÞ
Then, there exist positive scalars li such that
Consider the decentralized quantizer design for a 2-channel
system in the form
jyi j km ðRÞð1  eÞ
6 li 6 jy j i ¼ 1; 2 ð37Þ
_ Mi 4Di kPB2i K i kkC 2i k i
xðtÞ ¼ AxðtÞ þ B1 wðtÞ þ B21 u1 ðtÞ þ B22 u2 ðtÞ
zðtÞ ¼ C 1 xðtÞ þ DwðtÞ for any e 2 (0, 1) asymptotically stabilizing the closed loop system
ð29Þ (34) with the H1 disturbance attenuation level c as proved by Zhai,
y1 ðtÞ ¼ C 21 xðtÞ
Chen, and Gui (2009).
y2 ðtÞ ¼ C 22 xðtÞ
where xðtÞ 2 Rn , u1 ðtÞ 2 Rm1 and u2 ðtÞ 2 Rm2 are the system states, 5. Interaction oriented systems
the control inputs of channel 1 and 2, respectively. wðtÞ 2 Rh ,
zðtÞ 2 Rp , y1 ðtÞ 2 Rq1 and y2 ðtÞ 2 Rq2 are the disturbance input, the 5.1. Delays in the loop
disturbance input, the local measurement outputs of channel 1
and 2, respectively. A, B1, B21, B22, C1, C21, C22 and D are constant Consider the system (4) composed of 2 two interconnected sub-
matrices of appropriate dimension. Suppose that the triple systems with Cri = 0, Dri = 0, i = 1, 2 as
 h iT 
A; ½B21 B22 ; C T21 C T22 is stabilizable and detectable. _
xðtÞ ¼ AxðtÞ þ Br uðtÞ ð38Þ

Suppose the availability of a decentralized static output feed- where

back controller for the system (29) as  
A11 A12
u1 ðtÞ ¼ K 1 y1 ðtÞ u2 ðtÞ ¼ K 2 y2 ðtÞ ð30Þ A¼ Br ¼ diagðB1 B2 Þ ð39Þ
A21 A22
asymptotically stabilizing the closed-loop system (29), (30) with The goal is to find a stabilizing DNCS controller by using the
the H1 disturbance attenuation level c. More precisely, the multiple-packet transmission for the system (38). Suppose the
closed-loop system is written as same meaning of variables and assumptions on the transmission
_
xðtÞ ¼ Ac xðtÞ þ B1 wðtÞ channels and delays as presented by (19)–(21). Suppose also that
ð31Þ the acknowledgment (ACK) about data losses is always available
zðtÞ ¼ C 1 xðtÞ þ DwðtÞ
to the sender of the plant. Then, the following relation holds
where Ac = A + B21K1C21 + B22K2C22. Suppose that when neglecting
ui ðtÞ ¼ K ri xi ðt k Þ t 2 ½t k ; t kþ1 Þ k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ð40Þ
the quantization effects, the gains K1 and K2 in (30) asymptotically
8 L. Bakule, M. Papík / Annual Reviews in Control 36 (2012) 1–10

where xðt k Þ ¼ ðxT1 ðt k ÞxT2 ðt k ÞÞT , uðtÞ ¼ ðuT1 ðtÞ uT2 ðtÞÞT and cept of quadratic invariance. In Langbort, Gupta, and Murray
    (2006), the authors developed the LMI type condition for the exis-
x1 ðtk Þ x1 ðt  d1 ðtÞÞ
xðt k Þ ¼ ¼ t 2 ½t k ; tkþ1 Þ k ¼ 1; 2; . . . tence of a decentralized controller for heterogenous interconnected
x2 ðtk Þ x2 ðt  d2 ðtÞÞ subsystems with failing communication channels. Stubbs, Vla-
ð41Þ dimerou, Fulford, Strick, and Dullerud (2006) describes the hover-
craft flexible testbed for decentralized control of multiple
The closed-loop overall system (38)–(41) has the form
autonomous vehicles that are networked in a wireless manner
_
xðtÞ ¼ AxðtÞ þ Br K r xðt k Þ ¼ AxðtÞ þ Br K r C 1 xðt  d1 ðtÞÞ and can be commanded
 0
þ Br K r C 2 xðt  d2 ðtÞÞxðt o Þ ¼ U ðt o Þ t o 2 ½d; ð42Þ
k
5.2. Quantization
where Di, Ci are defined by (23). The essential difference between
the systems (18) and (20) is in the matrices Bs and Br, where Consider the decentralized quantizer design for two intercon-
Bsi ¼ ð0 . . . Imi . . . 0ÞT Bri with the identity matrices are located at nected subsystem as follows
the ith position. It leads to an analogous way of reasoning with
the procedure described by the relation (24)–(28), when using the x_ i ðtÞ ¼ Aii xi ðtÞ þ Aij xj ðtÞ þ B1i wi ðtÞ þ B2i ui ðtÞ
same notation for G1i, G2i. To simplify suppose the structure of the zi ðtÞ ¼ C i xi ðtÞ þ Di wi ðtÞ ð47Þ
Liapunov–Krasovskii functional candidate Vr(t) for the system (42)
yi ðtÞ ¼ Ei xi ðtÞ i; j ¼ 1; 2
identical with (24). It means only to substitute Vs(t), Ps, Rri, Ssi by
Vr(t), Pr = diag(Pr1 Pr2) > 0, Rri P 0, Ssi > 0, respectively.
 > 0 is where xi ðtÞ 2 Rni , ui ðtÞ 2 Rmi , wi ðtÞ 2 Rhi , and zi ðtÞ 2 Rpi are the sub-
The system (38) with a given matrix Ur and a scalar d
 if system states, the control inputs, the disturbance inputs, and the
asymptotically stabilized by the controller (40) for all dðtÞ 6 d
controlled outputs, respectively. Aij, Bij, Ci, Di and Ei are constant
there exist symmetric matrices Pri > 0, Rri P 0, Sri > 0, and block
matrices.
diagonal matrices Yr, Xr satisfying the relation
Suppose the availability of a decentralized static output feed-
C<0 ð43Þ back controller for the system (47) as
where
u1 ðtÞ ¼ K 1 y1 ðtÞ u2 ðtÞ ¼ K 2 y2 ðtÞ ð48Þ
!
C1 C2
C¼  V r W r  ðW r V r ÞT asymptotically stabilizing the closed-loop system (47), (48) with
 C3
0 2 1 the H1 disturbance attenuation level c. Denote as
P
B ðRri  Sri Þ Pr C _
xðtÞ ¼ Ac xðtÞ þ B1 wðtÞ
ð49Þ
C1 ¼ B C
i¼1
B C zðtÞ ¼ CxðtÞ þ DwðtÞ
@ P
2 A
  2
2d Sri
i¼1 the closed-loop system, where x(t) = (x1(t)T x2(t)T)T, w(t) = (w1(t)T
!
Sri 0 w2(t)T)T, z(t) = (z1(t)T z2(t)T)T and
C2 ¼ ð C21 C22 ÞC2i ¼
0 0 ð44Þ !
! A11 þ B21 K 1 E1 A12
2Sri Sri A¼
C3 ¼ diagðC31 C32 ÞC3i ¼ A21 A22 þ B22 K 2 E2 ð50Þ
 Rri  Sri
  B1 ¼ diagðB11 B12 Þ C ¼ diagðC 1 C 2 Þ D ¼ diagðD1 D2 Þ
V r ¼ U Tr I 0 ... 0
W r ¼ ð Hr1 Hr2 Nr1 0 Nr2 0Þ Consider that each local feedback loop includes two quantizers. One
P
2 P
2 quantizer is located between subsystem sensors and a local control-
Hr1 ¼ A GT2i X ri G2i Hr2 ¼  GT2i X ri G2i ler, while an another quantizer is located between a local controller
i¼1 i¼1
and subsystem inputs. Suppose that each quantizer is described by
Nri ¼ Br Di G1i Y ri G2i i ¼ 1; 2 (13)–(16) with the quantized measurements (17) is adopted to the
subsystem setting for each local feedback loop. More precisely, de-
The gain matrix Kr is given as
note the quantization ranges Mi1, Mi2 and the quantization errors
K r ¼ Y r X 1
r ð45Þ Di1, Di2, where Mi1, Di1 describe the quantizer located between
the sensors and the controller in the ith feedback loop. Suppose
where two quantizer variables li1, li2 accordingly. The input to the ith
Y r ¼ diagðY r1 Y r2 Þ X r ¼ diagðX r1 X r2 Þ ð46Þ controller has the form
 
The DNCS design has been considered in several publications up to yi
yci ðtÞ ¼ li1 qi1 ð51Þ
now. The dynamics of local estimator-controller scheme with com- li1
munication among vehicles in cooperative formations are studied
by Smith and Hadaegh (2007). Narendra, Oleng, and Mukhopadhy- while the input to the ith subsystem is
ay (2006) demonstrates through simulation that the significant    
K i yci K i li1 qi1 ðyi =li1 Þ
improvement in transient responses of the disjoint subsystems ui ðtÞ ¼ li2 qi2 ¼ li2 qi2 ð52Þ
can be achieved with communication at relatively few instants of li2 li2
time. Decentralized control problem over periodic fast switching
network is presented by Roberts and Stilwell (2005). It is applied The closed-loop system (47)–(52) with any fixed positive scalars l1
to autonomous vehicle platoon with the network characterized and l2 has the form
by using the graph theoretic issues. Rotkowitz and Lall (2006) con- _
xðtÞ ¼ Ac xðtÞ þ B1 wðtÞ þ Tðl; yÞ
siders the problem of decentralized control minimizing a norm of ð53Þ
zðtÞ ¼ C 1 xðtÞ þ DwðtÞ
the closed-loop subject to a subspace constraint by using the con-
 L. Bakule, M. Papík / Annual Reviews in Control 36 (2012) 1–10 9

where networked control systems and its limits are the key issues deter-
  mined primarily by delays, dropped packets, and quantizations.
T 1 ðl11 ; l12 ; y1 ðtÞÞ
Tðl; yðtÞÞ ¼ Reliability, sensor failures, actuator constraints as well as the per-
T 2 ðl21 ; l22 ; y2 ðtÞÞ
0    1 formance degradation under communication failures, reconfigura-
l12 B21 q12 K 1 l11 ql1112ðy1 =l11 Þ  K 1ly121 ðtÞ ble control, and the emphasis on increased autonomy belong to
¼@    A ð54Þ other important current research challenges.
l22 B22 q22 K 2 l21 ql21 ðy2 =l21 Þ  K 2ly2 ðtÞ
22 22

The goal is to find the parameters li1 and li2 depending on the local Acknowledgement
output yi(t) for i = 1, 2 guaranteeing the closed-loop system stability
with the H1 disturbance attenuation level c. L. Bakule is grateful to the Ministry of Education, Youth and
Applying the bounded real lemma on the interconnected Sports of the Czech Republic (MEYS) by its support through the
closed-loop system (50) leads to the existence of positive definite Grant LG12014.
block diagonal matrices P = diag(P1 P2), R = diag(R1 R2) satisfying
the matrix inequality References
0 1
ATc P þ PAc þ 1 T
c C1 C1 þR PB1 þ 1 T
c C1 D Abdollahi, F., & Khorasani, K. (2008). A decentralized H1 routing control strategy for
@ A<0 ð55Þ mobile networked multi-agents. In Proceedings of the 2009 American control
BT1 P 1
þ c D C1 T 1
cI þ c D D T
conference (pp. 1555–1560). MO, USA: St. Louis.
Alessio, A., & Bemporad, A. (2008). Stability conditions for decentralized model
Given two quantizers Mi1 sufficiently larger than Di in the ith local predictive control under packet drop communication. In Proceedings of the 2008
feedback loop satisfying the relation American control conference (pp. 3577–3582). Seattle, WA, USA.
Baillieul, J., & Antsaklis, P. (2007). Control and communication challenges in
kP i B2i kkEi k networked real-time systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 95(1), 9–28.
M i1 > 2Di i ¼ 1; 2 ð56Þ Bakule, L. (2008). Decentralized control: An overview. Annual Reviews in Control, 32,
xi km ðRi Þ 87–98.
Bakule, L., & de la Sen, M. (2009). Decentralized stabilization of networked complex
where xi is a positive tuning parameter relating the parameters li1 composite systems with nonlinear perturbations. In Proceedings of the 7th IEEE
and li2 as follows international conference on control and automation (pp. 2272–2277).
Christchurch, New Zealand.
M i2 ¼ ðDi1 þ2M
xi
i1 ÞkK i k
i ¼ 1; 2 Bakule, L., & de la Sen, M. (2010). Decentralized resilient H1 observer-based control
ð57Þ for a class of uncertain interconnected networked systems. In Proceedings of the
Di1 kK i k
Di ¼ Di2 þ xi li2 ¼ xi li1 2010 American control conference (pp. 1338–1343). Baltimore, MD, USA.
Bakule, L., & de la Sen, M. (2011). Decentralized H1 quantizers design for networked
complex composite systems. In Proceedings of the 18th world congress of the IFAC
Then, there exist positive scalars l1i,l2i which depend on the local
(pp. 2674–2679). Milano, Italy.
output yi(t) such that the closed-loop system (53) is asymptotically Bakule, L., & Rodellar, J. (1996). Decentralized control design of uncertain nominally
stable with the H1 disturbance attenuation level c. The range of l1i linear symmetric composite systems. IEE Proceedings – Control Theory and
which depends on the local output yi(t) can be selected as Applications, 143, 539–630.
Bakule, L., Rodellar, J., & Rossell, J. (2002). Overlapping quadratic optimal control of
jyi j xi km ðRi Þ linear time-varying commutative systems. SIAM Journal on Control and
6 l1i 6 jy j i ¼ 1; 2 ð58Þ Optimization, 40(5), 1611–1627.
M i1 2Di kPi B2i kkEi k i Bakule, L., Rodellar, J., & Rossell, J. (2006). Robust overlapping guaranteed cost
control of uncertain state–delay discrete–time systems. IEEE Transactions on
A simple choice of l1i has the form Automatic Control, 51(12), 1943–1950.
Barcelli, D., & Bemporad, A. (2009). Decentralized model predictive control of
2jyi j dynamically-coupled linear systems: Tracking under packet loss. In Proceedings
l1i ¼ ð59Þ
M i1 þ 2Di ðkPi B2i kkEi k=xi km ðRi ÞÞ of the 1st IFAC workshop on estimation and control of networked systems (pp. 204–
209). Venice, Italy.
as presented by Chen, Zhai, Gui, Yang, and Liu (2010). Bakule and de Bemporad, A., Heemels, M., & Johansson, M. (Eds.). (2010). Networked control
systems. Springer-Verlag.
la Sen (2011) further extended the quantizer design for networked Chen, H., Wang, W., & Li, Z. (2009). Synthetic modeling and control of networked
symmetric composite systems. control systems with multi-packet transmission. In Proceedings of the
international conference on advanced computer control 2009 (pp. 661–665).
Singapore.
6. Conclusion Chen, N., Zhai, G., Gui, W., Yang, C., & Liu, W. (2010). Decentralised H1 quantisers
design for uncertain interconnected networked systems. IET Control Theory and
In this paper, the basic past and current issues involved in the Applications, 4(2), 177–185.
DFG–Priority Program 1305 (2011). Control theory of digitally networked
design of decentralized networked control systems have been re- dynamical systems. Bonn.
viewed. The most simple structures of large scale systems have Donkers, M., & Heemels, W. (2012). Output-based event-triggered control with
been considered, that is the I/O-oriented models and the interac- guaranteed L1-gain and improved and decentralised event-triggering. IEEE
Transactions on Automatic Control, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2011.2174696.
tion oriented models based on the disjoint decomposition. It was Ghosh, S., Das, S. K., & Ray, G. (2009). Decentralized stabilization of uncertain
presented how to treat with the effects of packet dropouts, systems with interconnections and feedback delays: An LMI approach. IEEE
transmission delays, and quantization within the decentralized Transactions on Automatic Control, 54(4), 905–912.
Goodwin, G., Silva, E., & Quevedo, D. (2008). A brief introduction to the analysis and
NCS design. Single- and multiple-packet transmissions have been design of networked control systems. In Proceedings of the 2008 Chinese control
included in the DNCS design for two prototype cases. The first case and decision conference (pp. 1–13). Yantai, PR China.
deals with the design of decentralized state feedback gain matrices Gusrialdi, A., & Hirche, S. (2010). Performance-oriented communication topology
design for large-scale interconnected systems. In Proceedings of the 49th IEEE
with delayed feedback uses the methodology of sampled-data conference on decision and control (pp. 5707–5713). Atlanta, GA, USA.
feedback design for continuous-time systems, while the second Hespanha, J., Naghshtabrizi, P., & Xu, Y. (2007). A survey of recent results in
case presents the decentralized H1 quantizer design based on networked control systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 95(1), 138–162.
Hristu-Varsakelis, D., & Levine, W. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of networked and
given static output gain matrices stabilizing the closed-loop sys-
embedded control systems. Boston: Birkhäuser.
tem. The main objective was to show that LMI techniques provide Hu, L., Bai, T., Shi, P., & Wu, Z. (2007). Sampled-data control of networked linear
a general design framework to solve the DNCS design problems. control systems. Automatica, 43, 903–911.
Future research effort should consider the analysis and synthe- ICT Research in FP7 (2011a). HYCON2: Highly-complex and networked control
systems. European Community, Bruxelles.
sis of complex strongly interconnected subsystems controlled over ICT Research in FP7 (2011b). WIDE: Decentralized and wireless control of large-
realistic decentralized communication channels. Performance of scale systems. European Community, Bruxelles.
10 L. Bakule, M. Papík / Annual Reviews in Control 36 (2012) 1–10
_
Iftar, A. (2008). Decentralized robust control of large-scale time-delay systems. In
Proceedings of the 17th IFAC world congress (pp. 9332–9337). Seoul, Korea.
Jamshidi, M. (1997). Large-scale systems: Modeling. Control and fuzzy logic. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Jiang, C., Zhou, D., & Zhang, Q. (2008). Stabilization of networked control systems via
time-varying local controller. In Proceedings of the 7th world congress on
intelligent control and automation (pp. 7965–7069). Chongquing, PR China.
Kurose, J., & Rose, K. (2005). Computer networking: A top-down approach featuring the
internet. Boston: Pearson/Addison Wesley.
Langbort, C., Gupta, V., & Murray, R. (2006). Distributed control over failing
channels. In P. Ansaklis & P. Tabuada (Eds.), Proceedings of networked embedded
sensing and control. LNCIS (Vol. 331, pp. 325–342). Berlin: Springer.
Liberzon, D. (2003). Switching in systems and control. Boston: Birkhäuser.
Lunze, J. (1992). Feedback control of large-scale systems. London: Prentice Hall.
Mahmoud, M. (2011). Decentralized control and filtering in interconnected dynamical
systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Matveev, A., & Savkin, A. (2009). Estimation and control over communication
networks. Boston: Birkhäuser.
Menon, P., & Edwards, C. (2009). Decentralised static output feedback stabilisation
and synchronisation of networks. Automatica, 45(12), 2910–2916.
Nair, G., Evans, R., & Caines, P. (2004). Stabilising decentralised linear systems under
data rate constraints. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on decision and control
(pp. 3992–3997). Paradise Island, Bahamas.
Narendra, K., Oleng, N., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2006). Decentralized adaptive control
with partial communication. IEE Proceedings – Control Theory and Applications,
153(5), 546–555.
Nešić, D., & Liberzon, D. (2009). A unified framework for design and analysis of
networked and quantized control systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 54(4), 732–747.
Ohori, A., Kogiso, K., & Sugimoto, K. (2007). Stabilization of a network control
system under bounded disturbances with unreliable communication links via
common Lyapunov function approach. In SICE Annual Conference 2007 (pp.
1898–1903). Takamatsu, Kagawa, Japan.
Roberts, D., & Stilwell, D. (2005). Control of an autonomous vehicle platoon with a
switched communication network. In Proceedings of the 2005 American control
conference (pp. 4333–4338). Portland, OR.
Rotkowitz, M., & Lall, S. (2006). A characterization of convex problems in
decentralized control. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 51(2), 274–286.
Seth, S., Lynch, J., & Tilbury, D. (2005). Wirelessly networked distributed controllers
for real-time control of civil structures. In Proceedings of the American control
conference (pp. 2946–2952). Portland, OR.
Smith, R., & Hadaegh, F. (2007). Closed-loop dynamics of cooperative vehicle
formations with parallel estimators and communication. IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 52(8), 1404–1414.
Stubbs, A., Vladimerou, V., Fulford, A., Strick, J., & Dullerud, G. E. (2006). A hovercraft
testbed for networked and decentralized control. IEEE Control Systems Magazine,
26(3), 56–69.
Sun, Y., & El-Farra, N. (2009). Robust quasi-decentralized networked control of
process systems. In Proceedings of the 48th IEEE conference on decision and
control and the 28th Chinese control conference (pp. 5851–5856). Shanghai, PR
China.
Tatikonda, S. (2003). Some scaling properties of large distributed control systems. In
Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE conference on decision and control (pp. 3142–3147).
Maui, HI, USA.
Šiljak, D. (1991). Decentralized control of complex systems. New York: Academic
Press.
Wang, X., & Lemmon, M. (2011). Event-triggering in distributed networked control
systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 56(3), 586–601.
Wang, Y., & Yang, G. (2009). State feedback control synthesis for networked control
systems with packet dropout. Asian Journal of Control, 11(1), 49–58.
Wei, J. (2008). Stability analysis of decentralized networked control systems. In:
Proceedings of the 7th world congress on intelligent control and automation (pp.
5477–5482). Chongquing, PR China.
Wei, L., Xue, D.-Y., Da-zhi, E. (2007). Some basic issues in networked control
systems. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE conference on industrial electronics and
applications (pp. 2098–2102). Harbin, PR China.
Wen, D.-L., & Yang, G.-H. (2009). Quantized H1 control for networked control
systems with random delays. In Proceedings of the 21th Chinese control and
decision conference (pp. 588–592). Guilin, PR China.
Witrant, E., D’Innocenzo, A., Sandou, G., Santucci, F., Benedetto, M., Isakson, A., et al.
(2010). Wireless ventilation control for large-scale systems: The mining
industrial case. International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control, 20,
226–251.
Wu, H. (2009). Decentralized robust tracking control of uncertain large scale
systems with multiple delays in the interconnections. Kybernetika, 45(1),
121–136.
Wu, J., & Chen, T. (2007). Design of networked control systems with packet dropout.
IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 52(7), 1314–1319.
Xie, N., & Xia, B. (2009). Non-fragile control for networked control systems with
fast-varying delay and packet-dropout. In Proceedings of the 2009 international
conference on information engineering and computer science (pp. 1–4). Wuhan, PR
China.
Xiong, J., & Lam, J. (2007). Stabilization of linear systems over networks with
bounded packet loss. Automatica, 43, 80–87.
Xiong, J., & Lam, J. (2009). Stabilization of networked control systems with a logic
ZOH. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 54(2), 358–363.
Xu, Y., & Hespanha, J. (2004). Communication logics for networked control systems.
In Proceedings of the 2004 American control conference (pp. 572–577). Boston,
MA, USA.
Yu, M., Wang, L., Chu, T., & Hao, F. (2005). Stabilization of networked control
systems with data packet dropout and transmission delays: Continuous-time
case. European Journal of Control, 11, 40–49.
Yu, X., & Tomsovic, K. (2004). Application of linear matrix inequalities for load
frequency control with communication delays. IEEE Transactions on Power
Systems, 19(3), 1508–1515.
Yue, D., Han, Q.-L., & Peng, C. (2004). State feedback controller design of networked
control systems. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems – II: Express Briefs,
51(11), 640–644.
Yüksel, S., & Basßar, T. (2006). On the absence of rate loss in decentralized sensor and
controller structure for asymptotic stability. In Proceedings of the American
control conference (pp. 5562–5567). Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Yüksel, S., & Basßar, T. (2007). Communication constraints for decentralized
stabilizability with time-invariant policies. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control, 52(6), 1060–1066.
Yun, S., Choi, Y., & Park, P. (2009). H2 control of continous-time uncertain linear
systems with input quantization and matched disturbance. Automatica, 45,
2435–2439.
Zečević, A., & Šiljak, D. (2010). Control of complex systems. Structural constraints and
uncertainty. Berlin–Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
Zhai, G., Chen, N., & Gui, W. (2009). A study on decentralized H1 feedback control
systems with local quantizers. Kybernetika, 45(1), 137–150.
Zhong, W., Stefanovski, J., Dimirovski, G., & Zhao, J. (2009). Decentralized control
and synchronization of time-varying complex dynamic systems. Kybernetika,
45(1), 151–167.
Zhu, X.-L., & Yang, G.-H. (2008a). Quantized H1 controller design for networked
control systems. In Proceedings of the 2008 Chinese control and decision
conference (pp. 357–362). Yantai, PR China.
Zhu, X.-L., & Yang, G.-H. (2008b). Stability analysis and state feedback control of
networked control systems with multi-packet transmission. In Proceedings of
the 2008 American control conference (pp. 3133–3138). Seattle, WA, USA.
Lubomír Bakule received his Ph.D. degree in Control Engineering from the
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czechoslovakia in 1974. Since 1974 he
has been with the Institute of Information Theory and Automation, Academy of
Sciences of the Czech Republic, where he is Chief Researcher. He has held numerous
visiting appointments abroad. He has published over 150 research papers and has
led many research projects. His research interests are in the theory and applications
of robust decentralized control of large-scale systems, networked control systems,
delayed and switching control systems, and structural control. He is Vice-Chair of
the IFAC TC on Large Scale Complex Systems.
Martin Papík received his Ph.D. degree in System Engineering and Informatics from
the Czech University of Life Sciences, Prague in 2010. Since 2005 he has been with
the Institute of Information Theory and Automation, Academy of Sciences of the
Czech Republic, where he is Research Assistant. His research interests are in the
theory and applications of decentralized control, supervision, Petri nets, computer
networks, and complex systems.