IET Research Journals
Brief Paper: This paper is a postprint of a paper submitted to and accepted for publication in IET
Control Theory & Applications and is subject to Institution of Engineering and Technology
Copyright. The copy of record is available at the IET Digital Library

Consensus of second order multi-agents
with actuator saturation and asynchronous
time-delays

ISSN 1751-8644
doi: 0000000000
www.ietdl.org

Venkata Karteek Yanumula1 Indrani Kar1 Somanath Majhi1
1

arXiv:1709.00951v3 [cs.MA] 23 Nov 2017

Dept. of EEE, IIT Guwahati-781039, India.
* E-mail: yanumula@iitg.ernet.in

Abstract: This article presents the consensus of a saturated second order multi-agent system with non-switching dynamics that
can be represented by a directed graph. The system is affected by data processing (input delay) and communication time-delays
that are assumed to be asynchronous. The agents have saturation nonlinearities, each of them is approximated into separate
linear and nonlinear elements. Nonlinear elements are represented by describing functions. Describing functions and stability of
linear elements are used to estimate the existence of limit cycles in the system with multiple control laws. Stability analysis of
the linear element is performed using Lyapunov-Krasovskii functions and frequency domain analysis. A comparison of pros and
cons of both the analyses with respect to time-delay ranges, applicability and computation complexity is presented. Simulation
and corresponding hardware implementation results are demonstrated to support theoretical results.

1

Introduction

In the recent past, multi-agent systems have attracted a lot of attention due to their wide range of application in robotics, unmanned air
and underwater vehicles, automated traffic signal control, wireless
sensor networks, etc.. One of the most important problems in coordinated control is consensus of a multi-agent system, which deals
with algorithms required for the convergence of agents [1, 2]. After
the initial study by Vicsek et al.[3] on self-ordered motions in biologically motivated particles, Jadbabaie et al. [1] gave the theoretical
explanation. Olfati-Saber et al. [2] provided mathematical analysis
of consensus behaviour in linear first order agents with time-delay
using graph theory concepts. Multi-agent consensus problems with
higher order agents, switching topologies, time-delays, nonlinearities etc., started receiving more attention [4, 5] after the initial results
given by authors in [1, 2].
However, the majority of control laws are designed to solve consensus problems in linear multi-agent systems [1, 2, 6–12]. For
linear systems, it has been shown that eigenvalues of graph laplacian
play an important role in estimating whether the network of agents
converge. Since nonlinearities are unavoidable in most of the practical applications, nonlinear agents and the corresponding control
laws are being considered recently [13–15]. Mobile agents generally have limited capability due to factors like actuator saturation,
moment of inertia, maximum limit on velocity, etc.. Actuator saturation is frequently encountered due to limitations in hardware. Some
of the researchers focused on consensus in multi-agent systems with
saturation in first order [16] and second order agents [17–22].
Apart from eigenvalues of graph laplacian, time-delays play major role in stability of multi-agent network. In practical applications,
time-delays are inevitable and are classified into two categories;
communication and input time-delays. The amount of time taken
by agents to communicate is defined as communication time-delay
and the amount of time taken by agents to process the information
received from other agents is called input time-delay. Olfati-Saber
et al.[2] started the analysis of time-delay effects on multi-agent
systems and gave an upper bound for first order agents considering
constant uniform communication and input time-delays. Later on it
was extended to systems with first order agents and uniform timevarying delay[6] multiple delays [9, 23], second order agents with
constant time-delays [8, 24] and system with second order agents
with non-uniform delay [11].

IET Research Journals, pp. 1–10
c The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

The majority of research is confined to linear agents with timedelays and recently nonlinear agents with time-delays are receiving
attention [14, 22]. Furthermore, nonlinearities are common in mobile
agents and actuator saturation is the most frequent hard nonlinearity
affecting them. For example, the acceleration of an agent is constant
over certain range and cannot be maintained after the agent attains
its maximum velocity. Recently, saturation nonlinearity is receiving
considerable attention. Li et al. [16] considered a first order system
with saturation and without time-delays. For second order agents
with saturation and without time-delay, a differential gain feedback
control is used by authors in [17, 18]. Adaptive control laws with an
observer are used by Chu et al. [19] and nonlinear agents are considered by Cui et al. [21]. The effects of synchronous time-delays are
taken into consideration by You et al. [22] for a network of second
order saturated agents.
It is evident from the literature that, there is very little focus on
consensus of second order saturated multi-agent system with asynchronous communication and input time-delays. In this contribution,
a multi-agent system is considered with asynchronous time-delays
and hard saturation nonlinearities. The objective of the article is to
extend the results of Liu et al. [14] for velocity saturated nonlinear multi-agent system with time-delays using a different approach.
Describing function analysis [25] is used to break agents into approximate linear and nonlinear elements, with the nonlinear element
represented by an appropriate describing function. The difference
among position states and velocity states of agents is defined as error
dynamics. The system achieves consensus when the error dynamics
are asymptotically stable. Here, the existence of limit cycles in the
multi-agent system is estimated with the help of describing functions
and stability of linear element. Lyapunov-Krasovskii functions and
frequency domain analysis are used to prove the stability of linear
element and further estimate the stability of limit cycles. Consensus
is achieved when there are no limit cycles. Some necessary and sufficient conditions for consensus in terms of linear matrix inequalities
and explicit expressions are derived. The major contributions of the
paper can be summarised as, 1. Deriving various conditions for four
consensus control laws with asynchronous time-delays; 2. Describing function analysis is used to estimate the limit cycle behaviour
of the system; 3. Stability analysis of the linear element using Lyapunov-Krasovskii and frequency domain approaches is performed;
4. A comparison of pros and cons of both the stability analyses
is presented; 5. Simulations and further validation of results on a

1

four-agent and a five-agent networks are demonstrated to support
theoretical analysis.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows, Section 2 explains
graph theory preliminaries. Section 3 elaborates the system model
with four control laws given in Eqns. (5) to (8). Stability analysis
is performed using Lyapunov-Krasovskii functions for control laws
in Eqns. (5) to (8), using the Nyquist stability criterion for control
laws in Eqns. (5) and (6). Furthermore, simulation and implementation of the control laws on two networks are explained. Depiction of
results and comparison of the two stability procedures are performed
in Section 4.

2

Preliminaries

2.1

Graph theory

(2)

The ith agent dynamics are depicted using a block diagram given
Z

ui

∆

v̂i

vi

Z

xi

−∆

Communication
& process

Graph theory is widely used to study multi-agent systems. A network of agents and the underlying communication topology can be
represented by a graph G = (V, E, A). If the communication among
agents could be unidirectional, a directed graph is used to describe
the multi-agent network. The vertex set V = {v1 , v2 , ...., vn } where
vertices are analogous to agents and an edge set E = {(i, j) : i, j ∈
V} where edges are analogous to the branches of directed network
with (i, j) representing information flowing from j th vertex to ith .
Edge set has distinct ordered pairs of vertices which depict existence
and direction of information flow among the vertices. An adjacency
matrix A = (aij )n×n also represents communication topology with
aij = 1 if (i, j) ∈ E and aij = 0 otherwise. A weighted adjacency
matrix will have entries other than zero and unity weights depending on the assumptions of cost of communication. If there exists at
least one vertex which has a directed path to all the other vertices,
the graph is said to form a spanning tree and if all the vertices have
directed paths to all the other agents, it is called strongly connected.
A spanning tree condition is a necessary condition for consensus
but not sufficient when time-delays and higher order systems are involved [4, 5]. The sum of weights of inward branches at a vertex is
called in-degree din (vi ) and the weight sum of outward branches is
called out-degree of the vertex dout (vi ).
2.2



−∆, if α ≤ −∆
sat (α) = α,
if − ∆ < α < ∆

∆,
if α ≥ ∆

(aij )(xj , vj )

(aji )(xi , vi )

Fig. 1: Block diagram of ith agent.
in Fig. 1. Using the concepts of describing function to estimate limit
cycles [25], the system can be approximately transformed as shown
in Fig. 2. Since a single-valued nonlinearity is considered, its approximate describing function for the saturation is given in Eqn. (3)
[25],
"
#
r
 
2
∆
∆2
∆
N (A) =
arcsin
1− 2
(3)
+
π
A
A
A
where, the limit cycles’ amplitude is represented by A.
The describing function is real valued and −1/N (A) ∈ [−1, ∞),
it can be estimated that the limit cycles are stable when the transfer
function of linear element in Fig. 2 encircles (−1, 0) in a complex
plane. In other words, limit cycles are exhibited when the linear element is unstable in the multi-agent system. Stability analysis of the
linear element is performed using Lyapunov-Krasovskii approach in
Section 3.1 and Nyquist stability approach given in Section 3.2.
Communication
& process

Nonlinear
element

Notations

The following notations are used throughout the paper, Rn represents an n-dimensional Euclidean space. Rm×n represent a space
of m × n matrices. Position and velocity of n agents are represented by x = [x1 x2 ... xn ]T and ẋ = v respectively. X =
[X1 X2 ... Xn Xn+1 ... X2n ]T represent the states of a multi-agent
system with [X1 X2 ... Xn ]T = x and [Xn+1 ... X2n ]T = ẋ. In
and I2n represent identity matrices of sizes n × n and 2n × 2n respectively. 1n is a vector ones of size 1 × n. For {A, B} ∈ Rn×n , if
A < B, then A − B is positive semidefinite; if A  B, then A − B
is positive definite. D represents a matrix with diagonal elements
as row-sum of adjacency matrix A and rest of the elements as
aij
zero. A matrix Ã is defined with elements ãij = Pn
and
j=1 aij
[λ̃1 , λ̃2 , ..., λ̃n ] are the eigenvalues of matrix Ã.

ui

Linear
element

(xi , vi )
Fig. 2: Rearranged block diagram of ith agent.
The approximate linear element given in Fig. 2 is represented by
Eqn. (4),
ẋi (t) = vi (t)
(4)
v̇i (t) = ui (t)
Various control laws considered from the literature for analysis are
given in Eqns. (5) to (8),
ui1 (t) = −vi (t − τ1 )

3

System model and analysis

+ Pn

=
=

sat (v̂i (t))
ui (t)

(1)

n
X


j=1 aij j=1

Consider a multi-agent network of homogeneous second order
agents with ith agent dynamics given in Eqn. (1),
ẋi (t)
v̂˙ i (t)

1

ui2 = Pn

n
X


1

j=1 aij

aij xj (t − τ2 ) − xi (t − τ1 )

aij vj (t − τ2 ) − vi (t − τ1 )


(6)

j=1

+ aij xj (t − τ2 ) − xi (t − τ1 )
For mobile agents, the position of an agent is represented by xi (t)
and the velocity by ẋi (t). Various control protocols used in the analysis are given in Eqns. (5) to (8). It is assumed that ∀t ∈ (−∞, 0],
xi (t) = x (0) and v̂i (t) = 0. Saturation nonlinearity used in the
system is defined in Eqn. (2) with ±∆ as bounds.

2

  (5)



ui3 (t) = − vi (t − τ1 )
+

n
X


aij xj (t − τ2 ) − xi (t − τ1 )

(7)

j=1

IET Research Journals, pp. 1–10
c The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

ui4 =

n
X


aij vj (t − τ2 ) − vi (t − τ1 )

(8)

j=1

+ aij xj (t − τ2 ) − xi (t − τ1 )



where τ1 and τ2 represent input and communication time-delays respectively. With any of the control laws in Eqns. (5) to (8), consensus
is said to be reached if (xi (t) − xj (t)) → 0 and (ẋi (t) − ẋj (t)) →
0 ∀{i, j} ∈ [1, n]. Control laws in Eqns. (5) and (6) generate lesser
magnitude of control input ui which result in slightly larger convergence time compared to the ones in Eqns. (7) and (8). The averaging
in control laws given by Eqns. (5) and (6) have better time-delay tolerance due to smaller Fiedler eigenvalue compared to control laws in
Eqns. (7) and (8) at the expense of convergence time. With control
laws in Eqns. (5) and (7), the state ẋi (t) → 0 when the consensus
is achieved since they do not consider difference in velocity. State
ẋi (t) → 0 is not guaranteed with control laws in Eqns. (6) and (8).
3.1

Consider the linear element represented in Eqns. (4) to (8), which
can be represented as given in Eqn. (9).
Ẋ (t) = A0 X (t) + A1 X (t − τ1 ) + A2 X (t − τ2 )

(9)

Where A0 , A1 and A2 are as given in Eqns. (10) to (13).
For ui1 given in Eqn. (5),


0n×n
0n×n

0n×n

0n×n
A2 =
Ae

0n×n
0n×n



In


; A1 =


0n×n
−In


0n×n
;
−In
(10)



For ui2 given in Eqn. (6),


0n×n
0n×n

0n×n

0n×n
A2 =
Ae

0n×n
Ae

A0 =


In


; A1 =


0n×n
−In


0n×n
;
−In
(11)





A2 =

Definition 3. Balanced matrix: A square matrix M ∈ Rn×n is said
to be balanced iff M1T
n = 0 and 1n M = 0.


1n×n 0n×n
and E = I2n −
0n×n 1n×n
Φ01 , then the following statements hold true for k-regular graph
with inputs in Eqns. (5) to (8) and for spanning tree graph with inputs
in Eqns. (5) and (6):
1
n

1.E (A0 + A1 + A2 ) is a balanced matrix with rank 2n − 2 and
eigenvalues 0 of multiplicity 2.
2.Matrices EA0 , EA1 , EA2 and E (A1 + A2 ) are all balanced with
eigenvalues 0 of multiplicity atleast 2.
3.There is a matrix U , an orthogonal matrix of eigenvectors of E which
satisfies, 

Ee
0(2n−2)×2
U T EU = (2n−2)×2
02×(2n−2)
02×2
4.Let EA0 = F0 , EA1 = F1 and EA2 = F2 . E, F0 , F1 and F2 have
maximum rank
then,
 2n − 2 and with zero row sums,

Fei(2n−2)×(2n−2) 0(2n−2)×2
U T Fi U =
, i ∈ [0, 2].
02×(2n−2)
02×2
5.Also, for cases of τ1 = τ2 > 0 and τ1 = τ2 = 0,

(Fe1 + Fe2 )(2n−2)×(2n−2) 0(2n−2)×2
U T E (A1 + A2 ) U =
0
02×2

 2×(2n−2)
(Fe0 + Fe1 + Fe2 ) 0(2n−2)×2
T
U E (A0 + A1 + A2 ) U =
02×(2n−2)
02×2
Let the difference in position and velocity among the agents be
assumed as error Ψ, each element of Ψ is given by Eqn. (14)

For ui3 given in Eqn. (7),
A0 =

1
n

1.A multi-agent system with k-regular graph communication topology and with inputs in Eqns. (5) to (8) produces balanced matrices
E (A0 + A1 + A2 ), EA0 , EA1 , EA2 and E (A1 + A2 ) with
maximum rank 2n − 2 and eigenvalues 0 of multiplicity atleast two.
2.A multi-agent system with a spanning tree in communication topology and with inputs in Eqns. (5) and (6) produces balanced matrices
E (A0 + A1 + A2 ), EA0 , EA1 , EA2 and E (A1 + A2 ) with
maximum rank 2n − 2 and eigenvalues 0 of multiplicity atleast two.

Lemma 2. Consider Φ01 =

Lyapunov-Krasovskii approach

A0 =



1n×n 0n×n
and E = I2n −
0n×n 1n×n
Φ01 , then the following statements hold true:
Lemma 1. Consider Φ01 =

0n×n
0n×n

In
0n×n

0n×n
A

0n×n
0n×n


; A1 =


0n×n
−D


0n×n
;
−In
(12)



Ψi =

 n


1 P

Xi − Xj

n

1


n

j=1
2n
P

∀i ∈ [1, n]
(14)

Xi − Xj



∀i ∈ [n + 1, 2n]

j=n+1

For ui4 given in Eqn. (8),

A0 =

A2 =

0n×n
0n×n

In
0n×n

0n×n
A

0n×n
A


; A1 =


0n×n
−D

From the assumption in Lemma 1,


0n×n
;
−D



(13)

Some definitions and lemmas analogous to the ones in [26] are given
below,

Ψ = EX

(15)

Lemma 3. When error Ψ → 0, then xi → xj and vi → vj . Conversely when xi → xj and vi → vj , then Ψ → 0.
Proof. Consider a matrices,

Definition 1. Balanced graph: A graph is said to be balanced if indegree equals to out-degree for all vertices in the graph, din (vi ) =
dout (vi ), ∀i ∈ [1, n].
Definition 2. k-regular graph: It is a balanced graph with all the
vertices having in-degree and out-degree equal to k, din (vi ) =
dout (vi ) = k, ∀i ∈ [1, n]
Control laws given in Eqns. (5) and (6) make the multi-agent
system behave like a system connected by 1-regular graph.

IET Research Journals, pp. 1–10
c The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015



γn×n

1
0

 ...
=
 ...
0
−1

−1
1
...
...
...
0


Γ2n×2n

0
−1
...
...
0
...

γ
= n×n
0n×n


0
0

... 
... 

−1
1

...
...
...
...
1
0
0n×n
γn×n

(16)


(17)

3

T e
e 24
EeT H
E + τ2 EeT Ie22 Ee + (τ2 − τ1 ) EeT Je22 Ee

Multiplying with Γ on both sides of Eqn. (15),

 
X1 − X2
Ψ1 − Ψ2
 Ψ2 − Ψ3   X2 − X3 

 

.
.

 





.
.


 
 Ψn − Ψ1   Xn − X1 
=


Ψn+1 − Ψn+2  Xn+1 − Xn+2 

 

Ψn+2 − Ψn+3  Xn+2 − Xn+3 

 

.

.
 





.
.
X2n − Xn+1
Ψ2n − Ψn+1

T e
+ EeT Je24 Ee + EeT Je24
E



e 23 =Fe1T Ξ
e Fe2
G

eT

e 23 Ee − E
+ τ1 E H

e
E Ie24 Ee + (τ2 − τ1 ) EeT Je23 E−
(18)

T e
E
EeT Je24 Ee + EeT Je34

T e
− EeT Ie34
E + τ2 EeT Ie33 Ee + (τ2 − τ1 ) EeT Je33 Ee
T e
− EeT Je34 Ee − EeT Je34
E

e 12
H
e 22
H
T
e 23
H
T
e 24
H

V (Ψ (t)) = ΨT (t) P Ψ (t) +
Zt

ΨT (s) Q2 Ψ (s) ds

Z0

Zt

T

+

Ψ̇ (s) Z1 Ψ̇ (s) dsdθ
−τ1 t+θ

Z0

Zt

T

Ie12
Ie22
T
Ie23
T
Ie24

Ie13
Ie23
Ie33
T
Ie34


Ie14
Ie24 
<0
Ie34 
e2
Z

e
J11
JeT
 12
JeT
13
T
Je14

Je12
Je22
T
Je23
T
Je24

Je13
Je23
Je33
T
Je34


Je14
Je24 
<0
Je34 
e3
Z

T

Ψ̇ (s) Z3 Ψ̇ (s) dsdθ

+

(30)

t+θ

T

(20)

V̇ (Ψ (t)) = Ψ̇ (t) P Ψ (t) + ΨT (t) P Ψ̇ (t) +
ΨT (t) Q1 Ψ (t) + ΨT (t) Q2 Ψ (t) −
ΨT (t − τ1 ) Q1 Ψ (t − τ1 ) −
T

ΨT (t − τ2 ) Q2 Ψ (t − τ2 ) + τ1 Ψ̇ (t) Z1 Ψ̇ (t)
(21)

T

T

+ τ2 Ψ̇ (t) Z2 Ψ̇ (t) + (τ2 − τ1 ) Ψ̇ (t) Z3 Ψ̇ (t)
Z0
T
−
Ψ̇ (t + θ) Z1 Ψ̇ (t + θ) dθ
−τ1

Z0

(22)

T

−

Ψ̇ (t + θ) Z2 Ψ̇ (t + θ) dθ
−τ2
Z −τ1

−

where,

T

Ψ̇ (t + θ) Z3 Ψ̇ (t + θ) dθ

(31)

−τ2

e 11 =Fe0T PeEe + EeT PeFe0 + EeT Q
e 1 Ee + EeT Q
e 2 Ee + Fe0T Ξ
e Fe0
G

Let,
h
c = X (t)T
X

T e
e 11 Ee + EeT H
e 14 Ee + EeT H
e 14
e
+ τ1 EeT H
E + τ2 EeT Ie11 E+

eT

E

T e
Ie14 Ee + EeT Ie14
E + (τ2

eT

e Fe1
P Fe1 + Fe0T Ξ

e 12 =E
G

eT

− τ1 ) E Je11 Ee

eT

(23)

eT

e 12 Ee − E H
e 14 E+
e
+ τ1 E H

T e
T e
e 24
EeT H
E + τ2 EeT Ie12 Ee + EeT Ie24
E+

(τ2 − τ1 ) EeT Je12 Ee + EeT Je14 Ee
eT

e 13 =E
G

e Fe2
PeFe2 + Fe0T Ξ

eT

(24)
eT

e 13 Ee + E
+ τ1 E H

T e
e 34
H
E+

T e
e
EeT Ie34
E + τ2 EeT Ie13 Ee − EeT Ie14 E+

(τ2 − τ1 ) EeT Je13 Ee − EeT Je14 Ee
e 22 = − EeT Q
e 1 Ee + Fe1T Ξ
e Fe1 + τ1 EeT H
e 22 Ee − EeT H
e 24 E−
e
G

4

Ψ̇ (s) Z2 Ψ̇ (s) dsdθ
−τ2 t+θ
Z −τ1 Z t
−τ2

e
I11
IeT
 12
IeT
13
T
Ie14

ΨT (s) Q1 Ψ (s) ds

t−τ2

(19)

e 14 
H
e 24 
H

e 34  < 0
H
e1
Z

Zt
t−τ1

+



e 13
H
e 23
H
e 33
H
T
e 34
H

(29)

Proof. Let P , Q1 , Q2 , Zi i ∈ [1, 3] be balanced positive semidefinite matrices of rank 2n − 2 and Ψ = EX using E from
Lemma 1.
The Lyapunov-Krasovskii functional is assumed as,

+

e
H11
H
eT
 12
T
H
e 13
T
e 14
H

(28)

e2 + (τ2 − τ1 ) Z
e3
e1 + τ2 Z
e =τ1 Z
Ξ

Theorem 1. Consider the linear element in Eqn. (4) with timedelays (τ1 , τ2 ) ≥ 0, τ1 ≤ τ2 . The control inputs for a k-regular
graph given in Eqns. (5) to (8) and the control inputs for a spanning tree graph given in Eqns. (5) and (6) globally asymptotically
e 1 > 0,
solve consensus problem, if there exist matrices Pe > 0, Q
e
e
e
Q2 > 0, Zi > 0, ∀i ∈ [1, 3], Fi from Lemma 2 ∀i ∈ [1, 3] and arbie ij , H
e T , Ieij , IeT , Jeij , JeT } ∀i ∈ [1, 3] ∀j ∈ [1, 4]
trary matrices {H
ij
ij
ij
of size (2n − 2) × (2n − 2) such that,
e 13
G
e 23  ≺ 0
G
e 33
G

(27)

e 33 Ee − EeT Ie34 Ee
e Fe2 + τ1 EeT H
e 33 = − EeT Q
e 2 Ee + Fe2T Ξ
G

A control input is said to have solved the consensus problem in
a globally asymptotic manner when xi → xj and vi → vj , in other
words, Ψ → 0. Stability of linear element with the control inputs
estimates the existence of limit cycles in the system.

e 12
G
e 22
G
eT
G
23

T e
e 34
e
H
E + τ2 EeT Ie23 E−

eT

When Ψ → 0, left side of Eqn. (18) becomes 02n×1 . Which implies,
Xi → Xj , ∀{i, j} ∈ [1, n] and Xi → Xj , ∀{i, j} ∈ [n + 1, 2n].
From Eqn. (14), when xi → xj and vi → vj , then Ψ → 0.



e 11
G
G
eT
12
eT
G
13

(26)

eT

(25)

X (t − τ1 )T

X (t − τ2 )T

i

(32)

then,
Ψ̇ = E Ẋ

= E A0

A1

 T
c
A2 X


T
c A0
Ψ̇ (t) P Ψ (t) = X

A1

A2


ΨT (t) P Ψ̇ (t) = X (t)T E T P E A0

T

(33)

E T P EX (t)

(34)

 T
c
A2 X

(35)

A1

ΨT (t) Q1 Ψ (t) = X (t)T E T Q1 EX (t)

(36)

IET Research Journals, pp. 1–10
c The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

ΨT (t) Q2 Ψ (t) = X (t)T E T Q2 EX (t)

T
T
T
T T
AT
0 E ΞEA0 + τ1 E H11 E + E H14 E + E H14 E+

(37)

T
τ2 E T I11 E + E T I14 E + E T I14
E + (τ2 − τ1 ) E T J11 E

ΨT (t − τ1 ) Q1 Ψ (t − τ1 ) =
X (t − τ1 )T E T Q1 EX (t − τ1 )

(38)

T
T
T
G12 =E T P EA1 + AT
0 E ΞEA1 + τ1 E H12 E − E H14 E
T
T
+ E T H24
E + τ2 E T I12 E + E T I24
E+

ΨT (t − τ2 ) Q2 Ψ (t − τ2 ) =
X (t − τ2 )T E T Q2 EX (t − τ2 )

(39)

For i = {1, 2, 3},

(τ2 − τ1 ) E T J12 E + E T J14 E
G13 =E

T

T
P EA2 + AT
0 E ΞEA2

E

T

T
H34
E

T

Ψ̇ (t) Zi Ψ̇ (t) =



c A0 A1 A2 T E T Zi E A0
X
Consider a set of matrices,

H11 H12
T
H12
 T H22
T
H13 H23
T
T
H14 H24

I11
T
I12
 T
I13
T
I14

J11
T
J12
 T
J13
T
J14

A1

A2



cT
X

H14
H24 
<0
H34 
Z1

I13
I23
I33
T
I34


I14
I24 
<0
I34 

J12
J22
T
J23
T
J24

J13
J23
J33
T
J34


J14
J24 
<0
J34 

G22 = − E Q1 E

(41)

I14
I24 
b T dθ ≥ 0
Ψ
I34  θ̇

J12
J22
T
J23
T
J24

J13
J23
J33
T
J34


J14
J24 
b T dθ ≥ 0
Ψ
J34  θ̇

(42)

+ τ2 E I22 E + (τ2 − τ1 ) E T J22 E
(52)

T

G33 = − E Q2 E

(53)

T
+ AT
2 E ΞEA2

T

T

+ τ1 E H33 E − E I34 E

T
− E T I34
E + τ2 E T I33 E + (τ2 − τ1 ) E T J33 E
T
− E T J34 E − E T J34
E

(46)

(47)

Z3

The matrices in Ineqs. (41) to (43) are chosen to satisfy expression
in Ineqs. (45) to (47), which further simplify V̇ in Eqn. (31). Parts
of Eqn. (31) consisting integrals with multiplication two variable
in terms of θ are eliminated when added with Ineqs. (45) to (47),
since V̇ + {positive semidef inite} < 0 implies V̇ < 0. Substituting Eqns. (32) to (40) in Eqn. (31), adding Ineqs. (45) to (47)
and further solving leftover integrals, Ineq. (48) is obtained.


G11 G12 G13
T
c G12 G22 G23  X
cT
V̇ ≤ X
(48)
T
T
G13 G23 G33

(54)

Ξ =τ1 Z1 + τ2 Z2 + (τ2 − τ1 ) Z3

(43)

Z2



Gij

e ij
G
(2n−2)×(2n−2)
=U
02×(2n−2)


0(2n−2)×2
UT
02×2

(56)

e ji = G
eT
{i, j} ∈ [1, 3]; G
ji ∀i 6= j
With above set of reduced order matrices, the LMIs given in
Eqns. (19) to (22) can be obtained.

Feasibility of LMIS in Eqns. (19) to (22) determine the consensus
reachability of the multi-agent system affected by time-delays. They
can be solved by using solvers like SeDuMi [27], Matlab LMI Lab
solver etc..
Nyquist stability approach

3.2

Stability analysis of the linear element for different control inputs
is performed using frequency domain analysis and Nyquist stability
criterion which is discussed in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
3.2.1 First control law: Consider a control input ui1 with input
delay τ1 and communication delay τ2 as given in Eqn. (5) assuming
τ1 ≤ τ2 .
Theorem 2. The system represented by Eqns. (4) and (5) is stable if
and only if,

|λ̃k |
q
(49)

(55)

T
T
T
The matrices P , Q1 , Q2 , Zi , Hij , Hij
, Iij , Iij
, Jij , Jij
and Fi
from Lemma 2 ∀i ∈ [1, 3], ∀j ∈ [1, 4] will generate corresponding
e1 , Q
e2 , Z
ei , H
e ij , H
e T , Ieij , IeT , Jeij , JeT and Fei ∀i ∈ [1, 3], ∀j ∈
Pe, Q
ij
ij
ij
[1, 4] of size (2n − 2) × (2n − 2) when multiplied with eigenvector matrices U T , U at appropriate positions. The corresponding Gij
is as given in Eqn. (56).

where,

IET Research Journals, pp. 1–10
c The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

+ τ1 E H22 E − E H24 E

T

T
− E T J24 E + E T J34
E



T
T
T
T
G11 =AT
0 E P E + E P EA0 + E Q1 E + E Q2 E+

T

+ τ2 E T I23 E − E T I24 E + (τ2 − τ1 ) E T J23 E

Z3

I13
I23
I33
T
I34

T
H24
E

(51)
T

T
T
T T
G23 =AT
1 E ΞEA2 + τ1 E H23 E − E H34 E

Z2

I12
I22
T
I23
T
I24

T

T
+ AT
1 E ΞEA1

T
+ E T J24 E + E T J24
E

Where Hij , Iij , Jij ∀i ∈ [1, 3] ∀j ∈ [1, 4] are some arbitrary matrices to be found by an LMI solver with size 2n × 2n.
Let,
i
h
b = Ψ (t)T Ψ (t − τ1 )T Ψ (t − τ2 )T Ψ̇ (t + θ)T
Ψ
θ̇
(44)
then,


H11 H12 H13 H14
Z0
T

H22 H23 H24 
bT
b H12
Ψ
(45)
Ψ
T
θ̇ H T
 θ̇ dθ ≥ 0
H
H
H
33
34
13
23
−τ1
T
T
T
H14 H24 H34 Z1

I11
Z0
T
I12
b  T
Ψ
θ̇ I
13
−τ2
T
I14

J11
Z −τ1
T
J12
b  T
Ψ
θ̇ J
13
−τ2
T
J14

T
+ τ2 E I13 E + E T I34
E − E T I14 E+

T



I12
I22
T
I23
T
I24

+ τ1 E H13 E+

T

(τ2 − τ1 ) E T J13 E − E T J14 E

(40)

−E
H13
H23
H33
T
H34

(50)
T

<1

(57)

ω 4 − 2ω 3 sin (ωτ1 ) + ω 2 (1 − 2 cos (ωτ1 )) + 1

5

where ω satisfies


−π = − ωτ2 + arg −λ̃k


ω cos (ωτ1 ) − sin (ωτ1 )
− arctan
−ω 2 + cos (ωτ1 ) + ω sin (ωτ1 )

Proof. The proof follows a similar procedure as given in Theorem 2

(58)

Proof. The system in Eqns. (4) and (5) can also be represented as,
ẍi (t) = − ẋi (t − τ1 ) +
n
X

1
Pn

j=1 aij j=1


aij xj (t − τ2 ) − xi (t − τ1 )

(59)

Converting it into s domain will give the characteristic expression
as,
s2 I + (s + 1) Ie−sτ1 − Ãe−sτ2 =
n 

Y
s2 I + (s + 1) Ie−sτ1 − λ̃k e−sτ2

(60)

k=1

Consider ∀λ̃k 6= 0,
Gk (s) =

s2

−λ̃k e−sτ2
+ (s + 1) e−sτ1

(61)

4

Simulation and Implementation Results

The communication topologies considered for simulation and implementation are depicted in Figs. 3a and 3b. The graph in Fig. 3a
is undirected, strongly connected and 2-regular balanced with each
node receiving states’ information from two neighbours and sending states’ information to the same neighbours. The graph in Fig. 3b
is directed, has a spanning tree and unbalanced. Using the results
obtained in Theorems 1 to 3, limits on communication time-delay
for given input-delays are calculated for both the topologies. The
feasibility of LMIs given in Theorem 1 is solved using SeDuMi [27]
solver for Matlab/Octave. The expressions in Theorems 2 and 3 have
three unknowns (ω, τ1 , τ2 ), a unique solution can be obtained if it
is assumed that τ1 = τ2 or else, stable range of τ2 for a given τ1
have to be found. Dominant pole for both the topologies in Figs. 3a
and 3b is −1, Nyquist plot used in one of the cases with λ = −1 and
assumption τ1 = 0.4 is shown in Fig. 4. It can be observed that the
system is stable if τ2 < 0.48 (Fig. 4). The time-delay tolerances are
tested with simulations and on a hardware setup (Fig. 5). The results
obtained using Lyapunov-Krasovskii and Nyquist approaches from
Theorems 1 to 3 are tabulated in Tables 1 and 2, corresponding plots
of τ1 vs τ2 depicting stable regions are given in Figs. 6a and 6b.

Magnitude expression of Eqn. (61) is given by,
1

Gk (jω) =
|λ̃k |
p
4
3
ω − 2ω sin (ωτ1 ) + ω 2 (1 − 2 cos (ωτ1 )) + 1
Phase expression of Eqn. (61) is given by,


Gk (jω) = − ωτ2 + arg −λ̃k −


ω cos (ωτ1 ) − sin (ωτ1 )
arctan
−ω 2 + cos (ωτ1 ) + ω sin (ωτ1 )

2

3

2

(a) Four agents.
(63)

0.50

−0.50
−0.75

−1.25

(67)

τ2=0.478
τ2=0.479
τ2=0.48

−0.25

3.2.2 Second control law: Consider control input ui2 given in
Eqn. (6), where,

where ω satisfies,

Nyquist plot for λ = -1 with τ1 = 0.4

0.00

−1.00

Theorem 3. The system represented in Eqns. (4) and (6) is stable if
and only if,
p
|λ̃k | 1 + ω 2
q
< 1 (66)
ω 4 − 2ω 3 sin (ωτ1 ) + ω 2 (1 − 2 cos (ωτ1 )) + 1

(b) Five agents.

0.25

Imaginary

(65)

3

Fig. 3: Graphs of communication topologies.



6

4
5

By applying Nyquist stability criterion, magnitude given in Eqn. (62)
should satisfy the condition as given in Ineq. (65).



−π = −ωτ2 + arg −λ̃k + arctan (ω) −


ω cos (ωτ1 ) − sin (ωτ1 )
arctan
−ω 2 + cos (ωτ1 ) + ω sin (ωτ1 )

1

(62)

Let us assume at ω = ω, the Nyquist plot intersects with negative
real axis. The phase at ω = ω is −π,


−π = − ωτ2 + arg −λ̃k −


(64)
ω cos (ωτ1 ) − sin (ωτ1 )
arctan
2
−ω + cos (ωτ1 ) + ω sin (ωτ1 )

|λ̃k |
q
<1
ω 4 − 2ω 3 sin (ωτ1 ) + ω 2 (1 − 2 cos (ωτ1 )) + 1

4

−1.01

−1.00

−0.99

0.01

0.00

−0.01

−1.50 −1.25 −1.00 −0.75 −0.50 −0.25
Real

0.00

0.25

0.50

Fig. 4: Nyquist plot with ui1 in Eqn. (5) for different time delays.
From the results in Tables 1 and 2 and Figs. 6a and 6b, it can
be deduced that the Lyapunov-Krasovskii approach is conservative
compared to Nyquist approach with respect to time-delay. Conservativeness of Lyapunov-Krasovskii approach is more evident for
topology in Fig. 3b with control law in Eqn. (6). Multi-agent systems
connected by topologies in Figs. 3a and 3b reach consensus with full
range of time-delay given by Nyquist approach for control laws in
Eqns. (5) and (6). Nyquist approach in Section 3.2 is not applicable

IET Research Journals, pp. 1–10
c The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

Table 1 Maximum value of τ2 for a given τ1 (τ1 ≤ τ2 ) with topology in
Fig. 3a and control inputs given in Eqns. (5) to (8).
τ1 (sec)

τ2 (sec)
Lyapunov Approach
ui2
ui3

ui1

Communication delay τ2(sec)

to control laws given in Eqns. (7) and (8). Solving LMIs is computationally more intensive compared to solving of equations from
Theorems 2 and 3. Moreover, the increase in computational time of
solving LMIs is exponentially as the number of nodes are increased
and the increase with Nyquist approach is linear.
1.6
LMI ui1
1.5
LMI ui2
1.4
Nyquist ui1
1.3
Nyquist ui2
1.2
LMI ui3
1.1
LMI ui4
1.0
τ1 = τ2
0.9
τ1 < τ 2
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Input delay τ1 (sec)

Communication delay τ2(sec)

(a) Plot of τ1 vs τ2 for topology in Fig. 3a.
1.6
LMI ui1
1.5
LMI ui2
1.4
Nyquist ui1
1.3
Nyquist ui2
1.2
τ1 = τ2
1.1
τ1 < τ 2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
Input delay τ1 (sec)

1.414
1.063
0.791
0.572
0.413
—
—
0.405

1.154
0.994
0.851
0.720
0.598
—
—
0.492

0.577
0.395
0.252
—
—
—
—
0.223

Nyquist Approach
ui1
ui2

0.894
0.656
0.462
0.30
—
—
—
0.3

1.570
1.308
1.035
0.755
0.479
—
—
0.421

1.351
1.178
0.999
0.821
0.664
0.541
—
0.520

Table 2 Maximum value of τ2 for a given τ1 (τ1 ≤ τ2 ) with topology in
Fig. 3b and control inputs given in Eqns. (5) and (6).
τ1 (sec)

τ2 (sec)

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
τ 1 = τ2

Lyapunov Approach
ui1
ui2

Nyquist Approach
ui1
ui2

1.414
1.063
0.791
0.572
0.413
—
—
0.405

1.570
1.308
1.035
0.755
0.479
—
—
0.421

1.154
0.572
0.567
0.605
0.598
—
—
0.492

1.351
1.178
0.999
0.821
0.664
0.541
—
0.520

described earlier, pulse width of both the agents can be observed in
the display of two channel DSO.

Hardware and simulation plot of xi(t) with τ1 = 0.1, τ2 = 0.39
hw
hw
hw
hw

200
Position (units)

Fig. 5: Hardware setup connected by LAN.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
τ 1 = τ2

ui4

agent1
agent2
agent3
agent4

sim
sim
sim
sim

agent 1
agent 2
agent 3
agent 4

150

100
117

50
114

(b) Plot of τ1 vs τ2 for topology in Fig. 3b.

141

0
0

Fig. 6: Plots representing stable regions with τ1 ≤ τ2 .

IET Research Journals, pp. 1–10
c The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

40

144

60

80
100
120
140
160
Time (s)
Hardware and simulation plot of ẋi(t) with τ1 = 0.1, τ2 = 0.39
hw
hw
hw
hw

2

Velocity (units/s)

Simulations are performed using scripts written in C to have
uniformity with hardware implementation. Implementations of corresponding simulations are performed on a network of four agents.
Four Arduino-Uno boards for topology in Fig. 3a and five ArduinoUno boards for topology in Fig. 3b are considered as nodes of
sensor networks, all of them are connected to host computers using serial interface. Host computers are connected by LAN switch
locally and communication topology is based on the graphs shown
in Figs. 3a and 3b. All the implementations are performed after time
synchronization at the start of each run with a local server through
ntp protocol. UDP packet switching is used for communication and
appropriate precautions like time-stamping of packets are taken to
ensure that packets are received in order. Owing to limitations in capability of hardware, the step-size is chosen as 10ms. Fig. 5 depicts
hardware setup consisting of two agents with connection settings as

20

1

agent1
agent2
agent3
agent4

sim
sim
sim
sim

180

agent 1
agent 2
agent 3
agent 4

0

−1
−2
0

20

40

60

80
100
Time (s)

120

140

160

180

Fig. 7: Plots with ui3 in Eqn. (8) for asynchronous time delays.

7

Hardware and simulation plot of xi(t) with τ1 = 0.2, τ2 = 0.46
hw
hw
hw
hw

Position (units)

200

agent1
agent2
agent3
agent4

sim
sim
sim
sim

Hardware and simulation plot of xi(t) with τ1 = 0.2, τ2 = 0.79
250

agent 1
agent 2
agent 3
agent 4

150

hw agent1
hw agent2

hw agent3
hw agent4

hw agent5
sim agent 1

sim agent 2
sim agent 3

sim agent 4
sim agent 5

Position (units)

200

150

100
107.5
103.5

50

127

0
0

20

40

130

80
100
120
140
160
Time (sec)
Hardware and simulation plot of ẋi(t) with τ1 = 0.2, τ2 = 0.79

3

hw agent1
hw agent2

60

hw agent3
hw agent4

hw agent5
sim agent 1

sim agent 2
sim agent 3

180

sim agent 4
sim agent 5

2
Velocity (units/sec)

Input time-delay τ1 and communication time-delay τ2 are userdefined and implemented from code. A minor deviation is visible
between simulation and implementation results due to additional
delay (≈ 4ms) in implementation due to actual processing and communication. The pulse width of PWM wave generated from an
Arduino-Uno is considered as state xi and the rate of change is
considered as vi of each agent.
Initial conditions for both simulation and implementation for
topology in Fig. 3a are assumed to be, {xi0 } = [0, 230, 110, 40] and
{vi0 } = [0, 0, 0, 0]. Plots with overlapping simulation and hardware
results are given in Figs. 7 to 10 to show the effectiveness of theoretical results given in Tables 1 to 3 and Figs. 6a and 6b. For control law
in Eqn. (7) with input delay τ1 = 0.1s and communication delay of
τ2 = 0.39s, Fig. 7 depict states xi (t) and ẋi (t) vs time in seconds
respectively. Similarly, Fig. 8 show the plots of states for control law
in Eqn. (8) with τ1 = 0.2s and of τ2 = 0.46s. It can be observed
that the difference in states, Ψ is asymptotically converging to zero
and reinforcing the effectiveness of the theoretical results given in
Table 1 and Fig. 6a.

1

0

−1
−2

100

0
117

20

40

60

80
100
Time (sec)

120

140

160

180

Fig. 9: Plot with ui1 in Eqn. (5) for uneven time delays.

50
114
141

0
0

20

40

80
100
120
140
160
Time (s)
Hardware and simulation plot of ẋi(t) with τ1 = 0.2, τ2 = 0.46
hw
hw
hw
hw

2

Velocity (units/s)

144

60

1

agent1
agent2
agent3
agent4

sim
sim
sim
sim

180

agent 1
agent 2
agent 3
agent 4

0

as discussed earlier, corresponding results are depicted in Fig. 10.
Limit cycles are exhibited with τ1 = 0.2 and τ2 ≥ 1.04 as shown in
Fig. 10. The corresponding numerical values for Nyquist approach
for λ = −1 are provided in Table 3.
Using results in Theorems 1 to 3, stable regions with respect to
time-delays for both the topologies in Figs. 3a and 3b are calculated. Few of them are validated with the help of simulations and
corresponding implementations as given above. Figs. 6a and 6b depict the calculated stable regions for topologies in Figs. 3a and 3b
respectively.

−1

Table 3 Values of ω & Gi (ω) for different values of τ1 and τ2 with ui1 in

−2

τ1 (sec)

τ2 (sec)

ω

0.2
0.2
0.2

0.79
1.03
1.04

1.375
1.249
1.244

Eqn. (5) and communication topology in Fig. 3b.

0

20

40

60

80
100
Time (s)

120

140

160

180

Fig. 8: Plots with ui4 in Eqn. (8) for asynchronous time delays.
Similarly, some simulations and corresponding hardware validations are performed on a five-agent system with communication
topology given in Fig. 3b, the corresponding adjacency matrix A
and Ã are as given below,




0 21 0 12 0
0 1 0 1 0
 1 0 1 0 0
1 0 1 0 0
2

2


A = 0 1 0 1 1 , Ã = 
0 13 0 13 13 

.
0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0
The initial values for the five-agent system are considered as
x1 (0) = 0, x2 (0) = 230, x3 (0) = 110, x4 (0) = 40, x5 (0) = 170
and ẋi (0) = 0, i ∈ [1, 5]. From Fig. 9, it can be observed that the
system converges at a faster rate with τ1 = 0.2 and τ2 = 0.79.
With τ1 = 0.2 and τ2 = 1.03 given by Nyquist approach, the system converges at a very slow rate in simulation and further slower
in implementation due to added delay from communication links

8

4.1

Gi (ω)
0.841
0.997
1.002

Remarks

1.Lyapunov-Krasovskii is applicable to all the four control laws provided the communication topology satisfy the conditions mentioned
in Theorem-1, but Nyquist approach is not applicable. LyapunovKrasovskii approach is more conservative with respect to timedelay tolerance, whereas Nyquist approach gives the full range of
time-delay.
2.Describing function analysis allows us to use Nyquist approach
on approximated nonlinear multi-agent system, which is better
at providing time-delay tolerance ranges compared to Lyapunov
approach.
3.Compared to work in [14], we have considered saturation and timedelays in the system. An approximate analysis with the help of describing function is performed. Some conditions in Theorems 1 to 3

IET Research Journals, pp. 1–10
c The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

5

Hardware and simulation plot of xi(t) with τ1 = 0.2s, τ2 = 1.03s
250

hw agent1
hw agent2

hw agent3
hw agent4

hw agent5
sim agent 1

sim agent 2
sim agent 3

sim agent 4
sim agent 5

Position (units)

200

150

100
107.5

50
103.5
127

0
0
3

50

130

150
200
Time (sec)
Hardware and simulation plot of ẋi(t) with τ1 = 0.2s, τ2 = 1.03s
hw agent1
hw agent2

100

hw agent3
hw agent4

hw agent5
sim agent 1

sim agent 2
sim agent 3

250

sim agent 4
sim agent 5

Velocity (units/sec)

6

2

1

3

0

4

−1

5

−2
0

250

50
100
150
200
Time (sec)
Hardware and simulation plot of xi(t) with τ1 = 0.2s, τ2 = 1.04s
hw agent1
hw agent2

hw agent3
hw agent4

hw agent5
sim agent 1

sim agent 2
sim agent 3

250

sim agent 4
sim agent 5

6

7
8

200
Position (units)

The consensus problem for second order saturated multi-agent system with asynchronous communication and input time-delays is
presented in the paper. An approximate system with separate linear
and nonlinear elements is derived using describing function analysis to study the limit cycle behaviour. The instability of limit cycles
or consensus reachability is estimated using describing functions,
stability of linear elements with the help of Lyapunov-Krasovskii
function and Nyquist stability criterion. Stable ranges of input and
communication time-delays are calculated for different control laws
using both the approaches and comparative results are presented.
Justification to the theoretical results is done with the help of simulations and corresponding implementations on hardware. With current
control laws, the system is not immune to external disturbances
in the state information. Noise in the state information and its
mitigation strategies will be considered in the future research.

1

2

9

150

10
100
107.5

11
50
103.5
127

0
0

50

12

130

100

150

200

250

Time (sec)
Hardware and simulation plot of ẋi(t) with τ1 = 0.2s, τ2 = 1.04s

3

hw agent1
hw agent2

hw agent3
hw agent4

hw agent5
sim agent 1

sim agent 2
sim agent 3

sim agent 4
sim agent 5

13

14

Velocity (units/sec)

2

15
1

16

0

17

−1

18

−2

19

0

50

100

150

200

250

Time (sec)

20

Fig. 10: Plot with ui1 in Eqn. (5) for uneven time delays.

are derived for reaching consensus and estimation of non-existence
of limit cycles.
4.Compared to the research presented by authors in [16–19, 21], we
have considered time-delays along with saturation in second order
multi-agent systems. Compared to the work presented by You et
al. [22], asynchronous time-delays are considered rather than single
delay.

IET Research Journals, pp. 1–10
c The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

Conclusion

21

22

23

24

References
Jadbabaie, A., Lin, J., Morse, A.S.: ‘Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous
agents using nearest neighbor rules’, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
2003, 48, (6), pp. 988–1001
Olfati.Saber, R., Murray, R.M.: ‘Consensus problems in networks of agents with
switching topology and time-delays’, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control,
2004, 49, (9), pp. 1520–1533
Vicsek, T., Czirók, A., Ben.Jacob, E., Cohen, I., Shochet, O.: ‘Novel type of phase
transition in a system of self-driven particles’, Phys Rev Lett, 1995, 75, pp. 1226–
1229
Cao, Y., Yu, W., Ren, W., Chen, G.: ‘An overview of recent progress in the
study of distributed multi-agent coordination’, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Informatics, 2013, 9, (1), pp. 427–438
Wang, X., Zeng, Z., Cong, Y.: ‘Multi-agent distributed coordination control: Developments and directions via graph viewpoint’, Neurocomputing, 2016, 199, pp. 204
– 218
Xiao, F., Wang, L.: ‘Asynchronous consensus in continuous-time multi-agent systems with switching topology and time-varying delays’, IEEE Transactions on
Automatic Control, 2008, 53, (8), pp. 1804–1816
Ren, W.: ‘On consensus algorithms for double-integrator dynamics’, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 2008, 53, (6), pp. 1503–1509
Hu, J., Lin, Y.S.: ‘Consensus control for multi-agent systems with doubleintegrator dynamics and time delays’, IET Control Theory Applications, 2010, 4,
(1), pp. 109–118
Münz, U., Papachristodoulou, A., Allgöwer, F.: ‘Delay robustness in consensus
problems’, Automatica, 2010, 46, (8), pp. 1252 – 1265
Meng, Z., Ren, W., Cao, Y., You, Z.: ‘Leaderless and leader-following consensus
with communication and input delays under a directed network topology’, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 2011, 41,
(1), pp. 75–88
Zhang, W., Liu, J., Zeng, D., Yang, T.: ‘Consensus analysis of continuous-time
second-order multi-agent systems with nonuniform time-delays and switching
topologies’, Asian Journal of Control, 2013, 15, (5), pp. 1516–1523
Meng, X., Meng, Z., Chen, T., Dimarogonas, D.V., Johansson, K.H.: ‘Pulse width
modulation for multi-agent systems’, Automatica, 2016, 70, pp. 173 – 178
Yu, W., Chen, G., Cao, M., Kurths, J.: ‘Second-order consensus for multiagent
systems with directed topologies and nonlinear dynamics’, IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics), 2010, 40, (3), pp. 881–891
Liu, K., Xie, G., Ren, W., Wang, L.: ‘Consensus for multi-agent systems with inherent nonlinear dynamics under directed topologies’, Systems & Control Letters,
2013, 62, (2), pp. 152 – 162
Li, J., Guan, Z.H., Chen, G.: ‘Multi-consensus of nonlinearly networked multiagent systems’, Asian Journal of Control, 2015, 17, (1), pp. 157–164
Li, Y., Xiang, J., Wei, W.: ‘Consensus problems for linear time-invariant multiagent systems with saturation constraints’, IET Control Theory Applications, 2011,
5, (6), pp. 823–829
Meng, Z., Zhao, Z., Lin, Z.: ‘On global leader-following consensus of identical
linear dynamic systems subject to actuator saturation’, Systems & Control Letters,
2013, 62, (2), pp. 132 – 142
Wei, A., Hu, X., Wang, Y.: ‘Tracking control of leader-follower multi-agent systems subject to actuator saturation’, IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica,
2014, 1, (1), pp. 84–91
Chu, H., Yuan, J., Zhang, W.: ‘Observer-based adaptive consensus tracking for linear multi-agent systems with input saturation’, IET Control Theory Applications,
2015, 9, (14), pp. 2124–2131
Su, H., Chen, M.Z.Q.: ‘Multi-agent containment control with input saturation on
switching topologies’, IET Control Theory Applications, 2015, 9, (3), pp. 399–409
Cui, G., Xu, S., Lewis, F.L., Zhang, B., Ma, Q.: ‘Distributed consensus tracking for non-linear multi-agent systems with input saturation: a command filtered backstepping approach’, IET Control Theory Applications, 2016, 10, (5),
pp. 509–516
You, X., Hua, C., Peng, D., Guan, X.: ‘Leader following consensus for multi-agent
systems subject to actuator saturation with switching topologies and time-varying
delays’, IET Control Theory Applications, 2016, 10, (2), pp. 144–150
Sun, Y.G., Wang, L., Xie, G.: ‘Average consensus in networks of dynamic agents
with switching topologies and multiple time-varying delays’, Systems & Control
Letters, 2008, 57, (2), pp. 175 – 183
Lin, P., Jia, Y.: ‘Consensus of a class of second-order multi-agent systems with
time-delay and jointly-connected topologies’, IEEE Transactions on Automatic

9

25
26

10

Control, 2010, 55, (3), pp. 778–784
Slotine, J.J.E., Li, W. 5, Describing Function Analysis. In: ‘Applied nonlinear
control’. (Englewood Cliffs (N.J.): Prentice Hall, 1991. pp. 157–190
Lin, P., Jia, Y.: ‘Average consensus in networks of multi-agents with both switching topology and coupling time-delay’, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its

27

Applications, 2008, 387, (1), pp. 303 – 313
Sturm, J.F.: ‘Using SeDuMi 1.02, a MATLAB toolbox for optimization over symmetric cones’, Optimization Methods and Software, 1999, 11–12, pp. 625–653.
version 1.05 available from http://fewcal.kub.nl/sturm

IET Research Journals, pp. 1–10
c The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2015

