 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Global exponential synchronization of networked dynamical systems under eventtriggered control schemes
Advances in Difference Equations volume 2016, Article number: 286 (2016)
Abstract
This paper investigates exponential synchronization of networked dynamical systems under eventtriggered control schemes. Two eventtriggered sampleddata transmission schemes, which only need the latest observations of their neighborhood and the virtual leader to predict the next observation time, are designed to realize exponential synchronization of networked dynamical systems. That is, the coupled information is updated only when the triggered conditions are violated. Hence, continuous communication can be avoided and the number of information transmission is reduced. A positive lower bound for interevent intervals is achieved to exclude Zeno behavior. Finally, two numerical simulation examples are provided to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed results.
Introduction
Networked control dynamical systems (NCDSs) have been widely studied over the past decades [1–4]. It is usually investigated in the NCDSs that all oscillators approach a uniform dynamical behavior, that is, all the nodes in the NCDSs reach synchronization eventually. In the process of synchronization, the couplings among nodes and/or external distributed and cooperative control between nodes exist inevitably and meanwhile conflicts may exist due to the limitations of network resources and traffics [5]. In most previous references [6–8], each node received their neighbors’ information continuously, which may cost much. As an important component in NCDSs, intermittent sampling has emerged as an interesting topic to avoid communication continuously [9–11]. Nevertheless, sampleddata systems are usually applied periodically in time [12, 13], that is, timetriggered sampling, which might be conservative in terms of the number of control updates.
In order to utilize the realtime information sufficiently and to reduce communication and computation load in NCDSs, aperiodic eventtriggered sampling, which is triggered only when measurement error signal violates a prescribed threshold [14–16], is proposed in the last few years. As pointed out in [17], eventtriggered sampling was proved to possess a better performance than timetriggered sampling. In eventtriggered sampling control, the control law is updated only when some specific significant events occur, other state changes or occurrences of realtime entity are considered insignificant and are neglected [18–22]. Eventtriggered sampling control could adjust task periods to variations in system states adaptively, which produces longer task periods than timetriggered sampling control. In [23], the authors studied the eventtriggered distributed averageconsensus of discretetime firstorder multiagent systems with limited communication data rate and general directed network topology. The authors of [24] studied the problem of average consensus over directed and timevarying digital networks of discretetime firstorder multiagent systems with limited communication data transmission rates. Each agent has a realvalued state but can only exchange binary symbolic sequence with its neighbors due to bandwidth constraints.
Recently, great efforts are still made on applying eventtriggered scheme (ETS) to cooperation of multiagent systems. A key issue of the eventtriggered scheme is how to design and optimize eventbased conditions and a big challenge is how to prove that innerevent time intervals are positive which can assure the absence of Zeno behavior. In [25], leaderfollowing consensus of general linear multiagent is investigated by the eventtriggered scheme. Three types of schemes, namely, distributed ETS, centralized ETS, and clustered ETS for different network topologies are proposed. All these schemes guarantee that all followers can track the leader eventually. In [26], eventtriggered coupling configurations are utilized to realize synchronization of linearly coupled dynamical systems. The diffusion couplings are set up from the latest observations of the nodes and their neighborhood and the next observation time is triggered by the proposed criteria based on the local neighborhood information as well. However, the graph in [26] is undirected and connected.
Motivated by above statement, the objective of this paper is to design two eventtriggered schemes for exponential synchronization of networked dynamical systems. The contributions of this paper are listed as follows. First of all, the network topology is directed and contains a directed spanning tree rooted at a virtual node. All the nodes are equipped with nonlinear dynamics. Thus, the model of this paper is more general than in [20, 25, 26]. Second, two distributed eventtriggered schemes are proposed to realize exponential synchronization of the networked dynamical systems. The main difficulty of this paper is to prove the Zeno behavior is excluded under the two eventtriggered schemes. In addition, to further reduce the number of updatings, two distributed selftriggered schemes are proposed. It is proved that the exponential synchronization can be achieved and the Zeno behavior can be excluded simultaneously under the two selftriggered schemes.
The remainder of this paper is outlined as follows. In Section 2, preliminaries including some necessary definitions and lemmas and the model description are stated. In Section 3, eventtriggered schemes are proposed to realize exponential synchronization and the Zeno behavior can be excluded under the proposed schemes. In Section 4, the distributed selftriggered schemes are presented according to the eventtriggered schemes. In Section 5, some numerical examples are given to show the effectiveness of the theoretical results. Finally, the conclusion is drawn in Section 6.
Notation
Throughout this study, \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\) and \(\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\) represent the set of all n dimensional real column vectors and the set of all \(n\times n\) dimensional real matrices. The superscript T represents the transpose. \(\\cdot\\) denotes the Euclidean norm, that is, for any vector \(\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\), \(\\xi\=(\xi_{1}^{2},\ldots,\xi_{n}^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}\). \(\x\_{p}=(x^{T}Px)^{\frac{1}{2}}\) for some positive definite matrix \(P\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\). \(\lambda_{\max}(A)\) and \(\lambda_{\min}(A)\) are respectively the maximum and minimum eigenvalues of matrix A. ⊗ represents the Kronecker product.
Preliminaries and problem formulation
The dynamics of generally networked systems under pinning control can be described as follows:
which \(x_{i}(t)=(x_{i1}(t),x_{i2}(t),\ldots,x_{in}(t))^{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\) denotes the state vector of node i and the continuous map \(f(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{N}\) denotes the identical node dynamics if there is no coupling. \(\Gamma\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\) describes the innercoupling positive definite matrix between the subsystems. \(A=(a_{ij})\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}\) is the weighted adjacency matrix of the directed graph \(\mathscr{G}=\{V,E\}\) with the node set V and the link set E: \(a_{ij}>0\) if there exists a directed link from node j to i at time t; \(a_{ij}=0\), otherwise. Define the graph Laplacian matrix of A as \(L=(l_{ij})\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times N}\), in which \(l_{ij}=a_{ij}\), for \(i\neq j\), and \(a_{ii}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{ij}\). \(u_{i}(t)\) is the pinning control input to be designed. The information in the networks is usually considered to communicate continuously. However, when the nodes are equipped with limited computation capability, limited capability of communication, actuation, and limited onboard energy source, it is not economic to communicate information continuously.
Therefore, an intermittent eventtriggered information transmission mechanism emerges reducing the number of communications and computations. In this paper, two distributed eventtriggered schemes will be adopted to synchronize the network (1) with a certain desired state \(s(t)\) which can be an equilibrium point, periodic orbit or chaotic attractor in the phase space satisfying
where \(s(t)=(s_{1}(t),s_{2}(t),\ldots,s_{n}(t))^{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\) is a virtual node. The virtual node and the directed graph constitute an augmented graph \(\overline{\mathscr{G}}\).
Then the network model with eventtriggered diffusive coupling under pinning control is investigated as follows:
where \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\), \(i=1,\ldots,N\), represents the ith node’s latest triggering time instant before time t, \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}\) is the next triggering time instant. When the ith node is pinned by the virtual node, \(d_{i}>0\); otherwise, \(d_{i}=0\).
For \(t\in[t_{k_{i}}^{i},t_{k_{i}+1}^{i})\), \(i=1,\ldots,N\), synchronization error and measurement error of node i are respectively defined as \(e_{i}(t)=x_{i}(t)s(t)\), and \(\delta_{i}(t)=x_{i}(t_{k_{i}}^{i})x_{i}(t)\), \(\delta_{j}(t)=x_{j}(t_{k_{i}}^{i})x_{j}(t)\), \(j\neq i\), \(\delta_{0}(t)=s(t_{k_{i}}^{i})s(t)\).
Then one can get
where \(f(e_{i}(t))=f(x_{i}(t))f(s(t))\).
The objective of this paper is to design appropriate eventtriggered schemes such that (3) and (2) can reach exponential synchronization.
Throughout the rest of the paper, the following assumptions and lemma are needed.
Definition 1
Consider the node dynamics map \(f(\cdot): \mathbb{R}^{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{N}\). If there exist a positive definite matrix \(P\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\), constant \(\alpha\in\mathbb{R}\), and positive constant \(\beta>0\) such that,
holds for all \(u, v\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\). Then we say it belongs to some map class \(\operatorname{Quad} (P, \alpha\Gamma, \beta)\).
Assumption 1
There exists a positive constant k such that for any \(u,v\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\),
Assumption 2
The augmented graph contains a directed span tree rooted at the virtual node.
Lemma 1
Let L be the Laplacian matrix of a nonnegatively weighted digraph \(\mathscr{G}\) and \({D}=\operatorname{diag}\{d_{1},\ldots,d_{N}\}\) be a nonnegative diagonal matrix. Then we have the following facts:

(1)
If \(\mathscr{G}\) is balanced, then \(\frac{{L}+{L}^{T}}{2}+{D}>0\) if and only if \(\overline{\mathscr{G}}\) is weakly connected.

(2)
If \(\overline{\mathscr{G}}\) has a directed spanning tree, then there exists a positive diagonal matrix \(\Xi=\operatorname{diag}\{\xi_{1},\ldots,\xi_{N}\}\), such that
$$ \Xi({L}+{D})+({L}+{D})^{T}\Xi>0. $$(6)
Then all the eigenvalues \(\lambda_{i}\) of \(\Xi({L}+{D})+({L}+{D})^{T}\Xi\) are positive. That is, \(0<\lambda_{1}\leq\lambda_{2}\leq \cdots\leq\lambda_{N}\).
Remark 1
In [20], the trajectories of all nodes commonly converge to a timevarying weighed average \(\bar{x}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\xi_{j}x_{j}(t)\). All the nodes in this paper could synchronize with an arbitrary desired state \(s(t)\) which can be an equilibrium point, periodic orbit or chaotic attractor. In addition, the authors of [20] make use of the general algebraic connectivity to reach global synchronization, which is fit for a strongly connected network. This paper only requires the augmented graph contains a directed spanning tree rooted at the virtual node which does not require the coupling matrix to be symmetric.
Eventtriggered scheme for pinning synchronization
In this section, pinning synchronization of the considered network (3) with (2) is investigated under eventtriggered mechanism. The following algorithm [27] is proposed to determine at least how many and what kinds of nodes should be pinned such that Assumption 2 holds.
Algorithm 1
Find the strongly connected components of \(\mathscr{G}(A)\) by using Tarjan’s algorithm [28]. Suppose that there are ω strongly connected components for \(\mathscr{G}(A)\), labelled as \(G_{1},G_{2},\ldots,G_{\omega}\). Let \(m_{i}=0\), \(i=1,\ldots,\omega\) and \(h=1\).
 Step 1::

Check whether there exists at least one node \(n_{k}\) belonging to \(G_{h}\), which is reachable from a node \(n_{g}\) belonging to \(G_{j}\), \(j=1,2,\ldots,{\omega}\), \(j\neq h\). If it holds, go to Step 2; if it does not hold, go to Step 3.
 Step 2::

Check whether the following condition holds: \(h<\omega\). If so, let \(h=h+1\) and return Step 1; else stop.
 Step 3::

Arbitrarily having selected one node in \(G_{h}\) and pinned, let \(m_{h}=1\). Check whether the following condition holds: \(h <\omega\). If so, let \(h=h+1\) and return Step 1; else stop.
Remark 2
Using Algorithm 1, we should select at least \(\delta=\sum_{i=1}^{\omega}m_{i}\) nodes in \(\mathscr{G}(A)\) to be pinned such that Assumption 2 holds. That is, Assumption 2 can never be ensured if there are only μ nodes to be pinned, where \(\mu<\delta\).
Based on the above analysis, one may obtain the following theorem, which summarizes the main result of this section.
Theorem 1
Suppose Assumptions 12 are satisfied and \(f\in \operatorname{Quad}(P, \alpha\Gamma, \beta)\) with a positive matrix P and \(\alpha<\frac{\lambda_{1}}{2\xi_{\max}}\), \(\beta>0\), and PΓ is semipositive definite, where \(\xi_{\max}=\max\{\xi_{1},\ldots,\xi_{N}\}\). Pick \(0<\beta'<\beta\). Denote \(\kappa_{i}(t)= \sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{ij}\Gamma \delta_{j}(t)+d_{i}\Gamma (\delta_{i}(t)\delta_{0}(t))\). Then either one of the following two updating rules can guarantee that (3) synchronize with (2) exponentially.

(1)
Set \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\) as the triggering time point by the rule
$$ t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}= \max_{t} \Biggl\{ t\geq t_{k_{i}}^{i}: \bigl\Vert \kappa_{i}(t) \bigr\Vert \leq\frac{\beta'}{\sqrt{N\xi_{\max}\lambda_{\max}(P)}} \sqrt{\sum _{i=1}^{N} \xi_{i}e_{i}^{T}(t)Pe_{i}(t)} \Biggr\} . $$(7) 
(2)
Set \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\) as the triggering time point by the rule
$$ t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}= \max_{t} \bigl\{ t\geq t_{k_{i}}^{i}: \bigl\Vert \kappa_{i}(t) \bigr\Vert \leq a\exp(bt) \bigr\} , $$(8)where a is a positive constant and \(0< b<\beta\beta'\).
Proof
For any \(i\in\{1,2,\ldots,N\}\),
Then, by using (9), (4) can be rewritten as
Consider the following Lyapunov function:
where P is a positive definite matrix which has been defined in (5) and \(\Xi=\operatorname{diag}\{\xi_{1},\ldots,\xi_{N}\}\) is the same as in (6).
Taking the derivative of \(V(t)\) along the trajectories (10) gives
Pick a constant \(\varepsilon>0\), one has
where \(\lambda_{\max}(P)\) is the maximal eigenvalue of P.
Under the condition \(\alpha<\frac{\lambda_{1}}{2\xi_{\max}}\), one obtains
where \(0<\beta'<\beta\).
(1) If it is guaranteed that
for some constant \(\varepsilon>0\), then one gets
That is, the network (3) can synchronize with (2) exponentially fast with the rate of \(2(\beta\beta')\).
A sufficient condition for (15) is that
Note \(\max_{\varepsilon>0}\{\frac{\varepsilon(2\beta' \varepsilon\lambda_{\max}(P))}{N\xi_{\max}}\}=\frac{\beta^{\prime2}}{ N\xi_{\max}\lambda_{\max}(P)}\), when \(\varepsilon=\frac{\beta'}{\lambda_{\max}(P)}\).
Then (7) can be guaranteed when \(\varepsilon={\beta'}/{\lambda_{\max}(P)}\).
(2) Take \(\varepsilon={2\beta'}/{\lambda_{\max}(P)}\). If it is guaranteed that
one gets
which implies that \(V(t)\) converges to 0 exponentially. □
Remark 3
In Theorem 1, two eventtriggered conditions (7) and (8) are proposed. At the triggering time \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\), the lefthand term \(\\kappa_{i}(t_{k_{i}}^{i})\=0\). In (7), if there exists at least one node which does not synchronize with \(s(t)\), the righthand term must be positive. Therefore, the next triggering time \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}\) must be greater than \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\). In (8), the righthand term must be always positive for all nodes. Thus, the interevent intervals of all nodes are strictly positive. Although the two updating rules (7) and (8) are closely related to each other in some respects, the eventtriggered condition in (8) is verified more easily than the condition in (7). Moreover, according to (16) and (19), the convergence under the eventtriggered scheme (7) is better than under (8). The number of updating times under the eventtriggered scheme (7) is more than (8).
Next, it is proved in detail that under the two updating rules (7) and (8), the interevent sampling time instants \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}t_{k_{i}}^{i}\) for each node is strictly positive, that is, the coupled network can avoid the Zeno behavior.
Theorem 2
Suppose Assumptions 12 are satisfied and \(f\in \operatorname{Quad}(P, \alpha\Gamma, \beta)\) with a positive matrix P and \(\alpha<\frac{\lambda_{1}}{2\xi_{\max}}\), \(\beta>0\), and PΓ is semipositive definite. For any \(0<\beta'<\beta\) and any initial condition, the following two propositions are hold.

(1)
Under the eventtriggered scheme (7), each node has positive interevent interval which is lower bounded by a constant \(\tau_{D}^{i}\).

(2)
Under the eventtriggered scheme (8), the interevent interval of every node is strictly positive and is lower bounded by a common constant \(\tau_{D}^{i}\).
Proof
(1) Under the updating rules (7), for \(t\in[t_{k_{i}}^{i},t_{k_{i}+1}^{i})\), one has
Note that
Hence, combining with the fact that f satisfies Assumption 1 and \(V(t)\) is decreasing, one has
where \(\gamma_{i}= (k+\\Gamma\\sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{ij}+d_{i}\ \Gamma\) \frac{1}{\sqrt{N\xi_{\min}\lambda_{\min}(P)}}+ \frac{\beta'}{\sqrt{N\xi_{\max}\lambda_{\max}(P)}}\). Furthermore, one can obtain
Since \(f\in \operatorname{Quad}(P, \alpha\Gamma, \beta)\) and f satisfies Assumption 1, there exists some σ (possibly negative) such that
for all \(x, y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\).
From (24), one gets
where \(\varpi= 2\sigma\frac{\lambda_{N}\P\Gamma\}{\xi _{\min}\lambda_{\min}(P)}2\beta'<0\). Thus, one has
Used for the continuity of \(\kappa_{i}(t)\) between the eventtriggered time instants \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\) and \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}\), the eventtriggered time instant \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}\) should satisfy \(\\kappa_{i}(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i})\= \frac{\beta'}{\sqrt{N\xi _{\max}\lambda_{\max}(P)}} \sqrt{V(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i})}\). Hence, combining with (23) and (26), in order to ensure eventtriggered condition (7) is satisfied after instant \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\), it is necessary to require the time instant \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}\) to satisfy
That is,
Therefore, it is concluded that the interevent time \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}t_{k_{i}}^{i}\) of the node i is lower bounded by
(2) Under the updating rules (8), for \(t\in[t_{k_{i}}^{i},t_{k_{i}+1}^{i})\), by (19), one obtains
where \(\rho=V(0)+\frac{a^{2}\lambda_{\max}(P)}{4\beta'(\beta \beta'b)}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\xi_{i}\).
Then
where \(\eta_{i}=(k+\\Gamma\\sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{ij}+d_{i}\\Gamma \) \sqrt{\frac{\rho}{{N\xi_{\min}\lambda_{\min}(P)}}}+a\).
Hence,
Therefore, (8) can be guaranteed if the following inequality holds:
Since when \(t=t_{k_{i}}^{i}\), \(\\kappa_{i}(t)\=0\). Under the updating rule (8), the next event will not be triggered until \(\\kappa_{i}(t)\=a\exp(bt)\). Thus, the interevent time \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}t_{k_{i}}^{i}\) of the node i is lower bounded by the solution \(\tau_{D}^{i}\) of the following equation:
It can be seen that this equation has a positive solution.
This completes the proof. □
Remark 4
In Theorem 2, it is proved that under the two eventtriggered schemes, the Zeno behavior can be excluded. From (28) and (34), it can be seen that the interevent interval of every node is strictly positive and is lower bounded by a common constant \(\tau_{D}^{i}\).
Selftriggered scheme for pinning synchronization
Under the updating rules (7) and (8), one is required to verify the eventtriggered condition continuously. To avoid continuously communication among nodes, a selftriggered scheme based on Theorem 1 is proposed. Under the selftriggered scheme, each node in the network can predict next triggered time instant \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}\) only based on the received information at time \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\). This scheme does not require one to verify the eventtriggered condition continuously and hence more energy can be saved for the network. Inspired by the work of [26, 29], a selftriggered scheme is investigated in the following.
Suppose \(t\in[t_{k_{i}}^{i},t_{k_{i}+1}^{i})\) and j is the neighbor of the node i. Before the next eventtriggered time instant of node j, one can obtain
and
Then one has
where \(\varphi_{j}= k\e_{j}(t_{k_{i}}^{i})\+\\sum_{m=1}^{N}l_{jm}\Gamma e_{m}(t_{k_{i}}^{i})+d_{j}\Gamma e_{j}(t_{k_{i}}^{i})\\).
Following from the Grönwall inequality, one gets
Therefore, one has
In the following, combining with the eventtriggered schemes (7) and (8), two selftriggered algorithms are given as follows.
Algorithm 2
Selftriggered algorithm
 Step 1::

Initialization: set \(t_{0}^{i}=0\), for all \(i=1,2,\ldots,N\).
 Step 2::

At time \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\), \(k_{i}\geq1\), solve the following equation to find the next triggering time \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}=t_{k_{i}}^{i}+\tau_{D}^{i}\):
$$\begin{aligned}& \sup \biggl\{ \tau_{D}^{i}\geq0: \frac{(\sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{ij}\varphi_{j}+d_{i}\varphi_{i})\\Gamma\}{k} \bigl(\exp \bigl(k\tau _{D}^{i} \bigr)1 \bigr) \\& \quad \leq \frac{\beta'\sqrt{V(t_{k_{i}}^{i})}}{ \sqrt{N\xi_{\max}\lambda_{\max}(P)}} \exp \biggl(\frac{\varpi}{2}\tau_{D}^{i} \biggr) \biggr\} . \end{aligned}$$(40)  Step 3::

If node i does not receive the renewed information from any of its neighbors during \((t_{k_{i}}^{i},t_{k_{i}+1}^{i})\), node i is triggered on time instant \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}\).
 Step 4::

If node i receives the renewed information from its neighbor j at time \(t_{k_{i}'}^{i}< t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}\), compute the new value of \(\vartheta_{j}\) and go to Step 2.
Theorem 3
Suppose Assumptions 12 are satisfied and \(f\in \operatorname{Quad}(P,\alpha\Gamma,\beta)\) with a positive matrix P and \(\alpha<\frac{\lambda_{1}}{2\xi_{\max}}\), \(\beta>0\), and PΓ is semipositive definite. Then, for any positive \(0<\beta'<\beta\), under the selftriggered Algorithm 1, (3) can achieve synchronization with (2) exponentially. Moreover, the difference of the interevent sampling time instant \(\tau_{D}^{i}\) for node i is lower bounded by a common positive instant which is given as
where \(\vartheta_{j}=(k+\sum_{m=1}^{N}l_{jm}\\Gamma\+d_{j}\ \Gamma\) \frac{1}{\sqrt{N\xi_{\min}\lambda_{\min}(P)}}\), \(\rho=V(0)+\frac{a^{2}\lambda_{\max}(P)}{4\beta'(\beta \beta'b)}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\xi_{i}\), and \(\varpi= 2\sigma\frac{\lambda_{N}\P\Gamma\}{\xi _{\min}\lambda_{\min}(P)}2\beta'<0\).
Proof
Under the selftriggered Algorithm 1, one can have
Then, according to Theorem 1, (3) can achieve synchronization with (2) exponentially.
Next, it is only proved that the interevent interval of node i is strictly positive and has a lower bound \(\tau_{D}^{i}\), which is given as (41). Furthermore
Hence, a sufficient condition to satisfy the updating rule (7) is
Thus, for each node, under the selftriggered Algorithm 1, the lower bound of the interevent sampling time can be given by
This completes the proof. □
Remark 5
In (41), if \(\tau_{D}^{i}=0\), the lefthand term equals zero, while the righthand term is nonzero. Therefore, the interevent interval of node i is strictly positive and has a lower bound \(\tau_{D}^{i}\), which is given as (41). To predict the next triggering time, each node only requires the states of itself and its neighbors at the last triggering time.
According to the eventtriggered scheme (8), one can get the following result.
Theorem 4
Suppose Assumptions 12 are satisfied and \(f\in \operatorname{Quad}(P,\alpha\Gamma,\beta)\) with a positive matrix P and \(\alpha<\frac{\lambda_{1}}{2\xi_{\max}}\), \(\beta>0\), and PΓ is semipositive definite. For any positive \(0<\beta'<\beta\), set interevent interval \(\tau_{D}^{i}\) by
The triggering time \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\) is by the following algorithm:

(1)
Initialization: set \(t_{0}^{i}=0\), for all \(i=1,2,\ldots,N\).

(2)
At time \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}, k_{i}\geq1\), solve the following equation to find the next triggering time \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}\):
$$ \frac{(\sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{ij}\varphi_{j}+d_{i}\varphi_{i})\ \Gamma\}{k} \bigl(\exp \bigl(k\tau_{D}^{i} \bigr)1 \bigr)\leq a\exp \bigl(b \bigl(t_{k_{i}}^{i}+ \tau_{D}^{i} \bigr) \bigr). $$(46) 
(3)
Trigger node i by changing \(t_{k_{i}}^{i}\) into \(t_{k_{i}+1}^{i}=t_{k_{i}}^{i}+\tau_{D}^{i}\).
Then (3) can synchronize with (2) exponentially and the Zeno behavior can be excluded.
The proof of this theorem is similar to Theorem 3.
An illustrative example
In this section, two numerical simulation examples are given to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods. The system is an array of 3 linearly coupled Chua circuits with the node dynamics
where \(x_{i}(t)=(x_{i1}(t),x_{i2}(t),x_{i3}(t))^{T}\), and \(g(v)=m_{1}*v+(m_{0}m_{1})*(v+1v1)/2\) with the parameters \(p=9.78\), \(q=14.97\), \(m_{0}=1.31\), \(m_{1}=0.75\). The intrinsic node dynamics (without diffusion) has a doublescrolling chaotic attractor [30], which is shown in Figure 1. The coupling graph topology is shown in Figure 2. Node 0 is the virtual node. To validate the Quad condition, let \(P=\Gamma=I_{3}\), where \(I_{3}\) stands for the identity matrix of three dimensions. Noting the Jacobin matrices of f is one of the following:
then we can estimate \(\beta'=\alpha\lambda_{\max}((A_{2})^{s})=\alpha9.1207\), where 9.1207 is the largest eigenvalue of the symmetry parts of all Jacobin matrices of f. In the following, we pick \(\alpha=10\), \(\beta=0.8803\). Thus, f satisfies the Quad condition. Pick \(d_{1}=0.62\), \(d_{2}=d_{3}=0\). Then there exists a diagonal matrix \(\Xi=\operatorname{diag}\{1.2,0.3,0.4\}\) such that \(\Xi (L+D)+(L+D)^{T}\Xi\) is positive with eigenvalues \(\lambda_{1}=0.4113\), \(\lambda_{2}=1.3487\), \(\lambda_{3}=1.7214\). The ordinary differential (2) and (3) are numerically solved by the RungeKutta method with a time step 0.01 (seconds) and the time duration of the numerical simulations is \([0,15]\) (seconds). Under the updating rule (7), Figure 3 shows the synchronization errors of the 3 nodes. We take the same value of \(d_{i}\) as above and \(a=0.5\) and \(b=0.5\). Figure 4 shows the synchronization errors of the 3 nodes under the updating rule (8). The tracking trajectories between the virtual node and the 3 nodes under the updating rule (41) and (45) are shown in Figures 5 and 6, respectively.
Conclusions
In this paper, eventtriggered schemes and selftriggered schemes are investigated to realize the exponential synchronization of the networked dynamical systems. The coupled information under these schemes is updated only when the triggering conditions are violated. The next observation time for these nodes is predicted only based on the latest observations of their neighborhood and the virtual leader. Thus, continuous communication can be avoided and the number of information transmission is largely reduced. Moreover, a positive lower bound for interevent intervals is achieved and the Zeno behavior can be excluded. Finally, two numerical simulation examples are provided to illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed results. In the future, we will focus on the related applications of the eventtriggered scheme in the coupled neural networks with timedelays and quantization.
References
 1.
Hespanha, JP, Naghshtabrizi, P, Xu, Y: A survey of recent results in networked control systems. Proc. IEEE 95(1), 138162 (2007)
 2.
Huang, C, Ho, DW, Lu, J, Kurths, J: Pinning synchronization in TS fuzzy complex networks with partial and discretetime couplings. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 23(4), 12741285 (2015)
 3.
Tang, Y, Gao, H, Kurths, J: Robust \(H^{\infty}\) selftriggered control of networked systems under packet dropouts (2015). doi:10.1109/TCYB.2015.2502619
 4.
Lu, J, Zhong, J, Tang, Y, Huang, T, Cao, J, Kurths, J: Synchronization in outputcoupled temporal Boolean networks. Sci. Rep. 4, 6292 (2014)
 5.
Wang, T, Gao, H, Qiu, J: A combined adaptive neural network and nonlinear model predictive control for multirate networked industrial process control. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 27(2), 416425 (2016)
 6.
Su, H, Rong, Z, Chen, MZ, Wang, X, Chen, G, Wang, H: Decentralized adaptive pinning control for cluster synchronization of complex dynamical networks. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 43(1), 394399 (2013)
 7.
Yu, W, Chen, G, Lu, J, Kurths, J: Synchronization via pinning control on general complex networks. SIAM J. Control Optim. 51(2), 13951416 (2013)
 8.
Deng, L, Wu, Z, Wu, Q: Pinning synchronization of complex network with nonderivative and derivative coupling. Nonlinear Dyn. 73(12), 775782 (2013)
 9.
Wu, ZG, Shi, P, Su, H, Chu, J: Sampleddata exponential synchronization of complex dynamical networks with timevarying coupling delay. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 24(8), 11771187 (2013)
 10.
Wen, G, Yu, W, Chen, MZ, Yu, X, Chen, G: Pinning synchronization of directed networks with aperiodic sampleddata communications. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Regul. Pap. 61(11), 32453255 (2014)
 11.
Li, H, Liao, X, Huang, T, Zhu, W, Liu, Y: Secondorder global consensus in multiagent networks with random directional link failure. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 26(3), 565575 (2015)
 12.
Zhang, L, Gao, H, Kaynak, O: Networkinduced constraints in networked control systems  a survey. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 9(1), 403416 (2013)
 13.
Gao, H, Chen, T, Lam, J: A new delay system approach to networkbased control. Automatica 44(1), 3952 (2008)
 14.
Wang, X, Lemmon, MD: Selftriggering under stateindependent disturbances. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 55(6), 14941500 (2010)
 15.
Wang, X, Lemmon, MD: Eventtriggering in distributed networked control systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 56(3), 586601 (2011)
 16.
Hu, W, Liu, L, Feng, G: Consensus of linear multiagent systems by distributed eventtriggered strategy. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 46(1), 148157 (2016)
 17.
Åström, KJ, Bernhardsson, B: Comparison of Riemann and Lebesgue sampling for first order stochastic systems. In: Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, vol. 2, pp. 20112016. IEEE Press, New York (2002)
 18.
Garcia, E, Antsaklis, PJ: Modelbased eventtriggered control for systems with quantization and timevarying network delays. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 58(2), 422434 (2013)
 19.
Hu, S, Yue, D: Eventtriggered control design of linear networked systems with quantizations. ISA Trans. 51(1), 153162 (2012)
 20.
Li, H, Liao, X, Chen, G, Hill, DJ, Dong, Z, Huang, T: Eventtriggered asynchronous intermittent communication strategy for synchronization in complex dynamical networks. Neural Netw. 66, 110 (2015)
 21.
Li, H, Liao, X, Huang, T, Zhu, W: Eventtriggering sampling based leaderfollowing consensus in secondorder multiagent systems. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 60(7), 19982003 (2015)
 22.
Guo, G, Ding, L, Han, QL: A distributed eventtriggered transmission strategy for sampleddata consensus of multiagent systems. Automatica 50(5), 14891496 (2014)
 23.
Li, H, Chen, G, Huang, T, Dong, Z, Zhu, W, Gao, L: Eventtriggered distributed average consensus over directed digital networks with limited communication bandwidth. IEEE Trans. Cybern. (2016). doi:10.1109/TCYB.2015.2496977
 24.
Li, H, Chen, G, Huang, T, Dong, Z: Highperformance consensus control in networked systems with limited bandwidth communication and timevarying directed topologies. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. (2016). doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2016.2519894
 25.
Xu, W, Ho, DW, Li, L, Cao, J: Eventtriggered schemes on leaderfollowing consensus of general linear multiagent systems under different topologies. IEEE Trans. Cybern. (2015). doi:10.1109/TCYB.2015.2510746
 26.
Lu, W, Han, Y, Chen, T: Synchronization in networks of linearly coupled dynamical systems via eventtriggered diffusions. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 26(12), 30603069 (2015)
 27.
Wen, G, Yu, W, Zhao, Y, Cao, J: Pinning synchronisation in fixed and switching directed networks of Lorenztype nodes. IET Control Theory Appl. 7(10), 13871397 (2013)
 28.
Tarjan, R: Depthfirst search and linear graph algorithms. SIAM J. Comput. 1(2), 146160 (1972)
 29.
Li, L, Ho, DW, Cao, J, Lu, J: Pinning cluster synchronization in an array of coupled neural networks under eventbased mechanism. Neural Netw. 76, 112 (2016)
 30.
Matsumoto, T, Chua, LO, Komuro, M: The double scroll. IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. 32(8), 797818 (1985)
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (11501391, 11601449) and by the Key Program of Sichuan Provincial Department of Education (16ZA0066).
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. All authors read and approved the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Gao, J., Zhu, P. Global exponential synchronization of networked dynamical systems under eventtriggered control schemes. Adv Differ Equ 2016, 286 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366201610060
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366201610060
Keywords
 exponential synchronization
 networked dynamical systems
 networked dynamical systems
 eventtriggered
 Zeno behavior